L Distinction of persons (it being an infinite substance) doth no way prove difference of essence between the Father and the Sou. Where Christ, as mediator, is said to be another from the Father or God, spoken jyersonalli/ of the Father, it argues not in the least that he is not partaker of the same nature with him. That in one essence
OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. l7l
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 Avork of our redemp- tion and salvation, is not at all inconsistent with that essential a^ia, honour, dignity, and worth, which he hath in himself as "God blessed for ever." Though he humbled himself and was exalted, yet in na- ture he was one and the same, he changed not.
4. The Scripture's asserting the humanity of Christ with the con- cernments thereof, as his birth, life, and death, doth no more thereby deny his deity, than, by asserting his deity, with the essential pro- perties 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 re- gard there 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 im- possible 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.
ov <puirii Biirnro;, dxx' ivutrii fiofxpr,; lovXiKn; nv iXaSi. — Atliaiias. Dial. i. contra Maccd.
172 VINDICI^ EVANGELiaE.
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 lordshij), 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 ac- count, as John xiii. 13 ; Acts vii. 59 ; Hev. 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 mani- fest 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 after 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.