Christ in the Father To this exposition there were these exceptions taken by our brother 1. Christ had the fulnesse of the Godhead before his ascension and therefore Christ did not ascend that he might receive the fulnesse of the Godhead 2. If the Godhead were imparted to any Saint that Saint would be as Christ is truly God 3. The Saints are not in the Father as Christ is in the Father for the divine Persons are {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} quia {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} they are in one another because they have one and the same infinite essence they are all three one and the same God 4. The Father is not the Godhead because the Father if we speak properly is the first Person the Godhead is the nature of all three Persons His next Argument was taken from John 14. 12. The Saints have a greater power then ever Christ had for every one that believes in Christ may doe greater works then ever Christ did Our brother answered that the speech was limited they should doe greater works then these that is greater then the miracles which Christs speech referred to and therefore Master Earbury did ill to interpret the Text as if the words were to be simply and universally taken when it is evident that they are to be restrained quoad materiam subiectam for Christ did satisfie the justice of God for the sins of all the elect which no Saint could ever have done M. Earbury was asked whether he would acknowledge that Christ satisfied Gods justice for the sins of all the elect but he would not answer yea or no but said that M. Cheynell endeavoured to intrap him M. Earbury said that the Apostles gaue the Holy Ghost which was a greater work then ever Christ did M. Cheynell desired him to prove that the Apostles gave the Holy Ghost as Christ did by their owne immediate power or prove that Christ did not give the Holy Ghost M. Earbury replyed that Christ did not give the Holy Ghost before his ascension and so retreated to his first hold as if Christ had ascended that he might receive such a fulnesse of the Godhead as did enable him to give the Holy Ghost Our brother desired them who were accquainted with the Socinian controversies to observe that M. Earbury had not his revelation from Heauen but Poland and desired M. Earbury to consider that Christ satisfied for the sins of the elect before his Ascension M. Earbury his next proof was taken from John 14. 20. 21. Joh. 17. 5. 21. 22. from whence he collected that the same fulness of the Godhead was given to the Saints wch was givē to Christ for the Saints have the same glory because they are one with Christ perfectly one with him as the Father is one with him therefore the fulnesse of the Godhead dwels in them The same glory which Christ asks for in the 5 verse he gives to the Saints verse 22. of the 17 of John there is the same union between Christ and the Saints which is between Christ and this Father verse 21. 23. the same love verse 23. I say the same love saith M. Earbury speake in as high a measure as you will I will prove the same measure nay there is a higher measure of love expressed to the Saints then to Christ though in a mystery there is the same love and the same union that is an union of love Many answers were given to this Argument which need not be repeated To that concerning union with Christ it was answered to this effect That the union betweene Christ and the Saints is either a mysticall union by faith or a morall union by love or a glorious union by a beatificall fruition And because M. Earbury pressed the word as one with the Father as Christ is one our brother answered that there was a received distinction among Divines sicut veritatis sicut aequalitatis sicut similitudinis As doth sometimes note onely the truth of a thing and so the union between Christ and the Saints is a true union a reall though a mysticall and spirituall union 2. As notes no equality in that place of John though it may note a similitude so the proportion and distance be observed betweene creatures and their Creator Finally M. Cheynell told him that the interpretation smelt too strong of Poland when he intimated that there was only an union of love between the Father and Christ for there is also an union of nature but there is not an union of nature between God and the Saints the saints are joyned to Christ by faith and are therefore one spirit with him 1 Cor. 6. 17. but they are not one God with him Then M. Earbury insisted very long upon Coloss. 2. because that Chapter doth explain the mystery of God even the Father and of Christ verse 2. though the Spirit that is the power of God as we said before even Christ who is the wisdome of God and the power of God doth manifest himself Joh. 14. 21. The Father is the eternall God God in himself and of himselfe greater then all and highest of all the Father is the Godhead and he fils the man Christ with all the fulnesse of the Godhead Coloss. 2. 9. For Christ hath all given to him as the Saints have and as there is the fullnesse of the Godhead in Christ so is there also in the Saints For they are {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} verse 10. which is rendred compleat now the Saints are not compleat till they are filled with all the fulnesse of God Ephes. 3. 19. filled with love for God is love and that love wherewith we are filled is God filled with Christ the wisdome of God and with the spirit the power of God with those three that are in Heaven this is the mystery and it is incomprehensible for the love of God to Christ and the Saints is Incomprehensible We fear that you would be tired out if all that was objected against this exposition should be related but it must be observed first that when M. Earbury speaks of God he saith God even the Father and when he mentions the Father he saith the Father is God himselfe the eternall God c. whereby he doth intimate that Christ is not God of himself the eternall God equall to his Father Our brother therefore took exceptions against these expressions because they seemed not to drop from M. Earbury but to be affected since they were so often repeated M. Cheynell offered to prove that Christ is God by nature God of himselfe equall to his Father M. Earbury replied dear Sir you are not to dispute but to answer what I object whereas indeed M. Earbury was to have been respondent and did make a Speech instead of a Supposition for the explication of his Thesis and therefore M. Cheynell should have had free liberty to have disputed and M. Earbury was engaged to answer his arguments
but when that would not be permitted and M. Earbury desired our brother to consider that that phrase God by nature was no Scripture phrase Master Cheynell replyed Sir now it appears that you are not so well read in Scripture as you pretend to be you may read the expression Gal. 4. 8. and though you will not give me leave to dispute yet suffer me to expound the place and shew the ground of my Exposition The Apostle shews in this place 1. That religious service must be performed to none but to him that is God by nature from hence it will follow that if Christ be not God by nature we ought not to performe religious service to Jesus Christ 2. The Apostle shews that they are ignorant of God who perform service to them who are not Gods by nature 3. M. Cheynell shewed that Christ was God by nature subsisting in the form of God and was God equall to his Father and proved it from Phil. 2. 6. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} subsisting in the form of God thought it no robbery to be equall with God He who is in the form of God and without prejudice to the Father equall to him must needs be God by nature the selfe same God though not person with the Father and therefore an Independent God God in himself God of himself the eternall God It is robbery to make more Gods then one It is robbery to make the Saints equall with God but it is no robbery to make God the Son equall with God the Father because Christ is God by nature but no Saint is God by nature the fulnesse of the Godhead all the fulnesse of the Godhead dwels and dwels bodily that is really for body is opposed to shadow in the person of the Lord Jesus And therefore it is evident that the same fulnesse of the Godhead which is in Christ is not truly and really in any Saint The Congregation received this exposition with a generall shout and acclamation but M. Cheynell desired them to forbear and told them that if he could not intreat them to be silent he would silence himselfe and proceed no further least such testimonies of approbatiō might give offence or cause disturbance 2. Desired the company to take notice that M. Earbury called the Spirit the power of God almost as oft as he had occasion to mention the Spirit which expression did too plainely declare that M. Earbury held correspondence with the Socinians in their hereticall opinions M. Earbury professed that he never read any of their writings and yet when M. Cheynell distinguished between the spirit and the graces of the Spirit a little after M. Earbury forgot himself and said that was a Polandisme conceiving that the spirit was by that distinction imprisoned in Heaven and he began to tell a story of some cast out by a Synod for such expressions and when M. Cheynell did distinguish afterward between Christ considered as a glorifiedman and as the Lord of glory M. Earbury said glorified man was one of the Polonian expressions let the Reader judge whether M. Earbury never read any of the Polonian Writers 3. Our brother desired M. Earbury to deal plainely and clearly with him whether he did acknowledge and believe three Persons and one God our brothers question was grounded upon M. Earbury his mention of three in Heaven and yet his frequent confounding of the Son with the Spirit for sure if the Son be the Spirit as he doth commonly preach there cannot be three in Heaven for the Son and the spirit are but one as he conceives nay there will be but one in Heaven for the Son is nothing but the wisdome of the Father or the power of the Father and so there will be no more divine persons in Heaven but the Father only Besides M. Earbury saying that the Father is the true God and God is love and the Son is wisdome and the spirit is power M. Earbury seemed to put off his Auditory with a Trinity of Attributes instead of a Trinity of Persons and consequently to make many Threes in Heaven for iustice mercy eternity will make another three in this sense But M. Earbury said that he came not thitherto be catechised but it was easie to reply that he came thither to explaine himself and satisfie the Congregation which could not possibly be done unlesse he would give positive answers to pertinent questions M. Earbury told us that the fulnesse of the Godhead should be revealed more clearely hereafter in the flesh of the saints at the sound of the seventh Trumpet but it was more clearely revealed in the Prophets then by the Apostles becasue the Apostles were most taken up with writing about Faith and particular things yet John the Divine wrote clearly of it 1 John 3. 2. and therefore he pronounced all them to be Antichristian who did not believe that there is the same fulnesse of the Godhead in Christ and all the saints which he conceived to be very cleare from the 1 John 4. 2. 3. that is saith he whosoever denies that Christ is in us is Antichrist for by flesh is not meant the humane nature saith M. Earbury but the coming of Christ is the manifestation of the Godhead in the flesh of Saints for Christ himselfe is the Spirit with God Our brother was here forced to lay open M. Earbury and declare that M. Earbury conceived that Christ was man before the world was and therefore though he came into the world to be made of a woman yet he came not to be made man but to be made flesh Hereupon Mr. Earbury charged our brother with revealing of secrets and said that he had delivered himselfe to that purpose in a private Conference Our brother replied that he had not spoken a word about that Argument if M. Earbury had not led him into it by his perplexed discourse and pronounced such a censure upon all men that are not of his mind as to say they are Antichristian Master Earbury insisted much upon Ephes. 3. 19. That ye may be filled with all the fulnesse of God which our brother said was to be expounded by John 1. 16. of his fulnesse we have all received grace for grace Divers are said in the Scripture to be full of the Holy Ghost when they are sufficiently enabled to perform the dutyes which belong to their present estate and are growing up towards that fulnesse which all the Saints shall enioy when God is all in all But M. Earbury seemed most confident when he came to urge his arguments taken out of the Book of the Revelations The first was drawen from Reuel 2. 26. The Saints haue the same power over the nations to crush and breake them that Christ himselfe hath The answer was that the Saints did not overcome by their owne strength but by the strength of Christ Christ doth overcome and we triumph we have a share in that victory which Christ gaines by his
owne arm John 16. 33 True saith M. Earbury but the Son hath no power of himself he hath all from the Father and so have the Saints and the Saints have the same power that Christ hath Our brother denied this bold assertion because the Saints are not Omnipotent nor hath the Father given power to the Saints to quicken whome they will nor have the Saints life in themselves as the Son hath life in himselfe and the Father in himselfe John 5. 21 26. His next argument was taken from Revel. 3. 21. The Saints have the same honour worship throne glory that the Son hath nay the same with the Father and therefore they have the same Godhead Our brother answered that hard and obscure places of Scripture should be expounded by plaine places But it is clear that all men ought to honour the Son even as they honour the Father John 5. 23. and it is as clear that the Saints are not to be honoured as the Father is whom M. Earbury acknowledgeth to be God of himself highest of all and greatest of all to give that honour to the Saints which is due to the Father is Robbery and Idolatry and to maintaine that it is due to the Saints is loud blasphemy There was another answer given more direct to that very Text Revel. 3. 21. our brother observed a distinction of Thrones expresly mentioned in the very Text The Saints shall sit with Christ in his Throne but Christ sits with his Father in his Fathers Throne Christ therefore must be considered as a glorified man and so the Saints shall sit upon the same Throne that Christ sits on as a glorified man but if Christ be considered as the Lord of Glory as the same God with his Father so he sits upon the same Throne with his Father Now though Christ promise that the Saints shall sit with him in his Throne yet he doth not say that they shall sit downe in his Fathers Throne as he himself doth who is in the Father and one God with the Father Nothing is more clear in Scripture then that no man save he that is God-man is to be advanced to the right hand of the Maiesty on high above all that is named in the world to come Ephes. 1. 20 21. His third argument out of the Book of the Revelation was grounded upon chapter 21. 7. They who inherit all things have the same fulnesse of the Godhead in them which Christ had who was heir of all things Heb. 1. 2. Our brother answered that Christ is the naturall Heir of God that we are the adopted Heirs of God Christ is Heir of all things by nature because he is God by nature but the Saints are Heirs by free grace whatever blessings they inioy from their election to their glorification proceeds from free and rich grace as they are elected so are they called iustified sanctified and glorified by free grace And the first Chapter to the Hebrews doth put a distinction between Christ and the Saints as is evident by the worke of Creation v. 2. his satisfaction v. 3. his eternall generation v. 5. we must not say to a Saint as God doth to Christ Thy Throne ô God endureth for ever vers. 8. M. Erbury promised us three Arguments more and threatned to draw them up into form His first Argument was taken from Isay 61. 1. to 7. They who are annointed as Christ are to preach the Gospel to the World and whom the World shall own as the only Ministers of Christ and shall honour as the Son they have the fulnesse of the Godhead in them but the Saints are annointed with the Godhead c. therefore There being but one clause of the major pertinent to the point in hand M. Erbury was desired to prove that the saints were annointed with the Godhead Mr. Erbury endeavoured to prove it by this Argument They who know all things are annointed with the Godhead but the Saints know all things therefore the Saints are annointed with the Godhead Our brother shewed that this was a fallacy à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter The answer was that the Saints do know all things suo modo that is all things necessary to salvation but they doe not know all things simply and universally because they are not omniscient They who are omniscient are anointed with the Godhead but c. The Saints are not omniscient therefore they are not annointed with the Godhead the contrary you see follows from that medium M. Cheynell therefore made it evident that unlesse by knowing all things was meant that they were omniscient the major was false if he took those terms in one sense in the major and another in the minor it was a false Syllogisme consisting of four terms as may appear to the eye They who are omniscient are annointed with the Godhead But the Saints know all things necessary to salvation therefore the saints are annointed with the Godhead M. Erbury said that Omniscient was no scripture-terme our brother desired him to prove that the Saints knew as much as God knoweth or take some other medium for though it was impossible to prove the proposition denied yet he might finde out some more probable medium Mr. Erbury tryed divers other wayes but could not conclude and therefore our brother being almost quite spent concluded the exercise as he began with prayer We shall not stand to make generall observations upon all Mr. Erbury's dictates but the designe is evident the Magistracy and Ministry of this Kingdome are both aimed at because godly Ministers preach up the power of Magistrates and prudent Magistrates countenance pious Ministers who were ordained by a Colledge of Ministers separated from Rome and Antichrist by a professed subjection to Jesus Christ and set apart to preach the Gospel of Christ by which all discerning Christians know Antichrist hath been much weakned and will in time be quite overthrown Nay it is cleare that all wel-grounded policy for the affairs of this life is grounded upon Religion for God and so godlinesse under God by his ordinance heaps all blessings upon the wisest and wel-built State it doth uphold and maintaine all Common-weals in an happy order and makes a land to become the land of Immanuel now the Christian religion cannot be upheld without a Christian Ministry for if a Ministry had not been necessary Christ would not have instituted it being necessary Christ will continue it for Christ will not be wanting to his Churh in things that are necessary for its edification and encrease the Ministry then being instituted and therefore necessary must be maintained for no Christian or company of Christians must presume to abolish an Institution of Jesus Christ The end of the Ministry is to work upon the conscience for the restraint of sin and to beget such graces as do incline both Governors to rule and inferiors to obey according to the word finally to nourish justice and charity temperance and