I. With the Deity of Christ
I. With the Deity of Christ
This writer very wrongly distinguishes between true, real, and proper Deity, and absolutely supreme Deity; as if there could be true, real, and proper Deity, and yet that not be absolutely supreme; whereas Deity is either fictitious or true, nominal or real, proper or metaphorical. There are many who are called gods, that are not really so; there are such who by nature are no gods, fictitious deities, the idols of the heathens; and there are such who are so only in an improper sense, as civil magistrates: Now none of these are truly, really and properly gods; there is but one that is truly, really and properly God, and who is the only absolutely supreme God, Father, Son, and Spirit. To say, there are more gods than one, who are really, truly, and properly so, is to introduce the Polytheism of the Gentiles. To assert that the Father is the absolutely supreme God; that the Son is truly, really, and properly God, but not the absolutely supreme God; and that the holy Spirit is also really, truly, and properly God, but not the absolutely supreme God; is to assert one absolutely supreme God, and two subordinate Gods, who yet are truly really, and properly so. The arguments for and against the supreme Deity of Christ, and his equality with the Father, are as follow.
1. This writer having asserted in his first part, [5513] that Christ is God, or a God, because the Father hath given him divine perfections, the following argument was formed in answer to it: “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.” [5514] Now this was argumentum ad hominem, an argument formed on his own principles, and not mine, as anyone who has the least share of common sense and understanding will easily observe; and yet this man, either ignorantly or willfully represents it as an argument proceeding upon my own principles; whereas it is he, and not I, that says, the Father has given to Christ divine perfections. I affirm, that all the Father hath are his; he possesses and enjoys all divine perfections, not by gift, but in right, and by necessity of nature: that no divine perfection is given him as the Son of God; though all power, dominion, and authority to judge, are given him as the son of man. Hence the absurdity of communicating anything to the self-existent supreme God, and the self-contradiction of necessity and gift, are impertinently alleged, and the argument, as formed on his own principles, stands unanswered; which has brought him into a dilemma, out of which he knows not how to extricate himself: For if the Father has given him divine perfections, it must be either some, or all; if only some, then the fullness of the godhead does not dwell in him, nor can he be truly, really, and properly God; if all, and so no perfection of Deity is wanting in him, then he must be equal to the Father.
2. Another argument against the subordinate Deity of Christ, and in favor of his equality with the Father, is this: “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.” [5515] This is an argument reducing to a manifest absurdity, and the Dialogue-writer’s replies to it show him to be in the utmost distress; he is confounded, and knows not what to say. First, he says, [5516] that “if there be any absurdity, any contradiction here to the first command, it falls not directly on him, but on Christ and his gospel, from whence he borrowed these truths.” But does Christ in his gospel ever teach, that the Father is the most high God, or even the only true God, distinct from, and exclusive of the Son; and that the Son of God is a God, inferior and subordinate to the Father? Next, he observes, [5517] that the first command speaks of one person only to be worshipped as God supreme, and not of more persons than one. Be it so. Since then, according to this man’s principles, Christ is a God inferior and subordinate to the most high God, he must be a distinct person from him, and consequently stands excluded from divine worship by the first command; wherefore the gospel-doctrine of worshipping the Son, cannot be taken in consistency with that: and, on the other hand, if Christ, a subordinate God, is one person with the supreme God, this would destroy his subordination, and give him supremacy, contrary to this author’s notions. If this will not do, he goes on and tells [5518] you, “You may suppose that God himself, in commanding men to honor his Son, has repealed so much of the first command as is inconsistent with the New-Testament-command to honor or worship his Son.” This is cutting the Gordian knot indeed! This man, I suppose, would not care to be called an Antinomian; and yet the grossest Antinomian that ever lived upon the face of the earth, never ventured upon what this man does, namely, to assert, or suppose, that any law, or part of a law, relating to the object of religious worship, was ever repealed or abrogated. Lastly, He adds, [5519] “that in the honour paid to Jesus Christ, God the Father is ultimately honored, as this is paid to the glory of God the Father.” Now not to take notice of the blunder, the nonsense of this passage, in talking of honor being paid to glory; if the Father is ultimately honored by that same honor which is given to the Son, as to himself, then I hope “the charge of robbing God the Father of his peerless majesty, or of ungodding him, ” [5520] by asserting the Son’s equality to him, is weak and groundless.
3. A third argument, proving Christ to be the most high God, stands [5521] thus: “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 which is replied, that [5522] when the Son personates Jehovah, he may be called Jehovah, as an angel that sometimes speaks in the person of God; it being usual for such as deliver messages from others, to speak after the same manner those persons would have done, in whose name they come: So that no argument can thence be drawn for his supreme Deity; since that name is given to an angel, when speaking in Jehovah’s name. But it should be observed, that it cannot be proved that ever any created angel, speaking in the name of God, ever calls himself Jehovah, or is so called; all the places referred to by this writer, where an angel is called Jehovah, are to be understood of the uncreated angel, the Son of God, as will clearly appear at first fight, to any who will take the pains to inspect them. The passages are Genesis 18:13, and 19:24 and 22:15, 16, Exodus 23:20, 21, Isaiah 63:9, Malachi 3:1. All which are so many firm and standing proofs of the truth of the observation, that Christ is called Jehovah; a name peculiar to the most high God, Psalm 83:18, and therefore must conclude his supreme Deity, and the argument for it from hence, stands unshaken and unanswered. It may be usual with messengers to speak after the manner of the persons in whose name they come; but do they ever call themselves by their names? or are they ever so called by others? Did ever any ambassador of the king of Great Britain, when sent to a foreign court with an ambassy, stile himself the king of Great Britain? or call himself by the name of king George? or was he ever so called by others? The doctrine, “that Father, Son, and Spirit, are the one most high God, is charged, [5523] with being a contradiction to reason, to the whole Bible; to be a self-contradiction; yea, to have many contradictions in it.” To which I answer: Though reason, unassisted by revelation, tells us there is but one self-existent, intelligent Creator and Ruler of the universe, the Bible makes a clearer and further discovery of this matter, and acquaints us that more than one person were concerned in creation and government. Let us make man, Genesis 1:26. Let us go down and confound their language, Genesis 11:7. Remember thy creators, Ecclesiastes 12:1. Thy makers are thy husbands, Isaiah 54:5. Revelation speaks of three persons as concerned herein; and of these, not as making one person, but as being one God. There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost, and these three are one, 1 John 5:7, that is, one God. Now if it is no contradiction to the Bible, which everywhere speaks conformable to the voice of right reason, to say that Father, Son and Spirit, are one God; then it is no contradiction to reason, or to the Bible, nor is it any self-contradiction, or big with others, to say, that Father, Son and Spirit, are the one most high God. But, in confutation of this, we are recommended,
4. To an argument which this writer has borrowed from another person, drawn up in the following form: [5524] “He who is alone the supreme governor of the universe, is alone the supreme God; but the Father is alone the supreme governor of the universe.” This latter proposition proved. “He who never acts in subjection to the will of any other person, and every other person whatsoever always acts in subjection to his will, is alone the supreme governor of the universe: But the Father never acts in subjection to the will of another person, and every other person whatsoever always acts in subjection to his will; therefore the Father alone is the supreme governor of the universe.” To which I answer, by denying the minor proposition, that the Father is alone the supreme governor of the universe; for the Son is with the Father the supreme governor of the world: the kingdom is the Lord’s, that is, the Lord Christ’s, for he is spoken of throughout that whole psalm; (8:28) and he is the governor among the nations. My Father, says Christ, worketh hitherto; (John 5:17) that is, in the government of the universe, in the administration of providence: and I work; I am jointly concerned with him in these things: which made the Jews rightly conclude that he made himself equal with God, an equal governor of the universe with him. Hence it is clear, that the Father is not alone the supreme governor of the universe. Moreover, the minor proposition of the argument brought in proof of this, that the Father is alone the governor of the universe, must also be denied; I mean that part of it on which the proof depends, that “every other person whatsoever always acts in subjection to his, the Father’s will:” For though the Son of God always acts in agreement, yet not always in subjection to his Father’s will; though he always acted in subjection to his Father’s will in the human nature, yet not in the divine nature; particularly in the works of creation and providence; in these there is an agreement with, but not a subjection to his Father’s will; all things were made by him in agreement, but not in subjection to the will of the Father; by him all things consist, and he upholds all things by the word of his power; (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16, 17; Hebrews 1:3) agreeable to his Father’s will, but not obliged as by any power or authority superior to him.
5. This writer, in his first part, [5525] argues against the supreme deity of Christ, in this manner: “Before the Lord Jesus Christ became man, he came from the Father, was sent and employed by him; therefore it is impossible he should be the supreme God.” It is readily granted, that Christ before his incarnation came, though he is not expressly said to be sent, to redeem Israel, lead them through the Red Sea and wilderness, and bring them to Canaan. And it has been observed, [5526] that he appeared with full proof of his equality with the Father, since he calls himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and, I am that I am, Exodus 3:6, 14. And Jehovah says of him, My name is in him; and that he could, though he would not, pardon iniquity; all which this author takes no notice of, but catches at the phrases offending, and being sent, which he thinks suppose superiority and inferiority; though it has been observed to him, that of two equals, by agreement one may be sent by the other: But this he thinks, as applied to two persons, who are the one most high God, is chargeable with absurdity and blasphemy. Not with absurdity; for though he that is sent is not greater than he that sent him, (John 13:16) he may be equally as great. Nor did he appear at all inferior to the most high God when he came to redeem Israel; and even when he was sent to redeem mankind, though the glory of his Deity was greatly veiled and hid from the eyes of men in his state of humiliation, yet he did not lay aside his authority, or give up his supremacy and government; he was then in heaven, and as much one with the Father, and as greatly concerned with him in the government of the world, as before; see John 1:18, and 3:13, 5:17. Nor is it chargeable with blasphemy; it is indeed great condescension, a wonderful stoop of Deity; and the higher the Deity of Christ is carried, the more wonderful his condescension appears, whether in coming to redeem Israel before his incarnation, or for the salvation of his people at it. And here give me leave to correct a mistake of this author’s in another place, [5527] in which he represents us as supposing that Christ was begotten, sent, came forth from the Father as man, before he was man: Whereas, as man, he never was begotten at all; and might be said to be sent, and come before he was man, in order to be so, with respect to his office-capacity, which he voluntarily, and in the most condescending manner, took upon him for the good of men.
6. Whereas the equality of Christ with the Father is pleaded for, as being strongly asserted in Philippians 2:6, John 10:30, these passages are objected to. The first of these, at it stands in our Bibles, is so glaring a proof of the Son’s equality with the Father, that the adversaries of it are not able to withstand it; wherefore they employ all their wit and learning to destroy the commonly received translation, and to establish another; and instead of thought it not robbery to be equal with God, render it, did not affect, greedily catch at, or assume divinity, or to appear like a God. The first after Arius, who embraced and contended for this version, was Enjedinus [5528] the Socinian; and most of those this author mentions as giving up our translation, are such who gave into the Arian or Socinian schemes, or were inclinable thereunto, contrary to the sense of the far greater number of learned writers, ancient and modern. I perceive this Dialogue-writer is acquainted with a book entitled Fortuita Sacra, written by a person of worth and learning; he would do well to consult that learned writer upon this passage, who has refuted the translation and sense this author seems fond of, and has established the commonly received one, in agreement with the context, where Christ is said to be in the form of God; which he shows to be the essential form of God, all that is great and glorious in him, his very nature and Deity, in which Christ existed, and therefore must be equal to him. This use of the word μορφη, he proves from ancient writers. [5529] Nor is this sense of it contradictory to right reason; for since in nature a son may be equal to a father, why not in the divine essence, for anything this author has said to the contrary? Begotten, and not derived, is no contradiction, considered in different respects. Christ is begotten, as a Son, but underived, as God over all: He is not αυτουιος, Son of himself, though αυτοθεος, God of himself: He is Son of the Father, but God of himself; his personality and sonship he has of the Father, his being and perfections of himself: there is no foundation for a distinction between a begotten and unbegotten essence; not essence, but person is begotten: And false it is, to say that this is not taken notice of in the Answer to the Dialogue. [5530] Moreover, the sense of the passage before us we contend for, is no ways contrary to those scriptures which speak of Christ as commissioned by the Father, doing his will, and nothing of himself; as not knowing the day of judgment; and that the Father is greater than he, and he is glorified by him; since these are spoken of him in his office-capacity, and as man and mediator. This phrase, as man and mediator, is greatly found fault with by this writer, [5531] as having, by joining these words together, a mean fallacy in it, whereas the idea of a mediator comprehends the whole person of Christ as God-man, together with his office. But why may not these two be joined together without a fallacy, when the scripture says, that there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus? (1 Timothy 2:5) True indeed, Christ is mediator in both natures, human and divine, he having these united in one person as God-man; so that what is done in, or belongs to any of these natures, may, by virtue of this union, be predicated of his person; and yet these things must be attributed to the distinct natures to which they belong; as for instance, omnipotence and omniscience may be predicated of the person of Christ, and yet these belong only to him as considered in his divine nature: So doing nothing of himself, and not knowing the day of judgment, may be predicated of the Son, when these manifestly belong to him as considered in the human nature. This observation attended to, will unravel and destroy all that this author has wrote upon this head.
The passage in John 10:30, is a clear proof of the Son’s equality with the Father; where Christ says, I and my Father are one; not one person, but one God, of one and the same nature: By which we mean the same divine essence and perfections; for the Son partakes of the same divine nature, and possesses the same divine perfections the Father does; he has all the fullness of the Godhead in him, and so is equal to him. In this sense the Jews understood him; upon which they charge him with blasphemy, because he made himself God; and to vindicate himself, he first argues from his inferior character, as being in office; that if magistrates without blasphemy might be called gods, much more might he, who was sanctified and sent into the world by the Father: But he does not let the stress of the proof of his deity rest here, but proceeds to prove that he was truly and properly God, by doing the same works his Father did. So that the Jews were not mistaken in his sense, nor did they belie him; though they wronged him, in charging him with blasphemy on this account. As for John 17:21, where Christ prays that believers may be one, as he and his Father are one, it is impertinently alleged, since the as there does not express equality, but likeness; for none will venture to say, not even this author himself, that believers are, or will be one with the Father and Son, in that self-same sense, as they are one with another; there is not the sameness of power, action or operation, which is acknowledged in the Father and the Son. Upon the whole, the text in John 10:3, stands fully against the subordination of the Son to the Father, and is a firm proof of his equality with him in nature and perfections; by which doctrine no dishonor is done to the Father, or affront given him; since no perfection of deity, or any branch of honor and worship, are denied him, or given to a creature; and since it is perfectly agreeable to him, that all men should honor the Son, as they honor the Father. I proceed,