The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined, Commentary on text · Chapter 14

The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined · Commentary on text · Chapter 14

p. 315CHAP. XIV.

Sundry other Testimonies, given to the Deity of Christ, vindicated.

IN the next place they heap up a great many Testimonie… §. 1.confusedly, containing Scripturall▪ Attributions unto Christ, o… such things as manifest him to be God, which we shall consider in that order, or rather disorder, wherein they are placed of them.

Their first question here is.§. 2.

In what Scriptures is Christ▪ called God?In quibus Scripturis Christus vocatur deus? Joan. 1. v. 1. & verbum fuit deus; & cap. 20. v. 28. Thomas ad Christum ait, dominus meus, & deus meus; & Rom. 9. v. 5. Apostolus scribit Christum deum (esse) supra omnes benedictum in secula. Quid his testimoniis effici potest. Naturam divinam in Christo ex iis demonstrari non posse, praeter ea quae superius allata …, hinc manifestum est, quod in primo testimonio aga…ur de ve…bo, quod Joanes testatur apud illum Deum fuisse. In secundo Thomas eum appellet deum, in cujus pedibus & manibus clavorum, in latere lanceae vestigia deprehendit; & Paulus eum, qui secundum carnem a patribus erat, deum supra omnia benedictum vocat. Quae omnia dici de eo, qui natura deus sit nullo modo posse, planum est. Etenim ex illo sequeretur duos esse deos, quorum alter apud a…terum fuerit. Haec vero, vestigia vulnerum habere, ex patribus esse, hominis sunt prorsus; quae ei qui natura deus sit, ascribi nimis absonum esset. Quod si illud distinctionis naturarum velum quis praetendat, jam superiu… illud amovimus & docu…mus, hanc distinctionem nullo modo posse sustineri.John 1:1Rom 9:5

Joh. 1 1. The word was God. Joh. 20. 28. Thomas saith unto Christ, my Lord, and my God. Rom. 9. 5. The Apostle saith, that Christ is God over all blessed for ever.

What can be proved by these Testimonies?

That a divine nature▪ cannot be demonstrated from them, besides the things that are before produced, is hence manifest, that in the first Testimony, the word is spoken of, and John saith that he was with God: In the second Thomas calleth him God, in whose feet and hands p. 316he found the print of the nailes, and of the speare in his side: and Paul calleth him, who according to the flesh was of the Fathers, God over all blessed for ever: all which cannot be spoken of him, who by nature is God; for thence it would follow, that there are two Gods, of whom one was with the other: and these things, to have the prints of wounds, and to be of th… Fathers, belong wholy to a man; which were absurd to ascribe to him, who is God by nature. And if any one shall pretend that vaile of the distinction of natures, we have above removed that, and have shewed, that this distinction cannot be maintained.

That in all this Answer our Catechists do nothing but begg… §. 4.the thing in Question, and fly to their own Hypothesis, not against assertions but Arguments, themselves so farre know, as to be forced to Apologize for it in the close. That Christ is not God, because He is not the Person of the Father; that he is not God, because He is man, is the summe of their Answer. And yet these men knew, that we insisted on these Testimonies to prove him God, though He be man, and though He be not the same Person with the Father. 2. They do all along impose upon us their own most false hypothesis; That Christ is God, although He be not God by Nature. Those who are not God by Nature, and yet pretend to be Gods, are Idols, and shall be destroyed. And they only are the men, who affirme there are two Gods; one who is so by Nature, and another made so, one indeed God, and no man, the other a man▪ and no God: the Lord our God, is one God. 3. In particular, Iohn 1. 1. the Word is Christ, as hath been above abundantly demonstrated. Christ in respect of another nature, that he had before He took flesh, and dwelt with men: v. 14. Herein is He said to be with the Father, in respect of his distinct personall subsistence, who was one with the Father, as to his nature and Essence. p. 317And this is that which we prove from this Testimony, which will not be warded with a bare deniall. The word was with God, and the word was God. God by nature, and with God in his personall distinction. 4. Thomas confesses him to be his Lord and God, in whose hands and feet he saw the print of the nailes; as God is said to Redeem the Church with his own blood. He was the Lord and God of Thomas, who in his humane nature shed his blood, and had the print of the nailes in his hands and feet. Of this confession of Thomas I have spoken before; & therefore I shall not now farther insist upon it. He whom Thomas in the Confession of his faith, as a Believer, owned for his Lord and God, He is the true God, God by nature; of a made God, a God by Office, to be confessed and believed in, the Scripture is utterly silent. 5. The same is affirmed of Ro. 9. 5. The Apostle distinguishes of Christ, as to his flesh▪ and as to his Deity; as to his flesh, or humane nature, he sayes, he was of the Fathers; but in the other regard He is God over all blessed for ever. And as this is a signall expression of the true God, God over all blessed for ever, so there is no occasion of that expression, foreign, as to the Fl…sh, but to assert something in Christ, which he afterwards affirmes to be his everlasting Deity, in regard whereof he is not of the Fathers. He is then of the Fathers, foreign. The words are most emphatically expressive of the Eternall Deity of Christ, in contradistinction to what he received of the Fathers: foreign, even then when he tooke Flesh of the Fathers, then was he, and now he is, and ever will be God over all; that is, the most High God blessed for ever. It is evident, that the Apostle intends to ascribe to Christ here, two most solemne Attributes of God; the most High, and the Blessed one. Nor is this Testimony to be parted with for their begging, or with their importunity. 6. It is our Adversaries who say, there are two Gods, as hath been shewed, not we; and the prints of wounds are proper to him who is God by nature, though not in that regard, on the account whereof he is so. 7. What they have said to oppose the distinction of two natures, in the one Person of Christ, hath already been considered, and manifested to be false and frivolous.

I could wish to these Testimonies they had added one or§. 5. two more; as that of Isaiah 54. 5. Thy maker is thine Husband, p. 318the Lord of Hosts is his name, and thy Redeemer the Holy one of Israel, the God of the whole Earth shall He be called. That Jesus Christ is the Husband & Spouse of the Church, will not be denyed, Eph: 5. 25. Revel: 21. 9. but he who is so, is the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, the Lord of the whole Earth. And Heb. 3. 4. the Apostle saies, that▪ He that made all things is God; that is, his Church; for of that he treats: He that created all things, that is, the Church, as well as all other things, He is God; none could do it but God: but Christ built this house: v. 3. But this is not my present imployment.

The Learned Grotius is pittifully entangled about the two§. 6. last places urged by our Catechists. Of his slight in dealing with that of Ioh. 20. 28. I have spoken before, and discovered the vanity of his insinuations. Here he tells you, that after Christs Resurrection, it grew common with the Christians to call him God, and urges Rom: 9. 5. but coming to expound that place, he finds that shift will not serve the turne, it being not any Christians calling of him God, that there is mentioned, but the blessed Apostle plainly affirming, that He is God …ver all, blessed for ever; and therefore forgetting what he had said before, he falls upon a worse, and more desperate evasion, affirming, that the word foreign, ought not to be in the Text: because Erasmus had observed, that Cyprian and Hi…ary, citing this Text, did not name the word: and this he rests upon; although he knew, that all Originall copies whatever, constantly without any exception do read it; and that Beza had manifested against Erasmus, that Cyprian lib. ad Judae 2. cap▪ 5. and Hilary ad Psal. …2. do both cite this place to prove, that Christ is called God, though they do not expresse the Text to the full. And it is known, how Athanasius used it against the Arians, without any hesitation, as to the corruption of the Text. This way of shifting indeed is very wretched, and not to be pardoned. I am well contented with all, that from what he writes on Iohn 1. 1. (the first place mentioned) do apprehend, that when he wrote his Annotations on that place, he was no opposer of the D…ity of Christ: but I must take leave to say, that for mine own part, I am not able to collect from all there spoken in his own words, that he doth at all assert the assuming of the humane Nature into Personall Subsistence with the Son of God: I speake as to the thing it selfe, and not to the expressions which he disallowes. But we must proceed with our Catechists.

p. 319Where doth the Scripture testify that Christ is one with §. 7.the Father?Ʋbi vero Scriptura testatur Christum cum Patre esse unum? Joan. 10. v. 29, 30. Vbi Dominus ait; Pater qui mihi (oves) dedit, major omnibus est, & nemo eas …apere potest è manibus Patris mei: Ego & Pater unum sumus.John 10:29John 10:30

Joh. 10. 29, 30, 31. My Father which gave them me, is greater then all; and no man is able to pluck them out of his hand. I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones againe to stone him.

How dost thou Answer this Testimony?

That from hence that Christ is said to be one§. 8. with the Father, that it cannot be proved thatQuâ ratione respondes ad id testimonium▪ Ex eo, quod di…atur Christus esse cum patre unum, effici non posse, esse unum cum eo natura, verba Christi, quae ad Patrem de discipulis habuit, demonstrant. Joan. 17. 11. Pater sancte, serva illos in nomine …uo, ut sint unum, quemadmodum & nos unum sumus▪ Et paulo inferius▪ v. 22. Ego gloriam quam dedisti mihi, dedi illis, ut sint unum, quemadmodum nos unum sumus. Quod vero Christus sit unum cum Patre, hoc aut de voluntate, aut de p…tentia in salutis nostrae ratione accipi debet: unde naturam divinam non probari ex eodem loco constat, ubi Christus ait, Patrem omnibus esse maj…rem, ac proinde etiam ipso Domino, quemadmodum idem Dominus expressè fatetur, & quod eas oves ei dederit, Joan 14. 28.John 17:11John 14:28 He is one with him in nature, the words of Christ to his Father of the Disciples do shew, Joh. 17. 11. That they may be one as we are; and a little after, v. 22. That they may be one, even as we are one. That Christ is one with the Father, this ought to be understood either of Will, or Power, in the businesse of our Salvation. Whence that a divine nature cannot be proved, is manifest from those places, where Christ saith, his Father is greater then all, and consequently then Christ himselfe, as He expresly confesseth, and that he gave him his sheep, Ioh: 14. 28.

Of this place I have spoken before: That it is an Ʋnity of §. 9.Essence that is here intended by our Saviour, appears; 1. From the Apprehension the Iews had of his meaning in those words, who immediatly upon them took up stones to stone him for blasphemy, rendering an account of their so doing v. 33. because he being a man, did make himselfe God. 2. From the exposition He makes himselfe of his words, v. 36. I am the Son of God: that is it I intended; I am so one with him, as a Son is with the Father, that is▪ one in Nature and Essence. 3. He is so one with him, as that the Father is in him, and He in him, by a divine immanency of Persons. 2. Those words of our Saviour, Ioh. 17. 12, 22. do not argue a parity in the union of Believers among themselves, with that of him p. 320and his Father, but a similitude; (see Math. 17. 20.) that they may be one in Affection, as his Father and He are in Essence. We are to be holy, as God is Holy. 2. If Onenesse of Will and consent be the ground of this, that the Son and Father are one; then the Angels and God are one, for with their Wills they alwaies do his. 3. Onenesse of Power with God, in any worke, argues onenesse of Essence. Gods Power is Omnipotent, and none can be one with him in Power, but He who is Omnipotent; that is, who is God. And if it be Unity of Power here asserted, it is spoken absolutely, and not referred to any particular kind of thing. 4. It is true, God the Father is greater then Christ, as is affirmed Ioh. 14. 28. in respect of his …ffice of Mediation, of which there He treats; but they are One, and Equall in respect of Nature. Neither is God in this place said to be greater then all, in respect of Christ, who is said to be one with him, but in reference to all, that may be supposed to attempt the taking of his sheep out of his hands. 5. Christ took, or received his sheep, not simply as God, the Eternall Son of God, but as Mediatour; and so his Father was greater then He. This Testimony then abides; He that is One with the Father, is God by Nature: Christ is thus one with the Father: (One) is the Unity of Nature; (are) their distinction of Persons. I and my Father are one.

Grotius adheres to the same exposition with our Catechists, §. 10.only he goes one step farther in corrupting the Text. His words are, foreign: connectit quod dixerat cum superioribus: si Patris potestati …ripi non poterunt, nec meae poterunt: nam mea potestas a Patre emanat, & quidem ita, ut tantundem valeat a me, aut a Patre custodiri: vid: Gen. 41. 25, 27. I suppose he means v. 44. being the words of Pharaoh, delegating Power and Authority immediatly under him to Ioseph; but, as it is known, p…testas is foreign, Authority, & may belong to Office: but potentia is foreign, force, vertue, or power, & belongs to Essence. It is not potestas or Authority that Christ speaks of, but strength, might, and Power; which is so great in God, that none can take his sheep out of his hand. Now though unitas potestatis, do not prove Unity of Essence in men, yet unitas potentiae, which is here spoken of, in God evidently doth: yea none can have unitatem Potestatis with God, but he who hath unitatem Essentiae.

What they except in the next place against Christs being§. 11. p. 321equall with God, from Joh. 5. 18. & Phil. 2. 6. hath been already removed, and the places fully vindicated. They proceed.

But where is it that Christ is called the Sonne of the §. 12.Living God, the proper and only beg…tten Sonne of God?Filium autem Dei vive… tis, filium Dei proprium & unigenitum esse Christum, ubi habetur? De hoc Matth. 16. v. 16. l…gimus, ubi Petrus ait, Tu es Christus filius Dei viventis. Et Rom. 8. v. 32. ubi Apostolus ait; Qui (Deus) proprio filio non pepercit, verum eum pr…pter nos tradidit. Et Joan. 3. 16. Sic Deus dilexit mundum, ut filium suum unigenitum daret. Et v. 18. nomen unigeniti filii Dei. Quomodo vero ad haec loca respondetur? Ex iis omnibus attributis Christi nullo modo probari posse naturam ejus divinam. Nam quod ad primum attinet, notissimum est Petrum fateri, quod filius hominis sit Christus, & filius Dei viventis, quem constat divinam naturam, qualem illi comminiscuntur, non habuisse; praet…rea, testatur Scriptura de aliis hominibus quod sint filii Dei viventis, ut ex Hosea, Rom. 9. v. 26. Et erit loco ejus, ubi iis dictum est; non p…pulus meus (estis) vos; illic vocabuntur filii Dei viventis. Quod vero secundum & tertium locum attinet, in his legimus proprium & unigenitum Dei filium in mortem traditum, quod de eo, qui natura deus sit, dici non potest. Im… vero ex eo, quod Christus dei Filius sit, apparet deum illum non esse, alioquin sibi ipsi Filius esset. Causa vero cur Christo ista Attributa competant, haec est, quod inter omnes dei Filios & praecipuus sit, & deo charissimus, quemadmodum Isaac, quia Abrahamo charissimus & haeres exsti…it, unigenitus vocatus est, Heb. …1. 17. licet fratrem Ismaelem habuerit: & Solomon unige…itus coram matre sua, licet plures ex eadem ma…re fratres fuerint. 1 Paral. 3. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, &c. Prov▪ 4. 3.Matt 16:16Rom 8:32John 3:16Rom 9:26Heb 1:171 Chr 3:11 Chr 3:21 Chr 3:31 Chr 3:41 Chr 3:51 Chr 3:6Prov 4:3

Mat. 16. 16. Rom. 8. 32. Joh. 3. 16, 18.

But how are these places answered?

From all these Attributes of Christ a divine nature can by no meanes be proved. For as to the first, it is notorious that Peter confessed that the Son of man was Christ, and the Son of the Living God, who as it is evident, had not such a divine nature as they feigne. Besides, the Scripture testifyeth of other men, that they are the Sons of the Living God: as the Apostle out of Hosea, Ro. 9 26. and as to what belongeth to the second and third places, in them we read that the proper and only begotten Sonne of God was delivered to death, which cannot be said of him who is God by nature. Yea from hence that Christ is the Sonne of God, it appeares that he is not God: for otherwise he should be Sonne to himselfe. But the cause why these Attributes belong to Christ is this, that he is the chiefest, and most deare to God among all the Sonnes of God: as Isaac, because he was most deare to Abraham and was his heire is called his only begotten sonne Heb. 11. 17. although he had his brother Ishmael: and Solomon the only begotteen of his Mother, although he had many brethren by the same Mother: 1 Chron. 3. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Prov. 4▪ 3.

p. 322I have spoken before fully to all these places, and therefore§. 13. shall be very briefe in the vindication of them in this place. On what account Christ is, and on what account alone He is called the Sonne of God, hath been sufficiently demonstrated: and his unity of nature with his Father thence evinced. It is true 1. That Peter calls Christ, who was the Sonne of man, the Sonne of the living God. Not in that, or on that account whereon he is the Sonne of man, but because he is peculiarly in respect of another nature, then that wherein he is the Sonne of man, the Sonne of the Living God. And if Peter had intended no more in this Assertion, but only that he was one among the many Sonnes of God, How doth he answer that Question, but whom say ye that I am? being exceptive to what others said, who yet affirmed that he was a Prophet, one come out from God, and favoured of him. It is evident, that it is something much more noble and divine that is here affirmed by him, in this solemne confession of him, on whom the Church is built. It is true, Believers are called Children of the living God, Rom. 9. 26. in opposition to the Idols whom they served before their Conversion; neither doe we argue from this expression barely, of the Living God, but in conjunction with those other that follow, and in the Emphaticalnesse of it, in this confession of Peter, Christ instantly affirming that this was a Rocke, which should not be prevailed against. 2. What is meant by the proper and only begotten Sonne of God hath been already abundantly evinced; nor is it disproved by saying, that the proper and only Sonne of God was given to death; for so he was, and thereby God redeemed his Church with his own blood. He that is the proper and only begotten Sonne of God, was given to death, though not in that nature, and in respect of that wherein he is the proper and only begotten Son of God. 3. Christ is the Sonne of the Father, who is God, and therein the Sonne of God, without any danger of being the Sonne of himselfe, that is, of God as he is the Sonne. This is a begging the thing in question, without offering any plea for what they pretend to, but their own unbeliefe, and carnall apprehensions of the things of God. 4. Our Catechists have exceedingly forgotten themselves, and their Masters, in affirming, that Christ is called the proper and only begotten Sonne of God, because he is most deare to God of all his Sonnes; themselves and their Master having as p. 323was shewed at large before, given us reasons quite of another nature for this appellation, which we have discussed & disproved elsewhere. 5. If Christ be the only begotten Sonne of God, only on this account, because he is most deare among all the Sonnes of God, then He is the Sonne of God upon the same account with them; that is, by Regeneration and Adoption; which that it is most false hath been shewed elsewhere. Christ is the proper, naturall, only begotten Sonne of God, in contradistinction to all others, the Adopted Sonnes of God, as was wade manifest. Isaac is called the only begotten Sonne of Abraham, not absolutely, but in reference to the Promise: He was his only begotten Sonne to whom the Promise did belong: He that received the promise offered up his only begotten Sonne. Solomon is not said to be the only begotten of his Mother, Prov. 4. 3. but only before the face, or in the sight of his Mother; eminently expressing his preferment a… to her Affections. How little is this to what the Gospell sayes of Jesus Christ?

I have only to say concerning Grotius in this mater; that§. 14. from none of th…se Expressions in any place, doth he take the least notice of what is necessarily concluded concerning the Deity of Christ, wherein he might use his own liberty. The opening, interpretation, & improvement of these Testimonies to the end aymed at, I desire the Reader to see C. 7. They proceed.

What Scripture calls Christ the first borne of every §. 15.Creature?Quae Scriptura eum vocat, Primo genitum omnis creaturae? Col. 1. 15. Quid ad eam respondes? Ne{que} hinc naturam divinam Christum habere ex sculpi posse. Etenim cum Christus primogenitus omnis creaturae sit, eum unum e numero creaturarum esse oportere, necesse est. Ea enim in Scripturis vis est primogeniti ut primogenitum unum ex eorum genere quorum primogenitus est, esse, necess… sit. Col. 1. 18. Rom. 8. 29. Apoc. 1. 5. Ʋt vero unus e rebus conditis creationis veteris existat dominus Jesus, nec Adversarii quidem concedent …isi Ariani esse velint. Ʋnum igitur esse e novae creationis genere dominum Jesum concedant oportet. Vnde non solum divina Christi natura effici▪ non potest; verum etiam quod nullam divinam naturam Christus habeat, firmiter conficitur. Quod vero eo nomine vocatur ab Apostolo Jesus, …o fit, quod tempore & praestantia res omnes novae creationis l…nge antecedat.Col 1:15Col 1:18Rom 8:29Rev 1:5

Col. 1. 15.

What dost thou Answer thereunto?

Neither can it hence be gathered that Christ hath a divine Nature: for seeing Christ is the first borne of every Creature, it is necessary that he be one of the number of the Creatures. For that is the force of the word first borne in the Scriptures, that it is of necessity, that he who is first borne, be one of the number of them of whom he is the first borne: Col. 1. 18. Rom. 8. 29. Apoc. 1. 5. Neither that our Lord Jesus was one of the things created in the old Creation, can our Adversaries grant, unlesse they will be Arians: it behoveth them that they grant p. 324him to be one of the new Creation. From whence not only the divine nature of Christ cannot be proved, but also that Christ hath no such Divine nature is firmely evinced. But now that Jesus is called by that name▪ by the Apostle it is from hence, that in time & worth he far exceedeth all other things of the new Creation.

That by the Creation, in this verse, and the things annumerated§. 16. to be created in the verses following, is intended the Creation of the world, and all things therein visible, & invisible, was before abundantly evinced, in the consideration of the ensuing verses, & the exceptions of these Catechists wholy removed, from being any hinderance to the embracing of the first obvious sence of the words. All then that is here infer'd from a supposition of the new Creation being here intended, (which is a most vaine supposition) falls to the ground of it selfe: So that I shall not need to take the least farther notice of it. 2. That Christ is so the first borne of the old Creation, as to be a Prince, Heire, and Lord of it, and the things thereof, which is the sence of the word as here used & yet not one▪ of them is evident from the Context: The very next words to these, He is the first borne of every Creature, are, and by him all things were created. He by whom all things, all Creatures were Created, is no Creature; for he else must create himselfe. And so we are neither Arians, nor Photinians: Though the former have more colour of saving themselves from the sword of the word, then the latter, yet they both perish by it. 3. The word foreign first borne, in this place is Metaphoricall: and the expression is intended to set out the excellency of Christ above all other things. That that is the designe of the Holy Ghost in the place, is confessed. Now whereas the word may import two things concerning him of whom it is spoken; First that he is one of them in reference to whom He is said to be the first borne: Or 2. that he hath Priviledge, Preheminence, Rule, and inheritance of them and over them; I aske which of these significations suits the Apostles ayme here, to set out the Excellency of Christ, above all Creatures; that p. 325which makes him one of them, or that which exalts him above them. 4. foreign, is, begotten before all creatures, or every creature. The Apostle doth not say, Christ was foreign, the first of them made, but he was borne or begotten before them all, that is, from eternity. His being begotten, is opposed to the creation of all other things. And though the word, where expresse mention is made of others, in the same kind, may denote one of them, yet where it is used concerning things so far distant, & which are not compared, but one preferred above the other, it requires no such signification. See Job. 18. 13. Ps. 89. 27. Jer. 31. 9. Grotius is perfectly agreed with our Catechists, and uses their very words in the exposition of this place; but that also hath been considered, and his expositions called to an account formerly.

The next Testimonies insisted on they produce in answer to§. 17. this question.

What Scriptures affirme, that Christ hath all things that the Father hath?Vbi vero Scriptura eum omnia, quae Pater habeat, hab…re asserit? Joan. 16. v. 15. Christus ait Omnia▪ quae Pater habet, mea sunt, & infra capite 17. 10. Mea omnia tua sunt, & tua mea. Quid tu ad haec? Vox omnia ad subjectam materiam ut superius aliquoties demonstravimus fere semper refertur. Quare ex ejusmodi locis non potest ullo modo, quod volunt, effici. Materia vero subjecta cap. 16. est, id nimirum, quod Spiritus Sanctus Apostolis ad Christi regnum spectans revelaturus erat. Et 17. cap. constat apertissime agi de discipulis ipsius Iesu quos ipsi deus dederat, unde eos etiam suos vocat. Praeterea, cum quicquid Christus habeat, habeat Patris dono, non autem a seipso, hinc apparet, ipsum Divinam naturam habere nullo modo posse, cum natura Deus omnia a seipso habeat.John 16:15

Joh. 16. 15. Joh. 17. 10.

What saist thou to these?

We have above declared, that the word omnia, all things, is almost allwayes referred to the subject matter▪ wherefore from these places that which they intend can no way be proved. The subject matter Chap. 16. is that which the Holy Spirit was to reveale to the Apostles, which belonged to the Kingdome of Christ. And Chap. 17. it is most apparent that he treateth of his Disciples, whom God gave him, whom he calls his. Moreover seeing that whatever Christ hath, He hath it by gift from the Father, and not of himselfe, it hence appeareth, that he can by no meanes have a divine nature, when he who is God by nature hath all things of himselfe.

p. 326Of these texts the consideration will soon be dispatched.§. 18. Joh. 16. 15. Christ saith; All things that the Father hath are mine, therefore said I he shall take of mine, and shew it unto you. Now if all things that the Father hath, are his, then the Divine nature is his, for the Father hath a divine nature. But they say, this All things, is to be expounded according to the subject matter treated of, that is, only what the Holy Ghost was to reveale to the Apostles. Let thē the expression be expounded according to the subject matter. Christ renders a Reason why he said that the Spirit should take of his, even because what he had of the Father, He had also of him; all that the Father hath being his. Now it was the knowledge of all truth, and all things to come, and all things concerning the Kingdome of Christ, that he was thus to shew to the Apostles. But looke whence the Holy Ghost hath his knowledge, thence he hath his Essence: For those things doe not really differ in a divine nature. The Spirit then having his knowledge of the Son, hath also his Essence of the Son, as he hath of the Father. And by this it is most evidently confirmed, that among the all things that the Father hath, which the Son hath, his Divine nature is also; or else that could be no reason why he should say that the Spirit should take of his, and shew to them.

2. Joh. 17. 10. A Reason is rendred why those who are§. 19. Christs, are also Gods, and to be in his care; that is, because all his things (foreign) were the Fathers, and all the Fathers his. It is not then spoken of the Disciples, but a Reason given why the Disciples are so in the love of God, because of the unity of Essence which is between Father and Sonne, whence all the Sonnes things are the Fathers, and all the Fathers are the Sonnes.

3. Christs having all things not from himselfe, but by§. 20. gift from the Father, may be understood two wayes. Either it referres to the nature of Christ, as he is God, or to the Person of Christ, as he is the Son of God. In the first sence it is false; for the nature of Christ being one with that of the Father, hath all things without Concession, gift, or grant made to it, as the nature: but as the Person of the Sonne, in which regard he receives all things, even his nature from the Father, so it is true: (those words being expounded as above) but this only proves him to be the Sonne of God, not at all that He is not God.

p. 327Grotius on the first place, foreign: etiam §. 21.praescientia & decreta de rebus futuris, quatenus ecclesiam spectant. Did he truly intend what the first words do import, we should judge our selves not a little beholding to him. The Foreknowledge of God is not in any, who is not God: nor his decrees: The first is an Eternall property of his nature: The latter are Eternall Acts of his will. If Christ have these, He must have the nature of God; But the last words evidently take away what the first seeme to grant, by restraining this participation of Christ, in the foreknowledge & Decrees of God, to things concerning the Church, in which sence Socinus grants the knowledge of Christ to be infinite, namely in respect of the Church. Disput de Adorat. Christi cū Christiano Francken p. 15. But it being certaine, that he whose the Prescience of God, & his purposes are properly, as to any one thing, his they are universally; it is too evident, that he intends these things to belong to Christ, no otherwise, but as God revealeth the things that are to come concerning his Church to him, which respects his Office as Mediatour, not his nature, as he is one with God blessed for ever. Of the Deity of Christ neither in this, nor the other place, is there the least intimation in that Authour.§. 22.

But what Scripture calleth Christ the Eternall Father?At quae Scriptura Christum Patrem Aeternitatis vocat? Isaiae 9. v. 6. Tu vero quid ad haec. Ex eo naturam divinam probari non posse, cum certam ob causam Pater aeternitatis Christus sit vocatus, ex ipsis verbis ibidem paulo superius expressis, videre est. Mirum vero est, Adversarios hunc locum, ubi igitur de patre aeterno, ad filium referre, quem constat secundum eos ipsos patrem non esse. Pater vero aeternitatis aut futuri seculi propterea dictus est Christus, quod sit princeps & Autorvitae aeternae, quae futura est.

Isaiah 9. 6.

What sayst thou thereunto?

From thence a Divine nature cannot be proved, seeing Christ is called the Father of Eternity for a certaine cause, as may be seen from the words there a little before expressed. But it is marvelous, that the Adversaries will referre this place to the Sonne, which treats of the Eternall Father, who, as it is evident according to themselves, is not the Father. But Christ is said to be the Father of Eternity, or of the world to come, because he is the Prince and Author of Eternall life, which is future.

It were well for our Adversaries if they could thus shift off§. 23. this Testimony. Let the words be considered, and it will quickly appeare, what need they have of other helps, if they intend to escape this Sword, that is furbished against them, and p. 328their cause. The words of the verse are: For unto us a Child is borne, unto us a Sonne is given, and the Goverment shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderfull, Councellour, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

Our Catechists confessing that this is spoken of Christ, and§. 24. that he is here called the Everlasting Father, (they are more modest then Grotius, whose labour to corrupt this place, is to be bewayled; having ventured on the words, as farre as any of the moderne Rabbines, who yet make it their businesse to divert this Text from being applyed to the Messiah,) have saved me the labour of proving from the Text and Context, that he only can possibly be intended. This then being taken for granted: this is that which is here affirmed of him, that his name shall be called, or He shall be, & shall be known to be (for both these are contained in this expression) Wonderfull, Councellour, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. He who is the mighty God, & the Everlasting Father, is God by nature; but so is Jesus Christ. The expression here used of the Mighty God, is ascribed to God, Deut. 10. 17. Nehem. 9. 32. Jerem. 32. 18. and is a most eminent name of God; a name discriminating him from all that are not God by nature. And this may be added to the other names of God, that are attributed to Christ: as Adonai, Psal. 110. 1. Elohim, Psal. 46. 5. Heb. 1. 8. Jehovah, Jerem. 23. 6. Chap. 33. 16. Mal. 3. 1. Psal. 83. 18, God, Joh. 1. 1. The true God, 1 Joh. 5. 20. The great God, Tit. 2. 13. (of which places before) and here the Mighty God, the Eternall Father.

2. What say our Catechists to all this; they fix only on that§. 25. expression, the Eternall Father; and say that we cannot intend the Sonne here, because we say, he is not the Father; and yet so do these Gentlemen themselves: they say Christ is the Sonne of God, and no way the same with the Father, and yet they say upon a peculiar account he is here called, the Eternall Father.

3. On what account then soever Christ is called the Eternall §. 26.Father, yet he is called so; and is Eternall; whether it be, because in nature He is one with the Father, or because of his tender and Fatherly affections to his Church, because he is the Author of Eternall Life, because in him is Life, it is all one as to the Testimony to his Deity in the words produced. He who is the p. 329Mighty God, the Eternall Father, the Prince of Peace, is God by nature, which was to be confirmed.

So much for them. But our other Friend, must not be forgotten.§. 27. The place is of great importance. The Testimony in it, evident & cleare: & we must not suffer our selves on any pretence to be deprived of the suport thereof. Thus then he proceeds in the Exposition of this place.

For unto us a Child is borne, id est, nascetur, nam Hebraea praeterita §. 28.sumuntur pro futuris: i. e. shall be borne &c. of this we shall have use in the very next words.

Unto us a Sonne is given.] dabitur. Ezechias patri Achazo §. 29.multum dissimilis. Sic tamen ut multo excellentius haec ad Messiam pertinere, non Christiani tantum agnoscunt, sed & Chaldaeus hoc loco. i. e. Shall he given: Ezechiah most unlike his Father Ahaz. Yet so that these things belong more excellently to the Messiah, not only as the Christians acknowledge; but the Chaldee in this place.

Here begins the exposition. Hezekiah is intended. So indeed§. 30. say some of the Rabbins. But 1. This prophesy is evidently a continuance of that which is begun c. 7. & was given at the time of the invasion of Judah by Rezin, and Pekah; which was after Ahaz had raigned some years; as is evident, 2 King. 16. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Now he raigned but 16. yeares in all; and when Hezekiah came to the Crown in succession to him he was 25. yeares of age: 2 Kin. 18. so that he must needs be borne before this Prophesy; there is then already an inconsistency in these Annotations; making the Prophet to speake of that which was past as future and to come.

2. It is true, that the Chaldee Paraphrast applyes this§. 31. Prophesy unto the Messiah, whose words are. Dicit propheta Domui David; Quoniam parvulus natus est nobis, Filius datus est nobis, & suscepit legem super se, ut servaret eam; & vocabitur nomen ejus, a facie admirabilis consilii Deus, vir permanens in aeternum: Christus cujuus pax multiplicabitur super nos in diebus ejus. He not only referrs the whole to Christ, without any intimation of Hezekiah, but says also, that his name shall be, the God of Councell.

3. Neither is he alone; but the antient Rabbins generally§. 32. are of the same Judgement, as Petrus Galatinus, and Raymundus Martinus abundantly manifest. To repeat what is, or may be p. 330collected from them to that purpose, is not much to mine.

4. The present difference between us and the learned Annotatour §. 33.is, whether Hezekiah be here intended at all or no: to what hath been spoken, we have that to adde in opposition to him, which we chiefely insist upon, namely, that none of the things ascribed to the person here spoken of, can be attributed to Hezekiah, as expressing somewhat more Divine then can be ascribed to any meer man whatever. Indeed as Grotius wrests the words in his following interpretation, they may be ascribed to any other; for he leaves no name of God, nor any expression of any thing Divine, to him that is spoken of.

Among the Rabbins that interpret this place of Hezekiah, one§. 34. of the chiefe said he was the Messiah indeed; and that they were to look for no other: This is the judgement of Rabbi Hillel in the Talmud. Hence because Maimonides said somewhere, that the faith of the Messiah to come is the foundation of the Law; It is disputed by Rabbi Joseph Albo, Orat. 1. cap. 1. Whether Hillel were not to be reckoned among the Aposta…es, and such as should have no portion in the World to come: but he resolves the question on Hillel's side, and denies that the faith of the Messiah to come, is the foundation of the Law. Others who apply these words to Hezekiah, say he should have been the Messiah, but that God altered his purpose, upon the account which they assigne: this they prove from v. 7. where in the word foreign v. 7. mem clausum is put in the middle of a word. This Grotius takes notice of v. 7. and saies, eo stabilitatem significari volunt Hebraei, ut per mem apertum in fine rupturam: perhaps sometimes they do so; but here some of them turne it to another purpose; as they may use it to what purpose they please: the observation being ludicrous. The words of Rabbi Tanchum, in libro Sanhedrim to this purpose are; Dixit Rabbi Tanchum, quomodo omne mem, quod est in medio vocis, apertum est, & istud foreign Esa. 9. 7. clausum est? Quaesivit Deus sanctus benedictus facere Hezekiam Messiam, & Senacheribum Gog & Magog. Dixit proprietas judicii coram eo, domine mundi, & quid Davidem, qui dixit faciei tuae tot cantica, & laudes, non fecisti Messiam, Ezechiamvero, cui fecisti omnia signa haec, & non dixit canticum faciei tuae, vis facere Messiam? Propterea clausum fuit statim, &c. Egressa p. 331est vox coelestis, secretum meum mihi. Rabbi Tanchum said, seeing every mem that is in the middle of a word is open, how comes that in foreign to be closed? The holy blessed God sought to make Hezekiah to be the Messiah, and Senacherib to be Gog and Magog: propriety of judgement (that is, the right measure of judgement) said before him, Lord of the whole earth, why didst thou not make David Messiah, who spake so many Songs and Praises before thee? and wilt make Hezekiah to be the Messiah, for whom thou hast wrought those great signes, and he spake no song before thee? instantly mem was shut, and an heavenly voyce went forth, my secret belongs to me.

And so Hezekiah lost the Messiahship for want of a Song. §. 35.And these are good Masters in the Interpretation of Prophesies concerning Christ. I wholly assent to the conjecture of the learned Annotator about this businesse: Non incredibile est (saies he) quod unus scriba properans commiserat, id alios superstitiose imitatos. One began this writing by negligence, and others followed him with superstition. The conjectures of some Christians from hence are with me of no more weight then those of the Jews: as that by this mem clausum is signified the birth of Christ of a Virgin; and whereas, in number it signifies 600▪ it denotes the space of time at the End whereof Christ was to be borne; which was so many years from the fourth of Ahaz, wherein this Prophesy as is supposed was given.

I have not insisted on these things, as though they were of§. 36. any importance, or in themselves worthy to be repeated, where men are dealing seriously about the things of …od; but only to shew what little cause Grotius had to follow the modern Rabbins in their Exposition of this place; whose conceits upon it are so foolish and ridiculous.

Returne we to the Annotations, the first passage he fixes on is;§. 37. And the Government shall be on his shoulder; saith he, id est, erit foreign. ab ipsis cunis purpuram feret regiam, ut inregnum natus; confer Ezech. 28. 13. He shall be borne to Purple: From his very cradle he shall beare the Kingly Purple, being borne to the Kingdome.

But this is nothing peculiar to Hezekiah; his sonne Menassah §. 38.was all this as well as He. And how this being in it selfe a light p. 332and triviall thing, common to all other Kings sonnes with him, should be thus Prophesyed of as an eminent Honour and Glory, none can see any cause. 2. But is this indeed the meaning of these words? Hezekiah when he is a boy shall weare a purple C…at; which the Prophet when he gave forth this Prophesy, perhaps saw him playing in every day. Certainely it is a sad thing to be forsaken of God, and to be given up to a mans own understanding, in the exposition of the Scripture. That the Goverment, the Principality here mentioned, which is said to be upon the shoulder of him, concerning whom the words are spoken, that is cōmitted to him, as a weighty thing, is the whole Rule & Goverment of the Church of God, committed to the mannagement of the Lord Jesus Christ▪ the Mediatour, to the unconceivable benefit and consolation of his People, the Reader may find evinced in all expositours on the place; (unlesse some one or other of late; Persons of no note, who to appeare somebodys have ventured to follow Grotius) it is not my businesse to insist on particulars.

His next note is on these words: His name shall be called. In §. 39.Haebraeo est vocabit. Supple quis{que}. Etiam Chaldaeus vocabitur transtulit. Notum autem Haebraeis dici sic vel sic vocari aliquem cui tales Tituli aut foreign conveniunt. I delight not to contend at all, nor shall do it, without great cause. For the sence of these words I am content, that we take up thus much: the Titles following are his names; & they agree to him; that is, He is, or shall be such an one, as answers the description in them given of him. But here our Great Doctors, whom this great man followes are divided. Some of them … seeing how it is possible that the names following should be ascribed to Hezekiah, some of them directly terming him God, they pervert the words, and read them thus; The Wonderfull, Councellour, the mighty God &c. shall call his name, the Prince of Peace; so ascribing the last name only to Hezekiah, all the former to God. The advantage they take is from the want of variation by cases in the Hebrew. And this way go all the present Rabbins, being set into it by Solomon Jarchi, on theVid. Pet. Gal. lib. 3. cap. 19. Raymun. Martin. 3. p. Dist. 1. cap. 9. place. But as this is expressly contrary to the Judgement of the old Doctors▪ as hath been abundantly proved out of their Targum and Talmud, where▪ Ezekiah is called the Lord of eight names, and is opposed to Senacherib, who they say had eight p. 333names also; So it is contrary to all their own Rules of Grammer, to place the name of Him who calls, after the verbe calling, of which there is not one instance to be given. Grotius therefore takes in with them, who apply all these names to Hezekiah: shift with them afterwards as well as he can. So he proceeds.

Wonderfull: ob summas quae in eo erunt virtutes. For the excellent §. 40.virtues that shall be in him. But I pray why more then David, or Josiah? This is his name Wonderfull, that is, he shall be very vertuous, & men shall admire him: How much better this name agrees to him, & how much more proper it is, whose Person is so great a Mystery 2 Tim. 3. 16. & whose name is so abstruse, Prov. 30. 4. & that upon the wonderfull conjunction of two natures in one person here mentioned, (he who is the Mighty God, being also a Child given unto us) is evident to all.

Councellor, the Mighty God: imo consultator Dei fortis. id est, qui in §. 41.omnibus negotiis consilia a Deo poscet, per Prophetas scilicet, ut jam sequetur. Yea he who taketh Councell of the Mighty God: that is, who in all his affaires asks Councell of God, namely by the Prophets.

And is not this boldnesse thus to correct the Text: Counsellor,§. 42. the mighty God; yea He that asketh Counsell of the mighty God. What colour, what Pretence, what Reason or Plea, may be used for this perverting the words of the Text, our Annotator not in the least intimates.

The words are evidently belonging to the same Person, equally parts of that Name, whereby he is to be called, and the casting of them without any cause into this construction, in a matter of this importance (because it is to be said) is intollerable boldnesse. It is not without great probability of Truth pleaded by some, that the two first words should go together, the Wonderfull Counsellor, as those that follow do; not that foreign admirabilis, is an Epithete, or an Adjective, it being a Substantive, and signifying a Wonder or a Miracle, but that the weight of what is said, being laid much upon the force of Counsellor, setting out the infinite Wisdome of Christ, in all his waies, purposes, and Counsells concerning his Church, this other terme seems to be suited to the setting forth thereof. But this corruption of the Text is the more intolerable in our Annotatour, because in the close of his Observations on this place, he confesses, that all the p. 334things here mentioned have a signification in Christ, much more sublime and plaine, then that which he hath insisted on; so that had he been any friend to the Deity of Christ, he would not have endeavoured to have robbed him of his Proper name, the Mighty God, in this place; but this was necessary, that the Rabbinicall accommodation of this place to Hezekiah might be retained. That this place then is spoken of Christ we have evinced, nor can it be waved without open perverting of the words; and he is here called the Mighty God, as was before declared.

Grotius proceeds to apply the Residue of this Glorious name§. 43. to Hezekiah, The Everlasting Father; or as it is in the vulgar Latine, Pater futuri seculi; In Hebrae… non est futuri; Pater seculi est, qui multos post se relicturus sit posteros, & in longum tempus. In the Hebrew the word future is not; the Father of the Age, is he who leaves many of his posterity behind him, and that for a long time.

About the vulgar Latine Translation we do not contend. Of§. 44. the meaning and use of the word Gnolam I have spoken already; when it is applyed to God, it signifies Eternity; but the wordPsal. 48, 14. Psal. 9. 6, 7. &c.Ps 48:14Ps 9:6Ps 9:7 here is not Gnolam, but foreign properly Eternity when applyed to God, Psal. 10. 16. God is King, foreign seculi & aeternitatis, for ever and ever; Instances might be multiplied to this purpose. That this should be, Hezekiah shall leave many Children, and that for a long season, credat Apella; what sonnes he left, besides one, and he a wicked one for the most part of his daies, is uncertaine; within an 130 years, or thereabout, his whole posterity was carried Captive; how exceedingly unsuited this appellation is to him, is evident. The Father of Eternity, that is, one that leaves a Son behind him, & a possibility for his posterity to continue in the condition wherein he was for an 130 years; many such Everlasting Fathers may we find out; what in all this is peculiar to Hezekiah, that this should so emphatically be said to be his Name?

The next is, Princeps Pacis, the Prince of Peace. Princeps Pacificus, & in pace victurus. A peaceable Prince, and one that should live in Peace.

1. On how much better, more Noble, and Glorious account§. 45. this Title belongs to Christ, is known. 2. The Prince of Peace, is not a peaceable Prince, but the Author, Giver, Procurer, Establisher of Peace. 3. Neither did Hezekiah Raigne in Peace all p. 335his daies; His Kingdome was invaded, his fenced Citties taken, and himselfe and cheife Cittie delivered by a miraculous slaughter of his enemies.

Of the encrease of his Government, and of Peace no end. Which he§. 45 reads according to the vulgar Latine; Multiplicabitur ejus imperium, & Pacis ejus non erit finis. Litera…ly, for the multiplying▪ of his Kingdome, and of Peace no end; As to the first part, his exposition is; id est, durabit per annos 29. His Kingdome shall continue for 29 years. Who would believe such grosse darknesse should cover the face of so Learned a man. Of the increase of his Government there shall be no end; that is, He shall raigne nine and twenty years. This might almost twice as properly be spoken▪ of his sonne Manasses, who …aigned 55. And now let him that hath a mind to feed on such huskes as these, go on with his Annotations in this place. I am weary of considering such trash. And let the pious Reader tremble at the Righteous Judgement of God, giving up men trusting to their own Learning and abilities, refusing to captivate their hearts to the obedience▪ of the truth, to such foolish and childish imaginations, as men of common sence must needs abhorre.

It appears then that we have here a description of Jesus§. 46. Christ, and of him only; and that the names here ascribed to him, are proper to him, and declare who he was, and is, even the mighty God, the Prince of Peace; &c. Let us proceed with our Catechists.

In the next place they heap up sundry places, which they returne§. 47. slight Answers unto; and yet to provide them in such manner, as that they might be the easier deal… withall, they cut off parcells, and Expressions in the middle of sentences, and from the Context, from whence the greatest evid…nce, as to the Testimony they give in this matter, doth arise. I shall …nsider them apart as they are proposed.

1. Christ is called the Word of God, Joh. 1. 1. Revel. 19. 13.§. 48. They say.

From hence that Christ is called the Word… quod …erbum Dei s… Chr…s…us …i divina in …hris…o▪ natura n…n potest, imo a…vers…m▪ …potius▪ colligitur. …m …nim …sius unius Dei verbum sit, apparet cum non …sse ipsum unum Deum. Quod etiam ad singula haec testimonia simul responderi potest. Verbum vero, vel sermo Dei Jesus ideo nuncupatur, quod omnem Dei voluntatem nobis exposuerit, ut ibidem Johannes inserius exposuit, Joan. 1. 18. Quemadmodum etiam eodem sensu & vita & veritas dicitur.John 1:18 of God, a divine nature▪ in Christ cannot be proved, yea th… contrary may b… ga…er…d. For seeing He is the Word of the One God, it is apparent, that He is not that one God. But Jesus p. 336is therefore called the Word of God, because He expounds to us the whole will of God, as John there declares a little after, Ioh. 1. 18. as He is also in the same sence said to be life and Truth.

Christ is the Word of God; the Word or foreign, is either foreign,§. 49. or the Word which outwardly is spoken of God: or foreign, his Eternall Essentiall Word, or wisdome. Let our Catechists prove another acceptation of the Word in any place. That Christ is not the Word spoken by God, they will grant, for He was a Person that revealed to us the word of God. He is then Gods Eternall Word, or Wisdome, and so consequently God. 2. Christ is so called the Word of God, (Ioh. 1. 1.) as that He is in the same place said to be God. And our Adversaries are indeed too impudent, whereas they say, if He be the word of the one God, He cannot be the One God; the Holy Ghost affirming the flat contrary, namely, that He was the Word, and was with God, and was God: that is doubtlesse the one true God, v. 1, 2, 3. He was with God, in his Person, as the Son, and He was God as to his nature. 3. Christ is not called the Word, Ioh. 1. 1. upon the account of his actuall revealing the word of God to us, in his own Person on the Earth, (which He did v. 18.) because he is called so in his everlasting residence with the Father, before the World was, v. 1. Nor is He so called on that account, Revel. 19. 13. it being applied to him, in reference to the worke of executing Judgement on his enemies, as a King, and not his revealing the word of God, as a Prophet. So that notwithstanding this Exception, this name of the Word of God, applied to Christ, as in the places mentioned, proves him to have a divine nature, and to be God blessed for ever.

The next place is Col. 1. 15. Christ is the Image of the Invisible §. 50.God. To which they say only;

The same may be said of this, as of that foregoing. Hoc idem dici potest de …, quod imago Dei conspicui vocatur.But, p. 337An Image is either an Essentiall Image, or Accidentall. A Representation§. 51. of a thing in the same substance with it, as a Sonne is the Image of his Father, or a Representation in some resemblance like that of a Picture. That Christ cannot be the latter is evident. Our Catechists referre it to his office, not his Person. But 1. It is the Person of Christ, that is described in that, and the following verses, and not his Office. 2. The Title given to God, whose Image he is, the invisible God, will allow there be no Image of him but what is invisible; nor is there any Reason of adding that Epithite of God, but to declare also the invisible Spirituall nature of Christ, wherein he is like his Father. And the same is here intended with what is mentioned in the third place.

Heb. 1. 3. He is the expresse Image of his Person.§. 52.

This is to be understood, that▪ whatever God hath promised, Quod vero character Hypostaseos ejus dictus s…, hoc intelligi debet; Deū quicquid n… bis promisit, jam reipsa in eo exhibuisse.He hath now really exhibited in Christ.

Well expounded; Christ is the Character of his Fathers person, §. 53.that is, what God promised he exhibited in Christ▪ Would not any man admire these mens accumen, and readinesse to interpret Scriptures? The words are part of the description of the Person of the Son of God: He is the brightnesse of his Fathers Glory, and the expresse Image of his Person, upholding all things by the word of his Power: that is, He reveales the will of God. This the Apostle had expressly affirmed v. 1. in plaine & familiar termes; that he should now repeat over the same thing againe in words so exceedingly insignificant of any such matter, is very strange. 2. The Apostle speakes of the Hypostasis of the Father, not of his Will: of his subsistence, not his mind to be revealed. We doe not deny, that Christ doth represent his Father to us, and is to us the expresse image of his Person, but antecedently hereunto, we say he is so in himselfe. Grotius his corruption of this whole Chapter, was before discovered, and in part removed.

Joh. 14. 9. He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; is next§. 54. proposed. To which they say;

Neither can any Divine nature be proved fromQuod vero attiret ad dictū domini Jesu. Qui me videt videt Patr…m, ne{que} hinc naturam divinā probari certū cui{que} esse potest, …um ea ratio videndi non possit de essentia dei accipi, qu… invisibilis sit pr…rsus, verum de cognitione eorum quae dixit & fecit Christus. hence, for this seeing, cannot be spoken of the Essence of God, which is invisible, but of the p. 338knowledge of the things that Christ did and spake.

Christ so speakes of his Father and his Onenesse, whereby he§. 55. that saw one, saw both, as he describes it to be in the verse following; where he sayes, the Father is in Him, and He in the Father. N…w that the Father is in him, and he in the Father, and that he and the Father are one in nature and Essence, hath been before sufficiently demonstrated. The seeing here intended, is that of Faith, whereby both Father and Sonne are seen unto Believers.

Col. 2. 9. is the last in this Collection. In whom dwelleth all the §. 56.fu…lnesse of the God-head b…dily.

To this they say 1. That this word Divinitas, Nec illis denique verbis, quod plenitudo divinitat…s in eo habitat corpopaliter probatur natura divina primum enim, vox …aec divinitas, designare po…est voluntatem dei, eam…ue orationem cum Apostolus opponat non personi…, sed philosophiae & Legi, hinc perspieuum e…, eam de doctrina domini Iesu non de pers…n… accipi, de hac vero voce corporaliter, quid ea notet, inferius suo loco audies.may signify the will of God; And seeing the Apostle opp…s…th …hat speech not to Persons, bu… to P…ilosophy & the Law, it is manifest, that it is to be un…rstood of the Doctrine, and not of the Person of Christ. Of this word Bodily thou shalt heare afterward.

But, 1. It is not Divinity, but Deity, not foreign but foreign,§ 57. that is here spoken of; and that not simply neither, but foreign, the fullnesse of the God-head. 2. That foreign or foreign, is ever taken for the Will of God, they doe not, they cannot prove. 3. How can it be said, that the Will of God foreign, doth dwell bodily in any, or what can be the sen…e of that expre…sion? Where they afterwards interpret the word Bodily I do not remember, when I meet with their exposition it shall be con…ider…d. 4. That the words are to be referred to the Person of Christ, and not his Doctrine, is manifest, not only from the words themselves, that will not beare any such sence, as whereunto they are wrested, but also from the Context. For not only the whole order, and series of words before and after, doe speake of the Person of Christ, For in him are hid all treasures of wisdome and knowledge, v. 3. Him we receive, v. 6. In him we are built up, v. 7. In him we are compleat, v. 10. In him we p. 339are circumcised, v. 11. With him we are buried. v. 12. Together with him are we quickned, v. 13. And it was He that was crucifyed for us, v. 14, 15. but also the designe of the Holy Ghost enforces this sence; it being to discover a fullnesse and sufficiency in Christ, of all Grace and Wisdome, that men should not need to seek reliefe from either Law or Phylosophy. The fullnesse of the God-head inhabiting in the Person of Christ substantially, He is God by nature. And of these places so farre: the three following, of Joh. 17. 5. 1 Pet. 1. 10, 11. Joh. 3. 13. have been in their proper places already vindicated.

Grotius interprets that of Col. 2. 9. according to the Analogy §. 58.of the Faith of our Catechists; Christi doctrina non modo Philosophiae sed & Legi plurimum praestat. That foreign, should be Doctrina, and foreign, should make it the Doctrine of Christ, and foreign, should be no man knowes what, is but a crosse way of interpretation. And yet Augustine is quoted, with a saying from him to give countenance unto it; which makes me admire almost as much as at the interpretation it selfe. The words our Annotatour mentions are taken from his Epist. 57. ad Dardan. though he …enti…ns i… not. The reason will quickly appeare to any one that shall consult th… place; for notwithstanding the expression here cropt off from his Discourse, he gives an interpretation of the words, utterly contrary to what this Learned man would h…re insinuate, and perfectly agreeing with that which we have now proposed.

Our Catechists proceed to the consideration of sundry places§. 59. where Christ is called the only Lord, the Lord of Glory: the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords; all which being Titles of the one true God, prove him to be so: and the first proposed is; To us there is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him, 1 Cor. 8. 6.

A little to give light to our Argument from hence, and that§. 60. the strength of it may appeare, some few observations concerning the Context, and the words themselves, will be necessary.

1. V. 7. The Apostle speaking of the Heathens, and their opinion§. 61. of the Deity, says there be, that is, to them, in their apprehension, Gods many, and Lords many: that is, many supreame p. 340Powers who are Gods and Lords. The termes of Gods many, and Lords many are not expressive of severall kinds of Deities, but of the same; whom they esteemed Lords they esteemed Gods, and so on the contrary: In opposition to this Polutheisme of theirs, he declares that Christians have but one God, one Lord; wherein if the Apostle did not intend to assert one only God unto Christians, in the different Persons of Father and Sonne, he had not spoken in such an opposition, as the Adversative foreign at the beginning of the words, and the comparison instituted do require.

2. That this one Lord of Christians is the only true God,§. 62. is manifest from Deut. 6. 4. The Lord our God is one Lord. So the Apostle here; to us there is one Lord: not many Gods, as the Heathens fancied; in opposition also to wh… Idolatry is that assertion of Moses. And so Thom…s … co…fe…sion joynes these two together, intending one and the … Person, my Lord, and my God.

3. foreign, being put to signify God, is the word which the§. 63. Septuagint render Jehovah by, and so foreign, is that only Jehovah.

4. The Attribution of the same Workes in this verse to Father§. 64. and Sonne, manifest them to be the same one God: Of whom are all things, and we in him; by whom are all things, and we by him. These things being premised, what our Catechists except to this Testimony may be considered: thus then they.

Hence a Divine nature cannot be proved;§. 65. For. 1. He doth manifestly difference him fromEx eo quod Christum Apostolus Dominum suum vocet, natura divina effici nequit. Nam eum primo manifeste ab illo Patre, quem ibidem deum unum fatetur, secernit, quem solum natura deum esse superius docuimus: deinde, hoc ipsum quod de eo dicit, omnia per ipsum, eum natura deum esse non ostendit: cum ut superius demonstratum est, hac particula, per, non primam, verum secundam causam designari constet: quod de eo qui natura deus est, dici nullo modo potest. Et licet de patre Scriptura interdum loquatur per eum omnia, aliter tamem haec de Patre, quam de Christo accipiuntur: de patre enim haec ideo dici constat, quod omnes causae mediae per quas fit aliquid, non aliunde sint, nisi ab ipso, nec sint ejusmodi, ut sine iis ille agere non possit: de Christo vero dicuntur, quod per eum alius quis, nempe Deus omnia operetur ut Ephes. 3. 9. expresse habetur. Ne commemorandum mihi sit, verbum, omnia, (uti superius ostensum est) ad subjectam materiam referri. Quod ita habere inde apparet, quod Apostolus agit de iis omnibus rebus, quae ad populum Christianum pertinent, ut duo haec verba demonstrant, nobis & Pater. Vnde efficitur Christum non simpliciter & absolute, verum certa de causa v…catum Dominum unum, per quem omnia. Quare hinc natura divina non probatur.Eph 3:9 the Father, whom we have taught above to be the only God by nature. 2. This that it says of him, that by him are all things, shewes him not to be God by nature, seeing as hath been above declared, this particle by, doth not signify the first, but the second cause, which can by no meanes be spoken of him, who is God by nature. And though the Scriptures do sometimes say of the Father, by him are all things, yet these words are to be taken otherwise of the Father, then of the Sonne. It is manifest that this is said of the Father, because all mediate p. 341causes, by which any thing is done, are not from any other, but from himselfe; nor are they such, as that He cannot worke without them: but it is spoken of Christ, because by him, another, namely God, worketh all things, as it is expressly said Eph. 3. 9. That I need not to remember, that the word all things, as was shewed above, is to be referred to the subject matter. Which that it is so appeareth hence, that the Apostle dealeth of al those things which belong to the Christian people, as these two words, [to us, and Father,] do declare. Whence it is proved, that Christ is not simply and absolutely, but in some certaine respect, called the one Lord, by whom are all things. Wherefore his Divine nature is not proved from hence.

It is very evident, that they are much entangled with this§. 66. Testimony, which necessitates them to turne themselves into all manner of shapes, to try whether they can shift their bonds, and escape or no. Their severall attempts to evade shall be considered in their order,

1. It is true, Christ is differenced clearely from the Father,§. 67. as to his Person, here spoken of; but that they have proved the Father to be the only God by nature, exclusively to the Sonne, and Holy Ghost, is but a boasting before they put off their harnesse. It is true, the Father is said here to be the one God, which no more hinders the Sonne from being so too, then the Assertion that the Sonne is the one Lord, denyes the Fathers being so also.

2. That cavill at the word by, hath been already considered,§. 68. and removed. It is enough for us to manifest, that this Assignation of the Creation of all things to Christ, by the Expression of, by him are all things, doth by no meanes depose him from the honour of principall efficient Cause in that worke, the same Attribution being made to the Father in the same words. p. 342And to say as our Catechists do, that this Expression is ascribed to the Father, in such a sence, and not to Christ, is purely without any pretence of proofe to begge the thing in Question. Neither is that any thing to the purpose, which is urged from Ephes. 3. 9. for we confesse, that as Christ is equall with his Father, as to his nature, wherein He is God, so as He is the Son in Office, He was the Servant of the Father, who accomplishes his own mind and will by him.

3. The subject matter in this place, as to the words under consideration,§. 69. is the demonstra…ion of the one God, and Lord of Christians, asserted in opposition to the many Gods, and Lords of the Heathen, from the effects or works of that one God, and Lord; from him, and by him are all things. And this is the difference that God elsewhere puts between himselfe and Idols, Jer. 10. 10, 11. And if there be any such subject matter, as proves Christ not to be the one Lord absolutely, but in some respect, it proves also that the Father is not the one God absolutely, but in some respect only.

4. The words, to us, and Father, do one of them expresse the§. 70. Persons believing the doctrine proposed, concerning the one true God and Lord, the other describes that one true God, by that name whereby He revealed himselfe to those Believers; neither of them at all enforcing the restriction mentioned. Christ then is absolutely the one Lord of Christians, who made all things, and so is by nature God blessed for ever.

I should but needlesly multiply words particularly to animadvert§ 71. on Grotius his Annotations on this place: I do it only where he seems to adde some new shifts to the Interpretation of our Adversaries, or varies from them in the way, though he agree in the end; neither of which Reasons occurring in this place, I shall not trouble the Reader with the consideration of his words. By foreign, to maintaine his former Expositions of the like kind, he will have all the things of the n…w Creation only intended, but without colour or pretence of proofe; or any thing to give light to such an expo…ition of the words.

Our Catechists next mention, 1 Cor 2. 8. for if they had known §. 72.it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.

Who is the Lord of Glory, or God of Glory, the Holy Ghost declares, Act: 7. 2. The God of Glory appeared to our Father Abraham p. 343when he was in Mesopotamia: & Psal. 24. 9. Who is the King of Glory? The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in Battell. Christ therefore is this God; and indeed is intended in that Psalme. But they say:§. 73.

Divine Nature cannot be proved fromCum in eo agatur de eo qui crucifixus sit, apparet ex eo naturam divinam non probari, cum de hac illud dici nequeat, verum de homine, qui ideo dominus Gloriae dicitur, hoc est, dominus gloriosus, quod a deo gloria & … nore coronatus sit. hence, seeing it treateth of him who was Crucified; which cannot be said of a Divine nature, but of a man, who is therefore called the Lord of Glory; that is, the Glorious Lord, because he is Crowned of God with Glory and Honour.

But,

1. Though the Divine Nature could not be Crucified, yet He§. 74. that had a Divine Nature might be, and was Crucified in the nature of a Man, which He also had. Our Catechists know they do but begge in these things; and would feign have us grant, that because Christ had an Humane nature, He had not a Divine. 2. He is called the Lord of Glory, as God is called the God of Glory, and these termes are equivalent, as hath been shewed. 3. He was the Lord of Glory when the Jewes crucified him; or else they had not crucified him, who was the Lord of Glory, but one that was to be so: for He was not Crowned with Glory and Honour, untill after his crucifying.

Grotius his Annotation on this place, is worth our observation,§. 75. as having somewhat new, and peculiar in it. foreign, Eum quem Deus vult esse omnium Judicem, nam Gloria Christi maximè illum diem respicit; 1 Pet. 4. 13. Christus foreign, praefiguratus per arcam, quae foreign Psal. 24. 9. For the matter and substance of it, this is the same plea with that before mentioned; the Additions only deserve our notice: Christ is called the Lord of Glory, as God is called the God of Glory. And that terme is given him to testify, that he is the God of Glory. If his Glory at the day of Judgement be intended, the Jewes could not be said to crucify the Lord of Glory, but him that was to be the Lord of Glory, at the end of the World. Our participation of Christs Glory is mentioned, 1 Pet. 4. 13. not his obtaining of Glory. He is Essentially the Lord of Glory, the manifestation whereof is various, and shall be eminent at the day of judgement. 2. That the Arke is called foreign is little lesse then Blasphemy. It is he alone who is the Lord of Hosts, who is called the Lord of Glory, Psal. 24. p. 3449. But this is another shift, for the obtaining of the end designed; namely to give an instance where a creature is called Jehovah, (as that King of Glory is) then which a more unhappy one could scarce be fixed on in the whole Scripture. The Annotations of the Learned man on that whole Psalme are very scanty; his designe is to referre it all to the story of Davids bringing home the Ark…, 2 Sam. 6. That it might be occasioned thereby I will not deny; that the Arke is called the King of Glory, and the Lord of Hosts, and not He, of whose Presence and Favour, the Arke was a Testimony, no attempt of proofe is offered. Neither (by the way) can I assent unto his Interpretation of these words; Lift up your heads O ye Gates, and be ye lift up yee everlasting doores: that is, Yee Gates of Sion, made of Cedar, that are made hanging downe, and when they are opened▪ they are lifted up. Certainly something more sublime and Glorious is intended.

The processe of our Catechists is unto Revel. 17. 14. & Chap.§. 76. 19. 16. in both which places Christ is called the Lord of Lords, and King of Kings. This also is expresly the name of God, 1 Tim. 6. 16. Who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords: who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light, &c. To this they say.§. 77.

In this Testimony He is treated of who is theIn tertio testimonio, cum agatur de eo, qui agnus est, & qui vestimenta habet, quem & oc…isum, & sanguine suo nos redimisse apertissime idem Joannes fatetur, quae referri ad divinam naturam nulla ratione possunt, apparet eo naturam divinam Christi astrui non posse. Omnia vero▪ quae hic Christo in iis testim…niis tribuuntur, sigularem ipsius pocestatem, quam d…us Christo in iis, quae ad novum faedus pertinent, dedit, arguunt. Lamb, who hath garments, who was killed, and Redeemed us with his blood, as John evidently testifyeth, which can by no meanes be referred to a Divine nature, and therefore a Divine nature cannot hence be proved. But all things that in these Testimonies are attributed to Christ do argue that singular Authority which God hath given unto Christ, in those things that belong to the New Covenant.

These are but drops, the showre is past. Because he who was the §. 78.Lamb, who was slaine, is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, we prove him to have another nature, in respect whereof he could be neither killed nor slain. Therefore he is God; God only is so; And the Answer is; because He was the Lamb, He was killed, p. 345slaine, therefore He is not God; that is, He is not King of Kings, & Lord of Lords, which the Holy Ghost, who gave him this name will prove against them. 2. Our Adversaries have nothing to except against this Testimony, but that the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords is not God; which they do not prove, nor labour to disprove our confirmation of it. 3. Kings and Lords of the Wor…d, are not of the things of the New Covenant, so that Christs absolute soveraignty over them, is not of the grant which he hath of his Father as Mediatour, but as he is God by nature. And so much for this collection concerning these severall Names of God Attributed to Christ.

What followes in the three Questions and Answers ensuing,§. 79. relates to the divine Worship attributed to Christ in the Scriptures, though it be marveilous faintly urged by them. Some few Texts are named, but so much as the intendment of our Argument from them is not once mentioned. But because I must take up this elsewhere, viz. in Answer to M. Biddle (C. 10.) I shall remit the consideration of what here they except, to the proper place of it, where God assisting, from the Divine worship and Invocation of Jesus Christ, I shall invincibly demonstrate his Eternall power and God-head.

In the last place, they heap up together a number of Testimonies, §. 80.each of which is sufficient to cast them down to the sides of the pit, in the middest of their Attempts against the Eternall Deity of the Sonne of God, and accommodate a slight generall Answer to them all. The places are worth the consideration, I shall only propose them, & then consider their Answer.

The first is Is. 8. 13, 14. Sanctify the Lord of Hosts himselfe, let him §. 81.be your feare, & let him be your dread. And He shall be for a Sanctuary: but for a stone of stumbling, & a rock of offence, to both the houses of Israel. He that is to be for a Rock of offence, & a stone of stumbling, is the Lord of Hosts, whom we must sanctify in our hearts, and make him our dread and our feare. But this was Jesus Christ: Luk. 2. 34. This Child is set for the rising and fall of many in Israel: As it is written, behold I lay in Sion a stumbling block, a rock of offence; and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed: Rom. 9. 32, 33. the stone which the builders refused,—and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence: 1 Pet. 2. 7. In all which places that Prophesy is repeated. Christ p. 346therefore is the Lord of Hosts, whom we are to sanctify in our heart, and to make him our dread, and our feare.

Isa. 45. 22, 23. I am the Lord, and there is none else: I have sworne §. 82.by my selfe, the word is gone out of my mouth in Righteousnesse, and shall not returne, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall sweare. He who is God, and none else, is God by nature▪ But now, we must all stand before the Judgement seat of Jesus Christ, for it is written, as I live saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confesse to God. Rom. 14. 10, 11, 12▪ It is the Judgement seat of Christ, that men must appeare before, when they bow their knee to him, that is, to him who is God, and none else.

Isa. 41. 4. I Jehovah, the first, and with the last, I am he. Chap. 44.§. 83. 6. I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God. So Chap. 48. 12. That this is spoken of Christ we have his own Testimony, Revel. 1. 17. Feare not, I am the first, and the last. He who is the first and the last, He is God, and there is none besides him.

Zech. 12. 10. I will poure on the House of David, and upon the Inhabitants §. 84.of Jerusalem the Spirit of Grace and supplications, and they shall looke upon me whom they have pierced. He that speakes is unquestionably Jehovah the Lord of Hosts: So the whole context, so the promising of the Spirit in this verse evinces: but that Jesus Christ is here intended, that it is He who is spoken of is evident. Rev. 1. 7. Every eye shall see him, and they also that pierced him: He then is Jehovah the Lord of Hosts. For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, not a bone of him shall be broken. And againe, another Scripture saith they shall look on him whom they have pierced. Joh. 19. 36, 37. It is as I said beyond dispute, that it is Jehovah the only true God that spake, and what he spoke of himselfe is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Psal. 68. 17. The Chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands §. 85.of Angels: the Lord is among them as in Sinai, in the Holy place: Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive, thou hast received gifts for men, that the Lord God might dwell among them. This also is a Glorious description of the triumphant Majesty of God; and yet the God here intended is Jesus Christ, Ephes. 4. 8, 9, 10. Wherefore he saith, when He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive and gave gifts to men▪ Now that he ascended, what is it, but that he also p. 347descended first into the lower parts of the earth; He that descended is the same that ascended.

Grotius on both these places sayes; that what is properly spoken of God, is by Paul mystically applyed to Christ: to the same purpose with what our Catechists afterwards insist on. That it is the same person who is intended in both places, and not that applyed to one, which was spoken of another (which is most evident in the Context) He takes no notice. There being nothing of plea or Argument in his Annotations, against our Testimonies from hence, but only an indeavour to divert the meaning of the places to another sence, I shall not insist longer on them.

But what say our Catechists to all these, which are but some of the instances of this kind that might be given? Say they;

To all these it may be so answered, as that§. 86. it may appeare, that a divine nature in ChristAd omnia ita responderi potest, ut appareat nullo modo ex iis effici divinam in Christo esse naturam. Etenim aliam ob causam ea, quae de Deo dicta sunt sub Lege, dici potuerunt de Christo sub Evangelio quemadmodum & dicta sunt. Nimirum propter illam summam, quae inter Deum & Christum est, ratione imperii, potestatis, at{que} muneris, conjunctionem, quae omnia illum Dei dono consecutum esse Scripturae novi Testamenti passim testantur. Quod si Scriptura ea tradit de Mose, …um Israelem ex Aegypto duxisse Ezod. 32. 7. & quod Redemptor illius populi fuerit, Act. 7. 35. & de aliis idem, quod de ipso Deo apertissime Scriptum erat. Cum nec Moses, ne{que} alii, tantā cū Deo conjunctionem hab…ent, quanta inter Deum & Christum intercessit, mu…to justius haec, quae de Deo primo respectu dicta sunt, Christo accommodari possunt, propter summam illam & arctissimam inter Deum & Christum conjunctionem.Acts 7:35 cannot from them be proved. For those things which are spoken of God under the Law, may be spoken of Christ under the Gospell: as also they are spoken for another cause; namely, because of that eminent conjunction that is between God & Christ, on the account of dominion, Power, and Office; all which the Scriptures of the New Testament doe frequently witnesse, that he received by gift from God. And if the Scripture delivers this of Moses, that he brought Israel out of Egypt, Exod. 32. 7. and that he was the Redeemer of the people; & of others, the same things that were evidently written of God, when neither Moses, nor others had so neer a conjunction with God, as was between God and Christ, much more justly may those things, which in the first respect are spoken of God, be accommodated to Christ, because of the eminent and neere conjunction that was between them.

p. 348And this is their defence: the Answer they fix upon to all§. 87. the Testimonies recited: wherein how little Truth or strength there is, will quickly appeare. 1. These Scriptures perhaps may be Answered thus or thus, as what will not the serpentine wits of men find out, to wrest the Word withall to their own destruction? But the question is, how they ought to be interpreted, and what is their sence and intendment. 2. We doe not say, that what is spoken of God under the Law, is accommodated to Christ under the Gospell; but that the things instanced in, that were spoken of God, were then spoken of Christ, as to his nature wherein He is God; which appeares by the event, expounded in the Bookes of the New Testament. The Scripture doth not say in the New Testament of Christ, what was said in the Old of God; but evinces those things which were so spoken of God, to have been spoken of Christ. So that 3. The folly of that pretence, that what was spoken of God is referred to Christ, upon the account of the conjunction mentioned, which whatever it be, is a thing of naught in comparison of the distance that is between the Creatour and a meere creature, is manifest; for let any one be in never so neare conjunction with God, yet if he be not God, what is spoken of God, and where it is spoken of God, and denoting God only, cannot be spoken of him; nor indeed accommodated to him. 4. The instances of Moses are most remote from the businesse in hand: It is said of Moses, that he brought the Children of Israel out of Aegypt, and so he did, as their chiefe Leader and Ruler, so that he was a Redeemer to that people, as he was instrumentall in the hand of God, working by his power and Presence with him those mighty workes, which made way for their deliverance and Redemption. But where is it said of Moses, or any one else, that he was God; that what God said of himselfe, was said of Moses & accomplished in him? Or where ever did Moses speak in the name of God, and say, I Jehovah will do this, and this, or be so, and so, unto my people? 5. It is true, men may be said to do in their place and kind of operation, what God doth do; He as the principall efficient, they as the Instrumentall cause, and so may every other creature in the world; as the Sunne gives light and heat; but shall therefore that which God speakes in his own name of himselfe, be so much as accommodated p. 349unto them? 6. The Conjunction that is between God and Christ, according to to our Catechists, is but of Love and Favour on the part of God, of Obedience and dependance on the part of Christ; but this in the same kind, though not in the same degree, is between God & all Believr…s; so that of them also, what is spoken of God may be spoken.

And thus, through the presence of God, have I gone through§. 88. with the consideration of all the Testimonies, given in the Scripture to the Deity of Christ, which these Catechists thought good to take notice of; with a full Answer to their long Chap. de Persona Christi. The Learned Reader knows how much all the Arguments we insist on, and the Testimonies we produce in this cause, might have been improved to a greater Advantage of clearnesse and evidence, had I taken liberty to handle them, as they naturally fall into severall heads, from the Demonstration of all the Names, and Properties, all the Workes, and Lawes, all the Worship, and Honour of God, to be given and ascribed to Jesus Christ. But the worke I had to doe cast my endeavour in this businesse into that order and method, wherein it is here presented to the Reader.

The conclusion of our Catechists is a long Harangue, wherein§. 89. they labour to insinuate the prejudicialnesse of our Doctrine to the true knowledge of Christ, and the obtaining of Salvation by him, with the certain foundation that is laid in theirs, for the participation of all the benefits of the Gospell. The only medium they fix upon, for to gaine both these ends by, is this, that we deny Christ to be a true man, which they assert. That the first of these is notoriously false, is known to all other men, and is acknowledged in their own Consciences. Of the truth of the latter elsewhere. He that had a perfect humane nature, Soule and body, with all the naturall and essentiall properties of them both; He who was borne so, lived so, dyed so, rose againe so, was, and is a perfect man; So that all the benefits that we do, or may receive from Jesus Christ, as a perfect man, like unto us in all things, sinne only excepted, there is a way open for, in this our Confession of him. In the mean time, the great foundation of our Faith, Hope, and Expectation lyes in this, that He is the Sonne of the Living God, and so, that God redeemed his Church with his own bloud; He who was of the Fathers, according p. 350to the flesh, being God over all, blessed for ever: Which if He had not been, He could not have performed the work, which for us He had to do. It is true, perhaps as a meer man He might do all that our Catechists acknowledge him to have done, and accomplish all that they expect from him; but for us, who fly to him, as one that suffered for our sinnes, and made satisfaction to the justice of God for them, who wrought out a Righteousnesse, that is reckoned to all that believe, that quickens us when we are dead, and sends the Holy Ghost to dwell and abide in us, and is himselfe present with us, &c. It is impossible we should ever have the least consolation in our flying for refuge to him, unlesse we had this grounded perswasion concerning his Eternall Power and Godhead. We cannot think He was made the Sonne of God, and a God, upon the account of what he did for us; but that being God, and the Son of God, herein was his Love made manifest, that he was made flesh, took upon him the forme of a servant, and became therein for us obedient unto death, the death of the Crosse. Many indeed and inexpressible are the encouragements unto Faith, and Consolation in believing, that we do receive from Christs being made like to us, a perfect man, wherein he underwent what we were obnoxious unto, and whereby He knowes how to be compassionate unto us; but that any sweetnesse can be hence derived unto any, who do refuse to own the fountaine, whence all the streames of Love and Mercy, that runne in the humane nature of Christ do flow, that we deny. Yea that our Adversaries in this businesse have any foundation for faith Love, or Hope, or can have any acceptance with God, or with Jesus Christ, but rather that they are cursed on the one hand for robbing him of the Glory of his Deity, and on the other for putting their confidence in a man, we dayly demonstrate from innumerable Testimonies of Scripture. And for these men, the truth is, as they lay out the choicest of all their endeavoures to prove him not to be God by nature, and so not at all, (for a made God, a second-rank God, a Deifyed man, is no God, the Lord our God being one, and the conceit of it brings in the Polutheisme of the Heathen amongst the professors of the name of Christ) so they also deny him to be true man, now he is in Heaven, or to retaine the nature of a man: and so insteed of a Christ that was God from Eternity, made a man in one Person p. 351unto Eternity, they believe in a Christ, who was a man, and is made a God, who never had the nature of God, and had then the nature of man, but hath lost it. This M. B. after his Masters, instructs his Disciples in, in his lesser Catechisme C. 10. namely, that although Christ rose with his fleshly body, wherein he was crucifyed, yet now he hath a spirituall Body, not in its qualityes, but substance; a body that hath neither flesh nor bones. What he hath done with his other body, where he laid it aside, or how he disposed of it, he doth not declare.