heaven earth under the earth are represented by John in the service of blessing praising honouring glorifying the Father and the Son in like manner without any distinction they are not heard worshipping the Father through the Son but worshipping and honouring both Father and Son in like manner as two equals or as two coessential persons in the Godhead Yea lest it should be imagined that he that sitteth upon the Throne is the principal object of the worship and that the Lamb is the less principal subordinate and intermediate object of it because he is mentioned first and the Lamb is mentioned after him therefore vers 14. the four and twenty Elders are brought in in this vision worshipping him alone who liveth for ever and ever without the mention of any other though other persons are not excluded And who is this person that liveth for ever and ever It is Christ who gives himself this Title though it be his Fathers Title also Rev. 1. 18. I am he that liveth and was dead and behold I live for ever and ever So it is in the Greek and it concurs in words with this Text of Rev. 5. 14. 3. This distinction as he brings it and means it opens a door to the worshipping of men or Angels any that may be called God's representatives and which act among men in Gods Name for if that be the formal reason of worship given to Christ He is Gods Vice-Roy or Representative which are not Scriptural Titles but names of his own or others devising and he is one that acts in Gods Name then worship may be given to Moses Joshua the Prophets for Moses was in Gods stead to Aaron and to the people I have made thee a God to Aaron sairh the Lord to him Exod. 4. 16. And the Prophets came in Gods Name may they therefore be worshipped According to his Argument they may yea any person or thing that is a means by whom or by which God dispenseth himself to men in a Religious or spiritual way or by whom or which we come to God in worship may be an intermediate object of Religious worship and so we may worship our Ministers which go to God for us and from God come to us and we may worship the Scriptures and the Ordinances by which we have communion with God for these are intermediate things betwixt God and us in worship may they therefore be intermediate objects of worship Seeing he makes Christ such a god as other creatures are but more eminent then they such a god as Moses was as Magistrates and Judges were which carried Gods authority in the Offices upon them a god of the same kinde with them What reason can be rendered if Christ be worshipped upon that account why they also being such-like gods as he and coming with God's authority betwixt God and us should not be worshipped as intermediate objects upon the same account But this is very gross and makes his assertion concerning worshipping Christ as an intermediate object betwixt God and us very gross also 4. It is apparent that Christ both assumed and Saints and Angels have given to him that very worship and honour and service which is peculiar to the high God alone both for matter and for manner 1. Doctrines Institutions and Ordinances have been received submitted to upon the testimony and authority of Christ alone Mat. 5. 21 22. 1 Cor. 11. 23 24. 2. The Ordinances Institutions Laws and Rites of Moses were altered changed abrogated abolished by the Power and Lordship of Christ alone Acts 15. 28. 1 Cor. 12. 5. Heb. 3. 5 6. 3. Believers have rested trusted and depended upon Christ for spiritual help and supply of grace according to their needs Phil. 4. 13. and 2 Cor. 12. 8 9. a place worthy consideration and very convincing if rightly understood and duely weighed 4. Saints have acquiesced and quietly submitted and rested satisfied with the will of Christ and have given up themselves wholly to him to be disposed of according to his pleasure whether to do or to suffer Act. 9. 10. to 17. 2 Cor. 8. 5. 5. Religious praying or prayer for spiritual blessings as it is an act of Religion is a service and worship that hath been given to Christ Luk. 17. 5 the Disciples pray to Christ to increase their faith 2 Thess 2. 16 17 the Apostle Paul prayed to him and Hos 12. 4 Jacob of old time wept and made supplication to him 6. Praise also as it is an act of Religion hath been offered up to him 2 Pet. 2. 18. Jud. v. 24 25. Rev. 1. 6. 7. Swearing hath been by his Name Rom. 9. 1 Paul attests Christ flees to him as a witness and to his conscience let the place be weighed and it will â—ppear to be an Oath and that the words in Christ â—â— as much as by Christ Isa 45. 23. compared with Rom. 14. 11. Philip. 2. 10 11. And Rev. 10. 5 6 the Angel sware by him that liveth for ever and ever who created heaven and the things therein and the earth and the things that are therein and the sea and the things that are therein And who is this It is Christ to whom the Creation is attributed and to live for ever and ever is assumed by himself and he makes himself known by this attribute as I have shewed before from Rev. 1. 18. 8. In casting of the lot Christ was invocated for the disposing of it Acts 1. 24. That it was Christ whom they prayed to appears from hence 1. They call him Lord whom they pray to which is Christ's usual name in the New-Testament by which he was distinguished from the Father 2. To chuse an Apostle was Christ's proper work he chose the twelve Apostles and therefore must chuse him who must come in room and place of Judas who was one of the twelve and who fell from his Apostleship by transgression therefore they use it as an argument in their prayer Shew whether of these two thou hast chosen that he may take part oâ— this ministery from which Judas by transgression fell 3. Christ is the great Lord of the Church anâ— he ascended up on high that he might give these gifts to his Church Apostles Evangelists c. Eph. 4. 10 11. And he is the great Lord of all his Churches and administers all such things that respect the good of his Churches 1 Cor. 12. 5. 9. The conscience is subjected to Jesus Christ Eph. 6. 5 6 7 9. Masters and servants are enjoyned in this place by the Apostle to do their duties to each other with an eye to Christ and as the servants of Christ and as to the Lord and not to men and as having a Master in heaven with whom there is no respect of persons The Apostle would engage their consciences in the thing and therefore speaks so much of Christ and he could have laid no greater bond upon them if he had mentioned the Father See Col. 3. 22 23 24 where
sense of these words is in heaven agreeable to the acception of the like words and phrase of speaking used else-where in John 17. 24. Father I will that those whom thou hast given me be where I am that they may behold my glory Christ here speaks of heaven and of his glory in heaven and of the disciples coming thither and beholding his glory there and he speaks not in a mysticall sense of his own knowledge of divine things nor of the disciples knowing of such things as he knew but in a literall sense he speaks all and he saith I am there and yet he was on earth according to his manhood but he was in heaven also Where I am saith he that was heaven Christ was there How was that possible if Christ was not God if the words be taken literally there in Joh. 17. 24 then they are literally to be taken here in John 3. 13. The place discussed betwixt us the comparing of these two places together clears the sense of both and is repugnant to his interpretation And though he gives a literall sense to these words But he that came down from heaven viz. the Son being excepted who was in heaven and descended thence yet it is a corrupt and false and very dangerous sense that he gives which I met with in my former Treatise For he represents Christ in his descension as leaving heaven departing from thence and coming upon earth but this is contrary to the next expressions the sense of which I have cleared up where it is said that Christ was in heaven still notwithstanding that he descended so that it is a reall true descention or a true coming and appearing upon earth but not locall such as is appliable to the creature for that is not proper to Christ The creature in descending moves from the place it was in and leaves it but 't is not so to be conceived of Christ But thus Christ is said to descend in reference to his incarnation he being the Son of God assumed flesh of the Virgine by the divine inspiration of the Spirit of God and so was made the Son of man and so the Son of God appeared in the Son of man and this is called descending This is made manifest to us from John 1. 14. The word was made flesh and dwelt among us even the word dwelt among us in flesh and we beheld his glory in flesh the glory as of the begotten Son of God This glory was in heaven now in the Sons assuming flesh it is seen on earth in the seed of the woman this is the descending of Christ and after this manner the most high God is said to descend in Scripture God came into the temple after this manner not by moving from place to place which is not congruous to God but by a work declaring God to be there where he was not seen before And so God descended to see the tower that was built in a work and no other way and it is called descending after the manner of men and it is Gods descending all that is competent to God And this kind of descending of Christ must of necessity be yeelded unto because the locall is excluded by Christ in the very place where his descending is mentioned Having shewed the inconsistency of the exposition which he framed and gave of this Text of John and having fortified the sense in which I made use of it and for which I produced it I shall now answer unto that which by way of objection may be urged against the sense that I have put upon it Object It may be thus argued A locall corporeall ascension cannot be understood in reference to Christ because it is expressed in the preterperfect-Tense as a thing done but that was in a literall locall acception taken inconsistent to Christ because he was then upon earth and as he saith afterward was not ascended to the Father Sol. The preterperfect-tense hath ascended refers to no man not to Christ and there is an Elipsis in the words or a defectiveness in the expressions in reference to Christ therein of necessity that the words supplied should run in the preterperfect-tense but they may run in the future tense thus But he that descended shall ascend viz. the Son of man which is in heaven Or if the words should be supplied in the preterperfect-tense yet a change of tense which notes out the assurance of the thing it is spoken of as done because assuredly it is to be done cannot overturn the genuine sense of the place Obj. 2. It may be farther objected that the son of man is the subject who is said to be in heaven but the son of man is Christ under the consideration of his manhood and under that consideration it was impossible for him to be at that time in heaven for it is contradictory to the truth of his humanity to be at two places so greatly distant at the same time Sol. Here is in these expressions viz. the son of man which is in heaven that which they call Idiomatum communicationem that which is spoken in the concrete of Christ according to one nature transferred to another nature is as he himself must confess in other cases according to his Tenent to be often found in the Sripture in these words they would never have crucified the Lord of glory it is to be observed Christ was crucified according to the flesh but he was not the Lord of glory according to the flesh but spirit of holiness yet it is said the Lord of glory was crucified so it is said the son of man was in heaven but it is meant of the son of God and the meaning is the person that is called the son of man was in heaven though not as the son of man but according to the other nature as the Son of God But let us try the strength of his reasons which he brings for the countenancing of this exposition of his 1. Saith he this sense and meaning wherewithall I have clothed those words is no waies opposite to the analogie of faith There is nothing as I suppose in it which the doctrine of the Gospel will pick a quarrell with Repl. The nakedness of this reason is discovered in what I have already presented I have shewed that Christs ascending up to heaven is not any where taken in that sense which he puts upon it And that Christs being in heaven in the sense that he clothes it with is repugnant to a paralell place in Joh. 17. 24. so that he makes Scripture quarrell with it selfe and such an exposition which he hath given of Christs descending stands at defiance against all those pregnant places which do proclaim Christ to be coessential with the Father therefore both Old Testament and New will rise up against it and condemn it 2. He saith That the sense that he would have this Text to own is elsewhere challenged by the like phrases to themselves as
Revelation to the Churches For if Christ be but the principal instrument in conveying it then he is not of highest authority nor from him originally was the 〈◊〉 Now it is sensless and notoâ—iously 〈◊〉 to imagine that contrary conclusions 〈◊〉 proceed from the same premises 〈…〉 to the Father he argues thus from verse 8 The Father is Alpha therefore he is of highest authority and the original of this Revelation But in reference to Christ he argues thus from verse 11. Christ is Alpha therefore he is not of highest authority nor the original of this Revelation but the principal instrument only in conveying this Revelation to the Churches Would one think that rational persons should be taken with such kind of sottish and repugnant arguing which crosseth it self 4. In reference to verse 1. which is the text that seems most to countenance his assertions there is much unsoundness in his collections for either it must be thus understood that though God the Father gave this Revelation to Christ yet God the Father gave it not to Christ as an instrument simply considered but unto Christ who was his fellow for it is said of Christ That he shewed it to his servants and signified it by his Angel to his servant John so that Christ is set forth here in his dominion and Lordship equall with the Father over the creatures for more could not have been said of the Father in reference to the creatures then his servants his Angel his servant John or else if Christ be an Instrument and that God gave this Revelation to him as an Instrument yet this God is God the Father Son and Spirit that gave it to him for the word God must be taken essentially not personally and if Father had been named as it is not for it is said God gave unto him yet not of the Father exclusively and dividedly from the Son and Spirit must it be understood that he gave this Revelation to Christ Nor of whole Christ is it to be understood neither but of Christ according to his humane nature considered and so God viz. Father Son and Spirit gave this Revelation to Christ viz. to the Man Christ or Christ considered in his Man-hood and so Christ though in one respect he be an Instrument yet in another respect he is the principal Authour and original cause with the Father 5. Neither is there any new matter begun in this 8. verse as he affirms for if it be begun in it it is also ended in it for in the 9. verse there is a change of the person speaking but it is the conclusion of the Exordium or Preface Christ was described to come in the clouds and what an one he is that shall come in the clouds Christ himself giving witness to what John asserted declares who he is I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end saith the Lord Christ who will come in the clouds for either this 8. verse must have relation to verse 7. or else it is independent and hath relation to nothing But let the second Reason be looked into and proved whether there be any more strength in it 2. Because saith he those titles are no where in the Scripture attributed to Jesus Christ he is indeed called Alpha and Omega the first and the last verse 11. but not Alpha and Omega as signifying the beginning and the end Rep. There is a great deal of untruth in this assertion and much weakness unworthy of one that pretends to instruct others and to be a guide unto them in a way which they have not known 1. There is untruth for these titles are attributed in Scripture to Jesus Christ he is not onely called Alpha and Omega the first and the last but he is called Alpha and Omega as signifying the beginning and the ending in Revel 22. 13. the words are these I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end the first and the last Where we may observe 1. The person speaking which is Christ as may appear from verse 12. compared with verse 28. In verse 12. we have these words behold I come quickly and there is no change of the person in ver 13. but the same I saith I am Alpha and Omega but what person is it the Father or Christ he in his third Reason saith it is the Father But first the Scripture speaks not of the Fathers coming unless in the Son in Christ to give rewards but of Christs coming only in 1 Thes 1. 9. 10. They turned from Idols to serve the living God and to wait for his Son from heaven and Acts 3. 20. he shall send Jesus viz. the Father shall send him but of the Fathers coming Scripture speaks nothing 2. The Apostle John himself ends the controversie betwixt us verse 20. where first we have the same words spoken viz. surely I come quickly 2. We have the sense of them in reference to the person speaking them in the Apostle John's wish and desire Amen saith he come Lord Jesus he understood the person that spake those words to be Christ and not the Father 3. Christ himself clears it that it was he that spake those words I am Alpha and Omega verse 16. I Jesus saith Christ have sent mine Angel weigh the verses together from verse 13. to verse 16. and see whether there be any change of person but the same person that said I am Alpha and Omega said I Jesus have sent my Angel so that it is manifest that with a great deal of boldness he falsifies the truth in saying that Alpha and Omega as signifying the beginning and the end is no where in Scripture attributed to Christ 2. There is weakness in this Assertion of his unworthy of a Teacher in Israel 1. Because Alpha and Omega as signifying first and last are equivalent to Alpha Omega as signifying beginning and end for that whis is first is of it self and hath no cause and is eternal and without beginning and is the beginning of other things and this the very Heathens from the light of Reason within them will confess and that which is last must needs be the end 2. Because first and last which he grants to be attributed to Christ are Attributes of the most high God as he is distinguished froÌ„ the creature See Isai 41. 4. and 48. 12. but especially 44. 6. The words are I am the first and the last and besides me there is no God Here the most high God his design being to declare himself to be the most high God doth assume this title first last as proper to him who is God alone and there is none besides him 3. Because the true English of Alpha and Omega being Greek letters is first and last beginning and end for Alpha is the first and the beginning of the letters and Omega is the last and the end of the letters and these two letters do equally signifie beginning and end as first and last therefore we
God have all the Angels to wait upon him and all the creatures at his command to go for him and to do for him what he appoints yet if he were not essentially present himself with all and in all he could not supply all with all good that they want for he could not see all and know all if he were not present in all if he did not fill all and if all did not live and move and had not being in him Therefore the Lord argues in Jer. 23. 24. from his filling all to his knowing all the words are these Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him do not I fill heaven and earth saith the Lord and if this be so of God that he works all by his presence with all then it is so of Christ also and the words I will be with you though they may extend to actions of love and kindness and may comprise well dealing and doing good within them yet they do properly hold out the way and means in which Christ will be helpful to them he is with them alwaies to take notice of their condition and to apply himself thereto and Christ doth assure them that though he shall be bodily absent from them and in heaven yet in the eternal Spirit in the divine nature he is alwaies present with them In which sense he saith that he the Son of man though upon earth in his flesh was yet according to his diety in heaven John 3. 13. and chap. 17. 24. But he goes on and saith Jesus Christ is present with his Messengers and deals well with them when he doth instruct comfort strengthen and protect them and all these he doth in his absence by his Spirit whom the Father hath sent in his name John 14. 26. And he instanceth in instruction and saith Christ instructed his Apostles but not immediately for the Spirit saith he that came in Christs name and received of his was the instrument by which Iesus Christ did work And he cites Iohn 16. 13 14 15. for it Rep. I have shewed already that these operations of grace do not hinder the essential presence of Christ according to his Godhead with the Apostles but do rather imply it but he excludes it and saith he doth all these things in his absence by his Spirit Now though there be a truth in it that Christ being in heaven in flesh and absent from earth so far as respects the flesh doth effect all things by the Spirit yet it is not onely false but foolish in the sense that he intends it and in the words that he expresseth it in 1. I shall readily grant it in a sense that Christ works all by the Spirit and that there is an order of working among the persons in the Godhead and in this order the Father works by the Son and by the Spirit and the Son works from the Father and by the Spirit and the Spirit works from the Father and from the Son by himself and the Father is the person sending both the Son and the Spirit and the Son is the person sent from the Father and sending the Spirit with the Father and the Spirit is the person sent both from the Father and from the Son but it will not follow that therefore Christ though bodily absent is personally absent from his Messengers and instructs them not immediately by himself but onely by the Spirit For as it is said in Iohn 5. 17. by Christ of the Father My Father worketh hitherto and I work The Father worketh all things by the Son he made the world by the Son and he judgeth no man but hath committed all judgement to the Son that is by the Son he judgeth and manageth all things and not without him yet he worketh that cannot be denied though by the Son yea the very works that the Son worketh and all of them and none other but them the Father worketh the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father and the Father and the Son are one in essence though two in personality and the Father and the Son work one thing the Father by the Son and the Son from the Father and the Son can do nothing of himself apart from the Father nor the Father any thing apart from the Son but by him as I have shewed at large in my former Treatise so it may be said of the Son and of the holy Ghost that the Son worketh hitherto and the holy Ghost worketh that is they work the same work the Son by the holy Ghost and the holy Ghost from the Son and the holy Ghost shall not speak of himself nor act of himself as saith the Scripture which he cites that is he shall not speak or work any thing apart from the Son but what he shall hear and see that shall he speak and do and the Son doth speak and act by him the same things and nothing else for the Son is in the holy Ghost and the holy Ghost in the Son and they are one in essence and therefore cannot be divided in operation but work the same things in such an order of working and to this the Scripture gives witness in 2 Cor. 3 17. The Lord is called the Spirit and the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Lord Christ how can this be Essentially the Lord Christ is the Spirit they are one Personally considered the Spirit is the Spirit of the Lord Christ and the Lord Christ is not the Spirit And Rev. 2. 1. to 6. compared with verse 7. In verse 1. to 6. Christ is the person that speaks to the Church and so to all the Churches and commands John to write but in verse 7. it is said he that hath an ear to hear let him hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches so that Christ speaks and yet the Spirit speaks and Christ and the Spirit are one in essence though two in persons and Christ spake to the Churches by the Spirit and the Spirit spake from Christ But they act and work together the same things and none other as the Father and the Son do so do the Son and Spirit and indeed Father and Son and Spirit are one in essence and one in operation the order of working onely excepted 1 John 5. 7. so that Christs instructing by the Spirit obstructs not Christs personal presence with the Disciples here upon earth though his body be in heaven And the sending of the Spirit both by the Father and by the Son are acts of counsel among the persons in the Godhead as hath been fully declared in reference to Christ who was sent of the Father and yet gave himself And the Spirit though sent when he cometh acteth not meerly as one sent according to the will of another but as himself willeth 1 Cor. 12. 11. so that his sending was by counsel with his own consent 2. In the sense that he asserts it that Christ in Heaven acts
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
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
prout is rightly translated even as the son Christ is even as the Father I suppose it cannot be spoken of any creature so the words è regione ex adverso are rendred over against right against which is spoken of a thing or person that matcheth an other set this against that to fellow it or match it But what creature is there that may be set up è regione Dei patris opposite to God to match him And so secundum juxta which signifie according hard by beside or nigh another thing or person and it is rendred equal juxta à jugo saith the Etymologist Now fellows are joyned in the yoke such a nighnesse as that the son fellows the Father And if the words do any of them sometimes in their use import an afternesse or a seconding and following it may be granted and yet to the other sense that they carry of equality hold notwithstanding for in order of subsisting and working though in nature and essence not so the Son is after and second and yet is God the Fathers fellow I grant that the word is rendred a neighbour in Levit. 6. 2. and proximus is Englished a neighbour and therefore I accord with Tremelius who saith the Hebrew word doth sound as much as proximus a neighbour and we know who is mans neighbour one of the same kind a man like himselfe and in that respect his fellow his equall But who is this Lord of Hoasts neighbour any meere man consisting onely of soul and body Then God and man have one and the same neighbour but it is little less then blasphemy to say that any creature is Gods neighbour no it is a person of the same nature and essence that is his neighbour the eternall Son of God is the Fathers neighbour was nigh him and by him from Eternity And to be in the bosome of the Father and at his right hand is not a place fit for any meere creature but fit for one equall But he makes two collections from the signification of the word 1. Saith he Christ is the principall object of Gods dearest love The man my fellow whom I most love saith Grotius Repl. This will be readily granted and the other viz. coequallity not impedited nor gainsaid by it for the Father loves his coequall better then all others and because he is of the same nature and therein coequall therfore he loves him best 2. Saith he Christ is Gods principall servant in his high transactions one that is Gods representative Repl. That Christ according to his humane nature is Gods servant is granted but that it may be collected from this place of Zachery that he is Gods servant or that the Hebrew word translated fellow doth import so much or that whole Christ is Gods servant is denyed and is not proved by him but is his naked assertion He concludes thus I might now collect from the words something to oppose the doctrine you assert they being spoken of a man and in reference to the Lord of Hosts who cannot possibly have an equall unless it were possible to have two Gods Repl. This man that is spoken of in the words which have been now discussed is that Lord of Hoasts spoken of in Zech. 2. 8 9 10 11. And if so I hope one Lord of Hoasts is fellow equall to an other Lord of Hoasts and yet it will not follow that there are two Gods but onely two persons in the Godhead which do fellow one another and are equall The next Scripture in my paper that I presented him with for the confirming of the undoubted truth of Christ's Godhead was John 3. 13. No man hath ascended up into heaven but he that came down from heaven the Son of man which is in heaven To this Text he gives this answer by which he would evade the omnipresence of Christ and so not confesse him to be God The words saith he may be thus understood No man hath ascended up into heaven that is no man hath known those divine things c. but he that came down from heaven that is the Son being excepted who was in heaven and descended thence for some works that he was to do on earth Who is in heaven that is in the bosome of the Father knowing secrets and divine things as they are in themselves Repl. This interpretation is neither concordant to it selfe nor to the truth 1. To it selfe it agrees not because ascending and descending and existing in relating all to heaven are all to be taken either literally according as the words sound or else they are all to be taken metaphorically and spiritually but he expounds some of them in a mysticall figurative sense and others in a plain literall sense To ascend up to heaven is not to be understood as he gives the exposition of a personall ascension but of a mentall contemplation And to be in heaven is only in a spirituall sense in speculation in beholding with the eyes of the soul divine things and the Fathers secrets But to descend from heaven that must have no metaphoricall sense as the rest had but a literall sense put upon it and the descension must be personall Now here is a discordancie in these things and he gives no reason of this varying in his interpreting Ascending and descending are also opposites and if so then they must be taken in an opposite sense if ascending then be taken for deep knowledge and science of divine things then descending is departing from deep knowledge and science of divine things which will be very absurd in his own conceptions 2. This exposition agrees not with the truth for ascending in Scripture is taken when it refers to Christ as well as when it refers to others In another sense viz. in the plain literall externall sense John 6. 62. What if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before And chap. 20. 17. I ascend unto my Father and unto your Father c. And touch me not I am not yet ascended And Ephes 4. 8 9 10. And I do not remember any one place where ascending into heaven is taken in his sense but in the literall sense And it seems to be discrepant and disagreeing to the phrase and manner of Scripture expression For when divine knowledge and wisdome is spoken of or other such gifts they are said to come down from heaven from above unto men and men are not said to ascend up to heaven though there may be a truth in it that a man ascends up to heaven not in his knowing so much as in the use of his knowledge in his beholding and viewing of spirituall things And if a spirituall sense is not proper unto ascending into heaven then is not Christ's being in heaven to be interpreted in a spirituall or mysticall sense but look in what sense he ascended and descended in that sense it may be said he is in heaven that is in a literall sense nor is this spiritual
he had a glory it was not any created glory for that consisted in dominion which was not til the world was and then what glory could it be but that which we contend for divine uncreated glory which holds forth him to be an uncreated and eternal being and by consequence to be the most high God But he brings reasons for his own tenent that whole Christ is a creature from this Text of John and attempts the overthrow of my assertion of Christs Deity which I contend for from this Text. 1. Saith he If Christ were equall with the Father why doth Christ direct his prayer to his Father There had been no need nor can cause be shewed why he should supplicate to his Father and not act relyance on the Godhead Repl. I have rendred reasons for it in my former Treatise in my reply to his fift argument which was this He that acteth with dependance on another is a creature but whole Christ acteth with dependance To which I referre the reader because it is largely discussed there and it is a tedious unpleasing thing to multiply repetitions though he delights himselfe too much therein yet lest that Treatise should not be at hand I shall satisfie the Reader thus far It behooved the Godhead in the person of the Son to be veyled for this was the Sons emptying of himselfe but not so the Godhead in the person of the Father therefore the Son acts not dependance upon the Godhead that dwelt in himself in the person of the Son or as it was in himself but as it was in the Father 2. He saith We do not use to pray but praise for things we have if we know that we have them Now Christ could not want the highest glory in any sense if he were a person in the Trinity coequall with the Father especially not be without it with the Father nor in heaven in any sense whatsoever as by the clouding darkning or obscuring of it therefore the glory which he had with the Father was not the highest glory but a glory proceeding from the highest and by consequence Christ was but a creature Repl. It is true that the highest glory he being a person in the Trinity coequall with the Father could not be separated from him for it follows the divine essence and cannot be divided from it but it might be and indeedwas obscured and clouded not to the Father nor to the Son himselfe for the Father saw it and gave witnesse to it and so did the Son and comprehended it fully but to the creature it was darkned and obscured and but some small beams and rayes of it appeared the Son was incarnate or in flesh but the glory of the Son appeared not in flesh in fulnesse of lustre like the glory of the Son but the form of God in the Son was veyled and hidden in the form of a servant Now Christ prayes that that essentiall divine glory might be manifested in flesh that he the Son in flesh might appear in glory when he should come to heaven as he did before he took flesh that as the Godhead was hidden in the manhood so the manhood might be glorified with the Godhead that the flesh might be taken up into the fellowship of the glory of the Divinity by the shining forth and breaking out of the glory of the Divinity in the flesh 3. It appears saith he that the glory which he had with the Father was not divine or the highest glory because it was to be communicated Glorifie me O Father with that glory c. Now the highest glory being infinite could not be given or communicated to the humane nature which was finite and so uncapable of it c. Repl. Though the divine glory cannot be communicated to humane nature so as that it should be inherent in the humane nature yet it may gloriously shine forth upon it and appear in it which it did not before yea by reason of the hypostaticall union betwixt the divine nature and the humane nature the glory of the divine nature becomes the glory of the whole person so as that when the glory of the Son shines forth in its greatest strength in the flesh it may be predicated and asserted of the man Christ that he is glorified with the glory which the Son had with the Father before the world was Because the man Christ is the same person with the eternall Son of God Thus all the Scriptures which I drew witness to that Jesus Christ is the true God and the most high God notwithstanding all his endeavours to suffocate their testimony and his attempts by violence to silence them that they should not speak what they would speak yet they have with open mouth with one consent given glory unto Christ by witnessing to his Godhead and to his coessentialness and to his coequality with the Father I shall conclude my Vindication of them with these words Let God be true in what he hath testifyed of his Son in Scripture and every man that opposeth let him be a lyer My next undertaking must be the defence of the Arguments which I produced and drew up from Scripture by which I attempted to prove the destructivenesse of the Doctrine which he holds making whole Christ a creature to the true Gospel and oppositeness of it to the Scripture in many main points and truths of it My Assertion was That the doctrine which makes Christ a meer creature brings in as it were another Gospel and destroyes the true Gospel in many parts thereof and brings in another Scripture in many main points He cals this a reason against his doctrine of Christ a meere creature and so it is not onely to shew the falsenesse of such doctrine but also to discover the horridnesse and hideousness of the doctrine that all might be warned of it and with fear and trembling may decline it But he wisheth him to be Anathema that holds any such doctrine that destroyes the Gospel or the Scripture and falls upon the examination of the instances or Arguments which I produced to confirme that generall reason Therefore because he is so confident that his doctrine will not prove such and because he hath possessed the people that though there should be a mistake in it on his part yet it is not so dangerous as I would make it and that the salvation of mens soules is not so nearly concerned in it as I would have men to conceive and that Christ is never a whit less a sufficient Saviour though but a creature and that it is enough to beleeve unto Salvation that Christ is Lord viz. made Lord and that God raised him from the dead by which means persons have become lesse solicitous what doctrine they entertain they see it hath a specious shew and conceive it will not prove destructive though it should prove false therefore I think it expedient to fortifie my position which respects the oppositenesse of this doctrine of his both
is not one single person but subsists in a plurality of persons Therefore he that makes his subsistence to be single and such as his essence is denyes and destroyes this one onely God Which I prove further The Father is said to be the onely true God John 17. 3. and the Son is called the true God 1 John 5. 20. This Adjective onely refers not to the subject person Father but refers to the predicate or thing that the Father is said to be viz. the true God which is but onely one which is clear from a paralell place in Jer. 22. 30. where the word onely is used in like manner the children of Israel and Judah have onely done evill have onely provoked me The word onely is not to be applyed to the subject persons spoken of as if they onely and no other people had done evill and provoked God but it is to be applyed to the thing that is spoken of them they have only done evill and onely provoked that is they have done nothing else but evill nothing else but provoke so in John the Father is said to be the one only true God but not he only to be the true God for the Son is called the true God as wel as he in the place before named in 1 Joh. 5. 20. Whence I argue that the one only true God is Father and Son as for the holy Ghost I always include him though I have not occasion to speak of him here there is no God no true God but that God that is Father and Son and he that denys either of these denyes this one onely true God He then that acknowlegeth the person of the Father to be God but acknowledgeth not the person of the Son to be God brings in a strange God an unscripturall God and a false God For there is no such God as subsists in the person of the Father onely and hence it is that the Apostle John saith 1 John 2. 22 23. he is an Antichrist that denyeth the Father and the Son And he that denyeth the Son denyeth the Father also that is such an one acknowledgeth not the true God at all what-ever men may think of him Yet further the Father is called the only God Joh. 17. 3. Christ is cald the only God Jud. 4 24 25. But some think otherwise that the Father and not Christ is called the only God and that Jude speaks in ver 4. of Jesus Christ afterwards as distinct from the onely God but that it is otherwise I prove first from the right translation of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is denying the onely God and Master the Lord Jesus Christ It is not said the onely God and the Master with an article the Lord Jesus Christ for then he had spoken of two persons that they denyed viz. the onely God that is one and the Master the Lord Jesus Christ that is another but it is said the onely God and Master the Lord Jesus Christ as speaking of one person only which is Christ 2. From the concordance betwixt this Scripture and that in 2 Pet. 2. 1. They are paralell in three particulars 1. In the title that is put upon Christ in both places he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in both places is translated in our Bibles Lord but is rather to be turned Master 2. The crime and fault that is charged upon them is the same it is denying their Lord or their Master 3. The persons seeme to be the same in both places for they are in all things described alike false Teachers in one place filthy dreamers in the other place they privily come in and act and worke in the one place they creep in at unawares in the other place They walke after the flesh and despise government in one place They defile the flesh despise dominion in the other place Their judgement of long time lingreth not and their damnation slumbreth not in one place and they were before of old ordained to condemnation in the other place Their ruine is set forth by the punnishment which God inflicted upon the Angells that fell and upon the old world and upon Sodom and Gomorrah in one place and in the other place by the Children of Israel that fell in the Wildernesse by unbeliefe and by the Apostate Angells and by Sodom and Gomorrah and the Cities about them So that it seems to be one and the same Prophecie wherewith both Peter and Jude were inspired and which they have left upon record for the benefit of the Church Therefore the one must help to expound the other the crime then of denying which both the Apostles speake of hath the same object viz. Jesus Christ and not the Father it is clear that Christ alone is the object of that wicked act of those spoken of in Peter therefore Christ alone and not the Father is the object of the same wicked act spoken of in Jude And indeed there were never any Christian Teachers and of such both the Apostles speake that did deny the Father to be God but the Son Jesus Christ was denyed by many And if we make a serious inspection into verse 25. of Jude and compare it with the precedent verse we shall find that Christ is spoken of and not the Father and if so then Christ is called the onely wise God for it is the same person that presents saints faultless before the presence of his glory who is called the onely wise God But who is that The Apostle Paul declares who he is in Eph. 5. 27. it is Christ who is described to give himselfe for the Chuch and to have washed it with his owne bloud that he may present it a glorious Church to himselfe Whence I thus Argue If the Father be the only God and if the Son be also the only God and yet there are not two only Gods but one onely God then this one onely God is both Father and Son that is this one onely God though but one in essence yet is two at least in persons but indeed is three but that is somewhat beside my undertaking and then it will follow that that God where an unity onely is granted both in essence and personality is not the onely God which the Gospel and other Scriptures hold out and consequently is a false God for I would ask this question suppose a person should acknowledge Christ to be the only God and should deny the Father to be God could this man be said to acknowledge the one onely true God which the Scriptures speak of I suppose none will be so absurd as to assert it therefore if Christ be the onely God as the Father is he that acknowledgeth the Father without him acknowledgeth not the only true God and so is guilty of destroying the Scriptures and bringing in another Scripture in a maine fundamental point of it Ar. 2. But for further satisfaction I shall propound a 2d Argument which is
be alleadged by him against this is That Baptism is principally into the Name of the Father and that it is through Christ as an instrument through whom the Father doth bestow the blessings of Baptism Sol. But 1. How doth Scripture justifie this where doth it give witness to it If not it is not derogatory to Christ to imagine it 2. Why doth Christ joyn himself and the Spirit with the Father as three associates without any shadow of difference or disparity whose Persons are three but whose Name is but one It is not said Names but Name for as their Essence is one so their Name is one as they are one Lord so their Name is one 3. Baptism hath been into the Name of the Lord Jesus alone without the mention of the Father at all Acts 19. 5. When they heard this they were baptized into the Name of the Lord Jesus Baptism did run in such a form as that sometimes the Name of Christ was onely used and the Father and the holy Ghost were wholly silenced but never excluded And can it be conceived that if the Name of the Father be the Name of that person which is principal and the Name of the Son be the Name of a person that is onely instrumental that in the form of Baptism or words of institution the Name of the principal person should be pretermitted and and the name of the Name of the instrument mentioned There is neither Sence nor Reason nor Pattern nor Example for it Object But it may be objected That Moses was but an instrument in that Baptism of the cloud and of the sea that is spoken of in 1 Cor. 10. 2. and yet it is said that they were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea Sol. Moses is not to be considered as an Instrument but as a Type of Christ who was present with the children of Israel in the pillar of the cloud and in the pillar of fire and they were baptized into Moses mystically and figuratively as into the Type but really and truely they were baptized into Christ who was the Antitype and in whom that which was in shadow in reference to Moses was in substance and was fulfilled in reference unto Christ as hath been demonstrated before For further conviction because I discern that some are slowe of heart to believe the desperateness and damnableness of this Doctrine I shall propound another Argument to prove the destructiveness of this his Tenent to the Gospel and Scriptures in some main points of them Arg. 5. That Doctrine which denies and destroys the sufficiencie of Christ as a Saviour denies and destroys the true Gospel and Scripture and not onely in a main point but in the main scope of them But this Doctrine of his which makes whole Christ a creature doth deny and destroy the sufficiencie of Christ as a Saviour Therefore this Doctrine of his doth deny and destroy the Gospel and whole Scripture not onely in a main point but in the main scope of them The Major Proposition will be readily confessed by him and denied by none therefore needs no proof The Minor Proposition must be fortified else it will be challenged as slanderous I therefore prove it by a double medium 1. That Doctrine that denies Christ to be the author of salvation and makes him an instrument onely in the hand of him that is the author that Doctrine denies Christ to be a sufficient Saviour But this Doctrine of his which makes whole Christ a creature doth deny Christ to be the author of salvation and makes him onely an instrument in the hand of the Father who is the author Therefore this Doctrine of his denies Christ to be a sufficient Saviour He may perhaps deny the Major and distinguish of sufficiencie and say there is an absolute and independent sufficiencie which is proper to that which is the author of a thing and there is a limited and restrained sufficiencie depending upon that absolute sufficiencie of the author which is sutable and proper to an instrument and this later Christ hath and so is sufficient through God through the Father for the work of salvation though he be but a creature But such an Answer must be judged weak for two Reasons 1. The sufficiencie of Christ to save is an absolute sufficiencie and such as is proper to the author of salvation according to the testimony of the Scripture Heb. 5. 9. And being made perfect he became the author of eternal salvation to them that obey him Now I hope he will not confound the Author and the Instrument and make them one person An instrumental sufficiencie the Scripture knows nothing of in reference to Christ nor doth attribute any such to him 2. An instrumental sufficiencie is no other then insufficiencie for an instrument is not able to save to the utmost and so is of himself insufficient to save but Christ is able of himself to save to the utmost Heb. 7. 25. But he perhaps will endeavour to evade the strength of this Assertion by saying that if Christ be able through God the Father to save to the utmost it is sufficient for the verifying of Scripture But neither hath this Answer strength in it nor is Scripture verified by it for Scripture speaks of Christs ability as ability in himself Heb. 1. 3 Christ is described to be one that upholds all things by the word of his own power and to purge sin away by himself and Christ never needed to say of the Father as Paul said of Christ I am able to do all things through Christ that strengthneth me so Christ I am able to do all things through the Father that strengthens me and though he might be strengthened as the Son of man yet not as the Son of God but drew on the people to believe a Divine power in himself for his words are without any limitation Dost thou believe that I am able to do this for thee saith he to one that came to be cured of him without interposing any words which should shew his dependence on another And this ability was Divine ability because it lay in this viz. to heal without the efficacie of means which might conduce to such a purpose And Christ is called the power of the Father because the Father's power is in him And it is said that God laid help upon one that is mighty which though spoken of David yet of him but as the Type and is meant of Christ who is the Antitype and who is truely mighty This ability of Christ within himself to save to the utmost is that which the Apostle disputed for in many places of that Epistle and especially in the Context of that Scripture Heb. 7. 25. He is able to save to the utmost for he doth detect the insufficiencie of the High-priest to save by shewing their mortality and other infirmities and then presents Christ's sufficiencie And if it were so that God could have saved by an instrument
Christ had so understood it as he doth and reserved to God his own place of worship had made him his principal and ultimate object in worship he might as the less principal and intermediate object have worshipped the devil if he had pleased And this Text which he alledgeth of Mat. 4. if there had been none other would not have been of any force in this sence against it So that either Christ mistook the Scripture and alledged a Text that had not strength against worshipping of Satan or else he hath grosly mistaken the sense of the Scripture which Christ hath alleadged in giving liberty for intermediate worship to be given to him that is not God notwithstanding any thing contained in this Text. But because he keeps to generals and by that means resolves no scruple that may lie in the breasts of men about worship I shall descend to some particulars And first I shall speak of worship proper to God in the matter of it wherein he is wholly silent and then of worship proper in the manner of the performance 1. To believe or receive any report of spiritual things and matters of Faith which respect the soul proposed and presented as a truth to be rested in upon the meer credit and fidelity of the Testator or him that witnesseth it is a worship and an honour proper to God alone because God is he alone that cannot lye Tit. 1. 2. and it was the honour that Sarah by this Faith gave to God she judged him faithful that had promised Heb. 11. 11. 2. A Religious resting and depending for spiritual supply and help in spiritual works and streights is a worship and honour peculiar to God alone the reason is because there is no sufficiency of this kind in any creature but it is onely and wholly in God 2 Cor. 3. 5. Therefore the Prophet directs him that is in darkness and hath no light it is spoken of the souls darkness and distress to trust in the Name of the Lord and stay upon his God Isa 5. 10. 3. An acquiescence in the will of another whether it appear to be with us or whether it appear to be against us is an homage and an honour which is proper and peculiar to God alone 1 Sam. 3. 18 It is the Lord said Eli let him do what seemeth good in his eyes he submits quickly to that which was terrible to be thought of upon this account or ground It is the Lord to whom such subjection is due And Jesus Christ himself as man doth acquiesce and rest satisfied with the will of God which was bitter as death Not my will but thine be done And the obeying of the will of another for this sole reason because it is the will of that other when there is no other impulsive cause but that is honour peculiar and proper to God alone because his will and his alone is Essentially holy and just and good I consulted not with flesh and blood saith Paul when the will of God was revealed that he should teach him Gal. 1. 15 16. and Rom. 12. 2. 4. Praying as it is an act of Religion and then especially when it is for spiritual blessings is a worship which is proper to God alone because such a service simply considered in its nature doth imply a sufficiency of wisdom power and goodness in the person to whom we direct it in reference to which praying to any creature is accounted as praying to a god that cannot save and it is Idolatry in Scripture-reckoning Isa 45. 20. Jer. 1. 27. 5. Giving of praise and glory and thanks as it is an act of Religion is worship and honour due to God alone and not to be communicated to any creature because he is the root and fountain of all good to the creature the God of all Grace and mercy the God of blessing Therefore in Rev. 4. 9 10. 11 The four beasts and the four and twenty Elders they worship him that sate upon the Throne by giving praise to him and cast down their Crowns at his feet and say he is worthy to receive honour and glory because he had created all things And as in the time of the old Testament to offer Sacrifices of Thanksgiving to any but to the true God had been Idolatry which caused Paul Barnabas to run in with hast to stop them in the attempt of Sacrificing to them by telling them that they were but men like themselves so to offer the Calves of the Lips to offer praise to give Thanks in a Religious way is worship peculiar to God 6. To Swear or to appeal Solemnly in a religious way for Testimony in reference to any thing asserted for the truth of it is worship or honour that is proper to God and not to be given to any creature Deut. 6. 13. Thou shalt fear the Lord and serve him and swear by his Name And it is reproved that some did swear by the Lord and by Malchom that is for joyning God and Idols together in the worship of an Oath and under that all other worship is comprehended 7. The use of a Lot in which persons that are at some controversie or are doubtful what to determine of a thing do give up themselves to receive the determination of it as the Lot being cast shall decide it it is a worship and an honour proper to God Prov. 16. 33 The Lot is cast into the lap but the whole disposition thereof is from the Lord. Therefore it was used with invocation or prayer to God wherein men do profess to receive the doome or sentence or judgement or decision from the Lord Act. 1. 24. 8. A receiving of and submitting unto prescribed forms and rules as mediums in and by which that natural worship of the heart which consists in faith and hope and love is exercised and declared is worship and honour proper and peculiar to God alone and forbidden in reference to any creature in the second Commandment for under the names of graven image invented forms and mediums of worship excogitated and minted in mens own brain or of any others prescribing that is not God are meant and indeed who knows what is pleasing to God and delightsome to him but himself therefore the progative is his to prescribe and it is peculiar honour for men to submit to what he doth prescribe The subjecting of the Conscience to Laws and Ordinances and Institutions and Directions is an honor not communicable to any creature but wherein God is alone not having any to share with him for the Conscience is over-awed by none but God gives account to none but God Rom. 2. 15 the Apostle proves the love of God to be written in the excusing and accusing which work manifestly declares a Law of God within because the Conscience is accountable to nothing but such a Law for there lies the strength of his Argument that there is such a Law within them 10. In external postures in Religious duties
the prostration of the body towards the earth and kneeling upon the knees towards the ground is homage and honour and worship peculiar to God O come let us fall down and kneel before the Lord our Maker saith the Prophet in Psal 95. 6. And it s that which neither Angel nor men durst assume no nor admit of but repelled it and rejected it as undue and directed it to God Many more particulars there are respecting the matter of worship where God hath a peculiarity in point of right to worship and honour above the creature but some light is let in to such which might be groping in the dark by these I shall take in that light which Christ affords while I speak of the manner of worship and satisfie my self with that He sums up all the Commandments that respect God in these words Thou shalt love the Lord thy God and serve him with all thy soul with all thy mind with all thy strength and might So that that which is peculiar in the manner of worship is the measure of performance such a measure ought not to be given to any creature as to God a person may be easily peccant in the excess in reference to the creature if he give all to the creature he gives too much but less then all is too little for God the utmost created height is due to God and peculiarly due to him and to none other 1. An absolute Faith and affiance and trust is due to God alone whatever the Subject-matter of it be because there is an absolute and an independent sufficiency in God alone to effect every thing therefore it is that which the Lord pronounceth a blessed thing Jer. 17. 7. Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord and whose hope the Lord is And the contrary the Lord pronounceth a cursed thing ver 5. Cursed be he that trusteth in man and maketh flesh his arm A like place we have in Psal 146. 3 5. 2. An absolute and unbounded love is due to God alone because he is infinite in goodness and not to be given to any creature 1 Joh. 2. 15. Love not the world nor the things of the world c. Not the simple love but the mordinateness of the love of the world is forbidden but God himself is to be loved with all the strength of the heart Mat. 22. 37. 3. An absolute and unlimited fear is proper to God alone because he is the Soveraign Lord and to him it belongs to kill or to keep alive yea he can kill and cast into hell Luk. 12. 51. They are first taken off from fearing the creature and are afterwards put on to fear God Much more might be added if need did require At present let it satisfie the Reader that I have thus far opened the difference in the matter and in the manner betwixt the worship due to God and that which may be given to the creature which he left olded up in his Discourse about it I must now proceed to follow him in his Answer He concludes his Answer to the Maior with admiration his words are I wonder at the adjection Meer which you add to creature as if a creature in essence could be more then a meer creature or as if some creature might have as its right and due that honour worship and service which the Scripture doth appropriate to the most High God And then he determines Sure I am saith he creatures as creatures are excluded from sharing with God Rep. I wonder that he should make a wonder of that which himself is able to resolve according to the common Tenent which himself so lately held and if he cannot a child well bred of 8 or 10 years old can render a reason for it Christ is a creature and yet not a meer creature according to the flesh or as he is the son of Abraham he is a creature but according to the Spirit of Holiness or as he is the Son of God he is not a creature Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man or God manifested in the flesh a creature and yet created according to the divers natures that are in him Consider him in one of his natures as born of the Virgin as the son of Mary so he is a creature in essence and in that respect he is no more then a creature and is excluded from sharing with God in divine honour worship and service but consider him in both his natures consider the whole of him and then he is not a meer creature but he is more then a creature he is such a creature as that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great Creator of all things and so he shares with the Father in divine honour but not as a creature though he be a creature for this person Christ is both God and a Creature After he had spoken to the Major he comes to consider of the Minor proposition viz. That divine worship and honour and service is by Scripture-warrant given to Christ Jesus His Answer is Sir it is granted that Jesus Christ is the intermediate object of divine worship honour and service being Gods Vice-Roy and acting among them in his Fathers Name which the Scripture you bring confirms But where the Scripture allows worship honour and service to be given to him as the principal and ultimate object thereof is not yet made to appear Rep. 1. This distinction of intermediate object in reference to any meer creature and principal and ultimate Object is unscriptural he cannot bottom it upon any Text in reference to divine and Religious prescribed worship 2. It is repugnant to Scripture-Testimony in reference to the whole of Christ whom the Father will have to be honoured as himself is honoured Joh. 5. 23. That all may honour the Son as they honour the Father The Father will have no honour which the Son hath not will have nothing in honour that is peculiar that may be accounted proper to him the Father will have no preeminence in worship above the Son but look in what manner he requires men to honour him he requires them to honour his Son and unless they do it he accounts not himself honoured If then the Father be worped as the principal ultimate object the Son must be worshipped as the principal and ultimate object else he is not honored as the Father is honored The honouring of the Father is made the pattern and the example of honouring the Son And if Christ should be but a creature if this be not Gods giving his glory to another when the like glory is given to him that is not God as to him that is God the like to the Son as to the Father and that according to the Fathers own designe and counsel Let him that hath understanding judge however it overthrows his distinction The place also that I alledged in Rev. 5. 12 13 14. which he saith confirms his distinction is fully against it for all creatures in
Mediatorship otherwise it would have been limited and restrained that that worship which is due to God who is the ultimate object of worship might have been discerned from it and the preeminence the Father hath above Christ in Worship would have been declared in Scripture And hence it follows that though Christ be an intermediate object of Worship yet he is the principal and ultimate object also The same person who is Man and Mediator is the Son of God the most high God Mediator in that nature also And if Religious Divine worship be given unto him as Mediator it is given unto him for the sake of the Divine Nature because he is the Son of God and God according to which nature apart considered from the Humane he is the ultimate object of worship but as considered with the Humane as Mediator he is the intermediate object of worship And though the Humane Nature be taken up into the fellowship as of the Godhead so of this honour and worship yet this worship is not due nor doth properly appertain to the Humane Nature And though the person be honoured with this Divine honour because of the Union yet it is for the sake of the Divine Nature and not for the sake of the Humane which beause it is not the principal and ultimate object of worship therefore that very worship and no less nor any other is given to Christ being thus intermediate or Mediator which is proper and peculiar to God alone who is the principal and ultimate object worship cannot separately and apart considered from the Divine Nature be any object at all no not an intermediate object of Religious Divine worship for then every creature that is a medium or a means by or through which God communicates himself to men and so is intermediate betwixt God and man should be an intermediate object of Divine worship which is directly repugnant to the Scripture and is greatly derogatory to God that the Manhood of Christ or the Humane Nature a part considered hath but the respect of an instrument in so glorious a work which was wrought by the efficiencie and infinite power wisdom of God I have been the larger in discussing this point of Worship because the right understanding of it will facilitate the discussing of the two next which follow which respect Faith in Christ He considers them together though I conceive they may well be distinguished from each other as different things But I shall follow him in his method Instance 2. If Christ be a meer creature then it is lawful and warrantable to believe in a meer creature which is against the tenour of the whole Scripture but it is commanded in reference unto Christ Joh. 14. 1. and salvation is annexed to it Joh. 3. 36. Instance 3. If Christ be a meer creature then faith in a meer creature can save man which is absurd and gross and contrary to the Scriptures for Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness Rom. 4. 3. and so was saving Unto these he opposeth two Propositions which the Scripture as he saith will warrant and will suffice for an Answer 1. That that faith which is needful to salvation hath a double object God and the man Christ Jesus Joh. 14. 1. which he saith the Scripture that I have quoted bears witness to as a truth 2. That that faith which is needful to salvation acts in a divers manner on God and on the Lord Jesus Christ Reply 1. Neither the Scripture that I have quoted nor any other bears witness to this That the man Jesus Christ as man is the object of faith The Person of Christ that is man is the object of faith but not as man And the place that he cites in Joh. 3. 14 15 proves it The Son of man shall be lifted up that whoever believes on him c. But there is in these words that which is called Idiomatum communicatio viz. that which is spoken in the concrete of Christ according to one Nature is transferred to another Natrue And the verse that immediately precedes viz. verse 13. declares thus much It is said that the Son of man is in heaven which at that time when Christ spake those words was impossible as Christ is the Son of man because Ubiquity or being everywhere at the same time is not compatible to any man as man but it was meant of the Person of Christ who is called the Son of man because he was truely man but according to the other nature that was in him viz. the Godhead according to which he was in heaven and on earth together because he fills both as God And Christ that did put that denomination Son of man upon himself in verse 13. continues it and under that title makes himself the object of faith but there is a translation of that which is proper to one nature to another nature to which it is not proper And indeed Christ as Mediator is an object of faith but it is not as he is man that he is the object but as he is God which is very clear for these Reasons 1. It is Christ as he is JEHOVAH that is the object of faith as it justifies and saves Isa 45. 24. compared with Rom. 14. 10 11. proves it Believers are brought in professing their faith in JEHOVAH which is Christ Surely shall one say in JEHOVAH have I righteousness and strength 1 Tim. 3. 10. God manifested in flesh is believed on in the world not Christ accordiâ—g to his Manhood 2. It is Christ as he is all-sufficient and able to save to the utmost that is the object of faith Heb. 7. 25. 2 Tim. 1. 12. But Christ as he is man is not all-sufficient and able to save to the utmost but as he is the Son of God and God Joh. 4. 25. 3. The man that trusteth in man is accursed by God's own sentence Jer. 17. 5. Therefore faith is not in Christ as he is man 4. God hath testified that all life is in his Son Joh. 5. 11. and faith must be where life is and nowhere else and therefore not in Christ as man for the Son of God is not man but God as hath been abundantly proved before And it is also said verse 12 He that hath the Son that is hath received him by faith Joh. 1. 12. hath life and he that hath him not hath not life And they are pressed to believe in the Son of God v. 13. that they may have eternal life 5. Christ himself saith Vpon this rock viz. this profession of faith that Christ is the Son of God he will build his Church Matth. 16. 16 18. Therefore Christ is the object of faith as he is the Son of God and not as he is man 6. If Christ as meer man and nothing more be the object of faith then any other man or creature whom God sends and by whom God speaks or acts may be the object of
Saviour or an unequal Saviour to Christ because Christ and not he is called a Saviour And is not Christ called both the blessed hope and the great God our Saviour Are not both titles put upon him as due to him And though they are used by the Apostle to distinguish the persons of Father and Son from each other when they are spoken of together yet both these are applyed to both persons and are proper to him alone that is the most high God But he saith Scripture doth prefer God in the work of salvation before our Lord Jesus Christ making him to be the principal Agent therein when it declares that the work of Christ in saving was from the purpose of God who appointed him for it from the precept of God who injoyned him to it and from the presence of God who assisted him in it Reply But where doth Scripture witness this of God the Father in reference to the whole of Christ He saith Scripture doth abundantly set forth all these but he doth not quote any one place for proof of them but would have us receive it upon his word That God purposed to save by Christ considered as David's and Mary's son considered according to his Manhood that God enjoyned him as such that God assisted him as such God being taken essentially and properly for Father Son and holy Ghost and not improperly and personally for the Father will be granted and it will be plentifully made out by Scripture but that the Father purposed without the Son and holy Ghost and commanded and enjoyned without the Son and holy Ghost and assisted without the Son and holy Ghost this is denied For as the Father without the Son and holy Ghost made not man but the Trinity sate in Councel Let us make man so it was in the work of Salvation it was an act of Councel The Father gave the Son and the Son gave himself emptied himself every Person concurred and wrought in the work so far as concerns efficiencie All decreed it all acted in it as one principal Agent and onely the Humanity of Christ was Instrumental And if we consider the Material and Meritorious cause of mens salvation God the Father or God in the person of the Father is far from being the Principal cause thereof for he is no cause at all for the Father took not flesh upon him nor was Mediator either of Satisfaction or Intercession he made not the Atonement but this was the Son's sole work he did all in it he was the person that was made of a Virgin and was made under the Law he was the person that was made flesh and manifested in flesh and hath a peculiar right in this respect to the denomination of Saviour And though all was acted and endured in and by the flesh that he assumed for he bare our sins on his body on the tree yea and in his soul also when he cried out My God my God c. in such manner yet if that flesh had not been supported by the Godhead of the Son which assumed it it would have been crumbled to dust and powder by that weight of wrath that lay upon it So that it was by the vertue and power of the Godhead that such actings and such sufferings were and all was accounted as done and suffered by the Son though the Son as the Son was not capable of it but by assuming flesh into the unity of his person and so it came to be reckoned as his work and it was in account as if the Lord of glory had been crucified and as if the blood of God had been spilt and the merit was from the excellencie of the person of the Son that did and suffered all But he further saith That the Scripture revealeth the Lord Christ to be in the work of salvation but an instrumental Saviour For this saith he see Tit. 3. 4 5 6. which puts it past all question But after that the kindness and love of God and our Saviour towards man appeared not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Lord. Reply Here is in these words of his First A bold assertion viz. That Scripture revealeth Christ to be but an instrumental Saviour Secondly A peremptory Conclusion that Tit. 3. 4 5 6. puts it out of question Thirdly A defective and insufficient probation or confirmation he alledgeth the words of the Text as if they did carry with them conviction of what he asserts in the very letter of them when as there is no such matter 1. Scripture is so far from revealing such a thing of Christs instrumentalness that it reveals the contrary to it in Heb. 1. 3. it is said That Christ by himself purged away our sins but of any instruments can it be said that by himself he doth any thing Doth an instrument act by himself that is by his own vertue and sufficiency and by himself that is without the power of the principal efficient Is an Instrument any thing out of the hand of the chief Agent Also in Heb. 7. 25. it is said That Christ is able to save to the utmost But is any Instrument able to save to the utmost Hath he the ability within himself So that it may be said of him that he is able What greater thing can be predicated of the principal efficient or chief Agent then that he is able to save to the utmost This is too high an expression for an Instrument And in Psal 89. 19 it is said of Christ whom David typified that God had laid help upon one that was mighty If Christ be onely but an Instrument what needs he to be mighty in himself for every Instrument if it be mighty through the might of another as the Rams horns were it is sufficient What needed the choice of a mighty one if the Saviour be onely instrumental The weaker the Instrument the more honour will the Principal Efficient have The excellencie of Power is known to be of God when the instrumental means is Weakness and Foolishness Why also could not the blood of Goats have cleansed the Conscience but the Blood of JESUS CHRIST God's Son was necessary if an Instrument may be a Saviour Doubtless a word of Institution would have made the one as effectual as the other But indeed there is no might that any creature-Instrument is capable to be recipient or the subject of that can save to the utmost because it requires an infinite power to conquer Sin and Satan Death and Hell to abolish these and to bring Life and Immortality to light to effect a first and second Resurrection for men who were to be saved Secondly The Scripture that he alleadgeth out of Titus 3. 3 4 â— hath no such thing engraven upon it as he produceth it for such that he that runs may read it
discover the fraud and falshood in working therefore they imagined it was farre easier for Christ to say thy sinnes are forgiven thee in which he could not be detected if the effect followed not then for him to say arise and walk which if he had not had a power answerable to that word of command would discover his impostures and expose him to shame and reproach in this sense it was easier for one that would delude to say thy sinnes are forgiven thee then to say arise and walk but Christ would shew that the one was as truly wrought and done as the other and both of them done by the power of his Godhead There are also other Scriptures which may give light that Christ in forgiving sins was principall and not receiving power from another 1. Christ gave power to his Disciples John 20. 23. the place which he quoted to remit sins effectually so as that they should be remitted and to retaine sins effectually and so as that they should be retained Now this power of delegating power to others doth shew a power residing in Christ himself and doth shew that Christ is the principall Lord against whom sins are committed because he both conveyes a power to the Apostles and doth ratifie the exercise of it 2. The Apostle forgave sins in the person of Christ in 2 Cor 2. 10. that is he did it instrumentally and representatively and in the name of another who was chief in it and that was Christ It is not said in the person of God as it should have been said if Christ had not been God and principall in that power of forgiving But he saith It cannot be because the Scripture cannot oppose it self And he presents what Scripture Tels us The Scripture saith he tels us that we are justified by the man Jesus Christ Acts 13 38 39. be it known unto you men and brethren that through this man is preached unto you the forgivenesse of sinnes and by him all that do beleeve are justified c. Reply The Scripture tels us that through the man Christ we are justified but the Scripture tels us not that we are justified by Christ as man It is a granted thing by us all that the person that justifies us is man for we say he is both God and Man But that he justifies as man or remits sinnes as man is denyed by us and the contrary hath already been proved I have shewed before that the Sonne of man is said to be heaven which was impossible because he was on earth when he spake these words the words are therefore thus to be understood the person that is the Sonne of man being also God was in heaven at that time but not as the Sonne of man but as God so in this place it is to be understood There is some difference to be made in Christs justifying of us If we speak of the meritorious cause of Justification whole Christ and the whole of Christ doth concurre in it contribute to it and effect it for God looking upon that which was done and suffered and upon the person viz. the excellency and glory of the person that did it and suffered it in which both the Godhead and the manhood acted the one by obeying the other by enabling and presenting as his as indeed it was the union betwixt the two natures considered pronounced beleevers just upon that account Not that the manhood of Christ merited but the whole of Christ acted in those things wherâ—in the merit was But if we speak of the efficient cause of justification or of pardon of sinne Christ considered in his divine nature as God only is agent in it because he alone against whom sinne is committed can from and by himself acquit and dischare therefrom and so Christ as God can only do it and he did it as God as I have proved from Mark 22. 10. I conceive that in this Text Christ is not spoken of as the efficient from whom justification and pardon of sins comes but as Mediator through whom or as the means and merit by whom forgivenesse of sinnes comes in which sense it is said that Christ was the Lamb of God which took away the sinnes of the world My reason is because it is said through this man is preached forgivenesse and by him all that beleeve are justified not efficiently but mediatoriously and meritoriously It is not said he pardoned sin but through him pardon was preached nor is it said he justified but through him are justified those that beleeve that is through him as the meanes and herein the manhood is not to be excluded from acting in those works which God accounts for a beleevers righteousnesse and in reference to which God justifies but principally yea solely to be acknowledged but so farre as concernes the respect that God gives to such actions and the acceptance that they find with God which is this viz. God imputes them unto beleevers as their righteousnesse and for the sake of them doth pardon their sins the manhood is not at all herein to be mentioned But nothing that can be answered to this can reach the instance because this text was impertinent and I might have passed it by without giving any answer to it because Christs pardoning of sinne in way of efficiency is that which the Instance or Argument which I produced intends and proves and this Scripture disables it not because it speaks of another thing and not of that But he goes on and tels us what Scripture saith farther viz. That Christ prayed to another on the Jewes befalfe for the forgivenesse of sinne Luke 23. 34. Then said Jesus Father forgive them for they know not what they do Therefore Christ is not the principall forgiver of sins according to Scripture Reply Christ prayed to another viz the Father for the forgivenesse of sin and another prayed to him for the pardon of sin viz. Stephen and the Jewes were the subjects that were prayed for in both What must then be said to this and what answer is to be given to it Alas it is not difficult to speak to it The Scripture hath clearly untyed the knot If Christ were not a man he could not pray to another and if he were nothing more then a man another could not pray to him and the Scripture declares both while it shewes him to be God and man As man therefore he humbles himself he prayes unto him that was God It was a time of Humiliation to Christ and this was an action of humiliation in Christ but as God he was prayed to by him that was a man and with adoration also though he was in heaven in reference to his manhood he veiled his Godhead when he prayed to God Stephen unveiled it when he prayed to him So that there is no good consequence in this that because both the Scripture and himself do declare him to be man in his praying for the pardon of sins therefore Scripture and himself
of himself to act such a work in such a way The 8th Argument or Instance as he calls it is this If Christ be a meer creature then the value of that offering which Christ offered when he offered himself to God is taken away and the satisfaction which Christ gave to divine justice is destroyed for if the person that dyed were a meer man and the blood that was shed was the blood of a meer man and not of God as it is called Acts 20. 28. then how could it satisfie for the sins of many transgressours For there is no proportion betwixt one meer man dying for sin and many men sinning and deserving death each of them for the sins they have committed And how an finite justice offended should be satisfied with a sacrifice infinite in value is unconceiveable and against the tenor of the Scripture He puts it into this forme That doctrine which takes away the value of Christs offering and destroyes the satisfaction which he gave to divine justice brings in as it were another Gospel c. But that doctrine which makes Christ a meer creature doth so therefore He grants the Major and answeres to the proofs of the Minor proposition which are presented in the forme of two Queries the first was If Christ was a meer creature then how could he satisfie for the sins of many transgressours To this he makes this reply If it please you to consider Rom. 5. 12 and so forward you may answer your own Querie or see a good reason of this which I shall now propound If Adam were a meer creature how could his sin make many transgressours If through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace by one man Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many Rom. 5. 15. Christ as well as Adam was a common person and therefore the Lord having laid on him the iniquity of us all and he bearing the curse of the Law his members are delivered both from the sinne and curse Reply There is nothing in the place which he hath directed me to viz. Rom. 5. 15. which he hath or can fetch out with all his consideration that will answer my Querie His asking of an other question will be no answer to mine Adams sinne might make many transgressours upon that account as no mans righteousnesse can render them being transgressours righteous and just persons 1. All persons which afterward sprung from him were in his loyns at that time when he sinned and were parts of him and consequently they sinned in him and with him his sinne was their sinne it extended unto them and they could not but participate of it as of Levi it is said that he paid tythes in Abrahams loynes Heb. 7. 9 10. 2. Adams state in which he stood when the whole world was in him was a state of grace and favour with God from which if he sinned himself was to fall and all his posterity with him after the manner of some persons that holds an estate upon the good will of their Lord whom if they offend they are cast out and all their posterity with them for that is the condition upon which it is given to be possessed and the children and off-spring are in volved in the guilt of such persons trespasses whose favour is on such termes God is to be looked upon as soveraigne Lord of all creatures to whom it belongs to shew favour to what creatures he will and upon what termes he will and under what conditions he pleaseth and under what penalties in case of transgression liketh him therefore it was that he set Adam over the works of his hands entred into a conditionall League and Covenant with him and did both priviledge him and restrain him and abridge him therein and this was done under penalty of dying both to him and his in case of trespasse thou shalt dye the death saith God to him And thus it came that through the offence of one many are dead 3. Sinne was propagated and generated to and in Adams posterity after that Adam fell and lost Gods image It is said of him that begat a son after his own image Gen. 5. 3. And so all persons came to be conceived in iniquity and to be borne in sin for out of an unclean thing nothing that is clean can proceed And so it comes to passe that Adams sinne made many transgressours for by propagation all men have sins of their own over and above the sinne of Adam imputed to them Thus the passage of sin and death from one Adam to all men appears facile and easie there is no obstruction in the way soveraignty and holinesse and justice and truth furthered it effected it But now in reference to Christ it cannot be thus asserted that righteousnesse passeth upon men after this manner 1. Righteousnesse is not propagated at all but only imputed 2. It is not by participation because none are in Christs loynes by nature Christ hath no naturall seed that are parts of him 3. If there be any such relation betwixt Christ and men as that Christ should be a father to them and they children to him that he should be as a second Adam it is not unto all but to those only that beleeve and this is also meerely through grace and so there may be an imputation of righteousnesse from one to many but it is through grace Therefore it is said the grace of God hath abounded by one man unto many Not unto all men but to all that receive it that do beleeve vers 17. 4. being to be imputed through grace there comes to be an obstruction to it justice and truth must be satisfied before there be any place for grace and if grace cannot passe the gift of grace which is righteousnesse and life to men through Christ cannot passe neither And so it appears that the way of sins passing is more ready from one man to many then the way of righteousnesse abounding through one to many Because of satisfaction that must interpose that grace may have a free and open passage unto many 5 If it be through satisfaction that must interpose before the grace of God and the gift by grace can by one abound to many and if first the sins of those many that grace abounds to through one must be laid upon that one that that one might bear the curse of the Law that by this means the grace of deliverance which consists in righteousnesse imputed and in life might passe over through that one and abound to those many as he himself though somewhat darkely doth confesse then this one man through whom grace must abound to many cannot be any one but such an one who is able to give satisfaction for many And concerning this satisfaction the querie is made how it could be that any one meer man could satisfie for the sinnes of many transgressours and the disproportion is pleaded No proportion betwixt one meer
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
of CAARI as a Lyon the latter Jews have snatched at lest they should be forced to confess that this Prophecie They pierced my hands and my feet was fulfilled in none other but in Jesus Christ alone because neither David who compiled this Psalm nor any other had their hands and their feet pierced But Joannes Isaacus hath most learnedly shewed in his defence of the Hebrew verity against Lindanus that nothing is more absurd and foolish then such a Lection or Reading 1. Because it is pointed contrary to the Rules of Grammer if the signification should be as a Lyon 2. Because the expression would be maimed and defective and without sense for what reason is in these words as a Lyon my hands and my feet 3. He produceth the Authority both of Massoreth the great and the less In Massoreth the less two CAARI are found and onely two in a diverse signification the one in Isa 38. 13. which is right interpreted as a Lyon the other in this Psalm viz. 22. which he quotes which must necessarily have an other interpretation because of some peculiarity that is in it In Massoreth the great he saith that Rabbi Jacob found written in the Text CARU and in the margent CAARI 4. He speaks his own knowledge I Johannes Isaac can testifie in truth and with a good conscience the same thing for I saw a Psalter of my Grand-fathers in which in the Text it was written CARU and I doubt not but all exemplars had it also And Rivet adds this that in all the Hebrew Copies or Exemplars there is both CAARI and CARU the one in margent and the other in the Text Not that CAARI whether in the margent or in the Text is to be read as a Lyon but it is vox animala a word beside rule and is the third person of the preterperfect tense CARA by some interposition and change of letters as is somtimes found in the Hebrew And he giveth instances of the like As for the other Text in Rom. 12. 11. I shall refer the Learned to that which Beza saith of it and only exsert somwhat for the satisfaction of others In all the most approved Authors saith he it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he shews how it is probable the corruption came in and how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In that short way of writing saith he there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he saith he hath seen it so written in Pasil and some that writ out declared this particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insteed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this might easily be done through ignorance of that short hand that was in use But it may be observed how ready he is to give advantage to the pertinacious Jews in siding with them in the rendring of the word CAARI as a Lyon without any warrantable cause for the upholding of his own opinion And he also takes part with the Papists who from the various lection do take occasion of detracting from the truth of the Hebrew and Greek Text as that which is corrupted by the Jews and others and would bring all to the interpretation of the Church But he goes on and not onely makes it possible but probable that there is such a mistake for saith he Gretius observes many Copies have Lord and the Syriack hath Christ not God Repl. Some Copies have Lord and God and Beza makes a conjecture how it came about but there is no Copie that hath Lord without God God is not left out in any Greek Copie and consequently it makes nothing for his purpose but remains as strong against him as before for if the words be read thus To feed the Church of the Lord and God which he hath purchased with his own bloud the word which refers to both of them as Antecedents and the meaning is which Lord and which God hath purchased with his own bloud and Christ is still set forth as God and the bloud of Christ is still the bloud of God But yet his fraud appears for he saith Many Copies have Lord seperatim divisim for so he would be understood as if they had had Lord and not God or Lord insteed of God when as in truth they have them conjunctim both Lord and God conjoyned as Titles of one and the same person who shed his bloud to purchase his Church As for the word Christ insteed of God it is not to be found in any Greek Copie in which language the New Testament was written and if in any other it makes nothing to his purpose Lastly he saith It is easie to mistake taking one for the other from that compendious writing which was anciently much in use where for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they wrote only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Repl. The mistake of a letter though it may be easie yet it may be gross enough and may utterly overthrow the sense of the place and it is as easily discovered when it is surveyed by him that compiled it Would it not be gross in our English if Word should be written insteed of Lord If Moon should be written insteed of Noon and it is but the mistake of a Letter and it is easily done and as easily seen being done and corrected therefore this Argument is without force also To make this conceit of his of a mistake to pass the better he saith the Churches of Saints are called the Churches of Christ Rom. 16. 16. Repl. And what is this to the purpose they are called the Churches of God also 1 Cor. 11. 16. And they are never a whit the less the Churches of God because they be the Churches of Christ yea because they be the Churches of Christ they be therefore the Churches of God and this Text proves it For Christ is the person that is here spoken of because the person that shed his bloud for the purchase of the Church is spoken of which is Christ and he is called God and as God the Church is his as the words declare which he hath not yet overthrown But he attempts it by an other consideration which he offers to view 2. If it proves that there is no mistake in the Text saith he there may be a defect in the words for the last clause some Greek Copies have it thus which he hath purchased with the bloud of his Own and so the Word SON is to be understood with the bloud of his own Son Repl. It is said of some persons who are loth to work that they live by their shifts or by their wits so this man who is loth to be convinced of the Truth will maintain and keep alive an errour if he can by his wits or by his shifts which are more than one and when one fails him he flies to an other
blush for shame because he hath asserted it and he hath offended here against the generation of the saints who have been wont to pray to God in the person of the Son not excluding the Father and the Spirit Stephen is an example of such a practise and many more besides him in Act. 7. 59. They stoned Stephen calling upon God and saying Lord Jesus receive my spirit It was the second person the Son who took flesh and is God in flesh that was called upon and prayed unto and must he be made a Transgressor But he saith I have nothing to countenance prayer to Christ but these two Texts which I mention this of Stephen and that other of John But this is as gross an untruth as the former yea more palpable to all mens eyes then the former for in 1 Cor. 1. 2. all saints are described to be such who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus And the Apostle Paul prayed familiarly to Christ in 2 Cor. 12. 8 9. For this I besought the Lord what Lord was this It was the Lord Christ How may that appear From the answer that he received and the use he made of it the answer was My grace is sufficient for thee My power is made perfect in weakness the use that he makes of it is this most gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities that the power of Christ may rest upon me The power that is made perfect in weakness is the power of Christ And in 2 Thes 2. 16 17. Now the Lord Jesus Christ himself and God even our Father comfort your hearts c. The Apostle if he pray to the Father he prays to the Son also for he joyns them both together and gives Christ in this place herein the preheminence that he mentions Christ before the Father in this prayer But he excepts against these two examples of Stephen and John first he makes a question of it whether Stephen did pray directly to Christ or not for he expresseth himself with an if as if he doubted but to doubt in plain things is foolishness and to stumble where there is no stone to stumble at is perversness It will be granted I hope that he prayed to him to whom he spake but he spake to Christ and the words in the Greek make it clear They stoned Stephen calling upon and saying Lord Jesus receive my spirit there is none other mentioned but the Lord Jesus upon whom he called and to whom he said receive my spirit and he warrants it by Christs visible appearance as Lots prayer unto the Angels being visible but what visible appearance was there when Paul prayed to Christ in the forementioned places or when all the Saints prayed to Christ as the Apostle intimates the practise to be in the primitive times what sight had they first of Christ before they prayed did Christ appear visibly to every one of them first what a groundless conceit is this and how far from truth besides what did such a visible sight advantage him when he saw him in heaven for unless it were in a vision that he saw him it was in heaven that he saw him and if so the distance was as great as if he had not seen him therefore it could not be bottomed upon that ground for Christ was never a whit the more present because Stephen saw him And so the example of Lots praying to the Angel is no whit sutable because the Angel was not onely visible but present But what doth he mean by bringing in such an instance of Lots praying to an Angel will he set on foot the doctrine of invocation upon saints and Angels by it If he would do it that instance which he brings of Lot will not help him at all it was neither of the two Angels that Lot prayed to that he received into his house and lodged but the third Angel before whom Abraham stood who was now come to the other two and this was Jehovah in the person of the Son who often appeared as an Angel which appeareth from Gen. 19. ver 17. When they had brought them forth abroad he said escape for thy life that is when the two Angels which came first to Lot had brought Lot and his wife and daughters out he said that is netiher of the two Angels for they are mentioned joyntly all along and neither of them singled out from the other but it was the third Angel or Jehovah as he is called that appeared now to Lot and this was he to whom he prayed This appears further from ver 22. 23 24. I can do nothing saith this Angel to whom Lot prayed till thou come thither and afterward it is said the Lord rained c. in the Hebrew Jehovah rained c. from Jehovah the Son from the Father It was he that rained fire and brimstone that said before to Lot in answer to his prayer I have accepted thee in this thing haste thee thither for I can do nothing till thou come thither and this is called Jehovah and it is said he rained from Jehovah So that he is grosly mistaken in this also about Lots praying to a creature Angel by which he would prove it warrantable to pray to a creature Christ but puts it upon the visibleness of him when yet this Angel was not only visible but present and Jehovah in the person of a man He also excepts against John's prayer he saith it was an intimation of the Churches desire after Christs coming but no prayers and he quotes Rev. 6. 16. as a parallel place where such expressions are used yet no prayer But there is a different reason when one speaks to irrationall things which have no understanding nor knowledge and which are not capeable of a prayer and when speech is directed to persons that are capable thereof had those words been spoken to God let the mountains and the hills fall on us they would have been an imprecation which is one kind of prayer And whereas he saith if is but an intimation of desire and no prayer he shewes himself ignorant of the nature of prayer for what is prayer but an intimation of the desire of a person to one that is able to answer him in it And what are those expressions of the Apostles in their Epistles to the Churches but prayers for them yet they are intimations of the Apostles desires Grace be with you and Peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ our Lord. And the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ the love of God the Father c and Grace be with you and Peace from him that is was and which is to come and from Jesus Christ c. 1 Cor. 1. 3. 2 Cor. 13. 14. 2 John 2. Rev. 1 4 5. But he goes on and tells me I cannot saith he but looke on that as vain and frivolous which you set up as the wals and bulworkes of your Argument viz if Christ werâ— but a meer creature being in
and destroying of them that saints may be kept and preserved sound and incorrupt in the faith or at least may be recovered out of errors into which they have fallen I shall give some few hints of these four particulars 1. Of the cause of Errors how they come to spring 2. Of the growth of Errors how theâ— come to spread 3. Of the cure of Errors what ought to be done to heal the persons of them and to destroy the Errors in them 4. Of the preservatives against errors when they are rife and not easily cured where they have taken root and how Christians may be kept untainted and undefiled of them 1. The causes of Errours are many by which meanes it comes to pass that many are leavened with them 1. There are many Apostate Christians who have put away a good conscience and concerning faith they have made shipwrack of it as the Apostle speaketh 1 Tim. 1. 19. and in Gods just Judgement it comes to pass many times that these have a Spirit of errour let lose upon them and these as the false Prophets and false Apostles of old go about as seducers and deceivers and say that they have dreamed and they have received a word from the Lord and they utter lyes and falsehoods in the name of the Lord these have a dextrous way of insinuation to ingratiate themselves among the people and to steale away their hearts from their sound and powerful Pastors and Teachers as the false Apostles bewitched the people and alienated their affections from the Apostles of Christ These serve not the Lord Jesus as the Apostle Paul speaketh Rom. 16. 17. but their own bellies and for filthy lucre sake make merchandize of the souls of the poore people 2. There are many persons of great parts and gifts and of unsanctified hearts and spirits these are apt to be puffed up with pride and to fall into the snare and condemnation of the divel 1. Tim. 3. 6. These are ambitious of glory and would fall under observation for singularity These are seldom wise to sobriety these have bin wont to abound in notions and conceptions to be greatly extravagant therein and Satan hath commission given unto him to enter into them to work effectually in them and by them they become notable instruments in his hands and he is a lying spirit in their hearts and tongues and these have the art and skill of putting off corrupt and adulterate Doctrine as if it had Gods touch and stamp upon it by the sharpness and acuteness of the parts and wits of these simple and more unwary Christians come to be beguiled 3. Many of the people are weake and injudicious and have not a good root of knowledge in them they do not know things in the reasons and causes of them but have received the notion of the truth without the ground of it they have not a deep insight but a superficiall knowledge onely and have seen the out side but know not the mistery within and so it comes that with every wind of Doctrine they are shaken Eph. 4. 14. through the slight of men and cunning craftiness for it is easy to present things with another face while persons look not after that which is within and the fraud and falshood comes not to be discerned for the net and the snare is not in sight and that which is specious is only presented 4. Many persons are ambitious after knowledge that they may increase it and are wholy given as the Athenians to understand news so they to understand Doctrine to arrive at higher notions and conceptions nor for the honour of God nor in affection to the truth but to furnish themselves unto discourse and to increase their repute and so they become swift in hearing and quick in receiving any new Doctrine and God gives them up to strong delusions that they may believe lyes 2 Thes 2. 10 c. who neither seek nor receive the truth in the love of it that they may be saved but that they may be praised 5. Persons that have a real inplantation into Christ and those that have onely a visible and formal inplantation but want a true ingraftment they live together not only in the world but in the Church of Christ also and are under some droppings and waterings of external enjoyments and have a name to live and yet are truly dead and the honour and praise of those that are saints indeed are put upon them Now God that discernes betwixt the sheep and the goats and seperates betwixt them and he also who unmaskes hypocrites and pluckes the vizard off from them he that can distinguish betwixt the natural complexion in his own people and the paintings of others who pretend to him but are none of his he in his providence brings an houre of temptation both upon the one and other he tryes them both with the wind of false Doctrine and heresie and for this end he doth it that they which are approved may beâ—e manifest and that the hypocrisie of the rest may be made detected that himself may have glory in his own and that the others may ly under shame 1 Cor. 11. 19. And the Apostle John saith they went out from us because they were not of us which is appliable to false Doctrine and error and heresie they left the truth and those that adhered to it and they went out after error 6 Many persons forsake or never put themselves in to that order which Christ hath appointed for Saints to walk in in which they might be watched over and so kept by which meanes they are in a state as sheep without shepheards and when the Wolfe commeth they become a prey for the shep are not able through weakness and simplicity to defend themselves if there be no shepheard to provide for their safety and poor weak well meaning Christians are less able sheep will fly from danger though that doth not save â—hem alwayes but Saints many times mistrust no evill and so decline not the danger The Apostle declares how he himself watched for the space of three yeers with many teares to prevent this evill of the flock being devoured by Wolves and he calls the Elders of Ephesus together and gives them this charge that they would take heed to themselves and to the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made them overseers to feed the Church of God that is with sound incorrupt doctrine and he renders this reason because after his decease grievous Wolves should enter in not sparing the flock and men of perverse minds amongst themselves Acts 20. 28 29 30. And it is to be observed that such persons how wise soever how holy soever they do professe to be and really may be who cast off Ordinances and Churches and Ministry and say there are now no Pastours nor Teachers nor flocks committed to them as in Primitive times there were and so withdraw themselves from the vigilancie of
opinions that are unsound and with persons also who are corrupt by which means it comes to passe that many lay themselves under strong temptations and through the righteous hand of the Lord they come to be left to errour and become as corrupt as any There are some and not a few that take great delight to talk with all kind of persons who hold any strange opinion as bring any new doctrine and if there be any book into which any poyson of corrupt doctrine is instilled they will use all means to get such a book and will choose rather to read therein then in any other till at length they be changed into the same image and be principled alike to the persons and books they are so conversant with Now this evil proceeds 1. From an opinion that some hold that it is the duty of Christians to try all things and to keep that which is good but the commandment of the Apostle is mistaken for first this trying respects all the doctrines and spirits of men that we are called necessary to partake of and be conversant in so the doctrines of our own Pastors and Teachers must be tryed and of others also whom providence leads us to hear and it respects the knowledge of doctrines whereto we have not yet attained but we are not by vertue of this commandment to rake into all opinions that are or have been among Apostate Christians nor is it a duty to be alwayes trying but we must be rooted and grounded and established as we have been taught And this is a commandment of the Apostle whereto we ought to attend and we must leave the principles and passe on to perfection that is having laid them in the foundation we must build higher and higher upon them till we come to a perfect man in Christ 2. From a presumption which persons have of their own strength they think there is no danger but that they shall be able well enough to discover the evill in any opinion and not be hurt by it and in the interim they may read or hear something that may edifie them But indeed the most of these are unacquainted with their own weaknesse and they know not the depth of Satan till they fall by them 3. From some decay of appetite so farre as concernes feeding upon wholsome nourishing truths for it is a symptome of a weak distempered stomack that it would behold variety of meats but it cannot feed upon any so when the soule is carried out to curiosity to be looking and prying in all things that any are carried to it is to be feared that it feeds upon nothing which may build it up and strengthen it 4. Error comes to be spread by the temerity invigilancy insobriety imprudence of many Christians some are sudden in entertaining of opinions not sober some are close and secret in their search and enquiry after them and never discover any thing till they be formed within them and till themselves come to be formed into the similitude of them and then it becomes an hard work to destroy that which is so firmly received and some over-match themselves while they oppose their understanding parts and abilities to the intellect and sharpnesse of apprehension and dextrousnesse of wit and vastnesse of parts and strength of braine that false Teachers and Seducers have by which means it comes to passe that they are easily overcome and advantage is given to the erroneous to propagate their corrupt opinions Whereas there ought to be great deliberation much consultation open heartednesse also in persons to their owne Pastors and Overseers or dear friends whom they may confide in and a calling out for help where it is most like to be afforded that such doctrines may be debated upon equall terms before they be received 5. The countenance and encouragement that is given to persons that bring unsound and unscripturall doctrine and the applauses and praises wherewith they are followed by some high ones and holy ones it may be for some parts that are eminent in them and for some dresse of holinesse that they appear in do give life and strength to such doctrines for when great ones and godly ones are become admirers and adorers of such persons and harbour them and honour them the eyes of others are thereby turned after them and there will be many that in a moment will be found to strengthen the hands of such evill workers and seducers that do traverse the land and to strengthen their errors also 6. If it once come to passe that any eminent ones in office interest abilities graces upon whom the eyes of many people are and who are leading persons in the places where they live and after whose example many go if any such be left of God to strange doctrine they will draw away many disciples after them and the land will in a short time be filled with error if there be not some mercifull providences to prevent the diffusion of it And when it begins to take hold of Saints it is most likely to increase for then there is honour put upon it while it lodgeth in such subjects while temperizers and self-seeking persons which were men of carnall and low principles harboured it it was of base repute and prospered not but gets a better name by getting into heads and hearts of beleevers The third thing that comes to be discussed is the meanes of cure how persons may come to be healed of errors and errors may come to be destroyed in them 1. There must be an encountring with such erroneous doctrines and they must be brought to scriptural tryall and there they must be arraigned and thence they must be condemned The reason is because they are presented with the pretext of Scripture Scripture is made use of to usher them in else they could get no entrance therefore Scripture must throw them out again And Seducers mouths will not be stopped any other way nor will their followers be undeceived any other way Therefore there is a necessity that the truth should be held out and strongly fortified with Scripture and with agrument by which the mind may be filled with light and that error should be confuted and the nakednesse and sordidnesse thereof detected that those that are ingenuous may come to be ashamed that have adheared to it and may learn to abhorre it Tit. 1. 9 10. An Elder or Bishop must be able by sound doctrine to convince gain-sayers for there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers whose mouths must be stopped c. This place is worthy of observation for is shewes what ought to be done in these times And look how many wayes error hath been propagated such wayes should be taken for the spreading of truth The contrary truths to the grand errors of this age ought to be held out in words that cannot be condemned by preaching printing letters written private communication and suggestion by open conferences also and disputes and
with his Fathers and Christ may read all the decrees of the Father in himself in his own wisdome and will And he is called the wisdome of the Father and the admirable counsellour 1 Cor. 1. 24. Esay 9. 6. And the Disciples attributed to him the knowing of all things John 16. 30. and John 21. 17. 4. It is inconsistent to the place which he cites that Christ should be absolutely ignorant of the day and hour of judgement to the context on every hand for Christ had told all the forerunners of it the things that should precede and something that should follow the temper of men of that age when it should be the security that should be in the world at that time he himself was to be the person that must come as Judge and he was to depart and then to come and he was to appoint every one his work till he come till the very day and hour of his coming the parable declares so much and could he then be ignorant of the day and hour it is against sense and reason Christ then had knowledge of the very precise time of judgement and yet he had not knowledge he saith so himself how is it to be understood as he was the Son of man according to the man-hood he had not the knowledge thereof but as he was the Son of God he had the knowledge thereof Col. 1. 15. was next produced by me to prove the eternal generation of Christ by it But he had perverted the true sense of it before he came to it and made use of it to serve his own purpose by it while he was pleading for that unchrist-like doctrine which he had received and was ingaged to maintain it And in this place he only tels me he had spoken to it and with a scornful jeere prayes me to consider it again and by my next to let him hear what part thereof it is in which Christs eternal generation may be seen Rep. In this text of Col. 1. 15. Christ is called the first born of every creature and his eternal generation was meant by it which I have proved already in my other Treatise and shall yet again manifest it 1. First-born is not the same with first created 1. because it cannot be proved by Scripture that Christ was created at all therefore not that he was first created 2. In the beginning he was but no mention of any beginning that he had 3. There is expresse mention that heaven and earth were first created for in the beginning they were created and before the beginning nothing was created 4. Christ was born according to the flesh but he was not the first-born but in fulnesse of time was born therefore in reference to his humanity and as he was the seed of the woman he is not called first-born 5. First born and first-begotten are termes equivalent and point at one and the same thing viz. or some person that did perform such an act as begetting of Christ 6. First-born first-begotten and only-begotten are alike congruous and may equally so far as concerns the truth of the thing be attributed to Christ so that whatever is the meaning of such titles or names there is a peculiarity therein to Christ and Christ hath therein no fellows and so it can neither be applyed to creation nor to ordinary and temporary generation for it cannot be said that Christ was onely created nor onely generated and begotten nor onely born for there were numerous creatures created and innumerable generated in the ordinary way But Christ was alone so begotten and so born of God as none else were 7. Christ speaks of himself that which none other can speak but he God possessed me in the beginning of his way before his workes of old possessed me how As Eve possessed Cain for the word is one in the original and it is rendred gotten and indeed he must be begotten so the Lord possessed Christ got Christ begot Christ in the beginning of his way and when was that beginning in the beginning of the world no it was before his works of old or ever the earth was and the earth was the first together with the heavens in the beginning yet Christ was before not in the beginning of the creation but in the begininng of Gods way now Gods way was from everlasting therefore Christs going forth hath been from of old from everlasting Mich. 5. 2. his decrees were from everlasting and God was ever working therefore it is explicated verse 23. I was set up from everlasting in the beginning the one interprets the other the beginning of Gods way is from everlasting Thus I have found eternal generation in these words first born and in his next let him evade it if he can I shall now come to the consideration of Col. 1. 16. By him were all things created c. and John 1. 3. All things were made by him and without him was made nothing that was made In answer to which he thinks he hath acted his part gallantly but let us hear what it is that he saith He puts the Scriptures into an argument after this sort He by whom all things were made is the most high God but all things were made by Jesus Christ therefore Jesus Christ is the most high God He grants the major in reference to the principal agent but denies it in reference to an instrumental agent And saith he asserts Jesus Christ to be onely an instrumental agent in the creation of the world Rep. I have already in many places of my other Treatise because he often harps upon Christs instrumentalnesse to the Father in creating all things confuted this assertion yet if he have any thing to say in the defence of it I am willing to discusse it with him And he produceth four reasons for the confirming of his position I shall try the strength of them 1. The book of the creatures speaks onely of one first cause and principal agent of all things of a Trinity of persons in unity of essence as principal agents in the work of creation the whole creation is silent Rep. 1. If the book of the creatures were wholly silent yet if the book of the Scriptures be not silent we are to attend the book of the Scriptures if the book of the creatures would have taught us all things that we ought to believe concerning God what need had there been of the book of the Scriptures 2 The book of the creatures doth teach many things which we understand not from them the defect is in us not in it we are dul in apprehending and slow of heart in beleeving what the book of the Scriptures doth teach us therefore may not conceive aright what the book of the Creatures doth teach us 3 The heathen Philosophers from the principles of Reason have acknowledged a Trinity of Persons in the unity of Essence as Morneus a French Lord in that exquisite piece of his called The truenesse of
Christian Religion largely and satisfactorily shews if the Reader will be at the pains to peruse him 4 The inanimate creatures have some kind of impression of the Trinity upon them and one God in three Persons hath in a kind left his image and his resemblance upon them The Sun begets beams and rayes and from both these proceeds light and yet neither is the Sun before the beams nor the beams before the light that proceeds from them but in order onely and relation so far as the beams are begotten and the light proceeds but not in time which doth adumbrate the coeternity of the Three Persons So also there is the Fountain and there is the water that bubbles up which is as it were begotten of the Fountain and there is the stream that proceeds from both and these are at once in time for in the first moment that there is a fountain there is the bubling of water or the rising up or boyling of it and no sooner is the bubling but there is an issuing or proceeding of water the water runs from it if there be passage and yet in order the fountain is first the bubling is next and the proceeding of water is last but they are together in time And may it not be said that the impression of the Trinity is here but the character in which the Trinity is written in the book of the creatures is smaller and darker then that every one can read when yet things of the God-head some of them may more easily be spelled forth 5. Though we affirm that the Father creates and the Son creates and the Holy Ghost creates and that these three are three persons yet we do not hold that these three are three reall distinct Agents but one Agent For they are all of them but one thing but one God and so really but one Agent but this one Agent subsists divers ways in three persons as one God subsists divers ways in three persons and these persons are not another thing from that one God and so not another thing from that one Agent So that he goes upon a mistake while he disputes against three principall Agents As suppose there were one soul in three bodies moving them alike in all operations and acting by them these three bodies would not be three Agents but one Agent though all the bodies perform the work And if there be one God in three persons or which is all one subsisting three manner of ways yet the three manner of ways of subsisting doth not make three Gods nor three Agents But there is no similitude that will rightly and exactly and fully in all things hold forth the working of God in trinity of persons only some little crevice of light may be opened to give a little insight into this truth 6. Our Divines when they have confessed that God is known by the Creation but have denyed that God the Father Son and Holy Ghost are known thereby they have meant it of a demonstrative knowledge which of God men may arrive at but of the Trinity they cannot yet there may be some things that may shadow it out though very darkly 7. It is certain that that which is clearly seen of God in the Creation belongs to his Essence For the Apostle tels us so much Rom. 1. 20. his Godhead is seen things belonging to his Essence viz. his power his wisdome the liberty of his will his goodnesse holinesse and many more properties belonging to his Essence which are common to all the persons but those subsistantiall personall properties they are not by any visible characters to be discern'd But he objects against our Divines for saying God is known from the Creation but not Father Son and Holy Ghost and he objects against the reason that they render viz. That the efficient force and vertue by which the world was created belongs to the Essence of God and not to the personall subsistence his words are these Yet by their leave God is a Person all actions being proper unto persons therefore by their grant the work of creation holds forth but one Agent for it is not imaginable that if there were more then one principall Agent they should not all be equally discovered by the work Repl. I have answered unto this Gods being a Person and have declared that God rather imports essentiality then personality yet withall I have shewed that essence is never separated from person but subsists in it and if God be properly spoken of there the essence is meant as it subsists in three persons in Father Son and Holy Spirit Yet when it respects acting things without them these three persons act in that which is common to them all and wherein they are in one and not wherein they are distinguished and are three they act by the same essentiall property as power wisdome c. and these are one and the same in them all and so it is Gods work in Father Son and Holy Ghost and not the Fathers work alone and apart nor God the Sons work alone and apart nor God the Holy Ghost's work alone and apart nor yet the work of all these wherein they differ and are three distinct from each other but the work of all as they are one And the Father is no more discovered then the Son nor any one more then other but God in all is discovered So that he is upon a mistake when he speaks of three principall Agents that must be discovered in the work of creation For these persons that are work but one thing one being one God one reall Agent for the very thing that the Father acts the Son acts and the Holy Ghost acts and the power is one and the wisdome is one and the act is one Or suppose it were granted that there are three principall Agents yet there are not three Agents essentially distinct but personally only and so it comes all to one whether one say that there are three Agents that may be called principall or whether one say there is one principall Agent for the one Agent is in three persons and acts with some personall diversity and the three Agents are but one in essence and but one thing and act one thing and by one power therefore it is not materiall how it is expressed Agent as it relates to God may admit of the same distinction as is made when we speak of God Agent is considered either essentially or subsistentially Essentially and then there is but one as there is but one God Subsistentially and then there are three as there are three Persons But they do not differ really and essentially one from another as the Persons do not but onely in the manner of acting And Agent taken personally though they should be three yet need not be discovered each of them in the work because as they are essentially one so they work one individuall work by one individuall power and force and efficacy which is numerically the same
man dying for sin and many men sinning and deserving death each of them for the sins they have committed But he makes no answer at all unto it but sends me to Rom. 5. 15. to answer my self which sleight proceedings will satisfie none but such who are willing to be deluded by him The question only will be what satisfaction is necessary that grace may abound to many Because there be many that conceive that any satisfaction will serve to make man capable of grace which God will accept and they do not look at proportion And there are others that hold that no satisfaction at all is necessary in respect of God because God having loved the Elect loves them for ever and there is no change at all in Gods love nor is God capable of changing but is immutable in his nature and therefore though man sinned yet his love was not broken off thereby nor was there any breach on his part at all nor did Christ dye to satisfie him at all for he was satisfied always in his own love which continued the same after man had sinned as before for in his love he gave Christ after man had transgressed therefore the breach was on mans part he had wronged God and merited nothing but hatred and wrath and all evill and no love at all and having an evil and guilty conscience he was suspicious of God and expected no good from him but feared all evil and could not conceive how God could love such a creature or shew any grace or favour to him that had sinned in such sort against him and knew not how God could do it without satisfaction Thus unsatisfied was mans conscience having sinned concerning the finding of any mercy from Gods hands therefore God gave Christ and delivered him up to death and layed him under the curse of the Law not to satisfie himself thereby but to satisfie mans conscience and to give rest and quiet to it and that God cared not for a few drops of bloud but there was a wound in the conscience of those that had sinned that would not be healed but by such a manifestation of the Fathers love as in giving Christ and delivering him up for such appeared And some say Christ came to reveal the Fathers councells and dyed for the confirmation of them This opinion takes hold of many and spreads and prevailes much my designe is not to make a large discourse in way of answer because it is beside my present undertaking only because I am necessitated in reply to him to insist a little on the point of satisfaction and because the point is of great concernment I shall not oversleightly passe over it but stay a while in answer to both the forementioned Tenents and shall first shew that some satisfaction to God is necessary and then declare what it is Sol. And first I shall premise some things and afterward lay down some positions That which is to be premised is 1. That there are no passions and affections in God after the manner of men there is neither love nor hatred nor wrath nor anger nor joy nor grief nor any such by which the mindes and spirits of men are moved and disturbed for God had all things before him at first that should come to passe afterward and if it were good it was of his own operation and if it were evill it was of his own permission and ordering also and that which he could easily have prevented So that it is irrationall to conceive that God should be stirred or moved with any thing that comes to passe or that he should be in divers tempers or mindes or that he should be one thing to day and an other thing to morrow this is inconsistent to that absolute blessedlesse of God therefore though these things are spoken of God in Scripture yet they be humanitus dicta they be attributed to God after the manner of men And those things that are passions and affections in men are attributes and decrees and counsels and actions and operations in God and imply not the least mutation or change in God As for example Gods loving of Jacob before he had done good to deserve such a thing what was it but Gods goodnesse and graciousnesse which is an attribute in God noted in decreeing Iacob to glory which is called Election and Gods hatred to Esau before he had done evill what was it but his soveraignty and absolute dominion which God hath over the creatures without being capable to give any account exercised iâ— appâ—inting him to perdition and destruction 〈◊〉 they are not passions and affections in God but they are acts of the unchangeable will of God in which the above mentioned properties in God are expressed And Gods wrath and anger is not a passion in God but it is an act of Gods righteousnesse and justice by which he repells that which is evill in the creature and contrary to his own holinesse in testification of the unsuitablenesse of it to him and of that which he justly expects from the creature 2. There is difference to be put betwixt the decree and purpose of God concerning life and glory in reference to such persons whom he will glorifie goodnesse towards and the way and means by which God will effect it and accomplish it which is in advancing holinesse and righteousnesse in order to which he made the first Adam after his image gave him an holy and righteous nature writte his will in his heart and then entred into a Covenant of life and peace and glory with him upon the observation of his will and threatened death and all evil and misery upon the violation thereof and this Covenant was in reference to himself and his posterity that were in his loyns This latter is called in Scripture the way of peace and life Rom. 3. 16 17. The former is hid in God for who hath been of his counsell or who knoweth further then he reveals and it hath its being in God and no where else The latter is declared to the creature and it is the creatures capacity of life or the visible state of life into which God did put him and it hath its being in the creature 3. There is difference to be put betwixt the love of God to the creature and the amity of God with the creature or betwixt the decree of grace in electing the creature to life and glory the prosecution of the decree in suteable and proportionable actings of God toward the creature If there be a right distinguishing betwixt these things that thus differ these following propositions and conclusions will be better understood and more easily granted 1. When sin was committed against God the love of God was not broken off nor the councell purpose and thoughts of God concerning glorifying of such persons whom he had chosen to life and glory were not altered nor changed for this foundation stands sure the Lord knoweth who are his nor is God in this
sence like man that he should repent Those whom he thus loveth he loveth to the end that is he cannot cast off whom he hath chosen For these councells of grace concerning these persons being without respect either to good or evill in the persons themselves Rom. 9. 11. The good or evill that followed them in such persons could neither confirme them nor overturne them because they stand upon this basis the immutable and unchangable Will of God not upon the uncertain and wavering creature and hence it came to passe that when one means of effecting them viz mans own righteousnesse proved ineffectual God to shew his firmenesse in his Councels found out other means to accomplish them by viz. the righteousnesse of another and therefore gave Christ John 3. 16. 2. Though sinne did not could not overturn the Decree of life yet it broke the Covenant of life and so overthrew that visible state of life in which the elect were whom God had chosen and so brought them into a dreadfull visible state of death though not into a final miserable state because of Gods election Sin altered the state of elect persons though it altered not Gods thoughts concerning them so that it might be said he that was before in the state of salvatiō is now through sin in the state of condemnation though it cannot be said that God will because of sin now damn that person whom his thought and purpose was to have saved Rom. 3. 11. Destruction and misery is in their paths and ver 23. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and Rom. 5. 12. As by one man sin entred into the world and death by sin so death passed over all men because all had sinned 3. Sin having overthrown the Covenant of life and glory and brought men into the state of death all hope and expectation of life was together with it taken away and nothing but a fearfull expectation of death and condemnation It is said of Adam when he had sinned that he hid himself from God when God came into the Garden as one that expected no good from Cod. We read of the condition of the elect before deliverance that through fear of death they were all their life subject to bondage This is to be interpretend in reference to their consciences which tormented them with the representations of death but this will be granted that Christ came to satisfie the conscience and quiet it but not to satisfie God 4. Though the election of God stand sure and the sove of God could not be broken off yet the amity and friendship of God was brought to an end and wrath was manifested instead of love and God instead of prosecuting his Decree of life prosecutes the breach of the Covenant of life which was violated by sin and ratifies the threatning which was this thou sbalt surely die and doth unfold the curse in it and open it in some part of its latitude which was shut up under these generall words thou shalt die Gen. 3. 16. to 20. And Ephes 2. 3. Elect person are called Children of wrath as well as the reprobate they are in one state till deliverance come And 1 Thes 1. 10. Jesus is said to deliver us from wrath to come Now wrath is not a passion in God as I have shewed but it is Gods righteousnesse conflicting with and prosecuting sinne viz. the first sin in the violation of the Covenant of of life and all after sins also And such which sinne are accursed Gal. 3. 10. that being the sentence of the Law is the sentence of God whose the Law is so that God as a Judge prosecuting sinne on the Lawes behalf is represented unto us 5. If God must be a righteous and just God and faithfull and true God he must be even he himself the prosecutor of the Elect notwithstanding his Decree of life and glory in which he had comprehended them wherein his goodnes freely wrought from all eternity towards them because God had threatned and must not reverse it least he suffer in his truth least his word be falsified which was that Adam transgressing his Commandement should surely die and the law saith That that soule that sins shall die His truth therefore binds him to it God must be true and every man a liar that contradicts him in that which he speaks And the Apostle Paul speaks of some persons That knew the judgement of God that they that commit such things are worthy of death He had mentioned many sins which men committed and brings in the knowledge that they had of the demerit of such sins against them that such sins were worthy of death and that it might not be thought that they judged these sins worthy of death through the working of their consciences only the Apostle shews that they had the knowledge of the judgement of God and that thence it was that they judged these sins worthy of death Now the judgement of God is according to righteousnesse therefore Justice presseth God on to a prosecuting where ever sin is 6. Though God because he hath chosen some to life will not suffer them to perish but will bring them to life everlasting and though he love them so well that to save them he will give Christ to them and for them as from John 3. 16. is manifest he doth yet in the giving of Christ he will have such respect to his justice and to his truth that neither of them may be violated or wronged Hereto the Apostle gives witnesse Rom. 3. 25 26. God hath saith he set forth Christ to declare his righteousnesse that he might be just and the justifier of them that beleeve in Jesus God had regard to both these in sending and setting forth Christ that he might justifie those that he had chosen and had brought to faith and that he might be just in so doing because the sinne that such had commited or participated in was worthy of death by Gods owne dome therefore God minds both that goodness and righteousnesse might be exalted together in the same Christ So in Gal. 3. 10. 13. God had an eye to his truth when he gave Christ it was written in the Law that he that continued not in all things contained there was accursed and because no man did continue in all things written there that God in the Law might be true Christ whom Gods electing love gave to the elect became accursed for them Christ therefore died not for any such end as to ratifie the doctrine which he had brought from the Father for by his miracles he gave sufficient witnesse thereto nor is this made the end of Christs dying any where in Scripture but it was to appease God and to fulfill righteousnesse 7. Gods laying the sinnes of the Elect upon Christ Isa 53. 6. was in order to satisfaction to God It was not only done to assure us that in mercy they are taken away from us that we might not fear