found alive at the last Day They would have Christ's Incarnation to be against Reason and Scripture they deny him to be truly God the like of the Holy Ghost That there is in One God no Trinity of Persons and that the Old Testament is needless for Christians c. All these and other Blasphemies are found in the Works of Socinus in the Racovian Catechism whereof Smalcius is the Author of Ostorodius Crellius Wolkelius Vaydovius c. but we shall by the Grace of God insist only upon some of their greatest Blasphemies Now to the Cause Matters of this high Nature and fundamental Concernment to our Holy Religion must not be prostituted to the captious scanning of Men of corrupt Minds nor the ways of God be made layable to the Judgment of Men rather humbly to be adored with Submission of Mind and Obedience of Faith to the Revelation declared in God's Word and herein we ought the more to be sober and cautious that we know Errors to be link'd together and to have a dependency one upon another he that strikes at the Grace of the Lord Jesus will afterwards make no Conscience to fly out against his Person he who denies him to be a Prophet will soon disown him to be a King and a Priest for as one Depth calls to another so an Arminian can easily become a rank Pelagian and Socinian Wherefore 't is necessary at the very beginning to oppose Errors defend every inch of ground against such as will daily grow worse and worse as do the * James 1.8 double-minded men that are for their own more than for the Truth 's Interest for they are unstable in all their ways and the more Hands orderly employed the better is the Effect like to be This Consideration makes me to appear amongst those who heretofore did and now do oppose false Teachers who not only privily but also in publick bring in again those damnable Heresies which of old Truth and Learning exploded and baffled out of the World The Divinity of Christ was the Stumbling-block to the Jews who could not endure to hear him call himself the Son of God absolutely and without limitation and thereat were enraged which made 'em take up Stones to cast at him John 8.59 and also at another time Chap. 10.31 the Doctrines about the Holy Trinity and the Person and Deity of Christ do stand and fall together In our Saviour's time it began to be oppos'd by the Jews and since from time to time continu'd to be so by the Devil's Instruments raised to that same purpose and within the last Age revived by the fore-named Blasphemers against the Rock of the Church which is built on the Confession that Christ is the Son of the living God not by any special Favour or any such Restriction for then there would be only a gradual difference between his and our being Sons of God but he is simply the Son of God yea his only begotten Before we enter upon this important Matter some things to clear the state of the Question must be premised so that we must shew wherein we agree before we speak of that wherein we differ as to the first this Foundation must be laid there is a God the Cause of all the Effect of none who hath made all and is made by none who hath given all things their Being and hath his own of himself This is not denyed so I shall not go about to prove it the Light of Nature the Book of Scripture and the Testimony of Conscience do sufficiently convince Men of it The next thing is what God is He being infinite cannot be defined but imperfectly described only according to what he hath in his Word revealed of himself how he is infinite independent self-sufficient eternal unchangeable But such is the blindness of some Mens Judgments or the Perverseness of their Hearts that they will cavil at the Nature Names Attributes and Works of this eternal and infinite Being But about this fundamental Truth our Faith must be directed by the Revelation which God hath made of it in his holy Word herein Men must not follow their own fancy for * 〈◊〉 Mat. 〈…〉 no man knoweth the father but the son and he to whom the son will reveal him Now the sum of this Revelation in the Word is that God is One that this One God is Father Son and Holy Ghost that the Father is the Father of the Son and the Son the Son of the Father and the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Father and of the Son and that they are distinct one from another in respect of this their mutual Relation by this Rule we must be guided how to know believe worship love fear and obey him that is the Father One true God the Son One true God and the Holy Ghost One true God to be believed worshiped and obeyed Now for our Edification and further Instruction thâ—â— Doctrin admits of some Enlargement and Explanation to prevent undue Notions of God which by reason of the Blindness and Ignorance we are naturally involv'd in our Minds are liable unto thus out of the Revelation that God is One we easily deduce he is so in respect of his Nature Essence or Godhead and how being Father Son and Holy Ghost he doth subsist in these Three distinct Persons thence also is derived the manner of their Subsistence what are their mutual respects to each other and such like things by a necessary Consequence from the Revelation Upon these Grounds were compiled the Nicene Athanasian and other Creeds or Articles of Faith in opposition to the Heresies of those Times for therein was explained the true Sense of Scripture about those matters which were wrested by the Enemies of the Truth and though the Orthodox Doctors and Councils to oppose the Error and lay open the Venom made use of some Words and Expressions which in so many Letters are not set down in the Word of God yet they were not to blame for they were drawn out of it by lawful and necessary Consequences Men may lawfully conceive in their Minds what is the nature of the Things or the sense of the Words according to the scope of the Spirit of God in the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles and also as to the Analogy of Faith or else we are no better than Brutes So that if the chief Assertion contained in the Revelation be true so must also be whatsoever is therein included and in the Explication thereof drawn by a true and right Consequence Wherefore seeing God hath declared Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One God it necessarily follows they are One in Nature because therein only they can be One And this is the ground of any other Unity and seeing it is also declared they are Three it must be explained of three distinct Persons or Subsistences wherein only it is possible they can be Three The Revelation is clear there is One God this God is
Father called God Son called God Holy Ghost called God and here the Enemies of Truth should begin their Opposition which is the true way and method yet they do not but they except against the Explication which only tends to farther Edifying and Instruction and quarrel with Words as Essence Trinity Persons c. Divine Nature is One yet common to Three in the Mystery of the Trinity we must learn the Truth the Height and Excellency thereof the Truth doth not depend upon our Apprehension and Understanding of it but upon the Consent of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and tho' under the first Men were more in the dark yet there was Light enough to make 'em believe it with humble Faith and Piety but under the last that Truth is clearly apparent 't is by * John 5.4 Faith only that we are enabled to overcome the World so †2 Cor. 5.7 we walk by faith and not by sight to shew our Religion is matter of Faith more than of Fact to be attained unto through Belief and not through Senses whose Object is visible and temporal but that of Faith is * 2 Cor. 4.18 spiritual invisible and eternal the holy Mystery of the Trinity cannot be comprehended by the Light of Grace nor of Glory much less by that of Nature Controvertes about Principles are more intricate and difficult than about Conclusions especially in things relating to God the Principal of all Beings and that for two Reasons the first because the infinite and incomprehensible Majesty of God doth far exceed our Understanding the second upon the account of the Blindness and Vanity of Man's Mind which either will not depend upon the Revelation without which we can never know things of that nature or else goes about with its wrong Notions to depravate it not so much as to the Words as in the Sense and Doctrine wherein Heresie doth consist Now as 't is a damnable Presumption in those who in these Matters do pervert the true Sense of the Word of God so I must say 't is a great Imprudence in those who undertake to refute them to abound in their own Sense leaving the trodden way and slighting Arguments made use of by the former Assertors of these Truths to set up new Notions and Hypotheses of their own which render those Points more abstruse and these new Lights of theirs instead of clearing make them darker instead of proving they do not so much as illustrate the matter the Proofs ought to be drawn out of the Revelation and in the Explanation thereof 't is no Shame nor Loss of Reputation to follow the Steps and Methods of Learned and Orthodox Men who went before and with great Success opposed Error and Blasphemy I do not hereby intend to deny a Man the liberty of making use of the Parts and Learning which God hath endued him with above others and improve them to a further Confirmation of the Truth but I would not have them to depart from the Foundation laid before them nor to exercise their wandring Thoughts about the adorable and incomprehensible Nature of God merely to affect Singularity and thereby to be applauded This very thing hath of late led if not tumbled some into strange and horrid Precipices which to avoid they more and more intangled themselves therein as hath well been observed by others 't is no good Consequence for such to say that if a Person be a Mind a Spirit and a Substance then Three Persons must be Three distinct Minds Spirits and Substances as distinct as Adam and Abel though not separate But the Error of the Hypothesis lies in this which openeth the false Ground thereof namely because Mind Spirit and Substance in their proper signification are absolute but Person in its proper signification is a relative Term because King William is King of England Scotland and Ireland must we argue that since a King is a Man an Animal a Substance therefore because of Three distinct substantial Kingdoms he is Three distinct Men Three distinct Animals and Three distinct Substances not so because Man Animal and Substance are Terms absolute but King is relative Suppose as one said before and to the purpose a Man were Dean of Pauls of Westminster and of Windsor should we thence conclude that since a Dean is a Man an Animal a Substance therefore because of Three distinct Deanaries he is Three distinct Substances I think not because Man Animal Substance are Terms absolute but Dean is relative It is very sad now to see the blasphemous Heresie of the Threetheites or of Three Gods revived among us by such as might do better in every well-order'd Christian State Idolatry and Blasphemy ought not to be tolerated but severely punished I know there are certain Terms to be explained in the Discussion of these Controversies especially in the Schools as may be Essence Existence Subsistence Substance Individuum Suppositum Hypostasis or Person wherein they agree and wherein they differ but I conceive they who writ for a publick good and would make these Points intelligible to most if not to all Readers might well avoid too far engaging in Metaphysical Notions I humbly conceive it were better because more profitablē in a Theological way to write and explain that which is most necessary to be understood according to the Pattern of Scripture and the Practice of the Orthodox Primitive Church and of its Doctors against Hereticks as we have it in the three Creeds which are a production of their universal Consent But for some Men herein thus far to indulge their fancy as to let it spatiate as much as it will and give it a full Latitude to wander and then express it self in such Terms as one of a Hundred Thousand can hardly understand the meaning thereof Nay upon reasonable grounds it may be doubted whether the Author doth well understand them this is only to intricate the Matter to puzzle the Reader and that which is worse to want a due respect for the Majesty of God whose Mysteries ought to be handled with an awful Reverence no Man may presume to know of him beyond what he hath been pleased to reveal himself for if we cannot well and perfectly know things created much less the Creator neither can the less comprehend the greater and if * Rom. 11.33 God's Judgments be past finding out much more is he himself Besides that this way of thus managing these Matters doth much prejudice the Cause and gives the Adversaries thereof ground to say of us They cannot among themselves agree how to defend it CHAP. II. Of Divine Essence HERETICKS Dispute against the Words Essence Trinity and Person used in the Primitive Church but sound Faith contendeth not about Words when the Truth of the thing is agreed upon Trinity is the abstract whereof three is the Concret expressed 1 John 5.7 as that of Jehovah and Lord signifie the Essence render'd by him * Revel 1.8 Which is
understand how the Person therein spoken is from Eternity as 't is plainly expressed by * Prov. 8.21 22 24 25. Solomon when bringing the same Person to speak under the Name of Wisdom saith the Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways before his works of old I was set from everlasting from the beginning or ever the earth was when there was no depths when there was no fountains with water and before the mountains were settled I was brought forth that is before there was any Creature now that Christ is the Wisdom of the Father †1 Cor. 1.30 who of God is made unto us wisdom c. no Man ought to doubt of Another Text to prove this Eternity is one of the Names whereby the Prophet calls Christ when he fore-telleth his Birth in the place which we had occasion to speak of before ‖ Isa 9.6 the everlasting Father here is Eternity in the very Spring he not only is Everlasting but is the Father of Eternity it-self in the abstract A farther Proof we draw out of another Prophet who speaking of the place where the Messiah was to be born saith Micha 5.2 Out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel whose goings forth have been of old from everlasting Upon the occasion of knowing the place where Christ should be born the * Matt. 2.4 5 6. Evangelist saith how all the Chief Priests and Scribes quoted this very place to Herod so that as certainly as he was to be born and was actually born there as certainly his goings forth have been from of old from Everlasting this Prophecy was made several hundreds of years before his Birth yet at that very time he was said to have gone forth from of old what is to be understood by this from of old he there explains it thus from everlasting the Hebrew word signifieth from the Days of Eternity whence we may surely conclude that the Person spoken of in that place namely the Lord Jesus hath been and is from Eternity here two goings or comings forth be expressed one passed from of old from everlasting the other to come out of thee Bethlehem shall he come forth c. Daniel calls him the antient of days which is the very same Name in ver 13. of the same Chapter given the True God of Israel whether taken Essentially or Personally whereby is denominated the true everlasting God Now out of the New Testament on my way I shall take notice of the place where he is called * Colos 1.15 the first born of every creature which as the Adversaries would have it doth not include him amongst the Creatures rather it declares him not to be a Creature if he was not made with the Creatures in time then he was before all Creatures were made that is from Eternity for he that was before all Creatures is not created so he was first born because born before any Creature was far from being a Creature he is the Creatour for he created all things as anon we shall have occasion to shew Before I go on this I must say how Socinus's unhappy Design and great Mistake is to interpret Scripture meerly by Criticisms upon the words without any regard to the scope of the place or the analogy of Faith thus he searches into all the Senses that they are possibly capable of till he can find one though never so forced to serve the Opinion he is prepossessed of and before hand though never so contrary to the plain and natural Sense of the place In the Preface to his Explication of the first of John's Gospel he owns not wihtout Vanity how his Interpretation is new quorum verus sensus c. the true Sense of which words saith he seems to have been hid from all the Expositors that ever were extant how proudly is this to applaud himself as if he alone had known God's mind as if the Spirit of God had not assisted but departed from all Good and Learned Men for 1500 years after Christ this is an over-affected singularity of his to turn all into Allegories such shifts to defend a Cause do declare it to be bad for 't is only to preserve it from sinking and if once a Man hath leave to suppose what he pleases then he may prove what he will of this now I shall give but one Instance if by the word beginning which we read in John 1.1 we must as he doth contrary to all particulars of the Text and the scope of the Evangelist understand the beginning of the Gospel then according to this way of explaining by the word beginning which we read in Gen. 1.1 we may understand not the beginning or Creation of the World but of the beginning of the Mosaical Dispensation and so the Creation of Heaven and Earth to be the Institution of the Jewish Religion and so several other things of the same Nature this misinterpretation of Holy Scripture is very injurious to 't and dangerous for after such Notions and Fancies no Error though never so absurd can want one pretence or other to set up against the scope of Texts and Anology of Faith But now we must go on * Joh. 1.1 In the beginning was the word saith St. John in that beginning the Word was with God and in the same beginning the same Word was God it being granted that Christ is signified by the name Word that the Word is God the Eternity of Christ may easily and naturally be understood by the Word Beginning it appears how the Evangelist's Design is to assert the Divinity of Christ wherewith he abruptly begins his Gospel under that name he speaks of him in the fourteen former Verses of his first Chapter and then mentions it no more he saith nothing of his Birth nor of any Circumstance of its Time Place or Person but barely when where what he was and what he did this is plain enough if some Men of perverse Judgment had not thorough vain Deceit and Cavils gone about to darken and wrest that Truth By this beginning of time is here as in other parts of Scripture when spoken without limitation understood the beginning of the World it having here as I observed before the same Signification as in the first Verse of the Book of Genesis in the beginning God created c. and that this is the meaning of this place it appears out of the second and third Verses in the second is repeated what is said in the first the same was in the beginning with God upon what occasion was he then with God Certainly about the Work of Creation for ver 3. it is said All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made and what I say is the meaning of the word Beginning I can make it appear out of Scipture and that what they say to reduce it only to the beginning of the Gospel is a
understood what St. Paul saith Act. 20.27 how he had not shunned to declare unto the Elders of the Church of Ephesus all the counsel of God that is as much as 't was necessary for them to know for certainly he was not acquainted with all the Counsels of God What the Author saith Pag. 108. is false for the Mysteries of the Kingdom of God were incomprehensible except by means of a Divine Revelation so that none understood them but they to whom God revealed them and those whom they were not reveal'd unto could not know much less comprehend them therefore they in themselves were above the Capacity of those who needed a Revelation to understand them and of those who understood them not for want of a Revelation yet some had their Reason but to no purpose a Divine Mystery is such a Secret as all the wits of Men cannot of themselves find out 't is the glory of God to conceal a thing Prov. 25.2 The Doctor 's Dialogue between the Doctor and his Parishioner P. 113 114. is but an insipid thing We do not say every thing in our Religion is a Mystery but only some things are as the manner of the Lord Jesus's Union with the Members of his Mystical Body which the Apostle calls a great mystery Certainly the whole Matter of Salvation before it was reveal'd was a Mystery but still some things therein remain a Mystery for alas what a vast difference there is between that we know and that which we are ignorant of for saith the Apostle Now we see thorough a glass darkly and we know but in part 1 Cor. 13.9 10 12. but when that which is perfect is come then we shall see face to face then shall I know even as I am known They brag of Reason which with them is commonly Sophistry which Paul exhorteth to beware of The true reason is that which is grounded upon and consonant with God's word Colos 2.8 the true Rule of it but our Reason is naturally perverted unsound misled over-ruled by Sence Lust and Passion I must take notice of something the Man saith which I cannot avoid calling by the name of Impudence among other places in his Pag. 130. of the first Edition the Orthodox he calleth Ignorant and Perverse Men Cavillers and Deceivers which are his own and Gangs proper Attribute 4â—o Modo Proprium Propriissimum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These Huffs and Hectoring Champions for Reason against Faith and Revelation are like those whom the Prophet speaks of that walk in the light of their own sire and in the sparks that they have kindled But saith God Isa 50 1â— This shall ye have of mine hand ye shall lie down in sorrow for that very same thing Socinians will believe of God no more than the Works of Nature and their Reason will teach them but we must know more or else our Reason must be subject to and depend upon Creatures even in those things which do far exceed Sense and Reason thus also they make their Reason the standing Rule of their Faith yet Scripture calling Faith the Gift of God doth thereby imply it not to be grounded upon Humane Reason or any thing in Man we know Reason to depend upon the Information of Sense so what we hear feel smell and taste we reasonably believe to be and our Senses being convinced our Reason is easily perswaded now this Opinion of theirs makes our Religion to depend upon Senses not upon Faith thus against Scripture it must be said we live and walk by Sight and Sence and not by Faith so what our blessed Saviour said to Thomas were in vain John 20.29 Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed for indeed Faith is a stedfast and firm Perswasion of what God hath promised be it almost unpossible to be thought by Humane Reason But the Socinian doth as good as say what he hath not seen he will not believe which Infidelity of his might as well extend it self to the sensible and visible World as to the Invisible and that which is to come which all his Reason cannot see thus he might not believe there are such Cities as Constantinople and Rome because he hath not seen them for what Revelation is in Religion and Spiritual Things that same Relation is in Temporal and Worldly thus he will not believe that Asia produceth very delicious Fruit Africa Monsters the Sea Whales because he hath not been an Eye-witness After this rate he must not believe the former Ages of the World nor take any thing upon the relation of others much less must he believe the Spiritual World which is of another Condition and Nature nor the Influences of Heaven which being not sensible do exceed his Reason They profess not to believe the Mysteries in Religion because their Reason cannot understand them but there are such things as we cannot comprehend yet must believe them even for that same reason that we cannot comprehend them Infiniteness is an essential Attribute of God yet that Infiniteness which is God infinite is every way incomprehensible to me and my very Reason and Philosophy must acquiesce unto this for the very Heathens would erect an Altar to the unknown Act. 17.23 or incomprehensible God whom them worshipped In Humane and Civil Things Reason is the guide which God hath given Man for his Direction even in those that relate to his Salvation but in a subordinate way to Religion which as as far above Reason as Heaven is above the Earth 't is not contrary to but serveth to enlighten and sanctifie it after which Reason is of a great Use for then it can out of Scripture draw Inferences and Conclusions but if Reason be the standing Rule of Faith whereby we are saved what will become of so many in the World who are quite depriv'd of the Use of Reason Is there no way out of Bedlam into Heaven or is there no Salvation for those who have no natural Reason to ground Faith upon Again if we should know no more of God than natural Reason can suggest that Knowledge would be confined within very narrow bounds we believe a Trinity of Persons in an Unity of the Godhead because God himself hath revealed it and whatsoever is in God is Infinite and Incomprehensible in all these Matters without the Light of Revelation tho' with the whole help of Reason to speak in the Prophet's Words Ise 59.10 We grope for the wall like the blind and we grope as if we had no eyes we stumble at noon-day as in the night for indeed our own Light is but Darkness But Socinians will admit of no such things in God because their Reason cannot conceive it but their Reason is natural and the Revelation thereof supernatural their Reason is finite and the Godhead infinite Can a Quart-Bottle hold all the Water of the Sea or the Blind see the Sun That People begin with undermining God's Altar no
the Angel no less than twice doth direct to the true and only Object of worship when he said ‖ Rev. 19.10 and 22.9 worship God But this belonging to another Head I now shall proceed no farther in it Now to remove all improper and figurative meaning when the word God is attributed to Christ and to prove his Consubstantiality with the Father Scripture sets down Names and Epithets which not only distinguish him from and raise him above all and every Creature but also make him equal with God the Father Thus he is called l 1 John 5.20 the true God and m Tit. 2.13 Re. 19.17 the great God so n Rom. 9.5 God over all blessed for ever also o Jude 4. the only Lord God c. Hence the Name Jehovah is joyntly equally and comparatively given unto the Son as p Psal 2.11 12. serve the Lord with fear c. and q Isai 25.9 this is our God we have waited for him and he will save us this is the Lord we have waited for him we will rejoyce in his salvation Now comparatively or in a Parallel Christ is the same r Isai 8.13 14. Lord of Hosts which shall be for a Sanctuary a Stone of stumbling and for a Rock of Offence to both the Houses of Israel as confirm'd ſ Luke 2.34 and Rom. 9.32 Christ is he who being by the Right Hand of God exalted and having received of the Father the Promise of the Holy Ghost upon the day of Pentecost shed forth those Gifts we read of t Act. 2.3.4.33 and 't is the Lord God of Israel unquestionably the true God that promiseth u Joel 2.28 in the last days to pour out his spirit c. so 't is the same Lord God of Israel the Lord Jesus is the same who is first and last comparing x Isai 44.6 Isaiah with S. John y Rev. 1.17 The Son of God saith z Isai 48.12 16. He is sent from the Lord God and from his spirit after he had said v. 12. I am the first and also am the last So the Titles proper to the true God are given Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords as by God's Grace we shall shew when we speak about the Attributes So then the Son is true God as we observed before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Son of himself when we speak of the Son simply and without relation to the Father we properly call him Jehovah and self being for he hath it of himself but when consider'd relatively to the Father then we say he hath his Being from the Father the Son is by himself not of himself his Essence hath no Spring but his Person is from the Father the Essence is not communicated to the Son but only the manner of subsisting in the Essence when the Son is called God personally then he is not call'd the manner of subsisting but an Existence with the manner of being now the modus or manner is understood with the Essence because as the manner of Divinity is not Divinity it self so the mode of Essence is not Essence it self thus when he is called God personally 't is in the Concret not in the Abstract If Christ be not God by Nature he is not true God for nothing is really such but what is so by Nature The Adversaries say that those things which comparatively are called such in Scripture are truly such as Christ is called * Joh. 1.9 Chap. 18.1 the true light and the true vine though he be so called by way of a Metaphor But we do not deny how sometimes the Name true is appropriated to those things that are so called metaphorically but then the sense of the Metaphor doth not really belong to them for in every Metaphor there is true and false in the manner of it thus Christ is call'd the True Light for though in a metaphorical way he be a Light that is spiritually works the same Effect as a corporal Light doth bodily in the like manner he is called a True Vine because that the Metaphor is truly proper to him but here the question is not about the truth of Words taken metaphorically but properly for when the word True is joyn'd to those that are properly taken then it signifieth the very Nature of the thing so when the word true is joyned with that of God it necessarily signifies the Nature of God and whensoever the Name of True God is given any thing thereby is Divine Nature attributed to it This shews how Socinians do not own Christ to be the true God because according to Scripture there is but one true God they deny him to be that only true God When God is called the onely Maker of Heaven and Earth and the onely true God 't is not said only by way of Excellency as comparing God with the Creatures but we thereby exclude all others for in those places the only true God is opposed to false gods in relation to which he is not called true by way of Eminency but because it is the truth for they are true gods by no means and the true God is ever opposed to false gods and Idols wherefore called the Living God Psal 36.9 because saith David with thee is the fountain of Life He that is God only by Participation and not by Nature is not true God for Participation doth import a Likeness but Likeness of a thing is never the thing it self and if they would have Christ to be God only by Participation this in effect is to deny him to be true God that is to make him an improper and metaphorical God and after that way Men and Angels might be called true Gods which is not only Folly but also Blasphemy to say and think But they say if God and Angels be not true Gods then God doth mock when he calls them so but 't is no Mockery to give one some Name in an improper and figurative sense or else when Christ calls his Apostles * Matth. 5.13 14. The light of the world the salt of the earth and a City that is set on an hill he would have mock'd too so would Paul calling †1 Cor. 3.11 and Eph. 2.20 Christ a foundation and a chief corner stone Seeing the Apostles are not true Light only improperly and metaphorically and Christ a Stone figuratively they that are Gods only by Likeness and Communication and not by Nature are not Gods Every thing is called true as I hinted before according to its Nature a true Man true Gold true Silver from the Nature of Man Gold and Silver Now as to Christ can he be esteemed as a true God who first had a Being according to their Principles and was not God then was God and like the Popish Wafer God by degrees was God more and more till he came to a perfection of the Godhead and we may say was
in this Comparison of Persons all Things may be acceptable unto him but hence it doth not follow that Christ is not of the same Nature with the Father seeing they are not compared in relation to the Essenâ—â— but herein he doth condescend to their Capacity whom not owning his Deity he would by degrees bring to the knowledge thereof As to the use of the Name of God in Scripture the remaining Evidences are reduced under two kinds First In some the Name of God is absolutely taken for God the Father Secondly In others is added an exclusive Particle which is by some joyned with the Name of God and by others with the Things spoken of and attributed unto God Out of the first nothing may be deduced contrary to this Doctrine for in all those places by them quoted which anon we shall mention is a Comparison of the Persons wherein the Name of God is properly attributed to the Father upon the account of Order and Origin but 't is inconsequent to say that in every place where the Name of God is absolutely taken that is without Comparison of the Persons it is to be understood only of the Father for in several places where the Word God is indefinitely set down yet it is by no means to be reduced to the Father alone as to the other sort of Proofs wherein an exclusive Particle is expressed that exclusive Particle relates to the Creatures and to every thing which by Nature is not God whither they be things in Nature as Sun Moon and Stars which Heathens worshipped as Gods or else those which are Effects of Man's fancy and imagination such are several Idols by foolish Men worshipped as Gods wherefore seeing the True and Essential God is opposed to those which by Nature are not Gods it follows that by the Word God may well be understood Father Son and Holy Ghost likewise though sometimes mention be made only of One Person we must not take it as if thereby the other Persons were excluded but only that which by Nature is not God and that this is a right Interpretation it may well be proved out of several places of Scripture as for Instance when God saith by * Isa 43.11 the Prophet I even I am the Lord and besides me there is no Saviour and by another †Hos 13.4 For there is no Saviour besides me Here in the Adversaries Opinion Salvation is attributed to the Father but that the Son is not excluded it appears out of several places amongst the rest out of this ‖ Act. 4.12.10 Neither is there Salvation in any other that is in Jesus Christ who hath been crucified and we know Scripture doth not contradict it self and if out of the Prophet's one would exclude the Son he might as well out of this exclude the Father Again the Lord Jesus saith No man knows the Father but the Son now if all but the Son be excluded from knowing the Father as in the foregoing Text he would be excluded from being a Saviour so in this from knowing himself also the Holy Ghost would be excluded from knowing the Father though he be said To * 1 Cor. 2.10 search all things yea the deep things of God in this very same Sense Paul said ‖ Chap. 2.1 10. I determined not to know any thing among you save Jesus Christ and him crucified he doth not thereby deny that he determined to know the Father and the Holy Ghost but he meaneth he knows nor owns no way of Salvation out of Christ and v. â—1 The things of God knows no man but the spirit of God but in other places we read how * Joh. 5.20 the Father knows the Son and the Son knows the Father and the Father shews the Son all things that himself doth hence we may conclude how the Apostle speaks exclusively only of Creatures not of the Son nor of the Holy Ghost CHAP. VI. Christ is True Natural Son of God by Eternal Generation BUT we must by the Grace of God come to another Head as Scripture gives Christ truly properly and essentially the Name of God so it doth give him that of Son of God the First we shewed already the Second whereby he is declared the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity we must now speak of as we observed that the Word God in Scripture is spoken in several Senses as the True God properly Angels and Magistrates improperly and * Judg. 9.2 l. 46. Idols †2 Cor. 4.4 the Devil and the ‖ Phil. 3.19 Belly abusively So here I must say how the Name Son of God admits of Three different Significations for God hath three sorts of Sons for all others are reduced under these three Heads the First is by Creation and Preservation which is a continued Creation for * Act. 17.28 in him we live and move and have our being thus Adam is called †Luke 3.38 Son of God and Men ‖ Gen. 6.2 Sons of God on this Account God is Father of all Creatures whether in Heaven as Angels nay of the Sun Moon Stars of the Birds of the Air and on Earth of all Men Beasts Plants c. and of Fishes under Water this in relation to Nature and in general to the whole Creation The Second kind of God's Sons or Children is by Adoption and Grace such are his Elect and People of these in a special manner God is called the Father In a Third way Scripture speaks of a Son of God and of none else thus the only begotten from all Eternity namely our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who is not Son according to the first manner which being common to all Men would make no difference between him and others and bring him into a Croud of the whole Work of Creation neither is he Son of God upon the account of Grace and Adoption which they would have him to be but if he be by Adoption how can he be the Only Begotten Son seeing that through Grace God hath adopted so many adopted Sons once and before their Adoption were not Sons of God which cannot be said of the Lord Jesus that the time hath been when he was not Son of God all and every adopted Son of God were once * Ephes 2. dead in trespasses and sins and by nature children of wrath even as others once †Colos 1.13 under the power of darkness and ‖ Rom. 5.10 enemies to God none of which things may without Blasphemy be spoken or thought of the Lord Jesus He is called Son not by Creation for * Colos 1.16 all things were created by him and one cannot be Creatour and Creature nor by Adoption for †Ephes 1.5 in him we are adopted nor by any Dignity or Eminency over inferiour Creatures as are Angels for the ‖ Heb. 1.4 5. Apostle denies it nor also upon the account of a personal Vnion or Incarnation as he is called Son
David's Son for if only upon some borrowed account or accidental reason he were David's Lord as may be some Power and Dignity above him then Christ's Argument would quite loose its strength which wholly lies in this if he be his Lord how can he be his Son Upon some extraordinary account and relation it may happen that a Son may become a Lord over his Father but here Christ is certainly asserted to be Lord over David and in some sense 't is impossible for David to become Lord over Christ which can be upon no other account but of his divine Nature besides that he was David's Lord in David's time and before his Birth of the Virgin Mary His Son he was according to the Fâ—esh and his Humanity and his Lord according to the Spirit and his Divinity The Fourth Argument whereby Christ is proved to be God's natural Son is taken out of the Words whereby he declares himself to be such a Son as is one with the Father not any other way to be understood than by Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this the Jews took to be his meaning and for that same cause called him a Blasphemer and would have stoned him and thereupon our Saviour did not go about to shew they were mistaken though his Life was concerned on the contrary he used Arguments to make 'em believe he was so though to them it seemed incredible and blasphemous Chap. 5. And in another Text he affirmeth himself to be such a Son of God as is of an equal Power with and can do the same Works as the Father so that what things soever the Father doth this also doth the Son likewise the Son doth nothing without the Father nor the Father without the Son by reason of their Oneness of Nature and Equality of Poweâ— Though the Jews out of these words of his v. 7. My father works hitherto and I work concluded he made himself equal with God yet though they were offended at it and he thereupon did run the hazard of his Life though he never was so uncharitable as to give any one just ground of offence nor so rash as unnecessarily to venture his Life yet he would not deny his Equality with the Father but on the contrary with several Arguments he confirms it from v. 19. to 22. and this not to be understood of an Equality only in some respects for the Unity of natural Power and Operation argueth an absolute Equality and as in Power so in Nature * John 10.30 I and my Father are one and v. 38. you may by my works believe that the Father is in me and not only so but I in him as for greater confirmation * ch 14.10 repeated out of that place of John I and the Father are one Augustine's †Pereant vaniloqui mentis seductores c. words are to be taken notice of let vain and Seducers Arrius and Sabellius perish Christ said not I and the Father am one but I and the Father are one when I say one let the Arian take notice of it and what I say we are let the Sabellian mind it let not the Arian divide one nor the Sabellian take away are one we refer to Nature are to the diversity of Persons The Fifth Argument is taken out of the Lord Jesus his own words and we know him not only to be true but truth it self †John 14.6 though he beareth record * c. 8.14 of himself this is when in a legal way being asked by Caiaphas and ‖ Mat. 26.63 64. adjured by the living God to tell whether he be the Christ the son of God * Mar. 14.61 62. the Christ the son of the blessed he owned it and said Thou hast said I am For which Confession he was accused of Blasphemy and condemn'd to death for said they to Pilate †Joh. 19.7 We have a law and by our law he ought to dye because he made himself the son of God so he suffer'd for owning himself to be the Son of God which Confession of his S. Paul takes special notice of in the Charge he giveth his Disciple * 1 Tim. 6.13 the meaning is that he was the true natural Son of God or else it would not have been accounted a Blasphemy for any Jew to have called himself Son of God no more than God's People Abraham's Seed by virtue of the Promises and Privilege of the Covenant and Grace and God they call their Father John 8.41 yet thought not they were Blasphemers for that therefore Christ's Words they took in another that is in a strict and proper sense Indeed the High Priest's Question was a Snare laid for Christ for though they sought false Witnesses and many came yet their Witness did not agree together wherefore they sought to have something out of his mouth wherewith to accuse him The Question was amongst other things grounded upon what our Saviour had said of himself in the Fifth and Tenth Chapters of John whether he was of the same Nature with God and in Power equal with him which is the same as to be natural Son of God and of the same Essence which he having affirmatively answered unto and said he was thereupon having gained their Point they rent their Cloaths and said What need we any farther Witnesses and upon this very Confession he was accused condemned and executed Hence I ask Socinians Did Christ speak the truth when he said he was the Son of God one with him or of the same Nature and to him equal in Power I farther ask whether the High Priest and the rest did not well apprehend this to be the true meaning of his words If so as certainly both are true if Socinians had been in the place of the Jews they would have used him as they did and would do the like if ever it were in their power for some of them when they write and give a Character of our blessed Saviour's Person they seem to take a pleasure to say he was by the Senate or Council of Scribes and Pharisees in Jerusalem condemned and executed for Blasphemy in that he had said he was the Son of God that he said so 't is most true out of John 10.36 but I ask again when the Lord said so did he speak the truth or not If the truth why do Men not believe him that is in the sense the Jews understood it true proper natural Son of God equal with God For this they took his meaning to be but if he was not what he owned himself to be then he must be supposed to have spoken a lye which is a Sin To such Blasphemers our blessed Lord speaks in defiance as once he did to the Jews * John 8.46 Which of you convinceth me of sin We know he suffer'd as a Blasphemer a Deceiver and a Transgressor but was he really so The Apostle saith †1 Pet. 3.18 He suffered the just
many other things blasphemously spake they against him and Paul what before his Conversion he said or acted against he for that same calls himself ‖ 1 Tim. 1.13 a Blasphemer and when he made others to do as he did that he calls * Acts 26.11 2 Tim. 3.2 Act. 18.6 he compell'd them to blaspheme I believe the Spirit of God pointed at Socinians among others when he said by the Apostle that in the last days men shall be blasphemers as were those that opposed Paul when he preached Christ wherein they blasphemed We have many Heads more and abundance of Texts of Scripture to prove the Lord Jesus to be true natural Son of God begotten of the Father from all Eternity and these places we in the following part of our Discourse shall have occasion to make use of one of the fullest and plainest we shall begin with afforded by John †Joh. 1.1 In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God Which to corrupt the Heresiarch Socinus used his utmost wicked Endeavours the word is said to have been in the beginning not as if he then had begun to be but that then he was existing and so from all Eternity before any Creatures were made there was no time only Eternity Christ is call'd the Wisdom of God to shew he as well as the Father is from everlasting it were Blasphemy to think that ever there was a time when God wanted his Wisdom which speaking of himself saith ‖ Prov. 8.23 I was set up from everlasting and God by him manifested himself in the World in the Creation thereof That Christ the Word is eternal that is he was before his Incarnation before the Virgin Mary and before the Gospel began to be preached it appears out of John's Evidence In the beginning was the word out of which both his Deity and Eternity are proved the other Evangelists do write of Christ's Humanity in relation to his Birth or temporal Generation when he took upon him our human Nature and in time was born of the blessed Virgin Mary for in her Womb the word was made flesh and his Body therein formed out of her Substance without company of Man But John falls immediately upon his Divinity and calls him the Word for he was the Davar promised unto the Fathers now this was in the beginning that is before any thing was when things began to be made he then was when the World was not yet made afterwards he indeed was made Flesh but had a pre-existing Being Socinians cavil that by the beginning is meant the preaching of the Gospel which is clearly false for that doth not answer the scope of the Evangelist whose design is to prove the Word to be God which to do he draws his Argument from his Being in the beginning so by the word Beginning that must be understood which concludeth the Word to be God Their Interpretation agreeth with that of Arius That time had been when the Word was not and because it is in that sense taken in some places * Mark 1.1 Luke 1.2 for a temporal Beginning that is the time of his Incarnation it doth not follow that it is so to be taken in S. John for Mark begins his Book with these words The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God he writes the Gospel for he is an Evangelist and in his very first words he gives the Contents of what he is writing but herein the Person of Christ is not immediately concerned he with other Evangelists gives an account of his Humanity but John speaks of his Divinity he alludes to Moses who had given the History of the Creation and begins his Gospel in the words wherewith Moses began his Book of Genesis In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth and he his Gospel In the beginning was the word But our Evangelist is not satisfied to say the word was with God but addeth in the next Verse the same was in the beginning with God and so v. 3. he falls upon speaking of the Creation for all things were made by him c. we know how in Scripture the word Beginning as well as several others hath different Significations but in this place such a sense destroys the Analogy of Faith and contradicteth those Texts which affirm the Eternity of God's Son which hereafter we shall have occasion to mencion as that of the Prophet †Isai 53.8 Who shall declare his generation 't is ab impossibili as if he had said no Man can declare it and elsewhere under the Type of Solomon 't is said * Psal 72.17 his name shall endure for ever c. not only of an Eternity à parte post but also à parte ante as without ending so without beginning as expressed in the Prophetical Psalm of Christ's Kingdom and Priesthood †Psalm 110.3 from the womb of the morning thou hast the dew of his youth And now I am upon this first Verse of the first Chapter of St. John I shall observe three Things much to our purpose the First that the word Beginning absolutely spoken doth in Scripture relate to the Creation or beginning of the World out of several places so well known in Scripture I shall now only quote one and more hereafter as I shall have occasion for hath it not been told you from the beginning have ye ‖ Isa 40.21 not understood from the foundations of the earth here by Beginning is signified the Foundation of the Earth The second Thing I observe is this the Word was with God here is a personal Distinction between God and the word who was with God as if he had said resided till he was made Flesh and in respect to this Incarnation he is said to have come down from the Father The third Thing observed is this the word was God the Person called the Word as it appears by the Article is the Subject here called and asserted to be God that is in the same essential Sense as the God with whom the word Was is said to be God that is by Nature for as in this Verse but one Word though thrice named is to be understood so but one true God in Nature though thrice named is meaned in the place Thus the Essentiality and Eternity of the word who is the Son with the Father are here evidently set forth but this is more at large set down in the next Reason But a second Reason is that John makes the Word equal with God when he saith the word was with God which hath a relation to his Eternity it was always with God for here not only he distinguisheth the Persons but makes the Word equal with God the Father he saith the Word that was in the beginning was one and God the Father whom he was with another the Persons of the Son and of the Father were distinct indeed but in making them
Coeternal he makes them Equal for them to say that the word being with God signifies that the word was known to God but not to Men doth them no good the knowledge of this doth comprehend the whole Mystery of our Redemption which the Son who is in the Bosom of the Father hath revealed unto us but to the thing if this imported no more but that Christ was known to the Father What could he thereby have more than we No Prerogative at all for before the Foundation of the World God knew us and We were present with him Christ was with the the Father that is had a real Existence did subsist in himself which cannot be said of us or of any Creature wherefore the Word must need have been before his Incarnation In the Third place 't is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word was God which is properly to be understood as is * 1 Joh. 5.20 that other place we are in him that is true in his Son Jesus Christ that is the true God and eternal life and elsewhere †Tit. 1.3 God hath in due time manifested his word through preaching which is committed to me according to the commandment of God our Saviour repeated Chap. 3.4 and Chap. 2. he is called †Tit. 2.12 Rev. 19.17 the great God our Saviour Jesus Christ and in another place he is named ‖ 1 Tim. 1.1 God our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ now this God Lord and Saviour is but One and this is Jesus Christ whose Apostle he owns himself to be and the Gospel he preached * Gal. 1.12 he was taught by the Revelation of Jesus Christ who again is called †1 Tim. 2.3 God our Saviour There must be special Cause why the words God and Saviour are so often joyned together and both attributed to One Person the Lord Jesus he is God as truly and really as he is Saviour which we hope the Adversaries will not have the confidence to deny him to be in the strictest Sense though otherwise they rob him of what they can he is then a Saviour by Office and God by Nature to save Men from the Dominion of Sin from the Curse of the Law from the Devil Death and Hell requires a true real Divine Power which none but a Divine Nature is or can be possessed of Moses was relatively called God and Cyrus God 's Anointed or Messiah but they were but Types of the great Deliverer Every one knows Moses was not God nor Cyrus the Messiah but to say Christ Jesus is called God though he be not is the effect of a brazen faced Impudence of an invincible Ignorance of the Mind or hellish Perverseness of the Heart as good as to conclude that because 't is said he is of God made unto us †1 Cor. 1.30 Wisdom righteousness sanctification and redemption therefore he is neither nor God by Nature when he saith ‖ Joh. 15.5 without me you can do nothing which may not be said of Men. The Fourth Reason out of St. John is this * Joh. 1.3 all things were made by â—him and without him was not any thing made that was made certainly the Work of Creation doth evince the Eternity of the Word for the Workman must be before his Work and the Creator before the Creature now the Word being the Maker must need be before Mary here they would cavil and confine this making of Things within the Work of the New Creation or renewing of the Creature but the following Words without him was not any thing made that was made are universal and comprehend every thing Temporal or Spiritual Creation of the World or Regeneration of Men though we own the Creation of the World is the scope of the place compared with Coloss 1.15 All things were created by him and for him which doth appear out of ver 10. the world was made by him and God created all things by Jesus Christ Ephes 3.9 and to remove all grounds of Exception we have it in the Plural Number which doth include all †Heb. 11.3 the worlds were framed by the word of God Another Reason might be brought out of ver 14. of this same Gospel the word was made flesh but this we shall by the Grace of God bring in under another Head In Scripture we have several places which either do express or imply two Natures in the Person of our blessed Lord and Saviour the Prophet Isaiah doth among others afford us Two very considerable the first is this * Isa 7.14 Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son and shall call his name Immanuel this affords several things seriously but now briefly to be thought upon this Prophecy is a sign given Ahaz King of Judah to Comfort him when the Kings of Israel and of Syria came up against him with a Promise that they should not prevail and that he might be confirmed and assured of the performance he is bidden to ask a Sign which he refusing to do gave for Reason he would not tempt God whereupon is made this Gospel-Promise which was performed at the time of the Conception and Birth of our blessed Saviour whose Mother was a Virgin and whose Name was Immanuel a Name given him at that time by the Prophet through God's own appointment and when the Angel delivered his Message to Mary he makes use of some of the Words of the Prophet * Luk. 1.31 thou shalt conceive and bring forth a Son and shalt call his Name Jesus because he was to save his People and when the thing was fulfilled the Evangelist doth point at and quote this Prophecy adding the Interpretation of the Name ‖ Matt. 1.21 Immanuel God with us So there is no doubt to be made that this wholly and only related to our Saviour never any other Virgin did conceive and bring forth never was the Name Immanuel given any one else and cannot be wrested so as to be given to any Son to be born of Ahaz for some Reason which I presently shall produce Immanuel is God with a Divine Essence Christ is the Immanuel so we must conclude he hath the Divine Essence for God with us hath the Divine Essence and God with us is Immanuel the Name God is not spoken of Angels of no King or Magistrate of no Idols which are the several significations of the Word God used in Scripture wherefore he whom this Name is given to must be the true essential God and this same Evangelical Prophet in the next Chapter but one after this calls him by the Name used in this place and the Word El which makes the latter end of the Name doth not barely signify God but the Mighty God this Word makes part of that of Michael whose signification is who is like unto thee thou mighty God and he that beareth it is called * Jud. 9. Archangel Prince of Angels for Angels are called †Rev. 12.7 his and
Jews in his Nature and Power with making a parallel between the Father and himself the more because he useth not a pronoun relative but possessive not the Father but my Father my father worketh hitherto and I work not the Father that is a Common Father as God is to all but my Father in a most special and true manner who hath communicated his nature unto me Now that equality with the Father he on another account doth insist upon but he doth not in the least go about to shew that he made not himself equal with the Father which certainly he would have done if it had not been true and only a mistake in them and thereby he could have calmed their rage on the contrary he speaks to confirm this equality of his with the Father upon the account of his divine power manifested in his works one whereof upon occasion was the restoring the impotent Man that had the infirmity for 38 years to the use of his Limbs and perfect Health which none could deny to have been done by a divine Power Now none but God can have a power equal with God for God's power is infinite but that of any Creature is finite and so there is no equality between finite and infinite this equality of Power and Working is here clearly demonstrated For what things soever the Father doth these also doth the Son likewise That is the Father doth nothing but what the Son doth also and this he instanceth in the case of raising the dead which none but a Divine and Infinite Power can Effect For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them even so the Son quickeneth whom he will That is without exception he can do what he will now 't is an Attribute of God Psal 115.3 and 135.6 to do what it pleaseth him in Heaven in Earth and in the Sea Because the Jews believed not our Saviour to be more than a Man he in the exercise of his Prophetical Office went often about both in his Discourses and Works to insinuate into them that he was God and in this place he presses it much upon them both by what I already said and by what he addeth in v. 22. The Father judgeth no man but hath committed all judgment unto the Son and the end which in so doing the Father and he in declaring it proposed unto themselves is this that all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father as the Son in Nature and Power is equal with the Father so he ought equally to be honoured or worshiped as the Father is and this Divine Honour is so equally due to both that he which honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father for the Father cannot and will not be honoured that is worshiped without him for honour rendred unto God is the same as religious worship The Son must be honoured in the same nature manner and degree as the Father is One would think this to be plain and clear enough beyond all exception yet they Cavil thus the word as doth not import an equal honour but only a likeness and this they go about to confirm out of two places the first is every man that hath this hope in him 1 Joh. 3.3 1 Pet. 1.15 purifieth himself even as he is pure the other is but as he which hath called you is holy so be ye holy in all manner of conversation We answer first in the Text of Peter the word as is not sicut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but secundum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 't is a Preposition not an Adverb The word as doth not always signifie a similitude but some times is a Particle of Causality thus in the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 1.14 the glory as of the only begotten That is because he is the only begotten of the Father So in another place 2 Cor. 3.18 We all are changed into the same image from glory to glory even as by the same spirit of the Lord. Sometimes the word like signifies equality 2 Pet. 1.1 thus the like precious faith not only of similitude but of the same nature equally precious In the two objected places and in our Text there are indeed duties expressed but different in that of John here 't is in relation to God in the others as to our selves the first doth regard the worship of God the other holiness in our selves in our Text a parity and equality is implied which is not in the others the difference of the sense is grounded upon two things First of the scope of the spirit of God in those places Secondly of the Analogy of Faith To know the scope of the Text we now are upon one must go back to verse 18. the cause of the Jews hatred and seeking to kill our Saviour was because he made himself equal with God which he to shew they had no cause to take exceptions against it as we said before proves it by an equality of power in raising the Dead and of judging the world As to this last he goeth further for he saith the Father judgeth no man but hath committed all judgment unto him but what doth all this aim at The scope is to the end that all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father God the Father will have all men to honour his Son as they honour him without any difference because his Son is equal with him and this affirmative is strengthned with a negative for he that honoureth not the Son Josn 14.1 honoureth not the Father so that to honour one is to honour the other and one cannot well honour the Father except he equally honoureth the Son this is the true sense of the place We ought to honour the Son in the same sense and manner as we must believe in him that is as much and as well as we are to believe in the Father that is to put our whole trust and confidence in the Son as in the Father so all the honour both in quantity and quality which we render to the Father must be given to the Son Now as to the Analogy of Faith that is that this sense doth not contradict but well agree with other Scriptures it appears out of this the Great Commandment and Duty of Man is as our Saviour saith Thou shalt love the Lord thy God Matth. 22.37 Mark 10.27 with all thy heart and with all thy Soul and with all thy mind and with all thy strength None but the true God the God of Israel is so to be loved obeyed and honoured And is not our Blessed Saviour thus to be beloved and honoured Love is the true Ground of honour We ought to love Christ before all things that are near and dear unto us Matth. 10.37 38 39. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me and he that loveth son or daughter more than me◠is not worthy of me he
Father descended from Heaven where he is again to return c. This he owned openly and when he had said to the man sick of the Palsie Thy sins are forgiven thee some of the Scribes having said within themselves This man blasphemeth Christ called evil these Thoughts of theirs Mat. 9.4 Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts Another place in this same Chapter already mention'd Joh. 6.38 and to our purpose is this I came down from Heaven not to do mine own will but the will of him that sent me The words taken in their natural signification are plain enough and admit of no difficulty Christ speaks of himself what Heaven is we know 't is as his natural place whence he came down into a state of Humiliation in taking upon him our human Nature the End of his coming down was to do his Father's Will not his tho' we must not think that when he did his Father's Will he acted any thing against his own for whatsoever he did and suffer'd was voluntarily as he had said long before by the Prophet I delight to do thy will Psal 40.5 6 7. Sacrifice and Offering thou didst not desire Then said I Lo I come And when the Will of his Father was executed and the Work he gave him to do finish'd he went back if we may so say home again into Heaven The Difficulty then lies not in the words but about the sence Christ who spoke the words is true tho' every sence that is attempted to be given to the words be not true yet a true sence there is He makes mention of his Person and of his Flesh his Person is that which came down from Heaven his Flesh is that which was formed in the Virgins Womb that indeed did not come from Heaven however he speaks of his Flesh and Blood to intimate his Death and that Life which he promiseth to those that eat his Flesh He procureth it in two ways by Merit or Impetration and by Efficacy or Application The Merit by his Death consists in the Dignity of the Person which suffer'd it the Application and Efficacy in the Spirit which is in the Person By the Opposition he makes between himself and the Manna he sufficiently declares that he really came down from Heaven The Adversaries would have the coming down from Heaven to signifie no more than to proceed from God which to confirm they make use of some Texts as when our Saviour asked the Chief Priests whence was the Baptism of John Matth. 21.25 was it from Heaven or of Men Thus every good and perfect Gift is said to be from above and to come down from the Father of light Again This Wisdom descendeth not from above Thus John saith Jam. 1.17 3.15 Rev. 21.2 he saw the new Jerusalem coming down from God out of Heaven But none of these places is to the purpose for they are about Things and the Question is about Persons Scripture makes no dissiculty to say that Things whereof God is immediate Author come down from Heaven there being no danger to say so but it never saith it of Persons In the Word of God none besides Father Son and Holy Ghost and Angels none tho' never created or born in so eminent a manner is said to be come down from Heaven neither Adam nor Eve nor Isaac the Son of a Special promise and whose Birth considering the age of Abraham and of sarah was very extraordinary But that Christ came down from Heaven in a manner different from what is expressed in those places it appeareth out of the fore-quoted place What and if ye shall see the Son ascend up where he was before whereby is implied that he was in Heaven before he came down from it which he confirmeth in that other place No Man hath ascended up to Heaven but he that came down from Heaven even the Son of Man which is in Heaven whereof the sence is made known by the design of Christ who speaking to Nicodemus about being born again and Regeneration saith If I have told you earthly things and of such as are done in earth which by your own experience you may see and know yet ye believe me not how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things that is such as are or be done in Heaven which ye neither can know of your selves nor by any one else but by me for I have been in Heaven and none else Besides that if what the Adversaries say in their sence were true it would follow that Christ is said to be come down from Heaven either in relation to his Person or to his Office As to the first it cannot well be said I mean as to his miraculous Conception or else the same might have been said of John Baptist who only by a Divine Power was born of an old and barren Mother an Angel having foretold his Birth and given his Name before-hand yet he far from saying he came or descended from Heaven speaks quite the contrary of himself when he affirms this of Christ John 3.31 He that cometh from above is above all he that is of the earth is tarthly and speaketh of the earth he that cometh from Heaven is above all And further Christ may not be said to be come down from I seaven upon the account of his miraculous Conception no neither by reason of his being born without the help of Man for this may also be said of Adam born not only without the help of Man but of Woman also yet for all that he is never said to be come down from Heaven on the contrary he is said to be of the Earth in opposition to Christ 1 Cor. 15.47 The first man is of the earth caâ—thy the second man is the Lord from Heaven As to the Office of Christ it is certainly from Heaven in that sence but it followeth not that because the Office is the Person must be so for neither 〈◊〉 whose Baptism was from Heaven nor none of the Prophets or Apostles were ever said to be descended from Heaven Now according to this Opinion of theirs Christ would have had no Advantage over the Manna which was every day miraculously created and rained upon the People yet our Saviour takes this Preference over the Manna John 4.31 33. that he was come down from Heaven the Manna not so Why doth our Lord deny that Manna was come down from Heaven but that himself was the Bread of God which came down from Heaven Our Lord's words I came down from Heaven to do the will of him that sent me do certainly contain more than barely I am created by the wonderful Counsel and Power of God herein he speaks as would an Embassador sent by his Prince wherefore the words imply first that Christ was in Heaven 2dly That he was sent from thence 3dly To do the Will and perform the Work of him that sent him And if it had not been in
because infinite communicable without being multiplied in many persons To the same purpose they object in another manner God is One therefore cannot be Three so there is none but the Father The Answer is easie and we already have said something to it that which is one cannot be two or three in the same respect it cannot be one and many in the same sense What Christ says John 10.30 I and my Father are one is most true so that One is related to the Nature and I and Father to the Persons so then God is one as to the Nature and three as to the Persons Seeing the Nature or Godhead cannot be multiplied it follows that the Persons and Subsistences only are multiplied They say farther A simple Essence cannot be of three Persons otherwise it will be divided or multiplied But though this be true of finite it is not so of an infinite Essence neither doth it follow that because the Essence is common to three Persons it may be common to more for it were contrary to divine Revelation which only mentioneth one Father one Son and one Holy ghost the Father God the Son God the Holy Ghost God yet not three Gods but only one God Neither doth it follow that because divine Essence is common to three Persons therefore every Person shall be common and because the Persons are not common therefore the Nature must not be This is the cause of their Mistake that they do not mind the distinction of the Person from the Essence for tho they differ not really yet rationally they be distinguished It doth follow to say if the Essence be common to three Persons therefore the Persons are common no more than to say if Abel hath his Nature from Adam and is a Man therefore he hath his Posterity and is a Father from him The things say they that are separately numbered are not one in number and essence but the Father and the Son are separately numbered and are by themselves called one as one God one Mediator one God and Father one Lord wherefore Father and Son are not one only God or one Essence But I say Numeration doth not import a distinction of Essence for in finite things Essences being multiplied they are reckoned individual not in relation to the Essence but to the Persons that which is numbered is one neither is it one without the Essence yet for all that it is not one essentially or by his own Essence separated from any other whatsoever so then when the Father and Son are numbered they are not so essentially but personally also they are the same in number and essence contrary to what is objected whereof one is said to be with the other as the word was with God for in God to be one with another is only an hypostatical or personal distinction for as to be one with another doth import a distinction so the same Evangelist sheweth the Essence of both to be but one and the same when he addeth the word was God Furthermore they argue thus The Father and the Son are really distinguished for the Father is absolutely God that is the divine Essence for say they the words Father and God are synonimous or the same because the word God is explained by the word Father 1 Thes 1.3 therefore the Essence of the Son is distinct from that of the Father Our Answer is Tho' the Persons of the Father and of the Son be really distinct it doth not follow that their Essences are so as if the Essence of one was not that of another seeing the names of Father and Son are relatives which indeed signifie different Persons in the same Nature but rationally distinguished from the same If Father and Essence be synonimous what remaineth for the Son besides a shadow of the Deity For as the Paternity and Innascibility or not being begotten which are proper only to the Father are incommunicable that Essence if it be the same thing as is the Father cannot be communicated unto the Son It doth not follow neither that the Names God and Father are the same because the first is sometimes used for the last seeing it is attributed unto the Father in his Person to constitute the Deity by reason of the Spring and in the comparison and order of Persons and not because the Person of the Father is in no wise distinguished from the divine Essence Paul doth congratulate with the Thessalonians for their Work of Faith Labour of Love and Patience of Hope and because their Hope was in the Coming of the Lord Jesus these three he referreth in God whom he calls Father because he already had made mention of the Mediator But if the Names God and Father be the same by reason that Paul had to the word God joyned Father by way of explication Tit. 2.13 2 Pet. 1.2 then the Names Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ are also the same because two Apostles explain the name of Christ by that of God our Saviour Besides the Argument is faulty for it hath four terms to the end that both Propositions be true in the major the Person of the Father in the minor his Essence are to be understood To this Argument answereth another The eternal Father is not the Son whom John calls the Word but the Essence of the Divinity or that one God of Israel is the eternal Father of the only begotten Son therefore the Essence or the God of Israel is not the Son called the Word The major is false for to have it true the sence ought to be this That Essence or that God which is the Father is not the Son that is the Person of the Father is not the Person of the Son This farther they say The Essence and one God are convertible but according to us in the Unity of God there is Trinity therefore in the Essence there is also Trinity But we say God who is one in Nature is three in Persons so in that onely Essence there is a Trinity that is wholly and indivisibly subsisteth in three Persons there are not three Essences The minor Proposition must be understood of a Trinity of Persons and not of Essences I observed before how they quarrel much with several expressions used in this matter as Trinity Essence Person c. which are neither prophane nor unworthy of God seeing in Scripture there are words which answer to them Rom. 1.20 Col. 2.9 Phil. 2.6 2 Pet. 1.4 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both signifying Godhead and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Form of God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divine Nature Also the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in Latin is translated sometimes Substance sometimes Essence sheweth the quiddity or nature of the thing As for the word Person Clastical Authors as well as Divines in this holy Mystery take it for a rational Subsistence or Father Son and Holy Ghost however out of these they
mistaken for the word alone or onely which they lay the stress upon doth not belong to the Subject thee but to the Predicate not to thee but to true God not to that which goes before but to that which followeth after 'T is not said to know only thee to be but know thee to be the only true God This we may look upon as one of their usual pieces of Sophistry our Saviour makes it appear that this is the true God whom Scriptures mention namely the Father who sent and the Son that was sent for the true sense of the place we cannot have a better Interpreter of than the Evangelist himself 1 John 5.20 here the true God and eternal Life are joyned in the same the same that is eternal Life is also the true God onely eternal Life and onely true God Now Christ is called true God and eternal Life His Son Jesus Christ John 10.28 this is the true God and eternal life And if here we consider eternal Life as the Gift of the onely true God doth not Scripture say in several places how eternal Life is the gift of Christ Let of many this one serve for all I give unto them his Sheep eternal life If the Son was not that onely true God why should he joyn himself with the Father And whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ to know thee and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ to be the only true God This is the true order of the words whereof the true sense is resolved into this The Father is the onely true God and not the onely or Father alone is the true God The words in the original are not thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to know thee only the true God but thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to know thee the only true God where any one may see how the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not belong to the Pronoun thee but to the true God and tho' the Particle was removed yet thereby Christ would not be excluded for the true God is said as I already observed not in opposition to Christ but to false Gods according to the stile of Scripture the word alone or onely doth not always give a general exclusion as we see it under the Old Testament when Jacob said unto Reuben My Son shall not go down with you Gen. 42.38 for his brother is dead and he is left alone he meaneth by the Mothers side and not by the Father's for all the rest were his Brethren And in the New in the Transfiguration Luk. 9.36 't is said And when the voice was past Jesus was left alone Certainly Peter James and John were not excluded for they were with him but Moses and Elias In the same sense are taken Martha's words to our Saviour Lord dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone Luk. 10.40 only meant of Mary and not of the Servants of the House And to the matter now in hand let it be known that Scripture never saith the Father only is the true God tho' it says the Father is the only true God so is the Son and so is the Holy Ghost Here Christ would not deny himself the honour of being the true God which in other places he attributes unto himself for the two words alone and true go with God not with thee and his meaning is how true eternal Life consists in this Gal. 4.8 1 Thes 1.9 1 Cor. 8.6 that men may detest Idols and false Gods and be converted to thee O Father who art the only true God by nature which Idols are not Thus when the name One Lord is given the Son 't is not to exclude the Father who also is Lord and the name Spirit given the third Person doth not exclude Father or Son who also are Spirit so this Text doth admit of the same construction as this when Paul saith 1 Cor. 9.6 I only and Barnabas have we not power to forbear working where it is plain that Barnabas far from being excluded is joyned and included in the same power with Paul And here the thing requireth it seeing eternal Life is made to consist in the knowledge of Christ as of the Father wherefore both are equally said to be the true God Those men who pretend to know better than God himself what becomes his glory are very apt to lay hold upon any thing like to favour their notions wherefore because 't is said God hath appointed his Son heir of all things Heb. 1.2 John 5.22 and hath committed all judgment unto him with other things to the same purpose they with the Jews do therewith entangle themselves and form this Argument It cannot consist with the Majesty of the God of Israel of the most high God to be appointed Heir by any one but God hath appointed his Son Heir of all things therefore his Son is not the God of Israel nor the most high God In answer to this Objection I say first that the Person of the God of Israel c. is not the Person of his Father but the same Dignity Nature and Authority he hath as already demonstrated common with the Father he is not made Heir of all things in reference to his Nature for he is such of himself by his own right and inheritance not by favour but in relation to his Office of Mediator in which sense he is not only God but God and Man and upon this account is all Judgment committed unto him by the Father but otherwise he is the God of Israel and the most high But secondly this Argument contains two branches which before I have spoken about yet to what hath already been said this I shall add to the first part That the Son of God the Lord Jesus above 3400 years before his being manifested in the Flesh Numb 24.17 Micah 5.2 Luk. 2.32 John 1.49 Acts 5.31 was called the Star of Jacob and the Scepter of Israel and long after the ruler in Israel after his birth the glory of Israel and after his Baptism the King of Israel which in that sense and place is as good as God of Israel as indeed in the same Verse he is called the Son of God that is of the God of Israel a Prince and a Saviour for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins As to the other part That he is not the most high God we must in the first place take notice how they set up a high God that is Christ and a most high God the Father which is by such a comparative difference to make two Gods and they would have the Son of the highest not to be highest himself as to Essence and Power The word most high or highest is an Hebraism for in that Language God is called Helion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Supreme whence the Greeks borrowed the Name they call the Sun by because the chief of all Stars and Planets
in the Firmament But to shew the falshood of their Assertion that the Son is not the most high God let us consider the following things The Angel said to the Virgin He shall be great Luk. 1.32 upon every account and absolutely so according to the Character long before given of him by the Prophet and Son of the highest that is of the true God v. 35 compared with v. 76 Isa 9.6 and so according to that Divine Nature the highest himself it ought to be observed how the word of the Angel he shall be called the Son of the Highest is the same as used by the Prophet His name shall be called wonderful Counsellor the mighty God c. As in the Prophet by being called is understood â—e shall really be so it must be in the Evangelist he shall be manifested owned and really be Thus Zecharias said of John And thou child shalt be called really and truly be the Prophet of the highest and when he spoke thus he was filled with the Holy Ghost and prophecy'd v. 67 as Elizabeth was when she said of the blessed Virgin Whence is this to me that the Mother of my Lord should come to me v. 41 43. How could he according to the flesh be her Lord before he was born In the second place seeing I already proved Jesus Christ to be Jehovah it necessarily follows he is the most high God Psal 33.18 for he whose name alone is Jehovah is the most high over all the earth Also I proved him to be he whom the People provoked in the Wilderness and Scripture calls him the most high whom they provoked in the wilderness The proper Son of God is God the Son of the Highest is the Highest And the words of Psal 107.11 Psal 78.17 56. do belong to the People in the Wilderness who rebelled against the word of God and contemned the counsel of the most high They would make use against us of that place where when Melchisedes blessed Abraham God is called the most high God whereby they would confine that Title only to the Person of the Father which before I refute I must by the by take notice how the word most high is thrice mentioned in three Verses Gen. 14.18 19 20. to shew how the Blessing upon Abraham was the Work of the three Persons in the Godhead as all three meet in the Conception of Christ in the blessed Virgin 's Womb and in his Baptism The same high God in whose name Melchisedec blessed Abraham is the same who called Abraham received him into favour and at that time had given him Victory over four Kings as it appears out of the place Now that most high God who called Abraham is the same as made a Covenant with him who afterwards commanded him to sacrifice his Son to himself who is that same Angel as before we have taken notice of who is called the Lord himself and upon that occasion said to him Gen. 22. By my self have I sworn saith the Lord that in blessing I will bless thee and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed Now the Apostle teaches that not only the Father but also the Son is Author of that Covenant when he saith The Testament or Covenant Heb. 9.16 was confirmed by the death of the Testator And I would have them to tell me who besides Christ hath with his Death and Blood sealed and confirmed that Covenant certainly none but that God that was manifest in the flesh Act. 20 28. that same God who hath purchased his Church with his own blood So that Melchisedec by the name of most high meant the Son as well as the Father who cannot be separated for as Scriptures bear witness the Son is always in the Father therefore every where in the Word of God the name most high is spoken of Father Son and Holy Ghost which with that of God of Gods and Lord of Lords is essentially taken and excludes indeed Creatures but never Son and Holy Ghost whom it doth truly and properly belong to Now we are come to the Objections that are directly against the Divinity of the Person of Christ which must be answered and in order to it we must here premise something which before we gave a hint of how the word God is taken in two senses first properly then metaphorically and the name God doth properly signifie the true God Now he is the only true God who essentially and by nature is such for every thing is called true by its nature as true Man true Gold true Silver c. as said before from the nature of Man of Gold and of Silver so that if only it be like a Man and like Gold then 't is neither true Man nor true Gold for simile non est idem the thing like is not the same If the true God be he that hath Gods Nature and Essence certainly he is the high and independent God seeing Divine Essence is in itself Chief and Independent Now secondly and improperly or metaphorically are they called Gods that in something are like God by participation and likeness as Moses was to Pharaoh so Angels and Men but these metaphorical Gods may not be called true God nor worshipt as such that which is somewhat like a thing may never be called the same thing Thus I do premise in opposition to Socinus's Notion how in Scripture the word God is taken for the high God independent from any other and for him who by the chief God is in some manner made partaker of the Divinity In the first sense God is God the Father called one in the second is Christ and some other Men he because of his Sanctification and being sent into the World where Christ as he would have it doth not affirm himself to be God but with dependency that is a titular a made and coined God as by vertue of that Sanctification and Mission when that very Sanctification and sending into the World shew him to be true God Joh 10.36 for in the place is meant that Sanctification which preceded his coming into the World for the Father sanctified first and then sent him which belonged to him not as a Man but had it before he was Man and before he came into the World for he saith first he was sanctified by the Father and then afterwards sent into the World that is he became Man for before he was made flesh he had been sanctified by the Father that is appointed and constituted Mediator and Head of the Church but Mediator he could not be except he were true eternal God As to his being sent into the World that also sheweth that his Being is not of this World but from above from Heaven whence he was sent into the World from the Bosom of the Father which argueth him to be above Man and to have had a Being before he was made Man for he was the Son of God in Heaven he was not Man but