The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined, Commentary on text · Chapter 12
CHAP. XII.
All-ruling and disposing Providence assigned unto Christ, and his Eternall God-head thence farther confirmed, with other Testimonies thereof.
THat Christ is that God who made all things, hath been proved §. 1.by the undenyable Testimonies, in the last Chapter insisted on. That as the great and wise Creatour of all things, he doth also governe, rule, and dispose of the things by him created, is another evidence of his Eternall power and God-head; some Testimonies whereof, in that order of proceedure, which by our Catechists is allotted unto us, come now to be considered.
The first they propose is taken from Heb. 1. 3. where the §. 2.words spoken of Christ are, foreign, upholding all things by the word of his power.
He who upholdeth all things by the word of his power, is God; This is ascribed to God as his property: and by none, but by him who is God by nature, can it be performed. Now this is said expressly of Jesus Christ: who being the brightnesse of his Fathers Glory, and expresse Image of his person, upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had himselfe purged our sinnes, &c.
This place, or the Testimony therein given to the divine §. 3.Power of Jesus Christ, they seeke thus to clude.
The word here all things, doth not, no more Hic verbum, omnia, non minus quam in pluribus aliis locis, non omnia in universum sine ulla exceptione designare; verum ad ea tantum, quae ad Christi reg num pertineant, referri: de quibus vere dici potest, Dominum Jesum omnia verbo virtutis suae portare, id est, conse…vare. Quod vero vox omnia, hoe loco ad ea duntaxat referatur, ex ipsa materia subjecta satis apparet- Fr…erea, verbum, quo hic uti…er scriptor, portare, magis gubernandi vel administrandi rationem quam conservandi significat, quemadmodum illa, quae annexa sunt, verbo virtutis suae, innuere vi…entur.then in many other places, signify all things universally without exception, but is referred to those things only, which belong to the kingdome of Christ: of which it may truly be said, that the Lord Jesus beareth, that is, conserveth all things by the word of his Power. But that the word [all things] is in this place referred unto those things only, appeareth sufficiently from the subject matter it selfe of it. Moreover the word, which this writer useth, to beare, doth rather signify Governing and Administration, then preservation, as these words annexed [by the word of his power] seeme to intimate.
This indeed is jejune, and almost unworthy of these men, if §. 4.any things may be said so to be. For 1. why is foreign here, the things of the Kingdome of Christ? It is the expresse description of the person of Christ, as the brightnesse of his Fathers Glory, and the expresse Image of his person, that the Apostle is treating of, and not at all of his Kingdome as Mediatour. 2. It expressly answers the worlds that he is said to make, v. 2. which are not the things of the Kingdome of Christ; nor doe our Catechists plead them directly so to be. This terme all things, is never put absolutely, for all the things of the Kingdome of Christ. 3. The subject matter here treated of by the Apostle, is the Person of Jesus Christ, and the eminency thereof. The medium whereby he proves it to be so excellent, is his Almighty power in creating and sustaining of all things. Nor is there any subject matter intimated, that should restraine these words to the things of the Kingdome of Christ. 4. The word foreign, neither in its native signification, nor in the use of it in the Scripture, gives any countenance to the Interpretation of it, by governing or administring; nor can our Catechists give any one instance of that signification there. It is properly to beare, to carry, to sustaine, to uphold. Out of nothing Christ, made all things, and preserves them by his power from returning into nothing. 5. What insinuation of their sence they have from that expression, by the word of his power, I know not. By the word of his power, is by his powerfull word. And that that Word or command, is sometime taken for the effectuall strength and efficacy of Gods Dominion, put forth for the accomplishing of his own purposes, I suppose needs not much proving. Grotius would have the words foreign, to referre to the power of the Father: Christ upholdeth all things by the Word of his Fathers Power; without Reason or proofe; nor will the Grammaticall Account beare that rendition of the Relative mentioned.
About that which they urge out of Jude 15. I shall not contend. §. 5.The Testimony from thence relyes on the Authority of the vulgar latine translation; which, as to me, may plead for itselfe.
Neither of what is mentioned from 1 Cor. 10. shall I insist on §. 6.any thing, but only the 9. verse, the words whereof are: Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of Serpents. The designe of the Apostle is known. From the example of Gods dealing with the Children of Israel in the Wildernesse upon their sinne and provocations, there being a parity of state and condition between them and Christians, as to their spirituall participation of Jesus Christ, (v. 2, 3, 4.) he dehorts Believers from the wayes & sins, whereby God was provoked against them. Particularly in this verse, he insists on the tempting of Christ, for which the Lord sent fiery Serpents among them, by which they were destroyed: Num. 21. 6. He whom the people tempted in the wildernesse, & for which they were destroyed by Serpents, was the Lord Jehovah: Now this doth the Apostle apply to Christ; He therefore is the Lord Jehovah. But they say
From those words it cannot be proved, that §. 7.Christ was really tempted in the Wildernesse: Ex iis verbis doceri non potest, Apostolum affirmare, Christum in deserto reveta tentatum fuisse: ut è si…ili oratione, siquis it a diceret, deprehendi potest: ne sitis refractarii Magistratui, quemadmodum quidam majorum nostrorum fuerunt, non illico concluderes eundem numero magistratum utrobi{que} designari. Quod si reperiuntur in Scripturis ejusmodi loquendi modi, in quibus similis oratio ad eum, cujus nomen paulo a…te expressum est, sine ulla illius ejusdem repetitione referatur, tum hoc ibi fit, ubi ullus alius praeter eum, cujus expressum est nomen, subintelligi possit: ut exemplum ejus rei babes in illo testimonio, Deut. 6. 16. non tentabis Dominum Deum tuum, quemadmodum tentasti in loco tentationis. Verum in ea oratione Apostoli, de quae agimus, potest subintelligi alius praeter Christum, ut Moses, Aaron, &c. de quo vide, Num. 21. 5.as from the like speech if any one should so speake may be apprehended; Be not refractory to the Magistrates, as some of our Ancestors were; you would not thence conclude straightway, that the same singular Magistrate were in both places intended. And if the like phrases of Speech are found in Scripture, in which the like expression is referred to him, whose name was expressed a little before, without any repetition of the same name, it is there done where another besides him who is expressed cannot be understood: as you have an example here of Deut. 6. 16. you shall not tempt the Lord your God, as you tempted him in Massah. But in this speech of the Apostle, of which we treat, another besides Christ may be understood, as Moses or Aaron; of which see Numb. 21. 5.
1. Is there the same reason of these two expressions, doe not §. 8.tempt Christ as some of them tempted, and be not refractory against the Magistrate, as some of them were? Christ is the name of one singular individuall Person, wherein none shareth at any time, it being proper only to him. Magistrate is a terme of office, as it was to him that went before him, and will be to him that shall follow after him.
2. They need not to have puzled their Catechumens with their §. 9.long Rule, which I shall as little need to examine: for none can be understood here but Christ. That the word, God, should be here understood, they doe not plead; nor if they had a mind thereunto, is there any place for that plea. For if the Apostle had intended God, in distinction from Christ, it was of absolute necessity that He should have expressed it. Nor if it had been expressed, would the Apostles Argument been of any force, unlesse Christ had been God, equall to him, who was so tempted.
3. It is false, that the Israelites tempted Moses, or Aaron, or that §. 10.it can be said they tempted them: it is God they are every where said to tempt, Psal. 78. 18, 24. Psal. 106. 14. Heb. 3. 9. It is said indeed, that they murmured against Moses, that they provoked him, that they chode with him; but to tempt him, which is to require a signe, and manifestation of his Divine Power, that they did not, nor could be said to doe, Numb. 21. 3.
Grotius tryes his last shift in this place, and tells us, from I §. 11.know not what ancient manuscript, that it is not, let us not tempt Christ, but let us not tempt God. Error commissus ex notis foreign & foreign. That neither the Syriack, nor the Vulgar Latine translations, nor any copy, that either Stephanus, in his edition of the New Testament, or in his various lections, had seen, nor any of Beza's, nor Erasmus his, who would have been ready enough to have layd hold of the Advantage, should in the least give occasion of any such conjecture of an Alteration, doth wholy take off with me all the Authority, either of the manuscript, or of him that affirmes it from thence.
As they please to proceed, the next place to be considered §. 12.is, John 12. 41. these things said Esaias, when he saw his Glory, and spake of him.
The words in the foregoing verses, repeated by the Apostle, manifest, that it is the vision mentioned Isa. 6. that the Apostle relates unto: whence we thus argue: He whose Glory Isaiah saw, Chap. 6. was the Holy, Holy, Holy Lord of Hosts v. 3. the King, the Lord of Hosts, v. 5. But this was Jesus Christ, whose Glory Isaiah then saw, as the Holy Ghost witnesses in these words of Joh. 12. 41. What say our Catechists.
First it appeares that these words are not §. 13.necessarily referred to Christ, because they may Primum, ea verba ad Christum non necessario referri hinc apparet, quod de Deo Patre accipi possint: etemim verbae paulo superiora de eodem dicuntur. Excaecavit, induravit, sanavit. Deinde, gloriam, quam Esaias vidit poterat esse, imo erat, non praesens, sed futura. Etenim proprium est vatibus futura videre, unde etiam, videntes appellati fuere, 1 Sam. 9. 9. Deni{que} etiamsi de gloria ea quae tum praesens erat Esaiae visa haec verba accipias, long e tamen aliud est, gloriam alicujus videre, & aliud ipsummet videre. Et in gloria illius unius Dei vidit etiam Esaias Gloriam Christi Domini. Ait enim ibidem vates, plena est terra gloria Dei, Esa. 6. 3. Tum autem hoc reipsa factum est, cum Jesus Cristus illi populo primum apparuit, & post toti mundo annunciatus est.be understood of God the Father. For the words a little before are spoken of him, He hath blinded, hardned, healed. Then the Glory that Isaiah saw might be, nay was not present but future: for it is proper to Prophets to see things future, whence they are called Seers: 1 Sam. 9. 9. Lastly although these words should be understood of that Glory which was then present and seen to Isaiah, yet to see the Glory of one and to see himselfe are farre different things. And in the Glory of that one God, Isaiah saw also the Glory of the Lord Christ. For the Prophet sayes there, the whole Earth is full of the Glory of God v. 3. But then was this accomplished in reallity, when Jesus appeared to that People, and was afterwards preached to the whole world.
It is most evident, that these men know not what to say, nor §. 14.what to stick to, in their interpretation of this place. This makes them heap up so many severall suggestions, contradictory one to another, crying, that it may he thus, or it may be thus. But 1. That these words cannot be referred to God the Father, but must of necessity be referred to Christ, is evident, because there is no occasion of mentioning him in this place, but an account is given of what was spoken v. 37. but though he had done so many miracles before them yet they believed not on him: to which answers this verse, when he saw HIS Glory, and spake of HIM. The other words of blinding and hardning, are evidently alleadged, to give an account of the Reason of the Jewes obstinacy in their unbeliefe, not relating immediately to the person spoken of. The subject matter treated of, is Christ. The occasion of mentioning this Testimony, is Christ. Of him here are the words spoken. 2. The Glory Isaiah saw was present; all the circumstances of the vision evince no lesse. He tells you the time, place, and circumstances of it, when he saw the Seraphims, when he heard their voice; when the doore moved at the voice of him that cryed, when the house was filled with Glory, and when he himselfe was so terrifyed, that he cryed out, wo is me, for I am undone. If any thing in the world be certaine, it is certaine, that he saw that Glory present. 3. He did not only see his Glory, but he saw him: or he so saw his Glory, as that he saw him, so as he may be seen; So the Prophet sayes expressly: I have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts: And what the Prophet sayes of seeing the Lord of Hosts, the Apostle expresses by seeing his Glory, because he saw him in that glorious vision, or saw that glorious representation of his presence. 4. He did indeed see the Glory of the Lord Christ, in seeing the Glory of the one God, He being the true God of Israel, and on no other account is his Glory seen, then by seeing the Glory of the one true God. 5. The Prophet doth not say, that the Earth was full of the glory of God, but it is the Proclamation, that the Seraphims made one to another, concerning that God, whose presence was then there manifested. 6. When Christ first appeared to the People of the Jewes, there was no great manifestation of Glory. The Earth was alwaies full of the Glory of God. And if those words have any peculiar relation to the Glory of the Gospell, yet withall they prove, that He was then present, whose Glory in the Gospell was afterwards to fill the Earth.
Grotius hath not ought to adde, to what was before insisted §. 15.on by his Friends. A…epresentation he would have this be of Gods dealing in the Gospell: (when it is, plainely, his proceeding in the rejection of the Jewes for their incredulity) and tells you, dicitur Isaiah vidisse Gloriam Christi, sicut Abrahamus Diem ejus: Isaiah saw his Glory, as Abraham saw his day. Well aimed however: Abraham saw his day by Faith, Isaiah: saw his Glory in a vision; Abraham saw his day as Future, and rejoyced: Isaiah so saw his Glory, as God Present, that he trembled: Abraham saw the day of Christ, all the dayes of his believing, Isaiah saw his Glory only in the yeere that King Ʋzziah dyed: Abraham saw the day of Christ in the promise of his coming, Isaiah saw his Glory with the circumstances before mentioned. Even such let all undertakings appeare to be, that are against the Eternall Deity of Jesus Christ.
In his Annotations on the 6. of Isaiah, where the vision insisted on is expressed, He takes no notice at all of Jesus Christ, or the second Person of the Trinity. Nor (which is very strange) doth he so much as once intimate, that what is here spoken, is applyed by the Holy Ghost unto Christ in the Gospell; Nor once names the Chapter where it is done. With what mind, and intention the businesse is thus carried, God knowes, I know not.