him that is true even in his Son Jesus Christ this is the true God and eternal Life These Words This is the true God cannot be referred unto Christ not as if he were not true God but because he is not the true God that is here spoken of as the Article added in the Greek doth intimate Neither doth it any whit advantage the Adversaries Cause who will have these Words This is the true God referred unto Christ that was mentioned immediately before For Relatives are not always referred to the Antecedent immediately going before but oftentimes to that which is chiefly spoken of as appeareth from these places Acts 7.18 19. chap. 10.6 2 John 6.7 Many Deceivers are entred into the World who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh This is a Deceiver and an Antichrist Wherefore the meaning of those words is thus This whereof I have last spoken is the true God namely he that for or sent it being as I suppose the Printers Mistake his Son Jesus Christ and it is also eternal Life namely to know Thee the true God and to be in him by his Son Jesus Christ with this accordeth John 7.3 Answer First As to the Article in the Greek it no ways hinders our Sense or Exposition of the Words but is rather a strengthning of it for is it not more emphatical to say This is the true God than to leave out the Article and read it This is true God and Eternal Life 2. Those Words This is the true God are not to be referred unto Christ because Relatives always are not referred to the Antecedent immediately going before as Acts 10.6 chap. 7.18 19. 2 Joh. 7. To this I answer 1st That these words 2 John 7. This is a Deceiver and an Antichrist are no Relative either to Christ or to the many Deceivers entred into the World but as they are connexed to the description of the many Deceivers and of the Antichrist 2dly To those two Texts Acts 7.18 19. chap. 10.6 It is one thing to say that such a one that knew not such a Person did such a thing and that lodgeth with such a Man shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do which points at the Person and is a Description of him and therefore referreth the Relative higher than the immediate Antecedent and another thing to divide and refer the Relative This is the true God from the immediate Antecedent Jesus Christ 1. Because the matter of the verse plainly relateth to the Son of God 2dly The Relative This is the true God must of necessity be referred to Jesus Christ because it is strongly fixed to the immediate Antecedent Jesus Christ by the Words Him that is true Him that we are in as if it were said The Son of God this Him that is true this Him that we are in viz. Jesus Christ is the true God and Eternal Life So that notwithstanding their Opposition to the Evidence of this Scripture it is not weakened but still remains a firm proof of the true Godhead of Jesus Christ Objection to Coloss 2.9 For in him dwelleth all the Fulness of the Godhead bodily This word Godhead may denote the Divine Will Eph. 3.19 and forasmuch as the Apostle doth oppose that Speech not to Persons but to Philosophy and legal Ceremonies it is evident it is meant of the Doctrine of Christ not of his Person But should we take the words as they sound yet could not such a divine Nature as the Adversaries have imagined be thence collected For it is true and manifest that the fulness of the Deity or Godhead doth now dwell in Christ even bodily in that his very Body is altogether Divine as being made both of Divine and Spiritual Matter namely that of the Heavens see 1 Cor. 15.45 47 48. and being endowed with divine Life and divine Splendor and divine Strength Answer First the words Godhead bodily cannot be limited as only denoting the Divine Will of God because the Signification of the Word will not allow of it Godhead is the Nature of God which is not only his Will but his Power Immensity yea all his essential Properties and Perfections Secondly Nor can we confine this Text to the parallel of Ephes 3.19 And to know the Love of Christ which passeth Knowledg that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God viz. of his Love in all its parts because there wants the words Godhead bodily to be filled with all the fulness of the Godhead bodily is to have all the fulness of the Nature and Perfection of God dwelling really perfectly and solidly in him or the whole Spiritual Substance of God Thirdly It is apparently clear that the Person of Christ and not his Doctrine must be understood to have all the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in him For it is said Coloss 2.8 Beware lest any Man spoil you through Philosophy and vain Deceit after the Traditions of Men after the Rudiments of the World and not after Christ For in him viz. in Christ dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead or Nature of God bodily They say indeed that by Him is meant the Doctrine and not the Person of Christ and that by Godhead is meant his Divine Will and so that the fulness of his Divine Will viz. the revealed Will of God otherwise it is incommunicable to the humane Nature dwelleth in the Doctrine of Christ But certain and plain it is that by Him which betokens a Person must be understood the Person it relateth to viz. Christ and the revealed Will of God is the Doctrine of Jesus Christ which their meaning is must dwell in the Doctrine of Christ but how absurd and foolish this is let the Reader judg Fourthly Those words are not simply opposed to Philosophy but with some respect to the Persons in whom it dwelt that we should beware lest any Man spoil us through Philosophy and Vain Deceit and not after Christ viz. his Doctrine in opposition to their Doctrine and his Person in opposition to their Persons and his Fountain viz. the fulness of the Godhead in opposition to their Fountain viz. the Traditions of Men and the Rudiments of the World So that these words In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily must of necessity be understood of the fulness of the Divine Nature of God in the Person of Jesus Christ through the Union of both his Natures Fifthly For them to say that this fulness of Godhead in Jesus Christ is not of that supream Divine Nature of God as we are treating of but of an inferiour Divine Nature floweth only from the Notions of their own Brains for there is no such thing in 1 Cor. 15. nor in any other part of the Holy Scripture for though Christ as Man and others by way of Gift have had something of Divine Power and Splendor invested in them yet this is not properly another different Godhead but a Demonstration of the same Supream Deity
essentially considered may have equally the same Worship and Adoration given to them but respecting the different Share Work and Office belonging to our Salvation proper to each Divine Person we ought in Divine Worship to make different Attributions accordingly thereunto Thirdly The Apostle's Design was not to make a full Description of God unto us but to shew the calling of the Church that it was but one body in the Unity of one Spirit in one Hope and Faith in one Lord unto one God and Father who is above all the ministerial Offices of Christ and the Holy Spirit who work from him and through them he is in us all And therefore it was needful to use those different Titles otherwise the Union of the Church in one Spirit with one Lord the Mediator and head in our Nature and Order of Faith and Worship could not so distinctly be understood Objection from John 17.3 And this is Life eternal that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Since Christ so described the Father as to call him the only true God it is understood that only the Father of Christ is the most high God to exclude them from the true Godhead who were then falsly esteemed and worshipped for Gods and not only them but all others also besides the Father from the most high Godhead for the word only excludeth all others from the Communion of the Predicate viz. the true God besides him viz. the Father to whom it is applied and consequently Christ and the Holy Spirit For if the Gods of the Heathen are by those words of Christ understood to be excluded from the true Godhead because it is apparent that they are different from the Father then it is necessary that all who are apparently different from the Father of Jesus Christ should be excluded from that true Godhead for otherwise the Argument which should from these Words be drawn to exclude the Idols of the Heathen from the true Godhead would be invalid Answer 1st Christ so describeth the Father as the only true God to exclude them from the true Godhead who are falsly so esteemed and worshipped for Gods and that are not God by Nature But it is not to be understood as if the Person of the Father only were the true God for though they say that the Adjective only as often as it is implied to exclude other Subjects from the Communion of the Predicate belongs to the Subject not the Predicate yet this must be only granted where the Subject is not in the Unity of the same Essence with other Subjects but here it is and therefore the word only belongs to the Predicate not the Subject Now then the Question will be whether the word only is here so used as to exclude others that are in the Unity of Essence with the Subject from the Predicate or not If it had been said that the Father only is the true God it had excluded all others from the Unity of Essence with him and consequently Christ and the Holy Spirit But the words are That they might know thee the only true God and thus the word only doth not exclude such from the Communion of the Predicate viz. the true God that are in the Community of the Subject viz. the Father as Christ and the Holy Spirit are but those only that are out of Community with him So that they must first prove that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not in the Unity of Essence coessential with the Father before this Argument can be of use to them 2dly I shall note wherefore Christ did assert his Father's Deity more than his own and that was to inform us what was Life eternal For as the Knowledg of the Father as true God yea as the only true God is essential to Salvation so also is the Knowledg of the Son of God as Mediator in both Natures for to know and believe in the Son as the only true God only will not save us but we must know him also as he is in our Nature in which he purchased eternal Life Rom. 3.25 1 John 4.3 John 6.53 Now seeing that it was necessary to assert the Father to be the only true God and to mention the Son that we should know him as Mediator in both Natures as his Name Jesus Christ sutes unto why then should any imagine that this Text of Scripture opposes the Deity of Jesus Christ To what is before objected concerning the Holy Spirit I shall add what another of our Adversaries saith on this Text viz. That our Saviour Christ setting down those Persons in the Knowledg of whom eternal Life consisteth makes no mention of the Holy Spirit whereas if he were God the Knowledg of him would be as necessary for the Attainment of eternal Life as that of the Father To this I answer First That here to omit the mentioning of the Holy Spirit does not deny the Knowledg of him as God to be essential to Salvation For as was said to know Jesus Christ in both Natures is essential to Salvation for we find that eternal Lise is entailed on the Son of God John 3.18 viz. his Person in our Nature and not in his human Nature alone for that is but an Appendent to his Person and then the Holy Ghost being only omitted by Name he must be included in the Knowledg of the Father and the Son as being the Spirit of the Father and the Son and personally proceeding from them both and subsisting coessentially in them And therefore when the Father and the Son are mentioned the Holy Spirit must be included Secondly All saving Knowledg or Revelation of God depends upon God himself who only can so reveal himself unto his Creatures Matth. 11.25 27. I thank thee O Father because thou hast hid these things from the Wise and Prudent and hast revealed them unto Babes No Man knoweth the Son but the Father neither knoweth any Man the Father save the Son and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him And John 16.15 All things that the Father hath are mine therefore said I He viz. the Spirit shall take of mine and shall shew it unto you And 1 Cor. 2.10 11. But God hath revealed them to us by his Spirit For what Man knoweth the things of a Man save the Spirit of Man which is in him even so the things of God knoweth no Man but the Spirit of God From which Scriptures we find that the Revelation of the Knowledg of God is appropriated to the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit and that none but the Father save the Son and but the Holy Spirit can savingly reveal God or each other personally and essentially unto us And as we cannot exclude our Knowledg of the Father and the Son from the Revelation of the Spirit though it is appropriated to the Father and the Son by those words but the Father and save the Son nor exclude our Knowledg of
new Man which is created and the like and therefore such as force the Text contrary to the genuine sense of it to comply with a Gospel-Reformation do greatly subvert the Word of God nor is there any Agreement in those words to such an Exposition for the World was so far from being reformed by Christ that it knew him not and his own received him not viz. his own Nation was not reformed by him 3dly I shall make some reply to their latter Sense of those words ver 10. The World was made by him which say they is That the World to come which we expect by Christ is by him made as to us that is if I mistake them not it is made by a partial Reformation which if they would but speak out is not made but only making And they say further that this World to come is already present to Christ and the Angels that is as I imagine to be their meaning it is fully come to them by their pre-knowledg and assurance of it having laid its Foundation What else they should intend by these and the like words doth not at present occur to mind But this is presumptuously asserted by them for there is no mention made of the World to come neither is there any thing in the Text that relates to it neither is there any reason wherefore they should go about to prove that because there is mention made of a World to come in Heb. 2.5 therefore this in John 1.10 is of the World to come also Nor do I yet perceive why Heb. 1.6 chap. 10.5 and 8.4 should be understood of the World to come or what ground they have to impose from thence their Sense on John 1.10 For though the Apostle speaks of something which relates to the World to come in Heb. 1. yet he doth not begin with it until ver 8. and therefore as the matter in ver 6. plainly shews the World there is not the World to come but the present World But if it were yet John 1.10 must not be confined to this or any other Text any further than the concurrence of the Texts and Contexts and the Signification of their words will bear But now let us take notice how little difference the Socinians here make between the time past and the time to come The World that was with them was the World to come that was made was yet to make What a monstrous way they have of expounding the Holy Scriptures by all things say they is only meant Gospel-things were made by Christ the rest were made by his Apostles and that not in the beginning as the Text asserts but after even their own prefixt beginning But if this may pass for truth at this rate 't is not to be found in the Holy Scriptures But these Exceptions are groundless and so are of no effect to weaken the proof of the Deity of Jesus Christ from this Scripture Objection to Isa 9.6 Where Christ is called The everlasting Father or Fa-Father of Eternity as it is admitted by the Adversaries who nevertheless say it quite subverteth the Common Doctrine by confounding the first and second Persons of the Trinity He is the Everlasting Father both because he is the Author of eternal Life to them that obey him and liveth for ever to shelter and protect and cherish Christians who are elsewhere called his Seed see Isa 5.3 10. Answer First The words in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Father of Eternity do not so much subvert the Common Doctrine of the Trinity or confound the Persons to understand them of the Divine Nature of our Lord Jesus Christ than of him as only humane For though Christ is said to be the Author of eternal Salvation Heb. 5.9 Yet it cannot be as Man only either in the Ministration of it or being the prime Author For there being a Ministration of Salvation under the Old Testament Christ as Man could not be the prime Author of it but God who elected and fore-ordained Christ and us in him unto Salvation before the Foundation of the World Isa 42.1 Eph. 1.4 1 Pet. 1.20 So then as Christ did not then exist in his humane Nature as Man he could not be the prime Author or Administrator of eternal Salvation And when he was come considered as Man he could only bear a greater Testimony of the purpose and good-Will of God towards us than any of the Prophets did before him But to acknowledg the Son of God to be of the same Divine Nature co-essential with the Father makes the name Father of Eternity to have relation to him not personally but as he is essentially God and his being called by it is an evident Demonstration of his Unity of Essence co-eternally with the Father wherein only he can be the Author of eternal Salvation to us his Spiritual Seed Objection to John 17.5 And now O Father glorify thou me with thy own self with the Glory which I had with thee before the World was Christ doth beg this Glory of the Father which sheweth that neither he was formerly in actual Possession thereof for then he would have been in possession of it still nor had a Divine Nature for that would have supplied him with such Glory as he wanted wherefore the Sense is that Christ beseeches the Father to grant unto him that Glory which he had with him in his Decree before the World was As we are said to be saved according to the Grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the World began Answer First The better to clear this Text from these Objections I shall expound it 1st If it should be understood that these words denote a Deprivation of Glory yet it must not be absolutely considered for the Divine Nature of Christ ever was is and shall be in it self infinitely Glorious without the least Diminution Alteration or Change But we are to take it with respect to the great Humility and Condescension of his infinite glorious Nature in uniting himself with our Nature It is said Phil. 2.6 7 8. Who being in the Form of God thought it not Robbery to be equal with God but made himself of no Reputation He humbled himself and became obedient unto Death The Divine Nature of Christ consented to the exposing of his humane Nature that was in so great a Conjunction with it to Sufferings as an ordinary Man And if God is said to humble himself to behold the things that are in Heaven and in the Earth Psal 113.5 6. Then surely this must be a far greater piece of Condescension for the Son of God to disrobe himself as it were of that Power and Majesty which he had with the Father in subjecting his humane Nature to suffer the Revilings and Scourgings of wicked Men and to be put to Death by them Now if the Text must be understood of a Deprivation of Christ's former Glory then the meaning of Christ's Prayer is that as his Condescension in taking
disprove us from being his by the highest Right which is in effect the same Thirdly Nor doth it thence follow that because the Apostle saith we must glorify God in our Body that therefore he not the Spirit is the Proprietor of our Bodies For if the Holy Ghost had a lesser Right to our Body as a Creature only helping with us to worship God our Body could not be properly said to be his Temple for no Temple beareth the Name of the Worshippers which then with us the Spirit would be but of him that dwelleth therein and is worshipped and therefore seeing that our Body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost and it consequently follows that he is to be glorified therein it then agrees with the Apostle's words Glorify God in your Body And to say that the Holy Ghost inhabits the Temple of God 1 Cor. 2.16 and receives the same Worship either defiles and dishonours his Temple and gives his Glory to another or acknowledgeth the Holy Spirit to be God And therefore as we must not presume to think that the Holy Apostle should so dishonour the Temple of God and pollute his Holy Name as to ascribe the name of a Creature to it So we may conclude that our Body which is the Temple of God as appears in 1 Cor. 3.16 would not be asserted to be the Temple of the Holy Ghost unless by his highest Interest as he is God And though our Adversaries would have the words Glorify God in your Body to inforce the Sense of the Text in favour of their opinion yet they have a far different Signification than to bring in God as Proprietor of our Body in opposition to the Holy Ghost's highest Interest to us For the Apostle does not intend by these words either to exclude the Holy Spirit from the highest Interest to our Bodies or to intimate to us that God and the Holy Ghost are two different Essences but he rather designs by the word God indefinitely spoken instead of the Holy Spirit before mentioned to include also the Father and the Son that not only the Holy Ghost but all three Divine Persons should be glorified in our Body and in our Spirit which are God's Now let us sum up the whole and see what our Adversaries gain by these Objections First I have shewed that our being his by Inhabitation excludes not our being his by Interest Nor Secondly does the Donation of the Holy Ghost or his being sent exclude our being his by the highest Right Nor yet Thirdly do these words Glorify God in your Body destroy the primacy of the Holy Spirit to our Bodies And if neither of these disprove that our Body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost by the highest Right and as primarily dedicated to his Glory then nothing yet they have said can disprove his Deity from this Scripture for as it is confessed that to prove the one is to prove the other so not to disprove the one is not to disprove the other Objection to 2 Cor. 3.17 Now the Lord is that Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty By that Spirit is not here meant the third Person in the Holy Trinity but the Expression implieth the same Spirit that was before in the 6th Verse opposed to the Letter and consequently the Mystery or hidden Sense of the Law denoted by the Letter for thus the word Spirit is to be taken Rom. 2.29 Circumcision is that of the Heart in the Spirit and not in the Letter And Rom. 7.6 But now we are delivered from the Law that being dead wherein we were held that we should serve in newness of Spirit and not in the oldness of the Letter And Rev. 11.8 where Jerusalem is mystically and spiritually called Sodom and Egypt Wherefore the Sense of the Words of Paul is this namely That the Lord Christ is the Mystery Life Scope and Kernel of the Law as being both foretold therein and prefigured by the Ceremonies thereof Answer First As they say Spirit is not put for his Person in ver 6 8. but for his Effects and Operations or Gospel-Ministration however it cannot from thence follow that Spirit in ver 3 17 18. is put only for his Effects and not his Person 1st Because the Effects of the Spirit viz. his Writing and Gospel-Liberty is joined together with the Spirit and therefore the Spirit here is not put for his Effects but for Himself and so it is in ver 18. where it 's said We are changed into the same Image from glory to glory even as by the Spirit of the Lord. Margent Of the Lord the Spirit Here also the effect of the Spirit to wit our change into the same Image of Christ's Glory being joined together with the Spirit there is a necessity that by Spirit must be meant his Person and not Effect And this is noted to us by the Translators of our Bible in writing Spirit with a great Letter when for his Person and with a little Letter when the Spirit is put for his Effects which may be seen in this Chapter where thrice ver 3 17 18. the Person of the Spirit is understood and thrice his Effects ver 6 8. 2dly That the Lord Christ is the Mystery Life Scope and Kernel of the Law as being both foretold therein and prefigured by the Ceremonies thereof may be granted to them but not that this is properly intended by those Words The Lord is that Spirit as pointing thereby only to his Effects in ver 6 8. 1st Because we may better refer those Words to that Spirit which is put for his Person in ver 3. which as it there appears is the efficient cause of the Epistle of Christ written both in the Hearts of the Apostles and of the Church of Corinth ver 2 3. So that that Spirit is there first put for his Person and the efficient cause of the Effects for which it is put in ver 6 8. and afterwards in ver 17 18. being joined with his effects and thereby differenc'd as the efficient cause and Person of the Spirit is said to be the Lord or as it is exprest the Lord is that Spirit and therefore if they will have these words that Spirit ver 17. to point at Spirit before mentioned in the Chapter it must then be referred to Verse 3d Person to Person and not Person to effect 2dly Nothing is more plain than that Spirit in ver 17. must be taken for his Person because his Effects are so strongly joined to him viz. Liberty which the Gospel it self viz. the Letter of it does not give but by the Power and Efficacy of the Holy Spirit So that it 's clear from the Text that by these words the Lord is that Spirit must be understood the Person of the Spirit in the Unity of Essence with the second Person the Son of God 3dly In Verse 18. We are said with open face to behold as in a Glass viz. of the Gospel the