His fourth question to this matter is, " How ought men to honour the Son of God, Christ Jesus?" and it is answered, "John v. 23, 'Even as they honour the Father.'"
This, then, is consented unto on both sides, that Jesus Christ is to be worshipped and honoured with the same worship and honour wherewith the Father is worshipped and honoured; that is, with that worship and honour which is divine and religious, — with that subjec- tion of soul, and in the performance of those duties, which are due to God alone.^ How Socinus himself doubled in this business and was entangled shall be afterward discovered. What use will be made of this in the issue of this discourse the reader may easily conjecture.
His next question, discovering the danger of the non-perform- ance of this duty of yielding divine honour and worship to Christ, strengthens the former assertion, and therefore I have nothing to except or add thereunto.
In question the sixth, Mr B. labours to defend the throat of his cause against the edge of that weapon which is sharpened against it by this concession, that Jesus Christ is to be worshipped with divine worship as the Father is, by a diversion of it, with a consideration of the grounds of the assignation of this worship to Christ. His words are: —
Q. Ought men to honour the Son as they honour the Father because he hath the same essence with the Father, or because he hath the same judiciary power f what is the decision of the Son himself concerning this point?
A. John V. 22, 23.
' Oil KTiffTos roivvt 0 Xoyoi, on tfotrxitriros. — Epiphan. in Ancorat.
374 VINDICIiE EVANGELIC.E.
The sum is : The same worship is to be given to the Father and the Son, but upon several grounds; — to the Father, because he is God by nature, because of his divine essence; to the Son, because of a dele- gated judiciary power committed to him by the Father. For the discovery of the vanity of this assertion, in the close of our consider- ation of this matter, I shall manifest, —
1. That there neither is nor can be any more than one formal cause of the attribution of the same divine worship to any one; so that to whomsoever it is ascribed, it is upon one and the same indi- vidual account, as to the formal and fundamental cause thereof
2. That no delegated power of judgment is or can be a sufficient ground or c^se of yielding that worship and honour to him to whom it is delegated which is proper to God.
For the present, to the text pleaded, "The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father," I say in brief, that 'ha -TrdvTig ri/xuiffi is not expressive of the formal cause of the honour- ing and adoration of Christ, but of an effectual motive to men to honour him, to whom, upon the account of his divine nature, that honour is due; — as in the first commandment, "I am the Lord thy God, that brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage; thou shalt have no other gods before me," that expres- sion, "That brought thee out of the land of Egypt," is a motive to the worship of God, but not the formal cause of it, that being due to him as he is by nature God, blessed for ever, though he had never brought that people out of Egypt. But of this more afterward.
Question 7, a farther diversion from the matter in hand is at- tempted by this inquiry: —
Q. Did the Father give judiciary power to the Son, because he had in Mm the divine nature personalis/ united to the human, or because he ivas the Son of man? ivhat is tlie decision ofth^ Son himself concerning this point also ?
A. " He hath given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man," John v. 27.
1. A point in difference is stated, and its decision inquired after, wherein there is no s\ich difference at all. Nor do we say that God gave Christ the judiciary power, wherewith as mediator he is in- vested, because he had in him the divine nature personally united to the human. The power that Christ hath upon the account of his divine nature is not delegated, but essential to him. Nor can Mr B. name any that have so stated the difference as he here proposes it.
2. We say not that Christ had in him the divine nature personally united to the human, but that the human nature was personally united to the divine, his personality belonging to him upon the ac- count of his divine nature, not his human.
3. We grant that the judiciary power that was delegated to
OF cpirist's kingly office. 375
Christ as mediator, he being appointed of God to judge the world, Avas given him " because he is the Son of man," or was made man to be our mediator, and to accomplish the great work of the salvation of mankind ; but that divine worship, proper to God the Father, is due, and to be yielded and ascribed to him, on this ground and reason, " because he is the Son of man," Mr B. cannot prove, nor doth attempt it.