extract them and present them as if there they might be found or something like them which will bear them nor doth he bring any other text to make it appear that such words are agreeable to the Analogie of faith But by this addition he makes Christ a meere creature a creature before he tooke flesh before the World was while he was with God And he makes the glory which he had to be a derived glory and given to Christ of meere grace and good pleasure Now this is most notoriously false as I have largely and amply proved in my former Treatise But this is the doctrine that fils his head and fils his heart and there is so much of this within him that he thinks every Scripture that he lookes upon contains it and therefore it is that he brings this Scripture speaking that which it speakes not But setting aside these additions for which he must give an account Be it that Christs prayer had this meaning I shall shew you what an inconsistency there is in these words to his opinion in two or three particulars 1. Supposing Christ before he tooke the Seed of Ahraham upon him to be a created soul made by and abiding with God be fore the rest of the creatures were made for this is his opinion how can Christ speake to God these words Who have emptied my selfe taking to me a naturall and mortall body If Christ were but a created soul could it be an act of his will and of his power to take to him a body did ever God leave any creature at liberty to do what he will to chuse or refuse at his pleasure that he should leave Christ this created soul as he makes him at liberty to take a body or not to take it and if not but that God commanded him to take it why doth he plead it with God for reward as if it had been done of courtesie Have any of the Angels when they have waited upon men a worke below them had liberty to plead with God after this manner And how could it be an act of his power to take to him a body he being but a created soul can a created soul build a body of nothing if by creation it be or build it out of a woman without the help of man if by generation it be as indeed it was and if not how comes Christ to plead it as some meritorious act I have emptied my selfe in taking to me a naturall mortall body If God prepared him a body why doth he say I emptied my selfe and tooke it So that here is absurdity enough in this if there were no more in reference to his opinion in these very words 2. If Christ were a created soul where was the Emptying to take a naturall and mortall body is there not an habitude and naturall propensenesse in the soul to be in the body is it not the soules perfection is not the soul imperfect without it is it any more then a part of the whole and with the body makes a perfect man and is this the condescention to be presented as an high piece of selfe denyall to be in a perfect state And doth the soul take the body any more then the body take the soul or doth not God take both and unite them here is neither Divinity nor Philosophy in this But it may be this emptying was in this that Christ a glorious soul tooke a naturall mortall body not a body glorified but vile by reason of a naturall corruptibility But 1. God prepared this body for him where was then this excellent piece of selfe denyall to take and accept of what God prepares though it were an abasing to him Saints tread in such steps of selfe denyall every day and it is but their duty 2. Men are and ought to be thankful to God for such naturall and mortall bodies and for every member thereof and Christ if but a created soul might well submit yea be thankfull that his soul was not as his body for it was of free-grace as he saith and I joyn with him in it if he were a created soul that he was so glorious a soul 3. Lazarus was called so far as concerned a naturall mortall body and further also to the like piece of self-denyall for his soul was in heaven and with God and made perfect with God and glorified with him and it must leave God and leave heaven and leave glory and come into a naturall mortall body again that must dye a second time yea into a sinfull tabernacle again and this must be done at the Command of Christ according to the will of God What self-denyall was this then if Christ's was so great when yet Christ was but only a glorified soul And Lazarus which was such yet might not Lazarus plead it This is another absurdity which follows from his own words upon his opinion Christ being but a created soul at the first with God 2. He makes Christ to ask of God the glory only which he had in heaven before the world was and indeed Christ asked no other but it Now this is not consistent with Christs being a created soul and a creature for it is manifest from the Scripture yea it is confest by himselfe in many places of his printed paper That Christ as a creature had greater glory by donation after his sufferings after his deep humiliation then ever he had as a creature before for that Heirship of all things and dominion and principality and height above all principality and that name above every name was the reward which God bestowed upon him in reference to the crosse which he bore and it was his highest glory as a creature therefore it is expressed in these words is made both Lord and Christ not restored to what he had but made and what a rewarding is that only to restore him to what he had at first Therefore seeing that Christ prayes here in John for the glory that he had with God before the world was and asked no more and seeing it is as evident that as a creature his greatest glory was not before his sufferings but after and was the reward of his sufferings it will necessarily follow that he prayes for divine glory to be restored and that as a creature he was not with God before the world was nor had glory as a creature 3. He saith and the Text saith that the glory that Christ asked of his Father was the glory before the world was but the glory which Christ had as a creature could not be the glory before the world was for he himselfe confesseth that that glory which he had as a creature consisted in heirship and dominion over the world but this heirship and dominion over the world was not nor could be before the world was it will therefore follow that either Christ was created without glory and had no glory till the world was created which is directly contradictory to the Text or if
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
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
what to call it of those persons who profess to be very sound in the doctrine of Christs Godhead but conceive of it as a very tolerable errour in such who do deny it and make slight of it Is it a small thing to deny Christ to be the Son of God Those that deny Christs Godhead do deny God in the person of the Son to have taken the nature of man upon him or they do deny the Son of God to be incarnate and by consequence they do deny Christ to be Gods Son For do they not know I speak of those that have not denied the Faith if Christ be God he can be God no other way but because God in the person of the Son or the Son of God took flesh upon him if Christ be Gods Son he can be Gods Son no other way but because God in the person of the Son hath come in the flesh and if this be denied it is denied that Christ is Gods Son And is this a trivial matter Christ consists of two Natures of Humanity and so he is the Son of man of the Deity and so he is the Son of God as I have shewed Can Christ be a true Christ if either of these be wanting A Man consists of soul and body if either of these be wanting can he be a true man If the soul be wanting which is the principal part is he any more then a stinking carcase If Christ be not the Son of God as if he be not God he is not is he any other but a carcase-Christ Can a thing have its truth of being without its constitutive parts by which it is So that Christ is destroyed unlels the Son of God and the Son of Man united together in one person be maintained I now come to present and drive on a third Argument which is this Arg. 3. That Doctrine which destroys the true Faith of Christians and brings in another Faith a strange and false Faith that Doctrine destroys the true Gospel and Scripture and brings in another Gospel and Scripture in a main Point But this Doctrine of his which makes Christ a creature doth so Therefore this Doctrine of his destroys the true Gospel and Scripture and brings in another and a false Gospel and Scripture The Major is indubitable the Minor may be thus proved That Doctrine which takes away the principal object of a Christians Faith doth destroy the true Faith of a Christian But this Doctrine of his which makes Christ a meer creature doth take away the principal object of the Faith of a Christian Therefore this Doctrine of his doth destroy the Faith of a Christian The Major cannot reasonably be denied because Faith is true and saving from the object that it is conversant about as suppose it should be Baal in stead of the true God suppose it should be Mahomet in stead of Christ or suppose it should be a false or counterfeit Christ in stead of the true Christ that faith that is carried out to such an object could neither be true nor saving The Minor may be thus confirmed That Doctrine that denies Christ to be the Son of God takes away the principal object of the faith of Christians But this Doctrine of his which makes whole Christ a creature doth deny Christ to be the Son of God Therefore this Doctrine takes away the principal object of the faith of Christians The Major hath an infallible truth in it for the Scripture makes Christ to be principally the object of a Christians faith as he is the Son of God 1. It hath its denomination from this object it is called the faith of the Son of God Gal. 2. 20. 2. Christ proposeth himself as he is the Son of God to be believed on so to the blinde man whose eyes he had opened Dost thou believe the Son of God said Christ Joh. 9. 35. Under that consideration as such a person he presented himself as an adequate object of his faith for salvation 3. The primitive Saints mentioned in Scripture in their Confessions of Faith do point their Faith and terminate it upon Christ the Son of God In Joh. 11. 27 Martha said Lord I believe that thou art Christ the Son of God The Eunuch also being put upon the declaration of his faith did pitch it upon and carried it out to this object Acts 8. 37. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God It should seem that Philip had held him forth in the excellency and glory of his person as the Son of God and had preached him under that relation as the object of saving faith and that thereupon the Eunuch received him as such and believed But before these the Apostles themselves that were bred up under Christ and were instructed by Christ they grounded their faith upon Christ as he was the Son of the living God in Joh. 6. 69. We believe and are sure that thou art Christ the Son of the living God 4. Christ makes himself as he is the Son of God the foundation of Christians upon which their faith must bottom and this Article of Faith Thou art Christ the Son of the living God he makes the Rock upon which he will build his Church and the gates of hell shall never prevail against it Matth. 16. 16. And he placeth true blessedness in it I could wish that all persons that are right in their opinion of Christs Godhead and yet plead against the fundamentalness of the errour of denying the Godhead would but ponder what is here presented and take it up in its full weight and strength They that hold Christ to be God must needs do it upon this account because God in the person of the Son or the Son of God which is the second person in the Trinity took flesh upon him and became man and that hence it is that this man and this second person in the Godhead or this Son of God make up one Christ and that Christ is hereupon justly stiled the Son of God or the second person in the Godhead And if it be also clear from Scripture that faith in Christ is onely sound and saving as it hath Christ considered as he is the Son of God or the second person in the Godhead for the object of it then what can that Doctrine be less then destructively dangerous and subverting the very foundation of Christianity that denies that there is any such God in the person of the Son or any such second person in the Godhead called the Son or that there is any such Son of God who is God such persons consequently cannot have their Faith carried out after any such Son of God who is God but after a Creature-son of God which is totally another thing from that Son of God which Scripture presents to us And what can be thought of those that hold such Doctrine but that they have left the Rock the Foundation upon which Believers are built unto the salvation of their souls and
that he might destroy that is in man's nature might do it the works of the devil The Son of God destroyed but by whose power destroyed he the works of the devil By his own power he is called one that is stronger then the devil Luke 11. 12. And if it had not been done by his own power there was no necessity that the Son of God should have been manifested in the flesh for that purpose for the Son of man might have done it as an Instrument as the Disciples cast out devils which was one of the works of Satan that was destroyed his work was to possess bodies as well as souls and he was cast out which was the destruction of that work but the vertue by which they cast out was none of theirs but Christs but Christ's vertue was his own for as one stronger he spoiled Satan of all he had and destroyed all his works wherein the Almightiness of Christ is manifest And so it appears that Christ is such a Son of God that is Almighty and so consequently no creature-son 3. That Son of God that is omniscient or all-knowing cannot be a creature-son of God But Christ is such a Son of God that is omniscient and all knowing Therefore he is not a creature-son of God The Major is clear because Omnisciencie is like Omnipotencie it is incommunicable to the creature being one of Gods attributes The Minor may be proved from Revel 2. 18 23. The words are Thus saith the Son of God who hath his eyes like a flame of fire that is to give light to him in all the world by which he may see all things Therefore it is added And all the Churches shall know that I am he that searcheth the heart and trieth the reins and giveth to every one according to his works Christ speaketh of himself as the Son of God and shews what a Son he is such a Son that is equal to his Father who can search as deep and inward and hidden things as the Father can he hath his Fathers eyes his Fathers knowledge wisdom and understanding It is the one onely God's priviledge and prerogative to search the heart as I have proved from Jer. 17. 9 10. already and yet Christ as the Son of God doth it Therefore he is no creature-son but such a Son as is the one onely God also The fourth Argument that carries on the same designe viz. tends to prove this Doctrine of his against the Godhead of Christ to be destructive to the Gospel in some main point of it is this Arg. 4. The Doctrine that subverts and destroys true Baptism and brings in a false and unscriptural Baptism that Doctrine destroys the true Gospel and Scripture and brings in another Gospel and Scripture in a main point of it But this Doctrine of his which makes whole Christ a creature subverts and destroys true Baptism Therefore this Doctrine of his destroys the true Gospel c. The Major cannot be gainsaid because Baptism is numbered among the highest Fundamentals of the Scripture to be believed the denying of which will destroy if any thing will destroy Eph. 4. 5 6. One Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all And it is called a principle Heb. 6. 1 2. And because the fruit of Christ's death which stands in remission of sins is the mystical and spiritual part of Baptism Acts 22. 16. 1 Pet. 3. 21. The Minor Proposition may be thus corroborated and confirmed That Doctrine that brings in a Baptism which is into the Name of a meer creature subverts and destroys true Scriptural Baptism and brings in a false unscriptural Baptism But this Doctrine of his which makes whole Christ a creature doth bring in or set up a Baptism which is into the Name of a meer creature Therefore this Doctrine of his subverts and destroys true Scriptural Baptism I shall strengthen both Propositions because perhaps he will deny both and will begin with the proof of the Major viz. that to baptize into the Name of a meer creature destroys true Baptism and sets up a false 1. Because the true Scriptural Baptism is the Seal of a Covenant betwixt that one true God and the believer that partakes of it in which the believer consecrates and gives up himself to believe on and be servant to the true God God and the believer are the confederates The believer is not confederate with any creature As he gives not himself up to the creature so neither can any creature accomplish for him those great blessings of the Covenant but he depends upon God alone for them The Covenant which is sealed is the Covenant of Grace by which we are saved 2. Because true Gospel-Baptism is the confirmation of Adoption which respects the true God alone for in Baptism the Name of God is named upon the believer and the believer carries God's Name upon him And this the Apostle Paul doth point at when he reproves the Corinthians for calling themselves by the name of Paul saying I am of Paul The Argument that he makes use of against them is this Were you baptized into the name of Paul As if he should have said His Name ye bear and his children ye are into whose Name ye were baptized but were ye baptized into the name of Paul that you will carry his name No ye were not but into the Name of God to note out your adoption to God To be adopted and to be the sons and daughters of the Almighty is all one 2 Cor. 6. 18. And we are not adopted into sonship to any creature that is unscriptural doctrine and not to be received 3. Because true Gospel-Baptism is the acknowledgement of the believers subjection unto Divine Soveraignty or the authority of the most high God for by Name Authority is frequently understood to do a thing in the Name of any Prince or Monarch or State is to do in the Vertue Power and Authority of them and to baptize in the Name is to baptize in the Authority of God whose Ordinance it is and from whom the blessing must come And for such-like reasons as these it was that the Apostle shunned and declined baptizing into his own name he looked upon it as sacrilegious to God and an usurping upon God 1 Cor. 1. 14 15. I thank God saith he I baptized none of you save Crispus and Gaius lest any should say that I baptized into mine own name Thus jealous was Paul lest he should assume and arrogate to himself that which is the prerogative of and is proper to God The Minor Proposition viz. That this Doctrine of his which makes whole Christ a creature doth bring in and set up a Baptism which is into the name of a meer creature carries evidence in it self because Baptism is an Ordinance that without contradiction is into the Name of Christ and consequently into the name of a meer creature if whole Christ be a creature Object All that I can foresee can
Saviour or an unequal Saviour to Christ because Christ and not he is called a Saviour And is not Christ called both the blessed hope and the great God our Saviour Are not both titles put upon him as due to him And though they are used by the Apostle to distinguish the persons of Father and Son from each other when they are spoken of together yet both these are applyed to both persons and are proper to him alone that is the most high God But he saith Scripture doth prefer God in the work of salvation before our Lord Jesus Christ making him to be the principal Agent therein when it declares that the work of Christ in saving was from the purpose of God who appointed him for it from the precept of God who injoyned him to it and from the presence of God who assisted him in it Reply But where doth Scripture witness this of God the Father in reference to the whole of Christ He saith Scripture doth abundantly set forth all these but he doth not quote any one place for proof of them but would have us receive it upon his word That God purposed to save by Christ considered as David's and Mary's son considered according to his Manhood that God enjoyned him as such that God assisted him as such God being taken essentially and properly for Father Son and holy Ghost and not improperly and personally for the Father will be granted and it will be plentifully made out by Scripture but that the Father purposed without the Son and holy Ghost and commanded and enjoyned without the Son and holy Ghost and assisted without the Son and holy Ghost this is denied For as the Father without the Son and holy Ghost made not man but the Trinity sate in Councel Let us make man so it was in the work of Salvation it was an act of Councel The Father gave the Son and the Son gave himself emptied himself every Person concurred and wrought in the work so far as concerns efficiencie All decreed it all acted in it as one principal Agent and onely the Humanity of Christ was Instrumental And if we consider the Material and Meritorious cause of mens salvation God the Father or God in the person of the Father is far from being the Principal cause thereof for he is no cause at all for the Father took not flesh upon him nor was Mediator either of Satisfaction or Intercession he made not the Atonement but this was the Son's sole work he did all in it he was the person that was made of a Virgin and was made under the Law he was the person that was made flesh and manifested in flesh and hath a peculiar right in this respect to the denomination of Saviour And though all was acted and endured in and by the flesh that he assumed for he bare our sins on his body on the tree yea and in his soul also when he cried out My God my God c. in such manner yet if that flesh had not been supported by the Godhead of the Son which assumed it it would have been crumbled to dust and powder by that weight of wrath that lay upon it So that it was by the vertue and power of the Godhead that such actings and such sufferings were and all was accounted as done and suffered by the Son though the Son as the Son was not capable of it but by assuming flesh into the unity of his person and so it came to be reckoned as his work and it was in account as if the Lord of glory had been crucified and as if the blood of God had been spilt and the merit was from the excellencie of the person of the Son that did and suffered all But he further saith That the Scripture revealeth the Lord Christ to be in the work of salvation but an instrumental Saviour For this saith he see Tit. 3. 4 5 6. which puts it past all question But after that the kindness and love of God and our Saviour towards man appeared not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Lord. Reply Here is in these words of his First A bold assertion viz. That Scripture revealeth Christ to be but an instrumental Saviour Secondly A peremptory Conclusion that Tit. 3. 4 5 6. puts it out of question Thirdly A defective and insufficient probation or confirmation he alledgeth the words of the Text as if they did carry with them conviction of what he asserts in the very letter of them when as there is no such matter 1. Scripture is so far from revealing such a thing of Christs instrumentalness that it reveals the contrary to it in Heb. 1. 3. it is said That Christ by himself purged away our sins but of any instruments can it be said that by himself he doth any thing Doth an instrument act by himself that is by his own vertue and sufficiency and by himself that is without the power of the principal efficient Is an Instrument any thing out of the hand of the chief Agent Also in Heb. 7. 25. it is said That Christ is able to save to the utmost But is any Instrument able to save to the utmost Hath he the ability within himself So that it may be said of him that he is able What greater thing can be predicated of the principal efficient or chief Agent then that he is able to save to the utmost This is too high an expression for an Instrument And in Psal 89. 19 it is said of Christ whom David typified that God had laid help upon one that was mighty If Christ be onely but an Instrument what needs he to be mighty in himself for every Instrument if it be mighty through the might of another as the Rams horns were it is sufficient What needed the choice of a mighty one if the Saviour be onely instrumental The weaker the Instrument the more honour will the Principal Efficient have The excellencie of Power is known to be of God when the instrumental means is Weakness and Foolishness Why also could not the blood of Goats have cleansed the Conscience but the Blood of JESUS CHRIST God's Son was necessary if an Instrument may be a Saviour Doubtless a word of Institution would have made the one as effectual as the other But indeed there is no might that any creature-Instrument is capable to be recipient or the subject of that can save to the utmost because it requires an infinite power to conquer Sin and Satan Death and Hell to abolish these and to bring Life and Immortality to light to effect a first and second Resurrection for men who were to be saved Secondly The Scripture that he alleadgeth out of Titus 3. 3 4 â— hath no such thing engraven upon it as he produceth it for such that he that runs may read it
be more nearly allyed to the one then to the other more to God then to man but as he frames the Argument if Christ the Mediator be God then he is a party when as it is manifest that he is man also no nearer related to God though he be God then he is to man because he is man the Major is palpably false must be denied by that time he hath seriously considered of this which I have here presented I hope he will be forced to confesse that I knew what I did when I brought that reason that Christ if a meer creature would be a party rather then a Mediator But he gives an instance In reconciliation saith he by a Mediator we are to suppose three One offended another offending and a third mediating for peace betwixt them God was offended men were offenders and Christ was the Mediator Now if Christ had been a sinfull man he had been of the party offending and and if he had been God he was the party offended but Christ was not a Party From the Proposition which I have thus confirmed and the Assumption which you have acknowledged I will draw up this Conclusion That Christ the Mediator is not God Rep. In this Instance and in the application of it there are some things that are justly liable to exception and other things manifestly false 1. That there be three in reconciliation wil be granted but that the third must be so distinct as he holds it forth as not to partake of the other two is denied For a son that mediates betwixt father and mother which may somtimes be the case is of the flesh of both and yet notwithstanding is distinct from both but not so distinct as not to partake of both So in the reconciliation made by Christ betwixt God and man there are three that are distinct 1. There is God offended 2. There is man viz. mankind offending 3. There is Christ mediating who is neither meerly and only God nor yet meerly and only man but is both God and man yet distinct from both God and man Distinct from God because he is man and distinct from man because he is God Yea there is yet a further distinction for Christ though he be man viz. of that kind for nature and essence which was the offending party yet not one of those persons in that kind that did offend but without sin himself and though he be God and so for essence and nature one with that party which was offended and was offended in his own person yet distinct in personality or which is all one a distinct person from the Father and the Holy Ghost who more visibly do manage the offence against man For the Son though he was offended together with the Father and the Holy Ghost yet he appears not prosecuting the offence but therein he is veiled and appears only appeasing the Father that was offended in both these respects there are three in this businesse of reconliation But he makes mention of three in reconciliation which in titles and names are the same with the three which I have already spoken of viz. God men Christ But when he comes to open and unfold these three he makes the third which mediates betwixt the other two to be so distinct from both of them as to partake of neither of them And under this lies couched the poyson and malignancy of his doctrine For as he layes it down he not only denies the Godhead of Christ which is the doctrine in dispute betwixt us but he destroyes the Manhood also and overturnes that satisfaction which in the nature of man he gave for man for his words are these If Christ had been a sinfull man he had been of the party offending His designe is to shew that he was a distinct person partaked of neither Party betwixt whom he mediated He was not of the Party offending for he was not a sinfull man He was not the Party offended for he could not be God because he could not be a Party Let it be considered seriously what he saith and it will be found to be false and dangerous and reacheth not his own designe 1. False for was Christ therefore not of that Party because he was without sin Was he not a true man in all things like other men sin onely excepted Had he not a true Body and Soule Was not soule and body subject to the same infirmities and weaknesses sin excepted as other mens soules and bodies were Was he not the Seed of the Woman which was promised Was he not conceived in the womb of the Virgin and was flesh of her flesh Was he not Abrahams seed and Davids seed Was not Satan to be broken and destroyed in all his strength by one that must be of the Woman that must spring out of her and be her seed And should all this be and yet Christ not this Party He was no offender indeed but yet he was of that Party which did offend he had the same nature for essence Abraham was of that Party which offended and so was David and were offenders themselves and he was their seed and was of them and from them therefore it is a great untruth and grosse mistake to say that he was not of that Party for he was flesh of their flesh and bone of their bone but kept by the Holy Ghost from that naturall pollution and staine which defiled them 2. Dangerous for if Christ were not of that party that offended he could not satisfie for that party which offended for in the same nature in which the offence was committed must the satisfaction be given for both the justice and truth of God required this It was threatned that the soule that is the person that sins shall die and if another suffer that penalty yet it must be one in that nature therefore it is said he bore our sins on his own body on the tree It was necessary it should be so els the truth of God would not be fulfilled nor justice satisfied And if Christ be not of the offâ—nding party if he be another from them not partaking of them but be of another nature and not of theirs then he might as well have been no man at all for any fruit or beneâ—it that accrues to sinfull man thereby And Christ might as well have taken the nature of Angells and as much to the benefit of lost men as have assumed flesh if it be not thâ— flâ—sh and nature of men that did offend if he be not of their party though not spotted with their sin 3. It reacheth not his own designe which is to make Christ a third and distinct person or party from those he mediates betwixt partaking of neither for he knowes that if it be confessed that Christ partakes of the nature of one of the parties whom he is to make peace betwixt and not of the other then he will undeniably be a party instead of a Mediator to
to concurre with it that he may gain credit to such a reading Alas he knows very well the following words will not quadrare they will not correspond nor suit with such a reading By the word mystery there are who follow this reading that understand the Gospell which is called a mystery but was the Gospell manifested in the flesh c. and received up into glory certainly it must be meant of some person that was in flesh and was received up to glory therefore if it be the mystery that was manifested in the flesh and received up into glory it was not the Gospell for the Gospell is the glad tydings of good things in Christ and was the glad tydings of good things in Christ manifest in the flesh and were glad tydings received up into glory it is absurd to be asserted If he understand any thing else by Mystery which was manifested in the flesh then the Gospell it must be the soul of Christ which he saith was created before the rest of the creatures and which in time took flesh and was manifested in the flesh but was it so great a Mystery for the soul to come into the body after the body is formed in the womb is it not that which is done every hour in the formation of man doth not the soul unite with the body in the generation of all that are born in the world And indeed though he grant our reading yet he brings all to this for his words are It is not denied but that Christ was a God and the Text saith but this a God was manifested in the flesh that is saith he appeared visible amongst men when he took unto him a body Rep. If Christ was a God before he took flesh then he was ever a God from the first that he was and that was by his own concession before there was any creature created and consequently before any actuall Soveraignty was bestowed upon him for that could not be before the world had an actuall existence over which he was to have his actuall Soveraignty and then it will follow that he was God by nature from all eternity with the Father and the Holy Ghost but this I have discussed before that which I shall add is this look what a God Christ was such a God he was in flesh but Jehovah he was the mighty God he was the great God he was the true God he was the everlasting God he was God over all blessed for ever he was subsisting in the form or nature of God he was and equall with God such a God he was as is abundantly testified in Scripture therefore such a God he was manifested in flesh As for Hincmarus his conceipt that this word God was put into the Text by the Nestorians I have him not by me and I much heed it not because the very Text it self gives witnesse to it self that the word is not added by mans device or fraud for if it be left out the rest of the words are made nonsense thereby The third and last Scripture that I made use of to prove Christ as Mediator not to be a meer creature and nothing else was this It is said in Joh. 1. 14. The Word was made Flesh His Answer is The creature that was immediatly made by God took unto it a body I find no place saith he where the flesh of Christ signifies any thing more then his body according to which he died and is no where taken for the humane nature Rep. This conceipt of a creature immediatly made by God which took unto it a body hath been at large spoken to and confuted in my former Treatise It hath also been the word that the word Flesh is taken Synechdochically for humane nature a part being put for the whole I find no cause to add any thing either to the one or other but shall consider of the Reasons which he leaves me to pause upon by which he would prove Christ the Mediator to be a meer creature Let me oppose saith he your Proposition with two or three Reasons Rea. 1. Because whole Christ is a creature if so then either a meer creature is Mediator or Christ is not a Mediator Rep. The greater part of my former Treatise is spent in the confuting of this assertion I therefore think it needlesse to spend more time or strength about it especially seeing he refeâ—res to what he said before and brings no new strength to it Rea. 2. Because a Mediator is not of one Gal. 3. 20. Now if Christ be God then he is a Mediator of one for he cannot be a Mediator to himself and there is but one God Rep. It is true as the Apostle saith that a Mediator is not of one that is not of one Party for a Mediators work is to make peace now it is to be alwaies supposed that no one is at variance with himself therefore a Mediator is not of one but of two Parties that dissent the one from the other which Parties are God and Man But his deduction which he fetcheth from this saying is faulty which is this If Christ be God then is he a Mediator of one for he cannot be a Mediator to himself and God is but one if this were a sound consequence Christ would be Mediator to none at all and the reason is this There are but two Parties disagreeing God and man Now all the Elect in all the world they are reckoned in this account but as one man Now if Christ be man took their seed then he is of this Party then he is Mediator to himself and the words may be retorted A Mediator is not of one but if Christ be man then he is a Mediator of one for he cannot be Mediator to himself for all men are but as one come under one consideration and he is among them if he be a man being of their nature and true man of their seed Therefore there must be a distinction made concerning Christ Christ may be considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either in his nature person as he is the second in the Trinity and the essentiall Son of God or in reference to his Office as he is God in flesh and King Priest and Prophet to the Church and appointed Daysman and if this latter acception he is not Mediator to himself though he be God for he is God-man and so differs from himself considered nudè as God or the second person in the Divine Trinity that which was asserted before concerning this man also considered Rea. 3. His third reason is the same for substance with the second Because saith he Christ is a Mediator betwixt God and man 1 Tim. 2. 5. Now if he were God he could not be a Mediator betwixt God and men for he could not be a Mediator to himself This hath been considered in the former reason only there is thus much new in it which deserves consideration Timothy saith he
have denied him to be God in his pardoning of mens sins His third Scripture is Acts 5. 30 31. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom ye slew and hanged on a tree him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour for to give repentance unto Israel and forgivenesse of sins Hence he collects that Christ received from another his power of forgiving sins Rep. This Scripture seems to favour his opinion more then any that he hath alledged and it hath the most seeming strength in it for his purpose But this answer may be returned unto it Christ doth fall under a double consideration in Scripture he may be looked upon absolutely as the Son of God and second person in the Trinity as Jehovah and as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very God or he may be looked upon relatively as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God man as â—mmanuel God with us or in our nature as God manifest in the flesh and as sent into the world and executing the office of Mediator If he be considered in the former acception he is essentially Lord and that one Law-giver in all the creatures are the works of his giver hands and subject to him and every transgression and sinne that is committed is against him and it belongs to him with the Father and the holy Ghost who are one God with himself to pardon sinne to acquit from the guilt and to deliver from the curse thereof because he can turn away his wrath and hath power over all plagues and can save from them and so he receives no power to forgive sins but it belongs to him and cannot be separated from his Godhead but is naturally essentially and eternally his But if he be considered in the latter acception then many things are derived to him as the office of Mediatorship and a Lordship and the name Saviour is given him upon that account which is a name above every name of the Creatures and Prince and Captaine of our salvation is a name put upon him and belonging to him in this sense it is given to him to give repentance unto Israel and remission of sins Now it must be understood as I have expressed in my former Treatise that the giving of these things doth not deny any intrinsecall or inward perfection which Christ hath but rather supposeth it and it must be granted that Christ to whom these things are given according to his due nature hath all his perfection without the gift of these and that these are but declarative and serve to manifest that essentiall riches and glory which he had with the Father from eternity and that his naturall Dominion and Lordship which cannot be separated from his Deity is that which founds such donations and gifts which are too high for any creature and would carry away Divine glory from him who is God if they should be given to any meere creature and they are to be exercised by the help of the Godhead of Christ else they could not be acted by him as being too great for any man or meere creature Indeed the humanity hath fellowship with the Godhead in the glory of the having and executing these things and to the manhood it is glory derived which was not before but to the Deity of Christ it is glory manifested and declared only More particularly It is given to Christ as Mediator to dispense pardon of sin and it belongs to his Priest-hood to do it The Priests of the Law they did it externally and ministerially figuratively and typically they pronounced clean and unclean so farre as concerned the flesh but Christ did it and doth it effectually and spiritually pronouncing and discharging the conscience from all sinne and what was the reason of this difference They did it as men therefore in weaknesse and could speak but were not able to effect what they spake but Christ did it as the Sonne of God yea as the eternall Son of God as the Apostle testifies Heb. 7. 3. So that the very Priest-hood of Christ that it might be effectuall in the works of it and this of pardoning of sin was one of them was founded in the eternall Son-ship of Christ and therein lay this ability and power to performe the works of it and principally this work of remitting sinnes So that though the way of dispensing pardon be given to Christ yet the power of dispensing was not given but is as ancient as his Son-ship therefore he erres in his inference which he fetcheth from this Text of Acts 5. 31. When he saith that he received from another his power of forgiving sins For it was not power that he received but the way of exercising of it It is acted in the flesh as Mediator even since Christ came in the flesh and now the Son of man forgives sinnes that is the person that is man and the son of man forgives but not as he is man or the son of man but as he is God and the Son of God For though it may be said that the Mediator pardoneth sin efficiently as well as Meritoriously as Priest yet it cannot be said that the whole of the Mediator doth it but the divine nature alone acts in it It may be said of a man who consists of soul and body that he meditateth but it cannot be said of the whole of man that he meditateth but of the minde only It may also be said of of him that he walketh but it is to be understood of his body only and not of his minde yet because of the union betwixt body and soul both of them making but one man what either doth is attributed to the whole So it is with Christ our Mediator he bore our sinnes as man only for the God-head could not suffer he purged away our sinnes as God-man for the man-hood acted and the God-head merited he pardoned sin as God only because he is supream Lord only as he is God yet the Mediator doth all these that is he that is both God and man doth them but in this different way he doth them And so it appears that still he is the principall in this work of forgiving sins because he doth it as God and that this gift which respects not the power it self of dispensing but the way only of dispensing doth adde nothing to the intrinsicall perfection of Christ but is manifestive of that inward essentiall glory which he had with the Father before any beginning was which was vailed by Christs assuming flesh and yet manifested in flesh by acts which were too high for flesh of which nature this of pardoning sin was one The conclusion is this the work of forgiving sin is high and glorious proper and peculiar and suitable to this great and most high God Jesus Christ the Mediatorly the way of dispensing it is below this excellent person Christ who is not only the son of the highest but the highest and it was the humbling and debasing and emptying
his custody sin is but as the fetters and cords in which such persons are held the world is but as the prison and death is but as the torments persons are put to but properly we are Gods Captives and are doomed and sentenced of God to banishment from his presence as Cain was and are delivered up to the power and dispose of the God of this world For 1. God is the Soveraign Lord and supream Monarch and Judge and the power primarily belongs to him to cast body and soule into hell 2. Men are guilty of that which they call crimen laesae majestatis or treason against divine Majesty Against thee thee only I have sinned said David therefore worthy to be rejected 3. Therefore they are by nature children of wrath The wrath of God is revealed from heaven Upon those that beleeves not the wrath of God abides 4. We ask to be losed and discharged from our sins not from Satan but from God and to be losed from the bonds and snares of hell and death therefore primarily we are held in bondage to God and not to Satan or any other Hereto agrees the witnesse of Scripture God hath shut up all in unbelief that he might have mercy upon all Rom. 11. 32. The Scripture that is God in the Scripture hath shut up all under sinne that the promise of faith through Iesus Christ might be given unto them that beleeve Gal. 3. 22. God gave some up to vile affections Rom. 1. 26. and verse 28. because they liked not to retain God in their thoughts therefore God gave them up to a reprobate mind God gave them up to worship the Host of Heaven Acts 7. 42. The Parable of the King that was wrath with him that was unmerciful to his fellow-servant is pertinent to the same purpose he delivered him to the tormentors Matth. 18. 34. And that exhortation of Christ To agree with our adversary while in the way lest the Judge deliver to the officer c. Which places do all shew that we through sin are primarily the Captives of God as a King and Judge offended and that only secondarily we are Captives to the devil and other enemies as to Gods Ministers and Servants though enemies to which we are committed for without commission and permission we are taught that the greatest tyrants can effect nothing against Gods Elect and the very devils themselves could not go into the herd of swine without leave therefore the price paid to God to satisfie him is the principal thing in redemption It is also to be understood that these two To be redeemed from God and to be redeemed to God will consist very well together for the captivity of the Elect is not like the captivation of a person taken in war and detained by the enemy from whom when he is redeemed he is totally alienated and separated and hath no more to do with him nor is it like the captivation of a person who is violently and unjustly detained in the hand of a cruel one who tyrannizeth over him after the manner of Pharaoh who laid unjustly heavy burdens upon the children of Israel from whom if he be once freed he is totally withdrawn from such an one and divided never to come into his hands or power any more But the captivity of the Elect is as when a subject for some offence against his Prince is delivered into the Serjeants hand or into some other officers custody and power to be imprisoned or scourged or punished with death according to the nature of the offence unlesse satisfaction be given and he be released upon that account such a redemption as this is viz. of a subject from the wrath of his Prince is not the alienation of the subject from his Prince but the reconciliation of him to his Prince and the person that is redeemed from is redeemed to man for these do consist well enough together from the wrath and justice of the Prince to the love and favour of the Prince he is redeemed And though God offended doth deliver the Elect to enemies and not to subjects for the devil is an enemy both to God and to the Elect and not a subject yet this makes no difference but that the Elects captivation may fitly be resembled captivation of a subject to his own Prince because God is the Lord of devils and they as truly subject though not as willingly subject as any other that are under Gods power Object 5. It is further asserted that it is God that gave Christ to redeem men and if there be any satisfaction given to God by Christ God himself is the author of it and gave it to himself if he gave it to himself he was satisfied before and the price moves him nothing to release the captive because it is not from the captive but from himself and of his own providing and nothing is added to God by it for it is but Gods satisfying of himself And what a kinde of satisfaction is this In the truth of the thing it is as no satisfaction for if the satisfaction must come out of himself he is satisfied in himself without any satisfaction from the captive Sol. God must be looked upon as one that dearly loves the captivated elect persons who had sinned against him and would not have them perish and withall he must be looked upon as one that dearly loved justice and truth and cannot suffer either of them to be violated for they are himself as dear to him as himself therefore he provides that Justice and Truth and the life and welfare of such poor captives may consist together and because he sees it impossible by any thing that the electcan do who had offended because they are without strength and can make no satisfaction for any trespasse therefore he himself in his wisdome and love to the Elect and in his love to Justice and Truth findes out a way to save them from ruine and to satisfie these And that is by Christ whom he sends and this is all his designe and he lookes for no further gain nor advantage to himself but that his goodnesse and righteousnesse and truth might be glorified together in the salvation of the Elect that had sinned for what standeth God in need of and what can be given to him for satisfaction which may be added to his store If his justice and truth in reference to his law be maintained and kept on foot with his love to those whom he hath chosen this is more to him then all the earth and the fulnesse of it and other satisfaction he looks for none The declaration of his justice and truth is satisfaction enough and a motive strong enough to let the captive go free and this he obtained by the intervention of the death and blood of his Son What advantage had Zaleucus who made a law that adulterers should lose both their eyes and he to satisfie this law that he might be accounted just and
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
such Shepheards of all Christians they are the most unstable and the most apt to erre and go astray and the most apt to entertaine strange and unscriptural doctrine and the reason of this is not because of the wisdome and righteousnesse of such persons who are Pastours and Teachers above all other men as if they by their prudence and understanding and holiness were able to preserve those that are committed to them from evill but because it is the Ordinance of Christ that Saints should be in fellowships and should have Pastors and Teachers as Guides and Watchmen and Overseers over them therefore a blessing goes along with it for the most part and those that cast off this Order are left very much to themselves and deserted of Christs strength not being found in Christs way Yet it is not arrogating to assert that Pastors and Teachers either are or ought to be the most prudent and most sober minded and best tempered and best setled and stablished and most firmly rooted and grounded and each way the most able of the body to which they do belong for they are by office as eyes to the rest of the members 7. Many unite and congregate together without any that are competently furnished with gifts among them to be Pastors and Teachers neither having any in their eye whom they may call therto and obtaine and being thus in fellowship they propound the edifying of one another by holding out their conceptions each person to other both in prophecy and in conference and in this case much comes to be spoken and perhaps in some places none able to judge and he that hath the ripest and accutest parts leads the rest if he be not very sober minded he is sure to lead them into error the sad effects of this I have much observed Now this is more dangerous in these times then it would have been in some other ages because corrupt doctrine is very rife and one shall hardly live any where but there will not be providences that will cast him into places and meetings where it will be vented and if any be taken therewith he will be sure to vent it if he be not very humble when he is put upon exercise among those he stands thus related to and dangerous doctrine comes out in print and may be read in books which are dispersed abroad and if persons be not very well able to judge of them but are deceived with faire pretexts and if they have not setled sober and well established spirits those doctrines of all other will fall most under their observation and will have the deepest impression and will be best remembred and will be the soonest communicated because of the rarity of them by such persons when they meet with the rest of the body especially if such persons do affect singularity 8. Many Pastors and Teachers are men of corrupt judgments and unsound principles and by reason of the opportunity that such have of venting their Tenents and the interest that they have in their own flocks and other people to whom they preach comes to passe that from them Error and Heresie passeth into others that relate to them and are hearers of them and from hence it was that formerly and of old falshoods and doctrines of lies dispersed themselves abroad and filled the land 9. But now the danger is lesse in reference to the Ministry because it is but of little account among many that pretend to Saintship amongst whom I doubt not but that some of them are truly good at least comparatively the esteeme is small to what it was And this proceeds partly from the too much bitternesse and fiercenesse which hath been shewed by many Ministers against such who have in the smallest points dissented from them by which meanes they have estranged the hearts of such from them and lost their repute among them And partly from that self-seeking and too much affectation of rule and power and preheminence which hath been justly observed to be in many Ministers the good of the flock having in the interim been much neglected but though some are guilty herein yet all connot be justly charged And partly because the just liberty of prophesying which belongs as I conceive without contradiction to the people if it be rightly bounded hath been denied them by the generality of the Ministers of this Nation which have cryed out against it whence it hath come to passe that many precious ones among the people have entertained thoughts that the Ministers designe hath been to keep them in bondage and to advance themselves over them and so they have broken from them and have had them in disesteeme But principally it comes to passe through the practise of some evill workers who have aspersed the Ministry more then there hath been cause and have rendred them odious to others And now the danger of the springing and spreading of Errors is more in reference unto these who have withdrawn the affections of the people from the Ministers and have brought in themselves into favour in stead of them and are carried with those temptations which they have been wont to charge the Ministry with affecting singularity and preheminence and would be thought to know much and would be accounted Prophets and Teachers and their designe is to draw away disciples after them and they affect new notions and high expressions which they perceive to be taking with the people and so a door comes to be opened to Error 10. There is an exorbitancy in that liberty which Saints have to exercise their gifts in prophecy All the Brethren that are in a Church are not Prophets that is all have not the gift of Prophecy 1 Cor. 12. 29 and chap. 14. 1. But they must be proved first and approved before they take upon them to prophecie and those who are sound and sober should only be allowed What is spoken of Deacons 1 Tim. 3. 10. will hold in proportion to others and hands must not be laid on suddenly ver 12. A sudden approbation of any to office is not allowed and there is the same reason for the exercise of gifts As every one hath received a gift so let him dispense it there are private gifts and there are publick gifts there are gifts that may edifie a few and there are gifts that may edifie many there are gifts that may edifie weak ones and there are gifts to edifie strong ones there are gifts that may edifie a family and there are gifts that may edifie a Church there are gifts that may edifie a part of the body and there are gifts that may edifie the whole body There may be profit in the exercise of some gifts to some when there is no honour to Christ before men that such gifts should be publickly exercised The Ordinances of God by this liberty unwarily and unsoberly used fals under much contempt Not but that I wish from my very soule that all the Lords people were Prophets