Saul none of Davide enemies he was the chiefest and therefore segregated from the rest Thus having taken off the Charet wheels of your Argument the Conclusion cannot advance up by its assistance I Come now to Heb. 7.3 Heb. 7.3 Answ I perceive you are willing to gather from this Text the Eternity of Iesus Christ but on this tree grows no such fruit You say that Christ is here resembled in reference to his Eternity to Melchisedek without beginning of days or end of life Pray Sir was Melchisedek Eternal If so then he was God But he was neither the Father nor the Son nor the Holy Ghost whatever some have conceived I hope you will not allow a quaternity of Persons in Unity of Essence And therefore will allow that the words be taken in a figurative sense Quod non narratur ponitur quasi non sit Melchisedek was without beginning of days or end of life in that there is no mention made either of his birth or death in the History of Moses or especially in reference to his Priesthood the time of its beginning and ending being not certainly known So our High Priest Jesus Christ is without beginning of days or end of life YOur next Scripture is Prov. 8.22 Prov. 8.22 Answ The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way before his works of old I was set up from Everlasting from the Beginning or ever the Earth was The meaning is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Sept. The Lord who is Possessour of Heaven and Earth obtained or created me when he began to work before all his ancient works And I was set up or anointed to have the dominion of all things and that from Everlasting that is from the Beginning before the Earth was The Septuagint have the words thus The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works Dominus acquisivit me principium viaesuae ante opera ex tunc A saeculo principatum babui à capite ab initiis terrae Mont. He founded me in the Beginning before the Earth was made Montanus thus The Lord obtained me the beginning of his way before his works from thence I had dominion from Everlasting from the Beginning from the beginning of the Earth The thirtieth verse speaks of Christ as having a being before Gods works of old yet so as that it was created one THE Scripture which follows next in your Paper Zach. 13.7 is Zach. 13.7 Awake O Sword against my Shepheard against the man that is my fellow saith the Lord of Hosts Answ I suppose that you would infer hence the coequality of Jesus Christ with the Lord of Hosts whose words those are But doubtless when you drew up this Conclusion you hearkned to the sound not the sense of our English word Fellow which doth not always note equality as from Psalm 45.7 and Heb. 1.9 you may be informed where the Saints are called the Fellows of Christ from which none acquainted with Reason or Scripture will conclude their coequality with him Had you consulted with the Hebrew word used in the Text you would have been a stranger to so strange an inference For the words translated My Fellow might be rendred My Citizen my Neighbour my Second Hebraea vox proximum aut amicum sonat qui stat è regione alterius Et praesto est à emnia amici officia comparatus quamobrem idem in sinu patris esse ad dexteram illius sedere dicitur intercedens pro nobis Trem. in Locum my Lievtenant my Vicar my Friend So the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the man my Citizen or Neighbour Tremelius thus Virum proximum meum The man my Second my Lievetenant my Neighbour my Vicar or the like Tremellius and Iunius in their Marginal Notes speak thus The Hebrew word say they signifies one that is very near or a friend who stands over against another and is ready at hand for all friendly offices wherefore the same to wit Jesus Christ is said to be in the bosome of the Father and to sit at his right hand interceding for us And so the words acquaint us with these two things especially 1. That Christ is the Principall object of Gods dearest affection The man my fellow quem maxime amo saith Groti us whom I most of all love 2. That Christ is Gods Principal Servant in his highest tranfactions One that is Gods Representative as the word in the Text holds forth and the Scripture everywhere speaks I might now collect from the words something to oppose the Doctrine you assert they being spoken of a man and in reference to the Lord of Hosts who cannot possibly have an equall unless it were possible to have two Gods BUT I shall pass by that and hasten to the Scripture next appearing which is Iohn 3.13 John 3.13 And no man hath ascended up to Heaven but he that came down from Heaven the Son of Man which is in Heaven Answ Sir what your intent was in alledging this Text I no whit doubt but the reason of your inference thence is yet to me unknown Thus the words may be understood No man hath ascended up into Heaven that is no man hath known those Divine things the knowledge whereof is reserved for another life or those Divine things which are known in this life as they are in themselves nakedly appearing without their earthly habits and as expressed in a remote and Angelicall Language But he that came down from Heaven the Son of Man being in Heaven that is The Son being excepted who was in Heaven and descended thence for some work which he had to do on Earth or thus he being excepted who came down from Heaven to wit the Son of Man who is in Heaven that is in the bosome of the Father knowing his Secrets and Divine things as they are in themselves notwithstanding he speaks only of those things and in that way which men are now capable of I shall countenance this Exposition with a few Reasons 1. Because this sense and meaning wherewithall I have cloathed those words is no way opposite to the analogy of faith There is nothing as I suppose to be picked out of my words which the Doctrine of the Gospel will pick a quarrell with But this Exposition lessens the number of those Texts that plead for Christ as most high God But let not Scripture be forced let every Text speak what it knows To misapply is to pervert Scriptures 2. Because the sense which I would that this text should own and allow is elswhere challenged by the like phrases to themselves as their due Ascendere in coelum to ascend into heaven is to penetrate the secrets of heaven as Grotius speaks on this place In the like manner doth Musculus and Bucer understand the words In the same sense is the like phrase to be taken Prov. 30.4 and so Piscator expounds it And thus to be in heaven is to
personally and yet be one in essence with him To this distinction hear what a learned and godly man speaks His words are these As for this wretched distinctions to omit the mention of the Fathers is not onely unheard of in Scripture but is also disclaimed by Reason For 1. it is impossible for any man if he would but endevour to conceive the thing and not delude both himself and others with empty terms and words without understanding to distinguish the person from the essence of God and not to frame two beings or things in his minde and consequently two Gods Secondly if the Person be distinct from the Essence of God then it is either something or nothing If nothing how can it be distinguished seeing nothing hath no accidents If something then either some finite or infinite thing if finite then there will be something finite in God and consequently since by the confession of the Adversaries themselves every thing in God is God God will be finite which the Adversaries themselves will confess to be absurd If infinite then there will be two infinites in God to wit the Person and the Essence of God and consequently two Gods which is more absurd then the former Thirdly to talk of God taken onely essentially is ridiculous not onely because there is no example thereof in Scripture but because God is the name of a Person and signifieth him that ruleth over others and when it is put for the most High God it denoteth him who with soveraign and absolute authority ruleth over all but none but a Person can rule over others all actions being proper to persons wherefore to take God otherwise then personally is to take him otherwise then he is and indeed to mistake him Thus much for the Major The Minor which is That whole Christ is distinct from God is now to be prov'd The Scripture being full and frequent in the demonstration of this I shall speak but a few words to it First Christ himself doth confess it John 8.42 Jesus said unto them to wit the Jews if God were your Father yee would love me for I proceeded forth and came from God neither came I of my self but he sent me In this Text we may note these few things 1. That God is a Person and that Father is his name If God were your Father ye would love me c. 2. That Christ doth plainly distinguish himself from God If God were your Father ye would love me for I proceeded forth and came from God c. Yea he affirms that of himself which denies him to be God to wit change of place I proceeded saith he and came forth from God And subjection to God I came not of my self but he that is God sent me Christ also distinguisheth himself from God Lu. 18.18 19. And a certain ruler asked him saying Good Master what shall I doe to inherit eternall life Jesus answered and said Why callest thou me good none is good save one that is GOD. Here Christ affirmeth that there is but one God to wit by way of eminency and excludes himself from being this one God Why callest thou me Good there is but one good even God Were Jesus Christ the most High GOD and were this a fundamentall as you assert it is imaginable that Jesus Christ who came not to condemn but to save the world should never say it and should in this place so much cloud it Secondly now let us hear some testimonies that the Apostles who were to speak nothing but what their Lord and Master Jesus Christ did command them have given to the thing in hand Let Paul as Peter was wont to doe speak for the rest In 1 Cor. 12.4 5 6. He tels us That there are diversity of gifts but the same Spirit and there are differences of administrations but the same Lord and there are diver sity of operations but 't is the same God which worketh all in all Here the Apostle doth distinguish the Spirit and the Lord from GOD and shews that those gifts which were distributed to men by the Spirit that they might be fitted for severall ministrations in the Kingdome of the Lord Christ did all of them proceed from God The same Apostle in the same Epistle Chap. 8.5 6. doth as one designing the thing distinguish the Lord Jesus from God For though there be saith he that are called Gods whether in heaven or in earth as there be Gods many and Lords many but unte us there is one GOD even the Father of whom are all things and we unto him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him Here we have the Apostles and Primitive Christians Creed They beleeve that there is but one GOD in way of eminency to wit the Father of whom as the first cause are all things and unto whom as the ultimate end Saints are and so all things and that there is but one Lord in way of eminency amongst all made Lords even Iesus by whom as the great instrument of God are all things and we by him See Ephes 4.4 5 6. where a plain distinction is made betwixt the Spirit the Lord and GOD But enough of this Obj. But Christ doth say that he is one with the Father John 10.30 Sol. 'T is true Christ doth say that he and the Father are one But one what one Person that none will assert But are they one God one Essence Yea that 's the thing which many will subscribe to as Christs meaning here But did Christ intend to signifie that Doubtless no which appears not only from the absurdity of the thing but also evidently from Christs vindication of himself from the accusation of the Pharisees who misconstruing of this did mis-inferre from this saying of his I and my Father are one In this vindication we may observe First that Christ denies the Premise of their conclusion They concluded that he spake blasphemy and therefore went about to stone him because as they understood he made himself God to wit the most High God and so made more Gods then one Verse 33. This Christ denies affirming that his saying did amount to no more then this The sonne of God verse 36. that is Gods representative Secondly Christ asserts the lawfulness of his saying by an argument drawn à minori ad majus from the less to the greater If they to whom the Word of GOD came to wit the Judges of the great Synedrion who received a commandement from God to judge the people of Israel were without blasphemy called Gods then he whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world to have dominion over all mankinde may without blasphemy be called God or the Son of God But they to whom the word of God came were called Gods This Christ proves from Psalm 82.6 Jesus answered and said Is it not written in your Law I said ye are Gods verse 34. Therefore he that the Father hath sanctified and
proportion betwixt one meer man dying for sin and many men sinning and deserving death each of them for the sins they have committed And how an Infinite Justice offended should be satisfied with the sacrifice finite in value is unconceivable and against the tenure of the Scripture Answ Considering the words of this Instance with its scope we may draw up this Argument That Doctrine which takes away the value of Christs offering and destroys the satisfaction which he gave to Divine Iustice brings in as it were another Gospel c. But that Doctrine which makes Christ a meer creature doth so Therefore I shall grant the Major but how prove you the Minor You would confirm your Doctrine by asking two Queries 1. If Christ was say you a meer creature then who could he satisfie for the sins of many transgressours c Sir if it please you to consider Rom. 5.12 and so forward you may answer your own Query or see as good Reason of this which I shall now propound If Adam were a meer creature how could his sin make many transgressours If through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace by one man Iesus Christ hath abounded unto many Rom. 5.15 Christ as well as Adam was a common person and therefore the Lord having laid upon him the iniquities of us all and he bearing the curse of the Law his Members are delivered from both the sin and the curse Your Second Query is this How is it conceivable that an Infinite Iustice offended should be satisfied by a Sacrifice finite in value What matters it Sir if it be unconceivable must it therefore be uncredible Doubtless in all Controversall doctrines you will not hold this for an Orthodoxall tenent In the Doctrine of the Trinity credit must be given to things unconceivable but the like liberty it seems will not be allowed in Christs Mediatorship Eut Sir the foundation you build upon is not a little questionable you take that for granted and so infer from it which you are to confirm Sure I am that not a few errours may lie under your Non-Scripturall-Language Ye tell us of an Infinite Sacrifice but what you mean by it and where Scripture tells us I am yet for to learn The Scripture tells us that Christ was made sin or a sin offering for us by taking our sins and bearing the curse But how this Sacrifice was infinite remains to me unconceivable If the suffering of Christ had been Infinite there had been no end of it If the curse had been Infinite man could not have born it being uncapable of any thing Infinite in the Infinity of it It is enough for me to believe that my Lord Jesus suffered for me whatever I deserved to suffer and that was the curse of the Law be that what it will There is a Scripture which I finde in your Instance and that is Acts 20.28 and I knew no fitteer place then the close of my Answer for it Sir I shall offer these few things to your consideration 1. That there may be some mistake in the Text. God may be put for Lord or Christ which if granted the words are thus to be read Take heed therefore to your selves and to all the slock over which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of Christ which he hath purchased with his own bloud The Churches of the Saints are called the Churches of Christ Rom. 16.16 This conceit of a mistake may receive countenance from the possibility probability and facility thereof It is possible that the Scribe through carelesness or something worse might here put God for Christ There are two places one in the Old Testament another in the New which Willet conceiveth to have been mistaken by the Scribes negligence or something worse The first is Psal 22.16 where Caari signifying as a Lion is put for Caru they pierced The other is Rom. 12.11 we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 time for Lord Also it is probable that here is a mistake for as Grotius observes many Copies have Lord and the Syriack Christ not God Lastly it was easie to mistake taking one for the other from that compendious writing which was anciently much in use where for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they wrote onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. But in the next place if it be proved that there is no mistake in the Text yet there may be a defect in the words For the last clause some Greek copies thus have it which he hath purchased with the blood of his own and so the word Son is to be understood with the blood of his own Son 3. Last of all if both these may bee removed yet the words may have another meaning then what you and many others allot to them Christs blood may be said to be Gods own blood in way of eminency it being more excellent by farre then the blood of the Legall Sacrifices In the old Testament tall trees are called Cedars of God the like Phrases are frequently there to be found And the New Testament is not wholly a stranger to the like Phrases In this sence Christ is called the Lamb of God Joh. 1.36 because he was far more excellent then either the Paschall Lamb or any other Lamb which was to be slain in way of Sacrifice under the Leviticall Priesthood The Divine Authour to the Hebrewes speaking both of the blood of legall sacrifices and of Christ Jesus preferres the blood of Christ far before all other blood that was shed for the expiation of sinne Heb. 9.13.14 Now I hasten to your ninth substance which is this Instance 1 If Christ be a meere creature then the intercession of Christ is overthrown for Christ if meere man being in heaven cannot know the state of the Church in all places upon earth therefore cannot intercede for it Answ Sir the reducing of this your Instance into an Argument will be sufficient to discover its vanity and weaknesse Thus it may be formed without the least injury to your meaning if your mind agree with the import of your words That Doctrine which utterly overthrows the Intercession of Christ brings in as it were another Gospel c. But the Doctrine which makes Christ to be a meere creature utterly overthrows the intercesson of Christ Therefore Sir to your major I yield the fullest concession being so much a friend to Christs Incercession Your minor brings in an high accusation but pray Sir how is it attended with probation you onely say that if Christ were a meere creature being in heaven he could not know the state of the Churches in all places upon earth and therefore if he were but a meere creature he could not intercede What must we again take your word for a proffer I wish a better for there is no goodnesse in that We have already been too long troubled with the word I say in
suppose will be silence Master Eaton's Scriptures and Instances THe Doctrine against Christ being God is not onely contradictory to the Scripture which doth most clearly hold him out to be so as when he is called God in Psal 45.6 Thy throne O God is for ever and ever The mighty God Isa 9.6 The great God and our Saviour in Tit. 2.13 The true God Joh. 5.20 and when the incommunicable name Jehovah is attributed to him in Jer. 23.6 which signifies one that hath being of himself and gives being to his promises and so becomes proper to the most high God alone and when he is called The everlasting Father Isa 9.6 and in that saying of Christ to the Jews Before Abraham was I am Joh. 8.58 and in that Rev. 1.8 I am Alpha and Omega the Beginning and the End saith the Lord which was is and which is to come the Almighty and when he is said to be in the beginning and to be with God and to be God Joh. 1.1 and when it is said that by him all things were made and without him nothing is made that was made and when Christ saith that he is always and so with all the faithful to the end of the world Matth. 28.20 and when he asserts that he knew all the works of the Churches which at that distance as meer man he could not do Rev. 2.2 and when he is said to be the first-born of every creature where his eternal generation is held out Col. 1.15 and that by him all things were created vers 16. Now because Creation is a making of all things out of nothing and required an infinite power God could make use of no instrument inasmuch as God cannot give an infinite power to any creature because no creature is capable of such a divine attribute for it would make him God to be almighty or to be infinite in power And when he is resembled in reference to his eternity to Melchizedek Without beginning of days or end of life Heb. 7.3 and that in Prov. 8.22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way saith Christ Before his works of old I was set up from everlasting vers 30. Then was I by him as one brought up with him c. And that in Zech. 13.7 Awake O sword against my Shepherd against the man that is my fellow And that in Joh. 3.13 No man hath ascended up into heaven but he that came down from heaven even the Son of man that is in heaven And that in Joh. 17.5 Glorifie me O Father with that glory I had with thee before the world was There be many other pregnant Scriptures which would be too long to mention for the proving of Christ to be God in that sence which we usually speak of God and therefore that opinion that denies it contradicts these Scriptures But further it may be truely said that this Doctrine that makes Christ a meer creature brings in as it were another Gospel destroys the true Gospel in many of the parts of it and brings in another Scripture in many points 1. As first if Christ be but a meer creature and not God then the giving of Divine worship and honour and service to a meer creature is lawful and warrantable and yet everywhere forbidden in reference to any creature but is practised to Christ in Rev. 5.12 13 14. and would be Idolatry if Christ were not God 2. If Christ be a meer creature then it is lawful and warrantable to believe in a meer creature which is against the tenour of the whole Scripture but is commanded in reference unto Christ Joh. 14.1 and salvation is annexed to it Joh. 3.36 3. If Christ be but a meer creature then faith in a meer creature can save man which is absurd and gross and contrary to the Scriptures for Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness Rom. 4.3 and so was saving 4. If Christ be but a meer creature then a meer creature is the Saviour of men saving them with a mighty and eternal salvation as the Scripture speaks but this is against the whole current of the Gospel which speaks of God our Saviour Tit. 2.10 13 and in many other places 5. If Christ be but a meer creature then a meer creature is Mediator betwixt God and Man which cannot be because a meer creature is no way meet to be a days-man for God and because a Mediator must either partake of both God and Man or of neither else he will rather be a party then a Mediator if he partake of Mans nature and not of Gods if he be Man and not God Therefore this Mediator betwixt God and Man is called Emmanuel that is God with us or God in our nature God manifested in the flesh 1 Tim. 3.16 or God made flesh as in Joh. 1.14 6. If Christ be but a meer creature then the righteousness of Christ which is imputed to believers is not the righteousness of God but the righteousness of a meer creature But this is against the tenour of the Scripture Phil. 3.9 7. If Christ be but a meer creature then to pardon sin belongs not to him because Scripture testifies that none can forgive sin but God because all sin is against God therefore none can forgive it but God But it is evident Christ took the authority of forgiving sin Son saith Christ thy sins are forgiven thee and Luke 7.48 8. If Christ be but a meer creature then the value of that offering which Christ offered when he offered himself to God is taken away and the satisfaction which Christ gave to Divine justice is destroyed for if the person that died were a meer man and the blood that was shed the blood of a meer man and not of God as it is called Acts 20.28 then how could it satisfie for the sins of many transgressors for there is no proportion betwixt one meer man dying for sins and many men sinning and deserving death each of them for the sins they have committed And how an infinite Justice offended should be satisfied with a sacrifice finite in value is unconceiveable and against the tenour of the Scripture 9. If Christ be a meer creature then the intercession of Christ is utterly overthrown for Christ if meer man being in heaven cannot know the state of his Church in all places upon earth therefore cannot intercede for it 10. If Christ be a meer creature then how can he protect and defend and save and direct and rule and govern his Church in all the world in every condition and against all enemies he being at such a distance and remoteness from the Church and yet it is said of him that he is able to save to the utmost those that come to God by him Heb. 7.25 and that he is with them to the end of the world and Christ stood by Paul and strengthned him in suffering Acts 23.11 and Rev. 3.10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience I
will keep thee in the hour of temptation so that it is Christ now in heaven that keeps the Saints on earth which being a meer creature he cannot do 11. If Christ be a meer creature then a meer creature is the judge of the world which is against the Scripture for the Judge of all the world is God before whom Abraham stood Gen. 18.25 when he pleaded for Sodom Rev. 2.5 6 the day of judgement is called the day of the revelation of the righteous judgement of God who will render to every man according to his works 12. Lastly which should have been before if Christ be a meer creature then prayer to him being now in heaven is altogether vain and frivolous insomuch as persons may cry loud long enough before Christ hear them at that distance But the Saints have been wont not onely to pray to God in Christs Name but to pray to Christ directly and immediately as in Acts 7.59 Rev. 22.20 Lord Jesus receive my spirit Come Lord Jesus c. Master KNOWLS his Answer to the Arguments and Scriptures alleadged by M. Samuel Eaton concerning the Divinity of CHRIST SIR IT is a good thing as the Author to the Hebrews speaks that the heart be established in grace and to me it is an indubitable truth that unsettlement is sometimes the next way to a right and firm establishment For Errour whilst misapprehended is entertained in gracious hearts as a welcome guest and Truth whilst received hand over head by tradition onely is as a Building whose foundation is but sandy which holds up no longer then the waves and windes hold in Whether most Professors have not swallowed without chewing much of that Doctrine they now profess is not my work to determine It is enough for me with shame to confess that I have been of the number of those if any such be who see with other mens eyes and pin their faith as we usually speak on the Churches sleeve But having now through the goodness of God turned over leaf and learned a new course I am resolved to examine all things by the Touch-stone of Truth that I may unlearn what I have learnt amiss and hold fast that onely which in my understanding is good Upon this account being somewhat willing to make a scrutiny into the Common Doctrine of the holy Trinity of which in most ages there have been some scruples amongst men of parts and learning and exhorting others to the same practice for the abovenamed ends but especially reasoning thereof as one dubious therein I was suspected to say no more by you and others to be in Faith unsound and Heterodox Wherefore that the Common Doctrine might be supported you published a Paper and did cast the same into my hands which lying open to many Objections I promised being urged to present you therewith upon this condition That nothing spoken might be taken for my judgment To which you agreed and therefore I shall act freely as if I were in judgement directly opposite to you and shall desire that neither you nor others do conclude before I profess what my judgement is I was about to present you with an exact Epitome of the common Doctrine of the holy Trinity with Interrogations about it Arguments against it and seeming Contradictions in it but have forborn till I finde by a modest Answer to this that your spirit is able to bear Now ad rem to the business in hand which is concerning the Deity of Iesus Christ The Question is not clearly stated in your Paper wherefore give me leave to do it The Question is not Whether Jesus Christ be a God in Name and Office Nor whether the Father dwell in him but Whether he be That most high God whose Being and Actings are originally of himself That he is you assert but I deny and that for the beating out and further clearing up of Truth The way you have taken by Scripture and Reason to make good your Assertion I cannot dislike the truth is I like no other way Whether the Scriptures brought speak on your side and whether your Reasons have weight in them is now the thing in debate I shall begin with your Scriptures and with that first which first appears which is Psal 5.6 Thy throne O God is for ever and ever and the Scepter of thy Kingdom is a right Scepter Answ First that no Argument can be found in the text to confirm the thing you assert for though it were granted that this Psalm is a Prophecie onely of Iesus Christ which I shall not allow it being spoken according to a literal sence of Solomon the King to which Willet Pareus Hugo Grotius Iunius Cotton and almost all Interpreters do consent yet this Title God will not bolster up your opinion of Christ For the name Aelohim which here is attributed unto Christ is common with the most High to Creatures both Angels and Men. It is given to Angels Psal 8.5 Thou hast made him that is Christ a little lower then Aelohim Gods so in the Hebrew which is translated by the Author to the Hebrews Chap. 2.7 the Angels To men Psal 82.1 God judgeth among the Gods that is the Rulers of Israel So vers 6. I have said Ye are gods Likewise in Exod. 22.8 9. where the word is translated Judges Secondly that some Arguments may be drawn from this Psalm to deny the thing you assert Take these 1. He that is blessed of God is not the most high God For without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better Heb. 7.7 But this God Jesus Christ is blessed of God vers 2. Grace is poured into thy lips therefore god hath blessed thee for ever 2. That God which hath a God is not the most high God But this God Jesus Christ hath a God Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness therefore O God thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows vers 7. Therefore c. 3. That God whose authority is derivative is not the most high God But the authority of this God Jesus Christ is derivative vers 7. where he is said to be anointed by God that is to receive Kingly or Godlike power form him Therefore this God Jesus Christ is not the most high God Now I hasten to your second Scripture Isa 9.6 And his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor The mighty God The ever lasting Father The Prince of Peace Answ These two Titles The mighty God The everlasting Father you dig out of the text and lay them as the foundation of your faith that Jesus Christ is the most high God To this Scripture take this Reply 1. That according to some mens reading those Titles do not at all belong in this place to Jesus Christ and after some mens expounding they appertain not to Christ onely Some Jews thus read the words And this is the name by which The Wonderful Counsellor The mighty God c. shall call him to wit The
Prince of Peace This lection Calvin mentions and knowing that the words may admit of this construction the verb being of a neutral as wel as a passive signification speaks in objecting no more then this Quorsum tot epitheta in Deum Patrem hoc loce congesta forent Calv. Instit l. 1. Cap. 13. p. 35. That is To what end should so many epithets be heaped together in this place on God the Father when the purpose of the Prophet was to adorn Christ with famous titles which might build up our faith in him Wherefore 't is no doubt but that by the same reason he is now called The strong God as a little before Immanuel Others there be that give those Titles typically to King Hezekiah Amongst whom Et vocabitur nomen ejus In Hebraeo est vocabit Supple quisque Notum autem Hebraeis dici sic vel sic vocari aliquem cui tales tituli aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conveniunt Hugo Grot. in loc that learned man Hugo Grotius is one whose Annotations on the place be pleased to take And his name shall be called Every one that 's supply'd shall call him Now 't is known to the Hebrews that any one is thus named or called thus to whom such titles or epithets do agree Wonderful For those very excellent vertues which shall be in him Counsellor mighty God Yea rather one that asketh counsel of the mighty God One that in all businesses seeks counsel from God to wit by the Prophets The Father of an age One who should leave after him many posterities and for a long time 2. But were it granted that the Text speaks onely of Jesus Christ yet would not the thing in question be thence concluded Because that the Titles amount not to so much as most high God which are the terms of the Question Ael Gibbor Mighty God is not so much as Ael Shaddai Almighty God by which the most High is called Gen. 17.1 And both these terms are communicable to the Creature Ael is used Psal 82.1 Aelohim standeth in the assembly of Ael which is translated the mighty but is the same with this in Isaiah Englished God That it is here attributed unto Magistrates appears from the Septuagint reading these words thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God standeth in the assembly of gods the Magistrates in Israel And the other epither mighty is given to the Captains of Nebuchadnezzar's Army Ezek. 32.12 if we consult with the Septuagintversion where the words are thus read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a strong God to which is exegetically added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord to expound it or with Symmachus and Theodoret with whom the words are thus rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is strong mighty putting a Comma between the words as Montanus doth in his Interlinial Bible we shal not find so much strength in the words as some suppose to bear up the Doctrine now in dispute Now for this Title Everlasting Father 1. Our Translation differs from most if not all both Greek and Latine Versions The Septuagint thus renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Father of Eternity life or world to come Sym. thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Father of the world Theod. thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is from the Hebrew word for word and may be thus Englished A Father unto posterity Hierome pater futuri saeculi in the Margin but in the Line pater aeternitatis a Father of Eternity to which Tremellius and Piscator agree Now the reason saith Paraem why he is called a Father of Eternity is because he is the Authour of Eternal life 2. Our Translation gain-says a main part of the Common opinion It is the Doctrine of our Divines that the Persons in the Trinity may be distinguished but not divided nor confounded The Person of the Father say they is not the Person of the Son nor is the Son the Father c. Now there is but one Everlasting Father But if Christ be the Everlasting Father either there are two Everlasting Fathers or the Person of the Father and the Son are confounded 3. But in the last place were it granted that those titles belong to Christ onely and that they are equivalent with that of Most High God yet will it not of necessity follow that Jesus Christ is the Most High God 1. Because titles may be translated from one to another to whom they properly do not belong Daniel calls Nebuchadnezzar King of Kings Dan. 2.37 In the Old Testament 't is a usuall thing for Angels and Men who did represent God to bear his Name 2. Because enough may be found in the Text to distinguish this glorious one who bears those glorious names from the Most High God 1. In that those titles of glory are given to the Childe that should be born which was the Man Christ Jesus without making mention of any other nature v. 6. 2. In that the Person to whom those titles appertain is called a Son and is said to be given Vnto us a Childe is born unto us a Son is given c. which notes out another person and one greater for he that gives is greater then he that 's given for none but Superiours can give or dispose of others 3. Because there is another spoken of in the Text who is exalted above him to whom those titles belong by a name more noble Iehovah of Sabbaoth or Hosts which by the Apostle from Esay 6.3 is translated Lord Almighty Rev. 4.8 and given to him that sits on the Throne who is distinguished from the Lamb chap. 5.13 And in that all those things spoken of the Son are appropriated to another as the Author thereof The zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall perform or doe this v. 7. Now I shall close up the Answer with an Exposition that a learned godly man gives of the place His words are these Vnto us a Childe is born unto us a Son is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called WONDERFUL by reason of his exaltation which is so strange and wonderful that even the greatest part of Christians cannot believe it and therefore imagine another nature in Christ besides his Humane Nature as thinking a man uncapable of so transcendent an exaltation COUNCELLOUR In being made acquainted with all the Councels of God MIGHTY GOD by reason of the Divine Empire over all things both in Heaven and Earth conferred on him by the Father agreeably whereunto Paul calleth him God over all blessed for evermore Rom. 9.5 A Father of the age In being the Authour of the age to come as both the Septuagint and old Latin Interpreter expound it or else a Father of Eternity in being Authour of Eternal Life to all that obey him For to render the words as the English Translators do who here call Christ the Everlasting Father is to confound the Person of the Son with that of the Father and so to introduce
That which you add from the third verse of this Chapter will finde elsewhere a fitter place to receive an Answer in NOw I come to Matth. 28.20 Matth. 28.20 Lo I am with you always to the end of the world Answ Sir from the scope of your Paper it is easily seen what you would inferr hence but as yet the Reason of your inference lies in the dark the meaning of this phrase I am with you always unto the end of the World is no more then this I will do you good whilest ye remain imploy'd in my work My Authour in this Exposition is old Jacob no bad Interpreter Gen. 31.3 the Lord commanded Jacob to return into the Land of his Fathers and to his kindred and for his encouragement adds to the promise thus I will be with thee which Jacob in chap. 32.9 thus expounds I will deal well with thee or I will do thee good Jesus Christ is present with his Messengers or deals well with them when he doth instruct comfort strengthen or protect them and all these works he doth in his absence by his spirit whom the Father hath sent in his Name Joh. 14.26 Let me only for brevity sake instance in the work of instruction Christ instructed his Apostles but not immediately for the spirit which came in Christs Name and received of his was the Instrument by which Jesus Christ did the work John 16.13 14 15. When he the spirit of truth is come he will guide you into all truth for he shall not speak of himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak and he will shew you things things to come He shall glorifie me for he shall receive of mine and shall shew it unto you all things that the Father hath are mine therefore said I Hic locus de modo praeseutiae spiritus quo se suaque nobis communicat caeterum corpore abest Beza in loc he shall take of mine and shall shew it unto you Christ is now in Heaven sitting at the right hand of God and is present with the Saints in Earth by the spirit and glorious influences of grace and mercy John 14.16 17 18. This kinde of presence by the spirit Beza and others understand to be intended in Matth. 28.20 REv. 2.2 is now to be minded Rev. 2.2 whether it doth joyn with the fore-going Texts in speaking any thing by way of Justification to your Assertion or not Answ Christ could not say you at so great a distance know all the works of the Churches as meer man What could he not Is any thing too hard for the Lord What could the Prophet Elisha know at a very great distance what the King of Syria said in his bed-chamber And yet cannot Christ know at a distance He hath the spirit to wit wisedom power c. given him without measure John 3.34 And therefore can know beyond what we can conceive And yet is not the most high God for his knowledge is of another John 5.30 I can of mine own self do nothing as I hear I judge and my judgement is just because I seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which hath sent me Though he always knew all things necessary for the perfect discharge of his Offices yet there was a time when he was excluded from the knowledge of the hour and day of judgement Mark 13.32 The words from the Greek are these But of that day and hour no one knoweth neither the Angels which are in Heaven Nor the Son unless the Father Hence it is plain that the Father onely knew the day and hour of Judgement and that the Son himself was at that time excluded from the knowledge of it therefore this knowledge was not originally of himself nor always perfect COl 1.15 Col. 1.15 I finde next in your Paper but have already spoken to it yet was willing here to mention it least you should think I had forgot it Sir this Text you say holds forth the Eternal Generation of Jesus Christ I pray consider it again and by your next let me hear what part thereof it is in which Christs Eternal Generation may be seen THe next Scripture is Col. 1.16 Col. 1.16 with John 1.3 To which I shall add John 1.3 being reserv'd for this place Answ Sir here you harp upon two other strings and think they sound that alowd in your ears which you have entertained in your thoughts to wit that Jesus Christ is the most high God But pray Sir consider whether your Conclusion be the Eccho of those Texts or else of your own thoughts onely But you seem to gather this Argument from the words to manifest the verity of your thoughts He by whom all things were made is the most high God But all things were made by Jesus Christ Therefore Iesus Christ is the most High God I shall answer to your Major by distinguishing betwixt the Agent Principall and Instrumental That there may be in one and the same work one Principal and another Instrumentall Agent none will deny But whether there were in the work of Creation one Principall and another Instrumentall is a thing to be proved That the Father was Principall therein and so the most high God comes not under debate But whether the Son was onely Instrumental in that great work of Creation is the Controversie and must be the subject of our present inquiry I affirm that Iesus Christ was onely an Instrumentall Agent in the Creation of the worlds The Reasons by which I shall at this time guard mine assertion from suspition of errour are these that follow The first is drawn from the silence of all creatures The book of the Creatures as well as the book of the Scriptures Ex Creatioue agnoscitur Deus sed non Deus pater fil spir si quoni im vis illa efficiens quia mundus fuit creatus pertinet ad Essentiam Dei non ad subsistentiam ejus personalem Amesius speak forth with open mouth this sacred truth that there is one first cause and Principall Agent of all things Of a Trinity of Persons in Unity of Essence as Principal Agents in the work of Creation the whole Creation is wholly silent Wherefore our Divines acknowledg that God is known from the Creation but not God the Father Son and Holy Spirit because that efficient power by which the world was created belongs to the Essence of God not to his personall subsistence Yet by their leave God is a Person all actions being proper unto persons and therefore by their grant the works of Creation hold forth but one Agent who must needs be the Principall if not the only Agent therein for it is not imaginable that if there were then one Principall Agent they should not all be equally discovered by the work being equally concerned in it Therefore if Christ were an Agent he was but an instrumental one The Second Reason proceeds from the verdict of pure
enjoy the discoveries of Gods hidden secrets Thus Paul was in the third heavens when he heard unspeakable words which is not possible for a man to utter 2 Cor. 12. In this sense Christ was in heaven saith Grotius Christus introspexit patris intima saith he Christ looked into the most secret things of the Father 3. Because this sense which I have joyn'd to this text makes the text appear as fitly joyn'd with its context In those two verses which immediately precede this Christ doth reprove Nicodemus for his unbelief which he aggravates from the certainty of the thing spoken Verily verily we speak what we know c. and then from his perspicuity in speaking if I have told you earthly things that is either things that may and are necessary to be known in the earth or else the words have respect onely to the manner of Christs holding them forth and ye beleeve not how can ye beleeve if I should tell you of heavenly things In this thirteenth verse you have an exclusion of all men Christ excepted from the knowledg of heavenly things which are reserved for another world or which are known here as they are in themselves THe last Scripture which I find in your Paper John 17.15 is Ioh. 17.5 And now ô Father glorifie me with thine own self with the glory I had with thee before the world was Answ This Verse is part of Christs prayer and will no way disrelish this meaning O thou Father who dost abound in kindness and art the fountain of goodness the time being come of finishing my course in earth and returning to thy self glorifie me in heaven who have emptied my self taking to me a naturall and mortall body and walking among men in form of a servant and now being ready to humble my self to the death even the death of the Cross in obedience to thee with that glory which I had in heaven before the world was being then with thee as Heir of all things clothed with Majesty and Glory answerable to that high station wherein thy pleasure was to set me and to that great dominion wherewithall thou wast pleased to invest me SIR What you can fetch from this scripture to confirm your doctrine of Christ's Deitie doth lie as yet under the shadow of darkness and in the land of obscurity That much might be gathered hence by a good deduction to make opposition against your assertion is not a little perspicuous and apparent A few things I shall present you with as a taste of that which might be gathered hence to disown that point and conclusion which with so much heat and passion you endevour to uphold and maintain amongst us It appears from this Scripture That whole Christ is a Creature First in that he directs his prayer to the Father If our Lord Jesus were God equal with the Father there had been no need nor can cause be shew'd why he should supplicate to the Father a Person in the Trinity and not act relyance on the Godhead which dwelt in him bodily These words spake Iesus and lift up his eyes to heaven v. 1. Secondly in that the Glory was not divine which he had with the Father before the world was Because this Glory which he had in heaven with the Father before the world was at this time of his praying was separated from him This must be asserted or I know not how Christs prayer can be justified We doe not pray but praise for things we have if we know that we have them but it cannot be imagined that Christ was ignorant of what he had Now if Christ were a person in the Trinity coequall with the Father and so enjoying by the same right the highest Glory he could not especially with the Father or in heaven be without it in any sense whatsoever as by the clouding darkning or obscuring of it Therefore the glory which he had with the Father was not the highest glory but a glory proceeding from the Highest and so by good consequence He who at that time was the subject of it was really and indeed a Creature Thirdly it appears that the Glory which he had with the Father was not Divine or the highest Glory because it was to be communicated Glorifie me ô Father with that glory c. Now the Highest Glory being infinite could not be given or communicated to the humane nature which was finite and so uncapable of it This is but your own assertion in what you speak relating to the creation but 't is absurd to conceive that the Divine glory which is essentiall in God could be communicated to the Divine Nature of Jesus Christ And therefore this Glory was not the highest and the subject of it was a Creature Thus I shall take my leave of the Scriptures which you alledg to confirm that Jesus Christ is the most High God leaving them for that they are intended for being without controversie not useless but exceeding usefull SIR Unto your texts of Scripture you adjoyn one Reason if it please you so to call it which I shall set down in your own words thus It may be said truly that this Doctrine which makes Christ a meer creature brings in as it were another Gospel destroys the true Gospel in many of the parts of it and brings in another Scripture in many main points Come now let us reason together concerning this your Reason which is formidable in appearance to your Antagonists but whether it carries the Sword of truth in its hand and strength of conviction let us now seriously consider That we may with the more certainty and facility determine I shall be your leave draw your Reason into the form of an Argument Thus That Doctrine which brings in as it were another Gospel destroys the true Gospel in many of the parts of it c. is erroneous and to be rejected But that Doctrine which makes Christ a meer creature doth so Therefore SIR I shall subscribe with both hands if need be to the Major that it is true And if the Minor be of the same blood I shall conclude with you in the conclusion and let him be Anathema that holds the contrary But how will it appear that that Doctrine which makes Christ a meer creature doth bring in as it were another Gospel destroys the true Gospel in many of the parts of it c That it might be evident you bring in twelve Instances which were they good and true though fewer might serve for a sufficient Jury to bring in a finall verdict concerning the thing in debate but of what moment your Instances are let us now examine Instance 1 If Christ be but a meer creature and not God then the giving ef Divine worship and honour and service to a meer creature is lawfull and warrantable which yet everywhere is forbidden in reference to any creature but is practised unto Christ in Rev. 5.12 13 14. and would be Idolatry if Christ were not God Answ
stead of proof What have you learn'd to measure the knowledge of him who hath receiv'd the spirit without measure cannot he as man know in heaven what things are done in earth Who told you so None but the man Christ Jesus can intercede it being absurd to conceive that God can interede unlesse it might be conceived that God hath a Superiour Now if the man Christ Jesus doth intercede for his Church he knows her state and why he may not know the state of the Church by a communication of power from the Father notwithstanding he be not God and man in one Person is a riddle for the unfolding whereof I would willingly plow with your heifer Thus I take leave of your ninth Instance that I may visit the tenth which because it is of the same value and in that part which I would deny it already answerd'd in my reply to Matth. 28.20 whither I refer you I shall passe it by and be take my self to examine the eleventh which now follows â—â—â—â—nce 11. If Christ be a meere creature then a meere creature is the Judge of the World which is against the Scritpure for the Judg of the World is God before whom Abraham stood in Gen. 18.25 When he pleaded for Sodom Rom. 2.5 6. tho day of judgment is called the day of Revelation of the righteous Judgement of God who will render to every man according to his words Answ Sir this Argument will speak out the midd of this Instance That Doctrine which makes a meer creature the judg of the world is against the Scripture Gen. 18.15 Rom. 2.5 6. But Christ is the judg of the world Therefore that doctrine which makes Christ a meer creature is against the Scripture To your Major take these Answers 1. That in a sense it is false for Christ shall judg the world But you will say he is not a meer creature But what say you to the Apostles were not they meer creatures but what will you say if I shal shew from the word that they shall be judges at the last day see Mat. 19.28 and you shall hear Christ telling Peter that they of the Apostles Who had followed him in the regeneration should sit upon 12 Thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel And are not all the Saints meer creatures Doubtless at that instant when you fram'd this Instance you had not in your mind what Paul speaks in 1 Cor. 6.2 3. Do ye not know saith he that the Saints shall judge world and if the world shall be judged by you are ye unworthy to judg the smallest matters Know ye not that we shall judge Angels 2. That in a sense it is true no creature can be as God is the judg of the world for God is Principal in the judgment being both the Alpha Omega of it deriving his power froÌ„ none being the original of al power Thus you may see that your Proposition is and is not true I pray for the future make distinctions where need requires Now for your Minor that Christ is the judge of the world Sure you take this for a granted truth that no proof is brought to confirm it I shall grant it What then Will your design of drawing up the Conclusion prosper nothing less For it hath been brought to light that meer creatures shall be Judges of the world Wherefore if you cannot from evident scriptures demonstrate this That Jesus Christ is Principall in judging the world deriving from none his power of judgment you will doe nothing to purpose But Sir that I may preserve you from such an endless labour I shalll ay down these Propositions which also will spoil your present Market Propos 1. That the most High God who is the worlds Principall judg will not immediately but by a Delegat judg the world In Acts 17.31 the Apostle tels us That God hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained whereof he hath given assurance unto all men in that he hath raised him from the dead In Iohn 5.22 Christ thus speaks The Father judgeth no man but hath committed all Iudgment to the Son Christ must raign till all enemies are put under his feet and when all things shall be subdued to him then shall the Son also himself be subject to the Father that God may be all in all 1 Cor. 15.28 That Jesus Christ is a subordinate Judg in reference unto God the supream Judg but superintendent in reference to the Saints his assessors in judgment That Christ is not the supream Judg is evident from these Scriptures In Acts 10. Peter shews that the Apostles were commanded of God to preach unto the people and to testifie That Iesus Christ is ordained of God to be Iudg of quick and dead Christ when he comes shall be sent Acts 3.20 and shall come in the glory of the Father as Viceroy and Lord Deputy Mat. 16.27 The Father hath given him authority to execute Judgement Io. 5.27 And all that honour which shall be given to him shall be for the Fathers glory Phil. 2.11 J am now to deal with your last Jnstance which is like to deal as unkindly with you as the former If Christ be a meer creature Instance 12 then Prayer to him being now in Heaven is altogether vain and frivolous inasmuch as persons may cry loud long enough before Christ hear them at that distance but the Saints have been wont not onely to pray to God in Christs Name but to pray to Christ directly and immediatly in Acts 7.59 Rev. 22.20 Lord Iesus receive my spirit Come Lord Jesus Answ By the rule of the Gospel we are to pray to God or the Father in the Name of Christ Jesus You have nothing to countenance Prayer to Christ but the two Texts you mention Jf Stephen did pray directly to Jesus Christ his act might be warranted by the visible appearance of Chrise As Lot prayed to the Angel being visible That in the Revelation is no Prayer but an intimation of the Churches desire after Christs coming The like manner of speaking we have Rev. 6.16 which is no Prayer I cannot but look upon that as vain and frivolous which you set as the Walls and Bulwarks of your Argument If Christ were but a meer creature being in heaven we might cry loud and long enough before he could hear us I would only ask you this question whether Christ could not hear as far as Stephen could see Stephen could see from Earth to Heaven though he was but a man What will hinder the Man Christ from hearing as far Thus I have with much brevity though a considerable Volume might have been written concluded my answer to your Instances which are twelve in number after your own reckoning though they might have been fewer by many being branches one of another I have studied to forget your person and endevoured onely to discover the weakness of your arguing Whether I have done any thing to purpose I leave you to be Iudge when with sobriety and impartiality you are capable to examine And so in the midst of my many other occasions I have brought my whole Answer to a full period and have time to say no more but this that my desires are that the God of light and strength would be pleased to enlighten your eyes that you may rightly discern all things and so order your spirit that by modestliness you may breath forth truth in replying to him who is Sir yours whilst you are for the truth FINIS