John Newton On the Three Witnesses 1 John 5:10 [Annotated]

22 Monday May 2023

Posted by memoirandremains in Assurance, John Newton

Tags

1 John 5:10, Assurance, John Newton, John Newton Letter, letters, Three Witnesses

This is letter 8 from “Forty One Letters on Religious Subjects. Comments are in italics. Outline markers are all added.

This letter concerns assurance of salvation. More particularly, what is the “witness” we have to this knowledge as referenced in 1 John 5:10. He states the issue thus:

Issue: I readily offer you my thoughts on 1 John 5:10; “He that believeth on the Son of God, hath the witness in himself;” though, perhaps, you will think I am writing a sermon, rather than a letter.

I. Setting Up the Issue

A. The Importance of the Topic

If we believe in the Son of God, whatever trials we may meet with in the present life, our best concerns are safe, and our happiness is sure. If we do not, whatever else we have, or seem to have, we are in a state of condemnation; and, living and dying so, must perish.

B. Having stated the importance of the proposition, he sets forth the problem in two parts.

1. What if we error in this knowledge?

Thousands, it is to be feared, persuade themselves that they are believers, though they cannot stand the test of Scripture. And there are many real believers, who, through the prevalence of remaining unbelief, and the temptations of Satan, form hard conclusions against themselves, though the Scripture speaks peace to them.

2. How does this relate to the text?

But how does this correspond with the passage before us, which asserts universally, “He that believeth hath the witness in himself?” for can a man have the witness in himself, and yet not know it?

3. The problem in ourselves: interpretation, not the text. The differences of opinions among Christians even to the point of error could result from a fault of the text or a fault of the reader. The “orthodox” position would be to put the fault in the reader. Newton takes that framework and applies to the question of this witness mentioned in 1 John 5:10. He affirms the witness and places any fault in the knowledge upon the one interpreting the text.

a. It may be answered, the evidence, in its own nature, is sufficient and infallible; but we are very apt, when we would form a judgment of ourselves, to superadd rules and marks of trial, which are not given us (for that purpose) in the Bible.

i. That the word and Spirit of God do witness for his children, is a point in which many are agreed, who are far from being agreed as to the nature and manner of that witness.

ii. It is, therefore, very desirable, rightly to understand the evidence by which we are to judge whether we are believers or not.

II. Examination of the Text

A. Presentation of the Text in its Elements

The importance and truth of the Gospel salvation is witnessed to in heaven, by “the Father, the Word, and the Spirit.” It is witnessed to on earth by “the Spirit, the water, and the blood,” ver. 7, 8.

B. Signification of the Terms

1. The Spirit, in ver. 8, (I apprehend) denotes a Divine light in the understanding, communicated by the Spirit of God, enabling the soul to perceive and approve the truth.

2. The water seems to intend the powerful influence of this knowledge and light in the work of sanctification.

3. And the blood, the application of the blood of Jesus to the conscience, relieving it from guilt and fear, and imparting a “peace which passes all understanding.”

C. All Witnesses Must be Present

And he that believeth hath this united testimony of the Spirit, the water, and the blood; not by hearsay only, but in himself. According to the measure of his faith (for faith has various degrees), he has a living proof that the witness is true, by the effects wrought in his own heart.

III. Where the Problem arises

One common fault of instruction is to simply state a proposition “the right way” and then expect someone to understand. Careful instruction requires not merely making a correct presentation, but also explaining how misunderstanding or misapplication may occur. The most common faults are to be considered and resolved.

A. The reason we face a difficulty with this passage is that we fail to require all of the witnesses to be present together.

1. These things, which God has joined together, are too often attempted to be separated.

2. Attempts of this kind have been a principal source and cause of most of the dangerous errors and mistakes which are to be found amongst professors of religion.

a. Some say much concerning the Spirit; and lay claim to an inward light, whereby they think they know the things of God.

This was common among the Quakers. Contemporary examples of this often from Charismatic groups who claim to possess a unique revelation from God. We could see this also in the desire of many to obtain direct revelation as to what to do this or that situation. It is desire to have unmediated understanding of God; a revelation of the Spirit around the Word.

b. Others lay great stress upon the water; maintaining a regular conversation, abstaining from the defilements of the world, and aiming at a mastery over their natural desires and tempers.

This is a sort of legalism which lays its weight upon behavior in isolation from a true adoption; works without faith or love. I don’t drink or chew and I don’t hang out with those who do.

c. Both of these errors lead to a “Christianity” without Christian and without redemption.

But neither the one nor the other appear to be duly sensible of the value of the blood of atonement, as the sole ground of their acceptance, and the spring of their life and strength.

d. Others, again, are all for the blood; can speak much of Jesus, and his blood and righteousness; though it does not appear that they are truly, spiritually enlightened to perceive the beauty and harmony of Gospel truths, or that they pay a due regard to that “holiness without which no man can see the Lord.”

These people are sometimes found under the banner of “free grace.” They believe they have been saved because they are imperfect. They want a savior who is not their Lord—which the confession of the Christian is Christ is Lord.

e. Summary of the errors which follow from separating the witnesses

But Jesus came, not by water only, or by blood only, but by water and blood; and the Spirit bears witness to both, because the Spirit is truth.

i. The water alone affords but a cold, starched form of godliness, destitute of that enlivening power which is derived from a knowledge of the preciousness of Jesus, as the Lamb that was slain. [A narrow legalism]

ii. And if any talk of the blood without the water, they do but turn the grace of God into licentiousness: [Grace is no excuse to sin.]

iii. so, likewise, to pretend to the Spirit, and at the same time to have low thoughts of Jesus, is a delusion and vanity; for the true Spirit testifies and takes of his glory, and presents it to the soul. [Your own personal Jesus]

iv. But the real believer receives the united testimony, and has the witness in himself that he does so.

B. Conclusion

To have the witness in ourselves, is to have the truths that are declared in the Scripture revealed in our hearts.

III. The Unity of the Witnesses Results in a Well-Founded Assurance of Salvation

This brings an experimental conviction, which may be safely depended on, “that we have received the grace of God in truth.”

A. The Unity of Witnesses Comes from a True “Spiritual Perception”

A man born blind may believe that the sun is bright, upon the testimony of another; but, if he should obtain his sight, he would have the witness in himself. Believing springs from a sense and perception of the truths of the Gospel; and whoever hath this spiritual perception is a believer.

1. This witness is given by the Spirit. This may seem a bit contradictory to his statement above concerning the one who seeks a witness of only the Spirit. Such a witness of direct revelation around the Scripture, without sanctification is not a true revelation of the Spirit. Moreover, the Spirit is he who gives us an understanding of the Scripture which results in sanctification.

He has the witness in himself. He has received the Spirit: his understanding is enlightened, whereby he sees things to be as they are described in the word of God, respecting his own state by sin, and the utter impossibility of his obtaining relief by any other means than those proposed in the Gospel.

2. The knowledge of these witnesses cannot be had around the revelation of God.

These things are hidden from us by nature.

3. The complete revelation is needed so that we may avoid presumption or despair.

He has likewise received the blood. The knowledge of sin, and its demerits, if alone, would drive us to despair; but by the same light of the Spirit, Jesus is apprehended as a suitable and all-sufficient Saviour. All that is declared concerning his person, offices, love, sufferings, and obedience, is understood and approved. Here the wounded and weary souls find healing and rest.

B. The knowledge afforded by these witnesses results in a transformed life. This may seem like a contradiction from proposition above that the life of behavioral change is not true knowledge. There is no contradiction, because behavioral transformation alone is not real sanctification. It may have some superficial behavioral correspondence. But bare behavior is never the telling mark. We are not saved by good works but for good works. John Piper gives an illustration of a wife who presents his wife with flowers and then says I have done this out of duty. But flowers given as an unforced gesture arising from love is quite a different thing.

Then the Apostle’s language is adopted, “Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord.” [Phil. 3:8 Newton here points to a correspondence in the doctrine between John and Paul.]

1. He has likewise received the water, considered as the emblem of sanctification.

2. Sanctification is a benefit of salvation

a. To a believer, all that the Scripture teaches concerning the nature, beauty, and necessity of holiness, as a living principle in the heart, carries conviction and evidence.

b. A deliverance from the power, as well as from the guilt of sin, appears to be an important and essential part of salvation.

c. Notice that sanctification is offered as a means to come to know and commune with God.

He sees his original and his proper happiness, that nothing less than communion with God and conformity to him, is worth his pursuit. And therefore he can say, “My soul thirsteth for thee: I delight in the law of God after the inward man.”

d. Sanctification is a natural development of this three-fold knowledge:

In a word, his judgment and his choice are formed upon a new spiritual taste, derived from the written word, and correspondent with it, as the musical ear is adapted to relish harmony: so that what God has forbidden, appears hateful; what he has commanded, necessary; what he has promised, desirable; and what he has revealed, glorious.

C. Conclusion

Whoever has these perceptions, has the witness in himself, that he has been taught of God, and believes in his Son.

IV. Application

What then are the practical implications of this understanding of the passage?

A. It is not a bare subjective knowledge

1. If you think this explanation is agreeable to the Scripture, you will be satisfied that the witness spoken of in this passage, is very different from what some persons understand it to be.

2. It is not an impulse, or strong persuasion, impressed upon us in a way of which we can give no account, that “we are the children of God,” and that our sins are freely forgiven: nor is the powerful application of a particular text of Scripture necessary to produce it: neither is it always connected with a very lively sensible comfort.

3. While this subjective belief may be a result of a true witness, it is not the witness itself:

These things, in some persons and instances, may accompany the witness or testimony we are speaking of, but do not properly belong to it: and they may be, and often have been, counterfeited.

4. But what I have described is inimitable and infallible; it is indubitably, as the magicians confessed of the miracles of Moses, the finger of God; as certainly the effect of his Divine power as the creation of the world.

B. Not Everyone Will Experience Assurance

It is true, many who have this witness walk in darkness, and are harassed with many doubts and perplexities concerning their state:

C. What is the Cause?

The trouble arises because they expect some preternatural evidence:

1. but this is not because the witness is not sufficient to give them satisfaction, but because they do not account it so: being misled by the influence of self-will and a legal spirit, they overlook this evidence as too simple, and expect something extraordinary;

2. at least, they think they cannot be right unless they are led in the same way in which the Lord has been pleased to lead others with whom they may have conversed.

D. Do Not be Troubled That Not Everyone Experiences the Same Assurance

But the Lord the Spirit is sovereign and free in his operations: and though he gives to all, who are the subjects of his grace, the same views of sin, of themselves, and of the Saviour; yet, with respect to the circumstantials of his work, there is, as in the features of our faces, such an amazing variety, that perhaps no two persons can be found whose experiences have been exactly alike: but as the Apostle says, That “he that believeth,” that is, whosoever believeth (without exception), “has this witness in himself;” it must consequently arise from what is common to them all, and not from what is peculiar to a few.

V. Final Observations

Before I conclude, I would make two or three observations.

A. Justification Results in Sanctification

1. In the first place, I think it is plain, that the supposition of a real believer’s living in sin, or taking encouragement from the Gospel so to do, is destitute of the least foundation in truth, and can proceed only from an ignorance of the subject.

2. Justification causes one to hate sin

a. Sin is the burden under which he groans; and he would account nothing short of a deliverance from it worthy the name of salvation.

b. A principal part of his evidence that he is a believer, arises from that abhorrence of sin which he habitually feels. It is true, sin still dwelleth in him; but he loathes and resists it: upon this account he is in a state of continual warfare;

c. if he was not so, he could not have the witness in himself, that he is born of God.

B. A True Witness Will Affect Our Understanding of Scripture

1. Again: From hence arises a solid evidence, that the Scripture is indeed the word of God, because it so exactly describes what is exemplified in the experience of all who are subjects of a work of grace.

2. While we are in a natural state, it is to us as a sealed book: though we can read it, and perhaps assent to the facts, we can no more understand our own concernments in what we read, than if it was written in an unknown tongue. But when the mind is enlightened by the Holy Spirit, the Scripture addresses us as it were by name, explains every difficulty under which we laboured, and proposes an adequate and effectual remedy for the relief of all our wants and fears.

C. Subjective Assurance May not be Constant

1. Lastly: It follows, that the hope of a believer is built upon a foundation that cannot be shaken, though it may and will be assaulted.

2. It [assurance] does not depend upon occasional and changeable frames, upon any that is precarious and questionable, but upon a correspondence and agreement with the written word.

3. [The subjective experience of assurance is not a bare logical argument.] Nor does this agreement depend upon a train of laboured arguments and deductions, but is self-evident, as light is to the eye, to every person who has a real participation of the grace of God. It is equally suited to all capacities.

1. By this the unlearned are enabled to know their election of God, and “to rejoice with a joy unspeakable and full of glory.”

2. And the wisest, if destitute of this perception, though they may be masters of all the external evidences of Christianity, and able to combat the cavils of infidels, can see no real beauty in the truths of the Gospel, nor derive any solid comfort from them.

I have only sent you a few hasty hints: it would be easy to enlarge; but I sat down, not to write a book, but a letter. May this inward witness preside with power in our hearts, to animate our hopes, and to mortify our corruptions!

I am, &c.

Edward Taylor, Meditation 44.2

28 Friday Apr 2023

Posted by memoirandremains in Edward Taylor, Righteousness

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

crown of righteousness, Edward Taylor, Edward Taylor Meditation 44, poem, Poetry, Poetry Analysis, righteousness

A crown indeed consisting of fine gold

Adherent, and inherent righteousness

Stuck with their ripe ripe fruits in every fold

Like studded carbuncles they to it dress 10

A righteous life doth ever wear renown

And thrust the head at last up in this crown.

Notes:

“a CROWN inDEED” This is the third use of the phrase “a crown. Here line is regular and flowing. The “C” of “consisting” connects to “crown”. The meditation upon this future crown as commended by Puritan near contemporaries of Taylor, such as Thomas Manton:

Do you send your desires and thoughts as harbingers to prepare a place for you? When the soul thus longs for the sight of God and Christ, we do as it were tell God we long to be at home. As Paul, 2 Tim. 4:8, ‘Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness.’ He was reckoning what a happy time it would be when the crown of righteousness should be set upon his head, when he shall get home to his father’s house, and enjoy his inheritance and the happiness God hath provided for him. By these marks you may inquire whether you have this faith, to count yourselves strangers and pilgrims here

Manton, Thomas. The Complete Works of Thomas Manton. James Nisbet & Co., 1973, pp. 320–21.

Having said the crown is “fine gold” (a not surprising although appropriate image), Taylor moves on to the adornment of the crown. It is called a “crown of righteousness.” Righteousness would be the right standing before God.

He lists two different types of righteousness. First ‘adherent righteousness.” This seems to be Taylor’s own construction for what is usually termed “imputed righteousness.” “Finally, the Bible teaches that, as a result of his atoning work, Christ’s righteousness is set to the believer’s account. Although not yet perfectly holy or morally righteous, believers nevertheless are justified before the law of God, and they are “clothed” with the imputed righteousness of Christ.” Elwell, Walter A., and Philip Wesley Comfort. Tyndale Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publishers, 2001, p. 630. This corresponds to Protestant understanding of justification.

Taylor next raises “inherent righteousness.” This would be the holy life of the believer. The righteousness is not merely counted to the believer, but it is made part of transforms the believer. “And if you would give evidence of your interest in imputed righteousness, you must do it by inherent righteousness. Shew your faith by your works. Faith without works is dead, being alone. Amen.” Boston, Thomas. The Whole Works of Thomas Boston: Sermons, Part 2. Edited by Samuel M’Millan, vol. 4, George and Robert King, 1849, p. 195. This corresponds to the doctrine of sanctification.

The relationship of righteousness in the life of the believer as a condition precedent to receiption of the crown of righteousness is found in Paul’s letter to Timothy. Paul does not begin with merely the crown being “laid up”, that is, awaiting him. Paul begins the thought with an affirmation that he has continued in the faith until his death. His life of righteousness precedes his attaining the crown of righteousness.

Adherent, and inherent righteousness

Stuck with their ripe ripe fruits in every fold

Like studded carbuncles they to it dress 10

A righteous life doth ever wear renown

This righteousness is an adornment of the believer’s life and thus adorns the crown. I admit the idea of a crown with “folds” seems odd, but I looked at pictures of crowns with rubies and the late Queen wore a crown with rubies which one could say has “folds”.

The righteousness of the believer’s life becomes the embellishment of the believer’s crown. This is a striking way to understand the relationship between life and reward. With the protestant emphasis on imputed righteousness it is can sometimes be hard to understand the relationship of life and reward. From experience, most contemporary Protestants I know seem to think there is some sort of complete division between this world and the world to come such that nothing of this life except perhaps the barest elements of my identity and perhaps the power to recognize some others survives.

Here, Taylor seems to pick up an idea which seems similar to the morality play Everyman where Good Deeds alone can accompany him to heaven after death. His righteous life now becomes adornment in the future because it continues with him.

The final line of this stanza contains a remarkable image: The righteous life is not merely an adornment of that crown, it actually thrusts one up into the crown:

And thrust the head at last up in this crown.

Christ’s Eternal Existence, Sermon 3.4 [Manton]

21 Friday Apr 2023

Posted by memoirandremains in Christology, Thomas Manton

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Christ's Eternal Existence, christology, Thomas Manton

B. Secondly, Why the creation of angels is so particularly and expressly mentioned? I answer—For three reasons:—

1. To show the glory and majesty of the Redeemer.

[This portion of the argument is structured as follows: 1) Angels are powerful creatures. 2) But there are still creatures. In all respects they are subservient to Christ: as subjects; he has a greater name; they are subject to Christ as God incarnate.]

a. The angels are said to ‘excel in strength,’ Ps. 103:20, and elsewhere they are called ‘mighty angels.’

i. [Their power is a contingent; they do not possess it except as given to them] This potency they have from their Creator, who giveth power and strength to all his creatures as it pleases him.

ii. [Proof of the point] Their strength may be conceived by that instance, that one angel in a night slew one hundred and eighty-five thousand in Sennacherib’s camp.

b. [Despite their strength, they are inferior being creatures] Now, these potent creatures are infinitely inferior to our Redeemer, by whom and for whom they were made.

i. Though they are the most excellent of all the creatures, yet they are his subjects and ministers, at his beck and command, both by the law of their creation, as Christ is God, and also by the Father’s donation, as he is Mediator and God incarnate: [Proof] 1 Pet. 3:22, ‘He is set down on the right hand of God; angels, authorities, and powers being made subject to him.’ And again, Eph. 1:21, ‘He hath set him far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but in that which is to come.’

ii. [The comparison to a knowable thing, the merit of angels, provides a basis to the merit of the greater and other inestimable thing.] They have a great name, but Christ hath ‘a more excellent name than they,’ Heb. 1:4, for they are all bound to worship him, ver. 6, and serve him, for he employeth them for the defence and comfort of the meanest of his people.

iii. [To have such creatures as one’s retinue, proves one’s worth; just as a emperor having subservient kings shows his worth] They are subject not only to God, but to Christ, or God incarnate. Look, as it is the glory of earthly kings to command mighty and powerful subjects, …so is this the majesty of our Redeemer, that he hath these powerful creatures, the mighty angels, in his train and retinue. These heavenly hosts make up a part of that army which is commanded by the Captain of our salvation.

2. This is mentioned to obviate the errors of that age.

a. [General proposition] Both the Jews and the Gentiles had a high opinion of spirits and angels, as God’s ministers and messengers: for he doth not always immediately administer the affairs of mankind.

b. [The problem] Now, as they were right in the main as to their service, [however] so they added much of curiosity and superstition to the doctrine of angels, and by their vain speculations infected the minds of many in the Christian church, who were but newly come out from among them, insomuch that they fell to the worshipping of angels as mediators to God; as the apostle intimateth, Col. 2:18.

[Manton would have available to him only the face of the text to surmise about the meaning of the worship of angels.

Calvin understands the passage as follows:

“Superstitious persons have from the beginning worshipped angels, 132 that through means of them there might be free access to God. The Platonists infected the Christian Church also with this error. For although Augustine sharply inveighs against them in his tenth book “On the City of God,” and condemns at great length all their disputations as to the worship of angels, we see nevertheless what has happened. Should any one compare the writings of Plato with Popish theology, he will find that they have drawn wholly from Plato their prattling as to the worship of angels. The sum is this, that we must honor angels, whom Plato calls demons, χάριν τη̂ς εὐφήμου διαπορείας (for the sake of their auspicious intercession.) 133 He brings forward this sentiment in Epinomis, and he confirms it in Cratylus, 134 and many other passages. In what respect do the Papists differ at all from this? “But,” it will be said, “they do not deny that the Son of God is Mediator.” Neither did those with whom Paul contends; but as they imagined that God must be approached by the assistance of the angels, and that, consequently, some worship must be rendered to them, so they placed angels in the seat of Christ, and honored them with Christ’s office. Let us know, then, that Paul here condemns all kinds of worship of human contrivance, which are rendered either to angels or to the dead, as though they were mediators, rendering assistance after Christ, or along with Christ. 135 For just so far do we recede from Christ, when we transfer the smallest part of what belongs to him to any others, whether they be angels or men.”

Calvin, John. Colossians. Electronic ed., Ages Software, 1998, p. Col 2:18.

Contemporary scholarship expands our knowledge of Jewish practices:

“In a number of OT theophanies the angel of Yahweh is an extension of Yahweh’s personality; he speaks as Yahweh and is addressed as Yahweh.118 Something of this order reappears in the concept of a superior angel in later phases of the merkabah tradition, where Metatron, “the prince of the countenance” (mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud as the angel of whom God says in Exod. 23:21, “my name is in him”),119 is called “the lesser Yahweh” or “the lesser Lord.”120 It is the same angel who is called Yahoel in the second-century Apocalypse of Abraham (an appellation given to him, he says, by the supreme God “in virtue of the ineffable name that is dwelling in me”).121 Earlier still, in the Melchizedek fragment from Cave 11 at Qumran, Melchizedek figures as the “God” who holds judgment “in the midst of the gods” (Ps. 82:1) and who “judges the peoples” (Ps. 7:8), the God whose reign is announced in Isa. 52:7. Melchizedek here is the angel prince who, by passing sentence on the hosts of Belial, inaugurates the age of release for the righteous.122 Also from Qumran (Cave 4) comes an angelic liturgy which takes up the theme, “Praise God, all ye angels,” and exhorts the angels, under many names, to offer various forms of worship to God.123 The exhortation formed part of the liturgy of the burnt offering sabbath by sabbath throughout the year (according to the Qumran calendar): the liturgy of the people of God on earth is designed to reproduce that presented by the angels before the heavenly throne. Such a liturgy might well be called “the worship of angels”—although there angels are not the objects of the worship but rather the initiators and exemplars of the worship.”

Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984, p. 119.

Moo underscores the importance of this prohibition for Paul’s purpose of commending Christ’s status, which fits nicely with Manton’s use:

“Third, as we have noted, a key concern of Colossians has been to accentuate the superiority of Christ over spiritual beings (1:16, 20; 2:10, 15). Such a concern to minimize the significance of the angels would make very good sense if, indeed, the false teachers were worshiping them. Fourth, Clinton Arnold has suggested a plausible background for Paul’s accusation that the false teachers were worshiping angels. He notes the importance of invoking angels as a means to ward off evil in the ancient world in general and the geographic region of Colossae in particular.160 Paul would be characterizing this calling on angels for protection as tantamount to the worship of angels”

Moo, Douglas J. The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2008, p. 227.]

i. Now, because this was to the disparagement of Christ, the apostles did set themselves to check this curiosity of dogmatising about angels, and the superstition or idolatry of angel-worship thence growing apace. Now this they did by asserting the dignity of Christ’s person and office.

ii. As Paul, Col. 2, and the author to the Hebrews, chapters 1, 2, 3, ‘Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds, who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.’

c. It is true, Christ was sent from heaven as the angels are, and he came in a despicable way or appearance to promote our salvation and recovery, as they assumed bodies suitable to their message; yet his superiority and pre-eminence above the angels is clear and manifest.

[Excursus on Hebrews 1:3:

Hebrews 1:1–3 (AV)

“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, ² hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; ³ who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high”]

He was not only equal to them, but far above them, Heb. 1:3. Seven things are observable in that verse:—

a. Christ came as the eternal Son of God: ‘He hath spoken unto us by his Son.’ When he cometh to the angels, he saith, they are servants and ministering spirits. For a short while he ministered in the form of a servant in the days of his flesh—they continue to be so from the beginning to the end of the world.

b. He was heir of all things—that is, Lord of the whole creation—they only principalities and powers, for certain ends, to such persons and places, over which Christ sets them.

c. He was the Creator of the world. ‘By whom also he made the worlds,’ saith the apostle. They are noble and divine creatures indeed, but the work of Christ’s hands.

d. He is ‘the brightness of his Father’s glory, and the express image of his person’—that is, the essential image of God; they only have some strictures of the divine majesty.

e. The ‘upholding all things by the word of his power’—that is, the conserving cause of all that life and being that is in the creature. The angels live in a continual dependence upon Christ as their creator, and without his supporting influence, would be soon annihilated.

f. By himself he ‘purged our sins.’ He was sent into the world for that great and glorious work of mediation, which none of them was worthy to undertake, none able to go through withal, but himself alone. They [angels] are sent about the ordinary concernments of the saints, or the particular affairs of the world: he is the author of the whole work of redemption and salvation, and they but subordinate assistants in the particular promotion of it.

g. He ‘sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; they are spirits near the throne of God, ever in his presence, attending on him like princes.

[Conclusion to be drawn from this fact] God never made any of them universal and eternal king, for he set Christ at his right hand, not the angels. To sit at God’s right hand, is not only to be blessed and happy in enjoying those pleasures which are there for evermore, not only to be advanced to the highest place of dignity and honour next to God, but to be invested with a supreme and universal power above all men and angels.

[Conclusion as to the whole] Take these, or any one of these, and he is above the angels, though they be the most noble and excellent creatures that ever God made.

[End excursus]

Christ’s Eternal Existence (Manton) Sermon 3.3

14 Friday Apr 2023

Posted by memoirandremains in Creation, Creation, Thomas Manton

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Christ's Eternal Existence, Creation, Creation of Angels, Thomas Manton

[Manton provides a brief outline of what will be covered in this sermon]

I shall take the method offered in the text, and show you:—

First, That all things were created by him.

Secondly, Why the creation of angels is so particularly mentioned and insisted upon.

Thirdly, That all things were created for him.

I. First, For creation by him.

A. This is often asserted in scripture:

[Here, Manton picks apart the introductory verses of John 1 to demonstrate that work of creation is attributed to the one]

1. John 1:3, ‘All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made.’

2. John begins his Gospel with the dignity of Christ’s person;

a. and how doth he set it forth? By the creation of the world by the eternal Word.

b. And what he saith is an answer to these questions—

i. When was the Word? ‘In the beginning;’

ii. Where was the Word? ‘With God;’ What was the Word? He ‘was God;’

iii. What did he then do? ‘All things were made by him;’

iv. What! all without exception? Yes, ‘Without him nothing was made that was made,’ be it never so small, never so great. From the highest angel to the smallest worm, they had all their being from him.

B. Two things are to be explained:—

1. How he made all things.

2. When he made the angels.

1. How he made all things.

a. Freely, and of his own will: Rev. 4:11, ‘Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive honour, and glory, and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.’

i. They use three words to set forth the honour that is due to Christ for creating the world:

ii. glory, because of his excellencies discovered [they are shown forth]

iii. honour, which is the ascription or acknowledgment of those excellencies; and power, because ‘the invisible things of his Godhead and power are seen by the things that are made,’ Rom. 1:20.

iv. For in the creating of the world he exercised his omni-potency. And this they do, not to express their affection, but his own due desert: ‘Thou art worthy, O Lord.’

b. [He did not create from compulsion] The reason they give is, because he hath created all things for his own pleasure, or according to his own will—not out of necessity.

i. There was no tie upon him to make them, but only he of his good pleasure thought fit to do so. He might have done it in another manner, or at another time, or in another order. There is nothing in the world that hath a necessary connexion with the divine essence, so as, if God be, that must be; nothing external cometh from God by necessity of nature, but all is done according to the counsel of his own will.

ii. [Not emanation]

[The discussion which follows might seem like overkill to a reader. I can imagine someone reading this and saying, Okay, God made the world because he wanted to. What’s the big deal? There is an extensive philosophical background to which Manton is responding.

For instance, in Neoplatonism, it was believed that creation was the result of an emanation from the One, “So from this, the One Intellectual Principle, and the Reason-Form emanating from it, our Universe rises and develops part, and inevitably are formed groups concordant and helpful in contrast with groups discordant and combative; sometimes of choice and sometimes incidentally, the parts maltreat each other; engendering proceeds by destruction.” (Plotinus. Plotinus: Psychic and Physical Treatises; Comprising the Second and Third Enneads. Translated by Stephen Mackenna, vol. II, Philip Lee Warner; The Medici Society, 1921, pp. 13–14.)

Many of these ideas found their way into Arabic philosophy, “From al-Farabi, Avicenna inherited the Neoplatonic emanationist scheme of existence. Contrary to the classical Muslim theologians, he rejected creation ex nihilo and argued that cosmos has no beginning but is a natural logical product of the divine One. The super-abundant, pure Good that is the One cannot fail to produce an ordered and good cosmos that does not succeed him in time. The cosmos succeeds God merely in logical order and in existence.” (https://iep.utm.edu/avicenna-ibn-sina/#H5) Which ideas then found their way into the Latin West.

Manton is denying all variations of this idea.]

iiA. Some thought all created things did come forth from the Creator by way of emanation, as rivers flow out of their fountain; but there is no stream floweth out of any fountain but it was before a part of that fountain while it was in it. But that cannot be said of any creature in respect of God, that it was any part of God before it came out from him.

iiB Others say the creatures came out from God by way of representation, as an image in the glass from him that passeth by or looketh on it; but before the world was made there was no such glass to represent God. [When Gaia theory was explained to me by a philosophy professor from UCB years ago, he said that human beings were the work of Gaia self-contemplating.]

iiC. Others would express it thus—that the world cometh out from God as a shadow from the body. But yet this will not fit the turn neither: for the shadow doth not come out from the body, but follows it, because of the deprivation of light from the interposition of another body.

iiD. Others say—all cometh from God as a footprint, or track in clay or sand, from one that passeth over it; but there was nothing on which God, by passing, might make such an impression.

iii. Whatever good intention they might have by setting forth the creation by these expressions, yet you see they are not proper and accurate. [It is interesting, in that Manton takes these explanations as defective metaphors at best.]

iv. [The various theories were attempts to reason one’s way to an understanding of how Creation came about. They are unprovable on the basis of reason; and Manton finds the ideas unworthy of God, himself. He does use this inability of reason to prove up both the limitation of reason and the greatness of God. But also notice that Manton does not deny the use of logic or reason in dismissing the concepts as inadequate. This is not an anti-philosophical tirade but rather a basis for glorifying God.]

These expressions may have their use to raise man’s understanding to contemplate the excellency and majesty of the Creator; for they all show his incomparable excellency and perfection, together with the vanity, nothingness, or smallness of the creature if compared with him, as great a bulk as it beareth in our eye. They are but as a ray from the sun, a stream from the fountain, or a drop to the ocean; an image in the glass, or a shadow to the substance; or like a footprint of a man in the clay or sand; and so are but certain signs leading up to the thing signified, or letters and syllables out of which we may spell God—as the streams lead us to the fountain, the image to the man, the shadow to the body, or the track to the foot that made it.

v. [The inadequacy of reason when comes to creation lies in part in the insufficiency of any upon which reason could work. What happened before human beings is a matter beyond our experience or our ability to reason out.] But the scripture, leaving those comparisons, showeth us that the world came out from the Creator as the workmanship from the artificer, the building from the architect, Heb. 11:10. Now every artificer and builder worketh merely out of the counsel of his own will. And herein they resemble God; but only what they do with great labour, God doth with the beck of his own will and word: Ps. 33:6, ‘By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.’ A bare word of his immediately created all the world, the heavens and earth, and all that is in them.

2. When did he make the angels? for in the history of Moses there seemeth to be a great silence of it.

1. [He makes a deduction from the description of Genesis]

a. I answer—We read, Gen. 1:1, that in the beginning—that is, when God did first set himself to create—that then he created the heaven and the earth;

b. but we read again in the 20th verse, ‘That in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is.’

c. I argue, that if within that compass of time, the Lord made heaven and earth, and all things that are in them, angels are included in that number, being the inhabitants of heaven, as men and beasts are of the earth, and fishes of the sea; as here, by things in heaven, the apostle principally understands the angels, and by things on earth, men.

d. Therefore, as things on earth were not made but after the earth, so things in heaven were not created but after the heavens were created. The heavens were not created till the second day, nor perfected and fitted till the fourth.

e. Therefore, as God did furnish the earth with plants and beasts before men, so did he adorn the heaven with stars before he filled it with angels; for he first framed the house and adorned it before he brought in the inhabitants. Therefore, probably they were made the fourth day.

f. [An objection answered] If this seemeth too short a time before the fall of the apostate angels,

i. you must remember how soon man degenerated. Some think he did not sleep in innocency, quoting that Ps. 49:12, ‘Man being in honour abides not, but is like the beasts that perish.’ The word signifies a night’s lodging in an inn—shall not lodge or stay a night. Others make his fall on the next day, the Sabbath, for at the end of the sixth day all was good, very good.

ii. The angels fell from their first state as soon as they were created—so short and uncertain is all created glory.

Christ’s Eternal Existence (Manton) Sermon 3.2

11 Tuesday Apr 2023

Posted by memoirandremains in Christology, Thomas Manton

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Christ's Eternal Existence, christology, Thomas Manton

[II. Christ is the Lord of All Creation]

A. The apostle speaks not of this latter now, but of the former—his right as the only-begotten Son of God: he is the first-born, that is, Lord of the whole creation….. The object of creation is spoken collectively and distributively.

1. Collectively: ‘By him were all things created.’

2. Distributively: They are many ways distinguished.

a. By their place: ‘Things in heaven, and things in earth.’

b. By their nature: ‘Things visible and invisible.’

c. By their dignity and office: ‘Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers’—words often used in scripture to signify the angels, whether good or bad.

i. The good angels: Eph. 1:21; Eph. 3:10,’

ii. Sometimes this term is given to the bad angels:,’ Eph. 6:12; Rom. 8:38,

iii. So that the meaning is, the angelical creatures, together with their degree and dignity, as well among themselves as over the lower world; of what rank and degree soever they are, they are all created by him.

iv. [Here, Manton explains the rationale for why the creation and rule of angelic beings was mentioned. He does this by arguing from the greater to the lesser: If Christ is creator of the greater beings, then surely he is also the creator of the lesser beings.

“Comparatio is a word of large and ample comprehension, and therefore it may stand as a generall head and principall of many figures, but namely of those which do tend most especially to amplifie or diminish by forme of comparison, as either from the greater to the lesse, from the lesse to the greater, from equall to equall, or by opposition of contraries, I will first begin with Comparison, as it is usually and specially taken.” Peachum, Henry. The Garden of Eloquence (1593): Schemas.]

v. He insisteth more on them than on the other branches, because some cried up the dignity of the angels, to the lessening of the honour and office of Christ, and because they were the noblest and most powerful creatures. And if the most glorious creatures were created by him, surely all others had their being and life from him. Well, then, there is a gradation notable in setting forth the object of the creation. Christ made not only things in earth but things in heaven; not only the visible things of heaven, the sun, moon, and stars, but the invisible, the angels—not the lower sort of angels only, but the most noble and the most potent—thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers.

B. Christ’s efficiency about them; in these words, they were ‘created by him, and for him.’

[Note: Efficient Cause is one of Aristotle’s four causes: “The efficient cause or that which is given in reply to the question: “Where does change (or motion) come from?”. What is singled out in the answer is the whence of change (or motion).” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/#FourCaus%5D

1. By him; as an equal co-operating cause, or co-worker with God the Father: John 5:19, ‘Whatsoever things the Father doeth, those doeth the Son likewise.’ To bring a thing out of nothing belongeth unto God. The distance of the terms is infinite; so must the agent be. Creation is an act of divine power.

[“These immanent relations of the three persons in the divine being also manifest themselves outwardly (ad extra) in their revelations and works. Granted, all God’s outward works (opera ad extra) are common to the three persons. “God’s works ad extra are indivisible, though the order and distinction of the persons is preserved.” It is always one and the same God who acts both in creation and in re-creation.” Bavinck, Herman, et al. Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation. Baker Academic, 2004, p. 318]

2. They are for him: they are by him as their first cause; they are for him as their last end. God is often represented in scripture as first and last: Isa. 41:4, ‘I the Lord, the first and the last, I am he;’ Isa. 44:6, ‘I am the first and the last; there is no God besides me;’ so Isa. 48:2, ‘I am the first; I am also the last.’ Now all this is repeated and applied to Christ: Rev. 1:17, ‘He said unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last; I have the keys of death and hell;’ Rev. 2:8, ‘These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;’ Rev. 22:13, ‘I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.’ Now these expressions do imply his eternal power and Godhead. He hath been before all things were made, and shall be when all things in the world are ended. He is the first being from whom all things are, and the last end to whom all things are to be referred. He is the efficient and final cause of all the creatures.

[This is a strong argument for the Divinity of Christ. Aside from a text which states plainly the Son is God, we can look to the manner in which the Son is set forth in Scripture. If God is the Creator and the Son is the Creator, then the Son is God. If the Creation if “for” God, and Creation is “for” God, then the Son is God. Thus, Manton will seek to prove that the Son is the Creator. By doing so, he will prove the Son is God.]

Doct. That all creatures, angels not excepted, owe their very being to Christ, the Son of God, our blessed and glorious Redeemer.

Christ’s Eternal Existence (Manton) Sermon 3.1

07 Friday Apr 2023

Posted by memoirandremains in Christology, Thomas Manton

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Christ's Eternal Existence, christology, Thomas Manton

Sermon III

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.—Col. 1:16.

I. introduction

The apostle had told us in the former verse that Jesus Christ is the first-born of every creature. The Arians thence concluded that he himself was created out of nothing in order of time before the world. But it is not ‘the first created of any creature,’ but ‘the first-born,’ which noteth a precedency, not only in point of antiquity, but dignity; and is as much as to say, Lord of every creature. For the first-born was the lord of the rest, and the title may be given either relatively or comparatively.

[“Great diversity of sentiment is held concerning the person of Christ. Sabellians deny the distinctions of the Godhead, and say the whole deity is tabernacled in Christ. Arians represent Him as the highest of all created intelligences, the first-born of every creature. Socinians acknowledge Him as human only, and as exalted above other men merely in His official character.” Burns, Jabez. “Attributes of God as Seen in the Divinity of Christ.” Sermon Outlines on the Attributes of God, edited by Al Bryant, Kregel Publications, 1992, p. 9.n “The Arians seem to have contended that, as Christ is called the first-born of all creation, He must be numbered among things created.” Kaye, John. Some Account of the Council of Nicæa, in Connexion with the Life of Athanasius. Francis & John Rivington, 1853, p. 205.

Manton takes up the contention that “first born” means “first created”. The interpretative issue here is the context for the first use of the phrase. There are two elements which are important for our understanding. First, “first born” is used in the Scripture in two different ways: (1) chronological birth; (2) preeminent station:

“The term is used throughout the Septuagint for the temporally firstborn child from a mother, and the same sense is found in the New Testament (Luke 2:7; Heb 11:28). But the term also indicates the figurative status of preeminence when speaking of Israel as firstborn (e.g., Exod 4:22), the future Davidic king (Ps 89:27), or Wisdom herself (Prov 8:22). In the New Testament, Jesus is the prōtotokos in that he is the one into whom all are conformed (Rom 8:29) and the one to be worshiped (Heb 1:6); the whole church absorbs his identity as the firstborn (12:23), and he is the first one to be resurrected (Rev 1:5). In these references his status, not his birth order, is in view, his superiority more than his temporality. His status is superior because temporally he is before all things, hierarchically311 he is above all things, and ontologically he sustains all things. This matters for anthropology: if Christ is the Prōtotokos, Adam is not simply the prototype for the Second Adam, but Christ is the prior Eikōn-template used to create Adam and Eve. Christ may be the Second Adam, but Adam, then, is the Second Prōtotokos-Eikōn.” McKnight, Scot. The Letter to the Colossians. Edited by Ned B. Stonehouse et al., William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018, p. 149.

Another element of the analysis concerns the concept of “born”. Those who speak of the Son as creation will emphasize the concept of birth to demand chronological and ontological procession: there was a time with the Son did not exist. The orthodox position is to understand the filiation of the Son as a relational category:

“The establishment from all eternity of the filial relationship of the second person in the ontological Trinity.* Another way of stating this is the eternal mode of the filiation* of the second person in the Trinity, describing the relational order of His personal subsistence* to the Father’s. Charles Hodge defines the term as “the communication of the same numerical essence whole and entire from the Father to the Son” (Systematic Theology, 1:460). The Father is the source, not of the deity or divine essence of the Son—for all the trinitarian persons possess the undivided divine essence in common—but of His filial relationship. The more common definition of eternal generation in standard theologies (reproduced, alas, in earlier editions of this dictionary!) is the “eternal and necessary act of the first person in the Trinity, whereby he, within the divine Being, is the ground of a second personal subsistence like his own, and puts the second person in possession of the whole divine essence, without any division, alienation, or change” (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 94).”

Cairns, Alan. Dictionary of Theological Terms, Ambassador Emerald International, 2002, p. 148.

Manton is going to concern himself with the first argument: first-born indicates preeminence.]

A. Relatively; when the rest are of the same stock, or have the relation of brethren to him that hath the pre-eminence. So it is given to Christ with respect to new creatures: Rom. 8:29, ‘That he might be the first-born among many brethren.’

B. Comparatively only; when several persons or things be compared, though there be no relation between them.

1. So David is called ‘the first-born of the kings of the earth,’ Ps. 89:27—that is, superior in dignity and honour.

2. So here it is taken not relatively, for so Christ is primogenitus, the first-born, that he is also unigenitus, the only-begotten. None went before, or come after him, that are so begotten of God.

C. What he asserteth in that verse, he now proveth by the creation of all things, in ver. 16, and the conservation of all things, ver. 17.

1. We are now upon the first proof. Surely he that created all things is supreme lord of all things, or hath the right of the first-born over them.

2. Two ways is Christ said to have a right to the creatures: as God, and as mediator.

a. His right as God is natural and perpetual;

b. his right as mediator is by grant and donation. It is a power acquired and obtained.

[There are two claims to sovereignty: First, God is sovereign by his status as Creator. He is king of what he creates. This is “natural” because it comes about the very nature of the relationship. This is “perpetual” because it is inherent in the very existence of God and creation. The second sovereignty comes about through the work of redeeming the rebellious Creation. God grants sovereignty to Christ for his work. This is fitting that Son should also be the King by means of his work of redemption.]

c. His natural right is antecedent to his actual susception of the office of mediator; for it comes to him by creation. He made all, and it is fit that he should be sovereign and lord of all. But the other power and sovereignty is granted to him as a part of his reward and recompense for the sorrows of his humiliation: Phil. 2:9, 10, ‘Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name 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.’

Christ’s Eternal Existence (Manton) Sermon II, complete

07 Friday Apr 2023

Posted by memoirandremains in Christology, Colossians, Thomas Manton

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Christ's Eternal Existence, christology, Colossians 1:15, Thomas Manton

Sermon II

Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature.—Col. 1:15.

The apostle having mentioned our redemption, doth now fall upon a description of the Redeemer. He is set forth by two things:—

First, His internal relation to God.

Secondly, By his external relation to the creature.

Doct. It is a great part of a believer’s work to have a deep sense of the Redeemer’s excellency imprinted upon his mind and heart.

[Outline of this sermon]

Here I shall show:—

How it is set forth in this verse.

Why this should be much upon our minds and hearts.

How it is set forth in this scripture:—

I. That he is ‘the image of the invisible God.’

II. ‘The first-born of every creature.’

I. For the first expression there I shall consider:—

A. What belongs to an image.

B. In what respects Christ is the image of God.

C. How he differeth from other persons.

I. [The Image of the Invisible God]

A. What belongeth to an image, and that all this is in Christ. In an image there are two things—impression and representation. Both are in Christ. There is a divine impression upon him[1], and he doth represent God to us.

1. For impression, there is:—

a. Likeness; for an image must be like him whom it representeth. [That is, if Christ is the image of the invisible God, then Christ must somehow represent God. Manton does not always “show his work.” Having raised a point, he moves to implications where conclusions or questions. But he does not always spell out the in-between step. Here, having said that Christ is the image of the invisible God, we come to two problems: (1) we may not make images of God, and (2) how can anything represent an invisible God? He combines both of these problems into a single question.]

i. An artificial image of God, or such as may be made by us, is forbidden upon this account. Is. 40:18

ii. [We are forbidden to make an image because]What is there among all the creatures that can be like such an infinite and almighty essence? or by what visible shape or figure would they represent or resemble God?

2. Deduction and derivation. [This is the image of a father to son] … .it is verified in Christ because of his eternal generation. Like him, because begotten of him.

a. There is not a likeness in a few things, but a complete and exact likeness;

i. …Heb. 1:3, ‘The express image of his person.’

ii. There is not only likeness, but equality. [The argument here relies upon two logical propositions based upon the nature of God. It is also a nice bit of writing]

iii God cannot

[1] make a creature equal to himself, nor

[2] beget a son unequal to himself.

3. Representation; for an image it serveth to make known and declare that thing whose image it is.

a. [He begins with a line from the Nicene Creed, the Son is described as “God of God, light of light”]. If light produce light, the light produced doth represent the light and glory producing….

b. And this is the reason why the word invisible is added, because God, who in his own nature is invisible, and incomprehensible to man, revealeth himself so far as is necessary to salvation to us by Christ. [“There is no hidden God, no Deus Absconditus, no God behind the back of the Lord Jesus.” T.F. Torrance, ‘War Service’, Unpublished Memoir, 49. https://www.academia.edu/36455985/_There_is_no_God_Behind_the_Back_of_Jesus_Christ_The_Mediation_of_Christ_in_the_Theology_of_T_F_Torrance%5D

c. Visible things are known by their visible images, with more delight, but not with more accuracy.

i. The image is not necessary to know the thing; but here it is otherwise. We cannot know God but by Christ: John 1:18, ‘No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.’

ii. God is invisible, and incomprehensible by any but Jesus Christ, who being his only Son, and one in essence with the Father, he doth perfectly know him, and reveal unto mankind all that they know of him. …

B. In what respects Christ is the image of God.

1. In respect of his eternal generation. So Christ is ‘the express image of his person’—not substance, but subsistence[2].

a. [This explanation only makes sense after you understand the term. See the footnote.] We do not say that milk is like milk, nor one egg like another, because they are of the same substance; so Christ is not said to be of the same substance, but of the same subsistence.

b. He is, indeed, of the same substance with him whom he doth resemble, but the image is with respect to the subsistence; so he resembleth the Father fully and perfectly. There is no perfection in the Father but the same is in the Son also. He is eternal, omnipotent, infinite in wisdom, goodness, and power[3].

2. As God incarnate, or manifested in our flesh; so the perfections of the Godhead shine forth in the man Christ Jesus, in his person, word, and works.

a. In his person. They that had a discerning eye might see something divine in Christ: John 1:14, ‘We beheld his glory, as the glory of the only-begotten of the Father.’ There is the as of similitude, and the as of congruity; as if a mean man taketh state upon him, we say he behaveth himself as a king, but if we say the same of a king indeed, we mean he behaveth himself king-like, that is, becoming the majesty of his high calling. So we beheld his glory as, &c., that is, such a glory as was suitable and becoming God’s only Son….

b. In his word; where God is revealed to us savingly, so as we may be brought into communion with him, so it is said, ‘lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them,’ 2 Cor. 4:4. As God shineth forth in Christ, so doth Christ shine forth in the gospel. …

c. His works—all which in their whole tenure and contexture showed him to be God-man. If at any time there appeared any evidence of human weakness, lest the world should be offended and stumble thereat, he did at the same time give out some notable demonstrations of his divine power. When he lay in a manger at his birth, a star appeared, and angels proclaimed his birth to the shepherds; when he was swaddled as an infant, the wise men came and worshipped him; when he was in danger of suffering shipwreck, he commanded the winds and the waves, and they obeyed him; when he was tempted by Satan, he was ministered unto by the angels, Mat. 4:11; when they demanded tribute for the temple, a fish brought it to him, Mat. 17:26; when he was deceived in the fig-tree (which was an infirmity of human ignorance), he suddenly blasted it, discovering the glory of a divine power; when he hung dying on the cross, the rocks were rent, the graves opened, the sun darkened, and all nature put into a rout. Though he humbled himself to purchase our mercies, yet he assured our faith by some emissions and breakings forth of his divine power. …

C. How he differeth from other persons; for the saints also are made after the image of God. Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24. [This raises an important issue: how is the question of the “image of God” used with respct of Christ and the respect of us.] I answer,—There is a great difference between the image of God in man and the image of God in Christ.

1. Man resembleth God but imperfectly. [Manton is going to raise three distinct ways in which the “image” differs between Christ and other humanity.]

a. Man was made, and is now made, after the image of God, but with much abatement of this high perfection which is in Christ, for he hath all the substantial perfection which his Father hath. [By “abatement” he refers to what was lost in the Fall. However, he does not here define what happened to the image. This has been a contentious issue throughout the history of theology.]

b. In other creatures there is some resemblance, but no equality: [He here references Phil. 2:6]

c. other creatures are made like God, but he is begotten like God.

2. It is derivative from Christ. God would recover man out of his lapsed estate by setting up a pattern of holiness in our nature.

a. [The “good” of Rom. 8:28 is defined in 8:29 as being conformed to the image of the Son.]

b. None was fit to restore this image of God that was lost, but God incarnate, for thereby the glory of God was again visible in our nature.

c. [Why must it be God incarnate?] God is a pure spirit, and we are creatures, that have indeed an immortal soul, but it dwelleth in flesh; therefore to make us like God, ‘the Word was made flesh,’ that he might represent the perfections of God to us, and commend holiness by his own example.

II. Secondly, The next thing ascribed to Christ is that he is ‘the first-born of every creature:’

[This is itself a contentious area of theology historically. What does this mean.]

A. [Explanatory, generally]

1. that is, born of God before any creature had a being, or begotten of the Father of his own proper essence, and equal with him before anything was created and brought forth out of nothing.

2. [The dispute] But here the adversaries of the eternal Godhead of Christ triumph, and say, The first-born of the creatures is a creature, one of the same kind.

a. I answer

i. —If we grant this that they allege, they gain nothing, for Christ had two natures—he was God-man. As God, he is the Creator, and not a creature; for the apostle proveth that ‘by him all things were made:’ but as man, so he is indeed a creature.

ii.. This double consideration must not be forgotten: Rom. 1:3, 4. Our Lord Jesus Christ was ‘made of the seed of David according to the flesh, but declared to be the Son of God, with power according to the Spirit;’ therefore we must distinguish between Christ and Christ, what he is according to the Spirit, and what he is according to the flesh.

b. I answer—

i. That metaphors must be taken in the sense in which they are intended.

B. Now what is the apostle’s intention in giving Christ the appellation of the first-born?

Four things are implied by this metaphor:—

[1.] Identity of nature.

[2.] Likeness of original.

[3.] Antiquity.

[4.] Dignity.

1. Nothing else can be insinuated into the mind of man by such a form of speech but identity and sameness of nature between the brethren, which is true as to Christ’s humanity

a. [In Hebrews 2: 11 & 14, Christ is referred to as the brother of human beings because he has taken on flesh and blood.]

b. [What then of first born?] ’ or [1] priority of time, for the first-born is before all the rest; or [2] else dignity, authority, and pre-eminence.

2. Now, which of these doth the apostle intend? [In Colossians 1:16, the first born of every creature.]

a. The two last— [time and pre-emince]

i. the pre-existence of Christ before anything was made, as appeareth by this reason, ver. 16, ‘For by him all things were made, whether they be in heaven or in earth;’ and also his dignity and authority above them, as appeareth by the frequent use of the word. [Proof of this point] For the first-born in families had authority over the rest. When Jacob had got the birthright, this was a part of Isaac’s blessing:

ii. Sovereignty was implied in the birthright, so David is called ‘the first-born of the kings of the earth,’ Ps. 89:27, as the most glorious amongst them.

iii. So here nothing else is intended but that Christ is in time and dignity before all creatures.

C. Thirdly, Though Christ be called the first-born of every creature, it doth not imply that he is to be reckoned as one of them, or accounted a creature.

1. [Looking to the context of Colossian 1:15-20, Manton draws out some points]

a. But here it is not the first-born amongst the creatures, but the first-born of every creature.

b. And for further confirmation, here is not identity of nature, for he is not at all of the same nature with the angels—those principalities and thrones, dominions and powers, spoken of in the next verse—nor issued of the same stock with any of them.

c. Mark, he is called the first-born, not first created, which must be understood of his divine nature and eternal generation of the Father before all creatures. The creatures are not begotten and born of God, but made by him. So Christ is primogenitus—that is, unigenitus, the first-born, that only-begotten.

d. In the following verse he is brought in, not as a creature, but the creator of all things. The first-born is not the cause of the rest of the children…..

[Part Two] Why this excellency of our Redeemer should be so deeply impressed upon our minds and hearts? For many reasons.

I. This is needful to show his sufficiency to redeem the world.

A. [The problem to be solved] The party offended is God, who is of infinite majesty; the favour to be purchased is the everlasting fruition of God; and the sentence to be reversed is the sentence of everlasting punishment.

1. Therefore, there needed some valuable satisfaction to be given to reconcile these things to our thoughts; that we may be confident that we shall have redemption by his blood, even the remission of sins.

A. [This makes for an interesting aspect of theology. Manton is not trying to prove the point to the satisfaction of an abstract logical argument. Rather he asks a different question. When we consider the peril that we find ourselves in as a result of sin; the seemingly impossible circumstance: an infinite evil to remedied by something equal merit; how could we have confidence that such a thing could be done? This is a key element of salvation by faith alone: I am to trust my salvation wholly to the work of another. A second argument implicit in this construction: He is seeking to demonstrate the supremacy of Christ Socinians, who denied the pre-existence of Christ. He is making an argument to persuade. The structure of the argument is here as follows: The problem of sin raises an issue of an infinite debt which requires an equally infinite payment [to change the terms slightly from Manton’s formulation]. If Christ were merely a created being, he would be insufficient to satisfy this debt. Therefore, Christ must not be a created being.]

B. There are three things that commend the value of Christ’s sacrifice—the dignity of his person, the greatness of his sufferings, and the merit of his obedience.

i. But the two latter without the former will little quiet the heart of scrupulous men. [This gets to his point regarding the Socinians] His sufferings were great, but temporary and finite—the merit of his obedience much; but how shall the virtue of it reach all the world?

ii. And if he be but a mere creature, he hath done what he ought to do. I confess a fourth thing may be added—God’s institution, which availeth to the end for which God hath appointed it;

iii. but the scripture insists most on the first—the dignity of his Person—which putteth a value on his sacrifice: Acts 20:18; Heb. 9:13, 14; at least there is an intrinsic worth.

iv. This answers all objections. [The objections: Hell is eternal. The eternity of any one person is not enough to answer for the eternity of another. How then can the suffering on man for a limited time answer to the multiple eternities of all human beings? The answer is in the merit of his person. An infinity of my suffering cannot answer for my own sin, much less your sin. But Christ’s merit is such that can answer for all.] His sufferings were temporary and finite; but it is the blood of God,—he hath offered up himself through the eternal Spirit.

B. To work upon our love, that Christ may have the chief room in our hearts.

1. [The first point answers to the intellectual point: Christ must have divine merit, because he answers to an infinite debt. This second point goes to the affect this should have upon us. Notice, that Manton does not rest in an intellectual case but now makes an affective argument.]

2. There is no such argument to work upon our love as that God over all, blessed for ever, should come to relieve man in such a condescending way: 1 John 3:16, ….

3. There was power discovered in the creation, when God made us like himself out of the dust of the ground; but love in our redemption, when he made himself like us.

4. The person that was to work out our deliverance was the eternal Son of God.

5. That God that owes nothing to man, and was so much offended by man, and that stood in no need of man, having infinite happiness and contentment in himself, that he should come and die for us! Hereby perceive we the love of God. When we consider what Christ is, we shall most admire what he hath done for us.

C. Thirdly, That we may give Christ his due honour; for God will have all men to honour the Son as they honour the Father, John 5:23, he being equal in power and glory.

1. The setting forth of his glory is a rent due to him from all creatures. We are to praise him both in word and deed, in mind, and heart, and practice, which we can never do unless we understand the dignity of his person.

2. [This idea of paying rent may sound quite foreign as if it were a “work” and not grace. Or paying someone back for a gift. However, we need to think carefully on this point. First, Manton is alone in using such an image. Here is an example (among many) from a contemporary, “Let God alone have the glory of outward mercies; do not crown thine own head with laurel, but pay thy rent of laud and praise to God alone, who is the true landlord.” Swinnock, George. The Works of George Swinnock, M.A. James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; G. Herbert, 1868, p. 61. A great deal of work has been done of late to understand the patron client relationship of the Roman work where the grace of the patron created a relationship in the client of return, but never in any kind which would approximate what was received.

“In recent years, James A. Kelhoffer has contributed a number of articles exploring some important features of 2 Clement. His seminal article, “Reciprocity as Salvation: Christ as Salvation Patron and the Corresponding ‘Payback’ Expected of Christ’s Earthly Clients according to the Second Epistle of Clement” has informed the concluding observations about the applied theology of the book.20

The article analyzes the widely misunderstood concept of ‘payback’ or ‘repayment’ (αντιμισθία) that … believers owe to Christ. Much of the secondary literature is laden with theological polemics (e.g., the author perverts Paul’s gospel of grace, rather than an attempt to understand this concept relative to social relationships in antiquity). I argue that Second Clement presents Christ as salvific benefactor and patron. Christ offers salvation to those who accept the terms of his patronage, terms that include the obligation to render ‘payback’—for example, in the form of praise, witness, loyalty, and almsgiving. A failure to accept these terms would jeopardize the relationship between Christ and his earthly clients and thus call their salvation into question. As a corollary, I propose that a likely purpose for Second Clement was to convince a Christian audience that the benefits of salvation come with recurring obligations to Christ, their salvific patron.21

“Kelhoffer’s insights point the way ahead for understanding the relationship between correct behavior and soteriology in this writing and thus its ultimate message. A summary of these thoughts follows, supplemented by my own comments. As a background to his argument, Kelhoffer explores the sociology of the patron-client relationship in Roman society.” Varner, William. Second Clement: An Introductory Commentary. Edited by Paul A. Hartog and Shawn J. Wilhite, Cascade Books, 2020, pp. 42–43.]

3 We are apt to have low thoughts of Christ, therefore we should often revive the considerations that may represent his worth and excellency. [This last comment is interesting when considered from a context of acting toward Christ. Our failure to be engaged in “setting forth his glory” as “rent” can be the result of low thoughts of Christ. But, doing such actually raises our thoughts of Christ. To praise is to objectively give praise, but when understood rightly will also subjectively increase our praise.]

D. Fourthly, That we may place all hope of salvation in him, and may make use of him to the ends which he came to accomplish. ….

E. Fifthly, That we may the better understand two things:—

1. The humiliation of the Son of God.

a. [This is a principle argument of Manton’s Socinian opponents: he could not be God incarnate if he were so humbled. Manton explains a covering.]

b. …. Now, how did he humble himself? Was he not still the image of God in our nature? Yes, but the divine glory and majesty was hidden under the veil of our flesh: little of it did appear, and that only to those who narrowly did observe him; the brightness of his glory did not conspicuously shine forth…..

2. It showeth us how the image of God may be recovered; if we be changed into the likeness of Christ, for he is the image of God.

a. [By example] His merit should not only be precious to us, but his example. It is a great advantage not only to have a rule but an example; because man is so prone to imitate, that an example in our nature maketh it the more operative.

i. His excuse is ready at hand: we are flesh and blood—what would you have us do? Therefore Christ came incarnate to be an example of holiness. He had the interests of flesh and blood to mind as well as we; and so would show that a holy life is possible to those that are renewed by his grace.

ii. He obeyed God in our nature; therefore in the same nature we may obey, please, and glorify God, though still in a self-denying manner. The foundation of it is laid in the new birth.

b. [By the Spirit] The Spirit that formed Christ out of the substance of the Virgin, the same Spirit is ready to form Christ in you. He maketh new creatures; so that there is not only Christ’s example, but Christ’s power.

III. [Application]

A. Use 1. Then let the excellency and dignity of Christ’s person be more upon your minds and hearts; think often of those two notions in the text—that he is the image of the invisible God, that therein you may be like him. You cannot be the image of God so as he was, but you must be in your measure…..

B. Use 2. Consider, again, that he is Lord of the whole creation, and therefore called ‘the first-born of every creature.’ Well, then, we should be subject to him, and with greater diligence apply ourselves to the obedience of his holy laws, and use the means appointed by him to obtain the blessedness offered to us.

1. There is in us a natural sentiment of the authority of God, and we have a dread upon our hearts if we do what he hath forbidden; but we have not so deep a sense of the authority of Christ, and play fast and loose with religion, as fancy and humour and interest lead us.

2. Now, from this argument, you see we should honour the Son as we honour the Father, and be as tender of his institutions as we are of the commandments evident by natural light; for he is not only the messenger of God, but his express image, and the first-born of every creature.

3 Not to believe him, and obey him, and love him, is to sin, not only against our duty, but our remedy and the law of our recovery.

[1] The impress which God makes upon Christ: something stamped.

[2] Manton is casually dropping some sophisticated philosophical terms into his sermon. “What is common and general is predicated of the included particulars. Essence, then, is common as being a form [eidos, class, form], while subsistence is particular. It is particular not as though it had part of the nature and had not the rest, but particular in a numerical sense, as being individual. For it is in number and not in nature that the difference between subsistences is said to lie. Essence, therefore, is predicated of subsistence, because in each subsistence of the same form the essence is perfect. Wherefore subsistences do not differ from each other in essence but in the accidents which indeed are the characteristic properties, but characteristic of subsistence and not of nature. For indeed they define subsistence as essence along with accidents. So that the subsistence contains both the general and the particular, and has an independent existence, while essence has not an independent existence but is contemplated in the subsistences. Accordingly when one of the subsistences suffers, the whole essence, being capable of suffering. is held to have suffered in one of its subsistences as much as the subsistence suffered, but it does not necessarily follow, however, that all the subsistences of the same class should suffer along with the suffering subsistence.” It goes on a great length along these lines. John Damascene. “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.” St. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, translated by S. D. F. Salmond, vol. 9b, Christian Literature Company, 1899, p. 50.

[3] “Thus, therefore, we confess that the nature of the Godhead is wholly and perfectly in each of its subsistences, wholly in the Father, wholly in the Son, and wholly in the Holy Spirit. Wherefore also the Father is perfect God, the Son is perfect God, and the Holy Spirit is perfect God. In like manner, too, in the Incarnation of the Trinity of the One God the Word of the Holy Trinity, we hold that in one of its subsistences the nature of the Godhead is wholly and perfectly united with the whole nature of humanity, and not part united to part4. The divine Apostle in truth says that in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily5, that is to say in His flesh. And His divinely-inspired disciple, Dionysius, who had so deep a knowledge of things divine, said that the Godhead as a whole had fellowship with us in one of its own subsistences6. But we shall not be driven to hold that all the subsistences of the Holy Godhead, to wit the three, are made one in subsistence with all the subsistences of humanity. For in no other respect did the Father and the Holy Spirit take part in the incarnation of God the Word than according to good will and pleasure But we hold that to the whole of human nature the whole essence of the Godhead was united. For God the Word omitted none of the things which He implanted in our nature when He formed us in the beginning, but took them all upon Himself, body and soul both intelligent and rational, and all their properties. For the creature that is devoid of one of these is not man. But He in His fulness took upon Himself me in my fulness, and was united whole to whole that He might in His grace bestow salvation on the whole man. For what has not been taken cannot be healed.” John Damascene. “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.” St. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, translated by S. D. F. Salmond, vol. 9b, Christian Literature Company, 1899, p. 50.

Christ’s Eternal Existence (Manton) Sermon 2.2

03 Monday Apr 2023