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
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
Christ being finite as he holds and measurable doth stint and limit and bring to a bound and to a measure all that he receives and indeed his humane nature that did receive the Spirit being finite was not capable of the Spirit without measure though the Spirit himself be without measure but it is an hyperbolical expression and the meaning is Christ had aboundance of the Spirit as he was man beyond all men and all creatures but no finite proportion of the Spirit will enable Christ as man to know by his own wisdom that resides in him all the works of all the Churches for none but the searcher of all hearts can do that because there are may hidden works of the heart Now this Searcher of hearts is God only therefore Christ is God But he goes on and saith Though Christ hath such a knowledge yet he is not the most high God for his knowledge is of another Joh. 5. 30. I can of mine own self do nothing as I hear I judge c. Repl. I have already answered some parallel Scriptures to this in my former Treatise pag. 145. to which I refer the Reader I shall adde something out of Beza and Chemnitius and so pass over it I can do nothing of my self that is saith he meo unius arbitratu potentia vel voluntate à patre separata cum una eadem sit patris mea tum potentia tum voluntas ut essentia that is by my own single proper power or will separate and apart from the Fathers I can do nothing when as my Fathers will and power and mine are one and the same even as the Essence is one As I hear The Fathers shewing saith he and the Sons hearing do relate to one another that is nothing but the Fathers giving community of vertue and power and of the very Essence it self by generation from Eternity to the Son and the Sons hearing is nothing but the reception of it Or saith he it may respect the humane nature of Christ Christ as man acts nothing doth nothing apart from the will of his own Diety for though the Divine will and the humane be two wils in number yet they be not two but one in consent and agreement and so one with the Fathers will And Christ as man as he hears that is as the Father suggests to him so he judgeth which is true of the Divine will in Christ suggesting to the humane And Chemnitius in his Harmony interprets the Sons not doing any thing of himself to arise not out of the imbecillity of the Son but from the absolute and perfect identity of the Father and the Son in Essence and all essential properties and acts and the Sons hearing he expounds to be the Sons knowing together with the Father all things decreed in the secret Counsel of the Divinty or Divine Essence And without doubt the undivided operations of the Father and Son are pointed out As I hear I judge saith Christ and in Joh. 8. 15. I judge no man and ver 50. the Father seeketh and judgeth and yet in Joh. 5. 22 The Father judgeth no man but hath committed all judgement to the Son These Scriptures cannot be reconciled better then to say they judge in one another the Father in the Son the Son in the Father they act undividedly the Father is in Christ in all Christs operations and the Son sees and hears and knows the Father and the things of the Father in himself He concludes his answer to this text of Rev. 2. 2. thus Though he alwayes knew all things necessary for the perfect discharge of his offices yet there was a time when he was excluded from the knowledge of the hour and day of judgement Mark 13. 32. But of that day and hour no one knoweth neither the Angels that are in heaven nor the Son unless the Father Therefore his knowledge was not formally of himself nor alwaies perfect Rep. This text of Mark is to be interpreted of Christ according to the humane nature as he is the Son of man for in that sense he is also called the Son without any addition 1 Cor. 15. 28. compared with 23. for Christs manhood is there spoken of for it is said Christ should first rise which as man he onely doth and then ver 28. he is called the Son which must refer to the same consideration of Christ as man And if it were otherwise that Son were alwaies taken for Son of God yet sometimes a thing is spoken of in one nature and must be understood in another Acts 20. 28. it is called the bloud of God but it is meant of the humane nature because considered as God Christ hath not any bloud And as the Son of man is higher then the Angels and knoweth more then the Angels having a more excellent anointment then they therefore the gradation is consistent and sutable enough neither the Angels nor the Son according to flesh which you will think more strange because he is wiser then the Angels And whereas he seems to limit it to the Father onely it must not be understood exclusively as shutting out Christ as he is the Son of God from eternity or as shutting out the Spirit for first if the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interpreted by him unlesse and translated but be alwaies exclusive of all but the person mentioned then the Father would be excluded from knowing himself for Mat. 11. 27. the words run thus No one knoweth the Father unlesse the Son and so it is asserted of the Son no one knoweth the Son but the Father or unlesse the Father and so the Son is excluded from the knowledge of himself if the particle unlesse be alwayes exclusive which would be monstrous to be granted 2. It is manifest that the holy Ghost or Spirit of God knows the day and hour of judgement for it is said of him that he searcheth the deep things of God and this must be granted to be one of them 1 Cor. 2. 10 11. In which text it is to be observed that the exceptive particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless is to be found by which both Father and Son are excluded from knowing the things of God if we may believe him that this particle limits it only to him that is mentioned for the Spirit is onely mentioned 3. It is inconsistent to what is asserted of Christs knowledge Colos 2. 3. it is said that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in him how then should he be ignorant of the day of judgement as he was the Son of God And John 5. 20. the Father sheweth the Son all things that himself doth that is in himself the Father shews all things now this is one thing that the Father doth he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world and this is shewed in Christs very essence which is the same with his Fathers and in Christs very will which is the same
instrument 3. That whereas the Father and the Son are mentioned together they are made equall in manner of working and they are either both instruments or both principall Agents and Efficients for Paul was an Apostle by Jesus Christ and by God the Father and Jesus Christ hath the leading place In Rom. 11. 36. For of him and by him and to him are all things Here the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is translated by or through is attributed to God and he will say that the Father is meant and only the Father and we may observe two things 1. According to the truth of the thing the particles of and by are all one and that by doth not import any instrumentalness for God in no sense can be an instrument 2. According to the sense that he puts upon the particle by God is both the principall Agent because of him are all things and he is also the Instrument of all things for by him are all things Also in Heb. 2. 10. where the Creation is spoken of and attributed to the Father and not to the Son it is not attributed to him as something 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but as somthing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as of him but as by him The words are these It behoved him for whom are all things and by whom are all things to make the Prince and Captain c. Yet he will not say that the Father is an Instrument I shall not multiply places these Texts are sufficient to shew the absurdity and falseness of the gloss that he puts upon the prepositions of and by That which he asserts of the Fathers that they frequently call him Gods instrument and servant is true of Christ as the son of man according to his humane nature and they call him no other then the Prophet Isa 42. 1. which must he so understood In the next place after his Arguments where he placed his own strength for the proving of Christs instrumentalness in Creation he comes to consider my Argument against it which was this God could not make use of an instrument in the work of creating of the world To this he answers 1. This Assertion derogates from Gods al-sufficiency Is any thing impossible with God is any thing too hard for the Lord Rep. This Assertion as it is laid down with a reason to explain it is so far from derogating from Gods al-sufficiency that it is the magnifying of Gods al-sufficiency there is such an infinity of perfection in Gods al-sufficiency that it is incommunicable to the creature God cannot make another as sufficient as himself that is It is so transcendently excellent that no creature is capable of it And whereas he demands Is any thing too hard for God Is any thing impossible to the Lord he may receive this answer What-ever may be done by power God can do it because he hath sufficiency of power in himself to do it But that which cannot be done in the nature of the thing which implyes a contradiction if it were supposed to be done that is impossible with God or in it self rather as It is impossible for the most high God to make a God most high because God most high hath his being of himself and is uncreated and eternall and gives being to other things Therefore a created most high God carries a contradiction with it therefore is a thing not to be done and God cannot do it yet it argues not any weakness in God because he cannot do it 2. He saith I contradict my own testimony and he minds me of the time I remember saith he that in a Conference where I exercised both silence and patience to the glory of God since I received your paper you did affirm in the hearing of not a few that God might have made an Angel or some other creature at the first and by it have made all things Repl. I do remember that time he speaks of and so do some scores of persons as well as I will remember it while they live wherein he exercised not silence altogether for he spake at the last in the close of the conference it had been better he had been silent then to speak as he did for he asserted an untruth in those few words he did speak he uttered words to this purpose That it was strange to him that he should be brought upon the stage in so publick a way for holding such an opinion when he had not declared himself in a positive way at any time about it Which caused me to mind him of his first Sermon in which he broached his opinion in a positive way in this assertion That Christ is not the ultimate and last rest of Saints but the Father and that Christ was but the way to it Which if Christ be coessentiall with the Father is false therfore his assertion did deny by an undenyable consequence the coessentiality of Christ with the Father And at another time he publickly in his preaching speaking his opinion on John 3. 13. No man hath ascended up into heaven but he that came down from heaven even the Son of man which is in heaven said that he could not conceive how Christ being at that time on earth could be in heaven unlesse it were in respect of that knowledg which he had of the Father and the things of heaven or words to this effect In which he denyed the omnipresence of Christ and consequently the Godhead of Christ And yet in that short speech of his he would make fair weather of it and put a face upon it as if he were not the man he was taken for Concerning his patience not I alone but many others did judge it stupidity rather then patience for scarce any one that had had the spirit of a man could have been dumb and not open his mouth when he was so palpably called forth to appear in the cause It did certainly strike amazement in very many that knew he was there and yet could not hear him speak one word having so many strong invitations thereto Or if it were not stupidity it was cunning craftiness for he knew how to make advantage by being here and keeping silence and he could reserve himself in point of speaking to a more hopefull time and fairer opportunity in which he might by speaking propagate his opinion there was little hope of advantaging his cause at that time when there were so many to contradict him And yet he might feele mens pulses by being there and discern who were his friends and who his enemies and who might probably be wrought upon and who not But he saith it was to the glory of God that he exercised silence and patience But it was every to way the dishonor of God for if truth were in his tenent then he shamefully deserted it when he should have committed himself to God in the maintaining of it who ever opposed it And if Errour and Heresie were in his
declared it and there may be yet more glorious effects of it if he shall please then any that have been wrought But this concession hurts not my assertion viz that an infinite power is required in creation and he hath not denyed the truth and clearness of the manifestation of it therein though he say there may by a fuller manifestation of it which by the multiplication of mighty works which God can effect must needs be because every work will bear witness thereof in reference to it self But if he should mean by more power a greater power or more in measure and degree then yet he hath used and manifested in the creation and in the works which he hath wrought it must not be yeilded to him for though there might be a greater work yet not a greater power for the same power is manifested in the one as in the other viz. an infinite power and there are no degrees in that which is infinite though one worke may more fully speak to us that infinity of power which is put forth therein then an other doth The work of creation is that work that God glories in in the Scripture and he doth appropriate it to himself and doth give witness therein to the world that he is the most high God Jer. 10. 10 11 12. And the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are cleerly seen being understood by the the things that are made even his eternall power and Godhead so that the very heathen are left without excuse Rom. 1. 20. And a greater work then creation is from which an ampler testimony of the infinity of Gods power may be fetched for the conviction of the creature in some sense there can be none for there is an infinite distance betwixt something and nothing and onely an infinite power can get over it for that which cannot be measured is infinite but the distance betwixt something and nothing is such as cannot be measured and creation is a bringing of something out of nothing therefore the power that effects it must be infinite therefore infinite power or infinity of power is manifested in great fulnesse and clearenesse in creation His 2d. answer that he gives is this 2. Your assertion plainly denyes the man Christ Jesus to be God Almighty or infinite in power for you say that God could not give or derive an infinite power to any creature and that a creature cannot be God Almighty c. The man Christ Jesus was a creature How then can that person be God Repl. This reasoning is unworthy a man of parts a very child that hath learned the first principles might answer him The man Christ Jesus is a creature that is the son of Mary the seed of Abraham is a creature and I do deny this seed of Abraham as the seed of Abraham to be God or Almighty or capable of an infinite power and therfore God could not derive it nor was Christ Almighty as man as the son of man But this man Christ Jesus was God as well as man that is this person Christ Jesus was both God and man not that the manhood was turned into the Godhead and so became God but that the eternall Son of God who is by nature God with the Father and the Holy Ghost assumed manhood tooke the nature of man the seed of Abraham and became one person with it and this person was Almighty as he was the Son of God not as man and this almightinesse was not by derivation from the Father but was an essentiall attribute in him His third Argument is this The Ground saith he of your Argument is straw and stubble for infinite power may be manifested by them to whom 't is not communicated And he gives instances many Repl. Because I soresaw he might give such an answer therefore on that day of the conference which he spoke of I mentioned such an instrument which he now speaks of which is not the subject of the power but a meanes without which God will not exercise the power which he himselfe is the subject of and I granted God might have made use of such an instrument but Christ in creation as also in preservation is the subject of the power and I spoke of such an instrument which is the subject of power and shewed it was impossible that there should be such an instrument and therefore Christ having such power in himselfe could not be an instrumentall but the principall Agent He comes in the last place to consider of the Minor of the Argument which he had cast the Scriptures I produced into fetched from Christs creating which is this All things were made by Christ Jesus His answer is It is true Christ being excepted of whose creaturall being I have already spoken But against this answer he frames an obction Obj. You will say saith he that in Joh. 1. 3. it is said that without him was nothing made that was made And he answers it Sol. The words are to be restrained to all those things which by the use of an instrument were made in the first verse the creation of Jesus Christ is included and in this 3 verse he is spoken of as the instrument of God in creating all things therefore he is there to be excepted And he gives some instances which I omit the mention of because I shall have no need to return answer to them Repl. If indeed the creation of Jesus Christ be included in ver 1. then I shall grant that Jesus Christ is excepted in ver 3. but if not then ver 3. is strong against him The words in ver 1. In the beginning was the word and that is granted by both sides that then he was but that then he began is not asserted by the Apostle and is denyed by us if he will have it to be so let him shew in his next how he will fetch out creation from these words In the beginning was the word God the Father was in the beginning was God the Father therefore created in the beginning The next Scripture produced by me to prove Christ's Deity by was Heb. 7. 3. Without father without mother without descent having neither beginning of dayes nor end of life made like unto the Son of God abideth a Priest continually Christ is here resembled to Melchisedech in reference to eternity But what answer makes he to this text Truly it is an impotent lame and poor answer Was Melchisedech saith he eternall if so then he was God but he was neither the Father nor the Son nor the Holy Ghost I hope you will not allow a quaternity of persons in unity of essence and therefore will allow the words to be taken in a figurative sense Melchisedech was without beginning of dayes and end of life in that there is no mention made either of his birth or death in the History of Moses or especially in reference to his Priesthood the time of it's beginning or ending being not
himself equality with God Joh. 5. 18. and in that they counted it blasphemy that he called himself the Son of God and judged him worthy to die for it they discovered their apprehensions of that title that it was too high for any creature and proper to the most high God alone 6. Satan also in tempting of him requires a proof of his son-ship unto God equall and equivalent to what he could demand for the manifestation of the very God-head it self and he must declare himselfe to be the Son of God by doing that which none but God could do These grounds I conceive are sufficient to bottom the first conclusion upon viz. that these two expressions or titles Son of God and God are in Scripture account equivalent to each other and do import when they are applyed to Christ a divine person and the second in the order of the Trinity The consequence of which is that who ever denyes the one denyes the other also and then if the God-head of Christ be denyed the Son-ship of Christ will be denyed also I shall now lay downe the 2d position and confirme it 2 Christ cannot be God any other way or under any other consideration but as he is the Son of God 1 He himselfe in his sense acknowledgeth the truth of this assertion for he grants a God-head of Christ and makes him a representative God and saith his God-head consists in soveraignty and dominion over all the creatures and he founds it upon Son-ship and saith the title Son of God holds forth superiority over all things and so he is God in that he is the Son of God but all amounts to no more but a creature God and a creature Son of God according to him Yet he concurrs with me in this proposition though in a different sense Christ cannot be God any other way then as he is the Son of God 2. Scripture gives testimony to it 1. The Apostle Paul declares to us that God was manifested in the flesh 1 Tim. 3. 16. that is God assumed the flesh of the Virgin God took the seed of Abraham God united our Nature with the Divine Nature God took it into fellowship and oneness with himself so as that God and man became one and the same person And this the Apostle calls a great mystery and founds all godliness upon it that is upon knowing it and believing it And so Christ comes to be God hath the Names Titles Attributes of God put upon him and the great works of God are called his works and the homage worship service faith fear and obedience that is due to God belongs to him Otherwise it could not have been that he that appeared in the form of a servant and was in fashion as a man and dwelt among us and whose mother was known who she was and was in all things like unto us sin excepted should be the God that made us and he in whom our life and breath and all our ways are but so it was that the great God emptied himself so far as to unite himself to us or us rather to himself and to dwell in our nature and made our nature to dwell in him and so he became one with us and made us that is our Nature one with him And so the Son of Mary is very God the most high God because God descended and was made flesh of a woman 2. There is a concurrence of witnesses in the sacred Scriptures that God took flesh but not God in the person of the Father nor God in the person of the Spirit but God in the person of the Son Joh. 1. 14. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and this Word is neither the Father nor the holy Ghost but is distinguished from both 1 Joh. 5. 7. There are three that bear witness in heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one that is one God But this one God in the person of the Word and not in any other person took flesh upon him The Father did not take Flesh but sent the Son to assume it Gal. 4. 4. God that is the Father sent forth his Son made of a woman Joh. 3. 16. God that is the Father so loved the world that he gave his own Son his onely begotten Son c. And all along in the new Testament the Son is said to be sent sometimes from God sometimes from the Father sometimes from heaven And of the Son it is said in Heb. 2. 14 that he took part of flesh and blood and vers 6. He took on him the seed of Abraham and of the Son it is said that he was in the form of God and thought it no robbery to be equal with God that is with the Father but he humbled himself and took upon him the form of a servant that is he took upon him our vile weak mortal dying nature and came in lowe state among us And indeed in this there is no difference betwixt us But who this Son of God is is the controversie The inference then must needs be this that Christ is not God any other way nor in any other sence but this The Son of God or which is all one God in the person of the Son assumed Humane nature unto him became Man by taking the flesh of the Virgin And this Son of God or God in the person of the Son made flesh is the Christ the Messiah that was promised to the fathers And Christ he is this flesh this seed of the woman assumed and this Son of God or God in the person of the Son united together into one person So that whoever denies Christ to be God denies that God in the person of the Son or which is the same that the Son of God took flesh came in our Nature and that God sent his Son into the world to take the seed of Abraham upon him and to come in flesh and so denies Christ to be God in the person of the Son or Christ to be the Son of God And so by an undeniable consequence such a person who denies the Godhead denies the Sonship and so destroys the true Christ and brings in a strange and a false Christ and another Gospel and another Scripture And this is the doctrine that the Apostle John speaks of 2 Joh. 7. which seducers preached who confessed not that Jesus Christ was come in the flesh the meaning is they confessed not that the Son of God or God in the person of the Son was come in the flesh for otherwise they knew that Jesus Christ the son of Mary was in the flesh and died and rose again But to confess that Jesus was the Son of God or God in the person of the Son was that which the Apostle pressed and withstood the contrary as Antichristian 1 Joh. 4. 14 15. And now give me leave to express my self to be one who stand amazed at the ignorance or inconsiderateness or I know not
Mediatorship otherwise it would have been limited and restrained that that worship which is due to God who is the ultimate object of worship might have been discerned from it and the preeminence the Father hath above Christ in Worship would have been declared in Scripture And hence it follows that though Christ be an intermediate object of Worship yet he is the principal and ultimate object also The same person who is Man and Mediator is the Son of God the most high God Mediator in that nature also And if Religious Divine worship be given unto him as Mediator it is given unto him for the sake of the Divine Nature because he is the Son of God and God according to which nature apart considered from the Humane he is the ultimate object of worship but as considered with the Humane as Mediator he is the intermediate object of worship And though the Humane Nature be taken up into the fellowship as of the Godhead so of this honour and worship yet this worship is not due nor doth properly appertain to the Humane Nature And though the person be honoured with this Divine honour because of the Union yet it is for the sake of the Divine Nature and not for the sake of the Humane which beause it is not the principal and ultimate object of worship therefore that very worship and no less nor any other is given to Christ being thus intermediate or Mediator which is proper and peculiar to God alone who is the principal and ultimate object worship cannot separately and apart considered from the Divine Nature be any object at all no not an intermediate object of Religious Divine worship for then every creature that is a medium or a means by or through which God communicates himself to men and so is intermediate betwixt God and man should be an intermediate object of Divine worship which is directly repugnant to the Scripture and is greatly derogatory to God that the Manhood of Christ or the Humane Nature a part considered hath but the respect of an instrument in so glorious a work which was wrought by the efficiencie and infinite power wisdom of God I have been the larger in discussing this point of Worship because the right understanding of it will facilitate the discussing of the two next which follow which respect Faith in Christ He considers them together though I conceive they may well be distinguished from each other as different things But I shall follow him in his method Instance 2. If Christ be a meer creature then it is lawful and warrantable to believe in a meer creature which is against the tenour of the whole Scripture but it is commanded in reference unto Christ Joh. 14. 1. and salvation is annexed to it Joh. 3. 36. Instance 3. If Christ be a meer creature then faith in a meer creature can save man which is absurd and gross and contrary to the Scriptures for Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness Rom. 4. 3. and so was saving Unto these he opposeth two Propositions which the Scripture as he saith will warrant and will suffice for an Answer 1. That that faith which is needful to salvation hath a double object God and the man Christ Jesus Joh. 14. 1. which he saith the Scripture that I have quoted bears witness to as a truth 2. That that faith which is needful to salvation acts in a divers manner on God and on the Lord Jesus Christ Reply 1. Neither the Scripture that I have quoted nor any other bears witness to this That the man Jesus Christ as man is the object of faith The Person of Christ that is man is the object of faith but not as man And the place that he cites in Joh. 3. 14 15 proves it The Son of man shall be lifted up that whoever believes on him c. But there is in these words that which is called Idiomatum communicatio viz. that which is spoken in the concrete of Christ according to one Nature is transferred to another Natrue And the verse that immediately precedes viz. verse 13. declares thus much It is said that the Son of man is in heaven which at that time when Christ spake those words was impossible as Christ is the Son of man because Ubiquity or being everywhere at the same time is not compatible to any man as man but it was meant of the Person of Christ who is called the Son of man because he was truely man but according to the other nature that was in him viz. the Godhead according to which he was in heaven and on earth together because he fills both as God And Christ that did put that denomination Son of man upon himself in verse 13. continues it and under that title makes himself the object of faith but there is a translation of that which is proper to one nature to another nature to which it is not proper And indeed Christ as Mediator is an object of faith but it is not as he is man that he is the object but as he is God which is very clear for these Reasons 1. It is Christ as he is JEHOVAH that is the object of faith as it justifies and saves Isa 45. 24. compared with Rom. 14. 10 11. proves it Believers are brought in professing their faith in JEHOVAH which is Christ Surely shall one say in JEHOVAH have I righteousness and strength 1 Tim. 3. 10. God manifested in flesh is believed on in the world not Christ accordiâ—g to his Manhood 2. It is Christ as he is all-sufficient and able to save to the utmost that is the object of faith Heb. 7. 25. 2 Tim. 1. 12. But Christ as he is man is not all-sufficient and able to save to the utmost but as he is the Son of God and God Joh. 4. 25. 3. The man that trusteth in man is accursed by God's own sentence Jer. 17. 5. Therefore faith is not in Christ as he is man 4. God hath testified that all life is in his Son Joh. 5. 11. and faith must be where life is and nowhere else and therefore not in Christ as man for the Son of God is not man but God as hath been abundantly proved before And it is also said verse 12 He that hath the Son that is hath received him by faith Joh. 1. 12. hath life and he that hath him not hath not life And they are pressed to believe in the Son of God v. 13. that they may have eternal life 5. Christ himself saith Vpon this rock viz. this profession of faith that Christ is the Son of God he will build his Church Matth. 16. 16 18. Therefore Christ is the object of faith as he is the Son of God and not as he is man 6. If Christ as meer man and nothing more be the object of faith then any other man or creature whom God sends and by whom God speaks or acts may be the object of
impartiall therein when his son whom he loved had offended by adultery caused one of his sons eyes and another of his own to be put out save only the praise of his justice and truth in his lawes and this is that which God grieves at And if the Judge loving the prisoner that is before him and knowing he hath nothing to pay and yet the law recovers payment will give his own son to be his surety and will lay the debt upon him and is content that his son shall fetch the price out of his own treasure yet the law is satisfied and the judges righteousnesse in reference unto it and his love to the Prisoner are glorified Nor is the satisfaction the lesse because God the offended person procures it and not man that offended him for the truth of God stands firme by that means and the law takes place and is not made of none effect as it would have been had no satisfaction been given which would have redounded to Gods dishonour Yea the righteousnesse of God and his love to undeserving creatures shines forth because the satisfaction is of Gods own procuring And though it proceed from God yet it cannot be said that God satisfies himself or that he was satisfied before for he that provides it doth not act it but it is acted in and by an other person The Father sends the Son and the Father in the Son receives satisfaction and though the Father and Son be the same God yet they are not the same person nor is the satisfaction that the Son gives materially considered given in the divine nature or God-head but the Sonne took flesh and in that flesh by dying and sheding his blood gave satisfaction so that it is from God but not in God if we speak of the next and immediate subject which is the man-hood if the matter of the satisfaction be respected And though it may be said that God was satisfied before in reference to his own love to such persons he did not repent of it in such sort as to cast them off nor was his purpose of glorifying them one whit shaken yet he was not satisfied after they had sinned and after he had sentenced them to death in point of righteousnesse and truth to passe by their transgression without satisfaction his Law was not satisfied in a free forgivenesse without satisfaction and so God was unsatisfied because the Law was Object 6. It is likewise asserted that there is an unsatisfied conscience in men men having sinned cannot discerne how Gods heart can be towards them without satisfaction therefore the Scripture speaks of propitiation through Christs bloud and of atonement by his death condescending therein to mans infirmity which could not otherwise apprehend how God could communicate life and glory to men after they had sinned without being first appeased and pacified by Christs blood But if things be rightly considered in themselves as in truth they are Christ dyed not to reconcile us to God but to heal us of an evill conscience and that we might know that God loved us after we had sinned as well as he did before by the gift of Christ who is the manifestation of the Fathers love after the fall which the Elect could not be perswaded of but by a pledge of it Therefore it is said that Christ shed his bloud to purge our conscience from dead works to serve the living God Heb. 9. 14. and not to satisfie God Sol. It will readily be confessed that it was an end of Christs dying to reconcile men to God and that they might have the answer of a good conscience before God 1 Pet. 3. 21. But that this was the solitary end or the principall end or that satisfaction to God is no end but is wholly excluded is denyed and hath been disproved all along in the discourse upon this subject 1. What need would there have been that Christ should have dyed at all if only satisfaction to mens consciences concerning Gods goodnesse and love to fallen creatures had been intended therein For God could best have done that by his spirit and must yet do it by his spirit if it be ever done in the hearts of men Indeed God having given Christ and delivered him up to death the spirit represents it as a great manifestation of the Fathers love but the spirit might have abundantly assured the heart of a sinner of the Fathers love without it so that there was no necessity of Christs dying in that regard 2. The love of God represented unto men in giving Christ is much lessened to them in the representation if Christ were only given to satisfie their hearts in reference to their fears of God not to satisfie Gods justice if there were no need of Christ in reference to any danger they were in in regard of God if God could or would have pardoned sin without him and his justice and truth could have remitted it 3. It is derogatorie to Gods wisdome and love to assert that Christ was delivered up to be crucified upon the crosse and there to shed his blood principally for this end to cure mans panique fears and his groundlesse causeles suspicions of God and not from any necessity that there was in mans evill condition in regard of sin committed by him and of Gods righteousnesse and truth prosecuting it against him For God might have done this in an easier way and have spared his dear Son God is represented prodigall of his dear Sons bloud if he must die and bleed out his spirits to cure some false conceits that men have entertained of God 4. What need was there that the Son should come in flesh and should empty himself of his glory and that he that is the Lord of glory should be crucified if no satisfaction to divine justice was looked at but only the satisfaction of the conscience the bloud of God as it is called would not have been necessary but the bloud of a meer creature Christ would have served the turne for such a purpose had that been all 5. How came those fears in the heart of man after the fall after sinne committed What bred them was there no ground for them were they meer conceipts and jealousies that wanted a right bottom did not the threatning before sinne was committed cause the horrours and terrours that were in the soul after sinne was committed and if they had Gods threatning as the ground of them viz. in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death were they not well grounded and was it possible that these fears should be cured by the bloud of Christ and the cause not removed by the bloud of Christ the threatning not taken away the truth of God and his righteousnes not fulfilled and satisfied which were in the threatning and which bred the feares 6. These fears and terrors of the Elect before Christs bloud be brought to their hearts to remove them are they not of the same nature with the
this is but poorly learned in Christianity It is easily answered that though the Apostles and Saints shall judg the world c. yet they are no where called the Judges of the World And their judging is Catacherstically and very improperly so called The Apostles more especially are said to judg the twelve Tribes or the World because as Paul speaks all shall be judged according to their Gospel Rom. 2. 16. and both Apostles and Angels do judg the World as Assessores as Peter Martyr saith Christus Apostolos Sanctos omnes cooptavit assessores They sit after the manner of Justices of the Peace upon the Bench and hear all and allow of all and approve of all and allow of all and consent to all and are Witnesses of Christs righteous proceedings and in no other sence can they be said to judg and what hath he gained by this and what doth his new discovery which he thought I never thought of amount to His distinction is to better purpose which he brings afterward of principal Judg and Deligate or Deputy Judg and yet it will not mar my Market as he imagines his words are In a sence it is true no creature can be Judg but God that is principal in Government God being both the Alpha and Omega of it deriving his power from none being the Original of all power And afterward he lays down two Propositions 1. That the most high God who is the Worlds principal Judg will not immediately but by a Delegate judg the World Acts 17. 31. John 5. 22. 1 Cor. 15. 28. 2. That Jesus Christ is subordinate Judg in reference unto God the supream Judg but superintendent in reference to the Saints Act. 10. 42. 3. 20. Mat. 16. 27. Joh. 5. 27. Rep. One distinction which hath been often given and is ordinary and familiar with Christians of no vast knowledg will satisfie the Propositions and answer all the Scriptures and reconcile all seeming differences The most high God who as Father Son and Holy Ghost in each person is the Worlds principal Judg and every person not excluding the other is so And Christ as he is the second Person in the Godhead as he is the Son and as he is equal with the Father is the Worlds principal Judg considered a part from the flesh which he hath now assumed the Father and the Holy Ghost not excluded And this I prove from Scripture Gen. 18. 26. The Person before whom Abraham stood was Christ the seconâ— Person in the Trinity not incarnate at that time and he is calleâ— Iehovah and Abraham calls him the Iudg of all the Earth And in Gen. 19. 24. he acted as a Judg he Jehovah the Son rained fire and brimstone upon Sodom from Jehovah his Father And in Isai 45. 22 23. Christ calls himself God and saith there is none else and saith that every knee shall bow to him that is in the day of Judgment as the Apostle an Expositor without exception holds forth in Rom. 14. 10 11. But Christ as considered in flesh being found in fashion as a man as he is Mediator betwixt God and man being both God and man in one Person is designed and ordained by the Father Son and Holy Ghost to judg the world in righteousness as from Act. 17. 31. he proves And so the Father Son and Holy Ghost judg no man but have committed all Judgment to the Son in flesh Ioh. 5. 22. and in the Son in flesh they judg and this Power and Honour hath he received as Mediator in flesh but when all enemies are subdued and judged then he shall deliver up this Kingdom and Power and Glory to the Father Son and Holy Ghost the one true God who shall be all in all and the Son himself according to the flesh shall be subject And in this sence as Mediator in flesh he may be called a delegate Judg for that the humane Nature of Christ should be taken up into the fellowship of this Glory with the eternal Son this was by ordination As the Son in flesh had been humbled so the flesh with the Son must be exalted to this Glory Phil. 2. 9 10. And the Glory which Christ hath as Mediator is founded upon Christs sonship in this respect as Judg as in all other respects indeed in any other respect but as the Son he is not capable of being Judg for though whole Christ be Judg yet the natural right to it and ability to perform it is as he is the Son and that the whole in both Natures is Judg is of grace And can any rational man think that Christ a meer man should be able to judg the secrets of men if he were not God as wel as man so that that honor to judg as Mediator is given to him in flesh as declarative of that essential Power and Glory which he had as Son with the Father and Spirit from Eternity that all might honour the Son with the equal honour as the Father is honoured And whereas he saith That the Father is principal in Judgment and is the Alpha and Omega of it alluding to the place where the Father is so called why should not the Son be principal in Judgment with the Father being the Alpha and Omega of it seeing he also is so called in Scripture Thus I have followed him in all his Evasions and shifts and have unmasked his Answers and plucked off the fair Vizard that he had put upon them and have discovered the deceit and found fraud and falshood that was hid under them And I have vindicated the rest of the Scriptures that I alledged from his corrupt Interpretations that he put upon them and have confirmed the Arguments which I produced and they now abide in their strength and have removed and taken out of the way that which troubled their Testimony which they brought to the Godhead of Christ that they could not be heard by reason of the noise that his Answers made in mens ears Let it be considered from first to last what a poor weak feeble base mean contemptible dispiseable Christ Saviour Mediator Intercessor he makes this great God and our Lord Jesus to be and what a penurious defective lame and beggerly righteousness and satisfaction he brings unto us for our support and how shamefully and reproachfully he strips him robs him of the Honour and Glory in all things that is due unto him The worship which he must have can but amount to Reverence which is only due to one that hath the meer honour to come in the name of another which is all he grants to Christ for he denies him to be the ultimate object of worship and there is no intermediate object of worship which is not founded in the ultimate or last object and all that come in Gods name Moses and all the Prophets share with him upon that account in this reverence And he cannot be the object of faith at all according to him but a
certainly known So our High Priest Jesus Christ is without beginning of dayes or end of life Repl. This answer is too light and frothy in a subject so serious It was not mine intent or designe and he knows it very well to make Melchisedech God nor any of the persons of the Godhead nor yet to make a quaternity of persons but to make Christ God to whom that in truth belongs which in type only and in a figure mystically is attributed to Melchisedech Moses and David speak of Melchisedech as if he had been one who had glided down out of heaven and come from above and had again soon after conveyed himself thither for there is not any mention at all made of his birth or death of his father or mother or kindred or when he became Priest nor when he laid down his Priesthood And the Apostle saw the mysterie in it and that it behoved him so to be described and set out that he might be a Type of Christ both of his Person and Priesthood And therefore when he makes use of him as a Type to set out Christ by he describes him to be without father and so was Christ as he was man and without mother and so was Christ as he was God having no beginning of dayes nor end of life nor had Christ according to his divine Nature considered either beginning or end of dayes but acording to his humane he had both and both of them described and well known by all that are versed in Scripture-story and the Apostle knowing these things in expresse words makes Melchisedech the Type of him discerning that the Holy Ghost in concealing these things of him had made him so and intended him to be so as these words import Made like unto the Son of God for he is described saith Beza as if he had neither been mortall man nor had been born of a mortall woman which because it could by no means agree with any meer man born of men therefore the Apostle saith that he is peculiarly the figure of that one only begotten Son of God and that it was so intended by the Holy Ghost Now then the strength of the Argument fetch'd from this Scripture lies here First Melchisedech is a Type of Christ that is without controversie Secondly He is a Type in these things mentioned of him Without father without mother without beginning of dayes and end of time Otherwise in vain doth the Apostle mention these things of Melchisedech but as a type for in truth it was not so of Melchisedech And it appears by the scope of the Apostle which was to interpret the words of David A Priest after the order of Melchisedech therefore it was necessary for him to set forth what Melchisedech was in his person and in his office and in his person he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Without father without mother not in truth but they are not mentioned and so it is as if it had been so and that in type he might be so and therein resemble the Son of God that in truth was so Thirdly Melchisedech being only a type in these things of Christ it was not necessary that he should be such in truth but only in a figure mystically as indeed he was not but it was necessary that Christ should be so in truth being the Anti-type that is being the substance of that which Melchisedech was but a shadow of therefore in John 1. 17. it is said that the law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ That is there were many shadows in the law of Moses but Christ came and fulfilled them and was the truth of them We read of David that he said of himselfe They pierced my hands and my feet they gave me vineger and gall to drink which really were not done to David but mystically and in a figure as David was the type of Christ but these things were really done to Christ and in truth were fulfilled in Christ So the bloud of buls and calves and of such beasts which were sacrificed and offered they took away sin cleansed away the guilt and brought pardon and purged the conscience and brought peace but none of these did so in truth but mystically in type only as they shadowed out and pointed at the sacrifice of Christ and at his bloud but the bloud of Christ really and in truth did take away sin did clense the conscience did bring remission peace Heb. 9. 9 12 13 14. More instances might be given but indeed there is evidence enough in the very nature of a type and antitype There is a mystery in the type and there is the impletion or fulfilling of the mystery in the Antitype or the thing of the mystery is to be seen in the Antitype But enough of this unless he had said more to impugne it I now come to consider of his answer to Pro. 8. 22. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way before his works of old I was set up from everlasting from the beginning or ever the earth was To this he thus answers And gives this sense The Lord who is Possessour of heaven and earth obtained or created me when he began to worke before his antient workes And I was set up or annoynted to have the dominion of all things and that from everlasting that is from the beginning before the earth was Repl. The word indeed signifies to obtain or to possess which is sometimes done by creation and so when heaven and earth were created they were possessed by God or as he saith God was Possessour of them But in this place it is an obtaining or possessing as is done by generation I gave an instance in Eve in reference to Cain I have gotten a man it was by a begetting or generating there and in this place it is so also Christ is called the onely begotten of the Father and here in ver 24. Christ the wisdome of God declares how he was possessed viz. as a Son that is brought forth by a woman travelling in which Christ is said to be born and is called the first-born to exclude creation and that it might be by generation and the act of the Father in communicating the divine essence to the Son is called after the manner of men that it may be better conceived of a begetting or generating suteable to which is the Hebrew word Amun v. 30. which signifies a child nursed nourished brought up with a father and such was Christ which is thus expressed to hold forth his generation and not creation for when God created Adam he created him a man but Christ is represented as a child to shew how he was begotten and it is added that Christ was his Fathers delight and a sport before him for so it is in the Hebrew and this is humanitùs dictum is is spoken after the manner of Fathers who take dear delight in the childe that comes out of their
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
he had a glory it was not any created glory for that consisted in dominion which was not til the world was and then what glory could it be but that which we contend for divine uncreated glory which holds forth him to be an uncreated and eternal being and by consequence to be the most high God But he brings reasons for his own tenent that whole Christ is a creature from this Text of John and attempts the overthrow of my assertion of Christs Deity which I contend for from this Text. 1. Saith he If Christ were equall with the Father why doth Christ direct his prayer to his Father There had been no need nor can cause be shewed why he should supplicate to his Father and not act relyance on the Godhead Repl. I have rendred reasons for it in my former Treatise in my reply to his fift argument which was this He that acteth with dependance on another is a creature but whole Christ acteth with dependance To which I referre the reader because it is largely discussed there and it is a tedious unpleasing thing to multiply repetitions though he delights himselfe too much therein yet lest that Treatise should not be at hand I shall satisfie the Reader thus far It behooved the Godhead in the person of the Son to be veyled for this was the Sons emptying of himselfe but not so the Godhead in the person of the Father therefore the Son acts not dependance upon the Godhead that dwelt in himself in the person of the Son or as it was in himself but as it was in the Father 2. He saith We do not use to pray but praise for things we have if we know that we have them Now Christ could not want the highest glory in any sense if he were a person in the Trinity coequall with the Father especially not be without it with the Father nor in heaven in any sense whatsoever as by the clouding darkning or obscuring of it therefore the glory which he had with the Father was not the highest glory but a glory proceeding from the highest and by consequence Christ was but a creature Repl. It is true that the highest glory he being a person in the Trinity coequall with the Father could not be separated from him for it follows the divine essence and cannot be divided from it but it might be and indeedwas obscured and clouded not to the Father nor to the Son himselfe for the Father saw it and gave witnesse to it and so did the Son and comprehended it fully but to the creature it was darkned and obscured and but some small beams and rayes of it appeared the Son was incarnate or in flesh but the glory of the Son appeared not in flesh in fulnesse of lustre like the glory of the Son but the form of God in the Son was veyled and hidden in the form of a servant Now Christ prayes that that essentiall divine glory might be manifested in flesh that he the Son in flesh might appear in glory when he should come to heaven as he did before he took flesh that as the Godhead was hidden in the manhood so the manhood might be glorified with the Godhead that the flesh might be taken up into the fellowship of the glory of the Divinity by the shining forth and breaking out of the glory of the Divinity in the flesh 3. It appears saith he that the glory which he had with the Father was not divine or the highest glory because it was to be communicated Glorifie me O Father with that glory c. Now the highest glory being infinite could not be given or communicated to the humane nature which was finite and so uncapable of it c. Repl. Though the divine glory cannot be communicated to humane nature so as that it should be inherent in the humane nature yet it may gloriously shine forth upon it and appear in it which it did not before yea by reason of the hypostaticall union betwixt the divine nature and the humane nature the glory of the divine nature becomes the glory of the whole person so as that when the glory of the Son shines forth in its greatest strength in the flesh it may be predicated and asserted of the man Christ that he is glorified with the glory which the Son had with the Father before the world was Because the man Christ is the same person with the eternall Son of God Thus all the Scriptures which I drew witness to that Jesus Christ is the true God and the most high God notwithstanding all his endeavours to suffocate their testimony and his attempts by violence to silence them that they should not speak what they would speak yet they have with open mouth with one consent given glory unto Christ by witnessing to his Godhead and to his coessentialness and to his coequality with the Father I shall conclude my Vindication of them with these words Let God be true in what he hath testifyed of his Son in Scripture and every man that opposeth let him be a lyer My next undertaking must be the defence of the Arguments which I produced and drew up from Scripture by which I attempted to prove the destructivenesse of the Doctrine which he holds making whole Christ a creature to the true Gospel and oppositeness of it to the Scripture in many main points and truths of it My Assertion was That the doctrine which makes Christ a meer creature brings in as it were another Gospel and destroyes the true Gospel in many parts thereof and brings in another Scripture in many main points He cals this a reason against his doctrine of Christ a meere creature and so it is not onely to shew the falsenesse of such doctrine but also to discover the horridnesse and hideousness of the doctrine that all might be warned of it and with fear and trembling may decline it But he wisheth him to be Anathema that holds any such doctrine that destroyes the Gospel or the Scripture and falls upon the examination of the instances or Arguments which I produced to confirme that generall reason Therefore because he is so confident that his doctrine will not prove such and because he hath possessed the people that though there should be a mistake in it on his part yet it is not so dangerous as I would make it and that the salvation of mens soules is not so nearly concerned in it as I would have men to conceive and that Christ is never a whit less a sufficient Saviour though but a creature and that it is enough to beleeve unto Salvation that Christ is Lord viz. made Lord and that God raised him from the dead by which means persons have become lesse solicitous what doctrine they entertain they see it hath a specious shew and conceive it will not prove destructive though it should prove false therefore I think it expedient to fortifie my position which respects the oppositenesse of this doctrine of his both
have denied him to be God in his pardoning of mens sins His third Scripture is Acts 5. 30 31. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom ye slew and hanged on a tree him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour for to give repentance unto Israel and forgivenesse of sins Hence he collects that Christ received from another his power of forgiving sins Rep. This Scripture seems to favour his opinion more then any that he hath alledged and it hath the most seeming strength in it for his purpose But this answer may be returned unto it Christ doth fall under a double consideration in Scripture he may be looked upon absolutely as the Son of God and second person in the Trinity as Jehovah and as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very God or he may be looked upon relatively as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God man as â—mmanuel God with us or in our nature as God manifest in the flesh and as sent into the world and executing the office of Mediator If he be considered in the former acception he is essentially Lord and that one Law-giver in all the creatures are the works of his giver hands and subject to him and every transgression and sinne that is committed is against him and it belongs to him with the Father and the holy Ghost who are one God with himself to pardon sinne to acquit from the guilt and to deliver from the curse thereof because he can turn away his wrath and hath power over all plagues and can save from them and so he receives no power to forgive sins but it belongs to him and cannot be separated from his Godhead but is naturally essentially and eternally his But if he be considered in the latter acception then many things are derived to him as the office of Mediatorship and a Lordship and the name Saviour is given him upon that account which is a name above every name of the Creatures and Prince and Captaine of our salvation is a name put upon him and belonging to him in this sense it is given to him to give repentance unto Israel and remission of sins Now it must be understood as I have expressed in my former Treatise that the giving of these things doth not deny any intrinsecall or inward perfection which Christ hath but rather supposeth it and it must be granted that Christ to whom these things are given according to his due nature hath all his perfection without the gift of these and that these are but declarative and serve to manifest that essentiall riches and glory which he had with the Father from eternity and that his naturall Dominion and Lordship which cannot be separated from his Deity is that which founds such donations and gifts which are too high for any creature and would carry away Divine glory from him who is God if they should be given to any meere creature and they are to be exercised by the help of the Godhead of Christ else they could not be acted by him as being too great for any man or meere creature Indeed the humanity hath fellowship with the Godhead in the glory of the having and executing these things and to the manhood it is glory derived which was not before but to the Deity of Christ it is glory manifested and declared only More particularly It is given to Christ as Mediator to dispense pardon of sin and it belongs to his Priest-hood to do it The Priests of the Law they did it externally and ministerially figuratively and typically they pronounced clean and unclean so farre as concerned the flesh but Christ did it and doth it effectually and spiritually pronouncing and discharging the conscience from all sinne and what was the reason of this difference They did it as men therefore in weaknesse and could speak but were not able to effect what they spake but Christ did it as the Sonne of God yea as the eternall Son of God as the Apostle testifies Heb. 7. 3. So that the very Priest-hood of Christ that it might be effectuall in the works of it and this of pardoning of sin was one of them was founded in the eternall Son-ship of Christ and therein lay this ability and power to performe the works of it and principally this work of remitting sinnes So that though the way of dispensing pardon be given to Christ yet the power of dispensing was not given but is as ancient as his Son-ship therefore he erres in his inference which he fetcheth from this Text of Acts 5. 31. When he saith that he received from another his power of forgiving sins For it was not power that he received but the way of exercising of it It is acted in the flesh as Mediator even since Christ came in the flesh and now the Son of man forgives sinnes that is the person that is man and the son of man forgives but not as he is man or the son of man but as he is God and the Son of God For though it may be said that the Mediator pardoneth sin efficiently as well as Meritoriously as Priest yet it cannot be said that the whole of the Mediator doth it but the divine nature alone acts in it It may be said of a man who consists of soul and body that he meditateth but it cannot be said of the whole of man that he meditateth but of the minde only It may also be said of of him that he walketh but it is to be understood of his body only and not of his minde yet because of the union betwixt body and soul both of them making but one man what either doth is attributed to the whole So it is with Christ our Mediator he bore our sinnes as man only for the God-head could not suffer he purged away our sinnes as God-man for the man-hood acted and the God-head merited he pardoned sin as God only because he is supream Lord only as he is God yet the Mediator doth all these that is he that is both God and man doth them but in this different way he doth them And so it appears that still he is the principall in this work of forgiving sins because he doth it as God and that this gift which respects not the power it self of dispensing but the way only of dispensing doth adde nothing to the intrinsicall perfection of Christ but is manifestive of that inward essentiall glory which he had with the Father before any beginning was which was vailed by Christs assuming flesh and yet manifested in flesh by acts which were too high for flesh of which nature this of pardoning sin was one The conclusion is this the work of forgiving sin is high and glorious proper and peculiar and suitable to this great and most high God Jesus Christ the Mediatorly the way of dispensing it is below this excellent person Christ who is not only the son of the highest but the highest and it was the humbling and debasing and emptying