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
by his Spirit I shall utterly deny it as that which both wants truth in it and is absurd as that which is neither consistent with Scripture nor reason nor congruous to his own Opinion for he takes away Christs immensity and ubiquity and puts it upon the Spirit to prevent Christs being in Heaven and on Earth at once and his filling of Heaven and Earth with his presence that he might not thereby be acknowledged God and yet he makes the Spirit to be universally present and so makes him more then a creature wherein he contradicts himself for his words are these Christ doth all these works in his absence by his Spirit therefore the Spirit is present for he supplies the defect of Christs presence and yet withall he saith The spirit which received of Christs was Christs instrument by which Jesus Christ did the work Therefore he is not God for God cannot be an instrument therefore he is but a creature wherein he crosseth himself So then what must not be yielded to in Christ least he should be God he yields to the Spirit whom he makes not God but a creature And in this he not only sets Christ below the Father whom he acknowledgeth to be God but he sets him below the Spirit whom he acknowledgeth but a creature and now Christ is neither God nor yet the first and chief of the creatures for the Spirit is more excellent then he for the Spirit can be present with all the Apostles in all the parts and Climats of the World at one time to instruct them comfort them c. and Christ is shut up in Heaven and cannot And this is contradictory to himself for he makes Christ the first of the creatures and the Maker of the rest and the Lord of them and he makes him a Spirit in his first existence and yet the Spirit that was made by him can be with all the Apostles and Disciples and Saints also and abide with them for ever and administer to them all good but Christ who is his Lord and Maker cannot O monstrous and senseless Opinion wherein God leaves him to be confounded But how contradictory to reason is this that the Spirit should be the instrument of Christ and so a creature inferiour to Christ and yet be present in all places in Heaven in Earth in the Sea and every where for where ever Saints be there the Spirit is Saints are in all these places The Spirit is one that bears witness in Heaven 1 Joh. 5. 7. Therefore there he is and he bears witness on Earth in the hearts of Believers in Rom. 8. 16. and therefore there he is And the whole Spirit dwels in every Saint for we do not read of any parts of the Spirit into which he is divided and if Saints be every where the whole Spirit is every where and such a boundless Essence is not competent to any creature it is that which God himself arrogates as proper to him do not I fill Heaven and Earth Jer. 23. 24. whole God fils every place and the whole Spirit fils every Saint As bodies have their loca their places so Spirits all created ones have their ubi their some where out of which and beyond which they are not they are confined if they be not circumscribed but of the Spirit it is said whither shall I go from thy Spirit the Spirit is everywhere It is also extreamly repugnant to Scripture that the Spirit should be Christs instrument and consequently a creature and it is as gross as the denying of the Diety of Christ and his Heresie is multiplyed in this Assertion 1. An Instrument acts and works after the will of the principal efficient but the Spirit after his own will as himself pleaseth and therefore no instrument 2. The person by whom Christ wrought Miracles was no instrument but Christ according to his humane nature wrought Miracles by the vertue and power of the Spirit therefore he was no instrument Mat. 12. 28. Acts 10. 38. 3. He that was the uncture with which Christ was annoynted and became more excellent and glorious then all his fellows he that was the enrichment of Christ as man as a creature above all creatures that exalted him in eminency above all Angels c. was not any instrument inferiour to Christ but superiour to him as a creature but the Spirit was the uncture wherewith Christ was annoynted Act. 10. 38. and he received not the Spirit by measure as others did but beyond all measure Joh. 3. 34. whence he came to excell all his fellows Heb. 1. 9. 4. He that is the Spirit of God and is to God as the spirit of a man is to man he that alone knoweth the deep things of God and searcheth them that is hath deep full perfect knowledge of them he cannot be an instrument to Christ to take what Christ a creature as he makes Christ to be shews him and no more and to shew them to men but the Spirit is the Spirit of God and stands to God as the Spirit of a man stands to man and searcheth the deep things of God therefore cannot be an instrument to take from Christ and bring and shew to men And it is contrary to Scripture to make the Spirit a creature as if he be a creatures instrument as he would make him he must needs be 1. He is called God by the Apostles of Christ therefore he is God Act. 5. 3 4. compared together prove it in the 3. ver Peter saith to Ananias Thou hast lyed to the holy Ghost in the 4. vers he saith Thou hast lyed to God He makes the holy Ghost to be God for he shews the person against whom the sin was committed it was not man it was not any creature it did rise higher it was the holy Ghost he was God So that the holy Ghost and God are one and the same thing And 1 Cor. 3. 16. Paul makes him God in these words Know ye not that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you This latter is the proof of the former because the Spirit of God dwels in you therefore saith the Apostle you are the temple of God here is no mention of Gods dwelling in them but of the Spirits dwelling in them if therefore the Spirit were not God the Argument of the Apostle were nought And by the Evangelist Luke in Act. 10. 3. 19 20. compared together he is called God in vers 3. it is said The Angel of God came in to Cornelius and commanded him to send men for Peter in vers 19. 20. it is said That the Spirit told Peter that he had sent those men to him and therefore he must go with them The men were sent upon the command of the Spirit therefore the Spirit was that God that sent the Angel and to be the Angel of the Spirit and the Angel of God is all one 2. He is called the God of Israel 2 Sam.
therefore cannot intercede for it He reduceth this into the form of an Argument to little purpose but to fill up paper after this manner That Doctrine which utterly overthrows the Intercession of Christ brings in as it were another Gospel But the Doctrine that makes Christ a meer creature utterly overthrows the Intercession of Christ Therefore He grants the Major proposition but denies the minor and complains for want of proof in these words What Must we again take your word for a proof I wish a better for there is no goodness in that we have been too long troubled with the word I say insteed of proof c. Repl. This answer is much altered it hath fallen under correction since it was first ptesented to me in the manuscript there was profane scurrility in it wherein he shewed the tincture of his spirit but I complained to one of his dear friends who was too highly conceited of him who gave him an Item of it and so the words came to be changed though there be harshness enough without any just cause for it His expressions did run thus We have already been troubled enough with the Prophet I say Wherein he first breaks his rest upon me 2. He doth it in a profane way abusing that Evangelical Prophet Isaiah which abbreviated is written Isay whose person and name deserve reverence because the honour of becoming the Pen-man of the holy Ghost was put upon him Nor was there occasion given him to sport thus with the Prophets name for I know not that any such words can be found in my writing as I say no nor yet the sense of them for I have not nakedly delivered any thing but there hath been either Scripture or Argument to inforce it and in this very instance viz. If Christ be a meer creature then the intercession of Christ is overthrown there is a reason to inforce it which was thus Because a meer man being in heaven could not know the state of the Churches in all places upon earth and therefore could not intercede according to the condition and necessity of the Churches And though this reason was not confirmed with another which it seems he expected it should have bin yet it was not because there was no good reason to be rendred but because I was in great straits of time when I thought of and wrote out that paper of Scripture and Arguments and had not liberty to enlarge upon any thing having not three hours to consider of the thing and because I intended them to fall under the consideration of more candid persons and because I thought what I presented might easily be maintained from Scripture if there should be any contest Nor hath he invalidated the proof I brought for the strengthning of this Argument notwithstanding his complaint of want of proof Let it be considered what he saith What saith he have you learned to measure the knowledge of him who hath received the spirit without measure Cannot he as man know in heaven what things are done on earth Who told you so Repl. These are strange expressions to proceed from one that denyes the Deity of the Spirit equally as he doth the Deity of Christ and who makes both the Son and the holy Ghost finite creatures and who makes the Son the first and principall of all the creatures and the Lord of all the rest yea God in some sence to them all and so the spirit himself is servant unto Christ and Christ is his Lord and in a kind his God The conradictions in this expostulation of his What have you learned to measure the knowledge of him who hath received the spirit without measure in reference to the forementioned Tenents of his are not a few His expressions seem to me to carry such a sense 1. That Christs knowledge is so great that it is unmeasurable and consequently infinite and yet he himself but a creature and consequently finite which is a contradiction 2. That this knowledge of Christ came to be unmeasurable because the spirit was given to him without measure and yet the spirit himself is finite and consequently measurable according to him And if the spirit were infinite and his wisdom infinite as indeed he is though he denye it yet if Christ be a meer creature and wholely finite as he holds the maxime is infallible that quicquid recipitur recipitur ad modum recipientis What ever thing is received is received according to the Capacity of that which doth receive it and consequently when Christ who receives the Spirit is finite he is not capable to receive any proportion of the spirit but what is finite and be may measured though the spirit were infinite And so there is a double contradiction 3. That this excellent knowledge of Christ which he saith cannot be measured was received by his receiving of the spirit and yet Christ is greater and more excellent then this spirit and the Creator of him and Lord and God unto him which is an other contradiction Obj. But he may plead for himself and lay that his words are wrested and that he demands of me whether I have learned to measure the knowledge of him c Sol. Though I am not able to measure the knowledge of Christ who received the Spirit positively so as to declare exactly what measure he received and no more yet I am able to measure the knowledge of Christ which he had by the donation of the Spirit negatively I can say it was not unmeasurable it was not infinite But he bottoms this interrogation upon a Scripture viz. John 3. 34. where he saith that God giveth not his Spirit by measure to him And he interprets it to be without measure and by consequence infinitely But he is mistaken for there is a comparison betwixt Christ and John the Baptist and other Ministers of the Church for they received the Spirit and are limitted and stinted and receive not all that they are capable of and must have but the Spirit is divided to them as it pleaseth God to one man is given Wisdom and to an other Knowledge c. 1 Cor. 12. 11. and Eph. 4. 7. and Rom. 12. 3. but to Christ is given the Spirit not by measure that is not according to this measure for Christ hath all these and he hath the Spirit in perfection and not imperfectly as men here have and he hath the whole as he is capable of as man but yet the whole is not infinite nor unmeasurable of which I have largely before spoken and therefore shall not inlarge here It may be further said by way of negation that all the knowledge that Christ hath received as man by the donation of the Spirit doth not inable him as man and being in heaven to know the state of all Saints in all places on earth unless it be by revelation from God immediately and a new every moment The reason is because as Christs body is confined to heaven so his soul
alwaies to the end of the world But whether this be sollidly or slightly done I shall leave to the Reader to judge after I have presented it to his view The tenth Argument or Instance was this Inst 10. If Christ be a meer creature then how can he protect and defend and save and direct and rule and govern his Church in all the world in every condition and against all enemies he being at such a distance and remoteness from the Church and yet it is said of him that he is able to save to the utmost those that come to God by him Heb. 1. 25. and that he is with them to the end of the world And Christ stood by Paul and strengthned him in suffering Acts 23. 11. And Christ saith Rev. 3. 10. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience I will also keep thee from the hour of Temptation So that it is Christ now in heaven that keeps the saints on earth which being a meer creature he cannot do The Reader may easily observe that the force of this Instance lies in two particulars especially 1. If he be a meer creature how will he be able how can he have power to perform such acts as those are that are mentioned conducing to the safety and welfare of his Church having such enemies to conflict with and such evils to save from 2. How can he do it at such distance How can he do it he being in heaven and they being on earth What vertue is that that is in Christ as meer man that reacheth the Saints in all places and is sufficient to preserve and keep and rule and govern them He may also cast his eye upon the Scriptures which I quote of which Matth. 28. 20. is but one to which he refers me and the rest he passeth over in silence as if they were all of them answered in his answer to Matth. 28. 20. but let his answer to that text be surveyed and it will appear to be otherwise I shall re-mind the Reader of the sum of it These works of instructing comforting strengthning he doth in his absence by his Spirit whom the Father hath sent in his Name for the Spirit which came in Christs name was the instrument by which Jesus Christ did the work Doth this answer of his satisfie in reference to that Text in Heb. 7. 2. He is able to save to the utmost those that come to God by him Is this the meaning of it he is not able by himself to save to the utmost but by the Spirit who is his Instrument he is able If it be then Christ alone is not a sufficient Saviour but Christ and the Spirit together or rather Christ is insufficient but the Spirit is sufficient and yet but a creature and inferiour to Christ and his Instrument But the Apostles designe is to set out not the Spirits sufficiency but Christs sufficiency Much less is satisfaction given by this answer of his to Acts 23. 11. where it is said that the Lord stood by Paul and said be of good cheer Paul for as thou hast testified of me at Jerusalem so must thou bear witness of me at Rome Suppose this were done in a Vision yet the Vision is of Christ not of the Spirit I have not said that the Spirit stood by the Lord and it is the presence of Christ himself and the consolation of Christ himself that Paul in this Vision is instructed of though neither the Father nor the holy Ghost is to be excluded for Father Son and holy Ghost are all of them present with all saints alwaies and do all of them work the same work the order still observed So that when it is said that the Father and the Son do instruct or protect by the Spirit it must not be understood that they are causa adjuvantes causes helping one another for all of them are all-sufficient and all of them do effect the whole work in such an order of working much less that the Spirit is only operative and the Father and Son are inactive in the work and are onely authorative in it and do imploy the Spirit as their instrument as the lord of the house doth act things by his servants whom he imploys as messengers to effect such things or whom he appoints or designs for such undertakings for so would he have us to conceive of Christ that he doth nothing himself but is contained in heaven and is neither present nor acts any thing on earth but sends the Spirit to effect all for him and this Spirit is present and doth all that is done and Christ himself doth nothing For this is confuted in this Vision where the Lord shew himself present and he himself gives out the word of good cheer and effects it also by his own power The next Instance or Argument in order which he gives answer to I shall pass over reserving it to the last place and shall vindicate the Instance that follows as is last in the paper from that unkind dealing which it meets with from him The Argument is this Inst 11. If Christ be a meer creature then Prayer to him being now in heaven is altogether vain and frivolous in as much as persons may cry aloud long enough before Christ hear them at that distance but the Saints have bin wont not onely to pray to God in Christs name but to pray to Christ directly and immediately in Acts 7. 57. Rev. 22. 20. Lord Jesus receive my spirit Come Lord Jesus His answer is By the rule of the Gospel we are to pray to God or the Father in the name of Christ Jesus you have nothing to countenance prayer to Christ but the two Texts you mention If Stephen did pray directly to Jesus Christ his act might be warranted by the visible appearance of Jesus Christ as Lot prayed to the Angel being visible That in Revelation is no prayer but an intimation of the Churches desire after Christ's coming the like manner of speaking we have Rev. 6. 16. which is no prayer Repl. Here is a bundle of conclusions and monstrous untruths packed up together 1. He saith By the rule of the Gospel we are to pray to God or the Father in the name of Jesus Christ which being taken exclusively as he must needs understand it else he speaks at randome and not to the thing viz. that prayer to Christ is against the rule of the Gospel is very false and herein he condems the generation of Gods children and Stephen more especially who prayed to God the Son for every Text of Scripture that enjoyns prayer to God enjoyns it to the whole Trinity to Father Son and Spirit and not to the Father only because there is no God but he who is one in Essence and three in persons as hath been proved before And let him shew that rule that enjoyns prayer to God viz. the Father excluding the Son and the holy Ghost if he can and if he cannot let him
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
extract them and present them as if there they might be found or something like them which will bear them nor doth he bring any other text to make it appear that such words are agreeable to the Analogie of faith But by this addition he makes Christ a meere creature a creature before he tooke flesh before the World was while he was with God And he makes the glory which he had to be a derived glory and given to Christ of meere grace and good pleasure Now this is most notoriously false as I have largely and amply proved in my former Treatise But this is the doctrine that fils his head and fils his heart and there is so much of this within him that he thinks every Scripture that he lookes upon contains it and therefore it is that he brings this Scripture speaking that which it speakes not But setting aside these additions for which he must give an account Be it that Christs prayer had this meaning I shall shew you what an inconsistency there is in these words to his opinion in two or three particulars 1. Supposing Christ before he tooke the Seed of Ahraham upon him to be a created soul made by and abiding with God be fore the rest of the creatures were made for this is his opinion how can Christ speake to God these words Who have emptied my selfe taking to me a naturall and mortall body If Christ were but a created soul could it be an act of his will and of his power to take to him a body did ever God leave any creature at liberty to do what he will to chuse or refuse at his pleasure that he should leave Christ this created soul as he makes him at liberty to take a body or not to take it and if not but that God commanded him to take it why doth he plead it with God for reward as if it had been done of courtesie Have any of the Angels when they have waited upon men a worke below them had liberty to plead with God after this manner And how could it be an act of his power to take to him a body he being but a created soul can a created soul build a body of nothing if by creation it be or build it out of a woman without the help of man if by generation it be as indeed it was and if not how comes Christ to plead it as some meritorious act I have emptied my selfe in taking to me a naturall mortall body If God prepared him a body why doth he say I emptied my selfe and tooke it So that here is absurdity enough in this if there were no more in reference to his opinion in these very words 2. If Christ were a created soul where was the Emptying to take a naturall and mortall body is there not an habitude and naturall propensenesse in the soul to be in the body is it not the soules perfection is not the soul imperfect without it is it any more then a part of the whole and with the body makes a perfect man and is this the condescention to be presented as an high piece of selfe denyall to be in a perfect state And doth the soul take the body any more then the body take the soul or doth not God take both and unite them here is neither Divinity nor Philosophy in this But it may be this emptying was in this that Christ a glorious soul tooke a naturall mortall body not a body glorified but vile by reason of a naturall corruptibility But 1. God prepared this body for him where was then this excellent piece of selfe denyall to take and accept of what God prepares though it were an abasing to him Saints tread in such steps of selfe denyall every day and it is but their duty 2. Men are and ought to be thankful to God for such naturall and mortall bodies and for every member thereof and Christ if but a created soul might well submit yea be thankfull that his soul was not as his body for it was of free-grace as he saith and I joyn with him in it if he were a created soul that he was so glorious a soul 3. Lazarus was called so far as concerned a naturall mortall body and further also to the like piece of self-denyall for his soul was in heaven and with God and made perfect with God and glorified with him and it must leave God and leave heaven and leave glory and come into a naturall mortall body again that must dye a second time yea into a sinfull tabernacle again and this must be done at the Command of Christ according to the will of God What self-denyall was this then if Christ's was so great when yet Christ was but only a glorified soul And Lazarus which was such yet might not Lazarus plead it This is another absurdity which follows from his own words upon his opinion Christ being but a created soul at the first with God 2. He makes Christ to ask of God the glory only which he had in heaven before the world was and indeed Christ asked no other but it Now this is not consistent with Christs being a created soul and a creature for it is manifest from the Scripture yea it is confest by himselfe in many places of his printed paper That Christ as a creature had greater glory by donation after his sufferings after his deep humiliation then ever he had as a creature before for that Heirship of all things and dominion and principality and height above all principality and that name above every name was the reward which God bestowed upon him in reference to the crosse which he bore and it was his highest glory as a creature therefore it is expressed in these words is made both Lord and Christ not restored to what he had but made and what a rewarding is that only to restore him to what he had at first Therefore seeing that Christ prayes here in John for the glory that he had with God before the world was and asked no more and seeing it is as evident that as a creature his greatest glory was not before his sufferings but after and was the reward of his sufferings it will necessarily follow that he prayes for divine glory to be restored and that as a creature he was not with God before the world was nor had glory as a creature 3. He saith and the Text saith that the glory that Christ asked of his Father was the glory before the world was but the glory which Christ had as a creature could not be the glory before the world was for he himselfe confesseth that that glory which he had as a creature consisted in heirship and dominion over the world but this heirship and dominion over the world was not nor could be before the world was it will therefore follow that either Christ was created without glory and had no glory till the world was created which is directly contradictory to the Text or if
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
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
be also the Son of man on earth And therefore he useth these words That ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth This contest of Christ with the Scribes puts it out of doubt that Christ challenged to be principall and equal with the Father in pardoning sin and would not own himself to be ministeriall or instrumentall therein 2. It appears by this that Christ is principall in forgiving because the Scribes and Pharisees had no sooner conceived thoughts of a difference betwixt God and him denying him to be God and charging him with blasphemie for assuming that power which was peculiar to God but while such imaginations were in their hearts Christ before they could or did utter them did discover them and reprove them and therein Christ gave a signe to them that they had evill thoughts of him while they looked upon him as lesse then God or as below God for they might confute themselves in their own false conceits of Christ After this manner do we charge this person with blaspemie because he forgives sins being but a man and not God as we have thought and yet he knows the thoughts of our hearts and discovers that which we had only conceived and had not uttered and who can do such a thing as this but God Whether is it easier to say thy sins are forgiven thee or to say wherefore think you evill in your hearts when we expressed nothing with our lips Is it not as great a work to know the heart as to forgive sins Doth not Solomon speak to God after this manner Thou onely knowest the hearts of the children of men 2 Chron. 6. 30. Certainly this person though in flesh is notwithstanding more then flesh none other but God Christ administred matter of such expostulation to them that they might correct their former erring thoughts But if they were not instructed thereby yet we should understand what thence may be collected The same person forgave sins as discerned hearts but Christ not as man but as God discerned hearts therefore not as man but as God he forgave sins Nor can it be said that Christ knew their thoughts because God revealed them to him or because they gave some signes what imaginations were in them for Mark declares that Christ knew what they thought in and from his own Spirit that is by himself and not from any other therefore he forgave sins by and from himself and not by or from any other Mark 2. 8. 3. It is manifest from the Miracle that Christ wrought that Christ was principall in forgiving and that by and from himself he did it and not by power derived to him for he wrought the Miracle authoritatively and by his own power he did not work it in his Fathers name that is by way of dependence upon him and by prayer to his Father as sometimes he did when he would shew his manhood that he was the Son of man as wel as the Son of God but he wrought it by command speaking in his own name I say unto thee arise take up thy bed and walk and this authoritative command cameforth of his mouth was effectual before their eyes for this end that he might confute those evil thoughts they had conceived and harboured in their hearts concerning him viz. that he had blasphemed because being but a man he had arrogated and assumed that power to himself which is proper to God Had this been the Scribes and Pharisees errour that they thought he took to himself that power which indeed he did not viz. an absolute and independent power in remitting sins and yet it was but a derived power which he had from another and that it was not his own which he exercised then in the working of this miracle that they might know that they erred in their conceptions concerning his manner of working he should at this time especially rather then at another time by invocation upon his Father have effected it And the reason is because Christs designe was in working this miracle to teach them somewhat which they understood not and to rectifie their apprehensions concerning himself as these words import That ye may know that the Sonne of man hath power on earth to forgive sins I say unto thee who art sick c. arise and walk Now what was it that he would teach them was this it that he did act dependently upon his Father and had no such power of his own to forgive sins but derived it from his Father If so was this the means or the way to convince them of it to command in his own name the impotent man that was sick of so deadly a disease to arise and walk without any looking up to heaven or groaning in his spirit or speaking unto God his Father to effect it in him or by him Was it not rather the way to confirme them in their errour if that were their errour then to bring them to the knowledg of the truth therefore it is manifest and clear that he would teach them some other thing wherein indeed they erred and stood in need to be rectified they thought him but a man and that he usurped that power which belonged not unto him but was proper to God and that was to forgive sinnes in his own name and not ministerially but by and from himself this they called blasphemy Now he would in this rectifie their erring judgements by working a miracle in his own name and by a commanding word accompanied with answerable power and therefore saith That you may know that the Son of man even he himself hath power in himself and not derived from any other to forgive sins I say even I speak it as one that have authority in my self and need not to seek out to any other I say arise and walk This absolute and independent way and manner of working this miracle is a good demonstration in what way and after what manner he forgave sins and both by the one and by the other he would convince the Scribes and Pharisees that he though clothed in flesh and appearing only as a man was yet God equall with his Father and could work the same works of his Father Now though Christ seems to speak of the act of forgiving sins as an easier work then if he should say to the sick man arise and walk as these words of his seem to import Whether is it easier c. yet the works are both alike though one not easier then the other nor did Christ look upon the one as easier then the other nor did the Scribes and Pharisees look upon one as easier then the other for they look upon the act of absolving from sinne as proper to God and not appertaining to man But withall they thought that he deluded the people when he spake the words thy sins are forgiven thee because the effect was inward and not to be discerned by the eyes of the body and so the people could not
is said but very improperly to be eternal 2. The soul of Christ may be said to be a part of the sacrifice that Christ offered up to God by or through the eternal Spirit for though he suffered in the flesh and shed his bloud according to the flesh yet he suffered in the soul bore the wrath of God in the soul and the curse of sin lay upon the soul as well as upon the body therefore the soul as well as the body was in a sense offered up to God and therefore both of them are distinct from the eternal spirit that is here spoken of by which it is said he offered up himself that which was offered and that by which it was offered are different things from one another 3. When Christ speaks of his soul he calls it Spirit without adding the Epithite of Eternal to it Luke 2◠46. 4. The souls of men may be as properly and truly called eternal Spirits as the soul of Christ be called an eternal Spirit being of the same nature both the one and the other But where is such an Adjective added to them in Scripture as Eternal Nor can the Spirit of God be meant by this eternal spirit for Christ in reference to the eternal spirit is made the Priest and the Efficient that offered up to God that which was offered up viz. the whole Humane Nature of Christ consisting of soul and body though Scripture speak most of the body in which he dyed and shed his bloud For this Pronoun who points at somthing in Christ besides soul and body which was offered to God which did slay the sacrifice and offer it up and this can be nothing but the eternal spirit in Christ the Deity of Christ by which spirit he went and preached to the spirits in prison in the days of Noah before he had either soul or body and by which spirit he searcheth the heart which the soul of Christ cannot do and the spirit of God it was not because Christ is spoken of in those places and not the holy Ghost Nor can it be said that he offered up himself by another spirit that was not his but by his own spirit as it is said that he entred into heaven not by other bloud which was not his but by his own bloud Heb. 9. 12. Besides this offering up of himself through the eternal spirit is that that is mentioned to put the value upon the offering up of himself to God above all the legal Sacrifices for otherwise the bloud of a man is no more to God than the bloud of a beast but the person in reference to this eternal spirit is more excellent and glorious than all other creatures either men or beasts in which regard his flesh is called a greater and more perfect Tabernacle because this eternal spirit dwelt in it and filled it with glory By the bloud of this person he entred in the holy place having obtained eternal redemption for us And this is the formal reason and cause whence it came to pass that the sufferings of Christ which both in soul and body were finite and received an end for he suffered once and doth not alwaies suffer yet are able to expiate sins which carry infinite guilt in them being against an infinite God and are able to free millions of persons from sufferings which are as it were eternal and infinite because they would not have any end if Christ by suffering had not discharged from them for otherwise it would be utterly impossible that by one sacrifice or offering he should for ever perfect them that are sanctified but it would have been as when the high Priest offered up daily the same sacrifices because sin could not be taken away by one sacrifice but it is this eternal spirit that doth put the worth and value and merit into this one sacrifice therefore it is said that every Priest standeth daily ministring and offering up the same sacrifices which can never take away sin But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sate down on the right hand of God expecting from henceforth till his enemies be made his foot-stool Heb. 10. 11 12 13. As one that hath done a work that hath great merit desert and worth in it expects a reward looks that things should be so and so done to him so Christ after he had offered one sacrifice sate down expecting the enemies to be subdued at his feet which had the offering been of himself a meer man he could not have done for what is man that he should deserve any thing of God Now because the word merit doth relish ill in reference to Christ himself with many and because all such who are against satisfaction by Christ or at least against full satisfaction are much more against merit because there is no such word found in Scripture therefore I shall clear up the Doctrine of Christs merit from the Scripture 1. Scripture testifies that Christ hath made a purchase Acts 20. 28. Feed the flock of God which he hath purchased with his own bloud this is spoken of Christ who is called God and he is said to purchase the Church with his bloud The Church is called a purchased possession Ephes 1. 14. The Jews were called a people peculiar by purchase so in the Original 1 Pet. 2. 9. Salvation is said to be obtained by purchase through our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Thes 5. 9. so it is in the Greek Now this purchase is not an acquisition of grace as some may conceive who may give this sense of it Christ hath gained the Church and gained or obtained salvation but through grace he obtained and gained which in an analogical sense may be called a purchase but this purchase is an acquisition of work as the Greek word signifies that is used by the holy Ghost which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to acquire and get by work which is used in 1 Tim. 3. 13. They that have used the Office of a Deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree Now he that purchaseth any thing deserves the thing that he purchaseth but Christ hath purchased the Church hath purchased salvation hath performed a work that deserves the having of the Church and the having of salvation for the Church so that if words might not be formally stood upon too much it is manifest that we have the thing in equivalent expressions 2. Merit and Desert properly have respect to some work which is not due neither could be required from such a person in which sense Christ may be said to merit when yet the persons on whose behalf Christ hath done such a work could not have been said to have merited if they in their own persons had done it the reason is because if men having sinned against God had been able to satisfie the Law to the utmost in reference to their sin they had committed against it and had
could not save by Christ without transmitting that curse and wrath which was due to all and every of the Elect to Christ and if Christ had been but a meer man then there would have been need of so many Christs to have suffered and endured as there are Elect persons and every one of these Christs must have suffered hel viz. the torments of hell as well as death and then they must have suffered ever also without any end and yet could not have justified the Elect because while they should be suffering till that be ended God could not be satisfied and if God could not be satisfied the Elect could not be justified and discharged and so to all eternity the Elect could not be acquitted and this appears in Christ if he had suffered and had never got through his suffering we had never been saved if he had dyed and had never risen we had never risen to life and glory And this is that which I presented in that Argument or Instance as he calls it of mine viz. that the satisfaction which Christ gave to Gods justice is destroyed if Christ be but a meer man and not God for how could the blood of aman satisfie for the sins of many transgressours whereas there is no proportion betwixt one meer man dying for sin and many men sinning and deserving death each of them for the sins they have committed The righteousnesse is in Scripture called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 5 18. which signifies a just satisfaction or satisfaction according to the exactnesse of justice and Gods scope is thereby to declare himself just that is to magnifie his justice thereby Rom. 3. 26. By all this that hath been presented it appeares how sleight and weak he is in his answer to an Argument of the highest weight and moment For what thing is there of greater consequence for the satisfying of the conscience then to know that the satisfaction is full and sufficient which Christ hath given which was shewed by the Argument that I brought to be disproportionable upon his Tenent of Christs meer creatureship to which he returnes no other answer but this As the sin of one meere man was imputed unto and brought death upon all men even so the gift of grace by one man Jesus Christ whom he makes but a meer man abounded unto many unto justification and life In the next place he comes to discusse and give answer to my 2d Querie How it may be conceivable that an infinite justice offended should be satisfied by a sacrifice finite in value And thus he expresseth himself What matters it if it be unconceivable must it therefore be uncredible doubtlesse in all controversall doctrines you will not hold this for an orthodox all Tenent In the doctrine of the Trinity credit must be given to things unconceiveable but the like liberty will not be allowed in Christs Mediatorship Reply 1. If no more words had been added by me to these expressions It is unconceivable yet if there be a truth therein that it is unconceivable these bare expressions without any addition might have passed with him for an unanswerable Argument because he professeth himself to be a man so given up to reason that he will prostrate himself to use his own expressions to the shadow of it and his faith will not carry him beyond reason how shallow soever his apprehension is he will not beleeve further then he can see which hath caused him to be so unsetled and unstable in the doctrine of the Trinity and to question it so long till at last he hath rejected it 2. That which is unconceivable and wants the authority of Scripture so to countenance it is not receivable So did not the doctrine of the Trinity for though it be an incomprehensible mystery yet it is not an unscriptural doctrine but it is compassed about with a cloud of witnesses both of the old and new Testament which do declare it with the greatest clearnes but that such a thing should be in Christs Mediatorship that that which is finite in nature value should yet satisfie for that which is infinite in provocation and offence hath neither the light of reason nor the truth of Scripture to draw out consent unto it therfore is worthy to be expunged out of the Saints beliefs 3. That which is unconceivable against the tenor of the Scripture which words I added but he would take no notice therof deservs no credit with Christians but must be razed from among the articles of their faith but that a sacrifice that is finite in value should satisfie an infinite Justice offended is both incomprehensible by reason and contradictory to Scripture as appears from Heb. 9. 9. Gifts and Sacrifices while the first Tabernacle was standing were offered which could not make him that did the service perfect it could not purge away his sin nor justifie him what was the reason of it could not God have taken these gifts and sacrifices for satisfaction no he could not the Apostle faith it could not be there was no proportion an offence against God must be purged away with better sacrifices then these Tâ—â— Apostle that was of Gods counsel and knew the truth tels us so Heb. 9. 23. It was necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices then these why necessary because the justice of God could not be satisfied by these nor the truth of God fulfilled therefore it was necessary there should be better then these but if these better be not proportionable to the offence to purge the guilt away in a satisfactory way to justice wherin is the betternes betwixt them there is no difference in this respect they are alike without preheminence one to the other He repeats it again Heb. 10. 1. as that which is of weighty consideration and which he would have the Christian Hebrews to be throughly instructed in The Law saith he having a shadow of good things to come can never with those sacrifices which they offered make the comers thereto perfect and v. 4. It is not possible that the blood of buls and goats should take away sin It was possible at first but after God had said In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death it was not possible aâ—ter the law had cursed every one that continues not in all things written therein it was not possible and the Apostle fetcheth his confirmation from Christs own words in Ps 40. which he mentions and applies to this purpose v. 5. Wherefore he saith when he cometh into the world sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not but a body hast thou prepared in burnt offering and sacrifice thou delightest not then said I loe I come to do thy will O God Why would not God have sacrifice but prepared a body for his Son the reason is because this flesh of Christ is called a greater and more
perfect Tabernacle by which being sacrificed and offered up to God he entred heaven and opened it for beleevers It is called a greater Tabernacle because it was not of this building not framed of the seed of male and female as other bodies are but of another building as the Apostle observes Heb. 9. 11. conceived in the wombe of a Virgin by the over shadowing of the Holy Ghost and it was greater also because not the glory of the Lord filled it only as it did the Tabernacle made in the wildernesse but because the fulnes of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily and by this greater Tabernacle he obtained eternal redemption for us and entred into heaven to take possession of glory for us Why did not God delight in burnt-offering but Christ must come the reason is rendred it was to do the Will of God The Will of God was to have his truth satisfied his law satisfied his righteousnesse satisfied that upon just and holy and honourable termes he might be reconciled this was the Will of God This Will burnt-offerings and sin-offerings could not accomplish Christ must therefore come to satisfie it and to fulfil it Therefore it is said Not by the blood of Goats and Calves but by his own blood he entred once into the holy place Heb. 9. 12. and in ver 13 14. it is said If the blood of Buls and Goats do cleanse the flesh being types of the blood of Christ how much rather shal the blood of Christ clense the conscience If all had depended upon institution and that there had been no respect had by God of a full satisfaction the blood of buls and goats might have been as effectual to have clensed not the outside but the conscience equally as the blood of Christ if the vertue of clensing had not depended upon the excellency of the person whose blood it was that did clense there would have been no difference betwixt the bloods that did clense therefore the value of the blood in reference to the person whose it was fals under the consideration of God in the busines of remission But he saith The foundation that I build upon is not a little questionable and that not a few errors do lie under my non scriptural language You tell us saith he of an infinite sacrifice but what you mean by it and where Scripture tels us so much I am yet for to learne 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 remains to me unconceivable If the suffering of Christ had been infinite there had been no end of it if the curse had been infinite man could not have born it being uncapable of any thing infinite in the infinity of it It is enough for me to beleeve that my Lord Jesus suffered for me what I deserved to suffer and that was the curse of the Law be that what it will Rep. The foundation which I build upon wil admit of his utmost questioning without being shaken therby As for the errors that may lie under my words he might have done well to have presented them unto view yea I beleeve he hath done it so far as his fancy hath suggested any to him which whether they will prove to be errors when I shall have represented what I am able to say will be judged of by the Reader and whether my language be unscriptural in the sense of it or his answer be not impertinent and no answer to any thing wherin the strength of my Argument lies or whether it be not rather a shuffling and a shifting then an answering let any intelligent impartial person judge He hath been wont to draw up my Arguments into form when he hath apprehended an advantage by it but at other times pretermits it I shall therfore do it for him at this time he cals it a Querie and it runs in that form but the strength of this Argument is in it If Christ be a meer creature then a sacrifice finite in value wil be able to satisfie an infinite justice offended but a sacrifice finite in value cannot satisfie an infinite justice offended ergo Christ is not a meer creature He answers not to either of these propositions nor indeed can do without running into absurdities for first the consequence is firme and good which will be manifest if these five things be made out 1. That the sacrifice of a meer creature neither is nor can be any other then finite in value which none wil doubt of if they consider that a meer creature is only finite and can be nothing more and if so then the actings of it are according to the nature of it finite also both in their nature and in their value worth for nothing can act beyond it self and this I beleeve he will not deny 2. That the justice of god is infinite which because it is an attribute of God and is God for what ever is in God is God must needs be granted because God himself is infinite and indeed God cannot be compounded of things that are finite for an infinite being is never made up of finite things so that all in God is infinite And that which is finite is limited and that which is limited is limited by another which is greater then it and can limit it but both these are incompetent to God who is greater then all limits all but is limited of none 3. That this infinite justice was offended which is manifest because 1. a just and holy law was broken 2. a righteous and just penalty proposed to warn man lest he should transgress was sleighted and despised 3. man was immediately upon the transgression judged and sentenced with death and expulsed Paradise 4 because this law was Gods which was transgressed and the penalty that was threatned and was despised was Gods also therefore the offence in transgressing and despising was infinite though not in the nature of it yet in relation to such a God who is infinite which will farther appear if this be granted which in reason cannot be denied that faults cōmitted receive their aggravation as from the matter and manner of committing and from the end and design so from the object or person against whom committed the greater more excellent the person is against whom the transgression is the greater is the transgression therfore if against a Prince it is an high aggravation and it counted treason and a more grievous death is inflicted and if it be an high crime against him it is endeavoured that his death may be perpetuated therefore his torments are prolonged and this is judged righteousnesse in the persons that inflict such punishment in reference to such transgression and yet the highest of men are persons that must die and their breath is in their nostrils and they are not only finite but their life is like bubbles upon the water and in comparison