5. Christ also hath his divine nature by inheritance, — that is, he was eternally begotten of the essence of his Father, and is thence by right of inheritance his Son, as the apostle proves from Ps. ii. 7.
6. Our^^atechists speak not according to their own principles when they make a difference between what Christ had from himself and what he had from inheritance, for they suppose he had nothing but by divine grant and voluntary concession, which they make the inheritance here spoken of; nor according to ours, who say not that the Son, as the Son, is a seipso, or hath any thing a seipso; and so know not what they say.
7. There is not, then, the least colour or pretence of denying this
first part of the testimony to belong to Christ. The whole is spoken
of to the same purpose, to the same person, and belongs to the same
matter in general ; and that first expression is, if not only, yet
mainly and chiefly, effectual to confirm the intendment of the
apostle, proving directly that Christ is better and more excellent
posterior oratio, cum sine verbis sup6rioribus, in qiiilms fit coeli terrreqiie mcntio, in- telligi riou potuerit, cum sit cum lis per vucem ij)si conjuucta, et cadcm ilia verba priora idem autor commcmorare uccesse habuit. Kam si alii scriptorcs sacri ad eum niodum citant testimonia Scripturpe, nulla adacti necessitate, multo magis huic, neces- sitate compulse, id faciendum fuit.
" Ubi vero scriptores sacri id fecerunt ? — Inter alia raulta testimonia, habcs Matt, xii. 18-21, ubi nimis apertum est versiculum lU, tautum ad propositum evangelistse Matthoei pertinei-e, cum id voluerit probare cur Christus, ne palam iieret, interdicerct. Deinde, Act. ii. 17--1, ubi etiam tantum, ver. 17, 18, ad propositum Petri apostoli faciunt, quod quidem est, ut ypiritum Sanctum esse cffusum supra discipulos dcceat; et ibidem ver. 25-28, ubi palam est, versum tautum 27, ad propositum faccre, quan- doquidcm id approbet apostolus, Christum a morte dctincre fuisse impossibile. Denique, in hoc ipso capite, ver. 9, ubi verba hcec, Di/existi juMitiarn, et odio hahuisti iniquitatem, apj)arct uihil pertinere ad rem quam probat apostolus, quae est, Christum pncstan- tiorem factum angelis."
276 VINDICI^ EVANGELIC^.
than the angels, in that he is Jehovah, that made heaven and earth, they are but his creatures, — as God often compares himself with others. In the psalm, the words respect chiefly the making of heaven and earth; and these words are applied to our Saviour. That the two works of making and abolishing the world should be as- signed distinctly unto two persons there is no pretence to affirm. This boldness, indeed, is intolerable.
8. To abolish the world is no less a work of almighty power than to make it, nor can it be done by any but him that made it, and this confessedly is ascribed to Christ ; and both alike belong to the asserting of the excellency of God above all creatures, which is here aimed to be done.
9. The reason given why the first words, which are nothing to the purpose, are cited with the latter, is a miserable begging of the thing in question ; yea, the first words are chiefly and eminently to the apostle's purpose, as hath been showed. We dare not say only; for the Holy Ghost knew better than we what was to his purpose, though our catechists be wiser in their own conceits than he. Neither is there any reason imaginable why the apostle should rehearse more words here out of the psalm than were directly to the business he had in hand, seeing how many testimonies he cites, and some of them very briefly, leaving them to be supplied from the places whence they are taken.
10. That others of the holy writers do urge testimonies not to their jnirpose, or beyond tvhat they need, is false in itself, and a bold im- putation of weakness to the penmen of the Holy Ghost. The in- stances hereof given by our adversaries are not at all to the purpose which they are pursuing ; for, —
(1.) In no one of them is there a testimony cited whereof one part should concern one person, and another another, as is here pre- tended;— and without farther process this is sufficient to evince this evasion of impertinency ; for nothing will amount to the interpreta- tion they enforce on this place but the producing of some place of the New Testament where a testimony is cited out of the Old, speak- ing throughout of the same person, whereof the one part belongs to him and the other not, although that which they say doth not belong to him be most proper for the confirmation of what is affirmed of liim, and what the whole is brought in proof of.
(2.) There is not any of the places instanced in by them wherein the whole of the words is not directly to the purpose in hand, al- though some of them are more immediately suited to the occasion on which the whole testimony is produced, as it were easy to mani- fest by the consideration of the several places.
(3.) These words, " Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated ini- quity," are not mentioned to prove immediately the excellency of
DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 277
Christ above angels, but Lis administration of his kingdom, on which account, among others, he is so excellent; and thereunto they are most proper.