God have all the Angels to wait upon him and all the creatures at his command to go for him and to do for him what he appoints yet if he were not essentially present himself with all and in all he could not supply all with all good that they want for he could not see all and know all if he were not present in all if he did not fill all and if all did not live and move and had not being in him Therefore the Lord argues in Jer. 23. 24. from his filling all to his knowing all the words are these Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him do not I fill heaven and earth saith the Lord and if this be so of God that he works all by his presence with all then it is so of Christ also and the words I will be with you though they may extend to actions of love and kindness and may comprise well dealing and doing good within them yet they do properly hold out the way and means in which Christ will be helpful to them he is with them alwaies to take notice of their condition and to apply himself thereto and Christ doth assure them that though he shall be bodily absent from them and in heaven yet in the eternal Spirit in the divine nature he is alwaies present with them In which sense he saith that he the Son of man though upon earth in his flesh was yet according to his diety in heaven John 3. 13. and chap. 17. 24. But he goes on and saith Jesus Christ is present with his Messengers and deals well with them when he doth instruct comfort strengthen and protect them and all these he doth in his absence by his Spirit whom the Father hath sent in his name John 14. 26. And he instanceth in instruction and saith Christ instructed his Apostles but not immediately for the Spirit saith he that came in Christs name and received of his was the instrument by which Iesus Christ did work And he cites Iohn 16. 13 14 15. for it Rep. I have shewed already that these operations of grace do not hinder the essential presence of Christ according to his Godhead with the Apostles but do rather imply it but he excludes it and saith he doth all these things in his absence by his Spirit Now though there be a truth in it that Christ being in heaven in flesh and absent from earth so far as respects the flesh doth effect all things by the Spirit yet it is not onely false but foolish in the sense that he intends it and in the words that he expresseth it in 1. I shall readily grant it in a sense that Christ works all by the Spirit and that there is an order of working among the persons in the Godhead and in this order the Father works by the Son and by the Spirit and the Son works from the Father and by the Spirit and the Spirit works from the Father and from the Son by himself and the Father is the person sending both the Son and the Spirit and the Son is the person sent from the Father and sending the Spirit with the Father and the Spirit is the person sent both from the Father and from the Son but it will not follow that therefore Christ though bodily absent is personally absent from his Messengers and instructs them not immediately by himself but onely by the Spirit For as it is said in Iohn 5. 17. by Christ of the Father My Father worketh hitherto and I work The Father worketh all things by the Son he made the world by the Son and he judgeth no man but hath committed all judgement to the Son that is by the Son he judgeth and manageth all things and not without him yet he worketh that cannot be denied though by the Son yea the very works that the Son worketh and all of them and none other but them the Father worketh the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father and the Father and the Son are one in essence though two in personality and the Father and the Son work one thing the Father by the Son and the Son from the Father and the Son can do nothing of himself apart from the Father nor the Father any thing apart from the Son but by him as I have shewed at large in my former Treatise so it may be said of the Son and of the holy Ghost that the Son worketh hitherto and the holy Ghost worketh that is they work the same work the Son by the holy Ghost and the holy Ghost from the Son and the holy Ghost shall not speak of himself nor act of himself as saith the Scripture which he cites that is he shall not speak or work any thing apart from the Son but what he shall hear and see that shall he speak and do and the Son doth speak and act by him the same things and nothing else for the Son is in the holy Ghost and the holy Ghost in the Son and they are one in essence and therefore cannot be divided in operation but work the same things in such an order of working and to this the Scripture gives witness in 2 Cor. 3 17. The Lord is called the Spirit and the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Lord Christ how can this be Essentially the Lord Christ is the Spirit they are one Personally considered the Spirit is the Spirit of the Lord Christ and the Lord Christ is not the Spirit And Rev. 2. 1. to 6. compared with verse 7. In verse 1. to 6. Christ is the person that speaks to the Church and so to all the Churches and commands John to write but in verse 7. it is said he that hath an ear to hear let him hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches so that Christ speaks and yet the Spirit speaks and Christ and the Spirit are one in essence though two in persons and Christ spake to the Churches by the Spirit and the Spirit spake from Christ But they act and work together the same things and none other as the Father and the Son do so do the Son and Spirit and indeed Father and Son and Spirit are one in essence and one in operation the order of working onely excepted 1 John 5. 7. so that Christs instructing by the Spirit obstructs not Christs personal presence with the Disciples here upon earth though his body be in heaven And the sending of the Spirit both by the Father and by the Son are acts of counsel among the persons in the Godhead as hath been fully declared in reference to Christ who was sent of the Father and yet gave himself And the Spirit though sent when he cometh acteth not meerly as one sent according to the will of another but as himself willeth 1 Cor. 12. 11. so that his sending was by counsel with his own consent 2. In the sense that he asserts it that Christ in Heaven acts
instrument 3. That whereas the Father and the Son are mentioned together they are made equall in manner of working and they are either both instruments or both principall Agents and Efficients for Paul was an Apostle by Jesus Christ and by God the Father and Jesus Christ hath the leading place In Rom. 11. 36. For of him and by him and to him are all things Here the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is translated by or through is attributed to God and he will say that the Father is meant and only the Father and we may observe two things 1. According to the truth of the thing the particles of and by are all one and that by doth not import any instrumentalness for God in no sense can be an instrument 2. According to the sense that he puts upon the particle by God is both the principall Agent because of him are all things and he is also the Instrument of all things for by him are all things Also in Heb. 2. 10. where the Creation is spoken of and attributed to the Father and not to the Son it is not attributed to him as something 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but as somthing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as of him but as by him The words are these It behoved him for whom are all things and by whom are all things to make the Prince and Captain c. Yet he will not say that the Father is an Instrument I shall not multiply places these Texts are sufficient to shew the absurdity and falseness of the gloss that he puts upon the prepositions of and by That which he asserts of the Fathers that they frequently call him Gods instrument and servant is true of Christ as the son of man according to his humane nature and they call him no other then the Prophet Isa 42. 1. which must he so understood In the next place after his Arguments where he placed his own strength for the proving of Christs instrumentalness in Creation he comes to consider my Argument against it which was this God could not make use of an instrument in the work of creating of the world To this he answers 1. This Assertion derogates from Gods al-sufficiency Is any thing impossible with God is any thing too hard for the Lord Rep. This Assertion as it is laid down with a reason to explain it is so far from derogating from Gods al-sufficiency that it is the magnifying of Gods al-sufficiency there is such an infinity of perfection in Gods al-sufficiency that it is incommunicable to the creature God cannot make another as sufficient as himself that is It is so transcendently excellent that no creature is capable of it And whereas he demands Is any thing too hard for God Is any thing impossible to the Lord he may receive this answer What-ever may be done by power God can do it because he hath sufficiency of power in himself to do it But that which cannot be done in the nature of the thing which implyes a contradiction if it were supposed to be done that is impossible with God or in it self rather as It is impossible for the most high God to make a God most high because God most high hath his being of himself and is uncreated and eternall and gives being to other things Therefore a created most high God carries a contradiction with it therefore is a thing not to be done and God cannot do it yet it argues not any weakness in God because he cannot do it 2. He saith I contradict my own testimony and he minds me of the time I remember saith he that in a Conference where I exercised both silence and patience to the glory of God since I received your paper you did affirm in the hearing of not a few that God might have made an Angel or some other creature at the first and by it have made all things Repl. I do remember that time he speaks of and so do some scores of persons as well as I will remember it while they live wherein he exercised not silence altogether for he spake at the last in the close of the conference it had been better he had been silent then to speak as he did for he asserted an untruth in those few words he did speak he uttered words to this purpose That it was strange to him that he should be brought upon the stage in so publick a way for holding such an opinion when he had not declared himself in a positive way at any time about it Which caused me to mind him of his first Sermon in which he broached his opinion in a positive way in this assertion That Christ is not the ultimate and last rest of Saints but the Father and that Christ was but the way to it Which if Christ be coessentiall with the Father is false therfore his assertion did deny by an undenyable consequence the coessentiality of Christ with the Father And at another time he publickly in his preaching speaking his opinion on John 3. 13. No man hath ascended up into heaven but he that came down from heaven even the Son of man which is in heaven said that he could not conceive how Christ being at that time on earth could be in heaven unlesse it were in respect of that knowledg which he had of the Father and the things of heaven or words to this effect In which he denyed the omnipresence of Christ and consequently the Godhead of Christ And yet in that short speech of his he would make fair weather of it and put a face upon it as if he were not the man he was taken for Concerning his patience not I alone but many others did judge it stupidity rather then patience for scarce any one that had had the spirit of a man could have been dumb and not open his mouth when he was so palpably called forth to appear in the cause It did certainly strike amazement in very many that knew he was there and yet could not hear him speak one word having so many strong invitations thereto Or if it were not stupidity it was cunning craftiness for he knew how to make advantage by being here and keeping silence and he could reserve himself in point of speaking to a more hopefull time and fairer opportunity in which he might by speaking propagate his opinion there was little hope of advantaging his cause at that time when there were so many to contradict him And yet he might feele mens pulses by being there and discern who were his friends and who his enemies and who might probably be wrought upon and who not But he saith it was to the glory of God that he exercised silence and patience But it was every to way the dishonor of God for if truth were in his tenent then he shamefully deserted it when he should have committed himself to God in the maintaining of it who ever opposed it And if Errour and Heresie were in his
tenent then he carried it craftily to do the more mischiefe for he thought it wisdome to forbear when it might be much opposed and to take time to speak when it might be more prevalent that he might draw away the more Disciples after him But he tells me of a contradiction Where lies it In these words God could make use of no Instrument in the worke of creation and God might have made use of an Angel or some other creature and by it have made all things Here is a contradiction indeed if these assertions be taken separately from other expresions that expounded them And here lies the injury that he doth me which an uningaged person and stander by betwixt us upon his first reading of this charge which he makes against me of contradiction who was present at the conference soone discovered and expressed himselfe to this purpose That he should thinke the worse of Mr. Knowles while he knew him for the wrong he did me in this matter He leaves out those words which cleared it from contradiction When I said God could use no instrument in the worke of creation I spoke of such an Instrument by whose force and vertue and power such a worke might be affected as my after words clearly shew because creation is the making of things out of nothing and required an infinite power which no creature is capable of for it would make him a God These words do demonstrate that I spake of an Instrument that might be co-operative with God in vertue and efficacy in so great a worke But when I spake of an Angell as an Instrument which God might have made use of in the creation of the world if he would I both meant it and expressed it of such a kind of Instrument which contributes no vertue nor efficacy to the worke but is a means without which God will not do such a worke rather then a means by which he will do it such as the blowing with rams horns was for the bringing downe of the walls of Jericho in which there was no vertue for the effecting of such a worke and so God might have made an Angell and might have said to it Go say Let there be Heavens and earth and at the Angels speaking it might have been not because there was any vertue in the Angels speaking for the production of such things but the vertue is wholly Gods But it is otherwise with Christ in his making of the World the vertue is his owne Christ is said to support al things by the word of his own power and so by consequence to create all things by the word of his owne power Now such an Instrument Christ could not be nor any creature nor could any creature be capable of any such power and thus I expressed it upon that day of conference as there are many witnesses And yet thus he abuseth me and then gloryes over me in a large manner and triumphs excessively His words are these How to reconcile one with another is unfeasible you must confess you are not alwayes infalible you sometimes differ from your selfe and then no wonder if you disagree with others What shall I take for your judgment c And thus he goes on in a vapouring way with a deal of stuff such as this and his glorying over me in this seeing I am innocent wherein he accuseth me is not my shame but his Afterwards when he had testified his high estimation of reason in some hyperbolicall or rather phantasticall expressions as prostrating himselfe to the shadow of it rather then to any mans testimony if he had spoken so much of Scripture I should have liked it better he examines my reason why God could make use of no Instrument in creation of the world My reason was this Creation is a making all things out of nothing and requires an infinite power which God cannot derive to any creature and therefore he cannot make use of any Instrument in creating His first answer that he gives is this That Gods infinite power was manifested in the worke of creation yet was not the infinity of his power manifested fully in that or any other worke for he hath more power then ever yet he had need to use or then could in any worke be fully declared Repl. In this answer there seems to be 1. absurdity 2. Impertinency 3. Evasion The absurdity is in this there is a distinction put without a difference appearing he would make infinite power manifested and infinity of power manifested to be two things and yet they are the same thing for infinite power and infinity of power are both one thing and infinite power manifested and infinity of power manifested must consequently be one thing also The impertinence lies in this My Argument runs of one thing his answer is to another thing I speake of infinite power derived to the creature and say the creature is not capable of it he tels me of infinite power manifested and so speaks not to the purpose The evasion appears in this he saith that the infinity of Gods power was not manifested fully in that work of creation or in any other but what of this If it was not fully manifested yet was it not truely manifested so as that the rationall creature might be able to say the power that was put forth in making such creatures of nothing is infinite no less then the power of the most high God as sometimes the Magicians of Egypt said this is the finger of God the power of God which transcends the power that any creature is capable of And if infinite power was truly manifested how is the Argument enervated or wherein invalidated And if infinity of power be not fully manifested what is the reason of it Doth it not imply a contradiction in the sense in which he intends it For to assert that infinity of power is in such sort manifested in any work as that he cannot further manifest it but hath wrought to the utmost of his power and can proceed no further neither hath any more to use is to deny infinity of power to be in God and there is a contradiction in it in adjecto a contradiction implied and such a manifestation would rather be an exhaustion of power which is impossible where infinite power is His expressions of more power in those words of his he hath more power then ever yet he had need to use have truth in them in a sense but in an other sense have fraud and falshood in them if he mean by more power more of the same kind then ever yet he had need to use it will be granted to him without any advantage to him for if God could spend his store he could not be said to be infinite in power It is certain that God hath an inexhaustable treasure of power and the more he manifesteth of it he hath not the less to manifest but can declare it millions of waies in which he hath not yet
prout is rightly translated even as the son Christ is even as the Father I suppose it cannot be spoken of any creature so the words è regione ex adverso are rendred over against right against which is spoken of a thing or person that matcheth an other set this against that to fellow it or match it But what creature is there that may be set up è regione Dei patris opposite to God to match him And so secundum juxta which signifie according hard by beside or nigh another thing or person and it is rendred equal juxta à jugo saith the Etymologist Now fellows are joyned in the yoke such a nighnesse as that the son fellows the Father And if the words do any of them sometimes in their use import an afternesse or a seconding and following it may be granted and yet to the other sense that they carry of equality hold notwithstanding for in order of subsisting and working though in nature and essence not so the Son is after and second and yet is God the Fathers fellow I grant that the word is rendred a neighbour in Levit. 6. 2. and proximus is Englished a neighbour and therefore I accord with Tremelius who saith the Hebrew word doth sound as much as proximus a neighbour and we know who is mans neighbour one of the same kind a man like himselfe and in that respect his fellow his equall But who is this Lord of Hoasts neighbour any meere man consisting onely of soul and body Then God and man have one and the same neighbour but it is little less then blasphemy to say that any creature is Gods neighbour no it is a person of the same nature and essence that is his neighbour the eternall Son of God is the Fathers neighbour was nigh him and by him from Eternity And to be in the bosome of the Father and at his right hand is not a place fit for any meere creature but fit for one equall But he makes two collections from the signification of the word 1. Saith he Christ is the principall object of Gods dearest love The man my fellow whom I most love saith Grotius Repl. This will be readily granted and the other viz. coequallity not impedited nor gainsaid by it for the Father loves his coequall better then all others and because he is of the same nature and therein coequall therfore he loves him best 2. Saith he Christ is Gods principall servant in his high transactions one that is Gods representative Repl. That Christ according to his humane nature is Gods servant is granted but that it may be collected from this place of Zachery that he is Gods servant or that the Hebrew word translated fellow doth import so much or that whole Christ is Gods servant is denyed and is not proved by him but is his naked assertion He concludes thus 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 Repl. This man that is spoken of in the words which have been now discussed is that Lord of Hoasts spoken of in Zech. 2. 8 9 10 11. And if so I hope one Lord of Hoasts is fellow equall to an other Lord of Hoasts and yet it will not follow that there are two Gods but onely two persons in the Godhead which do fellow one another and are equall The next Scripture in my paper that I presented him with for the confirming of the undoubted truth of Christ's Godhead was John 3. 13. No man hath ascended up into heaven but he that came down from heaven the Son of man which is in heaven To this Text he gives this answer by which he would evade the omnipresence of Christ and so not confesse him to be God The words saith he may be thus understood No man hath ascended up into heaven that is no man hath known those divine things c. but he that came down from heaven that is the Son being excepted who was in heaven and descended thence for some works that he was to do on earth Who is in heaven that is in the bosome of the Father knowing secrets and divine things as they are in themselves Repl. This interpretation is neither concordant to it selfe nor to the truth 1. To it selfe it agrees not because ascending and descending and existing in relating all to heaven are all to be taken either literally according as the words sound or else they are all to be taken metaphorically and spiritually but he expounds some of them in a mysticall figurative sense and others in a plain literall sense To ascend up to heaven is not to be understood as he gives the exposition of a personall ascension but of a mentall contemplation And to be in heaven is only in a spirituall sense in speculation in beholding with the eyes of the soul divine things and the Fathers secrets But to descend from heaven that must have no metaphoricall sense as the rest had but a literall sense put upon it and the descension must be personall Now here is a discordancie in these things and he gives no reason of this varying in his interpreting Ascending and descending are also opposites and if so then they must be taken in an opposite sense if ascending then be taken for deep knowledge and science of divine things then descending is departing from deep knowledge and science of divine things which will be very absurd in his own conceptions 2. This exposition agrees not with the truth for ascending in Scripture is taken when it refers to Christ as well as when it refers to others In another sense viz. in the plain literall externall sense John 6. 62. What if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before And chap. 20. 17. I ascend unto my Father and unto your Father c. And touch me not I am not yet ascended And Ephes 4. 8 9 10. And I do not remember any one place where ascending into heaven is taken in his sense but in the literall sense And it seems to be discrepant and disagreeing to the phrase and manner of Scripture expression For when divine knowledge and wisdome is spoken of or other such gifts they are said to come down from heaven from above unto men and men are not said to ascend up to heaven though there may be a truth in it that a man ascends up to heaven not in his knowing so much as in the use of his knowledge in his beholding and viewing of spirituall things And if a spirituall sense is not proper unto ascending into heaven then is not Christ's being in heaven to be interpreted in a spirituall or mysticall sense but look in what sense he ascended and descended in that sense it may be said he is in heaven that is in a literall sense nor is this spiritual
sense of these words is in heaven agreeable to the acception of the like words and phrase of speaking used else-where in John 17. 24. Father I will that those whom thou hast given me be where I am that they may behold my glory Christ here speaks of heaven and of his glory in heaven and of the disciples coming thither and beholding his glory there and he speaks not in a mysticall sense of his own knowledge of divine things nor of the disciples knowing of such things as he knew but in a literall sense he speaks all and he saith I am there and yet he was on earth according to his manhood but he was in heaven also Where I am saith he that was heaven Christ was there How was that possible if Christ was not God if the words be taken literally there in Joh. 17. 24 then they are literally to be taken here in John 3. 13. The place discussed betwixt us the comparing of these two places together clears the sense of both and is repugnant to his interpretation And though he gives a literall sense to these words But he that came down from heaven viz. the Son being excepted who was in heaven and descended thence yet it is a corrupt and false and very dangerous sense that he gives which I met with in my former Treatise For he represents Christ in his descension as leaving heaven departing from thence and coming upon earth but this is contrary to the next expressions the sense of which I have cleared up where it is said that Christ was in heaven still notwithstanding that he descended so that it is a reall true descention or a true coming and appearing upon earth but not locall such as is appliable to the creature for that is not proper to Christ The creature in descending moves from the place it was in and leaves it but 't is not so to be conceived of Christ But thus Christ is said to descend in reference to his incarnation he being the Son of God assumed flesh of the Virgine by the divine inspiration of the Spirit of God and so was made the Son of man and so the Son of God appeared in the Son of man and this is called descending This is made manifest to us from John 1. 14. The word was made flesh and dwelt among us even the word dwelt among us in flesh and we beheld his glory in flesh the glory as of the begotten Son of God This glory was in heaven now in the Sons assuming flesh it is seen on earth in the seed of the woman this is the descending of Christ and after this manner the most high God is said to descend in Scripture God came into the temple after this manner not by moving from place to place which is not congruous to God but by a work declaring God to be there where he was not seen before And so God descended to see the tower that was built in a work and no other way and it is called descending after the manner of men and it is Gods descending all that is competent to God And this kind of descending of Christ must of necessity be yeelded unto because the locall is excluded by Christ in the very place where his descending is mentioned Having shewed the inconsistency of the exposition which he framed and gave of this Text of John and having fortified the sense in which I made use of it and for which I produced it I shall now answer unto that which by way of objection may be urged against the sense that I have put upon it Object It may be thus argued A locall corporeall ascension cannot be understood in reference to Christ because it is expressed in the preterperfect-Tense as a thing done but that was in a literall locall acception taken inconsistent to Christ because he was then upon earth and as he saith afterward was not ascended to the Father Sol. The preterperfect-tense hath ascended refers to no man not to Christ and there is an Elipsis in the words or a defectiveness in the expressions in reference to Christ therein of necessity that the words supplied should run in the preterperfect-tense but they may run in the future tense thus But he that descended shall ascend viz. the Son of man which is in heaven Or if the words should be supplied in the preterperfect-tense yet a change of tense which notes out the assurance of the thing it is spoken of as done because assuredly it is to be done cannot overturn the genuine sense of the place Obj. 2. It may be farther objected that the son of man is the subject who is said to be in heaven but the son of man is Christ under the consideration of his manhood and under that consideration it was impossible for him to be at that time in heaven for it is contradictory to the truth of his humanity to be at two places so greatly distant at the same time Sol. Here is in these expressions viz. the son of man which is in heaven that which they call Idiomatum communicationem that which is spoken in the concrete of Christ according to one nature transferred to another nature is as he himself must confess in other cases according to his Tenent to be often found in the Sripture in these words they would never have crucified the Lord of glory it is to be observed Christ was crucified according to the flesh but he was not the Lord of glory according to the flesh but spirit of holiness yet it is said the Lord of glory was crucified so it is said the son of man was in heaven but it is meant of the son of God and the meaning is the person that is called the son of man was in heaven though not as the son of man but according to the other nature as the Son of God But let us try the strength of his reasons which he brings for the countenancing of this exposition of his 1. Saith he this sense and meaning wherewithall I have clothed those words is no waies opposite to the analogie of faith There is nothing as I suppose in it which the doctrine of the Gospel will pick a quarrell with Repl. The nakedness of this reason is discovered in what I have already presented I have shewed that Christs ascending up to heaven is not any where taken in that sense which he puts upon it And that Christs being in heaven in the sense that he clothes it with is repugnant to a paralell place in Joh. 17. 24. so that he makes Scripture quarrell with it selfe and such an exposition which he hath given of Christs descending stands at defiance against all those pregnant places which do proclaim Christ to be coessential with the Father therefore both Old Testament and New will rise up against it and condemn it 2. He saith That the sense that he would have this Text to own is elsewhere challenged by the like phrases to themselves as
Mediatorship otherwise it would have been limited and restrained that that worship which is due to God who is the ultimate object of worship might have been discerned from it and the preeminence the Father hath above Christ in Worship would have been declared in Scripture And hence it follows that though Christ be an intermediate object of Worship yet he is the principal and ultimate object also The same person who is Man and Mediator is the Son of God the most high God Mediator in that nature also And if Religious Divine worship be given unto him as Mediator it is given unto him for the sake of the Divine Nature because he is the Son of God and God according to which nature apart considered from the Humane he is the ultimate object of worship but as considered with the Humane as Mediator he is the intermediate object of worship And though the Humane Nature be taken up into the fellowship as of the Godhead so of this honour and worship yet this worship is not due nor doth properly appertain to the Humane Nature And though the person be honoured with this Divine honour because of the Union yet it is for the sake of the Divine Nature and not for the sake of the Humane which beause it is not the principal and ultimate object of worship therefore that very worship and no less nor any other is given to Christ being thus intermediate or Mediator which is proper and peculiar to God alone who is the principal and ultimate object worship cannot separately and apart considered from the Divine Nature be any object at all no not an intermediate object of Religious Divine worship for then every creature that is a medium or a means by or through which God communicates himself to men and so is intermediate betwixt God and man should be an intermediate object of Divine worship which is directly repugnant to the Scripture and is greatly derogatory to God that the Manhood of Christ or the Humane Nature a part considered hath but the respect of an instrument in so glorious a work which was wrought by the efficiencie and infinite power wisdom of God I have been the larger in discussing this point of Worship because the right understanding of it will facilitate the discussing of the two next which follow which respect Faith in Christ He considers them together though I conceive they may well be distinguished from each other as different things But I shall follow him in his method Instance 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 it is commanded in reference unto Christ Joh. 14. 1. and salvation is annexed to it Joh. 3. 36. Instance 3. If Christ be 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 Unto these he opposeth two Propositions which the Scripture as he saith will warrant and will suffice for an Answer 1. That that faith which is needful to salvation hath a double object God and the man Christ Jesus Joh. 14. 1. which he saith the Scripture that I have quoted bears witness to as a truth 2. That that faith which is needful to salvation acts in a divers manner on God and on the Lord Jesus Christ Reply 1. Neither the Scripture that I have quoted nor any other bears witness to this That the man Jesus Christ as man is the object of faith The Person of Christ that is man is the object of faith but not as man And the place that he cites in Joh. 3. 14 15 proves it The Son of man shall be lifted up that whoever believes on him c. But there is in these words that which is called Idiomatum communicatio viz. that which is spoken in the concrete of Christ according to one Nature is transferred to another Natrue And the verse that immediately precedes viz. verse 13. declares thus much It is said that the Son of man is in heaven which at that time when Christ spake those words was impossible as Christ is the Son of man because Ubiquity or being everywhere at the same time is not compatible to any man as man but it was meant of the Person of Christ who is called the Son of man because he was truely man but according to the other nature that was in him viz. the Godhead according to which he was in heaven and on earth together because he fills both as God And Christ that did put that denomination Son of man upon himself in verse 13. continues it and under that title makes himself the object of faith but there is a translation of that which is proper to one nature to another nature to which it is not proper And indeed Christ as Mediator is an object of faith but it is not as he is man that he is the object but as he is God which is very clear for these Reasons 1. It is Christ as he is JEHOVAH that is the object of faith as it justifies and saves Isa 45. 24. compared with Rom. 14. 10 11. proves it Believers are brought in professing their faith in JEHOVAH which is Christ Surely shall one say in JEHOVAH have I righteousness and strength 1 Tim. 3. 10. God manifested in flesh is believed on in the world not Christ accordiâ—g to his Manhood 2. It is Christ as he is all-sufficient and able to save to the utmost that is the object of faith Heb. 7. 25. 2 Tim. 1. 12. But Christ as he is man is not all-sufficient and able to save to the utmost but as he is the Son of God and God Joh. 4. 25. 3. The man that trusteth in man is accursed by God's own sentence Jer. 17. 5. Therefore faith is not in Christ as he is man 4. God hath testified that all life is in his Son Joh. 5. 11. and faith must be where life is and nowhere else and therefore not in Christ as man for the Son of God is not man but God as hath been abundantly proved before And it is also said verse 12 He that hath the Son that is hath received him by faith Joh. 1. 12. hath life and he that hath him not hath not life And they are pressed to believe in the Son of God v. 13. that they may have eternal life 5. Christ himself saith Vpon this rock viz. this profession of faith that Christ is the Son of God he will build his Church Matth. 16. 16 18. Therefore Christ is the object of faith as he is the Son of God and not as he is man 6. If Christ as meer man and nothing more be the object of faith then any other man or creature whom God sends and by whom God speaks or acts may be the object of
he that none can forgive sinnes in any sense but God only may passe for an errour for it is the duty of all men to forgive sinnes which others commit against them Mat. 6. 14. And it is the priviledge of some men to forgive all sins in reference to the curse of the Law John 20. 23. Rep. He conceives me to be a very Novice in the knowledge of the Scripture else he would not have presented such poor objections or he hath a mind to cavill at expressions and to contradict if all be not punctually expressed though it be never so easie to be understood Doth he think me to be so simple ignorant of the truth as that I should understand that position None can forgive sinnes but God in the greatest latitude so as to exclude that act of love and charity and mercy and compassion which is due from one man to another in reference to such personall trespasses and offences which are committed mutually by men that converse with one another or to exclude ministeriall Acts of remission of sinnes which some men which have received an office from Christ and in such office Authority and Commission from him to remit sinnes have power to passe I should in so doing have robbed poor saint weak and feeble Christians of a great part of that so lace and comfort which Christ hath left them here upon earth He might therefore have known that I understood the Proposition in a limited sense None hath power in himself to forgive sinne but God none in his own Name can do it but God yea did I not expresse my meaning in the words following It is evident that Christ took Authority of forgiving sin I do not say that Christ had Authority derived to him but he took it as that which did properly belong to him he might therefore have suffered the major Proposition to have pâ—ssed and have fallen upon the minor which at last he doth His words are these Now for your Minor that Christ did forgiue sin 'T is true saith he that Christ did forgive sin and that he the Son of Man had on earth power to do it as he himself speaks Mark 2. 10. But what will this help to bring in the conclusion that Christ is God Doubtlesse no because meer creatures as above in some sense have power to forgive sinne if it can be proved that Christ is principall in forgiving somewhat may be done Rep. If it can be proved that Christ is principall in forgiving is only something done is not the whole done I suppose there needs no more to be done I shall therefore attempt the proof of that from the very Scripture he conceipts I alluded to which he mentions which is Mar. 2. 10. 1. It is evident from the contest betwixt Christ and the Scribes they did not charge Christ no not in their hearts with blasphemy as conceiving that Christ did not forgive sins ministerially by the authority which he derived from another for in that sense they would not have said Who can forgive sins but God They would not have made it proper to God to forgive sins for they knew that the Priests ministerially did forgive the sins of the people that brought their sacrifices and the Prophets also in the name of God did it as Nathan did Davids nay in this sense they could not attribute it to God at al for God cannot be the Minister of any to pardon sin in anothers name therefore they looked upon Christ as forgiving sin in his own name and by his own proper power and therefore conceiving him onely to be a man they accused him of blasphemy Now if Christ had been onley a man and had forgiven sin ministerially in the name and by the authority of the Father and not in his own name nor by his own power why doth he not declare so much to them and tell them that the thing was even so as they apprehended that no man nor creature hath hath any absolute independent power in himself to forgive sins but it is the royall prerogative of God as they conceived but their error lay in this they were mistaken in him they conceived of him that he forgave sins in his own name and by his own proper power and he did it not but it was done by a derived power and in a ministeriall way why was not his way of doing it cleared up to the Scribes by him when he knew they were right in their thoughts of the thing onely mistook his acting conceiving that he acted what he did not act But it is apparent that Christ doth contest with them upon another point and undertook to prove that he the Son of man though they looked upon him as a meer man and nothing more was yet such an one that without blasphemie he might take upon himself as a thing suitable to him and very proper to forgive sins in that very sense as they called blasphemie that is in his own name and by his own power and authority without any dependence upon any other to whom it more properly belonged as they conceived in which contest with them he asserted himself to be the God to whom it belongs to pardon sin Therefore Christ charged them with evill thoughts of him as it is expressed by Matthew in his relating of the story Matth. 9. 4. not because they imagined that he exercised that power which he did not viz. an absolute independent power from himself when as he onely exercised a delegated power which was derived to him this was not the cause why Christ challenged them for thinking evill in their hearts but because they denied him to have that power which he had and said he blasphemed because he assumed it and did so appropriate it to God whom they conceived a spirit in heaven that they denied it to him in flesh as he was the Son of man upon earth in a state of exinanition emptied of his glory Therefore in Mat. 9. 6. and so in Mar. 2. 10. there is a concurrence of the Evangelists that Christ to convince them of their error in restraining and straightning him in his power which they would grant to God but not to him speaks these words But that you may know that the Son of man on earth hath power to forgive sins I say unto thee arise c. If that had not been the Scribes and Pharisees errors that they granted that to God which they denied to him he should rather have used other words then those words that he did and have said rather that you may know I do not assume that power which you think I do assume for such words as these would have suited the Tenent of my Antagonist better and the error of the Scribes had that been their error But Christ contests with them about power and will make them know that he had a power which they would not grant him but called it blasphemie even the very power of God though he
discover the fraud and falshood in working therefore they imagined it was farre easier for Christ to say thy sinnes are forgiven thee in which he could not be detected if the effect followed not then for him to say arise and walk which if he had not had a power answerable to that word of command would discover his impostures and expose him to shame and reproach in this sense it was easier for one that would delude to say thy sinnes are forgiven thee then to say arise and walk but Christ would shew that the one was as truly wrought and done as the other and both of them done by the power of his Godhead There are also other Scriptures which may give light that Christ in forgiving sins was principall and not receiving power from another 1. Christ gave power to his Disciples John 20. 23. the place which he quoted to remit sins effectually so as that they should be remitted and to retaine sins effectually and so as that they should be retained Now this power of delegating power to others doth shew a power residing in Christ himself and doth shew that Christ is the principall Lord against whom sins are committed because he both conveyes a power to the Apostles and doth ratifie the exercise of it 2. The Apostle forgave sins in the person of Christ in 2 Cor 2. 10. that is he did it instrumentally and representatively and in the name of another who was chief in it and that was Christ It is not said in the person of God as it should have been said if Christ had not been God and principall in that power of forgiving But he saith It cannot be because the Scripture cannot oppose it self And he presents what Scripture Tels us The Scripture saith he tels us that we are justified by the man Jesus Christ Acts 13 38 39. be it known unto you men and brethren that through this man is preached unto you the forgivenesse of sinnes and by him all that do beleeve are justified c. Reply The Scripture tels us that through the man Christ we are justified but the Scripture tels us not that we are justified by Christ as man It is a granted thing by us all that the person that justifies us is man for we say he is both God and Man But that he justifies as man or remits sinnes as man is denyed by us and the contrary hath already been proved I have shewed before that the Sonne of man is said to be heaven which was impossible because he was on earth when he spake these words the words are therefore thus to be understood the person that is the Sonne of man being also God was in heaven at that time but not as the Sonne of man but as God so in this place it is to be understood There is some difference to be made in Christs justifying of us If we speak of the meritorious cause of Justification whole Christ and the whole of Christ doth concurre in it contribute to it and effect it for God looking upon that which was done and suffered and upon the person viz. the excellency and glory of the person that did it and suffered it in which both the Godhead and the manhood acted the one by obeying the other by enabling and presenting as his as indeed it was the union betwixt the two natures considered pronounced beleevers just upon that account Not that the manhood of Christ merited but the whole of Christ acted in those things wherâ—in the merit was But if we speak of the efficient cause of justification or of pardon of sinne Christ considered in his divine nature as God only is agent in it because he alone against whom sinne is committed can from and by himself acquit and dischare therefrom and so Christ as God can only do it and he did it as God as I have proved from Mark 22. 10. I conceive that in this Text Christ is not spoken of as the efficient from whom justification and pardon of sins comes but as Mediator through whom or as the means and merit by whom forgivenesse of sinnes comes in which sense it is said that Christ was the Lamb of God which took away the sinnes of the world My reason is because it is said through this man is preached forgivenesse and by him all that beleeve are justified not efficiently but mediatoriously and meritoriously It is not said he pardoned sin but through him pardon was preached nor is it said he justified but through him are justified those that beleeve that is through him as the meanes and herein the manhood is not to be excluded from acting in those works which God accounts for a beleevers righteousnesse and in reference to which God justifies but principally yea solely to be acknowledged but so farre as concernes the respect that God gives to such actions and the acceptance that they find with God which is this viz. God imputes them unto beleevers as their righteousnesse and for the sake of them doth pardon their sins the manhood is not at all herein to be mentioned But nothing that can be answered to this can reach the instance because this text was impertinent and I might have passed it by without giving any answer to it because Christs pardoning of sinne in way of efficiency is that which the Instance or Argument which I produced intends and proves and this Scripture disables it not because it speaks of another thing and not of that But he goes on and tels us what Scripture saith farther viz. That Christ prayed to another on the Jewes befalfe for the forgivenesse of sinne Luke 23. 34. Then said Jesus Father forgive them for they know not what they do Therefore Christ is not the principall forgiver of sins according to Scripture Reply Christ prayed to another viz the Father for the forgivenesse of sin and another prayed to him for the pardon of sin viz. Stephen and the Jewes were the subjects that were prayed for in both What must then be said to this and what answer is to be given to it Alas it is not difficult to speak to it The Scripture hath clearly untyed the knot If Christ were not a man he could not pray to another and if he were nothing more then a man another could not pray to him and the Scripture declares both while it shewes him to be God and man As man therefore he humbles himself he prayes unto him that was God It was a time of Humiliation to Christ and this was an action of humiliation in Christ but as God he was prayed to by him that was a man and with adoration also though he was in heaven in reference to his manhood he veiled his Godhead when he prayed to God Stephen unveiled it when he prayed to him So that there is no good consequence in this that because both the Scripture and himself do declare him to be man in his praying for the pardon of sins therefore Scripture and himself
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 Repl. I would also demand of him and ask a question or two and if he answer me he may answer himself 1. Whether can any man on earth and whether could Adam in his inocency hear as far as he can see or whether such a thing be possible in nature whether the care be not slower in discerning its obiect then the ey is in discerning its obiect 2. Whether Stephen saw Christ by the strength of his own natural ey sight if so why did not all the rest see Christ as well as he if not then he was strengthned to see that which he saw and so it was no less then wonderfull that he saw Christ God by the greatness of his power made Stephen to see Christ and so it may be granted that God by the exceeding greatness of his power might inable the man Christ or Christ according to his manhood to hear Stephen but then it is a thing above nature and so it comes to this that Christ as man is not able but is only capable of being made able and prayer to Christ is not to be bottomed upon that 3. Whether it was the voice that Stephen uttered that was the cause of Christs hearing Stephen or whether if there had been no voice Christ could not have heard the voice of the heart the motions of it the cry of it if Christ could notwithstanding have heard as is apparent from other Scriptures then it was not the eare of the body or the fleshly eare with which Christ heard Stephen but it was by that vast boundless knowledge which Christ had as the Son of God and as God and by which the disciples told him that he knew all things and then the comparison which he makes betwixt Christ and Stephen the one's seeing and the other's hearing might have been spared for the things are not alike in which the comparison was made And this shewes the absurdity of his imagination viz. that the knowledge that Christ hath being in heaven of the prayers that are made on earth to him by the hearing of the eare But I shall consider what answers he gives to the last arguemnt or instance which is this Inst 12. If Christ be a meer creature then a meere creature is the Judge of the world which is against the scripture for the Judge of the world is God before whom Abraham stood Gen. 18. 25. when he pleaded for Sodom Rom. 1. 5 6. the day of Judgements is called the day of revelation of the righteous Judgement of God so who will render to every one according to his workes He attemps according to his manner to put this argument into forme but fouly mistakes himself therein for it comes mishapen from him he cannot reduce it to moode and figure either he was never Master of that Art and so attempts things out of his Element or else he hath greatly forgot himself for it is no Syllogisme as he hath shapen it I shall first present it to the Reader and then shew how it ought to have been formed That Doctrine which makes a meer creature the Judge of the world is against the Scripture Gen. 18. 15. Rom. 2. 5 6. But Christ is the Judge of the world Therefore That Doctrine that makes Christ a meer creature is against the scripture Thus he That this argument is beside rule appeares by this because every regular Sylogisme hath but three terms in it viz. the Subject the Predicate and the Medium but this Sylogisme of his hath 4 termes in it 1. There is the Subiect viz that Doctrine that makes Christ a meer creature 2. There is the Predicate viz. is against the Scripture 3. There is the Medium viz. that Doctrine which makes a meer creature the judge of the world 4. There is an another terme which is more then regular viz. Christ is the Judge of the world Therefore it is plaine that the Sylogisme is false and it ought to have been thus formed That Doctrine which makes a meer creature the judge of the world is against the Scripture But that Doctrine which makes Christ a meer creature is a Doctrine that makes a meer creature the judge of the world Therefore That Doctrine that makes Christ a meer creature is against the Scripture I thought good to present this errour of his to the Readers view because my paper being never intended for him was in a plaine facile way penned that it might be the better conceived of by such to whom I presented it who understood not rules of disputing but he puts all into a scholastique forme and would not incounter with me in that plain way of arguing with this designe as he pretended to make my weakness the more obvious but sure I am whether my weakness be obvious or not his over sight that I say no worse is obvious in transgressing the rules of arguing which yet himself chuseth as pretending to have skill in them And whereas he answers to both propositions his labour might have been spared in reference to the Minor proposition which is undoubtedly true as appears from the syllogisme rightly framed for who can deny but that doctrine which makes Christ a meer creature makes a meer creature judge of the world The Major Proposition can therefore only be denyed by him and indeed he doth deny it 1. By proposing of examples of creatures who shall judge the world 2. By distinguishing betwixt the supreme judge of the worrd and a delegate Judge and grants the proposition to be true only in reference to the principal or supreme Judge but asserts it to be false of the delegate Judge And this he doth with a great deal of confusion for I rather represent what he would say then what he doth say First he tels us of the Apostles That they shall sit upon twelve Thrones judging tbe twelve Tribes of Israel Mat. 19. 28. and then he tells us of the saints that they shall judge the world 1 Cor. 6. 2 3. and then tells me that doubtless I had not this text of Corinths when I brought this Argument in my thoughts Repl. Whether I had this text of the Corinths in my mind in that very moment when I penned down this Argument I am not able to say but I would not have him to be conceited as if he had brought some new and strange thing to my knowledge which before I understood not as his words do import which are these What will you say if I shall shew you from the Word that the Apostles shall be Judges at the last day and that the Saints shall judg the World Alas alas that man that shall be non-pluss'd with the shewing of such a thing as
trees therfore saith Christ unlesse you abide in me that is firmly and surely hold me ye cannot bring forth fruit 12. Let all Christians take heed how they hold the truth in unrighteousnesse how they put away a good conscience in any thing and so tempt God lest God give them up to darknesse as a punishment of such an offence 13. Let every Christian joyn to some Church of Jesus Christ that walks closely with God in the truth that by the watchings of others he may be the better kept This is regular walking and God will be sure to blesse it 4 Let not any Christians run into temptations least God should leave them under the power of them and suffer them to be overcome of them but if they hear or read a doctrine that is contrary to what they received let them with much fear and trembling hear and read it and with much looking up to heaven for guidance let them be slow in entertaining that which is new strange to them and after much examination consultation and abundant confirmation out of Scripture let them do it If Saints will walk in this way the God of truth and grace will be with them they shall be kept unto salvation FINIS A TABLE of the Scriptures and Arguments formerly produced to prove the Deity of Jesus Christ and now vindicated and confirmed in the later Treatise ALSO Six other Arguments added shewing the dangerousness and destructiveness of the contrary Doctrine The first Scripture is Revel 1. 8. I am Alpha and Omega the Beginning and the End page 15 The second Scripture is Joh. 1. 1. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God p. 29 The third Scripture is Matth. 28. 20. Lo I am with you always unto the end of the world p. 35 The fourth Scripture is Rev. 2. 2. I know thy works c. p. 51 The fifth Scripture is Col. 1. 15. The first-born of every creature p. 61 The sixth Scripture is Col. 1. 16. By him were all things created p. 63 The seventh Scripture is Heb. 7. 3. Without father without mother without beginning of days and end of life made like unto the Son of God p. 90 The eighth Scripture is Prov. 8. 22. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way before his works of old I was set up from everlasting p. 94 The ninth Scripture is Zech. 13. 7. Awake O sword against my Shepherd against the man that is my fellow p. 97 The tenth Scripture is Joh. 3. 13. No man hath ascended up into heaven but he that came down from heaven the Son of man that is in heaven p. 103 The last Scripture is Joh. 17. 5. And now O Father glorifie me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was p. 114 Arguments brought to prove the destructiveness of the contrary Doctrine Arg. 1. To make whole Christ a creature brings in a strange and a false God p. 126 Arg. 2. To make whole Christ a creature brings in a strange and false Christ p. 137 Arg. 3. To make whole Christ a creature brings in a false Faith p. 149 Arg. 4. To make whole Christ a creature brings in a false Baptism p. 158 Arg. 5. To make whole Christ a creature destroys the sufficiency of Christ as a Saviour p. 163 Arg. 6. To make whole Christ a creature overturns godliness p. 168 Arguments formerly produced now vindicated and confirmed Argum. 1. To make whole Christ a creature is to make a meer creature the object of Divine worship which yet according to Scripture is Idolatry Where the doctrine of Worship is discussed p. 173 Arg. 2 3. To make whole Christ a creature is to make a creature the object of faith and to make faith in a creature saving which yet is contrary to the Scripture p. 205 Arg. 4. To make whole Christ a creature is to make a creature a sufficient Saviour which yet is repugnant to the Scripture 214 Arg. 5. To make whole Christ a creature is to make a meer creature Mediator which is contrary to the Scripture Where the doctrine of Christ's Mediatorship is discussed p. 225 Arg. 6. To make whole Christ a creature is to make the righteousness not of God but of a meer man to he imputed to believers which is against the Scripture p. 252 Arg. 7. To make whole Christ a creature is to make a meer creature authoritively able from himself to forgive sin which yet is contrary to the Scripture p. 262 Arg. 8. To make whole Christ a creature is to destroy the doctrine of Christ's satisfaction to God Where the doctrine of Christ's satisfaction is largely handled p. 285 Arg. 9. To make whole Christ a creature destroys the intercession of Christ p. 363 Arg. 10. To make whole Christ a creature is to disable Christ to protect defend save direct rule and govern his Church in all the world which yet is attributed to Christ c. p. 373 Arg. 11. To make whole Christ a creature is to make prayer to him vain and frivolous he being now in heaven and we on earth p. 377 Arg. 12. To make whole Christ a creature is to make a meer creature the Judge of the world which is repugnant to Scripture p. 384 Concerning Errours the rise growth cure and preservatives against them p. 397 FINIS
of Answ There is great reason for it in this place of John for if it were not so the persons of the Father and of Christ would be confounded for the words run thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Word was with God and the Word was God had there been an Article prefixed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God had it been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it must have been translated and God was the Word and not the Word was God and then God the Word would have been confounded viz. God the Father of whom it is spoken that Chirst was with him would have been confounded with Christ for God with the Article affixed would have been in right translation the subject and the Word would have been the predicate and then it must have been rendred God was the Word and not the Word was God as it now runs according to the intention of the Holy Ghost whose design is by omission of the Article to manifest forth the distinction of the persons of the Father and Son in unity of Essence both are God yet the one is not the other The like omission of the Article we may observe in Joh. 4. 24. The words in Greek are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is translated and truly because the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is left out before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is a Spirit whereas had the Article been affixed it had altered the Translation and it must have been thus rendred the Spirit is God or a Spirit is God and so the sense would be changed other instances there might be were they needful And this he might have observed from Beza had he been willing to have had his eyes opened As for the Gloss that he makes upon the words I confuted it formerly in part and have shewed in my other Treatise that by beginning the first part of time is meant and that the Verb or Particle was shews a preexistence before the beginning or before time was and not that Christ had his first existence then when the beginning was for the heavens and the earth had their existence then when time first was in the beginning of it and subsisted together with it as Moses records it but the Word was before it and so was eternal for nothing was before the beginning but eternity And whereas he makes this to be the sense of these words The Word was with God This Jesus Christ was a delight to the most high God and did converse with him restraining high God to the Father and excluding Christ it is but the venting of his own conceit in stead of Truth for God there is taken personally and not essentially as I have shewed before oftentimes and the meaning is the person of the Son was with the person of the Father from all eternity and was a delight before the world was founded as from Pro. 8. appears He was as one brought up with the Father from everlasting and was daily his delight But the sense that he puts upon the last words viz. and the Word was a God is the most gross of all and palpably corrupt viz. This Jesus Christ had power committed to him whereby he might represent the most High God And the reason which he renders doth not make it more tollerable viz. the name God is common to God and creatures for I have shewed that never any single person was called God absolutely without limitation and restriction And in this place it is said that Christ was God from the first that he was and he was when the beginning was and it is not said that he began to be when the beginning was therefore he was before and consequently he was God before and it will follow that he was God from eternity and not in regard of any power committed to him whereby he might represent the most high God for there was neither heaven nor earth when he was God over whom to exercise any power nor any creature to whom to represent God And I have shewed that power which he had was power in himself as life was in himself and was not neither could be power committed to him power in him being such as no creature was capable of by which he at first created and doth yet uphold the world Heb. 1. 3. And whereas he gives reasons from this text why Christ should not be the most high God viz. Because he is distinguished from God and God cannot be distinguished from himself he himself answers it by the mention which he makes of personality Christ is distinguished from God taken personally viz. for the Father from the person of the Father is Christ distinguished but not from God essentially taken nor from the essence of the Father for so he and his Father are one But he takes not upon him to answer us in this distinction and to overthrow it though he knows that our great strength lies in it but insteed of answering chargeth us to say that which we say not viz. that we call the Father God by way of eminency and disputes against this as inconsistent to that coequality which we hold and shelters himself under it But he wrongs us for we say the Son is called God as distinct from the Father but not by way of eminency they cannot both be eminent one above the other and yet coequal That which follows of The God and A God which he flies to as a reason why Christ is not the most high God I have answered before and need say no more of it After John 1. 1. Mat. 28. 20. was produced by me to prove the God head of Christ are these Lo I am with you alwaies unto the end of the world to which text he answers thus The meaning of the phrase I am with you c. is no more then this I will do you good whilest ye remain imployed in my work And he brings Jacob as the author of the interpretation Old Jacob saith he no bad interpreter is my Authour Gen. 31. 3. compared with Chap. 32. 9. in the one place God promiseth to be with him in the other place Jacob expounds it to be Gods dealing well with him Rep. This metaphorical presence in actions of grace and favours which he would have to be the sole meaning of the words I will be with thee doth not exclude the essential presence but doth rather include it for how is Christ able to do all good to his Apostles and Disciples in all places of the world and in all conditions and necessities in which they might be and at all times and yet not be essentially present with them If he can declare it let him declare it In the mean time that parallel place which he cites from Gen. 31. 3. compared with chap. 32. 9. is against him for God is inabled to do good to all and so to Jacob by his essential presence with all and in all and so with Jacob and in Jacob And though
by his Spirit I shall utterly deny it as that which both wants truth in it and is absurd as that which is neither consistent with Scripture nor reason nor congruous to his own Opinion for he takes away Christs immensity and ubiquity and puts it upon the Spirit to prevent Christs being in Heaven and on Earth at once and his filling of Heaven and Earth with his presence that he might not thereby be acknowledged God and yet he makes the Spirit to be universally present and so makes him more then a creature wherein he contradicts himself for his words are these Christ doth all these works in his absence by his Spirit therefore the Spirit is present for he supplies the defect of Christs presence and yet withall he saith The spirit which received of Christs was Christs instrument by which Jesus Christ did the work Therefore he is not God for God cannot be an instrument therefore he is but a creature wherein he crosseth himself So then what must not be yielded to in Christ least he should be God he yields to the Spirit whom he makes not God but a creature And in this he not only sets Christ below the Father whom he acknowledgeth to be God but he sets him below the Spirit whom he acknowledgeth but a creature and now Christ is neither God nor yet the first and chief of the creatures for the Spirit is more excellent then he for the Spirit can be present with all the Apostles in all the parts and Climats of the World at one time to instruct them comfort them c. and Christ is shut up in Heaven and cannot And this is contradictory to himself for he makes Christ the first of the creatures and the Maker of the rest and the Lord of them and he makes him a Spirit in his first existence and yet the Spirit that was made by him can be with all the Apostles and Disciples and Saints also and abide with them for ever and administer to them all good but Christ who is his Lord and Maker cannot O monstrous and senseless Opinion wherein God leaves him to be confounded But how contradictory to reason is this that the Spirit should be the instrument of Christ and so a creature inferiour to Christ and yet be present in all places in Heaven in Earth in the Sea and every where for where ever Saints be there the Spirit is Saints are in all these places The Spirit is one that bears witness in Heaven 1 Joh. 5. 7. Therefore there he is and he bears witness on Earth in the hearts of Believers in Rom. 8. 16. and therefore there he is And the whole Spirit dwels in every Saint for we do not read of any parts of the Spirit into which he is divided and if Saints be every where the whole Spirit is every where and such a boundless Essence is not competent to any creature it is that which God himself arrogates as proper to him do not I fill Heaven and Earth Jer. 23. 24. whole God fils every place and the whole Spirit fils every Saint As bodies have their loca their places so Spirits all created ones have their ubi their some where out of which and beyond which they are not they are confined if they be not circumscribed but of the Spirit it is said whither shall I go from thy Spirit the Spirit is everywhere It is also extreamly repugnant to Scripture that the Spirit should be Christs instrument and consequently a creature and it is as gross as the denying of the Diety of Christ and his Heresie is multiplyed in this Assertion 1. An Instrument acts and works after the will of the principal efficient but the Spirit after his own will as himself pleaseth and therefore no instrument 2. The person by whom Christ wrought Miracles was no instrument but Christ according to his humane nature wrought Miracles by the vertue and power of the Spirit therefore he was no instrument Mat. 12. 28. Acts 10. 38. 3. He that was the uncture with which Christ was annoynted and became more excellent and glorious then all his fellows he that was the enrichment of Christ as man as a creature above all creatures that exalted him in eminency above all Angels c. was not any instrument inferiour to Christ but superiour to him as a creature but the Spirit was the uncture wherewith Christ was annoynted Act. 10. 38. and he received not the Spirit by measure as others did but beyond all measure Joh. 3. 34. whence he came to excell all his fellows Heb. 1. 9. 4. He that is the Spirit of God and is to God as the spirit of a man is to man he that alone knoweth the deep things of God and searcheth them that is hath deep full perfect knowledge of them he cannot be an instrument to Christ to take what Christ a creature as he makes Christ to be shews him and no more and to shew them to men but the Spirit is the Spirit of God and stands to God as the Spirit of a man stands to man and searcheth the deep things of God therefore cannot be an instrument to take from Christ and bring and shew to men And it is contrary to Scripture to make the Spirit a creature as if he be a creatures instrument as he would make him he must needs be 1. He is called God by the Apostles of Christ therefore he is God Act. 5. 3 4. compared together prove it in the 3. ver Peter saith to Ananias Thou hast lyed to the holy Ghost in the 4. vers he saith Thou hast lyed to God He makes the holy Ghost to be God for he shews the person against whom the sin was committed it was not man it was not any creature it did rise higher it was the holy Ghost he was God So that the holy Ghost and God are one and the same thing And 1 Cor. 3. 16. Paul makes him God in these words Know ye not that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you This latter is the proof of the former because the Spirit of God dwels in you therefore saith the Apostle you are the temple of God here is no mention of Gods dwelling in them but of the Spirits dwelling in them if therefore the Spirit were not God the Argument of the Apostle were nought And by the Evangelist Luke in Act. 10. 3. 19 20. compared together he is called God in vers 3. it is said The Angel of God came in to Cornelius and commanded him to send men for Peter in vers 19. 20. it is said That the Spirit told Peter that he had sent those men to him and therefore he must go with them The men were sent upon the command of the Spirit therefore the Spirit was that God that sent the Angel and to be the Angel of the Spirit and the Angel of God is all one 2. He is called the God of Israel 2 Sam.
with his Fathers and Christ may read all the decrees of the Father in himself in his own wisdome and will And he is called the wisdome of the Father and the admirable counsellour 1 Cor. 1. 24. Esay 9. 6. And the Disciples attributed to him the knowing of all things John 16. 30. and John 21. 17. 4. It is inconsistent to the place which he cites that Christ should be absolutely ignorant of the day and hour of judgement to the context on every hand for Christ had told all the forerunners of it the things that should precede and something that should follow the temper of men of that age when it should be the security that should be in the world at that time he himself was to be the person that must come as Judge and he was to depart and then to come and he was to appoint every one his work till he come till the very day and hour of his coming the parable declares so much and could he then be ignorant of the day and hour it is against sense and reason Christ then had knowledge of the very precise time of judgement and yet he had not knowledge he saith so himself how is it to be understood as he was the Son of man according to the man-hood he had not the knowledge thereof but as he was the Son of God he had the knowledge thereof Col. 1. 15. was next produced by me to prove the eternal generation of Christ by it But he had perverted the true sense of it before he came to it and made use of it to serve his own purpose by it while he was pleading for that unchrist-like doctrine which he had received and was ingaged to maintain it And in this place he only tels me he had spoken to it and with a scornful jeere prayes me to consider it again and by my next to let him hear what part thereof it is in which Christs eternal generation may be seen Rep. In this text of Col. 1. 15. Christ is called the first born of every creature and his eternal generation was meant by it which I have proved already in my other Treatise and shall yet again manifest it 1. First-born is not the same with first created 1. because it cannot be proved by Scripture that Christ was created at all therefore not that he was first created 2. In the beginning he was but no mention of any beginning that he had 3. There is expresse mention that heaven and earth were first created for in the beginning they were created and before the beginning nothing was created 4. Christ was born according to the flesh but he was not the first-born but in fulnesse of time was born therefore in reference to his humanity and as he was the seed of the woman he is not called first-born 5. First born and first-begotten are termes equivalent and point at one and the same thing viz. or some person that did perform such an act as begetting of Christ 6. First-born first-begotten and only-begotten are alike congruous and may equally so far as concerns the truth of the thing be attributed to Christ so that whatever is the meaning of such titles or names there is a peculiarity therein to Christ and Christ hath therein no fellows and so it can neither be applyed to creation nor to ordinary and temporary generation for it cannot be said that Christ was onely created nor onely generated and begotten nor onely born for there were numerous creatures created and innumerable generated in the ordinary way But Christ was alone so begotten and so born of God as none else were 7. Christ speaks of himself that which none other can speak but he God possessed me in the beginning of his way before his workes of old possessed me how As Eve possessed Cain for the word is one in the original and it is rendred gotten and indeed he must be begotten so the Lord possessed Christ got Christ begot Christ in the beginning of his way and when was that beginning in the beginning of the world no it was before his works of old or ever the earth was and the earth was the first together with the heavens in the beginning yet Christ was before not in the beginning of the creation but in the begininng of Gods way now Gods way was from everlasting therefore Christs going forth hath been from of old from everlasting Mich. 5. 2. his decrees were from everlasting and God was ever working therefore it is explicated verse 23. I was set up from everlasting in the beginning the one interprets the other the beginning of Gods way is from everlasting Thus I have found eternal generation in these words first born and in his next let him evade it if he can I shall now come to the consideration of Col. 1. 16. By him were all things created c. and John 1. 3. All things were made by him and without him was made nothing that was made In answer to which he thinks he hath acted his part gallantly but let us hear what it is that he saith He puts the Scriptures into an argument after this sort He by whom all things were made is the most high God but all things were made by Jesus Christ therefore Jesus Christ is the most high God He grants the major in reference to the principal agent but denies it in reference to an instrumental agent And saith he asserts Jesus Christ to be onely an instrumental agent in the creation of the world Rep. I have already in many places of my other Treatise because he often harps upon Christs instrumentalnesse to the Father in creating all things confuted this assertion yet if he have any thing to say in the defence of it I am willing to discusse it with him And he produceth four reasons for the confirming of his position I shall try the strength of them 1. The book of the creatures speaks onely of one first cause and principal 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 silent Rep. 1. If the book of the creatures were wholly silent yet if the book of the Scriptures be not silent we are to attend the book of the Scriptures if the book of the creatures would have taught us all things that we ought to believe concerning God what need had there been of the book of the Scriptures 2 The book of the creatures doth teach many things which we understand not from them the defect is in us not in it we are dul in apprehending and slow of heart in beleeving what the book of the Scriptures doth teach us therefore may not conceive aright what the book of the Creatures doth teach us 3 The heathen Philosophers from the principles of Reason have acknowledged a Trinity of Persons in the unity of Essence as Morneus a French Lord in that exquisite piece of his called The truenesse of
certainly known So our High Priest Jesus Christ is without beginning of dayes or end of life Repl. This answer is too light and frothy in a subject so serious It was not mine intent or designe and he knows it very well to make Melchisedech God nor any of the persons of the Godhead nor yet to make a quaternity of persons but to make Christ God to whom that in truth belongs which in type only and in a figure mystically is attributed to Melchisedech Moses and David speak of Melchisedech as if he had been one who had glided down out of heaven and come from above and had again soon after conveyed himself thither for there is not any mention at all made of his birth or death of his father or mother or kindred or when he became Priest nor when he laid down his Priesthood And the Apostle saw the mysterie in it and that it behoved him so to be described and set out that he might be a Type of Christ both of his Person and Priesthood And therefore when he makes use of him as a Type to set out Christ by he describes him to be without father and so was Christ as he was man and without mother and so was Christ as he was God having no beginning of dayes nor end of life nor had Christ according to his divine Nature considered either beginning or end of dayes but acording to his humane he had both and both of them described and well known by all that are versed in Scripture-story and the Apostle knowing these things in expresse words makes Melchisedech the Type of him discerning that the Holy Ghost in concealing these things of him had made him so and intended him to be so as these words import Made like unto the Son of God for he is described saith Beza as if he had neither been mortall man nor had been born of a mortall woman which because it could by no means agree with any meer man born of men therefore the Apostle saith that he is peculiarly the figure of that one only begotten Son of God and that it was so intended by the Holy Ghost Now then the strength of the Argument fetch'd from this Scripture lies here First Melchisedech is a Type of Christ that is without controversie Secondly He is a Type in these things mentioned of him Without father without mother without beginning of dayes and end of time Otherwise in vain doth the Apostle mention these things of Melchisedech but as a type for in truth it was not so of Melchisedech And it appears by the scope of the Apostle which was to interpret the words of David A Priest after the order of Melchisedech therefore it was necessary for him to set forth what Melchisedech was in his person and in his office and in his person he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Without father without mother not in truth but they are not mentioned and so it is as if it had been so and that in type he might be so and therein resemble the Son of God that in truth was so Thirdly Melchisedech being only a type in these things of Christ it was not necessary that he should be such in truth but only in a figure mystically as indeed he was not but it was necessary that Christ should be so in truth being the Anti-type that is being the substance of that which Melchisedech was but a shadow of therefore in John 1. 17. it is said that the law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ That is there were many shadows in the law of Moses but Christ came and fulfilled them and was the truth of them We read of David that he said of himselfe They pierced my hands and my feet they gave me vineger and gall to drink which really were not done to David but mystically and in a figure as David was the type of Christ but these things were really done to Christ and in truth were fulfilled in Christ So the bloud of buls and calves and of such beasts which were sacrificed and offered they took away sin cleansed away the guilt and brought pardon and purged the conscience and brought peace but none of these did so in truth but mystically in type only as they shadowed out and pointed at the sacrifice of Christ and at his bloud but the bloud of Christ really and in truth did take away sin did clense the conscience did bring remission peace Heb. 9. 9 12 13 14. More instances might be given but indeed there is evidence enough in the very nature of a type and antitype There is a mystery in the type and there is the impletion or fulfilling of the mystery in the Antitype or the thing of the mystery is to be seen in the Antitype But enough of this unless he had said more to impugne it I now come to consider of his answer to Pro. 8. 22. 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 To this he thus answers And gives this sense The Lord who is Possessour of heaven and earth obtained or created me when he began to worke before his antient workes And I was set up or annoynted to have the dominion of all things and that from everlasting that is from the beginning before the earth was Repl. The word indeed signifies to obtain or to possess which is sometimes done by creation and so when heaven and earth were created they were possessed by God or as he saith God was Possessour of them But in this place it is an obtaining or possessing as is done by generation I gave an instance in Eve in reference to Cain I have gotten a man it was by a begetting or generating there and in this place it is so also Christ is called the onely begotten of the Father and here in ver 24. Christ the wisdome of God declares how he was possessed viz. as a Son that is brought forth by a woman travelling in which Christ is said to be born and is called the first-born to exclude creation and that it might be by generation and the act of the Father in communicating the divine essence to the Son is called after the manner of men that it may be better conceived of a begetting or generating suteable to which is the Hebrew word Amun v. 30. which signifies a child nursed nourished brought up with a father and such was Christ which is thus expressed to hold forth his generation and not creation for when God created Adam he created him a man but Christ is represented as a child to shew how he was begotten and it is added that Christ was his Fathers delight and a sport before him for so it is in the Hebrew and this is humanitùs dictum is is spoken after the manner of Fathers who take dear delight in the childe that comes out of their
heaven earth under the earth are represented by John in the service of blessing praising honouring glorifying the Father and the Son in like manner without any distinction they are not heard worshipping the Father through the Son but worshipping and honouring both Father and Son in like manner as two equals or as two coessential persons in the Godhead Yea lest it should be imagined that he that sitteth upon the Throne is the principal object of the worship and that the Lamb is the less principal subordinate and intermediate object of it because he is mentioned first and the Lamb is mentioned after him therefore vers 14. the four and twenty Elders are brought in in this vision worshipping him alone who liveth for ever and ever without the mention of any other though other persons are not excluded And who is this person that liveth for ever and ever It is Christ who gives himself this Title though it be his Fathers Title also Rev. 1. 18. I am he that liveth and was dead and behold I live for ever and ever So it is in the Greek and it concurs in words with this Text of Rev. 5. 14. 3. This distinction as he brings it and means it opens a door to the worshipping of men or Angels any that may be called God's representatives and which act among men in Gods Name for if that be the formal reason of worship given to Christ He is Gods Vice-Roy or Representative which are not Scriptural Titles but names of his own or others devising and he is one that acts in Gods Name then worship may be given to Moses Joshua the Prophets for Moses was in Gods stead to Aaron and to the people I have made thee a God to Aaron sairh the Lord to him Exod. 4. 16. And the Prophets came in Gods Name may they therefore be worshipped According to his Argument they may yea any person or thing that is a means by whom or by which God dispenseth himself to men in a Religious or spiritual way or by whom or which we come to God in worship may be an intermediate object of Religious worship and so we may worship our Ministers which go to God for us and from God come to us and we may worship the Scriptures and the Ordinances by which we have communion with God for these are intermediate things betwixt God and us in worship may they therefore be intermediate objects of worship Seeing he makes Christ such a god as other creatures are but more eminent then they such a god as Moses was as Magistrates and Judges were which carried Gods authority in the Offices upon them a god of the same kinde with them What reason can be rendered if Christ be worshipped upon that account why they also being such-like gods as he and coming with God's authority betwixt God and us should not be worshipped as intermediate objects upon the same account But this is very gross and makes his assertion concerning worshipping Christ as an intermediate object betwixt God and us very gross also 4. It is apparent that Christ both assumed and Saints and Angels have given to him that very worship and honour and service which is peculiar to the high God alone both for matter and for manner 1. Doctrines Institutions and Ordinances have been received submitted to upon the testimony and authority of Christ alone Mat. 5. 21 22. 1 Cor. 11. 23 24. 2. The Ordinances Institutions Laws and Rites of Moses were altered changed abrogated abolished by the Power and Lordship of Christ alone Acts 15. 28. 1 Cor. 12. 5. Heb. 3. 5 6. 3. Believers have rested trusted and depended upon Christ for spiritual help and supply of grace according to their needs Phil. 4. 13. and 2 Cor. 12. 8 9. a place worthy consideration and very convincing if rightly understood and duely weighed 4. Saints have acquiesced and quietly submitted and rested satisfied with the will of Christ and have given up themselves wholly to him to be disposed of according to his pleasure whether to do or to suffer Act. 9. 10. to 17. 2 Cor. 8. 5. 5. Religious praying or prayer for spiritual blessings as it is an act of Religion is a service and worship that hath been given to Christ Luk. 17. 5 the Disciples pray to Christ to increase their faith 2 Thess 2. 16 17 the Apostle Paul prayed to him and Hos 12. 4 Jacob of old time wept and made supplication to him 6. Praise also as it is an act of Religion hath been offered up to him 2 Pet. 2. 18. Jud. v. 24 25. Rev. 1. 6. 7. Swearing hath been by his Name Rom. 9. 1 Paul attests Christ flees to him as a witness and to his conscience let the place be weighed and it will â—ppear to be an Oath and that the words in Christ â—â— as much as by Christ Isa 45. 23. compared with Rom. 14. 11. Philip. 2. 10 11. And Rev. 10. 5 6 the Angel sware by him that liveth for ever and ever who created heaven and the things therein and the earth and the things that are therein and the sea and the things that are therein And who is this It is Christ to whom the Creation is attributed and to live for ever and ever is assumed by himself and he makes himself known by this attribute as I have shewed before from Rev. 1. 18. 8. In casting of the lot Christ was invocated for the disposing of it Acts 1. 24. That it was Christ whom they prayed to appears from hence 1. They call him Lord whom they pray to which is Christ's usual name in the New-Testament by which he was distinguished from the Father 2. To chuse an Apostle was Christ's proper work he chose the twelve Apostles and therefore must chuse him who must come in room and place of Judas who was one of the twelve and who fell from his Apostleship by transgression therefore they use it as an argument in their prayer Shew whether of these two thou hast chosen that he may take part oâ— this ministery from which Judas by transgression fell 3. Christ is the great Lord of the Church anâ— he ascended up on high that he might give these gifts to his Church Apostles Evangelists c. Eph. 4. 10 11. And he is the great Lord of all his Churches and administers all such things that respect the good of his Churches 1 Cor. 12. 5. 9. The conscience is subjected to Jesus Christ Eph. 6. 5 6 7 9. Masters and servants are enjoyned in this place by the Apostle to do their duties to each other with an eye to Christ and as the servants of Christ and as to the Lord and not to men and as having a Master in heaven with whom there is no respect of persons The Apostle would engage their consciences in the thing and therefore speaks so much of Christ and he could have laid no greater bond upon them if he had mentioned the Father See Col. 3. 22 23 24 where
written there or he that reads may understand without questioning that whole Christ is but an Instrument For all that is asserted by the Apostle is that God the Father our Saviour saved through Christ our Saviour by the holy Ghost And what doth this hold out but the Order among the Persons in their working And when JEHOVAH saves by JEHOVAH their God doth this particle by import instrumentalness I have shewed the contrary Indeed the Manhood of Christ is made instrumental to the Godhead of Christ and to the whole Trinity in this great designe of the Father Son and holy Ghost to save men but it cannot in this place be applied to the Manhood because the Spirit is shed or given from the Father through Christ not as Man but as God as I have shewed in the other Treatise Instance 5. The 5. Instance he forms up into an Argument thus That Doctrine which makes the Mediator betwixt God and man to be a meer creature brings in as it were another Gospel destroyes the true Gospel in many of the parts of it c. in that it is against reason that the Mediator should be a creature because a meer creature is no way meet to be a Daysman for God because a Mediator must either partake of both God and man or of neither else he will be rather a party then a Mediator c. and in that it opposeth these Scriptures Mat. 1. 23. 1. Tim. 3. 16. Joh. 1. 14. But that Doctrine which denies Jesus Christ to be the most high God makes the Mediator betwixt God and man to be a meer creature Therefore I shall passe by all those lines in which he only trifles speaks not to the Argumnet or instance and mention only that which is materiall in way of answer To the Major and the first reason of it viz. A meer creature is no way meet to be a Daysman for God He answers thus This reason wants a reason to support it what should hinder saith he but the meere creature may be a Daysman or Mediator Is there any one work that belongs to his office that is impossible for a creature to perform notwithstanding divine assistance with him I dare saith he assert the contrary and am able to prove in whatsoever work you can instance in belonging to Christs Mediatorship that of himself he was not able to perform it unlesse by the assistance of another which he enjoyed and so is a compleat Mediator Rep. There are many things that may hinder that a meere creature cannot be a Daysman or Mediator for God 1. The disproportion that is betwixt God and a meere creature hinders which disproportion is infinite It is against Gods honor and glory that God should admit of a meer ceature-Daysman or Mediator It is as if a worm should be a Daysman or Mediator for a man or as if a begger should be a Daysman or Mediator for a King Nay there is not any thing to resemble it by among all the creatures and there would be too much honour put upon a meer creature if he should be Mediator or Daysman because a meer creature is infinitely below God but a Daysman should hold some kind of equality with the person for whom he is a Daysman For 1. The matter is committed to him that is a Daysman or Mediator 2. The person that commits the matter to the Daysman commits himself with it to him also 3. A Daysman is one that must judge betwixt now this is too low for God to admit of and too high for man or for any meer creature that it should be set â—n such a place 2. The impotency and infirmiiy of the creature hinders that it cannot be a â—meet Daysman for God For 1. No meer creature can attain unto a perfect knowledge of the trespasse and offence that is committed against God because it is infinite therefore no finite creature can search into it the person against whom it is committed being infinite makes it infinite and one of a finite knowledge cannot reach it it may be truly said that neither man nor Angel nor the Son of man himself as man knowes the greatnesse of mans sin for unlesse the greatnesse of God can be measured against whom it was committed the greatnesse of the sin cannot be known Now if it cannot be known by any meer creature then no meere creature can be a Daysman to consider of it 2. No meer creature can be sufficiently sensible of the great dishonour that was offered unto God and the great indignity and injury that was done against God when man sinned again him for what is all creature-sense to that infinite perception which God hath of the â—ffront done unto him and unlesse you could make the creature as God a creature cannot have the feeling of God and unlesse a creature had the infinite holinesse of God a creature cannot know how distastfull sin is unto God therefore a meer creature cannot be a Mediator or Days-man for God for he cannot sensibly enough consider of the transgression against God 3. No meer creature can make Proposalls that are proportionable in reference to Gods honour that was impaired by the sin of man that God might be no loser nor might receive any detriment by Mediation because no creature knowes how much the honor of God is impaired and if he did yet it would be beyond his power to offer honorable terms to God in reference thereto for a creature will act and move like a creature and all its Proposalls will be low and little and defective and short yea infinitely low short and like it self therfore a meer creature cannot be a meet Daysman for God because he will be sure to wrong him 4. The Mediator betwixt God and man is not of intercession onely but of satisfaction now no meer creature can give satisfaction for mens offences because offences are greater then can be conceived of the satisfaction must be like them that is must be greater then can be imagined by any creature therefore greater then can be given by any creature The Mediator is an undertaker to satisfie for what is past by paying the utmost farthing and to render man a new creature inclied and devoted to God who was before an enemie Now no meer creature can be such an undertaker because he cannot give a price sufficient nor work any such transformation in man but it belongs to him who made heaven and earth to do this These things are impediments why a meer creature cannot be a Daysman betwixt God and men there are things to be known and done which creatures as creatures are not capable of His daring therefore to assert the contrary shews rather his presumption then his wisdome or ability And whereas he saith that he is able to prove that Christ of himself was not able to perform any work belonging to his Mediatorship unlesse by the assistance of another which he enjoyed and so was a compleat Mediator
yet all that he says is but may be which we have been troubled enough with already He doth not say there is a defect in the words but it may be there is which we know proves nothing Yet I shall pass over his may be in silence but say somthing to that which he bottoms it upon he saith Some Greek Copies read it thus which he hath purchased with the bloud of his own meaning Son but Beza saith it is one Copie that the words run so in whether shall I believe for I have not seen all the Greek Copies my self though I have examined some Beza or him When he comes up to Beza's learning and integrity I shall be at a stand whose testimony to take but not till then However this will do him no good for the bloud is the price wherewith the purchase was made and it was his bloud that made it for it was not made with an others bloud but the Text is cleer and he cannot overthrow it that the person that purchased it is God then the bloud must needs be the bloud of God also because therewith he purchased So that if there be one Copie that saith which he purchased with the bloud of his own yet the defect will be in the word self that is wanting and not in the word Son that is wanting and the words must run thus which he purchased with the bloud of his own self And if it were as he would have it with the bloud of his own Son yet it is a proper Son that is spoken of and the Apostle makes him God in that expression As the Jews said of Christ that he made himself equal with God because he said God was his own proper Father as the words are in the Original John 5. 18. and this amounts to as much as I intended in the quotation of the place this puts value and merit enough upon the satisfaction of Christ that it was the bloud of a person that was God and equal with the Father that was shed for the taking away of sin But he hath a third evasion and if he be beaten out from the covert of that whither will he then fly 3. If both these be removed saith he yet the words may have an other meaning then what you and many others do allot them Christs bloud may be said to be Gods own bloud in way of eminency it being more excellent by far then the bloud of the Legal Sacrifices In the old Testament tall Trees are called the Cedars of God in this sense also Christ is called the Lamb of God John 1. 36. because he was far more excellent then either the paschal Lamb or any other Lamb which was to be slain in way of Sacrifice And the Author to the Hebrews in this sense prefers the bloud of Christ far before all other bloud shed for the expiation of sin Heb. 9. 13 14. Repl. If he could but turn the word may into the word must and could be able to make it out from the text or context that the sense that he puts upon the words must be the true sense of the place and that none other that any other allots to it can stand or consist with it there would be some weight in his words but this may be hath nothing but weakness and uncertainty in it 2. The sense that he puts upon the text is without sense there is not the least footing for it in the Text it is a meer invention without the shadow of reason in it for that which it is grounded on is not to be found in the Text there is no mention of the bloud of God in the Text and therefore no reason he should parallel it with such like phrases as the Trees of God the Cedars of God which are of the same nature with other trees but are more excellent and are therefore called the Trees and Cedars of God The words in the Greek are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Beza renders suo illo proprio sanguine that is by that his own proper bloud and it relates to the subject spoken of before which is God for the exhortation is to seed the Church of God and it is added which he that is which God hath purchased with his own proper bloud so that it is the bloud of God through the relation it hath to a person that is called God whose bloud it is and not by way of eminency as trees are called the trees of God for the excellency they have in them above other trees which yet stand in no relation to God Now if he be able to prove that God is not here spoken of but it is another that is not God though he be called God then may he prove that the bloud that is said to be his bloud is yet not the bloud of the person that is God but the bloud of anothet that is called God but is not God otherwise it stands in force the bloud of Christ is not the bloud of a meer creature but the bloud of God whence the merit of it proceeds for the expiating of sin Whereas he saith that in this sense Christ is called the Lamb of God because he was far more excellent then the Paschal Lamb oa any other Lamb that was sacrificed It is granted that he was so called for that reason and not only because Christ who was slain was man and those Lambs were bur bruit creatures and so inferior to him but because the person of this Lamb slain was more then a man was the Son of God and very God but not slain like a Lamb as he was the Son of God and very God but according to the humanity which he assumed and as the son of man and very man so was he slain It is said the son of man must be delivered up into the hands of men and they shall kill him yet though he could not suffer as God he notwithstanding by the eternal Spirit viz. by the Divinity or God-head offered up himself a sacrifice a Lamb without spot and blemish to God which made his bloud more effectual to expiate sin then the blood of Goats could be for otherwise there would have been no difference in point of worth and value in purging away of sins of men for the bloud of a man at the most could but satisfie for the offence of a man and not of many men and to this purpose the bloud of a man would have been as ineffectual as the bloud of a beast I have been large in the vindication of this instance because the matter of it was weighty it being a great Truth of God and of high concernment to the Saints I shall be the briefer in the next The ninth Argument or Instance that I produced was this Inst 9. If Christ be a meer creature then the Intercession of Christ is overthrown for Christ if a meer man being in heaven cannot know the state of the Church in all places upon earth
therefore cannot intercede for it He reduceth this into the form of an Argument to little purpose but to fill up paper after this manner That Doctrine which utterly overthrows the Intercession of Christ brings in as it were another Gospel But the Doctrine that makes Christ a meer creature utterly overthrows the Intercession of Christ Therefore He grants the Major proposition but denies the minor and complains for want of proof in these words What Must we again take your word for a proof I wish a better for there is no goodness in that we have been too long troubled with the word I say insteed of proof c. Repl. This answer is much altered it hath fallen under correction since it was first ptesented to me in the manuscript there was profane scurrility in it wherein he shewed the tincture of his spirit but I complained to one of his dear friends who was too highly conceited of him who gave him an Item of it and so the words came to be changed though there be harshness enough without any just cause for it His expressions did run thus We have already been troubled enough with the Prophet I say Wherein he first breaks his rest upon me 2. He doth it in a profane way abusing that Evangelical Prophet Isaiah which abbreviated is written Isay whose person and name deserve reverence because the honour of becoming the Pen-man of the holy Ghost was put upon him Nor was there occasion given him to sport thus with the Prophets name for I know not that any such words can be found in my writing as I say no nor yet the sense of them for I have not nakedly delivered any thing but there hath been either Scripture or Argument to inforce it and in this very instance viz. If Christ be a meer creature then the intercession of Christ is overthrown there is a reason to inforce it which was thus Because a meer man being in heaven could not know the state of the Churches in all places upon earth and therefore could not intercede according to the condition and necessity of the Churches And though this reason was not confirmed with another which it seems he expected it should have bin yet it was not because there was no good reason to be rendred but because I was in great straits of time when I thought of and wrote out that paper of Scripture and Arguments and had not liberty to enlarge upon any thing having not three hours to consider of the thing and because I intended them to fall under the consideration of more candid persons and because I thought what I presented might easily be maintained from Scripture if there should be any contest Nor hath he invalidated the proof I brought for the strengthning of this Argument notwithstanding his complaint of want of proof Let it be considered what he saith What saith he have you learned to measure the knowledge of him who hath received the spirit without measure Cannot he as man know in heaven what things are done on earth Who told you so Repl. These are strange expressions to proceed from one that denyes the Deity of the Spirit equally as he doth the Deity of Christ and who makes both the Son and the holy Ghost finite creatures and who makes the Son the first and principall of all the creatures and the Lord of all the rest yea God in some sence to them all and so the spirit himself is servant unto Christ and Christ is his Lord and in a kind his God The conradictions in this expostulation of his What have you learned to measure the knowledge of him who hath received the spirit without measure in reference to the forementioned Tenents of his are not a few His expressions seem to me to carry such a sense 1. That Christs knowledge is so great that it is unmeasurable and consequently infinite and yet he himself but a creature and consequently finite which is a contradiction 2. That this knowledge of Christ came to be unmeasurable because the spirit was given to him without measure and yet the spirit himself is finite and consequently measurable according to him And if the spirit were infinite and his wisdom infinite as indeed he is though he denye it yet if Christ be a meer creature and wholely finite as he holds the maxime is infallible that quicquid recipitur recipitur ad modum recipientis What ever thing is received is received according to the Capacity of that which doth receive it and consequently when Christ who receives the Spirit is finite he is not capable to receive any proportion of the spirit but what is finite and be may measured though the spirit were infinite And so there is a double contradiction 3. That this excellent knowledge of Christ which he saith cannot be measured was received by his receiving of the spirit and yet Christ is greater and more excellent then this spirit and the Creator of him and Lord and God unto him which is an other contradiction Obj. But he may plead for himself and lay that his words are wrested and that he demands of me whether I have learned to measure the knowledge of him c Sol. Though I am not able to measure the knowledge of Christ who received the Spirit positively so as to declare exactly what measure he received and no more yet I am able to measure the knowledge of Christ which he had by the donation of the Spirit negatively I can say it was not unmeasurable it was not infinite But he bottoms this interrogation upon a Scripture viz. John 3. 34. where he saith that God giveth not his Spirit by measure to him And he interprets it to be without measure and by consequence infinitely But he is mistaken for there is a comparison betwixt Christ and John the Baptist and other Ministers of the Church for they received the Spirit and are limitted and stinted and receive not all that they are capable of and must have but the Spirit is divided to them as it pleaseth God to one man is given Wisdom and to an other Knowledge c. 1 Cor. 12. 11. and Eph. 4. 7. and Rom. 12. 3. but to Christ is given the Spirit not by measure that is not according to this measure for Christ hath all these and he hath the Spirit in perfection and not imperfectly as men here have and he hath the whole as he is capable of as man but yet the whole is not infinite nor unmeasurable of which I have largely before spoken and therefore shall not inlarge here It may be further said by way of negation that all the knowledge that Christ hath received as man by the donation of the Spirit doth not inable him as man and being in heaven to know the state of all Saints in all places on earth unless it be by revelation from God immediately and a new every moment The reason is because as Christs body is confined to heaven so his soul
alwaies to the end of the world But whether this be sollidly or slightly done I shall leave to the Reader to judge after I have presented it to his view The tenth Argument or Instance was this Inst 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. 1. 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 Christ saith Rev. 3. 10. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience I will also keep thee from 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 The Reader may easily observe that the force of this Instance lies in two particulars especially 1. If he be a meer creature how will he be able how can he have power to perform such acts as those are that are mentioned conducing to the safety and welfare of his Church having such enemies to conflict with and such evils to save from 2. How can he do it at such distance How can he do it he being in heaven and they being on earth What vertue is that that is in Christ as meer man that reacheth the Saints in all places and is sufficient to preserve and keep and rule and govern them He may also cast his eye upon the Scriptures which I quote of which Matth. 28. 20. is but one to which he refers me and the rest he passeth over in silence as if they were all of them answered in his answer to Matth. 28. 20. but let his answer to that text be surveyed and it will appear to be otherwise I shall re-mind the Reader of the sum of it These works of instructing comforting strengthning he doth in his absence by his Spirit whom the Father hath sent in his Name for the Spirit which came in Christs name was the instrument by which Jesus Christ did the work Doth this answer of his satisfie in reference to that Text in Heb. 7. 2. He is able to save to the utmost those that come to God by him Is this the meaning of it he is not able by himself to save to the utmost but by the Spirit who is his Instrument he is able If it be then Christ alone is not a sufficient Saviour but Christ and the Spirit together or rather Christ is insufficient but the Spirit is sufficient and yet but a creature and inferiour to Christ and his Instrument But the Apostles designe is to set out not the Spirits sufficiency but Christs sufficiency Much less is satisfaction given by this answer of his to Acts 23. 11. where it is said that the Lord stood by Paul and said be of good cheer Paul for as thou hast testified of me at Jerusalem so must thou bear witness of me at Rome Suppose this were done in a Vision yet the Vision is of Christ not of the Spirit I have not said that the Spirit stood by the Lord and it is the presence of Christ himself and the consolation of Christ himself that Paul in this Vision is instructed of though neither the Father nor the holy Ghost is to be excluded for Father Son and holy Ghost are all of them present with all saints alwaies and do all of them work the same work the order still observed So that when it is said that the Father and the Son do instruct or protect by the Spirit it must not be understood that they are causa adjuvantes causes helping one another for all of them are all-sufficient and all of them do effect the whole work in such an order of working much less that the Spirit is only operative and the Father and Son are inactive in the work and are onely authorative in it and do imploy the Spirit as their instrument as the lord of the house doth act things by his servants whom he imploys as messengers to effect such things or whom he appoints or designs for such undertakings for so would he have us to conceive of Christ that he doth nothing himself but is contained in heaven and is neither present nor acts any thing on earth but sends the Spirit to effect all for him and this Spirit is present and doth all that is done and Christ himself doth nothing For this is confuted in this Vision where the Lord shew himself present and he himself gives out the word of good cheer and effects it also by his own power The next Instance or Argument in order which he gives answer to I shall pass over reserving it to the last place and shall vindicate the Instance that follows as is last in the paper from that unkind dealing which it meets with from him The Argument is this Inst 11. If Christ be a meer creature then Prayer to him being now in heaven is altogether vain and frivolous in as much as persons may cry aloud long enough before Christ hear them at that distance but the Saints have bin wont not onely to pray to God in Christs name but to pray to Christ directly and immediately in Acts 7. 57. Rev. 22. 20. Lord Jesus receive my spirit Come Lord Jesus His answer is 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 If Stephen did pray directly to Jesus Christ his act might be warranted by the visible appearance of Jesus Christ as Lot prayed to the Angel being visible That in Revelation is no prayer but an intimation of the Churches desire after Christ's coming the like manner of speaking we have Rev. 6. 16. which is no prayer Repl. Here is a bundle of conclusions and monstrous untruths packed up together 1. He saith By the rule of the Gospel we are to pray to God or the Father in the name of Jesus Christ which being taken exclusively as he must needs understand it else he speaks at randome and not to the thing viz. that prayer to Christ is against the rule of the Gospel is very false and herein he condems the generation of Gods children and Stephen more especially who prayed to God the Son for every Text of Scripture that enjoyns prayer to God enjoyns it to the whole Trinity to Father Son and Spirit and not to the Father only because there is no God but he who is one in Essence and three in persons as hath been proved before And let him shew that rule that enjoyns prayer to God viz. the Father excluding the Son and the holy Ghost if he can and if he cannot let him
scatter the clouds nor clear up their judgements Now Church admonition is the best expedient to bring them to repentance as the Apostle speaks of Hymeneus I have delivered him up to Satan saith he that he may learne not to blaspheme that is by denying a doctrine which he ought to have professed And so such scales of ignorance which were by sin contracted are by Church-censure removed many times Obj. But what if such persons be very holy in their lives and very profitable in their Communion must they notwithstanding undergo the censure of the Church Sol. 1. There is no holinesse but what flows from the doctrine of the Gospel rightly entertained and held by faith Therefore so long as they waver in the faith in points of great concernment and moment their holinesse must of necessity be waved also the Apostle saith Gal. 1. 7 8. Though I or an Angel from heaven bring any other Gospel and yet he means it of circumcision held by some as necessary to salvation let him be accursed 2. Such persons that are pertinacious in a corrupt opinion are evil leaven and their Communion cannot be so profitable as it is like to be hurtful to the fellowship to which they do belong 3. If they be Saints which do so greatly erre from the faith there ought to be so much the more compassion shewed to them and the greatest love and compassion that can be shewed lies in this to use the last remedy to them when other remedies fail and are ineffectual and it is the greatest cruelty to withhold any means which God hath sanctified for the healing of such as from Exod. 23. appears 5. What one Church of Jesus Christ doth this way in the execution of censure justly and according to rule all the Churches ought to ratifie for if such who are bound by any Church on earth be bound also in heaven then all the Churches in the world have not power to acquit or lose from it therefore in their walking towards such persons great or small they ought to confirme it by having no Communion nor fellowship with such that so such persons may come to see the miserable condition that they are in and may be ashamed and if any Churches or Christians should walk otherwise they sin against Christs ordinance and harden such persons in their sin and hinder their repentance and returning to the truth and will draw the blood of such souls upon their heads If this course were held with such who erre grossely and will not be healed it would awaken those who have left their first faith and are turned after fables and might recover them and would bring a trembling upon the rest that stand firme and unshaken and might preserve them from the like temptations and then there would be no cause for the interposing of the Magistrate which some do relish so evilly The fourth and last thing that I am to discusse is what the preservatives are by which persons may be kept in times in which errours are rife and the danger great in that respect 1. Let every person that pretends to saintship look to his implantation into Christ that it be right and true and that it be firme and sure and then it is to be hoped that he will abide in the Vine and the Vine in him and then he is more likely to stand fast in the faith for there is one that is able to keep him from falling and will keep him and if he fall he shall rise againe for there is one that is able to raise him and will raise him The greatest security of the Saints that they shall not depart from the faith is in their union and communion with Christ 2. Let persons commit themselves to God to be kept by him who can strengthen and settle and establish those that rest on him and wait for him while persons have leaned to their own understanding and have not looked up to the rock that is higher then they and come out of themselves and put their trust in him and begged his teaching and leading they have become vain in their thoughts and have erred from the truth 3. Let persons get a good root of knowledge within themselves and not attain onely to a generall knowledge of things but come up to a particular knowledge of them and know all things in the causes thereof so farre as Scripture gives light or as they have been taught for then though some other thing may be presented to them then what they have received yet the reasons of the things which they have beleeved will not be so soon answered in their souls If persons have but a forme of knowledge within them it is soon overturned 4. Let the love of the truth be laboured after as well as the knowledge of it for persons will be unwilling to relinquish that truth which they have found much sweetnesse in 5. Let the Scriptures be diligently searched into and perused and studied and let them be compared together and let Scripture intepret it selfe and let one Scripture give the sense of another Scripture when persons take up some one or two single scriptures and runne away with them without comparing them with other Scriptures they are led aside to error 6. Christians ought to take heed whom they hear what they hear and how they hear because of many Seducers and Deceivers that are gone abroad into the world and because there are many spirits of Antichrist who yet pretend to Christ 7. Christians ought to become wise unto sobriety and not to think of themselves above what is meet but to have humble and low thoughts of themselves for if once Christians be lifted up they readily fall in this snare of the Devill which is Error and Heresie 8. Christians ought to walk up to that light of truth that they have attained to because there is a promise belonging to such who will live in and practise the truths which they know John 7. 17. 9. Saints ought to consider that they have no more of the grace of faith then they hold of the doctrin of faith for they therfore beleeve because they have such a word of God to ground their belief upon if then they hold not that Word their belief will fall with it and then must needs be shaken as much in the grace of faith as they are in the ground of faith 10. Let them consider that there is no godlinesse but what grows out of the Gospel and springs from the truths of it if therefore the doctrine of grace in Christ be once overturned in the soule all godlinesse will be soon overturned with it 1 Tim. 6. 3. Tit. 1. 1. 11. Let them consider that if once they become unstable in the faith they become unstable in all their wayes for it is as when a tree is not firmly deeply and surely rooted in the earth but is loose in the ground it growes not flourisheth not nor is fruitful like to other
is confined to his body and so the whole humane nature of Christ is confined to one place and is not neither can be present with one saint on earth much less with all saints on earth and without this presence there can be no knowledge for Gods infinite knowledge is by his infinite presence but this hath also been spoken of before And because none can know the state of saints but he that can know the heart of saints but no creature doth this but he that made the heart and gave to man knowledge as the Scripture speaks Psal 94. 8 9 10. and this is God alone But he goeth on and saith None but the man Christ Jesus can intercede it being absurd to conceive that God can intercede unless 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 it 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 Repl. The act of Intercession doth belong to Jesus Christ as man and the reason is strong which he renders but the ability to intercede seeing it must be for all saints according to their particular conditions and necessities doth appertain to Christ as God and the validity of his intercession is bottomed there also And whereas he speaks of a communication of power from the Father to know the state of the Church if he mean by it any inherent power or vertue residing in Christ but given by the Father by which Christ is inabled by himself from time to time to know all the hidden things and deepest secrets and the most inward thoughts and ways and the most retired temptations and spiritual necessities of the Church it is impossible for the reasons before mentioned and because there is not a greater thing by which the excellency and glory of that infinite wisdom of God himself can be discovered and made known then this to penetrate the hearts and discern the motions of the spirits of men and because the Lord himself by the Prophet Amos reckons this viz. the declaring unto man his thought among the great and proper and peculiar works of God which the creature cannot effect whch require an infinite power which no creature can be the subject of in Amos 4. 13. For lo he that formeth the mountains and createth the wind and declareth unto man his thought c. and then he concludes the Lord the God of hoast is his Name And because both God himself and the Prophets and holy men of God have attributed it to God alone as hath bin proved before and you may discern from Dan. 2. 11. that it is imprinted upon the very spirits and minds of the Heathen to acknowledge a peculiarity in this thing to appertain to God And because its possible a like for the Father to communicate to the creature a power of being every where as of knowing all things in all places yea the most insearchable things of all persons without any personal presence where such persons and things are And indeed it may as rationally and as truly be asserted that God may communicate his own nature and essence and all his attributes to the creature as communicate this attribute of omniscience or invest man with a power of knowing of the state of all saints which is all one for what is it that God cannot give a power to know if he can give power to know the inclinations hidden motions secret workings and abstruse actings of the soul and spirit and if God can make the creature to know as much as himself knows by communication then he can make the creature a God by communication And if we look into the way by which God himself comes to know these things we shall be able to discern that this knowledge cannot be communicated because all things and persons are of God and from God and they live move and have their being in him therefore it is impossible but that he should be acquainted with all their actings motions and ways but this is communicable which is the cause of this knowledge of God God cannot make persons or things to have their subsistings and motions in the creature and therefore he cannot communicate such a power and make it reside in the creature by which they may have such a knowledge The effect is no more communicable then the cause is communicable But if he meaneth by a communication of power from the Father to know the state of the Church nothing else but Gods revealing to Christ in heaven from time to time the state and condition of the Church and of all saints as he did to Daniel Nebuchadnezars Dream which was gone from him this will be granted as possible in reference to the creature but this is not properly a communication of power to the creature from the Father but the manifestation of Gods Wisdom and Power by the creature and the creature is not the subject of it in which this wisdom resides but God himself But this is not sutable to Christ to say that what knowledge Christ hath in heaven of the affairs of the Church and state of the saints is by Gods revelation for this would make Christ a Priest of like imperfection which was in the high Priests for they were capable of revelation also as well as Christ if God had pleased to have manifested himself unto them in the discovery of the Churches wants but it behoved Christ to be more excellent to be a Priest not in weakness but in strength and to be able to save to the utmost and consequently to have the ability of interceding in himself For to be able to save by anothers strength is such an ability as Paul speaks of when he saith I am able to do all things through Christ strengthning of me such ability is inability it is to be unable rather then able in and of himself as a child that is moved by the strength of the arms of the Mother or as a sick man that is upheld in his walking which makes nothing to the glory of Christ at all but is a dishonor to him and hence it is that it was needful that Christ should be God and man in one person that he might be the subject of this power and that he might by himself save us Besides it is unscriptural to say that the Father reveals the state of the Church to Christ and that Christ knows it not till then Yea it is repugnant to the Scripture for it is said Christ is he that searcheth the heart c. he knows because he searcheth and not because it is revealed to him But he passeth from this ninth Argument under pretence to visit my tenth and yet saith never a word to it but refers me to his answer to Matth. 28. 20. I am with you