Part 35 (1/2)
Sixthly, He saith of Christ, p. 40, ”He doth nothing as Mediator which he doth not as G.o.d or as man.” It is a dangerous mistake, for take the work of mediation itself, he neither doth it as G.o.d, nor as man, but as G.o.d-man.
Seventhly, He saith, p. 35, ”Nothing can be said of Christ as second person in Trinity, in opposition to Mediator, but in opposition to man there may.” So that he will not admit of this opposition. Christ, as the Second Person in the Trinity, is equal and consubstantial to the Father, but, as Mediator, he is not equal to his Father, but less than his Father, and subject and subordinate to his Father-a distinction used by our divines against the Anti-Trinitarians and Socinians. Now by his not admitting of this distinction, he doth by consequence mire himself in Socinianism; for Christ, as Mediator, is the Father's servant, Isa. xlii.
1; and the Father is greater than he, John xiv. 28; and as the head of the man is Christ, so the head of Christ is G.o.d, 1 Cor. xi. 3. If, therefore, it cannot be said of Christ, as he is the Second Person in the Trinity, that his Father is not greater than he, and that he is not subordinate to G.o.d as his head, then farewell Anti-Socinianism. I dare boldly say, it is impossible to confute the Socinians, or to a.s.sert the eternal G.o.dhead of Jesus Christ, except somewhat be affirmed of him as the Second Person of the Trinity, which must be denied of him as he is Mediator, and something be denied of him as he is the Second Person in the Trinity, which must be affirmed of him as he is Mediator.
Eighthly, He saith, p. 36, That Christ, ”by his mediation, hath obtained from the Father that he shall not judge any man according to rigour, but as they are in or out of Christ; all deferring of judgment from the wicked is in and for Christ, which otherwise the justice of G.o.d would not allow.”
Then Christ did thus far make satisfaction to the justice of G.o.d in the behalf of the wicked, and die for them, that judgment might be deferred from them, and thus far perform acts of mediation for the savages and Mohammedans, and for them that never heard the gospel, that by such mediation he hath obtained of the Father that they shall be judged not according to rigour, but by the gospel. Which intimateth that Christ hath taken away all their sins against the law, so that all men shall now go upon a new score, and none shall be condemned or judged by the law, but by the gospel only; for if Christ have not taken away their sins against the law, the justice of G.o.d will judge them according to the rigour of the law. Must not every jot of the law be fulfilled? And is there not a necessity that every one undergo the curse and rigour of the law, or else that the Mediator hath undergone it for them?
Ninthly, He propounds this query, p. 44: ”Whether ministers have any right to those privileges which are given to the church more than another Christian,” and he holds the negative. Now the preaching of the word, the administration of the sacraments, and the power of the keys, are privileges given to the church, that is, for the church's good: ”For all things are yours (saith the Apostle), whether Paul, or Apollos,” &c., 1 Cor. iii. 21, 22. Therefore, by Mr Hussey's divinity, any other Christian hath as much right to administer word, sacraments, keys, as the minister.
Come on now to Mr Coleman's errors in divinity, not to repeat what was expressed in my _Nihil Respondes_, but to take off the _Male Dicis_ in the main points.
Tenthly, The tenth heterodoxy shall therefore be this, That whatsoever is given to Christ, he hath it not as the eternal Son of G.o.d. Into this ditch did Mr Coleman first fall, and then Mr Hussey, p. 25, after him. I said this tenet leadeth to a blasphemous heresy. For the better understanding whereof let it be remembered what I did promise in my _Nihil Respondes_, p. 11, in reply to his proposition, ”That which is given to Christ he hath it not as G.o.d. This (said I) is in opposition to what I said, p. 45, concerning the heads.h.i.+p and dignity of Christ, as the natural Son of G.o.d, the image of the invisible G.o.d, Col. i. 15, and, p. 43, of the dominion of Christ, as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d. This being premised,” &c. Mr Coleman, without taking the least notice of that which I did purposely and plainly premise, begins to speak of G.o.d _essentially_; and that if something may be given to Christ as G.o.d, then something may be given to G.o.d, and then G.o.d is not absolutely perfect, &c., _Male Dicis_, p. 13, 14.
Thus he turneth over to the essence and nature of G.o.d what I spake of the Second Person in the Trinity, or of Christ as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d. Was not the question between him and me, Whether the kingdom and dominion over all things may be said to be given to Christ as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d. This is the point which he did argue against, because it takes off his argument first brought to prove that all government, even civil, is given to Christ as he is Mediator. And still from the beginning I spake of Christ as the Second Person in the Trinity, or the eternal Son of G.o.d. Thus therefore the case stands: The reverend brother, to prove that an universal sovereignty and government over all things is given to Christ as he is Mediator, and to confute my a.s.sertion that it is given to Christ as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d, doth frame this argument against me, ”That which is given to Christ he hath it not as G.o.d. But here dignity is given to Christ; therefore not here to be taken as G.o.d;” where there is more in the conclusion than in the premises; for the conclusion which naturally follows had been this, Therefore Christ hath not here dignity as G.o.d. It seems he was ashamed of the conclusion, yet not of the premises which infer the conclusion. But this by the way. I speak to his proposition, ”That which is given to Christ he hath it not as G.o.d.” These words ”as G.o.d,” either he understands ??s??d??, _essentially_, or ?p?stat????, _personally_; that is, either in regard of the nature and essence of G.o.d, which is common to the Son of G.o.d with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and in respect whereof they three are one; or in regard of the person of the Word, as Christ is the Second Person in the Trinity, and personally distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost. If in the former sense, then he must lay aside his whole argument, as utterly impertinent, and making nothing at all against my thesis, which affirmed that an universal dominion and kingdom over all things is given to Christ, not as he is Mediator (in which capacity he is only King of the church), but as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d. In opposing of which a.s.sertion, as the reverend brother was before _nihil respondens_, so now he is twice nought.
But if in the other sense he understands his proposition (which I must needs suppose he doth, it being in opposition to what I said), then I still aver his proposition will infer a blasphemous heresy, as I proved before by a clear demonstration: That which is given to Christ he hath it not as G.o.d. But life, glory, &c., is given to Christ; therefore Christ hath not life, glory, &c., as G.o.d. The reverend brother saith, ”I acknowledge the conclusion unsound, and I deny not but that the major is mine own, and the minor is the very Scripture.” Yet he denies the conclusion, and clears himself by this simile, ”That which was given this poor man he had not before. But a s.h.i.+lling was given this poor man; therefore he had not a s.h.i.+lling before: where both propositions are true, yet the conclusion is false (saith he), contrary to the axiom, _Ex veris nil nisi verum_.” You are extremely out, Sir: your syllogism of the poor man is _fallacia ab amphibolia_. The major of it is ambiguous, dubious, and fallacious, and cannot be admitted without a distinction. But here you acknowledge the major of my argument to be your own, and so not fallacious in your opinion. You acknowledge the minor to be Scripture. You have not found four terms in my premises, nor charged my major or minor with the least fault in matter or form, and yet, forsooth, you deny the conclusion, and do not admit that incontrovertible maxim in logic, _Ex veris nil nisi verum_; or, as Kekerman hath it, _Ex veris praeemissis falsam conclusionem colligi est impossibile_,(1357)-It is impossible that a false conclusion should be gathered from true premises. Now let us hear what he would say against my conclusion;-it is concerning the sense of the word _hath_: ”For _hath_ (saith he) by me is used for receiving or having by virtue of the gift, but by him for having fundamentally, originally.” You are still out, Sir. I take it just as you take it. For though the Son of G.o.d, as G.o.d essentially, or in respect of the nature and essence of G.o.d, which is common to all Three Persons in the blessed Trinity, hath originally of himself a kingdom and dominion over all; yet, as he is the Second Person in the Trinity, begotten of, and distinct from the Father, he hath the kingdom and dominion over all not of himself, but by virtue of the gift of his Father. So that the reverend brother is still _nihil respondens_, and therefore he shall be concluded in this syllogism: He who holds that whatsoever is given to Christ he hath it not by virtue of the gift, as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d or Second Person in the Trinity, but only as Mediator,-he holds, by consequence, that Christ hath not glory by virtue of his Father's gift, as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d or Second Person in the Trinity. But Mr Coleman holds the former; therefore Mr Coleman holds the latter. The consequence in the proposition is proved from John xvii.
22, ”The glory which thou gavest me.” The a.s.sumption he will own, or else quit his argument against my distinction of the double kingdom given to Christ, as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d, and as Mediator. The conclusion which follows is heretical; for whereas the Nicene Creed said of Christ, in regard of his eternal generation, that he is _Deus de Deo, Lumen de lumine_,-G.o.d of G.o.d, Light of light, Mr Coleman's argument will infer that he is not only _ex seipso Deus_, but _ex seipso Filius_; and so deny the eternal generation of the Son of G.o.d, and the communication of the G.o.dhead, and the sovereignty, glory, and attributes thereof, from the Father to the Son. For if Christ, as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d, hath not glory by virtue of his Father's gift, then he hath it not by virtue of the eternal generation and communication, but fundamentally and originally of himself.
As for the other branch of Mr Coleman's argument, tending to prove that Christ, as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d, cannot be given, which he endeavours to vindicate, p. 14, 15, I answer these two things:
_First_, Granting all that he saith, he concludes nothing against me; for I did from the beginning expound these words, Eph. i. 22, ”And gave him to be the head over all things to the church,” in this sense, That Christ as Mediator is given only to the church, to be her head, but he that is given as Mediator to the church is _over all_. So that the giving of Christ there spoken of is as Mediator, and he is given to the church only, which I cleared by the Syriac, ”And him who is over all he gave to be the head to the church.” But his being _over all_, there spoken of, if understood of glory, dignity, excellency over all, so Christ is over all as Mediator (yea, in regard of the exaltation of his human nature), and this helpeth not Mr Coleman, who intends to prove from that place that all government, even civil, is given to Christ as Mediator. But if understood of a kingdom and government over all, so he is over all, as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d or Second Person of the Trinity, and not as Mediator.
_Secondly_, The question which the reverend brother falls upon, concerning the personal inhabitation of the Holy Ghost, will never follow from anything which I said, more than G.o.d's giving of his Son to us will infer a personal inhabitation of the Son of G.o.d in us. That which I said was to this intent, That both the Son of G.o.d and the Holy Ghost are given, not as G.o.d essentially; that is, in respect of the G.o.dhead itself, or as they are one in nature with the Father (for so the Father that giveth, and the Holy Ghost which is given, could not be distinguished), but the Son is given as the Son proceeding from the Father, and the Holy Ghost is given as the Holy Ghost proceeding and sent from the Father and the Son. Whether he be given to dwell personally in us, or by his gracious operations only, is another question, which hath nothing to do with the present argument, and therefore I will not be led out of my way.
Eleventhly, The eleventh heterodoxy is this: ”I see no absurdity to hold that every man in authority is either Christ's vicegerent, or the devil's.” _Male Dicis_, p. 16. Here I make this inference: Heathen and infidel magistrates, either, 1. They are not men in authority; or, 2. They are Christ's vicegerents; or, 3. They are the devil's, _Male Dicis._ If he say they are not men in authority, he shall contradict the apostle Paul, who calls them higher powers, Rom. xiii. 1, and men in authority, 1 Tim.
ii. 2, speaking in reference even to the magistrates of that time, who were infidels. If he say they are Christ's vicegerents, then, 1. He must say, that Christ, as Mediator, reigns without the church, and is a king to those to whom he is neither priest nor prophet. 2. He must find a commission given by Christ to the infidel magistrate. 3. Whom in authority will he make to be the devil's vicegerents if infidel magistrates be Christ's vicegerents? If he say that they are the devil's vicegerents, then it follows, 1. That they who resist the devil's vicegerent resist the ordinance of G.o.d; for they that resist an infidel magistrate, and do not submit to his lawful authority (which his infidelity takes not away), is said, Rom. xiii. 2, to resist the ordinance of G.o.d. 2. That the apostle Paul bade pray for the devil's vicegerent, 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2. The reverend brother doth but more and more wind himself into a labyrinth of errors, while he endeavours to take away the distinction of the twofold kingdom, and the twofold vicegerents.h.i.+p of G.o.d and of Christ.
Twelfthly, The twelfth heterodoxy followeth: ”Now it is true that Christ, being G.o.d as well as man, hath of himself originally, as G.o.d, whatsoever he hath by virtue of gift as Mediator,” _Male Dicis_, p. 13. Now subsume Christ hath, by virtue of gift, as Mediator, the priestly office; therefore, by Mr Coleman's principles, Christ hath of himself originally, as G.o.d, the priestly office. And if Christ hath it of himself originally as G.o.d, then the Father and the Holy Ghost hath it also; so that by his doctrine the Father and the Holy Ghost shall be the priests of the church as well as Christ, for Christ hath nothing of himself originally as G.o.d which the Father and the Holy Ghost have not likewise.
Thirteenthly, The thirteenth and last error concerneth the office of deacons. Not only a widow but a deacon is denied to be a church officer, or to have any warrant from Scripture. ”I hold not a widow a church officer (saith he); no more do I a deacon; both having a like foundation in Scripture, which is truly none at all,” _Male Dicis,_ p. 9. If this was his opinion formerly, why did he not in so main a point enter his dissent from the votes of the a.s.sembly concerning deacons, together with his reasons? Well, his opinion is so now, whereby he runneth contrary not only to the reformed churches (which it seems weigh not much in his balance), but to the plain Scripture, which speaks of the office of a deacon, 1 Tim.
iii. 10; and this could be no civil office, but an ecclesiastical office, for the deacons were chosen by the church, were ordained with prayer and laying on of hands, and their charge was to take special care of the poor; all which is clear, Acts vi. If he had given us the grounds of his opinion he should have heard more against it.
CHAPTER V.
THE PRELATICAL WAY AND TENETS OF MR COLEMAN AND MR HUSSEY, REPUGNANT ALSO, IN DIVERS PARTICULARS, TO THE VOTES AND ORDINANCES OF PARLIAMENT.
1. Mr Coleman, in his _Re-examination_, p. 14, makes the Parliament to be church governors and church officers to the whole kingdom. It was an argument used against the prelates, that ecclesiastical and civil government, spiritual and secular administrations, are inconsistent in the same persons, either of which requireth the whole man. It was another exception against the prelate, that he a.s.sumed the power of church government and ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the whole diocese, which was much more than he could discharge. How will Mr Coleman avoid the involving the Parliament into prelatical guiltiness by his principles, which we avoid by ours?
2. The prelates sought great things for themselves rather than to purge the church of scandals. What other thing was it when Mr Coleman, in his third rule, instead of exhorting to the purging the church, called only for learning and competency, and told it out, that this will ”get us an able ministry, and procure us honour enough.” Mr Hussey, in his Epistle to myself, tells me, that our attending on reading, exhortation and doctrine (without government) will obtain the magistrate's love, ”more honour, more maintenance:” something for shame he behoved to add of the punis.h.i.+ng of sin (yet he will not have the minister called from his study to be troubled or to take any pains in discipline), but behold the love of the magistrate; more honour and more maintenance, are strong ingredients in the Erastian electuary.
3. Mr Hussey will have ministers placed ”without any regard to the allowance or disallowance of the people,” _Epist. to the Parliament._ This is prelatical, or rather more than prelatical.
4. The prelates were great enemies to ruling elders: so are Mr Coleman and Mr Hussey, who acknowledge no warrant from the word of G.o.d for that calling, nor admit of any ruling elders who are not magistrates,-a distinction which was used by Saravia and Bilson in reference to the Jewish elders, and by Bishop Hall in reference to the elders of the ancient church who were not preaching elders, _a.s.sert. of Episcop. by Divine Right_, p. 208, 209, 221,-and now, forsooth, Mr Hussey, in his _Epistle to the Parliament_, doth earnestly beseech them to ”set up cla.s.ses, consisting only of ministers, whose work should be only to preach the word,” &c. Such cla.s.ses, I dare say, the prelates themselves will admit of. Sure the Scottish prelates, when they were at their highest, yielded as much.
Mr Coleman and Mr Hussey hold, that ruling elders and a church government distinct from the civil government, in the times of persecution and under pagan magistrates, can be no warrant for the like where the state is Christian. This plea for Christian magistracy was Bishop Whitgift's plea against the ruling elders, _Answer to the Admon._, p. 114.