andhi8 Son !fefus Cbti(l. t8t Son is evidently implyed, in faying, One God the Father, fpoken in rehition to~ Chrifl: as the Son ; and becaufe they are both thus mcluded, therefore it is that ~ the Spirit is not mentioned at all: when yet upon h~~ IS t,he fame der_endance that is upon the Father; yea, and of the Son and Spmt 1t IS that all things are, as well as of the Father. · . . . To conclude: What is that great Truth the Apof1le fets the primitiv~ Chur– ches awork to pray about, and that the generality of the then Heathen.World might come to the knowledg of, but this very thing thus flared ? God wouldhave all Mm to be.foved, and come to the k._nowledge ofthe Tmth: [for there i1 One God; and one .::Mediator J between God and Men, the Man Chrifl J efo<. 2 Tim: 2. 4, <j. And cloth not this Corinthian Textfpeak jufl: in the fame parallel Language, One God, and One Lord? So then it is not Chrifi, fimply confidered as Second Per: fon,the Apof1:le hereintends,as the One Lord here; that fence would be too nar– row in comparifon ofthis other that comprehends the whole ofour Chrifl:, both as God, thejithflratum of his Perfon, and alfo Man, and the whole of his Office in the relJtion he fl:ands thereby unto God, to us, and all the whole Creation. There is a Qt!ery or two may be made. .ff!!!.ery r. Is not Chrifl:'s Lord£hip rather thus to be underfl:ood, That a1 God indeed, he hath a natural right over aU thing1 ; becaufe 11< God he made them .2 (And the Title of God's Dominion over All, is founded on this, That he is the Maker ofthem) and fa, th<lt Chrijl'1 Officialor Commifjionated Lordjbip over all~~< Man,;. but only for him to be the Er~d or Ruler of them, which 'Pft!. 8. 4· compared witn Heb. 2. 6. gives him; But one in a certain place tejlified,.foying, What n Man that thou art mindfit! of him .2 or the Son ofMan, that thou vijitc.JI him? What is Man? Thou madefl: him to have dominion over the Work of thy Hands,&c. i.e. when they are once made by him, confidercd as he is God ; and therefore in that re~ fpeCl: of his being Man, is nor to be extended to their Creation, or to his being Author oftheir very Beings themfelves. I anfwer; That if Lord here in the Text, be meant of that Commiffionated Lord!hip he bath as God-Man, as bath been proved; that then, as truly as that all thin11:s are faid to be ofone tod, as God, in refpeCl: oftheir Creation; fo tru– ly are all things faid to be by this one Lord, though in a difl:inCl:ion from God. All Thing1 is a reaching word, and comprehends the very Beings of Things 5 and we fee, that in as full an extent and latitude, it is fpoken ofCbrifl:, that All are by Him, as the former is of God, that all are ofHim; only with this note of difference [ofHim] fo of God, but [by Him] fo ofthat o11e Lord, £hewing that God harh that Dominion originally, but Chrifl: derivatively, as a Commiffionared Lord, as He by whomGod cloth all things, that, yet are of God himfel£ Now; when it is here laid of God, All thing1 are ofhill-; all readily underfiand it, that all things have their Beings of Him, and their very Creation from Him : There– fore alfo, when it is laid ofChrifl:, All thing1 are by Him; it is in like manner im– ported, that they all depend on this Commiffionated Lord for their Beings and Creation alfo. And the Scriptures fall in with this phrafe and manner of expref– fion, whilfi they frequently fay of Cbrifi, Allthing1 were made by Him, and that God by Him did mak,s the Wor!d1; whilfi they particularly exprefs Chrifl:'s !bare ofEfficiency in their Making and Creation. This is the common language with what is here. Anfw. 2. The Aflertion is not, That as Man, !ingly confidered, this is attri– buted unto him, but as God-Man. Singly and alone M .:il1an he bath no fuch Lordlliip at all, either over all the Creatures to rule them, much lefs to create: for a meer Man was not capable ofit, (as was faid): Not, on the contrary, is it true, That as he isGod, !ingly confidered, he only can create; but that as God– Man h~ can create alfo, (efpecially having been therewith commiilioned rheretd as fuch, by God) even as well as forgive Sim: which he rakes on hiiT\ as God– Man to do. The Jews in a like manner objected, Mark 2. 7· This Man fPeakf 'BiaJPhemiei : Who can forgive Sim b11t God .2 'Tis rrne, None could but He that isGod : But it was not true, that it was not fo a Property of God, confidered fingly as God, only that a Man that was one Perfoh with God, or God,Ma,, could
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=