Section 1176
I. The doctrine of Christ’s deity and equality with the Father
In his debate on this subject, I observe the following things:
1. That he holds [5467] that Jesus Christ is a God, but not the most high God. The reason why he believes him to be a God, is, because the Father has given him divine perfections, universal dominion or headship, authority to judge, and has commanded all men to worship him; but he thinks he cannot be the most high God, because there is but one most high God, who is the God and Father of Christ; for both to be so, appears to him a contradiction, and he cannot believe two contradictory propositions; and besides Christ, before he became man, came from the Father, was sent and employed by him, he observes; which would be a thought absurd and blasphemous, and to be abhorred, if he was the supreme God. To all which I reply; if the Father has given to Christ divine perfections, for which reason he is God, or a God; he has either given him only some divine perfections, or all divine perfections; if he has only given him some divine perfections, then he is imperfectly God, or an imperfect one; if he has given him all divine perfections, then he must be equal to him; and, indeed, all that the Father hath are his; (John 16:15) not by his gift, or as arising from and depending upon his will and pleasure, but by necessity of nature, as being his own and only begotten Son. Universal dominion, or headship and authority to judge, are indeed given to him, not as the Son of God, but as the Son of man. Again; if the Father only is the most high God, and Christ is a God, that is, a God inferior to him, whom he has commanded all men to worship; then there are two distinct Gods, objects of religious worship, directly contrary to the express words of the first command, Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. (Exodus 20:3) Moreover, if the most High over all the earth is He whose name alone is Jehovah, and Christ’s name is Jehovah; if the same things which prove the Father to be the most high God, are said of the Son, as they are, why may he not be thought to be the most high God equally with the Father? To say, indeed, that there are two supreme or most high Gods would be a contradiction, or to say that the Father is one most high God, and the Son is another most high God, would be two contradictory propositions. But who says so? We say, that Father, Son and Spirit are the one most high God; and to say and believe this, is not to say and believe two contradictory propositions, for there is but one proposition, and no contradiction in it. Once more; though Christ, before his incarnation, came from and was sent by the Father as the angel of his presence, to redeem Israel out of Egypt, to lead them through the Red sea and wilderness into Canaan’s land, yet this no ways contradicts his proper deity and equality with the Father; for though he agreed to be sent, as an equal may by agreement be sent by another, and which may be thought and said of the divine persons in the Godhead, without absurdity and blasphemy; and though he condescended to take upon him an office for the good of the people of Israel; yet he appeared with full proof of proper deity, of his equality with the Father, from whom he came, and of his being with him the one most high God; for he calls himself the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, Exodus 3:6, and I AM THAT I AM, verse 14, and Jehovah says of him, that his name was in him, chapter 23:21, and intimates that he could, though he would not, pardon iniquity, which none can do but the most high God.
2. I observe, that he seems to be aware that the passage of scripture, Philippians 2:6, where it is said, that Christ being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, stands in his way, since it expressly asserts Christ’s equality with God; and therefore he attempts to remove it, by saying, [5468] that that translation, he thinks, is given up by most learned men, because it corresponds not to the original Greek. Who those learned men are that have given it up he does not tell us, nor point out in what it does not correspond to the original Greek. Arians and Socinians have quarreled with it, but learned Trinitarians have stiffly defended it: however, this dialogue-writer [5469] “thinks it must be wrong.”
(1) Because it no way suits the context, which speaks of “the same person in the same image or likeness of God, as obedient to God and exalted by him.” But what this author observes, is a reason why it should be right, and not wrong; for if Christ was in the form of God, εν μορφη θεου, in the essential form of God, for no other can be intended; if he existed in the nature and essence of God, was arrayed with the same glory and majesty, and possessed of the same perfections, he must be equal to him; nor could it be thought by Christ, nor should it by any other, a robbery, to assert his equality with him; for, as to be in the form of a servant, is to be really and truly a servant; to be in the likeness of a man, and to be in fashion as a man, is to be really and truly man; so to be in the form of God, is to be really and truly God: and if Christ is really and truly God, he is equal with the Father. And whereas in the context he is represented as obedient unto death, not unto God, as this author inadvertently expresseth it, and exalted by God; these things are evidently said of him as man, and express both his humiliation and exaltation in the human nature; and no ways contradict his equality with the Father in the divine nature.
(2) Another reason why this translation is thought to be wrong, is, “because it is contradictory to the reason God has given us, as our highest guide, to conceive that the Son, who was begotten by the Father, came from him, has his life, power, dominion, glory, as a gift and reward from him, should be equal to him.” I take no farther notice of this man’s great encomium of reason, than just to observe, that whatever guide reason is to us in things natural and civil, it is a very poor one in religious affairs, in things which concern our spiritual and eternal welfare, being so wretchedly corrupted by sin: however, one would think, in matters of revelation, the revelation itself, the scriptures of truth, should be a higher guide to us than reason, especially the Spirit of God, who in them is promised to guide us into all truth. But what contradiction is it even to reason, to conceive that the Son, begotten by the Father, should be equal to him? Was such a thing never known in nature, that a Son was equal to a Father? And why should it be thought contradictory to reason, that the only begotten Son of God, who is the brightness of his Father’s glory, the express image of his person, in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells, should be equal to God? His coming from God, and having his life, power, dominion and glory from him, as a gift and reward, and all those scriptures which speak of them as such, are to be understood of him in his office-capacity and relation, as he is man and mediator; and not of him as a divine person, as God over all, blessed forever; who, as such, does not derive his being, life and glory from another, but equally enjoys them with his Father, without derivation.
(3) A third reason given is, “because it is a sense contrary to all those plain texts which speak of Christ as the express image of the Father, as commissioned by him, as doing his will, etc.” I reply, that this sense is not at all contrary to those scriptures which speak of Christ as the image of God, but perfectly accords with them; since Christ is the essential image of God, and as such partakes of the same nature, essence, perfections and glory with his Father, and therefore must be equal to him. As for those scriptures which speak of him as commissioned by the Father, doing his will, seeking his glory, praying to him for his original glory; and, as appointed by him universal head and judge, these are to be understood of him as Man and Mediator, and so are no contradiction to his equality with God in the divine nature. This writer sets himself, with all his might, against this great truth of the Son’s equality with the Father; but is it to be wondered at, when he even postpones Jesus Christ to the apostles Peter and Paul, and that more than once in this dialogue? Speaking of the fruits of the Spirit: “they are, says he, [5470] such as we find in the life and sermons of St Paul and of his master Jesus Christ.” And in another place, [5471] “the Jews did so, that is, set up their judgment against their teachers, in following Peter and Paul, and Jesus Christ.”
3. Whereas it is observed to him what Christ says, John 10:30, I and the Father are one: he replies, [5472] “would you have Christ contradict himself in the same breath, by saying, we two persons are one person, one Being, one God? The easy, natural and just sense, he says, is, that he and the Father were one, as he did the Father’s will and acted by commission from him, and pursued the same end and design; and not to be understood of his unity of essence, for he cannot think that a begotten and an unbegotten essence are the same.” To which I answer, that though there are two persons spoken of in this text as being in some sense one, I, as one Person, and MY FATHER as another Person; yet we do not say that the meaning is, that these two Persons are one Person, this would be a contradiction; but that these two Persons are of one and the same nature, which is no contradiction. This writer thinks, that to understand the words of unity of will, or rather of doing the Father’s will, best suits the context; whereas Christ, in the context, is speaking not of unity of will, but of sameness of operation, and of his having the same power the Father has, to keep his sheep from perishing, which he proves from their being ONE; and from whence should sameness of power arise, but from sameness of nature? Nor is the essence of the Son begotten, and the essence of the Father, as distinct from that of the Son, unbegotten, none ever thought or said so, that I know of. The Father, as a divine Person, begets; the Son, as a divine Person, is begotten in the divine nature and essence; but that nature or essence is not begotten, but in both the same. This man calls himself a Churchman; did he pay any regard, as he does none, to the Articles of the Established Church, he might observe this doctrine, he is militating against, fully expressed in them: in the first Article are these words, “in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” The beginning of the s econd Article runs thus: “the Son, which is the word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed virgin, of her substance.”
4. This writer seems [5473] very desirous, that “persons, under a notion of speaking honourably of the Son, would be careful of eclipsing the glory of the Father, and of dishonoring him, by setting up a rival with him in supreme empire, and of affronting and displeasing the Son, by belying him, as the Jews did, when they said he made himself equal with God.” But what danger can there be of lessening or sullying the Father’s glory by asserting the Son’s equality with the Father? Nothing is taken from the Father and given to the Son; the same things are said of the one as of the other; the same nature, perfections and glory are ascribed to the one as to the other; nor need we fear affronting and displeasing either the Father or the Son, by giving equal honor to them; since as the Son has thought it not robbery to be equal with God, (Philippians 2:6) God has declared it is his will, that all men should honor the Son as they honor the Fathe r; (John 5:23) which is done by asserting that they are of one and the same essence, substance and eternity; and are what may be understood by the words co-essential, con-substantial, co-eternal: though this writer calls them great swelling words, hard and unintelligible names. [5474] That the Jews belied Christ, when they said he made himself equal with God, does not appear; our Lord never charged them with belying him, nor did he go about to convince them of a lie or a mistake; but afterwards said those things which were enough to confirm them, and anyone else, in the truth of his equality with the Father.
5. This man laughs, as those of his complection generally do, at mysteries in religion, and at this doctrine being a mystery, though revealed, and as being above, though not contrary, to reason: he says, [5475] that “if any doctrine was a mystery before, revealing it has made it no longer a mystery.” It is true, that when a thing is revealed, it is no longer a mystery that it is, but may still remain a mystery how it is, what it is: as in the care before us, it is no longer a mystery, now revealed, that the three persons, Father, Son and Spirit, are one God; but how they are so, is still a mystery. The incarnation of Christ, God manifest in the flesh, is not a thing hidden from us, being revealed; but how the word was made flesh, will ever continue a mystery to us. It is no longer a mystery, that the living will be changed at Christ’s second coming; but how they will be changed, is a mystery to us. So the resurrection from the dead is a certain part of revelation; nevertheless, it is mysterious to us how it will be brought about; and our ideas of rising from the dead, and living again, must be greatly short of the things themselves: though this author says, [5476] he “very, well understands what rising from the dead and living again means, as well as he does rising from sleep and living again.” I suppose he would have said, being awake again, means; for I hope he does not think that men are dead when asleep, and come to life again when they rise out of it. These doctrines instanced in are above our reason, and seem as contrary to our ideas of things, and the dictates of reason, as what we have been considering may be thought to be. I go on,