" Q. 6. Did not Jesus Christ approve himself to be God by his miracles ; and did he not those miracles hy a divine nature of his own, and because he was God himself? What is the determination of the apostle Peter in this behalf?—^. 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 in- sinuate 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 him- self giving power and authority to others to work miracles by his
OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 175
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 mira- cles 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 pre- sent purpose. Of the other place there is another reason ; for though Grotius expounds these words, "Or/ 6 Q^hg ^v/u^ir abrou, "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 inter- pretation and sense of them. This, I say, he does, John x. 37, 88, " 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 ivspyrinxug, 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.—^. John v. ]9, 20, SO, 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 in- creased by his asserting his equality with the Father (of which after- ward), 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
' A^eotdwyfiivov, 1. C, aiov firi dftifnirSnTovfiti/ov, aXX' dfrohiili'yfi.ivov Sia tuv 'ifyuv uy \-rt>irirt ii' avTov 0 e$(jf, on dxo SaZ riv. — GraJC. Schol.
176 VINDICI^ EVANGELIC^.
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 him- self 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 to dZobXrirov 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 particidars. 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 mani- fested.