The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined, Commentary on text · Chapter 9
CHAP. IX.
The Preeternity of Christ farther evinced. Sundry texts of Scripture vindicated.
IN the consideration of the ensuing Testimonies I shall content §. 1.my selfe with more briefe observations upon, and discoveries of the corruption of our Adversaries, having given a large Testimony thereof in the Chapter foregoing. Thus then they proceed.§. 2.
What are the Testimonies of Scripture wherein they think, that this Preeternity of Christ is not indeed expressed, Quae vero sunt Testimonia Scripturae, in quibus putant, non exprimi quidem prae-aeternitatem Christi, ex iis tamen effici posse? Ea quae videntur Domino Iesu quasdam res attribuere ab aeterno; quasdam vero tempore certo & definito.but yet may thence be proved?
Those which seeme to attribute to the Lord Iesus some things from Eternity, and some things in a certaine and determinate time.
Let the Gentlemen take their own way and method; we shall meet with them at the first stile, or rather brazen wall, which they endeavour to climbe over.§. 3.
What are the Testimonies which seeme to attribute some Quaenam sunt Testimonia, quae Domino Iesu ab aeterno res quasdam attribuere videntur? Sunt ea, ex quibus conantur exstruere Christum ab aeterno ex essentia patris genitum.things to the Lord Iesus from Eternity?
They are those, from which they endeavour to confirme that Christ was begotten from Eternity of the Essence of his Father.
These are some of the places wherein this Property of the God-head, Eternity, is ascribed to our Saviour; it is confessed.
But from what places do they endeavour to prove, that Ex quibus vero locis exstruere conantur, Christum ab aeterno ex essentia Patris genitum? Ex his potissimum. Mich. 5. 2. Psal. 2. 7. & 110. 10. Prov. 8. 23.Christ was from Eternity begotten of the Essence of his Father?
From these chiefely, Mic. 5. 2. Psal. 2. 7. and 110. 10. Prov. 8. 23.
These are only some of the Testimonies that are used to this purpose. 2. It is enough to prove Christ Eternall, if we prove him begotten of his Father, for no such thing can be new in God. 3. That he is the only begotten Son of the Father, which is of the same import, with that here opposed by our Catechists, hath been before declared and proved Chap. 6.§. 4.
But how must we answer these Testimonies?Qui vero ad haec Testimonia respondendum est? Antequam ad singula Testimonia respondeam, sciendum est, eam ex essentia Patris generationem esse impossibilem. Nam si Christus ex essentia Patris genitus fuisset, aut partem essentiae sumpsisset, aut totam. Essentiae partem sumere non potuit, eo quod sit impartibilis divina essentia; ne{que} totam, cum sit una numero, ac proinde incommunicabilis.
Before I answer to each Testimony, it is to be known, that this Generation of the Essence of the Father is impossible. For if Christ were begotten of the Essence of his Father, either he tooke his whole Essence, or but part: part of his Essence he could not take, for the divine Essence is impartible: nor the whole, for it being one in number is incommunicable.
And this is the fruit of measuring Spirituall things by carnall; infinite by finite; God by our selves; the object of Faith, by corrupted Rules of corrupted Reason. But 1. that which God hath *Nisi Scriptura dixisset, non licuisset dicere, sed ex qua scriptum est dici potest. Rabb. Ruben. apud Galat. lib. 3.revealed to be so, is not impossible to be so; let God be true & all men lyers: that this is revealed, hath been undeniably evinced. 2. What is impossible in finite, limited Essences, may be possible & convenient to that which is infinite & unlimited; as is that whereof we speake. 3. It is not imposible, in the sence wherein that word must here be used, if any thing be signified by it. It is not, it cannot be so, in limited things, therefore not in things infinite; we cannot comprehend it, therefore it cannot be so; but the nature of the thing, about which it is, is inconssistent with it; this is denyed, for God hath revealed the contrary. 4. For the parting of the divine Essence, or receiving a part of the divine essence, our Catechists might have left out, as having none to push at with it, none standing in the way of that horne of their Dilemma. 5. We say then, that in the Eternall Generation of the Son, the whole Essence of the Father is communicated to the Sonne, as to a personall existence in the same Essence without multiplication or division of it; the same essence continuing still one in number; and this without the least shew of impossibility in an infinite essence. All the Arguments that lye against it, being taken from the Propertys and attendencys of that which is finite.
Come we to the particular testimonys: The first is Mic. 5. 2. §. 5.But thou Bethlem-Ephratah though thou be little among the thousands of Iudah, yet out of thee shall come forth unto me, that is to be a Ruler in Israel whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting, or the dayes of Eternity.
How must this first testimony of the Scripture be answered?Qui tamen ad primum Scripturae Testimonium respondendum est? Id Testimonium de generatione ex essentia Patris nihil prorsus habet; generationem vero prae-aeternam nulla probat ratione, hic enim mentio sit initii & dierum, quae in aeternitate locum non habent, & verba haec, quae in vulgata leguntur, a diebus aeternitatis, in Haebraeo extant, a diebus seculi: dies vero seculi idem quod dies antiqui notant, ut Es. 63. 9. & 11. Mal. 3. 4. Sententia vero loci hujus est, Christum originem nativitatis suae ab ipso principio & annis antiquis ducturum, id est, ab eo tempore, quo Deus in populo suo regem stabilivit, quod reipsa in Davide factum est, qui & Bethlehemita fuit, & Autor stirpis, & familiae Christi.
This Testimony hath nothing at all of his Generation of the Essence of his Father: and a preeternall Generation it no way proves. For here is mention of beginning and dayes, which in Eternity have no place. And these words which in the vulgar are from the dayes of Eternity, in the Hebrew are from the dayes of seculi the dayes of an age. And Dies seculi are the same with dies antiqui, as Isa. 63. 9, 11. Mal. 3. 4. The sence of this place is, that Christ should have the originall of his Nativity from the beginning, and from the ancient yeares, that is, from that time wherein God established a King among his people; which was done really in David, who was a Bethlehemite, and the author of the stock, and Family of Christ.
R. 1. Who necessitated our Catechists to urge this place to prove the Generation of Christ, when it is used only to prove his Generation to be Eternall: the thing it selfe being proved by other Testimonies in abundance. That he was begotten of the Father is confessed: that he was begotten of the Essence of his Father was before proved. Yea that which is here called * his going forth, is his Generation of his Father, or somewhat else foreignthat our Adversaries can assigne: That it is not the latter shall immediately be evinced.
2. Here is no mention of the * Beginning; and those who foreignin the latter words reject the vulgar edition, cannot honestly insist on the former from thence, because it serves their turne. Yet how that word is sometimes used, and in what sence it may be so, where Eternity is intended, hath been declared in the last Chapter.
3. That dayes are not used with, & to expresse Eternity in Scripture, though strictly there be no dayes, nor Time in Eternity, is absurd negligence and confidence to affirme, Iob. 10. 5. Are thy dayes as the dayes of man? Are thy yeares as mans dayes? Hence God is called the Ancient of dayes Dan. 7. 9. Thou art the same, and thy yeares shall not faile Heb. 1. 12.
4. For the word Gnolam, translated seculi: it hath in the Scripture various significations. It comes from a * word signifying foreign latere, abscondere, occultare. 2 Chr. 9. 2. Levit. 4. 13. in Niphal latuit, abscondi tus, occultatus fuit: in Hiphil abscondit, celavit, occultavit. inde foreign Virgo, quia viro occulta. Gen. 24. 43.to hide; and denotes an unknown hidden duration. Principally perpetuum, aeternum, sempiternum: That which is preeternall and eternall. Sometimes a very long time. Gen. 9. 12. & v. 16. that is perpetuall: so Gen. 17. 13. and in other places, with a reference to the soveraignty of God. Gen. 21. 33. It is ascribed to God as a property of his, and signifies eternall: Jehova Gnolam: so Psal. 89. 2. as also Isa. 45. 17. Let all places where the word in Scripture, in this sence is used, be reckoned up, (which are above 300) and it will appeare, that in farre the greatest number of them, it signifies absolutely Eternity. In the places of Isa. 63. 9, 11. and Mal. 3. 4. a long time indeed is signified; but yet that which reaches to the utmost of the thing, or matter treated of. And upon the same Rule where it is put absolutely it signifies Eternity. So doth foreign in the New Testament, by which the Septuagint often render Gnolam; whence foreign, may be from Eternity, 2 Tim. 1. 9. Tit. 1. 2. Wherein also with a like expression to that under consideration, the times of Eternity are mentioned, though perhaps with a peculiar respect to something at the beginning of the World. This then is here expressed. He that was in the fulnesse of time borne at Bethlehem, had his goings forth from the Father from Eternity.
5. The pretended sence of our Adversaries is a bold corruption §. 6.of the Text. For 1. it applies that to David, and his being borne at Bethlehem, which the Holy Ghost expresly applies to Iesus Christ, Mat. 2. 6. and Joh. 1. 46. 2. The goings forth of Christ in this sence, are no more from Everlasting, then every other mans, who is from Adam: when yet this is peculiarly spoken of him, by way of incomparable Eminency. 3. They cannot give any one instance of the like expression; that his goings forth are from Eternity, should signify, he had his originall from an ancient stock. 4. If only Christs originall of the Tribe of Judah, and of the house of David were intended, why was not that expressed in plaine termes, as it is in other places, and as the place of his birth, viz. Bethlehem, is in this? So that we have already met our Catechists, and stopt them at this Wall, their attempt at it being very faint and absurd: and yet this is the sum of what is pleaded by Socinus against Wieck. cap. 7. p. 424. Smalcius against Smiglecius, Chap. 26. Osterod institut. Chap. 7. with the rest of them. He then, who was borne at Bethlehem in the fullnesse of time, of the House of David as concerning the flesh, had also his goings forth, Rom. 1. 3.his Birth, or Generation of the Father, of old, from the dayes of Eternity; which is that which this Testimony confirmes.
Grotius on this place (according to his wont) outgoes his §. 7.Companions one step at least, (as he was a bold man at conjectures) & applyes this Prophesy to Zorobabell-Natus ex Bethlehem… Zorobabel recte dicitur, quod ex Davidis Familia esset, quae orta Bethlehemo. Zorobabell is rightly said to be borne at Bethlehem, being of the family of David, which had its originall from Bethlehem.
That Zorobabell is here at all intended, he doth not attempt §. 8.to prove, either from the Text, context, circumstances of the place, designe of the Prophesy, or any thing else, that might give light into the intendment of the Holy Ghost. That it belongs properly to Christ we have a better interpreter to assure us then Grotius, or any of his Rabbins, Math. 2. 5. I know that in his Annotations on that place he allows the Accommodation of the words to Christ: But we cannot allow them to be spoken of any other. The Holy Ghost expressly fitting them to him. And if Zorobabell, who was borne at Babylon, may be said to be borne at Bethlehem, because David, from whom he descended, was borne there; what need all that labour and trouble, that our Saviour might be borne at Bethelehem? If it could not be said of Christ, that he was borne at Bethelehem, though he were of the linage of David …nles he had actually been borne there indeed: certainely Zorobabell, who was borne at Babylon, could not be said on the account of his Progenitour five hundred yeares before, to be borne there.
For the second part of this Text, or the words we insist on §. 9.for the proofe of our intention, he useth the same shift in the same words with our Catechists; origo ipsi ab olim, a temporibus longis: id est, originem trahit a domo illustri antiquitus, & per quingentos annos regnatrice. His originall is from of old, from a long time: that is, he hath his originall from an ancient illustrious house, that had reigned 500. yeares.
Of the sence of the words I have spoken before. I shall only adde, that the use of this note is to confute the other. F or if his being borne at Bethlehem signify his being of the Family of David, and nothing else, he being not indeed borne there, what need this addition, if these obscure words signify no more but what was spoken before? Yea and herein the learned man forsaketh his Masters, all generally concluding, that it is the Messiah who is here alone intended. The Chaldee Paraphrast expressly puts in the name of Messiah. His words are, out of thee shall the Messiah come forth before me. And some of them do Mystically interpret hedem of the mind of God, from whence the word, or wisdome of God is brought forth. Because as they say, the word denotes the first numeration of the Crown, or of that name of God which signifyes his Essence.
The second is Psal. 2. 7. The Lord hath said unto me, thou art my Son §. 10.this day have I begotten thee.
To this second what is to be answered?Ad secundum vero quid? Ne{que} in ea de generaetione ex essentia Patris, nec de generatione praeaeterna prorsus quicquam haberi: etenim vox hodie, cum certum tempus designet, prae-aeternitatem denotare non potest. Quod vero Deus eum genuerit, non evincit eum ex essentia ejus genitum: id quod patet ex eo, quod haec eadem verba, ego hodie genui te, primo sensu de Davide dicantur, quem constat ne{que} ab aeterno, nec ex essentia Dei genitum. Deinde, quod Paulus Apostolus cadem verba ad approbandam Christi resurrectionem afferat. Act. 13. 33. & Autor ad Hebraeos ad glorificationem Domini Jesu citet, Heb. 1 5. & 5. 5. Deni{que} ex ea re, quod constet Deum aliter quam ex essentia generare, dum a Deo genitos credentes Scriptura pronunciat, ut videre est. Ioh. 1. 13. 1 Joh. 3. 9. Jac. 1. 18.
Neither in that is there any thing of Generation of the Essence of the Father, nor of a Preeternall generation. For the word [to day] signifying a certaine time, cannot denote preeternity. But that God begot him, doth not evince that he was begotten of his Essence; which appeares from hence, that the same words, this day have I begotten thee, are in the first sence used of David: who was begotten neither from Eternity, nor of the Essence of the Father. 2. Because the Apostle Paul brings these words to prove the Resurrection of Christ. Act. 13. 33. And the Author to the Hebrewes cites them for the glorifying of the Lord Jesus, Heb. 1. 5. and 5. 5. And lastly from hence, that it is manifest that God otherwise begets then by his Essence, seeing the Scripture declares Believers to be begotten of God: as is to be seen Joh. 1. 13. 1 Ioh. 3. 9. Iam. 1. 18.
1. There is mention in these words of Christs Generation of his §. 11.Father; of being begotten of him before his Incarnation, this being spoken of him under the Old Testament; and to deny that there is any such thing in the Text, as that which upon this consideration we urge it to prove, is only to begge the thing in Question.
2. To day, being spoken of God, of him who is Eternall, to whom all time is so present, as that nothing is properly yesterday, nor to day, does not denote necessarily such a proportion of time, as is intimated. But is expressive of an Act eternally present, nor past, nor future.
3. It cannot be proved that the words are spoken at all of David, so much as Typically: nor any thing else in that Psalme from v. 7. to the end. Yea the contrary is evident from every verse following; especially the 12. where Kings and Rulers are called to worship him, of whom he speakes, and threatned with destruction if they do not; and they are pronounced blessed who put their trust in him: which cannot be spoken of David; God declaring them to be cursed who put their trust in man: Jer. 17. 5, 6, 7.
4. It is granted that the Apostle makes use of these words, when he mentions the Resurrection and Exaltation of Christ: not that Christ was then begotten, but that he was then declared to be the only begotten Sonne of God: his Resurrection and Exaltation being manifestations of his Sonship, not causes of his Filiation, as hath been at large declared. So the Sun is said to arise when it doth first to us appeare.
5. True, God hath other Sons, and Believers are said to be begotten of God, but how? by Regeneration, & turning from sin; as in the places quoted is evident. That Christ is so begotten of God, is blasphemous once to imagine. Besides, he is the only begotten Sonne of the Father, so that no other is begotten with a generation of the same kind with him. It is evident then by this Testimony, and from these words, that Christ is so the Son of God as no Angels are his Sonnes in the same kind: for that the Apostle produceth these words to prove, Heb. 1. 5. For unto which of the Angells said he at any time, thou art my Sonne, this day have I begotten thee; and againe, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Sonne. Now the Angells are the Sonnes of God by Creation, Job. 1. 6. and 38. 7. He is also such a Son, and so begotten, as Believers are not. For they are begotten by Regeneration from sin, and Adoption into the Family of God: Therefore Christ who is the Sonne of God in another kind, then Angells and Men, who are so by Creation, Regeneration, and Adoption, is the naturall Sonne of God by Eternall Generation; which is also proved from this place.
In this whole Psalme Grotius takes no notice of Jesus Christ: §. 12.indeed in the entrance he tels us, that a mysticall and abstruse Sensus primus & apertus ad Davidem pertinet; mystieus & abstrusior ad Messiam: quo modo …umpsere Apost. Annot. in v. 1.sence of it may belong to Christ, & so the Rabbins acknowledge, & so the Apostle took it. But throughout the whole doth he not make the least application of it to Christ, but meerely to David, although so many passages of it are urged in the new Testament to have their Accomplishment in Christ, and the things which concerned him. These words, thou art my Sonne, this day have I begotten thee, he sayes may be thus rendred O fili mi, hodie (id est hoc tempore) ego te genui; novam vitam, scilicet regalem tibi contuli: but that the words may not aptly be so translated, that they are not so rendred by the Apostle (Heb. 1. 5.) He knew well enough. foreign, is filius meus tu, not fili mi: nor doth the rendring of it by the voca…ive, any way answer the words going before. I will declare the decree, the Lord hath said unto me, thou art my Son: that is the thing I will declare. 2. That hodie should be hoc tempore, relating to any certain time of Davids raigne, cannot be reconciled to the Apostles Application of that expression on sundry occasions, as hath been manifest. 3. I have given thee a new, or a Regall life, is somewhat an uncouth exposition of genui …e; without warrant, without Reason, or Argument; and it is inconsistent with the time of the Psalmes writing, according to Grotius himselfe: He referrs it to 2 Sam. 8. when David had been King over Israel many years.
To serve his Hypothesis, the two last verses are miserably wrested. §. 13.The command of worshipping Christ, v. 12. is a command of doing homage to David. And the last verse is thus glossed, beati omnes qui confidunt in eo, i. e. qui fidei ejus regis (id est, meae) se permittunt. They are blessed (sayes David) who commit themselves to my faith and care: doubtlesse the thought of any such thing was as remote from the heart of the holy man, as this Glosse is from the sence of the place. That they are blessed who trust in the Lord, that is, commit themselves to his care, he every where declareth; yea this he makes alwayes the property of a blessed man: but that they are so who trust in him, not the least word to that purpose did the holy person ever utter: he knew they were cursed of God, who put their trust in man. The word here is foreign from foreign to repaire to any one for protection; and it is used to expresse our trusting in God. Psal. 18. 30. as also Psal. 31. 19. on which men are frequently pronounced blessed; but that it should be apply'd to David, and a blessing annexed thereunto, we were to learne.
The third Testimony of Psal. 110. 10. we passe over with our §. 14.Adversaries, as not to the purpose in hand; being a mistake of the vulgar Latine.
The 4th is Prov. 8. 23. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
What-dost thou answer to this Testimony?
Ad quartum vero quid? Ʋt rem melius accipias, scito eos ex hoc loco ad eum modum argumentari: Sapientia Dei ab aeterno est genita: Christus est Dei sapientia: ergo ab aeterno est genitus. 1 Cor. 1. 24. Id argumentum firmum non esse hinc patet; primum, quod Solomon agat de sapientia simpliciter, & absolutè considerata, sine additione vocis Dei: Paulus vero non simpliciter & absolutè; sed cum additione, nempe, Dei. Deinde, Solomen agit de sapientia, quae ne{que} est persona, nec esse potest, ut…e variis effectis, quae huic sapientiae attribuit, apparet, & hoc 7, 8, 9. cap. ex quibus sunt ea, per me Reges regnant, & Principes justa decernunt: & initi… cap. 9. introducit sapientiam omnes ad se invitantem, & mittentem virgines suas. Paulus vero agit de sapientia, quae persona est. Tertio, verba haec, quae sunt reddita ab aeterno, in Haebraeo extant a seculo: aliud vero esse ab aeterno, aliud a seculo, indicant loci Isa. 64. 4. Jer. 2. 20. Luk. 1. 70. & alii permalti similes.That thou maist understand the matter the better, know, that from this place they thus dispute; The Wisdome of God is begotten from Eternity; Christ is the Wisdome of God; therefore he is begotten from Eternity, 1 Cor. 1. 24. That this Argument is not firme appears from hence, that Solomon treats of Wisdome simply, and absolutely considered, without the addition of the Word, God; Paul not simply and absolutely, but with the addition of the word, God. 2. Solomon treats of Wisdome, which neither is a Person, nor can be, as appears from the diverse effects ascribed to this Wisdome, Chap. 7, 8, 9. amongst which are these words; By me Kings rule, and Princes decree Righteousnesse; and in the beginning of the Chapter, he brings in Wisdome sending her maidens, and inviting all to her: But Paul treateth of that Wisdome which is a Person, 3. The words which are rendred from everlasting, in the Hebrew are à seculo; but that from everlasting, and à seculo, are diverse, Isa. 64. 4. Jer. 2. 20. Luk. 1. 70. with many like places do declare.
1. Our Argument hence is: Christ the second Person of §. 15.the Trinity is spoken of, Prov. 8. 22. under the name of Wisdome. Now it is said expresly there of Wisdome, that it was begotten from everlasting, and therefore the Eternall Generation of Christ is hence confirmed. Our Reasons are, 1. Because the things here spoken of can be applied to no other. 2. Because the very same things are affirmed of Christ, Joh. 1. 1. 3. Because Christ is the Wisdome of God, and so called in the Scripture; not only in the expression of foreign, but foreign 1 Cor. 1. 30. 2: That by Wisdome, Solomon intended the Wisdome of God, and that that word may be supplied, is most evident from what is spoken of it: Let the place be read, 3. Christ is called not only the Wisdome of God, but also Wisdome, absolutely and simply; and that not only Prov. 1. 20. but Math. 11. 19. 4. The Wisdome that Solomon treats of, is evidently a Person, and such things are ascribed thereunto, as can be proper to none but a Person: such are those v: 30, 31. I was by him, one brought up with him, I was daily his delight, rejoycing alwaies before him, rejoycing in the habitable part of the Earth, &c. That it is the same Wisdome spoken of Chap: 7. and here, is not evident. Yet is there not any thing in that, attributed to it, but what suits well unto a Person. Much lesse in the beginning of the 9 Chapter, the Invitation there being such as may be made by a Person only: It is a Person who sends out Messengers to invite to a banquet, as Christ doth in the Gospell. Kings rule, and Princes decree judgement by the Authority of a Person; and without him they can do nothing.
3. The word translated, from everlasting, is the same with that §. 16.considered before Mich: 5. 2. 2. The words following do so evidently confirme the meaning of the word to be as expressed, that it is marvelous the Gentlemen durst venture upon the exception in this place. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his workes of old: that is, before the Creation, as is at large expounded, v. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29.
And this is all, the whole summe of what any of our Adversaries, or rather the Adversaries of Jesus Christ, have to object in their cause against these Testimonies: whence we thus argue.
He who was begotten of God the Father with an Eternall Generation, is Eternall; and so consequently God: but so is Jesus Christ begotten of God the Father, with an Eternall Generation; Therefore he is Eternall, and God blessed for ever.
To cleare what hath been spoken, I shall close my considerations §. 17.of this Text of Scripture with a briefe paralell, between what is spoken in this place of Wisdome, and what is asserted of Jesus Christ in the New Testament.
1. It is Wisdome that is spoken of; so is Christ, Math. 11. 19. §. 18.1 Cor. 1. 24. Col. 2. 3. 2. Wisdome was set up from everlasting v. 23. Grace is given in Christ, foreign, from everlasting, 2 Tim. 1. 9. He is the beginning, Col. 1. 5. the first and last. Rev. 1. 17. 3. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, saies Wisdome v. 23. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, Ioh. 1. 1, 2. 4. Before the Mountaines were setled, before the hills were brought forth, v. 25. He is the First borne of every Creature, Col. 1. 15. He is before all, v. 17. 5. I was daily his delight, rejoycing alwaies before him, v. 30. This is my beloved Sonne, in whom I am well pleased, Matth. 3. 17. The only begotten Sonne is in the bosome of the Father, Ioh. 1. 18. 6. By me Kings reigne, and Princes &c. v. 15, 16. He is the Prince of the Kings of the Earth, Rev. 1. 5. The King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, Revel. 19. 16. 7. Rejoycing in the habitable part of the Earth, and my delights were with the Sonnes of Men, v. 31. For the Word was made Flesh, and dwelt amongst us, and we saw his glory, as the glory of the only begotten Sonne of God. 8. Compare also v. 34. with Ioh. 13. 17. Luk. 11. 28. Ioh. 10. 9. And v. 35, and 36. with Ioh. 6. 44, 47. and many the like instances might be given.
Grotius takes no notice of Christ in this place, yea he seemes §. 19.evidently to exclude him from being here intended; his first note on v. 1. is, Haec de ea sapientia, quae in lege apparet, exponunt Haebraei; & sane ei, si non soli, at praecipuè haec attributa conveniunt. The Hebrews expound these things of that Wisdome which appears in the Law; and truly these Attributes agree thereunto, if not only, yet chiefly. Of this assertion he gives no reason. The contrary is evident from what is above said, and proved. The Authority of the Moderne Rabbins in the exposition of those places of Scripture, which concerne the Messiah, is of no value. They do not only as their forefathers, erre, not knowing the Scriptures; but malitiously corrupt them, out of hatred to Jesus Christ. In the meane time one no lesse versed in the Hebrew Authors, than our Annotatour, expounding this place, from them concludes, nec dubito, hinc Mercer in Loc. v. 22.Iohannem augustum illud & magnificum Evangelii sui initium sumpsisse. In principio erat verbum: nam verbum & sapientia idem sunt, & secundam Trinitatis personam indicant. I doubt not, but that Iohn took that reverend and lofty entrance of his Gospell, In the beginning was the word, from hence: For the Word, and Wisdome are the same; and denote the second Person of the Trinity.
Before I proceed to those that follow, I shall adde some of §. 20.them which are produced, and insisted on usually for the same end and purpose with those mentioned before, and which in other places are excepted against by the Catechists, with whom we have to do; but properly belong to this head.
Of those is Joh. 17. 5. And now O Father glorify me with thine own §. 21.selfe, with the glory which I had with thee, before the World was. To this they put in their exceptions towards the end of the Chapter under consideration; saying.
What answerest thou to this?Quid ad hoc respondes? Ne{que} hinc naturam divinam probari. Posse enim aliquem gloriam habere antequam mundus …ieret apud Patrem, nec tamen hinc effici eum esse Deum, appaparet 2 Tim. 1. 9. ubi ait Apostolus de credentibus, illis datam fuisse gratiam, ante tempora secularia. Praeterea, hic scriptum est, Jesum rogare hanc gloriam, quod naturae Divinae prorsus repugnat. Loci vero senpentia est: Christum rogare Deum, ut ei gloriam reipsa det, quam habuerit apud Deum in ipsius de creto antequam mundus fieret.
Neither is here a Divine nature proved. For that one may have glory with the Father, before the World was made, and yet not be God, appeareth from that of 2 Tim. 1. 9. where the Apostle sayes of Believers that grace was given unto them before the World began. Besides it is here written, that Jesus asked this Glory, which is repugnant to the Divine Nature. But the sence of the place is, that Christ asked God, that he would really give him that Glory, which he had with God in his decree before the World was.
A Divine Glory proves a Divine Nature. This Christ had §. 22.from Eternity, for he had it before the world began; therefore He had a divine nature also. It is the manifestation of his Glory, which he had celipsed, and layd aside for a season, that here he desires of God. Phil. 2. 9, 10, 11, 12. He Glorifyed his Father, by manifesting the Glory of his Deity, his Name, to others; and He prayes the Father to Glorify him, as he had glorifyed him on the earth. 2. There is not the same Reason of what is here asserted of Christ, and what is said of the Elect, 2 Tim. 1. 9. Christ here positively sayes, he HAD Glory with his Father before the foreign.world was; nor is this any where, in any one tittle in the Scripture expounded, to be any otherwise, but in a reall HAVING of that Glory. The grace that is given to Believers, is not said to be, before the world was, but foreign, which may denote the first promise, Gen. 3. 15. as it doth Tit. 1. 2. and if it be intended of the purpose of God, which was from Eternity (as the words will beare) it is so expounded in 20. places. 3. Though the Divine Nature pray not, yet he who was in the forme of God, and humbled himselfe to take upon him the forme, and Employment of a Servant, might, and did pray: the Godhead prayed not, but he who was God prayed. 4. For the sence assigned, let them once shew us in the whole Book of God, where this Expression I had (foreign) may be possibly interpreted, I had it in purpose, or I was predestinated to it; and not I had it really, and indeed, and they say something to the purpose. In the meane time they doe but corrupt the word of God, (as many do) by this pretended interpretation of it. 5. If Predestination only be intended, here is nothing singular spoken of Christ, but what is common to him with all Believers; when evidently Christ speakes of something that belonged to him eminently. 6. The very expresse tenour of the words will not admit of this Glosse, (let what violence can be used:) foreign, foreign, foreign: The Glory that I had with thee, let me have it manifested with thee, now my work is done.
Grotius falls in with our Catechists: foreign, destinatione §. 23.tua; ut 1 Pet. 1. 20. Rev. 13. 8. sicut Ephes. 1. 3, 4. & infra v. 24. Simile legendi genus: sic legem fuisse ante mundum dicunt Haebraei, Againe, foreign; refer ad illud foreign, & intellige ut diximus in decreto tuo.
But what intends the Learned man by those places of 1 Pet. 1. 20. Revel. 13. 8? Is it to expound the thing that he supposes to be expressed? Or to intimate, that the phrase here used is expounded by the use of it in those other places. If the first, he beggs that to be the sence of this place, which is the sence of them, though neither the scope of the places, nor the sence of the Words themselves, will beare it. If the latter, it is most false; there is not one word, Phrase, nor expression, in any of the places pointed unto, at all coincident with them here used. Besides, the two places mentioned are of very different sences; the one speaking of Gods purpose, appointing Christ to be a Mediator; the other of the Promise givē presently after the fall. 2. We grant, that Christ in respect of his humane nature was predestinated unto Glory; but that he calls Gods purpose, his Glory, the glory which he had, which he had with God, wherewith he desires to be Glorifyed with him againe, is to be proved from the Text, or Context, or phrase of speech, or paralell place, or Analogie of Faith or somewhat, and not nakedly to be imposed on us. Let Prov. 8. 22, 30. Phil. 2. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. be consulted, as paralell to this place. Eph. 1. 3, 4 speaks indeed of our predestination in Christ, that we should be holy, and so come to Glory: but of the Glory, that Christ had before the world was, it speakes not. Yea v. 3. we are said to be actually blessed, or to have the Heavenly blessings, when we do enjoy them, which we are elected to, v. 4. What the Jewes say of the Law, and the like, we must allow learned men to tell us, that they may be known to be so, although the sence of the Scripture be insensibly darkned thereby.
To the same purpose is that of Peter 1 Ep. 1. v. 10, 11. Of which §. 24.salvation the Prophets have enquired, and searched diligently, who Prophesied of the Grace that should come unto you; searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testifyed before hand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. To which adde that more cleare place, 1 Pet. 3. 18, 19, 20. quickned by the Spirit, by which also he went and preached unto the Spirits that were in prison, which sometime were disobedient—in the dayes of Noah. He who was in the dayes of the Prophets of old, and in the dayes of Noah, so long before his being borne according to the flesh, he was from everlasting; or had an Existence antecedent to his incarnation: but this is expressly affirmed of our Saviour; It was his Spirit that spake in the Prophets; which if he were not, it could not be; for of him who is not, nothing can be affirmed. He preached by his Spirit in the dayes of Noah, to the Spirits that are in prison.
Of this latter place our Catechists take no notice; about the §. 25.first they enquire. What answerest thou to this?
Neither is a Divine nature proved from hence. Quid ad hoc respondes? Neque hinc naturam in Christo divinam effici. Nam hic Spiritus, qui in Prophetis erat, Christi dici potest, non quod a Christo datus fuerit, sed quod ea quae Christi fuerunt, praenunciarit, ut ibidem Petrus ait, praenuncians illas in Christum passiones, & post haec glorias. Quem loquendi modum etiam, 1 Joan. 4. 6. habes. Hinc cognoscimus Spiritum veritatis, & Spiritum erroris, ubi non propterea Spiritus veritatis & erroris Spiritus dicitur, quod veritas & error, tanquam personae, eum Spiritum conferant; verum eo quod Spiritus veritatis loquatur quae veritatis sunt, & Spiritus erroris quae sunt erroris.For the Spirit which was in the Prophets, may be said to be the Spirit of Christ, not that he was given of Christ, but because he foredeclared the things of Christ, as Peter there speakes; he testifyed before hand of the sufferings of Christ, and the Glory that should follow. Which manner of speaking we have 1 Joh 4. 6. Hence know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of errour. Where it is not called the Spirit of Truth & Errour, because truth & errour as persons do bestow the spirit but because the spirit of truth speakes the things of truth, & the Spirit of errour the things of errour.
1. It is confessed, that if the Spirit that was in the Prophets, was §. 26.the Spirit of Christ. then he hath a Divine nature: for the only evasion used, is, that it is not, or may not (possibly) be so meant in this place, not denying, but that if it be so, then the conclusion intended followes. 2. That this place is to be interpreted by 1 Joh. 4. 6. there is no colour, nor pretence. Christ is a Person; He was so, when Peter wrote. Truth and Errour are not; and the Spirit of them is to be interpreted according to the subject matter. 3. The Spirit in other places is called the Spirit of Christ, in the same sence as he is called the Spirit of God Ro. 8. 9. Gal. 4. 6. 4. The Spirit of Christ, is said directly, to take of him, & shew it to his Apostles, Joh. 16. 15. & so he did to the Prophets. They may as well on the pretence of 1 Joh. 4. 6. deny him to be the Spirit of God the Father, as the Spirit of Christ, as being of him, and sent by him.
And thus farre of the Testimonies proving the preexistence of Christ unto his incarnation, and so consequently his Eternity; whence it followes, that he is God over all blessed for ever, having this evidence of his eternall power and God-head. Sundry others of the same tendency will fall under consideration in our progresse.