A 1          A 2                    A 3–4                 A 5–7                 A 8–12

Article  II.

And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.

      The second Article of the Creed presents unto us, as the object of our faith, the second Person of the blessed Trinity; that as in the Divinity there is nothing intervening between the Father and the Son, so that immediate union might be perpetually expressed by a constant conjunction in our Christian Confession.  And that upon no less authority than of the Author and Finisher of our faith, who in the persons of the Apostles gave this command to us, Ye believe in God, believe also in me. [John 14:1]  Nor speaketh he this of himself; but from the Father which sent him: for this is his commandment, that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ. [1 John 3:23]  According therefore to the Son’s prescription, the Father’s injunction, and the sacramental institution, as we are baptized, so do we believe in the name of the Father and the Son.*

      Our blessed Saviour is here represented under a threefold description: first, by his nomination, as Jesus Christ; secondly, by his generation, as the only Son of God; thirdly, by his dominion, as our Lord.

      But when I refer Jesus Christ to the nomination of our [M69] Saviour, because he is in the Scriptures promiscuously and indifferently sometimes called Jesus, sometimes Christ, I would be understood so as not to make each of them equally, or in like propriety, his name.  His name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb: who is also called Christ, [Luke 2:21] not by name,* but by office and title. [Matt. 1.16]  Which observation, seemingly trivial, is necessary for the full explication of this part of the Article; for by this distinction we are led unto a double notion, and so resolve our faith into these two propositions; I believe there was and is a man, whose name was actually, and is truly in the most high importance, Jesus, the Saviour of the world.  I believe the man who bare that name to be the Christ, that is, the Messias promised of old by God, and expected by the Jews.

      For the first, it is undoubtedly the proper name of our Saviour given unto him, according to the custom of the Jews, at his circumcision; and as the Baptist was called John, even so the Christ was called Jesus.  Besides, as the imposition was after the vulgar manner, so was the name itself of ordinary use.  We read in the Scriptures of Jesus which was called Justus, a fellow worker [Col. 4:11] with St. Paul, and of a certain sorcerer, a Jew, whose name was Bar-jesus,* [Acts 13:6] that is, the Son of Jesus.  Josephus in his history mentioneth one Jesus the son of Ananus, another the son of Saphates, a third the son of Judas, slain in the temple: and many of the high priests or priests were called by that name; as the son of Damnus, of Gamaliel, of Onias, of Phabes, and of Thebuth.  Ecclesiasticus is called the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and that Sirach the son of another Jesus.  St. Stephen speaks of the tabernacle of witness brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles: [Acts 7:45] and the Apostle in his explication of those words of David, Today if you will hear his voice, [Heb. 4:8] observeth, that, if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterwards have spoken of another day.  Which two Scriptures being undoubtedly understood of Joshua, the son of Nun, teach us as infallibly that Jesus is the same name with Joshua.  Which being at the first imposition* in the full extent of pronunciation Jehoshua, in process of time contracted to Jeshuah, by the omission of the last letter, (strange and difficult to other languages) and the addition of the Greek termination, became Jesus.

      Wherefore it will be necessary, for the proper interpretation of Jesus, to look back upon the first that bare that name, who was the son of Nun, of the tribe of Ephraim, the successor of Moses, and so named by him, as it is written, and Moses called Oshea the son of Nun, Jehoshua. [Num. 13:16]  His first name then imposed at his circumcision was Oshea, or Hoseah: the same with the name of the son of Azaziah, ruler of Ephraim, of the son of Elah, king of Israel, of the son of Beeri, the Prophet: and the interpretation of this first name Hoseah,* is Saviour. [1 Chron. 27:20, 2 Kings 17:1, Hos. 1:1]  Now we must [M70] not imagine this to be no mutation,* neither must we look upon it as a total alteration,* but observe it as a change not trivial or inconsiderable.*  And being Hoseah was a name afterwards used by some, and Jehoshua, as distinct, by others, it will necessarily follow there was some difference between these two names; and it will be fit to inquire what was the addition, and in what the force of the alteration doth consist.

      First therefore we observe, that all the original letters in the name Hoseah are preserved in that of Joshua; from whence it is evident that this alteration was not made by a verbal mutation, as when Jacob was called Israel, nor by any literal change, as when Sarai was named Sarah, nor yet by diminution or mutilation; but by addition, as when Abram was called Abraham.  Secondly it must be confessed that there is but one literal addition, and that of that letter which is most frequent in the Hebrew names: but being thus solemnly added by Moses, upon so remarkable an occasion as the viewing of the land of Canaan was, and that unto a name already known, and after used; it cannot be thought to give any less than a present designation* of his person to be a Saviour of the people, and future certainty of salvation included in his name unto the Israelites by his means.  Thirdly, though the number of the letters be augmented actually but to one, yet it is not improbable that another may be virtually added, and in the signification understood.  For being the first letter of Hoseah will not endure a duplication, and if the same letter were to be added, one of them must be absorpt; it is possible another of the same might be by Moses intended, and one of them suppressed.  If then unto the name Hoseah we join one of the titles of God, which is Jah, there will result from both, by the custom of that Hebrew tongue, Jehoshua; and so not only the instrumental,* but also the original cause of the Jews’ deliverance will be found expressed in one word: as if Moses had said, this is the person by whom God will save his people from their enemies.

[M71]  Now being we have thus declared that Jesus is the same name with Josuah; being the name of Josuah was first imposed by Divine designation, as a certain prediction of the fulfilling to the Israelites, by the person which bare the name, all which was signified by the name; being Jesus was likewise named by a more immediate imposition from heaven, even by the ministration of an Angel; it followeth, that we believe he was infallibly designed by God to perform unto the sons of men whatsoever is implied in his nomination.  As therefore in Hoseah there was expressed salvation, in Josuah at least was added the designation of that single person to save, with certainty of preservation, and probably even the name of God, by whose appointment and power he was made a Saviour; so shall we find the same in Jesus.  In the first salutation, the Angel Gabriel told the blessed Virgin, she should conceive in her womb, and bring forth a Son, and should call his name Jesus. [Luke 1:31]  In the dream of Joseph the Angel of the Lord informed him not only of the nomination, but of the interpretation or etymology;* Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins. [Matt. 1:21]  In which words is clearly expressed the designation of the person, He, and the futurition of salvation certain by him, he shall save.  Beside, that other addition of the name of God, propounded in Josuah as probable, appeareth here in some degree above probability, and that for two reasons.  First, because it is not barely said that He, but as the original raiseth it, He himself shall save.  Josuah saved Israel not by his own power, not of himself, but God by him; neither saved he his own people, but the people of God: whereas Jesus himself, by his own power, the power of God, shall save his own people, the people of God.  Well therefore may we understand the interpretation of his name to be God the Saviour.  Secondly, immediately upon the prediction of the name of Jesus, and the interpretation given by the Angel, the Evangelist expressly observeth, All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, saying, Behold, a Virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. [Matt. 1:22, 23]  Several ways have been invented to shew the fulfilling of that prophecy, notwithstanding our Saviour was not called Emmanuel; but none can certainly appear more proper, than that the sense of Emmanuel should be comprehended in the name of Jesus: and what else is God with us, than God our Saviour?  Well therefore hath the Evangelist conjoined the Prophet and the Angel,* asserting Christ was therefore named Jesus, because it was foretold he should be called Emmanuel, the angelical God the Saviour, being in the highest propriety the prophetical God with us.

      However, the constant Scripture interpretation of this name is Saviour.  So said the angel of the Lord to the amazed shepherds, Unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. [Luke 2:11]  So St. Paul to the Jews and Gentile proselytes at Antioch, Of this man’s seed hath God, according to his promise, raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus. [Acts 13:23]  [M72]  Which explication of this sacred name was not more new or strange unto the world, than was the name itself so often used before.  For the ancient Grecians usually gave it at first as a title to their gods,* whom after any remarkable preservations they styled Saviours, and under that notion built temples, and consecrated altars to them.  Nor did they rest with their mistaken piety, but made it stoop unto their baser flattery, calling those men their Saviours,* for whom they seemed to have as great respect and honour as for their gods.

      Nor does it always signify so much as that it may not be attributed to man; for even in the Scriptures the judges of Israel were called no less than their Saviours.  When the children of Israel cried unto the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer to the children of Israel, who delivered them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz. [Judg. 3:9]  And again, When they cried unto the Lord, the Lord raised them up a deliverer, Ehud the son of Gera. [Jud. 3:15]  Where though in our translation we call Othniel and Ehud Deliverers, yet in the original they are plainly termed Saviours.*

[M73]  Now what the full import and ultimate sense of the title of Saviour might be, seemed not easy to the ancients: and the best of the Latins thought the Greek word so pregnant and comprehensive, that the Latin tongue had no single word able to express it.*

      But whatsoever notion the heathen had of their gods or men which they styled Saviours, we know this name belongeth unto Christ in a more sublime and peculiar manner.  Neither is there salvation in any other : for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. [Acts 4:12]

      It remaineth therefore that we should explain how and for what reasons Christ truly is, and properly is called, our Saviour.  First then, I conceive, one sufficient cause of that appellation to consist in this, that he hath opened and declared unto us the only true way for the obtaining eternal salvation, and by such patefaction can deserve no less than the name of Saviour.  For if those Apostles and Preachers of the Gospel, who received the way of salvation from him, which they delivered unto others, may be said to save those persons which were converted by their preaching; in a far more eminent and excellent manner must he be said to save them, who first revealed all those truths unto them.  St. Paul provoked to emulation them which were his flesh, that he might save some of them [Rom. 11:14]; and was made all things to all men, that he might by all means save some. [1 Cor. 9:22]  He exhorted Timothy [1 Tim. 4:16] to take heed unto himself, and unto the doctrine, and continue in them; for in doing this, he should both save himself and them that heard him.  And St. James speaks in more general terms; Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him, let him know that he which converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death. [Jam. 5:19, 20]  Now if these are so expressly said to save the souls of them which are converted by the doctrine which they deliver, with much more reason must Christ be said to save them, whose ministers they are, and in whose name they speak.  For it was he which came and preached peace to them which were afar of, and to them that were nigh. [Eph. 2:17]  The will of God concerning the salvation of man was revealed by him.  No man hath seen God at any time: the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. [Rom. 1:16]  Being then the Gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, being they which preach it at the command of Christ are said to save the souls of such as believe their word, being it was Christ alone who brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel [2 Tim. 1:10]; therefore he must in a most eminent and singular manner be acknowledged thereby to save, and consequently must not be denied, even in this first respect, the title of Saviour.

      Secondly, this Jesus hath not only revealed, but also procured [M74] the way of salvation; not only delivered it to us, but also John film. wrought it out for us; and so God sent his Son into the world, that the world through him might be saved.  We were all concluded under sin, and, being the wages of sin is death, we were obliged to eternal punishment, from which it was impossible to be freed, except the sin were first remitted.  Now this is the constant rule, [Heb. 9:22, 23. 26] that without shedding of blood is no remission.  It was therefore necessary that Christ should appear to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.  And so he did, for he shed his blood for many, for the remission of sins, [Matt. 26:28] as himself professeth in the sacramental institution: he bare our sins in his own body on the tree, [1 Pet. 2:24] as St. Peter speaks; and so in him we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. [Col. 1:14]  And if while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us; much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath by him. [Rom. 5:8, 9]  Again, we were all enemies unto God, and having offended him, there was no possible way of salvation, but by being reconciled to him.  If then we ask the question, as once the Philistines did concerning David [1 Sam. 29:4], Wherewith should we reconcile ourselves unto our master? we have no other name to answer it but Jesus.  For God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them. [2 Cor. 5:19]  And as under the Law the blood of the sin offering was brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place [Lev. 6:30]; so it pleased the Father through the Son, having made peace by the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself. [Col. 1:20, 21, 22]  And thus it comes to pass, that us who were enemies in our mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death.  And upon this reconciliation of our persons must necessarily follow the salvation of our souls.  For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled unto God by the death of his Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. [Rom. 5:10]  Furthermore, we were all first enslaved by sin, and brought into captivity by Satan, neither was there any possibility of escape but by way of redemption.  Now it was the law of Moses, that if any were able he might redeem himself [Lev. 25:49]: but this to us was impossible, because absolute obedience in all our actions is due unto God, and therefore no act of ours can make any satisfaction for the least offence.  Another law gave yet more liberty, that he which was sold might be redeemed again; one of his brethren might redeem him. [Lev. 25:48]  But this in respect of all the mere sons of men was equally impossible, because they were all under the same captivity.  Nor could they satisfy for others, who were wholly unable to redeem themselves.  Wherefore there was no other brother, but that Son of man which is the Son of God, who was like unto us in all things, sin only excepted, which could work this redemption for us.  And what he only could, that he freely did perform.  For the Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many [Matt. 20:28]: and as he came to give, so he gave himself a ransom for all. [1 Tim. 2:6]  So that in him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins. [Eph. 1:7]  For we are bought with a price [1 Cor. 7:23]: for we are redeemed, not with corruptible things, as silver and gold; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. [1 Pet. 1:18, 19]  He then which hath obtained for us remission of sins, he who through himself hath reconciled us unto God, he who hath given himself as a ransom to redeem us, he who hath thus wrought out the way of salvation for us, must necessarily have a second and a far higher right unto the name of Jesus unto the title of our Saviour.

      Thirdly, beside the promulging and procuring, there is yet a farther act, which is, conferring of salvation on us.  All which we mentioned before, was wrought by virtue of his death, and his appearance in the holy of holies: but we must still believe he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by [M75] him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. [Heb. 7:25]  For now being set down at the right hand of God, he hath received all power both in heaven and earth; and the end of this power which he hath received is, to confer salvation upon those which believe in him.  For the Father gave the Son this power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as he hath given him [John 17:2]; that he should raise our bodies out of the dust, and cause our corruptible to put on incorruption, and our mortal to put on immortality: and upon this power we are to expect salvation from him.  For we must look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, from heaven, who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. [Phil. 3:20, 21]  And unto them that thus look for him shall he appear the second time, without sin unto salvation. [Heb. 9:23]  Being then we are all to endeavour that our spirits may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus; [1 Cor. 5:5] being St. Peter hath taught us, that God hath exalted Christ with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour; [Acts 5:31] being the conferring of that upon us which he promised to us, and obtained for us, is the reward of what he suffered; therefore we must acknowledge that the actual giving of salvation to us is the ultimate and conclusive ground of the title Saviour.

      Thus by the virtue of his precious blood Christ hath obtained remission of our sins, by the power of his grace hath taken away the dominion of sin, in the life to come will free us from all possibility of sinning, and utterly abolish death the wages of sin: wherefore well said the Angel of the Lord, [Matt. 1:21] Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins; well did Zacharias call him an horn of salvation; Simeon, the salvation of God; St. Paul, the captain and author of eternal salvation; St. Peter, a Prince and a Saviour, correspondent to those judges of Israel, raised up by God himself to deliver his people from the hands of their enemies, and for that reason called Saviours.  [Luke 1:69, Luke 2:30, Heb. 5:9, Heb. 2:10, Acts 5:31]  In the time of their trouble, say the Levites, when they cried unto thee, thou heardest them from heaven, and according to thy manifold mercies thou gayest them Saviours, who saved them, out of the hand of their enemies. [Neh. 9:27]

      The correspondency of Jesus unto those temporal Saviours will best appear, if we consider it particularly in Josuah, who bare that salvation in his name, and approved it in his actions.  For, as the son of Sirach saith, Jesus the son of Nave was valiant Ecelus. in the wars, and was the successor of Moses in prophecies, who, xlvi. L. according to his name, was made great for the saving of the elect of God. [Ecclus. 46:1]  Although therefore Moses was truly and really a ruler and deliverer, [Acts 7:35] which is the same with Saviour;* although the rest of the judges were also by their office rulers and deliverers, and therefore styled Saviours, as expressly Othniel and Ehud are; yet Josuah, far more particularly and exactly than the rest, is represented as a type of our Jesus, and that typical singularity manifested in his name.*  For first, he it was alone, of all which passed out of Egypt, who was designed to lead the children of Israel into Canaan, the land of promise, flowing with milk and honey.  Which land as it was a type of the heaven of heavens, the inheritance of the saints, and eternal joys flowing from the right hand of God; so is the person which brought the Israelites into that place of rest a type of him* who only can bring us into the presence of God, and there prepare our mansions for us, and assign them to us, as Josuah divided the land for an inheritance to the tribes.  Besides, it is farther observable, not only what Josuah did, but what Moses could not do.  The hand of Moses and Aaron brought them out of Egypt, but left them in the wilderness, and could not seat them in Canaan.  Josuah, the successor, only could effect that in which Moses failed.  Now nothing is more frequent in the phrase of the Holy Ghost, than to take Moses for the doctrine delivered, [M76] or the books written by him, that is, the Law;* from whence it followeth, that the death of Moses and the succession of Josuah presignified the continuance of the Law till Jesus came, by whom all that believe are justified from all things, from which we could not be justified by the Law of Moses. [Acts 13:39]  The Law and the Prophets were until John: since that the kingdom of God is preached. [Luke 16:16]  Moses must die, that Josuah may succeed.  By the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified, (for by the Law is the knowledge of sin); but the righteousness of God without the Law is manifested, even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe. [Rom. 3:20, 21, 22]  Moses indeed seems to have taken Josuah with him up into the mount [Exod. 24:13]: but if he did, sure it was to enter the cloud which covered the mount where the glory of the Lord abode: for without Jesus,* in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, [Col. 2:3] there is no looking into the secrets of heaven, no approaching to the presence of God.  The command of circumcision was not given unto Moses, but to Josuah; nor were the Israelites circumcised in the wilderness, under the conduct of Moses and Aaron, but in the land of Canaan, under their successor.  For at that time the Lord said unto Josuah, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time. [Josh. 5:2]  Which speaketh Jesus to be the true circumciser,* the author of another circumcision than that of the flesh commanded by the Law, even the circumcision of the heart in the spirit, and not in the letter [Rom. 2:29]; that which is made without hands, in putting of the body of the sins of the flesh, [Col. 2:11] which is therefore called the circumcision of Christ.

      Thus if we look upon Josuah as the minister of Moses, [Exod. 24:13, Josh. 1:1] he is even in that a type of Christ, the minister of the circumcision for the truth of God.  If we look on him as the successor of Moses, in that he representeth Jesus, [Rom. 15:8, John 1:17] inasmuch as the Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.  If we look on him as now Judge and Ruler of Israel, there is scarce an action which is not clearly predictive of our Saviour.  He begins his office at the banks of Jordan,* where Christ is baptized and enters upon the public exercise of his prophetical office.  He chooseth there twelve men out of the people, to carry twelve stones over with them; as our Jesus thence began to choose his twelve Apostles,* those foundation stones in the Church of God, whose names are in the twelve foundations of the wall of the holy city, the new Jerusalem. [Rev. 21:14]  It hath been observed* that the saving Rahab the harlot alive, foretold what Jesus once should speak to the Jews, [Matt. 21:31, Josh. 10:12, 13] Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and [M77] harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.  He said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon: and the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hosted not to go down about a whole day: which great miracle was not only wrought by the power of him whose name he bare, but did also signify* that in the latter days, towards the setting of the sun, when the light of the world was tending unto a night of darkness, [Mal.4:2] the Sun of Righteousness should arise with healing in his wings: and, giving a check to the approaching night, become the true light which lighteth every man that cornea into the world. [John 1:9]

      But to pass by more particulars, Josuah smote the Amalekites, and subdued the Canaanites; by the first making way to enter the land, by the second giving possession of it.  And Jesus our Prince and Saviour, whose kingdom was not of this world, [Acts 5:31, John 18:36] in a spiritual manner goeth in and out before us against our spiritual enemies, subduing sin and Satan, and so opening and clearing our way to heaven; destroying the last enemy, death, so giving us possession of eternal life.  Thus* do we believe the man called Jesus to have fulfilled, in the highest degree imaginable, all which was but typified in him who first bare the name, and in all the rest which succeeded in his office, and so to be the Saviour of the world; whom God hath raised up, an horn of salvation for us, in the house of his servant David, that we should be savedfrom our enemies, and the hands of all that hate us. [Luke 1:69, 71]

      The necessity of the belief of this part of the Article is not only certain, but evident: because there is no end of faith without a Saviour, and no other name but this by which we can be saved, and no way to be saved by him but by believing in him.  For this is his commandment, that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ: and he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him and he in him. [1 John 3:23, 24]  From him then, and from him alone, must we expect salvation, acknowledging and confessing freely there is nothing in ourselves which can effect it, or deserve it for us, nothing in any other creature which can promerit or procure it to us.  For there is but one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.  It is only the beloved Son in whom God is well pleased, he is clothed with a vesture dipt in blood: he hath trod the wine press alone.  We like sheep have gone astray, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.  By him God hath reconciled all things to himself, by him, I say, whether they be things in earth or things in heaven. [1 Tim. 2:5 {Matt. 3:17} {Rev. 19:13} {Isa. 63:3} Isa. 53:6, Col. 1:20]  By him alone is our salvation wrought: for his sake then only can we ask it, from him alone expect it.

      Secondly, this belief is necessary, that we may delight and rejoice in the name of Jesus, as that in which all our happiness is involved.  At his nativity an Angel from heaven thus taught the shepherds, the first witnesses of the blessed incarnation; Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. [Luke 2:10, 11]  And what the Angel delivered at present, that the Prophet Isaiah, that old Evangelist, foretold at distance.  When the people which walked in darkness should see a great light; [Isa. 9:2, 6, 3] when unto us a child should be born unto us a son should be given; then should they joy before God according to the joy of harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. [M78]  When God shall come with recompense, when he shall come and save us; then the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Sion with songs, and everlasting joy upon their heads. [Isa. 35:4, 10]

      Thirdly, the belief in Jesus ought to inflame our affection, to kindle our love toward him, engaging us to hate all things in respect of him, that is, so far as they are in opposition to him, or pretend to equal share of affection with him.  He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me, and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me, [Matt. 10:37] saith our Saviour; so forbidding all prelation of any natural affection, because our spiritual union is far beyond all such relations.  Nor is a higher degree of love only debarred us, but any equal pretension is as much forbidden.  If any man come to me, saith the same Christ, and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. [Luke 14:26]  Is it not this Jesus, in whom the love of God is demonstrated to us, and that in so high a degree as is not expressible by the pen of man?  God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son. [John 3:16]  Is it not he who shewed his own love to us far beyond all possibility of parallel? for greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends; [Rom. 5:8] but while we were yet sinners, that is, enemies, Christ died for us, and so became our Jesus.  Shall thus the Father shew his love in his Son? shall thus the Son shew his love in himself? and shall we no way study a requital? or is there any proper return of love but love?  The voice of the Church, in the language of Solomon, is, My love: [Cant. 2:7, 3:5, 8,4] nor was that only the expression of a spouse, but of Ignatius,* a man, after the Apostles, most remarkable.  And whosoever considereth the infinite benefits to the sons of men flowing from the actions and sufferings of their Saviour, cannot choose but conclude with St. Paul, If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema, Maranatha. [1 Cor. 16:22]

      Lastly, the confession of faith in Jesus is necessary to breed in us a correspondent esteem of him, and an absolute obedience to him, that we may be raised to the true temper of St. Paul, who [Phil. 3:8] counted all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord, for whom he suffered the loss of all things, and accounted them but dung, that he might win Christ.  Nor can we pretend to any true love of Jesus, except we be sensible of the readiness of our obedience to him: as knowing what language he used to his disciples, If ye love me, keep my commandments [John 14:15]; and what the Apostle of his bosom spake,  This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. [1 John 5:3]  His own disciples once marvelled, and said, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him? [Matt. 8:27]  How much more should we wonder at all disobedient Christians, saying, What manner of men are these, who refuse obedience unto him, whom the senseless creatures, the winds and the sea, obeyed?  Was the name of Jesus at first sufficient to cast out devils, and shall man be more refractory than they? [Mark 9:38, Luke 9:49, Acts 19:13]  Shall the exorcist say to the evil spirit, I adjure thee by the name of Jesus, and the Devil give place?  Shall an Apostle speak unto us in the same name, and we refuse?  Shall they obey that name, which signifieth nothing unto them? for he took not on him the nature of angels, and so is not their Saviour; and can we deny obedience unto him, who took on him the seed of Abraham, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, [Heb. 2:16, Phil. 2:8] for us, that he might be raised to full power and absolute dominion over us, and by that power be enabled at last to save us, and in the mean time to rule and govern us, and exact the highest veneration from us?  For God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth. [Phil. 2:9, 10]

      Having thus declared the original of the name Jesus, the [M79] means and ways by which he which bare it expressed fully the utmost signification of it; we may now clearly deliver, and every particular Christian easily understand what it is he says, when he makes his confession in these words, I believe in Jesus: which may be not unfitly in this manner described.  I believe not only that there is a God who made the world; but I acknowledge and profess that I am fully persuaded of this, as of a certain and infallible truth, that there was and is a man, whose name by the ministry of an Angel was called Jesus, of whom, particularly Josuah, the first of that name, and all the rest of the judges and saviours of Israel, were but types.  I believe that Jesus, in the highest and utmost importance of that name, to be the Saviour of the world; inasmuch as he hath revealed to the sons of men the only way for the salvation of their souls, and wrought the same way out for them by the virtue of his blood, obtaining remission for sinners, making reconciliation for enemies, paying the price of redemption for captives; and shall at last himself actually confer the same salvation, which he hath promulged and procured, upon all those which unfeignedly and steadfastly believe in him.  I acknowledge there is no other way to heaven beside that which he hath shewn us, there is no other means which can procure it for us but his blood, there is no other person which shall confer it on us but himself.  And with this full acknowledgment, I believe in Jesus.

And in Jesus Christ.

      Having thus explained the proper name of our Saviour, Jesus, we come unto that title of his office usually joined with his name, which is therefore the more diligently to be examined, because the Jews,* who always acknowledged him to be Jesus, ever denied him to be Christ, and agreed together, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. [John 9:22]

      For the full explication of this title, it will be necessary, first, to deliver the signification of the word; secondly, to shew upon what grounds the Jews always expected a Christ or Messias; thirdly, to prove that the Messias promised to the Jews is already come; fourthly, to demonstrate that our Jesus is that Messias; and fifthly, to declare in what that unction, by which Jesus is Christ, doth consist, and what are the proper effects thereof.  Which five particulars being clearly discussed, I cannot see what should be wanting for a perfect understanding that Jesus is Christ.

      For the first, we find in the Scriptures two several names, Messias and Christ, but both of the same signification; as appeareth by the speech of the woman of Samaria, [John 4:25] I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ; and more plainly by what Andrew spake unto his brother Simon, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. [John 1:41]  Messias, in the Hebrew tongue, Christ in the Greek.*  Messias,* the language of Andrew and the woman of Samaria, who spake in Syriac; Christ, the interpretation of St. John, who wrote his Gospel in the Greek, as the most general language in those days; and the signification of them both is, the Anointed.  St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles, writing in that language, used the Greek name, which the Latins did retain, calling him constantly, Christus; and we in English have retained the same, as universally naming him Christ.

      Nor is this yet the full interpretation of the word, which is to [M80] be understood not simply according to the action only, but as it involveth the design in the custom of anointing.  For in the Law whatsoever was anointed, was thereby set apart, as ordained to some special use or office: and therefore under the notion of unction we must understand that promotion and ordination.  Jacob poured oil on the top of a pillar, [Gen. 28:18] and that anointing was the consecration of it.  Moses anointed the Tabernacle and all the vessels, and this anointing was their dedication.  Hence the Priest that is anointed [Lev. 4:3] signifieth, in the phrase of Moses, the High Priest, because he was invested in that office at and by his unction.  When therefore Jesus is called the Messias or Christ, and that so long after the anointing oil had ceased, it signified no less than a person set apart by God, anointed with most sacred oil, advanced to the highest office, of which all those employments under the Law, in the obtaining of which oil was used, were but types and shadows.  And this may suffice for the signification of the word.

[M81]  That there was among the Jews an expectation of such a Christ to come, is most evident.  The woman of Samaria could speak with confidence, I know that Messias cometh. [John 4:15]  And the unbelieving Jews, who will not acknowledge that he is already come, expect him still.  Thus we find all men musing in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ or not. [Luke 3:15]  When Jesus taught in the Temple, those which doubted said, When Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is [John 7:27, 31]; those which believed said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?  Whether therefore they doubted, or whether they believed in Jesus, they all expected a Christ to come; and the greater their opinion was of him, the more they believed he was that Messias.  Many of the people said, Of a truth this is the Prophet; others said, This is the Christ. [John 7:40, 41]  As soon as John began to baptize, the Jews sent Priests and Levites from Jerusalem, to ask him, Who art thou? [John 1:19] that is, whether he were the Christ or no, as appeareth out of his answer, And he confessed and denied not, but confessed, I am not the Christ. [John 1:20]  For as they asked him after, What then, Art thou Elias? and he said, I am not: Art thou that Prophet? and he answered, No: [John 1:21] so without question their first demand was, Art thou the Christ?* and he answered, I am not: from whence it clearly appeareth that there was a general expectation among the Jews of a Messias to come; nor only so, but it was always counted among them an article of their faith, which all were obliged to believe who professed the Law of Moses, and whosoever denied that, was thereby interpreted to deny the Law and the Prophets.  Wherefore it will be worth our inquiry to look into the grounds upon which they built that expectation.

      It is most certain that the Messias was promised by God, both before and under the Law.  God said unto Abraham, In Isaac shall thy seed be called [Gen. 21:12]: and we know that was a promise of a Messias to come, because St. Paul hath taught us, Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He with not, unto seeds, as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ. [Gal. 3:16]  The Lord said unto Moses, I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee. [Deut. 18:18]  And St. Peter hath sufficiently satisfied us, that this Prophet promised to Moses, is Jesus the Christ. [Acts 3:22]  Many are the prophecies which concern him, many the promises which are made of him: but yet some of them very obscure; others, though plainer, yet have relation only to the person, not to the notion or the word Messias.  Wheresoever he is spoken of as the Anointed, it may well be first understood of some other person; except one place in Daniel [Dan. 9:26] where Messiah is foretold to be cut off: and yet even there the Greek translation hath not the Messiah, but the Unction.  It may therefore seem something strange, how so universal an expectation of a Redeemer under the name of the Messias should be spread through the Church of the Jews.

      But if we consider* that in the, space of seventy years of the Babylonish captivity the ordinary Jews had lost the exact understanding of the old Hebrew language before spoken in Judea, and therefore, when the Scriptures were read unto them, they found it necessary to interpret them to the people in the Chaldee language, which they had lately learned: as when Ezra the Scribe brought the book of the Law of Moses before the congregation, the Levites are said to have caused the people to understand the Law, because they read in the Book in the Law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. [Neh. 8:8]  Which constant interpretation begat at last a Chaldee translation of the Old Testament to be read every sabbath in the synagogues: and that being not exactly made word for word with the Hebrew, but with a liberty of a brief exposition by the way, took in, together with the text, the general opinion of the learned Jews.  By which means it came [M82] to pass that not only the doctrine, but the name also, of the Messias was very frequent and familiar with them.  Insomuch that even in the Chaldee paraphrase now extant, there is express mention of the Messias in above seventy places, beside that of Daniel.  The Jews then informed by the plain words of Daniel,* instructed by a constant interpretation of the Law and the Prophets read in their synagogues every sabbath day, relying upon the infallible predictions and promises of God, did all unanimously expect out of their own nation, of the tribe of Judah, of the family of David, a Messias, or a Christ, to come.

      Now this being granted, as it cannot be denied, our next consideration is of the time in which this promise was to be fulfilled: which we shall demonstrate out of the Scriptures to be past, and consequently that the promised Messias is already come.  The prediction of Jacob on his deathbed is clear and pregnant; The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be: [Gen. 49:10] but the sceptre is departed from Judah, neither is there one lawgiver left between his feet: therefore Shiloh, that is, the Messias, is already come.  That the Jewish government hath totally failed is not without the greatest folly to be denied: and therefore that Shiloh is already come, except we should deny the truth of divine predictions, must be granted.  There then remains nothing to be proved, but that by Shiloh is to be understood the Messias: which is sufficiently manifest both from the consent of the ancient Jews, and from the description immediately added to the name.  For all the old paraphrasts* call him expressly the Messias, and the words which follow, to him shall the gathering of the people be, speak no less; as giving an explication of his person, office, or condition, who was but darkly described in the name of Shiloh.  For this is the same character by which he was signified unto Abraham: In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed: [Gen. 22:18] by which he is decyphered in Isaiah; [Isa. 11:10] In that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek, and his rest shall be glorious; and in Micah, [Micah 4:1] The mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills, and people shall flow unto it.  And thus the blessing of Judah is plainly intelligible: Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise; thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies, thy father’s children shall bow down before thee. [Gen. 49:8]  Thou shalt obtain the primogeniture of thy brother Reuben, and by virtue thereof shalt rule over the rest of the tribes: the government shall be upon thy shoulders, and all thy brethren shall be subject unto thee.  And that you may understand this blessing is not to expire until it make way for a greater, know that this government shall not fail, until there come a son out of your loins, who shall be far greater than yourself: for whereas your dominion reacheth only over your brethren, and so is confined unto the tribes of Israel; his kingdom shall be universal, and all nations of the earth shall serve him.  Being then this Shiloh is so described in the text, and acknowledged by the ancient Jews to be the Messias, being God hath promised by Jacob the government of Israel should not fail until Shiloh came; being that government is visibly and undeniably already failed, it followeth inevitably that the Messias is already come.

      In the same manner the Prophet Malachy hath given an express signification of the coming of the Messias while the Temple stood.  [Mal. 3:1] Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord whom ye seek shall [M83] suddenly come to his Temple, even the Messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in.*  And Haggai yet more clearly, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Yet once it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will shake all nations; and the desire of all nations shall come; and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts.  The glory of this latter house shall be greater than the glory of the former, saith the Lord of hosts.[Hag. 2:6, 7, 9]  It is then most evident from these predictions, that the Messias was to come while the second Temple stood.  It is as certain that the second Temple is not now standing.  Therefore, except we contradict the veracity of God, it cannot be denied but the Messias is already come.  Nothing can be objected to enervate this argument, but that these prophecies concern not the Messias; and yet the ancient Jews confessed they did, and that they do so cannot be denied.  For, first, those titles, the angel of the covenant, the delight of the Israelites, the desire of all nations, are certain and known characters of the Christ to come.  And secondly, it cannot be conceived how the glory of the second Temple should be greater than the glory of the first, without the coming of the Messias to it.  For the Jews themselves have observed that five signs of the Divine glory were in the first Temple, which were wanting to the second : as the Urim and Thummim, by which the High Priest was miraculously instructed of the will of God; the ark of the covenant, from whence God gave his answers by a clear and audible voice; the fire upon the altar, which came down from heaven, and immediately consumed the sacrifice; the Divine presence or habitation with them, represented by a visible appearance, or given, as it were, to the king and high priest by anointing with the oil of unction; and, lastly, the Spirit of Prophecy, with which those especially who were called to the prophetical office were indued.  And there was no comparison between the beauty and glory of the structure or building of it, as appeared by the tears dropt from those eyes which had beheld the former, for many of the Priests and Levites, and chief of the Fathers, who were ancient men, that had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice; [Ezra 3:12] and by those words which God commanded Haggai to speak to the people for the introducing of this Prophecy, Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory? and how do ye see it now? is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing? [Hag. 2:3]  Being then the structure of the second Temple was so far inferior to the first, being all those signs of the Divine glory were wanting in it, with which the former was adorned; the glory of it can no other way be imagined greater, than by the coming of him into it, in whom all those signs of the Divine glory were far more eminently contained; and this person alone is the Messias.  For he was to be the glory of the people Israel, yea, even of the God of Israel; he the Urim and Thummim, by whom the will of God, as by a greater oracle, was revealed; he the true Ark of the Covenant, the only Propitiatory by his blood; he which was to baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire, the true fire which came down from heaven; he which was to take up his habitation in our flesh, and to dwell among us that we might behold his glory; he who received the Spirit without measure, and from whose fullness we do all receive.  In him were all those signs of the divine glory united, which were thus divided in the first Temple; in him they were all more eminently contained than in those: therefore his coming to the second Temple was, as the sufficient, so the only means by which the glory of it could be greater than the glory of the first.  If then the Messias was to come while the second Temple stood, as appeareth by God’s prediction and promise; if that Temple many ages since hath ceased to be, there being not one stone left upon a stone; if it certainly were before the destruction of it in greater glory than ever the former was; if no such glory could accrue unto it [M84] but by the coming of the Messias ; then is that Messias already come.

      Having thus demonstrated out of the promises given to the Jews, that the Messias who was so promised unto them must be already come, because those events which were foretold to follow his coming are already past; we shall proceed unto the next particular, and prove that the man Jesus, in whom we believe, is that Messias who was promised.  First, it is acknowledged both by the Jew and Gentile, that this Jesus was born in Judea, and lived and died there, before the commonwealth of Israel was dispersed, before the second Temple was destroyed, that is, at the very time when the Prophets foretold the Messias should come.  And there was no other beside him, that did with any show of probability pretend to be, or was accepted as the Messias.  Therefore we must confess he was, and only he could be, the Christ.

      Secondly, all other prophecies belonging to the Messias were fulfilled in Jesus, whether we look upon the family, the place, or the manner of his birth; neither were they ever fulfilled in any person beside him: he then is, and no other can be, the Messias.  That he was to come out of the tribe of Judah and family of David, is everywhere manifest.  The Jews,* which mention Messias as a Son of Joseph or of Ephraim, do not deny, but rather dignify, the Son of David or of Judah, whom they confess to be the greater Christ.  There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,* and a branch shall grow out of his roots, and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, [Isa. 11:1] saith the Prophet Isaiah.  And again, In that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people: to it shall the Gentiles seek, and his rest shall be glorious. [Isa. 11:10]  Now who was it but Jesus of whom the elders spake, Behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David?  [Rev. 5:5]  Who but he said, I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star? [Rev. 22:16]  The Jews did all acknowledge it, as appears by the question of our Saviour, How say the Scribes that Christ is the Son of David?  What think ye of Christ? whose Son is he?  They say unto him, The Son of David; [Mark 12:35, Matt. 22, 42] and that of the people, amazed at the seeing of the blind, and speaking of the dumb, Is not this the Son of David? the blind cried out unto him, Jesus thou Son of David, have mercy on us; and the multitude cried, Hosanna to the Son of David. [Matt. 12:23, 20:31, 21:9]  The genealogy of Jesus shews his family: the first words of the Gospel are, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David. [Matt. 1:1]  The prophecy therefore was certainly fulfilled in respect of his lineage; for it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah.  [Heb. 7:14]

      Beside, if we look upon the place where the Messias was to be born, we shall find that Jesus by a particular act of providence was born there.  When Herod gathered all the chief Priests and Scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.  And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea. [Matt. 2:4, 5]  The people doubted whether Jesus was the Christ, because they thought he had been born in Galilee, where Joseph and Mary lived: wherefore they said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee; hath not the Scripture said, that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? [John 7:41, 42]  That place of Scripture which they meant was cited by the Scribes to Herod, according to the interpretation then current among the Jews, and still preserved in the Chaldee paraphrase:* [Matt. 2:5, 6] For thus it is written in the Prophet, And thou Bethlehem in the land of Judah art not the least among the princes of Judah, for out of thee shall come a governor that shall rule my people Israel. [M85]  This prediction was most manifestly and remarkably fulfilled in the birth of Jesus, when by the providence of God it was so ordered that Augustus should then tax the world, to which end every one should go up into his own city.  Whereupon Joseph and Mary his espoused wife left Nazareth of Galilee, their habitation, and went unto Bethlehem of Judea, the city of David, there to be taxed, because they were of the house and lineage of David. [Luke 2:4]  And while they were there, as the days of the Virgin Mary were accomplished, so the prophecy was fulfilled; for there she brought forth her firstborn Son; and so unto us was born that day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. [Luke 1:11]

      But if we add unto the family and place, the manner of his birth, also foretold, the argument must necessarily appear conclusive.  The Prophet Isaiah spake thus unto the house of David; The Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel. [Isa. 7:14]  What nativity could be more congruous to the greatness of a Messias than that of a Virgin, which is most miraculous? what name can be thought fitter for him than that of Immanuel, God with us, [Isa. 8:8] whose land Judea is said to be?  The Immanuel then thus born of a Virgin was without question the true Messias.  And we know Jesus was thus born of the blessed Virgin Mary, that it might be fulfilled which was thus spoken of the Lord by the Prophet. [Matt. 1:22]  Wherefore being all the prophecies concerning the family, place, and manner of the birth of the Messias were fulfilled in Jesus, and not so much as pretended to be accomplished in any other, it is again from hence apparent that this Jesus is the Christ.

      Thirdly, he which taught what the Messias was to teach, did what the Messias was to do, suffered what the Messias was to suffer, and by suffering obtained all which a Messias could obtain, must be acknowledged of necessity to be the true Messias.  But all this is manifestly true of Jesus; therefore we must confess he is the Christ.  For first, it cannot be denied but the Messias was promised as a Prophet and Teacher of the people.  So God promised him to Moses; I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee. [Deut. 18:18]  So Isaiah, Ezekiel and Hoseah have expressed him, as we shall hereafter have farther occasion to shew.  And not only so, but as a greater Prophet, and more perfect Doctor, than ever any was which preceded him, more universal than they all.  I have put my Spirit upon him, [Isa. 42:1, 4] saith God: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles, and the isles shall wait for his law.  Now it is as evident that Jesus of Nazareth was the most perfect Prophet, the Prince and Lord of all the prophets, doctors, and pastors, which either preceded or succeeded him.  For he hath revealed unto us the most perfect will of God both in his precepts and his promises.  He hath delivered the same after the most perfect manner, with the greatest authority; not like Moses and the Prophets, saying, Thus saith the Lord, but I say unto you; [1 Pet. 2:25] nor like the interpreters of Moses, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the Scribes: [Matt. 5, 7:29] with the greatest perspicuity, not, as those before him, under types and shadows, but plainly and clearly; from whence both he and his doctrine is frequently called Light; with the greatest universality, as preaching that Gospel which is to unite all the nations of the earth into one Church, that there might be one Shepherd and one flock.  Whatsoever then that great Prophet the Messias was to teach, that Jesus taught; and whatsoever works he was to do, those Jesus did.

      When John the Baptist had heard the works of Christ, he sent two of his Disciples with this message to him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another? [Matt. 11:2, 3]  And Jesus returned this answer unto him, shewing the ground of that message, the works of Christ, was a sufficient resolution of the question sent; [M86] [Matt. 11:4, 5] Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up.  And as Jesus alleged the works which he wrought to be a sufficient testimony that he was the Messias; so did those Jews acknowledge it, who said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this John vii. man doth? [John 7:31]  And Nicodemus, a ruler among them, confessed little less: [John 3:2] Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.  Great and many were the miracles which Moses and the rest of the Prophets wrought for the ratification of the Law, and the demonstration of God’s constant presence with his people; and yet all those wrought by so many several persons, in the space of above three thousand years, are far short of those which this one Jesus did perform within the compass of three years. The ambitious diligence of the Jews hath reckoned up seventy-six miracles for Moses, and seventy-four for all the rest of the Prophets: and supposing that they were so many, (though indeed they were not,) how few are they in respect of those which are written of our Saviour! how inconsiderable, if compared with all which he wrought! when St. John testifieth with as great certainty of truth as height of hyperbole, that there are many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, he supposed that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. [John 21:25]  Nor did our Saviour excel all others in the number of his miracles only, but in the power of working.  Whatsoever miracle Moses wrought, he either obtained by his prayers, or else consulting with God, received it by command from him; so that the power of miracles cannot be conceived as immanent or inhering in him.  Whereas this power must of necessity be in Jesus, in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, [Col. 2:9] and to whom the Father had given to have life in himself. [John 5:26]  This he sufficiently shewed by working with a word, by commanding the winds to be still, the devils to fly, and the dead to rise: by working without a word or any mark intervenient sign; as when the woman which had an issue of blood twelve years touched his garment, and straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up [Mark 5:25, 29] by the virtue which flowed out from the greater fountain of his power.  And lest this example should be single, we find that the men of Gennesaret, the people out of all Judea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, [Matt. 14:34, 36] even the whole multitude sought to touch him ; for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all. [Luke 6:17, 19]  Once indeed Christ seemeth to have prayed, before he raised Lazarus from the grave, but even that was done because of the people which stood by [John 11:42]: not that he had not power within himself to raise up Lazarus, who was afterward to raise himself; but that they might believe the Father had sent him.  The immanency and inherency of this power in, Jesus is evident in this, that he was able to communicate it to whom he pleased, and actually did confer it upon his Disciples: [Luke 10:19] Behold I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy.  Upon the Apostles: [Matt. 10:8] Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils; freely ye have received, freely give.  Upon the first believers: [Mark 16:17, John 14:12] These signs shall follow them that believe; in my name .john xiv. they shall cast out devils.  He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do.  He then which did more actions divine and powerful than Moses and all the Prophets ever did, he which performed them in a manner far more divine than that by which they wrought, hath done all which can be expected the Messias, foretold by them, should do.

      Nor hath our Jesus only done, but suffered, all which the Messias was to suffer.  For we must not with the Jews deny a suffering Christ, or fondly of our own invention make a double [M87] Messias, one to suffer, and another to reign.  It is clear enough by the Prophet Isaias what his condition was to be, whom he calls the Servant [Isa. 52:13] of God: and the later Jews cannot deny but their fathers constantly understood that place of the Messias.*

      Now the sufferings of Christ spoken of by the Prophet may be reduced to two parts: one in respect of contempt, by which he was despised of men; the other in respect of his death, and all those indignities and pains which preceded and led unto it.  For the first, the Prophet hath punctually described his condition, saying, He hath no form or comeliness, and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men. [Isa. 53:2, 3]  He seems to describe a personage no way amiable, an aspect indeed rather uncomely;* and so the most ancient writers* have interpreted Isaias, and confessed the fulfilling of it in the body of our Saviour.  But what [M88] the aspect of this outward appearance was, because the Scriptures are silent, we cannot now know: and it is enough that we are assured the state and condition of his life was in the eye of the Jews without honour and inglorious.  For though being in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [Phil. 2:6] yet he made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant.  For thirty years he lived with his mother Mary, and Joseph his reputed father, of a mean profession, and was subject unto them. [Luke 2:51]  When he left his mother’s house, and entered on his prophetical office, he passed from place to place, sometimes received into a house, other time lodging in the fields: for while the foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, the Son of man had not where to lay his head. [Matt. 8:20]  From this low estate of life and condition, seemingly inglorious, arose in the Jews a neglect of his works, and contempt of his doctrine. [Matt. 13:55, Mark 6:3]  Is not this the Carpenter’s son? nay, farther, Is not this the Carpenter,* the son of Mary?  And they were offended at him.  Thus was it fulfilled in him, he was despised and rejected of men, and they esteemed him not. [Isa. 53:3]

      This contempt of his personage, condition, doctrine, and works, was by degrees raised to hatred, detestation, and persecution, to a cruel and ignominious death.  All which if we look upon in the gross, we must acknowledge it fulfilled in him to the highest degree imaginable, that he was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. [Isa. 53:3]  But if we compare the particular predictions with the historical passages of his sufferings, if we join the Prophets and Evangelists together, it will most manifestly appear the Messias was to suffer nothing which Christ hath not suffered.  If Zachary say, they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver [Zech. 11:12], St. Matthew will shew that Judas sold Jesus at the same rate; for the chief Priests covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. [Matt. 26:15]  If Isaiah say that he was wounded [Isa. 53:5], if Zachary, they shall look upon me whom they have pierced [Zech. 12:10], if the Prophet David yet more particularly, they pierced my hands and my feet [Ps. 22:16]; the Evangelist will shew how he was fastened to the cross, and Jesus himself the print of the nails. [John 20:25]  If the Psalmist tells us, they should laugh him to scorn, and shake their head, saying, He trusted in the Lord that he would deliver him; let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him [Ps. 22:7, 8]; St. Matthew will describe the same action, and the same expression; for they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, and saying, He trusted in God, let him deliver him now, if he will have him ; for he said, I am the Son of God. [Matt. 27:39, 43]  Let David say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [Ps. 22:1] and the Son of David will shew in whose person the father spake it, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani. [Matt. 27:46]  Let Isaiah foretell, he was numbered with the transgressors [Isa. 53:12]; and you shall find him crucified between two thieves, the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. [Mark15:27]  Read in the Psalmist, In my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink [Ps. 69:21]; and you shall find in the Evangelist, Jesus, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, I thirst: and they took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. [John 19:28, Matt. 27:48]  Read farther yet, They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture [Ps. 22:18]; and, to fulfill the prediction, the soldiers shall make good the distinction, who took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part, and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.  They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it whose it shall be. [M89]  Lastly, let the Prophets teach us, that he shall be brought like a lamb to the slaughter, and be cut of out of the land of the living [Isa. 53:7, 8]; all the Evangelists will declare how like a lamb he suffered, and the very Jews will acknowledge that he was cut off: and now may we well conclude, thus it is written, and thus it behoved the Christ to suffer [Luke 24:46]; and what it so behoved him to suffer, that he suffered.

      Neither only in his passion, but after his death all things were fulfilled in Jesus which were prophesied concerning the Messias.  He made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death [Isa. 53:9], saith the Prophet of the Christ to come: and as the thieves were  buried with whom he was crucified, so was Jesus, but laid in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, an honourable counselor.  After two days will he revive us, in the third day he will raise us up [Hos. 6:2], saith Hoseah of the people of Israel; in whose language they were the type of Christ [Hos. 11:1]: and the third day Jesus rose from the dead.  The Lord said unto my Lord, saith David, Sit thou at my right hand. [Ps. 110:1]  Now David is not ascended into the heavens [Acts 2:34], and consequently cannot be set at the right hand of God; but Jesus is already ascended, and set down at the right hand of God: and so all the house of Israel might know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom they crucified, both Lord and Christ. [Acts 2:36]  For he, who taught whatsoever the Messias, promised by God, foretold by the Prophets, expected by the people of God, was to teach; he who did all which that Messias was by virtue of that office to do; he which suffered all those pains and indignities which that Messias was to suffer; he to whom all things happened after his death, the period of his sufferings, which were according to the divine predictions to come to pass; he, I say, must infallibly be the true Messias.  But Jesus alone taught, did, suffered, and obtained all these things, as we have shewed.  Therefore we may again infallibly conclude that our Jesus is the Christ.

      Fourthly, if it were the proper note and character of the Messias, that all nations should come in to serve him; if the doctrine of Jesus hath been preached and received in all parts of the world, according to that character so long before delivered; if it were absolutely impossible that the doctrine revealed by Jesus should have been so propagated as it hath been, had it not been divine; then must this Jesus be the Messias: and when we have proved these three particulars, we may safely conclude he is the Christ.

      That all nations were to come in to the Messias, and so the distinction between the Jew and Gentile to cease at his coming, is the most universal description in all the prophecies.  God speaks to him thus, as to his Son; Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. [Ps. 2:8]  It was one greater than Solomon, of whom these words were spoken, [Ps. 72:11] All kings shall fall down before him, all nations shall serve him.  It shall come to pass in the last days, saith Isaiah [Isa. 2:2], that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it.  And again, In that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek.  And in general all the prophets were but instruments to deliver the same message, which Malachy concludes, from God [Mal. 1:11]: From the rising of the sun, even to the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering : for my name shall be great among the heathen, with the Lord of hosts.  Now being the bounds of Judea were settled, being the promise of God was to bring all nations in at the coming of the Messias, being this was it which the Jews so much opposed, as loath to part from their ancient and peculiar privilege; he which actually wrought this work must certainly be the Messias : and that Jesus did it, is most evident.

      That all nations did thus come in to the doctrine preached [M90] by Jesus, cannot be denied.  For although he were not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel [Matt. 15:24]; although of those many Israelites which believed on him while he lived, very few were left immediately after his death: yet when the Apostles had received their commission from him to go teach all nations [Matt. 28:19], and were endued with power from on high, [Luke 24:49] by the plentiful effusion of the Holy Ghost; the first day there was an accession of three thousand souls; immediately after we find the number of the men, beside women, was about five  thousand; and still believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women. [Acts 2:41, 4:4, 5:14]  Upon the persecution at Jerusalem, they went through the regions of Judea, Galilee, and Samaria [Acts 8:1, 9:31], and so the Gospel spread; insomuch that St. James the bishop of Jerusalem spake thus unto St. Paul, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands (or rather, how many myriads, that is, ten thousands) of the Jews there are which believe. [Acts 21:20]  Beside, how great was the number of the believing Jews, strangers scattered through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia, and the rest of the Roman provinces, will appear out of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. James, and St. John.  And yet all these are nothing to the fullness of the Gentiles which came after.  First, those which were before Gentile worshippers, acknowledging the same God with the Jews, but not receiving the Law; who had before abandoned their old idolatry, and already embraced the true doctrine of one God, and did confess the Deity which the Jews did worship to be that only true God; but yet refused to be circumcised, and so to oblige themselves to the keeping of the whole Law.  Now the Apostles preaching the same God with Moses whom they all acknowledged, and teaching that circumcision and the rest of the legal ceremonies were now abrogated, which those men would never admit, they were with the greatest facility converted to the Christian Faith.  For being present at the synagogues of the Jews, and understanding much of the Law, they were of all the Gentiles readiest to hear, and most capable of the arguments which the Apostles produced out of the Scriptures to prove that Jesus was the Christ.  Thus many of the Greeks which came up to worship at Jerusalem, devout men out of every nation under heaven, not men of Israel, but yet fearing God, [John 12:20, Acts 2:5] did first embrace the Christian Faith.  After them the rest of the Gentiles left the idolatrous worship of their heathen gods, and in a short time in infinite multitudes received the Gospel.  How much did Jesus work by one St. Paul to the obedience of the Gentiles by word and deed! [Rom. 15:18, 19] how did he pass from Jerusalem round about through Phoenice, Syria, and Arabia, through Asia, Achaia, and Macedonia, even to Illyricum, fully preaching the Gospel of Christ!  How far did others pass beside St. Paul, that he should speak even of his time, that the Gospel was preached to every creature under heaven! [Col. 1:23]  Many were the nations, innumerable the people, which received the faith in the Apostles’ days: and in not many years after, notwithstanding millions were cut off in their bloody persecutions, yet did their numbers equalize half the Roman empires:* and little above two ages after the death of the last Apostle, the emperors of the world gave in their names to Christ, and submitted their scepters to his laws, that the Gentiles might come to his light, and kings to the brightness of his rising; [Isa. 60:3] that kings might become the nursing fathers, and queens the nursing mothers, of the Church. [Isa. 49:23]

      From hence it came to pass, that according to all the predictions [M91] of the Prophets, the one God of Israel, the Maker of heaven and earth, was acknowledged through the world for the only true God: that the Law given to Israel was taken for the true Law of God, but as given to that people, and so to cease when they ceased to be a people; except the moral part thereof, which, as an universal rule common to all people, is still acknowledged for the law of God, given unto all, and obliging every man: that all the oracles of the heathen gods, in all places where Christianity was received, did presently cease, and all the idols or the gods themselves were rejected and condemned as spurious.  For the Lord of Hosts had spoken concerning those times expressly; It shall come to pass in that day that I will cut of the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land. [Zech. 13:2]

      Now being this general reception of the Gospel was so anciently, so frequently foretold, being the same was so clearly and universally performed; even this might seem sufficient to persuade that Jesus is Christ.  But lest any should not yet be fully satisfied, we shall farther shew, that it is impossible Jesus should have been so received for the true Messias, had he not been so; or that his doctrine, which teacheth him to be the Christ, should be admitted by all nations for a Divine, had it not been such.  For whether we look upon the nature of the doctrine taught, the condition of the teachers of it, or the manner in which it was taught, it can no way seem probable that it should have had any such success, without the immediate working of the hand of God, acknowledging Jesus for his Son, the doctrine for his own, and the fulfilling by the hands of the Apostles what he had foretold by the Prophets.

      As for the nature of the doctrine, it was no way likely to have any such success.  For, first, it absolutely condemned all other religions, settled and corroborated by a constant succession of many ages, under which many nations and kingdoms, and especially at that time the Roman, had signally flourished.  Secondly, it contained precepts far more ungrateful and troublesome to flesh and blood, and contrariant to the general inclination of mankind; as the abnegation of ourselves, the mortifying of the flesh, the love of our enemies, and the bearing of the cross.  Thirdly, it enforced those precepts seemingly unreasonable, by such promises as were as seemingly incredible and unperceivable.  For they were not of the good things of this world, or such as afford any complacency to our sense; but of such as cannot be obtained till after this life, and necessarily presuppose that which then seemed as absolutely impossible, the resurrection.  Fourthly, it delivered certain predictions which were to be fulfilled in the persons of such as should embrace it, which seem sufficient to have kept most part of the world from listening to it, as dangers, losses, afflictions, tribulations, and in sum, All that would live godly in Christ Jesus should suffer persecution. [2 Tim. 3:12]

      If we look upon the teachers of this doctrine, there appeared nothing in them which could promise any such success.  The first revealer and promulger bred in the house of a carpenter, brought up at the feet of no professor, despised by the high priests, the Scribes and Pharisees, and all the learned in the religion of his nation; in the time of his preaching apprehended, bound, buffeted, spit upon, condemned, crucified; betrayed in his life by one disciple, denied by another; at his death distrusted by all.  What advantage can we perceive toward the propagation of the Gospel in this Author of it, Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness? [1 Cor. :23] what in those which followed him, sent by him, and thence called Apostles, men by birth obscure, by education illiterate, [M92] by profession low and inglorious?  How can we conceive that all the schools and universities in the world should give way to them, and the kingdoms and empires should at last come in to them, except their doctrine were indeed Divine, except that Jesus, whom they testified to be the Christ, were truly so?

      If we consider the manner in which they delivered this doctrine to the world, it will add no advantage to their persons, or advance the probability of success.  For in their delivery they used no such rhetorical expressions, or ornaments of eloquence, to allure or entice the world; they affected no such subtlety of wit, or strength of argumentation, as thereby to persuade and convince men; they made use of no force or violence to compel, no corporal menaces to affright mankind into a compliance.  But in a plain simplicity of words they nakedly delivered what they had seen and heard, preaching, not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit. [1 Cor. 2:4]  It is not then rationally imaginable, that so many nations should forsake their own religions, so many ages professed, and brand them all as damnable, only that they might embrace such precepts as were most unacceptable to their natural inclinations, and that upon such promises as seemed not probable to their reason, nor could have any influence on their sense, and notwithstanding those predictions which did assure them, upon the receiving of that doctrine, to be exposed to all kind of misery: that they should do this upon the authority of him, who for the same was condemned and crucified, and by the persuasion of them who were both illiterate and obscure: that they should be enticed with words without eloquence, convinced without the least subtlety, constrained without any force.  I say, it is no way imaginable how this should come to pass, had not the doctrine of the Gospel, which did thus prevail, been certainly Divine; had not the light of the Word, which thus dispelled the clouds of all former religions, come from heaven; had not that Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, [Heb. 12:2] been the true Messias.

      To conclude this discourse.  He who was in the world at the time when the Messias was to come, and no other at that time or since pretended; he who was born of the same family, in the same place, after the same manner, which the Prophets foretold of the birth of the Messias; he which taught all those truths, wrought all those miracles, suffered all those indignities, received all that glory, which the Messias was to teach, do, suffer, and receive; he whose doctrine was received in all nations, according to the character of the Messias; he was certainly the true Messias.  But we have already sufficiently shewed that all these things are exactly fulfilled in Jesus, and in him alone.  We must therefore acknowledge and profess that this Jesus is the promised Messias, that is, the Christ.

      Having thus manifested the truth of this proposition, Jesus is the Christ, and shewed the interpretation of the word Christ to be anointed; we find it yet necessary for the explication of this Article, to inquire what was the end or immediate effect of his unction,* and how or in what manner he was anointed to that end.

      For the first, as the Messias was foretold, so was he typified: nor were the actions prescribed under the Law less predictive than the words of the Prophets.  Nay, whosoever were then anointed, were therefore so, because he was to be anointed.*  Now it is evident that among the Jews they were wont to anoint those which were appointed as kings over them:* [1 Sam. 15:1] So Samuel said unto Saul, the Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel.  When Saul was rejected, and David produced before Samuel, the Lord said, Arise, anoint him, for this is he. [1 Sam. 16:12]  And some may have contented themselves with this,* that the Messias was to be a King.  But not only the kings, but beside, and long before them, the high priests were also anointed; [M93] insomuch as the anointed,* in their common language, signified their high priest.  And because these two were most constantly anointed, therefore divers* have thought it sufficient to assert, that the Messias was to be a King and a Priest.  But being not only the high priests and kings were actually anointed (though they principally and most frequently); for [1 Kings 19:15, 16] the Lord said unto Elias, Go anoint Hazael to be king over Syria, and Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel, and Elisha the son of Shaphat shalt thou anoint to be Prophet in thy room: therefore hence it hath been concluded* that the three offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, belonged to Jesus as the Christ, and that upon good reason.  For the commonwealth of Israel was totally ordered and disposed, both in the constitution and administration of it, for and with respect unto the Messias.  The constitution of that people was made by a sejunction and separation of them from all other nations on the earth; and this began in Abraham, with a peculiar promise of a seed in whom all the nations should be blessed, and be united into one religion.  That promised seed was the Messias, the type of whom was Isaac.  This separation was continued by the administration of that commonwealth, which was a royal priesthood [1 Pet. 2:9]: and that administration of the people did consist in three functions, prophetical, regal, sacerdotal; all which had respect unto the Messias,* as the scope of all the Prophets, and the complement of their prophecies, as the Lord of the temple, and the end of all the sacrifices for which the temple was erected, as the heir of an eternal priesthood after the order of Melchizedeck, [Ps. 110:4] and of the throne of David, or an everlasting kingdom.  Being then the separation was to cease at the coming of the Messias, being that could not cease so long as the administration of that people stood, being that administration did consist in those three functions, it followeth that those three were to be united in the person of the Messias, who was to make all one, and consequently that the Christ was to be Prophet, Priest, and King.

      Again, the redemption or salvation which the Messias was to bring, consisteth in the freeing of a sinner from the state of sin and eternal death into a state of righteousness and eternal life.  Now a freedom from sin in respect of the guilt could not be wrought without a sacrifice propitiatory, and therefore there was a necessity of a priest; a freedom from sin in respect of the dominion could not be obtained without a revelation of the will of God, and of his wrath against all ungodliness, therefore there was also need of a Prophet; a translation from the state of death [M94] into eternal life is not to be effected without absolute authority and irresistible power, therefore a King was also necessary.  The Messias then, the Redeemer of Israel, was certainly anointed for that end, that he might become Prophet, Priest, and King.  And if we believe him whom we call Jesus, that is our Saviour and Redeemer, to be Christ, we must assert him by his unction sent to perform all these three offices.

      That Jesus was anointed to the prophetical office, though we need no more to prove it than the prediction of Isaiah, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor [Isa. 59:1]; the explication of our Saviour, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears [Luke 4:21, 22]; and the confession of the synagogue at Nazareth, who all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth; yet we are furnished with more ample and plentiful demonstrations; for whether we consider his preparation, his mission, or his administration, all of them speak him fully to have performed it.  To Jeremiah indeed God said, [Jer. 1:5] Before thou earnest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a Prophet unto the nations; and of John the Baptist, [Luke 1:15] He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.  And if these became singular Prophets by their preparative sanctification, how much more eminent must his prophetical preparation be, to whose mother it is said, [Luke 1:35] The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee?  If the Levites must be thirty years old, every one that came to do the service of the ministry, [Num. 4:47] Jesus will not enter upon the public administration of this office till he begin to be about thirty years of age. [Luke 3:23]  Then doth the Holy Ghost descend in a bodily shape like a dove upon him [Luke 3:22]: then must a voice come from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.  Never such preparations, never such an inauguration of a Prophet.

      As for his mission, never any was confirmed with such letters of credence, such irrefragable testimonials, as the formal testimony of John the Baptist, and the more virtual testimony of his miracles.  [Mal. 4:5] Behold, I will send you Elijah the Prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord, saith God by Malachy.  And John went before him in the spirit of Elias [Luke 1:17], saith another Malachy, even an angel from heaven.  This John, or Elias, saw the Spirit descend on Jesus, and bare record that this is the Son of God. [John 1:34]  The Jews took notice of this testimony, who said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth , and all men come unto him [John 3:26]; and Jesus himself puts them in mind of it, Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth [John 5:33]; nay they themselves confessed his testimony to be undeniable; John did no miracle, but all things that John spake of this man were true. [John 5:36]  But though the witness of John were thus cogent, yet the testimony of miracles was far more irrefragable; I have greater witness than that of John, saith our Saviour [John 5:36], for the works which my Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.  Notwithstanding the precedent record of John, Jesus requireth not an absolute assent unto his doctrine without his miracles; If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. [John 10:37, 38]  But upon them he challengeth belief; 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.  If then Moses and other Prophets, to whom God gave the power of miracles, did assert their mission to be from God by the divine works which they wrought; much more efficacious to this purpose must the miracles of Jesus appear, who wrought more wonders than they all.  Never therefore was there so manifest a mission of a Prophet.

[M95]  Now the prophetical function consisteth in the promulgation, confirmation, and perpetuation of the doctrine containing the will of God for the salvation of man.  And the perfect administration of this office must be attributed unto Jesus.  For no man kith seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. [John 1:18]  He gave unto the Apostles the words which his Father gave him. [John 17:8, 14]  Therefore he hath revealed the perfect will of God.  The confirmation of this doctrine cannot be denied him, who lived a most innocent and holy life to persuade it, for he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth [1 Pet. 2:22]; who wrought most powerful and Divine works to confirm it, and was thereby known to be a teacher from God [John 3:2]; who died a most painful and shameful death to ratify it, witnessing a good profession before Pontius Pilate [1 Tim. 6:13]; which in itself unto that purpose efficacious, was made more evidently operative in the raising of himself from death.  The propagation and perpetual succession of this doctrine must likewise be attributed unto Jesus, as to no temporary or accidental Prophet, but as to him who instituted and instructed all who have any relation to that function.  For the Spirit of Christ was in the Prophets [1 Pet. 1:11]: and when he ascended up on high, he gave gifts unto men.  For he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Pastors and Teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. [Eph. 4:8, 11, 12]  It is then most apparent that Jesus was so far Christ, as that he was anointed to the prophetical office, because his preparation for that office was most remarkable, his mission unto that office was undeniable, his administration of that office was infallible.

      Now as Jesus was anointed with the unction of Elizeus to the prophetical, so was he also with the unction of Aaron to the sacerdotal office.  Not that he was called after the order of Aaron; for it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses slake nothing concerning priesthood [Heb. 7:14, 21]: but after a more ancient order, according to the prediction of the Psalmist, [Ps. 110:4] The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedeck.  But though he were of another order, yet whatsoever Aaron did as a Priest was wholly typical, and consequently to be fulfilled by the Messias, as he was a Priest.  For the priesthood did not begin in Aaron, but was translated and conferred upon his family before his consecration.  We read of the priests which came near to the Lord [Exod. 19:22]; of young men of the children of Israel which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord [Exod. 24:5]: which without question were no other than the firstborn,* to whom the priesthood did belong.  Jesus therefore, as the first-begotten of God, was by right a Priest, and being anointed unto that office, performed every function, by way of oblation, intercession, and benediction.  Every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man Jesus, if he be an High Priest, have somewhat also to offer. [Heb. 8:3]  Not that he had any thing beside himself, or that there was any peculiar sacrifice allowed to this Priest, to whom, when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me [Heb. 10:5, 10]: and, by the offering of this body of Jesus Christ are we sanctified. [Eph. 5:2]  For he who is our Priest hath given himself* an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour.

      Now when Jesus had thus given himself a propitiatory sacrifice for sin, he ascended up on high, and entered into the holy of holies not made with hands, and there appeared before God as an atonement for our sin.  Nor is he prevalent only in his own oblation once offered, but in his constant intercession.  Who is he that condemneth? [Rom. 8:34] saith the Apostle: it is Christ that died, yea rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of [M96] God; who also maketh intercession for us.  Upon this foundation he buildeth our persuasion, that he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. [Heb. 7:25]  Nor must we look upon this as a servile* or precarious, but rather as an efficacious and glorious intercession, as of him to whom all power is given both in heaven and earth.  Besides these offerings and intercedings, there was something more required of the Priest, and that is blessing.  Aaron was separated, that he should sanctify the most holy things, he and his sons for ever, to burn incense before the Lord, to minister unto him, and to bless in his name for ever. [1 Chron. 23:13]  We read of no other sacerdotal act performed by Melchizedeck the Priest of the most high God, but only that of blessing, and that in respect both of God and man first, he blessed man, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: then, Blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thine hand. [Gen. 14:19, 20]  Now it is observable what the rabbins have delivered, that at the morning sacrifice the priests under the Law did bless the people with the solemn form of benediction, but at the evening sacrifice they blessed them not; to spew that in the evening of the world, the last days, which are the days of the Messias, the benediction of the Law should cease, and the blessing of the Christ take place.  When Zachariah the Priest, the father of John Baptist, the forerunner of our Saviour, executed his office before God in the order of his course, and the whole multitude of the people waited for him, [Luke 1:8, 19, 21, 22] to receive his benediction, he could not speak unto them, for he was dumb; shewing the power of benediction was now passing to another and far greater Priest, even to Jesus, whose doctrine in the mount begins with Blessed; who, when he left his Disciples, lift up his hands and blessed them. [Luke 24:50]  And yet this function is principally performed after his resurrection, as it is written, Unto you first, God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning every one of you from his iniquities. [Acts 3:26]  It cannot then be denied that Jesus, who offered up himself a most perfect sacrifice and oblation for sin, who still maketh continual intercession for us, who was raised from the dead, that he might bless us with an everlasting benediction, is a most true and most perfect Priest.

      The third office belonging to the Messias was the regal, as appeareth by the most ancient tradition of the Jews,* and by the express predictions of the Prophets.  Yet have I set my King, saith the Psalmist, upon my holy hill of Sion. [Ps. 2:6]  Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, [Isa. 9:6] saith the Prophet Isaiah, who calleth him the Prince of peace, shewing the perpetuity of his power and particularity of his seat.  Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice „from henceforth even for ever. [Isa. 9:7]  All which most certainly belongs unto our Jesus, by the unerring interpretation of the angel Gabriel, who promised the blessed Virgin that the Lord God should give unto her Son the throne of his father  David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end. [Luke 1:32, 33]  He acknowledgeth himself this office, though by a strange and unlikely representation of it, the riding on an ass; but by that it was fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting on an ass. [Matt. 21:4, 5]  He made as strange a confession of it unto Pilate; for when he said unto him, Art thou a King then?  Jesus answered, Thou sagest that I am a King.  To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. [John 18:37]  The solemn inauguration into this office was at his ascension into heaven, and his session at the right hand of God: not but that he was by right a King before, but the full and public execution was deferred till then, [Eph. 1:20, 21] when God raised him from the [M97] dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion.  Then he, whose name is called the Word of God, had on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords. [Rev. 19:13, 16]

      This regal office of our Saviour consisteth partly in the ruling, protecting, and rewarding of his people; partly in the coercing, condemning, and destroying of his enemies.  First, he ruleth in his own people, by delivering them a Law by which they walk; by furnishing them with his grace, by which they are enabled to walk in it.  Secondly, he protecteth the same, by helping them to subdue their lusts, which reign in their mortal bodies; by preserving them from the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil; by supporting them in all their afflictions; by delivering them from all their enemies.  Thirdly, whom he thus rules and protects here, he rewards hereafter in a most royal manner, making them kings and priests unto God and his Father. [Rev. 1:6]  On the contrary, he sheweth his regal dominion in the destruction of his enemies, whether they were temporal or spiritual enemies.  Temporal, as the Jews and Romans, who joined together in his crucifixion.  While he was on earth he told his Disciples, There be some standing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom [Matt. 16:28]: and in that kingdom he was then seen to come, when he brought utter destruction on the Jews by the Roman armies, not long after to be destroyed themselves.  But beside these visible enemies, there are other spiritual, those which hinder the bringing in of his own people into his Father’s kingdom, those which refuse to be subject unto him, and consequently deny him to be their King; as all wicked and ungodly men, of whom he hath said, These mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. [Luke 19:27]  Thus sin, Satan, and death, being the enemies to his kingdom, shall all be destroyed in their order.  For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet: and the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. [1 Cor. 15:25, 26]  Thus is our Jesus become the Prince of; the kings of the earth; thus is the Lamb acknowledged to be Lord of lords, and King of kings. [Rev. 1:5, 17:14]

      Wherefore seeing we have already shewed that the prophetical, sacerdotal, and regal offices were to belong unto the promised Messias, as the proper end and immediate effect of his unction; seeing we have likewise declared how Jesus was anointed to these offices, and hath and doth actually perform the same in all the functions belonging to them: there remaineth nothing for the full explication of this particular concerning the Christ, but only to shew the manner of this unction, which is very necessary to be explained.  For how they were anointed under the Law, who were the types of the Messias, is plain and evident, because the manner was prescribed, and the materials were visible; God appointed an oil to be made, and appropriated it to that use; and the pouring that oil upon the body of any person was his anointing to that office for which he was designed.  But being that oil so appropriated to this use was lost many hundred years before our Saviour’s birth, being the custom of anointing in this manner had a long time ceased, being howsoever we never read that Jesus was at all anointed with oil; it remaineth still worthy our inquiry, how he was anointed, so as to answer to the former unctions; and what it was which answered to that oil, which then was lost, and was at the first but as a type of this which now we search for.

      The Jews tell us,* that the anointing oil was hid in the days of Josiah, and that it shall he found and produced again [M98] when the Messias comes, that he may be anointed with it, and the kings and high priests of his days.  But though the loss of that oil bespake the destruction of that nation, yet the Christ which was to come needed no such unction for his consecration; there being as great a difference between the typical and correspondent oil, as between the representing and represented Christ.  The Prophet David calleth it not by the vulgar name of oil of unction, but the oil of gladness. [Ps. 45:7]  For though that place may in the first sense be understood of Solomon, whom when Zadoc the Priest anointed, they blew the trumpet, and all the people said, God save King Solomon.  And all the people came up after him, and the people piped with pipes, and rejoiced with great joy, so that the earth rent with the sound of them [1 Kings 1:39, 40]; though from thence it might be said of him, Thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows [Ps. 45:7]: yet being those words are spoken unto God, as well as of God,* (therefore God, thy God,) the oil with which that God is anointed must in the ultimate and highest sense signify a far greater gladness than that at Solomon’s coronation was, even the fountain of all joy and felicity in the Church of God.

      The ancients tell us that this oil is the Divinity itself,* and in the language of the Scriptures it is the Holy Ghost.  St. Peter teacheth us how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power. [Acts 10:38]  Now though there can be no question but the Spirit is the oil, yet there is some doubt, when Jesus was anointed with it.  For we know the angel said unto the blessed Virgin, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. [Luke 1:35]  From whence it appeareth that from the conception or at the incarnation, Jesus was sanctified by the Holy Ghost and the power of the Highest, and so consequently, as St. Peter spake, he was anointed* then with the Holy Ghost and with power.  Again, being we read that after he was thirty years of age, the Spirit like a dove descended and lighted upon him, [Matt. 3:16] and he, descending in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, [Luke 4:14, 21] said unto them of Nazareth, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears, meaning that of Isaiah, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the Gospel: hence hath it been also collected, that his unction was performed at his Baptism.*  Nor need we to contend which of these two was the true time of our Saviour’s unction, since neither is destructive of the other, and consequently both may well consist together.  David, the most undoubted type of the Messias, was anointed at Bethlehem; for there [1 Sam. 16:13] Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David, from that day forward.  Of which unction those words of God must necessarily be understood, I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him. [Ps. 89:20]  [M99] And yet he was again anointed at Hebron; first, over the house of Adak, then over all the tribes of Israel. [2 Sam. 2:4, 5:1, 3]  As therefore David at his first unction received the Spirit of God, and a full right unto the throne of Israel, which yet he was not to exercise till the death of Saul and acceptation of the tribes; and therefore when the time was come that he should actually enter upon his regal office, he was again anointed: so our Jesus, the Son of David, was first sanctified and anointed with the Holy Ghost at his conception, and thereby received a right unto, and was prepared for, all those offices which belonged to the Redeemer of the world; but when he was to enter upon the actual and full performance of all those functions which belonged to him, then doth the same Spirit which had sanctified him at his conception visibly descend upon him at his inauguration.  And that most properly upon his baptism, because, according to the customs of those ancient nations, washing was wont to precede their unctions:* wherefore Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove [Matt. 3:16]: as David sent Solomon to be anointed at Gihon: from whence arose that ancient observation of the Rabbins, that kings were not to be anointed but by a fountain.*

      Now as we have shewed that Jesus was anointed with the Holy Ghost, lest any should deny any such descension to be a proper or sufficient unction, we shall farther make it appear, that the effusion, or action of the Spirit, eminently containeth whatsoever the Jews have imagined to be performed or signified by those legal anointings.  Two very good reasons they render, why God did command the use of such anointing oil, as in respect of the action.  First, that it might signify the divine election of that person, and designation to that office: from whence it was necessary that it should be performed by a prophet, who understood the will of God.  Secondly, that by it the person anointed might be made fit to receive the divine influx.  For the first, it is evident there could be no such infallible sign of the divine designation of Jesus to his offices, as the visible descent of the Spirit, attended with a voice from heaven, [Matt. 3:17] instead of the hand of a prophet, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.  For the second, this spiritual unction was so far from giving less than an aptitude to receive the Divine influx, that it was that Divine influx, nay, the Divinity itself, the [M100] Godhead dwelling in him bodily.

      In respect of the matter, they give two causes why it was oil, and not any other liquor.  First, because of all other it signifies the greatest glory and excellency.  The olive was the first of trees mentioned as fit for sovereignty, in regard of its fatness, wherewith they honour God and man. [Judg. 9:9]  Therefore it was fit that those persons which were called to a greater dignity than the rest of the Jews, should be consecrated by oil, as the best sign of election to honour.  And can there be a greater honour than to be the Son of God, the beloved Son, as Jesus was proclaimed at this unction, by which he was consecrated to such an office as will obtain him a name far above all names?  Secondly, they tell us that oil continueth uncorrupted longer than any other liquor.  And indeed it hath been observed to preserve not only itself, but other things,* from corruption; hence they conclude it fit their kings and priests, whose succession was to continue for ever, should be anointed with oil, the most proper emblem of eternity.  But even by this reason of their own, their unction is ceased, being the succession of their kings and priests is long since cut off, and their eternal and eternizing oil lost long before, and only that one Jesus, who was anointed with the most spiritual oil, continueth for ever; and therefore hath an unchangeable priesthood, as being made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. [Heb. 7:24, 16]

      Beside, they observe, that simple oil without any mixture was sufficient for the candlestick; but that which was designed for unction must be compounded with principal spices, which signify a good name, always to be acquired by those in places of greatest dignity by the most laudable and honourable actions.  And certainly never was such an admixtion of spices, as in the unction of our Saviour, by which he was endued with all variety of the graces of God, by which he was enabled to offer himself a sacrifice for a sweet smelling savour. [Eph. 5:2]  For as he was full of grace and truth [John 1:14, 16], so of his fullness have we all received, grace for grace: and as we have received anointing of him, so we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ. [1 John 2:27, 2 Cor. 2:15]

      Again, it was sufficient to anoint the vessels of the sanctuary in any part; but it was particularly commanded that the oil should be poured upon the head of the kings and priests, as the seat of all the animal faculties, the fountain of all dignity, and original of all the members of the body.*  This was more eminently fulfilled in Jesus, who by his unction, or as Christ, became the Head of the Church; nay the Head of all principality and power, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. [Col. 1:18, 2:10, 19]

      Lastly, they observe, that though in the vessels nothing but a single unction was required; yet in the kings and priests there was commanded, or at least practiced, both unction and affusion, (as it is written, He poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head, and anointed him to sanctify him [Lev. 8:12]): the first to signify their separation, the second to assure them of the falling of the Spirit upon them.  Now what more clear than that our Christ was anointed by affusion, whether we look upon his conception, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee [Luke 1:35]; or his inauguration, the Spirit descended and lighted upon him? [Mat. 3:16]  And thus, according unto all particulars required by the Jews themselves to complete their legal unctions, we have sufficiently shewed that Jesus was, as most eminently, so most properly, anointed with the Spirit of God.

      Wherefore being we have shewn that a Messias was to come [M101] into the world; being we have proved that he is already come, by the same predictions by which we believe he was to come.; being we have demonstrated that Jesus born in the days of Herod was and is that promised Messias; being we have farther declared that he was anointed to those offices which belonged to the Messias, and actually did and doth still perform them all; and that his anointing was by the immediate allusion of the Spirit, which answereth fully to all things required in the legal and typical unction: I cannot see what farther can be expected for explication or confirmation of this truth, that Jesus is the Christ.

      The necessity of believing this part of the Article is most apparent, because it were impossible he should be our Jesus, except he were the Christ.  For he could not reveal the way of salvation, except he were a Prophet; he could not work out that salvation revealed, except he were a Priest; he could not confer that salvation upon us, except he were a King; he could not be Prophet, Priest, and King, except he were the Christ.  This was the fundamental doctrine which the Apostles not only testified, as they did that of the resurrection, but argued, proved, and demonstrated out of the Law and the Prophets.  We find St. Paul at Thessalonica three Sabbath days reasoning with them out of the Scriptures, opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. [Acts 17:2, 3]  We find him again at Corinth pressed in spirit, and testifying to the Jews, that Jesus was Christ. [Acts 18:5]  Thus Apollos, by birth a Jew, but instructed in the Christian faith by Aquila and Priscilla, mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, skewing by the Scriptures, that Jesus was Christ. [Acts 18:28]  This was the touchstone by which all men at first were tried, whether they were Christian or Antichristian.  For whosoever believeth, saith St. John, that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. [1 John 5:1]  What greater commendation of the assertion of this truth? [1 John 2:22]  Who is a liar, saith the same Apostle, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? this man is the Antichrist, as denying the Father and the Son.  What higher condemnation of the negation of it?

      Secondly, as it is necessary to be believed as a most fundamental truth, so it hath as necessary an influence upon our conversations; because, except it hath so, it cannot clearly be maintained.  Nothing can be more absurd in a disputant than to pretend to demonstrate a truth as infallible, and at the same time to shew it impossible.  And yet so doth every one who professeth faith in Christ already come, and liveth not according to that profession; for thereby he proveth, as far as he is able, that the true Christ is not yet come, at least that Jesus is not he.  We sufficiently demonstrate to the Jews that our Saviour who did and suffered so much, is the true Messias: but by our lives we recall our arguments, and strengthen their willful opposition.  For there was certainly a promise, that when Christ should come, the wolf should dwell with the lamb, and the leopard should lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the falling together, and a little child should lead them [Isa. 11:6]; that is, there should be so much love, unanimity, and brotherly kindness in the kingdom of Christ, that all ferity and inhumanity being laid aside, the most different natures and inclinations should come to the sweetest harmony and agreement.  Whereas if we look upon ourselves, we must confess there was never more bitterness of spirit, more rancour of malice, more heat of contention, more manifest symptoms of envy, hatred, and all uncharitableness, than in those which make profession of the Christian faith.  It was infallibly foretold, that when the law should go forth out of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem, they should beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation should not lift up sword against [M102] nation, neither should they learn war any more. [Isa. 2:3, 4]  Whereas there is no other art so much studied, so much applauded, so violently asserted, not only as lawful, but as necessary.  Look upon the face of Christendom divided into several kingdoms and principalities: what are all these but so many public enemies, either exercising or designing war?  The Church was not more famous, or did more increase by the first blood which was shed in the primitive times through the external violence of ten persecutions, than now it is infamous, and declines, through constant violence, fraud, and rapine, through public engagements of the greatest empires in arms, through civil and intestine wars, and, lest any way of shedding Christian blood should be unassayed, even by massacres.  It was likewise prophesied of the days of the Messias, that all idolatry should totally cease, [Zech.13:2] that all false teachers should be cut off, and unclean spirits restrained.  And can we think that the Jews, who really abhor the thoughts of worshipping an image, can ever be persuaded there is no idolatry committed in the Christian Church?  Or can we excuse ourselves in the least degree from the plague of the locusts of Egypt, the false teachers?  Can so many schisms and sects arise, and spread, can so many heresies be acknowledged and countenanced, without false prophets and unclean spirits?  If then we would return to the bond of true Christian love and charity, if we would appear true lovers of peace and tranquility, if we would truly hate the abominations of idolatry, false doctrine, and heresy, let us often remember what we ever profess in our Creed, that Jesus is the Christ, that the kingdom of the Messias cannot consist with these impieties.

      Thirdly, the necessity of this belief appeareth in respect of those offices which belong to Jesus, as he is the Christ.  We must look upon him as upon the Prophet anointed by God to preach the Gospel, that we may be incited to hear and embrace his doctrine.  Though Moses and Elias be together with him in the mount, yet the voice from heaven speaketh of none but Jesus, Hear ye him. [Matt. 17:5]  He is that Wisdom, the delight of God, crying in the Proverbs [Prov. 8:30, 34], Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.  There is one thing needful, saith our Saviour; and Mary chose that good part, who sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word. [Luke 10:42, 39]  Which devout posture teacheth us, as a willingness to hear, so a readiness to obey: and the proper effect which the belief of this prophetical office worketh in us, is our obedience of faith. [Rom. 16:26]  We must farther consider him as our High Priest, that we may thereby add confidence to that obedience.  For we have boldness to enter into the Holiest by the blood of Jesus [Heb. 10:19, 21, 22]; yea, having an High Priest over the house of God, we may draw wear with a true heart in full assurance of faith.  And as this breedeth an adherence and assurance in us, so it requireth a resignation of us.  For if Christ have redeemed us, we are his; if he died for us, was that we should live to him: if we be bought with a price, [1 Cor. 6:20] we are no longer our own; but we must glorify God in our body and in our spirit, which are God’s.  Again, an apprehension of him as a King is necessary for the performance of our true and entire allegiance to him.  Send the lamb to the Ruler of the earth, do him homage [Isa. 16:1], acknowledge him your King, shew yourselves faithful and obedient subjects.  We can pretend, and he hath required, no less.  As soon as he let the Apostles understand that all power was given unto him in heaven and in earth, [Mat. 28:18, 20] he charged them to teach all nations, to observe all things whatsoever he commanded them.  Can we imagine he should so strictly enjoin subjection to higher powers, [Rom. 13:1] the highest of whom are here below, and that he doth not expect exact obedience to him who is exalted far above, all principalities and powers, and is set down at the right hand of God? [Eph. 1:20, 21]  It is observable that in the description of the coming of [M103] the Son of Man, it is said, The King shall say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you [Matt. 25:34]: which title, as it secures our hope, in respect of his power; as it magnifies our reward by the excellency of our inheritance; so also it teacheth us the indispensable condition of obedience.

      Fourthly, the belief of Jesus the Christ is necessary to instruct us what it is to be a Christian, and how far we stand obliged by owning that name.  Those who did first embrace the faith were styled disciples,* (as when the number of the disciples was multiplied) [Acts 6:1, 7] or believers, or brethren, or men of the Church,* or callers upon the name of Christ, or men of the way;* or by their enemies, Nazarens, and Galileans.  But in a short time they gained a name derived from their Saviour, though not from that name of his which signifieth salvation; for from Christ they were called Christians.  A title so honourable, and of such concernment, that St. Luke hath thought fit to mention the city in which that name first was heard.  [Acts 11:26] And the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch,* as the Scriptures assure us; so named by Euodius*, the Bishop of that place, as ecclesiastical history informs us.  A name no sooner invented, but embraced by all believers, as bearing the most proper signification of their profession, and relation to the Author and Master whom they served.  In which the primitive Christians so much delighted, that before the face of their enemies they would acknowledge no other title but that,* though hated, reviled, tormented, martyred for it.  Nor is this name of greater honour to us, than of obligation.  There are two parts of the seal of the foundation of God, and one of them is this; Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. [M104]  It was a common answer of the ancient martyrs, I am a Christian, and with us no evil is done.*  The very name was thought to speak something of emendation;* and whosoever put it on, became the better man.  Except such reformation accompany our profession, there is no advantage in the appellation;* nor can we be honoured by that title, while we dishonour him that gives it.  If he be therefore called Christ, because anointed; as we derive the name of Christian, so do we receive our unction,* from him.  For as the precious ointment upon the head ran down upon the beard, even Aaron’s beard, and went down to the skirts of his garments [Ps. 133:2]: so the Spirit, which without measure was poured upon Christ our head, is by him diffused through all the members of his body.*  For God hath established and anointed us in Christ: We have an unction from the Holy One, and the anointing which we have received from him abideth in us. [2 Cor. 1:21, 1 John 2:20, 27]  Necessary then it cannot choose but be, that we should know Jesus to be the Christ: because as he is Jesus, that is, our Saviour, by being Christ, that is, anointed; so we can have no share in him as Jesus, except we become truly Christians, and so be in him as Christ, anointed with that unction from the Holy One.*

      Thus having run through all the particulars at first designed for the explication of the title, Christ, we may at last clearly express, and every Christian easily understand, what it is we say when we make our confession in these words, I believe in Jesus Christ.  I do assent unto this as a certain truth, that there was a man promised by God, foretold by the Prophets to be the Messias, the Redeemer of Israel, and the expectation of the nations.  I am fully assured by all those predictions that the Messias so promised is already come.  I am as certainly persuaded, that the Man born in the days of Herod of the Virgin Mary, by an angel from heaven called Jesus, is that true Messias, so long, so often promised: that, as the Messias, he was anointed to three special offices, belonging to him as the Mediator between God and Man: that he was a Prophet, revealing unto us the whole will of God for the salvation of man; that he was a Priest, and hath given himself a sacrifice for sin, and so hath made an atonement for us; that he is a King, set down at the right hand of God, far above all principalities and powers, whereby, when he hath subdued all our enemies, he will confer actual, perfect, and eternal happiness upon us. I believe this unction, by which he became the true Messias, was not performed by any material oil, but by the Spirit of God, which he received as the Head, and conveyeth to his members.  And in this full acknowledgment, I believe in Jesus Christ.

His only Son.

[M105]

      After our Saviour’s nomination immediately followeth his filiation: and justly, after we have acknowledged him to be the Christ, do we confess him to be the Son of God; because these two were ever inseparable, and even by the Jews themselves accounted equivalent.  Thus Nathanael, that true Israelite, maketh his confession of the Messias; Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel. [John 1:49]  Thus Martha makes expression of her faith; I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.  [John 11:27]  Thus the high priest maketh his inquisition; I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. [Matt. 26:63]  This was the famous confession of St. Peter; We believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. [John 6:69]  And the Gospel of St. John was therefore written, that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. [John 20:31]  Certain then it is that all the Jews, as they looked for a Messias to come, so they believed that Messias to be the Son of God, (although since the coming of our Saviour they have denied it*): and that by reason of a constant interpretation of the second Psalm, as appropriated unto him.  And the primitive Christians did at the very beginning include this filial title of our Saviour, together with his names, into the compass of one word.*  Well therefore after we have expressed our faith in Jesus Christ, is added that which always had so great affinity with it, the only Son of God.

      In these words there is little variety to be observed, except that what we translate the only Son,* that in the phrase of the Scripture and the Greek Church is the only-begotten.  It is then sufficient for the explication of these words, to shew how Christ is the Son of God, and what is the peculiarity of his generation; that when others are also the sons of God, he alone should so be his Son, as no other is or can be so; and therefore he alone should have the name of the only-begotten.

      First, then, it cannot be denied that Christ is the Son of God, for that reason, because he was by the Spirit of God born of the Virgin Mary; for that which is conceived (or begotten*) in her, by the testimony of an angel, is of the Holy Ghost [Matt. 1:20]; and because of him, therefore the Son of God.  For so spake the angel to [M106] the Virgin; The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee (or, which is begotten of thee) shall be called the Son of God. [Luke 1:35]  And the reason is clear, because that the Holy Ghost is God.  For were he any creature, and not God himself, by whom our Saviour was thus born of the Virgin, he must have been the Son of a creature, not of God.

      Secondly, it is as undoubtedly true, that the same Christ, thus born of the Virgin by the Spirit of God, was designed to so high an office by the special and immediate will of God, that by virtue thereof he must be acknowledged the Son of God.  He urgeth this argument himself against the Jews; Is it not written in your Law, I said, Ye are gods? [John 10:34, 35, 36]  Are not these the very words of the eighty-second Psalm?  If he called them gods, if God himself so spake, or the Psalmist from him, if this be the language of the Scripture, if they be called gods, unto whom the word of God came, (and the Scripture cannot be broken, nor the authority thereof in any particular denied) say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, whom he hath consecrated and commissioned to the most eminent and extraordinary office, say ye of him, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God?

      Thirdly, Christ must therefore be acknowledged the Son of God, because he is raised immediately by God out of the earth unto immortal life.  For God hath fulfilled the promise unto us, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. [Acts 13:33]  The grave is as the womb of the earth; Christ, who is raised from thence, is, as it were, begotten to another life: and God, who raised him, is his Father.  So true it must needs be of him, which is spoken of others, who are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. [Luke 20:36]  Thus was he defined or constituted, and appointed the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead; neither is he called simply the first that rose, but with a note of generation, the firstborn from the dead. [Col. 1:18]

      Fourthly, Christ, after his resurrection from the dead, is made actually heir of all things in his Father’s house, and Lord of all the Spirits which minister unto him, from whence he also hath the title of the Son of God.  He is set down at the right hand of the Majesty on high; being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.  For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? [Heb 1:3,4, 5]  From all which testimonies of the Scriptures it is evident, that Christ hath this fourfold right unto the title of the Son of God: by generation, as begotten of God; by commission, as sent by him; by resurrection, as the firstborn; by actual possession, as heir of all.

      But beside these four, we must find yet a more peculiar ground of our Saviour’s filiation, totally distinct from any which belongs unto the rest of the sons of God, that he may be clearly and fully acknowledged the only-begotten Son.  For although to [M107] be born of a Virgin be in itself miraculous, and justly entitles Christ unto [the name of] the Son of God; yet it is not so far above the production of all mankind, as to place him in that singular eminence which must be attributed to the only-begotten.  We read of Adam the son of God, [Luke 3:38] as well as Seth the son of Adam: and surely the framing Christ out of a woman cannot so far transcend the making Adam out of the earth, as to cause so great a distance as we must believe between the first and second Adam.  Beside, there were many while our Saviour preached on earth who did believe his doctrine, and did confess him to be the Son of God, who in all probability understood nothing of his being born of a Virgin; much less did they foresee his rising from the dead, or inheriting all things.  Wherefore supposing all these ways by which Christ is represented to us as the Son of God, we shall find out one more yet, far more proper in itself, and more peculiar unto him, in which no other son can have the least pretence of share or of similitude, and consequently in respect of which we must confess him the only-begotten.

      To which purpose I observe, that the actual possession of his inheritance, which was our fourth title to his Sonship, presupposeth his resurrection, which was the third: and his commission to his office, which was the second, presupposeth his generation of a Virgin, as the first.  But I shall now endeavour to find another generation, by which the same Christ was begotten, and consequently a Son, before he was conceived in the Virgin’s womb.  Which that I may be able to evince, I shall proceed in this following method, as not only most facile and perspicuous, but also most convincing and conclusive.  First, I will clearly prove out of the Holy Scriptures, that Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, had an actual being or subsistence before the Holy Ghost did come upon the Virgin, or the power of the Highest did overshadow her.  Secondly, I will demonstrate from the same Scriptures, that the being which he had antecedently to his conception in the Virgin’s womb was not any created being, but essentially Divine.  Thirdly, we will shew that the Divine essence which he had, he received as communicated to him by the Father.  Fourthly, we will declare this communication of the Divine nature to be a proper generation, by which he which communicateth is a proper Father, and he to whom it is communicated, a proper Son.  Lastly, we will manifest that the Divine essence was never communicated in that manner to any person but to him, that never any was so begotten besides himself, and consequently, in respect of that Divine generation, he is most properly and perfectly the only-begotten Son of the Father.

      As for the first, that Jesus Christ had a real being or existence, by which he truly was, before he was conceived of the Virgin Mary, I thus demonstrate.  He which was really in heaven, and truly descended from thence, and came into the world from the Father, before that which was begotten of the Virgin ascended into heaven or went unto the Father, he had a real being or existence before he was conceived in the Virgin, and distinct from that being which was conceived in her.  This is most clear and evident, upon these three suppositions not to be denied.  First, that Christ did receive no other being or nature after his conception, before his ascension, than what was begotten of the Virgin.  Secondly, that what was begotten of the Virgin had its first being here on earth, and therefore could not really be in heaven till he ascended thither.  Thirdly, that what was really in heaven, really was; because nothing can be present in any place, which is not.  Upon these suppositions certainly true, the first proposition cannot be denied.  Wherefore I assume; Jesus Christ was really in heaven, and truly descended from thence, and came into the world from the [M108] Father, before that which was begotten of the Virgin ascended into heaven, or went unto the Father; as I shall particularly prove by the express words of the Scripture.  Therefore I conclude, that Jesus Christ had a real being or existence before he was conceived in the Virgin; and distinct from that being which was conceived in her.  Now that he was really in heaven before he ascended thither appeareth by his own words to his disciples; What and if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he as was before? [John 6:62]  For he speaketh of a real ascension, such as was to be seen or looked upon, such as they might view as spectators.  The place to which that ascension tended was truly and really the heaven of heavens. [Acts 1:9]  The verb substantive, not otherwise used, sufficiently testifieth, not a figurative but a real being, especially considering the opposition in the word before.  Whether we look upon the time of speaking, then present, or the time of his ascension, then to come, his being or existing in heaven was before.  Nor is this now at last denied, that he was in heaven before the ascension mentioned in these words, but that he was there before he ascended at all.  We shall therefore farther shew that this ascension was the first; that what was born of the Virgin was never in heaven before this time of which he speaks: and being in heaven before this ascension, he must be acknowledged to have been there before he ascended at all.  If Christ had ascended into heaven before his death, and descended from thence*, it had been the most remarkable action in all his life, and the proof thereof of the greatest efficacy toward the disseminating of the Gospel.  And can we imagine so divine an action of so high concernment could have passed, and none of the Evangelists ever make mention of it?  Those which are so diligent in the description of his nativity and circumcision, his oblation in the temple, his reception by Simeon, his adoration by the wise men; those which have described his descent into Egypt; would they have omitted his ascent into heaven?  Do they tell us of the wisdom which he shewed when he disputed with the doctors? and were it not worthy our knowledge whether it were before he was in heaven or after?  The diligent seeking of Joseph and Mary, and her words when they found him, Son, why hast thou dealt so with us? [Luke 2:48] shew that he had not been missing from them till then, and consequently not ascended into heaven.  After that he went down to Nazareth, and was subject to them [Luke 2:51]: and I understand not how he should ascend into heaven, and at the same time be subject to them; or there receive his commission and instructions as the great legate of God, or ambassador from heaven, and return again unto his old subjection; and afterwards to go to John to be baptized of him, and to expect the descent of the Spirit for his inauguration.  Immediately from Jordan he is carried into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil; and it were strange if any time could then be found for his ascension: for he was forty days in the wilderness, [Mark 1:13] and certainly heaven is no such kind of place; he was all that time with the beasts, who undoubtedly are none of the celestial hierarchy; and tempted of Satan, whose dominion reacheth no higher than the air.  Wherefore in those forty days Christ ascended not into heaven, but rather heaven descended unto him; for the angels ministered unto him.  After this he returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, [Mark 1:13, Luke 4:14] and there exercised his prophetical office: after which there is not the least pretence of any reason for his ascension.  Beside, the whole frame of this antecedent or preparatory ascension of Christ is not only raised, without any written testimony of the word, or unwritten testimony of tradition, but is without any reason in itself, and contrary to the revealed way of our redemption.  For what reason should Christ ascend into heaven to know the will of God, and not be known to ascend thither?  Certainly the Father could reveal his will unto the Son as well on earth as in [M109] heaven.  And if men must be ignorant of his ascension, to what purpose should they say he ascended, except they imagine either an impotency in the Father, or dissatisfaction in the Son?  Nor is this only asserted without reason, but also against that rule to be observed by Christ as he was anointed to the sacerdotal office.  For the holy of holies made with hands was the figure of the true, (that is, heaven itself,) into which the High Priest alone went once every year: and Christ as our High Priest entered in once into the holy place. [Heb. 9:24, 7, 12]  If then they deny Christ was a Priest before he preached the Gospel, then did he not enter into heaven, because the High Priest alone went into the type thereof, the holy of holies.  If they confess he was, then did he not ascend till after his death, because he was to enter in but once, and that not without blood.  Wherefore being Christ ascended not into heaven till after his death, being he certainly was in heaven before that ascension, we have sufficiently made good that part of our argument, that Jesus Christ was in heaven before that which was begotten of the Virgin ascended thither.  Now that which followeth will both illustrate and confirm it: for as he was there, so he descended from thence before he ascended thither.  This he often testifieth and inculcateth of himself: The bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven; and, I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [John 6:33, 51]  He opposeth himself unto the manna in the wilderness, which never was really in heaven, or had its original from thence.  Moses gave you not that bread from heaven, [John 6:32] but the Father gave Christ really from thence.  Wherefore he saith, I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. [John 6:38]  Now never any person upon any occasion is said to descend from heaven, but such as were really there before they appeared on earth, as the Father, the Holy Ghost, and the angels: but no man, however born, however sanctified, sent, or dignified, is said thereby to descend from thence; but rather when any is opposed to Christ, the opposition is placed in this very origination.  John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb [Luke 1:15], born of an aged father and a barren mother by the power of God, and yet he distinguisheth himself from Christ in this: [John 3:31] He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthy, and speaketh of the earth; he that cometh from heaven is above all.  Adam was framed immediately by God, without the intervention of man or woman and yet he is so far from being thereby from heaven, that even in that he is distinguished from the second Adam.  For the first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. [1 Cor. 15:47]  Wherefore the descent of Christ from heaven doth really presuppose his being there, and that antecedently to any ascent thither.  For that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first? [Eph. 4:9]  So St. Paul, asserting a descent as necessarily preceding his ascension, teacheth us never to imagine an ascent of Christ as his first motion between heaven and earth*; and consequently, that the first being or existence which Christ had, was not what he received by his conception here on earth, but what he had before in heaven, in respect whereof he was with the Father, from whom he came.  His Disciples believed that he came out from God: and he commended that faith and confirmed the object of it by this assertion: I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. [John 16:27, 28]  Thus having, by undoubted testimonies, made good the latter part of the argument, I may safely conclude, that being Christ was really in heaven, and descended from thence, and came forth from the Father, before that which was conceived of the Holy Ghost ascended thither; it cannot with any show of reason be denied, that Christ had a real being and existence antecedent unto his conception here on earth, and distinct from the being which he received here.

[M110]            Secondly, we shall prove not only a bare priority of existence, but a preexistence of some certain and acknowledged space of duration.  For whosoever was before John the Baptist and before Abraham was some space of time before Christ was man.  This no man can deny, because all must confess the blessed Virgin was first saluted by the angel six months after Elizabeth conceived, and many hundred years after Abraham died.  But Jesus Christ was really existent before John the Baptist, and before Abraham, as we shall make good by the testimony of the Scriptures.  Therefore it cannot be denied but Christ had a real being and existence some space of time before he was made man.  For the first, it is the express testimony of John himself; This is he of whom I spake, he that cometh after me is preferred before me, for he was before me. [John 1:15]  In which words, first, he taketh to himself a priority of time, speaking of Christ, he that cometh after me: for so he came after him into the womb at his conception; into the world at his nativity; unto his office at his baptism; always after John, and at the same distance.  Secondly, he attributeth unto Christ a priority of dignity, saying, he is preferred before me, as appeareth by the reiteration of these words: He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose. [John 1:27]  The addition of which expression of his own unworthiness sheweth, that to be preferred before him* is the same with being worthier than he; to which the same expression is constantly added by all the other three Evangelists.  Thirdly, he rendereth the reason or cause of that great dignity which belonged to Christ, saying for, or rather, because, he was before me.  And being the cause must be supposed different and distinct from the effect, therefore the priority last mentioned cannot be that of dignity.  For to assign any thing as the cause or reason of itself, is a great absurdity, and the expression of it a vain tautology.  Wherefore that priority must have relation to time or duration (as the very tense, he was before me, sufficiently signifieth), and so be placed in opposition to his coming after him.  As if John the Baptist had thus spoke at large: “This man Christ Jesus, who came into the world, and entered on his prophetical office six months after me, is notwithstanding of far more worth and greater dignity than I am; even so much greater, that I must acknowledge myself unworthy to stoop down and unloose the latchet of his shoes: and the reason of this transcendent dignity is from the excellency of that nature which he had before I was; for though he cometh after me, yet he was before me.”

      Now as Christ was before John, which speaks a small, so was he also before Abraham, which speaks a larger time.  Jesus himself hath asserted this preexistence to the Jews; Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. [John 8:58]  Which words, plainly and literally expounded, must evidently contain this truth.  For, first, Abraham in all the Scriptures never hath any other signification than such as denotes the person called by that name; and the question to which these words are directed by way of answer, without controversy, spake of the same person.  Beside, Abraham must be the subject of that proposition, Abraham was; because a proposition cannot be without a subject, and if Abraham be the predicate, there is none.  Again, as we translate Abraham was, in a tense signifying the time past, so it is most certainly to be understood; because that which he speaks unto, is the preexistence of Abraham, and that of long duration; so that whatsoever had concerned his present estate or future condition, had been wholly impertinent to the precedent question.  Lastly, the expression I am, seeming something unusual or improper to signify a priority in respect of any thing past, because no present instant is before that which precedeth, but that which followeth, yet the use* of it sufficiently maintaineth, [M11] and the nature of the place absolutely requireth, that it should not here denote a present being, but a priority of existence, together with a continuation of it till the present time.  And then the words will plainly signify thus much: “Do you question how I could see Abraham, who am not yet fifty years old?  Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before ever Abraham, the person whom you speak of, was born,* I had a real being and existence (by which I was capable of the sight of him), in which I have continued until now.”  In this sense certainly the Jews understood our Saviour’s answer, as pertinent to their question, but in their opinion blasphemous; and therefore they took up stones to cast at him.

      This literal and plain explication is yet farther necessary; because those which once recede from it, do not only wrest and pervert the place, but also invent and suggest an answer unworthy of and wholly misbecoming him that spake it.  For (setting aside the addition of the light of the world, which there can be no show of reason to admit*) whether they interpret the former part (Before Abraham was) of something to come, as the calling of the Gentiles, or the latter (I am) of a preexistence in the divine foreknowledge and appointment; they represent Christ with a great asseveration highly and strongly asserting that which is nothing to the purpose to which he speaks, nothing to any other purpose at all; and they propound the Jews senselessly offended and foolishly exasperated with those words, which any of them might have spoken as well as he.  For the first interpretation makes our Saviour thus to speak: “Do ye so much wonder how I should have seen Abraham, who am not yet fifty years old?  Do ye imagine so great a contradiction in this?  I tell you, and be ye most assured that what I speak unto you at this time is most certainly and infallibly true, and most worthy of your observation, which moves me not to deliver it without this solemn asseveration (Verily, verily, I say unto you), Before Abraham shall perfectly become that which was signified in his name, the father of many nations, before the Gentiles shall come in, I am.  Nor be ye troubled at this answer, or think in this I magnify myself: for what I speak is as true of you, as it is of me; before Abraham be thus made Abraham, ye are. Doubt ye not therefore, as ye did, nor ever make that question again, whether I have seen Abraham.”  The second explication makes a sense of another nature, but with the same impertinency.  “Do ye continue still to question, and that with so much admiration?  Do ye look upon my age, and ask, Hast thou seen Abraham?  I confess it is more than eighteen hundred years since that [M112] Patriarch died, and less than forty since I was born at Bethlehem: but look not on this computation; for before Abraham was born, I was.  But mistake me not, I mean in the foreknowledge and decree of God.  Nor do I magnify myself in this, for ye were so.”  How either of these answers should give any reasonable satisfaction to the question, or the least occasion of the Jews’ exasperation, is not to be understood.  And that our Saviour should speak any such impertinencies as these interpretations bring forth is not by a Christian to be conceived.  Wherefore being the plain and most obvious sense is a proper and full answer to the question, and most likely to exasperate the unbelieving Jews; being those strained explications render the words of Christ not only impertinent to the occasion, but vain and useless to the hearers of them; being our Saviour gave this answer in words of another language, most probably incapable of any such interpretations: we mast adhere unto that literal sense already delivered, by which it appeareth Christ had a being, as before John, so also before Abraham (not only before Abram became Abraham, but before Abraham was Abram), and consequently that he did exist two thousand years before he was born, or conceived by the Virgin.

      Thirdly, we shall extend this preexistence to a far longer space of time, to the end of the first world, nay to the beginning of it.  For he which was before the flood, and at the creation of the world, had a being before he was conceived by the Virgin.  But Christ was really before the flood, for he preached to them that lived before it; and at the creation of the world, for he created it.  That he preached to those before the flood is evident by the words of St. Peter, who saith, that Christ was put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit; by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing.*  From which words it appeareth, that Christ preached by the same Spirit by the virtue of which he was raised from the dead: but that Spirit was not his soul, but something of a greater power.  Secondly, that those to whom he preached were such as were disobedient.  Thirdly, that the time when they were disobedient was the time before the flood, while the ark was preparing.  It is certain then that Christ did preach unto those persons which in the days of Noah were disobedient all that time the longsuffering of God waited, and, consequently, so long as repentance was offered.  And it is as certain that he never preached to them after they died; which I shall not need here to prove, because those, against whom I bring this argument, deny it not.  It followeth therefore, that he preached to them while they lived, and were disobedient; for in the refusing of that mercy which was offered to them by the preaching of Christ, did their disobedience principally consist.  In vain then are we taught to understand St. Peter of the promulgation of the Gospel to the Gentiles after the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles, when the words themselves refuse all relation to any such times or persons.  For all those of whom St. Peter speaks were disobedient in the days of Noah.  But none of those to whom the Apostles preached were ever disobedient in the days of Noah.  Therefore none of those to which the Apostles preached, were any of those of which St. Peter speaks.  It remaineth therefore that the plain interpretation be acknowledged for the true, that Christ did preach unto those men which lived before the flood, even while they lived, and consequently that he was before it.  For though this was not done by an immediate act of the Son of God, as if he personally had appeared on earth, and actually preached to that old world; but by the ministry of a Prophet,* by the [M113] sending of Noah, the eighth Preacher of righteousness:* yet to do any thing by another not able to perform it without him, as much demonstrates the existence of the principal cause, as if he did it of himself without any intervening instrument.

      The second part of the argument, that Christ made this world, and consequently had a real being at the beginning of it, the Scriptures manifestly and plentifully assure us.  For the same Son, by whom in these last days God spoke unto us, is he, by whom also he made the worlds. [Heb. 1:2]  So that as through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, [Heb. 11:3] so must we also believe that they were made by the Son of God.*  Which the Apostle doth not only in the entrance of his Epistle deliver, but in the sequel prove.  For shewing greater things have been spoken of him than ever were attributed to any of the angels, the most glorious of all the creatures of God; amongst the rest, he saith, the Scripture spake unto the Son, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. [Heb. 1:8, 10, 11, 12]  And not only so, but also, Thou, Lord, in beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thine hands.  They shall perish, but thou remainest: and they all shall wax, old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.  Now whatsoever the person be to whom these words were spoken, it cannot be denied but he was the Creator of the world.  For he must be acknowledged the Maker of the earth, who laid the foundation of it; and he may justly challenge to himself the making of the heavens, who can say they are the work of his hands.  But these words were spoken to the Son of God, as the Apostle himself acknowledgeth, and it appeareth out of the order and series of the chapter; the design of which is to declare the supereminent excellency of our Saviour Christ.  Nay, the conjunction and refers this place of the Psalmist plainly to the former,* of which he had said expressly, but unto the Son he saith.  As sure then as Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, was said unto the Son: so certain it is, Thou, Lord, host laid the foundation of the earth, was said unto the same.  Nor is it possible to avoid the Apostle’s [M114] connection by attributing the destruction of the heavens, out of the last words, to the Son, and denying the creation of them, out of the first, to the same.  For it is most evident that there is but one person spoken to, and that the destruction and creation of the heavens are both attributed to the same.  Whosoever therefore shall grant that the Apostle produced the Scripture to shew that the Son of God shall destroy the heavens, must withal acknowledge that he created them: whosoever denieth him to be here spoken of as the Creator, must also deny him to be understood as the destroyer.  Wherefore being the words of the Psalmist were undoubtedly spoken of and to our Saviour (or else the Apostle hath attributed that unto him which never belonged to him, and consequently the spirit of St. Paul mistook the spirit of David); being to whomsoever any part of them belongs, the whole is applicable, because they are delivered unto one; being the literal exposition is so clear, that no man hath ever pretended to a metaphorical: it remaineth as an undeniable truth, grounded upon the profession of the Psalmist, and the interpretation of an Apostle, that the Son of God created the world.  Nor needed we so long to have insisted upon this testimony, because there are so many which testify as much, but only that this is of a peculiar nature and different from the rest.  For they which deny this truth of the creation of the world by the Son of God, notwithstanding all those Scriptures produced to confirm it, have found two ways to avoid or decline the force of them.  If they speak so plainly and literally of the work of creation, that they will not endure any figurative interpretation, then they endeavour to shew that they are not spoken of the Son of God.  If they speak so expressly of our Saviour Christ, as that by no machination they can be applied to any other person, then their whole design is to make the creation attributed unto him appear to be merely metaphorical.  The place before alleged is of the first kind, which speaketh so clearly of the creation or real production of the world, that they never denied it: and I have so manifestly shewed it spoken to the Son of God, that it is beyond all possibility of gainsaying.

      Thus having asserted the creation acknowledged real unto Christ*, we shall the easier persuade that likewise to be such, which is pretended to be metaphorical.  In the Epistle to the Colossians we read of the Son of God, in whom we have redemption through his blood [Col. 1:14]; and we are sure those words can be spoken of none other than Jesus Christ.  He therefore it must be, who was thus described by the Apostle; [Col. 1:15, 16, 17] who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.  For by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible; whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.  And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.  In which words our Saviour is expressly styled the firstborn of every creature,* that is, begotten by God, as the Son of his love,* antecedently to all other emanations, before any thing proceeded from him, or was framed and created by him.  And that precedency is presently proved by this undeniable argument, that all other emanations or productions came from him, and whatsoever received its being by creation, was by him created.  Which assertion is delivered in the most proper, full, and pregnant expressions imaginable.  First, in the vulgar phrase of Moses, as most consonant to his description; for by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth; signifying thereby, that he speaketh of the same creation.  Secondly, by a division which Moses never used, as describing the production only of corporeal [M115] substances: lest therefore those immaterial beings might seem exempted from the Son’s creation, because omitted in Moses his description, he addeth visible and invisible; and lest in that invisible world, among the many degrees of the celestial hierarchy, any order might seem exempted from an essential dependence upon him, he nameth those which are of greatest eminence, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, and under them comprehendeth all the rest.  Nor doth it yet suffice, thus to extend the object of his power by asserting all things to be made by him, except it be so understood as to acknowledge the sovereignty of his person, and the authority of his action.  For lest we should conceive the Son of God framing the world as a mere instrumental cause which worketh by and for another, he sheweth him as well the final as the efficient cause; for all things were created by him and for him.  Lastly, whereas all things first receive their being by creation, and when they have received it, continue in the same by virtue of God’s conservation, in whom we live, and move, and have our being [Acts 17:28]; lest in any thing we should be thought not to depend immediately upon the Son of God, he is described as the Conserver, as well as the Creator; for he is before all things, and by him all things consist.  If then we consider the two last cited verses by themselves, we cannot deny but they are a most complete description of the Creator of the world; and if they were spoken of God the Father, could be no way injurious to his majesty, who is nowhere more plainly or fully set forth unto us as the Maker of the world.

      Now although this were sufficient to persuade us to interpret this place of the making of the world, yet it will not be unfit to make use of another reason, which will compel us so to understand it.  For undoubtedly there are but two kinds of creation in the language of the Scriptures, the one literal, the other metaphorical; one old, the other new; one by way of formation, the other by way of reformation.  If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature, [2 Cor. 5:17] saith St. Paul, and again, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. [Gal. 6:15, 5:6]  Instead of which words he had before, faith working by love.  For we are the workmanship of God, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. [Eph. 2:10]  From whence it is evident, that a new creature is such a person as truly believeth in Christ, and manifesteth that faith by the exercise of good works; and the new creation is the reforming or bringing man into this new condition, which by nature or his first creation he was not in.  And therefore he which is so created is called a new man, in opposition to the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts [Eph. 4:22, 23, 24]: from whence the Apostle chargeth us to be renewed in the spirit of our mind, and to put on that new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness [Col. 3:10]; and which, is renewed in knowledge, after the image of him that created him.  The new creation then is described to us as consisting wholly in renovation,* or a translation from a worse unto a better condition by way of reformation; by which those which have lost the image of God, in which the first man was created, are restored to the image of the same God again, by a real change, though not substantial, wrought within them.  Now this being the notion of the new creation in all those places which undoubtedly and confessedly speak of it, it will be necessary to apply it unto such Scriptures as are pretended to require the same interpretation.  [M116]  Thus therefore I proceed.  If the second or new creation cannot be meant by the Apostle in the place produced out of the Epistle to the Colossians, then it must be interpreted of the first.  For there are but two kinds of creation mentioned in the Scriptures, and one of them is there expressly named.  But the place of the Apostle can no way admit an interpretation by the new creation, as will thus appear: The object of the creation, mentioned in this place, is of as great latitude and universality as the object of the first creation, not only expressed, but implied, by Moses.  But the object of the new creation is not of the same latitude with that of the old.  Therefore that which is mentioned here cannot be the new creation.  For certainly if we reflect upon the true notion of the new creation, it necessarily and essentially includes an opposition to a former worse condition, as the new man is always opposed to the old; and if Adam had continued still in innocency, there could have been no such distinction between the old man and the new, or the old and new creation.  Being then all men become not new, being there is no new creature but such whose faith worketh by love, being so many millions of men have neither faith nor love; it cannot be said that by Christ all things were created anew that are in heaven, and that are in earth, when the greatest part of mankind have no share in the new creation.  Again, we cannot imagine that the Apostle should speak of the creation in a general word, intending thereby only the new, and while he doth so, express particularly and especially those parts of the old creation which are incapable of the new, or at least have no relation to it.  The angels are all either good or bad: but whether they be bad, they can never be good again, nor did Christ come to redeem the devils; or whether they be good, they were always such, nor were they so by the virtue of Christ’s incarnation, for he took not on him the nature of angels. [Heb. 2:16]  We acknowledge in mankind a new creation, because an old man becomes a new; but there is no such notion in the celestial hierarchy, because no old and new angels: they which fell, are fallen for eternity; they which stand, always stood, and shall stand for ever.  Where then are the regenerated thrones and dominions?  Where are the recreated principalities and powers?  All those angels of whatsoever degrees were created by the Son of God, as the Apostle expressly affirms.  But they were never created by a new creation unto true holiness and righteousness, because they always were truly righteous and holy ever since their first creation.  Therefore except we could yet invent another creation, which were neither the old nor the new, we must conclude, that all the angels were at first created by the Son of God; and as they, so all things else, especially man, whose creation all the first writers of the Church of God expressly attribute unto the Son,* asserting that those words, Let us make man, [Gen. 1:26] were spoken as by the Father unto him.

      Nor need we doubt of this interpretation, or the doctrine arising from it, seeing it is so clearly delivered by St. John [John 1:1, 2, 3]: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  The same was in the beginning with God.  All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.  Whereas we have proved Christ had a being before he was conceived by the Virgin Mary, because he was at the beginning of the world; and have also proved that he was at the beginning of the world, because he made it; this place of St. John gives a sufficient testimony to the truth of both [M117] the last together.  In the beginning was the Word; and that Word made flesh is Christ; therefore Christ was in the beginning.  All things were made by him: therefore he created the world.  Indeed nothing can be more clearly penned, to give full satisfaction in this point, than these words of St. John, which seem with a strange brevity designed to take off all objections, and remove all prejudice, before they teach so strange a truth.  Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, and his age was known to them for whom this Gospel was penned.  St. John would teach that this Christ did make the world, which was created at least four thousand years before his birth: the name of Jesus was given him since at his circumcision; the title of Christ belonged unto his office, which he exercised not till thirty years after.  Neither of these with any show of probability will reach to the creation of the world.  Wherefore he produceth a name of his, as yet unknown to the world, or rather not taken notice of, though in frequent use among the Jews, which belonged unto him who was made man, but before he was so.  Unto that name he shews at first that he had a being in the beginning;* when all things were to be created, and consequently were not yet, then in the beginning was the Word, and so not created.  This is the first step, the Word was not created when the world was made.  The next is, that the same Word which then was, and was not made, at the same time, was with God,* when he made all things: and therefore well may we conceive it was he to whom God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness [Gen. 1:26]; and of whom those words may be understood, Behold, the man is become as one of us. [Gen. 3:22]  After this, lest any should conceive the creation of the world too great and divine a work to be attributed to the Word; lest any should object, that none can produce any thing out of nothing but God himself; he addeth, that the Word, as he was with God, so was he also God.  Again, lest any should divide the Deity, or frame a false conception of different Gods, he returns unto the second assertion, and joins it with the first, The same was in the beginning with God: and then delivers that which at the first seemed strange, but now, after those three propositions, may easily be accepted; All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.  For now this is no new doctrine, but only an interpretation of those Scriptures which told us, God made all things by his word before.  For God said, Let there be light; and there was light. [Gen 1:3]  And so, By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. [Ps. 33:6]  From whence we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. [Heb. 11:3, 2 Pet. 3:5]]  Neither was it a new interpretation, but that which was most familiar to the Jews, who in their synagogues, by the reading of the paraphrase* or the interpretation of the Hebrew text in the Chaldee language, were constantly taught, that the Word of God was the same with God, and that by that Word all things were made.  Which undoubtedly was the cause [M118] why St. John delivered so great a mystery in so few words, as speaking unto them who at the first apprehension understood him.  Only that which as yet they knew not, was, that this Word was made flesh, and that this Word made flesh was Jesus Christ.  Wherefore this exposition being so literally clear in itself, so consonant to the notion of the Word, and the apprehension of the Jews; it is infinitely to be preferred before any such interpretation as shall restrain the most universals to a few particulars, change the plainest expressions into figurative phrases, and make of a sublime truth, a weak, useless, false discourse.  For who will grant that in the beginning must be the same with that in St. John’s Epistle, from the beginning, [1 John 1:1] especially when the very interpretation involves in itself a contradiction?  For the beginning in St. John’s Epistle is that in which the Apostle saw, and heard, and touched the Word: the beginning in his Gospel was that in which the Word was with God, that is, not seen nor heard by the Apostles, but known as yet to God alone, as the new exposition will have it.  Who will conceive it worthy of the Apostle’s assertion, to teach that the Word had a being in the beginning of the Gospel, at what time John the Baptist began to preach, when we know the Baptist taught as much; who therefore came baptizing with water, that he might be made manifest unto Israel? [John 1:31] when we are sure that St. Matthew and St. Luke, who wrote before him, taught us more than this, that he had a being thirty years before ? when we are assured, it was as true of any other then living as of the Word, even of Judas who betrayed him, even of Pilate who condemned him?  Again, who can imagine the Apostle should assert that the Word was, that is, had an actual being, when as yet he was not actually the Word?  For if the beginning be when John the Baptist began to preach, and the Word, as they say, be nothing else but he which speaketh, and so revealeth the will of God; Christ had not then revealed the will of God, and consequently was not then actually the Word, but only potentially or by designation.  Secondly, it is a strange figurative speech, the Word was with God, that is, was known to God, especially in this Apostle’s method.  In the beginning was the Word; there was must signify an actual existence; and if so, why in the next sentence (the Word was with God) shall the same verb signify an objective being only?  Certainly though to be in the beginning be one thing, and to be with God, another; yet to be in either of them is the same.  But if we should imagine this being understood of the knowledge of God, why we should grant that thereby is signified, he was known to God alone, I cannot conceive.  For the proposition of itself is plainly affirmative, and the exclusive particle only added to the exposition maketh it clearly negative.  Nay more, the affirmative sense is certainly true, the negative as certainly false.  For [M119] except Gabriel be God, who came to the Virgin; except every one of the heavenly host which appeared to the shepherds be God; except Zachary and Elizabeth, except Simeon and Anna, except Joseph and Mary be God; it cannot be true that he was known to God only, for to all these he was certainly known.  Thirdly, to pass by the third attribute, and the Word was God, as having occasion suddenly after to handle it; seeing the Apostle hath again repeated the circumstance of time as most material, the same was in the beginning with God, and immediately subjoined those words, all things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made; how can we receive any exposition which referreth not the making of all these things to him in the beginning?  But if we understand the latter part of the Apostles, who after the ascension of our Saviour did nothing but what they were commanded and empowered to do by Christ, it will bear no relation to the beginning.  If we interpret the former of all which Jesus said and did in the promulgation of the Gospel, we cannot yet reach to the beginning assigned by the new expositors: for while John the Baptist only preached, while in their sense the Word was with God, they will not affirm that Jesus did any of these things that here are spoken of.  And consequently, according to their grounds, it will be true to say, In the beginning was the Word, and that Word in the beginning was with God, insomuch as in the beginning nothing was done by him, but without him were all things done which were done in the beginning.  Wherefore in all reason we should stick to the known interpretation, in which every word receiveth its own proper signification without any figurative distortion, and is preserved in its due latitude and extension without any curtailing restriction.  And therefore I conclude from the undeniable testimony of St. John, that in the beginning, when the heavens and the earth and all the hosts of them were created, all things were made by the Word, who is Christ Jesus being made flesh; and consequently, by the method of argument, as the Apostle antecedently by the method of nature, that in the beginning Christ was.  He then who was in heaven and descended from thence, before that which was begotten of the Virgin ascended thither, he who was before John the Baptist and before Abraham, he who was at the end of the first world, and at the beginning of the same; he had a real being and existence before Christ was conceived by the Virgin Mary.  But all these we have already shewed belong unto the Son of God.  Therefore we must acknowledge, that Jesus Christ had a real being and existence before he was begotten by the Holy Ghost: which is our first assertion, properly opposed to the Photinians.*

[M120]            The second assertion, next to be made good, is, that the being which Christ had before he was conceived by the Virgin, was not any created, but the Divine essence, by which he always was truly, really, and properly God.  This will evidently and necessarily follow from the last demonstration of the first assertion, the creating all things by the Son of God; from whence we inferred his preexistence, in the beginning, assuring us as much that he was God, as that he was.  For he that built all things was God. [Heb. 3:4]  And the same Apostle which assures us, All things were made by him, at the same time tells us, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  Where in the beginning must not be denied unto the third proposition, because it cannot be denied unto the second.  Therefore in the beginning, or ever the earth was, the Word was God, [Prov. 8:23] the same God with whom he was.  For we cannot with any show of reason either imagine that he was with one God, and was another, because there can be no more supreme Gods than one; or conceive that the Apostle should speak of one kind of God in the second, and of another in the third proposition: in the second, of a God eternal and independent, in the third, of a made and depending God.*  Especially, first considering that the eternal God was so constantly among the Jews called [M121] the Word, the only reason which we can conceive why the Apostle should thus use this phrase: and then observing the manner of St. John’s writing, who rises strangely by degrees, making the last word of the former sentence the first of that which followeth: As, In him was life, and the life was the light of men; and the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not: so, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word, which so was in the beginning, was with God, and the Word was God; [John 1:4, 5] that is, the same God with whom the Word was in the beginning.  But he could not be the same God with him any other way, than by having the same Divine essence.  Therefore the being which Christ had before he was conceived by the Virgin, was the Divine nature, by which he was properly and really God.

      Secondly, he who was subsisting in the form of God, and thought himself to be equal with God (in which thought he could not be deceived, nor be injurious to God), must of necessity be truly and essentially God; because there can be no equality between the Divine essence, which is infinite, and any other whatsoever, which must be finite.  But this is true of Christ, and that antecedently to his conception in the Virgin’s womb, and existence in his human nature.  For, being (or rather subsisting*) in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God : but emptied himself, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. [Phil. 2:6, 7]  Out of which words naturally result three propositions fully demonstrating our assertion.  First, that Christ was in the form of a servant as soon as he was made man.  Secondly, that he was in the form of God before he was in the form of a servant.  Thirdly, that he was as much in the form of God, that is, did as truly and really subsist in the Divine nature, as in the form of a servant, or in the nature of man.  It is a vain imagination, that our Saviour then first appeared a servant, when he was apprehended, bound, scourged, crucified.  For they were not all slaves which ever suffered such indignities, or died that death; and when they did, their death did not make, but find them or suppose them servants.  Beside, our Saviour in all the degrees of his humiliation never lived as a servant unto any master on earth. [M122]  It is true, at first he was subject, but as a son, to his reputed father and undoubted mother.  When he appeared in public, he lived after the manner of a Prophet and a Doctor sent from God, accompanied with a family, as it were, of his Apostles, whose master he professed himself, subject to the commands of no man in that office, and obedient only unto God.  The form then of a servant, which he took upon him, must consist in something distinct from his sufferings, or submission unto men; as the condition in which he was, when he so submitted and so suffered.  In that he was made flesh, sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, [John 1:14, Rom. 8:3] subject unto all infirmities and miseries of this life, attending on the sons of men fallen by the sin of Adam: in that he was made of a woman, made under the law, [Gal. 4:4] and so obliged to perform the same; which Law did so handle the children of God, as that they differed nothing from servants: in that he was born, bred, and lived in a mean, low, and abject condition; as a root out of a dry ground, he had no form nor comeliness, and when they saw him, there was no beauty that they should desire him; but was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: [Isa. 53:2, 3] in that he was thus made man, he took upon him the form of a servant.  Which is not mine, but the Apostle’s explication; as adding it not by way of conjunction, in which there might be some diversity, but by way of apposition, which signifieth a clear identity.  And therefore it is necessary to observe, that our translation of that verse is not only not exact, but very disadvantageous to that truth which is contained in it.  For we read it thus; He made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and Was made in the likeness of men.  Where we have two copulative conjunctions, neither of which is in the original text,* and three distinct propositions, without any dependence of one upon the other; whereas all the words together are but an expression of Christ’s exinanition, with an explication shewing in what it consisteth: which will clearly appear by this literal translation, But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.  Where if any man doubt how Christ emptied himself, the text will satisfy him, by taking the form of a servant; if any still question how he took the form of a servant, he hath the Apostle’s resolution, by being made in the likeness of men.  Indeed after the expression of this exinanition, he goes on with a conjunction, to add another act of Christ’s humiliation; And being found in fashion as a man, [Phil. 2:8] being already by his exinanition in the form of a servant or the likeness of men, he humbled himself, and became (or rather becoming*) obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.  As therefore his humiliation consisted in his obedience unto death, so his exinanition consisted in the assumption of the form of a servant, and that in the nature of man.  All which is very fitly expressed by a strange interpretation in the Epistle to the Hebrews.  For whereas these words are clearly in the Psalmist, Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire, mine ears hart thou opened: [Ps. 11:6] the Apostle appropriateth the sentence to Christ; When he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hart thou prepared me. [Heb. 10:5]  Now being the boring of the ear under the Law [Exod.21:6, Deut. 15:17] was a note of perpetual servitude, being this was expressed in the words of the Psalmist, and changed by the Apostle into the preparing of a body; it followeth that when Christ’s body first was framed, even then did he assume the form of a servant.

      Again, it appeareth out of the same text, that Christ was in [M123] the form of God before he was in the form of a servant, and consequently before he was made man.  For he which is presupposed to be, and to think of that being which he hath, and upon that thought to assume, must have that being before that assumption: but Christ is first expressly said to be in the form of God, and, being so, to think it no robbery to be equal with God, and notwithstanding that equality, to take upon him the form of a servant: therefore it cannot be denied, but he was before in the form of God.  Beside, he was not in the form of a servant, but by the emptying himself, and all exinanition necessarily presupposeth a precedent plenitude; it being as impossible to empty any thing which hath no fullness, as to fill any thing which hath no emptiness.  But the fullness which Christ had, in respect whereof assuming the form of a servant he is said to empty himself, could be in nothing else but in the form of God, in which he was before.  Wherefore, if the assumption of the form of a servant be contemporary with his exinanition; if that exinanition necessarily presupposeth a plenitude as indispensably antecedent to it; if the form of God be also coeval with that precedent plenitude; then must we confess, Christ was in the form of God before he was in the form of a servant: which is the second proposition.

      Again, it is as evident from the same Scripture, that Christ was as much in the form of God, as the form of a servant; and did as really subsist in the Divine nature, as in the nature of man.  For he was so in the form of God, as thereby to be equal with God.*  But no other form beside the essential, which is the Divine nature itself, could confer an equality with God.  To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal? saith the Holy One. [Isa. 40:25, 46:5]  There can be but one infinite, eternal, and independent Being; and there can be no comparison between that and whatsoever is finite, temporal, and depending.  He therefore who did truly think himself equal with God, as being in the form of God, must be conceived to subsist in that one infinite, eternal, and independent nature of God.  Again, the phrase, in the form of God, not elsewhere mentioned, is used by the Apostle with a respect unto that other, of the form of a servant, exegetically continued [M124] in the likeness of man; and the respect of one unto the other is so necessary, that if the form of God be not as real and essential as the form of a servant, or the likeness of man, there is no force in the Apostle’s words, nor will his argument be fit to work any great degree of humiliation upon the consideration of Christ’s exinanition.  But by the form is certainly understood the true condition of a servant, and by the likeness infallibly meant the real nature of man: nor doth the fashion, in which he was found, destroy, but rather assert the truth of his humanity.  And therefore, as sure as Christ was really and essentially man, of the same nature with us, in whose similitude he was made; so certainly was he also really and essentially God, of the same nature and being with him, in whose form he did subsist.  Seeing then we have clearly evinced from the express words of St. Paul, that Christ was in the form of a servant as soon as he was made man, that he was in the form of God before he was in the form of a servant, that the form of God in which he subsisted doth as truly signify the Divine, as the likeness of man the human nature; it necessarily followeth, that Christ had a real existence before be was begotten of the Virgin, and that the being which he had was the Divine essence, by which he was truly, really, and properly God.

      Thirdly, he which is expressly styled Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, without any restriction or limitation, as he is after, so was before any time assignable, truly and essentially God.  For by this title God describeth his own being, and distinguisheth it from all other.  I the Lord, the first, and with the last, I am he.  I am he, I am the first, I also am the last.  I am the first, and I am the last, and beside me there is no God. [Isa. 12:4, 48:12, 44:6]  But Christ is expressly called Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.  He so proclaimed himself by a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. [Rev. 1:10, 11]  Which answereth to that solemn call and proclamation in the Prophet, Hearken unto me, O Jacob, and Israel my called. [Isa. 48:13]  He comforteth St. John with the majesty of this title, Fear not, I am the first and the last. [Rev. 1:17]  Which words were spoken by one like unto the Son of man, by him that liveth, and was dead, and is alive for evermore; [Rev. 1:13, 1:18] that is undoubtedly, by Christ.  He upholdeth the church of Smyrna in her tribulation by virtue of the same description, These things saith the first and the last, which was dead and is alive. [Rev. 2:8]  He ascertaineth his coming unto judgment with the same assertion, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. [Rev. 22:13]  And in all these places, this title is attributed unto Christ absolutely and universally, without any kind of restriction or limitation, without any assignation of any particular in respect of which he is the first or last; in the same latitude and eminence of expression,* in which it is or can be attributed to the supreme God.  There is yet another Scripture, in which the same description may seem of a more dubious interpretation: I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. [Rev. 1:8]  For being it is the Lord who so calls himself, which title belongeth to the Father and the Son, it may be doubted whether it be spoken by the Father or the Son; but whether it be understood of the one or of the other, it will sufficiently make good what we intend to prove.  For if they be understood of Christ, as the precedent and the following words imply, then is he certainly that Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty; that is, the supreme eternal God, of the same Divine essence with the Father, [M125] who was before described by him which is, and which was, and which is to come, [Rev. 1:4] to whom the six-winged beasts continually cry, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come [Rev. 4:8]: as the familiar explication of that name which God revealed to Moses. [Exod. 3:14]  If they belong unto the supreme God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; then did he so describe himself unto St. John, and express his supreme Deity, that by those words, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, he might be known to be the one Almighty and Eternal God; and consequently, whosoever should assume that title, must attribute as much unto himself.  Wherefore being Christ hath so immediately, and with so great solemnity and frequency, taken the same style upon him, by which the Father did express his Godhead; it followeth, that he hath declared himself to be the Supreme, Almighty, and Eternal God.  And being thus the Alpha and the first, he was before any time assignable, and consequently before he was conceived of the Virgin; and the being which then he had was the Divine essence, by which he was truly and properly the Almighty and Eternal God.

      Fourthly, he whose glory Isaiah saw in the year that king Uzziah died, had a being before Christ was begotten of the Virgin, and that being was the Divine essence, by which he was naturally and essentially God: for he is expressly called the Lord, Holy, holy, holy the Lord of hosts, whose glory filleth the whole earth [Isa. 6:1, 3]; which titles can belong to none beside the one and only God.  But Christ was he whose glory Isaiah saw, as St. John doth testify [John 12:41], saying, These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory; and spake of him: and he whose glory he saw, and of whom he spake, was certainly Christ; for of him the Apostle treateth in that place, and of none but him. [John 12:36, 37, 38]  These things spake Jesus and departed.  But though he (that is, Jesus) had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him, that is, Christ who wrought those miracles.  The reason why they believed not on him was that the saying of Esaias the Prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and as they did not, so they could not believe in Christ, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, and be converted, and I should heal them. [John 12:39, 40]  For those who God foresaw, and the Prophet foretold, should not believe, could not do it without contradicting the prescience of the one, and the predictions of the other.  But the Jews refusing to assent unto the doctrine of our Saviour, were those of whom the Prophet spake [John 12:41]: for these things said Esaias when he saw his glory, and spake of him.  Now if the glory which Isaias saw were the glory of Christ, and he of whom Isaias in that chapter spake were Christ himself; then must those blinded eyes and hardened hearts belong unto these Jews, and then their infidelity was so long since foretold.  Thus doth the fixing of that prophecy upon that people, which saw our Saviour’s miracles, depend upon Isaiah’s vision, and the appropriation of it unto Christ.  Wherefore St. John hath infallibly taught us, that the Prophet saw the glory of Christ; and the Prophet hath as undoubtedly assured us, that he, whose glory then he saw, was the one omnipotent and eternal God; and consequently both together have sealed this truth, that Christ did then subsist in that glorious majesty of the eternal Godhead.

      Lastly, he who, being man, is frequently in the Scriptures called God, and that in such a manner, as by that name no other can be understood but the one only and eternal God, he had an existence before he was made man, and the being which then he had was no other than the Divine essence; because all novelty is repugnant to the Deity, nor can any be that one God, [M126] who was not so from all eternity.  But Jesus Christ, being in the nature of man, is frequently in the sacred Scriptures called God; and that name is attributed unto him in such a manner, as by it no other can be understood but the one Almighty and Eternal God.

      Which may be thus demonstrated.  It hath been already proved, and we all agree in this, that there can be but one Divine essence, and so but one supreme God.  Wherefore, were it not said in the Scriptures, there are many gods [1 Cor. 8:5]; did not he himself who is supreme, call others so; we durst not give that name to any but to him alone, nor could we think any called God to be any other but that one.  It had been then enough to have alleged that Christ is God, to prove his supreme and eternal Deity: whereas now we are answered, that there are gods many, and therefore it followeth not from that name that he is the one eternal God.  But if Christ be none of those many gods, and yet be God; then can he be no other but that one.  And that he is not to be numbered with them, is certain, because he is clearly distinguished from them, and opposed to them.  We read in the Psalmist, [Ps. 82:6] I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.  But we must not reckon Christ among those gods, we must not number the only-begotten Son among those children.  For they knew not, neither would they understand, they walked on in darkness [Ps. 82:5]: and whosoever were gods only as they were, either did, or might do so.  Whereas Christ, in whom alone dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, [Col. 2:9] is not only distinguished from, but opposed to, such gods as those, by his Disciples saying, Now we are sure that thou knowest all things [John 16:30]; by himself proclaiming, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness. [John 8:12]  St. Paul hath told us, there be gods many, and lords many; but withal hath taught us, that to us there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ. [1 Cor. 8:5, 6]  In which words as the Father is opposed as much unto the many lords as many gods, so is the Son as much unto the many gods as many lords; the Father being as much Lord as God, and the Son as much God as Lord.  Wherefore being we find in Scripture frequent mention of one God, and beside that one an intimation of many gods, and whosoever is called God, must either be that one, or one of those many; being we find our blessed Saviour to be wholly opposed to the many gods, and consequently to be none of them, and yet we read him often styled God, it followeth, that that name is attributed unto him in such a manner, as by it no other can be understood but the one Almighty and Eternal God.

      Again, those who deny our Saviour to be the same God with the Father, have invented rules to be the touchstone of the eternal power and Godhead.  First, where the name of God is taken absolutely, as the subject of any proposition, it always signifies the supreme Power and Majesty, excluding all others from that Deity.  Secondly, where the same name is any way used with an article, by way of excellency, it likewise signifieth the same supreme Godhead as admitting others to a communion of Deity, but excluding them from the supremacy.  Upon these two rules they have raised unto themselves this observation, that whensoever the name of God absolutely taken is placed as the subject of any proposition, it is not to be understood of Christ: and wheresoever the same name is spoken of our Saviour by way of predicate, it never hath an article denoting excellency annexed to it; and consequently leaves him in the number of those gods who are excluded from the majesty of the eternal Deity.

      Now though there can be no kind of certainty in any such observations of the articles, because the Greeks promiscuously often use them or omit them, without any reason of their usurpation or omission (whereof examples are innumerable) ; though if [M127] those rules were granted, yet would not their conclusion follow, because the supreme God is often named (as they confess) without an article, and therefore the same name may signify the same God when spoken of Christ, as well as when of the Father, so far as can concern the omission of the article: yet to complete my demonstration, I shall shew, first, that the name of God taken subjectively is to be understood of Christ; secondly, that the same name with the article affixed is attributed unto him; thirdly, that if it were not so, yet where the article is wanting, there is that added to the predicate, which hath as great a virtue to signify that excellency as the article could have.

      St. Paul, unfolding the mystery of godliness, hath delivered six propositions together, and the subject of all and each of them is God.  Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. [1 Tim. 3:16]  And this God, which is the subject of all these propositions, must be understood of Christ, because of him each one is true, and all are so of none but him.  He was the Word which was God, and was made flesh, and consequently God manifested in the flesh.  Upon him the Spirit descended at his baptism, and after his ascension was poured upon his Apostles, ratifying his commission, and confirming the doctrine which they received from him: wherefore he was God justified in the Spirit.  His nativity the angels celebrated, in the discharge of his office they ministered unto him, at his resurrection and ascension they were present, always ready to confess and adore him: he was therefore God seen of angels.  The apostles preached unto all nations, and he whom they preached was Jesus Christ.  The Father separated St. Paul from his mother’s womb, and called him by his grace, to reveal his Son, unto him, that he might preach him among the heathen [Acts 8:5, 35; 9:20, 11:20, 17:3,18; 19:13]: therefore he was God preached unto the Gentiles.  John the Baptist spake unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.  We have believed in Jesus Christ, saith St. Paul, who so taught the gaoler trembling at his feet, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved : he therefore was God believed on in the world. [Rom. 16:25, 2 Cor. 1:19, 11:4; Phil. 1:18, Gal. 1:15, 16; Acts 19:4, Gal. 2:16, Acts 16:31]  When he had been forty days on earth after his resurrection, he was taken visibly up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father: wherefore he was God received up into glory.  And thus all these six propositions, according to the plain and familiar language of the Scriptures, are infallibly true of Christ, and so of God, as he is taken by St. John, when he speaks those words, the Word was God.  But all these cannot be understood of any other, which either is, or is called, God.  For though we grant the Divine perfections and attributes to be the same with the Divine essence, yet are they never in the Scriptures called God; nor can any of them with the least show of probability be pretended as the subject of these propositions, or afford any tolerable interpretation.  When they tell us that God, that is the will* of God, was manifested in the flesh, that is, was revealed by frail and mortal men, and received up in glory, that is, was received gloriously on earth,* they teach us a language which the Scriptures know not,* and the Holy Ghost [M128] never used; and as no attribute, so no person but the Son can be here understood under the name of God: not the Holy Ghost, for he is distinguished from him, as being justified by the Spirit; not the Father, who was not manifested in the flesh, nor received up in glory.  It remaineth therefore that, whereas the Son is the only person to whom all these clearly and undoubtedly belong, which are here jointly attributed unto God, as sure as the name of God is expressed universally in the copies of the original language,* so thus absolutely and subjectively taken must it be understood of Christ.

      Again, St. Paul speaketh thus to the elders of the Church of Ephesus; Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. [Acts 20:28]  In these words this doctrinal proposition is clearly contained; God hath purchased the Church with his own blood.  For there is no other word either in or near the text which can by any grammatical construction be joined with the verb, except the Holy [M129] Ghost, to whom the predicate is repugnant, both in respect of the act, or our redemption, and of the means, the blood.  If then the Holy Ghost hath not purchased the Church; if he hath not blood to shed for our redemption, and without bloodshed there is no remission; [Heb. 9:22] if there be no other word to which, according to the literal construction, the act of purchasing can be applied; if the name of God, most frequently joined to his Church,* be immediately and properly applicable by all rules of syntax to the verb which followeth it: then is it of necessity to be received as the subject of this proposition, then is this to be embraced as infallible Scripture truth, God hath purchased the Church with his own blood.  But this God may and must be understood of Christ: it may, because he hath; it must, because no other person which is called God hath so purchased the Church.  We were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ. [1 Pet. 1:18, 19]  With this price were we bought; and therefore it may well be said, that Christ our God hath purchased us with his own blood.  But no other person which is, or is called, God, can be said so to have purchased us, because it is an act belonging properly to the Mediatorship; and there is but one Mediator between God and men: [1 Tim. 2:5] and the Church is sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. [Heb. 10:10]  Nor can the expression of this act, peculiar to the Son, be attributed to the Father, because this blood signifieth death; and though the Father be omnipotent, and can do all things, yet he cannot die.  And though it might be said that he purchased us, because he gave his Son to be a ransom for us, yet it cannot be said that he did it by his own blood; for then it would follow, that he gave not his Son, or that the Son and the Father were the same person.  Beside, it is very observable, that this particular phrase of his own blood, is in the Scripture put by way of opposition to the blood of another:* and howsoever we may attribute the acts of the Son unto the Father, because sent by him; yet we cannot but acknowledge, that the blood and death was of another than the Father.  Not by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place [Heb. 9:12]; and whereas the high priest entered every year with the blood of others, Christ appeared once to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. [Heb. 9:25, 26]  He then which purchased us wrought it by his own blood, as an High Priest opposed to the Aaronical, who made atonement by the blood of others.  But the Father taketh no priestly office, neither could he be opposed to the legal priest, as not dying himself, but giving another.  Wherefore wheresoever the Father and the Son are described together as working the salvation of man, the blood by which it is wrought is attributed to the Son, not to the Father: as when St. Paul speaketh of the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness [Rom 3:24]; his, that is, his own righteousness, hath reference to God the Father but his, that is, his own blood, must be referred to Christ the Son.  When he glorifieth the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, attributing unto him that he hath blessed, elected, predestinated, adopted, accepted us, made known unto us the mystery of his will, and gathered us together in one; in the midst of this acknowledgment he brings [M130] in the Beloved, in whom we have redemption through his blood, [Eph. 1:6, 7] as that which cannot be attributed to the Father.  Christ hath blessed us; and the Apostle saith, the Father hath blessed us; which is true, because he sent his Son to bless us. [Acts 3:26]  Christ hath made known unto us the will of his Father; and the Apostle saith, the Father hath made known unto us the mystery of his will; [Eph. 1:9] because he sent his Son to reveal it.  Christ hath delivered us; and the Father is said to deliver us from the power of darkness [Col. 1: 13]: not that we are twice delivered, but because the Father delivereth us by his Son.  And thus these general acts are familiarly attributed to them both; but still a difference must be observed and acknowledged in the means or manner of the performance of these acts.  For though it is true, that the Father and the Son revealed to us the will of God; yet it is not true that the Father revealed it by himself to us; but that the Son did so, it is.  They both deliver us from sin and death: but the Son gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us [Gal. 1:4]; the Father is not, cannot be, said to have given himself, but his Son: and therefore the Apostle giveth thanks unto the Father, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son, in whom we have redemption through his blood. [Col. 1:13, 14]  Now this blood is not only the blood of the new covenant, and consequently of the Mediator, but the nature of this covenant is such, that it is also a Testament, and therefore the blood must be the blood of the Testator: for where a Testament* is, there must also of necessity be the death of the Testator. [Heb. 9:16]  But the Testator which died is not, cannot be, the Father, but the Son; and consequently the blood is the blood of the Son, not of the Father.  It remaineth therefore that God, who purchased the Church with his own blood, is not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, or any other which is called God, but only Jesus Christ the Son of God, and God.  And thus have I proved the first of the three assertions, that the name of God, absolutely taken and placed subjectively, is sometimes to be understood of Christ.

      The second, that the name of God invested by way of excellency with an article is attributed in the Scriptures unto Christ, may be thus made good.  He which is called Emmanuel, is named God by way of excellency: for that name, saith St. Matthew, [Matt. 1:23] being interpreted is, God with us, and in that interpretation the Greek article is prefixed.  But Christ is called Emmanuel; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, saying, Behold a Virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel. [Matt. 1:22, 23]  Therefore he is that God with us, which is expressed by way of excellency, and distinguished from all other who are any way honoured with that name: for it is a vain imagination to think that Christ is called Emmanuel, but that he is not what he is called: as Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovah Nissi, [Exod. 17:15] and Gideon another called Jehovah Shalom, [Judg. 6:24] and yet neither altar was Jehovah; as Jerusalem was called, The Lord our righteousness, [Jer. 33:16] and yet that city was not the Lord.  Because these two notions, which are conjoined in the name Emmanuel, are severally true of Christ.  First he is Emmanu, that is, with us, for he hath dwelt among us [John 1:14]: and when he parted from the earth, he said to his Disciples, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.  [Mat. 28:20]  Secondly, he is El, and that name was given him, as the same Prophet testifieth, For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the mighty God.  [Isa. 9:6]  He then who is both properly called El, that is, God, and is also really Emmanu, that is , with us, he must infallibly be that Emmanuel who is God with us.  Indeed if the name Emmanuel were to be interpreted by way of a proposition, God is with us, [Ezek. 48:35] as the Lord our righteousness, and the Lord is there, must be understood where they are the names of Jerusalem, then should it have been the name not of Christ but of his [M131] Church; and if we under the Gospel have been called so, it could have received no other interpretation in reference to us.  But being it is not ours, but our Saviour’s name, it bears no kind of similitude with those objected appellations, and is as properly and directly to be attributed to the Messias, as the name of Jesus.  Wherefore it remaineth that Christ be acknowledge God with us, according to the evangelical interpretation, with an expression of that excellency which belongeth to the supreme Deity.

      Again, he to whom St. Thomas said, My Lord and my God, [John 20:28] or rather, The Lord of me, and the God of me, he is that God before whose name the Greek article is prefixed, which they require by way of excellency.  But St. Thomas spake these words to Christ.*  For Jesus spake unto Thomas, and Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.  And in these words he made confession of his faith;* for our Saviour replied, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed. [John 20:29]  And let him be the Lord of me, and the God of me, who was the Lord and the God of an Apostle.

      Nor have we only their required testimony of Christ’s supreme Divinity, but also an addition of verity asserting that supremacy.  For he is not only termed the God, but, for a further certainty, the true God: and the same Apostle, who said the Word was God, lest any cavil should arise by any omission of an article, though so frequently neglected by all, even the most accurate Authors, hath also assured us that he is the true God.  For, we know, saith he, that the Son of God is come, and hath given us [M132] an understanding that we may know him that is true: and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ.  This is the true God, and eternal life.* [1 John 5:20]  As therefore we read in the Acts [Acts 10:36] of the word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ; he is Lord of all: where it is acknowledged that the Lord of all is by the pronoun he* joined unto Jesus Christ, the immediate, not unto God, the remote antecedent: so likewise here the true God is to be referred unto Christ, who stands next unto it, not unto the Father, spoken of indeed in the text, but at a distance.  There is no reason alleged why these last words should not be referred to the Son of God, but only this, that in grammatical construction they may be ascribed to the Father.  As, when another king arose which knew not Joseph, the same dealt subtly with our kindred [Acts 7:18, 19]; the same referreth us not to Joseph, but to the king of Egypt.  Whereas, if nothing else can be objected but a possibility in respect of the grammatical construction, we may as well say that Joseph dealt subtly with his kindred as the king of Egypt; for whatsoever the incongruity be in history, it makes no solecism in the syntax.  Wherefore being Jesus Christ is the immediate antecedent to which the relative may properly be referred; being the Son of God is he of whom the Apostle chiefly speaketh; being this is rendered as a reason why we are in him that is true, by being in his Son, to wit, because that Son is the true God; being in the language of St. John the constant title of our Saviour is eternal life; being all these reasons may be drawn out of the text itself, why the title of the true God should be attributed to the Son, and no one reason can be raised from thence why it should be referred to the Father; I can conclude no less, than that our Saviour is the true God, so styled in the Scriptures by way of eminency, with an article prefixed, as the first Christian writers which immediately followed the Apostles did both speak and write.*

      But, thirdly, were there no such particular place in which the article were expressed, yet shall we find such adjuncts fixed to the name of God when attributed unto Christ, as will prove equivalent to an article, or whatsoever may express the supreme Majesty.  As when St. Paul doth magnify the Jews, out of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen. [Rom. 9:5]  First, it is evident that Christ is called God,* even he who came of the Jews, though not as he came of them, that is, according to the flesh, which is here [M133] distinguished from his Godhead.*  Secondly, he is so called God as not to be any of the many gods, but the one supreme or most high God; for he is God over all.  Thirdly, he hath also added the title of blessed, which of itself elsewhere signifieth the supreme God,* and was always used by the Jews to express that one God of Israel.  Wherefore it cannot be conceived St. Paul should write unto the Christians, most of which then were converted Jews or proselytes, and give unto our Saviour not only the name of God, but also add that title which they always gave unto the one God of Israel, and to none but him; except he did intend they should believe him to be the same God whom they always in that manner, and under that notion, had adored.  As therefore the Apostle speaketh of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, [1 Cor. 11:31] of the Creator, who is blessed for ever, Amen [Rom. 1:25]; and thereby doth signify the supreme Deity, which was so glorified by the Israelites; and doth also testify that we worship the same God under the Gospel which they did under the Law: so doth he speak of Christ in as sublime a style, who is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen [Rom. 9:5]; and thereby doth testify the equality, or rather identity, of his Deity.  If we consider the scope of the Apostle, which is to magnify the Israelites by the enumeration of such privileges as belonged peculiarly to that chosen nation (the most eminent of which was contained in the genealogy of our Saviour), we shall find their glory did not consist in this, that Christ at first was born of them a man, and afterwards made a God; for what great honour could accrue to them by the nativity of a man, whose Godhead is referred not to his birth, but to his death? whereas this is truly honourable, and the peculiar glory of that nation, that the most high God blessed for ever should take on him the seed of Abraham, [Heb. 2:16] and come out of the Israelites as concerning the flesh.  Thus every way it doth appear the Apostle spake of Christ as of the one eternal God.

      He then who was the Word which in the beginning was with God, and was God; he whose glory Isaias saw as the glory of the God of Israel; he who is styled Alpha and Omega without any restriction or limitation; he who was truly subsisting in the form of God, and equal with him, before he was in the nature of man; he who being man is frequently called God, and that in all those ways by which the supreme Deity is expressed; he had a being before Christ was conceived by the Virgin Mary, and the being which he had was the one eternal and indivisible Divine essence, by which he always was truly, really, and properly God.  But all these are certainly true of him in whom we [M134] believe, Jesus Christ, as hath been proved by clear testimonies of the sacred Scriptures.  Therefore the being which Christ had before he was conceived of the Virgin was not any created, but the Divine essence; nor was he any Creature, but the true eternal God: which was our second assertion, particularly opposed to the Arian heresy.*

      The third assertion, next to be demonstrated, is, that the Divine essence which Christ had as the Word, before he was conceived by the Virgin Mary, he had not of himself, but by communication from God the Father.  For this is not to be denied, that there can be but one essence properly Divine, and so but one God of infinite wisdom, power, and majesty; that there can be but one person* originally of himself subsisting in that infinite Being, because a plurality of more persons so subsisting would necessarily infer a multiplicity of Gods; that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is originally God, as not receiving his eternal being from any other.  Wherefore it necessarily followeth that Jesus Christ, who is certainly not the Father, cannot be a person subsisting in the Divine nature originally of himself, and consequently, being we have already proved that he is truly and properly the eternal God, he must be understood to have the Godhead communicated to him by the Father, who is not only eternally, but originally God.  All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine,* [John 16:15] saith Christ; because in him is the same fullness of the Godhead, and more than that the Father cannot have: but yet in that perfect and absolute equality there is notwithstanding this disparity, that the Father hath the Godhead not from the Son, nor any other, whereas the Son hath it from the Father: Christ is the true God and eternal life; but that he is so, is from the Father: for as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself,* [John 5:26] not by participation, but by communication.  It is true, our Saviour was so in the form of God, that he thought it no robbery to be equal with God: but when the Jews sought to kill him because he made himself equal with God,* [John 5:18, 19] he answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he meth the Father do: but that connection of his operations, shewing the reception of his essence; and by the acknowledgment of his power, professing his substance from the Father.  From whence he which was equal, even in that equality professeth a priority, [M135] saying, The Father is greater than I:* [John 14:28] the Son equal in respect of his nature, the Father greater in reference to the communication of the Godhead.  I know him, saith Christ, for I am from him. [John 7:29]  And because he is from the Father, therefore he is called by those of the Nicene Council, in their Creed, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God.*  The Father is God, but not of God, Light, but not of Light; Christ is God, but of God, Light, but of Light.  There is no difference or inequality in the nature or essence, because the same in both; but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ hath that essence of himself, from none; Christ hath the same not of himself, but from him.

      And being the Divine nature, as it is absolutely immaterial and incorporeal, is also indivisible, Christ cannot have any part of it only communicated unto him, but the whole, by which he must be acknowledged coessential,* of the same substance with the Father; as the Council of Nice determined, and the ancient Fathers before them taught.  Hence appeareth the truth of those words of our Saviour, which raised a second motion in the Jews to stone him; I and the Father are one: [John 10:30] where the plurality of the verb, and the neutrality of the noun, with the distinction of their persons, speak a perfect identity of their essence.  And though Christ say, The Father is in me, and I in him [John 10:38]; yet withal he saith, I came out from the Father [John 16:28]; by the former shewing the Divinity of his essence, by the latter the origination of himself.  We must not look upon the Divine nature as sterile,* but rather acknowledge and admire the fecundity and communicability of itself, upon which the creation of the world dependeth;* God making all things by his Word, [M136] to whom he first communicated that omnipotency which is the cause of all things.  And this may suffice for the illustration of our third assertion, that the Father hath communicated the Divine essence to the Word, who is that Jesus, who is the Christ.

      The fourth assertion followeth, that the communication of the Divine essence by the Father is the generation of the Son; and Christ, who was eternally God, not from himself, but from the Father, is the eternal Son of God.  That God always had a Son, appeareth by Agur’s question in the Proverbs of Solomon; Who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name? and what is his Son’s name, if thou canst tell? [Prov. 30:4]  And it was the chief design of Mahomet to deny this truth, because he knew it was not otherwise possible to prefer himself before our Saviour.  One Prophet may be greater than another, and Mahomet might persuade his credulous disciples that he was greater than any of the sons of men; but while any one was believed to be the eternal Son of God, he knew it wholly impossible to prefer himself before him.  Wherefore he frequently inculcates that blasphemy in his Alcoran,* that God hath no such Son, nor any equal with him, and his disciples have corrupted the Psalm of David,* reading (instead of Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,) [Ps. 2:7] Thou art my Prophet, I have educated thee.  The later Jews,* acknowledging the words, and the proper literal reading of them, apply them so unto David, as that they deny them to belong to Christ; and that upon no other ground, than that by such an exposition they may avoid the Christians’ confession.  But by the consent of the ancient Jews, by the interpretation of the blessed Apostles, we know these words belong to Christ, and in the most proper sense to him alone.  For, unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? [Heb. 1:5] as the Apostle argues.  And if he had spoken them unto any other man, as they were spoken unto him, the Apostle’s argument had been none at all.

      Now that the communication of the Divine essence by the Father (which we have already proved) was the true and proper generation by which he hath begotten the Son, will thus appear: because the most proper generation which we know, is nothing else but a vital production of another in the same nature, with a [M137] full representation of him from whom he is produced.  Thus man begetteth a son, that is, produceth another man of the same human nature with himself; and this production, as a perfect generation, becomes the foundation of the relation of paternity in him that produceth, and of filiation in him that is produced.  Thus after the prolifical benediction, Be fruitful and multiply, [Gen. 1:28, 5:3] Adam begat in his own likeness, after his image: and by the continuation of the same blessing, the succession of human generations hath been continued.  This then is the known confession of all men,* that a son is nothing but another produced by his father in the same nature with him.  But God the Father hath communicated to the Word the same Divine essence by which he is God; and consequently he is of the same nature with him, and thereby the perfect image and similitude of him, and therefore his proper Son.  In human generations we may conceive two kinds of similitude; one in respect of the internal nature, the other in reference to the external form or figure.  The former similitude is essential and necessary; it being impossible a man should beget a son, and that son not be by nature a man: the latter accidental; not only sometimes the child representing this, sometimes the other parent, but also oftentimes neither.  The similitude then, in which the propriety of generation is preserved, is that which consisteth in the identity of nature:* and this communication of the Divine essence by the Father to the Word is evidently a sufficient foundation of such a similitude; from whence Christ is called the image of God, the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person. [2 Cor. 4:4, Heb. 1:3]

      Nor is this communication of the Divine essence only the proper generation of the Son, but we must acknowledge it far more proper than any natural generation of the creature, not only because it is in a more perfect manner, but also because the identity of nature is most perfect.  As in the Divine essence we acknowledge all the perfections of the creature, subtracting all the imperfections which adhere unto them here in things below: so in the communication we must look upon the reality without any kind of defect, blemish, or impurity.  In human generation the son is begotten in the same nature with the father, which is performed by derivation, or decision of part of the substance of the parent: but this decision includeth imperfection, because it supposeth a substance divisible, and consequently corporeal: whereas the essence of God is incorporeal, spiritual, and indivisible; and therefore his nature is really communicated, not by derivation or decision, but by a total and plenary communication.  In natural conceptions the father necessarily precedeth the son, and begetteth one younger than himself; for being generation is for the perpetuity of the species, where the individuals successively fail, it is sufficient if the parent can produce another to live after him, and continue the existence of his nature, when his person is dissolved.  But this presupposeth the imperfection of mortality wholly to be removed, when we speak of him who inhabiteth eternity: the essence which God always had without beginning, without beginning he did communicate; being always Father, as always God.  Animals when they come to the perfection of nature, then become prolifical; in God eternal perfection sheweth his eternal [M138] fecundity.*  And that which is most remarkable,. in human generations the son is of the same nature with the father, and yet is not the same man; because though he hath an essence of the same kind, yet he hath not the same essence; the power of generation depending on the first prolifical benediction, Increase and multiply, it must be made by way of multiplication, and thus every son becomes another man.  But the Divine essence, being by reason of its simplicity not subject to division, and in respect of its infinity incapable of multiplication, is so communicated as not to be multiplied; insomuch that he which proceedeth by that communication hath not only the same nature, but is also the same God.  The Father God, and the Word God; Abraham man, and Isaac man: but Abraham one man, Isaac another man; not so the Father one God, and the Word another, but the Father and the Word both the same God.  Being then the propriety of generation is founded in the essential similitude of the son unto the father, by reason of the same nature which he receiveth from him; being the full perfect nature of God is communicated unto the Word, and that more intimately and with a greater unity or identity than can be found in human generations: it followeth that this communication of the Divine nature is the proper generation by which Christ is, and is called the true and proper Son of God.  This was the foundation of St. Peter’s confession, Thou art the Son of the living God [Matt. 16:16]; this the ground of our Saviour’s distinction,* I go unto my Father, and to your Father. [John 20:17]  Hence did St. John raise a verity, more than only a negation of falsity, when he said, we are in the true Son [1 John 5:20]: for we which are in him are true, not false sons, but such sons we are not as the true Son.  Hence did St. Paul draw an argument of the infinite love of God toward man, in that he spared not his own proper Son. [Rom. 8:32]  Thus have we sufficiently shewed, that the eternal communication of the Divine essence by the Father to the Word was a proper generation by which Christ Jesus always was the true and proper San of God: which was our fourth assertion.

      The fifth and last assertion followeth, that the Divine essence was so peculiarly communicated to the Word, that there was never any other person naturally begotten by the Father; and in that respect Christ is the only-begotten Son of God.  For the clearing of which truth, it will first be necessary to inquire into the true notion of the only-begotten; and then shew how it belongs particularly to Christ, by reason of the Divine nature communicated by way of generation to him alone.  First, therefore, we must avoid the vain interpretation of the ancient heretics,* who would have the restraining term only to belong, not to the Son, but to the Father; as if the only-begotten were no more than begotten of the Father only.  Which is both contrary to the language of the Scriptures, and the common custom of men, who use it not for him who is begotten of one, but for him who alone is begotten of any.

      Secondly, we must by no means admit the exposition of the [M139] later heretics,* who take the only-begotten to be nothing else but the most beloved of all the sons; because Isaac was called the only son of Abraham, when we know that he had Ishmael beside; and Solomon said to be the only-begotten before his mother, when David had other children even by the mother of Solomon.  For the only-begotten and the most beloved are not the same; the one having the nature of a cause in respect of the other; and the same cannot be cause and effect to itself.  For though it be true, that the only son is the beloved son; yet with this order, that he is therefore beloved, because the only, not therefore the only, because beloved.  Although therefore Christ be the only begotten and the beloved Son of God, yet we must not look upon these two attributes as synonymous, or equally significant of the same thing, but as one depending on the other; his unigeniture being the foundation of his singular love.  Beside, Isaac was called the only son of Abraham for some other reason than because he was singularly beloved of Abraham; for he was the only son of the free-woman, the only son of the promise made to Abraham, which was first this, Sarah shall have a son, and then, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. [Gen. 18:14, 21:12]  So that Isaac may well be called the only son of Abraham in reference to the promise, as the Apostle speaks expressly; By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac, and he that had received the promises offered up his only-begotten son. [Heb. 11:17]  Avoiding therefore these two expositions, as far short of the true notion of the only-begotten; we must look upon it in the most proper, full, and significant sense, as signifying a Son so begotten as none other is, was, or can be: so as the term restrictive only shall have relation not only to the Father generating,* but also to the Son begotten, and to the manner of the generation.  It is true, the Father spake from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased [Mark 1:11]; and thereby we are to understand, that whosoever of us are beloved by the Father, are so beloved in and through the Son.  In the same manner Christ is the only-begotten Son of God; and as many of us as God hath bestowed his love upon, that we should be called the sons of God, are all brought into that near relation by our fellowship with him, who is by a far more near relation the natural and eternal Son.

      Having thus declared* the interpretation of the word, that properly, as primogeniture consisteth in prelation, so unigeniture in exclusion; and that none can be strictly called the only-begotten, but he who alone is so begotten: we shall proceed to make good our assertion, shewing that the Divine essence was peculiarly communicated to the Word, by which he was begotten the Son of God, and never any was so begotten beside that Son.

[M140]            And here we meet with two difficulties : one showing that there were other sons of God said to be begotten of him, to whom either the Divine essence was communicated, and then the communication of that to the Word made him not the only-begotten; or it was not communicated, and then there is no such communication necessary to found such a filiation: the other, alleging that the same Divine essence may be communicated to another beside the Word, and not only that it may, but that it is so, to the person of the Holy Ghost; whence either the Holy Ghost must be the Son of God, and then the Word is not the only-begotten; or if he be not the Son, then is not the communication of the Divine essence a sufficient foundation of the relation of sonship.  These two objections being answered, nothing will remain farther to demonstrate this last assertion.

      For the first, we acknowledge that others are frequently called the Sons of God, and that we call the same God our Father, which Christ called his; that both he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call us brethren [Heb. 2:11]: we confess that those whom St. Paul hath begotten through the Gospel [1 Cor. 4:15] may well be termed the begotten of God, whose seed remaineth in them* [1 John 3:9]: but withal, we affirm that this our regeneration is of a nature wholly different from the generation of the Son.  We are first generated, and have our natural being;* after that regenerated, and so receive a spiritual renovation, and by virtue thereof an inheritance incorruptible: whereas the generation of Christ admits no regeneration, he becoming at once thereby God, and Son, and Heir of all.  The state of sonship which we come into is but of adoption, shewing the generation by which we are begotten to be but metaphorical: whereas Christ is so truly begotten, so properly the natural Son of God, that his generation clearly excludeth the name of adoption;* and not only so, but when he becometh the Son of Man, even in his humanity refuseth the name of an adopted Son.  For when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law, (not that he, but) that we might receive the adoption of sons. [Gal. 4:4, 5]  He then whose generation is totally different from ours whom he calleth brethren; he whom in the sacred Scriptures the Spirit [M141] nameth the true Son, the Father sometimes his own, sometimes his beloved, but never his adopted* Son; he who by those proper and peculiar appellations is distinguished from us,* who can claim no higher filiation than that which we receive by the privilege of adoption; he is truly the only-begotten Son of God, notwithstanding the same God hath begotten us by his Word; and the reason why he is so is, because the Divine essence was communicated unto him in his natural and eternal generation, whereas only the grace of God is conveyed unto us in our adoption.  Indeed if we were begotten of the essence* of God as Christ was, or he were only by the grace of God adopted,* as we are, then could he by no propriety of speech be called the only Son, by reason of so many brethren: but being we cannot aspire unto the first, nor he descend unto the latter, it remaineth we acknowledge him, notwithstanding the first difficulty, by virtue of his natural and peculiar generation,. to be the only-begotten Son.

      But though neither men nor angels be begotten of the substance of God, or by virtue of any such natural generation be called sons; yet one person we know, to whom the Divine essence is as truly and really communicated by the Father as to the Son, which is the third person in the blessed Trinity, the Holy Ghost.  Why then should the Word by that communication of the Divine essence become the Son, and not the Holy Ghost by the same? or if, by receiving the same nature, he also be the Son of God, how is the Word the only Son?  To this I answer, That the Holy Ghost receiveth the same essence from the Father which the Word receiveth, and thereby becometh the same God with the Father and the Word: but though the essence be the same which is communicated, yet there is a difference in the communication; the Word being God by generation, the Holy Ghost by procession: and though every thing which is begotten proceedeth, yet every thing which proceedeth is not begotten.*  Wherefore in the language of the sacred Scriptures and the Church,* the Holy Ghost is never said to be begotten, but to proceed from the Father; nor is he ever called the Son, but the gift of God.  Eve was produced out of Adam, and in the same nature with him, and yet was not born of him, nor was she truly the daughter of Adam: whereas Seth proceeding from the same person, in the similitude of the same nature, was truly and properly the Son of Adam.  And this difference was not in the nature produced, but in the manner of production; [M142] Eve descending not from Adam as Seth did, by way of generation, that is, by natural fecundity.  The Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father in the same nature with him, the Word proceedeth from the same person in the same similitude of nature also; but the Word proceeding is the Son, the Holy Ghost is not, because the first procession is by way of generation, the other is not.  As therefore the regeneration and adoption of man, so the procession of the Holy Ghost cloth no way prejudice the eternal generation, as pertaining solely to the Son of God.

      Seeing then our Saviour Jesus Christ had a real being and existence before he was conceived by the Virgin Mary; seeing the being which he, had antecedently to that conception was not any created, but the one and indivisible Divine essence; seeing he had not that Divinity of himself originally, as the Father, but by communication from him; seeing the communication of the same essence unto him was a proper generation; we cannot but believe that the same Jesus Christ is the begotten Son of God: and seeing the same essence was never so by way of generation communicated unto any,* we must also acknowledge him the only-begotten, distinguished from the Holy Ghost, as Son; from the adopted children, as the natural Son.

      The necessity of the belief of this part of the Article, that Jesus Christ is the proper and natural Son of God, begotten of the substance of the Father, and by that singular way of generation the only Son, appeareth first in the confirmation of our faith concerning the redemption of mankind.  For this doth shew such an excellency and dignity in the person of the Mediator, as will assure us of an infinite efficacy in his actions, and value in his sufferings.  We know it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins [Heb. 10:4]: and we may very well doubt how the blood of him, who hath no other nature than that of man, can take away the sins of other men; there appearing no such difference as will shew a certainty in the one, and an impossibility in the other.  But since we may be bought with a price, well may we believe the blood of Christ sufficiently precious, when we are assured that it is the blood of God: nor can we question the efficacy of it in purging our conscience from dead works, if we believe Christ offered up himself through the eternal Spirit. [1 Cor. 6:20, 7:23; 1 Pet. 1:19, Acts 20:28, Heb. 9:14]  If we be truly sensible of our sins, we must acknowledge that in every one we have offended God; and the gravity of every offence must needs increase proportionably to the dignity of the party offended in respect of the offender; because the more worthy any person is, the more reverence is due unto him, and every injury tendeth to his dishonour: but between God and man there is an infinite disproportion; and therefore every offence committed against him must be esteemed as in the highest degree of injury.  Again, as the gravity of the offence beareth proportion to the person offended; so the value of reparation ariseth from the dignity of the person satisfying; because the satisfaction consisteth in a reparation of that honour which by the injury was eclipsed; and all honour doth increase proportionably as the person yielding it is honourable.  If then by every sin we have offended God, who is of infinite eminency, according unto which the injury is aggravated; how shall we ever be secure of our reconciliation unto God, except the person who hath undertaken to make the reparation be of the same infinite dignity, so as the honour rendered by his obedience may prove proportionable to the offence and that dishonour which arose from our disobedience?  This scruple is no otherwise to be satisfied than by a belief in such a Mediator as is the only-begotten Son of God, of the same substance with the Father, and consequently of the same power and dignity with the God whom by our sins we have offended.

      Secondly, the belief of the eternal generation of the Son, by which he is the same God with the Father, is necessary for the confirming and encouraging a Christian in ascribing that honour [M148] and glory unto Christ which is due unto him.  For we are commanded to give that worship unto the Son, which is truly and properly Divine; the same which we give unto God the Father, who hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. [John 5:22, 23]  As it was represented to St. John in a vision, when he heard every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and suck as are in the sea, and all that are in them, saying, Blessing, honour, glory, and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever. [Rev. 5:13]  Again, we are commanded to fear the Lord our God, and to serve him* [Deut. 10:20]; and that with such an emphasis, as by him we are to understand him alone, because the Lord our God is one Lord.  From whence, if any one arose among the Jews, teaching under the title of a prophet to worship any other beside him for God, the judgment of the Rabbins was, that notwithstanding all the miracles which he could work, though they were as great as Moses wrought, he ought immediately to be strangled, because the evidence of this truth, that one God only must be worshipped, is above all evidence of sense.  Nor must we look upon this precept as valid only under the Law, as if then there were only one God to be worshipped, but since the Gospel we had another; for our Saviour hath commended it to our observation, by making use of it against the Devil in his temptation, saying, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. [Matt 4:10]  If then we be obliged to worship the God of Israel only, if we be also commanded to give the same worship to the Son which we give to him; it is necessary that we should believe that the Son is the God of Israel.  When the Scripture bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, it saith, Let all the angels of God worship him [Heb. 1:6]; but then the same Scripture calleth that first-begotten Jehovah,* and the Lord of the whole earth. [Ps. 97:5]  For a man to worship that for God which is not God, knowing that it is not God, is affected and gross idolatry: to worship that as God which is not God, thinking that it is God, is not in the same degree, but the same sin: to worship him as God who is God, thinking that he is not God, cannot be thought an act in the formality void of idolatry.  Lest therefore, while we are all obliged to give unto him Divine worship, we should fall into that sin which of all others we ought most to abhor, it is no less than necessary that we should believe that Son to be that eternal God, whom we are bound to worship, and whom only we should serve.

      Thirdly, Our belief in Christ as the eternal Son of God is necessary to raise us unto a thankful, acknowledgment of the infinite love of God, appearing in the sending of his only-begotten Son into the world to die for sinners.  This love of  God is frequently extolled and admired by the Apostles.  God so loved the world, saith St. John [John 3:16], that he gave his only-begotten Son.  God commendeth his love towards us, saith St. Paul [Rom. 5:8], in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us [Rom 8:32]; in that he spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.  In this, saith St. John again [1 John 4:9, 10], was manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.  Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.  If we look upon all this as nothing else, but that God should cause a man to be born after another manner than other men, and when be was so born after a peculiar manner, yet a mortal man, should deliver him to die for the sins of the world; I see no such great expression of his love in this way of redemption, more than would have appeared if he had redeemed us any other way.  It is true indeed, that the reparation of lapsed man is no act of absolute necessity in respect of God, but that he hath as freely designed our redemption as our creation; and [M144] considering the misery from which we are redeemed, and the happiness to which we are invited, we cannot but acknowledge the singular love of God, even in the act of redemption itself; but yet the Apostles have raised that consideration higher, and placed the choicest mark of the love of God in the choosing such means, and performing in that manner our reparation, by sending his only-begotten into the world; by not sparing his own Son; by giving and delivering him up to be scourged and crucified for us: and the estimation of this act of God’s love must necessarily increase proportionably to the dignity of the Son so sent into the world; because the more worthy the person of Christ before he suffered, the greater his condescension unto such a suffering condition; and the nearer his relation to the Father, the greater his love to us for whose sakes he sent him so to suffer.  Wherefore to derogate any way from the dignity of the person and nature of our Saviour before he suffered, is so far to undervalue the love of God, and consequently to come short of that acknowledgment and thanksgiving which is due unto him for it.  If then the sending of Christ into the world were the highest act of the love of God which could be expressed; if we be obliged unto a return of thankfulness some way correspondent to such infinite love; if such a return can never be made without a true sense of that infinity, and a sense of that infinity of love cannot consist without an apprehension of an infinite dignity of nature in the person sent; then it is absolutely necessary to believe that Christ is so the only-begotten Son of the Father, as to be of the same substance with him, of glory equal, of majesty coeternal.

      By this discourse in way of explication every Christian may understand what it is he says, and express his mind how he would be understood, when he maketh this brief confession, I believe in Christ the only Son of God.  For by these words he must be thought to intend no less than this; I do profess to be fully assured of this assertion as of a most certain, infallible, and necessary truth, that Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Messias, is the true, proper, and natural Son of God, begotten of the substance of the Father; which being incapable of division or multiplication, is so really and totally communicated to him, that he is of the same essence with him, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God.  And as I assert him so to be the Son, so do I also exclude all other persons from that kind of sonship, acknowledging none but him to be begotten of God by that proper and natural generation: and thereby excluding all which are not begotten, as it is a generation; all which are said to be begotten, and are called sons, but are so only by adoption, as it is natural.  And thus I believe in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ his only Son.

Our Lord.

      After our Saviour’s relation founded upon his eternal generation, followeth his dominion in all ancient Creeds,* as the necessary consequent of his filiation.  For as we believe him to be the Son of God, so must we acknowledge him to be our Lord, because the only Son must of necessity be heir and Lord of all in his Father’s house; and all others which bear the name of sons, whether they be men or angels, if compared to him, must not be looked upon as sons of God, but as servants of Christ.

      Three things are necessary, and more cannot be, for a plenary [M145] explication of this part of the Article.  First, the proper notation of the word Lord in the Scripture phrase, or language of the Holy Ghost: Secondly, the full signification of the same in the, adequate latitude of the sense, as it belongs to Christ: Thirdly, the application of it to the person making confession of his faith, and all others whom he involves in the same condition with himself, as saying, not my, nor their, but our Lord. [Mark 16:19, 20; Luke 12:42, 24:34]

      First then, we must observe that not only Christ is the Lord, but that this title doth so properly belong unto him, that the Lord alone absolutely taken is frequently used by the Evangelists and Apostles* determinately for Christ, insomuch that is, the angels observe that dialect,* Come, see the place where the Lord lay.  Now for the true notation of the word, it will not be so necessary to inquire into the use or origination of the Greek,* much less into the etymology of the correspondent Latin, as to search into the notion of the Jews, and the language of the Scriptures, according unto which the Evangelists and Apostles spake and wrote. [John 4:1, 6:23, 11:2, 20:2, 18, 20, 25; 21:7; Acts 9:1, 6, 10, 11, 15, 17, 27, 31, 42 &c. Matt. 28:6]

      And first, it cannot be denied but that the word, which we translate the Lord, was used by the interpreters of the Old Testament sometimes for men,* with no relation unto any other than human dominion.  And as it was by the translators of the Old, so is it also by the penmen of the New.*  But it is most certain that Christ is called Lord, in another notion than that which signifies any kind of human dominion; because, as so, there are many lords, but he is in that notion Lord which admits of no more than one.  They are only masters according to the flesh; he the Lord of glory, the Lord from heaven, King of kings, and Lord of all other lords. [1 Cor. 8:5; ver. 6 and Eph. 4:5, Col. 3:22, 1 Cor. 2:8, 15:47; Rev. 19:16]

      Nor is it difficult to find that name amongst the books of the [M146] Law in the most high and full signification; for it is most frequently used as the name of the supreme God, sometimes for El or Elohim, sometimes for Shaddai or the Rock, often for Adonai, and most universally for Jehovah, the undoubted proper name of God, and that to which the Greek translators, long before our Saviour’s birth, had most appropriated the name of Lord, not only by way of explication, but distinction and particular expression.  As when we read, Thou whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high in all the earth [Ps. 83:18]: and when God so expresseth himself, I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty: but by my name Jehovah was I not known unto them. [Exod. 6:3]  In both these places, for the name Jehovah, the Greek translation, which the Apostles followed, hath no other name but Lord; and therefore undoubtedly by that word which we translate the Lord* did they understand the proper name of God, Jehovah: and had they placed it there as the exposition of any other name of God, they had made an interpretation contrary to the manifest intention of the Spirit: for it cannot be denied but God was known to Abraham by the true importance of the title Adonai, as much as by the name of Shaddai; as much by his dominion and sovereignty, as by his power and all-sufficiency; but by any experimental and personal sense of the fulfilling of his promises, [M147] his name Jehovah was not known unto him: for though God spake expressly unto Abraham, All the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever [Gen. 13:15, 26:3]; yet the history teacheth us, and St. Stephen confirmeth us, that he gave him none inheritance in it, no not so much as to set his foot on, though he promised that he would give it to him for a possession. [Acts 7:5]  Wherefore when God saith he was not known to Abraham by his name Jehovah, the interpretation of no other name can make good that expression: and therefore we have reason to believe the word which the first Greek translators, and after them the Apostles, used, may be appropriated to that notion which the original requires; as indeed it may, being derived from a verb of the same signification with the Hebrew root,* and so denoting the essence or existence of God, and whatsoever else may be deduced from thence, as revealed by him to be signified thereby.

      Being then this title Lord thus signifieth the proper name of [M148] God Jehovah, being the same is certainly attributed unto Christ in a notion far surpassing all other lords, which are rather to be looked upon as servants unto him: it will be worth our inquiry next, whether, as it is the translation of the name Jehovah, it belong to Christ; or whether though he be Lord of all other lords, as subjected under his authority, yet he be so inferior unto him whose name alone is Jehovah, as that in that propriety and eminency in which, it belongs unto the supreme God it may not be attributed unto Christ.

      This doubt will easily be satisfied, if we can shew the name Jehovah itself to be given unto our Saviour; it being against all reason to acknowledge the original name, and to deny the interpretation in the sense and full importance of that original.  Wherefore if Christ be the Jehovah, as so called by the Spirit of God; then is he so the Lord, in the same propriety and eminency in which Jehovah is.  Now whatsoever did belong to the Messias, that may and must be attributed unto Jesus, as being the true and only Christ.  But the Jews themselves acknowledge that Jehovah shall be known clearly in the days of the Messias, and not only so, but that it is the name which properly belongeth to him.  And if they cannot but confess so much, who only read the prophecies, as the Eunuch did, without an interpreter; how can we be ignorant of so plain and necessary a truth, whose eyes have seen the full completion, and read the infallible interpretation of them?  If they could see Jehovah the Lord of hosts to be the name of the Messias, who was to them for a stone of stumbling and rock of offence, [Isa.8:13, 14] how can we possibly be ignorant of it, who are taught by St. Paul, that in Christ this prophecy was fulfilled, [Rom. 9:33] As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling stone, and rock of offence, and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed?  It was no other than Jehovah who spake those words, [Hos. 1:7] I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord (Jehovah) their God, and will not save them by bow nor by sword.*  Where not only he who is described as the original and principal cause, that is, the Father who gave his Son, but also he who is the immediate efficient of our salvation, and that in opposition to all other means or instrumental causes, is called Jehovah; who can be no other than our Jesus, because there is no other name under heaven given unto men whereby we must be saved. [Acts 4:12]  As in another place he speaketh, I will strengthen them in the Lord (Jehovah), and they shall walk up and down in his name, saith the Lord (Jehovah) [Zech. 10:12]; where he which strengtheneth is one, and he by whom he strengtheneth is another, clearly distinguished from him by the personal pronoun, and yet each of them is Jehovah, and Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. [Deut. 6:4]  [M149]  Whatsoever objections* may be framed against us, we know Christ is the righteous branch raised unto David, the King that shall reign and prosper, in whose days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; [Jer. 23:5, 6] we are assured that this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness:

the Lord, that is, Jehovah, the expression of his supremacy; and the addition of our Righteousness can be no diminution to his majesty.  If those words in the Prophet, [Zech. 2:10, 11] Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Sion; for lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord (Jehovah), did not sufficiently of themselves denote our Saviour who dwelt amongst us, as they certainly do; yet the words which follow would evince as much; And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and shall be my people; and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto thee: for what other Lord can we conceive dwelling in the midst of us, and sent unto us by the Lord of hosts, but Christ?

      And as the original Jehovah was spoken of Christ by the holy Prophets, so the title of Lord, as the usual interpretation of that name, was attributed unto him by the Apostles.  In that signal prediction of the first age of the Gospel, God promised by Joel, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord (Jehovah) shall be delivered [Joel 2:32]: and St. Paul hath assured us that Christ is that Lord, by proving from thence, that whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed [Rom. 10:9, 11, 13]; and inferring from that, if we confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus, we shall be saved.  For if it be a certain truth, that whosoever confesseth the Lord Jesus, shall be saved; and the certainty of this truth depend upon that foundation, that whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed; and the certainty of that in relation to Christ depend upon that other promise, Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved, then must the Lord in the thirteenth verse of the tenth chapter to the Romans be the same with the Lord Jesus in the ninth verse; or else St. Paul’s argument must be invalid and fallacious, as containing that in the conclusion which was not comprehended in the premises.  But the Lord in the ninth verse is no other than Jehovah, as appeareth by the prophet Joel from whom that Scripture is taken.  Therefore our Saviour in the New Testament is called Lord, as that name or title is the interpretation of Jehovah.

      If we consider the office of John the Baptist peculiar unto [M150] him, we know it was he of whom it is written [Matt. 11:10] in the Prophet Malachi, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me [Mal. 3:1]: we are sure he which spake those words was (Jehovah) the Lord of hosts; and we are as sure that Christ is that Lord, before whose face John the Baptist prepared the way.  The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, saith Isaiah, Prepare ye the way of the Lord (Jehovah) [Isa. 40:3]: and this is he that was spoken of by the Prophet Isaiah, saith St. Matthew [Matt. 3:3]: this is he of whom his father Zachariah did divinely presage, Thou, child, shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest, for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways [Luke 1:76]: where Christ is certainly the Lord, and the Lord undeniably* Jehovah.

      Nor is this the only notation of the name or title Lord, taken in a sense Divine, above the expression of all mere human power and dominion; for as it is often used as the interpretation of the name Jehovah, so is it also for that of Adon or Adonai.  The Lord said unto my Lord, [Ps. 110:1] saith David, that is, in the original, Jehovah unto Adon; and that Adon is the Word, that Lord is Christ.  We know the temple at Jerusalem was the temple of the most high God, and the Lord of that temple in the [M151] emphasis of an Hebrew article was Christ, as appeareth by that prophecy: The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple, even the Messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in. [Mal. 3:1]

      Now this notation, as it is the interpretation of Adon, signifieth immediately and properly dominion, implying a right of possession, and power of disposing.  Which doth not only agree with that other notion of Jehovah, but presupposes it, as following and flowing from it.  For he who alone hath a being or existence of himself, and thereby is the fountain of all things beside himself, must be acknowledged to have full power and dominion over all: because every thing must necessarily belong to him, from whom it hath received what it is.  Wherefore being Christ is the Lord, as that title is taken for Jehovah, the name of God, expressing the necessary existence and independence of his single being, and consequently the dependency of all others upon him; it followeth, that he be acknowledged also the Lord, as that name expresseth Adon, signifying power authoritative and proper dominion.  Thus having explained the notation of the word Lord, which we propounded as the first part of our exposition, we come next to the second, which is, to declare the nature of this dominion, and to shew how and in what respect Christ is the Lord.

      Now for the full and exact understanding of the dominion seated or invested in Christ as the Lord, it will be necessary to distinguish it according to that diversity which the Scriptures represent unto us.  As therefore we have observed two natures united in his person, so must we also consider two kinds of dominion belonging respectively to those natures; one inherent in his Divinity, the other bestowed upon his humanity; one, as he is the Lord the Maker of all things, the other as he is made Lord of all things.

      For the first, we are assured that the Word was God, that by the same Word all things were made, and without him was not any thing made that was made [John 1:1, 3]; we must acknowledge, that whosoever is the Creator of all things must have a direct dominion over all, as belonging to the possession of the Creator, who made all things.  Therefore the Word, that is, Christ as God, hath the supreme and universal dominion of the world.  Which was well expressed by that famous confession of no longer doubting, but believing Thomas, My Lord and my God. [John 20:28]

      For the second, it is also certain that there was some kind of lordship given or bestowed on Christ, whose very unction proves no less than an imparted dominion; as St. Peter tells us, that he was made both Lord and Christ. [Acts 2:36]  What David spake of man, the Apostle hath applied peculiarly unto him, Thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: thou heist put all things in subjection under his feet. [Heb. 2:7, 8]

      Now a dominion thus imparted, given, derived, or bestowed, cannot be that which belongeth unto God, as God, founded in the Divine nature, because whatsoever is such is absolute and independent.  Wherefore this lordship thus imparted or acquired appertaineth to the human nature, and belongeth to our Saviour as the Son of Man.  The right of judicature is part of this power; and Christ himself hath told us, that the Father hath given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man [John 5:27]; and by virtue of this delegated authority, the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and reward every man according to his works. [Matt. 16:27]  Part of the same dominion is the power of forgiving sins; as pardoning, no less than punishing, is a branch of the supreme magistracy: and Christ did therefore say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee, that we might know that the Son of Man had power on earth to forgive sins. [Matt. 9:2, 6]  Another branch of that power is the alteration of the Law, there being the same authority required to abrogate or alter, which is to make a law: and Christ asserted himself [M152] to be greater than the temple, shewing that the Son of Man was Lord even of the sabbath day. [Matt. 12:6, 8]

      This dominion thus given unto Christ in his human nature was a direct and plenary power over all things, but was not actually given him at once, but part while he lived on earth, part after his death and resurrection.  For though it be true that Jesus knew, before his death, that the Father had given all things into his hands [John 13:3]; yet it is observable that in the same place it is written, that he likewise knew that he was come from God, and went to God: and part of that power he received when he came from God, with part he was invested when he went to God; the first to enable him, the second, not only so, but also to reward him.  For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. [Rom. 14:9]  After his resurrection he said to his disciples, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. He drunk of the brook in the way, therefore he hath lift up his head. [Mat. 28:18, Ps. 110:7]  Because he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, therefore God hath also highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. [Phil. 2:8–11]  Thus for and after his death he was instated in a full power and dominion over all things, even as the Son of Man, but exalted by the Father, who raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the Church. [Eph. 1:20–22]

      Now as all the power given unto Christ as man had not the same beginning in respect of the use or possession; so neither, when begun, shall it all have the same duration.  For part of it being merely economical, aiming at a certain end, shall then cease and terminate, when that end for which it was given shall be accomplished: part, being either due upon the union of the human nature with the divine, or upon covenant, as a reward for the sufferings endured in that nature, must be coeval with that union and that nature which so suffered, and consequently must be eternal.

      Of the first part of this dominion did David speak, when by the spirit of prophecy he called his Son his Lord; The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool [Ps. 110:1]: where the continuation of Christ’s dominion over his enemies is promised to be prolonged until their final and total subjection: for he must reign till he hath put all things under his feet. [1 Cor.15:25]  And as we are sure of the continuation of that kingdom till that time, so are we assured of the resignation at that time.  For when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power, then shall he deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father.  And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. [1 Cor. 15:24, 28]  Thus he which was appointed to rule in the midst of his enemies [Ps. 110:2] during their rebellion, shall resign up his commission after their subjection.

      But we must not look upon Christ only in the nature of a general, who hath received a commission, or of an ambassador, with perfect instructions, but of the only Son of God, empowered and employed to destroy the enemies of his Father’s kingdom: and though thus empowered and commissioned, though resigning that authority which hath already had its perfect work, yet still the only Son and the Heir of all things in his Father’s house, never to relinquish his dominion over those whom he hath purchased with his own blood, never to be deprived of that reward [M153] which was assigned him for his sufferings: for if the prize which we expect in the race of our imperfect obedience be an immarcescible crown, if the weight of glory which we look for from him be eternal, then cannot his perfect and absolute obedience be crowned with a fading power, or he cease ruling over us, who hath always reigned in us.  We shall for ever reign with him, and he will make us priests and kings ; but so that he continue still for ever High Priest and King of kings.

      The certainty of this eternal dominion of Christ, as man, we may well ground upon the promise made to David, because by reason of that promise Christ himself is called David.  For so God speaketh concerning his people; I will set up one Shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their Shepherd.  And I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David a Prince among them.  I the Lord have spoken it. [Ez. 34:23, 24]  Now the promise was thus made expressly to David, Thy house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee, thy throne shall be established for ever. [2 Sam. 7:16]  And although that term for ever in the Hebrew language may signify ofttimes no more than a certain duration so long as the nature of the thing is durable, or at the utmost but to the end of all things; and so the economical dominion or kingdom of Christ may be thought sufficiently to fulfill that promise, because it shall certainly continue so long as the nature of that economy requireth, till all things be performed for which Christ was sent, and that continuation will infallibly extend unto the end of all things: yet sometimes also the same term for ever signifieth that absolute eternity of future duration which shall have no end at all: and that it is so far to be extended particularly in that promise made to David, and to be fulfilled in his Son, is as certain as the promise.  For the Angel Gabriel did give that clear exposition to the blessed Virgin, when in this manner he foretold the glory of him who was then to be conceived in her womb; The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end. [Luke 1:32, 33]  Nor is this clearer in Gabriel’s explication of the promise, than in Daniel’s prevision of the performance, who saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came 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 and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which, shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. [Dan. 7:13, 14]

      Thus Christ is Lord both by a natural and independent dominion, as God, the Creator, and consequently the Owner of the works of his hands: and by a derived, imparted, and dependent right, as man, sent, anointed, raised, and exalted, and so made Lord and Christ: which authority so given and bestowed upon him is partly economical, and therefore to be resigned into the hands of the Father, when all those ends for which it was imparted are accomplished: partly so proper to the union, or due unto the passion of the human nature, that it must be coeval with it, that is, of eternal duration.

      The third part of our explication is, the due consideration of the object of Christ’s dominion, inquiring whose Lord he is, and how ours.  To which purpose first observe the latitude, extent, or rather universality of his power, under which all things are comprehended, as subjected to it.  For he is Lord of all, [Acts 10:36] saith St. Peter, of all things, and of all persons; and he must be so, who made all things as God, and to whom all power is given as man.  To him then all things are subjected whose subjection implieth not a contradiction.  For he hath put all things under his feet: but when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him. [1 Cor. 15:27]  God only then excepted, whose original dominion is repugnant to the least subjection, all things are subject unto Christ, whether [M154] they be things in heaven or things on earth.  In heaven he is far above all principalities and powers, and all the angels of God worship him [Heb. 1:6]; on earth all nations are his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth are his possession. [Ps. 2:8]  Thus Christ is certainly our Lord, because he is the Lord of all; and when all things were subjected to him, we were not excepted.

      But in the midst of this universality of Christ’s regal authority it will be further necessary to find some propriety of dominion by which he may be said to be peculiarly our Lord.  It is true, he made us, and not we ourselves, we are the work of his hands; but the lowest of his creatures can speak as much.  We are still preserved by his power, and as he made us, so doth he maintain us; but at the same time he feedeth the ravens, and clothed the lilies of the field.  Wherefore beside his original right of creation, and his continued right of preservation, we shall find a more peculiar right of redemption, belonging properly to the sons of men.  And in this redemption, though a single word, we shall find a double* title to a most just dominion, one of conquest, another of purchase.

      We were first servants of the enemy of God; for him we obeyed, and his servants we are to whom we obey [Rom. 6:16]: when Christ through death destroyed him that had the power of death, that is, the Devil, and delivered us, he spoiled principalities and powers, and made a show of them openly, triumphing over them. [Heb. 2:14, Col. 2:15]  But contrary to the custom of triumphing conquerors, he did not sell, but buy us; because while he saved us, he died for us, and that death was the price by which he purchased us; even so this dying Victor gave us life: upon the cross, as his triumphant chariot, he shed that precious blood which bought us, and thereby became our Lord by right of redemption, both as to conquest and to purchase.

      Beside, he hath not only bought us, but provideth for us; whatever we have, we receive from him as the Master of the family; we hold of him all temporal and eternal blessings, which we enjoy in this, or hope for in another life.  He is the Prince of life [Acts 3:15], and by him we live; he is the Lord of glory [1 Cor. 2:8], and we are called by his gospel to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord. [2 Thess. 2:14]  Wherefore he hath us under his dominion; and becomes our Lord by right of promotion.

      Lastly, men were not anciently sold always by others, but sometimes by themselves; and whosoever of us truly believe in Christ, have given up our names unto him.  In our baptismal vow we bind ourselves unto his service, that henceforth we will not serve sin; but yield ourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and our members as instruments of [M155] righteousness unto God : that, as we have yielded our members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so we should yield our members servants to righteousness unto holiness. [Rom. 6:6, 13, 19]  And thus the same dominion is acknowledged by compact, and confirmed by covenant; and so Christ becomes our Lord by right of obligation.

      The necessity of believing and professing our faith in this part of the article appeareth, first, in the discovery of our condition; for by this we know that we are not our own, neither our persons* nor our actions.  Know ye not, saith St. Paul, that ye are not your own? for ye are bought with a price. [1 Cor. 6:19, 20]  And ancient servitude, to which the Scriptures relate, put the servants wholly in the possession* of their master; so that their persons were as properly his as the rest of his goods.  And if we be so in respect of Christ, then may we not live to ourselves, but to him; for in this the difference of service and freedom doth properly consist:* we cannot do our own wills, but the will of him whose we are.*  Christ took upon him the form of a servant: and to give us a proper and perfect example of that condition, he telleth us, I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. [John 6:38]  First therefore we must conclude with the Apostle, reflecting upon Christ’s dominion and our obligation, that none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.  For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s. [Rom. 14:7, 8]

      Secondly, the same is necessary both to enforce and invite us to obedience ; to enforce us, as he is the Lord, to invite us, as Christ the Lord.  If we acknowledge ourselves to be his servants, we must bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. [2 Cor. 10:5]  He which therefore died, and rose and revived, that he might become the Lord both of the dead and living, maketh not that death and resurrection efficacious to any but such as by their service acknowledge that dominion which he purchased.  He, though he were a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he is become the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him. [Heb. 5:8, 9]  Thus the consideration of the power invested in him, and the necessity of the service due unto him, should force us to obedience; while the consideration of him whom we are thus obliged to serve should allure and invite us.  When God gave the Law with fire and thunder, the affrighted Israelites desired to receive it from Moses, and upon that receipt promised obedience.  Go thou near, said they to him, and hear all that the Lord our God shall say; and speak thou unto us, and we will hear it and do it. [Deut. 5:27]  If they interpreted it so great a favour to receive the Law by the hands of Moses; if they made so ready and cheerful a promise of exact obedience unto the Law so given; how should we be invited to the same promise, and a better performance, who have received the whole will of God revealed to us by the Son of Man? who are to give an account of our performance to the same Man set down at the right hand of the Father?  He first took our nature to become our brother, that with so near a relation he might be made our Lord.  If then the Patriarchs did cheerfully live [M156] in the land of Goshen, subject to the power and command of Egypt, because that power was in the hand of Joseph their exalted brother; shall not we with all readiness of mind submit ourselves to the Divine dominion now given to him who gave himself for us? shall all the angels worship him, and all the archangels bow down before him, and shall not we be proud to join with them?

      Thirdly, the belief of Christ’s dominion is necessary for the regulation of all power, authority, and dominion on earth, both in respect of those which rule, and in relation to those that obey.  From hence the most absolute monarchs learn, that the people which they rule are not their own, but the subjects of a greater Prince, by him committed to their charge.  Upon this St. Paul doth ground his admonition to masters, Give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven. [Col. 4:1]  God gave a power to the Israelites to make hired servants of their brethren, but not slaves; and gives this reason of the interdiction, For they are my servants which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as bondmen. [Lev. 25:42]  What tenderness then should be used towards those, who are the servants of that Lord who redeemed them from a greater bondage, who bought them with a higher price!  From hence those which are subject learn to obey the powers which are of human ordination, because in them they obey the Lord of all.  Subjects bear the same proportion, and stand in the same relation to their governors, with servants to their masters: and St. Paul hath given them this charge, [Col. 3:22–24] Obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.  Neither do we learn from hence only whom, but also how, to obey.  For while we look upon one Lord in heaven, while we consider him as the Lord of lords, we regulate our obedience to them by our service due to him, and so are always ready to obey, but in the Lord.

      Lastly, this title of our Saviour is of necessary belief for our comfort and encouragement.  For being Lord of all, he is able to dispose of all things for the benefit of those which serve him.  He who commanded the unconstant winds, and stilled the raging seas, he who multiplied the loaves and fishes, and created wine with the word of his mouth, hath all creatures now under exact obedience, and therefore none can want whom he undertaketh to provide for: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. [Rom. 10:12]  Many are the enemies of those persons who dedicate themselves unto his service; but our enemies are his, and part of his dominion is therefore given him, and to continue in him until all his enemies be made his footstool.  Great is the power of the lusts of our flesh, which war in our members; but his grace is sufficient for us, and the power of that Spirit by which he ruleth in us.  Heavy are the afflictions which we are called to undergo for his sake: but if we suffer with him, we shall reign together with him: and blessed be that dominion which makes us all kings, that he may be for ever Lord of lords, and King of kings.

      After this explication, every Christian may perceive what he is to believe in this part of the Article, and express himself how he would be understood when he maketh this profession of his faith, I believe in Christ our Lord.  For thereby we may and ought to intend thus much; I do assent unto this as a certain and infallible truth, taught me by God himself, that Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, is the true Jehovah, who hath that Being which is originally and eternally of itself,* and of which all other beings do essentially depend: that by the right of emanation [M157] of all things from him, he hath an absolute, supreme, and universal dominion over all things, as God: that as the Son of Man he is invested with all power in heaven and earth; partly economical, for the completing our redemption, and the destruction of our enemies, to continue to the end of all things, and then to be resigned to the Father; partly consequent unto the union, or due unto the obedience of his passion, and so eternal, as belonging to that kingdom which shall have no end.  And though he be thus Lord of all things by right of the first creation and constant preservation of them, yet is he more peculiarly the Lord of us who by faith are consecrated to his service: for through the work of our redemption he becomes our Lord both by the right of conquest and of purchase; and making us the sons of God, and providing heavenly mansions for us, he acquires a farther right of promotion, which, considering the covenant we all make to serve him, is at last completed in the right of a voluntary obligation.  And thus I believe in Christ our Lord.