A Vindication, Part 10
The next Scripture in my paper, that I preſented him with for the confirming of the undoubted truth of Chriſt's Godhead, was John 3. 13. No man hath aſcended up into heaven, but he that came down from heaven, the Son of man, which is in heaven.
To this Text he gives this anſwer, by which he would evade the omnipreſence of Chriſt, and ſo not confeſſe him to be God.
The words (ſaith he) may be thus underſtood, No man hath aſcended up into heaven, that is, no man hath known thoſe divine things, &c. but he that came down from heaven, that is, the Son being excepted, who was in heaven, and deſcended thence for ſome works that he was to do on earth. Who is in heaven, that is, in the boſome of the Father, knowing ſecrets and divine things, as they are in themſelves.
Repl. This interpretation is neither concordant to it ſelfe, nor to the truth. 1. To it ſelfe it agrees not, becauſe aſcending, and deſcending, and exiſting in relating all to heaven, are all to be taken either literally, according as the words ſound, or elſe they are all to be taken metaphorically, and ſpiritually; but he expounds ſome of them in a myſticall figurative ſenſe, and others in a plain literall ſenſe. To aſcend up to heaven, is not to be underſtood (as he gives the expoſition) of a perſonall aſcenſion, but of a mentall contemplation. And to be in heaven, is only in a ſpirituall ſenſe, in ſpeculation, in beholding with the eyes of the ſoul, divine things, and the Fathers ſecrets. But to deſcend from heaven, that muſt have no metaphoricall ſenſe, as the reſt had, but a literall ſenſe put upon it, and the deſcenſion muſt be perſonall. Now here is a diſcordancie in theſe things, and he gives no reaſon of this varying, in his interpreting. Aſcending and deſcending are alſo oppoſites, and if ſo, then they muſt be taken in an oppoſite ſenſe; if aſcending then be taken for deep knowledge, and ſcience of divine things; then deſcending is departing from deep knowledge, and ſcience of divine things; which will be very abſurd in his own conceptions. 2. This expoſition agrees not with the truth; for aſcending in Scripture, is taken when it refers to Chriſt, as well as when it refers to others. In another ſenſe, viz. in the plain literall externall ſenſe, John 6. 62. What if you ſhall ſee the Son of man aſcend up where he was before. And chap. 20. 17. I aſcend unto my Father and unto your Father, &c. And touch me not, I am not yet aſcended. And Epheſ. 4. 8, 9, 10. And I do not remember any one place, where aſcending into heaven, is taken in his ſenſe, but in the literall ſenſe. And it ſeems to be diſcrepant and diſagreeing to the phraſe and manner of Scripture expreſſion. For when divine knowledge and wiſdome is ſpoken of, or other ſuch gifts, they are ſaid to come down from heaven, from above unto men; and men are not ſaid to aſcend up to heaven, though there may be a truth in it, that a man aſcends up to heaven, not in his knowing ſo much, as in the uſe of his knowledge, in his beholding and viewing of ſpirituall things.
And if a ſpirituall ſenſe is not proper unto aſcending into heaven, then is not Chriſt's being in heaven to be interpreted in a ſpirituall or myſticall ſenſe; but look in what ſenſe he aſcended and deſcended, in that ſenſe it may be ſaid he is in heaven, that is, in a literall ſenſe; nor is this ſpiritual ſenſe of theſe words (is in heaven) agreeable to the acception of the like words, and phraſe of ſpeaking uſed elſe-where in John 17. 24. Father, I will that thoſe whom thou haſt given me, be where I am, that they may behold my glory. Chriſt here ſpeaks of heaven, and of his glory in heaven, and of the diſciples coming thither, and beholding his glory there; and he ſpeaks not in a myſticall ſenſe, of his own knowledge of divine things, nor of the diſciples knowing of ſuch things, as he knew; but in a literall ſenſe he ſpeaks all, and he ſaith, I am there, and yet he was on earth, according to his manhood: but he was in heaven alſo, Where I am, ſaith he, that was heaven, Chriſt was there. How was that poſſible, if Chriſt was not God? & if the words be taken literally there, in Joh. 17. 24 then they are literally to be taken here, in John 3. 13. The place diſcuſſed betwixt us, the comparing of theſe two places together, clears the ſenſe of both, and is repugnant to his interpretation.
And though he gives a literall ſenſe to theſe words, (But he that came down from heaven) viz. the Son being excepted, who was in heaven, and deſcended thence; yet it is a corrupt, and falſe, and very dangerous ſenſe that he gives, which I met with in my former Treatiſe. For he repreſents Chriſt in his deſcenſion as leaving heaven, departing from thence, and coming upon earth; but this is contrary to the next expreſſions, the ſenſe of which I have cleared up, where it is ſaid, that Chriſt was in heaven ſtill, notwithſtanding that he deſcended, ſo that it is a reall true deſcention, or a true coming and appearing upon earth, but not locall, ſuch as is appliable to the creature, for that is not proper to Chriſt. The creature in deſcending moves from the place it was in, and leaves it: but 'tis not ſo to be conceived of Chriſt. But thus, Chriſt is ſaid to deſcend in reference to his incarnation, he being the Son of God aſſumed fleſh of the Virgine, by the divine inſpiration of the Spirit of God, and ſo was made the Son of man, and ſo the Son of God, appeared in the Son of man, and this is called deſcending. This is made manifeſt to us from John 1. 14. The word was made fleſh, and dwelt among us, even the word dwelt among us in fleſh, and we beheld his glory in fleſh, the glory as of the begotten Son of God. This glory was in heaven, now in the Sons aſſuming fleſh, it is ſeen on earth, in the ſeed of the woman: this is the deſcending of Chriſt, and after this manner the moſt high God is ſaid to deſcend in Scripture, God came into the temple after this manner, not by moving from place to place, which is not congruous to God, but by a work, declaring God to be there, where he was not ſeen before; And ſo God deſcended to ſee the tower that was built in a work, and no other way, and it is called deſcending after the manner of men, and it is Gods deſcending, all that is competent to God. And this kind of deſcending of Chriſt, muſt of neceſſity be yeelded unto, becauſe the locall is excluded by Chriſt in the very place, where his deſcending is mentioned.
Having ſhewed the inconſiſtency of the expoſition which he framed, and gave of this Text of John, and having fortified the ſenſe in which I made uſe of it, and for which I produced it, I ſhall now anſwer unto that which by way of objection may be urged againſt the ſenſe that I have put upon it.
Object.
It may be thus argued; A locall corporeall aſcenſion cannot be underſtood in reference to Chriſt, becauſe it is expreſſed in the preterperfect-Tenſe, as a thing done; but that was (in a literall locall acception taken) inconſiſtent to Chriſt, becauſe he was then upon earth, and as he ſaith afterward, was not aſcended to the Father.
Sol. The preterperfect-tenſe (hath aſcended) refers to no man, & not to Chriſt; and there is an Elipſis in the words, or a defectiveneſs in the expreſſions in reference to Chriſt, & therein of neceſſity that the words ſupplied ſhould run in the preterperfect-tenſe: but they may run in the future tenſe, thus, But he that deſcended, ſhall aſcend. viz. the Son of man which is in heaven.
Or if the words ſhould be ſupplied in the preterperfect-tenſe, yet a change of tenſe (which notes out the aſſurance of the thing: it is ſpoken of as done, becauſe aſſuredly it is to be done) cannot overturn the genuine ſenſe of the place.
Obj.
2. It may be farther objected, that the ſon of man is the ſubject who is ſaid to be in heaven, but the ſon of man is Chriſt under the conſideration of his manhood, and under that conſideration it was impoſſible for him to be at that time in heaven, for it is contradictory to the truth of his humanity to be at two places ſo greatly diſtant at the ſame time.
Sol. Here is in theſe expreſſions, viz. the ſon of man which is in heaven, that which they call Idiomatum communicationem: that which is ſpoken in the concrete of Chriſt, according to one nature, transferred to another nature, is as he himſelf muſt confeſs in other caſes, according to his Tenent, to be often found in the Sripture; in theſe words, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory, it is to be obſerved, Chriſt was crucified according to the fleſh, but he was not the Lord of glory according to the fleſh, but ſpirit of holineſs, yet it is ſaid, the Lord of glory was crucified: ſo it is ſaid, the ſon of man was in heaven, but it is meant of the ſon of God; and the meaning is, the perſon that is called the ſon of man, was in heaven, though not as the ſon of man, but according to the other nature as the Son of God.
But let us try the ſtrength of his reaſons, which he brings for the countenancing of this expoſition of his.
1. Saith he, this ſenſe and meaning wherewithall I have clothed thoſe words, is no waies oppoſite to the analogie of faith; There is nothing (as I ſuppoſe) in it, which the doctrine of the Goſpel will pick a quarrell with.
Repl. The nakedneſs of this reaſon is diſcovered in what I have already preſented, I have ſhewed that Chriſts aſcending up to heaven, is not any where taken in that ſenſe which he puts upon it. And that Chriſts being in heaven in the ſenſe that he clothes it with, is repugnant to a paralell place in Joh. 17. 24. ſo that he makes Scripture quarrell with it ſelfe, and ſuch an expoſition which he hath given of Chriſts deſcending, ſtands at defiance againſt all thoſe pregnant places which do proclaim Chriſt to be coeſſential with the Father: therefore both Old Teſtament and New will riſe up againſt it, and condemn it.
2. He ſaith, That the ſenſe that he would have this Text to own, is elſewhere challenged by the like phraſes to themſelves, as their due. And he mentions Prov. 30. 4. Who hath aſcended up into heaven, and deſcended? &c.
Repl. Some conceive that Agur ſpeaks of God in the perſons of the Father and the Son, whom he deſcribes to aſcend up into heaven, and deſcend, to give ſignes of his preſence in both places, and be every where; and who gathers the winds in his fiſt, and binds the waters in a garment; and that he propoſeth this as an hard queſtion to his two friends Ithiel and Ʋcal. Others conceive that Agur doth ſpeak of man, and that his interrogation is in the force and vertue of it a negation, Who hath aſcended? &c. that is, no man can do ſuch things as he mentions; and that if his friends do know any that can effect ſuch things, let them declare what his name is, and what his ſons name is. But they all underſtand it of aſcending to the very place of heaven; and not any (that I have ſeen) in the ſenſe that he drives at: nor doth either the text or context neceſſitate, that this aſcending ſhould be a diſcovering of Gods hidden ſecrets, for what then is deſcending? As for Piſcator, I have never ſeen him upon the Proverbs, and can ſay nothing to it.
He mentions Pauls rapture into the third heaven to be only a diſcovery of the things of God. It's ſomewhat preſumptuous for him to determine, when the Apoſtle himſelf durſt not: for, whether he was in the body, or out of the body, he could not tell. But if his rapture were not reall, it was in viſion; and to the third heaven and paradiſe he went either really or in viſion; to the place he went, that he might underſtand the thing.
But he quotes Grotius, and Muſculus, and Bucer, as Writers who underſtand aſcending in a ſpirituall ſenſe for penetrating the ſecrets of heaven.
I confeſſe ſome good Expoſitors do ſo interpret the word aſcend; but how it will quadrare, and what adequateneſs there will be betwixt the ſenſe they give to the word aſcend, and the ſenſe they put upon the word deſcend, I cannot underſtand. However it be, the concurrence of Expoſitors in the interpretation of aſcending, will avail him nothing in reference to the controverſie betwixt him and me; for it lies not in that word, but in theſe words, is in heaven, whether they be literally to be underſtood, or in reſpect of knowledge onelyonly: & Expoſitors do not at all countenance his Metaphoricall ſenſe he gives of thoſe words, but they fall upon the diſtinction of Natures, and ſay, Chriſt was in heaven according to the Deity, but not in heaven according to the Humanity.
3. He ſaith, his ſenſe is fitly conjoyned with the context. Chriſt (ſaith he) reproves Nichodemus his unbeleef, aggravating it from the certainty of the things ſpoken, We ſpeak what we know. And then from the perſpicuity in ſpeaking, If I have told you of earthly things; that is, either things that may or are neceſſary to be known in the earth; Or elſe the words reſpect the manner of Chriſts holding them forth, And ye beleeve not; how can yee beleeve if I ſhould tel you of heavenly things? In this 13. verſe you have a excluſion of all men (Chriſt excepted) from the knowledge of heavenly things.
Repl. All may be granted that he ſaith, till he come to the 13. ver. which is more probably an explication of the 11. ver. We ſpeak what we know, and teſtifie what we have ſeen, ſaith Chriſt. Nichodemus and others might object againſt the certainty of thoſe things that Chriſt aſſerted, and might ſay, The judgments and wayes of the Lord are unſearchable, who hath known the mind of the Lord? Who ſhall aſcend into heaven for us, to relate the mind of the Lord to us? Unto this Chriſt anſwers, No man hath aſcended, nor can aſcend up to heaven to make diſcovery of the will of God, of the deep things of God, but the onelyonly begotten Son; he came from God, and he aſcends thither again, and he hath ſeen and known, and what he hath ſeen he declares, and teſtifies; and if you be not ſatisfied with that which the Son hath brought you from heaven, who alſo aſcends thither again, it is an aggravation of your unbelief. And unto this coherence, there is a concurrence of Expoſitors in their witneſſe.