was I am.' God possessed him in the beginning of his ways, being then his only begotten Son, full of grace and truth. Mr. B. indeed, hath small hopes of despoiling Christ of his eternal glory by his queries, if they spend themselves in such fruitless sophistry as this.

Qu. 4, 5. How came Jesus Christ to be Lord according to the opinion of the apostle Paul? The answer is, Rom. xiv. 19.

'What saith Peter also concerning the time and manner of his being made Lord?' Answer, Acts ii. 32, 33. 36.

Ans. 1. That Jesus Christ as Mediator, and in respect of the work of redemption and salvation of the church to him. committed, was made Lord by the appointment, authority, and designation of his Father, we do not say was the opinion of Paul, but is such a divine truth, as we have the plentiful testimony of the Holy Ghost unto. He was no less made a Lord, than a Priest, and Prophet of his Father; but that the eternal Lordship of Christ, as he is one with his Father, d'God blessed for evermore,' is any way denied by the asserting of this Lordship given him of his Father as Mediator, Mr. B. wholly begs of men to apprehend and grant, but doth not once attempt from the Scripture to manifest or prove. The sum of what Mr. Biddle intends to argue hence is, Christ's submitting himself to the form and work of a servant unto the Father, was exalted by him, and had a name given him above every name,' therefore he was not the Son of God and equal to him. That his condescension into office is inconsistent with his divine essence, is yet to be proved. But may we not beg of our catechist at his leisure to look a little farther into the chapter from whence he takes his first testimony concerning the exaltation of Christ to be Lord; perhaps it may be worth his while. As another argument to that of the dominion and Lordship of Christ, to persuade believers to a mutual forbearance as to judging of one another, he adds ver. 10. We shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ.' And this, ver. 11. the apostle proves from that testimony of the prophet, Isa. xlv. 23. as he renders the sense of the Holy Ghost; As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.' So that Jesus Christ our Lord is that Jed Rom. ix. 5.. R

VOL. VIII.

hovah, that God, to whom all subjection is due, and in particular, that of standing before his judgment-seat; but this is overlooked by Grotius, and not answered to any purpose by Enjedinus, and why should Mr. B. trouble himself with it?

2. For the time assigned by him of his being made Lord, specified by the apostle, it doth not denote his first investiture with that office and power, but the solemn admission into the glorious execution of that lordly power, which was given him as Mediator. At his incarnation and birth, God affirms by the angel, that he was then Christ the Lord;' Luke ii. 11. and when he brought his first begotten into the world, the angels were commanded to worship him;' which, if he were not a Lord, I suppose Mr. B. will not say they could have done. Yea, and as he was both believed in, and worshipped before his death and resurrection; John ix. 38. xiv. 1. which is to be performed only to the Lord our God; Math. iv. 10. so he actually in some measure exercised his lordship towards, and over angels, men, devils, and the residue of the creation, as is known from the very story of the gospel; not denying himself to be a king, yea, witnessing thereunto when he was to be put to death; Luke xxiii. 3. John xviii. 37. as he was from his first shewing unto men; John i. 49.

'Q. 6. Did not Jesus approve himself to be God by his miracles? And did he not these miracles by a divine nature of his own, and because he was of God himself? What is the determination of the apostle Peter in this behalf?'

'A. Acts ii. 22. x. 38.'

The intendment of Mr. Biddle 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 insinuate 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; John v. 21. and himself giving power and authority to others to work miracles by his 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 miracles, 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, &c. as in the place cited; of which afterward. Acts ii. 22. The intendment of Peter is to prove that he was the Messias 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 present purpose. Of the other place there is another reason; for though Grotius expound those words ότι ὃ θεὸς ἦν μετ ̓ αὐτοῦ, 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 interpretation and sense of them. This I say he does, John, x. 37, 38. 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 ¿vepyn

e

If I

• Αποδεδειγμένον. i. e. οἷον μὴ ἀμφισβητούμενον, ἀλλ ̓ ἀποδεδειγμένον διὰ τῶν ἔργων ὧν ἐποίησε δι αὐτοῦ ὁ Θεὸς, ὅτι ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἦν. Græc. Schol.

Tɩç, 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.

A. John v. 19, 20. 30. 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 increased by his asserting his equality with the Father (of which afterward); ver. 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 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 himself 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 not do any work, than such as his Father did also: was impossible he should; not only because he would which sense τὸ ἀβούλητον is one kind of those things

6

which are impossible; but also because of the oneness in will, nature, and power of himself, and his Father, which he asserts in many particulars. 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 manifested.

So that though in regard of his divine personality, as the Son, he hath all things from the Father, being begotten by him, and as Mediator doth all things by his appointment and in his name; yet he in himself is still one with the Father, as to nature and essence, 'God to be blessed for evermore.' And that it was an eternal Son of God that took flesh upon him, &c. hath Mr. B. never read, that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was made flesh;' that God was manifested in the flesh;' and that God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law?' Of which places afterward, in their vindication from the exception of his masters.

His eighth question is of the very same import with that going before, attempting to exclude Jesus Christ from the unity of essence with his Father, by his obedience to him, and his Father's acceptation of him in the work of mediation; which being a most ridiculous begging of the thing in question, as to what he pretends in the query to be argumentative, I shall not farther insist upon it.

Q. 9. We are come to the head of this discourse and of Mr. B.'s design in this chapter; and indeed of the greatest design that he drives in religion, viz. The denial of the eternal Deity of the Son of God, which not only in this place directly, but in sundry others covertly he doth invade

f Semper ea quæ de se prædicare cogitur, Christus ita temperat, ut omnem honorem referat ad patrem, et removeat illud crimen, quasi hominem patri æqualem faciat. Grotius Annot. in Joh. cap. 5. v. 30.