A Vindication, Instance 5
Inſtance 5. The 5. Inſtance he forms up into an Argument, thus, That Doctrine which makes the Mediator betwixt God and man, to be a meer creature, brings in (as it were) another Goſpel, deſtroyes the true Goſpel in many of the parts of it, &c. in that it is againſt reaſon, that the Mediator ſhould be a creature, becauſe a meer creature is no way meet to be a Dayſman for God▪ & becauſe a Mediator muſt either partake of both God and man, or of neither, elſe he will be rather a party, then a Mediator, &c. and in that it oppoſeth theſe Scriptures, Mat. 1. 23. 1. Tim. 3. 16. Joh. 1. 14. But that Doctrine which denies Jeſus Christ to be the moſt high God, makes the Mediator betwixt God and man to be a meer creature. Therefore I ſhall paſſe by all thoſe lines in which he only trifles, & ſpeaks not to the Argumnet or inſtance, and mention only that which is materiall, in way of anſwer.
To the Major, and the firſt reaſon of it, viz. A meer creature is no way meet to be a Dayſman for God, He anſwers thus;
This reaſon wants a reaſon to ſupport it, what ſhould hinder (ſaith he) but the meere creature may be a Dayſman or Mediator? Is there any one work that belongs to his office, that is impoſſible for a creature to perform, notwithſtanding divine aſſiſtance with him? I dare, ſaith he, aſſert the contrary, and am able to prove in whatſoever work you can inſtance in, belonging to Christs Mediatorſhip, that of himſelf he was not able to perform it, unleſſe by the aſſiſtance of another, which he enjoyed, and ſo is a compleat Mediator:
Rep. There are many things that may hinder, that a meere creature cannot be a Dayſman, or Mediator for God: 1. The diſproportion that is betwixt God and a meere creature hinders, which diſproportion is infinite. It is againſt Gods honor and glory, that God ſhould admit of a meer ceature-Dayſman or Mediator: It is as if a worm ſhould be a Dayſman or Mediator for a man; or as if a begger ſhould be a Dayſman or Mediator for a King. Nay there is not any thing to reſemble it by among all the creatures; and there would be too much honour put upon a meer creature, if he ſhould be Mediator or Dayſman, becauſe a meer creature is infinitely below God; but a Dayſman ſhould hold ſome kind of equality with the perſon for whom he is a Dayſman: For 1. The matter is committed to him that is a Dayſman or Mediator. 2. The perſon that commits the matter to the Dayſman, commits himſelf with it to him alſo. 3. A Dayſman is one that muſt judge betwixt: now this is too low for God to admit of, and too high for man, or for any meer creature, that it ſhould be ſet …n ſuch a place. 2. The impotency and infirmiiy of the creature hinders that it cannot be a …meet Dayſman for God: For 1. No meer creature can attain unto a perfect knowledge of the treſpaſſe and offence that is committed againſt God, becauſe it is infinite, therefore no finite creature can ſearch into it, the perſon againſt whom it is committed being infinite, makes it infinite; and one of a finite knowledge cannot reach it: it may be truly ſaid, that neither man nor Angel, nor the Son of man himſelf, as man, knowes the greatneſſe of mans ſin: for unleſſe the greatneſſe of God can be meaſured, againſt whom it was committed, the greatneſſe of the ſin cannot be known. Now if it cannot be known by any meer creature, then no meere creature can be a Dayſman▪ to conſider of it. 2. No meer creature can be ſufficiently ſenſible of the great diſhonour that was offered unto God, and the great indignity and injury that was done againſt God, when man ſinned again him; for what is all creature-ſenſe, to that infinite perception which God hath of the …ffront done unto him; and unleſſe you could make the creature as God, a creature cannot have the feeling of God; and unleſſe a creature had the infinite holineſſe of God, a creature cannot know how diſtaſtfull ſin is unto God; therefore a meer creature cannot be a Mediator or Dayſman for God; for he cannot ſenſibly enough conſider of the tranſgreſſion againſt God. 3. No meer creature can make Propoſalls that are proportionable, in reference to Gods honour, that was impaired by the ſin of man, that God might be no loſer, nor might receive any detriment by Mediation; becauſe no creature knowes how much the honor of God is impaired, and if he did, yet it would be beyond his power to offer honorable terms to God in reference thereto, for a creature will act and move like a creature, and all its Propoſalls will be low and little, and defective and ſhort, yea infinitely low & ſhort, and like it ſelf, therfore a meer creature cannot be a meet Dayſman for God, becauſe he will be ſure to wrong him. 4. The Mediator betwixt God and man, is not of interceſſion onelyonly, but of ſatisfaction; now no meer creature can give ſatisfaction for mens offences, becauſe offences are greater then can be conceived of, & the ſatisfaction muſt be like them, that is, muſt be greater then can be imagined by any creature, therefore greater then can be given by any creature. The Mediator is an undertaker to ſatisfie for what is paſt by paying the utmoſt farthing, and to render man a new creature, inclied and devoted to God, who was before an enemie. Now no meer creature can be ſuch an undertaker, becauſe he cannot give a price ſufficient nor work any ſuch transformation in man, but it belongs to him who made heaven and earth to do this.
Theſe things are impediments why a meer creature cannot be a Dayſman betwixt God and men, there are things to be known and done which creatures, as creatures, are not capable of. His daring therefore to aſſert the contrary, ſhews rather his preſumption then his wiſdome or ability.
And whereas he ſaith, that he is able to prove that Christ of himſelf was not able to perform any work belonging to his Mediatorſhip▪ unleſſe by the aſſistance of another, which he enjoyed, and ſo was a compleat Mediator.
It is utterly untrue and repugnant to the Scripture, for by himſelf he purged away our ſins, Heb. 1. 3. and herein he debaſeth Chriſt not a little, he makes him as weak as one of us, and he concurres with thoſe enemies of Chriſt in their reproaches which they caſt upon him when he was upon the Croſſe, he brings in the ſame verdict with them, yea, he hath meaner thoughts in ſome kind, then they, he ſaved others (ſaid they) but himſelf he cannot ſave, that is, by his own power, he cannot, for otherwiſe they knew God could ſave him; the Apoſtle had not ſo high thoughts of him, but he hath as low thoughts, I am able, ſaid the Apoſtle, to do all things through Chriſt ſtrengthening me, but he faith, Chriſt himſelf is able to do nothing, without the Fathers ſtrengthening of him. If this be true which he aſſerts, that Chriſt is able to petform norhing of himſelf without aſſiſtance of another: God might then have ſaved by Peter or Paul, or James or John, or any man elſe, whom he would have looked upon in reference to that work, as by Chriſt. Is ſuch a Mediator as he deciphers Chriſt to be (ſo poore, ſo empty as he makes him to be, not able to do any thing in diſcharge of that office he is deſigned to of himſelf without aſſiſtance) a meet object of the faith, and hope of the Saints?
If he had aſſerted this of the humane nature of Chriſt, that it was able to do nothing by way of ſatisfaction in the function of Mediatorſhip of it ſelf, without the aſſiſtance of the Divinity, or Godhead of Chriſt, it had been an undeniable truth, but to aſſert this of whole Chriſt, in whom the ſullneſſe of the Godhead dwelt bodily, or ſubſtantially, and eſſentially, and in whom are hid all the treaſures, all the mines of wiſdome▪ and knowledge, and all excellency, and in whom are all unſearchable riches, this is ſuch a vilifying of him, that it is a ſecond crucifying of him, and it is not his boaſting of being able to prove it that makes the evill the leſſe, but it is the more horrid by how much he is confident, This Doctrine muſt needs weaken faith, & hope, and affiance in Chriſt, and indeed if it were ſo (as he ſaith) that we had ſuch a Mediator, ſo impotent and ſo weak, of all creatures we were moſt miſerable.
But he proceeds, and attempts to break the ſtrength of the ſecond reaſon which I produced to prove, that a meer creature-Chriſt could not be Mediator betwixt God and men, which was this.
Becauſe a Mediator muſt either partake of both God and man, or of neither, elſe he will rather be a party then a Mediator.
To this he anſwers thus,
Was not Moſes a Mediator betwixt God and men, but was Moſes God and man? Gal. 3. 19.
Rep. Moſes was a typicall Mediator, and was that myſtically, and figuratively, which Chriſt was really and truly: Moſes was not God and man, but man onelyonly eſſentially and ſubſtantially, yet he was as God to Aaron, and to the people, Exod. 4. 16. God reputatively he was, and repreſentatively; and this was ſufficient for him that was not that true Mediator, but the ſhadow of him: but he that was ſhadowed out, and is no ſhadow, but Mediator indeed and in truth, he muſt be God indeed, and in truth: And this Argument of his fetched from Moſes, is ſtrong againſt him, it is like that of Melchiſedech, produced to prove the eternity of Chriſt, upon which I have inſiſted more largely, the ſinews of which no humane ſtrength can cut aſunder.
But he ſaith, When I brought this reaſon, I knew not what I did, for it gives witneſſe againſt me. And he argues againſt me by the help of the reaſon which I have produced. I ſaid, if Christ were not God as well as man, he would rather be a party then a Mediator, and he thence diſputes againſt me thus.
If Chriſt the Mediator were God he was a party, but Chriſt the Mediator was not a party, therefore Chriſt the Mediator was not God.
Rep. The Major Propoſition how clear ſoever it is to him, is notſtithſtanding, unſound, and untrue in it ſelf, for there is a twofold Mediator, there is Mediator participationis, and Mediator negationis; a Mediator of participation, and a Mediator of negation, that is, a Mediator, that partakes of both, and a Mediator that partakes of neither. If there be a breach betwixt the father and the mother, and a child comes betwixt and mediates, the child ſtands related alike to both of them, and partakes equally of both of them, and is a Mediator of participation: If there be a breach betwixt two neighbours, and a third neighbour comes in and Mediates, he ſtands in relation to neither of them, nor partakes of either of them, he is a Mediator of negation, neither the one nor the other is any thing to him; neither of theſe Mediators are parties: the latter is not by his own confeſſion, and it is as clear that the former is not, for he is not properly a party that partakes of both, but he that partakes not of both, or at leaſt, not of both alike, but partakes of the one, and not of the other, or partakes more of the one, then of the other; for diſparity of relation in the Mediator to the perſons betwixt whom he mediates, makes the Mediator a party, and not parity and equality. If there ſhould be a difference betwixt two brethren, and a third brother come in betwixt them to mediate and make peace, he is not a party, or if he be, he is a party to both, and a party to both, is in proper manner of ſpeaking a party to neither; but if there be a controverſie between two half brothers, and another comes in to mediate who is a whole brother to one of them, he is rather a party then a Mediator, becauſe he ſtands not in ſo near a relation to the one, as to the other.
The application is eaſie, Chriſt is a Mediator betwixt God and man, not of negation but of participation, for a man he is (without all controverſie betwixt him and me) and in all things like to us, ſinne onelyonly excepted, and if he be a man, then he partakes of man; and partaking of man, he calls men his brethren, Heb. 2. 11, and if he ſhould not partake of God equally, as he doth of man, and ſtand in like relation to God, as he doth to man, he would be a party rather than a Mediator, but being God as well as man, he is no party, but a Mediator, or a middle perſon in a proper acception, not negatively, but relatively, ſtanding in equality of relation without any diſparity; and in this ſenſe, it would be true, (as he ſaith) that if Chriſt were God, he would be a party, if he were not man alſo as well as God, for then then there would be a diſparity, and inequality of relation in Chriſt the Mediator, in reference to the one of the perſons betwixt whom he mediates; he would be more nearly allyed to the one, then to the other, more to God then to man: but as he frames the Argument, if Chriſt the Mediator be God, then he is a party, when as it is manifeſt that he is man alſo, & no nearer related to God, though he be God, then he is to man becauſe he is man: the Major is palpably falſe, & muſt be denied: by that time he hath ſeriouſly conſidered of this, which I have here preſented, I hope he will be forced to confeſſe, that I knew▪ what I did when I brought that reaſon, that Chriſt, if a meer creature, would be a party rather then a Mediator. But he gives an inſtance.
In reconciliation (ſaith he) by a Mediator, we are to ſuppoſe three: One offended, another offending, and a third mediating for peace betwixt them. God was offended, men were offenders, and Chriſt was the Mediator. Now if Chriſt had been a ſinfull man, he had been of the party offending; and and if he had been God, he was the party offended; but Christ was not a Party: From the Propoſition which I have thus confirmed, and the Aſſumption which you have acknowledged, I will draw up this Concluſion, That Chriſt the Mediator is not God.
Rep. In this Inſtance, and in the application of it, there are ſome things that are juſtly liable to exception, and other things manifeſtly falſe: 1. That there be three in reconciliation wil be granted, but that the third muſt be ſo diſtinct as he holds it forth, as not to partake of the other two, is denied: For, a ſon that mediates betwixt father and mother (which may ſomtimes be the caſe) is of the fleſh of both, and yet notwithſtanding is diſtinct from both but not ſo diſtinct as not to partake of both. So in the reconciliation made by Chriſt betwixt God and man, there are three that are diſtinct: 1. There is God offended: 2. There is man, viz. mankind, offending: 3. There is Chriſt mediating, who is neither meerly and only God, nor yet meerly and only man; but is both God and man, yet diſtinct from both God and man: Diſtinct from God becauſe he is man, and diſtinct from man, becauſe he is God. Yea there is yet a further diſtinction; for, Chriſt though he be man, viz. of that kind, for nature and eſſence, which was the offending party, yet not one of thoſe perſons in that kind, that did offend, but without ſin himſelf; and though he be God, and ſo for eſſence and nature one with that party which was offended, and was offended in his own perſon, yet diſtinct in perſonality, or (which is all one) a diſtinct perſon from the Father and the Holy Ghoſt, who more viſibly do manage the offence againſt man. For the Son, though he was offended, together with the Father, and the Holy Ghoſt, yet he appears not proſecuting the offence, but therein he is veiled, and appears only appeaſing the Father that was offended: in both theſe reſpects there are three in this buſineſſe of reconliation.
But he makes mention of three in reconciliation, which in titles and names are the ſame with the three which I have already ſpoken of; viz. God, men, & Chriſt: But when he comes to open and unfold theſe three, he makes the third, which mediates betwixt the other two, to be ſo diſtinct from both of them, as to partake of neither of them: And under this lies couched the poyſon and malignancy of his doctrine; For, as he layes it down, he not only denies the Godhead of Chriſt (which is the doctrine in diſpute betwixt us) but he deſtroyes the Manhood alſo, and overturnes that ſatisfaction, which in the nature of man he gave for man; for his words are theſe, If Chriſt had been a ſinfull man, he had been of the party offending: His deſigne is to ſhew, that he was a diſtinct perſon, & partaked of neither Party betwixt whom he mediated; He was not of the Party offending, for he was not a ſinfull man; He was not the Party offended for he could not be God, becauſe he could not be a Party: Let it be conſidered ſeriouſly what he ſaith, and it will be found to be falſe and dangerous, and reacheth not his own deſigne.
1. Falſe, for was Chriſt therefore not of that Party, becauſe he was without ſin? Was he not a true man in all things like other men, ſin onelyonly excepted? Had he not a true Body and Soule? Was not ſoule and body ſubject to the ſame infirmities and weakneſſes (ſin excepted) as other mens ſoules and bodies were? Was he not the Seed of the Woman which was promiſed? Was he not conceived in the womb of the Virgin, and was fleſh of her fleſh? Was he not Abrahams ſeed, and Davids ſeed? Was not Satan to be broken and deſtroyed in all his ſtrength by one that muſt be of the Woman, that muſt ſpring out of her, and be her ſeed? And ſhould all this be, and yet Chriſt not this Party? He was no offender indeed, but yet he was of that Party which did offend, he had the ſame nature for eſſence: Abraham was of that Party which offended, and ſo was David, and were offenders themſelves, and he was their ſeed, and was of them and from them; therefore it is a great untruth and groſſe miſtake to ſay that he was not of that Party; for he was fleſh of their fleſh, and bone of their bone, but kept by the Holy Ghoſt from that naturall pollution and ſtaine which defiled them.
2. Dangerous; for if Chriſt were not of that party that offended, he could not ſatisfie for that party which offended; for in the ſame nature in which the offence was committed, muſt the ſatisfaction be given; for both the juſtice and truth of God required this. It was threatned that the ſoule, that is the perſon that ſins, ſhall die, and if another ſuffer that penalty, yet it muſt be one in that nature; therefore it is ſaid, he bore our ſins on his own body on the tree: It was neceſſary it ſhould be ſo, els the truth of God would not be fulfilled, nor juſtice ſatisfied. And if Chriſt be not of the off…nding party, if he be another from them, not partaking of them, but be of another nature, and not of theirs, then he might as well have been no man at all, for any fruit or bene…it that accrues to ſinfull man thereby: And Chriſt might as well have taken the nature of Angells, and as much to the benefit of loſt men, as have aſſumed fleſh, if it be not th… fl…ſh and nature of men, that did offend, if he be not of their party, though not ſpotted with their ſin.
3. It reacheth not his own deſigne, which is to make Chriſt a third and diſtinct perſon or party, from thoſe he mediates betwixt, partaking of neither; for he knowes, that if it be confeſſed, that Chriſt partakes of the nature of one of the parties whom he is to make peace betwixt, and not of the other, then he will undeniably be a party inſtead of a Mediator: to avoid therefore this, he holds that he partakes of neither; and yet he makes Chriſt a man notwithſtanding, but not a man of the offending party. But this diſtinction will not help him, for if he be a man, for ſubſtance and eſſence like othem, he is nearer related to them as ſuch, then he is to God, if he be not God; and then he will be a party ſtill, rather then a Mediator. For a party is one that partakes more of the one then of the other.
Laſtly, Suppoſe that to be (which he diſputes againſt) as a thing very abſurd, viz. that Chriſt were of the party offended, and were alſo of the party offending, as in truth and deed Chriſt is, though not in the ſenſe that he underſtands it, yet the conſequence is naught, that he muſt therefore be a party; for a party to both makes him a pa…ty to neither above other, and ſo not a party at all, but an unbyaſſed Mediator betwixt both; by all which, his much weakneſſe, accompanied with much confidence, is manifeſt to the intelligent.
In the next place he conſiders of the Scriptures which I produced, to prove the Mediator to be more then a meer creature, viz. the high God: and firſt,
I made uſe of the title that is given to Chriſt, He is called Immanuel, which is God with us, or God in our nature, Mat. 1. 23. His Anſwer is;
Immanuel was not the name of Chriſt, but a ſignification of his name Jeſus, which (ſaith he) is manifest if we compare the 21, 22, and 23. verſes together. Now the name Jeſus ſignifies not the nature, but the office of Chriſt, as the Angell expounds ver. 21. thou ſhalt call his name Jeſus, for he ſhall ſave his people from their ſins; and ſo Immanuel notes out that certain aid that God would affoord by Jeſus Chriſt to his Church.
Rep. Immanuel and Jeſus are not one and the ſame name, nor have they one and the ſame interpretation? nor doth the name Immanuel interpret the name Jeſus, nor doth Mat. 1. 21. 22, 23. ſhew any ſuch thing: all that can be collected is this, 1. That both the names do belong to Chriſt, he that is Immanuel is alſo Jeſus. 2. That theſe two names do ſo neceſſarily imply one the other, that they cannot be ſeparated, therefore the Prophet (ſpeaking of his birth) ſaith, his name ſhall be called Immanuel, and the Angel, ſpeaking of his birth, ſaith, his name ſhall be called Jeſus, alluding therein to the Prophet, becauſe Chriſt is firſt Immanuel, and afterward Jeſus, and he was Immanuel, that he might be Jeſus, and he could not be Jeſus, unleſſe he were Immanuel; this is the cauſe, and that is the effect, and he that denies him to be Immanuel, denies him to be Jeſus: therefore the Angel ſtiles him by the name, that is, the effect, and then ſends us to conſider of the name, which is the cauſe, which the Prophet gives him.
Now whereas he ſaith, the name Jeſus ſignifies not the nature, but the office of Chriſt, as the Angel expounds it, verſ. 21. This ſhews, that the name Immanuel is not the ſignification of the name Jeſus, for Immanuel doth import not office, but nature, or natures in Chriſt, viz. the divine and humane nature united into one perſon, which other Scriptures make manifeſt, which I have already quoted, in John 1. 14. 1 Tim. 3. 16. and others may be added, Phil. 2. 6. 7. he being in the form of God emptied himſelf and came in the form of a ſervant, and Heb. 2. 16. he took not the nature of Angells, but the ſeed of Abraham, and Col. 3. 9. In him dwelleth all the fullneſſe of the Godhead bodily, ſuch Scriptures as theſe ſerve to interpret the name Immanuel, & do declare that it doth denotate two natures in Chriſt, viz. the divine and humane. For if it ſhould onelyonly import divine help, & aid reached out unto us, then every believer might carry that name as well as Chriſt, becauſe God doth reach out grace and favour, and aſſiſtance to each Saint: But without doubt becauſe there was a breach betwixt God and us through ſin, & we were driven from God, and God became a ſtranger to us, Col. 1. 31. therefore the Lord would give a ſing, as it is expreſſed in Iſa. 7. 14. in Chriſt whom he would ſend, of a reunition and conjunction betwixt himſelf and …s; we ſhall behold God & man united together a…ain in Chriſt, that we may not be faithleſſe but believe, we ſhall know that he will dwell with us; For he ſhall viſibly dwell in Chriſt to our conviction. So that there are two reaſons why Chriſt is called Jmmanuel. 1. Becauſe he is both God and man in one perſon. 2. Becauſe he is the bond of that conjunction, that is to be betwixt God and us; but withall it doth import that reconciliation which he effects as Mediator betwixt God and us, giving himſelf a ranſome that our ſins might be remitted, and we might be accepted again into favour; and if this be the certain aid that he ſpeaks of, which comes by Chriſt to the Church, he is ſo far right, but yet reacheth not the root of the matter; for this aid is from the mightineſſe of his perſon. If God had not united with our nature, our nature could never have united with God: but God came down to us, and in the perſon of Chriſt gave evidence to us that he was God with us.
The next Scripture which he undertakes to anſwer, is 1 Tim. 3. 16. without controverſie great is the mystery of godlineſſe, God was manifeſt in the fleſh.
His anſwer is, Ancient Interpreters (ſaith a learned man) as the Latine, the Syriack, the Arabick, Ambroſe and Auguſtine make this reading to be ſuſpected, for they read not as we do, for thus they read the words, And without controverſie great is the myſtery of godlineſſe, which myſterie was manifeſted in the fleſh.
Rep. It is true, that ſuch a reading is found, but ſaith Beza upon the place, repugnant perpetuo conſenſu omnes Graeci codices, that is, all the Greek copies are with one conſent against it: And a little before he ſaith, vix alius locus eſt in quo omnia redemptionis noſtrae myſteria, vel magnificent ùs vel planiùs explicentur, ut non mirum ſit foedè fuiſſe à diabolo depravatum, that is, There is hardly ſuch an other place to be found, in which all the myſteries of our redemption are unfolded either ſo magnificently or plainly as in this, ſo that it is no wonder if this text have been foully corrupted and depraved by the devill.
But if the word foreign God, be left out, and the article foreign be put in inſtead of it, and ſo the words run thus, Great is the myſtery of godlineſſe, which is manifeſt, is the fleſh, why doth he not improve this reading to his own purpoſe, and interpret what is meant by the myſtery which is manifeſt in the fleſh, and make the reſt of the words to concurre with it, that he may gain credit to ſuch a reading? Alas he knows very well the following words will not quadrare, they will not correſpond nor ſuit with ſuch a reading.
By the word myſtery there are (who follow this reading) that underſtand the Goſpell, which is called a mystery, but was the Goſpell manifeſted in the fleſh, &c. and received up into glory? certainly it muſt be meant of ſome perſon, that was in fleſh, and was received up to glory; therefore if it be the myſtery that was manifeſted in the fleſh, and received up into glory, it was not the Goſpell, for the Goſpell is the glad tydings of good things in Chriſt; and was the glad tydings of good things in Chriſt manifeſt in the fleſh, and were glad tydings received up into glory? it is abſurd to be aſſerted.
If he underſtand any thing elſe by Myſtery, which was manifeſted in the fleſh then the Goſpell, it muſt be the ſoul of Chriſt, which he ſaith was created before the reſt of the creatures, and which in time took fleſh, and was manifeſted in the fleſh; but was it ſo great a Myſtery for the ſoul to come into the body after the body is formed in the womb? is it not that which is done every hour in the formation of man? doth not the ſoul unite with the body in the generation of all that are born in the world.
And indeed though he grant our reading, yet he brings all to this, for his words are,
It is not denied but that Chriſt was a God, and the Text ſaith but this, a God was manifeſted in the fleſh, that is (ſaith he) appeared viſible amongſt men, when he took unto him a body.
Rep. If Chriſt was a God before he took fleſh, then he was ever a God from the firſt that he was, and that was (by his own conceſſion) before there was any creature created, and conſequently before any actuall Soveraignty was beſtowed upon him; for that could not be before the world had an actuall exiſtence, over which he was to have his actuall Soveraignty, and then it will follow that he was God by nature from all eternity with the Father and the Holy Ghoſt, but this I have diſcuſſed before; that which I ſhall add is this, look what a God Chriſt was, ſuch a God he was in fleſh, but Jehovah he was, the mighty God he was, the great God he was, the true God he was, the everlaſting God he was, God over all bleſſed for ever he was, ſubſiſting in the form or nature of God he was, and equall with God, ſuch a God he was as is abundantly teſtified in Scripture, therefore ſuch a God he was manifeſted in fleſh.
As for Hincmarus his conceipt, that this word God was put into the Text by the Neſtorians, I have him not by me, and I much heed it not, becauſe the very Text it ſelf gives witneſſe to it ſelf, that the word is not added by mans device or fraud, for if it be left out, the reſt of the words are made nonſenſe thereby.
The third and laſt Scripture that I made uſe of to prove Chriſt as Mediator, not to be a meer creature, and nothing elſe, was this.
It is ſaid in Joh. 1. 14. The Word was made Fleſh.
His Anſwer is, The creature that was immediatly made by God, took unto it a body. I find no place (ſaith he) where the fleſh of Chriſt ſignifies any thing more then his body, according to which he died, and is no where taken for the humane nature.
Rep. This conceipt of a creature immediatly made by God, which took unto it a body, hath been at large ſpoken to, and confuted in my former Treatiſe: It hath alſo been the word, that the word Fleſh is taken Synechdochically for humane nature, a part being put for the whole. I find no cauſe to add any thing either to the one or other, but ſhall conſider of the Reaſons which he leaves me to pauſe upon, by which he would prove Chriſt the Mediator to be a meer creature.
Let me oppoſe (ſaith he) your Propoſition with two or three Reaſons.
Rea. 1. Becauſe whole Chriſt is a creature, if ſo, then either a meer creature is Mediator, or Chriſt is not a Mediator.
Rep. The greater part of my former Treatiſe is ſpent in the confuting of this aſſertion, I therefore think it needleſſe to ſpend more time or ſtrength about it, eſpecially ſeeing he refe…res to what he ſaid before, and brings no new ſtrength to it.
Rea. 2. Becauſe a Mediator is not of one, Gal. 3. 20. Now if Chriſt be God, then he is a Mediator of one; for he cannot be a Mediator to himſelf, and there is but one God.
Rep. It is true (as the Apoſtle ſaith) that a Mediator is not of one, that is, not of one Party, for a Mediators work is to make peace; now it is to be alwaies ſuppoſed, that no one is at variance with himſelf, therefore a Mediator is not of one, but of two Parties that diſſent the one from the other, which Parties are God and Man.
But his deduction which he fetcheth from this ſaying is faulty, which is this, If Chriſt be God, then is he a Mediator of one, for he cannot be a Mediator to himſelf, and God is but one: if this were a ſound conſequence, Chriſt would be Mediator to none at all, and the reaſon is this, There are but two Parties diſagreeing, God and man: Now all the Elect in all the world they are reckoned in this account but as one man; Now if Chriſt be man, took their ſeed, then he is of this Party, then he is Mediator to himſelf, and the words may be retorted, A Mediator is not of one; but if Chriſt be man, then he is a Mediator of one, for he cannot be Mediator to himſelf, for all men are but as one, come under one conſideration, and he is among them; if he be a man being of their nature, and true man of their ſeed.
Therefore there muſt be a diſtinction made concerning Chriſt; Chriſt may be conſidered foreign or foreign, either in his nature & perſon, as he is the ſecond in the Trinity, and the eſſentiall Son of God, or in reference to his Office, as he is God in fleſh, and King, Prieſt, and Prophet to the Church, and appointed Dayſman; and if this latter acception, he is not Mediator to himſelf, though he be God, for he is God-man, and ſo differs from himſelf, conſidered nudè, as God, or the ſecond perſon in the Divine Trinity; that which was aſſerted before concerning this man alſo conſidered.
Rea. 3. His third reaſon is the ſame for ſubſtance with the ſecond, Becauſe (ſaith he) Chriſt is a Mediator betwixt God and man, 1 Tim. 2. 5. Now if he were God, he could not be a Mediator betwixt God and men, for he could not be a Mediator to himſelf.
This hath been conſidered in the former reaſon, only there is thus much new in it which deſerves conſideration: Timothy (ſaith he) calls the Mediator betwixt God and man, the man Chriſt.
Let the whole text in that place of Tim. be conſidered and duely weighed, together with the Apoſtles ſcope and deſign, and with the obſervation of a learned man upon it, and it will prove Chriſt to be both God and man, and Mendiator betwixt God and man, for the words in the Greek run thus, foreign: which may be thus rendred, For the man Chriſt Jeſus is one God, and one Mediator betwixt God and man. There may be theſe reaſons for ſuch a verſion or tranſlation of the words; 1. Becauſe the ſubject perſon that is ſpoken of is but one, and that is the man Jeſus Chriſt, and of him it is predicated and aſſerted, that he is one God, and one Mediator betwixt God and man, all is ſpoken of him; for if there were two divers ſubjects ſpoken of, viz. God the Father, and the Mediator Jeſus Chriſt, as is generally conceived, and muſt be granted according to the ordinary tranſlation of the words, then the Articles would not have been omitted, as thoſe that underſtand the Greek Tongue underſtand very well. If God had been the ſubject ſpoken of, and if it had been aſſerted or predicated that he had been one, the words would have been, foreign; and if the word Mediator had been the ſubject, and that it had been predicated and aſſerted of him, that he had been one, the words wold then have been foreign, both of them would have been with the Article foreign, but this Article is not prefixed to either of them, therefore neither of them are the ſubject ſpoken of, but rather they are things that are ſpoken of an other, which other is the man Jeſus Chriſt, he is one God, and one Mediator betwixt God and man; and if it be otherwiſe then I have held forth, it is quite againſt the manner of the Greeks, and there will be hardly any place to be found that will parallell this, where there is ſuch an Omiſſion.
Now, if it ſhould be objected that there is no Article prefixed before the man Chriſt Jeſus, which yet I ſay is the ſubject of whom theſe things are ſpoken, I anſwer that there needs not any Article there, becauſe of the proper names Jeſus Chriſt, before which the Article is uſually pretermitted.
If we alſo conſider the ſcope of the Apoſtle, it is more congruous thereto, the words being tranſlated as I have preſented; for his degſin is to prove, that now the Church of God was not to be kept within the narrow bounds & limits of Judea as heretofore, but to conſiſt both of Jews and Gentiles, as the verſe before ſhews, and many other, God wil have all to be ſaved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth: But how doth the Apoſtle prove that? by this fifth ver. he proves it, for, ſaith he, the man Jeſus Chriſt is one God, and one Mediator betwixt God and men, if the words did run as they are tranſlated, For there is one God, and one Mediator betwixt God and man; there would be no ſuch good conſequence, for there was ever one God, and ever one Mediator betwixt God and men, and yet the Church did not extend beyond the bounds of Judea; therefore the Apoſtle ſpeaks of God under a new conſideration, which was not before, till the Apoſtles times, and that is of the man Jeſus Chriſt, who is God bleſſed for ever more, and whoſe work is to unite both Jews and Gentiles into one, as in Gal. 3. 28. Epheſ. 2. 11, And when he calls this man Jeſus Chriſt one God, it muſt be taken of Deus uniens, God making one in a practicall way, as in Zach. 14. 9. The Lord ſhall be King in all the earth, and in that day the Lord ſhall be one, and his Name one. This Lord is Chriſts, for of his Kingdome is this ſpoken, which ſhall be ſet up in all the earth, and in that day (viz. the day of his regnancy over all Nations, both Jews and Gentiles, for it is a prophecy of ſuch a time) the Lord ſhall be one, and his Name one; it is not meant of the oneneſſe of eſſence, for the Lord was alwaies one in that ſenſe, but of operation effectivè, he ſhall be one, he ſhall work alike, and in one manner in all Nations, and ſhall make them all one in him, they ſhall all ſerve him with one ſhoulder, with one conſent. So in this of Timothy, God would have all to be ſaved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth; for Jeſus Chriſt is one God and one Mediator, that is, God uniting all in one, and reconciling all in one; The man Chriſt is God, and Mediator effecting this. This was foretold long before, but God is come in fleſh now to accompliſh it.
But if this expoſition ſhould not paſſe, it is eaſie to give another, for it is not denied, but that Chriſt Jeſus was and is a man, nor is it denied but that as Mediator he was a man, and it will be further confeſſed, that he could not have been Mediator unleſſe he had been man; for therefore it was that he took not the nature of Angells, but the ſeed of Abraham, that he might be a meet Mediator to reconcile us to God. But the point in diſpute is, Whether as Mediator he was not more then a man, or then a meer creature; and I have already ſhewed, that to mediate for God, and to God, required more ſufficiency and ability then can be found in man or any creature.
The next Inſtance or Argument that I produced was this.