every thing nothing is sin to God for every thing is God He told them they should be As Gods that 's another matter 2. If every thing were God I say there were then no God a God is a most absolute spirituall simple immense eternall infinite being c. For that which is every thing is no God it implieth contrariety contradiction weaknesse multiplicity and what not if God be every thing he must be then good and evill weake and strong finite and infinite temporall and eternall c. but why rake I here when mans naturall heart cannot but abhorre this principle Ob. 2 If they say true the Creature is not God in its being so considered but as it is in Vnion with God it is God Ans I answere without all question Mr Coppe knowes the meaning of this Familists doe indeed say it the Creature is not God why God is invisible and the creature visible God a substance and the creature a shadow God infinite and unlimited Almightinesse but the creature weaknesse c. but yet say they there 's some thing in the wind they will tell you that as they are creatures quâ creatures men and women they are not God no more then Christ was God quâ man the Man-hood was not the God-head but in nature property operation distinct but that as they are in vnion they are God Even as was said of Christ the two natures united make a Christ and that person is God I say here 's the roote of the Divell in Familisme If they meane this as to every creature its most grossely blasphemous the Divell himselfe by this reckoning is God too I think in my conscience he is generally the God of Familists they have no other God for their God But some I doe suppose referre it to good men though I have but little reason so to thinke yet I will be so charitable for the sake of those that are deceived and may think no more of it especially at first then this that a true convert is God in union I say first that every union with God cannot give the denomination of God it is only a personall as was said of the person of Christ there must be the very being of God personally subsisting or else it cannot be 2ly Every thing in union with God is not God therefore cannot be truly called God as it might be said of Christ if they were God the properties of a divine nature or the God-head were likewise theirs they were omnipresent omnipotent omniscient I desired once that Familists would make it appeare they were God in union as was said of Christ 1. By their omnipotency let them raise the dead let them open the eyes of those that are borne blind let them doe that which man as such and assisted by the Divell cannot doe Christ could and did so manifest his God-head my workes bear witnesse of me that I am true and in the true sence the Son of God O poore weaknesse what have you yet done Some I confesse have playd the juglers and Conjurers and Sorcerers could raise Divells and shew you fine sights dance over joynt stooles and a hundred such prankes you 'l play 2. Let them make it out by divine testimony I meane immediate from God in glory Christ had it particularly personally this is my beloved Sonne and in Scripture the mighty God Es 9. Heb. 1. Heb. 1. and thy throne ô God c. 3. When did ever God say of them as once of Christ let all the Angels of God worship them you Divels will ye rob God of his honour spoyle him you shall not he will not give his Glory to Another Es 42. the glory of divine worship nor his praise to graven Images had the Divell in union bin God Christ might very well have worshipt him Christ gotten some Kingdomes by it if the Divel had any to give him which were not his own before I le say to such get thee behind me Sathan Mat. 4. thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve 4. Let them manifest it by their immutability at least in judgement I have known some who will be for God and holinesse to day and for the Divell and darknesse as the phrase is to morrow God never yet chang'd his mind though men have thought so nor God in union the Lord Christ he is the same yesterday and to day Heb. 13. and for ever He was not to day a Saint to morrow a Divel 5. Are yee God in union shew it by your omnisciency Can ye like Christ search hearts and know their thoughts Mat. 9.4.12.25 that are farre enough from you Can ye say as Christ of Nathaniel Ioh. 2. or can ye so declare our hearts and all our thoughts unto us as that we may acknowledge that you know them poore wretches ye are scarce yet men I am sure ye are not man enough ye want reason ye are so farre from being God in union This is most cleare if it be with them as it was with the man at Jerusalem as they call him they could doe as much as he know as much as that Christ it should be spoken of them as it was of that Christ That he is the word with God is God it should be spoken of them That they are the only begotten sons of God but it seems they are sons without glory that they made the world uphold all things by the word of their power Heb. 1. that they purged away sin are sate downe at the right hand of the Majesty on high that their thrones as God indures for ever that they are the same yesterday to day and for ever 3. Such as have been in union with God as much as the choisest Saints now are Speake of Christ as they could not speake of themselves or of any other we know and are assured that thou art The Christ Ioh. 6. the Son of the living God nay God himselfe to which of the Angels said he thou art my Sonne this day have I begotten thee poore creatures againe of his fulnesse all we received grace for grace which of all the Familists in England hath so much grace can communicate as Christ does from that stock of grace he has if he have any Col. 2. and againe the Fulnesse of the Godhead dwels in him bodily how more in him then others if this be true of all poore Familists is their fancied Christ in them or they as they are in union with God I say are they the head over all things to the Church doe they fill all in all Fye upon it that ever wretches should thus derogate from Christ and appropriate to themselves what God never gave them 4. If the union of God and Saints be a personall union as it was with Christ then it followes so many waies as God is personally united so many persons must there be in the Deity and where 's a
Coppe knowes best whereto he might intend it I charge him not not because I feare him but God I would not wrong him and that 's the principle I goe upon perchance there may be a work of God upon him and it comes on but by degrees I blesse God if there be any I hope it will doe him no hurt if truth be cleared and errour discovered I wish however Mr Coppe would speak plainer next Let the question be Quest. How Christ was borne of the Virgin Mary and how Christ is formed in us 1. Note this Ans Mat. 1. Luke 1. Christ was really and literally borne of the Virgin according to the history of his Nativity he was true man Some Familists will not grant this let them stay till I farther prove it 2. Christ was not borne meere man as we are Ioh. 1. but Christ was borne God-man He was before he was borne and he was with God that was borne and he was God that was thus borne See for this Ioh. 1.1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God 3. The union between these two natures is a personall union Though some Familists say he was no more God then we Heb. 1.2 Ioh. 1.4 W.S. they lye Though some Familists say Christ had not two natures they lye He was a person before though divine he is but one person now though he be likewise humane It is not now a God and a Man to speak personally but God man though Man and God 4. The word was so made flesh that the God-head was not the Manhood nor the Man-hood the God-head the natures were distinct without mixture confusion composition though met in one person and in a personall way united A Familist told me the Deity was mingled with the soule of Christ Por. The Scripture clearly speaks against this and reason too but Familists care for neither 5. The Word was so made flesh as that the fulnesse of the God-head dwelt in Christ bodily Christ had not only the fulnesse of created Grace in respect of which it is said the spirit was communicated unto him not by measure and said to be full of grace and againe of his fulnesse have all we received grace for grace this had speciall relation to his Man-hood I say he had not only this fulnesse of grace I call it created because it is not the God-head but the worke of God a creature call'd a new creation would Familists but understand this 'twere somewhat the Lord teach them but he had the fulnesse of the God-head in him likewise more then grace the God-head not only something divine a nature divine somewhat like God and from God a neere resemblance of God but the Godhead or the Deity this the fulnes of the God-head as much as the Deity is was in Christ that bodily in conjunction with his humane nature body or after some bodily i. e. substantially or subsistentially but it may bee these are termes too high for weake Capacities the are Scripture expressions Heb. let it suffice weake ones to beleeve that 't is so though they know not how 't is so nay though their reason as weake might tell them it is not so 6. This word was so made flesh or assumed flesh and took it into such a neare Conjunction with himself I say himself to note the personality of Christ before his incarnation as that their is a communication of properties and attributions Christ God-man was God though man Act. 20. Jesus Christ Imanuel died Ever-lived c. though onely true according to one nature yet spoken of the person and the other nature with relation to the person or the person in the other nature Quest The Scripture sayes that Christ is formed in us so sayes Paul to his Galatians this is a nice point Gal. 4. but I shall speak very plainely to it in few words 1. I shall tell you what familists doe understand by this 2. I shall tell you what Paul meant by it and how wee are to understand it Familists their notion improved speaks this that the Godhead for persons in the Trinity they acknowledge not or as wee understand it the second person in the Trinity assumes unto himself our particular personall flesh and bodies as it assumed that particular flesh and body which was framed and fitted for him by the Holy-ghost in the Virgins wombe This is the thing they aime at some of clearer reason note it so others have more grosse conceptions of it according to their severall Capacities Some think that Every thing is God and so they speak plain they say the Divel himself is God as one told mee expressely that the Divel was God in darknesse The Creation to God the pure being of God being nothing else according to their apprehension but so many appearances of God God sporting himself in so many shapes now they distinguish when you come to aske whither they be God or no as to instance their bodie they will tell you no they are not God that is their appearance and the Creature they will call it so it is not God and in truth they judge so For the most part though sin be grosse indeed I say they will distinguish thus between the Creature and God for they make it the appearance of God if you aske them Concerning the nature of this appearance what being it is they vanish can talk no longer 't is not they say a reall thing but apparent as the image in the glasse or water or the image in our fancie c. This is their notion generally others that are Come off from this they take it in the first notion the Godhead entring into a relation towards us our personall flesh particular bodys and soul as it did to Christ and this they understand by Christ formed in you They say this Christ so now they call it with relation to our flesh though sometimes they call it God in us or God is fully in us as hee was in Christ onely it is not manifested wee doe not see it aske them why it workes not so as it did in Christ they will tell you it hath its growthes and detriments it is young a babe growne Crucified and rises againe in them and many more such stories they have of this Many expressions they have to set out the nativity of Christ in us as they term it after the same manner as 't is spoken of the birth of Christ in the wombe of the Virgin Mary This is their opinion now let me shew you Paules and I have done 1. It is not as the Familists would have it God is not every thing and every thing is not God We are come now to the very root of the Divell the Assertion that every thing is God is most hellishly blasphemous 1. Briefely the Divell himselfe never told our first parents that every thing was God and therefore let God enjoy
Trinity there must be as many persons in the God-head as waies of personating the God-head or of its subsistence 5. Againe Every such person must be a Christ God and Man personally united make a Christ gallant we shall be all Christs severall Christs as many Christs as Christians all of us Lords as was said of Christ Fooles there will be Lords many but we have but one Lord Jesus Christ If this union be personall then it followes as what is proper to the Godhead may be attributed to the person so what is attributed to the man-hood should be attributed to the person The person thus in union should be God-man Infinite Immense Eternal c. Againe take the persons of Familists as sinners and it may be said as of Christ God dying so of Familists God sinning God a swearer God a drunkard God a blaspheamer This would be sweet stuff yet it must be so if God and a sinner be personally united Let me give you Pauls sence of Christ formed in us in the true sence and so conclude with this Question For the clearer understanding of this mystery I shall speak as plainly as I can and the rather because some would charge me with denying that Christ is in us formed in us c. I shall therefore grant as much as may be granted First I say that true beleevers the called of God they are really united unto Christ one with Christ one with the humane nature of Christ one with the Divine nature of Christ one with the person of Christ But how to be understood anon 2. We are one with God in union if you will with God one with the nature of God one with the persons in the God-head Father Sonne and Spirit 3. I say that Christ is really in us nay the person of Christ is in us 4. Nay the Godhead is in us Farther 5. I say that Christ is formed in us 6. That we are partakers of the divine nature For my meaning in all this I intend not what the Familists intend when they speake this as I have before delivered I take it not in that sense 1. I say we are really united to God and Christ as really as a branch is united to the vine the wife to the husband the building to the foundation the head unto the members and the members to the head as really as the Father and Sonne and Spirit are one which is one step-farther I say as truly and as really It followes not in all respects the same kind of union to the same participation and communion these comparisons and resemblances of our union doe not alway hold out the kind of the union but for the most part the verity the truth of the union it were grosse blasphemy to assert other wise 2. Christ and God are really in us but not in the same manner is God in us as in the severall persons of the Trinity or as in the humane nature of Christ I have proved this already 3. Wee are united to the person of Christ but not made one person with Christ 4. Christ is formed in us but not in the same way and manner as hee was formed in the wombe of the virgin the word is not so made flesh in us as there it was not so manifested in our particular flesh as in that particular flesh this I have already prooved 4. Wee are really pertakers of the divine nature but not in the same way and manner as Christ was partaker of the divine nature I have likewise proved this already and therefore shall speak no more to these negatives I shall not speak of the severall sorts of union t is well known there are severall hee that knowes not this knowes nothing the union of the soul and body is one kind of union the union of head and members a secondly the union of members in one body a 3d. the union of husband and wife a 4th of foundation and building a 5th of vine and branches a 6th of the two natures in Christ a 7th of the persons in the divine essence an 8th c. Of a Christian with God and Christ a 9th c. 2. Nor of the severall respects of Gods being or presence in himself in his son in all Creatures in heaven in hell in his ordinances in his people who knows not but that these are severall and must not bee Confounded neither shall I speak how Christ is in himself in his father in earth in heaven in his ordinances in his peoples hearts c. 3. I shall not speak in the 3. place of the severall sorts of Gods working manifesting himself in heaven in Glory one way to saints in Glory another to saints on earth in Grace in types in truth nor how he may make known in creatures his power and God head c. For the better understanding of the mysticall union observe these points The matter is very high the words shall bee the plainer that the meanest capacities may take it in I shall use as few termes of art as may bee the truth in this point is above art note 1. That there is a generall union an especiall union between God and his Creatures 2. This union whither generall or speciall is reall really uniting them 3. This reall union is the originall of a reall Communion between God and the creature 4. This reall union may be diversely Considered according to the diverse respects and diverse effects of union 5. Every union between God and the creature is not this mysticall union of which we speak 6. The Gratious soule mystically united unto God may bee thus united unto God in more respects then one 7. For distinctions sake whither properly or improperly wee may say there are severall unions though indeed properly severall modes or waies of union between God and the elect soul this premised I conclude 1. The elect soul hath God united to it though not onely in the generall and universall union in respect of which God may be said to be united to the whole creation this is not as an Elect soule but in Common as a creature this union I take to be held out in that text In him we live and moove and have our being this union for its forme is made up 1. on gods part by that common spirit or spirit in common in fluences which actuates the whole creation in ' esse operari in essence and operation see Gen. 1.2 2. on the creatures part by that dependance natural which the creature hath on God for this esse operari through the spirit he that knowes not this knowes little this union every creature hath with Gods Familists goe no higher then this they may be thus united unto God and yet divels but this union the elect soul hath as a creature and more 2. The elect soule hath God united to it in a speciall which is called a my sticall union in respect of which God is not united to the
does the spirit the word that is the seed of God is from above c. Sanctification 1 Cor. 1. ult because it purifies our hearts sets us apart from sin and the world creature and disposes us for God devotes us directs us to him The life of Christ because wrought by Christ 2. because it acts in the strength of Christ he is the bottome the principle the original though not the subject of this life 3. because it makes us live like Christ Christ formed in us as Christ may be said to be formed in us that grace which is in Christ being communicated to us by the spirit as before There being the stampe the image of Christ upon us not in the Godhead the Godhead of Christ as Christ is the expresse image of the fathers person Heb. 1.2 we have proved this already that that is not in this sence formed in us but as the nature of man is conveyed from the father and formed in the Son so is the nature of grace created from Christ conveyed to us and formed in us as in Christ the Godhead is incommunicable and so the divine nature because a Godly nature 2 Pet. 1.4 Ephes 4.24 from God like God a participation of some of the attributes of god though not in the same way as attributed unto god they are in god per modum essentiae in abstracto in us per modum qualitatis or habitus in god 't is his essence in us the representation of god god is holy his essence is holinesse in concrete we are holy 't is our quality though it streames from god yet it is not god though a nature divine something beyond and above the naturall strength of man and pitch of man 't is his nature humane improoved nearer to a divinity Heavenly 1 Cor. 15. not because of the substance of the heavens but the Analogy that is between the heavens and this thing this work of grace they that are heavenly 't is said 1 Cor. 15. c. but enough for this Christ was formed in the Virgins wombe naturally and literally but in us mystically and spiritually So much for what related to my discourse now followes what related to his Sermon The more grosse and principall passages concerning gods giving up his people to sin you will see here that Familists if Coppe does not father blasphemously their wickednesse on god I shall not speak much as to Mr Copps Sermon only cleare some passages and vindicate the purity and holinesse of god and Scripture Esai 40. ult Who gave Jacob to the spoile and Israel to the robbers did not I the Lord was his Text. His point of doctrine as I remember was this that God gives up his owne people to robbers and spoilers In the explication he told us that these robbers were such as should spoile gods own people of their Priests and Altars c. and at length of their holinesse by sin blasphemies wickednesses Mr Coppe on the Lords day before this lecture preached neere Witney his Text as I am informed was There is a time to sing and a time to dance it seems he was very merry some men such as rejoyce in wickednesse are very merry when they cannot be unlesse they have the Divell for their play-fellow as I have read of Witches so I have heard of some Familists and Ranters that literally they dance dirges with the Divell in that discourse as I heard from some that knew it he said that the whole Scripture from the beginning of genesis to the end of the Revelations was to be understood allegorically This I am sure is the sence of all Familists No wonder then that such doctrines are drawne from such Scripture Familists ex professo bring Scripture to their private spirit and make Scripture speak according to that They will not try their spirit by the true spirit of god in the Scripture nor speake according to the Law and to the testimony in Scripture When men leave Scripture or presume to interpret Scripture in their owne if not the Divels sence what doctrines must we expect no wonder that gods giving his people over to afflictions and as I take it from the scope of the Scripture Israel to captivity and literally robbers and spoilers bee interpreted a giving up of his owne people to sin curse sweare blaspheme God as a father may well chastise correct his children actually effectually I trow not so give up his people to the power of sin 1. Take this note Iames 1.13 god tempts no man to sin he that sinneth is lead away into sin by his own Lust and the instigation of the divell-understand this effectively as the working cause sin is of the divel he is the Father and our corrupt hearts they are the mothers of these hellish brats Iam. 1.15 2. There is not a principle of sin in god Exod. 15.11 1 Pet. 1. he is good and purely good and perfectly good he were not god had he such weaknesse and contradiction The god of Familists whom they generally so serve is the he is the sink of sin 3. Farther god permissively may suffer sin to be for ends best known unto himselfe 4. On the same account God may suffer the Divel to lay his snares and leave his people to themselves and they may be insnared in these and sin but yet hee 's not the cause of sin 5. He forbids sin gave strength once against sin and now more then they will use if men neglect this strength nay sin away this strength is God bound to renew their strength that they may not sin and shall God on this be the cause of sin god forbid 6. God may judicially give over some men to sin give Sathan the charge of them Rom. 1. the power of them to doe upon them what he will and can god withdrawes from them judicially his good gifts and what 's his owne and whom have these to blame if they with a full careere run on in sinne they run freely downe the streame of sin 't is their choice to sin why shall god be blam'd for this If God and Christ doe say thou shalt not take the name of god in vaine Euod 20. and Coppe and others sweare themselves into the bottomlesse pit of hell why may not god leave them there Rev. 22. if they will be uncleane why may not god say let them be uncleane what comfort is this to Mr Coppe and others thus robbed and spoyled with him Mr Coppe applied his doctrine first to their comfort who with himselfe were spoiled they should not be troubled for god gave them up Hellish comfort for such wretches I grant god judicially gave the Divell leave to doe what he would with them I say this is hellish comfort to be in the divels hands by Gods judiciall appointment he would have others not only pitty them but love them as Brethren but what compassion should others shew them