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
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
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
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
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
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
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