23. 2 3. compared together do confirm it in vers 2. it is said The Spirit of the Lord spake by me and his word was in my mouth in vers 3. it is said The God of Israel said the Rock of Israel spake to me he that in vers 2. is called the Spirit of the Lord in vers 3. is called the God of Israel for one and the same person spake to David not two persons spake to him but one And in Luk. 1. 68. 70. compared together and both of them compared with 2 Pet. 1. 21. in vers 63. Zachary blessed the Lord God of Israel who visited and redeemed his people c. in vers 70. Zachary makes this Lord God of Israel to be the person that spake by the mouth of the Prophets but who is he that spake by the mouth of the Prophets the Spirit is he Peter tels us so much and in many other places we read so much 2 Pet. 1. 21. Holy men spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost Therefore if he inspired the Prophets and spake in them and by them he is the Lord God of Israel 3. He is called the most High Luk. 1. 35. The Angel speaks thus to Mary The holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall over shadow thee This latter is but an enlargement of the former the same person is spoken of in both propositions with this difference only the name of the person spoken of is put upon him in the former proposition viz the holy Ghost the Title of the person is given to him in the latter the Highest with his power shall over-shadow thee so that the holy Ghost is the highest But some may object against this and say that the holy Ghost is not called the highest but he is called the power of the Highest or the vertue of the Highest because the Highest by the vertue of the holy Ghost would form Christ in the womb of the Virgin or would cause her to conceive so the holy Ghost and power are one thing but not the holy Ghost and the Highest If this were true yet seeing a person is spoken of and not a thing and this person is called the vertue or power of the Highest in so miraculous a work he cannot be inferiour to the Highest for he by whose force and power and vertue the highest shews himself to be the Highest works as the Highest must needs be as high as he and if the Father should be the Highest in this place yet the holy Ghost is made equal to him which shews the Father and the holy Ghost to be one in Essence though two in personality because there can be but one Highest But it appears to be otherwise that Spirit and power are not confounded but distinguished and there distinguished where God is mentioned in Rom. 15. 18 19. God made the Gentiles obedient to the Gospel through mighty signs and wonders done by the power of the Spirit of God here is power and Spirit and God and all distinguished from other by God the Father is meant by Spirit the holy Ghost is meant and by power the vertue might and efficacy of the holy Ghost is meant and it appears which alone is sufficient to prove holy Ghost to be God that mighty signs and wonders were done by the proper power of the holy Ghost it is not said that they were done by the power of God viz. the Father but by the power of the Spirit of God by the Spirits own proper power 4. He is called God most high and Almighty all these titles are put upon the Spirit in Numb 24. 2. 16. compared together In verse 2. it is said of Balaam that the Spirit of God came upon him in verse 16. Balaam describes himself to be one that heard the words of God that knew the knowledge of the most high and saw the visions of the Almighty and all this was but the Spirit of God which came upon him I might speak of the attributes of the Spirit which are proper to the most high God and prove him to be such as of Omnipotency Omnisciency Omnipresence c. But he himself hath held forth these in his Letter when he lived about Glocester which in my former Treatise is printed to the view of the World at which time his eyes were open and he saw these attributes in the Spirit and acknowledged the holy Ghost to be God upon the sight thereof though his Faith had been suspended before but now he denies what he confessed then and is left to blindness and darkness and speaks opprobriously of the Spirit of Grace when he cals him the instrument of an instrument for he makes Christ himself no more but the Fathers instrument and a creature and the Spirit is no more but Christs instrument and a creature of a creature I shall now conclude with an Answer to what he closeth his Answers to this Text of Math. 28 with He saith this kinde of presence by the Spirit Beza and others understand to be intended in Mat. 28. 20. Reply 1. Neither Beza nor any else save Arians and Socinians do hold such a kinde of presence of the Spirit as he hath held forth viz. of the Spirit as an instrument by which Jesus Christ did work but only of the Spirit as God and as the third person in the Trinity equal with the Father with the Son by whom the Father and Son do work not as by an instrument but as by an associate not as imparting any superiority in them or inferiority in the Spirit but Order only that they which are one in Essence but distinct in personality might not be confounded as they cannot be divided from one another in operation therefore as they are in one another so they work from and by one another 2. The words which he mentions in the Margent as Bezaes upon the place though I have diligently perused Beza I cannot find neither in Matthew the Text that is controverted betwixt us nor yet in any of those Texts in John which speak of the Spirit which he cites neither would they be any whit advantageous to him were they found in Beza for they speak of Christ as absent in body which none denies but that whole Christ is absent is not asserted in the words but the contrary seems to be implyed for the absence of Christ is limited to his body Caeterum corpore abest are the words so that Christ may be present in that spirit of holiness which is his divine Nature of which Paul speaks in Rom. 1. 4. without any contradiction to Beza if any such words may be found in him 3. The words of Beza upon the place do differ greatly from the words he presents as his and do not favour his exposition at all but may well be interpreted so as to cohere with the use I make of that Text Cum autem idem ipse dominus paulo ante dixerit c. saith
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
find these letters sometimes interpreted beginning and end Rev. 1. 8. which is the Text in controversie sometimes first and last as ver 11. sometimes beginning and end and first and last Rev. 22. 13. therefore his attempting to make a difference betwixt Alpha and Omega as signifying beginning and end and as signifying first and last is very frivolous and senseless I shall now examine his third Reason and see whether that will speed any better 3. Because saith he the terms in the Text are elsewhere apparently and professedly given to God the Father distinct from the Son he is called Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end Rev. 21. 5. 6. And he that sate upon the Throne said I am Alpha and Omega The Angel useth the same phrase Rev. 22. 13. and doubtless in the same manner Repl. Suppose it should be granted that these terms Alpha and Omega be given to God the Father dinstinct from the Son Rev. 21. 6. yet they are not attributed to the Father Rev. 22. 13. but to the Son as hath been evidently proved already and it is not his doubtless the same phrase Rev. 22. 13. is used in the same manner that will carry it against such uncontroulable reasons that have been brought for it viz. that Christ distinct from the Father is called Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end And hence I would draw an Argument If these termes Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end be professedly given to the Father distinct from the Son Rev. 21. 5. 6. and the same termes be given to the Son distinct from the Father Rev. 22. 13. then the Father and the Son are one and the same God and distinct only in their personality for he confesseth himself that these termes Alpha and Omega as signifying beginning end areproper to the most high God and denies that they are given to Christ if then they be given to both the Father and to Christ then it will follow that the Father and Christ are this high God and this is the consequence of his own premises Oh that he might once come to see the sadness of his state to be left to such blindness and darkness as not to be able to see or else to such pertinacie and obstinacie of spirit that he will not see when such clear palpable not one but many texts are before him which have the truth of the coeternity coessentially and coequality of Christ with the Father written engraven upon them which every ingenuous Reader must will acknowledge Truly if there were no more Texts nor Arguments for Christs Diety but these which do denominate Christ to be Alpha and Omega the first and the last the beginning and the end And the Arguments which may be drawn from these they may be able being throughly weighed to convince any person that is rational and acknowledgeth the Scriptures that Christ is the most high God unless God have shut him up under that curse of Isaiah viz. Seeing they shall see and not understand and hearing they shall hear and not perceive c. That which he speaks of these words viz. He that is he which was and he which is to come as referring to the Father in vers 4. of this first Chapter is true but impugneth not our Position viz. That the same words in vers 8. of the same Chapter are referred to Christ who is elsewhere called Jehovah frequently the proper signification of which word is He which is he which was and he which is to come Having vindicated this Scripture of Rev. 1. 8. The next which follows is to be considered of which is Joh. 1. 1. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God That which he clouds the simplicity of this Text which gives such full witness to Christs eternal Diety with is another Translation or Reading which he frames and puts upon the Text which is this In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God and the Word was a God And he puts this sense upon them In the beginning in the first part of time was the Word Jesus Christ according to the Spirit of holiness and he means the soul of Christ did exist And the Word was with the God this Jesus Christ was a delight to the most high God and did converse with him And the Word was a God this Jesus Christ had power committed to him whereby he might represent the most high God This Translarion he fetcheth from the omission of the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ is called God without the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put therto but the Article is annexed to God referring to the Father and then he puts his Gloss upon it in a strange exposition of the words Rep. I grant his Observation to be true that in this place of John where God refers to the Father there is an Article affixed but where God refers to Christ there the Article is not affixed But is this a ground of such a Translation or Version which he hath framed is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God with an Article to be taken evermore for the most high God and is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God without an Article to be taken evermore for one that represents the most high God but is not the most high God If this be so then Christ is the most high God for he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God with an article in Heb. 1. 7. which is fetched from Psa 45. 6. which he hath so much disputed against endeavouring to prove Christ in that place to be but a creature God in the former part of his answer which I in my former Treatise of Reply have vindicated against him And the Father whom he hath stood for to the derogation of the other two persons endeavouring to prove him to be the only high God is not the high God at all for in Heb. 1. 6. he is spoken of as God without an Article Let all the Angels of God worship him that is Christ it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is without an Article Do but observe how God leaves him to confound himself because though he have parts yet he abuseth them and God takes the wise in their own craftiness And it is to be observed that Christ is called God with an Article annexed to it in the same verse where the Father is spoken of as his God and with an Article also Heb. 1. 9 which according to his collection makes both the Father and Christ to be the God that is the most high God and so to be coessential because there cannot be the most high God but one most high God Thus Christ is justified in his Diety by himself against his will Quest But the Question may be moved Why is the Article affixed to God when the Father is spoken of and not affixed to God when Christ is spoken
by his Spirit I shall utterly deny it as that which both wants truth in it and is absurd as that which is neither consistent with Scripture nor reason nor congruous to his own Opinion for he takes away Christs immensity and ubiquity and puts it upon the Spirit to prevent Christs being in Heaven and on Earth at once and his filling of Heaven and Earth with his presence that he might not thereby be acknowledged God and yet he makes the Spirit to be universally present and so makes him more then a creature wherein he contradicts himself for his words are these Christ doth all these works in his absence by his Spirit therefore the Spirit is present for he supplies the defect of Christs presence and yet withall he saith The spirit which received of Christs was Christs instrument by which Jesus Christ did the work Therefore he is not God for God cannot be an instrument therefore he is but a creature wherein he crosseth himself So then what must not be yielded to in Christ least he should be God he yields to the Spirit whom he makes not God but a creature And in this he not only sets Christ below the Father whom he acknowledgeth to be God but he sets him below the Spirit whom he acknowledgeth but a creature and now Christ is neither God nor yet the first and chief of the creatures for the Spirit is more excellent then he for the Spirit can be present with all the Apostles in all the parts and Climats of the World at one time to instruct them comfort them c. and Christ is shut up in Heaven and cannot And this is contradictory to himself for he makes Christ the first of the creatures and the Maker of the rest and the Lord of them and he makes him a Spirit in his first existence and yet the Spirit that was made by him can be with all the Apostles and Disciples and Saints also and abide with them for ever and administer to them all good but Christ who is his Lord and Maker cannot O monstrous and senseless Opinion wherein God leaves him to be confounded But how contradictory to reason is this that the Spirit should be the instrument of Christ and so a creature inferiour to Christ and yet be present in all places in Heaven in Earth in the Sea and every where for where ever Saints be there the Spirit is Saints are in all these places The Spirit is one that bears witness in Heaven 1 Joh. 5. 7. Therefore there he is and he bears witness on Earth in the hearts of Believers in Rom. 8. 16. and therefore there he is And the whole Spirit dwels in every Saint for we do not read of any parts of the Spirit into which he is divided and if Saints be every where the whole Spirit is every where and such a boundless Essence is not competent to any creature it is that which God himself arrogates as proper to him do not I fill Heaven and Earth Jer. 23. 24. whole God fils every place and the whole Spirit fils every Saint As bodies have their loca their places so Spirits all created ones have their ubi their some where out of which and beyond which they are not they are confined if they be not circumscribed but of the Spirit it is said whither shall I go from thy Spirit the Spirit is everywhere It is also extreamly repugnant to Scripture that the Spirit should be Christs instrument and consequently a creature and it is as gross as the denying of the Diety of Christ and his Heresie is multiplyed in this Assertion 1. An Instrument acts and works after the will of the principal efficient but the Spirit after his own will as himself pleaseth and therefore no instrument 2. The person by whom Christ wrought Miracles was no instrument but Christ according to his humane nature wrought Miracles by the vertue and power of the Spirit therefore he was no instrument Mat. 12. 28. Acts 10. 38. 3. He that was the uncture with which Christ was annoynted and became more excellent and glorious then all his fellows he that was the enrichment of Christ as man as a creature above all creatures that exalted him in eminency above all Angels c. was not any instrument inferiour to Christ but superiour to him as a creature but the Spirit was the uncture wherewith Christ was annoynted Act. 10. 38. and he received not the Spirit by measure as others did but beyond all measure Joh. 3. 34. whence he came to excell all his fellows Heb. 1. 9. 4. He that is the Spirit of God and is to God as the spirit of a man is to man he that alone knoweth the deep things of God and searcheth them that is hath deep full perfect knowledge of them he cannot be an instrument to Christ to take what Christ a creature as he makes Christ to be shews him and no more and to shew them to men but the Spirit is the Spirit of God and stands to God as the Spirit of a man stands to man and searcheth the deep things of God therefore cannot be an instrument to take from Christ and bring and shew to men And it is contrary to Scripture to make the Spirit a creature as if he be a creatures instrument as he would make him he must needs be 1. He is called God by the Apostles of Christ therefore he is God Act. 5. 3 4. compared together prove it in the 3. ver Peter saith to Ananias Thou hast lyed to the holy Ghost in the 4. vers he saith Thou hast lyed to God He makes the holy Ghost to be God for he shews the person against whom the sin was committed it was not man it was not any creature it did rise higher it was the holy Ghost he was God So that the holy Ghost and God are one and the same thing And 1 Cor. 3. 16. Paul makes him God in these words Know ye not that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you This latter is the proof of the former because the Spirit of God dwels in you therefore saith the Apostle you are the temple of God here is no mention of Gods dwelling in them but of the Spirits dwelling in them if therefore the Spirit were not God the Argument of the Apostle were nought And by the Evangelist Luke in Act. 10. 3. 19 20. compared together he is called God in vers 3. it is said The Angel of God came in to Cornelius and commanded him to send men for Peter in vers 19. 20. it is said That the Spirit told Peter that he had sent those men to him and therefore he must go with them The men were sent upon the command of the Spirit therefore the Spirit was that God that sent the Angel and to be the Angel of the Spirit and the Angel of God is all one 2. He is called the God of Israel 2 Sam.
Beza that is When as the self-same Lord Jesus had said a little before Me you shall not have alwayes and was to ascend a little after it is apparent that there must be a distinction respecting the maner and way of Christs presence and absence in body he is absent but in vertue he is wholly most present in which vertue he doth communicate himself and all his things really in a spiritual way by faith unto us Here is not one Word of the Spirit of God but of the vertue and power of Christ in which he is present which cannot be the vertue of his body or of his Humane Nature in which he was so far absent for none of that could extend so far unless conveyed by that which was present viz. the divine Nature which is present everywhere and conveyes vertue from whole Christ to believers The next Scripture which he invades and labours to overthrow is Rev. 2. 2. I know thy works whence I infer Christs Godhead because otherwise at such distance he could not know all their works But he answers with Intergatories of admiration because of the absurdity which he pretends to apprehend in it His words are these What could he not Is any thing too hard for the Lord Could the Prophet Elisha know at a very great distance what the King of Syria said in his Bed-chamber and yet cannot Christ know at a distance He hath the Spirit viz. Wisdom and power c. given him without measure Joh. 3 34. and therefore can know beyond what we can conceive Rep. When our Lord Jesus Christ tels the Churches that he knows their works his scope is not to discover to them what knowledge he had by revelation from the Father but it was to make them sensible what quick sharp piercing eye-sight he himself had and what a vaste incomprehensible understanding and knowledge he had for the comfort of all true Saints and for the terror of all Hypocrites in all the Churches and this is maniffest from 23. ver of the same Chapter had he but read the Chapter over he would not have admired at me viz. at my collection but at his own Answers I will kill her children saith Christ with death and all the Churches shall know that I am he that searcheth the reines and hearts c. In these words we may observe first what a knowledge it is that Christ hath of the works and wayes of the Church and what it is he knows it is an inward penetrating knowledge it is of the most unsearchable parts it is of the most hidden works it is of the works of the hearts and reines of men Secondly how Christ came by this knowledge not by any discovery that any other made to him but by and from himself he hath this knowledge it is a knowledge which he hath in himself it is his own knowledge I search the hearts and the reines Thirdly for what end Christ declares this his exquisite and perfect knowledge of all things in man which he hath in himself that all the Churches may know who he was what an one he was more observant of all secret wickedness then they were aware of that they might fear tremble more in reference to the eye of Christ then they did before Fourthly what this science or knowledge of Christ doth denotate and demonstrate Christ to be no less then the most high God for the most high God doth assume power and perfection of searching and trying hearts and reines to himself as his own proper prerogative which none is enabled to challenge in Jer. 179 10. The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked who can know it as if he should have said None can know it But then he excepts himself I the Lord search the heart and try the reines that is I alone do it and yet Christ attributes this high Divine transcendent knowledge to himself and with such suitable words as if Christ were the person speaking in Jeremie or as if the person speaking in Jeremie spake also in the Revelation as if one and the same person spake in both places for they challenge one the same thing the close of the speech in both places is the same and it shews that one and the same God speaks in both places if not one and the same person And now if Mr. Knowles have any ingenuity in him he will open his eyes and lie under the conviction of this Text unless he have sold himself to be deluded and to seduce others It appears by what hath been presented that he cannot evade the strength of this Text of Rev. 2. 2. and the collection made there-from with his instance of Elisha who knew what the King of Syria spake in his Bed-chamber which was done not by any wisdome that was in him but by the revelation of God but Christs knowledge was not such was not from an other but from and in himself But he rests not in that but flies to the Spirit which he saith was given unto him beyond all measure Joh. 3. 34. But what is this Spirit which was given to him which made him thus wise that he could know all the works of the Churches This Spirit is in his opinion but a creature he called him but very lately Christs instrument and his whole scope in his Book is to shew that the Father alone is God the most high God therefore according to him the Spirit is but a creature And shall Christ have all this help from a creature to know all the works of the Churches Doth the Spirit himself know all the hidden workings of the hearts of all Churches and of all Saints There are works of the hearts and reines doth the Spirit know them if he be but a creature The Scripture tels us that none can know them but God Psal 26. 2. 139. 23. and Jer. 11. 20. Chap. 20. 12. But he saith the Spirit is not God therefore cannot know such things therefore by the gift of him Christ cannot come to know such things And how comes the Spirit being but a creature to know more then Christ and to be Christs instructor when Christ is the chief of all the creatures and a God in wisdom and strength in comparison of them according to his opinion is not here an inconsistency which doth always attend falshood Nor can the Spirit without measure be given to Christ if the Spirit as he asserts be but a creature for then himself is measured being finite and not infinite and must be given in measure therefore by the gift of him Christ cannot know all things Yea further it may be said though the Spirit were infinite as indeed he is infinite and is good whatever he weakly and sinfully asserts to the contrary yet Christ being but a creature as he desperately argues he cannot be given without measure for things are received according to the capacity of that which doth receive and not above it and so
Christ being finite as he holds and measurable doth stint and limit and bring to a bound and to a measure all that he receives and indeed his humane nature that did receive the Spirit being finite was not capable of the Spirit without measure though the Spirit himself be without measure but it is an hyperbolical expression and the meaning is Christ had aboundance of the Spirit as he was man beyond all men and all creatures but no finite proportion of the Spirit will enable Christ as man to know by his own wisdom that resides in him all the works of all the Churches for none but the searcher of all hearts can do that because there are may hidden works of the heart Now this Searcher of hearts is God only therefore Christ is God But he goes on and saith Though Christ hath such a knowledge yet he is not the most high God for his knowledge is of another Joh. 5. 30. I can of mine own self do nothing as I hear I judge c. Repl. I have already answered some parallel Scriptures to this in my former Treatise pag. 145. to which I refer the Reader I shall adde something out of Beza and Chemnitius and so pass over it I can do nothing of my self that is saith he meo unius arbitratu potentia vel voluntate à patre separata cum una eadem sit patris mea tum potentia tum voluntas ut essentia that is by my own single proper power or will separate and apart from the Fathers I can do nothing when as my Fathers will and power and mine are one and the same even as the Essence is one As I hear The Fathers shewing saith he and the Sons hearing do relate to one another that is nothing but the Fathers giving community of vertue and power and of the very Essence it self by generation from Eternity to the Son and the Sons hearing is nothing but the reception of it Or saith he it may respect the humane nature of Christ Christ as man acts nothing doth nothing apart from the will of his own Diety for though the Divine will and the humane be two wils in number yet they be not two but one in consent and agreement and so one with the Fathers will And Christ as man as he hears that is as the Father suggests to him so he judgeth which is true of the Divine will in Christ suggesting to the humane And Chemnitius in his Harmony interprets the Sons not doing any thing of himself to arise not out of the imbecillity of the Son but from the absolute and perfect identity of the Father and the Son in Essence and all essential properties and acts and the Sons hearing he expounds to be the Sons knowing together with the Father all things decreed in the secret Counsel of the Divinty or Divine Essence And without doubt the undivided operations of the Father and Son are pointed out As I hear I judge saith Christ and in Joh. 8. 15. I judge no man and ver 50. the Father seeketh and judgeth and yet in Joh. 5. 22 The Father judgeth no man but hath committed all judgement to the Son These Scriptures cannot be reconciled better then to say they judge in one another the Father in the Son the Son in the Father they act undividedly the Father is in Christ in all Christs operations and the Son sees and hears and knows the Father and the things of the Father in himself He concludes his answer to this text of Rev. 2. 2. thus Though he alwayes knew all things necessary for the perfect discharge of his offices yet there was a time when he was excluded from the knowledge of the hour and day of judgement Mark 13. 32. But of that day and hour no one knoweth neither the Angels that are in heaven nor the Son unless the Father Therefore his knowledge was not formally of himself nor alwaies perfect Rep. This text of Mark is to be interpreted of Christ according to the humane nature as he is the Son of man for in that sense he is also called the Son without any addition 1 Cor. 15. 28. compared with 23. for Christs manhood is there spoken of for it is said Christ should first rise which as man he onely doth and then ver 28. he is called the Son which must refer to the same consideration of Christ as man And if it were otherwise that Son were alwaies taken for Son of God yet sometimes a thing is spoken of in one nature and must be understood in another Acts 20. 28. it is called the bloud of God but it is meant of the humane nature because considered as God Christ hath not any bloud And as the Son of man is higher then the Angels and knoweth more then the Angels having a more excellent anointment then they therefore the gradation is consistent and sutable enough neither the Angels nor the Son according to flesh which you will think more strange because he is wiser then the Angels And whereas he seems to limit it to the Father onely it must not be understood exclusively as shutting out Christ as he is the Son of God from eternity or as shutting out the Spirit for first if the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interpreted by him unlesse and translated but be alwaies exclusive of all but the person mentioned then the Father would be excluded from knowing himself for Mat. 11. 27. the words run thus No one knoweth the Father unlesse the Son and so it is asserted of the Son no one knoweth the Son but the Father or unlesse the Father and so the Son is excluded from the knowledge of himself if the particle unlesse be alwayes exclusive which would be monstrous to be granted 2. It is manifest that the holy Ghost or Spirit of God knows the day and hour of judgement for it is said of him that he searcheth the deep things of God and this must be granted to be one of them 1 Cor. 2. 10 11. In which text it is to be observed that the exceptive particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless is to be found by which both Father and Son are excluded from knowing the things of God if we may believe him that this particle limits it only to him that is mentioned for the Spirit is onely mentioned 3. It is inconsistent to what is asserted of Christs knowledge Colos 2. 3. it is said that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in him how then should he be ignorant of the day of judgement as he was the Son of God And John 5. 20. the Father sheweth the Son all things that himself doth that is in himself the Father shews all things now this is one thing that the Father doth he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world and this is shewed in Christs very essence which is the same with his Fathers and in Christs very will which is the same
be also the Son of man on earth And therefore he useth these words That ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth This contest of Christ with the Scribes puts it out of doubt that Christ challenged to be principall and equal with the Father in pardoning sin and would not own himself to be ministeriall or instrumentall therein 2. It appears by this that Christ is principall in forgiving because the Scribes and Pharisees had no sooner conceived thoughts of a difference betwixt God and him denying him to be God and charging him with blasphemie for assuming that power which was peculiar to God but while such imaginations were in their hearts Christ before they could or did utter them did discover them and reprove them and therein Christ gave a signe to them that they had evill thoughts of him while they looked upon him as lesse then God or as below God for they might confute themselves in their own false conceits of Christ After this manner do we charge this person with blaspemie because he forgives sins being but a man and not God as we have thought and yet he knows the thoughts of our hearts and discovers that which we had only conceived and had not uttered and who can do such a thing as this but God Whether is it easier to say thy sins are forgiven thee or to say wherefore think you evill in your hearts when we expressed nothing with our lips Is it not as great a work to know the heart as to forgive sins Doth not Solomon speak to God after this manner Thou onely knowest the hearts of the children of men 2 Chron. 6. 30. Certainly this person though in flesh is notwithstanding more then flesh none other but God Christ administred matter of such expostulation to them that they might correct their former erring thoughts But if they were not instructed thereby yet we should understand what thence may be collected The same person forgave sins as discerned hearts but Christ not as man but as God discerned hearts therefore not as man but as God he forgave sins Nor can it be said that Christ knew their thoughts because God revealed them to him or because they gave some signes what imaginations were in them for Mark declares that Christ knew what they thought in and from his own Spirit that is by himself and not from any other therefore he forgave sins by and from himself and not by or from any other Mark 2. 8. 3. It is manifest from the Miracle that Christ wrought that Christ was principall in forgiving and that by and from himself he did it and not by power derived to him for he wrought the Miracle authoritatively and by his own power he did not work it in his Fathers name that is by way of dependence upon him and by prayer to his Father as sometimes he did when he would shew his manhood that he was the Son of man as wel as the Son of God but he wrought it by command speaking in his own name I say unto thee arise take up thy bed and walk and this authoritative command cameforth of his mouth was effectual before their eyes for this end that he might confute those evil thoughts they had conceived and harboured in their hearts concerning him viz. that he had blasphemed because being but a man he had arrogated and assumed that power to himself which is proper to God Had this been the Scribes and Pharisees errour that they thought he took to himself that power which indeed he did not viz. an absolute and independent power in remitting sins and yet it was but a derived power which he had from another and that it was not his own which he exercised then in the working of this miracle that they might know that they erred in their conceptions concerning his manner of working he should at this time especially rather then at another time by invocation upon his Father have effected it And the reason is because Christs designe was in working this miracle to teach them somewhat which they understood not and to rectifie their apprehensions concerning himself as these words import That ye may know that the Sonne of man hath power on earth to forgive sins I say unto thee who art sick c. arise and walk Now what was it that he would teach them was this it that he did act dependently upon his Father and had no such power of his own to forgive sins but derived it from his Father If so was this the means or the way to convince them of it to command in his own name the impotent man that was sick of so deadly a disease to arise and walk without any looking up to heaven or groaning in his spirit or speaking unto God his Father to effect it in him or by him Was it not rather the way to confirme them in their errour if that were their errour then to bring them to the knowledg of the truth therefore it is manifest and clear that he would teach them some other thing wherein indeed they erred and stood in need to be rectified they thought him but a man and that he usurped that power which belonged not unto him but was proper to God and that was to forgive sinnes in his own name and not ministerially but by and from himself this they called blasphemy Now he would in this rectifie their erring judgements by working a miracle in his own name and by a commanding word accompanied with answerable power and therefore saith That you may know that the Son of man even he himself hath power in himself and not derived from any other to forgive sins I say even I speak it as one that have authority in my self and need not to seek out to any other I say arise and walk This absolute and independent way and manner of working this miracle is a good demonstration in what way and after what manner he forgave sins and both by the one and by the other he would convince the Scribes and Pharisees that he though clothed in flesh and appearing only as a man was yet God equall with his Father and could work the same works of his Father Now though Christ seems to speak of the act of forgiving sins as an easier work then if he should say to the sick man arise and walk as these words of his seem to import Whether is it easier c. yet the works are both alike though one not easier then the other nor did Christ look upon the one as easier then the other nor did the Scribes and Pharisees look upon one as easier then the other for they look upon the act of absolving from sinne as proper to God and not appertaining to man But withall they thought that he deluded the people when he spake the words thy sins are forgiven thee because the effect was inward and not to be discerned by the eyes of the body and so the people could not
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
such without repentance can have no mercy As for that general knowledge which he comforts himself in it is a seeing a far off and is next to blindness it is like the light of him that saw men like trees walking there 's more darkness in it than light The mysterie of Christ is not seen in it it warms not heats not quickens not the heart in love nor by it are persons able to know what it is they stumble at It is the knowledge of those that care not what they know who behold that which appears above ground but wil not dig for knowledge as for silver Such who rest themselves contented with such a knowledge are never like to know that love of Christ that passeth knowledge Eph. 3. 10. This is but sutable to some other expressions of his concerning the person of Christ to know Christ to be a person sent of God hath been declared to be sufficient knowledge to save men and that text also in Rom. 10. 9. is made use of and this conclusion exserted from it that to know Christ to be the Lord whether created or uncreated whether the same with the Father or made by the Father is not material a person may be saved without it But such assertions are detrimental to godliness serve to nourish up ignorance of God and Christ and the mysterie of the Gospel in carnal persons who have been wont to say what need is there of so much knowledge to know my self a sinner and that Christ dyed for me is enough and Christ rebukes it and makes the Scribes and Pharisces ashamed of it when he asks them whose son Christ was and when they said David's he demands how it could be when David in spirit called him Lord but they were confounded and were not able to answer him Their general knowledge that Christ was David's son without a right perception of his Divinity in which respect he was David's Lord was no better then shameful ignorance seeing God had revealed both the one and the other both in them and us In the close of his answer he deals with a Scripture which I produced to prove that the satisfaction and merit that was in Christs bloud was from the subject person whose bloud it was it is called the bloud of God Acts 20. 28. And indeed he deals injuriously with it and evilly intreats it His words are these I shall offer these few things to consideration There may be some mistake in it God may be put for Christ or Lord and then the words must be thus read to feed the Church of Christ which he hath purchased with his own bloud And why may there be a mistake Because saith he the Churches of the Saints are called the Churches of Christ Rom. 16. 16. and there is possibility probability and facility to countenance it Repl. 1. Logicians have been wont to say a posse ad esse non valet consequentia that the deduction inference or consequence that is drawn from a may be to a being so is weak and very invalid There may be a mistake saith he and must there therefore be a mistake say I What good consequence can be in this 2. This Doctrine of mistakes in Scripture especially in points of such grand concernment is dangerous to be broached it tends greatly to engender Atheisme in the hearts of men and serves to no better a purpose then to unsettle men in the Faith for what will be the consequent of it if there be mistakes in some things contained in Scripture why not in other things and then what will remain firm that may be surely built upon And may not any Heretick when he is driven out and forced to forsake all other holds fly hither and shelter himself here there may be a mistake in the Text or Texts that are cited 3. If there were no other place of Scripture wherein Christ were called God and if there were no place that holds analogy with this of the Acts where the bloud of Christ is called the bloud of God there might then be better plea for a mistake which yet would be of evil consequence if it were granted but there is a cloud of witnesses that come in to evidence Christs God-head and there are parallel places to this Text that speaks of the bloud of God 1 Cor. 2. 8. Had they known him they would never have crucified the Lord of Glory Christ was crucified as he was man and shed his bloud as he was man and he was not crucified as he was the Lord of Glory nor did he shed his bloud as he was God and yet it is said the Lord of Glory was crucified and the bloud of God was shed The meaning is the Person who was Lord of Glory and who was God was crucified and shed his bloud but not as he was Lord of Glory nor as he was God but flesh was assumed the humanity was taken and in that nature he was crucified and shed his bloud But let it be weighed what he saith of the possibility The Scribe saith he through carelesness or somthing worse might here put God for Christ There are two places one in the old Testament another in the new which Willet conceiveth to have been mistaken by the Scribes negligence or somthing worse Repl. What Scribe doth he here speak of who might be thus negligent or somthing worse Doth he mean such Scribes as the holy men of God who were inspired by the holy Ghost made use of to write what was suggested and dictated to them by the Spirit Then those holy Men Prophets or Apostles whether ever they were who no question had the supervising and perusing of it after written would have discovered it and corrected it Doth he speak of any other Scribes who might afterwards write out Copies of such things The Original writing would have been extant to have detected and confuted such mistakes and fraud and falshood and there would have been godly ones enough in those Ages to have rectified out of the Original such error or deceit Can any Printer now by any craft or cunning bring corruption into any Text of Scripture but it would soon be discerned Nor could any Scribe then But he gives instances in Psal 22. 16. CAARI signifying as a Lyon is put for CARU they pierced and in Rom. 12. 11. we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 time for Lord. Repl. He that can search out these things and make use of them to serve his own turn whose saith soever he stumble thereby might also have presented such answers as are given by the Learned unto them for no question he hath read them and if he would have dealt candidly he would as well have produced the one as the other I shall only recite somthing of that which I have read in Rivet concerning the one Text who writes upon it and shall refer the Learned to satisfie themselves in reading him at large This Lection saith he
is confined to his body and so the whole humane nature of Christ is confined to one place and is not neither can be present with one saint on earth much less with all saints on earth and without this presence there can be no knowledge for Gods infinite knowledge is by his infinite presence but this hath also been spoken of before And because none can know the state of saints but he that can know the heart of saints but no creature doth this but he that made the heart and gave to man knowledge as the Scripture speaks Psal 94. 8 9 10. and this is God alone But he goeth on and saith None but the man Christ Jesus can intercede it being absurd to conceive that God can intercede unless it might be conceived that God hath a superiour Now if the man Christ Jesus doth intercede for his Church he knows her state and why he may not know it by a communication of power from the Father notwithstanding he be not God and man in one person is a riddle for the unfolding whereof I would willingly plow with your heifer Repl. The act of Intercession doth belong to Jesus Christ as man and the reason is strong which he renders but the ability to intercede seeing it must be for all saints according to their particular conditions and necessities doth appertain to Christ as God and the validity of his intercession is bottomed there also And whereas he speaks of a communication of power from the Father to know the state of the Church if he mean by it any inherent power or vertue residing in Christ but given by the Father by which Christ is inabled by himself from time to time to know all the hidden things and deepest secrets and the most inward thoughts and ways and the most retired temptations and spiritual necessities of the Church it is impossible for the reasons before mentioned and because there is not a greater thing by which the excellency and glory of that infinite wisdom of God himself can be discovered and made known then this to penetrate the hearts and discern the motions of the spirits of men and because the Lord himself by the Prophet Amos reckons this viz. the declaring unto man his thought among the great and proper and peculiar works of God which the creature cannot effect whch require an infinite power which no creature can be the subject of in Amos 4. 13. For lo he that formeth the mountains and createth the wind and declareth unto man his thought c. and then he concludes the Lord the God of hoast is his Name And because both God himself and the Prophets and holy men of God have attributed it to God alone as hath bin proved before and you may discern from Dan. 2. 11. that it is imprinted upon the very spirits and minds of the Heathen to acknowledge a peculiarity in this thing to appertain to God And because its possible a like for the Father to communicate to the creature a power of being every where as of knowing all things in all places yea the most insearchable things of all persons without any personal presence where such persons and things are And indeed it may as rationally and as truly be asserted that God may communicate his own nature and essence and all his attributes to the creature as communicate this attribute of omniscience or invest man with a power of knowing of the state of all saints which is all one for what is it that God cannot give a power to know if he can give power to know the inclinations hidden motions secret workings and abstruse actings of the soul and spirit and if God can make the creature to know as much as himself knows by communication then he can make the creature a God by communication And if we look into the way by which God himself comes to know these things we shall be able to discern that this knowledge cannot be communicated because all things and persons are of God and from God and they live move and have their being in him therefore it is impossible but that he should be acquainted with all their actings motions and ways but this is communicable which is the cause of this knowledge of God God cannot make persons or things to have their subsistings and motions in the creature and therefore he cannot communicate such a power and make it reside in the creature by which they may have such a knowledge The effect is no more communicable then the cause is communicable But if he meaneth by a communication of power from the Father to know the state of the Church nothing else but Gods revealing to Christ in heaven from time to time the state and condition of the Church and of all saints as he did to Daniel Nebuchadnezars Dream which was gone from him this will be granted as possible in reference to the creature but this is not properly a communication of power to the creature from the Father but the manifestation of Gods Wisdom and Power by the creature and the creature is not the subject of it in which this wisdom resides but God himself But this is not sutable to Christ to say that what knowledge Christ hath in heaven of the affairs of the Church and state of the saints is by Gods revelation for this would make Christ a Priest of like imperfection which was in the high Priests for they were capable of revelation also as well as Christ if God had pleased to have manifested himself unto them in the discovery of the Churches wants but it behoved Christ to be more excellent to be a Priest not in weakness but in strength and to be able to save to the utmost and consequently to have the ability of interceding in himself For to be able to save by anothers strength is such an ability as Paul speaks of when he saith I am able to do all things through Christ strengthning of me such ability is inability it is to be unable rather then able in and of himself as a child that is moved by the strength of the arms of the Mother or as a sick man that is upheld in his walking which makes nothing to the glory of Christ at all but is a dishonor to him and hence it is that it was needful that Christ should be God and man in one person that he might be the subject of this power and that he might by himself save us Besides it is unscriptural to say that the Father reveals the state of the Church to Christ and that Christ knows it not till then Yea it is repugnant to the Scripture for it is said Christ is he that searcheth the heart c. he knows because he searcheth and not because it is revealed to him But he passeth from this ninth Argument under pretence to visit my tenth and yet saith never a word to it but refers me to his answer to Matth. 28. 20. I am with you