Page images

mentioned were. Now, if there be no possible reason to be assigned as the formal cause of this worship but his deity, they must either acknowledge him to be God or deny themselves to be Christians.

Some directions, by the way, may be given from that which hath been spoken as to the guidance of our souls in the worship of God, or in our addresses to the throne of grace by Jesus Christ. What God hath discovered of himself unto us, he would have us act faith upon in all that we have to deal with him in. By this we are assured we worship the true God, and not an idol, when we worship him who has revealed himself in his word, and as he has revealed himself. Now, God hath declared himself to be three in one; for it is written, “There are three that bear record in heaven, and these three are one,"1 John v. 7. So, then, is he to be worshipped. And not only so, but the order of the three persons in that Deity, the eternal, internal order among themselves, is revealed to us. The Father is of none, is abrausos. The Son is begotten of the Father, having the glory of the only-begotten Son of God, and so is aúróleos in respect of his nature, essence, and being, not in respect of his personality, which he hath of the Father. The Spirit is of the Father and the Son. He is often so called the Spirit of God and the Spirit of the Son. For the term of “proceeding," or " going forth,” I profess myself ignorant whether it concern chiefly his eternal personality or his dispensation in the work of the gospel. The latter I rather like; of which this is no time to give my reasons. But be those expressions of what import soever, he is equally the Spirit of the Father and the Son, and is of them both and from them both. God, then, by us is to be worshipped as he hath revealed the subsistence of the three persons

in this order, and so are we to deal with him in our approaches to him: not that we are to frame any conception in our minds of distinct substances, which are not; but by faith closing with this revelation of them, we give up our souls in contemplation and admiration of that we cannot comprehend.

2. There is an external economy and dispensation of the persons in reference to the work of our salvation, and what we draw nigh to them for. So the Father is considered as the foundation of all mercy, grace, glory, every thing that is dispensed in the covenant or revealed in the gospel, the Son receiving all from him, and the Spirit [being] sent by the Son to effect and complete the whole good pleasure of God in us and towards us. And in and under the consideration of this economy is God of us to be worshipped.

"All things,” saith Christ,“ are delivered unto me of my Father, " Matt. xi. 27 (that is, to me as mediator); therefore “come unto me. And in his prayer, John xvii. 8, “I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou

didst send me." So most fully John iii. 34, 35. He is sent of God; and from the love of the Father to him as mediator are all things given him. “It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell,” Col. i. 19; John i. 16. John v. 26, “He hath given him to have life,"—that is, as he is mediator, appointed him to be the fountain of spiritual life to his elect. And Rev. i. 1, the revelation of the will of God is given unto Christ by the Father, as to this end of discovering it to the church.

Hence ariseth the second way of faith's acting itself towards God in our worship of him. It eyes the Father as the fountain of this dispensation, and the Son as the mediator, as the storehouse, and the Spirit as immediate communicator thereof. Here also it considers the Son under these two distinct notions:-first, as the ordinance and servant of the Father in the great work of mediation. So it loves him, delights in him, and rejoiceth in the wisdom of God in finding out and giving such a means of life, salvation, and union with himself; and so by Christ believes in God, even the Father. It considers him, secondly, as the way of going to the Father; and there it rests, as the ultimate object of all the religious actings of the soul. So we are very often said through and by Christ to believe in God, and by him to have an access to God and an entrance to the throne of grace. In this sense, I say, when we draw nigh to God in any religious worship, yea, in all the first actings and movings of our souls towards him in faith and loye, the Lord Christ is considered as mediator, as clothed with his offices, as doing the will of the Father, as serving the design of his love; and so the soul is immediately fixed on God through Christ, being strengthened, supported, and sustained, by the consideration of Christ as the only procuring cause of all the good things we seek from God, and of our interest in those excellencies which are in him, which make him excellent to us.

And this is the general consideration that faith hath of Christ in all our dealings with God. We "ask in his name,

We “ask in his name," " for his sake," go to God “on his account," "through him," and the like; are strengthened and emboldened upon the interest of him as our high priest and intercessor; God the Father being yet always immediately in our eye as the primary object of our worship. But yet now again, this Christ as mediator, so sent and intrusted by the Father, as above, is also one with the Father, God, to be blessed for ever

Faith also takes in this consideration; and so he who before was the means of fixing our faith on God is thereupon become the proper object of our faith himself. We believe in him, invocate, call upon him, worship him, put our trust in him, and live unto him. Over and above, then, the distinction that the eternal persons have in the manner of in-being in the same essence, which also is the ole

[ocr errors]


ject of our faith, that distinction which they have in the external economy is to be considered in our religious worship of God;—and herein is Christ partly eyed as the Father's servant, the means and cause of all our communion with God, and so is the medium of our worship, not the object; partly as God and man vested with that office, and so he is the primary and ultimate object of it also. And this may give us, I say, some assistance to order our thoughts aright towards God, and some light into that variety of expressions which we have in Scripture about worshipping of God in Christ, and worshipping of Christ also. So is it in respect of the Spirit.

Having cleared the whole matter under consideration, it may be worth the while a little to consider the condition of our adversaries in reference to this business, wherein, of all other things, as I said before, they are most entangled. Of the contests and disputes of Socinus with Franciscus David about this business, I have given the reader an account formerly, and of the little success he had therein. The man would fain have stood when he had kicked away the ground from under his feet, but was not able. And never was he more shamefully gravelled in any dispute than in that which he had with Christianus Franken about this business, whereof I shall give the reader a brief account.

This Franken seems to have been a subtile fellow, who, denying with Socinus that Christ was God, saw evidently that it was impossible to find out a foundation of yielding religious worship or adoration unto him. With him about this matter Socinus had a solemn dispute in the house of one Paulicovius, anno 1584, March 14. Franken in this disputation was the opponent, and his first argument is this: “Look how great distance there is between the Creator and the creature, so great ought the difference to be between the honour that is exhibited to the one and the other. But between the Creator and the creature there is the greatest difference, whether you respect nature and essence, or dignity and excellency; and therefore there ought to be the greatest difference between the honour of the Creator and the creature. But the honour that chiefly is due

. to God is religious worship; therefore this is not to be given to a creature, therefore not to Christ, whom you confess to be a mere creature.”: This, I say, was his first argument. To which Socinus


1 Disputatio inter Faustum Socinum et Christianum Franken de honore Christi, id est, utrum Christus cum ipse perfectissima ratione Deus non sit religiosa tamen adorttione colendus sit, Habita, 14 Martii, anno 1584, in aula Christophori Paulicovii.

3 "Quanta distantia inter Creatorem est et creaturam, tanta esse debet differentia inter honorem qui Creatori exhibetur et qui creaturæ tribuitur. Atqui inter Creatorem et creaturam maxima est distantia, sive essentiam et naturam spectes, sive digni. tatem et excellentiam, ergo et maxima esse debet differentia inter honorem Dei et creaturæ. At honor qui præcipue debetur Deo est religiosa adoratio ; ergo hæc non est tribuenda creaturve, ergo neque Christo, quem tu puram esse creaturam fateris.”— De Adorat. Christi, Disput. cum Christoph. Fran.,

P. 4.


answers: “Although the difference between God and the creature be the greatest, yet it doth not follow that the difference between their honour must be so; for God can communicate his honour to whom he will, especially to Christ, who is worthy of such honour, and who is not commanded to be worshipped without weighty causes for it.”

But, by the favour of this disputant, God cannot give that honour that is due unto him upon the account of his excellency and eminency, as he is the first cause of all things and the last end (which is the ground of divine worship), to any one who hath not his nature. The honour due to God cannot be given to him who is not God. His honour, the honour of him as God, is that which is due to him as God. Now, that he should give that honour that is due to him as God to him which is not God, is utterly impossible and contradictory to itself. We confess that there be most weighty causes why Christ should be worshipped, yet but one formal reason of that worship we can acknowledge; and therefore when Franken had taken off this absurd answer by sundry instances and reasons, Socinus is driven to miserable evasions. First, he cries out, “I can answer all these testimonies;” to which when the other replied, " And I can give a probable answer to all the texts you produce arguing the ado‘ration of Christ,"3 being driven to hard shifts, he adds, “ I am as certain of the truth of my opinion as I am that I hold this hat in my hand,”:—which is a way of arguing that is commonly used by men that have nothing else to say. Wherefore Franken laughs at him, and tells him, “ Your certainty cannot be a rule of truth to me and others, seeing another man may be found that will say he is most certain to the contrary opinion.” So that, prevailing nothing by this means, he is forced to turn the tables; and instead of an answer, which he could not give to Franken's argument, to become opponent and urge an argument against him. Saith he, “My certainty of this

. thing is as true as it is true that the apostle saith of Christ, ‘Let all the angels of God worship him.""* But, by the favour of this dispu

, tant, this is not his business. He was to answer Franken's argu

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]



1 « Etsi summa est inter Deum et creaturam distantia, non tamen necesse est, tan. tam esse differentiam inter honorem Dei et creaturæ; nam potest Deus cui vult commu. nicare honorem suum, Christo præsertim, qui dignus est tali honore, quique non sine gravissimis causis adorari jubetur in sacris literis.”—Disput. de Adorat. Christi, p. 6.

? " Ad illa omnia testimonia ego possum respondere.”—P. 7.

3“ Et ego ad omnes tuos locos, Christi adorationem urgentes, probabilem potero responsionem affere.”—P. 8.

4 " De veritate meæ sententiæ tam sum certus, quam certo scio me istum pileum manibus tenere.”—P. 9.

5 • Tua ista certitudo non potest et mihi et aliis esse veritatis regula, nam reperietur alius quispiam, qui dicat, sententiam tuæ contrariam ex sacris libris sibi esse persuasissimam."

6 " Tam vera est hac de re mea certitudo, quam verum est apostolum de Christo dixisse, Adorent eum omnes angeli."—P. 10.


a means.

ment, whereby he proved that he was not to be worshipped, and not to have brought a contrary testimony, which is certainly to be interpreted according to the issue of the reason insisted on. And this was the end of that first argument between them.

The next argument of Franken, whereby he brought his adversary to another absurdity, had its rise from a distinction given by Socinus about a twofold religious worship;-one kind whereof, without any medium, was directed to God; the other is yielded him by Christ as

The first he says is proper to God, the other belongs to Christ only. Now, he is blind that doth not see that, for what he doth here to save himself, he doth but beg the thing in question. Who granted him that there was a twofold religious worship,-one of this sort, and another of that? Is it a sufficient answer, for a man to repeat his own hypothesis to answer an argument lying directly against it? He grants, indeed, upon the matter all that Franken desired, -namely, that Christ was not to be worshipped with that worship wherewith God is worshipped, and consequently not with divine. But Franken asks him whether this twofold worship was of the same kind or no?' to which he answered, that it was because it abode not in Christ, but through him passed to God.' Upon which, after the interposition of another entangling question, the man thus replies unto him: “This, then, will follow, that even the image of Christ is to be worshipped, because one and the same worship respects the image as the means, Christ as the end, as Thomas Aquinas tells us, from whom you borrowed your figment." Yet this very fancy Socinus seems afterward to illustrate, by taking a book in his hand, sliding it along upon a table, showing how it passed by some hands where truly it was, but stayed not till it came to the end: for which gross allusion he was sufficiently derided by his adversary I shall not insist on the other arguments wherewith on his own hypothesis he was miserably gravelled by this Franken, and after all his pretence of reason forced to cry out, “These are philosophical arguments, and contrary to the gospel.” The disputation is extant, with the notes of Socinus upon it, for his own vindication; which do not indeed one whit mend the matter. And of this matter thus far.


“ Duplex est adoratio, altera quidem quæ sine ullo medio dirigitur in Deum: altera vero per medium Christum defertur ad Deum ; illa adoratio est soli Deo propria, hæc vero convenit Christo tantum."-Disput. de Adorat. Christi, p. 11.

2 66

Estne utraque adoratio ista ejusdem speciei ?”—P. 11. 8 " Est, quia adoratio Christi est ipsius Dei, quippe quæ in Christo non conquiescat, sed per eum transeat in Deum.”—P. 12.

1 * Hoc sequetur, quod ipsius etiam Christi imago sit adoranda, quia una et eadem adoratio respicit in imaginem, tanquam medium, in Christum tanquam finem, quemadmodum Thomas Aquinas docet, a quo tuum tu commentum es mutuatus.”—P. 13.

« PreviousContinue »