ARGƲMENT. III.
Bidd.
Lastly, the Adversary comments, it is not said to know the Son, as eternally begotten
and co-essentiall to the Father, but which are contradictions in themselves, and
unheard of in Scripture, but only as sent of the Father.
Answ.
I answer, all Fundamentals of Christian Religion are not plainly, no, nor by necessary
consequence set down in every Text touching God, it is sufficient to settle our belief,
if it be clearly expressed in, or soundly deduced out of other Scriptures, sundry
truths are in severall places recorded, which are so disposed by Gods wise providence,
that our attention and diligence in comparing Scripture with Scripture might be sharpned.
The whole divine Canon is the perfect rule of our faith; be it then granted, that
Christ is not here said to be the only begotten Son of God, and coessentiall to his
Father, will you fallaciously from thence conclu [...]e that these are now here asserted in other Scriqtures.
2. I further answer that you may palpably see your errour, that as these are not plainly
asserted, so are they not denyed: see the vanity of this Observation by that ntu [...]re in Christ, which is not controverted. It is not said here, that Jesus Christ was
the Son of Mary, that he was the Son of Abraham, of David, or of Man, will you say therfore it is not necessary to know that he was a man?
3. And whereas you say, it is a Contradiction to say, Christ was eternally begotten,
this should have been proved, which you know is denied, for we are not now in hand
with a corporeal Generation, nor of that which is called mortall, which is transcendent,
and Metaphisicall, viz. of created spirituall substances, when the mind begets in its self rationall conceptions,
but the generation of the Son is Supreme and Divine, it is an Ocean which is an Abysse
to be admired, [Page 75]and cannot be fathomed in the created naturall Generation. 1. The Son is after the
Father in time, not as he is a Father, for so they are Relatives, but as he is a
man. And 2. The Son is first unequall to the Father in stature, not so great as his
Father, 3. He is unlike him in qualities and naturall endowments. 4. And really divided
from him, that these two, Father and Son, do and needs must subsist in distant places.
5. To say nothing, that what thing is generated in time, is corrupted in time, but
such gross conceptions must be abandoned in this sublime generation, yea, the very
naming of the Father to be the true God doth vertually imply, as hath been touched
above: that his naturall Son is the true God also, and so by consequence an eternall
Father hath eternally begotten his co-essentiall Son. Thus much of this Text.
Bidd.
1 Cor. 18.5, 6. v. Though there be that are called gods, whether in Heaven or in Earth, as there are
many Gods and many Lords, yet to us, there is but one God even the Father, of whom
are all things, and we in, to, or for him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are
all things and we by him: in this passage, Christ is excluded from being that one
God of the Christians, and the holy Ghost in generall terms excluded from being that
one God, and one Lord: wherfore if we give such credence to the Apostle, as we ought,
and had not rather hearken to Athanasius then to Paul, we will confesse that, that one God of the Christians is no other then the Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Answ.
This Text is parallel to that in John 17.3. the restrictive particle, one and onely are not to be taken simply, as Biddle would have them, but in a certain respect. The Text saith there is one God, who doubts
of the truth of that Principle? one is joyned to God, and it is evidently opposed
to Idols and false gods, which are indeed nothing [...] far from being gods, Heathens indeed had some Celestiall and Supreme Deities, and
others on Earth inferiour and of a lower degree, which were as they supposed Agents
and Mediatour between their highest gods and men. The Apostle excludes all those
made gods, not the Son and the Holy Ghost, he saith, not only the Father is God, nor
that Christ only is that one Lord, so that the Adversary commits his usuall fallacy,
A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. The Apostle in effect thus argueth, an Idoll is not a God, why? because there is
but one God, who is invisible [Page 76]and cannot be represented by any image, he prevents an object on of the Gentiles,
which worshipped many gods, to which practise he opposeth the sound judgement of Christians,
to us saith he, there is but one God, under that one God the Fathers Deity and Sonnes
Dominion are comprehended; to us there is but one God, who is described by this effect,
that he created all things, this is ascribed to the Father, he that is one God, yet
is he not all, that is, that one God this is ascribed to the Father, as being first
in order of subsisting, and of working, for the manner of working is alwayes agreeable
to the order of fusisting the summe is, one God the Father is spoken by way of opposition
and exclusion of other Gods but not in opposition to the Son and holy Ghost, for the
Son and holy Ghost are not comprehended under the called Gods, but under the name
of that one God.
2. Besides, 'tis not necessary, that the Father should be taken personally, relatively,
and restrictedly, as I have hither to granted, it may be taken absolutely, commonly
and essentially, and not contra distinguished from the person of the Son and of the
Holy Ghost, but for the three divine persons; and the Apostle mentions Jesus Christ,
because he is the Mediatour, by whom we are reconciled to God, by whom we have accesse
to God, and by whose works all good things are communicated to us, which Office could
not have been performed by our Mediatour, unlesse he had been God-man.
How little advantage the Adversary hath from this Scripture, may appear by these Arguments
grounded on the Text it self.
1. That which the Apostle removes, viz. Lords many and Gods many, can onely in reason be objected against the Unity of God.
v. 4.5. that then which is not excluded, viz. The Father and Jesus Christ, that is not repugnant to the unity of God, and therefore
Christ being no idol, nor any of the gods spoken of v. 5. is that one God is expresly
mentioned, v. 4.
2. Christ is not a made Lord, as spoken of in this Text, but a naturall, essentiall,
and uncreated Lord, the reason is because all made Lords, as Angels, and Magistrates
are spoken of v. 5. yet out of the number of these Christ is excepted, as all made
Lords are opposed to the most high God.
3. The Apostle saith, Christ is one Lord, shall we from hence be allowed to conclude,
that the Father is not our Lord! surely we may as firmly conclude, that God the Father
is not our Lord, as we may [Page 77]infer, because we have one God the Father, therefore Christ is not our God, or to
say, he is not God the Father, therefore he is not God, because he is distinguished
from God, for why should not we as strongly infer, because the Father is distinguished
from God, Hos. 1.7. I wil have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord their God, as the Adversary doth the former.
4. This is proved by the propositions of and by, and the effects, all thing are of
God the Father, Christians have nothing, not onely as they are Christians, but as
they are creatures, which they have not from God, and as duty requireth they render
thanks to God for all temporalls and spiritualls, and the Apostle saith, all things
are by our Lord Jesus Christ, and so by consequence he is the highest God: he makes
the particle (by) to be of the same extent, and equally comprehensive in reference
to its object, as the particle (of) Of the Father are all things, as if he had said, all things are of one God by one Lord, if some things had been
by one God the Father, and other things by one Lord, the force of the Propositions
and the order and connexion betwixt one God and one Lord would be lost, if that the
Father create all things, by this Lord it shews, that this Lord is omnipotent, and
the wonderfull diversity of the divine unity, and the unity of diversity: if the Father
creates all things by the Son, if the Son be a creature he must be an instrument of
his own Creation, and he must be before himself, which is a flat contradiction,
To conclude, albeit we do justly honour the memory of great Athanasius, for being in his time a notable instrument under God to batter down the wall of Arianisme,
yet do not we build our faith upon his testimony, but on blessed Paul, infallibly assisted by the spirit of God, who taught us that same divine truth,
which Athanasius maintained with an adamantine courage.
Bidd,
Ephes. 4.4, 5, 6. There is one body and one spirit, even as ye have been called in one hope of your
calling; one Lord, one faith, one Baptisme, one God and Father of all, who is over
all, and among all, and in you all, which passage clearly intimates the different
nature, order and dignity of the three Persons of the holy Trinity, and that was written
for that very end, for when he saith there is one Spirit, hee must meane either one
Created, or uncreated Spirit, for [Page 78]no other spirit is conceivable, not one uncreated spirit, for so there will be another
uncreated spirit, besides God, which is absurd, since the spirit is here plainly and
purposely distinguished from God, therefore he meaneth one created spirit, but if
so, then there is simply one created spirit, or one created spirit by way of excellency,
not so, for there are seven principall Angels, mentioned, Rew. 1.4. in the judgement of Beza, Drusius, and Mede, and all the Angels in generall are ministring spirits, Heb. 1.14. it must then be one created Spirit by way of excellency, which is the Holy Ghost:
in like manner when the Apostle saith, there is one Lord, he must meane either one
made, or one unmade Lord, for there is no medium, not one unmade Lord, for then there will be another unmade Lord besides God (which
is absurd) since this Lord is here plainly and purposely distinuished from God, wherefore
he meaneth one made Lord, but if so, then there he is either simply one made Lord,
which cannot be, for so there are many Lords, as the Apostle and experience testifieth,
it remaineth therefore that he be one made Lord, by way of excellency onely, which
is Jesus of Nazareth, who after he had been crucified by the Jews, was raised from the dead, and exalted
by the right hand of God, and by him made Lord and Christ, as Peter Acts. 2.22.23.33.36. testifieth, wherefore since neither the holy spirits is an uncreated spirit, nor
the Lord Jesus an unmade Lord, neither of them are truly and properly God, but onely
the Father.
Ans.
The end and scope of those words is not as you pretend, to intimate the different
nature, order, and dignity of three Persons of the holy Trinity, but to exhort the
Christians to peace and concord by sundry Arguments and Motives. Three of them are
taken from the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, as most men think.
First, there is one Spirit; and this you take for granted to be one Person, but you
shall find strong Adversaries, if I mistake not their meaning, which do not understand
the Holy Ghost, but the Apostle exhorts, as they are one body and Society of Christians,
that they may have one Soul, as it were one spirit of love to animate that body, according
to the hoped for eternall salvation (Dr. Hammond) and it may be the order of the words, and placing the spirit with that which is
not a person, imports so much, but I will not conclude, for this sense being unusuall,
nor will I rest in it.
Well then, this spirit is an uncreated spirit, and the Apostle useth a Rhetoricall
gradation, proceeding from the third to the second, [Page 79]and from the second to the first Person, and it may be, because the Spirit is the
next Person of Unity; our Lord, as it were, the middle cause, and one originall Father
or beginning cause, as some Divines do speak.
By the Spirit is meant an uncreated Spirit, and this I prove, because this Spirit
is in all, and as the Soul is to the body, so is this Spirit to the Church; the Spirit
quickens every member of the body of Christ, and governs it, which the most excellent
Spirit being a finite substance cannot possibly do.
Your Argument, this Spirit cannot be God, because he is distinguished from God, is
as weak as water, for albeit in some respects he is called the Spirit, and by way
of distinction the holy Spirit. yet this excludes not the Father and Son of God from
being a spirit, and evident it is by the Text, that this Spirit is distinguished from
God, viz. from God the Father, we are no Sabellians, but do maintain the distinction of Persons; the reason why the first Person is frequently
in Scripture called God, is because he, as he is Father, is of himself, and the Principle
of the Son and holy Ghost, in which respect many eminent Divines, as Calvin tit. 1. Institut. cap. 13. s. 23. Zanch. sepe To ult p. 884. Jun. praefat. ad Controv. 2. l. nota 18. Sotonius Bisterfield, and many others do say, that he is called God [...] by way of excellency, not Metaphysically or Logically, for a greater excellency;
for there is no reall Prerogative or Intrinsecal Dignity, betwixt the divine Persons,
but one extrinsecall in regard of order and manifestation. Yet if the phrase is distasted,
because there is Summa & unitissima essentiae identitas; origo essendi, nullam essentiae disparitatem,
nullam dignitatis inaequalitatem introducit. They may omit it.
That Discourse of the Adversary, to prove that the Spirit is not a created Spirit,
might wel have been spared for he knows wel enough that none of us do hold him to
be a Creature, and least some suspition might grow from the Adversaries alledging
some Protestants, as Drusius, Beza, Mede, and I add Dr. Hammond, that they favoured his Exposition, I do avouch, albeit they disagreed to their Brethren
in the exposition of that Text, Rev. 1.4. yet do they all agree that the holy Spirit is infinite in all perfection: That
he is no Creature. but the Creator of all things; the Angels do attend and wait on
God by an allusion to the Sanhedrim; they are Officers waiting on the head or chief President therof, to go abroad in
all [Page 80]Messages, or as the Deacons in the Church to attend on the Command of the Governours
thereof, and I do not deny, but there is an order in the Celestiall Angels, as there
is also among the Devils, and that some have greater illumination, power and imployments,
then others have, though we are not able exactly to distinguish them.
To the second, Christ is one Lord, I answer, Christ in respect of his person, is an
unmade Lord: he is the Son of God co-eternall, and co-essentiall with his Father,
he could not give the Spirit unless he was God, and if there were two Lords of Christians,
the Father and Christ, the Apostle had not soundly argued to prove that Christians
should maintain unity, nor can it be said, that Christ is one Lord simply by way of
excellency, for according to Mr. Biddle, he hath the supreme God to be his Lord, but by way of co-essentiality, and Lordship
with the Father, he is one Lord with him, and by consequence one God with him.
It is said indeed v. 6. that the Father is above all, but the exclusive particle
(above) appears not in the Text, for that is an honour belonging to the three persons
equally, which are one God by nature, it is a rule, when that which is common to
more then one is attributed to one person, that hinders not, but the same belongs
to them also, and if it should be restrained to the Father, it would be no advantge
to the Socinian, being spoken in regard of divine dispensation, whereby the Son of
God became the Son of man, he that is above all as he is God, the same is made man
the Son of Abraham, the Son of David, the Son of a Virgin, that he might redeem us by his bloudy Passion, thus is he the
head and husband of the Church, his body and Spouse, in which respect he is inferiour
to God the Father.
You tell us out of Acts 2. that this Son is made Lord and Christ.
I answer in the words of Beza, This Text is impiously and foolishly alledged by the Arians, against the Deity of our Saviour, for in the whole context the Apostle speaketh of
Christ according to the flesh, as he was crucified, dead, buried, raised from the
dead, as he ascended into heaven, and was highly exalted at Gods right hand, he was
before a Lord, you call me Lord and Master, and you say well, for so I am. Joh 13.13. and he was Christ, Mat. 16.16. Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God, and for this Confession, Christ blessed Peter, but the full manifestation & evident execution of his dominion [Page 81]was after his Ascension. You argue thus, Christ is a made Lord, and therefore he is
not an omnipotent and an uncreated Lord. I deny your Inference, it is a common fallacy
of the Adversary to reason à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, as if that was absolutely and simply to be taken, which is meant onely in a certain
respect, and expounded by a limitation, he was not a made Lord, as he was God, the
Son of God by eternall generation, this is granted, but the Adversary concludes because
he was a made Lord, and had dominion freely given him, as man, therefore he is onely
a made Lord, (and observe that his Text, saith not, nor any other Scripture, that
he is a made God) this no way follows from the Text, for Peter takes away the scandall of Christs Crosse, by shewing that he being raised from the
dead, was made Lord, set at Gods right hand as the head of the Church, that God instated
him in the Kingly office of the Messias, to conquer his enemies, to gather, direct,
rule and protect the Church, as a King, and as a Priest to make intercession for his
chosen ones, the Dominion then of Christ, which is freely given to him, and considered
absolutely in it self, is lesse then that of the Deity, because it implies not an
intrinsecall and necessary perfection, but that which is extrinsecall and free, but
if it be considered according to its originall, then is it equall to the Deity, comprehends
it, and necessarily supposeth it, and is nothing else but a singular manner of executing
the naturall dominion: the Adversaries fallacy is like this, a man is mortall and
visible, viz. touching his body, Ergo he is not immortall and visible touching his soul.
Bidd.
Mat. 24.36. But of that day and hour of universal judgement knoweth none, no not the angels in
heaven, but my Father onely. If onely the Father knew sometimes the day of Judgement,
then neither the Son, who (take him as you will) is not the Father, and therefore
openly confesseth himself to be ignorant of it Mark 13.32. nor the Holy Ghost knew it, and consequently, neither of them is the most high God,
since he doth and ever did know all things.
Ans.
It is not for man to search into secret mysteries, and rashly to set down the time
of that great day, Polunus in Daniel 12. v. 8, recites the folly of one who calculated not onely the year, but almost
the hour of the generall Judgement. Its a good rule of Austines, melior [Page 82]est fidelis ignorantia, quam temeraria scientia, faithfull ignorance is better then rash knowledge.
1. To the objected testimonies, I have two answers in readinesse, the first is of
learned Junius, in two places against Samosatenus, and in his Annotations on Bellarmine on that Scripture, and therefore we may not doubt, but he spoke it as his clear judgement
upon mature deliberation; the words of our Saviour are not (faith he) simply to
be understood, but upon supposition of their judgement, which took him to be a meere
man, though an excellent Prophet sent from God; if he was such an one as they took
him to be, then certainly, he did not know of himself when the day of Judgement should
be, so that in the name of the Son mentioned by by Saint Mark, there is a tacite opinion betwixt the truth of his person, and their defective and
erroneous opinions concerning him, as though he had not been the eternal Son of God,
and the most high God, but onely a divine man, and on this ground, God the Father
is taken in opposition to all the creatures, and thus our blessed Saviour, checks
the young man, Luke 18. for saying, good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life! Why (saith he) dost thou call me good? there is none good but God, the young man did not acknowledge Christ to be the God of Israel, and the good Mr.
promised in the Law, and therefore Christ doth implicitly reprove his ignorance and
flattery, and forms his answer agreeable to that opinion he had of him, as Basil. contra Eunomium. Ambros. tit. 2. de Fide Chrysost. in Matth. 19. Hilar. l. 9. de Trinitate, do truly expound that Scripture, for in a true sense he not onely admits it, but
calls himself the good Shepherd, John 10.1. and how should he properly deny himself to be a good master, who calls himself
the light of the world? and this was his reason of the answer of that vain question
of the mother of the sons of Zebedee, Grant that these my two sons may sit, one of them at thy right hand, and
the other at thy left hand in thy Kingdome, Mat. 19 They commonly then had a carnal conceit of the Kingdom of Christ, & he shapes
an answer suitable to their apprehension, in this sense many other Texts of Scripture
are to be understood, John 7.16. and 5.30.8.50. and 59. ex Bisterfeldio, this exposition I only propound to the consideration of the Reader, I omit the conceit
of Grotius and Dr. Hammond, that the Chapter speaks onely of the Jews, and the forerunning signes of the destruction
of that State by Titus, which if true, would not untie the [Page 83]knot, but tie it faster, as also many solutions; which are alledged by others, which
cannot in truth stand with the Holy Text.
2 The Satisfactory answer is this, Christ represseth the Disciples curiosity of enquiring
of that day, testifying, that neither he, the Angels, nor Christ, as he is man, but
as he is one with the Father, knows when that day shall be, and therefore you are
not to be inquisitive after it.
Touching the Son, the Text is not meant secundum totam personam, but totum personae, knows it not. The person of Christ knows all things, but the whole of the person
knows not all things, not when the end of the world should be, and therefore Saint
Mark saith not, the Son of God, knows not, as Cyril out of Athanasius, well observes, but onely the Son knows not, viz. as he was man. Melancthon hath a rule, some sayings of Christ are meant of the office, some of the essence
of Christ. This is meant of the Office, Christ came to exhort to vigilancy, & not
to define the hour of Judegment to prevent security; the exclusive particle excludes
all creatures, and the soul of Christ in it self considered, for albeit there was
no privative, no sinfull ignorance in the humane nature of Christ, yet was three negative
ignorance, as there was in Adam in the state of innocency, and as there is in Angels and Saints in heaven. Christ
was like us in all things, but onely in sinfull infirmities, Heb. 4.15. the nescience
of that day of doom was no sin. Christ knew all things, which were requisite for him
to know touching his present state and condition, nor is this convincing, because
it is said onely the Father knows, for is it not said, that none know the Father
but the Son, Matth. 11.27. Will you from this Text conclude, that the Father knoweth not himself? and
doth not the holy Ghost know the Father? the Apostle saith, the things of God knoweth [...] none, but the Spirit of God. Might not you as strongly conclude from hence, that neither the Father himself, nor
the Son of God do know the things of God. Saint Matthew addes not a higher degree then Angels, he saith not the Angels know not, nor the
Holy Ghost, whence we may collect the Holy Ghost knew when the day of Judgement should
be, and consequently Christ, as God, was not ignorant of it, and this is proved by
Athanasius orat. 4. contr. Arianos and by others, because he made all things, and so knows all things, he is a searcher
of all hearts, because he knew and foretold the signes foregoing the last day. He
that speaks of his own glorious [Page 84]coming, how should he be ignorant of it. What Master going from his house, determines
not when he will return, Mark 13.35, saith, Watch, because ye know not, he saith not, because I know not the hour of Judgement; besides, the Father knows
the Sonne of God, and all things of the Father, are the Sonnes, and if Christ knows
the Father, which is the greater? how can he be ignorant of that which is the lesser,
viz. that day of Iudgement determined by God himself, so Epiphanius. We do distinguish the natures of Christ, and do ascribe to either of them what doth
appertain to them, this is the Adversaries constant fallacy, the humane nature knoweth
not when the day of Iudgement shall be, Ergo he is not God, 'tis à dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter.
Bidd.
Rom. 15.6. That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorifie God, even the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, Iam. 3.9. therewith blesse we God even the Father, and therewith curse we men, who were made
after the likenesse of God, Iohn 6.27. labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth to eternal
life, which the Son of man shall give you, for him hath the Father sealed. In these
places, God, that is, by confession of all, the most high God, is by the Scriptures
themselves interpreted the Father, and therefore none but he can be God.
Ans.
To your objection, Rom. 15.6. the answer is, by discord God the Father is much dishonoured, and by concord
he is much honoured, and 'tis the duty of Jews and Gentiles, unanimously to serve
and worship, and hereby to glorifie God the Father. What then? will it from hence
follow negatively, that neither the Son of God, nor the Holy Ghost, are the most high
God, in no wise, for herein all the holy persons agree, as we do maintain and you
cannot be ignorant of it, this you should, but you cannot disprove, you may indeed
from hence conclude, that God the Son is not God the Father, and that the name (God)
for some respects, is attributed to the Father; which have been formerly named, and
'tis needlesse to repeat them, but no more can be justly inferred from the Scripture.
To the second place, Jam. 3.9. it is answered, as to the former, it is a grosse sin in a Christian, with the
tongue to confesse God the Father, and to revile Christian Brethren, who are for
Gods image, which they are adorned withal, to be looked upon and used with all tender
love and kindnesse.
I adde, the Father here, as often in Scripture may be taken, not personally, but essentially
in opposition to the creatures, and not by way of distinction, betwixt the first Person
of the Sacred Trinity, and the Son of God.
To the third place, Iohn 6.27. labour not, study not to gain and possesse these externall things, in order
to your worldly ends, which are of a fading and perishing nature, but for that food,
the Evangelicall promises, the food of the soul, which will make all of them that
feed on it, spiritually both glorious & for ever happy, he dehorts from the one, and
exhorts to the other, then follows a description of Christ our Mediator, who hath
a Commission under Seal (as it were) from God his Father, being furnished with admirable
gifts and wonderfull power, and by sending the Holy Ghost on him, he had Gods mark,
and character stamped on him, as was somewhere done by Masters on their slaves, and
by owners of commodities, on their wares, Rev. 7.3. and that God owned him to be his servant, is as evident, as if he had set his
mark on him in the forehead for his own: now this blessed Son of God incarnated for
us, merited life, and all happinesse for us by his bitter Passion, and efficaciously
conferred saving graces on our souls by his holy Spirit, enabling us being otherwise
unable to receive the benefits of his death and passion; this passage of holy Scripture
religiously considered, makes much for us, and strongly proves our Saviour to be God,
for who but God can give unto us eternal life?
In these three places (saith Mr. Biddle) God the most high God, is interpreted to be God the Father, and therefore none but
he can be God, not to contend about one of the places which is questionably, whether
it be taken personally or not, I grant, that not only in three places, but in sixteen
at least, God is expresly named with this exgesis, God even the Father; and 'tis said almost in as many places, if some learned have
not erred in their account, without a conjunction copulative, God the Father, hence
you conclude, that none but he can be God, which words may admit a double construction.
First that God is taken as heis distinguished from all creatures? and in this sense
we are not your Adversaries, but if your meaning be, as doubtlesse it is intended
by this enemy of Gods truth, that there is no divine person in the Holy Trinity, but
onely the Father, then do I peremptorily deny it, and he hath not yet substantially
proved, nor ever shall be able to make good the soundnesse of this Inference.
Bidd.
John 8.54 If I honour my self my honour is nothing (saith our Saviour) it is my Father that
honoureth me, when you say that he is your God, you see who was the God whom the Jews
worshipped, namely the Father, and herein there is no difference, betwixt them and
Christians, since the Apostle Paul testifieth, 2 Tim. 1.3. that he served God from his forefathers: that is the same God which he had received
from the Jews his forefathers, See also Acts 3.13. and 5.30.31. and 22.14. in which three places, the Father is called the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and by that appellation distinguished from the Son, which could not be, if the Son
was the same God with the Father, since common things do not distinguish, but such
as are proper.
Answ.
Our Saviour, John 8.54. will say nothing of himself, for himself he will not honour and glorifie himself
only, as the Jews thought, and as false Prophets were accustomed to do, but the power
which he hath he doubtlesse received from him, whom the Jews without Controversie
acknowledged to be greater then Abraham, and therfore he will not endure the contempt which the Jews cast on him: now the
Father honoureth him, and demonstrates his approbation of him by Prophesies, by his
Miracles, and by a voice from heaven, saying, this is my welbeloved Son, hear him, and therefore he doth not ambitiously arrogate any thing to himself; the Jews indeed
made a profession that he was their God, but falsely, for they knew him not, v. 55.
and is he not the God of the Gentiles also? Rom. 3.29. Do not they also acknowledge God the Father? nothing hence can be concluded for the Adversaries advantage, but if the words be
not examined, there is a plain fallacy, the words run thus, My Father is your God: Father is the Subject of the Proposition: your God is the predicate, the one and
the true God not distinguished in essence, but in persons, the fallacy is à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, that which is spoken in relation is understood, as spoken absolutely, or of the absolute
Essence. Father notes relation to his Son, and God the absolute Essence, your reason
is vitious, arguing from the affirmation of particular to the negation of that which
is more common. The Father is God, and therefore the Son is not God, it is no better
then thus to conclude, Peter is an Apostle, and, therefore John is not an Apostle; the words in the Text, are to be understood relatively, for it
is the person [Page 87]of the Son, which speaks of his Father, and therefore to be taken relatively not absolutely,
and the Context clearly holds forth Arguments for the Deity of the Son of God.
1. Because Christ calls God his Father, a Father truly and properly, and such a Father
which doth communicate his Essence to his Son, which cannot be eluded, by telling
us that God the Father is improperly called his Father; for in such a sense the Jews
would have been offended with him, but he called him Father in such a sense as the
Iews envyed him for his saying, and had thought to have slain him, because he called
himself the Son of God, John 5. therefore I conclude they have the same Essence.
Secondly, because it is said, in the Context, v. 58. Before Abraham was, I am, as God, he was a preserver of his Church, before Abraham, who saw my day and rejoyced, he received benefits by me and rejoyced not with an ordinary joy, [...] and [...] 56. he doth not say, as Socinians would corrupt the Text, before Abraham should be the Father of many Nations (according to his name) which are made his spirituall
sons by the preaching of the Gospel, I am; for then Abraham should be the predicate of the proposition, I am, before Abraham was, this is to pervert the words, which are not before Abraham should be the Father of many Nations, and so he was according to the flesh, before
Christ his incarnation by the posterity of Keturah and Esau, but they clearly import, that when Abraham was living in the world, Christ then was, and eternally he was.
The second place may be granted without any prejudice to the truth of God, and that
in terminis, as your inference intends, onely there is a question what is meant by forefathers,
2 Tim. 1.5. all the Latine Fathers, saith Espenceus, do expound the Text of the ancient Prophets, and do ascend up to Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, and if progenitours nearer to him are understood, those I mean, with whom he was
educated; the meaning is plainly thus much, he served God without known hypocrisie,
and was touching moralities unblameable towards men in his conversation, even when
through ignorance he persecuted the Christian Faith, then did he follow the dictates
of his erroneous conscience, doing, as he was perswaded he ought to do.
I answer to your three places taken out of the Acts of the Apostles, by reducing your reason to this form, as you seem to argue.
[...]
[...]
The God of our Fathers, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is the Father of Christ.
But the Trinity is not the Father of Christ, and therefore the Trinity is not the
Father of Abraham, &c.
1. The Mijor in some sense might be granted, but because it may be incommodiously
understood, I answer, It is not generally, and without exception true, it is faulty,
because the Subject of the proposition is more large then the Predicate, which the
Rules of Art, Axioms, will not permit, the Predicate is the Father of Christ, now
th it is singular, one person, but to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is common, and belongs equally to God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost,
if you will convert the Termes thus, The Father of our Lord Christ, is the Father
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who will then deny it.
Secondly, There is committed the usuall fallacy, a Dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, he argues from the affirmation of one person which is singular to a negation of that
which is more common, the Father is God, therefore you would infer the Son is not
God, who sees not the fallacy, is this a good reasoning, Peter is a man, and therefore John is not a man.
To your Argument then, I answer, though the term (God) taken simply and absolutely,
without limitation, distinguisheth not betwixt the Father and the Son, yet God taken
in a restrained sense, as it is frequently in the Scripture, for one of the glorious
persons of the Holy Trinity, thereby one of them is distinguished from the other.
The Father is not the Son, it is yielded, and yet to affirm one of the Sacred Persons
to be the God of Abraham, and to deny it to be true of another, is a false assertion, Jesus Christ, who was
truly man, though not as man, was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and he visibly appeared to them, yea, and Abraham might truly have said, as David did many generations after him. The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, Psal. 110. in effect then, this is your Inference, if the Son of God be not the Father,
and Paul worshipped the same God, which his forefathers did, Ergo the Son is not God. This conclusion I say, hangs on the premises like a rope of sand.
Bidd.
If the Son be not the same God with the Father, much lesse is the [Page 89]Holy Spirit, since he is sent as the Scriptures do abundantly witnesse, and disposed
of by him.
Answ.
As is the Antecedent, so is the Consequent. The first is not onely false, but blasphemous,
and the second is no lesse erroneous. I do acknowledge that the Holy Ghost is sent
(improperly) by the Son, for it is a Scripture phrase, but no subordination or inferiority
is then concluded, for there is a co-ordinate mission, when an equall is sent by an
equall, himself being the principal cause, why he is sent, and this mission derogates
nothing from the honour and Majesty of him that is sent: but your other proof, that
the Holy Ghost is disposed of by the Son, viz. as an inferiour is by his superiour, is not agreeable to the language of the Holy
Ghost, and hath no other ground then teste meipso.
Bidd.
Nehem. 9.6. Thou even thou art Lord alone, thou hast made the heaven and the heaven of heavens,
observe here, that the Levites do not say, ye are Lords, but thou, even thou art Lord,
for the word (then) denoteth a single person, but if one person onely be the most
high God, this Person of necessity must be the Father, since he by confession of all
sides is the most high God.
Answ.
To this Text, I have largely answered in my assertion of his second A [...]gument against the Deity of the Holy Ghost, I will therefore make a short return
to it in a few words.
To say the word (then) doth alwayes denote a single Person is onely asserted, but
not proved; besides to say one person onely, is the most high God, as one person is
opposed to all creatures, and made Gods, may in a qualified sense be granted, but
in no wise as one Person of the Sacred Trinity is opposed to another, and distinguished
from it. The Father I grant, is the onely high God, for there is but one onely most
high God. If there were more Gods then one, then one of them of necessity, and not
many must needs be the most high God, this attribution to be the most high God, is
verified also of the Son he is the only high God and so is the holy Ghost likewise,
the onely high God, and the reason is, because there is but one onely high God: the
plurality of Divine persons introduceth not plurality of Gods, for all three have
one and the same undivided [Page 90]infinite Essence, though they have it not after the same manner, as I have often shewed.
Bidd.
Neither doth that passage Gen. 1.26. Let us make man; any whit contradict this truth, for doth it follow from thence, that
there are several persons in God? Might not I by the same kind of arguing, because
Christ saith, Mark 4.30. Whereunto shall we liken the Kingdome of God? and Iohn 3.11. We speak what we know, and testifie what we have seen, therefore there are severall
persons in Christ. 2 Cor. 10.1.2. Some think of us, as if we walked after the flesh, therefore there are several persons
in Paul. The utmost that can be concluded from this passage of Geneses is, that there was a person with God, whom he imployed in the Creation, as of other
things, so of man mentioned before, Gen. 1.2: The spirit moved on the face of the waters; and to like purpose it is said, Psal. 104. Iob 26.13. Observe by the way, that these Scriptures plainly intimate, that the Spirit was but
the instrument of God in the Creation, since God is said to have garnished the heavens
by him, and was sent by God to that purpose, and so ministred to him, and Iob 33.4. The spirit of God hath made man, which plainly sheweth, that the spirit had a hand
in creating man; it was the Spirit therefore, and he onely to whom God said, Let us
make man.
Answ.
It is not in the general denyed, but most frequent both in Scripture and common use,
to speak in the plural number, when a singular person is onely intended, albeit your
Scriptures alledged, are no sufficient proofs thereof.
Note John the 3.11. We know Christ discourseth with Nicodemus touching regeneration. The Father and the Holy Ghost regenerates, the holy Disciples
were also witnesses hereof, John 15.27. and others, so that albeit the Son of God, the prime interpreter of the Father
spake thus, yet is not his unity of Person onely meant thereby, but Christ together
with these forenamed, are included.
Note Mar. 4.30. Wherunto shall we liken, viz. Christ and his Apostles and 35. he saith, let us passe over. Not the 3.2 Cor. 10.2. for albeit S. Paul speaks upon a particular occasion in reference to himself, yet is this intentionally
applicable to all the faithfull Ministers of Christ, who are no lesse uncharitably
censured (as S. Paul knew full well) then as the blessed Apostle, I will conclude with the [Page 91]words of the learned Placers, p. 2. Arg. 37. it is an unusuall thing amongst the Greeks and Latines, for single men which
are in authority and dignity to speak of themselves in the plural number, but it
is unusuall and unheard of amongst the Hebrews, whence this testimony is fetched.
No man in the old Testament, no man placed in highest dignity, no Priest, no Judge,
no King, doth ever speak of himself in the plural number.
The Adversaies mistrusting the strength of this Argument, which is appointed by his
brethren, and fortified by the alledged Scriptures and others also, confesseth that
God speaketh to another Person. Well then, this divine Consultation, as Divines were
wont to speak, or rather which is agreeable to truth, this Exhortation, for it is
not said, What, Shall we make man? the other creatures being made, Gods glory, and the perfection of the world required
the Creation of man, this Exhortation I say, argues plurality of persons, and that
God doth not speak of himself for his great honour and Majesty in the plural number,
we say that Gods manner of speaking is of great moment, and we have cause to magnifie
his wisdome for using such a speech as should be fit to expresse the mystery of the
Holy Trinity, but the Adversary resolves, that God spake to a created Spirit, separated
in nature from the most high God, and which was his instrument, in that admirable
work of the Creation of man, but how do you prove it? by Psalm 104.30. and Job 26.13.
I answer first, that these Scriptures do not bear witnesse to this wicked assertion,
that the Spirit was Gods instrument in the Creation, but that he created the world
by the Spirit, that is, say we, according to the Scriptures, the Holy Ghost acted
by the same omnipotent power, whereby the Father made the world, because he hath
the same infinite Essence with the Father and Son of God, although he hath it not
in the same order and manner.
2. Your Argument taken from the particle (by) to prove the Holy Ghost to be an instrument
of the Creation is very weak, and by consequence would reduce the most high God, so
acknowledged to be by the Adversary himself, into the rank of an instrumentall cause,
for it is expresly said, Rom. 11.36. By him are all things, 1 Cor. 19. By whom we are called to the fellowship of Jesus Christ, and Paul was an Apostle by God the Father, Galatians 1.1. and therfore seeing all things are by the Father, and all things are
by the Holy Ghost, they are the same principle of all things, and this [Page 92]particle according to diverse subjects spoken of admitting various senses, can afford
no sound plea for the Adversary.
You tell us that the spirit was mentioned in the second verse of Gen. 1. true, and that he created man, no man amongst us doubts it, it would much have
furthered your cause, if you could have proved (which is impossible to be done) that
God created that Spirit, which is mentioned in that place, v. 2 there are not the least footsteps of any such matter; till this be done, our Argument
on your concession remains unanswerd, you prove what is not denyed, and take for granted
what should be proved, that our fellow servant, and fellow creature, would be our
Creatour; besides, God created all other kinds of Creatures at once, as Fishes,
Beasts, Birds—What reason can you give, why he created not all Angels at once? it
is true, Adam was first created, then our mother Eve out of him, but that was done for a great mystery, to shew the great love which
ought to be betwixt the Husband and wife, and the near conjunction betwixt them, which
hath no place in the Creation of Angels, for they being immortall Spirits do neither
marry, nor are given in marriage. Furthermore, if God created not all things but by
the ministry of a Creature, it is either because he could not create without him,
so to assert was high blasphemy, to deny the Almighty Power of God, and unreasonable
also to think, that he who created the most excellept creature, viz. the Holy Ghost. I speak like the Adversary, could not he create those creatures,
which are inferiour to him, without an Instrument, or else was it, because God would
not? whereas his very will to create was to make the creature. He spake the Word, and they were made: if you say, his will was by the Holy Ghost, to create other things, and so use him
as an Instrument. Surely the Scripture hath no such language, either in termes or
by equivalence, and how can we believe, there was any such thing without Scripture
shew your reasons, every wise man may justly expect, (if you will forsake the beaten
road of Interpreters) that you should shew fair evidences for your learning this beaten
path, which is troden generally by all the most eminent in parts and piety.
Let us now consider the words of the holy Text, something it is, that the Jews. See
Manasses Ben Israel, Conciliat. loc. in Gen. qu. 6. say, when Moses wrote these words, Let [Page 93]us make man, he made a step and said to God and the Lord of the world, wherefore dost thou give
an occasion of erring touching thy most simple unity, and some of them through their
carnall wisdome, fearing lest scandall should be given to the Gentiles, did not read
and write, as it is in the Sacred Text, [...] but [...] I will make. Let us hear God with greatest reverence. The plurality of the persons in the Divine
nature is intimated, in that he makes choyce of Elohim, as a word of the plural number, which hath a singular number Eloah, yet the plurall number is most frequently used, and this word Elohim is in the first of Genesis, and joyned with a verse of the singular number, it is used two and thirty times,
and in the second chapter, the name Jehovah of the singular number, is prefixed before
it eleven times, is not the unity of the divine nature, and the plurality of the Divine
persons concluded thence? its true sometimes, when the most high God is not spoken
of, a word of the plurall number is joyned with a Verb or Adjective of the singular
number in the first Commandement. Non erit tibi dii alieni, if you translate the Hebrew verbatim, the reason because all singularity or plurality of any other God or gods is prohibited,
unlesse there be an ellipsis, there shall not be to thee any of the strange gods, and so Gen. 9.15. non erit ultra aqua ad diluviam, that is a flood overflowing by the conjunction of the waters above the earth and
in the earth, nor doth a word of the plural number signifie the many vertues or Operations
of one Person—Sylla said elegantly there were many Marii in one Caesar, but no man for the many vertnes or works performed by them, would call them Caesars or Marii. See of this largely, Joshuah Placens, pag. 2. Argum. 37.
Besides the Scripture no where affirmeth that man was created by an Angel or Angels,
and which is stronger, the holy Word, [...] Attributes Creation to God alone, and in the Plural number sometimes, Isa 54.4. Psal. 149.2. and Job 33.10.
Besides had a created Angel created us with God, then were we bound to exhibit honour
to the Angel in that respect, which neither Prophets nor Apostles either did themselves,
or exhorted any to do it, nor indeed can be done without the manifest peril of idolatrie.
Fourthly, the Text saith, Let us make man in our own likenesse, [Page 94]in our own similitude, viz. in Divine gifts, in wisdome, in holinesse, and righteousnesse, in rule over the
creatures: Antecedents and formalities in Divine gifts: and in Rule and Dominion over
the Creature consequenter, the latter is asserted, the form, viz. in righteousnesse and holinesse is denyed by the Socinians: whereas the soul of
man was the Garden of God himself full of the fairest flowers, and of the most choicest
and pretious fruits, it was watered with the fresh springs of heavenly influences;
and no briers, no thornes, no weeds to be found there. It is to be observed that God
speaketh to the persons which are equall. Let us make man in our image, he saith not in the plural number, let us make man after our images, nor after my
likenesse, but our likenesse, if then God had spoken to a created Angel, an Angel
should be a Samplar and an archetype, and we should be made not onely after the image
of God, but of an Angel, its true, men and Angels are like in many things, yet is
it no where said, that man is made after the image of an Angel, and Eve was like Adam, yet is she not said to be made after the image of Adam but of God, Gen. 1.27.32. yea beasts are like men in many things, yet are they not made alter the
image of man. Further, the Text saith not in the plural number they made, but God
made man, that we might take notice of the unity of the Godhead, and the plurality
of persons. I conclude this passage with the Testimony of that ancient Father and
holy Martyr Irenaeus, l. 4. c. 37. Angels did not make us, nor could they make an image of God the Son, his wisdome,
and the Holy Ghost is alwayes present with him, by whom he made all things voluntarily,
and to whom he said, Let us make man after our image and similitude.
Bidd.
Had the Son of God, Christ Iesus been also imployed in creating of Adam, would not he likewise have been mentioned in the History of the Creation? was it not
as materiall, and altogether of as great consequence for Moses and the Iews to have known that the Son of God was imployed in the Creation as the
Holy Ghost? but it is well that the holy Scriptures, whilst it attributeth Creation
to Christ doth what by the nature of the thing it self, what by the circumstances
of the places, what by expresse words signifie, that it is meant not of the old, but
of the new Creation, consisting in reduction of things to a new state and order.
Answ.
If the Son of God be not mentioned, doth it follow that the [Page 95]world was not created by him? a good reason to prove the Father created not the world,
for is he I pray you as contradistinct from the Son named Genes. 1.
Secondly, albeit he is expresly named, yet is he meant in every dayes work. Elohim God said, let there be light, that is, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, for Creation is a work
ad extra, and belongs to all the sacred Persons, besides, if many learned men are not much
deceived, the plurality of persons is implyed in the first verse [...] the words run thus, creavit Elohim, where are four things to be observed for the strengthening of this Argument. First,
that the word hath a singular number Eloah, and there was simply no necessity to use the plurall number in the Hebrew tongue,
unlesse this mystery was implyed. Secondly, because there was danger of errour, and
offence to use the plural number, if there had been onely one divine person. Thirdly,
nor can the like example and Enallage in all the old Testament be alledged of the like construction with the affixes and
other verbs, as with Elohim compare Josh. 24.9. Deuteron. 5.25. Jer. 10.10. Gen. 20.13. Exod. 20.2. 2 Sam. 7.23. 1 Chron. 17.21, See Hornebeck de Deo. lib. 2. cap. 5. sect. 2. Lastly, because we retain the propriety of the word, which is of the plural number,
Gerhar.
Thirdly, the invalidity of this reasoning appears, because there is no mention in
it, that the holy Angels were created in the first of Genesis, and yet other Texts say, that the heavens and the earth were finished and all their
hosts, Gen 2.1. much lesse is it said, that the Holy Ghost, was made when as the Anglls are
expresly said to be made by Christ, Col 1.16. but never in Scripture is it said, that the Holy Ghost was made.
Lastly, albeit it is not mentioned in the first of Genes. that the Son of God was the Creatour, will it not suffiice, if it be expresly mentioned
as it is in other Texts of holy writ, 1 John 3.
Ob. To prevent an objection, when Creation is ascribed to the Son in the Scripture, it
is meant saith the Adversary of the new Creation, to this I answer, 'tis apparently
false, not onely because all the blessed ones from the Creation to the incarnation
of the Son of God, were by him regenerated and saved, and not onely those which lived
after his birth and Passion, which evinceth that he had a being before the Creation,
according to that rule non [Page 96]entis nulla sunt accidentia, he that hath not a being cannot work at all, but because it is written (as it were)
with the Sun beams, Col. 1.16. that all things visible, and consequently trees, beasts, fishes, and invisible
also, angels and principalities were made by him, surely, Devils were not renewed,
and good Angels needed no renovation? or shall we say, they had no being in the world,
till the world had continued about four thousand years?
Bidd.
1. If Christ had created Adam, how could he himself say, Mat. 19.4. Have ye not read that he which made them at the first, created them male and female?
Christ then takes it for granted together with the Pharisees, that not he himself,
but another created them. 2. Again, how could Peter say, 1 Ep. 1. chap. 20. that Christ was fore-ordained, before the foundation of the world, had Christ then
a being, are not those onely foreknown that are to come? and are not already in being?
Thirdly, how could Paul, Rom 5.14. say after the similitude of Adams transgression, who was the figure or type of him that was to come or to be? had Christ
then not onely had a being, but created Adam? was Adam a type of him that created him? was he that created Adam, as yet to be? can it be said of any one that he is to be, whose person doth already
subsist?
Answ.
The Case of Conscience propounded, Matth. 19. was, whether it was lawfull for a man by a Bill of divorce to put away his wife,
which by the Jews upon every slight occasion was usually done: Our Saviours answer
is negative, shewing the strict union and conjunction betwixt man and wife, the knot
of marriage being tied is indissoluble, but by daeth and adultery. God made them male
and female, to be one flesh. By this your concession then, the Holy Ghost a creature,
was not instrumentall to this work of Omnipotency; not a creature, but God, saith
our Saviour, made them male and female; therefore you do infer onely the Father, as
he is distinguished from the Son? have you the forehead, to say that we question whether
God made Adam and Eve? if in every place of Scripture where God is mentioned, the first person is onely
meant, you will have good store of Arguments indeed against the Deity of the Son and
the Holy Ghost, but do you expect that your bare word should be taken for a solid
proof? I answer then, that God in many places of Scriptures, and in this, is taken
essentially, not [Page 97]personally, as the infinite Creatour distinct from all the Creatures, because the
word is taken absolutely, and not as distinguished from the Son of God, albeit I grant
the relation to the Father, is not simple, but a mixt habitude, to wit of subordination,
in respect of his humane nature, and so he created not Adam, and co-ordination in regard of the Divine nature, and in this notion, he together
with his Father created Adam and Eve and all things.
To the second place in S. Peter, I answer by a distinction, that in some respects he was foreknown, and in others
he was not, and so, this seeming absurdity and contradiction comes to nothing, he
was preordained, viz. to be our Mediatour, in the fulnesse of time to become man, that he might expiate
our sins by his bitter passion, and procure eternall life for the elect of God, and
in this sense S. Peter speaketh of Christ, as both the Text and context sheweth, and thus I yield he had
not a being till these latter times, but now consider Christ simply as a divine person,
and as he was simply himself the Son of God, and in this respect I do deny that he
was foreknown, for in this Consideration he did himself foreknow and elect, and had
an infinite being before all times by eternal generation.
To the third place Rom. 5. the answer is easie, observe that to be a Type of any person, is to prefigure
him either by nature or institution, of God or man, Adam was not a type of Christ by nature, or the institution of man, but by Gods appointment.
Adam was the authour of death to all his posterity, not onely to men of years, but Infants
also died in him, and herein he did prefigure Christ, who was by his free and rich
grace the authour of life to all believers, herein was manifested Gods rich mercy
and love for ever to be adored, which wisely found a way to find in sin a blessed
remedie, in death, life, and [...]n a destroyer, a Saviour shadowed out, the glory hereof is manifested to us by the
Gospel of our Lord; take notice that the type and the person typified hereby answered
one the other in contrary effects. Adam in the comparison of dissimilitude is the opposite member to the second Adam, the Messias, as by Adam, sin and death entred as a ravenous wolf into the Fold, to destroy all the race of
mankind, so by Christ the second Adam was righteousnesse and eternall life derived to all his mysticall members, The first
Adam was the root of all mankind in esse naturae, the second was the root in esse gratiae, we must then distinguish as formerly we have done, the natures of Christ, he was
both perfect God [Page 98]and perfect man. Now Adam was not a type of him in regard of them both, not a type of him as he was God, for
so he did pre-exist before him, but onely as he was a Mediatour in our humane nature;
Adam was created by him, as he was God, but he was after him as he was man: Adam was a type of him, as he was incarnated to save us, the person of Christ which is
single, and but one, did alwayes subsist, but not in the humane nature hypostatically
united to the second person. This then is the ordinary fallacy, à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter.
Bidd.
Gnes. 3.22. And the Lord God said, behold the man is become like one of us to know good and evil, Gen. 11.7. Let us go down and confound their language, that they may not understand one anothers
speech, Isa. 6.8 I heard the Lord say, whom shall I send, and who will go for us, in all these places
is meant the Lord with his spirit, seeing the Spirit is called the Spirit of knowledge, Isa. 11 2. and to give diversities of tongues, 1 Cor. 12.10, 11 Acts 2.4. and Isaiah saith, that both the Lord and his Spirit had sent him, Isa. 48 16.
Answ.
It is not doubted by the most Interpreters, that the Lord alludes to the words of
Sathan to Eve, that by eating the forbidden fruit they should be like God, the words are very like,
and Sathan by Elohim, no doubt, meant the same God, which said, Let us make man after our image, and reproves him for not being as good as his promise was, in that he was not made
altogether after his image, because he knows not good and evil, being not permitted
to eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil but if he should eat thereof he
should be like God; he promised not to him equality with God he saith not, ye shall
be God, but like God, not [...]n all things and qualities, but in the knowledge of good and evil, no [...] like Angels, (as other Sociman [...] say) to which the Serpent alludes not their order, fall, or standing, being perhaps
not known to Adam, or Eve, and there [...]ore they could not be propounded to th [...]m, as a pattern for their imitation, nor had the Serpent. Argument been so specious
to seduce man, in making him an Apostate from God, by proposing them as a samplar
of imitation, as is that which is draw from God, for in corrupted nature men have
affected divine titles glory and honour, but none desired to bear the names of Angels,
nor doth the divine authour so much as intimate that God [Page 99]spoke to Angels, and joyned them with his divine Majesty, or that he would be so understood;
for why then is it not said, God said to the Angels, or at least thus, behold man
is not like one of you, but like one of us, viz. which made him. The words are an Ironicall derision of an angry or sin punishing
God, a serious and sharp reprehension, suitable to hisambitious presumption and an
upbraiding him for his folly in yielding to Sathans deceitfull promises, with a gratious
intention to humble him for his great fault, but the Adversary can give no probable
reason, why a created person should be one of the Persons, to whom Adam was like. For first it cannot be proved that God joyns himself with Angels or any
other creatures, so as to make himself one with them, or to say they are one with
God: Secondly, it would be ambiguous and doubtfull, if God had joyned himself with
a creature, wh [...]ther he meant Adam was lik [...] himself, or like that creature, and I read that before Christs time the Ch [...]ldee Paraphrast, (as Paulus Fagius on Gen. 3.22. relates) applyes is to Christ, Gods word, the word of the Lord said, Behold Adam, whom I alone have created, as I am alone in the highest heavens; besides the efficacy of the Speech, which
otherwise is lost, requires that it be referred to God, upbraiding man, saying, behold
now how like man is unto God, and that he is now become like one of the divine persons!
Loe here lies a lump of earth, that would needs become like God: here lies the Glow-worm,
that would needs become a Sun. Lastly, this sense is held forth by the whole context.
Adam and Eve heard the voyce of Jehovah walking in the garden, v. 8. and Jehova called unto Adam, v. 9. and he the same Lord said, v. 11. and alwayes in the singular number in the foregoing Verses, Hast thou eaten of the Tree, which I commanded thou shouldest not eat of it, and v. 12. the woman which thou gavest me, &c. the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden, so that we adore the mystery of the Trinity, and the unity of the Divine Essence,
and if we yield to the Adversaries, that the words are not spoken by an Ironie, but
properly will this any way advantage them? for whom was Adam like unto? the Devils? who dares say God joyneth the Devils with himself, saying
by the Pronoune Us, or like to the good Angels, but by eating the forbidden fruit,
he became unlike them in knowledge, for he fell into errour; unlike them in holinesse,
for he became a sinner, unlike them in happinesse, for he became miserable: or shall
we say like to God absolutely [Page 100]considered? but by this fact he became most unlike him, God saith not, he is like
the Angels, or he is like God, or he is like us, but he is like one of us, as Placens observeth; he is not like the Father, nor like the Holy Ghost, but like the Son of
God, for Adam was a shadow and type of Christ, Rom. 5. which is like the body, and that which it shadoweth out. Adam became miserable, and knew good and evil experimentally, the Son of God that he might
save us, took upon him our sorrows, that he might renew Gods image in us, and therefore
Eve is not named, but onely the woman, till God had pronounced his Sentence against Adam, and this is also the reason why God so mercifully dealt with Adam, and testified it by saying, behold the man is not like us, but one of us, and why
he spoke to Adam alone and not to [...]ve, and why these words follow, lest he put forth his hand to eat of the fruit of the
tree of life, he was cast out of the earthly Paradise to till the earth: so the Son
of God was sent out of the heavenly Paradise, to till and make his Church fruitfull,
with many more resemblances which I omit, which do not I grant demonstratively, prove
this mystery at least not so convincingly, as plain Scriptures do.
Gen. 11.7. Let us go down and confound their language, in the former verse, the wicked are opposed to the sons of God mentioned cap. 6. v. 2: and they do encourage one another to build and finish that great and foolish work
in hand. God the Father speaks to the Son and the Holy Ghost, these sinners wilfully
persist in their presumptuous enterprise to finish it it, or by way of interrogation
to this effect it is an unworthy work tending to our dishonor, should they not be
restrained, or the holy Trinity mutually (as it were) exhorteth to blast the resolution
of these wicked men, and to bring on them that evil, which they endevoured to prevent,
v. 8. and speaking after the manner of men determineth to overthrow the vain determination
of foolish men. Let us go down and confound their language, in which words observe first, that God speaks in the plural number, let us come,
let us go down and confound, where there cannot be an Enallage of the number, that the plural number is put for the singular, because as Keckerman sheweth, that this is not agreeable to the Hebrew tongue to speak in the first person,
and because (one) will not bear it, God speaks here, and we never read in Scripture,
that God said, come, let us do this—. Gostavius his Adversary could not alledge a contrary example to either of the Arguments, [Page 101]but was silent. Observe further, that God speaks to more, as to equally by nature,
as the builders, said everyone to his neighbour, let us build without having authority
and power one over another, but as fellow-builders to their fellow-builders, so when
God said, come let us go down, he speaks not as having power and authority over them
to whom he speaks, but as one of their number, which should have a hand in that great
work, or as if it could not be done, but without their consent and concurrence, there
appears then in the words no command, he saith not in the Imperative Mood do you go
down, do you confound, but let us go down, let us confound, so that he useth them
not as servants, but as equals. Besides, those to whom God speaks have power to confound
languages, this is a peculiar work of God in an instant to make them forget their
mothers tongue, without external violence, and at the same instant to teach them
other languages, this is not the work of Angels, much lesse of one created Angel to
do, it is God that taketh away speech, Job 12.20. thus then we argue. He that in this manner confounds the language is true
God, others with the Father do confound the language, Ergo others with the Father, are the true God. Besides, the word, let us descend, is
to be taken in one sense as spoken of these persons; for God doth otherwise descend
then an Angel or Angels, for he (who is every where) descends improperly, but they
being finite may properly descend from heaven: besides the dispersion of men on the
face of the earth, is in the following verses ascribed to God, and that three times,
and spoken of him in the singular number, further to shew the unity of the God-head:
It is sayd, God came down, v. 4. and Genes. 19.24. which place the Adversary willingly omitted, the Lord rained fire and brimstone,
from the Lord on Sodom, which as the Adversary confesseth in his Text, reason against the Trinity, is a proper
name of God.
The third parallel place, Isa. 6.8. Whom shall I send, or who shall go for us, what service this can do the Adversary, I see not, nor can he alledge any probable
reason out of the Text for his turn, whom shall I send? who sends Prophets but the Lord? there is the unity the Godhead, who shall go for us? here is the plurality, and by consequence the Trinity of the persons, for are not
Prophets to do honor & service to the great God, & not to their fellow creatures?
are they not to win souls for him and not for creatures? no not to the most enminent
of all? this association of a creature with the great God is inconsistent [Page 102]with the Scriptures, Josh. 14.19. Joshuah saith, ye cannot serve the Lord, quoniam Dii sancti sunt, according to the originall, he is a holy God, the reason why they could not serve
God, is drawn from his holinesse, the Pronouns and Elogies are of the singular number,
lest there should be thought to be a plurality, as of divine persons, so of God, 1
Sam. 7.23. What Nation in the earth is like thy people, whom Dii iverant, God went to redeem for a people for himself. In the former verse, There is no God like to thee, nor is there any God besides thee, and it follows, to redeem a people to himself, which cannot be spoken of creatures,
and the purpose of the Holy Ghost is to shew that he is God, and that there are none
besides him, Deut. 4.35.
I will but touch on the other alledged Scriptures, did ever any of Mr. Biddles adversaries deny this comfortable truth, that the spirit worketh knowledge. Do they
avouch, the first Person without the third worketh knowledge? is not this a received
Axiome amongst them. Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa? so that on these passages, you do implicitly slander the Orthodox, and fight with
your own shadow, for the saying, the Lord and his Spirit sends Prophets, do stronlgy
prove the Deity of the Holy Ghost, but there is no colour at all in them, to prove
him to be a created spirit.
Biddle.
It is also easie to conceive, that by wisdome, Prov. 8. is meant the spirit of wisdome, for so is the holy Spirit denominated by Isaiah, and in the History of the Creation, and elsewhere in the Scripture, and compared with
what is spoken of wisdome, Prov. 8. especially if he addes what is more amply declared in the 7, 8, and 9 Chapters of the wisdome of Salomon, and in the 1. and 24. Chapters of Siracides, or Ecclesiasticus, will perceive, that as by wisdome is meant a most excellent creature, so that creature
is the Holy Ghost.
Answer.
Confident boldnesse to assert, and weaknesse to prove his novel Expositions, are met
together in Mr. Biddle: he doth, J grant, soundly prove against his friends the Socinians page 52. that a person is a Metonymie or transminution is called Wisdome, as the circumstances
of the place do put it out of question, nor is it possible for the wit of man, by
any probability to devise how that which is spoken in that chapter, should belong
to that which is no person: if wisdome then be taken for a person, it must be either
[Page 103]a created person, or an uncreated person and this person is the holy Ghost, this is
a bold interpretationinvented without any colour of reason to support it and unhard
of, if I be not mistaken, and not only against all the Orthodox, but also against
the old Arians, which laboured in vain to disprove the Deity of the Son of God by the 22. v. of
that Chapter. See Sixtin. Arianus in locum, and against most of the later Socinians, who by the wisdome of God conceive a divine
Attribute to be meant, whereby the Father is formally wise, whereby he wisely createth
and ruleth all things, By whom Kings do rule and make wise Laws, Gratian prosper. lib. 2. and Catechis. Cracoviensis page 59. others do explain it as meant of the Doctrine of the old Testament, or the Gospel
of Jesus Christ, but to assert the holy Ghost, is this wisdome to make the disjunction
full. Now I think I have dreamed, to say this wisdome was created, and the beginning
of Gods Creation before Gods works of old, is by consequence to assert, that the most
excellent part of the Creation was then past.
When in the beginning God made heaven and earth, as Moses describes it, the holy Ghost was made before, by whom all things were afterwards
created, who taught at any time such strange Divinity? where is any such thing recorded
in any part of Scripture? who is so shamelesse to say, he hath it by divine revelation,
who is so senselesse as to believe him that will say so?
The Son of God is described under the name of wisdome, he is wise [...], the abstract is put for the Concrete, as he is called Light, Life, Truth, Sanctification
and Redemption, and he is called the wisdome of God, Luke 11.49 the wisdome of his Father, not that this wisdome is in him, as an accident
is in a Subject, for Peter is not called wise, because his son which he begets is wife, but he is called the
wisdome of his Father, as the Father is the Principle of the Son saith Rades, for he is wise and powerfull by his own Essence, and so is also Gods Sonne, because
he is begotten of his most Wise Father, as Reason is produced by a reasonable understanding.
2. Because by his Sonne, as a Prophet, he doth declare to men and Angels his Wisdome,
and his glorious Attri [...]utes John 1. The Son who is in his Father, bosome declares to us what we are to know of God,
and as he is called Wisdome absolutely in this 8. of Prov. and 9.1. v. so is this Title attributed to him in [...]he new Testament, Mat. 11.19. Wisdome is justified of her children, yea, and all the treasures of Wisdome and [Page 104]knowledge were hidden in his flesh, Col. 2.2. and vailed in the manhood. Christ is a fountain of Wisdome, and as a mine, is
the originall of all treasure, so is he of all wisdome.
That Christ is meant by wisdome, appears by the Text it self and parallel Scriptures,
where the same is ascribed to the Son of God, which is spoken of Wisdome, v 24. for [...] This wisdome was begotten of God, and therefore was the Son of God, and the Text
undoubtedly proves the Deity of the Person there described, the Lord possessed him
(as his Son) in the beginning of his way, before his Works of old, when he prepared
the heavens he was there, and when he set a compasse upon the face of the deeps; this
cannot be meant of him, as predestinated, for so were all the creatures thus with
him, yet he was before them, neither was he onely with him, but as a nourisher and
preserver of all things, as it is said of the Son of God, Col. 1.17. Heb. 1.2. and his delight was to be with the Sons of men, v. 31. he for mans sake created the world and took on him the nature of man into the
unity of his person to restore sinfull man, Justin. Martyr Dialogo cum Tryphone, and Clemens Alexandrinus, lib. 1. cap. 10 expound that 8. of the Proverbs of the Son of God, that you may not charge me with a novel interpretation.
You would prove your Exposition, by Isa. 11.2. where the Spirit is called the Spirit of wisdome.
To this I answer, first, that in the Proverbs is not mentioned the Spirit of wisdome, the Adversary then fallaciously compares
Texts as like which are unlike.
Secondly, the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of wisdome, not formaliter, but effectivè, there is a great deal of difference betwixt these two, Christ is Wisdome, that is,
Substantiall Wisdome, and the holy Ghost is the Spirit of Wisdom, that is, the authour
of Wisdome this doth the Holy Ghost hold forth in Isa. and no more,
Touching 7, 8, 9. Chapters of the Wisdome of Salomon, and 1. and 24. of Ecclesiasticus, by wisdome is meant an excellent creature, and that creature is the Holy Ghost.
First, I answer, these books are Apochryphal, they are no rules of our faith, we are
not then bound without better Authority to believe any thing upon the bare authority
of these authors.
Secondly, Not onely Christian Beckman, but learned Junius, a great deal more quick sighted then you are, hath proved from chapter [Page 105]7. v. 21. and in the following verses of that chap. and in the beginning of the 8.
the deity of the Son of God, and of the holy Ghost.
Thirdly, Siracides speaks not of uncreated wisdome, but of created, viz. Gods wise ordering of things, created, and the Doctrine of the Law revealing supernatural
knowledge, Acts Chapter 24.23. and the Wisdome by which true Wisdome may be obtained, he imitated Salomon but understood him not. 4. And when it was said that wisdome was created v. 8, 9.
if this be not meant of created wisdome, which is a quality [...] a divine quality inherent in man, by Creation we may understand the production of
the Son of God by eternal generation, for [...] & procreare liberos, is generate liberos, thus may the Son of God be said to be created.
Lastly, if in a few places, and in authours which are not canonical, it were granted,
that by wisdome was meant the holy Ghost, doth it follow that it must be so taken
in the eight of the Proverbs, I suppose no wise man will allow of the Inference.
Bidd.
Lastly, this intimateth to us why Elihu speaketh in this wise, Job 35.10. where is God my maker (Heb. makers) the word makers implyeth that more then one person made man, though in a different
order of causality, but it implyeth that whatsoever power of making was in any other
person imployed in that work, it proceeded from God, so that upon the matter God was
the Maker.
Answ.
Creation to speak properly, as Scaliger, to name no more, defines it Exercit. 6. sect. 13 is the constitution or the framing of a substance of nothing, as the term à quo, I say of a substance, for Accidents are not created, but uncreated, and that a creature
cannot be a principal cause of Creation is evident, because it requires an infinite
power to make a being of no being, as the distance betwixt being and not being, is
infinite, but neither a creature may create instrumentally, not to be sure by its
own naturall power, but when its raised up above it self by the supreme Agent, viz. of God himself, is variously disputed by the Schoolmen. The Thomists denying it, following herein their Master, 3 par. sum. qu. 13. artic. 3. and others in the former sense affirming it, and a third sort not fully resolved
either way in the spirit, Schibler Meta. par. 2. l. 3. de Deo Art, 3. and others say, a creature may be a moral instrument of Creation; [Page 106]but not a Physical or natural Instrument by any vertue communicated to it, because
to make an Instrument active its necessary that it should have (at least in the actuall
motion, whereby it is moved by the principal Agent) some form whereby it acts in its
order, the reason is, the second Act doth necessarily suppose the first Act whence
it proceeds, but no active form communicated to the Creature can reach the term of
Creation actively, as a principle of the creature, see Rada Controv. Sat. lib. 2. contr. 2. de potentia creandi art. 3.
I grant that the word Makers doth suppose not many qualities in one person, but more
persons then one, and I grant also, that as there is an order of subsisting, so is
there likewise of working, and this is communicated to the holy Ghost from the Father
and Son of God, not in time, as you say, but from all Eternity, he not making man,
as you do blasphemously write by a subordinate causality to the first person, but
by one and the same infinite power, and if a creature had been imployed at that great
work, it would have been solely wrought by God at the presence of the creature, not
by any innate or derived power of causality in a creature to that Production, and
so upon the matter it would have been God alone, and no active motion of any creature
which had a hand causally in that Creation. Thus much of the first Article, the second
followeth.
ARTICLE II.
Bidd.
I believe there is one chief Son of the most high God, or spiritually heavenly and
perpetuall Lord and King set over the Church by God, and second cause of all things
pertaining to our salvation, and consequently the intermediate object of our Faith
and Worship, and that this Son of the most high God, is none but Jesus Christ the
second Person of the Holy Trinity.
Answ.
The Adversary saith, Christ is Gods chief Son, which in a good sense is undoubtedly
true, though not in the meaning intended by [...]im: he is the naturall Son of God, and thus is he not the chief, but the onely Son
of God, he is also the Son of God by the grace of hypostaticall union, as he is the
Son of man, propinquity of speech will not permit us to say, that a Father which hath
an onely [Page 107]Son, as God the Father hath but one natural Son, that that Son is his chief Son, albeit
in a latitude it is said of him Cant. 5. that he is the chief of ten thousand.
M. Biddle, addes that Christ is the second cause of all things pertaining to our salvation,
this in his sense is absolutely denyed; we deny not an order in the working of the
Trinity, in which respect and not in regard of a different power of working, the Father
may be said to be the first cause, as the beginner, the Son the second cause, as the
continuer of the action, and the Holy Ghost the next or third cause consummating it,
yet all of them are truly but one solitary cause in regard of perfection and power
of working, but social in regard of union and communion, because one cannot be, or
work without the rest. Bisterfield against Crettius: but I deny that the Father is the principal efficient cause, as it is opposed to
the lesse principal, whether it be instrumentall or ministeriall, as some distinguish,
for the lesse principal requires these conditions. 1. That it be under a superiour
Agent by which it is ordered and directed, and the second is, that it hath a proper
causality and influence into the effects of the first cause, for otherwise it is not
an efficient cause. 3. That the causality be dependent and inferiour as a second cause,
for the first being is essentially, and quidditatively more perfect then the second:
the distinction of first and second cause takes place in God, who is the first cause,
& causa causarum, and the creatures which in respect of God are the second causes, but God the Father
is not the first cause properly, and Christ the second cause, whether he be considered
simply as God, or relatively, as the naturall Son of God, and if we speak of his Mediatory
works, wrought for our salvation, the Principle whence their merit and vertue of satisfaction
ariseth, is absolutely, the Divine Essence which is one and the same in all the three
Persons, and thus are the Persons co-ordinate in this work, as those magnificent
titles import, that he is [...] the Authour of Eternal Salvation, Heb. 5.9. the Prince and Saviour [...], and how could he pour out the holy Spirit, as he said he would do in effect, John 15.26. and 16.14. were he not the most high God? though he be subordinated to God
in respect of the humane nature, as the same man, may be a King and a Duke: thus were
our English Kings, when we had Normandy in France, co-ordinate to the French King, as he was a King, and sub-ordinate to him, as he
was a Duke of a French [Page 108]Province: the Divine Persons having one and the self-same Essence, are not three
causes, but one supreme cause of every essential work produced by them, yet with
a distinction of the personal order of working, which is answerable to the order of
subsisting. The Father, as he is of himself, so doth he work from himself, and from
no other immdiately by the Son, the Son from the Father, and both Father and Son by
the Holy Ghost, not as by an instrument, a subordinate of, or second cause of the
work, but as by a Divine Person, which hath the same infinite Essence, Wisdome, Power,
and other Perfections with the first and second Person, the works, as they are divine,
are by the works of Jehova, of God, as they are attributed to this or that Person
in regard of the speciall manner or order of working, so they are not ascribed to
others, that as by the equall application of the works to the three persons, we may
collect the Unity of the Divine Essence, so by the distinct order and manner of working
we may observe the diversity of the Divine Persons.
The Adversary saith, that the Son of God is the intermediate object of Faith and Worship
ambiguously spoken, this should have been explicated and cleared up, how Christ, who
in his opinion a meere creature can be the object of these Religious Acts, especially
since he cannot be ignorant what sharp conflicts there have bin amongst themselves
touching this subject, as Franciscus, Davidis, Budnius, Christianus Franker, and others, which do determine, that it is flat idolatry to pray unto Christ with
Religious Worship, for as they say well, this honour is most properly due to the most
high God, and thus they strongly reason, as great as the distance is betwixt the
Creatour and the Creature, so great ought that difference to be betwixt that honour
which is exhibited to the Creatour and to the Creature, but their distance is greatest,
whether their nature or Dignity and Excellency be considered; they then that take
away the formall cause or Foundation of Religious Worship, The Deity of our Saviour,
cannot justly thus worship him; See Hornbeck apparat. ad Controv. Socin. and the terror of that sentence, Jeremie 17.5, 6. Cursed be he that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth
from the Lord, but blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, he that trusteth in man is cursed,
but he that trusteth in Christ is not cursed, therefore Christ is not man, viz. onely, but God also: [Page 109]to say as Socinus, he that trusteth in man as the sole and prime cause of happinesse, is cursed, but
not he that trusteth in man, as the second or intermediate Cause, this is to forsake
the wholesome words of Scripture, and to furnish all enemies with a shifting answer
to elude Scripture, for what Christians, Jews, Mahumetans and Heathen people, which
trust in the arm of flesh, will not call on God for help, and confesse, that they
look upon man as an intermediate or second cause to help them? if confidence in Christ,
as the Author of good is prohibited, how happens it that the Scripture doth no where
forewarn us of that sin, but doth most constantly require it and command it? and where
saith the Scripture even in that sense, cursed is he that trusteth in Christ, for
a malediction is to be shunned as much, as a Benediction is to be pursued. Besides,
if Christ was onely a second cause, he was not to be trusted in, nor to be worshipped,
because the second Cause is in the Power of the first, its being life, Knowledge,
Will, Power, Action may be destroyed, changed and hindred at the Will and Pleasure
of the first and principall Cause, and that heart that trusts in the second Cause,
departs from the Living Lord, Jeremy 17.5. nor can this be safely done, for he in whom we trust, must be a Searcher a
Knower of our Hearts, Prayers, Dangers, be able to help us in our greatest Straits,
and be present with us in all places, and at all times: to ascribe these to any creature,
is to rob God of the Glory due to his Majesty. I forbear to adde more Reasons to confound
the Adversary.
Jesus Christ is (saith Mr. Biddle) the second Person of the Holy Trinity, true, till Christ was conceived in his mothers
womb, there was no holy Trinity at all, according to the Adversaries supposition,
and the Holy Ghost, which was in nature a more excellent substance, created in time
before Christ, and next unto God himself is put out of his place, and if I may have
liberty to allude, he that came after him, is preferred before him, he is the second
person of the holy Trinity, and the holy Spirit the third.
Bidd.
Luke 1.32. Jesus shall be great, and shall be called the Sonne of the most High, where note,
that the Sonne is not equall [Page 110]to the Father, as the very Son himself professeth, John 14.28. where making a comparison not between any nature of his that was not a person, but
between his own very person, and that of his Father, he saith expresly, my Father
is greater then I. Note I say, that the Sonne is not equal to the Father, otherwise
the Epithete of most high could not be appropriated to the Father, and put to distinguish
him from the Son (as neither could it afterwards, v. 35. be made use of to distinguish him from the holy Spirit, if the holy Spirit was equal
to the Father) for how can any expression, alike common to twain be apt to distinguish
one from another? how is the Father, and that contradistinctly to the Son, the most
high, if the Son be as high as he?
Answ.
In the ensuing discourse I shall have occasion frequently to mention the hypostatical
union of the two natures in one person, it will not therefore be amisse, once for
all to discourse of that, which without controversie is a great mystery. God manifested
in the flesh, and that as fully and as plainly as I am able to unfold it, and then
as occasion is, but to name it in answer to the Adversary.
The Lord decreeing from Eternity to create a free and a rational Creature after his
own image, which freedome is the subject and root of contingency, and the all-seeing
God infallibly foreknowing what would become of man, being left to such and such
temptations, and not willing that one of the noblest kind of his creatures should
utterly be lost, he resolves as the Supreme cause, the wise and great Potter out of
the same masse and lump of mankind, out of the whole race of man from the first to
the last, to make some vessels to honour and some to dishonour.
I will not dispute, what God might have done by his absolute power, by his free bounty
and mercy, as Lord of all his own creatures, but seeing it was his Majesties pleasure
to have his Justice satisfied, as well as his mercy delared, the salvation of the
elect was without a sufficient ransome, a thing impossible not simply impossible,
but impossible upon a presupposition of his decree, by this and no other means to
effect its but who could reconcile us to God, and make up the breach, which was made
upon the whole nature of man? who could deliver us from the guilt, the slavery and
bondage of sin and Sathan, from Gods curse? this could not possibly be brought to
passe by man or Angels, for they are not [Page 111]able sufficiently to be thankfull to God for their own being, their own happy being,
much lesse to deserve for others.
Not to relate Scholasticall disputations, whether it is in it self repugnant to avouch,
that either the Father or the Holy Ghost might have been incarnated, as well as the
Son of God, and whether all three persons might not have assumed mans nature; Aquinas and Halensis are for the affirmative: certain it is, that none could be found but the holy Trinity,
or one of the persons of the sacred Trinity, which in our nature could satisfie divine
Justice and suffer the punishment due to sin, and free us from the inherent pollution
thereof, in whom our nature was found in an excellent manner, it seems incongruous,
that the wo [...]ld should honour any other as the Saviour, but him whom it honoureth, as the Creatour
of the world, neither was it fit to admit any way of saving man, but by man himself,
and by this means Gods love and mercy are become such a Spectacle, that neither man
nor Angels can behold without divine astonishment.
There are no doubt, many reasons which may be alledged touching this divine choice,
though not such, as will convince an obstinate Adversary, why the Son of God, and
not the Father and the blessed Spirit should become the Son of man, and this in our
apprehension was most congruous for such reasons as these are. 1. It becomes not
the Father, Lombar. l. 3. distin. 1. for Incarnation is a kind of mission into the world, for he being of none, could
not be sent by any, to send him is inconsistent with the most ordinate habitude and
emanution of the divine persons, and the most natural order saith Bisterfield: nor was it fit for the holy Ghost to become the Son of man, but the name of Son should
be attributed to two divine Persons in the holy Trinity, much lesse for the same cause
should the Father become the Son of man, August. de dogmat. Eccles. cap. 2 Aquin. 3 par. qu. 3. and albeit the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, yet is he not
the first proceeding Person, the first proceeding Person was fittest to reconcile
us to God, and the second to give gifts to reconciled friends. Secondly, who was more
fit to make us the adopted sons of God by grace, then he who was the beloved Son of
God by nature? who fitter to make us beloved sons of God, then he who was the Son
of his love? who fitter to repair the image of God which consisted in Righteousnesse
and Holinesse, then he who was Gods essential [Page 112]image! man lost Gods image, and the image of God takes up mans image; man cannot conform
himself unto God, the Son of God conforms himself to man, and this seems to be most
agreeable to that sinne, which was the first motive of the Incarnation, it was a sin
against the Wisdome of God, our first Parents affected to be like God; by eating the
forbidden fruit, and God descending from heaven ironically upbraids him, Behold the man is like one of us. 1. Like the Son of God. and by Incarnation we may also say, behold, God is as one
of us. Lastly, who was more meet to be a Mediatour of reconciliation, then the middle
Person of the Sacred Trinity, who was the Mediatour of union, as Divines do speak
in the state of Creation, and before the fall of Adam.
Having thus far proceeded touching the necessity of a Saviour, and that the Son of
God was designed to the office of a Mediatour. I am not to shew that he took to himself
our flesh, and by Incarnation made it our flesh, and by this means he had of his own,
though from us, what to offer unto God for us: the manner of this divine mystery,
no man is able to conceive fully, much lesse to expresse perfectly, God tries our
faith by those things wherein our capacities are not strong, that is an object of
our faith to believe that the humane nature is united personally to the Son of God,
and to make this as plain as I am able, I do conceive it is the readiest way to illustrate
it negatively, first, to shew what it is not, and then we shall the better conceive
what it is.
First of all, the two natures united, do not constitute a third out of them, as is
done when there is no repugnancy, but mutuall dependence as in the Union of the soul
and body which makes a man, but this Union whereof I speak, is not the constitution
of a third nature out of the parts united; for then that properly would be neither
God nor man, as a man so constituted of soul and body, is neither soul nor body; the
infinite person subsisting from Eternity is not changed by the humane nature, which
was in time united to it, this is illustrated by a humane person, which subsisting
hath in time teeth in the mouth, the man ceaseth not to be a person, nor is he changed
into another person, nor doth he thereby grow up to a third, which is neither man
nor teeth, and to speak properly there is not a composition, but as Divines do speak,
quasi compositum, the person of Christ is not but in a very generall sense, a compound person, and
the reason is, because [Page 113]a Compositum is more perfect then the parts which do compound it, but nothing can be more perfect
then the divine person; nothing can be added to it, which had from Eternity all the
perfection of the humanity in a more eminent manner, then it is in it self.
Secondly, God did not take upon him the person of man, but the nature of man, Christ
is not divided into two persons, viz. the Person of the Son of God, and the Person of the Son of man, as Nestorius the Heretick held, that he was a Person begotten of God before all worlds, and a
Person born of the Virgin Mary in our flesh, its true, the Essentiall parts of a mans body and soul being united,
would have constituted a person, as they do in all other men, if they had been left
to themselves, it was prevented and stayed from subsisting in it self, and was drawn
into the Unity of the second person by divine and supernatural operation, whereby
it was highly advanced, and subsists in a more eminent sort then it could have done
if it had bacome a rational humane person. The ground of the errour of Nestorius was this, he took not heed to the first beginning of that admirable combination of
God with man: the Son of God did not take to himself a man then existing and perfected,
but the humane nature and conjunction with Gods Son, began both at one instant: his
making and taking our flesh was but one act; the Son of God did not assume a mans
person to his own, but a mans nature to his own person; he did not advance any one
person amongst men above all others, but wisdome hath built her house of that nature
which is common to all men, she made not this or that man her habitation, but dwelt
in us.
Thirdly, as Nestorius believed well, that God and man are distinct natures, but erred in that he denyed
they were one person, so Eutyches did orthodoxically believe, that the two natures were united in one person, yet became
unsound by denying the difference, which still continueth betwixt the natures: this
conjunction abolisheth not, nor confoundeth the natural properties, but from the first
combination, they have been, are, and shall be for ever inseparable; when his soul
forsook the Tabernacle of his body, his Deity forsook neither body nor soul; the principall
ground, which misled both these Hereticks, was one and the same; every nature, and
perfect rational subsistence is a person, but Christ was perfect God and perfect man,
therefore, both of them were Persons: So Nestorius, but Eutyches reason thus, in [Page 114]Christ there is but one person, therefore after Union, there is but one nature, of
the different sorts of these Eutychians, both anciently, and in the latter dayes: See Zanchius de incarnat. lib. 2. cap. 1.
Fourthly, the Union of the two Natures in Christ is not in the Substantiall indistance
of these, for God is every where present, and if it consisted in this, not onely the
humane nature. but the most abject creature would be truly assumed into the person
of the Son of God, nor is it simply in conferring admirable gifts and qualities,
for then holy men and holy Angels, should be thus united to the Son of God, which
is not to be admitted.
Fifthly, neither the Divine Nature simply considered, nor as three divine persons
subsist in it, is incarnated, for then the whole Trinity (which is not done) should
take our nature, but as the divine nature is in the Son of God, as by his property
he is distinguished from the first and third person, in Christ there is but one personall
subsistence, and that was from Everlasting, and by his taking the nature of man,
he still continueth one person, and changeth but the manner of his subsisting, which
was before in the meere glory of the Son of God, and is now in the verity of our flesh
Now whether this by a proper appellation, be called an influx, or illapsus arcanus of the personality of the Word, or any other singular operation of the Deity, by
which the humane nature of Christ, is, as it were, most intimately drawn to the person
of the Son of God, or an extraordinary dispensation, as Tertullian phraseth it, or whether it cannot be expressed by a certain name, as some Schoolmen,
'tis not much materiall, but the manner hereof is, mirabiliter singularis, & singulariter mirabilis, and transcends the capacity both of men and Angels, saith learned Gerhard.
To illustrate in some sort this great mystery, both ancient and later Divines have
used diverse similitudes, which are very imperfect, and not able to the life to express
this Union, as that of a fiery sword, which doth both cut and burn, it cuts simply
in regard of the sharpnesse of the mettal, but it burns as it is fiery: two actions
here are produced from two natures, which are to be distinguished, yet there is but
one sword, another, as the body and soul of man do make one man, so the Divine and
humane nature do make one Christ, or this mystery may be compared to one man, which
[Page 115]hath two accidental forms, as to be a Lawyer and a Physician, one may say, this Lawyer
is a Physician, and this Physician is a Lawyer, or the humane nature of Christ is
like to Missletow, which hath no subsistence of its own, to be by it self, but alwayes
in a Tree, yet herein the comparison fails, that such is the weaknesse of the Plant,
that it cannot subsist by it self, no more then a mans arm can live out of a humane
body; that Resemblance which is most fit and cometh nearest the matter, to shadow
out this Personall Union of the nature of God and of man in one Person, is of a Tree.
Suppose an Apple Tree grow up, into which the branch of another Tree is engrafted,
which makes not the Tree to be of a compound or middle nature, but causing the branch,
which being set into the ground, might have proved an entire Tree of it self to pertain
to the Unity of the Tree into which it is implanted, and yet retains its own nature,
and bears its own fruit, and as you may truly say, this Harvy Tree is a Pippin Tree,
and this Pippin Tree is a Harvy Tree, and consequently this Harvy Tree beareth Pippins,
and this Pippin Tree brings forth Harvies, so may we say of the Person of Christ,
consisting of the natures of God and man: The Son of God, who was a compleat and perfect
Person hath added to it the humane nature in the Unity of the same Person; as the
Divine Nature of our Saviour, notwithstanding the Personall Union is not capable of
any humane imperfections, no more is the humane nature, (in that respect a finite
creature) capabe of any divine and infinite perfection; the weaknesse and infirmity
of man was not swallowed up in the Majesty of God, nor was Gods Majesty in the least
diminished really by the assumption of man; the Union of the word, in regard of the
persons subsistence gratiously bestowed on the humane nature, is not finite, nor the
humane nature infinite, and as the fore-named Tree is but one, and yet hath two different
natures in it, and beareth two kinds of fruits, so the holy Son of God is but one
person, & yet hath two different natures, & by them performeth the distinct operations
pertainining to either of them, and as we say, this Pippin Tree is a Harvy Tree, so
doth Scriptures teach us to say, the Son. of God is the Son of Mary, and this Son of Mary is the Son of God, so that both natures remain in Christ with their distinct properties;
this Union addes perfection to the weak, to the humane nature, but to the nobler part
the divine nature accrues no alteration at all, there [Page 116]being nothing more naturall to God, then not to be subject to any change, 'tis set
down as a rule or Principle (saith our learned Hooker in his 5.6. of Eccl. Pol.) so necessary, as nothing more to the plain deciding of all doubts and questions
about the Union of both natures in Christ that of both natures there is a co-operation
often, an association alwayes, but never any mutuall participation, whereby the properties
of the one, are infused into the other.
From this greatest honour and highest grace that could be vouchsafed to humane nature,
that it should be united to the person of the onely begotten Son of God, whereby
this creature is exalted above all creatures, and hath all creatures under it: can
we conceive that sithence God hath made the manhood his own inseparable habitation,
that the parts of our Nature, the soul and body of Christ, received no influences
of Deity, no abilities of operation, no vertue or qualities above nature? no doubt
but it had from the grace of U [...]ion, the grace of Unction, both for the ornament and exaltation of the humane nature,
and enabling it to go through with the work of our salvation which required an unmatchable
degree of Perfection, proport onable to that high undertaking, to this purpose we
read, that God anointed him with the Oyl of gladnesse above his fellows. Heb. 1.9. and replenished him with those graces, which are above the reach of our
Capacities, so that he had fulnesse of grace, both for the Essence and vertue of it,
intensivè and extensivè, as far forth, as may be had at least, according to the exigence of that oeconomie,
which was agreeable to Gods own purposes, intents, and counsels, and to all services,
the subject duly considered, whereunto grace doth or can extend it self, Aquin. 3 par qu. 7. artic 9. his graces were without measure, John 3.34. and of his fulnesse, we all receive our scant measures, John 1.16.
The second Effect or Consequent of this personall Union is not as the Lutherans say, Kemnitius, Brackman, Gerhard, Cramerus, and others, a communication of the Divine properties to the manhood, so that it
should be truly omnipotent and omnipresent, not to insist on the Confutation of this
Heterodoxe at present, an instance shall suffice to shew the contrary: the hand of
man is joyned with mans immortall soul, and informed, quickned and acted by it, will
it thence follow, that wheresoever the sense is present, there the hand must be? verily
no, the soul is in the foot, and [Page 117]in other parts of the body, where every one sees the hand is not, if this be not the
effect of personall Union, what is it then? it is called the communication of the
properties to the person, and that is, When the properties of either nature considered
singly, and apart are attributed to the person, from which soever nature it be denominated;
to understand this the better, we are to take notice of abstract and concrete terms,
as Divines do call them, an abstract word denotes the nature simply, as deitie, humanity:
a Concrete term imports the person that hath the same nature, viz. God, man; we cannot truly say, the Deity is the humanity, or the humanity is the
Deity, or the Deity is man, or the humanity is God in the Concrete; nor thus the humanity
is uncreated, the Deity is created, the Deity is passible, the humanity is impassible,
nor that the humanity is every where, and the Divinity limited to a certain place,
but we may say, God is man and man is God; God suffered death, as well as he raised
the dead from their graves; the Son of Mary created the world, we cannot properly say, that the Virgin Mary bore, or the Baptist did Baptize, or Pilate did Condemne, or the Jewes Crucified the nature of Man, because all these are personall
Attributes, his person is the Subject of all these, and it is but one Subsistence,
his Nature is that which makes his person capable to receive, so that of Necessity
we must apply that to the Person of the Sonne of God, which was spoken of Christ
according to his Humane Nature, that he was according to the Flesh Born of the Virgin
Mary, Baptized of John in the River of Jordan, and judged by Pilate to dye and put to death by the Jews, because there is but one Personal Divine Subsistence,
so that no Person was born of the Virgin Mary, but the Sonne of God, no Person was baptized, accused, condemned and crucified,
but the Son of God; all such Actions and Passions agree to the Person really; though
sometimes in respect of one Nature, sometimes in respect of the other: when we say,
God is Man, we mean, that two Natures meet in one Person, and man is God for the same
Reason: And therefore this Mutuall Conversive Predication is not properly called Communication
of properties, nor are they regular, but unusuall and reciprocall, but when the Properties
of the humane nature, are attributed to the person denominated [Page 118]from the divine nature, these are called crosse and circulatorie speeches, by reason
of association of natures in one subject, 'tis said, the Jews crucified the Lord of
glory, 1 Cor. 2.8. we must needs understand the whole person of Christ, who being Lord of glory,
was crucified, but not in that nature, for which he is called Lord of glory, so is
it said, that the Son of man came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which (being
on earth) is in heaven, John 3.13. at the same instant. The Son of man is taken for the whole person of Christ,
who being man on earth filled heaven with his glorious presence, but nor according
to that nature for which he is called man, so that in these speeches there is mutuall
circulation, and the concrete names, God and man, do take interchangeably one anothers
room and place; this communication of the properties is reall in respect of the person,
not verbal, and though the properties of either nature do really belong to the Divine
person, yet are they not, as I said, really communicated to the other nature, but
each nature retains its native qualities: Thus the Deity is infinite and the Humanity
is finite, in which respect all things in Christ, excepting his person, are double,
there are two natures, two wills, which are the cause and grounds of different operations,
and therefore albeit there is in the Trinity, alius & alius, yet is there not aliud & aliud, there is diversity of persons, but not of natures, but it is far otherwise in Christ,
for there is not alius & alius, that is, two persons, yet is there aliud, & aliud, diversity of natures, and hence it is, that the properties are affirmed of the person,
albeit the denomination is from the other nature, and then to prevent scandall, and
occasion of error, we are to adde such an explication, as this is, this speech is
verified of Christ according to the other nature, thus for example, when we say, Christ
the Son of God is a creature, we adde in regard of his humane nature, much more might
be added, but this which I have premised, is the principall to clear up truths, and
to confute the Adversary, because I do observe, that he is led into pernicious errours,
and draws unsound Collections from the word of God for want of understanding of the
premises, because what is spoken of the person of Christ in reference to one part,
he takes it usually as spoken of our Saviour in all his parts, and thence deduceth
his Arguments to the deluding of himself, and others, if I should thus argue a man
is mortall, subject to be annoyed by [Page 119]heat, cold; and therefore the soul of man is mortall and subject to such hurtfull
passions. Will not every intelligent Reader discern the fallacy? I shall now by the
help of God, tread in the steps of my Adversary, and returne a punctuall answer to
his writing.
Bidd.
Luke. 1.32. Jesus shall be great and shall be called the Son of the most High, not equall to his
Father, as himself confesseth, John 14.28. The Father is greater then I. The Epithete most High could not be appropriated to
the Father, and distinguish him from the Son (as v. 35. from the Holy Ghost, if the Holy Ghost had been equall to the Father) how can an expression
alike common distinguish one from another? If a Son be as high as the Father, how
can the Father be the most High?
Answ.
That Christ is the Son of God, who doubts? The Socinians fall short of truth, and
do not speak so highly of his glorious Sonship as we do, for we maintain he was so
the Son of God, that we do believe he alwayes was Gods Son, and of the same infinite
nature with his heavenly Father, and that he cannot as he was man, be called the adopted
Son of God, because to be a Son, is a personall property; persons and not natures
are born, and the humane nature being assumed into the Unity of the person (as it
were) a part of it, the whole Person, that is Christ in both natures, is called the
naturall Son of God; for so saith the Text, He shall be called, i.e. declared, manifested, and professed to be the Son of the most High, not the natural
Son of the most high, by vertue of the Holy Ghost, for then the Holy Ghost should
have been his natural Father, and the humane nature should have been Divine, because
that which is begotten is produced out of the substance of him that doth beget.
As for that Title most High, it is attributed to God. Either in respect of place.
1. Because God dwelleth in the highest heavens, which are above all created Substance.
2. Or in regard of his Essence, because he hath the most excellent and highest nature,
how low, how nothing are all creatures compared to God? 3. Or in regard [Page 120]of his Person, because both divinely inspired Scriptures, and reason sets him forth
most truly, to be a person above all created subsistences, he being independent,
and they all of them depending on him. 4. He is said to be most high in regard of
exaltation, because he is exalted above all which are thought to be, and are called
Gods. Thou Lord art exalted above all gods, Psal. 97.9.
The Title most high, is taken I grant, for the Father in this Text, and he is distinguished
from the Son of God, not simply by vertue of his Title most high, but by vertue of
the Text, it is one thing to say by this Title in this Text, the Father is onely meant,
and another thing it is to avouch absolutely that he is simply distinguished from
the Son, hereby the word Lord in many places of the Scripture is limited to Christ,
and yet by vertue of that title we cannot say he is absolutely distinguished from
God, who is often called Lord; the utmost then that can be deduced from these words,
is this, that Christ is the Son of the most high, i.e. of the Father, therefore he is not the most high Father, he is distinguished from
him in regard of his person, but not in regard of his Essence, to be most high in
it self is an Essentiall Attribute of God; they are the Personall properties, which
are proper to persons, but Essentiall Attributes are common to all the glorious Persons,
for they belong to them, not as they are persons, but as they are Gods: the Father
is most high, and the Son also is most high, and yet there are not two most high Gods,
but one most high; in this sense it is often taken in the old Testament, I will cry unto God most high, Psal. 57.2. its spoken in opposition to the creatures, he is high above all, in
power, in wisdome, in glory, yea Jesus Christ himself is stiled Almighty, and his
name is Jehovah, can there be any higher then the Almighty God, than Jehovah? to Christ
every knee must bow, Isa. 45.11. compared with Rom. 14.9, 10. and men are to know, that he whose name above is Jehovah, is the most
high over all the earth, Psal. 83.18. and this Title is not obscurely attributed by John the Baptist to the Sons of God, he that cometh from above, is above all, he that cometh from
heaven is above all. Is not [...]his verse 76. Zachary full of the Holy Ghost, said, that his Son John should be a Prophet of the Highest, meaning, as is most probable of our Saviour,
whose forerunner he was, preaching Repentance, and so fitting men for Christ, equivalent
to the most high? for the strengthening of the [Page 121]Argument out of the Psal. It is to be observed, that Christ is that person whom the Angels are commanded to
worship, Psal. 97.8. and for the true God of Israel, the God of all the earth, and that Psalm, as the Socinians themselves do grant, is
a Prophetical Psalm of Christ, for thou God art most high, for it is most fitly alledged, as a reason
why he is called the God of the whole earth, is because he is most high above all
the earth. The hils melted like wax at the presence of the Lord; To return to John Baptist endued with the life, zeal & authority that Elias had, he being his fore-runner, was to go before the face of the Lord their God, Heb. 1.16, 17. To turn the hearts of the Fathers to the children, Matth. 11.10. Mal. 3.1. Christs coming into the world, is the coming of God himself.
To the Text, John 10.28. The Father is greatet then I, the same is to shew, that he was to leave them, and go to his Father from whence
he came, this should be no discouragement to them, but matter of joy, because it will
be an advancing of him to a higher condition then he was then, and to comfort them,
in that they shall be more safely protected by his Fathers greatnesse, then by his
own corporall presence. I do observe that the Adversary would obtrude upon this usuall
fallacy, à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, for though the Son be equall to his Father touching his Deity, and in this respect
they are co-essentiall and equall in essentiall properties, as wisdome, power, equall
in Majesty, honour and glory, for he saith, the Father is in me, if the Son be lesser then the Father, how can the greater (adequably) be in the lesser,
Greg. Nyss. orat. de Deitate filii & Spiritus sancti, and he proves it, because the Son of God swore to Abraham by himself, because he had no greater to swear by, yet in a threefold respect, the
Son may be said, to be lesser then the Father.
First, because the Father, as he is the Father, is Principle of his Sons Person, though
he be not before him in nature, nor in time, nor in any Divine & Essential perfection,
which is called perfectio simpliciter simplex seu absoluta, nor in a Relative pefection which is called perfectio in suo genere, which includes something, which belongs not to another, as the Divine persons are
relatively opposed, yet with an equal perfection, yet as the Father gives & communicates
the divine Essence to the Son, but the Father hath not his eternal Essence from the
Son of God; so may he be called a Principle of his Son, greater than the Son, as a
King that takes his Son to partake with him [Page 122]in an equall power of governing his Kingdome is greater than his Son, as he is his
Father, but equall to him, as he is a man, and as he is a King; so that when in the
Athanasian Creed, 'tis said, no one in the Trinity is greater then another, 'tis meant in regard
of nature and Essentiall properties, but there was no meaning to take away the reason
of the Principle of originall; for we may not think that Athanasius contradicts himself, and he himself orat. 2. contra Arianos, near the end, acknowledgeth that in this respect the Father is greater then the Son,
he is God by a kind of Excellency in a Rhetoricall not a Logicall or Metaphysicall
sense, Bisterfield, the greater number of the Greek Fathers, which were opposite to the Arrians approve this Exposition: the Fathers of the Sardicane Councel Theodoret Histor. lib. 2. cap. 15. Basil Epistle 143 ad Caesar. & lib. 1. advers. Eunom. Damascen. lib. 1. de orthodoxa fide c. 9. and Gregory Nazianzene preferres this sense of the Text in orat. 4. de Theolog. Object. 3. before the second which shall be mentioned.
The second which is more easie to be understood, and preferred before the other by
Chrysost. and Theophilact in loc. and generally approved by the Orthodox, is this, the Son is lesse then the Father,
in respect of the humane nature which was assumed, not into the unity of the person
of the Father, but of the son of God, in this respect, the Father is simply greater
than the son, for he is the Eternal son of God and Creatour of the humanity, nor is
he in this Consideration onely lesse than the Father, but the Holy Ghost is greater
and in order before him, yea further, in this respect is he lesse then himself, as
God, he is both lesse and greater than himself, a servant and a Lord, subject, and
not subject to himself, and this with great reason, because there is but one person,
and these different attributions pertained to him in regard of the different natures,
and I adde that he was made for a short time lower than the Angels, Heb. 2. in regard of his sufferings; these words objected in saint John were spoken by Christ, as he was the son of man, and not simply as he was the son
of God; the truth her of appears by the light of the precedent words, I go to the Father, in this respect the Father is greater than I am, for as he was the son of God, he
was always with the Father, and to confirm this Exposition, it is no where said in
all the Scripture, if I mistake not, that the Holy Ghost is lesse than the first Person
of the Holy Trinity.
Thirdly, the Father may be said to be greater than the son, not simply as he was God,
nor as he was the naturall son of God by eternal generation, for so they are equall,
but in regard of his office of a Mediatour; the humane nature is the foundation of
this manner of speaking. I am my Fathers Ambassadour, and I go to my Father, as he
is sent of the Father, he that sends, as such is ordinarily greater than he that is
sent, the Son of God by divine dispensation became the son of man, died for us, sits
at the right hand of God, and is exalted by the Father to the highest honour, far
above all Principalities and Powers; in a word, the Father is greater than the Son,
if not in regard of his Divine natu [...]e, for that was not capable to acquire any new perfection, but in regard of his Office,
whereby he did more fully manifest his Fathers and his own glory. Was it never heard,
that a man hath undertaken to be a Mediatour to another man? and must this man of
necessity, because he may be said to be inferiour to another in regard of this friendy
office, be inferiour also in regard of his nature and place?
Bidd.
The Son is not equal to the Father, for he is the most high, and this Title is put
to distinguish him from the Son, for how can an expression equal to two, be apt to
distinguish one from the other? how is the Father, and that contradistinctly to the
Sonne, called the most high, if the Sonne also be the most high.
Answ.
To this Charge, I have as I suppose, returned a sufficient answer, which may be further
illustrated, your reason may be thus framed.
The Father is the most High,
The Son is not the Father,
Ergo the Son is not the most High.
This is evidently a false Syllogi [...]me, as the meanest Logician knows, and paralel to this to make the fallacy appear.
A man is a living creature,
A Beast is not a man,
Ergo a Beast is not a living creature.
The assumption or Minor Proposition in this Figure must not be negative, as it is.
If you frame your Argument thus,
The Father is the most High,
The Son is not the most High,
Ergo The Son is not the Father.
The Minor is materially false, and the Conclusion is yielded.
The Father in this Text as I have shewed, is called the most High, and by this Title
distinguished from the Son, because it is not taken absolutely, but with a limitation,
a Synecdoche generis, as appears by the circumstances of the Text: the Father is sometimes distinguished
from God Jehovah, Psalm 45.7. Heb. 18. shall we from thence conclude, that he is not God, not Jehovah? yea, and sometimes
created Angels to speak in the sense of the Adversaries, and thereby to confute them,
are called Jehovah: shall we therefore say, that the created Angels are onely Jehovah?
though Christ is not the person which is in this place understood by the most High,
yet notwithstanding, he onely is not the most High God; unlesse we shall absurdly
say, there are two most High Gods, it is a fallacy somewhat like to this.
Omnis Essentia Divina est Pater.
Filius non est Pater,
Ergo Non est Essentia Divina.
Melanchthon shewes, that there is a Fallacy à non Distributo ad Distributum: Major non potest resolvi in hanc verè Ʋniversalem.
De quocunque verum est dicere, quod est Essentia Divina, illud est Pater, for this is equally verified of the Sonne and Holy Ghost, as well as of the Father,
and this Text is so far from proving what the Adversary intends, that the Contrary
thereto is fairly concluded, for he being the Sonne of God, and by Conference with
other Scriptures, the onely Begotten Sonne, his onely natural Son, it follows, that
he is co-essentiall and co-eternall with the Father, and therefore he is true God.
Bidd.
Some from that mistaken Text, Philippians 2.6.7, 8. would inferre the Contrary, and so contradict the expresse words of Christ himself,
whereas if the place be rightly understood it maketh against them, the words and
sense being thus. Christ being in the Form of God, (for the Exercise and Demonstration
of Divine Power, whereby he wrought Miracles in as free and uncontrolled [Page 125]a manner, as if God himself had beene on Earth) thought it not Robbery (or a Prey)
to be equall with God, that is, did not esteem this equality of his with God, consisting
in the free Exercise of Divine Power to be a Prey by holding it fast, as Robbers art
wont to do when they have got a Prey or Booty.
Answ.
Thou seest (Christian Reader) into what horrible Blasphemies, wanton wits, for not
embracing the Truth in the love thereof, though Gods dreadfull Judgement may fall
both to to their own eternal ruine, if they repent not, and to the Destruction of
others deceived by them. The Adversary doth here implicitly deny, and it is his corrupt
Judgement, that God is not on Earth, but the holy Scriptures have taught us to have
more honourable apprehension of the infinite God, Psalm 139.7. where the presence of Gods Essence is clearly asserted to be in places, which
are most unlikely, if there were any such, that God be absent from them, as Hell,
and the extreamest parts of the Sea, yet God is present there, Jer. 23.23. all things are known to God. Am I saith the Lord, a God at hand, and not a God afar off? So Isa. 66.1. he is substantially present, as well to his Footstool, as to his Throne, Acts 17.27, 28. Ephes. 4.6. its a safe Rule to take Scriptures properly, unlesse manifest necessity enforceth
to take them Tropically, Augustine de Doctrina Christiana, lib. 3. cap. 10.16. how else should God be infinite? How should he be the Cause of all Physicall
naturall Actions, if he be not present with them? For the transient Actions of Spirituall
Substances require the presence of the Agents; nor is God onely in the World, but
without it also, for the World it self is finite, and Gods Essence if it were included
in the World, could not be infinite, hence wise Salomon saith 1 Kin. 8.27. That the Heaven of Heavens contains him not, the highest Heavens do not limit him, he is higher than the Heavens, the Truth is,
he is in all imaginary spaces, and nowhere in that respect now, where he was not from
Eternity; this Atheisticall Heresie is confuted by Fathers, Schoolmen, Tomb. 1. Senten. Distin. 37. and the Commentatours on their Master, and by the Unanimous Consent I thinke
of Protestants, except that abhorred [Page 126]on Vorstius and the Socinians, from whom he seems to have sucked his poyson.
The holy Apostle, 2 Phil 6.7. sets down in a few words very much what we are to believe touching the Son of
God before his Incarnation.
First, That he was a person before the assumption of our flesh, for there was a time,
so I must speak, when he had not assumed our flesh.
Secondly, because holy Angels are compleat rational substances, and therefore Persons,
to shew evidently, that he is not in the number of created Angels, he tells us, that
he was in the Form of God.
Thirdly, because the Father is God, and a divine Person by way of distinction from
him; it is said, he was in the Form of God, the Essentiall image of his Father.
Fourthly, because there are many which are called gods, which are not so by nature,
but in the opinion of Idolaters onely, or by grace and favour, as Angels, Kings and
Princes, therefore it is said he was God, and thought it no prey or injury to be so,
as Satan and Adam would have made a prey of the Divinity, a Son assumed by the Father to the Government
of the Kingdome, holds it not as a prey or robbery, for he did not forcibly take that
honour on him, but the Father gave it him.
Fifthly, least any should think that Christ, albeit he was God by nature, yet he was
inferiour to the Father, he addes that he was equall to the Father.
Lastly, against Sabellius the Apostle shews, that the Person of Christ is distinct from the Person of the Father,
for otherwise he could not be equall to him, equality is alwayes betwixt two at least.
Mr. Biddle with others, expounds not this Scripture of Christ, before the Assumption of our
nature, but they contend it is to be understood of Christ manifested in the Flesh
by his miracles to be in the form of God, and albeit the Lutherans do not abhor from this sense, that he had in his humane nature divine Majesty communicated
to him, which he might at pleasure most gloriously manifest, yet will not this be
serviceable to the Adversary, because, as they say, this follows upon the Personall
Union, and presupposeth that this man Christ Jesus was true God, which Mr. Biddle denies: he saith, [Page 127]he was in the form of God, for the free exercise of the Divine power, others adde
in governing the world, and being worshipped, these are but consequences of the Deity,
and he was God before the Creation, and when there was no Creature to worship him,
and will so continue after the generall Judgement to all Eternity.
2. Neither doth God simply rule, as God, but as Lord: God was alwayes actually God,
but not alwayes actually Lord, he was not till he had Servants subject to him, for
Dominus & servus sunt relata & simul natura.
3. If that be the form of God, then Christ was seldome in the form of God: What exteriour
form of God could the Wise men see in Jesus when he lay in the Manger? and others
when he was poor, and had not a house to lay his head in? as a worm and no man.
4. And if this be the meaning, then were the Apostles in the Form of God, though in
an inferiour degree, and gradus non mutat essentiam, for they had the gift of working miracles.
Lastly, nothing in all the world is said to subsist in its actions, but Christ should
subsist in actions, if they were the Form of God.
The Adversary asserts a monstrous piece of Divinity, that the divine Power was communicated
to a Creature; this must needs be then either when he began to be a Creature, what
needed he then have any created gifts above men and Angels? is not the light of a
Candle superfluous, when we have the light of the bright Sunshine? 1. Besides, suppose
this divine power was given to Christ at any time, this divine Power is either the
same infinite Power which is in God, or diverse from it; if the first, how can that
which is finite be capable of that which is infinite? must not the Subject either
by nature, or divine operation be proportionable to the Attribute? and how can the
same infinite vertue be communicated to the creature, to the humane nature, and not
the Divine nature it self, when these are in truth all one? and how can the infinite
Power of God which is in him, and which he doth retain be necessary and concurre to
effect that to the which the Person of God is not necessary, nor doth concur? This
is to make a divorce betwixt the natural Power of the person, and the person himself,
which implies a contradiction: if this Divine power be diverse from that of God, there
must be granted an infinite created power, which seems to be impossible; besides,
it will follow, that there are two omnipotent [Page 128]and two infinite Powers, and why may not the in finite divine Nature be multiplied,
as well as the infinite Power of God? and if the divine Nature is multiplied, there
are more Gods than one? if two Gods, why not three, four, and so in infinitum? this must be granted, or else 'tis not the divine Power which the Creature hath,
but the effect thereof.
I add, is this Divine Power a substance, or an accident? if it be a substance, then
are there two substances in Christ, which the Adver saries deny, the one must be
finite, the other infinite: besides this infinite substance being compleat and understanding,
must needs be a Person, for it is not an infinite Person, if it doth not understand
and will, and exist of it self: if it be an accident, then it is not infinite, for
an infinite Power can create a finite subject, and that in an instant, and standeth
not in need of a substance wherin it must exist, for if it was so weak that it could
not subsist of it self, and preserve it self, how then can it be called an infinite
Power? otherwise the vertue thereof is not infinite, but finite and limited.
Furthermore, it implies a contradiction, to say a property can exist out of its subject,
if it belongs to more than one, it ceaseth to be a property, and tis a common attribute,
the property of the soul cannot be derived to the body, so as to inhere in it, as
the subject of it, but the operation of the soul by such a property is in the body,
nor is it easie to be understood how in the same subject, in the same part of the
subject there can be a finite and an infinite Power, a Power limited and unlimited:
its true, that the same Person at the same time hath that power which is both finite
and infinite, but 'tis in divers natures: in the Divine, the Power is infinite, in
the humane, finite.
Again, if one property of God is communicated to a finite creature, then are they
all, for the Divine Attributes are the Divine Essence it self, his glory, his Godhead,
but the humane nature is not capable of eternity, properly so called, and therefore
of none of the Attributes, Against the Lutherans it is thus argued, As is the union, so is the communication: but the union is reciprocal, thus man is God, and God is man, but the Deity cannot
be said to be mortal, weak, therefore the humanity cannot be said to be immortal,
this cōmunication is an effect of union by emanation: we cannot say the humane nature
is God, therefore we cannot say the humane Nature is Omnipotent. [Page 129]I am not ignorant that there are distinctions which are brought to salve and qualifie
the matter, which are throughly discussed by learned men: but to be short, it is
ignominious to the Divine Majesty, that any creature should be equallized to him,
and in truth to destroy the humanity of Christ who was like us in all things, sin
only excepted; which could not be verified of him, if the Divine properties belonged
to the humane Nature of our Saviour, to say the Divine properties are communicated
to the humane, not formally, essentially, and subjectively, but per [...] is to speak without Book, for no Example in all the world can be alledged, that
any thing is in another, but it must be one of those fore-named ways, and be in a
thing either as a substance or as an accident. I grant in the Concrete (as I premised)
that the Man Christ, or Son of Man, is not in the title only, but really omnipotent,
eternal, most wise, and infinite, but the humanity of Christ is not so, nor can there
power be given to the most excellent creature which is equal to the infinite power
of the Creator.
Bidd.
But he emptied himself (in making no use of the Divine Power within him to rescue
himself out of the hands of the Officers sent to apprehend him) and took upon him
the form of a servant (in suffring himself to bee apprehended, bound, and whipped,
as servants are wont to doe.
Answ.
There are two things touching Christ, which are distinguished in this text, the one
is the exinanition of his Person in some sense, who being in the form of God, emptied
himself, or made himself of no reputation, not as he is God absolutely considered,
for so he is most simple, full of glory, power, Majesty: but as he is considered relatively,
in regard of the manifesting of himself to them for their salvation; thus he lessened,
and humbled himself from the condition of being Lord of all, to that of an ordinary
man.
Secondly, the Text declareth the submission of his Person thus emptied in these words:
he humbled himself the Adversary makes no mention of the former, which yet in the first words is only
meant, and confines the meaning of the Holy Ghost to the second: Christ emptied himself,
when he who was the eternal Son of God, the true God, infinite in all perfections
assumed our flesh into the unity of his Person, to be as we all are, truly, really
Man, by means whereof [Page 130]he is capable of meaner offices, then were consistent with the blessed Deity: the
only gain which he purchased to himself thereby, was to be capable of losse and detriment,
for the benefit and salvation of sinful Men: the Lord possessor of all things conversed
amongst men, as though he had nothing at all, his divinity was obscured in the humanity,
not in it self, but as the brightness of the Sun is by the intervening of a thick
cloud betwixt us and the body of that great light, or it was like a glass with a Candle
in it dawbed over with mire, or like a sword in a sheath not yet drawn out of it:
by these comparisons do our Divines labour to illustrate this high mystery. Mr. Biddles Exposition hath no savour in it, nor likelihood of truth, for who is so simple to
believe that Christ emptied not himself til he was 33. years old, and then being in
the form of God, yielded himself to be apprehended of the Officers?
Your Exposition of Christs taking on him the form of a servant to be whipt, is too
short, he was indeed Gods servant, but not the servant of man, nor did he wear the
ensigns of a servant to be known by, nor was he whipt as a servant, but as they counted
him seditious: besides we read of the afflictions for Christ his sake, as Paul was apprehended, bound and whipped, yet is he not said to take upon him the form
of a servant, yea, Princes have been wronged by their Subjects, apprehended, imprisoned,
yet are they not said to take upon them the form of servants, nor is it the property
of servants willingly to be whipped as Christs was for our sakes, and if some are
not deceived, Pilate scourged Jesus, John 19.1. that he might be freed from the further cruelty of the Jews.
I add, That it was no way necessary that a servant should be apprehended, whipped:
is not a servant in the form of a servant when none of these evils do befall him?
or is every one that is apprehended & scourged by the authority of a Magistrate,
a servant? servants as servants are not so handled, but as they are judged to be offenders,
as Christ spoke, Luke 22.52. Be ye come out with swords and staves to apprehend me as a Thiefe? nor did Christ when he was apprehended, and on the crosse lay down his divine power,
for when they which were sent to take him, heard him say, I am he whom ye seek, they fell backward, and then he healed the ear of Malcus which Peter had cut off, and he commanded effectually, if ye seeke me, let these my Disciples go their way, and on the cross he converted the Thief: Christs suffering of himself to be apprehended,
bound, [Page 131]as if he could no more resist than ordinary men, are not the form of a servant, but
the consequents of it, without which the form of a servant may be continued as experience,
and the name of form it self importeth.
In the old Testament the Son of God appeared often, sometimes in the likeness of a
man, he spake also to Moses out of the bramble Bush, which seemed to be on a flame, and yet was not consumed:
and he as a Conductor led the Israelites in the wilderness by a cloud; but he is not
therefore said to make himselfe of no reputation, but then did he take upon him the form of a servant when he became man, and was in
that nature [...], this is not an external, but a real form, he was really Gods servant in his humane
nature, and undertook an office designed him by God, and most faithfully obeying him
for our salvation. I do grant that we do not say, that perfect Man in state of innocency
was in the form, of a servant, or when he shal be glorious in heaven, these words
belong to Christ in the state of humiliation, as God was made Man, so was he made
a servant for man, and being omnipotent, he became weak; and being immortal, he became
mortal, not simply as he was in the form of God, for so is he always equall to his
Father, but because he became mortal to make us immortal, he took our nature, with
all the natural properties thereof, and was like us in all things, sin only excepted.
Bidd.
Being made in the likeness of men, (that is, ordinary and vulgar men, which are indued
with no Divine Power) and being found in fashion (or habite) of a Man (that is in
his outward quality, and acting no whit different from a common Man) he humbled himselfe
and became obedient to death, even the death of the Cross.
Answ.
The Apostle particularly explicates what he understood by the form of a servant, if
any one should question what that form was? was it the form of a created Angel? or
of a heavenly body? or of a new created thing? the Apostle denies all this, and tels
us he was made in the likeness of man; that is, as is confessed, of ordinary and vulgar
men; likeness here is not of imitation and representation, as Anabaptists do from
hence collect, that he is not co-essential to us, but it is of identity and participation,
as one Egg is like an Egg, and yet is an Egg in substance, and the Son is like the Father, Gen. 5.3. [Page 132]yet is he truly a man; Christ seemed not to be what he was not in truth, a man in
appearance, but he was truly a man; he was like other men both in body and soul, both
in essentials and accidentals, sin only excepted.
From the adjunct the subject is proved, he was made in the likeness of man, when
in the Virgins womb he assumed our nature, and not else properly, though it is true,
he was wrapped in swadling cloaths, was visible, palpable, as an Infant now is, and
yet is he not said upon that account to be made in the likeness of man, and mans nature
in Heaven is without hunger and thirst, and such a state wherby a man is truly obnoxious
to misery.
The Exposition of the next words may pass, if rightly understood: He was found, namely,
by those which conversed with him, in the habite in his outward condition, no whit
differing from a common man. Many of the ancient Fathers do usually compare the Son
of Gods taking our flesh into his Person to a mans putting on his Garments, Ambrose de fide contra Arianos cap. 8. Especially and most frequently doth Athenasius so speak, which holds truly in some things, that as we are not changed by putting
on our garments, nor the garments themselves by being put on; so neither is the Son
of God changed (he remains what he was) nor mans assumed nature. Christ by putting
on man as a [...]garment, did neither change his own substance, nor the substance of man, Amb. and as by putting on our garments we do not really communicate the properties of
our bodies to our garments, nor are the properties of our garments derived to our
bodies, so is it with Christ, he by taking our nature doth not communicate the essential
properties of the Deity into his soul or body: or on the contrary, the humane properties
into the Deity, and as garments do cover our bodies, so was the Humanity as a veil
to cover the Deity, that the Son of God might familiarly converse with the Sons of
men. 'Tis true, there are many dissimilitudes: as, omne simile est dissimile, for the garment doth not essentially pertain to the being of man, nor can we be said
to be born, & not til then when we are first cloathed, nor can a man be said to be
made his garments, as all these are verified of the Son of God in our nature: but
suppose the Apostle alludes not to garments in this place, as I think he did not [...], which often signifies externall habit, doth here signifie the outward appearance
of man, which doth not exclude, but include the inward being, and the reality of
his humane [Page 133]Nature in his face and outward actions; he appeared in a body, which was truly such
a one as it seemed to be: he was found, and undoubtedly known to be a true Man, they
that conversed with him had the experience and good proof thereof as if one having
the full trial of the honesty of a man, should say, I have found this man to be a
good and honest man, I have found him to be such a one, that none can with reason
doubt of his honesty.
I have now by Gods assistance examined your weak and insufficient, yea erroneous
paraphrase of this holy scripture, and will try your skill and strength in your worthy
observations, which do level at this mark, to weaken the proof of the Deity of our
Saviour, groundedly built on this text.
Bidd.
Now that this place doth not speak of an Incarnation, or assumption of humane Nature
(as they term it) nor of such an equality as is commonly conceived, is evident by
all the circumstances, first the scope of the Apostle is to exhort the Philippians
to humility, and that they would do nothing out of vain glory, to which purpose he
sets before them the example of Jesus Christ, and therefore the act of Christ which
he doth exemplifie must be manifest, since examples are wont to be taken only from
such things as are manifest, but to whom was or could that incarnation commonly talked
of be manifest, when themselves say, it passeth the understanding of Angels to comprehend
it? yea, that there was any incarnation at all made, the Scripture no where expressely
affirmeth, nor can it be so much as proved by any good consequence from thence, as
severall learned Men have shewne.
Answ.
There is no controversie about the general scope of the words, that it is to shame
the Philippians, and to exhort them to humility, and to this end he alledgeth the
Example of Jesus Christ, which is an Argument a majori ad minus, the greater is his humiliation, the more convincing will his example be to move us
to be humble. Here the Divinity of Christ is asserted, and that precedaneous to his
humiliation, the rise whereof is much increased by this unparalleld pattern of greatest
condescention, and yet nevertheless the greatest manifestation of Christ his glory:
never so much of the Divine power and glory was seen on the earth, as in this example
which was without example, the Son of God became the Son of man, and not in the form
of a glorious King, as Solomon was, but of a dispised servant, [Page 134]and albeit he contracted no sinne, either by propagation or action, yet were our sinnes
imputed to him, as our surety, to pay our debts, as the shadow of the Sun went backten
degrees, that King Hezekiah might have a certain sign of his recovery to health and happinesse, so hath the Son
of God by taking our Flesh gone back many degrees, that our sick souls might be freed
from sins, and eternally happy.
This cannot be an example saith the Adversary, because it is not manifest, no, nor
can the holy Angels comprehend it. What false and weak arguing is this? Who is so
weak, that he perceives it not? It is plainly to confound those things which should
be distinguished: it is to us manifest, that the Son of God became the Son of man,
and as Bernard, Serm. 1. de Annunciat. ventu Dom. he had a Father in Heaven, and sought a Mother on Earth; this do we stedfastly believe,
because it is attested by the infallible Testimony of the Holy Ghost, who is the first
verity, and we know, that this Sacramentum pietatis, is not Detrimentum veritatis. 1. This Assumption was [...] the natures are not changed hereby, as is a drop of water when it falls into a full
vessel of wine, and it is [...] never to be separated. 2. Death dissolves the nature, and destroyes the person of
man, but in death it self, the body and foul were inseparably united to the Son of
God, and albeit there is a greatly quickning vertue in God than there is in a reasonable
soul, and without the separation of the soul from the body, man cannot dye, yet follows
it not, that God should be separated from the flesh, that it should dye, because the
dying vertue quickens not the Creature, as the soul doth the body, viz. formally and necessarily, but efficiently, and therefore as Christ suffered when
his Divine Power was not diminished, so did he die, when life it self was not actually
separated.
Well then, it is manifest I say, that Christ is incarnated, and not onely the holy
Angels, but men of ordinary capacities do apprehend this Divine Truth, albeit, if
all Angels and Saints in Heaven and Earth should communicate their deliberate notions
one to another about this subject, though the [...] thereof be well known, yet the manner of the Union is mirabiliter singularis, and they would acknowledge this mystery to be not onely inexplicable and unspeakable,
but unconceivable and incomprehensible; it is mysterious to have three natures, the
soul, the body, and the Deity in one person, [Page 135]and the Tirnity of the Divine Persons in one individual infinite Nature, which though
men cannot apprehend by naturall Reason, yet can they submit to Gods Revelation, by
his illumination; and besides this, there are many passages of Gods providence which
are too great a deep for us to reach to their bottom, all which depths at the Revelation
of Jesus Christ shall be cleared; Reason may be an Instrument to apprehend, but no
Rule to judge of the Articles of Faith. Excellently saith Scaliger against Cardan, Subtil. Exercitat. 365. against such who would measure immensos Religionis nostrae agros augusto humanae Rationis decempede, the immense Fields of our Religion by the short Pole of humane Reason, Sec. 9. interest (saith he) & nostrae pietatis & Dei immensitatis ea sentire—quae sentire non possumus, sentire
quidem in ipso per ipsum quae per nos sentire ne queamus: which is to this effect, our piety, and Gods immensity do require, that we should
apprehend those things which we cannot apprehend, apprehend them in God, and by God,
which by our selves we cannot apprehend.
By this discourse it is evident that the ground of this inference is false, for this
condescention of Christ is manifest to us by the Eye of Faith, and the souls apprehention
of it: and is not this sufficient to be an example to a reasonable creature? will
you require that it must be manifest to our outward senses: how sensless a conceit
this is may be shewed from Examples of men: Abrahams Faith is an Example for others, but no living man hath seen Abraham or his working Faith: and so is Jobs patience, and the Prophets sufferings Jam. 5.10. as also an Example of Gods severity in punishing the Divels, casting them out
of Heaven, and reserving them in everlasting chains under darkness, that sinners also
shal be punished, Jude 4.5, 6. yea, and the holy Angels, who are to us invisible, are patterns of imitation
for us, as we pray, Thy will be done in Earth, as it is done in Heaven, viz. by the Angels; yea, and the invisible God, for who hath at any time seen the divine
Essence and glorious attributes? in regard of his visible works is an Example to us:
Doe good to your Enemies; why? for God makes his Sun to shine, and the showres of Heaven to descend for the
comfort of the worst men, yea, and we are exhorted to be holy and to be mercifull, for our God is holy and mercifull; to forgive one
another, even as God for Christ his sake hath forgiven you, Ephes. 5.2. 1. John 4.11. Math. 5.48, Luke 6.36.
The Question betwixt us is, whether the Son of God be incarnated or no: some learned
men you say deny it, and your self say, there is no Scripture for it▪ learned men
say you, I answer scarce one of a thousand, and if you should grant this, the question
was decided, and we should be agreed, and to us it is a truth not repugnant to reason,
that an infinite God should unite to himself [...] a finite creature, and though there be no equality betwixt finite and infinite, yet
is there such a proportion, as is betwixt the first Cause, and the Effect produced
by it, betwixt the Act and Power, betwixt an infinite Good, and some Good; there is
no repugnancy betwixt them and Consequents, no Contradiction is implyed in saying,
the Son of God assumed our nature, and if the Loadstone can draw iron to it self,
and unite it to it self by moving iron and it self remains immoveable, why should
it seem incredible, that God who is infinite in wisdome and power should produce
and draw our nature to himself, to be hypostatically and inseparably united to his
Person.
Scriptures we have many, both expresse and by Consequence to confirm this great mystery,
God was manifested in the flesh, 1 Tim. 3.16. John 1. The word was made flesh. Christ is called man, and he is called God, he is called the Son of man, and he is
called the Son of God, there is ascribed to him the form of man, and there is ascribed
to him the form of God; he is described, as having the properties of man, and the
properties of God also; the Actions of men, and the Actions of God, the infirmities
of man, and the power of God, the sufferings of man and the glory of God, to die as
a man, and to have the life of God, to raise himself from death, the reproaches of
man, or to have glory divine, and to be worshipped as God, these and many more Arguments
than these, are the grounds of our belief, that the Son of God was incarnated.
Bidd.
Secondly, The Apostle speaketh of our Lord as a man, in that he giveth him the Titles of Christ
Jesus, both which agree to him onely as a man, for he was called Jesus, as he was
a child conceived of the holy Ghost in the Virgins womb, and brought forth by her, Luke 1.27.30.31, 35. and Christ fignifieth the anointed, John 11.4. and accordingly Jesus is expresly called the Christ of God, Luke 9.20. but he was anointed, (as the Adversaries themselves will confesse) as a man, and not
as God: See Acts 10.38.
Answ.
The Attributes of the totum, the whole, are twofold, some of them do appertain to the whole, as it is the whole;
for example, a man consists of soul and body, and some in respect of a part, as a
man understands, and a man is visible, the one in respect of the body, the other of
the soul. Again, some things belong to the parts, as they are parts, as the soul understandeth,
which are communicated to the whole man, other things belong to the parts, as they
are in themselves considered, and which are not communicated to the whole by vertue
of the Union, as the soul is invisible, spirituall, immortall, a man in respect of
his body understands not, and in regard of the soul is not handless, mortall, to answer
this charge distinctly, it is expedient to distinguish the various A [...]tributes given to the second person of the blessed Trinity, some things are predicated
of Christ, in reference to one nature, which are called Essentiall Attributes, some
which are personall, those things which are predicated of Christ according to the
Divine nature simply, do equally belong to the first and third person, as to be God
omnipotent to have Essentiall Dominion over all things personall, to be the onely
begotten Son of God: other things are ascribed to Christ in respect of his office,
and which do belong to him in regard of both natures, either of them alwayes remaining
distinct in Essence, properties and operations: now if we speak of the Actions and
Passions of our Mediatour, as he is Mediatour, the Divine Nature is the principal
cause of them, and the Humane Nature in reference hereunto, but the instrument all;
these Titles of Christ Jesus belong to him in a different manner; to be called Jesus
or Saviour; belongs to the Son of God, denoting the final cause, but to be called
Christ, that is, King, Priest, and Prophet, appertaining to his Office by divin [...]vocation, that he might save us: this latter is a suitable means to the former, as
the end thereof, hence it is, that those Actions and sufferings of Christ, which were
requisite for his Office, and that end for which his Father sent him into the world,
as to die for satisfaction of our sinnes, to triumph over the Devil, do belong to
the same person according to both natures, he who was highest became voluntarily man,
that he might be a meet person to save us.
Observe the perpetual errour of the Adversary, that he doth [...] [Page 138]not God also, which is the controverted question betwixt us, there is not doubt at
all that Christ was true man, but that he was onely a man, neither the titles Christ
Jesus, nor any circumstances in this sacred text, Phil 2. can evince, but the quite contrary, these names and titles are distinct not confounded,
and are of a different importance, though they do belong to the same person, as for
those places quoted out of Saint Luke, to shew that he was Christ, as he was a man anointed; we grant the person was anointed,
but it was not touching his Divine nature, but in the humane nature the Texts do speak
of the Incarnation of Christ, and by Cousequence and Logicall Deduction, if not expresly
of his Divine Nature, Luke 1.35. as it is true, that thou Mary shalt be with Child of the Holy Ghost, and so continue a virgin, notwithstanding this Conception, in that thou (carnally)
knowest not a man, so is it also true that the Son which thou shalt conceive and bring
forth, shall be the Son of God, the reason is taken from the Prophesie of Isa. 1.7. v. 14. therefore in the Text is not referred to the Conception of Christ, as the cause
of his Divine Sonship, he shall be called, i.e. declared and manifested to be the Son of God, which Declaration was in time, but
he was the Son of God before all time, his name was Emmanuel, Matth. 1.20. not so called when he was circumcised, but it was nomen naturae & officii, that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the Prophet Isa. Hence is the Virgin Mary called the Mother of God, not the Mother of the Deity in the Abstract, yea, and in
this Text to the Philippians, 'tis said, he was in the form of God; he was not onely the Son of man, but he was
also the Son of God; as in regard of his humane nature, he was onely the Son of man,
so in his Divine Person simply considered, he was onely the Son of God his Father,
and albeit we cannot say, Christ as he is man, is the Son of God, yet may we truly
say, this man Iesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, and so all things in Christ, as I often said are double, natures
and properties, persons onely excepted; the wisdome of Christ, as he is God, is infinite,
the wisdome of Christ, as man, is tantum non infinita, farre above the wisdome of men and Angels.
Bidd.
Thirdly, he doth not say, that the Son thought it not robbery to be equal to the Father,
which words would indeed have plainly thwarted those formerly cited out of Ioh. 14. The Father is grater than I, but that Jesus [Page 139]Christ thought it not robbery or a Prey to be equal with God, which cannot be in respect
of essence, for he must either have the same essence in number, or a different one,
not the same essence in number, for then he will not be equal with God in essence,
but the same for equality must be in respect of two things different at least in number,
otherwise it will not be equality, but identity, thus he that is equal to another
in stature, must not have the same stature in number with the other, but different
in number, though the same in kind; but the Adversaries hold that the Father and the
Son have the same essence in number, and not in specie or kind; if Christ hath an essence in number from that of God, if it must needs also
be inferiour thereunto, there being no essence equall to his, as every one will confesse,
wherefore equality aforesaid cannot be in respect of essence, but of something else.
Answ.
It is good to change for the better, time was when Mr. Biddle gave the sense thus, Christ did not account it a prey, i.e. he did not assume or arrogate to be equal with God, or seise upon equality with God,
oh what corrupted and deceitfull dealing was this, [...], fignifieth properly a prey or booty in warre taken from enemies, and so 'tis holden
fast say you, as men hold fast their lands and necessaries for this present life,
yet Abraham, Gen. 14.23. as David 1 Sam. 3.26. held not fast the spoil of enemies, Christ counted it no prey, no robbery,
no injustice to be equall with God, [...], and to be looked upon as God, or appearing, like God, but to be equall with God,
as may be discoverd by Saint Luke 6. c. 34. to receive from others as great benefits, equally valuable, that is, the Son
of God was of the same real power and Divinity with God the Father, the Adversary
is now ashamed of the aforesaid interpretation, Eaton against Knowls, page 141. and at the end of the book, page 7. and now retracts it.
The Lord was really and eternally God when he came down from heaven, and was in Majesty
and all the Divine Attributes equal to the Father, for though the Father is not here
expressed, nor the Son, yet both must of necessity be understood, for is not Christ
the Son of God, and how can a Son be conceived without relation to his Father? besides,
is there any other God (to speak ad hominem) but God the Father? if none other, than without all evasions, God the Father must
needs be meant, nor can any made God take place here, for is not the Son of God above
them all? [Page 140]surely he is not equal, but superiour to them, observe, how by the Adversaries confession,
if it had been said, the Son is equal to the Father, the words had directly thwarted
our Saviour, The Father is greater than I am: But without controversie, Christ saith, he is equal to God the Father, we can readily
unty the knot, and reconcile these seeming Contradictions by a Distinction, he is
equall, as God, but unequal as man, but Mr. Biddles which denies the two natures in Christ can never do it, but he is entangled in the
Briars and Thorns, and so scratched, that he knows not which way to turn him.
The Father and Son I grant are one in Essence, albeit there is a difference in their
manner of having the Deity: the Son is consubstantial to his Father, according to
the Deity, and consubstantiall with us men according to his Humanity, yet with this
clear difference the Son of God hath the same individual nature with the Father,
because it is infinite and not capable of multiplication but the Humanity of Christ
being finite, is not one with ours in number (for every singular man hath his own
individual nature) but one as they say in kind, but your Supposition if equall, then
one in Essence, is a mistake, if I have not forgotten the little Logick and skill
in Metaphysicks which I had sometimes learned, for no Essence or substance, as Essence
or Substance, can in that notion be equal to another.
It is congruous to say, that upon the Unity of Essence is founded identity, upon the
Unity of the Divine Attributes, is founded similitude, and upon the Unity of Divine
magnitude is founded equality: magnitude in God, is not magnitudo nobis, sed perfectionis essentialis, if essential perfection: there is I grant, the same Power, Wisdome and Eternity in
God the Father, and God the Son, for these do absolutely belong to God as God, in
these the Father is not greater than the Son, for they are equal, equality is a property
belonging to quality, or as Logicians speak to the same degrees of quality; it is
true, as the Schoolmen speak, that the Divine esquality doth not in the formal conception
thereof include the Essence, nor the Relations of originall, but it imports the Essence
fundamentally, and the personal relation of originals, praeexigitive but there is a most pefect equality in the Divine Attributes, which have the consideration
of greatnesse, on which equality is founded, and this greatnesse is one in number
with the three Divine persons, as [Page 141]by consequence, the Unity of equality is greater in this mystery, than the Unity of
equality in the creatures, because in the former it is only numericall, but in the
creatures it is specificall, there it is indivisible, but here it is divisible: there
are three infinite eternal persons, and yet there are not three infinite creatures,
& gubernantes omnium, be cause there is but one God, but one onely Divine Essence in wisdome, power and
goodnesse equall in honour and glory, appears, because the Son as well as the Father
hath life in himself, the Son searcheth the hearts and reins, as well as the Father,
the Son quickneth whom he will, as doth the Father: the Son hath equal power with
his Father, both in heaven and in earth, and reigns with the highest authority, all
men and Angels are bound to worship the Son as they do the Father, if then the Father
be infinite, the Son is also infinite, else should there be that proportion and equality
betwixt them, as we have shewed there is.
Bidd.
Let the equality consist in whatsoever you will, it must be simple and absolutely
or else onely in part, since Aristotle according to the common notion of men, acknowledgeth in his Categories, that equality
admitteth more or lesse; not simple and absolute, for then God would not be the most
High, who hath another simply and absolutely equal with him.
Answ.
Equality to speak of that which is actuall, and not potential, presupposeth alwayes
a comparison betwixt two at least, for nothing can be equal to it self properly,
improperly it may, and as the same thing be diversly considered, as Scaliger de subtil. Exercit. 300 saith Equality in Mathematicis, est quasiquaedam unitas magnitudinum, at unitas ab unitate non differt,
est enim quantitatm aequalitas idem quod identitas substantiarum, a man may be like himself in a sort, Why then not equal to himself, as Caesar said in an Epistle to Cicero, Nihil malo. quàm & me mei similem esse, & illos sui, the Apostle saith, that false Apostles measured themselves by themselves, 2 Cor. 10.12. and its an usual thing, such a saying was done by such a man like himself,
that is, according to his ordinary practice, well or ill yet properly as nothing is
sibi simile, so can nothing be equal to it self, nor can it be said, (if we will speak as we ought
to doin disputation) as you do, that which is equal is absolute, because to be equal
is a Relative Term, Aequale est aequali aequale, and it is a Contradiction to say, they which are equall doe admit co nomine [Page 142]of more or lesse, there are qualities indeed which may be intended and remitted, but
quantities caunot ex parte sui, and it is a rule in Aristotle quite contrary to this Assertion, Quantitas non recipit magis & minus, for if the one be more or lesse in reall or vertual quantity, then as Logicians speak,
the comparison is drawn from unequals, either a majore ad minus, or contra in other respects, things compared together may be more or lesse, but you destroy
equality, if the one in that comparison be greater or lesser than the other, for it
is a rule in Logick, mutatâ affectione mutatur Argumentum.
Otherwise say you, God is not the most high, yet in comparison of all creatures, they
are infinitely below him, but not most high exclusively, in regard of the Son and
holy Ghost, as I have formerly shewed.
Bidd.
Besides that description would be superfluous, which the Apostle useth, saying, He
being in the form of God, for if this Description be, (as indeed it ought to be and
is) pertinent to the thing in hand, it intimateth that this equality of Christ with
God ought to be extended no further, then as he was in the form of God, but the form
of a thing, as appeareth from the common acceptation of the Word, and from that following
clause, he took upon him the form of a servant, and also from those words, Mark 16.22. after that he appeared in another form unto two of the Disciples, is something visible
and outward.
Answ.
This Description of Christ to be in the form of God, is so fat from being superfluous
to prove his equality with the Father, that it is the most certain and infallible
ground thereof, nor could he have been equal to God the Father if he had not been
in the form of God, the Text saith not the form of God became man, that is, the Divine
nature simply and absolutely considered, but he that is the person, which was the
Son, being truly God became man, and by a natural and unavoidable consequence, he
was equal to his Father, this is enough to overthrow all your building, this form
of God doth not signifie the Divine Nature simply and precisely, and notionally abstracted,
but the Divine Nature with Divine Majesty, glory and power, and then this is the sense,
Christ who was God full of glory and power took on him the form of a servant.
Whereas you say, the form is something visible and outward, [Page 143]sometimes it is so, but not alwayes; for form signifies not onely an external shape,
but sometimes an inward form, of it self invisible, the forms of all natural things,
as all Philosophers know, are internal, and invisible, and so is the form of God,
the Divine Nature a most simple infinite being, in [...]t self not seen, and yet in some sense Saints and Angels in heaven do see the face
of God, and in such a sense the form of God [...] s [...]le, not onely to the sacred Trinity, and to those ceastial furstances, but in the
effects thereof his form is delared and mainieffed [...]t some times to mortal creatures, and in this sense he being first in the form of
God assumed, afterwards into his person the form of a Servant, that is, the humane
nature, with the natural infirmities to which it was obnoxious.
The place in Mark 16.22. proves nothing at all, sometimes the form of a thing is taken for the external
shape thereof, therefore it must be taken so in this place, this Inference is apparently
false, I adde that this form supposed the true substance of a man. What was this form
in which Christ appecare [...]? i [...] proves no real change that he had another form in regard of his colour, eys, countenance,
& stature like unto Polypus changing his shape often; this other form was onely in the apprehension of these
two travellers, and it is spoken [...] according to their apprehension, and this appears by Saint Luke, which sets down more langely the same story, then S. Mark, and saith, Luke 24.16. That their eyes were held, that they did not know Christ. Why should their eyes be held? Doth not this imply, that their not knowing him, was
not because Christs body was diversified from it self but because God by his providence
so disposed and held their eys, that they were ignorant and knew not that it was Jesus
that talked with them, they saw a traveller that he came to them, journeyed with them,
and discoursed with them, and therefore [...] in this respect signifies a true man with his outward appearance, and the case was
then like this, a stranger walks with us, and converseth with us, suppose the space
of an houre or two, though we know not his Countrey, his name, his course of life,
his form was the form of a man, and he is a true man, though we be ignorant of such
particulars.
Bidd.
The equality is neither in the Essence nor power of any thing, but onely in the exercise
and Demonstration of power, the Son of God was equal to his Father, in regard of
the Divine power of working Miracles, [Page 144]and in regard hereof he was also in the form of God, as the Apostle John explaineth it, John 5.18. saying, the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he had not onely broken the
Sabbath, but in saying God was his Father, making himself equal with God, which is
not so to be understood, as if Christ by calling him Father, made himself equal to
God, for this is a manifest absurdity, since the very appellation of Father implyeth
a Prerogative above the Son, in that a Sonne, as he is a Son is beholding to the Father
for his being.
Answ.
The foundation, that is, the interpetation of this Text given by the Adversary being
destroyed, how can such Inferences stand upright?
First, I say these words are neither true, for you have not yet proved, nor can prove,
that the Son of God is not equal to his Father in regard of the Divine Power, nor
do they agree to your own words, page 10. there you say, the Divine Power was within Christ; the Exercise then of his
Power was visible I grant, but not the power it self, who sees that which is within
a man, but by the effects? nor are they but short of what other Socinians hold, not
limiting the form of God, to the Exercise and Demonstration of the Divine Power of
working Miracles, but to extend it to the government of his Church, and to the worship
which is exhibited to him. Your Exposition is so short, that if it be true, Christ
should not now be in the Form of God (which you will not avouch) because no visible
Miracles are now wrought by him.
Secondly, The words agree not to the Adversaries Position and Exposition of the other
words, the form of a servant denotes the humane nature, with humane infirmities, and
by proportion the form of God must signifie the Divine nature with Glory and Power,
and the Exercise and Demonstration thereof when he pleased.
Thirdly, the Adversary crosseth the words of the Article, saying, Christ in working
Miracles was equal to God, for I would willingly learn of him, how the second and
subordinate cause can be equal in working with the first and Supream cause? Where
there is equality, there may be co-ordination, but no subordination, as you grant
there is in working, and if they be equal in their Operations, why not in Power, Glory
and Worship.
This assertion of this equality cannot be satisfied, for this power exercised by
Christ, was either finite, or infinite; for there is not, nor can be named a third,
if you will say it was finite, I do then conclude, that it was not equal to that
which is infinite; if infinite. I then demand, how that which is finite can be so
far advanced, as to be capable of that which is infinite? can you shew any probable
reason for that which you boldly plead for, that any meer creature should make use
of the infinite power of God when it pleaseth? is an infinite power instrumentall
to man? what is this else but to make a Creature the first cause, and Gods power,
which is God himself, to be subordinate to him?
To the exception of the Jews, John 5.18. they objected, not against our Saviour simply, because he wrought a miracle,
but because trey in their superstitious rigor adhering to the Letter of the Law, thought
he had violated the Sabbath days rest, Christ replieth to this. God my Father, whose
example I do follow did not so rest on that day, but that ever since he sanctified
it, he hath done works of mercy and preservation every day, and why may not I his
Son do so also without reprehension? but the chiefest cause indeed why the Jews were
angry with him, was, because he called God his Father; and made himself thereby, as
they justly inferred, equal to him, and in the former verse he saith, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work: wherein we may note three things: first, that the work of the Father and Son is
one work, the same work is common both to the Father and the Son, wrought by the
same Divine power, in that he useth the present tense, doth work: this is proper to God, to whom all things are present. And thirdly, that he always
wrought the fame works with his Father, he worketh hitherto at all times, the works
are the same: and hence in the fourth place did the Jews infer, that he made himself
the natural Son of God, and equal with his Father: the Jews truly conceived this to
be the meaning of Christ, though they did not believe him; but Mr. Biddle is more dull then they were, and doth neither appprehend the meaning of the words
so well as the Jews, nor believe them.
To your Argument I answer, that there is a prerogative of a Father above a Son in
humane, but not in divine generation; this Arguing is falacia non parium, tis a matching and comparing things together as equall, which are in the main unequall;
for it cannot be proved, that there is in Biddles sense a prerogative in the Divine [Page 146]persons either in nature, or divine Attribute, the Father (as is not desired) is a
Principle of the Son, and yet to speak properly, the Son was not beholding to his
Father, for his being, as by an uncouth phrase, the Adversary speaketh, as children
are to their Parents, who do voluntarily, and in time beget them, but God the Father
necessarily and from his intrinsecall Principle begets and could not do otherwise
but beget his Son, and therefore from all Eternity begot his Son, and therefore is
he co-eternal with his Father.
Bidd.
Again, the words would have run thus, thereby making himself equall with God, not
simply making himself equall with God, but because by uttering those words, John 5.7.17. My Father worketh hitherto, and I work, he did both say, that Godwas his Father,
and in working made himself equal with God.
Answ.
It is lost labour to spend precious time about such trifles, the Adversary seeks
a knot in a bulrush, and being ready to sink by the weight of this clear Scripture,
catcheth at a rotten stick, which will do him no service; for from whence I pray you
did the Jews collect, that Christ made himself equal with God? was it not because
he wrought the same works which his Father did, and chiefly because he called God
his Father, his natural Father, and consequently, that he was not himself his adopted,
but his natural Son? and it is a hard Task to shew how Christ could be equal to God
in working, if he was not equal to him in subsisting.
Bidd.
Furthermore, had Christ been simply and absolutely equal with God, how could he be
exceedingly exalted by God, since by this reckoning he would become higher than God
himself? which is not onely absurd, but blasphemous to imagine.
Answ.
The person of Christ, or whole Christ was equal to his Father, and thus, he could
not really be exalted to God in regard of essentiall glory, yet in regard of the manifestation
of that glory obscurd (as it were) and vailed by our flesh, as the Sun by a cloud,
he may be said to be glorified by his Father, John 17.5. as Saint Ambrose observeth de Fide contra Arianos cap. 8. though whole Christ was equal to the Father, yet the whole of Christ was not equal,
he had a humane nature, which was truly inferiour to God, and in [Page 147]that, and as he was a Mediator, he was highly exalted, and sits at the right hand
of God, and gloriously triumphs over his enemies, protects and advanceth his loyal
subjects, and is honoured and worshipped by them.
Your inference, if Christ be equal with God, and excedingly exalted by him, then he
should be higher than God, who is most high, is both absurd and impious, this he seems
to have learned from Paul Best, who strongly, as he soolishly thought, argued against us from our own Principles,
if Christ be equal to his Father as touching his Godhead, then by the addition of
the glory superadded to the humane nature, he would be higher then the highest, chapter 5. for to adde to equals makes them unequalls, I answer, this rule is good, and holds
infinite things, but not when we do speak of the infinite God, for God contains eminently
and vertually all created perfections, insomuch that the whole world addes nothing
above Gods perfection, intensivè and whether it addes extensivè is not materiall, and I leave the decision hereof to the determination of the Schools,
for as an imaginable addition of millions of years to Eternity, doth not make Eternity
one jot longer than it is, so the assuming and glorifying of a created being, taken
into the personall Union of an infinite being, can adde nothing in greatnesse to the
invisible, and indivisible God, What is a drop of water, that falls into the Sea to
make it greater than it is? and suppose it should imperceptibly do so, yet would
it not follow, that God could be made greater than he is by the addition of any created
excellency for the Sea is finite, and God is infinite, and betwixt these, two there
can be no equall proportion?
Bidd
In the fourth place, had the Apostle here spoken of the humane nature, he would not
have said, that Christ came in the likenesse of man, and was found in fashion as a
man, for if man, (as the Adversaries must hold, when they alledge this place to prove
that Christ assumed a humane nature, and became man) be considered here acording
to their essence and nature, this would imply that Christ had not the essence and
nature, but onely the likeness and fashion of a man, and so was not a true and a reall
man, by man therefore here are meant vulgar and ordinary men, for so this word is
elsewhere taken in Scripture, as Psalm 82.6. Ye shall dye like men, Jud 16.7. Then shall I be weak and become as one of the men, and verse 11. like other men.
Answ.
Take notice (Christian Reader) how the Adversary contradicts himself, and so palpably
that he cannot salve it, and when he would hurt he helps us, he had not the Essence
and liknesse of a man, and so was no true man, and by men are meant ordinary and vulgar
man. Are not these true men? He was like vulgar and ordinary men who denies it? As
by the form of God, is not the Divine Nature cloathed, if I may so speak with glory
and Majesty? which is in it self nothing but the Divine Nature, albeit it is by a
rational conception distinguished from it, so do we understand by the form of a servant
the nature of man, with the ordinary infirmities thereof, nor doth it follow from
hence, that he was not true man, but rather the contrary, for likenesse here, is not
of representation, but of identity and participation, he took on him the form of a
servant, so un [...]ting the Godhead and manhood together in the unity of person into one Christ, as
the reasonable soul the flesh is united into one man, a distinction there is of the
Natures, but no Confusion of Substances. He was made in the liknesse of man, the
Apostles meaning is, he took not on him the Nature and qualities of Angels, but he
took the seed of Abraham our nature into his person, and with our nature all the properties thereof, as the
Faculties of understanding, willing, which are inseparable from the reasonable soul,
and those accidentall ones, which are separable from man, which belonged to him in
the state of humiliation, all defects which are without sinne, and which do belong
to the condition of all men, as to be mortal, hungry, thirsty, weary, heavy; he was
conceived in his mothers womb, like other men and continued in that dark place, the
same length of time, that ordinary conceptions do, he was born in the fullnesse of
time, and his mother gave him suck, as other mothers are accustomed to do to their
children, he was obedient to his Parents, as all other children ought to be, he had
all sinless infirminties, which are natural and not personal, because he took not
the person, but the nature of man into his blessed person, so much and no more can
be inferred from these words.
Bidd.
Fifthly, when it is said (but emptied himself, this implyeth, that if Christ had not
emptied himself) of that divine form, he had thought it a prey to be equal with God,
which cannot be without the implication of a contradiction, or which is worse, of
blasphemy, be affirmed of God, but [Page 149]Christ had thought it robbery or a prey, to be equal with God indoing miracles if
he had not laid aside the Exercise and Demonstration of divine Power, and if he had
not fallen into the hands of his adversaries, as a weak and vulgar man, for unlesse
he had done so, he had disobeyed the commandement of God, and consequently thought
his Divine form to be a prey, not a gift of God, and that it was to be kept on for
his own Glory, not put off for the Glory of God.
Answ.
There is little sense or reason, much lesse sound Divinity in this long mishapen Consequence,
and a false interpretation of Christs emptying himself, which imports that his manhood
was not forcibly imposed upon him, but that he voluntarily descending from his Majesty,
was partaker of our misery: the Angels which kept not their first estate were cast
down from heaven, and reserved in everlasting Chains under darknesse, unto the Judgement
of the Great Day, but the Son of God, when he was equal unto God in fulness of Power,
Glory, and Majesty, abased himself, and of Almighty, made himself full of infirmities,
and of immortal, mortall.
S. Chrysostome doth most excellently and copiously discourse on this Text, and saith, it is an active
two edged sword, which cuts in pieces a thousand Enemies or ranks of men which oppose
it, because nothing can withstand the sharpnesse thereof, of this force are the words
of the Spirit, whereby he casts down the Heresies of Arius, a Presbyter of Alexandria, of Paulus Samosatenus, of Marcellus the Galathian, of Sabellus the Lybian, of Marcion of Pontus, of Valentinus and Manes the Lybian, of Apollinaris of Laodicea, of Photinus, of the Sophronii, and of us Hereticks, which are all cast down to the ground with one blow: it is
a comfortable Spectacle to see all Enemies, and the Power of the Devil overthrown
with this Sword of the Spirit; after this General he runs over the Particulars, what
Paul speaks of Christs emptying himself is not spoken, but in reference to what follows
(it is not in those words specified how he emptyed himself) he was in the form of
God, as the precedent words declare, & had he so continued for ever, it had been the
losse of our happinesse, but no diminution of his own Glory, and least any Christian
should conceive, that albeit he was glorious, yet was he not so glorious as his Father,
but unequal and inferiour to him.
The Apostle wisely prevents such erroneous conceits, and informs us in expresse forms,
that he was equal to his Father, and if one should further inquire, whence this equality
betwixt them should arise, he tells us, that he hath it not by violence and unjust
usurpation, which to be sure could not possibly be attained by unjust means, as our
first Parents by a proud disobedience indeavoured to be like him Gen 3.5. S. Chrysostome argues acutely, if Christ was far inferiour to God, how could he possibly snatch
power, and forcibly raise himself to be equall with God! a man cannot by any rapine
make himself equal to an holy Angel, nor can a horse, if he would attempt it, raise
himself up to be equall with man, shall we commend a private mans low estate, when
'tis apparent he cannot be a King? he is then equal by nature and eternal generation,
and albeit he had never been made flesh, but remained alwayes in the form of God,
yet the son of God, without any unjust usurpation or robbery (which is done by them
which ascribe equality of any thing with God, (as you do Mr. Biddle) which is not God) the son I say, had been equal to his Father then follow those
words, but he emptied himself, viz. by being made man, to suffer and dye, to make a reconciliation betwixt God and man,
for which condescention and obedience, his Father highly exalted him, whereas had
he been a meere creature, and the Father his Lord by Creation, his humbling himself
to death, could not have been satisfactory and in reference to the Father, would
not have been thanks worthy; his obedience was onely in the humane nature, but he
emptying himself to become flesh, was a voluntary condescention, full of glory, wherein
the Fathers will concurred with his, to glorifie both lustice and mercy towards God
and man, which plainly proves that Christ did not by compulsion but voluntarily vail
his glory in our flesh. for he pefectly knew his own greatnesse, and his equality
with the Father, and that he might if his pleasure had been so, have retained it
without cover, as he had formerly done in heaven, and that from all eternity, or openly
shewed it to all with whom he conversed on earth, if he had pleased so to have done,
but out of his surpassing Charity to man for his salvation, he as it were laid aside
his glory for a time of his own accord, I mean the m [...]n festation of it, knowing that it should break forth again, as the Sun out of a
cloud, and shine in his full brightnesse.
This is a cle [...]r Paraphrase of this Text, but the Advesaries offer [Page 151]violence to it, and is irrational, and confounds those things which are to be disjoyned,
wherein is Christ equal with God, it is say you, in the exercise of a Divine Power,
1. In working Miracles, and this was the form of God, but Christ was in the form
of God, before he was in the form of a servant, as the Socinians grant, but he was
in the form of a Servant, as soon as he was man. 1. Subject to infirmities, hunger,
thirst. 2. Subject to the Law, as Circumcision, Gal. 4.4.3. and of a mean condition. Besides, form is sometimes so taken for an accidental,
and often for a substantial form, but never for an Action which is exterior, as Saint
Chrysostome observes, and 3. if working Miracles was to be in the form of God, then the Apostles
which had the gift of working Miracles, were also in the form of God, which is never
in Scripture said of them. 4. I adde Saint Chrysostomes Reasons, The form of God is opposed to the form of a servant in this place. Now
what is the form of a servant? Is it not to converse with other men like them in an
exteriour form? it signifies not a work, but the nature of men, in appearance like
other men: 5. and it is not onely a Contradiction, but blasphemy to say, that a Creature
can be equal to the Creatour, in any imaginable perfection, to say, that Gods Poweris
communicated to him, either this must be intrinsecally, so that the man Christ should
be omnipotent, which is impossible, or extrinsecally, because the omnipotent God
dwelleth in him, the Apostle then had spoken nothing touching the singular excellency
of Christ in kind, for on this account the holy ones should be equal with God, for
they are all of them the Temples of God, in which he doth dwell, we may observe that
Christ is said, to be made flesh, but never to be made God,
This form of God say you, is a gift of God. I do distinguish of gifts, a gift is either
accidental to him to whom it is given, as faith, knowledge, Ephes. 1.2, 8. faith is the gift of God I have given thee (Salomon) wisdome, or essentiall; God giveth to every seed its own body, 1 Cor. 15.38. this form of God may be called a gift actually given in time for us,
John 3.16. but not a gift in your sense, as he was in the form of God, for he was so before
all time, the Divine Nature being communicated to him by eternal generation. I adde,
that it is against experience to think a man cannot have a gift from God, and know
it to be so indeed (as in the extraordinary gift of tongues and working miracles)
but he must think it to be a [Page 152]prey and not a gift of God, if he useth it not to his honour that gave it; it is true
that the holy One in all miracles wrought by him, and when he manifested his Glory
to his Disciples, sought not his own glory, but the glory of God; yea many gifts are
held forth and held fast which are not a prey, as Eloquence, Beauty, Strength, Houses,
Friends, yea, when some of them cannot be kept at some time without Gods dishonour,
and that in suffering times. Further, seeing, as you say, he was to lay aside his
Divine Power, that he might suffer according to the Will of God, it is consequential
that this gift was not equally in God and in him, but that he was in the use thereof
subject to God, and would not act in this kinde in as free and uncontrouled a manner
as God himselfe, which is contrary both to your own Exposition and the truth.
Mr. Biddle concludes his long and tedious discourse and sinfull paines, to corrupt this precious
Text by false Glosses, with an admiration, and in a triumphing manner, as if he had
quite discomfited his Adversaries, and clearely won the Field, and yet let the Reader
well observe, that notwithstanding all his shifts, he hath not brought one instance,
nor possible can he do it to shew one instance, that Forme is taken any where for an externall and visible action, which yet of necessity
must be done if he look to win any credit to his wretched forgeries,
Biddle.
I can never sufficiently wonder at the stupidity of men, because Christ Jesus thought
it no robbery to be equal with God, do conclude, that he is therefore God; for is
it possible for any man to be equall to himself? must not he that is equal with any
one, be supposed not to be he with whom he is equall.
Answer.
And I do also wonder with you, and at your wonder, and do tell you-that were you not
hardned with affected ignorance, with the power of prejudice and self-conceitedness,
you would not shut your eyes against the luster of the brightness which shines forth
out of the Text, to prove the Diety of the Son of God, you would not take such groundless
fancies as you have done for real truths, not unlike herein to a child which takes
the raiking of the clouds to be an Army of men; it is true, as you argue, one cannot
be equal to himself, because every comparison requires more then one, God the Son
is not equal to God the Son, we are not so [Page 153]stupid to avouch it, but to God the Father, God the father, and God the Son, are one
in Essence, not in personality, are you a writer and pretender to Learning and know
not this? May not he that runs read this in Gods Word, and in all Orthodoxall Writers?
but it seems, that you to make an impression on ignorant souls by the help of a word,
viz. God, which is of various significations, will professe at least not to see that
which one would think you cannot avoid to see, that God is taken essentially, when
it is said, Christ was in the form of God, and personally when it is said, he was
equal with God.
I will close up this Discourse on this Text, by recollecting & representing to the
view of the Reader, the Arguments which this singular Scripture holds forth to prove
the Deiy of our blessed Saviour.
He that is equal to God, is God,
The Son of God is equal with God, Ergo
No accidental form can infer equality with God, for whatsoever God is, and whatsoever
is in God, is the Divine essence, which is alwayes one and the same.
2. The form of man which the Son of God assumed, was not essential but accidental
then Christ was not true man, as in this member true man is described, so by the same
reason, by the form of God is proved, that the Son of God is true God, Tertul. contra Mar. l. 1. c. 20. [...]3. The concession of the adversary evinceth it, for whosoever represents God the
Father in Power, Life, and Works, he must needs have the same nature with the Father,
for none can perform the proper actions of another equally which partakes not of
the same nature and essence, and which hath it equally or eminently, as common sense
and reason demonstrate, if Glory and Power which is simply Divine, should be communicated
to the Humane nature, then that which is infinite should, as it were, be trausfused
to that which is finite, and that which is finite should be advanced to an infinite
being or an infinite property, would cease-to-be infinite and become finite, now
sithence the Divine properties are really the same with God himself, the humane nature
in this concession would be omniscient, omnipotent, and infinite, which is to overthrow
the nature of a Creature.
Bidd.
Let us now proceed to other Scriptures, 1 Corinthians 8.6. To us there is but one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are [Page 154]all things, and we through him; by all things here are not meant all things simply,
but all things pertaining to our salvation, as is evident both in that he speaks to
Christians and also putteth an Article before the word (all) in the Greek, which implyeth.
a Restriction.
Answ.
This Text hath been fully discussed, page 99. and defended against the Cavils of the Adversary, and retorted against him, by
sundry Arguments out of the Text it self, God as considered without persons, is not
a person, not precisely Father, Son or holy Ghost, but signifies the Divine Essence,
which subsists in three Persons, but here its taken for God the Father, who is described
by his proper effect in opposition to Idols, he creates and governs all things, which
idol gods cannot do, and the very same things are ascribed to God the Son also, as
all Creatures are from the Father, so are they also by the Son: Ob. 1 the latitude in the Text is equal to them both, but (saith he) all things not simply
are by Christ, but all things pertaining to mans salvation, because he speaks to
Christians, this reason is confuted by the Text, for doth not he speak to Christians
also, when immediately before he mentions God the Father, and may not Chhristians
to their great benefit be informed of the great works of our Saviour, in creating
and governing the world? must they hear of nothing, but what directly appertains to
their salvation?
The second reason, Ob. 2 is, because the Apostle puts an Article before (all) [...], which implyes a generall restriction, to this I answer in a few words, why is there
a restriction more in this clause, than in the former, where all things are referred
to God the Father, or will you exclude him from having a principall hand in our salvation?
Articles have many uses, and are not alwayes taken by way of restriction, but as in
this place by way of amplification? to this effect, there is one God the Father, who
is without condescension of his Person, in the oeconomie of our salvation, from whom
are all things. First of all in regard of the order of working, and his Son who makes
all things, and by whom they do subsist, emptied himself to be our Saviour, and as
by the absolute Power of Christ over the Creatures, the Father is not excluded from
the Government of the world, no more can it be soundly inferred from those words,
we have one God the Father, the Son is excluded from being God.
Bidd.
Acts 2 39. Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made this same Jesus whom
you have crucified both Lord and Christ, Philip. 2.9.10. he humbled himself to death, wherefore God hath highly exalted him above every name, 1 Pet. 1.21. God raised him (Jesus) from the dead, and gave him glory, John 12 44. he that believeth in me, believeth not in me (onely) but in him that sent me, Rom. 1.8. I thank my God, through Jesus Christ, that your faith is spoken of through the world, Rom. 16.17. To the wise God through Jesus Christ be glory for ever. These five places last quoted,
shew that the Glory and thanks we give to Christ, and the trust and hope we place
in him, do not rest in him, but through him tend to God the Father, and consequently,
that the Son is not equal to the Father, but subordinate to him.
Answ.
These five Texts are alledged to little advantage of the Adversaries, as appears
by the particulars.
To the first Text, I answer, 'tis to be observed, that 'tis not said, he made him
God, which is impossible, but Lord and Christ; there is a double Lordship of Christ,
the one is Eternall, as was his Essence, so was his Lordship communicated to him
from all Eternity: as Christ is God by nature, so is he also Lord by nature, for Dominion
cannot be separated from Deity, hence is he frequently called Jehovah, and the Lord
God Almighty, and in this sense he was not made Lord, Secondly, the Lordship of Christ
is officiall, and this Lordship belongs to him, as he is our Mediatour; he was made
Lord, as he was Mediatour, this is not a necessary, but a voluntray Lordship, which
sometimes was, and might have been alwayes separated from the Son of God, this was
assumed, and by Counsel (his Fathers and his own) and taken up in time, as the Office
of a Mediatour was, and this appertains to Christ as he is God-man, depends upon
the former Lordship, is exercised by vertue of it, and it declarative of it, he was
truly Lord before his Resurrection Ye call me Lord, Lord, and ye say well, for so I am, John 13.13. And he saith, all things are delivered to me of my Father, Matth. 11.27, and before his Ascension, he saith, all power is given to me, both in heaven and in earth, Mat. 28.19. and from his Nativity, he was Gods Son, and born a King, Gal. 4.4. John 18.37. and by his Miracles, which he wrought, his Divine Power was declared; so that
by his being made Lord in that Text, is not the conferring of Lordship on him [Page 156]simply, but the more clear manifestation and execution of the Acts of his Dominion.
The Scriptures alledged, Phil. 2.9. 1 Pet. 1.21. and that Acts 2.36. do shew, that Christ had laid down all our natural infirmities, and a Sacrifice
made to offended Justice, and a ransome paid for offenders, he acquires novum jus Domini, & novum jus Imperii, as Soveraigne Power over the World, or at least the Power which he formerly had,
he now fully makes use of, [...], which he could have demonstrated before, as appears. John 18.6. he struck down the Jews with a word as with a thunderbolt this dominion then
was given unto him declaratively or by way of reward, & he was advanced in his humane
nature to the highest degree of glory that a creature was capable of. God made this
God man the Prince of the Church, that he was exalted in our nature above Angels,
Principalities and Powers, for the Name above every name respects every name of creatures,
and not of Christ himself, for he had a greater Name, as God-man, tobe called a Saviour,
and none else could be called a Saviour in that sense as he was called, and this
Name he had, not onely as the Son of God, but as God and man, for whole Christ is
our Saviour, it was then above every Name the Creatures had, yet it was not a greater
Name than Christ himself had before this time, for he was called God, and the Son
of God, which are Names of Essence, and do naturally imply Lordship, this Name in
the Epistle to the Philippians was given to him in time, and there is a greater belonging to him, which he had before
all time, none of these quoted places do prove that Christ was onely man, and not
truly God, which yet was necessarily requisite to bee done by the Adversary. Can this
Writer shew, that any of ours do not acknowledge all this to be true? Christ doth
at this day, sitting on the right hand of God retain the Properties of the Humane
Nature, and what ever accrued to him by his Exaltation, was onely in a finite manner.
It is true, the Glory of the Son redounds to the Glory of the Father, Philippians 2.21. and that we believe in God through Iesus Christ, 1 Pet. 1.21. and Christians by believing on Christ, do not depart from the living God, but
do indeed more firmly depend on the Omnipotent God, who hath raised him from the
dead, Iesus Christ cryed and said, He that believes [Page 157]on me, believes not in me, but in him that sent me, Iohn 12.44. Where there is Antanaclysis i e. one word in the same verse is used in a different sense, if this be not granted,
there is a plain Contradiction, which is not to be admitted, believeth on me, believeth
not on me, viz. onely or according to the false opinion of the Jews, who believed he was onely a
man, yea, an impostour, and had no Commandement from God to teach, and by consequent
they were not bound to believe in him. This Scrcipture is no Disadvantage to us, but
strongly proves Christ to be God, and one in Essence with the Father, in that he saith,
He that believes in the Son believes in the Father, whose Commission he had, and whose Doctrines he taught, both persons equally are
the Object of a Christians faith.
To the last Scripture, Rom. 16.27. To God onely wise, I answer, God the onely wise God, infinitely wise, the Fountain of Wisdome, and
by his Son being made flesh and dying for our salvation, Gods Wisdome is revealed
to the World, if the first Person had been meant, the Son and Holy Ghost had not
been excluded, but the creatures onely, as Saint Chrysostome hath well observed; the word onely is taken, diversly, sometimes to exclude all other
persons, as Elias complained, I am left alone, 1 Kings 19.14. sometimes to exclude strangers, as Balaam prophesied when the people shall dwell alone, and Job 31.17. If I have eaten my morsels alone, and the Fatherless have not eaten thereof. In the former sense, the Father alone begets the Son, in the latter the Father alone
is to be glorified, how is he simply alone when the Father is in the Son, and the
Son in the Holy Ghost, Iohn 14.17. I am not alone, but the Father is with me, Iohn 16.32. and therefore the Fathers being the onely wise God, excludes not the
Son, because of the identity of the same undivided Essence both of the Father and
Son.
This is the most common and received answer, there is another related by learned
Iunius. The Text evinceth, not that the name of God is to be taken personally, and that the
Father by reason of the mention of Iesus Christ is onely meant, for Christ in a relative
opposition, is considered in a twofold consideration, either according to nature
or a gracious occonomie; according to nature, and so the Opposition is ad intra, as the Schoolmen speak, when the second person relates either to the first, the
Father, or else to the third Person of the Sacred Trinity, and when so, God is taken
Personally, but [Page 158]the Relation in regard of the mystery of Grace, is ad extra, when Christ hath reference to the Church, being as the head to the members, for
their incorporation and preservation in the mysticall body; in this respect the person
of Christ is taken singly by himself, or with his Members joyntly, 1 Cor. 12. and called Christ; so is Christ in this sense, the words run thus, that Jesus
Christ, who is God in the Unity of Essence with the Father and the Holy Ghost, is
the head and Saviour of his body by the dispensation of graces, and by vertue of the
head the Church, gives Glory to him who is God alone, working in his Members effectually,
Fphes. 3.20.21.
It is confessed, that as we have all spirituall blessings from God the Father by the
hand of our Mediatour, so all our returns of Prayers and Prayses to God for all, if
they are acceptable, are by Jesus Christ, Col. 3.17. without whom none of our Sacrifices can please him, but this doth not prove,
that Christ is not God, and by consequent as you say, subordinate to God, but that
he is our Mediatour to God, and in that respect, as he is man, and Mediatour, inferiour
to him, and not as he is God, for the Glory which is due to God the Father, is due
also to his Son, being Authour of the grace for which he is to be honoured.
Bidd.
1 Cor. 15.25.28. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the Kingdome to God, even the
Father, when he shall have put down all Rule—for he must reign untill he hath put
all his Enemies under his feet, and when all things shall be subdued, then shall the
Son himself be subject to him, that put all things under his feet, that God may be
all in all. It is here said that Christ shall reign till he hath put all enemies under
his feet, which done he shall deliver up the Kingdome to God the Father, and become
subject to him, but how could these things come to passe, if Christ were the most
High God? certainly by so doing, Christ should cease to be the most High God, for
without Controversie he to whom any one becometh subject, is higher than he that becometh
subject.
Answ.
The summe of this Argument is to this effect,
He that shall give up his Kingdome, and cease to reign is not the most high God, but
Christ shall do so, as the Text shews.
For answer to this, we must take notice, that God hath three Kingdomes in specie, over mankind, whereof the two first are in [Page 159]earth, and the third in heaven (though they may in regard of the same Soveraign and
Subjects be called one) these are grounded on a threefold right of propriety and government,
Gods creating redeeming, and glorifying us, the first is naturall and essentiall,
and the other is according to the voluntary dispensation of grace, the first belongs
to the whole Deity, in which Kingdome the three sacred Persons do rule with equal
power, Majesty and Glory, in the Unity of Essence, in all things and above all things
unchangeably for ever and ever, in this sense there is no end of his Kingdome, for
as the ruling of God the Son doth not exclude the Father from governing the world
and the Church: so the giving up the Kingdome into the hands of God, doth not absolutely
exclude him in other respects to reign for ever. Some Divines do make another Distinction
or explication of Gods Kingdome over Mankind by right of Creation, and that was over
perfect man, which Kingdome is never called the Kingdome of the Son or redeemer,
or Mediatour, this endured but till the fall of man, Baxter against Crandon.
The second Kingdome is the Kingdome of the Son or Redeemer, distinguished from the
other by the foundation of right, viz. redemption by it Ends, Laws and State of the Subjects, this is called by Divines
oeconomium, vicarium, dispensativum regnum, for by such phrases is this Kingdome of grace usually expressed: this Kingdome is
temporarie, and belongs not to Christ, as he is God, but as he is one Mediatour by
a voluntary condescension. Saint Paul speaks expreslly of this latter Kingdome and not of the former; he that had from
the beginning reigned with equall power and glory with his Father, did voluntarily
humble himself (yet preserving the natural right of his Dominion over all things)
to effect mans care and recovery, and to bring the lapsed disobedient Creature to
a conformity and obedience to God again, and to perfect the Saints, our blessed Saviour
and head doth now govern, as he useth his power to call the elect effectually, & to
protect his Church in the midst of hisenemies, & at last to exalt them to a glorious
condition; this Monarchy of Christ can never totally be subdued, as terrene Monarchies
are, and have been from time to time, and other new Lords have sate on Thrones and
ruled them, neither force nor fraud, nor the gates of hell can possibly prevail over
the Church; this rule and Dominion our Mediatour hath received from God, and doth
most holily govern at his commands, and shall continue to [Page 160]Govern till hee hath put all his Enemies, the Devil and his Angels, all the wicked
of the World, sin and death under his feet, and having compleated this blessed work,
he delivers up the Kingdome, as having no longer any enemies to disturb these happy
Subjects, this is not unlike to the fact of a King, who sends his Son with Authority
and Commission to protect his good Subjects against impious Rebels that molested them;
this Son when he hath by Gods blessing quelled and conquered them, and settled his
Fathers people in a quiet and secure habitation, returns triumphantly to his Father,
and resigns up that powerfull Commission, which he had vested him withal. The Case
is not unlike in this great work of mans Redemption, and when our Saviour at the end
of the World resignes this Kingdome he doth not simply cease to govern to all Eternity,
as the Father at this present rules by his Son, so shall the Son for ever rule with
his Father; this resigning then, is not meant in respect of the Divine Nature, for
in this respect the Son of God is equal with his Father, nor is it understood of the
Humane Nature of Christ, for that hath been, is now, and shall be alwayes subject
to the Father, but this is meant of Christ, as he is our Mediatour: this way of government,
when all enemies are subdued, and all the Saints glorified, will be uselesse, he
will then openly resign it into the hands of his Father, from whom in time he received
it. In a word, to close up this Section, Christ was alwayes and ever will be the most
high God, although he shall not alwayes reign in such a manner, and by such means
as now he doth.
Bidd.
Neither let any one say, that this is spoken of Christ, according to his Humane Nature
onely, for (to omit, that this goodly Distinction is no where found in Gods word)
first, this is to take for granted, that Christ hath more than one Nature, and so
to beg the question, whereas it is a signe of a desperate cause, not to be able to
answer Objections without taking for granted what is in Controversie.
Answ.
It had been more for your credit (Mr. Biddle) to have passed over that well grounded Distinction of the two Natures of Christ,
than by a Rhetoricall preterition, to have affixed an unworthy scoffe, calling it
in scorn a goodly Distinction, and erroneously professing, that it is no where to
be found in the word of God, if this could not be made good out of that unerring Rule,
we do professe [Page 161]that we have no reason to own it, but we are confident, that it is there, & evidently
there, see Rom. 1.3 4. Joh. 1.14. 1 Tim. 3.16. 1 Pet. 3.18, 19. as hath bin already & shall be more fully in due place proved.
2. Whereas you say, it is a signe of a desperate cause, to take for granted what is
in Controversie, I answer, to do so when a man is an Opponent and not a respondent,
is a shrewd signe of a very bad or a weak Disputant, but I say, if the Adversary writes
his very thoughts, he may be ranked with egregious sophisters, and fallacious Disputants,
but he is to learn the very Principles of Disputation for mark my friend, you are
now in hand to prove your Heresie, by Objections against a most necessary and comfortable
truth: the answerer bath done his part, if he can with reason deny a Proposition,
or clear it up by a Distinction, or shew in what Respect the Proposiitions are true,
and in what Respects they are false, if the answerer will give a reason of his deniall,
or Distinction, 'tis done ex abundante, and more to avoid confusion, then by the strict Laws of Disputation can be required.
Bidd.
Secondly, The Apostle here speaketh of Christ as a Person, in that he speaketh of
him as reigning, since none can be a King, and reign, but a Person, and that as a
Person, all offices being proper to persons; wherefore they must grant, either that
the Person of Christ, which they hold to be a Person of Supream Deity, delivereth
up his Kingdome, and becometh subject, or that his Humane Nature, as they phrase it,
is a person, and consequently, lest there should be two persons in one and the same
Subject, and so Christ not to be one but two, that he hath no other Nature or Person,
the latter of which subverteth the opinion of the Adversaries, the first also it self.
Answ.
You have brought us as you think by this Dilemma into a great strait, but the horns thereof like those of Zedechiah, 1 King, 22.11. have no strength to push us down, and you will prove but a false Prophet.
I answer then, that without contradiction of any, a person is meant by him that rules,
and not the nature or natures in abstracto: but in concreto. I do yield also, that the humane nature of Christ is not a person, and that (which
will be no advantage to you) he resigned up the Kingdome to God the Father, but I
do peremptorily deny your Distinction, there is not a full enumeratition of the parts,
as there ought to be, one member is wanting, either [Page 162]he must cease to be the most high God (which is impossible) or else (say you) his
Humane Nature must be a person, this is inconsequent, for that person which was true
God, was also true man, and the giving up of his Kingdome was not the diminution of
his natural and infinite power, as he was God, nor in regard of his person simply,
but partly by subjection, which was evidently seen in the Humane Nature, and chiefly
by laying down his Rule, as Mediatour, his work being done as a Physitian, that hath
finished his cure, now as I have often said to the accomplishment of this medicinal
work, there was necessarily required the concurrence of both Natures, in the Unity
of one person.
Bidd.
3. It is worth observing, that the Apostle saith, then shall the Son himself be subject,
if only a humane Nature added to the Son, and not the very person of the Son, how
can it be said the Son himself is subject? certainly, this place, which is so full
and clear, that sundry being convinced with the evidence thereof, have abaudoned
the common grosse opinion of two natures in Christ, seemeth purposely fitted by God,
to stop their mouths, who would go about to elude what is here spoken, to shew the
subordination and inferiority of Christ to the Father, by saying that the Son shall
be subject according to the humane nature onely, for the Apostle most emphatically
saith, that the Son himsel shall be subject, so that if there be any nature in him
better than other, according to which he is chiefly the Son of God, even according
to that shall he become subject.
Answ.
The scope of the Apostle is to be observed, he had proved by sundry Arguments, that
the dead must be raised; he meets with an Objection, which for Substance the Sadduces,
made use of against our Saviour, If there shall be a Resurrection, whose Wife shall she be, that had seven Husbands?
You erre (saith our Saviour) not knowing the Scripture, nor the power of God. There will be no marriages in heaven, as there are in this World, but there will
be an end of the state of this World: other men which knew not the Scriptures, are
ready thus to think of men when they shall be raised, what confusions will there
be in the World? every one will go to the place of his former habitation, and lay
claim to their Lands, because they judge the other world will be like this: the Apostle
to prevent such surmises, saith, the end of the World shall be after the [Page 163]Resurrection, not simply, as I conceive, in regard of the substance, but the state
and condition of it, and that will be when Christ shall give up his Kingdome to God,
that is, all the Elect shall be advanced from faith to vision in heaven, this Vicarium Regnum, is in the hands of our Mediatour, who is both God and man, the Father will have
no communion with Creatures polluted with sinnes, but onely by the Mediation of his
dear Son: this holy Son, as he is simply God, remaineth alwayes the naturall and eternal
Lord of all things; but now, as he is God-man, the same Person of a Mediatour, He had all Power given him, by his Father, both in heaven and Earth, Mat. 28 and he is said to reign, as he useth that Power, to convert, protect, and
advance the Elect, to clarifie them from all their sins, to bridle and to subdue all
his Enemies: this Kingdome must continue so long, as any Enemies can hurt his Members,
which being fully vanquished, he gives up this Kingdome, that is; all the Elect, or
his Office and government, not simply, but as he was our Mediatour, for he hath done
the work for which he was sent into the World, as the Romane Dictatours, when the
Warre was ended, laid aside that Dignity and acted in their former Offices, and Christ
having done his work, enjoys the fruit of his Passion, and reigns most gloriously
and peaceably with the Father, and the Holy Ghost most pefectly without the least
contradiction, and immediately without the holy Word, Sacraments, Discipline, without
the Spirits working in the Saints, as in this life, and without a Med [...]atour betwixt God and us, as the Father by giving the Kingdome to Christ, did not
cease to be King of the Church, so Christ by giving up the Kingdome to the Father,
doth not deprive himself of all government, but together with the Father rules for
ever, in this reasoning then of the Adversary, there is his usuall fallacy, à dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter; the Son shall be subject to the Father; the Divine Nature simply is not subject,
for that is common, as the Name of God, but the Divine Nature of the Father denotes
the Essence it self, and the manner of having it, is the Father, the Divine Nature
of the Son, is the Son, for it is considered, not as commune indivisum, but as determinate and subsisting in the persons, with the manner how; he is then
subject, not in regard of his Divine Nature, but as touching his voluntary subjection,
whereby he emptied himself, and took into the Unity of his Person the form of a servant;
nature is the Principle of naturall [Page 164]actions, but this subjection is in regard of his voluntary condescension, which is
the Principle of voluntary actions, who knows not, that men of equal rank may voluntarily
submit themselves to others for some good? Now that which is subject by nature, is
inferiou [...] to that which subjects it, but not that person which voluntarily submits himself,
as our blessed Saviour did for our salvation. It is one thing to say, the Son is inferiour
to the Father, subjectivè i.e. in the Divine Nature, another to say he is so causaliter, i. e. ex conditione naturae, See Junius against Bellarmine, Controv. 2. l. cap. 16. The Son himself shall be subject, as he was alwayes in his humane Nature, being
created obedient to and depending on the will of God, and thus is he likewise inferiour
now in heaven, he shall be subject in another manner, because this Kingdome of Mediatour,
which though not formally, yet vertually and fundamentally is contained under the
Natural Kingdome, being laid aside, God shall no longer reign by the Humanity of Christ,
but by himself, he shall be all in all, and this Kingdome is so much more perfect
than the Kingdome of the Mediatour, as such, as the utmost End is more perfect than
the Means, which are Divinely ordained, to attain that Glorious End, and as Eternal
things are better than Temporall; now God rules by Christ, but then, not onely the
Saints, which are the Members of Christ, shall be subjected to God, but the Humanity
of Christ shall no longer act in the management of this Government for the Elect as
formerly, but there shall be another reason of subjection than there is at present,
so Glorious shall be the Majesty of God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, from thenceforth
for ever, that all the happy ones shall see the blessed God reign solely, not onely
over all the rest of these Holy ones, but over the Humanity of Christ it self, in
the night the Sun rules, but it is by the Moon, (saith Zanchy) because the moon shines by the borrowed light of the Sun, in the night it doth not
appear evidently that the Sun rules, but when the Sun is risen, then the Moon her
self enlightens not the earth, but is subject to the Sun, but how? not by any new
subjection, but by a manifestation to others of the former subjection, and that the
Sun doth excell that Planet in glory, thus is it likewise true of our Saviour touching
his humanity.
Whereas the Adversary saith; the best part of Christ is subject to God, this should
have been proved, which is both fallaciously [Page 165]and falsely spoken, Logick might have taught him, that there is no good consequence
from the person to the nature, from the whole to every part thereof, Will any wise
man yield this to be a good reasoning: A man sleepeth, therefore the best part of
a man sleepeth, that is, his soul, it follows not, or thus a man is mortall, therefore
the soul of a man is mortall, a man as subjectum quod, understandeth, therefore the body of a man understandeth, a man groweth in stature,
and is sometime sick, therefore the soul groweth in stature and is subject to diseases;
a mans person may be in bondage, and tyrannized over by a cruel Lord, therefore his
soul is not free, but in bondage, where there is no inquisition, can there be any
jurisdiction? Will any reasonable man allow these consequences? and will not every
one plainly perceive, the weaknesse of the Adversaries disputing by these few Instances?
Have you never heard, that by reason of the Union of two Natures in one Person of
Christ, how that is ascribed to the Person from a Denomination, which is peculiar
to one Nature onely? as that which is finite, and not to the other which is infinite?
Well then, when Christ shall cease to rule in the Elect, as our Mediatour, in which
respect he is inferiour and subordinate to the Father, and as man he is a part of
the Church, though he is the head and most eminent part thereof, even as the first
Adam was both a Root of Mankind and a Part thereof, in this respect I say, shall God deal
immediately with him, as with the whole Body of the blessed ones, which shall have
immediate accesse to his Majesty, and without a Mediatour partake of his Glory, and
Happinesse, then shall our Union with God be immediate, yet so, that the Glory and
Praise thereof, shall be for ever peculiar to Christ, who was the sole Procurer, and
all-sufficient Purchaser of this our happy Union with the Glorious Trinity.
Before I leave this sacred scripture, I wil propound a question to the Adversary,
and desire to know his positive resolution thereof, whether Christ in the intrim
now reigning in the midst of his enemies, be not truly inferiour and subordinate to
God the Father, and whether he be not in your sense the second cause of our salvation;
if you shall have the face to deny this, then besides a contradiction to your self
in the body of this ARticle, how can you make good your Argument against the Diety
of our Savior, i [...] which you so much triumph? [Page 166]God is not the most High, if the Son of God be equall to him, will not this reason
upon this concession fall flat to the ground? if you yeeld he was alwayes subject
to God, what singular thing is here to helpe you foretold (unless in the meaning whch
I have formerly mentioned) which was not alwayes in being in the Kingdome of the
Messias? This Text is so farre fron Socinianisme, that it affordeth an Argument against
all sorts of Arians, and those many learned ones, which you say were converted by
it, I do truly say, they were perverted, and the Spiders have sucked their poyson
out of this sweet Flower.
Bidd.
Rom. 10 9. If thou shalt confesse with thy mouth, that Jesus is Lord, and shalt believe in thy
heart, that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved, the Apostle here sets
down a brief Symbole of the Christian Religion, declaring what is to believed with
the heart, and confessed with the mouth concerning the dignity of Christ, and which
if we believe and confesse, we shall obtain salvation, but how could it be, that if
Christ were the most High God the Son with the Father? and had raised himself, from
the dead, and that by his own power, the Apostle should affirm, if we confesse with
the mouth, and beleeve with the heart, not that he raised himself, but that God raised
him from the dead, we shall be saved.
Answ.
All this in terms (excepting your Inference) the Orthodoxe Christians do believe,
and by so doing we are it seems in your judgement in a safe condition touching our
salvation, if the bare assenting to that holy Text will serve the turn, how are we
guilty then, (as you falsly accuse us) of making defection from the true God, and
that we hold grosse opinions touching three persons in one God, which made way for
pollutions in worship, and lying now at the bottome, corrupteth almost our whole Religion
in the Preface, page 2.
2. It follows then, the Adversary himself being Judge, that a bare acknowledgement
of these words abstracted from other Principles of faith, will not be sufficient to
save us, for himself alledgeth, John 17.3. This is life eternal, (the way to happinesse) to know God the Father, as well as Jesus Christ whom he sent,
and Mr. Biddle asserts another Article, that the holy Trinity consists of one God, of one Lord,
and of one Spirit, and he addes the holding of [Page 167]this Trinity, doth nearly concern Gods glory and the salvation of man, so that to
speak fully and properly, 'tis not a sufficient faith to save us, to believe and confesse
that God raised Christ from the dead, but this portion of Scripture must be taken
in the full latitude, and many other particulars under this are to be understood,
and are vertually implyed, which in other Texts concerning our Saviour, are expresly
mentioned, and from thence to be supplyed.
Thirdly it remaineth then, that we search out the true sense, and if we grossely fail
in this, which is the main and principal thing, notwithstanding a verbal profession,
and a saying in general terms, you believe on Christ with your heart, and professe
him to be Lord, you may be far enough from salvation, what Christian else would be
damned? we say to professe, that Christ is Lord in spight of all dangers and persecutions
that will attend on the profession of the Christian faith, and to believe on him with
the heart, which is the original and Principle of Christian practise, our forsaking
sin and the actions of a new life, in imitation of Christs Resurrection, is to professe
that he is the Son of God, our Lord and Saviour, not onely by right of Creation, Preservation
and Gubernation, in which respects all creatures, even the very Devils, are forced
to be subject to him, but by vertue of redemption, and under the resurrection of Christ
by a Synecdoche, his Conception, Birth, Life, Death and Buriall, which preceded his resurrection,
so likewise the Consequents thereof, his Ascension into heaven, his glorious advancement,
sitting at the right hand of his Father, and many other Articles of Faith, there
are besides these to be distinctly and explicitly believed, but one reason why this
touching Christ is specified, is because he is properly the object of a saving faith,
as it is saving, now we do constantly avouch, and you can never disprove it, that
this could not be done, but upon supposition that Christ was the t [...]ue God, and that the infinite excellency of the Deity, made his sufferings meritorious
and satisfactory to Divine Justice for us; but your confession of faith, that Christ
is a meere creature, robs God of his glory, and a christians soul of true and solid
comfort.
Fourthly, you say, God raised up Christ, and that he raised not up himself, herein
you discover how grossely ignorant you are, or wilfully bent to pervert and deny the
Principles of religion, clearly set down in holy Writ, John 2.19. Destroy this Temple, that is this [Page 168]my Body, as is afterwards cleared, and within three dayes, I will raise it up, when you have killed it, John 2.19.21. by this miracle his Doctrine was to be confirmed, John 10.18. I have power (voluntarily) to lay down my life, otherwise it is not in the power of man forcibly to take it away, and I have power to take it up again, I am able to raise it up again, for he is Almighty, John 5.19.6.54. Revel. 1. and Apocal. 18 this is a strong Argument against the Socinians, which may be thus framed.
He that can raise up himself from death to life is God, for to raise up the dead,
is a work of omnipotency.
But Christ raised up himself from death to life, as the alledged Scriptures do prove,
Ergo he is God.
Your Argument to the contrary is, he raised not up himself, because God the Father
raised him, is inconsequent, the reason is because the raising of Christ to be the
first begotten of the dead, Rev. 1.5. and the first fruits of them that are raised from the dead, 1 Cor. 15.20.23. is a work as they say ad extra, common to all the Persons of the holy Trinity, the Father by his omnipotent Power
raised him, and the Son by the same Power raised his dead Body lying in the Grave,
as the Father gave his Son to dye for us, Rom. 8.32. and the Son gave himself, Gal. 2.20. the Father makes the Enemies of Christ his footstool, Psal. 110 3. and Christ himself puts all his enemies under his feet, 1 Cor. 15 25. the resurrection of our Saviour is often ascribed to the Father, not onely
because he is the fountain of the Deity, and by consequence of the operations thereof,
but also because of the Office of Christ, for Christ is not onely considered as dead,
but as justly dead for our sins; therefore God raised him not onely as God, but as
Judge, who accepted his perfect satisfaction for us, and lastly for our Christian
comfort, for they are by the resurrection of Christ assured that their sins are expiated,
and God is well pleased with them.
Bidd.
Certain I am that Athanasius in his Creed, is more peremptory, for he saith, except we believe, that Christ is
of one and the same Essence, and consequently one and the same God with the Father,
he cannot be saved: whereas the Apostle speaketh of that faith which is necessary
to salvation, and intimateth that it is sufficient, if we believe Jesus is Lord, now
whether Paul or Athanasius be rather to be credited, I leave it to all Christians to judge.
Answ.
Albeit this Creed was the composure of one man, if so it were, yet doth it not relie
on the Testimony of one single Father who composed it (though famous in his time,
and in all ages since amongst the Orthodoxe Professours) but on the Testimony of
the Catholick Church, which hath retained it in her Liturgies, and commended it to
all her children, as the Buckler of the true Christian faith, as touching the Divine
truths and strict exacting of belief of his Creed from all Christians that look to
be saved, it is to be remembred, that it was written in a zealous opposition to the
troublesome Arians, so that it doth not involve under damnable guilt, the pure ignorant,
but the stubborn heretiques, it doth not condemn the bare nescience, but the stiffe
negarion of the Catholick Faith, especially in these two main points, which he so
much insists upon, viz. the holy Trinity, and the mysterious Incarnation of our Saviour, the Vision and
fruition of the blessed Trinity, being the chiefest happinesse of man, and the incarnation
of our Saviour, with the consequents thereof, being the direct means to attain it,
so that there is no contrariety betwixt Saint Paul and Athanasius, albeit Athanasius out of his Fatherly care of the Church, hath a more full and exp [...]esse Declaration of the necessity of the Catholick faith oppugned by Heretiques,
to awaken the Sons of the Church diligently to entertain it by the terrour of his
Preface, as well of the Apostles Creed, page 246. Nescit, planè nescit vitam suam, qui Christum ut verum Deum ita ut verum hominem ignorat,
Hilar. lib. 9. de Trinitat. he plainly knows not his life who is ignorant that Christ is so the true God, as
he is true man, the Scriptures quoted again, John 17.3. Ephes. 4 4. have been fully discussed in the first Article, and therefore [...]omit them. Thus much touching the second Article.
ARTICLE III.
Bidd.
I believe that Jesus Christ to the intent he might be our brother, and have a fellow
feeling of our infirmities, and so become the more ready to help us (the Consideration
whereof is the greatest incouragement to Piety that can be imagined) hath no other
than a humane nature, and therefore in this very nature is not onely a Person (since
[Page 170]none but a humane Person can be our brother) but also our Lord, yea our God.
Answ.
In this Article the Adversary discovers his meaning most fully, and that he dissents
from the old Arians, which disturbed the Church, especially in the dayes of blessed
Athanasius and at other times, which though they agreed not in all things amongst themselves,
yet in this they were unanimous, that the Son of God had a created being, that God
first created him before he made any other creatures, and that under God by him all
other things were made, Epiphan. Tom. 1. contra haeres. lib. 3. haer. 73. who in these last times came down from above, and was conceived in the womb,
and born of a pure Virgin, according to the Scriptures, and was made man, the Mediatour
between God and men, and they believe the Articles which follow in the Apostles Creed,
as is professed in a Synod at Antioch, in the dayes of Constantius the Arian Emperour: See also Socrates lib. 2. Histor. c. 14 and in the Synod of Arimine, saith the same Authour c. 19. the like Confession of faith was proposed and allowed in the Synod of Seleucia, idem cap. 32.
And as Mr. Biddle discusseth from these Arian Heretiques, touching his opinion of the Son of God,
so in this doth he forsake his Masters, the Macedonian Heretiques, which albeit they denied the Deity of the Holy Ghost, yet did they resolutely
maintain the Deity of the Son of God against the Arians, and for this their Belief
were persecuted by Valens the Emperour, and by the Arian Bishop Eudoxius, and fled to Valentinian the Emperour in the West, and Tiberias Bishop of Rome for succour, and they exhibited to them this Form of their saith, confessing that
Jesus Christ was begotten of the substance of his Father, that he was not made, but
was consubstantial to the Father, and as for those who say of the Son of God, that
there was a time when he was not; a time before he was made of nothing, or had any
other substance then that of his Fathers communicated to him: such as these the Catholick
Apostolical Church doth curse, Socrates Histor. lib. 4. cap. 11: but Mr. Biddle against all these and all Catholicks avoucheth, that Christ hath no other but a humane
nature, and that he is not onely in that nature a Person, but also our Lord and God,
which is ambiguously spoken with a Design to delude the people.
That our blessed Saviour was true man, we to our great comfort [Page 171]do acknowledge, but that he is onely man, it hath been hitherto our businesse, and
shall be in that which follows to disprove; the deniall of his Deity hath a malignant
influence upon the holy Gospel of Jesus Christ, and overthrows where it is embraced,
the unshaken Foundation of our dearly purchased Redemption: our great Adversary Sathan,
knows full well where the greatest strength of Christians lies, Who then can marvel,
if he to the utmost improves his skill, and as much as is possible to take away the
lowest foundation and corner stone, that our precious faith, and hope built on him
might fall to the ground? Yea, and we do further openly professe that the son of
God deigning to become man for our salvation, and Eternal God is a greater incouragement,
both to Piety and Humility, than if he had been onely man.
Whereas you say, Christ in this nature is a person, that is, a substance which subsisteth
of it self without the subsistence of the Son of God communicated to him, this Nestorian
Heresie we do with the Church of God detest, the Nature of man, although it be a totum essentiale most perfect in regard of Essence, yet it is not totum personale, and as they speak suppositale, nor doth it act as principium quod, sed ut Principium quo, because it wants the proper, personal subsistence, and is a part to be perfected
by another part, the Deity, the humane nature indeed is substantia prima, the first substance, as it is called, and an understanding being, yet because it
is not a substance compleatly incommunicable, ac ultimo subsistens, it is not a person, as it follows not, a mans hand is a living substantial body,
therefore it is a person, or the reasonable soul joyned to the Body, is a living and
understanding substance, therefore it is a person, it is such a totum, as is a part of another totum, and therefore no person.
That the Son of God took the nature and not the person of man is thus proved. First,
because if the nature of man had subsisted by it self, before it had been assumed
into the unity of the person of Gods Son, if it had been conceived out of the person
of the son of God, then that word could not have been made flesh, as Saint John saith it was, John 1.14. Nor secondly, could it be truly said, according to the Articles of our faith,
that the son of God was conceived by the Holy Ghost, besides, if the Son of God had
assumed the person of man, the Son of God would be two persons, the one created and
the other uncreated, but it is impossible for one [Page 172]and the same Son to be two persons, if the humane nature had been a person, it would
follow in the fourth place, that the word could not be truly called man; for one person
cannot be another, nor predicated of another, Peter is not Paul, but this eternal word is man, and truly called man, and in the fifth place upon this
account, it is also that the Properties of the humane nature, as for example, to be
born to die, to be buried, &c. are attributed to the person. God is born, God shed his blood, &c. and so on the contrary, the Properties of the divine Nature are ascribed to the
man Christ, as to quicken the dead, and to give eternal life, which could not be truly
verified, if there were two distinct persons, if the same person was not both God
and man.
Lastly, they could not be one Lord, if one of the persons was created, and the other
uncreated, one of the persons finite, and the other infinite, but he is one Lord,
1 Cor. 8.6. Eph. 4.4. nay one and the self same Lord to descend down from heaven, and to ascend up
to heaven, to have the form of God, and at the same time the form of a servant, to
be God blessed for ever, and to be of the Father, according to the flesh Ephes 4.10. Rom 95. and therefore the Son of God assuming the Nature of man, did not take the person
of a man, and consequently he is onely one person, and not two, these Arguments are
strong against the Nestorians, and they do also, being taken out of Scriptures, confute
Mr. Biddle, in saying the Lord Christ hath onely the Nature of man, and that this is a person;
he is a true man, albeit he is not a humane person, for a man is not a a man by his
personality, but by his humane nature, for by it be is formally a man: as a man is
wise by wisdome, so a man is a man by his humane nature, and God by his Deity, materially
I grant when we speak of other men, the humane nature doth denote a person, or that
which hath the humane nature.
The Adversary addes, that none but a humane person can be our brother, this is denied,
and cannot be proved, for Christ having the same specificall, albeit not the same
numerical nature with us, being conceived and born with our natural infirmities, hath
learned out of his experience of sorrows to be a mercifull High Priest, Heb. 2.17. and to take pity upon us in our miseries, had his humane nature been exempted
from the condition and properties of other men touching natural infirmities, something
I confesse had been spoken, but not enough, for they that have one Father, are brethren
[Page 173]Angels, which have not a humane person are the Sons of God, Job 38, 67. and so in that respect are brethren, but to wave that, sithence as Scriptures
hold forth to us, that Christ was not free in the dayes of his flesh being in the
World, from infirmities, which are natural: Your Argument comes to nothing; nor was
it any disparagement to the humane nature, to be so prevented, as it was from being
a person of, and by it self, as is the singular nature of all other men, but a higher
honour to be assumed to the person of the Son of God, where it is more eminently then
humane nature can be in a humane person, as it is for the vegetative and sensitive
faculties to be in the soul of man, though not the forms of man, as they are of Plants
and Animals.
Bidd.
1 Tim. 2.5. There is God, and one Mediatour of God and man, the man Christ Iesus, John 3.13. No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of
man, which was in heaven, as the Greek particle not onely may (in that it was of the
Preterimperfect, as well of the Preterperfect Tense) but must here be rendred otherwise,
these words will contradict these immediately going before; for how could Christ
still be in heaven after he descended from thence? Again, he would as man (for he
here stileth himself the Son of man) be in heaven and on the earth at the same time,
which is confessed to be false, John 6.62.
Answ.
There is one God in Essence (opposed to all created and named Gods) who denies this?
surely we plead not for many Gods, but do all of us religiously believe, & sincerely
confesse this Fundamentall Article, now God is taken either essentially, as in the
third verse, Pray for all men, for this is good and acceptable in Gods sight. The Apostles Argument may thus be framed, they that have one God ought to pray to
this one God (the giuer of every good gift) for one another, and therefore all Christians ought to pray for all men, for Rulers,
&c. but if the name of God be taken persona [...]lly, as it seems to be by the restriction in the Text, whereby God is distinguished
from Christ, which notes a personall opposition, and a personal signification, the
scope is to shew, that there is a God of all the elect, & he names God the Father,
the note of Unity, but doth it therefore follow that only the Father is God, I deny
the sequel, for this not only against [...]he custom of the holy scriptures, but the first rudiments of Rhetorick who wil not allow of such an argument, as this is, [Page 174]when I say the Poet, I mean Homer, when I say the Oratour, I mean Cicero, when I name man, I understand thereby onely Adam, or the King, for onely David, therefore onely Homer is a Poet, onely Cicero is an Oratour, onely Adam is man, onely David is King. As we may not conclude, the word man is put for Christ onely, therefore
he is onely man, no more can we justly infer. God is here put onely for the Father,
therefore he onely is God.
I will recite Bisterfields sense against Crellius, which he borrowed from no others, but out of his own observation, and he tells us
that the naturall order of the words are inverted, and thus to be placed, the man
Christ Jesus is one God, and one Mediatour betwixt God and man, the man Christ Jesus
is as the subject of this Proposition, and to be one God and one Mediatour, a copulative
consequent thereof, as Zach 14.9. if this be the sense of the Apostle, the Deity of our Saviour is directly
confirmed by it, this I onely name, let the impartiall Reader judge.
As there is one God, so saith the Text, there is one Mediatour, and this one Mediatour
and Peace-maker, is opposed to all Mediatours, which are barely and nakedly creatures.
This holy Scripture, as the rest recited by you, proveth that Christ is a man, but
it proves not, which is the Controversie, that he is onely man. The Office of a Mediatour
is to reconcile parties that are at variance, and is commonly called a Mediatour of
Redemption, or to unite them in a league of friendship, which formerly had not friendly
entercourse amongst themselves. In this gracious Mediatour, both extremes do happily
meet in the same person: the word which was one with God by ineffable Unity, became
one with man by admirable Union; this truth doth the holy Word of God teach, this
doth the Church of God believe, and this do we before God and the world religiously
professe.
The order of the Apostles words are to be observed, he saith the man Christ, not Christ
the man; there is a difference betwixt these two, when (man) precedes, and Christ
is added thereto by way of limitation, he sheweth of what man he meaneth, homo Christus notes the Person of Christ, and we may truly affirm such Propositions as these to
be true, the man Christ is omnipotent, the man Christ is every where present, though
the humane Nature be not omniscient, omnipotent, and every where, but whatsoever Christ
hath in that created Nature is finite, and he is circumscribed in a certain [Page 175]place as he is man; the reason of this difference is because the concrete word denotes
the Person, though so denominated from the abstract, I mean the humane nature: but
you may not say, Christman is every where essentially present, for that is all one,
as to say, Christ as he is a man is every where.
Nor can we Logically infer as the Pontificians do, that Christ who is God, is our
Mediatour onely in the humane nature, I will not digresse and enter the Lists with
those Adversaries at this time, however both by them and us it is not doubted, that
this Person whereof we speak, is both God and man, that he might be able to save
us to the uttermost, that he might satisfie Gods Justice, appease his wrath, take
away the sinnes of his people, pull down the Tyranny of the Devil, and the power
of death, that he might restore Gods image in us, conser and preserve our graces,
and bring us to glory; these great evils could not be removed, nor could those great
mercies have been bestowed on us, unlesse he had been both God and man.
This place then makes nothing for the Adversary, but if it be well observed, it makes
much against him, because it is said, he is the Mediatour betwixt God and man. What
shall we say onely of those that lived since his Incarnation? no verily, Christ is
like the Sun in the Firmament, which casteth beams and Influences; as well backward
as forward, he is a Mediatour for man, implying that he was not onely a Mediatour
for men that lived since his Nativity, but that all the Elect from Adam till that joyfull time were reconciled to God by him, for of necessity it must follow,
that either these happy ones had no Mediatour which lived and died before his Nativity,
which is a grosse errour, contrary to Gods Word, for all of them were saved by believing
on the promised seed, which was to come, who was the Lamb slain from the beginning
of the World, and was alwayes the same, yesterday, to day, and for ever, or else Christ
was their Mediatour transacting the affairs of his people by vertue of his future
Incarnation, and meritorious passion, which he could not possibly have done, if he
had not been God, a divine person, Non entis nullae sunt operationes. Those saithfull ones, eundem habuerunt Christum in persona, non in carne assumpta, they and we had the same Christ in regard of his person, Deity, and Humanity, though
not after the same manner, the faithfull which lived before his Conception firmly
believed, that he should [Page 176]come in our flesh, we in these latter times do believe that he is already come, that
he hath perfectly done and suffered whatsoever was requisite for our salvation.
I may further adde, which is observed by others, that man is mentioned not to exclude
the Deity, but because the Apostle is delighted with the elegancy of speech, for
having told us in the former verse, that God would have all men to be saved, he addes,
there is one Mediatour, betwixt God and man, the man Jesus Christ, or which is another
reason, because he was presently to treat of his passion, he gave himself a Ransome
for us, that we men in regard he was man, might have strong consolation, and by him
go boldly to the Throne of Grace in this act of Mediation, the Natures of Christ are
not seperated, but yet they are distinguished, none can be a Mediatour according to
substance, that is not a Mediatour according to operation, nor can any be a Mediatour
according to operation, who is not a Mediatour also according to substance, Camier Paustral de officio Mediatoris, lib. 7. c. 5.
Your next place is Joh 3.13. No man hath ascended into heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son
of man, which is in heaven.
1. This Text proveth (which we do not deny) that Christ is true man, but will it from
hence follow, that he is not true God also? No verily, its not said, as Anabaptists
do dream, that this flesh came from heaven, Angels have descended from heaven, and
have assumed bodies, but it follows not the Angels brought those bodies from heaven
with them, and 'tis said, the Holy Ghost descended from heaven in a bodily shape,
Will it follow, that this was a celestiall body?
2. I say, it is the Adversaries mishap to alledge such Scriptures, which do directly
overthrow his own Tenet: the scope of this Text, is to shew as appears by the Context,
that Christ was in the bosome of his Father, intimately acquainted with his secrets
(an allusion perhaps to great Moses, that went up to God in the Mo [...]nt Sinai to know his pleasure, and went down from God to the Israesites to acquaint them
with his holy Laws, as learned Camere guesseth). Christ being in heaven came down from heaven, was made man, to publish
his fathers pleasure; this is a transcendent Prerogative, which cannot belong to
any creature, the meaning is, Christ was in heaven, descended from heaven viz. the Son of man in the person of God, Synech. integri pro Membro, the crosse and [Page 181]circulatory speech, called communication of properties takes place here, when that
which belongs solely to one nature is attributed to the person denominated from the
other nature, the cause whereof is the association of Natures in one Subject; or else
it is an effect of the personal Union: he came down from heaven, how? by assuming
our humane nature, and in revealing Gods counsels to us, when he before that time,
as he was God, is said to dwell in heaven, 'tis added, the Son of man which is in
heaven. How in Heaven? not as he was the Son of man, that is not in his Humane Nature,
for that was at that very time, and had been alwayes onely on earth, and never before
in heaven, behold he was here, saith Saint Augustine, tract, in Iohan. and he was in heaven, here he was in the flesh, but he was in heaven, yea every wh [...]re in his Divinity, but this was verified, if we ascribe to both natures in the person,
what belongs onely to the Divine Nature, he was then at once, both in heaven and on
earth, and consequently every where, and from thence fairly conclude, that he was
not onely man, but God also.
As for your novel criticisme, whereby you go against the streams. I think of all Translations,
[...] say you, may and must be rendred, was, being as well of the Preterimperfect as the
Present Tense. I would gladly see an example in Scripture, where the word is so taken
(unlesse Tropically) do not you observe how clearly these two are distinguished, [...], which is, and which was, Rev. 18. &c. 4.8 & 11. ch. v. 17. might not the Spirit, if you had been in the right, by using [...] have prevented a generall mistake.
2. Besides, when had our Saviour been in Heaven (being in your sense only a Creature,
before these words were spoken by the Redeemer of the World? must this man go up to
Heaven to be informed there of Divine secrets, and could not the God of all the World
receal them unto him without his ascention into the highest Heavens? Shall we without
the warrant of Scripture say, that he was taken up thither, whether in the body or
out of the body, God knoweth: This is a groundlesse and senseless Fiction, devised
without any col [...]ur of Scripture, or reason to support it.
3. The words of the Text are against the Adversary, and do prove that Christ was first
in Heaven, and in that he ascended thither, he came first down from Heaven, he then
first came down from Heaven, which is contrary to Biddle, before he ascended thither.
Wheres you give your reason, why the Text must be Translated [Page 182]was, otherwise there will be a contradiction, for how could he still be in heaven
when he descended thence? could he be both in heaven and earth at the same time? To
this we can readily and easily answer, and make it appeare that there is no contradiction
at all in these words, nor any necessity why the Adversary should corrupt the Text
with a false and unheard of Translation; marke then Christ speaking to Nicodemus, saith that he at that time was in heaven, viz as he was God, and to shew the Divine relation betwixt the Father and the Son in
the unity of the same Essence, and the ineffable communication of the Father to his
Son, especially in his dealing towards the Elect, be viz. Gods Son manifested his prefence on earth by assuming our flesh, and even then he
being the true God ceased not to be in heavn, albeit he was not included either in
heaven or in earth, but within these, and without them too. The Son of man descended
not from heaven as he was the son of man, that is, in regard of his humane nature,
for then it would follow, which implies a real contradiction that he was a man before
he was a man, a man in heaven before he was a man in earth.
Nor is it a contradiction to say the same person is at the same time both in heaven
and earth, this is verified of God alwayes; and to speak to the matter in hand, in
reserence to Christ, it is a received rule in contradictions, that they are to be
vnderstood in the same respect; marke then the words. The Text saith not that our
Lord, as he is the son of man descended from heaven, or that he came downe from heaven
in regard of his humane Nature, but thus the son of man descends; the Reader must
remember that there is a vast difference betwixt these two expessions; the one of
them is true, and the other false, for the son of man denotes not the Nature but the
Person, the person of the son was at once both in heaven and in earth. The Person
which is both God and man is every where essentially present at the same time, but
now, as he was the Son of man, that is, taken in the notion of the humane nature so
had he not at all been in heaven, nor descended from heaven, nor was at that instant
in heaven, nor is it now being exalted to glory in earth, for a finite nature cannot
be infinite, but is limited to a place.
The next objected place out of the same Evangelist, John 6.62. what if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he may be free: this place
is not paralell to the former, nor a confirmation [Page 183]of it: the same Tense here is not in the originall, he that was in heaven and descended
from heaven, is not in heaven, but Christ was in heaven before, and therefore he (being
on earth) is not now in heaven. I deny the Major, it is false, Christ was in heaven,
but it followeth not that he is not in heaven: see your errour by other examples taken
out of Scripture; the world was in the beginning, therefore the word is not now, the
word was with God, will it follow therefore the word is not with God: that word was
God, therefore the word is not God, is this sound arguing? in him was life, therefore
life is not in him, can you say so? he was in the world, therefore he is not in the
world, are these Inferences taken out of one chapter of Saint John 1. to name no more Scriptures tolerable? just of this stamp is your proof to justifie
your corupt translation, John 3.13.
Seven times is it said in this sixth of Iohn, that Christ descended from heaven, and by consequence he was in heaven before, the
drift of our Saviour is to withdraw the Capernaites from a grosse conceit of a carnal eating of the flesh of the Son of man, which as
in nature was incredible, so was it not possible for them to do, if they would advisedly
consider of the great distance betwixt his body and those which should feed on him,
which is as great, as betwixt heaven and earth, as is betwixt the beginning of the
world and the end thereof, and his end and drift was to raise up their hearts from
the thoughts of a corporall to a spirituall eating thereof by faith, which cannot
be hindred, by distance of time and place, and which was also in a heavenly manner
done, when Christ was not incarnated, for all the holy ones which lived before his
Nativity, did verily and in truth feed on him, and were in their souls nourished by
that blessed food of life, for this is the strength and excellency of saith, comfortably
to rely on those precious promises in Christ, which were not then accomplished, as
well as on present truths; Christ then mentioning his bodily Ascension into heavean,
where he had been before, though not in his body, but in his Deity, and shewing also,
that he shall not alwayes touching his corporal presence converse with them on earth,
and moreover declaring that he always hath been and shall be ever the food of his
people, doth clearly evince the verity of his two Natures, which the Adversary doth
peremptorily oppose.
Bidd.
John 8.40. Now you seek to kill me, a man who have told you the truth, John 3.14. He is called the Son of man, Matth. 9.6, 7, 8. The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sinnes, John 5.27 the Father hath given him authority to execute Judgement, because he is the Son of
man, 1 Cor. 15.21.22. By man came the Resurrection from the dead, and 45.41. the second man is the Lord from heauen, Matth. 24.30.31. they shall see the Son of man come in the clouds, Matth. 16.27, 28. The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father. Dan. 7.13, 14. One like the Sonne of man came with the clouds of heaven.
Answ.
The Adversary heaps up many Texts of Scripture, to shew that Christ was man, the Son
of man, but to no purpose, for we all of us do willingly subscribe, and do make an
open profession to our solide comfort, that Christ is man and the Son of man, urge
them us much as you please against such fantasticks, which deny Christ to be a true
man, or that he had not his flesh from his blessed Mother. I will not spend time
to examine the sense of all the particulars, but will try the strength of your Inferences
deduced from them, onely, I shall acquaint the Reader with the mind of Bisterfield, touching that 7. of Daniel, 13, 14. he saith, Christ is not meant by one like the Son of man, but some glorious
chief King, by whose hands Christ shall destroy his enemies, verse 26, 27. because
it is said in the Text, he comes to the ancient of dayes, yea is brought to him, this
belongs not to Christ, he is not brought to God, and by the ancient of dayes is meant
Christ, because a form and figure is given to him, but not to the Father, and because
Christ is so described, Rev. 14.
Bidd.
Observe now in the first place, that the most excellent things attributed to Christ
in Scripture. are attributed to him, not onely under the notion, but also under the
name of man, as to be a Mediatour: to have ascended and beene in heaven before his
death and Resurrection, to have heard the truth to be believed on unto Eternall Life,
to forgive sinnes, to have all judgement, and therefore to be honoured as the Father,
to be Lord of the Sabbath, to be the Authour of the Resurrection, to be a quickning
Spirit, to be the Lord from heaven, to send his Angels, and to gather his Elect to
come in his Kingdome, and render a reward to every one according to his doings, to
have an euerlasting [Page 185]Dominion given him, that all Nations may serve him, why then should we imagine another
nature in him, besides his humane to sustain his Dignity?
Answ.
Glorious things indeed are spoken of Christs humanity, but I do deny that the most
excellent things are spoken of Christ under the notion of a man, for some things are
a tributed to him, which were meerely Divine, as the Attributes of God, and the Decrees
which are immanent acts, and some works, as creation, gubernation and others, which
do not appertain to the humane nature, at least not primarily, as to give grace, forgive
sinnes, &c. but onely instrumentally, not that it is a separate instrument, as a Saw an Axe is
to the Carpenter, but conjunct, as the Humane body is to the reasonable soul: this
and the like to these most glorious things are truly verified of him who is the most
High God, nor can they truly appertain to any created person.
Now that you may not complain, that we do vilifie the humane nature of, our Saviour;
be it known unto you, that we do warrantably plead for many glorious priviledges,
which you do unwarrantably deny to his great dishonour. First, that he was conceived
without the seed of man, not apart from the person of the Word, and Secondly, that
it alone was assumed into the Unity of the person of the Son of God. Thirdly, that
the properties of either nature are really attributed to the other in the concrete,
that is, to the person by vertue of that Union. Fourthly, that in the Offices of
the Messias, each nature hath its proper operation, with communion of the other, the
properties and differences of each nature being entire to it self. Fifthly that whole
Christ, God and man, in both natures is present with and governs the Church, as the
head is present with the members: these are Prerogative and glorious things spoken
of the humane nature, which you Mr. Biddle will not in a true sense ascribe to him.
Besides, glorious things are spoken of Christ, in regard of the grace of Unction,
which albeit, it is not in its own nature infinite, but a concreated being, yet in
the nature of grace, it had no limitation, the reason here of is, because grace was
given to Christ, not as to a particular, but to an universal cause, whence it was
to be derived from him to others, for of his fulnes we all receive grace, 1 John 16. our [Page 186]light is from his Son, our water is from his unexhausted fountain, our sap from his
root, and congruous it is because of the grace of Union, the humane nature being united
to the word, that he being nearer the fountain and prime cause of grace than any other
creatures, should more abound in the degree and quantity of grace than all others:
the nearer any one is in blood to a King the fountain of honour being taken in that
consideration, the more honourable he is, so that in respect of God, these graces
were most meet for our Saviour: 1. That he might most exactly do his Fathers work,
and glorifie him. 2. In regard of himself, that he might be a meet and alsufficient
Mediatour, and 3. In respect of his chosen people, that they might receive all good,
both spirituall and eterna from him.
To your question, why should we imagine another nature in him beside his humane to
sustain his great dignity.
First, I must tell the Adversary, and I desire the Christian Reader, to observe it,
that he doth not fitly speak as it becometh a Divine, nor agreeably to the language
of Gods holy Spirit; we do not say, nor hath Gods word taught us to speak in that
manner that the nature of man is sustained in another nature, for the divine nature
as simply and absolutely such considered, was not made flesh, for then no doubt, all
the three persons should have been incarnated, which to affirm is not consonant to
Scripture, and the Catholick faith, but it was onely the Son of God, or the Divine
Nature of the second Person of the holy Trinity, which did sustain the humane nature,
and the great Dignity conferred on it.
2. Do you Christian Readers, abstract the humane Nature of Christ, I do not say that
this can be really done, but let it be done in a mental consideration from his blessed
person, and then I do avouch, that all the graces, which were plentifully bestowed
on the humane nature, could not have enabled him to be a King, a Priest, a Prophet,
our Saviour, our Judge with qualifications, to perform those sacred Offices for our
eternal happinesse, he might have been I confesse a happy man in regard of himself,
but considering that it was Gods pleasure, that his Justice should be satisfied, or
else man should never be saved, he could not have been a happy Saviour for us: besides
it must not be forgotten, the Man, and Sonne of of Man do note the Divine Person,
though so demoninated from the humane nature.
Bidd.
Secondly observe also that the Scriptures in the aforesaid quotations, whilst they
call Christ a Man, speak of him as of a Person, in that they speak of him as a Mediator,
Embassador, Saviour, Lord, Judge, or King, all which are the names of persons, all
actions and offices belonging only to Persons as such, wherefore Christ according
to his humane Nature is a Person, and consequently (unlesse we will absurdly hold
with Nectorius, that he hath two persons) he cannot be a Person in the Divine Nature.
Answ.
Thus may this Reason be framed.
If the Scripture calleth Christ a Person, naming him Mediator, King Judge, and speaketh
of him as man in these offices, then he hath only a humane nature: the former is true
by the inspection of the Quotation: Ergo, he hath only a humane Nature and Person.
To this I answer by granting that all these recited titles which are predicated of
our Saviour, do denote a Person, and not simply Nature, Person is that Quod est, as the thing that is, and the Nature is that Quo est, whereby it is such a being: the condition of personall being, addeth to an individuall
nature, a negation of dependance, or of being sustained by another, every individuall
ra [...]ionall Nature, which is in and for it selfe is personall being; to be this or that
in and for another, is to pertain to the Person or subsistence of an [...]ther: these titles then attributed to our Saviour Christ doe plainely proclaime that
hee was a Person, and this you will yield; yet I deny this inference, therefore Christ
according to his humane nature is a Person, they are glorious expressions of such
a Christ as we do plead for, but altogether inconsistent to a Creature; Christ which
is your vilifying assertion, whole Christ according to his Deity and humanity, is
a Mediator, a Rede [...]mer, a King, a Priest, and a Prophet, a Lord, and Judge of all the World, and which
is more then another kind of Adversaries the Pontificians will grant, who yet do soundly
prove both his Natures; he is our Mediator according to both Natures, as the nature
of man was truly given and communicated to the Person of the Son of God, and hereupon
he is truly and really man; so the Person of the Son of God was as truly communicated
to the Nature of man, that it might subsist in that Divine Person, that so it might
not only be holy, but the holiest of all, even the Son of God, yea, and truly God.
Hence is there [Page 188](as I have often sayd) a communication of the Divine properties to man, not by Phisicall
communication or effusion, as the heat is from the fire, which is inherent as an accident
in the water; for if so then would there follow a confusion and conversion, and an
equalling of the natures, and naturall properties, but this communication is personall,
whereby the humane nature subsists in the Person of the Son of God, and it is called
the Grace of Union, which is in regard of the thing that is, the personall subsistence
gratiously bestowed on the humane nature in the Virgins womb, was infinite; yet observe
that the relation of dependency founded on the humane Nature, whereby it is [...], united to the Person of the Son of God, is a finite and created being.
Whereas you say all actions are of Persons, this is not true, unless it be understood
with caution, hath the soule of man no distinct actions when it informes the body,
and when it is separated from it? We do believe, that as there are two Natures in
Christ, two Wills, two kinds of properties answerable to their natures; so that there
are also two kinds of operations in him, all such are double in him. Divines do call
the actions appertaining to the office of our Mediator, Divinely Humane, or Humainly
Divine; the Person, I confess, the Quod that worketh is but one, not two, and [...], the work which is produced by the actions flowing from two principles thereof,
is also but one, and called elegantly [...], in reference to God, the principle is Divine, and as man is an inward principle,
'tis a Humane action, and upon this account it is, that the works of our Mediator
performed by both Natures, are otherwise ascribed to the Person in respect of the
Divine Nature, for instance, in miraculous works, and to give the Holy Ghost by his
efficatious power, the divine is the sole efficient principal, otherwise to the humane,
viz. by intercession, impetration: the conclusson is, you have not by all these texts
proved the humane Nature to be a Person, or rather to have a humane personality, but
they doe eff [...] ctually prove that it is united to that Person which is infinite, and which hath
all perfections eminently in it, and consequently that it is a high honour for the
humane nature to he there, when it would never have been in, and for it selfe in such
a transcendant manner of excellency, as now it is, whence it is also that the actions
of the humane Nature have in them a greater perfection then can be found in the actions
of any meer man, arising from the assistance of the [Page 189]Deity, which dwelleth [...], personally, and essentially in him, Colos. 2.9.
Bidd.
Deuter. 18.15. The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, out of
thy Brethren like unto me, unto him shall ye bearken. (You see here, that Christ for
this is a Prophesie concerning him, as Peter testifieth, Act. 22) was to be a Prophet; whom the Lord God of the Israelites should raise up unto them
of their Brethren like unto Moses, and therefore did not already exist in the time of Moses, much lesse was he the Lord God, unlesse any one will be so absurd as to say, that
the Lord God can raise up himself for a Prophet.
Answ.
This Section may either be true or false, as it is capable of a various interpretation,
if the Adversary meaneth, as he must according to his own principles, that the Person
of the Prophet did not subsist in the dayes that Moses Prophesied of him, as in some sort future, then it is false and justly denyed by
us, for The Word was in the beginning (of the Creation) 1. John 1. and himselfe, whose witness is undeniably true, saith of himselfe, Before Abraham was I am, and then of necessity it must follow, that it was also true, Before Moses was I am, and he was in a comfortable way alwayes, the Prophet of the Catholick Church: and
this is one Reason among others, why he is called The Word, the Embassadour of his heavenly Father, the Angel of the Covenant, Counsellor, and by such like titles. But how? this office he powerfully and savingly performed
from the beginning, but it was done in reference to the humane Nature to be assumed
into the unity of his Person, he alwayes by his Spirit repeated the Divine Truths
which were to be believed and practised, and that for the most part by the Ministry
of his Servants deputed to that office, and he was the person that alwayes enlightned
his people in all ages with saving knowledge and other sanctifying Graces.
It is very true that he did not subsist both God and Man, till many ages after this
Prophesie of Moses, we are far from such a dotage to assert that the humanity of Christ was eternall;
but we say, that he was only in the form of God, till the fulness of time when he
tooke flesh of the blessed Virgin Mary, Gal. 4.4. and whereas you infer much less was he the Lord God that raised up himseife
to be a Prophet, this is granted in a sense. he raised not up himself totaliter to [Page 190]be a Prophet in both Natures; nor was he the Lord God that raised him up: but it doth
not from hence follow, that he was not the true God, this work being a work ad extra, excluded no Person of the holy Trinity from the production of that nature, but terminatively,
this appertained only to the Son of God, which assumed this humane nature into his
Person.
Besides, consider Christ in that respect, as he was really raised up, to be a Prophet
in time, which was accomplished in the humane Nature, and so is he not formally the
Lord God, for who will or can assert the humanity of the Son of God to be very God?
Bidd.
Acts 2.22.23.26. God by Jesus wrought miracles among you, as your selves know, being raised from the
dead, and exalted at the right hand of God, and having received the promise of the
Holy Spirit from the Father: he hath powred out this which you now see and heare,
and God hath made him Lord and Christ, The words of S. Peter, as well as those Ephes. 4. formerly discussed, give cleare and full evidence touching the severall natures, order,
and dignity of the three Persons of the holy Trinity, for first in that Peter here calleth Jesus a man, and saith, that God wrought miracles by him, this sheweth
that he was not God himselfe, nor wrought miracles in his own proper power, but was
only the instrument of God in working them.
Answ,
That Jesus Christ was truly man none of ours do make any question, and that he did
also work miracles as he pleased, and when he would; the History of the Gospel doth
clearly hold forth, as also that God by him wrought those wonderfull Works, but for
better understanding hereof we are to take notice that Christ is a Receiver from another
by three degrees.
First, as he was the Son of God, he receved his Divine Nature by eternal generation;
and thus he hath one and the self same numericall substance with, and from the Father
only, the Father is alone originally that Deity, which Christ is not originally; whatsoever
Christ thus receiveth, he hath it naturally and eternally, and tis not bestowed on
him by way of favour and benevolence in this respect Though God the Father works miracles
by the Son, and an order is observed in working them, yet is not the Son of God subordinate
to him, or an instrument of these glorious works.
Secondly, Christ is a Receiver in this particular, that the Humane Nature hath had
the grace, the greatest grace that man was capable of, to be united to the Person
of his only begotten Son, in this he differeth from all men, because he is that man
of whom God is himselfe a part.
Thirdly, from the Grace of union is derived the Grace of Unction, by meanes whereof
sundry eminent Graces have followed as effects from the Deity into our nature, which
is joyned with it, enriching our nature with such degrees of grace and influences
of the Deity, both into the soul and body proportionable, to the great imployment
of our Saviour, and to his own purposes, ends, and Counsels, and we will not stick
to grant, that God by Christ in respect of the humane Nature was the principal, and
our Nature the instrumentall cause of working miracles.
We do further from these miraculous Works conclude, that our Saviour is the true God,
for God alone works wonders, and our Saviour convinceth the Jews his maligning opposers,
that because he hath power to work miracles, he had power to forgive sins, Mat. 9.5. which none but God could do, for the clearing whereof we may take notice of
three kindes of works wrought by Christ our Saviour, as Sophronius in that notable Epistle of his doth distinguish them in the sixt generall Synod,
Activ. 11.
First some are meerly Divine. as to create the world.
Secondly some are meerly humane, as to eat and sleep, and such like naturall actions,
the formall principle whereof is the Humane Nature, yet to be considered as existing
in the person of the Son of God, and not without it: these were actions of the Mediator,
because they kept him in the being of a Mediator, but not parts and actions of his
Mediatourship, as the Israelites eating and drinking in Egypt, was no part of the task of brick imposed on them, but qualified them to perform
their task.
Thirdly, some actions are partly Divine, and partly humane, I instance in most of
the miracles of our Saviour, as one is, to walke upon the waters, for as simply to
walk on them was a humane action, yet to give firmnesse and solidity to the liquid
waters (if the miracles was in the waters) to bear up the weight of his heavy body,
or if the miracle was in the body of our Lord, by holding it up, or otherwise that
it should not sink; this I say, was an action of the Deity: thus was it also touching
other miracles wrought by our blessed [Page 192]Saviour, both the Deity and Humanity concurred to their production; but in different
manner, as in healing the sick, giving Sight to the Blind, Hearing to the Deafe, Raising
the Dead: the efficacy of the Spirit of the Deity, as the principall cause was seen
in working the miracle, and the humane nature concurred instrumentally both in respect
of his body and his soul, in regard of the former, that he touched them, or they
him that were to be healed, or spake to them as to Lazarus lying in the grave, Come forth, or commanded the Devil to come out of them that were possessed by him; in respect
of his soul, that he desired, approved, and rejoyced in that supernatural work, which
the divine power brought to passe, this shewed that the humane nature neither had,
nor possibly could have that Divine power residing in it to work miracles, but it
was onely the Instrument of the Deity in these words of wonder.
Bid. Secondly, When he saith, that Jesus being exalted at the right hand of God, and hauing
received the promise of the Holy Ghost from the Father poured it out on the Apostles,
this argueth, that he gave the Holy Ghost as a man, since he neither could be exalted
by God, nor receive the promise of the Holy Ghost from the Father, for according
to the supposition of the Adversaries themselves, the holy Spirit proceedeth from
Christ, as he is God, as well as from the Father, and consequently the holy Spirit
himself is so far from being God (in as much as it is absurd, yea impossible that
God should be received by promise from any one) as that he is not equal to Christ,
as man, since his exaltation, because he that is given and disposed of by another,
must be inferiour in Dignity to him that giveth him.
Ans. The Son of God, which did first humble himself by taking our nature upon him, descended
afterwards much lower, and in regard of his flesh became obedient, so far as to suffer
even the cursed death of the Crosse for our salvation, hecause it was his Fathers
will and pleasure that he should do so, he thus dying and being buried, was brought
to the lowest condition, insomuch that his wicked enemies thought, as the brethren
of Joseph did, when they had sold him to strangers, that they had so taken him out of the way,
that they should never again be troubled with him; but see to our unspeakable comfort
how much they were deceived? as Christ by his manhood had glorified God on earth,
in his suffering, so God hath glorified that humane nature, and exalted him in Dignity,
far above all Angels and men, and he now sitting at the [Page 193]right hand of God, hath fulnesse of power over the whole world, and fills the Church
with the gracious and happy fruits of his saving presence, and exerciseth the Dominion,
wherein the humanity o [...] Christ is inseparably united to the Deity of the Son of God, but doth this concession
touching the humane nature infer a denial of the Divine? in no wise, this is done
by no better Logick, than by our asserting one constituting part of a created person;
to think it convincing, that there is no other, as if I should say, this man hath
a body, and prove plainly that he hath so, therefore he hath not a soul, and suppose
it onely without proof.
You infer that Jesus Christ gave the Holy Ghost, as a man, this quatenus and Inference is denyed, this follows, he that gave the Holy Ghost was a man, and
his manhood was inseparably united to the person of the Son of God, and is no where
actually severed from him but the conjunction with the Deity is extended as far as
the Deity, though the actuall position thereof is restrained to a limited place; the
infinite word is not divisible into parts, and therefore could not in part, but wholly
be incarnated as the light in the beginning, which was created by God did enlighten
the Creation, but after the Sun and stars were created, the world was illuminated
by them, so in our present case, the Deity which before our Lords incarnation wrought
all things without man, doth now in the affairs of the Church work nothing wherein
the assumed nature of man is absent, or not in a sense co-working with it: the promise
then of the holy Ghost (to clear the meaning thereof) is the holy Ghost promised,
& it is in another place called the promise of the Father, Act. 14.5. or the promise which Christ gave the Disciples from the Father, which was meant
of the liberal gifts of the spirit, & this comforter he promised to send to the Apostles,
Joh. 14.16. and 16.7. now Ss Peter alledgeth this promise, and 33. c. 2. that the Jews might undoubtedly know that this great gift of speaking with tongues
was not suddenly given but that our Lord Christ was faithful and true to perform his
promise made to them, the Father of our Lord Christ poured out the holy Ghost on him,
not as he was God, for that was not possible, but as he was our Mediatour, to prepare
& furnish him with gifts for that high office, the human nature of his divine person
must have eminent graces conferred on it without measure, not simply infinite, because
that nature is simply finite; observe then, Christ receives this promise from his
Father, as he is our Mediatour, and he sent the [Page 194]Holy Ghost on the Apostles as he was God; it is the office of our Mediator, as he
is our Mediator to reconcile us to his Father, and to confer on us his servants in
some degree, what he receives from the Father, so far as is expedient for our salvation.
Our supposition is a true position, that the Holy Ghost proceeds both from God the
Father, and God the Son, in an ineffable and inconceiveable manner to us, but not
from man, nor is this procession properly in time, but from all eternity, whereas
you say that Christ gave the Holy Ghost, as he was man. You mean by his humane glorified
nature, this we do absolutely deny, and we are sure you can never prove it, the Son
of God which is our happy Mediator, gave him to his Disciples? but how was he given?
in regard of the plentifull gifts which he bestowed on them; he was from the beginning
given to the Elect to sanctifie them, and in regard of common Graces to Reprobates
also, but not in that ample and great measure as he was given in the latter dayes;
the Holy Ghost thus was not given, because Jesus Christ was not yet glorified, John 7.39. which is clearly meant of the Holy Ghosts visible descending upon the Disciples
in the appearance of cloven Tongues like fire, Acts 2.2.33. by which he should give testimony of the truth of all that Christ had said
unto them, John 15.26. and secondly testifie also to others, that whatsoever they should teach was
also the will of God. and so authorize them to give solemn testimony of the resurrection
of Jesus Christ, and give them commission and graces to discharge their whole Ministery,
as choice Witnesses now designed by him to declare to Israel, and not only to Jews,
but to Gentiles also what Christ had done, and preached in their presence, and that
he was risen from the dead. Dr. Hammond on Act. 1. Note is, see also John 6.4.7. He that was man gave the Holy Ghost, but not as he was man. Mr. Biddle that sits doth write, but not as he sitteth; he sitting doth eat, but not as he sits,
for then every one that sits should write and eat: This is a transparent fallacy.
You tell us (in a Parenthesis) that it is impossible that God should be received by promise from any,
1. Consider well, and this will prove the Holy Ghost to be God, because he is at once
received of many, and of those which are distant one from another; 'tis a strange
creature to admiration that can be in this Apostle; and in others essentially as far
remote a [Page 195]East from West, in this place and not in that which is contiguous to it.
2. Secondly, it is no absurdity at all, no false assertion, but a Divine Truth full
of heavenly comfort, that God the Father by his Son should give the Holy Ghost, who
was essentialy every where, and in all times present to be in another way present,
that is, according to promise, gratiously present, and in a speciall manner to dwell
with his Servants: See my answer against Biddle in defence of the Holy Ghost, 7. Reason.
The Holy Ghost (say you) is not equall to Christ as man, since his exaltation, because he gives and disposeth
him.
To this first I answer, that the Holy Ghost is so far from being inferior to the Humane
Nature, that he is in that respect superior to him, not only because in that consideration
he sent Christ, Esay 61.1. This is a strong Argument against the Adversary, because he would by this prove
the Holy Ghost to be inferior to God, but because he received his created being from
him: He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, Mat. 1. as also because he was corporally raised from death by him, Rom. 8.11. and Christ himselfe saith, It was a greater sin which is committed against the Holy Ghost, then that sin which
is committed against the Son of Man, Mat 12.31.32.
2. But the Adversary seems to grant that the Son was not greater then the Holy Ghost.
till his exaltation. First this crosseth his Exposition of Phil. 2. when he was in the form of God, and equall to God, was he not then the second
Person of the holy Trinity, and greater then the Holy Ghost? 2. I deny that in his
humane nature he was, when exalted greater then the Spirit of God; the Argument is
too weak to prove it, and false, for the Humane Nature gives not the Holy Ghost to
the Servants of God, but tis the blessed Father by the Son of God; it is the Person
of the Son, and not the Humane Nature in a seperated consideration that gives him.
Thirdly, although the Holy Ghost be given in regard of his Graces by the Son of God,
yet doth it not follow that he is inferior in dignity to him that gives him; the Son
of man gives himself for us, & is given for us, yea and the holy Ghost doth give himselfe
to us, because his grace is from his free and absolute power, The Spirit blows where he will, John 3. and divides to every one his Gifts as he pleaseth, 1. Cor. 1.2. See of this largely my answer to his 7. v. against the Holy Ghost.
Touching the word (disposing) The Spirit is disposed by Christ, we do utterly disclaim it, being no Scripture-term, and apt to mislead the ignorant.
Bidd.
Finally whereas he saith, that God hath made this Jesus whom the Jewes crucified Lord
and Christ; this intimateth that Jesus as a man for neither could any other but a
Man be crucified) was made Lord by God, and therefore that his humane Nature is a
Person (since nothing but a Person can be made Lord,) so that we need not feign to
our selves any other nature in Christ besides his Humane to sustain his Lordship;
wherfore by this passage it plainly appeareth that the Trinity, which the Apostle Peter believed consisteth of God the Father, of the Man Jesus Christ our Lord, and of the
Holy Spirit the gift of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Answ.
The Text hath been fully discussed above p. 1067. which doth wel prove that the Humane
Nature was a Person, but that he was a Person that was made Lord, which none of us
denie, and that he was raised and honoured by his Father, not simply, as he was the
Son of God, and really in the Divine Nature, which is most high. But that he was in
his Humane Nature annoynted to be King, and to have the regency and dominion of the
Church, which is so to be understood, not that he in his manhood was simply before
that time without possession of the same power, but because the full use thereof,
and the exercise of this power was suspended, till the state of his humiliation, which
vailed Divine Majesty, was laid aside, and this also shall cease, when there shall
be no Church militant to governe, no enemy to subdue and annoy his chosen ones.
Touching the Description of the Trinity feigned out of your own brain, I say at present,
the Son of God by being made flesh, hath changed the manner of his personall subsistance,
which before was solitary, but hath now associated the humane Nature to his Person,
without any alteration accruing thereby to the Nature of God: the Son of God I say
is the second Person of the glorious Trinity, though not so denominated by his Humane
Nature highly exalted, for upon this account the blessed Trinity should not have been
at all till above four thousands of years after the Creation, which is irrationall
to conceive: the Holy Ghost is now and ever was the third Person of the holy Trinity
called a Gift, but not such a gift as is [Page 197]subject to the command of a superior, nor such a gift which is in the power of another
to dispose of at pleasure, betwixt God giving and this gift given, there is co-ordination,
and no subordination, and consents with the Father that gives him, and gives himself
gratiously, it is consensus amicitiae non imperii, he is denominated a gift in time.
Bidd.
And shall I never thelesse be induced by I know not what forced consequences of men
repugnant to reason and the stream of the Scriptures, in dispight of so signal admonition
proceeding from the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to believe that Christ
as to his Nature, is not only a Man, but that very God which did these Miracles by
him, and made him Lord and Christ? far be it.
Answ.
Mr. Bidddle might boast of himself to this effect: Shall such a one as I am, enamoured with the strong delusions of Sathan, and imbracing
carnall Reason, an empty shaddow in stead of solid soul-reviving, and soul-refreshing
truth? shall I who am so highly conceited of my self, that I do sleight the judgment
of the ancient Fathers, of modern Writers, and of the Catholick Church, albeit grounded
not only on immediate, naturall and necessary consequences of Scripture, which are
the objects of divine faith, but on many clear and express Texts of holy Writ which
I have sweat and laboured in vain, as the Disciples which fished all night and cought
nothing, to elude with my cursed glosses and forced interpretations? shall I so far
abase my self as to write Retractations, and cry mightily to the Lord to pardon me
for dishonouring his dear Son, and doing injury to his Church, by seducing unstable
souls? shall I who yet have not learned to put a difference betwixt Person and Natures,
betwixt concrete and abstract terms staine my cheeks with the blushings of Recantations?
far be it from me so to do.
The Adversary cannot apprehend how the Humane Nature should be united to the Divine,
& I can as little conceive how at once it can subsist in the same subject, which you
will have to be but a meere Man, the greatest Power, and the greatest Infirmity; the
Fountain of life, and Mortality, power to raise up the dead, and the weakness of Nature,
which is subject to hunger, thirst, feare, and to death it selfe. It's true indeed
that Reason after all its advancements and improvements, must stand far off in Atrio Gentium, it cannot by its own principles enter into the Temple of God, and discerne these
[Page 198]abstruse mysteries, yet by divine help and revelation it may do something this way,
nor should it seem absurd to the Adversary, that the Son of God should be incarnated,
for themselves confesse, that God by his Grace dwelt with Christ in a peculiar manner,
whereupon he is called God; why then may not the Son of God right himselfe in a
singular manner according to essence, to the humanity of Christ, who is essentially
present to all things.
Nor is it a strange thing, but usuall and lawfull to confirm Articles of faith by
consequences deduced out of holy Scriptures: thus did our Saviour Christ confute the
Saduces, and proved the resurrection of the dead, Math. 22.23. by a consequence out of Exod 3.6. and Paul proved, that Jesus whom he preached was the Christ, by opening the Scriptures to
them in the Old Testament, Act. 17.2.3. and Act. 26.22.23. genuine consequences are to be credited, as the plain word it selfe.
Bidd.
Esa. 9.6. Ʋnto us a Childe is borne, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall be upon
his shoulders, and his name shall be called Wonderfull, by reason of his exaltation,
which is so strange and wonderfull, that even the greatest part of Christians cannot
believe it, and therefore imagine another Nature in Christ, besides his Humane Nature,
as thinking a man uncapable of so transcendent exaltation.
Answ
This is a slander groundlessely raised against the Orthodox, both in regard of his
Humane Nature, and Divine; in regard of the Humane Nature, for none of ours do deny,
but do professe the great and transcendent exaltation of our Saviours Humanity to
be far above principalities and powers, above all Angels and every created Name; in
regard of the Divine Nature your slander is insinuated, as if we believed not that
it was simply infinite, and altogether uncapable of exaltation.
Secondly, the Adversaries Exposition is without any Warrant, nor is it full, but by
much restrained, for he is wonderfull in regard of his Person, being both God and
Man in one Person, he is wonderfull also in his Conception, Nativity, and wonderfull
in all his Offices, &c.
Bidd.
Counsellor (in acquainting us with the Counsell of God) a mighty God (by reason of
the Divine Empire over all things) both in Heaven and on Earth conferred on him by
the Father, agreeably whereunto Paul calls him a God over all, blessed for ever, Rom. 9.5.
Answ.
Christ is called a Counsellor, not in a Passive, but Active sense, not because he
was made acquainted with Gods Counsels, but for giving Counsell, Esa. 40. who as a Counsellor hath taught him? he was joyned in Counsel with his Father
from all eternity; yet will I not deny, but he was also a Counsellor in your sense,
because he acquaints us with the Counsels of God, by what means we may attain eternall
life.
A made God is not a mighty God El Gibbor is a mighty God in a proper sense appropriated to the most high God of Israel. I
reason thus:
The strong God is truly and properly the most high God, the God of Israel, Iesus Christ
is the strong God. Ergo.
The major proposition is so evident, that no instance can be alledged to weaken the
truth thereof: this Epithite of strong doth not weaken or change the strength and
signification of the word God, no more then the like titles, by calling him the great
God, the living God, the just God, and the like, but it hath use to distinguish him
from made Gods, who are not mighty Gods but weak men, or Angels, and at the command
of this mighty God, albeit seperately, El God is attributed sometimes to Magistrates, Psal. 82.1. and Gibbarim, mighty to the Captains of Nebuchadnezzars Army, Ezech. 32.12. yet in this Scripture, these two joyntly are never attributed to any but to
the God of Israel. Thus is God described, The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob to the mighty God. Nor doth this title only distinguish the true God from all other Gods, but it is
added to the name of God, when he is described in his glory and magnificence, Deuter. 10.17. The Lord your God is a God of gods, a great God, a mighty and a terrible God: the like also Nehem. 9.32. and Jerem. 32.18. Thou art the great the mighty God, the Lord of Hostes is his name: yea, and it is added to the name Jehovah, for the greater Emphasis; who is this King of glory? the Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battell, Psal. 24.8.
The Minor is proved by the words of the Text, and Christ is declared to be a mighty God by
his working of Miracles by his owne power, by sending the Holy Spirit to the Apostles,
and raising up the dead. Who can think this man was well advised, and not rather voyd
of common sense, that hee hath the face to alledge this Scripture to prove our Saviour
not to be true God?
Bidd.
A Father of the Age, as bring the Author of the Age to come, as both the Septuagint
and the old Latine Interpreter expounds it, or else a Father of eternity, in being
the Authour of eternall life to all that obey him. For to render the word as the English
Translators do, who here call Christ the everlasting Father, is to confound the Person
of the Son with that of the Father, and so to introduce Sabellianisme.
Answ.
How could a child be called the Father of eternity, if he was nothing else but a
child new born? and if he be so called because he is the Author and Fountain of Eternity,
how can he be so called who was a mortall child? you say he is so called, because
he is the Author of the age to come of eternall life to them that obey him. I grant
that he is so indeed, both by the merit of his passion, which you do impiouslly deny,
and by efficacy also, both which depended on the worthinesse of his person being God,
there can be but one Author of the glorification of the Saints, which is the most
high God, and do you intend by this Title to exclude the first Person of the sacred
Trinity from being the Author of Salvation? Doth he so leave this work to his dear
Son, that he himselfe is not the principall Author thereof? Is not the future Age
more excellent then that which is past or present? It is a greater honour to be the
Father of the future Age, than of that which is past and present, that then which
is lesse is ascribed only to God, and that which is greater and more is ascribed to
Man only, and is he called the Father of Eternall life in the abstract, and not in
the concrete? Is he not a Father of them which have eternall life communicated to
them by him? Is the Church called the Mother of us all, Gal. 4.26. and shall not the Spouse and Husband of the Church be called the Father of
us all.
The word [...] taken absolutely, and by it selfe, as here it is, doth never precisely signifie the
Age to come, but it is a Divine Title of God himselfe, who is said to inhabite Eternity,
Esa. 57.15. and it signifies properly re [...]petuity of being, without beginning, without any succession, [...], or ending, go as far backward as you will, and his Name is [...] yet; and as far forward as you will, and he is Father yet; tis a title that properly
cannot belong to any creature, and proves in truth Christ to be the high God, for
how can he who by nature is onely a man, be the Father of Eternity? God alwayes is
one and remains the same; this divine Eternity, which is an Attribute of him who is
by nature the true God, and in time manifested himselfe in our flesh, is considered
either in regard of God, and so it is simply without parts and succession of time,
we do illustrate this to help our understanding, by comparing it to an indivisible
poynt, or to a moment of [...], God doth co-exist with all things that are, he is totus & totaliter with them, and Creatures do co-exist with the whole eternity of God, yet not totally,
but by parts and succession.
You cavill at our Translation which loseth not the sense of the place, by turning
it everlasting Father; it is the idiom of our English congue to translate the Substantive
in the originall by the Adjective, Gen. 21.33. The God of Eternity [...]s turned, the everl [...]sting God: The God of Antiquity (Deuter. 33.27.) is translated, The eternall God, and Arms of Eternity, eternall or everlasting Arms: and who would carp at this Translation but Mr. Biddle?
Lastly, whereas be faith this Translation confounds the Persons of the Trinity, and
introduceth Sabellianism: I do deny the consequence, the Adversary takes advantage
of the Homonimy or various signification of the word Father; for Father hath relation to his Son, this is Relatio ad intra, and so in this consideration the Son of God is not the Father, but distinguished
from him.
Secondly, Father is taken for the Creator of all things, and the God of Nature, Job 38.28. Hath the Raine a Father? none but God, or who hath begotten the drops of the Dew: as if he had said, None but I my selfe. Thus not onely the first Person of the Trinity, but the Son and Holy Spirit are
Father of all created things.
Thirdly, a Father is taken for the authour of Spirituall graces, as the Divine persons
are one in essence, so are they one in Fatherhood, and the Son is called the Father
of Eternity, not onely because he with the Father created all things, but because
we are by him the adopted sons of God, elect and regenerated to inherit eternal life.
Bidd.
He is the Prince of Peace, when the Prophet here saith, that the child which was to
be born to us, and the Son that was to be given to us, and the Son that was to be
given for us, should be called a mighty God, he sufficiently intimateth, that Christ
in his humane nature should be a mighty God, so that we need not fancy any other nature
in him.
Answ.
Is Christ the Prince of Peace. Doth not this title demonstrate him to be the most
high God? he might have been called and acknowledged to be the way and means of Peace,
but not the Prince of Peace, who can at his pleasure give Peace, unlesse he had been
the most high God?
Nor doth the Text say any such matter as you do intimate, that he was the great God,
in that he was a child: it is manifest that these titles belong not to a child as
a child, but to him that was a child, and such a child as was more than a child, more
than an ordinary man: there is a great deal of difference betwixt these two, Christ
in his humane nature is a mighty God, and the Person that was a child, is a mighty
God: by calling him child it is declared, that he in time was to be born of his Mother,
but in saying, a son is given, (this is not a needlesse repetition of the same preceding
thing) he points with his finger to the eternal generation of the Son of God, Cramer. Schola prophetica in locum: there is a double Nativity of our Saviour, the one is temporal, in that he is called
a child, this from his Mother, the other eternal, in that he is called a Son, he was
born from the deep beneath, as he was a child, and from the heighth above as he was
a Son, Isa. 7. and this is from his Father; the same person which was an Infant in regard of
his Mother, is also an eternal Son in regard of his Father, Councel of Trent, 2 Can. and this Person doth exercise in both natures, albeit in a different manner, the
threefold offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, for our salvation.
Bidd.
John 20.28. Then said Jesus to Thomas, reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands, and reach hither thy hand, and thrust
it into my side, and be not faithlesse, but believing; and Thomas said unto him, my Lord and my God: observe how Thomas here calleth that man Iesus, whom he saw and felt, his Lord and his God, but directeth
not his speech to I know not what second person or subsistence of God, which he neither
saw nor felt.
Answ.
Who can imagine that this Adversary will at any time want proo [...], that Christ is onely man, when he alledgeth a Scripture to this purpose, approved
by the Lord himself, which directly and in expresse terms asserts him to be his Lord
and his God? Thomas Didimus suddenly by a kind of holy admiration, and not without taking shame to himself, for
his former incredulity was convinced, partly by his Resurrection from the dead, and
partly by his perfect knowledge of what Thomas had spoken privately to the Apostles, that he was not onely man, but Lord and God,
the omnipotent God of heaven, yea, his Lord and his God; he alludes, as Zanchie guesseth to the Text in the Law, Deut. 6.4 where he is called the Lord our God, the Evangel [...]st turns Jehovah, following the Septu [...]gints by [...], Thomas spoke the Hebrew then in use, and called him Jehovah, nor might the Jews call any,
but onely the most High God by that name, and the enlightening understanding of Thomas carried him from the sight of Christ-man, to believe on Christ-God, and by what was
wrought in the Humanity and discovered by the Lord to Thomas, he acknowledged h [...]s Deity, as Calvin speaks to this purpose excellently, and do not we read how Moses and the Israelites, when some visible sign of Gods presence was exhibited to them
directed their Divine Worship to the invisible God which they saw not.
Bidd.
Joh. 10.34, 35, 36. The Iews answered him, saying for a good work we stone thee not, but for Blasphemy,
and because that thou being a man makest thy self a God, (and so it is in the Greek)
Iesus answered them, is it not written in your Law, I said ye are Gods, if he called
them Gods unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, say
ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest,
because I said, I am the Son of God? [Page 204]had Christ been indued with a Divine nature besides his humane, and did his Godhead
consist therein as the Adversaries affirm) it would have been necessary for answering
the Iews here to have declared it, they objected unto Christ the crime of blasphemy,
for that he being a man, made himself a God, doth he therefore to decline the imputation
of blasphemy, resort to an eternal generation, or hypostaticall union of natures
saying, if he call them Gods to whom the Word of God came, say ye of him whom the
Father eternally begot out of his substance, so that he is very God, co essential,
equal with the Father, and in whom the humane nature is hypostatically united to
the Divine, thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? nothing lesse;
but on the contrary he sheweth, that he is therefore the Son of God, because the Father
hath sanctifyed him, and sent him into the World, and so not for having the Divine
nature united to the humane, but for the sanctification of the Father.
Answ.
Our grand Adversary the Devil cannot endure the Doctrine of the Deity of the Son,
whereby his head was chiefly broken, and therefore he provoketh his choice instruments
to accuse it as blasphemy, tending to the dishonour of the most high God, and they
that have this his mark upon their foreheads, openly professe their abhorrency from
it, and in their hands do write against it, and labour to vent their sophistical
Wares to delude ignorant and unstable fouls.
First, the Jews inferred, and that very soundly, which Mr. Biddle cannot see, that Christ professeth himself to be God, by his saying, that Christ
and his Father are one, and this their Collection is not denyed by our blessed Saviour,
nor doth he blame them, and tell them plainly, that they were mistaken, and that he
was not very God, as John the Baptist told them [...]nly, that he was not the Christ, whereby he satisfied the Jews, and cleared their
judgement in that point.
Secondly, our Saviour sheweth that the Jews ought not to take offence for his calling
himself the Son of God, albeit he had been onely man, for be it granted, that I am
onely man, yet ought you not to judge this my speech a strange language, for in your
Law (the Divine word in Psal. 82.) Magistrates who were but ordinary Judges of those times, which were chosen by
men, and advanced to that office, have their Authority from God, and are Gods Vicegerents,
[Page 205]yea and have the Title of God put upon them, I said ye are Gods and Sons of the most high: how much more may I who have a commission, immediatly from God the Father, and who
sent me into the World to be a Mediator betwixt God and men, without blasphemy say,
that I am the Son of God? this being granted, yet will it not follow that Christ is
no otherwise the Son of God then Kings and Magistrates are denominated his Sons, but
our Saviour vanquished the slander of the Jewes by that divine testimony, and proveth
thereby, that it was no blasphemy in him, nor dishonour done to God to call him his
Father; to this I may adde with learned Camer. that the knowledge of Christs Divinity was not clearly revealed in those dayes as
it was after his resurrection and ascention into Heaven, nor doth Christ so evidently
call himselfe God, as he was afterwards famously known to be, but this he leaves to
be collected from his gratious words & miraculous works, that he was the naturall
Son of God, and by consequent that God was his Father, which relation lifts up Christ
above a [...]l creatures.
Thirdly, I may clear up this testimony as other Writers before me have done in this
manner. Christ shakes off the imputation of blasphemy unworthily charged on him, and
proves himselfe to be the true God by an argument taken from a comparison of the lesser
to the greater, as the Logicians speak, and that is drawn from the example of the
Magistrates. which in Psal. 82. are called gods: thus may the Syllogism be formed:
If the Magistrates are called Gods, much more am I a God. No, but the Magist [...]ates are called gods, Psal. 82. Ergo, if to that which is lesse a title proportionable lesse is attributed, then to the
greater a title proportionably greater is due; if to a subject which is lesse the
title of gods belongs, then to a subject which is greater that is to Christ [...], who is the Lord of all Magistrates a greater title is due. 1. The name of the Son
of God, or the chiefe God; the consequence is proved, because Christ was sanctified,
and set apart to be a Mediator and Saviour of the World, and he sanctifies himselfe
for the sake of his Disciples, John 17.10 sanctification is a most holy destination of a most holy Person, that he sanctifying
himselfe might sanctifie all the Elect He was sanctified, and he sanctified himself;
he was given, and he gave himself; the Father and the Son joyntly acted in that gratious
work, and he being sent must really exist before he was sent, and this office, as
I have often said, he could not [Page 206]form, had he not been God as well as Man: this is a better testimony to shew what
Christ was, and a better Warrant to call himselfe God, then Magistrates have which
had Gods word, that is authority from God, and commandement to dease justly betwixt
man and man, and this will more evidently appear, if we consider that God, 1. Christ
speakes, and Bisterf. observes that many of the Psalmes which have this title, To Asaph, do treat of the Kingdome of Christ, at or after the conversion of the Jewes, and
2. the words of this Psalm do prove it, God said, You are the Sons of the most high: had it been meant of God the Father only, it would have been said My Sons, v. 6. and v. 8. Arise O God and judge the Earth (that is the Office of our Saviour) for thou shalt inherit all Nations: all shall in time become Christs, who is the King of the Saints, Revel. 15.3. and in John 10.34. is it not written in the Law, I (the Messias) have said ye are gods?
Lastly, Christ doth appeal to his Works, ver. 37. that the Father was in him, and he in the Father, that they were one, which none
of the Prophets ever asserted, from that which is more known, Christ teacheth that
which is lesse knowne, which proofe is most popular, and most efficatious: this Scripture
then (all things prudently considered) is strong against the Adversary to prove the
Deity of the Son of God,
Bidd.
Matthew 1.20. Joseph thou son of David fear not to take unto thee Mary thy Wife, for that which is conceived of her is of the Holy Ghost; had Christ had
a divine Nature in being the eternall Son of God, the Angel would not have told Joseph, that, that which was conceived in the womb of his Wife was of the Holy Spirit, otherwise
not only the Humane Nature of the eternall Son of God, but the very eternall Son
himself (for the Adversaries hold that he was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary) would be of the Holy Spirit, and so Christ not onely as Man, but as the eternall Son
of God be caused by the Holy Spirit; the latter of which (though flowing from their
opinion touching the nature and conception of Christ) is yet denied by the Adversaries,
and so should the former too, since he that was the eternall Son of God co-essentiall
with the Father, if he would be incarnated, needed not the assistance of the Holy
Spirit to furnish him with a humane Nature from a Virgin, being himselfe able to produce
it of her, unlesse you will say that his own Divine Nature was in the mean time idle.
Answ.
The design of the Adversary is to intangle us with a contradiction, out of which we
can easily extricate our selves: I say it is no contradiction to say Christ was conceived
of the Holy Ghost, and borne of the Virgin Mary, and to say again, he was not conceived of the Holy Ghost nor born of the Virgin Mary, if these seemingly opposite propositions be not spoken in the same respect, though
they spoken of the same person; no person was borne of the Virgin but the Son of God;
no person was baptized but the Son of God, no Person but the Son of God was condemned
and crucified. Hence is it that the Jews are said to have crucified the Lord of glory, death is ascribed to the Lord of glory, wherof the divine nature was not capable,
& therfore we must needs understand the whole Person of Christ, who being the Lord
of glory was crucified indeed but not in that nature for which he is termed the Lord
of glory, which one only point of our Christian Faith (the infinitenes I mean of his
Divine Person) is the ground of all things believed concerning our happiness, by that
which Christ either did or suffered as he was man in our behalfe.
Upon this ground I deny your consequence, if Christ had a Divine nature in being the
eternal Son of God; the Angel would not have told Joseph, that what was conceived in the womb of his wife was of the Holy Spirit, otherwise
the eternal Son himself, would be by the Spirit, and be caused by the Spirit, these
are loose, groundlesse consequences easily blown away with the breath of the truth,
and by the light of the former discourse: mark then the Son of God simply, as he is
God, & solely the Son of God is not conceived by the holy Ghost, nor born of the Virgin
Mary, but the Son of God in respect of the humane N [...]ture, which was hypostatically united to his sacred person, his humane Nature I say,
was by the powerfull operation of the holy Ghost, by which the blessed virgin was
pregnant, as Justin Martyr saith Apolog. 2. Secondly it was the work of the Holy Spirit, that the virgin should conceive without
the seed of man, and that he should not have a Father immediately on earth. Thirdly
that the masse which the Son of man assumed, should be purified and that corruption
should not be derived to him by the chanel of natural generation, 4. And that the
Divine and humane nature, should be in an admirable manner united in one person; this
Son of God was begotten of his Father by eternal generation before the Creation,
yet became also man of the substance of his mother by temporall [Page 208]generation, this was wrought in a moment, and wonderfully the power of the Holy Ghost
shall overshadow thee, Luke 1.35. as it is true, that thou (O blessed virgin, shalt conceive by the powerfull
operation of the Holy Ghost, and not by mans seed, and therefore thou shalt be a Mother
virgin, so is it as true, that that which thou shalt conceive and bear, is the Son
of God, yet is it not an orthodoxal expression to say, Christ as he is man, or according
to his humane nature, is the Son of God, for in this consideration he is onely the
Son of man, of David, yet may we by the warrant of Scripture language say, God manifested in the flesh
is the Son of God, or this man which is called Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, begotten by his Father, by eternal generation, and is therefore
called the onely begotten Son of God.
You adde, had Christ been the eternal Son of God, he needed not the assistance of
the Holy Ghost to furnish him with a humane nature, being himself able to produce
it, unlesse you will say, his Divine nature was idle.
I answer, all this is spoken both ignorantly and blasphemously, for the holy Ghost
had no efficiency or causality in the incarnation of our blessed saviour, which was
not common to the Trinity, for as Father, son and holy Ghost are inseparable, touching
the Divine Essence and power of working, so likewise are they inseparable in their
operations. The persons of the holy Trinity, have one absolute, entire Essence and
existence, and therefore being one and the same God, it followeth that their transient
and outward actions in reference to the Creatures, are undivided and common to them
all, as one formal Principle of them; albeit, I deny not that power by a phrase of
speech, called by the Schoolmen appropriation, is ascribed to the Father, Wisdome
to Gods Son, and holinesse to the blessed spirit, so that to speak properly, all the
three persons, which are one essentiall and absolute God, blessed for ever, did without
any peculiar efficiency to any one of them frame the humane nature of Christ, though
it was terminative (as they say) assumed onely by the second person, which denotes
the dependency of that humane nature on the Divine Person, without any difference
of causality betwixt them. Tis a common comparison to illustrate this truth; three
Vergins doe joyntly make up a garment for one of them onely to weare, so all the three
persons as one cause did produce the Humane Nature, yet was it taken only into the
Person of [Page 209]the Son of God. Christ became Man, not in regard of the Divine Nature simply, which
is common to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but as it subsists in the Son of God, tis
true if we respect the original of working there is a difference, the Father as he
is of himself, and from no other, so doth he work from himselfe, not from the Son,
and the Son as he is from the Father, so he doth also work from the Father, but because
there is no distinction of the Persons in regard of the formall, essentiall principle
of working, it follows there is no distinction or separation of the Divine Persons
in the work it self.
It was therefore both an absurd and a blasphemous inference, and that, as you say,
from our principle, either that it was needlesse for the Holy Ghost to frame the body
of our Lord, or else that the Divine Nature of the Son of God was idle: will you grant
then (which by this your reason must needs follow) because Christ was conceived by
the Holy Ghost, therefore God the Father was idle, and not the prime Worker of this
marvellous conception, unheard of in the world ti [...]l this time, that a Virgin should be Mother to a Son, by this instance to inlarge
no more on this subject, at present you will I suppose see your errour.
Bidd.
This consideration is so forcible that Justin Martyr pressed with the difficulty thereof saith in his Apologic to the Roman Emperor, that
by the Holy Spirit which came upon the Virgin, and caused her conception, is at no
hand to be understood any other then the Word or Son of God, contrary to the perpetuall
usage of the Scripture, which by the Holy Spirit always is meant, not the second,
but third Person of the holy Trinity.
Answ,
To this I answer, If Justin Martyr in his second Apology (for in that and not the first, there is som thing to be found
tending that way) takes the Holy Ghost for the Son of God, his Exposition is singular,
and we own it not, nor are we bound to maintain it; they which do seem to the vulgar
sort to value the Fathers Writings at a high rate, yet will not defend, but reject
a single testimony, when it is opposite to all, or the greater number of the Ancients,
and do answer, One Swallow makes not a Summer: Sextus Senexsis Biblioth. lib. 5. Annotat. 247. yet albeit Justin Martyr might faile in his Exposition of that sacred Text, his judgement notwithstanding
is clear against you for the Deity of the Son of God; yea, and this very place might
have informed you to say now no more. For how should he [Page 210]be able to make of the Virgin, and assume our nature, had he not been God? the Virgin
Mary said, How can this be, seeing I know not a man, Luk. 1.34. doth not the Angel confine her by saying, Nothing is unpossible to God, v. 37. If the Virgin Mary then conceived by the Son of God, it follows that he was God.
Secondly, I do not a little wonder if that Ancient Father and blessed Martyr should
take the Holy Ghost in that sense, that he is alledged by the Adversary; my reason
is, because he often mentions the Holy Ghost, both in that Apology and in his other
tracts, as distinct from Father and Son, and never confounds them, and why he should
in one place so mistake, I see no ground; this I am sure he did not, because as you
say he was pressed with any difficulty in the Text.
Thirdly, the Martyr possibly may mean the Son of God, not as he is distinguished from the Holy Ghost,
but spoken of him in opposition to the Creatures, that no Angel or Man had a hand
in that wonderfull conception, but not denying the same miracle to be wrought by the
Holy Ghost, nor indeed could he exclude him, because he asserts in the Treatise of
the Exposition of faith that the three Divine Persons are but one Essence which powerfully
workes by all three conjunctim.
Lastly, if thus he meant not, then perhaps he mentions the Son of God in regard of
the term ad quem, in what this Nature was assumed into, and depended on the Person, not of the Father,
or Holy Ghost, but of the Son of God, in this regard it is erroneous to ascribe the
worke terminative to any but to the Sonne of God, whose person, wee grant was compleat
and perfect in it selfe from all eternity, nor was there any thing wanting to the
perfection of it, yet in regard of the perfection of one end, I mean the Salvation
of the Churh, there was wanting the humane Nature, which must be assumed by the Son
of God, that the Elect amongst the Sons of men might be saved.
Bidd.
Moreover were the opinion of the Adversaries true that the Son of God came down, and
took a Humane nature of the Virgin, the Angel Gabriel, when the Virgin demanded of him, how she should conceive? would not have answered, Luk 1.35. The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall
over-shadddow thee: [Page 211] therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son
of God; but the Son of God shall come upon thee, and the eternall Word shall overshaddow
thee, therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, being assumed into
the unity of the eternall Word, shall be called the Son of God.
Answ.
Who sees not the sawcinesse and presumption of Mr. Biddle to prescribe to the Holy Ghost how he shall speak? in the former discourse I have
shewed, that this work of framing the body of Christ, albeit it be in regard of appropriation
ascribed to the Holy Ghost, being a work of holinesse to free it from originall sin,
yet it is a common work of the Trinity, albeit the Son only assumed the body into
the unity of his Person.
Touching the place objected in S. Luke, it doth not follow that Christ was not the Son of God before the conception, but
the contrary rather is implied by that particle [...], also to intimate that Christ was in another respect the Son of God, viz. as he was begotten of the substance of his Father, then that which is here alledged,
that he was not conceived of mans seed in regard of his manhood, and so he was not
in that regard the Son of Man, but conceived by the Holy Ghost, this is observed
by Epiphanius; so that this is no good consequence, the Angel alledgeth one cause why Christ is
called the Son of God, which was agreeable to the present occasion, and therefore
there was no other cause why he should be so called, this then is a fallacy, a non causa ut causa, not that there are two Persons in Christ, and two Mediators, and two Sons, the same
Christ is the Son of God as begotten of his Fathers substance as he is God, and the
same Christ as he is conceived of the Holy Ghost as he is Man, and in regard of hypostatical
union with the Word is the Son of God, and yet there are not three Sons, but one Son:
besides it is not said in the Text simply, therefore he shall be the Son of God, but he shall be called, that is, acknowledged, and Christians shall professe him to be the Son of God, the
fallacy here is a Dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, because in this respect he shall be c [...]lled the Son of God, therefore he was not till now the Son of God, and not simply
before, though as a Man, and as conceived by the Holy Ghost, he was not in that respect
called Gods Son till now.
Lastly, you have learned Adversaries which doe refer the particle [Page 212]therefore not to the conception of Christ, as the cause of his divine Sonship, but
to the prohelie of Isa. v. 31. Matth. 1.22.
Bidd.
Act. 10.38. God anointed Iesus of Nazareth with the holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good, and healed all that
were possessed with the Devil, for God was with him, what need was there that the
holy Spirit should be given to Christ to enable him to do miracles? Could not he
that first created the world do miracles, without being impowered by another? would
it be said of him that had the divine nature, that he did miracles, because God was
with him, and not rather because he was God.
Answ.
It is no difficult matter to answer both the Text of Scripture, and the questions
inferred from it, for the first, albeit Christ was God, yet was he also man, and the
annointing him, the consecrating him to the office of a mediatour, the largest gifts
bestowed upon him, and setting him over the Church, and above all his fellows both
men and Angels, was by the graces of the spirit, which not by small drops, but (as
it were) buckets full were poured out on him in a high degree, which was requisite
for him that should be our mediatour, but he was also annointed, i.e. marked out by a voice from heaven, This is my beloved Son and by the coming down of the spirit upon him, and was demonstrated thereby to be
the promised Messias, Isa. 61.1. Luke 4.18. what makes this for your purpose? surely nothing at all.
2. Now to your questions, could not he that created the worll do miracles without
being impowered by another? he was not enabled to do miracles by another essentially
differing from him. The Son of God, as he is the son of God, creatour of the world
was not impowered by the Holy Ghost to do miracles, but the son of God by the holy
Ghost, which you will not see, gives vertue to Christ in his humane nature instrumentally
to work signes and wonders.
2. To the second, he wrought miracles, and it would not be said, because God was with
him, but rather because he was God.
I answer, 'tis not for us to teach the Spirit of God how to speak, but I answer, both
these might be truly said of him, God was with him, as [...]e was with God, John 1.1. and as this is most certain to us, so doth the Adversary unawares, attest to
this truth, by the [Page 213]words of Thomas, he was God, and God was with him, as he was a man, and our Mediatour.
Bidd.
Luke 22.48. And there appeared an Angel to Christ from heaven strengthening him, Why should an
Angel appear to strengthen him in his agony? would not the Divine Nature of Christ
at this rate, be in the mean time idle and uselesse.
Answ.
Christ was truly a man, and acted at present as a man; the presence of his Disciples
was a comfort to him, and when they had forsaken him, and outward comforts failed,
a holy Angel from heaven, an invisible comforter seasonably acted, and strengthened
him, most probably this was done by representing to him such considerations and benefits
of his death, as might make him at that time to bear the heavy burthen chearfully.
Your Objection, then the Divine Nature would be idle and uselesse borders at least
on blaspemy, the Son of God as touching his Divine Nature, being a most free agent,
may suspend some actions, as to his humane nature, and as to our head Christ Iesus,
so likewise to us his members, and not alwayes communicate those ravishing rayes and
those liberall influences, to which joy is inseparably annexed, the inference: then
the Divine Nature is idle and uselesse, is both false, scandalous and blaspemous,
for nothing is idle and fruitlesse, but that which works not when it ought to work,
and which bears not fruit in its due time and season, as Scaliger de subtil. Exercit. 6. sc. 9. doth well define it, is a tree to be called fruitlesse, because it bears not
fruit in winter, by this reason God himself being from all Eternity most happy, by
the infinite knowledge and fruition of himself, without and before the Creation, might
have been truly said to be idle, God is a voluntary and a most free Agent, and hath
good reason for whatsoever he doth, and for whatsoever he doth not, and it is high
presumption for a silly creature to say, by way of finding fault with him, why doest
thou so, Dan. 4.35. or why doest thou not so?
Bid. Mat. 27.46. Jesus cried with a loud voyce, saying, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Why should he so earnestly expostulate with God for forsaking him, had he had a Divine
Nature, and was God himself? could he that was very God himselfe cry out thus? was
he his own God, and had he forsaken himselfe?
Answ.
These specious Interrogations which seem to have much strength in them, are in truth
very weake and easily answered, by distinguishing, as often we have done, of his
Natures; thus he that was very God could cry out in his Humane Nature directly to
God his Father. Was he (say you) his own God? an uncouth phrase: we must now look upon Christ voluntarily humbling himselfe as
our Surety to a cursed death for the sins of his people, and being in this condition,
he not only might be forsaken, but it was expedient that he should be forsaken of
God in regard of the Divine Oeconomy, and the work he was to finish for our salvation.
I will take liberty to expatiate on this comfortable Text, which argued then an uncomfortable
condition of our Lord and Saviour: How could he expostulate with God (say you) if he were God? to this I answer, he did not expostulate with God by way of reprehension of him for
his present state, as it is taken John 8.44. Why do ye not understand my speech? nor by way of murmurring against God, as the Israelites did often for want of water,
and for want of flesh, Numb. 11.18. nor because he was ignorant and forgetfull of the reason of his passion, which
is the usuall ground of our Interrogations. How should there be forgetfulness in
him, when he should most of all remember why he suffered? even for the working out
of our Redemption. What then? shall we say that this is a question of admiration,
like that in the Psalm 36.8. How excellent is thy Mercy O God! Can it be that thou shouldst so love the World, that thou shouldst forsake me thy
deare Son to redeem the world? or shall we say that Christ debateth the matter with
his Father familiarly, reverently, and holily, which Interrogation ariseth from a
filial confidence in him, as David did in his misery, Psal. 42.9. Why hast thou forsaken me? Why go I mourning? or is it not sciscitandi, but instandi & vehementiùs asserendi gratia, Quintilian l. 9. cap 2. as Naomi said to Ruth, Shall not I seek rest for thee my Daughter? Is any thing hard to God? and such like, or is it Vox flectentis aut provocantis Deum ad misericordiam: He complains for want of comfort to move God to have mercy on him, as Exod. 32.11. Deut. 5.25. these last are the most probable reasons of the interrogation.
Touching the matter of his complaint, that he was forsaken. Negati [...]y thus: he was not forsaken really by the withdrawing of his [Page 215]essentiall presence from his Son, and no marvel, for he is every where present, and
absent from no place, nor was this done [...], he complaineth not in the contemplation and commiseration of other mens miseries
only, but in the sense of his owne want of comfort, and feeling of his own sorrows;
nor was this dereliction the dissolution of the hypostaticall, when once flesh or
nature of man was [...], it never after became [...], but was as a Garment put on, never to be put off againe; nor was hee forsaken in
regard of that influxus conservativus of God, there was no losse or impaiing of his holy Graces: his grief was intolerable
which constrained his holy nature, without prejudice to the fulnesse of his sanctity
to cry out and groane for these great evils which he indured. Thus Adam in the state of innocency, or a blessed Angel would have done, by necessity, not
by corruption of nature, if a burthen too heavy for them had been layd upon them,
this was not unlike the shaking of pure water in a Christall glasse, which hath no
settlings in it, it remaineth pure. Lastly, in this complaint he wanted not the assurance
of full deliverance after a short suffering, how else could he have said in the same
period, my God, my God? how could he pray with strong cries as he did to his Father, who heard him always?
how else could he say to Caiaphas, thou shalt see the Son of Man comming in the Clouds of Heaven? how could he have promised to that converted Thiefe which was crucified with him,
that he should be that very day with him in Paradise? how else could he have commended
his soul into his Fathers hands?
Thus was he not forsaken: how then positively was he forsaken? first in that the Father
did not protect him, and rescue him out of the hands of his cruel, bloudy, and mercilesse
enemies, in this sense David prayes to God Psal. 38.2. Forsake me not O Lord. Secondly, God may be said to forsake Christ, because he with-held that solace and
comfort from him which he formerly injoyed, for albeit joy doth naturally flow from
the Vision of God, as light doth from the Sun, and heat from the fire, yet as the
Sun somtimes, as now in our Lords passion lost his light, and the fire burned not
the three noble Confessors, Dan. 3. Sic deitas cohibuit redundantiam beatificae visionis, saith the Canarian Bishop Melchior Canus loc. lib. 12. cap. 13. and Maldonate cals this Compressionem Deitatis, Christ did not only see, but injoy God for the present, as a man in great distresse
may eat of the fruit of his own Tree, and look upon his dearest Relations [Page 216]without delight, the Sun goes downe to him at Noone day. Nor is this all, we are not
yet come to the Pillars of Hercules; the Father poured on him the infinite Sea of his wrath, the due defert of our sins,
as he was our Surety, and as he was to be our Satisfier; this was done to him, so
far as it might stand with the dignity and worthinesse of the Person, the holiness
of his Nature, and the performance of his Worke of our Redemption. Christ-suffered
great tortures in his body, but greater in his soule; Gùm sit tantus dolor exterior, interior tamen planctus gravior, the anguish of his soul far exceeded the tortures of his hody, and the invisible
crosse did more afflict him then the visible; and he having experience in his owne
feeling of the bitternesse of his Crosse, hath learned experimentally to have compassion
on afflicted Spirits, which is a misery of miseries. Hence were made those deep impressions
in all the faculties of his soul, natural, vital, animal, and rational, which, as
is thought, hastened his death as an inward cause of it, so that he was dead sooner
then the Thieves which were crucified with him, yea, so soon that Pilate himselfe marvelled, Mark 15.44. how else happens it that Martyrs have rejoyced, and in their sufferings, and
at their death? Miles poterit, imperator non audebit? Austen, doth the Souldier that is to be crowned rejoyce that death is at hand? and shall
the Prince and Captain of our salvation who is to crown him, be very heavy in his
soul when he is to die and sweat drops of clottered bloud?
Briefly we must here distinguish, that what befel our Saviour was not criminis, sed conditionis effectum, it was [...], not [...], as Damascene saith, lib. 3. de Orthod. fide, cap. 25. If we look upon Christ in regard of his H [...]mane Nature simply, as he was united to God affectione justitiae, by the affection of Vertue; as he did love him, fear him, trust in him, and obey
him, as he gave him the glory which belonged to his Name; look upon him, I say, in
such a formall consideration, and the Father did not forsake him, no not for a moment;
but now look upon him as he was our Saviour, our Advocate, as our sins were layd
upon him, being our Surety as he was made sin, a Sacrifice for sin, so was his Humane
Nature left for a short time to grapple with the wrath of God, to make an attonement,
and to procure reconciliation with God, that we might injoy pleasure, and have ineffable
delights in the presence of God for ever more.
I have contracted and presented to thy view, Christian Reader, [Page 217]part of a larger discourse on this Text the product of mature deliberation preached
before a learned Auditory many years ago, not necessitated to do so by my Adversary,
but to mind him, by this example if he be ungratious to reason with himselfe, how
will he be able to bear Gods wrath? and where shall be at the dreadfull day appear,
when his sins shall be deeply charged on him? did God deal thus with his Son? how
will he deal with sinners? how will they be able to dwell with everlasting burnings?
if the reader be in Christ, to provoke him to be thankfull both to God and him, and
to learn by his sufferings how hateful a thing sin is in it selfe, how odious to the
holy God look upon it as a most ill-favoured thing, and never so long as we live to
have a liking of it; and if God shall forsake us as he did now his dear Son, yea,
if we can see nothing but warre in his face, if his fiery Sword be drawn against us,
yet not to despair but still to trust in God, as our Saviour in this case did, saying,
My God, my God, and as Job did resolve, Though he kill me, yet will I trust in him. Job 13.15. with assurance that ere long they shall in this black cloud, see the bow
of the Lord that at last God himself will appear to them with a Rainbow about his
Throne, with a tokenof his Covenant of grace.
Bidd.
Iustine Martyr (saith Mr. Biddle) in the margine) is exceedingly puzzled with this Objection, in his Conference with Tryphon.
Answ.
So you say but I do not find any such matter in him and if he was [...]puzzled, and could not readily unty all seeming knots, what is that [...]ou [...]? nay rather, this argueth that he was sound in the main now in controversie betwixt
us, but as for us, we considering the present state of our Saviour Christ, and his
undertaking by his passion to reconcile us to his Father: do not wonder, that he
having a humane body and a reasonable soul, and forsaken both of men of Angels, and
God himself, should cry out in his bitter passion, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Bidd.
These things have I set down here out of zeal, to the true Son of God, the man Christ
Iesus, that the adversaries may by this means be brought to bethink themselves, and
not substitute a false one in his stead, namely an Eternal Son, begotten out of the
Substance of God the Father, wheneas there is no place in the Scripture, that either
saith or intendeth any such thing.
Answ.
Our blessed Saviour stands not in need of any false titles to honour him withall,
but for you Mr. Biddle, to pretend zeal to the Son of God, and to struggle against his Eternal Deity, and
his satisfaction to Gods Iustice for mans salvation, 'tis no better then if a vile
slanderous tongue, accustomed to disgrace the eldest Son of a Royall King, should
say, he was a base begger, for in denying his Eternal Deity, you rob him as much as
lies in you, of his highest excellency.
Bidd.
But they will say, that if Christ were not God, he could not satisfie for our sins,
which reason overthroweth it self, and sheweth their opinion concerning the Diuine
Nature of Christ to be fictitious, For how can God satisfie God? Can any one make
satisfaction to himself?
Answ.
The Adversary proceeds in his ingratitude and impiety against the Son, and indeavours
to shew that there was no reason of the hypostaticall Conjunction of the Divine and
humane Nature, to make satisfaction for us, the necessity whereof we believe, and
without it there could be no hope of reconciliation, betwixt God and man, there were
indeed many other causes why this conjunction was necessary, besides that of satisfaction,
Socinians hold that Christ was our chief Prophet, Priest, and King, in regard of the
Propheticall office, he was to be our Doctour and Teacher in the most perfect way,
his humane nature was needfull to teach us both by his gracious words and unblameable
example, it was needfull also, that he should be God, that he might be the most excellent
Teacher, and who is such a Teacher, as God? and this is the most excellent way of
Teaching, when God assuming the form of man doth vouchsafe to teach familiarly talking
and conversing with us, as he taught Abraham, Gen. 19. which is most profitable and honourable for men, and this will appear, if we
particularly consider what he taught, he promised eternal life, and that he would
give it to them that believe in him, he promised the Resurrection of the dead, and
that he himself would raise them. Is it not necessary, that a holy unerring Prophet,
which teacheth in this manner, should be God? and how did he teach? unheardly he spake
to the ears, as man, and as he was God he enlightned the minds and opened the hearts
of such believers, as he was pleased to convert, [Page 219] Luk. 17.5. and 24.45. Act. 16.14 and when the Apostles prayd Lord increase our Faith, he returned not an answer unto them, as Jacob did to Racbel, when she said Give me children: am I (saith he in anger) in Gods stead?
As it was requisite our chiefe Prophet should be God, so is it likewise needful as
he was our King, which Office he could not performe without an infinite power, how
else could he efficatiously overcome all our enemies, the Divel, the World, Sin, and
Death? How could he subject all things to himself, raise up the dead to life, governe
and protect, and provide for his Members all the world over? how could he do whatsoever
he pleaseth both in Heaven and Earth, without an infinite omnipotent vertue?
Lastly, it was necessary that he should be God as he was Priest, that he might herein
answer the type of Melchisedech, who is said to be without beginning of dayes; and end of life, Heb. 7.3.16. He had no [...] been a sacrifice if he had not been man; he could not be Priest, and act all as he
did, had he nor been God, as Moses the typicall Mediator had a typical Tabernacle, Exod. 26. which he made, so the true Mediator had a true Tabernacle, which he was himself
to make, Heb, 3.34. and no marvel if he who made all things should make his own Tabernacle of flesh,
his Humane Nature to dwell in: by what hath been spoken, and much more which might
have been added, evident it is that there were other causes besides the sati, faction
of Christ, why he must be the true God: but now to the point.
Gods revealed will was made known to Adam and Eve, At the day thou eatest the forbidden fruit, thou shalt dye the death: this Scripture must be some way fulfilled, the Socinians do hold that death is not a punnishment of sin, but the condition of our Nature,
and that man should have died albeit he never had sinned; and they seem to maintaine
this errour, which the Catholick Church never held, saith S. Austen Epist. 106. that they with the Pelagians, August. de Haeres. c. 88. might be the better able to defend this Heresie, Infants are not borne with originall
sin, experience taught them that many of them dyed before they were in a capacity
to commit actuall sin. Secondly, because they make this a singular Argument of the
Divinity of Christ, that he was the first Author and publisher of immortality, given
and promised to Man, and that it is an injury done to Christ to say, man in the beginning
was immortall, Smulcius de Divin. Christi, c. 17. Thirdly, because they deny the satisfaction [Page 220]of our Saviour for our sins, and the reason is, death is not a punishment, say they,
for if it be a punishment, it must be a punishment of sins; if so, then because Christ
had no sins of his owne, it must be for the sins of others, and by consequent, his
death must be satisfactory.
This is the Catholick Faith, that as in Adams standing in grace, all Mankind in his loins stood; so in his fall all his posterity
fell with him: all our estates (as Mr. Sheppard saith) were ventured in this Ship, therefore if we will pertake of his gaine, if
we had not made shipwrack of his graces, 'tis but equal we should partake of his losses
too: In Adam we all sinned saith S. Paul, Rom. 5.12. and by his sin Death entred into the World: Adam was the Head of all Mankinde, and all his posterity are naturally Members of that
Head; if the Head plots Treason against a State, the whole Body is found guilty, and
the who [...]e Body must suffer; Adam was the poysoned root and fountain of all Man kind, now the branches & streams being
in the root and fountain originally, are therefore tainted with the same poysoned
principles, and the wages of sin is death, Rom. 6. ult. not only temporal, but that death which is opposed to eternal life, which is in justice
as due to a sinner, as wages is to a hireling when he hath done his work
Our good God (presupposing his immutable Decree, and revealed will to the contrary)
could not receive sinners to grace by a free condonation [...], without a satisfaction and price given and paid for mans sin; for he being a just
Judge, neither will nor can pronounce a sinner just, without righteousness. What,
shall not the Judge of all the World do right? now it is all one to be righteous without
righteousness, as to be learned without learning, wise without wisdome, and holy
without holiness, which are impossible, and as we must have righteousness if we look
to be happy, so must we have that righteousness also which will satisfie the justice
of God in this great business of Mans Redemption Rom. 3.25. by R [...]ghteousness in that place is not meant that Righteousness which God works in us, onimputes
to us, but the righteousness which is in God, for it followeth v. 26. to declare his righteousnesse, that he might be righteous, appear to be just [...] the exercise or effect of this righteousness depends on the free act of God. which
will punish the sinner in himselfe or in his Surety, and as it is their righteousness
which are subject to the Law, to conform their actions thereunto, so is it the righteousness
[Page 221]of a Judge, as he is Judge to pass sentence according to his comminations and threatnings,
which are the Rule of his proceedings.
I grant, a few small sparks of grace may make a good satisfaction to an indulgent
Father, for the great offences of his Son, but he is a graceless childe that will
misconstrue his Fathers good nature and actions, as to judge a few tears a full ransome
for great offences: the Lord our God being not only a mercifull Father, but a righteous
Judge, requires not only a satisfaction of complacency, or an interpretative compensation
founded on divine favour, but a satisfaction of condignity, or a full and compleat
payment for the debt of sinners; but where is this righteousness to be found? surely
not in a bare creature, for how should a finite Good cover an infinite Evil, is not
this too short a garment which will not cover halfe the body? is not this a plaister
too narrow for the wound? and how should the best men which were poor themselves make
others rich? how should they which needed righteousness themselves, impart their righteousness
to make others righteous? the only means then to make an attonement for us, is the
Lord our Righteousness. Jer. 23.6. Et sic Deus justitiam exequendo misericordiam non evacuat, & misericordiam exercendo
justitiae suae nihil demit: and so to God being infinitely just; Christ being infinitely good, hath satisfied
for man being in a sort infinitely sinfull: Christ hath paid a price of ransom, and
a price of purchase, to merit Heaven for us, by standing in the roome of the Elect
as their Surety, Hebr. 7.22. 2. By taking from them the eternal guilt of sin, and assuming it to himselfe,
2. Cor. 5.22. hence Luther saith, Christ was the greatest sinner, viz. by imputation of our sinnes to him. 3. By bearing the curse and wrath of God due
to the sins of his people, he drinks up their Cup at one draught, which they should
be drinking and tormented with to all eternity. 4. Gods justice required perf [...]ct righteousness to the whole Law, Rom. 5.11. these four things Gods justice required, and Christ satisfies justice by satisfying
them all, and was the number of Believers never so small, they would stand in need
of this total satisfaction of Christ, and was their number never so much multitiplied,
as millions of Believers for one, they should all of them by Christ find a full satisfaction
for their sinnes, which is fitly so called, because it hath the same effect in and
for us, as a full and compleat payment hath, for the good of the Debtor; the Son of
God being made man and suffering for man, it is evident that man in him was [Page 222]punished as Gods Justice required, and that being performed, which the Lord had threatned,
his truth was justified, the offender was pitied in mercy, and God and man was reconciled
in the Lord our peace-maker, in whom Mercy and Peace are met together, righteousnesse and Peace have kissed each other, Psal. 85.12.
I will not enter into that question disputed by some of ours, and by the Schoolmen
themselves, the Thomists, & the Scotists, whether the satisfaction of Christ be infinite in the formall intrinsecall Nature
of it, as the Thomists hold: We must distinguish of the sufferings of Christ, which if we take them Metaphysically,
in regard of their Entity, simply considered, and so they were finite, and neither
could nor ought they to be infinite, yet if we do consider them forensiratione & aestimatione, so are they esteemed infinite by the reason of the personal Union of the humane nature
with the Divine Person, and so sins, albeit in regard of their Entity, are finite,
yea sometimes they have no Entity at all either formally or materially, as sins of
omission, yet as they are against an infinite God, they are in a sort infinite,
and thus are we to judge of the sufferings of Christ, the dignity of the Person being
God, makes his Sufferings in Gods Judgement and the Court of Heaven infinite, as also
in respect of the price offered, which was himself a sacrifice for our sinnes. Esther had not her nature increased, when she married to Ahashuerosh, but her honour and dignity was much increased thereby, albeit this conjunction was
neither personall nor natural, nor indissoluble, who then can doubt, that the humane
nature of Christ was highly exalted, being joyned to an infinite Person in a most
perfect Union, which is both personall and perpetual, and consequently his sufferings
are to be looked on, as of an infinite value, especially considering, that actions
and passions are of persons, as is commonly said, and not of natures.
This being supposed 'tis questioned next, whether the divine acceptation there of
be not required, and the favour of the Creditour, so that he wa [...] bound in rigor to accept it, how precious soever it was for the Remission of our
sins, and whether there be not a relaxation of the Law, which is not to be denied,
not onely because Christ our Mediatour is Gods gift, it was his grace and favour to
appoint him to that office, and God was not bound to accept of a surety in our stead,
but might have charged, the debt on our persons, and this relation I say, is not to
be denyed, when compensation is annexed to [Page 223]it, because by this means the authority of the Law, is very little diminished, and
the reason and end of the Law is attained, as if a man be bound to restore a pledge,
if he gives the value of it, he is not chargeable with injustice, Hugo Grotius de satisfact. Christi c. 5. the decision hereof, as to our present controversie is impertinent, I will therefore
say no more of it, but omit it, and answer the Cavils of the Adversary.
How can God satisfie God? Can any one (say you) make satisfaction to himself?
To this I answer, why not in a sense? it is not needfull that the person satisfying
should be separated from the person satisfied? for who sayes so? doth God? Where is
such a saying to be found? The Law requires, that he who sustains the person of a
sinner, whether he be separated from the Judge or not, satisfies the Law, and consequently
the Judge. God the Son our mediatour can satisfie God our Father, and when God the
Father is satisfied, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are satisfied also, and he
in his own person satisfied Divine Justice, which is common to the Trinity, and therefore
in our assumed nature, as he is our Mediatour, he satisfles himsel [...] by himself, and so brings us to himself as he is God. He that is a Testatour of the
Testament, which is a Covenant, he is the chief Authour of the Covenant but Christ
is so, Heb. 915, 16. & so he is concerned in the breach thereof, and in that respect to be satisfied,
to be a Mediatoar is a name of Office, and not of nature, and requisite it was, that
he should be both God and man, and no other person did or could satisfie Gods justice.
You say, that none can satisfie himselfe.
Why may not a man satisfie himselfe, may not a man be a Law to himselfe, accuse, judge,
and condemn himself, yea and punish himselfe? as he in Terrence [...], may not a man be revenged on himselfe for his idlenesse, by doubling his ordinary
labour, for his excesse in meats, and drinks by abstinence and fasting, and course,
spare diet, 2. Cor. 7.11.? nay, may not the Judge himselfe be a breaker of the Law, and as a guilty person
condemne himselfe, and punish himselfe? I say not that he can satisfie himselfe, by
paying mony to himselfe, but by submitting himselfe to be punished in one kind or
another, as Attitius Regulus went voluntarily to Carthage, though he knew he should undergo exquisite torments to satisfie and make good his
oath, and his faith promised to the Carginian [...].
But I need not insist in this answer, I assert there is a difference betwixt the Son
of God as simply considered, and as the party offended, and considered as the Son
of God incarnated, who became our Mediator; the Person is one and the same, but variously
considered: this satisfaction diminished not the dignity of Christ, but exalted his
mercy: the act of a Mediator usually hath reference to another Person, as the act
of justice also hath, I meane then where the Mediator is a middle Person bewixt the
party offending and the party offended, but as a man analogically may do justice to
himselfe, so likewise may he perform the act of Mdiation, which tends to the Reconciliation
of himselfe with the party which hath offended him, if he be pleased gratiously to
descend, and to remit of his owne righ [...]. I grant, if there be a third Person vigrously to mediate, 'tis rare, for one of
the parties to do the office of a Mediator, when another is willing to undertake
that imployment, and able also to effect the business. But now if there be not a third
person to be found, (as in this case there is not) then either one of the offended
Persons must be a Mediator, or else we must perish everlastingly; for instance, suppose
a King of Bohemia elected and crowned to sit on that royall throne after his Fathers decease, should
equally with his Father be offended with his Subjects for their rebellion, and that
he should become a Mediator for them to his Father, with a pu [...]pose to pardon them, if they will submit, and prove loyall for the time to [...]me, and should moreover bestow many favours, and grant ample p [...]iledges to him, having regard both to his Fathers honour, and the peoples safety:
is this impossible to be done? or is it not a princely and most commendable virtue
if it be done? and shall this be denied to the Son of God? nor is the Precept of Christ
wanting to inforce this duty, Math. 5.23. If thy Brother hath offended thee, goe and be reconciled to him: yea God himselfe, when Adam had eaten of the forbidden fruit, and had most hainously provoked him to wrath, yet
did he discover his affections to him in a gracious manner, after he had once convinced
him of his sin Genes. 3. and do not we read that the Israelites after their rebellion against David, and the death of the head Traytor Absalom made meanes to David to bring him back to Jerusalem and to be reconciled to their Soveraign, 2 Sam. 19.12.? and shall it be judged then absurd for the Son of God to reconcile Mankind
to the most High?
I conclude, he who is not medius in regard of his person, yet may [Page 225]he be medius ratione officii & oeoonomiae, which, as we see sometimes is a duty commanded by Christ, and which hath been practised
by others, the genus, as Logicians teach us, ceaseth not, unless all the species do cease, nor doth a
Mediator cease to be a Mediator, unlesse all the acts and offices of a Mediator do
cease.
Bidd.
Neither will it relieve the Adversary to reply that there are several Persons in God,
and so the second satisfied the first; for if there be three Persons to whom we are
indebted, and but one of them satisfied, we are in as bad a condition as before, in
that we stand in need of some one to make satisfaction to the second and third Persons
in God.
Ans. The Father hath a Mediator, but the Son properly hath not a Mediator, the natural
order of the Divine Persons, and the most wise will of Father and Son do confirm it,
besi [...]es the whole frui [...] and benefit of this office r [...]dounds to the Son as well as to the Father, if a Triumyir shall undertake to be an
Ambassador for a common cause, both in his own name, and in the name of his Colleagues,
yet is he not properly an Ambassadour of himselfe, because diversity of persons is
required in the sender, and him that is sent.
The adversary must remember that out debate is of satisfaction to the Person offended,
not as he is simply the party offended, but as he sustains the Person of a Judge,
as he is Judge, whether he be the party offended or not? the party offended as he
is such may forgive offences, but the Judge cannot absolve the Transgressor of the
Law without injustice, being legally convinced of a crime, and seeing the persons
of the Father and Son are distinct, there needed no other Person to sustain the Person
of a Judge but the Father, nor no other Person but the Son of Man to represent the
Person of guilty persons.
I grant, we do by our sins displease all the three Persons of the Holy Trinity and
forther I grant, that all of them are to be reconciled an satisfied; there are two
parts of Mediation, one respects God and divine things, the other respects man and
his salvation, and both of these are to be disposed, prepared, procured, and perfected
by God, for it was not possible for Man to know how, or to be able to reconcile God
and Man together, God who was [...], took pity upon Man, and so loved the World, that he gave his Son, that Believers on him should not perish,
but have life everlasting: he he that knows not this, knowes neither God nor himselfe.
The objection is already answered; let it be remembred by the Reader, that the Son
of God (as I have formerly shewed) was the most meet Divine Person to perform this
office, and albeit justice properly and commonly tak [...]n, respects our carriages and dealings towards our Neighbours, yet analogically and
by accommodation it respects the dealings of the just man in reference to himselfe,
Aristot. Ethicor. lib. 5. cap. 11. this is likewise verified of the Mediation of Christ, which by analogical accommodation
is carried to himselfe, and as S. Cyril, saith, de recta side ad Reginas. Christ in offering sacrifice was not like to Ministers of the Gospel, which do receive
their spirituall sacrifice but he reconciles himself to us thereby, and by himself
to his Father.
Besides the Son of God incarnated differeth not only from the Father and the Holy
Ghost, but from himselfe as God, in that he is Man, and he differeth from other men
and himself as man, in that he is God, and therefore may mediate, not only betwixt
the Father and us sinful men, but also betwixt himself as God, as excellently said,
the learned Dr. Field, lib. 5. of the Church, chap. 6.
The Papists have a ready way, if it was safe, to a [...]swer this objection, though both natures (say they) do meet in the Person of the
Mediator, yet is he our Mediator only in his Humane Nature, because he as God was
to be pacified as well as the Father and the Holy Ghost, (and this is Mr. Biddles objection also) and so as he was God was reconciled to us by the merits of his passion;
this assertion is erroneous and justly confuted by our Worthies Jun. contra Beltar. l. 5. de Mediatore, cap. 5. and by Chumier Paustralia de Officio Mediatoris, lib. 7. cap. 7. and by many other learned men the sum of all is this: Christ is not a Mediator
either in regard of his Divine Nature singly and simply considered, nor according
to the Humane Nature alone, but according to both Natures conjunctim, and in hypostaticall union, and we must distinguish betwixt the Son of God, as he
is naturally the Son of God, and betwixt him as he was by a voluntary Oeconomy incarnated,
and became our Mediator. In a word, Christ, as he is God, is offended with us for
sin; Christ as he is [...], God-man, differs from himselfe as he is God, and by himself reconciles himselfe
to himselfe, so that he is not the Person satisfied, and the person satisfying; the
Person offended, and the Reconciler in the same respect and manner of consideration.
Bidd.
If they further answer. that the second Person freely forgives us, this will make
him more bountifull then the first, who would do it without receiving satisfaction.
Answ,
The whole Trinity, and not onely the Father in this sense freely forgives us, I even I am he, that blotteth out transgressions for mine own sake, our sins were written in Gods book, and a large Volume of iniquity is blotted out
in a moment; there is not so much evil in sin, nor so much sin in man, as there is
goodnesse in God; sin is onely termed infinite, in respect of the infinite Object
against which it is committed, but God is absolutely infinite, there cannot be a summum malum, as there is a summum bonum, its true, we by our selves could do nothing to procure our pardon, but they are not
freely pardoned in regard of Christ our Surety, who hath dearly bought us with the
price of his most precious bloud, whereby he became our perfect Saviour and made full
measure to God for us, heaped and running over, and it is as a rich Treasure to pay
our debts never to be exhausted, Weare freely justified, saith Saint Paul, Rom. 3.24. yet it is added in the Text, by the Redemption in Christ: this Act of Christ
in respect of the Law, is called a relaxation, or a dispensation, but in respect of
us, who are debtours to Gods Justice, 'tis called remission, depending on foregoing
satisfaction, which is admitted by our gatious God to make way for the remission
of our sins, which are then actually done away, when we do believe in Christ, when
we do convert to God, and ask pardon of them, God doth as it were dip his pen in the
blood of our Saviour and so dasheth out all our iniquity.
Nor doth this satisfaction obscure the riches of Gods mercies towards us, or make
the: [...]mission of our sins to be lesse free, for seeing the Commination of the Law, and the
Office of the Judge to execute the Law, hindred the justification of repenting sinners,
could there be a greater Demonstration of admirable love and mercy, then to transser
our punishment, which we deserved, on his Son our Surety, rather than we should everlastingly
perish? and therefore this is set out by Scripture, as the highest strain of love.
so God loved the World, that he gave his onely begotten Son (to dye for us) that we might not dye, but live for ever, John 3.16. it was much that the party offended, should not hate us, who grievously
offended [Page 228]him: but it was more, that he should love us, and have mercy on us, and yet more,
that he should bestow many blessings upon us, but it is a most transcendent and unparalelled
love and mercy, to give his onely begotten Son to die a cursed death for us, to free
us from the everlasting curse, yea, and this was also the admirable love and condescention
of the Son of God, who was not [...], but [...], consubstantial with his Father, to become man volun [...]arily, and as Mediatour in both natures, to make satisfaction for us to the Trinity,
for surely, there was no attract ve magnetical vertue in an undone and bankrupted
creature, to draw down our Saviour from heaven to cloud the lustre of his Divin [...]ty by the interposition of a mortal body; nor doth the Son of God, as he is the Son
of God simply, or as he is God in that notion considered, freely forgive our sins
without satisfaction, for albeit, this is not made by a third person, yet as Mediatour,
he satisfied Divine Justice in his own person, which Justice is common to the Trinity,
and in our assumed nature, reconciles himself to us as God, and satisfieth himself,
as I said above, by himself, and upon this account i [...] is, that Gods justice is more satisfied by every believer, than by the damned which
are tortured in Hell to all eternity, for they are always suffering, and yet can never
satisfie and pay their debts, but every Believer hath by his Surety paid all to the
utmost farthing.
Bidd.
But this Doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ as well as that of his two Natures
whereon it is (though very ruinously) built, is a meer device of men, for neither
is it expressed in Scipture, nor can solidly be deduced thence, as I could quickly
show, were it not beside the businesse in hand.
Answ.
It is a comfortable truth, that as there are evidently two Natures in Christ, not
to be considered apart one from the other in this great businesse, but always in the
hypostaticall union, for neither can the Humane Nature reconcile us to God, nor can
God, as he is only God, reconcile us to God by way of satisfaction, and therefore
the Humanity is assumed into the Person of the Son of God that he might be a meet
and all-sufficient Mediator; and as the Natures in the union do for ever remain distinct,
so do the operations-also, each Nature acting according to its own operative principle,
and we do both from Scriptures and reasons deduced thence assert, thus the Word incarnated
is, as the School-men speak, Principium [Page 229]quod, and the Deity as well as the Humanity is the Principium quo, the formal and immediate principle of, the worke of redemption, for God resolving
to declare his righteousnesse and truth in his reconciliation to Man, Rom. 3.25. could not bring this to passe without satisfaction to his justice, I do not
say it is in our Surety in every respect answerable to the Law, the dignity of his
Person, together with the Deity concurring to the work of our redemption, procure
not only acceptation with God, and makes his passion meritorious for us, but abundantly
makes compensation for such circumstances, as the place where, and the time how long
we should have suffered, which were not beseeming, nor rational for him to undergoe;
it is a very dotage in Socinus, to say, that the dignity of the Person addes nothing to the value of the punishment, for albeit
he had been God, yet the Deity suffered not: this is as absurd, as to say, it's all one to smite a King and a private man, to
beat a mans Father, or a Stranger, because stroaks are on the body, not on the dignity,
or consanguinity.
And as there is a difference in the working principles, so do the effects belong to
the Mediator in a different manner, to both natures, as to forgive sins, Mar. 2. [...], he hath authority to remit sins, not a Ministery, as his Servants have to remit
them, so likewise doth he give the Holy Spirit, John 16. not the Humanity alone, but our Mediator, as also to save his People, and to
unite us to God by his bloud to cleanse us from all our sins, so that we constantly
affirm, that Christ according to both Natures united in one Person, is our Mediator,
with the Mediation which is called both operative and substantiall, and this is a
Rock to build on, which all the powers of H [...]ll cannot prevail against. This satisfaction of Christ is the most pretious treasure
of the Church, and the main ground of our Salvation, Athanas. Orat. de Passio & cruce Christi: It is a shaddow under wh [...]ch we are safe from the heat of divine wra [...]h it is a garment that covers our imperfections, that they are not seen by Gods revenging
Eye, it's a buckler which we may hold against an angry God to keep off the fiery darts.
It is reported of one Endoxus that he desired to see the Sun immedia [...]ly to contemplate the magn [...]tude and motion thereof, though for a reward of his curiosity he was presen [...]ly burnt by it, the same will be [...]all all Eudoxeans which without the satisfaction of Christ do behold God, the Son of Righteousness,
he will be a consuming fire to them, Stegman.
You tell us Christs satisfaction is a meer device of Man, and not [Page 230]soundly collected out of Scriptures: Learned Gerhard treating against this Socinian Heresie, saith hereof, Hic ungnes apparent Diaboli, and his intention is by this grosse heresie, to raze the foundation of our s [...]vation and confolation, which are built on the satisfaction of Christ, and out of
a holy zeal and detestation hereof, he breaks out into this imprecation, Exurgat Deu [...] & coelesti fulmine, imò infer [...]ali fulmine hasces Adversariorum suorum blasphemias vindicet: this is to ask the Kingdom, also to take away all Religion, and happiness from Solomon, as Solomon of Adonijahs policy, 1 Kings 2 22.
I will not make a large business to prove this necessary and comfortable truth, which
the holy Scriptures clearly hold forth to us, so that all that are not blind may see
the bright sh [...]ning thereof, yet I will not dismiss the Reader without some fair convincing evidences
to prove the truth: God who hath supream authority, and is subject to no Law may lay
on Christ neerly joyned to us by nature; our head by office and surety for us may
also undertake to die for us, having power to lay down his life, which we have not:
it was his love to become our Surety, it was his incredible Love to perform the debt
of his promise, he is in the number of those Sureties, which being snared with the
words of his mouth, his promise, Prov. 6.2. did willingly in the fulness of time make his promise good.
First, because our Mediator by divine ordination was wounded for our transgressions, and was bruised for our iniquities, Esa. 53.5. he suffered for us, and this [for us] notes the impulsive, and meritorious cause of his suffering, it was not for himselfe,
but for us. See Grotius de satisfact. cap. 1. and v. 6. Esa 53. there is an Emphaticall expression [...]. God hath made all our infirmities and sins to meet in Christ, who is as the center
of them all, & in the same place tis said, by his stripes are we healed: this Chapter was a Prophesie of our Saviour, and was accomplished by him in the dayes
of his mortality: and S. Paul saith, He was made a curse for us, this curse which was due to us for our sins was layd on him, and he freely and voluntarily
did bear it, Gal. 3.13. 2. Cor. 5.15. Rom. 4 25. what do these Phrases import, but that he in propriety of speech made satisfaction
to God for our sins?
Secondly, Christ did not suffer to pay his own personall debts, for he had none of
his own, he experimentally knew no sinne, he committed no sinne, but he suffered for
our sin, he gave himself to be [...], Matth. 20.28. hence the old Latine Lustrum, a year of [Page 231]expiating sins by Sacrifices, a ransome to free us from punishment by punishment,
he came not into the world to seek his own benefit, but in charity to dye, and be
a ransome for us, he was [...], 1 Tim. 2.6. [...] in composition signifies sometimes contra against, as Antichrist an enemy to Christ, which agrees not to this place, or compensation,
as [...] when a man dies to free anoother from death, he poured out his blood in our stead,
thereby to redeem us from our sins, from death, and the power of the Devil; he is
also said to bear our sins, 1 Pet. 2.24. as a heavy burthen laid upon him, i.e. the punishment of our fins, Levit. 5.1. and so to bear our sins, that we may be freed from bearing the punishment of
them, and to the same purpose are we said, to be reconciled freely by his grace [...] by the Redemption, which is by Jesus Christ, Rom. 3.24. The Lord shews us a way whereby he will be propitious to us, not by any legall
performances, but through faith in his blood, and he is also called [...] an oblation for sins, Eph. 5.2. Heb. 9.14. We are saved by a precious price, viz. the obedience of Christ. 1 Cor 6 19. he is also called [...], a propitiation for our sins, the appeaser of Gods wrath, in these and the like passages
of Scripture, the Adversaries denying satisfaction, must needs confesse that there
is Redemption without emption, a buying without a price, praetium sine valore, valorem sine solutione, solutioneus sine satisfactione, Dr. Prideux lect. 19
Thirdly, this is proved by those Scriptures, which inform us that Christ was given
for us, the just and Righteous once died for us being unjust, and when we were enemies
to God he reconciled us by his death to him, 1 Pet 3.18. and Christ being an innocent person was made sin a Sacrifice for our sins,
that we through his deat [...] might be justified: For the transgression of my people, was he smitten. Isa 53.8. the word in the original [...] if there be not an Epenthesis of t [...]e Letter m, as is commonly thought, then is there ad Enallage of the Plural number for the Singular, which is more pro [...]able saith Glassius, Philolog. sacra tractat. 1. de punitate textus Hebraei. n. L [...]. and if so, the observation of Brentius is most remarkable, that the Plural number being spoken of Christ, intimates that
he did in his Passion stand in the room of all his people, and that the judgement
which passed on the Messias, was imposed on them all, yet so, that Christ alone did
bear the burthen of it, and what doth this import, but that he satisfied for them?
[Page 232]So that Christ suffered not onely to give us an example, but for our profit to free
us from eternall death. Was Paul crucified for the faithfull? yea, for their good he suffered Gol. 1.24. but not as Christ suffered for us, to free us from everlast [...]ng damnation, he suffered in our rooms, that we might not suffer, so did not Paul.
Fourthly, the satisfaction of Christ was typified by legal S [...]crifices, namely by the Paschall Lamb hence is he called the Lamb of God, the Lamb
was a type of Christ, both in regard of meeknesse, and innocency, as also in regard
of the oblation, and slaying him, 1. Pet. 1.19. this was also prefigured by the red heifer slain before Eleazar, Numb. 19. Heb. 31.12. as also by the live Goat, on whom the sinnes of the people were laid, and
he carried them away. Levit. 16.22. all which related to, and were fulfilled in the death of Christ, Isa. 53. to say nothing of private Sacrifices, for Christ died for single persons, which
is not opposed, but subordinated to the death of Christ, for all his, Levit. 17 11. the blood on the Altar makes an Atonement for the soul, Levit. 1.4. and 4.21.20.31. both in the type and the antitype, a free condination is excluded
without satisfaction.
Lastly, this is likewise implied by that Scripture which saith, that Christ performed
that for us by the effusion of his blood in a mortall body like ours, without which
it bad been impossible for us to have been reconciled to God, Rom 8.2, 3. the causes of Christs sufferings which Secinians do render are not necessary,
the holiness of his life and his Doctrine wh [...]ch was sufficiently declared by his Miracles, and after his holy life on earth without
death, as did Elias, he might have ascended into Heaven, and declared his Majesty and power on earth.
Further, if they say true Christ shed his blood in vain, because God might have saved
man without his death, for according to their Tenet, his Justice did not require his
bloody passion, being most ready to be reconc [...]led to man, and desirous to make man to take notice of his willingness to forgiue
sinners; nor did Gods wisdom require his death, seeing the good Sons under the Law
were faved without it, when the precepts and rules of life, as they say, were more
imperfect then they are under the Gospel: Besides, he shed his blood imprudently,
becau [...]e notwithstanding his death, in the opinion of the Adversaries, which do deny eternall
Elect on, and 'tis Gods knowledge of future contingencie, haply not one [Page 233]man should have been save [...] therby and Christ should not have been the King of the Church, if he had no Subjects
to rule over; nor should the glory of God have been promoted therby, and in vain should
God have loved us, which is so highly commended in Scripture, for giving his Son to
dye for us: If we could haue been saved without it. But to returne to the point, the
Scripture tells us, That as by the disobedience of one (of Adam) we were all made sinners, and subject to death, which was threatned, if he should
eat of the forbidden Fruit; so by the perfect and exact obedience of one (the second
Adam) who suffered death for us, to make satisfaction for us to sa [...]isfie Gods Justice shall all the faithfull be justified, and made righteous, Rom. 5.18 19. from all the Premisses its clear Paenam omnem nobis debitam, ac tum etiam supernaturalem. Christum Jesum pertulisse,
cum ad id & sponsione devinctus & debito obligatus. & lege districtus, & justitia
Dei addictus & necessitate obvolutus videntur Perk de descens. Cler. l. 3. n. 52. And though Christ according to the substance of punishment suffered no more then
was required by the Law, yet in regard of some circumstances he suffered more, if
we respect the person that suffered: The cause of his suffering and the efficacy of
his Passion for the Law did not require that God should die, nor that any one should
suffer without his own offence nor did it require such a death, which should not onely
abolish death, but advance us to a life, which many degrees is better than Adam lost idem [...]n 51. hence Anselm Cur D [...]us homo c. 24. the life of Christ was incomparably a greater good, than those sins are evil
which his death destroyed.
These are so id Proofs that our Saviour made an Atonement and satisfaction for us,
and what you can quickly shew to the contrary, are but like bubbles on the water,
and empty nothings, qu [...]rks of wit, and vain sophistry, which are as quickly disproved, as they are propounded,
and which being touched will, like the Apple of Sodome, vanish into Ashes, so much of this third Article.
ARTICLE IV.
Bidd.
Whence though he be our God, by reason of his Divine Soveraignty over us, and worship
due to such Soveraignty, yet is he not the most high God, the same with the Father,
but subordinate to him.
Answ.
The words of this Article, contain no new thing, but what hath been often mentioned
by the Adversary, yet the fraud is to be discovered: he labours to conceal the horridnesse
of his Tenet, by calling Christ our God, and this is, as it were a bait, whereby he
would allure the unwary Reader, to swallow it down, that he might prevail with his
pernicious hook.
Secondly, we do not deny, but both to our singular comfort, and exceeding great profit,
do heartily acknowledge, that the Son of God in our nature is exalted in power, honour
and Dignity, far above men and Angels, yea and the highest pitch of Majesty, that
any creature is capable of.
Thirdly, Yet in the third place this concession will be no advantage to the Adversary
for besides all that he hath spoken of Christ in that nature, our Saviour hath the
same Divine nature with the Father, and he is the same God, though not the same person,
and therefore he doth infinitely abase him, by making him onely a creature God, and
if he should strip him of all Soveraignty over us, and worship due thereto, yea, and
esteem him in feriour to a worm he could not so much dishonour him, as he hath done
in denying his Divinity, for the distance of one creature compared to another is but
finite, but that which is betwixt God and the most eminent creature is infinite,
and Christ being the most high God, is not in that regard subordinate to his Father,
but co-ordinate with him, for subordinate causes are not in the same order of causality,
as if one of them be particular, the other is universall; if one be the first cause,
the other is the second; if one of them be the principal cause, the other is an instrument
or lesse principal, which have no place in the persons of the holy Trinity.
Fourthly, albeit some eminent creatures, or which are taken to be such, may in diverse
respects be called Elohim, yet is it not agreeable to the Scripture- phrase not to the analogy of Faith to
call that Creature our God, or my God.
Fiftly and lastly, the holy Scriptures which the Adversary alledgeth for the proof
of this Article are positively assented to, albeit the Adversaries inferences from
them, that in no other respects Christ is God, then are here named, are justly denied.
Bidd.
John 20.17. I (Jesus) ascend to my Father, and to your Father, to [Page 235]my God and to your God. Ephes. 1.17. The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, Hebr. 18.9. but to the Son, or rather of the Son he saith, thy throne, O God, is for ever and
ever, a Scepter of Righteousnesse is the Scepter of thy Kingdome, thou lovest righteousnesse,
and hatest iniquity: wherefore God or rather, O God thy God hath annoy nted thee
with the oyle of gladnesse above thy fellowes: in these places which we have cited,
Christ, as he is the Son of God, and Lord, yea, God is said to have a God, and therefore
cannot be the most high God.
Answ.
In the first Text, John 20.17. our blessed Saviour contents not himselfe by saying God, but he adds, my God, your Father, and your God, intimating hereby the near conjunction betwixt himselfe and the faithfull, in two
respects: first, that as he is Gods Son, calling the first person our Father, and
the Father of Christ: secondly, because he is our God and Creator, as he is of Christ,
in regard of his Manhood; Christ as he was God simply, had not a God, but as Son
he had a Father; but being both God and Man in regard of his Humane Nature he hath
a God, and yet is God, as somethings belong to a Person in regard of a part, as man
is mortal, though his soule is immortal: now as God is the God and Father of Christ,
and of his servants in the fore-mentioned respect, yet in a different manner, insinuated,
in that Christ saith not, I ascend to our Father, and to our God, but to my Father,
and your Father, to shew a difference betwixt his Son ship and ours, betwixt his
creation and ours, that he is in a more excellent manner his Father then ours, and
therefore first he saith, my Father, and then your Father. This is denoted by the
Article prefixed before the one, & not the other, God is not therfore the Father of
Christ because he is our Father, but he is therefore our Father because he is his
Father. We are Gods Sons onely by the grace of adoption, whereas Christ was not made
the Son of God, but he was born the onely begotten Son of God, and touching his Humane
Nature, he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and that flesh was singularly united to
the word by hypostatical union. Secondly in that notion, he was created in a more
excellent manner then we are, but Christ as the Words not only created, but assumed
that Nature into the unity of his person, and so may in a good sence be said to create
himself, viz. touching his Humane Nature, but who can say that he created himselfe, save Christ
only? and there is yet another difference, Christ was created without mans seed,
he had no [Page 236]im mediate Father on earth, and by consequence he was not polluted with originall
sinne, as all other men in the World besides him are stained with that pollution;
and lastly hi [...]foul was adorned with those eminent divine qualities, and that from the conception
which do transcend the excellencies of any rational creature.
In a word, God in this Scripture is not taken essentially for one that governs all
with supream dominion, but personally, which in the intrinsecall conception doth denote
an intrinsecal relation in the most simple unity of the Godhead, its taken for the
Father, the first Person of the sacred Trinity, as the inspection of the Text evinceth,
and from hence you may conclude a distinction betwixt the divine Persons, that the
Son of God is not the Father, but you cannot infer that he is not God; but the contrary
rather, because he in his humane nature ascended into Heaven by his own omnipotent
power.
2. Your next place Ephes. 1.17. holds forth that the Apostle prays to the Lord, who is in these Latter dayes
made known to us by a more glorious title then that of The God of Abraham, even the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, unlesse haply there be a rajection of the words as Piscator guesseth, God and Father, the God of glory and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: God
the Father is called the God of our Savior, because he was as man both created and
preserved by him, as also because he was in regard of his office of being our Mediator
subject to him, and became obedient to the death of the crosse. Lastly he may be called
the God of Christ, as he was the God of Abraham, that is the true God, because he sent him to reconcile sinners to himselfe, and
that God which Christ preached to the world? Zanch. is this any thing for the Adversaries advantage?
To that Text, Hebr. 1.8.9. I say it is a clear demonstration of the Son of God, for God the Father speaks
of his Son by the mouth or Pen of David, Psal 45.7.8. and cals him God absolutely, not eiffering from himself in Deity, but
in personality, and ascribes to him an eternal throne and dominion, and not for a
long time, as in this sense [...] is sometime taken but [...] both joyn [...]d together doth always signifie eternity, as is observed verse 9 Where O God, in the vocative case, God, that is, God the Father hath annoynted thee, O God the
Son, the same person that is, God is annoynted and turn [...]ed with extraordinary gifts for an excraordinary calling, not simply as he is God,
but respectively in reference to his humanity, in which respect God is superior to
him, and in reference [Page 237]to his Divinity the Son of God is God, and hath a God; but how taken? personally,
and not essentially, for this being attributed to God secundum quid, may be both affirmed and denied of the same subject without violation of the Laws
of opposition, when it is considered in divers respects: the Father is God begetting,
the Son is God begotten, not the God of his Son, as God simply, but as God the Father
beget [...]ing, nor is the Son simply God, but God the Son begotten, he is both God and the highest
God, because he is begotten of his Father by eternal generation, hence doth the Nicene Creed assert, that Christ is God of God, begotten, not made, yet doth not the Christian
Religion permit us to say, that God begets another God, for that phrase implies there
are more Gods then one, but God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, are
simply one and the same Jehovah
Now that the weaknesse of the Adversaries Argument may more clearly be discerned,
I will reduce it into a syllogistical term, thus:
He that hath a God is not the most high God.
Our Saviour hath a God, ergo, he is not the most high God. The major is evident, or else we must maintain that there are two Gods: the minor is proved by the alledged Scriptures.
I answer to to the major by limitting it thus:
He that hath properly a God, as he is God, is not the most high God, this proposition
thus taken is assented to, if otherwise, it is deni [...]d.
[...]o the minor I answer, by distinguishing of the subject Christ in respect of his humane Nature
hath a God, and in his sense the concludon is yielded but Christ as he is God so
hath be not properly a God; but God senecdochically taken, but as he is God the Son,
s [...]he hath God the Father, and reciprocally God the Father hath God the Son to clear
this we do thus distinguish of man; man in regard of his body is mortal but in regard
of his soule that's immortall, God the Father and God the Son are relatives, and
do prove the distinction of Person in the u [...]jty of the Go head, the premisses duty considered, the Adversaries specious inference,
that Christ is not them [...]st high God, grou [...]ded on the Homonimy of the word God, and most High comes to nothing.
Bidd.
Neither will this seem strange to him that considereth the language of the Scripture,
which expresly maketh mention of the most high God, and [Page 238]calleth Melchesedech King of Salom Priest of the most high God. Hebr. 7.1. and calleth the Lord the God of Gods, Deut. 10.17. The Lord your God is God of Gods and Lord of Lords, both which places shew, that there
is one by way of excellency, or in the most perfect manner called God; but others
in a way of subordination, or lesse perfect manner, amongst whom Christ himselfe (though
otherwise far surpassing the rest) is notwithstanding ranked, as this place of the
Hebrews doth evince, beyond all gain-saying, in that it speaketh of Christ as a God,
when it saith he hath a God, so that there is no place for the Adversary to baffle,
telling us this is spoken of Christ as Man, or according to Humane Nature.
Answ.
I answer to that place, Heb. 7.1. Melchisedech was in name and in truth answerable to his name, King of righteousnesse, he was also
Priest, of the most high God, God here is taken essentially and absolutely, he was
a Priest of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, vertually at least
the Son and holy Ghost are implyed, they are not excluded by that title. Very well.
Christ was not the most high, but subordinate to him according to this Text, who denies
this? for no creature can be equal to the most high creatour, what then? therefore
Christ, say you, being typified by this Melchisedich, as is proved Psal. 110.4. without all contradiction, is also subordinated to the most high God, this
is most true, for Melchisedeck both in respect of his Person, and his office, was not a type of Christ, in respect
of his Divine Nature simply considered, nor in respect of his person, for then your
proofs I confesse would have been to good purpose, but he was on Embleme of him in
regard of his office, as he was our Mediatour, both God and man, for Christ in respect
of his Person, had a Father in heaven, and he so calls him, when be conversed amongst
mortal men, and in respect of his Genealogie [...]sh had no other substance but humane, the blessed Virgin his mother, was a woman
well known, so that in this respect Melchisedeck was most unlike unto Christ, for he is described in the word, without any mention
of his Father and Mother, of his Genealogy and death but Christs Father and Mother,
his Genealogy, his Nativity and death, are acurately described in Gods book, so that
in this respect he had beginning of his dayes; as he was man, and there was an end
of his life, as is clear in the Gospel, and as he was God in regard of the [Page 239]Divine Nature, he neither was nor could be a Priest.
How then is it said, that Christ was without. Father and Mother? the Apostle Rom. 9.5. resolves us by distinguishing Christ, as he was man, according to the flesh,
was of the Father, the Son of Abraham, the Sonne of David, yet had he no immediate Father on earth, as he was man, and as he was God, the Son
of God according to the Spirit, he had a Father, and not a Mother, no beginning
of dayes, nor an end of his life, this Text then doth evidently prove, that Christ
hath another nature than the humane, or else the Apostle was wide in making them to
be like, wherein they are most unlike, this then must be meant of Christ, God-man,
as our Mediatour in both natures, he had no Father, nor Mother, in that he had no
predecessour, to whom he succeeded in that office, nor any successour to stand up
in his room when he died, as Aaron had, and therefore he fitly resembles Melchisedech, who had no Predecessour in that office recorded in the Scripture, nor any Successour;
there is no Genealogie of Priests of that order after him, in which respect he was
a proper type by Divine appointment of our Saviours Priesthood, and yet the dignity
and efficacy of the Priesthood of Christ depended upon the Deity, by which he offered
himself an immaculate Sacrifice to God, and some acts of his Priesthood were performed,
before his Nativity of the Virgin Mary, and all the faithfull, before she had a being in the world, were freed from the guilt
of their sins, and sanctified and saved by the benefit of Christs Priesthood, not
by the Levitical, not by their own works, it must be then by the efficacy of Christs
Priesthood, and this must needs be, because Gods covenant is eternal, and before the
Law, Gal. 3.17. and shadowed out by those illustrious types of Sarah and Hagar, Gal. 4.24. now the covenant is not more ancient than the Mediatour of the covenant: Hagar was not before Sarah, nor was Jerusalem, which was above before her husband, for she had not two husbands, and was longer
barren, Gal. 4.27. now she is not called barren, which is not, or which is not married.
To that place out of Deuteronomie, I answer, first according to the Adversaries supposition, that Christ could no [...] be comprehended under the name of Gods and Lords, because then he had not a being,
when those words were spoken, God of Gods, and Lord of Lords, that which is not, cannot
be an inferiour Lord and God.
Secondly, I answer, that God is taken here essentially, as most [Page 240]frequently in the old Testament, not excluding the Sonne of God, and the Holy Ghost:
Gods Son is God of Gods, and Lord of Lords, infinitely superiour to them that are
onely made Gods, whether dead and fictitious, which are esteemed such by their idolatrous
worshippers, or whether they be living Gods, as Princes and Angels, which is so true,
that you have none of ours to be your Adversary, and you might well have spared this
proof, for God is truly God of gods, and Lord of Lords
The Adversary is very confident, that his Argument cannot be eluded, or rather the
vanity thereof detected, because God the Father (as he takes for granted) is onely
the most high God, and Christ then must needs be subordinate to him, but this is in
truth a plain dotage, to say the Son is in a lesse perfect manner God, then the Father,
because he hath a God; it is true, God creates, preserves, and governs all and all
the made gods, who have truly a God above them, are under him, but the Son, as he
is simply the Son of God, is co-equall and co-essentiall with his Father, even Jehovah
himself, the great and the most high God, albeit the same person, in regard of his
humane nature, is inferiour, and subordinate to him, and albeit Christ is not the
Person, which is in many places called God. yet is he the same God, John 1.1. the highest God is understood, yet is not every one perfect, that is, the highest
God understood thereby, and as in some places, the Son is distinguished from God,
so be there other places wherein the Father is distinguished from God Psal. 45.7. and Heb. 1.8 yea, and from Jehovah, for according to the Adversaries, the angels are sometimes
called Jehovah. Shall we from hence conclude, that onely created Angels are Jehovah.
Bid. For the further cleering of this matter, I will here exactly unfold the appellation
of God, as I find it delineated in Scriptures, for many being ignorant hereof, hold
very great and inexplicable errors, touching the Godhead of Christ.
First therefore the appellation of God denoteth him that hath a supernatural substance
as Esa 31.3. The Aegyptians are Men, & not God, Ezech. 28.2.9. Because thy heare is
lifted up, and thou (Prince of Tyrus) hast said, I am god, yet thou art a man and not God: which werds do plainly intimate, that by God is meant a supernaturall substance that
cannot die, whereas every natural substance may die: thus is the Lord called God,
and the Angels, because they are immortall.
Answ.
What singular thing you have performed in your delineation of the several ways how
God is taken, will in part, by the sequel be discovered, and albeit you preferred
exactnesse in this search of Scripture, yet is not your enumeration full, there are
some other expressions, besides those here specified, which belong to Christ, and
which cannot appertain to a creature-God; but whether the ignorance of others, (thus
doth he speak of our most eminent Divines, to whom others of meaner parts are but
Scholars) in this poynt produceth strange errors touching the Deity of our Saviour,
or your own prejudicate blindnesse in the mis-application of them is to be tried by
the unerring testimony of the holy Ghost speaking in the Scriptures.
The first way is not generally true, for the soul of man is in some sense a supernatural
living substance, which cannot be slain, and yet is never in Scripture language called
god, and Divels which cannot die are indeed called the gods of this world.
Was ever any one of our Writers ignorant of this deep mystery discovered by you, that
God is taken for a supernatural living substance that cannot die, and could our blessed
Saviour in his Divine Nature die? we would forthwith and that most justly disclaime
his Divinity How this can consist with your Exposition of Scripture and judgement,
that Christ when he was God by his power to work miracles, and yet even then was subject
to death, and at length crucified, I leave to your better thoughts.
I adde the opposition in the Text cited by you, is betwixt God and men, and doth not
extend to all that have in your sense a supernatural being, to wit, Angels, tis betwixt
those Heathenish people which were creatures, as the Prince of Tyrus, which albeit he compared himselfe to God, chiefly in regard of wisdom, as the following
Verses clear, yet I can scarcely believe that he was so sottish to think that he should
live for ever, as Meander the Samaritan and a wretched Disciple of Simon Magus perswaded himself & by his magical [...]llusions would have perswaded others, in Justin Martyrs days Apol. 2. pro Christiani Iren. l. 1 c 21. that neither he nor the should ever die, and David Grover the Father of the Family of Love did foolishly feign unto himselfe a certain immortality
in this world; I Knew stil against the Herisie of H.N. Or shal we say that they had an opinion as the Britons had of K. Arthur, that he was not dead many [Page 242]hundred years after his departure, Ʋsser de Britan. Eccles. primordils pag. 321. the opposition I say is betwixt mortall men and the everliving Creator, they
must die, but God is immortal and lives for ever. Bidd.
Secondly, him that hath a supernaturall dominion, or such a dominion as is not managed
in a naturall and visible way, but in a hidden manner exceeding the limits of Nature, Numb. 26.27.16. Let the Lord, the God of the Spirits of all flesh, set a man over
this Congregation: therefore called the God of the Spirits of men, because he ruleth over them, but such
rule and dominion is more then naturall, for they that exercise a natural or civil
dominion have power over the flesh only, hence Paul saith Ephes. 6 5. Servants be obedient to your Masters according to the flesh, opposing them to the Lord of their Spirits: In this sense is the Lord also sayd to
be the God of Gods, Psal. 136.2. because he exerciseth dominion over the Angels, which in Scripture are called gods,
as in Psal. 97.7. Worship him all ye gods: This cannot be meant of Idols which are not to be worshipped. See also Psal 8.5. Thou hast made Man a little lower then Elohim, then Ang [...]ls: Now the dominion which the Lord exerciseth over Angels is not natural or civil, but
exceeding the limits of nature, in that the very subjects of this dominion are supernaturall.
Answ.
For substance nothing is in all these Scriptures presented to our view by the Adversiry
which is not obvious and assented to, onely some expressions are to be rectified.
First in that he saith, Gods dominion over the Angels is not natural, which in propriety of speech is very erroneous; the highest creatures are subject
to the natural Kingdome or rule of God, as to their Creator, and it is as natural
for the God of Spirits, being himself an infinite all-knowing Spirit, to rule over
all created Spirits, as for a mortal man to rule over Man who is mortal, yea and much
more fully then so: it is true, Gods Rule is not properly civil, as that is of man
which is over the flesh and body directly, but more glorious and Divine, for God hath
absolute, and uncontrolled authority and soveraignty over all the creatures in the
world.
Secondly, you a [...]d, The spirits which are the subjects of this dominion are supernaturall. This in a good sense is not strange and no marvel, if Angels are called supernatural,
for the same attribute is verified of all other creatures, they have their being
not from Nature [Page 243]simply, but from the omnipotent will of the most high God. Agath, all creatures may
in another sense be called naturall, as having their being and subsistence from the
great God, who is, Natura Naturans: the usuall distinction of natural and supernatural is not in regard of substance:
a thing is not called supernatural, but in regard of the accidental [...]orm, and those gratious qualities wherewith it is endowed, as the word it selfe imports,
and it perfects a created substance above that which it hath by its natural constitution:
'tis of a higher order, and tends to a supernatural end.
The Scriptures alledged Psal. 97.7. and applied to Christ. Heb. 1. that all the Angels are commanded to worship him is a very strong proofe of his
Deity, in that he is worshipped with religious adoration, whereof a creature, whose
wisdome and power is but finite, is not capable, and well have the ancient Fathers
judged the Arians to be Idolaters, and so have some Socinians censured their fellowes for worshipping Christ with religious worship, and yet do
maintain that he is but a Creature, a created God.
Your other place, Heb. 2.3. Thou hast made him a little lower, understand it lower for a short time, and that not simply neither, but because he
humbled himselfe, as he was a man, to death, but all the Angels are immortal substances;
for this speech being comparative, extends only to that particular wherein holy Jesus
and the Angels are compared together; as Angels are in many respects more excellent
then men, yet men have some perfections agreeable to their state, which Angels want,
for instance vis productiva prolis Scotis in 4. Sentent. dis 49. So albeit Christ was in regard of his passion lower then the Angels, yet as
he was the Son of God, and had the Humane Nature hypostatically united to the Person
of the Son of God, and as it was enriched with supernaturall gifts above measure,
he was thus above Angels, and who was no doubt in the state of his infirmity and in
the days of his flesh, as the Apostle speaketh, worshipped by the holy Angels.
Bidd.
Thirdly, him that hath a sublime dominion conferred on him in a supernaturall way,
thus Moses is called a God, Exod. 7.1 See I have made thee Elohim [...] G [...]d to Pharaoh: and Nebuchadnezzar Ezech. 31.11. I have delivered Pharaoh into the hand of the Heathen, meaning Nebuchadnezzar, as appeareth from chap 30.24. For Moses had his dominion immediately bestowed on him by God, as the Text it selfe [Page 244]sheweth, so also had Nebuchadnezzar, Ier. 27.4, 5, 6. Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, I have made by my power, and I have given
it to whom it seemed meet to me, and I have given all these Lands into the hands of
Nebuchadnezzar my servant, Ezech. 31.11. I have given Nations Beiad el Gorin into the hands of the God of Nations.
Answ.
This third way, and the former in the main (as touching sublime Dominion) are one
and the same, and in that respect 'tis alledged for a vain shew, to multiplie wayes
which are not in truth distinguish [...]d, but whereas he addes Dominion conferred, I observe that the name of God is not
here as in all the rest, agreeable to the most high God, for who can conferre sublime
Dominion on him? nor is this title appropriated to th [...]m which have sublime dignity, but it is applyed to inferiour Magistrates also, which
are advanced to their places in an ordinary way, Psal. 1.6. and Iohn 10.34.
'Tis true, Moses was a made God to Pharaoh by participation and similitude so called, because he had something Divine and above
nature, valour and the gift of miracles communicated to him; as also to make known
Gods word and Pleasure, but your placing Nebuchaanezzar, or as others understand i [...] Merodac [...]aladan in the same rank with Moses, is very incong [...]uou▪ First there is no reason to con [...]ound these two, viz to have gifts given immediately, and in a supernatural way, who ha [...]h taught you thus to speak; all things at first were immediately created by God, and
had whatever they had immediately from his own h [...]nd and to this day many things are immediately given to the creatures, to instance
in the soul and infused habi [...]s, yet would it be very improper to say, they are given in a supernatural way, nor
had that King wh [...]soever he was, any thing conferred on him, but that which is natural. Secondly your
proof falls short, for it appears not that the King is called God, as you tra [...]slate the Text, our English, is Mighty one, so Junius Piscator most migh [...]y El [...] an adjuctive faith Schin [...]ter, that famous Hebrician, and signifies mighty, powerfull, [...]s Gen. 31.19. Laban vainly boasted, that it was in the power of his ha [...]d to do mischief, and in many other places and you had no reason to render it into
the hand of the God of Nations, for to be sure, the King of Babylon being compared with other [Page 245]Princes, was more mighty then they were potent, I will help you to a fitter example.
Sathan is called the God of this World, 2 Cor. 4.4. the naturall endowments in cursed Spirits, were not lost by their fall, some
of them had greater power conferred on them then others, the order amongst them is
sacred, in respect of God ordaining it, for he useth the power of the Devil to accomplish
his own holy ends, but this power on the Devils part abusing it to the dishonour of
God, and the hurt of men, 'tis wicked.
Bidd.
Fourthly, him that is bestower of supernatural benefits, thus is the Lord called the
God of Abraham, Isaac and of Jacob, Exod. 3.6. because he (as the Authour to the Hebrews expounds it) hath prepared for them a City, even the heavenly Ierusalem, Heb. 11.16.
Answ.
Touching this fourth way, I with good reason justly expected a proof from Scripture,
that in this regard, a creature is called God, because he is a bestower of supernatural
benefits, as you have done in all the rest, though all in vain.
If we respect the matter it self, here is another deep mysterie, whereof the learned
forsooth are ignorant, God gives both grace and glory, who doubts of that? your Exposition
of the third of Exodus is too short, it comprehends more, that God by speciall Covenant, was the God of
Abraham, Isaac and Iacob, not onely by a rich preparative, destining that Land of Canaan and in that Land a famous City Ierusalem for their posterity, and in that mystically prenguring heaven above, a singular argument
of his love and favour, that they should live in his sight to all Eternity, he did
not onely this, but he qualified the [...] by his grace to be meet for it which he also really bestowed upon them.
Bidd.
Fifthly, him that is a Soveraign benefactour, bestowing benefits on them (though in
themselves natural) yet in a supernaturall way, Gen. 18. I will give to them the Land of Canaan, wherein thou art a stranger, for an everlasting possession and I will be their God
therefore their God, because he gave them the Land of Canaan, which was done in a supernatural way, they got not the Land in possession by their
Sword, Psal. 44.3. See also, Exod. 23.23.
Answ.
Temporal things are common to good men and to bad, and by [Page 246]them simply considered, no man can know whether God loves him, or hates him, but to
Gods children, which are partakers of the Divine nature, and which do use them to
his holier ends, and to promote their own good, they are sweet pledges and tokens
of his love, and their smell is as a field which God hath blessed.
I do observe the Title, God is a Soveraign Benefactour, I demand, if there can be
a Soveraign Benefactour, which is not the most high God? to be Soveraign is too great
for a creature, God. It is incongruous, to say, a person, which is a ministeriall
or subordinate cause of good, is, or can be a Soveraign Benefactour, to say nothing,
that this fourth and fifth way, are in effect coincident, and do onely gradually differ,
let us now take notice of the application of these severall respects to our Saviour.
Bidd
In all these respects is Christ now rightly stiled a God, having a supernatural,
Spirituall, and immortall substance, a sublime dominion conferred on him in a supernaturall
way, even by God raising him up from the dead, and setting him at his own right hand
in heavenly places, yea, a supernatural dominion over Angels, and the Spirits of men
being also a soveraign Benefactour, and bestowing benefits (though in themselves
naturall as health, and the like) yet in a supernaturall, way, yea, bestowing supernaturall
benefits also, as the eternall inheritance, and the pledge thereof the holy Spirit.
Answ.
All this is spoken to blear the eyes of the Reader, and 'tis nothing but sophisticall
juggling, he saith, Christ is true God, but he denies, that he is the eternal and
omnipotent God.
All the particulars are absolutely true of him, as he is God, but in an improper and
limited sense, as he is man.
The Dominion of Christ over all, both naturall as he is God, and do native conferred
on him, as he is our Mediatour in time, we do to our great comfort acknowledge, as
also that he bestows spirituall blessings, yea, the Holy Ghost in the Scripture sense,
and eternall life, grace and peace, and glory are from him, as he is God, and as he
is Mediatour, both God and man, and that is done dispositivè, or per modum praeparantis, by preparing and fitting men for grace by his passion, satisfying Gods wrath, removing
all matter of dislike, meriting the favour and acceptation of God for us, which depened
upon the excellency of his person, and on the Divine Nature which [Page 247]made his passion meritorious for us; Christ is also the soveraigne Author of grace
effective, per modum impertientis, by way of efficacy conferring to us grace by the operation of his Holy Spirit; for
he alone enlightens the dark understandings of men, he alone softens their hard hearts,
and sanctifies their disordered affections, and reformes the whole man.
But this Antitrinitarian albeit he cals Christ a true God, yet doth not the definition
of God in his sense belong to him, for he will in no case say, he is a spiritual eternal
essence infinite in all perfections.
Secondly, there is a wide difference betwixt these two to be called a God, as sometimes
in holy Scriptures some creatures are, and to be a God in reality.
Thirdly, all or most of the former particulars do not demonstratively prove, that
those to whom they are attributed are truly God, but there is further required the
Divine Nature and omnipotency, Jerem 10.11. if he be God, he hath made Heaven and Earth, as Christ indeed is the Author
of these great Works; besides it is never said, which is carefully to be observed,
that Christ in the Scripture phrase is a made God, but he was even in the depth and
lowest degree of his humiliation called, and that most truly as he was God, and our
God.
Bidd.
Neither was he destitute of a supernatural dominion, but was a God even whiles he
conversed with men on earth, for he had authority not only over diseases and Divels
to cure, where, and when, and whom he pleased; but he could give authority to his
Disciples to cure diseases and to cast out Divels, and that in his name, Luk. 9.1. and 10.16 in the former place the twelve Disciples had power given them over Divels, in the
latter the 70 Disciples cast out Divels in his name; yea, some that were not Disciples could notwithstanding
cast out Divels in his name, Luk. 9.49.
Answ.
All this we do heartily imbrace, and willingly subscribe unto, but these passages
are not in the least to the prejudice of our cause, but do make much for us, and do
afford a double Argument to prove the property, so called Deity of Gods Son.
First, because he wrought miracles by his owne power, for God alone is the soveraign
Author of miraculous works, Psal. 72.18. and our Saviour argueth from his works, and proves his equality with the Father,
John 5.18. which the Jewes charged on him to be no less [Page 248]a sin then blasphemy, and in the next verse he saith, Whatsoever things the Father doth, the very same doth the Son likewise: that is, by the sameness of his essence, and most perfect equality with the Father;
and we may take notice how both Natures of our Saviour concurred in his miraculous
works very frequently, in his Humane Nature he received power in time, but in his
Divine Nature he had power eternally in himselfe to work them, as he was God he opened
the eyes of the blind, as he was man, he touched sometimes the ill affected member;
as he was man he touched the Leper, as he was God, he said, I will, be thou clean, and the Leprous was cleansed Mat. 8.3. as he was man he looked up to Heaven and sighed, and put his fingers into the
ears of a deaf man, he spit and touched his tongue, as he was God he said (with authority)
Ephphatha, be thou opened, and immeditely he had the use of his ears and of his tongue, Mar. 37.33.34. as he was man, he wept, he sighed, thanked God, and spoke to dead Lazarus, Come forth, as he was God, he raised him from the dead, John 11.43. When we see a candle shine through the horns of a Lanthorn, we do not fix
our mindes on the Lanthorn, which hath no native vertue thus to shine, but on the
Candle it selfe, which sends forth thorough its radiant light; in like manner when
we do contemplate the glorious works which our Saviour instrumentally wrought by
his humane Nature, we must not rest in the meditation of the visible creature, but
by it transmit our mindes to the invisible God, who was the proper and principal cause
of them.
Secondly, our Saviour had not only power to work miracles himself, but he gave power
and authority to whom and when he pleased to work them in his name, Act. 3.12.16.38. this is so transcendent a favour, that no Apostle nor any creature can
give to any other, but it is an honour which is peculiarly reserved in the hands
of supream Majesty, and it was a palpable error in Simon Magus, and so it is in any other man to think otherwise, Act. 8.19.
It was the infirmity of John, a beloved Apostle to be envious that any one which was not a professed Disciple should
have the gift of working miracles in the Name of Christ, herein he was not unlike
to Josuah, Numb. 11.18. which was troubled that Eldad and Medad prophesied in their tents, and Jesus in effect answered him as, Moses did his servant, let as many as wil cast out Divels in my Name, though they keep
not company with us, no man is so foolishly vain; [Page 249]that will at the same time both make use of and blaspheme my Name, He that is a Souldier and fights not against me (according to the Proverb) he is for me, in that he makes use of my Name for such a purpose, according to that famous speech of Caius Caesar, Grotius in hom: yea, our blessed Saviour confers this great gift (such was his bounty) not only on
him which was not then a professed Disciple, but on the Reprobates which at the last
day will plead for themselves, that they had in the Name of Christ cast out Divels,
to whom Christ will answer, Depart ye wicked, I know you not: verily this makes much against, but nothing at all for the Adversary.
Bidd.
This (to give a hint by the way to them that are inquisitive after the truth) putteth
a manifest difference between the manner whereby Christ gave power to the Disciples
to cure and cast out Divels, and the manner wherein the Holy Spirit wrought them,
for we read expresly 1 Cor. 12.9.10. that the Holy Ghost gave the gift of healing, and the operation of Miracles, amongst
which mighty works the casting out of Divels is comprehended, for Christ gave them
power to cure Diseases and cast out Divels in his name, Acts 3.6. and 16.18. I command thee in the in the Name of Jesus to come out of her: but we never read that any of the Disciples did ever perform cures, or cast out Divels
in the name of the Holy Spirit.
Answ.
There is I grant, a difference betwixt the second and third Person of the holy Trinity
in working miracles. For the Holy Ghost was not incarnated, as was the Son of God,
and both Natures as I have shewed, concurred, although in a different manner in their
production very frequently: as also in the order of working, which agrees to the
order of subsisting, as the Divine Nature with all essentiall properties were communicated
to the Holy Ghost, by the Father and Son of God, not as two Agents but as one principle,
so doth the Son work by the Holy Ghost: this granted, yet the vertue and power conferred
on the Apostles and others in those dayes, whereby they cured diseases without Physick,
yea and inflicted formidable Judgments as Paul on Elymas, yea death it selfe as Peter did on Ananias and Saphirah his Wife, and whereby they cast out Divels in the name of Jesus Christ was one and
the same power in the Son and Holy Ghost, that is, a Divine Power, for ability to
work miracles is proper to God, and so doth equally belong to God the Father, [Page 250]God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, and that we might not doubt hereof the Holy Ghost
in the Text 1. Cor. 12. is declared to be an absolute Author of such gifts, and bestows them where and
how, and to whom he pleaseth, nor is there the least superiority discovered in the
diversity of operations ascribed to God the Father, and in the diversity of gifts
ascribed to God the Holy Ghost, and of administrations to the Lord; is not the Spirit
made the absolute Authour of gifts, and the Son of administrations, as God is of operations?
shall we say that the Spirit is not so the Author of gifts, as God is the Author of
them? to be Author of gifts and administrations imports it not equal glory as to
be Author of operations? operation proceeds from administration, and administration
depends on gifts! what preheminence hath the Father in that tis said, [...] that the Holy Ghost divides gifts to every one as he will: search and consider if
there can be more spoken of the Father, who is by the Adversary confessed to be the
most high God? can an Instrument under another dispence gifts to any as he will?
It is confessed that the Disciples are not said to cast out Divels in the name of
the Holy Ghost, as they did expresly in the name of Jesus Christ, yet did they in
very truth cast them out in his name; for what is it to cast out Divels in the name
of the Holy Ghost? is it not to do it by his power, and by a gift received from him?
this they received, 1. Cor. 12. as the text proveth; for how else I pray you, could the Holy Ghost give this
to others? and not only did the Apostles, but Christ himselfe also as he was man cast
out Divels in the Name of the Holy Ghost, for he did then by the finger of God, 12.
Mat. 28. besides there was an evident reason why the holy Apostles should make an open
profession that they cast out Divels in the Name of Christ, not only to renounce thereby
all honour and glory as due to themselves by such eminent works, as they were instruments
to produce, but to advance the honour of Christ, obscured and vailed by his sufferings
in the flesh, he was a person contemned and slighted by the Jews and Gentiles, now
this seasonable professsion of the Apostles, that all they did in that kind was by
the name of Jesus, was a notable demonstration of the glory of the Son of God, whom
the Jews had crucified.
Bidd.
Let us now proceed to other testimonies of the Scripture from whence it may appear
that though Christ be a God, yet is he not the most high [Page 251]God, Isa. 9.6.7. he is called a mighty God (in the Originall it is simply El Gibbor, not hael hagibbor, as the Lord of Hosts is stiled, Jer. 32.28.) a Father of the ages (or of Eternity) a Prince of Peace, of the increase of his Gouernment
there shall be no end, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts will perform this, in this passage
it is remarkable, that the Prophet after he had called Christ a mighty God, and given
him other excellent and Divine Elogies, he saith in the close of all, that the zeal
of the Lord of Hosts will perform this, thereby distinguishing Christ from the Lord
of Hosts, making his Godhead dependent on the bounty of the Lord of Hosts, who would
out of his zeal cause Christ to become a mighty God, so that Christ is not the most
high God, but a God subordinate to him.
Answ.
This place hath been already examined page 266. and these that follow, and I purpose
not largely, actum agere, and to roll the same stone, in that holy Text, our Saviour is described, both as
he is the Son of God simply, and likewise in regard of his offices, and the benefits
which do flow from that fountain to us. In the first Consideration, he is stiled the
mighty God, a Title too high and lofty for any creature, and which can fitly appertain
to none but the most high God, nor will this sacred Scripture evince, that Christ
is made a mighty God by the bounty and favour of the Lord of hosts, as you do most
unworthily confound things that do differ, for I demand, what is that the Lord of
hosts will perform, is it to make Christ really to be almighty God? Surely not this
by any naturall Deduction, but by a forced Interpretation without any footing in
the Text, what then? he shall have the Throne of David, (who is a mighty God touching his person) he shall order and stablish it in Justice,
from hence forth for ever, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts will perform this: now the Distinction betwixt the Lord of Hosts giving a Throne, and the promised Messias
to whom it is given, is not denied, but unanimously acknowledged by us, for who is
so rude to confound the Lord of Hosts, the eternal God with the humane nature of our
Saviour, or with the Mediatour betwixt God and man? and we are sure by the Testimony
of the Scriptures. That it was a singular Priviledge to the Jews, that Christ, as
concerning the flesh came of them, Rom. 9.5. and a greater favour to the house and posterity of David, that the Lord would both make and ratifie that happy promise, and the words insisted
on, are [Page 252]as a Seal annexed to the promise, that the zeal, the exceeding great love, which God
did ever bear to the Church, and his indignation against the enemies thereof, will
by his mighty power accomplish that gracious promise for the benefit of mankind,
which we to the joy of our hearts, do see in part already fulfilled. It is an usuall
practise of the Adversary to spend time and paper, to prove that which is not denied,
and to leave that naked, which should be proved.
Bidd.
This will further appear from other Texts of Scripture, wherein Christ hath the appellation
of God giuen to him, the first is, Rom. 9.5. where the Apostle speaketh in this manner, Whose are the Fathers, and of whom according
to the flesh Christ came, who is over all, a God blessed for ever, a God, so the
Greek hath it, wherein [...] is put without an Article, and were it here used as a proper name (for so it is sometimes
in the Scriptures, the words over all would be needlesse, (being implyed in it) nor
could be construed with the same, for is it incongruous to say, who is Moses, or David over all.
Answ.
O that foolish man should take such pains to kick against the pricks, to make light
to be darknesse, and to draw a curtain over his eyes to keep out the light from shining
to them, and for no other reward, but to procure his own damnation? this place is
so clear a proof of the Divinity of Christ, that as Doctour Hammond observes out of Proclus de fide, it convinceth all the Heresies touching him, and it shuts and walls up all passages
for calumny from them that are contumelious to our Saviour Can there be more force
in omitting one poore letter to make the Adversary deny our Saviours Deity, than
in many strong reasons to wring out from him a Confession of this necessary truth?
Too much curiosity in this Criticisme hath deceived him, is not Christ Jesus the true
God, because the Article is omitted, or is the Article never omitted, when the most
high God is most undoubtedly spoken of?
First I say, this exception is but a vain elusion, for Articles are not alwayes added,
no, not to that person, who is in the Adversaries sense the most high God, and there
are infinite examples in all Writers in that tongue, and many in the new Testament,
which will to the eye of the intelligent Reader make this good: See Mat. 4.4. and 5.9. and 12.28. and 14.31. Philip. 2.6. as Saint Chrysostome [Page 253]on that place observeth, equal to a God, shall we thus render it, and such instances
are every where obvious, which are needlesse to be repeated: the Article where God
is spoken of, is wanting in an hundred places, saith Beckman, yea in no fewer in the New Testament than two hundred, saith Stegma. Disput. 3. qu. 6. Shall we then conclude from them, that the Father is a God, not the most high
God?
But perhaps you will object and say, that albeit the Article is sometimes omitted
when the most high God is mentioned, yet is it never prefixed when the Son of God
is called God: if this could be truly spoken, it would be some prejudice against the
Argument, but how false it is, will be made out even in this very Text, for albeit
it is not added immediately before the name of God, yet it is here done remotely,
and vertually appe [...]tains to it, the Text is [...], and more plainly, Matthew 1.23. Act. 20.28. Tit. 2.13. Heb. 1.8. and 1 John 5.20. shewing hereby, that no great stresse is to be put to a place in reference
to an Article, [2 Pet. 1.1. our God and Saviour, the Articles is added to [...], but omitted in [...], to intimate that one person is meant by both] sithence the holy Text sometimes omitteth and sometimes addeth it, yea, to false
gods, as to Moloch and to Remphan, in the Prophet Amos, c. 5.26. called Chiun, rendered by the Septuagint Rephan, retaining the sense, not the word, whereby we are to understand Hercules, who in the Egyptian language was called Chon, for [...] in the holy Tongue signifieth, gyants, and by Hercules the Sun is meant, according to some Etymologists, from the Hebrew [...], because it enlightens all things, Goodwin Synag. lib. 4. c. 2. yea voluptuous men make their belly their God, [...], yea it is affixed to the Devil himself, for he is called [...], the god of this World, out of your own words I frame this Argument.
That God which hath an Article prefixed before him, is the most High God.
The name God, when applied to the Son of God, hath an Article prefixed before him.
Ergo, he is true God.
When you say, over all, would be superfluous and incongru [...]us, were God a proper name.
Here is (say I) a piece of new learning as though every periphrasis of a name was
needlesse? what more usual then to adde, for teaching and illustration sake, expressions
fitted to a proper name? [Page 254]and whereas you object David over all, is incongruous. First, you omit what is in the Text [...] Christ being God over all. Secondly, I do not see any inconvenience to say in a qualified
sence (for otherwise the words you relate are not true) this is Moses, and this is David, who is over all; and above all the Israelites; but it is well, that you do not with
your heretical Simmists shamefully pervert the plain words of the Text, affirming
without proofe, that there is a point after [...], and the following words are a wish appertaining only to God the Father. Let the
God that is over all, be blessed for ever.
Bidd.
Neither let the Adversaries here object, that Jehovah is a proper name, and yet it is often said in Scriptures Jehovah Sebaoth the Lord of hostes, for it is evident by Scripture, that in this expression there
is a defect of the word God, as appeareth from 1. Chron. 11.9. The Lord of hosts was with him, compared with 2. Sam 5 10. The Lord God of hostes was with David: Wherefore the aforesaid passage to the Romanes doth not shew that Christ is
the most high God; but rather the contrary, in that he is so a God over all, as that
he himselfe in the mean time hath a God, for that he is not a God over all, none excepted,
is apparent, for then he would be a God over the Father, which every one will confess
to be most false.
Answ.
You discover to us a great mystery to no purpose, and an observation, which, as I
conceive, is not taken notice of, either by the ancient or modern Writers, whose
knowledge surely was not below Mr. Biddles in Criticism, and if in one place the name God is supplied, which is your only proofe;
Doth it follow that it is always to be understood in a hundred? and why may not the
name God be proper to the great God, as it is in other places, you do not demonstrate:
I am to learn how this which you here say can either hurt us, or advantage you; it
had been well for you, if you had had lesse of the Grammarian, if you had had more
of the sober and learned Divine.
It is true that Christ is so God over all, that he himselfe hath a God, I mean the
Father distinguished from him; yet will it not follow, because he hath a Father which
is God over all, that therefore the Son is not God over all for this is an honor necessarily
annexed to the Deity to be over all, and by consequent, which is contrary to [Page 255]the Adversaries collection, this is a title which doth equally belong to God the Father
and God the Son.
You do object, that the title cannot be taken without exception, for then Christ should
be over God the Father also: the answer is easie: this Elogy is not ascribed to him
to exalt him above the Father, but above all creatures, as it appeareth by 1. Cor. 15.27. all things are put under the feet of Christ, but God the Father is excepted,
that put all things under his feet, and you also do attest, that he is according to
the Scripture, Ephes. 1.20 above all creatures, the highest of them all both men and Angels.
This Text hath invincible proofs of the Deity of the Son of God, in that his office
is not described, nor is he above all by a gift conferred on him in time by his Father,
but by nature and eternal generation.
First, because he is said to be of the Jews according to the flesh, which is spoken
by way of limitation, more then intimating thereby that he hath not only a Humane
Nature, but the Divine, which is not of the Fathers, for flesh is frequently taken
for man, Luk. 3.6. Math. 24.22. 1. Pet. 1.24. yea, as it refers to Christ, Rom. 8.3. he was of the seed of David according to the flesh, as other children are of the seed of their Parents: now Philosophy
teacheth us that it is the man, the totum that is generated, and not the body only without their souls. Luk. 1.35.
Secondly, this is evinced by the description of Christ, that he is God over all blessed for ever, which cannot appertain to any but to the most high God: whosoever is a God over all
blessed for ever, he is the true and the eternal God; there are Synonymies, as homo and animal rationale, it is a reasonable animal: Ergo, it is a man, and as evident reason, so the words of the Apostle do prove it, Rom 1.25. What is ascribed in one place to the Creator of all things, that in the other
is ascribed to the Son of God: it was a custome solemnly observed by the Jewes, when
ever the Priests in the Sanctuary spoke of the Name of God, the people used some words
of blessing or praising God, which forms were after added [...] for ever and ever, the evidences of which custome Doctor Hammond in locum sheweth both out of the old and new Testament, and the Writings of the Jewes.
Bidd.
Furthermore (to clear that passage, Rom. 9.5. and confirm our assertion [Page 256]touching the Godhead of Christ) when the Apostle saith, that Christ came of the Fathers,
according to the flesh, who is over all, a God blessed for ever, the opposition is
not entire and exact, as wanting the other member; what that member is, another passage
of the Apostle, wherein you have the same opposition in describing Christ, will inform
you, it is Rom. 1.3, 4. our Lord Christ made, or rather born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to
the Spirit of holinesse, by the Resurrection from the dead; here you see that to those
words, according to the flesh, are opposed these words, according to the Spirit of
holinesse.
Answ.
That passage to the Romanes, c 9. v. 5. wants not a member opposed to it, but it is expressed in those words, who is
over all, God blessed for ever, and a paralel Scripture, to illustrate this, is Rom. 1.3, 4. where the same opposition is, I grant, for substance observable, as Adam is of the earth, as touching his body, but he is not of the earth as touching his
soul, thus is it touching our Saviour, who is of his Fathers touching his flesh,
but by God his Father touching the Spirit of holinesse, let us now see what you can
make out of this latter place, to elude the strength of our Argument drawn from the
former.
Bidd.
What the Spirit of holinesse is, will be no hard matter to find out, if we consider,
that as the flesh signifieth a constituting part of Christ, namely the fleshy body,
so also must the Spirit of holinesse opposed thereto, signifie a constituting part;
if so, then it is not the holy Spirit, as every one will confesse, nor the resonable
soul of Christ, because he is intimated to have had this Spirit by the means of the
Resurrection from the dead, nor the Divine Nature, for that is no where designed in
the Scripture by the name of Spirit, or Spirit of holinesse: Besides the Adversaries
hold, that Christ had the Divine Nature, whilst he was yet cloathed with flesh, it
remains therefore that by the Spirit of holinesse is to be understood his holy spirituall
body, which Christ had by means of the Resurrection from the dead, which is a constituting
part of him, whereby he is excepted from all other men, being the first born from
the dead, or the first that rose from death, so as he never died again, but was clothed
with a spiritual body, and made like to God, who is a Spirit.
An. First, to speak a little touching the Translation, ours is, made of the seed of David, or rather say you; born, or rather orto than nato, saith Beza, the word is not [...] but [...], Piscator, I will not contend about words, yet the learned and ancient Fathers do expreslly
say, that he is not born, but made, Beza alledgeth Tertullian against Praxeas. Irenaeus de Haeres. lib. 3 cap. 31. Vigilius against Eutyches lib. 5. and Augustine lib. 2. de Trinitat. cap. 44. which is fitter both to confute Marcion, which denied Christ to have a true humane body, and some other Hereticks, which formerly
and in our dayes do say, that Christ brought his body from heaven into the Virgin,
and that he was to him as a channel to water to conveigh him to us.
Secondly, our Translation runs thus, declared to be Gods Son, you say, which I omitted
in setting down your words in the former Section, in Greek, determined, or ordained,
the word is [...], and is not fitly translated in the vulgar Latine and the Rhemists, predestinated, for it is not [...], for then the preposition would have limited it to Gods eternal Decree, but the word
in the Text is more general. Besides, it is a received rule amongst Divines, that
things are then said to be made, when they are manifested, and begin to be manifest,
the word signifieth both to ordain, Luke 22.22. the Son of man (goeth to his death) as was ordained & to the same purpose,
Act. 23. it signifies also to declare and manifest what is determined, hence [...] is a definition. The former sense doth not belong to this place as the Context sheweth,
for Christ is not predestinated to be the Son of God in that consideration the Apostle
describes him, v. 4. he was the Son of God before the Resurrection, therefore by the Resurrection he
could not be constituted Gods Son, but hereby it was evidently shewed and declared
to us, that he was the Son of God, Our Translation is both agreeable to the originall,
and takes away the ambiguity, which is left as doubtfull by the other: now to the
matter it self.
By the Flesh is not meant the fleshy body onely of our Saviour, as it is distinguished
from his soul, but his humane nature consisting both of a fleshy body and a reasonable
soul by an usual Synechdoche, i.e. Christ according to his humane nature, or as he was a man, was born a Jew of the
stock of David, and his being according to the flesh, is opposed to the Spirit of holinesse, that
is, to the other nature in him, and is called the Eternall Spirit, which did shine
[Page 258]forth most brightly in him, after and through his resurrection from the dead: this
Nature then had a real existence before his incarnation, for it was such a modified
nature that could have taken on him the seed of Angels, Heb. 2.16. but, would not do so, but was the Son of Abraham. Theodoret Dialog. 1. saith, As often as I speak of the generation of a known and an ordinary man,
I do not say, he is the Son of such a man according to the flesh; but I do simply
say, he is the Son of such a one, as Abraham begat Isaac, I adde not, according to the flesh, because he had no other Nature but the Humane,
but I speak otherwise of Christ, because he had not onely the Humane, but Divine Nature.
As it is said here that Christ was made or born after the flesh, so in other Scriptures
the Son of Man is said to come from Heaven, and to be in Heaven in respect of his
Deity, when he was on earth, 3. Joh. 13. this place then is not serviceable for the Adversary, for he was Gods Son by
eternal generation, and he by the Spirit of holinesse was made the Son of Man by his
incarnation, and clearly manifested to his Disciples to be so by his powerfull resurrection.
The words then hold forth a cōmunication of properties, for the denomination of Christ
in respect of his Divine Nature, is attributed to the Humane Nature, he was made of
the seed of David; the same Person is called The Son of God in respect of his Deity, and The Son of Man, or of the seed of David, in respect of his humanity; the whole person is incarnated, but not the whole of
the Person, but only in regard of his humane Nature.
I do confesse that by the Spirit of holinesse is not meant the Holy Spirit, viz the third Person of the sacred Trinity, and your reason is good, because the scope
of the Apostle is to describe the Person of our blessed Saviour, which is the foundation
of that doctrine, which the Apostle intends to treat of, as in the former part hee
describes his Humane Nature, so in the latter his Divine: I grant also that the soul
of Christ is not meant by the Spirit of holinesse, but your proof is faulty, for
Christ has not this Spirit of holinesse, nor doth the Text say that he had it by his
resurrection, but he had it before his death and resurrection, but he (that was before
the Son of God) was declared with power, that is by that Spirit of holinesse, which
manifested it selfe by raising Christ from the dead, for this is a work of omnipotency,
without contra [...]ction: there is then by the Spirit of sanctification a secret relation both to the
flesh [Page 259]of Christ, and to the Church, his members and body, whereby they are all of them sanctified.
The Divine Nature (saith he) cannot be meant by the name of Spirit, because it is
no where in Scripture designed by the name of Spirit: to this I answer, first this
reason, if true, is no sufficient confutation, because possible a term may be but
once used [...] in that sense, however the Adversary confutes it himselfe, for where shall we find
in Scripture, that by the Spirit of holinesse is meant a holy spiritual body?
Secondly I answer, that the term equivalently is in Scripture, God is a Spirit, or spirituall substance, John 4. and he is called the Spirit, as most fit to set out the opposition, because he
had said in the former member, not according to man, but according to the flesh, he
makes choice of a word directly opposite thereto, which shews the incomprehensible
and ineffable vertue of the Divine Nature, viz. Spirit and this Spirit is called the Spirit of holinesse from the effect, because
he sanctified his owne humane Nature, the Temple in which he dwelt, and which he
assumed into the unity of his Divine Person, and by which he doth likewise sanctifie
all the Elect which are the living Members of that body, whereof he is the mystical
head; this sense is made out by the opposition betwixt flesh and spirit, otherwise
it would not have been full and intire, nor would it shew according to what he was,
the seed of David, nor how he declared himselfe to be omnipotent by his resurrection from the dead,
unlesse it had been wrought by his own Spirit, and albeit Christ is not said to do
this, or shewes this in other Texts by the Spirit of holinesse, yet is it in holy
Scriptures set down in terms equivalent, for he offered himselfe by his eternal Spirit,
Heb. 9.14. which words S. Paul more sully explicateth, saying, He was crucified through weaknesse; that is, in his Humane Nature, yet he liveth by the power of God, 2 Cor. 13 4. that is, he was raised again from death to life by his Divine power, as S.
Bernard saith, misery belonged to the Humane Nature, but power to the Divine, Ser. de Verb. Sapient. 1. Pet. 3.18.19. the like opposition betwixt the flesh and the Spirit is in this text, he
was put to death in the flesh, but was quickened by the Spirit, which as the following
works do open, cannot be meant of his soul, which could not preach it, having no being
in dayes of Noah, when the Spirit of Christ by Noah preached to the disobedient World: See this largely confirmed out of the Fathers
[Page 260]by Mr. Parker, de Descensu Christi ad Inferos, lib. 4. S. 55. once more God was manifested in the flesh, justified by the Spirit, id est, declared to be just by the Deities raising him from the dead, by his aseention into
Heaven, and sitting there at Gods right hand.
The second Argument to prove the Divine Nature cannot be meant, because he had it,
as we confesse, whiles he was cloathed with flesh.
True, but what of that? the adversary supposeth that to be true which is manifestly
false, and a corruption of the Text, that Christ had not the Spirit of holinesse till
after his resurrection. Observe these termes are not equivalent, to have a thing is
one thing and to prove that a man hath it by a glorious effect is another thing: a
Child hath a reasonable soul, who can deny it? but this is manifested to others when
he acts rationally: in the Mothers womb its male or female, but not declared the one
or other but by its nativity. I adde, that the Adversary doth more then intimate,
that Christ is not now cloathed with the flesh, what then shall become of the resurrection
of the body? for what is resurrection but the raising up of the same body which was
dead, we must distinguish betwixt the nature of a true humane body, which Christ now
hath in glory, and betwixt the frail and corruptible qualities thereof, which cannot
enter into Heaven.
After the Adversary had removed all false interpretations of the Spirit of holinesse,
as he apprehended them, he sets downe his owne judgement, that it is his holy spiritual
body, which dies no more. but tis like God who is a Spirit.
May not a man justly wonder at the forgetfulnesse or folly of the Adversary, that
he endeavours to confute our sense of the Spirit of holinesse, because the Deity is
never in Scripture called the Spirit of holinesse, and tels us that thereby is meant
a holy spiritual body, and yet neither doth nor can alledge one Scripture to that
pupose, nor any Expositor old or modern, excepting Socinians, which say that a glorified or spiritual body is called, The Spirit of holinesse? nor will the words of the text bear this corrupt glosse, for to be made of the Seed
of David according to the flesh, implies a limitation and distinction, and doth shew that
the same Perso [...] was both the Son of Mary, as he was Man, and the Son of God by h [...]s eternal nativity.
The Adversary with the Photinians holds a grosse opinion touching [Page 261]the body of Christ raised from the dead, calling it a holy spirituall body, and they
doe deny the resurrection of the same body, and that other bodies which are eternal
and spiritual, shall be given to us.
First, this is to deny the Resurrection, for to rise againe is not to exist again;
as sight restored to a blind man, is not resurrection of sight; and the restoring
of health to a sickly man, is not a resurrection of health, but 'tis an Article to
believe the resurrection of the same body.
Secondly, in what body Christ rose from death, in that he is in Heaven, for he rose
again not to live on Earth, but in Heaven, yea, and he hath a Humane body in Heaven,
Math. 25.31. how else can he be called the Son of man, if he hath not a humane body? and
what other thing is mans body, but flesh and bloud? and the bodily members, as Face,
Eyes, Hands, Feet, and the rest do beautifie, and perfect the body, without these
the body is imperfect.
Christ rose from the dead with flesh, and said to his Disciples when they were troubled,
Behold my hands and my feet, a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see I have,
Luk. 24.39 and to confirm Thomas in the faith of his Resurrection, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands, and reach hither thy hand, and thrust
it into my side, John 20.27. He did eat and drinke with the Disciples after the Resurrection, and was seen alive
after his Passion forty dayes; and in the same continued narration, Act. 1.2, 3, 9.11. 'tis spoken of one and the same humane body, He was taken up into Heaven in the same body, and the same Jesus shall so come from
Heaven, as the Disciples saw him go into Heaven. And Act. 2 30 He was raised so from the dead that his body saw no corruption. 31. and He was seen of Stephen in Heaven, Act. 7. and They shall look on him whom they have crucified, Revel. 1.7. and to alledge no more Scriptures, Rom. 6 9.10. Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more: how could he say so, if he had a really distinct body from that in which he was raised?
for the body of a man, as it is a body, riseth not again, because as it is a body,
it dieth not, for so the Elements, &c. being bodies should die; but it dieth as it is a living body consisting of flesh
and bloud, for death is onely where life was, and that which dieth is raised up again.
Fourthly, if Christ hath not flesh in Heaven, neither shall his Members, the faithfull;
for our bodies must be conformable to the [Page 262]glorious body of Christ, but we shall have the same bodies for substance in Heaven
which we have on Earth, for the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 15.53, 54. This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortality must put on immortality: the context proves that the subject is Man consisting of a body or reasonable soule;
there is identity of the same subject in this life, and the life to come; [...]: it could not be said, that this corruptible must put on incorruption, if they had other bodies, and not the same according to substance raised up, and
is it not the glory and beauty of bodies to have the parts therof distinguished one
from another? and that those bodies which in this life were subject to diseases, infirmities,
deformities, should be reformed to a better state, and exempted from all such naturall
evils? and doth it not conduce to the glory of God, that we should have tongues to
praise him in the Heavens, yea and our own happinesse too, that our bodies which suffered
here, and served God, should partake of the glory of the soule? or stands it with
the justice of God, that new bodies should be framed, and they in blisse or eternal
misery, which were never instrumental to the soul, either in good or evil? and how
should this main principle of Christianity be to Heathen People a thing incredible,
and mockt at, Act. 17.32. if the some body was not raised up againe? I conclude with the words of Jerom. de Libero Arbitr. ad Ctesiphon. To recite the saying of Hereticks, is to refute them, for their blasphemy appears
at the first fight; nor is it needful to be convinced, which is detected to be blasphemy
by the very profession of it
Ob. It is said by the Apostle, that our bodies shall be raised spirituall bodies. Sol. This is not meant of the Essence of the body, but the qualities thereof, in which
regard, men which are regenerated, are called spirituall, 1 Cor. 2.15. Gal. 6.1. Ye that are spirituall: again, as [...], is not the soul, or the body turned into the soul, no more is [...], the soul, but so called, as Beckman hath observed.
1. Because it's free from marriage in heaven, Matth. 22.32. we shall not then be Angels, but in this like the holy Angels.
2. Because our bodies, which are here corruptible, shall then be incorruptible, 1
Cor. 15.53.
3. In respect of the glory of our bodies, They are sown in dishonour, but shall be raised in glory, v. 43.
4. In regard of the power of the body, Its sown in weaknesse, and is raised in power: ibidem.
5. In regard of the agility of the body, it shall not be heavy then as now, but wholly
at the command of the soul.
Ob. It is said, that flesh and bloud shall not inherit the Kingdome of heaven, 1 Cor 15.40. An. that is, this mortal and frail corruptible nature, till it hath put off this corruptible
condition, subject to and infected with sin, cannot inherit the Kingdome of God,
and this sense is proved by the following words in the same verse, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. I remember that a Socinian in a little book called Disquisitio brevis, undertakes to shew the Protestants by their grounds cannot confute Papists, as Socinians
can. Transubtiation (for an instance) is confuted, and the bread is not turned into
the body of Christ, & wine into his bloud, because Christ being in heaven, hath neither
flesh nor bloud: but well might the Pontifieians triumph, if there were no better
weapons to hurt them, then such as are drawn from a blasphemous Position, which destroys
an Article of our faith.
To wind up this Discourse, and to return to the Text, Rom. 1.3. The spirit of holinesse sanctified Christ, the same person sanctifies himself,
and is sanctified by himself, so that the spirit of sanctification is not another
thing from Christ, but it is another thing from the flesh of Christ, which is sanctified,
and the Text proveth the Deity of Christ mentioning his power, that is, his own omnipotency,
Luke 4.36. declared by working miracles, and converting people unto God, Rom. 1.16. and by sending the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, and at other times, Acts 2. for who but God can do so great a work? as also by raising up his dead body, which
is a singular work of omnipotency, and demonstrates Christ to be the high God.
Bidd.
And now the sense of that passage, Heb 9.14. begins to appear; How much more shall the blood of Christ, which through the eternall
spirit offered himself without spot to God, Purge your Consciences from dead works
to serve the living God. By eternall spirit is here meant the sprituall body of Christ,
which lasteth to all Eternity, and this expression is opposed to what the same Divine
Authour speaketh of Christ. Heb. 5 7. who in the dayes of his flesh; for eternal is contrary to dayes, and flesh to spirit.
Answ.
The Adversary takes occasion to vent his grosse and senselesse fancies, and in this
his Exposition he doth extremely crosse other Socinians, which do understand by eternal
Spirit, a divine Spirit, or gifts given unto Christ without measure, or that he offered
himself spiritually and not carnally, and by his voluntary oblation procured eternal
Redemption for us, with such like devised shifts. S [...] Paraeus in locum, but they hit not on your strange Exposition, that by eternal spirit a spirituall
body is meant, which no where in Scripture, I am sure, is called an Eternal spirit:
the body indeed is called by Saint Paul after the Resurrection, a Spiritual body, but it is never called a Spirit. Will you
say, that Christs glorified body in heaven is made of aire, or a heavenly substance?
and how should that body offer it self to God? much more rationally might you have
said with some of ours, that by Eternal Spirit is meant the Eternal and immortall
soul, intimating thereby, that he knowingly and willingly in obedience to his Father,
suffered death for us: but this is rather to be understood, as most commonly it is
by ancient Fathers, and later Writers, of his Divine natu [...]e which made his bloudy sacrifice on the Crosse, acceptable to God, and able to purge
us from dead works, that is, from sins which deserve death; for the dignity of his
worthy sacrifice ariseth not from the blood, or soul of man, though it be more excellent
than the bloud of Bulls and goats, but from the invaluable worth of the person, whose
blood was sacrificed: no satisfaction of a creature can take away sinne, which hath
a kind of infinity, in that it is committed against an infinite person, Aquin. Sum. par. 3. q. 1 art 2. no finite sum can discharge an infinite debt; the nature and worth of a holy man
being finite, is as far from infinitnesse (be it what it will be in comparison of
other finite things) as nothing at all is from all, or as that which is from that
which is not. This then affords an Argument to prove, that Christ was not onely man,
but the true and Eternal God, for by his Spirit, his own Eternal Spirit, he offered
himself to God, and the holy Apostles make a clear difference betwixt the flesh which
was offered, and the Spirit, which at the same time offered it, and by consequence
Christ is a Priest, not onely according to the humane, but the Divine Nature also,
for being a Priest, he offered his flesh and blood as man, but the worth and efficacy
of his bitter passion flowed from his Eternall Spirit, that is, [Page 265]his Divine nature, as the principle thereof, the Eternal Spirit of our Saviour procured
that his Passion should work an Eternall Redemption and purgation of our sinnes.
You adde out of the fifth to the Hebrews, that flesh and spirit are opposed, as Eternity is to dayes: this we grant to be true,
but it is to be observed that the opposition is to be taken in regard of the same
time: in this manner he offered (and sacrificed) by his Eternal spirit, which he
then had, and not onely after, as you say, when he had been crucified. Besides, doth
this opposition betwixt flesh and Spirit, prove at all, that an immortall glorified
body is signified by the eternall spirit: verily, if there was nothing else eternall
but a glorified body, the point had been fully proved, but sith this is attributed
not onely to Angels their souls now, and bodies after the Resurrection. A Conclusion
à genere ad speciem affirmative, was never held Logick; this his body is an element, Ergo it is fire: it follows not.
Bidd.
Neither will that which we have spoken seem strange to them, who having penetrated
into that profound Epistle to the Hebrews, know what is here frequently intimated, that Christ then made his offering for our
sinnes, when after his Resurrection he entred into heaven, and being endued with a
spirituall and immortall body, presented himself before God. For so the Type of the
Leviticall Priesthood making the yearly atonement, required it.
Answ.
Batts and owls may conceive and pretend, that they can see further with their weak
eyes and dimme sight, than the quick-sighted Eagles can discern. The deep speculation
of this Seraphicall and illuminated Doctour is this; Christ made his offering for
our sinnes in heaven, and not on the Crosse: this Divinity is strange in the ears
of our people, and directly contrary to the holy Scriptures, the rule of our faith,
if we will speak as the Apostle doth in that Text of his expiatory and satisfactory
oblation.
1. Christ was a common person, no otherwise then the first Adam was, who is called the figure of Christ, Rom. 5.14. and Christ himself is called the second Adam, 1 Cor. 15.45. as sinne and death is from the one, so is righteousnesse and life from the
other, and this is effected by his oblation, whereby he undertook as a surety to pay
our debts, and satisfie divine Justice, by undergoing the punishment [Page 266]due to our sins, and this was done by his bloudy death, Mat. 20.28. Rom. 3.25. 1 Pet. 1.19. and by many other Texts to this purpose not needfull to be named. Augustin. in Psal. 37. saith expresly, that Christ sustained the Person of the first Adam on his Crosse, and Theodoret. Dialog. 3. compares the first and second Adam together, as the Physick with the Disease, as the Plaister with the Wound, Righteousness
with Sin, Blessing with Cursing, Forgivenes with Condemnation, Observation of the
Law with the Transgression of it, as Life with Death, and Heaven with Hell, Christ
with Adam, and Man with Man.
Secondly, our Saviour himselfe said John 19 30. when he was departing out of this life, It is finished, and bowing downe his head a gesture of Prayer, he said, Father into thy hands I commit my Spirit, and gave up the Ghost: our Redemption according to the Oracles of the Prophets was now wrought, and what
was signified by legal types, which were shaddows of good things to come, was then
accomplished, and the Sun of righteousness being risen, these shaddows and dark
resemblances of good things to come by Christ are vanished.
Thirdly I add, that Christ acted as a Priest, whiles he was on earth, for he taught
the heavenly Doctrine, he prayed, he blessed, he offered up himselfe, he purged us
from our sins, and then he sat in Heavenly places, Heb. 1.3. he offered up prayers with strong cries, Heb. 5.7. plainly relating to his bitter agony in his passion, and if you please to penetrate
into that divine Epistle, there are convincing proofes to manifest this truth, chap. 9. v. 13. Christ sacrificed neither by the bloud of Buls and Goats, but by his own bloud
he entred in once into the holy place (Heaven) having obtained eternal redemption
for us, and not for a time onely, as were the legal justifications by types, but this
Redemption shall continue to the end of the World, and the efficacy thereof reached
backward even to the beginning, Act. 15.11. the faithfull all of them make but one Catholick Church, and are all of them
saved by him and by no other: now this Redemption is not purchased without shedding
of bloud, which was done on Earth, and not in Heaven, and vers. 15. 'tis expresly said, that by the death of the Mediator, the truly reformed and
penitent have the redemption of their transgressions, and the expiation of their sins,
and this the Apostle proves, that his oblation was in his passion, because he could
not die often, and therefore he [Page 267]could not be offered more then once, ver. 25, 26. this Argument of the Apostle would not be of any force, unlesse this be granted,
he offered himselfe but once, therefore he could not die often, and v. 26. Once hath he appeared to put away sins, [...], to frustrate the end or design of sin, which was to get us into its power, to reign
in our mortall bodies, and then maliciously to bind us over to eternal punishment,
from both which Christs death was designed to redeem us, and takes away sin, quoad vim dominandi & damnandi, non quoad actum inhaerendi, & vim inficiendi in hac
vita, B. Davenant Determinat. 5. and further v. 28. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; he bore our sins up to the Crosse with him, 1 Pet. 2.24. and died as our Surety; now the sacrifice was killed on the Altar: Christ
therefore by his bloudy death and passion, and not by any feigned offering up himselfe
in our names after his glorious Resurrection hath put away our sins.
Fourthly, Gods Justice and his truth required that our sins were to be satisfied for
by the death of the Messias, whereby God gathered together in one all things both in Heaven and in Earth, Ephes. 1.10. [...] in Christ, as the head, even all men, all the faithfull which were from the beginning
of the world to the end thereof, as Irenae. lib. 3. cap. 33, opens it, the transgressors of Gods Law were threatned with death, Genes. 2.17. and the sinners are worthy of death, as the hired servant is worthy of his
wages, Rom. 1.27. and 6. ult. If it was possible then for us to be saved, Gods justice must be satisfied, and
the truths of his threatnings must be performed: who could do this but our Saviour?
he being the Almighty God infinite in wisdome, in power, and in holinesse, in all
worth and perfection was able to satisfie to the utmost farthing, and we may truly
and confidently say; God hath laid help on him that is mighty.
Lastly, where there is properly no Altar, there is no sacrifice offered up to God;
but in Heaven there is no Altar, as there was no Altar for burnt offering in the Sanctuary,
but an Altar of Incense, which was not raised up for [...], sac [...]ifices, and so by consequent Christs oblation was not properly in Heaven, but on the
Altar of the Crosse, on which he cancelled the hand-writing of Ordinances that was
against us, and destructive to us, Col. 2.14. and by his bloud shed on the Crosse made our Peace with God, Col. 1.20. drawing us who were far from him in regard of any gratious condition, and saving
[Page 268]relation to be neerly and savingly united to him, Ephes. 2.12.13.
Bidd.
The type of the Leviticall high Priest making the yearly attonement for the sins of
the People, Levit. 16. did require it, for as the attonement was not then made when he slew the Beasts; but
when having put on his linnen robes, he brought their bloud into the Sanctuary before
the Mercy-seat; so neither did Christ after his sacrifice for our sins upon the Cross,
but when after his resurrection, being cloathed with Robes of glory and immortality,
he entred into Heaven, the true Sanctuary, and presented himselfe to God.
Answ.
The type of the Levitical Priesthood, in that he made the yearly attonement, which
was ceremonially in an external and visible manner performed by him, for the sins
of the people, did signifie, as we all confesse, the true, real and spiritual expiation
of all our sins, by Christ Jesus our high Priest, who was a Priest not after the order
of Aaron, but Melchisedech; and as the Levitical Priest performed some duties pertaining to his Office out of
the Sanctuary, as to pray for the People, to offer sacrifices for sinnes, which were
done by him out of the Sanctuary, and to bring in the bloud of the sacrifice into
the Sanctuary, and there to make intercession for the People; thus is it likewise
touching our Priest prefigured hereby; his Priesthood and some acts thereof were begun
and finished on Earth, as to pray for us, John 17. in the Garden and on the Crosse, and to offer up his body a sacrifice for us;
so doth he continue a Priest in Heaven for ever, entring into that Building not made with hands, with his body as it were sprinkled with his owne bloud, and there making continual
intercession for us.
Nor did the high Priest only on the day of attonement prefigure our Saviour, but he
himselfe also in his office at other times; yea, and the inferior Priests in their
dayly sacrifices, which never entred into the Sanctum sanctorum, typified him, and made attonement for the sins of Israelites. And as the High Priest
was truly a High Priest, and discharged his office before he went into the Sanctuary,
the Sanctum sanctorum, which was a type of the highest Heavens, 1 Chron. 6.49. and in case of sicknesse and pollution had an Assistant [Page 269]to perform his office, as Zephaniah, called the second Priest, was to Semaiah the chiefe Priest, Jer. 52.24. as Annas was thought to be to Caiaphas, Luke 3.2. See Joseph. Scaliger in Prolegom. ad Euseb. Casaubon. ad ann. 31. se. 4 n. 9. as the Patriark of Constantinople had his Proto-syncellus, the Roman Centurion his Optio Leivtenant and the heads of our Colledges their Presidents: as the High Priest, I
say, was truly a High Priest before he went into the Sanctuary, so was Jesus Christ
a Priest of earth, though not an earthly Priest, or of an earthly condition, for then
he could not of himselfe, by his owne vertue have expiated our sins, nor was he a
Priest on Earth to offer up to God Levitical sacrifices, Heb. 8.4. nor did he die for our sins as he was a Priest, but as he was a sacrifice; nor
was he so a Priest on earth, as to remain on earth so long as he was a Priest, as
those did which were of the order of Aaron, for had he not entred into the heavenly Sanctuary, he could not have been a Priest
for us, and opened the Kingdome of heaven for us to enter into it; and as the high
Priest did not offer Sacrifices (to speak properly) in the Sanctuary, for they were
offered on the brasen Altar before he went into the most holy place, which as the
daily Sacrifice and other Sacrifices at all times were offered and burnt on the Altar;
and as Abraham is said to offer up his Son, Heb 11.17. because he intended to sacrifice him on the Altar, so Jesus Christ our high
Priest once offered up himself, a Sacrifice in his manhood on the Crosse, and not
in heaven, for he is a Priest there, albeit his body is not there to be an unbloody
Sacrifice, and albeit he hath not a certain host in external proper manner to make
perpetuall oblation thereby in the Church, though he doth not exercise a visible and
external act of sacrificing in heaven, as Papists say, Rhemists on Heb. 8.3. v. and Fulk against them.
To prosecute the comparison betwixt the Typicall and spirituall high Priest: as the
high Priest went into the Sanctuary with some part of the blood of this Sacrifice,
and sweet Incense beaten small, which prefigured the bitter agony and death of our
Saviour; so Jesus Christ having made an atonement for us by his oblation and passion,
entred into the highest heavens, and remains there a Priest for ever to make intercession
for us, not as in the dayes of his humiliation by vocall external prayers, nor by
offering an externall sacrifice for us, for our Redemption was purchased, and expiation
was [Page 270]made before Christ entered into heaven, but by appearing in the presence of God, and
to negotiate as the Priest did in the holy of holies, and on our behalf, and to relieve
us in our wants, Heb. 9.27. by the vigorous effect of his Sacrifice, once performed for us: if the blood
of Abel unjustly shed cries for vengeance continually, how much more shall the blood of Christ
shed but once for our sins, cry alwayes for mercy and reconciliation.
It is true, that the Apostle makes mention of Christs [...] in heaven, his manifestation or apparition there for us, but this is not [...], an oblation for us, but an application of his oblation to us; not a Sacrifice, but
a commemoration of his bloody Sacrifice, and he alwayes appears before God, but he
was never but once offered. Heb 7.27. and 9.25.28. By his offering himself once, he was our Saviour meritoriously:
by his presenting himself before God the Father, he is our Saviour essicaciously,
and that not by any new oblation, but by vertue of a former oblation on the Crosse:
it is true, the same effects are ascribed to the resurrection of Christ, but not in
the same manner, but first in respect of manifestation, because his resurrection,
ascension and glory in heaven are an evident testimony of our Redemption. 2 In regard
of Confirmation, because by these acts, our faith touching the pardon and future
abolishment of our sinnes is confirmed. 3. In respect of application to save us by
his life, Rom. 5.10. 4. In respect of actuall absolution, There is no damnation to them that are in Christ: the truth is▪ Christs acting in heaven is in no place of Scripture called [...], an oblation or offering up himself for us, an expiatory and propitiatory oblation.
By this time the event discovereth to us what is the Adversaries penetrating into
the profound Epistle to the Hebrews; in truth, 'tis not to disclose those heavenly treasures, wrapt up in those sacred
leaves for the enriching of the Reader, but to offer a profane violence to that divine
Epistle, and to rob us of those blessed truths, which it plainly reveals to us: and
it is no marvel, if they which take away Christs natural glory, the glory of his Deity
properly so called, do also deny his true Priesthood contradistinguished from his
Kingly and prophetical offices, and if they do not acknowledge the chief benefits
thereof.
Bidd.
Wherefore to return to that foresaid passage, Rom. 9.5. when it is here said, of whom according to the flesh Christ came, who is over all,
a God to be blessed for ever, we ought (by the authority of the Apostle himself) to
supply in our mind the other member of the opposition, and to understand the place,
as if it had been said, who according to the spirit of holinesse, by the Resurrection
from the dead, that is, according to his holy spiritual body, which he received by
means of the Resurrection of the dead is over all, God blessed for ever: so that he
is the Son of God in power, and accordingly a God over all, not by having the Divine
Nature personally united to the humane, but by the glorification and exaltation of
his very humane nature, and so is not the most high God, but a God subordinate to
him.
Answ.
Your far fetcht addition, and supply in your mind, hath no better ground for you to
build on, than teste meipso, and if you bear witness of your self, your witnesse is not true, but false and contemptible:
that Scripture Rom. 9.5. hath been already vindicated from your corrupt glosses, and they being discovered
can your Building stand upright? The paralel place, Rom. 1.34. is notoriously depraved by you, for he was not made the Son of God after his
Resurrection by the glorification and exaltation of his humane nature, for the Socinians
themselves will confesse, that Christ was the Son of God before that time, viz. as is clear by his conception and birth, Luke 1.35. by his sanctification with a Divine power to save many, John 10.36. by Gods special love to Christ, Math. 3.17. by his resurrection from the dead, Acts 13.32. and lastly, by his exaltation into glory, Heb. 5.7. but Christ was not made the Son of God by any of these means, for he was long
before, even from Eternity the Son of God, the Text saith he was declared to be the
Son of God by that omnipotent work of raising his body from death to be the most high
God, this was it which manifested the Sonship of Christ by raising up his body to
an immortall state, and offering violence to death by his own glorious power, and
not, as you wildly [Page 272]infer, that he was not God blessed for ever before his resurrection. This Scripture
hath been already discussed, I will therefore passe it over, and conclude with a sentence
out of the Ancient Father Origen. lib. 7, in Epist. ad Roman. What will some say of this place of the Apostle Paul, in which Christ is evidently called God over all? and a little after, he that is above all, hath none above him, for the Son is not after the Father, but
of the Father, and he addes; manifestly is the nature of the Trinity held forth, and that there is one substance which is above all: can any thing be spoken more clearly for us, and against the Adversary?
Bidd.
John 20.28, 29. Thomas said to Christ, my Lord, and my God: Jesus saith to him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: The words of Christ plainly shew,
that Thomas believed him to be his Lord and his God, because he had seen him, being raised from
the dead. But doth this argue now Christ to be the most high God? yea, it strongly
proves the contrary, in that the Scripture else where calleth the most high God invisible, 1 Tim. 1.17. and saith, that no man hath seen him, nor can see him, 1. Tim. 6.14.15.
Answ.
Thomas never doubted of the Divinity of God the Father, but of Christ, but being now convinced
hereof by his divine knowledge, he faitfully confessed him to be Lord and God; yea,
his God, and his Lord: nor did our Saviour reject this confession, but he accepted it as a title
due to him, Because thou hast seen, thou believest: when the people in their acclamation to Herods Oration, said, The voyce was the voyce of a God, and not of a Man, and he was puffed up with vain glory: this was in him so great a fault, that God
smote so signal an offendor with worms, base creatures to pull down his pride, Act. 12.21. and would our Saviour, think we, build up Thomas and the rest of the Apostles in a dangerous errour, by owning that title of God,
which Thomas ascribed to him, and take this glory to himselfe, if he had not been truly the mighty
God?
It is true, at that time Christ was visibly seen by Thomas, and from hence you argue he is not God, because God is invisible. I grant that in
the same respect that any thing is visible, it is not invisible, yet may the same
thing be in divers respects both visible and invisible, as man and beast are visible
touching their bodies, but invisible in regard of their souls; yea, Christ himselfe
is undeniably the object of faith▪ He said to the blinde man miraculously cured, Dost thou believe on the Son of God, John 9.35. and yet he saith, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee, vers. 37. notwithstanding the Apostle saith, that faith is of things that are not seen, Heb. 11. viz. of such things whereof none have an ocular or sensible demonstration. How can these
jarring sentences be reconciled? very well: though faith may be of things which are
seen by the eyes of the body, yet it doth not depend on them in that notion and consideration,
as they are so seen, but as they are seen with the eyes of the minde illustrated by
the shining truth in the word. Lombar. lib. 3. Dist. 24. cap. 3, the Apostle distinguisheth, We look on the things which are not seen: we look on them, and yet they are not seen by us, 2 Cor. 4.18. and albeit God is said to be invisible in regard of his essence, yet it is
said, that the time will come when we shall see God face to face, 1 Cor. 13.12. for as the great School-man Alexander Halensis saith, there are three degrees of knowledge of God in the understanding answerable
to the three degrees of knowledge by our Senses, as we know sweetness: first, by hearing,
Honey is sweet: to this a kind of faith is answerable; for faith comes by hearing: Secondly, by seeing sweet things: speculative knowledge in the understanding is
correspondent to this: and thirdly, by tasting Honey to be sweet, experimental knowledge
answereth to this: yea, as the Sun is seen divers wayes by the eyes of the body, so
likewise is God by the eyes of the mind; sometimes through a clear bright Cloud, so
is God seen by the Angels and glorified Saints: sometimes through a dark Cloud, thus
God was seen by Adam in the state of innocency: sometimes through a compounded glasse whereby we see the
image of the image: thus do we see Gods face now by faith in the glasse of the word:
briefly, as the acts of the reasonable soule do discover that immortal substance,
which cannot without absurdity be denied; so likewise, albeit God is in his essence
invisible, yet by our Saviours works Thomas discovered him to be the most High God. Thomas [Page 274]saw Christ, and this proved him to be a Man; Thomas saw the Divine Workes of Christ, and they proved him to be the invisible God.
Bidd.
Whereas on the contrary the Scripture calleth Christ the Image of the invisible God, 1 Coloss. 15. but it is impossible for him that is the invisible God to be the image of the invisible
God, unlesse any man will be so absurd as to say, he is the image of himselfe.
Answ.
An image (as here it is taken) is a resemblance derived from that thing which it represents,
and therefore albeit milk is like to milk, yet is not milk an image of milk, and if
it be a natural image, it hath a habitude to designe the nature of that thing whose
image it is; a Crow is not the image of a Blackmoore, though they are like in colour,
because it neither denotes the same kinde of Creature, nor doth it designe the nature
of a Blackmoore, But his accidentall quality only.
1. Christ is the image of his Father in a common respect, as he is man, for men are
made in the likeness of God, and this is not meant: or in a singular consideration,
and that
2, First, primarily he is Gods image in respect of his Person, the essential image
of his Fathers Person, an infinite and most perfect image of an infinite Father, whose
Son he is by paternal, and eternal generation. Seth was the Image of his Father Adam, not only his accidental image, in regard of the corruption of nature derived from
him, but his substantial image also, because he received his substance from his Father,
the same in kind with his: the Adversary, as his usual manner is, by the term (God)
taking it essentially, which in this text is to be understood synecdochically of God
the Father; the Son of God we all grant is not an image of God or the Deity, absolutely
taken, for that is one and the same individually, both in the Father and the Sonne
of God, but there is a relative opposition betwixt an image and that which is represented
thereby, so that these Relatives must be two at least; so that albeit Christ is one
in essence, yet is he not one in Person with the Father, [Page 275] In similitudine hac summa differentia & summa convenientia concurrunt: the agreement in regard of the essence, and the difference in regard of their Person,
and to the same purpose he is called The Character of his Fathers Person, Heb. 1.3. and coequal with him, as the Character is neither greater nor lesser then the
stamp: and he represents his person not only to men, when he was manifested in the
flesh, but to Angels before his incarnation, but he was from all eternity the express
image of his Father, by himselfe, and in himselfe, and in this also he is like to
God, whereas the Holy Ghost is not said to be Gods image, because the Son is Productivus of the Holy Ghost, but the Holy Ghost is not Productivus; yea, and the Son would have been his image for ever, if neither men nor Angels had
been created by him; if a man should never see the image of Caesar, yet would that remain his image still; for to be seen is onely accidental to an
image and separable from it, and Christ as he was God was the visible image of his
Father, which Moses did behold, Numb. 12.8. this image was not corporeal but Spiritual and Divine, and consequently the
most high God, and Divines do render a reason why God the Father is called invisible,
because he was never seen of any man, as the Son of God hath appeared more then once
in the Old Testament.
3. As Christ in regard of natural generation is the essential image of his Father,
so likewise in a secondary consideration he is the image of God, as he is our Mediator,
and as God manifested in the flesh, for in this notion he hath more lively then ever
was or could be done by a creature expressed the will of his Father by his Divine
wisdome and heavenly Doctrine, and miraculous works, and made thereby the invisible
God to be seen in him, as a body is in a Chrystal Glasse, for in him the Mercy, Justice,
Truth, and power of God are represented to us, insomuch that our Lord saith, He that sees me hath seen the Father, John 14.9. He that knows me, and by faith believes that I am Gods Son, needs not ask to see
the Father, because they are one God, Zanch. de Incarnat. filii Dei, lib. 2 yet is not Christ the image of himselfe, though of the same essence with the Father,
first, because he is a distinct person from the Father. Secondly, because he is not
an image of the Divine Essence, but of the Fathers Person, nor is the Holy Ghost,
though he hath the same Essence with the Father, the Fathers image, by Christ, who
is God manifested in the [Page 276]Flesh, 1 Tim. 3.16. God the Father is manifested, and he is the light, the way and the truth, by
whom we do know the will of the invisible God, a d by whom we have accesse to his
Majesty, and do with great pleasure and delight behold his lively image, Jesus Christ.
B. Davenant in 1. Coloss. 15.
Bidd.
John 1.1. In the beginning (not of the World, but of the Gospel. See Mark 1.1, Luke 1.2. and Joh. 1.1. and chap. 2.7.13; 14.24. v. and chap. 3.11. and Epistle 2.5, 6. for these words (and in the beginning) are wont to be restrained to the matter in
hand, which is here the Gospel.
Answ.
Mr. Biddle is wickedly industrious in obscuring the lustre of this sacred Text, wherein the
Deity of Gods Son doth as clearly shine forth, as doth the glorious sun with its radiant
beams in a fair summers day, and his successe is no better then a dogs barking against
the Moon, as by Gods help shall be demonstrated.
The are many wayes how the word was in the beginning: in respect of generation, as
he is simply the Sonne of God: and in predestination, or preordination with God in
promise: by exhibition or publick manifestation, or in regard of institution and
sanctification of him to the office of a Mediatour. Beginning in respect of generation
and preordination, belongs to Eternity; in respect of promise, to the beginning of
fathers, man: beginning in respect of exhibition, to the manifestation of Christ in
the flesh; in regard of declaration, to the beginning of his publick ministry: in
regard of institution and sanctification of him to that sacred office was done by
his Father, when the Holy Ghost descended on him at his Baptisme in the likenesse
of a Dove, and when by his Fathers voice he was called to the publick office of a
Mediatour.
These I will not insist on at present, many of them not agreeing to the beginning
in Saint John, I will onely mention two, wherein both of them do thus far concur, that our Saviours
eternal being, is signified thereby, though they differ much in the meaning of the
word it self.
First, some will have beginning understood of the relation ad [Page 277]intra, that is, the word was in the Father who is principium originarium, this Exposition is for the matter true, for the Son is in the Father, but the word
beginning is never so taken in Gods holy Oracles, and therefore not warrantable to give a strange
sense to a word in this place, where no necessity inforceth it.
Others by beginning do note eternity to be meant thereby, Our Apostle and Evangelist, like an Eagle,
flies higher then the Creation, aymes at a higher beginning, lookes upon the Sun,
and fastens his eyes on the eternal beginning of eternity; in this sense beginning seems to be taken, when our Saviour saith, he knew from the [beginning] who they were that believed not, John 6.64. now this he certainly knew from eternity, for nothing is hid from him, who
is the God everlasting, but all things are open in his sight, and the Apostle Paul, Coloss. 1.18. He is the Beginning, which is more fitly referred to our Saviour as he is our Mediator, but that place
is evident Revel. 1.8. where he is called Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End: here the Lords everlasting being is described; beginning of it selfe doth not note eternity necessarily, yet the word End being added, it doth, and to put the matter out of doubt, the Apostle saith, that
God from the beginning chose the Thessalonians, 2 Thess. 2.13. what is from the beginning, but as the same Apostle speakes in like manner in another place, before the foundation of the World, Ephes. 1.4. and Origene saith, (of whom that is proverbially spoken; Where he spake well, none spake better)
in the beginning of his Works the first of Genesis, In the beginning God created Heaven: what other beginning is there of all things, but his Word? Our Lord by whom he made Heaven and Earth, as Saint John in the beginning of his Gospel saith, in the beginning was the Word. Thus Origen: this I confess is not a primary, and a proper Exposition of the Text, but a secondary,
and no way convincing the Adversary, for if this had been the minde of the Holy Ghost,
one would think that the words would have been thus, the Word was from eternity, rather
then in eternity.
The second and common Exposition of the Orthodox is, that by beginning, is to be understood the beginning of those [Page 278]things which have a beginning, Principium principiatorum, viz. of those things which begin in time, and it notes out properly the first moment
and point of time, when time, place, creation, and things created in time and place
began to be, and herein our Evangelist in all probability hath relation to the first
words of the first Chapter of Genesis, In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth: and Grotius saith, that so the Syriac hath it [...] out of the Hebrew in this place, so that Moses the first Pen man of the blessed Spirit, and Saint John the last Evangelist, Prophet, and Pen-man of the Scriptures do use the selfe same
first word in both their Writings, In the beginning, and our Saviour is most fitly
excluded out of the number of the Creatures (for the Evangelist saith not the Word
[...], but [...], he was in the beginning) within which the blasphemy of the Hereticks would include
him, and consequently he had his being from all eternity, for every thing that is
not eternal, had its first beginning in time, and to be before the world, and to be
eternal, are equivalent in Scripture Phrase; as Moses saith, Psal. 90.2. Before the Mountains were brought forth, and thou hadst formed the Earth and the
World, even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God. and the Wise man, Prov. 8.22. and Paul, Ephes. 1.4. do speak to the same purpose: this Exposition is proper, and cleared up by the
context, as shall be proved.
Mr. Biddle expounds beginning not as I have done, nor as the old Arians, viz. of the Creation of the World, but of the beginning of the Gospel, and spiritual world,
because the word is to be restrained to the matter in hand. This is a commendable
Rule to which I do willingly subscribe, and I know it will not advantage his cause,
but overthrow his Heretical Doctrine: Beginning, when it speaks of Time, signifies the beginning of time, or the world, unless the
subject matter hindred, as here no circumstances shew it to be taken [...], but absolutely, and therefore is not to be restrained to the beginning of preaching
the Gospel. It is a true Rule in Logick, Talia esse subjecta qualia permittuntur esse à Praedicatis suis commodè intellectis;
& vice versa, Talia esse praedicata qualia esse à subject is permittuntur. Whereas he saith, the subject matter is [Page 279]to treat of the Gospel; to this I answer, by granting that the general scope of this
Evangelist is to declare the Gospel, yet this is not intended in every passage of
the Gospel, but the proper drift of this part is to treat of a Divine Person: Quae non suppointur temporali principio, sed praeponitur; and to satisfie a question, where the word was in the beginning, and in effect the answer is, when the world began, he began not with it, nor was
made when the world was made, but he was before it.
The places which are alledged as parallel to this in S. John are altogether unlike it, or else they do make against him. I will lay down this
Rule not to be contradicted: That which is not determined in it selfe, may and must
be explicated according to the circumstances of the Text, or concurrent Scriptures
when they agree together in matter and analogy, and not other wise; here is treated
of the Word absolutely, and touching his essence, but in most of the places alledged
by the Adversaries is meant a temporary beginning of those that are spoken of, and
in this absolute sense the Church of Christ for many ages hath expounded them, till
men rose up which were bold to pervert plain Scriptures: besides, the Socinian sense is absurd, for thus it must be; in the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus, was
Jesus Christ; or, in the beginning of the Gospel, Jesus Christ was the first Preacher
of the Gospel: what is Gospel, but glad tidings of the comming of Christ? the Evangelist
then sheweth in the beginning, when it was declared that Christ was come. Christ was; Is this a sentence beseeming the wisedome of the Apostle to be placed in the front,
and most conspicuous place of the Gospel? besides, this would render the first word
of the Gospel to be ambiguous, for the beginning of the Gospel may be variously assigned.
Mathew begins his Gospel from the Nativity of Christ, Luke b [...]gins from the Conception of John the Baptist, S. Mark begins it at the Preaching of John the Baptist, S. Peter from the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost fell upon the Apostles in the similitude of cloven fiery tongues. The text taken in the Adversaryes sense doth not decide these doubts, nor can any
one of them agree to the scope of it. See Placens lib. 1. Arg. 19. I will now examine the alledged Texts.
Mark 1.1. In the beginning; in what beginning? not in a beginning simply taken, but [...], in the beginning of the Gospel: here beginning is clearly restrained in the Text
to the Gospel. This may be retorted: Why doth Saint John simply say in the beginning and doth not add as Mark doth, in the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, if he had intended they should
have been taken in that restrained sense.
The second place is Luke 1.2. Things famously acted amongst us, were delivered to us by such Instruments,
which were from the beginning eye witnesses; this Text is unlike that of Saint John, for the Explication opening what is meant by the word, beginning, is evidently annexed
to it.
The third place, 1 John 2.7. I write unto you no new commandement, but an old, which ye had from the beginning: the restriction is here also expressed,
Ye have heard from the beginning, viz. of the Apostles preaching the Gospel, and their receiving the faith; what he
commandeth, they had received formerly for Gods truth, and they ought not now to be
drawn away to other perswasions, to think, as the Gnosticks held, that they might
live unchristian lives, and yet be good Christians, Dr. Hammond, this Text there is also impertinently alledged.
The fourth place, v. 24. this place hath also a restriction in the words themselves.
You have heard from the beginning of your Christianity, when the Gospel was first
preached to you: these. Christians must needs have a being in this beginning. 5. And
S. Peter, 1. Pet. 3.11. doth necessarily admit the same Exposition: Love is the Fundamental Doctrine
which hath been pressed on you from the beginning, viz from the time the Gospel was first preached to you.
As the fore alledged places make nothing for the Adversary, so the two remaining are
against him.
1 Iohn, 1.1.7. That which was from the beginning, is meant of the Divine nature, which was
in the beginning of the Creation of the World, who was the fountain of life, who
from al Eternity continued with the Father, and who was in the Decree and purpose
of God, and afterwards was foretold by him, and became man, that which we have heard
from God speaking [Page 281]from heaven, and really beheld, and was made known to our senses by seeing and handling
him: he alludes to Luke 24.39. and John 20.20. so that as Beza saith, he speaketh of Christ, as God, but not as simply God, but as God manifested
in our flesh; so that both the Divine and humane nature do appertain to the Unity
of the same person, and both are true in sundry respects, he was seen and handled
as he was man, but the whole of the word of life was neither seen nor handled.
1 John 2.13.14. Beginning here doth not denote the beginning of the holy Gospel; the Text
doth not thus run, you have known him, from the beginning of the Gospel, but, you
have known him who was from the beginning: it is agreeable for old men, for men of
your age being ancient to know the Ancient of dayes.
Thus hath Mr. Biddle jumbled together many sacred texts, and some of them do make directly against him,
and the rest are not paralells to the first of John, and by consequent they are not pertinently alledged, as I have cleared them up, and
as it is said, they have solutionem in latere, but our commonly received opinion formerly proved by me, is most agreeable both
to the occasionall time of writing this Gospel, which (as is probable) was after Saint
Iohns return from his banishment out of Pathmos, both to supply what was wanting in the other Evangelists, as also to be an Antidote
against Mr. Biddles heresie, which Ebion and Cerinthus bad hatched in those days, and others also, which called into question the Godhead
of our blessed Saviour; now the Apostles purpose was not, nor did it become the authority
of him who was the Lords Secretary, to dispute in his writings with profane and blasphemous
Hereticks, but to instruct the Church of God, and positively to assert that Divine
Truth formerly delivered and professed by the Church, and this he doth with that Majesty
and Authority, that he may well be called a son of thunder, and in this respect as
I said, he is compared to an Eagle, as Saint Matthew is to a man, because he begins his Gospel with the pedigree of our Saviours humanity;
Saint Mark to a Lion, beginning with John Baptist, a man of courage; Luke to a calf, beginning with Zachary a Priest, and so is Saint Iohn like an [Page 282]Eagle the chiefe of Birds, who mounted above the pitch of the other three Evangelists,
even to the height of the Godhead of Christ, and to the most unsearchable mystery
of the most glorious and blessed Trin-unity, and do thou Christian Reader cast thy
self upon the wings of this quick-sighted Eagle, and thou shalt (as it were) be carried
into the bosom of God, and acquainted with those heavenly truths, which, had they
not been revealed by God himselfe, could never have been discovered or imagined:
by the first words of this holy Gospel, those wicked Hereticks which denied the Deity
of Gods Son are refuted, as witnesseth S. Irenaeus, lib. 3. adver. haereses, cap. 11. who lived long before Athanasius and the Nicene Synod. Epiphan. haeres. 51. Augustin. de Haeres. cap. 8.10. Theodoret. haeretic. fabul. lib. 2. thou avouchest (wretched Heretick as thou art) that Christ had no real being,
til he was conceived in the womb of his blessed Mother; but the holy Ghost who leadeth
into all truth, saith, he was in the beginning: whom will you believe, Mr. Biddle or sacred Scripture? thou pleadest to make him yonger then his Virgin Mother, but
the Holy Ghost makes him elder then Adam, who was the root of all Mankind. His Exposition agreeth not to the subject treated
of, who was a Person, even God with the Father, and was also God in the beginning,
which do transcend all temporal beginnings; nor doth it agree with the effects that
follow, that is, all things were made by him: as this Exposition is unjust, so is
it foolish and absurd. What is the meaning of these words, In the beginning was the Word? that is (saith Biddle) he was when he began to Preach the Gospel: what wise man useth such a manner of
speech? he was a Man when he governed the Common-wealth, he was a man when he Preached;
we may say indeed, he preached, therefore he had existence, and was a man: Ab est tertii adjecti, ad est secundi adjecti valet consequentia: but to say thus, he was when he began to govern, is unsavoury, not fit to come forth
out of the mouth of a reasonable man, much less of a holy and divinely enlightned
Apostle. Let us now further see what you can say for the confirmation of your paradox.
Bidd.
That the beginning of the Gospel is meant, appears from the very appellation of the
word, which is here given to Christ in regard of his Propheticall office in publishing
the Gospel, The Word was in the beginning; that is, the Man Christ Jesus called the
Word, was in the beginning immediate Interpreter of God, by whom he revealed his counsel
touching our salvation, as we are wont to disclose our secrets by our words, which
reason may not obscurely be gathered from the 18. v. of the same Chapter.
Answ.
This is to be laid downe as an undoubted conclusion, that Jesus Christ in his Humane
Nature was not the first publisher of the Gospel, and of eternal life to Believers,
as Socinians say: there is no express promise hereof, either to Moses or the Prophets: but how false this is Kemnitius hath diligently demonstrated; first, from the fall of Adam to the flood, Genes. 3.15. and 4.7.5.14. as is explicated Heb. 11.4.5.7. 2 Pet. 2.5. Secondly, from the flood to Moses, Genes. 8.21.9.26. and many other places; compare with these, Heb. 11.21. Thirdly, from Moses to the Prophets: figures hereof are the Levitical sacrifices, the brazen Serpent,
plain predictions, Deut. 18.11. Act. 7.37. Fourthly, from the Prophets to Christ, 2. Sam. 11.12. in Solomon a type of Christ, Esa. 53. and many others, John 5.39.40.
Nor can the beginning of the Gospel be from Christ, as man, these pertained to the
Gospel, the sending of the Angel to Zachary the Priest, as also to the blessed Virgin, to the Shepheards, to Joseph, Mary's Husband; the incarnation and conception of Christ, the calling of John the Baptist to his Office, his Preaching and Baptism, did not these pertain to the Gospel? did
not the Baptism of Christ, his sending to Preach, and gists bestowed on him, pertain
to the Gospel?
The Son of God is the Word here spoken of, and [...], the word, is a proper name, and the subject of the proposition [Page 284]the Word was in the beginning, and is in order of nature before the Attribute: and
this [...] was anciently in use amongst the Platonists (from the use whereof Saint John is called [...], the Divine) which caused Amelius when he read the beginning of this Gospel to cry out of him, This Barbarian is of our Plato's Religion, that the Word of God is in the order of principles, the Maker of the Universe, and
Tertullian adversus Gentes: their Wise-men, as Zeno by name, acknowledged [...] made all things, and to the same purpose writes Lactantius. See Grotius in locum. Our inquiry then must be to shew in what respects this word [...] belongeth to our Saviour, and the reasons alledged do concern our Saviour either
as he is simply the Son of God, or as he is our Mediator, and both of them do confirm
the Deity of our blessed Saviour.
1. The natural, the only begotten and eternal Son of God the Father is called the
Word, not in that sense as the Holy Scriptures, written by Gods commandement do disclose
his will and pleasure, are called, and therefore as Beza saith, the Article to distinguish this Word from the Law and Prophets, is prefixed
before it, and for this cause also Christ is never called in the new Testament [...], which is an outward Word, and that either audible, which may be heard, or visible,
which may be seen, and the Chaldee useth for [...], but he is called [...] in a more divine, eminent, and ineffable sort to express unto us in some measure
by a term agreeable to our capacity, that the Son of God from eternity was born of
God the Father, as our prime conceit (which is our internal and mental Word) is and
issueth out of his understanding. Ignatius in his Epistle ad Magnesios, saith, that Christ is the Word of God, [...], not a word spoken, but his essential word. Gregor. Nazianz. Ser. 2. de Filio. and later Divines from him do shaddow out this unspeakable mystery, and do give us
a glympse of this dazling light, by comparing God the Father, our understanding and
to God the Son to that which our understanding inwardly conceives; when an intelligent
man inwardly discourseth with him selfe, it is evident that he frameth in his minde
a certain kind of speech, or sentence, and (as it were) a word without sound, which
is called the conception [Page 283]of the minde; if this man desireth to communicate his conceptions to others, then
doth he form some outward speech or words, and delivers out, if I may have leave so
to speak, a copy of that, the originall whereof he reserveth still within, wherein
it was first conceived. Consider with all reverence and humility, that God the Father
being from all Eternity infinite in wisdome, hath had alwayes some conception in
him, as a man hath in his understanding when he discourseth; this conception of man
is not of the substance of the soul, but in God, who is absolutely most simple, and
without all manner of composition, there can be nothing, which is not his divine
substance: now this conception of God the Father, is his eternal Son, but the like
conception of man, is not the Son of man, whereas the Word being the Son of God must
needs be of the same nature with the Father; this then is the first reason why the
Son of God is called the Word, because he is so begotten of his Father, in such a
manner, as our inward word or conception is framed in us, unlesse we do speak more
fitly, and commodiously (saith learned Junius) in saying the Son of God is not [...], but [...], or [...], as an essentiall faculty of the soul, lib. 1. de Christo contra Bellar. cap. 6. If either this or the former sense be concluded by the holy Evangelist (as many
learned Writers, both ancient and modern do perswade themselves that it is) and which
if the Adversary had disliked, he should have disproved, the cause is gained, and
the Adversary vanquished; these are high notions and hard to be understood I grant;
but as Bisterfield against Crellius, l 2 praefat. ad sect. 1 faith, I truly have in the fear of God often and seriously perpended the point,
& do professe, that the profound mystery of the holy Trinity seems not to be so incomprehensible
to me, and perplexed with difficulties, as is the depth of Eternity; how the first
being should be of himself from all Eternity: the cause hereof, because we are more
puzled by these terms, which are more simply first of all, and higher than others;
now to be, and to be of himself, is more simple than unum & trinum.
2. There is another Exposition, not opposite to the former, but distinct from it,
and this is more easie to be understood [Page 286]than the former; that Christ hath his name given him in reference to his Mediatourship,
and to this Exposition in the general the Adversary agreeth, albeit not in that latitude
which belongs to him, for this is a title which is given to him with adjection, [...], the word of God, Apoc. 19.13. where Christ is described [...]s a most potent King, that had many diadems on his head, and is called the King of
Kings, and Lord of Lords, & this is a name which no manknoweth but himself, and yet
it may be meant in part of his prophetical office, because he reveals Gods counsels
to us as a Prophet, touching our salvation and in such a manner, as no other ever
did, and therefore no Apostle is called [...]: he is called the Angel of the Covenant, and the Ambassadour of his Father to make
his will known by word of mouth in his own person, and by the ministry of his servants
imployed by him to that purpose, and he so reveals the counsel of God to us in the
businesse of our souls, as we do by word of mouth communicate our minds to others;
not that he was not the Word till he became man, for on this account the Adversaries
Exposition would have been justifiable, but he was the Word, and taught the wayes
of God to his people before his incarnation by his spirit and Divinity, and upon this
account, as is commonly received, and cannot be disproved, we read, that the second
person of the Trinity appeared often in the old Testament, namely, to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob; and others and then you may well conceive, yea see and hear the Son of God reval
by himself immediately some part of his fathers will to these eminent persons he
appeared unto, and thus did he also by his Spirit discover Gods mind by his Prophets
to them which were in Covenant with him, and in the last times God spake to his servants
by his Word, the Son incarnated: this Exposition is approved by Origen. Tom. 1. in Iohan. by Augustin. in lib. quaestionum exeutroque Testamento, cap. 122. and Greg. Nazian. in loco praedicto.
Thirdly, because the Son of God was designed by his Father from eternity to be the
Messias, and the Jews knew him by that title, The Word of God, and so called, because he was often spoken of, and the great promise which the Lord
made to his people, [Page 287]who was the glory of Israel, and the expectation of the Gentiles. A Promise is often called The Word: Quioken me, O Lord, according to thy Word; I have trusted in thy Word: and many the like. The promised Messias is the main promise, and that on which all other promises which are blessings do
depend; he is the pith and marrow, (as it were) and the scope of Gods Word, the center
of the whole Scripture, and the abstract of the Prophets Sermons. Act. 10.45. and the Commission is granted to preach Christ, and nothing but in reference
to Christ; no marvel then if our Evangelist makes choice of that title for him, by
which the Septuagint, which translated the old Testament into Greek, often expressed
the promises of God, as may be seen by perusing these places, Psal. 105.5. and Psal. 119.78.45.65.74.76. Psal. 130.1. nor do we in our English tongue call a mans promise his speech, but his Word.
See Glassius in [...]. Messiae p. 276. and D. Hammond on 1. Luk Anotat. 6.
Maldonate, a learned Jesuite, on this Text dislikes this reason, If the Son (saith he) be called
the Word, because he was promised; then was not he the Word in the beginning of the
World, because he was not promised til after mans fall: but he should have considered
the words of the Text better: our Evangelist faith not, he was the Word in the beginning
but, the Word was in the beginning: that is, he that was promised to be the Messias had already his being, an eternal subsistence, when all created things began first
to be.
Fourthly, the Son of God may be called the Word from an usual Phrase amongst the men
of this world; some things are done by man not without the hands, the essential instrument,
such is mans weakness, he may say, Let such an house be built, but all in vain, for
his saying will not build it: other things are done with a word spoken, and they that
have power in their hands may glory, that they can with a word, that is, a command,
do great things, as the Centurion reasoned and applied his words to our Saviour, I have Servants under me, and I say to one, go, and he goeth. Hence is i [...], that seeing the Father doth all things by his Son, both those things which concern
the first and second Creation, id est, our Redemption, he is called the Word. When God in the Hebrew is said to do or speake
any [Page 286]thing, the Chaldee Paraphrast turns it as if it had been written; God did it, or spake
it by his Word, Genes. 3.11. The Lord said behold the man [...] the Targum hath it. And the Word of the Lord God said, behold Adam. See Paulus Fagius on that place on the Chaldee Paraphrase, and in other places, as Esa. 1.17. and 45.17. Jer. 1.8. Psal. 110.1. The Lord said to my Lord: they read, The Lord said to his Word, Genes. 15.1. See Grotius in loc. [...], and Dr. Hammond on 1. Luke note 6. and another clear Example, Hos. 11.7. I will save the house of Judah by the Lord their God. the Chaldee turneth it, I will redeeme them by the Word of God their Lord. This is the Exposition of learned Camer. on 1. Cap. ad Hebraeos. I will alledge another consideration out of his Successor at Salmur, the famous Placens, who proves at large, Arg. 21 lib. 1. that S. John alludes to the Creation, Gen. 1. where mention is made of Gods speaking or word, and Psal 33.6. Heb. 11.3. and so the admirable analogy betwixt the first and second Creation is apparent.
As to the reparation of the World, the Father, the Son, and Spirit concurred: so
likewise to the Creation, the Person commanding, viz. the Father; the command, viz. the second Person; and the third Person executing the command, viz. the Holy Ghost.
These several Expositions of [...], which are agreeable to the analogy of faith, I have layd before thine eys (Christian
Reader) and left to thy choice to adhere to one or more of them, which shal seeem
to be most congruous to the Text; every of them is against Mr. Biddle, and asserteth the Divinity of the Son of God.
1. John 1.8. The place alledged by Mr. Biddle, to prove his forced sense, fals very short to make good his designe, but it agrees
to the second Exposition, why the Son is called the Word; no man hath lived so familiarly
with God to see into these Secrets. No man by the sharpness of his understanding hath
known so much of God, of his Attributes, and Will as is necessary for his salvation,
but true Believers by Gods gift have these secrets revealed to them; if you ask by
whom? the Text informs us, the Son of God, who is in the bosome of his Father hath
discovered them to us: what is it for one to be in the bosome of God? this notes the
internal relation betwixt [Page 287]the Father and the Son, which is mutual. A bosome is attributed to the Father by a
Metaphor taken from Man [...] used amongst the Jews in their Feasts, where the best beloved▪ most honorable, and
intimate did lie in the bosome of the chiefe Persons, as the beloved Disciple John did in our Saviours bosome; and in this place it sheweth the most intimate; yea,
and all secrets without exception were by him most lovingly communicated to his Son,
and that not in time, but by eternal generation, and the blessed Son brings these
secrets to light which concerns us, and declares them to us, and which were hidden
from the world til his discovery of them.
Bidd.
And this Word was with God, being taken up into Heaven, that so he might talke with
God, and be indeed his Word, or the immediate Interpreter of his Will, and receive
the most certaine and absolute knowledge of the Kingdome of Heaven, which he was to
propose to men. See John 6.38.46.51.62. where Christ affirmed he came down from Heaven, and had seen God; and that as he
was the living Bread which came down from Heaven, wherof whosoever did eat should
live for ever; so the bread which he would give for the life of the world and afterwards
asks the Jews, what if they should see the Son of Man ascending up where he was before,
namely before he began to preach the Gospel?
Answ.
With God the Father taken up into Heaven? a strange, groundless & corrupt exposition
of the Text. But when was he taken up into Heaven? was it as Schlichtingius and other Socinians do imp [...]dently affirm, when he had fasted forty dayes, then he was miraculously rapt up into
Gods presence? were you ashamed to set down the time when he ascended, because you
have no Scripture for it, but rather the contrary? what Prophet foretold, what Apostle
revealed this? where is it said in any Scripture, that Christ in his Humane Nature
returned from Heaven before his Passion? this could not be done without multiplied
miracles, nor ought to be believed without revelation to confirm it: and is it credible,
seeing 'tis recorded that Christ was led into the Wildernesse to be tempted, and was
there amongst the Beasts forty dayes and forty nights, and [Page 290]sith many other things are recorded touching our Saviour, that that which is th [...] principal should be omitted? Search the Scriptures, and there it is said, He ascended into Heaven by his own blood, Heb. 9.12.24. He entred once. If a man should go to Rome, and returning thence, should go thither again; we do not say well, he once was in Rome, but this is twice, or the second time, why doth not the Apostle say (if Biddle rightly expounds the Text) that the Word was in Heaven or with God in Heaven, and
by this means the sense had been more cleared, ambiguity removed, and danger of Error
taken away. Lastly, by the hypothesis of the Adversaries, the Word should not have
been with God, til he had been on Earth, and then with him but for a short time: but
this agrees not with the Word; for Gods Word is with his Father before he is with
other things, for the Word of God proceeds from God, and from no other, and therefore
we must not imagine that first he is far from God, then ascended to God, and is after
sent from God. Can we imagine, not truly I am sure, that he first ascended from Earth
to Heaven, before he descended from Heaven to the Earth?
Paul indeed was rapt up into Heaven, and Moses went up to God on the Mount; for these we have plain Scriptures, but it is no where
said, that Christ ascended up into Heaven, till after his Resurrection; now was there
any need that he should be rapt up into Heaven to be taught of God as they were, for
a fuller confirmation of his Office, sith the Holy Ghost at his Baptism descended
on him, and the Father testified of him, that he was his Beloved Son, and people were
commanded to hear him, sith the Godhead dwelt in him bodily, and sith he was alwayes
in the Father, and the Father in him.
Secondly, I do observe the discord betwixt Mr. Biddle and some of his Brethren, Smalcius See Plac. Arg. [...]8. wih God that is, known only to God: a strange Exposition! the Divels, and Antichrist and
all wicked Men are known to God; yea, and all things else; were they therfore with
God, as the Word is here said to be with him? yea Christs conception was foretold
by an Angel to the Virgin, and his Nativity by those Heavenly Messengers, to Shepheards.
But I do further observe a contradiction in the Adversary: Mark here that he saith,
Christ was [Page 291]taken up into Heaven, that he received absolute and certain knowledge of the Kingdome
of Heaven, and became the immediate Interpreter of Gods Will: but in his sixt Article,
pag. 47. you shall hear him sing another Song: Whereas Christ (saith he) whiles he
lived a mortal life on Earth (which certainly he did til after his passion) was wont
in many things to be taught by the Spirit, Esa. 11.2. yet after his exaltation he gave the Spirit instruction, what he was to make
known to his Disciples; how do these things hang together? to say he was taught being
in Heaven with God before he preached, and he had absolute knowledge of the Kingdome
of Heaven, before he made choice of his Disciples, and at the same time, and after
to be taught many things by the Spirit, is an irreconcileable contradiction.
Thirdly, I must mind both mine Adversary and the Reader once again of the unreasonable
and horrible blasphemy involved in his words; that God as touching his essentiall
presence is onely in heaven and that it was needfull for Christ to ascend locally
to the throne of the Divine Majesty, before he published the Gospel, as though God
could not instruct him as his Ambassadour to man, what was the pleasure of God touching
mans salvation whiles he was on earth, without his Ascension into heaven? true and
enflamed zeal for God cannot without indignation and horrour, read such intollerable
blasphemies. Gods ubiquity, 'tis true, as his Essence, is altogether unknown to us,
whence that rule; whatsoever is spoken of God, taken from the consideration of the
creatures, is to be understood rather negatively than affirmatively, and when the
perfection of the creatures is attributed to God, it is (as Schoolmen say) secundum supereminentiae modum, in that supereminent manner, which is imperceptible to us: thus we say, God is every
where: this Proposition is not affirmatively true, but according to that supereminent
manner, which is unknown to us, sith the diuine Majesty, as the Councel of Ephesus saith, is above all place and every measure, and sith Gods ubiquity respect no perfection
in the creature, it is to be expounded negatively thus, God is every where, i.e. hath no limits of nature, nor is excluded out of any thing: no more of that.
The Adversaries Exposition being confuted, I will indeavour to shew the true meaning
of the Text, The Word was with God. Verily, there is but one God; God then must not be taken for the Godhead simply and
absolutely, but for God the Father; the person is signified and not the Divine Nature,
whence the Sabellians are confuted, which fancied against evidence of Scripture, that God was but one
person called in divers respects, sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, and somtimes
the Holy Ghost, but no respects can make this speech reasonable, if there be but one
person in the Godhead: as a man may say, John was an Apostle, Iohn was an Evangelist, Iohn was the Disciple that Christ loved; but none can well say, Iohn was with the Disciple whom Christ loved: it is one thing to be with the Evangelist
Iohn; and another thing; to be the Evangelist Iohn, that may belong to any but to Iohn, this agreeth to none but Iohn himself: no respect will clear that speech from absurdity, if the party spoken of
be one and the same, as well for person as for nature.
1. The Evangelist having in the former clause named the Word. In the beginning was the Word: he doth not say, in the beginning was the Son, but he doth here more fitly mention
the Word God, then God the Father; for so the correspondence betwixt them seems to require;
the Son of the Father, and the Word of God with God: here is distinction and relation
of the persons with God, not as an Attribute, but as a person distinctly existing.
Besides, it helps the elegancy of speech, which the Holy Ghost useth, in that he makes
the last word of the first clause, the first of the second, thus; In the beginning was the Word, then revealed, and the word was with God; and in the next also, God was the word, for so runs the originall: suppose now Saint John had said, The word was with the Father, the grace of the speech had been lost, because he could not have repeated the Word, in the beginning of the following clause; for it cannot be said, the Father is the
Word, or the Word the Father, but to say, God was the Word, is a true and elegant speech compared with the former.
Thirdly, I may adde also, that in the old Testament, where [Page 291]the Messias is prophetically spoken of, as in Gen. 3.15. and Gen. 12.12. rarely shall you find any distinct mention of the first person under the name
of the Father; therefore the holy Apostle makes choice of such a name of God the
Father, as that whereby his speech might best be approved and understood.
Thus have I out of our best interpreters collected (as I conceive) what may give
some light to this Scripture under debate, the scope and principal drift whereof
was this, as Saint Basil in verba, Iohn having said, The word was in the beginning, and that he had already his glorious being, when all things that were originally
created began to be. Well then, if the Word subsisted before the World began, if he
really was before there was any time and place wherein he might subsist, some may
haply demand, where was he then before the World and time? The Evangelist answereth
plainly and satisfactorily, he was with God, even as the inward Word or conception
which a man frameth within himself, or as his [...] is with the man where he is, so is the eternal Word with God; but mark the distinction
in the different manner of being. The word was not God the Father, with whom he was
from all eternity; for albeit they are one in nature, for the Son is not a diverse
nature from the Father, as another God, yet are they really distinct persons, so that
Christ was with his Father not after he was incarnated onely, and after his Passion,
by his local ascension up into heaven, but before the beginning of the World, even
in the first moment of the first beginning, when as yet there was neither time nor
place compleated, even then had the Word his being with God.
To this I further adde what is asserted by Tolet the Jesuit on the place, and approved by some of ours to carry great probability;
that the Evangelist by this repetition would further give us to understand, that the
Word was not onely in the beginning, but was then with God the Father a co-worker
in the Creation of all things: the ground of this Interpretation is from Prover. 8. where first his eternity is described, v. 22. and v. 27. the same Wisdome was with God as a nourisher when he prepared the heavens, that
is, creating and ordering all things, and he saith, When he prepared the heaven, I was there: to this of the Wise man, these words of Saint John do [Page 292]correspond, The Word was with God from the beginning.
1. The Texts alledged out of the sixth chapter of Saint John are in themselves clear enough to overthrow all that Master Biddle intends to build up thereby.
Iohn 6.38. I descended from heaven, but is it said, as your words pretend, after he had been tempted in the wildernesse?
no such matter: how then? distinguish betwixt the whole and a part, betwixt his person
and a part of his person, that is, his flesh; the words are spoken, and meant not
in respect of his Deity, or humanity considered apart, but as the Sonne united himself
hypostatically to the humane nature, Christ descended from heaven, and the Word was made flesh, but his humanity had never then been in heaven, and the Deity to speak properly,
neither ascends nor descends, nor doth the speech belong to the whole person wholly
and conjunctim considered, as our Mediatour, for the flesh of Christ was from his Mothers substance:
the Text then is to be understood of the person of Christ, which is said to descend
from heaven, but differently in regard of his two natures: in regard of his humanity,
as it was assumed into the Person of Gods Son; and in regard of the Deity, as the
word was incarnated, thus is he said to descend from Heaven, who is every where present,
who containes all things, and is contained of nothing, because in the Heavens properly
taken his glorious Majesty is more manifested then in other parts of the World, and
he is said to descend from Heaven when he was made man, and declared the divine mysteries,
and Gods Will, that all Believers shall be saved, See Beza in locum.
Verse 46. Not that any man hath seen the Father, viz. perfectly: hereby all Creatures are excluded, for in another sense the holy Angels
always see the face of God, Mat. 18 and Saints on Earth, as Moses, by faith do see him who is invisible, Heb. 11.27. but the Son of God hath seen the Father, and hereby he is distinguished from
al the holy Angels and Prophets: and tis observable that he cals himselfe [...], as if he had said [...], for all creatures were made by God. Our Saviour then signifies hereby, that he
is from God in a far different manner then the holy men and Angels are from him, namely,
as the natural Son is from his Father, John 7.29. [...], [Page 293] I am from him, that is, from his substance: by these words our Saviour would draw his Disciples
from the consideration of his flesh to the contemplation of his Deity personally united
to his Humane Nature, that they may be assured he knows the mind of his Father, and
his seecret counsel touching mans Redemption.
Vers. 51. I am the living bread which came down from Heaven, and this bread which I will give
is my flesh: he mentions his descent from Heaven to signifie his dignity, and the efficacy of
his Spirit in raising the dead; he mentions his flesh to intimate his passion, and
the effusion of his bloud for us: our Saviour makes a comparison in dissimilitude
betwixt Manna and himselfe, as our food to feed on; that gave not immortality, as this bread doth,
to those that by faith do feed on him; that came not down from Heaven properly so
called, but from the Aire, the first Heaven, but Christ came down from the highest
Heavens; that bread was not very flesh, as this bread is my flesh; that is, my body which I will give to be crucified, as the means whereby this flesh
comes to be quickning food. Manna was given for the preserving of the life of one people onely, and that for a few
years only; but this bread came down from Heaven, not only for the salvation of the
Jews but Gentiles also at all times.
John 6.62. What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend where he was before? See, idest, or know by the testimony of others; the Son of Man, i. e. true man; where he was before, not as man, but as God: by a Synec. called communication of properties, as before we have heard out of John 3.13. that is ascribed to the Son of Man which belongs to him as he is [...]; so do we call a man, soul and body a part, and Homer gives the proper names of men to separated souls: so Grotius. There is an Aposiopesis, which may be thus supplied; this much more would scandalize you, or would not you
then perceive, which you see not now, that my body being in Heaven could not possibly
in a proper notion be eaten, and that it was as credible he should ascend into heaven
(bodily) as that he should descend and take our nature on him? our Saviour saith not,
what if you shall see the Son of Man ascend whither he ascended before: but where he was before, viz. in his Deity. John 17.5. an Angel after his first message from Heaven to Earth ascends to Heaven, where
he [Page 294]was before, yet could not he be said before this message to ascend from Earth. These
words have been discussed above, I will therefore say no more at present.
Bidd.
Joh 8.42. The words intimate the same: I went out from God, I came not of my self, but he sent
me, Joh. 16.28. I came out from the Father, and came into the world, and I leave the world and go
to the Father; which going forth from the Father, every one may easily perceive by
the opposition of the former clause, is meant of a local procession of Christ from
God and that before the discharge of his Embassie; for to come, or come into the world
signifieth to treat with men in the name of God, and to performe a publick office
amongst them, see 1 John 1.15.27.30. and 1 John 5.20. Math. 11.3.18.19. Joh. 17.18. compared with chap. 16.28. and chap. 18.37.
Answ.
Mr. Biddle, a forward Disciple of Socinus, shuts up God in regard of his essence, in Heaven, and saith he is every where in
regard of his knowledge and operations only; it is true, God is not as bodies are,
circumscribed in any place, or confined to any time; but he is immensive present every where, substantially present, praesentia indistantiae, as the Learned term it: he is present every where repletivè: yet take heed that you conceive not God to be every where present, as the aire fils
up the space betwixt Heaven and Earth, or as if one part of God should fill up one
part of the World, and another part the remainder of it, but his whole essence is
every where; and neither hath limits actually or potentially in adessendo, he is not confined within the limits of the whole world, but is wholly and indivisibly
present in every imaginable space: See Ambros: de fide ad Gratianum. Gods immensity is his absolute property eternally belonging to him, and Gods ubiquity
is founded on his immensity, and notes a habitude to a place existing in time; the
former is as the first act, and this latter as the second act: the main controversie
is not touching the manner of Gods presence, but of the ubi of his presence; whether he is present in Heaven, & how he is present, are two questions:
and its one question, whether God is present on earth, and how he is there present
is another question; the School-men (saith Vasquez) do agree that God [Page 295]in all things, but yet they doe vary in assigning the manner of his presence, as S.
Chrysost. Homil. 1. de incomprehensibili Dei natura: I know God is every where, and wholly in every part of the world, but how I know
not.
The question is of the essential not, vertual or operative presence of God, not by
diffusion or extension of his essence (for these belong to bodily substances) but
he is instar puncti, because he is an infinite incorporeal substance without parts.
1. Arg. The truth of his essential presence is proved first by Scriptures. 1 King. 8.27. The Heaven (saith Solomon) and the Heaven of Heavens cannot contain thee; much lesse can this house: we are not to have the least thoughts that Solomon built an house to contain God, for he is not contained in the heavens, much less
in this house; he doth not only speak of Gods vertue and providence, but of God himselfe,
as Gods providence cannot be comprehended in Heaven, no more can God himselfe, for
otherwise God should be infinite in regard of his providence, but not infinite in
regard of his essence: can an infinite vertue pertain to a finite essence? nay verily,
the power of God can be no more infinite then his essence, for God by his essence
of and by himself is powerful and infinite.
The Psalmist lends us his suffrage to this truth: Whither shall I go from thy spirit? if I ascend into Heaven, thou art there; if I
make my bed in Hell, behold, thou art there; if I go to the uttermost parts of the
Sea, thou are there also, Psal. 139.7, 8, 9. God is in Heaven, and in Hell, and in all parts of the World, not only
in regard of his knowledge and providence, but of his essence, for he is so on Earth,
as he is in Heaven; nor doth the Psalmist say, How shall I flie from thy Providence? but, from thy Spirit, from thy face: nor is any action of God any where but God is essentially present there.
Jerem, 23.23. Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himselfe
in secret places, that I shall not see him, saith the Lord? Do not I (saith God) fill
Heaven and Earth: in this Text, as in the rest where mention is made of Gods presence, Heaven and Earth
are joyned together, and 'tis alwayes said, either he can be contained in no place,
or that he fils all places, and is alwayes in himselfe most present to all things:
nor doth this help the Adversary, to say such places are [Page 296]ment of Gods power and providence, because 'tis said, he is not a God afar off, for
he saith expresly of his person, in the first person, I, and not I, in regard of
his operation onely. This is an unworthy consequence; God can do all things afar
off, and therefore in regard of his Essence he is not present with all things: 'tis
all one in regard of God, whether he be said to be nearer or further off from men,
seeing he is every where present, and fills heaven and earth, and hypocrites are more
fully convinced of their folly by this phrase, in thinking they can hide themselves
from God, for he in regard of his essence fills all places, he is not distant from
any creature by any imaginary space interposed betwixt Gods existence, and the creatures
substance.
2. Arg. The second Argument is drawn from Gods Attribute of perfection: God is most absolutely
perfect; to be every where in regard of essence, denotes a higher degree of perfection,
then to be limited to a place, as it would be a greater perfection to a King to be
essentially present all over his Kingdome, then to be there by his Authority and
power onely, for on this account we excuse disorders in a Kingdome, and often justly;
because such is mans condition, that he cannot know abuses being absent so well as
if he had been every where present; so is it true, that Gods ubiquity is no imperfection,
but a high degree of perfection, as it is by the Adversaries acknowledged to be a
higher degree of perfection to be every where present in regard of operation, than
either to work in heaven alone, or on earth, or any one place: Gods power is not separated
from his essence.
3. Arg. Thirdly, this is proved from the consideration of Gods nature, which is infinite
without measure, end or bounds, which depends on no creature, who hath no Superiour
nor equall to limit his nature, and the Adversaries granting that the power and Wisdome
of God (which they take to be accidents in God) are infinite and incomprehensible,
must by consequence yield, that Gods essence is infinite, for how is it possible,
that infidite accidents in intension should be in a subject of finite extension?
for the manner of working doth not exceed the manner of being; an essence that is
not infinite cannot produce infinite operations, nor can it have an infinite [Page 297]vertue to produce them; in an infinite there is nothing that admits more or lesse
and this is true of God and of his Attributes.
4. Arg. Fourthly, God is not so essentially in the Heavens, but that he is out of the Heavens
also, he is not contained in Heaven, and this is proved. 1. God was not in Heaven
before the Creation, and when they were created, we must not think he went out of
himself, changing, as it were, h [...]s place, and betaking himself to dwell in that Heavenly Pallace, when it was created
in the beginning, for certainly before there was any creature, God was alone, he
was to himself, the World, and place, and all things, Tertull advers. Prax. 2. If God should annihilate all the world, as he is able to do, would not God be
there where he is now? and therefore he is not affixed to heaven. 3. If God should
create new heavens (as 'tis not impossible for him to do) could not God, or would
not God be in those Heavens also? yes verily, though not as locatum in loco, but as in himself blessed for ever, as a cause creating and preserving all things
per essentiae [...]
5. Arg. if God was not essentially present every where, these and the like absurdities would
necessarily follow. First, God should be measured by place, as his duration by time,
and his substance should be circumscribed in a place, or limited by it, which is a
property of a creature, and to avouch that Gods substance can be dilated or contracted,
is anathematized in the Synod of Syrmium. Secondly, Then should Gods greatnesse in respect of his Essence and presence differ
from that of a creature, not in kind, but gradually. Thirdly, Gods Essence either
fills the whole heavens, or a part of it onely: if you say the whole, I ask then,
Why cannot Gods Essence be out of heaven, and have either a greater or a lesser place?
Who limits him, or what is it that sets bounds to his supream Majesty, saying, as
to the sea, Hither mayest thou go, but no further? If you say a part of heaven, I
demand again, Why this part rather than that? and why so much place, and no more?
Cannot he remove to another place? and if so he is, and if he be essentially absent
in any place of heaven, he is then no more in that place, by the Adversaries Confession,
then on the earth.
I have touched on this Subject above, and have now in a fifth place more fully confirmed
this truth denied by the Adversary [Page 298]to the great dishonour of God Almighty: much more is set down in large Discourses
of our learned Writers touching Gods omnipresence, chiefly in Dr. Hammond.
The Text cited John 8.42. proves, that Christ did not run and prophesie before he was sent, as the Jews
his professed enemies imagined, but that he was immediatly sent from his Father,
and what he did in his office was not done of his own motion, but by Commission from
God: he ran not before he was sent, as false Prophets were wont to do, but by his
Fathers counsel and authority, this he speaks to stop the mouths of the J [...]ws, and to gaine authority to his Doctrine, because the Fathers authority was his.
Christs going out from the Father, and coming into the World, do denote something
which follows his mission, and appertains to the execution thereof. If you ask, why
Christ went out from his Father, who is (as they say) terminus à quo, and why he came into the World, as the terminus ad quem, it is fitly answered, as in the Text, because he was sent of his Father, for the
end of the execution of the Mission cannot be obtained, unlesse an Ambassadour goes
out from his Prince that sent him, and so going out from his Father, signifies his
going from his Father out of heaven, and on this ground it is, that no Prophets or
Apostles are said in Scripture to go out from God, Placens Disput. 3.
This Text then chiefly denotes the external relation of Gods Son to his Father, and
is terminated in that consideration, nor doth it intend (as Arians and Politicians
dream) a locall descent of a meer creature from heaven, but the end is chiefly to
be considered, which is not to teach the eternal generation of Gods Son, but his
mission and office to be a Saviour, and doe import that he that was sent was Gods
natural Son, as S. Cyril saith; to proceed from the Father, argues his Divinity; to come into the world,
argues his Humanity: Gods Son incarnated is manifested thereby to come into the world;
yea God himselfe is said to descend from Heaven, Genes. 11.1. i.e. he manifested himself by some remarkable sign of his presence: yea, and our Saviour
himselfe saith, I and my Father will come to the faithfull and dwell with them, as the Father [Page 297]comes to his children,: so Christ, as the Letter of the Text sounds, comes to them: doth the Father come
locally, and as it were with his feet? nor do we confound the Person sending with
him that is sent; but we do distinguish them: it is the Adversary that brings in confusion,
because he would haue a Father without his true and natural Son, and a Son without
his natural and coessential Father, but who is so blind, as he that shuts his eyes,
and will not see? Christ came into the World where he was not before, viz. in his Humane Nature: yea, to take notice of your wise choice, 1. John 15. the Text saith, He was before John, though born after him: he was not only preferred before him in favour and dignity,
but He was before me: i. e. he had a being long, even infinitely before me; for he was begotten of his Father
before all things, Colos. 1.15.17. this causal [...] being a proofe of the former, must somewhat differ from it, or else the same thing
is proved by it selfe. The other alledged Scripture will prove what is confessed,
that Christ was God, manifested in the flesh, and undertook to be our Mediator and
Peace-maker, and no more then I have confessed.
Bid. And the word was a God (as being indued with divine power and Empire) for according
to the reasoning of Christ himself John 10.35. if the Psalmist cals them Gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot
be broken (as it would, if any one should deny them to be Gods) is not he much more
a God, who is indued with so divine a dominion, that he is the very substantiall Son
of God?
An. The holy Evangelist, lest any man from what was formerly said in this verse touching
the relation to, and distinction of the second Person from the first, should think
that the Father was only the true God, expresly asserteth, that the WORD is God also:
the words in the original run thus for elegancies sake, and God was the Word: yet the genuine construction, and placing them in their natural order, which is
also followed by the Adversary is, The Word was God, not only because it agrees not to the subject of a proposition to be more large than
the predicate, as otherwise here it would be, for God belongs to the Father and the
Holy Ghost, as well as to the Son; but because [...], the Article presixed, sheweth that the word is the subject and not the predicate
in this clause by it selfe enunciated, and lest any should conceive that the Word
was God, (as the Arians were wont to do, and in this the Socinians agree with them) to avoid the evidence of the place, he saith in the context, that
he made all things: and in another place he saith, that he [Page 294]was the true God, 1 Joh. 5.20. See Aug: de Doctr. Christiana l. 3. c. 2.
Whereas Mr. Biddle saith, that he is God, in that he was indued with Divine power: this explication
in an orthodox sense is admitted, for how can Christ be God, if he hath not Divine
power, but in the Socinian sense tis inconsistent with the truth, as I have at large demonstrated, Gods power is Gods glory, Esay 42. which he will give to no other, nor can a creature which is finite be capable
of that power which is infinite. I ask, how is Christ indued with Divine power which
is surely infinite? hath he it intrinsecally, so as to denominate the Humane Nature
truly omnipotent? if so, then hath he the infinite essence, and by consequent is true
God, which the Adversary will not admit. Or hath he it extrinsecally, because the
omnipotent God dwels in him? if in this latter sense, what singular thing is here
avouched which belongs not to all the faithfull?
I grant, some Attributes of God are said to be communicable, as others are called
incommunicable; but how communicable? only by analogical accommodation, not in respect
of the properties themselves, which are all of them infinite, yea in truth one infinite
God, but in regard of the effects of those properties, wherein the creature doth imperfectly
resemble the Creator. Gods Attributes are the Divine essence it self, his Name, his
Glory, his Godhead, and if any of the properties were truly communicated, the essence
of God must be multiplied, divided, or distracted from it selfe, but there cannot
possibly be more then one infinite; and therefore all Gods Attributes do signifie
one single and infinite perfection, as wisedome, power, mercy.
The scope of the Evangelist will make good what we do maintain against the Socinians: the Scripture saith he was God; the Text saith not that the Word is God, but the
Word was God, namely, in the beginning: if then we shall grant with the Adversary,
that Christ was only man, and that by beginning, is meant the beginning of the preaching
of the Gospel, then cannot it be made out by any other text of Scripture, that Christ
was God at that time: if then the Apostle intended to prove Jesus to be the Messias, as the Adversaries say, who can believe that he would in the first verse set down
that which was more obscure then that which he intended to prove, and which could
not be proved to be true by any other Text. 2. And if he was not God, but because
he was made God, why should not he rather have said [...], he was made God, then [...], he was God, and why verse 14. saith he not he was flesh, [...] rather [Page 295]then [...]; the Adversary contends in regard of nature, that he was flesh, in regard of his
office a God: was it without divine direction that the Apostle when he speaks of
the word useth [...] eight times, and [...] but once, because flesh is made, but God is not made? 3. The order of nature would
be inverted, for speaking of the word, verse 1. he saith he was God, but of the flesh
o [...] the word, not til the 14. verse; but the Adversaries say, he was first flesh, and
then in time afterwards God: it is one thing to be God, and another thing to be a
Divine man. Paul may be called a divine man, not God, Plac. Disput. 24.
To the tenth of Saint John I have largely answered, and 'tis needlesse to repeat what may there be read: angels
and men in the old Testament are sometimes called Gods, the shadow of good things
remaining, and the Sun not being risen to expell them; and they are so called in the
Plural number only, and a singular Magistrate is not called a God, nor were they then
to be worshipped with Divine Worship, nor equall with God, nor searchers of mens hearts,
and reins, but the Word is called God, when the day is come, and that in the singular
number particularly is the name of God, yea and Divine Worship, attributed to him,
who accounts it no robbery to be equal with God, and whose Prerogative it is to be
a searcher of the reins and hearts, and who is the Judge of the whole World, from
whose Throne there can be no appeal.
The Adversary calls our Saviour the Substantiall Word, and that without ambiguity
stands not well with his own principles, but where is the man amongst us, which will
say otherwise? The words in Saint John are evident: the word was not onely with God, whose being depends not upon time,
place, or any creatures, all which were made by him, but the Word was God, that is, the Divine Nature, and not in regard of any office; for there is no testimony
of Scripture, which denies him to be by nature God, or which affirms him to be made
a God at any time, nor is there any Text of Scripture, which shews him to be man
in the beginning, or that he which was God, might not become man also v. 14. never was there a question, or so much as doubted, that God was before the beginning
of the World, but there were found some miscreants, as Ebion and Cerinthus, before the writing of the Gospel, and the Arians after them, which impugned this
Deity of our Saviour: the holy Evangelist decides the doubt, and expresly saith, he
was God; which was the thing, which he intended to avouch of him: hence there [Page 300]have been found men, which have so much admired this first verse, that they have wished
it was written with letters of Gold, and to put all out of doubt, in the next verse
he signifies the Divinity, Eternity, Omnipotency, and Equality of the Word, or Son
with God the Father, by saying, all things were made by him, both visible and invisible,
Col. 1. whereupon it is evident that he is no creature, because he is the Creatour of
all things, and v. 4. In him was life. All the particulars here spoken of, are spoken of the Word, and the whole frame and
scope of the Gospel, is to teach us, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and
by believing we might live through him, John 21 31.
Bid. This Passage also sheweth, that Christ is not the most high God, the same with the
Father, for when he is said to have been with God, the Word (God) then by the Confession
of all, signifieth the most high God, since the very Article in the Greek set before
it importeth so much.
Answ.
The Son of God is one and the same in Essence, though not one in person with God the
Father? 'Tis confessed, that God in the second clause, is taken for God the Father,
and Saint John giveth us to understand, that the Word hath his proper subsistence, and personality
distinct from God his Father (for a person cannot be said to be with himself) whereby
the Heretick Sabellius is confuted, and 'tis also unanimously acknowledged, that God the Father is the most
high God; but your negative Inference from that concession, that the Word his Son
is not the most high God, is utterly rejected, because, as I have often proved, to
be most high is a common Attribute, equally belonging to God the Father, God the Son,
and God the Holy Ghost.
Bidd.
As the Article is added in the second clause to God, but when the word is said to
be God (with the omission of the aforesaid Article) neither will the words nor thing
it self suffer Christ to be the same God with him with whom he was, that is, the most
high God; for then he would have been said to be with himself, which is ridiculous,
so that these words, which are usually brought to prove the supream Divinity of our
Saviour, being well examined, do quite overthrow it.
Answ. The Holy Ghost, as the Adversary thinketh intended, because the Article is omitted
in the last Clause, that he therefore hath his Godhead, such as it is, by grace, and
that diverse from him, that is the most high God.
To this I answer first, that albeit sometimes the force of an Article is of use and
observation, yet is a Grammatical quillet too weak to sway a cause of this weight
and value. I do ask the Adversary this question, is the Arricle never omitted, when
the true God is undoubtedly spoken of? If it be omitted, and that often, as I have
shewed, where then lies the strength of the Argument? (Articles, saith our learned
Casaubone against Baronius, Exercitat. 2. are not alwayes to be urged, they are often omitted in Scripture, ubi Hellenismus exactior eos requirebat, and another, Camier. Panstrat. Tom. 2. lib. 17. c. 1. Articulus saepe otiosus est, as Matth. 5.13.) This is further evidenced by comparing the Texts taken out of the old Testament,
and cited in the new, Mal. 3.1. Was he not the true God, and called the Lord of Hosts, that sent John Baptist before the face of the Messias, and yet Saint John saith, There was a man sent from God? here God is without an article: this one place is sufficient to confute that vain
and false exception, especially being in the same Evangelist, and within a few lines
of the former; nor can it be doubted, but that God, Whom no man hath seen at any time, is the true God, Exod. 34.20.23. Thou canst not see my face: doth not Saint John speak of the same true God, when he saith, No man hath seen God at any time? v. 18. the Word (God) in this place also is without an Article, and if the addition
of an Article proves that God, to which it is affixed, to be the true God, the Adversaries
cause is lost, Act. 20 28.
Secondly, there may be a reason rendered, why it being added to God in the first clause,
should be omitted in the next, lest the Readers should be misled to think the person
of the Word was confounded, and one and the same with the Person of God the Father.
Thirdly, 'tis not unusuall for Saint John to put an Article to the first Word, and when he repeats the Word to omit the Article
as John 1.14. His glory, as the glory, 45, 46. Philip and Nathanael, 46, 47. John 6.5.7 Flesh, Iohn 3.6 Abraham, Iohn 8.39▪ 40. God, Iohn 9.31.33, and Iesus, John 21.4. What marvel is it then, if Saint John adding an Article to God in the first place, omits it in the second place?
Fourthly, we may guesse at the reason, why God in the last Clause is without an Article,
because in the second clause God noteth God the Father, who is the first of the three
glorious persons in order, but in the third place its taken for the nature of God,
which [Page 298]is most singularly one and the same in all the three persons. If the Evangelist had
omitted or added the Article in both, the sense of the place would have been more
obscure, and the Distinction of the persons not easily discerned.
Lastly, it could not have been so evident as it is now, that the Word was to be taken
for the former part of the speech, but much doubted whether the Evangelist intended
to inform us, that God was the Word (as the words in the Greek do evidently lie) or
that (as most do place them, & the adversary himself) the word was God.
There is but one God, this is a fundamentall Article, God the Father, and God the
Son are not two Gods, but one God: now when it is said, the Word was with God, for
certain, God is not taken here essentially, but as Divines do speak, Synechdochichally or personally, namely for God the Father; this being supposed, that which you call
ridiculous, is very congruous both to found reason and the holy Scriptures: God the
Son is not properly with himself, but with another, that is, with God his Father;
who is alius, another person from his Father, but not aliud, another thing essentially differing from him: the Text may be illustrated by this
paralell example in Paradise. Adam was a man in Paradise, Eve was with this man, and Eve was a man, Gen. 1.17. a reasonable creature, as Adam was. Is this ridiculous? Christ was with God, taken formally for the Divine person,
and in regard of proper relation distinguished from him, but not in nature, which
is common to both persons: its a Sophisters part thus to plead; part of the air is
not air, part of a line is not the line, because the same thing is not a part of it
self: it is answered by a deniall, for part of the air is air, and part of the line
is a line, for though air, and part of the air do differ according to the proper respects
and relations of the whole and part, yet not according to the nature of the air,
which as an homogeneal body belongs equally to both: and as the word of God is not
God properly, for none can be his own word, say Socinians, this is already answered,
for when one man is said to be with another man, is not the one of them a man, as
well as the other? There is I grant a difference, because there are more men than
one man, but there is but one God: hence may we infer, that God the Son is undivided
from God the Father, with whom he was as the Scripture saith, I and the Father am one. Suppose the Apostle had said, In the beginning was light, and this light was with
God, and that light was God, or, in the beginning was Charity, [Page 299]and Charity was with God, and God was Charity: None of these Propositions could be
denyed, 1 Iohn 1.2.5 and 4.8.16. could the Adversary infer, that these, as also Gods Power. Will,
were qualities or accidents separable from God, and not in their own nature Divine?
The Divinity then of our Saviour is not by Mr. Biddles exact examination of this Text overthrown by it.
Bid. Thus have we retorted all the places of Scriptures wherein the appellation of God
is given to Christ against the Adversarie, shewing from them that Christ is not the
most high God.
Ans. You over-reach, Mr. Biddle, you have not so much as alledged all our Scripture proofs; not many parallel Texts
out of the Old Testament, wherein questionless, the true God is spoken and meant of
our Saviour: some of these shall be mentioned in my third Argument to prove the Deity
of Christ; nor all in the New, 1 John 5.20. where he is called The true God, and Eternal Life, the Pronoune demonstrative shews that it is referred to the next Antecedent, and
'tis a title of God the Son to be Life, John 6 35. and 11.25. and 14.6. Coloss. 3.4. but God the Father is never so called, nor have you named 1 Tim. 3.16. scarce shall we find any place of Scripture, saith Beza, wherein the Mystery of our Redemption is more gloriously and plainly explicated
then in this Text; great is the mystery of godlines, God manifested in the flesh; this cannot be meant of God the Father, who is never said to be manifested in the
flesh, nor, as Christ was, to be seen of Angels in a various state, in the Manger,
Lu. 2.12. they saw him when he was tempted in the Wilderness by the Divel, Mat. 4.15 they saw him in his agony, Lu. 22.43. they saw him raised out of the grave. Luke 24.4, 5. they saw him ascend into Heaven, Acts 1. nor is it a great mystery that Gods will should be made known by Prophets, Apostles
&c. this is meant of him who after his resurrection was assumed into glory: and to
name no more, you have not mentioned, much lesse retorted, Coloss. 2 9. in Christ dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
2. Your answers to, and retortions of the Scriptures are a torturing of them, and
stretching them on the tenter hooks, to bring them down to your ever to be abhorred
sense, they are fallacious, captious frouthy, and unsavory, as I have shewed, all
the clouds in your brains cannot obscure the light which shines forth out of those
sacred Texs to prove the Deity of our blessed Saviour, but he that cannot say what
he should, must say what he can for his espoused error, rather then yield and say
nothing.
Bid. But were all that we have said laid aside, this very thing (if men had not renounced
their Reason, and made non-sense the Mother of their devotion) is sufficient to decide
the controversie, that Christ is called in the Scriptures the Son of the most high
God; for if he be both the Son of the most high God, and the most high God too, he
will be the Son of himselfe, which is absurd.
Ans. Fairer language (Mr. Biddle) would have been more comly & commendable for you, then to cast dirt in the most
beautifull face of Christs beloved Spouse: should such an empty and worthlesse man
as this Adversary is, lay such a harsh imputation on all Churches but his own, and
on the most famous Christians in the World, to say, that they do renounce their reason,
and do make non-sense the mother of their devotion? 'tis true our Religion teacheth
us, as obsequious children to imbrace and not to dispute against the pleasure of
our heavenly Father revealed to us, and we do justly esteem it our wisdome to follow
the wisdome of our unerring Guide: it fareth with this sweet truth, the Son of God
became the Son of Man, as with that blessed doctrine, to believe that Christ was crucified
for us, which was, and yet is a stumbling block to the Jews, and at first promulgation
thereof, foolishnesse to the Gentiles.
To your objection which depends on a term equivocal, I answer, as I have often done,
and so shall not need to spend much time on this subject: it is agreeable both to
sense and reason regulated and refined by the Word of God, and it contains a good
sense devoutly to be imbraced, and without contradiction to be believed, Jesus Christ
is the co-essential Son of his Father, the most high God, and he himselfe is also
the most high God truly and really in respect of his person distinct from his Father,
and 'tis blaspemy not to be indured in a Christian to say, one person of the holy
Trinity is higher then another; and although there be the same essence of the Father
and the Son, yet is not the Son begotten of the Essence, as it is his, but as it is
the Fathers; as it follows not, the essence of this matter of which water is generated,
is also an essential part of water, therfore water is begotten of it selfe: or thus,
the essence of the seed out of which Wheat is generated, is the essence of the Wheat
generated, therefore Wheat generates it selfe: so here, the order betwixt the Father
begetting and the Son begotten, is also betwixt the essence; as it is the Fathers,
and as it is the Sons. Thus much of the fourth Article.
ARTICLE VI.
Bidle.
I Believe that there is one principal Minister of God and Christ, peculiarly sent from
heaven to sanctifie the Church, who by reason of his eminency and intimacy with God
is singled out of the number of the other Heavenly Ministers or Angels, and comprised
in the holy Trinity, being the third person thereof; and that this Minister of God
and of Christ, is the holy Spirit.
Answer.
The substance of this sixth Article, as it is explicated touching the Holy Ghost,
is comprized in the twelve Arguments, which this [Page 280]Author hath levied against the Deity of the Holy Ghost, which have been confuted by
Doctor Cloppenburg, Professour of Divinity at Franeker in Friesland, and after him by a learned man, who desires, such is his modesty, to have his name
concealed; and before them both, I my self, a fraile man, and miserable sinner, the
Lord be merciful to me, have punctually answered whatsoever was of any moment in them,
and have performed this task at least to my own satisfaction. This Adversary, for
what reasons moving him, knowes best, and I can guesse at some of them, though there
is a new Edition of them in the year of our Lord 1653. takes no notice of them. I
will not mispend my short and precious time in doing that again, which is (as I conceive)
already sufficiently done, in answering all the particulars at large; but if any ingenuous
Reader, desirous to be informed in the truth of this divine Mysterious Article of
faith, shall be puzled with Scripture phrases which he alledgeth to his seeming advantage,
or with his specious and fallacious Inferences deduced from those sacred Texts, I
do advise him to consult with those answers returned in all or any of the aforesaid
Writings, and he shall see (if he be not wilfully blind) the mist which appeared to
him fairly scattered, and the heavenly truth cleared up to his delight and comfort.
Somewhat there is new in this Article, though not much, besides there is an addition
to the twelfth Article; the remainder is but an abridgement of his twelve Reasons,
and a confirmation against his fellow Socinians, That the Holy Ghost is a Person distinct
from the Father and the Son: I will by Gods assistance briefly examine what is material
both touching his alledged Scriptures, and deductions from those holy Fountains.
Bidle.
John 14.26. But the Comforter (or rather the Advocate, as the word in the Greek, and Beza renders it) which is the Holy Spirit, which the Father will send in my name—. Note, The Holy Ghost is called the Advocate; which very appellation sufficiently intimates,
that he is not that supreme and independent Monarch, Johovah; chiefly for two reasons:
the one is, Because he instructeth the Saints, especially when they are brought before
persecuting Rulers, how to plead their own and their Masters cause, as Mat. 10.17, 18. in opposition whereunto the unclean Spirit is called Satan, an Adversary, 1 Pet. 5.8. namely in that he suggesteth slanders and false accusation [Page 281]to the men of this world against Christ and his people, John 8.34. 2. Because when Saints sink under some great pressure and affliction, and are at a losse,
not knowing which way to turn themselves, nor what to pray as they ought, then comes
the Holy Spirit for their assistance, and intercedes with most earnest and unexpressible
groans for them, Rom. 8.26.
Answer.
The design of our Lord in these words is to comfort his Disciples, which were (no
doubt) full of grief when they heard his discourse of going away from them to the
Father, v. 12. he was in his bodily presence a great comfort to them; this needs not trouble
them, for in his steed, in the absence of his humane Nature, they should have another
Comforter, which should abide, not only with the Apostles, but with the Church, and
every faithful member thereof for ever.
The word [...], ha [...]h various significations, but no reason upon this account to retain Paraclete in the
English, lest, as the Rhemists say, they should abridg the sense of the place. And
saith our Doctor Fulk, in this Marginal Note; upon this ground you must leave five hundred words more untranslated
then you have done. In the Latine Churches they barbarously read and sung Paraclitus, Penultima brevi, for Paracletus, penultima longa; which error being detected by Erasmus, occasioned great contentions, Apud Onagros quosdam Mutaeologos, saith Beza. The Syrian Interpreter hath [...], in all places to the matter in hand.
The word Paraclete is of large and doubtful signification, and consequently may be rendred as usually
it is, Comforter, agreeably to the condition of the Disciples at present, by reason
of the spiritual joy and comfort, which usually is the work, and accompanieth the
office of the Holy Ghost, being Advocate (as Camero guesseth; or it is taken for an Exhorter, which belongs to the blessed Spirit in
reference to the people of God, both to do what is commanded, and to suffe [...] what is inflicted: but I will not deny your (rather) that the word is to be taken, as most usually it is; yea with an exclusion of the
other two Tra [...]slations, for an Advocate, and I will not deny that he is not an Advocate or Interlocutor,
both of the Christians cause with God and with men. But here is your mistake, which
I desire that you and others also would [Page 282]take notice of, He is not an Advocate to plead their cause with God immediately, and
in his own person, as Lawyers do their Clyents cause before a Judge; this indeed would
have argued both his actual separation from, and his inferiority to the great God;
but this is done by his gracious works in the hearts of Disciples and Christians,
teaching them, as your self confesse in your first reason of this Name, how to plead
the cause of Christ against persecuting Rulers, and a world of unbelievers. This is
done, as the Learned briefly answer, not formaliter by him, but efficienter; and this was foretold to the comfort and strengthning the faith of the Apostles,
That when Christ was gone corporally from them, the Paraclete should come to them,
& they should see his power in convincing and converting many of the unbelieving world,
of the Jews immediately, and of Gentiles in future times by the Ministry of the Apostles:
the Spirit by them should reprove the world of sin, of righteousnesse and of judgment, John 16.8. The coming of the Holy Ghost should be a convincing Argument that Christ
was a true Prophet; and therefore the Jewes that had a hand in his death, were guilty
of a great sin in not believing on him, and of a greater in crucifying him. And this
is the first work, and necessary to fit a sinner for Christ. 2. He would convince
the world of Righteousnesse; by assuring the Disciples of Christ, that albeit he suffered
as a Malefactor, yet he was an innocent person; which is proved by this, That God
took him up into heaven, whither no unholy and unclean person can enter. And 3 of
Judgment, given to Christ, and against Satan, that put it into the hearts of Scribes,
Pharisees, and their associates to accuse Christ, and put him to a shameful death.
Now by the coming of the Holy Ghost, the Kingdom of Satan, by the preaching of the
everlasting Gospel, shall be gradually destroyed; yea, and his professed enemies
were shortly after ruined; and this Prophesie began to be fulfilled, Acts 2. when three thousand were converted by one plain Sermon of Peter. Thus in effect is the Text opened by Piscator, Grotius, D. Hammon.
2. Secondly, He is (say you) an Advocate, Because when Christians are in great straits, and know not which way
to turn themselves, he assists them with prayer to God. But how? Not himself praying for us, but pouring on us the Spirit of Supplication,
whereby we do our selves pray unto God with sighes and groans (See Pneumatology answer to the ninth reason.) The Spirit is said to do that which [Page 283]he maketh us to do, Matth. 10.20. The Spirit of your Father speaketh in you; which is thus expounded Luke 21.15. I wil give you a mouth and wisdom; which all your Adversaries shall not be able to
gainsay and resist; and by the Spirit we cry Abba, Father, Rom. 8.15. and which is for sense equivalent hereunto, Gods Spirit in our hearts cries, Abba, Father, Gal. 4.6. And doth not the Spirit help our infirmities in our prayers, and teach us how to pray as we ought? By the Context, the Adversary might have learned this Exposition from himself; for
as he is our Advocate, because he instructs us to plead the cause of Christ with opposing men; (this was your first reason of the Name;) so must he likewise by analogy be called
our Advocate, Because he teacheth us how to plead our cause with God, he instructeth
us how and what to pray for. This Text then is so far from weakning of the Deity of
the holy Ghost, that it strongly proves him to be the great Jehovah; for who but the
Lord God can instruct all the Disciples of Christ in all the world, and at all times
to plead the cause of Christ, and teach them in their needs what to pray?
Bidle.
Note also, That the holy Spirit is said to be sent, and that in the name of another,
yea, of a man (since not only the thing it self, but also the whole tenour of Christs
discourse intimateth that he speaks of himself as a man;) but it is absurd to say,
that the Most high God can be sent (since that is proper to inferiours and ministers;)
more absurd yet to say, that he can be sent in the name of another; but most absurd
of all to say, that he can be sent in the name of a man.
Answer.
He that is sent is inferiour to him that sends him; the Holy Ghost is sent, and by
consequent he is not God.] I answer, the Antecedent, (If it be true in matter) is particular, and then it is
Asyllogistical, for the first figure or explicate Syllogism doth alwayes require that
the Major be general, or a proper Axiome. If it be generally meant, it is false and
denyed, for sending is not alwayes a command of a Superiour over an Inferiour, but
sometimes an act of wisdom and of counsel; the Holy Ghost is sent both by the Father
and the Son with his own consent, and doth not argue their dominion over him. An equal
person by consent, may be sent by him that is equal to him, and then he that is sent
is the primary cause of his own misson, and derogates nothing from the perfection
of him [Page 284]that is sent; and how false the rule of Bidle is, that Inferiours are only sent, may (besides experience) be evinced out of Zachary, ch. 2.8. and 10.11. and 4.8, 9. and 6.12. the person that sends, and the person that
is sent, is called, The Lord of Hosts. Can the Creator be sent by the Creature? The Lord by his servant? The Lord of Hosts
by a man? And although simply it is no absurdity to say, that God being equal to
his Son and the Holy Ghost, might in that respect be sent by them; yet in that Scripture
it is said, the Son is sent by the Father, and the Holy Ghost is sent by God; yet
[...]t is never said, that the first person is sent; and to say so, is to depart from the
pattern of wholsom words; and its also against the decorum, That the Son should send his Father who begot him, or the Holy Ghost who proceeds
from him. The Equality or Identity of the Essence and Persons, takes not away the
original of the Persons, and the order agreeable thereunto. Non repugnat Patri, ut Pater, quà est aequalis Filio & Spiritui Sancto, mit [...]atur; repugnat tamen ordinatissimae ipsorum habitudini & emanationi, & naturalissimo
ipsorum ordini.
Nor doth the Son of God, as he was the Son of man, send the Holy Ghost, though the
person which was the son of man sent him; but as God he promised, and as he was our
Mediatour he merited for us, that God the Father in his Name should send the Holy
Ghost, without whose inward teaching of the heart, all outward preaching would be
ineffectual. Nor is the sending of the Holy Ghost to be understood in regard of his
person simply, but in regard of his Gifts and graces, whether they be common, Hebr. 6.4. as the gift of Miracles, which is consequential to faith, either saving or unsound,
common illumination, and such like: or such as belong to the Elect, whether it be
by giving the first grace, making way into our hearts, or opening the door as it were,
that he may come in and dwell with us in an eminent manner, being our Guide and Sanctifier;
and to possesse us for Christ, and to secure his interest in us, helping us in duties
and against temptations, and making us to strive against our own corruptions. The
Holy Ghost sent to his, changeth not place; he is every where present, and cannot
be in any place where he was not before; but this sending imports a new manifestation
of his presence by some gracious operation (I speak in a large sense) in them to whom
hee is sent, and with whom hee was alwayes essentially present. [Page 285]See my Answer to Bidle's sixth Argument against the Holy Ghost.
Bidle.
John 15.26. When the Advocate is come, whom I will send you from the Father, even the
Spirit of truth, that proceedeth (or, goeth out) from the Father, he shall testifie of me. This description of the Holy Ghost; namely, that he proceedeth from the Father, serveth
to shew both the reason of our Saviours former words, wherein he had said, that he
would send the Holy Spirit from the Father, and also that the Holy Spirit is of much
intimate admission with the Father, and as I may so say, Legatus à latere. And indeed, were not men blinded with Romish tradition, they would never draw such
a monstrous conclusion from these words, as they are wont to do; namely, because
he is here said to proceed from the Father, that therefore he receiveth the divine
Essence, and consequently is God by eternal procession from the Father; (for, as for
his procession from the Son, though that be rife in their mouths, yet doth not the
Scriptures make mention of it any where) which essential and eternal procession is
not only in it selfe absurd, but hath also no good footing in the Text (nor pretendeth
to have footing in any other) and is therefore to be rejected as a bold and senselesse
figment of mens brains.
Answer.
It is a usual trick of Adversaries, to make the beautiful face of truth, if possibly
they can, to appear deformed, to stamp upon it the odious name of Popery: but they
do too much honour Popery, which do say, the Holy Spirits processi [...]n from God the Father, and God the Son, is a Romish tradition; for this is for certain
more ancient then Popery it self; and we blesse God, that this divine mystery was
not corrupted (as many other points of faith have been) by that adulterous and corrupt
Church: we do not, nor ought we in duty depart from Romanists, when they do not depart
from the truth of the Gospel.
Touching the procession of the Holy Ghost from God the Father and God the Son (not
to insist on the proof of that which is elsewhere fully demonstrated) we must not
forget to abandon all thoughts of any corporal procession, ad extra; or spiritual procession in created ministerial substances, which are called Metaphysical.
Such processions are apparantly no persons, nor are they the very substance of Spirits:
for they are, as the Learned speak, [Page 286]Immanent, and for the most part voluntary acts; but here we do mean a Metaphysical
or divine procession; in this notion, that person which proceeds is a distinct person
from the first and second of the holy Trinity, and subsists by himself.
The Son of God doth likewise proceed from the Father, but with difference from the
procession of the Holy Ghost.
1 For in regard of the principle, as the Learned speak, the Son of God proceeds from
his Father only; but the Holy Ghost proceeds both from the Father and the Son of God.
And
2 In regard of the manner of procession, the Son proceeds from his Father by eternal
generation; but the Holy Ghost proceeds not from the Father (as for distinction divines
do speak) by way of generation, but procession.
3 In regard of order, the Son (if I may so speak) proceeds immediately and only from
the Father; hence it is that the Son is the second person of the sacred Trinity in
regard of order; the Holy Ghost so proceeds from the Father and Son of God, that he
is in order the third person of the holy Trinity.
And what though in Scripture it be not said in so many terms, that the Holy Ghost
proceedes from the Son of God; yet is this divine truth sufficiently and soundly collected
from Gods word; yea, even from this very Text, because it is avouched he proceeds
from the Father; now this cannot be meant of him, as he is formally Father, for then
the Spirit of God should be called the Son of God; but from the Father as he is a
person hath the same divine Essence with his Son, and consequently he proceeds from
the Son also: and this is more clearly proved from those Texts where he is called
the Spirit of the Son, Rom. 8.9. Gal. 4.6. and where he is said to be sent by the Son from the Father, Joh. 15.26. and to be given by him, Joh. 20.22.
I know there hath been a hot contention betwixt the Greek and Latine Church touching
this point, whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son? Yet both sides do agree
First, That the Holy Ghost is the most high God, against the Macedonian Hereticks.
Secondly, They do acknowledg also against the Sabellians that he is, by opposite relations,
a distinct person from the Father and from the Son of God.
Thirdly, That he is coessential and coequal with God the Father and God the Son.
Fourthly, The Grecians do acknowledg that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son,
and that he is from the Father by the Son; so that as the Grecians do expound themselves,
the point of difference is not (as I conceive) fundamental; neither is it magni momenti, of any great moment, had not the chiefe Agents in this question been imbittered
one against another by the spirit of ambition, saith Peter Martyr: and it is a disagreement rather in words then in sense, saith the Master of the Sentences,
Lombard. l. 1. qu. 11. c. 4 Touching this point, I have more amply written in answer to a Jesuite, lib. 1. to p. 202, 203. It was a rash censure of Bellarmine, lib. 2. de Christo, cap. 30. to say that Constantinople the Imperial City of that Greek Empire was taken by the Turks in the year of our
Lord, 1452. on the Feast of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, to manifest thereby their
Error against the Holy Ghost. I say, that those Christians were ruined at that time,
and are now justly in thraldome for their sins; but this great evil might befal them
as well for their impious lives and base Idolatry, as for their error in this point.
And it is more then probable, if we respect the Judgment in it self considered, that
God raised up the Turks as a corporal plague to punish spiritual Idolaters, Rev. 9.20.
This wretched man blasphemes the Holy Ghost, saying, that his proc [...]ssion is absurd, as we hold it, and a senselesse figment. The truth of whose infinite person hath been cleerly proved, and his falacies detected
in a set Treatise. We do not admit reason, as now it is by the fall of Adam corrupted, to be the supreme Judge of these deep mysteries; but we do assert, that
it is intolerable presumption, without the word to pry into these secrets touching
the Almighty God; and like the stedfast looking on the glorious Sun, the more you
gaze on it, the more dazled are your eyes. As Saint Basil speaks on 1 John 1. a breaking through the bounds which God hath fixed, and approaching too neer to
the Mount of Gods secrets. There are many things demonstrated most effectually, and
yet the manner is so obscure, that the contrary objections can hardly be answered;
as the first original of occult qualities, the union and communion of the reasonable
soul with the body, of the divisibility of quantity in infinitum; and as Besterfeld against Crellius hath avouched, we do believe the unity and distinction of the divine perfection
in God more congruously, then the Adversaries can imagine to do by their opinion;
for verily the unity of Essence is [Page 288]greater then the unity of that which is compounded of a subject and accidents: there
is a greater essential unity of three, then a conjunction of many absolute things
together; a more perfect distinction of three relations, then of ten absolute things:
if it stands not with the divine perfection, that there are three persons in God,
whereof every one of them is the divine Essence, and are so perfectly related one
to another, that one of them can neither be, nor be perfectly known without the other;
how is it then opposite to the divine perfection, that there are many Attributes
in God, and none of them can be the divine Essence; and which are so distinguished
one from another, that their essence is diverse, and one after another, and one sometimes
without the other, yea, one of them cannot subsist with the other, as they do dispute
of Gods Justice and Mercy?
Bidle.
Observe, That it is not here said of the Holy Spirit, [...], he proceedeth out of the Father; (yet essential procession could not have been solidly
inferred thence) for [...] being spoken [...]f a person, is wont to be understood of a local procession. See John 8.42. Acts 15.24. 1 John 2.19. But [...], being spoken of a person, every Puny in the Greek can tell, signifieth his going
from ones house or presence, and so intimates only a local procession; which made Beza in his Annotations upon this place ingenuously confess that this description concerneth
not the Essence of the Holy Spirit; this place then quite overthroweth the supposed
Deity of the holy Ghost, since if he were God, he could not locally proceed from any
one, in as much as he would then not only be in another mansion, but also change place:
whereas God cannot be in any Mansion that is not his own, neither doth he shift place.
Answer.
In the holy Text, [...] is twice repeated, once in reference to the mission of the Holy Ghost, which is
both from the Father and the Son, as being one in nature, and supposeth the Deity
of the Son, in that he sends the Holy Ghost. Can the Creator be sent by the creature?
This is spoken to the comfort of the Disciples, that the Holy Ghost should be sent
to them: this is called a temporal procession or mission, He shall testifie of me when he comes (to you,) outwardly, by signes and miracles, and by his instruction and assistance of Preachers;
and inwardly, really convincing [Page 289]the hearts of the Elect, that Christ is God, and the Saviour of the world, and the
works of saving grace hath been alwayes the fruit of the holy Spirit from the beginning;
and more eminently will he act thus in his office in all the Elect, and in all places
to the end of the world. And doth not this sufficiently prove that he is the most
high God? and that the second Person of the sacred Trinity must be God also? for who
but an Infinite person can send an Infinite Person?
Secondly, And with difference from the former, he is said [...], to proceed from the Father. Now in these words, by general consent, the eternal and essential procession of the
blessed Spirit From the Father is confirmed. This is a Superlative comfort to persecuted
Christians, that not a created Spirit gives testimony of the Son, but he doth it which
proceeds out of the substance of his Father, who hath the divine Essence, and all
the essential properties communicated to him, who must needs be a witnesse without
exception; He is [...], Emanatio Dei, as Allenagoras speaks: [...], as the beame from the Sun, as light from fire, saith Justin Martyr. And I am confirmed in this exposition, because there is a description of the person
to be sent, and it is said of him in the holy Text [...], in the Present Tense, He doth proceed. 'Tis an eternal Immanent act (as it were;) so that when he was not sent from heaven,
yet then and alwayes did he proceed from the Father: These high mysteries are far
above us, and it is a far lesse impropriety to say, that the Firmament is a Nutshel,
or the Sun is a Glow-worm, or to denominate the reason of man, from the apprehension
of a flye or worm, then we to say, we can perfectly understand these mysteries; for
there is some likenesse betwixt these, but betwixt finite and infinite there is no
proportion, saith Mr. Baxter against Mr. Kendal. We must say, God knoweth, and he must say to us; for else man could not hear or speak
of God, if God condescended not to the language and capacity of men.
Beza was a famous servant of God, and a gre [...]t instrument of the Churches good, and such was no doubt his piety and modesty, that
he had a mind prepared and ready to yeeld to the truth, if it had been in this particular
revealed to him; but his single testimony can be no prejudice to the sounder and common
opinion of the Learned; yet doth that Worthy, notwithstanding his failing in [Page 290]the Exposition of that Text (in which kind the most able and orthodoxal may dissent)
in the main agree with the Orthodox touching the Deity and Ubiquity of the Holy Ghost.
Your arguing from earthly persons to the divine, is not safe, and sometimes destroyes
the faith; for every thing in this matter is superlative; and one is bold to say,
that not one of the names that we attribute to God hath a notion which hath in God
a formal object; nor do you say properly, that the Holy Ghost goeth; for what can
go that hath not feet? The blessed Spirit is an incorporeal substance; Might not
you prove by this reasoning, that God hath head, feet, eyes, a soul, a heart, because
Scriptures do in a far fetch'd metaphor ascribe these parts to the Invisible, Infinite
Spirit, and so infect the minds of men with anthropopophical conceits of the Great
God? In these words is involved a double blasphemy; the one is against God the Father,
as though the blessed Spirit by his procession from the Father, went from the essential
presence of the most high God, and so it would follow that he is not every where present;
and when he confines God to a certain place, saith, that yet he shifts not place;
This must needs argue weakness in him, being supposed to be finite, not to be able
to move from place to place. The other Blasphemy is against God the Holy Ghost, inferring
unworthily from the propriety of the word in Greek, which is not to be urged in these
divine mysteries, that the Holy Ghost by this procession and mission is locally and
essentially present where the Father is not present; for he was not so sent from
heaven, but only touching the manifestation of his presence by some rare works, as
not being at that instant in heaven, 1 John 5.7.
Bidle.
John 16.7, 8. The Spirit of truth when he is come shall lead you into all truth (namely, of those things which Christ had yet to say to them) for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak.
(Which words clearly intimate, that the Holy Ghost would not lead the Disciples into
the truth of all those things that Christ had yet to say unto them, unlesse they were
first disclosed to the Spirit himselfe by Christ.) And he shall shew you things to come; he shall glorifie me, for he shall receive
of mine, and shew it to you.
Answer.
The first part is thus answered, The Spirit will lead you into all truth; not simply into all Moral, Philosophycal and Logical Truths; but in [...]o all truths which Christ had yet to say to them, v. 12. This is true, and is more fully explicated into all Truths which were necessary
for their condition and salvation, which also they had not heard from Christ, or which
they understood not, o [...] had forgotten, especially touching the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law, conversion
of the Gentiles, and plantation of Ch [...]stian Churches.
Whereas you interpret these words, Whatsoever he shall hear, shall be speak;] therefore till Christ revealed them, the
Holy Ghost was ignorant of them. This is an abhorred Inference, and a sory requital so [...]r Gods condescension to man: Thus, because Gods Son became the son of man, Socinians
would dispute him out of his Godhead; and thus do unthankful wretches deal with the
Holy Ghost for his condescension to our weak capacities, and do expound it properly,
which is improperly spoken; for the Spirit is Omniscient, and was alwayes every where;
the Spirit speaketh not of himself; it shall be no private Doctrine which he shall
reveal to you, but what he heareth, that he speaketh; they are no private Doctrines
of his own which he shall reveal to you, but that which he heareth of the Father,
that which the Prophets fore: old, and that which Christ wrought for us, those things
the Spirit shall teach you. This phrase notes an order, but no inequality betwixt
the divine Persons; as the Holy Ghost is not of himself in regard of his person, but
from the Father and the Son, so doth he act from them both; and the phrase imports
the consent that was betwixt the first and third Person, as if Christ had said, the
Father shall not teach one Doctrine, and the Holy Ghost another, but both shall agree.
(See my Defence of the Deity of the Holy Ghost. pag. 44.45.) In a word, the Holy Ghost doth not know these Truths by revelation, for he
hath perfect knowledge of all things alwayes; not by learning, but by proceeding,
because the Father and the Son communicating the divine essence to the Holy Ghost,
did communicate life, power, knowledg, and all the essential properties. I will acquaint
the Reader with Learned Bisterfelds Exposition; Here, by a Metonymical Metaphor is to know those things that are pleasing
to others.
He shall take of mine.] Christ hereby excludes not the Father, he doth not intend to impropriate any thing
to himselfe, nor will the Holy Ghost bring any new Doctrine to you or others; he wil
not set up a new kingdom, but establish mine, and glorifie me, that is, by you and
Believers; for the workings of the Spirit in you, and his applying of my Righteousnesse,
Wisdom and Holinesse to you, are to this end, that you may glorifie me, that my Doctrine
and Kingdom may be established, and that I may be acknowledged to be the natural
Son of God, the true God; for the scope of the Holy Ghosts conferring extraordinary
gifts to the Apostles, was that Christ might be owned by others, both by their Preaching
and Miracles, to be (as in truth he was with his Father before the Creation) the natural
Son of God, and that both Jews and Gentiles, by the powerful work of the Spirit, might
be under him as the head of the Church: and ver. 15. All things that the Father hath are mine; the same Deity, Power, Goodnesse, and Majesty belong to the Father and the Son; the
Father hath them, and I have them. See Pneumatol. p. 54.
Bidle.
This thing doth set forth the transcendent glory of Christ; whereas on earth he was
wont in many things to be taught by the Spirit, Isai. 11.1, 2. yet after his exaltation, he not only sends the Holy Spirit, but gives him instructions
concerning what he was to make knowne to the Disciples; this was fulfilled in the
three first chapters of the Revelati [...] ons, for he that there speaketh to John is not Jesus Christ himself, for chap. 1. ver. 1. the Revelation is by sending on Angel; and ver. 13. it is said, John saw one like the Son of man; then he was not the Son of man himself: who this Angel was, may easily be gathered
from the Epiphonema or accl [...]mation put at the close of every Epistle, directed to the seven Asian Churches, where
the Angel having spoken before in the person of Christ, now speaketh in his own person, Let him that hath an ear to hear, hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches; thereby sufficiently giving us to understand, that he was the Holy Spirit, who being
appointed by Christ to guide and instruct his people, ought to be hearkned to.
Answer.
That the Adversary contradicts himself, these words compared with those in pag, 39. hath been already observed.
Christ in his humane nature whiles he was on earth, had the fulnesse [Page 293]of grace, the gifts of the Spirit plentifully bestowed on him, but not on his person,
and the Deity his better part; nor did our Saviour after his Exaltation instruct the
Holy Ghost, who was ever Omniscient, Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his Counsellor, who hath taught
him? Isai. 40.13. But Christs sending him, implies not any Superiority over him, as his
Lord; but an order in the principle of original, and an order of working agreeable
to the order of subsisting.
It is not doubted, that Jesus Christ, God Man, the Mediator betwixt God and man, is
Head over all created Angels; and it is a part of his Royalty, to imploy what Creatures
he pleaseth to make use of, even a created Angel, as is clear from the Text Revel. 1. in the affairs of his people purchased by his blood; and it is their great honour
to be serviceable to so mighty a Lord.
To what end you cite ver. 13. of the first Chapter is not specified; if to signifie the Angel mentioned ver. 1. was meant thereby, what is this else but to illustrate a clear Text by an obscure
one, as to the point of an Angel? nor is there the least probability of that bold
assertion: but by the Context it will appear, if we consider what went before, and
what followes after, that it can be interpreted of no other person but of Jesus Christ.
As for your consequence, He was like the Son of man, therefore he was not the Son of man, is justly denyed, for likenesse is more then once in Scripture put for Identity.
You might have learned from Mr. Brightman, who is afterwards alledged as one of your witnesses, what is the reason of that manner
of speech: He is said to be like the Son of man, not because he was not the Son of
man himself; but because he appeared in Vision to Saint John, not in that form which he took of the blessed Virgin, and in which he being full
of glory sits at the right hand of his Father; and this may be the reason, why Articles
are not prefixed, as is usually done in other places, as Beza hath observed; but he appeared in a form which suited to the condition of the Church
of Christ, as it was in those dayes. The like was signified to Moses when he saw a Bush on fire and not consumed, Exod. 3. and Zach. 1.8. A man in vision (Christ) was seene in the night amongst the Myrtle Trees (the
Saints which do flourish and are a sweet favour to God) that are in the bottom; signifying
thereby the low and persecuted estate of the Church: so [Page 294]when the Spouse of Christ is in a better condition, and countenanced by many chief
Rulers, Christ had many Crowns on his head, Rev. 19.11, 12.
That by the Spirit is meant the third Person of the Holy Trinity, in the Acclamation
at the end of every one of the seven Epistles, Let him that hath an ear, hear (and lay it to his heart) what the Spirit saith unto the Churches. This in the general is true without contradiction; but that this holy Spirit should
be understood to be the Angel mentioned chap. 1. v. 1. is spoken without Authority of the Scripture, and (as I conceive) without the
suffrage of any approved Author; yea, it is utterly to be rejected as an audacious
figment of a seducing spirit: And that the holy Text, is to be understood of an
uncreated spirit, may be collected, chap. 2. v. 7. partly, because if the Angel spoken of chap. 1, v. 1. had been intended, chap. 2. v 7. the Text would have run thus, to prevent mistakes, and ambiguities, He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear what the Angel (not what the Spirit, [...], and that with an Article prefixed) saith to the Churches: partly; because of the unlikelihood of the Adversaries exposition, for he cannot
shew one Text in all the Bible, where the Holy Ghost is called an Angel; not will
that Interpretation stand with the Texts if they be compared together; for the Angel
sent by Jesus Christ was to shew this revelation immediately to his servant John, and not to the Churches, or Angels of the Churches, as the holy Spirit doth in these
Epistles, and therefore that Angel and the holy Spirit are not one and the same individual
person.
Bidle.
Ephes. 4.5, 6. 1 Corinth. 12 4, 5. God as the primary Authour worketh all in all; the Son as the secondary Efficient,
and the Holy Ghost as an Instrument. These two passages are abundantly sufficient
to confute the vulgar opinion of the Deity of the Holy Ghost, in that he is distinguished
from that one God, and that one Lord of the Christians. Hence doth Tertullian Praescrip. advers. haeret. cap. 28. truly and appositely call him, Patris Villicum, Christi Vicarium; and he, as a wise and faithful Steward distributes the gifts there named for the confirmation
of the Gospel. See also Heb. 2.3, 4.
Answer.
These Scriptures have been abundantly spoken to formerly, and your Inference from
thence confuted. Is it agreeable to the nature [Page 295]of an Instrument to bestow spiritual gifts, as he will himself? 1 Cor. 12. Can there be any thing more appositely spoken of the first and principal cause?
Tertullian is in the Catalogue of Fathers alledged afterwards, and he acknowledged and professed
the truth of the Deity, both of Gods Son, and of the Holy Ghost, as shall be proved;
yet is not the improety of his phrase denied, nor can be justly urged against us:
He is called Villicus, or Dispenser of the gifts of the Father, as a coessential Person with him; and this
is intimated, John 14.26. and 15.26. and 16.13, 14 as sent by Christ; and as Grotius saith, the Pation of the cause of Christians, on 16 Joh. 12.
Bidle.
If the Holy Spirit be neither that one God, nor that one Lord of Christians, but a
ministring Spirit, it is palpably evident from hence, That the Trinity which the holy
Apostle believed, consisted of one God, of one Lord, and of one Spirit; but not of
three persons in one God, otherwise God himself will be one of the three Persons in
God, which is absurd.
Answer.
It is very true, The holy Trinity consists of one God, one Lord, and one Spirit in
a Catholick sense; and that the Holy Ghost is distinguished, as in the Text, from
that one God and one Lord, and the Adversary hath no reason to conceive that we do
confound the persons; yet is his Inference denied, and can never be proved; He is
distinguished from God, therefore saith he, He is not God: The Adversary would alwayes
get some advantage from the homonymie of the word, God, but it will not, nor may it be allowed him; for God is not taken in those recited
Scriptures essentially and absolutely; that is, for that one God which createth and
ruleth all things, for the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; but God is taken secundum quid, in a restrained sense; I mean, for God the Father, as is implicitely signified by
the Context, which the Adversary neither can nor will deny. It is a Paralogism to
argue from the signification of a word restrained, to an exclusion of all others from
the common signification of the word, God. I grant, That God simply and absolutely taken is none of the sacred Persons, which
would destroy Trinity, and raise up a beliefe of quaternity; yet God as here, being
taken for the Father, is undoubtedly one of the Persons of the Holy Trinity; for so
it is modus substantialis, & [Page 296]Entitativus. It implies the divine Essence, and a peculiar manner of subsistence, which are necessarily
required to personality; and consequently the divine Nature, as simply such, is not
a person; and this is the very Doctrine of the rule of faith, which we are not ashamed
to defend with our blood and dearest lives, sith it so neerly concernes the glory
of God, and the salvation of men.
Bidle.
1 Cor. 2 10.11. God hath revealed them by the Spirit (Mark how the Spirit is not only distinguished from God, but also the Instrument
whereby he revealeth the mysteries of the Gospel; for Gods Spirit searcheth all things,
(pertaining to the salvation of men.)
Answer.
Still Mr. Bidle is like himself in making use of an equivocal term; God is here also in this Scripture
taken for the first Person, and we do religiously and unanimously avouch that the
Spirit of God is distinguished from God the Father; but your next assertion, that
the Spirit is an Instrument, (if you take an Instrument in the proper notion) we
do peremptorily deny. Your only ground is, Because he reveals the Gospel by the Spirit:
an infallible witnesse; sometimes I confesse the Particle [...], by, denotes an Instrument under a principal cause. The Israelites came out of Egypt by Moses, Hebr. 3.10. God led the Israelites through the wildernesse by the hand of Moses. And thus (as most Divines do speak) we are justified by faith. Sometimes it signifies
a necessary condition to obtain an end, as to enter into heaven through afflictions,
Hebr. 2.10. and again, We must through many afflictions enter into the Kingdom of God, Act. 14.22. sometimes it implies Authority: the words of men many times will not
be taken as infallible, and to end their controversies they swear by him that is
greater then themselves; yea, & God swears by himself. And sometimes it signifies
the efficient cause by it self, Act. 17.28. By God we live, and move, and have our being: And Rom. 11.36. God is said to make all things by his Son, & to reveal the Gospel by his Spirit; not as by an Instrument, as the Axe is to the Carpenter, but as a Coessential and
Coeternal Efficient with himself: in the Indivisible Deity there is an order observed,
the first person is in order first; thus doth a man understand by his reason; and
writes by his hand: had the Adversary reduced his reason into a Syllogism, the fallacie
would soon appear.
Whosoever worketh by another, that other is an Instrument to the chief Worker. This Major Proposition being general, is false; but if it had been thus framed,
Some person that worketh by another, useth that other as an Instrument. This Major
is true in matter, yet being particular in the first figure is Assyllogistical, and
against the rules of Logick; nay, by this reason we may prove that God the Father
is an Instrument, for some things are said to be done by him, as I have formerly
proved.
Bidle.
Who knoweth the things of man, save the spirit of man that is within him? even so
the things of God none knoweth but the Spitit of God, (he adds not as before, that is in him.) When the Apostle saith, That none knoweth the things of God but the Spirit of God, the exclusive Particle [none,] is put to exclude some persons, they must of necessity either be Humane, Angelical
or Divine; not humane persons, for then the Holy Ghost will be in the number of men,
since that only is excepted, which is otherwise comprehended under the general name,
and which if it had not been expresly excepted, would have been thought to be included:
not divine Persons, for then the second Person, as is commonly held, will be excluded,
which overturneth the supposition of the Adversary touching the three Persons of
God; it remaineth then that only all Angelical persons are excluded, and consequently
the holy Ghost is in the number of Angels, otherwise he needed not by name to be excepted.
Answer.
Mr. Bidle takes notice, I see, of the different phrases, viz. of the spirit of man which is within him, but it is not said, the Spirit of God within him: but why you have noted this, I apprehend not the reason. To passe by this weighty
consideration, that God is a most free Agent, and may speak as he pleaseth. I do apprehend
two things may be alledged; first, because of the dissimilitude betwixt the Spirit
of God and the Spirit of man; mans spirit is an essential part, constituting, perfecting
and distinguishing man from all other things; or at least a chief faculty of the reasonable
soul, which is the form of man; but neither of these two are verified of the Spirit
of God. Secondly, Because there are innumertable spirits of men, even as many spirits
as there are men, and all the rest are excluded from knowing the things of man, only
mans Spirit within [Page 298]him, knowes them very imperfectly: whereas there is but one eternal Spirit of God;
therefore these two the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of God within him, are but one
and the same individual person in all, and therefore it was not needful to add the
Spirit of God within him; yet notwithstanding it had been true, if it had been said,
The Spirit of God within him; both according to your supposition, judging him to be but a prime Creature, for
all Creatures are in God, in him we live, Acts 17. as the creating or procreating, and conserving cause of them all: and according
to the truth; for as the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, so is it
true of the Holy Ghost; he is in God the Father without separation, commixtion or
confusion, in regard of the Identity of Essence with the divine relation.
Your dis-junction doth containe a full numeration of all the parts; but your application
in your discourse to one of the kinds singly and exclusively, is not full, but lame
and imperfect: It is true, that all Angels are excepted from knowing the things of
man, unlesse it pleaseth God, as sometimes he hath done, to reveal these secrets to
them: but that men are not accepted, is very absurd to affirm, for Angels are of a
more penetrating nature then men; if Angels know them not, much lesse can men: for
certain neither men nor Angels ordinarily know them. Your Inference, that then the
Holy Ghost should be a man, hath no foundation at all, no not from your own rule,
for singular men are comprehended under the general, and [none] is a general word extensive to men, and all intellectual beings, but the Holy Spirit.
Gods own Spirit knowes deep mysteries, be they never so secret in God, even as perfectly
(yea, far more perfectly) then our Spirits do know our secrets: and therefore though
none else, (my meaning is not to exclude divine Persons) yet his Spirit can reveal
divine mysteries to us; and this argues infallibly his Divinity, and that he is not
a created Person; See Pneumatol. p. 90.
Bidle.
The reason why the Holy Ghost is in the Scripture sometimes exempted out of the appellation
of Angels, is because of his intimacie with God, and eminency above all the rest of
the heavenly Host. Thus Peter is segregated from the Apostles, because he had the preheminence among them, 1 Cor. 9.5. And Saul is distinguished from the enemies of David, not because he was none of them, but in that he was the [Page 299]chief of them, Psal. 18.1. And upon the same account Christ Jesus is sometimes in the Scripture distinguished
from men. See Gal. 1.12. Heb. 7.28.
Answer.
That God giveth more eminent gifts to some, then he doth to others, and that he more
familiarly revealed himself to Moses then to all the Israelites, is no question at all; nor that such men exalted above
their brethren, and higher then the rest of them, as Saul was from the shoulders upward by a kind of excellency, may be segregated, and that
by a usual Trope from all others of the same kind; as to say, the Poet, meaning Homer or Virgil; the Oratour, meaning Cicero; the divine Apostle, meaning John; the Doctour of the Gentiles, meaning Paul; is not to be doubted of. I do not deny that God hath used in former ages, and now
doth also make use of the Ministry of his holy Angels to convey the knowledge of
his will to his servants, which sometimes is known to men themselves, Deut. 8.19. and 9.21. and 10.14. and to many others recorded in the Scriptures; and sometimes
this Ministry is secret and unknown; for these ministring Spirits have their hands
under their wings, and do work invisibly both in Civil and Ecclesiastical affairs,
Ezek. 1.8. But that the Holy Ghost is a created substance, and called at any time in any
Text of the holy Scriptures, a holy Angel, is utterly denyed, nor could the Adversary
with all his curious search find out any more then one poor proof hereof; & that is
in the first and second Chapters of the Revelation compared together, which yet is
improbable, and further from the truth then the mention of the Angel in the first
Chapter is distant from that of the Spirit in the second.
The examples then which you have brought in as Parallels are not like these under
debate, 1 Cor. 9.5. Peter had no Prerogative in that matter in hand; so that the naming of Peter the chief Apostle, the other Apostles are not excluded, nor had he in carrying about
a Sister any priviledg above them in the second place. The test were Davids enemies from whom he was delivered, as well, though not so great enemies as Saul. But neither is the Holy Spirit an Angel, nor do those Spirits ordinarily know the
secrets of man. Nor is it any marvel that our Saviour was segregated from men, not
only because he was more eminent as he was man then other men, but because he was
more then a man, even the [Page 300]Son of God, who gave Commission to Paul to preach the Gospel.
These things being urged by Bidle, supposing the Holy Ghost to be a person, he doth well maintain in the general the
common opinion of the personality of the Holy Ghost, and he foundly confutes some
mistaking Socinians, which do deny this truth and do believe him to be the divine
power and efficacy. Thus are these Hereticks, like the Babylonian Builders, confounded by their jarring Languages.
After the Adversary had sufficiently confuted his brethren in almost five pages, both
to prove the personality of the Holy Ghost, and to refute objections against that
truth, in the close of all he speaks of the peculiar priviledges and operations of
the Holy Ghost. I will not meddle with what is not controverted, but passe all over
in silence.
Bidle.
Let no man be offended, whilst I intimate the Holy Spirit to be an Angel, for though
he were not expresly so called in the Scriptures (as I verily believe he is, though
the places are not such as to be altogether free from cavil) yet the thing it self
is beyond all exception ascribed to him. For demonstration hereof, the word Angel originally Greek, and the Hebrew Maleac answering thereunto, signifieth any Messenger whatsoever; but it is in Scripture
oftentimes appropriated to signifie a Spirit or Heavenly Messenger; in both which
respects the Holy Spirit is an Angel, being not only a Messenger, but a spiritual
Messenger sent out of Heaven, as Peter testifieth, 1 Pet. 1.12.
Answer.
The Holy Spirit is never called in the New Testament an Angel, nor Maleach in the Hebrew, and your confident perswasion without proof, that he is so called,
is no better then the Melancholists, who thought and said, that every ship which sailed
into the Haven was his own.
Every Angel, according to the signification of the Name, is a Messenger; but reciprocally,
every one that is sent, is not in truth, nor is called an Angel, or to speak properly
a Messenger; and he that can extract this out of Saint Peter, he must needs be an excellent Chymist, and may safely undertake to draw water out
of a Pumice stone. The Lord would have the Prophets know that [Page 301]they were employed about such divine Prophesies which were not to be fulfilled in
their dayes, but that they should hereby do service to the Evangelical Churches;
and he sheweth that as the Holy Ghost dictated these to the Prophets: so also that
the same Spirit of Christ works wonderfully first and principally in the Apostles,
and then in all faithful Ministers in the power of the Gospel: and that the Holy Ghosts
mission imports not a servile subjection or any local motion from heaven, but some
notable effect or signe of his presence, hath been demonstrated; and he is so far
from being called an Angel or a creature Messenger, that he is manifestly distinguished
from such a one. The Spirit reveals, and Angels desire to pry into those truths: the
truths of the Gospel are such excellent mysteries, that the holy Angels with wonderful
purity and singular exactnesse do desire to look into them, being in a readinesse
to do any service for the Church; (an allusion (as is thought) to the Cherubims above
the Ark in the Sanctuary;) the Angels look on the affairs of the Church, as the Cherubims
did look on the Ark, stretching out their wings, being in a posture fit to succour
Gods people: and that which they most wonder at, is the marvellous favour of God
in the mediation of Jesus Christ, reconciling God to man, justly displeased with him
for the breach of his Lawes.
As for the operations peculiarly belonging to the Holy Ghost, which are reckoned up
by Mr. Bidle, they are very suitable to such a holy and eternal Spirit, which we contend for, but
altogether inconsistent with a created Spirit.
Thus have I held forth in brief an Antidote also against the poison of this sixth
Article: And so I have by the help of God finished my Answer both to his Preface
and to all his Articles. There remaineth a rejoynder to be made to his Additions to
the twelfth Article, and to his Answer to the Ubiquity of the Holy Ghost.
Bidle.
Rom. 8.26. The Spirit makes Intercession, that is, prayes apart for us. This Text with that in John 16.13. hath quite non-plussed, not only modern Authors, but the Fathers themselves, by saying,
that this is improperly spoken of the Holy Gh [...]st.
Answer.
Here is nothing new for matter, but what hath been abundantly (I think) answered
by me both in the Defence of the Deity of the Holy Ghost, and in this Treatise touching the Text, John 16.13. but I take liberty to mention it once more, because the manner of speech is
singularly vaine, in that the Adversary looks upon these two Texts as his terrible
Goliah, which makes all the Host of Israel to tremble; but you cannot, I believe, name one Captain which hath gone into the
field to encounter with the Socinians, but hath made it good, that these Texts are
vainly produced, and that they do not make any thing against us. As for your reason,
because we say Texts are improperly taken, it is lighter then vanity it self: for
if all things which are spoken of God in Scripture must be litterally and properly
taken, and you will plead that they ought to be taken according to the sound of the
words, and from thence draw us a Systeme of Divinity; without doubt it will be a monstrous
one. This will justifie the Egyptian Monks, which were Anthropomorphiles, and hold that God was a bodily substance, and had humane members, because the Scripture
saith, God made man in his own Image; and because it is said, that God hath a heart, head, face, eyes, hands and other
humane members: thus to ground on the letter of the Scripture, is to ground on that
letter which killeth: to take that properly which is to be understood tropically,
is sometimes to expose such Interpreters to scorne and laughter; as Cassian Collat. 8. cap. 3. records of some simple Monks, which when they had read those words in the Gospel,
He that takes not up the Crosse of Christ is not worthy of me; took the words literally and made themselves wooden Crosses, which they carried about
on their shoulders, not to their Edification, but to their scorn and derision.
The Holy Spirit is without doubt the Authour of prayers; the servants of the Lord
are bound to pray, and when they pray acceptably, it is by the Holy Ghost, Jude v. 20. [...], whether the prayers were ordinary, or whether they were extraordinary, as sometimes,
especially in the Primitive Church, some special servants of God had that gift conferred,
as the gift of healing & prophecy [...]ng. If they were prayers indeed, the holy Ghost was the Author and Moderator of them;
and is it consistent with the happiness of the Holy Ghost to sigh and groan? this
agrees well to the state [Page 303]of the Church Militant, not to the Triumphant. The Spirit prayes, as he sighes and
groans; he doth neither of them formally, but makes us to pray with sighes and groans.
I demand then, with what face the Adversary could say, Ours are non-plussed because they say, the Holy Ghost prayes for us improperly? when he himself is in the same verse forced to acknowledg an improper speech in sighes
and groanes attributed to the Spirit, which cannot agree to him that is perfectly
blessed?
Bidle.
Secondly, the Holy Ghost is distinguished from him that is a searcher of hearts, ver. 27. This description is only made use of to make a difference betwixt God, and the holy
Spirit; but how could this be done, when the Holy Ghost is also a searcher of hearts?
For can a description that is common, yea, alike common to twain, be set to distinguish
the one from the other? For instance, to prepare the passeover for Christ was common
to Peter with John, Luke 22.8. wherefore can a description taken from this action be fit to distinguish Peter from John? It is plain then the Holy Ghost is not a searcher of hearts.
Answer.
The Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Father in regard of Personality, not of Omniscience,
which is an essential Attribute; nor will this alledged testimonie prove what you
intend thereby: for the Spirit willeth and desireth as he prayeth; that is, he makes
us by his help to will, desire and pray. See Pneumatol. pag 90. and so it is true, that the Spirit in regard of the work wrought in his servants
is distinguished from God, and we who have the assistance of the holy Spirit, are
not the searchers of mens hearts: this is Gods Royalty. See against Bidle pag. 89.90. That Text is full, 1 Cor. 2.10. The Spirit searcheth all things, even the deep things of God, and he knoweth the things
of God. I will add but this one passage and convincing testimony touching this Subject,
Rom. 9.1. where the Apostle appeals to the Holy Ghost, whose special office and Prerogative
it is, as to plant purity and sincerity in the hearts, so to be privy to the secrets
and motions thereof. I say the truth, and protest before Christ, and in the presence
of the Holy Ghost, who is my witnesse; How could he be his witnesse, if he knew not
his heart?
Your Instance taken from two men falls to the ground, and serves not to illustrate
what you intend, because of the homonymie of the [Page 304]word, Spirit, which is not taken for the third Person simply, but for the work of the Spirit in
the Saints; and thus the Spirit is distinguished from the Father.
Bidle.
If it had been said in the Scriptures, The Spirit searcheth the hearts, it would not follow that he was God, unless he had such a faculty originally, and
of himself (for God could confer it on others, as he hath de facto on Christ, John 5.22, 27. for such judgment requireth that he be a searcher of the hearts:) If this were so,
I say, it would not follow that he is God. How clearly, how irrefragably doth it on
the contrary follow, that he is not God, but inferiour to him, in as much as he is
destitute of such a perfestion which is inseparable from the divine Nature?
Answer.
The premisses in your sense having been overthrown, the conclusion falls of it self
to the ground; surely we never would contend for the Deity of the Holy Ghost, were
we not perswaded that he is a searcher of hearts.
You tell us, If the Holy Ghost searched hearts, yet would it not follow that he was God, unlesse
he had this faculty originally of himself; but it might be conferred on him as on
Christ to know all things. These words require explication. We do not hold that God hath a facultie as men
and Angels have to search, distinguished from their spiritual substances, but the
very essence of God doth immediately and without such faculty perfectly know all things:
nor do we simply deny, that the Holy Ghost hath this faculty (as you call it) from
another, for it is solely belonging to the first Person of the sacred Trinity to be
of himself Principium sine Principio; and the Holy Ghost hath Omniscience communicated to him by eternal procession; but
your meaning is, this gift conferred on him in time by God as his Superiour. What
God may do, is one thing, and what he doth actually is another: Do you believe that
he bestowed this gift on him, or not? If not, What needed this exception? If he did,
Why do you deny it, and dispute against this his knowledg? I grant, That God may
make knowne the secrets of this or that man to any one; to a Prophet, as he discovered
to Elisha what was done in the Chamber of the King of Syria: and to Saint Peter the secrets of Ananias and Saphira his wife; yet are they not on that account said to search the hearts of men: It was
not their [Page 305]searching, but Gods revealing a few particular secrets to his servants that made them
knowne to them: And upon the Adversaries supposition it is not possible for a creature
finite in Essence and vertue to know at once all the hearts of all the men in the
world. This knowledg of God is incommunicable to any creature: the example of our
Saviour Christ is not pertinent to this businesse; the common principle of this judgment
at the last day, is the holy Trinity, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy
Ghost; the proper term of this great action by voluntary dispensation, is the Son
of God, performed by the divine Nature principally, and by the humane instrumentally
and visibly, so that it is ascribed to the humanity, not in it self, but in the person
by the grace of union.
Bidle.
Act. 5.34. Why hath Satan filled thy heart to deceive the Holy Ghost? This wil overthrow the opinion touching the Holy Ghosts Godhead; for it would be all
one, if he were God, as to say, Why hath Satan filled thy heart to deceive God, which seemeth to be blasphemy, for it importeth that God may be deceived; or else
that Satan, or at least Ananias thought so, otherwise he would not have purposed in his heart to do it, and he pretended
to have a command from the Holy Ghost to sel his farm, and lay down the price thereof
at the Apostles feet; and so was guilty of Blasphemy and covetousnesse against the
Holy Ghost in fathering that upon the Holy Ghost, which was injected into his heart
by the unclean Spirit.
Answer.
It being supposed, but not granted, that you have well translated the Original, Deceived, as it is also in the Margin of our new Translation, You argue thus:
He that may be deceived, is not God. This Proposition needs no proof.
The Holy Ghost may be deceived, as he was by Ananias.
To this I answer, by distinguishing of the third Argument or middle Term, deceived; A person is deceived either properly or improperly.
1. Properly, when there is an involuntary mistake out of ignorance. For instance,
Good men may be deceived in judging charitably that a Demas is a Saint and an honest man, when he discovers himself to be a rotten hypocrite,
a profane worldling, and a very Cheator. Or thus, when such or such a thing is promised
to be [Page 306]done by such a man, and he failes to make his word good, he that gave credit to him
was deceived by him. In this sense God to whom all things are exactly known, is never
deceived.
2. One may be deceived improperly. When some things Analogically are attributed to
God, which accompanies deceived man. Thus hope and expectation are in Scripture ascribed
to God, which do not import in him any ignorance of the events of things, and future
contingencies, but duty to be done by any in thankfulnesse and obedience answerable
to mercies received, which being not performed, Gods expectation is said to be frustrated
by them. God planted a noble Vineyard, and bestowed cost upon it, and he looked for Grapes (which were but due) but it brought forth wild grapes, Isai. 5.4. And the Lord sharply reproves Jerusalem, That whereas he had cut off the Nations for their sakes, And I said, Surely thou wilt fear me, thou wilt receive instruction; But did they not make void Gods hopes? Yes, for they rose early, and corrupted all their ways, Zephan. 3.7.
The Proposition is true in the first sense, but false in the second; so the dint of
the stroak is easily declined.
You tell us, That the Holy Ghost may be deceived, or at least Ananias thought so. This is a poor proof against the Deity of the Holy Ghost, which a Puny in Divinity
may be easily thought to answer; He thought he might deceive the Holy Ghost. What then? Ergo, He is not the High God. The Consequence is denyed, as though foolish men may not have Atheistical thoughts
of the Great God and think to keep their counsels from the Almighty, and their actions
from him, that he knoweth them not nor seeth them? The wickedness of men sheweth there
are many such Atheists in the world: Thus did this man and woman tempt the Holy Spirit,
ver. 9. This was surely finis operis, whatsoever was finis operantium. They would make a tryal whether he knew their sin, and would punish them for it.
They that think thus to deceive the Holy Ghost, shall find in the end, that the Holy
Ghost was not deceived, but that they themselves were deceived in thinking to deceive
him.
The substance of this Objection hath been at large answered in my Pneumatol. p. 3, 4, 5, 6.
[...], are the same originally spoken of the same Ananias, in the same matter by the same Apostle, in the same tract of reproof, and there concurred
many sins, lying, fraud, hypocrisie, [Page 307]and Sacriledge, and this was the principal, in robbing and depriving God of that portion
which was vowed or promised; or for saying they brought the whole for the relief of
poor Christians, part whereof they unconscionably detained: In this sense is God said
to be robbed, Mal. 3.8. in that they paid not their Tithes and Offerings. What was given for holy ends,
was really accepted by the Holy Ghost, as given to him, and laid at the Apostles feet,
as the Jewish Oblations given to God, were brought to God and presented to the Priest.
We do hence thus argue,
He to whom Ananias told a lye, or whom he tempted, is God, for it is not a lying to men only but to
God, Saint Peter tells us, that it is not unto man, but unto God; now had not the Holy Ghost been God, he would have said, you have not lyed to man,
nor to the Holy Ghost, but to God, and by consequence, either the Holy Ghost is a
man, (which is absurd,) or God; or in counterfeiting the Holy Ghost, you have not
counterfeited man, but God; nor is it likely that he pretended to have a command,
as you say he had, to sell his farme; for the Text saith, he had [...], a power of right, and a freedom of will to dispose it as he pleased, ver. 4. but his sin was aggravated hereby, that he pretended to give the whole.
Bidle.
Isaiah 6.9, 10. compared with Acts 28.29. In the one place, The Lord said; in the other, The Holy Ghost; therefore the Adversaries do conclude, The holy Spirit is the Lord, This arguing
is very frivolous; for at this rate I may conclude, that Moses is the Lord. Compare Exod. 32.11. Israelites are called, Gods people, ver. 7. God calls them the people of Moses; and Isai. 65.1. I am found of them that sought me not. Rom. 10 20. Isaiah is bold and saith. I was found of them that asked not after me; therefore, Isaiah is the Lord. God is said, by his power to save us, 2 Tim. 1.8, 9. Paul attributes the same to himself, 1 Cor. 9.22. and to Timothy, 1 Tim. 4.16. therefore Paul, yea, Timothy is God. If the Adversary saith, These things are otherwise ascribed unto the Lord
then to the men aforesaid: I answer, It is more then the Texts themselves hold forth,
which neither expresse nor intimate any such thing: If they say, That if not in these,
yet other Texts, and the nature of the thing it self d [...]th sufficiently teach it: I reply, That I can make the same Answer touching the Lord
and his holy Spirit; But it is well that there is such an intimation [Page 308]in the Texts themselves; for in the one the Lord spake to Isaiah in a vision; in the other, that the Holy Ghost spake them by Isaiah to the Fathers. These two are different, since Isaiah onely heard those words in the vision; for had the Fathers been there, why should
God bid Isaiah go and tell them to the people? Paul ascribes these words to the Holy Ghost, to intimate only that whatsoever is spoken
in the Scripture was recorded by the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and so spoken
by him.
Answer.
This kind of arguing and illustrating Texts in the old Testament, by the new, when
the parallels are right, can never be too frequently used against the Adversary,
but are alwayes of a prevailing vertue to satisfie the lovers of the Truth, and to
conquer the opposers thereof, albeit they will not acknowledge themselves to be conquered;
for it is God whose testimony is infallible, who speaks both in the old and new Testament,
as the Priest in the Tabernacle lighted one Lamp from another Numb. 8.4. Ainsw. which taught them and us also to unfold and enlighten a dark Scripture by the light
of a clearer; and it is a common saying, The Gospel is vailed in the Law, and the
Law is revealed by the Gospel.
Isai. 6.1. The Prophet saw in a Vision, The Lord sitting upon a Throne, that denotes the Kingly office of Christ; and his skirts filled the Temple, that proves his Priestly Office; this was meant of Christ, as is expounded by Saint
John, chap. 12.41. These things spake Isaiah of the blinded Jewes, when he saw the glory of Christ, and
spake of him: and he is the Lord of Hosts, ver. 5. and ver. 9.10. The Lord said to Isaiah, Ye shall see indeed, but ye shall not understand; Saint Paul expounds whom he means by Lord, Well said the Holy Ghost by Isaiah. Hence it is evident that the Holy Ghost is the Lord that sent Isaiah.
Your elusions to avoid the strength of the Argument are vaine, and your examples taken
out of the Scriptures are fallacia parium, are unlike to this in hand: sometimes an Instrument speaks in the name of the great
God that sent him. This must be your Evasion, therefore it must be so taken, Isai. 6. compared with Acts 28. this is a plain fallacy.
Exod. 32. Moses calleth the Israelites, Gods people in Covenant with him; and God calls them, the People of Moses, being under the curse of the Law, by reason of their Idolatry: and because he [Page 309]was Gods instrument to bring them out of Egypt, and to conduct them in the wildernesse; it is apparent to every one, and the Text
holds it forth, that they were otherwise Gods people, and otherwise the people of
Moses; he being a finite, distinct and separate substance from the Lord God Almighty. We
grant, That because these are different, therefore it would be absurd to infer, That
Moses is the Lord. Where is the Holy Ghost called Gods servant, or Gods Instrument?
The second place, Isai. 65.1. with Rom. 10.20. in the one place it is said, I am found of those that sought me not; so saith God in another place. Isaiah saith the same words; therefore Isaiah is the Lord. It is clear, the Lord by Isaiah foretold the conversion of the Gentiles, and that he by his grace moved them to seek
him before they looked for salvation by Christ. Saint Paul relating the same Text sheweth, that Isaiah freely spoke of the calling of the Gentiles. Who is so blind as not to see clearly,
that Isaiah used those words as Gods Messenger in the name of the Lord, and what is more usual
with the Prophets, then to use such words, to gain due respect to their words? Thus saith the Lord: This example then is not parallel to that under debate; it is not agreeable to
the Scripture language for the Holy Ghost to speak in the name of the Lord.
The third, touching Gods saving and Pauls saving is as unfit, and as far from the mark, as the former; for evident it is, that
Paul himself could not plant, except God gave the blessing, and he alwayes ascribes salvation
to God as the principal c [...]u [...]e thereof, and confesseth that he is but Gods Instrument, by whose Ministery he saved
much people. A Creature cannot be properly called God, nor doth any other Scripture,
or the nature of the thing it self teach any such thing; nor doth the new Testament,
unlesse by quoting Texts out of the old shadowes being gone, use such expressions,
lest we should conceive Gods subordinate to the high God: this you grant; but you
add withal, That you can make the same answer touching the Lord and the Holy Ghost. You have the face not to blush at strange answers: What is it that you cannot write?
But if you should be pe [...]emptory in such an answer, you cannot make it good. What line in Gods Words, yea,
what probability can you produce for this parallel? It is great reason, that if a
man will forsake the common road, that he should give a [Page 310]good account of his going into by-wayes not troden by Passengers many hundred years
together; it is well that by your owne confession, the other alledged Scriptures
do clearly distinguish betwixt the principal cause and instruments; and it will be
requisite, if you look to be credited, that you demonstrate by the circumstances of
the Text, Isai. 6. or by some other convincing proof; that the holy Spirit is a created Angel, and
that he is in a proper notion Gods Ambassadour, and his instrument to inspire the
holy Prophets, to discharge their Embassie, which is a task, I know, impossible to
be performed by you.
There is (say you) an intimation in the Texts themselves; for Isalah only heard the words in a vision, and was to tell them to the people not present
with him: But Paul ascribes them to the Holy Ghost, because whatsoever was spoken in the Scripture, is
recorded by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and so spoken by him. This is then his meaning: These words were from the Lord as first delivered by him
to Isaiah; and from the Holy Ghost as they were penned in the Scripture. This is a senselesse
and a groundlesse figment, as though the Holy Ghost spoke not as well to Isaiah, in that vision to deliver his message ot the people, as to inspire him to write infallibly
what he had heard in that divine Vision. Is there any intimation of different persons
in these to be distinguished actions? And as though the Lord himself did not both?
The current of the Scripture is to this purpose without a shadow of contradiction.
Take that one place, 2 Pet. 1.20, 21. No Prophesie of Scripture is of any private interpretation. Prophets proposed
not to their Auditors their own sense, but Gods mind: for prophesie came not at any
time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost; so that they were acted by the Spirit, not only in writing, but in speaking:
Yea, those Prophets which were not Gods Penmen as Elias and Elish [...]h, yet were inspired by the Holy Ghost. Such vaine fancies as yours are Mr. Bidle, can please none but vain and unsetled heads.
Mr. Bidle spends many words to answer the grand Objection (as he rightly calleth it) to prove
the Deity of the Holy Ghost; but the substance of his evasions is sufficiently confuted
in my answer to the eighth Argument and sixth Article. It will be needless therefore
to enlarge my self on this Subject; I shall only point at some novelties and conclude.
Bidle.
1 Pet. 1, 12. Could the Spirit be sent downe from heaven, if he was then on earth, and continued
in heaven? And that his coming from heaven is properly to be taken, appeareth by the
very sight, it was in the shape of a Dove. It is not said his bodily shape descended,
but the Spirit in the shape; so that the descent did primarily agree to the Holy Ghost,
but in a secondary way, and by accident to the dove. Is it possible to descend out
of heaven, and not to change place? Or can there be any thing better then an ocular
demonstration to evince a change of place? If notwithstanding all this, it is yet
true, that the Holy Ghost doth not go from place to place; What assurance can I have,
when the Scripture saith of any one whomsoever, that he is sent, or cometh down, or
goeth out, that he moveth from place to place, and doth not abide where he was before?
Answer.
I will not enter into a dispute, whether the Spirit in himself invisible did at all
appear in any bodily form, or whether the meaning of the Text was this, that when
Christ was baptized, John saw (John 1.33.) the heaven opened, (or cleft asunder, not improperly, to note a clearer revelation of light, but properly
not only to shew that Christ was annointed with heavenly and extraordinaty gifts
to impart to his, but that heaven it self is opened for believers) and he saw the Spirit descending like a Dove, and lighting upon Christ. The Spirit descendeth as a Dove, or something resembling a Dove with the wings spread
abroad, and hovering over one, viz. Angels, the token of Gods presence. See Dr. Hammond on Matth. 3. Annotat. K. But take the ordinary meaning which is most probable, Luke 3.22. and it will not from thence follow that the Holy Ghost changed place in respect
of his essential presence. But this mission from heaven the Palace of the great King,
denotes a manifestation of the Holy Ghost, where he was not so manifested before,
or a new manner of his presence, as touching some real operation, whether he be sent
into the hearts of his children invisibly to sanctifie them, or visibly in the shape
of a Dove, or in fiery cloven tongues, which lighted on the Apostles, Act. 2. These were signes and operations of the Holy Ghost, the invisible God; no channels
to convey the Holy Ghost or his vertue to them: and that there might be no offence
taken at such expressions; the great God, as the Adversary will grant, is said to
walk in the Garden, [Page 312] Gen. 3.8. and so according to his supposition, must needs come down from heaven; yea,
and he professed that he would go down to Sodome, and see whether those Citizens had done according to the cry of it, which is come to me, Gen. 18.21. and shall we from thence infer a local change in God, and that he by relation
of Angels understood the state of Sodom, and would be more fully informed touching that report? But this is contradicted by
the Adversary himself, who confesseth that God is every where touching knowledge,
that he knowes all things; and he saith by the confession of all, God cannot shift
place, Article 6. pag. 46.47. If God then, being an infinite Being, cannot according to substance change
place, when yet in regard of some operations he is said to descend, and to be where
so he was not before; the very same do we avouch touching the holy Ghost, and that
by the instruction of the holy Scripture, Psal. 139. and yet have assurance enough, where the Scripture speaketh of an Angels descending
from heaven, that their persons then in regard of substance are where they were not
before, because they are finite substances, and not every where; but do shift their
places, though they be no where commensurativè, but definitive only.
Bidle.
The Adversaries do alledg one obscure passage against many evident Scriptures, Psal. 139. Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? for to omit that the Psalmist (as the precedent and subsequent words, yea and the
passage it self at large doth shew) intendeth only to prove the Omnipresence of God
himself, and not of his Spirit, and diverse do by Spirit understand that knowledge
or power of God, and not the holy Spirit: yet take it for granted, that by Spirit
is meant the Holy Ghost; yet do they import no more then that David could go no where, but the Spirit could be there with him, and so signifie not that
he is in all places at one time, but can be in them at several times, accordingly
as David should come into them.
Answer.
Metaphorical or borrowed expressions touching God are to be cleared by those which
more properly do belong to him, and not evident and literal, reduced to those which
are metaphorical.
The Adversary would ward off the blow reached to him by this Text, Psal. 139. First, by relating what others say, and yet he himself approves not their judgment,
and therefore he names it, but asserts it not; for if he should, then all his Arguments
to prove the Spirit of God to be a person, will come to nothing: and if in the greatest
number of Scriptures, or all other places where the Spirit of God is mentioned, a
person is to be understood, why not here also? What reason can be alledged to the
contrary? And if not in this Psalm, why in others? And if any of ours do understand
Gods properties, as some there be, I deny not, of that mind; yet even they also are
clear for the Ubiquity of the Holy Ghost, nor can Gods Power and Wisdom be any where,
where the Holy Ghost is not; and this Power and Wisdom being essential Properties,
are the Power and Wisdom of the Holy Ghost, and by consequence in their judgments,
God is taken Essentially for God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.
By the Spirit (you grant) may be meant the Holy Ghost; and then (say you) he is every where present not at once; but where David should be, there might the Spirit be. This answer is very weak and against the holy Text: for it is not said, he may be there, but he is there: and as he is with David in the East, is he not with Peter also in the West, and with other Saints also at the same time; for, Why should he
rather be essentially present with David, then with any other Saint or Creature? This Answer then is a plain and absurd corruption
of the Text.
Bidle.
Again, should it further be granted (which cannot be proved) that Davids meaning is, that he could be in no place where the Spirit was not present; yet would
not this presently argue, That he was there present in his person or substance, since
it is sufficient for the truth hereof, that he is in every place by his knowledg;
so that a man can be in no place whatsoever, but the Holy Spirit will know where he
is; this Omnipresence which I verily believe belongeth to the Holy Spirit, doth not
hinder him to go from one place to another.
Answer.
The Holy Ghost, I grant, is present every where both in regard of his Power, because
he works all in all, and in that admirable [Page 314]manner that he orders all to his glory: He is present also in regard of his knowledge,
for all things are naked to him; he sees, and he knowes all things: But the concession
of these is no prejudice to us, for he is essentially present every where, and he
is not, nor can be distant from any Creature, no more then the soul is from the parts
of the body, which it informs. You believe that God is present in regard of his All-seeing
eye: but how do you prove, that his Essence is excluded from being every where? For
as you will grant, that God is in heaven not only in regard of his Knowledge and Efficacy,
but in regard of his Essence also: (If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there, saith the Text) in the same manner is he also out of heaven in all places, and according
to his Essence also; If I make my bed in hell, behold thou art there also, &c. Since the Psalmist doth so manifestly set forth the immense Omnipresence of God,
and of his face, what ground have we to make a Divorce, as it were, betwixt his Essence
and his Knowledge, in explicating the words of the Psalmist, That he should be knowingly
and powerfully there, where he is not essentially present? Is there any appearance
by the Text, that his Nature should be separated from his Action and Power of Working?
And whatsoever you believe, yet most certain it is, that the Omnipresence of the Holy
Ghost doth not consist with local mutation and change of places.
Bidle.
The Psalmist intended no other Omnipresence of God himself, then that of Knowledg
and Power, for he saith, Thou understandest my thoughts afar off; whith implieth, That the Person or Substance of God was not upon the earth with David, otherwise he would understand Davids thoughts not afar off, but near at hand.
Answer.
It is an Argument of a wretched Blasphemer boldly to deny the Infinitie of God, and
to offer violence to a clear Text, that it might serve his own turn, he makes a local
and real separation betwixt Gods Essence and his Knowledge: Now since the Psalmist
doth evidently shew the illimited presence of God, and of his face, how dares he
say, his face is any where, where his personal presence is not? He objects, That it is not said, he knew Davids thoughts neer at hand, but afar off. An Exposition this is, both false in it self, [Page 315]and unexcusable in the Adversary, who is accustomed curiously to pry into the placing
of the words in the Original; they are not thus, Thou afar off knowest my thoughts; but, Thou knowest my thoughts afar off; (viz. from me, not from God, but) long before I conceived them: And the Context justifies this exposition, for David having confessed that he could not attain unto, or comprehend this knowledg, ver. 6. he declareth that God did not only know him in secret, viz. when he was conceived in his mothers womb, and curiously wrought and embroidered
with Arteries, Veins, Sinews, and variety of members, but they were all of them written
down, and perfectly known of God, when as yet there was none of them, ver. 16. I will say no more, for the truth of Gods Omnipresence hath been proved at large
in this Tractate.
Bidle.
Moreover the maine current of Scripture runneth that way, and plainly intimateth that
the Person or Substance of God is no where else but in heaven.
Answer.
God being essentially in heaven doth not exclude his Essential presence from other
places, who is both in heaven, and in all real and imaginable places: but he is said
most frequently to be in heaven for such considerations as these are,
First, Because as God is most glorious, so no other place is so glorious as heaven,
the highest heaven.
Secondly, Because his infinite greatnesse, his Incomprehensible sublimity and eternal
glory, his infinite Power and Goodness are more conspicuous and manifested in heaven,
then in any other places.
Thirdly, Because those heavenly Inhabitants, the holy Angels, and blessed Saints have
a greater measure of his love and goodness, and of his special blessings communicated
to them, then are conferred to any in other parts of his dominion; in this respect
the soul also is said to be in every part of the body essentially, and to informe
the meanest member, as well as the most noble; yet is it said to be in head, the brain
or the heart, in regard of more excellent operations thereof in those prime parts,
then in other members of the body.
Bidle.
As for the dwelling of the Holy Ghost in so many persons at once, he is said to dwell
in all the Saints dispersed over the world, not in his Person or Substance, for then
his person would dwell in all men alike; but this is made a peculiar priviledge of
the Saints, Rom. 8.9. but in regard of his gifts and effects (since no other dwelling can be imagined) which
is an expression frequent in the Writings of the Adversaries themselves; but they
forget it when they reason about the Deity of the Holy Ghost.
Answer.
The Holy Ghost (I grant) dwelleth in his Saints by his Gifts: He that is essentially
present with all men, is graciously present by his saving Graces, whereby a holy
person is become the Temple of the Holy Ghost. The Blessed Spirit is not said to
dwell in any which have only common Graces bestowed on them for the good of others,
for he rules not in them; and hee will dwell no where, where he governs not: but such
are said to have the Holy Ghost touching those Gifts; and because saving Graces are
not equally bestowed on all the Saints, therefore they are said to have the Holy Ghost,
but not equally. Augustin. Epist. 57. ad Dardanum. The more Holy, Charitable, Heavenly-minded any one is, the more abundantly and fully
he hath the Holy Ghost dwelling in him, as one and the self-same sound in the Aire
is more distinctly perceived by him that hath a quick hearing, then by him that hath
a dull ear. So the Holy Ghost being in himselfe Immutable and filling all things
with his natural presence, is not had at all of the wicked touching his gracious presence
(as the sound in the Aire is not perceived by deaf men) and of some men he is enjoyed
more then by others according to the degrees of holy graces bestowed on them.
Whereas you say, no other dwelling can be imagined then by his gifts, not to speak
of imaginary suppositions: The assertion in your sense is false, for you do fallaciously
divide and separate what ought to be conjoyned: for you do hereby exclude his personal
presence, whereas his essential [Page 317]presence is not to be separated from his gracious presence, but it is necessarily
presupposed, where ever he dwells as Lord and Commander. It is a strange phrase to
say, That a Prince which hath many houses adorned with rich Furniture dwels at once
in them all, as the Holy Ghost doth at the same time in all the Saints all the world
over: This Argument then is demonstrative, that the Holy Ghost is truly God. I have
now done with the Additions which have any seeming strength in them.
THE Adversary having finished the Articles of his Faith, and the supposed confirmation
of them by the Testimony of the sacred Scriptures, and his corrupt Inferences out
of those sacred Texts, in the next place he spends, and in truth mispends a great
deal of precious time in the allegation of humane Authors, the holy Fathers which
lived especially before the happy dayes of great Constantine: We have no reason to conceive that he will be more candid in representing to us the
mind of the ancient Fathers of the holy Church, then he hath been in the interpretation
of the holy Scriptures. I will briefly lay downe these three particulars, and then
I will examine his sense of the alledged Authors.
First, The holy Fathers which lived before Arius, had started that unhappy controversie touching the Son of God, might sometimes speak
lesse warily and commodiously then in exactnesse of speech can passe for currant Divinity,
for there was no Adversary to call them to an account for their harsh and irregular
phrases. As S. Austin spoke of the Fathers which were before Pelagius, Free-will was not then called into question; and Catholicks dealing earnestly against
the Manichees, (.i. Stoical Christians) sometimes were carried in fervour of Disputation to ascribe too
much; and laboring to make a crooked piece of wood strait, [...], bended it too much the contrary way, not suspecting that any would be so critical,
as to draw from them a conclusion contrary to the Catholick Faith. But the Pelagians
defended their obstinacy by Antiquity, as Prosper writeth to S. Austin, Tom. 7. ad August. pag. 1249. and they affirmed that none of the Ecclesiastical [Page 319]Writers expounded the Scriptures as Saint Austin did: This might be observed in other Doctrines of Faith: I will instance but in one
of them; the Son of God did properly assume the Nature of man, and not man which signifies
a person; but divers Fathers scruple not to say, that the Word assumed man, as Austin often; their meaning was innocent and found, but they spake improperly and not so
warily before Nestorius broached his Heresie of two Persons in Christ, as they did afterwards, saith Estius in 3. Sent. distin 5. Sect. 4.
Secondly, This wrangling Sophister doth frequently acknowledge, That the Fathers
of the Church, which are cited by him, were all of them of a contrary judgement to
him; viz. That they held, That the Son of God had a Being, before his Incarnation of the Virgin
Mary; and he is so unhappy as to maintain an opinion not owned by any in the Catholick
Church, and defended only by knowne Hereticks, which he is ashamed to name; and it
is most certain, that he cannot, nor doth he alledge one Primitive Writer for his
Tenet, but all of them are by his own confession against him; so that our Adversary
regards not to prejudice his owne cause, if he can thereby hurt his neighbours; he
is farre unlike to Arius himselfe, who gloried in an Epistle to Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, that almost all the Bishops of the East were of his judgment. Theodor. lib. 1. Histor. c. 5. those that lived in his dayes.
Thirdly, I will briefly examine all his Quotations set downe in Pomp and at large,
and where I shall be convinced that there is a cause, will confesse that some unwary
passages drop from their pens; which ingenuous dealing can bring no prejudice either
to our cause, or the holy Fathers. Hierom answers this calumny, and saith; If faults are found in Writers which flourished
before the Nicene Synod, and if before Arius as a Noon-Divel arose, they wri [...] some things lesse warily, which cannot escape the censure of perverse men, they
are to be favourably expounded, Hieron. lib. 1. Apol. contra Ruffin. I will then prove, that the same alledged Fathers held the same Faith touching the
Deity of the Son of God, which the Church of God maintaines at this day. He begins
with Irenaus.
Bidle. Irenaeus the first place.
Irenaeus lib. 2 cap. 2. adversus haereses, saith, The Church dispersed through the whole world hath received from the Apostles
and their Disciples, that faith, which is in one God the Father Almighty Maker of
heaven and earth, and in one Jesus Christ the Son of God Incarnated.—
Answer.
Irenaeus the Scholar of Polycarpus, who was the Disciple of Saint John the Evangelist, bred in the Asian Churches, and afterwards translated to Lyons in France, being neer the age of the Apostles, and venerable for Authority, is alledged eight
times.
The first place sets down the rule of Faith generally believed all the Christian world
over touching the sacred Trinity; viz. Faith in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the same order and meaning, as it
is set down in the Creed commonly called the Apostles Creed, which is well stiled
the unchangeable rule of Faith, the immoveable Basis of Christianity, and a character
to distinguish Orthodox Christians from Pagans, Jewes and Hereticks. Do we deny
any branch of this Testimony which doth much advantage our Cause, and plainly confutes
Mr. Bidle? Excellently doth Calvin, lib. 1. Institut. cap. 13. Sect. 27. answer the Antitrinitarians, alledging that the Father of Christ, is the only
and eternal God of Israel. Either it is their shamelesse ignorance or notorious improbity to heap up Scripture
Testimonies to that end; for they ought to have considered, that the holy man Irenaeus confuted Valentinus and his Disciples, which when they durst not deny Christ to be the Son of him who
created heaven and earth, they denyed the Creatour to be the Most High God; but there
was one above him, whom they called, [...], and [...] lib. 1. cap. 1. the holy Father proves there is no other God but the Creator of Heaven and Earth;
and this one God (as in the Apostles Creed) is distinguished into Father, Son and
Holy Ghost; And if the Father be called the One God, strange Gods are excluded, not
the Son and Holy Ghost, which have the same Essence with the Father.
Bidle. Iren. the second place.
The second Testimony is taken out of the same Book, cap. 19. For as much as we hold the Rule of Faith, That there is one God Almighty [Page 321]that created all things by his Word, whether Visible or Invisible: And after, God
by his Word and Spirit made all things.
Answer.
This place is directly opposite to the judgment of Mr. Bidle, and to the old Arians, and it proves the Deity of Gods Son and Spirit, because the
holy Father ascribes the Creation and Government of all things equally to the Son
and to the Father, shewing, that sith there is but one Operation; there is but one
Power, Will and Deity of God the Father and God the Son. Let us see whether he is
more happy in the next.
Bidle. Iren. the third place.
The same Father, Lib. 2. Cap. 49. saith, If any one seek out the cause why the Father communicating with the Son in
all things, is alone manifested by the Lord, to know the day and hour (of Judgment;)
he shall at present find by the only Truth speaking Master, that the Father is above
all things; For the Father (saith he) is greater then I am,—
Answer.
Both these Assertions are true, Christ knew all things, and Christ was sometimes ignorant
of the day of Judgment; but not in respect of the same Nature, but of his most different
Natures. If our cited Authour had erred (saith Feuardentius in locum) we ought to excuse him, because he wrote against the Gnosticks, which boasted,
that they knew more then the Prophets, more th [...] the Apostles, and more then Christ himself. But there is no necessity nor reason
to lay such an imputation on the Holy Father; not to insist on this answer, this knowledge
is ascribed to the Father, because the Son of God hath neither life nor Deity from
himself, but communicated to him by the Father by eternal generation. For answer,
The Father here may be taken essentially; and ignorance is ascribed to the Son, not
in regard of the Divine but humane Nature; for Christ is often called Son in reference
to the assumed Nature.
Bidle. Iren. the fourth place.
The fourth Testimony is, Lib. 3. Cap 3. In the time of this Clement a great contention arising among the Brethren which were at Corinth, he wrote a most powerful Epistle to the Corinthians,— declaying the [Page 322]tradition which they had newly received from the Apostles, which shews that there
is One God Almighty Maker of heaven and earth, declared to be the Father of our Lord
Jesus. This Epistle is ancienter then they who now teach falsely, and withal fai [...] another God above the Maker of all these things that are.
Answer.
This Clemens, (which saw the Apostles, and is reckoned the Successor of Anacletus in the Administration of the Church of Rome, is mentioned by Saint Paul, Phil. 4.3. (if Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and others are not deceived) writes against those who damnably taught, there was
another God above the Creator of Heaven and Earth; and the words cited by the Adversary
do import no lesse; Is any title of this passage against us? Do not we abhor as much
as any Christians, those pernicious Hereticks which do blasphemously maintaine that
there is another God above the Almighty God, who made all the Creatures, who drowned
the old world with a Floud, and called Abraham out of Ʋr of the Chaldees, who brought the Israelites out of the Egyptian servitude, and spake by the holy
Prophets?
Bidle. Iren. the fifth place.
The same Father, Lib. 3. Cap. 6. saith, Neither the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the Apostles would definitively
and absolutely at any time have named him God, who was not God, unlesse he were the
true God; nor call him Lord, unlesse he exercised Lordship over all, even God the
Father, and his Son, who hath received from his Father the Lordship of the Creatures,
— Who said to Moses, I am that I am; and his Son Jesus Christ, who makes men Gods Sons, believing on him.
Answer.
Saint Irenaeus demonstrates by many Testimonies of the Scriptures, that there is but one God and
Lord the Creatour and Governour of the world, and not only the Father, but the Son,
and the Holy Ghost, three distinct Persons are comprehended under that appellation,
according to that received Axiome mentioned by S. Austin, So often as in the divine Scriptures God is absolutely and indefinitely named, the
three Persons are signified, lib. 6. de Trinit. cap. 9. Saint Irenaeus in this Chapter shewes the truth of this Rule, Genes. 19. The Lord rained from the Lord fire and brimstone; [Page 323]he meanes his Son from the Father, which spake also to Abraham, Genes. 18. And O God, thy God hath anncinted thee with the Oyle of gladnesse above thy fellowes; the Holy Ghost calls them both (saith Irenaeus) by the name of God, both him that is annointed, viz. the Son, and the Person annointing him, viz. the Father. Again, God standeth in the Assembly of the Gods, Psal. 82.1. he meaneth it of the Father and the Son, by whom others are made the
Adopted Sons of God. And Psal. 50.1. The mighty God, [...]even the Lord hath spoken, and called the earth; i. Gods Son: which of the Persons doth he mean? Even he that spoke, even he that will
manifestly come. Our God will not hold his peace. And a great deal more is spoken by the Father in that Chapter to the same purpose,
this Chapter being Judge, cuts in pieces the sinewes of Arianism, and is as clear
as the Sun for the Deity of Gods Son.
Bidle. Iren. the sixth place.
The same Father in the same Chapter saith, I invocate thee, O Lord, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who art the only true God, above whom there is
no other God; Thou dost in domination besides our Lord Jesus Christ, rule also over
the Holy Spirit: Grant to every one that readeth this Writing, to know thee, and to
depart from every Atheistical and Heretical Opinion.
Answer.
This is (I grant) a devout and a holy Prayer of the blessed Martyr, intreating for
the constancy of Faith, and the Conversion of misbelievers; a Prayer very consonant
to the Holy Scriptures, and may not be interpreted to Crosse the expresse words of
the Author in the beginning of this Chapter, calling God the Father, and his Son absolutely
the true God; and these words, God the Father is the only true God, are verified also of God the Son, he is also the only true God, as hath been formerly
demonstrated.
Let the Christian Reader take notice of a grosse corruption of the Fathers Text by
a wretched translation, That God and our Lord do rule over the Holy Ghost: The words are, thou rulest also Diminatione Spiritus Sancti; and not as you falsifie them, Dominatione in Spiritum Sanctum; and as others read them, Dominationem donas Spiritus Sancti; perhaps for Domination, should be read, [Page 324] Donationem, God rules by the holy Spirit. And this is so far from making the Holy Ghost a Creature
ruled over, that it strongly confirmes the eternal and consubstantial Divinity of
the Holy Spirit, both against the ancient Arians and modern Samosatenians.
Bidle. Iren. the seventh place.
The seventh Testimony is, Lib. 3. Cap. 9. It being plainly shewed that neither the Prophets nor Apostles, nor Christ himself
confessed any other to be of his own person Lord or God, but neither naming any other
God, nor confessing him to be Lord, and the Lord himself delivering to the Disciples,
that the Father only is that God and Lord, who is the only God and Ruler of all.
Answer.
In this Quotation the Son is called God; viz. Coeternal and Coequal with the Father, who by him created all things; doth not this
make much for us? And the like is to be said of the Holy Ghost, who is proved by
the effects to be the true God, and therefore the exclusive Particle, Only, attributed to the Father, excludes not the Son and the Holy Ghost from being God;
but the Gnosticks Aenoel, Pheromas, Propatra, and such monstrous termes, excogitated by them, which they absurdly substituted
in the place of one infinite God in Essence and three Persons, unlesse we shall say
(as some Learned do judg) that Father here is to be taken Essentially, and not personally.
Bidle.
These passages as well as the last save one, before quoted, clearly intimate in the
judgment of Irenaeus, That others beside the Father and the Son, are sometimes in the Scripture called God,
but not in their own persons; whereunto accordeth the Scripture, Exod. 23.20.21. Provoke not the Angel, for my name is in him: from whence it is apparent, that when an Angel at any time is called God as Exod. 3.2, 4, 6 and 19.24, 26. Judges 6.12, 14. the reason of this is, not because the Angel is a several subsistence in God, or an
uncreated Angel, but because the name of the Lord is in him, and he accordingly denominated
not from his own person, but from that of God and Lord, which he sustaineth.
Answer.
All the former passages out of this glorious Martyr have been examined, and how impertinently
they have been alledged, I suppose hath been cleared, and the lost Quotation but
one, if it bee narrowly looked into, shewes not that any are absolutely called God,
but the true God only, and holds forth a manifest difference betwixt the Son of God,
called simply God, and all others which are called God by some addition, by which
they are in truth manifested to be no Gods.
Touching that Scripture, Exod. 23.20. where the Angel was called by Gods name, Jehovah; I ask, How you can make it out by any circumstance in the Text, this Angel was a
created Angel? This Angel (say we) was the Son of God, an uncreated Angel, so called,
because he was sent by the Father, and the Reasons are clear in the Text.
First, Because if you provoke him (saith the Lord) he will not pardon your transgressions; and who can forgive sins but God? The holy Martyr himself alledgeth this reason of
the D [...]ity of the Son of God, Lib. 3. adv. Haereses cap. 10 plainly distinguishing his Natures: in regard of his humane Nature he was the
son of Abraham and of David, and was annointed by the Spirit to preach the Gospel; but in regard of his Deity,
he knew all things, and forgive sins to those which were led Captives, loosing their
bonds.
2. The other reason is, because my Name is upon him; he is called Jehovah, as I am called Jehovah, the true and eternal God▪ I, a Messenger, (suppose of the King of Spain or France) called by the name of the Prince which sends him an Ambyssador, the King of Spain or France? Our Saviour perhaps in his words to Philip, may have an eye thereto, Dost thou not know me Philip? he that h [...]h seen me (by faith) that I am Gods Son, will not ask to see the Father, because they are
one God. Zanch. de Incarnat. p. 198. and, Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? John 14.9, 10. And in this sense also Exod. 3.2. is expounded by Irenaeus. lib. 3. cap. 6. This Angel is called, The Angel of the Covenant. Mal. 3.1. the Angel that wr [...]stled with Jacob and blessed him, Genes. 31. Jacob had power over the Angel and prevailed, he wept and made supplications unto
him, he sound him in Bettel, even the Lord God of H [...]sts; the Lord is his memorial, (a Name to be remembred [Page 326]by) Hos. 12, 4, 5. and the same Angel it was which redeemed Jacob from all his troubles, Gen. 48.16. To redeem is Gods Title, Psal. 19.15. and he is prayed unto, that he would blesse Ephraim and Manasseh, and he is equally honoured with God the Father.
Bidle. Iren. the eighth place.
For as much as this is firme, That no other God or Lord was published by the Spirit,
but he that ruleth over all, even God with his Word—, We are enjoyned to confesse
no Father but him that is in heaven, which is that One God and one Father.
These passages do shew, the Father to be that one God, the God of Abraham — and his Son Jesus Christ, (whom he believed without Scripture to have a being before
his birth of the Virgin) to be that one Lord who received Dominion from God the Father,
and the Holy Ghost to be neither that one God, nor one Lord.
Answer.
The holy and ancient Father proves against the Gnosticks, how erroneous their Tenet
was, that the Creator of all things was not God and Father, but that there was another
God above him, by the publishing of the Holy Ghost, by the judgment of all Teachers
and Believers, by the unanimous Doctrine of the Apostles, and by the Authority of
Jesus Christ, which commands all his Disciples to call on God our Father in heaven.
So that Irenaeus doth not in calling God the Father the only God, exclude God the Son, and God the
Holy Ghost; for the Son is in God the Father inseparably, his Eternal and Essential
wisdom, and the Holy Ghost the Eternal and Essential Power of the Father and of the
Son; but he compares the Father with those Gods, which the Blasphemous Hereticks
excogitated, and doth Religiously and justly exclude them from being in truth God
at all.
You conclude by a confession, that Irenaeus held, the WORD had a Being before his Birth of the Virgin: And this no doubt is a great comfort to you, that your Authour is your professed
Adversary. Nor do we deny, That the Lord Christ received his Dominion from God his
Father, both eternally as he was his Son, as all else by eternal generation; and in
time also, as he was our Mediator, and became man; and in both respects the person
of the Father is distinguished from his Son our Lord.
By this brief Examination of the objected Testimonies out of Irenaeus, it appears, that he was far from favouring the Arian Heresie, much more from the
Samosatenian, which Mr. Bidle imbraceth: yet it will not be amisse to recite in the close, a few passages out
of this venerable Author, which will manifest his Judgement to be sound and Catholick
touching the Deity of the Son of God.
1. Book 1. Cap. 2. He calls Christ, Lord, God, Saviour, our King, to whom all knees in Heaven must bow; and that this
is the Faith of the whole Catholick Church, to believe in one God, the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost.
2. Book 2. Cap. 19. God made all things Visible and Invisible; by the Word and his Spirit, he disposeth
and governeth all: This doth properly belong to the true and eternal God. And Lib. 4 cap 37. The Father spake to the Son and the Holy Ghost, Let us make man after our Image and Similitude.
3. Lib. 2. Cap. 43. he saith, The Son was not made, but did alwayes coexsist with his Father. And Lib 4. Cap. 37. The Word, that is the Son, was alwayes with his Father. And chap. 48. he saith, His generation cannot be declared by Angels.
4. Lib. 3. Cap. 6.12. In many places he plainly teacheth, That he is of the same Essence with his Father, and by Nature, and truly God. And Lib. 2. Cap. 48, 49. He averreth, That the Word is God without all composition, begotten of his Father by an ineffable
generation; neither Valentinus, nor Marcion, — no nor Angels nor Archangels can declare it.
5. Lib. 3. cap. 8. The Father made all things by the Word; those things that are made, are differenced
from him that made them; for he is not made, he is without beginning, and without
end; he stands in need of nothing, being All sufficient of himself; but those things
which were made by him, had a beginning. Is not this cleare enough to shew that the Son is Coeternal with his Father?
6. Lib. 3. Cap. 10. He distinguisheth the Natures of Christ, and saith, That Jesus Christ, as he was of the root of David, and the son of Abraham, the Spirit of God rested on him, and he was annointed to preach the Gospel; but in
that respect as he was God, he knew what was in man; he forgave sins; and freed Captives
from the bond of their sins.
7. Lib. 3. Cap. 12. Christ is called, the Eternal Son of God: [Page 328]And Cap. 11. the Eternal King. See also Lib. 4. Cap. 10, 11.
8. I will conclude with another Argment, which if proved, is confessed by the Adversary
to be convincing; If Christ satisfied for us, he is God; but Irenaeus saith, Lib 5. cap. 1. That Christ redeemed us with his flesh and bloud: which place Theodoret, Dialog. lib. 2. cap. 26. cites, and saith, He bought us by laying down a price.
Many other passages might have been collected out of this ancient Father; a glorious
Martyr, and invincible Champion of Catholicks against the Hereticks, which opposed
our Lord both before and in his dayes, whereby his judgment is manifest, that he held
the Son of God to be true God, coeternal and coessential with this Father.
Bidle. Justin Martyr the first place.
Justin Martyr Apol. 2 saith, We are called Atheists, and we confesse our selves to be Atheists, in reference
to reputed Gods; but not to the most true God, who is the Father of all vertues, and
unstained with any evil; but him, and the Son that came from him, and the Host of
the other good Angels, who accompany and resemble him, together with the Prephetick
Spirit, we adore and worship. This passage sheweth how soon Christians committed
Idolatry in worshipping Angels.
Answer.
The Gentiles objected to the Christians as a great fault, no lesse then Atheism, that
they worshipped not their Jupiter, Mercury, and their reputed Demons; the Christians confesse that charge, yet making it known
to them, that they worship the true God, and plainly do mention the Father, Son and
Holy Ghost: this is a good proof of the blessed Trinity.
And whereas this Authour which lived in the same age with Irenaeus, yet was somewhat more ancient then Irenaeus, saith (as you read his words) That Christians did worship the Holy Angels. To this I answer,
1. If the holy Father had asserted that the persecuted Christians had worshipped
the Holy Angels with the same worship and veneration, wherewith the most High God
is worshipped, this indeed had been palpable Idolatry, even by the confession of
the Idolatrous Pontificians themselves, as Perionius in locum. Justin. p. 57. observeth. But this is only spoken Indefinitely without distinction, [Page 329]and shewes, that Christians had then a reverend esteem of the holy Angels in opposition
to the made Gods of the Gentiles which they detested, for we desire to render a commensurate
degree of honour due to the creatures according to their dignity; not an honour as
to our Lords and Masters, but of love and charity as to our friends and fellow Creatures;
which is of the same kind and nature with that which we give to the most holy and
venerable men on earth.
Secondly, I answer, that it cannot appear that Justin Martyr, or the Catholicks in his time, made Angels the Objects of Religious Worship. The
Words run thus; We worship him, .i. the Father, and his Son coming from him, and teaching us these things, and the Army
of the Angels, together with the Prophetick Spirit. Papists make a distinction, and read in this manner, but without reason, as Scultetus hath observed: Justin teacheth, That the Son reveales the Father and all things to us by the Ministry of
Angels: If Papists reading should take place, the Holy Ghost should be inferiour to
the Angels, and worshipped in the fourth place, and he should contradict himself,
for a little below he sheweth the Father is to be worshipped in the first place, the
Son in the second, the Holy Ghost in the third, the holy Angels not at all: and in
his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew, he sheweth that the Angel that appeared to Lot was the Son of God, because he was worshipped, which had no strength at all, if Angels
were to be worshipped.
Bidle. Just. Mar. the second place.
In the same Apology, — We do with reason honour him that taught us these things, even
Jesus Christ the Son of the true God, and do account him in the second rank, and
the Prophetick Spirit in the third order. They charge us with madness, that we give
the second rank after the Immutable and Eternal God to a crucified man, not knowing
the mystery that lyeth therein.
Answer.
The distinction of the glorious Persons of the sacred Trinity, and their order in
regard of Principal and Original (as Divines do phrase it) is Religiously maintained
by us. The Father being of none other, is the Principle of the Son of God, and is
therefore called the first Person in order of subsisting; the Father and the Son [Page 330]are the Principle of the Holy Ghost, therefore the Son is in order of subsisting the
second Person, and the Holy Ghost is the third being from Eternity, both from the
Father and the Son of God: This order is observed by Justin Martyr, in a Catholick, not Heretical sense. See Pneumatol p. 94. 95. Nor is there any strength to alledge, that Justin calls the Father, the True, the Immutable and Eternal God; for this is true also
of the Son of God, and of the Holy Ghost, albeit there are reasons (as I have often
shewed) why these Epithets are often ascribed to God the Father.
It seemes the Adversaries heart smote him in this Quotation, in that he silenceth
an explication immediately subjoyned: We will shew that we do rightly worship him;
if this worship was insinuated in the precedent words, it is here particularly applyed
to the Holy Ghost; and if understood as formerly, this worshipping of the Holy Ghost
is by praying to him, and praising him for his benefits.
Bidle. Just. Mart. the third place.
After the Father and Lord of all things, the prime power and Son is the Word; and
in what manner he became a man, we will hereafter declare.
Answer.
The force of this Objection depends on the homonymie of before and after. The Son
is after the Father, but how? Not in time, for Father and Son are Relatives: not in
Nature, for the Nature and Essence of God the Father and the Son, is but one Infinite,
Eternal and Undivided Nature; nor is the Son after the Father, if we speak properly,
in Majesty and Glory, for herein they are equal; but he is after his Father in order
of subsisting.
Bidle. Just. Mart. the fourth place.
The fourth place is out of the same Apology, where he sets down at large the three
Persons of the sacred Trinity, the Father, the Word and the Spirit, and that Plato was beholding to Moses for what he writes, though not accurately, in his Timaeus, touching these three.
Answer.
To this I answer, He is quick sighted that can discern how this passage can in the
least, disadvantage us, but rather it makes much [Page 331]for us. That which Moses spake of the Brasen Serpent, Plato not knowing it was the form of a Crosse, but thinking on a Saltier or Greek X, he
said the power next to the prime God, (viz. the Father) was made X, in stead of a Crosse; this Brasen Serpent was set up in the
Wildernesse for the cure of those that were stung by fiery Serpents. It is allowable
for Divinity (the Mistresse) to make use of Humanity and humane Authors, when pollutions
and blemishes are taken away; but it is intolerable for Paganisme to bring down Divinity,
and to deface it, that it might be serviceable to the deformed Handmaid: He was also
beholding (saith Justin) to Moses, for what he wrote touching the Holy Ghost, the third Person, reading these words,
The Spirit of God moved on the waters, Gen. 1. Is this good Divinity with you, Mr. Bidle, to say, the Son of God was in the Creation the second Person, and the Holy Ghost
the third?
Bidle. Just. Mart. the fifth place.
The next passages out of Justin Martyr are taken out of his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew. Neverthelesse, O Tryphon, said I, Such a one is the Christ of God, albeit I cannot demonstrate that he was before,
the Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was borne a man of the Virgin.
— But if I shall not demonstrate that he did preexist, and according to the counsel
of his Father, become man,— It is just to say, I am mistaken in this only, and not
to deny that he is the Christ.— There are some of our kind (.i. Christians) which confesse him to be Christ, yet hold him to be a man, to whom I assent not. They
that said he was a man (replyed Tryphon) me thinks, speak more probably then you, who say such things as you relate; for all
we (Jewes) do expect that the Christ shall be a man of men.
Observe, 1. That Justin Martyr did not think it inconsistent, that Jesus should be the Christ, although he had no
other then a humane Nature.
2. Divers Christians did de facto, affirm, that Christ had no other Nature but the humane, though Athanasius, and such like furious Zelots pronounced such uncapable of eternal life.
3 That the Jewes did not believe, that the Christ who was to come should be other then
a man.
Answer.
The words of Justin Martyr are dark, and, as is clear, they are not spoken positively, but upon supposition,
thus, If he could not prove to an obstinate Jew and wrangling Sophister (for there
are many sublime and divine Truths, which an obstinate Adversary will not submit unto)
that he was the Son of God before he was borne of the Virgin, yet do they make nothing
against us; but if we regard the tenour of his Discourse, they do directly contradict.
Mr. Bidies assertion; for he constantly maintaines that Christ did preexist and was the Son
of God, as himself confesseth, pag. 38.39, before he was the son of Mary, yea, before the world it selfe was created.
Your first observation hath no ground at all in the words of Justin, and it is a notorious fallacie to turne a supposition into a real position. For certain
it is, that the words so resolved, are directly contrary to his clear judgement,
who in many places proves at large by his apparitions in the old Testament chiefly,
that Christ had a being before his Incarnation.
2 To the second I answer, It is true, there were some which were called Christians
in that age: shall I say with a Learned man, that they were Catechumini, or new beginners to learn Christianity, which were not instructed then in the highest
mystery of the eternal generation of the Son of God? Or rather, if I am not mistaken,
Artemon the Montanist, Carpocrates, and some such like monstrous Hereticks in this Century, with whom you, Mr. Bidle, may shake hands, which held Christ was onely man. These professe themselves to be
Christians, and are so called. And he saith in the same Tractate, and are in truth
[...], Atheists, and ungodly Hereticks, and no more to be called Christians, then the
Sadduces, or the like Heresies Gevistarum, & Meristarum & Galilaeorum, are to be of the Jewish Religion, and the sons of Abraham. These are no otherwise Christians, then the works of mens hands are called Gods,
they confesse that Jesus was crucified, is Lord and Christ, and yet did pollute themselves
with nefarious Doctrines, and practices, full of contumely to the divine Majesty.
We will give you leave Mr. Bidle, to triumph in such Christians.
3 To the third I answer, That it is not much material what the [Page 333]blinded and besotted Jewes believed in those dayes. [I know (saith Justin, immediately before the words cited by the Adversary) that the Jewes will neither
understand, nor do those things that belong to God, but what their Doctors teach.]
Yet the holy and ancient Jewes (as Learned Gerhard and others do plentifully prove) were of a better faith touching their Messias; nor
did those Jewes then living believe that their Messiah should be crucified for the
sins of the people, but be a glorious King on earth; and shall we deny plain and most
comfortable Scriptures, to gratifie the cursed and the hardned Jewes?
I will take leave to imitate the Adversary, and add an Observation out of the words
of Justin Martyr, and Tryphans collections from them, set downe by the blessed Martyr next to the objected words,
and that he saith also, that he was man of man.
Tryphon having made a long discourse touching Christ, saith thus, [It seemes wonderful to
me, nor can it be proved that thou sayest, this Christ being God before the world
was created, would afterwards become man, this seems to me not only to be wonderful,
but foolish.
Hence I do observe, That Justin taught (in Tryphons judgment) that Christ was God absolutely and positively before the Creation, and
that not only against Mr. Bidle, but the old Arians; that he hath two natures, the Divine and the Humane; for if the
Immortal Spirit had been created before all other Creatures by a priviledge, (as
Plato and his Disciples do faine, that souls were as Lamps lighted, and afterwards sent
into the bodies, as so many Lanthornes;) Or as the Immortal soul that lives in a state
separated from the body, shall according to our faith be re-united to the body; this
is neither simply wonderful, nor foolish; but when this is done, there is still but
one humane Nature. But in Justins judgment, he that was God before the Creation became man in time, and so there must
needs be two Natures, which Mr. Bidle denies.
Bidle. Just. Mart. the sixth place.
Demonstrate to us (saith Tryphon) that there is another God by the Prophetick Spirit confessed to be besides the Maker
of all things.—
Moses the happy man of God intimateth that he was a God, that appeared to Abraham, with the other two Angels sent to Sodom to destroy it, sent by another that perpetually abideth in heavenly places, and never
appeared.
Answer.
To this I answer, first, That these are the words of Tryphon the Jew, and therefore not too rigidly to be pressed.
Secondly, this speech of Tryphon the Jew, doth clearly demonstrate that in the Martyrs judgement there is another
Person confessed to be God, beside God the Father who was Maker of all things, and
that he is, according to the Nicene Creed, Very God of very God. Christ is alius, another in person, but not aliud, and another in Nature; that is, there is another Person which is called God besides
the Father, to whom the Creation of the world is attributed. And it is observed, that
[...] is not to be construed with [...], but there is another besides the Creatour of all things, i.e. the Father, which is called God. Besides Justin in his Apology to the Senate of Rome, doth ascribe the creation of the world to the Son of God.
This being named, you make a long skip to the words of Moses concerning Gods appearing to Abraham; but if you would peruse the Text Isai. 40. applied by the Author to Jesus Christ, which is inserted betwixt those two Quotations,
you must needs confesse, that Christ is in the judgment of Justin the most High God, Behold the Lord will come with a strong hand, ver. 10. Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his fist. Tryphon saith, [These words prove not what thou wouldst perswade unto.] Then replied Justin, [If Prophesies had not failed among you, you would perhaps understand these things
which are spoken of Christ. Can any thing be more clear for the Deity of Christ?
It was the true God that appeared to Abraham; this Angel was an uncreated Angel, the Angel of the Covenant called expresly, Jehovah, Gen. 18.13. one that had power either to save or destroy Sodom, whom Abraham acknowledged to be the Judge of all the Earth.
It was the Opinion of Justin, Tertullian lib. Adversus Praxeam, and other holy Fathers, that God the Father never appeared in any resemblance to
the outward senses of any of his servants; but that he alwayes sate most glorious
in his Throne of Majesty in the Heavens, and never is sent, never immediately in his
Person came in matters of the greatest moment; and what he doth in the Government
of his Church, he doth it by his Word and Spirit, and [Page 335]therefore the Fathers called God the Father, the Invisible God, and the Son Visible,
not in regard of his Essence, but of the visible form, which he for a time assumed,
especially the form of man; which (as Irenaeus speaks) was preludium quoddam of his future Incarnation, and in the fulnesse of time God was manifested in the flesh, 1 Tim. 3.16. by assuming our Nature into the unity of his Person.
Bidle. Just. Mart. the seventh place.
I will endeavour to perswade you, that that God which is recorded to have appeared
to Abraham, Jacob and Moses, is another then the God that made all things in number; I say. Not in opinion, for
he never did any thing, but what he that made the world, did will that he should do.
Answer.
This Objection is thus answered, He who appeared to Abraham Jacob and Moses (that is, Gods Son) is [...], another in Person from him (the Father) who created all things, according to the
manner of speech called, Appropriation. Creation is ascribed to the Father, as Redemption
is to Gods Son, and Sanctification to the Holy Ghost. And the Martyr explaining in
what respect he is another, he adds, He is another in number; this is evident: but
not [...], this you translate, not another in opinion, but without reason; and falsly if we
speak exactly: but his meaning is, he is another in Person, and not another thing
in Understanding and Will, which is his Essence: and no doubt Christ wrought all in
reference to mans salvation, according to the Mind and Will of his Father.
Bidle. Just. Mar. the eighth place.
We do not (saith Tryphon) understand this from the forecited words, That it was an Angel that appeared in a
flame of fire, but God that spake to Moses, so that both God and an Angel were together in the Vision. And I replied, Although
it so happenned, O friends, that both God and an Angel were together in the Vision
presented to Moses; yet, as hath been demonstrated to you, It will not be God the Maker of all things,
who said to Moses, I am God the God of Abraham — But he whom we shewed before, appeared to Abraham, ministring to the will of the Maker of all things, as he did also in the judgement
of Sodome; yet none will say, the Father of the Ʋniverse [Page 336]having left heaven, did appear in a small parcel of the earth.
Answer.
I acknowledge, God the Son is very improperly called, a Minister of God the Father,
but when the Orthodox do thus speak (as sometimes they do) it is to be understood
in a large and far different sense from the meaning of the Arians; for these Hereticks
mean thereby, that he, as a separated instrument from the Father, did, and that in
an inferiour order of causality, minister to him: but the right believers are to be
understood in a qualified sense, that Christ is one with the Father in Essence, and
inseparably united to him, as the hand of man is called his Instrument in working:
for to speak properly, the Son of God is not an Instrumental, but the principal cause
of all works ad extra.
It is the opinion of many of the Fathers, as I have hinted in answer to that sacred
Text, My Father is greater then I, that the Son of God may in some sense be said to be lesse then the Father not in
regard of his Essence, Essential properties, or Majesty and Glory; but in this regard
only, that the Father is the principle of the Son, and in this regard it is, though
very improperly, that the Son ministreth to the Father, is subject and obedient to
him; meaning nothing else thereby, but this only, that the Son of God doth exactly
correspond to the will of God the Father, from whom he had his Nature, and his Will.
See Estius in lib. 1. Senten. distinct. 16 Sect. 2.
Or more plainly and fully thus, I answer out of S. Hilarie de Synodis, Christ ministred not as a servant to his Master, but as a Son to his Father, in whom
is the authority of principle, which is not in the Son; but what glosse soever may
be put to such phrases, it is far the safest course to forbear them: and this which
hath been spoken touching the appearing of God to Moses, serves fully to answer the next Quotation touching Gods judgment on Sodom; the Authors meaning is nothing else but that God the Father by his Son destroyed
Sodom.
The last words are to be construed according to the Martyrs supposition, that God
the Father is stiled Invisible, because he never appeareth on earth in any assumed
forme.
Bidle. Justin Martyr the ninth place.
God in the beginning before all the Creatures, generated out of himself a certain
rational power, called also, The glory of the Lord, another while the Son, another while Wisdom, another while an Angel, another while God, another while Lord and Word, another while, the chief Captain that appeared to Joshuah; for he may be called by all these Names, he ministreth to the will of his
Father, and was voluntarily begotten of his Father, as we see it come to passe even
in our selves; for in uttering a certain word, we beget a word,— As in fire another
fire is produced, without diminishing that from whence it was produced. My Author
is the Word of Wisdom, Prov. 8. Being that very God generated of the Father of the Ʋniverse, and also the Word, and
Wisdom, and Power, and Glory of his Begetter. The Lord created me in the beginning.
Answer.
All these Titles, heaped up by Justin, and many others, do appertain, as we do religiously acknowledg, to our blessed Saviour
and Lord; touching the first Reason, I have in the former Section spoken sufficiently
to it. The strength of the Argument lies in this Word, that Justin saith, The Son was voluntarily begotten of his Father. The Arians were wont to use
this fallacy. Either the Father did willingly or unwillingly beget his Son; if willingly,
then he might not have begotten him, and then he was before the generation of his
Son: If unwillingly, then he is miserable in that he is forced to do what he would
not.
To this Objection, which is a Dilemma, I answer with the Fathers, especially S. Austin, lib. 15. De Trinitate cap. 20. To omit, that exactnesse of speech is not in these high mysteries to be urged.
The Father may be said to beget his Son voluntarily, not by the will of the Father
preceding the generation of the Son, but by his will simply, and by his Eternal Will.
Thus to beget the Son voluntarily (I say not freely) is not opposed to beget him
naturally, in this regard his Generation was absolutely necessary; but it is opposed
to unwillingly; the sense is, he did not unwillingly beget his Son; and therefore
Damascene calls this mysterious Generation, [...], a work of Nature; and this may be illustrated by Gods Internal Actions. To retort the Argument, Either
God predestinated [Page 338]us willingly, I add, and freely; or unwillingly: If willingly and freely, (which
is most certain) then were we predestinated by God in time, or after God, which is
against Scriptures: So that the Father begat his Son by Nature, neither unknowingly
nor unwillingly, but naturally and willingly; yet not so willing his Generation, that
he could, as the Arians dreamed, not have begotten him, nor as if God the Father was
willing to beget him after he was God; the reason is, because all the actions of God
ad intra, are from his infinite Essence; he understands by his Essence, he wills by his Essence,
he lives and generates by his Essence; and therefore all such actions in God, as
they are called, are eternal, nor can one of them in time be without another. A Catholick
blunted the edge of this Dilemma, in the forecited place of S. Austin by another like it. Is the Father God willingly or unwillingly? if willingly, then
he is not God by nature, and he might have chosen whither he would have been God or
not: If unwillingly, then he is miserable, in that he is God against his will. And
this stopt his mouth, As God could not will but to be God, so could he not will but
to beget his Son; and as God is willingly just, good and gracious, yet is he not
just, good and gracious by free-will, but by his infinite nature, and must needs
be good, just and gracious, for otherwise he could not be God. So here, an eternal
Father must needs have an eternal Son. In like manner the Holy Ghost is said to proceed
from the Father and the Son, per modum voluntatis, not as will is free, and so may be carried ad oppositum; but as will is nature: which we may learn from our own wills, which do both voluntarily,
and yet necessarily will that which is (seemingly) good, and they cannot simply will
what is apprehended to be evil and destructive. And that the holy Martyr Justin meant of the generation of the Son by nature, may appear by his comparisons, which
are brought by him to illustrate the point, comparing it to the light of the Sun,
and the heat of fire, which, as all men know by a natural emanation, are contemporary
to their subjects whence they are derived.
As for that Text cited by Mr. B. Pro. 8. where it is spoken, that God in the beginning, [...], created, but in the Hebrew it is, [...], possessed me; It is so far from favouring the Arians, that it plucks up those noisom weeds, sown
by them, by the roots, There was (say they) a time when the Son was not. For Justin speaks expresly in [Page 339]the Text, which you omit, that he was created from eternity; whatsoever was before
heaven and earth (if it had been properly created, had a beginning, and time, before
the creation of heaven and earth; but this cannot stand with the Text, Genes. 1.1. for in the beginning of Creation, and time, which began with the Creation)
must of necessity be from eternity. Many are the Expositions of the Catholick Fathers
to answer this Objection of the Arians, which are related by Sixtinus Amama in locum. Nor did the Septuagint, as is probable, by their [...], mean, that Christ was a Creature; for to create, in a sense, is to generate, and
produce a thing according to substance: hence are parents said to procreate; and to
propagate children, is to beget children: So that no solid Argument can be drawne
from the Septuagints Translation against us, which in this particular is not consonant
to the Original. but by the antecedents and consequents of the Text, the native sense
of the word is, to be searched out, which is clear for the eternal generation of Gods Son, Athanas. Orat. 3. contra Arianos.
Bidle. Just. Mart. the tenth place.
Had you understood the things spoken by the Prophets, you would not have denied Christ
to be a God, the Son of the only unbegotten and unspeakable God.
Answer.
There was a real difference betwixt Justin and Tryphon the Jew, and he saith, Had they understood the Prophets, they would not, as they did, have denyed Christ
to be God. And may not I say as much to Mr. Bidle? If he had understood the Prophets and Apostles, he would not have denyed Christ to
be truly God.
There is no difficulty in the place, nor shew of advantage to the Adversary by it.
The unbegotten God is to be taken personally for God the Father, as appears by his
Relative opposition to his Son. To be unbegotten belongs not to the divine Nature
simply and in it self considered, unless it be called so in this regard, because it
hath not its original from any other nature; for otherwise it would belong to the
3 glorious Persons, and every one of them might be said to be unbegotten: but to be
unbegotten belongs only to the essence (when it is said to be unbegotten, as somtimes
it is by some Authors, it belongs to it only) in regard of the Person of the Father:
nor is [Page 340]the word unb [...]gotten contradictorily opposed to begotten, for then the Holy Ghost would be unbegotten, for to be sure, he is not begotten,
but proceedeth: to be unbegotten in the usual acception of the word, is all one as
to be a person without a Principle and Original from any other: And thus the Father
alone is said to be unbegotten, because he hath his Essence and existence from no
other person, which is not verified of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; and upon this
ground is he said to be a principle without a principle; and in regard of the order
of the Persons, being first, may in that regard be called unspeakable; which is also
true of God the Son, and of God the Holy Ghost. Our God is [...], unconceivable with our minds, and cannot be expressed by our words.
Bidle. Just. Mar. the eleventh place.
I repeated what I had formerly alledged out of the Prophet Moses, and explained; whereby he, when he appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, was demonstrated to he subordinate to the Father and the Lord, and to minister to
his will, and to have been stiled a God to the other Patriarchs.
Answer.
Such passages relate not to the Son of God in regard of his Office of a Mediator,
by counsel, voluntarily submitting by consent to undertake to be our Reconciler to
God, and as in time he was to assume our Nature, and in it, and by it to be our perfect
Saviour; and thus in some sense he may be said to be subordinate to God in his actings
for us, which is not strange. It may be granted, That the Father sometimes speaks
figuratively, and all the words he useth are not to be taken in rigor, but to be interpreted
in a commodious sense, sith his mind and sense in other places is clear and manifest
for the Deity of the Son of God. And thus to be expounded, The Son of God doth whatsoever
his Fathers will was to be done by him; and that he improperly is said to be subordinate
to the Father, and lesse in this then the Father, in regard of the authority of Principle,
as he communicates his Divine Nature to the Son; and as he is the first in order,
as of subsisting, so of working, as hath been often shewed.
Bidle. Just. Mart. the twelsth place.
When it is said, God went up from Abraham,— Do not imagine that the very unbegotten God himself did descend, who abideth in his
place and moveth not, who cannot be contained in a place, no not in the whole world,
who was before the world had a being. None ever saw the unexpressible Father, but
him who is by his will a God, and ministreth to his purpose and pleasure,
Answer.
Nothing is here asserted which hath not been formerly examined: God taken personally
for God the Father is in this respect stiled Invisible, not simply by way of opposition
to the Son and Holy Ghost, who are in nature Insisible, as is the Father; but because
he was never seen, according to the Hypothesis of Justin, in any visible form; and touching the great affaires of the Church, he works by his
Son in a special manner, who hath appeared to some eminent servants in a bodily shape:
yet doth not the Son (to speak properly) nor can he through his infinite perfection
leave heaven, but he is said to descend from heaven to earth, because he manifested
his presence on earth by some unusual and remarkable works or symbole of his presence.
Mr. Bidle forgets himself in this Quotation, for Justin prefixeth an Article before God, [...]; God here must needs be taken for the Son of God, for the Ma [...]tyr saith, that God the Father neither ascends nor descends. Oftentimes hath the Adversary
insisted on this Critiscisme, to take an advantage against the Deity of the Son of
God, because the Article was omitted: and will not the addition of it to [...], undeniably (by your own grounds) confirm his Deity?
Bidle. Just. Mart. the thirteenth place.
The Lord rained downe fire on Sodom from the Lord; the Prophetick Spirit intimateth twain in number, the one on earth, the other in heaven,
who is the Lord, even the Lord on earth, the Author of his existence, and of his being
powerful, and Lord and God.
Answer.
It is true, the Father and Son are two Persons, not one and the [Page 342]same person, which is Sabellianisme, and yet not two in Essence; and both Father and Son are distinctly called Jehovah, which is Gods proper Name; The Lord rained from the Lord, the holy Martyr speaks improperly after the manner of men, in saying the Son appeared
on earth, and the Father in heaven in the sense before specified: but in truth, he
is the eternal Father of his eternal Son, and in a qualified sense we do acknowledg,
That the second Person is God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, as the
Nicene Creed professeth.
Bidle.
Justin coming out of Plato's School to the contemplation of the Gospel, and (as preconceived opinions are wont
to stick very close, and over-rule the following Doctrines which we receive) imagining John the Evangelist to be of the same opinion with Plato, believed there was a Son of God before Jesus of Nazareth was born of the Virgin; yea, before the world was created, yet he never believed him
to be from Eternity. So for the Holy Ghost, he no where saith, he is God.
Answer.
You are injurious to the blessed Martyr, to say, that he being prepossessed with the
Notions of Plato, would expound Saint John in a Platonical sense, for he renounced in his Dialogue the Testimony of Philosophers
(as Mr. Bidle himself hath done the Principles of Religion, which he hath learned from the Church
of Christ) and adhered to the Scriptures only, which made Tryphon more willingly hearken to his Discourse; nor did he ground his faith only on the
Testimony of Saint John, who hath sufficient Authority to be credited, when rightly expounded; but as you
may perceive, to the conviction of his Adversaries, by his own principles on the Testimony
of Moses and the Prophets. Nor did Plato understand the mystery of the sacred Trinity, something he had in his speculations
tending that way, but not the same with the faith of Christians, (Aquin. par. 1. q. 32.) and what he obscurely represented on that sublime mystery to others, he borrowed
it out of the Scriptures, and transformed it to his preconceived Opinion.
That which you add touching the Holy Ghost, that he no where [Page 343]calleth him God,— If you mean, totidem verbis, it may, I think, be granted; but equivalently he doth, in that the divine Names and
Attributes are claerly ascribed to him, Isai. 6.9. compare Act. 28.16. But this your Assertion is, I suppose, sufficiently confuted in my Answer
to your twelve Reasons.
Bidle.
Neither let any object his Book entituled, An Exposition of Faith, which is spurious, and was written after the Counsel of Nice; nor do Eusebius and Hierom make any mention thereof; though both of them diligently reckoned up the Books of Justin.
Answer.
This Authour, whoever he was, is most clear for the Unity of the Godhead and Trinity
of Persons. There is truly one God of all, and he is known and understood in the Father,
Son and Holy Ghost. And because the Father hath begotten the Son out of his own Essence,
and out of the same the Holy Ghost proceedeth; they most rightly, which have one and
the same Essence, are to be acknowledged to have one and the same Divinity. And much
more to this purpose.
If this Authour was spurious, he discovers a great deal of hypocrisie in the front
of that Treatise, whereby he would unquestionably be taken for Justin himself: The words are, We have at large confuted the Jewes (in his Dialogue with Tryphon) and the Gentiles (in his Apology to the Senate of Rome, and to Antoninus Pius the Emperor) let us now expound the right and sound reasons of our faith. No marvel then, if not only Pontificians, but Protestants generally do not stick
to ascribe that accurate piece to Justin, and question it not, as they do reject that Book entituled, Respons. ad Orthod. de quibusdam neces. Quaest. And this is done not only by Protestants, but the Pontificians themselves, Sixtus Senensis Bibliotheca, lib. 4. verbo Just. Azorius Institut. Moral. Tom. 1 lib. 4. cap. 23. Bellar. lib. 1. de Sanctor. Beat. cap 4. And which is more, the sixth general Councel at Constantinople under Constantinus Pogonutus, about the year of Grace 681. do confirm that Christ had two Wills and two Operations;
and in the tenth Action the Testimonies of many Fathers are alledged, and Justin Martyr is one of that number: And certain it is, that in this Book two distinct [Page 344]Natures, and two distinct Operations in one Agent are asserted by that Father. But
because of that Negative Argument, the omission of this Book both by Eusebius and Hierom, and the difference of stile betwixt this and Justins other unquestionable Treatises, there may, as the Centuriatores do write, be some doubt, whether this excellent Treatise is justly fathered on the
holy Martyr or not; and because Scultetus in his Medulla Patrum, and that not without alledging reasons, doth say, this profitable book was written
about the year of Grace, four hundred, I will leave this difference to the judgment
of the Learned, and will add to what hath been formerly alledged, some other Testimonies
from his indubitable Writings.
This Author, who was born in Palestina, and flourished in the year of the Lord 150. as he himself saith in his Apology to
Antoninus the Emperour, towards the beginning, hath these words, being english [...]d, We are without the gods of the Heathens, and in that regard we are Atheists; but not
without the true God; and we do worship him with Prayers, the Son which comes from
him, and the Prophetick Spirit. Observe how he opposeth the worship of the Trinity to the Worship of false Gods,
and consequently, not only the Father, but the Son and the Holy Ghost are the true
God. And towards the latter end, Exod. 3.6. he spake to Moses out of the Bush, I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and Jacob; and himself saith, God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And a little below speaking of the Eucharist, he saith, The Minister gives thanks, and glory to the Father of all in the name of his Son and
the Holy Ghost. And after he adds, In all things we praise the Father of all, by his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy
Ghost. And in the first Apology of Christians to the Senate of Rome, not far from the beginning, he saith, Christ he Son of his Father, who alone is properly his Son, the Word which before
all creatures was begotten by him. Christ then is God, Son properly, and in a more excellent way then men and Angels
are; viz. by eternal generation. Thus much touching Justin.
Bidle. Tertullian the first place.
Tertullian de velandis Virginibus cap. 1. The rule of faith is altogether one, and immutable; namely, to believe in one God
Almighty, the Creatour of all the world, and in his Son Jesus Christ, born of [Page 345]the Virgin Mary; Crucified under Pontius Pilate, on the third day raised from the dead, sitting at the right hand of God.—
Answer.
Tertullian was a most Learned Writer, and stout Champion of the Catholick faith against all
Hereticks, and of Christians against the Gentiles; he was an African, a Presbyter,
born at Carthage, and flourished in the dayes of Severus the Emperor, towards the end of the second Century.
This Father sets down the Creed very briefly: The rule of Faith is to believe in one
God Almighty maker of all things; he is the first and principal term (as they call
it) of all things, and the a-Principle of his Son, and of his actions: and a Christians
belief is also in Jesus Christ, as is set down in the Articles of the Apostles Creed,
only his Descent into hel is omitted. Is this denied by any of us? Do not we believe
in God the Father and his Son? And afterwards he mentions the Holy Ghost: A little
above he saith, Christ calls himself truth, and not custom; If Christ is alwayes and
before all truth, he is Eternal. This Testimony might well have been spared, being
not in the least prejudicial to our faith.
Bidle. Tertul. the second place.
Tert. de Praescriptionibus adversus Haereticos cap. 15. The rule of faith whereby we professe what we believe, That there is one onely God,
not any other besides the Creatour of the world of nothing, by his Word first sent
forth, that that Word is called the Son of God, that he variously (or in diverse formes)
appeared to the Patriarks in the name of God, and he was in the Prophets alwayes heard,
and was at large brought down by the Spirit, and vertue of God the Father, into the
Virgin Mary, made flesh in her womb;— then preached a new Law.
Answer.
Tertullian having engaged himself in the cause of Christ against the whole body of Hereticks,
produceth against them the rule of faith, and the Articles which were opposed by any
Hereticks either before or in his age: and concludes, this Rule instituted by Christ
himself, as will be proved, admits of no doubts amongst us, but such as Heresies produce,
and which Hereticks make against it: [Page 346]there is nothing in this passage which may not passe for currant with a favourable
construction, that namely (for the rest are clear) per verbum suum primo omnium Emissum; which may be rendred thus, Which first of all came from him, or, was sent out: But when? Not in time, but from eternity, by eternal generation;
according to that of the Prophet Micah, His goings forth have been of old from everlasting, Mic. 5.2.
Bidle. Tert. the third place.
Adversus Hermogenem, cap. 3. Since things began to exist, whereon the Authority of the Lord might act, sithence
by accession of Authority, he was both made and called Lord; for God is both a Father
and a Judge; yet not therefore alwayes a Father and a Judge, because alwayes God,
since neither could he be a Father before a Son, nor a Judg before Sin; but there
was a time when sin and Son were not, which made the Lord a Judg and a Father. These
passages evince, that he also believed the Father only, not the Son, nor the Holy
Ghost to be the one God: though he imagined with the forecited Authors, Justin and Irenaeus, that the Son had two Natures; yet did he not suppose him to be Co-eternal and Co-equal
with the Father.
Answer.
This Hermogen [...]s was a Painter, and held that the matter, that rude and indigested Chaos was alwayes,
and neither had beginning, nor shall have an end: such Hereticks Tertullian calls elegantly Materiarios; but not only Tertullian, but all the Fathers of this age believed and professed the Deity of the Son of God.
See Centur. 2. cap. 4.7. and yet sometimes this Father speaks incommod [...] & periculose, unfitly, and in rigour of speech dangerously of the Trinity, and of Jesus Christ;
and if in any place, surely in this under debate; and yet unlesse we will say that
Tertullian grosly contradicts himselfe, as shall be proved, (which is not to be granted) The
Author is thus to be expounded, That he speaks not of Gods natural Son, but of his
sons by the grace of Creation and Adoption. See Pamelius in locum, and Bellar. lib. 1. de Christo, cap. 10. for he speaks not of Christ, but of a reasonable creature without, and which
calls God Father in time. And this appears to be his meaning by the Analogy of the
next words. Nor a Judge without sin, which must of necessity relate to those that
are judged, [Page 347]as our learned Junius hath observed; for the same Tertullian libro contra Praxeam, saith, The Word was alwayes in the Father, as Christ himself saith, I am in the Father: and with God alwayes, as it is said. The Word was with God, and never separated from the Father; for he saith, I and the Father are one. And before those words in the same Treatise, God was alone before all things; alone, because nothing was without but God; but then
he was not alone, for he had his Reason with him. There needs no Commentary on these passages, which are clear for us against the Adversary.
Bidle. Tert. the fourth place.
Yea, that very Book of his against Praxeas, where the Adversaries think the Opinion concerning the Trinity held by them, doth
by the tenour of his Discourse, and sundry expresse passages sufficiently shew, That
he went not about to prove, either that the Son, to whom he frequently giveth the
appellation of God; or the Holy Spirit, whom he in the close calleth, Tertium numen Divinitatis, & tertium nomen Majestatis, The third numen of Divinity, and the third name of Majesty, did exist from eternity,
and were that one most high God.
Answer.
Praxeas, whom Tertullian confutes, held but two Persons, and that the Father was incarnated and died, and
that he was Jesus Christ; & his followers are called Patripassians. The words are a clear Testimony of the Trinity; and that Father, Son and Holy Ghost
are not one Person, but three distinct Persons; the Father in order is the first
Person, the Son is the second, and the Holy Ghost the third; yet are they, albeit
thus distinguished, but one and the same High God.
Bidle. Tert. the fifth place.
They say in the beginning, (as in Genesis, according to the Hebrew, the sacred Text begins) God made himself a Son, though this be not firm, yet I am moved by other Arguments from the very disposition
of God, wherein he was before the constitution of the world, even to the generation
of the Son; for before all things, God was alone, being to himself both world and
place, and all things; but alone, because there was nothing without besides him;
yet even then he was not alone, for he had within him, what he had in himself, namely,
[Page 348]his Reason, which is in Greek called [...]— not a vocal word from the beginning.— Reason is elder, as its substance, then the
Word or speech it self.
Answer.
Were you well advised (Mr. B [...]dl [...]) to alledge these words for your self, which do clearly prove, that the Son was generated
before the Creation of the world, yea, from all eternity? Why? because he being [...], was alwayes with his Father; and God the Father was never without God his Son, and
this is proved to be meant by [...], because not far off he calls him, The Wisdom of God, according to that appellation, Proverb. 8. which he interprets to be meant of the Son of God: and afterwards, as I shewed
in answer to the third place, he applies to him that Text, John 1.1 The Word was God, and never separated from the Father, or another (in Essence) from the Father; and
God produceth his Word as the Sun doth the Beam; nor will I doubt to call the Son,
the Beam of the Sun, second to it, not separated from it. These words and much more
do evince the soundness of Tertullians Faith as touching the substance, not all the expressons used by him in this great
mystery of our faith.
Bidle. Tert. the sixth place.
Then the word or speech it self taketh its ornament, sound and voice, when he said, Let there be light; this is the perfect birth of the word or speech, whilest it proceedeth from God: having
been first made of him by cogitation, in the name of Wisdom, The Lord created me in the beginning of his wayes: then effectually generated, When he prepared the Heavens I was with him.
Answer.
It is not denied, That Tertullians termes in this sublime mystery, are sometimes harsh, and his words not fitly spoken,
but candidly to be interpreted, according to the mind of the Author himself. In
that Book he saith, that this word was alwayes in the Father; and Prolatum dicimus Filium à Patre, sed non separatum. The Church might bear with that dark expression in so great a man as Tertullian, to say, the Word was made, for the Word was begotten, as he saith he was, and rejects them which say, he was made, and [Page 349]not begotten. He was alwayes the Son of God, and the Wisdome of his Father, and then declared effectually
to be regenerated (viz from eternity) by his creation of the world, that Word whereby all things were made
in the beginning.
Bidle. Tert. the seventh place.
I who derive the Son no otherwise then from the substance of the Father, doing without
the will of the Father, having attained all Authority from the Father: How can I
in truth destroy Monarchy, which being delivered from the Father to the Son, I keep
in the Son? Let this also be said by me touching the third degree; for I think the
Spirit is no otherwise then from the Father and the Son. See therefore lest thou dost
not destroy the Monarchy, who subvertest the disposition and dispensation thereof,
constituted in as many names as God would have it.
Answer.
This Quotation makes nothing against us, who are no enemies to the Divine Monarchy,
but are zealous Propugnators of it to the death, that there is one God, one supreme
Ruler; only take notice, that Tertullian by the second and third degree, is not to be expounded in regard of Essence, as though
the substance was by degree to be distinguished in the Persons: for he saith against
Hermogenes, The Divinity hath no degrees, because it is most singular: but he means the third degree of Original, the third Person in order of the sacred
Trinity, Verba pro illo tempore non malè dicta, pro hoc autem nostro commodè accipienda.
Bidle. Tert. the eighth place.
The Spirit is the third after God, and the Son as the fruit from the branch, is the
third after the root; and the Brook from the River, is the third after the fountain;
and the Apex the Point from the Ray, is third after the Sun.
Answer.
I deny not but these words strictly taken, according to their native sense, are termini satis duri & horrendi. We do not defend them; but similitudes, as is said, prove not ratione circumferentiae, sed Centri; and they are not to be pressed beyond the scope and [Page 350]intention of the Writer; they are not to be taken Logically, but they do onely shew
a real distinction betwixt the Divine Persons which Praxeas denyed, and Tertullian contends for, and the Divine processions in this mystery; his similitudes are unfit
for this purpose, yet, as is reason, let him have leave to expound himself, and you
will find, as is afterwards proved, that he acknowledgeth no difference of the Divine
Persons in Substance, Power and State; and touching termes, there was a verbal difference
in the Church. when there was real agreement. Hierome could not endure to hear of three Hypostases, because he understood thereby Essences,
Epistola ad Damasam. tot a secularium literarum Schola nihil aliud Hypostasia, nisi [...] intelligit. See Baron. Annal. Tom. 4. ad annum 362. & 372. yet now this word is currant.
Tertullian himself useth the Word, Oeconomie, for the personal consideration of God in the same Essence, and opposeth it to the
Essential consideration of God. But other Writers do, by Oeconomie, understand the mystery of the Incarnation of Christ, and of our Redemption by him.
These comparisons then are only to be taken in this sense, That there is an order
in the Divine persons and a procession, and that they are co-essential. The Father
is the fountain, the Son as the stream, the Holy Ghost as the River the third in order.
Bidle. Tert. the ninth place.
The Father is the whole substance, the Son a portion and derivation of the whole,
as he himself professeth, My Father is greater then I,— Thus is also the Father another from the Son, whiles he that generates is another
then he that is generated, whiles he that sends is another then he that is sent, whiles
he that acteth, is another then he by whom he acteth.
Answer.
Tertullians language is very harsh to us at this day, and to be excused, because, as Dr. Hoornebech hath well observed, he was the first Latine Father that writ on that high mystery.
Lib. 2. de Deo, c. 5. when the use of phrases and termes was not confirmed in the Catholick Church.
Tertullian avoucheth, the Divinity hath no degrees, nor can have any, because it is simply one
and Indivisible. That terme which is [Page 351]very strange to us, calling the Son a derivation of the whole, that is, to whom the
whole substance is communicated, cannot be meant otherwise then of the distinction
of the Persons, and that the Son is from the Father, which he endeavoured to prove
against Praxeas, he then calls the Father the whole subsistance, and the Son a portion (not a part)
because the Father is the Fountain and principle of the Son, as a portion (which may
be the whole Inheritance) is derived from the Father to the Son; and we say, The Lord is our portion; and in that respect, as the Father expounds himself, the Father is greater then the
Son, as he that begets, is greater then he that is begotten, and he that sends, is
in that respect greater then he that is sent (which may be understood of Christ in
respect of his office as our Mediatour,) and so he is simply greater. Mark, that
the Father saith not, he is aliud, another thing in substance, but alius, another, viz in Person, which clearly confutes Praxeas for denying the destinction of Persons.
Bidle. Tert. the tenth place.
I will not say, Gods, nor Lords, but follow the Apostle; and if the Father and the
Son are to be named together, I will call the Father God, and name Jesus Christ, Lord;
but Christ by himself I may call by the name of God, As the Apostle saith, Of whom came Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever.
Answer.
Tertullian here delivers sound Divinity, and consonant to the Creed of Athanasius though the Father be God and Lord, and the Son also both God and Lord, yet are there
not two Gods, and two Lords, but one God and one Lord: and the reason why the Father
is called God, when the Father and the Son are named together, is, as I have often
said, because the Father is from no other, but of himself, and as a Fountain communicating
the divine Nature and Attributes to the Son; and because of the Office of Mediator,
which the Son of God in our flesh did voluntarily undertake for our salvation. And
who can doubt of the meaning of the Father, considering that he acknowledgeth that
High Elogy without restriction to belong to him? Rom. 9.5. That he is God over all, blessed for ever.
Bidle. Tert. the eleventh place.
As therefore the Word of God is not he whose he is, so neither the Spirit, although
he be called, yet is not he whose he is said to be; nothing of any one is that very
thing whose it is; indeed when any thing is from some one, and so while it is from
him, it may be such as he is from wh [...]m it is, and whose it is; and therefore the Spirit may be God, and the Word God, because
of God, yet not that very one of which each of them is, because God of God as a substantial
thing, will not be very God himself; but therefore God because of the substance of
God, which is also a substantial thing, and as a portion of the whole. To add the
last, place, I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God: Pater ad Patrem,
the Father to the Father, or the Son to the Father, the Word to God.
Answer.
This Learned and acute Carthaginian, by many strong and convincing Arguments proves the distinction of the Divine Persons
against Praxeas, and as by many others, so by these here, which the Adversary to no purpose or advantage
to his cause hath alledged: For take notice, which is a most certain truth, that
by the name God, in his language, and frequently in the Scripture phrase, God the
Father is understood; and all grant, the Son is not the Father, though he is truly
God; nor is the Holy Ghost, God the Father, or God the Son, yet truly God. This is
evinced from these words of Tertullian; for tell me (I pray) is not he truly God, and Co-essential with his Father, who is
of his Fathers substance? or doth the Father use any such expression touching any
Creature? Saith he of it, as here he doth, that it is a substantial thing, because
it is of the substance of God?
Bidle.
Now forasmuch as Tertullian sufficiently explaineth himself, that his intention was not to assert, that the Son
and Holy Ghost were that one God, but on the contrary to refute Praxeas, who holding, (as the Sabellians afterwards did) that Christ and the Holy Spirit was
that one God, as well as the Father, did thereby confound the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, in as much as the distinction betwixt Essence and Person of God was not invented:
This, I say, doth warrant us to make [Page 353]use of his testimony against the Adversaries in the business of the Trinity; so that
we need not fly, which some, and that justly enough have done, to make use of, when
they are urged with the words of Tertullian, cited out of his Book against Praxeas, namely, that the high notions which he there uttered, were learned from the new Prophet Montanus, whom he impiously calleth the Paraclete, and expresly mentioneth in the beginning
of the Discourse, and intimateth in the close thereof.
Answer.
Tertullians judgment touching the Trinity was sound, and the distinction betwixt Essence and
Person, well known in the Church, as I have sufficiently cleared in my answer to what
hath been objected out of that ancient Father; his meaning was Catholick, though
his expressions were sometimes dark, and harsh in our ears, being accustomed to other
phrases, and to dispute ad hominem, to alledg testem è sinu. Your own Jonas Schiltingius in Praefat. adver. Bathus. Meisnorum de S. Trinitate, confesseth that Tertullian was the first, or at least the chief Authour of that Opinion of the Trinity, which
he learned from the Prophesies of Montanus, which he commended and obtruded on the Churches, which is a bold Assertion, contrary
to truth and the knowledg of Antiquity.
This Praxeas, confuted by Tertullian, learned out of the Scriptures, that there was only one God; he also read, God the
Father, Son and Holy Ghost mentioned, and not being able to distinguish between
Essence and Person, said, There was only one Person, God the Father, Son and Holy
Ghost; the Neotians afterwards, and Sabeltians, as S. Austin saith, De Haeresibus, were of the same Opinion; now 'tis most certaine that these Hereticks questioned
not the Deity of the Son of God, and of the Holy Ghost, but took that for granted,
saying, The Father the most High God was conceived, born of the Virgin, &c. Nor doth
Tertullian in any place (to my best remembrance) confute Praxeas for maintaining the Son and the Holy Ghost to be God, but only for confounding their
persons.
As for the Socinians, which (most justly, as Mr. B. saith) do avouch that Tertullian learned that Doctrine touching the Trinity, from Montanus the Heretick; this is sooner said then can be proved. For (as shall be shewed) he
defended the Trinity before he [Page 354]was seduced by the Dreames of Montanus, nor did Tertullian derive this divine Truth from Montanus, but Montanus himselfe retained the pure Doctrine of the Church in this particular; his dotage
being, that the Spirit, the Advocate, the Paraclete was more fully poured on him,
according to the Promise of Christ, then on the holy Apostles; and he and his fanatical
women Priscilla and Maximilla boasted of their Prophesies and Extasies; they denyed also the lawfulnesse of second
Marriages, Euseb. Eccles. Histor. lib. 5. cap. 16. Augustin. de Haeres. cap. 26. But these Cataphryges are not taxed for introducing any new opinion touching the Trinity, but they held
the Doctrine which the Catholick Church professed, saith Epiphan. Haeres. 48. I will in the close adde a few Testimonies out of Tertullian, which declare his faith in this Article.
Tertullian in Apologetico advers. Gentes cap. 21. excellently speaks of Christ, Hunc ex Deo prolatum didicimus, & prolatione generatum, & idcirco filium & Deum dictum
ex unitate substantiae; nam & Deus Spiritus, ut Radius ex Sole porrigitur,—ita de
Spiritu Spiritus, & de Deo Deus, ut Lumen de Lumine.— Mark, that Tertullian saith, That this Doctrine touching the Son of God was not invented by him, but he
had learned it from others, That the Son was generated of the substance of the Father,
that he was Spirit of the Spirit, God of God, and Light of Light; from whence it seemes,
the words in the Nicene Creed were borrowed, [Christ was very God of God, Light of Light—.] After, that which
of God is God, and the Son of God, & unus ambo; .i. one God in Essence, not in personality. And in his Book, De Carne Christi, Non potes dicere si natus fuisset, & hominem verè induisset, Deut
esse desisset, amittens quod erat, & assumens quod non erat; periculum enim statûs
sui Deo nullum est. Christ by his becoming man ceased not to be God,— nothing is equal to God. Created
things, when they become other things, do cease to be what they were before; but
Christ when he became man, remained still God. And after, as he is not the Son of
man, but because he is of man, .i. Mary; sic nec Deus sine Spiritu Dei, nec Dei Filius sine Deo Patre; ita utriusque
substantiae census hominem & Deum exhibuit, hinc natum, inde non natum; hinc carneum
inde Spiritualem, hinc infirmum inde perfortem, hinc morientem inde viventem, quae
proprietas conditionum divinae & humanae aequa utique naturae veritate dispuncta est,
eadem fide Spiritus & caro; virtutes Spiritum Dei, carnem hominis [Page 355]probaverunt. And lib. 3. adversus Marcionem, he calls the divine nature of Christ his inward substance, and reproves Marcion for holding that Christ had a fantastical body, because he might as well call into
question his Divine Nature as his humane: Ita (Inquit) Christus jam caro, nec caro; homo, nec homo; proindè Deus Christus nec
Deus, cur enim Dei phantasma non portaverit? An credam ei de interiori substantia,
qui sit de exteriori frustratus? quomodo verax habebitur in occulto, tam fallax repertus
in aperto? And to omit his other Treatises in his Book against Praxeas, he shewes, there is no repugnancy to say, three Persons are one God in Essence;
he calls the disposition and distinction of the Persons, Oeconomiam, and he proves them to be one God in the Unity of Essence. We say (saith he) that
do believe, and alwayes have believed, that there is one only God, but under this
dispofition, which we call Oeconomy, Ʋt unici Dei sit & Filius Sermo ipsius per quem omnia facta, hunc missum
à Patre in Virginem & ex ea natum hominem & Deum, Filium hominis & Filium Dei— Praxeae
perversitas existimat se meram veritatem possidere; dum unicum Deum, non aliàs putat
credendum, quàm si ipsum eundemque, & Patrem & Filium, & Spiritum Sanctum dicat; quasi
non sic quoque unus sit omnia, dum ex uno omnia per substantiae scilicet unitatem,
& nihilominus custodiatur [...] Sacramentum, quae unitatem in Trinitatem disponit, tres dirigens, Patrem, & Filium,
et Spiritum Sanctum; tres autem non statu sed gradu, nec substantiâ sed formâ, nec
potestate sed specie, unius autem substantiae, & unius statûs, & unius potestatis,
quia unus Deus ex quo et gradus isti, et formae, et species, in nomine Patris, et
Filii, et Spiritûs Sancti deputantur. Observe, that Tertullian doth thrice inculcate the consubstantiality of the Father, of the Son, and Holy Ghost;
they are of one substance undivided, without division, of one Power, and of one State
or Dignity: But there are more degrees, propter originationem; and more species, propter plures [...]; and more in form, .i. more Persons then one. And afterward in the same Tractate he saith, The Father, Son
and Holy Ghost are one only God; by whom also the Christians do swear. And a little
before the close of the Book, [It is Jewish (saith he) so to believe in one God, that
you will not take the Son into the reckoning, and the Holy Gh [...]st after the Son; for what other is the difference betwixt them and us?] Si non exinde Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus tres credi [...]i [...]uxum Deum [Page 356]sistunt? Sheets might be filled with Quotations to this purpose out of Tertullian. The Learned and Acute Mr. Gunning hath industriously and at large collected all the passages out of this Father touching
this Subject in his Treatises, De Carne Christi, and against Praxeas, and made the obscure places clear by his judicious Commentary on them; by which it
is evident, and as clear as the Sun, that in his opinion, these three Persons are
consubstantial.
Bidle. Novatianus the first place.
Novatianus de Trinitate, cap. 1. The rule of Faith requireth, That first of all we believe in God the Father and Lord
Almighty, that is, the most perfect Creator of all things.
Answer.
Tertullian wrote a Treatise, De Trinitate, of the Trinity, as Eusebius witnesseth, and this, albeit a Learned and Elegant piece, fathered on Tertullian, as his own genuine fruit, by some of ours, as Zanch. de Trinitate, lib. 8. yet Mr. Bidle, doth warrantably follow the judgment of other Divines, and ascribes it to Novatianus, a Presbyter of the Church of Rome, and perhaps written by him before he was a Schismatick, yet was he in this point
of Tertullians judgment; he was seduced by Novatus, who proved both a Schismatick and an Heretick, and a great Disturber of the peace
of the Church, as S. Cyprian relateth, Epist. lib. 1. Epist. 6. and made a Conspiracy against Cornelius Bishop of Rome, and against the Ecclesiastical Discipline. Tertullian could not be the Authour of that Book De Trinitate, because he makes mention of the Sabellian Heresie, and calls it Temeritie also, which lived about the year of the Lord, 256. long after Tertullian: Bellar. lib. 1. de Christo, cap. 10. Pamelius Annotations on that Book; and Hierom faith, The Book De Trinitate was penned by Novatianus; and upon this ground I find some Authors of note, as Estius, who do reject his Testimony, as not worthy to be answered: yet because Novatus himself is not branded with the Antitrinitarian Heresie, I see no reason, why his
judgement should be slighted in this particular, wherein he is not censured by the
Catholick Church. Whatsoever an Heretick holds is not Heretical.
To the first place I answer, That God the Father is the most [Page 357]perfect Creatour of all things, is not contradicted by us. The same Assertion is true
of Gods Son, he is the most perfect Creatour of all things; and so is the Holy Ghost
also, for Creation is a common work of the sacred Trinity, wrought by the Essential
Power of God, albeit by Appropriation it is attributed to the Father.
Bidle. Novat. the second place.
The same rule of truth teacheth us to believe, after the Father, likewise in the
Son of God Christ Jesus our Lord our God, but the Son of God, of that God which is
both one and only Creator of all things.
Answer.
These words may have a Catholick sense, Creation is appropriated to the Father as
the principle of the Son and Holy Ghost, which are also true of the Son of God, who
is both one and one God, the only Creatour of all things. Such a phrase of speech
is used. John 17.3. Matth. 11.27. Not one knoweth the Son, but the Father. which is thus resolved, Only the Father knoweth the S [...]n; And 1 Cor. 2.11. Only the Spirit of God knowes the things of God. In these and such like places the exclusive Particle excludes such things that are
not one in Essence with the Subject, and such only: as if I say, God the Father only
created the world, none can rightly infer from those words, that my meaning was to
exclude God the Son and God the Holy Ghost from the creation of all things, but creatures
only, which are not of the same Nature with God the Father. See Estius in lib. 1. Sent. distin. 21. Sect. 2. Besides, the Father is the one and only God, for there is but one God.
Bidle. Novat. the third place.
It is a great hazzard (or danger) to say, that the Saviour of mankind, the Lord and
Prince of the whole world, to whom all things have been delivered from his Father;
by whom all things were instituted, all things created, all things ordered, the King
of all ages and times, the Prince of all Angels, before whom was nothing besides the
Father, to say, he is only a man, and in these to deny him divine Authority.
Answer.
Scarce can any thing be more fully spoken to prove the Deity of the Son of God then
this passage, if it had been fully related. The Adversary catcheth at those words,
Nothing was before the Son but the Father. Here is a seeming advantage, the Father was before the Son: But how before him? Relatives
we know, as Father and Son, are not in time the one of them before the other? It is
not possible, if we will speak properly, to conceive a Father without a child: How
then? He is said to be before him in regard of the order of subsisting, being (as
Divines do speak) the Principle of the Son. But why stop you at those words? It follows
in Novatianus, This contumely of the Hereticks doth redound also to God the Father, if the Father
who is God cannot beget a Son who is God: Haeretici quasi hominis in illo fragilitatem considerant, quasi Dei virtutes non
computant, infirmitatem carnis recolunt, potestatem Divinitatis excludunt. &c.
Bidle, c. 13. Novat. the fourth place.
It is manifest in the Scripture, That Christ in the Scripture is called God, that
most of the Hereticks moved with the greatnesse and truth of his Divinity, have dared
to declare and think him to be not the Son, but the very Father.
Answer.
Are not these words, I pray you, directly opposite to your Assertion? These Hereticks
were such as denyed the divine Persons, as Praxeas, Sabellius, which never questioned this truth, Christ is the true God: which you cannot avoid,
unlesse you will deny God the Father to be the true God; for this was their Heresie,
they confounded the Divine Persons, holding but only one divine Person, called by
several names upon several considerations. So that this passage fully proves, that
in the judgement of Novatianus, the Son of God was truly and properly God; and doth not your conscience smite you
(Mr. Bidle) when you cite this Authour, which both asserceth and proveth the Deity of Gods Son
by the same Arguments that the Trinitarians use at this day? He saith in this Chapter
out of 1 John. Deus crat Verbum, et Verbum care factum est— Christuw, cujus est nativitas,
et quia caro factus est, esse [Page 359]hominem, et quia Verbum Dei, Deum ni cunctanter edicere esse, praesertim cùm animadvertat
Scripturam Evangelicam, utramque istam substantiam in unam nativitatis Christi foederâsse
concordiam. And much more, as shall be shewed.
Bidle. Novat. the fifth place.
Whiles therefore Christ receives Sanctification from the Father, he is lesse then
the Father.
Answer.
If by Sanctification the gifts and graces conferred on the humane Nature are meant,
it is granted, the Saviour in this regard is really lesse then the Father; for we
are not so far destitute of Reason, to believe an equality betwixt the infinite Creatour
and a finite creature. But if by Sanctification you mean the divine and Essential
qualities (as Divines do call them) which the Father communicates to the Son by eternal
generation, then in truth, albeit, in regard of the Divine Nature and qualities simply
considered, he is not lesse then the Father, but equal to him, yet according to the
Idiome of some of the Ancients, The Father is called greater then the Son in this
respect, because he is the Principle of the Son, and himself is without a Principle.
And as touching his Sanctification and setting him apart to the Office of a Mediator,
so is he also inferiour to the Father.
Bidle. Novat. the sixth place.
The Spirit receiveth of Christ what things he declareth: if he receives from Christ,
then is Christ greater then the Paraclete, for he would not receive from Christ, unlesse
he were less then Christ.
Answer.
This Text admits the same answer which was given to the former, and clears it up,
the Holy Ghost may (though improperly, I grant) in this respect be said to be lesse
then the Son of God, who is both from the Father and Son, not in time, but by eternal
procession.
Bidle. Novat. the seventh place.
The order of Nature, and the authority of Faith admonisheth us, having [Page 360]digested the words and letters of the Lord, after these things also to believe in
the Holy Spirit heretofore promised to the Church.— And in as much as the Lord was
about to go away into the heavens, he necessarily gave the Paraclete to his Disciples,
lest he should leave them in a manner Orphanes (which was not fit) and without an
Advocate and a Tutor; for he it was who strengthned their hearts and minds, who distinguished
the Mysteries and Sacraments of the Gospel, who was in them an Illuminator of divine
things, by whom they being confirmed, neither feared prisons nor bonds for the name
of the Lord; yea, trod under foot the powers and torments of the world, as being
armed and strengthned by him, having in themselves the gifts which this same Spirit
distributed and directeth to the Church, the Spouse of Christ, as certain Ornaments:
for this is he that appointed Prophets in the Church, Instructeth Teachers, directeth
Tongues, doth mighty Works and Cures, affordeth discerning of spirits, contributeth
Governments, suggesteth Counsels, and composeth and directeth all other gifts, and
therefore maketh the Church of the Lord on every side, and in all things perfect and
complete.
Answer.
Thus have you taken leave of this Authour, without the least Annotation on his sentences;
and these last words cited by Mr. Bidle himselfe are divine, and he acts his part, as if he had been hired to betray his
own cause; and as if the Holy Ghost had infatuated him to make choice of a real foe
in stead of a fast friend to him: for in these words are held forth two strong Arguments
to prove the Deity of the Holy Ghost; the one, That we are to believe in him: the
other is from the admirable gifts which he confers in all times and places, which
no finite creature (as if he be not very God, he needs must be) can possibly effect.
And after he saith, he is Sanctitatis effector, ad aeternitatem & Resurrectionem immortalitatis corpora nostra
perducat, dum illa in se adsuefacit cum coelesti virtute misceri & cum Spiritus Sancti
Divina aeternitate sociari.
This Authour is very clear for the Deity of the Son of God. Cap. 9. The Scriptures do declare Christ as well to be God, as to be man, & tam hominem descripsit Jesum Christum quam etiam Deum; non tantum Dei Filium, sed
& hominis,— ut dum ex utreque est utrumque sit, — ut enim praescripsit ipsa natura
hominem credendum esse qui ex homine est; it a eadem natura praescribit, & Deum credendum
[Page 361]esse qui ex Deo sit. As Nature teacheth us, that he is to be believed to be man, which is of man; so likewise
that he is God who is of God. As man he was made under the Law, as God, he was Lord
of the Sabbath—; and as he ascended into heaven, as he was man; so as God he descended
from heaven, and chap. 12. Why shall we doubt to speak that, which the Scripture doub [...]eth not to expound? Behold (as Hoseas saith in the person of the Father) I will save them in the Lord their God, (Hebr. Jehovah) If God saves in God, and saves none but by Christ, why doth man doubt to call Christ
God, who is called God by the Father? Yea, if God the Father doth not save but in
God, Salvare non poterit, he cannot be saved by God the Father, which confesseth not that Christ is God. He
proveth, Cap. 13. the Deity of Christ by the same Scriptures and Arguments which the Church makes
use of against Socinians; his Divinity is clearly proved, By him the world was made.
If God only knowes the secrets of our hearts, and Christ knowes them; if none but
God doth forgive sins, and Christ doth forgive sins; if this can be the voice of no
man, I and the Father am one; but he spoke these words, De conscientia Divinitatis; and if the Apostle Thomas, being instructed in all the proofs of Christ Divinity, saith, My Lord and my God; and he accurately distinguishing touching Christ, saith it. The Apostle Paul saith, That Christ is of the Father according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed
for ever; saith the same Apostle saith, he was not made an Apostle by man, but by Jesus Christ; and saith moreover, that he learned not the Gospel by man, but by Jesus Christ; Christ is God. And Cap. 14. If Christ be only man, how did he create Angels? How is he present every where,
prayed unto, sith this is not consonant to the nature of man, but belongs to God to
be every where? So that this Father acknowledged Christ to be true man, because he
was of man; and true God, because he was of the substance of the Father.
Bidle. Theophilus.
Theophilus ad Autolicum lib. 2. The God and Father of all things is Incomprehensible, and not found in a place, for
there is no place of his resting; but his Word by whom he made all things, being his
Power and Wisdom, assuming the Person of the Father, and Lord of all things, came
into the Garden in the Person of God, and discoursed with him.
Answer.
This Theophilus was Bishop of Antioch about the year of the Lord, 180. in the dayes of Verus the Emperor; it is recorded, that he wrote many Treatises, but all are lost but the
three Books which he wrote to Antolycus a Heathen. In the first, he treats of God and of the Resurrection, he hath an excellent
sentence which I wil transcribe, God cannot be seene with mortal and carnal eyes,
[...]; that is, in regard of Glory, he is Incomprehensible; in regard of greatnesse Inconceivable;
in regard of height, he is above our understanding; in regard of strength, none are
to be compared with him; in Wisdom, none can be equal to him, nor can any in goodnesse
imitate him.
I do not deny, that there are certain passages in his second Book, from whence the
Arians sucked their poison, say the Centuriat. lib. 2. page 56. and some, which require a more favourable construction then these words cited
out of this Authour by Mr. Bidle, as there are many the like sentences of the holy Fathers which wrote in this second
Century, and spake lesse accurately when they were to deal with the Gentiles to win
them to the faith, by using notions taken out of Plato, yet was their faith sound in these mysteries of our Religion; and they would teach
them that what Christians held was not incredible: as Virgil. 6. Aeneidos. What the Platonists said of [...], that it was diffused through the vast body of the immense world, in imitation of
them.
Principio Coelum & Terras campósque liquentes,
Lucentémque Globum Lunae, Titaniaque Astra
Spiritus intus alit: totámque infusa per artus
Mens agitat molem, & magno se Corpore miscet.
Yet do the Father and Word mentioned by Plato, differ much from the Father and Word believed on by Christians, Petarias Operis Theolog. Tom. 2.
The sentence which Mr. Bidle citeth out of Theophilus, crosseth Mr. Bidle in two particulars; first, in that he saith the old world was created by Christ;
secondly, because he limiteth not Gods Essence [Page 363]to a certain place, as Mr. Bidle doth; nor is there any such difficulty in it, but it may admit of a fair interpretation.
Theophilus, as Justin Martyr and other Fathers, maintained, That God the Father is called the Invisible God, because
he never appeared Visibly to man in any form; and that it was the Son of God which
came to Adam in Paradise, and afterwards manifested himself to Abraham, Gen. 19. and wrastled with Jacob, Gen. 32. and to Moses in a Bush which burned and was not consumed; then likewise to Joshuah. Thus he appeared to Adam, both in his Fathers and in his own Name; this neither overthrowes the Co-essentiality,
nor the Eternity of the Son of God.
Theophilus doth confesse three Persons of the Divinity, [...]. The first three dayes which preceded the Creation of the heavenly Light (the Stars)
were Types of the Trinity; that is, of God, of his Word, and of his Wisdom; are not
Gods Word and Wisdom Co-eternal with him?
Bidle. Origen.
In many places we have found Origen (saith Epiphanius lib. 2.) alienating the only begotten Son from the Deity and Essence of the Father, and also
the Holy Ghost.
Answer.
Origen was an Egyptian, he dwelt, and was educated at that famous City of Alexandria, after his father Alexander was martyred: he flourished about the year of our Lord 230, his father much rejoyced
at the forwardness of his Son, and trained him up vertuously, Clemens Alexandrinus, (as Eusebius saith, Lib. 6. Eccles. Histor. cap. 6.) and Ammonius the Christian Philosopher, were his Teachers.
This Origen was judged by many to be an Heretick, and the Father of Hereticks, as Justinian in his Epistle to Mennas Arch-Bishop of Constantinople, shewes by many examples out of the holy Fathers. See Bin. Tom. 2. Concil. page 48. And Pope Gelasius prohibited the reading of his Books, Idem page 265. And Aquinas calls him, the fountain of the Arian Hereticks, Part. 1. qu. 34. Art. 1. ad. 1. And Melchior Canus locor. lib 7. cap 3. saith, The Church was alwayes, not only wary, but sharp [Page 364]against the Origenians, as bringing a plague upon the Christian Doctrine; yea and
the first general Council doth Anathematize him, as it doth Arius, Nestorius, and other Hereticks. This is the Writer of whom it is commonly said, Where he writes
well, none write better; where ill, none write worse; and therefore in reading this
Author we must be cautelous, lest in drinking down his good liquor, we swallow also
his poison. So that albeit Origen had been truly against the Catholick Doctrine in this point, the Adversary could
not be a gainer by his Testimony. But there are not wanting Learned men which have
pleaded for Origen, and that with good reason (saith Scultetus Modul. Patr. Orig.) as Pamphilus. This was Eusebius Cesariensis, saith Bellarmine de Viris illustribus, out of Hireom, Ruffin, Socrates, Ecclesiast. Histor. lib. cap. 13. And besides some of ours, (Sixtus Senensis, lib. 5. Bibliot. et 6. Genebrardus, de Origenis Vita,) defend him touching the Doctrine of the Trinity; and yet Ruffin his Apologist, will not justifie the Works which go under Origens name, which have been corrupted, as many other Fathers have been dealt withal, See
Leci Consum. veterum Patrum Praefat. ad Lectorem et pag. 68. Either Origen himself, or such as corrupted his Writings, laid the Egges, which by the incubation
of proud and unstable spirits, brought forth the Cocatrice of Arianism; yet Origen in this point is generally held to be a Catholick, having such an excellent Instructor
as Clemens Alexandrinus and Gregory Thaumaturgus his Scholer, both which were sound in the faith. And Athanasius cites him in an Epistle touching the Decrees of the Nicene Synod; yea, and Didymus Alexandrinus who admires Origene so much, that he imbraceth his Errors, as Hierom. Apolog. adver. Ruffinam, was sound in the Faith of the Trinity, as appeares by his three Books written, de Spiritu Sancto.
The testimony of Origen is clear enough, in the beginning of his Works, in his Commentary on the first words
of Genesis: In the beginning God made heaven and earth: This he expounds of the Son of God, our Lord and Saviour. He made all things in this
beginning, as Saint John the Evangelist in the beginning of his Gospel saith. And Homil. 9. in Exod. he makes the Doctrine of the Trinity a fundamental Article. A threefold cord is not
easily broken, which is the Faith of the Trinity, on which dependeth the whole Church,
and by which it is sustained. In his Book de principiis, [Page 365]Prooemio, He was Natus à Patre before the Creation, — and in the last dayes emptying himself, he was made man; he
was Incarnated being God, and he that was God remained man. And lib. 1. in the beginning of the second Chapter, We are to know, there is one Nature of the Deity of Christ, the only begotten Son
of God, and another Nature which is humane, which he assumed in these last dayes, pro dispensatione. In his Books against Celsus he defends this truth against the calumnies and flanders of that Pagan Idolater,
who objected, lib. 2. If Christ had been God, he would not have fled, nor could he have been bound as a
Prisoner; and then he upbraids the Christians for perswading him to believe that Christ was
God. The first Book, De Principiis, the first Chapter is De Dec, viz. Patre, the second De Filio, and the third touching the Holy Ghost, which are the true principle of all things;
and towards the end of that Chapter, he saith, Nihil in Trinitate majus minusa e dicendum est, Nothing in the Trinity is to be said greater or lesser, sithence the Fountain of
Divinity holds all things by his Word and reason, and by the Spirit of his mouth sanctifieth;
as the Psalmist saith, The Heavens are established by his Word, and all their Hosts by the Spirit of his
mouth. At the end of the fourth Book, [...], Anacephalaeosis, of what he had written formerly of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, As light cannot be without brightnesse, no more can the Son be understood without
the Father; how then can it be said, the Father was, when the Son was not? that is
all one as to say, he was when he was not Truth, when he was not Wisdom, when he was
not Life; for in all this is the substance of the Father perfect; for these, though
they are many in our understanding, yet are one in truth and substance, and they are
to be understood to be before all Time, Ages, and Eternity, which are spoken of the
Father and the Holy Ghost—. These things which are out of the Trinity, are to be measured
by Age [...]—. The Word which was with God is not contained in any one place, neither as he is
Wisdom, nor as he is Truth, nor as he is Life. This is clear enough. And lib. 7. in Epistol. ad Romanos, cap. 9 ver. 5. Christ is one thing according to the Spirit, another according to the Flesh, here
he is called, God blessed for ever. I do marvel, how some reading what the Apostle saith in another place, There is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by
whom are all things, do deny to professe the Son of God to be God, lest they should believe in two Gods;
and what will they say to this [Page 366]place of the Apostle, in which he is evidently called, God above all? But they do not observe, which think so, that as the Apostle doth not so call Jesus
Christ, one Lord, to deny thereby the Father is Lord; so doth not he so call God the
Father one God, as not to believe that the Son is God—; for the Scripture is true,
which saith, Know ye that the Lord is God; both of them are one God, because there is not another beginning (or principle) of
the Sons Divinity but the Father, who is purissima emanatio ipsius Unico paterni fontis—, for he is not after the Father, but of him.— If then the Son of God be above all,
and the Holy Ghost containes all, and the Father from whom are all; The Nature of the Trinity is evidently shewed, and one substance which is above all.
Once more: Origen was clear for Christs satisfaction for us, which is founded on the Deity in Levit. Homil. 3. not far from the beginning: and in 4. Homil. in Numer. If there had not been sin, it had not been needful for the Son to
have been a Lamb, and to be slain, but he might have remained alwayes as he was in
the beginning, God the Word; but he came into the World; this required necessarily
a propitiation; a propitiation is not without a Sacrifice, and who can give any exchange
for his soul? God gave a Propitiation, the precious blood of his Son. Tom. 2. in Marth. 16. Thus far Origen. So that albeit (as Ruffin in his Apology for Origen acknowledged) some Adversaries thrust something into the Writings of this Authour
to countenance their own Cause, as himself complaines in his Epistle to his friends
of Alexandria: And albeit he was not without his spots and Errors, yet was his Faith for substance
sound touching the Trinity.
Bidle. Arnobius the first place.
Arnobius, who lived within the three first Centuries, Advers. Gentes, lib. 2. saith,—And therefore Christ, maugre you, a God; Christ, I say, a God; for often I
must repeat this, that the ears of the unbelievers may cleave asunder and burst,
speaking by the command of the principal God under the form of man.
Answer.
Arnobius was an African, and a Heathen Authour in the dayes of Dioclesian, and not without difficulty at his request, admitted into the bosome of the Catholick
Church; and to demonstrate the sincerity of his heart and faith, he wrote five Books
against the [Page 367]Gentiles, about the year of Christ, Three hundred, as himself saith, lib. 1. minus vel plus aliquid. He is reckoned among the Fathers of the fourth Century. The strength of the first
Citation lies in those words, Christ spake by the command of the principal God.
To this I answer, 1. That you do deceive the Reader by a false Translation, for the
Author speaks not as you do english his words, under the command, Dei Principalis, under the command of the Principle God. You would intimate thereby that albeit Christ
is a God, yet was he a God subordinate, and properly at the command of the Principal
God; but his words are, under the command Dei Principis jussione, Of God the Prince.
2. This phrase of the Father is a Scripture phrase, Joh 14.45, 50 And this command notes a signification of the Fathers will to the Son of
God as sent, and the interest the Father hath in him; and it doth not infallibly prove
superiority on his part that commands, yea, the Scriptures do not abhor to avouch,
that the Great God is at the command of his servants Prayers, Isai. 45.11. Which shewes only the Creatures interest in God, and his gracious compliance
with the Creature: and if these words are spoken of Christ as he is God, they note
only a concurrence of will betwixt the Father and the Son in the great work of mans
Salvation.
Thirdly, This command may respect Christ in regard of his humane Nature, and as he
was our Mediator: the words of Arnobius lead us to this sense; this commandment was given to our Saviour as he was under
the form of man; and who doubts but a Creature ought to be at the command of the Almighty
Creatour?
Bidle. Arnob. the second place.
It may be the Almighty God, the only God, then at length sent out Christ, when mankind
was more broken, and our nature began to be more weak.
Answer.
These words do hold forth this Truth, That the Almighty God, the only God, sent out
his Son to be Incarnated in the fulnesse of time, as the Apostle speaketh, Gal. 4.4. to redeem his people. [Page 368]Do we plead for many Gods? Or do we acknowledg any other God, but the One Almighty
God? Do not we professe, That God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son (to dye for us) that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have life everlasting? This Citation thencrosseth not us, and might well have been spared, which is not
contradicted by us.
Bidle. Arncb. the third place.
We may in the mean time say (to discharge the worship of Divinity) the prime God is
sufficient for us (I say) the prime God, the Father, and Lord of all things, the Constitutour
and Governour of all things, in him, whatsoever is to be worshipped, we do worship;
whatsoever is to be ado [...]ed, we adore; whatsoever requireth veneration, we please with veneration.
Answer.
And is God only to be worshipped in the judgment of Anobius? How is it then (Mr. Bidle) that you do plead for divine Worship to be exhibited to the Son, which as you contend,
is not this prime God, but a Creature?
Secondly, I answer, These words, The prime God and Father of all, is not taken Personally, but Essentially; however, not in opposition to Gods Son,
whom the Socinians do worship; for Arnobius himself saith expresly, Lib. 1. pag. 34. That Christ was worshipped, and his Divinity adored; and therefore if we will say, that Arnobius is true to his own Tenet, the Son must needs be comprehended in that term, The High God: but in this Text the prime God, and Father of all, is opposed to the many made Gods
of the Gentiles, which Arnobius took to task to confute, and which Gods they Idolatrously worshipped; and the Context
makes this construction good, if you (say the Gentiles) had any respect of the Divinity,
why do you (Christians) worship other Gods with us? Then do the words follow which
you have cited.
Bidle. Arnob. the fourth place.
Lib. 1. Pag. 50. But if Christ be a God (say Gentiles) why did he appear in the form of a man? Why
was he slaine after the manner of men—? He assumed the form of a man,— in it he hid
his power, that he might be both seen and viewed, and teach; observing the command
[Page 369]of the supreme King, and effecting those things which were so to be done in the world
without a counterfeit man—. But he was slain after the manner of a man; not he himself,
for death is not incident to divine things. Who died then? The man whom he had put
on, and carryed about with him. If Sibylla the Prophetesse at what time she uttered those Oracles, being (as ye say) full of
the power of Apollo, had been slaine by impious Cut-throats, would Apollo have been said to have been slaine in her? If Helenus and Martius and other Prophets had been deprived of life, Would any one say, that they were exstinguished
by he Law of Humanity, who speaking by their mouths, explained the way of things
to such as demanded? That death which you speak of was the assumed mans, not his;
the burthens, not the bearers.
Answer.
There is nothing of any moment in this Quotation which is against us, but much for
us. The Gentiles objected, that Christ was simulatus homo, a counterfeit man, say you; and what if the Gentiles had thought so as the Marcionists
also did conceive, could their error overthrow the Christian truth? But we may rather
judge, that this is not spoken of the humane Nature, as though it was only in appearance,
and not really such: For how could the Authour say, He was killed after the manner of men, and he assumed the form of man, and the similitude
of our kind, hiding therein his eternal power? In summe, he was not only that substance, which to outward senses he seemed to be,
viz. only a man; but he was more then a man, even God as well as man. And this is clearly
proved by the Sibyls cited by Justin, Athenagoras, Clemens Alexandrinus, Lactantius, and other ancient Fathers.
Ʋnus & aeternus Deus hic servator & idem
Christus pro nobis passus.—
And speaking of Christ coming to Judgment, saith,
Ʋnde Deum cernent incredulus atque fidelis.
See Bellar. lib. 1. de Christo cap 11.
Bidle, Annotations.
It appeareth by what we have quoted out of Arnobius, That he also [Page 370]believed the Father alone to be the prime and only God and supreme Monarch.
Answer.
This language the Father used (as I have shewed out of the main scope of this Author)
in opposition to all Creatures, and the false Gods of heathen people, but not in opposition
to the Son of God or the Holy Spirit.
Bidle.
It is worth the observing, of what ill consequence the opinion of two Natures in Christ
is; for Arnobius having (as others did before) imagined a pre-existence of Christ before he was born
of the Virgin, thereby to remove the scandal of the Crosse, and take off the reproach
commonly cast on Christians, That they worshipped a man put to death in a vile and
most ignominious manner, doth accordingly in plain terms say, what his opinion concerning
Christ led him unto, That not Christ himself dyed, but the man whom he had assumed—;
thereby giving the lye to the holy Scripture, that frequently saith, Christ, and not
a counterfeit man assumed by him, dyed for our sins.
Answer.
This passage is a meer slander ignorantly objected against Arnobius, and that not without a contradiction; for how should a counterfeit man dye for the
sins of men? The Fathers meaning, who was not yet a baptized Christian, but a Catechumen
or catechized Christian in the grounds of Religion, is plain, that the whole of Christ
suffered not, died not for our sins; for the divine nature is impassible; but the
man, that is, Christ dyed in regard of his humane Nature. This sense you might have
learned from the examples alledged by him, which are not (I grant) in all things
answerable to this of Christ. If a Prophet of Apollo be killed, yet Apollo himself acting him to Prophesie, is not in the judgment of heathens killed. Christ
was put to death touching his flesh, but quickned by the Spirit.
But I would gladly learn of you (Mr. Bidle) how you can make this collection good? They that hold Christ had a preexistent
nature before his Incarnation, must hold that the Saviour died not, but a counterfeited
man assumed by him. Is [Page 371]this a genuine fruit of this assertion, and that we are ashamed to own a crucified
Christ? Nay verily, this is so false, that we do glory and take great comfort herein,
as the very foundation of our happinesse. Do not you observe, that millions of Christians
do put this into their Creed, That they do firmely believe, that Christ had a pre-existent
Nature before the Assumption of ours into the Unity of his Person, and that he was
crucified for us in reality? This then is to alledg Sophistically, Non Causam pro Causa.
Bidle.
This is the lesse to be admired in Arnobius, since we find Tertullian himself, Adversus Praxeam, to have used the like expression. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? This speech of flesh and soul, that is, of man, (not of the Word, nor of the Spirit,
that is, not of God) was therefore uttered, that he might shew God to be impassible,
who in this manner forsook the Son, whilst he delivered his man unto death. See whither
the opinion of two Natures in Christ leadeth men, causing them to deny the Son of
God died for them, contrary to the Apostle, Rom. 5.10. We were delivered from death by the death of his Son. And Rom. 8.32. God delivered up his Son for us all. For according to Arnobius, and the greatest part of Christians, if they will be true to their own Principles,
not the Son of God, but an assumed man was given.
Answer.
If Arnobius, Tertullian or any other should deny, That the Son of God dyed for us, we will not plead for
them against clear Scriptures to the contrary; nor should you ever be able to prove,
That the asserting of two Natures in Christ doth infer, The Son of God was not crucified
for us; we all of us do maintain the former, and do disclaime the later as irrational.
But I do not see any reason to cast off these ancient Writers for some unwary expressions;
yea, I do avouch, that it is but toying and trifling away precious time, to catch
at the advantage of a word against the common, and well known sense of the Fathers.
I answer, There is but one person of Christ, consisting of these two Natures: this
Person was given to us, and died for us, but not in both his Natures; for the Deity
(without question) was impassible, [Page 372]and I add, he dyed not accordingly to the whole of the humane nature; for mans soul
is Immortal, and cannot dye, though the union betwixt the soul and body is dissolved;
and yet it is true, the Son of God, that is God by his bloud purchased a Church, and
such actions as these in a reasonable Creature are the actions of a Person. I look
upon such unworthy objections as these are fitter for children and Sophisters, then
for grave understanding men, as they would be reputed which desire to embrace the
truth in love thereof.
Bidle.
When a Person assumeth any thing, and the thing assumed dye, you cannot therefore
say, that the assuming person dies. Otherwise when a man assumeth a garment (I use
the similitude because the Adversaries are wont by it to explain the Incarnation
which they have imagined) and the garment is rent or taken away; the man may be therefore
said to be rent or taken away.
Answer.
I explain your rule, When a thing assumed by a Person dyeth, we cannot say, the Person
assuming dieth wholly and absolutely; yet we may truly say, that the Person, in regard
of the humane assumed nature, dyeth; that which doth appertain to a part of the whole
is by a Syne [...]d [...]che ascribed to the whole by a communication of properties; that is, the parts of
man hypostatically united to the Person of the Son of God, were separated not from
the Person of the Son of God, but touching that essential union which was betwixt
themselves.
The similitude taken from an assumed garment holds not in the maine, the Garments
are not assumed to the Person of man, as a part thereof, as the humane nature subsists
in the Person of the Sonne of God, and therefore though I cannot properly say, if
the garment be rent, the man is rent; yet I may truly say, if the flesh of man be
rent, the man is rent, according to that rule in Logick, Quicquid est partis, qua pars, illudest totius secundùm illam partem.
Bidle.
But the Adversaries will reply, The Scripture saith, The Word [Page 373]was made flesh, John 1.14. And doth not this imply an Incarnation, and consequently two Natures in Christ? Nothing
lesse, for the Text may as well be rendred, The Word was flesh. Since the Greek [...], here used in the sixth verse of this very Chapter, and Rom. 11.6. and in sundry other places is so rendred in our English Translation.
Answer.
The Adversary takes an unreasonable occasion to speak against the Incarnation of our
blessed Saviour, which more fitly he might have spoken to in the third Article, where
he would prove that Christ had only a humane Nature. In this strange work Christ exceedingly
humbled himself, and yet manifested the glory of his Power, Wisdom, and Mercy most
eminently. I will follow his wandring steps, and after I have explained his words,
I will speak to his allegation.
The Word spoken of in the first verse, John 1.1. which was God, became flesh, not in its own Nature, and in the forme of God,
but in the assumed forme of a servant in regard of the Identity of the Person: Flesh
may signifie the humane nature precisely, as often in Scripture; or the humanity simply,
as 1 Tim 3.16. Or grant, that by Spirit is meant the condition, or the adjunct qualities of
frailtinesse, that is, a frail man; as it is also taken in other places of Scripture,
Gen 6 12. Psal 65.3. Isaiah 45. and 49. Psal. 145 21. 1 Pet. 1.24. And thu [...] also the soul which is a part, is very usually put for the whole man. Now, that there
is a Synecdoche, appeares by other Scriptures wherein Christ is called man; and so
it is taken here, as the Adversary will readily yeild: the question is, how [...] is to be rendred. I do not doubt but that word hath various significations, and that
it is to be translated in that sense which is most suitable to the subject matter
in hand. It is a sign of a proud spirit, to affect singularity without cause in translating
and expounding Scripture. Where is the Translations old or new which have turned [...], as you have done? I have consulted with many, and canno [...] meet with one of your m [...]nd. The Learned Grotius nameth Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, and Tertul [...]ian, which make mention of the Word being made flesh: and what Father ever contradicted
it?
I make no question but when [...] is spoken of an existing thing in regard of time and place, and such like circumstances,
it may and must, if not alwayes, yet most frequently be rendred, Was: It sounds not well in our English tongue to say, John 1.6, (the first alledged place to avouch this Translation) There was made a man sent from God, for he was a man, before he was sent to be a Preacher.
The other place, Rom. 11.6. If of Grace, then not of Works, otherwise grace is no more grace: thus we read it. Nor is this Text pertinently alledged, because it is not spoken
of substance; but when it is used to denote a notable change (as it were) from one
extreme to another; then is it most fitly and fully translated to clear the Text,
Was made. Thus in change of condition, to instance in Joseph, He being a poor imprisoned slave, is made Ruler over all the Land of Egypt, and when a poor man is become rich by the liberal gifts of a friend, [...], He was made rich (as we say) by such or such means. And when Paul a Persecutour of Christians was turned Christian, we say, he was made a Christian,
viz. by Gods grace and rich mercy; and this rule holds most firmely when [...] is spoken of a thing which had no existence by being made. There was a time when
the Word was not made flesh, In the beginning was the Word: The Word did not begin to be, when the world and time first began; for by the Word
all things were created. The Virgin Mother of our Lord had no being at all for the
space almost of four thousand years from the beginning of the Creation, and her Son,
in respect of what he had from her, could not be in the world before his own mother.
Well then, The Word was made flesh, say our Translatours; others, which is all one with ours, The Word became flesh; you say, the Word was flesh. These are different expressions, but an Orthodoxal Interpreter will observe
the same sense in them all. You say, the Word was flesh: I ask, How the Word was flesh? Must not you be forced to say, That it was flesh by being made flesh, as all others are, as they are by being made so: the Word neither is, nor
was, nor is made flesh, but by Incarnation: If the Word be flesh, it cannot be the
same with flesh, for there are different descriptions of them, and the one of them
could not be separated from the other, as flesh is from the Word; and yet Socinians
say, That now Christ hath no flesh in heaven; but if the Word was [Page 375]flesh, and not made flesh, then is it necessarily and essentially flesh, and it would
perpetually and immutably continue flesh, and it would be an implicite contradiction
to deny it to be flesh, which the Adversaries will not admit. Again, the Word was
made flesh in the Virgins womb; but the Word, as it is the Word described by Saint
John, was not made the Word in the Virgins womb, and and therefore the Word was the Word
before it was made flesh.
We say, The Word was made flesh, because the Word assumed that thing into the unity
of his sacred person, which was made, and is flesh: and after the same manner is the
flesh said to be made God, Damascen. lib. 4. Orthod. fidei, cap. 19. Deified [...], not really in it self, but because it is personally united to him, who is really
and truly God: there is a just reciprocation betwixt these two, the Word was made
flesh, and the flesh was made the Word, by a communication of Properties in a large
sense; and so the Word is said to be made poor and subject to miseries, not in regard
of the Divine, but assumed Nature: The Word was made flesh by assuming the flesh which
he had from his mother, into the subsistence of his Person. Gal. 44. Rom. 1.3. The Word (a subsisting person) did not assume the person of man pre-existing,
the least moment of time before his assumption, as Nesterius dreamed: but he took the flesh and nature of man; and remaining what he was before,
he took that which he had not; viz. he was both perfect God, and perfect man.
Bidle.
Add hereunto, So to render the Word, is far more suitable to the scope of the place.
For how absurd would it be for John, having already spoken of the things which the Word had done as man, as that he was
in the world, enlightned man; came to his own, and his own received him not; afterwards
to tell us that the Word became flesh, that is a man?
Answer.
That which is spoken of the Word, In the beginning was the Word, John 1.1. Could not be meant of Christ as man, but of the Word as God; for in the
beginning of that Chapter, there is no mention made of the Gospel at all; nor doth
the Text inform [Page 376]us what Christ did, but where and with whom the Word was; viz. with God, [...] is the principal subject. Besides, if Mr. Bidle saith true, and the natural order had been observed, the words would have run thus,
In the beginning the Word was flesh; but the word, was in the beginning, and afterwards made flesh. but they say, The Word in the beginning was flesh, and afterwards was made God; besides, [...] is not to be turned, Was, because if we look into the Context, it speaks much of the Word, and seven times
at least [...], was; and never [...]. And what reason can the Adversary give why the Evangelist would not use in this
fourteenth verse [...] also, if he had meant any such thing? Bsides, it is added, All things were made by the Word. If this had been meant of all things pertaining to the Gospel; all things were not
made by him in the judgment of the Socinians, as the opening of heaven, the descent
of the Holy Ghost in the shape of a Dove, and many the like.
Nor is it clear, That there is any mention of what Christ had done as man, till the
fortieth Verse; to be sure, not till the sixth Verse; for what you object to the contrary
is answered by some learned Writers. He was in the world, say you: For so he was (say they) in the beginning, and so eminently that the world
was made by him; not that other, enlightning every man with the light of reason and
understanding that is born of a woman; for he is that true, heavenly and divine Light,
like the Sun to enlighten the world; nor the last, which is most likely, he came to
his owne viz by his choice and favour; all the world is his by right of creation; but the Jewes
more specially his peculiar people, which in a peculiar manner he owned above all
Nations and instructed them in his wayes. Well, grant that the meaning is, he came
amongst them as man; he was born, lived and wrought Miracles in that Nation, yet this
is only in general termes asserted; but for more cleare explication, which is not
unusual in the Prophets and Apostles, the manner how he came amongst them, is not
described till the fourteenth verse.
I add, if all these things which you have particularly named do belong to the Word
(as you say) as he is man: What reason can you yeild why it should be more absurd
to say, he was made flesh, then he was flesh, that is, man? for did he become man after he had done all these things before?
Doth he set that in the last place which was first?
Bidle.
But if our Interpretation be admitted, all things exactly agree, for having spoken
divers excellent things of Christ under the name of the Word, and having ascribed
Divinity to him, a Scruple might thereupon presently arise in the minds of the Hearers,
what might be the Nature and substance of the Word, whether he was a Spirit or God
himself; wherefore to exclude all doubting concerning this matter, he telleth them
that the Word was Flesh; that is, a mortal man.
Answer.
The Apostle John, I grant, speaks most glorious things of the Word in that Chapter, which are so eminent,
that no Creature is capable of them: And he proves his Divinity by three Arguments
in the Text. 1. His Eternity, because he was alwayes with God. 2. His Omnipotent power,
because all things were created by him. And 3. In that he gives grace to the Elect,
and natural light and understanding to all men: and then in the fourteenth verse,
which was a wonderful condescension, he shewes, that the Word was made flesh As for
your Analysis, it is both false and absurd, for what reason had any to question his
Deity, when the Holy Apostle saith expresly, The Word was God? Or how could they have any Scruple in their minds, that those things mentioned afterward
could be meant of a mortal man? and upon your supposition, that all the while he conversed
with them, they saw him to be a man, and heard him speak with the tongue of a man,
(unlesse they should with Marcionists dream, that he had a fantastical body) how could
they, I say, make any scruple that he was flesh, that is, a man, a mortal and an afflicted
man?
Bidle.
Furthermore, That the Interpretation of the Adversaries, together with their Inference
thereupon, can at no hand consist; but that they must of necessity come ever to our
opinion touching one Nature in Christ, I thus evince, If the Word was made flesh,
then either h [...] was something when he was made flesh, or nothing: if nothing, there was no Incarnation
(since that impli [...]th the adding of flesh to that which is already something) and consequently, but one
Nature in Christ. [Page 378]If something, then a Spirit (as the Adversaries grant;) if the Word being a Spirit
was made flesh, he ceased to be a Spirit, and was changed into flesh; for in the
Scripture when one substance is said to be another, it signifieth that one is changed
into another; John 2.9. The water was made wine; when the water was made wine, it ceased to be water, and
was turned into wine, as the Ruler well perceived by his taste, telling the Bridegroom
that he had (contrary to custom) reserved the best wine till the last, ver. 10.
Answer.
This Adversary is very confident that his Bulrushes are wounding weapons, and no remedy,
we must yeeld to his sense; he hath a strong imagination like a deep Melancholist,
that things impossible must needs be, as he conceiveth, and being giddy in his braine,
he doubts not but all things turne round.
I answer to this Dilemma, The Word was something before he was made flesh, and we doubt not but he was an Infinite,
uncreated Spirit: But your Inference, That he ceased to be a Spirit, when he was made
flesh, is most false, and the strength of your proofe drawn from an instance of water
turned into Wine is very fallacious, from a particular to infer a universal; and
by consequence, of Christ being before a Spirit, to be turned into flesh; for Christ
becoming flesh, is not to be turned into flesh, into another substance; but the phrase
importeth, that he assumed another nature and became man, whereas he was not man till
then; and yet he remained the Word as he was before. God the Word was made man, as
the Councel of Chalcedon defined, [...], neither by turning any thing of the Word into the flesh, nor any thing of the flesh
into the Word, but as the Apostle saith, Philip. 2. and Heb. 2. He took the form of a servant, the seed of Abraham into the Unity of his person.
Your Achillean Argument is thus framed, Something that is made another is changed into the substance
of that other, as water is into wine; and therefore the Word being made flesh, is
turned into flesh, and ceaseth to be a Spirit. Do you see your error? You might have
observed from the next ensuing words, how far remote your Interpretation is from truth.
The Word dwelt amongst us, in our flesh as in a Tabernacle; our humane Nature [Page 379]was as a Tent for him, to appear amongst us most gloriously. [...] comes originally from [...], Schecina, A habitation for God. So that in a large similitude he was made flesh, as Brasse,
or Marble, or Stone are made a Pillar, as a Logician is made an Orator, as Aaron was made an High Priest, as David was made a King; these ceased not to be in substance what they were before, but they
began to be what they were not. But more fitly is the Word compared to a tree, and
the humane Nature is as it were ingrafted into him; or like the body of Adam, the infusion of the immortal soul into it, makes it not to cease to be a body.
Bidle.
Wherefore though it should be granted to the Adversaries, That Christ had a spiritual
nature before he was borne of the Virgin Mary, yet for as much as in the place under contestation (which is the chief, if not the
only Text alledged by them to prove the Incarnation) it is according to their own
Interpretation said, that the Word was made flesh: This clearly importeth, that he ceased to have a spiritual nature, and was changed
into flesh, and so still had but one, namely, that of flesh, or the humanity, which
was the thing to be proved.
Answer.
If you will grant that Christ had a spiritual nature before the Incarnation, which
is [...], the thing your Adversaries contend for, your Cause, to be sure, is lost; for that
nature being spiritual and immortal cannot cease to be, it cannot be changed into
a creature, which is flesh and mortal.
Your Inference whereby you would bring us to an absurdity, is grounded (as I have
shewed) upon a false Interpretation of these words, The Word was made flesh; which is a very strong, but not the only Text to prove the Incarnation of our Saviour,
for there are many others which you cannot elude; for, Heb. 2.16. The Son of God took not the seed of Angels, but of man; that is, he was made man by assuming the Seed of Abraham into the Unity of his Person. How can that which doth not subsist, assume any thing?
Of necessity then there must be another nature of the Son of God besides the humane;
and this is necessarily to be believed, 1 John 4.2. And the Apostle Paul is plain, God was manifested in [Page 380]the flesh, 1 Tim. 3.16. And this is made good by two Arguments in the Text, John 1.14. First, because it is said, We saw his Glory; What glory? His glory manifested by working Miracles, Joh. 2.11 Secondly, Because he is called, The only bogotten Son of God. His generation then from the Father is different from all others; others are Sons
by Grace, and therefore he is the Son of God by Nature. Your Supposition, which was
the position of Eutiches and Dioscorus, related in that famous Synod of Chalcedon, Act. 1. That there were two Natures of Christ before the union, afterwards one was made
of both, that great Synod consisting of six hundred and thirty Bishops, cryed out
Anathema to them which say so; and in the fifth Action, they put into their Creed, We confesse the only begotten Son of God, in the last dayes—is to be acknowledged
one Christ in two Natures, without confusion, without conversion, without division,
without separation, and that the difference of the natures is not taken away by the
union.
After a long Digression taken by occasion of a phrase out of Arnobius, and the examination thereof, I return to the Authour, and do avouch that it is an
unworthy practice by searching to pick out a few harsh phrases, and to urge them as
the Authors sense, when he is a professed enemy to that Tenet, which I will now briefly
demonstrate; and albeit he was but a Catechumen, yet was he taught this prime and
fundamental Doctrine of the Deity of Christ, which he professed and propugned against
the Gentiles. He was that sublime God (speaking of Christ) he was in truth God without ambiguity, Lib. 1. pag. 37. And he sheweth in the next page, that he wrought Miracles by the power of his
Divinity; and demonstrates afterwards, that he gave power to his Disciples to work
miracles. Moreover, If Christ was God (as the Gentiles objected) why was he seene
in the form of man? Why was he killed? An aliter potuit invisibilis illa vis (& habens nullam substantiam corporalem) inferre
& accommodare se mundo,— quàm ut aliquod tegmen materiae solidioris assumeret, quod
oculorum susciperet injectum?— Assumpsit igitur hominis formam, & sub nostri generis
similitudine potentiam suam clausit, ut & videri posset. Whence it appeares, that Arnobius was a Catholick, touching the Deity of Gods Son.
Bidle. Lactantius the first place.
Lactantius Divinar. Institut. lib. 4. cap. 6. God the framer and maker of all things, as we said in the second Book, before he set
upon this famous work of the world, begat a holy, incorruptible Spirit, whom he called
his Son.
Answer.
Lactantius Firmianus was Scholer to Arnobius, an Italian by birth, and called Firmianus from the Towne Firminus the place of his Nativity; he was a most fluent Orator, and therefore called Lactantius from his sweet Eloquence, as Chrysostom from his excellent Eloquence, a golden mouth. This Authour lived under the Emperors Dioclesion and Constantine the Great; he hath some blemishes, as is thought, touching the nature of God, which
are severely enough observed by the Magedburgians, albeit other Writers do make a favourable construction of his sayings.
The first place may easily be answered, he begat his Son before the Creation of the
world; who doubts of that? He doth not say He created him, but he begot him before
the world. Doth he tell you how long before the world? We also do say, if it will
do you any pleasure, that he begat this incorruptible Spirit before the world was
made: but for a suller manifestation of the truth, we add, from all eternity.
Bidle. Lactan. the second place.
Chap. 11. He (the Son) kept touch with God, for he taught there was one God only, and that he
alone ought to be worsh [...]pped; neither did he ever call him God, because he had not discharged his trust,
if being sent to take away Gods, and to assert one God, he should introduce another
besides one—; therefore because he was so faithful, because he assumed nothing at
all to himself, that he might fulfill the commands of the Sender, he received the
dignity of an eternal Priest, and the honour of a Soveraign King, and the power of
a Judge, and the name of a God.
Answer.
These words in my Book, are not in the thirteenth, but fourteenth [Page 382]Chapter. Lanctantius often speaks of a double Nativity of Christ, and in this Chapter of that Nativity
which was in time; in which regard he was, as he saith, [...], without a Father, as he was in the former Nativity, [...], without a Mother. And look back to the thirteenth Chapter, he saith, Christ is both God and man; the power of his Godhead appears in his Works, and the
frailtiness of man in his passion. And he proves that he was true God by Heb. 1. and Isai. 1. God is in thee, and there is no other God but thee; and by that in the Psalm, Thy Throne (O God) is for ever and ever; and also by the Prophet Jeremy; yea, in this quoted Chapter he saith, They laid their wicked hands on their God: and much more to this purpose. What then, Shall we by looking on your Quotation say,
there is a contradiction in these words, if they be compared with the former? I do
professe, I had rather acknowledge mine own ignorance touching their meaning, or reconcile
him to himself by a favourable construction, then do so. Thus he speaks of Christ
as our Mediatour, and of the assumed nature, which in the abstract is not to be worshipped
with religious Adoration, for this is a Prerogative due to God, which he taught, only
ought to be worshipped. And whereas he saith, Christ called not himself God, though you will make no scruple so to call him, yea, and to worship him; and gives
a reason, because he should have introduced another God besides one. To this I answer, That Lactantius often calls him God, and out of the Scriptures (as I have shewed) proves him to be
God; yea, and Christ himselfe would have the Jewes conceive, that he was God, both
by his miraculous works, and by his forgiving of sins, and when they whispered and
counted it blasphemy, For who (say they) can forgive sins but God? He proves that he is truly God, because it is one and the self same infinite power
to work a miracle and to forgive sins: and when they objected against him, in that
he being man made himself equal to God, he deneis it not, but proves that he might
challenge to himself that Title; if they are called Gods to whom the Word of God came:
and by his silencing the Jewes by that question, Mat. 22. The Lord said to my Lord, How doth he call him Lord-being his Son? How then can we salve the words of Lactantius? Thus: The humane Nature of Christ which was visible to the Jewes, was without dispute
a Creature, and not God; and if any should have given divine worship to that Creature
abstractedly [Page 383]taken, he should by that anlawful act introduce plurality of Gods.
Bidle. Lactant, the third place.
Chap. 29. I will use a neerer example: when any one hath a Son, which he entirely loveth, who
notwithstanding is in the house and power of his Father, although he grant him the
name and power of Master, yet in the Civil Law it is called but one house, and one
Master: In like manner, this world is one house of God, and the Son, and the Father,
who unanimously inhabite the world, one God, because both one is as two, and two as
one.— And no marvel, since both the Son is in the Father, because the Father loveth
the Son; and the Father in the Son, because he faithfully obeyeth the Will of his
Father, and never doth nor did, but what the Father willed or commanded; for there
is one only free most High God, without Original, because he is the Original of all
things; and in him both the Son and all things are contained, wherefore since the
mind and will of the one is in the other, or rather one in both, both are deservedly
called one God, because whatsoever is in the Father, issu [...]th out to the Son, and whatsoever is in the Son descendeth from the Father; wherefore
this supreme and singular God cannot be worshipped but through the Son; he that thinketh
he worshippeth the Father only, as he doth not worship the Son, so doth not he worship
the Father; but he that entertaineth the Son and beareth his name, he together with
the Son doth also worship the Father, because the Son is the Embassador, and Messenger,
and Priest of the Soveraign Father.
Answer.
The words of lactantius, wherein is any seeming proof against the Deity of the Son of God, are meant of Christ
as he was our Mediatour; in this regard he was Gods Embassador, Messenger and Priest,
for the performance of which Office, both Natures, the Divine and the Humane do necessarily
concur in one Person: In this regard, and simply as he was man, he was at the command
of God the Father. And whereas it is objected, That in the Father both the Son and all things are contained: I deny it not; but Gods Son and other things are not in God after the same manner:
They are in God as the essential conserving and upholding Cause; but Gods Son, as
in his Original: and as there is one and the same [Page 384]Mind, Will, and Majesty both of the Father and of the Son.
There are very many Arguments in this Quotation and Chapter to prove the Deity of
Gods Son; for the first, he saith, The Father and Son are one God, that they have (simply) one mind and will, and thereupon
are justly called one God; and whatsoever is in the Father issueth out to the Son. Can this be truly spoken of any Creature? He that worshippeth not the Son, worshippeth not the Father. So that, when he said, Chap. 14. That one God alone is to be worshipped, he had no intention to exclude the Son from the honour of divine Worship.
Look we now forward to the beginning of this Chapter, and the matter will be fully
cleared: and we may take notice with what fidelity Mr. Bidle cites the Testimonies of the Fathers. Lactantius meets with an Objection, When we say, that we worship one God, and yet do say also that the Son is God, how
is it then that we do not worship two Gods? — This is a trouble to them, that they
suppose we confesse that there is another God, and that the other is a Mortal God;
I have sp [...]ken of his Mortality (viz. as man) and now will discourse of his Ʋnity. When we say
God the Father and God the Son, we do not say a diverse thing, nor do we separate
the one from the other, for neither can the Father be without the Son, nor the Son
without the Father; — for as the Father makes the Son, so doth the Son make the Father, Relata [...]se mutuo ponunt. And then he adds, Una utrique mens, unus Spiritus, & una substantia
est; There is one Mind, one Spirit, and ore Substance to them both. Could we wish for a clearer confutation of the Adversary? And then he illustrates
the point by these comparisons, That God is as the Fountain, Christ as the River; God is as the S [...]n. Gods Son as a Beam of Light issuing from him; the Water of the River is in the
Fountain, and the Light of the Sun in the Beam.
After some words of the Adversaries quotation, he omits these which are used by the
Author, and lye betwixt those words, which the Father willed and commanded; and these, For there is one only fr [...] most High God; Lastly, That God the Father and God the Son are one God; Isaiah sheweth, They shall worship thee, because God is in thee, and there is no other God besides
thee▪ And in another place, Thus saith the Lord God, the King of Israel, and the eternal God which delivereth
thee; I am the first, and I am the last, [Page 385]and besides me there is no other. When he had pronounced two Persons of the God of Israel, that is, the Person of Christ, and of God the Father.— And relating to the words of
the Prophet Hosea, he speaking of both Persons, yet infers, Besides me there is no other God: he might have said, besides us, Praeter nos. Cast up now your Accounts, and you may, according to the Proverb, put
all your gaines from Lactantius into you eyes, and see never the worse.
Bidle. Lactan. the fourth place.
Lactan de Ira cap. 2. The first step whereby we do ascend to the house of truth is to understand false Religion,
and to cast away the impious formes of divine worship f [...]amed by the hands of men. The second is, to perceive in the mind, that there is one
Most High God, whose Power and Providence made all things from the beginning, and
governeth them ever sithence. The third, to know his Minister and Embassadour whom
he sent into the world, by whose teaching being freed from Error we might learne righteousnesse.
From the first step, we see them slide, who when they understand the things that are
false, yet find not out the truth. From the second step we say, they fall, who consent
that there is one Most High God, yet being estranged with false reasoning, do think
otherwise of that only Majesty then the truth is, either denying that God hath any
shape, or thinking that he is moved with no affection, because every affection argueth
weaknesse, which hath no place in God. From the third they are tumbled headlong,
who knowing the Embassadour of God, the Builder of a divine and immortal Temple, yet
either receive him not, or receive him otherwise then the faith requireth.
Answer.
1. Christ ministred not to God as a servant to his Master, but as a Son to his Father.
Christ, considered as he was man, and our Mediator, as Lactantius understands, thus did minister to God, was obedient to him, and is called his servant,
Isai. 42 1. And in this respect he was in regard of his offi [...]e inferiour to him.
2. In the next place, where Lactantius taxeth them that say, God had no shape or figure; I do dislike the phrase, as not
consonant to Scripture, which do proclaim that God is a Spirit: No nor [Page 386]to Lactantius himself (unlesse he meanes, as Tertullian did, that God had a body; that is, he had not a fantastical, but a real being) for
lib. 7. Institut. cap. 9. he saith, That God cannot be seen with mortal eyes, nor apprehended by any real sense; yet by
the effects he is seen, and by his admirable Works: and thus other things there are
which cannot be seen, as a voice, a smel, and the wind; yet by their effects they
are seen: quid voce clariùs, aut vento fortiùs, aut odore violentiùs. However, whether Lactantias erred in this particular or not, the words make nothing for the Adversarie.
The third step concernes the Adversary, for he receiveth Christ otherwise then our
holy faith requireth.
I have now answered what is objected out of Lactantius against the Deity of Christ, and have already proved it, in opening and clearing
the Testimonies cited out of him; and this will further appear by these two considerations,
which will put the matter out of doubt, that this Authour was orthodox in this Article
of Faith, albeit I will not deny that he hath harsh expressions, which cannot (if
they be taken in rigour) be excused.
1. The first is, That he is owned as a Catholick by the Homoousians; his testimony is alledged to this purpose, and he is not reckoned by them in the
number of the Arians. And ours do much wonder that he is brought upon the Stage to
act a part against the Trinity, who hath given clear testimony of the soundness of
his faith in these high Mysteries.
Secondly, Because the Authour reckons by name the Arians, with the Novatians, Valentinians
and Marcionists, which cease to be Christians, and are called by the names of men,
and saith, It is the Catholick Church alone which retains the true worship, and he that is not
as a Son in the bosome of this Church, or forsakes the communion of it, hath no right
to heaven, lib. 4. cap. 30. I conclude with his Verses De Beneficiis Christi.
Et mox,
Quisquis ades, medii que subis in limine Templi,
Siste parum, insontemque tuo pro crimine passum,
Respice me.—
Te propter vitamque tuam sum Virginis Alvum
Ingressus, sum factus homo, atque horrentia passus
Funcra.—
Bidle. Eusebius.
Eusebius Pamphilus that renowned Scholer, who was in so high esteem with Constantine the Great, that he was deemed worthy to be Bishop of the whole world, Lib. 3. de Ecclesiastica Theologia cap. 3. He that is beyond all things, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, being an
unexpressible good, and withal the Governour of all things, and of the Holy Spirit
himself, yea of the only begotten Son of God.— And he only may be called that one
God, and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; but the Son, that only begotten God, who
is in the besome of the Father; and the Holy Ghost neither God nor Son, not having
his production from the Father in like manner as the Son, but is one of the things
which were made by the Son, for all things were made by him.
Answer.
In the Catalogue of Books written by Eusebius (many of which are lost) I find no mention at all of this Treatise either by Papists
or ours, reckoning up the Fathers Works, or in their Polemical Writings; and I not
having such an uncharitable opinion of Mr. Bidle, that he would mention an Authour of his own devising, and being at a losse, I writ
to my learned friend, known to me only by Letters, Mr. Smith, Batchelour in Divinity, and Student in Christs Colledg, a great searcher of Authors,
and he at length acquainted me, that this Treatise, Contra Marcellum de Ecelesiastica Theologia, is printed lately at Paris, after his Book, Demonstrat. Evangelicae. I do read indeed, that Socrates lib. Eccles. Histor. cap. 17, alledgeth Eusebius contra Marcellum, to prove him orthodox. But whether these Books now printed are truly his, or falsely
fathered on him, I am not able to give an account, but do refer the decision hereof
to the learned, which have better abilities and opportunitie to search the truth
herein, then I have. And touching the sense of this Authour, I am not solicitous
to enquire, not can I give an answer, but only from the Citations of Bidle, and his acknowledgment touching this Author, who confesseth afterwards that he was
no Arian, but an Homoousian.
Eusebius Pamphilas, who was suspected at first to be an Arian, and scrupled for a time, yet afterward
he subscribed to the Councel of Nice, Socrates Eccles. Histor. lib. 1. cap. 5. And he addes a [Page 388]form of Faith of his own penning, with this Preface read before the most pious Emperour
Constantine the Great. ‘[This Faith (saith he) was the faith of the Bishops which were our Predecessors,
and which we received in our Baptism, in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost,
which we held and maintained when we were a Presbyter and when a Bishop; so we belived
and so we taught; and now do declare our faith to you in this manner:’
‘We believe in one God the Father Almighty,— and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Word
of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only begottten Son,— begotten
of his Father before all worlds,—who was incarnate for our salvation.—We believe
also in the Holy Ghost.]’ In this faith he resolved to live and to dye. Socrates Eccles. Histor lib. 1. cap. 5. Theodoret lib. 1. Histor. cap. 12. And this symbole of Faith was approved to be Orthodox, both by the Emperor and
Fathers. And in the fifth Book Demonstrat. Evangelicae, he proves by many Arguments that Christ is true God. This eminent Writer then was
neither Ebyonite nor Arian.
Bidle.
Lib. 2. cap. 17. The addition of the Article to the Name God, teacheth us to esteem him the prime
God; but John 1.1. the omitting of the Article shewes the Word was that very God over all, but yet that
he also was a God. Lo here (say you) the observation of Eusebius himself, that the Article restraineth the word to the most strict and excellent
signification, and by putting our indefinite Article [the] before it, the God; or without it to use the indefinite Article [a], A God.
Answer.
There may be good use sometimes, I confesse, of this Observation; but there can be
no general rule hereof; for sometimes it signifies the generality of a kind, as well
as that which is most excellent of a kind; as [...] signifies mankind, and [...], all the Divels; nor is it allowed without limitation, either by the suffrage of
the Scriptures, or the Testimony of the ancient Fathers, Justin Martyr and Chrysostom, as I formerly have shewed.
Bidle.
Neither will this observation seem nice to him who shall consider, that the English
Translators themselves make use of it in rendring that passage, Acts 12.22. Its the voice of a God, and not of a man. Act. 28.6. They changed their minds, and said, He was a God. And Hebr. 8.10. I will be to them a God.
Answer.
To this I answer, 1. In General, and then Particularly to the several Scriptures.
1. I say, That our Translatours may use their liberty in their Translation and render
the true God, a God, and be far from your meaning: What is more usual then to say
(they are the words of Mr. Culverwel, a young man famous for deep Speculations) You that are reconciled to a God of Peace,
and redeemed by a Saviour that breatheth out nothing but love; you that are sealed
and sanctified by a spirit of unity, and have imbraced a Gospel of peace in all meekness
and subjection of mind.
2. Particularly, I answer to the first place, That it makes nothing for the Adversary, but rather
much against him; for these Applauders did not call Herod a God; for they saw him to be a mortal man; but they said, It is the voice of a God, and not of man: and this differs much from the former, for whether they were the Tyrians or Sydonians,
which after a Peace concluded heard this Oration, and like flattering Parasites so
highly extolled his excellent Speech, the truth whereof is not now in question; their
meaning was, that God spake it by the mouth of Herod, as he was wont to speak by Prophets and Prophetesses. And if they were Idolaters
in worshipping many Gods, most probable it is, that their chief and highest God was
meant thereby. And if it be the voice of his Subjects after the departure of the Tyrians
Ambassadours, as is most likely, then doth it make much against the Adversary, for
they acknowledged but one only God; so that to them, a God, and God, are the same
God, and he is plagued for not ascribing glory to God who enabled him to speak in
that excellent manner.
To the second, Though it is not material what Barbarians and ignorant people do speak
in such matters; they said, Paul was a [Page 390]God. And did they not judge him to be in truth a God and not a Creature, when they
saw he had no hurt by that poisonful Creature which did hang on his hand?
The third place, Heb. 8.10. I will be to them a God, is opposite to your observation; for was not this God called a God, the most High God, and this people a people, the people of God in the most strict and excellent signification? Verily he is blind that sees it not.
The like may be observed in many other places, to name but one, Jer. 23 23. which is in effect, I am a God not only at hand but afar off. Exod. 6.7. I will be to you a God.
Bidle.
Where now is that usual brag of the Adversaries, that the universal Church ever since
the Apostles time hath held the opinion touching three Persons in one and the supreme
Godhead? Did not Eusebius (that great Antiquary and searcher of the Christian Libraries, and first Writer of
the Ecclesiastical History) know better then any man that hath lived since his time,
what hath been generally held amongst Christians concerning the holy Trinity—?
Answer.
No Sir, we do not brag, but praise God for this unity of the Church touching the Trinity,
and do comfort our selves that we do walk in the old way, that good way troden by
the Church of God in every age before our dayes: And who would not judg by this exclamation
that Mr. Bidle had found out an Author of great note of his judgment? but you shall hear him by
and by sing another Song.
It is a small thing to alledg the Testimony of a few branded Hereticks, which before
those dayes most notoriously lifted up their heads, and made a violent assault against
this truth in the dayes of that active and subtil Heretick Arius. When Christianity was publickly imbraced and countenanced by Great Constantine & when the divel was cast out of his Throne, and Paganish Idolatry was much weakned,
then doth he craftily and in a rage invent a new plot, and stir up his choicest Instruments
to infect the Church with the pernicious heresie of Arianism; and had not the Christian
Emperor by a holy Councel, summoned and assembled by his Princely Authority, stopped
that inundation, the Church had [Page 391]been in danger to have been swallowed up, Revel. 12.14, 15. Much may you make of such Patrons of Heresie; yet what is this to the
disadvantage of the Catholick Church, which cast out, as the Sea doth froth, such
detected enemies, and that most justly, out of her communion?
Bidle.
Neither let any man go about to traduce Eusebius (as some have done) by saying he was an Arian, for that doth not invalidate his Testimony
concerning Antiquity; But whosoever shall diligently peruse either his Oration to Constantine, or his Evangelical Preparation and Demonstration, or those Books of his, de Ecclesiastica Theologia, shall find him to be no Arian, but an Homoousian; For whereas Arius held, that God before he created the world of nothing, created a Spirit, his Son,
which was afterwad incarnated: Eusebius on the contrary affirmed, That God before he made the world did in an ineffable manner
generate out of his own substance a Son, who afterwards assumed a bumane nature.
Answer.
I may with reason apply that speech not belonging to our Saviour, which his Adversaries
made use of: What need we any more witnesses? we hear Mr. Bidles own confession, whereby he contradicts himself, and makes void his observation, touching
the omission of an Article where Christ is called God. For if Eusebius was an Homoousian, and held the Son consubstantial with his Father, he was a Catholick,
for that term was a symbole used to distinguish betwixt an Heretick and a Catholick:
why then is his Testimony alledged to the contrary? For though Eusebius did stick at the word consubstantial, for a time, yet having explained his meaning to the satisfaction of the Christian
Emperour, hee subscribed to the Nicene Creed, and that upon good reason; for sithence the infinite Nature of God is Indivisible,
yea and God himselfe, it is not possible that he to whom this infinite Nature is communicated,
should be a Creature: but he must of necessity bee very God: and did he not as I have
shewn) embrace the Catholick faith, and Anathematize every evil Sect contrary to that
Symbole? as Theodoret relates, lib 1. c. 12.
I may now, to your shame, retort those your swelling words [Page 392]touching Eusebius. Did not Eusebius, that great Antiquary and Searcher of Christian Libraries, and the first Writer of
Ecclesiastical History, know better then Mr. Bidle or any Antitrinitarian, which have lived since his time, and as it were but yesterday,
what had been held amongst Christians concerning the holy Trinity? Now this Authour
telleth us expresly, That his Predecessors held his faith, that he sucked it from
his Baptisme, that he learned it out of the Holy Scriptures, and embraced the Doctrine
and Faith which others before him had taught out of Gods Word touching the Deity of
the Son of God. You might with as good reason say, That the Nicene Fathers, against whom the men of your faith are wont to ratle, held there was a time
(if I may have leave so to speak) when the first Person of the holy Trinity was not
a Father.
Bidle.
Object. Eusebius pronounceth sentence against me and my opinion. I answer, He thwarteth as well what
they hold as what I, in that he expresly denyeth the Son to be the prime God; so that
in the main I have Eusebius on my side, and not only him, but the Fathers also which lived in the two first Centuries,
or thereabouts: neither could I ever meet with a passage in the undoubted Books of
them, who wrote in those times, which did assert the Son or Spirit to be that one
most High God.
Answer.
Eusebius and all the forealledged Fathers are against Mr. Bidles Opinion; which me thinks should put him to a serious pause, and afford cold comfort
to his heart, when he cannot by his search find one holy Father to plead his Cause.
The Father is the first; viz. in order of subsisting, and some preheminence is ascribed to him by the Fathers,
in this respect, because he is a principle of the Son, and is himselfe without a Principle:
and if in this sense any of the Fathers do call God the Father, the prime God, their
Catholick judgment in the main is not questioned by us.
Whereas you tell us, That you never met with any undoubted Book written within two hundred years of the
Lord, which asserted either the Son or the Holy Ghost, to be the most High God. Perhaps [Page 393]you regarded not all that you have read. But what need is there to hunt after termes?
If by necessary consequence this Title must be attributed to God the Son and the Holy
Ghost, albeit no such phrase is used by the Fathers, is it not wilfulnesse to require
a term and a phrase, when the thing it self is sufficiently demonstrated? Now that
the Son of God and the Holy Ghost are the Most High God by these concessions, which
are obvious in the Fathers, must needs be granted.
1. That there is but one God, not many.
2. That this one God, is most high.
3. That the Son and Holy Ghost are God, and equal in Wisdom Glory and Power with God
the Father.
Now all these are confirmed by the Testimony of the Fathers which lived within the
first two Centuries. if you could prove that the Son was but a Creature, and that
the prime God and most High, (in your sense) subsisted when the Son was not, then
I confesse, you had strongly confirmed your Cause. But Eusebius hims [...]lf, will discover your ignorance, as Theodoret shewes, Lib. 1. Eccles. Histor. cap. 8. Ancient Bishops confuted some which said, Christ was a Creature, and not consubstantial
with his Father; and used this word, the Son is of the same Essence with the Father. And Eusebius was not ignorant hereof, for he saith, There were some old Doctors and learned Bishops, which used the word coessentiality
of the Deity of the Father and of the Son. And in the second general Councel held at Constantinople, about the year of Grace 384. in an Epistle to a Romane Synod, the Fathers say, The Decrees of Faith by the three hundred and eighteen Bishops (at Nice) do please you and us, and all that do not pervert the word of true Faith, because
it is most ancient, and a Consectary of Baptism, teaching us to believe in the name
of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; that there is one Divinity and Power of the Father,
Son and Holy Ghost, a Dignity of the same Honour, and a coeternal Kingdom in these
three perfect subsistences. Your words, Mr. Bidle, are but light, if weighed in the Balance with these Worthies.
Bidle.
Hilary, who lived in the time of Constantius, son of Constantire the Great, Lib. 2. de Trinitate. explaines those words, Matth. 28.19. saying, in the name of God, and of the only begotten, and of the Gift, [Page 394]and no where saith, the Holy Ghost is God, or to be worshipped: and he concludes the
twelfth Book De Trinitate, thus, Custodi— Keep I beseech thee, this undefiled Religion of my Faith, being baptized in the Father,
and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which I have professed in the symbole of my Regeneration;
and grant that I may alwayes adore thee our Father, thy Son together with thee, and
that I may obtain thy holy Spirit which is from thee by thy only begotten Son.
Answer.
Hillary that eloquent Father, Bishop of Poictiers in France, meanes the Father by the Name God, and he addes a Paraphrase to the other Persons:
He saith expresly, Lib. 9. de Trinitate, Si unus Deus Pater, Christi non adimit ut unus sit Dominus; ita solus
Pater verus Deus, Jesu Christi-non aufert ut unus Deus sit; shewing that Christ is one God, and one with the Father, as he is one true Lord with
the same Father.
But say you, He no where saith, the Holy Ghost is God, or to be worshipped. This is (say I) but a Negative Argument, and concludes nothing Affirmatively. Doth
he any where deny the Holy Ghost to be God, and that he ought not to be worshipped?
It is true, Erasmus and others out of him, say, Scarce doth he mention the Holy Ghost to be God; the
reason why he is so sparing in his Works to speak of the Holy Ghost, was, because
(as Erasmus saith) he chiefly laboured to maintain the Deity of the Son of God, then opposed,
because the humane Nature made the matter more hard to be condescended unto; and because
the controversie touching the Holy Ghost was not on foot in the Church in those dayes:
yet is this intimated in his Book De Synodis, asserting, that they are reproved which say, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three
Gods. And Lib. 12. de Trinitate, he would not at any time confesse the Holy Ghost to be a Creature, 1. because he
searcheth and tryeth the profound things of God; this is proper to God: nor do we
know when he comes and goes away. And 2. because he is called the Spirit of God.
Verily, if Hilary had erred in this maine fundamental Article of faith, the Catholick Church do not
stand in need of a single Testimony though eminent in gifts, so far-to honour his
memory, that they which delight in such Titles should usually name him Saint Hilarie. This excellent man did not only write against the Arians, [Page 395]but constantly adhered to the Truth, and rather then hee would revolt, was a banished
man into Phrygia, (as Hierom in his Catalogue and Chronicle affirmeth, Anno Domini, 361. by a Councel held at Milan by the authority of Constantius the Emperour,) with four other eminent Bishops, Sozomen. Eccles. Hist. lib. 4. cap. 8.
Bidle.
I would have cited the Testimony of Ignatius, for he concurreth in the same opinion with the foregoing Authors; namely, that the
Father only is that one God; yet in as much as the common Copies are interpelated,
and that which is held the purest taken out of the Florentine Library, hath something in it which argueth the Epistles to be supposititious; I
have omitted them.
Answer.
It is true, Ignatius that ancient Father and Martyr agreeth with those which you have cited touching the
only God; and if you had alledged his Testimony, the impertinency thereof, might easily
have been shewed, as is already done in the Quotation of the foregoing Authors, he
will be found so far from being your real friend, that I dare say the Arians can with
no colour alledge him for their cause You might have done well to have shewed, that
all the Epistles that go under his name are supposititious. And if it be a good reason
rendred by you, why you omit the Testimony of Ignatius, how happens it, that you have alledged Origen, whose Writings, as is confessed, have been notoriously corrupred? But I will prove
that Ignatius was Orthodoxal in this point.
Bidle.
I will shut up all with a Testimony taken out of Mr. Brightman, which though contrary to the Opinion which he held touching the Son and the Holy Ghost,
yet the tenour of the Revelation, as he intimateth, did extort from him, Rev. 1.4. Where he speaketh thus, We must know, that through this Book mention is made both
here and elsewhere in general, of God, as the highest and chiefest Governour, for
which cause he hath a Throne given him; as also of the Son and Holy Ghost as ministring
unto him, as by whose more neerly jayned help all things are made and done; wherefore
they are said to stand before [Page 396]the Throne, as it were in a dreadfulnesse, and as though they did wait for the beck
and bidding of the Highest Governour. Doth not this Observation of Mr. Brightman quite subvert his own, and consequently the common opinion touching the Trinity?
Answer.
Doth not this Observation of Mr. Brightman (say I) teach you (Mr. Bidle) that you have wronged the holy Fathers in citing them for your Opinion, because
they sometimes and but seldom do use this term, and apply it to the Son of God, that
he is the Minister of God? This is expounded by Saint Hilarie, de Synodis, your last alledged Authour, to be meant of ministring, not as a servant to his Master,
but as a son to his Father, betwixt whom there is not inequality of nature or dignity,
but the Authority of principle in the Father, which is not in the Son; and that this
is so, your self doth confesse: for you say, He held, the Son of God and the Holy
Ghost were coessential and coeternal with the Father; his words in the exposition
of the Text do evince it. The Apostle John sets down one true God, yet three Persons: To be the Author of grace, peace, and
truth, is common to the three Persons; but because the execution of Gods decrees was
principally to be done by the Son and Holy Ghost, it is ascribed to the Father, whom
the order of doing makes the Author of promising, and the fountain of bounty. And
concludes thus, [Those things which belong only to order, are not to be wrested to
overthrow Nature.
Grant then that Mr. Brightman (who is professedly sound in the faith) doth use an unfitting term touching Gods
Son and the Holy Ghost, as Irenaeus lib. 3. advers. Haereses cap. 8. & lib. 4. cap. 13. and Tertullian, lib. adver. Praxeam, and others have done before him, which in these ancient Fathers was the more tolerable,
because it was securely written, before the Arian Controversie, to call the Son an
Instrument. Nor was Mr. Brightman alone, for Luther also on Genes. 1. and Aretius on Rom. 11. do speak in that manner, yet neither did they nor Mr. Brightman use that term in the sense of the Arians, intending thereby to make them inferior
to the first Person, and of another Nature, subordinated to him, and separated from
him, as good Angels are, which are sent to walk through the earth, Zach. 1.10. and curiously to pry into all [Page 397]things, to bring (as it were) intelligence to God of the state of things abroad: But
they mean hereby thus much only, that the Father in regard of the principle of order,
and counsel, is before the Son;— Nor doth Mr. Brightman positively say, that God is the Supreme Monarch, and the Son his Minister; but he
fetcheth a comparison from earthly Princes and their custom; there is some resemblance
betwixt them and betwixt God the Father, and his Son; yet he would not have the comparison
stretched too far, but writes cautelously with a qualification, quasi, as the Father is (as it were) the Supreme Governor; the Son and the Holy Ghost, (tanquam, as it were) his Ministers, implying that in propriety of speech they are no Ministers.
Bidle.
This Book of the Revelation doth give an exact and clear Testimony to my opinion
touching the Holy Trinity; for Worship, Praise, Judgment, Dominion & Salvation are
no where throughout al the whole Book ascribed to the Holy Spirit, but only to God
and to Christ; and when they are ascribed to Christ, he is no otherwise considered
but as a man, for he is either called the Lamb, or said to have shed his blood, or
to be the Christ of God. Chap. 1.5, 6. and Chap. 5.8, 9. Were Christ the most High God, coequal with the Father, how cometh it to passe that
the Elders and Angels derive his worthiness to receive glory, not from that sublime
consideration, but from one far inferiour; namely, from his being a man slain?
Answer.
Christ is sometimes considered as the Son of God, simply; and sometimes as our Mediatour
in threefold Offices, as Judge sitting upon a Throne (an allusion, as Mr. Mede thinks and proves, to the Tabernacle; in the Tabernacle was the Sanctum, where the Ark was, in which God sate, see Chap. 4.5. in Revel.) the Angels of heaven in great multitudes attending on him; and as a Lamb slaine,
signifying his Priestly Office, Chap. 5.6. The seven horns do denote his Kingly power; and his seven eyes, taking and opening
the Book, his Prophetical Office; but there was a concurrence of both Natures to
the execution of his Offices: as to the Priestly Office, the humane Nature was sacrificed,
but the worth, merit and efficacy of his pretious blood, whereby we were redeemed,
[Page 398]flowed from the Divine Nature; there is no doubt at all but the person of Christ,
whole Christ, both God and man is to be worshipped with Divine worship; but not the
humanity, considered in an abstracted notion from the Person. It is true, this nature
had a just claime to all the glory which God gave him after his Resurrection in this
nature, by vertue of the hypostatical Union; and that would have been derived to it
by a natural emanation, as I may say, had not the redundancy thereof been stayed
by the unspeakable goodness of God, that he might save us by his bitter passion, which
by Gods decree was appointed to be the Antecedent, or in a general sense the cause
of all the Glory and Dignity communicated to him after his Ascension: and now do
Angels and multitudes of Christians ascribe honour to him by a second Title, as a
just reward of his sufferings, whereby he hath dearly bought us; yet is not this worship
acquired in time, and exhibited to a Creature simply Divine, but inferiour to it,
as the Manhood, the object of it is inferour to the Divinity: Or else, if this Worship
be simply Divine, and the same in kind with that which is exhibited to God the Father,
it is to the divine Majesty and Person of the Lamb, for this new and rare benefit
purchased for us by his blood; and hence is that Doxology called a new Song, Revel. 5.9. and Chap. 14.3. as Psal. 40.3. because this new benefit is a new Motive and Argument with joyful hearts to
worship him.
Bidle.
Were the Holy Spirit the most High God, yea or so much as to be worshipped, how cometh
it to passe, that in this famous Doxology, Chap. 5.8, 9. set down for a pattern to all succeeding ages, there is no honour and glory ascribed
to the Holy Ghost, but only to him that sitteth on the Throne, and the Lamb. Surely
the Doctrine of three Persons in God, was not known in the time of the Apostle John.
Answer.
The Lamb of God is [...], and raigns with God over all; and this is clear by comparing these Scriptures together,
Isai. 6. with Johu 12. Ezek. 1. with Apoc. 3.21. and 21.5, and 22.1, 3. And Christ as our Mediator reignes in a different manner
in respect of his diverse natures; for as he is God, he reigns by an infinite, as
man [Page 399]by a finite Power, each nature working according to its kind; the divine works divinely,
the humane humanely, yet in communion with the other.
God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, one blessed God for ever, do sit upon the Throne,
and do judge, which is a common work of the sacred Trinity. Can you charge us that
we say, the Holy Ghost is another God, and not the same with God the Father? So that
if the first Person be meant by him who sits upon the Throne, yet is not the Holy
Ghost excluded from that honour, but included in him, and so all the glory given to
the Father and the Son redounds to him, who is very God; and the reason why the Holy
Ghost is not mentioned, as Bisterfield against Crellius hath observed, and confidently enough, is because the Texts do not speak of the eternal
Kingdom of the Holy Ghost, but of the Kingdome of the Father and the Son, begun and
consummate in this life. Here are divers troubles set down, which agree not to the
Church Triumphant, This is so certain (saith he) though it seem new and strange to
pious Writers, that without it many Prophesies wil be nothing but darkness. And that
the Holy Ghost hath glory ascribed to him, appears not only by Eusebius, lib. 1. de Vita Constantini cap. 7. and by Polycarp, a Disciple of the Apostles, yea and by Saint John himself, in whose dayes you do both vainly and falsely say the Doctrine of the Trinity
was unknown, for if the Holy Ghost is God, he ought to be worshipped. What can be
more full then those words? There be three that bear witnesse in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit,
and these three are one. Nor i [...] it obscurely intimated Revel. 1.4. where, by seven Spirits, not only the greatest number of Protestants, but Primasi [...]s, Ambrose, Rupertus, Haimo, and Anselme, as Ribera the Jesuite relates in locum, do understand the Holy Ghost and his perfection, the manifold gracious operations
of his Spirit whereby he is knowne to the Church, Meton. Eff [...]cti. And to be [...]rue, as Grace and Peace is from the first and second Person, so are they likewise
from the third, who is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Holinesse: and it is the Spirit
that enables us to pray, and Prayer is an honour and worship exhibited unto the person
prayed unto. God will not give his honour to a Creature, and good Angels will not
take it from him, but do protest against this will-worship, Revel. 19.10. but the Holy Ghost is the object of Religious Invocation, 2 Cor. 13.13. [Page 400]and it is his glory that we are baptized into his Name, Mat. 28.19 That we do put our trust and confidence in him: and, Are not we the Temples of the Holy Ghost? &c. 1 Cor 6.19. And shall not he who dwels in his Temple be glorified with the Worship
exhibited in his own Temple?
Bidle.
Revel. 6.16. and 7.89. and 11.15. and 12.10. and 14 4. Why not the first fruits to the Spirit also, if the common opinion be right? Chap. 20 6. and 21.22. and 22.1. Out of the Throne of God and of the Lamb; Why not out of the Throne of the Holy Spirit, if he be God? But it is well that some
of the Adversaries have observed, that the Holy Spirit is never throughout the whole
Scripture said to sit, which is the posture of Soveraignty.
Answer.
In all these places the Lord is described in regard of his actings towards men, towards
his Creatures, in which respect, as it is unanimously asserted, the works of the
Trinity are undivided, and not so to be ascribed to one Person, as to exclude the
other from the same individual operation, and a Throne is ascribed to our Mediator,
who hath purchased our Peace and Freedome by his obedience, and who is our King,
and the Judge both of the quick and dead. And if in expresse termes it should no where
be said in Scripture, that the Holy Ghost sits upon a Throne, yet by necessary consequence
this Soveraignty is not to be denyed to him, as I shewed in the former Section: and
to me it seemes very apparent, that you, and those which in this are of your mind,
are mistaken; for Isai. 6.1. I saw the Lord sitting upon a Throne, high and lifted up, here is the unity of the Godhead; and he said, Go and tell this people, ver. 9, 10. which S. Paul, an infallible Interpreter of Scripture, tels us, was the Holy Ghost, Act. 28.26.
Bidle.
These humane Testimonies above written have I alledged, not that I much regard them,
as to my self, (who make use of no other rule to determine Controversies of Religion
but the Scripture, and of no other Authentick Interpreter, if a scruple ariseth concerning
the sense of Scripture, then Reason) but for the sake of Adversaries, who continually
crake, the Fathers, the Fathers.
Answer.
If the Testimony of these Authors had really been for your purpose, Mr. Bidle, though they had not been so eminent, as in truth they are, you would have regarded,
and highly commended them; but you are injurious to their Works, in that you do value
them according to your pleasure; if they seemingly are for the Socinians turn, highly;
if otherwise, then basely, using them as Arithmaticians do their Counters, sometimes
they stand for pounds, sometimes for Shillings, sometimes for nothing, as they be
next at hand to make up their Accompts.
Far be it from me to speak one word that should tend to the staining and eclipsing
of their due honour; yet do not we so far advance their Testimony, though we have
the stream of the old Doctours, whole Churches, and the most excellent Divines to
plead our Cause, as to make them the rule of our faith, as Popes in Divinity, and
as visible heads of the Truth militant, and to look upon their Works as if they were
the irreversible Decrees of Verity; yet are they much to be regarded, as much confirming
our Faith, when we discern their unanimous consent in these great mysteries; and we
look upon them as good helps to make us understand the only Rule, and we have cause
to blesse God for assisting his faithful servants to leave behind them such painful
monuments, which do proclaim their great zeal for Gods glory, a love to the truth,
and the Church of Christ.
You call Reason an Authentick Interpreter of Scripture: This is a Title too high for
so blind a Guide: Do you mean hereby, (as some of yours have done) that reason left
to it self, without the divine assistance and light, if not prepossessed with prejudices
and depraved affections, can piously and savingly apprehend these divine Mysteries?
There is a difference betwixt knowing God simply, and to know him to be my Father;
the Object is the same, but the manner of knowing is different; as I may at a distance
know such a one to be a man, but not to be my father or my brother; as it is not
all one to have the knowledg of a City by a Map, and to know it by the sight of the
eye: The former is yeilded, not the latter.
Besides, this magnifying of Reason not enlightned by the Spirit, doth too often bring
down the Scriptures to reason, and conformes [Page 402]not Reason to that Heavenly rule, whereupon they do by this light of Reason imagine
contradictions in the divine mysteries; for most of their Arguments against the Trinity,
are built upon this false principle, that we are after the same manner to judge hereof,
and of Gods infinite being, as of a finite Creature; which to sanctified Reason is
a gross paradox. What saith the Spirit? The Wisdom of the flesh is enmity to God, Rom 8.7. And they thought they had good reason, which judged the preaching of the
Gospel to be a folly, and proved a stumbling block to them, 1 Corinth. 1.23.
The Authentick Interpretation of the Scripture, is taken from the Scripture it self;
it is both a Text and a glosse to it self; and albeit our reason (if we look to know
it) must apprehend the Truth, yet needful it is that our reason, if we would know
it savingly, should be guided by the unerring Spirit: that Spirit which breathed
out the Word at first, doth convince and satisfie our souls in the interpretation
of so much as is necessary for our salvation.
Bidle.
Though Protestants, when they have to deal with Papists about sundry points of Controversie,
lay this plea aside; yet do they take it up again, in a manner, waving the Scripture,
when they argue with me, and others of the same judgment with me.
Answer.
Here are two palpable untruths in a few lines. For
1. Neither do we wave the plea of the Fathers in confuting the upstart opinions of
the Papists, as is evidently seen in all our Polemical Authors against them. Nor
2. Do we decline the Authority of Scripture, when we argue with the Antitrinitarians,
as is evident by all the Books that are penned against them: And indeed, the very
ground of our perswasion in these mysteries, is Scripture; for though they are not
contrary to, yet are they above our reason.
Bidle.
It is apparent by what hath been produced, that the Fathers of the first two Centuries,
or thereabouts, when the judgements of Christians [Page 403]were yet free, and not enslaved with the determinations of Councels, asserted the
Father only to be that one God; and so were in the maine right, as to the faith concerning
the Trinity? However they went awry in imagining two Natures in Christ; which came
to passe, partly, 1. because they were great admirers of Plato; and (as Lipsius saith) did in outward profession so put on Christ, as that in heart they did not put off Plato. 2. Partly, That they might thereby avoid the scandal of worshipping a crucified man,
a thing then very odious among Jewes and Pagans, and new amongst deluded Christians,
who unlesse there was another nature in Christ which was not crucified, account it
Idolatry.
Answer.
By my Answer, I hope it doth sufficiently appear that you are much mistaken in this
matter; and whosoever asserted the Father to be that true God (as divers have done
both before and since the Nicene Councel) their meaning was not to exclude the Son or Holy Ghost from being that one
only God; but the Father is so called most frequently, because he alone is God of
himselfe, and the Son, as the Son, hath the divine Nature and Attributes from the
Father.
You tell us, That the Fathers of the first two Centuries, when not enslaved with Councels, were
for the main, sound touching the Trinity. Councels do not enslave men to Errors, but these Councels against whom you speak,
are the most probable meanes under heaven to keep Heresies out of the Church, and
to preserve the purity of the holy Faith; and what the Fathers in Councels determined,
was no innovation, but a continuation of the faith which they received from their
Predecessors. And take notice of that loud untruth, The Fathers (say you) for the space of two hundred years, were for the main, sound touching their belief
of the Trinity; viz. in your sense. But I say, you are so far from having all the Writers of the two first
Centuries on your side, that you cannot produce rightly so much as one of them for
you. And great Athanasius, a curious examiner of all Authors, saith, That the Arians could not alledge the single Testimony of any ancient Writer for
their Errour, Epistola de Decretis Synodi Nicae. And Orat. 2. against the Arains, he saith, The Heresie of Arius is a new Heresie, and unheard of in former times. Are not the words of this Writer [Page 404]of more credit then Mr. Bidles? And wilt not thou (Christian Reader) say, That Mr. Bidle is infatuated, if he really doth justifie Athanasius, and tacitely contradict himself? Mark then how this is proved: He saith, That the Fathers of the two first Centuries held two Natures in Christ; and this was their Error. The humane Nature of Christ consisted of a humane body,
and an immortal soul which animated his body, And what is the other Nature, I pray
you? Is it not the Divine? Can you prove that they meant any other thing by the other
nature, then the Deity of Gods Son? This their assertion then, your self being Judg,
is against your profession: a sad thing (me thinks) this should be to you, thus to
think, There was not one of the reputed ancient and holy Fathers of the Church of
my Opinion.
Your Reasons why they held two Natures in Christ are false, and foolish, and intollerably
injurious to those happy men.
1. Because they did so admire Plato (if you slander not Lipsius) that they continued still Platonists in their hearts, and imbraced his high Notions. First, This I say, is false, for when they were Christians, they rejected the Notions
of Plato, which were not consonant to Scripture, even as other Fathers, which were admirers
of Plato no lesse then the former, which lived at the time and since the Nicene Councel; Justin Martyr procured the most eminent Teachers in all the Sects of the Philosophers; at length
he was taught by a Platonist the notions of incorporeal substances; and then he retired
into a solitary place, that he might without interruption give himself to contemplation,
and refine his former Notions: a reverend old man (for so he seemed to be) appeared
to him, and convinced him, that none of the Philosophers had the knowledg of the truth;
the ancient Prophets, which were the true Prophets, were filled with the Holy Ghost.
These both knew themselves, and declared to others the truth of God: he counselled
him to read them, and above all things to pray unto God. This is related by Justin himself in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew.
Secondly, I answer, If Plato, Trismegistus, or the Sibyls had any knowledg of the Trinity, they had it from the Scriptures, or
by peculiar Inspiration from the Holy Spirit, or a Prophetick Spirit, as Balaam an Idolatrous Pagan prophesied truly of some things concerning our Saviour.
Thirdly, The Philosophers and Plato, (which mention the Son [Page 405]of God, and that beginning of Saint Johns Gospel, In the beginning was the Word, and proved by many reason, August. Confes. lib. 1. cap. 9 and as a Platonist said, deserved to be written in Letters of Gold, and be set
up in eminent places in all Churches,) did not understand [...], the Word, which was the Son, in the sense of Christians, namely, for a subsistence distinct
from God, and begotten of his substance; but they meant thereby operative reason
in God, and being from him, as practical reason is from the soul, whence are the operations
of man; which [...] is not a person, or the very soul, or consubstantial to it, but an accident thereof.
Fourthly. The Holy Fathers were sound in the faith of the Trinity: yet (as Petavius Oper. Theol. To. 2. Praef. asserteth) when they disputed with the Gentiles touching the Christian faith, the
better to perswade them to condescend to the capacity of the hearers for their benefit,
spake lesse accurately and conformed their notions of the Christian Religion to Plato's form of speaking, as afterwards the Catechumeni had the rudiments of Religion delineated to them, under the plausible Notions which
were in use amongst Philosophers; and so did Saint Paul, when he would teach the Athenians the Christian Religion, he accommodates himselfe
to their custome; for when he read an Inscription on an Altar, To the unknown God,
he so applies it, as if the God whom the Christians worshipped was that unknown God;
whereas this Inscription (as is thought) was not meant of him, but as Hierom on Tit. 1. saith, of the unknown Gods of Europe, Asia, and Africa: or as others, of the Tutelary God whose name they concealed, lest if his name had
been knowne by their enemies, he might be drawne away from the protection of their
City: but Paul applies it to that one God which the Gentiles did not worship. What can be spoken
more fitly to this purpose?
2 As for your second reason, The Primitive Christians were so far from regarding any
scandal which might follow for worshipping that Person, which, as he was man, was
crucified on the Crosse, that they openly gloried therein; and they could distinguish
(though Mr. Bidle cannot) betwixt that Nature which was crucified, and that Person which in our humane
Nature was ignominiously put to death: but the true reason why they held two Natures
in Christ, was because they had learned it from their. Teachers [Page 406]when they were young; but chiefly because that Doctrine is plainly delivered in the
words of truth; the infallible Rule of our faith; and Christians do indeed with good
reason judg the worship of a Creature with divine Authority to be Idolatry, unsufferable
Idolatry, which robs God of his glory.
I have now by Gods merciful assistance done with Mr. Bidles Book, and have answered whatsoever I conceive to be material in it. My desire in
the next place is to shew, that other ancient Fathers omitted by this Author, which
lived before the Nicene Synod, were of the same judgment with those of Nice, and none of them Arians, much lesse of Mr. Bidles faith.