« PrécédentContinuer »
al in them, for which others never forfeited the glorious title of Orthodox.
Thus it appears, that all which is said of Christ's extensive knowledge in Scripture, is far from proving him to be the supreme infinite God; it may be accounted for otherwise very fairly ; and the like may be also said with respect to other (which some call) divine perfections attributed to him, that they are no more truly infinite, as attributed to bim, than this of knowledge, but that there are plain evidences of their being attributed to him in a limited and inferior sense, in comparison of what they are, in the most glorious God over all Gods ; and therefore men had need produce other sort of arguments for the supreme deity of Christ, than from these topics.
Answer to the Arguments drawn from the Worship
due to our Lord Jesus, shewing ultimate Supreme Worship of Him to be inconsistent with the Gospel Doctrine of his Mediation.
Nor do I doubt but I could maintain my cause with equal advantage, upon the head of divine worship, which is another topic, whence my opposers would inser the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. It were easy to shew, there is no instance of supreme divine worship given ultimately to him in Scripture, but on the contrary, that all the honour it assigns to him is such as speaks him to be inferior to the Father, and dependent on bim; since it is wholly grounded upon what God his father has graciously bestowed on him. Thus be requires baptism, if that be an act of immediate proper worship, in his name, because all power in heaven and earth was given to him. Thus we must honour the Son as (truly, not as greatly as) we honour the Father ; because the “ Father hath committed, or given, all judgment to him.” John v. 22, 23. Thus at “the name of Jesus must every knee bow, and every tongue confess him to be Lord;" Phil. ii. 10, 11, because as a reward of his obedience, the Father “ hath given him a name above every name;" and it is added, that all this homage is ultimately to the “ glory of the Father.” Worship, which is thus grounded upon derived and borrowed excellency, is not supremely divine, and cannot be offered to the infinite, selforiginate, independent Deity, without a great affront, because it is not the most excellent. Mal. i. 14. To praise an independent God for honour and power granted to him by another, supposes a falsehood, and mingles reproaches with praise.
So that however there may be the same common external acts or words, such as bowing the knee, and saying glory and praise, used to God and the Mediator; as also in soine instances, they are given in com mon to ordinary men ; yet the mind of a rational
worshipper will make a distinction in his inward intention, as no doubt but those devout Jews did, who in the same act“ bowed their heads, and worshipped both God and the King.” i Chron. xxix. 20. But I shall not pursue this any farther at present.
Moreover, I judge, that to assert Jesus Christ to be the supreme God subverts the Gospel doctrine of his mediation ; for if I must have one, who is supreme God and man, for my mediator with God, then, when I address to Jesus Christ as the supreme God, where is the God-man that must be my mediator with him ? To say he mediates with himself, is the same as to say, that I must go to him without a mediator; and turns the whole business of mediation into a metaphor, contrary to the common sense of things, as well as against the Scripture. And I would gladly know what is the notion of going to God without a mediator, if this be all, that he mediates with himself ? Who ever doubted the exercise of his own wisdom or mercy, that these do in a sort plead in him? But sure the Scriptures speak of a mediator without him, when they set forth Jesus Christ as such; and who is this mediator, when we go to Jesus Christ as the ultimate object? If it be said his human nature only acts in this mediation, though as united to the divine; swer, that as this is still to make Christ mediator with himself, so the human nature is not God-man; and if the man, or human nature alone be capable of doing the part of a mediator, then it is not necessary that
Jesus Christ should be more than a man inhabited by, and related to God, in order to that office. Nor may it be said, that the union to the divine nature gives an infinite efficacy to those acts, of which the human only is the principal; for unless by that union, the human nature was turned into an infinite or divine nature, acts can no more be reckoned properly and intrinsically infinite in this case, than his body or human understanding are infinite, because so united to an infinite nature.
But what fully demonstrates, that the human nature of Christ can never be an effectual mediator, according to them, no, not though it were personally united to the divine, is this, viz. That they deny this human nature so united, to have the knowledge of the secret mental prayers, the inward desires and distresses of all Christians, or to know any one's heart. And how then can he be a compassionate intercessor in cases that he knows nothing of? Or how can he have a fellow feeling of their sufferings, which he knows not that they feel at all? What comfort is there in this account of Christ's mediation ? The divine nature is precluded from it, because they direct us to seek to that as the ultimate object through a mediator ; and the human nature, they say, may know nothing of our case, nor knows our hearts, whether we worship sincerely, or repent sincerely, or hypocritically only; and so knows not how to represent or recommend us to God. What a case now do these men bring us into? There is no mediator left to interpose with the supreme God; so that we must deal with him immediately and alone, which they will own is far from the Gospel doctrine or method. Thus is the Lord Jesus turned out of his office, on a pretence of giving him a higher honour. So that upon the whole, as far as I see, we had even as good be content with the Apostle's fair and plain account of this matter; if its being so very intelligible may not be an unpardonable objection against it, viz. That “there is but one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” 1 Tim. ii. 5. Never let us fear, but St Paul knew how to describe the Mediator, without leaving out the better half of him, or the principal nature. Our Mediator, according to him, was only called a “man;" who also is by office a God, or ruler over all, made so by him who puts all things under him.
And indeed as there are two principal distinguishing doctrines of Christianity, relating to the unity of the supreme God, and the one Mediator with him ; so the Trinitarians have lost them both among their several parties. For as they are divided into two principal parties, besides several subdivisions, both among Conformists and Dissenters, one part holding three real persons, or infinite Beings, the other but one ; (for they are not yet agreed whether they worship three infinite supreme beings, or but one,) so between them both, these two great doctrines are