First Epistle of John Applied Part 1, Lecture 31
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF St. JOHN.
CHAP. 2. 22, 23, VERS.
Who is a Lyer, but hee that denieth that Jeſus is the Chriſt? hee is Antichriſt that denieth the Father, and the Son.
Whoſoever denyeth the Son, the ſame hath not the Father, but he that acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father alſo.
OVr bleſſed Saviour calling thoſe two ſons of Zebedee, James and John, to bee hisMark 3. 17 Diſciples, gave them the Sur-name of Boanerges, which ſignifieth, a Son of thunder; Brig. ibidmutatio nominis d…ni alicujus spiritualis ſignificationem habet, where names are changed, ſome spiritual gift is conferred; it was ſo no doubt, upon thoſe Apoſtles, to whom Chriſt gave eminent abilities of aſſerting truth, confuting errours, reproving ſin, perſwading repentance, in ſuch a way, as might like thunder awaken the dull and drowſy world. That St. James was ſuch a Thunderer, appeareth by his ſufferings, it being very probable, that his powerfull Preaching of the Gospel, was the occaſion of Herods malitious perſecution, and that the liberty of his tongue coſt him his life. That St. John was one who did not onelyonly lighten in his converſation, but thunder in his Doctrines, appeareth by his writings, and more particularly, this Epiſtle, wherein hee cryeth aloud, and lifteth up his voice like thunder, againſt both the Hypocrites and Heretickes of his time, againſt thoſe, in the former chapter, theſe, in this, and more especially in theſe verſes, Who is a Lyar, &c.
The latter branch of the accuſation againſt the Antichriſts in S. Johns daies, is that which now commeth to bee diſcuſſed, as it is propounded in the end of the two and twentieth, and proved in the three and twentieth verſe.
1 Begin wee with the charge it ſelf, Hee is Antichriſt that denyeth the Father and the Son. Theſe words are looked upon by Expoſitors in a double notion, either as a diſtinct accuſation, or as an aggravation of the former charge.
1 Serrarius upon this clauſe, ſaith, Altera haereſis Serrar. in loc.eſt negantium patrem et filium, in theſe words another ſort of Hereticks are charged, who denyed the Father and the Son, inaſmuch as they feigned another father; ſo did Baſilides, and Saturnius, as Epiphanius andEpiphan. adv. Haereſ. l. 1 Iren. l. 3. c. 15 Tertul. adv. Prax. c. 31. Irenaeus informs us. Such alſo were thoſe hereticks, who confounded the Father and the Son, as if they were one and the ſame perſōn, to whom Tertullian applyeth this very clauſe, where hee ſaith, Negant patrem dum cundem et filium dicunt, et negant filium dum eundem patr… credunt, dando illis quae non ſunt, auferendo quae ſunt, they deny the Father, in aſſerting him to bee the Son, they deny the Son, in affirming him to bee the Father, aſcribing to both what they are not, and taking from them what they are. To this may bee referred thoſe fabulous things which were broached in thoſe heretical ſchools of Simon, and others, concerning God introducing a multitude of Rulers, under the names of Barbel, Abrakan, Karlakan, &c. by whom the World was governed, which was indeed to deny the father.
2 But that which ſeemeth to me moſt rational, is to look upon this clauſe as an aggravation of the former charge, letting us ſee what followeth upon denying Jeſus to bee the Chriſt, namely, a denial of the Father and the Son, and conſequently how pernitions this Antichriſtian doctrin is: for whereas levius videri poterat, it may ſeem a ſmall thing to deny Jeſus (who appeared in the form ofEorum crimen amplificat. Matlor. a Servant) to bee the Christ, addit quid gravius, hee addeth that which might juſtly ſtartle them, that how little account ſoever they made of it, it was no other than to deny the Father and the Son, and ſo in effect the denying this man to bee the Chriſt, is to deny God himſelf. To open this diſtinctly in its full latitude, wee ſhall finde a threefold charge in this one.
1 Hee that denyeth Jeſus to bee the Christ, denyeth the Son of God. I begin with the Son, though the Father be the firſt perſon, becauſe hee is moſt directly denyed. This will bee the more eaſily underſtood, if wee conſider what our Apoſtle taketh here for granted, that Chriſt is no other than the Son of God. How, and in what respect hee is the Son of God, I ſhall have more full occaſion to diſcuſſe at the ninth verſe of the fourth Chapter, it ſhall ſuffice here to take notice▪ that the Meſſiah was looked upon as having the neer relation to God of a Son. S. Peter in that excellent confeſſion of his Faith, puts theſe two together, Thou art the Chriſt, The Son of the living Mat. 16. 16God; nay▪ the very Devils who came out of them that were poſſeſſed, …cknowledging him to be the Chriſt, do withall declare him to bee the Son, Thou art Christ the Luk. 4 41Son of God; and that this was a received opinion among the Jews, appeareth by that queſtion which the High Priest put to him, art thou the Chriſt the Son of the bleſſed? Mark. 14. 61yea, as Grotius well obſerveth, apparet hoc cognomen vulgo Grot.Meſſiae datum, it appeareth to have been a name of the Meſſiah, well known among the vulgar, by that of the very Seamen; who beholding the miracle wrought by him on the winds, cryed out, of a truth thou art the Mat. 14. 33Son of God, that is, the Meſſiah. Suitable to this it is, that the Ancient Hebrews did myſtically interpret thoſe words in the Pſalmes, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, of the Meſſiah, by which it is evident, that to deny him who is the Christ, is no other than to deny Gods Son.
2 Hee doth not only deny the Son, but the Father; For
1 The relation between the Father and the Son, is very neer, no wonder, if the injury done to the Son, reflect upon the Father; it is thus among men, much more in the Deity, where the Son is conſubſtantial and coeternal with the Father. Being the Son, hee is the brightneſſe of his fathers glory, and expreſſe Image of his perſon. So St. Paul characterizeth him, for which reaſon it is that all men ſhould honour the Son as they honour the Father. So our Saviour Heb. 1. 2 Joh. 5. 23himſelf expreſſely aſſerteth and thence inferreth▪ He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father.
2 The Father it is who ſends his Son into the World, and to deny him who is ſent, what is it but to deny him Grot. in loc.who ſendeth? To deny (ſaith Grotius) is ſometimes as much as authoritatem alicui detrahere, to detract from ones authority, and to deny the Perſon ſent, is in effect to deny the Authority of the ſender; in this respect it is, that in the Scripture but now quoted, thoſe words are added, that ſent him, and to this purpoſe that of our Saviour elſewhere, is very appoſite, Hee that deſpiſeth you, despiſeth Luk. 10. 16mee (to wit, becauſe they were ſent by him) and hee that despiſeth mee, despiſeth him that ſent mee, to wit, the father, by whom Chriſt was ſent.
3 The Father having ſent his Son, was pleaſed to give Teſtimony to him. They are Chriſts own words, The Father himſelf which ſent mee hath born witneſſe of Joh. 5. 37mee▪ accordingly if you look into St. Matthews Gospel, Mat. 3, 17 17. 5you ſhall finde, that at his baptiſme, a voice was heard from Heaven, ſaying, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleaſed; and again, at his tranſfiguration on the Mount, behold, a voice from the clouds, which ſaid, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleaſed, hear ye him, to which laſt St. Peter alludeth, where he ſaith of Chriſt, 2 Pet. 1. 17Hee received from God the Father Honour and Glory, when there came forth a voice to him from the excellent glory, ſo that God having given this teſtimony (than which what can bee more full or immediate) of the Meſſiah, that he was his Son, whoſoever denyeth the Chriſt the Son of God, giveth the Father the Lye, according as our Apoſtle more fully expreſſeth in the cloſe of this Epiſtle. Hee that beleeveth not God, hath made him a Lyar, becauſe 1 Joh 5. 10hee beleeveth not the Record that God gave of his Son.
3 Laſtly, Though it bee not expreſſed, yet it would bee ſupplyed, hee denyeth not onelyonly the Father and the Son, but the Holy Ghoſt; for as in the firſt Chapter, where out followſhip is ſaid to bee with the Father and his Son, the Holy Ghoſt is included, ſo here doubtleſſe, the third Perſon is implyed, who is no leſſe denyed than the other two, by them who deny Jeſus to be the Chriſt. The Greek word foreign, commeth from the Verb which ſignifieth to annoint; now to this annointing, all the three perſons did concur, there is perſona ungens, uncta, and unctio, the Father annointing, the Son annointed, and the Holy Ghost the ointment, and therefore hee that denyeth the Chriſt, denyeth all three perſons; it was by no other than the Holy Ghoſt that Jeſus Chriſt did all his glorious miracles, his mighty works; in which reſpect, the Phariſees denying Jeſus to bee the Christ, became guilty of the ſin againſt the Holy Ghoſt; and thus this hereſy is no leſſe than a denial of the bleſſed Trinity.
To ſhut up this clauſe, learn wee hence, when wee receive any Doctrins, to conſider what conſequence; do naturally flow from them. I have ſo much charity as to think, that many of the Jews, and ſome of the followers of thoſe Antichriſts, did not think, that by denying Jeſus to bee the Chriſt, they were guilty of ſuch a blaſphemy againſt the Deity, as to deny the Father and the Son, but yet ſo it was, as appeareth by what hath been already ſaid. I have the ſame opinion of many ſeduced perſons in this age, who are not ſo conſiderate, to weigh the evil inferences, which are juſtly deducible from ſuch praemiſes which they embrace as truth.
Indeed we muſt diſtinguiſh between natural and forced deductions, ſome like Spiders ſuck poyſon out of flowers, like bad ſtomacks, turn the beſt nutriment into ill humours, perverting the ſoundeſt Doctrins by fallacious paralogiſmes. If wee are made ſinners by one mans diſobedience, then ſay ſome, God is unjuſt, in charging Adams poſterity with his guilt; If Juſtification bee by Faith alone, then ſay others, what need of good works? If Chriſt bee the Propitiation for the ſins of the world, then ſay others, wee need not fear though wee adde ſin to ſin; and thus the moſt pretious Doctrins of the Gospel, are abuſed to patronize horrid concluſions; but how irrationall they are, eaſily appeareth to any who ſhall judiciouſly examine them. Nor doth this hinder, but that many specious doctrines have a ſting in their tayl, and how amiable ſoever they ſeem in their direct aſpects, yet they will bee found very deteſtable in their reflection. The Antinomian, in denying that God ſeeeth any ſin in juſtified perſons, or is at all diſpleaſed with them when they ſin, denyeth that hee is Omniſcient, not knowing all things, and that he is a Pure, and Holy God, hating ſin where-ever hee findes it. The Socinian, in denying that Chriſt did expiate ſin, and ſatisfy juſtice, denyeth the merit of his death, the dignity of his perſon, and justification by faith in his blood. Many inſtances of this kinde might bee brought in ſeveral erroneous poſitions, both of theſe, and other Hereticks; the truth is, according to that known ſaying, uno dato abſurdo mille ſequnntur, one abſurdity being granted, a thouſand follow, and ſuch as were they apprehended, would doubtleſſe be abhorred, though not by thoſe who broach, yet by many of them who entertain ſuch poſitions, and therefore let it bee our Wiſdome to examine whither this or that Doctrin tends, to what it leads, and what muſt neceſſarily follow upon it, for ſo doth S. John here, in which respect hee chargeth them who deny that Jeſus is the Chriſt, with denying the Father and the Son.
2 The Proof of this latter part of the charge, is that which now followeth in the next verſe, Whoſoever denieth the Son, the ſame hath not the Father, but hee that acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father alſo. I call this a proof, and not without Reaſon, ſince the Argument is ſtrong, Hee that hath not the Father denyeth him, hee that denieth the Son hath not the Father, and therefore he denieth the Father and the Son.
The verſe conſiſts of two clauſes, the latter whereof is not in our ordinary Greek Copies, and therefore is left out by Calvin, and is conceived by Daneus to have crept out of the gloſſe into the Text. But Beza aſſureth us,Calv Vid. Dan. Beza in loc. that hee ſaw it in two Greek manuſcripts, it is alſo in the Syriack and vulgar Latine, and inſerted (though in another Character) by our Tranſlators. If wee peruſe the writings of this Apoſtle, wee ſhall finde no way of illuſtration more frequent than that which is by contraries, whileſt ſometime the Affirmative is amplified by the Negative, and then again the Negative by the Affirmative, in which reſpect it is not improbable, that this affirmative might here bee annexed by the Apoſtle. But ſince I ſhall have a more fit occaſion of handling the duty of confeſſing Chriſt, when (by Gods grace) I ſhall come to the ſecond and thirteenth verſes of the fourth Chapter, and withall (there being the ſame reaſon of contraries) the unfolding of the one is virtually an explication of the other. I ſhall not inlarge in a diſtinct handling of theſe clauſes.
That which would here bee principally inquired into, is the notion of this phraſe, foreign, to have the Father, of which Interpreters give a threefold conſtruction.
1 That phraſe in the firſt Commandement, of having Exod. 2…. 3none but Jehovah to bee our God, may give ſome light to this; for as there habendi verbum pro credere, intelligere, uſurpatur, the word having is as much as knowing and beleeving; So here; and then the deſign of our Apoſtle in theſe words, is to let us know, that all Jews and others, who deny the Meſſiah, however they pretend to beleeve in, and give worſhip to, and have the knowledge of the true God, in truth, they are ignorant of him, and ſo neither beleeve nor worſhip him aright, becauſe they do not know, beleeve, and worſhip him as the Father of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. Indeed, this is to bee underſtood (as to the explicit notion) with a limitation in reference to Chriſt already come. As for the Jews before Chriſt (though the godly among them had ſome glympſe of this, for otherwiſe they could not have beleeved in the Meſſiah, which was to come) yet it was not expreſly required of them to invocate God as the father of Chriſt; but God having now ſent his Son into, and by him revealed himſelf unto the World, hee can no other waies bee rightly adored, and invocated, but as his Father. To this purpoſe it is that Chriſt is called by the Apostle, the image of the inviſible God, which though it bee true of him, as hee is the Son of God, in reſpect of his eternal Generation, by which the Divine eſſence being communicated to him hee is the Image of God, that is, (perſonally taken) God the Father; yet in that the Apoſtle ſaith not onelyonly, the Image Col 1. 15of God, but of the inviſible God, there ſeemeth to be a tacit Antitheſis, and ſo it is to bee underſtood of the Son of God made man, who by his incarnation is become a viſible Image of the inviſible God; for this reaſon it is, hee ſaith himſelf elſewhere, if yee knew mee, you would know the father alſo; and indeed, as wee cannot comfortablyJoh. 14. 7 ſee the Sun with a direct aſpect, but in its reflexion, ſo neither can wee rightly know the father, but in Christ, who is his viſible Image: Suitable hereunto it is, that our Saviour expreſſely ſaith, No man knoweth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father but the Son, and Mat. 11. 27hee to whomſoever the Son will reveal him; and among other conſtructions of thoſe words, you beleeve in God, Joh. 14. 1beleeve alſo in mee, this is one, That if they did not beleeve in him, they could not beleeve in God: ſo that from hence Muſc. ibid. …wee may infer, that not onelyonly the Barbarous Pagans, who worſhip the Sun, the fire, or any other creatures of Gods making, or ſtones, and Images of their own making, but the Mahumetans, and the Jews, who worſhip the Great Creator, inaſmuch as thoſe onelyonly worſhip him, as revealing himſelf (in their fanatick opinion) by Mahumet, and theſe worſhip him, onelyonly as he was pleaſed to reveal himſelf of Old by Moſes, but not as now hee hath manifeſted himſelf in his Son Jeſus, nay, both of them denying his Son Jeſus, are therefore moſt juſtly looked upon, not onelyonly as falſe Worſhippers of a true God, but in ſome ſenſe as Worſhipers of a falſe God, becauſe they have not, that is, they know not, neither do they beleeve and worſhip the Father of Chriſt, to wit, not formally, though materially, adoring him who is, but not as he is the Father.
2 That phraſe of St. Paul, foreign, we have the minde of Chriſt, may ſerve as a paraphraſe upon this; To have the Father, is to have the minde of the Father, which1 Cor. 2. 16 is elſe where called, his good, acceptable, and perfect will. This will or good pleaſure of the father, is the redemption of the World, which he ſent his Son, both to accompliſh and reveal, in this respect St. Baſil upon theſe words, Hee that hath Baſil ad. Amphilech c. 3ſeen mee, hath ſeen the Father, thus gloſſeth, foreign, not the figure or form of the Fathers eſſence, which is moſt ſimple and uncompounded, but the goodneſs of his will, and therefore hee who denieth the Son cannot have, but is either altogether ignorant of, or Apoſtatized from the Doctrin of the Father; of which latter the Apoſtle eſpecially ſpeaking, the notion of foreign, is taken as if it were foreign (for ſo it is many times uſed) to hold, and accordingly Grotius gloſſeth, Non tenet quae ſit voluntas patris, hee doth not hold faſt the good will of the Father, which is publiſhed in the Evangelical Doctrin. And no wonder, for hee that hath not, holdeth not the foundation, cannot have the Superſtructure. Now this Theſis, That Jeſus is the Chriſt, is the very foundation of that Gospel-truth which the Father hath by Chriſt imparted to us, and conſequently the denial of this cannot conſiſt with having the father, that is, with holding the will and minde of the Father declared in the Gospel.
3 Laſtly, that Gloſſe of St. Cyprian, would by no means bee left out, Non habet patrem benevolum, he hath Cypr. Exhot. ad Martyr.not the father benevolous and propitious to him, and ſo wee may construe this phraſe by that in the first chapter, of having fellowſhip with the father; and whereas it is ſaid in the former verſe, hee denyeth the father, this carrieth more in it, namely, That the father denyeth him. Indeed, all that love the father hath to us, and fellowſhip we have with the father, is through his Son. Whence it followeth, that every one who hath not the Son, but much more hee who denyeth the Son, hath not the Father, yea, the Father is highly displeaſed and enraged againſt him. When Theodoſius would not bee intreated by Amphilochius, to ſuppreſſe the Arrian Hereticks, who denyed Chriſt to bee the eternal Son of God, that Godly Biſhop (ſaith Theodoret) foreign, found out a memorable ſtratagem to convince him of his fault, for going into the Palace when Theodoſius, and his Son Arcadius Theod. Eccle. hiſt. l. 5. c 16were together, hee ſaluteth the Emperour with his wonted reverence, but giveth no Honour to the Son, the Emperour ſuppoſing it was a forgetful neglect, puts him in minde of it; to whom his Anſwer was, it was enough that hee had done obedience to him, at which the Emperour being greatly offended, the good Biſhop thus bespoke him, foreign, You ſee O King how ill you take it, that your Son ſhould bee diſhonoured, how angry you are with mee for not giving him Reverence, foreign. Beleeve therefore, that the great Lord of the univerſe, cannot but abhor thoſe who blaspheme his onelyonly begotten Son. Of this number were theſe Antichrists, concerning whom St. John plainly aſſerteth, that denying the Son, they have not the father; no true knowledge of him, nor of his Doctrin, nor can they expect his love and favour towards them.
What now remaineth but that wee take heed leaſt we bee found among the number of them who deny the Son: nor is this Caution unſeaſonable, for,
1 There want not among us, ſuch (the Socinians I mean) who affirm (with thoſe Hereticks of old) Chriſt to bee onelyonly man, and theſe however they pretend to acknowledge, yet conſequentially deny him to be the Son of God, for ſaith the Author to the Hebrews, Ʋnto which Heb. 1. 6of the Angels ſaid hee at any time thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? and if not to the Angels, ſurely, not to a meer man, who is lower than the Angels. It would not bee paſſed by, that a little after in that very Epiſtle, Jeſus whom the Apoſtle had proved to bee farHeb. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 higher than the Angels, and that in this very particular of being Gods Son) is ſaid to bee little lower than the Angles: and that this is to be underſtood in reſpect of his man hood, appeareth by the Scripture, juſt before quoted, what is man that thou art mindful of him, thou haſt made him a little lower than the Angels, the litteral ſenſe whereof is, to aſſert the humane nature inferiour to the Angelical; ſurely, then in reſpect of that nature wherein hee is below, hee cannot bee far above the Angels, and therefore to aſſert him a meer man (though never ſo highly honoured) is to deny him to bee the Son of God in the Apoſtles ſenſe, that is, ſo as by reaſon of that Sonſhip to bee higher than the Angels, for to allude to S. Pauls expreſſion (though they are called Gods, whether in heaven or in earth; as 1 Cor. 8. 5. 6there bee Gods many, and Lords many, but there is but one God the father) ſo though there bee that are called the Sons of God, whether Angels or men, yet there is but one who is the begotten Son of God, which is ſo high a dignity, that hee muſt bee more than Man or Angel, who is capable of it, and conſequently to aſſert him a meer man, is to deny him to be Gods Son.
2 Beſides, wee may bee Orthodox in our Judgement, concerning the Son of God, and forward in our confeſſion of him, and yet interpretatively deny him, and that eſpecially two waies.
1 When wee detract from the al-ſufficiency of his merits; upon what is it, that the infinite vertue of our Saviours death did chiefly depend, but this, that hee is the Son of God? ſo that hee that doth not relye on the virtue of his death, denieth him to bee Gods Son, and yet how apt are many to offend in this kinde; by either a total deſpairing of ſalvation through Chriſt, or a part al-joyning of other Saviours with him, and to ſay, that either Chriſts blood cannot at all, or that it cannot alone (to wit, as a meritorious cauſe) expiate ſin, is to ſay, it is inſufficient▪ and conſequently it is not the blood of the Son of God, which may juſtly bee interpreted, a denial of the Son of God.
2 When we refuſe to hear, and obey the Word of God, who at ſundry times, and in divers manners ſpake in times Heb. 1. 12paſt unto the Fathers by the Prophets, and hath in theſe laſt days ſpoken to us by his Son. Of this Son the voyce ſaid twice hear him, and not to hearken to him when hee ſpeaketh to us, is in effect to deny him; who is it but the Son that wooeth us in the Miniſtry of the Goſpel, to accept of mercy, pardon, and ſalvation, upon the terms of faith, repentance, and obedience, and if wee ſay no in our hearts, is not this to deny him? How often (ſaith Chriſt to Jeruſalem) would I have gathered thy children Mat. 23. 37together, as un Hen doth her Chickens under her wings, but you would not? May hee not take up the ſame complaint of us? See that you refuſe not him that ſpeaketh, (ſaith the Author to the Hebrews) for if they eſcaped Heb. 12. 24not who refuſed him that ſpake on earth, much more ſhall not we eſcape if we turn away from him that ſpeaketh from heaven; where the two words of refuſing and turning away are very emphatical, the one ſignifying to pray againſt a thing, for ſo oft-times wee refuſe with a God forbid, and ſo it noteth a refuſal with indignation, the other importing an alienation of the heart from a thing, ſince we turn away from what wee cannot endure, and ſo intimateth a rejection with deteſtation, and have not wee need of this caution? Since though (being the Son of God) he came and ſpake from Heaven, yet wee reject his ſayings, and is not this to deny him?
3 Adde to this, that Chriſtum deſerit qui Chriſtianum ſe non aſſerit, hee that doth not profeſſe himſelf a Chriſtian, denieth Chriſt; not only thoſe who wilfully, profeſſedly, maliciouſly, and ſo at once both inwardly and outwardly deny the Chriſt, the Son of God; but thoſe who whilſt inwardly they beleeve in him, doe yet refuſe (if called to it) openly to own him, either through fear, or ſhame, or both, are vertually deniers of him. It is very obſervable, that what is here called a denying of the Son, is elſewhere phraſed a not honouring the Son; thatJoh. 5. 23 Mat. 10. 33 Mark 8. 38 2 Tim. 2. 12 whereas in St. Matthew it is, Whoſoever ſhall deny me, in St. Mark it is, Whoſoever ſhall bee aſhamed of mee; that in St. Pauls Epiſtle to Timothy, denying Chriſt is oppoſed to ſuffering for him. Finally, that here is no medium in the text, between denying and acknowledging the Son. By all which it appeareth, that though we doe not wretchedly oppoſe, and gain-ſay the Son of God, yet if wee doe not honour him, and that as we honour the Father, with the ſame adoration both of ſoul and body, if we are not ready upon all occaſions to acknowledge him, if becauſe of reproach we are aſhamed to own him; nay if we refuſe (being called) to ſuffer, though it be death it ſelf, for his name, we are no other than deniers of him.
And now beloved, though at preſent there bee neither diſgrace, nor danger in acknowledging the Meſſiah the Son of God, nay indeed, quaeſtuoſa res eſt nomen Chriſti, it is both gainful and honourable to bee a Chriſtian, and therefore it is little thanks to own Chriſt, yet what think you if wee had lived in the Pagan Perſecution, or if God ſhould (which his mercy avert) let looſe the Turk to invade Chriſtendome, or ſuffer the Socinian Hereſie to over-ſpread the world, as once the Arrian did, have wee ready hearts, willing mindes to contend for the ſaith; nay rather would wee not wretchedly renounce, at leaſt cowardly conceal our Chriſtian profeſſion; certainly my brethren, they who now deny obedience to his call, will then deny the profeſsion of his name; they that will not hear the Son ſpeaking to them in his Word, will never bear reproaches and perſecutions for his ſake. Upon all theſe conſiderations, it is an uſeful admonition to us, that we doe not deny, but acknowledge the Son. It is the Pſalmiſts advice even to Kings, well may wee follow it, Kiſſe the Son leſt hee bee angry; kiſſe Pſal. 2. 10him with a kiſſe of affection, of ſubjection, be ready to teſtifie your faith in him, reverence of him, love to him, upon all occaſions.
The more to inforce this upon us, take notice
1 Who it is, the Son, and that in a double notion.
1 Being the Son, he thinketh it no robbery to be equal with God, in as much as according to the Athanaſian Phil. 2. 5Creed, he is God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, being the Son he is Heir of all things, Lord of Heaven and Earth, and ſhall we in any kind, or for any cauſe deny him? This is that which St. Jude brings in as an Aggravation of the ſin of theſe very Antichriſts, whom hee calls certain men crept in unawares, they denied Jude, verſ. 4the only Lord God, and our Lord Jeſus Chriſt; where though ſome take the words diſ-junctively, applying the firſt clauſe to the Father, and the ſecond to the Son, yet ſince there is no Article in the Greek between foreign and foreign, God and Lord, to divide them; yea the word foreign, in that parallel place of St. Peter, is evidently uſed of Chriſt, and withall the Hereſies of thoſe times more directly ſtruck at Chriſt, than at God the Father; it is not improbable that St. Jude intended here only to ſet forth Chriſt in his Natures and Prerogatives, whom he calls the only Lord God (as elſewhere the Father is ſtiled the only true God) not in excluſion of the other Perſons, but of all falſe Deities. And now when we ſet before us the Divinity, Majeſty, Soveraignty, and authority of Chriſt the only Lord God, how muſt the ſin of denying him appear beyond meaſure ſinful?
2 This glorious and eternal Son of God was pleaſed to undertake and accompliſh the work of our Redemption, and it would bee no other than a monſtrous ingratitude to deny him; upon this account St. Peter ſpeaking of theſe very Antichriſts under the name of falſe teachers, 2 Pet. 2. 2aggravateth their denial of Chriſt, in that it was of the Lord that bought them; there cannot bee a more execrable villany, than for a ſlave to diſown his Lord that hath ranſomed him; who would not cry ſhame on that Son who ſhould deny his own Father? and may I not ſay of the Son of God in Moſes his language to every one of us, Is not he thy Father that hath bought thee? whatDeut. 32. 6 is there thou canſt bee in danger of by acknowledging him, which hee did not actually undergoe to redeem thee? Is it loſſe of eſtate, he was poor; of credit, hee was reviled; of liberty, he was bound; of life, he was Crucified; and ſhall any of theſe diſhearten us from honouring or enduce us to deny him? when therefore any temptations ſhall aſſault us (as once they did Peter) to deny him, let us remember what he is in himſelf, and what hee hath done for us; let us conſider his greatneſſe, and bee afraid; his goodneſſe, and bee aſhamed; for fear, or ſhame, or any cauſe whatſoever to deny him.
2 That I may drive the nayl to the head, let us often ſet before our eyes that diſmal commination ſo often denounced in the Goſpel by the Son of God himſelf againſt thoſe who ſhall deny him, Whoſoever ſhall deny mee before Mat. 10. 33men, him will I alſo deny before my Father which is in heaven; and again inculcated by St. Paul, if we deny 2 Tim. 2. 13.him he will deny us; a threat then which none more juſt, and yet withall none more terrible; juſt it is, in that it is the retaliation of like for like; what more rational than that deſpiſers ſhould bee deſpiſed, forſakers ſhould bee forſaken, and denyers ſhould bee denyed; and how terrible it is will ſoon appear, if you conſider that the Son of God will then deny us, when he ſhall appear in his glory, that he will deny us not only before men, but Angels, nay his Father; that if he pronounce upon us an, I know you not (which is to deny us) wee are the curſed of the Father, he will not acknowledge them for his adopted children, who durſt not here own his begotten Son, and whom his Son will not then own for brethren, yea which conſummateth the miſery of ſuch Apoſtates, they muſt have their portion with Hypocrites, having denied Chriſt, and being denyed by him, they muſt depart from him into that fire which is prepared for the Devil and his Angels, there being no reaſon that they ſhould bee neer to Christ hereafter, who follow him a far off, nay, run away from him here.
With theſe meditations let us arm our ſelves againſt this heinous ſin; that we may be the better ſtrengthened.
1 Labour wee to be throughly eſtabliſhed upon good grounds in this fundamental doctrin, that Jeſus is the Christ the Son of God. He that imbraceth Chriſtian Religion upon the account onelyonly of the Publike Law, or private education, will in time of tryal renege it. Let therefore our aſſent to this Doctrin reſt upon theſe ſure Pillars, primarily the authority of Scriptures, and ſecondarily the Catholike Church, and then we ſhall not eaſily deny it; nor let us content our ſelves with a Conjectural opinion, but ſtrive for a firm and ſettled perſwaſion, a ſtake in the ground may bee quickly plucked up, but a tree rooted in the ground abideth unmoveable; he that doubteth may ſoon be brought to deny, but a well grounded perſwaſion will not quickly bee moved, much leſſe removed.
2 Learn we according to our Saviours precept, to deny our ſelves, ſince oft times, ſelf and Chriſt come in competition, Mat. 16. 24ſo that one muſt be denyed, and if we have not in ſome meaſure taken out this excellent leſſon of ſelf denial, we ſhall ſoon deny him; No wonder if an Ancient ſaith ingenuouſly, Christiani praludium ſui repudium, the firſt ſtep in the ladder of Chriſtianity, is ſelf-denial.
3 Nor muſt we forget that advice of St. Paul, to deny Worldly Luſts, for if wee take not our hearts offTit. 2. 14 from the World, the World will take them off from Christ, it is very obſervable that our Saviour had no ſooner threatned this ſin of denying him, but hee preſently forbids, Loving Father or Mother, Son or daughter Ma… ▪ 10. 33, 37.more than him, intimating how prone the inordinate love of worldly things is, to alienate us from him.
4 Finally, strive for a real union to Chriſt by a lively faith, hee who is but a viſible Chriſtian, may ceaſe to be ſo much as viſible, but the spiritual union, will not endure a diſſolution, much leſſe an abnegation, maintain and increaſe familiar communion with him, that thou maieſt more and more taſte the ſweetneſſe that is in him, and then no allurement or affrightment ſhall cauſe thee to deny him.
I end all, as we deſire not to be found deniers of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as wee deſire to have the Father, propitious towards us, and Chriſt to own us before the Father at the last day, let us dread to deny, let us be ready to acknowledge, with our hearts, lipes, lives, Jeſus the Chriſt, the Son of God, to whom with the Father, and the Holy Ghoſt, be aſcribed Honour, and Glory, now, and for ever.
Amen.