A Vindication, Argument 2
Ar. 2. But for further ſatisfaction, I ſhall propound a 2d Argument, which is this; That doctrine which denyes and deſtroyes that one only true Chriſt, and brings in a ſtrange and a falſe Chriſt, that doctrine deſtroyes the true Goſpell and Scriptures, and brings in another Goſpell and Scripture in a main point of it. But this doctrine of his which makes Chriſt a creature doth thus: therefore this doctrine brings in another Goſpell and Scripture in a main point of it.
The Major is ſo void of controverſie, that it will not be ſtuck at; but the Minor will be denyed, and therefore muſt be confirmed.
That doctrine that denyes Chriſt to be the proper Son of God, and makes Chriſt to be onelyonly the Son of man, that doctrine denyes and deſtroyes that one only true Chriſt, and brings in a ſtrange and a falſe Chriſt; but this doctrine of his doth thus; therefore this doctrine of his denyes and deſtroyes that onelyonly true Chriſt, and brings in a falſe Chriſt, and ſtrange to Scripture.
The Major will again paſſe without exception, but proofe will be required for the Minor; And I confirme it thus.
That doctrine which takes Chriſts God-head from him, that doctrine denies Chriſt to be the proper Son of God, and makes him to be meerly the ſon of man: But this doctrine of his which makes Chriſt to be a meere creature, and nothing more, takes Chriſts God-head from him. Therefore this doctrine of his denyes him to be the proper Son of God, and makes him to be meerely and only the ſon of man.
The Major wil now only be in queſtion; for the Minor is (without queſtion) true, if God-head be taken in a proper ſenſe, as I have taken it in my arguing with him all along.
For the proofe then of the Major propoſition, I ſhall preſent and make out two things, 1. that theſe two things God, and Son of God are all one in reference to Chriſt; therefore whoever teacheth any doctrine againſt the one, viz. that Chriſt is not God, teacheth doctrine againſt the other, viz. that Chriſt is not the Son of God. 2. Chriſt cannot be God any other way; or under any other conſideration, but as he is the Son of God.
1. God and Son of God are all one thing in reference to Chriſt: my meaning is not that the termes are confounded, for the word (God) reſpects the eſſence, more properly and ſubſiſting in a perſon; and the words (Son of God) reſpect the ſecond perſon in the Trinity, as diſtinguiſhed from the Father, and the holy Ghoſt ſubſiſting in the Godhead. But my meaning is, that where ever the one is expreſſed, the other is implyed, and that a divine perſon ſubſiſting in the Godhead is meant evermore; and in the order of exiſting and working, the ſecond perſon; for proofe of this, conſider theſe following particulars.
1. Chriſt himſelf confounds theſe two, God, and Son of God, by uſing them promiſcuouſly, John 10. 33. 36. In ver. 33. the Jewes ſaid they ſtoned him becauſe he blaſphemed, and ſaid he was God; Chriſt repeats their words, and blames them for charging him with blaſphemie, becauſe he ſaid he was the Son of God, ver. 36. thoſe were not their expreſſions, but Chriſt makes them their expreſſions, therefore in a ſenſe they were one and the ſame thing, and Son of God, was as much as God, elſe Chriſt had both extenuated their fault, & ſpoken untruly of them. But in truth and deed Chriſt ſaid of himſelf neither the one nor the other in expreſs words, but ſaid, he and his Father were one, ver. 30. and if the Son of God did not import as much as God, their collection in their own words that he made himſelfe God, in making himſelfe one with the Father, was more naturall in reference to Chriſts words, then as Chriſt repeated them. For the Father is God, and not the Son of God, and when Chriſt ſaid, he and his Father were one, they might rather conclude that Chriſt made himſelfe God, then that he made himſelf the Son of God, unleſs the Son of God were alſo God, and ſo Chriſt might be the Son of God, and yet one in Godhead with the Father.
2. The Apoſtle John, 1 Joh. 5. 20. makes the Son of God and the true God to be all one in reference to Chriſt, You are in him that is true, even in his Son Jeſus Chriſt: and this true one, this Son Jeſus Chriſt, this very perſon, is the true God. As if the Apoſtle ſhould have ſaid, when I ſpeak of the Son of God, I would have you to know whom I mean by him, I do not mean a man, a meer creature, and nothing elſe, but I mean a perſon that is the true God.
3. The Apoſtles in their profeſſions of faith, if they do agree therein, (and I ſuppoſe none will ſay that they do diſagree therein) do make theſe two to be one and the ſame thing. The Apoſtle Peter profeſſeth his faith in theſe words, I beleeve that thou art Chriſt the Son of the living God. But the Apoſtle Thomas in theſe words, My Lord, and my God. Peter beleeved him to be the Son of God, Thomas beleeved him to be very God, and very Lord, yea his God and his Lord in an applicative way; and Chriſt doth not look upon one as two low for him, nor upon the other as too high for him; but upon both as profeſſions of their true faith in him; he tells Peter, that upon the rock of ſuch a profeſſion he would build his Church; and he puts a bleſſing upon all thoſe that ſhall beleeve as Thomas beleeved, his ſlowneſs only to beleeve (depending upon ſight) excepted.
4. The grounds whereupon the followers of Chriſt have ſome of them ſtiled him the Son of God, and others of them have ſtiled him God, are alike, and high enough (all of them) to cauſe them to entitle him God. Nathaneel ſees his omnipreſence and omniſcience, when Chriſt told him, before Philip called thee, I ſaw thee under the fig tree, and he glorifies him with the title of Son of God, Thou art the Son of God. Thomas diſcerns his omnipotence in raiſing himſelf from the dead, according as he had foretold, deſtroy this temple, and I will raiſe it up in three dayes: and he attributes the name of God to him, My Lord, and my God. Had Thomas apprehended Chriſt to have been paſſive in the reſurrection, and raiſed meerly by the power of the Father, and not his own, why ſhould he denominate him God upon this occaſion? and not rather put that crown upon the Father, that raiſed him, if the Father only and not the Son, wrought in it?
5. The high Prieſts, and Scribes, and Phariſees thought it to be blaſphemy alike in Chriſt when he made himſelf the Son of God, and made God his natural Father, as when he made himſelf God; as they truly collected from thoſe words of his, I and my Father are one. Compare Joh. 5. 18. with Joh. 10. 31, 33. and the truth of this wil appear. And they made account when he ſtiled himſelf the Son of God, that he therein aſſumed to himſelf equality with God, Joh. 5. 18. and in that they counted it blaſphemy that he called himſelf the Son of God, and judged him worthy to die for it, they diſcovered their apprehenſions of that title, that it was too high for any creature, and proper to the moſt high God alone.
6. Satan alſo in tempting of him, requires a proof of his ſon-ſhip unto God, equall and equivalent to what he could demand for the manifeſtation of the very God-head it ſelf: and he muſt declare himſelfe to be the Son of God, by doing that which none but God could do.
Theſe grounds I conceive are ſufficient to bottom the firſt concluſion upon, viz. that theſe two expreſſions or titles, Son of God, and God are in Scripture account equivalent to each other, and do import when they are applyed to Chriſt a divine perſon, and the ſecond in the order of the Trinity. The conſequence of which is, that who ever denyes the one, denyes the other alſo; and then if the God-head of Chriſt be denyed, the Son-ſhip of Chriſt will be denyed alſo.
I ſhall now lay downe the 2d poſition, and confirme it.
2 Chriſt cannot be God any other way or under any other conſideration, but as he is the Son of God.
1 He himſelfe, in his ſenſe, acknowledgeth the truth of this aſſertion; for, he grants a God-head of Chriſt, and makes him a repreſentative God, and ſaith, his God-head conſiſts in ſoveraignty, and dominion over all the creatures: and he founds it upon Son-ſhip, and ſaith, the title Son of God holds forth ſuperiority over all things, and ſo he is God in that he is the Son of God; but all amounts to no more but a creature God, and a creature Son of God, according to him. Yet he concurrs with me in this propoſition, though in a different ſenſe, Chriſt cannot be God any other way then as he is the Son of God.
2. Scripture gives teſtimony to it. 1. The Apoſtle Paul declares to us that God was manifeſted in the fleſh. 1 Tim. 3. 16. that is, God aſſumed the fleſh of the Virgin; God took the ſeed of Abraham; God united our Nature with the Divine Nature; God took it into fellowſhip and oneneſs with himſelf, ſo as that God and man became one and the ſame perſon. And this the Apoſtle calls a great myſtery, and founds all godlineſs upon it, that is upon knowing it, and believing it. And ſo Chriſt comes to be God, hath the Names, Titles, Attributes of God put upon him; and the great works of God are called his works; and the homage, worſhip, ſervice, faith, fear, and obedience that is due to God, belongs to him. Otherwiſe it could not have been, that he that appeared in the form of a ſervant, and was in faſhion as a man, and dwelt among us, and whoſe mother was known who ſhe was, and was in all things like unto us, ſin excepted, ſhould be the God that made us, and he in whom our life and breath, and all our ways are: but ſo it was, that the great God emptied himſelf, ſo far, as to unite himſelf to us, or us rather to himſelf, and to dwell in our nature, and made our nature to dwell in him; and ſo he became one with us, and made us, that is, our Nature, one with him: And ſo the Son of Mary is very God, the moſt high God, becauſe God deſcended, and was made fleſh of a woman.
2. There is a concurrence of witneſſes in the ſacred Scriptures, that God took fleſh; but not God in the perſon of the Father, nor God in the perſon of the Spirit, but God in the perſon of the Son: Joh. 1. 14. The Word was made fleſh, and dwelt among us; and this Word is neither the Father, nor the holy Ghoſt, but is diſtinguiſhed from both, 1 Joh. 5. 7. There are three that bear witneſs in heaven; the Father, the Word and the Spirit; and theſe three are one; that is, one God. But this one God, in the perſon of the Word, and not in any other perſon, took fleſh upon him. The Father did not take Fleſh, but ſent the Son to aſſume it: Gal. 4. 4. God, that is, the Father, ſent forth his Son made of a woman. Joh. 3. 16. God, that is, the Father, ſo loved the world that he gave his own Son, his onelyonly begotten Son, &c. And all along in the new Teſtament, the Son is ſaid to be ſent, ſometimes from God, ſometimes from the Father ſometimes from heaven: And of the Son it is ſaid in Heb. 2. 14, that he took part of fleſh and blood: and verſ. 6. He took on him the ſeed of Abraham: and of the Son it is ſaid, that he was in the form of God, and thought it no robbery to be equal with God, that is, with the Father; but he humbled himſelf, and took upon him the form of a ſervant; that is, he took upon him our vile, weak, mortal, dying nature, and came in lowe ſtate among us. And indeed, in this there is no difference betwixt us: But who this Son of God is, is the controverſie.
The inference then muſt needs be this, that Chriſt is not God any other way, nor in any other ſence, but this: The Son of God, or (which is all one) God in the perſon of the Son aſſumed Humane nature unto him, became Man, by taking the fleſh of the Virgin. And this Son of God, or God in the perſon of the Son made fleſh, is the Chriſt, the Meſſiah, that was promiſed to the fathers: And Chriſt, he is this fleſh this ſeed of the woman, aſſumed, and this Son of God, or God in the perſon of the Son, united together into one perſon. So that whoever denies Chriſt to be God, denies that God in the perſon of the Son; or (which is the ſame) that the Son of God took fleſh came in our Nature; and that God ſent his Son into the world, to take the ſeed of Abraham upon him, and to come in fleſh; and ſo denies Chriſt to be God in the perſon of the Son, or Chriſt to be the Son of God. And ſo by an undeniable conſequence, ſuch a perſon who denies the Godhead, denies the Sonſhip, and ſo deſtroys the true Chriſt, and brings in a ſtrange and a falſe Chriſt, and another Goſpel, and another Scripture. And this is the doctrine that the Apoſtle John ſpeaks of, 2 Joh. 7. which ſeducers preached, who confeſſed not that Jeſus Chriſt was come in the fleſh: the meaning is they confeſſed not that the Son of God or God in the perſon of the Son, was come in the fleſh: for otherwiſe they knew that Jeſus Chriſt the ſon of Mary was in the fleſh, and died, and roſe again: But to confeſs that Jeſus was the Son of God, or God in the perſon of the Son, was that which the Apoſtle preſſed; and withſtood the contrary, as Antichriſtian, 1 Joh. 4. 14, 15.
And now give me leave to expreſs my ſelf to be one who ſtand amazed at the ignorance or inconſiderateneſs (or I know not what to call it) of thoſe perſons who profeſs to be very ſound in the doctrine of Chriſts Godhead, but conceive of it as a very tolerable errour, in ſuch who do deny it, and make ſlight of it. Is it a ſmall thing to deny Chriſt to be the Son of God? Thoſe that deny Chriſts Godhead, do deny God in the perſon of the Son, to have taken the nature of man upon him: or, they do deny the Son of God to be incarnate, and by conſequence they do deny Chriſt to be Gods Son. For do they not know, (I ſpeak of thoſe that have not denied the Faith) if Chriſt be God, he can be God no other way, but becauſe God in the perſon of the Son, or the Son of God, took fleſh upon him: if Chriſt be Gods Son, he can be Gods Son no other way, but becauſe God in the perſon of the Son hath come in the fleſh; and if this be denied, it is denied that Chriſt is Gods Son. And is this a trivial matter? Chriſt conſiſts of two Natures; of Humanity, and ſo he is the Son of man; of the Deity, and ſo he is the Son of God, as I have ſhewed. Can Chriſt be a true Chriſt, if either of theſe be wanting? A Man conſiſts of ſoul and body: if either of theſe be wanting, can he be a true man? If the ſoul be wanting, (which is the principal part) is he any more then a ſtinking carcaſe?) If Chriſt be not the Son of God, (as, if he be not God, he is not) is he any other but a carcaſe-Chriſt? Can a thing have its truth of being, without its conſtitutive parts by which it is? So that Chriſt is deſtroyed, unlels the Son of God, and the Son of Man, united together in one perſon, be maintained.
I now come to preſent and drive on a third Argument, which is this: