Vindiciæ evangelicæ;
or,
the mystery of the gospel vindicated and Socinianism
examined,
in the
consideration and confutation
of
a catechism called “A Scripture Catechism,” written by J.
Biddle, M.A., and the catechism of Valentinus Smalcius, commonly called
“The Racovian Catechism;”
with
the vindication of the testimonies of Scripture concerning
the deity and satisfaction of Jesus Christ from the perverse expositions
and interpretations of them by Hugo Grotius, in his annotations on the
Bible.
Also, an appendix,
in vindication of some things formerly written about the
death of Christ and the fruits thereof from the animadversions of Mr. R.
B.
By John Owen, D.D.,
A servant of Jesus Christ in the work of the Gospel.
Μηδὲ ἑμοὶ τῷ ταῦτα
λέγοντι ἁπλῶς πιστεύσης ἐὰν τὴν ἀπόδειξιν τῶν καταγγελλομένων ἀπὸ θείων μὴ
λάβῃς γραφῶν — Cyril.
Hieros., Catech. 4.
Oxford: 1655.
Prefatory note.
In 1654 the commands of the Council
of State were laid upon Owen to undertake the refutation of Socinianism,
which about that time was introduced into England, and in the following
year the “Vindiciæ
Evangelicæ” appeared; — a work of unequal merit, and in many parts
obsolete under the new light shed on the subject by more recent
discussions, but in the main so solid as never to have been answered;
containing much that modern polemics have by no means superseded; full of
information as to the early history of Socinianism, nowhere else to be
gleaned in the theological literature of Britain; and altogether of such
substantial excellence as to render its author’s name worthy of its place
as historically the first among that splendid catena of divines, — Bull, Waterland, Horsley, Magee,
Fuller, Pye Smith, and Wardlaw, —
by whom the cardinal doctrines of Christ’s person, Godhead, and work, have
been placed on a basis of unshaken demonstration from the Word of God.
In the execution of his task, our author resolved to meet
three parties whose writings tended to unsettle the general belief of the
Church of Christ respecting these doctrines; — Biddle, whose publications, devoted to the propagation of
Unitarian sentiments, had drawn the attention and excited the fears of the
Council; the Polish Socinians, as represented by the Racovian Catechism; and Hugo
Grotius, whose Socinianizing comments on Scripture have left his
orthodoxy on the vital truths of our Lord’s divinity and satisfaction under
a cloud of suspicion.
John
Biddle, the father of English Socinianism, was born in 1616,
at Wotton-under-Edge. Having made considerable proficiency at the grammar
school of his native town, he received from Lord Berkeley an exhibition of
£10, was admitted a student of Magdalen Hall, Oxford, and took his degree
of A.M. in 1641. While occupied afterwards as a teacher in the city of
Gloucester, he began to divulge his errors by the private circulation of a
small tract, under the title, “Twelve Arguments drawn out of the Scriptures,
wherein the commonly received opinion touching the Deity of the Holy Spirit
is fully Refuted.” He was summoned from the county jail, to which
the magistrates had committed him, to answer for his errors before
Parliament; and, on the report of a committee respecting his case, he was
left under the custody of an officer of the House for five years. During
this period he published successively his “Twelve Arguments,”
“A Confession of Faith concerning the Holy Trinity,” and
“The Testimonies of
Irenæus, etc., concerning one God and the Persons of the Holy
Trinity.” By an atrocious act passed in 1648, in which it was made
a capital offence to publish against the being and perfections of God, the
deity of the Son and of the Spirit, and similar doctrines, Biddle had well-nigh fallen a martyr to his
opinions. The act, however, never came into operation. He was even in
more serious peril after the Long Parliament was dissolved and its
opponents were in power; for he actually stood a trial for his life in
1655. Cromwell dexterously overruled
these proceedings by the summary banishment of Biddle to Star Castle, in one of the Scilly Islands. He
recovered his freedom only to be cast into prison anew on the Restoration;
and having caught some distemper common in the jails of that time, he died
a prisoner in 1662. He was a man of considerable attainments as a scholar.
“Except his opinions,” says Anthony
Wood, “there was little or nothing blameworthy in him;” and his
admirer, Toulmin, pronounces him “a
pious, holy, and humble man.” His piety must have been of a singular type,
if we consider his views of the divine nature, — views replete with the
most profane and revolting materialism, at that time without a parallel in
our literature, and calculated to shock the best feelings and holiest
convictions of his countrymen, while the knowledge of them inspired
continental divines with alarm, as if England were fast lapsing into the
most impious heresies. It can only be from a desire that their cause may
have the honour of having stood, in one instance at least, the test of
civil penalties under British rule, that Socinians, who pride
themselves on their views of the spirituality of God, claim affinity with
poor Biddle.
Nicolas Estwick
replied to him, in an “Examination of his Confession of Faith;” Poole, in his “Plea for the Godhead of the Holy
Ghost;” and Francis Cheynel,
in his “Divine Trinunity of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost.” Biddle held to his
errors, and produced in 1654 his “Twofold Catechism,” etc.; which the following work of
Owen is designed to review and confute.
The Racovian Catechism derives its name from the
Polish city of Rakau, the chief seat of the Polish Unitarians. According
to Sandius (Bib. Antitrin. p. 44),
the first Catechism of this name was the work of Gregory Paul; and when Faustus Socinus and Peter
Statorius, junior, were prevented by death from completing their
revision of it, according to an appointment laid upon them by their
brethren of the same creed, the task was devolved on Valentine Smalcius, Jerome Moscorovius, and John
Volkelius. The first part of this statement seems to want
authentication, and the original of the Catechism has been traced to a
confession of faith prepared by George
Schomann. Remodelled by the committee mentioned above, it appeared
in 1605, and was the first edition of the Racovian Catechism. It was translated into German in
1608. A reprint of the original work in London attracted the notice of
Parliament, and on the 2d of April 1652, the Sheriffs of London and of
Middlesex were ordered to seize and burn all the copies of it at the London
Exchange and at Palace Yard, Westminster. An English translation of it,
prepared most probably by Biddle, issued
from the Amsterdam press in 1652. The most correct and valuable edition of
the Catechism, supplying the latest views of the old Socinian theology in
Poland, is the quarto edition of 1680, printed at Amsterdam by Christopher Pezold. Modern Socinianism
has added nothing to the plausibility with which the system is invested in
this Catechism; and the refutation of its insidious principles by Owen was a service to the cause of scriptural
truth, from which Christianity is yet reaping, and for generations will
continue to reap, the highest benefit.
Hugo Grotius is a name
which reminds us of a sadly chequered history, diversified gifts of the
highest order, and a strangely piebald and ambiguous creed. We need not
allude to the well-known incidents of his eventful career, — the high
offices he held in his native country, his connection with the disputes
between the Gomarists and the Remonstrants, the retribution under which he
became the victim of that appeal to arms and force which his own party
beyond all question had begun, his escape from prison through the ingenious
device of his wife, his residence at Paris, and death at Rostock in 1645.
He had published a work, “De
Satisfactione Christi,” designed to refute the errors of
Socinianism, but towards the close of his life he prepared a series of
annotations on Scripture, respecting which it was the charge of Owen that “he left but one place giving testimony
clearly to the deity of Christ.” Dr
Hammond took him to task for misrepresenting the Dutch statesman.
Owen, both in the “Vindiciæ Evangelicæ” and in his “Review of the
Annotations,” advances overwhelming evidence in support of his
assertion. Whether we are to account it morbid candour or indifference to
the great truths of the gospel, Grotius
assuredly emitted a most uncertain sound respecting them. He is claimed
alike by Socinians, Arminians, and Papists. The learned Jesuit Petavius said prayers for the repose of
his soul; and Bossuet
considered him so near the truth that “it was wonderful he did not take the
last step,” — that is, connect himself with the Church of Rome, — while he
affirms, at the same time, that “he stole from the Church her most powerful
proofs of the divinity of Christ.” Menâge wrote a witty epigram, to the effect that as many
sects claimed the religion of Grotius as
towns contended for the honour of being the birth-place of Homer. Who would not wish to rank among the abettors
of his own tenets a statesman of such vast attainments and versatile
ability? It is enough, however, to make us sympathize with Owen, who only followed the example of all the
Protestant divines of Charenton, in repudiating fellowship with Grotius, when we peruse the epistles of the
latter to the Socinian Crellius. See page
638. Is the difference between those who hold and those who deny the
Godhead of Christ to be made matter of contemptuous aposiopesis, and to be
spoken of as “quantilla causa?” —
Ed.
To the
Right Honourable the Council of State,
[and]
to His Highness,
the ensuing vindication of the glory and doctrine of the
great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,
written upon their command,
is humbly dedicated by its unworthy author,
J. O.
To the right worshipful, his reverend, learned, and worthy friends and
brethren, the heads and governors of the colleges and halls, with all other
students in divinity, or of the truth which is after godliness, in the
famous University of Oxford.
Of this second address unto you in
this kind, whereunto I am encouraged by your fair and candid reception of
my former, I desire you would be pleased to take the ensuing account. It
is now, as I remember, about a year ago since one Mr Biddle (formerly a master of arts of this university, by
which title he still owns himself) published two little Catechisms, as he
calls them, wherein, under sundry specious pleas and pretences, which you
will find discussed in the ensuing treatise, he endeavours to insinuate
subtilely into the minds of unstable and unlearned men the whole substance
of the Socinian religion. The man is a person whom, to my knowledge, I
never saw, nor have been at all curious to inquire after the place of his
habitation or course of his life. His opposition some years since to the
deity of the Holy Ghost, and now to that of the Father and Son also, is all
that he is known to me by. It is not with his person that I have any
contest; he stands or falls to his own master. His arguments against the
deity of the Holy Ghost were some while since answered by Cloppenburgh, then professor of
divinity at Franeker, in Friesland, since at rest in the Lord; and, as I
have heard, by one in English. His Catechisms also are gone over the seas;
whereof farther mention must afterward be made. At their first publishing,
complaint being given in by some worthy persons to the Honourable Council
against them, as abusive to the majesty and authority of the word of God,
and destructive to many important truths of the gospel (which was done
without any knowledge of mine), they were pleased to send for me, and to
require of me the performance of that work which is here presented unto
you. Being surprised with their request, I laboured to excuse myself to
the utmost, on the account of my many employments in the university and
elsewhere, with other reasons of the like nature, which to my thoughts did
then occur. [Not prevailing with them, they persisting in their command, I
looked on it as a call from God to plead for his violated truth; which, by
his assistance, and according as I had opportunity, I was in general alway
resolved to do. Having, indeed, but newly taken off my hand from the
plough of a peculiar controversy about the perseverance of the saints, in
the following whereof I was somewhat tired, the entrance into the work was
irksome and burdensome unto me. After some progress made, finding the
searching into and discussing of the important truths opposed of very good
use to myself, I have been carried through the whole (according as I could
break off my daily pressing occasions to attend unto it) with much
cheerfulness and alacrity of mind. And this was the reason why, finding
Mr Biddle came short of giving a fair
occasion to the full vindication of many heads of religion by him oppugned,
I have called in to his assistance and society one of his great masters,
namely, Valentinus Smalcius, and
his Catechism (commonly called the Racovian), with the expositions of the
places of Scripture contended about by the learned Grotius, as also, on several occasions, the
arguments and answers of most of the chief propugners of Mr Biddle’s religion. Now, besides your
interest in the truths pleaded for, there are other considerations also
inducing me to a persuasion that this endeavour of mine will not be
unacceptable unto you. Mr Biddle’s
Catechisms, as I said, being carried over and dispersed in sundry places of
the United Provinces, the professors of their academies (who have all
generally learned the English tongue, to enable them for the understanding
of the treatises of divinity in all kinds written therein, which they begin
to make use of to the purpose) cry out against them, and professedly
undertake the refutation thereof. Now, certainly it cannot be for our
advantage in point of repute amongst them, that they (who are yet glad of
the occasion) should be enforced to undertake the confutation of a book
written by one who styles himself a master of arts of this university
(which they also take notice of), wherein they are so little concerned, the
poison of it being shut up from their people under the safe custody of an
unknown tongue. Nicolaus Arnoldus,
the professor of divinity at Franeker, gives an account of this book, as
the most subtile insinuation of the Socinian religion that ever was
attempted, and promises a confutation of it.
Maresius, professor
at Groningen, a man well known by his works published, goes farther, and,
on the account of these Catechisms, charges the whole nation and the
governors of it with Socinianism; and, according to the manner of the man,
raises a fearful outcry, affirming that that heresy hath fixed its
metropolitical seat here in England, and is here openly professed, as the
head sect in the nation, displaying openly the banners of its iniquity: all
which he confirms by instancing in this book of a master of arts of the
university of Oxford. Of his rashness in censuring, and his extreme
ignorance of the state of affairs here amongst us, which yet he undertakes
to relate, judge, and condemn, I have given him an account, in a private
letter to himself.
Certainly, though we deserved to have these reproaches cast
upon us, yet of all men in the world those who live under the protection
and upon the allowance of the United Provinces are most unmeet to manage
them; their incompetency in sundry respects for this service is known to
all. However, it cannot be denied but that, even on this account (that it
may appear that we are, as free from the guilt of the calumnious
insinuations of Maresius, so in no
need of the assistance of Arnoldus
for the confutation of any one arising among ourselves speaking perverse
things to draw disciples after him), an answer from some in this place unto
those Catechisms was sufficiently necessary. That it is by Providence
fallen upon the hand of one more unmeet than many others in this place for
the performance of this work and duty, I doubt not but you will be
contented withal; and I am bold to hope that neither the truth nor your own
esteem will too much suffer by my engagement herein. Yea (give me leave to
speak it), I have assumed the confidence to aim at the handling of the
whole body of the Socinian religion, in such a way and manner as that those
who are most knowing and exercised in these controversies may find that
which they will not altogether despise, and younger students that whereby they may profit. To this end I have added the Racovian Catechism, as I said before, to
Mr Biddle’s; which as I was urged to do
by many worthy persons in this university, so I was no way discouraged in
the publishing of my answer thereunto by the view I took of Arnoldus’ discourse to the same purpose,
and that for such reasons as I shall not express, but leave the whole to
the judgment of the reader.
From thence whence in the thoughts of some I am most likely
to suffer, as to my own resolves, I am most secure. It is in meddling with
Grotius’ Annotations, and calling into question
what hath been delivered by such a giant in all kinds of literature. Since
my engagement in this business, and when I had well-nigh finished the
vindication of the texts of Scripture commonly pleaded for the
demonstration of the deity of Christ from the exceptions put in to their
testimonies by the Racovian
Catechism, I had the sight of Dr
Hammond’s apology for him, in his vindication of his dissertations
about episcopacy from my occasional animadversions, published in the
preface of my book of the Perseverance of the
Saints. Of that whole treatise I shall elsewhere give an account.
My defensative, as to my dealing with Grotius’ Annotations, is suited to what the doctor pleads in his
behalf, which occasions this mention thereof:—
“This very pious, learned, judicious man,” he tells us,
“hath fallen under some harsh censures of late, especially upon the account
of Socinianism and Popery.” That is, not as though he would reconcile
these extremes, but being in doctrinals a Socinian, he yet closed in many
things with the Roman interest; as I no way doubt but thousands of the same
persuasion with the Socinians as to the person and offices of Christ do
live in the outward communion of that church (as they call it) to this day;
of which supposal I am not without considerable grounds and eminent
instances for its confirmation. This, I say, is their charge upon him.
For his being a Socinian, he tells us, “Three things are made use of to
beget a jealousy in the minds of men of his inclinations that way:— 1. Some
parcels of a letter of his to Crellius; 2.
Some relations of what passed from him at his death; 3. Some passages in
his Annotations.” It is this last alone wherein I am concerned;
and what I have to speak to them, I desire may be measured and weighed by
what I do premise. It is not that I do entertain in myself any hard
thoughts, or that I would beget in others any evil surmises, of the eternal
condition of that man that I speak what I do. What am I that I should
judge another man’s servant? He is fallen to his own master. I am very
slow to judge of men’s acceptation with God by the apprehension of their
understandings. This only I know, that be men of what religion soever that
is professed in the world, if they are drunkards, proud, boasters, etc.,
hypocrites, haters of good men, persecutors and revilers of them, yea, if
they be not regenerate and born of God, united to the head, Christ Jesus,
by the same Spirit that is in him, they shall never see God.
But for the passages in his Annotations, the substance of the doctor’s
plea is, “That the passages intimated are in his posthuma; that he intended
not to publish them; that they might be of things he observed, but thought
farther to consider;” and an instance is given in that of Col. i. 16, which he interprets
contrary to what he urged it for, John i.
1–3. But granting what is affirmed as to matter of fact about
his Collections (though the preface to the last part of his Annotations will not
allow it to be true), I must needs abide in my
dissatisfaction as to these Annotations, and of my resolves in these thoughts give the
doctor this account. Of the Socinian religion there are two main parts;
the first is Photinianism, the latter Pelagianism, — the first concerning
the person, the other the grace of Christ. Let us take
an eminent instance out of either of these heads: out of the first, their
denying Christ to be God by nature; out of the latter, their denial of his
satisfaction.
For the first, I must needs tell the apologist,
that of all the texts of the New Testament, and Old, whereby the deity of
Christ is usually confirmed, and where it is evidently testified unto, he
hath not left any more than one, that I have observed, if one, speaking any
thing clearly to that purpose. I say, if one, for that he speaks not home
to the business in hand on John i. I
shall elsewhere give an account; perhaps some one or two more may be
interpreted according to the analogy of that. I speak not of his
Annotations on the Epistles, but on the whole Bible throughout, wherein his
expositions given do, for the most part, fall in with those of the
Socinians, and oftentimes consist in the very words of Socinus and Smalcius, and alway do the same things with them, as to
any notice of the deity of Christ in them. So that I marvel the learned
doctor should fix upon one particular instance, as though that one place
alone were corrupted by him, when there is not one (or but one) that is not
wrested, perverted, and corrupted, to the same purpose. For the full
conviction of the truth hereof, I refer the reader to the ensuing
considerations of his interpretations of the places themselves. The
condition of these famous Annotations as to the satisfaction of Christ is the same.
Not one text of the whole Scripture, wherein testimony is given to that
sacred truth, which is not wrested to another sense, or at least the
doctrine in it concealed and obscured by them. I do not speak this with
the least intention to cast upon him the reproach of a Socinian; I judge
not his person. His books are published to be considered and judged.
Erasmus, I know, made way for him
in most of his expositions about the deity of Christ; but what repute he
hath thereby obtained among all that honour the eternal Godhead of the Son
of God, let Bellarmine, on
the one hand, and Beza, on the other,
evince. And as I will by no means maintain or urge against Grotius any of the miscarriages in religion
which the answerer of my animadversions undertakes to vindicate him from,
nor do I desire to fight with the dust and ashes of men; yet what I have
said is, if not necessary to return to the apologist, yet of tendency, I
hope, to the satisfaction of others, who may inquire after the reason of my
calling the Annotations of the learned man to an account in this
discourse. Shall any one take liberty to pluck down the pillars of our
faith, and weaken the grounds of our assurance concerning the person and
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall not we have the boldness to call
him to an account for so sacrilegious an attempt? With those, then, who
love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, I expect no blame or reproach for
what I have endeavoured in this kind; yea, that my good will shall find
acceptance with them, especially if it shall occasion any of greater
leisure and abilities farther and professedly to remark more of the
corruptions of those Annotations, I have good ground of expectation. The truth
is, notwithstanding their pompous show and appearance — few of his
quotations (which was the manner of the man) being at all to his
purpose, — it will be found
no difficult matter to discuss his assertions and dissipate his
conjectures.
For his being a Papist, I have not much to say. Let his
epistles (published by his friends) written to Dionysius Petavius the Jesuit be perused, and you will
see the character which of himself he gives, as also what in sundry writings he ascribes to the
pope.
What I have performed, through the good hand of God in the
whole, is humbly submitted to your judgment. You know, all of you, with
what weight of business and employment I am pressed, what is the constant
work that in this place is incumbent on me, how many and how
urgent my avocations are; the consideration whereof cannot but prevail for
a pardon of that want of exactness which perhaps in sundry particulars will
appear unto you. With those who are neither willing nor able to do any
thing in this kind themselves, and yet make it their business to despise
what is done by others, I shall very little trouble myself. That which
seems, in relation hereunto, to call for an apology, is my engagement into
this work, wherein I was not particularly concerned, suffering in the
meantime some treatises against me to lie unanswered. Dr Hammond’s answer to my animadversions
on his dissertations about episcopacy, Mr
Baxter’s objections against somewhat written about the death of
Christ, and a book of one Mr Horne against
my treatise about universal redemption, are all the instances that I know
of which in this kind may be given. To all that candidly take notice of
these things, my defence is at hand. I do not know that I am more obliged
to answer a treatise written against, myself than any other written against
the truth, though I am not particularly named or opposed therein; nor do I
intend to put any such law of disquietness upon my spirit as to think
myself bound to reply to every thing that is written against me, whether
the matter and subject of it be worth the public ventilation or no. It is
neither name nor repute that I eye in these contests: so the truth be safe,
I can be well content to suffer. Besides, this present task was not
voluntarily undertaken by me; it was, as I have already given account,
imposed on me by such an authority as I could not waive. For Mr Horne’s book, I suppose you are not
acquainted with it; that alone was extant before my last engagement. Could
I have met with any one uninterested person that would have said it
deserved a reply, it had not have lain so long unanswered. In the
meantime, I cannot but rejoice that some, like-minded with him, cannot
impute my silence to the weakness of the cause I managed, but to my
incompetency for the work of maintaining it. To Mr Baxter, as far as I am concerned, I have made a return
in the close of this treatise; wherein I suppose I have put an end to that
controversy. Dr Hammond’s
defensative came forth much about the time that half this treatise was
finished, and being about a matter of so mean concernment, in comparison of
those weighty truths of the gospel which I was engaged in the defence of, I
durst not desert my station to turn aside thereto. On the cursory view I
have taken of it, I look upon what is of real difference between that
learned person and myself to be a matter of easy despatch. His leaves are
much more soft and gentle than those of Socinus, Smalcius, Crellius, and
Schlichtingius. If the Lord in
his goodness be pleased to give me a little respite and leisure, I shall
give a farther account of the whole difference between the learned doctor
and me, in such a way of process as may be expected from so slow and dull a
person as I am. In the meantime, I wish him a better cause to manage than
that wherein against me he is engaged, and better principles to manage a
good cause on than some of those in his treatise of schism, and some
others. Fail he not in these, his abilities and diligence will stand him
in very good stead. I shall not trouble you with things which I have
advantages other ways to impart my thoughts concerning; I only crave that
you would be pleased candidly to accept of this testimony of my respects to
you, and, seeing no other things are in the ensuing treatise pleaded for
but such as are universally owned amongst you, that, according to your
several degrees, you would take it into your patronage or use, affording
him in his daily labours the benefit of your prayers at the throne of
grace, who is your unworthy fellow-labourer,
John
Owen
Oxon. Ch. Ch.
Coll.,
April 1 [1655.]
The preface to the reader.
To those that labour in the word and doctrine in
these nations of England, Scotland, and Ireland, with all that call upon
the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, John Owen wisheth grace and peace from
God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
That so mean a person as I am
should presume in this public manner to make address to all those comprised
in the title of this epistle, I desire it may be ascribed to the business I
come about and the message that I bring. It is about your great interest
and concermnent, your whole portion and inheritance, your all, that I am to
deal with you. If he who passes by his neighbour’s house, seeing a thief
breaking up its foundations or setting fire to its chief materials, will be
far from being censured as importune and impudent if he awake and call upon
the inhabitants, though every way his betters (especially if all his own
estate lie therein also), although he be not able to carry one vessel of
water to the quenching of it, I hope that, finding persons endeavouring to
put fire to the house of God, which house ye are, and labouring to steal
away the whole treasure thereof, wherein also my own portion doth lie, I
shall not be condemned of boldness or presumption if I at once cry out to
all persons, however concerned, to take heed that we be not utterly
despoiled of our treasure, though when I have so done, I be not able to
give the least assistance to the defence of the house or quenching of the
fire kindled about it. That of no less importance is this address unto
you, a brief discovery of its occasion will evince.
The Holy Ghost tells us that we are “built upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the
chief corner-stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth
unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom we are builded together for an
habitation of God through the Spirit,” Eph. ii.
20–22. And thus do all they become the house of Christ “who
hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end,”
Heb. iii. 6. In this house of God
there are daily builders, according as new living stones are to be fitted
to their places therein; and continual oppositions have there been made
thereto, and will be, “till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of
the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of
the stature of the fulness of Christ,” Eph. iv.
13. In this work of building are some employed by Jesus Christ,
and will be so to the end of the world, Matt. xxviii. 19, 20, Eph. iv. 11, 12; and some employ
themselves at least in a pretence thereof, but are indeed, to a man, every
one like the foolish woman that pulls down her house with both her hands.
Of the first sort, “other foundation can no man lay,” nor doth go about to
lay, “than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” 1 Cor.
iii. 11; but some of them build on this foundation “gold,
silver, and precious stones,” keeping fast in the work to the
form of “wholesome words,” and contending for “the faith that was once
delivered unto the saints.”
Others, again, lay on “wood, hay, and stubble,” either
contending about “foolish questions,” or “vain and unprofitable janglings,”
or adding to what God hath commanded, or corrupting and perverting what he
hath revealed and instituted, contrary to the proportion of faith, which
should be the rule of all their prophecy, whereby they discharge their duty
of building in this house. Those with whom I am at present to deal, and
concerning whom I desire to tender you the ensuing account, are of the
latter sort; such as, not content, with others, to attempt sundry parts of
the building, to weaken its contexture, or deface its comeliness, do with
all their might set themselves against the work [rock?] itself, the great
foundation and corner-stone of the church, the Lord Jesus, who is” God
blessed for ever.” They are those, I say, whom I would warn you of, in
whom, of old and of late, the spirit of error hath set up itself with such
an efficacy of pride and delusion, as, by all ways, means, [and] devices
imaginable, to despoil our dear and blessed Redeemer, our Holy One, of his
“eternal power and Godhead;” or to reject the eternal Son of God, and to
substitute in his room a Christ of their own, one like themselves, and no
more; to adulterate the church, and turn aside the saints to a thing of
naught. If I may enjoy your patience whilst I give a brief account of
them, their ways and endeavours for the compassing of their cursed ends; of
our present concernment in their actings and seductions; of the fire
kindled by them at our doors; of the sad diffusion of their poison
throughout the world, beyond what enters into the hearts of the most of men
to imagine, — I shall subjoin thereunto those cautions and directions
which, with all humbleness, I have to tender to you, to guide some, and
strengthen others, and stir up all to be watchful against this great, and I
hope the last considerable attempt of Satan (by way of seduction and
temptation) against the foundation of the gospel.
Those, then, who of old opposed the doctrine of the
Trinity, especially of the deity of Christ, his person and natures, may be
referred to three heads, and of them and their ways this is the sum:—
The first sort of them may be reckoned to be those who are
commonly esteemed to be followers of Simon Magus, known chiefly by the names of
Gnostics and Valentinians. These, with their abominable figments of æons,
and their combinations, conjugations, genealogies, and unintelligible
imaginations, wholly overthrowing the whole revelation of God concerning
himself and his will, the Lord Jesus and the gospel, chiefly, with their
leaders, Marcus, Basilides, Ptolemæus, Valentinus secundus (all following or imitating Simon Magus and Menander), of all others most perplexed and
infected the primitive church: as Irenæus, lib. i.; Tertullian, Præscrip. ad Hæret. cap.
xlix.; Philastrius, in his
catalogue of heretics; Epiphanius in Panario, lib. i. tom. ii.; and
Augustine, in his book of
Heresies, “ad quod vult deus
manifeste.” To these may be added Tatianus, Cerdo, Marcion, and their companions (of whom see Tertullian at large, and Eusebius, in their respective places.) I shall not
separate from them Montanus,
with his enthusiastical formal associates; in whose abominations it was
hoped that these latter days might have been unconcerned, until the present
madness of some, commonly called Quakers, renewed their follies; but these
may pass (with the Manichees), and those of the like fond imaginations,
that ever and anon troubled the church with their madness and folly.
Of the second rank Cerinthus is the head,
with Judaizing Ebion; both denying expressly the deity
of Christ, and asserting him to be but a mere man; even in the entrance of
the Gospel being confounded by John, as is affirmed by Epiphanius, Hær. 51. “Hieronymus de Seriptoribus Ecclesiasticis de
Johanne.” The same abomination was again revived by Theodotus, called Coriarius (who, having
once denied Christ, was resolved to do so always); excommunicated on that
account by Victor, as Eusebius relates, Hist. Eccles. lib. 5 cap. ult.,
where he gives also an account of his associates in judgment, Artemon, Asclepiodotus, Natalius, etc.; and the books written against him
are there also mentioned. But the most notorious head and patron of this
madness was Paulus Samosatenus,
bishop of Antioch, anno 272; of whose pride and passion, folly, followers,
assistants, opposition, and excommunication, the history is extant at large
in Eusebius. This man’s pomp and
folly, his compliance with the Jews and Zenobia, the queen of the Palmyrians, who then
invaded the eastern parts of the Roman empire, made him so infamous to all
Christians, that the Socinians do scarce plead for him, or own him as the
author of their opinion. Of him who succeeded him in his opposition to
Jesus Christ, some fifty or sixty years after, namely, Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, they constantly boast.
Of Samosatenus and his heresy, see
Euseb. Hist.
Eccles. lib. 7 cap. 29, 30 and Hilary, De Synodis; of Photinus,
Socrat. Eccles.
Hist. lib. 2 cap. 24, 25. And with these do our present Socinians
expressly agree in the matter of the person of Christ.
To the third head I refer that deluge of Arianism, whose rise, conception, author, and promoters,
advantages, success, and propagation; the persecutions, cruelty, and
tyranny of the rulers, emperors, kings, and governors infected with it; its
extent and continuance, — are known to all who have taken care in the least
to inquire what was the state of the church of God in former days, that
heresy being as it were the flood of water that pursued the church for some
ages. Of Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, — the first denying the deity of the Holy
Ghost, the second the hypostatical union of the two natures of Christ, and
the last confounding them in his person, — I shall not need to speak.
These by the Socinians of our days are disclaimed.
In the second sort chiefly we are at present concerned.
Now, to give an account, from what is come down unto us, by testimonies of
good report and esteem, concerning those named, Theodotus, Paulus, Photinus, and the
rest of the men who were the predecessors of them with whom we have to do,
and undertook the same work in the infancy of the church which these are
now engaged in when it is drawing, with the world, to its period, with what
were their ways, lives, temptations, ends, agreements, differences among
them, and in reference to the persons of our present contest (of whom a
full account shall be given), is not my aim nor business. It hath been
done by others; and to do it with any exactness, beyond what is commonly
known, would take up more room than to this preface is allotted. Some
things peculiarly seem of concernment for our observation, from the time wherein some of them acted their parts in the service of their
master. What could possibly be more desired, for the safeguarding of any
truth from the attempts of succeeding generations, and for giving it a
security above all control, than that, upon public and owned opposition, it
should receive a confirmation by men acted by the Holy Ghost, and giving
out their sentence by inspiration from God? That, among other important
heads of the gospel (as that of justification by faith and not by works, of
Christian liberty, of the resurrection of the dead), this most glorious
truth, of the eternal deity of the Son of God, underwent an open opposition
from some of them above written, during the life of some of the apostles,
before the writing of the Gospel by John, and was expressly vindicated by
him in the beginning thereof, is acknowledged by all who have in any
measure inquired into and impartially weighed the reports of those days.
What could the heart of the most resolved unbeliever desire more for his
satisfaction, than that God should speak from heaven for the conviction of
his folly and ignorance? or what can our adversaries expect more from us,
when we tell them that God himself immediately determined in the
controversy wherein they are engaged? Perhaps they think that if he should
now speak from heaven they would believe him. So said the Jews to Christ,
if he would come down from the cross when they had nailed him to it, in the
sight and under the contempt of many miracles greater than the delivery of
himself could any way appear to be. The rich man in torments thought his
brethren would repent if one came from the dead and preached to them.
Abraham tells him, “If they will not hear Moses and the prophets, neither
will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” Doubtless, if what
is already written be not sufficient to convince our adversaries, though
God should speak from heaven they would not believe, nor indeed can, if
they will abide by the fundamental principles of their religion. Under
this great disadvantage did the persuasion of the Socinians set out in the
world, that Christ is only ψιλὸς
ἄνθρωπος, — by nature no more but a man; so that persons not deeply
acquainted with the methods of Satan and the darkness of the minds of men
could not but be ready to conclude it certainly bound up in silence for
ever. But how speedily it revived, with what pride and passion it was once
and again endeavoured to be propagated in the world, those who have read
the stories of Paulus Samosatenus
are fully acquainted, who γυμνῇ τῇ
κεφαλῇ, blasphemed the Son of God as one no more than a man. In
some space of time, these men being decried by the general consent of the
residue of mankind professing the name of Jesus Christ, and their
abomination destroyed by the sword of faith, managed in the hands of the
saints of those days, Satan perceiving himself at a loss and under an
impossibility of prevalency, whilst the grossness of the error he strove to
diffuse terrified all sorts from having any thing to do therewith, he puts
on it, by the help of Arius and his followers,
another gloss and appearance, with a pretence of allowing Christ a deity,
though a subordinate, created, made, divine nature, which in the fulness of
time assumed flesh of the virgin; — this opinion being, indeed, no less
really destructive to the true and eternal deity of the Son of God than
that of theirs before mentioned, who expressly affirmed him to be a mere
man, and to have had no existence before his nativity at Bethlehem; yet
having got a new pretence and colour of ascribing something more excellent
and sublime unto him than that whereof we are all in common partakers, it
is incredible with what speedy progress, like the breaking out of a mighty
flood, it overspread the face of the earth. It is true, it had in its very
entrance all the advantages of craft, fraud, and subtilty, and
in its carrying on, of violence, force, and cruelty, and from the beginning
to its end, of ignorance, blindness, superstition, and profaneness, among
the generality of them with whom it had to deal, that ever any corrupt
folly of the mind of man met withal. The rise, progress, cruelty, and
continuance of this sect, with the times and seasons that passed with it
over the nations, its entertainment by the many barbarous nations which
wasted, spoiled, and divided among themselves the Roman empire, with their
parting with it upon almost as evil an account as at first they embraced
it, are not, as I said, my business now to discover. God purposing to
revenge the pride, ingratitude, ignorance, profaneness, and idolatry of the
world, which was then in a great measure got in amongst the professors of
Christianity, by another more spiritual, cruel, subtile, and lasting
“mystery of iniquity,” caused this abomination of Arianism to give place to
the power of the then growing Roman antichristian state, which, about the
sixth or seventh century of years since the incarnation of the Son of God,
having lost all church order and communion of the institution of Jesus
Christ, fell into an earthly, political, carnal combination, authorized and
animated by the spirit of Satan, for the ends of superstition, idolatry,
persecution, pride, and atheism; which thereby ever since [have been]
vigorously pursued.
With these Arians, as was said, do our Socinians refuse communion, and will not be called after
their name: not that their profession is better than theirs, or that they
have much to blame in what they divulge, though they agree not with them in
allowing a pre-existing nature to Christ before his incarnation; but that
generation of men having made themselves infamous to posterity by their
wickedness, perjuries, crafts, and bloody cruelties, and having been
pursued by eminent and extraordinary judgments from God, they are not
willing to partake of the prejudices which they justly lie under.
From the year 600, for divers ages, we have little noise of
these men’s abominations, as to the person of Christ, in the world. Satan
had something else to busy himself about.
A design he had in hand that was like to do him more
service than any of his former attempts. Having, therefore, tried his
utmost in open opposition to the person of Christ (the dregs of the poison
thus shed abroad infecting in some measure a great part of the east to this
day), by a way never before heard of, and which Christians were not
exercised with nor in any measure aware of, he subtilely ruins and
overthrows all his offices and the whole benefit of his mediation, and
introduceth secretly a new worship from that which he appointed, by the
means and endeavours of men pretending to act and do all that they did for
the advancement of his kingdom and glory. And therefore, whilst the fatal
apostasy of the western world, under the Roman antichrist, was contriving,
carrying on, and heightening, till it came to its discovery and ruin, he
stirs not at all with his old engines, which had brought in a revenue of
obedience to his kingdom in no measure proportionable to this,
which by this new device he found accruing to him. But when the appointed
time of mercy was come, that God would visit his people with light from
above, and begin to unravel the mystery of iniquity, whose abominations had
destroyed the souls of them that embraced it, and whose cruelty had cut off
the lives of thousands who had opposed it, by the Reformation, eminently
and successfully begun and carried on from the year 1517, Satan perceiving
that even this his great masterpiece of deceit and subtilty was like to
fail him, and not to do him that service which formerly it had done, he
again sets on foot his first design, of oppugning the eternal deity of the
Son of God, still remembering that the ruin of his kingdom arose from the
Godhead of his person and the efficacy of his mediation. So, then, as for
the first three hundred years of the profession of the name of Christ in
the world, he had variously opposed the Godhead of our blessed Saviour, by
Simon Magus, Ebion, Cerinthus, Paulus Samosatenus, Marcus, Basilides,
Valentinus, Calarbasus, Marcion,
Photinus, Theodotus, and others; and from their dissipation and
scattering, having gathered them all to a head in Arius and his
abomination, — which sometimes with a mighty prevalency of force and
violence, sometimes more subtilely (putting out by the way the several
branches of Macedonianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, all looking the same
way in their tendency therewith), — he managed almost for the space of the
next three hundred years ensuing; and losing at length that hold, he had
spent more than double that space of time in carrying on his design of the
great anti-christian papal apostasy; being about the times before mentioned
most clearly and eminently discovered in his wicked design, and being in
danger to lose his kingdom, which he had been so long in possession of,
intending if it were possible to retrieve his advantage again, he sets on
those men who had been instrumental to reduce the Christian religion into
its primitive state and condition with those very errors and abominations
wherewith he opposed and assailed the primitive professors thereof, — if
they will have the apostles’ doctrine, they shall have the opposition that
was made unto it in the apostles’ times: his hopes being possibly the same
that formerly they were (but assuredly Christ will prevent him); — for as
whilst the professors of the religion of Jesus Christ were spiritual, and
full of the power of that religion they did profess, they defended the
truth thereof, either by suffering, as under Constantius, Valens,
and the Goths and Vandals, or by spiritual means and weapons; so when they
were carnal, and lost the life of the gospel, yet endeavouring to retain
the truth of the letter thereof, falling on carnal, politic ways for the
supportment of it, and the suppressing of what opposed it, Satan quickly
closed in with them, and accomplished all his ends by them, causing them to
walk in all those ways of law, policy, blood, cruelty, and violence, for
the destruction of the truth, which they first engaged in for the rooting
out of errors and heresies. “Haud ignota
loquor.” Those who have considered the occasions and advantages of
the bishop of Rome’s rise and progress know these things to be so.
Perhaps, I say, he might have thoughts to manage the same Or the like
design at the beginning of the Reformation, when, with great craft and
subtilty, he set on foot again his opposition to the person of Christ;
which being the business chiefly under consideration, I shall give some
brief account thereof.
Those who have formerly communicated their thoughts and
observations to us on this subject have commonly given rise to their
discourses from Servetus, with the
transactions about him in Helvetia, and the ending of his tragedy at
Geneva. The things of him being commonly known, and my design
being to deal with them in their chief seat and residence, where, after
they had a while hovered about most nations of Europe, they settled
themselves, I shall forbear to pursue them up and down in their flight, and
meet with them only at their nest in Poland and the regions adjoining. The
leaders of them had most of them separated themselves from the Papacy on
pretence of embracing the reformed religion; and under that covert were a
long time sheltered from violence, and got many advantages of insinuating
their abominations (which they were thoroughly drenched withal before they
left the Papacy) into the minds of many who professed the gospel.
The first open breach they made in Poland was in the year
(something having been attempted before), most of the leaders being
Italians, men of subtile and serpentine wits. The chief leaders of them
were Georgius Blandrata, Petrus Statorius, Franciscus Lismaninus; all which had been eminent in
promoting the Reformation.
Upon their first tumultuating, Statorius, to whom afterwards Socinus wrote sundry epistles, and lived with him in great
intimacy, was summoned to a meeting of ministers, upon an accusation that
he denied that the Holy Spirit was to be invocated. Things being not yet
ripe, the man knowing that if he were cast out by them he should not know
where to obtain shelter, he secured himself by dissimulation, and
subscribed this confession: “I receive and reverence the prophetical and
apostolical doctrine, containing the true knowledge of God the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, and freely profess that God the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, ought to be worshipped with the same religion or worship, distinctly
or respectively, and to be invocated, according to the truth of the holy
Scripture. And, lastly, I do plainly detest every heretical blasphemy
concerning God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, whether it be Arian,
Servetian, Eunomian, or Stancarian.”And this
confession is to be seen in the acts of that convention, under his own
hand, to this day; which notwithstanding, he was a fierce opposer of the
doctrine here professed all his days afterward.
And I the rather mention this, because I am not without too
much ground of persuasion that thousands of the same judgment with this man
do at this day, by the like dissimulation, live and enjoy many advantages
both in the Papacy and among the reformed churches, spreading the poison of
their abominations as they can. This Statorius I find, by the frequent mention made of him by
Socinus, to have lived many years in
Poland, with what end and issue of his life I know not, nor more of him but
what is contained in Beza’s two
epistles to him, whose scholar he had been, when he seemed to have had
other opinions about the essence of God than those he afterward settled in
by the instruction of Socinus.
And this man was one of the first heads of that multitude
of men commonly known by the name of Anabaptists among the Papists (who
took notice of little but their outward worship), who, having entertained
strange, wild, and blasphemous thoughts concerning the essence of God, were afterward brought to a kind of settlement by Socinus, in that religion he had prepared
to serve them all; and into his word at last consented the whole droves of
Essentiators, Tritheists, Arians, and Sabellians, that swarmed in those
days in Silesia, Moravia, and some other parts of Germany.
For Blandrata, his story is so well known, from the
epistles of Calvin and Beza, and others, that I shall not insist much upon it.
The sum of what is commonly known of him is collected by Hornbeck.
The records of the synods in Poland of the reformed
churches give us somewhat farther of him; as doth Socinus also against Weik.
Being an excellent physician, he was entertained, at his first coming into
Poland, by Prince
Radzivil, the then great patron of the reformed religion in those
parts of the world, — one of the same family with this captain-general of
the Polonian forces for the great dukedom of Lithuania, a man of great
success in many fights and battles against the Muscovites, continuing the
same office to this day. To him Calvin
instantly wrote, that he should take care of Blandrata, as a man not only inclinable to, but wholly
infected with, Servetianism. In that, as in many
other things he admonished men of by his epistles, that wise and diligent
person had the fate to tell the truth and not be believed. See Calvin’s epistles, about the year 1561. But the
man on this occasion being sent to the meeting at Pinckzow (as Statorius), he subscribes this
confession:—
“I profess myself to believe in one God the Father, and in
one Lord Jesus Christ, his Son, and in one Holy Ghost, whereof each is
essentially God. I detest the plurality of Gods, seeing to us there is one
only God, indivisible in essence. I confess three distinct persons, the
eternal deity and generation of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, true and
eternal God, proceeding from them both.”
This did the wretched man think meet to do, that he might
preserve the good esteem of his patron and reserve himself for a fitter
opportunity of doing mischief; which also he did, obtaining a testimonial
from the whole meeting of his soundness in the faith, with letters to Prince Radzivil and to Calvin signifying the same.
Not long after this, by the great repute of his skill in
physic, he became known and physician to Stephen, king of Poland; by whose favour, having no small
liberty indulged him, he became the patron of all the Antitrinitarians of
all sorts throughout Poland and Transylvania. What books he wrote, and
what pains he took in propagating their cause, hath been declared by
others. The last epistle of Socinus,
in order as they are printed (it being without date, yet evidently written
many years before most of them that went before it), is to this Blandrata, whose inscription is, “Amplissimo clarissimoque viro Georgio Blandratæ
Stephani invictissimi regis Poloniæ, etc., archiatro et conciliario intimo, domino, æ patrono suo
perpetua observantia colendo; et subscribitur, Tibi in Domino Jesu
deditissimus cliens tuus F. S.” To that esteem was he grown amongst
them, because of his advantages to insinuate them into the knowledge of
great men, which they mostly aimed at; so that afterward, when Socinus wrote his answer about magistrates
to Palæologus, in defence of the
Racovians, Marcellus
Squarcialupus, his countryman, a man of the same persuasion with
him, falls foully on him, that he would venture to do it without the
knowledge and consent of this great patron of theirs.
But though this man by his dissimulation and falsehood thus
escaped censure, and by his art and cunning insinuation obtained high
promotions and heaped up great riches in the world, yet even in this life
he escaped not the revenging hand of God. He was found at length with his
neck broke in his bed; by what hand none knoweth. Wherefore Socinus, observing that this judgment of
God upon him, as that on Franciscus
David (of which mention shall be made afterward), would be fixed on
in the thoughts of men to the prejudice of the cause which he favoured,
considering more what was for his interest than what was decent or
convenient, decries him for an apostate to the Jesuits before he was so
destroyed, and intimates that he was strangled in his bed by a kinsman whom
he had made his heir, for haste to take possession of his great
wealth.
The story I have adjoined at large, that the man’s
ingenuity and thankfulness to his friend and patron may be seen. He tells
us, that before the death of Stephen,
king of Poland, he was turned from their profession by the Jesuits.
Stephen, king of Poland, died
in the year 1588, according to Helvicus. That very year did Socinus write his answer to Volanus, the second part whereof he inscribed with all the
magnifical titles before mentioned to Blandrata, professing himself his devoted client, and him
the great patron of their religion! So that though I can easily believe
what he reports of his covetousness and treachery, and the manner of his
death, yet as to his apostasy (though possibly he might fall more and more
under the power of his atheism), I suppose the great reason of imputing
that to him was to avoid the scandal of the fearful judgment of God on him
in his death.
For Lismaninus, the third person mentioned, he was
accused of Arianism at a convention at Morden, anno 1553, and there
acquitted with a testimonial. But in the year 1561, at another
meeting at Whodrislave, he was convicted of double dealing, and
after that wholly fell off to the Antitrinitarians, and in the issue
drowned himself in a well.
And these were the chief settled troublers at the first of
the Polonian reformed churches. The stories of Paulus Alciatus, Valentinus
Gentilis, Bernardus Ochinus,
and some others, are so well known, out of the epistles of Calvin, Beza, Bullinger,
Zanchius, with what hath of late from
them been collected by Cloppenburgius, Hornbeck, Maresius, Becmannus,
etc., that it cannot but be needless labour for me to go over them
again.
That which I aim at is, from their own writings, and what
remains on record concerning them, to give a brief account of the first
breaking in of Anti-trinitarianism into the reformed churches of Poland,
and their confused condition before headed by Socinus, into whose name they have since been all baptized.
This, then, was the state of the churches in those days: The reformed
religion spreading in great abundance, and churches being multiplied every
day in Poland, Lithuania, and the parts adjoining; some tumults having been
raised, and stirs made by Osiander
and Stancarus about the essential
righteousness and mediation of Christ (concerning which the reader may
consult Calvin at large); many wild and
foolish opinions being scattered up and down, about the nature of God, the
Trinity, and Anabaptism, by many foreigners, sundry being thereby defiled,
the opinions of Servetus having
wholly infected sundry Italians: the persons before spoken of, then living
at Geneva and about the towns of the Switzers, that embraced the gospel,
being forced to flee for fear of being dealt withal as Servetus was (the judgment of most
Christian rulers in whose days leading them to such a procedure, how
rightly I do not now determine), scarce any one of them escaping without
imprisonment and abjuration (an ill foundation of their after profession),
they went most of them into Poland, looked on by them as a place of
liberty, and joined themselves to the reformed churches in those places,
and continuing many years in their communion, took the opportunity to
entice and seduce many ministers with others, and to strengthen them who
were fallen into the abominations mentioned before their coming to
them.
After many tergiversations, many examinations of them, many
false subscriptions, in the year 1562, they fell into open division and
separation from the reformed churches. The ministers that
fell off with them, besides Lismaninus and his companions (of whom before), were
Gregorius Pauli, Stanislaus Lutonius, Martinus Crovicius, Stanislaus Paclesius, Georgius Schomanus, and others, most of whom before had
taken good pains in preaching the gospel. The chief patrons and promoters
were Johannes Miemoljevius,
Hieronymus Philoponius, Johannes Cazaccovius, the one a judge,
the other a captain, the third a gentleman, — all men of great esteem.
The year that this breach was made, Lælius Socinus, then of the age of
thirty-seven years, who laid the foundations that his nephew after built
upon, died in Switzerland, as the author of the life of Faustus Socinus informs us.
The man’s life is known: he was full of Servetianism, and had attempted to draw sundry men of note to his abominations; a man of
great subtilty and cunning, as Beza
says of him, incredibly furnished for
contradiction and sophism; which the author of the life of Socinus phrases, he was “suggerendæ veritatis mirus artifex.” He made, as I
said, many private attempts on sundry persons to entice them to
Photinianism; on some with success, on others without. Of his dealing with
him, and the advantage he had so to do, Zanchius gives an account in his preface to his book “De Tribus Elohim.”
He was, as the author of the life of Faustus Socinus relates, in a readiness to have published
his notions and conceptions, when God, by his merciful providence, to
prevent a little the pouring out of the poison by so skillful a hand, took
him off by sudden death; and Faustus
himself gives the same account of the season of his death in an epistle to Dudithius.
At his death, Faustus Socinus, being then about the age of
twenty-three years, seizing upon all his uncle’s books, after a while
returned into Italy, and there spent in courtship and idleness in Florence
twelve years; which he afterward grievously lamented, as shall be declared.
Leaving him a while to his pleasure in the court of the great duke, we may
make back again into Poland, and consider the progress of the persons who
made way for his coming amongst them. Having made their separation, and
drawn many after them, they at length brought their business to that height
that they came to a disputation with the reformed ministers at
Petricove (where the parliament of the
kingdom then was) by the permission of Sigismund the king, in the year 1565, whereof the ensuing
account is given by Antonius
Possevine the Jesuit, in Atheis, sui sæculi, cap. xiii. fol. 15.
The assembly of states was called against the Muscovians.
The nobility desiring a conference between the ministers of the reformed
churches and the Antitrinitarians, it was allowed by Sigismund the king. On the part of the
reformed churches there were four ministers; as many of the other side came
also prepared for the encounter. Being met, after some discourse the chief
marshal of the kingdom, then a Protestant, used these words, “Seeing the
proposition to be debated is agreed on, begin, in the name of the one God
and the Trinity.” Whereupon one of the opposite party
instantly cried out, “We cannot here say Amen, nor do we know that God, the
Trinity.”
”Whereunto the ministers subjoined, “We have no need of any other
proposition, seeing this hath offered itself; for, God assisting, we will,
and are ready to demonstrate that the Holy Ghost doth not teach
us any other God in the Scripture, but him only who is Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost; that is, one God in trinity.”
This colloquy continued three days. In the first, the
ministers who were the opponents (the other always choosing to answer), by
express texts of Scripture in abundance, confirmed the truth. In the
beginning of their testimonies they appealed to the beginning of the Old
and New Testament; and upon both places confounded their adversaries.
The second day the testimonies of the ancient writers of the church were
produced, with no less success. And on the third, the stories of Arius and some other heretics of old. The issue of
the disputation was to the great advantage of the truth; which Possevine himself cannot deny, though he
affirms a little after that the Calvinists could not confute the
Trinitarians, as he calls them, though they used the same arguments that
the Catholics did, cap. xiv. p. 366.
Possevine confesses
that the ministers (as they called themselves) of Sarmatia and
Transylvania, in their book of the False and True Knowledge of God, took
advantage of the images of the Catholics; for whose satisfaction, it seems, he
subjoins the theses of Thyreus, wherein he
labours to prove the use of those abominable idols to be lawful: of which
in the close of this address.
And this was the first great obstacle that was laid in the
way of the progress of the reformed religion in Poland; which, by Satan’s
taking the advantage of this horrible scandal, is at this day, in those
parts of the world, weak and oppressed. With what power the gospel did
come upon the inhabitants of those countries at the first, and what number
of persons it prevailed upon to forsake their dumb idols, which in Egyptian
darkness they had long worshipped, is evident from the complaint of Cichovius the priest, who tells us that
“about those times, in the whole parliament of the dukedom of Lithuania,
there were not above one or two Catholics,” as he calls them, “besides the
bishops.” Yea, among the bishops themselves, some were
come off to the reformed churches; amongst whom Georgius Petrovicius, bishop of
Sarmogitia, is reckoned by Diaterieus,
Chron. p. 49. Yea, and so far
had the gospel influenced those nations, that in the year 1542, upon the
death of King Sigismund
II., during the interregnum, a decree was made in parliament, with
general consent, that no prejudice should arise to any for the protestant
religion, but that a firm union should be between the persons of both
religions, popish and protestant; and that whosoever was chosen king should
take an oath to preserve this union and the liberty of the protestant
religion. — Sarricius, Annal. Pol. lib. viii. p. 403.
And when Henry, duke of Anjou, brother to Charles IX., king of France, was elected king of
Poland (being then a man of great
esteem in the world, for the wars which in France he had managed for the
Papists against the Prince of Conde and the never-enough-magnified Gasper
Coligni, being also consenting at
least to the barbarous massacre of the Protestants in that nation), and
coming to the church where he was to be crowned, by the advice of the
clergy, would have avoided the oath of preserving the Protestants and
keeping peace between the dissenters in religion, John Shirli, palatine of Cracovia, took
up the crown, and making ready to go away with it out of the convention,
cried out, “Si non jurabis, non
regnabis,” — “If you will not swear, you shall not reign;” and
thereby compelled him to take the oath agreed upon.
This progress, I say, had the doctrine of the gospel made
in those nations, so considerable a portion of the body of the people were
won over to the belief of it, when, through the craft and subtilty of the
old enemy of the propagation thereof, by this apostasy of some to
Tritheism, as Gregorius Pauli, of some
to Arianism, as Erasmus Johannes, of
some to Photinianism, as Statorius
and Blandrata, some to Judaism, as
Seidelius (of whom afterward), the
foundation of the whole building was loosened, and, instead of a progress,
the religion has gone backwards almost constantly to this day. When this
difference first fell out, the Papists not once moved a mouth or pen for
a long time against the broachers of all the blasphemies mentioned, hoping
that by the breaches made by them on the reformed churches they should at
length be able to triumph over both; for which end, in their disputes since
with Protestants, they have striven to take advantage of the apostasy of
many of those who had pretended to plead against the Papacy in behalf of
the reformed churches and afterward turned Antitrinitarians, as I remember
it is particularly insisted on in an English treatise which I saw many
years ago, called “Micheus, the Converted Jew.” And indeed it is supposed
that both Paulus Alciatus and Ochinus turned Mohammedans.
Having thus, then, disturbed the carrying on of the
Reformation, many ministers and churches falling off to Tritheism and
Samosatenianism, they laid the foundation of their meeting at Racovia; from
which place they have been most known since and taken notice of in the
world. The first foundation of what they call the “church” in that place
was made by a confluence of strangers out of Bohemia and Moravia, with some
Polonians, known only
by the name of Anabaptists, but professing a community of goods
and a setting up of the kingdom of Christ, calling Racovia, where they met,
the New Jerusalem, or at least professing that there they intended to build
and establish the New Jerusalem, with other fanatical follies; which Satan
hath revived in persons not unlike them, and caused to be acted over again,
in the days wherein we live, though, for the most part, with less
appearance of holiness and integrity of conversation than in them who went
before.
The leaders of these men, who called themselves their
“ministers,” were Gregorius Pauli and
Daniel Bielenscius: of whom Bielenscius afterward recanted; and
Gregorius Pauli, being utterly wearied,
ran away from them as from a hard service, and,
as Faustus Socinus tells us, in his
preface to his answer to Palæologus, in his old age left off all study, and betook
himself to other employments. Such were the persons by whom this stir
began.
This Gregorius Pauli,
Schlusselburgius very ignorantly
affirms to have been the head of the Antitrinitarians and their
captain, when he was a mere common trooper
amongst them, and followed after others, running away betimes, — an
enthusiastical, antimagistratical heretic, pleading for community of goods.
But this Gregory had said that Luther
did but the least part of the work for the destruction of antichrist; and
hence is the anger of Doctor
Conradus, who everywhere shows himself as zealous of the honour of
Luther as of Jesus Christ. So was the
man, who had some divinity, but scarce any Latin at all.
Be pleased now to take a brief view of the state of these
men before the coming of Faustus
Socinus into Poland and Transylvania, both these nations, after the
death of Sigismund II.,
being in the power of the same family of the Bathori. Of those who
professed the reformed religion and were fallen from the Papacy, there were
three sorts, — Lutherans, and Calvinists, and the United Brethren; which
last were originally Bohemian exiles, but, professing and practising a more
strict way of church order and fellowship than the other, had very many of
the nobility of Poland and the people joined to their communion. The two
latter agreed in all points of doctrine, and at length came, in sundry
meetings and synods, to a fair agreement and correspondency, forbearing one
another wherein they could not concur in judgment. Now, as these grew up
to union amongst themselves, the mixed multitude of several nations that
had joined themselves unto them in their departure out of Egypt fell a
lusting after the abominations mentioned, and either withdrew themselves or
were thrown out from their communion.
At first there were almost as many minds as men amongst
them, the tessera of their agreement among themselves being purely
opposition to the Trinity, upon what principle soever. Had a man learned
to blaspheme the holy Trinity, were it on Photinian, Arian, Sabellian, yea,
Mohammedan or Judaical principles, he was a companion and brother amongst
them! To this the most of them added Anabaptism, with the necessity of it,
and among the Papists were known by no other name. That they opposed the
Trinity, that they consented not to the reformed churches, was their
religion. For Pelagianism, afterward introduced by Socinus, there was little or no mention [of it]
among them. In this estate, divided amongst themselves, notwithstanding
some attempts in their synods (for synods they had) to keep a kind of peace
in all their diversities of opinions, spending their time in disputes and
quarrellings, were they when Faustus
Socinus came into Poland; who at length brought them into the
condition wherein they are, by the means and ways that shall be farther
insisted on.
And this state of things, considering how not unlike the
condition of multitudes of men is thereunto in these nations wherein we
live, hath oftentimes made me fear that if Satan should put it into the
heart of any person of learning and ability to serve his lust and ambition
with craft, wisdom, and diligence, it were not impossible for him to gather
the dispersed and divided opinionatists of our days to a consent in some
such body of religion as that which Socinus framed for the Polonians. But of him, his person,
and labours, by what ways and means he attained his end, it may not be
unacceptable, from his own and friends’ writings, to give some farther
account.
That Faustus Socinus,
of Sienna, was born of a good and ancient family, famous for their skill in
the law, in the month of December in the year 1539; that he lived in his
own country until he was about the age of twenty years; that then leaving
his country after his uncle Lælius, he
went to Leyden, and lived there three years; that then, upon the death of
his uncle, having got his books, he returned into Italy, and lived in the
court of the great Duke of Tuscany twelve years, about the close of which
time he wrote his book in Italian, “De Authoritate Sacræ Scripturæ;” that leaving
his country he came to Basil in Switzerland, and abode there three years
and somewhat more, — are things commonly known, and so little to our
purpose that I shall not insist upon them.
All the while he was at Basil and about Germany he kept his
opinions much to himself, being intent upon the study of his uncle Lælius’ notes, as the Polonian gentleman who
wrote his life confesseth; whereunto he added the
Dialogues of Bernardus Ochinus, as
himself acknowledgeth, which about that time were turned into Latin by
Castalio, as he professed, to get money by his labour to live
upon (though he pleads that he read Ochinus’ Dialogues in Poland, and as it seems not
before), and from thence he was esteemed to have taken his doctrine of the
mediation of Christ.
The papers of his uncle Lælius, of which himself often makes mention, were
principally his comment upon the first chapter of St John, and some notes
upon sundry texts of Scripture giving testimony to the deity of Christ;
among which Faustus extols that
abominable corruption of John viii.
58, of which afterward I shall speak at large, Socin. Respon. ad
Eras. Johan. His comment on the first of John, Beza tells us, is the most depraved and corrupt that ever
was put forth, its author having outgone all that went before him in
depraving that portion of Scripture.
The comment itself is published by Junius, “in defensione sanctæ Trinitatis,” and confuted by
him; and Zanchius, at large, “De Tribus Elohim, lib. vi. cap.
ii., et deinceps;” Faustus
varying something from his uncle in the carrying on of the same design.
His book, “De Jesu Christo Servatore,” he wrote, as the author of
his life assures us, whilst he was in and about Basil, as also many
passages in his epistles and other writings manifest.
About the year 1575 he began it, which he finished about
the year 1578, although the book was not printed till the year 1594; for upon the
divulging of it (he then living at Cracovia), a tumult was raised against
him by the unruly and disorderly students, wherein he was dragged up and
down and beaten, and hardly escaped with his life; [against] which inhumane
precedence he expostulates at large in an epistle to Martin Vaidovita, a professor of the
university, by whose means he was delivered from being murdered. But this
fell out in the year 1598, as is evident from the date of that epistle,
four years after the book was printed.
The book is written against one Covet, whom I know by nothing else but what of his disputes
with Socinus is by him published.
Socinus confesseth that he was a
learned man, and in repute for learning;
and, indeed, if we may take an estimate of the man from the little that is
there delivered of him, he was a godly, honest, and very learned man, and
spake as much in the cause as might be expected or was needful, before
farther opposition was made to the truth he did defend. Of all the books
of him concerning whom we speak, this his disputation, “De Jesu Christo
Servatore,” is written with the greatest strength, subtilty, and
plausibility, neither is any thing said afterward by himself or the rest of
his followers that is not comprised in it. Of this book he was wont
afterward to boast, as Crellius informs
us, and to say, “That if he might have some excellent adversary to deal
withal upon the point, he then would show what could farther be spoken of
the subject.”
This book, at its first coming out, was confuted by Gregorius Zarnovecius (as Socinus testifies in his epistle to Vaidovita) in the Polonian language: which
was afterward translated into Latin by Conradus Huberus, and printed at Franeker, anno 1618; also
by one Otho Casmannus; and thirdly, at
large, by Sibrandus Lubbertus,
anno 1611, who, together with his refutation, printed the whole book
itself, I hope to no disadvantage of the truth, though a late apostate to
Rome, whom we called here Hugh
Cressey, but is lately commenced B. Serenus Cressey, a priest of the order of Benedict, and who
would have been even a Carthusian (such high honour did the man aim at),
tells us that some of his scholars procured him to do it, that so they
might get the book itself in their hands. But the book will speak for itself with indifferent
readers, and for its clearness is extolled by Vossius. Generally, all that have since written of that
subject, in theses, common-places, lectures, comments,
professed controversies, have made that book the ground of their
procedure.
One is not to be omitted, which is in the hands of all
those who inquire into these things, or think that they are concerned in
the knowledge of them; this is Grotius’
“Defensio Fidei Catholicæ de
Satisfactione Christi, adversus Faustum Socinum Senensem.”
Immediately upon the coming out of that book, animadversions were put forth
against it by Harmanus
Ravenspergerus, approved, as it seems, by our Doctor Prideaux.
The truth is, those animadversions of Ravenspergerus are many of them
slight, and in sundry things he was mistaken; whereby his endeavours were
easily eluded by the learned Vossius, in his vindication of Grotius against him. Not that the dissertation of Grotius is free from being liable to many and
just exceptions, partly in things wherein he was mistaken, partly wherein
he failed in what he undertook (whereby many young students are deluded, as
ere long may be manifested), but that his antagonist had not well laid his
action, nor did pursue it with any skill.
However, the interpretations of Scripture given therein by
that learned man will rise up in judgment against many of the annotations
which in his after-comments on the Scripture he hath divulged. His book
was at length answered by Crellius, the
successor of Valentinus Smalcius,
in the school and society of Racovia, after which Grotius lived about twenty years, and never attempted any
reply. Hereupon it has been generally concluded that the man was wrought
over to drink in that which he had before published to be the most
destructive poison of the church; the
belief whereof was exceedingly increased and cherished by an epistle of his
to Crellius, who had subtilely managed the
man, according to his desire of honour and regard, and by his annotations,
of which we shall have causer to speak afterward. That book of Crellius has since been at large confuted by
Essenius, and enervated by a learned and ingenious author in
his “Specimen Refutationis Crellii de
Satisfactione Christi,” published about the same time with the
well-deserving labour of Essenius, in
the year 1648.
Most of the arguments and sophisms of Socinus about this business are refuted and dissolved by
David Paræus, in his comment on the
Romans, not mentioning the name of him whose objections they were.
About the year 1608, Michael Gitichius gathered together the sum of what is
argumentative in that book of Socinus
against the satisfaction of Christ; which was answered by Ludovicus Lucius, then professor at Hamburg, and the reply of
Gitichius confuted and removed out
of the way by the same hand. In that brief rescript of Lucius there is a clear attempt to the
enervating of the whole book of Socinus, and that with good success, by way of a logical
and scholastical procedure. Only, I cannot but profess my sorrow that,
having in his first answer laid that solid foundation of the necessity of
the satisfaction of Christ, from the eternal nature and justice of God,
whereby it is absolutely impossible that, upon the consideration and
supposition of sin committed, it should be pardoned without a due
compensation, in his rejoinder to the reply of Gitichius, he closes with a commonly known expression of
Augustine, “That God could, if he would, have delivered us
without satisfaction, but he would not;” so casting down the most stable and unmovable pillar
of that doctrine which he so dexterously built up in spite of its
adversaries.
I dare boldly acquaint the younger students in these
weighty points of the religion of Jesus Christ, that the truth of this one
particular, concerning the eternal justice of God indispensably requiring
the punishment of sin, being well established (for which end they have not
only the consent but the arguments of almost all who have handled these
controversies with skill and success), will securely carry them through all
the sophisms of the adversaries, and cut all the knots which, with so much
subtilty, they endeavour to tie and cast upon the doctrine of the
satisfaction of Christ; as I have in part elsewhere demonstrated. From this book also did Smalcius take the whole of what he has delivered about
the death of Christ in his Racovian
Catechism, not adding any thing at all of his own; which Catechism,
as it was heretofore confuted by Frederick
Bauldwinus, by order of the university of Wittenburgh, and is by
several parcels by many removed out of the way, especially by Altingius and Maccovius, so of late it is wholly answered by Nicolaus Arnoldus, now professor at Franeker; which coming lately
to my hands prevented me from proceeding to a just, orderly refutation of
the whole, as I was intended to do, although I hope the reader will not
find any thing of importance therein omitted.
To close the story of this book of Socinus, and the progress it hath made in the world: this I
dare assure them who are less exercised in these studies, that though the
whole of the treatise hath at first view a very plausible pretence and
appearance, yet there is a line of sophistry running through it, which
being once discovered (as, indeed, it may be easily felt, with the help of
some few principles), the whole fabric of it will fall to the ground, and
appear as weak and contemptible a piece as any we have to deal withal in
that warfare which is to be undertaken for the truths of the gospel. This
also I cannot omit, as to the rise of this abomination of denying the
satisfaction of Christ, that as it seems to hay been first invented by the
Pelagians, so in after ages it was vented Petrus Abelardus, professor of philosophy at Paris; of whom
Bernard, who wrote against him, saith, “Habemus in Francia novum de vetere magtheologum,
qui ab ineunte ætate sua in arte dialectica lusit, et nunc in Scripturis
sanctis insanit:” and in his epistle (which is to Pope Innocent)
about him, he strongly confutes his imaginations about this
very business; whereupon he was condemned in a council at Rome, held by the
same Innocent.
This part of our faith being of so great weight and
importance, the great basis and foundation of the church, you will find it
at large insisted on and vindicated in the ensuing treatise.
The author of the life of Socinus tells us (as he himself also gives in the
information) that whilst he abode about Switzerland, at Basil and Tigurum
[Zurich], he had a dispute with Puccius; which also is since published. This was before
his going into Poland in the year 1578.
The story of this Puccius, because it may be of some use as to the present
estate of the minds of many in the things of God, I shall briefly give from Socinus himself (Ep.
3, ad Matt. Radec.), and that as a tremendous example of the
righteous judgment of God, giving up a person of a light, unstable spirit
to fearful delusions, with a desperate issue. Originally he was a merchant
of a good and noble family, but leaving his profession he betook himself to
study, and for his
advantage therein came hither to Oxford. After he had
stayed here until he began to vent some paradoxes in religion, about the
year 1565 (being not able here to prevail with any to close with him), he
went to Basil, where there was a dispute between him and Socinus, before mentioned; in the issue
whereof they both professed that they could agree in nothing in religion
but that there was a God that made the world. At Basil he maintained
universal redemption and a natural faith, as they then termed it, or an
innate power of believing without the efficacy of the grace of God, for
which he was compelled thence to depart; which doing he returned again into
England, where, upon the same account, he was cast into prison for a
season; thence being released, he went into Holland, from whence by letters
he challenged Socinus to dispute, and
went one thousand miles (namely, to Cracovia in Poland) afterward to make
it good. After some disputes there (both parties condescending to them on
very ridiculous conditions), Socinus
seeming to prevail, by having most friends among the judges, as the other
professed, he stayed there a while, and wrote a book, which he styled “The
Shut Bible, and of Elias,” wherein he laboured to deny all ordinances,
ministry, and preaching, until Elias should come and restore all things.
His reason was taken from the defection and apostasy of the church;
wherein, said he, all truth and order was lost, the state of the church
being not again to be recovered, unless some with apostolical authority and
power of working miracles were immediately sent of God for that purpose.
How far this persuasion hath prevailed with some in our days, we all know
and lament. Puccius at length
begins to fancy that he shall himself be employed in this great restoration
that is to be made of the church, by immediate mission from God! Whilst he
was in expectation of his call hereunto, there come two Englishmen into
Poland, men pretending discourse with angels and revelations from God: one
of them was the chief at revelations (their names I cannot learn), the
other gave out what he received, in his daily converse with angels, and the
words he heard from God, about the destruction of all the present frame of
the worship of God. To these men Puccius joined himself, and followed them to Prague in
Bohemia, though his friends dealt with him to the contrary, assuring him
that one of his companions was a mountebank and the other a magician; but
being full of his former persuasion of the ceasing of all ordinances and
institutions, with the necessity of their restitution by immediate
revelation from God, having got companions fit to harden him in his folly
and presumption, he scorned all advice, and away he went to Prague. No
sooner came he thither but his prophet had a revelation by an angel that
Puccius must become Papist, his
cheating companion having never been otherwise. Accordingly he turns
Papist; begs pardon publicly for his deserting the Roman church, is
reconciled by a priest, in whose society after he had a while continued,
and laboured to pervert others to the same superstition with himself, he
died a desperate magician. Have none in our days been led into the like
maze? hath not Satan led some in the same circle, setting out
from superstition to profaneness, passing through some zeal and earnestness
in religion, rising to a contempt of ministry and ordinances, with an
expectation of revelations and communion with angels? And how many have
again sunk down into Popery, atheism, and horrible abominations, is known
to all in this nation who think it their duty to inquire into the things of
God. I have given this instance only to manifest that the old enemy of our
salvation is not playing any new game of deceit and temptation, but such as
he hath successfully acted in former generations. Let not us be ignorant
of his deceits.
By the way, a little farther to take in the consideration
of men like-minded with him last mentioned: of those who denied all
ordinances, and maintained such an utter loss and defection of all church
state and order that it was impossible it should be restored without new
apostles, evidencing their ministry by miracles, this was commonly the
issue, that being pressed with this, that there was nothing needful to
constitute a church of Christ but that there were a company of men
believing in Jesus Christ, receiving the word of God, and taking it for
their rule, they denied that indeed now there was or could be any faith in
Jesus Christ, the ministers that should beget it being utterly ceased, and
therefore it was advisable for men to serve God, to live justly and
honestly, according to the dictates of the law of nature, and to omit all
thoughts of Christ beyond an expectation of his sending persons hereafter
to acquaint the world again with his worship.
That this was the judgment of Matt. Radecius, his honoured friend, Socinus informs us; though he
mollifies his expression, p. 123, ascribing it to others. Whether many in
our days are not insensibly fallen into the same abominations, a little
time will discover. The main of the plea of the men of this persuasion in
those days was taken from the example of the Israelites under that
idolatrous apostasy wherein they were engaged by Jeroboam. “In the days of
Elijah there were,” said they, “seven thousand who joined not with the
residue in their false worship and idolatry, but yet they never went about
to gather, constitute, and set up a new church or churches, but remained in
their scattered condition, keeping themselves as they could from the
abominations of their brethren;” — not considering that there is not the
same reason of the Judaical and Christian churches, in that the carrying on
of the worship of God among them was annexed to one tribe, yea, to one
family in that tribe, and chiefly tied to one certain place, no public
instituted worship, such as was to be the bond of communion for the church,
being acceptable that was not performed by those persons in that place: so
that it was utterly impossible for the godly in Israel then, or the ten
tribes, to set up a new church-state, seeing they neither had the persons
nor were possessed of the place, without which no such constitution was
acceptable to God, as not being of his appointment. Under the gospel it is
not so, either as to the one or other. All places being now alike, and all
persons who are enabled thereunto having liberty to preach the word in the
order by Christ appointed, the erecting of churches and the celebration of
ordinances is recoverable, according to the mind of God, out of the
greatest defection imaginable, whilst unto any persons there is a
continuance of the word and Spirit.
But to proceed with Socinus. Blandrata
having got a great interest with the king of Poland and prince of
Transylvania, as hath been declared, and making it his business to promote
the Antitrinitarians, of what sort soever, being in
Transylvania, where the men of his own abomination were exceedingly divided
about the invocation and adoration of Jesus Christ, Franciscus David carrying all before him in an opposition
thereunto (of which whole business I shall give a farther account
afterward), he sends for Socinus, who was known to them, and, from his dealing with
Puccius, began to be famed for a
disputant, to come to him into Transylvania, to dispute with and confute
Franciscus David, in the end of the
year 1578; where what success his dispute had, in the imprisonment and
death of David, shall be afterward
related.
Being now fallen upon this controversy, which fell out
before Faustus’ going into Poland,
before I proceed to his work and business there, I shall give a brief
account of this business which I have now mentioned, and on which occasion
he was sent for by Blandrata into
Poland, referring the most considerable disputes he had about that
difference to that place in the ensuing treatise where I shall treat of the
invocation and worship of Christ.
After way was once made in the minds of men for the farther
work of Satan, by denying the deity of our blessed Lord Jesus, very many
quickly grew to have more contemptible thoughts of him than those seemed to
be willing they should from whose principles they professed, and indeed
righteously, that their mean esteem of him did arise. Hence Franciscus David, Georgius Enjedinus, Christianus Franken, and sundry others, denied that
Christ was to be worshipped with religious worship, or that he might
be invocated and called upon. Against these Socinus, indeed, contended with all his might, professing
that he would not account such as Christians who would not allow that
Christ might be invocated and was to be worshipped; which that he was to
be, he proved by undeniable testimonies of Scripture. But yet when himself
came to answer their arguments, whereby they endeavoured to prove that a
mere man (such as on both sides they acknowledged Christ to be) might not
be worshipped with religious worship or divine adoration, the man, with all
his craft and subtilty, was entangled, utterly confounded, silenced, slain
with his own weapons, and triumphed over, as I shall afterward manifest in
the account which I shall give of the disputation between him and Christianus Franken about this
business: God in his righteous judgment so ordering things, that he who
would not embrace the truth which he ought to have received should not be
able to maintain and defend that truth which he did receive; for having,
what in him lay, digged up the only foundation of the religious worship and
adoration of Christ, he was altogether unable to keep the building upright.
Nor did this fall out for want of ability in the man, no man under heaven
being able on his false hypothesis to maintain the worship of Christ, but,
as was said, merely by the just hand of God, giving him up to be punished
by his own errors and darkness.
Being hardened in the contempt of Christ by the success
they had against Socinus and his
followers, with whom they conversed and disputed, some of the men before
mentioned stayed not with him at the affirming of him to be a mere man, nor
yet where they began, building on that supposition that he was not to be
worshipped, but proceeded yet farther, and affirmed that he was indeed a
good man and sent of God, but yet he spake not by the spirit of prophecy,
but so as that whatever was spoken by him and written by his
apostles was to be examined by Moses and the prophets, whereto if it did
not agree it was to be rejected: which was the sum of the first and second
theses of Franciscus David, in opposition to which Socinus gave in his judgment in certain
antitheses to Christopher Barthoræus, prince of Transylvania, who had
then cast David into prison for his
blasphemy.
To give a little account, by the way, of the end of this
man, with his contempt of the Lord Jesus:—
In the year 1579, in the beginning of the month of June, he
was cast into prison by the prince of Transylvania, and lived until the end
of November. That he was cast into prison by the instigation of
Socinus himself and Blandrata, the testimonies are beyond
exception; for this is not only recorded by Bellarmine and others of the Papists (to whose
assertions, concerning any adversary with whom they have to do, I confess
much credit is not to be given), but by others also of unquestionable
authority. This, indeed, Socinus denies, and would willingly impose
the odium of it upon others; but the truth is, considering the
keenness and wrath of the man’s spirit, and the thoughts he had of this
miserable wretch, it is more than probable that he was instrumental
towards his death. The like apology does Smalcius make in his answer to Franzius about the carriage of the Samosatenians in that
business of Franciscus David; where
they accused one another of craft, treachery, bloody cruelty, treason. Being cast into prison, the miserable
creature fell into a frenetical distemper, through the revenging hand of
God upon him, as Socinus confesseth
himself. In this miserable condition the devils (saith
the historian) appeared unto him; whereupon he cried out, “Behold who
expect me their companion in my journey,” whether really,
or in his vexed, distempered imagination, disordered by his despairing
mind, I determine not; but most certain it is that in that
condition he expired, not in the year 1580, as Bellarmine, Weik,
Ræmundus, and some of ours from
them, inform us, but one year sooner, as he assures us who best knew. And the consideration of this man’s
desperate apostasy and his companions’ might be one cause that about this
time sundry of the Antitrinitarians were converted, amongst whom was Daniel Bielenscius, a man afterward of
good esteem.
But neither yet did Satan stop here, but improved the
advantage given him by these men to the utter denying of Jesus Christ: for
unto the principle of Christ’s being not God, adding another of the same
nature, that the prophecies of the Old Testament were all concerning
temporal things, some amongst them at length concluded that there was no
promise of any such person as Jesus Christ in the whole Old Testament; that
the Messiah or king promised was only a king promised to the Jews, that
they should have after the captivity, in case they did not offend but walk
with God. “The kingdom,” say they, “promised in the Old Testament, is a
kingdom of this world only; but the kingdom which you assert to belong to
Jesus of Nazareth was a kingdom not of this world, a heavenly kingdom, and
so, consequently, not promised of God or from God;” and
therefore with him they would not have aught to do. This was the argument
of Martin Seidelius, in his epistle
to Socinus and his companions.
What advantage is given to the like blasphemous
imaginations with this, by such Judaizing annotations on the Old Testament
as those of Grotius, time will evidence.
Now, because this man’s creed is such as is not to be paralleled, perhaps
some may be contented to take it in his own words, which are as
follow:—
“Cæterum ut sciatis cujus
sim religionis, quamvis id scripto meo quod habetis ostenderim, tamen hic
breviter repetam. Et primum quidem doctrina de Messia, seu rege illo
promisso, ad meam religionem nihil pertinet: ham rex ille tantum Judæis
promissus erat, sicut et bona ilia Canaan. Sic etiam circumcisio,
sacrificia, et reliquæ ceremoniæ Mosis ad me non pertinent, sed tantum
populo Judaico promissa, data, et mandata sunt. Neque ista fuerunt cultus
Dei apud Judæos, sed inserviebant cultui divino, et ad cultum divinum
deducebant Judæos. Verus autem cultus Dei quem meam religionem appello,
est decalogus, qui est æterna, et immutabilis voluntas Dei; qui decalogus
ideo ad me pertinet, quia etiam mihi a Deo datus est, non quidem per vocem
sonantem de cœlo, sicut populo Judaico, at per creationem insita est menti
meæ; quia autem insitus decalogus, per corruptionem naturæ humanæ et pravis
consuetudinibus, aliqua ex parte obscuratus est, ideo ad illustrandum eum,
adhibeo vocalem decalogum, qui vocalis decalogus, ideo etiam ad me, et ad
omnes populos pertinet, quia cum insito nobis decalogo consentit, imo idem
ille decalogus est. Hæc est mea sententia de Messia, seu rege illo promisso, et hæc est
mea religio, quam coram vobis ingenue profiteor.” — Martin. Seidelius Olaviensis
Silesius.
To this issue did Satan drive the Socinian principles in
this man and sundry others, even to a full and peremptory denial of the
Lord that bought them. In answering this man, it fell out with Socinus much as it did with him in his
disputation with Franken about the adoration and invocation of Jesus
Christ: for granting Franken that Christ was but a mere man, he could no
way evade his inference thence, that he was not to be invocated; so,
granting Seidelius that the promises
of the Old Testament were all temporal, he could not maintain against him
that Jesus Christ, whose kingdom is heavenly, was the king and Messiah
therein promised; for Faustus hath
nothing to reply but that “God gives more than he promised, of which no man
ought to complain.” Not observing that the question
being not about the faithfulness of God in his promises, but about the
thing promised, he gave away the whole cause, and yielded that Christ was
not indeed the king and Messiah promised in the Old Testament.
Of an alike opinion to this of Seidelius was he of whom we spake before, Franciscus David; who as to the kingdom of
Christ delivered himself to this purpose: “That he was appointed to be a
king of the Jews, and that God sent him into the world to receive his
kingdom, which was to be earthly and civil, as the kingdoms of other kings;
but the Jews rejected him and slew him, contrary to the purpose of God, who
therefore took him from them and placed him in a quiet place, where he is
not at all concerned in any of the things of the church, but is there in
God’s design a king, and he will one day send him again to Jerusalem, there
to take upon him a kingdom, and to rule as the kings of this world do or
have done.” — Thes. Francisei David de Adorat. Jes. Christi.
The reminding of these abominations gives occasion, by the
way, to complain of the carnal apprehensions of a kingdom of
Christ, which too many amongst ourselves have filled their thoughts
and expectations withal. For my part, I am persuaded that, before the end
of the world, the Lord Jesus, by his word and Spirit, will multiply the
seed of Abraham as the stars of heaven, bringing into one fold the remnant
of Israel and the multitude of the Gentiles; and that his church shall have
peace, after he hath judged and broken the stubborn adversaries thereof,
and laid the kingdoms of the nations in a useful subserviency to his
interest in this world; and that himself will reign most gloriously, by a
spirit of light, truth, love, and holiness, in the midst of them: but that
he hath a kingdom of another nature and kind to set up in the world than
that heavenly kingdom which he hath peculiarly exercised ever since he was
exalted and made a ruler and a saviour, that he should set up a dominion
over men as men, and rule, either himself present or by his substitutes, as
in a kingdom of this world, which is a kingdom neither of grace nor glory,
I know it cannot be asserted without either the denial of his kingdom for
the present, or that he is or hitherto hath been a king (which was the
blasphemy of Franciscus David before
mentioned), or the affirming that he hath, or is to have, upon the promise
of God, two kingdoms of several sorts; of which in the whole word of God
there is not the least tittle.
To return: about the end of the year 1579, Faustus Socinus left Transylvania and went
into Poland, which he chose for the stage whereon to act his
design.
In what estate and condition the persons in Poland and Lithuania were who
had fallen off from the faith of the holy Trinity was before declared.
True it is, that before the coming of Socinus, Blandrata,
by the help of Franciscus David, had
brought over many of them from Sabellianism, and Tritheism, and Arianism,
unto Samosatenianism, and a full, plain denial of the deity of Christ.
But yet with that Pelagian doctrine that Socinus came furnished withal unto them,
they were utterly unacquainted, and were at no small difference, many of
them, about the Deity. The condition of the first man to be
mortal and obnoxious to death, that there was no original
sin, that Christ was not a high-priest on the earth, that
he made no satisfaction for sin, that we are not justified by
his righteousness but our own, that the wicked shall be utterly
confined and annihilated at the last day, with the rest of his
opinions, which afterward he divulged, they were utterly strangers unto; as
is evident from the contests he had about these things with some of them in
their synods, and by writing, especially with Niemojevius, one of the chief patrons of their sect.
In this condition of affairs, the man, being wise and
subtile, obtained his purpose by the ensuing course of procedure:—
1. He joined himself to none of their societies,
because, being divided amongst themselves, he knew that by adhering to any
one professedly, he should engage all the rest against him. That which he
pretended most to favour, and for whose sake he underwent some contests,
was the assembly at Racovia, which at first was collected by Gregorius Paulus, as hath been declared.
From these his pretence for abstaining was, their rigid
injunction of all to be rebaptized that entered into their fellowship and
communion. But he who made it his design to gather the scattered
Antitrinitarians into a body and a consistency in a religion among
themselves saw plainly that the rigid insisting upon Anabaptism, which was
the first principle of some of them, would certainly keep them at an
unreconcilable distance. Wherefore he falls upon an opinion much better
suited to his design, and maintained that baptism was only instituted for
the initiation of them who from any other false religion were turned to the
religion of Christ; but that it belonged not to Christian societies, nor to
them that were born of Christian parents, and had never been of any other
profession or religion, though they might use it, if they pleased, as an
indifferent thing. And therefore he refused to join himself with the
Racovians, unless upon this principle, that they would desist for the time
to come from requiring any to be baptized that should join with them. In a
short time he divided that meeting by this opinion, and at length utterly
dissolved them, as to their old principles they first consented unto, and
built the remainder of them, by the hand of Valentinus Smalcius, into his own mould and frame.
The author of his life sets it forth as a great trial of
his prudence, piety, and patience, that he was repulsed from the society at
Racovia, and that with ignominy; when the
truth is, he absolutely refused to join with them, unless they would at
once renounce their own principles and subscribe to his; which
is as hard a condition as can be put upon any perfectly conquered enemy.
This himself delivers at large on sundry occasions, especially insisting on
and debating that business in his epistles to Simon Ronembergius and to Sophia Siemichovia. On this score did he write his
disputation “De Baptismo
Aquæ,” with the vindication of it from the animadversions of A. D.
(whom I suppose to be Andrew
Dudithius), and of M. C., endeavouring with all his strength to
prove that baptism is not an ordinance appointed for the use of Christians
or their children, but only for such as were converted from Paganism or
Mohammedanism; and this he did in the year 1580, two years after his coming
into Poland, as he declares by the date of the disputation from Cracovia,
at the close thereof. And in this persuasion he was so fixed, and laid
such weight upon it, that after he had once before broken the assembly at
Racovia, in his old days he encourages Valentinus Smalcius, then their teacher, to break them
again, because some of them tenaciously held their opinion; and for those
who, as Smalcius informed him,
would thereupon fall off to the reformed churches, he bids them go, and a
good riddance of them. By this means, I say, he utterly broke up, and
divided, and dissolved the meeting at Racovia, which was collected upon the
principles before mentioned, that there remained none abiding to their
first engagement but a few old women, as Squarcialupus tells him, and as himself confesses in his answer for
them to Palæologus. By this course of
behaviour, the man had these two advantages:— (1.) He kept fair with all
parties amongst them, and provoked not any by joining with them with whom
they could not agree; so that all parties looked on him as their own, and
were ready to make him the umpire of all their differences, by which he had
no small advantage of working them all to his own principles. (2.) He was
less exposed to the fury of the Papists, which he greatly feared (loving
well the things of this world), than he would have been had he joined
himself to any visible church profession; and, indeed, his privacy of
living was a great means of his security.
2. His second great advantage was that he was a
scholar, and was able to defend and countenance them against their
opposers, the most of them being miserably weak and unlearned. One of
their best defensatives, before his joining with them, was a clamour
against logic and learning, as himself confesseth in some of his epistles.
Now, this is not only evident by experience, but the nature of the thing
itself makes it manifest that so it will be: whereas men of low and weak
abilities fall into by-persuasions in religion, as they generally at first
prevail by clamours and all sorts of reproaches cast on learning and
learned men, yet if God in his providence at any time, to heighten the
temptation, suffer any person of learning and ability to fall in amongst
and with them, he is presently their head and ruler without
control. Some testimony hereof our own days have afforded, and I wish we
may not have more examples given us. Now, how far he availed himself of
this advantage, the consideration of them with whom he had to do, of the
esteem they had of his abilities, and the service he did them thereby, will
acquaint us.
[As] for the leaders of them, they were for the most part
unlearned, and so unable to defend their opinions in any measure against a
skillful adversary. Blandrata,
their great patron, was not able to express himself in Latin, but by the
help of Statorius, who had some
learning, but no judgment; and therefore, upon his difference with
Franciscus David in Transylvania, he
was forced to send for Socinus out of
Helvetia to manage the disputation with him. And what kind of cattle those
were with whom he had to do at Cracovia as well as Racovia, is manifest
from the epistle of Simon
Ronembergius, one of the leaders and elders of that which they
called their “church,” which is printed, with Socinus’ answer unto it. I do not know that ever in my
life I saw, for matter and form, sense and language, any thing so simple
and foolish, so ridiculously senseless and incoherent, unless it were one
or two in our own days, which with this deserve an eminent place “inter epistolas obscurorum virorum.” And
therefore Socinus justly feared that
his party would have the worst in disputes, as he acknowledges it befell
Licinius in his conference with Smiglecius at Novograde, and could not believe Ostorodius that he had such
success as he boasted in Germany with Fabritius; and tells
us himself a story of some pastors of their churches in Lithuania, who were
so ignorant and simple that they knew not that Christ was to be
worshipped. What
a facile thing it was for a man of his parts, abilities, and learning, to
obtain a kingdom amongst such as these is easily guessed. He complains,
indeed, of his own lost time in his young days, by the instigation of the
devil, and says that it made him weary of his life to think of it, when he
had once set up his thoughts in seeking honour and glory by being the head
and master of a sect, as Ignatius the
father of the Jesuits did (with whom, as to this purpose, he is
compared all along by the gentleman that wrote his life); yet it is evident
that his learning and abilities were such as easily promoted him to the
dictatorship among them with whom he had to do.
It may, then, be easily imagined what kind of esteem such
men as those would have of so great an ornament and glory of their
religion, who at least was with them in that wherein they dissented from
the rest of Christians.
Not only after his death, when they set him
forth as the most incomparable man of his time, but in his own life and to
himself, as I know not what excellent person, — that he had a mind
suited for the investigation of truth, was a philosopher, an excellent
orator, an eminent divine, that for the Latin tongue especially he might
contend with any of the great wits of Europe, they told him to his face;
such thoughts had they generally of him. It is, then, no wonder they gave
themselves up to his guidance. Hence Smalcius wrote unto him to consult about the propriety
of the Latin tongue, and in his answer to him he excuses it as a great
crime that he had used a reciprocal relative where there was no occasion
for it.
And to make it more evident how they depended on him, on
this account of his ability for instructions, when he had told Ostorodius an answer to an
objection of the Papists, the man having afterward forgot it, sends to him
again to have his lesson over once more, that he might remember it.
And therefore, as if he had been to deal with school-boys,
he would tell his chief companions that he had found out and discovered
such or such a thing in religion, but would not tell them until they had
tried themselves, and therefore was afraid lest he should through unawares
have told it to any of them; upon one of
which adventures, Ostorodius
making bold to give in his conception, he does little better than tell him
he is a blockhead. Being in this repute amongst them,
and exercising such a dominion in point of abilities and learning, to
prevail the more upon them, he was perpetually ready to undertake their
quarrels, which themselves were not able with any colour to maintain.
Hence most of his books were written, and his disputations engaged in, upon
the desire of one assembly, synod, or company of them or other, as I could
easily manifest by particular instances. And by this means got he no small
advantage to insinuate his own principles; for whereas the men greedily
looked after and freely entertained the things which were professedly
written in their defence, he always wrought in together therewith something
of his own peculiar heresy, that poison might be taken down with that which
was most pleasing. Some of the wisest of them, indeed, as Niemojevius, discovered the fraud, who,
upon his answer to Andræus Volanus,
commending what he had written against the deity of Christ, which they
employed him in, falls foul upon him for his delivering in the same
treatise that Christ was not a priest whilst he was upon the earth; which one abominable figment lies at the
bottom of his whole doctrine of the justification of a sinner. The case is
the same about his judgment concerning the invocation of Christ, which was,
“That we might do it, but it was not necessary from any precept or
otherwise that so we should do.”
And this was nine years after his coming into Poland, as
appears from the date of that epistle; so long was he in getting his
opinions to be entertained among his friends. But though this man were a
little wary, and held out some opposition unto him, yet multitudes of them
were taken with this snare, and freely drank down the poison they loathed,
being tempered with that which they had a better liking to. But this being
discovered, he let the rest of them know that though he was entreated to
write that book by the Racovians, and did it in their name, yet, because he had published somewhat of his own
private opinions therein, they might if they pleased deny, yea, and
forswear, that they were written by their appointment.
And this was with respect to his doctrine about the
satisfaction of Christ, which, as he says, he heard they were coming
over unto; and it is evident from what he writes elsewhere to Balcerovicius that he begged this
employment of writing against Volanus, it being agreed by them that he should write
nothing but by public consent, because of the novelties which he broached
every day. By this readiness to appear and write in their defence, and so
commending his writing to them on that account, it is incredible how he got
ground upon them, and won them over daily to the residue of his
abominations, which they had not received.
3. To these add, as another advantage to win upon that
people, the course he had fixed on in reference to others; which was,
to own as his, and of his party of the church, all persons whatever
that, on any pretence whatever, opposed the doctrine of the
Trinity and forsook the reformed church. Hence he dealt with men as
his brethren, friends, and companions, who scarcely retained any thing of
Christians, some nothing at all; as Martin
Seidelius, who denied Christ; with Philip Buccel, who denied all difference of good and evil in
the actions of men; with Erasmus
Johannes, an Arian; with Matthias
Radecius, who denied that any could believe in Christ without new
apostles; — indeed, with all or any sorts of men whatever that would but
join with him, or did consent unto the opposition of the deity of our Lord
Jesus Christ, which was the principal work which he engaged in.
4. Unto these and the like advantages the man added all the
arts and subtilties, all the diligence and industry, that were any way
tending to his end. Some of his artifices and insinuations, indeed,
were admirable, though to them who now review them in cold blood, without
recalling to mind the then state of things, they may seem of another
complexion.
By these and the like means, though he once despaired of
ever getting his opinions received amongst them, as he professeth, yet in
the long continuance of twenty-four years (so long he lived in Poland),
with the help of Valentinus
Smalcius, Volkelius, and some
few others, who wholly fell in with him, he at length brought
them all into subjection to himself, and got all his opinions enthroned,
and his practice taken almost for a rule; so that whereas in former days
they accused him for a covetous wretch, one that did nothing but give his
mind to scrape up money, and were professedly offended with his putting
money to usury, for his full
justification, Ostorodius
and Voidovius, in the close of the
compendium of their religion which they brought into Holland, profess that
their “churches did not condemn usury, so that it were exercised with
moderation and without oppression.”
I thought to have added a farther account, in particular,
of the man’s craft and subtilty; of his several ways for the instilling of
his principles and opinions; of his personal temper, wrath, and anger, and
multiplying of words in disputes; of the foils he received in sundry
disputations with men of his own antitrinitarian infidelity; of his aim at
glory and renown, expressed by the Polonian gentleman who wrote his life;
his losses and troubles, which were not many, — with all which, and the
like concernments of the man and his business in that generation, by the
perusal of all that he wrote, and of much that hath been written against
him, with what is extant of the conferences and disputations, synods and
assemblies of those days, I have some little acquaintance; — but being not
convinced of much usefulness in my so doing, I shall willingly spare my
labour. Thus much was necessary, that we might know the men and their
conversation who have caused so much trouble to the Christian world; in
which work, having the assistance of that atheism and those corrupted
principles which are in the hearts of all by nature, without the infinite
rich mercy of God sparing a sinful world as to this judgment, for his
elect’s sake, they will undoubtedly proceed.
Leaving him, then, in the possession of his conquest,
Tritheists, Sabellians, Arians, Eunomians, with the followers of Francis David, being all lost and sunk, and
Socinians standing up in the room of them all, looking a little upon what
ensued, I shall draw from the consideration of the persons to their
doctrines, as at first proposed.
After the death of Socinus, his cause was strongly carried on by those whom in
his life he had formed to his own mind and judgment; among whom Valentinus Smalcius, Hieronymus Moscorovius, Johannes Volkelius, Christopherus Ostorodius, were the
chief. To Smalcius he wrote
eleven epistles, that are extant, professing his great expectations of him,
extolling his learning and prudence. He afterward wrote the Racovian Catechism, compiling it out of
Socinus’ works; many answers and
replies to and with Smiglecius
the Jesuit, and Franzius the
Lutheran; a book of the divinity of Christ, with sundry others; and was a
kind of professor among them at Racovia. The writings of the rest of them
are also extant. To him succeeded Crellius, a man of more learning and modesty than Smalcius, and of great industry for the
defence of his heresy. His defence of Socinus against Grotius’
treatise, “De Causis
Mortis Christi, de Effectu SS.,” his comments and ethics, declare
his abilities and industry in his way. After him arose Jonas Schlichtingius, a man no whit
behind any of the rest for learning and diligence, as in his comments and
disputations against Meisnerus is
evident. As the report is, he was burned by the procurement of the
Jesuits, some four years ago, that they might be sure to have the blood of
all sorts of men found upon them. What advantage they have
obtained thereby time will show. I know that generation of men retort upon
us the death of Servetus at Geneva;
but the case was far different. Schlichtingius lived in his own country, and conversed with
men of his own persuasion, who in a succession had been so before he was
born: Servetus came out of Spain on
purpose to disturb and seduce them who knew nothing of his abominations.
Schlichtingius disputed his
heresy without reproaching or blaspheming God willingly, under pretence of
denying the way and worship of his adversaries: Servetus stuffed all his discourses with horrid
blasphemies. Beza tells us that he
called the Trinity tricipitem
Cerberum, and wrote that Moses was a ridiculous impostor, Beza, Ep. i.; and there are passages cited out of his book of
the Trinity (which I have not seen) that seem to have as much of the devil
in them as any thing that ever yet was written or spoken by any of the sons
of men. If, saith he, Christ be the Son of God, “debuissent ergo dicere, quod Deus habebat uxorem quandam
spiritualem, vel quod solus ipse masculus femineus aut hermaphroditus,
simul erat pater et mater, nam ratio vocabuli non patitur, ut quis dicatur
sine matre pater: et si Logos filius erat, natus ex patre sine matre; dic
mihi quomodo peporit eum, per ventrem an per latus.”
To this height of atheism and blasphemy had Satan wrought
up the spirit of the man; so that I must say he is the only person in the
world, that I ever read or heard of, that ever died upon the account of
religion, in reference to whom the zeal of them that put him to death may
be acquitted. But of these things God will judge. Socinus says he died calling on Christ; those that were
present say quite the contrary, and that in horror he roared out misericordia to the magistrates,
but nothing else. But arcana
Deo.
Of these men last named, their writings and endeavours for
the propagation of their opinions, others having written already, I shall
forbear. Some of note amongst them have publicly recanted and renounced
their heresy, as Vogelius and Peuschelius; whose retractations are
answered by Smalcius. Neither
shall I add much as to their present condition. They have as yet many
churches in Poland and Transylvania; and have their superintendents, after
the manner of Germany. Regenvolscius tells us that all the others are sunk and
lost, only the Socinians remain; the Arians, Sabellians,
David Georgians, with the followers of Franciscus David, being all gone over to the confession of
Socinus: which makes me somewhat
wonder at that of Johannes Lætus, who
affirms that about the year 1619, in a convention of the states in Poland,
those who denied that Christ ought to be invocated (which were the
followers of Franciscus David, Christianus Franken, and Palæologus) pleaded that the liberty
that was granted to Antitrinitarians was intended for them, and not for the
Socinians; and the truth is, they had footing in Poland before ever the
name of Socinus was there known,
though he afterward insults upon them, and says that they most impudently
will have themselves called Christians when they are not so.
But what numbers they are in those parts of the world, how
the poison is drunk in by thousands in the Papacy, by what
advantages it hath [insinuated], and continues to insinuate itself into
multitudes living in the outward profession of the reformed churches, what
progress it makes and what ground it gets in our native country every day,
I had rather bewail than relate. This I am compelled to say, that unless
the Lord, in his infinite mercy, lay an awe upon the hearts of men, to keep
them in some captivity to the simplicity and mystery of the gospel who now
strive every day to exceed one another in novel opinions and philosophical
apprehensions of the things of God, I cannot but fear that this
soul-destroying abomination will one day break in as a flood upon us.
I shall only add something of the occasions and advantages
that these men took and had for the renewing and propagation of their
heresy, and draw to a close of this discourse.
Not to speak of the general and more remote causes of these
and all other soul-destroying errors, or the darkness, pride, corruption,
and wilfullness of men; the craft, subtilty, envy, and malice of Satan; the
just revenging hand of God, giving men up to a spirit of delusion, that
they might believe lies, because they delighted not in the truth, — I shall
only remark one considerable occasion or stumbling-block at which they fell
and drank in the poison, and one considerable advantage that they had for
the propagation of what they had so fallen into.
Their great stumbling-block I look upon to be the
horrible corruption and abuse of the doctrine of the Trinity in the
writings of the schoolmen, and the practice of the devotionists among the
Papists. With what desperate boldness, atheistical curiosity, wretched
inquiries and babbling, the schoolmen have polluted the doctrine of the
Trinity, and gone off from the simplicity of the gospel in this great
mystery, is so notoriously known that I shall not need to trouble you with
instances for the confirmation of the observation. This the men spoken of
(being the most, if not all of them, brought up in the Papacy) stumbled at.
They saw the doctrine concerning that God whom they were to worship
rendered unintelligible, curious, intricate,:involved in terms and
expressions not only barbarous in themselves, and not used in Scripture,
but insignificant, horrid, and remote from the reason of men: which, after
some struggling, set them at liberty from under the bondage of those
notions; and when they should have gone to “the law and to the testimony”
for their information, Satan turned them aside to their own reasonings and
imaginations, where they stumbled and fell. And yet of the forms and
expressions of their schoolmen are the Papists so zealous, as that whoever
departs from them in any kind is presently an antitrinitarian heretic. The
dealings of Bellarmine,
Genebrard, Possevine, and others, with Calvin, are known. One instance may be taken of their
ingenuity: Bellarmine, in
his book, “De
Christo,” lays it to the charge of Bullinger, that in his book, “De Scripturæ et Ecclesiæ
Authoritate,” he wrote that there were three persons in the Deity,
“non statu, sed gradu, non subsistentia,
sod forma, non potestate, sod specie differentes;” on which he
exclaims that the Arians themselves never spake more wickedly: and yet
these are the very words of Tertullian
against Praxeas; which, I confess, are warily
to be interpreted. But by this their measuring of truth by the forms
received by tradition from their fathers, neglecting and forsaking the
simplicity of the gospel, that many stumbled and fell is most evident.
Schlusselburgius, in his wonted respect and favour unto the
Calvinists, tells us that from them and their doctrine was the occasion
administered unto this new abomination; also, that never any turned Arian
but he was first a Calvinist: which he seems to make good by a letter of
Adam Neuserus, who, as he
saith, from a Sacramentarian turned Arian, and afterward a Mohammedan, and
was circumcised at Constantinople. “This man,” says he, “in a letter from
Constantinople to Doctor
Gerlachius, tells him that none turned Arians but those that were
Calvinists first; and therefore he that would take heed of Arianism had
best beware of Calvinism.” I am very unwilling
to call any man’s credit into question who relates a matter of fact, unless
undeniable evidence enforce me, because it cannot be done without an
imputation of the foulest crime; I shall therefore take leave to ask, —
1. What credit is to be given to the testimony of
this man, who, upon Conradus’ own
report, was circumcised, turned Mohammedan, and had wholly renounced the
truth which he once professed? For my part, I should expect from such a
person nothing but what was maliciously contrived for the prejudice of the
truth; and therefore suppose he might raise this on purpose to strengthen
and harden the Lutherans against the Calvinists, whom he hated most,
because that they professed the truth which he had renounced, and that true
knowledge of Christ and his will which now he hated; and this lie of his he
looked on as an expedient for the hardening of the Lutherans in their
error, and helping them with a stone to cast at the Calvinists.
2. Out of what kindness was it that this man bare
to Gerlachius and his companions,
that he gives them this courteous admonition to beware of Calvinism? Is it
any honour to Gerlachius, Conradus himself, or any other Lutheran,
that an apostate, an abjurer of Christian religion, loved them better than
he did the Calvinists? What person this Adam
Neuserus was, and what the end of him was, we have an account given
by Maresius from a manuscript
history of Altingius. From
Heidelberg, being suspected of a conspiracy with one Sylvanus, who for it was put to death, he fled into
Poland, thence to Constantinople, where he turned Mohammedan, and was
circumcised, and after a while fell into such miserable horror and despair,
that with dreadful yellings and clamours he died; so that the Turks
themselves confess that they never heard of a more horrid, detestable, and
tragical end of any man; whereupon they commonly called him Satan Ogli, or
the son of the devil. And so, much good may it do Conradus, with his witness.
3. But what occasion, I pray, does Calvinism give to
Arianism, that the one should be taken heed of if we intend to avoid the
other? What offence does it give to men inquiring after the truth, to make
them stumble on their abominations? What doctrine doth it maintain that
should prepare them for it? But no man is bound to burden himself with
more than he can carry, and therefore all such inquiries Schlusselburgius took no notice
of.
The truth is, many of the persons usually instanced in as
apostates from Calvinism to Arianism were such as, leaving Italy and other
parts of the pope’s dominion, came to shelter themselves where they
expected liberty and opportunity of venting their abomination among the
reformed churches, and joined themselves with them in outward
profession, most of them, as afterward appeared, being thoroughly infected
with the errors against the Trinity and about the Godhead before they left
the Papacy, where they stumbled and fell.
In the practice of the “church,” as it is called, wherein
they were bred, they nextly saw the horrible idolatry that was countenanced
in abominable pictures of the Trinity, and the worship yielded to them;
which strengthened and fortified their minds against such gross conceptions
of the nature of God as by those pictures were exhibited.
Hence, when they had left the Papacy and set up their
opposition to the blessed Trinity, in all their books they still made
mention of those idols and pictures, speaking of them as the gods of those
that worshipped the Trinity. This instance makes up a good part of their
book, “De Falsa et Vera Cognitione Unius Dei, Patris, Filii, et Spiritus
Sancti,” written in the name of the ministers of the churches in
Sarmatia and Transylvania; a book full of reproach and blasphemies. But
this, I say, was another occasion of stumbling to those miserable
wretches. They knew what thoughts the men of their communication had of
God, by the pictures made of him, and the worship they yielded to them, —
they knew how abhorrent to the very principles of reason it was that God
should be such as by them represented; and therefore set themselves at
liberty (or rather gave up themselves to the service of Satan) to find out
another god whom they might worship.
Neither are they a little confirmed to this day in their
errors by sundry principles which, under the Roman apostasy, got footing in
the minds of men professing the name of Jesus Christ; particularly, they
sheltered themselves from the sword of the word of God, evidencing the
deity of Christ by ascribing to him divine adoration, by the shield of the
Papists’ doctrine, that those who are not gods by nature may be adored,
worshipped, and invocated.
Now, that to this day the Papists continue in the same
idolatry (to touch that by the way), I shall give you, for your
refreshment, a copy of a verse or two, whose poetry does much outgo the
old,
“O crux spes unica!
Auge piis constantiam,
Hoc passionis tempore,
Reisque dona veniam;”
and whose blasphemy comes not at all short of it. The
first is of Clarus Bonarus the Jesuit,
lib.
iii. Amphitrial. Honor. lib. iii. cap. ult. ad Divinam Hallensem et Puerum
Jesum, as followeth:—
“Hæreo lac inter meditans, interque
cruorem;
Inter delicias uberis et
lateris.
Et dico (si forte oculus super ubera
tendo),
Diva parens mammæ gaudia posco
tuæ.
Sed dico (si deinde oculos in vulnera
verto),
O Jesu lateris gaudia male
tui.
Rem scio, prensabo si fas erit ubera
dextra,
Læva prensabo vulnera si
dabitur.
Lac matris miscere vole cum sanguine
nati;
Non possem antidote nobiliore
frui.
Vulnera restituant turpem uleeribus
mendicum,
Testa cui saniem radere sola
potest.
Ubera reficient Ismaelem
sitientem,
Quem Sara non patitur, quem neque nutrit
Agar.
Ista mihi, ad pestem procul et procul
expungendam;
Ista mini ad longas evalitura
febres.
Ira vomit flammas, fumatque libidinis
Ætna;
Suffocare queo sanguine, lacte
queo.
Livor inexpleta rubigine
sævit in artus;
Detergere queo lacte, cruore
queo:
Vanus honos me perpetua prurigine
tentat:
Exsaturare queo sanguine, lacte
queo.
Ergo parens et nate, meis advertite
votis
Lac peto, depereo sanguinem, utrumque
volo.
O sitio tamen! O vocem sitis
intercludit!
Nate cruore, sitim comprime lacte
parens.
Dic matri, meus hic frater sitit, optima
mater,
Vise fonte tuo promere, deque
meo.
Dic nato, tuus hie frater mi mellee
fili
Captivus monstrat vincula, lytron
habes.
Ergo Redemptorem monstra to jure
vocari,
Nobilior reliquis si tibi sanguis
inest.
Tuque parens monstra, matrem to jure
vocari,
Ubera si reliquis divitiora
geris.
O quando lactabor ab ubere, vulnere
pascar?
Deliciisque fruar, mamma latusque
tuis.”
The other is of Franciscus de Mendoza, in Viridario Utriusque Eruditionis,
lib. ii. prob. 2, as ensueth:—
“Ubera me matris, nati me vulnera
pascunt
Scilicet hæc animi sunt medicina
mei,
Nam mihi dum lachrymas amor elicit ubera
sugo
Rideat ut dulci mœstus amore
dolor.
At me pertentant dum gaudia, vulnera
lambo
Ut me læta pio mista dolore
juvent.
Vulnera sic nati, sic ubera sugo
parentis
Securæ ut variæ sint mihi forte
vices.
Quis sine lacte precor, vel quis sine
sanguine vivat?
Lacte tuo genetrix, sanguine hate
tuo.
Sit lac pro ambrosia, suavi pro hectare
sanguis
Sic me perpetuum vulnus et uber
alit.”
And this their idolatry is objected to them by Socinus, who marvels at the impudence of
Bellarmine closing his
books of controversies (as is the manner of the men of that Society) with
“Laus Deo, virginique matri Mariæ,”
wherein, as he says (and he says it truly), divine honour with God is
ascribed to the blessed Virgin.
The truth is, I see not any difference between that
dedication of himself and his work, by Redemptus Baranzano the priest, in these words, “Deo, Virglnique Matri, Sancto Paulo, Bruno,
Alberto, Redempto, Francisco, Clarke, Joannæ, Catharinæ Senensi, divisque
omnibus, quos peculiari cultu honorare desidero, omnis meus labour
consecratus sit” (Baranzan. Nov. Opin. Physic. Diglad.), and that of the
Athenians, by the advice of Epimenides
Θεοῖς Ἀσίας καὶ Ἐυρώπης καὶ Λιβύης, Θεῷ
ἀγνώστῳ καὶ Ξένῳ both of them being suitable to the counsel of Pythagoras:—
Ἀθανάτους μὲν πρῶτα θεοὺς νόμῳ ὡς
διάκειται
Τίμα καὶ σέβου ὅρκον ἔπειθ ἥρωας
ἀγανούς
Τούς τε καταχθονίους οέβε δαίμονας ἕννομα
ῥέζων
Let them be sure to worship all sorts, that they may not
miss. And by these means, amongst others, hath an occasion of stumbling
and hardening been given to these poor souls.
As to the propagation of their conceptions, they
had the advantage not only of an unsettled time, as to the civil government
of the nations of the world, most kingdoms and commonweals in Europe
undergoing in that age considerable mutations and changes (a season wherein
commonly the envious man hath taken opportunity to sow his tares); but
also, men being set at liberty from the bondage under which
they were kept in the Papacy, and from making the tradition of their
fathers the rule of their worship and walking, were found indeed to have,
upon abiding grounds, no principles of religion at all, and therefore were
earnest in the inquiry after something that they might fix upon. What to
avoid they knew, but what to close withal they knew not; and therefore it
is no wonder if, among so many (I may say) millions of persons as in those
days there were that fell off from the Papacy, some thousands perhaps (much
more scores) might, in their inquirings, from an extreme of
superstition run into another almost of atheism.
Such was the estate of things and men in those days wherein
Socinianism, or the opposition to Christ of this latter edition, set forth
in the world. Among the many that were convinced of the abominations of
Popery before they were well fixed in the truth, some were deceived by the
cunning sleight of some few men that lay in wait to deceive. What event
and issue an alike state and condition of things and persons hath gone
forth unto in the places and days wherein we live is known to all; and that
the saints of God may be warned by these things is this addressed to them.
To what hath been spoken I had thought, for a close of this discourse, to
have given an account of the learning that these men profess, and the
course of their studies, of their way of disputing, and the advantages they
have therein; to have instanced in some of their considerable sophisms, and
subtile depravations of Scripture, as also to have given a specimen of
distinctions and answers, which may be improved to the discovering and
slighting of their fallacies in the most important heads of religion: but
being diverted by new and unexpected avocations, I shall refer these and
other considerations unto a prodromus for the use of younger students who
intend to look into these controversies.
And these are the persons with whom we have to deal, these
their ways and progress in the world. I shall now briefly subjoin some
advantages they have had, something of the way and method wherein they have
proceeded, for the diffusing of their poison, with some general
preservatives against the infection, and draw to a close of this
discourse.
1. At the first entrance upon their undertaking, some of
them made no small advantage, in dealing with weak and unwary men, by
crying out that the terms of trinity, person, essence, hypostatical
union, communication of properties, and the like, were not found in
the Scripture, and therefore were to be abandoned.
With the colour of this plea, they once prevailed so far on
the churches in Transylvania as that they resolved and determined to
abstain from the use of those words; but they quickly perceived that though
the words were not of absolute necessity to express the things themselves
to the minds of believers, yet they were so to defend the truth from the
opposition and craft of seducers, and at length recovered themselves, by
the advice of Beza: yea, and
Socinus himself doth not only grant
but prove that in general this is not to be imposed on men, that the
doctrine they assert is contained in Scripture in so many words, seeing it
sufficeth that the thing itself pleaded for be contained
therein. To which purpose I desire the learned reader
to peruse his words, seeing he gives an instance of what he speaks somewhat
opposite to a grand notion of his disciple, with whom I have chiefly to do;
yea, and the same person rejects the plea of his companions, of the not
express usage of the terms wherein the doctrine of the Trinity is delivered
in the Scripture, as weak and frivolous. And this
hath made me a little marvel at the precipitate, undigested conceptions of
some, who, in the midst of the flames of Socinianism kindling upon us on
every side, would (contrary to the wisdom and practice of all antiquity, no
one assembly in the world excepted) tie us up to a form of confession
composed of the bare words of the Scripture, in the order wherein they are
placed. If we profess to believe that Christ is God blessed for ever, and
the Socinians tell us, “True, but he is a God by office, not by
nature,” is it not lawful for us to say, “Nay, but he is God, of
the same nature, substance, and essence with his Father?” If we shall say
that Christ is God, one with the Father, and the Sabellians shall tell us,
“True, they are every way one, and in all respects, so that the whole
Deity was incarnate,” is it not lawful for us to tell them, that
though he be one in nature and essence with his Father, yet he is distinct
from him in person? And the like instances may be given for all the
expressions wherein the doctrine of the blessed Trinity is delivered. The
truth is, we have sufficient ground for these expressions in the Scripture
as to the words, and not only the things signified by them: the
nature of God we have, Gal. iv. 8;
the person of the Father, and the Son distinct from it, Heb. i. 3; the essence of God,
Exod. iii. 14, Rev. i. 4; the Trinity,
1 John v. 7; the Deity,
Col. ii. 9.
2. Their whole business, in all their books and
disputations, is to take upon themselves the part of answerers, so
cavilling and making exception, not caring at all what becomes of
any thing in religion, so they may with any colour avoid the arguments
wherewith they are pressed. Hence almost all their books, unless it be
some few short catechisms and confessions, are only answers and exceptions
to other men’s writings. Beside the fragments of a catechism or two, Socinus himself wrote very little but of
this kind; so do the rest. How heavy and dull they are in asserting may be
seen in Volkelius’ Institutions; and
here, whilst they escape their adversaries, they are desperately bold in
their interpretations of Scripture, though, for the most part, it suffices
[them to say] that what is urged against them is not the sense of the
place, though they themselves can assign no sense at all to it. I could
easily give instances in abundance to make good this observation concerning
them, but I shall not mention what must necessarily be insisted on in the
ensuing discourse. Their answers are, “This may otherwise be
expounded;” “It may otherwise be understood;” “The word may have another
signification in another place.”
3. The greatest triumphs which they set up in their own
conceits are, when by any ways they possess themselves of any usual maxim
that passes current amongst men, being applied to finite, limited,
created things, or any acknowledged notion in philosophy, and apply it
to the infinite, uncreated, essence of God; than which course of
proceeding nothing, indeed, can be more absurd, foolish, and contrary to
sound reason. That God and man, the Creator and creature, that which is
absolutely infinite and independent, and that which is finite, limited, and
dependent, should be measured by the same rules, notions, and conceptions,
unless it be by way of eminent analogy, which will not further their design
at all, is most fond and senseless. And this one observation is sufficient
to arm us against all their profound disputes about “essence,”
“personality,” and the like.
4. Generally, as we said, in the pursuit of their design
and carrying it on, they begin in exclaiming against the usual words
wherein the doctrines they oppose are taught and delivered. “They are not
Scripture expressions,” etc.; “For the things themselves, they do not
oppose them, but they think them not so necessary as some suppose,” etc.
Having got some ground by this on the minds of men, great stress is
immediately laid on this, “That a man may be saved though he believe not
the doctrine of the Trinity, the satisfaction of Christ, etc., so that he
live holily, and yield obedience to the precepts of Christ; so that it is
mere madness and folly to break love and communion about such differences.”
By this engine I knew, not long since, a choice society of Christians,
through the cunning sleight of one lying in wait to deceive, disturbed,
divided, broken, and in no small part of it infected. If they once get
this advantage, and have thereby weakened the love and valuation of the
truth with any, they generally, through the righteous judgment of God in
giving up men of light and vain spirits to the imaginations of their own
hearts, overthrow their faith, and lead them captive at their pleasure.
5. I thought to have insisted, in particular, on their
particular ways of insinuating their abominations, of the baits they lay,
the devices they have, their high pretences to reason, and
holiness in their lives, or honesty; as also, to have
evinced, by undeniable evidences, that there are thousands in the Papacy
and among the Reformed Churches that are wholly baptized into their vile
opinions and infidelity, though, for the love of their temporal enjoyments,
which are better to them than their religion, they profess it not; as also,
how this persuasion of theirs hath been the great door whereby the flood of
atheism which is broken in upon the world, and which is almost always
professed by them who would be accounted the wits of the times, is come in
upon the nations; farther, to have given general answers and distinctions
applicable to the most if not all of the considerable arguments and
objections wherewith they impugn the truth: but referring all these to my
general considerations for the study of controversies in divinity, with
some observations that may be preservatives against their poison, I shall
speedily acquit you from the trouble of this address. Give me leave, then,
in the last place (though unfit and unworthy), to give some general
cautions to my fellow-labourers and students in divinity for the freeing
our souls from being tainted with these abominations, and I have done:—
1. Hold fast the form of wholesome words and sound
doctrine: know that there are other ways of peace and accommodation with
dissenters than by letting go the least particle of truth. When
men would accommodate their own hearts to love and peace, they
must not double with their souls, and accommodate the truth of the gospel
to other men’s imaginations. Perhaps some will suggest great things of
going a middle way in divinity, between dissenters; but what is the issue,
for the most part, of such proposals? After they have, by their middle
way, raised no less contentions than was before between the extremes (yea,
when things before were in some good measure allayed), the accommodators
themselves, through an ambitious desire to make good and defend their own
expedients, are insensibly carried over to the party and extreme to whom
they thought to make a condescension unto; and, by endeavouring to blanch
their opinions, to make them seem probable, they are engaged to the defence
of their consequences before they are aware. Amyraldus (whom I look upon as one of the greatest wits of
these days) will at present go a middle way between the churches of France
and the Arminians. What hath been the issue? Among the churches,
divisions, tumult, disorder; among the professors and ministers, revilings,
evil surmisings; to the whole body of the people, scandals and offences;
and in respect of himself, evidence of daily approaching nearer to the
Arminian party, until, as one of them saith of him, he is not far from
their kingdom of heaven. But is this all? Nay, but Grotius, Episcopius,
Curcellæus, etc.
(quanta nomina!) with others, must
go a middle way to accommodate with the Socinians; and all that will not
follow are rigid men, that by any means will defend the opinions they are
fallen upon. The same plea is made by others for accommodation with the
Papists; and still “moderation,” “the middle way,” “condescension,” are
cried up. I can freely say, that I know not that man in England who is
willing to go farther in forbearance, love, and communion with all that
fear God and hold the foundation, than I am; but that this is to be done
upon other grounds, principles, and ways, by other means and expedients,
than by a condescension from the exactness of the least apex of gospel
truth, or by an accommodation of doctrines by loose and general terms, I
have elsewhere sufficiently declared. Let no man deceive you with vain
pretences; hold fast the truth as it is in Jesus, part not with one iota,
and contend for it when called thereunto.
2. Take heed of the snare of Satan in affecting
eminency by singularity. It is good to strive to excel
and to go before one another in knowledge and in light, as in holiness and
obedience. To do this in the road is difficult. Ahimaaz had not outrun
Cushi but that he took a by-path. Many finding it impossible to emerge
unto any consideration by walking in the beaten path of truth (all parts of
divinity, all ways of handling it, being carried already to such a height
and excellency, that to make any considerable improvement requires great
pains, study, and an insight into all kinds of learning), and yet not able
to conquer the itch of being accounted τίνες
μεγάλοι, turn aside into by-ways, and turn the eyes of all men to
them by scrambling over hedge and ditch, when the sober traveller is not at
all regarded.
The Roman historian, giving an account of the degeneracy of
eloquence after it once came to its height in the time of Cicero, fixeth on this as the most probable reason:
“Difficilis in perfecto mora est;
naturaliterque, quod procedere non potest, recedit; et ut primo ad
consequendos, quos priores ducimus, accendimur: ita, ubi aut præteriri, aut
æquari cos posse desperavimus, studium cum spe senescit; et quod adsequi
non potest, sequi desinit; et, velut occupatam relinquens materiam, quærit
novam: præteritoque eo in quo eminere non possumus, aliquid in quo nitamur
conquirimus; sequiturque, ut frequens ac mobilis transitus maximum perfecti
operis impedimentum sit.” — Paterc. Hist. Rom. lib. i. cap.
xvii.
I wish some such things may not be said of the doctrine of
the reformed churches. It was not long since raised to a great height of
purity in itself, and perspicuity in the way of its delivery; but athletic
constitutions are seldom permanent. Men would not be content to walk after others, and
finding they could not excel what was done, they have given over to imitate
it or to do any thing in the like kind; and therefore, neglecting that
wherein they could not be eminent, they have taken a course to have
something peculiar wherein to put forth their endeavours. Let us, then,
watch against this temptation, and know that a man may be higher than his
brethren, and yet be but a Saul.
3. Let not any one attempt dealing with these men that is
not in some good measure furnished with those kinds of literature and
those common arts wherein they excel; as, first, the knowledge of
the tongues wherein the Scripture is written, namely, the Hebrew and
Greek. He that is not in some measure acquainted with these will scarcely
make thorough work in dealing with them. There is not a word, nor scarce a
letter in a word (if I may so speak), which they do not search and toss up
and down; not an expression which they pursue not through the whole
Scripture, to see if any place will give countenance to the interpretation
of it which they embrace. The curious use of the Greek articles, which, as
Scaliger calls them, are “loquacissimæ gentis flabellum,” is their
great covert against the arguments for the deity of Christ. Their disputes
about the Hebrew words wherein the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ
is delivered in the Old Testament, the ensuing treatise will in part
manifest. Unless a man can debate the use of words with them in the
Scripture, and by instances from other approved authors, it will be hard so
to enclose or shut them up but that they will make way to evade and escape.
Press them with any testimony of Scripture, if of any one word of the
testimony, whereon the sense of the whole in any measure depends, they can
except that in another place that word in the original hath another
signification, and therefore it is not necessary that it should here
signify as you urge it, unless you are able to debate the true meaning and
import of the word with them, they suppose they have done enough to evade
your testimony. And no less [necessary], nextly, are the common arts
of logic and rhetoric, wherein they exercise themselves. Among all
Socinus’ works, there is none more
pernicious than the little treatise he wrote about sophisms; wherein he
labours to give instances of all manner of sophistical arguments in those
which are produced for the confirmation of the doctrine of the blessed
Trinity.
He that would re-enforce those arguments, and vindicate
them from his exceptions and the entanglements cast upon them, without some
considerable acquaintance with the principles of logic and artificial rules
of argumentation, will find himself at a loss. Besides, of all men in the
world, in their argumentations they are most sophistical. It is seldom
that they urge any reason or give any exception wherein they conclude not
“a particulari ad universale,” or
“ab indefinito ad universale,
exclusive,” or “ab aliqno statu
Christi ad omnem,” or “ab œconomia
Trinitatis ad theologiam Deitatis,” or “ab usu vocis alicubi” to “ubique:” as, “Christ is a man, therefore not God; he
is the servant of the Father, therefore not of the same
nature.” And the like instances may be given in abundance; from which kind
of arguing he will hardly extricate himself who is ignorant of the
rudiments of logic. The frequency of figurative expressions in the
Scripture, which they make use of to their advantage, requires the
knowledge of rhetoric also in him that will deal with them to any good
purpose. A good assistance (in the former of these especially) is given to
students by Keslerus, “in examine Logicæ, Metaphysicæ, et Physicæ
Photinianæ.” The pretended maxims, also, which they insist on from
the civil law, in the business of the satisfaction of Christ, which are
especially urged by Socinus, and by
Crellius in his defence against Grotius, will make him who shall engage with
them see it necessary in some measure to be acquainted with the principles
of that faculty and learning also.
With those who are destitute of these, the great Spirit of
truth is an abundantly sufficient preserver from all the cunning sleights
of men that lie in wait to deceive. He can give them to believe and suffer
for the truth. But that they should at any time look upon themselves as
called to read the books or dispute with the men of these abominations, I
can see no ground.
4. Always bear in mind the gross figments, that they seek
to assert and establish in the room of that which they cunningly and
subtilely oppose. Remember that the aim of their arguments against the
deity of Christ and the blessed Trinity is, to set up two true Gods, the
one so by nature, the other made so, rather one God in his own essence, the
other a God from him by office, that was a man, is a spirit, and shall
cease to be a God. And some farther account hereof you will meet with in
the close of the ensuing treatise.
5. Diligent, constant, serious reading, studying,
meditating on the Scriptures, with the assistance and direction of all the
rules and advantages for the right understanding of them which, by the
observation and diligence of many worthies, we are furnished withal,
accompanied with continual attendance on the throne of grace for the
presence of the Spirit of truth with us, to lead us into all truth, and to
increase his anointing of us day by day, “shining into our hearts to give
us the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ,” is, as
for all other things in the course of our pilgrimage and walking with God,
so for our preservation against these abominations, and the enabling of us
to discover their madness and answer their objections, of indispensable
necessity. Apollos, who was “mighty in the Scriptures,” Acts xviii. 24, “mightily convinced
the” gainsaying “Jews,” verse
28. Neither, in dealing with these men, is there any better
course in the world than, in a good order and method, to multiply
testimonies against them to the same purpose; for whereas they have shifts
in readiness to every particular, and hope to darken a single star, when
they are gathered into a constellation they send out a glory and brightness
which they cannot stand before. Being engaged myself once in a public
dispute about the satisfaction of Christ, I took this course, in a clear
and evident coherence, producing very many testimonies to the confirmation
of it; which together gave such an evidence to the truth, that one who
stood by instantly affirmed that “there was enough spoken to stop the mouth
of the devil himself.” And this course in the business of the deity and
satisfaction of Christ will certainly be triumphant. Let us, then, labour
to have our senses abundantly exercised in the word, that we may be able to
discern between good and evil; and that not by studying the places
themselves [only] that are controverted, but by a diligent search into the
whole mind and will of God as revealed in the word; wherein the sense is given in to humble souls with more life, power, and
evidence of truth, and is more effectual for the begetting of faith and
love to the truth, than in a curious search after the annotations of men
upon particular places. And truly I must needs say that I know not a more
deplorable mistake in the studies of divines, both preachers and others,
than their diversion from an immediate, direct study of the Scriptures
themselves unto the studying of commentators, critics, scholiasts,
annotators, and the like helps, which God in his good providence, making
use of the abilities, and sometimes the ambition and ends of men, hath
furnished us withal. Not that I condemn the use and study of them, which I
wish men were more diligent in, but desire pardon if I mistake, and do only
surmise, by the experience of my own folly for many years, that many which
seriously study the things of God do yet rather make it their business to
inquire after the sense of other men on the Scriptures than to search
studiously into them themselves.
6. That direction, in this kind, which with me is instar omnium, is for a
diligent endeavour to have the power of the truths professed and
contended for abiding upon our hearts, that we may not contend for
notions, but what we have a practical acquaintance with in our own souls.
When the heart is cast indeed into the mould of the doctrine that the mind
embraceth; when the evidence and necessity of the truth abides in us; when
not the sense of the words only is in our heads, but the sense of the
things abides in our hearts; when we have communion with God in the
doctrine we contend for, — then shall we be garrisoned, by the grace of
God, against all the assaults of men. And without this all our contending
is, as to ourselves, of no value. What am I the better if I can dispute
that Christ is God, but have no sense or sweetness in my heart from hence
that he is a God in covenant with my soul? What will it avail me to
evince, by testimonies and arguments, that he hath made satisfaction for
sin, if, through my unbelief, the wrath of God abideth on me, and I have no
experience of my own being made the righteousness of God in him, — if I
find not, in my standing before God, the excellency of having my sins
imputed to him and his righteousness imputed to me? Will it be any
advantage to me, in the issue, to profess and dispute that God works the
conversion of a sinner by the irresistible grace of his Spirit, if I was
never acquainted experimentally with the deadness and utter impotency to
good, that opposition to the law of God, which is in my own soul by nature,
with the efficacy of the exceeding greatness of the power of God in
quickening, enlightening, and bringing forth the fruits of obedience in me?
It is the power of truth in the heart alone that will make us cleave unto
it indeed in an hour of temptation. Let us, then, not think that we are
any thing the better for our conviction of the truths of the great
doctrines of the gospel, for which we contend with these men, unless we
find the power of the truths abiding in our own hearts, and have a
continual experience of their necessity and excellency in our standing
before God and our communion with him.
7. Do not look upon these things as things afar
off, wherein you are little concerned. The evil is at the door; there
is not a city, a town, scarce a village, in England, wherein some of this
poison is not poured forth. Are not the doctrines of free will, universal
redemption, apostasy from grace, mutability of God, of denying the
resurrection of the dead, with all the foolish conceits of many about God
and Christ, in this nation, ready to gather to this head?
Let us not deceive ourselves; Satan is a crafty enemy. He
yet hovers up and down in the lubricous, vain imaginations of a confused
multitude, whose tongues are so divided that they understand
not one the other. I dare boldly say, that if ever he settle to a stated
opposition to the gospel, it will be in Socinianism. The Lord rebuke him;
he is busy in and by many, where little notice is taken of him. But of
these things thus far.
A particular account of the cause and reasons of my
engagement in this business, with what I have aimed at in the ensuing
discourse, you will find given in my epistle to the university, so that the
same things need not here also be delivered. The confutation of Mr Biddle’s Catechism, and Smalcius’ Catechism, commonly called
the “Racovian;” with the vindication of all the texts of Scripture giving
testimony to the deity of Christ throughout the Old and New Testament from
the perverse glosses and interpretations put upon them by Hugo Grotius in his Annotations on the Bible, with those
also which concern his satisfaction; and, on the occasion hereof, the
confirmation of the most important truths of the Scripture, about the
nature of God, the person of Christ and the Holy Ghost, the offices of
Christ, etc., — have been in my design. With what mind and intention, with
what love to the truth, with what dependence on God for his presence and
assistance, with what earnestness of supplication to enjoy the fruit of the
promise of our dear Lord Jesus, to lead me into all truth by his blessed
Spirit, I have gone through this work, the Lord knows. I only know that in
every particular I have come short of my duty therein, and that a review of
my paths and pains would yield me very little refreshment, but that “I know
in whom I have believed, and am persuaded that even concerning this also he
will remember me for good, and spare me, according to the greatness of his
mercy.” And whatever becomes of this weak endeavour before the Lord, yet
“he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and
sure, and this is all my salvation and all my desire, although he make it
not to grow.” What is performed is submitted humbly to the judgment of
them to whom this address is made. About the thoughts of others, or any
such as by envy, interest, curiosity, or faction, may be swayed or biassed,
I am not solicitous. If any benefit redound to the saints of the Most
High, or any that belong to the purpose of God’s love be advantaged,
enlightened, or built up in their most holy faith in the least, by what is
here delivered, I have my reward.
Mr Biddle’s preface to his
catechism.
I have often wondered and
complained that there was no catechism yet extant (that I could ever see or
hear of) from whence one might learn the true grounds of the Christian
religion, as the same is delivered in the holy Scripture, all catechisms
generally being so stuffed with the supposals and traditions of men that
the least part of them is derived from the word of God: for when councils,
convocations, and assemblies of divines, justling the sacred writers out of
their place in the church, had once framed articles and confessions of
faith according to their own fancies and interests, and the civil
magistrate had by his authority ratified the same, all catechisms were
afterward fitted to those articles and confessions, and the Scripture
either wholly omitted or brought in only for a show, not one quotation
amongst many being a whit to the purpose, as will soon appear to any man of
judgment, who, taking into his hand the said catechisms, shall examine the
texts alleged in them; for if he do this diligently and impartially, he
will find the Scripture and those catechisms to be at so wide a distance
one from another, that he will begin to question whether the catechists
gave any heed at all to what they wrote, and did not only themselves refuse
to make use of their reason, but presume that their readers also would do
the same. In how miserable a condition, then, as to spiritual things, must
Christians generally needs be, when thus trained up, not, as the apostle
adviseth, “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord,” but in the supposals
and traditions of men, having little or no assurance touching the reality
of their religion! which some observing, and not having the happiness to
light upon the truth, have quite abandoned all piety whatsoever, thinking
there is no firm ground whereon to build the same. To prevent which
mischief in time to come, by bringing men to a certainty (I mean such men
as own the divine authority of the Scripture), and withal to satisfy the
just and pious desires of many who would fain understand the truth of our
religion, to the end they might not only be built up themselves, but also
instruct their children and families in the same, I have here (according to
the understanding I have gotten by continual meditation on the word of God)
compiled a Scripture Catechism; wherein I bring the reader to a sure and
certain knowledge of the chiefest things pertaining both to belief and
practice, whilst I myself assert nothing (as others have done before me),
but only introduce the Scripture faithfully uttering its own assertions,
which all Christians confess to be of undoubted truth. Take heed,
therefore, whosoever thou art that lightest on this book, and there readest
things quite contrary to the doctrines that pass current amongst the
generality of Christians (for I confess most of the things here displayed
have such a tendency), that thou fall not foul upon them; for thou canst
not do so without falllng foul upon the holy Scripture itself, inasmuch as
all the answers throughout the whole Catechism are faithfully transcribed
out of it and rightly applied to the questions, as thou thyself
mayst perceive if thou make a diligent inspection into the several texts,
with all their circumstances. Thou wilt perhaps here reply, that the texts
which I have cited do indeed in the letter hold forth such things as are
contrary to the doctrines commonly received amongst Christians, but they
ought to have a mystical or figurative interpretation put upon them, and
then both the doctrines and the texts of Scripture will suit well enough.
To which I answer, that if we once take this liberty to impose our mystical
or figurative interpretations on the Scripture, without express warrant of
the Scripture itself, we shall have no settled belief, but be liable
continually to be turned aside by any one that can invent a new mystical
meaning of the Scripture, there being no certain rule to judge of such
meanings as there is of the literal ones, nor is there any error, how
absurd and impious soever, but may on such terms be accorded with the
Scripture. All the abominable idolatries of the Papists, all the
superstitious fopperies of the Turks, all the licentious opinions and
practices of the Ranters, may by this means be not only palliated but
defended by the word of God. Certainly, might we of our own heads
figuratively interpret the Scripture, when the letter is neither repugnant
to our senses nor to the scope of the respective texts, nor to a greater
number of plain texts to the contrary (for in such cases we must of
necessity admit figures in the sacred volume as well as we do in profane
ones, otherwise both they and it will clash with themselves or with our
senses, which the Scripture itself intimates to be of infallible certainty;
see 1 John
i. 1–3); — might we, I say, at our pleasure impose our figures
and allegories on the plain words of God, the Scripture would in very deed
be, what some blasphemously affirm it to be, “a nose of wax.” For
instance, it is frequently asserted in the Scripture that God hath a
similitude or shape, hath his place in the heavens, hath also affections or
passions, ‘as love, hatred, mercy, anger, and the like; neither is any
thing to the contrary delivered there unless seemingly in certain places,
which neither for number nor clearness are comparable unto those of the
other side. Why now should I depart from the letter of the Scripture in
these particulars, and boldly affirm, with the generality of Christians (or
rather with the generality of such Christians only as, being conversant
with the false philosophy that reigneth in the schools, have their
understandings perverted with wrong notions), that God is without a shape,
in no certain place, and incapable of affections? Would not this be to use
the Scripture like a nose of wax, and when of itself it looketh any way, to
turn it aside at our pleasure? And would not God be so far from speaking
to our capacity in his word (which is the usual refuge of the adversaries
when in these and the like matters concerning God they are pressed with the
plain words of the Scripture), as that he would by so doing render us
altogether incapable of finding out his meaning, whilst he spake one thing
and understood the clean contrary? Yea, would he not have taken the direct
course to make men substitute an idol in his stead (for the adversaries
hold that to conceive of God as having a shape, or affections, or being in
a certain place, is idolatry), if he described himself in the Scripture
otherwise than indeed he is, without telling us so much in plain terms,
that we might not conceive amiss of him? Thus we see that when sleep,
which plainly argueth weakness and imperfection, had been ascribed to God,
Ps. xliv. 23, the contrary is said of
him, Ps. cxxi. 4. Again, when weariness
had been attributed to him, Isa. i.
14, the same is expressly denied of him, Isa. xl.
28. And would not God, think ye, have done the like in those
forementioned things, were the case the same in them as in the others?
This consideration is so pressing, that a certain author
(otherwise a very learned and intelligent man) perceiving the weight
thereof, and not knowing how to avoid the same, took up (though very
unluckily) one erroneous tenet to maintain another, telling us in a late
book of his, entitled Conjectura Cabalistica, “That for Moses, by
occasion of his writings, to let the Jews entertain a conceit of God as in
human shape, was not any more a way to bring them into idolatry than by
acknowledging man to be God, as,” saith he, “our religion does in Christ.”
How can this consist even with consonancy to his own principles, whilst he
holds it to be false that God hath any shape, but true that Christ is God;
for will a false opinion of God not sooner lead men into idolatry than a
true opinion of Christ? But it is no marvel that this author, and other
learned men with him, entertain such conceits of God and Christ as are
repugnant to the current of the Scripture, whilst they set so high a rate
on the sublime, indeed, but uncertain notions of the Platonists, and in the
meantime slight the plain but certain letter of the sacred writers, as
being far below the Divine Majesty, and written only to comply with the
rude apprehensions of the vulgar, unless by a mystical interpretation they
be screwed up to Platonism. This is the stone at which the pride of
learned men hath caused them continually to stumble, — namely, to think
that they can speak more wisely and worthily of God than he hath spoken of
himself in his word. This hath brought that more than Babylonish confusion
of language into the Christian religion, whilst men have framed those
horrid and intricate expressions, under the colour of detecting and
excluding heresies, but in truth to put a baffle on the simplicity of the
Scripture and usher in heresies, that so they might the more easily carry
on their worldly designs, which could not be effected but through the
ignorance of the people, nor the people brought into ignorance but by
wrapping up religion in such monstrous terms as neither the people nor they
themselves that invented them (or at least took them from the invention of
others) did understand. Wherefore, there is no possibility to reduce the
Christian religion to its primitive integrity, — a thing, though much
pretended, yea, boasted of in reformed churches, yet never hitherto
sincerely endeavoured, much less effected (in that men have, by severe
penalties, been hindered to reform religion beyond such a stint as that of
Luther, or at most that of Calvin), — but by cashiering those many
intricate terms and devised forms of speaking imposed on our religion, and
by wholly betaking ourselves to the plainness of the Scripture: for I have
long since observed (and find my observation to be true and certain), that
when, to express matters of religion, men make use of words and phrases
unheard of in the Scripture, they slily under them couch false doctrines
and obtrude them on us; for without question the doctrines of the Scripture
can be so aptly explained in no language as that of the Scripture itself.
Examine, therefore, the expressions of God’s being “infinite and
incomprehensible, of his being a simple act, of his subsisting in three
persons or after a threefold manner, of a divine circumincession, of an
eternal generation, of an eternal procession, of an incarnation, of an
hypostatical union, of a communication of properties, of the mother of God,
of God dying, of God made man, of transubstantiation, of consubstantiation,
of original sin, of Christ’s taking our nature on him, of Christ’s making
satisfaction to God for our sins, both past, present, and to come, of
Christ’s fulfilling the law for us, of Christ’s being punished by God for
us, of Christ’s merits or his meritorious obedience, both active and
passive, of Christ’s purchasing the kingdom of heaven for us, of Christ’s
enduring the wrath of God, yea, the pains of a damned man, of Christ’s
rising from the dead by his own power, of the ubiquity of
Christ’s body, of apprehending and applying Christrighteousness to
ourselves by faith, of Christ’s being our surety, of Christ’s paying our
debts, of our sins imputed to Christ, of Christ’s righteousness imputed to
us, of Christ’s dying to appease the wrath of God and reconcile him to us,
of infused grace, of free grace, of the world of the elect, of irresistible
workings of the Spirit in bringing men to believe, of carnal reason, of
spiritual desertions, of spiritual incomes, of the outgoings of God, of
taking up the ordinance,” etc., and thou shalt find that as these forms of
speech are not owned by the Scripture, so neither the things contained in
them. How excellent, therefore, was that advice of Paul to Timothy in his
second epistle to him, 2 Tim. i.
13, “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of
me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus”! for if we once let go
those forms of sound words learned from the apostles, and take up such as
have been coined by others in succeeding ages, we shall together [with
them] part with the apostles’ doctrine, as woful experience hath taught us;
for after Constantine the Great,
together with the council of Nice,
had once deviated from the language of the Scripture in the business
touching the Son of God, calling him” co-essential with the Father,” this
opened a gap for others afterward, under a pretence of guarding the truth
from heretics, to devise new terms at pleasure; which did, by degrees, so
vitiate the chastity and simplicity of our faith, delivered in the
Scripture, that there hardly remained so much as one point thereof sound
and entire. So that as it was wont to be disputed in the schools, whether
the old ship of Theseus (which had in a manner
been wholly altered at sundry times, by the accession of new pieces of
timber upon the decay of the old) were the same ship it had been at first,
and not rather another by degrees substituted in the stead thereof: in like
manner there was so much of the primitive truth worn away, by the
corruption that did, by little and little, overspread the generality of
Christians, and so many errors in stead thereof tacked to our religion, at
several times, that one might justly question whether it were the same
religion with that which Christ and his apostles taught, and not another
since devised by men and put in the room thereof. But thanks be to God
through our Lord Jesus Christ, who, amidst the universal corruption of our
religion, hath preserved his written word entire (for had men corrupted it,
they would have made it speak more favourably in behalf of their lusts and
worldly interests than it doth); which word, if we with diligence and
sincerity pry into, resolving to embrace the doctrine that is there plainly
delivered, though all the world should set itself against us for so doing,
we shall easily discern the truth, and so be enabled to reduce our religion
to its first principles. For thus much I perceive by mine own experience,
who, being otherwise of no great abilities, yet setting myself, with the
aforesaid resolution, for sundry years together upon an impartial search of
the Scripture, have not only detected many errors, but here presented the
reader with a body of religion exactly transcribed out of the word of God:
which body whosoever shall well ruminate and digest in his mind, may, by
the same method wherein! have gone before him, make a farther inquiry into
the oracles of God, and draw forth whatsoever yet lies hid; and being
brought to light, [it] will tend to the accomplishment of godliness amongst
us, for at this only all the Scripture aimeth; — the Scripture, which all
men who have thoroughly studied the same must of necessity be enamoured
with, as breathing out the mere wisdom of God, and being the exactest rule
of a holy life (which all religions whatsoever confess to be the way unto
happiness) that can be imagined, and whose divinity will never, even to the world’s end, be questioned by any but such as are
unwilling to deny their worldly lusts and obey the pure and perfect
precepts thereof; which obedience whosoever shall perform, he shall, not
only in the life to come, but even in this life, be equal unto angels.
John
Biddle.
Mr Biddle’s preface briefly
examined.
In the entrance of Mr Biddle’s preface he tells the reader very
modestly “That he could never yet see or hear of a catechism” (although, I
presume, he had seen, or heard at least, of one or two written by Faustus Socinus, though not completed; of
one by Valentinus Smalcius,
commonly called “The Racovian
Catechism,” from whence many of his questions and answers are taken;
and of an “Exposition of the Articles of Faith, in the Creed called the
Apostles’, in way of catechism, by Jonas Schlichtingius,” published in French, anno 1646, in
Latin, anno 1651) “from whence the true grounds of Christian religion might
be learned, as it is delivered in Scripture;” and therefore, doubtless, all
Christians have cause to rejoice at the happy product of Mr B.’s pains, wherewith he now acquaints them,
ushered in with this modest account, whereby at length they may know their
own religion, wherein as yet they have not been instructed to any purpose.
And the reason of this is, because “all other catechisms are stuffed with
many supposals and traditions, the least part of them being derived from
the word of God,” Mr B. being judge. And
this is the common language of his companions, comparing themselves and
their own writings with those of other men. The
common language they delight in is, “Though Christians have hitherto
thought otherwise.”
Whether we have reason to stand to this determination, and
acquiesce in this censure and sentence, the ensuing considerations of what
Mr B. substitutes in the room of those
catechisms which he here rejects will evince and manifest. But to give
countenance to this humble entrance into his work, he tells his reader
“That councils, convocations, and assemblies of divines, have justled out
the Scripture, and framed confessions of faith according to their own
fancies and interests, getting them confirmed by the civil magistrate;
according unto which confessions all catechisms are and have been framed,
without any regard to the Scripture.” What “councils” Mr B. intends he informs us not, nor what it is that in them
he chiefly complains of. If he intend some only, such as the apostatizing
times of the church saw, he knows he is not opposed by them with whom he
hath to de, nor vet if he charge them all for some miscarriages in them or
about them. If all, as that of the apostles themselves, Acts xv., together with the rest that
for some ages followed after, and that as to the doctrine by them
delivered, fall under his censure, we have nothing but the
testimony of Mr B. to induce us to a
belief of this insinuation. His testimony in things of this nature will be
received only by them who receive his doctrine.
What I have to offer on this account I have spoken
otherwhere. That the confessions of faith which the first general
councils, as they are called, during the space of four hundred years and
upward, composed and put forth, were “framed according to the fancies and
interests of men,” beside the word, is Mr
B.’s fancy, and his interest to have it so esteemed. The faith he
professeth, or rather the infidelity he has fallen into, was condemned in
them all, and that upon the occasion of its then first coming into the
world; “Hinc illæ lacrimæ:” if they
stand, he must fall. “That the catechisms of latter days” (I suppose he
intends those in use amongst the reformed churches) “did wholly omit the
Scripture, or brought it in only for a show, not one quotation amongst many
being a whit to the purpose,” you have the same testimony for as for the
assertions foregoing. He that will say this, had need some
other way evince that he makes conscience of what he says, or that he dare
not say any thing, so it serve his turn. Only Mr B. hath quoted Scripture to the purpose! To prove God to
be “finite, limited, included in heaven, of a visible shape, ignorant of
things future, obnoxious to turbulent passions and affections,” are some of
his quotations produced; for the like end and purpose are the most of the
rest alleged. Never, it seems, was the Scripture alleged to any purpose
before! And these things, through the righteous hand of God taking
vengeance on an unthankful generation, not delighting in the light and
truth which he hath sent forth, do we hear and read. Of those who have
made bold ἀκίνητα κινεῖν, and to shake
the fundamentals of gospel truths or the mystery of grace, we have daily
many examples. The number is far more scarce of them who have attempted to
blot out those κοιναὶ ἔννοιαι, or
ingrafted notions of mankind, concerning the perfections of God, which
Mr B. opposeth. “Fabulas vulgaris nequitia non invenit.” An
opposition ‘to the first principles of rational beings must needs be talked
of. Other catechists, besides himself, Mr
B. tells you, “have written with so much oscitancy and contempt of
the Scripture, that a considering man will question whether they gave any
heed to what they wrote themselves, or refused to make use of their reason,
and presumed others would do so also.” And so you have the sum of his
judgment concerning all other catechisms, besides his own, that he hath
either seen or heard of. “They are all fitted to confessions of faith,
composed according to the fancies and interests of men, written without
attending to the Scripture or quoting it to any purpose, their authors,
like madmen, not knowing what they wrote, and refusing to make use of their
reason that they might so do.” And this is the modest, humble entrance of
Mr B.’s preface.
All that have gone before him were knaves, fools, idiots,
madmen. The proof of these assertions you are to expect. When a
philosopher pressed Diogenes with this
sophism, “What I am, thou art not; I am a man, therefore thou art not,” he
gave him no other answer but, “Begin with me, and the conclusion will be
true.” Mr B. is a Master of Arts, and
knew, doubtless, that such assertions as might be easily turned upon
himself are of no use to any but those who have not aught else to say.
Perhaps Mr B. speaks only to them of the
same mind with himself; and then, indeed, as Socrates said, it was no hard thing to commend the
Athenians before the Athenians, but to commend them before the
Lacedæmonians was difficult. No more is it any great undertaking to condemn men
sound in the faith unto Socinians; before others it will not prove so
easy.
It is not incumbent on me to defend any, much less all the
catechisms that have been written by learned men of the reformed religion.
That there are errors in some, mistakes in others; that some are more
clear, plain, and scriptural than others, I grant. All of them may have,
have had, their use in their kind. That in any of them there is any thing
taught inconsistent with communion with God, or inevitably tending to the
impairing of faith and love, Mr B. is
not, I presume, such a φιλόπονος as to
undertake to demonstrate. I shall only add, that notwithstanding the vain
plea of having given all his answers in the express words of Scripture
(whereby, with the foolish bird, he hides his head from the fowler, but
leaves his whole monstrous body visible, the teaching part of his Catechism
being solely in the insinuating, ensnaring, captious questions thereof,
leading the understanding of the reader to a misapprehension and
misapplication of the words of the Scripture, it being very easy to make up
the grossest blasphemy imaginable out of the words of the Scripture
itself), I never found, saw, read, or heard of any so grossly perverting
the doctrine of the Scripture concerning God and all his ways as those of
Mr B.’s do; for in sundry particulars
they exceed those mentioned before of Socinus, Smalcius, Schlichtingius, which had justly gotten the repute of the
worst in the world. And for an account of my reason of this persuasion I
refer the reader to the ensuing considerations of them.
This, then, being the sad estate of Christians, so
misinformed by such vile varlets as have so foully deceived them and misled
them, as above mentioned, what is to be done and what course to be taken to
bring in light into the world, and to deliver men from the sorrowful
condition whereinto they have been catechised? For this end, he tells the
reader, doth he show himself to the world (Θεὸς ἀπὸ μηχανῆς), to undeceive them, and to bring
them out of all their wanderings unto some certainty of religion. This he
discourses, pp. 4, 5. The reasons he gives you of this undertaking are
two:— 1. “To bring men to a certainty;” 2. “To satisfy the pious desire of
some who would fain know the truth of our religion.” The way he fixes on
for the compassing of the end proposed is:— 1. “By asserting nothing;” 2.
“By introducing the plain texts of Scripture to speak for themselves.”
Each briefly may be considered.
1. What fluctuating persons are they, not yet come to any
certainty in religion, whom Mr B. intends
to deal withal? Those, for the most part, of them who seem to be intended
in such undertakings, are fully persuaded from the Scripture of the truth
of those things wherein they have been instructed. Of these, some, I have
heard, have been unsettled by Mr B., but
that he shall ever settle any (there being no consistency in error or
falsehood) is impossible. Mr B. knows
there is no one of the catechists he so decries but directs them whom he so
instructs to the Scriptures, and settles their faith on the word of God
alone, though they labour to help their faith and understanding by opening
of it; whereunto also they are called. I fear Mr
B.’s certainty will at length appear to be scepticism, and his
settling of men to be the unsettling; that his conversions are
from the faith; and that in this very book he aims more to acquaint men
with his questions than the Scripture answers. But he says,
—
2. Those whom he aims to bring to this certainty are “such
as would fain understand the truth of our religion.” If by “our religion”
he means the religion of himself and his followers (or rather masters), the
Socinians, I am sorry to hear that any are so greedy of its
acquaintance.
“Nam rex Seleucus me opere oravit
maxumo,
Ut sibi latrones cogerem et
conscriberem.”
Pyrgopol. in Plaut.
Mil. Glo. Act. i. ad fin. Happily this is but a
pretence, such as his predecessors in this work have commonly used. [As]
for understanding the truth of it, they will find in the issue what an
endless work they have undertaken. “Who can make that straight which is
crooked, or number that which is wanting?” If by “our religion” he means
the Christian religion, it may well be inquired who they are, with their
“just and pious desires,” who yet understand not the truth of Christian
religion? that is, that it is the only true religion. When we know these
Turks, Jews, Pagans, which Mr B. hath to
deal withal, we shall be able to judge of what reason he had to labour to
satisfy their “just and pious desires.” I would also willingly be informed
how they came to so high an advancement in our religion as to desire to be
brought up in it, and to be able to instruct others, when as yet they do
not understand the truth of it, or are not satisfied therein. And, —
3. As these are admirable men, so the way he takes for
their satisfaction is admirable also; that is, by “asserting nothing!’ He
that asserts nothing proves nothing; for that which any one proves, that he
asserts. Intending, then, to bring men to a certainty who yet understand
not the truth of our religion, he asserts nothing, proves nothing (as is
the manner of some), but leaves them to themselves; — a most compendious
way of teaching (for whose attainment Mr
B. needed not to have been Master of Arts), if it proves effectual!
But by not asserting, it is evident Mr B.
intends not silence. He hath said too much to be so interpreted. Only
what he hath spoken, he hath done it in a sceptical way of inquiry;
wherein, though the intendment of his mind be evident, and all his queries
may be easily resolved into so many propositions or assertions, yet as his
words lie, he supposes he may speak truly that he asserts nothing. Of the
truth, then, of this assertion, that he doth not assert any thing, the
reader will judge. And this is the path to atheism which, of all others,
is most trod and beaten in the days wherein we live. A liberty of judgment
is pretended, and queries are proposed, until nothing certain be left,
nothing unshaken. But, —
4. He “introduces the Scripture faithfully uttering its own
assertions.” If his own testimony concerning his faithful dealing may be
taken, this must pass. The express words of the Scripture, I confess, are
produced, but as to Mr B.’s faithfulness
in their production, I have sundry exceptions to make; as, —
(1.) That by his leading questions, and application of the
Scripture to them, he hath utterly perverted the scope and intendment of
the places urged. Whereas he pretends not to assert or explain the
Scripture, he most undoubtedly restrains the signification of the places by
him alleged unto the precise scope which in his sophistical queries he hath
included. And in such a way of procedure, what may not the serpentine wits
of men pretend to a confirmation of from Scripture, or any
other book that hath been written about such things as the inquiries are
made after? It were easy to give innumerable instances of this kind, but
we fear God, and dare not to make bold with him or his word.
(2.) Mr B. pretending to
give an account of the” chiefest things pertaining to belief and practice,”
doth yet propose no question at all concerning many of the most important
heads of our religion, and whereunto the Scripture speaks fully and
expressly, or proposes his thoughts in the negative, leading on the
scriptures from whence he makes his objections to the grand truths he
opposeth, concealing, as was said, the delivery of them in the Scripture in
other places innumerable; so insinuating to the men of “just and pious
desires” with whom he hath to do that the Scripture is silent of them.
That this is the man’s way of procedure, in reference to the deity of
Christ and of the Holy Ghost, the satisfaction and merit of Christ, the
corruption of nature, and efficacy of grace, with many other most important
heads of Christian religion, will be fully manifest in our consideration,
of the several particulars as they shall occur in the method wherein by him
they are handled.
(3.) What can be concluded of the mind of God in the
Scripture, by cutting off any place or places of it from their dependence,
connection, and tendency, catching at those words which seem to confirm
what we would have them so to do (whether, in the proper order wherein of
God they are set and fixed, they do in the least east an eye towards the
thesis which they are produced to confirm or no), might easily be
manifested by innumerable instances, were not the vanity of such a course
evident to all.
On the consideration of these few exceptions to Mr B.’s way of procedure, it will easily appear
what little advantage he hath given him thereby, and how unjust his
pretence is, which by this course he aims to prevail upon men withal. This
he opens, page 6: “None,” saith he, “can fall foul upon the things
contained in this Catechism” (which he confesseth to be “quite contrary to
the doctrine that passeth current among the generality of Christians”), “as
they are here displayed, because the answers are transcribed out of the
Scriptures.” But Mr B. may be pleased to
take notice that the “displaying,” as he calls it, of his doctrines is the
work of his questions, and not of the words of Scripture produced to
confirm them, which have a sense cunningly and subtilely imposed on them by
his queries, or are pointed and restrained to the things which in the place
of their delivery they look not towards in any measure. We shall
undoubtedly find, in the process of this business, that Mr B.’s questions, being found guilty of
treason against God, will not be allowed sanctuary in the answers which
they labour to creep into; and that, they disclaiming their protection,
they may be pursued, taken, and given up to the justice and severity of
truth, without the least profanation of their holiness. A murderer may be
plucked from the horns of the altar.
Nor is that the only answer insisted on for the removal of
Mr B.’s sophistry, which he mentions, p.
7, and pursues it for three or four leaves onward of his preface, namely,
“That the scriptures which he urgeth do in the letter hold out such things
as he allegeth them to prove, but yet they must be figuratively
interpreted.” For Mr B.’s “mystical
sense,” I know not what he intends by it, or by whom it is urged. This is
applicable solely to the places he produceth for the description of God and
his attributes, concerning whom that some expressions of Scripture are to
be so interpreted himself confesseth, p. 13; and we desire to take leave to
inquire whether some others, beside what Mr
B. allows, may not be of the same consideration. In
other things, for the most part, we have nothing at all to do with so much
as the interpretation of the places he mentions, but only to remove the
grossly sophistical insinuations of his queries. For instance, when Mr B. asks, “Whether Christ Jesus was a man or
no?” and allegeth express Scripture affirming that he was, we say not that
the Scripture must have a figurative interpretation, but that Mr B. is grossly sophistical, concluding from
the assertion of Christ’s human nature to the denial of his divine, and
desperately injurious to the persons with whom he pretends he hath to do,
who as yet “understand not the truth of our religion,” in undertaking to
declare to them the special “chief things of belief and practice,” and
hiding from them the things of the greatest moment to their salvation, and
which the Scripture speaks most plentifully unto, by not stating any
question or making any such inquiry as their affirmation might be suited
unto. The like instance may be given in all the particulars wherein Mr B. is departed from “the faith once
delivered to the saints.” His whole following discourse, then, to the end
of p. 13, wherein he decries the answer to his way of procedure, which
himself had framed, he might have spared. It is true, we do affirm that
there are figurative expressions in the Scripture (and Mr B. dares not say the contrary), and that they are
accordingly to be interpreted; not that they are to have a mystical sense
put upon them, but that the literal sense is to be received, according to
the direction of the figure which is in the words. That these words of our
Saviour, “This is my body,” are figurative, I suppose Mr B. will not deny. Interpret them according to the
figurative import of them, and that interpretation gives you the literal,
and not a mystical sense, if such figures belong to speech and not to
sense. That sense, I confess, may be spiritually understood (then it is
saving) or otherwise; but this doth not constitute different senses in the
words, but only denote a difference in the understandings of men. But all
this, in hypothesi, Mr B. fully grants, p. 9; so that there is no
danger, by asserting it, to cast the least thought of uncertainty on the
word of God. But, p. 10, he gives you an instance wherein this kind of
interpretation must by no means be allowed, namely, in the Scripture
attributions of a shape and similitude (that is, of eyes, ears, hands,
feet) unto God, with passions and affections like unto us; which that they
are not proper, but figuratively to be interpreted, he tells you, p. 10–12,
“those affirm who are perverted by false philosophy, and make a nose of wax
of the Scripture, which plainly affirms such things of God.” In what sense
the expressions of Scripture intimated concerning God are necessarily to be
received and understood, the ensuing considerations will inform the reader.
For the present, I shall only say that I do not know scarce a more unhappy
instance in his whole book that he could have produced than this, wherein
he hath been blasphemously injurious unto God and his holy word. And
herein we shall deal with him from Scripture itself, right reason, and the common
consent of mankind. How remote our interpretations of the places by him
quoted for his purpose are from wresting the Scriptures, or turning them
aside from their purpose, scope, and intendment, will also in due time be
made manifest.
We say, indeed, as Mr B.
observes, that in those kinds of expressions God “condescendeth to
accommodate his ways and proceedings” (not his essence and being) “to our
apprehensions;” wherein we are very far from saying that “he speaks one
thing and intends the clean contrary,” but only that the things
that he ascribes to himself, for our understanding and the accommodation of
his proceedings to the manner of men, are to be understood in him and of
them in that which they denote of perfection, and not in respect of that
which is imperfect and weak. For instance, when God says,
“his eyes run to and fro, to behold the sons of men,” we do not say that he
speaks one’ thing and understands another; but only because we have our
knowledge and acquaintance with things by our eyes looking up and down,
therefore doth he who hath not eyes of flesh as we have, nor hath any need
to look up and down to acquaint himself with them, all whose ways are in
his own hand, nor can without blasphemy be supposed to look from one thing
to another, choose to express his knowledge of and intimate acquaintance
with all things here below, in and by his own infinite understanding, in
the way so suited to our apprehension. Neither are these kinds of
expressions in the least an occasion of idolatry, or do give advantage to
any of creating any shape of God in their imaginations, God having plainly
and clearly, in the same word of his wherein these expressions are used,
discovered that of himself, his nature, being, and properties, which will
necessarily determine in what sense these expressions are to be understood;
as, in the consideration of the several particulars in the ensuing
discourse, the reader will find evinced. And we are yet of the mind, that
to conceive of God as a great man, with mouth, eyes, hands, legs, etc., in
a proper sense, sitting in heaven, shut up there, troubled, vexed, moved up
and down with sundry passions, perplexed about the things that are to come
to pass, which he knows not, — which is the notion of God that Mr B. labours to deliver the world from their
darkness withal, — is gross idolatry, whereunto the scriptural attributions
unto God mentioned give not the least countenance; as will in the progress
of our discourse more fully appear. And if it be true, which Mr B. intimates, that “things implying
imperfection” (speaking of sleep and being weary) “are not properly
attributed to God,” I doubt not but I shall easily evince that the same
line of refusal is to pass over the visible shape and turbulent affections
which are by him ascribed to him. But of these more particularly in their
respective places.
But he adds, pp. 13, 14, “That this consideration is so
pressing, that a certain learned author, in his book entitled ‘Conjectura Cabalistica,’
affirms that for Moses, by occasion of his writings, to let the Jews
entertain a conceit of God as in human shape was not any more a way to
bring them into idolatry than by acknowledging man to be God, as our
religion doth in Christ;” which plea of his Mr
B. exagitates in the pages following. That learned gentleman is of
age and ability to speak for himself: for mine own part, I am not so clear
in what he affirms as to undertake it for him, though otherwise very ready
to serve him upon the account which I have of his worth and abilities;
though I may freely say I suppose they might be better exercised than in
such cabalistical conjectures as the book of his pointed unto is full of.
But who am I, that judge another? We must every one give an account of
himself and his labours to God; and the fire shall try our works of what
sort they are. I shall not desire to make too much work for the fire. For
the present, I deny that Moses in his writings doth give any occasion to
entertain a conceit of God as one of a human shape; neither did the Jews
ever stumble into idolatry on that account. They sometimes, indeed,
changed their glory for that which was not God; but whilst they worshipped
that God that revealed himself by Moses, Jehovah, Ehejeh, it doth not appear that ever they entertained in
their thoughts any thing but purum
numen, a most simple, spiritual, eternal Being, as I shall give
a farther account afterward. Though they intended to worship Jehovah both
in the calf in the wilderness and in those at Bethel, yet that they ever
entertained any thoughts that God had such a shape as that which they
framed to worship him by is madness to imagine. For though Moses sometimes
speaks of God in the condescension before mentioned, expressing his power
by his arm, and bow, and sword, his knowledge and understanding by his eye,
yet he doth in so many places caution them with whom he had to do of
entertaining any thoughts of any bodily similitude of God, that by any
thing delivered by him there is not the least occasion administered for the
entertaining of such a conceit as is intimated. Neither am I clear in the
theological predication which that learned person hath chosen to parallel
with the Mosaical expressions of God’s shape and similitude, concerning man
being God. Though we acknowledge him who is man to be God, yet we do not
acknowledge man to be God. Christ under this reduplication, as man, is not
a person, and so not God. To say that man is God, is to say that the
humanity and Deity are the same. Whatever he is as man, he is upon the
account of his being man. Now, that he who is man is also God, though he
be not God upon the account of his being man, can give no more occasion to
idolatry than to say that God is infinite, omnipotent. For the expression
itself, it being in the concrete, it may be salved by the communication of
properties; but as it lies, it may possibly be taken in the abstract, and
so is simply false. Neither do I judge it safe to use such expressions,
unless it be when the grounds and reasons of them are assigned. But that
Mr B. should be offended with this
assertion I see no reason. Both he and his associates affirm that Jesus
Christ as man (being in essence and nature nothing but man) is made a God;
and is the object of divine worship or religious adoration on that account.
I may therefore let pass Mr B.’s
following harangue against “men’s philosophical speculations, deserting the
Scripture in their contemplations of the nature of God, as though they
could speak more worthily of God than he hath done of himself;” for though
it may easily be made appear that never any of the Platonical philosophers
spoke so unworthily of God or vented such gross, carnal conceptions of him
as Mr B. hath done, and the gentleman of
whom he speaks be well able to judge of what he reads, and to free himself
from being entangled in any of their notions, discrepant from the
revelation that God hath made of himself in his word, yet we, being
resolved to try out the whole matter, and to put all the differences we
have with Mr B. to the trial and issue
upon the express testimony of God himself in his word, are not concerned in
this discourse.
Neither have I any necessity to divert to the consideration
of his complaint concerning the bringing in of new expressions into
religion, if he intends such as whose substance or matter, which they do
express, is not evidently and expressly found in the Scripture. What is
the “Babylonish language,” what are “the horrid and intricate expressions,”
which he affirms to be “introduced under a colour of detecting and
confuting heresies, but indeed to put a baffle upon the simplicity of the
Scripture,” he gives us an account of, p. 19, where we shall consider it
and them. In general, words are but the figures of things. It is not
words and terms, nor expressions, but doctrines and things, we inquire
after. Mr
B., I suppose, allows expositions of Scripture, or else
I am sure he condemns himself in what he practises. His book is, in his
own thoughts, an exposition of Scripture. That this cannot be done without
varying the words and literal expressions thereof, I suppose will not be
questioned. To express the same thing that is contained in any place of
Scripture with such other words as may give light unto it in our
understandings, is to expound it. This are we called to, and the course of
it is to continue whilst Christ continues a church upon the earth. Paul
spake nothing, for the substance of the things he delivered, but what was
written in the prophets; that he did not use new expressions, not to be
found in any of the prophets, will not be proved. But there is a twofold
evil in these expressions: “That they are invented to detect and exclude
heresies, as is pretended.” If heretics begin first to wrest Scripture
expressions to a sense never received nor contained in them, it is surely
lawful for them who are willing to “contend for the faith once delivered to
the saints” to clear the mind of God in his word by expressions and terms
suitable thereunto; neither have heretics carried on their
cause without the invention of new words and phrases.
If any shall make use of any words, terms, phrases, and
expressions, in and about religious things, requiring the embracing and
receiving of those words, etc., by others, without examining either the
truth of what by those words, phrases, etc., they intend to signify and
express, or the propriety of those expressions themselves, as to their
accommodation for the signifying of those things, I plead not for them. It
is not in the power of man to make any word or expression, not ῥητῶς found in the Scripture, to be
canonical, and for its own sake to be embraced and received. But
yet if any word or phrase do expressly signify any doctrine or matter
contained in the Scripture, though the word or phrase itself be not in so
many letters found in the Scripture, that such word or phrase may not be
used for the explication of the mind of God I suppose will not easily be
proved. And this we farther grant, that if any one shall scruple the
receiving and owning of such expressions, so as to make them the way of
professing that which is signified by them, and yet do receive the thing or
doctrine which is by them delivered, for my part I shall have no contest
with him. For instance, the word ὀμοούσιος was made use of by the first Nicene council
to express the unity of essence and being that is in the Father and Son,
the better to obviate Arius and his followers,
with their ἧν ὅταν οὐκ ἦν, and the
like forms of speech, nowhere found in Scripture, and invented on set
purpose to destroy the true and eternal deity of the Son of God. If, now,
any man should scruple the receiving of that word, but withal should
profess that he believes Jesus Christ to be God, equal to the Father, one
with him from the beginning, and doth not explain himself by other terms
not found in the Scripture, namely, that he was “made a God,” and is “one
with the Father as to will, not essence,” and the like, he is like to
undergo neither trouble nor opposition from me. We know what troubles
arose between the eastern and western churches about the words
“hypostasis” and “persona,” until they understood on each side that by
these different words the same thing was intended, and that ὑπόστασις with the Greeks was not the same as “substantia” with the Latins, nor “persona” with the Latins the same with
πρόσωπον among the Greeks, as to their
application to the thing the one and the other expressed by these terms.
That such “monstrous terms are brought into our religion as neither they
that invented them nor they that use them do understand,” Mr B. may be allowed to aver, from the measure
he hath taken of all men’s understandings, weighing them in his own, and
saying, “Thus far can they go and no farther,” “This they can understand,
that they cannot;” — a prerogative, as we shall see in the process of this
business, that he will scarcely allow to God himself without his taking
much pains and labour about it. I profess, for ray part, I have not as yet
the least conviction fallen upon me that Mr
B. is furnished with so large an understanding, whatever he
insinuates of his own abilities, as to be allowed a dictator of what any
man can or cannot understand. If his principle, or rather conclusion, upon
which he limits the understandings of men be this, “What I cannot
understand, that no man else can,” he would be desired to consider that he
is as yet but a young man, who hath not had so many advantages and helps
for the improving of his understanding as some others have had; and,
besides, that there are some whose eyes are blinded by the god of this
world, that they shall never see or understand the things of God, yea, and
that God himself doth thus oftentimes execute his vengeance on them, for
detaining his truth in unrighteousness.
But yet, upon this acquaintance which he hath with the
measure of all men’s understandings, he informs his reader that “the only
way to carry on the reformation of the church, beyond what yet hath been
done by Luther or Calvin, is by cashiering those many intricate terms and
devised forms of speaking,” which he hath observed slily to couch false
doctrines, and to obtrude them on us; and, by the way, that “this carrying
on of reformation beyond the stint of Luther or Calvin was never
yet so much as sincerely endeavoured.” In the former passage, having given
out himself as a competent judge of the understandings of all men, in this
he proceeds to their hearts. “The reformation of the church,” saith he,
“was never sincerely attempted, beyond the stint of Luther and Calvin.”
Attempted it hath been, but he knows all the men and their hearts full well
who made those attempts, and that they never did it sincerely, but with
guile and hypocrisy! Mr B. knows who
those are that say, “With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our
own.” To know the hearts of men and their frame towards himself, Mr B. instructs us, in his Catechism, that God
himself is forced to make trial and experiments; but for his own part,
without any great trouble, he can easily pronounce of their sincerity or
hypocrisy in any undertaking! Low and vile thoughts of God will quickly
usher in light, proud, and foolish thoughts concerning ourselves. Luther
and Calvin were men whom God honoured above many in their generation; and
on that account we dare not but do so also. That all church reformation is
to be measured by their line, — that is, that no farther discovery of
truth, in, or about, or concerning the ways or works of God, may be made,
but what hath been made to them and by them, — was not, that I know of,
ever yet affirmed by any in or of any reformed church in the world. The
truth is, such attempts as this of Mr
B.’s to overthrow all the foundations of Christian religion, to
accommodate the Gospel to the Alcoran, and subject all divine mysteries to
the judgment of that wisdom which is carnal and sensual, under the fair
pretence of carrying on the work of reformation and of
discovering truth from the Scripture, have perhaps fixed some men to the
measure they have received beyond what Christian ingenuity and the love of
the truth requireth of them. A noble and free inquiry into the word of
God, with attendance to all ways by him appointed or allowed for the
revelation of his mind, with reliance on his gracious promise of “leading
us into all truth” by his holy and blessed Spirit, without whose aid,
guidance, direction, light, and assistance, we can neither know,
understand, nor receive the things that are of God; neither captivated to
the traditions of our fathers, for whose labour and pains in the work of
the gospel, and for his presence with them, we daily bless the name of our
God; neither yet “carried about with every wind of doctrine,” breathed or
insinuated by the “cunning sleight of men who lie in wait to deceive,” — is
that which we profess. What the Lord will be pleased to do with us by or
in this frame, upon these principles; how, wherein, we shall serve our
generation, in the revelation of his mind and will, — is in his hand and
disposal. About using or casting off words and phrases, formerly used to
express any truth or doctrine of the Scripture, we will not contend with
any, provided the things themselves signified by them be retained. This
alone makes me indeed put any value on any word or expression not ῥητῶς found in the Scripture, namely, my
observation that they are questioned and rejected by none but such as, by
their rejection, intend and aim at the removal of the truth itself which by
them is expressed, and plentifully revealed in the word. The same care
also was among them of old, having the same occasion administered. Hence
when Valens, the Arian emperor, sent Modestus, his prætorian præfect, to persuade Basil to be an Arian, the man entreated him not to be
so rigid as to displease the emperor and trouble the church, δι’ ὀλίγην δογμάτων ἀκρίβειαν, for an
over-strict observance of opinions, it being but one word, indeed one
syllable, that made the difference, and he thought it not prudent to stand
so much upon so small a business. The holy man replied, Τοῖς θείοις λόγοις ἐντεθραμμένοι πρόεσθαι μὲν τῶν θείων
δογμάτων οὐδὲ μίαν ἀνέχονται συλλαβήν — “However children might be
so dealt withal, those who are bred up in the Scriptures or nourished with
the word will not suffer one syllable of divine truth to be betrayed.” The
like attempt to this of Valens and
Modestus upon Basil was made by the Arian bishops at the council of Ariminum, who pleaded
earnestly for the rejection of one or two words not found in the Scripture,
laying on that plea much weight, when it was the eversion of the deity of
Christ which they intended and attempted. And by none is there more
strength and evidence given to this observation than by him with whom I
have now to do, who, exclaiming against words and expressions, intends
really the subversion of all the most fundamental and substantial truths of
the gospel; and therefore, having, pp. 19–21, reckoned up many expressions
which he dislikes, condemns, and would have rejected, most of them relating
to the chiefest heads of our religion (though, to his advantage, he cast in
by the way two or three gross figments), he concludes “that as the forms of
speech by him recounted are not used in the Scripture, no more are the
things signified by them contained therein.” In the issue, then, all the
quarrel is fixed upon the things themselves, which, if they were found in
Scripture, the expressions insisted on might be granted to suit them well
enough. What need, then, all this long discourse about words and
expressions, when it is the things themselves signified by them
that are the abominations decried? Now, though most of the things here
pointed unto will fall under our ensuing considerations, yet because Mr B. hath here cast into one heap many of the
doctrines which in the Christian religion he opposeth and would have
renounced, it may not be amiss to take a short view of the most
considerable instances in our passage.
His first is of God’s being infinite and
incomprehensible. This he condemns, name and thing, — that is, he
says “he is finite, limited, of us to be comprehended;” for those who say
he is infinite and incomprehensible do say only that he is not finite nor
of us to be comprehended. What advance is made towards the farther
reformation of the church by this new
notion of Mr B.’s is fully discovered in
the consideration of the second chapter of his Catechism; and in this, as
in sundry other things, Mr B. excels his
masters. The
Scripture tells us expressly that “he filleth heaven and earth;” that the
“heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain him;” that his presence is
in heaven and hell, and that “his understanding is infinite” (which how the
understanding of one that is finite may be, an infinite understanding
cannot comprehend); that he “dwelleth in that light which no man can
approach unto, whom no man hath seen, nor can see” (which to us is the
description of one incomprehensible); that he is “eternal,” which we cannot
comprehend. The like expressions are used of him in great abundance.
Besides, if God be not incomprehensible, we may search out his power,
wisdom, and understanding to the utmost; for if we cannot, if it be not
possible so to do, he is incomprehensible. But “canst thou by searching
find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection?” “There is
no searching of his understanding.” If by our lines we suppose we can
fathom the depth of the essence, omnipotency, wisdom, and understanding of
God, I doubt not but we shall find ourselves mistaken. Were ever any,
since the world began, before quarrelled withal for asserting the essence
and being of God to be incomprehensible? The heathen who affirmed that the
more he inquired, the more he admired and the less he understood, had a more noble reverence of the
eternal Being which in
his mind he conceived, than Mr B. will
allow us to entertain of God. Farther; if God be not infinite, he is
circumscribed in some certain place; if he be, is he there fixed to that
place, or doth he move from it? If he be fixed there, how can he work at a
distance, especially such things as necessarily require divine power to
their production? If he move up and down, and journey as his occasions
require, what a blessed enjoyment of himself in his own glory hath he! But
that this blasphemous figment of God’s being limited and confined to a
certain place is really destructive to all the divine perfections of the
nature and being of God is afterward demonstrated. And this is the first
instance given by Mr B. of the corruption
of our doctrine, which he rejects name and thing, namely, “that God is
infinite and incomprehensible.” And now, whether this man be a “mere
Christian” or a mere Lucian, let the reader judge.
That God is a simple act is the next thing
excepted against and decried, name and thing; in the room
whereof, that he is compounded of matter and form,” or the like, must be
asserted. Those who affirm God to be a simple act do only deny him to be
compounded of divers principles, and assert him to be always actually in
being, existence, and intent operation. God says of himself that his name is
Ehejeh, and he is I am, — that is, a
simple being, existing in and of itself; and this is that which is intended
by the simplicity of the nature of God, and his being a simple act. The
Scripture tells us he is eternal, I am, always the
same, and so never what he was not ever. This is decried, and in
opposition to it his being compounded, and so obnoxious to dissolution, and
his being in potentia, in a
disposition and passive capacity to be what he is not, is asserted; for it
is only to deny these things that the term “simple” is used, which he
condemns and rejects. And this is the second instance that Mr B. gives in the description of his God, by
his rejecting the received expressions concerning him who is so: “He is
limited, and of us to be comprehended; his essence and being consisting of
several principles, whereby he is in a capacity of being what he is not.”
Mr B., solus habeto; I will not be your rival in the
favour of this God.
And this may suffice to this exception of Mr B., by the way, against the simplicity of
the being of God; yet, because he doth not directly oppose it afterward,
and the asserting of it doth clearly evert all his following fond
imaginations of the shape, corporeity, and limitedness of the essence of
God (to which end also I shall, in the consideration of his several
depravations of the truth concerning the nature of God, insist upon it), I
shall a little here divert to the explication of what we intend by the
simplicity of the essence of God, and confirm the truth of what we so
intend thereby.
As was, then, intimated before, though simplicity seems to
be a positive term, or to denote something positively, yet indeed it is a
pure negation, and
formally, immediately, and properly, denies multiplication, composition,
and the like. And though this only it immediately denotes, yet there is a
most eminent perfection of the nature of God thereby signified to us; which
is negatively proposed, because it is in the use of things that are proper
to us, in which case we can only conceive what is not to be ascribed to
God. Now, not to insist on the metaphysical notions and distinctions of
simplicity, by the ascribing of it to God we do not only deny that he is
compounded of divers principles really distinct, but also of such as are
improper, and not of such a real distance, or that he is compounded of any
thing, or can be compounded with any thing whatever.
First, then, that this is a property of God’s essence or
being is manifest from his absolute independence and firstness in being
and operation, which God often insists upon in the revelation of
himself: Isa. xliv. 6, “I am the first, and I
am the last; and beside me there is no God.” Rev. i. 8,
“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which
is,” etc.: so chap. xxi. 6, xxii.
13. Which also is fully asserted, Rom. xi. 35, 36, “Who hath first
given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? for of him, and
through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for
ever.” Now, if God were of any causes, internal or external, any
principles antecedent or superior to him, he could not be so absolutely
first and independent. Were he composed of parts, accidents, manner of
being, he could not be first; for all these are before that which is of
them, and therefore his essence is absolutely simple.
Secondly, God is absolutely and perfectly one and the
same, and nothing differs from his essence in it: “The Lord our God is one Lord,”
Deut. vi. 4; “Thou art the
same,” Ps. cii. 27. And where there is an
absolute oneness and sameness in the whole, there is no composition by an
union of extremes. Thus is it with God: his name is, “I
am; I am that I am,” Exod.
iii. 14, 15; “Which is,” Rev. i. 8.
He, then, who is what he is, and whose all that is in him is, himself, hath
neither parts, accidents, principles, nor any thing else, whereof his
essence should be compounded.
Thirdly, The attributes of God, which alone seem
to be distinct things in the essence of God, are all of them
essentially the same with one another, and every one the same with the
essence of God itself. For, first, they are spoken one of another
as well as of God; as there is his “eternal power” as well as his
“Godhead.” And, secondly, they are either infinite and infinitely
perfect, or they are not. If they are, then if they are not the same with
God, there are more things infinite than one, and consequently more Gods;
for that which is absolutely infinite is absolutely perfect, and
consequently God. If they are not infinite, then God knows not himself,
for a finite wisdom cannot know perfectly an infinite being. And this
might be farther confirmed by the particular consideration of all kinds of
composition, with a manifestation of the impossibility of their attribution
unto God; arguments to which purpose the learned reader knows where to find
in abundance.
Fourthly, Yea, that God is, and must needs be, a simple act
(which expression Mr B. fixes on for the
rejection of it) is evident from this one consideration, which was
mentioned before: If he be not so, there must be some potentiality in
God. Whatever is, and is not a simple act, hath a possibility to be
perfected by act; if this be in God, he is not perfect, nor all-sufficient.
Every composition whatever is of power and act; which if it be, or might
have been in God, he could not be said to be immutable, which the Scripture
plentifully witnesseth that he is.
These are some few of the grounds of this affirmation of
ours concerning the simplicity of the essence of God; which when Mr B. removes and answers, he may have more of
them, which at present there is no necessity to produce.
From his being he proceeds to his subsistence, and
expressly rejects his subsisting in three persons, name and thing.
That this is no new attempt, no undertaking whose glory Mr B. may arrogate to himself, is known.
Hitherto God hath taken thought for his own glory, and eminently confounded
the opposers of the subsistence of his essence in three distinct persons.
Inquire of them that went before, and of the dealings of God with them of
old. What is become of Ebion, Cerinthus, Paulus
Samosatenus, Theodotus
Byzantinus, Photinus, Arius, Macedonius, etc.? Hath not God made their memory to
rot, and their names to be an abomination to all generations? How they
once attempted to have taken possession of the churches of God, making
slaughter and havoc of all that opposed them, hath been declared; but their
place long since knows them no more. By the subsisting of God in any
person, no more is intended than that person’s being God. If that person
be God, God subsists in that person. If you grant the Father to
be a person (as the Holy Ghost expressly affirms him to be,
Heb. i. 3) and to be God, you grant God
to subsist in that person: that is all which by that expression is
intended. The Son is God, or is not. To say he is not God, is to beg that
which cannot be proved. If he be God, he is the Father, or he is another
person. If he be the Father, he is not the Son. That he is the Son and
not the Son is sufficiently contradictory. If he be not the Father, as was
said, and yet be God, he may have the same nature and substance with the
Father (for of our God there is but one essence, nature, or being), and yet
be distinct from him. That distinction from him is his personality, — that
property whereby and from whence he is the Son. The like is to be said of
the Holy Ghost. The thing, then, here denied is, that the Son is God, or
that the Holy Ghost is God: for if they are so, God must subsist in three
persons; of which more afterward. Now, is this not to be found in the
Scriptures? Is there no text affirming Christ to be God, to be one with
the Father, or that the Holy Ghost is so? no text saying, “There are three
that bear record in heaven; and these three are one?” none ascribing divine
perfections, divine worship distinctly to either Son or Spirit, and yet
jointly to one God? Are none of these things found in the Scripture, that
Mr B. thinks with one blast to demolish
all these ancient foundations, and by his bare authority to deny the common
faith of the present saints, and that wherein their predecessors in the
worship of God are fallen asleep in peace? The proper place for the
consideration of these things will farther manifest the abomination of this
bold attempt against the Son of God and the Eternal Spirit.
For the divine circumincession, mentioned in the
next place, I shall only say that it is not at all in my intention to
defend all the expressions that any men have used (who are yet sound in the
main) in the unfolding of this great, tremendous mystery of the blessed
Trinity, and I could heartily wish that they had some of them been less
curious in their inquiries and less bold in their expressions. It is the
thing itself alone whose faith I desire to own and profess; and therefore I
shall not in the least labour to retain and hold those things or words
which may be left or lost without any prejudice thereunto.
Briefly; by the barbarous term of “mutual circumincession,”
the schoolmen understand that which the Greek fathers called ἐμπεριχώρησις, whereby they expressed that
mystery, which Christ himself teaches us, of “his being in the Father, and
the Father in him,” John x.
38, and of the Father’s dwelling in him, and doing the works he
did, chap. xiv. 10, — the distinction of
these persons being not hereby taken away, but the disjunction of them as
to their nature and being.
The eternal generation of the Son is in the next
place rejected, that he may be sure to cast down every thing that looks
towards the assertion of his deity, whom yet the apostle affirms to be” God
blessed for ever,” Rom. ix. 5.
That the Word, which “in the beginning was” (and therefore is) “God,” is
“the only begotten of the Father,” the apostle affirms, John i. 14. That he is also” the
only begotten Son of God” we have other plentiful testimonies, Ps.
ii. 7; John iii.
16; Acts xiii.
33; Heb. i.
4–6; — a Son so as, in comparison of his sonship, the best of
sons by adoption are servants, Heb. iii. 5,
6; and so begotten as to be an only Son, John i.
14; though, begotten by grace, God hath many sons, James i. 18. Christ, then, being
begotten of the Father, hath his generation of the Father; for these are
the very same things in words of a diverse sound. The only question here
is, whether the Son have the generation so often spoken of from eternity or
in time, — whether it be an eternal or a temporal generation from whence he
is so said to be “begotten.” As Christ is a Son, so by him the
“worlds were made,” Heb. i. 2,
so that surely he had his sonship before he took flesh in the fulness of
time; and when he had his sonship he had his generation. He is such a Son
as, by being partaker of that name, he is exalted above angels, Heb. i. 5; and he is the “first
begotten” before he is brought into the world, verse 6:
and therefore his “goings forth” are said to be “from the days of
eternity,” Mic. v. 2; and he had “glory with the
Father” (as the Son) “before the world was,” John xvii.
5. Neither is he said to be “begotten of the Father” in respect
of his incarnation, but conceived by the Holy Ghost, or formed in the womb
by him, of the substance of his mother; nor is he thence called the “Son of
God.” In brief, if Christ be the eternal Son of God, Mr B. will not deny him to have had an eternal generation: if
he be not, a generation must be found out for him suitable to the sonship
which he hath; of which abomination in its proper place.
This progress have we made in Mr
B.’s creed: He believes God to be finite, to be by us comprehended,
compounded; he believes there is no trinity of persons in the Godhead, —
that Christ is not the eternal Son of God. The following parts of it are
of the same kind:—
The eternal procession of the Holy Ghost is nextly
rejected. The Holy Ghost being constantly termed the “Spirit of God,” the
“Spirit of the Father,” and the “Spirit of the Son” (being also” God,” as
shall afterward be evinced), and so partaking of the same nature with
Father and Son (the apostle granting that God hath a nature, in his
rejecting of them who” by nature are no gods”), is yet distinguished from
them, and that eternally (as nothing is in the Deity that is not eternal),
and being, moreover, said ἐκπορεύεσθαι
or to “proceed” and “go forth” from the Father and Son, this expression of
his “eternal procession” hath been fixed on, manifesting the property
whereby he is distinguished from Father and Son. The thing intended hereby
is, that the Holy Ghost, who is God, and is said to be of the Father and
the Son, is by that name, of his being of them, distinguished from
them; and the denial hereof gives you one article more of Mr B.’s creed, namely, that the Holy Ghost is
not God. To what that expression of “proceeding” is to be accommodated
will afterward be considered.
The incarnation of Christ (the Deity and Trinity
being despatched) is called into question, and rejected. By “incarnation”
is meant, as the word imports, a taking of flesh (this is variously by the
ancients expressed, but the same thing still intended), or being made so. The Scripture affirming
that “the Word was made flesh,” John i.
14; that “God was manifest in the flesh,” 1
Tim. iii. 16; that “Christ took part of flesh and blood,”
Heb. ii. 14; that “he took on him the
seed of Abraham,” chap. ii.
16; that he was “made of a woman,” Gal. iv.
4, 5; sent forth “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” Rom. viii. 3; “in all things made like
unto his brethren,” Heb. ii.
17, — we thought we might have been allowed to say so also, and
that this expression might have escaped with a less censure than an utter
rejection out of Christian religion. The Son of God taking flesh, and so
being made like to us, that he might be the “captain of our salvation,” is
that which by this word (and that according to the Scripture) is affirmed,
and which, to increase the heap of former abominations (or to “carry on the
work of reformation beyond the stint of Luther or Calvin”), is
here by Mr B. decried.
Of the hypostatical union there is the same
reason. Christ, who as “concerning the flesh” was of the Jews,
and is God to be blessed for ever, over all, Rom. ix. 5,
is one person. Being God to be blessed over all, that is, God by nature
(for such as are not so, and yet take upon them to be gods, God will
destroy), and having “flesh and blood as the children” have, Heb. ii. 14, that is, the same nature
of man with believers, yet being but one person, one mediator, one Christ,
the Son of God, we say both these natures of God and man are united in that
one person, namely, the person of the Son of God. This is that which Mr B. rejects (now his hand is in), both name
and thing. The truth is, all these things are but colourable advantages
wherewith he laboureth to amuse poor souls. Grant the deity of Christ, and
he knows all these particulars will necessarily ensue; and whilst he denies
the foundation, it is to no purpose to contend about any consequences or
inferences whatever. And whether we have ground for the expression under
present consideration, John i. 14,
18, xx. 28; Acts xx.
28; Rom. i. 3, 4, ix. 5;
Gal. iv. 4; Phil. ii. 5–8; 1 Tim. iii. 16,
i.John i. 1,
2; Rev. v.
12–14, with innumerable other testimonies of Scripture, may be
considered. If “the Word, the Son of God, was made flesh, made of a woman,
took our nature,” wherein he was pierced and wounded, and shed his blood,
and yet continues” our Lord and our God, God blessed for ever,” esteeming
it “no robbery to be equal with his Father,” yet being a person distinct
from him, being the “brightness of his person,” we fear not to say that the
two natures of God and man are united in one person; which is the
hypostatical union here rejected.
The communication of properties, on which depend
two or three of the following instances mentioned by Mr B., is a necessary consequent of the union before asserted;
and the thing intended by it is no less clearly delivered in Scripture than
the truths before mentioned. It is affirmed of “the man Christ Jesus”
that he “knew what was in the heart of man,” that he “would be
with his unto the end of the world,” and Thomas, putting his hand into his
side, cried out to him, “My Lord and my God,” etc., when Christ
neither did nor was so, as he was man. Again, it is said that
“God redeemed his church with his own blood,” that the “Son of God
was made of a woman,” that “the Word was made flesh,” none of which can
properly be spoken of God, his Son, or eternal Word, in respect of that nature whereby he is so; and
therefore we say, that look what properties are peculiar to either of his
natures (as, to be omniscient, omnipotent, to be the object of divine
worship, to the Deity; to be born, to bleed, and
die, to the humanity), are spoken of in reference to his person, wherein
both those natures are united. So that whereas the Scriptures say that
“God redeemed his church with his own blood,” or that he was “made flesh;”
or whereas, in a consonancy thereunto, and to obviate the folly of Nestorius, who made two persons of Christ, the
ancients called the blessed Virgin the Mother of God, — the
intendment of the one and other is no more but that he was truly God, who
in his manhood was a son, had a mother, did bleed and die. And such
Scripture expressions we affirm to be founded in this “communication of
properties,” or the assignment of that unto the person of
Christ, however expressly spoken of as God or man, which is proper to him
in regard of either of these natures, the one or other, God on this account
being said to do what is proper to man, and man what is proper alone to
God, because he who is both God and man doth both the one and the
other. By what expressions and with what diligence the
ancients warded the doctrine of Christ’s personal union against both Nestorius and Eutyches, the
one of them dividing his person into two, the other confounding his natures
by an absurd confusion and mixture of their respective essential properties
(Mr B. not giving occasion), I shall not
farther mention.
And this is all Mr B.
instances in of what he rejects as to our doctrine about the nature of God,
the Trinity, person of Christ, and the Holy Ghost; of all which he hath
left us no more than what the Turks and other Mohammedans will freely
acknowledge.
And whether this be to be a “mere Christian,” or none at all, the pious
reader will judge.
Having dealt thus with the person of Christ, he adds the
names of two abominable figments, to give countenance to his undertaking,
wherein he knows those with whom he hath to do have no communion, casting
the deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost into the same bundle with
transubstantiation and consubstantiation; to which he
adds the ubiquity of the body of Christ, after mentioned, —
self-contradicting fictions. With what sincerity, candour, and Christian
ingenuity, Mr B. hath proceeded, in
rolling up together such abominations as these with the most weighty and
glorious truths of the gospel, that together he might trample them under
his feet in the mire, God will certainly in due time reveal to himself and
all the world.
The next thing he decries is original sin (I will
suppose Mr B. knows what those whom he
professeth to oppose intend thereby); and this he condemns, name and thing.
That the guilt of our first father’s sin is imputed to his posterity; that
they are made obnoxious to death thereby, that we are “by nature children
of wrath, dead in trespasses and sins, conceived in sin; that our
understandings are darkness, so that we cannot receive the things that are
of God; that we are able to do no good of ourselves, so that unless we are
born again we cannot enter into the kingdom of God; that we are alienated,
enemies, have carnal minds, that are enmity against God, and cannot be
subject to him;” — all this
and the like is at once blown away by Mr
B.; there is no such thing. “Una
litura potest.” That Christ by nature is not God, that we by nature
have no sin, are the two great principles of this “mere Christian’s”
belief.
Of Christ’s taking our nature upon him, which is again
mentioned, we have spoken before. If he was “made flesh, made of a woman,
made under the law; if he partook of flesh and blood because the children
partake of the same; if he took on him the seed of Abraham, and was made
like to us in all things, sin only excepted; if, being in the form of God
and equal to him, he took on him the form of a servant, and became like to
us, — he took our nature on him; for these,
and these only, are the things which by that expression are intended.
The most of what follows is about the grace
of Christ, which, having destroyed what in him lies his person, he
doth also openly reject; and in the first place begins with the foundation,
his making satisfaction to God for our sins, all our sins, past,
present, and to come, which also, under sundry other expressions, he
doth afterward condemn. God is a God of “purer eyes than to behold evil,”
and it is “his judgment that they which commit sin are worthy of death;”
yea, “it is a righteous thing with him to render tribulation” to
offenders; and seeing we have “all sinned and come
short of the glory of God,” doubtless it will be a righteous thing with him
to leave them to answer for their own sins who so proudly and
contemptuously reject the satisfaction which he himself hath appointed and
the ransom he hath found out. But Mr B. is
not the first who hath “erred, not knowing the Scriptures” nor the justice
of God. The Holy Ghost acquainting us that “the Lord made to meet upon him the iniquity of us all; that
he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, and that
the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are
healed; that he gave his life a ransom for us, and was made sin for us,
that we might become the righteousness of God in him; that he was for us
made under the law and underwent the curse of it; that he bare our sins in
his body on the tree; and that by his blood we are redeemed, washed, and
saved,” — we doubt not to speak as we believe,
namely, that Christ underwent the punishment due to our sins, and made
satisfaction to the justice of God for them; and Mr B., who it seems is otherwise persuaded, we leave to stand
or fall to his own account.
Most of the following instances of the doctrines he rejects
belong to and may be reduced to the head last mentioned, and therefore I
shall but touch upon them. Seeing that “he that will enter into life must
keep the commandments, and this of ourselves we cannot do, for in many
things we offend all, and he that breaks one commandment is guilty of the
breach of the whole law, God having sent forth his Son, made of a woman,
made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might
receive the adoption of children; and that which was impossible to us by
the law, through the weakness of the flesh, God sending his own Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the
righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us; and so we are saved by
his life, being justified by his blood, he being made unto us of God
righteousness, and we are by faith found in him, having on not our own
righteousness, which is by the law, but that which is by Jesus Christ, the
righteousness of God by faith;” — we do affirm that Christ fulfilled the
law for us, not only undergoing the penalty of it, but for us submitting to
the obedience of it, and performing all that righteousness which of us it
requires, that we might have a complete righteousness wherewith to appear
before God. And this is that which is intended by the active and passive
righteousness of Christ, after mentioned; all which is rejected, name and
thing.
Of Christ’s being punished by God, which he
rejects in the next place, and, to multiply his instances of our false
doctrines, insists on it again under the terms of Christ’s enduring the
wrath of God and the pains of a damned man, the same account is to be
given as before of his satisfaction. That God “bruised him, put him to
grief, laid the chastisement of our peace on him; that
for us he underwent death, the curse of the law, which inwrapped the whole
punishment due to sin, and that by the will of God, who so made him to be
sin who knew no sin, and in the undergoing whereof he prayed and cried, and
sweat blood, and was full of heaviness and perplexity,” the
Scripture is abundantly evident; and what we assert amounts not one tittle
beyond what is by and in it affirmed.
The false doctrine of the merit of Christ, and his
purchasing for us the kingdom of heaven, is the next stone which
this master-builder disallows and rejects. That “Christ hath bought us
with a price; that he hath redeemed us from our sins, the world, and curse,
to be a peculiar people, zealous of good works, so making us kings and
priests to God for ever; that he hath obtained for us eternal redemption,
procuring the Spirit for us, to make us meet for the inheritance of the
saints in light, God blessing us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly
places in him, upon the account of his making his soul an offering for
sin,” performing that obedience to the law which of us is required, — is that which by this expression of the “merit
of Christ” we intend, the fruit of it being all the accomplishment of the
promise made to him by the Father, upon his undertaking the great work of
saving his people from their sins. In the bundle of doctrines by Mr B. at once condemned, this also hath its
place.
That Christ rose from the dead by his own power
seems to us to be true, not only because he affirmed that he “had power so
to do, even to lay down his life and to take it again,” John x. 18, but also because he said
he would do so when be bade them “destroy the temple,” and told them that
“in three days he would raise it again.” It is true that this work of
raising Christ from the dead is also ascribed to the Father and to the
Spirit (as in the work of his oblation, his Father “made his soul an
offering for sin,” and he “offered up himself through the eternal Spirit”),
yet this hinders not but that he was raised by his own power, his Father
and he being one, and what work his Father doth he doing the same.
And this is the account which this “mere Christian” giveth
us concerning his faith in Christ, his person, and his grace: He is a mere
man, that neither satisfied for our sins nor procured grace or heaven for
us; and how much this tends to the honour of Christ and the good of souls,
all that love him in sincerity will judge and determine.
His next attempt is upon the way whereby the Scripture
affirms that we come to be made partakers of the good things which Christ
hath done and wrought for us; and in the first place he falls foul upon
that of apprehending and applying Christ’s righteousness to ourselves
by faith, that so there may no weighty point of the doctrine of the
cross remain not condemned (by this wise man) of folly. This, then, goes
also, name and thing: Christ is “of God made unto us righteousness” (that
is, “to them that believe on him,” or “receive” or “apprehend” him,
John i. 12), God “having set him
forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his
righteousness for the forgiveness of sins,” and declaring that every one
who “believeth in him is justified from all things from which he could not
be justified by the law,” God imputing righteousness to them that so
believe; those who are so justified by faith having peace with God. It
being the great thing we have to aim at, namely, that “we may know Jesus
Christ, and the fellowship of his sufferings, and the power of his
resurrection, and be found in him, not having our own righteousness, which
is of the law, but the righteousness which is by the faith of
Christ, Christ being the end of the law to every one that believeth,” we say it is the duty of every one who is called,
to apprehend Christ by faith, and apply his righteousness to him; that is,
to believe on him as “made the righteousness of God to him,” unto
justification and peace. And if Mr B.
reject this doctrine, name and thing, I pray God give him repentance before
it be too late, to the acknowledgment of the truth.
Of Christ’s being our surety, of Christ’s paying our
debt, of our sins imputed to Christ, of Christ’s righteousness imputed to
us, of Christ dying to appease the wrath of God and reconcile him to
us, enough hath been spoken already to clear the meaning of them who
use these expressions, and to manifest the truth of that which they intend
by them, so that I shall not need again to consider them as they lie in
this disorderly, confused heap which we have here gathered together.
Our justification by Christ being cashiered, he
falls upon our sanctification in the next place, that he may leave
us as little of Christians as he hath done our Saviour of the true Messiah.
Infused grace is first assaulted. The various acceptations of the
word “grace” in the Scripture this is no place to insist upon. By “grace
infused” we mean grace really bestowed upon us, and abiding in us, from the
Spirit of God. That a new spiritual life or principle, enabling men to
live to God, — that new, gracious, heavenly qualities and endowments, as
light, love, joy, faith, etc., bestowed on men, — are called “grace” and
“graces of the Spirit,” I suppose will not be denied. These we call
“infused grace” and “graces;” that is, we say God works these things in us
by his Spirit, giving us a “new heart and a new spirit, putting his law
into our hearts, quickening us who were dead in trespasses and sins, making
us light who were darkness, filling us with the fruits of the Spirit in
joy, meekness, faith, which are not of ourselves but the gifts of
God.” Mr B. having
before disclaimed all original sin, or the depravation of our nature by
sin, in deadness, darkness, obstinacy, etc., thought it also incumbent on
him to disown and disallow all reparation of it by grace; and all this
under the name of a “mere Christian,” not knowing that he discovereth a
frame of spirit utterly unacquainted with the main things of
Christianity.
Free grace is next doomed to rejection. That all
the grace, mercy, goodness of God, in our election, redemption, calling,
sanctification, pardon, and salvation, is free, not deserved, not merited,
nor by us any way procured, — that God doth all that he doth for us
bountifully, fully, freely, of his own love and grace, — is affirmed in
this expression, and intended thereby. And is this found neither name nor
thing in the Scriptures? Is there no mention of “God’s loving us freely;
of his blotting out our sins for his own sake, for his name’s sake; of his
giving his Son for us from his own love; of faith being not of ourselves,
being the gift of God; of his saving us, not according to the works of
righteousness which we have done, but of his own mercy; of his justifying
us by his grace, begetting us of his own will, having mercy on whom he will
have mercy; of a covenant not like the old, wherein he hath promised to be
merciful to our unrighteousness,” etc.? or is it
possible that a man assuming to himself the name of a Christian should be
ignorant of the doctrine of the free grace of God, or oppose it and yet
profess not to reject the gospel as a fable? But this was, and
ever will be, the condemnation of some, that “light is come into the world,
and men love darkness rather than light.”
About the next expression, of the world of the
elect, I shall not contend. That by the name of “the world” (which
term is used in the Scriptures in great variety of significations), the
elect, as being in and of this visible world, and by nature no better than
the rest of the inhabitants thereof, are sometimes peculiarly intended, is
proved elsewhere, beyond whatever Mr B. is
able to oppose thereunto.
Of the irresistible working of the Spirit, in
bringing men to believe, the condition is otherwise. About the term
“irresistible” I know none that care much to strive. That “faith is the
gift of God, not of ourselves, that it is wrought in us by the exceeding
greatness of the power of God; that in bestowing it upon us by his Spirit
(that is, in our conversion), God effectually creates a new heart in us,
makes us new creatures, quickens us, raises us from the dead, working in us
to will and to do of his own good pleasure; as he commanded light to shine
out of darkness, so shining into our hearts, to give us the knowledge of
his glory; begetting us anew of his own will,” so
irresistibly causing us to believe, because he effectually works faith in
us, — is the sum of what Mr B. here
rejecteth, that he might be sure, as before, to leave nothing of weight in
Christian religion uncondemned. But these trifles and falsities being
renounced, he complains of the abuse of his darling, that it is called
carnal reason; which being the only interpreter of Scripture which
he allows of, he cannot but take it amiss that it should be so grossly
slandered as to be called “carnal.” The Scripture, indeed, tells us of a
“natural man, that cannot discern the things which are of God, and that
they are foolishness to him; of a carnal mind, that is enmity to God, and
not like to have any reasons or reasonings but what are carnal; of a wisdom
that is carnal, sensual, and devilish; of a wisdom that God will destroy and confound;”
and that such is the best of the wisdom and reason of all unregenerate
persons; — but why the reason of a man in such a state, with such a mind
about the things of God, should be called “carnal,” Mr B. can see no reason; and some men, perhaps, will be apt to
think that it is because all his reason is still carnal. When a man is
“renewed after the image of him that created him” he is made “spiritual,
light in the Lord,” every thought and imagination that sets up itself in
his heart in opposition to God being led captive to the obedience of the
gospel. We acknowledge a sanctified reason in such an one of that use in
the dijudication of the things of God as shall afterward be declared.
Spiritual desertions are nextly decried. Some
poor souls would thank him to make good this discovery. They find mention
in the Scripture of “God’s hiding his face, withdrawing himself, forsaking,
though but for a moment,” and of them that on this account “walk in
darkness and see no light, that seek him and find him not, but are filled
with troubles, terrors, arrows from him,” etc. And this, in some measure, they find to be the condition
of their own souls. They have not the life, light, power, joy,
consolation, sense of God’s love, as formerly; and therefore they think
there are spiritual desertions, and that in respect of their souls these
dispensations of God are signally and significantly so termed; and they
fear that those who deny all desertions never had any enjoyments from or of
God.
Of spiritual incomes there is the same
reason. It is not the phrase of speech, but the thing itself, we contend
about. That God who is the Father of mercy and God of all consolation
gives mercy, grace, joy, peace, consolation, as to whom, so in what manner
or in what degree he pleaseth. The receiving of these from God is by some
(and that, perhaps, not inaptly) termed “spiritual incomes,” with regard to
God’s gracious distributions of his kindness, love, good-will and the
receiving of them. So that it be acknowledged that we do receive grace,
mercy, joy, consolation, and peace from God, variously as he pleaseth, we
shall not much labour about the significancy of that or any other
expression of the like kind. The Scriptures mentioning the “goings forth
of God,” Mic. v. 2, leave no just cause to Mr B. of condemning them who sometimes call any
of his works or dispensations his outgoings.
His rehearsal of all these particular instances, in
doctrines that are found neither name nor thing in Scripture, Mr B. closeth with an “etc.;” which might be
interpreted to comprise as many more, but that there remain not as many
more important heads in Christian religion. The nature of God being
abased, the deity and grace of Christ denied, the sin of our natures and
their renovation by grace in Christ rejected, Mr
B.’s remaining religion will be found scarce worth the inquiry after
by those whom he undertakes to instruct, there being scarcely any thing
left by him from whence we are peculiarly denominated Christians, nor any
thing that should support the weight of a sinful soul which approacheth to
God for life and salvation.
To prevent the entertainment of such doctrines as these,
Mr B. commends the advice of Paul,
2 Tim. i. 13, “Hold fast the form of
sound words,” etc.; than which we know none more wholesome nor more useful
for the safeguarding and defence of those holy and heavenly principles of
our religion which Mr B. rejects and
tramples on. Nor are we at all concerned in his following discourse of
leaving Scripture terms, and using phrases and expressions coined by men;
for if we use any word or phrase in the things of God and his worship, and
cannot make good the thing signified thereby to be founded on and found in
the Scriptures, we will instantly renounce it. But if indeed the words and
expressions used by any of the ancients for the explication and
confirmation of the faith of the gospel, especially of the doctrine
concerning the person of Christ, in the vindication of it from the heretics
which in sundry ages bestirred themselves (as Mr
B. now doth) in opposition thereunto, be found/ consonant to
Scripture, and to signify nothing but what is written therein with the
beams of the sun, perhaps we see more cause to retain them, from the
opposition here made to them by Mr B.,
than formerly we did, considering that his opposition to words and phrases
is not for their own sake, but of the things intended by them.
The similitude of “the ship that lost its first matter and
substance by the addition of new pieces, in way of supplement to the old
decays,” having been used by some of our divines to illustrate the Roman
apostasy and traditional additionals to the doctrines of the gospel, will
not stand Mr B. in the least stead,
unless he be able to prove that we have lost, in the religion we profess,
any one material part of what it was when given over to the churches by
Christ and his apostles, or have added any one particular to what they have
provided and furnished us withal in the Scriptures; which until he hath
done, by these and the like insinuations he doth but beg the thing in
question; which, being a matter of so great consequence and importance as
it is, will scarce be granted him on any such terms. I doubt
not but it will appear to every person whatsoever, in the process of this
business, who hath his senses any thing exercised in the word to discern
between good and evil, and whose eyes the god of this world hath not
blinded, that the glorious light of the gospel of God should not shine into
their hearts, that Mr B., as wise as he
deems and reports himself to be, is indeed, like the foolish woman that
pulls down her house with both her hands, labouring to destroy the house of
God with all his strength, pretending that this and that part of it did not
originally belong thereto (or like Ajax, in his madness, who killed sheep,
and supposed they had been his enemies), upon the account of that enmity which he finds in his own
mind unto them.
The close of Mr B.’s
preface contains an exhortation to the study of the word, with an account
of the success he himself hath obtained in the search thereof, both in the
detection of errors and the discovery of sundry truths. Some things I
shall remark upon that discourse, and shut up these considerations of his
preface:—
For his own success, he tells us “That being otherwise of
no great abilities, yet searching the Scriptures impartially, he hath
detected many errors, and hath presented the reader with a body of religion
from the Scriptures; which whoso shall well ruminate and digest will be
enabled,” etc.
As for Mr B.’s abilities,
I have not any thing to do to call them into question: whether small or
great, he will one day find that he hath scarce used them to the end for
which he is intrusted with them; and when the Lord of his talents shall
call for an account, it will scarce be comfortable to him that he hath
engaged them so much to his dishonour as it will undoubtedly appear he hath
done. I have heard, by those of Mr B.’s
time and acquaintance in the university, that what ability he had then
obtained, were it more or less, he still delighted to be exercising of it
in opposition to received truths in philosophy; and whether an itching
desire of novelty, and of emerging thereby, lie not at the bottom of the
course he hath since steered, he may do well to examine himself.
What errors he hath detected (though but pretended such,
which honour in the next place he assumes to himself) I know not. The
error of the deity of Christ was detected in the apostles’ days by Ebion Cerinthus, and
others, — not long after by Paulus Samosatenus, by Photinus, by Arius, and
others; the error of the purity,
simplicity, and spirituality of the essence of God, by Audseus and the
Anthropomorphites; the error of the deity of the Holy Ghost was long since
detected by Macedonius and his companions; the error of original
sin, or the corruption of our nature, by Pelagius; the error of the
satisfaction and merit of Christ, by Abelardus; all of them, by Socinus, Smalcius, Crellius,
etc. What new discoveries Mr B. hath
made I know not, nor is there any thing that he presents us with, in his
whole body of religion, as stated in his questions, but what he hath found
prepared, digested, and modelled to his hand by his masters, the Socinians,
unless it be some few gross notions about the Deity; nor is so much as the
language which here he useth of himself and his discoveries his own, but
borrowed of Socinus, Ep. ad Squarcialupum.
We have not, then, the least reason in the world to suppose
that Mr B. was led into these glorious
discoveries by reading of the Scriptures, much less by “impartial reading
of them;” but that they are all the fruits of a deluded heart,
given up righteously of God to believe a lie, for the neglect of his word
and contempt of reliance upon his Spirit and grace for a right
understanding thereof, by the cunning sleights of the forementioned
persons, in some of whose writings Satan lies in wait to deceive. And for
the “body of religion” which he hath collected, which lies not in the
answers, which are set down in the words of the Scripture, but in the
interpretations and conclusions couched in his questions, I may safely say
it is one of the most corrupt and abominable that ever issued from the
endeavours of one who called himself a Christian; for a proof of which
assertion I refer the reader to the ensuing considerations of it. So that
whatever promises of success Mr B. is
pleased to make unto him who shall ruminate and digest in his mind this
body of his composure (it being, indeed, stark poison, that will never be
digested, but will fill and swell the heart with pride and venom until it
utterly destroy the whole person), it may justly be feared that he hath
given too great an advantage to a sort of men in the world, not behind
Mr B. for abilities and reason (the only
guide allowed by him in affairs of this nature), to decry the use and
reading of the Scripture, which they see unstable and unlearned men
fearfully to wrest to their own destruction. But let God be true, and all
men liars. Let the gospel run and prosper; and if it be hid to any, it is
to them whom the god of this world hath blinded, that the glorious light
thereof should not shine into their hearts.
What may farther be drawn forth of the same kind with what
is in these Catechisms delivered, with an imposition of it upon the
Scripture, as though any occasion were thence administered thereunto, I
know not, but yet do suppose that Satan himself is scarce able to furnish
the thoughts of men with many more abominations of the like length and
breadth with those here endeavoured to be imposed on simple, unstable
souls, unless he should engage them into downright atheism and professed
contempt of God.
Of what tendency these doctrines of Mr B. are unto godliness, which he next mentioneth, will in
its proper place fall under consideration. It is true, the gospel is a
“doctrine according to godliness,” and aims at the promotion of it in the
hearts and lives of men, in order to the exaltation of the glory of God;
and hence it is that so soon as any poor deluded soul falls into the snare
of Satan, and is taken captive under the power of any error whatever, the
first sleight he puts in practice for the promotion of it is to declaim
about its excellency and usefulness for the furtherance of godliness,
though himself in the meantime be under the power of darkness, and knows
not in the least what belongs to the godliness which he professeth to
promote. As to what Mr B. here draws
forth to that purpose, I shall be bold to tell him that to the
accomplishment of a godliness amongst men (since the fall of Adam) that
hath not its rise and foundation in the effectual, powerful changing of the
whole man from death to life, darkness to light, etc., in the washing off
the pollutions of nature by the blood of Christ; that is not wrought in us
and carried on by the efficacy of the Spirit of grace, taking away the
heart of stone and giving a new heart circumcised to fear the Lord; that is
not purchased and procured for us by the oblation and intercession of the
Lord Jesus; a godliness that is not promoted by the consideration of the
viciousness and corruption of our hearts by nature, and their alienation
from God, and that doth not in a good part of it consist in the mortifying,
killing, slaying of the sin of nature that dwelleth in us, and in an
opposition to all the actings and workings of it; a godliness that is
performed by our own strength in yielding obedience to the
precepts of the word, that by that obedience we may be justified before God
and for it accepted, etc., — there is not one tittle, letter, nor iota, in
the whole book of God tending.
Mr B. closeth his preface
with a commendation of the Scriptures, their excellency and divinity, with
the eminent success that they shall find who yield obedience to them, in
that they shall be, “even in this life, equal unto angels.” His
expressions, at first view, seem to separate him from his companions in his
body of divinity, which he pretends to collect from the Scriptures, whose
low thoughts and bold expressions concerning the contradictions in them
shall afterward be pointed unto; but I fear “latet anguis in herba:” and in this kiss of the
Scriptures, with “hail” unto them, there is vile treachery intended, and
the betraying of them into the hands of men, to be dealt withal at their
pleasure. I desire not to entertain evil surmises of any (what just
occasion soever be given on any other account) concerning things that have
not their evidence and conviction in themselves. The bleating of that
expression, “The Scriptures are the exactest rule of a holy life, evidently
allowing other rules of a holy life, though they be the exactest, and
admitting other things or books into a copartnership with them in that
their use and service, though the preeminence be given to them, sounds as
much to their dishonour as any thing spoken of them by any who ever owned
them to have proceeded from God. It is the glory of the Scriptures, not
only to be the rule, but the only one, of walking with
God. If you take any others into comparison with it, and allow them in the
trial to be rules indeed, though not so exact as the Scripture, you do no
less cast down the Scripture from its excellency than if you denied it to
be any rule at all. It will not lie as one of the many, though you say
never so often that it is the best. What issues there will be of the
endeavour to give reason the absolute sovereignty in judging of rules of
holiness, allowing others, but preferring the Scripture, and therein,
without other assistance, determining of all the contents of it, in order
to its utmost end, God in due time will manifest. We confess (to close
with Mr B.) that true obedience to the
Scriptures makes men, even in this life, equal in some sense unto angels;
not upon the account of their performance of that obedience merely, as
though there could be an equality between the obedience yielded by us
whilst we are yet sinners, and continue so (for “if we say we have no sin,
we deceive ourselves”), and the exact obedience of them who never sinned,
but abide in doing the will of God: but the principal and main work of God
required in them, and which is the root of all other obedience whatever,
being to “believe on him whom he hath sent,” to “as many as so believe on
him and so receive him power is given to become the sons of God;” who being
so adopted into the great family of heaven and earth, which is called after
God’s name, and invested with all the privileges thereof, having fellowship
with the Father and the Son, they are in that regard, even in this life,
equal to angels.
Having thus, as briefly as I could, washed off the paint
that was put upon the porch of Mr B.’s
fabric, and discovered it to be a composure of rotten posts and dead men’s
bones, — whose pargeting being removed, their abomination lies naked to
all, — I shall enter the building or heap itself, to consider what
entertainment he hath provided therein for those whom, in the entrance, he
doth so subtilely and earnestly invite to turn in and partake of his
provisions.
VINDICIÆ EVANGELICÆ.
Chapter I.
Mr Biddle’s first chapter
examined — Of the Scriptures.
Mr Biddle having imposed
upon himself the task of insinuating his abominations by applying the
express words of Scripture in way of answer to his captious and
sophistical queries, was much straitened in the very entrance, in that he
could not find any text or tittle in them that is capable of being wrested
to give the least colour to those imperfections which the residue of men
with whom he is, in the whole system of his doctrine, in compliance and
communion, do charge them withal: as, that there are contradictions in
them, though in things of less importance; that many things are or may be changed and
altered in them; that some of the books of the Old Testament are
lost; and that those that remain are not of any necessity to
Christians, although they may be read with profit. Their subjecting
them, also, and all their assertions, to the last judgment of
reason, is of the same nature with the other. But it not being my
purpose to pursue his opinions through all the secret windings and turnings
of them, so [as] to drive them to their proper issue, but only to discover
the sophistry and falseness of those insinuations which grossly and
palpably overthrow the foundations of Christianity, I shall not force him
to speak to any thing beyond what he hath expressly delivered himself
unto.
This first chapter then, concerning the Scriptures, both in
the Greater and Less Catechisms, without farther trouble I shall pass over,
seeing that the stating of the questions and answers in them may be sound,
and according to the common faith of the saints, in those who partake not
with Mr B.’s companions in their low
thoughts of them, which here he doth not profess; only, I dare not join
with him in his last assertion, that such and such passages are the
most affectionate in the book of God, seeing we
know but in part, and are not enabled nor warranted to make such peremptory
determinations concerning the several passages of Scripture, set in
comparison and competition for affectionateness by ourselves.
Chapter II.
Of the nature of God.
His second chapter, which is
concerning God, his essence, nature, and properties, is second to
none in his whole book for blasphemies and reproaches of God and his
word.
The description of God which he labours to insinuate is,
that he is “one person, of a visible shape and similitude, finite, limited
to a certain place, mutable, comprehensible, and obnoxious to turbulent
passions, not knowing the things that are future and which shall be done by
the sons of men; whom none can love with all his heart, if he believe him
to be ‘one in three distinct persons.’ ”
That this is punctually the apprehension and notion
concerning God and his being which he labours to beget, by his suiting
Scripture expressions to the blasphemous insinuations of his questions,
will appear in the consideration of both questions and answers, as they lie
in the second chapter of the Greater Catechism.
His first question is, “How many Gods of Christians are
there?” and his answer is, “One God,” Eph. iv. 6;
whereunto he subjoins secondly, “Who is this one God?” and answers, “The
Father, of whom are all things,” 1 Cor. viii.
6.
That the intendment of the connection of these queries, and
the suiting of words of Scripture to them, is to insinuate some thoughts
against the doctrine of the Trinity, is not questionable, especially being
the work of him that makes it his business to oppose it and laugh it to
scorn. With what success this attempt is managed, a little consideration
of what is offered will evince. It is true, Paul says, “To us there is one
God,” treating of the vanity and nothingness of the idols of the heathen,
whom God hath threatened to deprive of all worship and to starve out of the
world. The question as here proposed, “How many Gods of Christians are
there?” having no such occasion administered unto it as that expression of
Paul, being no parcel of such a discourse as he insists upon, sounds
pleasantly towards the allowance of many gods, though Christians have but
one. Neither is Mr B. so averse to
polytheism as not to give occasion, on other accounts, to this supposal.
Jesus Christ he allows to be a god. All his companions, in the undertaking
against his truly eternal divine nature, still affirm him to be
“Homo Deificatus” and “Deus Factus,”
and plead “pro vera deitate Jesu
Christi,” denying yet, with him, that by nature he is God,
of the same essence with the Father; so, indeed, grossly and
palpably falling into and closing with that abomination which they pretend
above all men to avoid, in their opposition to the thrice holy and blessed
Trinity. Of those monstrous figments in Christian religion which on this
occasion they have introduced, of making a man to be an eternal God, of
worshipping a mere creature with the worship due only to the infinitely
blessed God, we shall speak afterward.
We confess that to us there is one God, but one
God, and let all others be accursed. “The gods that have not made the
heavens and the earth,” let them be destroyed, according to the word of the
Lord, “from under these heavens,” Jer. x.
11. Yet we say, moreover, that “there are three that bear
record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three
are one,” 1 John v. 7. And in that very place
whence Mr B. cuts off his first answer,
as it is asserted that there is “one God,” so “one Lord” and “one Spirit,”
the fountain of all spiritual distributions, are mentioned; which whether
they are not also that one God, we shall have farther occasion to
consider.
To the next query concerning this one God, who he is, the
words are, “The Father, from whom are all things;” in themselves most true.
The Father is the one God whom we worship in spirit and in truth; and yet
the Son also is “our Lord and our God,” John xx.
28, even “God over all, blessed for ever,” Rom. ix. 5. The Spirit also is the God
“which worketh all in all,” 1 Cor. xii. 6, 11.
And in the name of that one God, who is the “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,”
are we baptized, whom we serve, who to us is the one God over all,
Matt. xxviii. 19. Neither is that
assertion of the Father’s being the one and only true God any more
prejudicial to the Son’s being so also, than that testimony given to the
everlasting deity of the Son is to that of the Father, notwithstanding that
to us there is but one God. The intendment of our author in these
questions is to answer what he found in the great exemplar of his
Catechism, the Racovian, two of
whose questions are comprehensive of all that is here delivered and
intended by Mr B. But of these things more afterward.
His next inquiry is after the nature of this
one God, which he answers with that of our Saviour in John iv. 24, “God is a spirit.” In
this he is somewhat more modest, though not so wary as his great master,
Faustus Socinus, and his disciple (as
to his notions about the nature of God) Vorstius. His acknowledgment of God to be a spirit frees
him from sharing in impudence in this particular with his master, who will
not allow any such thing to be asserted in these words of our Saviour. His
words are (Fragment. Disput. de
Adorat. Christi cum Christiano Franken, p. 60), “Non est fortasse eorum verborum ea sententia, quam plerique
omnes arbitrantur: Deum scilicet esse spiritum, neque enim subaudiendum
esse dicit aliquis verbum ἐστὶ,
quasi vox πνεῦμα, recto casu
accipienda sit, sed ἀπὸ κοινοῦ
repetendum verbum ζητεῖ quod paulo ante
præcessit, et πνεῦμα quarto casu accipiendum, ita ut sententia sit,
Deum quærere et postulare spiritum.” Vorstius also follows him, Not. ad Disput. 3, p. 200. Because the verb substantive
“is” is not in the original expressed (than the omission whereof nothing
being more frequent, though I have heard of one who, from the like
omission, 2 Cor. v. 17, thought to have proved
Christ to be the “new creature” there intended), contrary to the context
and coherence of the words, design of the argument in hand insisted on by
our Saviour (as he was a bold man), and emphaticalness of significancy in
the expression as it lies, he will needs thrust in the word “seeketh,” and
render the intention of Christ to be, that God seeks a spirit, that is, the
spirit of men, to worship him. Herein, I say, is Mr B. more modest than his master (as, it seems, following
Crellius, who in the exposition of
that place of Scripture is of another mind), though in craft and foresight
he be outgone by him; for if God be a spirit indeed, one of a pure
spiritual essence and substance, the image, shape, and similitude, which he
afterwards ascribes to him, his corporeal posture, which he asserts (ques.
4), will scarcely be found suitable unto him. It is incumbent on some kind
of men to be very wary in what they say, and mindful of what they have
said; falsehood hath no consistency in itself, no more than with the truth.
Smalcius in the Racovian Catechism is utterly silent as
to this question and answer. But the consideration of this also will in
its due place succeed.
To his fourth query, about a farther description of God by
some of his attributes, I shall not need to subjoin any thing in way of
animadversion; for however the texts he cites come short of delivering that
of God which the import of the question to which they are
annexed doth require, yet being not wrested to give countenance to any
perverse apprehension of his nature, I shall not need to insist upon the
consideration of them.
Ques. 5, he falls closely to his work, in these words, “Is
not God, according to the current of the Scriptures, in a certain place,
namely, in heaven?” whereunto he answers by many places of Scripture that
make mention of God in heaven.
That we may not mistake his mind and intention in this
query, some light may be taken from some other passages in his book. In
the preface he tells you “That God hath a similitude and shape” (of which
afterward), “and hath his place in the heavens” (that “God is in no certain
place,” he reckons amongst those errors he opposes, in the same preface; of
the same kind he asserteth the belief to be of God’s “being infinite and
incomprehensible);” and, Cat. Less. p. 6, “That God glisteneth with glory,
and is resident in a certain place of the heavens, so that one may
distinguish between his right and left hand by bodily sight.” This is the
doctrine of the man with whom we have to do concerning the presence of God.
“He is,” saith he, “in heaven, as in a certain place.” That which is in a
certain place is finite and limited, as, from the nature of a place and the
manner of any thing’s being in a place, shall be instantly evinced. God,
then, is finite and limited; be it so (that he is infinite and
incomprehensible is yet a Scripture expression): yea, he is so limited as
not to be extended to the whole compass and limit of the heavens, but he is
in a certain place of the heavens, yea, so circumscribed as that a man may
see from his right hand to his left; — wherein Mr B. comes short of Mohammed, who affirms that when he was
taken into heaven to the sight of God, he found three days’ journey between
his eye-brows; which if so, it will be somewhat hard for any one to see
from his right hand to his left, being supposed at an answerable distance
to that of his eye-brows. Let us see, then, on what testimony, by what
authority, Mr B. doth here limit the
Almighty and confine him to a certain place, shutting up his essence and
being in some certain part of the heavens, cutting him thereby short, as we
shall see in the issue, in all those eternal perfections whereby hitherto
he hath been known to the sons of men.
The proof of that lies in the places of Scripture which,
making mention of God, say, “he is in heaven,” and that “he looketh down
from heaven,” etc.; of which, out of some concordance, some twenty or
thirty are by him repeated. Not to make long work of a short business, the
Scriptures say, “God is in heaven.” Who ever denied it? But do the
Scriptures say he is nowhere else? Do the Scriptures say he is confined to
heaven, so that he is so there as not to be in all other places? If Mr B. thinks this any argument, “God is in
heaven, therefore his essence is not infinite and
immense, therefore he is not everywhere,” we are not of his mind. He
tells you, in his preface, that he “asserts nothing himself.” I presume
his reason was, lest any should call upon him for a proof of his
assertions. What he intends to insinuate, and what conceptions of God he
labours to ensnare the minds of unlearned and unstable souls withal, in
this question under consideration, hath been, from the evidence of his
intendment therein, and the concurrent testimony of other expressions of
his to the same purpose, demonstrated. To propose any thing directly in
way of proof of the truth of that which he labours insensibly to draw the
minds of men unto, he was doubtless conscious to himself of so much
disability for its performance as to waive that kind of procedure; and
therefore his whole endeavour is, having filled, animated, and spirited the
understandings of men with the notion couched in his question, to cast in
some Scripture expressions, that, as they lie, may seem fitted to the
fixing of the notion before begotten in them. As to any attempt of direct
proof of what he would hare confirmed, the man of reason is utterly
silent.
None of those texts of Scripture where mention is made of
God’s being in heaven are, in the coherence and dependence of speech
wherein they lie, suited or intended at all to give answer to this
question, or any like it, concerning the presence of God or his actual
existence in any place, but only in respect of some dispensations of God
and works of his, whose fountain and original he would have us to consider
in himself, and to come forth from him there where in an eminent manner he
manifests his glory. God is, I say, in none of the places by him urged
said to be in heaven in respect of his essence or being, nor is it
the intention of the Holy Ghost in any of them to declare the manner of
God’s essential presence and existence in reference to all or any place;
but only by the way of eminency, in respect of manifestations of himself
and operations from his glorious presence, doth he so speak of him. And,
indeed, in those expressions, heaven doth not so much signify a
place as a thing, or at least a place in reference to the things
there done, or the peculiar manifestations of the glory of God there; so
that if these places should be made use of as to the proof of the figment
insinuated, the argument from them would be a non causa pro causa. The reason why God is
said to be in heaven is, not because his essence is included in a certain
place so called, but because of the more eminent manifestations of his
glory there, and the regard which he requires to be had of him manifesting
his glory as the first cause and author of all the works which outwardly
are of him.
3. God is said to be in heaven in an especial manner,
because he hath assigned that as the place of the saints’ expectation of
that enjoyment and eternal fruition of himself which he hath promised to bless them withal; but for the limiting of his essence to a
certain place in heaven, the Scriptures, as we shall see, know nothing,
yea, expressly and positively affirm the contrary.
Let us all, then, supply our catechumens, in the room of
Mr B.’s, with this question, expressly
leading to the things inquired after:— What says the Scripture
concerning the essence and presence of God? is it confined and limited to a
certain place, or is he infinitely and equally present everywhere?
Ans. “The Lord your God, he
is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath,” Josh. ii.
11. “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven
and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I
have builded?” 1 Kings viii.
27. “Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee
from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make
my bed in hell, behold, thou art there,” etc., Ps. cxxxix. 7–10. “The heaven is my
throne, and the earth is my footstool,” Isa. lxvi.
1, Acts
vii. 47, 48. “Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in
secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord,” Jer.
xxiii. 23, 24.
It is of the ubiquity and omnipresence of God that
these places expressly treat; and whereas it was manifested before that the
expression of God being in heaven doth not at all speak to the abomination
which Mr B. would insinuate thereby, the
naked rehearsal of those testimonies, so directly asserting and ascribing
to the Almighty an infinite, unlimited presence, and that in direct
opposition to the gross apprehension of his being confined to a certain
place in heaven, is abundantly sufficient to deliver the thoughts and minds
of men from any entanglements that Mr
B.’s questions and answers (for though it be the word of the
Scripture he insists upon, yet male dum
recitas incipit esse tuum) might lead them into. On that
account no more need be added; but yet this occasion being administered,
that truth itself, concerning the omnipresence or ubiquity of God, may be
farther cleared and confirmed.
Through the prejudices and ignorance of men, it is inquired
whether God be so present in any certain place as not to be also equally
elsewhere, everywhere?
Place has been commonly defined to be “superficies corporis ambientis.” Because
of sundry inextricable difficulties and the impossibility of suiting it to
every place, this definition is now generally decried. That now commonly
received is more natural, suited to the natures of things, and obvious to
the understanding. A place is “spatium
corporis susceptivum,” — any space wherein a body may be received
and contained. The first consideration of it is as to its fitness and
aptness so to receive any body: so it is in the imagination only. The second, as to its actual existence, being
filled with that body which it is apt to receive: so may we imagine
innumerable spaces in heaven which are apt and able to receive the bodies
of the saints, and which actually shall be filled with them when they shall
be translated thereunto by the power of God.
Presence in a place is the actual existence of a
person in his place, or, as logicians speak, in his ubi, that is,
answering the inquiry after him where he is. Though all bodies are in
certain places, yet per sons only are said to be present in them. Other
things have not properly a presence to be ascribed to them; they are in
their proper places, but we do not say they are present in or to their
places.
This being the general description of a place and the
presence of any therein, it is evident that properly it cannot be spoken at
all of God that he is in one place or other, for he is not a body that
should fill up the space of its receipt, nor yet in all places, taking the
word properly, for so one essence can be but in one place; and if the word
should properly be ascribed to God in any sense, it would deprive him of
all his infinite perfections.
It is farther said that there be three ways of the presence
of any in reference to a place or places. Some are so in a place as to be
circumscribed therein in respect of their parts and dimensions,
such are their length, breadth, and depth: so doth one part of them fit one
part of the place wherein they are, and the whole the whole; so are all
solid bodies in a place; so is a man, his whole body in his whole place,
his head in one part of it, his arms in another. Some are so conceived to
be in a place as that, in relation to it, it may be said of them that they
are there in it so as not to be anywhere else, though they have
not parts and dimensions filling the place wherein they are, nor are
punctually circumscribed with a local space: such is the presence of angels
and spirits to the places wherein they are, being not infinite or immense.
These are so in some certain place as not to be at the same time, wherein
they are so, without it, or elsewhere, or in any other place. And this is
proper to all finite, immaterial substances, that are so in a place as not
to occupy and fill up that space wherein they are. In respect of place,
God is immense, and indistant to all things and places, absent
from nothing, no place, contained in none; present to all by and in his
infinite essence and being, exerting his power variously, in any or all
places, as he pleaseth, revealing and manifesting his glory more or less,
as it seemeth good to him.
Of this omnipresence of God, two things are usually
inquired after: 1. The thing itself, or the demonstration that he is so
omnipresent; 2. The manner of it, or the manifestation and declaring
how he is so present. Of this latter, perhaps, sundry things have
been over curiously and nicely by some disputed, though, upon a thorough
search, their disputes may not appear altogether useless. The schoolmen’s
distinctions of God’s being in a place repletivè, immensivè, impletivè, superexcedenter,
conservativè, attinctive, manifestative, etc. have, some of them
at least, foundation in the Scriptures and right reason. That which seems
most obnoxious to exception is their assertion of God to be everywhere
present, instar puncti; but the sense of that and its intendment
is, to express how God is not in a place, rather than how he is. He is not
in a place as quantitive bodies, that have the dimensions
attending them. Neither could his presence in heaven, by those who shut
him up there, be any otherwise conceived, until they were relieved by the
rare notions of Mr B. concerning the
distinct places of his right hand and left. But it is not at all about the
manner of God’s presence that I am occasioned to speak, but only of the
thing itself. They who say he is in heaven only speak as to the thing, and
not as to the manner of it. When we say he is everywhere, our assertion is
also to be interpreted as to that only; the manner of his presence being
purely of a philosophical consideration, his presence itself divinely
revealed, and necessarily attending his divine perfections; yea, it is an
essential property of God. The properties of God are either
absolute or relative. The absolute properties of God are
such as may be considered without the supposition of any thing else
whatever, towards which their energy and efficacy should be exerted. His
relative are such as, in their egress and exercise, respect some things in
the creatures, though they naturally and eternally reside in God. Of the
first sort is God’s immensity; it is an absolute property of his nature and
being. For God to be immense, infinite, unbounded, unlimited, is as
necessary to him as to be God; that is, it is of his essential perfection
so to be. The ubiquity of God, or his presence to all things and persons,
is a relative property of God; for to say that God is present in and to all
things supposes those things to be. Indeed, the ubiquity of God is the
habitude of his immensity to the creation. Supposing the creatures, the
world that is, God is by reason of his immensity in-distant to them all; or
if more worlds be supposed (as all things possible to the power of God
without any absurdity may be supposed), on the same account as he is
omnipresent in reference to the present world, he would be so to them and
all that is in them.
Of that which we affirm in this matter this is the sum:
God, who in his own being and essence is infinite and immense, is, by
reason thereof, present in and to the whole creation equally, — not by a
diffusion of his substance, or mixture with other things, heaven or earth,
in or upon them, but by an inconceivable indistancy of essence to all
things, — though he exert his power and manifest his glory in one place
more than another; as in heaven, in Zion, at the ark, etc.
That this is the doctrine of the Scriptures in the places
before mentioned needs no great pains to evince. In that, 1 Kings viii. 27, the
design of Solomon in the words gives light to the substance of what he
asserted. He had newly, with labour, cost, charge, and wisdom, none of
them to be paralleled in the world, built a temple for the worship of God.
The house being large and exceedingly glorious, the apprehensions of all
the nations round about (that looked on, and considered the work he had in
hand) concerning the nature and being of God being gross, carnal, and
superstitious, themselves answerably worshipping those who by nature were
not God, and his own people of Israel exceedingly prone to the same
abomination, lest any should suppose that he had thoughts of including the
essence of God in the house that he had built, he clears himself in this
confession of his faith from all such imaginations, affirming that though
indeed God would dwell on the earth, yet he was so far from being limited
unto or circumscribed in the house that he had built, that “the heaven and
the heaven of heavens,” any space whatever that could be imagined, the
highest heaven, could not, “cannot contain him;” so far is he from having a
certain place in heaven where he should reside, in distinction from other
places where he is not. “He is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath,”
Josh. ii. 11. That which the temple
of God was built unto, that “the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot
contain.” Now, the temple was built to the being of God, to God as God: so
Acts vii. 47, “But Solomon built him
an house;” him, — that is, the Most High, — “who dwelleth not,” is not
circumscribed, “in temples made with hands,” verse
48.
That of Ps.
cxxxix. 7–10 is no less evident; the presence or face of God is
expressly affirmed to be everywhere: “Whither shall I go from thy face? If
I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I go into hell, behold, thou
art there” As God is affirmed to be in heaven, so everywhere else; now that
he is in heaven, in respect of his essence and being, is not
questioned.
Neither can that of the prophet Isaiah, chap. lxvi. 1, be otherwise understood
but as an ascribing of an ubiquity to God, and a presence in heaven and
earth: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.” The words are
metaphorical, and in that way expressive of the presence of a person; and
so God is present in heaven and earth. That the earth should be his
footstool, and yet himself be so inconceivably distant from it as the
heaven is from the earth (an expression chosen by himself to set out the
greatest distance imaginable), is not readily to be apprehended. “He is
not far from every one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our
being,” Acts xvii. 27, 28.
The testimony which God gives to this his perfection in
Jer.
xxiii. 23, 24, is not to be avoided; more than what is here
spoken by God himself as to his omnipresence we cannot, we desire not to
speak: “Can any hide himself in secret places, that I shall not see him?
saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven
and earth? saith the Lord.” Still where mention is
made of the presence of God, there heaven and earth (which two are
comprehensive of, and usually put for the whole creation) are mentioned:
and herein he is neither to be thought afar off nor near, being equally
present everywhere, in the hidden places as in heaven; that is, he is not
distant from any thing or place, though he take up no place, but is nigh
all things, by the infiniteness and existence of his being.
From what is also known of the nature of God, his
attributes and perfections, the truth delivered may be farther argued and
confirmed; as, —
1. God is absolutely perfect; whatever is of perfection is
to be ascribed to him: otherwise he could neither be absolutely
self-sufficient, all-sufficient, nor eternally blessed in himself. He is
absolutely perfect, inasmuch as no perfection is wanting to him,
and comparatively above all that we can conceive or apprehend of
perfection. If, then, ubiquity or omnipresence be a perfection, it no less
necessarily belongs to God than it does to be perfectly good and blessed.
That this is a perfection is evident from its contrary. To be limited, to
be circumscribed, is an imperfection, and argues weakness We commonly say,
we would do such a thing in such a place could we be present unto it, and
are grieved and troubled that we cannot be so. That it should be so is an
imperfection attending the limitedness of our natures. Unless we will
ascribe the like to God, his omnipresence is to be acknowledged. If every
perfection, then, be in God (and if every perfection be not in any, he is
not God), this is not to be denied to him.
2. Again; if God be now “in a certain place in heaven,” I
ask where he was before these heavens were made? These heavens have not
always been. God was then where there was nothing but God, — no heaven, no
earth, no place. In what place was God when there was no place? When the
heavens were made, did he cease this manner of being in himself, existing
in his own infinite essence, and remove into the new place made for him?
Or is not God’s removal out of his existence in himself into a certain
place a blasphemous imagination? “Ante
omnia Deus erat solus ipse sibi, et locus, et mundus, et omnia,”
Tertul. Is this change of place and
posture to be ascribed to God Moreover, if God be now only in a certain
place of the heavens, if he should destroy the heavens and that place,
where would he then be in what place? Should he cease to be in the place
wherein he is, and begin to be in, to take up, and possess another? And
are such apprehensions suited to the infinite perfections of God? Yea, may
we not suppose that he may create another heaven? can he not do its. How
should he be present there? or must it stand empty? or must he move himself
thither? or make himself bigger than he was, to fill that heaven also?
3. The omnipresence of God is grounded on the
infiniteness of his essence. If God be infinite, he is omnipresent.
Suppose him infinite, and then suppose there is any thing besides himself,
and his presence with that thing, wherever it be, doth necessarily follow;
for if he be so bounded as to be in his essence distant from any thing, he
is not infinite. To say God is not infinite in his essence denies him to
be infinite or unlimited in any of his perfections or properties; and
therefore, indeed, upon the matter Socinus denies God’s power to be infinite, because he will
not grant his essence to be, Cat. chap. xi. part 1. That which is
absolutely infinite cannot have its residence in that which is finite and
limited, so that if the essence of God be not immense and infinite, his
power, goodness, etc., are also bounded and limited; so that there are, or
may be, many things which in their own natures are capable of existence,
which yet God cannot do for want of power. How suitable to the Scriptures
and common notions of mankind concerning the nature of God this is will be
easily known. It is yet the common faith of Christians that God is ἀπερίγραπτος καὶ ἄπειρος.
4. Let reason (which the author of these Catechisms
pretends to advance and honour, as some think, above its due, and therefore
cannot decline its dictates) judge of the consequences of this gross
apprehension concerning the confinement of God to the heavens,
yea, “a certain place in the heavens,” though he “glister” never so much
“in glory” there where he is. For, (1.) He must be extended as a body is,
that so he may fill the place, and have parts as we have, if he be
circumscribed in a certain place; which though our author thinks no
absurdity, yet, as we shall afterward manifest, it is as bold an attempt to
make an idol of the living God as ever any of the sons of men engaged into.
(2.) Then God’s greatness and ours, as to essence and substance, differ
only gradually, but are still of the same kind. God is bigger than a man,
it is true, but yet with the same kind of greatness, differing from us as
one man differs from another. A man is in a certain place of the earth,
which he fills and takes up; and God is in a certain place of the heavens,
which he fills and takes up. Only some gradual difference there is, but
how great or little that difference is, as yet we are not taught. (3.) I
desire to know of Mr B. what the throne
is made of that God sits on in the heavens, and how far the glistering
of his glory doth extend, and whether that glistering of glory doth
naturally attend his person as beams do the sun, or shining doth fire, or
can he make it more or less as he pleaseth? (4.) Doth God fill the whole
heavens, or only some part of them? If the whole, being of such substance
as is imagined, what room will there be in heaven for any body else? Can a
lesser place hold him 1 or could he fill a greater? If not, how came the
heavens [to be] so fit for him? Or could he not have made them of other
dimensions, less or greater? If he be only in a part of heaven, as is more
than insinuated in the expression that he is “in a certain
place in the heavens,” I ask why he dwells in one part of the heavens
rather than another? or whether he ever removes or takes
a journey, as Elijah speaks of Baal, 1 Kings xviii.
27, or is eternally, as limited in, so confined unto, the
certain place wherein he is? Again; how doth he work out those effects of
almighty power which are at so great a distance from him as the earth is
from the heavens, which cannot be effected by the intervenience of any
created power, as the resurrection of the dead, etc. The power of God
doubtless follows his essence, and what this extends not to that cannot
reach. But of that which might be spoken to vindicate the infinitely
glorious being of God from the reproach which his own word is wrested to
cast upon him, this that hath been spoken is somewhat that to my present
thoughts doth occur.
I suppose that Mr B.
knows that in this his circumscription of God to a certain place, he
transgresses against the common consent of mankind; if not, a few instances
of several sorts may, I hope, suffice for his conviction. I shall
promiscuously propose them, as they lie at hand or occur to my remembrance.
For the Jews, Philo gives their judgment.
“Hear,” saith he, “of the wise God that which is most true, that God is in
no place, for he is not contained, but containeth all. That which is made
is in a place, for it must be contained and not contain.” And it is the observation of another of them, that
so often as מָקוֹם, a place, is said
of God, the exaltation of his immense and incomparable essence (as to its
manifestation) is to be understood.
And the learned Buxtorf tells us
that when that word is used of God, it is by an antiphrasis, to signify
that he is infinite, illocal, received in no place, giving place to
all. That known saying of Empedocles passed among the heathen, “Deus est circulus, cujus centrum ubique,
circumferentia nusquam;” and of Seneca,
“Turn which way thou wilt, thou shalt see God meeting thee. Nothing is
empty of him: he fills his own work.” “All things are full of God,” says the poet; and another of them:—
“Estque Dei sedes nisi terræ, et pontus,
et ær,
Est cœlum, et versus superos, quid
quærimus ultra:
Jupiter est quodcunque vides, quocunque
moveris.”
Of this presence of God, I say, with and unto all things,
of the infinity of his essence, the very heathens themselves, by the light
of nature (which Mr B. herein
opposes), had a knowledge. Hence did some of them term him κοσμοποιὸς νοῦς, “a mind framing the universe,” and
affirmed him to be infinite. “Primus
omnium rerum desoriptionem et modum, mentis infinitæ vi et ratione
designari, et confici voluit,” says Cicero of Anaxagoras, Tull. de Nat. Deor. lib. i. 11; — “All things are disposed
of by the virtue of one infinite mind.” And Plutarch, expressing the same thing, says he is
νοῦς καθαρὸς καὶ ἄρκρατος ἐμμεμιγμένος
πᾶσι, — “a pure and sincere mind, mixing itself, and mixed” (so they
expressed the presence of the infinite mind) “with all things.” So Virgil, “Jovis omnia
plena,” — “All things are full of God,” (for God they intended by
that name, Acts xvii. 25, 28,
29; and says Lactantius, “Convicti de
uno Deo, cum id negare non possunt, ipsum se colere, afrmant, verum hoc
sibi placere, ut Jupiter nominetur,” lib. i. cap. 2.); which, as
Servius on the place observes, he had taken
from Aratus, whose words are:—
Ἐκ διὸς ἀρχώμεσθα τὸν οὐδὲ ποτ ἄνδρες
ἐῶμεν
Ἄῤῥητον μεσταὶ δὲ διὸς πᾶσαι μὲν
ἁγυιαὶ
Πᾶσαι δ ἀνθρώπων ἀγοραὶ μεστὴ δὲ
θάλασσα
Καὶ λιμένες πάντη δὲ διὸς κεχρήμεθα
πάντες
— giving a full description, in his way, of the
omnipresence and ubiquity of God. The same Virgil, from the Platonics, tells us in another place:—
“Spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa
per artus
Mens agitat molem.”
Æn. vi. 726.
And much more of this kind might easily be added. The
learned know where to find more for their satisfaction; and for those that
are otherwise, the clear texts of Scripture cited before may suffice.
Of those, on the other hand, who have, no less grossly and
carnally than he of whom we speak, imagined a diffusion of the substance of
God through the whole creation, and a mixture of it with the
creatures, so as to animate and enliven them in their
several forms, making God an essential part of each creature, or dream of an assumption of creatures into
an unity of essence with God, I am not now to speak.
Chapter III.
Of the shape and bodily visible figure of God.
Mr Biddle’s question:—
Is God in the Scripture said to have any likeness, similitude,
person, shape?
The proposition which he would have to be the conclusion of
the answers to these questions is this, That, according to the doctrine of
the Scriptures, God is a person shaped like a man; — a
conclusion so grossly absurd that it is refused as ridiculous by Tully, a heathen, in the person of Cotta (De Nat. Deor. lib. i. 6), against
Velleius the Epicurean, the Epicureans only
amongst the philosophers being so sottish as to admit that conceit. And
Mr B., charging that upon the Scripture
which hath been renounced by all the heathens who set themselves studiously
to follow the light of nature, and, by a strict inquiry, to search out the
nature and attributes of God, principally attending to that safe rule of
ascribing nothing to him that eminently included imperfection,
hath manifested his pretext of mere Christianity to be little better than a
cover for downright atheism, or at best of most vile and unworthy thoughts
of the Divine Being. And here also doth Mr
B. forsake his masters. Some of them have had more reverence of the Deity,
and express themselves accordingly, in express opposition to this gross
figment.
According to the method I proceeded in, in consideration of
the precedent questions, shall I deal with this, and first consider briefly
the scriptures produced to make good this monstrous, horrid assertion. The
places urged and insisted on of old by the Anthropomorphites were such as partly
ascribed a shape in general to God, partly such as mention the parts and
members of God in that shape, his eyes, his arms, his hands, etc.; from all
which they looked on him as an old man sitting in heaven on a throne, — a
conception that Mr B. is no stranger to.
The places of the first sort are here only insisted on by Mr B., and the attribution of a “likeness,
image, similitude, person, and shape” unto God, is his warrant to conclude
that he hath a visible, corporeal image and shape like that of a man; which
is the plain intendment of his question. Now, if the image, likeness, or
similitude, attributed to God as above, do no way, neither in the sum of
the words themselves nor by the intendment of the places where they are
used, in the least ascribe or intimate that there is any such corporeal,
visible shape in God as he would insinuate, but are properly expressive of
some other thing that properly belongs to him, I suppose it will not be
questioned but that a little matter will prevail with a person desiring to
emerge in the world by novelties, and on that account casting off that
reverence of God which the first and most common notions of mankind would
instruct him into, to make bold with God and the Scripture for
his own ends and purposes.
1. I say then, first, in general, if the Scripture may be
allowed to expound itself, it gives us a fair and clear account of
its own intendment in mentioning the image and shape of God, which man was
created in, and owns it to be his righteousness and holiness; in a state
whereof, agreeable to the condition of such a creature, man ing created is
said to be created in the image and likeness of God, — in a kind of
resemblance unto that holiness and righteousness which are in him,
Eph. iv. 23, 24, etc. What can hence
be concluded for a corporeal image or shape to be ascribed unto God is too
easily discernible. From a likeness in some virtue or property to conclude
to a likeness in a bodily shape, may well befit a man that cares
not what he says, so he may speak to the derogation of the glory of
God.
2. For the particular places by Mr B. insisted on, and the words used in them, which he lays
the stress of this proposition upon: the first two words are דְּמוּת and צֶלֶם; both of which are used in Gen. i. 26. The word דְּמוּת is used Gen. v. 1,
and צֶלֶם, Gen. ix.
6; but neither of these words doth, in its genuine
signification, imply any corporeity or figure. The most learned of all the
rabbins, and most critically skillful in their language, hath observed and
proved that the proper Hebrew word for that kind of outward form or
similitude is תֹּאַר; and if these
be ever so used, it is in a metaphorical and borrowed sense, or at]east
there is an amphiboly in the words, the Scripture sometimes using them in
such subjects where this gross, corporeal sense cannot possibly be
admitted: כִּדְמוּת חֲמַת־נָחָשׁ, —
“Like the poison of a serpent,” Ps. lviii.
4. There is, indeed, some imaginable, or rather rational,
resemblance in the properties there mentioned, but no corporeal similitude.
Vide Ezek. i. 28, xxiii.
14 (to which may be added many more places), where if דְּמוּת shall be interpreted of a bodily
similitude, it will afford no tolerable sense. ‘The same likewise may be
said ofצֶלֶם. It is used in the
Hebrew for the essential form rather than the figure or shape; and being
spoken of men, signifies rather their souls than bodies. So it is used,
Ps. lxxiii. 20; which is better
translated, “Thou shalt despise their soul,” than their “image.” So where
it is said, Ps. xxxix. 6, “Every man walketh in a
vain show” (the same word again), however it ought to be interpreted, it
cannot be understood of a corporeal similitude. So that these testimonies
are not at all to his purpose. What, indeed, is the image of God, or that
likeness to him wherein man was made, I have partly mentioned already, and
shall farther manifest, chap. vi.; and if this be not a bodily shape, it
will be confessed that nothing can here be concluded for the attribution of
a shape to God; and hereof an account will be given in its proper
place.
The sum of Mr B.’s
reasoning from these places is: “God, in the creation of the
lower world and the inhabitancy thereof, making man, enduing him with a
mind and soul capable of knowing him, serving him, yielding him
voluntary and rational obedience; creating him in a condition of holiness
and righteousness, in a resemblance to those blessed perfections in
himself, requiring still of him to be holy as he is holy, to continue and
abide in that likeness of his; giving him in that estate dominion over the
rest of his works here below, — is said to create him in his own image and
likeness, he being the sovereign lord over all his creatures, infinitely
wise, knowing, just, and holy: therefore he hath a bodily shape and image,
and is therein like unto a man.” “Quod
erat demonstrandum.”
His next quotation is from Num.
xii. 7, 8, where it is said of Moses that he shall behold the
“similitude of the Lord.” The word is תְּמוּנָה; which, as it is sometimes taken
for a corporeal similitude, so it is at other times for that idea
whereby things are intellectually represented. In the former sense is it
frequently denied of God; as Deut. iv.
15, “Ye saw no manner of similitude,” etc. But it is frequently
taken, in the other sense, for that object, or rather impression, whereby
our intellectual apprehension is made; as in Job iv.
16, “An image was before mine eyes,” namely, in his dream; which
is not any corporeal shape, but that idea or objective representation
whereby the mind of man understands its object, — that which is in the
schools commonly called phantasm, or else an intellectual species, about
the notion of which it is here improper to contend. It is manifest that,
in the place here alleged, it is put to signify the clear manifestation of
God’s presence to Moses, with some such glorious appearance thereof as he
was pleased to represent unto him; therefore, doubtless, God hath a bodily
shape.
His next quotation is taken from James iii.
9, “Made after the similitude of God,” — Τοὺς καθ ὁμοίωσιν Θεοῦ γεγονότας. Certainly Mr B. cannot be so ignorant as to think the
word ὁμοίωσις to include in its
signification a corporeal similitude. The word is of as large an extent as
“similitude” in Latin, and takes in as well those abstracted analogies
which the understanding of man finds out, in comparing several objects
together, as those other outward conformities of figure and shape which are
the objects of our carnal eyes. It is the word by which the LXX. use to
render the word דְּמוּת; of which we
have spoken before. And the examples are innumerable in the Septuagint
translation, and in authors of all sorts written in the Greek language,
where that word is taken at large, and cannot signify a corporeal
similitude; so that it is vain to insist upon particulars. And this also
belongs to the same head of inquiry with the former, — namely, what
likeness of God it was that man was created in, whether of eyes, ears,
nose, etc., or of holiness, etc.
His next allegation is from Job
xiii. 7, 8, “Will ye accept his person?”הֲפָנָיו, πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ, — an allegation so frivolous that to
stand to answer it studiously would be ridiculous, 1. It is an
interrogation, and doth not assert any thing. 2. The thing spoken against
is προσωποληψία, which hath in it no
regard to shape or corporeal personality, but to the partiality which is
used in preferring one before another in justice. 3. The word mentioned,
with its derivatives, is used in as great or greater variety of
metaphorical translations than any other Hebrew word, and is by no means
determined to be a signification of that bulky substance which, with the
soul, concurs to make up the person of mare It is so used, Gen. xxxiii. 18, אֶת־פְנֵי, — “Jacob pitched his tent before” (or “in
the face of”) “the city.” It is confessed that it is very frequently
translated πρόσωπον by the LXX., as it
is very variously translated by them; sometimes ὁ ὀφθαλμός. See Jer. xxxviii.
26; Neh. ii. 13; Job xvi.
16; Deut. ii.
36; Prov. xxvii.
23. Besides that, it is used in many other places for ἀντί ἔναντι ἀπέναντι ἐπάνω ἐνώπιον, and in
many more senses. So that to draw an argument concerning the nature of God
from a word so amphibological, or of such frequent translation in
metaphorical speech, is very unreasonable.
Of what may be hence deduced this is the sum: “In every
plea or contest about the ways, dispensations, and judgments of God, that
which is right, exact, and according to the thing itself, is to be spoken,
his glory not standing in the least need of our flattery or lying;
therefore God is such a person as hath a bodily shape and similitude, for
there is no other person but what hath so.”
His last argument is from John v.
37, “Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his
shape,” — Οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε.
But it argues a very great ignorance in all philosophical and accurate
writings, to appropriate εἶδος to a
corporeal shape, it being very seldom used, either in Scripture or
elsewhere, in that notion; — the Scripture having used it where that sense
cannot be fastened on it, as in 1 Thess. v.
22, Ἀπὸ παντὸς εἴδους πονηροῦ
ἀπέχεσθε which may be rendered, “Abstain from every kind,” or “every
appearance,” but not from every shape “of evil;” and all other Greek
authors, who have spoken accurately and not figuratively of things, use it
perpetually almost in one of these two senses, and very seldom if at all in
the other.
How improperly, and with what little reason, these places
are interpreted of a corporeal similitude or shape, hath been showed.
Wherein the image of God consists the apostle shows, as was declared,
determining it to be in the intellectual part, not in the bodily, Col. iii. 10, Ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον (ἄνρθωπον) τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς
επίγνωσιν κατ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν. The word here used, εἰκών, is of a grosser
signification than εἶδος, which hath
its original from the intellectual operation of the mind; yet this the
apostle determines to relate to the mind and spiritual excellencies, so
that it cannot, from the places he hath mentioned, with the least colour of
reason, be concluded that God hath a corporeal similitude, likeness,
person, or shape.
What hath already been delivered concerning the nature of
God, and is yet necessarily to be added, will not permit that much be
peculiarly spoken to this head, for the removal of those imperfections from
him which necessarily attend that assignation of a bodily shape to him
which is here aimed at. That the Ancient of Days is not really one in the
shape of an old man, sitting in heaven on a throne, glistering with a
corporeal glory, his hair being white and his raiment beautiful, is
sufficiently evinced from every property and perfection which in the
Scripture is assigned to him.
The Holy Ghost, speaking in the Scripture concerning God,
doth not without indignation suppose any thing to be likened or compared to
him. Maimonides hath observed
that these words, Aph, Ira, etc., are never attributed to
God but in the case of idolatry; that never any idolater was so silly as to
think that an idol of wood, stone, or metal, was a god that made the
heavens and earth; but that through them all idolaters intend to worship
God. Now, to fancy a corporeity in God, or that he is like a creature, is
greater and more irrational dishonour to him than idolatry. “To whom will
ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?” Isa. xl. 18. “Have ye not known? have
ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not
understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he that sitteth,” etc.
“To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One,”
verses 21–23, 25.
Because the Scripture speaks of the eyes and ears, nostrils and arms of
the Lord, and of man being made afar his likeness, if any one shall
conclude that he sees, hears, smells, and hath the shape of a man, he must,
upon the same reason, conclude that he hath the shape of a lion, of an
eagle, and is like a drunken man, because in Scripture he is compared to
them, and so of necessity make a monster of him, and worship a
chimera.
Nay, the Scripture plainly interprets itself as to these
attribution unto God. His arm is not an arm of flesh,
2 Chron. xxxii. 8. Neither are his
eyes of flesh, neither seeth he as man seeth, Job x. 4.
Nay, the highest we can pretend to (which is our way of understanding),
though it hath some resemblance of him, yet falls it infinitely short of a
likeness or equality with him. And the Holy Ghost himself gives a plain
interpretation of his own intendment in such expressions: for whereas,
Luke xi. 20, our Saviour says that
he “with the finger of God cast out devils;” Matt. xii.
28, he affirms that he did it “by the Spirit of God,” intending
the same thing. It neither is nor can righteously be required that we
should produce any place of Scripture expressly affirming that God hath no
shape, nor hands, nor eyes, as we have, no more than it is that he is no
lion or eagle. It is enough that there is that delivered of him abundantly
which is altogether inconsistent with any such shape as by Mr B. is fancied, and that so eminent a
difference as that now mentioned is put between his arms and eyes and ours,
as manifests them to agree in some analogy of the thing signified by them,
and not in an answerableness in the same kind. Wherefore I say, that the
Scripture speaking of God, though it condescends to the nature and
capacities of men, and speaks for the most part to the imagination (farther
than which few among the sons of men were ever able to raise their
cogitations), yet hath it clearly delivered to us such attributes of God as
will not consist with that gross notion which this man would put upon the
Godhead. The infinity and immutability of God do manifestly
overthrow the conceit of a shape and form of God. Were it not a contradiction that a body should be
actually infinite, yet such a body could not have a shape, such a one as he
imagines. The shape of any thing is the figuration of it; the figuration
is the determination of its extension towards several parts, consisting in
a determined proportion of them to each other; that determination is a
bounding and limiting of them: so that if it have a shape, that will be
limited which was supposed to be infinite, which is a manifest
contradiction. But the Scripture doth plainly show that God is infinite
and immense, not in magnitude (that were a contradiction, as will appear
anon) but in essence. Speaking to our fancy, it saith that “he is higher
than heaven, deeper than hell,” Job xi.
8; that “he fills heaven and earth,” Jer.
xxiii. 24; that “the heaven of heavens cannot contain him,”
1 Kings viii. 27; and it hath many
[such] expressions to shadow out the immensity of God, as was manifest in
our consideration of the last query. But not content to have yielded thus
to our infirmity, it delivers likewise, in plain and literal terms, the
infiniteness of God: “His understanding is infinite,” Ps. cxlvii. 5; and therefore his
essence is necessarily so. This is a consequence that none can deny who
will consider it till he understands the terms of it, as hath
Been declared. Yet, lest any should hastily apprehend that the essence of
God were not therefore necessarily infinite, the Holy Ghost saith,
Ps. cxlv. 3, that “his greatness hath
no end,” or is “inconceivable,” which is infinite; for seeing we can carry
on our thoughts, by calculation, potentially in infinitum, — that
is, whatever measure be assigned, we can continually multiply it by greater
and greater numbers, as they say, in infinitum, — it is evident
that there is no greatness, either of magnitude or essence, which is
unsearchable or inconceivable besides that which is actually infinite.
Such, therefore, is the greatness of God, in the strict and literal meaning
of the Scripture; and therefore, that he should have a shape implies a
contradiction. But of this so much Before as I presume we may now take it
for granted.
Now, this attribute of infinity doth immediately and
demonstratively overthrow that gross conception of a human shape we are in
the consideration of; and so it doth, by consequence, overthrow the conceit
of any other, though a spherical shape. Again, —
Whatever is incorporeal is destitute of shape;
whatever is infinite is incorporeal: therefore, whatever is infinite is
destitute of shape.
All the question is of the minor proposition. Let us
therefore suppose an infinite body or line, and let it be bisected; either
then, each half is equal to the whole, or less. If equal, the whole is
equal to the part; if less, then that half is limited within certain
bounds, and consequently is finite, and so is the other half also:
therefore, two things which are finite shall make up an infinite; which is
a contradiction.
Having, therefore, proved out of Scripture that God is
infinite, it follows also that he is incorporeal, and that he is without
shape.
The former argument proved him to be without such a shape
as this catechist would insinuate; this, that he is without any shape at
all. The same will be proved from the immutability or
impassibility of God’s essence, which the Scripture assigns to
him: Mal. iii. 6, “I am the Lord; I change not” “The heavens are the work of thy
hands. They shall perish, but thou endurest: they shall Be changed: but
thou art the same,” Ps.
cii. 25, 26.
If he be immutable, then he is also incorporeal, and
consequently without shape.
The former consequence is manifest, for every body is
extended, and consequently is capable of division, which is mutation;
wherefore, Being immutable, he hath no shape.
Mr B.’s great plea for
the considering of his Catechism, and insisting upon the same way of
inquiry with himself, is from the success which himself hath found in the
discovery of sundry truths, of which he gives an account in his book to the
reader. That, among the glorious discoveries made by him, the particular
now insisted on is not to be reckoned, I presume Mr B. knoweth. For this discovery the world is
beholding to one Audæus, a monk, of whom you
have a large account in Epiphanius, tom. i. lib. 3, Hær. 70; as also in Theodoret,
lib. iv. Eccles. Hist., cap. x., who also gives us an account of the
man and his conversation, with those that followed him. Austin also acquaints us with
this worthy predecessor of our author, De Hær. cap. l. He that thinks it worth while
to know that we are not beholding to Mr
B., but to this Audæus, for all the
arguments, whether taken from the creation of man in the image of God or
the attribution of the parts and members of a man unto God in the
Scripture, to prove him to have a visible shape, may at his leisure consult
the authors above mentioned, who will not suffer him to ascribe the praise
of this discovery to Mr B.’s ingenious
inquiries. How the same figment was also entertained by a company of
stupid monks in Egypt, who, in pursuit of their opinion, came in a great
drove to Alexandria, to knock Theophilus
the bishop on the head, who had spoken against them, and how that crafty
companion deluded them with an ambiguity of expression, with what learned
stirs ensued thereon, we have a full relation in Socrat. Eccles. Hist. lib. vi. cap.
vii.
As this madness of brain-sick men was always rejected by
all persons of sobriety professing the religion of Jesus Christ, so was it
never embraced by the Jews, or the wiser sort of heathens, who retained any
impression of those common notions of God which remain in the hearts of
men. The Jews
to this day do solemnly confess, in their public worship, that God is not
corporeal, that he hath no corporeal propriety, and therefore can nothing
be compared with him. So one of the most learned of them of old: Οὔτε γὰρ ἀνθρωπόμορφος ὁ Θεὸς οὔτε θεοειδὲς
ἀνθρώπινον σῶμα, Phil. de
Opificio Mundi; — “Neither hath God a human form, nor does
a human body resemble him.” And in Sacrifi. Abel: Οὐδὲ
τὰ ὅσα ἀνθρώποις ἐπὶ Θεοῦ κυριολογεῖται κατάχρησις δὲ ὀνομάτων ἐστὶ
παρηγοροῦσα τὴν ἡμετέραν ἀσθένειαν — “Neither are those things which
are in us spoken properly of God, but there is an abuse of names therein,
relieving our weakness.”
Likewise the heathens, who termed God νοῦν, and ψύχωσιν
and πνεῦμα, and δυναμοποιόν or δύναμιν, had the same apprehensions of him. Thus
discourses Mercurius ad Tatium, in Stobæus, serm.
78: Θεὸν μὲν νοῆσαι χαλεπὸν φράσαι δὲ
ἀδύνατον· τὸ γὰρ ἀσώματον σώματι σημῆναι ἀδύνατον καὶ τὸ τέλειον τῷ ἀτελεῖ
καταλαβέσθαι οὐ δυνατόν καὶ τὸ ἀΐδιον τῷ ὀλιγοχρονίῳ συγγενέσθαι δύσκολον ὁ
μὲν γὰρ ἀεί ἐστι τὸ δὲ παρέρχεται καὶ τὸ μὲν ἀλήθειά ἐστι τὸ δὲ ὑπὸ
φαντασίας σκιάζεται τὸ δὲ ἀσθενέστερον τοῦ ἰσχυροτέρου καὶ τὸ ἔλαττον τοῦ
κρείττονος δίεστηκε τοσοῦτον ὅσον τὸ θνητὸν τοῦ θεὶου ἡδὲ μέση τούτων διάστασις ἀμαυροῖ τὴν τοῦ
καλοῦ θέαν ὀφθαλμοῖς μὲν γὰρ τὰ σώματα θεατὰ γλώττῃ δὲ τὰ ὁρατὰ λεκτὰ τὸ δὲ
ἀσώματον καὶ ἀφανὲς καὶ ἀσχημάτιστον καὶ μήτε ἐξ ὕλης ὑποκείμενον ὑπὸ τῶν
ἡμετέρων αἰσθήσεων καταληφθῆναι οὐ δύναται. Ἐννοοῦμαις ᾧ τάτ ἐννοοῦμαι ο`
ἐξειπεῖν οὐ δυνατὸν τοῦτο ἐστιν ὁ Θεός. And Calicratides apud Stob., Serm. 83: Τὸ δὲ ἕν ἐστιν ἄριστον αὐτὸς ὅπερ ἐστὶ καττὰν ἔννοιαν ζῶον
οὐράνιον ἄφθαρτον ἀρχά τε καὶ αἰτία τᾶς τῶν ὅλων διακοσμάσιος
Of the like import is that distich of Xenophanes in Clemens Alexan., Strom. 5:—
Εἰς Θεὸς ἔν τε θεοῖσι καὶ ἀνθρώποισι
μέγιστος
Θὔτε δέμας θνητοῖσιν ὁμοίϊος οὐδὲ
νόημα.
“There is one great God among gods and men,
Who is like to mortals neither as to body nor mind.”
Whereunto answers that in Cato:—
“Si Deus est animus nobis ut carmina
dicunt,” etc.
And Æschylus, in the same
place of Clemens, Strom.
5:—
Χωρεῖτε θνητῶν τὸν Θεὸν καὶ μὴ
δόκει
Ὅμοιον αὐτῷ σαρκικὸν
καθεστάναι.
“Separate God from mortals, and think not thyself, of
flesh, like him.”
And Posidonius plainly in
Stobæus as above: Ὁ Θεὸς ἐστι πνεῦμα νοερὸν καὶ πυρῶδες οὐκ ἔχον μορφήν
— “God is an intelligent fiery spirit, not having any shape.” And the same
apprehension is evident in that of Seneca,
“Quid est Deus? Mens universi. Quid est
Deus? Quod vides totum, et quod non vides totum. Sic demure magnitude sua
illi redditur, qua nihil majus excogitari potest, si solus est omnia, opus
suum et extra et intra tenet. Quid ergo interest inter naturam Dei et
nostram? Nostri melior pars animus est, in illo nulla pars extra
animum.” Natural. Quæst.
lib. 1. Præfat. It would be burdensome, if not endless, to insist
on the testimonies that to this purpose might be produced out of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Epictetus,
Julius Firmicus, and others of the
same order. I shall close with one of Alcinous, de Doctrina Platon. cap. x.: Ἄτοπον δὲ τὸν Θεὸν ἑξ ὕλης εἶναι καὶ εἴδους οὐ γὰρ ἔσται
ἁπλοῦς οὐδὲ ἀρχικός — “It is absurd to say that God is of matter and
form; for if so, he could neither be simple, nor the principal cause.”
The thing is so clear, and the contrary, even by the
heathen philosophers, accounted so absurd, that I shall not stand to pursue
the arguments flowing from the other attributes of God, but proceed to what
follows.
Chapter IV.
Of the attribution of passions and affections, anger, fear,
repentance, unto God — In what sense it is done in the
Scripture.
His next inquiry about the nature
of God respects the attribution of several affections and passions unto him
in the Scriptures, of whose sense and meaning he thus expresseth his
apprehension:—
Ques. Are there not, according to the perpetual tenor of the
Scriptures, affections and passions in God, as anger, fury, zeal, wrath,
love, hatred, mercy, grace, jealousy, repentance, grief, joy, fear?
Concerning which he labours to make the Scriptures
determine in the affirmative.
1. The main of Mr
Biddle’s design, in his questions about the nature of God, being to
deprive the Deity of its distinct persons, its omnipresence, prescience,
and therein all other infinite perfections, he endeavours to make him some
recompense for all that loss by ascribing to him in the foregoing query a
human visible shape, and in this, human, turbulent affections and passions.
Commonly, where men will not ascribe to the Lord that which is his due, he
gives them up to assign that unto him which he doth abhor, Jer. xliv. 15–17. Neither is it
easily determinable whether be the greater abomination. By the first, the
dependence of men upon the true God is taken off; by the latter, their hope
is fixed on a false. This, on both sides, at present is Mr B.’s sad employment. The Lord lay it not to
his charge, but deliver him from the snare of Satan, wherein he is “taken
alive at his pleasure”! 2 Tim. ii.
26.
2. The things here assigned to God are ill associated, if
to be understood after the same manner. Mercy and grace we acknowledge to
be attributes of God; the rest mentioned are by none of Mr B.’s companions esteemed any other than acts
of his will, and those metaphorically assigned to him.
3. To the whole I ask, whether these things are in the
Scriptures ascribed properly unto God, denoting such affections and
passions in him as those in us are which are so termed? or whether they are
assigned to him and spoken of him metaphorically only, in reference to his
outward works and dispensations, correspondent and answering to the actings
of men in whom such affections are, and under the power whereof they are in
those actings? If the latter be affirmed, then as such an attribution of
them unto God is eminently consistent with all his infinite perfections and
blessedness, so there can be no difference about this question and the
answers given thereunto, all men readily acknowledging that in this sense
the Scripture doth ascribe all the affections mentioned unto God, of which
we say as he of old, Ταῦτα
ἀνθρωποπαθῶς μὲν λέγονται θεοπρεπῶς δὲ νοοῦνται. But this, I fear,
will not serve Mr B.’s turn. The very
phrase and manner of expression used in this question, the plain intimation
that is in the forehead thereof of its author’s going off from the common
received interpretation of these attributions unto God, do abundantly
manifest that it is their proper significancy which he contends to fasten
on God, and that the affections mentioned are really and properly in him as
they are in us. This being evident to be his mind and intendment, as we
think his anthropopathism in this query not to come short in folly and
madness of his anthropomorphitism in that foregoing, so I shall proceed to
the removal of this insinuation in the way and method formerly insisted
on.
Mr B.’s masters tell us
“That these affections are vehement commotions of the will of God, whereby
he is carried out earnestly to the object of his desires, or earnestly
declines and abhors what falls not out gratefully or acceptably to
him.” I shall first speak of them in general,
and then to the particulars (some or all) mentioned by Mr B.:—
First, In general, that God is perfect and perfectly
blessed, I suppose will not be denied; it cannot be but by denying that he
is God. He that is not perfect in himself and
perfectly blessed is not God. To that which is perfect in any kind nothing
is wanting in that kind. To that which is absolutely perfect nothing is
wanting at all. He who is blessed is perfectly satisfied and filled, and
hath no farther desire for supply. He who is blessed in himself is
all-sufficient for himself. If God want or desire any thing for himself,
he is neither perfect nor blessed. To ascribe, then, affections to God
properly (such as before mentioned), is to deprive him of his perfection
and blessedness. The consideration of the nature of these and the like
affections will make this evident.
1. Affections, considered in themselves, have always an
incomplete, imperfect act of the will or volition joined with them.
They are something that lies between the firm purpose of the soul and the
execution of that purpose. The proper actings of affections lie between
these two; that is, in an incomplete, tumultuary volition. That God is not
obnoxious to such volitions and incomplete actings of the will, besides the
general consideration of his perfections and blessedness premised, is
evident from that manner of procedure which is ascribed to him. His
purposes and his works comprise all his actings. As the Lord hath
purposed, so hath he done. “He worketh all things after the counsel of his
own will.” “Who hath known his mind? or who hath been his
counsellor? Of him, and through him, and to him, are all things.”
2. They have their dependence on that wherewith he in
whom they are is affected; that is, they owe their rise and
continuance to something without him in whom they are. A man’s fear
ariseth from that or them of whom he is afraid; by them it is occasioned,
on them it depends Whatever affects any man (that is, the stirring of a
suitable affection), in all that frame of mind and soul, in all the
volitions and commotions of will which so arise from thence, he depends on
something without him. Yea, our being affected with something without lies
at the bottom of most of our purposes and resolves Is it thus with God,
with him who is I am? Exod. iii.
14. Is he in dependence upon any thing without him? Is it not
a most eminent contradiction to speak of God in dependence on any other
thing? Must not that thing either be God or be reduced to some other
without and besides him, who is God, as the causes of all our affections
are? “God is in one mind, and who can turn him? what his soul desireth,
that he doeth,” Job xxiii.
13.
3. Affections are necessarily accompanied with change
and mutability; yea, he who is affected properly is really changed;
yea, there is no more unworthy change or alteration than that which is
accompanied with passion, as is the
change that is wrought by the affections ascribed to God. A sedate, quiet,
considerate alteration is far less inglorious and unworthy than that which
is done in and with passion. Hitherto we have taken God upon his
testimony, that he is the “Lord, and he changeth
not,” Mal. iii. 6; that “with him there is
neither change nor shadow of turning;” — it seems, like the worms of the
earth, he varieth every day.
4. Many of the affections here ascribed to God do
eminently denote impotence; which, indeed, on this account, both by
Socinians and Arminians, is directly ascribed to the Almighty. They make
him affectionately and with commotion of will to desire many things in
their own nature not impossible, which yet he cannot accomplish or bring
about (of which I have elsewhere spoken); yea, it will appear that the most
of the affections ascribed to God by Mr
B., taken in a proper sense, are such as are actually ineffectual,
or commotions through disappointments, upon the account of impotency or
defect of power.
Corol. To ascribe affections properly to God is to make
him weak, imperfect, dependent, changeable, and impotent.
Secondly, Let a short view be taken of the particulars,
some or all of them, that Mr B. chooseth
to instance in. “Anger, fury, wrath, zeal” (the same in kind, only
differing in degree and circumstances), are the first he
instances in; and the places produced to make good this attribution to God
are, Num. xxv.
3, 4; Ezek. v.
13; Exod. xxxii. 11, 12; Rom. i. 18.
1. That mention is made of the auger, wrath, and fury of
God in the Scripture is not questioned. Num. xxv.
4, Deut. xiii.
17, Josh. vii.
26, Ps. lxxviii.
31, Isa. xiii.
9, Deut. xxix.
24, Judges ii.
14, Ps. lxxiv. 1, lxix.
24, Isa. xxx.
30, Lam. ii. 6, Ezek. v.
15, Ps. lxxviii.
49, Isa. xxxiv.
2, 2 Chron. xxviii.
11, Ezra x.
14, Hab. iii. 8, 12, are
farther testimonies thereof. The words also in the original, in all the
places mentioned, express or intimate perturbation of mind, commotion of
spirit, corporeal mutation of the parts of the body, and the like
distempers of men acting under the power of that passion. The whole
difference is about the intendment of the Holy Ghost in these attributions,
and whether they are properly spoken of God, asserting this passion to be
in him in the proper significancy of the words, or whether these things be
not taken ἀνθρωποπαθῶς, and to be
understood θεοπρεπῶς, in such a sense
as may answer the meaning of the figurative expression, assigning them
their truth to the utmost, and yet to be interpreted in a suitableness to
divine perfection and blessedness.
2. The anger, then, which in the Scripture is
assigned to God, we say denotes two things:—
(1.) His vindictive justice, or constant and
immutable will of rendering vengeance for sin. So God’s purpose of the
demonstration of his justice is called his being “willing to show his
wrath” or anger, Rom. ix.
22; so God’s anger and his judgments are placed together,
Ps. vii. 6; and in that anger he
judgeth, verse 8, And in this sense is the “wrath
of God” said to be “revealed from heaven,” Rom. i.
18; that is, the vindictive justice of God against sin to be
manifested in the effects of it, or the judgments sent and punishments
inflicted on and throughout the world.
(2.) By anger, wrath, zeal, fury, the effects of
anger are denoted: Rom. iii.
5, “Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?” The words are,
ὁ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν, — “who
inflicteth or bringeth anger on man;” that is, sore punishments, such as
proceed from anger; that God’s vindictive justice. And Eph. v. 6, “For these things cometh the
wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.” Is it the passion or
affection of auger in God that Mr B.
talks of, that comes upon the children of disobedience? or is it indeed the
effect of his justice for this sin? Thus the day of judgment is
called the “day of wrath” and of “anger,” because it is the day of the
“revelation of the righteous judgment of God:” Rom. ii.
5, “After thy hardness,” etc. In the place of
Ezekiel (chap. v. 13) mentioned by Mr B., the Lord tells them he will,” cause his
fury to rest upon them,” and “accomplish it upon them. I ask whether he
intends this of any passion in him (and if so, how a passion in God can
rest upon a man), or the judgments which for their iniquities he did
inflict? We say, then, anger is not properly ascribed to God, but
metaphorically, denoting partly his vindictive justice, whence all
punishments flow, partly the effects of it in the punishments themselves,
either threatened or inflicted, in their terror and bitterness, upon the
account of what is analogous therein to our proceeding under the power of
that passion; and so is to be taken in all the places mentioned by Mr B. For, —
3. Properly, in the sense by him pointed to, anger,
wrath, etc., are not in God. Anger is defined by the philosopher to
be, ὄρεξις μετὰ λύπης τιμωρίας φαινομένης διὰ
φαινομένην ὀλιγωρίαν, — “desire joined with grief of that
which appears to be revenge, for an appearing neglect or contempt.” To
this grief, he tells you, there is a kind of pleasure annexed, arising from
the vehement fancy which an angry person hath of the revenge he apprehends
as future, — which, saith he, “is like the fancy of them that
dream,” — and he
ascribes this passion mostly to weak, impotent persona Ascribe this to God,
and you leave him nothing else. There is not one property of his nature
wherewith it is consistent. If he be properly and literally angry, and
furious, and wrathful, he is moved, troubled, perplexed, desires revenge,
and is neither blessed nor perfect. But of these things in our general
reasons against the propriety of these attributions afterward.
4. Mr B. hath given us a
rule in his preface, that when any thing is ascribed to God in one place
which is denied of him in another, then it is not properly ascribed to him.
Now, God says expressly that “fury” or anger “is not in him,” Isa. xxvii. 4; and therefore it is not
properly ascribed to him.
5. Of all the places where mention is made of God’s
repentings, or his repentance, there is the same reason.
Exod. xxxii. 14, Gen. vi. 6, 7, Judges x. 16, Deut. xxx. 9, are produced by Mr B. That one place of 1
Sam. xv. 29, where God affirms that he “knoweth no repentance,”
casts all the rest under a necessity of an interpretation suitable unto it.
Of all the affections or passions which we are obnoxious to, there is none
that more eminently proclaims imperfection, weakness, and want in sundry
kinds, than this of repentance. If not sins, mistakes, and miscarriages
(as for the most part they are), yet disappointment, grief, and trouble,
are always included in it. So is it in that expression, Gen. vi. 6, “It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and
it grieved him at his heart.” What but his
mistake and great disappointment, by a failing of wisdom, foresight, and
power, can give propriety to these attributions unto God? The change God
was going then to work in his providence on the earth was such or like that
which men do when they repent of a thing, being “grieved at the heart” for
what they had formerly done. So are these things spoken of God to denote
the kind of the things which he doth, not the nature of God himself;
otherwise such expressions as these would suit him, whose frame of spirit
and heart is so described: “Had I seen what would have been the issue of
making man, I would never have done it. Would I had never been so overseen
as to have engaged in such a business! What have I now got by my rashness?
nothing but sorrow and grief of heart redounds to me.” And do these become
the infinitely blessed God.
6. Fear is added, from Deut. xxxii. 26, 27. “Fear,” saith
the wise man, “is a betraying of those succours which reason
offereth;” — nature’s avoidance of an impendent evil; its
contrivance to flee and prevent what it abhors, being in a probability of
coming upon it; a turbulent weakness. This God forbids in us, upon the
account of his being our God, Isa. xxxv.
4; “Fear not, O worm Jacob,” etc., chap. xli.
14. Everywhere he asserts fear to be unfit for them who depend
on him and his help, who is able in a moment to dissipate, scatter, and
reduce to nothing, all the causes of their fear. And if there ought to be
no fear where such succour is ready at hand, sure there is none in Him who
gives it. Doubtless, it were much better to exclude the providence of God
out of the world than to assert him afraid properly and directly of future
events. The schools say truly, “Quod res
sunt futuræ, a voluntate Dei est (effectiva vel permissiva).” How,
then, can God be afraid of what he knows will, and purposeth shall, come to
pass? He doth, he will do, things in some likeness to what we do for the
prevention of what we are afraid of. He will not scatter his people, that
their adversaries may not have advantage to trample over them. When we so
act as to prevent any thing that, unless we did so act, would befall us, it
is because we are afraid of the coming of that thing upon us: hence is the
reason of that attribution unto God. That properly He should be afraid of
what comes to pass who knows from eternity what will so do,
who can with the breath of his mouth destroy all the objects of his
dislike, who is infinitely wise, blessed, all-sufficient, and the sovereign
disposer of the lives, breath, and ways of all the sons of men, is fit for
Mr B. and no man else to affirm. “All
the nations are before him as the drop of the bucket, and the dust of the
balance, as vanity, as nothing; he upholdeth them by the word of his power;
in him all men live, and move, and have their being,” and can neither live,
nor act, nor be without him; their life, and breath, and all their ways,
are in his hands; he brings them to destruction, and says, “Return, ye
children of men;” and must he needs be properly afraid of
what they will do to him and against him.
7. Of God’s jealousy and hatred, mentioned from
Ps. v. 4, 5, Exod. xx.
5, Deut. xxxii.
21, there is the same reason. Such effects as these things in
us produce shall they meet withal who provoke him by their blasphemies and
abominations. Of love, mercy, and grace, the condition
is something otherwise: principally they denote God’s essential goodness
and kindness, which is eminent amongst his infinite perfections; and
secondarily the effects thereof, in and through Jesus Christ, are denoted
by these expressions. To manifest that neither they nor any thing else, as
they properly intend any affections or passions of the mind, any commotions
of will, are properly attributed to God, unto what hath been spoken already
these ensuing considerations may be subjoined:—
(1.) Where no cause of stirring up affections or passions
can have place or be admitted, there no affections are to be admitted; for
to what end should we suppose that whereof there can be no use to eternity?
If it be impossible any affection in God should be stirred up or acted, is
it not impossible any such should be in him? The causes stirring up all
affections are the access of some good desired, whence joy, hope, desire,
etc., have their spring; or the approach of some evil to be avoided, which
occasions fear, sorrow, anger, repentance, and the like. Now, if no good
can be added to God, whence should joy and desire be stirred up in him? if
no evil can befall him, in himself or any of his concernments, whence
should he have fear, sorrow, or repentance? Our goodness extends not to
him; he hath no need of us or our sacrifices, Ps. xvi. 2, l. 8–10;
Job xxxv. 6–8. “Can a man be
profitable unto God, as he that is wise may be profitable to himself? Is
it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous? or is it gain to
him, that thou makest thy ways perfect?” chap.
xxii. 2, 3.
(2.) The apostle tells us that God is “blessed for ever,”
Rom. ix. 5; “He is the
blessed and only Potentate,” 1 Tim. vi.
15; “God all-sufficient,” Gen. xvii.
1. That which is inconsistent with absolute blessedness and
all-sufficiency is not to be ascribed to God; to do so casts him down from
his excellency. But can he be blessed, is he all-sufficient, who is tossed
up and down with hope, joy, fear, sorrow, repentance, anger, and the like?
Doth not fear take off from absolute blessedness? Grant that God’s fear
doth not long abide yet whilst it doth so, he is less blessed than he was
before and than he is after his fear ceaseth. When he hopes, is he not
short in happiness of that condition which he attains in the enjoyment of
what he hoped for? and is he not lower when he is disappointed and falls
short of his expectation? Did ever the heathens speak with more contempt
of what they worshipped? Formerly the pride of some men heightened them to
fancy themselves to be like God, without passions or affections, Ps. l. 21; being not able to abide in
their attempt against their own sense and experience, it is now endeavoured
to make God like to us, in having such passions and affections. My aim is
brevity, having many heads to speak unto. Those who have written on the
attributes of God, — his self-sufficiency and blessedness, simplicity,
immutability, etc., — are ready to tender farther satisfaction to them who
shall desire it.
Chapter V.
Of God’s prescience or foreknowledge.
His next attempt is to overthrow
and remove the prescience or foreknowledge of God, with what
success the farther consideration of the way whereby he endeavours it will
manifest. His question (the engine whereby he works) is thus framed:—
As for our free actions which are neither past nor present,
but may afterward either be or not be, what are the chief passages of
Scripture from whence it is wont to be gathered that God knoweth not such
actions until they come to pass, yea, that there are such actions?
That we might have had a clearer acquaintance with the
intendment of this interrogation, it is desirable Mr Biddle had given us his sense on some particulars, which at
first view present themselves to the trouble of every ordinary reader; as,
—
1. How we may reconcile the words of Scripture given in
answer to his preceding query with the design of this. There it is
asserted that God “understandeth our thoughts” (which certainly are of our
free actions, if any such there are) “afar off;” here, that he knows not
our free actions that are future, and not yet wrought or performed.
2. By whom is it “wont to be gathered” from the following
scriptures that “God knoweth not our free actions until they
come to pass.” Why doth not this “mere Christian,” that is of no sect,
name his companions and associates in these learned collections from
Scripture? Would not his so doing discover him to be so far from a mere
Christian, engaged in none of the sects that are now amongst Christians, as
to be of that sect which the residue of men so called will scarce allow the
name of a Christian unto?
3. What he intends by the close of his query, “Yea, that
there are such actions.” An advance is evident in the words towards a
farther negation of the knowledge of God than what was before expressed.
Before, he says, God knows not our actions that are future contingent;
here, he knows not that there are such actions. The sense of this must be,
either that God knows not that there are any such actions as may or may not
be, — which would render him less knowing than Mr B., who hath already told us that such there be, — or else
that he knows not such actions when they are, at least without farther
inquiring after them, and knowledge obtained beyond what from his own
infinite perfections and eternal purpose he is furnished withal. In Mr B.’s next book or catechism, I desire he
would answer these questions also.
Now in this endeavour of his Mr
B. doth but follow his leaders. Socinus in his Prelections, where the main of his design is to
vindicate man’s free-will into that latitude and absoluteness as none
before him had once aimed at, in his eighth chapter objects to himself this
foreknowledge of God as that which seems to abridge and cut short the
liberty contended for. He answers that he grants not the foreknowledge pretended,
and proceeds in that and the two following chapters, labouring to answer
all the testimonies and arguments which are insisted on for the proof and
demonstration of it, giving his own arguments against it, chap. xi.
Crellius is something more candid, as he pretends, but indeed infected with
the same venom with the other; for after he hath disputed for sundry pages
to prove the foreknowledge of God, he concludes at last that for those
things that are future contingent, he knows only that they are so, and that
possibly they may come to pass, possibly they may not. Of the rest of their
associates few have spoken expressly to this thing. Smalcius once and again manifests
himself to consent with his masters in his disputations against Franzius, expressly consenting to what
Socinus had written in his Prelections, and
affirming the same thing himself, yea, disputing eagerly for the same
opinion with him.
For the vindication of God’s foreknowledge, I shall proceed
in the same order as before in reference to the other attributes of God
insisted on, namely:— 1. What Mr B. hath
done, how he hath disposed of sundry places of Scripture for the proof of
his assertion, with the sense of the places by him so produced, is to be
considered; 2. Another question and answer are to be supplied in the room
of his; 3. The truth vindicated to be farther confirmed.
For the first:—
In the proof of the assertion proposed Mr B. finds himself entangled more than ordinarily, though I
confess his task in general be such as no man not made desperate by the
loss of all in a shipwreck of faith would once have undertaken. To have
made good his proceeding according to his engagement, he ought at least to
have given us texts of Scripture express in the letter, as by him cut off
from the state, condition, and coherence, wherein by the Holy Ghost they
are placed, for the countenancing of his assertion: but here, being not
able to make any work in his method, proposed and boasted in as signal and
uncontrollable, no apex or tittle in the Scripture being pointed towards
the denial of God’s knowing any thing or all things, past, present, and to
come, he moulds his question into a peculiar fashion, and asks, whence or
from what place of Scripture may such a thing as he there avers be
gathered; at once plainly declining the trial he had put himself upon of
insisting upon express texts of Scripture only, not one of the many quoted
by him speaking one word expressly to the business in hand, and laying
himself naked to all consequences rightly deduced from the Scripture, and
expositions given to the letter of some places suitable to “the proportion
of faith,” Rom. xii. 6. That, then, which he
would have, he tells you is gathered from the places of Scripture
subjoined, but how, by whom, by what consequence, with what evidence of
reason, it is so gathered, he tells you not. An understanding, indeed,
informed with such gross conceptions of the nature of the Deity as Mr B. hath laboured to insinuate into the minds
of men, might gather, from his collection of places of Scripture for his
purpose in hand, that God is afraid, troubled, grieved, that
he repenteth, altereth and changeth his mind to and fro; but of his
knowledge or foreknowledge of things, whether he have any such thing or
not, there is not the least intimation, unless it be in this, that if he
had any such foreknowledge, he need not put himself to so much trouble and
vexation, nor so change and alter his mind, as he doth. And with such
figments as these (through the infinite, wise, and good providence of God,
punishing the wantonness of the minds and lives of men, by giving them up
to strong delusions and vain imaginations, in the darkness of their foolish
hearts, 2
Thess. ii. 10–12, so far as to change the glory of the
incorruptible God into the likeness of a corruptible, weak, ignorant,
sinful man, Rom. i. 23), are we now to deal.
But let the places themselves be considered. To these
heads they may be referred:— 1. Such as ascribe unto God fear and being
afraid. Deut. xxxii. 26, 27; Exod. xiii. 17; Gen. iii. 22, 23, are of this sort.
2. Repentance, 1 Sam. xv. 10, 11,
ult. 3. Change, or alteration of mind, Num. xiv. 27, 30;
1 Sam. ii. 30. 4. Expectation
whether a thing will answer his desire or no, Isa. v. 4.
Conjecturing, Jer.
xxxvi. 1–3; Ezek.
xii. 1–3. 5. Trying of experiments, Judges iii. 1, 4;
Dan. xii. 10; 2 Chron. xxxii. 31. From all which
and the like it may, by Mr B.’s direction
and help, be thus gathered: “If God be afraid of what is to come to pass,
and repenteth him of what he hath done when he finds it not to answer his
expectation; if he sits divining and conjecturing at events, being often
deceived therein, and therefore tries and makes experiments that he may be
informed of the true state of things: then certainly he knows not the free
actions of men, that are not yet come to pass.” The antecedent Mr B. hath proved undeniably from ten texts of
Scripture, and doubtless the consequent is easily to be gathered by any of
his disciples. Doubtless it is high time that the old, musty catechisms of
prejudicate persons, who scarce so much as once consulted with the
Scriptures in their composures, as being more engaged into factions, were
removed out of the way and burned, that this “mere Christian” may have
liberty to bless the growing generation with such notions of God as the
idolatrous Pagans of old would have scorned to have received.
But do not the Scriptures ascribe all the particulars
mentioned unto God? Can you blame Mr B.
without reflection on them? If only what the Scripture affirms in the
letter, and not the sense wherein and the manner how it affirms it (which
considerations are allowed to all the writings and speakings of the sons of
men) is to be considered, the end seeming to be aimed at in such
undertakings as this of Mr B., namely, to
induce the atheistical spirits of the sons of men to a contempt and scorn
of them and their authority, will probably be sooner attained than by the
efficacy of any one engine raised against them in the world besides.
As to the matter under consideration, I have
some few things in general to propose to Mr
B., and then I shall descend to the particulars insisted on:—
First, then, I desire to know whether the things mentioned,
as fear, grief, repentance, trouble, conjecturings, making trials of
men for his own information, are ascribed properly to God as they are
unto men, or tropically and figuratively, with a condescension to us, to
express the things spoken of, and not to describe the nature of God. If
the first be said, namely, that these things are ascribed properly to God,
and really signify of him the things in us intended in them, then to what
hath been spoken in the consideration taken of the foregoing query, I shall
freely add, for mine own part, I will not own nor worship him for my God
who is truly and properly afraid of what all the men in the world either
will or can do; who doth, can do, or hath done any thing, or suffered any
thing to be done, of which he doth or can truly and properly repent
himself, with sorrow and grief for his mistake; or that sits in heaven
divining and conjecturing at what men will do here below: and do know that
he whom I serve in my spirit will famish and starve all such gods out of
the world. But of this before. If these things are ascribed to God
figuratively and improperly, discovering the kind of his
works and dispensations, not his own nature or property, I would fain know
what inference can be made or conclusion drawn from such expressions,
directly calling for a figurative interpretation? For instance, if God be
said to repent that he had done such a thing, because such and such things
are come to pass thereupon, if this repentance in God be not properly
ascribed to him (as by Mr B.’s own rule
it is not), but denotes only an alteration and change in the works that
outwardly are of him, in an orderly subserviency to the immutable purpose
of his will, what can thence be gathered to prove that God foreseeth not
the free actions of men? And this is the issue of Mr B.’s confirmation of the thesis couched in his query
insisted on from the Scriptures.
2. I must crave leave once more to mind him of the rule he
hath given us in his preface, namely, “That where a thing is improperly
ascribed to God, in some other place it is denied of him,” as he instances
in that of his being weary; so that whatever is denied of him in any one
place is not properly ascribed to him in any other. Now, though God be
said, in some of the places by him produced, to repent, yet it is in
another expressly said that he doth not so, and that upon such a general ground and reason as is equally exclusive of all those
other passions and affections, upon whose assignment unto God the whole
strength of Mr B.’s plea against the
prescience of God doth depend: 1 Sam. xv.
29, “Also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he
is not a man, that he should repent.” The immutability of his nature, and
unlikeness to men in obnoxiousness to alterations, are asserted as the
reason of his not repenting; which will equally extend its force and
efficacy to the removal from him of all the other human affections
mentioned. And this second general consideration of the foundation of
Mr B.’s plea is sufficient for the
removal of the whole.
3. I desire to know whether indeed it is only the free
actions of men that are not yet done that Mr B. denies to be known of God, or whether he excludes him
not also from the knowledge of the present state, frame, and
actings of the hearts of men, and how they stand affected towards him,
being therein like other rulers among men, who may judge of the good and
evil actions of men so far as they are manifest and evident, but how men in
their hearts stand affected to them, their rule, government, and authority,
they know not? To make this inquiry, I have not only the observation
premised from the words of the close of Mr
B.’s query being of a negative importance (“Yea, that there are such
actions”), but also from some of the proofs by him produced of his former
assertion being interpreted according to the literal significancy of the
words, as exclusive of any figure, which he insisteth on. Of this sort is
that of Gen. xxii. 1, 2,
10–12, where God is said to tempt Abraham, and upon the issue of that trial says to him (which
words Mr B., by putting them in a
different character, points to as comprehensive of what he intends to
gather and conclude from them), “Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing
thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me.” The conclusion
which Mr B. guides unto from hence is,
that God knew not that which he inquired after, and therefore tempted
Abraham that he might so do, and upon the issue of that trial says, “Now I
know.” But what was it that God affirms that now he knew? Not any thing
future, not any free action that was not as yet done, but something of the
present condition and frame of his heart towards God, — namely, his fear of
God; not whether he would fear him, but whether he did fear him then. If
this, then, be properly spoken of God, and really as to the nature of the
thing itself, then is he ignorant no less of things present than of those
that are for to come. He knows not who fears him nor who hates him, unless
he have opportunity to try them in some such way as he did Abraham. And
then what a God hath this man delineated to us! How like the
dunghill deities of the heathen, who speak after this rate!
“Contigerat nostras infamia temporis
aures:
Quam cupiens falsam summo delabor
Olympo,
Et Deus humana lustro sub imagine
terras.” —
Ovid. Met. i.
211. Doubtless the description that Elijah gave of
Baal would better suit him than any of those divine perfections which the
living, all-seeing God hath described himself by. But now, if Mr B. will confess that God knows all the
things that are present, and that this inquiry after the present frame of
the heart and spirit of a man is improperly ascribed to him, from the
analogy of his proceedings, in his dealing with him, to that which we
insist upon when we would really find out what we do not know, then I would
only ask of him why those other expressions which he mentions, looking to
what is to come, being of the same nature and kind with this, do not admit
of, yea call for, the same kind of exposition and interpretation.
Neither is this the only place insisted on by Mr B. where the inquiry ascribed unto God, and
the trial that he makes, is not in reference to things to come, but
punctually to what is present: Deut. viii. 2, xiii.
3, “The Lord your God proveth you, to
know whether ye love the Lord your God with all
your heart and With all your soul;” 2 Chron. xxxii.
31, “God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was
in his heart;” and Phil. iv.
6, “In every thing let your requests be made known unto God.”
Let Mr B. tell us now plainly whether he
supposes all these things to be spoken properly of God, and that indeed God
knows not our hearts, the frame of them, nor what in them we desire and aim
at, without some eminent trial and inquiry, or until we ourselves do make
known what is in them unto him. If this be the man’s mind (as it must be,
if he be at any agreement with himself in his principles concerning these
scriptural attributions unto God), for my part I shall be so far from
esteeming him eminent as a mere Christian, that I shall scarcely judge him
comparable, as to his apprehensions of God, unto many that lived and died
mere Pagans. To this sense also is applied that property of God, that he
“trieth the hearts,” as it is urged by Mr
B. from 1 Thess. ii.
4; — that is, he maketh inquiry after what is in them; which,
but upon search and trial, he knoweth not! By what ways and means God
accomplisheth this search, and whether hereupon he comes to a perfect
understanding of our hearts or no, is not expressed. John tells us that
“God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things;” and we have
thought on that account (with that of such farther discoveries as he hath
made of himself and his perfections unto us) that he had been said to
search our hearts; not that himself, for his own information, needs any
such formal process by way of trial and inquiry, but because really and
indeed he doth that in himself which men aim at in the
accomplishment of their most diligent searches and exactest trials.
And we may, by the way, see a little of this man’s
consistency with himself. Christ he denies to be God, — a great part of
his religion consists in that negative, — yet of Christ it is said that “he
knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man, for he knew
what was in man,” John
ii. 24, 25: and this is spoken in reference to that very thing
in the hearts of men which he would persuade us that God knows not without
inquiry; that is, upon the account of his not committing himself to those
as true believers whom yet, upon the account of the profession they made,
the Scripture calls so, and says they “believed in his name, when they saw
the miracles which he did,” verse
23. Though they had such a veil of profession upon them that
the Holy Ghost would have us esteem them as believers, yet Christ could
look through it into their hearts, and discover and know their frame, and
whether in sincerity they loved him and believed in his name or no; but
this God cannot do without inquiry I And yet Christ (if we believe Mr B.) was but a mere man, as he is a “mere
Christian.” Farther; it seems, by this gentleman, that unless “we make
known our requests to God,” he knows not what we will ask. Yet we ask
nothing but what is in our thoughts; and in the last query he instructs us
that God knows our thoughts, — and doubtless he knows Mr B.’s to be but folly. Farther yet; if God must be
concluded ignorant of our desires, because we are bid to make our requests
known unto him, he may be as well concluded forgetful of what himself hath
spoken, because he bids us put him in remembrance, and appoints some to be
his remembrancers. But to return:—
This is the aspect of almost one-half of the places
produced by Mr B. towards the business in
hand. If they are properly spoken of God, in the same sense as they are of
man, they conclude him not to know things present, the frame of
the heart of any man in the world towards himself and his fear, nay, the
outward, open, notorious actions of men. So it is in that place of
Gen. xviii. 21, insisted on by Crellius, one of Mr
B.’s great masters, “I will go down now, and see” (or know) “whether
they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto
me.” Yea, the places which, in their letter and outward
appearance, seem to ascribe that ignorance of things present unto God are
far more express and numerous than those that in the least look forward to
what is yet for to come, or was so at their delivery. This
progress, then, have we made under our catechist, if we may believe him, as
he insinuates his notions concerning God: “God sits in heaven (glistering
on a throne), whereunto he is limited, yea, to a certain place therein, so
as not to be elsewhere; being grieved, troubled, and perplexed at the
affairs done below which he doth know, making inquiry after what he doth
not know, and many things (things future) he knoweth not at all.”
Before I proceed to the farther consideration of that which
is eminently and expressly denied by Mr
B., namely, “God’s foreknowledge of our free actions that are
future,” because many of his proofs, in the sense by him urged, seem to
exclude him from an acquaintance with many things present, — as, in
particular, the frame and condition of the hearts of men towards himself,
as was observed, — it may not be amiss a little to confirm that perfection
of the knowledge of God as to those things from the Scripture; which will
abundantly also manifest that the expressions insisted on by our catechist
are metaphorical and improperly ascribed to God. Of the eminent
predictions in the Scripture, which relate unto things future, I shall
speak afterward. He knew, for he foretold the flood, the destruction of
Sodom and Gomorrah, the famine in Egypt, the selling and exaltation of
Joseph, the reign of David, the division of his kingdom, the Babylonish
captivity, the kingdom of Cyrus, the return of his people, the state and
ruin of the four great empires of the world, the wars, plagues, famines,
earthquakes, divisions, which he manifestly foretold. But farther, he
knows the frame of the hearts of men; he knew that the Keilites would
deliver up David to Saul if he stayed amongst them, — which probably they
knew not themselves, 1 Sam. xxiii.
12; he knew that Hazael would murder women and infants, which he
knew not himself, 2 Kings
viii. 12, 13; he knew that the Egyptians would afflict his
people, though at first they entertained them with honour, Gen. xv. 13; he knew Abraham, that he
would instruct his household, chap. xviii.
19; he knew that some were obstinate, their neck an iron sinew,
and their brow brass, Isa. xlviii.
4; he knew the imagination or figment of the heart of his
people, Deut. xxxi. 21; that the church of
Laodicea, notwithstanding her profession, was lukewarm, neither cold nor
hot, Rev. iii. 15. “Man looketh on the
outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the
heart,” 1 Sam. xvi. 7. “He only knoweth the
hearts of all the children of men,” 1 Kings viii.
39. “Hell and destruction are before the Lord: how much more then the hearts of the children of
men?” Prov. xv. 11. So also Prov. xxiv. 12; Jer. xvii. 9, 10; Ezek. xi. 5; Ps. xxxviii. 9, xciv.
11; Job xxxi. 4; Matt. vi. 4, 6,
8; Luke xvi.
15; Acts i. 24, etc. Innumerable other
places to this purpose may be insisted on, though it is a surprisal to be
put to prove that God knows the hearts of the sons of men. But to proceed
to that which is more directly under consideration:—
The sole foundation of Mr B.’s insinuation, that God knows not our free actions that
are future, being laid, as was observed, on the assignation of fear,
repentance, expectation, and conjecturing, unto God, the consideration
which hath already been had of those attributions in the Scripture and the
causes of them is abundantly sufficient to remove it out of the way, and to
let his inference sink thither whence it came. Doubtless never was painter
so injurious to the Deity (who limned out the shape of an old man on a
cloth or board, and, after some disputes with himself whether he should
sell it for an emblem of winter, set it out as a representation of God the
Father) as this man is in snatching God’s own pencil out of his hand, and
by it presenting him to the world in a gross, carnal, deformed shape.
Plato would not suffer Homer in his Commonwealth, for intrenching upon the
imaginary blessedness of their dunghill deities, making Jupiter to grieve
for the death of Sarpedon,
Τοὺς δὲ ἰδὼν ἐλέησε Κρόνου παῖς
ἀγκυλομήτεω.
Ἥρην δὲ προσέειπε …
Ὦ μοι ἐγὼν ὅτε μοι Σαρπηδόνα φίλτατον
ἀνδρῶν,
Μοῖῥ ὑπὸ Πατρόκλοιο Μενοιτιάδαο
δαμῆναι!
Mars to be wounded by Diomedes, and to roar thereupon with disputes and
conjectures in heaven among themselves about the issue of the Trojan
war,
― ὁ δ ἔβραχε χάλκεος Ἄρης,
Ὅσσο τ’ ἐννεάχιλιοι ἐπίαχον ἢ
δεκάχιλιοι
Ἀνέρες ἐν πολέμῳ … καθέζετο θυμὸν
ἀχεύων
Δεῖξεν δ ἄμβροτον αἷμα καταρρέον ἐζ
ὠτειλῆς
Καί ῥ ὀλοφυρόμενος, κ.τ.λ.
though he endeavours to salve all his heavenly solecisms by
many noble expressions concerning purposes not unmeet for a deity, telling
us, in the close and issue of a most contingent after, Διὸς δὲ τελείετο βολή. Let that man think of how much sorer punishment
he shall be thought worthy (I speak of the great account he is one day to
make) who shall persist in wresting the Scripture to his own destruction,
to represent the living and incomprehensible God unto the world trembling
with fear, pale with anger, sordid with grief and repentance, perplexed
with conjectures and various expectations of events, and making a diligent
inquiry after the things he knows not; that is, altogether such an one as
himself: let all who have the least reverence of and acquaintance with that
Majesty with whom we have to do judge and determine. But of these things
before.
The proposure of a question to succeed in the room of that
removed, with a scriptural resolution thereof, in order to a discovery of
what God himself hath revealed concerning his knowledge of all things, is
the next part of our employment. Thus, then, it may be framed:—
Ques. Doth not God know all things, whether past,
present, or to come, all the ways and actions of men,
even before their accomplishment, or is any thing hid from him? What says
the Scripture properly and directly hereunto?
Ans. “God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all
things,” 1 John iii. 20. “Neither is there
any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked
and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do,” Heb. iv. 13. “The Lord is a God of knowledge,” 1 Sam. ii.
3. “Thou knowest my down-sitting and mine up-rising, thou
understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying
down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my
tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it
altogether,” Ps.
cxxxix. 2–4. “Great is our Lord, and of great power: his
understanding is infinite,” Ps. cxlvii.
5. “Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom
took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of
judgment, and taught him knowledge, and showed to him the way of
understanding?” Isa.
xl. 13, 14. “There is no searching of his understanding,”
verse 28. Rom. xi.
36, “Of him are all things;” and, “Known unto God are all his
works from the beginning of the world,” Acts xv.
18, etc.
Of the undeniable evidence and conviction of God’s
prescience or foreknowledge of future contingents, from his prediction of
their coming to pass, with other demonstrations of the truth under
consideration, attended with their several testimonies from Scripture, the
close of this discourse will give a farther account.
It remains only that, according to the way and method
formerly insisted on, I give some farther account of the perfection of God
pleaded for, with the arguments wherewith it is farther evidenced to us,
and so to proceed to what followeth:—
1. That knowledge is proper to God, the testimony of the
Scripture unto the excellency and perfection of the thing itself doth
sufficiently evince.
“Uno mentis cernit in ictu Quæ
sint,
quæ fuerint, veniantque.” —
Boeth. “I cannot tell,” says the apostle:
“God knoweth,” 2 Cor.
xii. 2, 3. It is the general voice of nature, upon relation of
any thing that to us is hid and unknown, that the apostle there makes
mention of: “God knoweth.” That he knoweth the things that are past, Mr B. doth not question. That at least also
some things that are present, yea some thoughts of our hearts, are known to
him, he doth not deny. It is not my intendment to engage in any curious
scholastical discourse about the understanding, science, knowledge, or wisdom of God, nor of the way of God’s knowing
things in and by his own essence, through simple intuition. That which
directly is opposed is his knowledge of our free actions, which, in respect
of their second and mediate causes, may or may not be. This, therefore, I
shall briefly explain, and confirm the truth of it by Scripture testimonies
and arguments from right reason, not to be evaded without making head
against all God’s infinite perfections, having already demonstrated that
all that which is insisted on by Mr B. to
oppose it is spoken metaphorically and improperly of God.
That God doth foresee all future things was amongst mere
Pagans so acknowledged as to be looked on as a common notion of
mankind.
Τί δὲ μέλλω φρένα δῖαν
Καθορᾷν ὄψιν ἄβυσσον —
Æschyl. Supp. 1071,
2. So Xenophon tells
us, “That both Grecians and barbarians consented in this, that the gods
knew all things, present and to come.” And it may be worth our observation, that whereas
Crellius, one of the most learned of this
gentleman’s masters, distinguisheth between ἐσόμενα and μέλλοντα, affirming that God knows τὰ ἐσόμενα, which, though future, are necessarily so,
yet he knows not τὰ μέλλοντα, which
are only, says he, likely so to be. Xenophon plainly affirms that all nations consent
that he knows τὰ μέλλοντα. “And this
knowledge of his,” saith that great philosopher, “is the foundation of the
prayers and supplications of men for the obtaining of good or the avoiding
of evil.” Now, that one calling himself a “mere Christian” should oppose a
perfection of God that a mere Pagan affirms all the world to acknowledge to
be in him would seem somewhat strange, but that we know all things do not
answer or make good the names whereby they are called.
For the clearer handling of the matter under consideration,
the terms wherein it is proposed are a little to be explained:—
1. That prescience or foreknowledge is
attributed to God, the Scripture testifieth. Acts ii.
23, Rom. viii. 29, xi. 2,
1 Pet. i. 2, are proofs
hereof. The term, indeed (foreknowing), rather relates to the things
known, and the order wherein they stand one to another and among
themselves, than is properly expressive of God’s knowledge. God knows all
things as they are, and in that order wherein they stand. Things that are
past, as to the order of the creatures which he hath appointed to them, and
the works of providence which outwardly are of him, he knows as past; not
by remembrance, as we do, but by the same act of knowledge wherewith he
knew them from all eternity, even before they were. Their
existence in time and being, cast by the successive motion of things into
the number of the things that are past, denotes an alteration in them, but
not at all in the knowledge of God. So it is also in respect of things
future. God knows them in that esse
intelligibile which they have, as they may be known and
understood; and how that is shall afterward be declared. He sees and knows
them as they are, when they have that respect upon them of being future;
when they lose this respect, by their actual existence, he knows them still
as before. They are altered; his knowledge, his understanding is infinite,
and changeth not.
2. God’s knowledge of things is either of simple
intelligence (as usually it is phrased) or of vision. The first is his knowledge of all
possible things; that is, of all that he himself can do. That God knows
himself I suppose will not be denied. An infinite understanding knows
throughly all infinite perfections. God, then, knows his own power or
omnipotency, and thereby knows all that he can do. Infinite
science must know, as I said, what infinite power can extend
unto. Now, whatever God can do is possible to be done; that is, whatever
hath not in itself a repugnancy to being. Now, that many things may be
done by the power of God that yet are not, nor ever shall be done, I
suppose is not denied. Might he not make a new world? Hence ariseth the
attribution of the knowledge of simple intelligence before mentioned unto
God. In his own infinite understanding he sees and knows all things that
are possible to be done by his power, would his good pleasure concur to
their production.
Of the world of things possible which God can do, some
things, even all that he pleaseth, are future. The
creation itself, and all things that have had a being since, were so future
before their creation. Had they not some time been future, they had never
been. Whatever is, was to be before it wan All things that shall
be to the end of the world are now future. How things which were only
possible, in relation to the power of God, come to be future, and in what
respect, shall be briefly mentioned. These things God knoweth also. His
science of them is called of vision. He sees them as things
which, in their proper order, shall exist. In a word, “scientia visionis,” and “simplicis intelligentise,” may be considered in a
threefold relation; that is, “in ordine ad
objectum, mensuram, modum:” — (1.) “Scientia visionis” hath for its object things past,
present, and to come, — whatsoever had, hath, or will have, actual being.
The measure of this knowledge is his will; because the will and decree of
God only make those things future which were but possible before: therefore
we say, “Scientia visionis fundatur in
voluntate.” For the manner of it, it is called “Scientia libera, quia fundatur in voluntate,” as
necessarily presupposing a free act of the divine will, which makes things
future, and so objects of this kind of knowledge. (2.) As for that “scientia” which we call “simplicis intelligentiæ,” the object of it is
possible; the measure of it omnipotency, for by it he knows all he can do;
and for the manner of it, it is “scientia
necessaria, quia non fundatur in voluntate, sed potestate” (say the
schoolmen), seeing by it he knows not what he will, but what he can do. Of
that late figment of a middle science in God, arising neither from
the infinite perfection of his own being, as that of simple
intelligence, nor yet attending his free purpose and decree, as
that of vision, but from a consideration of the second causes that are to
produce the things foreknown, in their kind, order, and dependence, I am
not now to treat. And with the former kind of knowledge it is, or rather
in the former way (the knowledge of God being simply one and the same) is
it, that we affirm him to know the things that are future, of what sort
soever, or all things before they come to pass.
3. The things inquired after are commonly called
contingent. Contingencies are of two sorts:— (1.) Such as are
only so; (2.) Such as are also free.
(1.) Such as are only so are contingent only in
their effects: such is the falling of a stone from a house, and the killing
of a man thereby. The effect itself was contingent, nothing more; the
cause necessary, the stone, being loosed from what detained it upon the
house, by its own weight necessarily falling to the ground. (2.) That
which is so contingent as to be also free, is contingent both in
respect of the effect and of its causes
also. Such was the soldier’s piercing of the side of Christ. The effect
was contingent, — such a thing might have been done or not; and the cause
also, for they chose to do it who did it, and in respect of their own
elective faculty might not have chosen it. That a man shall write, or
ride, or speak to another person to-morrow, the agent being free, is
contingent both as to the cause and to the effect. About these is our
principal inquiry; and to the knowledge of God which he is said to have of
them is the opposition most expressly made by Mr
B. Let this, then, be our conclusion:—
God perfectly knows all the free actions of men before they
are wrought by them. All things that will be done or shall be to all
eternity, though in their own natures contingent and wrought by agents free
in their working, are known to him from eternity.
Some previous observations will make way for the clear
proof and demonstration of this truth. Then, —
1. God certainly knows everything that is to be known; that
is, everything that is scibile. If there be in the nature of
things an impossibility to be known, they cannot be known by the divine
understanding. If any thing be scibile, or may be known, the not
knowing of it is his imperfection who knows it not. To God this cannot be
ascribed (namely, that he should not know what is to be known) without the
destruction of his perfection. He shall not be my God who is not
infinitely perfect. He who wants any thing to make him blessed in himself
can never make the fruition of himself the blessedness of others.
2. Every thing that hath a determinate cause is
scibile, may be known, though future, by him that perfectly knows
that cause which doth so determine the thing to be known unto existence.
Now, contingent things, the free actions of men that yet are not, but in
respect of themselves may or may not be, have such a determinate cause of
their existence as that mentioned. It is true, in respect of
their immediate causes, as the wills of men, they are contingent, and may
be or not be; but that they have such a cause as before spoken of is
evident from the light of this consideration: in their own time and order
they are. Now, whatever is at any time was future; before it was, it was
to be. If it had not been future, it had not now been. Its present
performance is sufficient demonstration of the futurition it had Before. I
ask, then, whence it came to be future, — that that action was rather to be
than a thousand others that were as possible as it? for instance, that the
side of Christ should be pierced with a spear, when it was as
possible, in the nature of the thing itself and of all secondary causes,
that his head should be cut off. That, then, which gives any action a
futurition is that determinate cause wherein it may be known, whereof we
speak. Thus it may be said of the same thing that it is contingent and
determined, without the least appearance of contradiction, because it is
not spoken with respect to the same things or causes.
3. The determinate cause of continent things, that
is, things that are future (for every thing when it is, and as it
is, is necessary), is the
will of God himself concerning their existence and being; either by his
efficiency and working, as all good things in every kind (that is, that are
either morally or physically so, in which latter sense all the actions of
men, as actions, are so); or by his permission, which is the condition of
things morally evil, or of the irregularity and obliquity attending those
actions, upon the account of their relation to a law, which in themselves
are entitative and physically good, as the things were which God at first
created. Whether any thing come to pass beside the
will of God and contrary to his purpose will not be disputed with any
advantage of glory to God or honour to them that shall assert it. That in all events the will of God is fulfilled is a
common notion of all rational creatures. So the accomplishment of his
“determinate counsel” is affirmed by the apostle in the issue of that
mysterious dispensation of the crucifying of his Son. That of James iv. 15, Ἐὰν ὁ Κύριος θελήσῃ, intimates God’s will to be
extended to all actions, as actions, whatever. Thus God knew before the
world was made, or any thing that is in it, that there would be such a
world and such things in it; yet than the making of the world nothing was
more free or contingent. God is not a necessary agent as to any of the works
that outwardly are of him. Whence, then, did God know this? Was it not
from his own decree and eternal purpose that such a world there should be?
And if the knowledge of one contingent thing be from hence, why not of all?
In brief, these future contingencies depend on something for their
existence, or they come forth into the world in their own strength and upon
their own account, not depending on any other. If the latter, they are
God; if the former, the will of God or old Fortune must be the principle on
which they do depend.
4. God can work with contingent causes for the
accomplishment of his own will and purposes, without the least prejudice to
them, either as causes or as free and contingent. God moves not, works
not, in or with any second causes, to the producing of any effect contrary
or not agreeable to their own natures. Notwithstanding any predetermination
or operation of God, the wills of men, in the production of every one of
their actions, are at as perfect liberty as a cause in dependence of
another is capable of. To say it is not in dependence is atheism. The
purpose of God, the counsel of his will, concerning any thing as to its
existence, gives a necessity of infallibility to the event, but changes not
the manner of the second cause’s operation, be [it] what it will. That God cannot accomplish and bring about his own
purposes by free and contingent agents, without the destruction of the
natures he hath endued them withal, is a figment unworthy the thoughts of
any who indeed acknowledge his sovereignty and power.
5. The reason why Mr B.’s
companions in his undertaking, as others that went before him of the same
mind, do deny this foreknowledge of God, they express on all occasions to
be that the granting of it is prejudicial to that absolutely independent
liberty of will which God assigns to men: so Socinus pleads, Prælect. Theol. cap. viii.; thus far, I confess, more
accurately than the Arminians. These pretend
(some of them, at least) to grant the prescience of God, but yet deny his
determinate decrees and purposes, on the same pretence that the others do
his prescience, namely, of their prejudicialness to the free-will of man.
Socinus discourses (which was no
difficult task) that the foreknowledge of God is as inconsistent with that
independent liberty of will and contingency which he and they had fancied
as the predetermination of his will; and therefore rejects the former as
well as the latter. It was Augustine’s complaint of old concerning Cicero, that “ita fecit homines liberos, ut fecit etiam
sacrilegos.” Cicero was a mere Pagan, and surely our complaint against any that shall close with him in this attempt, under the
name of a “mere Christian,” will not be less just than that of Augustine. For mine own part, I
am fully resolved that all the liberty and freedom that, as creatures, we
are capable of is eminently consistent with God’s absolute decrees and
infallible foreknowledge; and if I should hesitate in the apprehension
thereof, I had rather ten thousand times deny our wills to be free than God
to be omniscient, the sovereign disposer of all men, their actions, and
concernments, or say that any thing comes to pass without, against, or
contrary to the counsel of his will. But we know, through the goodness of
God, that these things have their consistency, and that God may have
preserved to him the glory of his infinite perfection, and the will of man
not at all be abridged of its due and proper liberty.
These things being premised, the proof and demonstration of
the truth proposed lies ready at hand in the ensuing particulars:—
1. He who knows all things knows the things that
are future, though contingent. In saying they are things future and contingent,
you grant them to be among the number of things, as you do those which you
call things past; but that God knows all things hath already been
abundantly confirmed out of Scripture. Let the reader look back on some of
the many texts and places by which I gave answer to the query about the
foreknowledge of God, and he will find abundantly enough for his
satisfaction, if he be of those that would be satisfied, and dares not
carelessly make bold to trample upon the perfections of God. Take some few
of them to a review: 1 John iii.
20, “God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.”
Even we know things past and present. If God knows only things of the same
kind, his knowledge may be greater than ours by many degrees, but you
cannot say his understanding is infinite; there is not, on that
supposition, an infinite distance between his knowledge and ours, but they
stand in some measurable proportion. Heb. iv.
13, “All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with
whom we have to do.” “Not that which is to come, not the free actions of
men that are future,” saith Mr B. But to
distinguish thus when the Scripture doth not distinguish, and that to the
great dishonour of God, is not to interpret the word, but to deny it,
Acts xv. 8, “Known unto
God are all his works from the beginning of the world.” I ask, whether God
hath any thing to do in the free actions of men? For instance, had he any
thing to do in the sending of Joseph into Egypt, his exaltation there, and
the entertainment of his father’s household afterward by him in his
greatness and power? all which were brought about by innumerable
contingencies and free actions of men. If he had not, why should we any
longer depend on him, or regard him in the several transactions and
concernments of our lives?
“Nullum numen abest, si sit prudentia:
nos te,
Nos facimus, Fortuna, Deam.”
If he had to do with it, as Joseph thought he had, when he
affirmed plainly that” God sent him thither, and made him a father to
Pharaoh and his house.,” Gen. xlv.
5–8, then the whole was known to God before, for “Known unto God
are all his works from the beginning of the world.” And if God may know
any one free action beforehand, he may know all, for there is the same
reason of them all. Their contingency is given as the only cause why they
may not be known, Now, every action that is contingent is equally
interested therein. “A quatenus ad omne
valet argumentum.” That place of the psalm before recited,
Ps. cxxxix. 2–6, is express as to
the knowledge of God concerning our free actions that are yet future. If
any thing in the world may be reckoned amongst our free actions, surely our
thoughts may; and such a close reserved treasure are they that Mr B. doth more than insinuate, in the
application of the texts of Scripture which he mentioneth, that God knoweth
them not when present without search and inquiry. But these, saith the
psalmist, “God knoweth afar off,” — before we think them, before they enter
into our hearts. And truly I marvel that any man, not wholly given up to a
spirit of giddiness, after he had produced this text of Scripture to prove
that God knows our thoughts, should instantly subjoin a question leading
men to a persuasion that God knows not our free actions that are future;
unless it was with a Julian design, to impair the credit of the word of
God, by pretending it liable to self-contradiction, or, with Lucian, to
deride God as bearing contrary testimonies concerning himself.
2. God hath, by himself and his holy prophets, which have
been from the foundation of the world, foretold many of the free actions of
men, what they would do, what they should do, long before they were born
who were to do them. To
give a little light to this argument, which of itself will easily overwhelm
all that stands before it, I shall handle it under these
propositions:— (1.) That God hath so foretold the free actions of men.
(2.) That so he could not do unless he knew them, and that they would be,
then when he foretold them. (3.) That he proves himself to be God by these
his predictions. (4.) That he foretells them as the means of executing
many of his judgments which he hath purposed and threatened, and the
accomplishment of many mercies which he hath promised, so that the denial
of his foresight of them so exempts them from under his providence as to
infer that he rules not in the world by punishments and rewards.
For the first:— (1.) There needs no great search or inquiry
after witnesses to confirm the truth of it; the Scripture is full of such
predictions from one end to the other. Some few instances shall suffice:
Gen.
xviii. 18, 19, “Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great
and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in
him; for I know him, that he will command his children and his household
after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord,
to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring
upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.” Scarce a word but is
expressive of some future contingent thing, if the free actions of men be
so before they are wrought. That “Abraham should become a mighty nation,”
that “all the nations of the earth should be blessed in him,” that he would
“command his children and his household after him to keep the ways of the
Lord,” it was all to be brought about by the free
actions of Abraham and of others; and all this “I know,” saith the Lord,
and accordingly declares it. By the way, if the Lord knew all this before,
his following trial of Abraham was not to satisfy himself whether he feared
him or no, as is pretended.
So also Gen.
xv. 13, 14, “And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy
seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve
them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; and also that nation,
whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with
great substance.” The Egyptians’ affliction on the Israelites was by their
free actions, if any be free. It was their sin to do it; they sinned in
all that they did for the effecting of it. And, doubtless, if any men’s
sinful actions are free, yet doth God here foretell “They shall afflict
them.”
Deut. xxxi. 16–18, you have an
instance beyond all possible exception: “And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy
fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of
the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will
forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them. Then my
anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them,
and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many
evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day,
Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among
us?” etc. The sum of a good part of what is recorded in the Book of Judges
is here foretold by God. The people’s going a whoring after the gods of
the strangers of the land, their forsaking of God, their breaking his
covenant, the thoughts of their hearts and their expressions upon the
consideration of the evils and afflictions that should befall them, were of
their free actions; but now all these doth God here foretell, and thereby
engages the honour of his truth unto the certainty of their coming to
pass.
1 Kings xiii.
2 is signal to the same purpose: “O altar, altar, behold, a
child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee
shall he offer the priests of the high places that bum incense upon thee,
and men’s bones shall be burnt upon then” This prediction is given out
three hundred years before the birth of Josiah. The accomplishment of it
you have in the story, 2 Kings xxiii.
17. Did Josiah act freely? was his proceeding at Bethel by free
actions, or no? If not, how shall we know what actions of men are free,
what not? If it was, his free actions are here foretold, and therefore, I
think, foreseen.
1 Kings xxii.
28, the prophet Micaiah, in the name of the Lord, having
foretold a thing that was contingent, and which was accomplished by a man
acting at a venture, lays the credit of his prophecy (and therein his life,
for if he had proved false as to the event he was to have suffered death by
the law) at stake, before all the people, upon the certainty of the issue
foretold: “And Micaiah said, If thou return at all in peace, the Lord hath not spoken by me. And he said, Hearken, O
people, every one of you.”
Of these predictions the Scripture is full. The prophecies
of Cyrus in Isaiah, of the issue of the Babylonish war and kingdom of Judah
in Jeremiah, of the several great alterations and changes in the empires of
the world in Daniel, of the kingdom of Christ in them all, are too long to
be insisted on. The reader may also consult Matt. xxiv.
5; Mark xiii. 6, xiv.
30; Acts xx.
29; 2
Thess. ii. 3, 4, etc.; 1 Tim. iv.
1; 2 Tim. iii.
1; 2 Pet. ii. 1; and the Revelation
almost throughout. Our first proposition, then, is undeniably evident,
That God, by himself and by his prophets, hath foretold things future, even
the free actions of men.
(2.) The second proposition mentioned is manifest and
evident in its own light: What God foretelleth, that he perfectly
foreknows. The honour and repute of his veracity and truth, yea, of his
being, depend on the certain accomplishment of what he absolutely
foretells. If his predictions of things future are not bottomed on his
certain prescience of them, they are all but like Satan’s oracles,
conjectures and guesses of what may be accomplished or not, — a supposition
whereof is as high a pitch of blasphemy as any creature in this world can
possibly arrive unto.
(3.) By this prerogative of certain predictions in
reference to things to come, God vindicates his own deity; and
from the want of it evinces the vanity of the idols of the Gentiles, and
the falseness of the prophets that pretend to speak in his name: Isa. xli. 21–24, “Produce your
cause, saith the Lord; bring forth your strong
reasons, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and show us
what shall happen: let them show the former things, what they be; or
declare us things for to come. Show the things that are to come hereafter,
that we may know that ye are gods. Behold, ye are of nothing.” The Lord
calling forth the idols of the Gentiles, devils, stocks, and stones, to
plead for themselves, before the denunciation of the solemn sentence
ensuing, verse 24, he puts them to the plea of
foreknowledge for the proof of their deity. If they can foretell things to
come certainly and infallibly, on the account of their own κνοὤεδγε of them, gods they are, and gods they shall
be esteemed. If not, saith he, “Ye are nothing, worse than nothing, and
your work of nought; an abomination is he that chooseth you.” And it may
particularly be remarked, that the idols of whom he speaketh are in
especial those of the Chaldeans, whose worshippers pretended above all men
in the world to divination and predictions. Now, this issue doth the Lord
drive things to betwixt himself and the idols of the world: If they can
foretell things to come, that is, not this or that thing (for so, by
conjecture, upon consideration of second causes and the general
dispositions of things, they may do, and the devil hath done), but any
thing or every thing, they shall go free; that is, “Is there nothing hid
from you that is yet for to be?” Being not able to stand before this
interrogation, they perish before the judgment mentioned. But now, if it
may be replied to the living God himself that this is a most unequal way of
proceeding, to lay that burden upon the shoulders of others which himself
will not bear, bring others to that trial which himself cannot undergo, for
he himself cannot foretell the free actions of men, because he doth not
foreknow them, would not his plea render him like to the idols whom he
adjudgeth to shame and confusion? God himself there, concluding that they
are “vanity and nothing” who are pretended to be gods but are not able to
foretell the things that are for to come, asserts his own deity, upon the
account of his infinite understanding and knowledge of all things, on the
account whereof he can foreshow all things whatever that are as yet future.
In like manner doth he proceed to evince what is from himself, what not,
in the predictions of any, from the certainty of the event: Deut. xviii. 21, 22, “If thou say
in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the
name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come
to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not
spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be
afraid of him.”
(4.) The fourth proposition, That God by the
free actions of men (some whereof he foretelleth) doth fulfil his own
counsel as to judgments and mercies, rewards and punishments, needs no
farther proof or confirmation but what will arise from a mere review of the
things before mentioned, by God so foretold, as was to be proved. They
were things of the greatest import in the world, as to the good or evil of
the inhabitants thereof, and in whose accomplishment as much of the wisdom,
power, righteousness, and mercy of God was manifest, as in any of the works
of his providence whatever. Those things which he hath [so] disposed of as
to be subservient to so great ends, certainly he knew that they would be.
The selling of Joseph, the crucifying of his Son, the destruction of
antichrist, are things of greater concernment than that God should only
conjecture at their event. And, indeed, the taking away of God’s
foreknowledge of things contingent renders his providence useless as to the
government of the world. To what end should any rely upon him, seek unto
him, commit themselves to his care through the course of their lives, when
he knows not what will or may befall them the next day? How shall he judge
or rule the world who every moment is surprised with new emergencies which
he foresaw not, which must necessitate him to new counsels and
determinations? On the consideration of this argument doth Episcopius conclude for the prescience of
God, Ep. ii., “ad Beverovicium de termino vitæ,” which he had
allowed to be questioned in his private Theological Disputations, though in his
public afterward he pleads for it. The sum of the argument insisted on
amounts to this:—
Those things which God foretells that they shall certainly
and infallibly come to pass before they so do, those he certainly and
infallibly knoweth whilst they are future, and that they will come to pass;
but God foretells, and hath foretold, all manner of future contingencies
and free actions of men, good and evil, duties and sins: therefore he
certainly and infallibly knows them whilst they are yet future.
The proposition stands or falls unto the honour of God’s
truth, veracity, and power.
The assumption is proved by the former and sundry other
instances that may be given.
He foretold that the Egyptians should afflict his people
four hundred years, that in so doing they would sin, and that
for it he would punish them, Gen.
xv. 13, 14; and surely the Egyptians’ sinning therein was their
own free action. The incredulity of the Jews, treachery of Judas, calling
of the Gentiles, all that happened to Christ in the days of his flesh, the
coming of antichrist, the rise of false teachers, were all foretold, and
did all of them purely depend on the free actions of men; which was to be
demonstrated.
3. To omit many other arguments, and to close this
discourse: all perfections are to be ascribed to God; they are all in him.
To know is an excellency; he that knows any thing is therein better than he
that knows it not. The more any one knows, the more excellent is he. To
know all things is an absolute perfection in the good of knowledge; to know
them in and by himself who so knows them, and not from any discourses made
to him from without, is an absolute perfection in itself, and is required
where there is infinite wisdom and understanding. This we ascribe to God,
as worthy of him, and as by himself ascribed to himself. To affirm, on the
other side, — (1.) That God hath his knowledge from things without him, and
so is taught wisdom and understanding, as we are, from the event of things,
for the more any one knows the wiser he is; (2.) That he hath, as we have,
a successive knowledge of things, knowing that one day which he knew not
another, and that thereupon there is, — (3.) A daily and hourly change and
alteration in him, as, from the increasing of his knowledge there must
actually and formally be; and, (4.) That he sits conjecturing at events; —
to assert, I say, these and the like monstrous figments concerning God and
his knowledge, is, as much as in them lieth who so assert them, to shut his
providence out of the world, and to divest him of all his blessedness,
self-sufficiency, and infinite perfections. And, indeed, if Mr B. believe his own principles, and would
speak out, he must assert these things, how desperate soever; for having
granted the premises, it is stupidity to stick at the conclusion. And
therefore some of those whom Mr B. is
pleased to follow in these wild vagaries speak out, and say (though with as
much blasphemy as confidence) that God doth only conjecture and guess at
future contingents; for when this argument is brought, Gen. xviii. 19, “ ‘I know,’ saith
God, ‘Abraham, that he will command his children and his household after
him,’ etc., therefore future contingents may be certainly known of him,”
they deny the consequence; or, granting that he may be said to know them,
yet say it is only by guess and conjecture, as we do. And for the present vindication of the
attributes of God this may suffice.
Before I close this discourse, it may not be
impertinent to divert a little to that which alone seems to be of any
difficulty lying in our way in the assertion of this prescience of God,
though no occasion of its consideration be administered to us by him with
whom we have to do.
“That future contingents have not in themselves a
determinate truth, and therefore cannot be determinately known,” is
the great plea of those who oppose God’s certain foreknowledge of them;
“and therefore,” say they, “doth the philosopher affirm that propositions
concerning them are neither true nor false.”
But, —
1. That there is, or may be, that there hath been, a
certain prediction of future contingents hath been demonstrated;
and therefore they must on some account or other (and what that account is
hath been declared) have a determinate truth. And I had much rather
conclude that there are certain predictions of future contingents in the
Scripture, and therefore they have a determinate truth, than, on the
contrary, they have no determinate truth, therefore there are no certain
predictions of them. “Let God be true, and every man a liar.”
2. As to the falsity of that pretended axiom, this
proposition, “Such a soldier shall pierce the side of Christ with a spear,
or he shall not pierce him,” is determinately true and necessary on the one
side or the other, the parts of it being contradictory, which cannot lie
together. Therefore, if a man before the flood had used this proposition
in the affirmative, it had been certainly and determinately true; for that
proposition which was once not true cannot be true afterward upon the same
account.
3. If no affirmative proposition about future contingents
be determinately true, then every such affirmative proposition is
determinately false; for from hence, that a thing is or is not, is a
proposition determinately true or false. And therefore if any one shall say that
that is determinately future which is absolutely indifferent, his
affirmation is false; which is contrary to Aristotle, whom in this they
rely upon, who affirms that such propositions are neither true nor false.
The truth is, of propositions that they are true or false is certain.
Truth or falseness are their proper and necessary affections, as even and
odd of numbers; nor can any proposition be given wherein there is a
contradiction, whereof one part is true and the other false.
4. This proposition, “Petrus orat,” is determinately true de præsenti, when Peter doth actually pray (for
“quicquid est, dum est, determinate
est”); therefore this proposition de
future, “Petrus orabit,” is
determinately true. The former is the measure and rule by
which we judge of the latter. So that because it is true de presenti,
“Petrus orat;” ergo this, de
futuro, “Petrus orabit,” was
ab æterno true (ex parte rei). And then (ex parte modi) because this proposition, “Petrus orat,” is determinately true de præsenti; ergo this, “Petrus orabit,” was determinately true from all
eternity. But enough of this.
Mr B. having made a sad
complaint of the ignorance and darkness that men were bred up in by being
led from the Scripture, and imposing himself upon them for “a guide of the
blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish,
and a teacher of babes,” doth, in pursuit of his great undertaking, in this
chapter instruct them what the Scripture speaks concerning the being,
nature, and properties of God. Of his goodness, wisdom, power, truth,
righteousness, faithfulness, mercy, independency, sovereignty,
infiniteness, men had before been informed by books, tracts, and
catechisms, “composed according to the fancies and interests of men, the
Scripture being utterly justled out of the way.” Alas! of these things the
Scripture speaks not at all; but the description wherein that abounds of
God, and which is necessary that men should know (whatever become of those
other inconsiderable things wherewith other poor catechisms are stuffed),
is, that he is finite, limited, and obnoxious to passions, etc. “Thou that
abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?”
Chapter VI.
Of the creation, and condition of man before and after the
fall.
Mr Biddle’s third chapter.
Ques. Were the heaven and earth from all eternity, or created
at a certain time? and by whom?
Ans. Gen. i.
1.
Q. How long was God a making them?
A. Exod. xx.
11.
Q. How did God create man?
A. Gen. ii. 7.
Q. How did he create woman?
A. Gen. ii.
21, 22.
Q. Why was she called woman?
A. Gen.
ii.23.
Q. What doth Moses infer from her being made a woman, and
brought unto the man?
A. Gen. ii.
24.
Q. Where did God put man after he was created?
A. Gen. ii. 8.
Q. What commandment gave he to the man when he
put him into the garden?
A. Gen. ii.
16, 17.
Q. Was the man deceived to eat of the forbidden fruit?
A. 1 Tim. ii.
14.
Q. By whom was the woman deceived?
A. 2 Cor. xi.
9.
Q. How was the woman induced to eat of the forbidden fruit?
and how the man?
A. Gen. iii. 6.
Q. What effect followed upon their eating?
A. Gen. iii. 7.
Q. Did the sin of our first parents in eating of the forbidden
fruit bring both upon them and their posterity the guilt of hell-fire,
deface the image of God in them, darken their understanding, enslave their
will, deprive them of power to do good, and cause mortality? If not, what
are the true penalties that God denounced against them for the said
offence?
A. Gen. iii.
16–19.
Examination.
Having delivered his thoughts concerning God himself, his
nature and properties, in the foregoing chapters, in this our catechist
proceeds to the consideration of his works, ascribing to God the creation
of all things, especially insisting on the making of man. Now, although
many questions might be proposed from which Mr
B. would, I suppose, be scarcely able to extricate himself, relating
to the impossibility of the proceeding of such a work as the creation of
all things from such an agent as he hath described God to be, so limited
both in his essence and properties, yet it being no part of my business to
dispute or perplex any thing that is simply in itself true and
unquestionable, with the attendancies of it from other corrupt notions of
him or them by whom it is received and proposed, I shall wholly omit all
considerations of that nature, and apply myself merely to what is by him
expressed. That he who is limited and finite in essence, and
consequently in properties, should by his power, without the help
of any intervening instrument, out of nothing, produce, at such a vast
distance from him as his hands can by no means reach unto, such mighty
effects as the earth itself and the fulness thereof, is not of an easy
proof or resolution. But on these things at present I shall not insist.
Certain it is that, on this apprehension of God, the Epicureans disputed
for the impassibility of the creation of the world.
His first question, then, is, “Were the heaven and earth
from all eternity, or created at a certain time? and by whom?” To which he
answers with Gen. i. 1, “In the beginning God
created the heaven and the earth.”
Right. Only in the exposition of this verse,
as it discovers the principal efficient cause of the creation of all
things, or the author of this great work, Mr
B. afterward expounds himself to differ from us and the word of God
in other places. By “God” he intends the Father only and exclusively, the
Scripture plentifully ascribing this work also to the Son and Holy Ghost,
manifesting their concurrence in the indivisible Deity unto this great
work, though, by way of eminency, this work be attributed to the Father, as
that of redemption is to the Son, and that of regeneration to the Holy
Ghost, from neither of which notwithstanding is the Father excluded.
Perhaps the using of the name of God in the plural number,
where mention is made of the creation, in conjunction with a verb singular,
Gen. i. 1, and the express calling of
God our Creators and Makers, Eccles. xii.
1, Ps. cxlix. 2, Job
xxxv. 10, wants not a significancy to this thing. And indeed he that shall consider the miserable
evasions that the adversaries have invented to escape the argument thence
commonly insisted on must needs be confirmed in the persuasion of the force
of it. Mr B. may haply close with Plato in this
business, who, in his “Timæus,” brings in his δημιουργός speaking to his genii about the making of
man, telling them that they were mortal, but encouraging them to obey him
in the making of other creatures, upon the promise of immortality. “Turn
you,” saith he, “according to the law of nature, to the making of living
creatures, and imitate my power which I used in your generation or
birth;” — a speech fit enough for Mr B.’s god, “who is shut up in heaven,” and
not able of himself to attend his whole business. But what a sad success
this demiurgus had, by his want of prescience, or foresight of what his
demons would do (wherein also Mr B.
likens God unto him), is farther declared; for they imprudently causing a
conflux of too much matter and humour, no small tumult followed thereon in
heaven, as at large you may see in the same author. However, it is said
expressly the Son or Word created all things, John i.
3; and, “By him are all things,” 1 Cor. viii.
6, Rev. iv. 11. Of the Holy Ghost the
same is alarmed, Gen. i. 2, Job xxvi.
13, Ps. xxxiii.
6. Nor can the Word and Spirit be degraded from the place of
principal efficient cause in this work to a condition of
instrumentality only, which is urged (especially in reference to
the Spirit), unless we shall suppose them to have been created
before say creation, sad to have been instrumental of their own production.
But of these things in their proper place.
His second question is, “How long was God in making them?”
and he answers from Exod. xx.
11, “In six days the Lord made heaven
and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.”
The rule I formerly prescribed to myself of dealing with
Mr B. causes me to pass this question
also without farther inquiry; although, having already considered what his
notions are concerning the nature and properties of God, I can scarce avoid
conjecturing that by this crude proposal of the time wherein the work of
God’s creation was finished, there is an intendment to insinuate such a
gross conception of the working of God as will By no means be suited to his
omnipotent production of all things. But speaking of things no farther
than enforced, I shall not insist on this query.
His third is, “How did God create man?” and the answer is,
Gen. ii. 7. To which he adds a fourth,
“How did he create woman?” which he resolves from Gen. ii. 21, 22.
Mr B., undertaking to
give all the grounds of religion in his Catechisms, teacheth as well by his
silence as his expressions. What he mentions not, in the known doctrine he
opposeth, he may well be interpreted to reject. As to the matter whereof
man sad woman were made, Mr B.’s answers
do express it; but as to the condition and state wherein they were made, of
that he is silent, though he knows the Scripture doth much more abound in
delivering the one than the other. Neither can his silence in this thing
be imputed to oversight or forgetfulness, considering how subservient it is
to his intendment in his last two questions, for the subverting of the
doctrine of original sin, and the denial of all those effects and
consequences of the first breach of covenant whereof he speaks. He can,
upon another account, take notice that man was made in the imago of God:
but whereas hitherto Christians have supposed that that denoted some
spiritual perfection bestowed on man, wherein he resembles God,
Mr B. hath discovered that it is only an
expression of some imperfection of God, wherein he resembles man;
which yet he will as hardly persuade us of as that a man hath seven eyes or
two wings, which are ascribed unto God also. That man was created in a
resemblance and likeness unto God in that immortal substance breathed into
his nostrils, Gen. ii. 7, in the excellent rational
faculties thereof, in the dominion he was intrusted withal over a great
part of God’s creation, but especially in the integrity and uprightness of
his person, Eccles. vii.
29, wherein he stood before God, in reference to the obedience
required at his hands, — which condition, by the implanting of new
qualities in our soul, we are, through Christ, in some measure renewed
unto, Col. iii.
10, 12, Eph. iv.
24, — the Scripture is clear, evident, and full in
the discovery of; but hereof Mr B.
conceive, not himself bound to take notice. But what is farther needful to
be spoken as to the state of man before the fall will fall under the
consideration of the last question of this chapter.
Mr B.’s process in the
following questions is, to express the story of man’s outward condition,
unto the eighth, where he inquires after the commandment given of God to
man when he put him into the garden, in these words:— “Q. What commandment
gave he to the man when he put him into the garden?” This he resolves from
Gen. ii. 16, 17. That God gave our
first parents the command expressed is undeniable. That the matter chiefly
expressed in that command was all or the principal part of what he required
of them, Mr B. doth not go about to
prove. I shall only desire to know of him whether God did not in that
estate require of them that they should love him, fear him, believe him,
acknowledge their dependence on him, in universal obedience to his will?
and whether a suitableness unto all this duty were not wrought within them
by God? If he shall say No, and that God required no more of them but only
not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, I desire to know
whether they might have hated God, abhorred him, believed Satan, and yet
been free from the threatening here mentioned, if they had only forbore the
outward eating of the fruit? If this shall be granted, I hope I need not
insist to manifest what will easily be inferred, nor to show how impossible
this is, God continuing God, and man a rational creature. If he shall say
that certainly God did require that they should own him for God, — that is,
believe him, love him, fear him, and worship him, according to all that he
should reveal to them and require of them, — I desire to know whether this
particular command could be any other than sacramental and symbolical as to
the matter of it, being a thing of so small importance in its own nature,
in comparison of those moral acknowledgments of God before mentioned; and
to that question I shall not need to add more.
Although it may justly be supposed that Mr B. is not without some thoughts of deviation
from the truth in the following questions, yet the last being of most
importance, and he being express therein in denying all the effects of the
first sin, but only the curse that came upon the outward, visible world, I
shall insist only on that, and close our consideration of this chapter.
His question is thus proposed: “Q. Did the sin of our first parents in
eating of the forbidden fruit bring both upon them and their posterity the
guilt of hell-fire, deface the image of God in them, darken their
understandings, enslave their wills, deprive them of power to do good, and
cause mortality? If not, what are the true penalties denounced against
them for that offence?” To this he answers from Gen. iii. 16–19.
What the sin of our first parents was may
easily be discovered from what was said before concerning the commandment
given to them. If universal obedience was required of them unto God,
according to the tenor of the law of their creation, their sin was an
universal rebellion against and apostasy from him; which though it
expressed itself in the peculiar transgression of that command mentioned,
yet it is far from being reducible to any one kind of sin, whose whole
nature is comprised in that expression. Of the effects of this sin
commonly assigned, Mr B. annumerates and
rejects six, sundry whereof are coincident with, and all but one reducible
to, that general head of loss of the image of God; but for the exclusion of
them all at once from being any effects of the first sin, Mr B. thus argues: “If there were no effects or
consequences of the first sin but what are expressly mentioned, Gen. iii. 16–19, then those now
mentioned are no effects of it; but there are no effects or consequences of
that first sin but what are mentioned in that place:” therefore those
recounted in his query, and commonly esteemed such, are to be cashiered
from any such place in the thoughts of men.
Ans. The words insisted on by Mr B. being expressive of the curse of God for sin on man, and
on the whole creation here below for his sake, it will not be easy for him
to evince that none of the things he rejects are not eminently inwrapped in
them. Would God have denounced and actually inflicted such a curse on the
whole creation, which he had put in subjection to man, as well as upon man
himself, and actually have inflicted it with so much dread and severity as
he hath done, if the transgression upon the account whereof he did it had
not been as universal a rebellion against him as could be fallen into? Man
fell in his whole dependence from God, and is cursed universally, in all
his concernments, spiritual and temporal.
But is this indeed the only place of Scripture where the
effects of our apostasy from God, in the sin of our first parents, are
described Mr B. may as well tell us that
Gen. iii. 15 is the only place where
mention is made of Jesus Christ, for there he is mentioned. But a little
to clear this whole matter in our passage, though what hath been spoken may
suffice to make naked Mr B.’s
sophistry:—
1. By the effects of the first sin, we understand every
thing of evil that, either within or without, in respect of a present or
future condition, in reference to God and the fruition of him whereto man
was created, or the enjoyment of any goodness from God, is come upon
mankind, by the just ordination and appointment of God, whereunto man was
not obnoxious in his primitive state and condition. I am not at present at
all engaged to speak de modo,
of what is privative, what positive, in original sin, of
the way of the traduction or propagation of it, of the imputation of the
guilt of the first sin, and adhesion of the pollution of our nature defiled
thereby, or any other questions that are coincident with these
in the usual inquest made into and after the sin of Adam and the fruits of
it; but only as to the things themselves, which are here wholly denied.
Now, —
2. That whatsoever is evil in man by nature, whatever he is
obnoxious and liable unto that is hurtful and destructive to him and all
men in common, in reference to the end whereto they were created, or any
title wherewith they were at first intrusted, is all wholly the effect of
the first sin, and is in solidum to be ascribed thereunto, is
easily demonstrated; for, —
(1.) That which is common to all things in any kind, and is
proper to them only of that kind, must needs have some common cause equally
respecting the whole kind: but now of the evils that are common to all
mankind, and peculiar or proper to them and every one of them, there can be
no cause but that which equally concerns them all; which, by the testimony
of God himself, was this fall of Adam, Rom. v. 12,
15–19.
(2.) The evils that are now incumbent upon men in their
natural condition (which what they are shall be afterward considered) were
either incumbent on them at their first creation, before the sin and fall
of our first parents, or they are come upon them since, through some
interposing cause or occasion. That they were not in them or on them, that
they were not liable or obnoxious to those evils which are now incumbent on
them, in their first creation, as they came forth from the hand of God
(besides what was said before of the state and condition wherein man was
created, even “upright” in the Sight of God, in his favour and acceptation,
no way obnoxious to his anger and wrath), is evident by the light of this
one consideration, namely, that there was nothing in man nor belonging to
him, no respect, no regard or relation, but what was purely and immediately
of the holy God’s creation and institution. Now, it is contrary to all
that he hath revealed or made known to us of himself, that he should be the
immediate author of so much evil as is now, by his own testimony, in man by
nature, and, without any occasion, of so much vanity and misery as he is
subject unto; and, besides, directly thwarting the testimony which he gave
of all the works of his hands, that they were exceeding good, it being
evident that man, in the condition whereof we speak, is exceeding evil.
3. If all the evil mentioned hath since befallen mankind,
then it hath done so either by some chance and accident whereof God was not
aware, or by his righteous judgment and appointment, in reference to some
procuring and justly-deserving cause of such a punishment. To affirm the
first, is upon the matter to deny him to be God; and I doubt not but that
men at as easy and cheap a rate of sin may deny that there is a God, as,
confessing his divine essence, to turn it into an idol, and by making thick
clouds, as Job speaks, to interpose between him and the
affairs of the world, to exclude his energetical providence in the disposal
of all the works of his hands. If the latter be affirmed, I ask, as
before, what other common cause, wherein all and every one of mankind is
equally concerned, can be assigned of the evils mentioned, as the
procurement of the wrath and vengeance of God, from whence they are, but
only the fall of Adam, the sin of our first parents, especially considering
that the Holy Ghost doth so expressly point out this fountain and source of
the evils insisted on, Rom. v. 12,
15–19?
4. These things, then, being premised, it will quickly
appear that every one of the particulars rejected by Mr B. from being fruits or effects of the first sin are indeed
the proper issues of it; and though Mr B.
cut the roll of the abominations and corruptions of the nature of man by
sin, and cast it into the fire, yet we may easily write it again, and add
many more words of the like importance.
The first effect or fruit of the first sin rejected by
Mr B. is, “its rendering men guilty of
hell-fire;” but the Scripture seems to be of another mind, Rom. v. 12, “Wherefore, as by one man
sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all
men, for that all have sinned.” That all men sinned in Adam, that they
contracted the guilt of the same death with him, that death entered by sin,
the Holy Ghost is express in. The death here mentioned is that which God
threatened to Adam if he did transgress, Gen. ii.
17; which that it was not death temporal only, yea not at all,
Mr B. contends by denying mortality to be
a fruit of this sin, as also excluding in this very query all room for
death spiritual, which consists in the defacing of the image of God in us,
which he with this rejects: and what death remains but that which hath hell
following after it we shall afterward consider.
Besides, that death which Christ died to deliver us from
was that which we were obnoxious to upon the account of the first sin; for
he came to “save that which was lost,” and tasted death to deliver us from
death, dying to “deliver them who through fear of death were all their
lifetime subject to bondage,” Heb. ii.
15. But that this was such a death as hath hell-fire attending
it, he manifests by affirming that he “delivers us from the wrath to come.”
By “hell-fire” we understand nothing but the “wrath of God” for sin; into
whose hands it is a fearful thing to fall, our God being a consuming fire.
That the guilt of every sin is this death whereof we speak, that hath both
curse and wrath attending it, and that it is the proper “wages of sin,” the
testimony of God is evident, Rom. vi.
23. What other death men are obnoxious to on the account of the
first sin, that hath not these concomitants, Mr
B. hath not as yet revealed. “By nature,” also, we are “children of
wrath,” Eph. ii. 3. And on what foot of
account our obnoxiousness now by nature unto wrath is to be stated, is
sufficiently evident by the light of the preceding considerations.
The “defacing of the image of God in us” by
this sin, as it is usually asserted, is in the next place denied. That man
was created in the image of God, and wherein that image of God doth
consist, were before declared. That we are now born with that character
upon us, as it was at first enstamped upon us, must be affirmed, or some
common cause of the defect that is in us, wherein all and every one of the
posterity of Adam are equally concerned, besides that of the first sin, is
to be assigned. That this latter cannot be done hath been already
declared. He that shall undertake to make good the former must engage in a
more difficult work than Mr B., in the
midst of his other employments, is willing to undertake. To insist on all
particulars relating to the image of God in man, how far it is defaced,
whether any thing properly and directly thereunto belonging be yet left
remaining in us; to declare how far our souls, in respect of their immortal
substance, faculties, and consciences, and our persons, in respect of that
dominion over the creatures which yet, by God’s gracious and merciful
providence, we retain, may be said to bear the image of God, — is a work of
another nature than what I am now engaged in. For the asserting of what is
here denied by Mr B., concerning the
defacing of the image of God in us by sin, no more is required but only the
tender of some demonstrations to the main of our intendment in the
assertion touching the loss by the first sin, and our present want, in the
state of nature, of that righteousness and holiness wherein man at his
first creation stood before God (in reference unto the end whereunto he was
created), in uprightness and ability of walking unto all well-pleasing.
And as this will be fully manifested in the consideration of the ensuing
particulars instanced in by Mr B., so it
is sufficiently clear and evident from the renovation of that image which
we have by Jesus Christ; and that is expressed both in general and in all
the particulars wherein we affirm that image to be defaced. “The new man,”
which we put on in Jesus Christ, which “is renewed in knowledge after the
image of him that created him,” Col. iii.
10, is that which we want, by sin’s defacing (suo more)
of that image of God in us which we had in knowledge. So Eph. iv. 23, 24, that new man is said
to consist in the “renewing of our mind, whereby after God we are created
in righteousness and holiness.” So, then, whereas we were created in the
image of God, in righteousness and holiness, and are to be renewed again by
Christ into the same condition of his image in righteousness and holiness,
we doubt not to affirm that by the first sin (the only interposition of
general concernment to all the sons of men) the image of God in us was
exceedingly defaced. In sum, that which made us sinners brought sin and
death upon us; that which made us liable to condemnation, that defaced the
image of God in us; and that all this was done by the first sin the apostle
plainly asserts, Rom. v. 12,
15, 17–19, etc.
To the next particular effect of sin by Mr B. rejected, “the darkening of our
understandings,” I shall only inquire of him whether God made us at first
with our understandings dark and ignorant as to those things which are of
absolute necessity that we should be acquainted withal, for the attainment
of the end whereunto he made us? For once I will suppose he will not
affirm it; and shall therefore proceed one step farther, and ask him
whether there be not such a darkness now upon us by nature, opposed unto
that light, that spiritual and saving knowledge, which is of absolute
necessity for every one to have and be furnished withal that will again
attain that image of God which we are born short of. Now, because this is
that which will most probably be denied, I shall, by the way, only desire
him, —
1. To cast aside all the places of Scripture where it is
positively and punctually asserted that we are so dark and
blind, and darkness itself, in the things of God; and
then,
2. All those where it is no less punctually and positively
asserted that Christ gives us light, knowledge, understanding,
which of ourselves we have not. And if he be not able to do so, then,
3. To tell me whether the darkness mentioned in the former
places and innumerable others, and [of which mention is made], as to the
manner and cause of its removal and taking away, in the latter, be part of
that death which passed on all men “by the offence of one,” or by what
other chance it is come upon us.
Of the “enslaving of our wills, and the depriving us of
power to do good,” there is the same reason as of that next before. It is
not my purpose to handle the common-place of the corruption of nature by
sin: nor can I say that it is well for Mr
B. that he finds none of those effects of sin in himself, nothing of
darkness, bondage, or disability, or if he do, that he knows where to
charge it, and not on himself and the depravedness of his own nature; and
that because I know none who are more desperately sick than those who, by a
fever of pride, have lost the sense of their own miserable condition. Only
to stop him in his haste from rejecting the evils mentioned from being
effects or consequences of the first sin, I desire him to peruse a little
the ensuing scriptures; and I take them as they come to mind: Eph. ii. 1–3,
5; John v. 25; Matt.
viii. 22; Eph. v. 8;
Luke iv. 18; 2 Tim. ii. 25, 26; John viii. 34; Rom. vi. 16; Gen. vi.
5; Rom. vii. 5; John iii.
6; 1 Cor. ii.
14; Rom. iii.
12; Acts viii.
31; John v. 40; Rom. viii.
7; Jer. xiii.
23, etc.
The last thing denied is its “causing mortality.” God
threatening man with death if he sinned, Gen. ii.
17, seems to instruct us that if he had not sinned he should not
have died; and upon his sin, affirming that on that account he should be
dissolved and return to his dust, Gen. iii.
19, no less evidently convinces us that his sin
caused mortality actually and in the event. The apostle, also, affirming
that “death entered by sin, and passed upon all, inasmuch as all have
sinned,” seems to be of our mind. Neither can any other sufficient cause
be assigned on the account whereof innocent man should have been actually
mortal or eventually have died. Mr B.,
it seems, is of another persuasion, and, for the confirmation of his
judgment, gives you the words of the curse of God to man upon his sinning,
“Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return;” the strength of his
reason therein lying in this, that if God denounced the sentence of
mortality on man after sinning, and for his sin, then mortality was not an
effect of sin, but man was mortal before in the state of innocency. Who
doubts but that at this rate he may be able to prove what he pleases.
A brief declaration of our sense in ascribing
immortality to the first man in the state of innocency,
that none may be mistaken in the expressions used, may put a close to our
consideration of this chapter. In respect of his own essence and being, as
also of all outward and extrinsical causes, God alone is eminently and
perfectly immortal; he only in that sense hath “life and
immortality.” Angels and souls of men, immaterial
substances, are immortal as to their intrinsic essence, free from
principles of corruption and mortality; but yet are obnoxious to it in
respect of that outward cause (or the power of God), which can at any time
reduce them into nothing. The immortality we ascribe to man in innocency
is only an assured preservation by the power of God from actual dying,
notwithstanding the possibility thereof which he was in upon the account of
the constitution of his person, and the principles thereunto concurring.
So that though from his own nature he had a possibility of dying, and in
that sense was mortal, yet God’s institution assigning him life in the way
of obedience, he had a possibility of not dying, and was in that sense
immortal, as hath been declared. If any one desire farther satisfaction herein, let
him consult Johannes Junius’ answer
to Socinus’ Prelections, in the first chapter
whereof he pretends to answer in proof the assertion in title, “Primus homo ante lapsum natura mortalis
fuit;” wherein he partly mistakes the thing in question, which
respects not the constitution of man’s nature, but the event
of the condition wherein he was created, and himself in another place states it better.
The sum of the whole may be reduced to what follows:—
Simply and absolutely immortal is God only: “He only hath immortality,”
1 Tim. vi. 16. Immortal in respect of
its whole substance or essence is that which is separate from all matter,
which is the principle of corruption, as angels, or is not educed from the
power of it, whither of its own accord it should again resolve, as the
souls of men. The bodies also of the saints in heaven, yea, and of the
wicked in hell, shall be immortal, though in their own natures corruptible,
being changed and preserved by the power of God. Adam was mortal as to the
constitution of his body, which was apt to die; immortal in respect of his
soul in its own substance; immortal in their union by God’s appointment,
and from his preservation upon his continuance in obedience. By the
composition of his body before his fall, he had a posse mori; by the appointment of God, a
posse non mori; by his fall,
a non posse non mori.
In this estate, on his disobedience, he was threatened with
death; and therefore was obedience the tenure whereby he held his
grant of immortality, which on his neglect he was penally to be deprived
of. In that estate he had, — (1.) The immortality mentioned, or a power of
not dying, from the appointment of God; (2.) An uprightness and integrity
of his person before God, with an ability to walk with him in all the
obedience he required, being made in the image of God and upright; (3.) A
right, upon his abode in that condition, to an eternally blessed life;
which he should (4.) actually have enjoyed, for he had a pledge of it in
the” tree of life” He lost it for himself and us; which if he never had it
he could not do. The death wherewith he was threatened stood in opposition
to all these, it being most ridiculous to suppose that any thing penal in
the Scripture comes under the name of “death” that was not here threatened
to Adam; — death of the body, in a deprivation of his immortality
spoken of; of the soul spiritually, in sin, by the loss of his
righteousness and integrity; of both, in their obnoxiousness to death
eternal; actually to be undergone, without deliverance by Christ, in
opposition to the right to a better, a blessed condition, which he had.
That all these are penal, and called in the Scriptures by the name of
“death,” is evident to all that take care to know what is contained in
them.
For a close, then, of this chapter and discourse, let us
also propose a few questions as to the matter under consideration, and see
what answer the Scripture will positively give in to our inquiries:—
First, then, —
Ques. 1. In what state and condition was man at first
created?
Ans. “God created man in his own image, in the
image of God created he him; male and female created he them,” Gen. i. 27. “And God saw every thing
that he had made, and, behold, it was very good,” verse
31. “In the image of God made he man,” chap. ix.
6. “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright,” Eccles. vii.
29. “Put on the new man, which after God is created in
righteousness and true holiness,” Eph. iv.
24. “Put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the
image of him that created him,” Col. iii.
10.
Q. 2. Should our first parents have died had they not
sinned, or were they obnoxious to death in the state of innocency?
A. “And the Lord God commanded the
man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in
the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” Gen. ii. 16, 17. “By one man sin
entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men,
for that all have sinned,” Rom. v.
12. “For the wages of sin is death,” Rom. vi.
23.
Q. 3. Are we now, since the fall, born with the image
of God so enstamped on us as at our first creation in Adam?
A. “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God,”
Rom. iii. 23. “Lo, this only have I
found, that God hath made man uptight; but they have sought out many
inventions,” Eccles. vii.
29. “So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God,”
Rom. viii. 8. “And you who were dead in
trespasses and sins,” Eph. ii. 1.
“For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived,
serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and
hating one another,” Tit. iii.
3. “The old man is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts,”
Eph. iv. 22.
Q. 4. Are we now born approved of God and accepted with
him, as when we were first created, or what is our condition now by nature?
what say the Scriptures hereunto?
A. “We were by nature the children of wrath, even as
others,” Eph. ii. 3. “Except a man be born
again, he cannot see the kingdom of God,” John iii.
3. “He that believeth not the Son, the wrath of God abideth on
him,” verse 36. “That which is born of the
flesh is flesh,” John iii.
6.
Q. 5. Are our understandings by nature able to discern
the things of God, or are they darkened and blind?
A. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit
of God; for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them,
because they are spiritually discerned,” 1 Cor. ii.
14. “The light shineth in darkness; and the darkness
comprehended it not,” John i.
5. “To preach deliverance to the captives, and
recovering of sight to the blind,” Luke iv.
18. “Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the
life of God, through the ignorance that is in them, because of the
blindness of their heart,” Eph. iv.
18. “Ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the
Lord,” chap. v. 8. “For God, who commanded the
light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the
light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ,”
2 Cor. iv. 6. “And we know that the
Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know
him that is true,” 1 John v.
20.
Q. 6. Are we able to do those things now, in the state
of nature, which are spiritually good and acceptable to God?
A. “The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not
subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be,” Rom. viii.
7. “You were dead in trespasses and sins,” Eph. ii. 1. “The imagination of man’s
heart is evil from his youth,” Gen. viii.
21. “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his
spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil,” Jer. xiii. 23. “For without me ye can
do nothing,” John xv. 5. “Not that we are
sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our
sufficiency is of God,” 2 Cor. iii.
5. “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no
good thing,” Rom. vii. 18.
Q. 7. How came we into this miserable state and
condition?
A. “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my
mother conceive me,” Ps. li. 5.
“Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one,” Job xiv. 4. “That which is born of the
flesh is flesh,” John iii.
6. “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,”
Rom. v. 12.
Q. 8. Is, then, the guilt of the first sin of our first
parents reckoned unto us?
A. “But not as the offence, so also is the free gift, For
through the offence of one many be dead,” Rom. v.
15. “And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for
the judgment was by one to condemnation,” verse 16.
“For by one man’s offence death reigned,” verse 17.
“Therefore by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to
condemnation,” verse 18. “By one man’s disobedience
many were made sinners,” verse
19.
Thus, and much more fully, doth the Scripture set out and
declare the condition of man both before and after the fall; concerning
which, although the most evident demonstration of the latter lies in the
revelation made of the exceeding efficacy of that power and grace which God
in Christ puts forth for our conversion and delivery from that state and
condition before described, yet so much is spoken of this dark side of it
as will render vain the attempts of any who shall endeavour to
plead the cause of corrupted nature, or alleviate the guilt of the first
sin.
It may not be amiss, in the winding up of the whole, to
give the reader a brief account of what slight thoughts this gentleman and
his companions have concerning this whole matter of the state and condition
of the first man, his fall or sin, and the interest of all his posterity
therein, which confessedly lie at the bottom of that whole dispensation of
grace in Jesus Christ which is revealed in the gospel.
First. [As] for Adam himself, they are so remote from
assigning to him any eminency of knowledge, righteousness, or holiness, in
the state, wherein he was created, that, —
1. For his knowledge, they say, “He was a mere great baby,
that knew not that he was naked;” so also taking away the
difference between the simple knowledge of nakedness in innocency, and the
knowledge joined with shame that followed sin. “Of his wife he knew no
more but what occurred to his senses;” though the expressions
which he used at first view and sight of her do plainly argue another
manner of apprehension, Gen. ii.
23. For “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he knew
not the virtue of it;”
which yet I know not how it well agrees with another place of the same
author, where he concludes that in the state of innocency there was in Adam
a real predominancy of the natural appetite, which conquered or prevailed
to the eating of the fruit of that tree.
Also, that being mortal, he knew not himself to be so.
The sum is, he was even a very beast, that knew neither himself, his duty,
nor the will of God concerning him.
2. [As] for his righteousness and holiness, which, as was
said before, because he was made upright, in the image of God, we ascribe
unto him, Socinus contends in one
whole chapter in his Prelections, “that he was neither just nor holy, nor
ought to be so esteemed nor called.”
And Smalcius, in
his confutation of Franzius’ “Theses de Peccato
Originali,” all along derides and laughs to scorn the apprehension
or persuasion that Adam was created in righteousness and holiness, or that
ever he lost any thing of the image of God, or that ever he had any thing of the image of God beyond or besides that dominion over
the creatures which God gave him.
Most of the residue of the herd, describing the estate and
condition of man in his creation, do wholly omit any mention of any moral
uprightness in him.
And this is the account these gentlemen give us concerning
the condition and state wherein the first man was of God created: A heavy
burden of the earth it seems he was, that had neither righteousness nor
holiness whereby he might be enabled to walk before God in reference to
that great end whereunto he was created, nor any knowledge of God, himself,
or his duty.
Secondly. [As] for his sin, the great master of their
family disputes that it was a bare transgression of that precept of “not
eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil,” and that his
nature was not vitiated or corrupted thereby: wherein he is punctually followed by the Racovian Catechism, which also giveth
this reason why his nature was not depraved by it, namely, because it was
but one act; — so light are their thoughts and expressions of that
great transgression!
Thirdly. [As] for his state and condition, they all, with
open mouth, cry out that he was mortal and obnoxious to death, which should
in a natural way have come upon him though he had not sinned. But of this before.
Fourthly. Farther; that the posterity of Adam were no way
concerned, as to their spiritual prejudice, in that sin of his, as though
they should either partake of the guilt of it or have their nature vitiated
or corrupted thereby; but that the whole doctrine of original sin is a
figment of Austin and the
schoolmen that followed him, is the constant clamour of them
all. And indeed this is the great foundation of all or
the greatest part of their religion. Hence are the necessity of the
satisfaction and merit of Christ, the efficacy of grace, and the power of
the Spirit in conversion, decried. On this account is salvation granted,
by them, without Christ, a power of keeping all the commandments asserted,
and justification upon our obedience. Of which in the process of our
discourse.
Such are the thoughts, such are the expressions, of Mr B.’s masters concerning this whole matter.
Such was Adam in their esteem, such was his fall, and such our concernment
therein. He had no righteousness, no holiness (yea, Socinus at length confesses that he did not
believe his soul was immortal); we
contracted no guilt in him, derive no pollution from him. Whether these
men are in any measure acquainted with the plague of their own hearts, the
severity and spirituality of the law of God, with that redemption which is
in the blood of Jesus, the Lord will one day manifest; but into their
secret let not my soul descend.
Lest the weakest or meanest reader should be startled with
the mention of these things, not finding himself ready furnished with
arguments from Scripture to disprove the boldness and folly of these men in
their assertions, I shall add some few arguments whereby the severals by
them denied and opposed are confirmed from the Scriptures, the places
before mentioned being in them cast into that form and method wherein they
are readily subservient to the purpose in hand:—
First. That man was created in the image of God, in
knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, is evident on the
ensuing considerations:—
1. He who was made “very good” and “upright,” in a moral
consideration, had the original righteousness pleaded for; for
moral goodness, integrity, and uprightness, is equivalent unto
righteousness. So are the words used in the description of Job, chap. i. 1; and “righteous” and
“upright” are terms equivalent, Ps. xxxiii.
1. Now, that man was made thus good and upright was manifested
in the scriptures cited in answer to the question before proposed,
concerning the condition wherein our first parents were created. And,
indeed, this uprightness of man, this moral rectitude, was his formal
aptitude and fitness for and unto that obedience which God required of him,
and which was necessary for the end whereunto he was created.
2. He who was created perfect in his kind was
created with the original righteousness pleaded for. This is evident from
hence, because righteousness and holiness is a perfection of a rational
being made for the service of God. This in angels is called “the truth,”
or that original holiness and rectitude which “the devil abode not in,”
John viii. 44. Now, as before, man
was created “very good” and “upright,” therefore perfect as to his state
and condition; and whatever is in him of imperfection flows from the
corruption and depravation of nature.
3. He that was created in the image of God was
created in a state of righteousness, holiness, and knowledge. That Adam
was created in the image of God is plainly affirmed in Scripture, and is
not denied. That by the “image of God” is especially intended the
qualities mentioned, is manifest from that farther description of the image
of God which we have given us in the scriptures before produced in answer
to our first question. And what is recorded of the first man in his
primitive condition will not suffer us to esteem him such a baby in
knowledge as the Socinians would make him. His imposing of names on all
creatures, his knowing of his wife on first view, etc., exempt him from
that imputation. Yea, the very heathens could conclude that he was very
wise indeed who first gave names to things.
Secondly. For the disproving of that mortality
which they ascribe to man in innocency the ensuing arguments may
suffice:—
1. He that was created in the image of God, in
righteousness and holiness, whilst he continued in that state and
condition, was immortal. That man was so created lies under the
demonstration of the foregoing arguments and testimonies. The assertion
thereupon, or the inference of immortality from the image of God, appears
on this double consideration:— (1.) In our renovation by Christ into the image of God, we are renewed to a blessed immortality; and our
likeness to God consisted no less in that than in any other communicable
property of his nature. (2.) Wherever is naturally perfect righteousness,
there is naturally perfect life; that is, immortality. This is included in
the very tenor of the promise of the law: “If man keep my statutes, he
shall live in them,” Lev. xviii.
5.
2. That which the first man contracted and drew
upon himself by sin was not natural to him before he sinned: but
that man contracted and drew death upon himself, or made himself liable and
obnoxious unto it by sin, is proved by all the texts of Scripture that were
produced above in answer to our second question; as Gen. ii. 17, iii. 19;
Rom.
v. 12, 15, 17–19, vi. 23, etc.
3. That which is beside and contrary to nature was
not natural to the first man; but death is beside and contrary to
nature, as the voice of nature abundantly testifieth: therefore, to man in
his primitive condition it was not natural.
Unto these may sundry other arguments be added, from the
promise of the law, the end of man’s obedience, his constitution and state,
denying all proximate causes of death, etc; but these may suffice.
Thirdly. That the sin of Adam is not to be confined to the
mere eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but had
its rise in infidelity, and comprised universal apostasy from God,
in disobedience to the law of his creation and dependence on God, I have
elsewhere demonstrated, and shall not need here again to insist upon
it. That it began in infidelity
is evident from the beginning of the temptation wherewith he was overcome.
It was to doubt of the truth or veracity of God to which the woman was at
first solicited by Satan: Gen. iii.
1,” Hath God said so?” pressing that it should be otherwise than
they seemed to have cause to apprehend from what God said; and their
acquiescence in that reply of Satan, without revolving to the truth and
faithfulness of God, was plain unbelief. Now, as faith is the root of all
righteousness and obedience, so is infidelity of all disobedience. Being
overtaken, conquered, deceived into infidelity, man gave up himself to act
contrary to God and his will, shook off his sovereignty, rose up against
his law, and manifested the frame of his heart in the pledge of his
disobedience, eating the fruit that was sacramentally forbidden him.
Fourthly. That all men sinned in Adam, and that his sin is
imputed to all his posterity, is by them denied, but is easily evinced;
for, —
1. By whom sin entered into the world, so that all
sinned in him, and are made sinners thereby, so that also his sin is called
the “sin of the world,” in him all mankind sinned, and his sin is imputed
to them: but that this was the condition and state of the
first sin of Adam the scriptures before mentioned, in answer to our seventh
question, do abundantly manifest; and thence also is his sin called “the
sin of the world,” John i.
29.
2. In whom all are dead, and in whom they have
contracted the guilt of death and condemnation, in him they have all
sinned, and have his sin imputed to them: but in Adam all are dead,
1 Cor. xv. 22, as also Rom. v. 12,
15, 17–19; and death is the wages of sin only, chap. vi. 23.
3. As by the obedience of Christ we are made
righteous, so by the disobedience of Adam we are made
sinners: so the apostle expressly, Romans 5: but we are made
righteous by the obedience of Christ, by the imputation of it to us, as if
we had performed it, 1 Cor. i.
30, Phil. iii.
9; therefore we are sinners by the imputation of the sin of Adam
to us, as though we had committed it, which the apostle also affirms. To
what hath been spoken from the consideration of that state and condition
wherein, by God’s appointment, in reference to all mankind, Adam was
placed, namely, of a natural and political or federal head (of which the
apostle treats, 1 Cor. xv.), and from the loss of
that image wherein he was created, whereunto by Christ we are renewed, many
more words like these might be added.
To what hath been spoken there is no need that much should
be added, for the removal of any thing insisted on to the same purpose with
Mr B.’s intimations in the Racovian Catechism; but yet seeing that
that task also is undertaken, that which may seem necessary for the
discharging of what may thence be expected shall briefly be submitted to
the reader. To this head they speak in the first chapter, of the way to
salvation, the first question whereof is of the import ensuing:—
Q. Seeing thou saidst in the beginning that this life which
leadeth to immortality is divinely revealed, I would know of thee why thou
saidst so?
A. Because as man by nature hath nothing to do with
immortality (or hath no interest in it), so by himself he could by no means
know the way which leadeth to immortality.
Both question and answer being sophistical and ambiguous,
the sense and intendment of them, as to their application to the matter in
hand, and by them aimed at, is first to be rectified by some few
distinctions, and then the whole will cost us very little farther
trouble:—
1. There is, or hath been, a twofold way to a blessed
immortality:— (1.) The way of perfect obedience to the law; for he
that did it was to live therein. (2.) The way of faith
in the blood of the Son of God; for he that believeth shall be
saved.
2. Man by nature may be considered two ways:— (1.) As he
was in his created condition, not tainted, corrupted, weakened,
nor lost by sin; (2.) As fallen, dead, polluted, and guilty.
3. Immortality is taken either, (1.) Nakedly and purely in
itself for an eternal abiding of that which is said to be immortal; or,
(2.) For a blessed condition and state in that abiding and continuance.
4. That expression, “By nature,” referring to man in his
created condition, not fallen by sin, may be taken two ways, either, — (1.)
Strictly, for the consequences of the natural principles whereof
man was constituted; or, (2.) More largely, it comprises God’s
constitution and appointment concerning man in that estate.
On these considerations it will be easy to take off this
head of our catechists’ discourse, whereby also the remaining trunk will
fall to the ground.
I say, then, man by nature, in his primitive
condition, was, by the appointment and constitution of God, immortal as to
the continuance of his life, and knew the way of perfect legal obedience,
tending to a blessed immortality, and that by himself, or by virtue of the
law of his creation, which was concreated with him; but fallen man, in his
natural condition, being dead spiritually, obnoxious to death
temporal and eternal, doth by no means know himself, nor can know, the way
of faith in Jesus Christ, leading to a blessed immortality and glory,
Rom. ii. 7–10.
It is not, then, our want of interest in immortality upon
the account whereof we know not of ourselves the way to immortality by the
blood of Christ. But there are two other reasons that enforce the truth of
it:—
1. Because it is a way of mere grace and mercy,
hidden from all eternity in the treasures of God’s infinite wisdom and
sovereign will, which he neither prepared for man in his created condition
nor had man any need of; nor is it in the least discovered by any of the
works of God, nor by the law written in the heart, but is solely revealed
from the bosom of the Father by the only-begotten Son, neither angels nor
men being able to discover the least glimpse of that majesty without that
revelation, John i. 18; 1 Cor. ii.
7; Eph. iii.
8–11; Col. ii. 2,
3; 1 Tim. iii.
16.
2. Because man in his fallen condition, though
there be retained in his heart some weak and faint impressions of good and
evil, reward and punishment, Rom. ii.
14, 15, yet is spiritually dead, blind, alienated from God,
ignorant, dark, stubborn; so far from being able of himself to find out the
way of grace unto a blessed immortality, that he is not able, upon the
revelation of it, savingly, and to the great end of its proposal, to
receive, apprehend, believe, and walk in it, without a new
spiritual creation, resurrection from the dead, or new birth, wrought by
the exceeding greatness of the power of God. And on these two doth depend our
disability to discover and know the way of grace leading to life and glory.
And by this brief removal of the covering is the weakness and nakedness of
their whole ensuing discourse so discovered as that I shall speedily take
it with its offence out of the way. They proceed:—
Q. But why hath man nothing to do with (or no interest in)
immortality?
A. Therefore, because from the beginning he was formed of the
ground, and so was created mortal; and then because he transgressed the
command given him of God, and so by the decree of God, expressed in his
command, was necessarily subject to eternal death.
1. It is true, man was created of the dust of the earth as
to his bodily substance; yet it is as true that moreover God breathed into
him the breath of life, whereby he became “a living soul,” and in that
immediate constitution and framing from the hand of God was free from all
nextly disposing causes unto dissolution. But his immortality we place on
another account, as hath been declared, which is no way prejudiced by his
being made of the ground.
2. The second reason belongs unto man only as having
sinned, and being fallen out of that condition and covenant wherein he was
created. So that I shall need only to let the reader know that the eternal
death, in the judgment of our catechists, whereunto man was subjected by
sin, was only an eternal dissolution or annihilation (or rather an abode
under dissolution, dissolution itself being not penal), and not any abiding
punishment, as will afterward be farther manifest, They go on:—
Q. But how doth this agree with those places of Scripture
wherein it is written that man was created in the image of God, and created
unto immortality, and that death entered into the world by sin, Gen. i. 26; Wisd. ii.
23; Rom. v. 12?
A. As to the testimony which declareth that man was created in
the image of God, it is to be known that the image of God doth not signify
immortality (which is evident from hence, because at that time when man was
subject to eternal death the Scripture acknowledgeth in him that image,
Gen. ix. 6, James iii.
9), but it denoteth the power and dominion over all things made
of God on the earth, as the same place where this image is treated of
clearly showeth, Gen. i.
26.
The argument for that state and condition
wherein we affirm man to have been created from the consideration of the
image of God wherein he was made, and whereunto in part we are renewed, was
formerly insisted on. Let the reader look back unto it, and he will
quickly discern how little is here offered to enervate it in the least;
for, —
1. They cannot prove that man, in the condition and state
of sin, doth retain any thing of the image of God. The places mentioned,
as Gen. ix. 6, and James iii. 9, testify only that he was
made in the image of God at first, but that he doth still retain the image
they intimate not; nor is the inference used in the places taken from what
man is, but what he was created.
2. That the image of God did not consist in any one
excellency hath been above declared; so that the argument to prove that it
did not consist in immortality, because it did consist in the dominion over
the creatures, is no better than that would be which should conclude that
the sun did not give light because it gives heat, So that, —
3. Though the image of God, as to the main of it, in
reference to the end of everlasting communion with God whereunto we were
created, was utterly lost by sin (or else we could not be renewed unto it
again by Jesus Christ), yet as to some footsteps of it, in reference to our
fellow-creatures, so much might be and was retained as to be a reason one
towards another for our preservation from wrong and violence.
4. That place of Gen. i.
26, “Let us make man in our image, and let him have dominion
over the fish of the sea,” etc., is so far from proving that the image of
God wherein man was created did consist only in the dominion mentioned,
that it doth not prove that dominion to have been any part of or to belong
unto that image. It is rather a grant made to them who were made in the
image of God than a description of that image wherein they were made.
It is evident, then, notwithstanding any thing here
excepted to the contrary, that the immortality pleaded for belonged to the
image of God, and from man’s being created therein is rightly inferred; as
above was made more evident.
Upon the testimony of the Book of Wisdom, it being
confessedly apocryphal, I shall not insist. Neither do I think that in the
original any new argument to that before mentioned of the image of God is
added; but that is evidently pressed, and the nature of the image of God
somewhat explained. The words are, Ὅτι ὁ
Θεὸς ἔκτισε τὸν ἄνθρωτον ἐπ ἀφθαρσίᾳ καὶ εἰκόνα τῆς ἰδίας ἰδιότητος
ἐποίησεν αὐτόν Φθόνῳ δὲ διαβόλου θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον περιάζουσι
δὲ αὐτὸν οἱ τῆς ἐκείνου μερίδος ὄντες. The opposition that is put
between the creation of man in integrity and the image of God in one verse,
and the entrance of sin by the envy of the devil in the next,
plainly evinces that the mind of the author of that book was, that man, by
reason of his being created in the image of God, was immortal in his
primitive condition. That which follows is of another nature, concerning
which they thus inquire and answer:—
Q. What, moreover, wilt thou answer to the third
testimony?
A. The apostle in that place treateth not of immortality
[mortality], but of death itself. But mortality differeth much from death,
for a man may be mortal and yet never die.
But, — 1. The apostle eminently treats of man’s becoming
obnoxious to death, which until he was, he was immortal; for he says that
death entered the world by sin, and passed on all men, not actually, but in
the guilt of it and obnoxiousness to it. By what means death entered into
the world, or had a right so to do, by that means man lost the immortality
which before he had.
2. It is true, a man may be mortal as to state and
condition, and yet by almighty power be preserved and delivered from actual
dying, as it was with Enoch and Elijah; but in an ordinary course he that
is mortal must die, and is directly obnoxious to death. But that which we
plead for from those words of the apostle is, that man, by God’s
constitution and appointment, was so immortal as not to be liable or
obnoxious to death until he sinned. But they will prove their assertion in
their progress.
Q. What, therefore, is the sense of these words, “that death
entered into the world by sin?”
A. This, that Adam for sin, by the decree and sentence of God,
was subject to eternal death; and therefore all men, because (or inasmuch
as) they are bern of him, are subject to the same eternal death. And that
this is so, the comparison of Christ with Adam, which the apostle
instituteth from verse 12
to the end of the chapter, doth declare.
1. Be it so that this is the meaning of those words; yet
hence it inevitably follows that man was no way liable or obnoxious to
death but upon the account of the commination of God annexed to the law he
gave him. And this is the whole of what we affirm, — namely, that by God’s
appointment man was immortal, and the tenure of his immortality was his
obedience, and thereupon his right thereunto he lost by his
transgression.
2. This is farther evident from the comparison between
Christ and Adam, instituted by the apostle; for as we are all dead without
Christ and his righteousness, and have not the least right to
life or a blessed immortality, so antecedently to the consideration of Adam
and his disobedience, we were not in the least obnoxious unto death, or any
way liable to it in our primitive condition.
And this is all that our catechists have to plead for
themselves, or to except against our arguments and testimonies to the cause
in hand; which how weak it is in itself, and how short it comes of reaching
to the strength we insist on, a little comparison of it with what went
before will satisfy the pious reader.
What remains of that chapter, consisting in the depravation
of two or three texts of Scripture to another purpose than that in hand, I
shall not divert to the consideration of, seeing it will more orderly fall
under debate in another place.
What our catechists add elsewhere about original sin, or
their attempt to disprove it, being considered, shall give a close to this
discourse.
Their 10th chapter is, “De
liboro arbitrio;” where, after, in answer to the first question
proposed, they have asserted that it is in our power to yield obedience
unto God, as having free will in our creation so to do, and having by no
way or means lost that liberty or power, their second question is, —
Q. Is not this free will corrupted by original sin?
A. There is no such thing as original sin, wherefore that
cannot vitiate free will, nor can that original sin be proved out of the
Scripture; and the fall of Adam, being but one act, could not have that
force as to corrupt his own nature, much less that of his posterity. And
that it was inflicted on him as a punishment neither doth the
Scripture teach, and it is incredible that God, who is the fountain of all
goodness, would so do.
1. This is yet plain dealing; and it is well that men who
know neither God nor themselves have yet so much honesty left as to speak
downright what they intend. Quickly despatched! — “There is no such thing
as original sin.” To us, the denying of it is one argument to prove it.
Were not men blind and dead in sin, they could not but be sensible of it;
but men swimming with the water feel not the strength of the stream.
2. But doth the Scripture teach no such thing? Doth it
nowhere teach that we, who were “created upright, in the image of God, are
now dead in trespasses and sins, by nature children of wrath, having the
wrath of God upon us, being blind in our understandings, and alienated from
the life of God, not able to receive the things that are of
God, which are spiritually discerned, our carnal minds being enmity to God,
not subject to his law, nor can be; that our hearts are stony, our
affections sensual; that we are wholly come short of the glory of God; that
every figment of our heart is evil, so that we can neither think, nor
speak, nor do that which is spiritually good or acceptable to God; that
being born of the flesh, we are flesh, and unless we are born again, can by
no means enter into the kingdom of heaven; that all this is come upon us by
the sin of one man, whence also judgment passed on all men to
condemnation?” Can nothing of all this be proved from the Scripture?
These gentlemen know that we contend not about words or expressions. Let
them grant this hereditary corruption of our nature, alienation from God,
impotency to good, deadness and obstinacy in sin, want of the Spirit,
image, and grace of God, with obnoxiousness thereon to eternal
condemnation, and give us a fitter expression to declare this state and
condition by in respect of every one’s personal interest therein, and we
will, so it may please them, call it “original sin” no more.
3. It is not impossible that one act should be so high and
intense in its kind as to induce a habit into the subject, and so Adam’s
nature be vitiated by it; and he begot a son in his own likeness. The
devils upon one sin became obstinate in all the wickedness that their
nature is capable of. (2.) This one act was a breach of covenant with God,
upon the tenor and observation whereof depended the enjoyment of all that
strength and rectitude with God wherewith, by the law of his creation, man
was endued. (3.) All man’s covenant good, for that eternal end to which he
was created, depended upon his conformity to God, his subjection to him,
and dependence on him; all which, by that one sin, he wilfully cast away
for himself and posterity (whose common, natural, and federal head he was),
and righteously fell into that condition which we have described. (4.) The
apostle is much of a different mind from our catechists, Rom. v. 15, 16, etc., as hath been
declared.
4. What is credible concerning God and his
goodness with these gentlemen I know not. To me, that is not only in
itself credible which he hath revealed concerning himself, but of
necessity to be believed. That he gave man a law, threatening him,
and all his posterity in him and with him, with eternal death upon the
breach of it; that upon that sin he cast all mankind judicially out of
covenant, imputing that sin unto them all unto the guilt of condemnation,
seeing it is “his judgment that they who commit sin are worthy of death;”
and that “he is of purer eyes than to behold evil,” — is to us credible,
yea, as was said, of necessity to be believed. But they will answer the
proofs that are produced from Scripture in the asserting of this original
sin.
Q. But that there is original sin these
testimonies seem to prove: Gen. vi. 5,
“Every cogitation of the heart of man is only evil every day;” and
Gen. viii. 21, “The cogitation of
man’s heart is evil from his youth?”
A. These testimonies deal concerning voluntary sin; from them,
therefore, original sin cannot be proved. As for the first, Moses showeth
it to be such a sin for whose sake God repented him that he had made man,
and decreed to destroy him with a flood; which certainly can by no means be
affirmed concerning a sin which should be in man by nature, such as they
think original sin to be. In the other, he showeth that the sin of man
shall not have that efficacy that God should punish the world for it with a
flood; which by no means agreeth to original sin.
That this attempt of our catechists is most vain and
frivolous will quickly appear; for, — 1. Suppose original sin be not
asserted in those places, doth it follow there is no original sin? Do they
not know that we affirm it to be revealed in the way of salvation, and
proved by a hundred places besides? And do they think to overthrow it by
their exception against two or three of them, when if it be taught in any
one of them it suffices? 2. The words, as by them rendered, lose much of
the efficacy for the confirmation of what they oppose which in the original
they have. In the first place, it is not, “Every thought of man’s heart,”
but, “Every imagination or figment of the thoughts of his heart.” The
“motus primo primi,” the very
natural frame and temper of the heart of man, as to its first motions
towards good or evil, are doubtless expressed in these words. So also is
it in the latter place.
We say, then, that original sin is taught and proved in
these places; not singly or exclusively to actual sins, not a parte ante, or from the causes of
it, but from its effects. That such a frame of heart is so universally by
nature in all mankind, and in every individual of them, as that it is ever,
always, or continually, casting, coining, and devising evil, and that only,
without the intermixture of any thing of another kind that is truly and
spiritually good, is taught in these places; and this is original sin. Nor
is this disproved by our catechists; for, —
1. “Because the sin spoken of is voluntary, therefore it is
not original,” will not be granted. (1.) Original sin, as it is taken
peccatum originans, was
voluntary in Adam; and as it is originatum in us is in our wills habitually,
and not against them, in any actings of it or them. (2.) The effects of
it, in the coining of sin and in the thoughts of men’s hearts, are all
voluntary; which are here mentioned to demonstrate and manifest that root
from whence they spring, that prevailing principle and
predominant habit from whence they so uniformly proceed.
2. Why it doth not agree to original sin that the account
[is] mentioned, verse 6, of
God’s repenting that he had made man, and his resolution to destroy him,
these gentlemen offer not one word of reason to manifest. We say, — (1.)
That it can agree to no other but this original sin, with its infallible
effects, wherein all mankind were equally concerned, and so became equally
liable to the last judgment of God; though some, from the same principle,
had acted much more boldly against his holy Majesty than others. (2.) Its
being in men by nature doth not at all lessen its guilt. It is not in
their nature as created, nor in them so by nature, but is by the fall of
Adam come upon the nature of all men, dwelling in the person of every one;
which lesseneth not its guilt, but manifests its advantage for
provocation.
3. Why the latter testimony is not applicable to original
sin they inform us not. The words joined with it are an expression of that
patience and forbearance which God resolved and promised to exercise
towards the world, with a non
obstante for sin. Now, what sin should this be but that which
is “the sin of the world”? That actual sins are excluded we say not; but
that original sin is expressed and aggravated by the effects of it our
catechists cannot disprove. There are many considerations of these texts,
from whence the argument from them for the proof of that corruption of
nature which we call original sin might be much improved; but that is not
my present business, our catechists administering no occasion to such a
discourse. But they take some other texts into consideration:—
Q. What thinkest thou of that which David speaks, Ps. li. 7, “Behold, I shapen in
iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me?”
A. It is to be observed that David doth not here speak of any
men but himself alone, nor that simply, but with respect to his fall, and
uses that form of speaking which you have in him again, Ps. lviii. 3. Wherefore original sin
cannot be evinced by this testimony.
But, — 1. Though David speaks of himself, yet he speaks of
himself in respect of that which was common to himself with all mankind,
being a child of wrath as well as others; nor can these gentlemen intimate
any thing of sin and iniquity, in the conception and birth of
David, that was not common to all others with him. Any man’s
confession for himself of a particular guilt in a common sin doth not free
others from it; yea, it proves all others to be partakers in it who share
in that condition wherein he contracted the guilt.
2. Though David mentions this by occasion of
his fall, as having his conscience made tender and awakened to search into
the root of his sin and transgression thereby, yet it was no part of his
fall, nor Was he the less conceived in sin and forth in brought ever more
or iniquity for that fall; which were ridiculous to imagine. He here
acknowledges it upon the occasion of his fall, which was a fruit of the sin
wherewith he was born, James i.
14, 15, but was equally guilty of it before his fall and
after.
3. The expression here used, and that of Ps. lviii. 3, “The wicked are estranged
from the womb, they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies,”
exceedingly differ. Here, David expresses what was his infection
in the womb; there, what is wicked men’s constant practice
from the womb. In himself, he mentions the root of all actual
sin; in them, the constant fruit that springs from that root in
unregenerate men. So that, by the favour of these catechists, I yet say
that David doth here acknowledge a sin of nature, a sin wherewith he was
defiled from his conception, and polluted when he was warmed, and so
fomented in his mother’s womb; and therefore this place doth prove original
sin.
One place more they call to an account, in these
words:—
Q. But Paul saith that “in Adam all sinned,” Rom. v. 12.
A. It is not in that place, “In Adam all sinned;” but in the
Greek the words are ἐφ ᾧ, which
interpreters do frequently render in Latin in quo, “in whom,” which yet may be rendered
by the particles quoniam or
quatenus, “because,” or
“inasmuch,” as in like places, Rom. viii.
3, Phil. iii.
12, Heb. ii. 18, 2 Cor. v.
4. It appeareth, therefore, that neither can original sin be
built up out of this place.
1. Stop these men from this shifting hole, and you may with
much ease entangle and catch them twenty times a day: “This word may be
rendered otherwise, for it is so in another place,” — a course of procedure
that leaves nothing certain in the book of God. 2. In two of the places
cited, the words are not ἐφ’ ᾧ, but
ἐν ᾧ, Rom. viii.
3, Heb. ii. 18. 3. The places are none of
them parallel to this; for here, the apostle speaks of persons or a person
in an immediate precedency; in them, of things. 4. But render ἐφ’ ᾧ by quoniam, “because,” or “for that,” as our
English translation doth, the argument is no less evident for original sin
than if they were rendered by “in whom.” In the beginning of the verse the
apostle tells us that death entered the world by the sin of one man, — that
one man of whom he is speaking, namely, Adam, — and passed upon all men: of
which dispensation, that death passed on all men, he gives you the reason
in these words, “For that all have sinned;” that is, in that sin of that one man whereby death entered on the world and passed
on them all. I wonder how our catechists could once imagine that this
exception against the translation of those words should enervate the
argument from the text for the proof of all men’s guilt of the first sin,
seeing the conviction of it is no less evident from the words if rendered
according to their desire.
And this is the sum of what they have to offer for the
acquitment of themselves from the guilt and stain of original sin, and for
answer to the three testimonies on its behalf which themselves chose to
call forth; upon the strength whereof they so confidently reject it at the
entrance of their discourse, and in the following question triumph upon it,
as a thing utterly discarded from the thoughts of their catechumens. What
reason or ground they have for their confidence the reader will judge. In
the meantime, it is sufficiently known that they have touched very little
of the strength of our cause, nor once mentioned the testimonies and
arguments on whose evidence and strength in this business we rely. And for
themselves who write and teach these things, I should much admire their
happiness, did I not so much as I do pity them in their pride and
distemper, keeping them from an acquaintance with their own miserable
condition.
Chapter VII.
Of the person of Jesus Christ, and on what account he is the Son
of God.
Mr Biddle’s fourth chapter.
Ques. How many Lords of Christians are there, by way of
distinction from that one God?
Ans. Eph. iv.
5.
Q. Who is that one Lord?
A. 1 Cor. viii.
6.
Q. How was Jesus Christ born?
A. Matt. i.
18; Luke i.
30–35.
Q. How came Jesus Christ to be Lord, according to the opinion
of the apostle Paul?
A. Rom. xiv.
9.
Q. What saith the apostle Peter also concerning the time and
manner of his being made Lord?
A. Acts ii. 32, 33,
36.
Q. Did not Jesus Christ approve himself to be God by his
miracles; and did he not those miracles by a divine nature of his own, and
because he was God himself? What is the determination of the apostle Peter
in this behalf?
A. Acts ii. 22, x.
38.
Q. Could not Christ do all things of himself; and was it not
an eternal Son of God that took flesh upon him., and to whom the human
nature of Christ was personally united, that wrought all his works? Answer
me to these things in the words of the Son himself.
A. John v.
19, 20, 30, xiv. 10.
Q. What reason doth the Son render why the Father
did not forsake him and cast him out of favour? Was it because he was of
the same essence with him, so that it was impossible for the Father to
forsake him or cease to love him?
A. John viii. 28, 29, xv. 9,
10.
Q. Doth the Scripture account Christ to be the Son of God
because he was eternally begotten out of the divine essence, or for other
reasons agreeing to him only as a man? Rehearse the passages to this
purpose.
A. Luke i. 30,
32, 34, 35; John x.
36; Acts xiii. 32, 33; Rev. i. 5; Col. i.
18; Heb. i. 4, 5, v. 5;
Rom. viii. 29.
Q. What saith the Son himself concerning the prerogative of
God the Father above him?
A. John xiv.
28; Mark xiii.
32; Matt. xxiv.
36.
Q. What saith the apostle Paul?
A. 1
Cor. xv. 25, 28, xi. 3, iii. 22, 23.
Q. Howbeit, is not Christ dignified as with the title of Lord,
so also with that of God, in the Scripture?
A. John xx.
28.
Q. Was he so the God of Thomas as that he himself in the
meantime did not acknowledge another to be his God?
A. John xx.
17; Rev. iii.
12.
Q. Have you any passage of the Scripture where Christ, at the
same time that he hath the appellation of God given to him, is said to have
a God?
A. Heb. i. 8,
9.
Examination.
The aim and design of our catechist in this chapter being
to despoil our blessed Lord Jesus Christ of his eternal deity, and to
substitute an imaginary Godhead, made and feigned in the vain hearts of
himself and his masters, into the room thereof, I hope the discovery of the
wickedness and vanity of his attempt will not be unacceptable to them who
love him in sincerity. I must still desire the reader not to expect the
handling of the doctrine of the deity of Christ at large, with the
confirmation of it and vindication from the vain sophisms wherewith by
others, as well as by Mr B., it hath been
opposed. This is done abundantly by other hands. In the next chapter that
also will have its proper place, in the vindication of many texts of
Scripture from the exceptions of the Racovians. The removal of Mr B.’s sophistry, and the disentangling of
weaker souls, who may in any thing be intricated by his queries, are my
present intendment. To make our way dear and plain, that every one that
runs may read the vanity of Mr B.’s
undertaking against the Lord Jesus, and his kicking against the pricks
therein, I desire to premise these few observations:—
1. Distinction of persons (it being an infinite substance)
doth no way prove difference of essence between the Father and the Son.
Where Christ, as mediator, is said to be another from the Father or God,
spoken personally of the Father, it argues not in the least that
he is not partaker of the same nature with him. That in one essence there can be but one person may be true where the substance is
finite and limited, but hath no place in that which is infinite.
2. Distinction and inequality in respect of office in
Christ doth not in the least take away equality and sameness with the
Father in respect of nature and essence. A son of the same nature with his father,
and therein equal to him, may in office be his inferior, his subject.
3. The advancement and exaltation of Christ as mediator to
any dignity whatever, upon or in reference to the work of our redemption
and salvation, is not at all inconsistent with that essential ἀξία, honour, dignity, and worth, which he
hath in himself as “God blessed for ever.” Though he humbled himself and
was exalted, yet in nature he was one and the same, he changed not.
4. The Scripture’s asserting the humanity of Christ with
the concernments thereof, as his birth, life, and death, doth no more
thereby deny his deity, than, by asserting his deity, with the essential
properties thereof, eternity, omniscience, and the like, it denies his
humanity.
5. God’s working any thing in and by Christ, as he was
mediator, denotes the Father’s sovereign appointment of the things
mentioned to be done, not his immediate efficiency in the doing of
the things themselves.
The consideration of these few things, being added to what
I have said before in general about the way of dealing with our adversaries
in these great and weighty things of the knowledge of God, will easily
deliver us from any great trouble in the examination of Mr B.’s arguments and insinuations against the
deity of Christ; which is the business of the present chapter.
His first question is, “How many Lords of Christians are
there, by way of distinction from that one God?” and he answers, Eph. iv. 5, “One Lord.”
That of these two words there is not one that looks towards
the confirmation of what Mr B. chiefly
aims at in the question proposed, is, I presume, sufficiently clear in the
light of the thing itself inquired after. Christ, it is true, is the one
Lord of Christians; and therefore God, equal with the Father. He is also
one Lord in distinction from his Father, as his Father, in respect of his
personality, in which regard them are three that bear record in heaven, of
which he is one; but in respect of essence and nature “he and his Father
are one.” Farther; unless he were one God with his Father, it is utterly
impossible he should be the one Lord of Christians. That he cannot be our
Lord in the sense intended, whom we ought to invocate and worship, unless
also he were our God, shall be afterward declared. And
although he be our Lord in distinction from his Father, as he is also our
mediator, yet he is “the same God” with him “which worketh all in all,”
1 Cor. xii. 6. His being Lord, then,
distinctly in respect of his mediation hinders not his being God in respect
of his participation in the same nature with his Father. And though here
he be not spoken of in respect of his absolute, sovereign
lordship, but of his lordship over the church, to whom the whole
church is spiritually subject (as he is elsewhere also so called on the
same account, as John xiii.
13; Acts vii.
59; Rev. xxii.
20), yet were he not Lord in that sense also, he could not be so
in this. The Lord our God only is to be worshipped. “My Lord and my God,”
says Thomas. And the mention of “one God” is here, as in other places,
partly to deprive all false gods of their pretended deity, partly to
witness against the impossibility of polytheism, and partly to manifest the
oneness of them who are worshipped as God the Father, Word, and Spirit: all
which things are also severally testified unto.
His second question is an inquiry after this Lord, who he
is, in these words, “Who is that one Lord?” and the answer is from
1 Cor. viii. 6, “Jesus Christ, by whom
are all things.” The close of this second answer might have caused Mr B. a little to recoil upon his insinuation
in the first, concerning the distinction of this “one Lord” from that “one
God,” in the sense by him insisted on. Who is he “by whom are all things”
(in the same sense as they are said to be “of” the Father)? who is that but
God? “He that made all things is God,” Heb. iii.
4. And it is manifest that he himself was not made by whom all
things were made: for he made not himself, nor could so do, unless he were
both before and aider himself; nor was he made without his own concurrence
by another, for by himself are all things. Thus Mr B. hath no sooner opened his mouth to speak against the
Lord Jesus Christ, but, by the just judgment of God, he stops it himself
with a testimony of God against himself, which he shall never be able to
rise up against unto eternity.
And it is a manifest perverting and corrupting of the text
which we have in Grotius’ gloss upon the
place, who interprets the τὰ πάντα
referred to the Father of all things simply, but the τὰ πάντα referred to Christ of the things only of the
new creation, there being not
the least colour for any such variation, the frame and structure of the
words requiring them to be expounded uniformly throughout: “But to us there
is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord
Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” “The last
expression, ‘And we by him,’ relates to the new creation; ‘All things,’ to
the first.” But Grotius follows Enjedinus in this as well as other
things.
His inquiry in the next place is after the
birth of Jesus Christ; in answer whereunto the story is reported from
Matthew and Luke: which relating to his human nature, and no otherwise to
the person of the Son of God but as he was therein “made flesh,” or assumed
the “holy thing” so born of the Virgin, Luke i.
35, into personal subsistence with himself, I shall let pass
with annexing unto it the observation before mentioned, namely, that what
is affirmed of the human nature of Christ doth not at all prejudice that
nature of his in respect whereof he is said to be “in the beginning with
God,” and to be “God,” and with reference whereunto himself said, “Before
Abraham was I am,” John i. 1, 2, viii.
58; Prov. viii.
22, etc. God “possessed him in the beginning of his way,” being
then his “only-begotten Son, full of grace and truth.” Mr B. indeed hath small hopes of despoiling
Christ of his eternal glory by his queries, if they spend themselves in
such fruitless sophistry as this:— “Q. 4. How came Jesus Christ to be Lord
according to the opinion of the apostle Paul?” The answer is, Rom. xiv. 9. “Q. 5. What saith the
apostle Peter also concerning the time and manner of his being made Lord? —
A. Acts ii. 32, 33,
36.”
Ans. 1. That Jesus Christ as mediator, and in
respect of the work of redemption and salvation of the church to him
committed, was made Lord by the appointment, authority, and designation of
his Father, we do not say was the opinion of Paul, but is such a divine
truth as we have the plentiful testimony of the Holy Ghost unto. He was no
less made a Lord than a Priest and Prophet, of his Father. But that the
eternal lordship of Christ, as he is one with his Father, “God blessed for
ever,” Rom. ix. 5, is any way denied by the
asserting of this lordship given him of his Father as mediator, Mr B. wholly begs of men to apprehend and
grant, but doth not once attempt from the Scripture to manifest or prove.
The sum of what Mr B. intends to argue
hence is: Christ “submitting himself to the form and work of a servant unto
the Father, was exalted by him, and had ‘a name given him above every
name;’ therefore he was not the Son of God and equal to him.” That his
condescension unto office is inconsistent with his divine essence is yet to
be proved. But may we not beg of our catechist, at his leisure, to look a
little farther into the chapter from whence he takes his first testimony
concerning the exaltation of Christ to be Lord? perhaps it may be worth his
while. As another argument to that of the dominion and lordship of Christ,
to persuade believers to a mutual forbearance as to judging of one another,
he adds, verse 10, “We shall all stand before
the judgment-seat of Christ.” And this, verse 11,
the apostle proves from that testimony of the prophet Isaiah, chap. xlv. 23, as he renders the
sense of the Holy Ghost, “As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow
to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” So that Jesus
Christ our Lord is that Jehovah, that God, to whom all subjection is due,
and in particular that of standing before his judgment-seat. But this is
overlooked by Grotius, and not answered
to any purpose by Enjedinus, and why
should Mr B. trouble himself with it?
2. For the time assigned by him of his being made Lord,
specified by the apostle, it doth not denote his first investiture
with that office and power, but the solemn admission into the glorious
execution of that lordly power which was given him as mediator.
At his incarnation and birth, God affirms by the angel that he was then
“Christ the Lord,” Luke ii.
11. And when “he brought his first-begotten into the world, the
angels were commanded to worship him;” which if he were not a Lord, I
suppose Mr B. will not say they could
have done. Yea, and as he was both believed in and worshipped before his
death and resurrection, John ix. 38, xiv.
1, which is to be performed only to the Lord our God, Matt. iv. 10, so he actually in some
measure exercised his lordship towards and over angels, men, devils, and
the residue of the creation, as is known from the very story of the Gospel,
not denying himself to be a king, yea, witnessing thereunto when he was to
be put to death, Luke xxiii.
3, John xviii.
37, as he was from his first showing unto men, chap. i. 49.
“Q. 6. Did not Jesus Christ approve himself to be God by
his miracles; and did he not those miracles by a divine nature of his
own, and because he was God himself? What is the determination of the
apostle Peter in this behalf? — A. Acts ii. 22, x.
38.”
The intendment of Mr B.
in this question, as is evident by his inserting of these words in a
different character, “By a divine nature of his own, and because he was God
himself,” is to disprove or insinuate an answer unto the argument taken
from the miracles that Christ did to confirm his deity. The naked working
of miracles, I confess, without the influence of such other considerations
as this argument is attended withal in relation to Jesus Christ, will not
alone of itself assert a divine nature in him who is the instrument of
their working or production. Though they are from divine power, or they
are not miracles, yet it is not necessary that he by whom they are wrought
should be possessor of that divine power, as “by whom” may denote the
instrumental and not the principal cause of them. But for the miracles
wrought by Jesus Christ, as God is said to do them “by him,” because he
appointed him to do them, as he designed him to his offices, and thereby
gave testimony to the truth of the doctrine he preached from his bosom as
also because he was “with him,” not in respect of power and virtue, but as
the Father in the Son, John x.
38; so he working these miracles by his own power and at his own
will, even as his Father doth, chap. v.
21, and himself giving power and authority to others to work
miracles by his strength and in his name, Matt. x. 8, Mark xvi. 17, 18, Luke x. 19, there is that eminent
evidence of his deity in his working of miracles as Mr B. can by no means darken or obscure by pointing to that
which is of a clear consistency therewithal, — as is his Father’s
appointment of him to do them, whereby he is said to do them “in his name,”
etc., as in the place cited, of which afterward. Acts ii.
22, the intendment of Peter is, to prove that he was the Messiah
of whom he spake; and therefore he calls him “Jesus of Nazareth,” as
pointing out the man whom they knew by that name, and whom, seven or eight
weeks before, they had crucified and rejected. That this man was “approved
of God,” he convinces them from
the miracles which God wrought by him; which was enough for his present
purpose. Of the other place there is another reason; for though Grotius expounds these words, Ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἦν μετ αὐτοῦ, “For God was with him,” “God
always loved him, and always heard him, according to Matt. iii. 17” (where yet there is a
peculiar testimony given to the divine sonship of Jesus Christ) “and
John xi. 42,” yet the words of our
Saviour himself about the same business give us another interpretation and
sense of them. This, I say, he does, John x. 37, 38, “If I do not the
works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me,
believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me,
and I in him.” In the doing of these works, the Father was so with him as
that he was in him, and he in the Father; not only ἐνεργητικῶς, but by that divine indwelling which
oneness of nature gives to Father and Son.
His seventh question is exceeding implicate and involved: a
great deal is expressed that Mr B. would
deny, but by what inference from the scriptures he produceth doth not at
all appear. The words of it are, “Could not Christ do all things of
himself; and was it not an eternal Son of God that took flesh upon him, and
to whom the human nature of Christ was personally united, that wrought all
these works? Answer me to these things in the words of the Son himself. —
A. John v.
19, 20, 30, xiv. 10.”
The inference which alone appears from hence is of the same
nature with them that are gone before. That Christ could not do all things
of himself, that he was not the eternal Son of God, that he took not flesh,
is that which is asserted; but the proof of all this doth disappear.
Christ being accused by the Jews, and persecuted for healing a man on the
Sabbath-day, and their rage being increased by his asserting his equality
with the Father (of which afterward), John v.
17, 18, he lets them know that in the discharge of the office
committed to him he did nothing but according to the will, commandment, and
appointment, of his Father, with whom he is equal, and doth of
his own will also the things that he doth; so that they had no more to
plead against him for doing what he did than they had against him whom they
acknowledged to be God: wherein he is so far from declining the assertion
of his own deity (which that he maintained the Jews apprehended, affirming
that he made himself equal with God, which none but God is or can be, for
between God and that which is not God there is no proportion, much less
equality) as that he farther confirms it, by affirming that he “doeth
whatever the Father doeth, and that as the Father quickeneth whom he will,
so he quickeneth whom he will.” That redoubled assertion, then, of Christ,
that he can do nothing of himself, is to be applied to the matter under
consideration. He had not done, nor could do, any work but such as his
Father did also; it was impossible he should, not only because he would not
(in which sense τὸ ἀβούλητον is one
kind of those things which are impossible), but also because of the oneness
in will, nature, and power, of himself and his Father, which he asserts in
many particulars. Nor doth he temper his speech as one that would ascribe
all the honour to the Father, and so remove the charge that he made a man
equal to the Father, as Grotius vainly
imagines; for although as
man he acknowledges his subjection to the Father, yea, as mediator in the
work he had in hand, and his subordination to him as the Son, receiving all
things from him by divine and eternal communication, yet the action or work
that gave occasion to that discourse being an action of his person, wherein
he was God, he all along asserts his own equality therein with the Father,
as shall afterward be more fully manifested.
So that though in regard of his divine personality as the
Son he hath all things from the Father, being begotten by him, and as
mediator doth all things by his appointment and in his name, yet he in
himself is still one with the Father as to nature and essence, “God to be
blessed for evermore.” And that it was “an eternal Son of God that took
flesh upon him,” etc., hath Mr B. never
read that “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God,” that “the
Word was made flesh;” that “God was manifested in the flesh;” and that “God
sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law?” of which places
afterward, in their vindication from the exceptions of his masters.
His eighth question is of the very same import with that
going before, attempting to exclude Jesus Christ from the unity of essence
with his Father, by his obedience to him, and his Father’s acceptation of
him in the work of mediation; which being a most ridiculous begging of the thing in question, as to what he pretends in the
query to be argumentative, I shall not farther insist upon it.
Q. 9. We are come to the head of this discourse, and of
Mr B.’s design in this chapter, and,
indeed, of the greatest design that he drives in religion, namely, the
denial of the eternal deity of the Son of God; which not only in this place
directly, but in sundry others covertly, he doth invade and oppose. His
question is, “Doth the Scripture account Christ to be the Son of God
because he was eternally begotten out of the divine essence, or for other
reasons agreeing to him only as a man? Rehearse the passages to this
purpose.” His answer is from Luke i.
31–35; John x.
36; Acts xiii. 32, 33; Rev. i. 5; Col. i.
18; Heb. i. 4, 5, v. 5;
Rom. viii. 29; most of which places
are expressly contrary to him in his design, as the progress of our
discourse will discover.
This, I say, being the head of the difference between us in
this chapter, after I have rectified one mistake in Mr B.’s question, I shall state the whole matter so as to
obviate farther labour and trouble about sundry other ensuing queries. For
Mr B.’s question, then, we say not that
the Son is begotten eternally out of the divine essence, but in it, not by
an eternal act of the Divine Being, but of the person of the Father; which
being premised, I shall proceed.
The question that lies before us is, “Doth the Scripture
account Christ to be the Son of God because he was eternally begotten out
of the divine essence, or for other reasons agreeing to him only as a man?
Rehearse the passages to this purpose.”
The reasons, as far as I can gather, which Mr B. lays at the bottom of this appellation,
are, — 1. His birth of the Virgin, from Luke i.
30–35. 2. His mission, or sending into the world by the Father,
John x. 36. 3. His resurrection with
power, Acts xiii. 32, 33; Rev. i. 5; Col. i.
18. 4. His exaltation, Heb. v. 5;
Rom. viii. 29.
For the removal of all this from prejudicing the eternal
sonship of Jesus Christ there is an abundant sufficiency, arising from the
consideration of this one argument: If Jesus Christ be called the “Son of
God” antecedently to his incarnation, mission, resurrection, and
exaltation, then there is a reason and cause of that appellation
before and above all these considerations, and it cannot be on any of these
accounts that he is called the “Son of God;” but that he is so called
antecedently to all these, I shall afterward abundantly manifest. Yet a
little farther process in this business, as to the particulars intimated,
may not be unseasonable.
First, then, I shall propose the causes on the account
whereof alone these men affirm that Jesus Christ is called the “Son of
God.” Of these the first and chiefest they insist upon is his birth of the
Virgin, — namely, that he was called the “Son of God” because he was
conceived of the Holy Ghost. This our catechist in the first place
proposes; and before him, his masters. So the Racovians, in
answer to that question, “Is therefore the Lord Jesus a mere man?” answer,
“By no means: for he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin;
and therefore from his birth and conception was the Son of God, as we read
in Luke i. 35;” — the place insisted on by the gentleman we are
dealing withal.
Of the same mind are the residue of their companions. So
do Ostorodius and Voidovius give an account of their faith
in their “Compendium,” as they call it, “of the Doctrine of the Christian
Church flourishing now chiefly in Poland.” “They teach,” say they, “Jesus
Christ to be that man that was conceived of the Holy Ghost, and born of the
Virgin; besides and before whom they acknowledge no only-begotten Son of
God truly existing. Moreover, they teach him to be God, and the
only-begotten Son of God, by reason of his conception of the Holy Ghost,”
etc. Smalcius hath written a whole book of the true divinity
of Jesus Christ; wherein he hath gathered together whatever excellencies
they will allow to be ascribed unto him, making his deity to be the
exurgency of them all. Therefore is he God, and the Son of God, because
the things he there treats of are ascribed unto him! Among these, in his
third chapter, which is “Of the conception and nativity of Jesus Christ,”
he gives this principal account why he is called the “Son of God,” even
from his conception and nativity. “He was,” saith he, “conceived of the
Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary; because of which manner of
conception and nativity he was by the angel called the ‘Son of God,’ and so
may really be called the ‘natural Son of God,’ because he was born such.
Only, Jesus Christ was brought forth to light by God his Father without the
help of man.”
The great master of the herd himself, from whom, indeed,
the rest do glean and gather almost all that they take so much pains to
scatter about the world, gives continually this reason of Christ’s being
called the “Son of God” and his “natural Son.” “I say,” saith he, “that
Christ is deservedly called the ‘natural Son of God,’ because he was born
the Son of God, although he was not begotten of the substance of God. And
that he was born the Son of God another way, and not by the
generation of the substance of God, the words of the angel prove, Luke i. 35. Therefore, because that
man, Jesus of Nazareth, who is called Christ, was begotten not by the help
of any man, but by the operation of the Holy Spirit in the womb of his
mother, he is therefore, or for that cause, called the ‘Son of God.’ ” So he against Weik the Jesuit. He is followed by Volkelius, lib. v. cap. xi. p. 468; whose book, indeed, is a
mere casting into a kind of a method what was written by Socinus and others, scattered in sundry
particulars, and whose method is pursued and improved by Episcopius. Jonas Schlichtingius, amongst them all, seems to do most of
himself. I shall therefore add his testimony, to show their consent in the
assignation of this cause of the appellation of the “Son of God,” ascribed
to our blessed Saviour. “There are,” saith he, “many sayings of Scripture
which show that Christ is in a peculiar manner, and on an account not
common to any other, the Son of God; but yet we may not hence conclude that
he is a Son on a natural account, when besides this, and that more common,
another reason may be given which hath place in Christ. Is he not the Son
of God on a singular account, and that which is common to no other, if of
God himself, by the virtue and efficacy of the Holy Spirit, he was
conceived and begotten in the womb of his mother?”
And this is the only buckler which they have to keep off
the sword of that argument for the deity of Christ, from his being the
proper Son of God, from the throat and heart of that cause which they have
undertaken. And yet how faintly they hold it is evident from the
expressions of this most cunning and skillful of all their champions:
“There may another reason be given, which is the general evasion
of them all from any express testimony of Scripture. “The words
may have another sense, therefore nothing from them can be
concluded;” whereby they have left nothing stable or unshaken in Christian
religion; and yet they wipe their mouths, and say they have done no
evil.
But now, lest any one should say that they can see no
reason why Christ should be called the “Son of God” because he
was so conceived by the Holy Ghost, nor wherefore God should therefore in a
peculiar manner, and more eminently than in respect of any other, be called
the “Father of Christ,” to prevent any objection that on this hand might
arise, Smalcius gives an account
whence this is, and why God is called the “Father of Christ,” and what he
did in his conception; which, for the abomination of it, I had rather you
should hear in his words than in mine. In his answer to the second part of
the refutation of Socinus by Smiglecius, cap. xvii.,
xviii., he contends to manifest and make good that Christ was the
“Son of God according to the flesh,” in direct opposition to that of the
apostle, “He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and
declared to be the Son of God,” etc., Rom. i. 3,
4. He says then, cap. 18, p. 156, “Socinus affirmat Deum in generatione Christi vices patris
supplevisse.” But how, I pray? Why, “Satis est ad ostendendum, Deum in generatione Christi vices
viri supplevisse, si ostendatur Deum id ad Christi generationem adjecisse,
quod in generatione hominis ex parte viri ad hominem producendum adjici
solet.” But what is that, or how is that done? “Nos Dei virtutem in Virginis uterum aliquam substantiam
creatam vel immisisse, aut ibi creasse affirmamus, ex qua juncto eo, quod
ex ipsius Virginis substantia accessit, verus homo generatus fuit. Alias
enim homo ille, Dei Filius a conceptione et nativitate proprie non
fuisset,” cap. xvii. p. 150. Very good; unless
this abominable figment may pass current, Christ was not the Son of God.
Let the reader observe, by the way, that they cannot but acknowledge Christ
to have been, and to have been called, the “Son of God” in a most peculiar
manner. To avoid the evidence of the inference from thence, that therefore
he is God, of the same substance with his Father, they have only this
shift, to say he is called the “Son of God’ upon the account of that
whereof there is not the least tittle nor word in the whole book of God,
yea, which is expressly contrary to the testimony thereof; and unless this
be granted, they affirm that Christ cannot be called the “Son of God.” But
let us hear this great rabbi of Mr B.’s
religion a little farther clearing up this mystery:— “Necessitas magna fuit, ut Christus ab initio vitæ suæ esset
Deo Filius, qualis futurus non fuisset nisi Dei virtute aliquid creatum
fuisset, quod ad constituendum Christi corpus, una cum Mariæ sanguine
concurrit. Mansit autem nihilominus sanguis Mariæ Virginis purissimus,
etiamsi cum alio aliquo semine commixtus fuit. Potuit enim tam purum, imo
porius semen, a Deo creari, et proculdubio creatum fuit, quam erat sanguis
Mariæ. Communis denique sensus et fides Christianorum omnium, quod
Christus non ex virili semine conceptus sit; primum communis error
censendus est, si sacris literis repuguet: Deinde id quod omnes sentiunt,
facile cum ipsa veritate conciliari potest, ut scilicet semen illud, quod a Deo creatum, et cum
semine Mariæ conjuncture fuit, dicatur non virile, quia non a viro
profectum sit, vel ex viro in uterum Virginis translatum, ut quidam
opinantur, qui semen Josephi translatum in Virginis uterum credunt,”
cap. xviii., p. 158. And thus far are men arrived: Unless
this horrible figment may be admitted, Christ is not the Son of God. He
who is the “true God and eternal life” will one day plead the cause of his
own glory against these men.
I insist somewhat the more on these things, that men may
judge the better whether in all probability Mr
B., in his “impartial search into the Scripture,” did not use the
help of some of them that went before him in the discovery of the same
things which he boasts himself to have found out.
And this is the first reason which our catechist hath taken
from his masters to communicate to his scholars why Jesus Christ is called
the “Son of God.” This he and they insist on exclusively to his
eternal sonship, or being the Son of God in respect of his eternal
generation of the substance of his Father.
The other causes which they assign why he is called the
“Son of God” I shall very briefly point unto. By the way that hath been
spoken of, they say he was the Son of God, the natural Son of God. But
they say he was the Son of God before he was God. He grew afterward to be
a God by degrees, as he had those graces and excellencies and that power
given him wherein his Godhead doth consist. So that he was the Son of God,
but not God (in their own sense) until a while after; and then when he was
so made a God, he came thereby to be more the Son of God. But by this
addition to his sonship he became the adopted Son of God; as, by being
begotten, as was before revealed, he was the natural Son of God. Let us
hear Smalcius a little opening
these mysteries. “Neither,” saith he, “was Christ God all the while he was
the Son of God. To be the Son of God is referred to his birth, and all
understand how one may be called the “Son of God” for his birth or
original. But God none can be (besides that one God), but for his likeness
to God. So that when Christ was made like God, by the divine qualities
which were in him, he was most rightly so far the Son of God as he was God,
and so far God as he was the Son of God. But before he had obtained that
likeness to God, properly he could not be said to be God.”
And these are some of those monstrous figments
which, under pretence of bare adherence to the Scripture, our
catechist would obtrude upon us: First, Christ is the Son of God; then,
growing like God in divine qualities, he is made a God; and so becomes the
Son of God. And this, if the man may be believed, is the pure doctrine of
the Scripture! And if Christ be a God because he is like God, by the same
reason we are all gods in Mr B.’s
conceit, being all made in the image and likeness of God; which, says he,
by sin we have not lost.
But what kind of sonship is added to Christ by all these
excellencies whereby he is made like to God? The same author tells us that
it is a sonship by adoption, and that Christ on these accounts
was the adopted Son of God. “If,” saith he, “what is the
signification of this word adoptivus may be considered from the
Scripture, we deny not but that Christ in this manner may be called the
‘adopted Son of God,’ seeing that such is the property and condition of an
adopted son that he is not born such as he is afterward made by adoption.
Certainly, seeing that Christ was not such by nature, or in his conception
and nativity, as he was afterward in his succeeding age, he may justly on
that account be called the ‘adopted Son of God.’ ” Such miserable plunges doth Satan drive men into
whose eyes he hath once blinded, that the glorious light of the gospel
should not shine into them! And by this we may understand, whatever they
add farther concerning the sonship of Christ, that all belongs to this
adopted sonship; whereof there is not one tittle in the whole book of
God.
The reasons they commonly add why in this sense Christ is
called the “Son of God” are the same which they give why he is called
“God.” “He is the only-begotten Son of God,” say the authors of the
Compendium of the religion before mentioned, “because God sanctified him,
and sent him into the world, and because of his exaltation at the right
hand of God, whereby he was made our Lord and God.”
If the reader desire to hear them speak in their own words,
let him consult Smalcius, De Vera Divinit.
Jes. Christ, cap. vii., etc.; Socin. Disput. cum Erasmo Johan. Rationum quatuor
antecedent. Refut. Disput. de Christi Natura, pp.
14, 15; Adversus Weikum, pp. 224,
225, et passim; Volkel. De Vera Relig. lib. v. cap. 10–12.; Jonas Schlicht. ad Meisner., pp. 192, 193, etc.;
especially the same person fully and distinctly opening and declaring the
minds of his companions, and the several accounts on which they affirm
Christ to be, and to have been called, the “Son of God,” in his Comment on the Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 16–20, as also
his Notes upon Vechnerus’ Sermon on John i. p. 14, etc.; Anonym.
Respon. ad Centum Argumenta Cichorii Jesuitæ, pp. 8–10; Confessio Fidei Christianæ, edita nomine Ecclesiarum in Polonia,
pp. 24, 25.
Their good friend Episcopius hath ordered all their causes of Christ’s
filiation under four heads:—
1. The first way (saith he) whereby Christ is in the
Scripture κατ’ ἐξοχὴν, called the “Son
of God,” is in that as man he was conceived of the Holy Ghost, and born of
a virgin. And I doubt not (saith he) but that God is on this ground called
eminently the “Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
2. Jesus Christ by reason of that duty or office
which was imposed on him by his Father, that he should be the king of
Israel promised by the prophets, is called the “Son of God.”
3. Because he was raised up by the Father to an
immortal life, and, as it were, born again from the womb of the earth
without the help of any mother.
4. Because being so raised from death, he is made
complete heir of hie Father’s house, and lord of all his heavenly goods,
saints, and angels.
The like he had written before, in his Apology for the Remonstrants, cap. ii. sect.
2.
Thus he, evidently and plainly from the persons before
named. But yet, after all this, he asks another question, — “Whether, all
this being granted, there do not yet moreover remain a more eminent and
peculiar reason why Christ is called the ‘Son of God’?” He answers himself:
“There is, — namely, his eternal generation of the Father, his being God of
God from all eternity;” which he pursues with sundry arguments, and yet in
the close disputes that the acknowledgment of this truth is not
fundamental, or the denial of it exclusive of salvation! So this great reconciler of the Arminian and
Socinian religions, whose composition and unity into an opposition to them
whom he calls Calvinists is the great design of his Theological
Institutions; and such at this day is the aim of Curcellæus and some others. By the
way, I shall desire (before I answer what he offers to confirm
his assignation of this fourfold manner of filiation to Jesus Christ) to
ask this learned gentleman (or those of his mind who do survive him) this
one question, Seeing that Jesus Christ was from eternity the Son of God,
and is called so after his incarnation, and was on that account in his
whole person the Son of God, by their own confessions, what tittle can he
or they find in the Scripture of a manifold filiation of Jesus Christ in
respect of God his Father? or whether it be not a diminution of his glory
to be called the Son of God upon any lower account, as by a new addition to
him who was eternally his only-begotten Son, by virtue of his eternal
generation of his own substance.
Having thus discovered the mind of them with whom we have
to do, and from whom our catechist hath borrowed his discoveries, I shall
briefly do these two [three?] things:— I. Show that the filiation of Christ
consists in his generation of the substance of his Father from eternity, or
that he is the Son of God upon the account of his divine nature and
subsistence therein, antecedent to his incarnation. II. That it consists
solely therein, and that he was not, nor was called, the Son of God upon
any other account but that mentioned; and therein answer what by Mr B. or others is objected to the contrary.
III. To which I shall add testimonies and arguments for the deity of
Christ, — whose opposition is the main business of that new religion which
Mr B. would catechise poor unstable souls
into, — in the vindication of those excepted against by the Racovians.
I. For the demonstration of the first assertion, I shall
insist on some few of the testimonies and arguments that might be produced
for the same purpose:—
1. He who is the true, proper, only-begotten Son of God, of
the living God, he is begotten of the essence of God his Father, and is his
Son by virtue of that generation; but Jesus Christ was thus the only, true,
proper, only-begotten Son of God: and therefore he is the Son of God upon
the account before mentioned. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the
manner expressed, the Scripture abundantly testifieth: “Lo a voice from
heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,”
Matt. iii. 17; “Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God,” chap. xvi.
16, John vi.
69.
Which [latter] place in Matthew is the rather remarkable,
because it is the confession of the faith of the apostles, given in answer
to that question, “Whom say ye that I the Son of man am?” They answer,
“The Son of the living God;” and this in opposition to them who said he was
“a prophet, or as one of the prophets,” as Mark expresses it, chap. vi. 15, — that is, only so.
And the whole confession manifests that they did in it acknowledge both his
orifice of being the Mediator and his divine nature or person also. “Thou
art the Christ.” These words comprise all the causes of filiation insisted
on by them with whom we have to do, and the whole office of
the mediation of Christ; but yet hereunto they add, “The Son of the living
God,” expressing his divine nature, and sonship on that account.
“And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us
an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that
is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal
life,” 1 John v. 20. “He spared not his own
Son,” Rom. viii. 32. “And the Word was made
flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the
only-begotten of the Father,” John i.
14. “No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him,” verse 18. “He said also that God was
his Father, making himself equal with God,” John v.
18. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten
Son,” John iii. 16. “In this was manifested
the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only-begotten Son into
the world,” 1 John iv. 9. “Thou art my Son; this
day have I begotten thee,” Ps. ii. 7,
etc. All which places will be afterward vindicated at large.
To prove the inference laid down, I shall fix on one or two
of these instances:—
1. He who is ἴδιος
υἱός, the “proper son” of any, is begotten of the substance of his
father. Christ is the proper Son of God, and God he called often ἴδιον Πατέρα, his “proper Father.” He is
properly a father who begets another of his substance; and he is properly a
son who is so begotten.
Grotius confesseth there
is an emphasis in the word ἴδιος,
whereby Christ is distinguished from that kind of sonship which the Jews
laid claim unto. Now, the sonship they
laid claim unto and enjoyed, so many of them as were truly so, was by
adoption; for “to them pertained the adoption,” Rom. ix.
4. Wherein this emphasis, then, and specially of Christ’s
sonship, should consist, but in what we assert of his natural sonship,
cannot be made to appear. Grotius says
it is “because the Son of God was a name of the Messiah.” True, but on
what account? Not that common [one] of adoption, but this of nature, as
shall afterward appear.
Again; he who is properly a son is distinguished
from him who is metaphorically so only; for any thing whatever is
metaphorically said to be what it is said to be by a translation and
likeness to that which is true. Now, if Christ be not begotten of the
essence of his Father, he is only a metaphorical Son of God by way of
allusion, and cannot be called the proper Son of God, being only one who
hath but a similitude to a proper Son; so that it is a plain contradiction
that Christ should be the proper Son of God, and yet not be begotten of his
Father’s essence. Besides, in that 8th of the Romans, the
apostle had before mentioned other sons of God, who became so by adoption,
verses 15, 16; but when he comes to
speak of Christ in opposition to them, he calls him “God’s own” or proper
“Son,” — that is, his natural Son, they being so only by adoption. And in
the very words themselves, the distance that is given him by way of
eminence above all other things doth sufficiently evince in what sense he
is called the “proper Son of God:” “He that spared not his own Son, how
shall he not with him give us all things?”
2. The only-begotten Son of God is his natural
Son, begotten of his essence, and there is no other reason of this
appellation. And this is farther clear from the antithesis of this
“only-begotten’ to “adopted.” They are adopted sons who are received to be
such by grace and favour. He is only-begotten who alone is begotten of the
substance of his father; neither can any other reason be assigned why
Christ should so constantly, in way of distinction from all others, be
called the “only-begotten Son of God.” It were even ridiculous to say that
Christ were the only-begotten Son of God and his proper Son, if he were his
Son only metaphorically and improperly. That Christ is the proper,
only-begotten Son of God, improperly and metaphorically, is that which is
asserted to evade these testimonies of Scripture. Add hereunto the
emphatical, discriminating significancy of that voice from heaven, “This is
he, that well-beloved Son of mine;” and that testimony which in the same
manner Peter gave to this sonship of Christ in his confession, “Thou art
the Son of the living God;” and the ground of Christ’s filiation will be
yet more evident. Why the Son of the living God, unless as begotten of God
as the living God, as living things beget of their own substance? But of
that place before. Christ, then, being the true, proper, beloved,
only-begotten Son of the living God, is his natural Son, of his own
substance and essence.
3. The same truth may have farther evidence given unto it
from the consideration of what kind of Son of God Jesus Christ is.
He who is such a son as is equal to his father in essence and properties
is a son begotten of the essence of his father. Nothing can give
such an equality but a communication of essence. Then, with God,
equality of essence can alone give equality of dignity and honour; for
between that dignity, power, and honour, which belong to God as God, and
that dignity or honour that is or may be given to any other, there is no
proportion, much less equality, as shall be evidenced at large afterward.
And this is the sole reason why a son is equal to his father in essence and
properties, because he hath from him a communication of the same essence
whereof he is partaker. Now, that Christ is such a Son as hath been
mentioned, the Scripture abundantly testifies. “My Father,” saith Christ,
“worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill
him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was
his Father, making himself equal with God,” John v. 17, 18. Verse 17, having called God his
Father in the particular manner before mentioned, and affirmed to himself
an equal nature and power for operation with his Father, the Jews thence
inferred that he testified of himself that he was such a Son of God
as that he was equal with God.
The full opening of this place at large is not my present
business; the learned readers know where to find that done to their hand.
The intendment of those words is plain and evident. Grotius expounds Ἴσον ἑαυτὸν τῷ Θεῷ, by “It was lawful for
him to do what was so to God, and that he was no more bound to the Sabbath
than he; which,” saith he, “was a gross calumny.” So verse
19, these words of our Saviour, “The Son can do nothing of
himself but what he seeth the Father do” (wherein the emphasis lies
evidently in the words ἀφ ἑαυτοῦ, for
the Son can do nothing of himself but what the Father doth, seeing he hath
his essence, and so, consequently, will and power, communicated to him by
the Father), he renders to be an allusion to and comparison between a
master and scholar; as the scholar looks diligently to what his
master doth, and strives to imitate him, so was it with Christ and God; —
which exposition was the very same with that which the Arians assigned to
this place, as Maldonate upon the
place makes appear. That it was not an equal licence with the Father to
work on the Sabbath, but an equality of essence, nature, and power between
Father and Son, that the Jews concluded from the saying of Christ, is
evident from this consideration, that there was no strength in that plea of
our Saviour of working on the Sabbath-day because his Father did so,
without the violation of the Sabbath, unless there had been an equality
between the persons working. That the Jews did herein calumniate Christ or
accuse him falsely, the Tritheists said, indeed, as Zanchius testifies; and Socinus is
of the same mind, whose interest Grotius
chiefly serves in his Annotations: but the whole context and carriage of
the business, with the whole reply of our Saviour, do abundantly manifest
that the Jews, as to their conclusion, were in the right, that he made
himself such a Son of God as was equal to him. For if in this conclusion
they had been mistaken, and so had calumniated Christ, there be two grand
causes why he should have delivered them from that mistake by expounding to
them what manner of Son of God he was:— First, Because of the just scandal
they might take at what he had spoken, apprehending that to be the sense of
his words which they professed. Secondly, Because on that account they
sought to slay him; which if they had done, he should by his death have
borne witness to that which was not true. They sought to kill him because
he made himself such a Son of God as by that sonship he was equal to God;
which if it were not so, there was a necessity incumbent on him to have
cleared himself of that aspersion, which yet he is so far from, as that in
the following verses he farther confirms the same thing.
So he “thought it not robbery to be equal with God,”
Phil. ii. 6. It is of God the Father
that this is spoken, as the Father, as appears in the winding up of that
discourse: Verse 11, “That every tongue should
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” And to
him is Christ equal; and therefore begotten of his own essence.
Yea, he is such a Son as is one with his Father: “I and my
Father are one,” John x.
30; which the Jews again instantly interpret, without the least
reproof from him, that he being man did yet aver himself to be God,
verse 33.
This place also is attempted to be taken out of our hands
by Grotius, though with no better
success than the former. ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν
ἐσμεν “He joineth what he had spoken with what went before,” saith
he: “If they cannot be taken from my Father’s power, they cannot be taken
from mine, for I have my power of my Father; so that it is all one to be
kept of me as of my Father:” which he intends, as I suppose, to illustrate
by the example of the power that Joseph had under Pharaoh, Gen. xli., though the verse he intend
be false printed. But that it is an unity of essence and nature,
as well as an alike prevalency of power, that our Saviour intends, [is
evident,] not only from that apprehension which the Jews had concerning the
sense of those words, who immediately took up stones to kill him for
blasphemy (from which apprehension he doth not at all labour to free them),
but also from the exposition of his mind in those words, which is given us
in our Saviour’s following discourse: for, verse
36, he tells us this is as much as if he had said, “I am the Son
of God” (now, the unity between Father and Son is in essence and nature
principally), and then that “he doeth the works of his Father,” the same
works that his Father doeth, verses
37, 38, which, were he not of the same nature with him, he could
not do; which he closes with this, “That the Father is in him, and he in
the Father,” verse 38: of which words before and
afterward.
He, then (that we may proceed), who is so the
Son of God as that he is one with God, and therefore God, is the natural
and eternal Son of God; but that such a Son is Jesus Christ is thus
plentifully testified unto in the Scripture. But because I shall insist on
sundry other places to prove the deity of Christ, which also all confirm
the truth under demonstration, I shall here pass them by. The evidences of
this truth from Scripture do so abound, that I shall but only mention some
other heads of arguments that may be and are commonly insisted on to this
purpose. Then, —
4. He who is the Son of God, begotten of his Father by an
eternal communication of his divine essence, he is the Son begotten of the
essence of the Father; for these terms are the same, and of the same
importance. But this is the description of Christ as to his sonship which
the Holy Ghost gives us. Begotten he was of the Father, according to his
own testimony: “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee,” Ps.
ii. 7. And he is “the only-begotten Son of God,” John iii. 18. And that he is so
begotten by a communication of essence we have his own testimony: “Before
the hills, was I brought forth,” Prov. viii.
25. He was begotten and brought forth from eternity. And now
he tells you farther, John v.
26, “The Father hath given to the Son to have life in himself.”
It was by the Father’s communication of life unto him, and his living
essence or substance; for the life that is in God differs not from his
being. And all this from eternity: “The Lord possessed me in the beginning
of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from
the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was
brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before
the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth,” etc.,
Prov. viii. 22, etc., to the end of
verse 31. “But thou, Bethlehem
Ephratah, out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in
Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting,”
Mic. v. 2. “In the beginning was the
Word,” John i. 1. “And now, O Father, glorify
thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the
world was,” John xvii. 5. “And again, when he
bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith,” etc., Heb. i. 6, etc.
5. The farther description which we have given us of this
Son makes it yet more evident: “He is the brightness of his Father’s glory,
and the express image of his person,” Heb. i. 3.
“The image of the invisible God,” Col. i.
15. That Christ is the essential image of his Father,
and not an accidental image, an image so as no creature is or can
be admitted into copartnership with him therein, shall be on another
occasion in this treatise fully demonstrated. And thither the vindication
of these texts from the gloss of Grotius
is also remitted.
And this may suffice (without insisting upon
what more might be added) for the demonstration of the first assertion,
That Christ’s filiation ariseth from his eternal generation, or he is the
Son of God upon the account of his being begotten of the essence of his
Father from eternity.
II. That he is and is termed the Son of God solely
on this account, and not upon the reasons mentioned by Mr B. and explained from his companions, is with equal
clearness evinced. Nay, I see not how any thing may seem necessary for
this purpose to be added to what hath been spoken; but for the farther
satisfaction of them who oppose themselves, the ensuing considerations,
through the grace and patience of God, may be of use:—
1. If, for the reasons and causes above insisted on from
the Socinians, Christ be the Son of God, then Christ is the Son of God
“according to the flesh,” or according to his human nature. So he
must needs be, if God be called his Father because he supplied the room of
a father in his conception. But this is directly contrary to the
scriptures calling him the Son of God in respect of his divine nature, in
opposition to the flesh or his human nature: “Concerning his Son Jesus
Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the
flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power,” Rom. i. 3, 4. “Of whom as concerning
the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever,” Rom. ix. 5. The same distinction and
opposition is observed, 2 Cor. xiii.
4, 1 Pet. iii.
18. If Jesus Christ according to the flesh be the Son of David,
in contradistinction to the Son of God, then doubtless he is not called the
Son of God according to the flesh; but this is the plain assertion of the
Scripture in the places before named. Besides, on the same reason that
Christ is the Son of man, on the same he is not the Son of God; but Christ
was and was called the Son of man upon the account of his conception of the
substance of his mother, and particularly the Son of David, and so is not
on that account the Son of God.
Farther; that place of Rom. i. 3,
4, passing not without some exceptions as to the sense insisted
on, may be farther cleared and vindicated. Jesus Christ is called the Son
of God: Verses 1,
3, “The gospel of God concerning his Son Jesus Christ.” This
Son is farther described, — (1.) By his human nature: He was “made of the
seed of David according to the flesh.” (2.) In respect of his person or
divine nature, wherein he was the “Son of God,” and that ἐν δυνάμει, “in power” or “existing in the power of
God,” for so δύναμις put absolutely
doth often signify: as Rom. i.
20; Matt. vi. 13, xxvi.
64; Luke iv.
36. He had, or was in, the omnipotency of God; and was this
declared to be, not in respect of the flesh, in which he was “made of a
woman,” but κατὰ Πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης
(which is opposed to κατὰ σάρκα), “according to,” or “in respect of, his divine holy Spirit;” as is
also the intendment of that word “The Spirit,” in the places above
mentioned. Neither is it new that the deity of Christ should be called
Πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης himself is called
קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים, Dan. ix. 24, Sanctitas Sanctitatum, as here Spiritus Sanctitatis. And all
this, saith the apostle, was declared so to be, or Christ was declared to
be thus the Son of God, in respect of his divine, holy, spiritual, being,
which is opposed to the flesh, ἐξ ἀναστάσεως
νεκρῶν, “by the” (or his) “resurrection from the dead,” whereby an
eminent testimony was given unto his deity. He was “declared to be the Son
of God” thereby, according to the sense insisted on.
To weaken this interpretation, Grotius moves, as they say, every stone, and heaves at every
word; but in vain. (1.) Ὁρισθέντος,
he tells us, is as much as προορισθέντος, as by the Vulgar Latin it is
translated prædestinatus.
So, he pleads, it was interpreted by many of the ancients. The places he
quotes were most of them collected by Beza in his annotations on the place, who yet rejects
their judgment therein, and cites others to the contrary. Luke xxii. 22, Acts
x. 42, xvii. 31, are also urged by him to evince the sense of
the word; in each of which places it may be rendered “declared,” or “to
declare,” and in neither of them ought to be by “predestinated.” Though
the word may sometimes signify so (which is not proved), yet that it here
doth so will not follow. Ὅρος, a
“definition” (from whence that word comes), declares what a thing is, makes
it known; and ὁρίζω may best be
rendered “to declare,” Heb. iv. 7.
So in this place. Τί οὗν ἐστιν ὁρισθέντος
τοῦ Θεοῦ δειχθέντος ἀποφανθέντος, says Chrysostom on the place. And so doth
the subject-matter require, the apostle treating of the way whereby Christ
was manifested eminently to be the Son of God.
But the most learned man’s exposition of this place is
admirable. “Jesus,” saith he, “is many ways said to be the ‘Son of God.’ ”
This is begged in the beginning, because it will not be proved in the end.
If this be granted, it matters not much what follows. “But most commonly,
or most in a popular way, because he was raised unto a kingdom by God.”
Not once in the whole book of God! Let him, or any one for him, prove this
by any one clear testimony from Scripture, and take his whole
interpretation. The Son of God, as Mediator, was exalted to a kingdom, and
made a Prince and Saviour: but that by that exaltation he was made the Son
of God, or was so on that account, is yet to be proved; yea, it is most
false. He goes on: “In that sense the words of the second Psalm were
spoken of David, because he was exalted to a kingdom, which are applied to
Christ, Acts xiii. 33; Heb. i. 5.’ But it is not proved that
these words do at all belong to David, so much as in the type, nor any of
the words from verse 7 to the end of the psalm. If they are so to be accommodated, they belong to the
manifestation, not constitution of him; and so they are
applied to our Saviour, when they relate to his resurrection, as one who
was thereby manifested to be the Son of God, according as God had spoken of
him. But now how was Christ predestinated to this sonship? “This kingly
dignity, or the dignity of a Son, of Jesus, was predestinated and
prefigured, when, leading a mortal life, he wrought ‘signs and wonders;’
which is the sense of the words ἐν
δυνάμει.” The first sense of the word ὁρισθέντος is here insensibly slipped from.
Predestinated and prefigured are ill conjoined as words
of a neighbouring significancy. To predestinate is constantly ascribed to
God as an act of his fore-appointing things to their end; neither can this
learned man give one instance from the Scripture of any other signification
of the word. And how comes now ὁρισθέντος to be “prefigured”? Is there the least
colour for such a sense? “Predestinated to be the Son of God with power;”
that is, “The signs he wrought prefigured that he should be exalted to a
kingdom.” He was by them in a good towardliness for it. It is true, δυνάμεις, and sometimes δύναμις, being in construction with some transitive
verb, doth signify “great” or “marvellous works;” but that ἐν δυνάμει, spoken of one declared to be so, hath the
same signification, is not proved. He adds, “These signs Jesus did by ‘the
Spirit of holiness;’ that is, that divine efficacy wherewith he was
sanctified from the beginning of his conception, Luke i.
35; Mark ii. 8; John ix.
36.” In the two latter places there is not one word to the
purpose in hand; perhaps he intended some other, and these are false
printed. The first shall be afterward considered; how it belongs to what
is here asserted I understand not. That Christ wrought miracles by the
“efficacy of the grace of the Spirit,” with which he was sanctified, is
ridiculous. If by the “Spirit” is understood his “spiritual, divine
nature,” this whole interpretation falls to the ground. To make out the
sense of the words, he proceeds, “Jesus therefore is showed to be noble on
the mother’s side, as coming of an earthly king; but more noble on his
Father’s part, being made a heavenly king of God, after his resurrection,
Heb. v. 9; Acts ii. 30, xxvi.
23.” And thus is this most evident testimony of the
deity of Christ eluded, or endeavoured to be so. Christ on
the mother’s side was the “son of David,” — that is, “according to the
flesh,” — of the same nature with her and him. On the Father’s side he was
the “Son of God,” of the same nature with him. That God was his Father,
and he the Son of God, because “after his resurrection he was made a
heavenly king,” is a hellish figment, neither is there any one word or
tittle in the texts cited to prove it; so that it is a marvel to what end
they are mentioned, one of them expressly affirming that he was the Son of
God before his resurrection, Heb. v. 8,
9.
2. He who was actually the Son of God before his
conception, nativity, endowment with power or exaltation, is not the
Son of God on these accounts, but on that only which is antecedent to them.
Now, by virtue of all the arguments and testimonies before cited, as also
of all those that shall be produced for the proof and evincing of the
eternal deity of the Son of God, the proposition is unmoveably established,
and the inference evidently follows thereupon.
But yet the proposition, as laid down, may admit of farther
confirmation at present. It is, then, testified to, Prov. xxx. 4, “What is his name, and
what is his Son’s name, if thou canst tell?” He was, therefore, the Son of
God, and he was incomprehensible, even then before his incarnation.
Ps. ii. 7, “Thou art my Son; this day
have I begotten thee.” Isa. ix. 6,
“Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall
be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor,
The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” He is a Son,
as he is the everlasting Father. And to this head of testimonies belongs
what we urged before from Prov. viii.
22, etc. “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born
of every creature,” Col. i.
15, which surely as to his incarnation he was not. “Before
Abraham was, I am,” John viii.
58. But of these places, in the following chapter, I shall
speak at large.
3. Christ was so the Son of God that he that was made like
him was to be without father, mother, or genealogy: Heb. vii. 3, “Without father, without
mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life;
but made like unto the Son of God.” But now Christ, in respect of his
conception and nativity, had a mother (and one, they say, that supplied the
room of father), had a genealogy that is upon record, and beginning of
life, etc; so that upon these accounts he was not the Son of God, but on
that wherein he had none of all these things, in the want whereof
Melchisedec was made like to him. I shall only add, —
4. That which only manifests the filiation of
Christ is not the cause of it. The cause of a thing is that which
gives it its being. The manifestation of it is only that which declares it
to be so. That all things insisted on as the causes of Christ’s filiation,
by them with whom we have to do, did only declare and manifest him so to be
who was the Son of God, the Scripture witnesseth: “The Holy
Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow
thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be
called the Son of God,” Luke i.
35. He shall be called so, — thereby declared to be so: “And
great was the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world, received up into glory,” 1
Tim. iii. 16. All the causes of Christ’s filiation assigned by
our adversaries are evidently placed as manifestations of God in him, or of
his being the Son of God: “Declared to be the Son of God with power,
according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead,”
Rom. i. 3, 4. The absurdity of
assigning distinct and so far different causes of the same effect of
filiation, whether you make them total or partial, need not be insisted
on.
Farther (to add one consideration more), says Socinus, “Christ was the Son of God upon
the account of his holiness and righteousness, and
therein his likeness to God.” Now, this he had not, according to
his principles, in his infancy. He proves Adam not to have been righteous
in the state of innocency, because he had yielded actual obedience to no
law: no more had Christ done in his infancy. Therefore, — (1.) He was not
the Son of God upon the account of his nativity; nor (2.) did he become the
Son of God any otherwise than we do, namely, by heating the word, learning
the mind, and doing the will of God. (3.) God did not give his
only-begotten Son for us, but gave the son of Mary, that he might (by all
that which we supposed he had done for us) be made the Son of God. And so
(4.) this sending of Christ doth not so much commend the love of God to us
as to him, that he sent him to die and rise that he might be made God and
the Son of God. (5.) Neither can any eximious love of Christ to us be seen
in what he did and suffered; for had he not clone and suffered what he did,
he had not been the Son of God. (6.) And also, if Christ be, on the
account of his excellencies, graces, and gifts, the Son of God (which is
one way of his filiation, insisted on), — and to be God and the Son of God
is, as they say, all one, and as it is indeed, — then all who are renewed
into the image of God, and are thereby the sons of God (as are all
believers), are gods also!
And this that hath been spoken may suffice for the
confirmation of the second assertion laid down at the entrance of this
discourse.
To the farther confirmation of this assertion two things
are to be annexed:— First, The eversion of that fancy of Episcopius before mentioned, and the rest
of the Socinianising Arminians, that Christ is called the “Son of God,”
both on the account of his eternal sonship and also of those other
particulars mentioned from him above. Secondly, To consider the texts of
Scripture produced by Mr B. for the
confirmation of his insinuation, that Christ is not called the “Son of God” because of his eternal generation of the essence of his
Father. The first may easily be evinced by the ensuing arguments:—
1. The question formerly proposed to Episcopius may be renewed; for if Christ
be the Son of God partly upon the account of his eternal generation, and so
he is God’s proper and natural Son, and partly upon the other accounts
mentioned, then, —
(1.) He is partly God’s natural Son, and partly
his adopted Son; partly his eternal Son, partly a
temporary Son; partly a begotten Son, partly a
made Son; — of which distinctions, in reference to Christ, there
is not one iota in the whole book of God.
(2.) He is made the Son of God by that which only
manifests him to be the Son of God, as the things mentioned
do.
(3.) Christ is equivocally only, and not
univocally, called the Son of God; for that which hath various and
diverse causes of its being so is so equivocally. If the filiation of
Christ hath such equivocal causes as eternal generation, actual
incarnation, and exaltation, he hath an equivocal filiation; which whether
it be consistent with the Scripture, which calls him the proper Son of God,
needs no great pains to determine.
2. The Scripture never conjoins these causes of Christ’s
filiation as Causes in and of the same kind, but expressly makes the one
the sole constituting, and the rest causes manifesting
only, as hath been declared. And, to shut up this discourse, if Christ be
the Son of man only because he was conceived of the substance of his
mother, he is the Son of God only upon the account of his being begotten of
the substance of his Father.
Secondly, There remaineth only the consideration of those
texts of Scripture which Mr B. produceth
to insinuate the filiation of Christ to depend on other causes, and not on
his eternal generation of the essence of his Father; which, on the
principles laid down and proved, will receive a quick and speedy
despatch.
1. The first place named by him, and universally insisted
on by the whole tribe, is Luke i.
30–35. It is the last verse only that I suppose weight is laid
upon. Though Mr B. names the others, his
masters never do so. That of verses
31, 32 seems to deserve our notice in Mr B.’s judgment, who changes the character of the words of
it, for their significancy to his purpose. The words are, “Thou shalt
conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest.” What
Mr B. supposes may be proved from hence,
at least how he would prove what he aims at, I know not. That Jesus
Christ, who was bern of the Virgin, was a son of the Highest we contend.
On what account he was so the place mentioneth not; but the reason of it is
plentifully manifested in other places, as hath been declared.
The words of verse
35 are more generally managed by them: “The Holy Ghost shall
come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called
the Son of God.” But neither do these particles, διὸ καὶ, render a reason of Christ’s filiation, nor
are [they] a note of the consequent, but only of an inference or
consequence that ensues from what he spake before: “It being so as I have
spoken, even that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the
Son of God.” There is weight also in that expression, Ἅγιον τὸ γεννώμενον, “That holy thing that shall be
born of thee.” Ἅγιον is not spoken in
the concrete, or as an adjective, but substantively, and points out the
natural essence of Christ, whence he was “that holy thing.” Besides, if
this be the cause of Christ’s filiation which is assigned, it must be
demonstrated that Christ was on that account called the “Son of God,” for
so hath it been said that he should be; but there is not any thing in the
New Testament to give light that ever Christ was on this account called the
“Son of God,” nor can the adversaries produce any such instance.
2. It is evident that the angel in these words acquaints
the blessed Virgin that in and by her conception the prophecy of Isaiah
should be accomplished, which you have, chap. vii.
14, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall
call his name Immanuel,” as the express words of Luke declare, being the
same with those of the prophecy, “Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb,
and bring forth a son, and shalt call,” etc., verses 31, 32. And Matt. i. 20, 21, this very thing
being related, it is said expressly to be done according to what was
foretold by the prophet, verses
22, 23, repeating the very words of the Holy Ghost by Isaiah,
which are mentioned before. Now Isaiah foretelleth two things:— (1.) That
a virgin should conceive; (2.) That he that was so conceived should be
Immanuel, God with us; or the Son of God, as Luke here expresses it. And
this is that which the angel here acquaints the blessed Virgin withal upon
her inquiry, verse 34, even that, according to the
prediction of Isaiah, she should conceive and bear a son, though a virgin,
and that that son of her’s should be called the “Son of God.”
By the way, Grotius’
dealing with this text, both in his annotations on Isa.
vii., as also in his large discourse on Matt. i. 21–23, is intolerable and
full of offence to all that seriously weigh it. It is too large here to be
insisted on. His main design is to prove that this is not spoken directly
of Christ, but only applied to him by a certain general accommodation. God
may give time and leisure farther to lay open the heap of abominations
which are couched in those learned annotations throughout. Which also
appears, —
3. From the emphaticalness of the expression διὸ καὶ, “even also.” “That holy thing
which is to be born of thee, even that shall be called the Son of God, and not only that eternal Word that is to be
incarnate. That ἅγιον τὸ γεννώμενον,
being in itself ἀνυπόστατον, shall be
called the Son of God.” “Shall be called so,” that is, appear to be so,
and be declared to be so with power. It is evident, then, that the cause
of Christ’s filiation is not here insisted on, but the consequence of the
Virgin’s conception declared; that which was “born of her should be called
the Son of God.”
And this Socinus is
so sensible of that he dares not say that Christ was completely the Son of
God upon his conception and nativity; which, if the cause of his filiation
were here expressed, he must be. “It is manifest,” saith he, “that Christ
before his resurrection was not fully and completely the Son of God, being
not like God before in immortality and absolute rule.”
Mr B.’s next place,
whereby the sonship of Christ is placed on another account, as he supposes,
is John x. 36, “Say ye of him, whom the
Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because
I said, I am the Son of God?”
That this scripture is called to remembrance not at all to
Mr B.’s advantage will speedily appear;
for, —
1. Here is not in the words the least mention
whence, or for what cause it is, that Christ is the Son
of God, but only that he is so, he being expressed and spoken of under that
description which is used of him twenty times in that Gospel, “He who is
sent of the Father.” This is all that is in this place asserted, that he
whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world counted it no robbery to
be equal with him, nor did blaspheme in calling himself his Son.
2. It is evident that Christ in these words asserts himself
to be such a Son of God as the Jews charged him with blasphemy for
affirming of himself that he was; for he justifies himself against their
accusation, not denying in the least that they rightly apprehended
and understood him, but maintaining what he had spoken to be most true.
Now, this was that which the Jews charged him withal, verse 33, “That he, being a man,
blasphemed in making himself God;” for so they understood him, that in
asserting his sonship he asserted also his deity. This Christ makes good,
namely, that he is such a Son of God as is God also; yea, he makes good
what he had said, verse
30, which was the foundation of all the following discourse
about his blasphemy, “I and my Father are one.” So that, —
3. An invincible argument for the sonship of Christ, to be
placed only upon the account of his eternal generation, ariseth from this
very place that was produced to oppose it! He who is the Son of God because he is “one with the Father,” and God equal to him, is the
Son of God upon the account of his eternal relation to the Father: but that
such was the condition of Jesus Christ, himself here bears witness to the
Jews, although they are ready to stone him for it; and of his not
blaspheming in this assertion he convinces his adversaries by an argument
a minori, verses 34–36.
A brief analysis of this place will give evidence to this
interpretation of the words. Our Saviour Christ having given the reason
why the Jews believed not on him, namely, “because they were not of his
sheep,” verse 26, describes thereupon both
the nature of those sheep of his, verse
27, and their condition of safety, verse
28. This he farther confirms from the consideration of his
Father’s greatness and power, which is amplified by the comparison of it
with others, who are all less than he, verse
29; as also from his own power and will, which appears to be
sufficient for that end and purpose from his essential unity with his
Father, verse 30. The effect of this
discourse of Christ by accident is the Jews taking up of stones, which is
amplified by this, that it was the second time they did so, and that to
this purpose, that they might stone him, verse
31. Their folly and madness herein Christ disproves with an
argument ab absurdo, telling
them that it must be for some good work that they stoned him, for evil had
he done none, verse 32. This the Jews attempt to
disprove by a new argument a
disparatis, telling him that it was “not for a good work, but
for blasphemy,” that he “made himself to be God,” whom they would prove to
be but a man, verse 33. This pretence of
blasphemy Christ disproves, as I said before, by an argument a
minori, verses 34–36, and with another
from the effects or the works which he did, which sufficiently proved him
to be God, verses 37, 38, still maintaining
what he said and what they thought to be blasphemy; so that they attempt
again to kill him, verse
39. It is evident, then, that he still maintained what they
charged him with.
4. And this answers that expression which is so frequent in
the Scripture, of God’s sending his Son into the world, and that he came
down from heaven, and came into the world, Gal. iv. 4,
John iii. 13; all evincing his being
the Son of God antecedently to that mission or sanctification whereby in
the world he was declared so to be. Otherwise, the Son of God was not
sent, but one to be his Son.
Acts xiii. 32, 33, is also
insisted on: “We declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which
was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their
children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in
the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”
1. He that can see in this text a cause assigned of the
filiation of Christ that should relate to the resurrection, I
confess is sharper sighted than I. This I know, that if Christ were made
the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead, he was not the Son of God
who died, for that preceded this his making to be the Son of God. But that
God gave his only-begotten Son to die, that he spared not his only Son, but
gave him up to death, I think is clear in Scripture, if any thing be
so.
2. Paul seems to interpret this place to me, when he
informs us that “Christ was declared to be the Son of God with power, by
the resurrection from the dead,” Rom. i. 4.
Not that he was made so, but he was “declared” or made known to be so,
when, being “crucified through weakness, he lived by the power of God,”
2 Cor. xiii. 4; which power also was
his own, John x. 18.
According as was before intimated, Grotius interprets these
words, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” “I have made thee
a king; which,” he says, “was fulfilled in that, when all power was given
him in heaven and earth, Matt. xxviii.
18; as Justin in his colloquy with Trypho:
Τότε γένεσιν αὐτοῦ λέγων γενέσθαι ἐξότου ἡ
γνῶσις αὐτοῦ ἔμελλε γενέσθαι.” (1.) But then he was the Son of God before his
resurrection, for he was the Son of God by his being begotten of him: which
as it is false, so contrary to his own gloss on Luke i.
35. (2.) Christ was a king before his resurrection, and owned
himself so to be, as hath been showed. (3.) Justin’s words are suited to our exposition of this place.
He was said to be then begotten, because then he was made known to be so
the Son of God. (4.) That these words are not applied to Christ, in their
first sense, in respect of his resurrection, [is evident] from the
pre-eminence assigned unto him above angels by virtue of this expression,
Heb. i. 5, which he had before his
death, chap. i. 6. Nor, (5.) Are the words
here used to prove the resurrection, which is done in the verses following,
out of Isaiah and another psalm, “And as concerning that he raised him up
from the dead,” etc., Acts xiii. 34, 35. But then,
—
3. It is not an interpretation of the meaning of that
passage in the psalm which Paul, Acts
xiii., insists on, but the proving that Christ was the Son of
God, as in that psalm he was called, by his resurrection from the dead;
which was the great manifesting cause of his deity in the world.
What Mr B. intends by the
next place mentioned by him I know not. It is Rev. i.
5, “And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the
first begotten of the dead.” That Christ was the first who was raised from
the dead to a blessed and glorious immortality, and is thence called the
first-begotten of them, or from the dead, and that all that rise to such an
immortality rise after him, and by virtue of his resurrection,
is most certain and granted; but that from thence he is that only-begotten
Son of God, though thereby he was only “declared” so to be, there is not
the least tittle in the text giving occasion to such an apprehension.
And the same also is alarmed of the following place of
Col. i. 18, where the same words are
used again: “He is the head of the church, who is the beginning, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, — the first-born
of the dead.” Only I shall desire our catechist to look at his leisure a
little higher into the chapter, where he will find him called also πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, “the first-born of
all the creation;” so that he must surely be πρωτότοκος before his resurrection. Nay, he is so the
first-born of every creature as to be none of them; for by him they were all created, verse 16. He who is so before all
creatures as to be none of them, but that they are all created by him, is
“God Messed for ever:” which when our catechist disproves, he shall have me
for one of his disciples.
Of the same kind is that which Mr B. next urgeth from Heb. i. 4,
5, only it hath this farther disadvantage, that both the verses
going immediately before and that immediately following after do inevitably
evince that the constitutive cause of the sonship of Jesus Christ, a
priori, is in his participation of the divine nature, and that it is
only manifested by any ensuing consideration. Verses
2, 3, the Holy Ghost tells us that “by him God made the worlds,
who is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person;”
and this as the Son of God, antecedent to any exaltation as mediator. And
verse 6, “He bringeth in the
first-begotten into the world, and saith, Let all the angels of God worship
him.” He is the first-begotten before his bringing into the world; and
that this is proved by the latter clause of the verse shall be afterward
demonstrated. Between both these, much is not like to be spoken against
the eternal sonship of Christ. Nor is the apostle only declaring his
pre-eminence above the angels upon the account of that name of his, the
“Son of God,” which he is called upon record in the Old Testament, but the
causes also of that appellation he had before declared.
The last place urged to this purpose is of the same import.
It is Heb. v. 5, “So also Christ glorified
not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art
my Son, to-day have I begotten thee.” When Mr
B. proves any thing more towards his purpose from this place, but
only that Christ did not of his own accord undertake the
office of a mediator, but was designed to it of God his Father, who said
unto him, “Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee,” declaring him so
to be with power after his resurrection, I shall acknowledge him to have
better skill in disputing than as yet I am convinced he is possessed
of.
And thus have I cleared the eternal sonship of Jesus
Christ, and evinced the vanity of attempting to fix his prerogative therein
upon any other account, not doubting but that all who love him in sin,
cerity will be zealous of his glory herein. For his growing up to be the
Son of God by degrees, to be made a God in process of time, to be the
adopted Son of God, to be the Son of God upon various accounts of diverse
kinds, inconsistent with one another, to have had such a conception and
generation as modesty forbids to think or express, not to have been the Son
of God until after his death, and the like monstrous figments, I hope he
will himself keep his own in an everlasting abhorring of.
The farther confirmation of the deity of Christ, whereby
Mr B.’s whole design will be obviated,
and the vindication of the testimonies wherewith it is so confirmed from
his masters, is the work designed for the next chapter.
There are yet remaining of this chapter two or three
questions looking the same way with those already considered, which will,
upon the principles already laid down and insisted on, easily and in very
few words be turned aside from prejudicing the eternal deity of the Son of
God. His 10th, then, is, —
“What saith the Son himself concerning the prerogative of
God the Father above him?” and answer is given John xiv.
28; Mark xiii.
32; Matt. xxiv.
36: whereunto is subjoined another of the same, “What saith the
apostle Paul? — A. 1
Cor. xv. 24, 28, xi. 3, iii. 22, 23.”
The intendment of these questions being the application of
what is spoken of Christ, either as mediator or as man, unto his
person, to the exclusion of any other consideration, namely, that
of a divine nature therein, the whole of Mr B.’s aim in them is sufficiently already disappointed. It
is true, there is an order, yea, a subordination, in the
persons of the Trinity themselves, whereby the son, as to his personality,
may be said to depend on the Father, being begotten of him; but that is not
the subordination here aimed at by Mr B.,
but that which he underwent by dispensation as mediator, or which attends
him in respect of his human nature. All the difficulty that may arise from
these kinds of attribution to Christ the apostle abundantly salves in the
discovery of the rise and occasion of them, Phil.
ii. 7–9. He who was in the form of God, and equal to him, was
in the form of a servant, whereunto he humbled himself, his servant, and
less than he. And there is no more difficulty in the questions wherewith
Mr B. amuses himself and his disciples
than there was in that wherewith our Saviour stopped the mouth
of the Pharisees, — namely, how Christ could be the son of David, and yet
his Lord, whom he worshipped. For the places of Scripture in particular
urged by Mr B., [such as] John xiv. 28, says our Saviour, “My
Father is greater than I” (mittens
misso, says Grotius himself,
referring the words to office, not nature), which he was
and is in respect of that work of mediation which he had undertaken; but
“inæqualitas officii non tollit æqualitatem
naturæ.”
A king’s son is of the same nature with his father, though he may be
employed by him in an inferior office. He that was less than his Father as
to the work of mediation, being the Father’s servant therein, is equal to
him as his Son, as God to be blessed for ever. Mark
xiii. 32, Matt. xxiv.
36, affirm that the Father only knows the times and seasons
mentioned, not the angels, nor the Son; and yet, notwithstanding, it was
very truly said of Peter to Christ, “Lord, thou knowest all things,”
John xxi. 17. He that in and of the
knowledge and wisdom which as man he had, and wherein he grew from his
infancy, knew not that day, yet as he knew all things knew it; it was not
hidden from him, being the day by him appointed. Let Mr B. acknowledge that his knowing all things proves him to be
God, and we will not deny but his not knowing the day of judgment proves
him to have another capacity, and to be truly man.
As man he took on him those affections which we call φυσικὰ καὶ ἀδιάβλητα πάθη amongst which, or
consequently unto which, he might be ignorant of some things. In the meantime, he who made all things, as
Christ did, Heb. i. 2, knew their end as well as
their beginning. He knew the Father, and the day by him appointed; yea,
all things that the Father hath were his, and “in him were hid all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” Col. ii.
3.
Paul speaks to the same purpose, 1 Cor. xv. 24,
28. The kingdom that Christ doth now peculiarly exercise is his
economical mediatory kingdom; which shall have an end put to it when the
whole of his intendment in that work shall be fulfilled and accomplished.
But that he is not also sharer with his Father in that universal monarchy
which, as God by nature, he hath over all, this doth not at all prove. All
the argument from this place is but this: “Christ shall cease to be
mediator; therefore he is not God.” And that no more is here intended is
evident from the expression of it, “Then shall the Son himself be subject;”
which if it intend any thing but the ceasing from the
administration of the mediatory kingdom, wherein the human nature is a
sharer, it would prove that, as Jesus Christ is mediator, he is not in
subjection to his Father, which himself abundantly hath manifested to be
otherwise. Of 1 Cor. xi.
3, and iii.
22, 23, there is the same reason, both speaking of Christ as
mediator; whence that no testimony can be produced against his deity hath
been declared.
He adds, 12th, “Q. Howbeit, is not Christ
dignified, as with the title of Lord, so also with that of God, in the
Scripture? — A. [John xx.
28,] Thomas said, “My Lord and my God.” Verily, if Thomas said
that Christ was his God, and said true, Mr
B. is to blame who denies him to be God at all. With this one blast
of the Spirit of the Lord is his fine fabric of religion blown to the
ground. And it may be supposed that Mr
B. made mention of this portion of Scripture that he might have the
honour of cutting his own throat and destroying his own cause; or rather,
that God, in his righteous judgment, hath forced him to open his mouth to
his own shame. Whatever be the cause of it, Mr
B. is very far from escaping this sword of the Lord, either by his
insinuation in the present query, or diversion in the following. For the
present, it was not the intent of Thomas to dignify Christ with titles, but
to make a plain confession of his faith, being called upon by Christ to
believe. In this state he professes that he believes him to be his Lord
and his God. Thomas doubtless was a Christian; and Mr B. tells us that Christians have but one God, chap. i.,
ques. 1, Eph. iv. 6. Jesus Christ, then, being
the God of Thomas, he is the Christians’ one God, if
Mr B. may be believed. It is not, then,
the dignifying of Christ with titles (which it is not for men to do), but
the naked confession of a believer’s faith, that in these words is
expressed. Christ is the Lord and God of a believer; ergo the only true
God, as 1 John v. 20. Mr B. perhaps will tell you he was made a God; so one
abomination begets another, — infidelity idolatry; — of this afterward.
But yet he was not, according to his companions, made a God before his
ascension, which was not yet when Thomas made his solemn confession.
Some attempt also is made upon this place by Grotius Καὶ ὁ
Θεός μου. “Here first,” saith he, “in the story of the gospel, is
this word found ascribed by the apostle unto Jesus Christ” (which Maldonate before him observed for another
purpose), “to wit, after he had by his resurrection proved himself to be
him from whom life, and that eternal, ought to be expected. And this
custom abode in the church, as appears not only in the apostolical
writings, Rom. ix. 5, and of the ancient
Christians, as may be seen in Justin Martyr against Trypho, but in the Epistle also of Pliny unto Trajan,
where he says that the Christians sang verses to Christ as to God;” or, as the words are in
the author, “Carmen Christo, quasi Deo,
dicere secum invicem.” What the intendment of this discourse is is
evident to all those who are a little exercised in the writings of them
whom our author all along in his Annotations takes care of. That Christ
was now made a God at his resurrection, and is so called from the power
wherewith he was Intrusted at his ascension, is the aim of this discourse.
Hence he tells us it became a “custom” to call him God among the
Christians, which also abode amongst them; and to prove this “custom” he
wrests that of the apostle, Rom. ix. 5,
where the deity of Christ is spoken of, in opposition to his human nature
or his flesh, that he had of the Jews, plainly asserting a divine nature in
him, calling him God subjectively, and not only by way of
attribution. But this is, it seems, a “custom,” taken up
afar Christ’s resurrection, to call him God, and so continued; though John
testifies expressly that he was God in the beginning. It is true, indeed,
much is not to be urged from the expressions of the apostles before the
pouring out of the Spirit upon them, as to any eminent acquaintance with
spiritual things; yet they had before made this solemn confession that
Christ was the “Son of the living God,” Matt. xvi. 16–18, which is to the
full as much as what is here by Thomas expressed. That the primitive
Christians worshipped Christ and invocated him not only as a god, but
professing him to be “the true God and eternal life,” we have better
testimonies than that of a blind Pagan who knew nothing of them nor their
ways, but by the report of apostates, as himself confesseth. But learned
men must have leave to make known their readings and observations, whatever
become of the simplicity of the Scripture.
To escape the dint of this sword, Mr B. nextly queries: “Q. Was he so the God of Thomas
as that he himself in the meantime did not acknowledge another to be his
God? — A. John xx.
17; Rev. iii.
12.”
True, he who, being partaker of the divine essence, in the
form of God, was Thomas’ God, as he was mediator, the head of his church,
interceding for them, acknowledged his Father to be his God; yea, God may
be said to be his God upon the account of his sonship and personality, in
which regard he hath his deity of his Father, and as “God of God.” Not
that he is a secondary, lesser, made god, a hero, semideus, as
Mr B. fancies him, but “God blessed for
ever,” in order of subsistence depending on the Father.
Of the same nature is the last question, namely, “Have you
any passage in the Scripture where Christ, at the same time that he hath the appellation of God given to him, is said to have a God? —
A. Heb. i. 8, 9.”
By Mr B.’s favour, Christ
is not said to have a God, though God be said to be his God.
Verse 8, Christ, by Mr B.’s confession, is expressly called God.
He is, then, the one true God with the Father, or another. If the first,
what doth he contend about? If the second, he is a god that is not God by
nature, — that is, not the one God of Christians, — and consequently an
idol; and indeed such is the Christ that Mr
B. worshippeth. Whether this will be waived by the help of that
expression, verse 9, “God, thy God,” where it is
expressly spoken of him in respect of his undertaking the office of
mediation, wherein he was “anointed of God with the oil of gladness above
his fellows,” God and his saints will judge.
Thus the close of this chapter, through the good, wise hand
of the providence of God, leaving himself and his truth not without
witness, hath produced instances and evidences of the truth opposed
abundantly sufficient, without farther inquiry and labour, to discover the
sophistry and vanity of all Mr B.’s
former queries and insinuations; for which let him have the praise.
Chapter VIII.
An entrance into the examination of the Racovian Catechism in the business of the deity of Christ
— Their arguments against it answered; and testimonies of the eternity of
Christ vindicated.
III. Although the testimonies and
arguments for the deity of Christ might be urged and handled to a better
advantage, if liberty might be used to insist upon them in the method that
seems most natural for the clearing and confirmation of this important
truth, yet that I may do two works at once, I shall insist chiefly, if not
only on those texts of Scripture which are proposed to be handled and
answered by the author or authors of the Racovian Catechism; which work takes up near one-fourth
part of their book, and, as it is well known, there is no part of it
wherein so much diligence, pains, sophistry, and cunning are employed as in
that chapter, “Of the person of Christ,” which by God’s assistance we are
entering upon the consideration of.
Those who have considered their writings know that
the very substance of all they have to say for the evading of the force of
our testimonies for the eternal deity of Christ is comprised in that
chapter, there being not any thing material that any of them have elsewhere
written there omitted. And those who are acquainted with them,
their persons and abilities, do also know that their great strength and
ability for disputation lies in giving plausible answers, and
making exceptions against testimonies, cavilling at every word and letter;
being in proof and argument for the most part weak and contemptible. And
therefore, in this long chapter, of near a hundred pages, all that
themselves propose by way of argument against the deity of Christ is
contained in two or three at the most, the residue being wholly taken up
with exceptions to so many of the texts of Scripture wherein the deity of
Christ is asserted as they have been pleased to take notice of, — a course
which themselves are forced to apologize for as unbecoming catechists.
I shall, then, the Lord assisting, consider that whole
chapter of theirs in both parts of it, — as to what they have to say for
themselves, or to plead against the deity of Christ, as also what they
bring forth for their defence against the evidence of the light that
shineth from the texts whose consideration they propose to themselves, to
which many of like sort may be added.
I shall only inform the reader that this is a business
quite beyond my first intention in this treatise, to whose undertaking I
have been prevailed on by the desires and entreaties of some who knew that
I had this other work imposed on me.
Their first question and answer are:—
Ques. Declare now to me what I ought to know concerning Jesus
Christ?
Ans. Thou must know that of the things of which thou oughtest
to know, some belong to the essence of Christ and some to his
office.
Q. What are they which relate to his person?
A. That only that by nature he is a true man, even u the
Scriptures do often witness, amongst others, 1 Tim. ii.
5, 1 Cor. xv.
21; such a one as God of old promised by the prophets, and such
as the creed, commonly called the Apostles’, witnesseth him to be; which,
with us, all Christians embrace.
Ans. That Jesus Christ was a true man, in
his nature like unto us, sin only excepted, we believe, and do
abhor the abominations of Paracelsus, Wigelius, etc., and the Familists
amongst ourselves, who destroy the verity of his human nature. But that
the Socinians believe the same, that he is a man in heaven, whatever he was
upon earth, I presume the reader will judge that it may be justly
questioned, from what I have to offer (and shall do it in its place) on
that account. But that this is all that we ought to know concerning the
person of Christ is a thing of whose folly and vanity our catechists will
be one day convinced. The present trial of it between us depends in part
on the consideration of the scriptures which shall afterward
be produced to evince the contrary, our plea from whence shall not here be
anticipated. The places of Scripture they mention prove him to be a true
man, — that as man he died and rose; but that he who was man was not also
in one person God (the name of man there expressing the person, not the
nature of man only) they prove not. The prophets foretold that Christ
should be such a man as should also be the Son of God, begotten of him,
Ps. ii. 7; “The mighty God,” Isa. ix. 6, 7; “Jehovah,” Jer. xxiii. 6; “The Lord of hosts,” Zech. ii.
8, 9. And the Apostles’ Creed also (as it is unjustly called)
confesseth him to be the only Son of God, our Lord, and requires
us to believe in him as we do in God the Father; which if he were not God
were an accursed thing, Jer. xvii.
5.
Q. Is therefore the Lord Jesus a pure (or mere) man?
A. By no means; for he was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born
of the Virgin Mary, and therefore from his very conception and birth was
the Son of God, as we read, Luke i.
35, that I may not bring other causes, which thou wilt afterward
find in the person of Christ, which most evidently declare that the Lord
Jesus can by no means be esteemed a pure (or mere) man.
Ans. 1. But I have abundantly demonstrated that
Christ neither was nor was called the Son of God upon the
account here mentioned, nor any other whatever intimated in the close of
the answer, but merely and solely on that of his eternal
generation of the essence of his Father.
2. The inquiry is after the essence of Christ,
which receives not any alteration by any kind of eminency or
dignity that belongs to his person. If Christ be by essence only man, let
him have what dignity or honour he can have possibly conferred upon him,
let him be born by what means soever, as to his essence and nature he is a
man still, but a man, and not more than a man, —
that is, purus homo, a “mere
man,” — and not φύσει Θεός, “God by
nature,” but such a god as the Gentiles worshipped, Gal. iv.
8. His being made God and the Son of God afterward, which our
catechists pretend, relating to office and dignity, not to his nature,
exempts him not at all from being a mere man. This, then, is but a
flourish to delude poor simple souls into a belief of their honourable
thoughts of Christ, whom yet they think no otherwise of than the Turks do
of Mohammed, nor believe he was otherwise indeed, or is to Christians, than
as Moses to the Jews That which Paul speaks of the idols of the heathen,
that they were not gods by nature, may, according to the apprehension of
these catechists, be spoken of Christ; notwithstanding any
exaltation or deification that he hath received, he is by nature no god.
Yea, the apprehensions of these gentlemen concerning Christ and his deity
are the same upon the matter with those of the heathen concerning their
worthies and heroes, who, by an ἀποθέωσις, were translated into the number of their
gods, as Jupiter, Hercules, and others. They called them gods, indeed; but
put them close to it, they acknowledged that properly there was but one
God, but that these men were honoured as being, upon [account of] their
great worth and noble achievements, taken up to blessedness and power.
Such an hero, an Hermes or Mercury, do they make of Jesus Christ, who, for
his faithful declaring the will of God, was deified; but in respect of
essence and nature, which here is inquired after, if he be any thing
according to their principles (of making which supposal I shall give the
reader a fair account), he was, he is, and will be, a mere man to all
eternity, and no more. They allow him no more, as to his essence, than
that wherein he was like us in all things, sin only excepted, Heb. ii. 17.
Q. You said a little above that the Lord Jesus is by nature
man; hath he also a divine nature?
A. No; for that is not only repugnant to sound reason, but
also to the Scriptures.
But this is that which is now to be put to the trial,
Whether the asserting of the deity of Christ be repugnant to the
Scriptures or no. And as we shall see in the issue that as these
catechists have not been able to answer or evade the evidence of any one
testimony of Scripture, of more than an hundred that are produced for the
confirmation of the truth of his eternal deity, so, notwithstanding the
pretended flourish here at the entrance, that they are not able ‘to produce
any one place of Scripture, so much as in appearance, rising up against it.
[As] for that right reason, which in this matter of mere
divine revelation they boast of, and give it the pre-eminence in their
disputes against the person of Christ above the Scripture, unless they
discover the consonancy of it to the word, to the law and testimony,
whatever they propose on that account may be rejected with as much facility
as it is proposed. But yet, if by “right reason” they understand reason so
far captivated to the obedience of faith as to acquiesce in whatever God
hath revealed, and to receive it as truth, — than which duty there is not
any more eminent dictate of right reason indeed, — we for ever deny the
first part of this assertion, and shall now attend to the proof of it. Nor
do we here plead that reason is blind and corrupted, and that the natural
man cannot discern the things of God, and so require that men do prove
themselves regenerate before we admit them to judge of the
truth of the propositions under debate; which though necessary for them who
would know the gospel for their own good, so as to be wise unto salvation,
yet it being the grammatical and literal sense of propositions as laid down
in the word of the Scripture that we are to judge of in this case, we
require no more of men, to the purpose in hand, but an assent to this
proposition (which if they will not give, we can by undeniable
demonstration compel them to), “Whatever God, who is prima veritas, hath revealed is true, whether
we can comprehend the things revealed or no;” which being granted, we
proceed with our catechists in their attempt.
Q. Declare how it is contrary to right reason.
A. 1. In this regard, that two substances having contrary
properties cannot meet in one person; such as are to be mortal and
immortal, to have a beginning and to want a beginning, to be changeable and
unchangeable. 2. Because two natures, each of them constituting a person,
cannot likewise agree or meet in one person; for instead of one there must
(then) be two persons, and so also two Christs would exist, whom all
without controversy acknowledge to be one, and his person one.
And this is all which these gentlemen offer to make good
their assertion that the deity of Christ is repugnant to right reason;
which, therefore, upon what small pretence they have done, will quickly
appear.
1. It is true that there cannot be such a personal uniting
of two substances with such diverse properties as by that union to make an
exequation, or an equalling of those diverse properties; but that
there may not be such a concurrence and meeting of such different
substances in one person, both of them preserving entire to themselves
their essential properties, which are so diverse, there is nothing pleaded
nor pretended. And to suppose that there cannot be such an union is to beg
the thing in question against the evidence of many express testimonies of
Scripture, without tendering the least inducement for any to grant their
request.
2. In calling these properties of the several natures in
Christ “adverse” or “contrary,” they would insinuate a consideration of
them as of qualities in a subject, whose mutual contrariety should
prove destructive to the one, if not both, or, by a mixture, cause an
exurgency of qualities of another temperature. But neither are these
properties such qualities, nor are they inherent in any common subject; but
[they are] inseparable adjuncts of the different natures of Christ, never
mixed with one another, nor capable of any such thing to
eternity, nor ever becoming properties of the other nature, which they
belong not unto, though all of them do denominate the person wherein both
the natures do subsist. So that instead of pleading reason, which they
pretended they would, they do nothing, in this first part of their answer,
but beg the thing in question; which, being of so much importance and
concernment to our souls, is never like to be granted them on any such
terms. Will Christ, on their entreaties, cease to be God?
Neither is their second pretended argument of any other
kind.
1. We deny that the human nature of Christ had any such
subsistence of its own as to give it a proper personality, being
from the time of its conception assumed into subsistence with the Son of
God. This we prove by express texts of Scripture, Isa. vii. 14, ix. 6;
John i. 14; Rom. i. 3, ix. 5;
Heb. ii. 16; Luke i.
35; Heb. ix. 14; Acts iii. 15, xx.
28; Phil. ii. 7; 1 Cor. ii.
8, etc.; and by arguments taken from the assigning of all the
diverse properties by them mentioned before, and sundry others, to the same
person of Christ, etc. That we would take it for granted that this cannot
be, is the modest request of these gentlemen with whom we have to do.
2. If by natures constituting persons they mean
those who, antecedently to their union, have actually done so, we grant
they cannot meet in one person, so that upon this union they should cease
to be two persons. The personality of either of them being destroyed,
their different beings could not be preserved. But if by “constituting”
they understand only that which is so in potentia, or a next possibility of
constituting a person, then, as before, they only beg of us that we would
not believe that the person of the Word did assume the human nature of
Christ, that “holy thing that was born of the Virgin,” into subsistence
with itself; which, for the reasons before mentioned, and others like to
them, we cannot grant.
And this is the substance of all that these men plead and
make a noise with in the world, in an opposition to the eternal deity of
the Son of God! This pretence of reason (which evidently comes
short of being any thing else) is their shield and buckler in the cause
they have unhappily undertaken. When they tell us of Christ’s being hungry
and dying, we say it was in the human nature, wherein he was obnoxious to
such things no less than we, being therein made like unto us in all things,
sin only excepted; — when of his submission and subjection to his Father,
we tell them it is in respect of the office of mediator, which he willingly
undertook, and that his inequality unto him as to that office doth no way
prejudice his equality with him in respect of his nature and being. But
when, with the Scriptures and arguments from thence, as clear and
convincing as if they were written with the beams of the sun, we prove our
dear Lord Jesus, in respect of a divine nature, whereof he was
partaker from eternity, to be God, blessed for ever, they tell us it cannot
be that two such diverse natures as those of God and man should be united
in one person; and it cannot be so, because it cannot be so, — there is no
such union among other things! And these things must be, that those who
axe approved may be tried. But let us hear them out.
Q. But whereas they show that Christ consisteth of a divine
and human nature, as a man consisteth of soul and body, what is to be
answered them?
A. That here is a very great difference; for they say that the
two natures in Christ are so united that Christ is both God and man. But
the soul and body are in that manner conjoined in man, that a man is
neither soul nor body; for neither soul nor body doth singly of itself
constitute a person. But as the divine nature by itself constitutes a
person, so it is necessary that the human nature should do.
Ans. 1. In what sense it may be said that Christ,
that is, the person of Christ, consisteth of a divine and human nature, was
before declared. The person of the Son of God assumed the human nature
into subsistence with itself, and both in that one person are Christ.
2. If our catechists have no more to say, to the
illustration given of the union of the two natures in the person of Christ
by that of the soul and body in one human person, but that there is “a
great difference” in something between them, they do but filch away the
grains that are allowed to every similitude, and show wherein the
comparates differ, but answer not to that wherein they do agree.
3. All that is intended by this similitude is, to show that
besides the change of things, one into another, by the loss of one, as of
water into wine by Christ, and besides the union that is in physical
generation by mixture, whereby and from whence some third thing ariseth,
that also there is a substantial union, whereby one thing is not turned
into another nor mixed with it. And the end of using this similitude
(which, to please our catechists, we can forbear, acknowledging that there
is not among created beings any thing that can fully represent this, which
we confess “without controversy to be a great mystery”) is only to manifest
the folly of that assertion of their master on John i.,
“That if the ‘Word be made flesh’ in our sense, it must be turned into
flesh; for,” saith he, “one thing cannot be made another but by change,
conversion, and mutation into it:” the absurdity of which assertion is
sufficiently evinced by the substantial union of soul and body, made one
person, without that alteration and change of their natures
which is pleaded for. Neither is the Word made flesh by
alteration, but by union.
4. It is confessed that the soul is not said to be made the
body, nor the body said to be made the soul, as the Word is said to be made
flesh; for the union of soul and body is not a union of distinct substances
subsisting in one common subsistence, but a union of two parts of one
nature, whereof the one is the form of the other. And herein is the
dissimilitude of that similitude. Hence will that predication be justified
in Christ, “The Word was made flesh,” without any change or alteration,
because of that subsistence whereunto the flesh or human nature of Christ
was assumed, which is common to them both. And so it is in accidental
predications. When we say a man is made white, black, or pale, we do not
intend that he is as to his substance changed into whiteness, etc., but
that he who is a man is also become white.
5. It is true that the soul is not a person, nor the body,
but a person is the exurgency of their conjunction: and therefore we do not
say that herein the similitude is [to be] urged, for the divine nature of
Christ had its own personality antecedent to this union; nor is the union
of his person the union of several parts of the same nature, but the
concurrence of several natures in one subsistence.
6. That it is “of necessity that Christ’s human nature
should of itself constitute a person,” is urged upon the old account of
begging the thing in question. This is that which in the case of Christ we
deny, and produce all the proofs before mentioned to make evident the
reason of our denial; but our great masters here say the contrary, and our
under-catechists are resolved to believe them. Christ was a true man,
because he had the true essence of a man, soul and body, with all their
essential properties. A peculiar personality belongeth not to the essence
of a man, but to his existence in such a manner. Neither do we deny Christ
to have a person as a man, but to have a human person: for the human nature
of Christ subsisteth in that which, though it be in itself divine, yet as
to that act of sustentation which it gives the human nature, is the
subsistence of a man; on which account the subsistence of the human nature
of Christ is made more noble and excellent than that of any other man
whatever.
And this is the whole plea of our catechists from reason,
that whereto they so much pretend, and which they give the pre-eminence
unto in their attempts against the deity of Christ, as the chief, if not
the only engine they have to work by. And if they be thus weak in the main
body of their forces, certainly that reserve which they pretend from
Scripture, — whereof, indeed, they have the meanest pretence and show that
ever any of the sons of men had who were necessitated to make a plea from
it in a matter of so great concernment as that now under consideration, —
will quickly disappear. Thus, then, they proceed:—
Q. Declare, also, how it is repugnant to
Scripture that Christ hath a divine nature.
A. First, Because that the Scripture proposeth to us one only
God by nature, whom we have above declared to be the Father of Christ.
Secondly, The same Scripture testifieth that Jesus Christ was by nature a
man, whereby it taketh from him any divine nature. Thirdly, Because
whatever divine thing Christ hath, the Scripture plainly teacheth that he
had it by a gift of the Father, Matt. xxviii.
18; Phil. ii. 9; 1 Cor.
xv. 27; John v. 19, x. 25.
Lastly, Because the same Scripture most evidently showing that Jesus
Christ did not vindicate and ascribe all his divine works to himself, or to
any divine nature of his own, but to his Father, makes it plain that divine
nature in Christ was altogether in vain, and would have been without any
cause.
And this is that which our catechists have to pretend from
Scripture against the deity of Christ, concluding that any such divine
nature in him would be superfluous and needless, — themselves being judges.
In the strength of what here they have urged, they set themselves to evade
the evidence of near fifty express texts of Scripture, by themselves
produced and insisted on, giving undeniable testimony to the truth they
oppose. Let, then, what they have brought forth be briefly
considered:—
1. The Scripture doth indeed propose unto us “one only God
by nature,” and we confess that that only true God is the “Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ;” but we say that the Son is partaker of the Father’s
nature, of the same nature with him, as being his proper Son, and, by his
own testimony, one with him. He is such a Son (as hath been declared) as
is begotten of the essence of his Father; and is therefore God, blessed for
ever. If the Father be God by nature, so is the Son; for he is of the same
nature with the Father.
2. To conclude that Christ is not God because he is man, is
plainly and evidently to beg the thing in question. We evidently discover
in the person of Christ properties that are inseparable adjuncts of a
divine nature, and such also as no less properly belong to a human nature.
From the asserting of the one of these to conclude to a denial of the
other, is to beg that which they are not able to dig for.
3. There is a twofold communication of the Father to the
Son:— (1.) By eternal generation. So the Son receives his
personality, and therein his divine nature, from him who said unto him,
“Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” And this is so far from
disproving the deity of Christ that it abundantly confirms it.
And this is mentioned, John v.
19–23. This Christ hath by nature. (2.) By collation of
gifts, honour and dignity, exaltation and glory, upon him as mediator,
or in respect of that office which he humbled himself to undergo, and for
the full execution whereof and investiture [where] with glory, honour, and
power were needful; which is mentioned, Matt.
xxviii. 18, Phil. ii.
9, 1 Cor. xv.
27: which is by no means derogatory to the deity of the Son; for
inequality in respect of office is well consistent with equality in respect
of nature. This Christ hath by grace. Matt.
xxviii. 18, Christ speaks of himself as thoroughly furnished
with authority for the accomplishing of the work of mediation which he had
undertaken. It is of his office, not of his nature or essence, that he
speaks. Phil. ii. 9, Christ is said to be
exalted; which he was in respect of the real exaltation given to his human
nature, and the manifestation of the glory of his divine, which he had with
his Father before the world was, but had eclipsed for a season. 1 Cor. xv. 27 relates to the same
exaltation of Christ as before.
4. It is false that Christ doth not ascribe the divine
works which he wrought to himself and his own divine power, although that
he often also makes mention of the Father, as by whose appointment he
wrought those works, as mediator: John v.
17, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work;” verse 19, “For what things soever the
Father doeth, these also doeth the Son;” verse
21, “For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them,
even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.” Himself wrought the works that
he did, though as to the end of his working them, which belonged to his
office of mediation, he still relates to his Father’s designation and
appointment.
And this is the whole of our catechists’ plea from
reason and Scripture against the deity of Christ. [As]
for the conclusion, of the superfluousness and needlessness of such a
divine nature in the Mediator, as it argues them to be ignorant of the
Scriptures, and of the righteousness of God, and of the nature of sin, so
it might administer occasion to insist upon the demonstration of the
necessity which there was that he who was to be mediator between God and
man should be both God and man, but that I aim at brevity, and the
consideration of it may possibly fall in upon another account, so that here
I shall not insist thereon.
Nextly, then, they address themselves to that which is
their proper work (wherein they are exceedingly delighted), — namely, in
giving in exceptions against the testimonies produced for the confirmation
of the truth under consideration, which they thus enter upon:—
Q. But they endeavour to assert the divine nature of Christ
from the Scriptures.
A. They endeavour it, indeed, diverse ways; and that whilst
they study either to evince out of certain scriptures what is
not in them, or whilst they argue perversely from those things which are in
the scriptures, and so evilly bring their business to pass.
These, it seems, are the general heads of our arguments for
the deity of Christ; but before we part we shall bring our catechists to
another reckoning, and manifest both that what we assert is expressly
contained in the Scriptures, and what we conclude by ratiocination from
them hath an evidence in it which they are not able to resist. But they
say, —
Q. What are those things which they labour to evince
concerning Christ out of the Scriptures, which are not contained in
them?
A. Of this sort is, as they speak, his pre-eternity; which
they endeavour to confirm with two sorts of scriptures:— 1. Such as wherein
they suppose this pre-eternity is expressed; 2. Such as wherein, though it
be not expressed, yet they think that it may be gathered from them.
That we do not only “suppose,” but have also as great an
assurance as the plain, evident, and redoubled testimony of the Holy Ghost
can give us of the eternity of Jesus Christ, shall be made evident in the
ensuing testimonies, both of the one sort and the other, especially by such
as are express thereunto; for in this matter we shall very little trouble
the reader with collections and arguings, the matter inquired after being
express and evident in the words and terms of the Holy Ghost himself. They
say, then, —
Q. Which are those testimonies of Scripture which seem to them
to express his pre-eternity?
A. They are those in which the Scripture witnesseth of Christ
that he was in the beginning, that he was in heaven, that he was before
Abraham, John i. 1,
vi. 62, viii. 58.
Before I come to the consideration of the particular places
proposed by them to be insisted on, I shall desire to premise one or two
things; as, —
1. That it is sufficient for the disproving of their
hypothesis concerning Christ if we prove him to have been existent before
his incarnation, whether the testimonies whereby we prove it reach
expressly to the proof of his eternity or no. That which they have
undertaken to maintain is, that Christ had no existence before his
conception and birth of the Virgin; — which if it be disproved, they do
not, they cannot, deny but that it must be on the account of a divine nature; for as to the incarnation of any preexisting
creature (which was the Arians’ madness), they disavow and oppose it.
2. That those three places mentioned are very far from
being all wherein there is express confirmation of the eternity of Christ;
and therefore, when I have gone through the consideration of them, I shall
add some others also, which are of no less evidence and perspicuity than
those whose vindication we are by them called unto.
To the first place mentioned they thus proceed:—
Q. What dost thou answer to the first?
A. In the place cited there is nothing about that
pre-eternity, seeing here is mention of the beginning, which is opposed to
eternity. But the word “beginning” is almost always in the Scripture
referred to the subject-matter, as may be seen, Dan. viii.
1; John xv. 27, xvi.
4; Acts xi.
15: and therefore, seeing the subject-matter here is the gospel,
whose description John undertakes, without doubt, by his word “beginning,”
John understood the beginning of the gospel.
This place being express to our purpose, and the matter of
great importance, I shall first confirm the truth contended for from
thence, and then remove the miserable subterfuge which our catechists have
received from their great apostles, uncle and nephew.
1. That John, thus expressly insisting on the deity of
Christ in the beginning of his Gospel, intended to disprove and condemn
sundry that were risen up in those days denying it, or asserting the
creation or making of the world to another demiurgus, we have the
unquestionable testimony of the first professors of the religion of Jesus
Christ, with as much evidence and clearness of truth as any thing can be
tendered on uncontrolled tradition; which at least will give some insight
into the intendment of the Holy Ghost in the words.
2. That by ὁ Λόγος,
howsoever rendered, Verbum or
Sermo, or on what account
soever he be so called, either as being the eternal Word and Wisdom of the
Father, or as the great Revealer of his will unto us (which yet of itself
is not a sufficient cause of that appellation, for others also reveal the
will of God unto us, Acts xx.
27, Heb. i. 1), Jesus Christ is intended,
is on all hands confessed, and may be undeniably evinced from the context
This ὁ Λόγος came into the world and
was rejected by his own, verse 11;
yea, expressly, he “was made flesh,” and was “the only-begotten of the
Father,” verse 14.
3. That the whole of our argument from this
place is very far from consisting in that expression, “In the beginning,”
though that, relating to the matter whereof the apostle treats, doth
evidently evince the truth pleaded for. It is part of our catechists’
trade so to divide the words of Scripture that their main import and
tendence may not be perceived. In one place they answer to the first
words, “In the beginning;” in another, to “He was with God, and he was
God;” in a third, to that, “All things were made by him;” in a fourth (all
at a great distance one from another), to “The Word was made flesh:” which
desperate course of proceeding argues that their cause is also desperate,
and that they durst not meet this one testimony, as by the Holy Ghost
placed and ordered for the confirmation of our faith, without such a bold
mangling of the text as that instanced in.
4. I shall, then, insist upon the whole of this testimony
as the words are placed in the contexture by the Holy Ghost, and vindicate
them from what, in several places, they have excepted against several
parcels of them. Thus, then, from these words (these divine words, whose
very reading reclaimed as eminent a scholar as the world enjoyed in his
days from atheism) we proceed.
He that was in the beginning before the creation of the
world, before any thing of all things that are made was made, who was then
with God, and was God, who made all things, and without whom nothing was
made, in whom was life, — he is God by nature, blessed for ever; nor is
there, in the whole Scripture, a more glorious and eminent description of
God, by his attributes, names, and works, than here is given of him
concerning whom all these things are spoken. But now all this is expressly
affirmed of the “Word that was made flesh;” that is, confessedly, of Jesus
Christ: therefore he is God by nature, blessed for ever. Unto the several
parts of this plain and evident testimony, in several places they except
several things; thinking thereby to evade that strength and light which
each part yields to other as they lie, and all of them to the whole. I
shall consider them in order as they come to hand.
Against that expression, “In the beginning,” they except,
in the place mentioned above, that it doth not signify pre-eternity, which
hath no beginning. But, —
1. This impedes not at all the existence of Jesus Christ
before the creation, although it denies that his eternity is expressly
asserted. Now, to affirm that Christ did exist before the whole creation,
and made all things, doth no less prove him to be no more a creature, but the eternal God, than the most express testimony of his
eternity doth or can do. 2. Though eternity has no beginning, and the sense
of these words cannot be, “In the beginning of eternity,” yet eternity is
before all things, and “In the beginning” may be the description of
eternity, as it is plainly, Prov. viii.
23. “From everlasting,” and “In the beginning, before the earth
was,” are of the same import. And the Scripture saying that “In the
beginning the Word was,” not “was made,” doth as evidently express eternity
as it doth in these other phrases of, “Before the world was,” or “Before
the foundation of the world,” which more than once it insists on, John xvii. 5. 3. By “In the
beginning” is intended before the creation of all things. What will it
avail our catechists if it do not expressly denote eternity? Why, the word
“beginning” is to be interpreted variously, according to the subject-matter
spoken of, as Gen. i. 1; which being here the gospel,
it is the beginning of the gospel that is intended! But, —
Be it agreed that the word “beginning” is to be understood
according to the subject-matter whereunto it is applied, yet that the
apostle doth firstly and nextly treat of the gospel, as to the season of
its preaching, is most absurd. He treats evidently and professedly of the
person of the author of the gospel, of the Word that was God and was made
flesh. And that this cannot be wrested to the sense intended is clear;
for, — 1. The apostle evidently alludes to the first words of Genesis, “In
the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;” and the Syriac
translation from the Hebrew here places בְּרִ שִׁית. So here, “In the beginning the Word
made all things.” 2. The following words, “The Word was with God, and the
Word was God,” manifest the intendment of the Holy Ghost to be, to declare
what and where the Word was before the creation of the world, even with
God. 3. The testimony that he was God in the beginning will no way agree
with this gloss. Take his being God in their sense, yet they deny that he
was God in the beginning of the gospel or before his suffering, as hath
been showed. 4. The sense given by the Socinians to this place is indeed
senseless. “In the beginning,” say they, “that is, when the gospel
began to be preached by John Baptist” (which is plainly said to be before
the world was made), “the Word, or the man Jesus Christ” (the Word
being afterward said to be made flesh, after this whole description of him
as the Word), “was with God, so hidden as that he was known only
to God” (which is false, for he was known to his mother, to Joseph, to John
Baptist, to Simeon, Anna, and to others), “and the Word was God;
that is, God appointed that he should be so afterward, or made God” (though
it be said he was God then when he was with God). “And all things were
made by him; the new creature was made by him; or the world by his
preaching, and teaching, and working miracles, was made, or reformed” (that
is, something was mended by him). Such interpretations we may
at any time be supplied withal at an easy rate. 5. To view it a little
farther: “In the beginning, — that is, when John preached Jesus,
and said, ‘Behold the Lamb of God,’ — was the Word, or Jesus was;”
that is, he was when John preached that he was. “Egregiam vero laudem!” He was when he was! “The
Word was in the beginning;” that is, Jesus was flesh and blood, and then
was afterward made flesh, and dwelt among us, when he had dwelt amongst us!
And this is that interpretation which Faustus Socinus, receiving from his uncle Lælius, first set up upon, in the strength
whereof he went forth unto all the abominations which afterward he so
studiously vented.
Passing by these two weighty and most material passages of
this testimony, “The Word was God,” and “The Word was with God,” the one
evidencing his oneness of nature with, and the other his
distinctness of personality from, his Father, our catechists,
after an interposition of near twenty pages, fix upon verse 3, and attempt to pervert the
express words and intendment of it, having cut it off from its dependence
on what went before, that evidently gives light into the aim of the Holy
Ghost therein. Their words concerning this verse are, —
Q. Declare to me with what testimonies they contend to prove
that Christ created the heaven and the earth?
A. With those where it is written, that “by him all things
were made, and without him was nothing made that was made,” and “the world
was made by him,” John i. 3, 10; as
also Col. i. 16; Heb. i. 2, 10–12.
Q. But how dost thou answer to the first testimony?
A. 1. It is not, in the first testimony, they were created,
but they were “made.” 2. John says “They were made by him;” which manner of
speaking doth not express him who is the first cause of any thing, but the
second or mediate cause. Lastly, The word “all things” is not taken for
all things universally, but is altogether related to the subject-matter;
which is most frequent in the Scriptures, especially of the New Testament,
whereof there is a signal example, 2 Cor. v.
17, wherein there is a discourse of a thing very like to this
whereof John treats, where it is said “All things are made new,” whereas it
is certain that there are many things which are not made new. Now, whereas
the subject-matter in John is the gospel, it appeareth that this word “all
things” is to be received only of all those things which belong to the
gospel.
Q. But why doth John add, that “without him nothing was made
that was made?”
A. John added these words that he might the better illustrate
those before spoken, “All things were made by him;” which seem to import
that all those things were made by the Word or Son of God, although some of
them, and those of great moment, were of such sort as were not done by him
but the apostles, — as the calling of the Gentiles, the abolishing of legal
ceremonies: for although these things had their original from the preaching
and works of the Lord Jesus, yet they were not perfected by Christ himself,
but by his apostles; but yet not without him, for the apostles administered
all things in his name and authority, as the Lord himself said, “Without me
ye can do nothing,” John xv.
5.
Thus to the third verse, of which afterward.
We shall quickly see how these men are put to their shifts to escape the
sword of this witness, which stands in the way to cut them off in their
journeying to curse the church and people of God by denying the deity of
their blessed Saviour.
The connection of the words is wholly omitted, “He was God,
and he was in the beginning with God, and all things were made by him.”
The words are an illustration of his divine nature by divine power and
works, He was God, and he made all things. “He that made all things is
God,” Heb. iii. 4; “The Word made all
things,” John i. 3: therefore he is God. Let
us see what is answered.
1. “It is not said they were created by him, but ‘made.’ ”
But the word here used by John is the same that in sundry places the LXX.
(whom the writers of the New Testament followed) used about the creation;
as Gen. i. 3, Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς Γενηθήτω φῶς καὶ ἐγένετο φῶς, and
verse 6, Ἐγένετο στερέωμα. And if, as it is affirmed, he was in
the beginning (before all things), and made them all, he made them out of
nothing; that is, he created them. To create is but to produce something
out of nothing, “nothing” supplying the term from whence of their
production. But, —
2. “They are said to be made ‘by him:’ it is δι’ αὐτοῦ, which denotes not the principal,
but mediate or instrumental cause.” But it is most evident that these men
care not what they say, so they may say something that they think will
trouble them whom they oppose.
(1.) This might help the Arians, who fancied Christ to be
created or made before all things, and to have been the
instrumental cause whereby God created all other things; but how this
concerns them to insist on who deny that Christ had any
existence at all before the world was some thousands of years old is not
easy to be apprehended.
(2.) In their own sense this is not to the purpose, but
expressly contradictory to what they offer in the last place, by way of
answer to the latter part of the third verse. Here they say he is not the
principal efficient cause, but the second or mediate; there, that
all things were either done by him or in his name and authority, which
certainly denotes the principal cause of the things done. But, —
(3.) This very expression is sundry times used concerning
God the Father himself whom our catechists will not therefore deny
to have been the principal efficient cause of the things ascribed to him:
Rom. xi. 36, “From him, and δι’ αὐτοῦ, by him are all things;” 1 Cor. i. 9, “God is faithful, δι’ οὖ, ‘by whom ye were called;” Gal. i. 1, “Paul, an apostle, not of
men, neither by man, but διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
καὶ Θεοῦ Πατρός, by Jesus Christ and God the Father;” Eph. i. 1, Διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ, “By the will of God.” So that
this also is frivolous. Thus far we have nothing to the purpose. But,
—
3. “ ‘All things’ are to be referred to the gospel, all
things of the gospel whereof John treats; so are the words to be restrained
by the subject-matter.” But, —
(1.) This is merely begged. John speaks not one
word of the gospel as such, gives no description of it, its nature or
effects; but evidently, plainly, and directly speaks of the Word that was
God, and that made all things, describing him in his eternity, his works,
his incarnation, his employment, his coming into the world, and his
business; and treats of the gospel, or the declaration of the will of God
by Jesus Christ, distinctly afterward, from verse
15 and forwards,
(2.) For the expression, 2 Cor. v.
17, “All things are become new,” it is expressly restrained to
the “new creature,” to them that are “in Christ Jesus;” but as to this
general expression here, there is no colour why it should be so restrained,
the expression itself everywhere signifying the creation of all things.
See Gen. ii. 1, 2; Ps. xxxiii. 6, cxxi.
2; Isa. xxxvii.
16, xliv. 24, lxvi. 1, 2; Jer. xxxii.
17; Acts xiv. 15, xvii.
24.
And this is it which they plead to the first part of the
verse, “All things were made by him.”
4. The other expression, they say, is added to manifest
that “what was done after by the apostles was not done without him; and
that is the meaning of these words, ‘And without him was not any thing made
that was made.’ ” But, —
(1.) Their πρῶτον
ψεῦδος, of referring the whole passage to the description of the
gospel, whereof there is not the least tittle nor intimation in the text,
being removed out of the way, this following figment falls of itself.
(2.) This gloss is expressly contrary to the text. The
“all things” here mentioned are the “all things” that were made in the
beginning of the world, but this gloss refers it to the things
made in the end of the world.
(3.) It is contradictory to itself, for by the “beginning”
they understand the beginning of the gospel, or the first preaching of it,
but the things that they say here were made by Christ are things that were
done after his ascension.
(4.) It is true, the apostles wrought not any miracles,
effected no mighty works, but by the presence of Christ with them (though
the text cited to prove it, John xv.
5, be quite of another importance, as speaking of gospel
obedience, not works of miracles or conversions); but that those works of
theirs, or his by them, are here intended, is not offered to proof by our
catechists. And this is the sense of the words they give: “Christ in
the beginning of the gospel made all things, or all
things were made by him, even those which he made by others after his
ascension into heaven;” or thus, “All things, that is, some
things, were made, that is, mended, by him, that is, the
apostles, in the beginning of the gospel, that is, after his
ascension.”
(5.) Our sense of the words is plain and obvious, Says the
apostle, “He who was in the beginning, and was God, made all things;” which
he first expresseth positively, and then by an universal negative confirms
and explains what was before asserted in an universal affirmative, “Without
him was not any thing made that was made.”
And this is the sum of what they have to except against
this part of our testimony, than which nothing can be more vain and
frivolous.
The 10th
verse is also by them taken under consideration, and these words
therein, “The world was made by him;” against which this is their
procedure:—
Q. What dost thou answer to the second?
A. 1. That John doth not write here that the world was
created, but “made.” 2. He uses the same manner of speech which signifieth
the mediate cause; for he saith “The world was made by him.” Lastly, This
word mundus, the world, as
others of the same import, doth not only denote heaven and earth, but,
besides other significations, it either signifieth human kind, as the
present place manifesteth, “He was in the world, and the world knew him
not,” and John xii. 19, or also future
immortality, as Heb. i. 6; which is to be understood of
the world to come, as it appears from chap. ii.,
where he saith, “He hath not put the world to come into subjection to the
angels, of which we speak,” but he had nowhere spoken of it but chap. i. 6. Furthermore, you have a
place, chap. x. 5, where, speaking of Christ,
he saith, “Wherefore coming into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and
offering thou wouldest not have, but a body,” etc.; where, seeing it is
evident that he speaks of that world into which Jesus being entered was
made our priest, as all the circumstances demonstrate, it appears that he
speaks not of the present, but of the world to come, seeing, chap. viii. 4, he had said of Christ,
“If he were on earth he should not be a priest.”
The first two exceptions have been already
cashiered; those which follow are of as little weight or consideration:
for, —
1. It is confessed that the word “world” hath in Scripture
various acceptations, and is sometimes taken for men in the world; but that
it can be so taken when the world is said to be made or created, when it is
equivalent to all things, when it is proposed as a place whereunto One
comes, and where he is, as is the state of the expression here, there can
nothing more absurd or foolish be imagined.
2. Heb i. 6
speaks not of the world to come, nor is there any place in the Scripture
where the word “world” doth signify immortality or the world to
come, nor any thing looking that way. Heb. ii. 5,
mention is made not simply of the world, but of the “world to come;” nor
doth that expression of the apostle relate unto that of chap. i. 6, where the word “world” is
used, but to what goes before and after in the same chapter, where the
thing itself is insisted on in other terms. Nor is future
immortality intended there, by the “world to come,” but the present
state of the Christian church, called the “world to come,” in reference to
that of the Jews, which was past in that use of speech whereby it was
expressed before it came; as also chap. vi.
5. Nor is the “world to come” life eternal or blessed
immortality; life is to be had in it, but “immortality” and the “world to
come” are not the same. Nor is that world ever said to be made, nor is it
anywhere described as made already, but as to come: as Matt. xii. 32; Luke
xviii. 30, xx. 35; Eph. i.
21. Nor can it be said of the world to come that it knew not
Christ, as it is of this that he made; nor can Christ be said to come into
that world in the beginning, which he did not until after his resurrection;
nor is the world to come that whereof it is said in the next verse, which
expounds this, “He came, εἰς τὰ ἴδια,”
“to his own,” for then “his own,” οἱ
ἴδιοι, “knew him not.” So that there is not the least colour or
pretence of this foppery that here they would evade the testimony of the
Holy Ghost withal.
3. These words, Heb. x.
5, “Coming into the world, he saith,” etc., do not in the least
intimate any thing of the world to come, but express the present world,
into which Christ came when God prepared a body for him at his incarnation
and birth; which was in order to the sacrifice which he
afterward offered in this world, as shall be evidently manifested when we
come to the consideration of the priesthood of Christ.
It remains only that we hear their sense of these words,
which they give as followeth:—
Q. But what dost thou understand by these words, “The world
was made by him”?
A. A twofold sense may be given of them: — First,
that human kind was reformed by Christ, and as it were made again, because
he brought life, and that eternal, to human kind, which was lost, and was
subject to eternal death (which also John upbraideth the world withal,
which being vindicated by Christ from destruction acknowledged him not, but
contemned and rejected him); for that is the manner of the Hebrew speech,
that in such terms of speaking, the words to “make” and “create” are as
much as to “make again” or to “create again,” because that tongue wants
those words that are called compounds. The latter sense is, that that
immortality which we expect is, as to us, made by Christ; as the same is
called “the world to come” in respect of us, although it be present to
Christ and the angels.”
1. That these expositions are destructive to one another is
evident, and yet which of them to adhere unto our catechists know not, such
good builders are they for to establish men in the faith. Pull down they
will, though they have nothing to offer in the room of what they endeavour
to destroy.
2. That the latter sense is not intended was before
evinced. The world that was made in the beginning, into which Christ came,
in which he was, which knew him not, which is said to be made, is a world,
is not immortality or life eternal; nor is there any thing in the context
that should in the least give countenance to such an absurd gloss.
3. Much less is the first sense of the words tolerable;
for, —
(1.) It is expressly contradictory to the text. “He made
the world,” that is, he reformed it; and, “The world knew him not,” when
the world is not reformed but by the knowledge of
him!
(2.) To be made doth nowhere simply signify to be
renewed or reformed, unless it be joined with other expressions
restraining its significancy to such renovation.
(3.) The world was not renewed by Christ whilst he was
in it; nor can it be said to be renewed by him only on the account
of laying the foundation of its renovation in his doctrine. “ ‘By him the
world was made;’ that is, he preached that doctrine whereby
some in the world were to be reformed.” The world that Christ made
knew him not; but the renewed world know him.
4. The Hebraism of “making” for “re-forming” is commonly
pretended, without any instance for its confirmation. John wrote in Greek,
which language abounds with compositions above any other in the
world, and such as on all occasions he makes use of.
There is one passage more that gives strength to the
testimony insisted on, confirming the existence of Christ in his divine
nature antecedently to his incarnation, and that is verse
14, “The Word was made flesh.” Who the Word is, and what, we
have heard. He who was in the beginning, who was God, and was with God,
who made all things, who made the world, in whom was light and life, he was
made flesh, — flesh, so as that thereupon he dwelt amongst men, and
conversed with them. How he was, and how he was said to be, made flesh, I
have declared in the consideration of his eternal sonship, and shall not
again insist thereon. This, after the interposition of sundry questions,
our catechists take thus into consideration:—
Q. How do they prove Christ to have been incarnate
A. From those testimonies where, according to their
translation, it is read, “The Word was made flesh,” John i.
14, etc.
Q. How dost thou answer it?
A. On this account, because in that testimony it is not said
(as they speak) God was incarnate, or the divine nature assumed the human.
“The Word was made flesh” is one thing, and God was incarnate, or the
divine nature assumed the human, another. Besides, these words, “The Word
was made flesh,” or rather, “The Speech was made flesh,” may and ought to
be rendered, “The Word was flesh.” That it may be so rendered appears from
the testimonies in which the word ἐγένετο (which is here translated “was made”) is found
rendered by the word” was,” as in this chapter, verse
6, and Luke xxiv.
19, etc. Also, that it ought to be so rendered the order of
John’s words teacheth, who should have spoken very inconveniently, “The
Word was made flesh,” — that is, as our adversaries interpret it, the
divine nature assumed the human, — after he had spoken those things of the
Word which followed the nativity of the man Christ Jesus; such as are
these, “John bare witness of him;” “he came into the world;” “he was not
received of his own;” that “to them that received him, he gave power to
become the sons of God.”
This is the last plea they use in this case.
The dying groans of their perishing cause are in it, which will provide
them neither with succour nor relief; for, —
1. It is not words or expressions that we contend
about, Grant the thing pleaded for, and we will not contend with any living
about the expressions wherein it is by any man delivered. By the
“incarnation of the Son of God,” and by the “divine nature assuming the
human,” we intend no more than what is here asserted, — the Word, who was
God, was made flesh.
2. All they have to plead to the thing insisted on is, that
the word ἐγένετο may, yea ought to be,
translated fuit, “was,” and
not factus est, “was made.”
But, —
(1.) Suppose it should be translated “was,” what would it
avail them? He that was a man was made a man. In that sense it expresses
what he was, but withal denotes how he came so to be. He who was the Word
before was also a man. Let them show us any other way how he became so but
only by being made so, and, upon a supposition of this new translation,
they may obtain something. But, —
(2.) How will they prove that it may be so much as rendered
by fuit, “was.” They tell
you it is so in two other places in the New Testament; but doth that prove
that it may so much as be so rendered here? The proper sense and common
usage of it is, “was made,” and because it is once or twice used in a
peculiar sense, may it be so rendered here, where nothing requires that it
be turned aside from its most usual acceptation, yea much enforcing it
thereunto?
(3.) That it ought to be rendered by fuit, “was,” they plead the mentioning before
of things done after Christ’s incarnation (as we call it), so that it
cannot be “He was made flesh.” But, —
[1.] Will they say that this order is observed by the
apostle, — that that which is first done is first expressed as to all
particulars? What, then, becomes of their interpretation who say “The Word
was made God by his exaltation, and made flesh in his humiliation?” and yet
how much is that which in their sense was last expressed before that which
went before it? Or will they say, in him was the life of man before he was
made flesh, when the life of man, according to them, depends on his
resurrection solely, which was after he ceased to be flesh in their sense?
Or what conscience have these men, who in their disputes will object that
to the interpretation of others which they must receive and embrace for the
establishing of their own?
[2.] The order of the words is most proper. John having
asserted the deity of Christ, with some general concomitants and
consequences of the dispensation wherein he undertakes to be a
mediator, in his 14th
verse enters particularly upon a description of his entrance
upon his employment, and his carrying it on, by the revelation of the will
of God; so that without either difficulty or straining, the sense and
intendment of the Holy Ghost falls in clearly in the words.
3. It is evident that the word neither may nor ought to be
translated according to their desire; for, —
(1.) It being so often said before that the Word
was, the word is still ἦν,
and not ἐγένετο. “In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God;” — the same was. “He was in the world, he
was the light;” — still the same word. So that if no more were
intended but what was before expressed, the terms would not be changed
without exceedingly obscuring the sense; and therefore ἐγένετο must signify somewhat more than ἦν.
(2.) The word ἐγένετο,
applied to other things in this very place, denotes their making or their
original; which our catechists did not question in the consideration of the
places where it is so used: as verse 3,
“All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing
made that was made;” and verse
10, “The world was made by him.”
(3.) This phrase is expounded accordingly in other places:
as Rom. i. 3, Τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα,
— “Made of the seed of David according to the flesh;” and Gal. iv. 4, Γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, “Made of a woman.” But they
think to salve all by the ensuing exposition of these words:—
Q. How is that to be understood, “The Word was flesh?”
A. That he by whom God perfectly revealed all his will, who
is therefore called “Sermo” by John,
was a man, subject to all miseries and afflictions, and lastly to death
itself: for the Scripture useth the word “flesh” in that sense, as is clear
from those places where God speaks, “My Spirit shall not always contend
with man, seeing he is flesh,” Gen. vi. 3;
and Peter, “All flesh is grass,” 1 Pet. i.
24.
This is the upshot of our catechists’ exposition of this
first chapter of John, as to the
person of Christ; which is, —
1. Absurd, upon their own suppositions; for the
testimonies produced affirm every man to be flesh, so that to say he is a
man is to say he is flesh, and to say that man was flesh is to say that a
man was a man, inasmuch as every man is flesh.
2. False, and no way fitted to the intendment of
the Holy Ghost; for he was made flesh antecedently to his dwelling amongst
us; which immediately follows in the text. Nor is his being made flesh suited to any thing in this place but his conversation with men;
which answers his incarnation, not his mediation; neither is this
exposition confirmed by any instance from the Scriptures of the like
expression used concerning Jesus Christ, as that we urge is, Rom. i. 3, Gal. iv.
4, and other places. The place evidently affirms the Word to be
made something that he was not before, when he was the Word only, and
cannot be affirmed of him as he was man, in which sense he was always
obnoxious to miseries and death.
And this is all which our catechists, in several places,
have thought meet to insist on, by way of exception or opposition to our
undeniable and manifest testimonies from this first chapter of John unto
the great and sacred truth contended for; which I have at large insisted
on, that the reader from this one instance may take a taste of their
dealing in the rest, and of the desperateness of the cause which they have
undertaken, driving them to such desperate shifts for the maintenance and
protection of it. In the residue I shall be more brief.
John vi.
62 is in the next place taken into consideration. The words
are, “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was
before?” What we intend from hence, and the force of the argument from
this testimony insisted on, will the better appear if we add unto it those
other places of Scripture wherein the same thing is more expressly and
emphatically affirmed; which our catechists cast (or some of them) quite
into another place, on pretence of the method wherein they proceed, but
indeed to take off from the evidence of the testimony, as they deal with
what we plead from John i. The places I intend are:—
John iii.
13, “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came
down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” Verse 31, “He that cometh from above
is above all: he that cometh from heaven is above all.” Chap. viii. 23, “Ye are from beneath;
I am from above.” Chap. xvi.
28, “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the World:
again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.”
Hence we thus argue:— He that was in heaven before he was
on the earth, and who was also in heaven whilst he was on the earth, is the
eternal God; but this doth Jesus Christ abundantly confirm concerning
himself: therefore he is the eternal God, blessed for ever.
In answer to the first place our catechists thus
proceed:—
Q. What answerest thou to the second testimony, John vi. 62?
A. Neither is here any mention made expressly of pre-eternity;
for in this place the Scripture witnesseth that the Son of man, that is a
man, was in heaven, who without all controversy was not eternally
pre-existent.
So they. 1. It is expressly affirmed that
Christ was in heaven before his coming into the world. And if we
evince his pre-existence to his incarnation against the Socinians,
the task will not be difficult to prove that pre-existence to be in an
eternal divine nature against the Arians. It is sufficient, as to
our intendment in producing this testimony, that it is affirmed that Christ
ἦν πρότερον in heaven before his
coming forth into the world; in what nature we elsewhere prove.
2. It is said, indeed, that the Son of man was in
heaven; which makes it evident that he who is the Son of man hath
another nature besides that wherein he is the Son of man, wherein he is the
Son of God. And by affirming that the Son of man was in heaven before, it
doth no more assert that he was eternal and in heaven in that nature
wherein he is the Son of man, than the affirmation that God redeemed his
church with his own blood doth prove that the blood shed was the blood of
the divine nature. Both the affirmations are concerning the person of
Christ. As he who was God shed his blood as he was man, so he who was man
was eternal and in heaven as he was God. So that the answer doth merely
beg the thing in question, namely, that Christ is not God and man in one
person.
3. The insinuation here of Christ’s being in heaven as man
before his ascension mentioned in Scripture, shall be considered when we
come to the proposal made of that figment by Mr
B., in his chapter of the prophetical office of Christ. In answer
to the other testimonies cited, they thus proceed, towards the latter end
of their chapter concerning the person of Christ:—
Q. What answerest thou to John
iii. 13, x. 36, xvi. 28, xvii. 18?
A. That a divine nature is not here proved appeareth, because
the words of the first testimony. “He came down from heaven,” may be
received figuratively: as James i.
17, “Every good and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh
down from the Father of lights;” and Rev. xxi. 2, 10, “I
saw the holy city Jerusalem coming down from God.” But if the words be
taken properly, which we willingly admit, it appears that they are not
spoken of any other than the Son of man, who, seeing he hath necessarily a
human person, cannot by nature be God. Moreover, for what the Scripture
witnesseth of Christ, that the Father sent him into the world, the same we
read of the apostles of Christ in the same words above alleged; as
John xvii. 18, “As thou hast sent me
into the world, I have sent them into the world.” And these words, “Christ
came forth from the Father,” are of the same impart with “He descended from
heaven.” “To come into the world” is of that sort as the Scripture
manifests to have been after the nativity of Christ, John xviii. 37, where the Lord
himself says,” For this I am born, and come into the world, that I might
bear witness to the truth;” and 1 John iv.
1, it is written, “Many false prophets are gone forth into the
world.” Wherefore from this kind of speaking a divine nature in Christ
cannot be proved; but in all these speeches only what was the divine
original of the office of Christ is described.
1. That these expressions are merely
figuratively to be expounded they dare not assert; nor is there
any colour given that they may be so received from the instances produced
from James i. 17 and Rev. xxi. 2, 10; for
there is only mention made of descending or coming down, which word we
insist not on by itself, but as it is conjoined with the testimony of his
being in heaven before his descending, which takes off all pretence of a
parity of reason in the places compared.
2. All that follows is a perfect begging of the thing in
question. Because Christ is the Son of man, it follows that he is a true
man, but not that he hath the personality of a man, or a human
personality. Personality belongs not to the essence but to
the existence of a man. So that here they do but repeat their own
hypothesis in answer to an express testimony of Scripture against it Their
confession of the proper use of the word is but to give colour to the
figment formerly intimated; which shall be in due place (God assisting)
discovered.
3. They utterly omit and take no notice of that place where
Christ says he so came from heaven as that he was still in
heaven; nor do they mention any thing of that which we lay greatest
weight on, — of his affirming that he was in heaven before, — but merely
insist on the word “descending” or “coming down;” and yet they can no other
way deal with that neither but by begging the thing in question.
4. We do not argue merely from the words of Christ’s being
sent into the world, but in this conjunct consideration that he was so sent
into the world as that he was in heaven before, and so came forth
from the Father, and was with him in heaven before his coming forth; and
this our catechists thought good to oversee.
5. The difference of Christ’s being sent into the world,
and the apostles by him, which they parallel as to the purpose in hand,
lies in this, that Christ was so sent of the Father that he came forth
from the Father, and was with him in heaven before his sending; which
proves him to have another nature than that wherein he was sent, The
similitude alleged consists quite in other things. Neither, —
6. Doth the scripture in John xviii.
37 testify that Christ’s sending into the world was
after his nativity, but only that the end of them both was to “bear witness
to the truth,” And, indeed, “I was born,” and “came into the world,” are
but the same, the one being exegetical of the other. But his being born
and his coming into the world are, in the testimonies cited, plainly
asserted in reference to an existence that he had in heaven before. And
thus as our argument is not at all touched in this answer, so is their
answer closed as it began, with the begging of that which is not only
questioned but sufficiently disproved, — namely, that Christ was, in his
human nature, taken up into heaven and instructed in the will of God before
his entrance upon his prophetical office.
And this is the whole of what they have to except against
this evident testimony of the divine nature of Christ. He was in heaven
with the Father before he came forth from the Father, or was sent into the
world, and κατὰ ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο, was in
heaven when he was on the earth, and at his ascension returned thither
where he was before. And so much for the vindication of this second
testimony.
John vi.
62 is the second place I can meet with, in all the annotations
of Grotius, wherein he seems to assert the union of the human nature of
Christ with the eternal Word, — if he do so. It is not with the man that I
have any difference, nor do I impose any thing on him for his judgment; I
only take liberty, having so great cause given, to discuss his
Annotations.
There remains one more of the first rank, as they are
sorted by our catechists, for the proof of the eternity of Christ, which is
also from John, chap. viii. 58, “Before
Abraham was, I am,” that they insist on:—
In this place the pre-eternity of Christ is not only not
expressed, seeing it is one thing to be before Abraham, and another to be
eternal, but also, it is not so much as expressed that he was before the
Virgin Mary. For these words may otherwise be read, namely, “Verily,
verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was made, I am;” as it appears from
those places in the same evangelist where the like Greek phrase is used,
chap.
xiii. 19, xiv. 29.
Q. What then would be the sense of this reading?
A. Very eminent. For Christ admonisheth the Jews,
who would have ensnared him in his speech, that whilst they had time, they
should believe in him as the light of the world, before the divine grace
which Christ offered to them should be taken from them and be carried to
the Gentiles. But that these words, “I am,” are to be supplied in that
manner as if himself had added to them, “I am the light of the world,”
appears, because that in the beginning of his speech, verse 12, he had twice in these
words, “I am,” called himself the light of the world, verses
24, 28. And that these words, “Before Abraham be,” do signify
that which we have said, may be perceived from the notation of that word
“Abraham;” for it is evident that “Abraham” denotes “the father of many
nations.” Seeing, then, that Abram was not made Abraham before the grace
of God manifested in Christ redounded to many nations, for Abraham before
was the father of one nation only, it appears that that is the very sense
of the words which we have given.
If our adversaries can well quit themselves of
this evidence, I believe they will have no small hopes of escaping in the
whole trial; and if they meet with judges so partially addicted to them and
their cause as to accept of such manifest juggling and perverting of the
Scriptures, I know not what they may not expect or hope for, especially
seeing how they exult and triumph in this invention, as may be seen in the
words of Socinus himself in his answer to Erasmus
Johannes, p. 67. For whereas Erasmus says, “I confess in my whole life I never met with
any interpretation of Scripture more wrested, or violently perverting the
sense of it;” the other replies, “I hoped rather that thou wouldst confess
that in thy whole life thou hadst never heard an interpretation more acute
and true than this, nor which did savour more of somewhat divine, or
evidenced more clearly its revelation from God. I truly have not light
conjectures that he who brought it first to light in our age (now this was
he who in this age renewed the opinion of the original of Christ, which I
constantly defend)” (that is, his uncle Lælius) “obtained it of Christ by many prayers. This truly
I do affirm, that whereas God revealed many things to that man at that time
altogether unknown to others, yet there is scarce any thing amongst them
all that may seem more divine than this interpretation.”
Of this esteem is this interpretation of these words with
them. They profess it to be one of the best and most divine discoveries
that ever was made by them; whereto, for my part, I freely assent, though
withal I believe it to be as violent a perverting of the
Scripture and corrupting of the word of God as the world can bear witness
to.
Let the Christian reader, without the least prejudicial
thought from the interpretation of this or that man, consult the text and
context. The head of the discourse which gives occasion to these words of
Christ concerning himself lies evidently and undeniably in verse 51, “Verily, verily, I say unto
you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.” Upon this the
Jews rise up against him, as one that boasted of himself above measure, and
preferred himself before his betters: Verse
52, “Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a
devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep
my saying, he shall never taste of death;” and, verse
53, “Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead?
and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?” Two things are here
charged on him by the Jews: First, in general, That he preferred, exalted,
and honoured himself. Secondly, in particular, That he made himself better
than Abraham their father. To both which charges Christ answers in order
in the following words. 1. To the first or general charge of honouring
himself: Verses
54, 55, “Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is
nothing: it is my Father that honoreth me; of whom ye say, that he is your
God. Ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know
him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his
saying.” His honour he had from God, whom they professed [to know,] but
knew not. 2. To that of Abraham he replies, verse
56, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it,
and was glad;” — “Though Abraham was so truly great, and the friend of God,
yet his great joy was from his belief in me, whereby he saw my day.” To
this the Jews reply, labouring to convince him of a falsehood, from the
impossibility of the thing that he had asserted, verse
57, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen
Abraham?” — “Abraham was dead so many hundred years before thou wast born,
how couldst thou see him, or he thee?” To this, in the last place, our
Saviour replies, verse
58, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”
The Jews knowing that by these words he asserted his deity, and that it was
impossible on any other account to make good that he, who in their esteem
was not fifty years old (indeed but a little above thirty), should be
before Abraham, as in a case of blasphemy, they take up stones to stone
him, verse 59, as was their perpetual
manner, to attempt to kill him under pretence of blasphemy, when he
asserted his deity; as John v.
18, “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he
said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”
This naked and unprejudicate view of the text is sufficient
to obviate all the operose and sophistical exceptions of our catechists, so
that I shall not need long to insist upon them. That which we
have asserted may be thus proposed: He who in respect of his human nature
was many hundred years after Abraham, yet was in another respect existing
before him; he had an existence before his birth, as to his divine
nature. Now this doth Christ expressly affirm concerning himself; and
nothing else is pretended but only his divine nature wherein he should so
exist. They say, then, —
1. That these words do not signify pre-eternity, but only
something before Abraham. It is enough that his existence so many hundred
years before his nativity is evidently asserted; his eternity from thence
will evidently be concluded; and they will not deny that he may as well be
eternal as be before Abraham. But, —
2. The words may be rendered, “Priusquam Abraham fiat, ego sum,” “Before Abraham be
made.” But that they may be so rendered is no proof at all that
they ought to be so; and, as was before observed, if this be
sufficient to evade the sense of a place, that any word in it may be
otherwise rendered, because it is or may be so in some other place, nothing
certain can be concluded from any testimony of the Scriptures whatever.
But that they may not be so rendered is evident, — (1.) From the context,
as before declared; (2.) From the opposition between ἐγώ εἰμι, “I am,” and “Abraham was,” which evidently
denotes a time past, as it stands in comparison with what Christ says of
himself; and, (3.) The words in such a construction as this require an
interpretation as to the time past; and, (4.) Because this interpretation
of the words corrupts the whole sense of the place, and wrests it contrary
to the design and intendment of our Saviour. But then they say, —
3. “The sense is excellent; for ‘Before Abraham be made’ is
as much as before he be Abraham, or the father of many nations, which he
was when the gospel was preached to the conversion of the Gentiles. ‘I
am,’ that is, ‘I am the light of the world,’ which you should do well to
walk in and attend unto.”
(1.) That this interpretation in general is altogether
alien and strange from the scope of the place, the Christian
reader, upon the bare view of it, will be able to judge. (2.) It is
false:— [1.] Because Abraham was the father of many nations, Jews and
proselytes, before the preaching of the gospel, as Gen. xv.
5. [2.] It is false that Abram was not Abraham until after the
ascension of Christ and preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles, He was
made Abraham from his first enjoyment of his name and seed in Isaac, and is
constantly so called. [3.] It is frivolous; for if Christ was
before Abram was made Abraham, we obtain what we plead for, for he
was made so when God gave him that name. But it should be, “Before Abram
be made Abraham,” or there is no sense in the words; nor then
neither, unless Abraham be taken as a common appellative for “the father of
many nations,” and not as a proper name, whereof in Scripture
there is not any example. [4.] It is horribly wrested, — 1st. In
making the words “I am” elliptical, whereas there is neither need of nor
colour for such a pretence. 2dly. In supplying the feigned ellipsis with a
word at such a distance as from verse
12 to verse 58. 3dly. In making Christ to say he is the light
of the world before the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles, when the
“world” is everywhere in the gospel taken quite in another sense, for the
Jews and Gentiles, and not for the Jews only, which according to this
interpretation it must be. 4thly. It leaves no reason of the following
attempt of the Jews to stone him, upon the particular provocation of this
assertion, he having before affirmed himself to be the light of the world,
which they were not moved at. There is indeed no end of the falsities,
follies, and corruptions of this perverting and corrupting of the word of
God.
For the grammatical vindication of the words, and the
translation of the word γενέσθαι in a
sense of that which is past, there is no occasion administered by our
catechists; and therefore I shall not trouble the reader therewith.
And of the first sort of testimonies which they except
against, and their exceptions, thus far.
A little animadversion upon the catechists’ good friend
Grotius shuts up this discourse and
chapter. In the end he agrees with them, but fixes on a new medium for the
accomplishment of it, not daring to espouse an interpretation so absurd in
itself, and so abhorrent from the common sense of all men that ever
professed the name of Christ. He takes, then, another course, yet no less
aiming than they to disappoint this evidence of the pre- existence of
Christ before his nativity. Πρὶν αβραὰμ
γενέσθαι, antequam
esset, saith he, “before he was;” and he gives many instances to
prove the propriety of so translating that expression: “ Ἐγώ εἰμι, præsens pro
imperfecto, eram, Syrus; Ἐγὼ πέλον, Nonnus. Sic in Græco: Ps. xc.
2, Πρὸ τοῦ γενηθῆναι σὺ
εἷ.” Very good: before Abraham was, or was born, Christ was; as in
that of the psalm, “Before the mountains were made, thou art.” And, a
little to help a friend at so good a work, it is no new thing for this
evangelist to use the present for the preterimperfect tense; as chap. xiv. 9, Τοσοῦτον χρόνον μεθ ὑμῶν ἐιμι καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωκάς με — “I
am so long,” for “I was,” or “I have been so long with you,” etc. And
chap. xv. 27, Ὅτι ἀπ ἀρχῆς μετ ἐμοῦ ἐστε — “Because ye have been
with me from the beginning.” Thus far, then, we are agreed. But how
should this be, that Christ thus was before Abraham was? “Fuerat,” saith he, “autem ante Abrabarnum Jesus divina constitutione;” —
“In God’s appointment Jesus was before Abraham was born.” Yea, and so was
Grotius, and Socinus, and every man in the world; for “known unto God
are all his works from the beginning of the world.” And this
is that great privilege, it seems, that our Saviour vindicates to himself,
without any occasion, to no purpose, insisting on that which is common to
him with all the elect of God in the best sense of the words! Of that
other text of Scripture, John xvii.
5, which together with this he labours to corrupt, I shall speak
afterward. I shall only add, that our great doctors do not in this
business agree. Grotius here makes no
mention of Socinus’ gloss, and Socinus beforehand rejects this of Grotius as absurd and fond; and as such let it
pass, as having no occasion given from the words foregoing, nor colour from
the matter or phrase of words, nor significancy to the business in
hand.
Chapter IX.
The pre-eternity of Christ farther evinced — Sundry texts of
Scripture vindicated.
In the consideration of the ensuing
testimonies, I shall content myself with more brief observations upon and
discoveries of the corruptions of our adversaries, having given a large
testimony thereof in the chapter foregoing. Thus, then, they proceed:—
Ques. What are the testimonies of Scripture wherein they think
that this pre-eternity of Christ is not indeed expressed, but yet may
thence be proved?
Ans. Those which seem to attribute to the Lord Jesus some
things from eternity, and some things in a certain 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 climb over.
Q. What are the testimonies which seem to attribute some
things to the Lord Jesus from eternity?
A. They are those from which they endeavour to confirm that
Christ was begotten from eternity of the essence of his Father.
These are some of the places wherein this property of the
Godhead, eternity, is ascribed to our Saviour, it is confessed.
Q. But from what places do they endeavour to prove that Christ
was from eternity begotten of the essence of his Father?
A. From these chiefly, Mic. v. 2;
Ps. ii. 7, Ps. cx.
3; Prov. viii.
23.
1. These are only some of the testimonies that are used to
this purpose. 2. It is enough to prove Christ eternal 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. vii.
Q. But how must we answer these testimonies?
A. 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 took 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 spiritual things by
carnal, infinite by finite, God by ourselves, the object of faith by
corrupted rules of corrupted reason. But, — 1. That which God hath
revealed to be so is not impossible to be so. Let God be true, and all men liars. That this is
revealed hath been undeniably evinced. 2. What is impossible in finite,
limited essences, may be possible and convenient to that which is infinite
and unlimited, as is that whereof we speak. 3. It is not impossible, in the
sense 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 inconsistent with it,” This is
denied, 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 it out, as having none to push at with it, none
standing in the way of that horn of their dilemma. 5. We say,
then, that in the eternal generation of the Son, the whole essence
of the Father is communicated to the Son as to a personal
existence in the same essence, without multiplication or division of
it, the same essence continuing still one in number; and this without the
least show of impossibility in an infinite essence, all the arguments that
lie against it being taken from the properties and attendancies of that
which is finite.
Come we to the particular testimonies. The first is
Mic. v. 2, “But thou, Beth-lehem
Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of
thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose
goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting,” or “the days of
eternity.”
Q. How must this first testimony of the Scripture be
answered?
A. This testimony hath nothing at all of his generation of the
essence of his Father, and a pre-eternal generation it no way proves; for
here is mention of beginning and days, which in eternity have no place.
And those words, which in the Vulgar are “from the days of
eternity,” in the Hebrew are “from the days of seculi,” — the days of an age; and “dies seculi” are the same with “dies antiqui,” as Isa. lxiii. 9, 11;
Mal. iii. 4. The sense of this place
is, that Christ should have the original of his nativity from the
beginning, and from the ancient years; 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.
Ans. 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 eternal, the thing itself 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 מוֹצָאֹתָיו, his “goings forth,” is his generation
of his Father, or somewhat else that our adversaries can assign; that it is
not the latter shall immediately be evinced.
2. Here is no mention of the מִקֶּדֶם, “beginning;” and those who in the latter
words reject the Vulgar edition cannot honestly insist on the former from
thence because it serves their turn. Yet how that word is sometimes used,
and in what sense it may be so, where “eternity” is intended, hath been
declared in the last chapter.
3. That “days” are not used with and to express “eternity”
in Scripture, though strictly there be no days or time in eternity, is
absurd negligence and confidence to affirm: Job x. 5,
“Are thy days as the days of man? are thy years as man’s days?” Hence God
is called “The Ancient of days,” Dan. vii.
9. “Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail,” Heb. i. 12.
4. For the word gnolam [עוֹלָם], translated “seculi,” it hath in the Scripture various
significations. It comes from a word signifying “to hide,” and denotes an unknown, hidden duration.
Principally “perpetuum, æternum,
sempiternum,” — that which is pre-eternal and eternal. Sometimes a
very long time, Gen. ix.
12, and verse 16,
that is perpetual: so Gen. xvii.
13, and in other places, with a reference to the sovereignty of
God. Gen. xxi. 33, it is ascribed to God
as a property of his, and signifies “eternal,” Jehova gnolam
[יְהוָה עוֹלָם]: so Ps. lxxxix. 2, as also Isa. xlv. 17. Let all places where
the word in Scripture in this sense is used be reckoned up
(which are above three hundred), and it will appear that in far the
greatest number of them it signifies absolutely “eternity.” In the places
of Isa.
lxiii. 9, 11, and Mal. iii.
4, only 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 ἀιών in the New Testament, by which the LXX.
often render gnolam [עוֹלָם]; whence πρὸ
χρόνων αἰωνίων may be “from eternity,” 2 Tim. i.
9, Tit. i. 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
fulness of time born at Bethlehem, had his goings forth from the Father
from eternity.
5. The pretended sense of our adversaries is a bold
corruption of the text; for, — (1.) It applies that to David and his being
born at Bethlehem which the Holy Ghost expressly applies to Jesus Christ,
Matt. ii. 5, 6, and John vii. 42. (2.) The goings forth
of Christ in this sense are no more from everlasting than every other man’s
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 original from an ancient stock. (4.) If only Christ’s original of
the tribe of Judah and of the house of David were intended, why was not
that expressed in plain terms, as it is in other places, and as the place
of his birth, namely, Bethlehem, is in this? So that we have already met
our catechists and stopped 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 Weik, cap. vii. p. 424;
Smalcius against Smiglecius, cap. xxvi.; Ostorod. Instit. cap.
vii., with the rest of them. He, then, who was born at Bethlehem in
the fulness of time, of the house of David as concerning the flesh,
Rom. i. 3, had also his “goings forth,”
his birth or generation of the Father, “of old, from the days of eternity;”
which is that which this testimony confirms.
Grotius on this place, according to his wont, outgoes his
companions one step at least (as he was a bold man at conjectures), and
applies this prophecy to Zerubbabel: “Natus ex Bethlehemo Zorobabel recte dicitur, quod ex
Davidis familia esset, quæ orta Bethlehemo;” — “Zerubbabel is
rightly said to be born at Bethlehem, being of the family of David, which
had its original from Bethlehem.”
That Zerubbabel is here at all intended he doth not attempt
to prove, either from the text, context, circumstances of the place, design
of the prophecy, 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 than Grotius or any of his rabbins, Matt.
ii. 4–6. 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
Zerubbahel, who was born at Babylon, may be said to be born at Bethlehem
because David, from whom he descended, was born there, what need all that
labour and trouble that our Saviour might be born at Bethlehem? If it
could not be said of Christ that he was born at Bethlehem, though he were
of the lineage of David, unless he had actually been born there indeed,
certainly Zerubbabel, who was born at Babylon, could not be said, on the
account of his progenitor five hundred years before, to be born there.
For the second part of this text, or the words we insist on
for the proof 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, et per quingentos annos regnatrice;” — “His
original is from of old, from a long time; that is, he hath his original
from an ancient illustrious house that had reigned five hundred years.”
Of the sense of the words I have spoken before. I shall
only add, that the use of this note is to confute the other; for if his
being born at Bethlehem signify his being of the family of David, and
nothing else, he being not indeed bern 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 kedem [קֶדֶם] of
the mind of God, from whence the word or wisdom 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 signifies his essence.
The second is Ps. ii. 7,
“The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this
day have I begotten thee.”
Q. To this second what is to be answered?
A. Neither in that is there any thing of generation of the
essence of the Father, nor of a pre-eternal generation; for the word
“to-day,” signifying a certain time, cannot denote pre-eternity. But that
God begot him doth not evince that he was begotten of his essence; which
appears from hence, 1. That the same words, “This day have I begotten
thee,” are in the first sense 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, Acts xiii. 33. And the author of
the Epistle to the Hebrews cites them for the glorifying of the Lord Jesus,
Heb. i. 5, v.
5. And lastly, from hence, that it is manifest that God otherwise begets than by his essence, seeing the Scripture
declares believers to be begotten of God, as is to be seen, John i. 13, 1 John
iii. 9; James i.
18.
1. There is mention in these words of Christ’s generation
of his 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 beg the thing in question.
2. “This day,” being spoken of God, of him who is eternal,
to whom all time is so present as that nothing is properly yesterday nor
today, 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 these words are spoken at all
of David so much as typically, nor any thing else in that psalm
from verse? to the end: yea, the contrary is evident from every verse
following, especially the 12th,
where kings and rulers are called to worship him of whom he speaks, and
threatened 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.
xvii. 5–8.
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 Son 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
appear.
5. True, “God hath other sons, and believers are said to be
begotten of God;” but how? By regeneration, and 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 Son 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 sons in the same
kind: for that the apostle produceth these words to prove, Heb. i. 5, “For unto which of the
angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?
And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a
Son?” Now, the angels are the sons of God by creation, Job i. 6,
xxxviii. 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 Son of God
in another kind than angels and men, who are so by creation, regeneration,
and adoption, is the natural Son of God by eternal generation; which is
also proved from this place.
In this whole psalm Grotius takes no notice of Jesus Christ: indeed, in the
entrance he tells us that a mystical and abstruse sense of it may belong to
Christ, and so the rabbins acknowledge, and so the apostle took it; but throughout the whole doth he not make the least
application of it to Christ, but merely to David, although so many passages
of it are urged in the New Testament to have had their accomplishment in
Christ and the things which concerned him. These words, “Thou art my Son,
this day have I begotten thee,” he says may be thus rendered, “O fili mi, hodie (id est, hoc tempore)
ego to genui: novam vitam, scilicet regalem tibi contuli.”
But, 1. That the words may not aptly be so translated, that they are not so
rendered by the apostle, Heb. i. 5,
he knew well enough, בְּנִי אַתָּה
is filius meus tu, not fili mi. Nor doth the
rendering of it by the vocative 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
David’s reign, cannot be reconciled to the apostle’s application of that
expression on sundry occasions, as hath been manifested. 3. “I have given
thee a ‘new or a regal life,’“is somewhat an uncouth exposition of “genui re,” without warrant, without reason
or argument; and it is inconsistent with the time of the psalm’s writing,
according to Grotius himself. He refers
it to 2 Sam. viii., when David had been king
over Israel many years.
To serve his hypothesis, the last two verses are miserably
wrested. The command of worshipping Christ, verse 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, meæ) se permittunt.” “They are blessed,” says
David, “who commit themselves to my faith and care.” Doubtless the thought
of any such thing was as remote from the heart of the holy man as this
gloss is from the sense of the place. That they are blessed who trust in
the Lord, that is, “commit themselves to his care,” he everywhere
declareth, yea, this he makes always 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 are cursed of God
who put their trust in man. The word here is חוֹסֵי, from חָסָה, “to repair to any one for protection;’ and it
is used to express our trusting in God, Ps. xviii.
30, as also Ps. xxxi.
19, on which men are frequently pronounced blessed; but that it
should be applied to David, and a blessing annexed thereunto, we were to
learn.
The third testimony, of Ps. cx.
3, we pass over with our adversaries, as not to the purpose in
hand, being a mistake of the Vulgar Latin.
The fourth is Prov. viii.
23, “I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever
the earth was.”
Q. What dost thou answer to this testimony?
A. That thou mayst understand the matter the better, know
that from this place they thus dispute: “The Wisdom of God is begotten from
eternity; Christ is the Wisdom of God: therefore he is begotten from
eternity, 1 Cor. i. 24.” That this argument is
not firm appears from hence, that, — 1. Solomon treats of wisdom 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 wisdom, which neither is a person nor can be, as appears from the
diverse effects ascribed to this wisdom, chap. vii.,
viii., ix.; amongst which are these words, “By me kings rule,
and princes decree righteousness;” and in the beginning of the 9th
chapter, he brings in wisdom sending her maidens, and inviting
all to her: but Paul treateth of that Wisdom which is a person. 3. The
words which are rendered “from everlasting,” in the Hebrew are “a seculo;” but that “from everlasting” and
“a seculo” are diverse, Isa. lxiv. 4, Jer. ii.
20, Luke i. 70, with many like places, do
declare.
1. Our argument hence is: “Christ, the second person of the
Trinity, is spoken of, Prov. viii.
23, under the name of Wisdom; now, it is said expressly there of
Wisdom that it was ‘begotten from everlasting:’ and therefore the eternal
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, John i.
1. (3.) Because Christ is the Wisdom of God, and so called in
the Scripture, not only in the expression of ὁ Λόγος, but ῥητῶς, 1 Cor. i.
30. (4.) That by Wisdom Solomon intended the Wisdom of God, and
that that word may be supplied, is most evident from what is spoken of it.
Let the place be read. (5.) Christ is called not only the “Wisdom of God,”
but also Wisdom absolutely and simply; and that not only Prov. i. 20, but Matt. xi. 19. (6.) The
Wisdom 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 these,
chap.
viii. 30, 31, “I was by him, one brought up with him: and I was
daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; rejoicing in the habitable
part of his earth,” etc. That it is the same wisdom spoken of chap. vii. and here is not evident;
yet is there not any thing in that attributed to it but what suits well
unto a person, — much less in the beginning of the 9th
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 gospel. “Kings rule and princes decree
justice” by the authority of a person, and without him they can do
nothing.
2. The word translated “from everlasting” is the same with
that considered before, Mic. v. 2.
The words following do so evidently confirm the meaning of the word to be
as expressed that it is marvellous the gentlemen durst venture upon the
exception in this place: “The Lord possessed me in
the beginning of his way, before his works of old;” that is, before the
creation, as is at large expounded, verses
23–29.
And this is all, the whole sum 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 eternal
generation is eternal, and so, consequently, God; but so is Jesus Christ
begotten of God the Father with an eternal generation: therefore he is
eternal, and God blessed for ever.
To clear what hath been spoken, I shall close my
considerations of this text of Scripture with a brief parallel between what
is spoken in this place of Wisdom and what is asserted of Jesus Christ in
the New Testament:—
1. It is Wisdom that is spoken of: so is Christ,
Matt. xi. 19; 1 Cor.
i. 24; Col. ii. 3.
2. “Wisdom was set up from everlasting,” chap. viii.
23: “Grace is given in Christ, πρὸ
χρόνων αἰωνίων, from everlasting,” 2 Tim. i.
9; “He is the beginning,” Col. i.
18; “The first and the last,” Rev. i.
17. 3. “The Lord possessed me in the
beginning of his way,” says Wisdom, verse
22: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,”
John i. 1. 4. “Before the mountains
were settled, before the hills was I brought forth,” verse 25: “He is the first-born of
every creature,” Col. i.
15; “He is before all,” verse
17. 5. “I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him,”
verse 30: “This is my beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased,” Matt. iii.
17; “The only-begotten Son is in the bosom of the Father,”
John i. 18. 6. “By me kings reign,
and princes,” etc., verses
15, 16: He is “the Prince of the kings of the earth,” Rev. i. 5; the “King of kings, and Lord
of lords,” Rev. xix. 16. 7. “Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth, and my delights were with the
sons of men,” verse
31: “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld
his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father,” John i. 14. 8. Compare also verse 34 with John
xiii. 17, Luke xi.
28, John x. 9; and verses 35, 36 with John vi. 44, 47.
And many the like instances might be given.
Grotius takes no notice
of Christ in this place, yea, he seems evidently to exclude him from being
here intended. His first note on verse 1
is, “Hæc de ea sapientia quæ in Lege
apparet exponunt Hebræi: et sane el, si non soli, at præcipue, hæc
attributa conveniunt;” — “The Hebrews expound these things of that
wisdom 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 modern rabbins, in the exposition of those places of
Scripture which concern the Messiah, is of no value. They do not only, as
their forefathers, err, not knowing the Scriptures, but maliciously corrupt
them, out of hatred to Jesus Christ. In the meantime, one no less versed
in the Hebrew authors than our annotator, expounding this place, from them
concludes, “Nec dubito, hinc Johannem
augustum illud et magnificum Evangelii sui initium sumpsisse, ‘In principio
erat Verbum;’ nam Verbum et Sapientia idem sunt, et secundam Trinitatis
personam indicant;” — “I doubt not but that John took that reverend
and lofty entrance of his Gospel, ‘In the beginning was the Word’ from
hence; for the Word and Wisdom are the same, and denote the second person
of the Trinity.”
Before I proceed to those that follow, I shall add some of
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 John xvii.
5, “And now, O Father, glorify me with thine own self 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, —
Q. What answerest thou to this?
A. 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. i.
9, where the apostle says 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 sense 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.
1. A divine glory proves a divine
nature. This Christ had 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 eclipsed and laid aside for a
season, that here he desires of God, Phil. ii.
6–11. He glorified his Father by manifesting the glory of his
deity, his name, to others; and he prays the Father to glorify him as he
had glorified 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. i.
9. Christ here positively says he had εἷχον (γλορψ) ωιτη ηισ Φατηερ βεφορε τηε ωορλδ ωασ;
nor is this anywhere, in any one tittle in the Scripture expounded to be
any otherwise but in a real having of that glory. The grace that is given
to believers is not said to be before the world was, but πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων, which may denote the first
promise, Gen. iii. 15, as it doth Tit. i. 2; and if it be intended of
the purpose of God, which was from eternity (as the words will bear), it is
so expounded in twenty places, 3. Though the divine nature prayed not, yet
he who was in the form of God, and humbled himself to take upon him the
form and employment of a servant, might and did pray. The Godhead prayed
not, but he who was God prayed. 4. For the sense assigned, let them once
show us, in the whole book of God, where this expression, “I had εἶχον,” 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 meantime, they
do 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 speaks of something that belonged to him
eminently. 6. The very express tenor of the words will not admit of this
gloss (let what violence can be used): Καὶ
νῦν δόξασόν με σὺ Πάτερ παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον
εἶναι παρὰ σοί “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: Τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον, Destinatione tua; ut 1 Pet.
i. 20, Rev. xiii.
8, sic et Eph. i. 3, 4, et infra, ver.
24. Simile loquendi genus. Sic
Legem fuisse ante mundum aiunt Hebræi.” Again, Παρὰ σοί, refer ad illud εἶχον,
et intellige, ut diximus, in decreto
tuo.
But what intends the learned man by those places of
1 Pet. i. 20, Rev. xiii.
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 begs that to be the
sense of this place which is the sense of them, though neither the scope of
the places nor the sense of the words themselves will bear it. If the
latter, it is most false. There is not one word, phrase, or expression, in
any one of the places pointed unto, at all coincident with them here used.
Besides, the two places mentioned are of very different senses, the one
speaking of God’s purpose appointing Christ to be a mediator, the other of
the promise given presently after the fall. 2. We grant that Christ, in
respect of his human nature, was predestinated unto glory; but that he
calls God’s purpose his “glory,” “the glory which he had,” “which he had
with God,” wherewith he desires to be “glorified with him again,” is to be
proved from the text, or context, or phrase of speech, or parallel place,
or analogy of faith, or somewhat, and not nakedly to be imposed on us. Let
Prov.
viii. 22–31, Phil. ii.
6–11, be consulted, as parallel to this place. Eph. i. 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 speaks not; yea,
verse 3, we are said to be actually
“blessed,” or to have the heavenly blessings, when we do enjoy them, which
we are elected to, verse 4.
What the Jews 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 sense of the
Scripture be insensibly darkened thereby.
To the same purpose is that of Peter, 1 Epist. i. 10, 11, “Of which
salvation the prophets have inquired 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
testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should
follow.” To which add that more clear place, 1 Pet. iii. 18–20, “Quickened by the
Spirit, by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison,
which sometime were disobedient … in the days of Noah.” He who was in the
days of the prophets of old, and in the days of Noah, so long before his
being born 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, could not be, for of him who is not nothing can be affirmed. He
preached by his Spirit in the days of Noah to the spirits that are in
prison.
Of this latter place our catechists take no notice; about
the first they inquire, —
Q. What answerest thou to this?
A. Neither is a divine nature proved from hence: 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 fore-declared the things of
Christ, as Peter there speaks; “he testified beforehand of the sufferings
of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” Which manner of
speaking we have, 1 John iv.
6, “Hence know we the spirit; of truth, and the spirit of
error;” where it is not called the spirit of truth and error because truth
and error as persons do bestow the spirit, but because the spirit of truth
speaks the things of truth, and the spirit of error the things of
error.
1. It is confessed that if the Spirit that was in the
prophets was 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 follows. 2. That this place is to be interpreted by 1 John iv. 6 there is no colour nor
pretence. Christ is a person; he was so when Peter wrote: truth and error
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 sense as he is called the Spirit of God, Rom. viii. 9, Gal. iv.
6. 4. The Spirit of Christ is said directly to take of his and
show it to his apostles, John xvi.
15; and so he did to the prophets. They may as well, on the
pretence of 1 John iv. 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 far of the testimonies proving the pre-existence
of Christ unto his incarnation, and so, consequently, his eternity: whence
it follows that he is God over all, blessed for ever, having this evidence
of his eternal power and Godhead. Sundry others of the same tendency will
fall under consideration in our progress.
Chapter X.
Of the names of God given unto Christ.
In the next place, as a third head,
our catechists consider the scriptural attributions of the names of God
unto our Saviour, Jesus Christ; whence this is our argument:—
“He who is Jehovah, God, the only true God, he is God
properly by nature; but Jesus Christ is Jehovah, the true God, etc.:
therefore he is God properly by nature.”
The proposition is clear in itself. Of the innumerable
testimonies which are or may be produced to confirm the assumption, our
catechists fix upon a very few, — namely, those which are answered by Socinus against Weik the
Jesuit, whence most of their exceptions to these witnesses are
transcribed. To the consideration of these they thus proceed:—
Ques. What are those places of Scripture which seem to
attribute something to Christ in a certain and definite time?
Ans. They are of two sorts, whereof some respect the names,
others the works, which they suppose in the Scriptures to be attributed to
Christ.
Q. Which are they that respect the names of Christ?
A. Those where they suppose in the Scripture that Christ is
called “Jehovah,” etc., Jer. xxiii.
6; Zech. ii. 8; 1 John v.
20; Jude 4; Tit. ii.
13; Rev. i. 8, iv. 8;
Acts xx. 28; 1
John iii. 16.
The first testimony is Jer. xxiii.
6, in these words, “In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel
shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be Jehovah our righteousness.” To which add the next,
Zech. ii. 8.
Before I come to consider their exceptions to these texts
in particular, some things in general may be premised, for the better
understanding of what we are about, and what from these places we intend to
prove and confirm:—
1. The end of citing these two places is, to prove that
Jesus Christ is in the Old Testament called Jehovah; which is by them
denied, the granting of it being destructive to their whole cause.
2. It is granted that Jehovah is the proper and peculiar
name of the one only true God of Israel; — a name as far significant of his
nature and being as possibly we are enabled to understand; yea, so far
expressive of God, that as the thing signified by it is incomprehensible,
so many have thought the very word itself to be ineffable, or at least not
lawful to be uttered. This name God peculiarly appropriates to himself in
an eminent manner, Exod. vi.
2, 3; so that this is taken for granted on all hands, that he
whose name is Jehovah is the only true God, the God of Israel. Whenever
that name is used properly, without a trope or figure, it is used of him
only. What the adversaries of Christ except against this shall be
vindicated in its proper place.
3. Our catechists have very faintly brought forth the
testimonies that are usually insisted on in this cause, naming but two of
them; wherefore I shall take liberty to add a few more to them out of the
many that are ready at hand: Isa. xl.
3, “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye
the way of Jehovah, make straight in the desert a highway for
our God.” That it is Christ who is here called Jehovah is clear from that
farther expression in Mal. iii.
1, and from the execution of the thing itself, Matt. iii. 3, Mark i. 2, 3, John i.
23. Isa.
xlv. 22–25, “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the
earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the
word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That
unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely, shall one
say, in Jehovah have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men
come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. In Jehovah
shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.” The apostle
expressly affirms all this to be spoken of Christ, Rom. xiv. 10–12, etc. Hos. xiii. 14 is also applied to
Christ, 1
Cor. xv. 54, 55. He that would at once consider all the texts
of the Old Testament, chiefly ascribing this name to Christ, let him read
Zanchius “De Tribus Elohim,” who hath made a large
collection of them.
Let us now see what our catechists except against the first
testimony:—
Q. What dost thou answer to the first testimony?
A. First, that hence it cannot be necessarily evinced that the
name of Jehovah is attributed to Christ. For these words, “And this is his
name whereby they shall call him, The Lord our
righteousness,” may be referred to Israel, of whom he spake a little
before, “In his days shall Judah be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely,”
etc., as from a like place may be seen in the same prophet, chap. xxxiii. 15, 16, where he
saith, “In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of
righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and
righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and
Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be
called, The Lord our righteousness.” For in the
Hebrew it is expressly read, “They shall call her;” which last words are
referred of necessity to Jerusalem, and in this place answereth to Israel,
which is put in the first place. It seems, therefore, likely that also, in
the first place, these words, “They shall call him,” are referred to
Israel. But although we should grant that the name of Jehovah may be
referred unto Christ, yet from the other testimonies it appears that it
cannot be asserted that Christ is called Jehovah simply, neither doth it
thence follow that Christ is really Jehovah. Whether, therefore, these
last words in this testimony of Jeremiah be understood of Christ or of
Israel, their sense is, “Thou Jehovah, our one God, wilt justify us;” for
at that time when Christ was to appear God would do that in Israel.
The sum of this answer is:— 1. It may be these
words are not spoken of Christ, but of Israel; 2. The same words are used
of that which is not God; 3. If they be referred to Christ, they prove him
not to be God; 4. Their sense is, that God will justify us in the days of
Christ. Of each briefly:—
1. The subject spoken of all along is Christ:—
(1.) He is the subject-matter of whatever here is affirmed: “I will raise
up a righteous Branch to David; he shall be a king, and he shall reign, and
his name shall be called The Lord our
righteousness.” (2.) Why are these words to be referred to Israel only,
and not also to Judah (if to any but Christ), they being both named
together, and upon the same account (yea, and Judah hath the pre-eminence,
being named in the first place)? And if they belong to both, the words
should be, “This is their name whereby they shall be called.” (3.) Israel
was never called “our righteousness,” but Christ is called so upon the
matter in the New Testament sundry times, and is so, 1 Cor.
i. 30; so that, without departing from the propriety of the
words, intendment, and scope of the place, with the truth of the thing
itself, these words cannot be so perverted. The violence used to them is
notoriously manifest.
2. The expression is not the same in both places,
neither is Jerusalem there called “The Lord our
righteousness,” but He who calls her is “The Lord
our righteousness;” and so are the words rendered by Arias Montanus and others. And if what
Jerusalem shall be called be intimated, and not what His name is that calls
her, it is merely by a metonymy, upon the account of the presence of Christ
in her; as the church is called “Christ” improperly, 1
Cor. xii. 12: Christ properly is Jesus only. But the words are
not to be rendered, “This is the name whereby she shall be called,” but,
“This is the name whereby he shall call her, The Lord our righteousness;” that is, he who is the Lord our righteousness shall call her to peace and
safety, which are there treated on. Christ is our righteousness; Jerusalem
is not.
3. It is evident that Christ is absolutely called
Jehovah in this as well as in the other places before mentioned, and many
more; and it hence evidently follows that he is Jehovah, as he who properly
is called so, and understood by that name. Where God simply says his name
is Jehovah, we believe him; and where he says the name of the Branch of the
house of David is Jehovah, we believe him also. And we say hence that
Christ is Jehovah, or the words have not a tolerable sense. Of this again
afterward.
4. The interpretation given of the words is
most perverse and opposite to the meaning of them. The prophet says not
that “Jehovah the one God shall be our righteousness,” but, “The Branch of
David shall be the Lord our righteousness.” The
subject is the Branch of David, not Jehovah. “The Branch of David shall be
called The Lord our righteousness;” that is, say
they, “The Lord shall justify us when the Branch of
David shall be brought forth.” Who could have discovered this sense but
our catechists and their masters, whose words these are! It remaineth,
then, that the Branch of David, who ruleth in righteousness, is Jehovah our
righteousness; — our righteousness, as being made so to us; Jehovah, as
being so in himself.
Grotius expounds this
place, as that of Mic. v. 2, of Zerubbabel, helping on
his friends with a new diversion which they knew not of; Socinus, as he professes, being not
acquainted with the Jewish doctors, — though some believe him not. And yet the learned annotator cannot
hold out as he begins, but is forced to put out the name Zerubbabel, and to
put in that of the people, when he comes to the name insisted on; so
leaving no certain design in the whole words from the beginning to the
ending.
Two things doth he here oppose himself in to the received
interpretation of Christians:— 1. That it is Zerubbabel who is here
intended. 2. That it is the people who are called “The Lord our righteousness.”
For the first, thus he on verse 15,
“Germen justum, — a righteous
Branch:” — “Zorobabelem, qui צֶמַח, ut
hic appellatur, ita et Zechariæ vi. 12, nimirum quod velut surculus renatus
esset ex arbore Davidis, quasi præcisa Justitiæ nomine commendatur
Zorobabel etiam apud Zechariam ix. 9;” — “Zerubbabel, who is here
called the Branch, as also Zech. vi.
12, because as a branch he arose from the tree of David, which
was as cut off. Also, Zerubbabel is commended for justice (or
righteousness), Zech. ix.
9.”
That this is a prophecy of Christ the circumstances of the
place evince. The rabbins were also of the same mind, as plentiful
collections from them are made to demonstrate it, by Joseph de Voysin, Pug. Fid. par. 3, dist. 1, cap.
iv. And the matter spoken of can be accommodated to no other, as
hath been declared. Grotius’ proofs
that Zerubbabel is intended are worse than the opinion itself. That he is
called the Branch, Zech. vi.
12, is most false. He who is called the Branch there is a king
and a priest, “He shall rule upon his throne, and he shall be a priest;”
which Zerubbabel was not, nor had any thing to do with the priestly office,
which in his days was administered by Joshua. More evidently false is it
that he is spoken of Zech. ix.
9; which place is precisely interpreted of Christ, and the
accomplishment, in the very letter of the thing foretold, recorded, Matt. xxi. 5. The words are:
“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem:
behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly,
and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.” That a man
professing Christian religion should affirm any one but Jesus Christ to be
here intended is somewhat strange.
Upon the accommodation of the next words to Zerubbabel, “A
King shall reign and prosper,” etc., I shall not insist. They contain not
the matter of our present contest, though they are pitifully wrested by the
annotator, and do no ways serve his design.
For the particular words about which our contest is, this
is his comment: “ ‘And this is the name whereby they shall call him, ‘nempe populum;” — namely, the people.
“They shall call the people.” How this change comes, “In his days Judah
shall be saved, and this is the name whereby he shall be called,” — that
is, the people shall be called, — he shows not. That there is no colour of
reason for it hath been showed; what hath been said need not to be
repeated. He proceeds, “Dominus
justitia nostra,” that is, “Deus
nobis bene fecit,” — “God hath done well for us, or dealt
kindly with us.” But it is not about the intimation of goodness that is in
the words, but of the signification of the name given to Jesus Christ, that
here we plead. In what sense Christ is “The Lord
our righteousness” appears, Isa.
xlv. 22–25, 1 Cor. i.
30.
The second testimony is Zech. ii.
8, in these words, “For thus saith the Lord of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the
nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of
his eye. For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them,” etc., verses 9–12.
Briefly to declare what this witness speaks to, before we
permit him to the examination of our adversaries: The person speaking is
the Lord of hosts: “Thus saith the Lord of hosts.” And he is the person spoken of. “After
the glory,” saith he (or, “After this glorious deliverance of you, my
people, from the captivity wherein ye were among the nations”), “hath he
sent me;” — “Even me, the Lord of hosts, hath he
sent.” “Thus saith the Lord of hosts, He hath,
sent me.” And it was to the nations, as in the words following. And who
sent him? “Ye shall know that the Lord of hosts
hath sent me;” — “The people of Israel shall know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me, the Lord of hosts, to the nations.” But how shall they know
that he is so sent? He tells them, verse
11, it shall be known by the conversion of the nations: “Many
nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day.”
And what then? “They shall be my people;” — “mine who am sent; my people;
the people of the Lord of hosts that was sent;”
that is, of Jesus Christ. “And I,” saith he whose people they are, “will
dwell in the midst of them” (as God promised to do), “and thou
shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me.” I
omit the circumstances of the place. Let us now see what is excepted by
our catechists:—
Q. What dost thou answer to this second testimony?
A. The place of Zechariah they thus cite: “This saith the
Lord of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me to
the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple
of mine eye;” which they wrest unto Christ, because here, as they suppose,
it is said that the Lord of hosts is sent from the Lord of hosts. But
these things are not so; for it is evident that these words, “After the
glory hath he sent me,” are spoken of another, namely, of the angel who
spake with Zechariah and the other angel. The same is evident in the same
chapter a little before, beginning at the fourth
verse, where the angel is brought in speaking; which also is to
be seen from hence, that those words which they cite, “This saith the Lord of hosts,” in the Hebrew may be read, “Thus saith
the Lord of hosts;” and those, “Toucheth the apple
of mine eye,” may be read, “The apple of his eye;” which of necessity are
referred to his messenger, and not to the Lord of hosts.”
These gentlemen being excellent at cavils and exceptions,
and thereunto undertaking to answer any thing in the world, do not lightly
acquit themselves more weakly and jejunely in any place than in this; for,
—
1. We contend not with them about the translation of the
words, their exceptions being to the Vulgar Latin only; we take them as
they have rendered them. To omit that, therefore, —
2. That these words are spoken by him who is
called the angel we grant; but the only question is, Who is this
angel that speaks them? It is evident, from the former chapter and this,
that it is the man who was upon the red horse, chap. i.
8, who is called “Angelus
Jehovæ,” verse
11, and makes intercession for the church, verse 12; which is the proper office
of Jesus Christ. And that he is no created angel, but Jehovah himself, the
second person of the Trinity, we prove, because he calls himself “The Lord of hosts;” says he will destroy his enemies with the
shaking of his hand; that he will convert a people, and make them his
people; and that he will dwell in his church. And yet unto all this he
adds three times that he is sent of the Lord of hosts. We confess, then,
all these things to be spoken of him who was sent; but upon all these
testimonies conclude that he who was sent was the Lord of hosts.
Grotius interprets all
this place of an angel, and names him to boot! Michael it is;
but who that Michael is, and whether he be no more than an angel (that is,
a messenger), he inquires not. That the ancient Jewish doctors interpreted
this place of the Messiah is evident. Of that no
notice here is taken; it is not to the purpose in hand. To the reasons
already offered to prove that it is no mere creature that is here intended,
but the Lord of hosts who is sent by the Lord of hosts, I shall only add my
desire that the friends and apologizers for this learned annotator would
reconcile this exposition of this place to itself, in those things which at
first view present themselves to every ordinary observer. Take one
instance: “Ye shall know that the Lord of hosts
hath sent me,” — that is, Michael; “and I will dwell in the midst of thee.”
“Templum meum ibi habebo,” — “I
will have my temple there.” If he who speaks be Michael, a created angel,
how comes the temple of Jehovah to be his? And such let the attempts of
all appear to be who manage any design against the eternal glory of the Son
of God.
The third testimony is 1 John v.
20, “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us
an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that
is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal
life.”
Q. What dost thou answer to this?
A. These words, “This is the true God,” I deny to be referred
to the Son of God. Not that I deny Christ to be true God, but that place
will not admit those words to be understood of Christ; for here he treats
not only of the true God, but of the only true God, as the article added in
the Greek doth declare. But Christ, although he be true God, he is not yet
of himself that one God, who by himself, and upon the most excellent
account, is God, seeing that is only God the Father. Nor doth it avail the
adversaries, who would have those words referred to Christ, because the
mention of Christ doth immediately go before those words, “This is the true
God:” for pronoun relatives, as “this” and the like, are not always
referred to the next antecedent, but often to that which is chiefly spoken
of, as Acts vii. 19, 20, x.
6, John ii. 7; from which places it
appears that the pronoun relative “this” is referred not to the next, but
to the most remote person.
1. It is well it is acknowledged that the only true God is
here intended, and that this is proved by the prefixed article. This may
be of use afterward.
2. In what sense these men grant Christ to be
a true God we know; — a made God, a God by office, not
nature; a man deified with authority: so making two true Gods,
contrary to innumerable express texts of Scripture and the nature of the
Deity.
3. That these words are not meant of Christ they prove,
because “he is not the only true God, but only the Father.” But, friends,
these words are produced to prove the contrary, as expressly affirming it;
and is it a sufficient reason to deny it by saying, “He is not the only
true God, therefore these words are not spoken of him,” when the argument
is, “These words are spoken of him, therefore he is the only true God?”
4. Their instances prove that in some cases a relative may
relate to the more remote antecedent, but that in this place that mentioned
ought to do so they pretend not once to urge; yea, the reason they give is
against themselves, namely, that “it refers to him chiefly spoken of,”
which here is eminently and indisputably Jesus Christ. In the places by
them produced it is impossible, from the subject-matter in hand, that the
relative should be referred to any but the remoter antecedent; but that
therefore here we must offer violence to the words, and strain them into an
incoherence, and transgress all rules of construction (nothing enforcing to
such a procedure), is not proved.
5. In the beginning of the 20th
verse it is said, “The Son of God is come, and hath given us an
understanding;” and we are said to be “in him,” even “in Jesus Christ;” on
which it immediately follows, Οὗτος,
“This,” this Jesus Christ, “is the true God, and eternal life.”
6. That Jesus Christ is by John peculiarly called “life,”
and “eternal life,” is evident both from his Gospel and this Epistle; and
without doubt, by the same term, in his usual manner, he expresses here the
same person. Chap. i.
2, v. 12, 20, “The Son of God is life, eternal life: he that
hath the Son hath life: we are in him, in his Son Jesus Christ: this is the
true God, and eternal life.” So he began, and so he ends his Epistle.
And this is all our adversaries have to say against this
most express testimony of the divine nature of Jesus Christ; in their
entrance whereunto they cry, “Hail, master!” as one before them did (“He is
a true God”), but in the close betray him, as far as lies in them, by
denying his divine nature.
Even at the light of this most evident testimony, the eyes
of Grotius dazzled that he could not see
the truth. His note is, Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ
ἀληθινὸς Θεός, Is nempe quem Iesus
monstravit colendumque docuit, non alius, Οὗτος sæpe refertur ad
aliquid præcedens non ἀμέσως,
Acts
viii. 19, x. 6.” The very same plea with the former; only
Acts viii. 19 is mistaken for
Acts vii. 19, the place urged by our
catechists, and before them by Socinus against Weik, to whom not only they, but Grotius is beholden. That citation of
Acts x. 6 helps not the business at
all. Οὗτος is twice used, once
immediately at the beginning of the verse, secondly being guided by the
first; the latter is referred to the same person, nor can possibly signify
any other. Here is no such thing, not any one circumstance to cause us to
put any force upon the constructure of the words, the discourse being still
of the same person, without any alteration; which in the other places is
not.
Of the next testimony, which is from these words of Jude,
“Denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ,” verse 4 (not to increase words), this
is the sum: There being but one article prefixed to all the words, it seems
to carry the sense that it is wholly spoken of Christ. The catechists
reckon some places where one article serves to sundry things, as Matt. xxi. 12; but it is evident
that they are utterly things of another kind and another manner of speaking
than what is here: but the judgment hereof is left to the reader, it being
not indeed clear to me whether Christ be called Δεσπότης anywhere in the New Testament, though he be
[called] Lord, and God, and the true God, full often.
The second [chapter]
of Titus, verse 13, must be more fully insisted on: “Looking for
that blessed hope, and the glorious appearance of the great God and our
Saviour Jesus Christ.”
Q. What dost thou answer to this?
A. In this place they strive to evince by two reasons that
the epithet of the “great God” is referred to Christ. The first is the
rule forementioned, of one article prefixed to all the words; the other,
that we do not expect that coming of the Father, but of the Son. To the
first you have an answer already in the answer to the fourth testimony; to
the other I answer, Paul doth not say, “Expecting the coming of the great
God,” but, “Expecting the appearance of the glory of the great God.” But
now the words of Christ show that the glory of God the Father may be said
to be illustrated when Christ comes to judgment, when he saith that he
shall come in glory, that is, with the glory of God his Father, Matt. xvi. 27; Mark viii. 38. Besides, what
inconvenience is it if it shall be said that God the Father shall come (as
they cite the words out of the Vulgar), when the Son comes to judge the
world? Shall not Christ sustain the person of the Father, as of him from
whom he hath received this office of judging?
About the reading of the words we shall not contend with
them. It is the original we are to be tried by, and there is
in that no ambiguity. That Ἐπιφάνεια τῆς
δόξης, “The appearance of the glory,” is a Hebraism for “The
glorious appearance” cannot be questioned. A hundred expressions of that
nature in the New Testament may be produced to give countenance to this.
That the blessed hope looked for is the thing hoped for, the resurrection
to life and immortality, is not denied. Neither is it disputed whether the
subject spoken of be Jesus Christ and his coming to judgment. The subject
is one; his epithets here two:— 1. That belonging to his essence in
himself, he is “the great God;” 2. That of office unto us, he is
“our Saviour.” That it is Christ which is spoken of appears, — 1. From the
single article that is assigned to all the words, Τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ which
no less signifies one person than that other expression, Ὁ Θεὸς καὶ Πατὴρ Ἰησοῦ Χρυστοῦ, — “The God and Father
of Jesus Christ.” Should I say that one person is here intended, and not
two (God and the Father of Jesus Christ being the same), our catechists may
say, “No; for it is found in another place that there is but one article
prefixed where sundry persons are after spoken of.” But is it not evident
in those places, from the subject-matter, that they are sundry persons, as
also from the several conditions of them mentioned, as in that of Matt. xxi. 12, “He cast out the
sellers and buyers,” The proper force, then, of the expression enforces
this attribution to Jesus Christ. 2. Mention is made τῆς ἐπιφανείας, — of the glorious appearance of him of
whom the apostle speaks. That Christ is the person spoken of, and his
employment of coming to judgment, primarily and directly, is confessed.
This word is never used of God the Father, but frequently of Christ, and
that, in particular, in respect of the things here spoken of; yea, it is
properly expressive of his second coming, in opposition to his first
coming, under contempt, scorn, and reproach: 1 Tim. vi.
14, “Keep this commandment, μέχρι
τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ Χριστοῦ.” 2 Tim. iv.
8, “Which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that
day: and not to me only, but unto all them that love τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ.” Neither, as was said, is it
ever used of the Father, but is the word continually used to express the
second coming of Jesus Christ. Sometimes παρουσία hath the same signification; and is therefore
never ascribed to the Father. 3. It is not what may be said to be
done, whether the glory of the Father may be said to be
illustrated by the coming of Christ, but what is said. “The glorious
appearance of the great God” is not the manifestation of his glory, but his
glory is manifested in his appearance. 4. It is true, it is said that
Christ shall “come in the glory of his Father,” Matt.
xvi. 27, Mark viii.
38; but it is nowhere said that the glory of the Father shall
come or appear. 5. Their whole interpretation of the words will scarce
admit of any good sense; nor can it be properly said that two persons come
when only one comes, though that one have glory and authority
from the other. 6. Christ shall also judge in his own name, and by the
laws which, as Lord, he hath given. 7. There is but the same way of coming
and appearance of the great God and our Saviour: which if our Saviour come
really and indeed, and the great God only because he sends him, the one
comes and the other comes not; which is not, doubtless, they both come.
Grotius agrees with our
catechists, but says not one word more for the proof of his interpretation,
nor in way of exception to ours, than they say, as they say no more than
Socinus against
Bellarmine, nor he much more than Erasmus before him, from whom Grotius also borrowed his comment of Ambrose, which he urges in the exposition of this
place; which, were it not for my peculiar respect to Erasmus, I would say were not honestly done, himself
having proved that comment under the name of Ambrose to be a paltry,
corrupted, depraved, foisted piece: but Grotius hath not a word but what hath been spoken to.
The next testimony mentioned is Rev. i.
8, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith
the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty;” to
which is added that of chap. iv.
8, “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and
is to come.”
Q. What sayest thou to this?
A. This place they say refers to Christ, because they suppose
none is said to come but only Christ, for he is to come to judge the quick
and dead. But it is to be noted, that that word which they have rendered
“to come,” may equally be rendered “is to be,” as John
xvi. 13, where the Lord says of the Spirit, which he promised to
the apostles, that he should “show them things to come;” and Acts xviii. 21, we read that the
feast day was “to be,” in which place the Greek word is ἐρχόμενος. Lastly, Who is there that knows not that
seeing it is said before, “which was, and is,” this last which is added may
be rendered “to be,” that the words in every part may be taken of
existence, and not in the two former of existence, in the latter of coming?
Neither is there any one who doth not observe that the eternity of God is
here described, which comprehendeth time past, present, and to come. But
that which discovers this gross error is that which we read in Rev. i. 4, 5, “Grace be to you, and
peace, from him which is, which was, and which is to come; and from the
seven Spirits which are before his throne; and from Jesus Christ, who is
the faithful witness;” — from which testimony it appears that Jesus Christ
is quite another from him which is, and was, and is to be, or, as they
think, is to come.
1. There is not one place which they have
mentioned wherein the word here used, ἐρχὸμενος, may not properly be translated “to come;”
which they seem to acknowledge at first to be peculiar to Christ. But, 2.
These gentlemen make themselves and their disciples merry by persuading
them that we have no other argument to prove these words to be spoken of
Christ but only because he is said to be ὁ
ἐρχόμενος: which yet, in conjunction with other things, is not
without its weight, being as it were a name of the Messiah, Matt. xi. 3, from Gen. xlix. 10, though it may be otherwise applied. 3. They are
no less triumphant, doubtless, in their following answer, that these words
describe the eternity of God, and therefore belong not to Christ; when the
argument is, that Christ is God, because, amongst other things, these words
ascribe eternity to him. Is this an answer to us, who not only believe
him, but prove him eternal? 4. And they are upon the same pin still in
their last expression, that these words are ascribed to the Father,
verse 4, when they know that the
argument which they have undertaken to answer is, that the same names are
ascribed to the Son as to the Father, and therefore he is God equal with
him. Their answer is, “This name is not ascribed to Christ, because it is
ascribed to the Father.” Men must beg when they can make no earnings at
work. 5. We confess Christ to be “alius,” “another,” another person from the Father;
not another God, as our catechists pretend.
Having stopped the mouths of our catechists, we may briefly
consider the text itself. 1. That by this expression, “Who is, and who
was, and who is to come,” the apostle expresses that name of God,
Ehejeh [אֶהְיֶה], Exod. iii. 14, which, as the rabbins
say, is of all seasons, and expressive of all times, is evident. To which
add that other name of God, “Almighty,” and it cannot at all be questioned
but that he who is intended in these words is “the only true God.” 2. That
the words are here used of Jesus Christ is so undeniable from the context
that his adversaries thought good not once to mention it. Verse 7, his coming is described to be
in glory: “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and
they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail
because of him;” whereupon himself immediately adds the words of this
testimony, “I am Alpha and Omega” For, (1.) They are words spoken to John
by him who gave him the Revelation, which was Jesus Christ, verse 1. (2.) They are the words of him
that speaks on to John, which was Jesus Christ, verse
18. (3.) Jesus Christ twice in this chapter afterward gives himself the same title, verse 11,
“I am Alpha and Omega;” and verse 17,
“I am the first and the last.” But who is he? “I am he that liveth, and
was dead; and, behold, I live for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell
and of death,” verse 18. He gave the Revelation, he
is described, he speaks all always, he gives himself the same title twice
again in this chapter.
But our catechists think they have taken a course to
prevent all this, and therefore have avoided the consideration of the words
as they are placed, chap. i. 8,
considering the same words in chap. iv.
8, where they want some of the circumstances which in this place
give light to their application. They are not there spoken by any one that
ascribes them to himself, but by others are ascribed “to him that sitteth
upon the throne;” who cry (as the seraphims, Isa. vi.
3), “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and
is to come.” But yet there wants not evidence to evince that these words
belong immediately in this place also to Jesus Christ; for, — 1. They are
the name, as we have seen, whereby not long before he revealed himself. 2.
They are spoken of “him who sitteth upon the throne” in the midst of the
Christian churches here represented. And if Christ be not intended in
these words, there is no mention of his presence in his church, in that
solemn representation of its assembly, although he promised to be in the
“midst” of his “to the end of the world.” 3. The honour that is here
ascribed to him that is spoken of is because he is ἄξιος, “worthy,” as the same is assigned to the Lamb
by the same persons in the same words, chap. v.
12. So that in both these places it is Jesus Christ who is
described: “He is, he was, he is to come” (or, as another place expresses
it, “The same yesterday, to-day, and for ever”), “the Lord God
Almighty.”
I shall not need to add any thing to what Grotius hath observed on these places. He
holds with our catechists, and ascribes these titles and expressions to God
in contradistinction to Jesus Christ, and gives in some observations to
explain them: but for the reason of his exposition, wherein he knew that he
dissented from the most of Christians, we have οὐδὲ γρύ, so that I have nothing to do but to reject
his authority; which, upon the experience I have of his design, I can most
freely do.
Proceed we to the next testimony, which is Acts xx. 28, “Feed the church of
God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” He who purchased the
church with his blood is God; but it was Jesus Christ who purchased his
church with Ms blood, Eph. v.
25–27, Tit. ii.
14, Heb. ix. 14: therefore he is God.
Q. What dost thou answer to this?
A. I answer, the name of “God” is not necessarily in this
place referred to Christ, but it may be referred to God the Father, whose
blood the apostles call that which Christ shed, in that kind of speaking,
and for that cause, with which God, and for which cause the
prophet says, “He who toucheth you toucheth the apple of the eye of God
himself.” For the great conjunction that is between Father and Son,
although in essence they are altogether diverse, is the reason why the
blood of Christ is called the blood of God the Father himself, especially
if it be considered as shed for us; for Christ is the Lamb of God, that
takes away the sins of the world, whence the blood shed to that purpose may
be called the blood of God himself. Nor is it to be passed by in silence,
that in the Syriac edition, in the place of God, Christ is read.
There is scarce any place in returning an answer whereunto
the adversaries of the deity of Christ do less agree among themselves than
about this. 1. Some say the name of God is not here taken absolutely, but
with relation to office, and so Christ is spoken of, and called “God by
office:” so Socin. ad
Bellar. et Weik. p. 200, etc. Some say that the words are thus to
be read, “Feed the church of God, which Christ hath purchased by his own
blood:” so Ochinus and Lælius Socinus, whom Zanchius answers, “De Tribus Elohim,” lib. iii. cap. vi. p. 456. Some flee to
the Syriac translation, contrary to the constant consenting testimony of
all famous copies of the original, all agreeing in the word Θεοῦ, some adding τοῦ
Κυρίου. So Grotius would have it, affirming that the
manuscript he used had τοῦ Κυρίου, not
telling them that it added Θεοῦ, which
is the same with what we affirm; and therefore he ventures at asserting the
text to be corrupted, and, in short writing, θοῦ to be crept in for χοῦ [manuscript contractions for Θεοῦ and Χριστοῦ], contrary to the faith and consent of all
ancient copies: which is all he hath to plead. 2. Our catechists know not
what to say: “Necessarily this word ‘God’ is not to be referred to Christ;
it may be referred to God the Father.” Give an instance of the like phrase
of speech, and take the interpretation. Can it be said that one’s blood
was shed when it was not shed, but another’s? and there is no mention that
that other’s blood was shed. 3. If the Father’s blood was shed, or said
truly to be shed, because Christ’s blood was shed, then you may say that
God the Father died, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
and that God the Father rose from the dead; that he was dead, and is alive;
that that blood that was shed was not Christ’s, but somebody’s else that he
loved, and was near unto him. 4. There is no analogy between that of the
prophet, of the “apple of God’s eye,” and this here spoken of.
Uncontrollably a metaphor must there be allowed; — here is no metaphor
insisted on; but that which is the blood of Christ is called the blood of
God, and Christ not to be that God is their interpretation. There, divers
persons are spoken of, God and believers; here, one only, that did that
which is expressed. And all the force of this exposition lies in this,
“There is a figurative expression in one place, the matter spoken of
requiring it, therefore here must be a figure admitted also,” where there
is not the same reason. What is this but to “make the Scripture a nose of
wax?” The work of “redeeming the church with his blood’ is ever ascribed
to Christ as peculiar to him, constantly, without exception, and never to
God the Father; neither would our adversaries allow it to be so here, but
that they know not how to stand before the testimony wherewith they are
pressed. 5. If, because of the conjunction that is between God the Father
and Christ, the blood of Christ may be called the blood of God the Father,
then the hunger and thirst of Christ, his dying and being buried, his
rising again, may be called the hunger and thirst of God the Father, his
sweating, dying, and rising. And he is a strange natural and proper Son
who hath a quite different nature and essence from his own proper Father,
as is here affirmed. 6. Christ is called “The Lamb of God,” as answering
and fulfilling all the sacrifices that were made to God of old; and if the
blood of Christ may be called the blood of God the Father because he
appointed it to be shed for us, then the blood of any sacrifice was also
the blood of the man that appointed it to be shed, yea, of God, who
ordained it. The words are, Ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ
Θεοῦ ἢ περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου ἅιματος. If any words in the
world can properly express that it is one and the same person who is
intended, that it is his own blood properly that bought the church with it,
surely these words do it to the full. Christ, then, is God.
The next place they are pleased to take notice of, as to
this head of testimonies about the names of God, is 1
John iii. 16, “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he
laid down his life for us.” He who laid down his life for us was God; that
is, he was so when he laid down his life for us, and not made a God
since.
Q. To the eighth what sayest thou?
A. First take this account, that neither in any Greek edition
(but only the Complutensis) nor in the Syriac the word “God” is found But
suppose that this word were found in all copies, were therefore this word
“he” to be referred to “God”? No, doubtless; not only for that reason
which we gave a little before, in answer to the third
testimony, that such words are not always referred to the next person, but,
moreover, because John doth often in this epistle refer the Greek word
ἐκεῖνος to him who was named long
before, as in the 3d, 5th, and
7th verses of this chapter.
1. Our catechists do very faintly adhere to the first
exception, about the word Θεοῦ in the original, granting that it
is in some copies, and knowing that the like phrase is used elsewhere, and
that the sense in this place necessarily requires the presence of that
word. 2. Supposing it as they do, we deny that this is a very just
exception which they insist upon, that as a relative may sometimes, and in
some cases, where the sense is evident, be referred to the remote
antecedent, therefore it may or ought to be so in any place, contrary to
the propriety of grammar, where there are no circumstances enforcing such a
construction, but all things requiring the proper sense of it. 3. It is
allowed of only where several persons are spoken of immediately before,
which here are not, one only being intimated or expressed. 4. They can
give no example of the word “God” going before, and ἐκεῖνος following after, where ἐκεῖνος is referred to any thing or person more
remote; much less here, where the apostle, having treated of God and the
love of God, draws an argument from the love of God to enforce our love of
one another. 5. In the places they point unto, ἐκεῖνος in every one of them is referred to the next
and immediate antecedent, as will be evident to our reader upon the first
view.
Give them their great associate and we have done: “ Ἐκεῖνος hic
est Christus, ut supra ver. 5,
subintelligendum hic autem est, hoc
Christum fecisse Deo sic decernente nostri causa quod expressum est,
Rom. v. 8.” That ἐκεῖνος is Christ is confessed; but the word being a
relative, and expressive of some person before mentioned, we say it relates
unto Θεοῦ, the word going immediately
before it. No, says Grotius, but “the
sense is, ‘Herein appeared the love of God, that by his appointment Christ
died for us.’“That Christ laid down his life for us by the appointment of
the Father is most true, but that that is the intendment of this place, or
that the grammatical construction of the words will bear any such sense, we
deny.
And this is what they have to except to the testimonies
which themselves choose to insist on to give in their exceptions to, as to
the names of Jehovah and God being ascribed unto Jesus Christ;
which having vindicated from all their sophistry, I shall shut up the
discourse of them with this argument, which they afford us for the
confirmation of the sacred truth contended for: He who is Jehovah, God, the
only true God, etc., he is God by nature; but thus is Jesus Christ God, and
these are the names the Scripture calls and knows him by: therefore he is
so, God by nature, blessed for ever.
That many more testimonies to this purpose may be produced,
and have been so by those who have pleaded the deity of Christ against its
opposers, both of old and of late, is known to all that inquire after such
things. I content myself to vindicate what they have put in exceptions
unto.
Chapter XI.
Of the work of creation assigned to Jesus Christ, etc. — The
confirmation of his eternal deity from thence.
The scriptures which assign the
creating of all things to Jesus Christ they propose as the next
testimony of his deity whereunto they desire to give in their exceptions.
To these they annex them wherein it is affirmed that he brought the people
of Israel out of Egypt, and that he was with them in the wilderness; with
one particular out of Isaiah, compared with the account given of it in the
gospel, about the prophet’s seeing the glory of Christ. Of those which are
of the first sort they instance in John i. 3, 10;
Col. i. 16, 17; Heb. i. 2, 10–12.
The first and second of these I have already vindicated, in
the consideration of them as they lay in their conjuncture with them going
before in verse 1; proceed we therefore to the
third, which is Col. i.
16, 17, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven,
and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or
dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him,
and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things
consist.”
1. That these words are spoken of Jesus Christ is
acknowledged. The verses foregoing prevent all question thereof: “He hath
translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: in whom we have redemption
through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: who is the image of the
invisible God, the first-born of every creature: for by him were all
things,” etc.
2. In what sense Christ is the “image of the invisible
God,” even the “express image of his Father’s person,” shall be afterward
declared. The other part of the description of him belongs to that which
we have in hand. He is πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, — “the first-born of every
creature;” that is, before them all, above them all, heir of them all, and
so none of them. It is not said he is πρωτόκτιστος, first created, but πρωτότοκος, the first-born. Now, the term “first” in
the Scripture represents either what follows, and so denotes an
order in the things spoken of, he that is the first being one of
them, as Adam was the first man; or it respects things going
before, in which sense it denies all order or series
of things in the same kind. So God is said to be the “first,” Isa. xli. 4, because before him there
was none, Isa. xliii. 10. And in this sense is
Christ the “first-born,” — so the first-born as to be the “only-begotten
Son of God,” John iii. 18. This the apostle
proves and gives an account of in the following verses; for the clearing of
his intendment wherein a few things may be premised:—
1. Though he speaks of him who is Mediator, and describes
him, yet he speaks not of him as Mediator; for that he enters upon
verse 18, “And he is the head of the
body, the church,” etc.
2. That the things whose creation is here assigned
unto Jesus Christ are evidently contradistinguished to the things of the
church, or new creation, which are mentioned verse
18. Here he is said to be the “first-born of every creature;”
there, the “first-born from the dead;” — here, to make all things; there,
to be “the head of the body, the church.”
3. The creation of all things simply and absolutely is most
emphatically expressed:— (1.) In general: “By him all things were created.”
(2.) A distribution is made of those “all things” into “all
things that are in heaven and that are in earth;” which is the common
expression of all things that were made at the beginning, Exod. xx. 11, Acts iv. 24. (3.) A
description is given of the things so created according to two
adjuncts which divide all creatures whatever, — whether they are “visible
or invisible.” (4.) An enumeration is in particular made of one
sort, of things invisible; which being of greatest eminency and dignity,
might seem, if any, to be exempted from the state and condition of being
created by Jesus Christ: “Whether they be thrones,” etc. (5.) This
distribution and enumeration being closed, the general assumption is again
repeated, as having received confirmation from what was said before: “All
things were created by him,” of what sort soever, whether expressed in the
enumeration foregoing or no; all things were created by him. They were
created for him εἰς αὐτόν, as it is
said of the Father, Rom. xi.
36; which, Rev. iv.
11, is said to be for his will and “pleasure.” (6.) For a
farther description of him, verse 17,
his pre-existence before all things, and his providence in supporting them
and continuing that being to them which he gave them by creation, are
asserted: “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”
Let us consider, then, what is excepted
hereunto by them with whom we have to do. Thus they, —
Q. What dost thou answer to this place?
A. Besides this, that this testimony speaks of Christ as of
the mediate and second cause, it is manifest the words “were created” are
used in Scripture, not only concerning the old, but also the new creation;
of which you have an example, Eph. ii. 10, 15,
James i. 18. Moreover, that these
words, “All things in heaven and in earth,” are not used for all things
altogether, appeareth, not only from the words subjoined a little after,
verse 20, where the apostle saith,
that “by him are all things reconciled in heaven and in earth,” but also
from those words themselves, wherein the apostle said not that the heavens
and earth were created, but “all things that are in heaven and in
earth.”
Q. But how dost thou understand that testimony?
A. On that manner wherein all things that are in heaven and in
earth were reformed by Christ, after God raised him from the dead, and by
him translated into another state and condition; and this whereas God gave
Christ to be head to angels and men, who before acknowledged God only for
their lord.
What there is either in their exceptions or exposition of
weight to take off this evident testimony shall briefly be considered.
1. The first exception, of the kind of causality
which is here ascribed to Christ, hath already been considered and removed,
by manifesting the very same kind of expression, about the same things, to
be used concerning God the Father. 2. Though the word creation be
used concerning the new creation, yet it is in places where it is evidently
and distinctly spoken of in opposition to the former state wherein they
were who were so created. But here, as was above demonstrated, the old
creation is spoken of in direct distinction from the new, which the apostle
describes and expresses in other terms, verse 20;
if that may be called the new creation which lays a foundation of it, as
the death of Christ doth of regeneration; and unless it be in that cause,
the work of the new creation is not spoken of at all in this place. 3.
Where Christ is said “to reconcile all things unto himself, whether things
in earth, or things in heaven,” he speaks plainly and evidently of another
work, distinct from that which he had described in these verses; and
whereas reconciliation supposes a past enmity, the “all things” mentioned
in the 20th verse can be none but those which
were sometime at enmity with God. Now, none but men that ever
had any enmity against God, or were at enmity with him, were ever
reconciled to God. It is, then, men in heaven and earth, to whose
reconciliation, in their several generations, the efficacy of the blood of
Christ did extend, that are there intended. 4. Not [only] heaven and earth
are named, but “all things in them,” as being most immediately expressive
of the apostle’s purpose, who, naming all things in general, chose to
instance in angels and men, as also insisting on the expression which is
used concerning the creation of all things in sundry places, as hath been
showed, though he mentions not all the words in them used.
[As] for the exposition they give of these words, it is
most ridiculous; for, — 1. The apostle doth not speak of Christ as he is
exalted after his resurrection, but describes him in his divine
nature and being. 2. To translate out of one condition into
another is not to create the thing so translated, though another new thing
it may be. When a man is made a magistrate, we do not say he is made a man
but he is made a magistrate. 3. The new creation, which they here affirm
to be spoken of, is by no means to be accommodated unto angels.
In both the places mentioned by themselves, and in all places where it is
spoken of, it is expressive of a change from bad to good, from evil actions
to grace, and is the same with regeneration or conversion, which cannot be
ascribed to angels, who never sinned nor lost their first habitation. 4.
The dominion of Christ over angels and men is nowhere called a new
creation, nor is there any colour or pretence why it should be so
expressed. 5.
The new creation is “in Christ,” 2 Cor. v.
17; but to be “in Christ” is to be implanted into him by the
Holy Spirit by believing, which by no means can be accommodated to angels.
6. If only the dominion of Christ be intended, then, whereas Christ’s
dominion is, according to our adversaries (Smalc. de Divin. Christi, cap.
xvi.), extended over all creatures, men, angels, devils, and all
other things in the world, men, angels, devils, and all things, are new
creatures! 7. Socinus says that by
“principalities and powers” devils are intended. And what
advancement may they be supposed to have obtained by the new
creation? The devils were created, that is, delivered! There is no
end of the folly and absurdities of this interpretation: I shall spend no
more words about it. Our argument from this place stands firm and
unshaken.
Grotius abides by his
friends in the interpretation of this place, wresting it to the new
creature and the dominion of Christ over all, against all the reasons
formerly insisted on, and with no other argument than what he
was from the Socinians supplied withal. His words on the place are:— “It
is certain that all things were created by the Word; but those things that
go before show that Christ is here treated of, which is the name of a man,
as Chrysostom also understood this place. But he would
have it that the world was made for Christ, in a sense not corrupt; but on
the account of that which went before, ἐκτίσθη is better interpreted ‘were ordained,’ or
‘obtained a certain new state.’ ” So he, in almost the very
words of Socinus. But, —
1. In what sense “all things were created by the Word,” and
what Grotius intends by the “Word,” I
shall speak elsewhere. 2. Is Christ the name of a man only? or of
him who is only a man? Or is he a man only as he is Christ? If
he would have spoken out to this, we might have had some light into his
meaning in many other places of his Annotations. The apostle tells us that
Christ is “over all, God blessed for ever,” Rom. ix. 5;
and that Jesus Christ was “declared to be the Son of God, by the
resurrection from the dead,” chap. i. 4.
If “Christ” denote the person of our mediator, Christ is God, and what is
spoken of Christ is spoken of him who is God. But this is that which is
aimed at: The Word, or Wisdom of God, bears eminent favour towards that man
Jesus Christ; but that he was any more than a man, that is, the union of
the natures of God and man in one person, is denied. 3. The words before
are so spoken of Christ as that they call him the Son of God, and the image
of the invisible God, and the first-born of the creation; which though
he was who was a man, yet he was not as he was a man. 4. All the
arguments we have insisted on, and farther shall insist on (by God’s
assistance), to prove the deity of Christ, with all the texts of Scripture
wherein it is plainly affirmed, do evince the vanity of this exception,
“Christ is the name of a man; therefore the things spoken of him are not
proper and peculiar to God.” 5. Into Chrysostom’s exposition of this place
I shall not at present inquire, though I am not without reason to think he
is wronged; but that the word here translated “created” may not, cannot be
rendered ordained, or placed in a new state and condition, I have
before sufficiently evinced, neither doth Grotius add any thing to evince his interpretation of the
place, or to remove what is objected against it.
1. He tells us that of that sense of the word κτίζειν, he hath spoken in his Prolegomena to the
Gospels; and urges Eph.
ii. 10, 13, iii. 9, iv. 24, to prove the sense proposed. (1.)
It is confessed that God doth sometimes express the exceeding greatness of
his power and efficacy of his grace in the regeneration of a
sinner, and enabling him to live to God, by the word “create,” — whence
such a person is sometimes called the “new creature,” — according to the
many promises of the Old Testament, of creating a new heart in the elect,
whom he would take into covenant with himself, — a truth which wraps that
in its bowels whereunto Grotius was no
friend; but that this new creation can be accommodated to the things here
spoken of is such a figment as so learned a man might have been ashamed of.
The constant use of the word in the New Testament is that which is proper,
and that which in this place we insist on: as Rom. i.
25; 1 Tim. iv.
3; Rev. iv. 11. (2.) Eph. ii. 10 speaks of the “new
creature” in the sense declared; which is not illustrated by verse 13, which is quite of another
import. Chap. iv. 24 is to the same purpose.
Chap. iii. 9, the creation of all
things, simply and absolutely, is ascribed to God; which to wrest to a new
creation there is no reason, but what arises from opposition to Jesus
Christ, because it is ascribed also to him.
2. The latter part of the verse he thus illustrates, or
rather obscures: Τὰ πάντα δἰ αὐτοῦ,
intellige omnia quæ ad novam creationem
pertinent.” How causelessly, how without ground, how contrary
to the words and scope of the place, hath been showed. Καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται, propter ipsum, ut ipse omnibus illis
præesset, Rev. v.
13, Heb. ii. 8. This is to go forward in
an ill way. (1.) What one instance can he give of this sense of the
expression opened? The words, as hath been showed, are used of God the
Father, Rom. xi. 36, and are expressive of
absolute sovereignty, as Rev. iv.
11. (2.) The texts cited by him to exemplify the sense of this
place (for they are not instanced in to explain the phrase, which is not
used in them) do quite evert his whole gloss. In both places the dominion
of Christ is asserted over the whole creation; and particularly, in
Rev. v. 13, things in heaven, earth,
under the earth, and in the sea, are recounted. I desire to know whether
all these are made new creatures or no. If not, it is not the dominion of
Christ over them that is here spoken of; for he speaks only of them that he
created.
Of the 17th
verse he gives the same exposition: Καὶ αὐτός ἐστι πρὸ πάντων, id est, Α et
Ω, ut
ait Apoc. i. 8, πρὸ πάντων, intellige
ut jam diximus.” Not contented to pervert this place, he draws
another into society with it, wherein he is more highly engaged than our
catechists, who confess that place robe spoken of the eternity of God:
“Καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκε Et hæc vox de veteri creatione ad novam
traducitur. Vid. 2 Pet. iii.
5.” Prove it by any one instance; or, if that may not be done,
beg no more in a matter of this importance. In Peter it is used of the
existence of all things by the power of God, in and upon their creation;
and so also here, but spoken with reference to Jesus Christ, who is “God
over all, blessed for ever.” And so much for the vindication of this
testimony.
Heb. i. 2
is nextly mentioned, “By whom also he made the worlds.”
That these words are spoken of Christ is not denied. They
are too express to bear any exception on that account. That God is said to
make the world by Christ doth not at all prejudice what we intend from this
place. God could no way make the world by Christ but as he was his own
eternal Wisdom; which exempts him from the condition of a creature.
Besides, as it is said that God made the world by him, denoting the
subordination of the Son to the Father and his being his Wisdom, as he is
described Prov. viii.; so also the Word is said
to make the world, as a principal efficient cause himself, John i. 3 and Heb. i.
10. The word here used is αἰῶνας. That αἰών
is of various acceptations in the New Testament is known. A duration of
time, an age, eternity, are sometimes expressed thereby; the world, the
beginning of it, or its creation, as John ix.
32. In this place it signifies not “time” simply and solely,
but the things created in the “beginning of time” and “in all times;” and
so expressly the word is used, Heb. xi.
3. The framing αἰώνων, is
the creation of the world; which by faith we come to know. “The worlds,”
that is, the world and all in it, were made by Christ.
Let us now hear our catechists:—
Q. How dost thou answer to this testimony?
A. On this manner, that it is here openly written, not that
Christ made, but that God by Christ made the worlds. It is also confessed
that the word “secula” may signify
not only the ages past and present, but also to come. But that here it
signifies things future is demonstrated from hence, that the same author
affirmeth that by him whom God appointed heir of all things he made the
worlds: for Jesus of Nazareth was not made heir of all things before he
raised him from the dead; which appears from hence, because then all power
in heaven and in earth was given him of God the Father; in which grant of
power, and not in any other thing, that inheritance of all things is
contained.
1. For the first exception, it hath been sufficiently
spoken to already; and if nothing else but the pre-existence of Christ unto
the whole creation be hence proved, yet the cause of our adversaries is by
it destroyed for ever. This exception might do some service to the Arians;
to Socinians it will do none at all. 2. The word “secula” signifies not things future anywhere. This
is gratis dictum, and cannot
be proved by any instance. “The world to come” may do so, but “the world”
simply doth not. That it doth not so signify in this place is
evident from these considerations:— (1.) These words, “By whom he made the
worlds,” are given as a reason why God made him “heir of all things,” —
even because by him he made all things; which is no reason at all, if you
understand only heavenly things by “the worlds” here: which also removes
the last exception of our catechists, that Christ was appointed heir of all
things antecedently to his making of the world; which is most false, this
being given as a reason of that, — his making of the world of his being
made heir of all things. Besides, this answer, that Christ made not the
world until his resurrection, is directly opposite to that formerly given
by them to Col. i. 16, where they would have him
to be said to make all things because of the reconciliation he made by his
death, verse 20. (2.) The same word or
expression in the same epistle is used for the world in its creation, as
was before observed, chap. xi.
3; which makes it evident that the apostle in both places
intends the same. (3.) Αἰών is
nowhere used absolutely for “the world to come;” which being spoken of in
this epistle, is once called οἰκουμένην τὴν
μέλλουσαν, chap. ii.
5, and ἀιῶνα μέλλοντα,
chap. vi. 5, but nowhere absolutely
ἀιῶνα or ἀιῶνας. (4.) “The world to come” is nowhere said to be
made, nor is this expression used of it. It is said, chap. ii. 5, to be put into subjection
to Christ, not to be made by him; and chap. vi.
5, the “powers” of it are mentioned, not its creation. (5.)
That is said to be made by Christ which he upholds with the word of his
power; but this is said simply to be all things: “He upholdeth all things
by the word of his power,” chap. i. 3.
(6.) This plainly answers the former expressions insisted on, “He made the
world,” “He made all things,” etc. So that this text also lies as a
two-edged sword at the very heart of the Socinian cause.
Grotius seeing that this
interpretation could not be made good, yet being no way willing to grant
that making of the world is ascribed to Christ, relieves his friends with
one evasion more than they were aware of. It is, that δι’ οὗ, “by whom,” is put for δι’ ὂ, “for whom,” or for whose sake; and ἐποίησε is to be rendered by the
preterpluperfect tense, “he had made.” And so the sense is, “God made the
world for Christ;” which answereth an old saying of the Hebrews, “That the
world was made for the Messiah.”
But what will not great wits give a colour to! 1. Grotius is not able to give me one
instance in the whole New Testament where δι’
οὗ is taken for δι’ ὂ: and if
it should be so anywhere, himself would confess that it must have some
cogent circumstance to enforce that construction, as all places must have
where we go off from the propriety of the word. 2. If δι’ οὗ be put for δι’ ὂ
διὰ must be put for εἰς, as, in
the opinion of Beza, it is once in the
place quoted by Grotius, and so signify
the final cause, as he makes δι’ ὅν,
to do. Now, the Holy Ghost doth expressly distinguish between these two in
this business of making the world, Rom. xi.
36, Δἰ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ
πάντα: so that, doubtless, in the same matter, one of these is not
put for the other. 3. Why must ἐποίησε be “condiderat?” and what example can be given of so
rendering that aoristus? If men may say what they please, without taking
care to give the least probability to what they say, these things may pass.
4. If the apostle must be supposed to allude to any opinion or saying of
the Jews, it is much more probable that he alluded, in the word αἰῶνας, which he uses, to the threefold
world they mention in their liturgy, — the lower, middle, and higher world,
or [residence of the] souls of the blessed, — or the fourfold, mentioned by
Rab. Alschech: “Messias prosperabitur, vocabulum est quod quatuor mundos
complectitur; qui sunt mundus inferior, mundus angelorum, mundus sphærarum,
et mundus supremus,” etc. But of this enough.
Though this last testimony be sufficient to confound all
gainsayers, and to stop the mouths of men of common ingenuity, yet it is
evident that our catechists are more perplexed with that which follows in
the same chapter; which, therefore, they insist longer upon than on any one
single testimony besides, — with what success comes now to be
considered.
The words are, Heb. i.
10–12, “Thou, Lord, in the beginning
hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of
thine hands: they shall perish, but thou remainest; and they all shall wax
old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they
shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.”
That these words of the psalmist are spoken concerning Christ we have the
testimony of the apostle applying them to him; wherein we are to acquiesce.
The thing also is clear in itself, for they are added in his discourse of
the deliverance of the church; which work is peculiar to the Son of God,
and where that is mentioned, it is he who eminently is intended. Now, very
many of the arguments wherewith the deity of Christ is confirmed are
wrapped up in these words:— 1. His name, Jehovah, is asserted:
“Thou, Lord;” for of him the psalmist speaks,
though he repeats not that word. 2. His eternity and pre-existence
to his incarnation: “Thou, Lord, in the beginning,”
— that is, before the world was made. 3. His omnipotence and
divine power in the creation of all things: “Thou hast laid the foundation
of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.” 4. His
immutability: “Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail;”
as Mal. iii. 6. 5. His
sovereignty and dominion over all: “As a vesture shalt thou fold
them up, and they shall be changed.” Let us now see what darkness they are
able to pour forth upon this sun shining in its strength.
Q. What dost thou answer to this testimony?
A. To this testimony I answer, that it is not to be understood
of Christ, but of God. But because this writer refers it to
the Son of God, it is to be considered that the discourse in this testimony
is expressly about not one, but two things chiefly. The one is the
creation of heaven and earth; the other, the abolishing of created things.
Now, that that author doth not refer the first unto Christ is hence
evident, because in that chapter he proposeth to himself to demonstrate the
excellency of Christ above the angels; not that which he hath of himself,
but that which he had by inheritance, and whereby he is made better than
the angels, as is plain to any one, verse 4; of
which kind of excellence seeing that the creation of heaven and earth is
not, nor can be, it appeareth manifestly that this testimony is not urged
by this writer to prove that Christ created heaven and earth. Seeing,
therefore, the first part cannot be referred to Christ, it appeareth that
the latter only is to be referred to him, and that because by him God will
abolish heaven and earth, when by him he shall execute the last judgment,
whereby the excellency of Christ above angels shall be so conspicuous that
the angels themselves shall in that very thing serve him. And seeing this
last speech could not be understood without those former words, wherein
mention is made of heaven and earth, being joined to them by this word
“they,” therefore the author had a necessity to make mention of them also;
for if other holy writers do after that manner cite the testimonies of
Scripture, compelled by no necessity, much more was this man to do it,
being compelled thereunto.
Q. But where have the divine writers done this?
A. Amongst many other testimonies take Matt. xii. 18–21, where it is most
manifest that only verse
19 belongeth to the purpose of the evangelist, when he would
prove why Christ forbade that he should be made known. So Acts ii. 17–21, where also verses 17, 18, only do make to the
apostle’s purpose, which is to prove that the Holy Ghost was poured forth
on the disciples; and there also, verses
25–28, where verse
27 only is to the purpose, the apostle proving only that it was
impossible that Christ should be detained of death. Lastly, in this very
chapter, verse 9, where these words, “Thou hast
loved righteousness, and hated iniquity,” are used, it is evident that they
belong not to the thing which the apostle proveth, which is that Christ was
made more excellent than the angels.
That in all this discourse there is not any thing
considerable but the horrible boldness of these men, in corrupting and
perverting the word of God, will easily to the plainest capacity be
demonstrated; for which end I offer the ensuing animadversions:—
1. To say these things are not spoken of Christ,
because they are spoken of God, is a shameless begging of the thing in
question. We prove Christ to be God because those things are spoken of him
that are proper to God only.
2. It is one thing in general that is spoken
of, namely, the deity of Christ; which is proved by one testimony,
from Ps. cii., concerning one property of
Christ, namely, his almighty power, manifested in the making of all thins,
and disposing them in his sovereign will, himself abiding unchangeable.
3. It is shameless impudence in these gentlemen, to take
upon them to say that this part of the apostle’s testimony which
he produceth is to his purpose, that not; as if they were wiser
than the Holy Ghost, and knew Paul’s design better than himself.
4. The foundation of their whole evasion is most false, —
namely, that all the proofs of the excellency of Christ above angels,
insisted on by the apostle, belong peculiarly to what he is said to
receive by inheritance. The design of the apostle is to prove the
excellency of Christ in himself, and then in comparison of angels: and
therefore, before the mention of what he received by inheritance, he
affirms directly that by him “God made the worlds;” and to this end it is
most evident that this testimony, that he created heaven and earth, is most
directly subservient.
5. Christ also hath his divine nature by
inheritance, — that is, he was eternally begotten of the essence of his
Father, and is thence by right of inheritance his Son, as the apostle
proves from Ps. ii. 7.
6. Our catechists speak not according to their own
principles when they make a difference between what Christ had from himself
and what he had from inheritance, for they suppose he had nothing but by
divine grant and voluntary concession, which they make the inheritance here
spoken of; nor according to ours, who say not that the Son, as the Son, is
a seipso, or hath any thing
a seipso; and so know not
what they say.
7. There is not, then, the least colour or pretence of
denying this first part of the testimony to belong to Christ. The whole is
spoken of to the same purpose, to the same person, and belongs to the same
matter in general; and that first expression is, if not only, yet mainly
and chiefly, effectual to confirm the intendment of the apostle, proving
directly that Christ is better and more excellent than the
angels, in that he is Jehovah, that made heaven and earth, they are but his
creatures, — as God often compares himself with others. In the psalm, the
words respect chiefly the making of heaven and earth; and these words are
applied to our Saviour. That the two works of making and abolishing the
world should be assigned distinctly unto two persons there is no pretence
to affirm. This boldness, indeed, is intolerable.
8. To abolish the world is no less a work of almighty power
than to make it, nor can it be done by any but him that
made it, and this confessedly is ascribed to Christ; and both
alike belong to the asserting of the excellency of God above all creatures,
which is here aimed to be done.
9. The reason given why the first words, which are nothing
to the purpose, are cited with the latter, is a miserable begging of the
thing in question; yea, the first words are chiefly and eminently to the
apostle’s purpose, as hath been showed. We dare not say only; for
the Holy Ghost knew better than we what was to his purpose, though our
catechists be wiser in their own conceits than he. Neither is there any
reason imaginable why the apostle should rehearse more words here out of
the psalm than were directly to the business he had in hand, seeing how
many testimonies he cites, and some of them very briefly, leaving them to
be supplied from the places whence they are taken.
10. That others of the holy writers do urge testimonies
not to their purpose, or beyond what they need, is false in
itself, and a bold imputation of weakness to the penmen of the Holy Ghost.
The instances hereof given by our adversaries are not at all to the purpose
which they are pursuing; for, —
(1.) In no one of them is there a testimony cited whereof
one part should concern one person, and another another, as is here
pretended; — and without farther process this is sufficient to evince this
evasion of impertinency; for nothing will amount to the interpretation they
enforce on this place but the producing of some place of the New Testament
where a testimony is cited out of the Old, speaking throughout of the same
person, whereof the one part belongs to him and the other not, although
that which they say doth not belong to him be most proper for the
confirmation of what is affirmed of him, and what the whole is brought in
proof of.
(2.) There is not any of the places instanced in by them
wherein the whole of the words is not directly to the purpose in hand,
although some of them are more immediately suited to the occasion on which
the whole testimony is produced, as it were easy to manifest by the
consideration of the several places.
(3.) These words, “Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated
iniquity,” are not mentioned to prove immediately the excellency of Christ above angels, but his administration of his kingdom, on
which account, among others, he is so excellent; and thereunto they are
most proper.
And this is the issue of their attempt against this
testimony; which, being thus briefly vindicated, is sufficient alone of
itself to consume with its brightness all the opposition which, from the
darkness of hell or men, is made against the deity of Christ.
And yet we have one more to consider before this text be
dismissed. Grotius is nibbling at this
testimony also. His words are: “Again, that which is spoken of God he
applies to the Messiah; because it was confessed among the Hebrews that
this world was created for the Messiah’s sake (whence I should think that
ἐθεμελίωσας is rightly to be
understood, ‘Thou wast the cause why it was founded;’ — and, ‘The heavens
are the works of thy hands;’ that is, ‘They were made for thee’), and that
a new and better world should be made by him.” So
he.
This is not the first time we have met with this conceit,
and I wish that it had sufficed this learned man to have framed his Old
Testament annotations to rabbinical traditions, that the New might have
escaped. But jacta est alea.
1. I say, then, that the apostle doth not apply that to one person which
was spoken of another, but asserts the words in the psalm to be spoken of
him concerning whom he treats, and thence proves his excellency, which is
the business he hath in hand. It is not to adorn Christ with titles which
were not due to him (which to do were robbery), but to prove by testimonies
that were given of him that he is no less than he affirmed him to be, even
“God, blessed for ever.” 2. Let any man in his right wits consider this
interpretation, and try whether he can persuade himself to receive it:
Ἐθεμελίωσας σὺ Κύριε, — “For thee, O
Lord, were the foundations of the earth laid, and the heavens are the works
of thy hands;” that is, “They were made for thee.” Any man may thus make
quidlibet ex quolibet; but
whether with due reverence to the word of God I question. 3. It is not
about the sense of the Hebrew particles that we treat (and yet the learned
man cannot give one clear instance of what he affirms), but of the design
of the Holy Ghost in the psalm and in this place of the Hebrews, applying
these words to Christ. 4. I marvel he saw not that this interpretation doth
most desperately cut its own throat, the parts of it being at an
irreconcilable difference among themselves: for, in the first place, he
says the words are spoken of God, and applied to the Messiah,
and then proves the sense of them to be such that they cannot be spoken of
God at all, but merely of the Messiah; for to that sense doth he labour to
wrest both the Hebrew and Greek texts. Methinks the words being spoken of
God, and not of the Messiah, but only fitted to him by the apostle, there
is no need to say that “Thou hast laid the foundation of the earth,” is,
“It was laid for thy sake;” and, “The heavens are the works of thy hands,”
that is, “They were made for thee,” seeing they are properly spoken of God.
This one rabbinical figment of the world’s being made for the Messiah is
the engine whereby the learned man turns about and perverts the sense of
this whole chapter. In brief, if either the plain sense of the words or
the intendment of the Holy Ghost in this place be of any account, yea, if
the apostle deals honestly and sincerely, and speaks to what he doth
propose, and urges that which is to his purpose, and doth not falsely apply
that to Christ which was never spoken of him, this learned gloss is
directly contrary to the text.
And these are the testimonies given to the creation of all
things by Christ, which our catechists thought good to produce to
examination.
Chapter XII.
All-ruling and disposing providence assigned unto Christ, and his
eternal Godhead thence farther confirmed, with other testimonies
thereof.
That Christ is that God who made
all things hath been proved by the undeniable testimonies in the last
chapter insisted on. That, as the great and wise Creator of all things, he
doth also govern, rule, and dispose of the things by him created, is
another evidence of his eternal power and Godhead, some testimonies
whereof, in that order of procedure which by our catechists is allotted
unto us, come now to be considered.
The first they propose is taken from Heb. i. 3, where the words spoken of
Christ are, Φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς
δυνάμεως αὑτοῦ, — “Upholding all things by the word of his
power.”
He who “upholdeth all things by the word of his power” is
God. This is ascribed to God as his property; and by none but by him who
is God by nature can it be performed. Now, this is said expressly of Jesus
Christ: “Who being the brightness of his Father’s glory, and the express
image of his person, upholding all things by the word of his power, when he
had by himself purged our sins,” etc.
This place, or the testimony therein given to the divine
power of Jesus Christ, they seek thus to elude:—
The word here,” all things,” doth not, no more than in many
other places, signify all things universally without exception, but is
referred to those things only which belong to the kingdom of
Christ; of which it may truly be said that the Lord Jesus “beareth,” that
is, conserveth,” all things by the word of his power.” But that the word”
all things” is in this place referred unto those things only appeareth
sufficiently from the subject-matter itself of it. Moreover, the word
which this writer useth, “to bear,” doth rather signify governing or
administration than preservation, as these words annexed, “By the word of
his power,” seem to intimate.
This indeed is jejune, and almost unworthy of these men, if
any thing may be said so to be; for, — 1. Why is τὰ πάντα here “the things of the kingdom of Christ”?
It is the express description of the person of Christ, as” the brightness
of his Father’s glory, and the express image of his person,” that the
apostle is treating of, and not at all of his kingdom as mediator. 2. It
expressly answers the “worlds” that he is said to make, verse 2; which are not “the things of
the kingdom of Christ,” nor do our catechists plead them directly so to be.
This term, “all things,” is never put absolutely for all the things of the
kingdom of Christ. 3. The subject-matter here treated of by the apostle is
the person of Jesus Christ and the eminency thereof. The medium whereby he
proves it to be so excellent is his almighty power in creating and
sustaining of all things. Nor is there any subject-matter intimated that
should restrain these words to the things of the kingdom of Christ. 4. The
word φέρων, neither in its native
signification nor in the use of it in the Scripture, gives any countenance
to the interpretation of it by “governing or administering,” nor can our
catechists give any one instance of that signification there. It is
properly “to bear, to carry, to sustain, to uphold.” Out of nothing Christ
made all things, and preserves them by his power from returning into
nothing. 5. What insinuation of their sense they have from that
expression,” By the word of his power,” I know not. “By the word of his
power” is “By his powerful word.” And that that word or command is
sometimes taken for the effectual strength and efficacy of God’s dominion,
put forth for the accomplishing of his own purposes, I suppose needs not
much proving.
Grotius would have the
words δύναμις αὑτοῦ to refer to the
power of the Father, “Christ upholdeth all things by the word of his
Father’s power,” without reason or proof, nor will the grammatical account
bear that reddition of the relative mentioned.
About that which they urge out of Jude 5
I shall not contend. The testimony from thence relies on the authority of
the Vulgar Latin translation; which, as to me, may plead for itself.
Neither of what is mentioned from 1 Cor. x. shall I insist on any
thing, but only the 9th
verse, the words whereof are, “Neither let us tempt Christ, as
some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.” The design of
the apostle is known. From the example of God’s dealing with the children
of Israel in the wilderness upon their sins and provocations, there being a
parity of state and condition between them and Christians as to their
spiritual participation of Jesus Christ, verses
1–4, he dehorts believers from the ways and sins whereby God was
provoked against them. Particularly in this verse he insists on the
tempting of Christ; for which the Lord sent fiery serpents among them, by
which they were destroyed, Num. xxi.
6. He whom the people tempted in the wilderness, and for which
they were destroyed by serpents, was the Lord Jehovah; now, this doth the
apostle apply to Christ: he therefore is the Lord Jehovah. But they say,
—
From those words it cannot be proved that Christ was really
tempted in the wilderness, as from the like speech, if any one should so
speak, may be apprehended. “Be not refractory to the magistrates, as some
of our ancestors were.” You would not thence conclude straightway that the
same singular magistrates were in both places intended. And if the like
phrases of speech are found in Scripture, in which the like expression is
referred to him whose name was expressed a little before, without any
repetition of the same name, it is there done where another besides him who
is expressed cannot be understood; as you have an example of here,
Deut. vi. 16, “You shall not tempt
the Lord your God, as you tempted him in Massah.”
But in this speech of the apostle of which we treat, another besides Christ
may be understood, as Moses or Aaron; of which see Num. xxi.
5.
1. Is there the same reason of these two expressions, “Do
not tempt Christ, as some of them tempted,” and, “Be not refractory against
the magistrates, as some of them were”? “Christ” is the name of one
singular individual person, wherein none shareth at any time, it being
proper only to him. “Magistrate” is a term of office, as it was to him
that went before him, and will be to him that shall follow after him.
2. They need not to have puzzled their catechumens with
their long rule, which I shall as little need to examine, for none can be
understood here but Christ. That the word “God” should be here understood
they do not plead, nor if they had had a mind thereunto is there any place
for that plea; for if the apostle had intended God in distinction from
Christ, it was of absolute necessity that he should have
expressed it; nor, if it had been expressed, would the apostle’s argument
have been of any force unless Christ had been God, equal to him who was so
tempted.
3. It is false that the Israelites tempted Moses or Aaron,
or that it can be said they tempted them. It is God they are everywhere
said to tempt, Ps. lxxviii. 18, 56;
Ps. cvi. 14; Heb. iii.
9. It is said, indeed, “that they murmured against Moses, that
they provoked him, that they chode with him;” but to tempt him, — which is
to require a sign and manifestation of his divine power, — that they did
not, nor could be said to do, Num. xxi.
5.
Grotius tries his last
shift in this place, and tells us, from I know not what ancient manuscript,
that it is not, “Let us not tempt Christ,” but, “Let us not tempt God:”
“Error commissus ex notis Θν. et Χν.” That
neither the Syriac, nor the Vulgar Latin translation, nor any copy that
either Stephanus in his edition of the New Testament or in his various
lections had seen, nor any of Beza’s,
nor Erasmus’ (who would have been
ready enough to have laid hold of the advantage), should in the least give
occasion of any such conjecture of an alteration, doth wholly take off,
with me, all the authority either of the manuscript or of him that affirms
it from thence.
As they please to proceed, the next place to be considered
is John xii. 41, “These things said
Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.”
The words in the foregoing verses, repeated by the apostle,
manifest that it is the vision mentioned Isa. vi. that
the apostle relates unto. Whence we thus argue: He whose glory Isaiah saw,
chap. vi., was “the Holy, holy, Lord of hosts,” verse 3,
“the King, the Lord of hosts,” verse 5; but this was Jesus Christ
whose glory Isaiah then saw, as the Holy Ghost witnesses in these words of
John xii. 41. What say our
catechists?
First, it appears that these words are not necessarily
referred to Christ, because they may be understood of God the Father; for
the words a little before are spoken of him, “He hath blinded, hardened,
healed.” Then, the glory that Isaiah saw might be, nay was, not present,
but future; for it is proper to prophets to see things future, whence they
are called “seers,” 1 Sam. ix.
9. Lastly, although these words should be understood of that
glory which was then present and seen to Isaiah, yet to see the glory of
one and to see himself are far different things. And in the glory of that
one God Isaiah saw also the glory of the Lord Christ; for the prophet says
there, “The whole earth is full of the glory of God,” verse 3. But then this was
accomplished in reality when Jesus appeared to that people, and was
afterward preached to the whole world.
It is most evident that these men know not
what to say nor what to stick to in their interpretation of this place.
This makes them heap up so many several suggestions, contradictory one to
another, crying that “It may be thus,” or “It may be thus.” But, — 1. That
these words cannot be referred to God the Father, but must of necessity be
referred to Christ, is evident, because there is no occasion of mentioning
him in this place, but an account is given of what was spoken verse 37, “But though he had done so
many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him;” to which answers
this verse, “When he saw his glory, and spake of him.”
The other words of “blinding” and “hardening” are evidently alleged to give
an account of the reason of the Jews’ obstinacy in their unbelief, not
relating immediately to the person spoken of. The subject-matter treated
of is Christ. The occasion of mentioning this testimony is Christ. Of him
here are the words spoken. 2. The glory Isaiah saw was present; all the
circumstances of the vision evince no less. He tells you the time, place,
and circumstances of it; — when he saw the seraphims; when he heard their
voice; when the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried;
when the house was filled with glory; and when he himself was so terrified
that he cried out, “Woe is me, for I am undone!” If any thing in the world
be certain, it is certain that he saw that glory present. 3. He did not
only see his glory, but he saw him; or he so saw his glory as that he saw
him, so as he may be seen. So the prophet says expressly, “I have seen the
King, the Lord of hosts.” And what the prophet
says of seeing the Lord of hosts, the apostle expresses by seeing “his
glory;” because he saw him in that glorious vision, or saw that glorious
representation of his presence. 4. He did, indeed, see the glory of the
Lord Christ in seeing the glory of the one God, he being the true God of
Israel; and on no other account is his glory seen than by seeing the glory
of the one true God. 5. The prophet doth not say that “the earth was full
of the glory of God,” but it is the proclamation that the seraphims made
one to another concerning that God whose presence was then there
manifested. 6. When Christ first appeared to the people of the Jews, there
was no great manifestation of glory. The earth was always full of the
glory of God. And if those words have any peculiar relation to the glory
of the gospel, yet withal they prove that he was then present whose glory
in the gospel was afterward to fill the earth.
Grotius hath not aught
to add to what was before insisted on by his friends. A
representation he would have this to be of God’s dealing in the gospel,
when it is plainly his proceeding in the rejection of the Jews for their
incredulity, and tells you, “Dicitur Esaias
vidisse gloriam Christi, sicut Abrahamus diem ejus;”
— “Isaiah saw his glory, as Abraham saw his day.” Well aimed,
however! Abraham saw his day by faith; Isaiah saw his glory in a vision.
Abraham saw his day as future, and rejoiced; Isaiah so saw his glory as God
present that he trembled. Abraham saw the day of Christ all the days of
his believing; Isaiah saw his glory only in the year that king Uzziah died.
Abraham saw the day of Christ in the promise of his coming; Isaiah saw his
glory with the circumstances before mentioned. Even such let all
undertakings appear to be that are against the eternal deity of Jesus
Christ!
In his annotations on the 6th of
Isaiah, where the vision insisted on is expressed, he takes no
notice at all of Jesus Christ or the second person of the Trinity; nor
(which is very strange) doth he so much as once intimate that what is here
spoken is applied by the Holy Ghost unto Christ in the gospel, nor once
name the chapter where it is done! With what mind and intention the
business is thus carried on God knows; I know not.
Chapter XIII.
Of the incarnation of Christ, and his pre-existence
thereunto.
The testimonies of Scripture which
affirm Christ to have been incarnate, or to have taken flesh, which
inevitably proves his pre-existence in another nature to his so doing, they
labour, in their next attempt, to corrupt, and so to evade the force and
efficacy which from them appeareth so destructive to their cause; and
herein they thus proceed:—
Ques. From what testimonies of Scripture do they endeavour to
demonstrate that Christ was, as they speak, incarnate?
Ans. From these, John i.
14; Phil. ii.
6, 7; 1 Tim. iii.
16; Heb. ii. 16,
i.John iv. 2,
3; Heb. x. 5.
Of the first of these we have dealt already, in the
handling of the beginning of that chapter, and sufficiently vindicated it
from all their exceptions; so that we may proceed immediately to the
second.
Q. What dost thou answer to the second?
A. Neither is that here contained which the adverse party
would prove: for it is one thing which the apostle saith, “Being in the
form of God, he took the form of a servant;” another, that the
divine nature assumed the human; for the “form of God” cannot here denote
the divine nature, seeing the apostle writes that Christ exinanivit, — made that form of no
reputation, but God can no way make his nature of no reputation; neither
doth the “form of a servant” denote human nature, seeing to be a servant is
referred to the fortune and condition of a man. Neither is that also to be
forgotten, that the writings of the New Testament do once only, it may be,
use that word “form” elsewhere, namely, Mark xvi.
12, and that in that sense wherein it signifies not nature, but
the outward appearance, saying, “Jesus appeared in another form unto two of
his disciples.”
Q. But from those words which the apostle afterward adds, “He
was found in fashion as a man,” doth it not appear that he was, as they
say, incarnate?
A. By no means; for that expression contains nothing of
Christ’s nature: for of Samson we read that he should be “as a man,”
Judges
xvi. 7, 11; and, Ps. lxxxii.,
Asaph denounced to those whom he called “sons of the Most High,” that they
“should die like men;” — of whom it is certain that it cannot be said of
them that they were, as they speak, incarnate.
Q. How dost thou understand this place?
A. On this manner, that Christ, who in the world did the works
of God, to whom all yielded obedience as to God, and to whom divine
adoration was given, — God so willing, and the salvation of men requiring
it, — was made as a servant and a vassal, and as one of the vulgar, when he
had of his own accord permitted himself to be taken, bound, beaten, and
slain.
Thus they. Now, because it is most certain and evident to
every one that ever considered this text, that, according to their old
trade and craft, they have mangled it and taken it in pieces, at least cut
off the head and legs of this witness, we must seek out the other parts of
it and lay them together before we may proceed to remove this heap out of
our way. Our argument from this place is not solely from hence, that he is
said to be “in the form of God,” but also that he was so in the form of God
as to be “equal with him,” as is here expressed; nor merely that “he took
upon him the form of a servant,” but that he took it upon him when he was
“made in the likeness of men,” or “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” as the
apostle expresses it, Rom. viii.
3. Now, these things our catechists thought good to take no
notice of in this place, nor of one of them any more in any other. But
seeing the very head of our argument lies in this, that “in the form of
God” he is said to be “equal with God,” and that expression is in another
place taken notice of by them, I must needs gather it into its own
contexture before I do proceed. Thus, then, they:—
Q. How dost thou answer to those places where Christ is said
to be equal to God, John v.
18, Phil. ii. 6?
A. That Christ is equal to God doth no way prove that there is
in him a divine nature. Yea, the contrary is gathered from hence; for if
Christ be equal to God, who is God by nature, it follows that he cannot be
the same God. But the equality of Christ with God lies herein, that, by
that virtue that God bestowed on him, he did and doth all those things
which are God’s, as God himself.
This being the whole of what they tender to extricate
themselves from the chains which this witness casts upon them, now lying
before us, I shall propose our argument from the words, and proceed to the
vindication of it in order.
The intendment and design of the apostle in this place
being evidently to exhort believers to self-denial, mutual love, and
condescension one to another, he proposes to them the example of Jesus
Christ; and lets them know that he, being in the form of God, and equal
with God” therein (ὑπάρχων, existing
in that form, having both the nature and glory of God), did yet, in his
love to us, “make himself of no reputation,” or lay aside and eclipse his
glory, in this, that “he took upon him the form of a servant,” being made
man, that in that form and nature he might be “obedient unto death” for us
and in our behalf. Hence we thus plead:—
He that was “in the form of God,” and “equal with God,”
existing therein, and “took on him the” nature and “form of a servant,” he
is God by nature, and was incarnate or made flesh in the sense before
spoken of; now all this is affirmed of Jesus Christ: ergo.
1. To this they say (that we may consider that first which
is first in the text), “That his being equal to God doth not prove him to
be God by nature, but the contrary,” etc., as above. But, — (1.) If none
is, nor can be, by the testimony of God himself, like God, or equal to him,
who is not God by nature, then he that is equal to him is so. But, “To
whom will ye liken me? or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. Lift up
your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things,” Isa. xl. 25, 26. None that hath
not created all things of nothing can be equal to him. And, “To whom will
ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be
like?” chap. xlvi. 5. (2.) Between that
which is finite and that which is infinite, that which is eternal and that
which is temporal, the creature and the Creator, God by nature and him who
by nature is not God, it is utterly impossible there should be any
equality. (3.) God having so often avouched his infinite distance from all
creatures, his refusal to give his glory to any of them, his inequality
with them all, it must have been the highest robbery that ever any could be
guilty of, for Christ to make himself equal to God if he were not God.
(4.) The apostle’s argument arises from hence, that he was equal to God
before he took on him the form of a servant; which was before his working
of those mighty works wherein these gentlemen assert him to be equal to
God.
2. Themselves cannot but know the ridiculousness of their
begging the thing in question, when they would argue that because he was
equal to God he was not God. He was the same God in nature and essence,
and therein equal to him to whom he was in subordination as the Son, and in
office a servant, as undertaking the work of mediation.
3. The case being as by them stated, there was no equality
between Christ and God in the works he wrought; for, — (1.) God doth the
works in his own name and authority, Christ in God’s. (2.) God doth them
by his own power, Christ by God’s. (3.) God doth them himself, Christ not,
but God in him, as another from him. (4.) He doth not do them as God,
however that expression be taken; for, according to these men, he wrought
them neither in his own name, nor by his own power, nor for his own glory;
all which he must do who doth things as God.
He is said to be “equal with God,” not as he did such and
such works, but as ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ
ὑάρχων, — being in the form of God antecedently to the taking in
hand of that form wherein he wrought the works intimated.
To work great works by the power of God argues no equality
with him, or else all the prophets and apostles that wrought miracles were
also equal to God. The infinite inequality of nature between the Creator
and the most glorious creature will not allow that it be said, on any
account, to be equal to him. Nor is it said that Christ was equal to God
in respect of the works he did, but, absolutely, “He thought it not robbery
to be equal with God.”
And so is their last plea to the first part of our argument
accounted for: come we to what they begin withal.
1. We contend not, as hath been often said, about words and
expressions. (1.) That the divine nature assumed the human we thus far
abide by, that the Word, the Son of God, took to himself, into personal
subsistence with him, a human nature; whence they are both one person, one
Christ. And this is here punctually affirmed, namely, he that was and is
God took upon him the form of a man. (2.) The apostle doth
not say that Christ made that form of no reputation, or Christ ἐκένωσε that form; but Christ, being in that
form, ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε “made himself of
no reputation,” not by any real change of his divine nature, but by taking
to himself the human, wherein he was of no reputation, it being he that was
so, in the nature and by the dispensation wherein he was so. And it being
not possible that the divine nature of itself, in itself, should be
humbled, yet he was humbled who was in the form of God, though the form of
God was not.
2. It is from his being “equal with God,” “in the form of
God,” whereby we prove that his being in the form of God doth denote his
divine nature; but of this our catechists had no mind to take notice.
3. The “form of a servant” is that which he took when he
was made ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων, as
Adam begat a son in his own likeness. (1.) Now, this was not only in
condition a servant, but in reality a man. (2.) The form of
a servant was that wherein he underwent death, the death of the cross; but
he died as a man, and not only in the appearance of a servant. (3.) The
very phrase of expression manifests the human nature of Christ to be
denoted hereby: only, as the apostle had not before said directly that he
was God, but “in the form of God,” expressing both his nature and his
glory, so here he doth not say he was a man, but in the “form of a
servant,” expressing both his nature and his condition, wherein he was the
servant of the Father. Of him it is said ἐν
μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, but μορφὴν δούλου
λαβών, — he was in the other, but this he took. (4.) To be a
servant denotes the state or condition of a man; but for one who was “in
the form of God,” and “equal with him,” to be made in the “form of a
servant,” and to be “found as a man,” and to be in that form put to death,
denotes, in the first place, a taking of that nature wherein alone he could
be a servant. And this answers also to other expressions, of the “Word
being made flesh,” and “God sending forth his Son, made of a woman.” (5.)
This is manifest from the expression, Σχήματι
εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος, — “He was found in fashion as a man;”
that is, he was truly so: which is exegetical of what was spoken before,
“He took on him the form of a servant.”
But they say, “This is of no importance, for the same is
said of Samson, Judges xvi. 7, 11,
and of others, Ps. lxxxii., who yet we do not say were
incarnate.”
These gentlemen are still like themselves. Of Christ it is
said that he humbled himself, and took upon him the form of a servant, and
was found in likeness as a man; of Samson, that being stronger than a
hundred men, if he were dealt so and so withal, he would “become as
other men,” for so the words expressly are, — no stronger than another man.
And these places are parallel! Much good may these parallels do your
catechumens! And so of those in the psalm, that though in this world they
are high in power for a season, yet they should die as other
men do. Hence, in a way of triumph and merriment, they ask if these were
incarnate, and answer themselves that surely we will not say so. True, he
who being as strong as many becomes by any means to be as one, and they who
live in power but die in weakness as other men do, are not said to be
incarnate; but he who, “being God, took on him the form of a servant, and
was in this world a very man,” may (by our new masters’ leave) be said to
be so.
[As] for the sense which they give us of this place (for
they are bold to venture at it), it hath been in part spoken to already. 1.
Christ was in the world, as to outward appearance, no way instar Dei, but rather, as he says of
himself, instar vermis. That
he did the works of God, and was worshipped as God, was because he was God;
nor could any but God either do the one, as he did them, or admit of the
other. 2. This is the exposition given us: “ ‘Christ was in the form of
God, counting it no robbery to be equal to him;’ that is, whilst he was
here in the world, in the form of a servant, he did the works of God, and
was worshipped.” 3. Christ was in the form of a servant from his first
coming into the world, and as one of the people; therefore he was not made
so by any thing afterward. His being bound, and beat, and killed, is not
his being made a servant; for that by the apostle is afterward expressed,
when he tells us why, or for what end (not how or wherein), he was made a
servant, namely, “He became obedient to death, the death of the cross.”
And this may suffice for the taking out of our way all that
is excepted against this testimony by our catechists; but because the text
is of great importance, and of itself sufficient to evince the sacred truth
we plead for, some farther observations for the illustration of it may be
added.
The sense they intend to give us of these words is plainly
this, “That Christ, by doing miracles in the world, appeared to be as God,
or as a God; but he laid aside this form of God, and took upon him the form
of a servant, when he suffered himself to be taken, bound, and crucified.
He began to be,” they say, “in the form of God, when, after his baptism, he
undertook the work of his public ministry, and wrought mighty works in the
world; which form he ceased to be in when he was taken in the garden, and
exposed as a servant to all manner of reproach.”
That there is not any thing in this whole exposition
answering the mind of the Holy Ghost is evident, as from what was said
before, so also, 1. Because it is said of Christ, that ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, he was “in the form of God,”
before he “took the form of a servant.” And yet the taking of the form of
a servant in this place doth evidently answer his being “made flesh,”
John i. 14; his being made “in the
likeness of sinful flesh,” Rom. viii.
3; his coming or being sent into the world,
Matt.
x. 40, xx. 28; John
iii. 16, 17, etc. 2. Christ was still in the form of God, as
taken essentially, even then when he was a servant; though, as to the
dispensation he had submitted to, he emptied himself of the glory of it,
and was not known to be the “Lord of glory,” 2 Cor.
viii. 9. 3. Even all the while that they say he was in the form
of God, he was in the form of a servant; that is, he was really the servant
of the Father, and was dealt withal in the world as a servant, under all
manner of reproach, revilings, and persecutions. He was not more in the
form of a servant when he was bound than when he had not where to lay his
head. 4. The state and condition of a servant consists in this, that he is
not sui juris. No more was
Christ, in the whole course of his obedience; he did not any private will
of his own, but the will of him that sent him. Those who desire to see the
vindication of this place to the utmost, in all the particulars of it, may
consult the confutation of the interpretation of Erasmus, by Beza, annot., in Phil. ii. 6, 7; of Ochinus and Lælius
Socinus, by Zanchius in locum, et de Tribus Elohim, p. 227, etc.; of
Faustus Socinus, by Beckman, Exercitat.
p. 168, and Johan. Jun. Examen Respon. Socin. pp. 201, 202; of Enjedinus, by Gomarus, Anal. Epist. Paul. ad Phil.
cap. ii.; of Ostorodius, by Jacobus a Porta, Fidei Orthodox. Defens. pp. 89,
150, etc. That which I shall farther add is in reference to Grotius, whose Annotations may be one day considered by
some of more time and leisure for so necessary a work.
Thus then he: Ὃς ἐν μορφῇ
Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων. Μορφή in nostris libris non significat internum et
occultum aliquid, sed id quod in oculos incurrit, qualis erat eximia in
Christo potestas sanandi morbos omnes, ἐιχιενδι dæmonas,
excitandi mortuos, mutandi rerum naturas, quæ vere divina sunt; ita ut
Moses, qui tam magna non fecit, dictus ob id fuerit dens Pharaonis.
Vocem μορφῆς quo dixi sensu habes, Matt. xvi.
12, Isa. xliv.
13, ubi in Hebræo תַּבְנִית; Dan.
iv. 33, v. 6, 10, vii. 28, ubi
in Chaldæo זִיו; Job iv. 16, ubi in Hebræo תְּמוּנָה; — Μορφή in our books doth not signify an internal or
hidden thing, but that which is visibly discerned, such as was that eminent
power in Christ of healing all diseases, casting out of devils, raising the
dead, changing the nature of things, which are truly divine; so that Moses,
who did not so great things, was therefore called the god of Pharaoh. The
word μορφή, in the sense spoken of,
you have Mark xvi. 12, Isa. xliv. 13, where in the Hebrew it
is תַּבְנִית; Dan. iv. 33, etc., where in the
Chaldee it is זִיו; Job iv. 16, where in the Hebrew it is
תְּמוּנָה.
Ans. 1. A form is either substantial or accidental,
— that which is indeed, or that which appears. That it is the
substantial form of God which is here intended, yet with respect
to the glorious manifestation of it (which may be also as the accidental
form), hath been formerly declared and proved. So far it
signifies that which is internal and hidden, or not visibly discerned,
inasmuch as the essence of God is invisible. The proofs of this I shall
not now repeat. 2. Christ’s power of working miracles was not
visible, though the miracles he wrought were visible,
insomuch that it was the great question between him and the Jews by what
power he wrought his miracles; for they still pleaded that he cast out
devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. So that if the power of
doing the things mentioned were μορφὴ
Θεοῦ, that form was not visible and exposed to the sight of men; for
it was “aliquid internum et
occultum,” — a thing internal and hidden. 3. If to be “in the form
of God,” and thereupon to be “equal with him,” be to have power or
authority of healing diseases, casting out devils, raising the dead, and
the like, then the apostles were in the form of God, and equal to God,
having Power and authority given them for all these things, which they
wrought accordingly, casting out devils, healing the diseased, raising the
dead, etc.; which whether it be not blasphemy to affirm the reader may
judge. 4. It is true, God says of Moses, Exod. vii.
1, “I have made thee a god to Pharaoh;” which is expounded
chap. iv. 16, where God tells him
that “Aaron should be to him instead of a mouth, and he should be to him
instead of God;” that is, Aaron should speak and deliver to Pharaoh and the
people what God revealed to Moses, Moses revealing it to Aaron, — Aaron
receiving his message from Moses as other prophets did from God; whence he
is said to be to him “instead of God.” And this is given as the reason of
that expression, chap. vii.
1, of his being ‘“a god to Pharaoh,” even as our Saviour speaks,
because the word of God came by him, because he should reveal the will of
God to him: “Thou shalt be a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be
thy prophet. Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy
brother shall speak unto Pharaoh.” He is not upon the account of his
working miracles called God, or said to be in the form of God, or to be
made equal to God; hut revealing the will of God to Aaron, who spake it to
Pharaoh, he is said to be “a god to Pharaoh,” or “instead of God,” as to
that business. 5. It is truth, the word μορπή, or “form,” is used, Mark
xvi. 12, for the outward appearance; and it is as true the verb
of the same signification is used for the internal and invisible form of a
thing, Gal. iv. 19, Ἄχρις οὗ μορφωθῇ Χειστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, “Until Christ be
formed in you.” So that the very first observation of our annotator, that
“in our books” (that is, the Scriptures, for in other authors it is
acknowledged that this word signifies the internal form of a thing) “this
word μορφή signifies not any thing
internal or hidden,” is true only of that one place, Mark xvi. 12. In this it is
otherwise, and the verb of the same signification is evidently otherwise
used. And, which may be added, other words that bear the same ambiguity of
signification, as to things substantial or accidental, being
applied to Christ, do still signify the former, not the latter, yea, where
they expressly answer what is here spoken, as εἰκών, Col. i.
15, and ὑπόστασις,
Heb. i. 3; both of the same import with
μορφή here, save that the latter adds
personality. 6. As for the words mentioned out of the Old Testament, they
are used in businesses quite of another nature, and are restrained in their
signification by the matter they speak of. תַּבְנִית is not μορφή properly, but εἰκών, and is translated “imago” by Arias Montanus. תֹּאַר is rather μορφή, Gen. xxix.
17, 1 Sam. xxviii.
14. תְּמוּנָה is used ten
times in the Bible, and hath various significations, and is variously
rendered: ὁμοίωμα, Deut. iv. 15; γλυπτὸν ὁμόιωμα, verse
16; so most commonly. זִיו in Daniel is “splendour,” δόξα, not μορφή.
And what all this is to the purpose in hand I know not. The “form of God,”
wherein Christ was, is that wherein he was “equal with God,’ — that which,
as to the divine nature, is the same as his being in the “form of a
servant,” wherein he was obedient to death, was to the human. And, which
is sufficiently destructive of this whole exposition, Christ was then in
the “form of a servant,” when this learned man would have him to be “in the
form of God;” which two are opposed in this place, for he was the servant
of the Father in the whole course of the work which he wrought here below,
Isa. xlii. 1.
He proceeds on this foundation: Οὐκ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἷναι ἶνα Θεῷ. “ Ἁαρπαγμὸν
ἡγεῖσθαι est locutio Syriaca In
Liturgia Syriaca, Johannes Baptista Christo baptismum ab ipso expetenti,
dicit, ‘non assumam rapinam.’ Solent qui aliquid bellica virtute
peperere, id omnibus ostentare, ut Romani in triumpho facere solebant. Non
multo aliter Plutarchus in Timoleonte: Οὐχ ἁρπαγὴν ἡγήσατο. Sensus est: Non venditavit Christus, non jactavit istam
potestatem; quin sæpe etiam imperavit ne quod fecerat vulgaretur. Isa
hic est adverbium; sic Odyss. Ο: Τὸν
νῦν ἶσα Θεῷ, etc. Ἰσόθεα
φρονεῖν, dixit scriptor,
2 Macc ix. 12. Εἶναι ἶνα Θεῷ est
spectari tanquam Deum.” The sum of all is, “He thought it no
robbery,” that is, he boasted not of his power, “to be equal to God, so to
be looked on as a God.”
The words, I confess, are not without their difficulty.
Many interpretations are given of them; and I may say, that of the very
many which I have considered, this of all others, as being wrested to
countenance a false hypothesis, is the worst To insist particularly on the
opening of the words is not my present task. That Grotius is beside the sense of them may be easily manifested;
for, — 1. He brings nothing to enforce this interpretation. That the
expression is Syriac in the idiom of it he abides not by, giving us an
instance of the same phrase or expression out of Plutarch, who knew the propriety of the Greek
tongue very well, but of the Syriac not at all. Others also give a
parallel expression out of Thucydides, lib. viii., Σκεύη ἁρπαγὴν ποιησάμενος. 2. I grant
ἶσα may be used adverbially, and be
rendered “æqualiter;” but now the
words are to be interpreted “pro subjecta
materia.” He who was in the form of God, and counted it no robbery
(that is, did not esteem it to be any wrong, on that account of his being
in the form of God) to be equal to his Father, did yet so submit himself as
is described. This being “equal with God” is spoken of Christ
accidentally to his “taking on him the form of a servant,” which
he did in his incarnation, and must relate to his being “in the form of
God;” and if thereunto it be added that the intendment reaches to the
declaration he made of himself, when he declared himself to be equal to God
the Father, and one with him as to nature and essence, it may complete the
sense of this place.
Ἀλλ’ ἑαυτὸν ἀκένωσε he
renders “libenter duxit vitam
inopem,” referring it to the poverty of Christ whilst he conversed
here in the world. But whatever be intended by this expression, 1. It is
not the same with μορφὴν δούλου λαβών,
which Grotius afterward interprets to
the same purpose with what he says here of these words. 2. It must be
something antecedent to his “taking the form of a servant;” or rather,
something that he did, or became exceptively to what he was before, in
becoming a servant. He was “in the form of God,” ἀλλ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε, but “he humbled,” or “bowed down
himself,” in “taking the form of a servant;” that is, he condescended
thereunto, in his great love that he bare to us, the demonstration whereof
the apostle insists expressly upon. And what greater demonstration of
love, or condescension upon the account of love, could possibly be given,
than for him who was God, equal to his Father, in the same Deity, to lay
aside the manifestation of his glory, and to take upon him our nature,
therein to be a servant unto death?
He proceeds: Μορφὴν δούλου
λαβών. “Similis factus
servis, qui nihil proprium possident;” — “He was made like unto
servants, who possess nothing of their own.” Our catechists, with their
great master, refer this, his being like servants, to the usage he
submitted to at his death; this man, to his poverty in his life. And to
this sense of these words is that place of Matt. viii.
20 better accommodated than to the clause foregoing, for whose
exposition it is produced by our annotator.
But, — 1. It is most certain that the exposition of Grotius will not, being laid together, be at
any tolerable agreement with itself, if we allow any order of process to be
in these words of the apostle. His aim is acknowledged to be an
exhortation to brotherly love, and mutual condescension in the same, from
the example of Jesus Christ; for he tells you that “he, being in the form
of God, made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a
servant.” Now, if this be not the gradation of the apostle, that being “in
the form of God,” free from any thing of that which follows, he then
debased and humbled himself, and “took upon him the form of a
servant,” there is not any form of plea left from this example here
proposed to the end aimed at. But now, says Grotius, “his being in the form of God was his working of
miracles; his debasing himself, his being poor, his taking the form of a
servant, possessing nothing of his own.” But it is evident that there was
a coincidence of time as to these things, and so no gradation in the words
at all; for then when Christ wrought miracles, he was so poor and possessed
nothing of his own, that there was no condescension nor relinquishment of
one condition for another discernible therein. 2. The “form of a servant”
that Christ took was that wherein he was like man, as it is expounded in
the words next following: he was “made in the likeness of men.” And what
that is the same apostle informs us, Heb. ii.
17, Ὅθεν ὤφειλε κατὰ πάντα τοῖς
ἀδελφοῖς ὁμοιωθῆναι, — “Wherefore he ought in all things to be made
like his brethren:” that is, ἐν ὁμοιώματι
ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος, he was “made in the likeness of men;” or, as it
is expressed Rom. viii. 3, ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκός, “in the likeness of flesh;” which
also is expounded, Gal. iv. 4
γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός, “made of a
woman;” — which gives us the manner of the accomplishment of that,
John i. 14, Ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, “The Word was made flesh.” 3.
The employment of Christ in that likeness of man is confessedly expressed
in these words; not his condition, that he had nothing, but his employment,
that he was the servant of the Father, according as it was foretold that he
should be, Isa. xlii.
1, 19, and which he everywhere professed himself to be. He goes
on, —
Ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων
γενόμενος. “Cum similis esset
hominibus, illis nempe primis, id est, peccati expers,”
2 Cor. v. 21; — “Whereas he was like
men, namely, those first; that is, without sin.”
That Christ was without sin, that in his being made like to
us there is an exception as to sin, is readily granted. He was ὅσιος ἄκακος ἀμίαντος κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν
ἁμαρτωλῶν, Heb. vii.
26. But, — 1. That Christ is ever said to be made like Adam on
that account, or is compared with him therein, cannot be proved. He was
δεύετερος ἄνθρωπος and ἔσχατος Ἀδάμ, but that he was made ἐν ὁμοιώματι τοῦ Ἀδάμ is not said. 2. This expression
was sufficiently cleared by the particular places formerly urged. It is
not of his sinlessness in that condition, of which the apostle hath no
occasion here to speak, but of his love in taking on him that condition, in
being sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet without sin, that these
words are used. It is a likeness of nature to all men, and not a likeness
of innocency to the first, that the apostle speaks of; a likeness, wherein
there is a ταυτότης, as to the
kind, a distinction in number, as, “Adam begat a son in
his own likeness,” Gen. v.
3.
All that follows in the learned annotator is only an
endeavour to make the following words speak in some harmony and conformity
to what he had before delivered; which being discerned not to
be suited to the mind of the Holy Ghost in the place, I have no such
delight to contend about words, phrases, and expressions, as to insist any
farther upon them. Return we to our catechists.
The place they next propose to themselves to deal withal is
1 Tim. iii. 16, “And without
controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the
flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, revealed unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
If it be here evinced that by “God” is meant Christ, it
being spoken absolutely, and in the place of the subject in the
proposition, this business is at a present close, and our adversaries’
following attempt to ward themselves from the following blows of the sword
of the word, which cut them in pieces, is to no purpose, seeing their
death’s wound lies evident in the efficacy of this place. Now, here not
only the common apprehension of all professors of the name of Christ in
general, but also the common sense of mankind, to be tried in all that will
but read the books of the New Testament, might righteously be appealed
unto; but because these are things of no importance with them with whom we
have to do, we must insist on other considerations:—
First, then, That by the word Θεός, “God,” some person is intended, is evident from
hence, that the word is never used but to express some person, nor can in
any place of the Scriptures be possibly wrested to denote any thing but
some person to whom that name doth belong or is ascribed, truly or falsely.
And if this be not certain and to be granted, there is nothing so, nor do
we know any thing in the world or the intendment of any one word in the
book of God. Nor is there any reason pretended why it should have any
other acceptation, but only an impotent begging of the thing in question
“It is not so here, though it be so everywhere else; because it agrees not
with our hypothesis.” Λῆρος!
Secondly, That Christ, who is the second person [of the Trinity], the Son
of God, is here intended, and none else, is evident from hence, that
whatever is here spoken of Θεός, of
this “God,” was true and fulfilled in him as to the matter; and the same
expressions, for the most of the particulars, as to their substance, are
used concerning him and no other; neither are they possible to be
accommodated to any person but him. Let us a little accommodate the words
to him: 1. He who as “God” was “in the beginning with God,” in his own
nature invisible, ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί,
“was manifested in the flesh,” when σὰρξ
ἐγένετο, when he was “made flesh,” John i.
14, and made ἐν ὁμοιώματι
σαρκός, Rom. viii. 3, “in the likeness of
flesh,” γενόμενος ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ κατὰ
σάρκα, chap. i. 3; so made “visible and
conspicuous,” or ἐφανερώθη, when ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, “dwelling among men; who
also saw his glory, as the glory of the only-begotten of the Father,” John i.
14. Being thus “manifest in the flesh,” having taken our nature
on him, he was reviled, persecuted, condemned, slain, by the Jews, as a
malefactor, a seditious person, — an impostor. But, 2. Ἐδικαιώθη ἐν Πςεύματι, he was “justified in the
Spirit” from all their false accusations and imputations. He was justified
by the eternal Spirit, when he was raised from the dead, and “declared to
be the Son of God with power” thereby, Rom. i. 4;
for though he was “crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power
of God,” 2 Cor. xiii. 4. So he also sent out
his Spirit to “convince the world of sin, because they believed not on him,
and of righteousness, because he went to his Father,” John xvi. 8–10; which he also did,
justifying himself thereby to the conviction and conversion of many
thousands who before condemned him or consented to his condemnation, upon
the account formerly mentioned, Acts ii.
47. And this is he who, 3. ὤφθη
ἀγγέλοις, was “seen of angels,” and so hath his witnesses in heaven
and earth; for when he came first into the world, all the angels receiving
charge to worship him, by Him who said, Προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ, Heb. i. 6, one came down at his
nativity to declare it, to whom he was seen, and instantly a multitude of
the heavenly host saw him, Luke ii.
9–14, and afterward went away into heaven, verse 15. In the beginning also of
his ministry, angels were sent to him in the wilderness, to minister to
him, Matt. iv. 11; and when he was going
to his agony in the garden, an angel was sent to comfort him, Luke xxii. 43, and he then knew that
he could at a word’s speaking have more than twelve legions of angels to
his assistance, Matt. xxvi.
53; and when he rose again the angels saw him again, and served
him therein, chap. xxviii.
2. And as he shall come again with his holy angels to judgment,
Matt. xxv. 31, 2
Thess. i. 7, so no doubt but in his ascension the angels
accompanied him; yea, that they did so is evident from Ps. lxviii. 17, 18. So that there
was no eminent concernment of him wherein it is not expressly affirmed that
ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις. At his birth, entrance
on his ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις. 4. Ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, He was “preached unto the
Gentiles,” or among the people or Gentiles; which, besides the following
accomplishment of it to the full in the preaching of the gospel concerning
him throughout the world, had a signal entrance in that declaration of him
to “devout men dwelling at Jerusalem, out of every nation under heaven,”
Acts ii. 5. And hereupon, 5. Ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, He was “believed on in
the world.” He that had been rejected as a vile person, condemned and
slain, being thus justified in the Spirit and preached, was believed on,
many thousands being daily converted to the faith of him, — to believe that
he was the Messiah, the Son of God, — whom before they received not,
John i. 10, 11. And, for his own
part, 6. ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ, he was
“received up into glory;” the story whereof we have, Acts i. 9–11, “When he had spoken to
his disciples, he was taken up, and a cloud received him:” of which Luke
says briefly, as Paul here, ἀνελήφθη,
Acts i. 2; as Mark also doth,
chap. xvi. 19, ἀνελήφθη, — that is, ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ, “he was taken up into heaven,” or
“to glory.” Ἀνελήφθη is as much as
ἄνω ἐλήφθη, “he was taken up” (ἐν φορ εἰς) “into glory.”
This harmony of the description of Christ here, both as to
his person and office, with what is elsewhere spoken of him (this being
evidently a summary collection of what is more largely in the gospel spoken
of), makes it evident that he is “God” here intended; which is all that is
needful to be evinced from this place.
Let us now hear our catechists pleading for
themselves:—
Q. What dost thou answer to 1 Tim. iii.
16?
A. 1. That in many ancient copies, and in the Vulgar Latin
itself, the word “God” is not read; wherefore from that place nothing
certain can be concluded. 2. Although that word should be read, yet there
is no cause why it should not be referred to the Father, seeing these
things may be affirmed of the Father, that he appeared in Christ and the
apostles, who were flesh. And for what is afterward read, according to the
usual translation, “He was received into glory,” in the Greek it is,” He
was received in glory,” — that is, “with glory,” or “gloriously.”
Q. What, then, is the sense of this testimony?
A. That the religion of Christ is full of mysteries: for God,
— that is, his will for the saving of men, — was perfectly made known by
infirm and mortal men; and yet, because of the miracles and various
powerful works which were performed by such weak and mortal men, it was
acknowledged for true; and it was at length perceived by the angels
themselves; and was preached not only to the Jews but also to the Gentiles:
all believed thereon, and it was received with great glory, after an
eminent manner.
Thus they, merely rather than say nothing, or yield to the
truth. Briefly to remove what they offer in way of exception or assertion,
—
1. Though the word “God,” be not in the Vulgar Latin, yet the unanimous,
constant consent of all the original copies, confessed to be so both by
Beza and Erasmus, is sufficient to evince that the loss of that
translation is not of any import to weaken the sense of the place. Of
other ancient copies, whereof they boast, they cannot instance one. In the
Vulgar also it is evident that by the “mystery” Christ is understood.
2. That what is here spoken may be referred to the
Father, is a very sorry shift against the evidence of all those
considerations which show that it ought to be referred to the
Son.
3. It may not, it cannot with any tolerable sense be,
referred to the Father.
It is not said that “in Christ and the apostles he
appeared,” and was “seen of angels,” etc.; but that “God was manifested in
the flesh,” etc.: nor is any thing that is here spoken of God anywhere
ascribed, no not once in the Scripture, to the Father. How was he
“manifested in the flesh”? how was he “justified in the Spirit”? how was
“he taken up into glory”?
4. Though ἐν δόξῃ may
be rendered “gloriously, or “with glory,” yet ἀνελήφθη may not, “receptus est,” but rather “assumptus est,” and is applied to the ascension of
Christ in other places, as hath been showed.
[As] for the sense they tender of these words, let them, —
1. Give any one instance where “God” is put for the “will of God,” and that
exclusively to any person of the Deity, or, to speak to their own
hypothesis, exclusively to the person of God. This is intolerable
boldness, and argues something of searedness. 2. The “will of God for the
salvation of men” is the gospel How are these things applicable to that? —
how was the gospel “justified in the Spirit”? how was it “received up into
glory”? how was it “seen of angels, ὤφθη
ἀγγέλοις? In what place is any thing of all this spoken of the
gospel? Of Christ all this is spoken, as hath been said. In sum, “the
will of God” is nowhere said to be “manifested in the flesh;” Christ was
so. That “the will of God” should be “preached by weak and mortal men” was
no “great mystery;” that God should assume human nature is so. The “will
of God” cannot be said to “appear to the angels;” Christ did so. Of the
last expression there can be no doubt raised.
Grotius insists upon the
same interpretation with our catechists, in the whole and in every part of
it; nor doth he add any thing to what they plead but only some quotations
of Scripture not at all to the purpose, or at best suited to his own
apprehensions of the sense of the place, not opening it in the least, nor
evincing what he embraces to be the mind of the Holy Ghost, to any one that
is otherwise minded. What he says, because he says it, deserves to be
considered.
Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν
σαρκί. “Suspectam nobis hanc
lectionem faciunt interpretes veteres, Latinus, Syrus, Arabs, et Ambrosius,
qui omnes legunt, ο`
ἐφανερώθη.” Addit Hincmarus Opusculo
55. illud Θεός, “hic positum a
Nestorianis.” 1. But this suspicion might well have been removed
from this learned man by the universal consent of all original copies,
wherein, as it seems, his own manuscript, that sometimes helps him at a
need, doth not differ. 2. One corruption in one translation makes many.
3. The Syriac reads the word “God,” and so Tremellius hath rendered it; Ambrose and Hincmarus followed the Latin translation; and
there is a thousand times more probability that the word Θεός was filched out by the Arians than that it was
foisted in by the Nestorians. But if the agreement of all original copies
may be thus contemned, we shall have nothing certain left us. But, saith
he, “Sensum bonum facit illud, ο` ἐφανερώθη. Evangelium illud cœleste innotuit primum non per angelos,
sed per homines mortales, et quantum extera species ferebat infirmos,
Christum, et apostolos ejus Ἐφανερώθη, … bene
convenit mysterio, id est, rei latenti. Sic et Col. i. 26; σάρξ hominem
significat mortalem, 2 Cor. v.
16. Vide 1 John iv. 2, et quæ ad eum locum dicentur.”
1. Our annotator, having only a suspicion that the word
Θεός was not in the text, ought, on
all accounts, to have interpreted the words according to the reading
whereof he had the better persuasion, and not according unto that whereof
he had only a suspicion. But then it was by no means easy to accommodate
them according to his intention, nor to exclude the person of Christ from
being mentioned in them; which, by joining in with his suspicion, he
thought himself able to do. 2. He is not able to give us any one instance
in the Scripture of the like expression to this, of “manifest in the
flesh,” being referred to the gospel. When referred to Christ, nothing is
more frequent, John i. 14, vi. 53;
Acts ii. 31; Rom. i. 3, viii.
3, ix. 5; Eph. ii.
14, 15; Col. i.
22; Heb. v. 7, x. 19,
20; 1 Pet. iii. 18, iv.
1, 1 John iv.
2, etc. Of the “flesh of the gospel,” not one word. 3. There is
not the least opposition intimated between men and angels as to the means
of preaching the gospel; nor is this any mystery, that the gospel was
preached by men. Ἐφανερώθη is well
applied to a “mystery” or “hidden thing;” but the question is, what the
“mystery” or “hidden thing” is. We say it was the great matter of the
Word’s being made flesh, as it is elsewhere expressed. In the place urged
out of the Corinthians, whether it be the 5th or
11th chapter that is intended, there
is nothing to prove that σάρξ
signifies a mortal man. And this is the entrance of this exposition. Let
us proceed.
Ἐδικαιώθη ἐν Πεύματι.
“Per plurima miracula approbata est ea
veritas. Πνεῦμα sunt miracula divina, per μετωνυμίαν quæ
est, 1 Cor. ii. 4, et alibi.” “ ‘Justified in the Spirit;” that is,
approved by many miracles, for Πνεῦμα is miracles by a metonymy.” Then let every
thing be as the learned man will have it. It is in vain to contend; for
surely never was expression so wrested. That Πνεῦμα simply is “miracles” is false; that to have a
thing done ἐν Πνέυματι signifies
“miracles” is more evidently so, 1 Cor. ii.
4. The apostle speaks not at all of miracles, but of the
efficacy of the Spirit with him in his preaching the word, to “convince the
world of sin, righteousness, and judgment,” according to the promise of
Christ. For the application of this expression to Jesus Christ see above.
He adds, δικαιοῦσθαι is here “approbare,” ut Matt. xi.
19. It is here to “approve;” and that because it was necessary
that the learned annotator should δουλεύειν
ὑποθέσει. In what sense the word is taken, and how applied to
Christ, with the genuine meaning of the place, see above. See also
John i. 33, 34. Nor is the gospel
anywhere said to be “justified in the Spirit;” nor is this a tolerable
exposition, “ ‘Justified in the Spirit,’ — that is, it was approved by
miracles.”
Ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις. “Nempe cum admiratione maxima. Angeli hoc arcanum
per homines mortales didicere, Eph. iii.
10; 1 Pet. i.
12.” How eminently this suits what is spoken of Jesus Christ was
showed before. It is true, the angels, as with admiration, look into the
things of the gospel; but that it is said the gospel ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις is not proved.
It is true, the gospel was preached to the Gentiles; but
yet this word is most frequently applied to Christ. Acts
iii. 20, viii. 5, 25, ix. 20, xix. 13; 1 Cor. i. 23, xv.
12; 2 Cor. i.
19, 2 Cor. iv. 5, xi. 4;
Phil. i. 15, are testimonies
hereof.
Ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ.
“Id est, in magna mundi
parte, Rom. i. 8, Col. i.
6.” But then, I pray, what difference is between ἐδικαιώθη ἐν Πνεύματι and ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ? The first is, “It was approved by
miracles;” the other, “It was believed.” Now, to approve the truth of the
gospel, taken actively, is to believe it. How much more naturally this is
accommodated to Christ, see John
iii. 17, 18, and verses 35, 36, vi.
40; Acts x. 43, xvi.
31; Rom. iii. 22, x. 8,
9; Gal. ii. 16, 1 John v.
5, etc.
The last clause is, ἀνελήφθη
ἐν δόξῃ. “Gloriose
admodum exaltatum est, nempe quia multo majorem attulit sanctitatem,
quam ulla antehac dogmata.” And this must be the sense of the word
ἀναλαμβάνομαι in this business: see
Luke ix. 51; Mark
xvi. 19; Acts i. 2,
11, 22. And in this sense we are indifferent whether ἐν δόξῃ βε εἰς δόξαν, “unto glory,” which
seems to be most properly intended; or σὺν
δόξῃ, “with glory,” as our adversaries would have it; or
“gloriously,” as Grotius: for it was
gloriously, with great glory, and into that glory which he had with his
Father before the world was. That the gospel is glorious in its doctrine
of holiness is true, but not at all spoken of in this place.
Heb. ii.
16 is another testimony insisted on to prove the incarnation of Christ; and so, consequently, his subsistence in a divine
nature antecedently thereunto. The words are, “For verily he took not on
him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.” To this
they answer, that —
Herein not so much as any likeness of the incarnation, as they
call it, doth appear; for this writer doth not say that “Christ took” (as
some read it, and commonly they take it in that sense), but “he takes.”
Nor doth he say” human nature,” but the “seed of Abraham;” which in the
holy Scriptures denotes them who believe in Christ, as Gal. iii. 29.
Q. What then is the sense of this place?
A. This is that which this writer intends, that Christ is not
the Saviour of angels, but of men believing; who, because they are subject
to afflictions and death (which he before expressed by the participation of
flesh and blood), therefore did Christ willingly submit himself unto them,
that he might deliver his faithful ones from the fear of death, and might
help them in all their afflictions.
The sense of this place is evident, the objections against
it weak. 1. That the word is ἐπιλαμβάνεται, not ἐπελάβετο, “assumit,” not “assumpsit,” is an enallage of tense so usual as that
it can have no force as an objection; and, verse 14,
it is twice used in a contrary sense, the time past being put for the
present, as here the present for that which is past, κεκοινώνηκε for κοινωνεῖ, and μετέσχε for μετέχει. See John iii. 31, xxi.
13. 2. That by the “seed of Abraham” is here intended the human
nature of the seed of Abraham, appears, — (1.) From the expression going
before, of the same import with this, “He took part of flesh and blood,”
verse 14. (2.) From the opposition
here made to angels or the angelical nature; the Holy Ghost showing that
the business of Christ being to save his church by dying for them, he was
not therefore to take upon him an angelical, spiritual substance or nature,
but the nature of man. 3. The same thing is elsewhere in like manner
expressed, as where he is said to be “made of the seed of David according
to the flesh,” Rom. i. 3, and to “come of the fathers
as concerning the flesh,” chap. ix.
5. 4. Believers are called Abraham’s seed sometimes
spiritually, in relation to the faith of Abraham, as Gal. iii. 29, where he is expressly
spoken of as father of the faithful by inheriting the promises; but take it
absolutely, to be of the “seed of Abraham” is no more but to be a man of
his posterity: John viii.
37, “I know that ye are Abraham’s seed.” Rom. ix. 7, “Neither, because they are
the seed of Abraham, are they all children.” Verse 8,
“That is, They are the children of the flesh.” So Rom. xi. 1. “Are they the seed of
Abraham? so am I,” 2 Cor. xi.
22.
[As] for the sense assigned, — 1. It is evident that in
these words the apostle treats not of the help given, but of the way
whereby Christ came to help his church, and the means thereof; his actual
helping and relieving of them is mentioned in the next verse. 2. Here is
no mention in this verse of believers being obnoxious to afflictions and
death; so that these words of theirs may serve for an exposition of some
other place of Scripture (as they say of Gregory’s comment on Job), but not of this. 3. By “partaking
of flesh and blood” is not meant, primarily, being obnoxious to
afflictions and death, nor doth that expression in any place signify any
such thing, though such a nature as is so obnoxious be intended.
The argument, then, from hence stands still in its
force, that Christ, subsisting in his divine nature, did
assume a human nature of the seed of Abraham into personal
union with himself.
Grotius is still at a
perfect agreement with our catechists. Saith he, “ Ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι apud
Platenem et alios est solenniter vindicare; hic autem ex
superioribus intelligendum est, vindicare, seu asserere in libertatem
manu injecta;” — “This word in Plato and others is to
vindicate into liberty; here, as is to be understood from what went before,
it is to assert into liberty by laying hold with the hand.” Of the first,
because he gives no instances, we shall need take no farther notice. The
second is denied. Both the help afforded and the means of it by Christ are
mentioned before. The help is liberty; the means, partaking of flesh and
blood, to die. These words are not expressive of nor do answer the latter,
or the help afforded, but the means of the obtaining of it, as hath been
declared. But he adds, “The word signifies to lay hold of with the hand,
as Mark viii. 23,” etc. Be it granted
that it doth so. “To lay hold with the hand, and to take to one’s self,”
this is not to assert into liberty, but by the help of a metaphor; and when
the word is used metaphorically, it is to be interpreted “pro subjecta materia,” according to the
subject-matter, which here is Christ’s taking a nature upon him that was of
Abraham, that was not angelical. The other expression he is singular in
the interpretation of.
“He took the seed of Abraham.” “Id est, Id agit ut vos Hebroæos liberet a peccatis et metu
mortis. Eventûs enim nomen sæpe datur operæ in id impensæ;” — “That
is, He doth that that he may deliver you Hebrews from sin and fear of
death.’ The name of the event is often given to the work employed to that
purpose.” But, — 1. Here, I confess, he takes another way from our
catechists. The “seed of Abraham” is with them believers; with
him only Jews. But the tails of their discourse are tied together
with a firebrand between them, to devour the harvest of the church. 2.
This taking the seed of Abraham is opposed
to his not taking the seed of angels. Now the Jews are not
universally opposed to angels in this thing, but human kind. 3. He “took
the seed of Abraham” is, it seems, he endeavoured to help the
Jews. The whole discourse of the help afforded, both before and after
this verse, is extended to the whole church; how comes it here to be
restrained to the Jews only? 4. The discourse of the apostle is about the
undertaking of Christ by death, and his being fitted thereunto by
partaking of flesh and blood; which is so far from being in any
place restrained or accommodated only to the Jews, as that the contrary is
everywhere asserted, is known to all.
[The next place is] 1 John iv.
2, “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in
the flesh is of God.” He who comes into the world, or comes into flesh or
in the flesh, had a subsistence before he so came. It is very probable
that the intendment of the apostle was to discover the abomination of them
who denied Christ to be a true man, but assigned him a fantastical body;
which yet he so doth as to express his coming in the flesh in such a manner
as evidences him to have another nature (as was said) besides that which is
here synecdochically called “flesh.” Our catechists to this say, —
That this is not to the purpose in hand; for that which some
read, “He came into the flesh,” is not in the Greek, but “He came in the
flesh.” Moreover, John doth not write, “That spirit which confesseth Jesus
Christ, which came in the flesh, is of God;” but that “That spirit which
confesseth Jesus Christ, who is come in the flesh, is of God.” The sense
of which words is, that the spirit is of God which confesseth that Jesus
Christ, who performed his office in the earth without any pomp or worldly
ostentation, with great humility as to outward appearance, and great
contempt, and lastly underwent a contumelious death, is Christ, and King of
the people of God.
I shall not contend with them about the translation of the
words. 1. Ἐν σαρκί seems to be put
for εἰς σάρκα, but the intendment is
the same; for the word “came” is ἐληλυθότα, that is, “that came,” or “did come.” 2. It
is not τὸν ἐληλυθότα, “who did come,”
that thence any colour should be taken for the exposition given by them, of
confessing that Christ, or him who is the Christ, is the King of the people
of God, or confessing him to be the Christ, the King of the people of God;
but it is, “that confesseth him who came in the flesh,” that is, as to his
whole person and office, his coming, and what he came for. 3. They cannot
give us any example nor any one reason to evince that that
should be the meaning of ἐν σαρκί
which here they pretend. The meaning of it hath above been abundantly
declared, so that there is no need that we should insist longer on this
place, nor why we should trouble ourselves with Grotius’ long discourse on this place. The whole foundation
of it is, that “to come in the flesh” signifies to come in a low, abject
condition, — a pretence without proof, without evidence. “Flesh” may
sometimes be taken so; but that to “come in the flesh” is to come in such a
condition, we have not the least plea pretended.
The last place they mention to this purpose is Heb. x. 5, “Wherefore, when he cometh
into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a
body hast thou prepared me.” He who had a body prepared for him when he
came into the world, he subsisted in another nature before that coming of
his into the world. To this they say, —
Neither is there here any mention made of the incarnation (as
they call it), seeing that world, into which the author says Christ
entered, is the world to come, as was above demonstrated; whence to come
into the world doth not signify to be born into the world, but to enter
into heaven. Lastly, in these words, “A body hast thou prepared me,” that
word, “a body” (as appeared from what was said where his entering this
world was treated of), may be taken for an immortal body.
Q. What is the sense of this place?
A. That God fitted for Jesus such a body, after he entered
heaven, as is fit and accommodate for the discharging of the duty of a high
priest.
But, doubtless, than this whole dream nothing can be more
fond or absurd. 1. How many times is it said that Christ came into this
world, where no other world but this can be understood! “For this cause,”
saith he, “came I into the world, that I might bear witness unto the
truth,” John xviii. 37. Was it into heaven
that Christ came to bear witness to the truth? “Jesus Christ came into the
world to save sinners,” 1 Tim. i.
15. Was it into heaven? 2. These words, “A body hast thou
prepared me,” are a full expression of what is synecdochically spoken of in
the Psalms in these words, “Mine ears hast thou opened,” expressing the end
also why Christ had a body prepared him, — namely, that he might yield
obedience to God therein; which he did signally in this world when he was
“obedient unto death, the death of the cross.” 3. As I have before
manifested the groundlessness of interpreting the word “world,” put
absolutely, of the “world to come,” and so taken off all that
here they relate unto, so in that demonstration which, God assisting, I
shall give of Christ’s being a priest and offering sacrifice in this world
before he entered into heaven, I shall remove what farther here they
pretend unto. In the meantime, such expositions as this, that have no
light nor colour given them from the texts they pretend to unfold, had need
of good strength of analogy given them from elsewhere; which here is not
pretended. “ ‘When he cometh into the world,’ that is, when he enters
heaven, he says, ‘A body hast thou prepared me,’ that is, an immortal body
thou hast given me.” And that by this immortal body they intend indeed no
body I shall afterward declare.
Grotius turns these
words quite another way, not agreeing with our catechists, yet doing still
the same work with them; which, because he gives no proof of his
exposition, it shall suffice so to have intimated. In sum, verse 4, he tells us how the blood of
Christ takes away sin, namely, “Because it begets faith in us, and gives
right to Christ for the obtaining of all necessary helps for us,” in
pursuit of his former interpretation of chapter ix., where he wholly
excludes the satisfaction of Christ. His coming into the world is, he
says, “His showing himself to the world, after he had led a private life
therein for a while,” contrary to the perpetual use of that expression of
the New Testament. And so the whole design of the place is eluded, the
exposition whereof I shall defer to the place of the satisfaction of
Christ.
And these are the texts of Scripture our catechists thought
good to endeavour a delivery of themselves from, as to that head or
argument of our plea for his subsistence in a divine nature antecedently to
his being born of the Virgin, — namely, because he is said to be incarnate
or “made flesh.”
Chapter XIV.
Sundry other testimonies given to the deity of Christ
vindicated.
In the next place they heap up a
great many testimonies confusedly, containing scriptural
attributions unto Christ of 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:—
Ques. In what scriptures is Christ called God?
Ans. John i.
1, “The Word was God;” John xx.
28, “Thomas saith unto Christ, My Lord and my God;” Rom. ix. 5, the apostle saith that
“Christ is God over all, blessed for ever.”
Q. What can be proved by these testimonies?
A. 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 he found the print of the nails, and of the spear 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 the fathers, belong wholly to a man, which were absurd to
ascribe to him who is God by nature. And if any one shall pretend that
veil of the distinction of natures, we have above removed that, and have
showed that this distinction cannot be maintained.
That in all this answer our catechists do nothing but beg
the thing in question, and flee to their own hypothesis, not against
assertions but arguments, themselves so far know as to be forced to
apologize for it in the close. 1. 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 sum
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 affirm 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, John i.
1, the Word is Christ, as hath been above abundantly
demonstrated, — Christ, in respect of another nature than he had before he
took flesh and dwelt with men, verse
14. Herein is he said to be with the Father, in respect of his
distinct personal subsistence, who was one with the Father as to his nature
and essence. And this is that which we prove from his testimony, which
will not be warded with a bare denial: “The Word was with God, and the Word
was God;” — God by nature, and with God in his personal distinction. 4.
Thomas confesses him to be his Lord and God in whose hands and feet he saw
the print of the nails, as God is said to redeem the church with his own
blood. He was the Lord and God of Thomas, who in his human nature shed his
blood, and had the print of the nails in his hands and feet.
Of this confession of Thomas I have spoken before, and 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 Rom. ix. 5. The apostle distinguishes
of Christ as to his flesh and as to his deity: as to his flesh or human
nature, he says he was of the fathers; but in the other regard he is “over
all, God blessed for ever.” And as this is a signal expression of the trim
God, “God over all, blessed for ever,” so there is no occasion of that
expression, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, “as to the
flesh,” but to assert something in Christ, which he afterward affirms to be
his everlasting deity, in regard whereof he is not of the fathers. He is,
then, of the fathers, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢ ἐπὶ
πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς ἀιῶνος ἀμήν The words are most
emphatically expressive of the eternal deity of Christ, in
contradistinction to what he received of the fathers. Ὁ ὤν, even then when he took 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 solemn 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 showed, 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 two
more, as that of Isa. liv.
5, “Thy Maker is thine husband; the 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 and
spouse of the church will not be denied, Eph. v.
25, Rev. xxi. 9; but he who is so is “The
Lord of hosts, the Holy One of Israel, the God of
the whole earth.” And Heb. iii.
4, the apostle says, “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, verse 3.
But this is not my present employment.
The learned Grotius is
pitifully entangled about the last two places urged by our catechists. Of
his sleight in dealing with that of John xx.
28, I have spoken before, and discovered the vanity of his
insinuations. Here he tells you, that after Christ’s resurrection, it grew common with the Christians to call him God, and urges
Rom. ix. 5; but coming to expound that
place, he finds that shift will not serve the turn, it being not any
Christians calling him God that there is mentioned, but the blessed apostle
plainly affirming that he is “God over 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 Θεός ought not to be in the text, because Erasmus had observed that Cyprian and Hilary, citing this text, did not name the word!
And this he rests upon, although he knew that all original copies
whatever, constantly, without any exception, do read it, and that Beza had manifested, against Erasmus, that Cyprian adver. Judæos, lib. ii. cap.
vi., and Hilary
ad Ps.
xii., do both cite this place to prove that Christ is called God,
though they do not express 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 who, from what he writes on John i.
1 (the first place mentioned), do apprehend that when he wrote
his annotations on that place he was no opposer of the deity 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 human nature into personal subsistence with the Son of God.
I speak as to the thing itself, and not to the expressions which he
disallows. But we must proceed with our catechists:—
Q. Where doth the Scripture testify that Christ is one with
the Father?
A. John x. 29–31, “My Father, which
gave them me, is greater than 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 again to
stone him.”
Q. How dost thou answer this testimony?
A. That from hence, that Christ is said to be one with the
Father, it cannot be proved that he is one with him in nature, the words of
Christ to his Father of the disciples do show: John
xvii. 11,” That they may he one, as we are;” and a little after,
verse 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 business of our salvation.
Whence that a divine nature cannot be proved is manifest from those places
where Christ saith his Father is greater than all, and, consequently, than
Christ himself, as he expressly confesseth, and that he gave him his sheep,
John xiv. 28.
Of this place I have spoken before. That it is an
unity of essence that is here intended by our Saviour appears, —
1. From the apprehension the Jews had of his meaning in those words, who
immediately upon them took up stones to stone him for
blasphemy, rendering an account of their so doing, verse
33, “Because he, being a man, did make himself God.” 2. From
the exposition he makes himself of his words, verse
36, “I am the Son of God;” — “That is it I intended; I am so one
with him as a son is with his 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.
Those words of our Saviour, John xvii. 11,
22, 1. Do not argue a parity in the union of believers among
themselves with that of him and his Father: but a similitude
(see John xvii. 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 oneness 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 always do his. 3. Oneness of
power with God in any work argues oneness of essence. God’s 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 which is here asserted,
it is spoken absolutely, and not referred to any particular kind of thing.
4. It is true, God the Father is greater than Christ, as is affirmed
John xiv. 28, in respect of his
office of mediation, of which there he treats; but they are one and equal
in respect of nature. Neither is God in this place said to be greater than
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
eternal Son of God, but as mediator; and so his Father was greater than 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, only he goes one step farther in
corrupting the text. His words are: “ Ἐγὼ
καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν. Connectit
quod dixerat cum superioribus. Si Patris potestati eripi non poterunt, nec
meæ poterunt; nam mea potestas a Patre emanat, et quidem ita, ut tantundem
valeat a me, aut a Patre, custodiri. Vid. Gen. xli.
25, 27.” I suppose he means verse
44, being the words of Pharaoh delegating power and authority
immediately under him to Joseph; — but, as it is known, potestas is ἐξουσία, “authority,” and may belong to office; but
potentia is δύναμις, “force,” “virtue,” or “power,” and
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 doth not prove unity of
essence in men, yet unitas
potentiæ, which is here spoken of, in God evidently doth; yea,
none can have unitatem
potestatis with God but he who hath unitatem essentiæ.
What they except in the next place against Christ’s being
equal with God, from John v.
18, Phil. ii.
6, 7, hath been already removed, and the places fully
vindicated. They proceed:—
Q. But where is it that Christ is called the “Son of the
living God,” the “proper” and “only-begotten Son of God?”
A. Matt. xvi.
16; Rom. viii.
32; John iii. 16,
18.
Q. But how are these places answered?
A. From all these attributes of Christ a divine nature can by
no means 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, bad not such a divine nature as they feign.
Besides, the Scripture testifieth of other men that they are the sons of
the living God, as the apostle out of Hosea, Rom. ix.
26. And as to what belongeth to the second and third places, in
them we read that the “proper” and “only-begotten Son of God” was delivered
to death; which cannot be said of him who is God by nature. Yea, from
hence, that Christ is the Son of God, it appears that he is not God, for
otherwise he should be Son to himself. But the cause why these attributes
belong to Christ is this, that he is the chiefest and most dear to God
among all the sons of God: as Isaac, because he was most dear to Abraham,
and was his heir, is called his “only-begotten son,” Heb. xi. 17, although he had his
brother Ishmael; and Solomon the “only-begotten of his mother,” although he
had many brethren by the same mother, 1 Chron.
iii. 1–6, etc.; Prov. iv.
3.
I have spoken before fully to all these places, and
therefore shall be very brief in the vindication of them in this place. On
what account Christ is, and on what account alone he is
called, the Son 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 Son of man, the “Son of the
living God;” not in that or on that account whereon he is the Son of man,
but because he is peculiarly, in respect of another nature than that
wherein he is the Son of man, the Son of the living God. And if Peter had
intended no more in this assertion but only that he was one among the many
sons 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 solemn confession of him on whom the church is built. It is true,
believers are called “children of the living God,” Rom. ix.
26, in opposition to the idols whom they served before their
conversion; neither do we argue from this expression barely, “Of the living
God,” but in conjunction with those others that follow, and in the
emphaticalness of it, in this confession of Peter, Christ instantly
affirming that this was a rock which should not be prevailed against. 2.
What is meant by the “proper” and “only-begotten Son of God” hath been
already abundantly evinced. Nor is it disproved by saying that the proper
and only Son 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 Son 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 Son of the Father, who is God, and therein the Son of God,
without any danger of being “the Son of himself,” that is, of God as he is
the Son. This is a begging of the thing in question, without offering any
plea for what they pretend to but their own unbelief and carnal
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 Son of God, because he is most dear to God of
all his sons;” themselves and their master having, as was showed at large
before, given us reasons quite of another nature for this appellation,
which we have discussed and disproved elsewhere. 5. If Christ be the
only-begotten Son of God only on this account, because he is most dear
among all the sons of God, then he is the Son of God upon the same account
with them, — that is, by regeneration and adoption; which that it
is most false hath been showed elsewhere. Christ is the proper, natural,
only-begotten Son of God, in contradistinction to all others, the adopted
sons of God, as was made manifest. Isaac is called the “only-begotten son”
of Abraham, not absolutely, but in reference to the promise; he was his
only-begotten son to whom the promise did belong: “He that had received the
promises offered up his only-begotten son.” Solomon is not said to be the
“only-begotten of his mother,” Prov. iv.
3, but only “before the face” or “in the sight of
his mother,” eminently expressing his preferment as to her affections. How
little is this to what the gospel says of Jesus Christ!
I have only to say concerning Grotius in this matter, that from none of these 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, and improvement of these testimonies
to the end aimed at, I desire the reader to see, chap. vii. They
proceed:—
Q. What scripture calls Christ the “first-born of every
creature”?
A. Col. i. 15.
Q. What dost thou answer thereunto?
A. Neither can it hence be gathered that Christ hath a divine
nature: for seeing Christ is the “first-born of every creature,” it is
necessary that he be one of the number of the creatures; for such is the
force of the word “first-born” in the Scriptures, that it is of necessity
that he who is first-born be one of the number of them of whom he is the
first-born, Col. i. 18; Rom. viii.
29; Rev. i. 5. Neither that our Lord Jesus
was one of the things created in the old creation can our adversaries
grant, unless they will be Arians. It behoveth them that they grant him 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
firmly evinced. But now that Jesus is called by that name by the apostle,
it is from hence, that in time and worth he far exceedeth all other things
of the new creation.
1. That by the “creation” in this verse, and the things
enumerated to be created in the verses following, are intended the
creation of the world, and all things therein, “visible and
invisible,” was before abundantly evinced, in the consideration of the
ensuing verses, and the exceptions of these catechists wholly removed from
being any hinderance to the embracing of the first obvious sense of the
words All, then, that is here inferred from a supposition of the new
creation being here intended (which is a most vain supposition) falls to
the ground of itself; so that I shall not need to take the least farther
notice of it. 2. That Christ is so the first-born of the old
creation as to be a prince, heir, and lord of it, and the things
thereof (which is the sense of the word as here used), and yet not one of
them, is evident from the context. The very next words to these, “He is
the first-born of every creature,” are, “For by him were all things
created.” He by whom all things, all creatures, were created, is no
creature; for he else must create himself. And so we are neither Arians
nor Photinians. Though the former have more colour of saving themselves from the sword of the word than the latter, yet they
both perish by it. 3. The word πρωτότοκος, “first-born,” in this place is
metaphorical, and the expression is intended to set out the excellency of
Christ above all other things That that is the design of the Holy Ghost in
the place is confessed. Now, whereas the word may import two things
concerning him of whom it is spoken, — (1.) that he is one of them in
reference to whom he is said to be the first-born, or, (2.) that he hath
privilege, pre-eminence, rule, and inheritance of them and over them, — I
ask, Which of these significations suits the apostle’s aim here, to set out
the excellency of Christ above all creatures? that which makes him one of
them, or that which exalts him above them? 4. Πρωτότοκος τάσης κτίσεως, is “begotten before all
creatures,” or “every creature.” The apostle doth not say Christ was πρῶτος κτισθείς, “the first of them made,”
but, he was born 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 express mention is made of others
in the same kind, may denote one of them, yet where it is used concerning
things so far distant, and which are not compared, but one preferred above
the other, it requires no such signification. See Job
xviii. 13; Ps. lxxxix.
27; Jer. xxxi.
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 exposition called
to an account formerly.
The next testimonies insisted on they produce in answer to
this question:—
Q. What scriptures affirm that Christ hath all things that the
Father hath?
A. John xvi. 15, xvii.
10.
Q. What sayest thou to these?
A. We have above declared that the word omnia, “all things,” is almost always
referred to the subject-matter; wherefore from these places that which they
intend can no way be proved. The subject-matter, chap.
xvi., is that which the Holy Spirit was to reveal to the
apostles, which belonged to the kingdom of Christ; and, chap. xvii., 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 himself, it hence appeareth that he can by no means have
a divine nature, when he who is God by nature hath all things of
himself.
Of these texts the consideration will soon be
despatched. 1. John xiv.
15, Christ saith, “All things that the Father hath are mine:
therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show 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 reveal to the apostles. Let, then, 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 kingdom of Christ, that he was thus to show to the
apostles. But look, whence the Holy Ghost hath his knowledge, thence he
hath his essence; for those things do 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 show to them.
2. John xvii.
10, a reason is rendered why those who are Christ’s are also
God’s, and to be in his care; that is, because all his things (τὰ ἐμὰ πάντα) were the Father’s, and all the
Father’s his. It is not, then, spoken of the disciples; but is a reason
given why the disciples are so in the love of God, because of the unity of
essence which is between Father and Son, whence all the Son’s things are
the Father’s, and all the Father’s are the Son’s.
3. Christ’s having all things not from himself, but by gift
from the Father, may be understood two ways. Either it refers 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 sense 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 Son, 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
Son of God, not at all that he is not God.
Grotius on the first
place, Πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατὴρ ἐμά ἐστι
“Etiam præscientia et decreta de rebus
futuris, quatenus ecclesiam spectant.” Did he truly intend what the
first words do import, we should judge ourselves 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 eternal property of his nature; the
latter are eternal 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
seem to grant, by restraining this participation of Christ in
the foreknowledge and decrees of God to things concerning the church; in
which sense Socinus grants the
knowledge of Christ to be infinite, namely, in respect of the church, Disput. de Adorat. Christi cum
Christiano Franken, p. 15. But it being certain that he whose the
prescience of God and 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 Mediator,
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 author.
Q. But what scripture calleth Christ “the eternal Father?”
A. Isa. ix. 6.
Q. What sayest thou thereunto?
A. From thence a divine nature cannot be proved, seeing Christ
is called the “Father of eternity” for a certain cause, as may be seen from
the words there a little before expressed. But it is marvellous that the
adversaries will refer this place to the Son, which treats of the eternal
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 eternal life, which is
future.
It were well for our adversaries if they could thus shift
off this testimony. Let the words be considered, and it will quickly
appear what need they have of other helps, if they intend to escape this
sword that is furbished against them and their cause. The words of the
verse are, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the
government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince
of Peace.”
1. Our catechists, confessing that this is spoken of
Christ, and that he is here called “The everlasting Father” (they are more
modest than Grotius, whose labour to
corrupt this place is to be bewailed, having ventured on the words as far
as any of the modern rabbins, who yet make it their business to divert this
text from being applied 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, that is that which is here affirmed of
him, that “his name shall be called,” or “he shall be,” and “shall be known
to be” (for both these are contained in this expression), “Wonderful,
Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” He who is “The mighty God” and “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. x.
17, Neh. ix. 32, Jer.
xxxii. 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,”
Ps. cx. 1; — “Elohim,” Ps. xlv. 6; Heb. i.
8; — “Jehovah,” Jer. xxxiii. 6, xxxiii.
16; Mal. iii. 1; Ps.
lxxxiii. 18; — “God,” John i.
1; — “The true God,” 1 John v.
20; — “The great God,” Tit. ii.
13, (of which places before); — and here “The mighty God, The
everlasting Father.”
2. What say our catechists to all this? They fix only on
that expression, “The eternal Father,” and say that we cannot intend the
Son here, because we say he is not the Father; and yet so do these
gentlemen themselves! They say Christ is the Son of God, and no way the
same with the Father; and yet they say that upon a peculiar account he is
here called “The eternal Father.”
3. On what account, then, soever Christ is called “The
eternal Father,” yet he is called so, and is eternal. Whether it be
because in nature he is one with the Father, or because of his tender and
fatherly affections to his church, or because he is the author of eternal
life, or because in him is life, it is all one as to the testimony to his
deity in the words produced. He who is “The mighty God, The everlasting
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. The place is of great importance, the testimony in it evident
and clear; and we must not suffer ourselves, on any pretence, to be
deprived of the support thereof. Thus, then, he proceeds in the exposition
of this place:—
“For unto us a child is born.” “Id est, nascetur. Nam Hebræa præterita sumuntur pro
futuris;” — “That is, shall be born,” etc. Of this we shall have
use in the very next words.
“Unto us a Son is given.” “Dabitur. Ezechias patri Achazo multum dissimilis. Sic
tamen ut multo excellentius hæc ad Messiam pertinere, non Christiani tantum
agnoscant, sed et Chaldæus hoc loco;” — that is, “Shall be given.
Hezekiah, 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, say some of the rabbins. But, — 1. This prophecy is evidently a
continuance of that which is begun chap. vii.,
and was given at the time of the invasion of Judah by Rezin and Pekah;
which was after Ahaz had reigned some years, as is evident, 2 Kings xvi. 1–5. Now, he reigned but sixteen years in all, and when Hezekiah came to the
crown, in succession to him, he was twenty-five years of age, 2 Kings xviii. 1, 2; so that he must
needs be born before this prophecy. There is, then, already an
inconsistency in these annotations, making the prophet to speak of that
which was past as future and to come.
2. It is true that the Chaldee paraphrast applies this
prophecy unto the Messiah, whose words are, “Dicit propheta domui David; quoniam parvulus natus est
nobis, Filius datus est nobis, et suscepit legem super se, ut servaret eam;
et vocabitur nomen ejus, a facie admirabilis consilii Deus, vir permanens
in æternum; Christus cujus pax multiplicabitur super nos in diebus
ejus.” He not only refers the whole to Christ, without any
intimation of Hezekiah, but says also that his name shall be “The God of
counsel.”
3. Neither is he alone, but the ancient rabbins generally
are of the same judgment, as Petrus
Galatinus and Raymundus Martinus
abundantly manifest. To repeat what is or may be collected from them to
that purpose is not much to mine.
4. The present difference between us and the learned
annotator is, whether Hezekiah be here intended at all or no. To what hath
been spoken we have that to add in opposition to him which we chiefly
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
than can be ascribed to any mere 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 of the chief said he was the Messiah indeed, and that they were to look
for no other! This is the judgment 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. i. cap. i.,
whether Hillel were not to be
reckoned among the apostates 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 assign. This they prove
from verse 6, where, in the word לְםַרְבֵּה, “mem clausum” is put in the middle of a word. This
Grotius takes notice of, and says,
“Eo stabilitatem significari volunt Hebræi,
ut per mem aperture in fine rupturam.” Perhaps sometimes they do
so, but here some of them turn 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 aperture est, et istud לְםַרְבֵּה, Isa. ix. 6,
clausum est? Quæsivit Deus sanctus
benedictus facere Ezechiam Messiam, et Sennacheribum Gog et Magog. Dixit
proprietas judicii coram eo, ‘Domine mundi, et quid Davidem, qui dixit
faciei tuæ tot cantica et laudes, non fecisti Messiam, Ezechiam vero, cui
fecisti omnia signa hæc, et non dixit canticum faciei tuæ, vis facere
Messiam?’ Propterea clausum fuit statim, etc. Egressa est vox cœlestis,
‘Secretum meum mihi;’ ” — “Rabbi
Tanchum said, Seeing every mem that is in the middle of a
word is open, how comes that in לְםַרְבֵּה to be closed? The holy, blessed God
sought to make Hezekiah to be the Messiah, and Sennacherib to be Gog and
Magog. Propriety of judgment” (that is, the right measure of judgment),
“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 [thou]
make Hezekiah to be the Messiah, for whom thou hast wrought those great
signs, and he spake no song before thee?’ Instantly mem was shut,
and a heavenly voice went forth, ‘My secret belongs to me.’ ”
And so Hezekiah lost the Messiahship for want of a song!
And these are good masters in the interpretation of prophecies concerning
Christ. I wholly assent to the conjecture of the learned annotator about
this business: “Non incredibile
est,” says 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 than 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 six hundred, it denotes the
space of time at the end whereof Christ was to be born, which was so many
years from the fourth of Ahaz, wherein this prophecy, as is supposed, was
given.
I have not insisted on these things as though they were of
any importance, or in themselves worthy to be repeated, when men are
dealing seriously about the things of God, but only to show 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.
Return we to the Annotations. The first passage he fixes on is, “And the
government shall be upon his shoulder.” Saith he, “Id est, erit πορφυρογένητος, ab ipsis cunis purpuram feret regiam, ut in regnum
natus. Confer Ezech. xxviii.
13;” — “He shall be born to purple; from his very cradle he
shall wear the kingly purple, being born to the kingdom.”
1. But this is nothing peculiar to Hezekiah.
His son Manasseh was all this as well as he; and how this, being in itself
a light and trivial thing, common to all other kings’ sons with him, should
be thus prophesied 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 wear a purple coat?” which the prophet, when he gave
forth this prophecy, perhaps saw him playing in every day. Certainly it is
a sad thing to be forsaken of God, and to be given up to a man’s own
understanding in the exposition of the Scripture. That the government, the
principality here mentioned, which is said to be upon the shoulder of him
concerning whom the words are spoken, — that is, committed to him as a
weighty thing, — is the whole rule and government of the church of God,
committed to the management of the Lord Jesus Christ, the mediator, to the
inconceivable benefit and consolation of his people, the reader may find
evinced in all expositors on the place (unless some one or other of late,
persons of note, who, to appear somebodies, have ventured to follow Grotius); it is not my business to insist on
particulars.
His next note is on these words, “His name shall be
called.” “In Hebræo est vocabit;
supple quisque. Etiam Chaldæus vocabitur transtulit. Notum autem
Hebræis dici sic vel sic vocari aliquem cui tales tituli aut
ἐπίθετα conveniunt.” I delight not to contend at all, nor
shall do it without great cause. For the sense of these words, I am
content that we take up thus much: The titles following are his names, and
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 follows, are divided. Some of them not 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 wonderful Counsellor, the mighty God, etc., 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
the place. But as this is expressly contrary to the judgment of the old
doctors, as hath been abundantly
proved out of their Targum and Talmud, where Hezekiah is called the “lord
of eight names,” and is opposed to Sennacherib, who they say had eight
names also, so it is contrary to all their own rules of grammar to place
the name of him who calls after the verb 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 afterward as well as he can. So he proceeds:—
“Wonderful.” “Ob summas
quæ in eo erunt virtutes;” — “For the excellent virtues
that shall be in him.” But, I pray, why more than David or Josiah? “This
is his name, ‘Wonderful;’ that is, he shall be very virtuous, and men shall
admire him.” How much better this name agrees to Him, and how much more
proper it is, whose person is so great a mystery, 1 Tim.
iii. 16, and whose name is so abstruse, Prov. xxx.
4, and that upon the wonderful 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.
“Counsellor, The mighty God.” “Imo consultator Dei fortis; id est, qui in omnibus
negotiis consilia a Deo poscet, per Prophetas scilicet, ut jam
sequetur;” — “Yea, ‘he who asketh counsel of the mighty God;’ that
is, who in all his affairs asks counsel of God, namely, by the
prophet.”
And is not this boldness thus to correct the text,
“Counsellor, The mighty God,” “Yea, he who asketh counsel 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 intolerable boldness. It is, not
without great probability of truth, pleaded by some, that the first two
words should go together, “The wonderful Counsellor,” as those that follow
do; — not that פֶּלֶא, “admirabilis,” is an epithet, 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 wisdom of Christ, in all his ways,
purposes, and counsels concerning his church, this other term seems to be
suited to the setting forth thereof. But this corruption of the text is
the more intolerable in our annotator, because, in the close of his
observations on this place, he confesses that all the things here mentioned
have a signification in Christ, much more sublime and plain than 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 rabbinical
accommodation of this place to Hezekiah might be retained.
That this place, then, is spoken of Christ we have evinced,
nor can it be waived 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 to Hezekiah: “The everlasting
Father,” or, as it is in the Vulgar Latin, “Pater futuri seculi.” “In Hebræo non est futuri. Pater seculi est qui
multos post se relicturus sit posteros, et 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 Latin translation we do not contend. Of
the meaning and use of the word עוֹלָם I have spoken already. When it is applied to
God, it signifies “eternity.” But the word here is not עוֹלָם, but עַד, properly “eternity,” when applied to God:
Ps. x. 16, “The Lord is King עוֹלָם וָעֶם” — “seculi et æternitatis, 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 sons he left,
besides one, and him a wicked one for the most part of his days, is
uncertain. Within one hundred and thirty 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, and a possibility for his posterity to continue in the
condition wherein he was for one hundred and thirty 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, et in pace victurus;” — “A
peaceable prince, and one that should live in peace.”
1. On how much better, more noble and glorious account this
title belongs to Christ, is known. 2. The Prince of Peace is not only a
peaceable prince, but the author, giver, procurer, establisher of peace.
3. Neither did Hezekiah reign in peace all his days. His kingdom was
invaded, his fenced cities taken, and himself and chief city delivered by a
miraculous slaughter of his enemies.
“Of the increase of his government, and of peace no end;”
which he reads according to the Vulgar Latin, “Multiplicabitur ejus imperiam, et pacis ejus non erit
finis.” Literally, “For the multiplying of his kingdom, and of
peace no end.” As to the first part, his exposition is, “Id est, durabit per annos 29;” — “His kingdom should
continue for twenty-nine years.” Who would believe such gross darkness
should cover the face of so learned a man? “Of the increase of his
government there shall be no end;” that is, he shall reign nine and twenty
years! This might almost twice as properly be spoken of his son Manasseh,
who reigned fifty-five.
And now let him that hath a mind to feed on such husks 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 judgment 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 sense must needs abhor.
It appears, then, that we have here a
description of Jesus 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,” etc. Let us proceed with our
catechists.
In the next place they heap up sundry places, which they
return slight answers unto; and yet to provide them in such manner as that
they might be the easier dealt withal, they cut off parcels and expressions
in the middle of sentences, and from the context, from whence the greatest
evidence, as to the testimony they give in this matter, doth arise. I
shall consider them apart as they are proposed:—
Christ is called the Word of God, John i.
1, Rev. xix.
13. They say, —
From hence, that Christ is called “The Word of God,” a divine
nature in Christ cannot be proved, yea, the contrary may be gathered; for
seeing he is the Word of the one God, it is apparent that he is not that
one God. But Jesus is therefore called the Word of God, because he
expounds to us the whole will of God, as John there declares a little
after, John i. 18; as he is also in the same
sense said to be life and truth.
1. Christ is the Word of God. The Word, or ὁ Λόγος, is either προφορικός, or the word which outwardly is spoken of
God; or ἐνδιάθετος, his eternal,
essential Word or Wisdom. 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, God’s eternal Word or Wisdom; and so, consequently, God. 2. Christ
is so called the Word of God, John i.
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 that one God,” the Holy Ghost affirming the
flat contrary, namely, that he was “The Word, and was with God, and was
God;” that is, doubtless, the one true God, verses
1–3. 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, John i. 1, upon the account of his
actual revealing the word of God to us in his own person on the earth
(which he did, verse 18), because he is called so in
his everlasting residence with the Father before the world was, verse 1; nor is he so called on that
account, Rev. xix. 13, it being applied to him
in reference to the work of executing judgment on his enemies as a king,
and not to 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. i.
15, “Christ is the image of the invisible God.” To which they
say only, —
The same may be said of this as of that foregoing.
But an image is either an essential image or accidental, —
a representation of a thing in the same substance with it, as a son 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
refer 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 hut what is invisible;
nor is there any reason of adding that epithet of God but to declare also
the invisible spiritual nature of Christ, wherein he is like his Father.
And the same is here intended with what is mentioned in the third
place:—
Heb. i. 3, “He is the express image of
his person.”
This is to be understood that whatever God hath promised, he
hath now really exhibited in Christ.
Well expounded! Christ is the character of his
Father’s person; that is, what God promised he exhibited in Christ! Would
not any man admire these men’s acumen and readiness to interpret the
Scriptures? The words are part of the description of the person of the Son
of God, “He is the brightness of his Father’s glory, and the express image
of his person, upholding all things by the word of his power;” that is, he
reveals the will of God! This the apostle had expressly affirmed,
verse 2, in plain and familiar terms;
that he should now repeat over the same thing again, in words so
exceedingly insignificant of any such matter, is very strange. 2. The
apostle streaks of the hypostasis of the Father, not of his will; of his
subsistence, not his mind to be revealed. We do not deny that Christ doth
represent his Father to us, and is to us the “express image of his person;”
but, antecedently hereunto, we say he is so in himself. Grotius’ corruption of this whole chapter was
before dis. covered, and in part removed.
John xiv.
9, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” is next
proposed. To which they say, —
Neither can any divine nature be proved from hence, for this
“seeing” cannot be spoken of the essence of God, which is invisible, but of
the knowledge of the things that Christ did and spake.
Christ so speaks of his and his Father’s
oneness, whereby he that saw one saw both, as he describes it to be in the
verse following, where he says “the Father is in him, and he in the
Father.” Now, 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 Son are seen unto believers.
Col. ii. 9 is the last in this
collection, “In whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” To
this they say, —
That this word divinitas may signify the will of God. And
seeing the apostle opposeth that speech not to persons, but to philosophy
and the law, it is manifest that it is to be understood of the doctrine,
and not of the person of Christ. Of this word “bodily” thou shalt hear
afterward.
But, — 1. It is not divinity but deity,
not θεότης but πλήρωμα θεότητος, that is here spoken of; and that not
simply neither, but πλήρωμα θεότητος,
“the fulness of the Godhead.” 2. That θείτης, or πλήρωμα
θεότητος, is ever taken for the will of God, they do not, they
cannot prove. 3. How can it be said that the will of God κατοικεῖ σωματικῶς, “doth dwell bodily” in any, or
what can be the sense of that expression? Where they afterward interpret
the word “bodily” I do not remember; when I meet with their exposition it
shall be considered. 4. That the words are to be referred to the person of
Christ, and not to his doctrine, is manifest, not only from the words
themselves, that will not bear any such sense as whereunto they are
wrested, but also from the context; for not only the whole order and series
of words before and after do speak of the person of Christ (for “In him are
hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” verse 3;
“Him we receive,” verse 6;
“In him we are built up,” verse 7;
“In him we are complete,” verse 10;
“In him we are circumcised,” verse 11;
“With him we are buried,” verse 12;
“Together with him are we quickened,” verse 13;
and it was he that was crucified for us, verses
14, 15), but also the design of the Holy Ghost enforces this
sense, it being to discover a fulness and sufficiency in Christ of all
grace and wisdom, that men should not need to seek relief from either law
or philosophy. The fulness of the Godhead inhabiting in the person of
Christ substantially, he is God by nature. And of these places so far.
The three following, of John xvii.
5, 1 Pet.
i. 10, 11, John iii.
13, have been in their proper places already vindicated.
Grotius interprets that
of Col. ii. 9 according to the analogy of
the faith of our catechists: “Christi
doctrina non modo philosophiæ sed et Legi Mosis plurimum præstat.” That πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος should be doctrina, and κατοικεῖ ἐν Χρίστω should make it “the doctrine of
Christ,” and σωματικῶς should be no
man knows what, is but a cross 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 itself. The words our annotator mentions
are taken from his Epist. 57 ad Dardan., though he mentions it not. The
reason will quickly appear to any one that shall consult the place; for
notwithstanding the expression here cropped off from his discourse, he
gives an interpretation of the words utterly contrary to what this learned
man would here insinuate, and perfectly agreeing with that which we have
now proposed!
Our catechists proceed to the consideration of sundry
places 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.
viii. 6.
A little to give light to our argument from hence, and that
the strength of it may appear, some few observations concerning the context
and the words themselves will be necessary:—
1. Verse 5,
the apostle, speaking of the heathens and their opinion of the Deity, says,
“There be,” that is, to them, in their apprehension, “gods many, and lords
many;’ that is, many supreme powers, who are gods and lords. The terms of
“gods many, and lords many,” are not expressive of several kinds of
deities, but of the same. Whom they esteemed lords they esteemed gods, and
so on the contrary. In opposition to this polytheism 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 the Father and Son, he had not spoken in such an opposition as
the adversative ἀλλά at the beginning
of the words and the comparison instituted do require.
2. That this “one Lord” of Christians is the only true God
is manifest from Deut. vi.
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 whose
idolatry is that assertion of Moses. And so Thomas, in his confession,
joins these two together, intending one and the same person, “My Lord and
my God.”
3. Κύριος, being put
to signify God, is the word which the LXX. render Jehovah by, and so εἷς Κύπιος is that “only Jehovah.”
4. The attribution of the same works in this verse to
Father and Son manifests 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; for, — 1.
He doth manifestly difference him from 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,” shows 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 means 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 than of
the Son. It is manifest that this is said of the Father, because all
mediate causes by which any thing is done are not from any other, but from
himself, nor are they such as that he cannot work without them; but it is
spoken of Christ, because by him another, namely, God, worketh all things,
as it is expressly said, Eph. iii.
9. That I need not to remember, that the word “all things,”as
was showed above, is to be referred to the subject-matter; which that it so
appeareth hence, that the apostle dealeth of all 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 certain 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
testimony, which necessitates them to turn themselves into all manner of
shapes, to try whether they can shift their bonds, and escape or no. Their
several attempts to evade shall be considered in their order.
1. It is true, Christ is differenced clearly from the
Father as to his person, here spoken of; but that they have proved the
Father to be the only God by nature, exclusively to the Son and Holy Ghost,
is but a boasting before they put off their harness. It is true, the
Father is said here to be the “one God;” which no more hinders the Son from
being so too than the assertion that the Son is the “one Lord” denies the
Father’s being so also.
2. That cavil at the word “by” hath been already considered
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 means depose him from the honour of principal efficient
cause in that work, the same attribution being made to the Father in the
same words. And to say, as our catechists do, that this expression is
ascribed to the Father in such a sense, and not to Christ, is
purely, without any pretence of proof, to beg the thing in question.
Neither is that any thing to the purpose which is urged from Eph. iii. 9, for we confess that as
Christ is equal 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, is the demonstration 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, “of him and by him are all
things;” and this is the difference that God elsewhere puts between himself
and idols, Jer.
x. 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 express
the 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 himself 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 needlessly multiply words, particularly to
animadvert on Grotius’ annotations on
this place. I do it only where he seems to add some new shifts to the
interpretation of our adversaries, or varies from them in the way,
though he agrees in the end; neither of which reasons occurring in
this place, I shall not trouble the reader with the consideration of his
words. By δἰ οὗ τὰ πάμτα, to maintain
his former expositions of the like kind, he will have all the things of the
new creation only intended; but without colour or pretence of proof, or any
thing to give light to such an exposition of the words.
Our catechists next mention 1 Cor. ii.
8, “For had they known it, they would not have crucified the
Lord of glory.”
Who is the Lord of glory, or God of glory, the Holy Ghost
declares, Acts vii. 2, “The God of glory
appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia;” and
Ps. xxiv. 8, “Who is this King of
glory? The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle.” Christ, therefore, is this God;
and, indeed, is intended in that psalm. But they say, —
A divine nature cannot be proved from 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 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
beg in these things, and would fain have us grant that because Christ had a
human nature, he had not a divine. 2. He is called “The Lord of glory,” as
God is called “The God of glory;” and these terms are equivalent, as hath
been showed. 3. He was the Lord of glory when the Jews 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 until after his
crucifying.
Grotius’ annotation on
this place is worth our observation, as having somewhat new and peculiar in
it. “Κύριον τῆς δόξης. Eum quem Deus vult esse omnium judicem. Nam
gloria Christi maxime illum diem respicit, 1 Pet. iv.
13. Christus Κύριος δόξης, præfiguratus per arcam, quæ מֶלֶךְ הַכָּבוֹר, Ps. xxiv.
9.” For the matter and substance of it, this is the same plea
with that before mentioned: the additions only deserve our notice. 1.
Christ is called “The Lord of glory, as God is called “The God of glory;”
and that term is given him to testify that he is the God of glory. If his
glory at the clay of judgment be intended, the Jews 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 Christ’s glory is mentioned
1 Pet. iv. 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 judgment. 2. That the ark is
called מֶלֶךְ הַכָּבוֹד, is little
less than blasphemy. It is he alone who is the Lord of hosts who is called
“The Lord of glory,” Ps. xxiv.
9. 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; than which a more unhappy one could
scarce be fixed on in the whole Scripture. The annotations of the learned
man on that whole psalm are very scanty. His design is to refer it all to
the story of David’s bringing home the ark, 2 Sam. vi..
That it might be occasioned thereby I will not deny; that the ark is
called “The King of glory” and “The Lord of hosts,”
and not he of whose presence and favour the ark was a testimony, no attempt
of proof 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, ye everlasting doors:’ that is, Ye gates of Zion, made of cedar,
that are made hanging down, and when they are opened, they are lifted up.”
Certainly something more sublime and glorious is intended.
The process of our catechists is unto Rev.
xvii. 14, xix. 16; in both which places Christ is called “The
Lord of lords and King of kings.” This also is expressly the name of God:
1 Tim.
vi. 15, 16, “Who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of
kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling
in the light,” etc. To this they say:—
In this testimony he is treated of who is the Lamb, who hath
garments, who was killed, and redeemed us with his blood, as John evidently
testifieth; which can by no means 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 shower is past. Because he who is
the Lamb who was slain 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 and slain, therefore he is not God,” — that is,
he is not King of kings and Lord of lords; — which the Holy Ghost, who gave
him this name, win 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 world are not of the things
of the new covenant, so that Christ’s absolute sovereignty over them is not
of the grant which he hath of his Father as Mediator, but as he is God by
nature.
And so much for this collection concerning these several
names of God attributed to Christ.
What follows in the three questions and answers ensuing
relates to the divine worship attributed to Christ in the Scriptures,
though it be marvellous 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, namely, in answer to
Mr Biddle, chap. x., 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 eternal power and Godhead.
In the last place, they heap up together a number of
testimonies, — each of which is sufficient to cast them down to the sides
of the pit in the midst of their attempts against the eternal deity of the
Son of God, — and accommodate a slight general answer to them all. The
places are worth the consideration; I shall only propose them, and then
consider their answer.
The first is Isa. viii.
13, 14, “Sanctify the Lord of hosts
himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall
be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a
rock of offence to both the houses of Israel.” He that is to be for a rock
of offence and a stone of stumbling is the Lord of hosts, whom we must
sanctify in our hearts, and make him our dread and our fear. But this was
Jesus Christ: Luke ii. 34, “This child is set for
the fall and rising again of many in Israel.” “As it is written, Behold, I
lay in Sion a stumbling-stone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth
on him shall not be ashamed,” Rom. ix.
33. “The stone which the builders refused, … a stone of
stumbling, and a rock of offence,” 1 Pet. ii.
7, 8. In all which places that prophecy is repeated. Christ,
therefore, is the Lord of hosts, whom we are to
sanctify in our heart, and to make him our dread and our fear.
Isa.
xlv. 22, 23, “I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by
myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not
return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” He
who is God, and none else, is God by nature. But now “we shall all stand
before the judgment-seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith
the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to
God,” Rom.
xiv. 10, 11. It is the judgment-seat of Christ that men must
appear before when they bow their knee to him, — that is, to him who is
God, and none else.
Isa. xli.
4, “I, Jehovah, the first, and with the last; I am he.”
Chap. xliv. 6, “I am the first, and I
am the last; and beside me there is no God.” So chap.
xlviii. 12. That this is spoken of Christ we have his own
testimony, Rev. i. 17, “Fear 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. xii.
10, “I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplications: and
they shall look upon me whom they have pierced.” He that speaks 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. i. 7, “Every eye shall see him,
and they also which pierced him.” He, then, is Jehovah, the Lord of hosts.
“These things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of
him shall not be broken. And again another scripture saith, They shall
look on him whom they pierced,” John xix. 36, 37. It is, as I
said, beyond dispute that it is Jehovah, the only true God, that spake; and
what he spoke of himself is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
Ps.
lxviii. 17, 18, “The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even
thousands 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: Eph. iv.
8–10, “Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led
captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. Now that he ascended, what is
it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He
that descended is the same also that ascended.”
Grotius on both these
places says that what is properly spoken of God is by Paul mystically
applied to Christ; to the same purpose with what our catechists afterward
insist on. That it is the same person who is intended in both places, and
not that applied 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
endeavour to divert the meaning of the places to another sense, 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 it may appear that
a divine nature in Christ cannot from them be proved: for those things
which are spoken of God under the law may be spoken of Christ under the
gospel, as also they are spoken, for another cause, — namely, because of
that eminent conjunction that is between God and Christ, on the account of
dominion, power, and office; all which the scriptures of the New Testament
do frequently witness that he received by gift from God. And if the
Scripture delivers this of Moses, that he brought Israel out of Egypt,
Exod. xxxii. 7, and that he was the
redeemer of the people, Acts vii.
35, and of others the same things, that were evidently written
of God, when neither Moses nor others had so near 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 near conjunction that was between them.
And this is their defence, the answer they fix upon to all
the testimonies recited; wherein how little truth or strength there is will
quickly appear. 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 withal to their own destruction? but the question is, How
ought they to be interpreted, and what is their sense and
intendment? 2. We do not say that what is spoken of God under the law is
accommodated to Christ under the gospel, 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 appears by the event, expounded in the
books 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 nought in comparison of the distance that is between the
Creator and a mere creature, — is manifest; for let any one be in never so
near 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 business in hand. It is said of Moses that he brought the
children of Israel out of Egypt; and so he did, as their chief leader and
ruler, so that he was a redeemer to that people, as he was instrumental in
the hand of God, working by his power and presence with him those mighty
works 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
himself was said of Moses and 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
principal efficient, they as the instrumental cause, —
and so may every other creature in the world, as the sun gives light and
heat; but shall therefore that which God speaks in his own name of himself
be so much as accommodated unto them? 6. The conjunction that is between
God and Christ, according to our catechists, is but of love and favour on
the part of God, and of obedience and dependence on the part of Christ; but
this in the same kind, though not in the same degree, is between God and
all believers, so that of them also what is spoken of God may be
spoken.
And thus, through the presence of God, have I gone through
with the consideration of all the testimonies given in the Scripture of the
deity of Christ which these catechists thought good to take notice of, with
a full answer to their long chapter “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 clearness and evidence, had I
taken liberty to handle them as they naturally fall into several heads,
from the demonstration of all the names and properties, all the works and
laws, all the worship and honour of God, to be given and ascribed to Jesus
Christ; but the work I had to do cast my endeavour in this business into
that order and method wherein it is here presented to the reader.
The conclusion of our catechists is a long
harangue, wherein they labour to insinuate the prejudicialness 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 gospel. The only medium they fix
upon for to gain 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 human nature,
soul and body, with all the natural and essential properties of them both,
he who was born so, lived so, died so, rose again 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, sin only excepted, there is a
way open for in this our confession of him. In the meantime, the great
foundation of our faith, hope, and expectation, lies in this, that “he is
the Son of the living God;” and so that “God redeemed his church with his
own blood,” he who was of the fathers “according to 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
mere 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 flee to him
as one that suffered for our sins, and made satisfaction to the justice of
God for them, who wrought out a righteousness 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 himself present with us, etc., it is
impossible we should ever have the least consolation in our fleeing for
refuge to him unless we had this grounded persuasion concerning his eternal
power and Godhead. We cannot think he was made the Son 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 form of a servant,” and became therein for us “obedient unto
death, the death of the cross.” Many, indeed, and inexpressible, are the
encouragements unto faith and consolation in believing that we do receive
from Christ’s being made like to us, a perfect man, wherein he underwent
what we were obnoxious unto, and whereby he knows how to be compassionate
unto us; but that any sweetness can be hence derived unto any who do refuse
to own the fountain whence all the streams of love and mercy that run in
the human nature of Christ do flow, that we deny. Yea, that our
adversaries in this business 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
duly demonstrate from innumerable testimonies of Scripture. And for these
men, the truth is, as they lay out the choicest of all their endeavours to
prove him not to be God by nature, and so not at all (for a made god, a
second-rank god, a deified man, is no God, the Lord our God being one, and
the conceit of it brings in the polytheism 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 retain the nature of a man; and so, instead of a
Christ that was God from eternity, made a man in one person unto 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, Mr B.,
after his masters, instructs his disciples in, in his Lesser Catechism,
chap. x., namely, that although Christ rose with his fleshly body, wherein
he was crucified, yet now he hath a spiritual body, not in its qualities,
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 disposeth of
it, he doth not declare.
Chapter XV.
Of the Holy Ghost, his deity, graces, and operations.
Mr Biddle’s fifth chapter
examined.
Ques. How many Holy Spirits of Christians are there?
Ans. Eph. iv.
4.
Q. Wherein consists the prerogative of that Holy Spirit above
other spirits?
A. 1 Cor.
ii. 10, 11.
Q. Whence is the Holy Ghost sent?
A. 1 Pet. i.
12.
Q. By whom?
A. Gal. iv. 6.
Q. Doth not Christ affirm that he also sends him? how speaketh
he?
A. John xvi.
7.
Q. Had Jesus Christ always the power to send the Holy Ghost,
or did he obtain it at a certain time?
A. Acts
ii. 32, 33; John vii.
39.
Q. What were the general benefits accruing to Christians by
the Holy Ghost?
A. 1 Cor. xii.
13; Rom. viii. 16,
26, 27, v. 5; Col. i. 8;
Eph. i. 17; Rom. xv. 13, xiv.
17; Acts ix.
31; Eph. iii.
16.
Q. What are the special benefits accruing to the apostles by
the Holy Ghost? what saith Christ to them hereof?
A. John xv. 26, xvi.
13.
Q. Should the Holy Ghost lead them into all truth, as speaking
of himself, and imparting of his own fulness? what saith Christ concerning
him?
A. John xvi. 13, 14.
Q. Do men receive the Holy Ghost while they are of the world
and in their natural condition, to the end that they may become the
children of God, may receive the word, may believe, may
repent, may obey Christ; or after they are become the children of God, have
received the word, do believe, do repent, do obey Christ?
A. John xiv. 16, 17; 1 Cor. ii. 14; Gal. iv. 6; Acts viii. 14–16; John vii. 38, 39; Acts xix. 1, 2; Eph. i. 13; Gal. iii.
14; Acts xv. 7,
8, ii. 38, v. 32.
Examination.
The fifth chapter of our catechist
is concerning the Holy Ghost, for reducing of whom into the order and rank
of creatures Mr Biddle hath formerly
taken great pains; following therein the Macedonians of old, and
leaving his new masters the Socinians, who deny him his personality, and
leave him to be only the efficacy or energy of the power of God. The
design is the same in both; the means used to bring it about differ. The
Socinians, not able to answer the testimonies proving him to be God, to be
no creature, do therefore deny his personality. Mr B., being not able to stand before the clear
evidence of his personality, denies his deity. What he
hath done in this chapter I shall consider; what he hath elsewhere done
hath already met with a detection from another hand.
“Q. How many Holy Spirits of Christians are there? — A.
‘One Spirit,’ Eph. iv. 4.”
I must take leave to put one question to Mr B, that we may
the better know the mind and meaning of his; and that is, what he means by
the “Holy Spirits of Christians”? If he intend that Spirit which they
worship, invocate, believe, and are baptized into his name, who quickens
and sanctifies them, and from whom they have their supplies of grace, it is
true there is but one only Spirit of Christians, as is evident, Eph. iv. 4; and this Spirit is “God,
blessed for ever;” nor can any be called that one Spirit of Christians but
he that is so. But if by the “Holy Spirits of Christians” he intend
created spiritual beings, sent out from God for the good of Christians, of
those that believe, there are then an innumerable company of holy spirits
of believers; for all the angels are “ministering spirits, sent forth to
minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation,” Heb. i.
14. So that by this one testimony, that there is but one Holy
Spirit of Christians, that Holy Spirit is exempted from the number of all
created spirits, and reckoned as the object of their worship with the “one
God” and one Lord, Eph. iv.
4–6; when yet they worship the Lord their God alone, and him
only do they serve, Matt. iv.
10.
His second question is, “Wherein consists the prerogative
of that Holy Spirit above other spirits? — A. 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11.”
The prerogative of that Holy Spirit of whom we
speak is that of God above his creatures, — prerogative of an infinite,
eternal, self-subsisting being. Yea, and that this is indeed his
prerogative we need not seek for proof beyond that testimony here produced
by Mr B. (though to another purpose) in
answer to his question. He that “searcheth all things, yea, the deep
things of God,” is God. To “search all things” is the same with knowing
all things; so the apostle interprets it in the next verse, “The things of
God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” To know all things is to be
omniscient; but he that is omniscient is God. His angels he charged with
folly. Omniscience is an essential attribute of God; and therefore Socinus, in his disputation with Franken, durst not allow Christ to be
omniscient, lest he should also grant him to be infinite in essence. Again, he that searches or knows
τὰ βάθη τοῦ Θεοῦ, the “deep things of
God,” is God. None can know the deep things of an infinite wisdom and
understanding but he that is infinite. All creatures are excluded from an
acquaintance with the deep things of God, but only as he voluntarily
revealeth them: Rom. xi.
34, “Who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his
counsellors” that is, no creature hath so been. Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε, John i.
18 Now the Spirit doth not know the deep things of God by his
voluntary revelation of them; for as the spirit of a man knows the things
of a man, so doth the Spirit of God know the things of God. This is not
because they are revealed to the spirit of a man, but because that is the
principle of operation in a man, and is conscious to all its own actions
and affairs. And so it is with the Spirit of God: being God, and having
the same understanding, and will, and power, with God the Father and Son,
as the spirit of a man knows the things of a man, so doth he the things of
God. Thus in the beginning of this, as in the close of the last chapter,
Mr B. hath provided sufficiently for his
own conviction and scattering of all his paralogisms and sophistical
insinuations, running through them both.
The design of this present chapter being to pursue what
Mr B. hath some years since publicly
undertaken, namely, to disprove the deity of the Holy Ghost, — his aim here
being to divert the thoughts of his catechumens from an apprehension
thereof, by his proposal and answer of such questions as serve to his
design, pretending to deliver the doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost from
the Scripture, and not once producing any of those texts which are most
usually insisted on for the confirmation of his deity (with what Christian
candour and ingenuity is easily discovered), — I shall briefly, from the
Scripture, in the first place establish the truth concerning the eternal
deity of the person of the Holy Ghost, and then consider his questions in
their order, so far as shall be judged meet or necessary.
I shall not go forth unto any long discourse
on this subject, some plain testimonies of Scripture will evince the truth
we contend for, being the heads of as many arguments, if any one shall be
pleased to make use of them in that way.
First, then, the Spirit created, formed, and adorned
this world, and is therefore God: “He that made all things is God,”
Heb. iii. 4. “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by
the Spirit of his mouth,” Ps. xxxiii.
6. “By his Spirit hath he garnished the heavens,” Job xxvi. 13. “The Spirit of God hath
made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life,” chap. xxxiii. 4; Ps. civ. 30. He that makes the
heavens and garnisheth them, he that maketh man and giveth him life, is
God. So in the beginning מְרַחֶפֶת,
motabat se, moved himself, as
a dove warming its young, as he afterward appeared in the form of a dove.
And hence that which is ascribed unto God absolutely in one place is in
another ascribed to the Spirit absolutely: as, Exod. iv.
15, Num. xii. 8, what it is affirmed that
God doth, will do, or did, is affirmed of the Spirit, Acts i.
16, xxviii. 25: so Num. xiv.
22, Deut. vi.
16, what is said of God is affirmed of the Spirit, Isa. lxiii. 10, Acts vii. 51: so also Deut. xxxii. 12, compared with
Isa. lxiii. 14. Innumerable other
instances of the same kind might be added.
Secondly, He regenerates us. “Except we be born
of water and of the Spirit, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God,”
John iii. 5; 2 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Pet. i. 2. He also “searcheth all
things, yea, the deep things of God,” as was before observed, 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11. From him is our
illumination, Eph. i.
17, 18; 2 Cor. iii.
18. John xiv.
26, “The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, he shall teach you
all things.” Chap. xvi.
13, “The Spirit of truth will guide you into all truth.” “The
Holy Ghost shall teach you,” Luke xii.
12. And he foretelleth “things to come,” John xvi. 13, 1 Tim.
iv. 1; which is a property of God, whereby he will be known from
all false gods, Isa.
xli. 22, 23, etc. And he is in some of these places expressly
called God, as also 1 Cor.
xii. 5, 6, compared with verse
11; and he is immense, who dwells in all believers.
Thirdly, He dwelleth in us, as God in a temple,
Rom. viii. 9, 1 Cor.
iii. 16; thereby sanctifying us, chap. vi.
11; comforting us, John xvi.
7; and helping our infirmities, Rom. viii.
26; mortifying our sins, chap. viii.
13; creating in us Christian graces, Gal. v. 22, 23; yea, he is the author
of all grace, as is evident in that promise made of his presence with the
Messiah, Isa. xi. 2. I say, with the Messiah,
for of him only are those words to be understood; to which purpose I cannot
but add the words of an old friar, to the shame of some amongst us who
should know more, or be more Christian in their expositions of Scripture.
Saith he, speaking of this place, “Note that in innumerable places of the
Talmud this is expounded of the Messiah, and never of any
other, by any one who is of any authority among the Hebrews. Wherefore it
is evident that some amongst us, too much Judaizing, do err, whilst they
fear not to expound this literally of Josiah. But that this is to be
understood of the Messiah only is showed by Rabbi Solomon, who expounds it of him, and not of Josiah;
which, according to his way, he would never have done, if, without the
injury, of his Talmud and Targum, and the prejudice of all his
predecessors, he could have expounded it otherwise.” So
far he.
It is not a little strange that some Christians should
venture farther in perverting the testimonies of Scripture concerning the
Messiah than the Jews dare to do.
4. He makes and appoints to himself and his service
ministers of the church, Acts xiii.
2, giving unto them powers, and working various and wonderful
works, as he pleaseth, 1
Cor. xii. 8–11.
5. He is sinned against, and so offended with sin
that the sin against him shall never be forgiven, Matt.
xii. 31; though it be not against his person, but some especial
grace and dispensation of his.
6. He is the object of divine worship, we being baptized into his name, as that of the
Father and Son, Matt. xxviii.
19. And grace is prayed for from him as from Father and Son,
2 Cor. xiii. 14; Rev. i. 4, 5; Rom. x.
14. He is to be head of churches, Rev. ii.
3; but God will not give this glory to another, Isa. xlii. 8. Also, he hath the name
of God given him, Isa. vi. 8,
9, compared with Acts xxviii. 25, 26; and Isa. lxiii. 13, 14, with Ps. lxxviii.
41, 52; 2 Sam.
xxiii. 2, 3; Acts v. 3,
4.
7. And the attributes of God are ascribed to him,
as, — (1.) Ubiquity, or omnipresence, Ps.
cxxxix. 7; 1 Cor. iii.
16. (2.) Omniscience, 1 Cor. ii.
10; John xvi.
13. His omnipotency and eternity are both manifest from the
creation.
8. To all this, in a word, it may be added that he is a
person, the denial whereof is the only κρησφύγετον of the Socinians. They acknowledge that
if he be a person, he is God. But, (1.) He is a person who hath a
name, and in whose name something is done, as we are said to be
baptized in the name of the Holy Ghost, Matt.
xxviii. 19. And, (2.) He is conjoined with the other divine
persons as one of them, 2 Cor. xiii.
14; Rev. i. 4,
5; Matt. xxviii.
19. (3.) He hath an understanding,
1 Cor. ii. 11; and a will,
chap. xii. 11. (4.) To him are
speaking and words ascribed, and such actions as are
peculiar to persons, Acts xiii. 2, xx.
28, etc.
What remains of this chapter will be of a brief and easy
despatch. The next question is, “Whence is the Holy Ghost sent? — A.
1 Pet. i. 12, ‘Down from
heaven.’ ”
1. This advantageth not at all Mr B.’s design against the Holy Ghost, to prove him not to be
God, that he is “sent down from heaven;” whereby he supposeth that his
coming from one place to another is intimated, seeing he supposes God to be
so in heaven, yea, in some certain place of heaven, as at the same time not
to be elsewhere, so that if ever he be in the earth he must come down from
heaven.
2. Nor is there any thing in his being sent prejudicial to
the prerogative of his divine being; for he who is God, equal in nature to
the Father and Son, yet, in respect of the order of that dispensation that
these three who are in heaven, who are also one, 1 John v.
7, have engaged in for the salvation of men, may be sent of the
Father and the Son, having the execution of that work, which they
respectively concur in, in an eminent manner to him committed.
3. Wherever the Spirit is said to descend from heaven, it
is to be understood according to the analogy of what we have already spoken
concerning the presence of God in heaven, with his looking and going down
from thence; which I shall not repeat again. Essentially he is everywhere,
Ps. cxxxix. 7.
4. In that place of Peter alleged by Mr B., not the person of the Spirit, but his gifts on the
apostles, and his operations in them, whose great and visible foundations
were laid on the day of Pentecost, Acts ii.,
are intended.
The two next questions leading only to an expression of the
sending of the Holy Ghost by the Father and the Son, though Mr B.’s Christians differ about the
interpretation of the places produced for the proof thereof, and there lie
no small argument and evidence of the deity of Christ in his sending of the
Holy Ghost as the Father sends him, yet there being an agreement in the
expressions themselves, I shall not insist upon them. He proceeds:— “Q.
Had Jesus Christ always the power to send the Holy Ghost, or did he obtain
it at a certain time? — A. Acts
ii. 32, 33; John vii.
39.”
1. The intendment of this query is, to conclude from some
certain respect and manner of sending the Holy Ghost to the thing itself, —
from the sending him in a visible, glorious, plentiful, eminent
manner, as to the effusion of his gifts and graces, to the
sending of him absolutely; which methinks a Master of Arts should know to
be a sophistical way of arguing. 2. It endeavours, also, from the
exercise of power to conclude to the
receiving of the power itself; and that not the absolute exercise
of it neither, but in some certain respect, as was spoken. 3. This, then,
is that which Mr B. concludes: “Because
Christ, when he was exalted, or when he ascended into heaven, had the
accomplishment of the promise actually, in the sending forth of the Spirit
in that abundant and plentiful manner which was prophesied of by Joel,
chap. ii. 28–31, therefore he then
first received power to send the Spirit:” which, 4. By the testimony of
Christ himself is false, and not the sense of the Holy Ghost in the places
mentioned, seeing that before his ascension he breathed on his disciples,
and bade them receive the Holy Ghost, John xx.
22. Nay, 5. That he had the power of sending the Holy Ghost,
and did actually send him, not only before his ascension and exaltation,
but also before his incarnation, is expressly affirmed, 1 Pet. i. 11. The Spirit that was in
the prophets of old was the “Spirit of Christ,” and sent by him; as was
that Spirit by which he preached in the days of the old disobedient world:
which places have been formerly vindicated at large. So that, 6. As that
place, Acts
ii. 32, 33, is there expounded to be concerning the plentiful
effusion of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the times of the gospel,
according to the prophecy of Joel, so also is that of John vii. 39, it being positively
affirmed as to the thing itself that he gave the Holy Ghost before his
exaltation, though not in that abundant manner as afterward; and so neither
of them concludes any thing as to the time of Christ’s receiving power to
send the Spirit; which, upon the supposition of such a work as for the
accomplishment whereof it was necessary the Holy Ghost should be sent, he
had from eternity.
About the next question we shall not contend. It is:— “Q.
What were the general benefits accruing to Christians by the Holy Ghost?”
whereunto sundry texts of Scripture that make mention of the Holy Ghost,
his graces, and gifts, are subjoined. Upon the whole I have only some few
things to animadvert:—
1. If by the words “general benefits” he limits the
receiving of those benefits of the Holy Ghost to any certain time (as
suppose the time of his first plentiful effusion, upon the ascension of
Jesus Christ, and the preaching of the gospel to all nations thereupon), as
it is a sacrilegious conception, robbing believers of after ages to the end
of the world of all the fruits of the efficacy of the Spirit, without which
they can neither enjoy communion with God in this life nor ever be brought
to an eternal fruition of him, so it is most false, and contrary to the
express prayer of our Saviour, desiring the same things for them who should
believe on his name to the end of the world as he did for those who
conversed with him in the days of his flesh. But I will suppose this is
not his intention, because it would plainly deny that there are any
Christians in the worm (which yet was the opinion of some of
his friends heretofore), for “if we have not the Spirit of
Christ we are none of his,” Rom. viii.
9.
2. The things enumerated may be called “general benefits,”
because they are common to all believers as to the substance, essence, or
being of them, though in respect of their degrees they are communicated
variously to the several individuals, the same Spirit dividing to every one
as he will, 1 Cor. xii.
11. They are so general to them all that every particular
believer enjoys them all.
3. The enumeration here given us is very far and remote
from being complete, there being only some few fruits of the Spirit and
privileges which we receive by our receiving of him recounted, and that in
a very confused manner, one thing being added after another without any
order or coherence at all. Yea, of the benefits we receive by the Spirit,
of the graces he works in us, of the helps he affords us, of that joy and
consolation he imparts unto us, of the daily assistances we receive from
him, of the might of his power put forth in us, of the efficacy of his
operations, the constancy of his presence, the privileges by him imparted,
there is not by any in this life a full account to be given. To insist on
particulars is not my present task; I have also in part done it
elsewhere.
4. I desire Mr B.
seriously to consider whether even the things which he thinks good to
mention may possibly be ascribed to a mere creature, or that all believers
are by such an one “baptized into one body,” or that we “are all made to
drink into one Spirit,” etc. But of these things before. Unto this he
adds: “Q. What are the special benefits accruing to the apostles by the
Holy Ghost? what saith Christ to them hereof? — A. John xv. 26, xvi.
13.”
Besides the graces of the Spirit, which the apostles, as
believers, received in a plentiful manner, they had also his presence by
his extraordinary gifts, to fit them for that whole extraordinary work
whereunto of him they were called: for as by his authority they were
separated to the work, and were to perform it unto him, Acts xiii. 2, so whatever work they
were to perform, either as apostles or as penmen of the scripture of the
New Testament, they had suitable gifts bestowed on them by him, 1 Cor. xii., — inspiration from him
suitable to their work; the Scripture being of inspiration from God,
because the holy men that wrote it were inspired or moved by the Holy
Ghost, 2 Pet. i. 21, 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.
And as this Holy Ghost, who is God, working all in all, divideth of his
gifts as he will, 1 Cor. xii. 6, 11,
and giveth all gifts whatever to the church that it doth enjoy, so did he
in an especial manner with the apostles.
Now, our Saviour, Christ, being to leave the world, giving
gracious promises to his disciples, he considered them under a
twofold capacity or condition:— 1. Of believers, of such as
followed him and believed in him; wherein their estate was common with that
of all them who were to believe on him to the end of the world, John xvii. 20. 2. Of
apostles, and of such as he intended to employ in that great work
of planting his church in the world, and propagating his gospel to the ends
of it. Under both these considerations doth he promise the Spirit to his
disciples, John
xiv. 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7, 13, praying his Father for the
accomplishment of those promises, chap.
xvii.; — that as believers they might be kept in the course of
their obedience to the end (in which regard he made those promises no less
to us than to them); and that as apostles they might be furnished for their
work, preserved, and made prosperous therein. Of this latter sort some
passages in the verses here mentioned seem to be, and may have a peculiar
regard thereunto, and yet in their substance they are of the first kind,
and are made good to all believers. Neither is there any more said
concerning the teaching and guidance of the Spirit into the truth in
John
xv. 26, xvi. 13, than is said in 1 John ii. 20,
27, where it is expressly assigned to all believers. Of that
unction and teaching of the Spirit, of his preserving us in all truth
needful for our communion with God, of his bringing to mind what Christ had
spoken, for our consolation and establishment, with efficacy and power
(things, I fear, despised by Mr B.), this
is not a season to treat.
That which follows concerns the order and way of procedure
insisted on by the Son and Holy Ghost in carrying on the work of our
salvation and propagation of the gospel, whose sovereign fountain is in the
bosom of the Father. His query is, “Q. Should the Holy Ghost lead them
into all truth, as speaking of himself, and imparting of his own fulness?
what saith Christ concerning him? — A. John xvi. 13, 14.”
1. The Scripture proposeth the Holy Ghost, in the
communication of his gifts and graces, under a double consideration:— (1.)
Absolutely, as he is God himself; and so he speaketh of himself,
and the churches are commanded to attend to what he so saith, Rev. ii. 29. And he imparts of his
own fulness, “the self-same Spirit dividing to every man severally as he
will,” 1 Cor. xii. 11. And in this sense,
what the prophets say in the Old Testament, “The word of the Lord,” and “Thus saith the Lord,”
in the New they are said to speak by the Spirit, Matt.
xxii. 43; Acts i.
16; 2 Pet. i.
21. (2.) Relatively, and that both in respect of
subsistence and operation, as to the great work of saving sinners by Jesus
Christ. And as in the first of these senses he is not of himself, being
the Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeding from them both, so neither
doth he speak of himself, but according to what he receiveth of the Father
and the Son. 2. Our Saviour, Christ, says here, “He shall not
speak of himself;’ but he nowhere says, “He shall not impart of his own
fulness,” which is Mr B.’s addition To
“speak of himself” shows the original authority of him that speaks, whereby
he speaks to be in himself; which, as to the words and works pointed to, is
not in the Holy Ghost personally considered, and as in this dispensation.
But to impart of his own fulness, is to give out of that which is eminently
in himself; which the Holy Ghost doth, as hath been shown. 3. Christ, in
the words insisted on, comforting his disciples with the promise of the
presence of his Spirit when he should be bodily absent from them, acquaints
them also with the works that he should do when he came to them and upon
them, in that clear, eminent, and abundant manner which he had promised; —
which is not any new work, nor any other than what he had already
acquainted them with, nor the accomplishment of any thing but what he had
laid the foundation of; yea, that all the mercy, grace, light, guidance,
direction, consolation, peace, joy, gifts, that he should communicate to
them and bless them withal, should be no other but what were procured and
purchased for them by himself. These things is the Spirit said to hear and
speak, to receive and communicate, as being the proper purchase and
inheritance of another; and in so doing to glorify him whose they are, in
that peculiar sense and manner. All that discourse which we have of the
mission and sending of the Holy Ghost, and his proceeding or coming forth
from the Father and Son for the ends specified, John
xiv. 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7, 13, concerns not at all the eternal
procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, as to his distinct
personality and subsistence, but belongs to that economy, or dispensation,
or ministry, that the whole Trinity proceedeth in for the accomplishment of
the work of our salvation.
The last query, by the heap of scriptures that is gathered
in answer to it, seems to have most weight laid upon it; but it is indeed,
of all the rest, most weakly sophistical. The words of it are, “Q. Do men
receive the Holy Ghost while they are of the world and in their natural
condition, to the end that they may become the children of God, may receive
the word, may believe, may repent, may obey Christ; or after they are
become the children of God, have received the word, do believe, do repent,
do obey Christi” The answer is as above. To the same purpose is that of
the Racovian Catechism:—
Ques. Is there not need of the internal gift of the Spirit,
that we may believe the gospel?
Ans. By no means; for we do not read in the Scripture that
that gift is conferred on any but him that believes the gospel.
Remove the ambiguity of that expression, “Believe the
gospel,” and these two questions perfectly fall in together.
It may, then, be taken either for believing the doctrine of the gospel in
opposition to the law, and in this sense it is not here inquired after; or
for the power of believing in the subject, and in that sense it is here
denied.
1. Now, the design of this question is, to deny the
effectual operation of the Holy Ghost for and in the conversion,
regeneration, and sanctification of the elect, and to vindicate the whole
work of faith, holiness, quickening, etc., to ourselves. The way designed
for the proof and establishment of this insinuation consists in producing
sundry testimonies wherein it is affirmed that those who do believe and are
the children of God do receive the Spirit for other ends and purposes than
those here enumerated. The sum of his argument is this: “If they who do
believe and are the children of God do receive the Spirit of God for their
adoption, and the carrying on of the work of their sanctification, with the
supply of new grace, and the confirmation and enlargement of what they have
received, with joy, consolation, and peace, with other gifts that are
necessary for any work or employment that they are called unto, then the
Holy Spirit doth not quicken or regenerate them, nor work faith in them,
nor make them the children of God, nor implant them into Christ.” Now,
when Mr B. proves this consequence, I
will confess him to be master of one art which he never learned at Oxford,
unless it were his business to learn what he was taught to avoid.
2. But Mr B. hath one
fetch of his skill more in this question. He asks whether men do receive
the Holy Ghost when they are of the world; and for a confutation of any
such apprehension produceth testimonies of Scripture that the world cannot
receive the Holy Ghost, nor the natural man the things of God. But who
told this gentleman that we say men whilst they are in and of the world do
receive the Spirit of God, or the things of the Spirit, in the Scripture
sense or use of that word “receiving?” The expression is metaphorical, yet
always, in the case of the things of the gospel, denoting the acting of
faith in them who are said to “receive” any thing from God. Now, if this
gentleman could persuade us that we say that we receive the Spirit by
faith, to the end that we may have faith, he might as easily lead us about
whither he pleased as the Philistines did Samson when they had put out his
eyes. A little, then, to instruct this catechist: I desire him to take
notice, that properly the Spirit is received by faith to the ends and
purposes by him mentioned, with many such others as might be added; but
yet, before men’s being enabled to receive it, that Spirit, by his power
and the efficacy of his grace, quickeneth, regenerateth, and worketh faith
in their hearts. In brief, the Spirit is considered and promised either as
a Spirit of regeneration, with all the concomitants and essential
consequents thereof, or as a Spirit of adoption, with the consequents thereof. In the first sense he works in men in order of nature
antecedent to their believing, faith being a fruit of the Spirit; in the
latter, and for the ends and purposes thereof, he is received by faith, and
given in order of nature upon believing.
3. That the world cannot receive the Spirit, nor
the natural man the things of God, is from hence, that the Spirit hath not
wrought in them that which is necessary to enable them thereunto; which is
evident from what is affirmed of the impotency of the natural man as to his
receiving the things of God: for if the reason why he cannot receive the
things of God is because he is a natural man, then, unless there be some
other power than what is in himself to translate him from that condition,
it is impossible that he who is a natural man should ever be otherwise, for
he can only alter that condition by that which he cannot do. But, —
4. That the Spirit is given for and doth work regeneration
and faith in men, I shall not now insist on the many testimonies whereby it
is usually and invincibly confirmed. There is no one testimony given to
our utter impotency to convert or regenerate ourselves, to believe, repent,
and turn to God; no promise of the covenant to give a new heart, new
obedience through Christ; no assertion of the grace of God and the efficacy
of his power, which is exalted in the vocation and conversion of sinners, —
but sufficiently evinces the truth thereof. That one eminent instance
shall close our consideration of this chapter, which we have Tit. iii. 5, 6, “Not by works of
righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us,
by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he
shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour.”
Of the first head made by men professing the religion of
Jesus Christ against the deity of the Spirit, attempting to rank him among
the works of his own hand; of the peculiar espousing of an enmity against
him by Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, from whom the
ensuing πνευματομάχοι took their name;
of the novel inventions of Faustus
Socinus and his followers, denying the personality of the Spirit,
making him to be nothing but the efficacy of the power of God, or the power
of God, — this is no place to treat. Besides, the truth is, until they
will speak clearly what they mean by the “Spirit of God,” and so assert
something, as well as deny, they may justly be neglected. They tell us it
is virtus Dei; but whether
that virtus be substantia or accidens they will not tell us. It is, they
say, potentia Dei. This we
confess; but we say he is not potentia ἐνεργητική, but ὑποστατική, and that because we prove him to be
God.
What, then, hath been spoken of Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, I shall shut up with that distich of Greg. Naz. Sanct. Spir. lib.
iii.:—
Πάντα μὲν αἰὲν ἄριστα θεοπιεπὲς ἔργα
τελείσθω
Ἡ δὲ τριὰς ἐξοχά σοι μελέτω.
Chapter XVI.
Of salvation by Christ.
Mr Biddle’s sixth chapter
considered.
This is a short chapter, and will
speedily receive its consideration. That Christ is a Saviour, and that he
is so called in Scripture, is confessed on all hands Mr Biddle’s masters were the first who directly called into
question amongst Christians on what account principally he is so called.
Of his faith in this business and theirs we have the sum, with the reasons
of it, in the book of their great apostle, “De Jesu Christo Servatore.” This book is
answered throughout with good success by Sibrandus Lubbertus; the nerves of it cut by Grotius, “De Satisfactione Christi;” and the reply of Crellius thereunto thoroughly removed by Essenius, in his “Triumphus Crucis.” The whole
argumentative part of it, summed up into five heads by Michael Gitichius, is answered by Ludovicus Lucius, and that answer
vindicated from the reply of Gitichius. And generally those who have written upon the
satisfaction of Christ have looked upon that book as the main master-piece
of the adversaries, and have made it their business to remove its sophistry
and unmask its pretensions.
Mr B. is very slight and
overly in this business, being not able, in the method of procedure imposed
on himself, so much as to deliver his mind significantly as to what he does
intend. The denial and rejection of the satisfaction and merit of Christ
is that which the man intends, as is evident from his preface, where he
denies them, name and thing. This he attempts partly in this chapter,
partly in that concerning the death of Christ, and also in that of
justification. In this he would attempt the notion of salvation, and refer
it only to deliverance from death by a glorious resurrection. Some brief
animadversions may possibly rectify the man’s mistakes. His first question
we pass, as a principle in the terms of it on all sides confessed, namely,
that “Christ is our Lord and Saviour.” His second is:—
Ques. Is Christ our Saviour originally and of himself, or
because he was given, exalted, and raised up by another to be a
Saviour?
Ans. Acts iv.
12, v. 31, xiii. 28.
The intendment of this query is to pursue the former
insinuations of our catechist against the deity of Christ, as though his
appointment to his office of mediation were inconsistent with his divine
nature; the vanity of which pretence hath been sufficiently already
discovered. In brief, Christ is considered either absolutely with respect
to his divine nature and person, as he is God in himself, and so he is a
Saviour originally of himself; for “as for our Redeemer, the
Lord of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel,”
Isa. xlvii. 4. “Thy Maker is thine
husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy
Redeemer the Holy One of Israel,” chap. liv.
5. In this sense was Christ a Saviour originally and of
himself. But as he took flesh, to accomplish the work of our redemption by
tasting death for us, though his own merciful and gracious will did concur
therein, yet was he eminently designed to that work and given, by his
Father, in love and mercy, contriving the work of our salvation. And this
latter is mentioned not only in the places cited by our catechist, but also
in a hundred more, and yet not one of them lying in the least subserviency
to Mr B.’s design. His last query
is:—
Q. How do the saints expect to be saved by Christ?
A. Rom. v. 10; Phil. iii. 20, 21.
The intendment of this question must be to answer the
general proposal, in what sense Christ is our Saviour, and how his people
are saved by him. Now, however that be true in itself which is here
asserted, and is the exurgency of the question and answer as connected, the
saints expecting salvation by Christ in the complete accomplishment of it
by his power in heaven, yet as here proposed to give an account of the
whole sense wherein Christ is our Saviour, [it] is most false and
deceitful. Christ is a Saviour principally as he was promised, and came to
“save his people from their sins,” — whence he had his name of Jesus, or a
Saviour, Matt. i. 21, — and that by his death,
Heb. ii. 14, 15, or laying down his
life a ransom for us, Matt. xx.
28, and giving himself a price of redemption for us, 1 Tim. ii. 6, “in whom we have
redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,” Eph. i. 7, so saving or delivering us
from the wrath that is to come, 1 Thess. i.
10. The salvation which we have by Christ, which this chapter
in title pretends to discover, is from sin, the world, Satan, death, wrath,
curse, the law, bearing of us unto acceptation with God, peace,
reconciliation, and glory. But that the doctrines before mentioned,
without which these things cannot once be apprehended, may be obscured or
lost, are these wholly omitted. Of the sense of Rom. v.
10, and what is there intended by the “life of Christ,” I shall
farther treat when I come to speak about justification, and of the whole
business under our consideration of the death of Christ.
Chapter XVII.
Of the mediation of Christ.
In his seventh chapter he proposeth
two questions in general about the mediation of Christ, answering, first,
that he is a “mediator,” from 1 Tim. ii.
5; second, that he is the “mediator of the new covenant,” Heb. viii. 6, xii.
24. But as to his work of mediation, what it is, wherein it
doth consist, on what account principally Christ is called our mediator,
whether he be a mediator with God for us, as well as a mediator with us for
God, and how he carries on that work, — wherein he knows the difference
between us and his masters about this matter doth lie, — he speaks not one
word, nor gives any occasion to me to enter into the consideration of it.
What I suppose necessary to offer to this head, I shall do in the ensuing
discourse of the death of Christ, the ends thereof, and the satisfaction
thereby.
And therefore I shall hereunto add his ninth chapter also,
which is concerning remission of sins by Jesus Christ. The difference
between his masters and us being about the meritorious and procuring cause
of remission of sins by. Christ, which here he mentions not, what is
farther to be added thereabout will fall in also under the consideration of
the death of Christ, and our justification thereby.
His first question is altogether out of question, namely,
“Who shall have remission of sins by Christ?” It is granted all, and only,
believers. “He that believeth shall be saved; and he that believeth not
shall be damned,” Mark xvi.
16. “To as many as receive him, power is given to become the
sons of God, even to them that believe on his name,” John i. 12.
To his next question an answer may be given that will suit
that following also, which is the whole of this chapter. The question is,
“Doth not Christ forgive sins? — A. ‘Christ forgave you,’ Col. iii. 13.”
That Christ forgives sins is taken for granted; and yet
forgiveness of sin is the supremest act of sovereign, divine power that God
exerciseth in the world. Now, Christ may be considered two ways:— 1.
Absolutely, as “God over all, blessed for ever.” So he forgave
sins by his own original authority and power, as the lawgiver who is able
to save and to destroy. 2. As Mediator, God and man; and so his
power was delegated to him by God the Father, as himself speaks, Matt. xxviii. 18, “All power is
given unto me in heaven and in earth;” and chap. ix.
6, he saith that he had “power on earth to forgive sins,” — that
is, given unto him. Now, forgiveness of sins is either authoritative or
declarative. The latter Christ delegated to his apostles and all their
successors in the work of preaching the gospel, and it is such a power as a
mere man may be invested withal. That forgiveness of sins which we term
“authoritative,” being an act of sovereign, divine power, exercised about
the law and persons concerned therein, may be said to be given to Christ
two ways:— (1.) As to the possession of it; and so he hath it from
his Father as God, as he hath his nature, essence, and life from him.
Whence, whatever works the Father doth, he doth likewise, — quicken as he
quickens, pardon as he pardons, — as hath been declared. (2.) As to the
execution of it, for such an end and purpose as the
carrying on of the work of mediation, committed to him; and so it is given
him in commission from the Father, who sent him into the world to do his
will; and in this sense had he, the Son of man, power to forgive sins
whilst he was on the earth. And to Mr
B.’s ninth chapter this may suffice.
Chapter XVIII.
Of Christ’s prophetical office.
The eighth chapter in Mr Biddle is of Christ’s prophetical office, or
his entrance into a dealing with Christ in respect of his offices, as he
hath done with him in respect of his person already.
His first question is, —
Ques. Is not Christ dignified, as with the title of mediator,
so also with that of prophet?
Ans. Acts iii. 20,
22.
1. Mr B. tells us, chap.
iv., that Christ is dignified with the title of God, though he be not so;
and here that he is dignified with the title of a prophet, but leaves it at
large whether he were so indeed or no. We are resolved in the case. The
first promise made of him by God to Adam was of him generally as a
mediator, particularly as a priest, as he was to break the head of Satan by
the bruising of his own heel; the next solemn renovation of it to Abraham
was of him as king, taking all nations to be his inheritance; and the third
by Moses, after the giving of the law, as a prophet to teach and instruct
his redeemed people, Gen. iii. 15, xii. 2,
3, Deut. xviii.
18. And a prophet he is, the great prophet of his church; not
only dignified with that title, but so he is indeed.
2. But says Mr B., “He is
dignified with the title of a prophet as well as of mediator,” — as though
his being a prophet were contradistinguished from his being a mediator.
Christ’s teaching of his people is part of the mediation he hath
undertaken. All that he doth on their part in offering gifts and
sacrifices to God for them, all that he doth on the part of God towards
them by instructing and ruling of them, he doth as he is the mediator
between God and man, the surety of the covenant. He is not, then, a
mediator and a prophet, but he who is the mediator is the high priest and
prophet of his church. Nor are there any acts that he exerciseth on the
one or other of these accounts but they are all acts of his mediation, and
of him as a mediator. Mr B., indeed,
tells us not what he understands by the mediation of Christ. His masters
so describe it as to make it all one with his prophetical office, and
nothing else; which makes me somewhat to wonder why this man seems to
distinguish between them.
3. Many more notions of Mr B.’s masters are here omitted; as, that Christ was not the
prophet of his people under the old testament, though by his Spirit he
preached even to those that were disobedient in the days of Noah, and it
was the Spirit of Christ that was in all the prophets of old, whereby God
instructed his church, 1 Pet. iii. 19, 20, i.
11; — that he is a prophet only because he hath given unto us a
new law, though he promise effectually to open blind eyes, and to send his
Spirit to teach us and to lead us into all truth, giving us understanding
that we may know him that is true, Isa. lxi.
1; Luke iv. 18; John xvi. 7–13; 1 John v. 20. But he lays dirt
enough in our way, so that we shall not need farther to rake into the
dunghill.
4. I should not have thought that Mr B. could have taken advantage for his end and purpose from
the place of Scripture he mentions, Acts iii. 20, 22,
“Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise
up unto you of your brethren, like unto me,” but that I find him in his
next query repeating that expression, “Like unto me,” and wresting of it to
be the foundation of a conceit plainly jocular. Christ was like to Moses
as he was a prophet, and like to Aaron as he was a priest, and like to
David as he was a king; that is, he was represented and typified by all
these, and had that likeness to them which the antitype (as the thing
typified is usually but improperly called) hath to the type: but that
therefore he must not only be like them in the general office wherein the
correspondency doth Consist, but also in all the particular concernments of
the office as by them administered, is to confound the type and the
antitype (or rather thing typified.) Nor do the words used, either by
Moses, Deut. xviii. 18, or by Peter,
Acts iii. 22, intimate any such
similitude or likeness between Christ and Moses as should extend to such
particulars as are afterward intimated. The words of Peter are, “God shall
raise you up a prophet, ὡς ἐμέ,”
rather “as he raised up me,” than “like unto me,” not the least similitude
being intimated between them but in this, that they were both prophets, and
were both to be hearkened unto. And so the word used by God to Moses,
כָּמוֹךָ, “sicut te” (“a prophet as thou art”), doth import, “I
will raise up one that shall be a prophet as thou art a prophet.” The
likeness is only in the office. For such a similitude as should give the
least occasion to Mr B.’s following
figments there is no colour. And so the whole foundation being rooted up,
the tottering superstruction will easily fall to the ground. But then to
proceed:—
Q. Forasmuch as Christ was to be a prophet like unto Moses,
and Moses had the privilege above other prophets that God made not himself
known to him in a vision, nor spake to him in a dream, but face to face, as
a man speaketh to his friend, and showed to him the similitude of the Lord,
Exod. xxxiii. 11, Num. xii. 6–8, can you
tell any passage of Scripture which intimateth that Christ did see God
before the discharge of his prophetical office?
A. John
vi. 45, 46, “Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he
which is from God, he hath seen the Father.”
1. This passage is indeed very pretty, whether the
principles or the inferences of it are considered.
The principles of it are sundry:— (1.) That God hath a
bodily shape and similitude, face and hands, and the like corporeal
properties; (2.) That Moses saw the face of
God as the face of a man; (3.) That Christ was in all
things like Moses, so that what Moses did he must do also. Therefore, (1.)
Christ did see the face of God as a man; (2.) He did it before he entered
on his prophetical office; whereunto add, (3.) The.proof of all, “No man
hath seen the Father, save he which is from God.” That is, Christ only saw
the face of God, and no man else, when the ground of the whole fiction is
that Moses saw it before him!
2. Of the bodily shape of God, and of Moses seeing his
face, I have already spoken that which Mr
B. will not take out of his way. Of Christ’s being like Moses
something also hath now been delivered.
That which, Exod. xxxiii.
11, in the Hebrew is פָּנִים אֶל־פָּנִים, panim el panim, the
LXX. have rendered ἐνώπιος ἐνωπίῳ, —
that is, “præsens præsenti,” “as one
present with him;” and the Chaldee paraphrast, “verbum ad verbum,” — that is, God dealt with him
kindly and familiarly, not with astonishing terror, and gave him an
intimate acquaintance with his mind and will. And the same expression is
used concerning God’s speaking to all the people, Deut. v.
4; of whom yet it is expressly said that they saw no likeness at
all, chap. iv. 12.
If from the likeness mentioned there must be a sameness
asserted unto the particular attendancies of the discharge of that office,
then Christ must divide the sea, lift up a brazen serpent, and die in a
mountain, and be buried by God where no man could ever know. Moses,
indeed, enjoyed an eminency of revelation above other prophets, which is
called his conversing with God as a friend, and beholding him face to face,
but even in that wherein he is exalted above all others, he is infinitely
short of the great Prophet of his church: for Moses, indeed, as a servant
was faithful in all the house of God, but this man is over his own house;
whose house we are, Heb. iii. 5,
6.
3. This figment is for ever and utterly everted by the Holy
Ghost, John i.
17, 18, where he expressly urges a dissimilitude between Moses
and the only-begotten Son in that particular wherein this gentleman would
have the likeness to consist “Herein,” says Mr
B., “is Christ like to Moses, that as Moses saw God
face to face, so he saw God face to face.” “No,” saith the Holy Ghost;
“the law, indeed, was given by Moses, but no man hath seen God at any time;
the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath
declared him.” It is true that it is said of Moses that “God spake to him
face to face,” — that is, in a more clear and familiar manner than he did
to other prophets, — though he told him plainly that he should not, or
could not, see his face, Exod. xxxiii. 18–23, though he
gave him some lower manifestations of his glory: so that notwithstanding
the revelations made to him, “no man hath seen God at any time, but the
only-begotten Son.” He who is of the same nature and essence with the
Father, and is in his bosom love, he hath seen him, John vi.
46; and in this doth Moses, being a man only, come infinitely
short of the only-begotten Son, in that he could never see God, which He
did: which is also asserted in the place of Scripture cited by Mr B.
4. To lay this axe, then, also to the root of Mr B.’s tree, to cut it down for the fire: The
foundation of Christ’s prophetical office, as to his knowledge of the will
of his Father, which he was to reveal, doth not consist in his being “taken
up into heaven,” and there being taught the will of God in his human
nature, but in that he was the “only-begotten Son of the Father,” who
eternally knew him and his whole will and mind, and, in the dispensation
which he undertook, revealed him and his mind, according as it was
appointed to him. In respect, indeed, of his human nature, wherein he
declared and preached the will of God, he was taught of God, being filled
with wisdom and understanding by the Spirit, whereby he was anointed for
that purpose; but as the only-begotten Son in the bosom of the Father, he
always saw him, knew him, and revealed him, Luke iv.
18; Isa. lxi. 1; Heb. i.
9.
I shall only add, that this fancy of Mr B. and the rest of the Socinians (Socinianism being,
indeed, a kind of modest and subtile Mohammedanism), of Christ’s seeing God, as did Moses, seems to be
taken from, or taken up to comply with, the Alcoran, where the same is
affirmed of Mohammed. So Beidavi on these words of, the Alcoran, “Et sunt ex iis quibuscum locutus est ipse
Deus.” Saith he, “Est hic Moses;
aut juxta alios Moses et Mahumed, super quibus Pax; Mosi Deus locutus est
ea nocte, qua in exstasi quasi fuit in monte Sinai. Mahumedi vero locutus
est illa nocte, qua scalis cœlo admotis, angelos vidit ascendere, tunc enim
vix jactum duarum sagittarum ab eo fuit.” How near Moses came is
not expressed, but Mohammed came within two bow-shots of him! How near the
Socinian Christ came I know not, nor doth Mr
B. inform us.
But yet as Mr
B. eats his word as to Moses, and after he had affirmed that he saw
the face of God, says he only saw the face of an angel, so do the
Mohammedans also as to the vision of their prophet, who tell us that indeed
he was not able to see an angel in his own proper shape, as Socinus says we cannot see a spiritual
body, though Mr B. thinks that we may see
God’s right hand and his left. But of this you have a notable story in
Kessæus. Saith he, “They report of the
prophet that on a certain day, or once upon a time, he said to Gabriel, O
Gabriel, I desire to see thee in the form of thy great shape or figure,
wherein God created thee. Gabriel said to him, O beloved of God, my shape
is very terrible; no man can see it, and so not thou, but he will fall into
a swoon. Mohammed answered, Although it be
so, yet I would see thee in a bigger shape. Gabriel therefore answered, O
beloved of God, where dost thou desire to see me? Mohammed answered, Without the city of Mecca, in
the stony village. Says Gabriel, That village will not hold me. Therefore
answered Mohammed, Let it be in mount
Orphath. That is a larger and fitter place, says Gabriel. Away,
therefore, went Mohammed to mount Orphath,
and, behold, Gabriel with a great noise covered the whole horizon with his
shape; which when the prophet saw, he fell upon the earth in a swoon.
When, therefore, Gabriel, on whom be peace, had returned to his former
shape, he came to the prophet, and embracing and kissing him, said to him,
Fear not, O beloved of God, I am thy brother Gabriel. The prophet answers,
Thou speakest truly, O my brother Gabriel; I could never have thought that
any creature of God had had such a figure or shape. Gabriel answered, O
beloved of God, what wouldst thou say if thou sawest the shape of the angel
Europhil?”
They who know any thing of the Mohammedan forgeries and
abominations, in applying things spoken of in the Scripture to their great
impostor, will quickly perceive the composition of this fiction from what
is spoken of Moses and Daniel. This lying knave, it seems, was of Mr B.’s mind, that it was not God indeed, but
an angel, that appeared to Moses on mount Sinai; and thence is
this tale, which came to pass “once upon a time.” He proceeds:—
Q. From whence doth it appear that Christ, like Moses, heard
from God the things that he spake?
A. John
viii. 26, 28, 40, xiv. 10.
All the difficulty of this question ariseth from these
words, “Like Moses;” and the sense by Mr
B. put upon them, — how falsely, holy inconsistently with himself,
with what perverting of the Scripture, — hath been declared. The
scriptures in the answer affirm only that Christ “heard and was taught of
the Father;” which is not at all denied, but only the modus that
Mr B. would impose upon the words is
rejected. Christ “heard of the Father,” who taught him, as his servant in the work of
mediation, by his Spirit, wherewith he was anointed; but it is his “going
into heaven” to hear a lesson with his bodily ears which Mr B. aims at, and labours under the next query
to prove, — how unsuccessfully shall briefly be demonstrated. Saith he,
—
Q. Can you farther cite any passage to prove that Christ as a
man ascended into heaven, and was there, and came from God out of heaven,
before he showed himself to the world and discharged his prophetical
office, so that the talking of Moses with God, in the person of an angel
bearing the name of God, was but a shadow of Christ’s talking with God?
A. John
iii. 13, 30–32, vi. 29, 32, 33, 38, 41, 42, 51, 57, 58, 62, viii. 29, 42,
xiii. 1, 3, xvi. 27–30, xvii. 8.
We are come now to the head of this affair, to that which
has been aimed at all along in the former queries The sum is: “Christ until
the time of his baptism was ignorant of the mind and will of God, and knew
not what he was to do or to declare to the world, nor what he came into the
world for, at least only in general; but then when he was led into the
wilderness to be tempted, he was rapt up into heaven, and there God instructed him in his mind and will,
made him to know the message that he came to deliver, gave him the law that
he was to promulge, and so sent him down again to the earth to preach it.”
Though the Scripture says that he knew the will of God, by being his
“only-begotten Son, full of grace and truth,” and that he was “full of the
Holy Ghost” when he went to the wilderness, being by him “anointed to
preach the gospel;” though at his solemn entrance so to do “the heavens
were opened, and the Spirit of God descended on him in the form of a dove,”
God giving solemn testimony to him and charge to “hear him;” yet,
because Mr B.’s masters are not able to
answer the testimonies of Scripture for the divine nature of Christ, which
affirm that he was in heaven before his incarnation, and came down to his
work by incarnation, this figment is set on foot, to the
unspeakable dishonour of the Son of God. Before I proceed farther in the
examination of this invention and detection of its falsehood, that it may
appear that Mr B. made not this discovery
himself by his impartial study of the Scripture (as he reports), it may not
be amiss to inquire after the mind of them in this business whose
assistance Mr B. has in some measure made
use of.
The Racovian
Catechism gives us almost the very same question and answer:—
Q. Whence is it manifest that Christ revealed the will of God
perfectly unto us?
A. Hence, because Jesus himself was in a most perfect manner
taught it of God in heaven, and was sent from heaven magnificently for the
publishing of it to men, and did perfectly declare it to them.
Q. But where is it written that Christ was in heaven, and was
sent from heaven?
A. John vi.
38, —
— and so do they proceed with the places of Scripture here
cited by Mr B. The same Smalcius spends one whole chapter in
his book of the Divinity of Christ, whose title is, “De Initiatione
Christi ad Munus Propheticum,” to declare and prove this thing, that
Christ was so taken up into heaven, and there taught the mind of God, Smalc. de Divin.
Jes. Christ. cap. iv.; only in this he seems to be at variance with
Mr B., that he denies that Moses saw the
face of God, which this man makes the ground of affirming that Christ did
so. But here Mr B. is at variance also
with himself in the end of the last question, intimating that Moses saw
only the face of an angel that bare the name of God; which now serves his
turn as the other did before. Ostorodius, in his Institutions, cap. xvi., pursues the
same business with vehemency, as the manner of the man was: but Smalcius is the man who boasts himself
to have first made the discovery; and so he did, as far as I can find, or
at least he was the first that fixed the time of this rapture to be when he
was in the wilderness. And saith he, “Hoc
mysterium nobis a Deo per sacras literas revelatum esse plurimum
gaudemus,” Idem ibid. And,
of all his companions, this man lays most weight on this invention. His
eighth chapter, in the refutation of Martinus Smiglecius, de Verbi Incarnationis Natura, is spent
in the pursuit of it; so also is a good part of his book against Ravenspergerus. Socinus himself ventures at this business, but so faintly
and slightly as I suppose in all his writings there is not any thing to be
found wherein he is less dogmatical; his discourse of it is in his first
answer to the Parænesis of
Volanus, pp. 38–40. One while he
says the words are to be taken metaphorically; then, that Christ was in heaven in his mind and meditation; and at last, it may be, “was
taken into heaven,” as Paul was.
To return to our catechists and to the thing itself, the
reader may take of it this brief account:—
1. There is, indeed, in the New Testament abundant mention
of our Saviour’s coming down from heaven, of his coming forth from
God, which in what sense it is spoken hath been fully before declared; but
of his being taken up into heaven after his incarnation before his death,
and being there taught the mind of God and the gospel which he was to
preach, there is not one word nor syllable. Can it be supposed that,
whereas so many lesser things are not only taken notice of, but also to the
full expressed, with all their circumstances, this, which, according to the
hypothesis of them with whom we have to do, is of such importance to the
confirmation of his doctrine, and, upon a supposition of his being a mere
man, eminently suited to the honour of his ministry above all the miracles
that he wrought, [should not have been mentioned,] — that he and all his
followers should be utterly silent therein; that when his doctrine was
decried for novelty and folly, and whatever is evil and contemptible, that
none of the apostles in its vindication, none of the ancients against the
Pagans, should once make use of this defensative, that Christ was taken up
into heaven, and there instructed in the mind of God? Let one word,
testimony, or expression, be produced to this purpose, that Christ was
taken up into heaven to be instructed in the mind of God before his
entrance upon his office, and let our adversaries take the cause. If not,
let this story be kept in the old golden legend, as a match for any it
contains.
2. There was no cause of this rapture or taking of
Christ into heaven. That which is assigned, that there he might be taught
the gospel, helps not in any measure; for the Scripture not only assigns
other causes of his acquaintance with the mind and will of God, — namely,
his oneness with the Father, being his only-begotten Son, his Word and
Wisdom, as also (in respect of his condescension to the office of
mediation) his being anointed with the fulness of the Spirit, as was
promised and prophesied of him, — but also affirms that this
was accomplished both on him and towards him before such time as this
fiction is pretended to fall out, John i. 1, 18;
Prov.
viii. 14–16; Col. ii. 3;
Heb. i. 9; John iii.
34.
Instantly upon his baptism Luke tells you that he was πλήρης Πνεύματος ἁγίου, “full of the Holy
Ghost,” chap. iv. 1; which was all that was
required to give him a full furnishment for his office, and all that was
promised on that account. This answers what he expresses to be necessary
for the discharge of his prophetical office: Πλήρης Πνεύματος ἀγίου is as much as רוּחַ אֲדֹנָי יְהֶוִֹה עָלָי, Isa. lxi. 1; and upon that he says,
“He hath sent me to preach.” God also solemnly bare witness to him from
heaven to the same purpose, Matt. iii.
17. And before this John affirmed that he was “the Light of the
world, the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the
world,” John i. 9; which how he should be, and
yet himself be in darkness, not knowing the will of God, is not easily to
be apprehended.
3. To what purpose served all that glory at his
baptism, that solemn inauguration, when he took upon him the
immediate administration of his prophetical office in his own person, if
after this he was to be taken up into heaven to be taught the mind of God?
To what end were the heavens opened over him? to what end did the Holy
Ghost descend upon him in a visible shape, which God had appointed as a
sign whereby he should be known to be the great prophet, John i. 32–34? to what end was that
voice from heaven, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased?” — I
say, to what end were all these, if after all this he was ignorant of the
gospel and of the will of God, and was to be taken up into heaven to be
instructed?
4. If this must be supposed to be without any mention, yet
why is it said always, that Christ came from heaven to the earth? If he
was first on the earth, and was taken into heaven, and came again to the
earth, he had spoken to the understanding of men if he had said, “I am
returned from heaven;” and not, as he doth, “I am come from heaven.”. This
in lesser matters is observed. Having gone out of Galilee to Jordan, and
come again, it is said he “returned from Jordan,” Luke iv.
1; and having been with the
Gadarenes, upon his coming to the other side, from whence he went, it is
said he returned from the Gadarenes back again, Luke
viii. 40. But where is it said that he returned from
heaven, which, on the supposition that is made, had alone in this ease been
proper? which propriety of speech is in all other cases everywhere observed
by the holy writers.
5. It is said that Christ “entered once into the holy
place,” and that “having obtained eternal redemption,” Heb. ix. 12; yea, and expressly that he ought to suffer before he so entered, Luke xxiv. 26. But, according to
these men, he went twice into heaven, — once before he suffered and had
obtained eternal redemption, and once afterward. It may also be observed,
that when they are pressed to tell us some of the circumstances of this
great matter, being silent to all others, they only tell us that they
conjecture the time to be in the space of that forty days wherein he was in
the wilderness; — on purpose,
through the righteous judgment of God, to entangle themselves in their own
imaginations, the Holy Ghost affirming expressly that he was the whole
“forty days in the wilderness, with the wild beasts,” Mark i. 13.
Enough being said to the disprovement of this fiction, I
shall very briefly touch upon the sense of the places that are produced to
give countenance thereunto.
1. In most of the places insisted on there is this
expression, “He that came down from heaven,” or, “I came down from heaven:”
so John
vi. 32, 33, 38, 41, 42, 51, 57, 58, iii. 30–32. Hence this is
the conclusion, “If our Saviour came down from heaven, then, after he had
lived some time in the world, he was taken up into heaven, there to be
taught the mind of God.” He that hath a mind to grant this consequence is
willing to be these men’s disciple. The Scripture gives us another account
of the intendment of this phrase, — namely, “That the Word was with God,
and the Word was God, and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and
his glory was seen, as the glory of the only-begotten of the Father,”
John i. 1,
2, 14; so that it is not a local descension, but a
gracious condescension, that is intimated, with his voluntary
humiliation, when he who was “in the form of God humbled himself to take
upon him the form of a servant,” therein to learn obedience. So that these
expressions yield very little relief to our adversary.
2. The second sort are those wherein he is said to “come
forth from God,” or “from the Father,” — this is expressed, John
viii. 42, xiii. 1, 3, xvi. 27–30, xvii. 8, — from whence an
argument of the same importance with the former doth arise: “If Christ came
from God, from the Father, then, after he had been many years in the world,
he was taken into heaven, and there taught the gospel, and sent again into
the world.” With such invincible demonstrations do these men contend!
That Christ came from God, from the Father, — that is, had his mission and
commission from God, as he was mediator, the great prophet, priest, and
king of his church, — none denies, and this is all that in these places is
expressed; of which afterward.
3. Some particular places are yet remaining.
The first is John iii. 13, “No man hath ascended
into heaven, but he that came down from heaven, the Son of man, which is in
heaven.” That “which is” Mr B. renders
rather “which was,” whether with greater prejudice to his cause or
conscience I know not; — to his cause, in that he manifests that it cannot
be defended without corrupting the word of God; to his conscience, by
corrupting it to serve his own end and turn accordingly. The words are,
ὁ ὢ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, which will by no
means admit of his corrupting gloss.
I say, then, let the words speak [for] themselves, and you
need no other [sword] to cut the throat of the whole cause that this man
hath undertaken to manage. He that speaks is the Son of man, and all the
time of his speaking he was in heaven. “He,” saith he, “is in heaven.” In
his human nature he was then on the earth, not in heaven;
therefore he had another nature, wherein at that time he was in
heaven also, he who was so being the Son of man. And what, then, becomes
of Mr B.’s Christ? and what need of the
rapture whereof he speaks?
[As] for the “ascending into heaven,” mentioned in the
beginning of the verse, that it cannot be meant of a local ascent
of Christ in his human nature antecedent to his resurrection is evident, in
that he had not yet “descended into the lower parts of the earth,” which he
was to do before his local ascent, Eph. iv. 9,
10. The ascent there mentioned answers the discourse that our
Saviour was then upon; which was to inform Nicodemus in heavenly things.
To this end he tells him (verse 12)
that they were so slow of believing that they could not receive the
plainest doctrine, nor understand even the visible things of the earth, as
the blowing of the wind, nor the causes and issue of it; much less did they
understand the heavenly things of the gospel, which none (saith he,
verse 13) hath pierced into, is
acquainted withal, hath ascended, into heaven, in the knowledge of, but he
who is in heaven, and is sent of God into the world to instruct you. He
who is in heaven in his divine nature, who is come down from heaven, being
sent of God, having taken flesh, that he might reveal and do the will of
God, he, and none but he, hath so ascended into heaven as to have the full
knowledge of the heavenly things whereof I speak. Of a local ascent, to
the end and purpose mentioned, there is not the least syllable.
Thus, I say, the context of the discourse seems to exact a
metaphorical interpretation of the words, our Saviour in them informing
Nicodemus of his acquaintance with heavenly things, whereof he was
ignorant. But yet the propriety of the words may be observed without the
least advantage to our adversaries, for it is evident that the words are
elliptical: Οὐδεῖς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν
εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱός. “Ascend” must be repeated again to make the sense
complete; and why may not μέλλει
ἀναβῆναι be inserted as well as ἀναβέβηκε? So are the words rendered by Theophylact; and in that sense [they] relate not to what was
before, but what was to be. And an instance of the necessity of an alike
supplement is given in Matt. xi.
27. Moreover, some suppose that ἀναβέβηκεν, affirming the want of a potential
conjunction, as ἄν, or the like (which
the following exceptive εἰ μή
require), in the place, is not to be taken for the act done, but for the
power of doing it, of which examples may be given: so that the propriety of
the words may also be preserved without the least countenance afforded to
the figment under consideration.
The remaining place is John vi.
62, “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he
was before?” Ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον That
Christ was in heaven before his local ascent thither in his human nature is
part of our plea to prove his divine nature, and what will thence be
obtained I know not.
And this is the first attempt that these gentlemen make
upon the prophetical office of Christ: “He did not know the will of God as
the only-begotten Son of the Father in his bosom; he was not furnished for
the declaring of it in his own immediate ministry by the unction of the
Holy Ghost, and his being filled therewith; he was not solemnly inaugurated
thereinto by the glorious presence of the Father and the Holy Ghost with
him, one in a voice, and the other in a bodily shape,
bearing witness to him to be the prophet sent from God; but being for many
years ignorant of the gospel and the will of God, or what he came into the
world to do, he was, no man knows where, when, nor how,
rapt into heaven, and there taught and instructed in the mind of God (as
Mohammed pretended he was also), and so sent into the world,
after he had been sent into the world many a year.”
Here the Racovians add:—
Q. What is that will of God which by Christ is revealed?
A. It is the new covenant, which Christ, in the name of God,
made with human kind; whence also he is called “the mediator of the new
covenant.”
1. It seems, then, that Christ was taken into heaven to be
taught the new covenant, of which before he was ignorant; though the very
name that was given him before he was born contained the substance of it,
Matt. i. 21. 2. Christ did not make
the covenant with us as mediator, but confirmed and ratified it, Heb. ix. 15–17. God gave him in the
covenant which he made, and therefore is said to “give him for a covenant,”
Isa. xlii. 6. 3. The covenant of
grace is not made with all mankind, but with the seed of the woman,
Gen. iii. 15; Gal. iii. 16; Rom.
ix. 7, 8. 4. Christ is not called the mediator of the new
covenant because he declared the will of God concerning it, but because he
gave his life a ransom for those with whom it is made, 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6; and the promises of
it were confirmed in his blood, Heb. ix. 15, x.
16–20. 5. This covenant was not first made and revealed when
Christ taught in his own person It was not only made but confirmed to
Abraham in Christ four hundred and thirty years before the law, Gal. iii. 17; yea, ever since the
entrance of sin, no man hath walked with God but in the same covenant of
grace, as elsewhere is declared.
Let us see what follows in Mr
B. Says he, —
Q. You have already showed that Christ was like unto Moses in
seeing God, and hearing from him the things which he spake: but Moses
exceeded all other prophets likewise in that he only was a lawgiver; was
Christ therefore like unto Moses in giving of a law also, and is there any
mention of this law?
A. Gal. vi. 2, “Fulfil the law of Christ;”
Rom. iii. 27, “By the law of faith;”
James ii. 12, “By the law of liberty;”
James i. 25.
1. That Moses did not see the face of God hath been showed,
and Mr B. confesseth the same. That
Christ was not rapt into heaven for any such end or purpose as is
pretended, that he is not compared to Moses as to his initiation into his
prophetical office, that there is not one word in the Scripture giving
countenance to any of these figments, hath been evinced; nor hath Mr B. showed any such thing to them who have
their senses exercised to discern good and evil, what apprehensions soever
his catechumens may have of his skill and proofs.
2. What is added to this question will be of an easy
despatch. The word “law’ may be considered generally, as to the nature of
it, in the sense of Scripture, for a revelation of the mind of God; and so
we say Christ did give a law, in that he revealed fully and clearly the
whole mind of God as to our salvation and the obedience he requireth of us.
And so there is a law of faith, that is, a doctrine of faith,
opposite to the law as to its covenant ends, simply so called. And he also
instituted some peculiarly significant ceremonies to be used in the worship
of God; pressing, in particular, in his teaching and by his example, the
duty of love; which thence is peculiarly called “a new commandment,”
John xiii. 34, and “the law of
Christ,” Gal. vi. 2, even that which he did so
eminently practice. As he was a teacher, a prophet come out from God, he
taught the mind, and will, and worship of God, from his own bosom,
John i. 18, Heb.
i. 1, 2. And as he was and is the king of his church, he hath
given precepts, and laws, and ordinances, for the rule and government
thereof, to which none can add, nor from them any detract. But take the
word “law” strictly in reference to a covenant end, so that he which
performs it shall be justified by his performance thereof, so we may say he
gave the law originally as God, but as mediator he gave no
such law, or no law in that sense, but revealed fully and clearly our
justification with God upon another account, and gave no new precepts of
obedience but what were before given in the law, written originally in the
heart of man by nature, and delivered to the church of the Jews by Moses in
the wilderness; of which in the chapter of justification.
For the places quoted by Mr
B., that of Gal. vi. 2,
“Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ,” speaks
only of that one command of brotherly love and forbearance which is called
peculiarly, as I said, “a new commandment,” though the Jews had it from the
beginning, and the “law of Christ,” because of the eminent accomplishment
of it by “him who loved us, and gave himself for us,” transmitting it anew
to us with such new motives and inducements as it had not received before,
nor ever shall again. The “law of faith,” mentioned Rom. iii. 27, is no more but the
doctrine of the gospel, and justification without the works of the law, —
that is, all works commanded, by what law soever; as the whole doctrine of
the word of God is called “the law” near an hundred times in the Psalms.
The “law of faith” is that which is opposed to the “law of works,” as a
means of obtaining righteousness, which is not by obedience to new
commands.
The places in James ii. 12, i. 25,
speak directly of the moral law; which is manifest by that particular
enumeration of its precepts which we have subjoined, chap. ii. 10–12.
3. But Mr B.’s masters
have a farther reach in the asserting Christ to have given a new law,
— namely, whereas they place justification as a consequent of our own
obedience, and observing how impossible it is to do it on the obedience
yielded to the moral law, the apostle having so frequently and expressly
decried all possibility of justification thereby, they have therefore
feigned to themselves that Christ Jesus hath given a new law, in obedience
whereunto we may be justified; which when they attempt to prove, it will be
needful for them to produce other manner of evidences than that here by
Mr B. insisted on, which speaks not one
word to the purpose in hand. But that this is the intendment of the man is
evident from his ensuing discourse.
Having reckoned up the expositions of the law, and its
vindication given by our Saviour, Matt. v.,
in the next query he calls them, very ignorantly, “the law of faith, or the
new covenant.” If Mr B. knows no more of
the new covenant but that it is a new law given by our Saviour, Matt. v.–vii.. (as upon other
accounts), I pity the man. He proceeds, —
Q. Doth not Christ, then, partly perfect, partly correct the
law of Moses? What is the determination of Christ concerning this
matter?
A. Matt.
v. 21–45.
1. The reason of this query I acquainted the
reader with before. These men, seeking for a righteousness, as it were, by
the works of the law, and not daring
to lay it upon that which the apostle doth so often expressly reject, they
strive to relieve themselves with this, that our Saviour hath so dealt with
the law as here is expressed; so that to yield obedience to it now, as
mended, perfected, and reformed, must needs be sufficient to our
justification.
2. Two things are here affirmed to be done by the Lord
Christ in reference to the “law of Moses,” as it is called, — that is, the
moral law, as is evident by the following instances given to make good the
assertion, — first, That he perfects it; secondly, That he corrects it: and
so a double imputation is laid on the law of God, (1.) Of
imperfection; (2.) Of corruption, that needed amendment
or correction.
Before I proceed to examine the particular instances
whereby the man attempts to make good his insinuation, the honour of God
and his law requires of us that it be vindicated from this double calumny,
and demonstrated to be neither imperfect nor to stand in need of
correction:—
1. For its perfection, we have the testimony of God himself
expressly given thereunto: Ps. xix. 7,
“The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul;” it is the “perfect law of
liberty,” James i. 25; yea, so perfect as that
God hath forbidden any thing to be added to it or to be taken from it,
Deut. xii. 32.
2. If the law wants perfection, it is in respect of its
essential parts, or its integral parts, or in respect of
degrees. But for its essential parts, it is perfect,
being, in matter and form, in sense and sentence, divine, holy, just, good,
Rom. vii. 12. For its
integrals, it compriseth “the whole duty of man,” Eccles. xii. 13; which doing he was
to live. And for the degrees of its commands, it requireth that
we love the Lord our God with all our hearts and all our souls, and our
neighbours as ourselves; which our Saviour confirms as a rule of
perfection, Matt. xxii. 36–40.
3. If the law of God was not perfect, but needed
correction, it is either because God could not or
would not give a perfect and complete law. To say the first is
blasphemy; for the latter, there is no pretence for it. God giving a law
for his service, proclaiming his wisdom and holiness to be therein, and
that if any man did perform it, he should live therein, certainly would not
give such a law as, by its imperfection, should come short of any of the
ends and purposes for which it was appointed.
4. The perfection of the law is hence also evinced, that
the precepts of Christ, wherein our obedience requires us to be perfect,
are the same and no other than the precepts of the law.
His new commandment of love is also an old one, 1 John ii. 7, 8, which Christ calls
his new commandment, John xiii.
34; and the like instances might be multiplied. Neither will
the instance of Mr B. evince the
contrary, which he argues from Matt. v.;
for that Christ doth not in that chapter correct the law, nor add any new
precept thereunto, but expounds and vindicates it from the corrupt glosses
of the scribes and Pharisees, appears, —
(1.) From the occasion of the discourse, and the
proposition which our Saviour makes good, establisheth, and confirmeth
therein, which is laid down, verse
20, “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of
the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of
heaven.” In pursuit of this proposition, he manifesteth what their
righteousness was, by examining their catechism upon the commandments, and
the exposition they made therein of them. It is not the righteousness of
the law that our Saviour rejects, and requires more in his disciples, but
that of the Pharisees, whom he everywhere called hypocrites. But for the
law, he tells them a tittle of it shall not pass away, and he that keeps it
shall be called great, or be of great esteem, in the kingdom of God; and
the good works that our Saviour then required in his disciples are no other
but those that were commanded in the law.
(2.) The very phraseology and manner of speech
here used by our Saviour manifests of whom and concerning what he speaks:
“Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time;” — “Ye
have heard,” not. “Ye have read.” “Ye have heard it of
the scribes and Pharisees out of Moses’ chair; they have told you that it
was thus said.” And, “Ye have heard that it was said to them of
old;” not “that it was written, that it was written in the law,”
the expression whereby he citeth what was written. And, “It was said to
them of old,” — the common pretence of the Pharisees, in the
imposing their traditions and expositions of the law. “It is the tradition
of the elders; it was said to them by such and such blessed
masters of old.”
(3.) Things are instanced in that are nowhere
written in the law, nor ever were; as that, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
and hate thine enemy;” which is so remote from the law as that the contrary
is directly commanded, Lev. xix.
18; Exod.
xxiii. 4, 5; Prov. xx.
22. To them who gave this rule, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
and hate thine enemy,” doth Christ oppose himself. But those were the
scribes and Pharisees in their corrupt glosses, from which God’s law is
vindicated, not in itself before corrupted.
(4.) Whose sayings Christ rejects, their sayings
he did not come to fulfil; but he came to fulfil and accomplish the
law: and therefore it is not the law and the sentence thereof that he
rejects in that form of speech, “But I say unto you.”
Before I come to the consideration of the particular
instances given by Mr B., a brief
consideration of what is offered to this purpose by Smalcius, in his Racovian Catechism, may be premised. His first chapter,
about the prophetical office of Christ, is “De præceptis Christi, quæ legi addidit;” — “Of the
precepts of Christ, which he added to the law.” And therein this is his
first question and answer:—
Q. What are the perfect commands of God revealed by
Christ?
A. Part of them is contained in the precepts given by Moses,
with those which are added thereunto in the new covenant; part is contained
in those things which Christ himself prescribed.
The commands of God revealed by Jesus Christ are here
referred to three heads:— 1. The ten commandments given by Moses; for so
that part is explained in the next question, where they are said to be the
decalogue. 2. The additions made by Christ thereunto. 3. His own peculiar
institutions.
1. As to the first, I desire only to know how the ten
commandments were revealed by Jesus Christ. The catechist confesseth that
they were given to Moses, and revealed by that means; how are they, then,
said to be revealed by Christ? If they shall say that he may be said to
reveal them because he promulged them anew, with new motives, reasons, and
encouragements, I hope he will give us leave to say also that what he calls
“a new commandment” is not so termed in respect of the matter of
it, but its new enforcement by Christ. We grant Christ revealed that
law of Moses, with its new covenant ends, as he was the great prophet of
his church, by his Spirit, from the foundation of the world; but this Smalcius denies.
2. That Christ made no new additions to the moral law hath
been partly evidenced from what hath been spoken concerning the perfection
thereof, with the intention of our Saviour in that place, and those things
wherein they say these additions are found and do consist, and shall yet
farther be evinced from the consideration of the particulars by them
instanced in.
3. It is granted that our blessed Saviour did, for the
times of the new testament, institute the two ordinances of baptism and the
Lord’s supper, in the room of them which, together with their
representation of the benefits which believers receive by him, did also
prefigure him as to come. But, — (1.) These are no new law, nor part of a
new law, with a law design in them. (2.) Though there is an obedience in
their performance yielded to God and Christ, yet they belong rather to the
promises than the precepts of Christ; to our
privilege, — before, unto our duty.
In the progress of that catechist, after some discourse
about the ceremonial and judicial law, with their abolition, and his
allowance of magistrates among Christians notwithstanding (which they do
upon condition they shed no blood, for any cause whatever), he
attempts in particular to show what Christ added to the moral law in the
several precepts of it. And to the first he says that Christ added two
things:— 1. In that he prescribed us a certain form of prayer; of which
afterward, in the chapter designed to the consideration of what Mr B. speaks to the same purpose. 2. That we
acknowledge himself for God, and worship him; of which also in our
discourse of the kingly office of Christ. To the second, he says, is added
in the New Testament, not only that we should not worship images, but avoid
them also; which is so notoriously false, the avoiding of images of our own
making being no less commanded in the Old Testament than in the New, that I
shall not insist thereon. The residue of his plea is the same with Mr B.’s from Matt. v.,
where what they pretend shall be considered in order.
To consider, then, briefly the particular instances. 1. The
first is in reference to the sixth commandment, “Thou shalt not
kill.” This the Pharisees so interpreted as that if a man kept himself
from blood and from causing the death of another, he was righteous as to
the keeping of this commandment. Our Saviour lets his disciples know that
there is a closer and nearer sense of this law: “I say unto you, in the
exposition of this commandment, that any rash anger, anger without a cause,
all offence given proceeding from thence, in light, vilifying expressions,
such as ‘Raca,’ much more all provoking taunts and reproaches, as ‘Thou
fool,’ are forbidden therein, so as to render a man obnoxious to the
judgment of God, and condemnation in their several degrees of
sinfulness;” as there were amongst themselves several
councils, according to several offences, — the judgment, the council, and
utter cutting off as a child of hell. Hence, then, having manifested the
least breach of love or charity towards our brother to be a breach of the
sixth commandment, and so to render a man obnoxious to the judgment of God
in several degrees of sin, according as the eruptions of it are, he
proceeds in the following verses to exhort his disciples to patience,
forbearance, and brotherly love, with readiness to agreement and
forgiveness, verses
23–26.
2. In the next place, he proceeds to the vindication and
exposition of the seventh commandment, verse
27, “Thou shalt not commit adultery;” which the Pharisees had so
expounded as that if a man kept himself from actual uncleanness, however
loosely he lived, and put away his wife at his pleasure, he was free from
the breach thereof. To give them the true meaning and sense of this
commandment, and farther to discover the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, he
lets them know, —
(1.) That the concupiscence of the heart or
inordinate desire of any person is the adultery here no less
forbidden than that of actual uncleanness, which the law made
death. And certainly he must needs be as blind as a Pharisee who sees not
that the uncleanness of the heart and lust after woman was forbidden by the
law and under the old testament.
(2.) As to their living with their wives, he mentions,
indeed, the words of Moses, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him
give her a bill of divorcement,” but opposeth not himself thereunto at all,
but only shows that that permission of divorce is to be interpreted
according to the rule and instruction given in the first institution of
marriage (as afterward, on another occasion, he explains himself, Matt. xix.), and not that men might
therefore, for every cause that they would or could pretend, instantly put
away their wives, as the Pharisees taught men to do, and as Josephus, one
of them, testifies of himself that he did: “I put away my wife,” saith he,
“because she did not please me.” “No,” saith our Saviour; “that permission
of Moses is not to be extended beyond the just cause of divorce, as it is
by the Pharisees, but made use of only in the case of fornication,”
verses 31, 32; and he thereupon
descends to caution his disciples to be careful and circumspect in their
walking in this particular, and not be led by an offending eye or hand (the
beginning of evil) to greater abominations, verses 28–30.
3. In like manner doth he proceed in the vindication of the
third commandment. The scribes and Pharisees had invented or
approved of swearing by creatures, the temple, altar, Jerusalem, the head,
and the like; and thereupon they raised many wicked and cursed
distinctions, on purpose to make a cloak for hypocrisy and lying, as you
may see, Matt. xxiii. 16–19. “If a man
swear by the temple, it is nothing, he is not bound by his oath; but if he
swear by the gold of the temple, he is obliged.” In like manner did they
distinguish of the altar and the gift. And having mixed these swearings
and distinctions in their ordinary conversation, there was nothing sincere
or open and plain left amongst them. This wicked gloss of theirs (being
such as their successors abound withal to this day) our blessed Saviour
decries, and commands his disciples to use plainness and simplicity in
their conversation, in plain affirmations and negations, without the
mixture of such profane and cursed distinctions, verses 34–37, which that it was no
new duty, nor unknown to the saints of the old testament, is known to all
that have but read it.
4. In matter of judgment between man and man, he
proceeds in the same manner. Because the law had appointed the magistrate
to exercise talionem in some
cases, and to take an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, the blind
Pharisees wrested this to countenance private men in revenging themselves,
and pursuing them who had injured them with a hostile mind, at least until
the sentence of the law was executed on them. To root the
rancour and malice out of the minds of men which by this means were
nourished and fomented in them, our Saviour lets them know that
notwithstanding that procedure of the magistrate by the law, yet indeed all
private revenges were forbidden and all readiness to contend with others,
which he amplifieth in the proposal of some particular cases; and all this
by virtue of a rule which himself affirms to be contained in the law, “Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” verses
38–42, pressing also lending and giving, as works of charity,
whereunto a blessing is so often pronounced in the Old Testament.
5. His last instance is in the matter of love,
concerning which the Pharisees had given out this note, “Thou shalt love
thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy;” for whereas there were certain
nations whom God had appointed to utter destruction at his people’s first
coming into Canaan, he commanded them to show them no mercy, but utterly to
destroy them, Deut. vii. 2. This the wretched
hypocrites laid hold of to make up a rule and law for private men to walk
by in reference to them whom they accounted their enemies, in express
contradiction to the command of God, Exod.
xxiii. 4, 5, Lev. xix.
18. Wherefore our blessed Saviour vindicates the sense of the
law from this cursed tradition also, and renews the precept of loving and
doing good to our enemies, verses
43–47. So that in none of the instances mentioned is there the
least evidence of what was proposed to be confirmed by them, — namely, that
our Saviour gave a new law, in that he did partly perfect, partly correct
the law of Moses, — seeing he did only vindicate the sense and meaning of
the law, in sundry precepts thereof, from the false glosses and traditions
of the scribes and Pharisees, invented and imposed on their disciples to be
a cloak to their hypocrisy and wickedness. And this also may fully suffice
to remove what on this account is delivered by the Racovian Catechism. But on this foundation Mr B. proceeds:—
Q. You have made it appear plainly that the law of faith or
the new covenant, whereof Christ was the mediator, is better than the law
of works or the old covenant, whereof Moses was the mediator, in respect of
precepts; is it also better in respect of promises?
A. Heb. viii. 6, vii.
19.
This is indeed a comfortable passage! for the better
understanding whereof I shall single out the several noble propositions
that are insinuated therein, and evidently contained in the words of it;
as, —
1. Christ was the mediator of the law of faith, the new
law, in the same sense as Moses was mediator of the old law, the law of
works.
2. Christ’s addition of precepts and promises to the law of
Moses is the law of faith, or the new covenant.
3. The people or church of the Jews lived under the old
covenant, or the law of works, whereof Moses, not Christ, was the
mediator.
4. The difference between the old and the new
covenant lies in this, that the new hath more precepts of obedience and
more promises than the old.
And now, truly, he that thinks that this man understands
either the old covenant or the new, either Moses or Christ, either faith or
works, shall have liberty from me to enjoy his opinion, for I have not more
to add to convince him of his mistake than what the man himself hath here
delivered.
For my part, I have much other work to do, occasioned by
Mr B., and therefore I shall not
here divert to the consideration of the two covenants and their difference,
with the twofold administration of the covenant of grace, both before and
after Christ’s coming in the flesh; but I shall content myself with some
brief animadversions upon the forementioned propositions and proceed:—
1. In what sense Christ is the mediator of the new
covenant, I shall, God assisting, at large declare, when I come to treat of
his death and satisfaction, and shall not here prevent myself in any thing
of what must then and there be delivered.
2. That there are precepts and promises attending the new
covenant is granted; but that it consists in any addition of precepts to
the Mosaical law, carried on in the same tenor with it, with other
promises, is a figment directly destructive of the whole gospel and the
mediation of the Son of God. By this means, the whole undertaking of Jesus
Christ to lay down his life a ransom for us, — our justification by his
blood, his being of God made righteousness to us, the free pardon of our
sins and acceptation with God by and for him, as he is the end of the law
for righteousness; all communication of effectual grace to work in us new
obedience, the giving of a new, clean heart, with the law of God written in
it by the Spirit; in a word, the whole promise made to Abraham, the whole
new covenant, is excluded from the covenant, and men left yet in their
sins. The covenant of works was, “Do this, and live;” and the tenor of the
law, “If a man do the things thereof, he shall live thereby,” — that is, if
a man by his own strength perform and fulfil the righteousness that the law
requires, he shall have eternal life thereby. “This covenant,” saith the
apostle, “God hath disannulled, because no man could be saved by it,”
Heb. vii. 18. “The law thereof,
through sin, was become weak and insufficient as to any such end and
purpose,” Rom. viii. 3. What, then, doth God
substitute in room thereof? Why, a new covenant, that hath more precepts
added to the old, with all those of the old continued that respected moral
obedience! But is this a remedy? is not this rather a new burden? If the
law could not save us before, because it was impossible, through sin, that
we should perfectly accomplish it, and therefore “by the deeds of the law
shall no flesh be justified,” is it a likely way to relieve us by making an addition of more precepts to them which before we could
not observe? But that, through the righteous hand of God, the interest of
men’s immortal souls is come to be concerned therein, I should think the
time exceedingly lavished that is spent in this discourse. “Let him that
is ignorant be ignorant still,” were a sufficient answer. And this that
hath been said may suffice to the fourth particular also.
3. That Moses was a mediator of a covenant of works,
properly and formally so called, and that the church of the Jews lived
under a covenant of works, is a no less pernicious figment than the former.
The covenant of works was, “Do this, and live;” — “On perfect obedience
you shall have life.” Mercy and pardon of sins were utter strangers to
that covenant; and therefore by it the Holy Ghost tells us that no man
could be saved. The church of old had the promises of Christ, Rom. ix. 4, Gen. iii. 15, xii. 3;
were justified by faith, Gen. xv.
6, Rom. iv., Gal. iii.;
obtained mercy for their sins, and were justified in the Lord, Isa. xlv. 24, 25; had the Spirit
for conversion, regeneration, and sanctification, Ezek. xi. 19, xxxvi.
26; expected and obtained salvation by Jesus Christ; — things as
remote from the covenant of works as the east is from the west.
It is true, the administration of the covenant of grace
which they lived under was dark, legal, and low, in comparison of that
which we now are admitted unto since the coming of Christ in the flesh; but
the covenant wherein they walked with God and that wherein we find
acceptance is the same, and the justification of Abraham their father the
pattern of ours, Rom. iv. 4,
5.
Let us now see what answer Mr
B. applies to his query. The first text he mentions is Heb. viii. 6, “But now hath he obtained
a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better
covenant, which was established upon better promises.” That which the Holy
Ghost here affirms is, that the new covenant, whereof Christ is the
mediator, is better than the old, and that it hath better promises; which,
I suppose, none ever doubted. The covenant is better, seeing that could by
no means save us, while by this Christ doth to the uttermost. The promises
are better, for it hath innumerable promises of conversion, pardon, and
perseverance, which that had not at all; and the promise of eternal life,
which that had, is given upon infinitely better and surer terms. But all
this is nothing at all to Mr B.’s
purpose.
No more is the second place which he mentioneth, Heb. vii. 19, “The law made nothing
perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did.”
Not that by “the law” in that place the covenant of works
is intended, but the legal administration of the covenant of grace.
“This,” saith the apostle, “made nothing perfect.” Men were kept under types and shadows; and though they were children of God by
adoption, yet in comparison they were kept as servants, being under age,
until the fulness of time came, when the bringing in of Jesus Christ, that
“better hope,” made the administration of grace perfect and complete,
Gal. iv. 1–6. Mr B. all along obscures himself under the ambiguous term of
“the law,” confounding its covenant and subsequent use. As for the
covenant use of the law, or as it was the tenor of the covenant of works,
the saints of the old testament were no more concerned in it than are we.
The subsequent use of it may be considered two ways, — 1. As it is purely
moral, exacting perfect obedience, and so the use of it is common to them
and us; 2. As attended with ceremonial and judicial institutions in the
administration of it, and so it was peculiar to them. And this one
observation will lead the reader through much of the sophistry of this
chapter, whose next question is, —
Q. Were those better promises of God touching eternal life and
immortality hidden in the dark and not brought to light under the law?
A. “Jesus Christ hath brought life and immortality to light
through the gospel,” 2 Tim. i.
10.
The whole ambiguity of this question lies in these
expressions, “Hidden in the dark and not brought to light.” If he intend
comparatively, in respect of the clear revelation made of the mind
and will of God by Jesus Christ, we grant it. If he mean it
absolutely, that there were no promises of life and immortality
given under the law, it is absolutely false; for, —
1. There are innumerable promises of life and
immortality in the Old Testament given to the church under the law. See
Heb. xi. 14; Deut. xii. 1, xxx.
6; Ps. xvi.
10, 11; Deut. xxxii.
29; Ps. cxxx. 8; Isa. xxv. 8,
9, xlv. 17, xxvi. 19; Jer. xxiii.
6; Ps. ii. 12,
xxxii. 1, 2, xxxiii. 12.
2. They believed in eternal life, and therefore
they had the promise of it; for faith relieth always on the word of
promise. Thus did Job
xix. 25–27; and David, Ps. xvii.
15; so did Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Heb. xi. 10, 13,
14; yea, and some of them, as a pattern and example, without
dying obtained it, as Enoch and Elijah.
3. The covenant of Abraham was that which they
lived in and under. But this covenant of Abraham had promises of eternal
life, even that God would be his God, dead and alive, Gen. xvii. 1, 7. And
that the promises thereof were promises of eternal life, Paul manifests,
Rom. iv. 3, Gal. iii.
14. But this hath been so abundantly manifested by others that
I shall not longer insist upon it. We are come to the last query of this
chapter, which is:—
Q. Though the promises of the gospel be better than those of
the law, pet are they not, as well as those of the law, proposed under
conditions of faith and perseverance therein, of holiness and
obedience, of repentance, and suffering for Christ? how speak the
Scriptures?
A. John iii.
14–16, 18, 36; Hab. ii. 4;
Heb. xi. 6; 2 Tim. ii.
11; Rom. viii.
13; Acts iii.
19; Rev. ii. 5, 16;
John v. 14.
Neither will this query long detain us. In the new
testament, there being means designed for the attainment of an end, —
faith, obedience, and perseverance, for the attainment of salvation and
enjoyment of God through Christ, — the promises of it are of two sorts.
Some respect the end, or our whole acceptation with God; some the means, or
way whereby we come to be accepted in Christ. The first sort are those
insisted on by Mr B., and they are so far
conditional as that they declare the firm connection and concatenation of
the end and means proposed, so that without them it is not to be attained;
but the other, of working faith, and new obedience, and perseverance, are
all absolute to the children of the covenant, as I have so fully and
largely elsewhere declared that I shall not here repeat any thing there
written, nor do I know any necessity of adding any thing thereunto. I
thought to have proceeded with the Racovian Catechism also, as in the former part of the
discourse; but having made this process, I had notice of an answer to the
whole by Arnoldus, the professor of
divinity at Franeker; and therefore, that I may not actum agere, nor seem to enter another’s
labour, I shall not directly and κατὰ
πόδα carry on a confutation thereof hereafter, but only divert
thereunto as I shall have occasion, yet not omitting any thing of weight
therein, as in this chapter I have not, as to the matter under
consideration.
Chapter XIX.
Of the kingly office of Jesus Christ, and of the worship that is
ascribed and due to him.
Of the nature of the kingly office
of Jesus Christ, his investiture with it, his administration of it, with
the efficacy of that power which therein he puts forth, both towards his
elect and others, Mr Biddle doth not
administer any occasion to discourse. It is acknowledged by him that he
was, or at least is, a king, by the designation and appointment of the
Father, to whom, as he was mediator, he was subject; that he abides in his
rule and dominion as such, and shall do so to the end of the world; and I
shall not make any farther inquiry as to these things, unless farther
occasion be administered. Upon the account of this authority they
say he is God. But whereas it is certain that this authority of
his shall cease at the end of the world, 1
Cor. xv. 28, it seems that he shall then also cease to be God,
such a God as they now allow him to be.
By some passages in his second and third questions, he
seems to intimate that Christ was not invested in his kingdom before his
ascension into heaven. So question the second, “Is Christ already invested
in his kingdom, and did he, after his ascension and sitting down at the
right hand of God, exercise dominion and sovereignty over men and angels?”
and question third, “For what cause and to what end was Jesus Christ
exalted to his kingdom?” — to which he answers from Phil. ii. 8–10 in both places;
intimating that Christ was not invested with his kingly power until after
his exaltation. (As for the ends of his exaltation, these being some
mentioned, though not all, nor the chief, I shall not farther insist on
them.) But this, as it is contrary to the testimony that himself gave of
his being a king in a kingdom which was not of this world, it being a great
part of that office whereunto he was of his Father anointed, so it is
altogether inconsistent with Mr B.’s
principles, who maintains that he was worshipped with religious worship and
honour whilst he was upon the earth; which honour and worship, says he, are
due to him and to be performed merely upon the account of that power and
authority which is given him of God, as also say all his companions; and
certainly his power and authority belong to him as king. The making of him
a king and the making of him a god is with them all one; but that he was a
god whilst he was upon the earth they acknowledge from the words of Thomas
to him, “My Lord and my God.”
And the title of the 12th chapter of Smalcius’ book, “De Vera Jesu Christi Divinitate,” is,
“De nomine Dei, quod Jesus Christus in
terris mortalis degens habuit;” which in
the chapter itself he seeks to make good by sundry instances, and in the
issue labours to prove that the sole cause of the attribution of that name
to him is from his office; but what office, indeed, he expresseth
not. The name of God, they say, is a name of office and authority; the
authority of Christ, on which account he is to be worshipped, is that which
he hath as king. And yet the same author afterward contends that Christ
was not a king until after his resurrection and ascension. For my part, I am not solicitous about
reconciling him to himself; let them that are so take pains, if they
please, therein. Some pains, I conceive, it may cost them, considering
that he afterward affirms expressly that he was called Lord
and God of Thomas because of his divine rule or kingdom; which, as I
remember, was before his ascension.
As for his exaltation at his ascension, it was not by any
investiture in any new office, but by an admission to the execution of that
part of his work of mediatorship which did remain, in a full and glorious
manner, the whole concernment of his humiliation being past. In the
meantime, doubtless, he was a king when the Lord of glory was crucified,
1 Cor. ii. 8.
But that which remains of this chapter is more fully to be
considered.
Question 4 is, “How ought men to honour the Son of
God?”
From hence to the end of the chapter, Mr B. insists on the religious worship and invocation of Jesus
Christ; which, with all his companions, he places as the consequent of his
kingly office and of that authority wherewith, for the execution and
discharge thereof, from God he is invested. I shall very briefly consider
what is tendered by Mr B. to the purpose
in hand, and then take liberty a little more largely to handle the whole
business of the worship of Jesus Christ, with the grounds, reasons, and
motives thereof.
His fourth question to this matter is, “How ought men to
honour the Son of God, Christ Jesus,” and it is answered, “John v. 23, ‘Even as they honour the
Father.’ ”
This, then, is consented unto on both sides, that Jesus
Christ is to be worshipped and honoured with the same worship and honour
wherewith the Father is worshipped and honoured; that is, with that worship
and honour which is divine and religious, — with that subjection of soul,
and in the performance of those duties, which are due to God alone.
How Socinus himself doubled in this
business and was entangled shall be afterward discovered. What use will be
made of this in the issue of this discourse the reader may easily
conjecture.
His next question, discovering the danger of the
non-performance of this duty of yielding divine honour and worship to
Christ, strengthens the former assertion, and therefore I have nothing to
except or add thereunto.
In question the sixth, Mr
B. labours to defend the throat of his cause against the edge of
that weapon which is sharpened against it by this concession, that Jesus
Christ is to be worshipped with divine worship as the Father is, by a
diversion of it, with a consideration of the grounds of the assignation of
this worship to Christ. His words are:—
Q. Ought men to honour the Son as they honour the Father
because he hath the same essence with the Father, or because he hath the
same judiciary power? what is the decision of the Son himself concerning
this point?
A. John v.
22, 23.
The sum is: The same worship is to be given to
the Father and the Son, but upon several grounds; — to the Father, because
he is God by nature, because of his divine essence; to the Son, because of
a delegated judiciary power committed to him by the Father. For
the discovery of the vanity of this assertion, in the close of our
consideration of this matter, I shall manifest, —
1. That there neither is nor can be any more than one
formal cause of the attribution of the same divine worship to any one; so
that to whomsoever it is ascribed, it is upon one and the same individual
account, as to the formal and fundamental cause thereof.
2. That no delegated power of judgment is or can be a
sufficient ground or cause of yielding that worship and honour to him to
whom it is delegated which is proper to God.
For the present, to the text pleaded, “The Father judgeth
no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should
honour the Son, even as they honour the Father,” I say in brief, that ἵνα πάντες τιμῶσι is not expressive of the
formal cause of the honouring and adoration of Christ, but of an effectual
motive to men to honour him, to whom, upon the account of his divine
nature, that honour is due; — as in the first commandment, “I am the Lord thy God, that brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage; thou shalt have no other gods before me,” that
expression, “That brought thee out of the land of Egypt,” is a motive to
the worship of God, but not the formal cause of it, that being due to him
as he is by nature God, blessed for ever, though he had never brought that
people out of Egypt. But of this more afterward.
Question 7, a farther diversion from the matter in hand is
attempted by this inquiry:—
Q. Did the Father give judiciary power to the Son, because he
had in him the divine nature personally united to the human, or because he
was the Son of man? what is the decision of the Son himself concerning this
point also?
A. “He hath given him authority to execute judgment, because
he is the Son of man,” John v.
27.
1. A point in difference is stated, and its decision
inquired after, wherein there is no such difference at all. Nor do we say
that God gave Christ the judiciary power, wherewith as mediator he is
invested, because he had in him the divine nature personally united to the
human. The power that Christ hath upon the account of his divine nature is
not delegated, but essential to him. Nor can Mr B. name any that have so stated the
difference as he here proposes it.
2. We say not that Christ had in him the divine nature
personally united to the human, but that the human nature was
personally united to the divine, his personality belonging to him upon the
account of his divine nature, not his human.
3. We grant that the judiciary power that was
delegated to Christ as mediator, he being appointed of God to
judge the world, was given him “because he is the Son of man,” or was made
man to be our mediator, and to accomplish the great work of the salvation
of mankind; but that divine worship, proper to God the Father, is due, and
to be yielded and ascribed to him, on this ground and reason, “because he
is the Son of man,” Mr B. cannot prove,
nor doth attempt it.
The 8th, 9th, and 10th questions belong not to us. We
grant it was and is the will and command of God that Jesus Christ, the
mediator, should be worshipped of angels and men, and that he was so
worshipped even in this world, for “when he brought the first-begotten into
the world, he said, Let all the angels of God worship him,” Heb. i. 6; and that he is also to be
worshipped now, having finished his work, being exalted on the right hand
of God; — but that the bottom, foundation, and sold formal cause of the
worship which God so commands to be yielded to him, is any thing but his
being “God, blessed for evermore,” or his being the “only-begotten Son of
God,” there is not in the places mentioned the least intimation.
The 11th and 12th look again the same way with the former,
and with the same success. Saith he, —
Q. When men ascribe glory and dominion to Jesus Christ in the
Scripture, and withal intimate the ground thereof, is it because they
conceive him to be very God, and to have been eternally begotten out of the
divine essence, or because he gave himself to death? let me hear how they
explain themselves?
A. Rev. v. 9.
Q. Are the angels of the same opinion with the saints, when
they also ascribe the glory and dominion to him? let me hear how they also
explain themselves?
A. Rev. v.
11, 12.
Of both these places afterward.
At present, — 1. Christ as a lamb is Christ as mediator,
both God and man, to whom all honour and glory is due.
2. Neither saints nor angels do give, nor pretend to give,
the reason why Christ is to be worshipped, or what is the formal
reason why divine worship is ascribed to him, but only what is in
their thoughts and considerations a powerful and effectual motive to love,
fear, worship, and ascribe all glory to him; as David often cries, “Bless
the Lord, O my soul!” (or assigns glory and honour
to him), because he had done such or such things, intimating a motive to
his worship, and not the prime foundation and cause why he is to be
worshipped.
Having spoken thus to the adoration of Christ, his last
question is about his invocation, which he proves from sundry places of
Scripture, not inquiring into the reasons of it; so that., adding that to
the former concession of the worship and honour due to him, I shall close
these considerations with this one syllogism: “He who is to be worshipped
by angels and men with that divine worship which is due to God
the Father, and to be prayed unto, called on, believed in, is God by
nature, blessed for ever; but, according to the confession of Mr B., Jesus Christ is to be worshipped by
angels and men with that divine worship which is due even to God the
Father, and to be prayed unto: therefore is he God by nature, over all,
blessed for ever.” The inference of the major proposition I shall farther
confirm in the ensuing considerations of the worship that is ascribed to
Jesus Christ in the Scripture.
In the endeavour of Faustus
Socinus to set up a new religion, there was not any thing wherein he
was more opposed, or wherewith he was more exercised by the men of the same
design with himself, than in this, about the worship and invocation of
Jesus Christ. He and his uncle Lælius
urging amongst others this proposition, “That Christ was not God,” Franciscus David, Budæus, Christianus
Franken, Palæologus, with
others, made the conclusion that he was not to be worshipped as God, nor
called upon. With some of these he had sundry disputes and conferences,
and was miserably intricated by them, being unable to defend his opinion
upon his hypothesis of the person of Christ. That Christ is to be
worshipped and invocated, indeed, he proves well and learnedly, as in many
places, so especially in his third
epistle to Matthias Radecius; but coming to knit his arguments to
his other opinion concerning Christ, he was perpetually gravelled, as more
especially it befell him in his dispute with Christianus Franken, anno 1584, as is evident in what
is extant of that dispute, written by Socinus himself. Of the chief argument insisted on by
Franken I shall speak afterward:
see “Disput. cum Franken,”
pp. 24, 25, 28, 35, etc. Against Franciscus
David he wrote a peculiar tract, and to him an epistle, to prove
that the words of Thomas, “My Lord and my God,” were spoken of Christ, and
therefore he was to be worshipped (Epist. p. 186); wherein he positively affirms that there
was no other reading of the words (as David vainly pretended) but what is the common use, because
Erasmus made mention of no such
thing, who would not have omitted it could he have made any discovery
thereof, being justly supposed to be no good friend to the Trinity. That men may know what to judge of some of his
annotations, as well as those of Grotius, who walks in the same paths, is this remarked.
Wherefore he and his associates rejected this Franciscus David afterward as a detestable heretic, and
utterly deserted him when he was cast into prison by the
prince of Transylvania, where he died miserably, raving and crying out that
the devils expected and waited for his company in his journey which he had
to go (Florim. Rem lib. iv. cap.
xii.); the account whereof Smalcius also gives us in his refutation of Franzius, Theses de Hypocrit.
disput. 9, p. 298.
After these stirs and disputations, it grew the common
tenet of Socinus and his followers
(see his epistle to
Enjedinus) that those who denied that Christ was to be worshipped
and invocated were not to be accounted Christians (which how well it agrees
with other of his assertions shall instantly be seen). So Socinus himself leads the way, Respon. ad Niemojevium,
Ep. i.; who is followed by Volkelius. “Unless,”
saith he, “we dare to call on the name of Christ, we should not be worthy
of the name of Christians.” And he is attended by the Racovian Catechism, De præcept. Christi, cap. i., whose
author affirms plainly that he esteemed them not Christians who worshipped
him not, and accounted that indeed they had not Christ, however in word
they durst not deny him.
And of the rest the same is the judgment; but yet with what
consistency with what they also affirm concerning this invocation of
Christ, we shall now briefly consider.
Socinus, in his third epistle to Matthias
Radecius, whom he everywhere speaks honourably of, and calls him
“excellent man,” “friend,” “brother,” and “much-to-be-observed lord” (because he was a great man), who yet denied
and opposed this invocation of Christ, lays this down in the entrance of
his discourse, that there is nothing of greater moment in Christian
religion than the demonstration of this, “That invocation and
adoration, or divine worship, do agree to Christ, although he be a created
thing.” And in
the following words he gives you the reason of the importance of the proof
of this assertion, namely, “Because the Trinitarians’ main strength and
argument lies in this, that adoration and invocation are due to Christ,
which are proper only to the most high God.” Which makes
me bold on the other side to affirm, that there is nothing in Christian
religion more clear, nor more needful to be confirmed, than this, that
divine worship neither is, can, nor ought, by the will of God, to be
ascribed to any who by nature is not God, to any that is a mere creature,
of what dignity, power, and authority soever. But yet now, when this
zealous champion for the invocation of Christ comes to prove his assertion,
being utterly destitute of the use of that which is the sure bottom and
foundation thereof, he dares go no farther, but only says that we
may call upon Christ if we will, but for any precept making it
neccessary so to do, that he says there is none.
And therefore he distinguisheth between the
adoration of Christ and his invocation. For the first, he affirms that it is commanded, or
at least that things are so ordered that we ought to adore him; but of the
latter, says he, “There is no precept, only we may do so if we
will.” The same he had before affirmed in his answer to Franciscus David. Yea, in the same discourse he affirms,
that “if we have so much faith as that we can go with confidence to God
without him, we need not invocate Christ.” “We may,” saith he, “invocate Christ; but we are not
bound so to do.” Whence Niemojevius
falls upon him, and tells him that he had utterly spoiled their cause by
that concession;
to deliver himself from which charge, how pitifully he
intricates himself may be seen in his answer to that epistle. Now, whether
this man hath sufficient cause to exclude any from being Christians for the
non-performance of that which himself dares not affirm that they ought to
do, and with what consistency of principles these things are affirmed, is
easy to judge.
Of the same judgment with him is Volk. de Vera Relig. lib. iv. cap. xi. de
Christi invocatione, Schlichting. ad Meisner., pp. 206, 207,
and generally the rest of them; which again how consistent it is with what
they affirm in the Racovian
Catechism, — namely, that this is an addition which Jesus Christ
hath made to the first commandment, that he himself is to be acknowledged a
God, to whom we are bound to yield divine honour, — I see not; for if this be added
to the first commandment, that we should worship him as God, it is scarce,
doubtless, at our liberty to call upon him or no. Of the same mind is
Smalcius, De Divinitate Jesu Christi,
— a book that he offered to Sigismund III., king of Poland, by the means of Jacobus Sienienska,
palatine of Podolia, in the year 1608; who, in his epistle to the king,
calls him his pastor. And yet the same person doth, in another
place of the same treatise, most bitterly inveigh against them who will not
worship nor invocate Christ, affirming that they are worse than the
Trinitarians themselves, — than
which, it seems, he could invent nothing more vile to compare them with, —
and yet again [he says] that there is no precept that he should be
invocated, Cat. Rac. (that is, the
same person with the former), cap. v. De præcep. Christi, quæ legem
prefecerunt. So also Ostorodius, Compendiolum Doctrinæ Ecclesiæ Christianæ nunc in Polonia
potissimum fiorentis, cap. I. sect. 2.
It is, then, on all hands concluded that Jesus
Christ is to be worshipped with divine and religious worship, due to God
only.
Fixing this as a common and indisputable principle, I shall
subjoin and prove these two assertions:— 1. In general, Divine worship is
not to be ascribed to any that is not God by nature, who is not
partaker of the divine essence and being. 2. In particular, Jesus Christ
is not to be worshipped on the account of the power and authority which he
hath received from God as mediator, but solely on the account of his being
“God, blessed for ever.”
Νήπιος ὅστις ἄνακτα Θεοῦ λόγον αιὲν
ἔοντα
Οὐ σέβετ ἰσοθέωσ πατρὸς
ἐπουρανίου.
Νήπιος ὅστις ἄνακτα λόγον βροτὸν ἔνθα
φανέντα.
Οὐ σέβετ ἰσοθέως οὐρανίοιο
λόγου.
Gregor. Theol. And this is all that
is required in answer to this tenth chapter of Mr B. What follows on the heads mentioned is for the farther
satisfaction of the reader in these things upon the occasion administered,
and for his assistance to the obviating of some other Socinian sophisms
that he may meet withal. I shall be brief in them both.
For the first, Divine worship is not to be ascribed to
them whom God will certainly destroy. He will not have us to worship
them whom himself hateth But, now, all gods that have not made the heavens
and the earth he will destroy from under these heavens: Jer. x. 11, “Thus shall ye say unto
them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they
shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.” It is a thing
that God would have the nations take notice of, and therefore is it written
in the Chaldee dialect in the original, that they who were principally
concerned in those days might take the more notice of it. And it is an
instruction that God put into the mouths of the meanest of his people, that
they should say it to them: “Say ye to them.” And the assertion is
universal, to all whomsoever that have not made the heavens and earth, —
and so is applicable to the Socinians’ Christ. A god they say he is, as
Elijah said of Baal, 1 Kings xviii.
27; he is made so: but that he made the heavens and earth they
deny; and therefore he is so far from having any right to be worshipped,
that God hath threatened he shall be destroyed.
Again; the apostle reckons it among the sins of the
Gentiles that “they worshipped them who by nature were no gods,” Gal. iv. 8, from
which we are delivered by the knowledge of God in the gospel And the weight
of the apostle’s assertion of the sin of the Gentiles lies in this, that by
nature they were not gods who were worshipped. So that this is a thing
indispensable, that divine worship should not be given to any who is not
God by nature; and surely we are not called in the gospel to the practice
of that which is the greatest sin of the heathens, that know not God. And
to manifest that this is a thing which the law of nature gives
direction in, not depending on institution, Rom. i., it
is reckoned among those sins which are against the light of nature. They
“worshipped the creature” (besides, or) “more than” (or with) “the
Creator,” verse 25,
“who is God, blessed for evermore.” To worship a creature, him
who is not the Creator, God, blessed for ever, is that idolatry which is
condemned in the Gentiles as a sin against the light of nature; which to
commit God cannot (be it spoken with reverence!) dispense with the sons of
men (for he cannot deny himself), much less institute and appoint them so
to do. It being, then, on all hands confessed that Christ is to be
worshipped with divine or religious worship, it will be easy to make the
conclusion that he is God by nature, blessed for evermore.
That also is general and indispensable which you have,
Jer. xvii. 5, 6, “Cursed be the man
that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth
from the Lord. For he shall be like the heath in
the desert, and shall not see when good cometh.” That which we worship
with divine worship we trust in, and make it our arm and strength. And
these words, “And whose heart departeth from the Lord,” are not so much an addition to what is before
cursed as a declaration of it. All trust in man, who is no more but so,
with that kind of trust wherewith we trust in Jehovah (as by the
antithesis, verse 7, is evident that it is
intended), is here cursed. If Christ be only a man by nature, however
exalted and invested with authority, yet to trust in him as we trust in
Jehovah, — which we do if we worship him with divine worship, — would, by
this rule, be denounced a cursed thing.
Rev. xix. 10, xxii. 8,
9, do add the command of God to the general reason insisted on
in the places before mentioned: “I fell at his feet to worship him. And he
said, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren
that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God.” So again, chap. xxii. 9. There are evidently
two reasons assigned by the angel why John ought not to worship him:— 1.
Because he was a servant. He that is a servant of God, and is no
more, is not to be worshipped. Now, he that is not God at his best estate,
however exalted, is but a servant in respect of God, and a fellow-servant
of the saints, and no more, chap. vi.
11. All his creatures serve him, and for his will they were
made. Such and no other is the Socinians’ Christ, who is clearly deprived
of all worship by this prohibition and reason of it. 2. From the
command, and the natural and eternal obligation of it, in
these repeated words, Τῷ Θεῷ
προκύνησον. It is the word of the
law that our Saviour himself insists on, Matt. iv. 10, that is here repeated;
and the force of the angel’s reason for the strengthening his prohibition,
is from hence, that no other but he who is God, that God intended by the
law and by our Saviour, Matt. iv.,
is to be worshipped. For if the intendment of the words were only
positive, that God is to be worshipped, and did not also at the same time
exclude every one whatever from all divine worship who is not that God,
they would be of no force for the reproof of John in his attempt to worship
the angel nor have any influence into his prohibition. And thus that
angel, who, chap. v.
9–13, shows John all creatures in heaven and on earth
yielding divine worship and adoration to the Lamb, the Lord Jesus
Christ, in the close of all appropriates all that worship to God himself
alone, and for ever shuts out the most glorious creature from our thoughts
and intentions in the performance of any divine worship or religious
adoration.
And it may hence appear how vain is that plea of the
adversaries, to avoid the force of this reproof, which is managed by Schlichtingius against Meisnerus. “To those places,” saith he, “where
mention is made of God as alone to be worshipped, I answer, that by those
exclusive particles, ‘alone,’ and the like, when they are used of God, they
are not simply excluded who depend on God in that thing which is treated
of. So is he said to be only wise, only powerful, only immortal, and yet
those who are made partakers of them from God ought not simply to be
excluded from wisdom, power, and immortality. Wherefore, when it is said
that God alone is to be worshipped and adored, he ought not to be simply
excluded who herein dependeth on God, because of that divine rule over all
which he hath of him received, yea, he is rather included.” So the most learned of that
tribe. But, —
1. By this rule nothing is appropriated unto God, nor any
thing excluded from a participation with him, by that particle mentioned:
and wherever any thing is said of God only, we are to understand it of God
and others; for on him, in all things, do all other things depend.
2. When it is said that God only is wise, etc., though it
doth not absolutely deny that any other may be wise with that wisdom which
is proper to them, yet it absolutely denies that any one partakes with God
in his wisdom, — is wise as God is wise, with that kind of wisdom
wherewith God is wise. And so where it is said that God only is to be worshipped and honoured, though it doth not exclude all others
from any kind of worship and honour, but that they may have that which is
due to them by God’s appointment, from their excellency and pre-eminence,
yet it doth absolutely exclude any from being worshipped with divine
worship; that is due and proper to God.
3. We shall show afterward that whatever dignity, rule, and
dominion they say is given to Christ, and whatever excellency in him doth
thence arise, yet it is quite of another kind, and stands upon another foot
of account, than that essential excellency that is in God; and so cannot
nor doth require the same kind of worship as is due to God.
4. Angels and men are depending on God in authority and
power, and therefore, if this rule be true, they are not excluded from
divine and religious worship in the command of worshipping God only; and so
they may be worshipped with divine and religious adoration and invocation
as well as Jesus Christ. Neither is it any thing but a mere begging of the
thing in question, to say that it is divine power that is delegated to
Christ, which that is not that is delegated to angels and men. That power
which is properly divine and the formal cause of divine worship is
incommunicable, nor can be delegated, nor is in any who is not essentially
God. So that the power of Christ and angels being of the same kind, though
his be more and greater than theirs as to degrees, they are to be
worshipped with the same kind of worship, though he may be worshipped more
than they.
5. This is the substance of Schlichtingius’ rule, “When any thing is affirmed of God
exclusively to others, — indeed others are not excluded, but included”!
6. We argue not only from the exclusive particle, but from
the nature of the thing itself. So that, this pretended rule and exception
notwithstanding, all and every thing whatever that is not God is by God
himself everlastingly excluded from the least share in divine or religious
worship, with express condemnation of them who assign it to them.
The same evasion with that insisted on by Schlichtingius, Socinus himself had before used, who professes that this is
the bottom and foundation of all his arguments in his disputation with
Franciscus David about the invocation of Christ, that others as well
as God may be worshipped and invocated, in his third epistle to Volkelius, where he labours to
answer the objection of John’s praying for grace from “the seven spirits
that are before the throne of Christ,” Rev. i. 4,
“But why, I pray, is it absurd to affirm that those seven spirits
(supposing them mere creatures) were invocated of John? Is it because God
alone is to be invocated? But that this reason is of no value
that whole disputation doth demonstrate, not only because it is
nowhere forbidden that we should invocate any other but God” (os durum), “but also, and much rather, because
those interdictions never exclude those who are subordinate to God
himself.” That is, as was observed before, they
exclude none at all; for all creatures whatever are subordinate to God. To
say that they are subordinate as to this end, that under him they may be
worshipped, is purely to beg the question. We deny that any is or may be
in such a subordination to God. And the reasons the man adds of this his
assertion contain the grand plea of all idolaters, heathenish and
antichristian: “Whatever is given to them,” saith he, “who are in that
subordination is given to God.” So said the Pagans of old, so say the
Papists at this day; all redounds to the glory of God, when they worship
stocks and stones, because he appoints them so to do. And so said the
Israelites when they worshipped the golden calf: “It is a feast to
Jehovah.” But if John might worship and invocate (which is the highest act
of worship) the seven spirits, Rev. i. 4,
because of their subordination to God, supposing them to be so many created
spirits, why might he not as well worship the spirit or angel in the end of
the book, chap.
xxii. 8, 9, who was no less subordinate to God? Was the matter
so altered during his visions, that whom he might invocate in the entrance
he might not so much as worship in the close?
The Racovian
Catechism takes another course, and tells you that the foundation of
the worship and adoration of Christ is because “Christ had added to the
first commandment that we should acknowledge him for God;” that is, he who
hath divine authority over us, to whom we are bound to yield divine honour.
But, — 1. That Jesus Christ, who is not God by nature, did add to
the command of God that he himself should be acknowledged God, is
intolerable blasphemy, asserted without the least colour or pretence from
the Scripture, and opens a door to downright atheism. 2. The exposition of
his being God, that is, one who hath divine authority over us, is
false. God is a name of nature, not of office and power,
Gal. iv. 8. 3. Christ was
worshipped, and commanded to be worshipped, before his coming in
the flesh, Ps. ii. 12; Gen.
xlviii. 16; Exod. xxiii.
21.
But if this be added to the first commandment, that Christ
be worshipped as God, then is he to be worshipped with the worship required
in the first commandment. Now, this worship is that which is
proper to the only true God, as the very words of it import, “Thou shalt
have no other gods before me.” How, then, will Smalcius reconcile himself with his master, who plainly
affirms that Jesus Christ is not to be worshipped with that divine worship
which is due to God alone, and strives to answer that place of John v. 23 to the contrary, that “all
men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father?” That Christ should be commanded to be worshipped in
the first commandment (or by an addition made thereto), which commands us
to have only one God, and not be worshipped with the worship which is due
to that one God, is one of the mysteries of these men’s religion. But to
proceed:—
Where the formal cause of divine worship is not, there
divine worship ought not to be exhibited; but in no creature there is, nor
can be, the formal cause of divine worship: therefore no creature, who is
only such, can be worshipped without idolatry. The formal reason of any
thing is but one; the reason of all worship is excellency or pre-eminence.
The reason of divine or religious worship is divine pre-eminence
and excellency. Now, divine excellency and pre-eminence is peculiar unto
the divine nature. Wherein is it that God is so infinitely excellent above
all creatures? Is it not from his infinitely good and incomprehensible
nature? Now, look what difference there is between the essence of the
Creator and the creature, the same is between their excellency. Let a
creature be exalted to ever so great a height of dignity and excellency,
yet his dignity is not at all nigher to the dignity and excellency of God,
because there is no proportion between that which is infinite and that
which is finite and limited. If, then, excellency and pre-eminence be the
cause of worship, and the distance between the excellency of God and that
of the most excellent and most highly-advanced creature be infinite, it is
impossible that the respect and worship due to them should be of the same
kind. Now, it is religious or divine adoration that is due to God, whereof
the excellency of his nature is the formal cause: this, then, cannot be
ascribed to any other; — and to whomsoever it is ascribed, thereby do we
acknowledge to be in him all divine perfections; which, if he be not God by
nature, is gross idolatry. In sum, adorability, if I may so say,
is an absolute, incommunicable property of God; adoration thence
arising, a respect that relates to him only.
I shall, for a close of this chapter, proceed to manifest
that Christ himself is not by us worshipped under any other formal reason
but as he is God; which will add some light to what hath already been
spoken. And here, lest there should be any mistake among the
meanest in a matter of so great consequence, I shall deliver my thoughts to
the whole of the worship of Christ in the ensuing observations:—
1. Jesus Christ, the mediator, being Θεάνθρωπος, God and man, the Son of God having assumed
τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον, Luke i. 35, “that holy thing” that
was born of the Virgin, ἀνυπόστατον,
having no subsistence of its own, into personal subsistence with himself,
is to be worshipped with divine, religious worship, even as the Father. By
“worshipped with divine worship,” I mean believed in, hoped in, trusted in,
invocated as God, as an independent fountain of all good, and a sovereign
disposer of all our present and everlasting concernments: by doing whereof
we acknowledge in him, and ascribe to him, all divine perfections, —
omnipotency, omniscience, infinite goodness, omnipresence, and the
like.
This proposition was sufficiently confirmed before. In the
Revelation you have the most solemn representation of the divine, spiritual
worship of the church, both that militant in the earth and that triumphant
in the heavens; and by both is the worship mentioned given to the Mediator:
“Unto him” (to Jesus Christ) “that loved us, and washed us from our sins in
his own blood, be glory and dominion for ever and ever, Amen,” chap. i. 5, 6. So again, the same
church, represented by four living creatures and twenty-four elders, falls
down before the Lamb, chap. v. 8, 12,
“Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and
wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing;” and, verse 13, joint worship is given to
him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb by the whole creation, “And
every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth,
and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying,
Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon
the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever,” etc. And this also is
particularly done by the church triumphant, chap.
vii. 9, 10. Now, the Lamb is neither Christ in respect of the
divine nature nor Christ in respect of the human nature, but it is Christ
the mediator. That Christ was mediator in respect of both natures shall in
due time be demonstrated. It is, then, the person of the mediator, God and
man, who is the “Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world,” to
whom all this honour and worship is ascribed. This the apostle perfectly
confirms, Rom.
xiv. 8–11, “Whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether
we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the
Lord’s. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he
might be Lord both of the dead and living. But why dost thou judge thy
brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand
before the judgment-seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith
the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall
confess to God.” To Christ, exalted in his dominion and sovereignty, we
live and die; to him do we bow the knee and confess, that is, perform all
worship, and stand before him, as at his disposal; we swear by him; — as in
the place from whence these words are taken.
2. That our religious, divine, and spiritual worship, hath
a double or twofold respect unto Jesus Christ: — (1.) As he is the ultimate formal object of our
worship, being God, to be blessed for evermore, as was before declared.
(2.) As the way, means, and cause, of all the good we receive from God in
our religious approach to him.
In the first sense, we call upon the name of Christ,
1 Cor. i. 2: in the other, we ask the
Father in his name, according to his command, John xvi.
23. In the first, we respect him as one with the Father, as one
who thinks it no robbery to be equal with him, Phil. ii.
6; the “fellow of the Lord of hosts,”
Zech. xiii. 7: in the other, as one
that doth intercede yet with the Father, Heb. vii.
25, praying him yet to send the Comforter to us, being yet, in
that regard, less than the Father; and in which respect as he is our head,
so God is his head, as the apostle tells us, 1 Cor. xi.
3, “The head of every man” (that is, every believer) “is Christ,
and the head of Christ is God.” In this sense is he the way whereby we go
to the Father, John xiv.
6; and through him we have an access to the Father, Eph. ii. 18, Διὰ Χριστοῦ πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα. In our worship, with our
faith, love, hope, trust, and prayers, we have an access to God. Thus, in
our approach to the throne of grace, we look upon Christ as the high priest
over the house of God, Heb. iv.
14–16, by whom we have admission, who offers up our prayers and
supplications for us, Rev. viii.
3. In this state, as he is the head of angels and of his whole
church, so is he in subordination to the Father; and therefore he is said
at the same time to receive revelations from the Father, and to send an
angel as his servant on his work and employment, Rev. i.
1. And thus is he our advocate with the Father, 1 John ii. 1. In this respect, then,
seeing that in our access to God, even the Father, as the Father of him and
his, John xx. 17, with our worship,
homage, service, our faith, love, hope, confidence, and supplications,
eyeing Christ as our mediator, advocate, intercessor, upon whose account we
are accepted, for whose sake we are pardoned, through whom we have
admission to God, and by whom we have help and assistance in all that we
have to do with God; it is evident, I say, that in this respect he is not
eyed nor addressed to in our worship as the ultimate, adequate, formal
object of it, but as the meritorious cause of our approach and
acceptance, and so of great consideration therein And therefore, whereas,
Rom. iii. 25, it is said that “God
hath set him forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,” it is
not intended that faith fixes on his blood or blood-shedding, or on him as
shedding his blood, as the prime object of it, but as the meritorious cause
of our forgiveness of sin, through the righteousness of God.
And these two distinct respects have we to Jesus Christ,
our mediator, who is Θεάνθρωπος, God
and man, in our religious worship, and all acts of communion with him: As
one with the Father, we honour him, believe in him, worship him,
as we do the Father; as
mediator, depending on the Father, in subordination to him, so our
faith regards him, we love him and hope in him, as the way, means, and
meritorious cause, of our acceptance with the Father. And in both these
respects we have distinct communion with him.
3. That Jesus Christ, our mediator, Θεάνθρωπος, God and man, who is to be worshipped with
divine or religious worship, is to be so worshipped because he is our
mediator. That is, his mediation is the “ratio quia,” an unconquerable
reason and argument, why we ought to love him, fear him, believe in him,
call upon him, and worship him in general. This is the reason still urged
by the Holy Ghost why we ought to worship him: Rev. i.
5, 6, “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in
his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father;
to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.” Who would not love him,
who would not ascribe honour to him, who hath so loved us and washed us in
his own blood So Rev. v.
12, there is an acknowledgment of the power, riches, goodness,
wisdom, strength, glory, and blessing, that belong to him, because as the
Lamb, as Mediator, he hath done so great things for us. And, I dare say,
there is none of his redeemed ones who finds not the power of this motive
upon his heart. The love of Christ in his mediation, the work he has gone
through in it, and that which he continueth in, the benefits we receive
thereby, and our everlasting misery without it, are all chains upon our
souls to bind us to the Lord Christ in faith, love, and obedience. But yet
this mediation of Christ is not the formal and fundamental
cause of our worship (as shall be showed), but only a motive
thereunto. It is not the “ratio formalis,
et fundamentalis cultus,” but only the “ratio quia,” or an argument thereunto. Thus God
dealing with his people, and exhorting them of old to worship and
obedience, he says, “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of
the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage: thou shalt have no other
gods before me,” Exod.
xx. 2, 3. He makes his benefit of bringing them out of the land
of Egypt the reason of that eternally indispensable moral
worship which he requires in the first commandment: not that that was the
formal cause of that worship, for God is to be worshipped as the first,
sovereign, independent good, as the absolute Lord of all and fountain of
all good, whether he gives any such benefits or no; but yet all his
mercies, all his benefits, every thing he doth for us in his providence and
in his grace, as to the things of this life or of another, are all
arguments and motives to press us to the performance of all that worship
and service which we owe unto him as our God and Creator. “Bless the Lord,
O my soul, and forget not all his benefits,” saith David, Ps. ciii. 1, 2. So is it in the
case of our mediator. For the work of his mediation we are eternally
obliged to render all glory, honour, and thanksgiving to him; but yet his
mediation is not the formal cause thereof, but only an invincible motive
thereunto. Let this, therefore, be our fourth and last observation:—
4. Though Jesus Christ, who is our mediator, God and man,
is to be worshipped with divine worship, even as we honour the Father, yet
this is not as he is mediator, but as he is God, blessed for evermore. He
is not to be worshipped under this reduplication as mediator, though he who
is mediator is to be worshipped, and he is to be worshipped
because he is mediator. That is, his mediatory office is not the
formal cause and reason of yielding divine worship to him, nor under that
consideration is that worship ultimately terminated in him. The formal
reason of any thing, strictly taken, is but one, and it is that from the
concession whereof that thing or effect whereof it is the cause or reason,
without any other help, doth arise or result from it. Now, the formal
cause or reason of all divine worship is the deity or divine
nature; — that being granted, divine worship necessarily follows to be
due; that being denied, that worship also is, and is to be for ever,
denied. We may not worship them who by nature are not God. If it could be
supposed that we might have had a mediator that should not have been God
(which was impossible), religious worship would not have been yielded to
him; and if the Son of God had never been our mediator, yet he was to be
worshipped.
It is the deity of Christ, then, which is the
fundamental, formal cause and reason, and the proper object, of
our worship: for
that being granted, though we had no other reason or argument for it, yet
we ought to worship him; and that being denied, all other reasons and
motives whatever would not be a sufficient cause or warrant for any such
proceeding.
It is true, Christ hath a power given him of his Father
above all angels, principalities, and powers, called “All power in heaven
and in earth,” Matt. xxviii.
18, and “a name above every name,” Phil. ii.
9, giving him an excellency, an ἀξία, as he is μεσίτης
ἱκέτης, as he is the king and head of his church, which is to be
acknowledged, owned, ascribed to him; and the consideration whereof, with
his ability and willingness therein to succour, relieve, and save us to the
uttermost, in a way of mediation, is a powerful, effectual motive (as was
said before) to his worship: but yet this is an excellency which is
distinct from that which is purely and properly divine, and so cannot be
the formal reason of religious worship. Excellency is the cause of honour;
every distinct excellency and eminence is the cause of honour; every
distinct excellency and eminence is the cause of distinct honour and
worship. Now, what excellency or dignity soever is communicated by a way
of delegation is distinct and of another kind from that which is original,
infinite, and communicating, and therefore cannot be the formal cause of
the same honour and worship.
I shall briefly give the reasons of the assertion insisted
on, and so pass on to what remains.
1. The first is taken from the nature of divine or
religious worship. It is that whereby we ascribe the honour and glory of
all infinite perfections to him whom we so worship, — to be the first
cause, the fountain of all good, independent, infinitely wise, powerful,
all-sufficient, almighty, all-seeing, omnipotent, eternal, the only
rewarder; as such we submit ourselves to him religiously, in faith, love,
obedience, adoration, and invocation. But now we cannot ascribe these
divine excellencies and perfections unto Christ as mediator, for then his
mediation should be the reason why he is all this, which it is not; but it
is from his divine nature alone that so he is, and therefore thence alone
is it that he is so worshipped.
2. Christ under this formal conception, as they speak, as
mediator, is not God; but under this, as partaker of the nature of God.
Christ as mediator is an expression, as they speak, in the concrete, whose
form is its abstract. Now, that is his mediation or mediatory office; and
therefore if Christ under this formal conception of a mediator be God, his
mediatory office and God must be the same, which is false and absurd:
therefore as such, or on that fundamental account, he is not worshipped
with divine worship.
3. Christ in respect of his mediation dependeth on God, and
hath all his power committed to him from God: Matt. xi.
27, “All things,” saith he, “are delivered unto me of my
Father;” and chap. xxviii.
18, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth;”
John xvii. 2, “Thou hast given him
power over all flesh;” and in innumerable other places is the same
testified. God gives him as mediator his name, — that is, his authority.
Now, God is worshipped because he is independent: he is, and there is none
besides him; he is Alpha and Omega, — the first and the last.
And if the reason why we worship God with divine worship be because he is
αὐτάρκης and independent, certainly
that wherein Christ is dependent and in subordination to him, as receiving
it from him, cannot be the formal cause of attributing divine worship to
him.
4. Christ in respect of his divine nature is “equal with
God,” that is, the Father, Phil. ii.
6; but in respect of his mediation he is not equal to him, he is
less than he. “My Father,” saith he, “is greater than I,” John xiv. 28. Now, whatever is less
than God, is not equal to him, is infinitely so; for between God and that
which is not God there is no proportion, neither in being nor excellency.
That Christ in respect of his office is not equal to God is commonly
received in that axiom, whereby the arguments thence taken against his
deity are answered, “Inæqualitas officii
non tollit æqualitatem naturæ.” Now, certainly, that which is
infinitely unequal to God cannot be the formal cause of that worship which
we yield to him as God.
5. That which shall cease and is not absolutely eternal
cannot be the formal cause of our worship, for the formal reason of worship
can no more cease than God can cease to be God; for when that ceaseth, we
cease to worship him, which while he is the Creator and sovereign Lord of
his creatures cannot be. Now, that the mediatory office of Christ shall
cease the Holy Ghost affirmeth, 1 Cor. xv.
24, “Then cometh the end,” etc. He then gives up his kingdom to
God. And there is the same reason from the other parts of his mediatory
office. It is true, indeed, the efficacy of his office abideth to
eternity, whilst the redeemed ones live with God and praise him; but as to
the administration of his office, that ceaseth when at the last day, the
whole work of it shall be perfectly consummated, and he hath saved to the
uttermost all that come to God by him.
The sum of all is: Jesus Christ, God and man, our mediator,
who is to be worshipped in all things and invocated as the Father, and whom
we ought night and day to honour, praise, love, and adore, because of his
mediation and the office of it, which for our sakes he hath undertaken, is
so to be honoured and worshipped, not as mediator, exalted of God, and
intrusted with all power and dignity from him, but as being equal with him,
God, to be blessed for ever, his divine nature being the fundamental,
formal reason of that worship, and proper ultimate object of it. And to
close up this digression, there is not any thing that more sharply and
severely cuts the throat of the whole sophistical plea of the Socinians
against the deity of Christ than this one observation. Themselves
acknowledge that Christ is to be worshipped with religious worship, and his
name to be invocated, denying to account them Christians, whatever they
are, who are otherwise minded, as Franciscus
David and those before mentioned were. Now, if there
be no possible reason to be assigned as the formal cause of this worship
but his deity, they must either acknowledge him to be God or deny
themselves to be Christians.
Some directions, by the way, may be given from that which
hath been spoken as to the guidance of our souls in the worship of God, or
in our addresses to the throne of grace by Jesus Christ. What God hath
discovered of himself unto us, he would have us act faith upon in all that
we have to deal with him in. By this we are assured we worship the true
God, and not an idol, when we worship him who has revealed himself in his
word, and as he has revealed himself. Now, God hath declared himself to be
three in one; for it is written, “There are three that bear record in
heaven, and these three are one,” 1 John v.
7. So, then, is he to be worshipped. And not only so, but the
order of the three persons in that Deity, the eternal, internal order among
themselves, is revealed to us. The Father is of none, is αὔταυτος. The Son is begotten of the Father, having
the glory of the only-begotten Son of God, and so is αὐτόθεος in respect of his nature, essence, and being,
not in respect of his personality, which he hath of the Father. The Spirit
is of the Father and the Son. He is often so called the Spirit of God and
the Spirit of the Son. For the term of “proceeding,” or “going forth,” I
profess myself ignorant whether it concern chiefly his eternal personality
or his dispensation in the work of the gospel. The latter I rather like;
of which this is no time to give my reasons. But be those expressions of
what import soever, he is equally the Spirit of the Father and the Son, and
is of them both and from them both. God, then, by us is to be worshipped
as he hath revealed the subsistence of the three persons in this order, and
so are we to deal with him in our approaches to him: not that we are to
frame any conception in our minds of distinct substances, which are not;
but by faith closing with this revelation of them, we give up our souls in
contemplation and admiration of that we cannot comprehend.
2. There is an external economy and dispensation of the
persons in reference to the work of our salvation, and what we draw nigh to
them for. So the Father is considered as the foundation of all mercy,
grace, glory, every thing that is dispensed in the covenant or revealed in
the gospel, the Son receiving all from him, and the Spirit [being] sent by
the Son to effect and complete the whole good pleasure of God in us and
towards us. And in and under the consideration of this economy is God of
us to be worshipped.
“All things,” saith Christ, “are delivered unto me of my
Father,” Matt. xi. 27 (that is, to me as
mediator); therefore “come unto me.” And in his prayer, John xvii. 8, “I have given unto them
the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known
surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.” So most fully John iii. 34, 35. He is sent of
God; and from the love of the Father to him as mediator are all things
given him. “It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell,”
Col. i. 19; John i.
16. John v.
26, “He hath given him to have life,” — that is, as he is
mediator, appointed him to be the fountain of spiritual life to his elect.
And Rev. i. 1, the revelation of the will
of God is given unto Christ by the Father, as to this end of discovering it
to the church.
Hence ariseth the second way of faith’s acting itself
towards God in our worship of him. It eyes the Father as the fountain of
this dispensation, and the Son as the mediator, as the storehouse, and the
Spirit as immediate communicator thereof. Here also it considers the Son
under these two distinct notions:— first, as the ordinance and
servant of the Father in the great work of mediation. So it loves
him, delights in him, and rejoiceth in the wisdom of God in finding out and
giving such a means of life, salvation, and union with himself; and so by
Christ believes in God, even the Father. It considers him, secondly, as
the way of going to the Father; and there it rests, as the ultimate object
of all the religious actings of the soul So we are very often said through
and by Christ to believe in God, and by him to have an access to God and an
entrance to the throne of grace. In this sense, I say, when we draw nigh
to God in any religious worship, yea, in all the first actings and movings
of our souls towards him in faith and love, the Lord Christ is considered
as mediator, as clothed with his offices, as doing the will of the Father,
as serving the design of his love; and so the soul is immediately fixed on
God through Christ, being strengthened, supported, and sustained, by the
consideration of Christ as the only procuring cause of all the good things
we seek from God, and of our interest in those excellencies which are in
him, which make him excellent to us.
And this is the general consideration that faith hath of
Christ in all our dealings with God. We “ask in his name,” “for his sake,”
go to God “on his account,” “through him,” and the like; are strengthened
and emboldened upon the interest of him as our high priest and intercessor;
God the Father being yet always immediately in our eye as the primary
object of our worship. But yet now again, this Christ as mediator, so sent
and intrusted by the Father, as above, is also one with the Father, God, to
be blessed for evermore. Faith also takes in this consideration; and so he
who before was the means of fixing our faith on God is thereupon become the
proper object of our faith himself. We believe in him,
invocate, call upon him, worship him, put our trust in him, and live unto
him. Over and above, then, the distinction that the eternal persons have
in the manner of in-being in the same essence, which also is the object of
our faith, that distinction which they have in the external economy is to
be considered in our religious worship of God; — and herein is Christ
partly eyed as the Father’s servant, the means and cause of all our
communion with God, and so is the medium of our worship, not the object;
partly as God and man vested with that office, and so he is the primary and
ultimate object of it also. And this may give us, I say, some assistance
to order our thoughts aright towards God, and some light into that variety
of expressions which we have in Scripture about worshipping of God in
Christ, and worshipping of Christ also. So is it in respect of the
Spirit.
Having cleared the whole matter under consideration, it may
be worth the while a little to consider the condition of our adversaries in
reference to this business, wherein, of all other things, as I said before,
they are most entangled. Of the contests and disputes of Socinus with Franciscus David about this business, I have given the
reader an account formerly, and of the little success he had therein. The
man would fain have stood when he had kicked away the ground from under his
feet, but was not able. And never was he more shamefully gravelled in any
dispute than in that which he had with Christianus Franken about this business, whereof I
shall give the reader a brief account.
This Franken
seems to have been a subtile fellow, who, denying with Socinus that Christ was God, saw evidently
that it was impossible to find out a foundation of yielding religious
worship or adoration unto him. With him about this matter Socinus had a solemn dispute in the house
of one Paulicovius, anno
1584, March 14. Franken in this disputation was the opponent, and his
first argument is this: “Look how great distance there is between the
Creator and the creature, so great ought the difference to be between the
honour that is exhibited to the one and the other. But between the Creator
and the creature there is the greatest difference, whether you respect
nature and essence, or dignity and excellency; and therefore there ought to
be the greatest difference between the honour of the Creator and the
creature. But the honour that chiefly is due to God is religious worship;
therefore this is not to be given to a creature, therefore not to Christ,
whom you confess to be a mere creature.” This, I say, was his first
argument. To which Socinus answers: “Although the difference between God and the creature be
the greatest, yet it doth not follow that the difference between their
honour must be so; for God can communicate his honour to whom he will,
especially to Christ, who is worthy of such honour, and who is not
commanded to be worshipped without weighty causes for it.”
But, by the favour of this disputant, God cannot give that
honour that is due unto him upon the account of his excellency and
eminency, as he is the first cause of all things and the last end (which is
the ground of divine worship), to any one who hath not his nature. The
honour due to God cannot be given to him who is not God. His honour, the
honour of him as God, is that which is due to him as God. Now, that he
should give that honour that is due to him as God to him which is not God,
is utterly impossible and contradictory to itself. We confess that there
be most weighty causes why Christ should be worshipped, yet but one formal
reason of that worship we can acknowledge; and therefore when Franken had taken off this absurd
answer by sundry instances and reasons, Socinus is driven to miserable evasions. First, he cries
out, “I can answer all these testimonies;” to which when the other
replied, “And I can give a probable answer to all the texts you produce
arguing the adoration of Christ,” being driven to hard shifts, he adds, “I am as certain
of the truth of my opinion as I am that I hold this hat in my hand,” — which is a way of arguing
that is commonly used by men that have nothing else to say. Wherefore
Franken laughs at him, and tells
him, “Your certainty cannot be a rule of truth to me and others, seeing
another man may be found that will say he is most certain to the contrary
opinion.” So that, prevailing nothing by this
means, he is forced to turn the tables; and instead of an answer, which he
could not give to Franken’s
argument, to become opponent and urge an argument against him. Saith he,
“My certainty of this thing is as true as it is true that the apostle saith
of Christ, ‘Let all the angels of God worship him.’ ” But, by the favour of this disputant, this is not his
business. He was to answer Franken’s argument, whereby he proved that
he was not to be worshipped, and not to have brought a contrary testimony,
which is certainly to be interpreted according to the issue of the reason
insisted on. And this was the end of that first argument between them.
The next argument of Franken, whereby he brought his adversary to another
absurdity, had its rise from a distinction given by Socinus about a twofold religious worship; — one kind
whereof, without any medium, was directed to God; the other is yielded him
by Christ as a means. The first he says is proper to God, the other
belongs to Christ only.
Now, he is blind that doth not see that, for what he doth here to save
himself, he doth but beg the thing in question. Who granted him that there
was a twofold religious worship, — one of this sort, and another of that?
Is it a sufficient answer, for a man to repeat his own hypothesis to answer
an argument lying directly against it? He grants, indeed, upon the matter
all that Franken desired, —
namely, that Christ was not to be worshipped with that worship wherewith
God is worshipped, and consequently not with divine. But Franken asks him whether this twofold
worship was of the same kind or no? to which he answered, that
it was because it abode not in Christ, but through him passed to God.
Upon which, after the interposition of another entangling question, the man
thus replies unto him: “This, then, will follow, that even the image of
Christ is to be worshipped, because one and the same worship respects the
image as the means, Christ as the end, as Thomas Aquinas tells us, from whom you borrowed your
figment.” Yet this
very fancy Socinus seems afterward to
illustrate, by taking a book in his hand, sliding it along upon a table,
showing how it passed by some hands where truly it was, but stayed not till
it came to the end: for which gross allusion he was sufficiently derided by
his adversary I shall not insist on the other arguments wherewith on his
own hypothesis he was miserably gravelled by this Franken, and after all his pretence of reason forced to
cry out, “These are philosophical arguments, and contrary to the gospel.”
The disputation is extant, with the notes of Socinus upon it, for his own vindication; which do not
indeed one whir mend the matter. And of this matter thus far.
Chapter XX.
Of the priestly office of Christ — How he was a priest — When he
entered on his office — And how he dischargeth it.
Mr Biddle’s eleventh chapter
examined.
His eleventh chapter is concerning
the priestly office of Jesus Christ. In the first and second questions he
grants him to be a priest, from Heb. iv.
14, and to be appointed to that office by the Father, from
chap. v. 5. The remainder of the
chapter is spent in sundry attempts to prove that Christ was not a priest
whilst he was on the earth, as also to take off from the end of his
priesthood, with the benefit redounding to the church thereby.
For the first, a man would suppose Mr Biddle were fair and ingenuous in his concessions
concerning the priesthood of Jesus Christ. May we but be allowed to
propose a few questions to him, and to have answers suggested according to
the analogy of his faith, I suppose his acknowledgment of this truth will
be found to come exceedingly short of what may be expected. Let him,
therefore, show whether Christ be a high priest properly so called, or only
in a metaphorical sense, with respect to what he doth in heaven for us, as
the high priest of old did deal for the people in their things when he
received mercy from God. Again, whether Christ did or doth offer a proper
sacrifice to God; and if so, of what kind; or only that his offering of
himself in heaven is metaphorically so called. If any shall say that Mr B. differs from his masters in these things,
I must needs profess myself to be otherwise minded, because of his
following attempt to exclude him from the investiture with and execution of
his priestly office in this life and at his death; whence it inevitably
follows that he can in no wise be a proper priest, nor have a proper
sacrifice to offer, but that both the one and the other are metaphorical,
and so termed in allusion to what the high priest among the Jews did for
the people. That which I have to speak to in this ensuing discourse, will
hinder me from insisting much on the demonstration of this, that Christ was
a priest so called, and offered to God a sacrifice of atonement or
propitiation, properly so called, whereof all other priests and sacrifices
appointed of God were but types. Briefly, therefore, I shall do it.
The Scripture is so positive that Jesus Christ, in the
execution of his office of mediation, was and is a priest, a high priest,
that it is, amongst all that acknowledge him, utterly out of question.
That he is not properly so called, but metaphorically,
and in allusion to the high priest of the Jews, as was said, the Socinians
contend. I shall, then, as I said, in the first place, prove that Christ
was a high priest properly so called, and then evince when he
was so, or when he entered on that office:—
1. This first is evident, from that description or
definition of a high priest which the apostle gives, Heb. v. 1, “Every high priest taken
from among men is ordained for men, that he may offer both gifts and
sacrifices for sin.” That this is the description of a high priest
properly so called is manifest from the apostle’s accommodation of this
office spoken of to Aaron, or his exemplifying of the way of entrance
thereinto from that of Aaron, verse 4,
“And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God,
as was Aaron;” that is, to be such a high priest as Aaron was, which here
he describes, — one that had that honour which Aaron had. Now, certainly
Aaron was a high priest properly and truly, if ever any one was so in the
world. That Jesus Christ was such a high priest as is here described, yea,
that he is the very high priest so described by the Holy Ghost, appears
upon this twofold consideration:—
(1.) In general, the apostle accommodates this definition
or description of a high priest to Jesus Christ: Verse 5,
“So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest.” Were it
not that very priesthood of which he treats that Christ was so called to,
it were easy so to reply, “True, to a proper priesthood a man must be
called, but that which is improper and metaphorical only he may assume to
himself, or obtain it upon a more general account, as all believers do;”
but this the apostle excludes, by comparing Christ in his admission to this
office with Aaron, who was properly so.
(2.) In particular, all the parts of this description have
in the Scripture a full and complete accommodation unto Jesus Christ, so
that he must needs be properly a high priest, if this be the description of
such an one:— [1.] He was taken from amongst men. That great
prophecy of him so describes him, Deut. xviii.
18, “I will raise them up a prophet from among their
brethren.” He was taken from among men, or raised up from among men, or
raised up from among his brethren. And, in particular, it is mentioned out
of what tribe amongst them he was taken: Heb.
vii. 13, 14, “For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth
to another tribe: for it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda.” And
the family he was of in that tribe, namely, that of David, is everywhere
mentioned: “God raised up the horn of salvation in the house of his servant
David,” Luke i. 69. [2.] He was ordained
for men, τὰ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, as to
things appointed by God. Καθίσταται
is, “appointed to rule, and preside, and govern, as to the things
of God.” This ordination or appointment is that after mentioned which he
had of God, his ordination to this office: Heb. v. 5,
6, “So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high
priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I
begotten thee,” etc. He had his ordination from God. He who
made him both Lord and Christ made him also a high priest. And he was made
in a more solemn manner than ever any priest was, even by an oath:
Chap. vii. 20, 21, “Inasmuch as not
without an oath,” etc. And he was so appointed for men, to preside and
govern them in things appertaining to God, as it was with the high priest
of old. The whole charge of the house of God, as to holy things, his
worship and his service, was committed to him. So is it with Jesus Christ:
Chap. iii. 6, “Christ is a Son over his
own house; whose house are we.” He is for us and over us in the things of
the worship and house of God. And that he was ordained for men the Holy
Ghost assures us farther, chap. vii.
26, “Such an high priest became us;” he was so for us. Which is
the first part of the description of a high priest, properly so called.
[3.] The prime and peculiar end of this office is to offer gifts and
sacrifices for sin. And as we shall abundantly manifest afterward
that Christ did thus offer gifts and sacrifices for sin, so the apostle
professedly affirms that it was necessary he should do so, because he was a
high priest: Chap. viii. 3, “For every high priest
is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity
that this man have somewhat also to offer.” The force of the apostle’s
argument concerning the necessity of the offering of Christ lies thus:
Every high priest is to offer gifts and sacrifices; but Christ is a high
priest: therefore he must have somewhat to offer. Now, if Christ was not a
high priest properly so called, it is evident his argument would be
inconclusive; for from that which is properly so to that which is only so
metaphorically and as to some likeness and proportion, no argument will
lie. For instance, every true man is a rational creature; but he that
shall thence conclude that a painted man is so will find his conclusion
very feeble. What it is that Christ had to offer, and what sacrifice he
offered, shall afterward be declared. The definition, then, of a high
priest, properly so called, in all the parts of it, belonging unto Christ,
it is necessary that the thing defined belong also unto him.
2. He who is a priest according to the order of a true
and real priesthood, he is a true and real priest. Believers
are called priests, Rev. i. 6,
and are said to offer up sacrifices to God, spiritual sacrifices, such as
God is pleased with, Heb. xiii.
16. Whence is it that they are not real and proper priests?
Because they are not priests of any real order of priesthood, but are so
called because of some allusion to and resemblance of the priests of old in
their access unto God, 1 Pet. ii.
9; Eph. ii. 18; Heb. x.
22. This will also, by the way, discover the vanity of them
among us who would have the ministers of the gospel, in contradistinction
to other believers, be called priests. Of what order were they who did
appropriate that appellation? The absurdity of this figment the learned
Hooker could no otherwise defend than by affirming that priest was an
abbreviation of presbyter, when both in truth and in the
intendment of them that used that term, its sense was otherwise. But to
return. The sons of Aaron were properly priests. Why so? Because they
were so appointed in the line of the priesthood of Levi, according to the
order of Aaron. Hence I assume, Christ being called a priest according to
the order of a true and proper priesthood, was truly and properly so. He
was “a priest after the order of Melchizedek,” Ps. cx.
4; which the apostle often insists on in the Epistle to the
Hebrews. If you say that Christ is called “a priest after the order of
Melchizedek,” not properly, but by reason of some proportion and analogy,
or by way of allusion to him, you may as well say that he was a priest
according to the order of Aaron, there being a great similitude between
them; against which the apostle expressly disputes in the
whole of the 7th chapter to the Hebrews. He therefore was a
real priest, according to a real and proper order.
3. Again; he that was appointed of God to offer sacrifices
for the sins of men was a priest properly so called; but that Christ did so
and was so appointed will appear in our farther consideration of the time
when he was a priest, as also in that following, of the sacrifice he
offered, so that at present I shall not need to insist upon it.
4. Let it be considered that the great medium of the
apostolical persuasion against apostasy in that Epistle to the Hebrews
consists in the exalting of the priesthood of Christ above that of Aaron.
Now, that which is only metaphorically so in any kind is clearly and
evidently less so than that which is properly and directly so. If Christ
be only metaphorically a priest, he is less than Aaron on that
consideration. He may be far more excellent than Aaron in other respects,
yet in respect of the priesthood he is less excellent; which is so directly
opposite to the design of the apostle in that epistle as nothing can be
more.
It is, then, evident on all these considerations, and might
be made farther conspicuous by such as are in readiness to be added, that
Christ was and is truly and properly a high priest; which was the first
thing designed for confirmation.
The Racovian
Catechism doth not directly ask or answer this question, Whether
Christ be a high priest properly so called? but yet insinuates its author’s
judgment expressly to the contrary:—
The sacerdotal office of Christ is placed herein, that as by
his kingly office he can help and relieve our necessities, so by his
sacerdotal office he will help, and actually doth so; and this way of his
helping or relieving us is called his sacrifice.
Thus they begin. But, — 1. That any office of Christ
should bespeak power to relieve us without a will, as is here affirmed of
his kingly, is a proud, foolish, and ignorant fancy. Is this
enough for a king among men, that he is able to relieve his subjects,
though he be not willing? or is not this a proper description of a wicked
tyrant? Christ as a king is willing as well as able to save, Isa. xxxii. 1, 2. 2. Christ as a
high priest is no less able than willing also, and as a king he is no less
willing than able, Heb. vii.
25. That is, as a king he is both able and willing to save us,
as to the application of salvation and the means thereof; as a priest he is
both willing and able to save us, as to the procuring of salvation and all
the means thereof. 3. It is a senseless folly, to imagine that the
sacrifice of Christ consists in the manner of affording us that help and
relief which as a king he is able to give us. Such weak engines do these
men apply for the subversion of the cross of Christ! But of this more
afterward.
But they proceed to give us their whole sense in the next
question and answer, which are as follow:—
Q. Why is this way of his affording help called a
sacrifice?
A. It is called so by a figurative manner of speaking; for as
in the old covenant the high priest entering into the holiest of holies did
do those things which pertained to the expiation of the sins of the people,
so Christ hath now entered the heavens, that there he might appear before
God for us, and perform all things that belong to the expiation of our
sins.
The sum of what is here insinuated is, — 1. That the
sacrifice of Christ is but a figurative sacrifice, and so, consequently,
that he himself is a figurative priest: for as the priest is, such is his
sacrifice, — proper, if proper; metaphorical, if metaphorical. What say
our catechists for the proof hereof? They have said it; not one
word of reason or any one testimony of Scripture is produced to give
countenance to this figment. 2. That the high priest made atonement and
expiation of sins only by his entering into the most holy place and by what
he did there; which is notoriously false, and contrary to very many express
testimonies of Scripture, Lev.
iv. 3, 18, 22, 27, v. 17, vi. 2–7, xvi. 1–6, etc. 3. That
Christ was not a high priest until he entered the holy place; of which
afterward. 4. That he made not expiation of our sins until he entered
heaven and appeared in the presence of God; of the truth whereof let the
reader consult Heb. i. 3. If Christ be a figurative
priest, I see no reason why he is not a figurative king also; and such,
indeed, those men seem to make him.
The second thing proposed is, that Christ was a high priest
whilst he was on the earth, and offered a sacrifice to God. I shall here
first answer what was objected by Mr B.
to the contrary, and then confirm the truth itself.
I say then, first, that Christ was a priest
while he was on earth; and he continueth to be so for ever, — that.is,
until the whole work of mediation be accomplished.
Socinus first
published his opinion in this business in his book, “De Jesu Christo Servatore,”
against Covet. For some time the
venom of that error was not taken notice of. Six years after, as himself
telleth us (Ep. ad Niemojev.
1),
he wrote his answer to Volanus,
wherein he confirmed it again at large; whereupon Niemojevius, a man of his own antitrinitarian infidelity,
writes to him, and asks him sharply (in substance) if he was not mad, to
affirm a thing so contrary to express texts of Scripture. (Ep. Joh. Niemojev. ad Faust.
Socin.) Before him, that atheistical monk Ochinus had dropped some few things in his dialogues
hereabout. Before him, also, Abelardus
had made an entrance into the same abomination; of whom says Bernard, Ep. 190, “Habemus in Francia novum de veteri magistro theologum, qui
ab ineunte ætate sua in arte dialectica lusit; et nunc in Scripturis
sanctis insanit.”
How the whole nation of the Socinians have since consented
into this notion of their master, I need not manifest. It is grown one of
the articles of their creed, as this man here lays it down among the
substantial grounds of Christian religion. Confessedly on their part, the
whole doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ and justification turns on
this hinge: for though we have other innumerable demonstrations of the
truth we assert, yet as to them, if this be proved, no more is needful; for
if Christ was a priest, and offered himself a sacrifice, it cannot but be a
sacrifice of atonement, seeing it was by blood and death. Crellius tells us that Christ died for us on a
double account; partly as the mediator and surety of the new covenant,
partly as a priest that was to offer himself to God. A man might think he granted Christ to have been a
priest on the earth, and as such to have offered himself a sacrifice. So
also doth Volkelius allow the
killing of the sacrifice to represent the death of Christ. Now, the killing of the sacrifice was the
sacrificing of it. So Stuckius proves from that of the poet, “Et nigram mactabis ovem, lucumque revises.” But Crellius afterward expounds himself, and tells us that this
twofold office of Christ (than which nothing can be spoken more
ridiculously) of a mediator and a priest did as it were meet in the death
of Christ, the one ending (that is, his being a mediator), and the other
beginning; and Volkelius doth the like, with a sufficient contradiction
to his assertion, calling the death of Christ the beginning and entrance of
his priesthood. As for his mediatorship, Crellius telleth us that it is most evident that Christ
therein was “subordinate to God” (so he phrases it); that is, he was a
mediator with us for God, and not at all with God for us. And this he proves, because
he put not himself into this office, nor was put into it by us, so as to
confirm the covenant between God and us, but was a minister and messenger
of God, who sent him for this purpose. But the folly of this shall
be afterward manifested. Christ was given of God, by his own consent, to
be a mediator for us, and to lay down his life a ransom for us, 1 Tim. ii. 3–6; which certainly he did
to God for us, and not for God to us, as shall afterward be evinced. But
coming to speak of his priesthood he is at a loss. “When,” saith he, “he
is considered as a priest” (for that he was properly a priest he denies,
calling it “Sacerdotii, et
oblationis metaphora,”) “although he seemeth to be like one who doth
something with God in the name of men, if we consider diligently, we shall
find that he is such a priest as performs something with us in the name of
God.”
This proof is παρὰ τὴν
σύνθεσιν καὶ διαίρεσιν. But this is no new thing with these men:
“Because Christ, as a high priest, doth something with us for God,
therefore he did nothing with God for us;” as though, because the
high priest of old was over the house of God and ruled therein, therefore
he did not offer sacrifices to God for the sins of the people. All that
Crellius in his ensuing discourse hath to
prove this by, is because, as he saith, “Christ offered not his sacrifice
until he came to heaven;” which because he proves not, nor endeavours to do
it, we may see what are the texts of Scripture urged for the confirmation
of that conceit by Mr B. and others.
Seeing all the proofs collected for this purpose are out of
the Epistle to the Hebrews, I shall consider them in order as
they lie in the epistle, and not as transposed by his questions with whom I
have to do.
The first is in his 11th question, thus insinuated: “Why
would God have Christ come to his priestly office by suffering?” According
to the tenor of the doctrine before delivered, the inference is, that until
after his sufferings he obtained not his priestly office, for by them he
entered upon it. The answer is, “Heb. ii. 10, 17,
18.”
Ans. The apostle doth not say absolutely that it
became Christ to be made like us that he might be a high priest,
but that he might be a merciful high priest; that is, his
sufferings and death were not required antecedently that he might be a
priest, but they were required to the execution of that end of his
priesthood which consists in sympathy and sufferance together with them in
whose stead he was a priest. He sustained all his afflictions, and death
itself, not that he might be a priest, but that being merciful, and having
experience, he might on that account be ready to “succour them that are
tempted;” and this the words of the last verse do evidently evince to be
the meaning of the Holy Ghost, “In that he himself hath suffered being
tempted,” etc. His sufferings were to this end of his priesthood, that he
should be “merciful, able to succour them that are tempted.” Besides, it
is plainly said that he was a high priest, εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ or ἱλάσκεσθαι τὸν Θεὸν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, — “to
make reconciliation for the sins of the people.” Now, that reconciliation
was made by his blood and death the Scripture informs us: Rom. v. 10, “When we were enemies, we
were reconciled to God by the death of his Son;” Dan. ix.
24. So that even from this place of Scripture, produced to the
contrary, it is evident that Christ “was a high priest on earth,” because
he was so when he made reconciliation, which he did in his death on the
cross.
But yet Mr B.’s candid
procedure in this business may be remarked, with his huckstering the word
of God. He reads the words in this order: “It became him to make the
captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings, that he might be a
merciful and faithful high priest.” Who would not conclude that this is
the series and tenor of the apostle’s discourse, and that Christ is said to
be made perfect through sufferings, that he might be a merciful high
priest? These words, of “making perfect through sufferings,” are part of
the 10th verse; “that he might be a
merciful high priest,” part of the 17th;
between which two there intercedes a discourse of a business quite of
another nature, — namely, his being “made like his brethren” in taking on
him “the seed of Abraham,” whereof these words, “that he might be a
merciful and faithful high priest,” are the immediate issue; that is, he
had a body prepared him that he might be a priest and have a sacrifice.
“Our high priest was exercised with sufferings and
temptations,” says the apostle: “Jesus was exercised with sufferings and
temptations that he might be our high priest,” says Mr B.!
Heb. viii. 1,
2, is insisted on to the same purpose in his third question,
which is, —
Q. What manner of high priest is Christ?
A. Heb. viii. 1,
2, “We have such a high priest, who is set on the right hand of
the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and
of the true tabernacle,” etc.
I name this in the next place, because it is coincident
with that of chap. iv. 14, insisted on by Socinus, though omitted by our author.
Hence it is inferred that Christ entered the heavens before
he was a high priest, and is a high priest only when he is “set down on the
right hand of the Majesty on high.”
Ans. That Christ is a high priest there also we
grant; that he is so there only, there is not one word in the place cited
to prove. Heb. iv. 14 saith, indeed, that “our
high priest is passed into the heavens,” but it says not that he was not
our high priest before he did so, as the high priest of the Jews entered
into the holy place, but yet he was a high priest before, or he could not
have entered into it. He is “such an high priest who is set on the right
hand of the throne of Majesty;” that is, not like the typical high priest,
who died and was no more, but he abides in his office of priesthood; not to
offer sacrifice, for that he did once for all, but to intercede for us for
ever.
Heb. viii.
4 is nextly produced, in answer to this question, —
Q. Was not Christ a priest whilst he was upon earth, namely,
when he died on the cross?
A. Heb. viii. 4, vii. 15,
16.
The same question and answer are given by the Racovian Catechism, and this is the main
place insisted on by all the Socinians: “For if he were on earth, he should
not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according
to the law.”
Ans. 1. Ἐπὶ γῆς
may be interpreted of the state and condition of him spoken of, and not of
the place wherein he was. If he were ἐπὶ
γῆς, of a mere earthly condition, as the high priest of the Jews, he
should not be a priest: so is the expression used elsewhere. Col. iii. 2, we are commanded “not to
mind τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς,” — that is,
“terrene things, earthly things” And verse 5,
“Mortify your members τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς,”
— that is, “your earthly members.”
2. If the words signify the place, and not the condition of
the things whereof they are [expressive], they may be referred to the
tabernacle, of which he speaks, and not to the high priest. Verse 2, the apostle tells us that he
is the minister or priest of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched,
and not man; and then, verse 3,
that in the other tabernacle there were priests that offered
daily sacrifices: so that, saith he, if this tabernacle ἦν ἐπὶ γῆς, he should not be a priest of it; for in
the earthly tabernacle there were other administrators. But to pass these
interpretations, —
3. The apostle does not say that he that is upon the earth
can be no priest, which must be our adversaries’ argument, if any, from
this place, and thus formed: He that is upon the earth is no priest; Christ
before his ascension was upon the earth: therefore he was no priest. This
is not the intendment of the apostle, for in the same verse he affirms that
there were priests on the earth. This, then, is the utmost of his
intendment, that if Christ had been only to continue on the earth, and to
have done what priests did or were to do upon the earth, there was neither
need of him nor room for him; but now he is a priest, seeing he was not to
take upon him their work, but had an eternal priesthood of his own to
administer. There is no more in this place than there is in chap. vii. 19, 23,
24; which is a clear assertion that Christ had a priesthood of
his own, which was to perfect and complete all things, being not to share
with the priests, that had all their work to do upon the earth; and in
verses 13–15 of chap. vii. you have a
full exposition of the whole matter. The sum is, Christ was none of the
priests of the old testament, no priest of the law; all their earthly
things vanished when he undertook the administration of the heavenly. So
that neither doth this at all evince that Christ was not a priest of the
order of Melchizedek even before his ascension.
To this Heb. vii.
15, 16 is urged, and these words, “After the power of an endless
life,” are insisted on; as though Christ was not a priest until after he
had ended his life and risen again.
But is this the intendment of the apostle? doth he aim at
any such thing? The apostle is insisting on one of his arguments, to prove
from the institution of the priesthood of Melchizedek, or rather a
priesthood after his order, the excellency of the priesthood of Christ
above that of Aaron. From the manner of the institution of the one and of
the other this argument lien Says he, “The priests of the Jews were made
κατὰ νόμον ἐντολῆς σαρκικῆς, according
to the law of a carnal commandment,” — that is, by carnal rites and
ceremonies, by carnal oil and ordinances; “but this man is made a priest
after the order of Melchisedec, κατὰ δύναμιν
ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου, by virtue of an endless life, — by the appointment
of God, having such a life as should never by death interrupt him in the
administration of his office:” for though the life of Christ was
intercepted three days, yet his person was never dissolved as to the
administration of his office of priesthood, which is the thing spoken of,
and in respect of that he had an “endless life.”
Question 9 is to the same purpose:—
Q. How did Christ enter into the holy place to
offer himself?
A. Heb. ix.
12, “By his own blood.”
Ans. Would not any one imagine, [from this
question,] that it was said in the Scripture that Christ entered into the
holy place to offer himself? that that is taken for granted, and the
modus or manner how he did it is alone inquired after? This is
but one part of the sophistry Mr B. makes
use of in this Scripture Catechism; but it is so far from being a true
report of the testimony of the Scripture, that the plain contrary is
asserted, — namely, that Christ offered himself before his entrance into
the holy place not made with hands, and then entered thereinto, to appear
in the presence of God for us. Christ entered by his own blood into the
holy place, inasmuch as, having shed and offered his blood a sacrifice to
God, with the efficacy of it, he entered into his presence to carry on the
work of his priesthood in his intercession for us; as the high priest,
having offered without a sacrifice to God, entered with the blood of it
into the most holy place, there to perfect and complete the duties of his
office in offering and interceding for the people.
The remaining questions of this chapter may be speedily
despatched. His sixth is:—
Q. What benefit happeneth by Christ’s priesthood?
A. Heb. v. 9,
10.
Though the place be very improperly urged as to an answer
to the question proposed, there being very many more testimonies clearly
and distinctly expressing the immediate fruits and benefits of the priestly
office of Christ, yet because we grant that by his priesthood, principally
and eminently, Christ is become the author of salvation, we shall not
dissent as to this question and answer. Only, we add as to the manner,
that the way whereby Christ by his priesthood became the author of
salvation consists principally in the offering up of himself to death in
and by the shedding of his blood, whereby he obtained for us eternal
redemption, Heb. ix. 14,
26.
But this Mr B. makes
inquiry after:—
Q. How can Christ save them by his priesthood?
A. Heb. vii. 25, ix.
28.
Ans. We acknowledge the use of the intercession of
Christ for the carrying on and the completing of the work of our salvation,
as also that it is the apostle’s design there to manifest his ability to
save beyond what the Aaronical priests could pretend unto, which is
mentioned chap. vii. 25; but that “he saves us
thereby,” exclusively to the oblation he made of himself at his death, or
any otherwise but as carrying on that work whose foundation was laid
therein (redemption being meritoriously procured thereby), I suppose Mr B. doth not think that this place is any way
useful to prove. And that place which he subjoins is not added at all to
the advantage of his intendment; for it is most evident that
it is of the offering of Christ by death and the shedding of his blood, or
the sacrifice of himself, as verse 26,
that the apostle there speaks.
There is not any thing else that is needful for me to
insist upon in this chapter; for though the Scripture instructs us in many
other uses that we are to make of the doctrine of the priesthood of Christ
than what he expresses in his last question, yet that being one eminent one
amongst them (especially the foundation of coming with boldness to the
throne of grace, being rightly understood), I shall not need to insist
farther on it.
Not to put myself or reader to any needless trouble, Mr B. acknowledging that Christ is a high
priest, and having opposed only his investiture with the office whilst he
was upon the earth, and that to destroy the atonement made by the sacrifice
of himself, having proved that he was a priest properly so called, I shall
now prove that he was a high priest whilst he was upon earth, and show
afterward what he had to offer, with the efficacy of his sacrifice, and the
intent thereof:—
1. The Scripture will speedily determine the difference:
Eph. v. 2, “Christ hath loved us, and
hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a
sweet-smelling savour.” He that offereth sacrifices and offerings unto God
is a priest; so the apostle defines a priest, Heb. v. 1.
He is one “taken from amongst men,” and “ordained to offer both gifts and
sacrifices for sins,” Now, thus did Christ do in his giving himself for us.
Παρέδωκεν, “he delivered himself for
us.” “To deliver himself,” or “to be delivered for us,” notes his death,
always in contradistinction to any other act of his: so Eph. v. 25, Gal. ii.
20, Rom. viii. 32, iv.
25, Ὃς παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα
ἡμῶν καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν. In that delivery of himself
he sacrificed, therefore he was then a priest.
To this Socinus
invented an answer, in his book “De Servatore,” which he insists on again, Ep. 2 ad Niemojev., and whereunto
his followers have added nothing, it being fixed on by them all, in
particular by Smalcius in Cat. Rac.; and yet it is in itself
ludicrous, and almost jocular. The words, they tell us, are thus to be
read: Παρέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, and
there they place a point in the verse, προσφορὰν καὶ θυσίαν τῷ Θεῷ, without any dependence
upon the former words; making this to be the sense of the whole: “Christ
gave himself to death for us; and O what an offering was that to God! and O
what a sacrifice!” that is, in a metaphorical sense; not that Christ
offered himself to God for us, but that Paul called his giving himself to
die “an offering,” or a thing grateful to God, as good works are called “an
offering,” Phil. iv. 18; — that is, the dying of
Christ was “præclarum facinus,” as
Volkelius speaks. But, —
(1.) It is easy to answer or avoid any thing
by such ways as this. Divide, cut off sentences in the dependence of the
words, and you may make what sense of them you please, or none at all.
(2.) These words, προσφορὰν
καὶ θυσίαν, have no other word to be regulated by but παρέδωκεν, and therefore must relate
thereunto; and Christ is affirmed in them to have given himself “an
offering and a sacrifice.”
(3.) These words, “An offering and a sacrifice,” are not a
commendation of Christ’s giving himself, but an illustration and a
description of what he gave, — that is, himself, a sacrifice of sweet
savour to God. So that notwithstanding this exception (becoming only them
that make it), it is evident from hence that Christ offered himself a
sacrifice in his death, and was therefore then a priest fitted for that
work.
2. Heb. v. 6,
7, “As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for
ever after the order of Melchisedec. Who in the days of his flesh, when he
had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto
him that was able to save him from death,”’ etc. Verse
6, the apostle tells us that he was a priest; and, verse 7, what he did by virtue of that
priesthood, — προσήνεγκε δεήσεις καὶ
ἱκετηρίας. It is a temple expression of the office of a priest that
is used. So verse 1, a high priest is appointed
ἵνα προσφέρῃ, “that he may offer.”
Now, when did Christ do this? It was “in the days of his flesh, with
strong crying and tears;” both which evidence this his offering to have
been before his death and at his death. And his mentioning of prayers and
tears is not so much to show the matter of his offering, which was himself,
as the manner, or at least the concomitants of the sacrifice of himself, —
prayers and tears. And these were not for himself, but for his church, and
the business that for their sakes he had undertaken.
3. Heb. i. 3,
“When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the
Majesty on high.” The purging of our sins was by sacrifice; there was
never any other way καθαρισμοῦ. But
now Christ did this before his ascension: Καθαρισμὸν ποιησάμενος, — “When he had by himself,” or
after he had, “purged our sins;” and that δἰ
ἑαυτοῦ, “by himself,” or the sacrifice of himself. That our sins
are purged by the oblation of Christ the Scripture is clear; hence his
blood is said to “cleanse us from all sin,” 1 John i.
7. And, Heb. x.
10, “sanctified” is the same with “purged,” and this “through
the offering of the body of Christ ἐφάπαξ.” Christ, then, offering this sacrifice whilst
he was on the earth, was a priest in so doing.
Unto this may be added sundry others of the same import:
Chap. vii. 27, “Who needeth not daily,
as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and
then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.”
The one sacrifice of Christ is here compared to the daily
sacrifices of the priests. Now, those daily sacrifices were not performed
in the most holy place, whither the high priest entered but once in a year;
which alone was a representation of heaven: so that what Christ did in
heaven cannot answer to them, but what he did on earth, before he entered
the holy place not made with hands.
And chap. ix.
12, “He entered by his own blood into the holy place, αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος,” — “after he had
obtained eternal redemption.” Redemption is everywhere in the Scripture
ascribed to the blood of Christ; and himself abundantly manifesteth in what
account it is to be had, when he says that “he gave his life a ransom,” or
“a price of redemption.” Where and when Christ laid down his life we know;
and yet that our redemption or freedom is by the offering of Christ for us
is as evident: Chap. ix. 26, “He put away sin” (which
is our redemption) “by the sacrifice of himself;” so that this sacrifice of
himself was before he entered the holy place; and consequently he was a
priest before his entrance into heaven. It is, I say, apparent from these
places that Christ offered himself before he went into the holy place, or
sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high; which was to be proved
from them.
4. Christ is often said to “offer himself once for all;”
designing by that expression some individual action of Christ, and not such
a continued course of procedure as is his presentation of himself in
heaven, or the continuation of his oblation, as to its efficacy, by his
intercession. So Heb. vii.
27, Τοῦτο ἐποίησεν ἐφάπαξ
ix. 28, Ἅπαξ προσενεχθείς, etc.; x. 10, 12,
14. In all these places the offering of Christ is not only said
to be one, but to be once offered. Now, no offering of Christ besides that
which he offered on the earth can be said to be once offered; for that
which is done in heaven is done always and for ever, but that which is done
always cannot be said to be done once for all. To be always done or in
doing, as is Christ’s offering himself in heaven, and to be done once for
all, as was the oblation spoken of in those places, whereby our sins are
done away, are plainly contradictory. It is said to be so offered ἅπαξ as to be opposed unto πολλάκις, whereby the apostle expresses that of the
Aaronical sacrifice, which in two other words he had before delivered.
They were offered εἰς τὸ διηνεκές and
καθ ἡμέραν, that is, πολλάκις: in which sense his offering himself in
heaven cannot be said to be done ἅπαξ
but only that on the cross. Besides, he was ἅπαξ προσενεχθεὶς εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας,
chap. ix. 28, and how he did that we
are informed, 1 Pet. ii.
24, Ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς
ἀνήεγκεν ἐν τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον, — he did it in
his own body on the tree.
Besides, the apostle, Heb. ix.
26, tells us that he speaks of such an offering as was
accompanied with suffering: “He must often have suffered since the
foundation of the world.” It was such an offering as could
neither be repeated nor continued without suffering that he treats of. We
do not deny that Christ offers himself in heaven, — that is, that he
presents himself as one that was so offered to his Father; but
the offering of himself, that was on earth: and therefore
there was he a priest.
5. Once more; that sacrifice which answered those
sacrifices whose blood was never carried into the holy place, that must be
performed on earth, and not in heaven. That many proper sacrifices were
offered as types of Christ, whose blood was not carried into the holy
place, the apostle assures us, Heb. x.
11. The daily sacrifices had none of their blood carried into
the holy place, for the high priest went in thither only once in the year;
but now these were all true sacrifices and types of the sacrifice of
Christ, and therefore the sacrifice of Christ also, to answer the types,
must be offered before his entrance into heaven, as was in part declared
before: yea, there was no other sacrifice of these but what was performed
in their killing and slaying; and therefore there must be a sacrifice,
prefigured by them, consisting in killing and shedding of blood. All this
is asserted by the apostle, Heb. vii.
27, “Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to
offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins and then for the people’s: for
this he did once, when he offered up himself.” Those sacrifices which were
offered καθ ἡμέραν, “daily,”
were types of the sacrifice of Christ, and that of his which was offered
ἐφάπαξ did answer thereunto, — which
was his death, and nothing else.
Chapter XXI.
Of the death of Christ, the causes, ends, and fruits thereof,
with an entrance into the doctrine of his satisfaction thereby.
Mr Biddle’s twelfth chapter is concerning the death of Christ, the
causes, and fruits, and ends thereof; the error and mistake whereabout is
the second great head of the Socinian religion. Next to his person, there
is not any thing they set themselves so industriously to oppose as his
death, in the sense wherein it hath constantly hitherto been embraced by
all Christians, — as the great foundation of their faith and
confidence.
That the Lord Jesus, our mediator, did not, by his death
and sufferings, undergo the penalty of the law as the punishment due to our
sins; that he did not make satisfaction to God, or make reconciliation for
transgressors; that he did not thereby properly redeem us by the payment of
a ransom, nor so suffer for us as that our sins should, in the justice of
God, be a meritorious cause of his suffering, — is the second
great article of the creed which they labour to assert and maintain.
There is not any thing about which they have laid out so
much of their strength as about this, namely, that Jesus Christ is called
our Saviour in respect of the way of salvation which he hath revealed to
us, and the power committed to him to deliver us and save us, in and by
obedience required at our hands, not on the account of any satisfaction he
hath made for us, or atonement by the sacrifice of himself.
How Faustus Socinus
first broached this opinion, with what difficulty he got it to be
entertained with the men of his own profession as to the doctrine of the
Trinity, has been before declared. What weight he laid upon this opinion
about the death of Christ, and the opposition he had engaged in against his
satisfaction, with the diligence he used and the pains he took about the
one and the other, is evident from his writings to this purpose which are
yet extant. His book, “De Jesu Christo Servatore,” is wholly taken up with this
argument; so is the greatest part of his “Prelections;” his “Lectiones Sacræ” are some of them on the
same subject; and his “Parænesis” against Volanus, many of his epistles, especially those to Smalcius, and Volkelius, and Niemojevius, as also his treatises about justification, have the
same design. Smalcius is no less
industrious in the same cause, both in his Racovian Catechism and in his answers and replies with
Franzius and Smiglecius. It is the main
design of Schlichtingius’ comment on the Hebrews, Crellius, “De Causis Mortis Christi,” and in his defence of
Socinus against Grotius, dwells on this doctrine. Volkelius hath his share in the same work,
etc.
What those at large contend for, Mr B. endeavours slily to insinuate into his catechumens in
this chapter. Having, therefore, briefly spoken of salvation by Christ,
and of his mediation in general, in consideration of his sixth and seventh
chapters, I shall now, God assisting, take up the whole matter, and, after
a brief discovery of his intendment in his queries concerning the death of
Christ, give an account of our whole doctrine of his satisfaction,
confirming it from the Scriptures, and vindicating it from the exceptions
of his masters.
For the order of procedure, I shall first consider Mr B.’s questions; then state the point in
difference by expressing what is the judgment of our adversaries concerning
the death of Christ, and what we ascribe thereto; and then demonstrate from
the Scripture the truth contended for.
Mr B.’s first question
is, —
Q. Was it the will and purpose of God that Christ
should suffer the death of the cross? What saith the apostle Peter to the
Jews concerning this?
A. Acts
ii. 22, 23.
To which he subjoins, —
Q. What say the disciples in general concerning the same?
A. Acts
iv. 24–28.
It is not unknown what difference we have both with the
Socinians and Arminians about the purposes and efficacious decrees, and the
infallibility of the prescience of God. Something already hath been spoken
to this purpose, in our discourse concerning the prescience of God, as
formerly in that of perseverance. How unable Mr
B.’s companions are to disentangle themselves from the evidence of
that testimony which is given to the truth we contend for by these texts
which here he with so much confidence recites, hath been abundantly by
others demonstrated. I shall not here enter into the merits of that cause,
nor shall I impose on Mr B. the opinion
of any other man which he doth not expressly own; only I shall desire him
to reconcile what he here speaks in his query with what he before delivered
concerning “God’s not foreseeing our free actions that are for to come.”
What God purposes shall be and come to pass, he certainly foresees that
that will come to pass. That Christ should die the death of the
cross was to be brought about by the free actions of men, if any thing in
the world was ever so, and accomplished in the same manner; yet that this
should be done, yea, so done, God purposed: and therefore, without doubt,
he foresaw that it should be accomplished, and so foresaw all the free
actions whereby it was accomplished. And if he foresaw any one free
action, why not all, there being the same reason of one and all? But at
the present let this pass. His second question is, —
Q. Did Christ die to reconcile and bring God to us, or, on the
contrary, to bring us to God?
A. Rom. v. 10; Eph. ii. 14, 16;
2 Cor. v. 19; 1
Pet. iii. 18.
That I may by the way speak a little to this question,
reserving the full discussion of the matter intended to the ensuing
discourse, the terms of it are first to be explained:—
1. By “reconciling God,” we intend the making of such an
atonement as whereby his wrath or anger, in all the effects of it, is
turned away. Though we use not the expression of “reconciling God to us,”
but of “reconciling us to God,” by the taking away or removal of his wrath
and anger, or the making reconciliation with God for sin, yet, as to
reconcile God intends the appeasing of the justice and anger of God, so
that whereas before we were obnoxious to his displeasure, enmity, hatred,
and wrath, thereby and on that account, we come to be accepted with him, we
say Christ died to reconcile God to us; which in the progress
of this discourse, with plentiful demonstrations from the Scripture, shall
be evinced.
2. Of “bringing God to us” we speak not; unless by
“bringing God to us” he intends the procurement of the grace and favour
of God toward us, and his loving presence to be with us, and then we
say in that sense Christ by his death brought God to us.
3. “Our reconciliation to God,” or the reconciliation as it
stands on our part, is our conversion unto God, our deliverance
from all that enmity and opposition unto God which are in us by nature; and
this also we say is the effect and fruit of the death of Christ.
4. “Our bringing unto God,” mentioned 1
Pet. iii. 18, is of a larger and more comprehensive
signification than that of our reconciliation, containing the whole effect
of the death of Christ, in the removal of every hinderance and the
collation of every thing necessarily required to the perfect and complete
accomplishment of the work of our salvation; and so contains no less the
reconciliation of God to us than ours to him, and is not proper to make up
one member of the division there instituted, being a general expression of
them both.
Now, concerning these things Mr
B. inquires whether Christ by his death reconciled God to us, or, on
the contrary, us to God; so insinuating that one of these effects of the
death of Christ is inconsistent with the other. This seems to be the man’s
aim:—
1. To intimate that this is the state of the difference
between him and us, that we say Christ died “to reconcile God to us;” and
he, that he died “to reconcile us to God.”
2. That these things are contrary, so that they who say the
one must deny the other; — that we, who say that Christ died to reconcile
God to us, must of necessity deny that he died to reconcile us to God; and
that he also, who saith he died to reconcile us to God, may and must deny,
on that account, the other effect by us ascribed to his death. But this
sophistry is so gross that it is not worth the while to insist upon its
discovery. We say that Christ died to reconcile God to us, in the sense
before explained, and us unto God; and these things are so far from being
of any repugnancy one to another, as to the making up of one entire end and
effect of the death of Christ, that without them both the work of
reconciliation is by no means complete.
Not to prevent the full proof and evidence hereof, which is
intended, it may at present suffice that we evince it by the light of this
one consideration: If in the Scripture it is expressly and frequently
affirmed, that, antecedently to the consideration of the death of
Christ and the effects thereof, there is not only a real enmity on
our part against God, but also a law enmity on the part of God
against us, and that both of these are removed by virtue of the death of
Christ, then the reconciliation of God to us and our
reconciliation to God are both of them one entire effect of the death of
Christ. That there is in us by nature a real enmity against God, before it
be taken away by virtue of the death of Christ, and so we reconciled to
him, is not denied; and if it were, it might be easily evinced from
Rom. viii. 7, 8, Tit. iii. 3, Eph. ii.
12, and innumerable other places. And certainly the evidence on
the other side, that there was a law-enmity on the part of God against us,
antecedent to the consideration of the death of Christ, is no less clear.
The great sanction of the law, Gen. iii.,
Deut. xxvii. 26, considered in
conjunction with the justice of God, Rom. i.
32, Hab. i. 13, Ps. v.
4–6, 2
Thess. i. 5, 6, and the testimonies given concerning the state
and condition of man in reference to the law and justice of God, John iii. 36, Rom. v.
18, Eph. ii. 3, 12, etc.,
with the express assignation of the reconciliation pleaded for to be made
by the death of Christ, Dan. ix.
24, Heb. ii. 14, do abundantly evince it.
There being, then, a mutual enmity between God and us, though not of the
same kind (it being physical on our part, and legal or moral on the part of
God), Christ, our mediator, making up peace and friendship between us doth
not only reconcile us to God by his Spirit, but God also to us by his
blood. But of this more afterward, under the consideration of the death of
Christ as it was a sacrifice.
For the texts cited by Mr
B. as making to his purpose, the most, if not all of them, look
another way than he intends to use them; they will in the following chapter
come under full consideration. Rom. v.
10, “When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the
death of his Son,” is the first mentioned. That our being reconciled to
God in this place doth not intend our conversion to him, and our deposition
of the real enmity that is in us against him, but our acceptance with him
upon the account of the atonement made in the blood of Christ, whereby he
is reconciled to us, is evident from sundry circumstances of the place;
for, —
1. That which is called being “reconciled by his death,” in
verse 10, is being “justified by his
blood,” verse 9. The observation of the same
antithesis in beth verses makes this evident. Now, to be justified by the
blood of Christ is not to have our enmity with God slain and destroyed
(which is our sanctification), but our acceptation with God upon the
account of the shedding of the blood of Christ for us; which is his
reconciliation to us.
2. We are thus reconciled when we are enemies, as in the
verse insisted on, “When we were enemies, we were reconciled.” Now, we are
not reconciled in the sense of deposing our enmity to God (that deposition
being our sanctification) whilst we are enemies; and therefore it is the
reconciliation of God to us that is intended.
3. Verse 11,
we are said to “receive” this “reconciliation,” or, as the
word is rendered, the “atonement,” καταλλαγήν. The word is the same with that used
verse 10. Now, we cannot be said to
receive our own conversion; but the reconciliation of God by the blood of
Christ, his favour upon the atonement made, that by faith we do
receive.
Thus Mr B.’s first
witness speaks expressly against him and the design for the carrying on
whereof he was called forth, as afterward will more fully appear.
His second also, of Eph. ii. 14, 16,
speaks the same language, “He is our peace, who hath made both one, that he
might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the
enmity thereby.” Setting aside the joint design of the apostle, to
manifest the reconciliation made of Jews and Gentiles by the cross of
Christ, it is evident the reconciliation here meant consists in slaying the
enmity mentioned, so making peace. Now, what is the enmity intended? Not
the enmity that is in our hearts to God, but the legal enmity that lay
against us on the part of God, as is evident from verse
15 and the whole design of the place, as afterward will appear
more fully.
There is, indeed, 2 Cor.
v. 18–20, mention made of reconciliation in both the
senses insisted on; — of us to God, verse
20, where the apostle saith the end of the ministry is to
reconcile us to God, to prevail with us to lay down our emnity against him
and opposition to him; of God to us, verse
19, “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself:”
which to be the import of the words is evinced from the exegetical
expression immediately following, “Not imputing their trespasses unto
them.” God was so reconciling the world unto himself in Christ as that,
upon the account of what was done in Christ, he will not impute their sins;
the legal enmity he had against them, on the account whereof alone men’s
sins are imputed to them, being taken away. And this is farther cleared by
the sum of his former discourse, which the apostle gives us, verse 21, declaring how God was in
Christ, reconciling the world to himself: “For,” saith he, “he hath made
him sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of
God in him.” Thus he was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, in
that he made him to be sin, or a sacrifice for sin, so to make an atonement
for us, that we might be accepted before God as righteous on the account of
Christ.
Much less doth that of 1 Pet. iii.
18, in the last place mentioned, speak at all to Mr B.’s purpose: “Christ hath once suffered for
sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.” “Bringing
to God” is a general expression of the accomplishment of the whole work of
our salvation, both in the removal of all hinderances and the collation of
all things necessary to the fulfilling of the work. Of this the apostle
mentions the great fundamental and procuring cause, which is the suffering
of Christ in our stead, the just for the unjust. Christ in
our stead suffered for our sins, that he might bring us to God. Now, this
suffering of Christ in our stead, for our sins, is most eminently the cause
of the reconciliation of God to us; and, by the intimation thereof, of our
reconciliation to God, and so of our manuduction to him.
Thus, though it be most true that Christ died to reconcile
us to God by our conversion to him, yet all the places cited by Mr B. to prove it (so unhappy is he in his
quotations) speak to the defence of that truth which he doth oppose, and
not of that which he would assert; and which by asserting in opposition to
the truth, with which it hath an eminent consistency, he doth corrupt.
The next question I shall not insist upon; it is concerning
the object of the death of Christ and the universality thereof. The words
of it are, “For whom did Christ die?” The answer is from 2 Cor. v. 14, 15; 1 Tim. ii. 6; Heb. ii.
9; John iii.
16; where mention is made of “all” and “the world,” in reference
to the death of Christ. The question concerning the object of the death of
Christ, or for whom he died, hath of late by very many been fully
discussed, and I have myself spoken elsewhere somewhat to that
purpose. It
shall not, then, here be insisted on. In a word, we confess that Christ
died for “all” and for “the world;” but whereas it is very seldom that
these words are comprehensive of all and every man in the world, but most
frequently are used for some of all sorts, — they for whom Christ died
being in some places expounded to be “the church, believers, the children,
those given unto him out of the world,” and nowhere described by any term
expressive constantly of an absolute universality, — we say the words
insisted on are to be taken in the latter sense, and not the former; being
ready, God assisting, to put it to the issue and trial with our adversaries
when we are called thereunto.
He proceeds:—
Q. What was the procuring cause of Christ’s death?
A. Rom. iv.
25; Isa. liii.
5; 1 Cor. xv.
3.
The expressions are, that Christ was “delivered for our
offences,” that Christ was “bruised for our iniquities,” and “died for our
sins.”
That in these and the like places, that clause, “For our
offences, iniquities, and sins,” is expressive of the procuring cause of
the death of Christ, Mr B. grants. Sin
can be no otherwise the procuring cause of the death of Christ but as it is
morally meritorious thereof. To say, “Our sins were the procuring cause of
the death of Christ,” is to say that our sins merited the death of Christ;
and whereas this can no otherwise be but as our sins were imputed to him,
and he was put to death for them, Mr B. hath in this one question granted the whole of what in
this subject he contends against! If our sins were the procuring
cause of the death of Christ, then the death of Christ was that
punishment which was due to them, or in the justice, or according to the
tenor, of the law of God, was procured by them; and so, consequently, he in
his death underwent the penalty of our sins, suffering in our stead, and
making thereby satisfaction for what we had done amiss. Mr B.’s masters say generally that the
expression of “dying for our sins” denotes the final cause of the
death of Christ; that is, Christ intended by his death to confirm the
truth, in obedience whereunto we shall receive forgiveness of sin. This
grant of Mr B.’s, that the procuring
cause of the death of Christ is hereby expressed, will perhaps appear more
prejudicial to his whole cause than he is yet aware of, especially being
proposed in distinction from the final cause or end of the death of Christ,
which in the next place he mentions, as afterward will more fully appear;
although, I confess, he is not alone, Crellius making the same
concession.
The last question of this chapter is, “What are the ends of
Christ’s suffering and death intimated by the Scripture?” whereunto, by way
of answer, sundry texts of Scripture are subjoined, every one of them
expressing some one end or other, some effect or fruit, something of the
aim and intendment of Christ in his suffering and death; whereunto
exceeding many others might be annexed. But this business of the death of
Christ, its causes, ends, and influence into the work of our salvation, —
the manifestation that therein he underwent the punishment due to our sins,
making atonement and giving satisfaction for them, redeeming us properly by
the price of his blood, etc., — being of so great weight and importance as
it is, lying at the very bottom and foundation of all our hope and
confidence, I shall, leaving Mr B.,
handle the whole matter at large in the ensuing chapters.
For our more clear and distinct procedure in this important
head of the religion of Jesus Christ, I shall first lay down the most
eminent considerations of the death of Christ as proposed in the Scripture,
and then give an account of the most special effects of it in particular,
answering to those considerations of it; in all manifesting wherein the
expiation of our sins by his blood doth consist.
The principal considerations of the death of Christ are of
it, — I. As a price; II. As a sacrifice; III. As a penalty: of which in the
order wherein they are mentioned.
Chapter XXII.
The several considerations of the death of Christ as to the
expiation of our sins thereby, and the satisfaction made therein — First,
Of it as a price; secondly, As a sacrifice.
I. The death of Christ in this
business is a price, and that properly so called:
1 Cor. vi. 20, Ἠγοράσθητε τιμῆς, — “Ye are bought with a price.” And
if we will know what that price was with which we are bought, the Holy
Ghost informs us, 1 Pet.
i. 18, 19, “Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as
silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ.” It is the blood
of Christ which in this business hath that use which silver and gold have
in the redeeming of captives; and paid it is into the hand of him by whose
power and authority the captive is detained, as shall be proved. And
himself tells us what kind of a price it is that is so paid; it is λύτρον, Matt. xx.
28, “He came to lay down his life λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν·” which, for its more evidence and
clearness, is called ἀντίλυτρον,
1 Tim. ii. 6, “a price of redemption”
for the delivery of another.
The first mention of a ransom in the Scripture is in
Exod. xxi. 30: “If there be laid on
him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life
whatsoever is laid on him.” The word in the original is פִּדְיֹן; which the LXX. there render λύτρα Δώσει λύτρα τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ. And it is
used again in the same sense, Ps. xlix.
9; and in both places intends a valuable price, to be paid for
the deliverance of that which, upon guilt, became obnoxious to death. It
is true, the word is from פָּדָה,
“redimere, vindicare, asserere in
libertatem,” by any ways and means, by power, strength, or
otherwise; but where-ever it is applied to such a kind of redemption as had
a price going along with it, the LXX. constantly render it by απολυτροῦν and sometimes λυτρώσασθαι, otherwise by ῤύομαι, and the like.
It is, then, confessed that פָּדָה; in the Old Testament is sometimes taken for
redemit in a metaphorical
sense, not strictly and literally by the intervention of a price; but that
λυτρώσασθαι, the word whereby it is
rendered when a price intervened, is ever so taken in the New Testament, is
denied. Indeed, Moses is called λυτρωτής, Acts vii.
35, in reference to the metaphorical redemption of Israel out of
Egypt, — a deliverance by power and a strong arm; but shall we say, because
that word is used improperly in one place, where no price could be paid,
where God plainly says it was not done by a price but by power, therefore
it must be so used in those places where there is express mention of a
price, both the matter of it and its formality as a price, and speaketh not
a word of doing it any other way but by the payment of a price? But of
this afterward.
There is mention of “a ransom” in ten places of the Old
Testament; “to ransom” and “ransomed” in two or three more.
In two of these places, Exod. xxi.
30 and Ps. xlix.
9, the word is פִּדְיֹן,
from פָּדָה, as before, and rendered
by the LXX. λύτρον. In all other
places it is in the Hebrew כֹּפֶר,
which properly signifies a propitiation, as Ps. xlix.
9; which the LXX. have variously rendered. Twice it is
mentioned in Job, chap. xxxiii. 24 and xxxvi.
18. In the first place they have left it quite out, and in the
latter so corrupted the sense that they have rendered it altogether
unintelligible. Prov. vi. 35 and xiii.
8, they have properly rendered it λύτρον, or a price of redemption, it being in both
places used in such business as a ransom useth to be accepted in.
Chap. xxi. 18, they have properly
rendered it to the subject-matter, περικάθαρμα. Περικαθάρματα are things publicly devoted to
destruction, as it were to turn away anger from others, coming upon them
for their sakes.
So is κάθαρμα, “homo piacularis pro lustratione et expiatione
patriæ devotus;” whence the word is often used, as scelus in Latin, for a wicked man, a man fit
to be destroyed and taken away. Γρύζειν δὲ
καὶ τολμᾶτον ὦ καθάρματε, says he in the poet. Καθαρμός is used in the same sense by Herodotus: Καθαρμὸν τῆς χώρης ποιευμένων Ἀχαιῶν, Ἀθάμαντα τὸν
Αἰόλου, — “Athamas was made a piaculum, or a propitiation for the country.”
Whence Budæus renders that of the
apostle, Ὡς περικαθάρματα τοῦ κόσμου
ἐγενήθημεν, “Nos tanquam piacula
mundi facti sumus, et succedaneæ pro populo victimæ,” — “We are as
the accursed things of the world, and sacrifices for the people,” 1 Cor. iv. 13; reading the words,
ὥσπερ καθάρματα, not ὡς περικαθάρματα: the Greek scholiast, who reads it as
we commonly do, rendering it by ἀποσαρώματα, as the Vulgar Latin “purgamenta,” to the same purpose, — such as have all
manner of filth cast upon them. And Isa. xliii.
3, they have rendered the same word ἄλλαγμα, “a commutation by price.” So Matt. xvi. 26, Τὶ δώσει ἄνθρωπος ἀντάλλαγμα τῆς ψυχῆς, “a price in
exchange.” Now, in all these places and others, the Hebrews use the word
כֹּפֶר, “a propitiation,” by way of
allusion; as is most especially evident from that of Isaiah, “I will give
Egypt a propitiation for thee.” That is, as God is atoned by a
propitiatory sacrifice, wherein something is offered him in the room of the
offender, so will he do with them, — put them into trouble in room of the
church, as the sacrificed beast was in the room of him for whom it was
sacrificed And hence does that word signify a ransom, because what God
appointed in his worship to redeem any thing that by the law was devoted,
which was a compensation by his institution (as a clean beast in the room
of a first-born was to be offered a sacrifice to God), was so called. And
the word “satisfaction,” which is but once used in the Scripture, or twice
together, Num. xxxv. 31, is כֹפֶר in the original. כֹפֶר, indeed, is originally “pitch” or
“bitumen;” hence what God says to Noah about making the ark, וְכָפַרְתָּ, Gen. vi.
14, the LXX. have rendered ἀσφαλτώσεις τῇ ἀσφάλτῳ, — “bituminabis bitumine.” כִפֶּר. in pihel is “placavit, expiavit, expiationem fecit;” because by
sacrifice sins are covered as if they had not been, to cover or hide being
the first use of the word.
And this is the rise and use of the word “ransom” in the
Scripture, both פִּדְיֹן, פָּדֹה and כֹפֶר, which are rendered by λύτρον περικάθαρμα ἀντίλυτρον ἄλλαγμα. It denotes
properly a price of redemption, a valuable compensation made by one thing
for another, either in the native signification, as in the case of the
first word, or by the first translation of it from the sacrifice of
atonement, as in the latter. Of this farther afterward, in the business of
redemption. For the present it sufficeth that the death of Christ was a
price of ransom, and these are the words whereby it is expressed.
II. It was a sacrifice; and what
sacrifice it was shall be declared:—
That Christ offered a sacrifice is abundantly evident from
what was said before, in the consideration of the time and place when and
wherein Christ was a high priest. The necessity of this the apostle
confirms, Heb. viii. 3, “For every high priest is
ordained to offer both gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity
that this man have somewhat also to offer.” If he be a priest, he must
have a sacrifice; the very nature of his employment requires it. The whole
and entire office and employment of a high priest, as a priest, consists in
offering sacrifice, with the performance of those things which did
necessarily precede and follow that action. It is of necessity, then, that
he should also have somewhat to offer as a sacrifice to God.
For the other part of our inquiry, namely, what it was that
he sacrificed, I shall manifest in this order of process (taking leave to
enlarge a little in this, intending not so much the thing, proved before,
as the manner of it):—
1. He was not to offer any sacrifice that any priest had
offered before by God’s appointment; 2. He did not actually offer any such
sacrifice; 3. I shall show positively what he did offer. 1. He was not to
offer any sacrifice that the priests of old had appointed for them to
offer. He came to do another manner of work than could be brought about
with the blood of bulls and goats. It cost more to redeem our souls. That
which was of more worth in itself, of nearer concernment to him that
offered it, of a more manifold alliance to them for whom it was offered,
and of better acceptation with God, to whom it was offered, was to be his
sacrifice. This is the aim of the Holy Ghost, Heb.
x. 1–7, “For the law.” etc.
This is the sum of the apostle’s discourse: The sacrifices
instituted by the law could not effect or work that which Christ, our high
priest, was to accomplish by his sacrifice; and therefore he was not to offer them, but they were to be abolished, and something else
to be brought in that might supply their room and defect.
What was wanting in these sacrifices the apostle ascribes
to the law whereby they were instituted. (1.) The law could not do it;
that is, the ceremonial law could not do it. The law which instituted and
appointed these sacrifices could not accomplish that end of the institution
by them. And with this expression of it he subjoins a reason of this
weakness of the law: “It had a shadow of good things to come, and not the
very image of the things” themselves, — an obscure representation of those
good things which, when they were instituted and in force, were μέλλοντα, to come, though now actually
exhibited and existent; that is, Jesus Christ himself, and the good things
of the gospel accompanying of him. It had but a “shadow” of these things,
not the “image,” — that is, the substance of them; for so I had rather
understand “image” here substantially, as that may be called the image of a
picture by which it is drawn, than to make σκιά and εἰκών
here to differ but gradually, [i.e., in degree,] as the first rude shape
and proportion and the perfect limning of any thing do. The reason, then,
why all the solemn, operose, burdensome service of old could not of itself
take away sin, is because it did not contain Christ in it, but only had a
shadow of him.
(2.) The apostle instances, in particular, by what means
the law could not do this great work of “making the comers thereunto
perfect;” τοῦς προσερχομένους, — that
is, those who come to God by it, the worshippers; which is spoken in
opposition to what is said of Christ, Heb. vii.
25, “He is able to save to the uttermost τοὺς προσερχομένους,” those that come to God by him.”
The word expresseth any man under the consideration of one coming to God
for acceptation; as chap. xi.
6, “He that cometh unto God,” — Δεῖ τὸν προσερχόμενον. These it could not make
perfect; that is, it could not perfectly atone God, and so take away their
sins that the conscience should no more be troubled or tormented with the
guilt of sin, as chap. x.
2–4. By what could not the law do this? By those sacrifices
which it offered year by year continually.
Not to speak of sacrifices in general, the sacrifices of
the Jews may be referred to four heads:—
(1.) The daily sacrifice of morning and evening,
which is instituted Exod. xxix. 38, 39; which being
omitted, was renewed by Neh. x.
33, and wholly taken away for a long season by Antiochus, according to the prophecy of
Dan. xi. 31. This is the juge sacrificum, typifying Christ’s
constant presence with his church in the benefit of his death always.
(2.) Voluntary and occasional, which had
no prefixed time nor matter; so that they were of such creatures as God had
allowed to be sacrificed, they were left to the will of the offerer,
according as occasion and necessity were by providence
administered. Now, of these sacrifices there was a peculiar reason, that
did not, as far as I can find, belong unto any of the rest. The judicial
government of that nation being, as their own historian, Josephus, calls it, Θεοκρατία, and immediately in the hand of God, he
appointed these voluntary sacrifices, which were a part of his religious
worship, to have a place also in the judicial government of the people; for
whereas he had appointed death to be the punishment due to every sin, he
allowed that for many sins sacrifice should be offered for the expiating of
the guilt contracted in that commonwealth of which himself was the
governor. Thus for many sins of ignorance and weakness, and other
perversities, sacrifice was offered, and the guilty person died not,
according to the general tenor of the law, “Cursed is every one that
continueth not in all these things.” Hence David, in his great sin of
murder and adultery, flees to mere mercy, acknowledging that God had
appointed no sacrifice for the expiation of those sins as to the guilt
political contracted in that commonwealth, though otherwise no sins nor
sinners were excluded from the benefit of sacrifices, Ps. li. 16. This was their political
regard; which they had and could have only on this account, that God was
the supreme political governor of that people, their lord and king.
(3.) Sacrifices extraordinary on solemn occasions,
which seem some of them to be mixed of the two former kinds, stated and
voluntary. Such was Solomon’s great sacrifice at the dedication of the
temple. These partly answered the sacrifice instituted at the dedication
of the altar and tabernacle, partly the free-will offerings which God
allowed the people, according to their occasions, and appointed them for
them.
(4.) Appointed sacrifices on solemn days; as on
the sabbath, new moons, passover, feast of weeks, lesser and greater
jubilee, but especially the solemn anniversary sacrifice of expiation, when
the high priest entered into the holy place with the blood of the beast
sacrificed, on the tenth day of the month Tisri. The institution of this
sacrifice you have Lev. xvi. throughout. The matter of
it was one bullock, and two goats, or kids of goats, verses 3, 5. The
manner was this:— [1.] In the entrance, Aaron offered one bullock
peculiarly for himself and his house, verse 6.
[2.] Lots were cast on the two goats, one to be a sin-offering, the other
to be azazel, verses 8,
9. [3.] The bullock and goat being slain, the blood was carried
into the holy place. [4.] Azazel, having all the sins of the
people confessed over him, was sent into the wilderness to perish,
verse 21. [5.] The end of this
sacrifice was atonement and cleansing, verse
30. Of the whole nature, ends, significancy, and use of this
sacrifice, as of others, elsewhere; at present I attend only to the thesis
proposed.
Now, if perfect atonement and expiation might be expected
from any of the sacrifices so instituted by God, certainly it might be from
this; therefore this doth the apostle choose to instance in
This was the sacrifice offered κατ
ἐνιαυτόν and εἰς τὸ διηνεκές.
But these, saith he, could not do it; the law by them could not do it. And
this he proves with two arguments:—
1st. From the event: Heb. x. 2,
3, “For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because
that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of
sins. But in those sacrifices there was a remembrance again made of sins
every year.” The words of the second verse are to be read with an
interrogation, conclusive in the negative: “Would they not have ceased to
have been offered?” that is, certainly they would. And because they did
not do so, it is evident from the event that they could not take away sin.
In most copies the words are, Ἐπεὶ ἂ
ἐπαύσαντο προσφερόμεναι. Those that add the negative particle οὐκ put it for οὐχί,. as it is frequently used.
2dly. From the nature of the thing itself: Verse 4, “For it was not possible that
the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” The reason in
these words is evident and plain, especially that of verse 4. There is a twofold
impossibility in the thing:—
(1st.) In regard of impetration. It was
impossible they should really atone God, who was provoked. First, the
conjunction between the sinner and the sacrificed beast was not such or so
near (being only that of possessor and possessed) that really, and beyond
representation and type, the blood of the one could satisfy for the sin of
the other. Much less, secondly, was there an innate worth of the blood of
any beast, though never so innocent, to atone the justice of God, that was
offended at sin, Mic. vi. 6,
7. Nor, thirdly, was there any will in them for such an
undertaking or commutation. The sacrifice was bound with cords to the
horns of the altar; Christ went willingly to the sacrifice of himself.
(2dly.) In regard of application. The blood of
common sacrifices being once shed was a dead thing, and had no more worth
nor efficacy; it could not possibly be a “living way” for us to come to God
by, nor could it be preserved to be sprinkled upon the conscience of the
sinner.
Hence doth the apostle make it evident, in the first place,
that Christ was not to offer any of the sacrifices which former priests had
offered, first, Because it was utterly impossible that by such sacrifices
the end of the sacrifice which he was to offer should be accomplished.
This also he proves, secondly, Because God had expressly
disallowed those sacrifices as to that end. Not only it was
impossible in the nature of the thing itself, but also God had absolutely
rejected the tender of them as to the taking away sin and bringing sinners
to God.
But it may be said, “Did not God appoint them for that end
and purpose, as was spoken before? The end of the sacrifice in the day of expiation was to atone and cleanse: Lev. xvi.
30, ‘On that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to
cleanse you’ (for the priest made an atonement actively, by offering the
sacrifice; the sacrifice itself passively, by undergoing the penalty of
death: Christ, who was both priest and sacrifice, did both.)” I answer,
They were never appointed of God to accomplish that end by any real worth
and efficacy of their own, but merely to typify, prefigure, and point out,
him and that which did the work which they represented; and so served, as
the apostle speaks, “until the time of reformation,” Heb. ix. 10. They served the use of
that people in the under-age condition wherein God was pleased to keep
them.
But now that God rejected them as to this end and purpose,
the apostle proves by the testimony of David, speaking of the acceptance of
Christ: Ps. xl. 6,
7, “Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast
thou opened: burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required. Then
said I, Lo, I come,” etc.; which the apostle insists on, Heb. x. 5–9. There are several
accounts upon which God in Scripture is said to disregard and not to
approve or accept of sacrifices which yet were of his own institution:—
First, In respect of the hypocrisy of the offerers. That people being
grown formal and corrupt, trusted in sacrifices and the work wrought in
them, and said that by them they should be justified: God, expressing his
indignation against such sacrifices, or the sacrifices of such persons,
rejects the things themselves wherein they trusted, that is, in reference
to them that used them. This is the intention of the Holy Ghost, Isa. i. 12, 13. But this is not the
cause of their rejection in this place of the psalmist, for he speaketh of
them who walked with God in uprightness and waited for his salvation, even
of himself and other saints, as appears in the context, verse 1, etc. Secondly, Comparatively.
They are rejected as to the outward work of them, in comparison of his
more spiritual worship, as Ps. l.
12–14. But neither are they here rejected on that account, nor
is there mention of any opposition between the outward worship of sacrifice
and any other more spiritual and internal part thereof, but between
sacrifice and the boring of the ears, or preparing of the body of Christ,
as expressly, verse 6.
Their rejection, then, here mentioned, is in reference to
that which is asserted in opposition to them, and in reference to the end
for which that is asserted. Look to what end Christ had a body fitted and
prepared, for and to that end, and the compassing of it, are all sacrifices
rejected of God. Now, this was to take away sin, so that as to that end
are they rejected.
And here, in our passage, may we remove what the Racovian Catechism gives us as the
difference between the expiation under the old testament and that under the
new; concerning which, cap. de Mun. Chris.
Sacer. q. 5, they thus inquire:—
Q. What is the difference between the expiation
of sin in the old and new testament?
A. The expiation of sins under the new testament is not only
much different from that under the old, but also is far better and more
excellent; and that chiefly for two causes. The first is, that under the
old testament, expiation by those legal sacrifices was appointed only for
those sins which happened upon imprudence and infirmity; from whence they
were also called infirmities and ignorances: but for greater sins, such as
were manifest transgressions of the command of God, there were no
sacrifices instituted, but the punishment of death was proposed to them;
and if God did forgive such to any, he did not do it by virtue of the
covenant, but of singular mercy, which God, beside the covenant, did afford
when and to whom he would. But under the new covenant, not only those sins
are expiated which happen by imprudence and infirmity, but those also which
are transgressions of most evident commands of God, whilst he who happened
so to fall doth not continue therein, but is changed by true repentance,
and falleth not into that sin again. The latter cause is, because under
the old testament expiation of sins was so performed that only temporal
punishment was taken away from them whose sins were expiated; but under the
new the expiation is such as not only takes away temporal but eternal
punishment, and in their stead offers eternal life, promised in the
covenant, to them whose sins are expiated.
Thus they. Some brief animadversions will give the reader
a clear account of this discourse:— Sundry things are here splendidly
supposed by our catechists, than which nothing could be imagined or
invented more false; as, that the covenant was not the same for substance
under the old and new testament, before and after the coming of Christ in
the flesh; that those under the old testament were not pardoned or saved by
Christ; that death temporal was all that was threatened by the law; that
God forgave sin, and not in or by the covenant; that there were no promises
of eternal life under the old testament, etc. On these and the like goodly
principles is this whole discourse erected. Let us now consider their
assertions.
The first is, That expiation by legal sacrifices was only
for some sins, and not for all, as sins of infirmity and ignorance, not
great crimes: wherein, First, They suppose that the legal sacrifices
did by themselves and their own efficacy expiate sin; which is directly contrary to the discourse of the apostle now insisted on.
Secondly, Their affirmation hereon is most false. Aaron, making an
atonement for sin, “confessed over the goat all the iniquities of the
children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins,”
Lev. xvi. 21; and, besides, all
manner of sins are comprised under these expressions, “ignorances and
infirmities.”
Secondly, They say, “For greater sins there was then no
expiation, but death was threatened to them.” But, First, Then
none that ever committed such sins were saved; for without expiation there
is no salvation. Secondly, Death was threatened and inflicted
without mercy for some sins, as the law with its judicial additaments was
the rule of the judaical polity, and for those sins there was no sacrifice
for a deliverance from death temporal; but death was threatened to every
sin, small and great, as the law was a rule of moral obedience unto God;
and so in respect of sacrifices there was no distinction. This difference
of sacrifices for some sins, and not for others, in particular, did depend
merely on their use by God’s appointment in the commonwealth of that
people, and had no regard to the spiritual expiation of sin, which they
typified.
Thirdly, That God forgave the sins of his people of old by
singular mercy, and not by virtue of his covenant, is a bold figment. God
exercises no singular mercy but in the covenant thereof, Eph. ii. 12.
Fourthly, Their condition of expiation (by the way) under
the new testament, “That the sinner fall not again into the same sin,” is a
matter that these men understand not; but this is no place to discuss
it.
Fifthly, That the expiation under the old testament reached
only to the removal of temporal punishment is another imagination of our
catechists. It was death eternal that was threatened as the punishment due
to the transgression of the law, as it was the rule of obedience to God, as
hath been proved, even the death that Christ delivered us from, Rom. v. 12, etc.; Heb. ii. 14, 15. God was atoned by
those sacrifices, according to their way of making atonement, Lev. xvi. 30; so that the punishment
avoided was eternal-punishment. Neither is this, indeed, spoken by our
catechists as though they believed any punishment should be eternal; but
they only hide themselves in the ambiguity of the expression, it being
annihilation they intend thereby. The πρῶτον
ψεῦδος of this discourse is, that expiation by sacrifices was no
other than what was done really by the sacrifices themselves; so everting
their typical nature and institution, and divesting them of the efficacy of
the blood of Christ, which they did represent.
Sixthly, It is confessed that there is a difference between
the expiation under the old testament and that under the new, but this is
of application and manifestation, not of impetration and procurement. This
is “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.” But they plead proof of Scripture for what they say, in the
ensuing question:—
Q. How dost thou demonstrate both these?
A. That the sins which could not be expiated under the old
testament are all expiated under the new, Paul witnesseth, Acts xiii. 38, 39; and the same is
also affirmed Rom. iii. 25, Heb. ix.
15: but that sins are so expiated under the new testament as
that also eternal punishment is removed, and life eternal given, we have
Heb. ix. 12.
This work will speedily be at an issue. First, It is
denied that Paul, Acts xiii. 38, 39, makes a
distinction of sins, whereof some might be expiated by Moses’ law, and
others not. He says no more there than in this place to the Hebrews, —
namely, that the legal sacrifices, wherein they rested and trusted, could
not of themselves free them or their consciences from sin, or give them
peace with God, being but types and shadows of good things to come, the
body being Christ, by whom alone all justification from sin is to be
obtained. Absolutely, the sacrifices of the law expiated no sin, and so
were they rested in by the Jews; typically, they expiated all, and so Paul
calls them from them to the antitype (or rather thing typified), now
actually exhibited.
Secondly, The two next places, of Rom. iii.
25, Heb. ix. 15, do expressly condemn the
figment they strive to establish by them, both of them assigning the pardon
of sins that were past and their expiation unto the blood and sacrifice of
Christ. Though there were, then, purifications, purgations, sacrifices,
yet the meritorious and efficient cause of all expiation was the blood of
Christ; which manifests the expiation under the old and new testament for
substance to have been the same.
Thirdly, That the expiation under the new testament is
accompanied with deliverance from eternal punishment and a grant of life
eternal is confessed; and so also was that under the old, or it was no
expiation at all, that had respect neither to God nor the souls of men.
But to proceed with the sacrifice of Christ.
This is the first thing I proposed: Christ being to offer
sacrifice, was not to offer the sacrifices of the priests of old, because
they could never bring about what he aimed at in his sacrifice. It was
impossible in the nature of the thing itself, and they were expressly as to
that end rejected of God himself.
2. Christ as a priest did never offer those sacrifices. It
is true, as one made under the law, and whom it became to fulfil all
righteousness, he was present at them; but as a priest he never offered them: for the apostle expressly affirms that he could not be a
priest that had right to offer those sacrifices (as before); and he
positively refuses the owning himself for such a priest, when, having cured
the leprous man, he bade him go show himself to the priest, according to
the law.
3. What Christ did offer indeed, as his sacrifice, is
nextly to be mentioned. This the apostle expresseth in that which is
asserted in opposition to the sacrifices rejected: Heb. x.
5, “But a body hast thou prepared me.”
The words in the psalm are in the sound of them otherwise:
Ps. xl. 6, אָזְנַים כָּרִיתָ לִּי; — “Mine ears hast thou
digged;” which the LXX. render, and the apostle from them, Σῶμα κατηρτίσω μοι, — “A body hast thou prepared me.”
Of the accommodation of the interpretation to the original there is much
contention. Some think here is an allusion to the custom among the Jews of
boring the ear of him who was, upon his own consent, to be a servant for
ever. Now, because Christ took a body to be obedient and a servant to his
Father, this is expressed by the boring of the ear; which therefore the
LXX. render by “preparing a body” wherein he might be so obedient. But
this to me seems too curious on the part of the allusion, and too much
strained on the part of the application; and therefore I shall not insist
on it.
Plainly, כָּרָה
signifies not only, in its first sense, to “dig,” but also to “prepare;”
and is so rendered by the LXX. Now, whereas the original expresseth only
the ears, which are the organ by which we hear and become obedient (whence
to hear is sometimes as much as to be obedient), it mentions the ears
synecdochically for the whole body, which God so prepared for
obedience to himself; and that which the original expressed
synecdochically, the LXX., and after them the apostle, rendered more
plainly and fully, naming the whole body wherein he obeyed, when the ears
were only expressed, whereby he learned obedience.
The interpretation of this place by the Socinians is as
ridiculous as any they make use of. Take it in the words of Volkelius:—
Add hereto that the mortal body of Christ, which he
had before his death, yea, before his ascension into heaven, was not fit
for his undergoing this office of priesthood or wholly to accomplish the
sacrifice; wherefore the divine writer to the Hebrews, chap. x. 5, declareth that then he had
a perfect body, accommodated unto this work, when he went into the world
that is to come, which is heaven.
A heap of foolish imaginations! First, The
truth is, no body but a mortal body was fit to be this sacrifice, which was
to be accomplished, according to all the types of it, by shedding of blood;
without which there is no remission. Secondly, It is false that Christ had
a mortal body after his resurrection, or that he hath any other body now in
heaven than what he rose withal. Thirdly, It is false that “the world,”
spoken of simply, doth anywhere signify the world to come, or that “the
world” here signifies heaven. Fourthly, It is false that the coming
into the world signifies going out of the world, as it is
here interpreted. Fifthly, Christ’s bringing into the world was by his
incarnation and birth, Heb. i. 6,
according to the constant use of that expression in the Scripture; as his
ascension is his leaving the world and going to his Father, John xiii.
1, xiv. 12, xvi. 28.
But I must not insist on this. It is the body that God
prepared Christ for his obedience, — that is, his whole human nature, —
that is asserted for the matter of Christ’s offering; for the clearing
whereof the reader may observe that the matter of the offering and
sacrifice of Christ is expressed three ways:—
(1.) It is said to be of the body and blood of
Christ, Heb. x. 10. The offering of the body
of Jesus and the blood of Christ is said to purge us from our sins, that
is, by the sacrifice of it, and in his blood have we redemption, Eph. i. 7, 1 John i.
7; and by his own blood did he enter into the holy place,
Heb. ix. 12, and most expressly
chap. xiii. 12.
(2.) His soul: Isa. liii.
10, “When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin.”
(3.) It is most frequently said to be himself that
was offered, Eph. v. 2, Heb.
i. 3, ix. 14, 25, 26, vii. 27. Hence it appears what was the
matter of the sacrifice of this high priest, even himself: he sacrificed
himself, — his whole human nature; he offered up his body and soul as a
propitiatory sacrifice to God, a sacrifice for atonement and expiation.
Farther to clear this, I must desire the reader to take
notice of the import of this expression, “He sacrificed himself,” or Christ
sacrificed himself. “He,” in the first place, as it is spoken of the
sacrificer, denotes the person of Christ, and both natures therein;
“himself,” as the sacrificed, is only the human nature of Christ, wherein
and whereof that sacrifice was made. He makes the atonement actively, as
the priest; himself passively, as the sacrifice:—
[1.] “He” is the person of Christ, God and man jointly and
distinctly acting in the work:—
1st. As God: Heb. ix.
14, “Through the eternal Spirit he offered himself to God.” His
eternal Spirit or Deity was the principal agent, offering; and wherever
there is mention of Christ’s offering himself, it relates principally to
the person, God-man, who offered.
2dly. The free will of his human
nature was in it also; so Heb. x.
7, “Lo, I come to do thy will.” When God had prepared him a
body, opened his ears, he says, “Lo, I come to do thy will,” as it was
written of him in the volume of God’s book. And that this expression, “Lo,
I come to do thy will,” sets out the readiness of the human will of Christ,
is evident from that exposition which is given of it, Ps. xl. 8, “Yea, thy law is within my
heart,” or “in the midst of my bowels;” — “Thy law, the law of the
mediator, that I am to undertake, it is in the midst of my heart;” which is
an expression of the greatest readiness and willingness possible.
He, then, that offers is our mediator, God and man in one
person; and the offering is the act of the person.
[2.] “Himself,” offered as the matter of the sacrifice, is
only the human nature of Christ, soul and body, as was said; which is
evident from the description of a sacrifice, what it is.
A sacrifice is a religious oblation, wherein something by
the ministry of a priest, appointed of God thereunto, is dedicated to God,
and destroyed as to what it was, for the ends and purposes of spiritual
worship whereunto it is instituted. I shall only take notice of that one
part of this definition, which asserts that the thing sacrificed was to be
destroyed as to what it was. This is clear from all the sacrifices that
ever were; either they were slain, or burned, or sent to destruction. Now,
the person of Christ was not dissolved, but the union of his natures
continued, even then when the human nature was in itself destroyed by the
separation of soul and body. It was the soul and body of Christ that was
sacrificed, his body being killed and his soul separated; so that at that
season it was destroyed as to what it was, though it was impossible he
should be detained by death.
And this sacrifice of Christ was typified by the two goats:
his body, whose blood was shed, by the goat that was slain visibly; and his
soul by azazel, on whose head the sins of the people were
confessed, and he sent away into the wilderness, to suffer there by a fall
or famishment.
This also will farther appear in our following
consideration of the death of Christ as a punishment, when I shall show
that he suffered both in soul and body.
But it may be said, “If only the human nature of Christ was
offered, how could it be a sacrifice of such infinite value as to [satisfy]
the justice of God for all the sins of all the elect, whereunto it was
appointed?”
Ans. Though the thing sacrificed was but finite,
yet the person sacrificing was infinite, and the ἀποτέλεσμα of the action follows the agent, that is,
our mediator, Θεάνθρωπος, — whence the
sacrifice was of infinite value.
And this is the second consideration of the
death of Christ, — it was a sacrifice. What is the peculiar influence of
his death as a sacrifice into the satisfaction he hath made shall be
declared afterward.
From what hath been spoken, a brief description of the
sacrifice of Christ, as to all the concernments of it, may be taken:—
1. The person designing, appointing, and
instituting this sacrifice, is God the Father, as in grace
contriving the great work of the salvation of the elect. “A body did he
prepare him;” and therein “he came to do his will,” Heb. x. 5, 7, in that
which he did, which the sacrifices of old could not do. He came to fulfil
the will of God, his appointment and ordinance, being his servant therein,
made βραχύτι less than the Father,
that he might be obedient to death. God the Father sent him when he made
his soul an offering.
2. He to whom it was offered was God, God
essentially considered, with his glorious property of justice,
which was to be atoned: “He gave himself an offering and a sacrifice to God
for a sweet-smelling savour,” Eph. v. 2;
that is, to atone him, being provoked, as we shall see afterward.
3. The person offering was Christ, the mediator,
God and man: “He offered himself to God,” Heb. ix.
14. And because he did it who was God and man, and as God and
man, God is said to “redeem his church with his own blood,” Acts xx. 28.
4. The matter of the sacrifice was his whole human
nature, body and soul, called “himself,” as I have showed in sundry
particulars.
5. The immediate efficient cause of his offering,
and the destruction of that which he offered unto God, as before described,
was his own will: “Lo, I come,” saith he, “to do thy will,” Heb. x. 7; and, “No man,” saith he,
“taketh my life from me, but I lay it down of myself: I have power to lay
it down, and I have power to take it again,” John x.
18. What men and devils did to him, or what he suffered from
the curse of the law, comes under another consideration, — as his death was
a penalty; as it was a sacrifice, his own will was all the cause
immediately effecting it.
6. The fire that was to set this holocaust on a flame was
the Holy Spirit: Heb. ix.
14, “Through the Eternal Spirit.” That the fire which came down
from heaven and was always kept alive upon the altar was a type of the Holy
Ghost might easily be demonstrated. I have done it elsewhere. Now, the
Holy Spirit did this in Christ; he was offered through the Eternal Spirit,
as others were by fire.
7. The Scripture speaks nothing of the altar on which
Christ was offered; some assign the cross. That of our Saviour is
abundantly sufficient to evince the folly thereof, Matt. xxiii. 18, 19. If the cross
was the altar, it was greater than Christ, and sanctified him; which is
blasphemy. Besides, Christ himself is said to be an altar, Heb. xiii. 10; and he is said to
sanctify himself to be an offering or a sacrifice, John xvii. 19. So that, indeed, the
deity of Christ, that supported, bore up, and sanctified the human nature
as offered, was the altar, and the cross was but an instrument of the
cruelty of man, that taketh place in the death of Christ as it was a
penalty, but hath no place in it as a sacrifice.
That this sacrifice of Christ was a sacrifice of
propitiation, as made by blood, as answering the typical sacrifices of old,
and that the end and effect of it was atonement or reconciliation, shall
elsewhere be more fully manifested; the discovery of it, also, will in part
be made by what in the ensuing discourse shall be spoken about
reconciliation itself.
Chapter XXIII.
Of the death of Christ as it was a punishment, and the
satisfaction made thereby.
So is the death of Christ revealed
as a price and a sacrifice. What are the proper effects of it under these
considerations shall be afterward declared.
III. The third consideration of it is its being a penalty or a punishment. To clear this I shall
demonstrate four things: 1. What punishment, properly so called, is; 2.
That Christ’s death was a punishment, or that in his death he did undergo
punishment; 3. What that was that Christ underwent, or the material cause
of that punishment; 4. Wherein the formality of its being a punishment did
consist, or whence that dispensation had its equity.
For the first, I shall give, 1. The
definition of it, or the description of its general nature; 2. The
ends of it are to be considered.
1. For the first, that usual general description seemeth to
be comprehensive of the whole nature of punishment; it is “malum passionis quod infligitur ob malum actionis,”
— an evil of suffering inflicted for doing evil. Or, more largely to
describe it, it is an effect of justice in him who hath sovereign power and
right to order and dispose of offenders, whereby he that doth contrary to
the rule of his actions is recompensed with that which is evil to himself,
according to the demerit of his fault.
(1.) It is an effect of justice. Hence
God’s punishing is often called an inflicting of anger; as Rom. iii. 5, “Is God unrighteous, ὁ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν, who inflicteth anger?”
Anger is put for the justice of God, Rom. i.
18, “The anger (or wrath) of God is revealed from
heaven,” etc.; that is, his vindictive justice against sin is manifested by
its effects. And again, the cause [is put] for the effect, manger for the
effect of it in punishment; and therefore we have translated the word
“vengeance,” Rom. iii. 5, which denotes the
punishment itself.
(2.) It is of him who hath sovereign power and judiciary
right to dispose of the offenders: and this is either immediate in God
himself, as in the case whereof we speak, — he is the “only lawgiver, who
is able to save and to destroy,” James iv.
12, — or it is by him delegated to men for the use of human
society; so Christ tells Pilate, he could have no power over him (whom he
considered as a malefactor) unless it were given him from above, John xix. 11, though that is spoken
in reference to that peculiar dispensation.
(3.) The nature of it consists in this, that it be
evil to him on whom it is inflicted, either by the immission of that which
is corrupting, vexing, and destroying, or the subtraction of that which is
cheering, useful, good, and desirable, in what kind soever; and therefore
did the ancients call the punishment “fraus,” because when it came upon men, they had
deceived and cut short themselves of some good that otherwise they might
have enjoyed. So the historian: “Cæteræ
multitudini diem statuit, ante quam liceret sine fraude ab armis
discedere;” that is, that they might go away freely without
punishment. And so is that expression explained
by Ulpian, Dig. lib. xx.: “Capitalem fraudem admittere est tale aliquid
delinquere, propter quod capite puniendus sit.”
The schoolmen have two rules that pass amongst them without
control:— First, that “Omne peccatum est
adeo voluntarium, ut si non sit voluntarium non est peccatum.” It
is so of the nature of sin that it be voluntary, that if any thing be not
voluntary, it is not sin. The other is, “Est ex natura pœnæ ut sit involuntaria.” It is so
of the nature of punishment that it be against the will of him that is
punished, that if it be not so, it is not punishment.
Neither of which rules is true, yea, the latter is
undoubtedly false.
For the former, every sin is thus far, indeed, voluntary,
that what is done contrary to the express will of him that doth it is not
his sin; but that the actual will or willing of the sinner is required to
make any thing his sin is false, — in the case of original sin manifestly.
Wherefore John gives us another definition of sin than theirs is, that it
is “dictum, factum, concupitum, contra
legem,” — namely, that it is ἀνομία, “a transgression of the law.” Have it the
actual consent of the will or no, if it be a transgression of the law, an
inconformity to the law, it is sin.
For the latter, it is true, indeed, that for the most part
it falls out that every one that is to be punished is unwilling to undergo
it, and there is an improper nolleity (if I may so speak) in
nature unto the subtracting of any good from it, or the immission of any
evil upon it; yet as to the perfection of the nature of punishment, there
is no more required than what was laid down in general before, that there
be “malum passionis ob malum
actionis,” — a suffering of evil for doing of evil, whether men will
or no: yea, men may be willing to it, as the soldiers of Cæsar, after their defeat at Dyrrachium, came
to him and desired that they might be punished “more antiquo,” being ashamed of their flight. But whatever really or
personally is evil to a man for his evil, is punishment. Though chiefly
among the Latins “punishment” relates to things real, capital revenges had
another name. Punishments were chiefly pecuniary, as Servius on that of Virgil, Æn. i. 140: “ ‘Post
mihi non simili pœna commissa luetis.’ Luetis, persolvetis, et hic sermo a
pecunia descendit, antiquorum enim pœnæ omnes pecuniariæ fuerunt.”
And “supplicium” is of the same
importance. Punishments were called “supplicia,” because with the mulcts of men they
sacrificed and made their supplications to God: whence the word is
sometimes used for that worship, as in Sallustius; describing the old Romans, he says they
were “in suppliciis deorum
magnifici,” Bell. Cat. cap.
ix.
(4.) There is the procuring cause of it, which is
doing evil, contrary to the law and rule whereby the offender ought to walk
and regulate his actings and proceedings. “Omnis pœna, si justa est, peccati pœna est,” says
Augustine; indeed, not only “si justa
est,” but “si pœna est.”
Taking it properly, offence must precede punishment. And whatever evil
befalls any that is not procured by offence is, not properly punishment,
but hath some other name and nature. The name “pœna” is used for any thing that is vexatious or
troublesome, any toil or labour; as in the tragedian, speaking of one who
tired himself with travel in hunting, “Quid
to ipse pœnis gravibus infestus gravas:” but improperly is it thus
used. This Abraham evinceth in his plea with God, Gen.
xviii. 25, “That be far from thee to do after this manner, to
slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the
wicked, that be far from thee: shall not the Judge of all the earth do
right?” It is God as the judge of all the earth of whom he speaks; that
is, of him that hath the supreme power of disposing of offenders; and of
his justice inflicting, which, as I said, was the cause of punishment. It
is that whereby God doth right. And he gives the procuring cause of all
punishment, — the wickedness of men: “That be far from thee, to slay the
righteous with the wicked.” And therefore that place of Job,
chap. ix. 22, “This is one thing,
therefore I said it, He destroyeth the perfect and the wicked,” is not to
be understood absolutely, but according to the subject of the dispute in
hand between him and Bildad. Bildad says, chap. viii.
20, that “God will not cast away a perfect man;” that is, he
will not afflict a godly man to death, he grants that a godly man may be
afflicted, which Eliphaz’ companion seemed to deny; yet, says he, he will
not cast him away, — that is, leave him without relief from that
affliction, even in this life. To this Job’s answer is, “This is one
thing,” — that is, “One thing I am resolved on,” — “and therefore I said
it,” and will abide by it, “He destroyeth the perfect and the wicked.” Not
only wicked men are destroyed and cut off in this life, but perfect men
also; but yet in this very destruction, as there is a difference in the
persons, one being perfect, the other wicked, so there is in God’s dealing
with them, one being afflicted to the door of heaven, the other cursed into
hell. But for punishment, properly so called, the cause is sin, or the
offence of the person punished; and therefore in the Hebrew, the same words
(many of them) signify both sin and punishment, — so near and indissoluble
is their relation! Προσήκει δήπουθεν ὡς χρέα
κληρονομίας διαδέχεσθαι τῆς πονηρίας τὴν κόλασιν, Plut. de Sera Numin.
Vindicta.
(5.) The measure of any penalty is the demerit of
the offence; it is a rendering to men, as for their works, so according to
them:—
“Nec vincet ratio hoc, tantundem ut
peccet idemque,
Qui teneros caules alieni fregerit
horti
Et qui nocturnus Divum sacra legerit.
Adsit
Regula, peccatis quæ pœnas irroget
æquas:
Ne scutica dignum horribili sectere
flagello.”
I shall not trouble the reader with the heathens’
apprehension of Rhadamanthean righteousness, and the exact rendering to
every one according to his desert, even in another world.
There is a twofold rule of this proportion of sin and
punishment, the one constitutive, the other declarative.
The rule constitutive of the proportion of penalty for sin is the
infinitely wise, holy, and righteous will of God; the rule declarative of
it is the law.
For the first, it is his judgment “that they which commit
sin are worthy of death,” Rom. i.
32. This the apostle fully declares, chap. ii. 5–11. The day of punishing
he calls “The day of the revelation of the righteous judgment of God;” that
is, what his judgment is concerning the demerit of sin. The world shall
then know what in justice he requires for the due vengeance of it, and this
according to his will. Verse 6, he
will, in his righteous judgment, render to every one according to his
deeds.
And here it is to be observed, that though there be an
exceeding great variation in sin in respect of degrees, so that some seem
as mountains, others in comparison of them but as mole-hills,
yet it is the general nature of sin (which is the creature’s subducting
itself from under the dominion of God and dependence upon him) that
punishment originally is suited unto; whence death is appointed to every
sin, and that eternal, wherein the degrees of punishment vary, not the
kind.
2. For the several kinds of punishment (I call
them so in a general acceptation of both words), they are distinguished
according to their ends and causes. The
ends of punishments, or of all such things as have in them the
nature of punishments, may be referred to the ensuing heads:—
(1.) The first end of punishment is the good of him
that is punished; and this is twofold:—
[1.] For amendment and recovery from the evil and
sin that he hath committed. This kind of punishing is frequently mentioned
in Scripture: so eminently, Lev. xxvi.,
doth the Lord describe it at large, and insist upon it, reckoning up in a
long series a catalogue of several judgments, he interposing, “But if ye
will not be reformed by me by these things, but will walk contrary to me”
(as verse 23), “then will I do so and
so,” or add this or that punishment to them foregoing; and this in
reference to the former end, of their reformation. And the success of this
procedure we find variously expressed. Sometimes the end of it in some
measure was fulfilled, Ps.
lxxviii. 32–35; sometimes otherwise, Isa. i.
5, “Why should ye be smitten any more? ye will revolt more and
more,” intimating that the end of the former smiting was to cure their
revoltings. And this kind of punishment is called νουθεσία,
correction for instruction, and is not punishment in its strict and proper
sense.
[2.] For the taking off of sinners, to
prevent such other wickednesses as they would commit, should
patience be exercised towards them. The very heathen saw that he that was
wicked and not to be reclaimed, it was even good for him and to him that he
should be destroyed. Such an one, as Plutarch says, was ἑτέροις γε πάντως βλαβερὸν αὐτῷ τε βλαβερώτατον —
“hurtful to others, but most of all to himself.” How much more is this
evident to us, who know that future judgments shall be proportionably
increased to the wickedness of men in this world! And if every drop of
judgment in the world to come be incomparably greater than the greatest and
heaviest a man can possibly suffer in this life or lose his life by, it is
most evident that a man may be punished with death for his own
good, “mitius punientur.” This is
κολασία. And this hath no place in
human administrations of punishments when they arise to death itself. Men
cannot kill a man to prevent their dealing worse with him, for that is
their worst; they can do no more, says our Saviour: but accidentally it may
be for his good. Generally, κόλασις
or κολασία is, as Aristotle speaks,
πάσχοντος ἕνεκα, and is thereby
differenced from τιμωρία (of which
afterward), which, as he says, is τοῦ
πονοῦντος ἕνελ``κα ἵνα ἀποπληρωθῆ. Hence ἀκολάστος is one not corrected, not restrained, “incastigatus.” And therefore the
punishment of death cannot at all properly be κόλασις: but cutting off by God to prevent farther sin
hath in it τὶ ανάλογον thereunto.
(2.) The second end of punishment, which gives a second
kind of them, in the general sense before mentioned, is for the good of
others, and this also is various:—
[1.] It is for the good of them that may be
like-minded with him that is punished, that they may be deterred,
affrighted, and persuaded from the like evils This was the end of the
punishing of the presumptuous sinner, Deut. xvii. 12, 13, “That man
shall die; and all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more
presumptuously.” “The people;” that is, any among them that were
like-minded unto him that was stoned and destroyed. So in some places they
have taken lions that have destroyed men, and hung them on crosses, to
fright others that should attempt the like. Hence “exemplum” is sometimes put absolutely for
punishment, because punishment is for that end. So in the comedian, “Quæ futura exempla dicunt in eum
indigna;” on which place Donatus, “Graves pœnæ,
quæ possunt cæteris documento esse, exempla dicuntur.” And this is
a tacit end in human punishment. I do not know that God hath committed any
pure revenge unto men, — that is, punishing with a mere respect to what is
past; nor should one man destroy another but for the good of others Now,
the good of no man lies in revenge. The content that men take therein is
their sin, and cannot be absolutely good to them. So the philosopher:
“Nemo prudens punit quia peccatum est, sed
ne peccetur: revocari enim præterita non possunt, futura
prohibeantur;” and
Rom. xiii. 4, “If thou do that which
is evil, be afraid,” etc.; — “See what he hath done to others, and
be afraid.”
[2.] It is for the good of others, that they may not be
hurt in the like kind as some were by the sin of him who is punished
for it. This seems to be the main end of that great fundamental law of
human society, “Let him that hath killed by violence be killed, that the
rest of men may live in peace.”
And these kinds of punishments, in reference to this end,
are called παραδείγματα,
“examples,” that others by impunity be not enticed to evil,
and that the residue of men may be freed from the harm that is brought upon
them by reason of such evils.
Hence the historian says, that commonwealths should rather
be mindful of things done evilly than of good turns. The
forgetfulness of the latter is a discouragement to some good, but of the
former an encouragement to all licentiousness. Thus Joseph suspecting his
espoused consort, yet refused παραδειγματίσαι to make an open example of her by
punishment, Matt. i. 19. And these punishments
are thus called from their use, and not from their own nature; and
therefore differ not from κολασίαι,
and τιμωρίαι, but only as to the end
and use, from whence they have their denomination.”
[3.] The good of him that punisheth is aimed at;
and this is proper to God. Man punisheth not, nor can, nor ought, for his
own good, or the satisfaction of his own justice; but “the Lord made all things for himself, yea, even the wicked
for the day of evil,” Prov. xvi.
4, Rom. ix. 22: and in God’s dealing with
men, whatever he doth, unless it be for this end, it is not properly
punishment.
This is τιμωρία,
“vindicta noxæ,” purely the
recompensing of the evil that is committed, that it may be revenged. This,
I say, in God’s dealing is properly punishment, the revenge of the evil
done, that himself or his justice may be satisfied; as was seen before from
Rom. ii. 5–11. Whatever of evil God
doth to any, — which is therefore called “punishment,” because it partaketh
of the general nature of punishment, and is evil to him that is punished, —
yet if the intendment of God be not to revenge the evil past upon him in a
proportion of law, it is not punishment properly so called; and therefore
it will not suffice, to prove that believers are or may be punished for
sin, to heap up texts of Scripture where they are said to be punished, and
that in reference to their sin, unless it can be also proved that God doth
it “animo ulciscendi,” and that
their punishment is “vindicta noxæ,”
and that it is done τοῦ πονοῦντος ἕνεκα ἵνα
ἀποπληρωθῆ: but of this I am not now to treat.
The reader may hence see what punishment is in general,
what are the ends of it, and its kinds from thence, and what is punishment
from God, properly so called. It is “vindicta noxæ, animo ulciscendi, ut ipsi satisfiat:”
and this kind of punishment was the death of Christ; which is to be
proved.
Secondly, That the death of Christ
was a punishment properly so called (which is the third consideration of
it, as I said), is next to be proved. Of all the places of Scripture and
testimonies whereby this may be demonstrated, I shall fix only on one
portion of Scripture, and that is Isa.
liii. What in particular shall be produced from thence will
appear when I have given some general considerations of the chapter; which
I shall do at large, as looking on that portion of Scripture as the sum of
what is spoken in the Old Testament concerning the satisfactory death of
Jesus Christ.
1. This whole prophecy, from verse 13 of
chap. lii., which is the head of the present discourse, is
evinced to belong to the Messiah, against the Jews:—
(1.) Because the Chaldee paraphrast, one of their most
ancient masters, expressly names the Messiah, and interprets that whole
chapter of him: “Behold,” saith he, “my servant, the Messiah, shall deal
prudently.” And the ancient rabbins, as is abundantly proved by others,
were of the same mind: which miserably entangles their present obdurate
masters, who would fix the prophecy upon any rather than on the Messiah,
seeing evidently that if it be proved to belong to the Messiah in thesi, it can be applied to none
other in hypothesi but Jesus
of Nazareth.
(2.) Because they are not able to find out or fix on any
one whatever to whom the things here spoken of may be accommodated. They
speak, indeed, of Jeremiah, Josiah, a righteous man in general, the whole
people of Israel, of Messiah Ben Joseph, a man of straw of their own
setting up: but it is easy to manifest, were that our present work, that
scarce any one expression in this prophecy, much less all, doth or can
agree to any one or all of them named; so that it must be brought home to
its proper subject. Of this at large in the ensuing digression against
Grotius.
2. That to us it is evident above all contradiction that
the whole belongs to Jesus Christ; because not only particular testimonies
are taken from hence in the New Testament, and applied to him, as Matt. viii. 17, Mark xv. 28, Luke
xxii. 37, Rom. x.
16, but it is also expounded of him in general for the
conversion of souls, Acts
viii. 26–40. The story is known of Philip and the eunuch.
3. This is such a prophecy of Christ as belongs to him not
only properly but immediately; that is, it doth not in the first place
point out any type of Christ, and by him shadow out Christ, as it is in
sundry psalms, where David and Solomon are firstly spoken of, though the
Messiah be principally intended: but here is no such thing. Christ himself
is immediately spoken of. Socinus
says, indeed, that he doubted not but that these things did primarily
belong to another, could he be discovered who he was, and that from him was
the allusion taken, and the accommodation made to Christ; “And if,” saith
he, “it could be found out who he was, much light might be given into many
expressions in the chapter.” But this is a bold figment, for which there
is not the least countenance given either from Scripture or reason, which
is evidently decried from the former arguments, whereby the
impudence of the Jews is confounded, and shall be farther in the ensuing
digression, where it shall be proved that it is impossible to fix on any
one but Jesus Christ to whom the several expressions and matters expressed
in this prophecy may be accommodated.
Now, there are three general parts of this prophecy, to
consider it with reference to the business in hand, as the seat of this
truth in the Old Testament:—
1. A description given of Christ in a mean, low, miserable
condition, from verse 14
of chap. lii. to verse 4 of chap. liii.: “His visage was marred
more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men,” chap. lii. 14; “he hath no form nor
comeliness, no beauty,” chap. liii.
2; “he is despised and rejected, a man of sorrows, and
acquainted with grief,” verse 3;
looked on as “stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted,” verse 4.
2. The reason is given of this representation of the
Messiah, of whom it is said in the entrance of the prophecy that he should
“deal prudently, and be exalted and extolled, and be very high;” to which
this description of him seems most adverse and contrary. The reason, I
say, hereof is given from verses 5
to 10; it was on the account of his being punished and broken
for us and our sins.
3. The issue of all this, from verse
10 to the end, in the justification and salvation of
believers.
It is the second that I shall insist upon, to prove the
death of Christ to have in it the nature of punishment, properly and
strictly so called.
Not to insist upon all the particular passages, that might
be done to great advantage, and ought to be done, did I purpose the
thorough and full handling of the business before me (but I am “in transitu,” and pressing to somewhat
farther), I shall only urge two things:— The expressions throughout that
describe the state and condition of Christ as here proposed. Secondly, One
or two singular assertions, comprehensive of much of the rest.
For the first, let the reader consider what is contained in
the several words here setting forth the condition of Christ. We have
“despising and rejecting, sorrow and grief,” verse
3. He was “stricken, smitten, afflicted,” or there was
striking, smiting, affliction on him, verse 4;
“wounded, bruised, chastised with stripes,” — wounding, bruising,
chastising unto soreness, verse 5;
“oppressed, stricken, cut off, killed, brought to slaughter,” verses 7–9; “bruised, sacrificed, and
his soul made an offering for sin,” verse
10.
Now, certainly, for the material part, or the matter of
punishment, here it is abundantly: here is “malum passionis” in every kind, — immission of evil,
subtraction of good in soul and body; here is plentiful measure, heaped up,
shaken together, and running over.
But it may be said, though here be the matter
of punishment, yet it may be all this was for some other end; and so it may
be it was νουθεσία, or δοκιμασία, or παιδεία, not τιμωρία, or punishment properly so called.
Consider, then, the ends of punishment before
insisted on, and see what of them is applicable to the transaction between
God and Christ here mentioned.
1. Was it for his own correction? No; says the
prophet, verse 9, “He had done no violence,
neither was any deceit in his mouth.” He was perfectly innocent, so that
he had no need of any chastisement for his amendment. And so signally in
sundry places, where mention is made of the death of Christ, his own
spotless innocency is often pleaded.
2. Neither was it for his instruction, that he
might be wise and instructed in the will of God; for at the very entrance
of the prophecy, chap. lii.
13, he says he shall “deal prudently, and be exalted.” He was
faithful before in all things. And though he experimentally learned
obedience by his sufferings, yet habitually to the utmost his ears were
bored, and himself prepared to the will of God, before the afflictions here
principally intended. Neither, —
3. Was he παράδειγμα,
punished for example, to be made an example to others that they
might not offend; for what can offenders learn from the punishment of one
who never offended? “He was cut off, but not for himself,” Dan. ix. 26. And the end assigned,
verse 11, which is not the
instruction only, but the justification and salvation of others, will not
allow this end: “He shall justify many, for he shall bear their
iniquities.” He set us an example in his obedience but he was not punished
for an example. Neither, —
4. Was it μαρτυρία, a
suffering to bear witness and testimony to the truth. There is no
mention of any such end in this place; yea, to make that the main
intendment here is a monstrous figment. The expressions all along, as we
shall see in the next place, are, that all this was “for our
transgressions, for our sins, for our iniquities, for our peace.” God
wounded, bruised, killed him, for our iniquities; that is, he died to bear
witness to his doctrine! “Credat
Apella.”
Then, the matter of punishment being expressed, see the
cause of the infliction of it. It was for “transgressions,” for
“iniquities,” verse 5; for wandering and “iniquity,”
verse 6; for “transgression,”
verse 8; for “sin,” verse 12. Let us now remember the
general description of punishment that was given at the beginning, — it is
“malum passionis quod infligitur ob malum
actionis,” — and see how directly it suits with this punishment of
Jesus Christ: first, Here is “malum
passionis” inflicted, wounding, bruising, killing; and, secondly,
There is “malum actionis” deserving,
sin, iniquity, and transgression. How these met on an innocent person
shall be afterward declared. Go we along to the peculiar
description of punishment properly so called, as managed by God, — it is
“vindicta noxæ.” Now, if all other
ends and causes whatever, as of chastisement for example, etc., be removed,
and this only be asserted, then this affliction of Christ was “vindicta noxæ,” punishment in the most
proper sense; but that these ends are so removed hath been declared upon
the particular consideration of them.
And this is the first argument from this place to prove
that the death of Christ and his suffering have the nature of
punishment.
The second is from the more particular expressions of it to
this purpose, both on the part of the person punishing and on the part of
the person punished. A single expression on each part may be insisted
on:—
1. On the part of God punishing, take that of
verse 6, “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all;” of which
sort also is that of verse
10, “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise
him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering
for sin,” etc.
2. On the part of him punished, verse 11, “He shall bear their
iniquities.”. From the consideration of these expressions we shall
evidently evince what we have proposed. Of these in the next chapter.
Chapter XXIV.
Some particular testimonies evincing the death of Christ to be a
punishment, properly so called.
The two expressions that I chose in
particular to consider are nextly to be insisted on.
The first relates to him who did inflict the punishment;
the other to him that was punished. The first is in verse 6, “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” The
person punishing is Jehovah, the person punished called “him,” — that is,
he who is spoken of throughout the whole prophecy, the Messiah, Jesus
Christ, as above declared.
For the opening of the words, that the efficacy of them to
our purpose in hand may appear, two of them are especially to be
considered: — First, What is meant by that which is
rendered “laid on him;” secondly, What is meant by
“iniquity.”
The first by our translation is rendered in the
margin, “made to meet:” “He made to meet on him the iniquities of us all.”
The Vulgar Latin, “Posuit Dominus in
eo,” — “The Lord put upon him,” according to
our translation in the text. Montanus, “Dominus fecit
occurrere in eum,” — “God hath caused to meet on him,” according to
our translation in the margin. Junius to the same purpose, “Jehovah fecit ut incurrat,” —
“The Lord made them meet and fall on him.” The
LXX. render it, Καὶ Κύριος παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν
ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἡμῶν, — “The Lord delivered
him to our sins,” that is, to be punished for them. By others the word is
rendered “impegit, traduxit,
conjecit,” — all to the same purpose, importing an act of God in
conveying our sins to Christ.
The word here used is הִפְגִּיעַ its root is פָּגַע, to which all the significations mentioned
are assigned, “occurrere, obviam ire,
incurrere, aggredi, rogare, precari.”
1. The first general signification of it is “to meet,” as
the bounds of a field, or country, or house, meet with one another:
Josh. xix. 34, וּפָגַע בִּזְבוּלֻן; so all along in that chapter,
where the bounds of one country are said to reach to another, that is, to
meet with them. It is the word here used. So in voluntary agents it is
“obviam ire,” or “to meet,” and that
either for good or evil. For good it is spoken of God, Isa. lxiv. 5, “Thou meetest him,” etc;
and so for evil, Amos v.
19, “As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him,”
וּפְגָעוֹ, — that is, to tear him in
pieces. Hence, because men that met others went to them to desire some
help of them, the word also signifies “to ask, to pray, entreat, or
intercede:” so the word is used, Isa. lix.
16, “There was no entreater,” מַפְגִּיעַ, — none to meet, to come and ask; and in
this very chapter, verse
12, “He made intercession for the transgressors.” The word is
the same with that here used. To meet the Lord, and intercede for
transgressors, to stay his hand against them, is its sense.
2. “To meet,” or “to make to meet” properly, which is the
first and most clear sense of the word. It is often used for to meet
“animo hostili,” to meet, to fall
upon, for hurt. 1 Sam. xxii.
17, “The servants of the king would not put forth their hand
לִפְגֹּעַ, to meet, that is, as we
have translated it, to “fall upon the priests” and kill them. So 2 Sam. i. 15, David bade his young
man arise, פְּגַע, “fall upon” the
Amalekite, — that is, to kill him. Samson made the men of Judah swear that
they would not תִּפְּגְּעוּן, “meet
with him,” or fall on him, themselves, Judges xv.
12.
Nextly, it may be inquired in what sense the word is here
used, whether in the first spoken of, “to ask, entreat, intercede;” or in
the latter, “to meet,” or “to meet with.”
Grotius interpreteth it
(to remove so much of his interpretation by the way), “Permisit Deus, ut ille nostro gravi crimine indignissima
pateretur,” that so he might suit what is spoken to Jeremiah,
without pretence or colour of proof. For the word, it is forty-six times
used in the Old Testament, and if in any one of them it may be truly
rendered “permisit,” as it is done
by him, or to that sense, let it be here so applied also. And for that
sense (which is, that God suffered the Jews by their wickedness to entreat
him evilly), it is most remote from the intendment of the
words, and the Holy Ghost in them.
First, then, that the words cannot be interpreted “to pray
or intercede” is evident from the contexture, wherein it is said (in this
sense), “He prayed him for the iniquity of us all;” that is, the Lord prayed Christ for the iniquities of us all. This
sense of the word הִפְגִּיעַ, in
this place, Socinus himself grants
not to be proper nor consistent: “Porro
significatio ilia, precari, in loco nostro locum habere non potest; alioqui
sequeretur Esaiam voluisse dicere, Deum fecisse, ut omnium nostrum
iniquitas per Christum, vel pro Christo precata fuerit, quod longe
absurdissimum esse nemo non videt,” Cap. xxi. p. 132, Prælec. Socin.
It is, then, “to meet.” Now, the word here used being in
hiphil, which makes a double action of that expressed, by adding the cause
by whose power, virtue, and impress the thing is done, thence it is here
rendered “occurrere fecit,” — “he
made to meet.” And so the sense of it is, “God made our sins, as it were,
to set upon or to fall upon Jesus Christ;” which is the most common use of
the word, as hath been showed.
It is objected that the word signifies to meet, yet no more
but this may be the meaning of them, “God in Christ met with all our
iniquities;” that is, for their pardoning, and removal, and taking
away.
Of the many things that may be given in for the eversion of
this gloss I shall name only two, whereof the first is to the word, the
latter to the matter. For the word, the conjugation, according to the
common rule, enforces the sense formerly mentioned: he made to
meet, and not he met. Secondly, The prophet in these words
renders a reason of the contemptible, sad condition of the Messiah, at
which so many were scandalized, and whereupon so few believed the report of
the gospel concerning him; and this is, that God laid on him our
iniquities. Now, there is no reason why he should be represented in so
deplorable a state and condition if God only met with and prevented our sin
in and by him; which he did (as they say) in his resurrection, wherein he
was exceeding glorious. So that the meaning of the word is, that God made
our sins to meet on him by laying them on him; and this sense Socinus himself consents unto, Prælec. cap. xxi. p.
133. But this also will farther appear in the explication of the
next word, and that is “our iniquity.”
Secondly, “The Lord hath
laid on him the iniquity of us all,” עֲוֹן. How the iniquity of us? That is, the
punishment of our iniquity. I shall offer three things to make good this
interpretation:—
1. That the word is often found in that sense, so that it
is no new or uncouth thing that here it should be so: Gen. iv. 13, עֲוֹנִי, “Mine iniquity is greater than I can bear;”
it is the same word here used. They are the words of Cain,
upon the denunciation of God’s judgment on him; and what iniquity it is he
gives you an account in the next words, “Behold, thou hast driven me out,”
verse 14. That was only the
punishment laid on him. It is used in like manner several times, Lev. xx. 17, 19;
1 Sam. xxviii. 10, Saul sware to the
witch that no iniquity should befall her, — that is, no punishment for that
which she did at his command, in raising up a spirit to consult withal,
contrary to the law; and also in sundry other places: so that this is no
new signification of the word, and is here most proper.
2. It appears from the explication that is given of this
thing in many other expressions in the chapter: “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” How? In
that “it pleased him to bruise him, and put him to grief,” verse 10; in that he “was wounded for
our transgressions, and he was bruised for our iniquities,” verse 5; as will be made more evident
when I come to the next phrase, “He shall bear their iniquities,” which
answers to this, “He laid them on him.”
3. Because he did so lay our sin on Christ that “he made
his soul an offering for sin.” When our iniquities were on him, “his soul”
(that is, he himself, by a usual synecdoche, the soul for the person) “was
made אָשָׁם, an offering for sin.”
The word here used is like “piaculum” in Latin; which signifies the fault, and
him who is punished for it in a way of a public sacrifice. So is this word
taken both for a sin, a trespass, and a sacrifice for the expiation of it,
as another word, namely, חָטָא, is
used also, Lev. iv. 3, “He shall offer it לְחַטָּאת, for a sin,” — that is, an
offering for sin. So also Exod. xxix.
14, Lev. iv. 29. And this very word is so
used, Lev. vii. 2, “They shall kill אָשָׁם;” that is, the sin, or
sin-offering, or “trespass-offering,” as there it is rendered. And other
instances might be given, Now, God did so cause our iniquities to meet on
Christ that he then under them made himself אָשָׁם, or “an offering for sin.” Now, in the
offering for sin the penalty of the offence was, “suo more,” laid on the beast that was sacrificed or
made an offering. Paul interpreteth these words by other expressions:
2 Cor. v. 21, “He made him to be a
sin for us;” that is, an offering for sin, אַשַׁם. He made him sin when he made him “a curse,
the curse of the law,” Gal. iii.
13; that is, gave him up to the punishment by the law due to
sin. Rom. viii. 3, “God sending his own Son
in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,” καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας, for sin, a sacrifice for sin,
“condemned sin in the flesh.” Heb. x.
6, Ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας
οὐκ εὐδόκησας, “In burnt-offerings and for sin thou hast had no
pleasure;” and again, Ὅτι θυσίαν καὶ
προσφορὰν καὶ ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας verse
8.
It appears, then, from all that hath been said, that our
iniquities that were laid on Christ were the punishment due to our
iniquity.
Farther to clear this, I shall a little consider what act
of God this was whereby he laid our iniquities on Christ; and these two
things are considerable therein: 1. How it was typically
prefigured; 2. How it was done, or in what act of God the doing of it doth
consist.
1. This was eminently represented in the great
anniversary sacrifice, of which I have spoken formerly, especially in
that part which concerns the goat, ἀποπομπαῖος, on which the lot fell to be sent away.
That that goat was a sacrifice is evident from Lev. xvi.
5, where both the kids of the goats (afterward said to be two
goats) are said to be “a sin-offering.” How this was dealt withal, see
verse 21: “Aaron shall lay both his
hands upon the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the
children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting
them upon the head of the goat.” Now, in what sense could the sins of the
people be put upon the head of the goat?
(1.) This was not merely a representation, as it were a
show or pageant, to set forth the taking away of iniquity, but sins were
really, as to that typical institution, laid on the head of the goat;
whence he became a “piaculum,” an
ἀνάθεμα, and he that touched him was
defiled: so verse 26, the man that carried out
the goat was unclean until he was legally purified; and that because the
sin of the people was on the head of the goat which he so carried away.
(2.) The proper pravity, malice, and filth of sin could not
be laid on the goat. Neither the nature of the thing nor the subject will
bear it: for neither is tin, which is a privation, an irregularity, an
obliquity, such a thing as that it can be translated from one to another,
although it hath an infectious and a contagious quality to diffuse itself,
— that is, to beget something of the like nature in others; nor was the
goat a subject wherein any such pernicious or depraved habit might reside,
which belongs only to intelligent creatures, which have a moral rule to
walk by.
(3.) It must be the punishment of sin that is here
intended, which was, in the type, laid on the head of the goat; and
therefore it was sent away into a land not inhabited, a land of separation,
a wilderness, there to perish, as all the Jewish doctors agree, — that is,
to undergo the punishment that was inflicted on it. That in such
sacrifices for sin there was a real imputation of sin unto punishment shall
afterward be farther cleared.
Unto this transaction doth the prophet allude in this
expression, “He laid on,” or “put on him.” As the high priest confessed
all the sins, iniquities, and transgressions of the people, and laid them
on the head of the scapegoat, which he bare, undergoing the utmost
punishment he was capable of, and that punishment which, in the general
kind and nature, is the punishment due to sin, — an evil and violent death;
so did God lay all the sins, all the punishment due to them, really upon
one that was fit, able, and appointed to bear it, which he suffered under
to the utmost that the justice of God required on that account. He then
took a view of all our sins and iniquities. He knew what was
past and what was to come, knowing all our thoughts afar off. Not the
least error of our minds, darkness of our understandings, perverseness of
our wills, carnality of our affections, sin of our nature or lives, escaped
him. All were γυμνὰ καὶ
τετραχηλισμένα before him. This is set out by the variety of
expressions used in this matter in the type: “All the iniquities, all the
transgressions, and all the sins.” And so by every word whereby we express
sin in this 53d of Isaiah, — “going astray,
turning aside, iniquity, transgression, sin,” and the like. God, I say,
made them all to meet on Christ., in the punishment due to them.
2. What is the act of God whereby he casts our sins on
Christ.
I have elsewhere considered how God in this business is to
be looked on. I said
now in the entrance of this discourse, that punishment is an effect of
justice in him who had power to dispose of the offender as such. To this
two things are required:—
(1.) That he have in his hand power to dispose of all the
concernments of the offence [offender] and sinners, as the
governor of him and them all. This is in God. He is by nature
the king and governor of all the world, our lawgiver, James iv. 12. Having made rational
creatures and required obedience at their hands, it is essentially
belonging to him to be their governor,
and not only to have the sovereign disposal of them, as he hath the supreme
dominion over them, with the legal dispose of them, in answer to the moral
subjection to him and the obedience he requires of them.
(2.) That as he be a king, and have supreme government, so
he be a judge to put in execution his justice. Thus, “God is
judge himself,” Ps. l. 6; he is “the judge of all the
earth,” Gen. xviii. 25; Ps. xciv. 2; Ps. lxxv.
7; Isa. xxxiii.
22, as in innumerable other places. Now, as God is thus the
great governor and judge, he pursues the constitutive principle of
punishment, his own righteous and holy will, proportioning penalties to the
demerit of sin.
Thus, in the laying our sins on Christ, there was a twofold
act of God, — one as a governor, the other as a judge properly:—
[1.] The first is “innovatio obligationis,” the “innovation of the
obligation,” wherein we were detained and bound over to punishment; whereas
in the tenor of the law, as to its obligation unto punishment, there was
none originally but the name of the offender, — “In the day that thou
eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” and “Cursed is every one that
continueth not,” and “The soul that sinneth it shall die,” — God now puts
in the name of the surety, of Jesus Christ, that he might become
responsible for our sins, and undergo the punishment that we were obliged
to. Christ was ὑπὸ νόμον γενόμενον,
he was made under the law; that is, he was put into subjection to the obligation of it unto punishment. God put his name into the
obligation, and so the law came to have its advantage against him, who
otherwise was most free from the charge of it. Then was Christ “made sin,”
when, by being put into the obligation of the law, he became liable to the
punishment of it. He was the “mediator of the new covenant,” Heb. xii. 24, the “mediator between
God and men,” 1 Tim. ii. 5; so a mediator as to
“give himself a ransom” for them for whom he was a mediator, verse 6. And the “surety of the
covenant” is he also, Heb. vii.
22; such a surety as paid that which he never took, made
satisfaction for those sins which he never did.
[2.] The second act of God, as a judge, is “inflictio pœnæ.” Christ being now made obnoxious,
and that by his own consent, the justice of God finding him in the law,
layeth the weight of all on him. “He had done no violence, neither was any
deceit in his mouth.” Well, then, it will be well with him; surely it
shall be well with the innocent; no evil shall befall him. Nay but saith
he, verse 10, “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief.” Yea, but
what was the reason of this? why was this the will of God? why did this
seem good to the just “Judge of all the earth?” The reason is in the very
next words, “His soul was made an offering for sin;” which before is
expressed, “He bare our griefs, he was wounded for our transgressions.”
Being made liable to them, he was punished for them.
By that which is said, it is evident from this first
expression, or the assignation of an action to God in reference to him,
that this death of Christ was a punishment, he who had power to do it
bringing in him (on his own voluntary offer) into the obligation to
punishment, and inflicting punishment on him accordingly.
The second expression, whereby the same thing is farther
evinced, is on the part of him that was punished, and this [occurs] in
verse 4, “Surely he hath borne our
griefs, and carried our sorrows;” or, which is more evident, verse 11, “He shall bear their
iniquities.”
For the right understanding of the words, I shall give a
few brief previous observations, that may give light to the matter we treat
of. And the first is, —
1. That as this whole thing was done in the
justice of God, as hath been declared, so it was done by the
counsel and appointment of God. The apostles confess the death of
Christ to have proceeded thence, Acts iv. 28, ii.
23. Now, as laying of our sins on Christ, being designed our
mediator, and undertaking the work, was an act of God as the governor of
all and the righteous judge, so this of the determinate counsel and
fore-appointment, or the eternal designation, of Christ to his office, is
an act of sovereign power and dominion in God, whereby he doth as he
pleaseth, according to the counsel of his will. As he would make the world
in his sovereign good pleasure when he might have otherwise
done, Rev. iv. 11, so he would determine
that Christ should bear our iniquities when he might otherwise have
disposed of them, Rom.
xi. 33–36.
2. In respect of us, this pre-appointment of God
was an act of grace, — that is, a sovereign act of his good pleasure, —
whence all good things, all fruits of love whatever, to us do flow.
Therefore it is called love, John iii.
16; and so in the fruit of it is it expressed, Rom. viii. 32; and on this John often
insists in his Gospel and First Epistle, 1 John iv. 9–11. His aim on his own
part was the declaration of his righteousness, Rom. iii.
25, and to make way for the “praise of his glorious grace,”
Eph. i. 6; on our part, that we might
have all those good things which are the fruits of the most intense
love.
3. That Christ himself was willing to undergo this burden
and undertake this work. And this, as it is consistent with his death
being a punishment, so it is of necessity to make good the other
considerations of it, namely, that it should be a price and a sacrifice;
for no man gives a price, and therein parts with that which is precious to
him, unwillingly, nor is a sacrifice acceptable that comes not from a free
and willing mind. That he was thus willing himself professeth, both in the
undertaking and carrying of it on. In the undertaking: Heb. x. 7, “Lo, I come to do thy will,
O God.” It is the expression of one breaking out with a ready joy to do
the thing proposed to him. So the church of old looked on him as one that
came freely and cheerfully: Cant. ii.
8, 9, “The voice of my beloved! behold, he cometh leaping upon
the mountains, skipping upon the hills. My beloved is like a roe or a
young hart: he standeth behind our wall, he looketh forth at the windows,
showing himself through the lattice.” The church looked on Christ as yet
at a distance from the actual performance of the work he had undertaken,
and so herself kept off from that clear and close communion which she
longed after; and hence she says of him that he “stood behind the wall,”
that he “looked forth at the windows,” and “showed himself through the
lattice.” There was a wall yet hindering the actual exhibition of Christ;
the “fulness of time” was not come; the purpose of God was not yet to bring
forth: but yet, in the meantime, Christ looked on the church through the
window of the promise and the lattice of the Levitical ceremonies.
And what discovery do they make of him in the view they
take in the broad light of the promises and the many glimpses of the
ceremonial types? They see him “coming leaping upon the mountains and
skipping upon the hills,” — coming speedily, with a great deal of joy and
willingness.
So of himself he declares what his mind was from old, from
everlasting: Prov.
viii. 30, 31, “Rejoicing always before him,” — that is, before God his Father. But in what did he rejoice? “In the
habitable part of his earth; and his delights were with the sons of men.”
When this joy of his was he tells you, verses 22–30. He rejoiced before
God his Father in the sons of men before they were created; that is, in the
work he had to do for them.
His will was also in the carrying of it on unto
accomplishment; he must be doing his Father’s business, his will who sent
him: Luke xii. 50, Πῶς συνέχομαι! He was pained as a woman in travail to
be delivered, to come to be baptized in his own blood. And when he was
giving himself up to the utmost of it, he professes his readiness to it,
John xviii. 11; when Peter, who once
before would have advised him to spare himself, now, seeing his counsel was
not followed, would have rescued him with his sword. As for his advice he
was called Satan, so for his proffered assistance he is now rebuked; and
the reason of it is given, “Shall I not drink of the cup?” It is true,
that it might appear that his death was not a price and a sacrifice only,
but a punishment also, wherein there was an immission of every thing that
was evil to the suffering nature and a subtraction of that which was good,
he discovered that averseness to the drinking of the cup which the truth of
the human nature absolutely required (and which the amazing bitterness of
the cup overpowered him withal); yet still his will conquered and prevailed
in all, Matt. xxvi. 53, 54.
4. Christ’s love was also in it; “his delights were with
the sons of men,” his love towards them carried him out to the work. And
Paul proves it by the instance of himself, Gal. ii.
20, “Who loved me;” and John applies the same to all believers,
Rev. i. 5, 6, “Unto him that loved us,”
etc. And thus was this great work undertaken.
These things being premised, let us look again to the words
under consideration:—
1. For the word he bare our griefs, verse 4, it is נָשָׂא, a word of as large and as many various
acceptations as any, if not absolutely the most extensive in the whole
Hebrew tongue. It hath usually assigned unto it by the lexicographer eight
or nine several significations; and to make it evident that it is of
various acceptations, it is used (in the collections of Calasius) eight hundred and eighteen
times in the Old Testament, whereof not a third part is answered in any
language by one and the same word. With those senses of it that are
metaphorical we have not any thing to do. That which is the first or most
proper sense of it, and what is most frequently used, is to “carry” or
“bear,” and by which it is here translated, as in very many other
places.
Socinus would have it
here be as much as “abstulit,” “he
took away.” So saith he. “God took away our sin in Christ, when by him he
declared and confirmed the way whereby pardon and remission is
to be obtained, as he pardoned our sin in Christ by discovering the new
covenant and mercy therein.” Now, because the word is of such various
significations, there is a necessity that it be interpreted by the
circumstances of the place where it is used. And because there is not any
circumstance of the place on the account whereof the word should be
rendered “abstulit,” “he took away,”
and not “tulit,” “he took,” “bare,”
or “suffered,” we must consider what arguments or reasons are scraped
together “aliunde” by them, and then
evince what is the proper signification of it in this place:—
(1.) “This very expression is used of God, Exod. xxxiv. 7, נֹשֵׂא עָוֹן, ‘ferens iniquitatem,’ as also it is again repeated,
Num. xiv. 18; in both which places we
translate it ‘forgiving,’ ‘forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.’
Nor can it be properly spoken of God to bear, for God cannot bear, as the
word properly signifies.”
The sum of the objection is, the word that is used so many
times, and so often metaphorically, is once or twice in another place used
for to take away or to pardon, therefore this must be the sense of it in
this place! God cannot be said to bear iniquities but only metaphorically,
and so he is often said to bear, to be pressed, to be weary, and made to
serve with them. He is said to bear our sins in reference to the end of
bearing any thing, which is to carry it away. God in Christ taking away,
pardoning our sins, is said to bear them, because that is the way which
sins are taken away; they are taken up, carried, and laid aside. But he of
whom these words are spoken here did bear properly, and could do so, as
shall be showed.
(2.) The interpretation of this place by Matthew, or the
application of it, is insisted on, which is of more importance: “Matt. viii. 16, 17, Christ curing
the diseases of many, and bodily sicknesses, is said to ‘bear our griefs,’
according as it is said in Isaiah that he should do. Now, he did not bear
our diseases by taking them upon himself, and so becoming diseased, but
morally, in that by his power he took them away from them in whom they
were.”
Not to make many words, nor to multiply interpretations and
accommodations of these places, — which may be seen in them who have to
good purpose made it their business to consider the parallel places of the
Old and New Testaments, and to reconcile them, — I say only, it is no new
thing to have the effect and evidence and end of a thing spoken of in the
New Testament, in answer to the cause and rise of it mentioned in the Old,
by the application of the same words unto it which they are mentioned in.
For instance, Paul, Eph. iv. 8,
citing that of the psalmist, Ps. lxviii.
18, “Thou hast ascended up on high, and hast led captivity
captive, and received gifts for men,” renders it, “When he ascended up on
high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men;” and that because
his giving of them was the end of his receiving of them, and his receiving
of them the foundation of his giving of them, the effect and
fruit being here expressed, the foundation and ground supposed. So also,
“Mine ears hast thou bored,” Ps. xl. 6,
is rendered “A body hast thou prepared me,” Heb. x.
5; because the end of the boring of the ears of Christ was, that
he might offer his body a sacrifice to God. So it is here in this place of
Matthew. Christ’s taking away the bodily distempers and sicknesses of men
was an effect and an evidence of his taking away their sins, which was done
by bearing of them; and therefore Matthew mentioning the effect and
evidence of the thing doth it in the words that express the cause and
foundation of it. Not that that was a complete accomplishment of what was
foretold, but that it was so demonstrated in the effect and evidence of it.
Nor do the Socinians themselves think that this was a full accomplishment
of what is spoken by the prophet, themselves insisting on another
interpretation of the words. So that notwithstanding these exceptions, the
word here may have its proper signification, of bearing or carrying; which
also that it hath may be farther evidenced.
(1.) Here is no cogent reason why the metaphorical use of
the word should be understood. When it is spoken of God, there is
necessity that it should be interpreted by the effect, because properly he
cannot bear nor undergo grief, sorrow, or punishment: but as to the
Mediator, the case is otherwise, for he confessedly underwent these things
properly, wherein we say that this word “bearing of punishment” doth
consist; he was so bruised, so broken, so slain. So that there is no
reason to depart from the propriety of the word.
(2.) Those who would have the sense of the word to be, “to
take away,” in this place, confess it is by way of the allusion before
mentioned, that he that takes away a thing takes it up, and bears it on his
shoulders, or in his arms, until he lay it down, and by virtue of this
allusion doth it signify “to take away.” But why? Seeing that taking up
and bearing in this place is proper, as hath been showed, why must that be
leaped over, and that which is improper and spoken by way of allusion be
insisted on?
(3.) It appears that this is the sense of the word from all
the circumstances of the text and context. Take three that are most
considerable:—
[1.] The subject spoken of who did thus bear our
griefs, and this is Christ, of whom such things are affirmed, in answer to
this question, How did he bear our griefs? as will admit of no other sense.
The Holy Ghost tells us how he did it, 1 Pet. ii.
24, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the
tree.” That Peter in that place expressed this part of the prophecy of
Isaiah which we insist upon is evident; the phrase at the close of
verse 24 and the beginning of
verse 25 of this chapter make it so;
they are the very words of the end of
the 5th and beginning of the 6th verses here. How,
then, did Christ bear our griefs? Why, in that “he bare our sins in his
own body on the tree.”
I shall not insist on the precise signification of the word
ἀναφέρω, here used, as though it
expressed the outward manner of that suffering of Christ for sin when he
was lifted up on the cross or tree. It is enough that our sins were on
him, his body, — that is, his whole human nature, by a usual synecdoche, —
when he was on the tree; that he did it when he “suffered in the flesh,”
1 Pet. iv. 1. He that did so bear our
griefs, sins, and iniquities, as to have them in his own body when he
suffered in the flesh, he is said properly therein “tulisse,” not “abstulisse,” to “have borne,” not “taken away,” our
griefs. But that this is the case in Christ’s bearing our griefs the Holy
Ghost doth thus manifest.
[2.] The manner how Christ bare them evidently
manifesteth in what sense this expression is to be understood. He so bare
them that in doing so “he was wounded and bruised, grieved, chastised,
slain,” as it is at large expressed in the context. Christ bare our griefs
so as in doing of it to be wounded, broken, grieved, killed; which is not
to take them away, but really to bear them upon himself.
[3.] The cause of this bearing our griefs is
assigned to be sin, “He was wounded for our transgressions;” as was shown
before. Now, this cannot be the sense, “For our sins, he took them away;”
but, “For our sins, he bare the punishment due to them,” 2 Cor. v. 21.
(4.) To put all out of question, the Holy Ghost in this
chapter useth another word in the same matter with this, that will admit of
no other sense than that which is proper, and that is סָבַל Verse
11, וַעֲוֹנֹתָם הוּא יִסְבֹּל, — “He shall bear their
iniquities;” and it is used immediately after this we have insisted on, as
explicative of it, “And carried our sorrows.” Now, as נָשָׂא properly signifies “to lift,” to “take up”
that which a man may carry, so סָבַל
signifies to “bear” and “undergo” the burden that is taken up, or that a
man hath laid on his shoulders. And Matthew hath rendered this word by
βαστάζω τὰς νόσους ἐβάστασεν, — that
is, “bajulo, porto,” to bear a thing
as a man doth a burden on his shoulders. Nor is it once used in the
Scriptures but it is either properly to bear a burden, or metaphorically
from thence to undergo that which is heavy and burdensome. Thus did Christ
bear our griefs, our iniquities, by putting his shoulder under them, taking
them on himself.
2. What did he thus bear? Our griefs, our sins;
or our iniquities, our sins. Let us see, by a second instance, what it is
in the language of God “to bear iniquities,” and this argument will be at
an issue: Lam. v. 7, “Our fathers have sinned,
and are not; and we have borne their iniquities.” “We have borne their
iniquities,” or the punishment that was due to them. “They are not,” —
“They are gone out of the world before the day of recompense came; and we
lie under the punishment threatened and inflicted for their
sins and our own.” Distinctly, —
(1.) Men are said to bear their own sin: Lev. xix. 8, “Every one that eateth it
shall bear his iniquity;” that is, he shall be esteemed guilty, and be
punished. Lev. xx. 17, “He shall bear his
iniquity,” is the same with “He shall be killed,” verse
16, and “He shall be cut off from among his people,” verse 18. For a man to “bear his
iniquity,” is, constantly, for him to answer for the guilt and undergo the
punishment due to it.
(2.) So also of the sins of others: Num. xiv.
33, “And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty
years, and bear your whoredoms.” “Bear your whoredoms;” that is, “My anger
for them, and the punishment due to them.” Num. xxx.
15, he that compels by his power and authority another to break
a vow shall himself be liable to the punishment due to such a breach of
vow. Ezek. xviii. 20 is an explanation of
all these places: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die,” — “it shall be
punished.” “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father,” etc., —
“The son shall not be punished for the sin of the father, nor the father
for the sin of the son.” In brief, this expression, “to bear iniquities,”
is never otherwise used in Scripture but only for “to undergo the
punishment due thereunto.”
Thus much, then, we have clearly evinced: God did so lay
our sins on Christ as that he bare and underwent that which was due to
them, God inflicting it on him, and he willingly undergoing it; which is my
second demonstration from this place, that the death of Christ is also a
punishment; which is all that I shall urge to that purpose. And this is
that, and all, that we intend by the satisfaction of Christ.
But now, having laid so great stress, as to the doctrine
under demonstration, upon this place of the prophet, and finding some
attempting to take away our foundation, before I proceed I shall divert to
the consideration of the annotations of Grotius on this whole chapter, and rescue it from his force
and violence, used in contending to make what is here spoken to suit the
prophet Jeremiah, and to intend him in the first place; to establish which
vain conjecture, he hath perverted the sense of the whole and of every
particular verse, from the beginning to the end of this prophecy.
Chapter XXV.
A digression concerning the 53d chapter of Isaiah, and the
vindication of it from the perverse interpretation of Hugo Grotius.
This chapter is well by some termed
“Carnificina Rabbinorum,” —
a place of Scripture that sets them on the rack, and makes them turn themselves all ways possible to escape the torture which it puts
their unbelieving hearts unto. Not long since a worthy and very learned
friend told me, that speaking with Manasseh Ben Israel at Amsterdam, and urging this prophecy
unto him, he ingenuously told him, “Profecto locus iste magnum scandalum dedit;” to whom
the other replied, “Recte, quia Christus
vobis lapis scandali est.” Hulsius, the Hebrew professor at Breda, professes that
some Jews told him that their rabbins could easily have extricated
themselves from all other places of the prophets, if Isaiah in this place
had but held his peace, Huls. Theolog. Judaic. lib. i. part. ii. Dict. Sapp. de Tempor.
Messiæ. Though I value not
their boasting of their extricating themselves from the other prophecies,
knowing that they are no less entangled with that of Dan.
ix. (of which there is an eminent story in Franzius de Sacrificiis
concerning his dispute with a learned Jew on that subject), yet it appears that by this they are
confessedly intricated beyond all hope of evading, until they divest
themselves of their cursed hypothesis.
Hence it is that with so much greediness they scraped
together all the copies of Abrabanel’s comment on this chapter, so that it was very hard
for a Christian a long time to get a sight of it, as Constantine l’Empereur acquaints us in
his preface to his refutation of it, because they thought themselves in some measure
instructed by him to avoid the arguments of the Christians from hence by
his application of the whole to Josiah; and I must needs say he hath put as
good, yea, a far better colour of probability upon his interpretation than
he with whom I have to do hath done on his.
How ungrateful, then, and how unacceptable to all
professors of the name of Jesus Christ, must the labours of Grotius needs be, who hath to the utmost of
his power reached out his hand to relieve the poor blind creatures from
their rack and torture, by applying, though successlessly, this whole
prophecy to Jeremiah, casting himself into the same entanglements with
them, not yielding them indeed the least relief, is easy to conjecture.
And this is not a little aggravated, in that the Socinians, who are no less
racked and tortured with this scripture than the Jews, durst never yet
attempt to accommodate the things here spoken of to any other, though they
have expressed a desire of so doing, and which if they could compass, they
would free themselves from the sharpest sword that lies at the throat of
their cause, seeing if it is certain that the things here mentioned may be
applied to any other, the satisfaction of Christ cannot from
them be confirmed. This digression, then, is to cast into the fire that
broken crutch which this learned man hath lent unto the Jews and Socinians
to lean upon, and keep themselves from sinking under their unbelief.
To discover the rise of that learned man’s opinion, that
Jeremiah is intended in this prophecy, the conceits of the Jewish doctors
may a little be considered, who are divided amongst themselves.
1. The ancient doctors generally conclude that it is the
Messiah who is here intended. “Behold, my servant the Messiah shall
prosper,” says the Chaldee paraphrast upon the place. And Constantine l’Empereur tells [us] from
R. Simeon, in his book Salkout, that the ancient rabbins, in
their ancient book Tanchuma, and higher, were
of the same judgment. Rabbi Moses Alscheth is urged to the
same purpose at large by Hulsius;
and in his comment on this place he says expressly, “Ecce doctores nostri laudatæ memoriæ uno ore statuunt, et a
majoribus acceperunt, de rege Messia sermonem esse, et doctorum L. M.
vestigiis insistemus.” And one passage in him is very admirable, in
the same place; saith he, “Dicunt doctores
nostri L. M. omnium affiictionum quæ mundum ingressæ sunt, tertia pars
Davidi et patriarchis obtigit, tertia altera seculo excisionis, ultima
tertia pars regi Messiæ incumbet;” where he urgeth the common
consent of their doctors for the sufferings of the Messiah. Of the same
mind was R. Solomon, as he is
cited by Petrus Galatinus, lib. viii. cap. xiv.; as the same is
affirmed by the Misdrach Resh, cap. ii.
14; and in Bereshith Rabba on
Gen. xxiv. as is observed by Raymundus Martinus, Pug. Fidei 3, p.
dist. 1, cap. x. So that before these men grew impudent and crafty
in corrupting and perverting the testimonies of the Old Testament
concerning the Messiah, they generally granted him and only him to be here
intended. It was not for want of company, then, that Grotius took in with the modern rabbins, who, being mad with
envy and malice, care not what they say, so they may oppose Jesus
Christ.
2. Many of the following Jewish doctors interpret this
place of the whole people of the Jews. And this way go the men
who are of the greatest note amongst them in these latter days, as R. D. Kimchi, Aben Ezra, Abrabanel, Lipman, with what weak
and mean pretences, with what inconsistency as to the words of the text,
hath been by others manifested.
3. Abrabinel, or
Abrabanel, a man of great note and
honour amongst them, though he assents to the former exposition, of
applying the whole prophecy to the people of the Jews, and
interprets the words at large accordingly, — which exposition
is confuted by Constantine
l’Empereur, — yet he inclines to a singular opinion of his own, that
Josiah is the man pointed at and described; but he is the first
and last that abides by that interpretation.
4. Grotius interprets
the words of Jeremiah in the first place, not denying them, as we
shall see, to have an accommodation to Christ. In this he hath the company
of one rabbi, R. Saadias Gaon,
mentioned by Aben Ezra upon
the 52d chapter of this prophecy, verse
13. But this fancy of Saadias is fully confuted by Abrabanel; whose words, because they sufficiently evert the
whole design of Grotius also, I shall
transcribe as they lie in the translation of Hulsius: “Revera ne unum
quidem versiculum video, qui de Jeremiah exponi posit: qua ratione de eo
dicetur, ‘Extolletur et altus erit valde?’ Item illud, ‘propter eum obdent
reges os suum,’ am ætas ilia prophetas habere consueverat. Quomodo etiam
dici potest morbos nostros portasse, et dolores nostros bajulasse, et in
tumice ejus curationem nobis esse, Deum in ipsum incurrere fecisse peccata
omnium nostrum: quasi ipsi pœna incubuisset, et Israel fuisset immunis?
Jam illud, ‘Propter peccatum populi mei plaga ipsis,’ item, ‘Dedit cum
improbis sepulcrum ejus,’ ad ipsum referri nequit; multo minus illud,
‘Videbit semen, prolongabit dies,’ item, ‘cum robustis partietur spolium.’
In quibus omnibus nihil est quod de ipso commode affirmari possit. Unde
vehementer miror, quomodo R. Hagaon in hanc sententiam perduci potuerit, et
sapientes dari qui hanc expositionem laudant; cum tamen tota ista exponendi
ratio plane aliena sit, et e Scriptura non facta.”
Now, certainly, if this Jew thought he had sufficient cause
to admire that the blind rabbi should thus wrest the sense of the Holy
Ghost, and that any wise man should be so foolish as to commend it, we
cannot but be excused in admiring that any man professing himself a
Christian should insist in his steps, and that any should commend him for
so doing.
That, therefore, which here is affirmed in the entrance of
his discourse by Abrabanel, namely,
that not one verse can or may be expounded of Jeremiah, shall now
particularly be made good against Grotius:—
He confesseth with us that the head of this prophecy and
discourse is in verse 13, chap.
lii. The words of that verse are, —
“Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be
exalted and extolled, and be very high.”
Of the sense of which words, thus he:—
“Ecce intelliget servus
meus. Hæc omnia clarissime sibi revelata cognoscet Jeremias.
Exaltabitur et elevabitur, et sublimis erit valde. In magno
honore erit apud ipsos Chaldæos, Jer.
xxxix., in fine, et xl.;” — “My servant Jeremiah shall have all
these things clearly revealed to him, and he shall be in great
honour with the Chaldeans.” So he.
1. For the words themselves: יַשְׂכִּיל, with the Vulgar Latin, he renders “intelliget,” “shall understand.” The word
signifies rather “prudence” for action with success, than any speculative
knowledge by revelation. 1 Sam. xviii.
30, it is used of David behaving himself wisely in the business
of his military and civil employment. Its opposite, saith Pagnine, is טָבַל, “quod
incogitantiam significat in rebus agendis et ignavam levitatem,” —
“which signifies incogitancy in the management of affairs and idle
lightness.” Whence the word is usually taken for to “prosper” in affairs;
as it is used of our Saviour, Jer. xxiii.
5, “A King shall reign” וְהִשְׂכַּיל, “and prosper.” Nor can it be
otherwise used here, considering the connection of the words wherein it
stands, it being the precedent to his being “highly exalted” who is spoken
of; which rather follows his “dealing prudently” than his “receiving
revelations.” So that in the very entrance there is a mistake in the sense
of the word, and that mistake lies at the bottom of the whole
interpretation.
2. I deny that God speaks anywhere in the Scripture of any
one besides Jesus Christ in this phrase, without any addition, “My
servant,” as here, “Behold, my servant.” So he speaks of Christ, Isa. xlii. 1, 19,
and other places; but not of any other person whatever. It is an
expression κατ ἐξοχήν, and not to be
applied to any but to him who was the great servant of the Father in the
work of mediation.
3. Even in respect of revelations, there is no ground why
those made to Jeremiah should be spoken of so emphatically, and by way of
eminence above others, seeing he came short of the prophet by whom these
words are written. Nor can any instance be given of such a prediction used
concerning any prophet whatever that was to be raised up in the church of
the Jews, but of Christ himself only.
4. The exposition of the close of these words, “He shall be
exalted and extolled, and be very high” (the great exaltation of the Lord Jesus
Christ in his kingdom, when he was made a prince and saviour in a most
eminent manner, being set forth in various expressions, no one reaching to
the glory of it), is unworthy the learned annotator. “He shall be exalted
and extolled, and be very high;” — that is, the Chaldeans shall give him
“victuals and a reward,” Jer. xl.
5; and after a while he shall be carried a prisoner into Egypt,
and there knocked on the head. Such was the exaltation of the poor
prophet! What resemblance hath all this to the exaltation of Jesus Christ,
whom the learned man confesseth to be intended in these words?
The sense, then, of these words is: Jesus
Christ, the Messiah, the servant of the Father, Isa. xlii. 1, 19,
Phil. ii. 7, 8, “shall deal
prudently,” and prosper in the business of doing his Father’s will, and
carrying on the affairs of his own kingdom, Isa. ix. 7,
“and be exalted” far above all principalities and powers, having “a name
given him above every name, that at the name of Jesus,” etc., Phil. ii. 9, 10.
The next verse is, —
“As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred
more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men.”
Of the accomplishment of this in and upon the Lord Jesus
Christ there is no difficulty. The astonishment mentioned is that of men
at his low and despicable condition as to outward appearance; which was
such as that he said of himself “he was a worm, and no man,” Ps. xxii. 6. His condition was such
and his visage such as all that knew any thing of him were astonished to
the purpose. The marring of his visage and form, as it may point out all
the acts of violence that were done upon his face, by spitting, buffeting,
and the like, so it expresses his whole despised, contemned, persecuted
estate and condition. But let us attend to our annotator:—
“Modò secunda, modò tertiâ
personâ, de Jeremia loquitur, quod frequens Hebræis. Sicut multi mirati
erant hominem tam egregium tam fœdè tractari, detrudi in carcerem, deinde
in lacum lutosum, ibique et pædore et cibi inopiâ contabescere; sic contra,
rebus mutatis, admirationi erit honos ipsi habitus;” — “He speaks of
Jeremiah, sometimes in the second, sometimes in the third person; which is
frequent with the Hebrews. As many wondered that so excellent a person
should so vilely be dealt with, be thrust into prison, and then into a miry
lake, and there to pine with stink and want of food; so on the contrary,
affairs being changed, the honour afforded him shall be matter of
admiration.”
1. To grant the first observation, as to the change of
persons in the discourse, the word (שָׁמְמוּ, “shall be astonished”) here used signifies
not every slight admiration, by wondering upon any occasion, or that may be
a little more than ordinary, but mostly an astonishment arising from the
contemplation of some ruthful spectacle. So Lev. xxvi.
32, “I will bring the land into desolation, and your enemies
which dwell therein shall be astonished at it;” and the word is near twenty
times used to the same purpose. This by way of diminution is made, “mirati sunt, admirationi erit.”
2. This astonishment of men is by Grotius referred both to the dejection and exaltation of
Jeremiah, whereof there is nothing in the words. It is the amazement of
men at the despicable condition of him that is spoken of only that is
intended; but without intruding something of his exaltation, this discourse
had wanted all colour or pretext.
3. Was it so great a matter in Jerusalem that
a prophet should be put in prison there, where they imprisoned, stoned,
tortured, and slew them almost all, one after another, in their several
generations, that it should be thus prophesied of as a thing that men would
and should be amazed at? Was it any wonder at all in that city, whose
streets not long before had run with the blood of innocent men, that a
prophet should be cast into prison? Or was this peculiar to Jeremiah to be
dealt so withal? Is it any matter of astonishment to this very day? Was
his honour afterward such an amazing thing, in that for a little season he
was suffered to go at liberty, and had victuals given him? Was not this,
as to the thing itself, common to him with many hundred others? Were his
afflictions such as to be beyond compare with those of any man, or any of
the sons of men? or his honours such as to dazzle the eyes of men with
admiration and astonishment? Let a man dare to make bold with the word of
God, and he may make as many such applications as he pleaseth, and find out
what person he will to answer all the prophecies of the Messiah. This not
succeeding, let us try the next verse:—
“So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut
their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see,
and that which they had not heard shall they consider.”
“Ita asperget gentes
multas. In Hebræo, ‘Sic asperget,’ ut respondeat illi, ‘sicut,’ quod
præcessit. Multos ex gentibus ab idolorum cultu avertet. Similitudo
sumpta ab aspersionibus legalibus; unde et Chaldæis נָזָה est objurgare.
At LXX. habent, Οὕτω θαυμάσονται ἔθνη
πολλὰ ἐπ αὐτῷ, non male; nam mirari
est aspergi fulgore alicujus;” — “In the Hebrew it is, ‘So he shall
sprinkle,’ that it might answer to the ‘as’ that went before. He shall
turn many of the nations from the worship of idols. A similitude taken
from the legal washings; whence נָזָה with the Chaldees is to ‘rebuke.’ The LXX.
render it, ‘So shall many nations wonder at him,’ not badly; for to wonder
is as it were to be sprinkled with any one’s brightness.’
For the exposition of the words, —
1. We agree that it is, “So he shall sprinkle,” αν ἀπόδοσις, relating to the πρότασις, verse
14, “As many were astonished,” etc.; the great work of Christ
and his exaltation therein being rendered in opposition to his humiliation
and dejection, before mentioned. As he was in so mean a condition that men
were astonished at him, so he shall be exalted, in his great work of
converting the nations, to their admiration.
2. It is granted that the expression, “He shall sprinkle,”
is an allusion to the legal washings and purifications; which as they were
typical of real sanctification and holiness, so from them is the promise
thereof so often expressed in the terms of “washing” and “cleansing,”
Ezek. xxxvi. 25, the term being
preserved and used in the New Testament frequently; the blood of Christ,
whereby this work is done, being therefore called “the blood
of sprinkling,” Heb. xii.
24, Eph. v.
25, 26. The pouring out of the Spirit by Jesus Christ, for the
purifying and sanctifying of many nations, not the Jews only, but the
children of God throughout the world, by faith in his blood, is that which
is here intended. What the use of נָזָה in the Chaldee to this purpose is I know
not.
3. The LXX. have very badly rendered the words, “Many
nations shall wonder at him,” both as to words and sense; for, — (1.) As
the words will not bear it, so, (2.) They make that the action of the
nations towards Christ which is his towards them. They lose the whole
sense of the words; and what they say falls in with what follows, and is
clearly expressed. (3.) It is not helped by the explanation given to it by
the annotator. The first expression is metaphorical, which the LXX. render
by a word proper, remote from the sense intended, which the
annotator explains by another metaphor; by which kind of procedure, men may
lead words and senses whither and which way they please.
4. [As] for the accommodation of the words to Jeremiah, how
did he sprinkle many nations, so as to answer the type of legal cleansing?
Did he pour out the Spirit upon them? did he sanctify and make them holy?
did he purge them from their iniquities? “But he turned many amongst the
nations from the worship of idols.” But who told Grotius so? where is it written or recorded? He prophesied,
indeed, of the desolation of idols and idolaters. Of the conversion of
many, of any, among the heathen by his preaching, he being not purposely
sent to them, what evidence have we? If a man may feign what he please,
and affix it to whom he please, he may make whom he will to be foretold in
any prophecy.
“Kings shall shut their mouths at him.” “Reges, ut Nebuchodonosor Chaldæorum, et Nechos Ægyptiorum,
eorumque satrapæ, admirabuntur cum silentio, ubi videbunt omnia quæ dicet
Jeremias ita adamussim et suis temporibus impleta;” — “Kings, as
Nebuchodonosor of the Chaldees, and Necho of the Egyptians, and their
princes, shall admire with silence, when they shall see all things foretold
by Jeremiah come to pass exactly and to be fulfilled in their own
time.”
That by this expression wonder and amazement is intended is
agreed. As men, all sorts of men, before were astonished at his low
condition, so even the greatest of them shall be astonished at the
prosperity of his work and exaltation. The reason of this their shutting
their mouths in silence and admiration is from the work which he shall do,
— that is, “he shall sprinkle many nations,” — as is evident from the
following reason assigned: “For that which hath not been told them shall
they see;” which expresseth the means whereby he should “sprinkle many
nations,” even by the preaching of the gospel to their conversion.
[As] for the application hereof to Jeremiah:—
1. That the kings mentioned did so become silent with admiration
at him and astonishment is ἄγραφον:
and all these magnificent thoughts of the Chaldeans’ dealing with Jeremiah
are built only on this, that looking on him as a man that had dissuaded the
Jews from their rebellion against them, and rebuked all their wickedness,
and foretold their ruin, they gave him his life and liberty. 2. The reason
assigned by Grotius why they should so
admire him is for his predictions; but the reason of the great
amazement and astonishment at him in the text is his sprinkling of many
nations: so that nothing, not a word or expression, doth here agree to
him; yea, this gloss is directly contrary to the letter of the text.
The close of these words is, “That which had not been told
them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they
consider;” of which he says, “They shall see that come to pass, foreseen
and foretold by him, which they had not heard of by their astrologers or
magicians.”
1. But what is it that is here intended? the desolation of
Jerusalem? That was it which Jeremiah foretold, upon the account whereof
he had that respect with the Chaldees which, through the mercy of God, he
obtained. Is this that which is thus emphatically expressed, “That which
they had not heard, that which they had not been told, this they should
see, this they should consider?” That this is directly spoken of Jesus
Christ, that he is the thing which they had not seen nor heard of, the
apostle tells us, Rom. xv.
21. Strange that this should be the desolation of
Jerusalem!
2. It is probable that the magicians and astrologers, whose
life and trade it was to flatter their kings with hope of success in their
wars and undertakings, had foretold the taking of Jerusalem, considering
that the king of the Chaldees had used all manner of divinations before he
undertook the war against it, Ezek. xxi. 21, 22. It is too much
trouble to abide on such vain imaginations; nor doth Grotius take any care to evidence how that which he delivers
as the sense of the words may so much as be typically spoken of Jesus
Christ, or be any way accommodated to him.
The prophet proceeds, chap.
liii., with the same continued discourse: Verse 1, “Who hath believed our
report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord
revealed?” which words are thus illustrated by the annotator:—
“Vultis scire, inquit, quis
ille sit futurus de quo cœpi agere, qui et meis prophetiis plenam habebit
fidem, et ipse de maximis rebus quas potentia Dei peraget revelationes
accipiet exactissimas, omnibus circumstantiis additis? dabo vobis geminas
ejus notas undo cognosci possit. Hæ notæ in Jeremiam quidem congruunt
prius, sed potius in sublimifisque, sæpe et magis κατά λέξιν, in
Christum;” — “ ‘Will ye know,’ saith he, ‘who he shall
be of whom I have begun to treat, who shall both fully believe my
prophecies and shall himself receive most exact revelations of the great
things that the power of God shall bring to pass, all the circumstances
being added? I will give you two notes of him by which he may be known.’
These notes, in the first place, agree to Jeremiah, but rather to
Christ.”
1. I suppose if we had not had the advantage of receiving
quite another interpretation of these words from the Holy Ghost himself in
the New Testament, yet it would not have been easy for any to have
swallowed this gloss, that is as little allied to the text as any thing
that can possibly be imagined. The Holy Ghost tells us that these words
are the complaint of the prophet and the church of believers unto God.
concerning the paucity of them that would believe in Christ, or did so
believe, when he was exhibited in the flesh, the power of the Lord with him
for our salvation being effectually revealed to very few of the Jews. So
John xii. 37, 38, “But though he
had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: that
the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, Lord, who hath
believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
So Rom. x. 16, “But they have not all
obeyed the gospel; for Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our
report?”
2. Let us now a little compare these several
interpretations: “Who hath believed our report?” — “Lord, how few do
believe on Christ, working miracles himself, and preached by the apostles.”
“Jeremiah shall believe my prophecies,” saith Grotius. “To whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?” — “To how
few is the power of God unto salvation made known by the Holy Ghost.”
“Jeremiah also shall have clear revelations,” says Grotius. And this is counted learnedly to interpret the
Scriptures! and every day are such annotations on the Scripture
multiplied.
3. It is not, then, the prophet’s prediction of what
he should do of whom he treats, what he should believe, what
he should receive, whereof there is notice given in this verse;
but what others shall do in reference to the preaching of him.
They shall not believe: “Who hath believed?”
4. The annotator tells us these words do agree to Christ
chiefly and magis, κατὰ λέξιν. This, then, must be the
signification of them, according to his interpretation, in relation unto
Christ, “He shall believe the prophecies of Isaiah, and receive revelations
of his own.” For my part, I am rather of the mind of John and Paul
concerning these words than of the learned annotator’s.
5. There is no mention of describing the person spoken of
by “two notes;” but in the first words the prophet enters upon the
description of Christ, what he was, what he did and suffered for us, which
he pursues to the end of the chapter.
Verse 2,
“For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a
dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him,
there is no beauty that we should desire him.”
An entrance is made in these words into the account that
the prophet intends to give why so few believed in Christ, the Messiah,
when he came, after they had looked for him and desired him so long, —
namely, his great unsuitableness to their expectation. They looked for a
person shining in honour and glory, raising a visible, pompous, terrene
kingdom, whereof they should be made partakers. But Christ when he comes
indeed grows up, both in his human nature and his kingdom, as a tender
plant, — obnoxious to the incursions of beasts, winds, and storms, and
treading-on of every one; yet, preserved by the providence of God, under
whose eye and before whom he grew up, he shall prosper. And he shall be as
a root preserved in the dry ground of the parched house of David and poor
family of Mary and Joseph, — every way outwardly contemptible; so that from
thence none could look for the springing of such a “Branch of the Lord.” And whereas they expected that he should appear
with a great deal of outward form, loveliness, beauty, and every thing that
should make a glorious person desirable, when they come to see him indeed
in his outward condition, they shall not be able to discover any thing in
the world for which they should desire him, own him, or receive him. And
therefore after they shall have gone forth, upon the report that shall go
of him, to see him, they shall be offended, and return and say, “Is not
this the carpenter’s son? and are not his brethren with us?” This sword of
the Lord, which lies at the heart of the Jews to this day, the learned
annotator labours to ease them of, by accommodating these words to
Jeremiah; which, through the favour of the reader, I shall no otherwise
refute than by its repetition: “ ‘For he shall grow up before the Lord as a tender plant;’ — Jeremiah shall serve God in
his prophetical office whilst he is young. ‘And as a root out of a dry
ground;’ — He shall be born at Anathoth, a poor village. ‘He hath no form
nor comeliness;’ — He shall be heavy and sad. ‘And when we shall see him,’
etc.; — He shall not have an amiable countenance.” Whom might not these
things be spoken of, that was a prophet, if the name of Anathoth be left
out, and some other supplied in the room thereof?
The third
verse pursues the description of the Messiah in respect of his
abject outward condition; which being of the same import with the former,
and it being not my aim to comment on the text, I shall pass by.
Verse 4,
“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did
esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.”
Having formerly given the sense of these words, and
vindicated them from the exceptions of the Socinians I shall do no more but
animadvert upon their accommodation to Jeremiah by Grotius. Thus, then, he, —
“Vere languores nostros
ipse tulit. Ille non talia meritus mala tulit quæ nos eramua meriti.
Hæc omnia air dicturos Judæos post captam urbem;’ — “He that
deserved no such thing underwent the evils that we had deserved. All these
things he saith the Jews shall say after the taking of the city.”
It is of the unworthy dealing of the Jews with the prophet
in Jerusalem during the siege that he supposes these words are spoken, and
spoken by the Jews after the taking of the city. The sum is, “When he was
so hardly treated, we deserved it, even to be so dealt withal, not he, who
delivered the word of God.”
But, 1. The words are, “He hath borne our griefs, and
carried our sorrows.” That by “our griefs and sorrows,” our sins and the
punishment due to them are intended hath been declared. That the force of
the words “bearing and carrying” do evince that he took them upon himself
hath also been manifested. That he so took them as that God made them meet
upon him, in his justice, hath likewise been proved. That by his bearing
of them we come to have peace, and are freed, shall be farther cleared, as
it is expressly mentioned, verses 5, 11. Let
us now see how this may be accommodated to Jeremiah. Did he undergo the
punishment due to the sins of the Jews, or did they bear their own sins?
Did God cause their sins to meet on him then when he bare them, or is it
not expressly against his law that one should bear the sins of another?
Were the Jews freed, — had they peace by Jeremiah’s sufferings; or rather,
did they not hasten their utter ruin? If this be to interpret the
Scripture, I know not what it is to corrupt it.
2. There is not the least evidence that the Jews had any
such thoughts, or were at all greatly troubled, after the taking of the
city by the Chaldeans, concerning their dealings with Jeremiah, whom they
afterward accused to his face of being a false prophet, and lying to them
in the name of the Lord. Neither are these words supposed to be spoken by
the Jews, but by the church of God.
“Et nos putavimus eum
quasi leprosum ac percussum d Deo et humiliatum. Nos credidimus
Jeremiarn merito conjectum in carcerem et lutum, Deo illum exosum habente,
ut hostem urbis, templi, et pseudo-prophetam,” Grotius; — “We believed that Jeremiah was deservedly cast into
the prison and mire, God hating him as an enemy of the city and temple, and
as a false prophet.” But, —
1. These words may be thus applied to any prophet whatever
that suffered persecution and martyrdom from the Jews (as who of them did
not, the one or the other?) for they quickly saw their error and mistake as
to one, though at the same time they fell upon another, as our Saviour
upbraideth the Pharisees. Nor, —
2. Was this any such great matter, that the
Jews should think a true prophet to be a false prophet, and therefore
deservedly punished, as in the law was appointed, that it should thus
signally be foretold concerning Jeremiah. But that the Son of God, the Son
and heir of the vineyard, should be so dealt withal, this is that which the
prophet might well bring in the church thus signally complaining of. Of
him to this day are the thoughts of the Jews no other than as here
recorded; which they express by calling him תָּלוּי.
The reason of the low condition of the Messiah, which was
so misapprehended of the Jews, is rendered in the next verse, and their
mistake rectified:—
“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised
for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with
his stripes we are healed.”
I suppose it will not be questioned but that these words
belong to our blessed Saviour, and that redemption which he wrought for us
by his blood and death, Not only the full accomplishment of the thing
itself as delivered in the New Testament, but the quotation of the words
themselves to that end and purpose, 1 Pet. ii.
24, doth undeniably evince it. In what sense the words are to
be understood of him we have formerly declared; that in that sense they are
applicable to any other will not be pleaded. That they have any other
sense is yet to be proved. To this, thus the annotator:—
“Ipse autem vulneratus
est propter iniquitates nostras. In Hebræo, ‘At veto ipse vulneratus’
(id est, male tractatus est) ‘nostro crimine.’ In nobis culpa fuit, non in
ipso. Sic et quod sequitur, ‘Attritus est per nostram culpam.’
Iniquissima de eo sensimus, et propterea crudeliter eum tractavimus: id
nunc rebus ipsis apparet. Similia dixerunt Judsei qui se converterunt die
Pentecostes, et deinceps,” Grot.;
— “ ‘But he was wounded for our transgressions.’ In the Hebrew, ‘But he
was wounded’ (that is, evilly entreated) ‘by our fault.’ The fault was in
us, not in him. And so that which follows, ‘He was bruised by our fault.’
We thought ill of him, and therefore handled him cruelly. This, now, is
evident from the things themselves. The like things said the Jews who
converted themselves on the day of Pentecost, and afterward.”
The reading of the words must first be considered, and then
their sense and meaning; for against both these doth the learned annotator
transgress, perverting the former that he might the more easily wrest the
latter.
1. “He was wounded for our sins, crimine nostro,” “by our crime;” that is, it was our
fault, not his, that he was so evilly dealt with. And not to insist on the
word “wounded,” or “tormented with pain,” which is slightly interpreted by
“evil-entreated,” the question is, whether the efficient or
procuring and meritorious cause of Christ’s wounding be here expressed.
2. The words used to express this cause of wounding are
two, and both emphatical. The first is פָּשַׁע: “He was wounded מִפְּשָׁעֵינוּ, for our prevarications, our proud
transgressing of the law.” “פָּשַׁע
est rebellare, et exire a voluntate Domine
vel præcepto, ex superbia,” R. D. in
Michi. It is, properly, to rebel against man or God. Against man:
2 Kings iii. 7, “The king of Moab
פָשַׁע, hath rebelled against me;”
and chap. viii. 20, “In his days Edom
פָּשַׁע, rebelled.” As also against
God: Isa. i. 2, “I have brought up children,
and they פַּשְׁעוּ, have rebelled
against me.” Nor is it used in any other sense in the Scriptures but for
prevarication and rebellion with a high hand, and through pride. The other
word is עָוָה: “He was bruised מֵעֲוֹנוֹתֵינוּ, for our iniquities.” The
word signifies a declining from the right way with perversity and
frowardness. “עָוָה est inique vel perverse agere; proprie curvum esse vel
incurvari.” So that all sorts of sins are here emphatically and
distinctly expressed, even the greatest rebellion, and most perverse,
crooked turning aside from the ways of God.
3. Their causality in reference to the wounding of him here
mentioned is expressed in the preposition מִן, which properly is “de, ex, a, e,” “from,” or “for.” Now, to put an
issue to the sense of these words, and thence, in a good measure, to the
sense of this place, let the reader consult the collections of the use of
this preposition in Pagnine, Buxtorf, Calasius, or any other. When he finds it with “sin,” as here,
and relating to punishment, if he find it once to signify any thing but the
meritorious procuring cause of punishment, the learned annotator may yet
enjoy his interpretation in quietness. But if this be so, if this
expression do constantly and perpetually denote the impulsive, procuring
cause of punishment, it was not well done of him to leave the preposition
quite out in the first place, and in the next place so to express it as to
confine it to signify the efficient cause of what is affirmed.
This, then, being the reading of the words, “He was wounded
or tormented for our sins,” the sense as relating to Jesus Christ is
manifest: “When we thought he was justly for his own sake, as a seducer and
malefactor, smitten of God, he was then under the punishment due to our
iniquities, was so tormented for what we had deserved.” This is thus
rendered by our annotator: “Jeremiah was not in the fault, who prophesied
to us, but we, that he was so evilly dealt with. ‘He was bruised for our
iniquities;’ that is, we thought hard of him, and dealt evilly with him;’ —
which may pass with the former.
The LXX. render these words, Αὐτὸς δὲ ἐτραυματίσθη διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν καὶ μεμαλάκισται
διὰ τὰς ἀνομίας ἡμῶν. Rightly! to be wounded διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας is to be wounded for and not
by sin, no otherwise than that also signifies the
impulsive cause. And the Chaldee paraphrast, not able to avoid the
clearness of the expression denoting the meritorious cause of punishment,
and yet not understanding how the Messiah should be wounded or punished,
thus rendered the words: “Et ipse
sedificabit domum sanctuarii nostri, quod violatum est propter peccata
nostra, et traditum est propter iniquitates nostras;” — “He shall
build the house of our sanctuary, which was violated for our sins” (that
is, as a punishment of them) “and delivered for our iniquities.” So he.
Not being able to offer sufficient violence to the phrase of expression,
nor understanding an accommodation of the words to him spoken of, he leaves
the words with their own proper significancy, but turns their intendment,
by an addition to them of his own.
Proceed we to the next words, which are exegetical of
these: “The chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we
are healed.” Of these thus the annotator:—
“Disciplina pacis nostræ
super Apud eum: id est, monitis nobis attulit salutaria, si ea
recepissemus;” — “He gave us wholesome warnings, if we would have
received them.”
But, — 1. There is in this sense of the words nothing
peculiar to Jeremiah. All the rest of the prophets did so, and were
rejected no less than he.
2. The words are not, “He gave us good counsel, if we would
have taken it;” but, “The chastisement of our peace was upon him.” And
what affinity there is between these two expressions, that the one of them
should be used for the explication of the other, I profess I know not.
Peter expounds it by, “He bare our sins in his own body on the tree,”
1 Pet. ii. 24.
3. The word rendered by us “chastisement,” and by the
Vulgar Latin, which Grotius follows,
“disciplina,” is מוּסַר, which as it hath its first signification “to
learn,” so it signifies also “to correct,” because learning is seldom
carried on without correction; and thence “disciplina” signifies the same. Now, what is the
“correction of our peace?” Was it the instruction of Christ, — not that he
gave, but that he had, — that we have our peace by? The word עָלָיו, he renders “apud eum,” contrary to the known sense of the word.
עָלָה is “to ascend, to lift up, to
make to ascend,” a word of most frequent use; thence is the word used
rendered “super,” intimating that the chastisement of our peace was made to
ascend on him. As Peter expresseth the sense of this place, Ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν ἐν τῷ σώματι
αὑτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον. — “He carried up our sins on his body on the
tree;” they were made to ascend on him. The LXX. render the words ἐπ’ αὐτόν; the Vulgar Latin, “super eum;” and there is not the least
colour for the annotator’s “apud
eum.” Now, “the chastisement of our peace,” — that is, the
punishment that was due that we might have peace, or whereby
we have peace with God, — “was upon him,” is, it seems, “He gave us good
counsel and admonition, if we would have followed it”!
4. Here is no word expressing any act of the person spoken
of, but his suffering or undergoing punishment. But of this enough. “Et livore ejus sanati sumus. Livors ejus
(id est, ipsius patientia), nos sanati fuissemus: id est, liberati
ab impendentibus malis, si verbis ipsius, tanta malorum tolerantia
confirmatis, habuissemus fidem. Hebræi potentialem modum aliter quam per
indicativum exprimere nequeunt; ideo multa adhibenda attentio ad
consequendos sensus;” — “ ‘With his stripes we are healed.’ With
his wound, or sore, or stripe, that is, by his patience, we might have been
healed, that is, freed from impendent evils, had we believed his words,
confirmed with so great bearing of evils. The Hebrews cannot express the
potential mood but by the indicative; therefore much attention is to be
used to find out the sense.”
I cannot but profess that, setting aside some of the
monstrous figments of the Jewish rabbins, I never in my whole life met with
an interpretation of Scripture offering more palpable violence to the words
than this of the annotator. Doubtless, to repeat it, with all sober men,
is sufficient to confute it I shall briefly add, —
1. The prophet says, “We are healed;” the annotator, “We
might have been healed, but are not”
2. The healing in the prophet is by deliverance from sin,
mentioned in the words foregoing, and so interpreted by Peter, 1 Ep. ii. verse 24, whereby we have
peace with God, which we have; the healing in the annotator is the
deliverance from the destruction by the Chaldeans, which they were not
delivered from, but might have been.
3. חֲבוּרָה in the
prophet is μώλωψ in Peter, but
“patience” in the annotator.
4. “By his stripes we are healed,” is in the
annotator, “By hearkening to him we might have been healed,” or delivered
from the evils threatened. “By his stripes;” that is, “By hearkening to
his counsel, when he endured evils patiently.” “We are healed,” that is,
“We might have been delivered, but are not.”
5. As to the reason given of this interpretation, that the
Hebrews have no potential mood, I shall desire to know who compelled the
learned annotator to suppose himself wiser than the Holy Ghost, 1 Pet. ii. 24, to wrest these words
into a potential signification which he expresseth directly,
actually, indicativety? For a Jew to have done this out of hatred and
enmity to the cross of Christ had been tolerable; but for a man professing
himself a Christian, it is a somewhat strange attempt.
6. To close with this verse, we do not esteem ourselves at
all beholding to the annotator for allowing an accommodation
of these words to our blessed Saviour, affirming that the Jews who
converted themselves (for so it must be expressed, lest any should
mistake, and think their conversion to have been the work of the Spirit and
grace of God) on the day of Pentecost used such words as those that the
Jews are feigned to use in reference to Jeremiah. It is quite of another
business that the prophet is speaking; not of the sin of the Jews in
crucifying Christ, but of all our sins, for which he was crucified.
“Muners magna quidem misit sed misit in homo.”
Martial. lib. vi.
Ep. 63.
Verse 6,
“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own
way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of
us all.”
Grotius: “Erraveramus jam a Manassis temporibus, alii ad
alia idola; et permisit Deus ut ille nostro gravi crimine indignissima
pateretur;” — “We have all erred from the days of Manasseh, some
following some idols, others others; and God permitted that he by our
grievous crime should suffer most unworthy things.”
Though the words of this verse are most important, yet
having at large before insisted on the latter words of it, I shall be brief
in my animadversions on the signal depravation of them by the learned
annotator. Therefore, —
1. Why is this confession of sins restrained to the times
of Manasseh, and not afterward? The expression is universal, כֻּלָּנוּ, “all of us,” and a man to his
own way. And if these words may be allowed to respect Jesus Christ at all,
they will not bear any such restriction. But this is the πρῶτον ψεῦδος of this interpretation, that these are
the words of the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem, which are the
words of the converted Jews and Gentiles after the suffering of Jesus
Christ.
2. Why is the sin confessed restrained to idolatry? Men’s
“own ways,” which they walk in when they turn from the ways of God, and
know not the ways of peace, comprehend all the evils of every kind that
their hearts and lives are infected withal.
3. The last words are unworthy a person of much less
learning and judgment than the annotator; for, —
(1.) The word הִפְגִּיעַ (of which before) is interpreted, without
pretence, warrant, or colour, “permisit,” — God permitted. But of that word
sufficiently before.
(2.) By “his suffering unworthy things through our fault”
he understands not the meritorious cause of his suffering, but the means
whereby he suffered, even the unbelief and cruelty of the Jews; which is
most remote from the sense of the place.
(3.) He mentions here distinctly the fault of them
that speak, and his suffering that is spoken of, “Permisit Deus ut ille nostro gravi crimine indignissima
pateretur,” when in the text the fault of them that speak is the
suffering of him that is spoken of: “Our iniquities were laid on him,” —
that is, the punishment due to them.
(4.) His suffering in the text is God’s act; in the
Annotations, the Jews’ only.
(5.) There is neither sense nor coherence in this
interpretation of the words, “We have all sinned and followed idols, and
God hath suffered him to be evilly entreated by us;” when the whole context
evidently gives an account of our deserving, and the way whereby we are
delivered, and therein a reason of the low and abject condition of the
Messiah in this world. But of this at large elsewhere.
Verse 7,
“He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is
brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is
dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.” “Oblatus est quia ipse voluit, et non aperuit os
suum. In Heb., ‘Oppressus et affiictus fuit, et non aperuit os suum.’
Sensum bene exprimunt LXX. Καὶ αὐτὸς
διὰ τὸ κεκακῶσθαι οὐκ ἀνοίγει τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ. Etiam tunc cum in carcerem ageretur, et in locum lutosum,
nihil fecit dixit ve iracunde.
“Sicut ovis, Ovis
mitissimum animal.
“Et quasi agnus, cum
quo ipse Jeremias se comparat, cap. xi. ver.
19.”
“ ‘He was offered because he would, and he opened not his
mouth.” In the Hebrew, ‘He was oppressed and afflicted.’ The LXX. have
well expressed the sense, ‘Because of affliction he opened not his mouth.’
Even then when he was thrown into the prison and mire, he neither did nor
spake any thing angrily.
“ ‘As a sheep,’ a most mild creature. “ ‘And as a lamb,’
wherewith Jeremiah compares himself, chap. xi. verse
19.’
The process of the words is to give an account of the same
matter formerly insisted on, concerning one’s suffering for the sins of
others. That the words are spoken of the Lord Jesus, the Holy Ghost hath
long since put it out of question, Acts viii.
32. And though there be some difficulty and variety in the
interpretation of the first words, yet his patient suffering as the Lamb of
God, typed out by all the sacrifices of the Jews, under the punishment due
to our sins, shines through the whole.
1. For the words themselves, they are נִגַּשׂ וְהוּא נַעֲנֶה, which are variously
rendered: Καὶ αὐτὸς διὰ τὸ κεκακῶσθαι,
LXX; — “And he for (or because of) affliction.” “Oblatus est quia ipse voluit,” Vulg. Lat.; — ‘He
was offered because he would.” “Oppressus
estet ipse affiictus est,” Arias Montanus. “Exigitur et ipse affiigitur,” Junius; — “It was exacted, and he was afflicted.”
Others, “It was exacted, and he answered,” which seems most to agree with
the letter. נִגַּשׁ is sometimes written with the point on the right corner of ש, and then it signifies “to approach, to draw
nigh;” and in the matter of sacrifice it signifies “to offer,” because men
drew nigh to the Lord in offering. So Amos v.
25, הִגַּשְׁתֶּם לִי,
“Have ye made to draw nigh your offerings and sacrifices?” or, “Have ye
offered? Thus the Vulgar Latin read the word, and rendered it “Oblatus est,” — “He was offered.” With
the point on the left corner, it is “to exact, to require, to afflict, to
oppress.” To exact and require at the hands of any is the most common
sense of the word. So 2 Kings xxiii.
35, “Jehoiakim exacted the silver and the gold of the people of
the land.” Thence is נוֹגֵשׂ “an
exactor,” one that requires what is imposed on men, Zech. ix.
8, x. 4. Being used here in a passive sense, it is, “It was
exacted and required of him,” — that is, the punishment due to our sins was
required of Jesus Christ, having undertaken to be a sponsor; and so Junius hath supplied the words, “Exigitur pœna,” — “Punishment was
exacted.” And this is more proper than what we read, “He was oppressed,”
though that also be significant of the same thing. How the punishment of
our sins was exacted or required of Jeremiah the annotator declares
not.
The other word is נַעֲנֶה. The Vulgate Latin seems to look to the
active use of the word, “to answer,” and therefore renders it “voluit,” “he would,” — he willingly
submitted to it, or he undertook to do that which was exacted; and much may
be said for this interpretation from the use of the word in Scripture. And
then the sense will be, “It was exacted of him, or our punishment was
required of him, and he undertook it with willingness and patience.” So it
denotes the win of Christ in undergoing the penalty due to our sins; which
he expresseth, Ps. xl. 8, Heb.
x. 6, 7. Take it in the sense wherein it is most commonly used,
and it denotes the event of the exacting the penalty of our sins of him:
“He was afflicted.” In what sense this may possibly be applied to
Jeremiah, I leave to the annotator’s friends to find out.
2. The next words, “He openeth not his mouth,” he applies
unto the patience of Jeremiah, who did neither speak nor do any thing
angrily when he was cast into prison. Of that honour which we owe to all
the saints departed, and in an especial manner to the great builders of the
church of God, the prophets and apostles, this is no small part, that we
deliver them from under the burden of having that ascribed to them who are
members which is peculiar to their Head. I say, then, the perfect
submission and patience expressed in these words were not found in holy
Jeremiah, who in his affliction and trial opened his mouth and cursed the
day wherein he was born; and when he says that himself was as a lamb, and
as an ox appointed to the slaughter, in the same place, and at the same
time, he prays for vengeance on his adversaries, Jer. xi.
20; in those words not denoting his patience, but his being
exposed to their cruelty.
Verse 8,
“He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his
generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the
transgression of my people was he stricken.”
The person speaking is here changed, as is manifest from
the close of the verse, “For the transgression of my people,” who were the
speakers before. These, then, are the words of God by the prophet; and
they are not without their difficulties, concerning which the reader may
consult commentators at large. Grotius
thus:—
“De carcere et de
judicio ablatus est. Id est, liberatus tandem. Judicium vocat
hoc, quia specie judicii ipsi hæc mala imposita fuerunt. Vide
Jer. xxxii. 3, liberatus autem per Babylonios.
“Generationem ejus quis
enarrabit? Quis numerare poterit dies vitæ ejus? Id est, erit valde
longsevus.
“Quia abscissus est de
terra viventium, nempe, cum actus fuit primum in carcerem, deinde in
lacum illum cœnosum, et rursum in carcerem.”
“ ‘He was taken from prison and judgment.’ That is, he was
at length delivered. He calls it ‘judgment,’ because these evils were
imposed on him with a pretence of judgment. But he was freed by the
Babylonians.
“ ‘Who shall declare his generation?’ Who shall be able to
number the days of his life? That is, he shall live very long.
“ ‘For he was cut off out of the land of the living,’
namely, when he was thrown into the prison, and then into the miry pit, and
then into prison again.”
He adds, “ ‘Propter
sœlus populi mei percussi eum.’ In Heb. est, plaga ipsi, supple
evenit, populi summo encore ac crimine, ut et ante dictum
est;” — “ ‘For the wickedness of my people I have stricken
him.’ In the Hebrew it is, ‘Stroke on him,’ that is, befell him, through
the great error and fault of the people, as is before said.” So far
he.
The sense of these words being a little tried out, their
application will be manifest. 1. The first words are not without their
difficulty: מֵעֹצֶר, “from prison,”
say we. The word is from עָצַר,
“prohibere,” “cœrcere,” to “forbid,” to “restrain,” and is nowhere
used for a prison directly. The LXX. have rendered it, Ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει ἡ κρίσις αὐτοῦ ἤρθη, — “In
his humility (or humiliation), his judgment (or sentence) was taken away,”
referring one of the words to one thing, and another to another. The
Vulgar Latin, “angustia;” Arias Montanus, — “clausara;” Junius, “per
coarctationem,” rendering the preposition “by,” not “from.” The
word is rendered by us “oppression,”
Ps. cvii. 39. It is, at the utmost,
in reference to a prison, “claustrum,” a place where any may be shut up, but
may as well be rendered “angustia”
with the Vulgar Latin, better “coarctation” with Junius, being taken for any kind of strait and
restraint. And, indeed, properly our Saviour was not cast
into a prison, though he was all night under restraint. If the intendment
of the words be about what he was delivered from, under which he was, and
not what he was delivered from that he should not undergo it, וּמִמִּשְׁפָּט, and “from judgment,” there
is no difficulty in the world. Only, whose judgment it is that he was
taken from is worth inquiry, whether that of God or man. לֻקָּח, “he was taken;” “ablatus est,” the Vulgar Latin, “he was taken up.”
לקָחַ is “capere, accipere, ferre, tollere,” a word of very
large use, both in a good and in a bad sense; — “to be taken up,” it will
scarcely be found to signify; “to be taken away,” very often.
Now, the sense of these words is, that either Christ was
taken away, that is, killed and slain, by his pressures, and the pretended
judgment that was passed on him, or else that he was delivered from the
straits and judgment that might have come upon him. Although he was so
afflicted, yet he was taken away from distress and judgment. Junius would have the former sense; and
the exegesis of the word “taken away” by the following words, “He was cut
off from the land of the living,” seems to require it. In that sense the
words are, “By durance, restraint, affliction, and judgment,” — either the
righteous judgment of God, as Junius, or the pretended juridical process of men, — “he
was taken away” or slain. If I go off from this sense of the words, of all
other apprehensions, I should cleave to that of eternal restraint or
condemnation, from which Christ was delivered in his greatest distress,
Isa. i. 7, 8, Heb. v.
7. Though his afflictions were great and his pressures sore,
yet he was delivered from eternal rester and condemnation, it being not
possible that he should be detained of death.
Applying all this to Jeremiah, says Grotius, “He was delivered from prison and judgment by the
Babylonians.” That לֻקָּח is
“delivered,” and that he was delivered by the Babylonians from judgment,
after that judgment had passed on him and sentence been executed for many
months, is strange. But let us proceed to what follows:—
2. “Who shall declare his generation?” — “Who shall speak
it, or be able to speak it?” דּוֹרוֹ, “his generation.” דוֹר is “ætas,
generatio, seeculum.” Gr. γενεά Τὴν
γενεὰν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται; — “Who shall expound his generation?”
or declare it; that is, “Though he be so taken away by oppression and
judgment, yet his continuance, his generation, his abiding, shall be such
as ‘quis eloquetur?’ who shall speak
it?” It shall be for ever and ever; for he was to be “satisfied with long
or eternal life,” and therein to “see the salvation of God.”
This is, says Grotius,
“Who can declare the generation of Jeremiah, he shall live so great a space
of time?” He began his prophecy when he was very young, chap. i. 5, even in the thirteenth year
of Josiah, and he continued prophesying in Jerusalem until the eleventh year of Zedekiah, about forty years, and how long he
lived after this is uncertain. Probably he might live in all sixty years,
whereas it is evident that Hosea prophesied eighty years or very near.
Now, that this should be so marvellous a thing, that a man should live
sixty or seventy years, that God should foretell it as a strange thing
above twice so many years before, and express it by way of admiration that
none should be able to declare it, is such an interpretation of Scripture
as becomes not the learned annotator. Let the learned reader consult Abrabanel’s accommodation of these words to
Josiah, and he will see what shifts the poor man is put to to give them any
tolerable sense.
3. “For he was cut off out of the land of the living.”
Ὅτι αἴρεται ἀπὸ τῆς ἡ ζωὴ αὐτοῦ — “His
life was taken from the earth;” to the sense, not the letter. נִגְזַר, “cut off,” as a branch is cut off
a tree. גָזַר is “abscindere, succidere, extidere,’ to cut off. “The
land of the living” is the state and condition of them that live in this
world; so that to be “cut off from the land of the living” is a proper
expression for to be slain, as in reference to Christ it is expressed by
another word, Dan. ix. 26. “The meaning of this is,”
says Grotius, “Jeremiah was cast into
prison and into the miry lake. ‘He was cut off out of the land of the
living;’ that is, he was put into prison twice, and taken out again.” If
this be not to offer violence to the word of God, I know not what is. The
learned man confesses that this whole prophecy belongs to Christ also, but
he leaves no sense to the words whereby they possibly may be applied to
him. How was Christ cast into prison and a miry pit, and taken out from
thence by the way of deliverance?
4. “For the transgression of my people was he stricken.”
Of the sense of this expression, that Christ was stricken, or that the
stroke of punishment was upon him, for our sins, or the sins of God’s
people, I have spoken before. Grotius
would have it “by the sin;” that is, the “people sinned in doing of it;”
that is, in putting Jeremiah into prison. The whole context evidently
manifests, and the proposition in the relation wherein it stands to sin and
punishment necessarily requires, that the impulsive and meritorious, not
the efficient cause, be denoted thereby.
Verse 9,
“And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death;
because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.”
“Et dabit impios pro
sepultura, et divitem loro morte sua. Illi ipsum etiam interficere
voluerant, ut legimus Jer. xxvi..
At Deus ipsius vice viros potentes quidem,
sed improbos, sacerdotes nempe mortem Jeremiæ machinatos, morti dedit per
Chaldæos 2
Reg. xxv. 18–21. Nihil illis
divitiæ suæ profuerunt, quibus redimi se posse speraverant. Eo quod
iniquitatem non fecerit, neque dolus fuerit in ore ejus. Quanquam nihil aliud
dixerat quam quod Deus ei mandaverat;” — “ ‘And he shall give the
wicked for his grave (or burial), and the rich for his death.’ They would
have slain him, as we read Jer. xxvi..
But God gave them that were very powerful, indeed, but wicked, even the
priests that designed his death, up to death by the Chaldeans, 2 Kings xxv. 18–21. Their riches,
whereby they hoped to redeem themselves, profited them nothing. ‘Because
he had done,’ etc. Although he had not said any thing but what God
commanded him.”
It is confessed that the first words are full of
difficulty, and various are the interpretations of them, which the reader
may consult in expositors. It is not my work at present to comment on the
text, but to consider its accommodation by Grotius. The most simple sense of the words to me seems to
be, that Christ, being cut off from the land of the living, had his
sepulchre among wicked men, being taken down from the cross as a
malefactor, and yet was buried in the grave of a rich man, — by Joseph of
Arimathea in his own grave; the consent of which interpretation with the
text is discovered by Forsterus and
Mercerus, names of sufficient authority
in all Hebrew literature. The sense that Grotius fixes on is, that “God delivered Jeremiah from death,
and gave others to be slain in his stead, who had contrived his death.”
But, —
1. Of deliverance from death here is no mention; yea, he
who is spoken of was בְּמֹתָיו,
“in mortibus ejus,” in his deaths,
or under death and its power. So that it is not, “Others shall die for
him,” but, “He being dead, under the power of death, his grave, or burial,
or sepulchre, shall be so disposed of.”
2. There is not any word spoken of putting others
to death, but of giving or placing his grave with the wicked. Nor
were those mentioned in 2
Kings xxv. 18–21, that were slain by the king of Babel, as it
doth any way appear, of the peculiar enemies of Jeremiah, the chief of
them, Seraiah, being probably he to whom Jeremiah gave his prophecy against
Babylon, who is said to be a “quiet prince,” Jer. li. 59–64.
3. It is well that it is granted that pro is as much as vice, “for one, in one’s stead;” which the
learned annotator’s friends will scarce allow.
4. The application of these words, “He had done no
violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth” (which are used to express
the absolutely perfect innocency of the Son of God), to any man, who as a
man is or was a liar, is little less than blasphemy; and to restrain them
to the prophet’s message from God is devoid of all pretence or plea.
Verse
10, “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise
him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering
for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure
of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.”
“Tamen Deo
Visum est eum conterere et infirmare; id est, attenuare fame, illuvie,
squalore. Verba activa apud Hebræos sæpe permittendi habent significatum.
Causa sequitur cur id Deus permiserit, Si posuerit pro delicto animam
suam, videbit semen longasvum. Verteris recto, ‘ut cum semetipsum
subjecerit pœnis, videat semen, diuque vivat.’ Hebræis pœna etiam injuste
irrogata אָשָׁם dicitur, quia infligitur si non sonti, certe
quasi sonti: sic חָטַא sumi apparet, Gen.
xxxi. 39; Zach. xiv.
19. Vixit diu Jeremias in
Egypto;” — “ ‘Yet it seemed good to God to bruise and
weaken him;’ that is, to weaken him, and bring him down by hunger, filth,
etc. Active verbs among the Hebrews have often the signification of
permitting. The reason follows why God suffered this, ‘If he make his
soul,’ etc. You shall rightly read it, ‘that when he hath submitted
himself to punishment, then he may see his seed and live long.’ Amongst
the Hebrews punishment, [even though] unjustly inflicted, is called אָשָׁם, because it is inflicted on him
that is guilty, or supposed
so: so it is evident that חָטַא is
taken, Gen. xxxi. 39; Zech. xiv. 19. Jeremiah lived long
in Egypt.”
The words and sense are both briefly to be considered. 1.
חָפֵץ, “voluit,” — “The Lord would
bruise him.” “Delectatus est,”
Jun. “It pleased the Lord,” say we. The Greek renders this word βούλεται, properly, although in the
following words it utterly departs from the original. The word is not only
“velle,” but “voluntatem seu complacentiam habere,” — to take
delight to do the thing, and in the doing of it, which we will to be done,
Num. xiv. 8; Judges
xiii. 23. Our translation refers it to the purpose and good
pleasure of God; so is the word used Jonah i.
14, and in sundry other places. The noun of the same
signification is used again in this verse, חֵפֶץ, and is translated “The pleasure:” “The
pleasure of the Lord shall prosper,” — that is, the
thing which pleases him, and which he hath purposed to do. The purpose and
pleasure of the Lord in giving Christ up to death, Acts ii. 23, and iv. 27,
28, is doubtless that which the prophet here intends; which
also, as to the execution of it, is farther expressed Zech. xiii. 7.
2. It pleased the Lord דַּכְּאוֹ, “eum contundere, conterere, frangore,” to bruise or
break him; in answer to what was said before, verse
5, “He was wounded, he was bruised,” etc.
That which is said, to accommodate all this to Jeremiah,
is, that by all this is intended that God permitted it to be done to him.
But, —
1. The word חָפֵץ is
nowhere used in that sense, nor will anywhere bear that interpretation.
And though some active verbs in the Hebrew may be interpreted in a sense of
permitting or suffering the thing to be done which is said to be done, yet
that all may so be interpreted when we please, without a
cogent reason for such an interpretation, [and] that this verb, signifying
not only to will, but to will with delight and purpose, should be so
interpreted, and that in this place, not admitting of such a gloss in any
other place, is that which was needful to be said by the learned annotator,
but with what pretence of reason or truth I know not.
2. As to Christ, to whom he confesseth these words properly
belong, the proper sense of the word is to be retained, as hath been
showed; and it is very marvellous the improper sense of the word should be
used in reference to him to whom it nextly belongs, and the proper in
reference to him who is more remotely and secondarily signified.
For the second passage, “When (or if thou shalt) he shall
make his soul an offering for sin,” or, as it may be read, “When his soul
shall make an offering for sin,” it may relate either to God giving him up
for a sacrifice, — his soul for his whole human nature, — or to Christ,
whose soul was [offered], or who offered himself, as a sacrifice to God,
Eph. v. 2. Which way soever it be
taken, it is peculiar to Christ; for neither did God ever make any one else
an offering for sin, nor did ever any person but Christ make himself an
offering, or had power so to do, or would have been accepted in so doing.
To suit these words to Jeremiah, it is said that אָשָׁם in the Hebrew signifies any punishment,
though unjustly inflicted.
I will not say that the learned annotator affirms this with
a mind to deceive, but yet I cannot but think that as he hath not given so
he could not give one instance out of the Scripture of that use of the word
which he pretends. This I am sure of, that his assertion hath put me to
the labour of considering all the places of Scripture where the word is
used in the full collections of Calasius, and I dare confidently assure the reader that there is
no colour for this assertion, nor instance to make it good. The Greeks
have rendered it περὶ ἁμαρτίας, “an
offering for sin,” as is expressed, Rom. viii.
3, Heb. x. 6,
8: so the word is used Lev. v. 16, vii. 1.
But, —
If אָשָׁם be not
used in that sense, yet חָטַא is, in
Gen. xxxi. 39, Zech. xiv. 19. But, —
1. This doth not satisfy, “If this word may not be so
interpreted which is here used, yet another, which is not here used, may be
so interpreted; and therefore that which is here used must have the same
sense!” Nor, —
2. Can he prove that חֵטְא [חַטָּאָה] hath any other signification but either of
sin, or punishment, or satisfaction. In the first place instanced in,
Gen. xxxi. 39, Jacob says that for
that which was taken away out of the flock of Laban, he expiated it, he
made satisfaction for it, as the law afterward required in such cases
should be done, Exod. xxii.
12; and in that place of Zech. xiv.
19, it is precisely punishment for sin. But this word is not in
our text.
Take, then, the word in any sense that it will
admit of, to apply this expression to Jeremiah is no less than blasphemy.
To say that either God or himself made him a sacrifice for sin is to
blaspheme the one sacrifice of the Son of God.
For the next words, “He shall see his seed,” Grotius knows not how to make any application
of them to Jeremiah, and therefore he speaks nothing of them. How they
belong to Christ is evident, Ps. xxii.
30, Heb. ii. 8. That “he shall prolong his
days” is not applicable to Jeremiah, of whom the annotator knew not how
long he lived in Egypt, hath been formerly declared. Christ prolonged his
days, in that notwithstanding that he was dead he is alive, and lives for
ever.
The last clause, concerning the prospering of the good
pleasure, the will and pleasure, of the Lord, in the hand of Jesus Christ,
for the gathering of his church through his blood, and making peace between
God and man, hath little relation to any thing that is spoken of Jeremiah,
whose ministry for the conversion of souls doth not seem to have had any
thing eminent in it above that of other prophets; yea, falling in a time
when the wickedness of the people to whom he was sent was come up to the
height, his message seemed to be almost totally rejected.
Verse
11, “He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be
satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he
shall bear their iniquities.”
The event and glorious issue of the suffering of Christ, in
respect of himself and others, with the reason thereof, is briefly
comprised and expressed in this verse.
“Videbit et
saturabitur. Videbit diu, ad satietatem. Simile loquendi genus in
Hebræo, Gen. xxv. 8, xxxv.
29, 1 Paral. xxiii. 1, xxix.
28, 2 Paral. xxiv.
15.
“In scientia sua.
Per eam quam habet Dei cognitionem.
“Justificabit ipse
justus servus meus multos. Exemplo et institutione corriget multos
etiam ex gentibua Hæc est maxime propria verbi יַצְדּיק significatio, et Græci δικαιοῦν, ut
apparet Dan. xii. 3, Rev.
xxii. 11, et alibi
sæpe.
“Et iniquitates eorum
ipse portabit. Id est, auferet, per μετωνυμίαν, quia qui
sordes aliquas auferunt solent eos collo supposito portare. Abstulit
Jeremias multorum peccata, ita ut diximus, eos corrigendo.” “ ‘He
shall see, and be satisfied.’ He shall see long, unto satiety. The like
phrase of speech you have in the Hebrew, Gen. xxv.
8, etc.
“ ‘By his knowledge.’ By that knowledge which he hath of
God.
“ ‘He shall justify many.’ By his example and institution
he shall convert many even from among the heathen. This is the most proper sense of the word יַצְדִּיק, and of δικαιοῦν in the Greek, as appeareth, Dan. xii. 3, Rev.
xxii. 11, etc.
“ ‘For he shall bear their iniquities;’ that is, take them
away, by a metonymy, because those that take away filth used to take it on
their necks and bear it. Jeremiah took away the sins of many, as was said,
by correcting or amending them.”
The intelligent reader will easily perceive the whole
Socinian poison about the death of Christ to be infolded in this
interpretation. His “knowledge” is the knowledge that he had of God and
his will, which he declares; to “justify” is to amend men’s lives; and to
“bear sin” is to take it away. According to the analogy of this faith, you
may apply the text to whom you please, as well as to Jeremiah. But the
words are of another import, as we shall briefly see:—
1. These words, מֵעֲמַל נַפְשׁוֹ, which the Vulgar Latin renders
“pro eo quod laboravit,” ad verbum, “propter laborem animæ suæ,” which express the object
of the seeing mentioned, and that wherewith he was satisfied, are not taken
notice of. The “travail of the soul” of Christ is the fruit of his labour,
travail, and suffering. This, says the prophet, he “shall see,” that is,
“receive, perceive, enjoy,” as the verb רָאָה in many places signifies; verbs of sense with
the Hebrews having very large significations. יִשְׂבָּע, “saturabitur,” he shall be “full and well-contented,”
and pleased with the fruit that he shall have of all his labour and
travail. This, saith Grotius, is, “He
shall see to satiety,” whereby he intends he should “live very long,” as is
evident from the places whither he sends us for an exposition of these
words, Gen. xxv. 8, etc., in all which
mention is made of men that were old and full of days.
(1.) But to “live to satiety,” is to live till a man be
weary of living, which may not be ascribed to the prophet.
(2.) This of his “long life” was spoken of immediately
before, according to the interpretation of our annotator, and is not
probably instantly again repeated.
(3.) The long life of Jeremiah, by way of eminency above
others, is but pretended, as hath been evinced. But, —
(4.) How came this word, “to see,” to be taken neutrally,
and to signify “to live?” What instance of this sense or use of the word
can be given? I dare boldly say, Not one. “He shall see unto satiety;”
that is, “He shall live long.”
(5.) The words “videbit,
saturabitur,” do not stand in any such relation to one another or
construction as to endure to be cast into this form. It is not “videbit diu ad satietatem,” much less
“vivet ad satietatem,” but “videbit, saturabitur.”
(6.) The word “shall see” evidently relates to the words
going before, “the travail of his soul.” If it had been, “He shall see
many years, or many days, and be satisfied,” it had been
something; but it is, “He shall see of the travail of his soul, and be
satisfied.”
2. “By his knowledge,” בְּדָעְתּוֹ, “In (or by) his knowledge;” “In scientia sua,” Vulg. Lat.; “Cognitione sui,” Jun. The LXX. wholly pervert all the words of this
verse, except the last, as they do also of the former. That by the
“knowledge” here mentioned is meant the knowledge of Christ taken
objectively, and not the knowledge of God taken actively,
as our annotator supposes, is evident from the fruit that is ascribed
hereunto, which is the justification of them that have that knowledge: “By
his knowledge,” — that is, the knowledge of him, — “they shall be
justified,” Phil. iii. 8. So, “Teach me thy
fear,” that is, “The fear of thee;” “My worship,” that is, “The worship of
me.” No “knowledge of God” in the land. But the use of this is in the
next words.
3. “My righteous servant shall justify many.” That this
term, used thus absolutely, “My righteous servant,” is not applied to any
in the Scripture besides Jesus Christ, hath been declared; especially where
that is ascribed to him which here is spoken of, it can be no otherwise
understood. יַצְדִּיק, “shall
justify,” that is, shall absolve from their sins, and pronounce them
righteous. Grotius would have the word
here to signify, “to make holy and righteous by instruction and
institution,” as Dan. xii.
3, and δικαιοῦν, Rev. xxii. 11. That both these words
are to be taken in a forensical signification; that commonly, mostly, they
are so taken in the Scriptures; that scarce one and another instance can be
given to the contrary; that in the matter of our acceptation with God
through Christ they can no otherwise be interpreted, — have been abundantly
manifested by those who have written of the doctrine of justification at
large: that is not now my present business, This I have from the text to
lay in the way of the interpretation of the learned annotator.
The reason and foundation of this justification here
mentioned is in the following words, which indeed steer the sense of the
whole text:—
4. “For he shall bear their iniquities.” Now, what
justification of men is a proper effect of another’s bearing their
iniquities? Doubtless the acquitting of them from the guilt of their sins,
on the account of their sins being so borne, and no other. But, says our
annotator, “To bear their sins is to take them away,” by a figurative
expression. If this may not be understood, I suppose every one will
confess that the annotator hath laboured in vain as to his whole endeavour
of applying this prophecy unto Jeremiah. If by “bearing our iniquities” be
intended the undergoing of the punishment of those iniquities, and not the
delivering men from their iniquities, the whole matter here treated of can
relate to none but Jesus Christ; and to him it doth relate in the sense
contended for. Now, to evince this sense, we have all the
arguments that any place is capable to receive the confirmation of its
proper sense by. For, —
(1.) The word, as is confessed, signifies properly to
“bear” or “carry,” and not to “take away,” nor is it ever otherwise used in
the Scripture, as hath been declared; and the proper use of a word is not
to be departed from and a figurative one admitted without great
necessity.
(2.) The whole phrase of speech of “bearing iniquity” is
constantly in the Scripture used for bearing or undergoing the punishment
due to sin, as hath been proved by instances in abundance, nor can any
instance to the contrary be produced.
(3.) The manner whereby Christ “bore the iniquities of
men,” as described in this chapter, namely, by being “wounded,” “bruised,”
“put to grief,” will admit of no interpretation but that by us insisted on.
From all which it is evident how violently the Scripture is here
perverted, by rendering, “My righteous servant shall justify many, for he
shall bear their iniquities,” by “Jeremiah shall instruct many in
godliness, and so turn them from their sins.”
Verse
12, “Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and
he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his
soul unto death: and he was numbered with transgressors; and he bare the
sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”
A farther fruit of the travail of the Lord Christ, in his
conquest over all oppositions, in the victory he obtained, the spoils that
he made, expressed after the manner of the things of men, with the causes
and antecedents of his exaltation, is summarily comprised in these last
words. Hereof thus Grotius:—
“Dispertiam ei
plurimos. Dabo ei partem in multis; id est, multos servabunt Chaldæi
in ejus gratiam, vide Jer. xxxix.
17.
“Et fortium dividet
spolia; id est, Nabuzardan magister militum, capta urbe, de præda ipsi
dona mittet, Jer. xl.
5. Oblatum etiam ipsi a
Chaldeis terræ quantum vellet.
“Pro eo quod tradidit in
mortem animam suam. In Hebræo, ‘Quia effudit in mortem animam suam.’
Id est, periculis mortis semet objecit colendo veritatem quæ odium parit.
Vide historiam ad hanc rem oppositam, Jer. xxvi.
13. Sic τιθέναι ψυχήν dici pro
periculo mortis semet objicere diximus ad, Johan. x.
11.
“Et cum sceleratis
reputatus est. Ita est tractatus quomodo scelerati solent in carcere,
catenis, et barathro.
“Et ipse peccata
multorum tulit, pessime tractatus fuit per multorum improbitatem, uti
sup. ver. 5.
“Et pro transgressoribus
rogavit. יַפְגִּיעַ est deprecari. Sensus est: eo ipso
tempore cum tam dura pateretur a populo, non cessavit ad Deum preces pro
eis fundere, vide Jer. xiv.
7,” etc.
“ ‘I will divide him a portion with the
great,’ or many; that is the Chaldeans shall preserve many for his sake,
Jer. xxxix. 17.
“ ‘He shall divide the spoil with the strong;’ that is,
Nebuzaradan, the chief captain, the city being taken, shall send him gifts
of the prey, Jer. xl. 5. As much land also as he
would was offered him by the Chaldeans.
“ ‘Because he poured out his soul unto death;’ that is, he
exposed himself to the danger of death by following truth, which begets
hatred. See Jer. xxvi.
13. Τιθέναι ψυχήν is
spoken for exposing a man’s life to danger of death, John x. 11.
“ ‘He bare the sin of many,’ or was evilly treated by the
wickedness of the many.
“ ‘And made intercession for the transgressors.’ He prayed
for the people,” etc.
To run briefly over this exposition, —
1. “I will divide him a portion with the great.” That is,
“The Chaldees shall save many for his sake.” How is this proved?
Jer.
xxxix. 17, 18, where God says he will save Ebedmelech, because
he put his trust in him! Such is the issue commonly when men will wrest
the Scripture to their own imagination, — such are their proofs of what
they affirm.
2. “He shall divide the spoil with the strong.” That is,
“The city being taken, the captain of the guard gave him victuals and a
reward, and set him at liberty, as we read, Jer. xl.
5.”
3. “Because he poured out his soul unto death.” That is,
“He ventured his life by preaching the truth, although he did not die.”
For, —
4. “He bare the sin of many,” that is, “By the wickedness
of many he was wronged;” though this expression in the verse foregoing be
interpreted, “He shall take away their sins,” and that when a word of a
more restrained signification is used to express “bearing” than that here
used. At this rate a man may make application of what he will to whom he
will.
Upon the sense of the words, and their accomplishment in
and upon the Lord Jesus Christ, I shall not insist. That they do not
respect Jeremiah at all is easily evinced from the consideration of the
intolerable wresting of the words and their sense by the learned annotator
to make the least allusion appear betwixt what befell him and what
is expressed.
To close these animadversions, I shall desire the reader to
observe, —
1. That there is not any application of these words made to
the prophet Jeremiah, that suits him in any measure, bat what may also be
made to any prophet or preacher of the word of God that met with affliction
and persecution in the discharge of his duty, and was delivered by the
presence of God with him; so that there is no reason to
persuade us that Jeremiah was peculiarly intended in this prophecy.
2. That the learned annotator, though he professes that
Jesus Christ was intended in the letter of this scripture, yet hath
interpreted the whole not only without the least mention of Jesus Christ or
application of it unto him, but also hath so opened the several words and
expressions of it as to leave no place or room for the main doctrine of his
satisfaction, here principally intended. And how much the church of God is
beholding to him for his pains and travail herein the reader may judge.
Chapter XXVI.
Of the matter of the punishment that Christ underwent, or what he
suffered.
Having despatched this digression,
I return again to the consideration of the death of Christ as it was a
punishment, which shall now be pursued unto its issue.
The third thing proposed to
consideration on this account, was the matter of this punishment that
Christ underwent, which is commonly expressed by the name of his
“death.”
Death is a name comprehensive of all
evil, of what nature or of what kind soever, — all that was
threatened, all that was ever inflicted on man. Though much of it falls
within the compass of this life, and short of death, yet it is evil purely
on the account of its relation to death and its tendency thereunto; which
when it is taken away, it is no more generally and
absolutely evil, but in some regard only.
The death of Christ, as comprehending his punishment, may
be considered two ways: 1. In itself; 2. In reference to the
law.
On the first head I shall only consider the general evident
concomitants of it as they lie in the story, which are all set
down as aggravations of the punishment he underwent; on the latter I shall
give an account of the whole in reference to the law:—
1. Of death natural, which in its whole nature is
penal (as hath been elsewhere evinced), there are four aggravations,
whereunto all others may be referred: as, — (1.) That it be violent or
bloody; (2.) That it be ignominious or shameful; (3.) That it be lingering
and painful; (4.) That it be legal and accursed. And all these to the
height met in the death of Christ.
(1.) It was violent and bloody: hence he
is said to be, — [1.] Slain, Acts ii.
23, Ἀνείλετε, “Ye have
slain;” [2.] Killed, Acts iii.
15, Ἀπεκτείνατε, “Ye have
killed;” [3.] Put to death, John xviii. 31, 32; [4.] Cut off,
Dan. ix. 26.
The death of Christ and the blood of Christ are on this
account in the Scripture the same. His death was by the
effusion of his blood, and what is done by his death is still said to be
done by his blood. And though he willingly gave up himself to God therein
as he was a sacrifice, yet he was taken by violence and nailed to the cross
as it was a punishment; and the dissolution of his body and soul was by a
means no less violent than if he had been most unwilling thereunto.
(2.) It was ignominious and shameful.
― “Noli minitari scio crucem
Futuram mihi sepulchrum: ibi enim mei
majores sunt siti,
Pater, avus, proavus,
abavus.”
Servus apud Plaut.
Mil. Glor. ii. 4, 19. Such was the
death of the cross, — the death of slaves, malefactors, robbers, pests of
the earth and burdens of human society, like those crucified with him.
Hence he is said to be “obedient unto death, the death of the cross,”
Phil. ii. 8, that shameful and
ignominious death. And when he “endured the cross,” he “despised the
shame” also, Heb. xii. 2. To be brought forth and
scourged as a malefactor amongst malefactors in the eye of the world, made
a scorn and a by-word, men wagging the head and making mouths at him in
derision, when he was full of torture, bleeding to death, is no small
aggravation of it. Hence the most frequent expression of his death is by
the cross, or crucifying.
(3.) It was lingering. It was the voice of
cruelty itself concerning one who was condemned to die, “Sentiat se mori,’ — “Let him so die that he may feel
himself dying;” and of one who, to escape torture, killed himself, “Evasit,’ — “He escaped me.” Sudden death,
though violent, is an escape from torture. Such was this of Christ. From
his agony in the garden, when he began to die (all the powers of hell being
then let loose upon him), until the giving up of the ghost, it was from the
evening of one day to the evening of another; from his scourging by Pilate,
after which he was under continual pain and suffering in his soul and in
his body, to his death, it was six hours; and all this while was he under
exquisite tortures, as, on very many considerations, might easily be made
manifest.
(4.) It was legal, and so an accursed death.
There was process against him by witness and judgment. Though they were,
indeed, all false and unjust, yet to the eye of the world his death was
legal, and consequently accursed: Gal. iii.
13, “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,” — that is,
because of the doom of the law, whose sentence is called a curse, Deut. xxi. 23. Such was that of
Christ, Isa. liii. 4.
2. As all these aggravations attended his
death as it was death itself, so there was a universality in all the
concernments of it as it was a legal punishment. Briefly to give some
instances:—
(1.) There was a universality of efficient causes,
whether principal or instrumental. The first great division of causes
efficient is into the Creator and the creatures; and both here
concurred:—
[1.] The Creator, God himself, laid it upon him. He was
not only “delivered by his determinate counsel,” Acts ii. 22, 23, iv. 27,
28, not spared by him, but given up to death, Rom. viii. 32; but “it pleased him to
bruise him, and to put him to grief,” Isa. liii.
10, as also to “forsake him,” Ps. xxii.
1: so acting in his punishment, by the immission of that which
is evil and the subtraction of that which is good, so putting the cup into
his hand which he was to drink, and mixing the wine thereof for him, as
shall afterward be declared.
[2.] Of creatures, one general division is into
intelligent and brute or irrational; and both these also,
in their several ways, concurred to his punishment, as they were to do by
the sentence and curse of the law.
Intelligent creatures are distinguished into spiritual and
invisible, and visible and corporeal also:—
1st. Of the first sort are angels and
devils; which agree in the same nature, differing only in
qualities and states or conditions. Of all beings, the angels
seem to have had no hand in the death of Christ: for, being not judge, as
was God; nor opposite to God, as is Satan; nor under the curse of the law,
as is mankind and the residue of the creatures, — though they had
inestimable benefit by the death of Christ, yet neither by demerit nor
efficacy, as is revealed, did they add to his punishment. Only, whereas it
was their duty to have preserved him, being innocent, and in his
way, from violence and fury, their assistance was withheld.
But from that sort of spiritual invisible creatures he
suffered in the attempts of the devil.
Christ looked on him at a distance, in his approach to set
upon him. “The prince of this world,” saith he, “cometh,” John xiv. 30. He saw him coming,
with all his malice, fury, and violence, to set upon him, to ruin him if it
were possible. And that he had a close combat with him on the cross is
evident from the conquest that Christ there made of him, Col. ii. 15, which was not done
without wounds and blood; when he brake the serpent’s head, the serpent
bruised his heel, Gen. iii.
15.
2dly. As for men, the second rank of intellectual
creatures, they had their influence into this punishment of Christ, in all
their distributions that on any account they were cast into:—
(1st.) In respect of country or nation,
and the privileges thereon attending. The whole world on this account is
divided into Jews and Gentiles; and both these had their efficiency in this
business: Ps. ii. 1,
“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?” Heathen
and people, Gentiles and Jews, are all in it, as the place is interpreted
by the apostles, Acts
iv. 25, 26. And to make this the more eminent, the great
representatives of the two people conspired in it, the sanhedrim of the
Jews and the body of the people in the metropolitical city on the one hand,
and the Romans for the Gentiles, who then were “rerum domini,” and governed
οἰκουμένην, as Luke tells us,
Luke ii. 1. The whole on both hands
is expressed Matt. xx. 18,
10.
(2dly.) As to order, men are
distinguished into rulers and those under authority, and both
sorts herein concurred.
Rulers are either civil or ecclesiastical; both
which (notwithstanding all their divisions) conspired in the death of
Christ.
As for civil rulers, as it was foretold, Ps.
ii. 2, Ps. xxii.
12, so it was accomplished, Acts
iv. 25, 26. The story is known of the concurrence of Herod and
Pilate in the thing; — the one, ruler of the place where he lived and
conversed; the other, of the place where he was taken and crucified.
As for ecclesiastical rulers, what was done by the
priests and all the council of the elders is known; the matter of fact need
not be insisted on. Indeed, they were the great contrivers and malicious
plotters of his death, using all ways and means for the accomplishing of
it, Acts iii. 17; in particular, Annas,
the usurper of the priesthood, seems to have had a great hand in the
business, and therefore to him was he first carried.
As for those under authority, besides what we have
in the story, Peter tells the body of the people, Acts ii.
23, that “they took him, and with wicked hands crucified and
slew him;” and chap. iii.
15, that they “killed the Prince of life.” So Zech. xii. 10, not only the “house
of David,” the rulers, but the “inhabitants of Jerusalem,” the people, are
said to “pierce him;” and thence “they which pierced him” is a periphrasis
of the Jews. Rev. i. 7, after “Every eye shall see
him,” there is a distribution into “They which pierced him,” that is, the
Jews, and “All kindreds of the earth,” that is, the Gentiles. The very
rabble were stirred up to cry, “Crucify him, crucify him,” and did it
accordingly, Matt. xxvii.
20; and they all consented as one man in the cry, verse 22, and that with violence and
clamour, verse 23. Abjects made mouths at
him, Ps. xxxv. 15,
xxii. 7.
(3dly.) Distinguish man in relation to himself, either
upon a natural or moral account, as his kindred and relations, or
strangers, and they will appear to be all engaged; but this is so comprised
in the former distinction of Jews and Gentiles that it need not be insisted
on.
On a moral account, as they were either his friends or his
enemies, he suffered from both.
His friends, all his disciples, forsook him and
fled, Matt. xxvi. 56. The
worst of them betrayed him, verses 14, 15, and the best of
them denied him, verse
70; and so “there was none to help,” Ps. xxii.
11.
And if it were thus with him in the house of his friends,
what may be expected from his enemies? Their malice and
conspiracy, their implacableness and cruelty, their plotting and
accomplishment of their designs, take up so great a part of the history of
his crucifying that I shall not need insist on particular instances.
Yea, mankind was engaged as distinguished into sexes. Of
men of all sorts you have heard already; and the tempting, ensnaring,
captious question of the maid to Peter manifests that amongst his
persecutors there were of that sex also, Matt. xxvi.
69.
Of men’s distinction by their employments, of soldiers,
lawyers, citizens, divines, all concurring to this work, I shall not add
any thing to what hath been spoken.
Thus the first order of creatures, those that are
intellectual, were universally, at least with a distributive universality,
engaged in the suffering of the Lord Jesus; and the reason of this general
engagement was, because the curse that was come upon them for sin had
filled them all with enmity one against another:— First, Fallen men and
angels were engaged into an everlasting enmity on the first entrance of
sin, Gen. iii. 15. Secondly, Men one
towards another were filled with malice, and envy, and hatred, Tit. iii. 3.
The Jews and Gentiles were engaged, by way of
visible representation of the enmity which was come on all mankind,
John iv. 9, Eph. ii. 14–17; and therefore he who
was to undergo the whole curse of the law was to have the rage and fury of
them all executed on him. As I said before, all their persecution of him
concerned not his death as it was a sacrifice, as he made his soul an
offering for sin; but as it was a punishment, the utmost of their enmity
was to be executed towards him.
The residue of the creatures concurred thus far to
his sufferings as to manifest themselves at that time to be visibly under
the curse and indignation that was upon him, and so withdrew themselves, as
it were, from yielding him the least assistance. To instance in general,
heaven and earth lost their glory, and that in them which is useful and
comfortable to the children of men, without which all the other
conveniencies and advantages are as a thing of naught. The glory of heaven
is its light, Ps. xix. 1,
2; and the glory of the earth is its stability. He hath fixed
the earth that it shall not be moved.
Now, both these were lost at once. The heavens were
darkened when it might be expected, in an ordinary course, that the sun
should have shone in its full beauty, Matt. xxvii.
45, Luke xxiii. 44, 45; and the earth
lost its stability, and shook or trembled, and the rocks rent, and the
graves opened, Matt. xxvii. 51, 52; — all
evidences of that displeasure against sin which God was then
putting in execution to the utmost, Rom. i.
18.
Thus, first, in his suffering there was universality of
efficient causes.
(2.) There was a universality in respect of the
subjects wherein he suffered. He suffered, — [1.] In his person;
[2.] In his name; [3.] In his friends; [4.] In his goods; as the curse of
the law extended to all, and that universally in all these:—
[1.] In his person or his human nature. In his
person he suffered, in the two essential, constituent parts of it, his body
and his soul:— 1st. His body. In general, as to its integral
parts, his body was “broken,” 1 Cor. xi.
24, or crucified; his blood was “shed,” Matt.
xxvi. 28, or poured out. 2dly. His soul. His
“soul was made an offering for sin,” Isa. liii.
10; and his “soul was heavy unto death,” Matt. xxvi. 37, 38.
1st. In particular, his body suffered in all its
concernments, — namely, all his senses and all its parts
or members.
In all its senses; as, to instance, —
(1st.) In his feeling. He was full of pain,
which made him, as he says, cry for disquietness; and this is comprised in
every one of those expressions which say he was broken, pierced, and lived
so long on the cross in the midst of most exquisite torture, until, being
full of pain, he “cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost,”
Matt. xxvii. 50.
(2dly.) His tasting. When he fainted with loss
of blood and grew thirsty, “they gave him vinegar to drink mingled
with gall,” Matt. xxvii.
34, John xix.
29, Matt. xxvii.
48, not to stupify his senses, but to increase his torment.
(3dly.) His seeing, though not so much in the
natural organ of it as in its use. He saw his mother and disciples
standing by full of grief, sorrow, and confusion; which exceedingly
increased his anguish and perplexity, John xix. 25, 26. And he saw his
enemies full of rage and horror standing round about him, Ps. xxii. 12, 16. He
saw them passing by and wagging the head in scorn, Matt.
xxvii. 39, Ps. xxii. 7,
8.
(4thly.) His ears were filled with the reproach
and blasphemy of which he grievously complains, Ps. xxii. 7, 8; which also is
expressed in its accomplishment, Matt. xxvii. 39–44, Luke xxiii. 36, 37. They
reproached him with God, and his ministry, and his profession; as did also
one of the thieves that were crucified with him. And, —
(5thly.) They crucified him in a noisome place, a place of
stink and loathsomeness, a place where they cast the dead bodies of men,
from whose bones it got the name of “Golgotha,” — a place of dead men’s
skulls, Matt. xxvii. 33.
He suffered in all the parts of his body,
especially those which are most tender and full of sense:—
(1st.) For his head, they platted a crown of thorns, and
put it on him; and, to increase his pain, smote it on (that
the thorns might pierce him the deeper) with their staves, Matt. xxvii. 29, 30, as the Jews
had stricken him before, chap. xxvi. 67, 68, John xix. 2, 3.
(2dly.) His face they spat upon, buffeted, smote,
and plucked off his hair, Isa. l.
6, Matt. xxvi. 67, 68.
(3dly.) His back was torn with whips and
scourges, Matt. xxvii.
26, John xix.
1, ἐμαστίγωσε there “they
made long their furrows.”
(4thly.) His hands, and feet, and
side, were pierced with nails and spear, Ps. xxii.
16.
(5thly.) To express the residue of his body, and the
condition of it when he hung on the cross so long, by the soreness of his
hands and his feet, says he, “All my bones are out of joint,” Ps. xxii. 14, and also verses 16, 17.
Thus was it with his body.
2dly. The like also is expressed of his soul; for,
—
(1st.) On his mind was darkness, — not in it, but
on it, — as to his apprehension of the love and presence of God. Hence was
his cry, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Ps. xxii. 1, Matt.
xxvii. 46. Though his faith was, upon the whole of the matter,
prevalent and victorious, Isa. i.
7–9, yet he had many sore conflicts with the sense and
apprehension of God’s wrath for sin, and that desertion he was then under
as to any cheering influences of his love and presence.
(2dly.) For the rest of his faculties, he was not only
under the pressure of the most perplexing, grievous, and burdensome
passions that human nature is obnoxious unto, as, — [1st.]
Heaviness, “His soul was heavy unto death,” Matt. xxvi. 37, 38; [2dly.]
Grief, “[No sorrow like to his,” Lam. i.
12; [3dly.] Fear, Heb. v. 7;
— but was also pressed into a condition beyond what we have words to
express, or names of passions or affections to set it forth by. Hence he
is said to be “in an agony,” Luke xxii.
44; to be “amazed,” Mark xiv.
33; with the like expressions, intimating a condition miserable
and distressed beyond what we are able to comprehend or express.
[2.] In his name, his repute, or credit, he
suffered also. He was numbered amongst transgressors, Isa. liii. 12, Ps.
xxii.; counted a malefactor, and crucified amongst them; a
seducer, a blasphemer, a seditious person, a false prophet; and was cruelly
mocked and derided on the cross as an impostor, that saved others but could
not save himself, that pretended to be the Messiah, the King of Israel, but
could not come down from the cross; laid in the balance with Barabbas, a
rogue and a murderer, and rejected for him, Matt.
xxvii..
[3.] In his friends. The Shepherd was smitten,
and the sheep scattered, Zech. xiii.
7, — all his friends distressed, scattered, glad to flee for
their lives, or to save themselves by doing the things that were worse than
death.
[4.] In his goods, even all that he
had: “They parted his garments, and cast lots for his vesture,” Ps. xxii. 18.
Thus did he not in any thing go free, that the curse of the
law in all things might be executed on him. The law curses a man in all
his concernments, with the immission and infliction of every thing that is
evil, and the subtraction of every thing that is good; that is, with “pœna sensus et pœna damni,” as they are
called.
In reference to the law, I say that Christ underwent that
very punishment that was threatened in the law and was due to sinners; the
same that we should have undergone, had not our surety done it for us. To
clear this briefly, observe that the punishment of the law may be
considered two ways:—
1. Absolutely in its own nature, as it lies in the
law and the threatening thereof. This in general is called “death,”
Gen. ii. 17, Ezek.
xviii. 4, Rom. v.
12; and by way of aggravation, because of its comprising the
death of body and soul, “death unto death,” 2 Cor. ii.
16; and “the second death,” Rev. xx.
14; and “the curse,” Deut.
xxvii. to xxix., Matt. xxv.
41; and “wrath,” 1 Thess. i.
10 (hence we are said to be “delivered from the wrath to come”);
and “wrath,” or “the day of wrath,” Rom. ii. 5,
and in innumerable other places: all which are set out, in many
metaphorical expressions, by those things which are to the nature of man
most dreadful; as of “a lake with fire and brimstone,” of “Tophet, whose
pile is much wood,” and the like.
Of this punishment in general there are two parts:—
(1.) Loss, or separation from God, expressed in
these words, “Depart from me,” Matt. vii.
23; “Depart, ye cursed,” chap. xxv.
41; as also, 2 Thess. i.
9.
(2.) Sense or pain; whence it is called
“fire,” as 2 Thess. i. 8; “torments,” etc.,
Luke xvi. 23. All this we say
Christ underwent, as shall be farther manifested.
2. Punishment of the law may be considered
relatively to its subject, or the persons punished, and
that in two regards:—
(1.) In reference to its own attendancies and necessary
consequents, as it falls upon the persons to be punished; and
these are two:—
[1.] That it be a “worm that dieth not,” Mark ix. 44, Isa.
lxvi. 24.
[2.] That it be a “fire not to be quenched,” — that it be
everlasting, that its torments be eternal.
And both these, I say, attend and follow the punishment of
the law, on the account of its relation to the persons punished, for, —
1st. The worm is from the in-being and everlasting abiding
of a man’s own sin. That tormenting anguish of conscience which shall
perplex the damned to eternity attends their punishment merely from their
own sin inherent. This Christ could not undergo. The worm attends not
sir, imputed, but sin inherent, especially not sin imputed to him who underwent it willingly, it being the cruciating
vexation of men’s own thoughts, kindled by the wrath of God against
themselves about their own sin.
2dly. That this worm never dies, that this fire can never
be quenched, but abides for ever, is also from the relation of punishment
to a finite creature that is no more. Eternity is not absolutely in the
curse of the law, but as a finite creature is cursed thereby. If a sinner
could at once admit upon himself that which is equal in divine justice to
his offence, and so make satisfaction, there might be an end of his
punishment in time; but a finite and every way limited creature, having
sinned his eternity in this world against an eternal and infinite God, must
abide by it for ever. This was Christ free from. The dignity of his
person was such as that he could fully satisfy divine justice in a limited
season; after which God in justice loosed the pains of death, for it was
impossible he should be detained thereby, Acts ii.
24, and that because he was able to “swallow up death in
victory.”
(2.) Punishment, as it relates to the persons punished, may
be also considered in respect of the effects which it produceth in
them which are not in the punishment absolutely considered; and these are
generally two:—
[1.] Repining against God and blaspheming of him,
as in that type of hell, Isa. viii.
21, 22. This is evil or sin in itself, which punishment is not.
It is from the righteous God, who will do no iniquity. This proceeds from
men’s hatred of God. They hate him in this world, when he doth them good
and blesses them with many mercies; how much more will their hatred be
increased when they shall be cut off from all favour or mercy whatever, and
never enjoy one drop of refreshment from him! They hate him, his justice,
yea, his blessedness, and all his perfections. Hence they murmur, repine,
and blaspheme him. Now, this must needs be infinitely remote from him who,
in love to his Father, and for his Father’s glory, underwent this
punishment. He was loved of the Father, and loved him, and willingly drank
off this cup, which poisons the souls of sinners with wrath and
revenge.
[2.] Despair in themselves. Their hopes being cut
off to eternity, there remaining no more sacrifice for sin, they are their
own tormentors with everlastingly perplexing despair. But this our Saviour
was most remote from, and that because he believed he should have a
glorious issue of the trial he underwent, Heb. xii.
2, Isa. l.
7–9.
But as to the punishment that is threatened in the law, in
itself considered, Christ underwent the same that the law threatened, and
which we should have undergone; for, —
1. The law threatened death, Gen. ii.
17, Ezek. xviii.
4; and he tasted death for us, Heb. ii. 9,
Ps. xxii. 15. The punishment of the law is the curse, Deut.
xxvii.–xxix.; and he was made a curse, Gal. iii.
13. The law threatened loss of the love and the favour of God,
and he lost it, Ps. xxii. 1.
To say that the death threatened by the law was one, and
that Christ underwent another, that eternal, this temperal, and so also of
the curse and desertion threatened (besides what shall be said afterward),
would render the whole business of our salvation unintelligible, as being
revealed in terms equivocal, nowhere explained.
2. There is not the least intimation in the whole book of
God of any change of the punishment in reference to the Surety from what it
was or should have been in respect of the sinner. God “made all our
iniquities to meet on him;” that is, as hath been declared, the punishment
due to them. Was it the same punishment, or another? Did we deserve one
punishment, and Christ undergo another? Was it the sentence of the law
that was executed on him, or was it some other thing that he was obnoxious
to? It is said that he was “made under the law,” Gal. iv.
4; that “sin was condemned in his flesh,” Rom. viii. 3; that “God spared him
not,” verse 32; that he “tasted death,”
Heb. ii. 9; that he was “made a curse,”
Gal. iii. 13; — all relating to the
law. That he suffered more or less there is no mention.
It is strange to me that we should deserve one punishment,
and he who is punished for us should undergo another, yet both of them be
constantly described by the same names and titles. If God laid the
punishment of our sins on Christ, certainly it was the punishment that was
due to them. Mention is everywhere made of a commutation of persons, the
just suffering for the unjust, the sponsor for the offender, his name as a
surety being taken into the obligation, and the whole debt required, of
him; but of a change of punishment there is no mention at all. And there
is this desperate consequence, that will be made readily, upon a supposal
that any thing less than the curse of the law or death, in the nature of it
eternal, was inflicted on Christ, — namely, that God indeed is not such a
sore revenger of sin as in the Scripture he is proposed to be, but can pass
it by in the way of composition on much easier terms.
3. The punishment due to us, that is in the “curse of the
law,” consists, as was said, of two parts:— (1.) Loss, or separation from
God; (2.) Sense, from the infliction of the evil threatened. And both
these did our Saviour undergo.
(1.) For the first, it is expressed of him, Ps. xxii. 1; and he actually complains
of it himself, Matt. xxvii.
46: and of this cry for a while he says, “O my God, I cry in the
day-time, but thou hearest not,” Ps. xxii.
2, until he gives out that grievous complaint, verse 15, “My strength is dried up
like a potsherd;” which cry he pressed so long with strong cries and
supplications, until he was heard and delivered from what he feared,
Heb. v. 7. They who would invent evasions for this express complaint of our Saviour that he was
deserted and forsaken, as that he spake it in reference to his church, or
of his own being left to the power and malice of the Jews, do indeed little
less than blaspheme him, and say he was not forsaken of God, when himself
complains that he was; — forsaken, I say, not by the disjunction of his
personal union, but as to the communication of effects of love and favour;
which is the desertion that the damned lie under in hell. And as for his
being forsaken or given up to the hands of men, was that it which he
complained of? was that it whereof he was afraid, which he was troubled at,
which he sweat blood under the consideration of, and had need of an angel
to comfort and support him? Was he so much in courage and resolution below
those many thousands who joyfully suffered the same things for him? If he
was only forsaken to the power of the Jews, it must be so. Let men take
heed how they give occasion of blaspheming the holy and blessed name of the
Son of God.
Vaninus, that great
atheist, who was burned for atheism at Toulouse in France, all the way as
he went to the stake did nothing but insult over the friars that attended
him, telling them that their Saviour when he was led to death did sweat and
tremble, and was in an agony; but that he, upon the account of reason,
whereunto he sacrificed his life, went with boldness and cheerfulness. God
visibly confuted his blasphemy, and at the stake he not only trembled and
quaked, but roared with horror. But let
men take heed how they justify the atheistical thoughts of men, in
asserting our blessed Redeemer to have been cast into that miserable and
deplorable condition merely with the consideration of a temporary death,
which perhaps the thieves that were crucified with him did not so much
tremble at.
(2.) For “pœna
sensus.” From what hath been spoken, it is sufficiently manifest
what he underwent on this account. To what hath been delivered before, of
his being “bruised, afflicted, broken of God,” from Isa.
liii. — although he was “taken from prison and from judgment,”
verse 8, or everlasting condemnation,
— add but this one consideration of what is affirmed of him,
that “he tasted death for us,” Heb. ii. 9,
and this will be cleared. What death was it he tasted? The death that had
the curse attending it: Gal. iii.
13, “He was made a curse.” And what death that was himself
declares, Matt. xxv. 41, where, calling men
accursed, he cries, “Depart into everlasting fire;” — “Ye that are
obnoxious to the law, go to the punishment of hell.” Yea, and that curse
which he underwent, Gal. iii.
13, is opposed to the blessing of Abraham, verse 14, or the blessing promised
him; which was doubtless life eternal.
And to make it yet more clear, it was By death that he
delivered us from death, Heb. ii.
14, 15; and if he died only a temporal death, he delivered us
only from temporal death as a punishment. But he shows us what death he
delivered us from, and consequently what death he underwent for us,
John viii. 51, “He shall never see
death;” that is, eternal death, for every believer shall see death
temporal.
On these considerations, it is evident that the sufferings
of Christ in relation to the law were the very same that were threatened to
sinners, and which we should have undergone had not our Surety undertaken
the work for us. Neither was there any difference in reference to God the
judge and the sentence of the law, but only this, that the same persons who
offended did not suffer, and that those consequences of the punishment
inflicted which attend the offenders’ own suffering could have no place in
him. But this being not the main of my present design, I shall not farther
insist on it.
Only I marvel that any should think to implead this truth
of Christ’s suffering the same that we did, by saying that Christ’s
obligation to punishment was “sponsionis
propriæ,” ours “violatæ
legis;” as though it were the manner how Christ came to be obnoxious
to punishment, and not what punishment he underwent, that is asserted when
we say that he underwent the same that, we should have done. But as to say
that Christ became obnoxious to punishment the same way that we do or did,
that is, by sin of his own, is blasphemy; so to say he did not, upon his
own voluntary undertaking, undergo the same is little less. It is true,
Christ was made sin for us, — had our sin imputed to him, not his own, was
obliged to answer for our fault, not his own; but he was obliged to answer
what we should have done. But hereof elsewhere.
Chapter XXVII.
Of the covenant between the Father and the Son, the ground and
foundation of this dispensation of Christ’s being punished for us and in
our stead.
The fourth thing considerable is
the ground of this dispensation of Christ’s being punished for us, which
also hath influence into his whole mediation on our behalf.
This is that compact, covenant, convention, or agreement, that was between
the Father and the Son, for the accomplishment of the work of our
redemption by the mediation of Christ, to the praise of the glorious grace
of God.
The will of the Father appointing and designing the Son to
be the head, husband, deliverer, and redeemer of his elect, his church, his
people, whom he did foreknow, with the will of the Son voluntarily, freely
undertaking that work and all that was required thereunto, is that compact
(for in that form it is proposed in the Scripture) that we treat of.
It being so proposed, so we call it, though there be
difficulty in its explication. Rabbi
Ruben, in Galatinus, says of Isa. lxvi.
16, that if the Scripture had not said it, it had not been
lawful to have said it, but being written, it may be spoken, “In fire, or
by fire, is the Lord judged:” for it is not שׁוֹפַט, that is, “judging;” but נִשְׁפָּט, that is, “is judged;”—
which by some is applied to Christ and the fire he underwent in his
suffering. However, the rule is safe, That which is written may be spoken,
for for that end was it written, God in his word teaching us how we should
speak of him. So it is in this matter.
It is true, the will of God the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, is but one. It is a natural property, and where there is but one
nature there is but one will: but in respect of their distinct personal
actings, this will is appropriated to them respectively, so that the will
of the Father and the will of the Son may be considered [distinctly] in
this business; which though essentially one and the same, yet in their
distinct personality it is distinctly considered, as the will of the Father
and the will of the Son. Notwithstanding the unity of essence that is
between the Father and the Son, yet is the work distinctly carried on by
them; so that the same God judges and becomes surety, satisfieth and is
satisfied, in these distinct persons.
Thus, though this covenant be eternal, and the object of it
be that which might not have been, and so it hath the nature of the residue
of God’s decrees in these regards, yet because of this distinct acting of
the will of the Father and the will of the Son with regard to each other,
it is more than a decree, and hath the proper nature of a covenant
or compact. Hence, from the moment of it (I speak not of time), there is a
new habitude of will in the Father and Son towards each other that is not
in them essentially; I call it new, as being in God freely, not naturally.
And hence was the salvation of men before the incarnation, by the
undertaking, mediation, and death of Christ. That the saints under the old
testament were saved by Christ at present I take for granted; that they
were saved by virtue of a mere decree will not be said. From hence was
Christ esteemed to be incarnate and to have suffered, or the
fruits of his incarnation and suffering could not have been imputed to any;
for the thing itself being denied, the effects of it are not.
The revelation of this covenant is in the Scripture; not
that it was then constituted when it is first mentioned in the promises and
prophecies of Christ, but [it was] then first declared or revealed. Christ
was declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead, but he
was so from eternity. As in other places, as shall be evinced, so in
Isa. liii. is this covenant mentioned:
in which chapter there is this prophetical scheme, — The covenant between
Father and Son, which was past, is spoken of as to come; and the sufferings
of Christ, which were to come, are spoken of as past; as appears to every
one that but reads the chapter. It is also signally ascribed to Christ’s
coming into the world; not constitutively, but declaratively. It is the
greatest folly about such things as these, to suppose them then done when
revealed, though revealed in expressions of doing them. These things being
premised, I proceed to manifest how this covenant is in the Scripture
declared.
Now, this convention or agreement, as elsewhere, so it is
most clearly expressed Heb. x.
7, from Ps. xl. 7,
8, “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.” And what will?
Verse 10, “The will by which we are
sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
The will of God was that Jesus should be offered; and to this end, that we
might be sanctified and saved. It is called “The offering of the body of
Jesus Christ,” in answer to what was said before, “A body hast thou
prepared me,” or a human nature, by a synecdoche. “My will,” says God the
Father, “is, that thou have a body, and that that body be offered up; and
that to this end, that the children, the elect, might be sanctified.” Says
the Son to this, “Lo, I come to do thy will;” — “I accept of the
condition, and give up myself to the performance of thy will.”
To make this more distinctly evident, the nature of such a
compact, agreement, or convention, as depends on personal service, such as
this, may be a little considered.
There are five things required to the complete establishing
and accomplishing of such a compact or agreement:—
1. That there be sundry persons, two at least, namely, a
promiser and undertaker, agreeing voluntarily together in counsel
and design for the accomplishment and bringing about some common end
acceptable to them both; so agreeing together. Being both to do somewhat that they are not
otherwise obliged to do, there must be some common end agreed on by them
wherein they are delighted; and if they do not both voluntarily agree to
what is on each hand incumbent to do, it is no covenant or
compact, but an imposition of one upon the other.
2. That the person promising, who is the principal
engager in the covenant, do require something at the hand of the
other, to be done or undergone, wherein he is concerned. He is to
prescribe something to him, which is the condition whereon the
accomplishment of the end aimed at is to depend.
3. That he make to him who doth undertake such promises as
are necessary for his supportment and encouragement, and which may
fully balance, in his judgment and esteem, all that is required of him or
prescribed to him.
4. That upon the weighing and consideration of the
condition and promise, the duty and reward prescribed and engaged for,
as formerly mentioned, the undertaker do voluntarily address himself to the
one, and expect the accomplishment of the other.
5. That, the accomplishment of the condition being pleaded
by the undertaker and approved by the promiser, the
common end originally designed be brought about and established.
These five things are required to the entering into and
complete accomplishment of such a covenant, convention, or agreement as is
built on personal performances; and they are all eminently expressed in the
Scripture, and to be found in the compact between the Father and the Son
whereof we speak, as upon the consideration of the severals will
appear.
On the account of these things, found at least virtually
and effectually in this agreement of the Father and Son, we call it a
covenant; not with respect to the Latin word “fœdus,” and the precise use of it, but to the Hebrew
בְרִית, and the Greek διαθήκη, whose signification and use alone
are to be attended to in the business of any covenant of God; and in what a
large sense they are used is known to all that understand them and have
made inquiry into their import. The rise of the word “fœdus” is properly paganish and superstitious; and
the legal use of it strict to a mutual engagement upon valuable
considerations, The form of its entrance, by the sacrifice and killing of a
hog, is related in Polybius, Livius, Virgil, and others.
The general words used in it were, “Ita
fœde me percutiat magnus Jupiter, ut fœde hunt porcum macto, ai pactum
fœderis non servavero;”
“Armati, Jovis ante aras, paterasque
tenentes
Stabant: et cæsa jungebant fœdera
porca.”
Virg. Æn. viii.
640. whence is that phrase of one in danger, “Sto inter sacrum et saxum,” the hog being killed with a
stone. So “fœdus” is “a feriendo:” though sometimes even that
word be used, in a very large sense, for any orderly-disposed government;
as in the poet:—
― “Regemque dedit, qui fœdere
certo
Et premere, et laxas sciret dare jussus
habenas,” etc.
Virg. Æn. i. 66.
But unto the signification and laws hereof, in this
business, we are not bound. It sufficeth for our present intendment that
the things mentioned be found virtually in this compact, which they
are.
1. There are the Father and the Son as distinct persons
agreeing together in counsel for the accomplishment of the common end, —
the glory of God and the salvation of the elect. The end is expressed,
Heb. ii. 9, 10, xii.
2. Now, thus it was, Zech. vi.
13, “The counsel of peace shall be between them both,” — “Inter ambos ipsos.” That is, the two
persons spoken of, not the two offices there intimated, that shall meet in
Christ. And who are these? The Lord Jehovah, who speaks, and the man
whose name is עֶמַח, “The Branch,”
verse 12, who is to do all the great
things there mentioned: “He shall grow up,” etc. But the counsel of peace,
the design of our peace, is between them both; they have agreed and
consented to the bringing about of our peace. Hence is that name of the
Son of God, Isa. ix. 6, “Wonderful Counsellor.” It
is in reference to the business there spoken of that he is so called. This
is expressed at the beginning of the verse, “Unto us a child is born, unto
us a son is given.” To what end that was is known, namely, that he might
be a Saviour or a Redeemer, whence he is afterward called “The everlasting
Father, The Prince of Peace;” that is, a father to his church and people in
everlasting mercy, the grand author of their peace, that procured it for
them and established it unto them. Now, as to this work, that he who is
אֵל גִּבּוֹר, “The mighty God,”
might be בֵּן נִחַּן, “A son given,
a child born,” and carry on a work of mercy and peace towards his church,
is he called “The wonderful Counsellor,” as concurring in the counsel and
design of his Father, and with him, to this end and purpose. Therefore,
when he comes to suffer in the carrying on of this work, God calls him his
“fellow,” עֲמִיחִי, “my neighbour”
in counsel and advice, Zech. xiii.
7; as David describes his fellow or companion, Ps. lv. 14, “We took sweet counsel
together.” He was the fellow of the Lord of hosts on this account, that
they took counsel together about the work of our salvation, to the glory of
God. Prov.
viii. 22–31 makes this evident. That it is the Lord Jesus
Christ, the eternal Word and Wisdom of the Father, who is here intended,
was before evinced. What, then, is here said of him? “I was daily the
delight of God, rejoicing always before him, rejoicing in the habitable
part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.” When was
this that the Wisdom of God the Father did so rejoice before him on the
account of the sons of men? Verses
24–26, “When there were no depths, when there were no fountains
abounding with water, before the mountains were settled,” etc., “while as
yet he had not made the earth,” etc. But how could this be? namely, by the
counsel of peace that was between them both, which is the delight of the
soul of God, and wherein both Father and Son rejoice.
The first thing, then, is manifest, that there was a
voluntary concurrence and distinct consent of the Father and Son for the
accomplishment of the work of our peace, and for bringing us to God.
2. For the accomplishment of this work, the Father, who is
principal in the covenant, the promiser, whose love “sets all on work,” as
is frequently expressed in the Scripture, requires of the Lord Jesus
Christ, his Son, that he shall do that which, upon
consideration of his justice, glory, and honour, was necessary to be
done for the bringing about the end proposed, prescribing to him a law for
the performance thereof; which is called his “will” so often in
Scripture.
What it was that was required is expressed both negatively
and positively:—
(1.) Negatively, that he should not do or bring
about this work by any of those sacrifices that had been appointed to make
atonement “suo more,” and to typify
out what was by him really to be performed. This the Lord Jesus professeth
at the entrance of his work, when he addresses himself to the doing of that
which was indeed required: “Sacrifice and offering,” etc., “thou wouldest
not.” He was not to offer any of the sacrifices that had been offered
before, as at large hath been recounted. It was the will of God that, by
them, he and what he was to do should be shadowed out and represented;
whereupon, at his coming to his work, they were all to be abrogated. Nor
was he to bring silver and gold for our redemption, according to the
contrivance of the poor convinced sinner, Mic. vi. 6,
7; but he was to tender God another manner of price, 1 Pet. i. 18.
He was to do that which the old sacrifices could not do, as
hath been declared: “For it was not possible that the blood of bulls and of
goats should take away sins,” Heb. x.
4. Ἀφαιρεῖν ἁμαρτίας,
quod supra ἀθετεῖν
et ἀναφἑρειν, est extinguere peccata, sire facere ne ultra peccetur; id
sanguis Christi facit, tum quia fidem in nobis parit, tum quia Christo jus
dat nobis auxilia necesaria impetrandi,” Grot. in loc. Falsely and injuriously to
the blood of Christ! Ἀφαιρεῖν
ἁμαρτίας is nowhere in the Scripture to cause men to “cease to sin;”
it never respects properly what is to come, but what is past. The apostle
treats not of sanctification, but of justification. The
taking away of sins he insists on is such as that the sinner should no more
be troubled in conscience for the guilt of them, verse
2. The typical taking away of sins by sacrifices was by
making atonement with God principally, not by turning men from
sin, which yet was a consequent of them. The blood of Christ takes
away sins as to their guilt by justification, and not only as to their
filth by sanctification. This purification also by blood he expounds in
his Annotations, chap. ix.
14: “Sanguini autem purgatio
ista tribuitur, quia per sanguinem, id est, mortem Christi, secuta ejus
excitatione et evectione, giguitur in nobis tides, Rom. iii. 25, quæ deinde fides corda purgat, Acts xv. 9.” The meaning of these
words is evident to all that have their senses exercised in these things.
The eversion of the expiation of our sins by the way of satisfaction and
atonement is that which is aimed at. Now, because the annotator saw that
the comparison insisted on with the sacrifices of old would not admit of
this gloss, he adds, “Similitudo autem
purgationis legalis, et evangelicæ, non est in modo purgandi sed in
effectu;” than which nothing is more false, nor more directly
contrary to the apostle’s discourse, Heb. ix.
10.
(2.) Positively. And here, to lay aside the
manner how he was to do it, which relates to his office of priest, and
prophet, and king, the conditions imposed upon him may be referred to three
heads:—
[1.] That he should take on him the nature of those whom he
was to bring to God. This is as it were prescribed to him, Heb. x. 5, “A body hast thou prepared
me,” or “appointed that I should be made flesh, — take a body therein to do
thy will.” And the apostle sets out the infinite love of the Son of God,
in that he condescended to this inexpressible exinanition and eclipsing of
his glory, Phil. ii.
6, 7, “Being in the form of God, and equal with God, he made
himself of no reputation, but took upon him the form of a servant, and was
made in the likeness of men,” or made a roam He did it upon his Father’s
prescription, and in pursuit of what God required at his hands. Hence it
is said, “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman,” Gal. iv.
4; and “God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,”
Rom. viii. 3. And properly in answer
to this of the Father’s appointing him a body is it that the Son answers,
“Lo, I come to do thy will,” — “I will do it, I will undertake it, that the
great desirable end may be brought about,” as we shall see afterward. So
Heb. x. 9. And though I see no
sufficient reason of relinquishing the usual interpretation of
σπέρματος Ἀβραὰμ ἐπιλαμβάνεται,
Heb. ii. 16, yet if it be “apprehendit,” and expressive of the
effect, not “assumpsit,” relating to
the way of his yielding us assistance and deliverance, the same thing is
intimated.
[2.] That in this “body,” or human nature, he should be a
“servant,” or yield obedience. Hence God calls him his servant, Isa. xlii. 1, “Behold my servant, whom
I uphold.” And that this was also the condition prescribed to him our
Saviour acknowledges, Isa. xlix.
5, “Now, saith the Lord that formed me
from the womb to be his servant,” etc. And in pursuit hereof, Christ takes
upon him “the form of a servant,” Phil. ii.
7: and this is his perpetual profession, “I came to do the will
of him that sent me;” and, “This commandment I have received of my Father.”
So, “though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience.” All along, in the
carrying on of his work, he professes that this condition was by his Father
prescribed him, that he should be his servant, and yield him obedience in
the work he had in hand. Hence he says his Father is greater than he,
John xiv. 28, not only in respect of
his humiliation, but also in respect of the dispensation whereunto he, as
the Son of God, submitted himself, to perform his Will and yield him
obedience. And this God declares to be the condition whereon he will
deliver man: Job
xxxiii. 23, 24, “If there be a messenger (a servant), one of a
thousand, to undertake for him, it shall be so, I will say, Deliver man;
otherwise not.”
[3.] That he should suffer and undergo what in justice is
due to him that he was to deliver; — a hard and great prescription, yet
such as must be undergone, that there may be a consistence of the justice
and truth of God with the salvation of man. This is plainly expressed,
Isa. liii. 10, אִם־תָּשִׂים אָשָׁם נַפְשׁוֹ, “When thou shalt make
his soul an offering for sin,” or rather, “If his soul shall make an
offering for sin, then he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days,
and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his
hand.” As if he should say, “If this work be brought about, and if the
counsel of peace which we have consented in be carried on, if my pleasure
therein be to prosper, thou must make thy soul an offering for sin.” And
that this was required of our Saviour, himself fully expresses even in his
agony, when, praying for the removal of the cup, he submits to the drinking
of it in these words: “ ‘Thy will, O Father, be done;’ this is that which
thou wilt have me do, which thou hast prescribed unto me, even that I drink
of this cup;” wherein he “tasted of death,” and which comprised the whole
of his sufferings. And this is the third thing in this convention and
agreement.
3. Promises are made, upon the supposition of undertaking
that which was required, and these of all sorts that might either concern
the person that did undertake, or the accomplishment of the
work that he did undertake.
(1.) For the person himself that was to undertake,
or the Lord Jesus Christ, seeing there was much difficulty and great
opposition to be passed through in what he was to do and undergo, promises
of the assistance of his Father, by his presence with him, and carrying him
through all perplexities and trials, are given to him in abundance. Some
of these you have, Isa. xlii.
4, “He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set
judgment in the earth;” and verse 6,
“I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and
will hold thy hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the
people;” — “Whatever opposition thou mayst meet withal, I will hold thee,
and keep thee, and preserve thee.” “I will not leave thy soul in hell, nor
suffer mine Holy One to see corruption,” Ps. xvi.
10. So Ps. lxxxix.
28, “My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant
shall stand fast with him.” And hence was our blessed Saviour’s confidence
in his greatest trial, Isa. l.
5–9. Verses 5,
6, our Saviour expresses his undertaking, and what he suffered
therein; verses
7–9, the assistance that he was promised of his Father in this
great trial, on the account whereof he despises all his enemies, with full
assurance of success, even upon the Father’s engaged promise of his
presence with him. This is the first sort of promises made to Christ in
this convention, which concern himself directly, that he should not be
forsaken in his work, but carried through, supported and upheld, until he
were come forth to full success, and had “sent forth judgment unto
victory.” Hence, in his greatest trial, he makes his address to God
himself, on the account of these promises, to be delivered from that which
he feared: Heb. v. 7, “Who in the days,” etc. So
Ps.
lxxxix. 27, 28.
(2.) There were promises in this compact that concerned the
work itself that Christ undertook, namely, that if he did what was
required of him, not only he should be preserved in it, but also that the
work itself should thrive and prosper in his hand. So Isa. liii. 10, 11, “When thou shalt
make,” etc. Whatever he aimed at is here promised to be accomplished.
“The pleasure of the Lord shall prosper;” — the
design of Father and Son for the accomplishment of our salvation shall
prosper. “He shall see his seed,” — a seed of believers shall be raised
up, that shall “prolong their days;” that is, the seed shall prolong or
continue whilst the sun and moon endure; all the elect shall be justified
and saved. Satan shall be conquered, and the spoil delivered from him.
And this our Saviour comforts himself withal in his greatest distress,
Ps. xxii. 30, 31. And for this “joy
that was set before him,” the joy of “bringing many sons unto glory” that
was promised to him, “he endured the cross, and despised the shame,”
Heb. xii. 2. So also Isa. xliii. 1–4.
And this is the third thing in this compact,
He who prescribes the hard conditions of incarnation, obedience, and death,
doth also make the glorious promises of preservation, protection, and
success. And to make these promises the more eminent, God confirms them
solemnly by an oath. He is consecrated a high priest for evermore by the
“word of the oath,” Heb. vii.
28. “The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for
ever,” etc., verse 21.
4. The Lord Jesus Christ accepts of the condition,
and the promise, and voluntarily undertakes the work: Ps. xl. 7, 8, “Then said I, Lo, I
come: I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.”
He freely, willingly, cheerfully, undertakes to do and suffer whatever it
was the will of his Father that he should do or suffer for the bringing
about the common end aimed at. He undertakes to be the Father’s servant in
this work, and says to the Lord, “Thou art my
Lord,” Ps. xvi. 2; — “Thou art he to whom I am
to yield obedience, to submit to in this work” “Mine ears hast thou bored,
and I am thy servant;” — “I am not rebellious, I do not withdraw from it,”
Isa. i. 5. Hence the apostle tells us
that this mind was in him, that whereas he was “in the form of God, he
humbled himself to the death of the cross,” Phil.
ii. 6–8. And so, by his own voluntary consent, he came under
the law of the mediator; which afterward, as he would not, so he could not
decline. He made himself surety of the covenant, and so was to pay what he
never took. He voluntarily engaged himself into this sponsion; but when he
had so done, he was legally subject to all that attended it, — when he had
put his name into the obligation, he became responsible for the whole debt.
And all that he did or suffered comes to be called “obedience;” which
relates to the law that he was subject to, having engaged himself to his
Father, and said to the Lord, “Thou art my Lord;
lo, I come to do thy will.”
5. The fifth and last thing is, that on the one side the
promiser do approve and accept of the performance of the condition
prescribed, and the undertaker demand and lay claim to the promises made,
and thereupon the common end designed be accomplished and fulfilled. All
this also is fully manifest in this compact or convention.
(1.) God the Father accepts of the performance of what was
to the Son prescribed. This God fully declares, Isa. xlix. 5, 6, “And now, saith the
Lord that formed me from the womb to be his
servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet
shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my
God shall be my strength. And he said, It is a light thing that thou
shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the
preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles,
that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.” And
eminently, verses 8,
9,” Thus saith the Lord, In an
acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation
have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant
of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate
heritages; that thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that
are in darkness, Show yourselves,” etc.; — “Now, I have been with thee, and
helped thee in thy work, and thou hast performed it; now thou shalt do all
that thy heart desires, according to my promise.” Hence that which was
originally spoken of the eternal generation of the Son, Ps.
ii. 7, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” is
applied by the apostle to his resurrection from the dead: Acts xiii. 33, “God hath fulfilled
his word unto us, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also
written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten
thee.” That is, God by the resurrection from the dead gloriously
manifested him to be his Son, whom he loved, in whom he was well pleased,
and who did all his pleasure. So Rom. i. 4,
“He was declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from
the dead.” Then was he declared to be the Son of God. God, approving and
accepting the work he had done, loosed the pains of death, and raised him
again, manifesting to all the world his approbation and acceptation of him
and his work; whence he immediately says to him, Ps. ii. 8,
“Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance;” —
“Now ask what thou wilt, whatever I have promised, whatever thou didst or
couldst expect upon thy undertaking this work; it shall be done, it shall
be granted thee.” And, —
(2.) Christ, accordingly, makes his demand solemnly on
earth and in heaven. On earth: John
xvii., throughout the whole chapter is the demand of Christ for
the accomplishment of the whole compact and all the promises that were made
to him when he undertook to be a Saviour, which concerned both himself and
his church; see verses
1, 4–6, 9, 12–16, etc. And in heaven also: he is gone into “the
presence of God,” there “to appear for us,” Heb. ix.
24, and is “able to save them to the uttermost that come to God
by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them,” chap. vii. 25; not as in the days of
his flesh, with strong cries and supplications, but by virtue of his
oblation, laying claim to the promised inheritance in our behalf. And,
—
(3.) The whole work is accomplished, and the end intended
brought about: for in the death of Christ he “finished the transgression,
and made an end of sins, and made reconciliation for iniquity, and brought
in everlasting righteousness,” Dan. ix.
24; and of sinful man God says, “Deliver him, for I have found a
ransom,” Job xxxiii. 24. Hence our
reconciliation, justification, yea, our salvation, are in the Scripture
spoken of as things actually done and accomplished in the death and
blood-shedding of Jesus Christ. Not as though we were all
then actually justified and saved, but upon the account of the certainty of
the performance and accomplishment of those things in their due time
towards us and upon us are these things so delivered: for in reference to
the undertaking of Christ in this covenant is he called “The second Adam,”
becoming a common head to his people (with this difference, that Adam was a
common head to all that came of him necessarily, and, as I may so
say, naturally, and whether he would or no; Christ is so to his
voluntarily, and by his own consent and undertaking, as hath been
demonstrated); now, as we all die in Adam federally and meritoriously, yet
the several individuals are not in their persons actually dead in sin and
obnoxious to eternal death before they are by natural generation united to
Adam, their first head; so, though all the elect be made alive and saved
federally and meritoriously in the death of Christ, wherein also a certain
foundation is laid of that efficacy which works all these things in us and
for us, yet we are not viritim made partakers of the good things
mentioned before we are united to Christ by the communication of his Spirit
to us.
And this, I say, is the covenant and compact that was
between Father and Son, which is the great foundation of what hath been
said and shall farther be spoken about the merit and satisfaction of
Christ. Here lies the ground of the righteousness of the dispensation
treated of, that Christ should undergo the punishment due to us: It was
done voluntarily, of himself, and he did nothing but what he had power to
do, and command from his Father to do. “I have power,” saith he, “to lay
down my life, and I have power to take it again; this commandment have I
received of my Father;” whereby the glory both of the love and justice of
God is exceedingly exalted. And, —
1. This stops the mouth of the Socinian clamour concerning
the unrighteousness of one man’s suffering personally for another
man’s sin. It is true, it is so if these men be not in such relation to
one another that what one doth or suffereth, the other may be accounted to
do or suffer; but it is no unrighteousness, if the hand offend, that the
head be smitten. But Christ is our head; we are his members. It is true,
if he that suffereth hath not power over that wherein he suffers; but
Christ had power to lay down his life and take it again. It is true, if he
that is to suffer and he that is to punish be not willing or agreed to the
commutation; but here Father and Son, as hath been manifested, were fully
agreed upon the whole matter. It may be true, if he who suffers cannot
possibly be made partaker of any good afterward that shall balance and
overweigh all his suffering; not where the cross is endured and the shame
despised for the glory proposed or set before him that suffers, — not where
he is made low for a season, that he may be crowned with dignity and
honour. And, —
2. This is the foundation of the merit of
Christ. The apostle tells us, Rom. iv. 4,
what merit is: it is such an adjunct of obedience as whereby “the reward is
not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” God having proposed unto Christ a law
for obedience, with promises of such and such rewards upon condition of
fulfilling the obedience required, he performing that obedience, the reward
is reckoned to him of debt, or he righteously merited whatever was so
promised to him. Though the compact was of grace, yet the reward is of
debt. Look, then, whatever God promised Christ upon his undertaking to be
a Saviour, that, upon the fulfilling of his will, he merited. That himself
should be exalted, that he should be the head of his church, that he should
see his seed, that he should justify and save them, sanctify and glorify
them, were all promised to him, all merited by him. But of this more
afterward.
Having thus fully considered the threefold notion of the
death of Christ, as it was a price, a sacrifice, and a
punishment, and discovered the foundation of righteousness in all
this, proceed we now to manifest what are the proper effects of the death
of Christ under this threefold notion. Now these also, answerably, are
three:— I. Redemption, as it is a price; II. Reconciliation, as it is a
sacrifice; III. Satisfaction, as it is a punishment. Upon which
foundation, union with Christ, vocation, justification, sanctification, and
glory, are built.
Chapter XXVIII.
Of redemption by the death of Christ as it was a price or
ransom.
Having given before the general
notions of the death of Christ, as it is in Scripture proposed, all tending
to manifest the way and manner of the expiation of our sins, and our
delivery from the guilt and punishment due to them, it remains that an
accommodation of those several notions of it be made particularly and
respectively to the business in hand.
I. The first consideration proposed of the death of Christ
was of it as a price; and the issue and effect thereof is redemption. Hence Christ is spoken of in the Old
Testament as a Redeemer: Job xix.
25 “I know that my Redeemer liveth.” The word there used is
גּוֹאֵל, whose rise and use is
commonly known.
גָּאַל is “vindicare, redimere;” ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι, in Greek; which is commonly used for
“suum vindicare:” Ὅτι ἄν τις ἐκτημένος ᾗ, … καὶ μηδεὶς ἐπιλάβηται ἐὰν οὕτω τις ἐνιαυτὸν ὁτιοῦν
ἐκτημένος … μὴ ἐξέστω τοιούτου
κτήματος ἐπιλαβέσθαι μηδὲν ἀπελθόντος ἐνιαυτοῦ. Plato de Legib. 12. And that may be the sense of the
word ἐπιλαμβάνεται, if not in the
effect, yet in the cause, Heb. ii.
16.
The rise and use of this word in this business
of our deliverance by Christ we have Lev. xxv.
25, “If any of his kin come to redeem it.” גֹאֲלוֹ הַקָּרֹב, — “redimens illud propinquus.” The next who is גֹּאֵל [is to] redeem it, or vindicate the
possession out of mortgage. On this account Boaz tells Ruth that, in
respect of the possession of Elimelech, he was goël, Ruth iii. 13, a redeemer; which we
have translated “a kinsman,” because he was to do that office by right of
propinquity of blood or nearness of kin, as is evident from the law before
mentioned. Christ, coming to vindicate us into liberty by his own blood,
is called by Job his goël, chap. xix.
25; so also is he termed, Isa. xli.
14, גֹאֲלֵךְ, “thy
redeemer,” or “thy next kinsman;” and chap. xliv.
6, in that excellent description of Christ, also verse
24, xlvii. 4, xlviii. 17, xlix. 26, liv. 5, lix. 20, lx. 16, lxiii.
16, and in sundry other places. Neither is the church of God at
all beholding to some late expositors, who, to show their skill in the
Hebrew doctors, would impose upon us their interpretations, and make those
expressions to signify deliverance in general, and to be referred to God
the Father, seeing that the rise of the use of the word plainly restrains
the redemption intended to the paying of a price for it; which was done
only by Jesus Christ. So Jer.
xxxii. 7, 8. Hence they that looked for the Messiah, according
to the promise, are said to look for, or to wait for, λύτρωσιν, “redemption in Israel,” Luke ii. 38: and, in the
accomplishment of the promise, the apostle tells us that Christ by his
blood obtained for us “eternal redemption,” Heb. ix.
12. And he having so obtained it, we are “justified freely by
the grace of God, διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, — by the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;” ἐν φορ διά, “in him,” for “by him,” or
wrought by him, Rom. iii.
24. And this being brought home to us, “we have redemption
through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,” Eph. i. 7,
Col. i. 14; whence he is said to be
“made unto us ἀπολύτρωσις,” or
“redemption,” 1 Cor. i.
30.
How this is done will be made evident by applying of what
is now spoken to what was spoken of the death of Christ as a price. Christ
giving himself or his life λύτρον and
ἀντίλυτρον, a price of redemption, as
hath been showed, a ransom, those for whom he did it come to have λύτρωσιν, and ἀπολύτρωσιν, redemption thereby, or deliverance from
the captivity wherein they were. And our Saviour expresses particularly
how this was done as to both parts, Matt. xx.
28. He came δοῦναι τῆν ψυχὴν
λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν, — that is, he came to be an ἀντίψυχος, one to stand in the room of others, and to
give his life for them.
To make this the more evident and clear, I shall give a
description of redemption properly so called, and make application of it in
the several parts thereof unto that under consideration:— “Redemption is
the deliverance of any one from bondage or captivity, and the
misery attending that condition, by the intervention or interposition of a
price or ransom, paid by the redeemer to him by whose authority he is
detained, that, being delivered, he may be in a state of liberty, at the
disposal of the redeemer.”
And this will comprise the laws of this redemption, which
are usually given. They are, first, On the part of the redeemer:— 1.
“Propinquus esto;” — “Let him be
near of kin.” 2. “Consanguinitatis jure
redimito;” — “Let him redeem by right of consanguinity.” 3. “Injusto possessori prædam eripito;” — “Let
him deliver the prey from the unjust possessor.” 4. “Huic pretium nullum solvito;” — “To him let no price
be paid.” 5. “Sanguinem pro redemptionis
pretio vero Domino offerto;” — “Let him offer or give his blood to
the true Lord for a ransom, or price of redemption.” Secondly, On the part
of the redeemed:— 1. “Libertatis jure felix
gaudeto;” — “Let him enjoy his liberty.” 2. “Servitutis jugum ne iterum sponte suscipito;” — “Let
him not again willingly take on him the yoke of bondage.” 3. “Deinceps servum se exhibeto redemptori;” —
“Let him in liberty be a servant to his redeemer.”
The general parts of this description of redemption Socinus himself consents unto: for whereas
Covet had a little inconveniently defined “to redeem,” saying, “Redimere aliquem est debitum solvere creditoris
ejus nomine, qui solvendo non erat, sicque satisfacere creditori,”
which is a proper description of the payment of another man’s debts, and
not of his redemption, Socinus,
correcting this mistake, affirms that “redimere aliquem nihil aliud proprie significat quam
captivum e manibus illius qui eum detinet pretio illi dato
liberare,” — “to redeem any one properly signifies nothing else but
to deliver him out of his hands that detained him captive, by a price given
to him who detained him;” which, as to the general nature of redemption,
contains as much as what was before given in for the description of it.
With the accommodation, therefore, of that description to the redemption
which we have by the blood of Christ, I shall proceed, desiring the reader
to remember that if I evince the redemption we have by Christ to be proper,
and properly so called, the whole business of satisfaction is confessedly
evinced.
First. The general nature
of it consists in deliverance. Thence Christ is called Ὁ ῥυόμενος, “The deliverer:” Rom. xi. 26, “As it is written, There
shall come out of Sion the Deliverer.” The word in the prophet, Isa. lix. 20, is נּוֹאֵל, that we may know what kind of deliverer
Christ is, — a deliverer by redemption. “He gave himself for our sins
ὄπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς, that he might
deliver us,” Gal. i. 4. He delivered us; but it was
by giving himself for our sins. 1 Thess. i.
10, “To wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the
dead, Ἰησοῦν τὸν ῥυόμενον ἡμᾶς
ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς τῆς ἐρχομένης, — Jesus, who delivered us from
the wrath to come.” So Luke i.
74; Rom. vii. 6; Heb. ii.
15; Col. i. 13.
Now, as redemption, because its general nature consists in
deliverance, is often expressed thereby, so deliverance, because it hath
the effect of redemption, is or may be called redemption, though it be not
properly so, but agrees in the end and effect only. Hence Moses is said to
be λυτρωτής: Acts vii.
35, Τοῦτον ὁ Θεὸς ἄρχοντὰ καὶ
λυτρωτὴν ἀπέστειλεν, “Him did God send a prince and a redeemer;”
that is, a deliverer, one whom God used for the deliverance of his people.
And because what he did, even the delivery of his people out of bondage,
agreed with redemption in its end, the work itself is called redemption,
and he is termed therein a redeemer, though it was not a direct
redemption that he wrought, no ransom being paid for delivery.
It is pleaded, First, “That God being said to redeem his
people in sundry places in the Old Testament, which he could not possibly
do by a ransom, therefore the redemption mentioned in the Scripture is
metaphorical, a mere deliverance; and such is also that we have by Christ,
without the intervention of any price.”
Secondly, “Moses, who was a type of Christ and a redeemer,
who is so often said to redeem the people, yet, as it is known, did it
without any ransom, by a mere deliverance; therefore did Christ so
also.”
Not to trouble the reader with repetition of words, this is
the sum of what is pleaded by the Racovian
Catechism to prove our redemption by Christ not to be proper, but
metaphorical; and so, consequently, that no satisfaction can be thence
evinced:—
“E verbo redimendi non posse
effici satisfactionem hanc hinc est planum, quod de ipso Deo in novo et in
prisco fœdere scribitur, eum redimisse populum suum ex Ægypto, eum fecisse
redemptionem populo suo; quod Moses fuerit redemptor, Acts vii. 35. Vox ideo redemptionis, simpliciter liberationem
denotat.” — Rac. Cat. cap. viii. de
Christo.
And, indeed, what there they speak is the sum of the plea
of Socinus as to this part of our
description of redemption, “De Jesu Christo Servatore,” lib. i. part. ii. cap.
i.–iii.
To remove these difficulties (if they may be so called), I
shall only tender the ensuing considerations:—
1. That because redemption is sometimes to be taken
metaphorically, for mere deliverance, when it is spoken of God without any
mention of a price or ransom, in such cases as wherein it was
impossible that a ransom should be paid (as in the deliverance of the
children of Israel from Egypt and Pharaoh, when it is expressly said to be
done by power and an outstretched arm, Deut. iv.
34), therefore it must be so understood when it is spoken of
Christ, the mediator, with express mention of a price or ransom, and when
it was impossible but that a ransom must be paid, is a loose consequence,
not deserving any notice.
2. That all the places of Scripture where mention is made
of God being a redeemer and redeeming his people may be referred unto these
heads:—
(1.) Such as call God the redeemer of his church in
general, as the places before mentioned; and these are all to be referred
immediately to the Son of God (the manner of his redemption being described
in the New Testament); and so proper redemption is intended in them,
compare Isa. liv. 5, with Eph. v. 25, 26.
(2.) Such as mention some temporal deliverance that was
typical of the spiritual redemption which we have by Jesus Christ; and it
is called redemption, not so much from the general nature of deliverance,
as from its pointing out to us that real and proper redemption that was
typified by it. Such was God’s redeeming his people out of Egypt.
So there is no mention of redemption in the Scripture, but
either it is proper, or receives that appellation from its relation to that
which is so.
3. This is indeed a very wretched and cursed way of
interpreting Scripture, especially those passages of it which set out the
grace of God and the love of Christ to us, — namely, to do it by way of
diminution and lessening. God takes and uses this word that is of use
amongst men, namely, “redemption;” saith he, “Christ hath redeemed you with
his own blood, — he hath laid down a price for you.” For men to come and
interpret this, and say “He did it not properly, it was not a
complete redemption, but metaphorical, a bare deliverance,” is to
blaspheme God and the work of his love and grace. It is a safe rule of
interpreting Scripture, that in places mentioning the love and grace of God
to us, the words are to be taken in their utmost significancy. It is a
thing most unworthy a good and wise man to set out his kindness and
benefits with great swelling words of mighty weight and importance, which,
when the things signified by them come to be considered, must be
interpreted by way of minoration; nor will any worthy man do so. Much less
can it be once imagined that God has expressed his love and kindness and
the fruits of it to us in great and weighty words, that, in their ordinary
use and significancy, contain a great deal more than really he hath done.
For any one so to interpret what he hath spoken, is an abomination into
which I desire my soul may never enter.
What the redemption of a captive is, and how it is brought
about, we know. God tells us that Christ hath redeemed us, and that with
his own blood. Is it not better to believe the Lord, and venture our souls
upon it, than to go to God and say, “This thou hast said, indeed, but it is
an improper and metaphorical redemption, a deliverance, that
we have?” The truth is, it is so far from truth that God hath delivered
the work of his grace, and our benefit thereby, in the death of Christ, in
words too big in their proper signification for the things themselves, that
no words whatever are sufficient to express it and convey it to our
understandings.
That Moses, who was a type of Christ in the work of
redemption, and is called a redeemer, did redeem the people without the
proper payment of a valuable ransom, therefore Christ did so also; — to
conclude thus, I say, is to say that the type and thing typified must in
all things be alike; yea, that a similitude between them in that wherein
their relation consists is not enough to maintain their relation, but there
must be such an identity as in truth overthrows it. Christ tells us that
the brazen serpent was a type of him: John iii.
14, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so
must the Son of man be lifted up.” Now, if a man should thence argue, that
because the brazen serpent was only lifted up, not crucified nor did shed
his blood, therefore Christ was not crucified nor did shed his blood, would
he be attended unto? The like may be said of Jonah, who was alive in the
belly of the whale, when he was a type of Christ being dead in the earth.
In the general nature of deliverance from captivity, there was an agreement
in the corporeal deliverance of Moses and the spiritual of Christ, and here
was the one a type of the other; in the manner of their accomplishment, the
one did not represent the other, the one being said expressly to be done by
power, the other by a ransom.
Secondly. It is the delivery of
one in captivity. All men, considered in the state of sin and
alienation from God, are in captivity. Hence they are said to be
“captives,” and to be “bound in prison,” Isa. lxi.
1. And the work of Christ is to “bring out the prisoners from
the prison, and them that sit in darkness” (that is, in the dungeon) “out
of the prison-house,” Isa. xlii.
7. He says “to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that are in
darkness, Show yourselves,” chap. xlix.
9: as it is eminently expressed, Zech. ix.
11, “As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent
forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.” Here are
prisoners, prisoners belonging to the daughter of Zion; for unto her, the
church, he speaks, verse 9,
“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion.” Those other sheep of the fold of
Christ, not yet gathered when this promise was given, are spoken of; and
they are “in the pit wherein is no water;” — a pit for security to detain
them, that they may not escape; and without water, that they may in it find
no refreshment. How are these prisoners delivered? By the blood of his
covenant of whom he speaks: see verse 9,
“Behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation;
lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.” It is
a description of Christ when he rode to Jerusalem, to seal and
confirm the covenant for the deliverance of the prisoners with his own
blood; which is therefore called “The blood of the covenant wherewith he
was sanctified,” Heb. x.
29. Hence in the next verse, “Prisoners of hope” is a
description of the elect, Zech. ix.
12.
So also are they called captives expressly: Isa. xlix. 25, “Thus saith the Lord, Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken
away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered.” Those who were in
their captivity a prey to Satan, that mighty and cruel one, shall be
delivered. And who shall do this? “The Lord thy
Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob,” verse
26. He proclaims “liberty to the captives,” Isa. lxi. 1, Luke iv.
18. And this is given in as the great fruit of the death of
Christ, that upon his conquest of it he “led captivity captive,” Ps. lxviii. 18, Eph. iv. 8, — that is, either captivity
actively, Satan who held and detained his in captivity, or passively, those
who were in captivity to him.
Thus being both prisoners and captives, they are said to be
in bondage. Christ gives us liberty from that yoke of bondage, Gal. v. 1; and men are in bondage by
reason of death all their days, Heb. ii.
15. There is, indeed, nothing that the Scripture more abounds
in than this, that men in the state of sin are in prison, captivity, and
bondage, — are prisoners, captives, and slaves.
Concerning this two things are considerable:— 1. The cause
of men’s bondage and captivity, deserving or procuring it. 2. The
efficient, principal cause of it, to whom they are in captivity.
1. As for the first, as it is known, it is sin. To all
this bondage and captivity men are sold by sin. In this business sin is
considered two ways:—
(1.) As a debt, whereof God is the creditor. Our
Saviour hath taught us to pray for the forgiveness of our sins under that
notion, Matt. vi. 12, Ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν, — “Remit to us our
debts.” And in the parable of the lord and his servants, Matt. xviii. 23–35, he calls it
τὸ δάνειον, verse
27, and τὸ ὀφειλόμενον,
verse 30, “due debt;” all which he
expounds by παραπτώματα, verse 35, — “offences” or
“transgressions.” Debt makes men liable to prison for non-payment; and so
doth sin (without satisfaction made) to the prison of hell. So our Saviour
expresses it, Matt.
v. 25, 26, “Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art
in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the
judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into
prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence,
till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.” On this account are men
prisoners for sin: They are bound in the prison-house because they have
wasted the goods of their Master, and contracted a debt that they are no
way able to pay; and if it be not paid for them, there they must lie to
eternity. All mankind were cast into prison for that great debt they contracted in Adam, in their trustee. Being there, instead
of making any earnings to pay the debt already upon them by the law, they
contract more, and increase thousands of talents. But this use of the
words “debt” and “prison,” applied to sin and punishment, is
metaphorical.
(2.) As a crime, rebellion, transgression against
God, the great governor and judge of all the world. The criminalness,
rebellion, transgression, the disobedience that is in sin, is more or less
expressed by all the words in the original whereby any sins are signified
and called. Now, for sin considered as rebellion are men cast into prison,
captivity, and bondage, by way of judicial process and punishment.
2. As for the principal cause of this captivity and
imprisonment, it is God; for, —
(1.) He is the creditor to whom these debts are due:
Matt. vi.
9, 12, “Our Father which art in heaven, … forgive us our debts.”
It is to him that we stand indebted the ten thousand talents “Against
thee, thee only, have I sinned,” says David, Ps. li. 4.
God hath intrusted us with all we have to sin by or withal; he hath lent it
us, to lay out for his glory. Our spending of what we have received upon
our lusts, is running into debt unto God. Though he doth not reap where he
did not sow, yet he requires his principal with advantage.
(2.) And properly he is the great king, judge, and governor
of the world, who hath given his law for the rule of our obedience; and
every transgression thereof is a rebellion against him. Hence, to sin is
to rebel, and to transgress, and to be perverse, to turn aside from the
way, to cast off the yoke of the Lord, as it is everywhere expressed. God
is “the one lawgiver,” James iv.
12, who is able to kill and to destroy for the transgression of
it. It is his law which is broken, and upon the breach whereof he says,
“Cursed be every one that hath so done,” Deut. xxvii.
26. He is “the judge of all the earth,” Gen.
xviii. 25, yea, “God is judge himself,” Ps. i.
6; and we shall be judged by his law, James ii. 10–12; and his judgment is,
“That they which commit sin are worthy of death,” Rom. i.
32. And he is the “king for ever and ever,” Ps. x. 16. He reigneth and executeth
judgment. Now, who should commit the rebel that offends, who should be the
author of the captivity and imprisonment of the delinquent, but he who is
the king, judge, and lawmaker?
(3.) He doth actually do it: Rom. xi. 32, Συνέκλεισε ὁ Θεὸς τοὺς πάντας εἰς ἀπείθειαν — “God
hath shut up all under disobedience.” He hath laid them up close prisoners
for their disobedience; and they shall not go out until satisfaction be
made. In the parable, Matt.
xviii., of the lord or master and his servants, this is evident;
and chap. v. 25, it is the judge that
delivers the man to the officer to be cast into prison. Look who it is
that shall inflict the final punishment upon the captives, if
a ransom be not paid for them, he it is by whose power and authority they
are committed, and to whom principally they are prisoners and captives.
Now, this is God only. He can cast both body and soul into hell fire,
Matt. x. 28; and wicked men shall be
destroyed “from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power,”
2 Thess. i. 9. In brief, God is the
judge; the law is the law of God; the sentence denounced is condemnation
from God; the curse inflicted is the curse of God; the wrath wherewith men
are punished is the wrath of God; he that finds a ransom is God: and
therefore it is properly and strictly he to whom sinners are prisoners and
captives, 2 Pet. ii. 4. And therefore, when in
the Scripture at any time men are said to be in bondage to Satan, it is but
as to the officer of a judge, or the jailer; to their sin, it is but as to
their fetters, as shall be afterward more fully discovered.
And this removes the first question and answer of the
Racovians to this purpose. Socinus,
“De
Servatore,” expresses himself to the whole business of redemption in
three chapters, lib. i. part. ii. cap. i.–iii.; the sum of which the
catechists have laboured to comprise in as many questions and answers. The
first is, —
Q. What dost thou answer to those testimonies which witness
that we are redeemed of Christ?
A. It is hence evident that satisfaction cannot be confirmed
from the word “redeeming,” — 1. Because it is written of God himself, both
in the Old and New Testament, that he redeemed his people out of Egypt,
that he redeemed his people; 2. Because it is written that God redeemed
Abraham and David, and that Moses was a redeemer, and that we are redeemed
from our iniquities and our vain conversation, and from the curse of the
law; for it is certain that God made satisfaction to none, nor can it be
said that satisfaction is made either to our iniquities, or to our vain
conversation, or to the law.
I say this whole plea is utterly removed by what hath been
spoken; for, — 1. In what sense redemption is ascribed to God and Moses,
without the least prejudice of that proper redemption that was
made by the blood of Christ, hath been declared, and shall be farther
manifested when we come to demonstrate the price that was paid in this
redemption.
2. It is true, there is no satisfaction made to our
sin and vain conversation when we are redeemed; but
satisfaction being made to Him to whom it is due, we are delivered from
them. But of this afterwards.
3. Satisfaction is properly made to the law when
the penalty which it threatens and prescribes is undergone, as
in the case insisted on it was. In the meantime, our catechists are
sufficiently vain, in supposing our argument to lie in the word “redimere.” Though something hath been
spoken of the word in the original, yet our plea is from the thing
itself.
This Socinus thus
expresses:—
There is also required he who held the captive, otherwise he
is not a captive. To him, in our deliverance, if we will consider the
thing itself exactly, many things do answer, for many things do detain us
captives; now they are sin, the devil, and the world, and that which
followeth sin, the guilt of eternal death, or the punishment of death
appointed to us.
Ans. A lawful captive is detained two ways, —
First, Directly; and that two ways also:—
1. Legally, juridically, and
authoritatively: so is sinful man detained captive of God. “The
wrath of God abideth on him,” John iii.
36, as hath been declared.
2. Instrumentally, in subservience to the
authority of the other: so is man in bondage to Satan, and the law, and
fear of death to come, Heb. ii.
14, 15.
Secondly, Consequentially, and by accident: so a
man is detained by his shackles, as in the filth of the prison; so is a man
captive to sin and the world.
Nor are all these properly the detainers of us in
captivity, from which we are redeemed, any more than the gallows keeps a
malefactor in prison, from which by a pardon and ransom he is
delivered.
To proceed with the description of redemption given, it is
the delivery of him who was captive from prison or captivity, and all the
miseries attending that condition.
1. What I mean by the prison is easily gathered from what
hath been delivered concerning the prisoner or captive, and Him that holds
him captive. If the captive be a sinner as a sinner, and he who holds him
captive be God, by his justice making him liable to punishment, his
captivity must needs be his obnoxiousness unto the wrath of God on the
account of his justice for sin. This are we delivered from by this
redemption that is in the blood of Jesus, Rom. iii. 23–25: “For all have
sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his
grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set
forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his
righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the
forbearance of God.” Verse 23
is the description of the state of our captivity. Having “sinned,” we are
“come short of the glory of God.” Υσπεροῦνται, they fall short in their race, and are by
no means able to come up to a participation of God. Our delivery and the
means of it are expressed, verse 24.
Our delivery: we are “justified freely by his grace,” or
delivered from that condition and state of sin wherein it was impossible
for us to reach and attain the glory of God. The procuring cause
of which liberty is expressed in the next words, διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως, by the redemption or
ransom-paying that is in the blood of Jesus; that is the cause of our
deliverance from that condition wherein we were. Whence and how it is so
is expressed, verse 25: God set him forth for that
end, that we might have deliverance “through faith in his blood,” or by
faith be made partakers of the redemption that is in his blood, or
purchased by it. And this to “declare his righteousness.” We have it this
way, that the righteousness of God may be declared, whereto satisfaction is
made by the death of Christ; for that also is included in the word
“propitiation,” as shall be afterward proved.
Thus, whilst men are in this captivity, “the wrath of God
abideth on them,” John iii.
36; and the full accomplishment of the execution of that wrath
is called “The wrath to come,” 1 Thess. i.
10, which we are delivered from.
In this sense are we said to “have redemption in his
blood,” Col. i. 14, or to have deliverance
from our captivity by the price he paid, and by his death to be delivered
from the fear of death, Heb. ii.
15, or our obnoxiousness thereto; it being the justice or
judgment of God “that they which commit sin are worthy of death,” Rom. i. 32. Christ by undergoing it
delivered us from it.
Whence is that of the apostle, Rom. viii. 33, 34, “Who shall lay any
thing to their charge? who shall condemn them?” Who should but God? It is
God, against whom they have sinned, whose the law is, and who alone can
pronounce sentence of condemnation on the offenders, and inflict penalty
accordingly. Yea, but “it is God that justifieth;” that is, that frees men
from their obnoxiousness to punishment for sin in the first sense of it,
which is their captivity, as hath been declared. But how comes this about?
Why, “it is Christ that died.” It is by the death of Christ that we have
this redemption.
2. From all the miseries that attend that state and
condition. These are usually referred to three heads:— (1.) The power of
Satan; (2.) Of sin; (3.) Of the world; from all which we are said to be
redeemed. And these are well compared to the jailer, filth, and fetters of
the prison wherein the captives are righteously detained.
(1.) For the first, Col. i.
13, 14, “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and
hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son; in whom we have
redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” The “power of
darkness” is the power of the prince of darkness,
of Satan. This God delivers us from, by the redemption that is in the
blood of Christ, verse 14.
And how? Even as he who delivers a captive from the judge by a price
delivers him also from the jailer who kept him in prison. By his death
(which, as hath been showed, was a price and a ransom), he deprived Satan
of all his power over us; which is called his destroying of him, Heb. ii. 14, — that is, not the devil
as to his essence and being, but as to his power and authority over those
who are made partakers of his death.
The words of Socinus
to this purpose may be taken notice of, Lib. de Servat. lib. i. part. ii. cap.
ii.:—
Nothing is wanting in this deliverance, that it might
wholly answer a true redemption, but only that he who detained the captive
should receive the price. Although it seems to some that it may be said
that the devil received the price which intervened in our redemption, as
the ancient divines, among whom was Ambrosius and Augustine, made bold to speak, yet that ought to seem most
absurd, and it is true that this price was received by none: for on that
account chiefly is our deliverance not a true but a metaphorical
redemption, because in it there is none that should receive the price; for
if that which is in the place of a price be received (by him who delivers
the captive), then not a metaphorical but a true price had intervened, and
thereupon our redemption had been proper.
It is confessed that nothing is wanting to constitute that
we speak of to be a true, proper, and real redemption, but only
that the price paid be received of him that delivered the
captives. That this is God we proved; that the price is paid to him
we shall nextly prove.
The only reason given why the price is not paid to any, is
because it is not paid to the devil. But was it the law of Satan
we had transgressed? was he the judge that cast us into prison? was it him
to whom we were indebted? was it ever heard that the price of redemption
was paid to the jailer? Whether any of the ancients said so or no I shall
not now trouble myself to inquire, or in what sense they said it; the thing
in itself is ridiculous and blasphemous.
(2.) Sin. “He redeemed us from all iniquity,”
Tit. ii. 14; and we were “redeemed
by the precious blood of Christ from our vain conversation received by
tradition from our fathers,” 1 Pet.
i. 18, 19. This redeeming us from our sins respects two
things:— [1.] The guilt of them, that they should not condemn us;
and, [2.] The power of them, that they should not rule in us, In
the places mentioned it is the latter that is principally
intended; which is evident from what is opposed to the captivity under sin
that is spoken of. In the one place it is “purifying unto himself a
peculiar people, zealous of good works,” Tit. ii.
14; in the other, the “purifying of our souls in obedience to
the truth through the Spirit,” 1 Pet. i.
22. Now, we are redeemed from the power of our sins by the
blood of Christ, not immediately, but consequentially, as a captive is
delivered from his fetters and filth upon the payment of his ransom.
Christ’s satisfying the justice of God, reconciling him to us by his death,
hath also procured the gift of his Spirit for us, to deliver us from the
power of our sins. The foundation of this being laid in the blood of
Christ, and the price which thereby he paid, our delivery from our sins
belongs to his redemption, and we are therefore said to be redeemed by him
from our vain conversation.
And the great plea of our adversaries, that this redemption
is not proper because we are redeemed from our iniquities and vain
conversation, to which no ransom can be paid, will then be freed from
ridiculous folly, when they shall give an instance of a ransom being paid
to the prisoner’s fetters before his delivery, whereunto our sins do rather
answer, than to the judge.
There is a redeeming of us from the guilt of sin,
which hath a twofold expression:— Of redeeming us from the “curse of the
law,” Gal. iii. 13; and of the “redemption
of transgressions,” Heb. ix.
15.
For the first, the “curse of the law” is the curse due to
sin, Deut. xxvii. 26; that is, to the
transgression of the law. This may be considered two ways:— In respect of
its rise and fountain, or its “terminus a quo;” in respect of its end and
effect, or its “terminus ad
quem.”
For the first, or the rise of it, it is the
justice of God, or the just and holy will of God, requiring punishment for
sin, as the vengeance that is inflicted actually for sin is called the
“wrath of God,” Rom. i. 18; that is, his justice and
indignation against sin. In this sense, to “redeem us from the curse of
the law,” is to make satisfaction to the justice of God, from whence that
curse doth arise, that it should not be inflicted on us; and thus it falls
in with what was delivered before concerning our captivity by the justice
of God.
Secondly, As it is the penalty itself, so we are
delivered from it by this ransom-paying of Christ, as the punishment which
we should have undergone, had not he undertaken for us and redeemed us.
Secondly, For the ἀπολύτρωσις
παραβάσεων, Heb. ix.
15, it can be nothing but making reparation for the injury done
by transgression. It is a singular phrase, but may receive some light from
that of Heb. ii. 17, where Christ is said to
be a high priest, εἰς τὸ ἰλάσκεσθαι,
“to reconcile the sins of the people,” — that is, to make reconciliation
for them; of the sense whereof afterward.
(3.) He redeems from the world,
Gal. iv. 5.
The third thing is, that this
deliverance from captivity be by the intervention of a price properly so
called. That Christ did pay such a price I proved before, — which is the
foundation of this discourse.
The word λύτρον, and
those arising from thence, were specially insisted on. The known use of
the word is “redemptionis pretium;”
so among the best authors of the Greek tongue: Ζῶντα λαβόντες ἀφῆκαν ἄνευ λύτρων, Xenoph. Hellen. 7; — “They took him
away without paying his ransom,” or the price of his redemption. And,
Ἔπεμψε τὰ λύτρα τῷ Ἀννίβᾳ καὶ τοὺς
αἰχμαλώτους ἀπέλαβε, says Plutarch in
Fabius; — “He sent their ransom to
Hannibal and received the prisoners.” And from thence λυτρόω is of the same import and signification. So in
the argument of the first book of the Iliad, speaking of Chrysis, that he
came to the camp βουλόμενος λυτρώσασθαι τὴν
θυγατέρα, — “to pay a price for the redemption of his daughter.”
And Aristotle, Ethic. lib. ix. cap. ii., disputing whether a benefit or
good turn be not to be repaid rather than a favour done to any other, gives
an instance of a prisoner redeemed, τῷ
λυτρωθέντι παρὰ ληστῶν πότερον τὸν λυσάμενον ἀντιλυτρωτέον, etc., —
whether he who is redeemed by the payment of a ransom from a robber be to
redeem him who redeemed him, if captive, etc. But this is so far
confessed, that if it may be evinced that this price is paid to any, it
will not be denied but that it is a proper price of redemption, as before
was discovered.
That the death of Christ is such a price I proved
abundantly at the entrance of this discourse. It is so frequently and
evidently expressed in the Scripture to be such that it is not to be
questioned. I shall not farther insist upon it.
All that our adversaries have to object is, as was said,
that seeing this price is not paid to any, it cannot be a price properly so
called; for as for the nature of it, they confess it may be a price. So
Socinus acknowledgeth it. Saith
he:—
I understand the proper use of the word to “redeem”
to be when a true price is given. True price I call not only money, but
whatever is given to him that delivers the captive to satisfy him, although
many things in the redemption be metaphorical.
That God detains the captive hath been proved; that the
price is paid to him, though it be not silver and gold, and that
that he might be satisfied, shall be farther evinced: so that we have
redemption properly so called.
Fourthly. It remains, then, that we
farther manifest that the price was paid to God.
Although enough hath been said already to
evince the truth of this, yet I shall farther put it out of question by the
ensuing observations and inferences:—
1. To the payment of a price or ransom properly so called,
— which, as is acknowledged, is not necessary that it should be money or
the like, 1 Pet. i. 18, but any thing that may
satisfy him that detains the captive, — it is not required that it should
be paid into the hand of him that is said to receive it, but only that it
be some such thing as he requires as the condition of releasing the
captive. It may consist in personal service, which is impossible
to be properly paid into the hand of any. For instance, if a father be
held captive, and he that holds him so requires that, for the delivery of
his father, the son undertake a difficult and hazardous warfare wherein he
is concerned, and he do it accordingly, this son doth properly ransom his
father, though no real price be paid into the hand of him that detained
him. It is sufficient to prove that this ransom was paid by Christ unto
God, if it be proved that, upon the prescription of God, he did that and
underwent that which he esteemed, and was to him a valuable compensation
for the delivery of sinners.
2. The propriety of paying a ransom to any, where it lies
in undergoing the penalty that was due to the ransomed, consists in the
voluntary consent of him to whom the ransom is paid and him that
pays it unto this commutation; which in this business we have firmly
evinced. And the price paid by Christ could be no other; for God was not
our detainer in captivity as a sovereign conqueror, that came upon us by
force and kept us prisoners, but as a just judge and lawgiver, who had
seized on us for our transgressions: so that not his power and will were to
be treated withal, but his law and justice; and so the ransom was properly
paid to him in the undergoing that penalty which his justice required.
3. There must some differences be allowed between
spiritual, eternal, and civil, corporeal, temporal deliverances; which yet
doth not make spiritual redemption to be improper, nay, rather the other is
said to be improper wherein it agrees not thereunto. The one is
spiritual, the other temporal; so that in every
circumstance it is not to be expected that they should agree.
4. There are two things distinctly in God to be considered
in this business:— (1.) His love, his will, or purpose; (2.) His
justice, law, and truth. In respect of his love, his
will, his purpose, or good pleasure, God himself found out, appointed, and
provided this ransom. The giving of Christ is ascribed to his love, will,
and good pleasure, John iii.
16, Rom. v. 8, viii. 32,
1 John
iv. 9, 10, as he had promised by his prophets of old, Luke i. 67–70. But his
justice, and law, and truth, in their several considerations,
required the ransom; and in respect of them he accepted it, as hath been
showed at large. So that nothing in the world is more vain
than that of our adversaries, that God procured and appointed this price,
therefore he did not accept it. That is, either God’s love or his justice
must be denied; either he hath no justice against sin or no love for
sinners; — in the reconciliation of which two, the greatest and most
intense hatred against sin, and the most inexpressible love to some sinners
in the blood of his only Son, lies the great mystery of the gospel; which
these men are unacquainted withal.
5. That God may be said to receive this price, it was not
necessary that any accession should be made to his riches by the ransom,
but that he underwent no loss by our deliverance. This is the difference
between a conqueror or a tyrant and a just ruler, in respect of their
captives and prisoners. Says the tyrant or conqueror, “Pay me so much,
whereby I may be enriched, or I will not part with my prisoner;” says
the just ruler and judge, “Take care that my justice be not
injured, that my law be satisfied, and I will deliver the prisoner.”
It is enough, to make good God’s acceptance of the price, that his justice
suffer not by the delivery of the prisoner, as it did not, Rom. iii. 25; yea, it was exalted and
made glorious above all that it could have been in the everlasting
destruction of the sinner.
These things being thus premised, it will not be difficult
to establish the truth asserted, namely, that this price or ransom was paid
to God; for, —
1. A price of redemption, a ransom, must be paid to some
one or other; the nature of the thing requires it. That the death of
Christ was a price or ransom, properly so called, hath been showed before.
The ridiculous objection, that then it must be paid to Satan or our sin,
hath also been sufficiently removed: so that God alone remains to whom it
is to be paid; for unless to some it is paid, it is not a price or
ransom.
2. The price of redemption is to be paid to him who detains
the captive by way of jurisdiction, right, and law-power. That God is he
who thus detained the captive was also proved before. He is the great
householder that calls his servants, that do or should serve him, to an
account, συνᾶραι λόγον, Matt. xviii. 23, 24; and wicked
men are κατάρας τέκνα, 2 Pet. ii. 14, the children of his
curse, obnoxious to it. It is his judgment “that they which
commit sin are worthy of death,” Rom. i.
32; and Christ is a propitiation to “declare his
righteousness,” chap. iii.
25; and it is his wrath from which we are delivered by
this ransom, chap. ii. 5, 1 Thess. i. 10; the law was
his to which Christ was made obnoxious, Gal. iv. 4;
the curse his which he was made, chap. iii.
13; it was his will he came to do and suffer, Heb. x. 7, — it was his will that he
should drink off the cup of his passion, Matt. xxvi.
42; it pleased him to bruise him, Isa. liii.
10; he made all our iniquities to meet upon him, verse 6: so that, doubtless, this ransom was paid to him. We intend no more by it than what in
these places is expressed.
3. This ransom was also a sacrifice, as hath been declared.
Look, then, to whom the sacrifice was offered, to him the ransom was paid.
These are but several notions of the same thing. Now, the sacrifice he
offered to God, Eph. v. 2; to him, then, also and only
was this ransom paid.
4. Christ paid this ransom as he was a mediator and
surety. Now he was the mediator between God and man, and therefore he
must pay this price to one of them, either to God or man, and it is not
difficult to determine whether. 1 Tim. ii.
5, 6, gives us this fully. He is the mediator, and as such he
gave himself ἀντίλυτρον, a price of
redemption to God.
From this description of redemption properly so called, and
the application of it to the redemption made by Jesus Christ, we thus
argue:—
He who by his own blood and death paid the price of our
redemption to God, in that he underwent what was due to us, and procured
our liberty and deliverance thereby, he made satisfaction properly for our
sins; but when we were captives for sin to the justice of God, and
committed thereon to the power of sin and Satan, Christ by his death and
blood paid the price of our redemption to God, and procured our deliverance
thereby: therefore he made satisfaction to God for our sins.
For the farther confirmation of what hath been delivered,
some few of the most eminent testimonies given to this truth are to be
explained and vindicated, wherewith I shall close this discourse of our
redemption by Christ. Out of the very many that may be insisted on, I
shall choose only those that follow:—
1. Rom. iii.
24, 25, “Being justified freely by his grace through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a
propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for
the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.”
Redemption in itself, in its effect in respect of us, with
all its causes, is here expressed. Its effect in respect of us
is, that we are “justified freely,” δικαιούμενοι δωρεάν: not brought easily, and with
little labour, to be righteous or honest, as some vainly imagine (Grot. in loc.), but
accepted freely with God, without the performance of the works of the law,
whereby the Jews sought after righteousness. The end on the part
of God is the declaration of his righteousness. The means
procuring this end is the blood of Christ, redemption by Christ and in
his blood. The means of communicating this effect, on the part of
God, is the setting forth Christ a propitiation; on our part, as to
application, it is faith in his blood.
(1.) As to the effect of our justification, it
shall afterward be considered. The manner, or rise of it rather (for both
may be denoted), on the part of God, is δωρεάν, that is, “freely;” or, as it is expounded in the next words, τῇ αὐτοῦ
χάριτι, “by his grace.” Our redemption and the effects of it are
free on the part of God, in respect of his purpose and decree, which is
called εκλογὴ χάριτος, Rom. xi. 5, his great design and
contrivance of the work of our salvation and deliverance. This he did
“according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of
his grace,” Eph. i. 5,
6; “according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in
himself,” verse 9; “according to the purpose of
him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will,” verse 11. And it is free in regard of
the love from whence Christ was sent, John iii.
16; which also is ascribed τῇ
χάριτι Θεοῦ, Heb. ii. 9.
And it is free in respect of us; we do not obtain it by the works of the
law, Rom. iv. 6, neither can it be so
attained, nor is that required of us: and free on our part, in that nothing
of us is required in way of satisfaction, recompense, or ransom. “He
spared not his own Son,” but “with him freely gives us all things,”
Rom. viii. 32. Δικαιούμενοι δωρεάν, “We are justified freely;” that
is, we are delivered from our bondage without any satisfaction made by us,
or works performed by us to attain it, God having freely designed this way
of salvation, and sent Jesus Christ to do this work for us.
They are [says Grotius] brought to righteousness without that labour that is
required for lesser, even philosophical virtues. Faith makes an abridgment
of the work.
Epicharmus ― Τῶν πόνων
Πω λοῦσιν ἡμῖν πάντα τ’ ἀγαθ’ εἰ
θεοί. — Grot.
in loc.
The πρῶτον ψεῦδος of
the great man, in the whole interpretation of that epistle, as of others of
sundry sorts besides himself, is, that to be justified is to be brought to
righteousness by the practice of virtue and honesty (which answers to that
the Scripture calls sanctification), with as gross a shutting out of light
as can befall any man in the world. This, with that notion which he hath
of faith, is the bottom of this interpretation. But, —
Let him tell us freely what instance he can give of this
use of the word δωρεάν, which here he
imposeth on us, that it should signify the facility of doing a thing; and
withal, whether these words, δικαιούμενοι
δωρεάν, denote an act of God or of them that are justified; —
whether “being justified freely by his grace” be his free justifying of us,
as to what is actively denoted, or our easy performance of the works of
righteousness? That δωρεάν in this
place should relate to our duties, and signify “easily,” and not to the act
of God accepting us, and import” freely,” is such a violence offered to the
Scripture as nothing could have compelled the learned man to venture on but
pure necessity of maintaining the Socinian justification.
As for the “philosophical virtues,” which the gods sold for
labour, they were “splendida
peccata,” and no more.
As to this part of the words, Socinus himself was not so far out of the
way as the annotator. Saith he, “Justificati gratis, sensus est, partam nobis esse
peccatorum nostrorum absolutionem (id enim ut scis quod ad nos attinet
reipsa justificari est) non quidem per legis opera, quibus illam commeriti
sumus, sed gratis per gratiam Dei,” De Servat. lib. i. part. ii. cap. ii.
(2.) The end on the part of God is ἔνδειξις δικαιοσύνης, “the declaration of his
righteousness.” Δικαιοσύνη is properly
God’s justice as he is a judge. It is true, חֶסֶד, is often rendered by the LXX. δικαιοσύνη, and by us from thence, “righteousness,”
which signifies, indeed, benignity, kindness, and goodness, — and so צְדָקָה, which is “righteousness,” is
rendered by them sometimes ἔλεος,
“mercy,” and the circumstances of the place may sometimes require that
signification of the word, — but firstly and properly, it is that property
of God whereby as a judge he renders to every one according to their ways
before him, rewarding those that obey him, and punishing transgressors.
This I have elsewhere declared at large. Hence he
isשׁוֹפֵט צֶדֶק, Ps.
ix. 5; which, as Paul speaks, 2 Tim. iv.
8, is ὁ δίκαιος κριτής, the
“righteous judge.” So Rom. i.
32; 2 Thess. i.
6; Rev. xv. 5: so Isa. lix.
16, “And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there
was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his
righteousness, it sustained him.” His righteousness sustained him in
executing vengeance on the enemies of his church. This is the
righteousness that God aimed to manifest and to declare in our redemption
by Christ, “that he might be just,” as the words follow, namely, that he
might be known to be just and righteous in taking such sore vengeance of
sin in the flesh of Jesus Christ his Son, Rom. viii.
3. Hence did God appear to be exceeding righteous, — of purer
eyes than to behold iniquity. He declared to all the world what was due to
sin, and what must be expected by men if they are not partakers of the
redemption which is in the blood of Jesus Christ, Rom. viii.
3.
Grotius would have δικαιοσύνη here to signify “goodness” and
“bounty;” which as we deny not but that in some places in the Old Testament
where it is used by the LXX. it doth or may do, so we say here that sense
can have no place which nowhere is direct and proper; for the thing
intended by it in that sense is expressed before in these words, Δωρεὰν τῇ χάριτι αὐτοῦ, and is not
consistent with that that follows, Εἰς τὸ
εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον, which represents God as he is δίκαιος κριτής, as was spoken before.
Socinus goes another
way. Says he, “In Christo, Deus ut
ostenderet se veracem et fidelem esse, quod significant verba ilia,
justitiæ suæ,” etc., referring it to God’s righteousness of verity
and fidelity in fulfilling his promise of forgiveness of sins. But says
Grotius, righteousness
cannot be here interpreted, “de fide in
promissis prœstandis, quia quæ sequuntur non ad Judæos solos pertinent,
sed etiam ad Gentes quibus promissio nulls erat facta,” — “because
Gentiles are spoken of, and not the Jews only, but to them there was no
promise given.” A reason worthy the Annotations; as though the promise was
not made to Abraham that he should be heir of the world, and to all his
seed, not according to the flesh only; and as though the learned man
himself did not think the first promise to have been made, and always to
have belonged, to all and every man in the world. But yet neither will the
sense of Socinus stand, for the
reasons before given.
But how are these ends brought about, that we should be
δικαιούμενοι δωρεάν, and yet there
should be ἔνδειξις δικαιοσύνης?
(3.) Ans. The means procuring all this is
the blood of Christ; it is διὰ τῆς
ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, — “by the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus.” And how that redemption is wrought he expresseth when he
shows how we are made partakers of it, διὰ
τῆς πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοὐ αἵματι, — “through faith in his
blood.” The redemption wrought and procured by the blood of Christ is the
procuring cause of all this. The causa προηγουμένη is the grace of God, of which before; the
causa προκαταρκτική is this blood of Christ. This
redemption, as here, is called ἀπολύτρωσις, Luke xxi.
28, Eph. i. 7, Col. i.
14; λύτρωσις, Luke i.
68, ii. 38, Heb. ix.
12; λύτρον, Matt. xx. 28, Mark x. 45; ἀντίλυτρον, 1 Tim. ii.
6; and in respect of the effect, ῥύσις, Rom. vii. 24, xi.
26, Col. i. 13, 1 Thess. i. 10. This is the
procuring cause, as I said, of the whole effect of God’s free grace here
mentioned. We are justified freely, because we have redemption by the
blood of Christ; he obtained it for us by the price of his blood.
I rather abide in the former sense of λύτρον (from whence is ἀπολύτρωσις), to be “a price of redemption,” than to
interpret it by “lustrum,” and so to
refer it to the sacrifices of purification, which belong to another
consideration of the death of Christ. And yet the consideration of the
blood of Christ as a sacrifice hath place here also, as shall be
discovered. This is that which is here asserted, We have forgiveness of
sins by the intervention of the blood of Christ, obtaining redemption for
us; which is that we aim to prove from this place.
Grotius gives this
exposition of the words:—
Christ by his obedience (especially in his death),
and the prayers accompanying it, obtained this of his Father, that he
should not forsake and harden mankind, drenched in grievous sins, but
should give them a way of coming to righteousness by Jesus Christ, and
should deliver them from a necessity of dying in their sin, by revealing a
way whereby they might escape it.
[1.] It is well it is granted that the death
of Christ respected God in the first place, and the obtaining
somewhat of him; which the annotator’s friends deny.
[2.] That the purchase of Christ was not for all mankind,
that they might be delivered, but for the elect, that they should
be delivered, has elsewhere been declared.
[3.] Christ by his death did not obtain of his Father that
he should reveal or appoint that way of obtaining deliverance and
salvation which by him we have. This, as the giving of Christ himself, was
of the free grace and love of God. Nor is the appointment of the way of
salvation, according to the covenant of grace, anywhere assigned to the
death of Christ, but to the love of God sending his Son and appointing him
to be a mediator, though the good things of the covenant be purchased by
him.
[4.] This is all the effect here assigned to the
blood-shedding of Jesus Christ, this is the redemption we have thereby: “He
obtained of his Father that a better way of coming to righteousness than
that of the law or that of philosophy might be declared to us”! The
mystery of the whole is: “Christ, by his obedience to God, obtained this,
that himself should be exalted to give a new law and teach a new doctrine,
in obedience whereunto we might come to be righteous;” which must needs be
an excellent explication of these words, “We have redemption by his blood,”
which plainly express the price he paid for us, and the effect that ensued
thereon.
Socinus goes another
way. Says he:—
The intervention of the blood of Christ, though it
moved not God to grant us deliverance from the punishment of sin, yet it
moved us to accept of it being offered, and to believe in Christ.
That is, the blood of Christ, being paid as a price of our
redemption, hath no effect in respect of him to whom it is paid,
but only in respect of them for whom it is paid; than which
imagination nothing can be more ridiculous.
(4.) The means of application of the redemption
mentioned, or participation in respect of us, is faith. It is διὰ πίστεως ἐν αἵματι αὐτοῦ. Of this we have
no occasion to speak.
(5.) The means of communication on the part of God
is in these words, Ὃν προέΘετο ὁ Θεὸς
ἱλαστήριον — “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation.” God
set him forth for this end and purpose. The word προέθετο may design various acts of God; as, —
[1.] His purpose and determination or decree of
giving Christ; whence our translators have in the margin
rendered it “fore-ordained,” as the word is used Eph. i.
9, Ἣν προέθετο ἐν αὑτῷ,
— “Which he fore-purposed in himself.” Or, —
[2.] God’s proposal of him beforehand in types and
sacrifices to the Jews, the preposition πρό being often in composition used in that sense in
this epistle, chap. iii. 9,
xi. 35, xv. 4. Or:—
[3.] For the actual exhibition of him in the flesh
when God sent him into the world. Or:—
[4.] It may refer to the open exposition and
publication of him in the world by the gospel; for, as we shall afterward
show, the ensuing words hold out an allusion to the ark, which now in
Christ, the veil being rent, is exposed to the open view of believers.
Hence John tells us, Rev. xi.
19, when the temple was opened, “there was seen in it the ark of
the testament;” which, as it was not at all in the second temple, the true
Ark being to be brought in, no more was it to be seen upon the opening of
the first, where it was, being closed in the holiest of holies. But now in
the ordinances of the gospel, the Ark is perspicuous, because Θεὸς προέθετο, — God hath set it forth to
believers.
Now, he was set forth ἱλαστήριον, “a propitiation.” There is none but has
observed that this is the name of the covering of the ark or the mercy-seat
that is applied to Christ, Heb. ix. 5;
but the true reason and sense of it hath scarce been observed. Ours
generally would prove from hence that Christ did propitiate God by the
sacrifice of himself. That may have something from the general notice of
the word referred to, the “sacrificia,” ἱλαστικά (whereof afterward), but not from the
particular intimated. The mercy-seat did not atone God for the sins that
were committed against the law that was in the ark, but declared him to be
atoned and appeased. That this is the meaning of it, that as the
mercy-seat declared God to be atoned so also is Christ set forth to declare
that God was atoned, not to atone him, Socinus contends at large, but to the utter confusion of
his cause; for, —
[1.] If this declares God to be “pacatus” and “placatus,” then God was provoked, and some way was
used for his atonement. And, —
[2.] This is indeed the true import of that type and the
application of it here by our apostle. The mercy-seat declared God to be
appeased; but how? By the blood of the sacrifice that was offered without,
and brought into the holy place. The high priest never went into that
place about the worship of God but it was with the blood of that sacrifice,
which was expressly appointed to make atonement, Lev.
xvi.. God would not have the mercy-seat once seen, nor any
pledge of his being atoned, but by the blood of the propitiatory sacrifice.
So it is here. God sets out Jesus Christ as a propitiation, and declares himself to be appeased and reconciled; but how? By
the blood of Christ, by the sacrifice of himself, by the price of
redemption which he paid. This is the intendment of the apostle: Christ by
his blood, and the price he paid thereby, with the sacrifice he made,
having atoned God, or made atonement with him for us, God now sets him
forth, the veil of the temple being rent, to the eye of all believers, as
the Mercy-seat wherein we may see God fully reconciled to us.
And this may serve for the vindication of the testimony to
the truth insisted on; and this is the same with 2 Cor. v.
18.
It would be too long for me to insist in particular on the
full vindication of the other testimonies that are used for the
confirmation of this truth; I shall give them, therefore, together in such
a way as that their efficacy to the purpose in hand may be easily
discerned.
We are bought by Christ, saith the apostle: Ἠγοράσθητε, “Ye are bought,” 1 Cor. vi.
20. But this buying may be taken metaphorically for a mere
deliverance, as certainly it is, 2 Pet. ii.
1, “Denying the Lord that bought them,” — that is, delivered
them, — for it is spoken of God the Father. It may be so, the word may be
so used, and therefore, to show the propriety of it here, the apostle adds
τιμῆς, “with a price:” “Ye are bought
with a price.” To be bought with a price doth nowhere signify to be barely
delivered, but to be delivered with a valuable compensation for our
deliverance. But what is this price wherewith we are bought? 1 Pet. i. 18, 19, “Not with silver
and gold, but τιμίῳ αἵματι Χριστοῦ,” —
with the precious (honourable) blood of Christ.” Why τίμιον αἷμα, “the precious blood?” That we may know
that in this business it was valued at a sufficient rate for our
redemption, and it did that which in temporal, civil redemption is done by
silver and gold, which are given as a valuable consideration for the
captive. But what kind of price is this blood of Christ It is λύτρον, Matt. xx.
28, that is, a “price of redemption;” whence it is said that “he
gave himself for us, ἴνα λυτρώσηται
ἡμᾶς,” Tit. ii.
14, “that he might fetch us off with a ransom.” But it may be
that it is called λύτρον, not that he
put himself in our stead, and underwent what was due to us, but that his
death was as it were a price, because thereon we were delivered. Nay, but
his life was λύτρον properly; and
therefore he calls it also ἀντίλυτρον,
1 Tim. ii. 6. Ἀντί in composition signifies either
opposition, as 1 Pet. iii.
9, or substitution and commutation, as Matt. ii. 22. In the first sense,
here it cannot be taken; therefore it must be in the latter. He was ἀντίλυτρον, — that is, did so pay a ransom
that he himself became that which we should have been; as it is expressed,
Gal. iii. 13, “He redeemed us from the
curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” To whom he paid this price
was before declared, and the apostle expresseth it, Eph. v.
2. What now is the issue of all this? We have redemption
thereby: Chap. i. 7, “In whom we
have ἀπολύτρωσιν διὰ τοῦ αἵματος
αὐτοῦ, — redemption by his blood;” as it is again asserted in the
same words, Col. i. 14. But how came we by this
redemption? He obtained it of God for us: “He entered into heaven, αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος, having found (or
obtained) eternal redemption for us.” By the price of his blood he
procured this deliverance at the hand of God. And that we may know that
this effect of the death of Christ is properly towards God, what is the
immediate issue of this redemption is expressed. It is “forgiveness of
sins,” Eph. i. 7; Col. i.
14; Rom. iii.
24, 25.
And this is as much as is needful to the first notion of
the death of Christ, as a price and ransom, with the issues of it, and the
confirmation of our first argument from thence for the satisfaction of
Christ.
Chapter XXIX.
Of reconciliation by the death of Christ as it is a
sacrifice.
II. The next consideration of the
death of Christ is of it as a sacrifice, and the proper effect
thereof is reconciliation by his death as a
sacrifice.
Reconciliation in general is the renewal of lost friendship
and peace between persons at variance. To apply this to the matter treated
of, the ensuing positions are to be premised:—
1. There was at first, in the state of innocency,
friendship and peace between God and man. God had no enmity against
his creature; he approved him to be good, and appointed him to walk in
peace, communion, confidence, and boldness with him, Gen.
ii.. Nor had man, on whose heart the law and love of his Maker
was written, any enmity against his Creator, God, and Rewarder.
2. That by sin there is division,
separation, and breach of peace and friendship, introduced between God and
the creature: Isa. lix. 2, “Your iniquities have
separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from
you.” Chap. lxiii. 10, “They rebelled, and
vexed his holy Spirit; therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and
fought against them.” Chap. lvii.
21, “There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.” And
therefore it is that, upon a delivery from this condition, we are said (and
not before) to have “peace with God,” Rom. v.
1.
3. That by this breach of peace and friendship with God,
God was alienated from the sinner, so as to be angry with him, and
to renounce all peace and friendship with him, considered as such and in
that condition. “He that believeth not, the wrath of God abideth on him,”
John iii. 36.
And therefore by nature and in our natural condition we are “children of wrath,” Eph. ii.
3; that is, obnoxious to the wrath of God, that abides upon
unbelievers, — that is, unreconciled persons.
4. This enmity on the part of God consists, —
(1.) In the purity and holiness of his nature, whence he
cannot admit a guilty, defiled creature to have any communion with him. He
is a God of “purer eyes than to behold evil,” Hab. i.
13. And sinners cannot serve him, because “he is a holy God, a
jealous God, that will not forgive their transgressions nor their sins,”
Josh. xxiv. 19.
(2.) In his will of punishing for sin: Rom. i. 32, “It is the judgment of
God, that they which commit sin are worthy of death,” and this from the
righteousness of the thing itself. 2 Thess. i.
6, “It is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation”
to sinner. “He is not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness,” etc.,
Ps. v. 4–6.
(3.) In the sentence of his law, in the establishing and
execution whereof his truth and honour were engaged: “In the day that thou
cutest thereof, thou shalt surely die,” Gen. ii.
17. And, “Cursed is every one that continueth not,” etc.,
Gal. iii. 13, Deut.
xxvii. 26. And of this enmity of God against sin and sinners,
as I have elsewhere at large declared, there is an indelible persuasion
abiding on the hearts of all the sons of men, however, by the stirrings of
lust and craft of Satan, it may be more or less blotted in them. Hence,
—
(4.) As a fruit and evidence of this enmity, God abominates
their persons, Ps. i.
4–6; rejects and hates their duties and ways, Prov. xv. 8, 9; and prepares wrath
and vengeance for them, to be inflicted in his appointed time, Rom. ii. 5; — all which make up perfect
enmity on the part of God.
5. That man was at enmity with God as on his
part, I shall not need to prove, because I am not treating of our
reconciliation to God, but of his reconciliation to us.
Where there is such an enmity as this, begun by offence on
the one part, and continued by anger and purpose to punish on the other, to
make reconciliation is properly to propitiate and turn away the anger of
the person offended, and thereby to bring the offender into favour with him
again, and to an enjoyment of the same, or a friendship built on better
conditions than the former. This description of reconciliation doth God
himself give us, Job xlii.
7–9, “And it was so, that after the Lord
had spoken these words unto Job, the Lord said to
Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two
friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right,
as my servant Job hath. Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and
seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt
offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept:
lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the
thing which is right, like my servant Job,” etc. The offenders are Eliphaz
and his two friends; the offence is their folly in not speaking aright of
God; the issue of the breach is, that the wrath or anger of God was towards
them. Reconciliation is the turning away of that wrath. The means whereby
this was to be done, appointed of God, is the sacrifice of Job for
atonement.
This, then, is that which we ascribe to the death of Christ
when we say that, as a sacrifice, we were reconciled to God by it, or that
he made reconciliation for us. Having made God our enemy by sin (as
before), Christ by his death turned away his anger, appeased his wrath, and
brought us into favour again with God. Before the proof of this, I must
needs give one caution as to some terms of this discourse, as also
remove an objection that lies at the very entrance against the
whole nature of that which is treated of.
For the first, When we speak of the anger of God,
his wrath, and his being appeased towards us, we speak after the manner of
men; but yet by the allowance of God himself. Not that God is properly
angry, and properly altered from that state and appeased, whereby he should
properly be mutable and be actually changed; — but by the anger of God,
which sometimes in Scripture signifieth his justice, from whence punishment
proceeds, sometimes the effects of anger, or punishment itself, the
obstacles before mentioned on the part of God, from his nature, justice,
law, and truth, are intended; and by his being appeased towards us, his
being satisfied as to all the bars so laid in the way of receiving us to
favour, without the least alteration in him, his nature, will, or justice.
And according to the analogy hereof, I desire that whatever is spoken of
the anger of God, and his being appeased or altered (which is the language
wherein he converseth with us and instructs us to wisdom), may be measured
and interpreted.
The objection I shall propose in the words of
Crellius:—
If this be the chiefest and highest love of God, that
he sent Christ, his only Son, to be a propitiation for our sins, how then
could Christ by his death appease the wrath of God that was incensed
against us? for seeing that God’s love was the cause of sending Christ, he
must needs before that have laid aside, his anger; for otherwise, should he
not intensely love us and not love us at the same time? And if God could
then be angry with us when he gave up his Son to bitter death for our
everlasting happiness, what argument or evidence at any time can we have
from the effect of it, whence we may know that God is not farther angry
with us?
To the same purpose Socinus himself: “Demonstravi non modo Christum Deo nos, non autem Deum nobis
reconciliasse, verum etiam Deum ipsum fuisse qui hanc reconciliationem
fecerit,” Socin. de Servator. lib. i. part. i. cap. i.
To the same purpose is the plea of the catechist, cap. viii., “De Morte Christi,” q. 31,
32.
Ans. 1. The love wherewith God loved us when he sent
his Son to die for us was the most intense and supreme in its own
kind, nor would admit of any hatred or enmity in God towards us that stood
in opposition thereunto. It is everywhere set forth as the most intense
love, John iii. 16; Rom.
v. 7, 8, 1 John iv.
10. Now, this love of God is an eternal free act of his will;
his “purpose,” Rom. ix. 11; “his good pleasure,” his
purpose that he “purposed in himself,” as it is called, Eph. i. 5, 9; it is his
πρόθεσις εὐδοκία πρόγνωσις, 1 Pet. i. 2, as I have elsewhere
distinctly declared; a love that was to have an efficacy by means
appointed. But for a love of friendship, approbation, acceptation as to
our persons and duties, God bears none unto us, but as considered in Christ
and for his sake. It is contrary to the whole design of the Scripture and
innumerable particular testimonies once to fancy a love of friendship and
acceptation towards any in God, and not consequent to the death of
Christ.
2. This love of God’s purpose and good pleasure, this
“charitas ordinativa,” hath not the
least inconsistency with those hinderances of peace and friendship on the
part of God before mentioned; for though the holiness of God’s nature, the
justice of his government, the veracity of his word, will not allow that he
take a sinner into friendship and communion with himself without
satisfaction made to him, yet this hinders not but that, in his sovereign
good-will and pleasure, he might purpose to recover us from that condition
by the holy means which he appointed. God did not love us and not love
us, or was angry with us, at the same time and in the same respect.
He loved us in respect of the free purpose of his will to send
Christ to redeem us and to satisfy for our sin; he was angry with
us in respect of his violated law and provoked justice by sin.
3. God loves our persons as we are his creatures, is
angry with us as we are sinners.
4. It is true that we can have no greater evidence and
argument of the love of God’s good-will and pleasure in general than in
sending his Son to die for sinners, and that he is not angry with them with
an anger of hatred opposite to that love, — that is, with an eternal
purpose to destroy them; but for a love of friendship and acceptation, we
have innumerable other pledges and evidences, as is known, and might be
easily declared.
These things being premised, the confirmation of what was
proposed ensues:—
The use and sense of the
words whereby this doctrine of our reconciliation is expressed evince the
truth contended for. Ἱλάσκεσθαι,
καταλάσσειν, and ἀποκαταλάσσειν, which are the words used in this
business, are as much as “iram
avertere,” “to turn away anger:” so is “reconciliare, propitiare,” and “placare,” in Latin. “Impius, ne audeto placare iram deorum,” was a law of
the Twelve Tables. Ἱλάσκομαι, “propitior, placor,” ἱλασμός, “placatio,
exoratio,” Gloss. vetus. And
in this sense is the word used: Ὅσα μέντοι
πρὸς ἱλασμοὺς θεῶν η` τεράτων ἀποτροπὰς συνηγόρευον οἱ μάντεις,
Plut. in Fabio, — to “appease their
gods, and turn away the things they feared.” And the same author tells us
of a way taken ἐξιλάσασθαι τὸ μήνιμα τῆς
θεοῦ, — to “appease the anger of the goddess” And Xenophon useth the word to the same purpose: Πολλὰ μὲν πέμπων ἀναθήματα χρυσᾶ πολλὰ δὲ ἀργυρᾶ
πάμπολλα δὲ θύων ἐξιλασάμην ποτὲ αὐτόν. And so also doth Livy use the word “reconcilio:” “Non
movit modo talis oratio regem, sed etiam reconciliavit Annibali,”
Bell. Macedon. And many more
instances might be given. God, then, being angry and averse from love of
friendship with us, as hath been declared, and Christ being said thus to
make reconciliation for us with God, he did fully turn away the wrath of
God from us, as by the testimonies of it will appear.
Before I produce our witnesses in this cause, I must give
this one caution: It is not said anywhere expressly that God is reconciled
to us, but that we are reconciled to God; and the sole reason thereof is,
because he is the party offended, and we are the parties
offending. Now, the party offending is always said to be reconciled
to the party offended, and not on the contrary. So Matt. v. 23, 24, “If thy brother
have ought against thee, go and be reconciled to him.” The brother being
the party offended, he that had offended was to be reconciled to him by
turning away his anger. And in common speech, when one hath justly
provoked another, we bid him go and reconcile himself to him; that is, do
that which may appease him and give an entrance into his favour again. So
is it in the case under consideration. Being the parties offending, we are
said to be reconciled to God when his anger is turned away and we are
admitted into his favour. Let now the testimonies speak for
themselves:—
Rom. v. 10, “When we were enemies, we
were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” Κατηλλάγημεν τῷ Θεῷ, — “We were reconciled to
God,” or “brought again into his favour.” Amongst the many reasons that
might be given to prove the intention of this expression to be, “that we
were reconciled to God” by the averting of his anger from us, and our
accepting into favour, I shall insist on some few from the context:—
1. It appears from the relation that this expression bears
to that of verse 8, “While we were yet sinners,
Christ died for us,” with which this upon the matter is the same, “We are
reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” Now, the intent
of this expression, “Christ died for us sinners,” is, he died to
bring us sinners into the favour of God, nor will it admit of any other
sense; so is our being “reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” And
that this is the meaning of the expression, “Christ died for us,” is
evident from the illustration given to it by the apostle, verses 6, 7. “Christ died for the
ungodly;” how? As one man dieth for another, — that is, to deliver him
from death.
2. From the description of the same thing in other words:
Verse 9, “Being justified by his
blood.” That it is the same thing upon the matter that is here intended
appears from the contexture of the apostle’s speech, “While we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us; much more then being justified by his blood;”
and, “If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God.” The apostle
repeats what he had said before, “If, while we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us,” and “we were justified by the blood of Christ;” that is, “If,
when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God.” Now, to be justified is
God’s reconciliation to us, his acceptation of us into favour, not our
conversion to him, as is known and confessed.
3. The reconciliation we have with God is a thing tendered
to us, and we do receive it: Verse 11,
Καταλλαγὴν ἐλάβομεν, “We have received
the reconciliation (or atonement).” Now, this cannot be spoken in reference
to our reconciliation to God as on our side, but of his to us, and our
acceptation with him. Our reconciliation to God is our conversion; but we
are not said to receive our conversion, or to have our conversion tendered
to us, but to convert ourselves or to be converted.
4. The state and condition from whence we are delivered by
this reconciliation is described in this, that we are called enemies, —
being “enemies, we were reconciled.” Now, enemies in this place are the
same with sinners; and the reconciliation of sinners, — that is, of those
who had rebelled against God, provoked him, were obnoxious to wrath, — is
certainly the procuring of the favour of God for them. When you say, “Such
a poor, conquered rebel, that expected to be tortured and slain, is by
means of such a one reconciled to his prince,” what is it that you intend?
Is it that he begins to like and love his prince only, or that his prince
lays down his wrath and pardons him?
5. All the considerations before insisted on, declaring in
what sense we are saved by the death of Christ, prove our reconciliation
with God to be our acceptation with him, not our conversion to him.
2 Cor.
v. 18–21 is a place of the same importance with that above
mentioned, wherein the reconciliation pleaded for is asserted, and the
nature of it explained: “And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us
to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of
reconciliation, to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and
hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are
ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in
Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin
for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in
him.”
There is in these words a twofold reconciliation:— 1. Of
God to man: Verse 18, “God hath reconciled us to
himself by Jesus Christ.” 2. Our reconciliation to God, in the acceptance
of that reconciliation which we are exhorted to.
The first is that inquired after, the reconciliation
whereby the anger of God by Christ is turned away, and those for whom he
died are brought into his favour, which comprises the satisfaction proposed
to confirmation; for, —
1. Unless it be that God is so reconciled and atoned,
whence is it that he is thus proclaimed to be a Father towards sinners, as
he is here expressed? Out of Christ he is a “consuming fire” to sinners
and “everlasting burnings,” Isa. xxxiii.
14, being of “purer eyes than to behold evil,” Hab. i. 13; before whom no sinner
shall appear or stand, Ps. v. 4,
5. So that, where there is no “sacrifice for sins,” there
“remaineth nothing to sinners but a certain fearful looking for of judgment
and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries,” Heb. x. 26, How comes, then, this
jealous God, this holy God and just Judge, to command some to beseech
sinners to be reconciled to him? The reason is given before. It is
because he reconciles us to himself by Christ, or in Christ; that is, by
Christ his anger is pacified, his justice satisfied, and himself appeased
or reconciled to us.
2. The reconciliation mentioned is so expounded, in the
cause and effect of it, as not to admit of any other interpretation.
(1.) The effect of God’s being reconciled, or his
reconciling the world to himself, is in these words, “Not imputing to them
their trespasses.” God doth so reconcile us to himself by Christ as not to
impute our trespasses to us; that is, not dealing with us according as
justice required for our sins, upon the account of Christ’s [work]
remitting the penalty due to them, laying away his anger, and receiving us
to favour. This is the immediate fruit of the reconciliation spoken of, if
not the reconciliation itself. Nonimputation of sin is not our conversion
to God.
(2.) The cause of it is expressed, verse
21, “He made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.” How comes
it to pass that God, the righteous judge, doth thus reconcile us to
himself, and not impute to us our sins? It is because he hath made Christ
to be sin for us:— that is, either a sacrifice for sin, or as sin, — by the
imputation of our sin to him. He was “made sin for us,” as we are “made
the righteousness of God in him.” Now, we are made the
righteousness of God by the imputation of his righteousness to us: so was
he made sin for us by the imputation of our sin to him. Now, for God to
reconcile us to himself by imputing our sin to Christ, and thereon not
imputing it to us, can be nothing but his being appeased and atoned towards
us, with his receiving us into his favour, by and upon the account of the
death of Christ.
(3.) This reconciling of us to himself is the matter
committed to the preachers of the gospel; whereby, or by the declaration
whereof, they should persuade us to be reconciled to God. “He hath
committed to us τὸν λόγον τῆς
καταλλαγῆς, this doctrine concerning reconciliation mentioned, ‘we
therefore beseech you to be reconciled to God.’ ” That which is the matter
whereby we are persuaded to be reconciled to God cannot be our conversion
itself, as is pretended. The preachers of the gospel are to declare this
word of God, namely, “that he hath reconciled us to himself” by the blood
of Christ, the blood of the new testament that was shed for us, and thereon
persuade us to accept of the tidings, or the subject of them, and to be at
peace with God. Can the sense be, “We are converted to God, therefore be
ye converted?” This testimony, then, speaks clearly to the matter under
debate.
The next place of the same import is Eph. ii. 12–16, “At that time ye were
without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers
from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the
world: but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh
by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and
hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished
in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in
ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having
slain the enmity thereby.”
1. Here is mention of a twofold enmity: — (1.) Of
the Gentiles unto God; (2.) Of the Jews and Gentiles among themselves.
(1.) Of the Gentiles unto God, verse
12. Consider them as they are there described, and their enmity
to God is sufficiently evident. And what in that estate was the respect of
God unto them? what is it towards such persons as there described? “The
wrath of God abideth on them,” John iii.
36; they are “children of wrath,” Eph. ii. 3.
So are they there expressly called. “He hateth all the workers of
iniquity,” Ps. v. 5, and “will by no means clear
the guilty,” Exod. xxxiv.
7; yea, he curseth those families that call not on his name,
Jer. x. 25.
(2.) Of the Jews and Gentiles among themselves; which is
expressed both in the thing itself and in the cause of it. It is called
“enmity,” and said to arise from, or be occasioned and
improved by, “the law of commandments contained in ordinances.” The
occasion, improvement, and management of this enmity between them see
elsewhere.
2. Here is mention of a twofold reconciliation:—
(1.) Of the Jews and Gentiles among themselves: Verses 14, 15, “He is our peace, who
hath made both one, abolishing the enmity, so making peace.” (2.) Of both
unto God: Verse 16, “That he might reconcile
both unto God.”
3. The manner whereby this reconciliation was wrought: “In
his body, by the cross.”
The reconciliation unto God is that aimed at. This
reconciliation is the reconciling of God unto us on the account of the
blood of Christ, as hath been declared, — the bringing of us into his
favour by the laying away of his wrath and enmity against us: which
appears, —
(1.) From the cause of it expressed; that is, the body of
Christ, by the cross, or the death of Christ. Now, the death of Christ was
immediately for the forgiveness of sins: “This is my blood of the new
testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” It is by
shedding of his blood that we have remission or forgiveness. That this is
by an atoning of God, or our acceptance into favour, is confessed.
(2.) From the expression itself: Ἀποκαταλλάξῃ ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι τῷ Θεῷ. Τῷ Θεῷ denotes one party in the business of
reconciliation. He made peace between them both, between the Gentiles on
the one hand and the Jews on the other, and he made peace between them both
and God, Jews and Gentiles on the one hand and God on the other. So that
God is a party in the business of reconciliation, and is therein reconciled
to us; for our reconciliation to him is mentioned in our reconciliation
together, which cannot be done without our conversion.
(3.) From the description of the enmity given, verse 12, which plainly shows (as was
manifested) that it was on both sides. Now, this reconciliation unto God
is by the removal of that enmity; and if so, God was thereby reconciled and
atoned, if he hath any anger or indignation against sin or sinners.
(4.) Because this reconciliation of both to God is the
great cause and means of their reconciliation among themselves. God,
through the blood of Christ, or on the account of his death, receiving both
into favour, their mutual enmity ceased; and without it never did nor ever
will.
And this is the reconciliation accomplished by Christ.
The same might be said of the other place, Col. i. 20–22; but I shall not need
to multiply testimonies to the same purpose. Thus we have reconciliation
by Christ, in that he hath made atonement or satisfaction for our sins.
The observations given on these texts have
been suited to obviate the exceptions of Socinus, treating of this subject in his book “De Servatore,”
without troubling the reader with the repetition of his words.
That which in the next place I thought to do is, to
prove that we have this reconciliation by the death of Christ as a
sacrifice. But because I cannot do this to my own satisfaction without
insisting, first, on the whole doctrine of sacrifices in general; secondly,
on the institution, nature, end, and efficacy of the sacrifices of the
Aaronical priesthood; thirdly, the respect and relation that was between
them and the sacrifice of Christ, both in general and in particular; and
from all these considerations at large deducing the conclusion proposed; —
and finding that this procedure would draw out this treatise to a length
utterly beyond my expectation, I shall not proceed in it, but refer it to a
peculiar discourse on that subject.
That which I proposed to confirmation at the entrance of
this discourse was the satisfaction made by the blood of Christ. This
being proposed under several considerations, hath thus far been severally
handled. That his death was a price, that we have redemption thereby
properly so called, was first evinced. That truth standing, the
satisfaction of Christ is sufficiently established, our adversaries
themselves being judges The sacrifice that he offered in his death hath
also been manifested. Hereof is the reconciliation now delivered the fruit
and effect. This also is no less destructive of the design of these men.
What they have to object against that which hath been spoken shall have the
next place in our discourse:—
Thus, then, our catechists to this business, in the 31st
and 32d questions of the 8th chapter, which is about the death of
Christ:—
Q. What say you, then, to those places that affirm that he
reconciled us to God?
A. 1. That the Scripture nowhere says that God was reconciled
to us by Christ, but this only, that by Christ, or the death of Christ, we
are reconciled, or reconciled to God; as may appear from all those places
where reconciliation is treated of: wherefore from those places the
satisfaction cannot be proved. 2. Because it is evident in the Scripture
that God reconciled us to himself, which evinceth the opinion of the
adversaries to be altogether false, 2 Cor. v.
18, Col. i.
20–22.
Ans. 1. Whether there be any mention in the
Scripture of such a reconciliation as whereby the anger of God is turned
away and we received into favour, the reader will judge from what hath been
already proposed, and thither we appeal. It is not about words and
syllables that we contend, but things themselves. The reconciliation of God to us by Christ is so expressed as the reconciliation of a
judge to an offender, of a king to a rebel, may be expressed.
2. If Christ made reconciliation for us and for our sins an
atonement, he made the satisfaction for us which we plead for.
3. It is true, God is said to reconcile us to himself, but
always by Christ, by the blood of Christ, proposing himself as reconciled
thereby, and declaring to us the atonement that we may turn unto him.
They add —
Q. But what thinkest thou of this reconciliation?
A. That Jesus Christ showed a way to us, who by reason of our
sins were enemies to God and alienated from him, how we ought to turn unto
God, and by that means be reconciled to him.
Ans. I suppose there was never a more perverse
description of any thing, part or parcel, of the gospel by any men fixed
on. Some of the excellencies of it may be pointed out:—
1. Here is a reconciliation between two parties,
and yet a reconciliation but of one, the other excluded.
2. An enmity on one side only, between God and
sinners, is supposed, and that on the part of the sinners, when the
Scriptures do much more abound in setting out the enmity of God against
them as such, his wrath abiding on them, — as some will find one day to
their eternal sorrow.
3. Reconciliation is made nothing but conversion, or
conversion to God, which yet are terms and things in the
Scriptures everywhere distinguished.
4. We are said to be enemies to God “propter peccata nostra,” when the Scripture says
everywhere that God is an enemy to us “propter peccata nostra.” He hateth and is angry
with sinners His judgment is, “that they which commit sin are worthy of
death,” Rom. i. 32.
5. Here is no mention of the death and blood of Christ,
which, in every place in the whole Scripture where this reconciliation is
spoken of, is expressly laid down as the cause of it, and
necessarily denotes the reconciliation of God to us, by the averting of his
anger, as the effect of it.
6. Did Christ by his death show us a way whereby
we might come to be reconciled to God or convert ourselves? What was that
way? Is it that God lays punishment, and affliction, and death, on them
who are no way liable thereunto? What else can we learn from the death of
Christ, according to these men? The truth is, they mention not his death,
because they know not how to make their ends hang together.
This is the sum of what they say: “We are
reconciled to God, that is, we convert ourselves, by the
death of Christ; that is, not by his death, but according to the doctrine
he teacheth. And this is the sum of the doctrine of reconciliation: Christ
teacheth us a way how we should convert ourselves to God.” And so much for
reconciliation.
Chapter XXX.
The satisfaction of Christ on the consideration of his death
being a punishment farther evinced, and vindicated from the exceptions of
Smalcius.
III. The third consideration of the
death of Christ was of it as it was penal, as therein he underwent
punishment for us, or that punishment which for sin was due to us.
Thence directly is it said to be satisfactory.
About the word itself we do not contend, nor do our adversaries except
against it. If the thing itself be proved that is intended by that
expression, this controversy is at end. Farther to open the nature of
satisfaction, then, by what is said before about bearing of sins, etc., I
see no reason; our aim in that word is known to all, and the sense of it
obvious. This is made by some the general head of the whole business. I
have placed it on the peculiar consideration of Christ’s bearing our sins
and undergoing punishment for us. What our catechists say to the whole I
shall briefly consider.
Having assigned some causes and effects of the death of
Christ, partly true in their own place, partly false, they ask, question
12, —
Ques. Is there no other cause of the death of Christ?
Ans. None at all. As for that which Christians commonly
think, that Christ by his death merited salvation for us, and satisfied
fully for our sins, that opinion is false (or deceitful), erroneous, and
very pernicious.
That the men of this persuasion are bold men we are not now
to learn; only, this assertion, that there is no other cause of the death
of Christ but what they have mentioned, is a new experiment thereof.
If we must believe that these men know all things
and the whole mind of God, so that all is “false and pernicious”
that lies beyond their road and understanding, there may be some colour for
this confidence; but the account we have already taken of them will not
allow us to grant them this plea.
Of the merit of Christ I have spoken briefly
before. His satisfaction is the thing opposed chiefly. What they have to
say against it shall now be considered; as also, how this imputation or
charge on the common faith of Christians, about the
satisfaction of Christ to be “false, erroneous, and pernicious,” will be
managed.
Q. How is it false (or deceitful)?
A. That it is false (or deceitful) and erroneous is hence
evident, that not only there is nothing of it extant in the Scripture, but
also that it is repugnant to the Scriptures and sound reason.
For the truth of this suggestion, that it is not extant in
Scripture, I refer the reader to what hath been discoursed from the
Scripture about it already. When they, or any for them, shall answer or
evade the testimonies that have been produced, or may yet be so (for I have
yet mentioned none of those which immediately express the dying of Christ
for us, and his being our mediator and surety in his death), they shall
have liberty, for me, to boast in this manner. In the meantime, we are not
concerned in their wretched confidence. But let us see how they make good
their assertion by instances:—
Q. Show that in order?
A. That it is not in the Scripture this is an argument, that
the assertors of that opinion do never bring evident scriptures for the
proof of it, but knit certain consequences by which they endeavour to make
good what they assert; which as it is meet to admit when they are
necessarily deduced from Scripture, so it is certain they have no force
when they are repugnant to the Scripture.
But what is it that we do not prove by express Scripture,
and that in abundance? That “our iniquity was laid upon Christ;” that “he
was bruised, grieved, wounded, killed for us;” that “he bare our
iniquities,” and that “in his own body on the tree;” that “he was made sin
for us” and “a curse;” that we deserved death, and “he died for us;” that
“he made his soul an offering for sin, laid down his life a price and
ransom for us,” or in our stead; that we are thereby “redeemed and
reconciled to God;” that our “iniquities being laid on him,” and he
“bearing them” (that is, the punishment due to them), “we have
deliverance;” God being atoned, and his wrath removed, — we prove not by
consequence, but by multitudes of express testimonies. If they mean that
the word “satisfaction” is not found in Scripture in the business treated
of, we tell them that אָשָׁם is; and
λύτρον ἀντίλυτρον, and λύτρωσις ἀπολύτρωσις καταλλαγή (all words of a cognate
significancy thereto, and of the same importance as to the doctrine under
consideration), are frequently used. It is, indeed, a hard task to find
the word satisfaction in the Hebrew of the Old Testament or the
Greek of the New; but the thing itself is found expressly a
hundred times over; and their great master doth confess that it is not the
word, but the thing itself, that he opposeth. So that, without any thanks
to them at all for granting that consequences from Scripture may be allowed
to prove matters of faith, we assure them our doctrine is made good by
innumerable express testimonies of the word of God, some whereof have been
by us now insisted on; and, moreover, that if they and their companions did
not wrest the Scriptures to strange and uncouth senses, never heard of
before amongst men professing the name of Christ, we could willingly
abstain wholly from any expression that is not ῥητῶς, found in the Word itself. But if, by their
rebellion against the truth, and attempts to pervert all the expressions of
the Word, the most clear and evident, to perverse and horrid abominations,
we are necessitated to them, they must bear them, unless they can prove
them not to be true.
Let the reader observe, that they grant that the
consequences we gather from Scripture would evince that which we plead and
contend for, were it not that they are repugnant to other scriptures. Let
them, then, manifest the truth of their pretension by producing those other
scriptures, or confess that they are self-condemned.
Wherefore they ask, —
Q. How is it repugnant to the Scriptures?
A. In this sort, that the Scriptures do everywhere testify
that God forgives sin freely, 2 Cor. v.
19, Rom. iii.
24, 25; but principally under the new covenant, Eph. ii. 8, Matt.
xviii. 23, etc. Now, nothing is more opposite to free remission
than satisfaction; so that if a creditor be satisfied either by the debtor
himself or by any other in the name of the debtor, he cannot be said to
forgive freely.
If this be all that our consequences are repugnant unto in
the Scripture, we doubt not to make a speedy reconciliation; indeed there
was never the least difference between them. Not to dwell long upon that
which is of an easy despatch, —
1. This objection is stated solely to the consideration of
sin as a debt, which is metaphorical. Sin properly is an offence,
a rebellion, a transgression of the law, an injury done, not to a private
person, but to a governor in his government.
2. The first two places mentioned, 2 Cor. v. 18–20, Rom. iii. 24, 25, do expressly
mention the payment of this debt by Christ as the ground of God’s
forgiveness, remission, and pardon; the payment of it, I say, not as
considered metaphorically as a debt, but the making an atonement and
reconciliation for us who had committed it, considered as a crime
and rebellion or transgression.
3. We say that God doth most freely
forgive us, as Eph. ii. 8, Matt.
xviii. 23, etc., without requiring any of the debt at our hands,
without requiring any price or ransom from us or any satisfaction at our
hands; but yet he forgives us for Christ’s sake, setting forth him to be a
propitiation through faith in his blood, he laying down his life a ransom
for us, God not sparing him, but giving him up to death for us all.
4. The expression of another satisfying in the name of the
debtor intends either one procured by the debtor, and at his
entreaty undertaking the work, or one graciously given and assigned to be
in his stead by the creditor, In the first sense it hath an inconsistency
with free remission, in the latter not at all.
The truth is, men that dream of an opposition between the
satisfaction made by Christ, the surety and mediator of the new covenant,
and free remission made to us, are utterly ignorant of the whole mystery of
the gospel, nature of the covenant, and whole mediation of Christ,
advancing carnal imaginations against innumerable testimonies of the
Scripture, witnessing the blessed conspiration between them, to the praise
of the glorious grace of God. But they say:—
That it is contrary to reason also, because it
would hence follow “that Christ underwent eternal death, if he satisfied
God for our sins, seeing it is manifest that the punishment we deserved by
our sins was eternal death. Also, it would follow that we should be more
bound to Christ than to God himself, as to him who had shown us greater
favour in satisfaction; but God receiving satisfaction afforded us no
favour.”
What little relief this plea will afford our adversaries
will quickly appear; for, —
1. I have proved that Christ underwent that death that was
due unto sinners, which was all that justice, law, or reason
required. He underwent it, though it was impossible for him to be detained
by it.
2. If the Racovians do not think us obliged to God for
sending his Son, out of his infinite and eternal love, to die for
us, causing all our iniquities to meet on him, justifying us freely (who
could do nothing for our own delivery) through the redemption that is in
the blood of Christ, we must tell them that (we bless his holy name!) we
are not of that mind, but, finding a daily fruit of his love and kindness
upon our souls, do know that we are bound unto him eternally, to love,
praise, serve, honour, and glorify him, beyond what we shall ever be able
to express.
For the inquiry made and comparison instituted between our
obligation to the Father and the Son, or which of them we are
most beholden to, we profess we cannot speak unto it. Our obligation to
both, and either respectively, is such that if our affections were extended
immeasurably to what they are, yet the utmost and exactest height of them
would be due to both, and each of them respectively. We are so bound to
one as we cannot be more to the other, because to both in the absolutely
highest degree. This we observe in the Scriptures, that in mentioning the
work of redemption, the rise, fountain, and spring of it is still
assigned to be in the love of the Father, the carrying of it on in
the love and obedience of the Son, and so we order our thoughts of faith
towards them; the Father being not one whit the less free and gracious to
us by loving us upon the satisfaction of his Son than if he had forgiven us
(had it been possible) without any satisfaction at all.
And thus is this article of the Christian faith contrary to
Scripture, and to reason. They add:—
Q. How also is it pernicious?
A. In that it openeth a door unto men to sin, or at least
incites them to sloth in following after holiness. But the Scripture
witnesseth that this amongst others is an end of the death of Christ, that
he might redeem us from all iniquity, and deliver us from this evil world,
that we might be redeemed from our vain conversation, and have our
consciences purged from dead works, that we might serve the living God,
Tit. ii. 14; Gal. i.
4; 1 Pet. i.
18; Heb. ix.14.
That the deliverance of us from the power and pollution of
our sin, the purifying of our souls and consciences, the making of us a
peculiar people of God, zealous of good works, that we might be holy and
blameless before him in love, is one eminent end of the death of Christ, we
grant. For this end, by his death, did he procure the Spirit to quicken
us, “who were dead in trespasses and sins,” sprinkling us with the pure
water thereof, and giving us daily supplies of grace from him, that we
might grow up in holiness before him, until we come to the measure in this
life assigned to us in him. But that the consideration of the cross of
Christ, and the satisfaction made thereby, should open a door of
licentiousness to sin, or encourage men to sloth in the ways of godliness,
is fit only for them to assert to whom the gospel is folly.
What is it, I pray, in the doctrine of the cross that
should thus dispose men to licentiousness and sloth? Is it that God is so
provoked with every sin that it is impossible and against his nature to
forgive it without inflicting the punishment due thereto? or is it that God so loved us that he gave his only Son to die for us? or is it
that Christ loved us and washed us in his own blood? or is it that God for
Christ’s sake doth freely forgive us? Yea, but our adversaries say that
God freely forgives us; yea, but they say it is without satisfaction. Is
it, then, an encouragement to sin to affirm that God forgives us freely for
the satisfaction of his Son, and not so to say that he forgives us freely
without satisfaction? Doth the adding of satisfaction, whereby God to the
highest manifested his indignation and wrath against sin, doth that, I say,
make the difference and give the encouragement? Who could have discovered
this but our catechists and their companions! Were this a season for that
purpose, I could easily demonstrate that there is no powerful or effectual
motive to abstain from sin, no encouragement or incitation unto holiness,
but what ariseth from or relateth unto the satisfaction of Christ.
And this is that which they have to make good their charge
against the common faith, that “it is false, erroneous, and
pernicious”! Such worthy foundations have they of their great
superstruction, or rather so great is their confidence and so little is
their strength for the pulling down of the church built upon the Rock!
They proceed to consider what testimonies and proofs (they
say) we produce for the confirmation of the truth contended for. What
(they say) we pretend from reason (though indeed it be from innumerable
places of Scripture), I have vindicated not long since to the full in my
book of the vindictive justice of God, and answered
all the exceptions given thereunto, so that I shall not translate from
thence what I have delivered to this purpose, but pass to what follows.
Question 12 they make this inquiry:—
Q. Which are the scriptures out of which they endeavour to
confirm their opinion?
A. Those which testify that Christ died for us, or for our
sins, also that he redeemed us, or that he gave himself or his life a
redemption for many; then that he is our mediator; moreover, that he
reconciled us to God, and is a propitiation for our sins; lastly, from
those sacrifices which, as figures, shadowed forth the death of
Christ.
So do they huddle up together those very many express
testimonies of the truth we plead for which are recorded in the Scripture;
of which I may truly say that I know no one truth in the whole Scripture
that is so freely and fully delivered, as being, indeed, of the greatest
importance to our souls. What they except in particular against any one of
the testimonies that may be referred to the heads before
recounted (except those which have been already spoken to) shall be
considered in the order wherein they proceed.
They say, then:—
For what belongeth unto those testimonies wherein it is
contended that Christ died for us, it is manifest that satisfaction cannot
necessarily be therein asserted, because the Scripture witnesseth that we
ought even to lay down our lives for the brethren,1 John
iii. 16; and Paul writes of himself, Col. i.
24, “Now I rejoice in my affliction for you, and fill up the
remainder of the affliction of Christ for his body, which is the church:”
but it is certain that neither do believers satisfy for any of the
brethren, nor did Paul make satisfaction to any for the church.
Q. What then is the sense of these words, “Christ died for
us?”
A. That these words “for us” do not signify in our place or
stead, but for us, as the apostle expressly speaks, 1 Cor. viii. 11, which also alike
places do show, where the Scripture saith that Christ died for our sins;
which word cannot have this sense, that Christ died instead of our sins,
but that he died for our sins, as it is expressly written, Rom. iv. 25. Moreover, these words,
“Christ died for us,” have this sense, that he therefore died, that we
might embrace and obtain that eternal salvation which he brought to us from
heaven; which how it is done you heard before.
Ans. Briefly to state the difference between us
about the meaning of this expression, “Christ died for us,” I shall give
one or two observations upon what they deliver, then confirm the common
faith, and remove their exceptions thereto:—
1. Without any attempt of proof, they oppose “vice nostri” and “propter nos,” as contrary and inconsistent, and make
this their argument that Christ did not die “vice nostri,” because he died “propter nos,” when it is one argument whereby we
prove that Christ died in our stead, because he died for us in the sense
mentioned 1 Cor. viii. 11, where it is
expressed by διά, because we could no
otherwise be brought to the end aimed at.
2. Our sense of the expression is evident from what we
insist upon in the doctrine in hand. “Christ died for us,” — that is, he
underwent the death and curse that was due to us, that we might be
delivered therefrom.
3. The last words of the catechists are those wherein they
strive to hide the abomination of their hearts in reference to this
business, I shall a little lay it open:—
(1.) Christ, say they, “brought us eternal
salvation from heaven;” that is, “he preached a doctrine in obedience
whereunto we may obtain salvation.” So did Paul.
(2.) “He died that we might receive it;” that is, “rather
than he would deny the truth which he preached, he suffered himself to be
put to death.” So did Paul, and yet he was not crucified for the
church.
(3.) “It is not indeed the death of Christ, but his
resurrection, that hath an influence into our receiving of his doctrine,
and so our obtaining salvation.”
And this is the sense of these words, “Christ died for
us”!
For the confirmation of our faith from this expression,
“Christ died for us,” we have, —
(1.) The common sense and customary usage of
humankind as to this expression. Whenever one is in danger, and
another is said to come and die for him that he may be delivered, a
substitution is still understood. The ἀντίψυχοι of old, as Damon
and Pythias, etc., make this manifest.
(2.) The common usage of this expression in
Scripture confirms the sense insisted on. So David wished that he
had died for his son Absalom, that is, died in his stead, that he might
have lived, 2 Sam. xviii.
33. And that supposal of Paul, Rom. v. 7,
of one daring to die for a good man, relating (as by all expositors on the
place is evinced) to the practice of some in former days, who, to deliver
others from death, had given themselves up to that whereunto they were
obnoxious, confirms the same.
(3.) The phrase itself of ἀπέθανε, or ἀπέθανεν
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, which is used, Heb. ii. 9,
1 Pet. i. 21, Rom. v.
6–8, 2 Cor. v.
14, sufficiently proves our intention, compared with the use of
the preposition in other places, especially being farther explained by the
use of the preposition ἀντί which ever
denotes a substitution in the same sense and business, Matt. xx. 28, Mark x. 45, 1 Tim.
ii. 6. That a substitution and commutation is always denoted by
this preposition (if not an opposition, which here can have no place),
1 Pet. iii. 9, Rom. xii.
17, Matt. v.
38, Luke xi.
11, Heb. xii.
16, 1 Cor. xi.
15, amongst other places, are sufficient evidences.
(4.) Christ is so said to die ἀντὶ ἡμῶν, that he is said in his death to have “our
iniquity laid upon him,” to “bear our sins in his own body on the tree,” to
be “made sin and a curse for us,” to “offer himself a sacrifice for us” by
his death, his blood, to “pay a price or ransom for us,” to “redeem,” to
“reconcile us to God,” to “do away our sins in his blood,” to “free us from
wrath, and condemnation, and sin.” Now, whether this, to “die for us,” be
not to die in our place and stead, let angels and men judge.
4. But say they, “This is all that they have
to say in this business: yet ‘we ought to lay down our lives for the
brethren;’ and Paul saith, that he ‘filled up the measure of the affliction
of Christ, for his body’s sake, the church;’ but neither the one nor the
other did make satisfaction to God by their death or affliction.” But,
—
(1.) If all we had to plead for the sense of this
expression, “Christ died for us,” depended solely on the sense and use of
that word ὑπέρ, then the exception
would have this force in it: “The word is once or twice used in another
sense in another business; therefore the sense of it contended for in this
business cannot be such as you seek to maintain.” But, [1.] This exception
at best, in a cause of this importance, is most frivolous, and tends to the
disturbance of all sober interpretation of Scripture. [2.] We are very far
from making the single sense of the preposition to be the medium which, in
the argument from the whole expression, we insist on.
(2.) The passage in 1 John iii.
16, being a part of the apostle’s persuasive to love, charity,
and the fruits of them, tending to the relief of the brethren in poverty
and distress, disclaims all intendment and possibility of a substitution or
commutation, nor hath any intimation of undergoing that which was due to
another, but only of being ready to the utmost to assist and relieve them.
The same is the condition of what is affirmed of Paul. Of the measure of
affliction which, in the infinitely wise providence and fatherly care of
God, is proportioned to the mystical body of Christ’s church, Paul
underwent his share for the good of the whole; but that Paul, that any
believers, were crucified for the church, or died for it in the sense that
Christ died for it, that they redeemed it to God by their own blood, it is
notorious blasphemy once to imagine. The meaning of the phrase, “He died
for our sins,” was before explained. Christ, then, “dying for us,” being
“made sin for us,” “bearing our iniquities,” and “redeeming us by his
blood,” died in our place and stead, and by his death made satisfaction to
God for our sins.
Also, that Christ made satisfaction for our sins appears
from hence, that he was our mediator. Concerning this, after their attempt
against proper redemption by his blood, which we have already considered,
question 28, they inquire, —
Q. What say you to this, that Christ is the mediator between
God and men, or [the mediator] of the new covenant?
A. Seeing it is read that Moses was a mediator, Gal. iii. 19 (namely, of the old
covenant between God and the people of Israel), and it is evident that he
no way made satisfaction to God, neither from hence, that Christ is the
mediator of God and men, can it be certainly gathered that he made any
satisfaction to God for our sins.
I shall take leave, before I proceed, to make
a return of this argument to them from whom it comes, by a mere change of
the instance given. Christ, they say, our high priest, offered himself to
God in heaven. Now, Aaron is expressly said to be a high priest, and yet
he did not offer himself in heaven; and therefore it cannot be certainly
proved that Christ offereth himself in heaven because he was a high priest.
Or thus:— David was a king, and a type of Christ; but David reigned at
Jerusalem, and was a temporal king: it cannot therefore be proved that
Christ is a spiritual king from hence, that he is said to be a king. This
argument, I confess, Faustus Socinus
could not answer when it was urged against him by Seidelius. But for the former, I doubt not but Smalcius would quickly have answered
that it is true, it cannot be necessarily proved that Christ offereth
himself in heaven because he was a high priest, which Aaron was also, but
because he was such a high priest as entered into the heavens to appear
personally in the presence of God for us, as he is described to be. Until
he can give us a better answer to our argument, I hope he will be content
with this of ours to his. It is true, it doth not appear, nor can be
evinced necessarily, that Christ made satisfaction for us to God because he
was a mediator in genera], for so Moses was, who made no satisfaction; but
because it is said that he was such a “mediator between God and men” as
gave his life a “price of redemption” for them for whom with God he
mediated, 1 Tim. ii. 6, it is most evident and
undeniable; and hereunto Smalcius
is silent.
What remains of this chapter in the catechists hath been
already fully considered; so to them and Mr
B., as to his twelfth chapter, about the death of Christ, what hath
been said may suffice. Many weighty considerations of the death of Christ
in this whole discourse, I confess, are omitted, — and yet more, perhaps,
have been delivered than by our adversaries occasion hath been administered
unto; but this business is the very centre of the new covenant, and cannot
sufficiently be weighed. God assisting, a farther attempt will ere long be
made for the brief stating of all the several concernments of it.
Chapter XXXI.
Of election and universal grace — Of the resurrection of Christ
from the dead.
Mr Biddle’s intention in this thirteenth chapter being to decry
God’s eternal election, finding himself destitute of any scripture that
should, to the least outward appearance, speak to his purpose, he deserts
the way and method of procedure imposed on himself, and in the very
entrance falls into a dispute against it, with such arguments as the texts of Scripture after mentioned give not the least
colour or countenance unto. Not that from me he incurs any blame for using
any arguments whereby he supposeth he may further or promote his cause is
this spoken; but having at the entrance protested against such a procedure,
he ought not, upon any necessity, to have transgressed the law which to
himself he had prescribed. But as the matter stands, he is to be heard to
the full in what he hath to offer. Thus, then, he proceeds:—
Q. Those scriptures which you have already alleged, when I
inquired for whom Christ died, intimate the universality of God’s love to
men; yet, forasmuch as this is a point of the greatest importance, without
the knowledge and belief whereof we cannot have any true and solid ground
of coming unto God (because if he from eternity intended good only to a
few, and those few are not set down in the Scriptures, which were written
that we through the comfort of them might have hope, no man can certainly,
yea, probably, infer that he is in the number of those few, the contrary
being ten thousand to one more likely), what other clear passages of
Scripture have you which show that God, in sending Christ and proposing the
gospel, aimed not at the salvation of a certain elect number, but of men in
general?
A. John iii.
16, 17, vi. 33, iv. 42, 1 John iv.
14; John xii. 46, 47; Mark xvi. 15, 16; Col. i. 23, 28;
1 Tim. ii. 1–4; 2 Pet.
iii. 9; 2 Cor. v.
19, 1 John
ii. 1, 2.
1. That God is good to all men, and bountiful,
being a wise, powerful, liberal provider for the works of his hands, in and
by innumerable dispensations and various communications of his goodness to
them, and may in that regard be said to have a universal love for them all,
is granted; but that God loveth all and every man alike, with that
eternal love which is the fountain of his giving Christ for them and
to them, and all good things with him, is not in the least intimated by any
of those places of Scripture where they are expressed for whom Christ died,
as elsewhere hath been abundantly manifested.
2. It is confessed that “this is a point of the greatest
importance” (that is, of very great), “without the knowledge and belief
whereof we cannot have any true and solid ground of coming unto God,” —
namely, of the love of God in Christ; but that to know the universality of
his love is of such importance cannot be proved, unless that can be
numbered which is wanting, and that weighed in the balance which is
not.
3. We say not that “God from all eternity intended good
only to a few,” etc. He intended much good to all and every man in the
world, and accordingly, in abundance of variety, accomplisheth that his
intention towards them, — to some in a greater, to some in a lesser
measure, according as seems good to his infinite wisdom and pleasure, for
which all things were created and made, Rev. iv.
11. And for that particular eminent good of salvation by Jesus
Christ, for the praise of his glorious grace, we do not say that he
intended that from eternity for a few, absolutely considered,
for these will appear in the issue to be “a great multitude, which no man
can number,” Rev. vii. 9; but that in comparison of
them who shall everlastingly come short of his glow, we say that they are
but a “little flock,” yea, “few they are that are chosen,” as our Saviour
expressly affirms, whatever Mr B. be
pleased to tell us to the contrary.
4. That the granting that they are but few that
are chosen (though many be called), and that “before the foundation of the
world” some are chosen to be holy and unblamable in love through Christ,
having their “names written in the book of life,” is a discouragement to
any to come to God, Mr B. shall persuade
us when he can evince that the secret and eternal purpose of God’s
discriminating between persons as to their eternal conditions is the great
ground and bottom of our approach unto God, and not the truth and
faithfulness of the promises which he hath given, with his holy and
righteous commands, The issue that lies before them who are commanded to
draw nigh to God is, not whether they are elected or no, but whether they
will believe or no, God having given them eternal and unchangeable rules:
“He that believeth shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be
damned.” Though no man’s name be written in the Scripture, he that
believes hath the faith of God’s veracity to assure him that he shall be
saved. It is a most vain surmisal, that as to that obedience which God
requires of us, there is any obstruction laid by this consideration, that
they are but few which are chosen.
5. This is indeed the only true and solid ground of coming
unto God by Christ, that God hath infallibly conjoined faith and salvation,
so that whosoever believes shall be saved; neither doth the granting of the
pretended universality of God’s love afford any other ground whatever; and
this is not in the least shaken or impaired by the effectual love and
purpose of God for the salvation of some. And if Mr B. hath any other true and solid ground of encouraging men
to come to God by Christ besides and beyond this, which may not, on one
account or other, be educed from it or resolved into it (I mean of God’s
command and promise), I do here beg of him to acquaint me with it, and I
shall give him more thanks for it, if I live to see it done, than as yet I
can persuade myself to do on the account of all his other labours which I
have seen.
6. We say, though God hath chosen some only to
salvation by Christ, — yet the names of those some are not
expressed in Scripture, the doing whereof would have been destructive to
the main end of the word, the nature of faith, and all the ordinances of
the gospel, — yet God having declared that whosoever believeth shall be
saved, there is sufficient ground for all and every man in the world to
whom the gospel is preached to come to God by Christ, and other ground there is none, nor can be offered by the assertors of the
pretended universality of God’s love. Nor is this proposition, “He that
believeth shall be saved,” founded on the universality of love pleaded for,
but on the sufficiency of the means for the accomplishment of what is
therein asserted, — namely, the blood of Christ, who is believed on.
Now, because Mr B.
expresseth that the end of his asserting this universality of God’s love is
to decry his eternal purpose of election, it being confessed that between
these two there is an inconsistency, without entering far into that
controversy, I shall briefly show what the Scripture speaks to the latter,
and how remote the places mentioned by Mr
B. are from giving countenance to the former, in the sense wherein
by him who asserts it it is understood.
For the first, methinks a little respect and reverence to
that testimony of our Saviour, “Many are called, but few are chosen,” might
have detained this gentleman from asserting with so much confidence that
the persuasion of God’s choosing but a few is an obstruction of men’s
coming unto God. Though he looks upon our blessed Saviour as a mere man,
yet I hope he takes him for a true man, and one that taught the way of God
aright. But a little farther to clear this matter:—
1. Some are chosen from eternity, and are under
the purpose of God, as to the good mentioned. 2. Those some are
some only, not all; and therefore, as to the good
intended, there is not a universal love in God as to the objects of it, but
such a distinguishing one as is spoken against: Eph. i.
4, 5, “According as he hath chosen us in him before the
foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before
him in love: having predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus
Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.” Here are
some chosen, and consequently an intention of God concerning them
expressed, and this from eternity, or before the foundation of the world,
and this to the good of holiness, adoption, salvation; and this is only of
some, and not of all the world, as the whole tenor of the discourse, being
referred to believers, doth abundantly manifest. Rom. viii. 28–30, “We know that all
things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the
called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did
predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the
first-born among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he
also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he
justified, them he also glorified.” The good here intended is glory, that
the apostle closes withal, “Whom he justified, them he also glorified;” the
means to that end consist in vocation and justification; the persons to be
made partakers of this end are, not all the world, but “the called
according to his purpose;” the designation of them so distinguished to the end expressed is from the purpose, foreknowledge, and
predestination of God, — that is, his everlasting intention. Were it
another man with whom we had to do, I should wonder that it came into his
mind to deny this eternal intention of God towards some for good; but
nothing is strange from the gentleman of our present contest. They are but
some which are “ordained to eternal life,” Acts xiii.
48; but some that are “given to Christ,” John
xvii. 6; “a remnant according to election,” Rom. xi. 5; one being chosen when
another was rejected “before they were born, or had done either good or
evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand,” chap. ix. 11, 12; and those who
obtain salvation are “chosen thereunto through sanctification of the Spirit
and belief of the truth,” 2 Thess. ii.
13. All that is intended by them whom Mr B. thinketh to load with the opinion he rejects is but what
in these and many other places of Scripture is abundantly revealed: God
from all eternity, “according to the purpose of his own will,” or “the
purpose which is according to election,” hath chosen some, and appointed
them to the obtaining of life and salvation by Christ, to the praise of his
glorious grace. For the number of these, be they few or many, in
comparison of the rest of the world, the event doth manifest.
Yet farther to evidence that this purpose of God or
intention spoken of is peculiar and distinguishing, there is express
mention of another sort of men who are not thus chosen, but lie under the
purpose of God as to a contrary lot and condition: “The Lord hath made all things for himself; yea, even the
wicked for the day of evil,” Prov. xvi.
4. They are persons “whose names are not written in the book of
life of the Lamb,” Rev. xiii.
8; being “of old ordained to condemnation,” Jude 4; being as “natural brute
beasts, made to be taken and destroyed,” 2 Pet. ii.
12. And therefore the apostle distinguisheth all men into those
who are “appointed to wrath,” and those who are “appointed to the obtaining
of salvation by Jesus Christ,” 1 Thess. v.
9; an instance of which eternally discriminating purpose of God
is given in Jacob and Esau, Rom. ix.
11, 12: which way and procedure therein of God the apostle
vindicates from all appearance of unrighteousness, and stops the mouths of
all repiners against it, from the sovereignty and absolute liberty of his
will in dealing with all the sons of men as he pleaseth, verses 14–21; concluding that, in
opposition to them whom God hath made “vessels of mercy prepared unto
glory,” there are also “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,” verses 22, 23.
Moreover, in all eminent effects and
fruits of love, in all the issues and ways of it, for the good of
and towards the sons of men, God abundantly manifests that his eternal
love, that regards the everlasting good of men, as it was before
described, is peculiar, and not universally comprehensive of all
and every one of mankind.
1. In the pursuit of that love he gave his Son
to die: “God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us,” Rom. v. 8.
“Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his
Son to be the propitiation for our sins,” 1 John iv.
10. Now, though he died not for the Jews only, but for all, for
the whole world, or men throughout the whole world, yet that he died for
some only of all sorts throughout the world, even those who are so chosen,
as is before mentioned, and not for them who are rejected, as was above
declared, himself testifies: John xvii.
9, “I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them
which thou hast given me;” “Thine they were, and thou gavest them me,”
verse 6; “And for their sakes I
sanctify myself,” verse
19: even as he had said before, that he came to “give his life a
ransom for many,” Matt. xx.
28; which Paul afterward abundantly confirms, affirming that
“God redeemed his church with his own blood,” Acts xx.
28. Not the world, as contradistinguished from his church, nor
absolutely, but his church throughout the world. And to give us a clearer
insight into his intendment in naming the church in this business, he tells
us they are God’s elect whom he means: Rom. viii.
32–34, “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for
us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who
shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that
justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea
rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also
maketh intercession for us.” They are the elect for whom God gave his Son,
and that out of his love (which the apostle eminently sets out, verse 32), those to whom with his Son
he gives all things, and who shall on that account never be separated from
him.
Farther, to manifest that this great fruit and effect of
the love of God, which is extended to the whole object of that love, was
not universal:— (1.) The promise of giving him was not so; God
promised Christ to all for and to whom he giveth him: “The Lord God of
Israel by him visited and redeemed his people, raising up an horn of
salvation for them in the house of his servant David; as he spake by the
mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began,”
Luke i. 68–70. In the very first
promise of him, the seed of the serpent (as are all reprobate unbelievers)
are excluded from any interest therein, Gen. iii.
15. And it was renewed again, not to all the world, but to
“Abraham and his seed,” Gen. xii.
2, 3; Acts ii. 39, iii.
25 And for many ages the promise was so appropriated to the seed
of Abraham, Rom. ix. 4, with some few that joined
themselves to them, Isa. lvi.
3–7, that the people of God prayed for a curse on the residue of
the world, Jer. x. 25, as they which were
“strangers from the covenants of promise,” Eph. ii.
12; they belonged not to them. So that God made not a promise
of Christ to the universality of mankind; which sufficiently
evinceth that it was not from a universal but a peculiar love that he was
given. Nor, —
(2.) When Christ was exhibited in the flesh, according to
the promise, was he given to all, but to the church, Isa. ix. 6; neither really as
to their good, nor ministerially for the promulgation of the
gospel to any, but to the Jews. And therefore when “he came unto his own,”
though “his own received him not,” John i.
11, yet as to the ministry which he was to accomplish, he
professed he was “not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,”
and gave order to them whom he sent forth to preach in his own lifetime
“not to go into the way of the Gentiles, nor to enter into any city of the
Samaritans,” Matt. x. 5. Yea, when he had been
“lifted up’ to “draw all men unto him,” John iii. 14, xii.
32, and, being ascended, had broken down the partition wall and
taken away all distinction of Jew and Gentile, circumcision and
uncircumcision, having died not only for that nation of the Jews (for “the
remnant according to the election of grace,” Rom. xi.
5), but that he “might gather together in one the children of
God that were scattered abroad,” John xi.
52, — whence the language and expressions of the Scripture as to
the people of God are changed, and instead of “Judah and Israel,” they are
expressed by “the world,” John iii.
16, “the whole world,” 1 John
v. 1, 2, and “all men,” 1 Tim. ii.
4, in opposition to the Jews only, some of all sorts
being now taken into grace and favour with God, — yet neither then doth he
do what did remain for the full administration of the covenant of grace
towards all, namely, the pouring out of his Spirit with efficacy of power
to bring them into subjection to him, but still carries on, though in a
greater extent and latitude, a work of distinguishing love, taking
some and refusing others. So that, being “exalted, and made a prince and a
saviour,” he gives not repentance to all the world, but to them whom he
“redeemed to. God by his blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and
people, and nation,” Rev. v.
9.
It appears, then, from the consideration of this first most
eminent effect of the love of God, in all the concernments of it, that that
love which is the foundation of all the grace and glory, of all the
spiritual and eternal good things, whereof the sons of men are made
partakers, is not universal, but peculiar and distinguishing.
Mr B. being to prove his
former assertion, of the universality of God’s love, mentions sundry places
where God is said to love the world, and to send his Son to be the Saviour
of the world, John iii.
16, 17, vi. 33, iv. 42, 1 John iv.
14; John xii. 46, 47, 1 John ii. 1, 2: the reason of which
expressions the reader was before acquainted with. The benefits of the
death of Christ being now no more to be confined to one nation, but
promiscuously to be imparted to the children of God that were scattered
abroad throughout the world in every kindred, tongue, and
nation under heaven, the word “world” being used to signify men living in
the world, sometimes more, sometimes fewer, seldom or never “all” (unless a
distribution of them into several sorts, comprehensive of the universality
of mankind, be subjoined), that word is used to express them who, in the
intention of God and Christ, are to be made partakers of the benefits of
his mediation, men of all sorts throughout the world being now admitted
thereunto, as was before asserted.
2. The benefit of redemption being thus grounded upon the
principle of peculiar, not universal love, whom doth God reveal his
will concerning it unto? and whom doth he call to the participation
thereof? If it be equally provided for all out of the same love, it
is all the reason in the world that all should equally be called to a
participation thereof, or, at least, so be called as to have it made known
unto them. For a physician to pretend that he hath provided a sovereign
remedy for all the sick persons in a city, out of an equal love that he
bears to them all, and when he hath done takes care that only some few know
of it, whereby they may come and be healed, but leaves the rest in utter
ignorance of any such provision that he hath made, will he be thought to
deal sincerely in the profession that he makes of doing this out of an
equal love to them all? Now, not only for the space of almost four
thousand years did God suffer incomparably the greatest part of the whole
world to walk in their own ways, not calling them to repent, Acts xiv. 16, winking at that long
time of their ignorance, wherein they worshipped stocks, stones, and
devils, all that while “showing his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his
judgments unto Israel, not dealing so with any nation, whereby they knew
not his judgments,” Ps.
cxlvii. 19, 20, — so, in the pursuit of his eternal love,
calling a few only in comparison, leaving the bulk of mankind in sin,
“ha ving no hope, and without God in the world,”
Eph. ii. 12; but even also since the
giving out of a commission and express command not to confine the preaching
of the word and calling of men to Judea, but to “go into all the world and
to preach the gospel to every creature,” Mark xvi.
15, — whereupon it is shortly after said to be “preached to
every creature under heaven,” Col. i.
23, the apostle thereby “warning every man, and teaching every
man, that he might present every man perfect in Christ Jesus,” verse 28, namely, of all those to whom
he came and preached, not of the Jews only, but of all sorts of men under
heaven, and that on this ground, that “God would have all men to be saved,
and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” 1
Tim. ii. 3, 4, be they of what sort they will, kings, rulers,
and all under authority, — to this very day, many whole nations, great and
numerous, sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, having neither in
their own days nor in the days of their forefathers ever been made
partakers of the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ, whereby
alone life and immortality are brought to light, and men are made partakers
of the love of God in them. So that yet we have not the least evidence of
the universal love pleaded for. Yea:—
3. Whereas, to the effectual bringing of men “dead in
trespasses and sins” to a participation of any saving, spiritual effect of
the love of God in Christ, besides the promulgation of the gospel and the
law thereof, — which consisteth in the infallible connection of faith and
salvation, according to the tenor of it, Mark xvi.
16, “He that believeth shall be saved,” which is accompanied
with God’s command to believe, wherein he declares his will for their
salvation upon the terms proposed, approving the obedience of faith, and
giving assurance of salvation thereupon, 1 Tim. ii.
1–4, — there is moreover required the operation of God by
his Spirit with power, to evince that all this dispensation is managed
by peculiar, distinguishing love, this is not granted to all to whom the
commanding and approving word doth come, but only “to them who are the
called according to his purpose,” Rom. viii.
28; that is, to them who are “predestinated,” verse 30, for them he calls, so as to
justify and glorify them thereupon.
4. Not, then, to insist on any other particular effects of
the love of God, as sanctification, justification, glorification,
this in general may be affirmed, that there is not any one good thing
whatsoever that is proper and peculiar to the covenant of grace, but it
proceeds from a distinguishing love and an intention of God towards some
only therein.
5. It is true that God inviteth many to
repentance, and earnestly inviteth them, by the means of the word
which he affords them, to turn from their evil ways, of whom all the
individuals are not converted, as he dealt with the house of Israel (not
all the world, but) those who had his word and ordinances, Ezek. xviii. 31, 32, affirming
that it is not for his pleasure but for their sins that they die; but that
this manifests a universal love in God in the way spoken of, or any thing
more than the connection of repentance and acceptation with God, with his
legal approbation of turning from sin, there is no matter of proof to
evince.
6. Also, “he is not willing that any
should perish, but that all should come to repentance,” 2 Pet. iii. 9, even all those towards
whom he exercises patience and long-suffering for that end; which, as the
apostle there informs us, is “to us-ward,” — that is, to believers, of whom
he is speaking. Of them, also, it is said that “he doth not afflict
willingly nor grieve the children of men,” Lam. iii.
33, even his church, of which the prophet is speaking; although
this also may be extended to all, God never afflicting or grieving men but
it is for some other reason and cause than merely his own will, their
destruction being of themselves. David, indeed, tells us that “the Lord is gracious, and full of compassion;
slow to anger, and of great mercy;” that “the Lord
is good to all; and his tender mercies are over all his works,” Ps. cxlv. 8, 9: but he tells us
withal whom he intends by the “all” in this place, even the “generations
which praise his works and declare his mighty acts,” verse
4; those who “abundantly utter the memory of his great goodness,
and sing of his righteousness,” verse 7;
or his “saints,” as he expressly calls them, verse
10. The work he there mentions is the work of the kingdom of
Christ over all, wherein the tender mercies of God are spread abroad in
reference to them that do enjoy them. Not but that God is good to all,
even to his whole creation, in the many unspeakable blessings of his
providence, wherein he abounds towards them in all goodness, but that is
not here intended. So that Mr B. hath
fruitlessly from these texts of Scripture endeavoured to prove a
universality of love in God, inconsistent with his peculiar love, purpose,
and intention of doing good, in the sense declared, to some only.
And thus have I briefly gone through this chapter, and by
the way taken into consideration all the texts of Scripture which he there
wrests to confirm his figment, On the goodness of the nature of God; of the
goodness and love to all which he shows, in great variety and several
degrees, in the dispensation of his providence throughout the world; of
this universal love, and what it is in the sense of Mr B. and his companions; of its inconsistency with the
immutability, prescience, omnipotence, fidelity, love, mercy, and
faithfulness of God, — this being not a controversy peculiar to them with
whom in this treatise I have to do, I shall not farther insist.
As I have in the preface to this discourse given an account
of the rise and present state of Socinianism, so I thought in this place to
have given the reader an account of the present state of the controversy
about grace and free-will, and the death of Christ, with especial reference
to the late management thereof amongst the Romanists, between the Molinists
and Jesuits on the one side, and the Jansenians or Bayans on the other,
with the late ecclesiastical and political transactions in Italy, France,
and Flanders, in reference thereunto, with an account of the books lately
written on the one side and the other, and my thoughts of them; but finding
this treatise grown utterly beyond my intention, I shall defer the
execution of that design to some other opportunity, if God think good to
continue my portion any longer in the land of the living.
The fourteenth chapter of the catechist is about the
resurrection of Christ. What are the proper fruits of the
resurrection of Christ, and the benefits we receive thereby, and upon what
account our justification is ascribed thereto, — whether as the great and
eminent confirmation of the doctrine he taught, or as the issue, pledge,
and evidence of the accomplishment of the work of our salvation by his
death, it being impossible for him to be detained thereby, —
is not here discussed. That which appears to be the great design of this
chapter, is to disprove Christ’s raising himself by his own power;
concerning which this is the question:—
Q. Did Christ rise by his own power, yea, did he raise himself
at all It or was he raised by the power of another, and did another raise
him? What is the perpetual tenor of the Scripture to this purpose?
In answer hereunto, many texts of Scripture are rehearsed,
where it is said that God raised him from the dead, and that he was raised
by the power of God.
But we gave manifested that Mr
B. is to come to another reckoning before he can make any work of
this argument, “God raised him, therefore he did not raise himself.” When
he hath proved that he is not God, let him freely make such an inference
and conclusion as this. In the meantime, we say, because God raised him
from the dead, he raised himself; for he is “over all, God blessed for
ever.”
It is true that Christ is said to be raised by God, taken
personally for the Father, whose joint power, with his own, and that also
of the Spirit, was put forth in this work of raising Christ from the dead.
And for his own raising himself, if Mr B.
will believe him, this business will be put to a short issue. He tells us
that “he laid down his life, that he might take it again.” “No man,” saith
he, “taketh it from me. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to
take it again,” John x. 17, 18. And speaking of
the temple of his body, he bade the Jews destroy it, and said that he would
raise it again in three days; which we believe he did, and if Mr B. be otherwise minded, we cannot help
it.
Chapter XXXII.
Of justification and faith.
This chapter, for the title and
subject of it, would require a large and serious consideration; but by
Mr Biddle’s loose procedure in this
business (whom only I shall now attend), we are absolved from any strict
inquiry into the whole doctrine that is concerned herein. Some brief
animadversions upon his questions and suiting of answers to them will be’
all that I shall go forth unto. His first is:—
Ques. How many sorts of justification or righteousness are
there?
This question supposeth righteousness and justification to
be the same, which is a gross notion for a Master of Arts. Righteousness
is that which God requires of us; justification is his act concerning man
considered as vested or endued with that righteousness which he requires.
Righteousness is the qualification of the person to
be justified; justification, the act of him that justifies. A
man’s legal honesty in his trial is not the sentence of the judge
pronouncing him so to be, to all ends and purposes of that honesty. But to
his question Mr B. answers from Rom. x. 5, “The righteousness which is
of the law;” and Phil. iii.
9, “The righteousness which is of God by faith.”
It is true, there is this twofold righteousness that men
may be partakers of, — a righteousness consisting in exact, perfect, and
complete obedience yielded to the law, which God required of man under the
covenant of works; and the righteousness which is of God by faith, of which
afterward. Answerable hereunto there is, hath been, or may be, a twofold
justification; — the one consisting in God’s declaration of him who
performs all that he requires in the law to be just and righteous, and his
acceptation of him according to the promise of life which he annexed to the
obedience which of man he did require; and the other answers that
righteousness which shall afterward be described. Now, though these two
righteousnesses agree in their general end, which is acceptation with God,
and a reward from him according to his promise, yet in their own natures,
causes, and manner of attaining, they are altogether inconsistent and
destructive of each other, so that it is utterly impossible they should
ever meet in and upon the same person.
For the description of the first, Mr B. gives it in answer to this question:—
Q. How is the righteousness which is of the law described?
A. Rom. x. 5, “Moses describeth the
righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doeth those things
shall live by them.”
This description is full and complete. “The doing of the
things of the law,” or all the things the law requireth, to this end, that
a man may “live by them,” or a “keeping of the commandments” that we may
“enter into life,” makes up this righteousness of the law; and whatsoever
any man doth or may do that is required by the law of God (as believing,
trusting in him, and the like), to this end, that he may live thereby, that
it may be his righteousness towards God, that thereupon he may be
justified, it belongs to this righteousness of the law here described by
Moses. I say, whatever is performed by man in obedience to any law of God,
to this end, that a man may live thereby, and that it may be the matter of
his righteousness, it belongs to the righteousness here described. And of
this we may have some use in the consideration of Mr B.’s ensuing queries. He adds:—
Q. What speaketh the righteousness which is of faith?
A. Rom. x. 8,
9, “The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart:
that is, the word of faith, which we preach; that if thou shalt confess
with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God
hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”
The object of justifying faith, namely, Jesus
Christ as dying and rising again from the dead, to the obtaining of eternal
redemption and bringing in everlasting righteousness, is in these words
described. And this is that which the righteousness of faith is said to
speak, because Christ dying and rising is our righteousness He is made so
to us of God, and being under the consideration of his death and
resurrection received of us by faith, we are justified.
His next question is:—
Q. In the justification of a believer, is the righteousness of
Christ imputed to him, or is his onto faith counted for righteousness?
A. Rom. iv. 5, “His faith is counted for
righteousness.”
What Mr B. intends by
faith, and what by accounting of it for righteousness, we know full well.
The justification he intends by these expressions is the plain old
pharisaical justification, and no other, as shall elsewhere be abundantly
manifested. For the present, I shall only say that Mr B. doth most ignorantly oppose the imputing of the
righteousness of Christ to us, and the accounting of our faith for
righteousness, as inconsistent. It is the accounting of our faith for
righteousness and the righteousness of works that is opposed by the
apostle. The righteousness of faith and the righteousness of Christ are
every way one and the same; — the one denoting that whereby we receive it
and are made partakers of it; the other, that which is received and whereby
we are justified. And, indeed, there is a perfect inconsistency between
the apostle’s intention in this expression, “To him that worketh not, but
believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for
righteousness,” taken with his explication of it, that we are made
partakers of the righteousness of Christ by faith, and therein he is made
righteousness to them that believe, and Mr
B.’s interpretation of it, which is (as shall be farther
manifested), “To him that worketh, and believes on him that justifies the
righteous, his obedience is his righteousness” But of this elsewhere.
The next question and answer are about Abraham and his
justification; which being but an instance exemplifying what was spoken
before, I shall not need to insist thereon. Of his believing on God only,
our believing on Christ, which is also mentioned, I have spoken already,
and shall not trouble the reader with repetition thereof.
But he farther argues:—
Q. Doth not God justify men because of the full price Christ
paid to him in their stead, so that he abated nothing of his right, in that
one drop of Christ’s blood was sufficient to satisfy for a thousand worlds?
If not, how are they saved it?
A. Rom. iii.
24, “Being justified freely,” Eph. i.
7.
That Christ did pay a full price or ransom for us, that he
did stand in our stead, that he was not abated any jot of the penalty of
the law that was due to sinners, that on this account we are fully acquitted, and that the forgiveness of our sins is by the
redemption that is in his blood, have been already fully and at large
evinced. Let Mr B., if he please,
attempt to evert what hath been spoken to that purpose.
The expression about “one drop of Christ’s blood” is a
fancy or imagination of idle monks, men ignorant of the righteousness of
God and of the whole nature of the mediation which our blessed Saviour
undertook, wherein they have not the least communion. The close of the
chapter is, —
Q. Did not Christ merit eternal life and purchase the kingdom
of heaven, for us?
A. Rom. vi.
23, “The gift of God is eternal life.” Luke
xii. 32, “It is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the
kingdom.”
Eternal life is the gift of God, in opposition to any
merit of ours, and in respect of his designation of him who is
eternal life to be our mediator and purchaser of it; yet that Christ did
not therefore obtain by his blood for us eternal redemption, Heb. ix. 12, that he did not purchase
us to himself, Tit. ii.
14, or that the merit of Christ for us and the free grace of God
unto us are inconsistent, our catechist attempts not to prove. Of the
reconciliation of God’s purpose and good pleasure, mentioned Luke xii. 32, with the satisfaction
and merit of the Mediator, I have spoken also at large already.
I have thus briefly passed through this chapter, although
it treateth of one of the most important heads of our religion, because
(the Lord assisting) I intend the full handling of the doctrine opposed in
it in a treatise just to that purpose, [vol. v.]
Chapter XXXIII.
Of keeping the commandments of God, and of perfection of
obedience — How attainable in this life.
The title of the sixteenth chapter
in our catechist is, “Of keeping the commandments and having an eye to the
reward; of perfection in virtue and godliness to be attained; and of
departing from righteousness and faith.” What the man hath to offer on
these several heads shall be considered in order. His first question is,
—
Ques. Are the commandments possible to be kept?
Ans. 1 John v.
3, “His commandments are not grievous.” Matt. xi. 30, “My yoke is easy, and
my burden is light.”
1. I presume it is evident to every one at the first view
that there is very little relation between the question and the answer
thereunto suggested. The inquiry is of our strength and power;
the answer speaks to the nature of the commands of God. It never
came, sure, into the mind of any living that the meaning of
this question, “Are the commandments possible to be kept?” is, “Is there an
absolute impossibility, from the nature of the commands of God themselves,
that they can be kept by any?” nor did ever any man say so, or can, without
the greatest blasphemy against God. But the question is, what power there
is in man to keep those commandments of God; which certainly the texts
insisted on by Mr Biddle do not in the
least give an answer unto.
2. He tells us not in what state or condition he
supposes that person to be concerning whom the inquiry is made whether he
can possibly keep the commandments of God or no, — whether he speaks of all
men in general, or any man indefinitely, or restrainedly of believers.
Nor, —
3. Doth he inform us what he intends by keeping
the commands of God; whether an exact, perfect, and every way complete
keeping of them, up to the highest degree of all things, in all things,
circumstances, and concernments of them, or whether the keeping of them in
a universal sincerity, accepted before God, according to the tenor of the
covenant of grace, be intended. Nor, —
4. What commandments they are which he chiefly
respects, and under what consideration, — whether all the commands of the
law of God as such, or whether the gospel commands of faith and love, which
the places from whence he answers do respect. Nor, —
5. What he means by the impossibility of keeping
God’s commands, which he intends to deny, — that which is absolutely so
from the nature of the thing itself, or that which is so only in some
respect, with reference to some certain state and condition of man.
When we know in what sense the question is proposed, we
shall be enabled to return an answer thereunto; which he that hath proposed
it here knew not how to do. In the meantime, to the thing itself intended,
according to the light of the premised distinctions, we say, 1. That all
the commandments of God, the whole law, is excellent, precious, not
grievous in itself or its own nature, but admirably expressing the
goodness, and kindness, and holiness of him that gave it, in relation to
them to whom it was given, and can by no means be said, as from itself and
upon its own account, to be impossible to be kept. Yet., —
2. No unregenerate man can possibly keep, that is, hath in
himself a power to keep, any one of all the commandments of God, as to the
matter required and the manner wherein it is required.
This impossibility is not in the least relating to the nature of the law,
but to the impotency and corruption of the person lying under it.
3. No man, though regenerate, can fulfil the law
of God perfectly, or keep all the commandments of God, according to the
original tenor of the law, in all the parts and degrees of it, nor did ever
any man do so since sin entered into the world; for it is
impossible that any regenerate man should keep the commandments of God as
they are the tenor of the covenant of works. If this were otherwise, the
law would not have been made weak by sin that it should not justify.
4. That it is impossible that any man, though regenerate,
should by his own strength fulfil any one of the commands of God,
seeing “without Christ we can do nothing,” and it is “God which worketh in
us both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”
5. That to keep the commandments of God, not as [to] the
tenor of the covenant of works, or in an absolute perfection of
obedience and correspondency to the law, but sincerely and uprightly unto
acceptation, according to the tenor of the covenant of grace and the
obedience it requires, through the assistance of the Spirit and grace of
God, is not only a thing possible, but easy, pleasant, and delightful.
Thus we say, —
(1.) That a person regenerate, by the assistance of the
Spirit and grace of God, may keep the commandments of God, in yielding to
him, in answer to them, that sincere obedience which in Jesus
Christ, according to the tenor of the covenant of grace, is required; yea,
it is to him an easy and pleasant thing so to do.
(2.) That an unregenerate person should keep any one of
God’s commandments as he ought is impossible, not from the nature of God’s
commands, but from his own state and condition.
(3.) That a person, though regenerate, yet being so but in
part, and carrying about with him a body of death, should keep the commands
of God in a perfection of obedience, according to the law of the covenant
of works, is impossible from the condition of a regenerate man, and not
from the nature of God’s commands.
What is it, now, that Mr
B. opposes? or what is that he asserts?
I suppose he declares his mind in his Lesser Catechism,
chap. vii. ques. 1, where he proposes his question in the words of the
ruler amongst the Jews, “What good shall a man do that he may have eternal
life?” An answer of it follows in that of our Saviour, Matt. xix. 17–19, “If thou wilt
enter into life, keep the commandments.”
The intendment of this inquiry must be the same with his
that made it, as his argument in the whole is, or the answer of our Saviour
is no way suited thereunto. Now, it is most evident that the inquiry was
made according to the principles of the Pharisees, who expected
justification by the works of the law, according to the tenor of a covenant
of works; to which presumption of theirs our Saviour suits his answer, and
seeing they sought to be justified and saved, as it were, by the works of
the law, to the law he sends them. This, then, being Mr B.’s sense, wherein he affirms that it is possible to keep
the commandments so as, for doing good and keeping them, to enter into
life, I shall only remit him, as our Saviour did the Pharisee,
to the law; but yet I shall withal pray that our merciful Lord would not
leave him to the foolish choice of his own darkened heart, but in his due
time, “by the blood of the covenant,” which yet he seems to despise, send
him forth “out of the pit wherein is no water.”
Q. But though it be possible to keep the commandments, yet is
it not enough if we desire and endeavour to keep them, although we actually
keep them not? and doth not God accept the will for the deed?
A. 1 Cor. vii.
19; Matt. vii.
21, 24, 26; James i.
25; Rom. ii. 10; John
xiii. 17; Luke xi.
28; 2 Cor. v.
10; Matt. xvi.
27; Rev. xxii.
12; Matt. xix. 17–19; in all which
places there is mention of doing the will of God, of keeping the
commandments of God.
The aim of this question is to take advantage of what hath
been delivered by some, not as an ordinary rule for all men to
walk by, but as an extraordinary relief for some in distress.
When poor souls are bowed down under the sense of their own weakness and
insufficiency for obedience, and the exceeding unsuitableness of their best
performances to the spiritual and exact perfection of the law of God
(things which the proud Pharisees of the world are unacquainted withal), to
support them under their distress, they have been by some directed to the
consideration of the sincerity that was in the obedience which they did
yield, and guided to examine that by their desires and endeavours. Now, as
this direction is not without a good foundation in the Scripture, Nehemiah
describing the saints of God by this character, that they “desire to fear
the name of God,” Neh. i.
11, and David everywhere professing this as an eminent property
of a child of God, so they who gave it were very far from understanding
such desires as may be pretended as a colour for sloth and negligence, to
give countenance to the souls and consciences of men in a willing neglect
of the performance of such duties as they are to press after; but such they
intend as had adjoined to them, and accompanying of them, earnest,
continual, sincere endeavours (as Mr B.
acknowledgeth) to walk before God in all well-pleasing, though they could
not attain to that perfection of obedience that is required. And in this
case, though we make not application of the particular rule of accepting
the will for the deed to the general case, yet we fear not to say that this
is all the perfection which the best of the saints of God in this life
attain to, and which, according to the tenor of that covenant wherein we
now walk with God in Jesus Christ, is accepted. This is all the doing or
keeping of the commandments that is intended in any of the places quoted by
Mr B., unless that last, wherein our
Saviour sends that proud Pharisee, according to his own principles, to the
righteousness of the law which he followed after, but could not attain But
of this more afterward. He farther argues:—
Q. Though it be not only possible but also
necessary to keep the commandments, yet is it lawful so to do that we may
have a right ‘to eternal life and the heavenly inheritance? May we seek
for honour, and glory, and immortality, by well-doing? Is it the tenor of
the gospel that we should live uprightly in expectation of the hope
hereafter? And, finally, ought we to suffer for the kingdom of God, and
not, as some are pleased to mince that matter, from the kingdom of God?
Where are the testimonies of Scripture to this purpose?
A. Rev. xxii.
14; Rom. ii.
6–8; Tit.
ii. 11–13; 2 Thess. i.
5.
Ans. 1. In what sense it is possible to keep the
commandments, in what not, hath been declared. 2. How it is necessary, or
in what sense, or for what end, Mr B.
hath not yet spoken, though he supposeth he hath; but we will take it for
granted that it is necessary for us so to do, in that sense and for that
end and purpose for which it is of us required. 3. To allow, then, the
gentleman the advantage of his captious procedure by a multiplication of
entangled queries, and to take them in that order wherein they lie:—
To the first, “Whether we may keep the commandments that we
may have right to eternal life,” I say, — 1. Keeping of the commandments in
the sense acknowledged may be looked on, in respect of eternal life, either
as the cause procuring it or as the means conducing to
it. 2. A right to eternal life may be considered in respect of the rise
and constitution of it, or of the present evidence and last enjoyment of
it. There is a twofold right to the kingdom of heaven, — a right of
desert, according to the tenor of the covenant of works, and a right
of promise, according to the tenor of the covenant of grace. I
say, then, that it is not lawful, — that is, it is not the way, rule, and
tenor of the gospel, — that we should do or keep the commandments, so that
doing or keeping should be the cause procuring and obtaining an original
right, as to the rise and constitution of it, or a right of desert, to
eternal life. This is the perfect tenor of the covenant of works and
righteousness of the law, “Do this, and live; if a man do the work of the
law, he shall live thereby;” and, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the
commandments;” which, if there be any gospel or new covenant confirmed in
the blood of Christ, is antiquated as to its efficacy, and was [so,] ever
since the entrance of sin into the world, as being ineffectual for the
bringing of any soul unto God, Rom. viii.
3; Heb. viii.
11, 12. This, if it were needful, I might confirm with
innumerable texts of Scripture, and the transcription of a good part of the
epistles of Paul in particular. 3. The inheritance which is purchased for
us by Christ, and is the gift of God, plainly excludes all such confidence
in keeping the commandments as is pleaded for. For my part, I willingly
ascribe to obedience any thing that hath a consistency (in reference to
eternal life) with the full purchase of Christ and the free donation of
God; and therefore I say, — 4. As a means appointed of God, as the way
wherein we ought to walk, for the coming to and obtaining of the
inheritance so fully purchased and freely given, for the
evidencing of the right given us thereto by the blood of Christ, and giving
actual admission to the enjoyment of the purchase, and to testify our free
acceptation with God and adoption on that account, so we ought to do and
keep the commandments, — that is, walk in holiness, without which none
shall see God. This is all that is intended, Rev. xxii.
14. Christ speaks not there to unbelievers, showing what they
must do to be justified and saved, but to redeemed, justified, and
sanctified ones, showing them their way of admission and the means of it to
the remaining privileges of the purchase made by his blood.
His next question is, “May we seek for honour, and glory,
and immortality, by well-doing?” which words are taken from Rom. ii. 7.
I answer, The words there are used in a law sense, and are
declarative of the righteousness of God in rewarding the keepers of the law
of nature, or the moral law, according to the law of the covenant of works.
This is evident from the whole design of the apostle in that place, which
is to convince all men, Jews and Gentiles, of sin against the law, and of
the impossibility of the obtaining the glory of God thereby. So, in
particular, from verse 10,
where salvation is annexed to works in the very terms wherein the
righteousness of the law is expressed by Mr
B. in the chapter of justification, and in direct opposition
whereunto the apostle sets up the righteousness of the gospel, chap. i. 17, iii. 4.
But yet, translate the words into a gospel sense; consider “well-doing” as
the way appointed for us to walk in for the obtaining of the end mentioned,
and consider “glory, and honour, and immortality,” as a reward of our
obedience, purchased by Christ and freely promised of God on that account,
and I say we may, we ought, “by patient continuing in well-doing, to seek
for glory, and honour, and immortality;” that is, it is our duty to abide
in the way and use of the means prescribed for the obtaining of the
inheritance purchased and promised. But yet this with the limitations
before in part mentioned; as, — 1. That of ourselves we can do no good; 2.
That the ability we have to do good is purchased for us by Christ; 3. This
is not so full in this life as that we can perfectly, to all degrees of
perfection, do good or yield obedience to the law; 4. That which by grace
we do yield and perform is not the cause procuring or meriting of that
inheritance; which, 5. As the grace whereby we obey, is fully purchased for
us by Christ, and freely bestowed upon us by God.
His next is, “Is it the tenor of the gospel that we should
live uprightly in expectation of the hope hereafter?” Doubtless, neither
shall I need to give any answer at all to this part of the inquiry but what
lies in the words of the scripture produced for the proof of our
catechist’s intention, “The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath
appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in
this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious
appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,” Tit. ii. 11–13. Christ, the great
God our Saviour, having promised an inheritance to us with himself, at his
glorious appearance, raiseth up our hearts with a hope and expectation
thereof; his grace, or the doctrine of it, teacheth us to perform all
manner of holiness and righteousness all our days; and this is the tenor
and law of the gospel, that so we do. But what this is to Mr B.’s purpose I know not.
His last attempt is upon the exposition of some (I know not
whom) who have minced the doctrine so small, it seems, that he can find no
relish in it. Saith he, “Finally, ought we to suffer for the kingdom of
God, or from the kingdom of God?” His answer is, 2
Thess. i. 5, “That ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of
God, for which ye also suffer.” I confess, “suffering from the
kingdom of God” is something an uncouth expression, and those who have used
it to the offence of this gentleman might have more commodiously delivered
what they did intend; but “the kingdom of God” being sometimes taken for
that rule of grace which Christ hath in the hearts of believers, and
thereupon being said to be “within us,” and the word “from” denoting the
principle of obedience in suffering, there is a truth in the expression,
and that very consistent with “suffering for the kingdom of God,”
which here is opposed unto it. To “suffer from the kingdom of God” is no
more than to be enabled to suffer from a principle of grace within us, by
which Christ bears rule in our hearts; and in this sense we say that no man
can do or suffer any thing, so as it shall be acceptable unto God, but it
must be from the kingdom of God; for they that are in the flesh cannot
please God, even their sacrifices are an abomination to him. This is so
far from hindering us as to suffering for the kingdom of God, that is, to
endure persecution for the profession of the gospel (“for,” in the place of
the apostle cited, denotes the procuring occasion, not final cause), that
without it so we cannot do. And so the minced matter hath, I hope, a
savoury relish recovered unto it again.
His next questions are, first, —
Q. Have you any examples of keeping the commandments under the
law? What saith David of himself?
A. Ps.
xviii. 20–24.
And secondly, —
Q. Have you any example under the gospel?
A. 1 John iii.
22, “Because we keep his commandments.”
All this trouble is Mr B.
advantaged to make from the ambiguity of this expression of “keeping the
commandments” We know full well what David saith of his obedience, and what
he said of his sins; so that we know his keeping of the commandments was in
respect of sincerity as to all the commandments of God and all
the parts of them, but not as to his perfection in keeping all or any of
them. And he who says, “We keep his commandments,” says also, “If we say
we have no sin, we lie and deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”
He adds:—
Q. Have you not examples of the choicest saints who obeyed God
in hope of the reward, both before, under, and after the law?
A. Heb. xi.
8–10, 24–26, xii. 1, 2; Tit. i.
1, 2.
To obey in hope of eternal life is either to yield
obedience in hope of obtaining eternal life as a reward procured by or
proportioned to that obedience, and so no saint of God since the fall of
Adam did yield obedience to God, or ought to have so done; or, to obey in
hope of eternal life is to carry along with us in our obedience a hope of
the enjoyment of the promised inheritance in due time, and to be encouraged
and strengthened in obeying thereby. Thus the saints of God walk with God
in hope and obedience at this day, and they always did so from the
beginning. They have hope in and with their obedience of that whereunto
their obedience leads, which was purchased for them by Christ.
Q. Do not the Scriptures intimate that Christians may attain
to perfection of virtue and godliness, and that it is the intention of God
and Christ and his ministers to bring them to this pitch? Rehearse the
texts to this effect.
A. Eph. i. 4, etc.
Not to make long work of that which is capable of a speedy
despatch: By “virtue and godliness,” Mr
B. understands that universal righteousness and holiness which the
law requires; by “perfection” in it, an absolute, complete answerableness
to the law in that righteousness and holiness, both as to the matter
wherein they consist and the manner how they are to be performed; “that
Christians may attain” expresses a power that is reducible into act. So
that the “intention” of God and the ministers is not that they should be
pressing on towards perfection, which it is confessed we are to do whilst
we live in this world, but actually in this life to bring them to an
enjoyment of it. In this sense we deny that any man in this life “may
attain to perfection of virtue and godliness;” for, —
1. All our works are done out of faith, 1 Tim. i. 5, Gal. v.
6. Now, this faith is the faith of the forgiveness of sins by
Christ, and that purifieth the heart, Acts
xv. 8, 9; but the works that proceed from faith for the
forgiveness of sins by Christ cannot be perfect absolutely in themselves,
because in the very rise of them they expect perfection and completeness
from another.
2. Such as is the cause, such is the effect; but the
principle or cause of the saints’ obedience in this life is imperfect: so
therefore is their obedience. That our sanctification is imperfect in this
life, the apostle witnesseth, 2 Cor. iv.
16; 1 Cor. xiii.
9.
3. Where there is flesh and Spirit there is
not perfection, for the flesh is contrary to the Spirit, from whence our
perfection must proceed, if we have any; but there is flesh and Spirit in
all believers whilst they live in this world, Gal. v.
17; Rom. vii.
15.
4. They that are not without sin are not absolutely
perfect, for to be perfect is to have no sin; but the saints in this life
are not without sin, John i.
8, Matt. vi.
12, James iii. 2, Eccles. vii. 20, Isa. lxiv. 6. But to what end should
I multiply arguments and testimonies to this purpose? If all the saints of
God have acknowledged themselves sinners all their days, always deprecated
the justice of God, and appealed to mercy in their trial before God, — if
all our perfection be by the blood of Christ, and we are justified not by
the works of the law but by grace, — this pharisaical figment may be
rejected as the foolish imagination of men ignorant of the righteousness of
God, and of him who is the end of the law for righteousness to them that do
believe.
But take “perfection” as it is often used in the Scripture,
and ascribed to men of whom yet many great and eminent failings axe
recorded (which, certainly, were inconsistent with perfection absolutely
considered), and so it denotes two things, — 1. Sincerity, in
opposition to hypocrisy; and, 2. Universality as to all the parts
of obedience, in opposition to partiality and halving with God. So we say
perfection is not only attainable by the saints of God, but is in every one
of them. But this is not such a perfection as consists in a point, which
if it deflects from it ceases to be perfection, but such a condition as
admits of several degrees, all lying in a tendency to that perfection
spoken of; and the men of this perfection are said to be “perfect” or
“upright” in the Scripture, Ps. xxxvii. 14, cxix.
1, etc.
Not, then, to insist on all the places mentioned by Mr B. in particular, they may all be referred
to four heads:— 1. Such as mention an unblamableness before God in
Christ, which argues a perfection in Christ, but only a
sincerity in us; or, 2. Such as mention a perfection in “fieri,” but not in “facto esse,” as we speak, — a pressing towards
perfection, but not a perfection obtained, or here
obtainable; or, 3. A comparative perfection in respect of others;
or, 4. A perfection of sincerity accompanied with universality of
obedience, consistent with indwelling sin and many transgressions. The
application of the several places mentioned to these rules is easy, and
lies at hand for any that will take the pains to consider them. He
proceeds:—
Q. If works be so necessary to salvation, as you have before
showed from the Scripture, how cometh it to pass that Paul saith, “We are
justified by faith without works?” Meant he to exclude all good works
whatsoever, or only those of the law? How doth he explain himself?
A. Rom. iii.
28, “We are justified by faith, without the deeds of the
law.”
Ans. 1. How and in what sense works are
necessary to salvation hath been declared, and therefore I remit the reader
to its proper place.
2. A full handling of the doctrine of justification was
waived before, and therefore I shall not here take it up, but content
myself with a brief removal of Mr B.’s
attempts to deface it. I say, then, —
3. That Paul is very troublesome to all the Pharisees of
this age; who therefore turn themselves a thousand ways to escape the
authority of the word and truth of God, by him fully declared and
vindicated against their forefathers, labouring to fortify themselves with
distinctions, which, as they suppose, but falsely, their predecessors were
ignorant of. Paul then, this Paul, denies all works, all works whatsoever,
to have any share in our justification before God, as the matter of our
righteousness or the cause of our justification; for, —
(1.) He excludes all works of the law, as is
confessed. The works of the law are the works that the law requires. Now,
there is no work whatever that is good or acceptable to God but it is
required by the law; so that in excluding works of the law, he excludes all
works whatever.
(2.) He expressly excludes all works done by virtue of
grace and after calling, which, if any, should be exempted
from being works of the law; for though the law requires them, yet they are
not done from a principle, nor to an end of the law. These Paul excludes
expressly, Eph. ii.
8–10, “By grace are ye saved; … not of works.” What works?
Those which “we are created unto in Christ Jesus.”
(3.) All works that are works are excluded
expressly, and set in opposition to grace in this business: Rom. xi. 6, “If it be by grace, then
is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace: but if it be of
works, then is it no more grace; otherwise work is no more work;” and
chap. iv. 3–5.
(4.) All works are excluded that take off from the
absolute freedom of the justification of sinners by the redemption
that is in Christ, Rom. iii.
20–28. Now, this is not peculiar to any one sort of works, or
to any one work more than to another, as might be demonstrated; but this is
not a place for so great a work as the thorough handling of this doctrine
requires. He adds:—
Q. Can you make it appear from elsewhere that Paul intended to
exclude from justification only the perfect works of the law, which leave
no place for either grace or faith, and not such works as include both; and
that by a justifying faith he meant a working faith, and such a one as is
accompanied with righteousness?
A. Eph. ii.
8–10; Rom.
iv. 3–5, xi. 5, 6, iv. 14, 16; Gal. v. 6;
Rom. i. 17, 18.
Ans. 1. Still Paul and his doctrine
trouble the man, as they did his predecessors. That Paul excluded all
works, of what sort soever, from our justification, as precedaneous causes
or conditions thereof, was before declared. Mr
B. would only have it that the perfect works of the law only are
excluded, when, if any works take place in our justification with God,
those only may be admitted; for certainly if we are justified or pronounced
righteous for our works, it must be for the works that are perfect, or else
the judgment of God is not according to truth. Those only, it seems, are
excluded that only may be accepted, and imperfect works are substituted as
the matter of a perfect righteousness, without which none shall stand in
the presence of God. But, —
2. There is not one text of Scripture mentioned by Mr B. whence he aims to evince his intention
but expressly denies what he asserts, and sets all works whatever in
opposition to grace, and excludes them all from any place in our
justification before God! so that the man seems to have been infatuated by
his pharisaism to give direction for his own condemnation. Let the places
be considered by the reader.
3. The grace mentioned as the cause of our justification is
not the grace of God bringing forth good works in us, — which stand
thereupon in opposition to the works of the law, as done in the strength of
the law, — but the free favour and grace of God towards us in Christ Jesus,
which excludes all works of ours whatever, as is undeniably manifest,
Rom. iv. 4, xi. 5,
6.
4. It is true, justifying faith is a living faith, purging
the heart, working by love, and bringing forth fruits of obedience; but
that its fruits of love and good works have any causal influence into our
justification is most false. We are justified freely by grace, in
opposition to all fruits of faith whatever which God hath ordained us to
bring forth. That faith whereby we are justified will never be without
works; yet we are not justified by the works of it, but freely, by the
blood of Christ. How and in what sense we are justified by faith itself,
what part, office, and place, it hath in our justification, its consistency
in its due place and office with Christ’s being our righteousness, and its
receiving of remission of sins, which is said to be our blessedness, shall
elsewhere, God assisting, be manifested.
What, then, hath Mr B.
yet remaining to plead in this business The old abused refuge of opposing
James to Paul is fixed on. This is the beaten plea of Papists, Socinians,
and Arminians. Saith he:—
Q. What answer, then, would you give to a man who, wresting
the words of Paul in certain places of his Epistles to the Romans and
Galatians, should bear you in hand that all good works whatever are
excluded from justification and salvation, and that it is enough only to
believe?
A. James ii.
20–26.
Ans. 1. He that shall exclude good
works from salvation, so as not to be the way and means appointed of God
wherein we ought to walk who seek and expect salvation from God, and affirm
that it is enough to believe, though a man bring forth no fruits of faith
or good works, if he pretend to be of that persuasion on the account of any
thing delivered by Paul in the Epistles to the Romans or Galatians, doth
wrest the words and sense of Paul, and is well confuted by that passage
mentioned out of James.
But he that, excluding all works from justification in the
sense declared, and affirming that it is by faith only without works,
affirms that the truth and sincerity of that faith, with its efficacy in
its own kind for our justification, is evinced by works, and the man’s
acceptation with God thereon justified by them, doth not wrest the words
nor sense of Paul, and speaks to the intendment of James.
2. Paul instructs us at large how sinners come to be
justified before God; and this is his professed design in his Epistles to
the Romans and Galatians. James, professedly exhorting believers to good
works, demands of them how they will acquit themselves before God and man
to be justified, and affirms that this cannot be done but by works. Paul
tells us what justification is; James describes justifying faith by its
effects. But of this also elsewhere. To all this he subjoins:—
Q. I would know of you who is a just or righteous man? Is it
not such a one as apprehendeth and applieth Christ’s righteousness to
himself, or at most desires to do righteously? Is not he accepted of
God?
A. 1 John iii. 7–10, ii.
29; Acts x. 34, 35; Ezek. xviii. 5–9.
Ans. 1. He to whom “God imputeth righteousness” is
righteous. This he doth “to him who worketh not, but believeth on him who
justifieth the ungodly,” Rom. iv.
5–7. There is, then, a righteousness without the works of the
law, Phil. iii. 9. To “apprehend and apply
Christ’s righteousness to ourselves” are expressions of believing unto
justification which the Scripture will warrant, John i.
12; 1 Cor. i.
30. He that believeth so as to have Christ made righteousness
to him, to have righteousness imputed to him, to be freely justified by the
redemption that is in the blood of Jesus, he is just. And this state and
condition, as was said, is obtained by applying the righteousness of Christ
to ourselves, — that is, by receiving him and his righteousness by faith,
as tendered unto us in the offer and promises of the gospel.
Of “desiring to do righteously,” and what is intended by
that expression, I have spoken before. But, —
2. There is a twofold righteousness, — a righteousness
imputed, whereby we are justified, and a righteousness
inherent, whereby we are sanctified. These Mr B. would oppose, and from the assertion of the one argue to
the destruction of the other, though they sweetly and
eminently comply in our communion with God. The other righteousness was
before evinced. Even our sanctification also is called our righteousness,
and we are said to be just in that respect:—
(1.) Because our faith and interest in Christ are justified
thereby to be true, and such as will abide the fiery trial.
(2.) Because all the acts of it are fruits of
righteousness, Rom. vi.
19–22.
(3.) Because it stands in opposition to all
unrighteousness, and he that doth not bring forth the fruit of it is
unrighteous.
(4.) With men, and before them, it is all our
righteousness. And of this do the places mentioned by Mr B. treat, without the least contradiction or colour of it
to the imputed righteousness of Christ, wherewith we are righteous before
God.
The intendment of the last query in this chapter is to
prove the apostasy of saints, or that true believers may fall away totally
and finally from grace. I suppose it will not be expected of me that I
should enter here into a particular consideration of the places by him
produced, having lately at large gone through the consideration of the
whole doctrine opposed, wherein not only the
texts here quoted by Mr B., but many
others, set off by the management of an able head and dexterous hand, are
at large considered; thither therefore I refer the reader.
It might perhaps have been expected, that having insisted
so largely as I have done upon some other heads of the doctrine of the
gospel corrupted by Mr B. and his
companions, I should not thus briefly have passed over this important
article of faith, concerning justification; but besides my weariness of the
work before me, I have for a defensative farther to plead, 1. That this
doctrine is of late become the subject of very many polemical discourses,
to what advantage of truth time will show, and I am not willing to add oil
to that fire. 2. That if the Lord will, and I live, I intend to do
something purposely for the vindication and clearing of the whole doctrine
itself, and therefore am not willing occasionally to anticipate here what
must in another order and method be insisted on; to which, for a close, I
add a desire, that if any be willing to contend with me about this matter,
he would forbear exceptions against these extemporary animadversions until
the whole of my thoughts lie before him, unless he be of the persons
principally concerned in this whole discourse, of whom I have no reason to
desire that respect or candor.
Chapter XXXIV.
Of prayer; and whether Christ prescribed a form of prayer to be
used by believers; and of praying unto him and in his name under the old
testament.
The first question is:—
Ques. Is prayer a Christian duty?
Ans. 1 Thess. v.
17, “Pray without ceasing.”
If by “a Christian duty” a duty whereunto all Christians
are obliged is understood, we grant it a Christian duty. The commands for
it, encouragements to it, promises concerning it, are innumerable; and the
use and benefit of it in our communion with God, considering the state and
condition of sin, emptiness, want, temptation, [and] trials, that here we
live in, inestimable. If by “a Christian duty” it be intended that it is
required only of them who are Christians, and is instituted by something
peculiar in Christian religion, it is denied. Prayer is a natural
acknowledgment of God that every man is everlastingly and indispensably
obliged unto by virtue of the law of his creation, though the matter of it
be varied according to the several states and conditions whereinto we fall
or are brought. Every one that lives in dependency on God and hath his
supplies from him is, by virtue of that dependence, obliged to this duty,
as much as he is to own God to be his God. He proceeds:—
Q. How ought men to pray?
A. “Lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting,”
1 Tim. ii. 8.
The inquiry being made of the manner of acceptable
prayer, the answer given, respecting only one or two particulars,
is narrow and scanty. The qualification of the person praying, the means
of access to God, the cause of acceptation with him, the ground of our
confidence in our supplications, the efficacy of the Spirit of grace as
promised, are either all omitted or only tacitly intimated. But this and
many of the following questions, with the answers, being in their
connection capable of a good and fair interpretation, though all be not
expressed that the Scripture gives in answer to such questions, and the
most material requisite of prayer, “in the Holy Ghost,” be omitted, yet,
drawing to a close, I shall not farther insist upon them, having yet that
remaining which requires a more full animadversion.
Q. Did not Christ prescribe a form of prayer to his disciples,
so that there remaineth no doubt touching the lawfulness of using a
form?
A. Luke
xi. 1–4.
Ans. If Christ prescribed a form of prayer to his
disciples, to be used as a form, by the repetition of the same words, I
confess it will be out of question that it is lawful to use a form; but
that it is lawful not to use a form, or that a man may use any prayer but a
form, on that supposition will not be so easily determined.
The words of Christ are, “When ye pray, say, Our Father,” etc. If in this
prescription, not the matter only but the words also are intended, and that
form of them which follows is prescribed to be used by virtue of this
command of Christ, it will be hard to discover on what ground we may any
otherwise pray, seeing our Saviour’s command is positive, “When ye pray,
say, Our Father,” etc.
That which Mr B. is to
prove is, that our Saviour hath prescribed the repetition of the same words
ensuing; and when he hath done so, if so he can do, his conclusion must be
that that form ought to be used, not at all that any else may. If our
Saviour have prescribed us a form, how shall any man dare to prescribe
another? or can any man do it without casting on his form the reproach of
imperfection and insufficiency? “Our Saviour hath prescribed us a form of
prayer, to be used as a form, by the repetition of the same words,
therefore we may use it, yea, we must,” is an invincible argument, on
supposition of the truth of the proposition. But, “Our Saviour hath
prescribed us such a form, etc., therefore we may use another which he hath
not prescribed,” hath neither show nor colour of reason in it.
But how will Mr B. prove
that Christ doth not only here instruct his disciples in what they
ought to pray, and for what they ought in prayer to address
themselves to God, and under what considerations they are to look
on God in their approaches to him, and the like, but also that he
prescribes the words there mentioned by him to be repeated by them in their
supplications? Luke xi.
2, he bids them say, “Our Father,” etc.; which at
large, Matt. vi. 9, is, Pray after this
manner, — οὕτως, to this purpose.
I do not think the prophet prescribes a form of words to be used by the
church when he says, “Take with you words, and turn to the Lord: say unto him, Take away all iniquity,” Hos. xiv. 2; but rather calls them to
fervent supplication for the pardon of sin, as God should enable them to
deal with him. And though the apostles never prayed for any thing but what
they were for the substance directed to by this prayer of our Saviour, yet
we do not find that ever they repeated the very words here mentioned, or
once commanded or prescribed the use of them to any of the saints in their
days, whom they exhorted to pray so fervently and earnestly: nor in any of
the rules and directions that are given for our praying, either in
reference to ourselves or him by whom we have access to God, is the use of
these words at any time in the least recommended to us, or recalled to mind
as a matter of duty.
Our Saviour says, “When ye pray, say, Our Father,” etc. On
supposition of the sense contended for, and that a form of words is
prescribed, I ask whether we may at any time pray and not say so, seeing he
says, “When ye pray, say,” — whether we may say any thing
else, or use any other words? whether the saying of these words be a part
of the worship of God, or whether any promise of acceptation be annexed to
the saying soy whether the Spirit of grace and supplications be not
promised to all believers, and whether he be not given them to enable them
to pray, both as to matter and manner? and if so, whether the repetition of
the words mentioned by them who have not the Spirit given them for the ends
before mentioned be available? and whether prayer by the Spirit, where
these words are not repeated, as to the letters and syllables and order
wherein they stand, be acceptable to God? whether the prescription of a
form of words and the gift of a spirit of prayer be consistent? whether the
form be prescribed because believers are not able to pray without it, or
because there is a peculiar holiness, force, and energy in the letters,
words, and syllables, as they stand in that form and whether to say the
first of these be not derogatory to the glory of God and efficacy of the
Spirit promised and given to believers; and the second to assert the using
of a charm in the worship of God? whether, in that respect, “Pater noster” be not as good as “Our
Father?” whether innumerable poor souls are not deluded and hardened by
satisfying their consciences in and with the use of this form, never
knowing what it is to pray in the Holy Ghost? and whether the asserting
this form of words to be used have not confirmed many in their atheistical
blaspheming of the Holy Spirit of God and his grace in the prayers of his
people? and whether the repetition of these words, after men have been long
praying for the things contained in them, as the manner of some is, be not
so remote from any pretence or χὄουρ
of warrant in the Scripture as that it is, in plain terms, ridiculous?
When Mr B., or any on his behalf, hath
answered these questions, they may be supplied with more of the like nature
and importance.
Of our address with all our religious worship to the Father
by Jesus Christ, the mediator, how and in what manner we do so, and in what
sense he is himself the ultimate object of divine worship, I have spoken
before, and therefore I shall not need to insist on his next question,
which makes some inquiry thereabout. That which follows is all that in
this chapter needs any animadversion. The words are these:—
Q. Was it the custom during the time that Christ conversed on
the earth (much less before he came into the world) to pray unto God in the
name of Christ or through Christ? or did it begin to be used after the
resurrection and exaltation of Christ? What saith Christ himself
concerning this?
A. John xvi. 24–26.
The times of the saints in this world are here
distinguished into different seasons, — that before Christ’s coming in the
flesh, the time of his conversation on earth, and the time following his
resurrection and exaltation. What was the custom in these
several seasons of praying to God in the name of Christ or through him is
inquired after; and as to the first and second it is denied, but granted as
to the last, which is farther confirmed, in the answer to the last
question, from Heb.
xiii. 20, 21. Some brief observations will disentangle Mr B.’s catechumens, if they shall be pleased
to attend unto them.
1. It is not what was the custom of men to do, but what was
the mind of God that they should do, that we inquire after. 2. That Jesus
Christ, in respect of his divine nature, wherein he is one with his Father,
was always worshipped and invocated ever since God made any creatures to
worship him, hath been formerly declared. 3. That there is a twofold
knowledge of Christ the mediator, — (1.) In general, in thesi, of a mediator, the Messiah
promised; which was the knowledge of the saints under the old testament.
(2.) Particular, in
hypothesi, that Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah; which also
was and is known to the saints under the new testament. 4. That as to an
explicit knowledge of the way and manner of salvation, which was to be
wrought, accomplished, and brought about, by the Messiah, the promised
seed, Jesus Christ, and the address of men unto God by him, it was much
more evidently and clearly given after the resurrection and the ascension
of Christ than before, the Spirit of revelation being then poured out in a
more abundant manner than before. 5. There is a twofold praying unto God in
the name of Christ, — one in express words, clear and distinct intention of
mind, insisting on his mediation and our acceptance with God on his
account; the other implied in all acts of faith and dependence on God,
wherein we rely on him as the means of our access to God.
I say, these things being premised, — 1. That before
Christ’s coming into the world, the saints of the old testament did pray,
and were appointed of God to pray, in the name of Jesus Christ, inasmuch
as, in all their addresses unto God, they leaned on him, as promised to
them, through whom they were to receive the blessing and to be blessed,
believing that they should be accepted on his account. This was virtually
prayer to God in the name of Christ, or through him. This is evident from
the tenor of the covenant wherein they walked with God, in which they were
called to look to the Seed of the woman, to expect the blessing in the Seed
of Abraham, speaking of the Seed as of one and not of many; as also by all
their types and sacrifices, wherein they had, by God’s institution, respect
to him, with Abraham, by faith, even as we: so that whether we consider the
promise on the account whereof they came to God, which was of Christ and of
blessing in him; or the means whereby they came, which were sacrifices and
types of him; or the confidence wherein they came, which was of atonement
and forgiveness of sin by him, — it is evident that all their prayers were
made to God in the name of Christ, and not any upon any other
account. And one of them is express in terms to this purpose, Dan. ix. 17. If they had any promise
of him, if any covenant in him, if any types representing him, if any light
of him, if any longing after him, if any benefit by him or fruit of his
mediation, all their worship of God was in him and through him.
2. For them who lived with him in the days of his flesh,
their faith and worship were of the same size and measure with theirs that
went before, so was their address to God in the same manner and on
the same account: only in this was their knowledge enlarged, that they
believed that that individual person was he who was promised and on whom
their fathers believed; and therefore they prayed to him for all mercies,
spiritual and temporal, whereof they stood in need, as to be saved in a
storm, to have their faith increased, and the like, though they had not
expressly and clearly made mention of his name in their supplications. And
that is the sense of our Saviour in the place of John insisted on,
“Hitherto ye have asked nothing in my name,” — that is, expressly and in
direct application of the promises made in the Messiah unto him, — though
they had their access to God really and virtually by and through him, in
all the ways before expressed. And indeed, to evidence the glory of the
presence of the Spirit when poured forth upon them with a fulness of gifts
and graces, such things are recorded of their ignorance and darkness in the
mysteries of the worship of God, that it is no great wonder if they, who
were then also to be detained under the judaical pedagogue for a season,
had not received as yet such an improvement of faith as to ask and pray in
the name of Jesus Christ as exhibited, which was one of the great
privileges reserved for the days of the gospel.
And this is all that Mr
B. gives occasion unto in this chapter.
Chapter XXXV.
Of the resurrection of the dead and the state of the wicked at
the last day.
In his last chapter Mr Biddle strives to make his friends amends
for all the wrong he had done them in those foregoing. Having attempted to
overthrow their faith and to turn them aside from the simplicity of the
gospel, he now informs them that the worst that can happen to them if they
follow his counsel is but to be annihilated, or utterly deprived of their
being, body and soul, in the day of judgment! For that everlasting fire,
those endless torments, wherewith they have been so scared and terrified
formerly by the catechisms and preachings of men that left and forsook the
Scripture, it is all but a fable, invented to affright fools and children!
On this account he lets his followers know that if, rejecting the eternal
Son of God and his righteousness, they may not go to heaven,
yet as to hell, or an everlasting abode in torments, they may be secure;
there is no such matter provided for them nor any else. This is the main
design in this chapter, whose title is, “Of the resurrection of the dead
and the last judgment, and what shall be the final condition of the
righteous and wicked thereupon.”
The first questions lead only to answers that there shall
be a resurrection of the dead in general, and that they shall be raised and
judged by Christ, who hath received authority from God to that purpose,
that being the last great work that he shall accomplish by virtue of his
mediatory kingdom committed to him. Some snares seem to be laid in the way
in his questions, being captiously proposed; but they have been formerly
broken in pieces in the chapters of the deity of Christ and his person,
whither I remit the reader if he find himself entangled with them.
I shall only say, by the way, that if Mr B. may be expounded by his masters, he will scarce
be found to give so clear an assent to the resurrection of the dead as is
here pretended; that is, to a raising again of the same individual body for
the substance and all substantial parts. This his masters think not
possible, and therefore reject it, though it be never so expressly affirmed
in the Scripture. But Mr B. is silent of
this discovery made by his masters, and so shall I be also.
That wherewith I am to deal he enters upon in this
question:—
Ques. Shall not the wicked and unbelievers live for ever,
though in torments, as well as the godly and faithful? or is eternal life
peculiar to the faithful?
Ans. John iii.
36.
The assertion herein couched is, that the wicked shall not
live for ever in torments; and the proof of it is, because eternal life is
promised only to the faithful; yea, “he that believeth not the Son shall
not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him,” John iii.
36. As to the assertion itself, we shall attend farther unto it
instantly.
When Socinus first
broached this abomination, he did it with the greatest cunning and sleight
that possibly he could use, labouring to insinuate it insensibly into the
minds of men, knowing full well how full of scandal the very naming of it
would prove; but the man’s success was in most things beyond his own
imagination.
For the proof insinuated; “life” and “eternal
life,” in the gospel, as they are mentioned as the end and reward of our
obedience, are not taken merely physically, nor do express only the abode,
duration, and continuance of our being, but our continuance in a state and
condition of blessedness and glory. This is so evident, that there is no
one place where life to come and eternal life are spoken of simply, in the
whole New Testament, but as they are a reward and a blessed condition to be
obtained by Jesus Christ. In this sense we confess the wicked and
impenitent “shall never see life,” or obtain eternal life, — that is, they
shall never come to a fruition of God to eternity; but that therefore they
shall not have a life or being, though in torments, is a wild inference. I
desire to know of Mr B. whether the evil
angels shall be consumed or no, and have an utter end? If he say they
shall, he gives us one new notion more; if not, I ask him whether they
shall have eternal life or no? If he say they shall not enjoy eternal life
in the sense mentioned in the Scripture, I shall desire him to consider
that men also may have their being preserved and yet not be partakers of
eternal life in that sense wherein it is promised.
The proof insisted on by Mr
B. says that the wrath of God abides upon unbelievers, even then
when they do not see life. Now, if they abide not, how can
the wrath of God abide on them? doth God execute his wrath upon
that which is not? If they abide under wrath, they do abide. “Under
wrath” doth not diminish from their abiding, but describes its
condition.
Death and life in Scripture, ever since the giving of the
first law, and the mention made of them therein, as they express the
condition of man in way of reward or punishment, are not opposed naturally,
but morally, not in respect of their being (if I may so say) and relation,
as one is the privation of the other in the way of nature, but in respect
of the state and condition which is expressed by the one and the other, —
namely, of blessedness or misery. So that as there is an eternal life,
which is as it were a second life, a life of glory following a life of
grace, so there is an eternal death, which is the second death, a death of
misery following a death of sin.
The death that is threatened, and which is opposed to life,
and eternal life, doth not anywhere denote annihilation, but only a
deprivation and coming short of that blessedness which is promised with life, attended with all the evils which come under that name
and are in the first commination. Those who are dead in trespasses and
sins are not nothing, though they have no life of grace. But Mr B. proceeds, and saith, —
Q. Though this passage which you have quoted seems clearly to
prove that eternal life agreeth to no other men but the faithful, yet,
since the contrary opinion is generally held among Christians, I would fain
know of you whether you have any other places that affirm that the wicked
die directly, and that a second death, are destroyed and punished with
everlasting destruction, are corrupted, burnt up, devoured, slain, pass
away, and perish?
A. Rom. vi. 23, viii.
13; Rev. xxi. 6,
8, ii. 10, 11; 1 Thess. v.
3; 2 Pet. iii.
7; 2
Thess. i. 7–9; Gal. vi. 8;
2 Pet. ii. 12; 1
Cor. iii. 17; Heb. x.
39; Matt. iii.
12; Heb.
x. 26, 27; Luke xix.
27, 1 John ii.
17; 2 Cor.
ii. 15, 16.
1. How well Mr B. hath
proved his intention by the place of Scripture before mentioned hath been
in part discovered, and will in our process yet farther appear. The
ambiguity of the words “life” and “eternal life” (which yet are not
ambiguous in the Scripture, being constantly used in one sense and
signification as to the purpose in hand) is all the pretence he hath for
his assertion. Besides that, his proof that unbelievers do not abide lies
in this, that “the wrath of God abideth on them”!
2. This is common with this gentleman and his masters,
“Christians generally think otherwise, but we say thus;” so light do they
make of the common faith, which was once delivered to the saints But he may
be pleased to take notice that not only Christians think so, but
assuredly believe that it shall be so, having the express word of
God to bottom that their faith upon. And not only Christians
believe it, but mankind generally in all ages have
consented to it, as might abundantly be evinced.
3. But let the expressions wherewith Mr B. endeavours to make good this his monstrous assertion of
the annihilation of the wicked and unbelievers at the last day be
particularly considered, that the strength of his conclusion, or rather the
weakness of it, may be discovered.
The first is, that they are said to “die, and that a
second death,” Rom. vi. 23, viii.
13; Rev. xxi. 6,
8, ii. 10, 11. But how, now, will Mr
B. prove that by dying is meant the annihilation of body and soul?
There is mention of a natural death in Scripture; which, though it be a
dissolution of nature as to its essential parts of body and soul, yet it is
an annihilation of neither, for the soul abides, and Mr B. professes to believe that the body shall rise again.
There is a spiritual death in sin also mentioned; which is not a
destruction of the dead person’s being, but a moral condition wherein he
is. And why must the last death be the annihilation pretended? As to a
coming short of that which is the proper life of the soul, in
the enjoyment of God, which is called “life” absolutely, and “eternal
life,” it is a death; and as to any comfortable attendancies of a being
continued, it is a death. That it is a total deprivation of being, seeing
those under it are to eternity to abide under torments (as shall be
showed), there is no colour.
2. It is called “destruction,” and “perdition,” and
“everlasting destruction,” 1 Thess. v.
3; 2 Pet. iii.
7; 2
Thess. i. 7–9. True, it is a destruction as to the utter
casting men off from all and every thing wherein they had any hope or
dependence, — a casting them eternally off from the happiness of rational
creatures, and the end which they ought to have aimed at; that is, they
shall be destroyed in a moral, not a natural sense. To be cast for ever
under the wrath of God, I think, is destruction; and therefore it is called
“everlasting destruction,” because of the punishment which in that
destruction abideth on them. To this are reduced the following expressions
of “utterly perishing,” and the like, Gal. vi. 8;
2 Pet. ii. 12; 1
Cor. iii. 17; 2 Pet. iii.
16.
3. “Burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire” is
mentioned, Matt. iii. 12; but if this burning of
the chaff do consume it, pray what need it be done with “fire that cannot
be quenched?” When it hath done its work, it will surely be put out. The
expression is metaphorical, and the allusion is not in the consumption of
chaff in the fire, but in the casting it into the fire, or the setting fire
unto it. So the “fiery indignation” is said to “devour the adversaries,”
Heb. x. 27; not that they shall no
more be, but that they shall never see happiness any more. All these
expressions are metaphorical, and used to set out the greatness of the
wrath and indignation of God against impenitent sinners, under which they
shall lie for ever. The residue of the expressions collected are of the
same importance. Christ’s punishment of unbelievers at the last day is
compared to a king saying, “Bring hither mine enemies, and slay them before
me,” Luke xix. 27; because as a natural
death is the utmost punishment that men are able to inflict, which cuts men
off from hopes and enjoyments as to their natural condition, so Christ will
lay on them the utmost of his wrath, cutting them off from all hopes and
enjoyments as to their spiritual and moral condition. It is said, “The
world passeth away,” because it can give no abiding, continuing refreshment
to any of the sons of men, when he that doeth the will of God hath an
everlasting continuance in a good condition, notwithstanding the
intervening of all troubles which are in this life,1
John ii. 17; but that wicked men have not their being continued
to eternity nothing is here expressed.
A very few words will put an issue to this controversy, if
our blessed Saviour may be accepted for an umpire. Saith he, Matt. xxv. 46, “These
shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life
eternal.” Certainly he that shall be everlastingly punished shall
be everlastingly. His punishment shall not continue when he is
not. He that hath an end cannot be everlastingly punished. Again, saith
our Saviour, “In hell the fire never shall be quenched; where the worm
dieth not, and the fire is not quenched,” Mark ix. 43, 44; which he repeats
again verse 46, and, that Mr B. may not cause any to hope the contrary,
again verse 48. This adds to the former
miracle, — that men should be punished and yet not be, — that they shall be
punished by the stings of a worm to torment them when they are not, and the
burning of a fire when their whole essence is consumed! So also Isa. lxvi. 24, their torments shall
be endless, and the means of their torments continued for ever; but for
themselves, it seems, they shall have an end as to their being, and so
nothing shall be punished with an everlasting
worm and a fire never to be quenched! Nay, which is more,
there shall be amongst them “weeping, and gnashing of teeth,” Matt. viii. 12, the utmost sorrow and
indignation expressible, yea, beyond expression, and yet they shall not be!
God threatens men with death and destruction, and describes that death and
destruction to consist in the abiding under his wrath in endless torments;
which inexpressible state evidently shows that death is not a consumption
of them as to the continuance of their being, but a deprivation of all the
good of life natural, spiritual, and eternal, with an infliction of the
greatest evils that they can be capacitated to endure and undergo, called
their “destruction and perdition.”
What hath been the intention and design of Mr B. in this his Catechism, which I have thus
far considered, I shall not judge. There is one Lawgiver to whom both he
and I must give an account of our labour and endeavours in this business.
That the tendency of the work itself is to increase infidelity and sin in
the world I dare aver. Let this chapter be an instance; and from the
savour that it hath let a taste be taken of the whole, and its nature be
thereby estimated. That the greatest part of them to whom the mind of God,
as revealed in Scripture, is in some measure made known, are not won and
prevailed upon by the grace, love, and mercy, proclaimed therein and
tendered through Christ, so as to give up themselves in all holy obedience
unto God, I suppose will be granted. That these men are yet
so overpowered by the terror of the Lord therein discovered, and the
threats of the wrath to come, as not to dare to run out to the utmost that
the desperate thoughts of their own hearts and the temptations of Satan
meeting in conjunction would carry them unto, as it hath daily and manifold
experiences to evince it, so the examples of men so awed by conviction
mentioned in the Scripture do abundantly manifest. Now, what is it, among
all the considerations of the account that men are to make and the judgment
which they are to undergo, which doth so amaze their souls and fill them
with horror and astonishment, so strike off their hands when they are ready
to stretch them out to violence and uncleanness, or so frequently make
their conception of sin abortive, as this of the eternity of the punishment
which impenitent sinners must undergo? Is not this that which makes bitter
the otherwise sweet morsels that they roll under their tongues, and is an
adamantine chain to coerce and restrain them, when they break all other
cords and cast all other bonds behind them? Yea, hath not this been, from
the creation of the world, the great engine of the providence of God for
the preserving of mankind from the outrageousness and unmeasurableness of
iniquity and wickedness, which would utterly ruin all human society, and
work a degeneracy in mankind into a very near approximation unto the beasts
that perish, — namely, by keeping alive, in the generality of rational
creatures, a prevailing conviction of an abiding condition of evil doers in
a state of misery? To undeceive the wretched
world, and to set sinful man at liberty from this bondage and thraldom to
his own causeless fears, Mr B. comes
forth and assures them all that the eternity of torments is a fable, and
everlasting punishment a lie. Let them trouble themselves no more; the
worst of their misery may be past in a moment. It is but annihilation, or
rather perdition of soul and body, and they are for ever freed from the
wrath of the Almighty! Will they not say, “Let us eat and drink, for
to-morrow we shall die?” Down we lie of a season; God, it seems, will see
us once again, and then farewell for ever. Whether ever there were a more
compendious way of serving the design of Satan, or a more expedient engine
to cast down and demolish the banks and bounds given to the bottomless lust
and corruption of natural men, that they may overflow the world with a
deluge of sin and confusion, considering the depraved condition of all men
by nature and the rebellion of the most against the love and mercy of the
gospel, I much doubt. But who is more fit to encourage wicked men to sin
and disobedience than he who labours also to pervert the righteous and
obedient from their faith?
To close this whole discourse, I shall present
Mr B.’s catechumens with a shorter
catechism than either of his, collected out of their master’s questions,
with some few inferences naturally flowing from them; and it is as
follows:—
Ques. 1. What is God?
Ans. God is a spirit, that hath a bodily shape, eyes, ears,
hands, feet, like to us.
Q. 2. Where is this God?
A. In a certain place in heaven, upon a throne, where a man
may see from his right hand to his left.
Q. 3. Doth he ever move out of that place?
A. I cannot tell what he doth ordinarily, but he hath formerly
come down sometimes upon the earth.
Q. 4. What doth he do there in that place?
A. Among other things, he conjectures at what men will do here
below.
Q. 5. Doth he, then, not know what we do?
A. He doth know what we have done, but not what we will
do.
Q. 6. What frame is he in upon his knowledge and
conjecture?
A. Sometimes he is afraid, sometimes grieved, sometimes
joyful, and sometimes troubled.
Q. 7. What peace and comfort can I have in committing myself
to his providence, if he knows not what will befall me to-morrow?
A. What is that to me? see you to that.
Q. 8. Is Jesus Christ God?
A. He is dignified with the title of God, but he is not
God.
Q. 9. Why, then, was he called the only-begotten son of
God?
A. Because he was born of the Virgin Mary.
Q. 10. Was he Christ the Lord then when he was born?
A. No; he became the Lord afterward.
Q. 11. Hath he stilt in heaven a human body?
A. No; but he is made a spirit: so that being not God, but
man, he was made a god, and being made a god, he is a spirit, and not a
man.
Q. 12. What is the Holy Ghost?
A. A principal angel.
Q. 13. Did death enter by sin, or was mortality actually
caused by sin?
A. No.
Q. 14. Why is Christ called a saviour?
A. Because at the resurrection he shall change our vile
bodies.
Q. 15. On what other account?
A. None that I know of.
Q. 16. How then shall I be saved from sin and wrath?
A. Keep the commandments, that thou mayst have a right to
eternal life.
Q. 17. Was Christ the eternal son of God in his bosom,
revealing his mind from thence, or was he taken up into heaven, and there
taught the truths of God, as Mohammed pretended?
A. He ascended into heaven, and talked with God before he came
and showed himself to the world.
Q. 18. What did Christ do as a prophet?
A. He gave a new law.
Q. 19. Wherein.?
A. He corrected the law of Moses.
Q. 20. Who was it that said of old,” Thou shalt love thy
neighbour and hate thine enemy?”
A. God, in the law of Moses, which Christ corrects.
Q. 21. Is Christ to be worshipped because he is
God?
A. No, but because he redeemed us.
Q. 22. May one that is a mere creature be worshipped with
divine or religious worship?
A. Yes.
Q. 23. How can Christ, being a mere man, and now so far
removed from the earth, understand and hear all the prayers and desires of
the hearts of men that are put up to him all the world over?
A. I cannot tell, for God himself doth not know that there are
such actions as our free actions are but upon inquiry.
Q. 24. Did Christ give himself for an offering and sacrifice
to God in his death?
A. No; for he was not then a priest.
Q. 25. Did Christ by his death make reconciliation for our
sins, the sins of his people, and bear their iniquities, that they might
have peace with God?
A. No, but only died that they might turn themselves to
God.
Q. 26. Did he so undergo the curse of the law, and was he so
made sin for us, were our iniquities so laid on him, that he made
satisfaction to God for our sins?
A. No; there is no such thing in the Scripture.
Q. 27. Did he merit or procure eternal life for us by his
obedience and suffering?
A. No; this is a fiction of the generality of Christians.
Q. 28. Did he redeem us properly with the price of his blood,
that we should be saved from wrath, death, and hell?
A. No; there is no such use or fruit of his death and
blood-shedding.
Q. 29. If he neither suffered in our stead, nor underwent the
curse of the law for us, nor satisfied justice by making reconciliation for
our sins, nor redeemed us by the price of his blood, what did he do for us,
— on what account is he our saviour?
A. He taught us the way to heaven, and died to leave us an
example.
Q. 30. How then did he save them, or was he their saviour, who
died before his teaching and dying?
A. He did not save them, nor was their saviour, nor did they
ask any thing in his name, or receive any thing on his account.
Q. 31. Did Christ raise himself, according as he spake of the
temple of his body, “Destroy this temple, and the third day I will raise it
again?”
A. No, he raised not himself at all.
Q. 32. Hath God from eternity loved some even before they did
any good, and elected them to life and salvation, to be obtained by Jesus
Christ?
A. No, but he loved all alike.
Q. 33. Did God in the sending of Christ aim at the salvation
era certain number, or his elect?
A. No, but at the salvation of men in general, whether ever
any be saved or no.
Q. 34. Are all those saved for whom Christ died?
A. The least part of them are saved.
Q. 35. Is faith wrought in us by the Spirit of God, or are we
converted by the efficacy of his grace?
A. No, but of ourselves we believe and are converted, and then
we are made partakers of the Spirit and his grace.
Q. 36. Are all true believers preserved by the power of God
unto salvation?
A. No, many of them fall away and perish.
Q. 37. Is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us for our
justification?
A No, but our own faith and works.
Q. 38. Are we to receive or apprehend Christ and
his righteousness by faith, that we may be justified through him?
A. No, but believe on him that raised him from the dead, and
without that it suffices.
Q. 39. Are we able to keep all God’s commandments?
A. Yes.
Q. 40. Perhaps in our sincere endeavours, but can we do it
absolutely and perfectly?
A. Yes, we can keep them perfectly.
Q. 41. What need a man then to apprehend Christ’s
righteousness and apply it to himself by faith?
A. None at all, for there is no such thing required.
Q. 42. What shall become of wicked men after the
resurrection?
A. They shall be so consumed, body and soul, as not at all to
remain in torments.