then in the words of the 8. verse sets him before men for the consolation of the righteous and terrour of the wicked as present calling to them I am Alpha and Omega c. who will make doubt of my coming who can intercept it I am Alpha and Omega c. But he imagines other Arguments will be made use of to prove this place to refer to Christ and disputes against them his words are these You will peradventure say that the thing is evident in that he is called Lord or you will bring the Testimony of learned Authors who have interpreted the words as spoken by Christ And he confutes both these reasons and saith God or the Father distinct from Christ is called Lord Act. 3. 19. 20. c. And Beza saith he conceived that these words are spoken of God absolutely taken And Pareus confesseth certain Orthodox Interpreters do attribute the words to God absolutely considered Repl. The Title Lord because it is rarely attributed to the Father in the New Testament and when it is attributed to him it is done with such clearness that it is easily discerned and because it is first commonly attributed to Christ therefore it may be a ground of a probable Argument that Christ is meant by it but a necessary Argument cannot be deducted from it therefore I wave it and it had been wisdom if he had done so also till he had discerned that I had made use of it as an Argument As for learned Interpreters though I honour them much yet it hath not been my custom to bottom the sense that I put upon Scriptures upon them but to prove it from the Scripture either the Text it self or context or some other parallel place therefore he might have spared his labour in citing Authors unless I had provoked him thereto But if he will produce Authors why will he offer wrong to the Authors whom he produceth and make them speak that which they speak not that hath been the way to uphold a rotten tenent and he treads in that way I cannot find the words he cites in Beza and he mentions not the place and if he can shew them in Beza I can shew that Beza contradicts himself If Beza have so expressed himself probably he would do it when he came to give the sense of the place but there his words are these Christus hic loquitur ut aeternus Deus acsi diceret ego is sum ante quem nihil est immo per quem factum est quicquid factum est quicque ut omnia intereant superstes illis omnibus maneam c. That is Christ here speaks as the eternal God as if he should say I am he before whom there is nothing yea and by whom every thing is made that is made and am one who do abide and am surviving when all other things perish As for Pareus I confess he cites his words aright and yet abuseth him egregiously for though he grants that some Orthodox Writers do apply these words to God absolutely considered yet he doth not grant that they are Orthodox in their Interpretation of that Text but disputes against them and renders reasons why the words must be applyed to Christ And in the very place from whence he fetcheth those words of Pareus which he mentions in his Margin these words immediately follow causas tamen evidentes sententiae huic obstare prius ostendi that is though some Orthodox Interpreters do apply these words to God absolutely taken or to the Trinity yet I have before shewed manifest reasons which do cross this Opinion of theirs Now he mentions the former words of this Author and silenceth these latter words and so deals unkindly and uncandidly with him But he saith We must betake our selves to reason whereby the Spirit may convince us of whom the Text in controversies is to be understood Repl. This is new Doctrine that is here taught us viz. that reason is the Spirits organ or instrument in its convictions that it sets upon men and it is dangerous desperate Doctrine which hath been exploded by all humble sober Christians if a man must be believe no further then he can see the whole Gospel must be rejected for it is an high mystery which reason cannot look into and the love of the Father and of Christ hath an heigth and depth c. which passeth knowledge must not persons believe it I have heard it and do believe it that the Spirit is sent to convince according to the revealation of Scripture whether we can reach it with our reason or cannot reach it but reason is now advanced as the only medium to Faith which was formerly cryed down as the great Enemy of Faith But let his reasons be considered of 1. This Text saith he declares the principal Author of those things which John the Divine was to communicate to the seven Churches for these words begin a new matter and are no part of the salutation They speak of God even the Father who is of highest authority and from whom originally this Revelation was Christ he is spoken of ver 11. and is to be considered as the principal instrument in conveying this Revelation to the Churches for God gave it to him to shew to his servants those things which were shortly to come to pass vers 1. Rep. 1. This reason asserts several things and proves nothing and so leaves the Reader altogether unsatisfied unless bare words must pass for currant 2. There is no truth in any thing that he asserts in relation to this text in controversie for though there might be some colour for such a collection that God the Father is the principal Authour of this Revelation and Christ the principal Instrument of conveying this Revelation to the Churches which is only in a sense true not of whole Christ but of one part of him to be understood in relation to the first verse because there it is said that God gave it to Christ yet in relation to verse 8. of which the dispute is there is not the least shadow of ground for any one to conceive much less to utter such things For if Alpha signifie the first or the beginning yet it must not be restrained to this Revelation but must be extended to all things and whether the Father or Christ be meant yet a person that is from everlasting to everlasting and that is the root and fountain of all things and that comprehends all things is meant as all the letters in the Greek Alphabet are comprehended betwixt Alpha and Omega 3. It is unreasonable for him or any one to apply the letter Alpha to the Father in verse 8. and thence to deduce this conclusion the Father is of highest authority and from him originally this Revelation was and then to apply the same letter Alpha in verse 11. to Christ and thence to deduce a diverse if not contrary yea contradictory conclusion viz. Christ is the principal instrument in conveying this
A VINDICATION OR Further confirmation of some other Scriptures produced to prove the Divinity of Jesus Christ distorted and miserably wrested and abused by Mr. John Knowles Together with a probation or demonstration of the destructiveness and damnableness of the contrary Doctrine maintained by the aforesaid Mr Knowles Also the Doctrine of Christs satisfaction and of reconciliation on Gods part to the creature cleared up from Scripture which of late hath been much impugned And a Discourse concerning the springing and spreading of error and of the means of cure and of the preservatives against it By Samuel Eaton Teacher of the Church of Jesus Christ commonly stiled the Church at Duckenfield London printed for Henry Cripps and Lodowick Lloyd and are to be sold at their Shop in Popes head-Alley 1651. To the Reader Reader I Have in a former Treatise Vindicated certain Scriptures which I produced against Mr. Knowles his absurd and destructive opinion against the Divinity of Christ from such corrupt glosses which he did put upon them in a Printed paper of his Intituled A friendly debate on a weighty subject c. And in my clearing of Ioh. 8. 58. which he had extreamly darkned and falsified by the interpretation which he put upon it I encountred with the many arguments and abusive senses of Scripture which he had made use of and in which he had placed the whole strength he had for the upholding of that his heterodox and dangerous doctrine which he vented in Chester with too great success to the disturbing of the faith of many And whether I have not razed his whole building to the very ground which in three positions he set up fortified and whether I have not digged up the very foundation of it taken away every supporter of it I leave it to the judicious unprejudiced and dis-ingaged Readers to determine betwixt us Truth after a little time of patient expectance will prevaile against and triumph over errour because it hath the God of truth to engage for it who can strengthen any weak contemptible instrument whom he pleaseth to imploy to become mighty in the defence of it My hope is that enough hath already been represented to satisfie all ingenuous dubious persons concerning the truth of Christs Godhead and therefore it is not absolutely needful to undertake the setting forth of another Treatise But lest there should be any occasion of glorying administred to him or others Because I replyed only to some part of his writing or Printed paper and not to the whole and lest he should comfort himself with conceits of the unanswerableness of that which is behind of it and is unreplyed to and lest the truth should suffer in such Scriptures which remain unexamined by me by his wresting of them from their genuine sense and my not freeing of them from such abuse I have undertaken to carry on my reply unto the remainder of his Book that nothing that is material therein may be objected against me as pretermitted by me And because I did well understand that some would lie at advantages and would give it out that Mr. Knowles his book was never answered if any part be unanswered and would object against me that I was not able to defend all the Scriptures and arguments produced by my self and impugned by him but did shamefully desert them and not rescue them from the force of his battery which he made against them And because in the vindicating of my arguments I foresaw that I should be necessitated to discuss and discover the weightiness of the point in controversie and that it is not so light and trivial as some would make it but that it is of highest concernment and that all oppugners of the Godhead of Christ do oppugn mens salvation and that such an opinion that gainsayeth Christs Diety is no lesse then damnable therefore I engaged in my former Treatise to compleat my reply and therein to attempt the giving satisfaction in that point which only to mention was greatly offensive to many precious Christians viz. that Faith in Christ considered as a meer creature and nothing more is a false Faith and cannot save it therefore now concerned me in point of Truth to finish the work which I began if God shall be pleased to shine upon my Endeavors so far as to cast in any light to dark souls thereby that they may be able not only to discern the falshood of such a Doctrine but to see into the horridness thereof I have my reward however I lie down at Gods foot waiting upon him to accomplish his own glory in what way he pleaseth assuring my self that his wisdom and goodness is such that he will both find out time and means to undeceive poor souls that belong to him and will deliver them out of the snare of Satan who captivates them for a little space while his pleasure is for their humbling and leaving this work in Gods hand and thy self also I remain thine to serve thee in the Lord Sa. Eaton A Vindication or further confirmation of some other Scriptures produced to prove the Divinity of Jesus Christ distorted and miserably wrested and abused by Mr John Knowles c. THe next Scripture that I produced for the confirmation of the Diety of Jesus Christ after Joh. 8. 58. was Rev. 1. 8. I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the ending saith the Lord which is and which was and which is to come the Almighty But he encounters with this Text and would evade the force of it in these words How can you demonstrate saith he that these are the words of Christ and do relate to him Repl. 1. I do demonstrate it from that agreement which these words in the 8. verse have with the words of the 11. and of the 17. verses which words of both places do refer to Christ by his own confession and without the contradiction of any as the 13. and 17. verses do evidence to the Reader in which it appears to be Christ that assumed the Titles of Alpha and Omega to himself 2. I do collect it because Christ is one of the speakers which we usually meet with in this Prophecy but the Father is rarely or never found to be a speaker through this whole Book 3. Because the things that are in this Book represented are given by the Father unto Christ but are shewed and signified by Christ unto his servants now this is one thing that Christ shewed which respected himself what he was I am saith he Alpha and Omega 4. Because there are no more speakers in this Chapter but Christ and John who can be made evidently to appear therefore all that is spoken in it must be referred to one of the two but the 8. verse cannot be referred to John therefore to Christ 5. Because it concludes the prooeme and gives a period to the Preface as Pareus shews upon the place John had represented him comming in the clouds in the 7. verse and
himself equality with God Joh. 5. 18. and in that they counted it blasphemy that he called himself the Son of God and judged him worthy to die for it they discovered their apprehensions of that title that it was too high for any creature and proper to the most high God alone 6. Satan also in tempting of him requires a proof of his son-ship unto God equall and equivalent to what he could demand for the manifestation of the very God-head it self and he must declare himselfe to be the Son of God by doing that which none but God could do These grounds I conceive are sufficient to bottom the first conclusion upon viz. that these two expressions or titles Son of God and God are in Scripture account equivalent to each other and do import when they are applyed to Christ a divine person and the second in the order of the Trinity The consequence of which is that who ever denyes the one denyes the other also and then if the God-head of Christ be denyed the Son-ship of Christ will be denyed also I shall now lay downe the 2d position and confirme it 2 Christ cannot be God any other way or under any other consideration but as he is the Son of God 1 He himselfe in his sense acknowledgeth the truth of this assertion for he grants a God-head of Christ and makes him a representative God and saith his God-head consists in soveraignty and dominion over all the creatures and he founds it upon Son-ship and saith the title Son of God holds forth superiority over all things and so he is God in that he is the Son of God but all amounts to no more but a creature God and a creature Son of God according to him Yet he concurrs with me in this proposition though in a different sense Christ cannot be God any other way then as he is the Son of God 2. Scripture gives testimony to it 1. The Apostle Paul declares to us that God was manifested in the flesh 1 Tim. 3. 16. that is God assumed the flesh of the Virgin God took the seed of Abraham God united our Nature with the Divine Nature God took it into fellowship and oneness with himself so as that God and man became one and the same person And this the Apostle calls a great mystery and founds all godliness upon it that is upon knowing it and believing it And so Christ comes to be God hath the Names Titles Attributes of God put upon him and the great works of God are called his works and the homage worship service faith fear and obedience that is due to God belongs to him Otherwise it could not have been that he that appeared in the form of a servant and was in fashion as a man and dwelt among us and whose mother was known who she was and was in all things like unto us sin excepted should be the God that made us and he in whom our life and breath and all our ways are but so it was that the great God emptied himself so far as to unite himself to us or us rather to himself and to dwell in our nature and made our nature to dwell in him and so he became one with us and made us that is our Nature one with him And so the Son of Mary is very God the most high God because God descended and was made flesh of a woman 2. There is a concurrence of witnesses in the sacred Scriptures that God took flesh but not God in the person of the Father nor God in the person of the Spirit but God in the person of the Son Joh. 1. 14. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and this Word is neither the Father nor the holy Ghost but is distinguished from both 1 Joh. 5. 7. There are three that bear witness in heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one that is one God But this one God in the person of the Word and not in any other person took flesh upon him The Father did not take Flesh but sent the Son to assume it Gal. 4. 4. God that is the Father sent forth his Son made of a woman Joh. 3. 16. God that is the Father so loved the world that he gave his own Son his onely begotten Son c. And all along in the new Testament the Son is said to be sent sometimes from God sometimes from the Father sometimes from heaven And of the Son it is said in Heb. 2. 14 that he took part of flesh and blood and vers 6. He took on him the seed of Abraham and of the Son it is said that he was in the form of God and thought it no robbery to be equal with God that is with the Father but he humbled himself and took upon him the form of a servant that is he took upon him our vile weak mortal dying nature and came in lowe state among us And indeed in this there is no difference betwixt us But who this Son of God is is the controversie The inference then must needs be this that Christ is not God any other way nor in any other sence but this The Son of God or which is all one God in the person of the Son assumed Humane nature unto him became Man by taking the flesh of the Virgin And this Son of God or God in the person of the Son made flesh is the Christ the Messiah that was promised to the fathers And Christ he is this flesh this seed of the woman assumed and this Son of God or God in the person of the Son united together into one person So that whoever denies Christ to be God denies that God in the person of the Son or which is the same that the Son of God took flesh came in our Nature and that God sent his Son into the world to take the seed of Abraham upon him and to come in flesh and so denies Christ to be God in the person of the Son or Christ to be the Son of God And so by an undeniable consequence such a person who denies the Godhead denies the Sonship and so destroys the true Christ and brings in a strange and a false Christ and another Gospel and another Scripture And this is the doctrine that the Apostle John speaks of 2 Joh. 7. which seducers preached who confessed not that Jesus Christ was come in the flesh the meaning is they confessed not that the Son of God or God in the person of the Son was come in the flesh for otherwise they knew that Jesus Christ the son of Mary was in the flesh and died and rose again But to confess that Jesus was the Son of God or God in the person of the Son was that which the Apostle pressed and withstood the contrary as Antichristian 1 Joh. 4. 14 15. And now give me leave to express my self to be one who stand amazed at the ignorance or inconsiderateness or I know not
be alleadged by him against this is That Baptism is principally into the Name of the Father and that it is through Christ as an instrument through whom the Father doth bestow the blessings of Baptism Sol. But 1. How doth Scripture justifie this where doth it give witness to it If not it is not derogatory to Christ to imagine it 2. Why doth Christ joyn himself and the Spirit with the Father as three associates without any shadow of difference or disparity whose Persons are three but whose Name is but one It is not said Names but Name for as their Essence is one so their Name is one as they are one Lord so their Name is one 3. Baptism hath been into the Name of the Lord Jesus alone without the mention of the Father at all Acts 19. 5. When they heard this they were baptized into the Name of the Lord Jesus Baptism did run in such a form as that sometimes the Name of Christ was onely used and the Father and the holy Ghost were wholly silenced but never excluded And can it be conceived that if the Name of the Father be the Name of that person which is principal and the Name of the Son be the Name of a person that is onely instrumental that in the form of Baptism or words of institution the Name of the principal person should be pretermitted and and the name of the Name of the instrument mentioned There is neither Sence nor Reason nor Pattern nor Example for it Object But it may be objected That Moses was but an instrument in that Baptism of the cloud and of the sea that is spoken of in 1 Cor. 10. 2. and yet it is said that they were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea Sol. Moses is not to be considered as an Instrument but as a Type of Christ who was present with the children of Israel in the pillar of the cloud and in the pillar of fire and they were baptized into Moses mystically and figuratively as into the Type but really and truely they were baptized into Christ who was the Antitype and in whom that which was in shadow in reference to Moses was in substance and was fulfilled in reference unto Christ as hath been demonstrated before For further conviction because I discern that some are slowe of heart to believe the desperateness and damnableness of this Doctrine I shall propound another Argument to prove the destructiveness of this his Tenent to the Gospel and Scriptures in some main points of them Arg. 5. That Doctrine which denies and destroys the sufficiencie of Christ as a Saviour denies and destroys the true Gospel and Scripture and not onely in a main point but in the main scope of them But this Doctrine of his which makes whole Christ a creature doth deny and destroy the sufficiencie of Christ as a Saviour Therefore this Doctrine of his doth deny and destroy the Gospel and whole Scripture not onely in a main point but in the main scope of them The Major Proposition will be readily confessed by him and denied by none therefore needs no proof The Minor Proposition must be fortified else it will be challenged as slanderous I therefore prove it by a double medium 1. That Doctrine that denies Christ to be the author of salvation and makes him an instrument onely in the hand of him that is the author that Doctrine denies Christ to be a sufficient Saviour But this Doctrine of his which makes whole Christ a creature doth deny Christ to be the author of salvation and makes him onely an instrument in the hand of the Father who is the author Therefore this Doctrine of his denies Christ to be a sufficient Saviour He may perhaps deny the Major and distinguish of sufficiencie and say there is an absolute and independent sufficiencie which is proper to that which is the author of a thing and there is a limited and restrained sufficiencie depending upon that absolute sufficiencie of the author which is sutable and proper to an instrument and this later Christ hath and so is sufficient through God through the Father for the work of salvation though he be but a creature But such an Answer must be judged weak for two Reasons 1. The sufficiencie of Christ to save is an absolute sufficiencie and such as is proper to the author of salvation according to the testimony of the Scripture Heb. 5. 9. And being made perfect he became the author of eternal salvation to them that obey him Now I hope he will not confound the Author and the Instrument and make them one person An instrumental sufficiencie the Scripture knows nothing of in reference to Christ nor doth attribute any such to him 2. An instrumental sufficiencie is no other then insufficiencie for an instrument is not able to save to the utmost and so is of himself insufficient to save but Christ is able of himself to save to the utmost Heb. 7. 25. But he perhaps will endeavour to evade the strength of this Assertion by saying that if Christ be able through God the Father to save to the utmost it is sufficient for the verifying of Scripture But neither hath this Answer strength in it nor is Scripture verified by it for Scripture speaks of Christs ability as ability in himself Heb. 1. 3 Christ is described to be one that upholds all things by the word of his own power and to purge sin away by himself and Christ never needed to say of the Father as Paul said of Christ I am able to do all things through Christ that strengthneth me so Christ I am able to do all things through the Father that strengthens me and though he might be strengthened as the Son of man yet not as the Son of God but drew on the people to believe a Divine power in himself for his words are without any limitation Dost thou believe that I am able to do this for thee saith he to one that came to be cured of him without interposing any words which should shew his dependence on another And this ability was Divine ability because it lay in this viz. to heal without the efficacie of means which might conduce to such a purpose And Christ is called the power of the Father because the Father's power is in him And it is said that God laid help upon one that is mighty which though spoken of David yet of him but as the Type and is meant of Christ who is the Antitype and who is truely mighty This ability of Christ within himself to save to the utmost is that which the Apostle disputed for in many places of that Epistle and especially in the Context of that Scripture Heb. 7. 25. He is able to save to the utmost for he doth detect the insufficiencie of the High-priest to save by shewing their mortality and other infirmities and then presents Christ's sufficiencie And if it were so that God could have saved by an instrument
Saviour or an unequal Saviour to Christ because Christ and not he is called a Saviour And is not Christ called both the blessed hope and the great God our Saviour Are not both titles put upon him as due to him And though they are used by the Apostle to distinguish the persons of Father and Son from each other when they are spoken of together yet both these are applyed to both persons and are proper to him alone that is the most high God But he saith Scripture doth prefer God in the work of salvation before our Lord Jesus Christ making him to be the principal Agent therein when it declares that the work of Christ in saving was from the purpose of God who appointed him for it from the precept of God who injoyned him to it and from the presence of God who assisted him in it Reply But where doth Scripture witness this of God the Father in reference to the whole of Christ He saith Scripture doth abundantly set forth all these but he doth not quote any one place for proof of them but would have us receive it upon his word That God purposed to save by Christ considered as David's and Mary's son considered according to his Manhood that God enjoyned him as such that God assisted him as such God being taken essentially and properly for Father Son and holy Ghost and not improperly and personally for the Father will be granted and it will be plentifully made out by Scripture but that the Father purposed without the Son and holy Ghost and commanded and enjoyned without the Son and holy Ghost and assisted without the Son and holy Ghost this is denied For as the Father without the Son and holy Ghost made not man but the Trinity sate in Councel Let us make man so it was in the work of Salvation it was an act of Councel The Father gave the Son and the Son gave himself emptied himself every Person concurred and wrought in the work so far as concerns efficiencie All decreed it all acted in it as one principal Agent and onely the Humanity of Christ was Instrumental And if we consider the Material and Meritorious cause of mens salvation God the Father or God in the person of the Father is far from being the Principal cause thereof for he is no cause at all for the Father took not flesh upon him nor was Mediator either of Satisfaction or Intercession he made not the Atonement but this was the Son's sole work he did all in it he was the person that was made of a Virgin and was made under the Law he was the person that was made flesh and manifested in flesh and hath a peculiar right in this respect to the denomination of Saviour And though all was acted and endured in and by the flesh that he assumed for he bare our sins on his body on the tree yea and in his soul also when he cried out My God my God c. in such manner yet if that flesh had not been supported by the Godhead of the Son which assumed it it would have been crumbled to dust and powder by that weight of wrath that lay upon it So that it was by the vertue and power of the Godhead that such actings and such sufferings were and all was accounted as done and suffered by the Son though the Son as the Son was not capable of it but by assuming flesh into the unity of his person and so it came to be reckoned as his work and it was in account as if the Lord of glory had been crucified and as if the blood of God had been spilt and the merit was from the excellencie of the person of the Son that did and suffered all But he further saith That the Scripture revealeth the Lord Christ to be in the work of salvation but an instrumental Saviour For this saith he see Tit. 3. 4 5 6. which puts it past all question But after that the kindness and love of God and our Saviour towards man appeared not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Lord. Reply Here is in these words of his First A bold assertion viz. That Scripture revealeth Christ to be but an instrumental Saviour Secondly A peremptory Conclusion that Tit. 3. 4 5 6. puts it out of question Thirdly A defective and insufficient probation or confirmation he alledgeth the words of the Text as if they did carry with them conviction of what he asserts in the very letter of them when as there is no such matter 1. Scripture is so far from revealing such a thing of Christs instrumentalness that it reveals the contrary to it in Heb. 1. 3. it is said That Christ by himself purged away our sins but of any instruments can it be said that by himself he doth any thing Doth an instrument act by himself that is by his own vertue and sufficiency and by himself that is without the power of the principal efficient Is an Instrument any thing out of the hand of the chief Agent Also in Heb. 7. 25. it is said That Christ is able to save to the utmost But is any Instrument able to save to the utmost Hath he the ability within himself So that it may be said of him that he is able What greater thing can be predicated of the principal efficient or chief Agent then that he is able to save to the utmost This is too high an expression for an Instrument And in Psal 89. 19 it is said of Christ whom David typified that God had laid help upon one that was mighty If Christ be onely but an Instrument what needs he to be mighty in himself for every Instrument if it be mighty through the might of another as the Rams horns were it is sufficient What needed the choice of a mighty one if the Saviour be onely instrumental The weaker the Instrument the more honour will the Principal Efficient have The excellencie of Power is known to be of God when the instrumental means is Weakness and Foolishness Why also could not the blood of Goats have cleansed the Conscience but the Blood of JESUS CHRIST God's Son was necessary if an Instrument may be a Saviour Doubtless a word of Institution would have made the one as effectual as the other But indeed there is no might that any creature-Instrument is capable to be recipient or the subject of that can save to the utmost because it requires an infinite power to conquer Sin and Satan Death and Hell to abolish these and to bring Life and Immortality to light to effect a first and second Resurrection for men who were to be saved Secondly The Scripture that he alleadgeth out of Titus 3. 3 4 â— hath no such thing engraven upon it as he produceth it for such that he that runs may read it
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
of God they are but as Wormes and Grashoppers What then if the fault be against God who is the Prince of all Princes and before whom the highest is but as the dust of the ballance who is infinite in his nature and in all his attributes the guilt of such a fault will be according to the person infinite as the person is and hence it is that it cannot be expiated by persons that commit a fault against God no not by sufferings therefore the wicked and ungodly suffer for ever because they can never suffer enough in any time to give satisfaction to God for their transgression therefore they must always suffer and there must be infinity in their suffering so far as they are capable of infinity we say that that which hath no end is infinite but the sufferings of the Reprobate have no end This comes from the Justice of the infinite God which in punishing the creature that sins against him considers the infinite distance that is betwixt him and it and makes the punishment proportionable which made Eli say to his sons If a man sinne against a man the Judge shall judge him but if man sinne against the Lord who shall intreat for him the distance is such that there is no mediatour that the creature can find out for him but he is punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord. 4. That sacrifice is something that was ordained of God to satisfie the justice of God which must needs be confessed if it can be proved that God was attoned appeased pacified by sacrifice and that transgressions against God which carry infinite guilt in them are remitted by them but this is manifest from many places of Scripture Lev. 1. 4. and chap. 4. 26 31 34. and divers others 5. The sacrifice that Christ offered to God when he offered himself to God was sufficient to satisfie Gods justice though infinitely wronged and offended by the Elects transgressions Rom 8. 33 34. Who can lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect it is God that justifieth but how can that be when so just and so holy a law hath been transgressed and the justice of God calling upon God for satisfaction The Apostle answers it in the next words Who can condemne it is Christ that died or rather that is risen again This imports that Christ by dying hath given such satisfaction that nothing can condemne the Law that was transgressed cannot Gods justice cannot Heb. 9. 26. Christ hath once in the end of the world appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself and ver 12. Christ by his own blood entred once into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption for us The minor Proposition or the Assumption is undeniable and needs no proof which is this A sacrifice finite in value cannot satisfie an infinite justice offended for there must be some proportion betwixt the offence by which infinite justice is ingaged against persons that commit it and the satisfaction that is tendred and given to justice so ingaged in reference to transgression but what proportion betwixt a finite sacrifice of a finite value and vertue and infinite justice moved stirred offended and ingaged against men Now unto this Argument there is no answer returned but some little arguing there is against an infinite sacrifice which is rather a denying of the conclusion then an answering to any premise of the Argument Notwithstanding it is necessary that I consider what he objecteth against the thing which I drive at though he comes not near the Argument which I propounded to arrive at it Repl. How doth that appear in my expressions when I onely ask a question how a Sacrifice finite in value can satisfie an infinite Justice offended And in steed of answering it there is deep silence he passeth it over as if he had not observed it Yet he saith The Scripture tels us that Christ was made sin or a sin-offering for us by taking our sins and bearing the Curse but how this Sacrifice was infinite to me is unconceivable Repl. And doth not the Scripture tell us that the person that was made this sin-offering was God therefore his bloud is called the bloud of God Acts 20. 28. was the Lord of glory therefore it is said had they known him they would never have crucified the Lord of glory now this is the Title of the most high God Psal 24. 7. Psal 29. 3. Was the great Shepherd of the sheep yea the chief Shepherd which is equivalent to the most high God for the most high is familiarly in Scripture called a Shepherd Psal 23. 1 and Psal 80. 1. And if so then he is chief Shepherd and if chief Shepherd then Christ is he because there are not two chief Shepherds but one chief Shepherd and so the Father and Christ are one and the same chief Shepherd Heb. 13. 20. 1 Pet. 5. 4. The great or chief Shepherd is said to be brought again from the dead by the Father so that the person that was this sin-offering was as great as high as excellent as can be imagined as high as the highest infinitely high and great as these Scriptures do declare for such a person according to the flesh that he assumed was crucified did shed his bloud was raised again by the Father in some places of Scripture by himself in other for the Father and he work the same works the Father raiseth the dead yea the dead body of Christ and the Son raiseth the dead and his own dead body also as hath been shewed before Yea further Doth not the Scripture tell us that Christ through the eternal Spirit offered up himself without spot to God and that his blood in this regard is made more effectual for the purging away of sin than the bloud of Bulls and Goats Heb. 9. 14. How much more saith the Apostle shall the bloud of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered up himself to God purge your Consciences from dead works to serve the living God In this Scripture here is both the Sacrifice and the Priest that offered it Christ according to his Humanity is the sacrifice it was himself according to the Flesh that was offered up and Christ according to his Divinity or Deity was the Priest that offered up him according to the Flesh It is said that Christ did it through the Eternal Spirit What is this Eternal Spirit It was not the soul of Christ for first The soul of Christ is not properly eternal no more then he will grant the sufferings of the creature in hell to be infinite and yet they never shall have end that is properly eternal which neither hath beginning nor ending and so cannot be measured and therefore nothing can be said to be past and nothing future and to come in that which is eternal and eternity is one of the Attributes of the most high God and incommunicable to the creature though somtimes that which hath no end
is said but very improperly to be eternal 2. The soul of Christ may be said to be a part of the sacrifice that Christ offered up to God by or through the eternal Spirit for though he suffered in the flesh and shed his bloud according to the flesh yet he suffered in the soul bore the wrath of God in the soul and the curse of sin lay upon the soul as well as upon the body therefore the soul as well as the body was in a sense offered up to God and therefore both of them are distinct from the eternal spirit that is here spoken of by which it is said he offered up himself that which was offered and that by which it was offered are different things from one another 3. When Christ speaks of his soul he calls it Spirit without adding the Epithite of Eternal to it Luke 2◠46. 4. The souls of men may be as properly and truly called eternal Spirits as the soul of Christ be called an eternal Spirit being of the same nature both the one and the other But where is such an Adjective added to them in Scripture as Eternal Nor can the Spirit of God be meant by this eternal spirit for Christ in reference to the eternal spirit is made the Priest and the Efficient that offered up to God that which was offered up viz. the whole Humane Nature of Christ consisting of soul and body though Scripture speak most of the body in which he dyed and shed his bloud For this Pronoun who points at somthing in Christ besides soul and body which was offered to God which did slay the sacrifice and offer it up and this can be nothing but the eternal spirit in Christ the Deity of Christ by which spirit he went and preached to the spirits in prison in the days of Noah before he had either soul or body and by which spirit he searcheth the heart which the soul of Christ cannot do and the spirit of God it was not because Christ is spoken of in those places and not the holy Ghost Nor can it be said that he offered up himself by another spirit that was not his but by his own spirit as it is said that he entred into heaven not by other bloud which was not his but by his own bloud Heb. 9. 12. Besides this offering up of himself through the eternal spirit is that that is mentioned to put the value upon the offering up of himself to God above all the legal Sacrifices for otherwise the bloud of a man is no more to God than the bloud of a beast but the person in reference to this eternal spirit is more excellent and glorious than all other creatures either men or beasts in which regard his flesh is called a greater and more perfect Tabernacle because this eternal spirit dwelt in it and filled it with glory By the bloud of this person he entred in the holy place having obtained eternal redemption for us And this is the formal reason and cause whence it came to pass that the sufferings of Christ which both in soul and body were finite and received an end for he suffered once and doth not alwaies suffer yet are able to expiate sins which carry infinite guilt in them being against an infinite God and are able to free millions of persons from sufferings which are as it were eternal and infinite because they would not have any end if Christ by suffering had not discharged from them for otherwise it would be utterly impossible that by one sacrifice or offering he should for ever perfect them that are sanctified but it would have been as when the high Priest offered up daily the same sacrifices because sin could not be taken away by one sacrifice but it is this eternal spirit that doth put the worth and value and merit into this one sacrifice therefore it is said that every Priest standeth daily ministring and offering up the same sacrifices which can never take away sin But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sate down on the right hand of God expecting from henceforth till his enemies be made his foot-stool Heb. 10. 11 12 13. As one that hath done a work that hath great merit desert and worth in it expects a reward looks that things should be so and so done to him so Christ after he had offered one sacrifice sate down expecting the enemies to be subdued at his feet which had the offering been of himself a meer man he could not have done for what is man that he should deserve any thing of God Now because the word merit doth relish ill in reference to Christ himself with many and because all such who are against satisfaction by Christ or at least against full satisfaction are much more against merit because there is no such word found in Scripture therefore I shall clear up the Doctrine of Christs merit from the Scripture 1. Scripture testifies that Christ hath made a purchase Acts 20. 28. Feed the flock of God which he hath purchased with his own bloud this is spoken of Christ who is called God and he is said to purchase the Church with his bloud The Church is called a purchased possession Ephes 1. 14. The Jews were called a people peculiar by purchase so in the Original 1 Pet. 2. 9. Salvation is said to be obtained by purchase through our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Thes 5. 9. so it is in the Greek Now this purchase is not an acquisition of grace as some may conceive who may give this sense of it Christ hath gained the Church and gained or obtained salvation but through grace he obtained and gained which in an analogical sense may be called a purchase but this purchase is an acquisition of work as the Greek word signifies that is used by the holy Ghost which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to acquire and get by work which is used in 1 Tim. 3. 13. They that have used the Office of a Deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree Now he that purchaseth any thing deserves the thing that he purchaseth but Christ hath purchased the Church hath purchased salvation hath performed a work that deserves the having of the Church and the having of salvation for the Church so that if words might not be formally stood upon too much it is manifest that we have the thing in equivalent expressions 2. Merit and Desert properly have respect to some work which is not due neither could be required from such a person in which sense Christ may be said to merit when yet the persons on whose behalf Christ hath done such a work could not have been said to have merited if they in their own persons had done it the reason is because if men having sinned against God had been able to satisfie the Law to the utmost in reference to their sin they had committed against it and had
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
trees therfore saith Christ unlesse you abide in me that is firmly and surely hold me ye cannot bring forth fruit 12. Let all Christians take heed how they hold the truth in unrighteousnesse how they put away a good conscience in any thing and so tempt God lest God give them up to darknesse as a punishment of such an offence 13. Let every Christian joyn to some Church of Jesus Christ that walks closely with God in the truth that by the watchings of others he may be the better kept This is regular walking and God will be sure to blesse it 4 Let not any Christians run into temptations least God should leave them under the power of them and suffer them to be overcome of them but if they hear or read a doctrine that is contrary to what they received let them with much fear and trembling hear and read it and with much looking up to heaven for guidance let them be slow in entertaining that which is new strange to them and after much examination consultation and abundant confirmation out of Scripture let them do it If Saints will walk in this way the God of truth and grace will be with them they shall be kept unto salvation FINIS A TABLE of the Scriptures and Arguments formerly produced to prove the Deity of Jesus Christ and now vindicated and confirmed in the later Treatise ALSO Six other Arguments added shewing the dangerousness and destructiveness of the contrary Doctrine The first Scripture is Revel 1. 8. I am Alpha and Omega the Beginning and the End page 15 The second Scripture is Joh. 1. 1. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God p. 29 The third Scripture is Matth. 28. 20. Lo I am with you always unto the end of the world p. 35 The fourth Scripture is Rev. 2. 2. I know thy works c. p. 51 The fifth Scripture is Col. 1. 15. The first-born of every creature p. 61 The sixth Scripture is Col. 1. 16. By him were all things created p. 63 The seventh Scripture is Heb. 7. 3. Without father without mother without beginning of days and end of life made like unto the Son of God p. 90 The eighth Scripture is Prov. 8. 22. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way before his works of old I was set up from everlasting p. 94 The ninth Scripture is Zech. 13. 7. Awake O sword against my Shepherd against the man that is my fellow p. 97 The tenth Scripture is Joh. 3. 13. No man hath ascended up into heaven but he that came down from heaven the Son of man that is in heaven p. 103 The last Scripture is Joh. 17. 5. And now O Father glorifie me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was p. 114 Arguments brought to prove the destructiveness of the contrary Doctrine Arg. 1. To make whole Christ a creature brings in a strange and a false God p. 126 Arg. 2. To make whole Christ a creature brings in a strange and false Christ p. 137 Arg. 3. To make whole Christ a creature brings in a false Faith p. 149 Arg. 4. To make whole Christ a creature brings in a false Baptism p. 158 Arg. 5. To make whole Christ a creature destroys the sufficiency of Christ as a Saviour p. 163 Arg. 6. To make whole Christ a creature overturns godliness p. 168 Arguments formerly produced now vindicated and confirmed Argum. 1. To make whole Christ a creature is to make a meer creature the object of Divine worship which yet according to Scripture is Idolatry Where the doctrine of Worship is discussed p. 173 Arg. 2 3. To make whole Christ a creature is to make a creature the object of faith and to make faith in a creature saving which yet is contrary to the Scripture p. 205 Arg. 4. To make whole Christ a creature is to make a creature a sufficient Saviour which yet is repugnant to the Scripture 214 Arg. 5. To make whole Christ a creature is to make a meer creature Mediator which is contrary to the Scripture Where the doctrine of Christ's Mediatorship is discussed p. 225 Arg. 6. To make whole Christ a creature is to make the righteousness not of God but of a meer man to he imputed to believers which is against the Scripture p. 252 Arg. 7. To make whole Christ a creature is to make a meer creature authoritively able from himself to forgive sin which yet is contrary to the Scripture p. 262 Arg. 8. To make whole Christ a creature is to destroy the doctrine of Christ's satisfaction to God Where the doctrine of Christ's satisfaction is largely handled p. 285 Arg. 9. To make whole Christ a creature destroys the intercession of Christ p. 363 Arg. 10. To make whole Christ a creature is to disable Christ to protect defend save direct rule and govern his Church in all the world which yet is attributed to Christ c. p. 373 Arg. 11. To make whole Christ a creature is to make prayer to him vain and frivolous he being now in heaven and we on earth p. 377 Arg. 12. To make whole Christ a creature is to make a meer creature the Judge of the world which is repugnant to Scripture p. 384 Concerning Errours the rise growth cure and preservatives against them p. 397 FINIS