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
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
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
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
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
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 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