DISCOURSE I.

THE SUBORDINATION OF THE SON TO THE FATHER.

1 COR. viii. 6:

To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

THE apostle, in the beginning of this chapter, represents it as a notion common to all men, and more especially received by all Christians, that there is but one God. For, saith he, "we know that there is no other God, si μn is, but one only" (ver. 4). And in the beginning of this verse he as expressly tells us, that this one God of the Christians, is God the Father only: for seeing that it is expressly said (ver. 4), "that there is not étepoç Beds ei μò éïs, any other God but one only," and as expressly said, that this e ed i Пatyp, this one God is the Father.* Hence doth it plainly follow, that this one God of the Christians is God the Father, and no other; and suitably to this, (by saying that to us there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ,) he must intend to signify that he is diapITIKËS, by way of distinction, and peculiarly the one Lord of Christians; so that no other is so in the same import of the words: for whereas it is said by some, that as the apostle, by saying there is one Lord, to wit, Jesus Christ, cannot be reasonably supposed to exclude the Father from being also the Lord of the Christians; so neither, by saying there is one God, the Father, ought he to be supposed to exclude Jesus Christ from being also the God of Christians. To this it is replied, that the Father is certainly excluded from being our Lord in that sense in which Christ is in Scripture styled so, seeing he cannot be made Lord and Christ by God, as Jesus Christ is said to be (Acts ii. 36). He cannot be exalted to be "Lord, to the glory of God the Father," as he is said to be (Phil. ii. 9, 10, 11): nor can he be that Lord to whom another Lord said, "Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool." Hence it is observable,

First, that though in the Epistles of the apostles we have

Vide Euseb. Eccles. Theol. Lib. i. C. vi. p. 64.

frequent mention of Jesus Christ our Lord, yet he is always distinguished from God the Father; as in these words (Rom. xvi. 27), "To the only wise God be glory, through Jesus Christ."

Secondly: It is said, that "all things are of God, reconciling us to himself, through our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. v. 18, 19); whereas it is absurd to say, that God reconciled us to himself by himself, as he must do, if our Lord Jesus Christ had the same individual essence with himself.

Thirdly: St. Paul declares, that "every tongue must confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father;" which plainly shews the distinction in essence between them; for nothing can be done by him, who is one in essence with God the Father, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. ii. 9, 10, 11). And,

Fourthly, he styles himself an apostle, "by the commandment, or will, of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Tim. i. 1); which is inconsistent with an individual unity of essence in both God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ; for where the essence is one, the will and the command must be one also. And again (2 Tim. iv. 1), "I charge thee, therefore, before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing;" which words plainly imply a distinction betwixt him who is here called God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Lastly: St. Peter saith, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (chap. i. 3); and adds (ver. 31), that by him we believe in God. Now he by whom we believe in God, cannot be that God in whom we believe.

Secondly: Observe that, throughout the Acts of the Apostles, our blessed Saviour is often called "our Lord Jesus Christ,' but never styled our God. There it is plainly said, that he "who had God with him, and was anointed with the Holy Ghost, and with power, &c., and was sent by God to preach the word, and was ordained by him to be judge of all men, was Lord of all." And how he became so, the same apostle informs us in these words: "This Jesus hath God raised up and exalted," &c. "Know ye, therefore, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye crucified, both Lord and Christ" (Acts ii. 32, 33 and 36). There it is said that the dispersed Christians preached the Lord Jesus (chap. xi. 20). They hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (chap. xv. 26). St. Paul and Barnabas there say to the jailor," Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thine house" (chap. xvi. 31, and xix. 5). He baptizeth the twelve disciples of John in the name of the Lord Jesus. And (chap. xx. 21), " "They

testify both to the Jews and Greeks, repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ."

Now baptism doth certainly procure our admission into the church of Christ, and gives us a title to salvation; and so also doth faith in our Lord Jesus, as St. Paul testifies in these words: "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth, Kúpov 'Inoov, Jesus the Lord, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Rom. x. 9). These things have been observed in a little treatise, which saith thus, That the Acts of the Apostles gives us a full history of the conversion of myriads, both of the Jews and Gentiles, to the Christian faith; and yet St. Peter and St. Paul, the great instruments of their conversion, say not one word to engage Christians to believe that Christ was God of the same individual essence with the Father, but think it sufficient to preach to them faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and to baptize them in the name of the Lord Jesus, that they might be saved.

If then the belief of the numerical identity of God the Father and the Son in essence, will and actions, be necessary to salvation, why was it not then as fully and expressly taught as it could be? Why were those great apostles so silent in a thing so necessary? Was either Sabellius, or any one else, wiser than these apostles, or more faithful in the discharge of their office? If not, whence comes this signal difference betwixt that which the apostles taught then, and which other men have taught since?

Thirdly: Observe that our blessed Lord himself doth plainly own himself to be our Lord and Master, as in those words (John xiii. 13), "Ye call me Master and Lord; and ye say well, for so I am."

66

He is frequently styled Lord by his disciples, in their discourses with him and addresses to him; as when they say, Lord, teach us to pray;' Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel," &c. But yet they never, whilst he was on earth, styled him God, much less the same individual God with the Father; and, which is more considerable, our blessed Lord himself always declined the owning himself to be equal with the Father.

For it is observable, that Christ being thrice accused of blasphemy for making himself equal with God, or for doing that which the Jews thought belonged to God alone to do, never directly answers that he was equal to him; whereas, if he was sent to preach that doctrine to the world, it was reasonable to expect he would have so done. But he still speaks in such a manner as one who waived that assertion.

For when the scribes inquire, "Why doth this man, Tos,

speak blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but one, that is God?" (Mark ii. 7), he doth not answer (as some have done for him), that this proved him to be God, but only saith, "The Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive (the temporal punishment of) sins:" accordingly (ver. 10), he ascribes to himself this power, not as he was the Son of God, much less as being of the same individual essence with the Father, but only as he was the Son of Man. And again, from these words (John v. 17), "My Father worketh hitherto, [works of providential care, goodness and mercy, and these charitable actions] I work also:" I say, Ι from his calling God his Father in so peculiar a manner as he did, (and had just cause to do, had he been only miraculously conceived in the virgin's womb, and upon that account the "Son of God," Luke i. 35; "the Son of the Most High," ver. 32), they invidiously infer (ver. 18), that he called God Пarépa idov, that is, his own Father, in such a proper sense as made him equal to God, as a son is to his father.

Now to this Christ doth not answer, as might have been expected from one sent into the world to confirm that doctrine, to wit, that he had reason thus to call God his Father, as being of the same individual essence with him: but his answer contains many things seemingly inconsistent with that doctrine; for, on the contrary, his reply is, that he "could do nothing of himself" (vers. 19 and 30); that the Father "judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son" (ver. 22); and "that because he is the Son of Man" (ver. 27). "That he sought not his own will, but the will of his Father that sent him;” avtds, He was the Person that bore witness of him (ver. 37); and "that he came not in his own, but in his Father's name " (ver. 43). And lastly, that "the works which his Father had given him [power] to do, bore witness of him that the Father had sent him" (ver. 36). All which sayings are plainly inconsistent with a strict identity of essence, of will and actions, in God the Father and the Son. In chap. x., they accuse him of blasphemy, not for saying (ver. 30), "I and the Father are one;" but, as Christ himself declares (ver. 36), because he said, "I am the Son of God." And yet, being accused of blasphemy, because being a man he made himself God," he had reason and opportunity to have made another sort of answer, whereas he only proves himself to be the Son of God.

66

First, Because the Father had "sanctified him, and sent him into the world ;" whereas it is absurd to say that he either sanctified or sent into the world his own numerical essence. And,

Secondly, Because "he did the works of his Father" (ver. 37), to wit, by virtue of that power which the Father had given him to do them (John v. 36); and "by the Spirit of his Father

dwelling in him :" for he did them by the "Spirit of God" (Matt. xii. 28): "by the finger of God" (Luke xi. 20).

Fourthly: It is evident from the Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, that mention is made of two Lords, one having absolute dominion over all things in heaven and earth, according to these words of our blessed Saviour, "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth;" another who receiveth all his dominion from this Father, and that is our Lord Jesus Christ, according to the words immediately following, "all things are delivered to me of my Father." This we learn, first, from these plain words of the Psalmist, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool" (Ps. cx. 1). For that this Lord is our Lord Jesus Christ, he himself expressly teacheth, by saying, that " David in spirit called him Lord" (Matt. xxii. 43). So do the apostles, after they had received the Holy Ghost, also prove Christ's resurrection and ascension to heaven, to sit at the right hand of God, from this very place (Acts ii. 34, 35). So likewise doth St. Paul declare, that God the Father "hath put all things under his feet;" and that he who put all things under his feet is the Father, to whom he must deliver up the kingdom at the end of the world and that when it is said, "All things are put under his feet, it is manifest that he is excepted, that did put all things under him" (1 Cor. xv. 24-28). And again, he proveth the superiority of the Lord Jesus to the whole angelical order by this: "To which of the angels hath he said, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?" (Heb. i. 13).

Secondly: This derived dominion of the Son from the Father, is plainly delivered to us by the prophet Daniel in these words: "I saw one like the Son of Man come with the clouds of heaven, and come to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations and languages should serve him" (Dan. vii. 13, 14). But,

Thirdly, This derived dominion is so firmly established in Christ's own words, that we need no farther demonstration of it; for, after his resurrection, he expressly saith to his disciples, "All power in heaven and earth is given to me" (Matt. xxviii. 18). Elsewhere he speaks to his Father thus: "Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him" (John xvii. 2). And (John v. 22), "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son; even to that Son whom he hath sent into the world;" for so it follows (ver. 23), " He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father that sent him." At his temptation he expressly owns that God the Father is his God: