scatter the clouds nor clear up their judgements Now Church admonition is the best expedient to bring them to repentance as the Apostle speaks of Hymeneus I have delivered him up to Satan saith he that he may learne not to blaspheme that is by denying a doctrine which he ought to have professed And so such scales of ignorance which were by sin contracted are by Church-censure removed many times Obj. But what if such persons be very holy in their lives and very profitable in their Communion must they notwithstanding undergo the censure of the Church Sol. 1. There is no holinesse but what flows from the doctrine of the Gospel rightly entertained and held by faith Therefore so long as they waver in the faith in points of great concernment and moment their holinesse must of necessity be waved also the Apostle saith Gal. 1. 7 8. Though I or an Angel from heaven bring any other Gospel and yet he means it of circumcision held by some as necessary to salvation let him be accursed 2. Such persons that are pertinacious in a corrupt opinion are evil leaven and their Communion cannot be so profitable as it is like to be hurtful to the fellowship to which they do belong 3. If they be Saints which do so greatly erre from the faith there ought to be so much the more compassion shewed to them and the greatest love and compassion that can be shewed lies in this to use the last remedy to them when other remedies fail and are ineffectual and it is the greatest cruelty to withhold any means which God hath sanctified for the healing of such as from Exod. 23. appears 5. What one Church of Jesus Christ doth this way in the execution of censure justly and according to rule all the Churches ought to ratifie for if such who are bound by any Church on earth be bound also in heaven then all the Churches in the world have not power to acquit or lose from it therefore in their walking towards such persons great or small they ought to confirme it by having no Communion nor fellowship with such that so such persons may come to see the miserable condition that they are in and may be ashamed and if any Churches or Christians should walk otherwise they sin against Christs ordinance and harden such persons in their sin and hinder their repentance and returning to the truth and will draw the blood of such souls upon their heads If this course were held with such who erre grossely and will not be healed it would awaken those who have left their first faith and are turned after fables and might recover them and would bring a trembling upon the rest that stand firme and unshaken and might preserve them from the like temptations and then there would be no cause for the interposing of the Magistrate which some do relish so evilly The fourth and last thing that I am to discusse is what the preservatives are by which persons may be kept in times in which errours are rife and the danger great in that respect 1. Let every person that pretends to saintship look to his implantation into Christ that it be right and true and that it be firme and sure and then it is to be hoped that he will abide in the Vine and the Vine in him and then he is more likely to stand fast in the faith for there is one that is able to keep him from falling and will keep him and if he fall he shall rise againe for there is one that is able to raise him and will raise him The greatest security of the Saints that they shall not depart from the faith is in their union and communion with Christ 2. Let persons commit themselves to God to be kept by him who can strengthen and settle and establish those that rest on him and wait for him while persons have leaned to their own understanding and have not looked up to the rock that is higher then they and come out of themselves and put their trust in him and begged his teaching and leading they have become vain in their thoughts and have erred from the truth 3. Let persons get a good root of knowledge within themselves and not attain onely to a generall knowledge of things but come up to a particular knowledge of them and know all things in the causes thereof so farre as Scripture gives light or as they have been taught for then though some other thing may be presented to them then what they have received yet the reasons of the things which they have beleeved will not be so soon answered in their souls If persons have but a forme of knowledge within them it is soon overturned 4. Let the love of the truth be laboured after as well as the knowledge of it for persons will be unwilling to relinquish that truth which they have found much sweetnesse in 5. Let the Scriptures be diligently searched into and perused and studied and let them be compared together and let Scripture intepret it selfe and let one Scripture give the sense of another Scripture when persons take up some one or two single scriptures and runne away with them without comparing them with other Scriptures they are led aside to error 6. Christians ought to take heed whom they hear what they hear and how they hear because of many Seducers and Deceivers that are gone abroad into the world and because there are many spirits of Antichrist who yet pretend to Christ 7. Christians ought to become wise unto sobriety and not to think of themselves above what is meet but to have humble and low thoughts of themselves for if once Christians be lifted up they readily fall in this snare of the Devill which is Error and Heresie 8. Christians ought to walk up to that light of truth that they have attained to because there is a promise belonging to such who will live in and practise the truths which they know John 7. 17. 9. Saints ought to consider that they have no more of the grace of faith then they hold of the doctrin of faith for they therfore beleeve because they have such a word of God to ground their belief upon if then they hold not that Word their belief will fall with it and then must needs be shaken as much in the grace of faith as they are in the ground of faith 10. Let them consider that there is no godlinesse but what grows out of the Gospel and springs from the truths of it if therefore the doctrine of grace in Christ be once overturned in the soule all godlinesse will be soon overturned with it 1 Tim. 6. 3. Tit. 1. 1. 11. Let them consider that if once they become unstable in the faith they become unstable in all their wayes for it is as when a tree is not firmly deeply and surely rooted in the earth but is loose in the ground it growes not flourisheth not nor is fruitful like to other
certainly known So our High Priest Jesus Christ is without beginning of dayes or end of life Repl. This answer is too light and frothy in a subject so serious It was not mine intent or designe and he knows it very well to make Melchisedech God nor any of the persons of the Godhead nor yet to make a quaternity of persons but to make Christ God to whom that in truth belongs which in type only and in a figure mystically is attributed to Melchisedech Moses and David speak of Melchisedech as if he had been one who had glided down out of heaven and come from above and had again soon after conveyed himself thither for there is not any mention at all made of his birth or death of his father or mother or kindred or when he became Priest nor when he laid down his Priesthood And the Apostle saw the mysterie in it and that it behoved him so to be described and set out that he might be a Type of Christ both of his Person and Priesthood And therefore when he makes use of him as a Type to set out Christ by he describes him to be without father and so was Christ as he was man and without mother and so was Christ as he was God having no beginning of dayes nor end of life nor had Christ according to his divine Nature considered either beginning or end of dayes but acording to his humane he had both and both of them described and well known by all that are versed in Scripture-story and the Apostle knowing these things in expresse words makes Melchisedech the Type of him discerning that the Holy Ghost in concealing these things of him had made him so and intended him to be so as these words import Made like unto the Son of God for he is described saith Beza as if he had neither been mortall man nor had been born of a mortall woman which because it could by no means agree with any meer man born of men therefore the Apostle saith that he is peculiarly the figure of that one only begotten Son of God and that it was so intended by the Holy Ghost Now then the strength of the Argument fetch'd from this Scripture lies here First Melchisedech is a Type of Christ that is without controversie Secondly He is a Type in these things mentioned of him Without father without mother without beginning of dayes and end of time Otherwise in vain doth the Apostle mention these things of Melchisedech but as a type for in truth it was not so of Melchisedech And it appears by the scope of the Apostle which was to interpret the words of David A Priest after the order of Melchisedech therefore it was necessary for him to set forth what Melchisedech was in his person and in his office and in his person he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Without father without mother not in truth but they are not mentioned and so it is as if it had been so and that in type he might be so and therein resemble the Son of God that in truth was so Thirdly Melchisedech being only a type in these things of Christ it was not necessary that he should be such in truth but only in a figure mystically as indeed he was not but it was necessary that Christ should be so in truth being the Anti-type that is being the substance of that which Melchisedech was but a shadow of therefore in John 1. 17. it is said that the law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ That is there were many shadows in the law of Moses but Christ came and fulfilled them and was the truth of them We read of David that he said of himselfe They pierced my hands and my feet they gave me vineger and gall to drink which really were not done to David but mystically and in a figure as David was the type of Christ but these things were really done to Christ and in truth were fulfilled in Christ So the bloud of buls and calves and of such beasts which were sacrificed and offered they took away sin cleansed away the guilt and brought pardon and purged the conscience and brought peace but none of these did so in truth but mystically in type only as they shadowed out and pointed at the sacrifice of Christ and at his bloud but the bloud of Christ really and in truth did take away sin did clense the conscience did bring remission peace Heb. 9. 9 12 13 14. More instances might be given but indeed there is evidence enough in the very nature of a type and antitype There is a mystery in the type and there is the impletion or fulfilling of the mystery in the Antitype or the thing of the mystery is to be seen in the Antitype But enough of this unless he had said more to impugne it I now come to consider of his answer to Pro. 8. 22. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way before his works of old I was set up from everlasting from the beginning or ever the earth was To this he thus answers And gives this sense The Lord who is Possessour of heaven and earth obtained or created me when he began to worke before his antient workes And I was set up or annoynted to have the dominion of all things and that from everlasting that is from the beginning before the earth was Repl. The word indeed signifies to obtain or to possess which is sometimes done by creation and so when heaven and earth were created they were possessed by God or as he saith God was Possessour of them But in this place it is an obtaining or possessing as is done by generation I gave an instance in Eve in reference to Cain I have gotten a man it was by a begetting or generating there and in this place it is so also Christ is called the onely begotten of the Father and here in ver 24. Christ the wisdome of God declares how he was possessed viz. as a Son that is brought forth by a woman travelling in which Christ is said to be born and is called the first-born to exclude creation and that it might be by generation and the act of the Father in communicating the divine essence to the Son is called after the manner of men that it may be better conceived of a begetting or generating suteable to which is the Hebrew word Amun v. 30. which signifies a child nursed nourished brought up with a father and such was Christ which is thus expressed to hold forth his generation and not creation for when God created Adam he created him a man but Christ is represented as a child to shew how he was begotten and it is added that Christ was his Fathers delight and a sport before him for so it is in the Hebrew and this is humanitùs dictum is is spoken after the manner of Fathers who take dear delight in the childe that comes out of their
sense of these words is in heaven agreeable to the acception of the like words and phrase of speaking used else-where in John 17. 24. Father I will that those whom thou hast given me be where I am that they may behold my glory Christ here speaks of heaven and of his glory in heaven and of the disciples coming thither and beholding his glory there and he speaks not in a mysticall sense of his own knowledge of divine things nor of the disciples knowing of such things as he knew but in a literall sense he speaks all and he saith I am there and yet he was on earth according to his manhood but he was in heaven also Where I am saith he that was heaven Christ was there How was that possible if Christ was not God if the words be taken literally there in Joh. 17. 24 then they are literally to be taken here in John 3. 13. The place discussed betwixt us the comparing of these two places together clears the sense of both and is repugnant to his interpretation And though he gives a literall sense to these words But he that came down from heaven viz. the Son being excepted who was in heaven and descended thence yet it is a corrupt and false and very dangerous sense that he gives which I met with in my former Treatise For he represents Christ in his descension as leaving heaven departing from thence and coming upon earth but this is contrary to the next expressions the sense of which I have cleared up where it is said that Christ was in heaven still notwithstanding that he descended so that it is a reall true descention or a true coming and appearing upon earth but not locall such as is appliable to the creature for that is not proper to Christ The creature in descending moves from the place it was in and leaves it but 't is not so to be conceived of Christ But thus Christ is said to descend in reference to his incarnation he being the Son of God assumed flesh of the Virgine by the divine inspiration of the Spirit of God and so was made the Son of man and so the Son of God appeared in the Son of man and this is called descending This is made manifest to us from John 1. 14. The word was made flesh and dwelt among us even the word dwelt among us in flesh and we beheld his glory in flesh the glory as of the begotten Son of God This glory was in heaven now in the Sons assuming flesh it is seen on earth in the seed of the woman this is the descending of Christ and after this manner the most high God is said to descend in Scripture God came into the temple after this manner not by moving from place to place which is not congruous to God but by a work declaring God to be there where he was not seen before And so God descended to see the tower that was built in a work and no other way and it is called descending after the manner of men and it is Gods descending all that is competent to God And this kind of descending of Christ must of necessity be yeelded unto because the locall is excluded by Christ in the very place where his descending is mentioned Having shewed the inconsistency of the exposition which he framed and gave of this Text of John and having fortified the sense in which I made use of it and for which I produced it I shall now answer unto that which by way of objection may be urged against the sense that I have put upon it Object It may be thus argued A locall corporeall ascension cannot be understood in reference to Christ because it is expressed in the preterperfect-Tense as a thing done but that was in a literall locall acception taken inconsistent to Christ because he was then upon earth and as he saith afterward was not ascended to the Father Sol. The preterperfect-tense hath ascended refers to no man not to Christ and there is an Elipsis in the words or a defectiveness in the expressions in reference to Christ therein of necessity that the words supplied should run in the preterperfect-tense but they may run in the future tense thus But he that descended shall ascend viz. the Son of man which is in heaven Or if the words should be supplied in the preterperfect-tense yet a change of tense which notes out the assurance of the thing it is spoken of as done because assuredly it is to be done cannot overturn the genuine sense of the place Obj. 2. It may be farther objected that the son of man is the subject who is said to be in heaven but the son of man is Christ under the consideration of his manhood and under that consideration it was impossible for him to be at that time in heaven for it is contradictory to the truth of his humanity to be at two places so greatly distant at the same time Sol. Here is in these expressions viz. the son of man which is in heaven that which they call Idiomatum communicationem that which is spoken in the concrete of Christ according to one nature transferred to another nature is as he himself must confess in other cases according to his Tenent to be often found in the Sripture in these words they would never have crucified the Lord of glory it is to be observed Christ was crucified according to the flesh but he was not the Lord of glory according to the flesh but spirit of holiness yet it is said the Lord of glory was crucified so it is said the son of man was in heaven but it is meant of the son of God and the meaning is the person that is called the son of man was in heaven though not as the son of man but according to the other nature as the Son of God But let us try the strength of his reasons which he brings for the countenancing of this exposition of his 1. Saith he this sense and meaning wherewithall I have clothed those words is no waies opposite to the analogie of faith There is nothing as I suppose in it which the doctrine of the Gospel will pick a quarrell with Repl. The nakedness of this reason is discovered in what I have already presented I have shewed that Christs ascending up to heaven is not any where taken in that sense which he puts upon it And that Christs being in heaven in the sense that he clothes it with is repugnant to a paralell place in Joh. 17. 24. so that he makes Scripture quarrell with it selfe and such an exposition which he hath given of Christs descending stands at defiance against all those pregnant places which do proclaim Christ to be coessential with the Father therefore both Old Testament and New will rise up against it and condemn it 2. He saith That the sense that he would have this Text to own is elsewhere challenged by the like phrases to themselves as
their due And he mentions Prov. 30. 4. Who hath ascended up into heaven and descended c. Repl. Some conceive that Agur speaks of God in the persons of the Father and the Son whom he describes to ascend up into heaven and descend to give signes of his presence in both places and be every where and who gathers the winds in his fist and binds the waters in a garment and that he proposeth this as an hard question to his two friends Ithiel and Vcal Others conceive that Agur doth speak of man and that his interrogation is in the force and vertue of it a negation Who hath ascended c. that is no man can do such things as he mentions and that if his friends do know any that can effect such things let them declare what his name is and what his sons name is But they all understand it of ascending to the very place of heaven and not any that I have seen in the sense that he drives at nor doth either the text or context necessitate that this ascending should be a discovering of Gods hidden secrets for what then is descending As for Piscator I have never seen him upon the Proverbs and can say nothing to it He mentions Pauls rapture into the third heaven to be only a discovery of the things of God It 's somewhat presumptuous for him to determine when the Apostle himself durst not for whether he was in the body or out of the body he could not tell But if his rapture were not reall it was in vision and to the third heaven and paradise he went either really or in vision to the place he went that he might understand the thing But he quotes Grotius and Musculus and Bucer as Writers who understand ascending in a spirituall sense for penetrating the secrets of heaven I confesse some good Expositors do so interpret the word ascend but how it will quadrare and what adequateness there will be betwixt the sense they give to the word ascend and the sense they put upon the word descend I cannot understand However it be the concurrence of Expositors in the interpretation of ascending will avail him nothing in reference to the controversie betwixt him and me for it lies not in that word but in these words is in heaven whether they be literally to be understood or in respect of knowledge onely Expositors do not at all countenance his Metaphoricall sense he gives of those words but they fall upon the distinction of Natures and say Christ was in heaven according to the Deity but not in heaven according to the Humanity 3. He saith his sense is fitly conjoyned with the context Christ saith he reproves Nichodemus his unbeleef aggravating it from the certainty of the things spoken We speak what we know And then from the perspicuity in speaking If I have told you of earthly things that is either things that may or are necessary to be known in the earth Or else the words respect the manner of Christs holding them forth And ye beleeve not how can yee beleeve if I should tel you of heavenly things In this 13. verse you have a exclusion of all men Christ excepted from the knowledge of heavenly things Repl. All may be granted that he saith till he come to the 13. ver which is more probably an explication of the 11. ver We speak what we know and testifie what we have seen saith Christ Nichodemus and others might object against the certainty of those things that Christ asserted and might say The judgments and wayes of the Lord are unsearchable who hath known the mind of the Lord Who shall ascend into heaven for us to relate the mind of the Lord to us Unto this Christ answers No man hath ascended nor can ascend up to heaven to make discovery of the will of God of the deep things of God but the onely begotten Son he came from God and he ascends thither again and he hath seen and known and what he hath seen he declares and testifies and if you be not satisfied with that which the Son hath brought you from heaven who also ascends thither again it is an aggravation of your unbelief And unto this coherence there is a concurrence of Expositors in their witnesse The last Scripture is now to be discussed which he hath excepted against and laboured to disable that it might not speak that which I brought it to give witnesse to which was to justifie the deity of Christ and it is Joh. 17. 5. And now ô Father glorifie me with thine owne selfe with the glory I had with thee before the World was He gives his gloss to these words after this manner O thou Father who dost abound in kindness and art the Fountain of goodness the time being come of finishing my course in earth and returning to thy selfe glorifie me in Heaven who have emptied my selfe taking to me a naturall and mortall body and walking among men in forme of a servant and now being ready to humble my selfe to the death of the Cross in obedience to thee with that glory which I had in Heaven before the world was being then with thee as heir of all things clothed with Majesty and glory answerable to that high station wherein thy pleasure was to set me and to that great domminion wherewithall thou wast pleased to invest me And then he concludes that all lyes in darkenesse which I can fetch to countenance my opinion Repl. He knowes what is written in Rev. 22. 18 19. in terrour to those that add to the word of God I wonder therefore how he dare interpose words in this prayer of Christ according to his owne fancy and not fear and tremble 1. He inserts these words into the preface of Christs prayer Thou O Father who art the fountain of goodness And this he doth unnescessarily for in this prayer-of Christ there is no preface at all and why should be frame one this is not to interpret Scripture but it is plainly to add to it and it is done with a designe which makes it the worse for he would bring Christ in acknowledging the Father the sole fountain of goodnesse excluding himselfe as Son of the Father and excluding the Holy Ghost which is a false thing and full of injury to Christ who was so far from making such an acknowledgment that he thought it not robbery to be equall with God his assuming of equality with the Father was not counted robbery by himselfe 2. He inserts these words in the close of Christs prayer speaking of the glory Christ had with God he addes these words answerable to that high state wherein thy pleasure was to set me and to that great dominion wherewithall thou wast pleased to invest me These words wherein thy good pleasure was to set me and wherewithall thou wast pleased to invest me are not in the text nor is there any thing that lookes that way that might give him occasion to
heaven we might cry loud and long enough before he could hear us I would only ask you this question whether Christ could not hear as far as Stephen could see Stephen could see from earth to heaven though he was but a man what will hinder the man Christ from hearing as far Repl. I would also demand of him and ask a question or two and if he answer me he may answer himself 1. Whether can any man on earth and whether could Adam in his inocency hear as far as he can see or whether such a thing be possible in nature whether the care be not slower in discerning its obiect then the ey is in discerning its obiect 2. Whether Stephen saw Christ by the strength of his own natural ey sight if so why did not all the rest see Christ as well as he if not then he was strengthned to see that which he saw and so it was no less then wonderfull that he saw Christ God by the greatness of his power made Stephen to see Christ and so it may be granted that God by the exceeding greatness of his power might inable the man Christ or Christ according to his manhood to hear Stephen but then it is a thing above nature and so it comes to this that Christ as man is not able but is only capable of being made able and prayer to Christ is not to be bottomed upon that 3. Whether it was the voice that Stephen uttered that was the cause of Christs hearing Stephen or whether if there had been no voice Christ could not have heard the voice of the heart the motions of it the cry of it if Christ could notwithstanding have heard as is apparent from other Scriptures then it was not the eare of the body or the fleshly eare with which Christ heard Stephen but it was by that vast boundless knowledge which Christ had as the Son of God and as God and by which the disciples told him that he knew all things and then the comparison which he makes betwixt Christ and Stephen the one's seeing and the other's hearing might have been spared for the things are not alike in which the comparison was made And this shewes the absurdity of his imagination viz. that the knowledge that Christ hath being in heaven of the prayers that are made on earth to him by the hearing of the eare But I shall consider what answers he gives to the last arguemnt or instance which is this Inst 12. If Christ be a meer creature then a meere creature is the Judge of the world which is against the scripture for the Judge of the world is God before whom Abraham stood Gen. 18. 25. when he pleaded for Sodom Rom. 1. 5 6. the day of Judgements is called the day of revelation of the righteous Judgement of God so who will render to every one according to his workes He attemps according to his manner to put this argument into forme but fouly mistakes himself therein for it comes mishapen from him he cannot reduce it to moode and figure either he was never Master of that Art and so attempts things out of his Element or else he hath greatly forgot himself for it is no Syllogisme as he hath shapen it I shall first present it to the Reader and then shew how it ought to have been formed That Doctrine which makes a meer creature the Judge of the world is against the Scripture Gen. 18. 15. Rom. 2. 5 6. But Christ is the Judge of the world Therefore That Doctrine that makes Christ a meer creature is against the scripture Thus he That this argument is beside rule appeares by this because every regular Sylogisme hath but three terms in it viz. the Subject the Predicate and the Medium but this Sylogisme of his hath 4 termes in it 1. There is the Subiect viz that Doctrine that makes Christ a meer creature 2. There is the Predicate viz. is against the Scripture 3. There is the Medium viz. that Doctrine which makes a meer creature the judge of the world 4. There is an another terme which is more then regular viz. Christ is the Judge of the world Therefore it is plaine that the Sylogisme is false and it ought to have been thus formed That Doctrine which makes a meer creature the judge of the world is against the Scripture But that Doctrine which makes Christ a meer creature is a Doctrine that makes a meer creature the judge of the world Therefore That Doctrine that makes Christ a meer creature is against the Scripture I thought good to present this errour of his to the Readers view because my paper being never intended for him was in a plaine facile way penned that it might be the better conceived of by such to whom I presented it who understood not rules of disputing but he puts all into a scholastique forme and would not incounter with me in that plain way of arguing with this designe as he pretended to make my weakness the more obvious but sure I am whether my weakness be obvious or not his over sight that I say no worse is obvious in transgressing the rules of arguing which yet himself chuseth as pretending to have skill in them And whereas he answers to both propositions his labour might have been spared in reference to the Minor proposition which is undoubtedly true as appears from the syllogisme rightly framed for who can deny but that doctrine which makes Christ a meer creature makes a meer creature judge of the world The Major Proposition can therefore only be denyed by him and indeed he doth deny it 1. By proposing of examples of creatures who shall judge the world 2. By distinguishing betwixt the supreme judge of the worrd and a delegate Judge and grants the proposition to be true only in reference to the principal or supreme Judge but asserts it to be false of the delegate Judge And this he doth with a great deal of confusion for I rather represent what he would say then what he doth say First he tels us of the Apostles That they shall sit upon twelve Thrones judging tbe twelve Tribes of Israel Mat. 19. 28. and then he tells us of the saints that they shall judge the world 1 Cor. 6. 2 3. and then tells me that doubtless I had not this text of Corinths when I brought this Argument in my thoughts Repl. Whether I had this text of the Corinths in my mind in that very moment when I penned down this Argument I am not able to say but I would not have him to be conceited as if he had brought some new and strange thing to my knowledge which before I understood not as his words do import which are these What will you say if I shall shew you from the Word that the Apostles shall be Judges at the last day and that the Saints shall judg the World Alas alas that man that shall be non-pluss'd with the shewing of such a thing as
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.
with his Fathers and Christ may read all the decrees of the Father in himself in his own wisdome and will And he is called the wisdome of the Father and the admirable counsellour 1 Cor. 1. 24. Esay 9. 6. And the Disciples attributed to him the knowing of all things John 16. 30. and John 21. 17. 4. It is inconsistent to the place which he cites that Christ should be absolutely ignorant of the day and hour of judgement to the context on every hand for Christ had told all the forerunners of it the things that should precede and something that should follow the temper of men of that age when it should be the security that should be in the world at that time he himself was to be the person that must come as Judge and he was to depart and then to come and he was to appoint every one his work till he come till the very day and hour of his coming the parable declares so much and could he then be ignorant of the day and hour it is against sense and reason Christ then had knowledge of the very precise time of judgement and yet he had not knowledge he saith so himself how is it to be understood as he was the Son of man according to the man-hood he had not the knowledge thereof but as he was the Son of God he had the knowledge thereof Col. 1. 15. was next produced by me to prove the eternal generation of Christ by it But he had perverted the true sense of it before he came to it and made use of it to serve his own purpose by it while he was pleading for that unchrist-like doctrine which he had received and was ingaged to maintain it And in this place he only tels me he had spoken to it and with a scornful jeere prayes me to consider it again and by my next to let him hear what part thereof it is in which Christs eternal generation may be seen Rep. In this text of Col. 1. 15. Christ is called the first born of every creature and his eternal generation was meant by it which I have proved already in my other Treatise and shall yet again manifest it 1. First-born is not the same with first created 1. because it cannot be proved by Scripture that Christ was created at all therefore not that he was first created 2. In the beginning he was but no mention of any beginning that he had 3. There is expresse mention that heaven and earth were first created for in the beginning they were created and before the beginning nothing was created 4. Christ was born according to the flesh but he was not the first-born but in fulnesse of time was born therefore in reference to his humanity and as he was the seed of the woman he is not called first-born 5. First born and first-begotten are termes equivalent and point at one and the same thing viz. or some person that did perform such an act as begetting of Christ 6. First-born first-begotten and only-begotten are alike congruous and may equally so far as concerns the truth of the thing be attributed to Christ so that whatever is the meaning of such titles or names there is a peculiarity therein to Christ and Christ hath therein no fellows and so it can neither be applyed to creation nor to ordinary and temporary generation for it cannot be said that Christ was onely created nor onely generated and begotten nor onely born for there were numerous creatures created and innumerable generated in the ordinary way But Christ was alone so begotten and so born of God as none else were 7. Christ speaks of himself that which none other can speak but he God possessed me in the beginning of his way before his workes of old possessed me how As Eve possessed Cain for the word is one in the original and it is rendred gotten and indeed he must be begotten so the Lord possessed Christ got Christ begot Christ in the beginning of his way and when was that beginning in the beginning of the world no it was before his works of old or ever the earth was and the earth was the first together with the heavens in the beginning yet Christ was before not in the beginning of the creation but in the begininng of Gods way now Gods way was from everlasting therefore Christs going forth hath been from of old from everlasting Mich. 5. 2. his decrees were from everlasting and God was ever working therefore it is explicated verse 23. I was set up from everlasting in the beginning the one interprets the other the beginning of Gods way is from everlasting Thus I have found eternal generation in these words first born and in his next let him evade it if he can I shall now come to the consideration of Col. 1. 16. By him were all things created c. and John 1. 3. All things were made by him and without him was made nothing that was made In answer to which he thinks he hath acted his part gallantly but let us hear what it is that he saith He puts the Scriptures into an argument after this sort He by whom all things were made is the most high God but all things were made by Jesus Christ therefore Jesus Christ is the most high God He grants the major in reference to the principal agent but denies it in reference to an instrumental agent And saith he asserts Jesus Christ to be onely an instrumental agent in the creation of the world Rep. I have already in many places of my other Treatise because he often harps upon Christs instrumentalnesse to the Father in creating all things confuted this assertion yet if he have any thing to say in the defence of it I am willing to discusse it with him And he produceth four reasons for the confirming of his position I shall try the strength of them 1. The book of the creatures speaks onely of one first cause and principal agent of all things of a Trinity of persons in unity of essence as principal agents in the work of creation the whole creation is silent Rep. 1. If the book of the creatures were wholly silent yet if the book of the Scriptures be not silent we are to attend the book of the Scriptures if the book of the creatures would have taught us all things that we ought to believe concerning God what need had there been of the book of the Scriptures 2 The book of the creatures doth teach many things which we understand not from them the defect is in us not in it we are dul in apprehending and slow of heart in beleeving what the book of the Scriptures doth teach us therefore may not conceive aright what the book of the Creatures doth teach us 3 The heathen Philosophers from the principles of Reason have acknowledged a Trinity of Persons in the unity of Essence as Morneus a French Lord in that exquisite piece of his called The truenesse of
instrument 3. That whereas the Father and the Son are mentioned together they are made equall in manner of working and they are either both instruments or both principall Agents and Efficients for Paul was an Apostle by Jesus Christ and by God the Father and Jesus Christ hath the leading place In Rom. 11. 36. For of him and by him and to him are all things Here the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is translated by or through is attributed to God and he will say that the Father is meant and only the Father and we may observe two things 1. According to the truth of the thing the particles of and by are all one and that by doth not import any instrumentalness for God in no sense can be an instrument 2. According to the sense that he puts upon the particle by God is both the principall Agent because of him are all things and he is also the Instrument of all things for by him are all things Also in Heb. 2. 10. where the Creation is spoken of and attributed to the Father and not to the Son it is not attributed to him as something 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but as somthing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as of him but as by him The words are these It behoved him for whom are all things and by whom are all things to make the Prince and Captain c. Yet he will not say that the Father is an Instrument I shall not multiply places these Texts are sufficient to shew the absurdity and falseness of the gloss that he puts upon the prepositions of and by That which he asserts of the Fathers that they frequently call him Gods instrument and servant is true of Christ as the son of man according to his humane nature and they call him no other then the Prophet Isa 42. 1. which must he so understood In the next place after his Arguments where he placed his own strength for the proving of Christs instrumentalness in Creation he comes to consider my Argument against it which was this God could not make use of an instrument in the work of creating of the world To this he answers 1. This Assertion derogates from Gods al-sufficiency Is any thing impossible with God is any thing too hard for the Lord Rep. This Assertion as it is laid down with a reason to explain it is so far from derogating from Gods al-sufficiency that it is the magnifying of Gods al-sufficiency there is such an infinity of perfection in Gods al-sufficiency that it is incommunicable to the creature God cannot make another as sufficient as himself that is It is so transcendently excellent that no creature is capable of it And whereas he demands Is any thing too hard for God Is any thing impossible to the Lord he may receive this answer What-ever may be done by power God can do it because he hath sufficiency of power in himself to do it But that which cannot be done in the nature of the thing which implyes a contradiction if it were supposed to be done that is impossible with God or in it self rather as It is impossible for the most high God to make a God most high because God most high hath his being of himself and is uncreated and eternall and gives being to other things Therefore a created most high God carries a contradiction with it therefore is a thing not to be done and God cannot do it yet it argues not any weakness in God because he cannot do it 2. He saith I contradict my own testimony and he minds me of the time I remember saith he that in a Conference where I exercised both silence and patience to the glory of God since I received your paper you did affirm in the hearing of not a few that God might have made an Angel or some other creature at the first and by it have made all things Repl. I do remember that time he speaks of and so do some scores of persons as well as I will remember it while they live wherein he exercised not silence altogether for he spake at the last in the close of the conference it had been better he had been silent then to speak as he did for he asserted an untruth in those few words he did speak he uttered words to this purpose That it was strange to him that he should be brought upon the stage in so publick a way for holding such an opinion when he had not declared himself in a positive way at any time about it Which caused me to mind him of his first Sermon in which he broached his opinion in a positive way in this assertion That Christ is not the ultimate and last rest of Saints but the Father and that Christ was but the way to it Which if Christ be coessentiall with the Father is false therfore his assertion did deny by an undenyable consequence the coessentiality of Christ with the Father And at another time he publickly in his preaching speaking his opinion on John 3. 13. No man hath ascended up into heaven but he that came down from heaven even the Son of man which is in heaven said that he could not conceive how Christ being at that time on earth could be in heaven unlesse it were in respect of that knowledg which he had of the Father and the things of heaven or words to this effect In which he denyed the omnipresence of Christ and consequently the Godhead of Christ And yet in that short speech of his he would make fair weather of it and put a face upon it as if he were not the man he was taken for Concerning his patience not I alone but many others did judge it stupidity rather then patience for scarce any one that had had the spirit of a man could have been dumb and not open his mouth when he was so palpably called forth to appear in the cause It did certainly strike amazement in very many that knew he was there and yet could not hear him speak one word having so many strong invitations thereto Or if it were not stupidity it was cunning craftiness for he knew how to make advantage by being here and keeping silence and he could reserve himself in point of speaking to a more hopefull time and fairer opportunity in which he might by speaking propagate his opinion there was little hope of advantaging his cause at that time when there were so many to contradict him And yet he might feele mens pulses by being there and discern who were his friends and who his enemies and who might probably be wrought upon and who not But he saith it was to the glory of God that he exercised silence and patience But it was every to way the dishonor of God for if truth were in his tenent then he shamefully deserted it when he should have committed himself to God in the maintaining of it who ever opposed it And if Errour and Heresie were in his
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
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
heaven earth under the earth are represented by John in the service of blessing praising honouring glorifying the Father and the Son in like manner without any distinction they are not heard worshipping the Father through the Son but worshipping and honouring both Father and Son in like manner as two equals or as two coessential persons in the Godhead Yea lest it should be imagined that he that sitteth upon the Throne is the principal object of the worship and that the Lamb is the less principal subordinate and intermediate object of it because he is mentioned first and the Lamb is mentioned after him therefore vers 14. the four and twenty Elders are brought in in this vision worshipping him alone who liveth for ever and ever without the mention of any other though other persons are not excluded And who is this person that liveth for ever and ever It is Christ who gives himself this Title though it be his Fathers Title also Rev. 1. 18. I am he that liveth and was dead and behold I live for ever and ever So it is in the Greek and it concurs in words with this Text of Rev. 5. 14. 3. This distinction as he brings it and means it opens a door to the worshipping of men or Angels any that may be called God's representatives and which act among men in Gods Name for if that be the formal reason of worship given to Christ He is Gods Vice-Roy or Representative which are not Scriptural Titles but names of his own or others devising and he is one that acts in Gods Name then worship may be given to Moses Joshua the Prophets for Moses was in Gods stead to Aaron and to the people I have made thee a God to Aaron sairh the Lord to him Exod. 4. 16. And the Prophets came in Gods Name may they therefore be worshipped According to his Argument they may yea any person or thing that is a means by whom or by which God dispenseth himself to men in a Religious or spiritual way or by whom or which we come to God in worship may be an intermediate object of Religious worship and so we may worship our Ministers which go to God for us and from God come to us and we may worship the Scriptures and the Ordinances by which we have communion with God for these are intermediate things betwixt God and us in worship may they therefore be intermediate objects of worship Seeing he makes Christ such a god as other creatures are but more eminent then they such a god as Moses was as Magistrates and Judges were which carried Gods authority in the Offices upon them a god of the same kinde with them What reason can be rendered if Christ be worshipped upon that account why they also being such-like gods as he and coming with God's authority betwixt God and us should not be worshipped as intermediate objects upon the same account But this is very gross and makes his assertion concerning worshipping Christ as an intermediate object betwixt God and us very gross also 4. It is apparent that Christ both assumed and Saints and Angels have given to him that very worship and honour and service which is peculiar to the high God alone both for matter and for manner 1. Doctrines Institutions and Ordinances have been received submitted to upon the testimony and authority of Christ alone Mat. 5. 21 22. 1 Cor. 11. 23 24. 2. The Ordinances Institutions Laws and Rites of Moses were altered changed abrogated abolished by the Power and Lordship of Christ alone Acts 15. 28. 1 Cor. 12. 5. Heb. 3. 5 6. 3. Believers have rested trusted and depended upon Christ for spiritual help and supply of grace according to their needs Phil. 4. 13. and 2 Cor. 12. 8 9. a place worthy consideration and very convincing if rightly understood and duely weighed 4. Saints have acquiesced and quietly submitted and rested satisfied with the will of Christ and have given up themselves wholly to him to be disposed of according to his pleasure whether to do or to suffer Act. 9. 10. to 17. 2 Cor. 8. 5. 5. Religious praying or prayer for spiritual blessings as it is an act of Religion is a service and worship that hath been given to Christ Luk. 17. 5 the Disciples pray to Christ to increase their faith 2 Thess 2. 16 17 the Apostle Paul prayed to him and Hos 12. 4 Jacob of old time wept and made supplication to him 6. Praise also as it is an act of Religion hath been offered up to him 2 Pet. 2. 18. Jud. v. 24 25. Rev. 1. 6. 7. Swearing hath been by his Name Rom. 9. 1 Paul attests Christ flees to him as a witness and to his conscience let the place be weighed and it will â—ppear to be an Oath and that the words in Christ â—â— as much as by Christ Isa 45. 23. compared with Rom. 14. 11. Philip. 2. 10 11. And Rev. 10. 5 6 the Angel sware by him that liveth for ever and ever who created heaven and the things therein and the earth and the things that are therein and the sea and the things that are therein And who is this It is Christ to whom the Creation is attributed and to live for ever and ever is assumed by himself and he makes himself known by this attribute as I have shewed before from Rev. 1. 18. 8. In casting of the lot Christ was invocated for the disposing of it Acts 1. 24. That it was Christ whom they prayed to appears from hence 1. They call him Lord whom they pray to which is Christ's usual name in the New-Testament by which he was distinguished from the Father 2. To chuse an Apostle was Christ's proper work he chose the twelve Apostles and therefore must chuse him who must come in room and place of Judas who was one of the twelve and who fell from his Apostleship by transgression therefore they use it as an argument in their prayer Shew whether of these two thou hast chosen that he may take part oâ— this ministery from which Judas by transgression fell 3. Christ is the great Lord of the Church anâ— he ascended up on high that he might give these gifts to his Church Apostles Evangelists c. Eph. 4. 10 11. And he is the great Lord of all his Churches and administers all such things that respect the good of his Churches 1 Cor. 12. 5. 9. The conscience is subjected to Jesus Christ Eph. 6. 5 6 7 9. Masters and servants are enjoyned in this place by the Apostle to do their duties to each other with an eye to Christ and as the servants of Christ and as to the Lord and not to men and as having a Master in heaven with whom there is no respect of persons The Apostle would engage their consciences in the thing and therefore speaks so much of Christ and he could have laid no greater bond upon them if he had mentioned the Father See Col. 3. 22 23 24 where
discover the fraud and falshood in working therefore they imagined it was farre easier for Christ to say thy sinnes are forgiven thee in which he could not be detected if the effect followed not then for him to say arise and walk which if he had not had a power answerable to that word of command would discover his impostures and expose him to shame and reproach in this sense it was easier for one that would delude to say thy sinnes are forgiven thee then to say arise and walk but Christ would shew that the one was as truly wrought and done as the other and both of them done by the power of his Godhead There are also other Scriptures which may give light that Christ in forgiving sins was principall and not receiving power from another 1. Christ gave power to his Disciples John 20. 23. the place which he quoted to remit sins effectually so as that they should be remitted and to retaine sins effectually and so as that they should be retained Now this power of delegating power to others doth shew a power residing in Christ himself and doth shew that Christ is the principall Lord against whom sins are committed because he both conveyes a power to the Apostles and doth ratifie the exercise of it 2. The Apostle forgave sins in the person of Christ in 2 Cor 2. 10. that is he did it instrumentally and representatively and in the name of another who was chief in it and that was Christ It is not said in the person of God as it should have been said if Christ had not been God and principall in that power of forgiving But he saith It cannot be because the Scripture cannot oppose it self And he presents what Scripture Tels us The Scripture saith he tels us that we are justified by the man Jesus Christ Acts 13 38 39. be it known unto you men and brethren that through this man is preached unto you the forgivenesse of sinnes and by him all that do beleeve are justified c. Reply The Scripture tels us that through the man Christ we are justified but the Scripture tels us not that we are justified by Christ as man It is a granted thing by us all that the person that justifies us is man for we say he is both God and Man But that he justifies as man or remits sinnes as man is denyed by us and the contrary hath already been proved I have shewed before that the Sonne of man is said to be heaven which was impossible because he was on earth when he spake these words the words are therefore thus to be understood the person that is the Sonne of man being also God was in heaven at that time but not as the Sonne of man but as God so in this place it is to be understood There is some difference to be made in Christs justifying of us If we speak of the meritorious cause of Justification whole Christ and the whole of Christ doth concurre in it contribute to it and effect it for God looking upon that which was done and suffered and upon the person viz. the excellency and glory of the person that did it and suffered it in which both the Godhead and the manhood acted the one by obeying the other by enabling and presenting as his as indeed it was the union betwixt the two natures considered pronounced beleevers just upon that account Not that the manhood of Christ merited but the whole of Christ acted in those things wherâ—in the merit was But if we speak of the efficient cause of justification or of pardon of sinne Christ considered in his divine nature as God only is agent in it because he alone against whom sinne is committed can from and by himself acquit and dischare therefrom and so Christ as God can only do it and he did it as God as I have proved from Mark 22. 10. I conceive that in this Text Christ is not spoken of as the efficient from whom justification and pardon of sins comes but as Mediator through whom or as the means and merit by whom forgivenesse of sinnes comes in which sense it is said that Christ was the Lamb of God which took away the sinnes of the world My reason is because it is said through this man is preached forgivenesse and by him all that beleeve are justified not efficiently but mediatoriously and meritoriously It is not said he pardoned sin but through him pardon was preached nor is it said he justified but through him are justified those that beleeve that is through him as the meanes and herein the manhood is not to be excluded from acting in those works which God accounts for a beleevers righteousnesse and in reference to which God justifies but principally yea solely to be acknowledged but so farre as concernes the respect that God gives to such actions and the acceptance that they find with God which is this viz. God imputes them unto beleevers as their righteousnesse and for the sake of them doth pardon their sins the manhood is not at all herein to be mentioned But nothing that can be answered to this can reach the instance because this text was impertinent and I might have passed it by without giving any answer to it because Christs pardoning of sinne in way of efficiency is that which the Instance or Argument which I produced intends and proves and this Scripture disables it not because it speaks of another thing and not of that But he goes on and tels us what Scripture saith farther viz. That Christ prayed to another on the Jewes befalfe for the forgivenesse of sinne Luke 23. 34. Then said Jesus Father forgive them for they know not what they do Therefore Christ is not the principall forgiver of sins according to Scripture Reply Christ prayed to another viz the Father for the forgivenesse of sin and another prayed to him for the pardon of sin viz. Stephen and the Jewes were the subjects that were prayed for in both What must then be said to this and what answer is to be given to it Alas it is not difficult to speak to it The Scripture hath clearly untyed the knot If Christ were not a man he could not pray to another and if he were nothing more then a man another could not pray to him and the Scripture declares both while it shewes him to be God and man As man therefore he humbles himself he prayes unto him that was God It was a time of Humiliation to Christ and this was an action of humiliation in Christ but as God he was prayed to by him that was a man and with adoration also though he was in heaven in reference to his manhood he veiled his Godhead when he prayed to God Stephen unveiled it when he prayed to him So that there is no good consequence in this that because both the Scripture and himself do declare him to be man in his praying for the pardon of sins therefore Scripture and himself
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
blush for shame because he hath asserted it and he hath offended here against the generation of the saints who have been wont to pray to God in the person of the Son not excluding the Father and the Spirit Stephen is an example of such a practise and many more besides him in Act. 7. 59. They stoned Stephen calling upon God and saying Lord Jesus receive my spirit It was the second person the Son who took flesh and is God in flesh that was called upon and prayed unto and must he be made a Transgressor But he saith I have nothing to countenance prayer to Christ but these two Texts which I mention this of Stephen and that other of John But this is as gross an untruth as the former yea more palpable to all mens eyes then the former for in 1 Cor. 1. 2. all saints are described to be such who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus And the Apostle Paul prayed familiarly to Christ in 2 Cor. 12. 8 9. For this I besought the Lord what Lord was this It was the Lord Christ How may that appear From the answer that he received and the use he made of it the answer was My grace is sufficient for thee My power is made perfect in weakness the use that he makes of it is this most gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities that the power of Christ may rest upon me The power that is made perfect in weakness is the power of Christ And in 2 Thes 2. 16 17. Now the Lord Jesus Christ himself and God even our Father comfort your hearts c. The Apostle if he pray to the Father he prays to the Son also for he joyns them both together and gives Christ in this place herein the preheminence that he mentions Christ before the Father in this prayer But he excepts against these two examples of Stephen and John first he makes a question of it whether Stephen did pray directly to Christ or not for he expresseth himself with an if as if he doubted but to doubt in plain things is foolishness and to stumble where there is no stone to stumble at is perversness It will be granted I hope that he prayed to him to whom he spake but he spake to Christ and the words in the Greek make it clear They stoned Stephen calling upon and saying Lord Jesus receive my spirit there is none other mentioned but the Lord Jesus upon whom he called and to whom he said receive my spirit and he warrants it by Christs visible appearance as Lots prayer unto the Angels being visible but what visible appearance was there when Paul prayed to Christ in the forementioned places or when all the Saints prayed to Christ as the Apostle intimates the practise to be in the primitive times what sight had they first of Christ before they prayed did Christ appear visibly to every one of them first what a groundless conceit is this and how far from truth besides what did such a visible sight advantage him when he saw him in heaven for unless it were in a vision that he saw him it was in heaven that he saw him and if so the distance was as great as if he had not seen him therefore it could not be bottomed upon that ground for Christ was never a whit the more present because Stephen saw him And so the example of Lots praying to the Angel is no whit sutable because the Angel was not onely visible but present But what doth he mean by bringing in such an instance of Lots praying to an Angel will he set on foot the doctrine of invocation upon saints and Angels by it If he would do it that instance which he brings of Lot will not help him at all it was neither of the two Angels that Lot prayed to that he received into his house and lodged but the third Angel before whom Abraham stood who was now come to the other two and this was Jehovah in the person of the Son who often appeared as an Angel which appeareth from Gen. 19. ver 17. When they had brought them forth abroad he said escape for thy life that is when the two Angels which came first to Lot had brought Lot and his wife and daughters out he said that is netiher of the two Angels for they are mentioned joyntly all along and neither of them singled out from the other but it was the third Angel or Jehovah as he is called that appeared now to Lot and this was he to whom he prayed This appears further from ver 22. 23 24. I can do nothing saith this Angel to whom Lot prayed till thou come thither and afterward it is said the Lord rained c. in the Hebrew Jehovah rained c. from Jehovah the Son from the Father It was he that rained fire and brimstone that said before to Lot in answer to his prayer I have accepted thee in this thing haste thee thither for I can do nothing till thou come thither and this is called Jehovah and it is said he rained from Jehovah So that he is grosly mistaken in this also about Lots praying to a creature Angel by which he would prove it warrantable to pray to a creature Christ but puts it upon the visibleness of him when yet this Angel was not only visible but present and Jehovah in the person of a man He also excepts against John's prayer he saith it was an intimation of the Churches desire after Christs coming but no prayers and he quotes Rev. 6. 16. as a parallel place where such expressions are used yet no prayer But there is a different reason when one speaks to irrationall things which have no understanding nor knowledge and which are not capeable of a prayer and when speech is directed to persons that are capable thereof had those words been spoken to God let the mountains and the hills fall on us they would have been an imprecation which is one kind of prayer And whereas he saith if is but an intimation of desire and no prayer he shewes himself ignorant of the nature of prayer for what is prayer but an intimation of the desire of a person to one that is able to answer him in it And what are those expressions of the Apostles in their Epistles to the Churches but prayers for them yet they are intimations of the Apostles desires Grace be with you and Peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ our Lord. And the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ the love of God the Father c and Grace be with you and Peace from him that is was and which is to come and from Jesus Christ c. 1 Cor. 1. 3. 2 Cor. 13. 14. 2 John 2. Rev. 1 4 5. But he goes on and tells me I cannot saith he but looke on that as vain and frivolous which you set up as the wals and bulworkes of your Argument viz if Christ werâ— but a meer creature being in