So also in Rev. 19. 10. and chap. 22. 9. John fell at the Angel to worship him knowing him to be but an Angel and looking upon him only as one through whom he had found favor to have such things shewed him and as one superiour to him because an Angel as Rev. 32. 8. shews I fell down at the feet of the Angel that had shewed me these things it was upon this account that he fell down He was an Angel and had shewed such things to him he was not God nor Christ nor did John look upon him so and it was but an outward prostrating of his body before him arising from that reverent esteem that he had of him yet it was not accepted by the Angel but repelled and with this Argument repelled I am thy fellow-servant as indeed the highest creatures are and of thy Brethren that have the testimony of Jesus see therefore thou do it not worship God Whence it is apparent that the lowest degree of Religious divine Worship is too high for any creature 5. That wherein Gods glory lies and which he is so dear of that he will not give it to any other and which when it hath been given to another by his people hath stirred up his jealousie that must needs be proper and peculiar to God and is not to be given to any other below God But all divine religious worship is such a thing wherein Gods glory lies and of which God is so dear that he will not give it to any other but proves jealous presently if it be given Therefore all divine Religious worship is so proper and peculiar to God that it is not to be given to another The Scriptures that prove the Minor proposition which alone may be questioned are Isa 42. 8. I am the Lord that is my Name and my glory will I not give to another nor my praise to a graven Image This Glory which God will not give to any other is such worship which was wont to be given to a graven Image and which the children of Israel gave to the Calf in Horeb which was intermediate worship and was not terminated in the Calf but in God and yet God would not give that from him And when God gives the second Commandment in which he forbids to be worshipped through an Image and by Image any thing that may be thought of to represent him is meant as all confess that have been accounted Orthodox he mentions his jealousie which will arise in his best if such worship be tendred him he will count it as if the Image the creature the representative whatever it be were worshipped and not he and he will visit that sin upon the Fathers unto their children to many Generations By this time I hope it will be evident unto the Reader That all divine Religious worship is peculiar to God alone I shall now proceed to consider of the residue of his Answer He undertakes to shew difference betwixt the worship that is peculiar to God and all other worship His words are these That worship honour service which is peculiar to God differs from that which may be yeelded to a creature partly in the matter but wholly in the manner of it We must pray to God for all things we want and may pray to men for what they can give we must obey God and we must obey men who are set over us by God but we may not worship honour and serve men in the like manner as we do the most high God who is the principal and ultimate object of all worship honour and service his right thereto being onely of himself and he himself being the sole end thereof According to this sense is that command which our Saviour mentions Mat. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve Rep. In these Lines he hath multiplyed words but hath not increased knowledge he hath told us of a difference but hath not shewed us what it is he hath instanced in matter and manner but not declared wherein in what particulars in either he shewed reasons of a difference why it must be so God is first and last therefore none must be worshipped as he but the difference is yet in the dark I would intreat any one to fetch it out of his words if he can And if there be any light in his expressions that light is darkness yea blackness of darkness he hath said that God is the principal and ultimate object of all worship and so he leaves it and therein he opens a dore to all Popish Idolatry a man may worship a stock or a stone or any thing provided that God be the first and the last the principal and ultimate object in that worship that he gives thereto What would any Papist desire more at his hands A graven Image may be an object of his worship if it be not the principal object nor the ultimate but that he pass through it to God As for the difference in matter he mentioned it and then deserted it without giving the least hint what it is It had been needful that he should have pitched upon some act or acts of worship of which it might have been said This act is so proper and peculiar to God materially considered as that the like material act may not be performed to any that is not God But he foresaw that the giving of an instance herein would have lost the cause he pleads for for though he might have given instances many which might have held in reference to all other creatures yet not any that would hold in reference to Christ whom he makes but a creature therefore he is silent And though he gives instances of acts materially the same which are performed to God and men as praying obeying and saith the difference is in the manner of performing these acts yet he gives no satisfaction in reference to this diversity of manner And he mentions not the grounds of worship and honour and service wherein the root of the difference lies for the grounds are such upon which we worship God that because we meet not with them in any creature we have to do with therefore we neither dare give the same worship for matter or manner that we give to God to any creature But as if he had given light enough he concludes that Mat. 4. 10. must be understood according to that sense What sense means he He would have God to be the principal and ultimate object in all worship and that is enough according to him and being observed Christ might have worshipped the the devil for any other caveat that he enters against it I do not wrong him one whit for his words are That the command which Christ mentions in repelling Satan that tempted him to worship him Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve must be restrained to God as he is the principal and ultimate object onely and then if
then in the words of the 8. verse sets him before men for the consolation of the righteous and terrour of the wicked as present calling to them I am Alpha and Omega c. who will make doubt of my coming who can intercept it I am Alpha and Omega c. But he imagines other Arguments will be made use of to prove this place to refer to Christ and disputes against them his words are these You will peradventure say that the thing is evident in that he is called Lord or you will bring the Testimony of learned Authors who have interpreted the words as spoken by Christ And he confutes both these reasons and saith God or the Father distinct from Christ is called Lord Act. 3. 19. 20. c. And Beza saith he conceived that these words are spoken of God absolutely taken And Pareus confesseth certain Orthodox Interpreters do attribute the words to God absolutely considered Repl. The Title Lord because it is rarely attributed to the Father in the New Testament and when it is attributed to him it is done with such clearness that it is easily discerned and because it is first commonly attributed to Christ therefore it may be a ground of a probable Argument that Christ is meant by it but a necessary Argument cannot be deducted from it therefore I wave it and it had been wisdom if he had done so also till he had discerned that I had made use of it as an Argument As for learned Interpreters though I honour them much yet it hath not been my custom to bottom the sense that I put upon Scriptures upon them but to prove it from the Scripture either the Text it self or context or some other parallel place therefore he might have spared his labour in citing Authors unless I had provoked him thereto But if he will produce Authors why will he offer wrong to the Authors whom he produceth and make them speak that which they speak not that hath been the way to uphold a rotten tenent and he treads in that way I cannot find the words he cites in Beza and he mentions not the place and if he can shew them in Beza I can shew that Beza contradicts himself If Beza have so expressed himself probably he would do it when he came to give the sense of the place but there his words are these Christus hic loquitur ut aeternus Deus acsi diceret ego is sum ante quem nihil est immo per quem factum est quicquid factum est quicque ut omnia intereant superstes illis omnibus maneam c. That is Christ here speaks as the eternal God as if he should say I am he before whom there is nothing yea and by whom every thing is made that is made and am one who do abide and am surviving when all other things perish As for Pareus I confess he cites his words aright and yet abuseth him egregiously for though he grants that some Orthodox Writers do apply these words to God absolutely considered yet he doth not grant that they are Orthodox in their Interpretation of that Text but disputes against them and renders reasons why the words must be applyed to Christ And in the very place from whence he fetcheth those words of Pareus which he mentions in his Margin these words immediately follow causas tamen evidentes sententiae huic obstare prius ostendi that is though some Orthodox Interpreters do apply these words to God absolutely taken or to the Trinity yet I have before shewed manifest reasons which do cross this Opinion of theirs Now he mentions the former words of this Author and silenceth these latter words and so deals unkindly and uncandidly with him But he saith We must betake our selves to reason whereby the Spirit may convince us of whom the Text in controversies is to be understood Repl. This is new Doctrine that is here taught us viz. that reason is the Spirits organ or instrument in its convictions that it sets upon men and it is dangerous desperate Doctrine which hath been exploded by all humble sober Christians if a man must be believe no further then he can see the whole Gospel must be rejected for it is an high mystery which reason cannot look into and the love of the Father and of Christ hath an heigth and depth c. which passeth knowledge must not persons believe it I have heard it and do believe it that the Spirit is sent to convince according to the revealation of Scripture whether we can reach it with our reason or cannot reach it but reason is now advanced as the only medium to Faith which was formerly cryed down as the great Enemy of Faith But let his reasons be considered of 1. This Text saith he declares the principal Author of those things which John the Divine was to communicate to the seven Churches for these words begin a new matter and are no part of the salutation They speak of God even the Father who is of highest authority and from whom originally this Revelation was Christ he is spoken of ver 11. and is to be considered as the principal instrument in conveying this Revelation to the Churches for God gave it to him to shew to his servants those things which were shortly to come to pass vers 1. Rep. 1. This reason asserts several things and proves nothing and so leaves the Reader altogether unsatisfied unless bare words must pass for currant 2. There is no truth in any thing that he asserts in relation to this text in controversie for though there might be some colour for such a collection that God the Father is the principal Authour of this Revelation and Christ the principal Instrument of conveying this Revelation to the Churches which is only in a sense true not of whole Christ but of one part of him to be understood in relation to the first verse because there it is said that God gave it to Christ yet in relation to verse 8. of which the dispute is there is not the least shadow of ground for any one to conceive much less to utter such things For if Alpha signifie the first or the beginning yet it must not be restrained to this Revelation but must be extended to all things and whether the Father or Christ be meant yet a person that is from everlasting to everlasting and that is the root and fountain of all things and that comprehends all things is meant as all the letters in the Greek Alphabet are comprehended betwixt Alpha and Omega 3. It is unreasonable for him or any one to apply the letter Alpha to the Father in verse 8. and thence to deduce this conclusion the Father is of highest authority and from him originally this Revelation was and then to apply the same letter Alpha in verse 11. to Christ and thence to deduce a diverse if not contrary yea contradictory conclusion viz. Christ is the principal instrument in conveying this
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
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
owne bowels and when it is little it is very pleasant and makes the Father sport and by it is signified to us what an one Christ was what a son he was that he was his owne proper son not created but generated having his very essence from the Father by an act of eternall generation and in whom God taketh delight after the manner of parents in a child that comes out of their bowells and is a part of themselves that is the highest dearest delight and the most naturall and intimate delight beyond which there neither is or can be any delight It is manifest therefore that he confounds things that must not be confounded he would have possessing or obtaining to be one with creating in this place but it is a gross mistake in him But when was it that God did thus possess or beget Christ He would have it to be when God began to work then God created Christ saith he before his works of old But it is manifest that the very words that set forth Gods eternity are used here See two of the words Megnolam which signifies from everlasting and Meas which signifies à tunc from then or from of old as it is translated and both are used in Psal 39. 2. and applied to the most high God Thy throne is established of old thou art from everlasting and kedem is in many places applyed to God for such antiquity which is eternity Deut. 33. 27. the eternall God is my refuge so that Christs eternity is set forth in this place of the Proverbs He was brought forth or possessed from eternity And though it be said in the beginning of his way yet this makes nothing against Christs eternity because it is added that it was before his works so that this was points at eternity for who will assert that creation was the beginning of Gods way did God act nothing before he created it is undoubtedly false So that again he is to blame to confound beginning as he understands beginning and everlasting as if they were one when as they differ as much as eternity and time do differ But he presents us with the Septuagint version but it is not at hand and I dare not take his word without viewing it he hath so often deceived me in his quotations Then he gives in Montanus his version but that is not against my assertion nor doth it favour his doctrine Lastly he alledges ver 30. as speaking of Christs being before Gods works of old but he saith it is a created being but he is mistaken in the mention of the verse for it speaks of no such thing and I have made use of it against him Zech. 13. 7. hath the next place in my paper and in his answer The words are Awake oh sword against my shepherd against the man that is my fellow saith the Lord of hoasts His answer is When you inferred coequality from this place you hearkned rather to the sound then to the sense of our English word fellow which doth not alwayes note equality as from Psal 45. 7. Heb. ◠19. you may be informed where the Saints are called the fellowes of Christ and yet are not equall Repl. To evade the strength of this allegation from Zecharie he flyes from the sound to the sense of the English word fellow and saith it signifies not alwayes equality and yet he declares not in what other sense it is taken neither can I imagine what sense he can devise or frame other then equality for I appeale to all rationall English men whether fellow be not equall in our English acception of the word not but that I grant that the person that is a fellow and so an equall in some respect may be a superior or in inferior in other respects as a school-fellow a play-fellow a chamber-fellow they are fellowes not in a generall latitude in all things but in a particular respect so far as concerns such a business there is an equality they are equally invested into the priviledges of the School and carry on that work of learning with equality together and so in play there is no respect of persons in it but a parity and equality therein be they great or mean they are all fellows that is equalls in that And so it may be said of Christ in reference to Saints though Christ have a superiority even as he is the son of man much more as he is the Son of God over all them and over Angels also and all creatures yet Christ is fellow to the Saints and they fellows to him in some respects he calls them brethren Psal 40. I will declare thy name unto my brethren He makes himself herein a fellow to them and makes them fellows with him John 20. 17. Go to my brethren and say Pascend to my Father and to your Father to my God and your God In bearing the crosse he became like to them yea he set himself below them in taking their nature upon himself and infirmities c. he became like to them and was as they and became their fellow and in condescension in coming to minister rather then to be ministred to he was their fellow at the least if not below their fellow Persons of the same nature and essence may be fellows equalls Kings and peasants were alike from Adam do alike partake of flesh and blood and were formed alike in the womb But God and the creature can be equal in nothing for finite cannot in any thing equal infinite 2 He betakes himselfe to the Hebrew word and tels me If I had consulted with it I would have been a stranger to so strange an inference and then tels me of divers acceptions of the word as Citizen Neighbour Second Lieutenent Vicar friend and alledgeth the Septuagint which he saith translate it citizen and Tremelius which translates it Proximum Neighbour or next And Tremelius and Junius in their Marginall notes a near friend one that stands over against another and is at hand to all friendly offices and makes it the same as to be in the bosome of the Father Repl. That the word in the Originall signifies either Citizen Lieutenent Vicar representative is barely asserted and if he have so strictly surveyed the originall as that he dare challenge me for not surveying it he might have done well to have directed me or the Reader to the places where the word admits of such acceptions but this he hath not done therefore I shall conclude that either he hath presented his owne imagination insteed of the true sense of the word or more probably hath relyed upon some who have deceived him I have viewed the originall and do find that the word Gnamith which is rendred Socius proximus proceeds from the the radix Gnammath which signifies secundùm juxta and sometimes è regione ex adverso and is as much as Ca-asher which is rendred prout all which do hold forth equality To begin with this last
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
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
extract them and present them as if there they might be found or something like them which will bear them nor doth he bring any other text to make it appear that such words are agreeable to the Analogie of faith But by this addition he makes Christ a meere creature a creature before he tooke flesh before the World was while he was with God And he makes the glory which he had to be a derived glory and given to Christ of meere grace and good pleasure Now this is most notoriously false as I have largely and amply proved in my former Treatise But this is the doctrine that fils his head and fils his heart and there is so much of this within him that he thinks every Scripture that he lookes upon contains it and therefore it is that he brings this Scripture speaking that which it speakes not But setting aside these additions for which he must give an account Be it that Christs prayer had this meaning I shall shew you what an inconsistency there is in these words to his opinion in two or three particulars 1. Supposing Christ before he tooke the Seed of Ahraham upon him to be a created soul made by and abiding with God be fore the rest of the creatures were made for this is his opinion how can Christ speake to God these words Who have emptied my selfe taking to me a naturall and mortall body If Christ were but a created soul could it be an act of his will and of his power to take to him a body did ever God leave any creature at liberty to do what he will to chuse or refuse at his pleasure that he should leave Christ this created soul as he makes him at liberty to take a body or not to take it and if not but that God commanded him to take it why doth he plead it with God for reward as if it had been done of courtesie Have any of the Angels when they have waited upon men a worke below them had liberty to plead with God after this manner And how could it be an act of his power to take to him a body he being but a created soul can a created soul build a body of nothing if by creation it be or build it out of a woman without the help of man if by generation it be as indeed it was and if not how comes Christ to plead it as some meritorious act I have emptied my selfe in taking to me a naturall mortall body If God prepared him a body why doth he say I emptied my selfe and tooke it So that here is absurdity enough in this if there were no more in reference to his opinion in these very words 2. If Christ were a created soul where was the Emptying to take a naturall and mortall body is there not an habitude and naturall propensenesse in the soul to be in the body is it not the soules perfection is not the soul imperfect without it is it any more then a part of the whole and with the body makes a perfect man and is this the condescention to be presented as an high piece of selfe denyall to be in a perfect state And doth the soul take the body any more then the body take the soul or doth not God take both and unite them here is neither Divinity nor Philosophy in this But it may be this emptying was in this that Christ a glorious soul tooke a naturall mortall body not a body glorified but vile by reason of a naturall corruptibility But 1. God prepared this body for him where was then this excellent piece of selfe denyall to take and accept of what God prepares though it were an abasing to him Saints tread in such steps of selfe denyall every day and it is but their duty 2. Men are and ought to be thankful to God for such naturall and mortall bodies and for every member thereof and Christ if but a created soul might well submit yea be thankfull that his soul was not as his body for it was of free-grace as he saith and I joyn with him in it if he were a created soul that he was so glorious a soul 3. Lazarus was called so far as concerned a naturall mortall body and further also to the like piece of self-denyall for his soul was in heaven and with God and made perfect with God and glorified with him and it must leave God and leave heaven and leave glory and come into a naturall mortall body again that must dye a second time yea into a sinfull tabernacle again and this must be done at the Command of Christ according to the will of God What self-denyall was this then if Christ's was so great when yet Christ was but only a glorified soul And Lazarus which was such yet might not Lazarus plead it This is another absurdity which follows from his own words upon his opinion Christ being but a created soul at the first with God 2. He makes Christ to ask of God the glory only which he had in heaven before the world was and indeed Christ asked no other but it Now this is not consistent with Christs being a created soul and a creature for it is manifest from the Scripture yea it is confest by himselfe in many places of his printed paper That Christ as a creature had greater glory by donation after his sufferings after his deep humiliation then ever he had as a creature before for that Heirship of all things and dominion and principality and height above all principality and that name above every name was the reward which God bestowed upon him in reference to the crosse which he bore and it was his highest glory as a creature therefore it is expressed in these words is made both Lord and Christ not restored to what he had but made and what a rewarding is that only to restore him to what he had at first Therefore seeing that Christ prayes here in John for the glory that he had with God before the world was and asked no more and seeing it is as evident that as a creature his greatest glory was not before his sufferings but after and was the reward of his sufferings it will necessarily follow that he prayes for divine glory to be restored and that as a creature he was not with God before the world was nor had glory as a creature 3. He saith and the Text saith that the glory that Christ asked of his Father was the glory before the world was but the glory which Christ had as a creature could not be the glory before the world was for he himselfe confesseth that that glory which he had as a creature consisted in heirship and dominion over the world but this heirship and dominion over the world was not nor could be before the world was it will therefore follow that either Christ was created without glory and had no glory till the world was created which is directly contradictory to the Text or if
this That doctrine which denyes and destroyes that one only true Christ and brings in a strange and a false Christ that doctrine destroyes the true Gospell and Scriptures and brings in another Gospell and Scripture in a main point of it But this doctrine of his which makes Christ a creature doth thus therefore this doctrine brings in another Gospell and Scripture in a main point of it The Major is so void of controversie that it will not be stuck at but the Minor will be denyed and therefore must be confirmed That doctrine that denyes Christ to be the proper Son of God and makes Christ to be onely the Son of man that doctrine denyes and destroyes that one only true Christ and brings in a strange and a false Christ but this doctrine of his doth thus therefore this doctrine of his denyes and destroyes that onely true Christ and brings in a false Christ and strange to Scripture The Major will again passe without exception but proofe will be required for the Minor And I confirme it thus That doctrine which takes Christs God-head from him that doctrine denies Christ to be the proper Son of God and makes him to be meerly the son of man But this doctrine of his which makes Christ to be a meere creature and nothing more takes Christs God-head from him Therefore this doctrine of his denyes him to be the proper Son of God and makes him to be meerely and only the son of man The Major wil now only be in question for the Minor is without question true if God-head be taken in a proper sense as I have taken it in my arguing with him all along For the proofe then of the Major proposition I shall present and make out two things 1. that these two things God and Son of God are all one in reference to Christ therefore whoever teacheth any doctrine against the one viz. that Christ is not God teacheth doctrine against the other viz. that Christ is not the Son of God 2. Christ cannot be God any other way or under any other consideration but as he is the Son of God 1. God and Son of God are all one thing in reference to Christ my meaning is not that the termes are confounded for the word God respects the essence more properly and subsisting in a person and the words Son of God respect the second person in the Trinity as distinguished from the Father and the holy Ghost subsisting in the Godhead But my meaning is that where ever the one is expressed the other is implyed and that a divine person subsisting in the Godhead is meant evermore and in the order of existing and working the second person for proofe of this consider these following particulars 1. Christ himself confounds these two God and Son of God by using them promiscuously John 10. 33. 36. In ver 33. the Jewes said they stoned him because he blasphemed and said he was God Christ repeats their words and blames them for charging him with blasphemie because he said he was the Son of God ver 36. those were not their expressions but Christ makes them their expressions therefore in a sense they were one and the same thing and Son of God was as much as God else Christ had both extenuated their fault spoken untruly of them But in truth and deed Christ said of himself neither the one nor the other in express words but said he and his Father were one ver 30. and if the Son of God did not import as much as God their collection in their own words that he made himselfe God in making himselfe one with the Father was more naturall in reference to Christs words then as Christ repeated them For the Father is God and not the Son of God and when Christ said he and his Father were one they might rather conclude that Christ made himselfe God then that he made himself the Son of God unless the Son of God were also God and so Christ might be the Son of God and yet one in Godhead with the Father 2. The Apostle John 1 Joh. 5. 20. makes the Son of God and the true God to be all one in reference to Christ You are in him that is true even in his Son Jesus Christ and this true one this Son Jesus Christ this very person is the true God As if the Apostle should have said when I speak of the Son of God I would have you to know whom I mean by him I do not mean a man a meer creature and nothing else but I mean a person that is the true God 3. The Apostles in their professions of faith if they do agree therein and I suppose none will say that they do disagree therein do make these two to be one and the same thing The Apostle Peter professeth his faith in these words I beleeve that thou art Christ the Son of the living God But the Apostle Thomas in these words My Lord and my God Peter beleeved him to be the Son of God Thomas beleeved him to be very God and very Lord yea his God and his Lord in an applicative way and Christ doth not look upon one as two low for him nor upon the other as too high for him but upon both as professions of their true faith in him he tells Peter that upon the rock of such a profession he would build his Church and he puts a blessing upon all those that shall beleeve as Thomas beleeved his slowness only to beleeve depending upon sight excepted 4. The grounds whereupon the followers of Christ have some of them stiled him the Son of God and others of them have stiled him God are alike and high enough all of them to cause them to entitle him God Nathaneel sees his omnipresence and omniscience when Christ told him before Philip called thee I saw thee under the fig tree and he glorifies him with the title of Son of God Thou art the Son of God Thomas discerns his omnipotence in raising himself from the dead according as he had foretold destroy this temple and I will raise it up in three dayes and he attributes the name of God to him My Lord and my God Had Thomas apprehended Christ to have been passive in the resurrection and raised meerly by the power of the Father and not his own why should he denominate him God upon this occasion and not rather put that crown upon the Father that raised him if the Father only and not the Son wrought in it 5. The high Priests and Scribes and Pharisees thought it to be blasphemy alike in Christ when he made himself the Son of God and made God his natural Father as when he made himself God as they truly collected from those words of his I and my Father are one Compare Joh. 5. 18. with Joh. 10. 31 33. and the truth of this wil appear And they made account when he stiled himself the Son of God that he therein assumed to
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
his custody sin is but as the fetters and cords in which such persons are held the world is but as the prison and death is but as the torments persons are put to but properly we are Gods Captives and are doomed and sentenced of God to banishment from his presence as Cain was and are delivered up to the power and dispose of the God of this world For 1. God is the Soveraign Lord and supream Monarch and Judge and the power primarily belongs to him to cast body and soule into hell 2. Men are guilty of that which they call crimen laesae majestatis or treason against divine Majesty Against thee thee only I have sinned said David therefore worthy to be rejected 3. Therefore they are by nature children of wrath The wrath of God is revealed from heaven Upon those that beleeves not the wrath of God abides 4. We ask to be losed and discharged from our sins not from Satan but from God and to be losed from the bonds and snares of hell and death therefore primarily we are held in bondage to God and not to Satan or any other Hereto agrees the witnesse of Scripture God hath shut up all in unbelief that he might have mercy upon all Rom. 11. 32. The Scripture that is God in the Scripture hath shut up all under sinne that the promise of faith through Iesus Christ might be given unto them that beleeve Gal. 3. 22. God gave some up to vile affections Rom. 1. 26. and verse 28. because they liked not to retain God in their thoughts therefore God gave them up to a reprobate mind God gave them up to worship the Host of Heaven Acts 7. 42. The Parable of the King that was wrath with him that was unmerciful to his fellow-servant is pertinent to the same purpose he delivered him to the tormentors Matth. 18. 34. And that exhortation of Christ To agree with our adversary while in the way lest the Judge deliver to the officer c. Which places do all shew that we through sin are primarily the Captives of God as a King and Judge offended and that only secondarily we are Captives to the devil and other enemies as to Gods Ministers and Servants though enemies to which we are committed for without commission and permission we are taught that the greatest tyrants can effect nothing against Gods Elect and the very devils themselves could not go into the herd of swine without leave therefore the price paid to God to satisfie him is the principal thing in redemption It is also to be understood that these two To be redeemed from God and to be redeemed to God will consist very well together for the captivity of the Elect is not like the captivation of a person taken in war and detained by the enemy from whom when he is redeemed he is totally alienated and separated and hath no more to do with him nor is it like the captivation of a person who is violently and unjustly detained in the hand of a cruel one who tyrannizeth over him after the manner of Pharaoh who laid unjustly heavy burdens upon the children of Israel from whom if he be once freed he is totally withdrawn from such an one and divided never to come into his hands or power any more But the captivity of the Elect is as when a subject for some offence against his Prince is delivered into the Serjeants hand or into some other officers custody and power to be imprisoned or scourged or punished with death according to the nature of the offence unlesse satisfaction be given and he be released upon that account such a redemption as this is viz. of a subject from the wrath of his Prince is not the alienation of the subject from his Prince but the reconciliation of him to his Prince and the person that is redeemed from is redeemed to man for these do consist well enough together from the wrath and justice of the Prince to the love and favour of the Prince he is redeemed And though God offended doth deliver the Elect to enemies and not to subjects for the devil is an enemy both to God and to the Elect and not a subject yet this makes no difference but that the Elects captivation may fitly be resembled captivation of a subject to his own Prince because God is the Lord of devils and they as truly subject though not as willingly subject as any other that are under Gods power Object 5. It is further asserted that it is God that gave Christ to redeem men and if there be any satisfaction given to God by Christ God himself is the author of it and gave it to himself if he gave it to himself he was satisfied before and the price moves him nothing to release the captive because it is not from the captive but from himself and of his own providing and nothing is added to God by it for it is but Gods satisfying of himself And what a kinde of satisfaction is this In the truth of the thing it is as no satisfaction for if the satisfaction must come out of himself he is satisfied in himself without any satisfaction from the captive Sol. God must be looked upon as one that dearly loves the captivated elect persons who had sinned against him and would not have them perish and withall he must be looked upon as one that dearly loved justice and truth and cannot suffer either of them to be violated for they are himself as dear to him as himself therefore he provides that Justice and Truth and the life and welfare of such poor captives may consist together and because he sees it impossible by any thing that the electcan do who had offended because they are without strength and can make no satisfaction for any trespasse therefore he himself in his wisdome and love to the Elect and in his love to Justice and Truth findes out a way to save them from ruine and to satisfie these And that is by Christ whom he sends and this is all his designe and he lookes for no further gain nor advantage to himself but that his goodnesse and righteousnesse and truth might be glorified together in the salvation of the Elect that had sinned for what standeth God in need of and what can be given to him for satisfaction which may be added to his store If his justice and truth in reference to his law be maintained and kept on foot with his love to those whom he hath chosen this is more to him then all the earth and the fulnesse of it and other satisfaction he looks for none The declaration of his justice and truth is satisfaction enough and a motive strong enough to let the captive go free and this he obtained by the intervention of the death and blood of his Son What advantage had Zaleucus who made a law that adulterers should lose both their eyes and he to satisfie this law that he might be accounted just and
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
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