Christ being finite as he holds and measurable doth stint and limit and bring to a bound and to a measure all that he receives and indeed his humane nature that did receive the Spirit being finite was not capable of the Spirit without measure though the Spirit himself be without measure but it is an hyperbolical expression and the meaning is Christ had aboundance of the Spirit as he was man beyond all men and all creatures but no finite proportion of the Spirit will enable Christ as man to know by his own wisdom that resides in him all the works of all the Churches for none but the searcher of all hearts can do that because there are may hidden works of the heart Now this Searcher of hearts is God only therefore Christ is God But he goes on and saith Though Christ hath such a knowledge yet he is not the most high God for his knowledge is of another Joh. 5. 30. I can of mine own self do nothing as I hear I judge c. Repl. I have already answered some parallel Scriptures to this in my former Treatise pag. 145. to which I refer the Reader I shall adde something out of Beza and Chemnitius and so pass over it I can do nothing of my self that is saith he meo unius arbitratu potentia vel voluntate à patre separata cum una eadem sit patris mea tum potentia tum voluntas ut essentia that is by my own single proper power or will separate and apart from the Fathers I can do nothing when as my Fathers will and power and mine are one and the same even as the Essence is one As I hear The Fathers shewing saith he and the Sons hearing do relate to one another that is nothing but the Fathers giving community of vertue and power and of the very Essence it self by generation from Eternity to the Son and the Sons hearing is nothing but the reception of it Or saith he it may respect the humane nature of Christ Christ as man acts nothing doth nothing apart from the will of his own Diety for though the Divine will and the humane be two wils in number yet they be not two but one in consent and agreement and so one with the Fathers will And Christ as man as he hears that is as the Father suggests to him so he judgeth which is true of the Divine will in Christ suggesting to the humane And Chemnitius in his Harmony interprets the Sons not doing any thing of himself to arise not out of the imbecillity of the Son but from the absolute and perfect identity of the Father and the Son in Essence and all essential properties and acts and the Sons hearing he expounds to be the Sons knowing together with the Father all things decreed in the secret Counsel of the Divinty or Divine Essence And without doubt the undivided operations of the Father and Son are pointed out As I hear I judge saith Christ and in Joh. 8. 15. I judge no man and ver 50. the Father seeketh and judgeth and yet in Joh. 5. 22 The Father judgeth no man but hath committed all judgement to the Son These Scriptures cannot be reconciled better then to say they judge in one another the Father in the Son the Son in the Father they act undividedly the Father is in Christ in all Christs operations and the Son sees and hears and knows the Father and the things of the Father in himself He concludes his answer to this text of Rev. 2. 2. thus Though he alwayes knew all things necessary for the perfect discharge of his offices yet there was a time when he was excluded from the knowledge of the hour and day of judgement Mark 13. 32. But of that day and hour no one knoweth neither the Angels that are in heaven nor the Son unless the Father Therefore his knowledge was not formally of himself nor alwaies perfect Rep. This text of Mark is to be interpreted of Christ according to the humane nature as he is the Son of man for in that sense he is also called the Son without any addition 1 Cor. 15. 28. compared with 23. for Christs manhood is there spoken of for it is said Christ should first rise which as man he onely doth and then ver 28. he is called the Son which must refer to the same consideration of Christ as man And if it were otherwise that Son were alwaies taken for Son of God yet sometimes a thing is spoken of in one nature and must be understood in another Acts 20. 28. it is called the bloud of God but it is meant of the humane nature because considered as God Christ hath not any bloud And as the Son of man is higher then the Angels and knoweth more then the Angels having a more excellent anointment then they therefore the gradation is consistent and sutable enough neither the Angels nor the Son according to flesh which you will think more strange because he is wiser then the Angels And whereas he seems to limit it to the Father onely it must not be understood exclusively as shutting out Christ as he is the Son of God from eternity or as shutting out the Spirit for first if the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interpreted by him unlesse and translated but be alwaies exclusive of all but the person mentioned then the Father would be excluded from knowing himself for Mat. 11. 27. the words run thus No one knoweth the Father unlesse the Son and so it is asserted of the Son no one knoweth the Son but the Father or unlesse the Father and so the Son is excluded from the knowledge of himself if the particle unlesse be alwayes exclusive which would be monstrous to be granted 2. It is manifest that the holy Ghost or Spirit of God knows the day and hour of judgement for it is said of him that he searcheth the deep things of God and this must be granted to be one of them 1 Cor. 2. 10 11. In which text it is to be observed that the exceptive particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless is to be found by which both Father and Son are excluded from knowing the things of God if we may believe him that this particle limits it only to him that is mentioned for the Spirit is onely mentioned 3. It is inconsistent to what is asserted of Christs knowledge Colos 2. 3. it is said that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in him how then should he be ignorant of the day of judgement as he was the Son of God And John 5. 20. the Father sheweth the Son all things that himself doth that is in himself the Father shews all things now this is one thing that the Father doth he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world and this is shewed in Christs very essence which is the same with his Fathers and in Christs very will which is the same
he had a glory it was not any created glory for that consisted in dominion which was not til the world was and then what glory could it be but that which we contend for divine uncreated glory which holds forth him to be an uncreated and eternal being and by consequence to be the most high God But he brings reasons for his own tenent that whole Christ is a creature from this Text of John and attempts the overthrow of my assertion of Christs Deity which I contend for from this Text. 1. Saith he If Christ were equall with the Father why doth Christ direct his prayer to his Father There had been no need nor can cause be shewed why he should supplicate to his Father and not act relyance on the Godhead Repl. I have rendred reasons for it in my former Treatise in my reply to his fift argument which was this He that acteth with dependance on another is a creature but whole Christ acteth with dependance To which I referre the reader because it is largely discussed there and it is a tedious unpleasing thing to multiply repetitions though he delights himselfe too much therein yet lest that Treatise should not be at hand I shall satisfie the Reader thus far It behooved the Godhead in the person of the Son to be veyled for this was the Sons emptying of himselfe but not so the Godhead in the person of the Father therefore the Son acts not dependance upon the Godhead that dwelt in himself in the person of the Son or as it was in himself but as it was in the Father 2. He saith We do not use to pray but praise for things we have if we know that we have them Now Christ could not want the highest glory in any sense if he were a person in the Trinity coequall with the Father especially not be without it with the Father nor in heaven in any sense whatsoever as by the clouding darkning or obscuring of it therefore the glory which he had with the Father was not the highest glory but a glory proceeding from the highest and by consequence Christ was but a creature Repl. It is true that the highest glory he being a person in the Trinity coequall with the Father could not be separated from him for it follows the divine essence and cannot be divided from it but it might be and indeedwas obscured and clouded not to the Father nor to the Son himselfe for the Father saw it and gave witnesse to it and so did the Son and comprehended it fully but to the creature it was darkned and obscured and but some small beams and rayes of it appeared the Son was incarnate or in flesh but the glory of the Son appeared not in flesh in fulnesse of lustre like the glory of the Son but the form of God in the Son was veyled and hidden in the form of a servant Now Christ prayes that that essentiall divine glory might be manifested in flesh that he the Son in flesh might appear in glory when he should come to heaven as he did before he took flesh that as the Godhead was hidden in the manhood so the manhood might be glorified with the Godhead that the flesh might be taken up into the fellowship of the glory of the Divinity by the shining forth and breaking out of the glory of the Divinity in the flesh 3. It appears saith he that the glory which he had with the Father was not divine or the highest glory because it was to be communicated Glorifie me O Father with that glory c. Now the highest glory being infinite could not be given or communicated to the humane nature which was finite and so uncapable of it c. Repl. Though the divine glory cannot be communicated to humane nature so as that it should be inherent in the humane nature yet it may gloriously shine forth upon it and appear in it which it did not before yea by reason of the hypostaticall union betwixt the divine nature and the humane nature the glory of the divine nature becomes the glory of the whole person so as that when the glory of the Son shines forth in its greatest strength in the flesh it may be predicated and asserted of the man Christ that he is glorified with the glory which the Son had with the Father before the world was Because the man Christ is the same person with the eternall Son of God Thus all the Scriptures which I drew witness to that Jesus Christ is the true God and the most high God notwithstanding all his endeavours to suffocate their testimony and his attempts by violence to silence them that they should not speak what they would speak yet they have with open mouth with one consent given glory unto Christ by witnessing to his Godhead and to his coessentialness and to his coequality with the Father I shall conclude my Vindication of them with these words Let God be true in what he hath testifyed of his Son in Scripture and every man that opposeth let him be a lyer My next undertaking must be the defence of the Arguments which I produced and drew up from Scripture by which I attempted to prove the destructivenesse of the Doctrine which he holds making whole Christ a creature to the true Gospel and oppositeness of it to the Scripture in many main points and truths of it My Assertion was That the doctrine which makes Christ a meer creature brings in as it were another Gospel and destroyes the true Gospel in many parts thereof and brings in another Scripture in many main points He cals this a reason against his doctrine of Christ a meere creature and so it is not onely to shew the falsenesse of such doctrine but also to discover the horridnesse and hideousness of the doctrine that all might be warned of it and with fear and trembling may decline it But he wisheth him to be Anathema that holds any such doctrine that destroyes the Gospel or the Scripture and falls upon the examination of the instances or Arguments which I produced to confirme that generall reason Therefore because he is so confident that his doctrine will not prove such and because he hath possessed the people that though there should be a mistake in it on his part yet it is not so dangerous as I would make it and that the salvation of mens soules is not so nearly concerned in it as I would have men to conceive and that Christ is never a whit less a sufficient Saviour though but a creature and that it is enough to beleeve unto Salvation that Christ is Lord viz. made Lord and that God raised him from the dead by which means persons have become lesse solicitous what doctrine they entertain they see it hath a specious shew and conceive it will not prove destructive though it should prove false therefore I think it expedient to fortifie my position which respects the oppositenesse of this doctrine of his both
to the Gospel and the testimony of other Scriptures with some further proofes not purposing at all to desert my former grounds which I confide in as much as ever but intending in my following discourse to free them from his evasions by which he would elude the strength of them And thus I argue Arg. 1. That doctrine that denyes and destroyes that one onely true God and brings in a strange and a false God that Doctrine destroyes the true Gospel and Scriptures and brings in another Gospel and Scriptures But this Doctrine of his that makes whole Christ a creature doth so Therfore c. The Major admits of no doubt because the Scripture is cleer that there is but one onely true God Deut. 6. 4. 1 Cor. 8. 6. The Minor must have proof and thus I confirm it If the one onely true God be both three and one three in Persons and one in Essence be Father Son and Spirit which are called three and yet are but one then that Doctrine which makes God to be but one and one viz. one in person and one in essence and makes the Father onely to be God excluding the Son and Spirit denyes and destroyes the true God and sets up a false God My proof for the Minor again for the Major is unquestionable is 1 Joh. 5. 7 9. There are three that bear witness in heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one What will he answer to this Scripture He will not deny but that the three that are here spoken of the Father the Word and the Spirit are three persons for he hath granted it all along in his discourse that they are three distinct persons but the oneness of these three in essence is that which he denyes that they are one God is not yeilded by him because the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not found in one copy of the Greek But this answer may be given that in all other copies these words are found which renders that copy where they are wanting suspicious and the 9. verse makes it manifest that it is so for the three witnesses in the 7. ver are called the witness of one God in ver 9. if we receive the witness of man the witness of God is greater what witness of God is this it is the witness of the three that was spoken of in ver 7. which are said to be but one God And it is observable that the three witnesses on earth are said to agree in one ver 8. but those in heaven to be one it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ver 7. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ver 8. in all the most approved copies which the concurrence of ver 9. with ver 7. justifies as was said before However it be there is strength enough in this argument to them that grant the God-head of Christ they must confess whether they will or no that the true God is denyed and a false God brought in for if the Father be God and the Son be God and the Son be not the Father nor the Father the Son and yet there be not two Gods but one God then this one God is the Father and Son I do not exclude the Spirit but I speak to those who acknowledge Father and Son both of them to be God they must confess that they are both of them but one and the same God and then it comes to this that the true God is one in two and it is two in one according to their tenent that is one God in essence and two in persons or two persons in one essence the consequence of which is this they must conclude that whoever makes the essence to be one and the person to be but one the Father to be God and he alone to be God and the Son not to be God much less the holy Ghost such an one brings in a strange God and unscripturall God destroyes the true God which is Father and Son as themselves acknowledg yea and Spirit also as they will not deny And how then can any such person make the denying of Christ to be God a triviall errour not greatly consequential nor of such moment as to be so greatly contended for not fundamentall nor damnable though persisted in when as yet it is the denying of the onely God which is not Father alone but Father Son and Spirit But why should I contest with friends which confesse the Diety of Christ I am sorry there should be any occasion I will turn again upon the adversary Either Father and Son I exclude not the Spirit but I am pleading the Sons Godhead and not the Spirits and shewing the heinousness of the errour of denying it I say either the Father and the Son are the onely God or else there is no God at all for the Scripture saith Joh. 10. 30 that the Father and Christ are one in power which is an essentiall attribute and then they are one in essence and so one God and yet they are two distinct persons Joh. 8. 17. 18. It is written in your law that the testimony of two men is true I am one that bear witness of my self and my Father heareth witness of me If the Father and the Son be two distinct witnesses then they two are distinct persons for none can be witnesses but persons and two manifestations of the same person cannot be said to be two distinct witnesses nor would the proof which is fetcht from the law where the witnesses were distinct persons be sutable But he will confess this that the Father and Son are distinct persons and distinct witnesses also and if so he cannot with any face deny the other that they are one as well as two because Christ saith so in the above named place one viz. in power in essence in Godhead And indeed the very context where they are called two witnesses will witness that they are but one God the Jews reject his witness of himself such as they took him to be which was a meer man for the law alowed it not that any man should be admitted to bear witness of himself but he notwithstanding bears himself out by the law to be an adequate witnesse of himself but herein he hath recourse to that of himself which they saw not which they knew not as ver 14. shewes I know whence I came ye cannot tell whence I came He could not mean it of his soul for they could not look upon him without a soul and soul and body made but one man and notwithstanding both he would be an unadequate witness of himself But he means another thing distinct both from soul and body and from his manhood which might be a witness of him as man and this could be nothing but his Godhead and he joynes himself according to this with the Father as a distinct witness but the same God The result is then that the one true God though but one in essence yet
is not one single person but subsists in a plurality of persons Therefore he that makes his subsistence to be single and such as his essence is denyes and destroyes this one onely God Which I prove further The Father is said to be the onely true God John 17. 3. and the Son is called the true God 1 John 5. 20. This Adjective onely refers not to the subject person Father but refers to the predicate or thing that the Father is said to be viz. the true God which is but onely one which is clear from a paralell place in Jer. 22. 30. where the word onely is used in like manner the children of Israel and Judah have onely done evill have onely provoked me The word onely is not to be applyed to the subject persons spoken of as if they onely and no other people had done evill and provoked God but it is to be applyed to the thing that is spoken of them they have only done evill and onely provoked that is they have done nothing else but evill nothing else but provoke so in John the Father is said to be the one only true God but not he only to be the true God for the Son is called the true God as wel as he in the place before named in 1 Joh. 5. 20. Whence I argue that the one only true God is Father and Son as for the holy Ghost I always include him though I have not occasion to speak of him here there is no God no true God but that God that is Father and Son and he that denys either of these denyes this one onely true God He then that acknowlegeth the person of the Father to be God but acknowledgeth not the person of the Son to be God brings in a strange God an unscripturall God and a false God For there is no such God as subsists in the person of the Father onely and hence it is that the Apostle John saith 1 John 2. 22 23. he is an Antichrist that denyeth the Father and the Son And he that denyeth the Son denyeth the Father also that is such an one acknowledgeth not the true God at all what-ever men may think of him Yet further the Father is called the only God Joh. 17. 3. Christ is cald the only God Jud. 4 24 25. But some think otherwise that the Father and not Christ is called the only God and that Jude speaks in ver 4. of Jesus Christ afterwards as distinct from the onely God but that it is otherwise I prove first from the right translation of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is denying the onely God and Master the Lord Jesus Christ It is not said the onely God and the Master with an article the Lord Jesus Christ for then he had spoken of two persons that they denyed viz. the onely God that is one and the Master the Lord Jesus Christ that is another but it is said the onely God and Master the Lord Jesus Christ as speaking of one person only which is Christ 2. From the concordance betwixt this Scripture and that in 2 Pet. 2. 1. They are paralell in three particulars 1. In the title that is put upon Christ in both places he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in both places is translated in our Bibles Lord but is rather to be turned Master 2. The crime and fault that is charged upon them is the same it is denying their Lord or their Master 3. The persons seeme to be the same in both places for they are in all things described alike false Teachers in one place filthy dreamers in the other place they privily come in and act and worke in the one place they creep in at unawares in the other place They walke after the flesh and despise government in one place They defile the flesh despise dominion in the other place Their judgement of long time lingreth not and their damnation slumbreth not in one place and they were before of old ordained to condemnation in the other place Their ruine is set forth by the punnishment which God inflicted upon the Angells that fell and upon the old world and upon Sodom and Gomorrah in one place and in the other place by the Children of Israel that fell in the Wildernesse by unbeliefe and by the Apostate Angells and by Sodom and Gomorrah and the Cities about them So that it seems to be one and the same Prophecie wherewith both Peter and Jude were inspired and which they have left upon record for the benefit of the Church Therefore the one must help to expound the other the crime then of denying which both the Apostles speake of hath the same object viz. Jesus Christ and not the Father it is clear that Christ alone is the object of that wicked act of those spoken of in Peter therefore Christ alone and not the Father is the object of the same wicked act spoken of in Jude And indeed there were never any Christian Teachers and of such both the Apostles speake that did deny the Father to be God but the Son Jesus Christ was denyed by many And if we make a serious inspection into verse 25. of Jude and compare it with the precedent verse we shall find that Christ is spoken of and not the Father and if so then Christ is called the onely wise God for it is the same person that presents saints faultless before the presence of his glory who is called the onely wise God But who is that The Apostle Paul declares who he is in Eph. 5. 27. it is Christ who is described to give himselfe for the Chuch and to have washed it with his owne bloud that he may present it a glorious Church to himselfe Whence I thus Argue If the Father be the only God and if the Son be also the only God and yet there are not two only Gods but one onely God then this one onely God is both Father and Son that is this one onely God though but one in essence yet is two at least in persons but indeed is three but that is somewhat beside my undertaking and then it will follow that that God where an unity onely is granted both in essence and personality is not the onely God which the Gospel and other Scriptures hold out and consequently is a false God for I would ask this question suppose a person should acknowledge Christ to be the only God and should deny the Father to be God could this man be said to acknowledge the one onely true God which the Scriptures speak of I suppose none will be so absurd as to assert it therefore if Christ be the onely God as the Father is he that acknowledgeth the Father without him acknowledgeth not the only true God and so is guilty of destroying the Scriptures and bringing in another Scripture in a maine fundamental point of it Ar. 2. But for further satisfaction I shall propound a 2d Argument which is
this That doctrine which denyes and destroyes that one only true Christ and brings in a strange and a false Christ that doctrine destroyes the true Gospell and Scriptures and brings in another Gospell and Scripture in a main point of it But this doctrine of his which makes Christ a creature doth thus therefore this doctrine brings in another Gospell and Scripture in a main point of it The Major is so void of controversie that it will not be stuck at but the Minor will be denyed and therefore must be confirmed That doctrine that denyes Christ to be the proper Son of God and makes Christ to be onely the Son of man that doctrine denyes and destroyes that one only true Christ and brings in a strange and a false Christ but this doctrine of his doth thus therefore this doctrine of his denyes and destroyes that onely true Christ and brings in a false Christ and strange to Scripture The Major will again passe without exception but proofe will be required for the Minor And I confirme it thus That doctrine which takes Christs God-head from him that doctrine denies Christ to be the proper Son of God and makes him to be meerly the son of man But this doctrine of his which makes Christ to be a meere creature and nothing more takes Christs God-head from him Therefore this doctrine of his denyes him to be the proper Son of God and makes him to be meerely and only the son of man The Major wil now only be in question for the Minor is without question true if God-head be taken in a proper sense as I have taken it in my arguing with him all along For the proofe then of the Major proposition I shall present and make out two things 1. that these two things God and Son of God are all one in reference to Christ therefore whoever teacheth any doctrine against the one viz. that Christ is not God teacheth doctrine against the other viz. that Christ is not the Son of God 2. Christ cannot be God any other way or under any other consideration but as he is the Son of God 1. God and Son of God are all one thing in reference to Christ my meaning is not that the termes are confounded for the word God respects the essence more properly and subsisting in a person and the words Son of God respect the second person in the Trinity as distinguished from the Father and the holy Ghost subsisting in the Godhead But my meaning is that where ever the one is expressed the other is implyed and that a divine person subsisting in the Godhead is meant evermore and in the order of existing and working the second person for proofe of this consider these following particulars 1. Christ himself confounds these two God and Son of God by using them promiscuously John 10. 33. 36. In ver 33. the Jewes said they stoned him because he blasphemed and said he was God Christ repeats their words and blames them for charging him with blasphemie because he said he was the Son of God ver 36. those were not their expressions but Christ makes them their expressions therefore in a sense they were one and the same thing and Son of God was as much as God else Christ had both extenuated their fault spoken untruly of them But in truth and deed Christ said of himself neither the one nor the other in express words but said he and his Father were one ver 30. and if the Son of God did not import as much as God their collection in their own words that he made himselfe God in making himselfe one with the Father was more naturall in reference to Christs words then as Christ repeated them For the Father is God and not the Son of God and when Christ said he and his Father were one they might rather conclude that Christ made himselfe God then that he made himself the Son of God unless the Son of God were also God and so Christ might be the Son of God and yet one in Godhead with the Father 2. The Apostle John 1 Joh. 5. 20. makes the Son of God and the true God to be all one in reference to Christ You are in him that is true even in his Son Jesus Christ and this true one this Son Jesus Christ this very person is the true God As if the Apostle should have said when I speak of the Son of God I would have you to know whom I mean by him I do not mean a man a meer creature and nothing else but I mean a person that is the true God 3. The Apostles in their professions of faith if they do agree therein and I suppose none will say that they do disagree therein do make these two to be one and the same thing The Apostle Peter professeth his faith in these words I beleeve that thou art Christ the Son of the living God But the Apostle Thomas in these words My Lord and my God Peter beleeved him to be the Son of God Thomas beleeved him to be very God and very Lord yea his God and his Lord in an applicative way and Christ doth not look upon one as two low for him nor upon the other as too high for him but upon both as professions of their true faith in him he tells Peter that upon the rock of such a profession he would build his Church and he puts a blessing upon all those that shall beleeve as Thomas beleeved his slowness only to beleeve depending upon sight excepted 4. The grounds whereupon the followers of Christ have some of them stiled him the Son of God and others of them have stiled him God are alike and high enough all of them to cause them to entitle him God Nathaneel sees his omnipresence and omniscience when Christ told him before Philip called thee I saw thee under the fig tree and he glorifies him with the title of Son of God Thou art the Son of God Thomas discerns his omnipotence in raising himself from the dead according as he had foretold destroy this temple and I will raise it up in three dayes and he attributes the name of God to him My Lord and my God Had Thomas apprehended Christ to have been passive in the resurrection and raised meerly by the power of the Father and not his own why should he denominate him God upon this occasion and not rather put that crown upon the Father that raised him if the Father only and not the Son wrought in it 5. The high Priests and Scribes and Pharisees thought it to be blasphemy alike in Christ when he made himself the Son of God and made God his natural Father as when he made himself God as they truly collected from those words of his I and my Father are one Compare Joh. 5. 18. with Joh. 10. 31 33. and the truth of this wil appear And they made account when he stiled himself the Son of God that he therein assumed to
divine faith and so Moses and the Prophets may be the object of faith which is gross 2. Though God viz. the Father and Jesus Christ be two objects of divine Faith yet it is not true in the sence that he represents it in viz. that they are two objects really distinct from one another for the Father that sent the Son Jesus Christ and the Son Jesus Christ that was sent are not two distinct Gods but one God they are not two distinct Essences though they be two distinct subststences or persons so the object essentially and really is but one To this agrees the place which he quotes Joh. 12. 44. He that beleeveth on me beleeveth not on me but on him that sent me An Expositor of note puts this sence upon it Not on me that is such whom you take me to be a man and no more but on me the Eternal God and then same in Essence with him that sent me He puts another sence upon it saying He that beleeves one beleeves both because God appears merciful in the face of Christ and Christ appears instrumental in the hand of God Rom. 4. 24. and 10. 9. And so he makes Christ an instrument who could not as he saith raise himself from the dead the object of faith concerning our Resurrection and Salvation which is gross for Christ is the object of our faith as he is able to save not himself onely but us to the utmost And though Christ be the Son considered as sent and as having taken flesh and as Mediator and so is the object of faith yet he is the same person as before he took Flesh and was Mediator though under another consideration yet the taking of Flesh hath not made him another person much less another being and still he remains the same God with his Father And though as he is considered in Flesh and as Mediator he be an intermediate object of faith yet he is also the principal and ultimate object of faith as he is the Eternal Son and second person in the Trinity for the same person may be both the intermediate and the ultimate object of Faith under a divers consideration this was one part of his emptying of himself the Son became Mediator in Flesh and so the intermediate object of faith who yet was with the Father the ultimate Object of it And Christ though he had been Mediator yet if he had not been God he could not have been the intermediate Object of Faith no more then Moses was who was Mediator he was not the Object of Faith nor could be because he was but a creature Moses was one by whom they beleeved on God and so were the Prophets and also the Apostles Paul saith of himself and of Apollo that they were Ministers by whom the Corinthians beleeved 1 Cor. 3. 5. Mediums or means by whom they were brought to faith in Christ and God but Objects they were not no not intermediate objects of their Faith so Christ could have been but a means of faith in God if he had been no more but a man and had not been God The brazen Serpent which was a Type of Christ to which the promise was made That whoever looked up to it should be healed and it was really so they were healed as God in the promise said Numb 21. 8 9. was onely a means by which they beleeved in God being but a creature and not an intermediate Object of Faith they did not beleeve on it at all but through it on God and so it must have been said of Christ had he been but a meer creature had he been but onely the man Jesus Christ And though it cannot be denyed but that whole Christ as consisting of two natures being God and man is Mediator and materially considered is the intermediate Object of Faith yet not the whole of Christ is the formal cause of faith in Christ but the Divinity or Godhead of Christ alone is the formal cause and reason and ground of the faith of Christians in Christ for that is the Rock upon which the souls of Saints are built and a firm unshaken unmoveable Rock it is and the gates of hell shall never prevail against Beleevers whose faith doth bottom them upon this Rock But he saith It is from Gods commandment that faith in Christ is needful Joh. 3. 23. And it is from Gods appointment that faith in Christ is saving Joh. 6. 40. Rep. All faith that justifies and saves as well that which hath God viz. the Father for its Object as that which hath Christ for its Object is by Gods commandment and appointment justifying and saving for the first Covenant was of Works which men brake and were under death by breaking it and then came both the commandment of faith and the promise of life that was made to faith Gal. 3. 8. The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through faith c. God freely made choyce of faith to save men by it as well of that which respects himself as that which respects Christ I hope he will confess that it was by institution that faith in him that sent Christ viz. the Father is needful and is saving But if his meaning be that no faith was due to Christ naturally save what is due by vertue of appointment and commandment It is utterly untrue if extendeded to whole Christ for Christ is the natural Essential Son of God and look what faith was due to the Father the same faith is due to Christ as the Eternall Co-effential Son of God Or if this sense be given to the words that there was nothing but a Commandment that could move or draw to faith in Christ that is false also for Nathanael was drawn to beleeve without any commandment that came to him to that purpose from those beams of his Deity which sparkled upon him in those words of his Before Philip called thee when thou wast under the Fig-tree I saw thee And many others believed on him when they saw his Miracles So that not the commandment onely but his own Almightiness and Infinite Excellency brought credit and gained faith to him The conclusion is this Though it should be granted that Faith in the Father and faith in Christ do act in a divers manner as indeed it must Christ being considered as Mediator yet it will not follow that either in one manner or another Faith doth act upon a creature but that still the person is God that it acteth upon And it is to be observed that he hath not invalidated that Scripture in Joh. 14. 1. but it stands in full force still for though he would have iâ— to be man Christ that is there spoken of yet it cannot be for Christs Argument would not be good in that sence Ye beleeve in God therefore beleeve in me a man there is no good consequence in it But the Argument is good Ye beleeve in God the Father beleeve in me the Son also for the
this is but poorly learned in Christianity It is easily answered that though the Apostles and Saints shall judg the world c. yet they are no where called the Judges of the World And their judging is Catacherstically and very improperly so called The Apostles more especially are said to judg the twelve Tribes or the World because as Paul speaks all shall be judged according to their Gospel Rom. 2. 16. and both Apostles and Angels do judg the World as Assessores as Peter Martyr saith Christus Apostolos Sanctos omnes cooptavit assessores They sit after the manner of Justices of the Peace upon the Bench and hear all and allow of all and approve of all and allow of all and consent to all and are Witnesses of Christs righteous proceedings and in no other sence can they be said to judg and what hath he gained by this and what doth his new discovery which he thought I never thought of amount to His distinction is to better purpose which he brings afterward of principal Judg and Deligate or Deputy Judg and yet it will not mar my Market as he imagines his words are In a sence it is true no creature can be Judg but God that is principal in Government God being both the Alpha and Omega of it deriving his power from none being the Original of all power And afterward he lays down two Propositions 1. That the most high God who is the Worlds principal Judg will not immediately but by a Delegate judg the World Acts 17. 31. John 5. 22. 1 Cor. 15. 28. 2. That Jesus Christ is subordinate Judg in reference unto God the supream Judg but superintendent in reference to the Saints Act. 10. 42. 3. 20. Mat. 16. 27. Joh. 5. 27. Rep. One distinction which hath been often given and is ordinary and familiar with Christians of no vast knowledg will satisfie the Propositions and answer all the Scriptures and reconcile all seeming differences The most high God who as Father Son and Holy Ghost in each person is the Worlds principal Judg and every person not excluding the other is so And Christ as he is the second Person in the Godhead as he is the Son and as he is equal with the Father is the Worlds principal Judg considered a part from the flesh which he hath now assumed the Father and the Holy Ghost not excluded And this I prove from Scripture Gen. 18. 26. The Person before whom Abraham stood was Christ the seconâ— Person in the Trinity not incarnate at that time and he is calleâ— Iehovah and Abraham calls him the Iudg of all the Earth And in Gen. 19. 24. he acted as a Judg he Jehovah the Son rained fire and brimstone upon Sodom from Jehovah his Father And in Isai 45. 22 23. Christ calls himself God and saith there is none else and saith that every knee shall bow to him that is in the day of Judgment as the Apostle an Expositor without exception holds forth in Rom. 14. 10 11. But Christ as considered in flesh being found in fashion as a man as he is Mediator betwixt God and man being both God and man in one Person is designed and ordained by the Father Son and Holy Ghost to judg the world in righteousness as from Act. 17. 31. he proves And so the Father Son and Holy Ghost judg no man but have committed all Judgment to the Son in flesh Ioh. 5. 22. and in the Son in flesh they judg and this Power and Honour hath he received as Mediator in flesh but when all enemies are subdued and judged then he shall deliver up this Kingdom and Power and Glory to the Father Son and Holy Ghost the one true God who shall be all in all and the Son himself according to the flesh shall be subject And in this sence as Mediator in flesh he may be called a delegate Judg for that the humane Nature of Christ should be taken up into the fellowship of this Glory with the eternal Son this was by ordination As the Son in flesh had been humbled so the flesh with the Son must be exalted to this Glory Phil. 2. 9 10. And the Glory which Christ hath as Mediator is founded upon Christs sonship in this respect as Judg as in all other respects indeed in any other respect but as the Son he is not capable of being Judg for though whole Christ be Judg yet the natural right to it and ability to perform it is as he is the Son and that the whole in both Natures is Judg is of grace And can any rational man think that Christ a meer man should be able to judg the secrets of men if he were not God as wel as man so that that honor to judg as Mediator is given to him in flesh as declarative of that essential Power and Glory which he had as Son with the Father and Spirit from Eternity that all might honour the Son with the equal honour as the Father is honoured And whereas he saith That the Father is principal in Judgment and is the Alpha and Omega of it alluding to the place where the Father is so called why should not the Son be principal in Judgment with the Father being the Alpha and Omega of it seeing he also is so called in Scripture Thus I have followed him in all his Evasions and shifts and have unmasked his Answers and plucked off the fair Vizard that he had put upon them and have discovered the deceit and found fraud and falshood that was hid under them And I have vindicated the rest of the Scriptures that I alledged from his corrupt Interpretations that he put upon them and have confirmed the Arguments which I produced and they now abide in their strength and have removed and taken out of the way that which troubled their Testimony which they brought to the Godhead of Christ that they could not be heard by reason of the noise that his Answers made in mens ears Let it be considered from first to last what a poor weak feeble base mean contemptible dispiseable Christ Saviour Mediator Intercessor he makes this great God and our Lord Jesus to be and what a penurious defective lame and beggerly righteousness and satisfaction he brings unto us for our support and how shamefully and reproachfully he strips him robs him of the Honour and Glory in all things that is due unto him The worship which he must have can but amount to Reverence which is only due to one that hath the meer honour to come in the name of another which is all he grants to Christ for he denies him to be the ultimate object of worship and there is no intermediate object of worship which is not founded in the ultimate or last object and all that come in Gods name Moses and all the Prophets share with him upon that account in this reverence And he cannot be the object of faith at all according to him but a
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
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
23. 2 3. compared together do confirm it in vers 2. it is said The Spirit of the Lord spake by me and his word was in my mouth in vers 3. it is said The God of Israel said the Rock of Israel spake to me he that in vers 2. is called the Spirit of the Lord in vers 3. is called the God of Israel for one and the same person spake to David not two persons spake to him but one And in Luk. 1. 68. 70. compared together and both of them compared with 2 Pet. 1. 21. in vers 63. Zachary blessed the Lord God of Israel who visited and redeemed his people c. in vers 70. Zachary makes this Lord God of Israel to be the person that spake by the mouth of the Prophets but who is he that spake by the mouth of the Prophets the Spirit is he Peter tels us so much and in many other places we read so much 2 Pet. 1. 21. Holy men spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost Therefore if he inspired the Prophets and spake in them and by them he is the Lord God of Israel 3. He is called the most High Luk. 1. 35. The Angel speaks thus to Mary The holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall over shadow thee This latter is but an enlargement of the former the same person is spoken of in both propositions with this difference only the name of the person spoken of is put upon him in the former proposition viz the holy Ghost the Title of the person is given to him in the latter the Highest with his power shall over-shadow thee so that the holy Ghost is the highest But some may object against this and say that the holy Ghost is not called the highest but he is called the power of the Highest or the vertue of the Highest because the Highest by the vertue of the holy Ghost would form Christ in the womb of the Virgin or would cause her to conceive so the holy Ghost and power are one thing but not the holy Ghost and the Highest If this were true yet seeing a person is spoken of and not a thing and this person is called the vertue or power of the Highest in so miraculous a work he cannot be inferiour to the Highest for he by whose force and power and vertue the highest shews himself to be the Highest works as the Highest must needs be as high as he and if the Father should be the Highest in this place yet the holy Ghost is made equal to him which shews the Father and the holy Ghost to be one in Essence though two in personality because there can be but one Highest But it appears to be otherwise that Spirit and power are not confounded but distinguished and there distinguished where God is mentioned in Rom. 15. 18 19. God made the Gentiles obedient to the Gospel through mighty signs and wonders done by the power of the Spirit of God here is power and Spirit and God and all distinguished from other by God the Father is meant by Spirit the holy Ghost is meant and by power the vertue might and efficacy of the holy Ghost is meant and it appears which alone is sufficient to prove holy Ghost to be God that mighty signs and wonders were done by the proper power of the holy Ghost it is not said that they were done by the power of God viz. the Father but by the power of the Spirit of God by the Spirits own proper power 4. He is called God most high and Almighty all these titles are put upon the Spirit in Numb 24. 2. 16. compared together In verse 2. it is said of Balaam that the Spirit of God came upon him in verse 16. Balaam describes himself to be one that heard the words of God that knew the knowledge of the most high and saw the visions of the Almighty and all this was but the Spirit of God which came upon him I might speak of the attributes of the Spirit which are proper to the most high God and prove him to be such as of Omnipotency Omnisciency Omnipresence c. But he himself hath held forth these in his Letter when he lived about Glocester which in my former Treatise is printed to the view of the World at which time his eyes were open and he saw these attributes in the Spirit and acknowledged the holy Ghost to be God upon the sight thereof though his Faith had been suspended before but now he denies what he confessed then and is left to blindness and darkness and speaks opprobriously of the Spirit of Grace when he cals him the instrument of an instrument for he makes Christ himself no more but the Fathers instrument and a creature and the Spirit is no more but Christs instrument and a creature of a creature I shall now conclude with an Answer to what he closeth his Answers to this Text of Math. 28 with He saith this kinde of presence by the Spirit Beza and others understand to be intended in Mat. 28. 20. Reply 1. Neither Beza nor any else save Arians and Socinians do hold such a kinde of presence of the Spirit as he hath held forth viz. of the Spirit as an instrument by which Jesus Christ did work but only of the Spirit as God and as the third person in the Trinity equal with the Father with the Son by whom the Father and Son do work not as by an instrument but as by an associate not as imparting any superiority in them or inferiority in the Spirit but Order only that they which are one in Essence but distinct in personality might not be confounded as they cannot be divided from one another in operation therefore as they are in one another so they work from and by one another 2. The words which he mentions in the Margent as Bezaes upon the place though I have diligently perused Beza I cannot find neither in Matthew the Text that is controverted betwixt us nor yet in any of those Texts in John which speak of the Spirit which he cites neither would they be any whit advantageous to him were they found in Beza for they speak of Christ as absent in body which none denies but that whole Christ is absent is not asserted in the words but the contrary seems to be implyed for the absence of Christ is limited to his body Caeterum corpore abest are the words so that Christ may be present in that spirit of holiness which is his divine Nature of which Paul speaks in Rom. 1. 4. without any contradiction to Beza if any such words may be found in him 3. The words of Beza upon the place do differ greatly from the words he presents as his and do not favour his exposition at all but may well be interpreted so as to cohere with the use I make of that Text Cum autem idem ipse dominus paulo ante dixerit c. saith
Christian Religion largely and satisfactorily shews if the Reader will be at the pains to peruse him 4 The inanimate creatures have some kind of impression of the Trinity upon them and one God in three Persons hath in a kind left his image and his resemblance upon them The Sun begets beams and rayes and from both these proceeds light and yet neither is the Sun before the beams nor the beams before the light that proceeds from them but in order onely and relation so far as the beams are begotten and the light proceeds but not in time which doth adumbrate the coeternity of the Three Persons So also there is the Fountain and there is the water that bubbles up which is as it were begotten of the Fountain and there is the stream that proceeds from both and these are at once in time for in the first moment that there is a fountain there is the bubling of water or the rising up or boyling of it and no sooner is the bubling but there is an issuing or proceeding of water the water runs from it if there be passage and yet in order the fountain is first the bubling is next and the proceeding of water is last but they are together in time And may it not be said that the impression of the Trinity is here but the character in which the Trinity is written in the book of the creatures is smaller and darker then that every one can read when yet things of the God-head some of them may more easily be spelled forth 5. Though we affirm that the Father creates and the Son creates and the Holy Ghost creates and that these three are three persons yet we do not hold that these three are three reall distinct Agents but one Agent For they are all of them but one thing but one God and so really but one Agent but this one Agent subsists divers ways in three persons as one God subsists divers ways in three persons and these persons are not another thing from that one God and so not another thing from that one Agent So that he goes upon a mistake while he disputes against three principall Agents As suppose there were one soul in three bodies moving them alike in all operations and acting by them these three bodies would not be three Agents but one Agent though all the bodies perform the work And if there be one God in three persons or which is all one subsisting three manner of ways yet the three manner of ways of subsisting doth not make three Gods nor three Agents But there is no similitude that will rightly and exactly and fully in all things hold forth the working of God in trinity of persons only some little crevice of light may be opened to give a little insight into this truth 6. Our Divines when they have confessed that God is known by the Creation but have denyed that God the Father Son and Holy Ghost are known thereby they have meant it of a demonstrative knowledge which of God men may arrive at but of the Trinity they cannot yet there may be some things that may shadow it out though very darkly 7. It is certain that that which is clearly seen of God in the Creation belongs to his Essence For the Apostle tels us so much Rom. 1. 20. his Godhead is seen things belonging to his Essence viz. his power his wisdome the liberty of his will his goodnesse holinesse and many more properties belonging to his Essence which are common to all the persons but those subsistantiall personall properties they are not by any visible characters to be discern'd But he objects against our Divines for saying God is known from the Creation but not Father Son and Holy Ghost and he objects against the reason that they render viz. That the efficient force and vertue by which the world was created belongs to the Essence of God and not to the personall subsistence his words are these Yet by their leave God is a Person all actions being proper unto persons therefore by their grant the work of creation holds forth but one Agent for it is not imaginable that if there were more then one principall Agent they should not all be equally discovered by the work Repl. I have answered unto this Gods being a Person and have declared that God rather imports essentiality then personality yet withall I have shewed that essence is never separated from person but subsists in it and if God be properly spoken of there the essence is meant as it subsists in three persons in Father Son and Holy Spirit Yet when it respects acting things without them these three persons act in that which is common to them all and wherein they are in one and not wherein they are distinguished and are three they act by the same essentiall property as power wisdome c. and these are one and the same in them all and so it is Gods work in Father Son and Holy Ghost and not the Fathers work alone and apart nor God the Sons work alone and apart nor God the Holy Ghost's work alone and apart nor yet the work of all these wherein they differ and are three distinct from each other but the work of all as they are one And the Father is no more discovered then the Son nor any one more then other but God in all is discovered So that he is upon a mistake when he speaks of three principall Agents that must be discovered in the work of creation For these persons that are work but one thing one being one God one reall Agent for the very thing that the Father acts the Son acts and the Holy Ghost acts and the power is one and the wisdome is one and the act is one Or suppose it were granted that there are three principall Agents yet there are not three Agents essentially distinct but personally only and so it comes all to one whether one say that there are three Agents that may be called principall or whether one say there is one principall Agent for the one Agent is in three persons and acts with some personall diversity and the three Agents are but one in essence and but one thing and act one thing and by one power therefore it is not materiall how it is expressed Agent as it relates to God may admit of the same distinction as is made when we speak of God Agent is considered either essentially or subsistentially Essentially and then there is but one as there is but one God Subsistentially and then there are three as there are three Persons But they do not differ really and essentially one from another as the Persons do not but onely in the manner of acting And Agent taken personally though they should be three yet need not be discovered each of them in the work because as they are essentially one so they work one individuall work by one individuall power and force and efficacy which is numerically the same
and therefore cannot leave a distinct impression in any work His second Argument by which he would prove Christ to be but an instrumental Agent in creating the world is fetch'd from Reason his words are these The second reason proceeds from the verdict of pure Reason If Reason may obtain credit she will tell us that there could be in the work of Creation but one principall agent because there is by nature but one God for if there were two principall agents there must be two Gods the terms being convertible Repl. 1. There is neither pure Reason nor cleer Reason to be found among men and while he pleads so earnestly for Reason he loseth himself and the Truth in corrupted and darkened Reason which he too much follows and being in pursuit after Reason what it will present he turns aside from Scripture and attains not the knowledg of the Truth which he would seem to contend for Rep. 2. He argues from plurality of Agents in the Creation to plurality of Gods which would have force and strength in it if we held plurality of Agents really and essentially distinct from one another but if the Agent be one in essence and personally onely more then one which is the doctrine we hold no such absurd consequence will follow that there should be two or more Gods because there are two or more Agents personally but not essentially differing from one another 3. His third Reason issues from the nature of Christs being Christ is the image of the invisible God and so is distinguished from God because the image and the thing whereof it is an image is not the same in that nothing can be the image of it self Col. 1. 15. Repl. Where it is said that Christ is the image of God God is there taken Synechdochically or personally for the Father as will appear if you compare it with Heb. 1. 3. where he is called the express image of his Fathers person Now Christ may be the image of the Father and yet not the image of himself for though God taken essentially do not differ from himselfe and therefore he cannot in that sense be the image of God and be God himself because he should then be the image of himself yet God taken personally for the Father may differ from himself taken personally for the Son that is one person may doth differ from another and one may be the image of another the Son of the Father and may in that sense be the image of God and yet not of himself though he be God But he renders a reason why Christ is called the image of God Because saith he God did manifest his divine glory and dominion over the creature through him chiefly for which reason also man is called the image and glory of God 1 Cor. 11. 7. Repl. Christ according to his manhood may be called the image of God because of that glory and dominion that he was lifted up to for he was made head of all principality and power but he was the image of God in an higher way also viz. as he was a Son Heb. 1. 2. 3. which Sonship was before this collated Lordship which he had for he was a Son before there was any creature to rule over as himself hath confessed and if a Son then the image of his Father but this was discussed in my former Treatâ—se therefore I might have passed it over in silence He saith further that Christ is called the first-born of every creature Repl. The urging and the answering of this is but to weary the Reader with frivolous repetitions therefore I referre him to what hath been represented already both in the former and in this present Treatise concerning this Title First-born of every creature To conclude The force of this argument lies in this whole Christ is a creature and therefore but an instrumental Agent to prove the Antecedent he produceth Col. 1. 15. produced before He might have cited rehearsed all those Arguments Scriptures of his which he brought before wherewith he filled many pages as aptly fitly as he hath mentioned these but with little profit or delight to the Reader I shall conclude my answer to this argument that when ever he shall be able to prove Christ to be a creature I will yeild him to be an instrumentall Agent But then it must be done with repetitions I now come to answer his fourth reason which he saith doth spring from the manner of Christ's working saith he though Christ had an hand in the Creation of the world yet was it not originally of him 1 Cor. 8. 6. All things are of the Father but not of but by Jesus Christ the Father is made the first cause and originall of all things and Christ the instrument of the Father 2. In that it is said in Scripture that God acted by him in the work of creation Ephes 3. 9. where it is said that God created all things by Jesus Christ so in Heb. 1. 2. Repl. I find no new strength of argument here but what I have met with before have largely answered before in that former Treatise of mine to which I referre the Reader for I am ashamed to follow him in his causlesse iterations and repetitions yet I shall add something to what I have represented seeing he gives me an occasion As there is a distinct order of subsisting so there is a distinct order of working And the divine essence subsisting in three persons these persons work in three distinct manners the Son being begotten of the Father worketh from the Father The Son can do nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do John 5. 19. And the Father begetting the Son worketh by the Son Col. 1. 16. 20. and in very many more places So the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and from the Son worketh from them both in John 16. 13. He shall not speak of himselfe but as he hears so shall he speak and he shall take of mine and shew unto you yet neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost do work as instruments The Son doth not for that is the subject in hand to be discussed nor doth the Greek particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is here translated by shew so much for it is prefixed to the works of the Father as well as to the works of the Son Gal. 1. 1. Paul an Apostle not of men nor by men but by Jesus Christ and God the Father Here we may observe three things 1. That these particles or prepositions are not always distinguishing particles putting difference betwixt thing and thing to which they are applyed but they many times are promiscuously used and are confounded for of and by applied to men do import the same thing 2. The particle by doth not declare the person to whom it is applied to be an instrument for it is applied to the Father equally as to Jesus Christ But he will not assert the Father to be an
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
declared it and there may be yet more glorious effects of it if he shall please then any that have been wrought But this concession hurts not my assertion viz that an infinite power is required in creation and he hath not denyed the truth and clearness of the manifestation of it therein though he say there may by a fuller manifestation of it which by the multiplication of mighty works which God can effect must needs be because every work will bear witness thereof in reference to it self But if he should mean by more power a greater power or more in measure and degree then yet he hath used and manifested in the creation and in the works which he hath wrought it must not be yeilded to him for though there might be a greater work yet not a greater power for the same power is manifested in the one as in the other viz. an infinite power and there are no degrees in that which is infinite though one worke may more fully speak to us that infinity of power which is put forth therein then an other doth The work of creation is that work that God glories in in the Scripture and he doth appropriate it to himself and doth give witness therein to the world that he is the most high God Jer. 10. 10 11 12. And the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are cleerly seen being understood by the the things that are made even his eternall power and Godhead so that the very heathen are left without excuse Rom. 1. 20. And a greater work then creation is from which an ampler testimony of the infinity of Gods power may be fetched for the conviction of the creature in some sense there can be none for there is an infinite distance betwixt something and nothing and onely an infinite power can get over it for that which cannot be measured is infinite but the distance betwixt something and nothing is such as cannot be measured and creation is a bringing of something out of nothing therefore the power that effects it must be infinite therefore infinite power or infinity of power is manifested in great fulnesse and clearenesse in creation His 2d. answer that he gives is this 2. Your assertion plainly denyes the man Christ Jesus to be God Almighty or infinite in power for you say that God could not give or derive an infinite power to any creature and that a creature cannot be God Almighty c. The man Christ Jesus was a creature How then can that person be God Repl. This reasoning is unworthy a man of parts a very child that hath learned the first principles might answer him The man Christ Jesus is a creature that is the son of Mary the seed of Abraham is a creature and I do deny this seed of Abraham as the seed of Abraham to be God or Almighty or capable of an infinite power and therfore God could not derive it nor was Christ Almighty as man as the son of man But this man Christ Jesus was God as well as man that is this person Christ Jesus was both God and man not that the manhood was turned into the Godhead and so became God but that the eternall Son of God who is by nature God with the Father and the Holy Ghost assumed manhood tooke the nature of man the seed of Abraham and became one person with it and this person was Almighty as he was the Son of God not as man and this almightinesse was not by derivation from the Father but was an essentiall attribute in him His third Argument is this The Ground saith he of your Argument is straw and stubble for infinite power may be manifested by them to whom 't is not communicated And he gives instances many Repl. Because I soresaw he might give such an answer therefore on that day of the conference which he spoke of I mentioned such an instrument which he now speaks of which is not the subject of the power but a meanes without which God will not exercise the power which he himselfe is the subject of and I granted God might have made use of such an instrument but Christ in creation as also in preservation is the subject of the power and I spoke of such an instrument which is the subject of power and shewed it was impossible that there should be such an instrument and therefore Christ having such power in himselfe could not be an instrumentall but the principall Agent He comes in the last place to consider of the Minor of the Argument which he had cast the Scriptures I produced into fetched from Christs creating which is this All things were made by Christ Jesus His answer is It is true Christ being excepted of whose creaturall being I have already spoken But against this answer he frames an obction Obj. You will say saith he that in Joh. 1. 3. it is said that without him was nothing made that was made And he answers it Sol. The words are to be restrained to all those things which by the use of an instrument were made in the first verse the creation of Jesus Christ is included and in this 3 verse he is spoken of as the instrument of God in creating all things therefore he is there to be excepted And he gives some instances which I omit the mention of because I shall have no need to return answer to them Repl. If indeed the creation of Jesus Christ be included in ver 1. then I shall grant that Jesus Christ is excepted in ver 3. but if not then ver 3. is strong against him The words in ver 1. In the beginning was the word and that is granted by both sides that then he was but that then he began is not asserted by the Apostle and is denyed by us if he will have it to be so let him shew in his next how he will fetch out creation from these words In the beginning was the word God the Father was in the beginning was God the Father therefore created in the beginning The next Scripture produced by me to prove Christ's Deity by was Heb. 7. 3. Without father without mother without descent having neither beginning of dayes nor end of life made like unto the Son of God abideth a Priest continually Christ is here resembled to Melchisedech in reference to eternity But what answer makes he to this text Truly it is an impotent lame and poor answer Was Melchisedech saith he eternall if so then he was God but he was neither the Father nor the Son nor the Holy Ghost I hope you will not allow a quaternity of persons in unity of essence and therefore will allow the words to be taken in a figurative sense Melchisedech was without beginning of dayes and end of life in that there is no mention made either of his birth or death in the History of Moses or especially in reference to his Priesthood the time of it's beginning or ending being not
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
himself equality with God Joh. 5. 18. and in that they counted it blasphemy that he called himself the Son of God and judged him worthy to die for it they discovered their apprehensions of that title that it was too high for any creature and proper to the most high God alone 6. Satan also in tempting of him requires a proof of his son-ship unto God equall and equivalent to what he could demand for the manifestation of the very God-head it self and he must declare himselfe to be the Son of God by doing that which none but God could do These grounds I conceive are sufficient to bottom the first conclusion upon viz. that these two expressions or titles Son of God and God are in Scripture account equivalent to each other and do import when they are applyed to Christ a divine person and the second in the order of the Trinity The consequence of which is that who ever denyes the one denyes the other also and then if the God-head of Christ be denyed the Son-ship of Christ will be denyed also I shall now lay downe the 2d position and confirme it 2 Christ cannot be God any other way or under any other consideration but as he is the Son of God 1 He himselfe in his sense acknowledgeth the truth of this assertion for he grants a God-head of Christ and makes him a representative God and saith his God-head consists in soveraignty and dominion over all the creatures and he founds it upon Son-ship and saith the title Son of God holds forth superiority over all things and so he is God in that he is the Son of God but all amounts to no more but a creature God and a creature Son of God according to him Yet he concurrs with me in this proposition though in a different sense Christ cannot be God any other way then as he is the Son of God 2. Scripture gives testimony to it 1. The Apostle Paul declares to us that God was manifested in the flesh 1 Tim. 3. 16. that is God assumed the flesh of the Virgin God took the seed of Abraham God united our Nature with the Divine Nature God took it into fellowship and oneness with himself so as that God and man became one and the same person And this the Apostle calls a great mystery and founds all godliness upon it that is upon knowing it and believing it And so Christ comes to be God hath the Names Titles Attributes of God put upon him and the great works of God are called his works and the homage worship service faith fear and obedience that is due to God belongs to him Otherwise it could not have been that he that appeared in the form of a servant and was in fashion as a man and dwelt among us and whose mother was known who she was and was in all things like unto us sin excepted should be the God that made us and he in whom our life and breath and all our ways are but so it was that the great God emptied himself so far as to unite himself to us or us rather to himself and to dwell in our nature and made our nature to dwell in him and so he became one with us and made us that is our Nature one with him And so the Son of Mary is very God the most high God because God descended and was made flesh of a woman 2. There is a concurrence of witnesses in the sacred Scriptures that God took flesh but not God in the person of the Father nor God in the person of the Spirit but God in the person of the Son Joh. 1. 14. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and this Word is neither the Father nor the holy Ghost but is distinguished from both 1 Joh. 5. 7. There are three that bear witness in heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one that is one God But this one God in the person of the Word and not in any other person took flesh upon him The Father did not take Flesh but sent the Son to assume it Gal. 4. 4. God that is the Father sent forth his Son made of a woman Joh. 3. 16. God that is the Father so loved the world that he gave his own Son his onely begotten Son c. And all along in the new Testament the Son is said to be sent sometimes from God sometimes from the Father sometimes from heaven And of the Son it is said in Heb. 2. 14 that he took part of flesh and blood and vers 6. He took on him the seed of Abraham and of the Son it is said that he was in the form of God and thought it no robbery to be equal with God that is with the Father but he humbled himself and took upon him the form of a servant that is he took upon him our vile weak mortal dying nature and came in lowe state among us And indeed in this there is no difference betwixt us But who this Son of God is is the controversie The inference then must needs be this that Christ is not God any other way nor in any other sence but this The Son of God or which is all one God in the person of the Son assumed Humane nature unto him became Man by taking the flesh of the Virgin And this Son of God or God in the person of the Son made flesh is the Christ the Messiah that was promised to the fathers And Christ he is this flesh this seed of the woman assumed and this Son of God or God in the person of the Son united together into one person So that whoever denies Christ to be God denies that God in the person of the Son or which is the same that the Son of God took flesh came in our Nature and that God sent his Son into the world to take the seed of Abraham upon him and to come in flesh and so denies Christ to be God in the person of the Son or Christ to be the Son of God And so by an undeniable consequence such a person who denies the Godhead denies the Sonship and so destroys the true Christ and brings in a strange and a false Christ and another Gospel and another Scripture And this is the doctrine that the Apostle John speaks of 2 Joh. 7. which seducers preached who confessed not that Jesus Christ was come in the flesh the meaning is they confessed not that the Son of God or God in the person of the Son was come in the flesh for otherwise they knew that Jesus Christ the son of Mary was in the flesh and died and rose again But to confess that Jesus was the Son of God or God in the person of the Son was that which the Apostle pressed and withstood the contrary as Antichristian 1 Joh. 4. 14 15. And now give me leave to express my self to be one who stand amazed at the ignorance or inconsiderateness or I know not
which derives his vertue from him and is dependent upon him a Saviour needed not to have come from heaven for God might have done it by any earthly creature or by any creature-instrument without any respect had to power or ability as inherent in it at all but by his own power manifested by it and so might have saved by an Apostle equally as by a Christ But I shall prove what I designe by another medium 2. That Doctrine which renders Christ insufficient to the work of saving renders him an insufficient Saviour or destroys his sufficiencie as a Saviour But this Doctrine of his renders Christ insufficient to perform the work of saving c. Which I prove thus If Christ be a meer creature he is insufficient to execute those three Offices of King Priest and Prophet to perform the work which those Offices do call for for the saving of men I shall begin with his Prophetical Office unto the execution of which it is necessary not onely to open the Scriptures to men that they may conceive of them but to open the understandings of men to understand them and to give them eye-salve that they may see which because it belongs to his Office as a Prophet he must be able to do from vertue and ability within himself But no creature can effect this by any power of its own nor is capable to receive such power from another because it is not competent to the creature and consequently Christ being onely a creature as he holds him is disabled in the principal work of that Office And as a Priest he was to offer up himself to God through the eternal Spirit that he might purge away sin and that his Blood might be of greater efficacie then the blood of bulls and goats and that he might purchase eternal redemption for believers which as a creature he could not do Heb. 9. 12. So that he disables him in the works of his Priestly Office in holding him onely to be a creature And as a King he must conquer Death by raising himself up from the dead which he was to suffer as a Priest to take away sin And he must also destroy sin in its regnancie by Kingly power in his members as he was to condemn it in its guilt by his death which work is above the power of any meer creature So that by this opinion of his he is made weak to perform all his Offices which yet he came into the world to accomplish and that he is made an insufficient Saviour which overturns the Gospel in the principal scope of it But of this more hereafter The last Argument which I shall now produce to prove another Gospel and Scripture to be brought in and the true Gospel and Scripture to be destroyed is this Arg. 6. That Doctrine which tends to overturn and destroy the mystery of godliness tends also to overturn and destroy the Gospel and Scripture But this Doctrine of his serves to overturn and destroy the mystery of godliness Therefore it destroys the Gospel and Scripture The Major Proposition he will not have the boldness to make question of The Minor Proposition I prove from 1 Tim. 3. 16. Great is the mystery of godliness God manifest in the flesh justified in the spirit seen of Angels preached to the Gentiles believed on in the world received up into glory Thus the words run in all the Original Copies unless one in which the word God is left out as is conceived expunged by the Arrians but the sence of all comes to be subverted by it I shall give the sence of the words and then deduct the consequence from it and shall begin with the subject that is spoken of and then speak of the predicate of that which is asserted God manifest in the flesh The Son of God or God in the person of the Son appearing in flesh by assuming flesh and uniting it to his own person Justified in the Spirit Justified by the Godhead to be God that is by the rays and beams that sparkled out and shined forth in the flesh sutable to the expressions of the Apostle Joh. 1. 14. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the onely begotten Son of God c. Seen of angels Attended by Angels in his incarnation ministery sufferings rising ascending as the story of the Gospel shews which gave witness to this mystery of God in flesh Preached to the Gentiles Preached in this mystery of the incarnation to be God over all blessed for ever Believed on in the world Received as God in our nature as the Immanuel as very God as the most high God by faith as Thomas did receive him so all Saints ought My Lord saith he and my God Received up into glory Taken up to heaven to receive the glory not that which was of new given to him as a reward of his sufferings but the glory which he had before the world was which Divine glory was made more apparent in flesh which was obscured before very much and veiled in it That which is predicated or declared of this subject is that it is a mystery of godliness Great is the mystery It is one of the great depths of God it is the depth of depths the head and height of all mysteries which eye hath not seen and ear hath not heard and which hath not entred into the heart of man to conceive which flesh and blood hath not revealed but the Father that is in heaven by the Spirit viz. that God in the person of the Son was sent by the Father and by consent with the Father gave himself to a state of debasement humbled himself and appeared in the fashion of a man by taking flesh of the Virgin and becoming together with it one person viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man God in the person of the Son and the Son of man making one Christ This truth was witnessed by the Spirit viz. by the Divinity of the second person made flesh by some glory of the Godhead of the Son which in flesh appeared and declared him to be what he was and testified by the attendance of Angels and preached and believed by all sorts of men whom God hath ordained to life and sealed to the satisfaction of all that might doubt by his assumption into glory Jehovah the Father therein speaking to Jehovah the Son Sit thou at my right hand till I make thine enemies thy foot stool Some such enemies were those which contradicted him and called it blasphemy when he said that he was the Son of God or God in the person of the Son which is all one This saith the Apostle is the great mystery which is transcendent above all reason in the sons of men Of godliness This is that truth in the acknowledgement of which and in the assent to which all godliness is founded and bottomed For it is the Gospel in the grand mystery of it the
the same bond is laid upon them with some change of words he presseth obedience upon servants with singleness of heart and urgeth them first with the fear of God in stead of mentioning Christ and afterward he fetcheth arguments from Christ as he had done in his other Epistle 10. Religious adoration was given to Christ with the body and never reprehended but accepted of by him Mark 5. 22. Luk. 17. 16. Joh. 11. 32. Mark 3. 11. Rev. 5. 8. Acts 7. 59 60. And if we have an eye to the manner of worship we shall finde that Christ required it and believers give it to him in such sort as the most high God can onely challenge it 1. An absolute and universal trust and confidence is put in Christ such as that he who is confessed to be the most high God can challenge no more and this both in the matters of the soul in reference to which he is called the hope of Israel Act. 28. 20. and the person in whom the Gentiles trust Rom. 15. 12. and also in matters of common providence Phil. 2. 19. I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus unto you shortly that is I trust that Christ will so mercifully order it that I shall send him and that all impediments will be taken away And if the providence of Christ doth extend to all things and that the homage of dependance be given upon this account what more can be said of the most high God 2. An absolute and full love is both required and given to Christ so that God even the Father can require no more Matth. 10. 37 He that loveth father or mother or son or daughter more then me saith Christ is not worthy of me But Luke expresseth it more fully Luk. 14. 36. He that doth not hate father and mother wife and children brethren and sisters yea and his own life for Christs sake from that dear respect he bears to Christ is not worthy of him And Christ would draw Peter up to a love above his necessary food Lovest thou me said Christ more then these The meat that was before him was meant the fishes that they were to feed on And the Spouse was sick of love Cant. 5. 8. And what greater proportion can the Father himself require then what Christ asked and what the Saints gave to him The Inference then must needs be this Christ is worshipped and honoured and served with the worship and honour and service not of an Intermediate object but of the Principal and Ultimate object and all such texts which give the same worship to the Son as to the Father do prove it And if it were not so men had need to look to their affiance and affection to Christ lest it should exceed and that they neither put their whole trust in Christ nor set their whole hearts upon him which would be due to him alone who is the high God and the principal and ultimate object of these motions of the soul So that this Doctrine of his doth call off the soul from being too much set upon Christ as if it were possible to minde him too much and affect him too dearly which should make all the true lovers of Christ to abhor it the more Object There is one knot yet to be untied before I pass off from this point of Worship It may be said Christ is to be worshipped as Mediator the Scripture is clear and manifest for it Phil. 2. 10 At the Name of Jesus every knee shall how here is worship due to Christ as exalted by the Father Now he was exalted as he was Mediator in reference to an Office that he had executed and being Mediator he is an intermediate object of worship for a Mediator is one betwixt God and men by which men come to God and as such an one Christ is worshipped Sol. As Christ is Mediator he hath a Lordship given to him in which respect he said to be made Lord as he is made Mediator and so there is worship belonging to him But it must be thus understood That as his Official Oeconomical and Mediatorly Lordship was founded in his Natural Essential Lordship as he was the Son of God and the most high God coessential with the Father as hath been proved before so the Worship which he receives as Mediator as King Priest and Prophet of his Church is founded not simply in or upon the Office but upon the Excellencie of the person that manageth the Office and if at all upon the Office it is because such an Office cannot be executed but by such a person who is the Son of God and very God For if it were possible to conceive how such a Mediatorly function could be performed by one that is not God Divine religious worship would not be due unto him upon that account It is the dignity of the Person that founds the Worship and the Work doth but quicken to it or becomes a motive the rather to perform such homage and worship to him to whom it is due upon another account upon another ground if that Work had never been Worship and honour and glory belonged to him as the second Person in the blessed Trinity as the Eternal Son of God and God and if over and above this glorious and ever to be honoured and adored person become Mediator it is the more readily and forwardly to be exhibited given As every mercie received from the Father of mercie becomes a further engagement to worship and serve this Father of mercies but the primitive ground is This Father of mercies is God otherwise all mercie without consideration of the excellencie of the person from whom it proceeds is not a right bottom to found worship upon Moses was a Mediator betwixt God and men and a Type of this our glorious Mediator Christ but Moses was but a Servant not a Son but a Creature not God and there was no religious worship nor honour that belonged to him in reference to that work because a meer creature performed it And if it be otherwise in reference to Christ that Christ as Mediator deserves to be worshipped the reason is because such a Mediatorship as Christ performed could not have been performed unless Christ had been God because to execute that Function requires the infinite power and wisdom of the Godhead And therefore Moses was the Type of that which Christ really and effectually and powerfully was Moses was internuncius one that went betwixt God and the people but Christ made the atonement and the peace being greater then Moses he being onely typically God but Christ really and truely God And though Christ be intermediate being Mediator yet he would not could not thence become an intermediate object of Worship unless because the same person though not according to both Natures is also the principal and ultimate object of of it which shews thus much That this Worship which Christ the Mediator had was due upon another account then his
Father and I are one ver 10. Beleevest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father is in me and that we are one God Therefore seeing ye believed in the Father believe in me also The fourth instance comes now next to be considered of which is this Instance 4. If Christ be but a meer creature then a meer creature is the Saviour of men saving them with a mighty and eternal salvation as the Scripture speaks but this is against the whole current of the Gospel which speaks of God our Saviour Tit. 2. 10 13. And in many other places In answer to this he saith Against this your instance I shall level this assertion which will be sufficient to discover its weakness and confute it That to affirm Jesus Christ to be the Saviour of men without God or equal with God is contrary to the current of the whole Scripture which doth distinguish God from Christ in the work of Salvation calling him a Saviour as distinct from Christ 1 Tim. 1. 1. where God is said to be our Saviour and the Lord Jesus Christ to be our hope and in the Text you alledge and elsewhere frequently Rep. To level one assertion against another is to level Arguments by way of opposition not to answer Arguments by way of satisfaction Yea it is to evade answering by objecting And it is a slie and crafty way of answering when there is a knot which is difficult and perhaps impossible to be untyed in any Scripture or Argument to pass it over with silence and onely propose somewhat which may trouble and perplex the truth in it or the mind rather of him that reads it Thus he did in his Answer to the two last Instances and now again he runs to these fig-leaves to cover the nakedness of his Tenent from that shame which this Argument or Instance enforced with so uncontroulable a Scripture would cast upon it But I shall inforce the Scripture alleadged by me conceiving it will carry conviction along with it to the hearts of such who shall duely perpend and consider it and afterwards shew the weakness of his assertion In this Scripture of Tit. 2. 10 11 13. the Apostle speaks of Christ all along in v. 10. he calls the doctrine of the Gospel the Doctrine of our Saviour God So it is in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they may adorn the Gospel of our Saviour God in v. 11. he speaks of the same God Christ for by the grace of God he means the Gospel of grace or the Doctrine of Grace which he had in the former verse called the Doctrine of our Saviour God This Doctrine or Gospel hath appeared unto all men in ver 13 he stiles Christ the blessed hope which is elsewhere made the title of God Rom. 15. 13. 1 Pet. 1. 21. And he puts the denomination of the great God and our Saviour upon Christ It is not a great God without an article as he alleadged to evade the strength of Joh. 1. 1. But it is the great God with an Article This Text I presented among the Scriptures which I produced and it was the third in order but he passed over it then promising to speak to it when he should give in his answer to another Paper and here he takes no notice of it neither What may be the reason but because he is not able to present any thing which can clould and darken the bright evidence of it for it witnesseth two things with great clearness 1. That Christ is God great God the great God or that one great God 2. That Christ though he be man as well as God yet he is Saviour chiefly and especially as he is God and not as he is man For considered as God he is able to save to the utmost As he is man there are actions done by him and sufferings born by which men are saved but the vertue force efficacie and valour of both the one and other are as he is God And he saveth with the Father as the principal efficient Isa 45. 21. I am a just God and a Saviour and there is none beside me This is the person that took flesh that thus speaks It is cleer from Rev. 14. 10 11 that it is Christ but the Father is not excluded and the meaning is there is none other God that saves but what Christ is Because the Father and Christ and the Spirit are one principal efficient that saves It is further confirmed Hos 1. 7. I will save them by Jehovah their God it is the speech of Jehovah the Father concerning Jehovah the Son whom he calls their God and promiseth them to save by him And it must not be understood that this salvation is instrumentally effected because it is said I will save them by c. For the titles given to the person by whom the Father will save do shew that he is not an instrument Is Jehovah their God but an instrument in saving Is one Jehovah instrumental to another or is it onely the order of working betwixt the Father and the Son Are there two Jehovahs and both of them our God Moses tells Israel Jehovah our God is our Jehovah for Essence one though two in persons Deut. 60. 4. The order then betwixt the persons is onely to be observed and acknowledged not any superiority or inferiority in working But let me consider his assertion To affirm Jesus Christ to be the Saviour of men without God or equal with God is contrary to the current of Scripture Thus he But against what expressions of mine is this assertion levelled I have affirmed that whoever saves must be God therefore Christ because he saves must be God But where have I said that Christ saves without God To save as God and to save without God are these two one thing Or are they not rather repugnant and contrary to one another But suppose as it must needs be that by God he means the Father I have not asserted that Christ saves without the Father by way of efficiency but the Father saves by the Son Christ Jesus and the Son saves from the Father But I assert them to be equals in saving notwithstanding this order betwixt them for it is but one God that saves though in diversity of persons and this one God cannot be superiour and inferiour to himself And all the confirmation that he himself gives of his own Position is this That God in Scripture is distinguished from Christ in the work of Salvation and he quotes 1 Tim. 1. 1. where God is said to be our Saviour and the Lord Jesus is onely said to be our hope But this hath no strength in it for in Tit. 1. 4. God hath not the title of Saviour given unto him when he is mentioned with Christ but hath the relative title of Father onely given him but Christ is called Saviour and is distinguished from God by that name Is therefore God viz. the Father less a
Saviour or an unequal Saviour to Christ because Christ and not he is called a Saviour And is not Christ called both the blessed hope and the great God our Saviour Are not both titles put upon him as due to him And though they are used by the Apostle to distinguish the persons of Father and Son from each other when they are spoken of together yet both these are applyed to both persons and are proper to him alone that is the most high God But he saith Scripture doth prefer God in the work of salvation before our Lord Jesus Christ making him to be the principal Agent therein when it declares that the work of Christ in saving was from the purpose of God who appointed him for it from the precept of God who injoyned him to it and from the presence of God who assisted him in it Reply But where doth Scripture witness this of God the Father in reference to the whole of Christ He saith Scripture doth abundantly set forth all these but he doth not quote any one place for proof of them but would have us receive it upon his word That God purposed to save by Christ considered as David's and Mary's son considered according to his Manhood that God enjoyned him as such that God assisted him as such God being taken essentially and properly for Father Son and holy Ghost and not improperly and personally for the Father will be granted and it will be plentifully made out by Scripture but that the Father purposed without the Son and holy Ghost and commanded and enjoyned without the Son and holy Ghost and assisted without the Son and holy Ghost this is denied For as the Father without the Son and holy Ghost made not man but the Trinity sate in Councel Let us make man so it was in the work of Salvation it was an act of Councel The Father gave the Son and the Son gave himself emptied himself every Person concurred and wrought in the work so far as concerns efficiencie All decreed it all acted in it as one principal Agent and onely the Humanity of Christ was Instrumental And if we consider the Material and Meritorious cause of mens salvation God the Father or God in the person of the Father is far from being the Principal cause thereof for he is no cause at all for the Father took not flesh upon him nor was Mediator either of Satisfaction or Intercession he made not the Atonement but this was the Son's sole work he did all in it he was the person that was made of a Virgin and was made under the Law he was the person that was made flesh and manifested in flesh and hath a peculiar right in this respect to the denomination of Saviour And though all was acted and endured in and by the flesh that he assumed for he bare our sins on his body on the tree yea and in his soul also when he cried out My God my God c. in such manner yet if that flesh had not been supported by the Godhead of the Son which assumed it it would have been crumbled to dust and powder by that weight of wrath that lay upon it So that it was by the vertue and power of the Godhead that such actings and such sufferings were and all was accounted as done and suffered by the Son though the Son as the Son was not capable of it but by assuming flesh into the unity of his person and so it came to be reckoned as his work and it was in account as if the Lord of glory had been crucified and as if the blood of God had been spilt and the merit was from the excellencie of the person of the Son that did and suffered all But he further saith That the Scripture revealeth the Lord Christ to be in the work of salvation but an instrumental Saviour For this saith he see Tit. 3. 4 5 6. which puts it past all question But after that the kindness and love of God and our Saviour towards man appeared not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Lord. Reply Here is in these words of his First A bold assertion viz. That Scripture revealeth Christ to be but an instrumental Saviour Secondly A peremptory Conclusion that Tit. 3. 4 5 6. puts it out of question Thirdly A defective and insufficient probation or confirmation he alledgeth the words of the Text as if they did carry with them conviction of what he asserts in the very letter of them when as there is no such matter 1. Scripture is so far from revealing such a thing of Christs instrumentalness that it reveals the contrary to it in Heb. 1. 3. it is said That Christ by himself purged away our sins but of any instruments can it be said that by himself he doth any thing Doth an instrument act by himself that is by his own vertue and sufficiency and by himself that is without the power of the principal efficient Is an Instrument any thing out of the hand of the chief Agent Also in Heb. 7. 25. it is said That Christ is able to save to the utmost But is any Instrument able to save to the utmost Hath he the ability within himself So that it may be said of him that he is able What greater thing can be predicated of the principal efficient or chief Agent then that he is able to save to the utmost This is too high an expression for an Instrument And in Psal 89. 19 it is said of Christ whom David typified that God had laid help upon one that was mighty If Christ be onely but an Instrument what needs he to be mighty in himself for every Instrument if it be mighty through the might of another as the Rams horns were it is sufficient What needed the choice of a mighty one if the Saviour be onely instrumental The weaker the Instrument the more honour will the Principal Efficient have The excellencie of Power is known to be of God when the instrumental means is Weakness and Foolishness Why also could not the blood of Goats have cleansed the Conscience but the Blood of JESUS CHRIST God's Son was necessary if an Instrument may be a Saviour Doubtless a word of Institution would have made the one as effectual as the other But indeed there is no might that any creature-Instrument is capable to be recipient or the subject of that can save to the utmost because it requires an infinite power to conquer Sin and Satan Death and Hell to abolish these and to bring Life and Immortality to light to effect a first and second Resurrection for men who were to be saved Secondly The Scripture that he alleadgeth out of Titus 3. 3 4 â— hath no such thing engraven upon it as he produceth it for such that he that runs may read it
be more nearly allyed to the one then to the other more to God then to man but as he frames the Argument if Christ the Mediator be God then he is a party when as it is manifest that he is man also no nearer related to God though he be God then he is to man because he is man the Major is palpably false must be denied by that time he hath seriously considered of this which I have here presented I hope he will be forced to confesse that I knew what I did when I brought that reason that Christ if a meer creature would be a party rather then a Mediator But he gives an instance In reconciliation saith he by a Mediator we are to suppose three One offended another offending and a third mediating for peace betwixt them God was offended men were offenders and Christ was the Mediator Now if Christ had been a sinfull man he had been of the party offending and and if he had been God he was the party offended but Christ was not a Party From the Proposition which I have thus confirmed and the Assumption which you have acknowledged I will draw up this Conclusion That Christ the Mediator is not God Rep. In this Instance and in the application of it there are some things that are justly liable to exception and other things manifestly false 1. That there be three in reconciliation wil be granted but that the third must be so distinct as he holds it forth as not to partake of the other two is denied For a son that mediates betwixt father and mother which may somtimes be the case is of the flesh of both and yet notwithstanding is distinct from both but not so distinct as not to partake of both So in the reconciliation made by Christ betwixt God and man there are three that are distinct 1. There is God offended 2. There is man viz. mankind offending 3. There is Christ mediating who is neither meerly and only God nor yet meerly and only man but is both God and man yet distinct from both God and man Distinct from God because he is man and distinct from man because he is God Yea there is yet a further distinction for Christ though he be man viz. of that kind for nature and essence which was the offending party yet not one of those persons in that kind that did offend but without sin himself and though he be God and so for essence and nature one with that party which was offended and was offended in his own person yet distinct in personality or which is all one a distinct person from the Father and the Holy Ghost who more visibly do manage the offence against man For the Son though he was offended together with the Father and the Holy Ghost yet he appears not prosecuting the offence but therein he is veiled and appears only appeasing the Father that was offended in both these respects there are three in this businesse of reconliation But he makes mention of three in reconciliation which in titles and names are the same with the three which I have already spoken of viz. God men Christ But when he comes to open and unfold these three he makes the third which mediates betwixt the other two to be so distinct from both of them as to partake of neither of them And under this lies couched the poyson and malignancy of his doctrine For as he layes it down he not only denies the Godhead of Christ which is the doctrine in dispute betwixt us but he destroyes the Manhood also and overturnes that satisfaction which in the nature of man he gave for man for his words are these If Christ had been a sinfull man he had been of the party offending His designe is to shew that he was a distinct person partaked of neither Party betwixt whom he mediated He was not of the Party offending for he was not a sinfull man He was not the Party offended for he could not be God because he could not be a Party Let it be considered seriously what he saith and it will be found to be false and dangerous and reacheth not his own designe 1. False for was Christ therefore not of that Party because he was without sin Was he not a true man in all things like other men sin onely excepted Had he not a true Body and Soule Was not soule and body subject to the same infirmities and weaknesses sin excepted as other mens soules and bodies were Was he not the Seed of the Woman which was promised Was he not conceived in the womb of the Virgin and was flesh of her flesh Was he not Abrahams seed and Davids seed Was not Satan to be broken and destroyed in all his strength by one that must be of the Woman that must spring out of her and be her seed And should all this be and yet Christ not this Party He was no offender indeed but yet he was of that Party which did offend he had the same nature for essence Abraham was of that Party which offended and so was David and were offenders themselves and he was their seed and was of them and from them therefore it is a great untruth and grosse mistake to say that he was not of that Party for he was flesh of their flesh and bone of their bone but kept by the Holy Ghost from that naturall pollution and staine which defiled them 2. Dangerous for if Christ were not of that party that offended he could not satisfie for that party which offended for in the same nature in which the offence was committed must the satisfaction be given for both the justice and truth of God required this It was threatned that the soule that is the person that sins shall die and if another suffer that penalty yet it must be one in that nature therefore it is said he bore our sins on his own body on the tree It was necessary it should be so els the truth of God would not be fulfilled nor justice satisfied And if Christ be not of the offâ—nding party if he be another from them not partaking of them but be of another nature and not of theirs then he might as well have been no man at all for any fruit or beneâ—it that accrues to sinfull man thereby And Christ might as well have taken the nature of Angells and as much to the benefit of lost men as have assumed flesh if it be not thâ— flâ—sh and nature of men that did offend if he be not of their party though not spotted with their sin 3. It reacheth not his own designe which is to make Christ a third and distinct person or party from those he mediates betwixt partaking of neither for he knowes that if it be confessed that Christ partakes of the nature of one of the parties whom he is to make peace betwixt and not of the other then he will undeniably be a party instead of a Mediator to
impartiall therein when his son whom he loved had offended by adultery caused one of his sons eyes and another of his own to be put out save only the praise of his justice and truth in his lawes and this is that which God grieves at And if the Judge loving the prisoner that is before him and knowing he hath nothing to pay and yet the law recovers payment will give his own son to be his surety and will lay the debt upon him and is content that his son shall fetch the price out of his own treasure yet the law is satisfied and the judges righteousnesse in reference unto it and his love to the Prisoner are glorified Nor is the satisfaction the lesse because God the offended person procures it and not man that offended him for the truth of God stands firme by that means and the law takes place and is not made of none effect as it would have been had no satisfaction been given which would have redounded to Gods dishonour Yea the righteousnesse of God and his love to undeserving creatures shines forth because the satisfaction is of Gods own procuring And though it proceed from God yet it cannot be said that God satisfies himself or that he was satisfied before for he that provides it doth not act it but it is acted in and by an other person The Father sends the Son and the Father in the Son receives satisfaction and though the Father and Son be the same God yet they are not the same person nor is the satisfaction that the Son gives materially considered given in the divine nature or God-head but the Sonne took flesh and in that flesh by dying and sheding his blood gave satisfaction so that it is from God but not in God if we speak of the next and immediate subject which is the man-hood if the matter of the satisfaction be respected And though it may be said that God was satisfied before in reference to his own love to such persons he did not repent of it in such sort as to cast them off nor was his purpose of glorifying them one whit shaken yet he was not satisfied after they had sinned and after he had sentenced them to death in point of righteousnesse and truth to passe by their transgression without satisfaction his Law was not satisfied in a free forgivenesse without satisfaction and so God was unsatisfied because the Law was Object 6. It is likewise asserted that there is an unsatisfied conscience in men men having sinned cannot discerne how Gods heart can be towards them without satisfaction therefore the Scripture speaks of propitiation through Christs bloud and of atonement by his death condescending therein to mans infirmity which could not otherwise apprehend how God could communicate life and glory to men after they had sinned without being first appeased and pacified by Christs blood But if things be rightly considered in themselves as in truth they are Christ dyed not to reconcile us to God but to heal us of an evill conscience and that we might know that God loved us after we had sinned as well as he did before by the gift of Christ who is the manifestation of the Fathers love after the fall which the Elect could not be perswaded of but by a pledge of it Therefore it is said that Christ shed his bloud to purge our conscience from dead works to serve the living God Heb. 9. 14. and not to satisfie God Sol. It will readily be confessed that it was an end of Christs dying to reconcile men to God and that they might have the answer of a good conscience before God 1 Pet. 3. 21. But that this was the solitary end or the principall end or that satisfaction to God is no end but is wholly excluded is denyed and hath been disproved all along in the discourse upon this subject 1. What need would there have been that Christ should have dyed at all if only satisfaction to mens consciences concerning Gods goodnesse and love to fallen creatures had been intended therein For God could best have done that by his spirit and must yet do it by his spirit if it be ever done in the hearts of men Indeed God having given Christ and delivered him up to death the spirit represents it as a great manifestation of the Fathers love but the spirit might have abundantly assured the heart of a sinner of the Fathers love without it so that there was no necessity of Christs dying in that regard 2. The love of God represented unto men in giving Christ is much lessened to them in the representation if Christ were only given to satisfie their hearts in reference to their fears of God not to satisfie Gods justice if there were no need of Christ in reference to any danger they were in in regard of God if God could or would have pardoned sin without him and his justice and truth could have remitted it 3. It is derogatorie to Gods wisdome and love to assert that Christ was delivered up to be crucified upon the crosse and there to shed his blood principally for this end to cure mans panique fears and his groundlesse causeles suspicions of God and not from any necessity that there was in mans evill condition in regard of sin committed by him and of Gods righteousnesse and truth prosecuting it against him For God might have done this in an easier way and have spared his dear Son God is represented prodigall of his dear Sons bloud if he must die and bleed out his spirits to cure some false conceits that men have entertained of God 4. What need was there that the Son should come in flesh and should empty himself of his glory and that he that is the Lord of glory should be crucified if no satisfaction to divine justice was looked at but only the satisfaction of the conscience the bloud of God as it is called would not have been necessary but the bloud of a meer creature Christ would have served the turne for such a purpose had that been all 5. How came those fears in the heart of man after the fall after sinne committed What bred them was there no ground for them were they meer conceipts and jealousies that wanted a right bottom did not the threatning before sinne was committed cause the horrours and terrours that were in the soul after sinne was committed and if they had Gods threatning as the ground of them viz. in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death were they not well grounded and was it possible that these fears should be cured by the bloud of Christ and the cause not removed by the bloud of Christ the threatning not taken away the truth of God and his righteousnes not fulfilled and satisfied which were in the threatning and which bred the feares 6. These fears and terrors of the Elect before Christs bloud be brought to their hearts to remove them are they not of the same nature with the
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
blush for shame because he hath asserted it and he hath offended here against the generation of the saints who have been wont to pray to God in the person of the Son not excluding the Father and the Spirit Stephen is an example of such a practise and many more besides him in Act. 7. 59. They stoned Stephen calling upon God and saying Lord Jesus receive my spirit It was the second person the Son who took flesh and is God in flesh that was called upon and prayed unto and must he be made a Transgressor But he saith I have nothing to countenance prayer to Christ but these two Texts which I mention this of Stephen and that other of John But this is as gross an untruth as the former yea more palpable to all mens eyes then the former for in 1 Cor. 1. 2. all saints are described to be such who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus And the Apostle Paul prayed familiarly to Christ in 2 Cor. 12. 8 9. For this I besought the Lord what Lord was this It was the Lord Christ How may that appear From the answer that he received and the use he made of it the answer was My grace is sufficient for thee My power is made perfect in weakness the use that he makes of it is this most gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities that the power of Christ may rest upon me The power that is made perfect in weakness is the power of Christ And in 2 Thes 2. 16 17. Now the Lord Jesus Christ himself and God even our Father comfort your hearts c. The Apostle if he pray to the Father he prays to the Son also for he joyns them both together and gives Christ in this place herein the preheminence that he mentions Christ before the Father in this prayer But he excepts against these two examples of Stephen and John first he makes a question of it whether Stephen did pray directly to Christ or not for he expresseth himself with an if as if he doubted but to doubt in plain things is foolishness and to stumble where there is no stone to stumble at is perversness It will be granted I hope that he prayed to him to whom he spake but he spake to Christ and the words in the Greek make it clear They stoned Stephen calling upon and saying Lord Jesus receive my spirit there is none other mentioned but the Lord Jesus upon whom he called and to whom he said receive my spirit and he warrants it by Christs visible appearance as Lots prayer unto the Angels being visible but what visible appearance was there when Paul prayed to Christ in the forementioned places or when all the Saints prayed to Christ as the Apostle intimates the practise to be in the primitive times what sight had they first of Christ before they prayed did Christ appear visibly to every one of them first what a groundless conceit is this and how far from truth besides what did such a visible sight advantage him when he saw him in heaven for unless it were in a vision that he saw him it was in heaven that he saw him and if so the distance was as great as if he had not seen him therefore it could not be bottomed upon that ground for Christ was never a whit the more present because Stephen saw him And so the example of Lots praying to the Angel is no whit sutable because the Angel was not onely visible but present But what doth he mean by bringing in such an instance of Lots praying to an Angel will he set on foot the doctrine of invocation upon saints and Angels by it If he would do it that instance which he brings of Lot will not help him at all it was neither of the two Angels that Lot prayed to that he received into his house and lodged but the third Angel before whom Abraham stood who was now come to the other two and this was Jehovah in the person of the Son who often appeared as an Angel which appeareth from Gen. 19. ver 17. When they had brought them forth abroad he said escape for thy life that is when the two Angels which came first to Lot had brought Lot and his wife and daughters out he said that is netiher of the two Angels for they are mentioned joyntly all along and neither of them singled out from the other but it was the third Angel or Jehovah as he is called that appeared now to Lot and this was he to whom he prayed This appears further from ver 22. 23 24. I can do nothing saith this Angel to whom Lot prayed till thou come thither and afterward it is said the Lord rained c. in the Hebrew Jehovah rained c. from Jehovah the Son from the Father It was he that rained fire and brimstone that said before to Lot in answer to his prayer I have accepted thee in this thing haste thee thither for I can do nothing till thou come thither and this is called Jehovah and it is said he rained from Jehovah So that he is grosly mistaken in this also about Lots praying to a creature Angel by which he would prove it warrantable to pray to a creature Christ but puts it upon the visibleness of him when yet this Angel was not only visible but present and Jehovah in the person of a man He also excepts against John's prayer he saith it was an intimation of the Churches desire after Christs coming but no prayers and he quotes Rev. 6. 16. as a parallel place where such expressions are used yet no prayer But there is a different reason when one speaks to irrationall things which have no understanding nor knowledge and which are not capeable of a prayer and when speech is directed to persons that are capable thereof had those words been spoken to God let the mountains and the hills fall on us they would have been an imprecation which is one kind of prayer And whereas he saith if is but an intimation of desire and no prayer he shewes himself ignorant of the nature of prayer for what is prayer but an intimation of the desire of a person to one that is able to answer him in it And what are those expressions of the Apostles in their Epistles to the Churches but prayers for them yet they are intimations of the Apostles desires Grace be with you and Peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ our Lord. And the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ the love of God the Father c and Grace be with you and Peace from him that is was and which is to come and from Jesus Christ c. 1 Cor. 1. 3. 2 Cor. 13. 14. 2 John 2. Rev. 1 4 5. But he goes on and tells me I cannot saith he but looke on that as vain and frivolous which you set up as the wals and bulworkes of your Argument viz if Christ werâ— but a meer creature being in
then in the words of the 8. verse sets him before men for the consolation of the righteous and terrour of the wicked as present calling to them I am Alpha and Omega c. who will make doubt of my coming who can intercept it I am Alpha and Omega c. But he imagines other Arguments will be made use of to prove this place to refer to Christ and disputes against them his words are these You will peradventure say that the thing is evident in that he is called Lord or you will bring the Testimony of learned Authors who have interpreted the words as spoken by Christ And he confutes both these reasons and saith God or the Father distinct from Christ is called Lord Act. 3. 19. 20. c. And Beza saith he conceived that these words are spoken of God absolutely taken And Pareus confesseth certain Orthodox Interpreters do attribute the words to God absolutely considered Repl. The Title Lord because it is rarely attributed to the Father in the New Testament and when it is attributed to him it is done with such clearness that it is easily discerned and because it is first commonly attributed to Christ therefore it may be a ground of a probable Argument that Christ is meant by it but a necessary Argument cannot be deducted from it therefore I wave it and it had been wisdom if he had done so also till he had discerned that I had made use of it as an Argument As for learned Interpreters though I honour them much yet it hath not been my custom to bottom the sense that I put upon Scriptures upon them but to prove it from the Scripture either the Text it self or context or some other parallel place therefore he might have spared his labour in citing Authors unless I had provoked him thereto But if he will produce Authors why will he offer wrong to the Authors whom he produceth and make them speak that which they speak not that hath been the way to uphold a rotten tenent and he treads in that way I cannot find the words he cites in Beza and he mentions not the place and if he can shew them in Beza I can shew that Beza contradicts himself If Beza have so expressed himself probably he would do it when he came to give the sense of the place but there his words are these Christus hic loquitur ut aeternus Deus acsi diceret ego is sum ante quem nihil est immo per quem factum est quicquid factum est quicque ut omnia intereant superstes illis omnibus maneam c. That is Christ here speaks as the eternal God as if he should say I am he before whom there is nothing yea and by whom every thing is made that is made and am one who do abide and am surviving when all other things perish As for Pareus I confess he cites his words aright and yet abuseth him egregiously for though he grants that some Orthodox Writers do apply these words to God absolutely considered yet he doth not grant that they are Orthodox in their Interpretation of that Text but disputes against them and renders reasons why the words must be applyed to Christ And in the very place from whence he fetcheth those words of Pareus which he mentions in his Margin these words immediately follow causas tamen evidentes sententiae huic obstare prius ostendi that is though some Orthodox Interpreters do apply these words to God absolutely taken or to the Trinity yet I have before shewed manifest reasons which do cross this Opinion of theirs Now he mentions the former words of this Author and silenceth these latter words and so deals unkindly and uncandidly with him But he saith We must betake our selves to reason whereby the Spirit may convince us of whom the Text in controversies is to be understood Repl. This is new Doctrine that is here taught us viz. that reason is the Spirits organ or instrument in its convictions that it sets upon men and it is dangerous desperate Doctrine which hath been exploded by all humble sober Christians if a man must be believe no further then he can see the whole Gospel must be rejected for it is an high mystery which reason cannot look into and the love of the Father and of Christ hath an heigth and depth c. which passeth knowledge must not persons believe it I have heard it and do believe it that the Spirit is sent to convince according to the revealation of Scripture whether we can reach it with our reason or cannot reach it but reason is now advanced as the only medium to Faith which was formerly cryed down as the great Enemy of Faith But let his reasons be considered of 1. This Text saith he declares the principal Author of those things which John the Divine was to communicate to the seven Churches for these words begin a new matter and are no part of the salutation They speak of God even the Father who is of highest authority and from whom originally this Revelation was Christ he is spoken of ver 11. and is to be considered as the principal instrument in conveying this Revelation to the Churches for God gave it to him to shew to his servants those things which were shortly to come to pass vers 1. Rep. 1. This reason asserts several things and proves nothing and so leaves the Reader altogether unsatisfied unless bare words must pass for currant 2. There is no truth in any thing that he asserts in relation to this text in controversie for though there might be some colour for such a collection that God the Father is the principal Authour of this Revelation and Christ the principal Instrument of conveying this Revelation to the Churches which is only in a sense true not of whole Christ but of one part of him to be understood in relation to the first verse because there it is said that God gave it to Christ yet in relation to verse 8. of which the dispute is there is not the least shadow of ground for any one to conceive much less to utter such things For if Alpha signifie the first or the beginning yet it must not be restrained to this Revelation but must be extended to all things and whether the Father or Christ be meant yet a person that is from everlasting to everlasting and that is the root and fountain of all things and that comprehends all things is meant as all the letters in the Greek Alphabet are comprehended betwixt Alpha and Omega 3. It is unreasonable for him or any one to apply the letter Alpha to the Father in verse 8. and thence to deduce this conclusion the Father is of highest authority and from him originally this Revelation was and then to apply the same letter Alpha in verse 11. to Christ and thence to deduce a diverse if not contrary yea contradictory conclusion viz. Christ is the principal instrument in conveying this
Revelation to the Churches For if Christ be but the principal instrument in conveying it then he is not of highest authority nor from him originally was the 〈◊〉 Now it is sensless and notoâ—iously 〈◊〉 to imagine that contrary conclusions 〈◊〉 proceed from the same premises 〈…〉 to the Father he argues thus from verse 8 The Father is Alpha therefore he is of highest authority and the original of this Revelation But in reference to Christ he argues thus from verse 11. Christ is Alpha therefore he is not of highest authority nor the original of this Revelation but the principal instrument only in conveying this Revelation to the Churches Would one think that rational persons should be taken with such kind of sottish and repugnant arguing which crosseth it self 4. In reference to verse 1. which is the text that seems most to countenance his assertions there is much unsoundness in his collections for either it must be thus understood that though God the Father gave this Revelation to Christ yet God the Father gave it not to Christ as an instrument simply considered but unto Christ who was his fellow for it is said of Christ That he shewed it to his servants and signified it by his Angel to his servant John so that Christ is set forth here in his dominion and Lordship equall with the Father over the creatures for more could not have been said of the Father in reference to the creatures then his servants his Angel his servant John or else if Christ be an Instrument and that God gave this Revelation to him as an Instrument yet this God is God the Father Son and Spirit that gave it to him for the word God must be taken essentially not personally and if Father had been named as it is not for it is said God gave unto him yet not of the Father exclusively and dividedly from the Son and Spirit must it be understood that he gave this Revelation to Christ Nor of whole Christ is it to be understood neither but of Christ according to his humane nature considered and so God viz. Father Son and Spirit gave this Revelation to Christ viz. to the Man Christ or Christ considered in his Man-hood and so Christ though in one respect he be an Instrument yet in another respect he is the principal Authour and original cause with the Father 5. Neither is there any new matter begun in this 8. verse as he affirms for if it be begun in it it is also ended in it for in the 9. verse there is a change of the person speaking but it is the conclusion of the Exordium or Preface Christ was described to come in the clouds and what an one he is that shall come in the clouds Christ himself giving witness to what John asserted declares who he is I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end saith the Lord Christ who will come in the clouds for either this 8. verse must have relation to verse 7. or else it is independent and hath relation to nothing But let the second Reason be looked into and proved whether there be any more strength in it 2. Because saith he those titles are no where in the Scripture attributed to Jesus Christ he is indeed called Alpha and Omega the first and the last verse 11. but not Alpha and Omega as signifying the beginning and the end Rep. There is a great deal of untruth in this assertion and much weakness unworthy of one that pretends to instruct others and to be a guide unto them in a way which they have not known 1. There is untruth for these titles are attributed in Scripture to Jesus Christ he is not onely called Alpha and Omega the first and the last but he is called Alpha and Omega as signifying the beginning and the ending in Revel 22. 13. the words are these I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end the first and the last Where we may observe 1. The person speaking which is Christ as may appear from verse 12. compared with verse 28. In verse 12. we have these words behold I come quickly and there is no change of the person in ver 13. but the same I saith I am Alpha and Omega but what person is it the Father or Christ he in his third Reason saith it is the Father But first the Scripture speaks not of the Fathers coming unless in the Son in Christ to give rewards but of Christs coming only in 1 Thes 1. 9. 10. They turned from Idols to serve the living God and to wait for his Son from heaven and Acts 3. 20. he shall send Jesus viz. the Father shall send him but of the Fathers coming Scripture speaks nothing 2. The Apostle John himself ends the controversie betwixt us verse 20. where first we have the same words spoken viz. surely I come quickly 2. We have the sense of them in reference to the person speaking them in the Apostle John's wish and desire Amen saith he come Lord Jesus he understood the person that spake those words to be Christ and not the Father 3. Christ himself clears it that it was he that spake those words I am Alpha and Omega verse 16. I Jesus saith Christ have sent mine Angel weigh the verses together from verse 13. to verse 16. and see whether there be any change of person but the same person that said I am Alpha and Omega said I Jesus have sent my Angel so that it is manifest that with a great deal of boldness he falsifies the truth in saying that Alpha and Omega as signifying the beginning and the end is no where in Scripture attributed to Christ 2. There is weakness in this Assertion of his unworthy of a Teacher in Israel 1. Because Alpha and Omega as signifying first and last are equivalent to Alpha Omega as signifying beginning and end for that whis is first is of it self and hath no cause and is eternal and without beginning and is the beginning of other things and this the very Heathens from the light of Reason within them will confess and that which is last must needs be the end 2. Because first and last which he grants to be attributed to Christ are Attributes of the most high God as he is distinguished froÌ„ the creature See Isai 41. 4. and 48. 12. but especially 44. 6. The words are I am the first and the last and besides me there is no God Here the most high God his design being to declare himself to be the most high God doth assume this title first last as proper to him who is God alone and there is none besides him 3. Because the true English of Alpha and Omega being Greek letters is first and last beginning and end for Alpha is the first and the beginning of the letters and Omega is the last and the end of the letters and these two letters do equally signifie beginning and end as first and last therefore we
find these letters sometimes interpreted beginning and end Rev. 1. 8. which is the Text in controversie sometimes first and last as ver 11. sometimes beginning and end and first and last Rev. 22. 13. therefore his attempting to make a difference betwixt Alpha and Omega as signifying beginning and end and as signifying first and last is very frivolous and senseless I shall now examine his third Reason and see whether that will speed any better 3. Because saith he the terms in the Text are elsewhere apparently and professedly given to God the Father distinct from the Son he is called Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end Rev. 21. 5. 6. And he that sate upon the Throne said I am Alpha and Omega The Angel useth the same phrase Rev. 22. 13. and doubtless in the same manner Repl. Suppose it should be granted that these terms Alpha and Omega be given to God the Father dinstinct from the Son Rev. 21. 6. yet they are not attributed to the Father Rev. 22. 13. but to the Son as hath been evidently proved already and it is not his doubtless the same phrase Rev. 22. 13. is used in the same manner that will carry it against such uncontroulable reasons that have been brought for it viz. that Christ distinct from the Father is called Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end And hence I would draw an Argument If these termes Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end be professedly given to the Father distinct from the Son Rev. 21. 5. 6. and the same termes be given to the Son distinct from the Father Rev. 22. 13. then the Father and the Son are one and the same God and distinct only in their personality for he confesseth himself that these termes Alpha and Omega as signifying beginning end areproper to the most high God and denies that they are given to Christ if then they be given to both the Father and to Christ then it will follow that the Father and Christ are this high God and this is the consequence of his own premises Oh that he might once come to see the sadness of his state to be left to such blindness and darkness as not to be able to see or else to such pertinacie and obstinacie of spirit that he will not see when such clear palpable not one but many texts are before him which have the truth of the coeternity coessentially and coequality of Christ with the Father written engraven upon them which every ingenuous Reader must will acknowledge Truly if there were no more Texts nor Arguments for Christs Diety but these which do denominate Christ to be Alpha and Omega the first and the last the beginning and the end And the Arguments which may be drawn from these they may be able being throughly weighed to convince any person that is rational and acknowledgeth the Scriptures that Christ is the most high God unless God have shut him up under that curse of Isaiah viz. Seeing they shall see and not understand and hearing they shall hear and not perceive c. That which he speaks of these words viz. He that is he which was and he which is to come as referring to the Father in vers 4. of this first Chapter is true but impugneth not our Position viz. That the same words in vers 8. of the same Chapter are referred to Christ who is elsewhere called Jehovah frequently the proper signification of which word is He which is he which was and he which is to come Having vindicated this Scripture of Rev. 1. 8. The next which follows is to be considered of which is Joh. 1. 1. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God That which he clouds the simplicity of this Text which gives such full witness to Christs eternal Diety with is another Translation or Reading which he frames and puts upon the Text which is this In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God and the Word was a God And he puts this sense upon them In the beginning in the first part of time was the Word Jesus Christ according to the Spirit of holiness and he means the soul of Christ did exist And the Word was with the God this Jesus Christ was a delight to the most high God and did converse with him And the Word was a God this Jesus Christ had power committed to him whereby he might represent the most high God This Translarion he fetcheth from the omission of the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ is called God without the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put therto but the Article is annexed to God referring to the Father and then he puts his Gloss upon it in a strange exposition of the words Rep. I grant his Observation to be true that in this place of John where God refers to the Father there is an Article affixed but where God refers to Christ there the Article is not affixed But is this a ground of such a Translation or Version which he hath framed is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God with an Article to be taken evermore for the most high God and is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God without an Article to be taken evermore for one that represents the most high God but is not the most high God If this be so then Christ is the most high God for he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God with an article in Heb. 1. 7. which is fetched from Psa 45. 6. which he hath so much disputed against endeavouring to prove Christ in that place to be but a creature God in the former part of his answer which I in my former Treatise of Reply have vindicated against him And the Father whom he hath stood for to the derogation of the other two persons endeavouring to prove him to be the only high God is not the high God at all for in Heb. 1. 6. he is spoken of as God without an Article Let all the Angels of God worship him that is Christ it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is without an Article Do but observe how God leaves him to confound himself because though he have parts yet he abuseth them and God takes the wise in their own craftiness And it is to be observed that Christ is called God with an Article annexed to it in the same verse where the Father is spoken of as his God and with an Article also Heb. 1. 9 which according to his collection makes both the Father and Christ to be the God that is the most high God and so to be coessential because there cannot be the most high God but one most high God Thus Christ is justified in his Diety by himself against his will Quest But the Question may be moved Why is the Article affixed to God when the Father is spoken of and not affixed to God when Christ is spoken
Beza that is When as the self-same Lord Jesus had said a little before Me you shall not have alwayes and was to ascend a little after it is apparent that there must be a distinction respecting the maner and way of Christs presence and absence in body he is absent but in vertue he is wholly most present in which vertue he doth communicate himself and all his things really in a spiritual way by faith unto us Here is not one Word of the Spirit of God but of the vertue and power of Christ in which he is present which cannot be the vertue of his body or of his Humane Nature in which he was so far absent for none of that could extend so far unless conveyed by that which was present viz. the divine Nature which is present everywhere and conveyes vertue from whole Christ to believers The next Scripture which he invades and labours to overthrow is Rev. 2. 2. I know thy works whence I infer Christs Godhead because otherwise at such distance he could not know all their works But he answers with Intergatories of admiration because of the absurdity which he pretends to apprehend in it His words are these What could he not Is any thing too hard for the Lord Could the Prophet Elisha know at a very great distance what the King of Syria said in his Bed-chamber and yet cannot Christ know at a distance He hath the Spirit viz. Wisdom and power c. given him without measure Joh. 3 34. and therefore can know beyond what we can conceive Rep. When our Lord Jesus Christ tels the Churches that he knows their works his scope is not to discover to them what knowledge he had by revelation from the Father but it was to make them sensible what quick sharp piercing eye-sight he himself had and what a vaste incomprehensible understanding and knowledge he had for the comfort of all true Saints and for the terror of all Hypocrites in all the Churches and this is maniffest from 23. ver of the same Chapter had he but read the Chapter over he would not have admired at me viz. at my collection but at his own Answers I will kill her children saith Christ with death and all the Churches shall know that I am he that searcheth the reines and hearts c. In these words we may observe first what a knowledge it is that Christ hath of the works and wayes of the Church and what it is he knows it is an inward penetrating knowledge it is of the most unsearchable parts it is of the most hidden works it is of the works of the hearts and reines of men Secondly how Christ came by this knowledge not by any discovery that any other made to him but by and from himself he hath this knowledge it is a knowledge which he hath in himself it is his own knowledge I search the hearts and the reines Thirdly for what end Christ declares this his exquisite and perfect knowledge of all things in man which he hath in himself that all the Churches may know who he was what an one he was more observant of all secret wickedness then they were aware of that they might fear tremble more in reference to the eye of Christ then they did before Fourthly what this science or knowledge of Christ doth denotate and demonstrate Christ to be no less then the most high God for the most high God doth assume power and perfection of searching and trying hearts and reines to himself as his own proper prerogative which none is enabled to challenge in Jer. 179 10. The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked who can know it as if he should have said None can know it But then he excepts himself I the Lord search the heart and try the reines that is I alone do it and yet Christ attributes this high Divine transcendent knowledge to himself and with such suitable words as if Christ were the person speaking in Jeremie or as if the person speaking in Jeremie spake also in the Revelation as if one and the same person spake in both places for they challenge one the same thing the close of the speech in both places is the same and it shews that one and the same God speaks in both places if not one and the same person And now if Mr. Knowles have any ingenuity in him he will open his eyes and lie under the conviction of this Text unless he have sold himself to be deluded and to seduce others It appears by what hath been presented that he cannot evade the strength of this Text of Rev. 2. 2. and the collection made there-from with his instance of Elisha who knew what the King of Syria spake in his Bed-chamber which was done not by any wisdome that was in him but by the revelation of God but Christs knowledge was not such was not from an other but from and in himself But he rests not in that but flies to the Spirit which he saith was given unto him beyond all measure Joh. 3. 34. But what is this Spirit which was given to him which made him thus wise that he could know all the works of the Churches This Spirit is in his opinion but a creature he called him but very lately Christs instrument and his whole scope in his Book is to shew that the Father alone is God the most high God therefore according to him the Spirit is but a creature And shall Christ have all this help from a creature to know all the works of the Churches Doth the Spirit himself know all the hidden workings of the hearts of all Churches and of all Saints There are works of the hearts and reines doth the Spirit know them if he be but a creature The Scripture tels us that none can know them but God Psal 26. 2. 139. 23. and Jer. 11. 20. Chap. 20. 12. But he saith the Spirit is not God therefore cannot know such things therefore by the gift of him Christ cannot come to know such things And how comes the Spirit being but a creature to know more then Christ and to be Christs instructor when Christ is the chief of all the creatures and a God in wisdom and strength in comparison of them according to his opinion is not here an inconsistency which doth always attend falshood Nor can the Spirit without measure be given to Christ if the Spirit as he asserts be but a creature for then himself is measured being finite and not infinite and must be given in measure therefore by the gift of him Christ cannot know all things Yea further it may be said though the Spirit were infinite as indeed he is infinite and is good whatever he weakly and sinfully asserts to the contrary yet Christ being but a creature as he desperately argues he cannot be given without measure for things are received according to the capacity of that which doth receive and not above it and so
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
their due And he mentions Prov. 30. 4. Who hath ascended up into heaven and descended c. Repl. Some conceive that Agur speaks of God in the persons of the Father and the Son whom he describes to ascend up into heaven and descend to give signes of his presence in both places and be every where and who gathers the winds in his fist and binds the waters in a garment and that he proposeth this as an hard question to his two friends Ithiel and Vcal Others conceive that Agur doth speak of man and that his interrogation is in the force and vertue of it a negation Who hath ascended c. that is no man can do such things as he mentions and that if his friends do know any that can effect such things let them declare what his name is and what his sons name is But they all understand it of ascending to the very place of heaven and not any that I have seen in the sense that he drives at nor doth either the text or context necessitate that this ascending should be a discovering of Gods hidden secrets for what then is descending As for Piscator I have never seen him upon the Proverbs and can say nothing to it He mentions Pauls rapture into the third heaven to be only a discovery of the things of God It 's somewhat presumptuous for him to determine when the Apostle himself durst not for whether he was in the body or out of the body he could not tell But if his rapture were not reall it was in vision and to the third heaven and paradise he went either really or in vision to the place he went that he might understand the thing But he quotes Grotius and Musculus and Bucer as Writers who understand ascending in a spirituall sense for penetrating the secrets of heaven I confesse some good Expositors do so interpret the word ascend but how it will quadrare and what adequateness there will be betwixt the sense they give to the word ascend and the sense they put upon the word descend I cannot understand However it be the concurrence of Expositors in the interpretation of ascending will avail him nothing in reference to the controversie betwixt him and me for it lies not in that word but in these words is in heaven whether they be literally to be understood or in respect of knowledge onely Expositors do not at all countenance his Metaphoricall sense he gives of those words but they fall upon the distinction of Natures and say Christ was in heaven according to the Deity but not in heaven according to the Humanity 3. He saith his sense is fitly conjoyned with the context Christ saith he reproves Nichodemus his unbeleef aggravating it from the certainty of the things spoken We speak what we know And then from the perspicuity in speaking If I have told you of earthly things that is either things that may or are necessary to be known in the earth Or else the words respect the manner of Christs holding them forth And ye beleeve not how can yee beleeve if I should tel you of heavenly things In this 13. verse you have a exclusion of all men Christ excepted from the knowledge of heavenly things Repl. All may be granted that he saith till he come to the 13. ver which is more probably an explication of the 11. ver We speak what we know and testifie what we have seen saith Christ Nichodemus and others might object against the certainty of those things that Christ asserted and might say The judgments and wayes of the Lord are unsearchable who hath known the mind of the Lord Who shall ascend into heaven for us to relate the mind of the Lord to us Unto this Christ answers No man hath ascended nor can ascend up to heaven to make discovery of the will of God of the deep things of God but the onely begotten Son he came from God and he ascends thither again and he hath seen and known and what he hath seen he declares and testifies and if you be not satisfied with that which the Son hath brought you from heaven who also ascends thither again it is an aggravation of your unbelief And unto this coherence there is a concurrence of Expositors in their witnesse The last Scripture is now to be discussed which he hath excepted against and laboured to disable that it might not speak that which I brought it to give witnesse to which was to justifie the deity of Christ and it is Joh. 17. 5. And now ô Father glorifie me with thine owne selfe with the glory I had with thee before the World was He gives his gloss to these words after this manner O thou Father who dost abound in kindness and art the Fountain of goodness the time being come of finishing my course in earth and returning to thy selfe glorifie me in Heaven who have emptied my selfe taking to me a naturall and mortall body and walking among men in forme of a servant and now being ready to humble my selfe to the death of the Cross in obedience to thee with that glory which I had in Heaven before the world was being then with thee as heir of all things clothed with Majesty and glory answerable to that high station wherein thy pleasure was to set me and to that great domminion wherewithall thou wast pleased to invest me And then he concludes that all lyes in darkenesse which I can fetch to countenance my opinion Repl. He knowes what is written in Rev. 22. 18 19. in terrour to those that add to the word of God I wonder therefore how he dare interpose words in this prayer of Christ according to his owne fancy and not fear and tremble 1. He inserts these words into the preface of Christs prayer Thou O Father who art the fountain of goodness And this he doth unnescessarily for in this prayer-of Christ there is no preface at all and why should be frame one this is not to interpret Scripture but it is plainly to add to it and it is done with a designe which makes it the worse for he would bring Christ in acknowledging the Father the sole fountain of goodnesse excluding himselfe as Son of the Father and excluding the Holy Ghost which is a false thing and full of injury to Christ who was so far from making such an acknowledgment that he thought it not robbery to be equall with God his assuming of equality with the Father was not counted robbery by himselfe 2. He inserts these words in the close of Christs prayer speaking of the glory Christ had with God he addes these words answerable to that high state wherein thy pleasure was to set me and to that great dominion wherewithall thou wast pleased to invest me These words wherein thy good pleasure was to set me and wherewithall thou wast pleased to invest me are not in the text nor is there any thing that lookes that way that might give him occasion to
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
It is utterly untrue and repugnant to the Scripture for by himself he purged away our sins Heb. 1. 3. and herein he debaseth Christ not a little he makes him as weak as one of us and he concurres with those enemies of Christ in their reproaches which they cast upon him when he was upon the Crosse he brings in the same verdict with them yea he hath meaner thoughts in some kind then they he saved others said they but himself he cannot save that is by his own power he cannot for otherwise they knew God could save him the Apostle had not so high thoughts of him but he hath as low thoughts I am able said the Apostle to do all things through Christ strengthening me but he faith Christ himself is able to do nothing without the Fathers strengthening of him If this be true which he asserts that Christ is able to petform norhing of himself without assistance of another God might then have saved by Peter or Paul or James or John or any man else whom he would have looked upon in reference to that work as by Christ Is such a Mediator as he deciphers Christ to be so poore so empty as he makes him to be not able to do any thing in discharge of that office he is designed to of himself without assistance a meet object of the faith and hope of the Saints If he had asserted this of the humane nature of Christ that it was able to do nothing by way of satisfaction in the function of Mediatorship of it self without the assistance of the Divinity or Godhead of Christ it had been an undeniable truth but to assert this of whole Christ in whom the sullnesse of the Godhead dwelt bodily or substantially and essentially and in whom are hid all the treasures all the mines of wisdome and knowledge and all excellency and in whom are all unsearchable riches this is such a vilifying of him that it is a second crucifying of him and it is not his boasting of being able to prove it that makes the evill the lesse but it is the more horrid by how much he is confident This Doctrine must needs weaken faith hope and affiance in Christ and indeed if it were so as he saith that we had such a Mediator so impotent and so weak of all creatures we were most miserable But he proceeds and attempts to break the strength of the second reason which I produced to prove that a meer creature-Christ could not be Mediator betwixt God and men which was this Because a Mediator must either partake of both God and man or of neither else he will rather be a party then a Mediator To this he answers thus Was not Moses a Mediator betwixt God and men but was Moses God and man Gal. 3. 19. Rep. Moses was a typicall Mediator and was that mystically and figuratively which Christ was really and truly Moses was not God and man but man onely essentially and substantially yet he was as God to Aaron and to the people Exod. 4. 16. God reputatively he was and representatively and this was sufficient for him that was not that true Mediator but the shadow of him but he that was shadowed out and is no shadow but Mediator indeed and in truth he must be God indeed and in truth And this Argument of his fetched from Moses is strong against him it is like that of Melchisedech produced to prove the eternity of Christ upon which I have insisted more largely the sinews of which no humane strength can cut asunder But he saith When I brought this reason I knew not what I did for it gives witnesse against me And he argues against me by the help of the reason which I have produced I said if Christ were not God as well as man he would rather be a party then a Mediator and he thence disputes against me thus If Christ the Mediator were God he was a party but Christ the Mediator was not a party therefore Christ the Mediator was not God Rep. The Major Proposition how clear soever it is to him is notstithstanding unsound and untrue in it self for there is a twofold Mediator there is Mediator participationis and Mediator negationis a Mediator of participation and a Mediator of negation that is a Mediator that partakes of both and a Mediator that partakes of neither If there be a breach betwixt the father and the mother and a child comes betwixt and mediates the child stands related alike to both of them and partakes equally of both of them and is a Mediator of participation If there be a breach betwixt two neighbours and a third neighbour comes in and Mediates he stands in relation to neither of them nor partakes of either of them he is a Mediator of negation neither the one nor the other is any thing to him neither of these Mediators are parties the latter is not by his own confession and it is as clear that the former is not for he is not properly a party that partakes of both but he that partakes not of both or at least not of both alike but partakes of the one and not of the other or partakes more of the one then of the other for disparity of relation in the Mediator to the persons betwixt whom he mediates makes the Mediator a party and not parity and equality If there should be a difference betwixt two brethren and a third brother come in betwixt them to mediate and make peace he is not a party or if he be he is a party to both and a party to both is in proper manner of speaking a party to neither but if there be a controversie between two half brothers and another comes in to mediate who is a whole brother to one of them he is rather a party then a Mediator because he stands not in so near a relation to the one as to the other The application is easie Christ is a Mediator betwixt God and man not of negation but of participation for a man he is without all controversie betwixt him and me and in all things like to us sinne onely excepted and if he be a man then he partakes of man and partaking of man he calls men his brethren Heb. 2. 11 and if he should not partake of God equally as he doth of man and stand in like relation to God as he doth to man he would be a party rather than a Mediator but being God as well as man he is no party but a Mediator or a middle person in a proper acception not negatively but relatively standing in equality of relation without any disparity and in this sense it would be true as he saith that if Christ were God he would be a party if he were not man also as well as God for then then there would be a disparity and inequality of relation in Christ the Mediator in reference to the one of the persons betwixt whom he mediates he would
to concurre with it that he may gain credit to such a reading Alas he knows very well the following words will not quadrare they will not correspond nor suit with such a reading By the word mystery there are who follow this reading that understand the Gospell which is called a mystery but was the Gospell manifested in the flesh c. and received up into glory certainly it must be meant of some person that was in flesh and was received up to glory therefore if it be the mystery that was manifested in the flesh and received up into glory it was not the Gospell for the Gospell is the glad tydings of good things in Christ and was the glad tydings of good things in Christ manifest in the flesh and were glad tydings received up into glory it is absurd to be asserted If he understand any thing else by Mystery which was manifested in the flesh then the Gospell it must be the soul of Christ which he saith was created before the rest of the creatures and which in time took flesh and was manifested in the flesh but was it so great a Mystery for the soul to come into the body after the body is formed in the womb is it not that which is done every hour in the formation of man doth not the soul unite with the body in the generation of all that are born in the world And indeed though he grant our reading yet he brings all to this for his words are It is not denied but that Christ was a God and the Text saith but this a God was manifested in the flesh that is saith he appeared visible amongst men when he took unto him a body Rep. If Christ was a God before he took flesh then he was ever a God from the first that he was and that was by his own concession before there was any creature created and consequently before any actuall Soveraignty was bestowed upon him for that could not be before the world had an actuall existence over which he was to have his actuall Soveraignty and then it will follow that he was God by nature from all eternity with the Father and the Holy Ghost but this I have discussed before that which I shall add is this look what a God Christ was such a God he was in flesh but Jehovah he was the mighty God he was the great God he was the true God he was the everlasting God he was God over all blessed for ever he was subsisting in the form or nature of God he was and equall with God such a God he was as is abundantly testified in Scripture therefore such a God he was manifested in flesh As for Hincmarus his conceipt that this word God was put into the Text by the Nestorians I have him not by me and I much heed it not because the very Text it self gives witnesse to it self that the word is not added by mans device or fraud for if it be left out the rest of the words are made nonsense thereby The third and last Scripture that I made use of to prove Christ as Mediator not to be a meer creature and nothing else was this It is said in Joh. 1. 14. The Word was made Flesh His Answer is The creature that was immediatly made by God took unto it a body I find no place saith he where the flesh of Christ signifies any thing more then his body according to which he died and is no where taken for the humane nature Rep. This conceipt of a creature immediatly made by God which took unto it a body hath been at large spoken to and confuted in my former Treatise It hath also been the word that the word Flesh is taken Synechdochically for humane nature a part being put for the whole I find no cause to add any thing either to the one or other but shall consider of the Reasons which he leaves me to pause upon by which he would prove Christ the Mediator to be a meer creature Let me oppose saith he your Proposition with two or three Reasons Rea. 1. Because whole Christ is a creature if so then either a meer creature is Mediator or Christ is not a Mediator Rep. The greater part of my former Treatise is spent in the confuting of this assertion I therefore think it needlesse to spend more time or strength about it especially seeing he refeâ—res to what he said before and brings no new strength to it Rea. 2. Because a Mediator is not of one Gal. 3. 20. Now if Christ be God then he is a Mediator of one for he cannot be a Mediator to himself and there is but one God Rep. It is true as the Apostle saith that a Mediator is not of one that is not of one Party for a Mediators work is to make peace now it is to be alwaies supposed that no one is at variance with himself therefore a Mediator is not of one but of two Parties that dissent the one from the other which Parties are God and Man But his deduction which he fetcheth from this saying is faulty which is this If Christ be God then is he a Mediator of one for he cannot be a Mediator to himself and God is but one if this were a sound consequence Christ would be Mediator to none at all and the reason is this There are but two Parties disagreeing God and man Now all the Elect in all the world they are reckoned in this account but as one man Now if Christ be man took their seed then he is of this Party then he is Mediator to himself and the words may be retorted A Mediator is not of one but if Christ be man then he is a Mediator of one for he cannot be Mediator to himself for all men are but as one come under one consideration and he is among them if he be a man being of their nature and true man of their seed Therefore there must be a distinction made concerning Christ Christ may be considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either in his nature person as he is the second in the Trinity and the essentiall Son of God or in reference to his Office as he is God in flesh and King Priest and Prophet to the Church and appointed Daysman and if this latter acception he is not Mediator to himself though he be God for he is God-man and so differs from himself considered nudè as God or the second person in the Divine Trinity that which was asserted before concerning this man also considered Rea. 3. His third reason is the same for substance with the second Because saith he Christ is a Mediator betwixt God and man 1 Tim. 2. 5. Now if he were God he could not be a Mediator betwixt God and men for he could not be a Mediator to himself This hath been considered in the former reason only there is thus much new in it which deserves consideration Timothy saith he
say God loved such a creature and yet is angry with such a creature then to say a father loves such a child and yet is angry with such a child because he hath offended him especially when God is wise enough and knows how to declare his goodnesse and his righteousnesse together and to prosecute his decree of grace in bringing such persons to glory and to prosecute their sin with wrath with a curse and with death at the same time without thwarting with himself nor are love and anger opposite to one another considered in a divers respect a father loves his child as his child yet is angry with him as wanton as froward as disobedient and God loves the elect as elect as such whom he freely chose and set his heart upon and yet is angry with them as breaking his Law and doing things derogatory to his glory Obj. 3. It is asserted that redemption is taken in Scripture many times in a metaphoricall sense when only power is put forth to deliver persons from enemies and an evil state no price paid at all so in the deliverance from Egypt there was power exercised against Pharaoh and his Realm by which Israel was fetched out from bondage but no price paid to any yet it is called redemption in many places and Moses a Redeemer Acts 7. 35. And because this deliverance from Egypt was a type of the spiritual deliverance which comes by Christ and Moses a type of Christ in this deliverance therefore the deliverance which is effected by Christ is not redemption by any price paid to God but in a metaphorical sense by power put forth against Satan death hell all enemies that detained the Elect. Sol. Though redemption be taken metaphorically in some places of Scriptures yet it follows not it should be taken so in all places and though external deliverances are many times by power only and without price it will not therefore follow that this great spiritual and eternal deliverance must be a deliverance of the same kind And though this temporal deliverance from Egypt be a type of this spiritual by Christ from sin and death and hell yet it follows not that therefore there must be a similitude and parity in all things betwixt them and though Moses be a type of Christ yet the type reacheth not the perfection of the thing typified it is clear in the person of Moses compared with the person of Christ and it is as clear in the redemption that Moses effected from God which was from outward servitude and bondage and that redemption which was wrought by Christ which was from hell and from the devil There are many dissimilitudes betwixt the one redemption and the other and this is one that there is no price paid in the one but power used but in the other there was both And to convince of this the better consider the one was without blood for there needed none but the other must be with blood for there could be no remission without it Heb. 9. 22. The one was without the intervening of the Redeemer in the place and room of the redeemed Moses was not to be in bondage in the room and place stead of those that were by him to be redeemed from bondage but in this spiritual deliverance it must be so the Redeemer must be in the condition that the redeemed were in Christ must come in the room of sinners and must bear their sins and suffer their plagues instead of them as hath been proved And the reason of this difference is because Moses had not in the redemption of Israel any thing to do with an offended God who had a controversie against the people whom Moses was to redeem and from whom he would have satisfaction before he would save them for then in such a case against the enemy that held them power would not have been sufficient for their deliverance but a price would have been required but Christ in his redemption hath to do with Gods wrath and anger and with Gods righteousnesse which were shewed and revealed against the Elect for the Elect had sinned whom he was to redeem and God had threatned they should die the death and they had deserved it and God must be just and true in what he had said therefore Christ must first prevail with God in the deliverance of this people before he could exercise any power agalnst the devil or death or hell and this prevailing must be by a price paid to satisfie for transgression for it could not be by power God might be appeased but overcome he could not be as those enemies must whom he was to deliver the Elect from THis hath all been shewed already and this is it that makes the disparity betwixt the two deliverances which do typifie one the other Object 4. It is asserted in Scripture that redemption in Scripture is never said to be from God as it must needs be were any price paid to God or satisfaction given to God but redemption is said to be from Satan Acts 26. 18. from death Heb 2. 14 15. from the power of darknesse Col. 1. 13. from our vain conversation 1 Pet. 1. 18. from iniquity Tit. 2. 14. yea it is so farre from being a redemption from God that it is a redemption to God Rev. 14. 4. Sol. Redemption in Scripture though it be nowhere said in so many words to be from God yet it is said to be from the wrath of God from the judgement of God from the curse of God the Laws curse is Gods curse and so in a sense redemption is from God as an enemy and an Avenger it is from God as a Judge whose office is to search out iniquity and to passe sentence according to the Law and hath his officers to attend upon him to whom he delivers up the sinner and offender from God as such an one the redemption of Christ is but not from God in reference to relation interest communion fellowship acquaintance dependance power and dispose c. for in all these respects redemption is to God and not from him Though Redemption be from Sin Satan the world death hell and all such enemies and evils yet it is to be understood that it is from these only as the lesse principal causes of the detention of Gods Elect in bondage even as when a person is delivered from the Gaole he is delivered from the Gaoler from the daungeon or pit into which he was cast and from his bolts and chains and from all the noisomenesse and filthinesse and nastinesse that attends that condition yet these are but the lesse principal causes of the evils he is firstly and principally delivered from his Creditor and the Judge that committed him to these So it is in this case God is the principal person that detains and the rest that are mentioned in Scripture are but his servants The devil is as the officer that receives persons that are sentenced of God into
of God they are but as Wormes and Grashoppers What then if the fault be against God who is the Prince of all Princes and before whom the highest is but as the dust of the ballance who is infinite in his nature and in all his attributes the guilt of such a fault will be according to the person infinite as the person is and hence it is that it cannot be expiated by persons that commit a fault against God no not by sufferings therefore the wicked and ungodly suffer for ever because they can never suffer enough in any time to give satisfaction to God for their transgression therefore they must always suffer and there must be infinity in their suffering so far as they are capable of infinity we say that that which hath no end is infinite but the sufferings of the Reprobate have no end This comes from the Justice of the infinite God which in punishing the creature that sins against him considers the infinite distance that is betwixt him and it and makes the punishment proportionable which made Eli say to his sons If a man sinne against a man the Judge shall judge him but if man sinne against the Lord who shall intreat for him the distance is such that there is no mediatour that the creature can find out for him but he is punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord. 4. That sacrifice is something that was ordained of God to satisfie the justice of God which must needs be confessed if it can be proved that God was attoned appeased pacified by sacrifice and that transgressions against God which carry infinite guilt in them are remitted by them but this is manifest from many places of Scripture Lev. 1. 4. and chap. 4. 26 31 34. and divers others 5. The sacrifice that Christ offered to God when he offered himself to God was sufficient to satisfie Gods justice though infinitely wronged and offended by the Elects transgressions Rom 8. 33 34. Who can lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect it is God that justifieth but how can that be when so just and so holy a law hath been transgressed and the justice of God calling upon God for satisfaction The Apostle answers it in the next words Who can condemne it is Christ that died or rather that is risen again This imports that Christ by dying hath given such satisfaction that nothing can condemne the Law that was transgressed cannot Gods justice cannot Heb. 9. 26. Christ hath once in the end of the world appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself and ver 12. Christ by his own blood entred once into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption for us The minor Proposition or the Assumption is undeniable and needs no proof which is this A sacrifice finite in value cannot satisfie an infinite justice offended for there must be some proportion betwixt the offence by which infinite justice is ingaged against persons that commit it and the satisfaction that is tendred and given to justice so ingaged in reference to transgression but what proportion betwixt a finite sacrifice of a finite value and vertue and infinite justice moved stirred offended and ingaged against men Now unto this Argument there is no answer returned but some little arguing there is against an infinite sacrifice which is rather a denying of the conclusion then an answering to any premise of the Argument Notwithstanding it is necessary that I consider what he objecteth against the thing which I drive at though he comes not near the Argument which I propounded to arrive at it Repl. How doth that appear in my expressions when I onely ask a question how a Sacrifice finite in value can satisfie an infinite Justice offended And in steed of answering it there is deep silence he passeth it over as if he had not observed it Yet he saith The Scripture tels us that Christ was made sin or a sin-offering for us by taking our sins and bearing the Curse but how this Sacrifice was infinite to me is unconceivable Repl. And doth not the Scripture tell us that the person that was made this sin-offering was God therefore his bloud is called the bloud of God Acts 20. 28. was the Lord of glory therefore it is said had they known him they would never have crucified the Lord of glory now this is the Title of the most high God Psal 24. 7. Psal 29. 3. Was the great Shepherd of the sheep yea the chief Shepherd which is equivalent to the most high God for the most high is familiarly in Scripture called a Shepherd Psal 23. 1 and Psal 80. 1. And if so then he is chief Shepherd and if chief Shepherd then Christ is he because there are not two chief Shepherds but one chief Shepherd and so the Father and Christ are one and the same chief Shepherd Heb. 13. 20. 1 Pet. 5. 4. The great or chief Shepherd is said to be brought again from the dead by the Father so that the person that was this sin-offering was as great as high as excellent as can be imagined as high as the highest infinitely high and great as these Scriptures do declare for such a person according to the flesh that he assumed was crucified did shed his bloud was raised again by the Father in some places of Scripture by himself in other for the Father and he work the same works the Father raiseth the dead yea the dead body of Christ and the Son raiseth the dead and his own dead body also as hath been shewed before Yea further Doth not the Scripture tell us that Christ through the eternal Spirit offered up himself without spot to God and that his blood in this regard is made more effectual for the purging away of sin than the bloud of Bulls and Goats Heb. 9. 14. How much more saith the Apostle shall the bloud of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered up himself to God purge your Consciences from dead works to serve the living God In this Scripture here is both the Sacrifice and the Priest that offered it Christ according to his Humanity is the sacrifice it was himself according to the Flesh that was offered up and Christ according to his Divinity or Deity was the Priest that offered up him according to the Flesh It is said that Christ did it through the Eternal Spirit What is this Eternal Spirit It was not the soul of Christ for first The soul of Christ is not properly eternal no more then he will grant the sufferings of the creature in hell to be infinite and yet they never shall have end that is properly eternal which neither hath beginning nor ending and so cannot be measured and therefore nothing can be said to be past and nothing future and to come in that which is eternal and eternity is one of the Attributes of the most high God and incommunicable to the creature though somtimes that which hath no end
such without repentance can have no mercy As for that general knowledge which he comforts himself in it is a seeing a far off and is next to blindness it is like the light of him that saw men like trees walking there 's more darkness in it than light The mysterie of Christ is not seen in it it warms not heats not quickens not the heart in love nor by it are persons able to know what it is they stumble at It is the knowledge of those that care not what they know who behold that which appears above ground but wil not dig for knowledge as for silver Such who rest themselves contented with such a knowledge are never like to know that love of Christ that passeth knowledge Eph. 3. 10. This is but sutable to some other expressions of his concerning the person of Christ to know Christ to be a person sent of God hath been declared to be sufficient knowledge to save men and that text also in Rom. 10. 9. is made use of and this conclusion exserted from it that to know Christ to be the Lord whether created or uncreated whether the same with the Father or made by the Father is not material a person may be saved without it But such assertions are detrimental to godliness serve to nourish up ignorance of God and Christ and the mysterie of the Gospel in carnal persons who have been wont to say what need is there of so much knowledge to know my self a sinner and that Christ dyed for me is enough and Christ rebukes it and makes the Scribes and Pharisces ashamed of it when he asks them whose son Christ was and when they said David's he demands how it could be when David in spirit called him Lord but they were confounded and were not able to answer him Their general knowledge that Christ was David's son without a right perception of his Divinity in which respect he was David's Lord was no better then shameful ignorance seeing God had revealed both the one and the other both in them and us In the close of his answer he deals with a Scripture which I produced to prove that the satisfaction and merit that was in Christs bloud was from the subject person whose bloud it was it is called the bloud of God Acts 20. 28. And indeed he deals injuriously with it and evilly intreats it His words are these I shall offer these few things to consideration There may be some mistake in it God may be put for Christ or Lord and then the words must be thus read to feed the Church of Christ which he hath purchased with his own bloud And why may there be a mistake Because saith he the Churches of the Saints are called the Churches of Christ Rom. 16. 16. and there is possibility probability and facility to countenance it Repl. 1. Logicians have been wont to say a posse ad esse non valet consequentia that the deduction inference or consequence that is drawn from a may be to a being so is weak and very invalid There may be a mistake saith he and must there therefore be a mistake say I What good consequence can be in this 2. This Doctrine of mistakes in Scripture especially in points of such grand concernment is dangerous to be broached it tends greatly to engender Atheisme in the hearts of men and serves to no better a purpose then to unsettle men in the Faith for what will be the consequent of it if there be mistakes in some things contained in Scripture why not in other things and then what will remain firm that may be surely built upon And may not any Heretick when he is driven out and forced to forsake all other holds fly hither and shelter himself here there may be a mistake in the Text or Texts that are cited 3. If there were no other place of Scripture wherein Christ were called God and if there were no place that holds analogy with this of the Acts where the bloud of Christ is called the bloud of God there might then be better plea for a mistake which yet would be of evil consequence if it were granted but there is a cloud of witnesses that come in to evidence Christs God-head and there are parallel places to this Text that speaks of the bloud of God 1 Cor. 2. 8. Had they known him they would never have crucified the Lord of Glory Christ was crucified as he was man and shed his bloud as he was man and he was not crucified as he was the Lord of Glory nor did he shed his bloud as he was God and yet it is said the Lord of Glory was crucified and the bloud of God was shed The meaning is the Person who was Lord of Glory and who was God was crucified and shed his bloud but not as he was Lord of Glory nor as he was God but flesh was assumed the humanity was taken and in that nature he was crucified and shed his bloud But let it be weighed what he saith of the possibility The Scribe saith he through carelesness or somthing worse might here put God for Christ There are two places one in the old Testament another in the new which Willet conceiveth to have been mistaken by the Scribes negligence or somthing worse Repl. What Scribe doth he here speak of who might be thus negligent or somthing worse Doth he mean such Scribes as the holy men of God who were inspired by the holy Ghost made use of to write what was suggested and dictated to them by the Spirit Then those holy Men Prophets or Apostles whether ever they were who no question had the supervising and perusing of it after written would have discovered it and corrected it Doth he speak of any other Scribes who might afterwards write out Copies of such things The Original writing would have been extant to have detected and confuted such mistakes and fraud and falshood and there would have been godly ones enough in those Ages to have rectified out of the Original such error or deceit Can any Printer now by any craft or cunning bring corruption into any Text of Scripture but it would soon be discerned Nor could any Scribe then But he gives instances in Psal 22. 16. CAARI signifying as a Lyon is put for CARU they pierced and in Rom. 12. 11. we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 time for Lord. Repl. He that can search out these things and make use of them to serve his own turn whose saith soever he stumble thereby might also have presented such answers as are given by the Learned unto them for no question he hath read them and if he would have dealt candidly he would as well have produced the one as the other I shall only recite somthing of that which I have read in Rivet concerning the one Text who writes upon it and shall refer the Learned to satisfie themselves in reading him at large This Lection saith he
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
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
blood of Christ 1 Pet. 1. 18 19. Now that this life of Christ was laid down and this blood of Christ was shed as a price to ransome the Elect who were Captives appears clearly from Mat. 20. 28. and 1 Tim. 2. 6. where it is said that Christ laid down his down his life a ransome for many ye◠for all the Elect and the Apostle Peter make◠a comparison betwixt this price of Christs blood and a price that is wont to be given for the ransome of Captives in gold and silver and such corruptible things and he makes this price of Christs blood farre more precious then the other 1 Pet. 1. 18. 19. And that this price was given to God is manifest also from the same place of Peter where Christs blood is compared to the blood of an immaculate Lambe that hath no blemish nor spot now such Lambs were trespasse-offerings brought to God who was the person against whom the trespasse was committed and it was for satisfaction in reference to sin committed and it pointed at Christ who was indeed the Lambe of God that taken away the sins of all Elect ones in the world by that satisfaction or price which he gave in his own blood Also David in his speech to Saul in 1 Sam. 26. 19. gives witnesse to this truth that offerings were brought to God and that blood was the price of redemption for sin given to God If God have stirred thee up against me being offended at me for that is the meaning of it let him accept an offering that is for satisfaction and pacification let him accept it But more directly and positively the Author to the Hebrews speaks to this Heb. 9. 14. How much more saith he shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal spirit offered himself without spot to God purge your consciences c. If then the price of redemption was given to God God is the person that firstly and principally detains the Elect as Captives in bondage for he that receives the price is he that holds us in such evil condition and the redemption is from him that is from that in him that holds us 10. The reconciliation which Christ effected through his death and blood was of God to us as well as of us to God which appears from Rom. 3 25. where it is said that God hath set Christ forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood The sense of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Placamentum that by which God is appeased and pacified who was angry before and gives answers of peace to his people when he meets with them as in Exod. 25. 17 21 22. God caused a Mercy-seat to be made it is rendred propitiatorium and is the same word with this of the Apostle and he caused it to be put upon the Ark and there he met with the people and communed with them in a peaceable way and manner This was this type of Christ this appeased God sacramentally typically figuratively Christ properly really truly by his blood which speaks better things in Gods ears then the blood of Abel that cryed for vengeance this cries for pardon for peace for reconciliation therefore the Apostle John saith If any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father who is a Propitiation for our sins who expiates our sins by his blood and so appeaseth God and pacifies him And by Christ it is said that we receive the attonement that is with God or we have God attoned to us Rom. 5. 11. for all the offerings of the Old Testament were for attonement and the people offered them to attone him God did not offer them to attone them or reconcile them nor did they offer them to show that they were reconciled to God for they were offered immediately after they had sinned and had the sense of their sinne upon their consciences and knew they had angred God that by offering them in a beleeving way looking at Christ the sinne-offering which they signified they might appease him and pacifie him and so might have peace in their owne hearts But there are many objections that are framed against this great and weighty truth of Christs making satisfaction for the offences of men to God Object 1. It is asserted that there is no such thing read of as satisfaction unto God Sol. Though the word it self be not to be found in Scripture yet the sence of the word is found in many places that which is equivalent is found in Matth. 20. 28. and 1 Tim. 2. 6. Christ is said to give his life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a ransome for many which words do signifie the price of redemption by way of satisfaction paid for transgression and the guilt of it And the righteousnesse of Christ is called in Rom. 5. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may signifie just satisfaction in this place most properly though in some other places it is taken in other sences for there is an opposition betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one is set against the other the righteousnesse or rather righteous satisfaction of Christ against the offence of Adam and the offence being but one there is one satisfaction or satisfaction at once set against it for the words ought to run as by one offence judgment came upon all men so by one just satisfaction the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life Obj. 2. It is asserted that there is no such thing that we read of in Scripture as the reconciling of God to men and that it is repugnant to Gods love in giving Christ that he should give him for that end to reconcile himselfe to men for he shewed himself reconciled to them in that he gave Christ to them Sol. We read of God offended because of sin of God threatning man having sinned of God expulsing man from the place where himself had a little before placed him in his tender love and care over him and if his setting of Cherubims and a flaming sword turning every way to guard the way to the tree of life which argued a great breach betwixt God and man and that not only on mans part but on Gods part for these were all of them passages of displeasure and anger on Gods part and we read of the whole posterity of man abiding under wrath having no other portion but wrath having the marks of Gods wrath upon them from the womb Ephes 2. 3. and we read of Gods wrath taken away in Christ by the shedding of his blood and of the pacification of God towards men through blood and of his being attoned to men through Christ and what is all this but the reconciling of God to men And though love and anger would have beene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inconsistent together in God towards the same subject person or object about which they would be conversant if sinne had not come betwixt yet because of sins intervening there is no more incongruity to