23. 2 3. compared together do confirm it in vers 2. it is said The Spirit of the Lord spake by me and his word was in my mouth in vers 3. it is said The God of Israel said the Rock of Israel spake to me he that in vers 2. is called the Spirit of the Lord in vers 3. is called the God of Israel for one and the same person spake to David not two persons spake to him but one And in Luk. 1. 68. 70. compared together and both of them compared with 2 Pet. 1. 21. in vers 63. Zachary blessed the Lord God of Israel who visited and redeemed his people c. in vers 70. Zachary makes this Lord God of Israel to be the person that spake by the mouth of the Prophets but who is he that spake by the mouth of the Prophets the Spirit is he Peter tels us so much and in many other places we read so much 2 Pet. 1. 21. Holy men spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost Therefore if he inspired the Prophets and spake in them and by them he is the Lord God of Israel 3. He is called the most High Luk. 1. 35. The Angel speaks thus to Mary The holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall over shadow thee This latter is but an enlargement of the former the same person is spoken of in both propositions with this difference only the name of the person spoken of is put upon him in the former proposition viz the holy Ghost the Title of the person is given to him in the latter the Highest with his power shall over-shadow thee so that the holy Ghost is the highest But some may object against this and say that the holy Ghost is not called the highest but he is called the power of the Highest or the vertue of the Highest because the Highest by the vertue of the holy Ghost would form Christ in the womb of the Virgin or would cause her to conceive so the holy Ghost and power are one thing but not the holy Ghost and the Highest If this were true yet seeing a person is spoken of and not a thing and this person is called the vertue or power of the Highest in so miraculous a work he cannot be inferiour to the Highest for he by whose force and power and vertue the highest shews himself to be the Highest works as the Highest must needs be as high as he and if the Father should be the Highest in this place yet the holy Ghost is made equal to him which shews the Father and the holy Ghost to be one in Essence though two in personality because there can be but one Highest But it appears to be otherwise that Spirit and power are not confounded but distinguished and there distinguished where God is mentioned in Rom. 15. 18 19. God made the Gentiles obedient to the Gospel through mighty signs and wonders done by the power of the Spirit of God here is power and Spirit and God and all distinguished from other by God the Father is meant by Spirit the holy Ghost is meant and by power the vertue might and efficacy of the holy Ghost is meant and it appears which alone is sufficient to prove holy Ghost to be God that mighty signs and wonders were done by the proper power of the holy Ghost it is not said that they were done by the power of God viz. the Father but by the power of the Spirit of God by the Spirits own proper power 4. He is called God most high and Almighty all these titles are put upon the Spirit in Numb 24. 2. 16. compared together In verse 2. it is said of Balaam that the Spirit of God came upon him in verse 16. Balaam describes himself to be one that heard the words of God that knew the knowledge of the most high and saw the visions of the Almighty and all this was but the Spirit of God which came upon him I might speak of the attributes of the Spirit which are proper to the most high God and prove him to be such as of Omnipotency Omnisciency Omnipresence c. But he himself hath held forth these in his Letter when he lived about Glocester which in my former Treatise is printed to the view of the World at which time his eyes were open and he saw these attributes in the Spirit and acknowledged the holy Ghost to be God upon the sight thereof though his Faith had been suspended before but now he denies what he confessed then and is left to blindness and darkness and speaks opprobriously of the Spirit of Grace when he cals him the instrument of an instrument for he makes Christ himself no more but the Fathers instrument and a creature and the Spirit is no more but Christs instrument and a creature of a creature I shall now conclude with an Answer to what he closeth his Answers to this Text of Math. 28 with He saith this kinde of presence by the Spirit Beza and others understand to be intended in Mat. 28. 20. Reply 1. Neither Beza nor any else save Arians and Socinians do hold such a kinde of presence of the Spirit as he hath held forth viz. of the Spirit as an instrument by which Jesus Christ did work but only of the Spirit as God and as the third person in the Trinity equal with the Father with the Son by whom the Father and Son do work not as by an instrument but as by an associate not as imparting any superiority in them or inferiority in the Spirit but Order only that they which are one in Essence but distinct in personality might not be confounded as they cannot be divided from one another in operation therefore as they are in one another so they work from and by one another 2. The words which he mentions in the Margent as Bezaes upon the place though I have diligently perused Beza I cannot find neither in Matthew the Text that is controverted betwixt us nor yet in any of those Texts in John which speak of the Spirit which he cites neither would they be any whit advantageous to him were they found in Beza for they speak of Christ as absent in body which none denies but that whole Christ is absent is not asserted in the words but the contrary seems to be implyed for the absence of Christ is limited to his body Caeterum corpore abest are the words so that Christ may be present in that spirit of holiness which is his divine Nature of which Paul speaks in Rom. 1. 4. without any contradiction to Beza if any such words may be found in him 3. The words of Beza upon the place do differ greatly from the words he presents as his and do not favour his exposition at all but may well be interpreted so as to cohere with the use I make of that Text Cum autem idem ipse dominus paulo ante dixerit c. saith
written there or he that reads may understand without questioning that whole Christ is but an Instrument For all that is asserted by the Apostle is that God the Father our Saviour saved through Christ our Saviour by the holy Ghost And what doth this hold out but the Order among the Persons in their working And when JEHOVAH saves by JEHOVAH their God doth this particle by import instrumentalness I have shewed the contrary Indeed the Manhood of Christ is made instrumental to the Godhead of Christ and to the whole Trinity in this great designe of the Father Son and holy Ghost to save men but it cannot in this place be applied to the Manhood because the Spirit is shed or given from the Father through Christ not as Man but as God as I have shewed in the other Treatise Instance 5. The 5. Instance he forms up into an Argument thus That Doctrine which makes the Mediator betwixt God and man to be a meer creature brings in as it were another Gospel destroyes the true Gospel in many of the parts of it c. in that it is against reason that the Mediator should be a creature because a meer creature is no way meet to be a Daysman for God because a Mediator must either partake of both God and man or of neither else he will be rather a party then a Mediator c. and in that it opposeth these Scriptures Mat. 1. 23. 1. Tim. 3. 16. Joh. 1. 14. But that Doctrine which denies Jesus Christ to be the most high God makes the Mediator betwixt God and man to be a meer creature Therefore I shall passe by all those lines in which he only trifles speaks not to the Argumnet or instance and mention only that which is materiall in way of answer To the Major and the first reason of it viz. A meer creature is no way meet to be a Daysman for God He answers thus This reason wants a reason to support it what should hinder saith he but the meere creature may be a Daysman or Mediator Is there any one work that belongs to his office that is impossible for a creature to perform notwithstanding divine assistance with him I dare saith he assert the contrary and am able to prove in whatsoever work you can instance in belonging to Christs Mediatorship that of himself he was not able to perform it unlesse by the assistance of another which he enjoyed and so is a compleat Mediator Rep. There are many things that may hinder that a meere creature cannot be a Daysman or Mediator for God 1. The disproportion that is betwixt God and a meere creature hinders which disproportion is infinite It is against Gods honor and glory that God should admit of a meer ceature-Daysman or Mediator It is as if a worm should be a Daysman or Mediator for a man or as if a begger should be a Daysman or Mediator for a King Nay there is not any thing to resemble it by among all the creatures and there would be too much honour put upon a meer creature if he should be Mediator or Daysman because a meer creature is infinitely below God but a Daysman should hold some kind of equality with the person for whom he is a Daysman For 1. The matter is committed to him that is a Daysman or Mediator 2. The person that commits the matter to the Daysman commits himself with it to him also 3. A Daysman is one that must judge betwixt now this is too low for God to admit of and too high for man or for any meer creature that it should be set â—n such a place 2. The impotency and infirmiiy of the creature hinders that it cannot be a â—meet Daysman for God For 1. No meer creature can attain unto a perfect knowledge of the trespasse and offence that is committed against God because it is infinite therefore no finite creature can search into it the person against whom it is committed being infinite makes it infinite and one of a finite knowledge cannot reach it it may be truly said that neither man nor Angel nor the Son of man himself as man knowes the greatnesse of mans sin for unlesse the greatnesse of God can be measured against whom it was committed the greatnesse of the sin cannot be known Now if it cannot be known by any meer creature then no meere creature can be a Daysman to consider of it 2. No meer creature can be sufficiently sensible of the great dishonour that was offered unto God and the great indignity and injury that was done against God when man sinned again him for what is all creature-sense to that infinite perception which God hath of the â—ffront done unto him and unlesse you could make the creature as God a creature cannot have the feeling of God and unlesse a creature had the infinite holinesse of God a creature cannot know how distastfull sin is unto God therefore a meer creature cannot be a Mediator or Days-man for God for he cannot sensibly enough consider of the transgression against God 3. No meer creature can make Proposalls that are proportionable in reference to Gods honour that was impaired by the sin of man that God might be no loser nor might receive any detriment by Mediation because no creature knowes how much the honor of God is impaired and if he did yet it would be beyond his power to offer honorable terms to God in reference thereto for a creature will act and move like a creature and all its Proposalls will be low and little and defective and short yea infinitely low short and like it self therfore a meer creature cannot be a meet Daysman for God because he will be sure to wrong him 4. The Mediator betwixt God and man is not of intercession onely but of satisfaction now no meer creature can give satisfaction for mens offences because offences are greater then can be conceived of the satisfaction must be like them that is must be greater then can be imagined by any creature therefore greater then can be given by any creature The Mediator is an undertaker to satisfie for what is past by paying the utmost farthing and to render man a new creature inclied and devoted to God who was before an enemie Now no meer creature can be such an undertaker because he cannot give a price sufficient nor work any such transformation in man but it belongs to him who made heaven and earth to do this These things are impediments why a meer creature cannot be a Daysman betwixt God and men there are things to be known and done which creatures as creatures are not capable of His daring therefore to assert the contrary shews rather his presumption then his wisdome or ability And whereas he saith that he is able to prove that Christ of himself was not able to perform any work belonging to his Mediatorship unlesse by the assistance of another which he enjoyed and so was a compleat Mediator
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
Christian Religion largely and satisfactorily shews if the Reader will be at the pains to peruse him 4 The inanimate creatures have some kind of impression of the Trinity upon them and one God in three Persons hath in a kind left his image and his resemblance upon them The Sun begets beams and rayes and from both these proceeds light and yet neither is the Sun before the beams nor the beams before the light that proceeds from them but in order onely and relation so far as the beams are begotten and the light proceeds but not in time which doth adumbrate the coeternity of the Three Persons So also there is the Fountain and there is the water that bubbles up which is as it were begotten of the Fountain and there is the stream that proceeds from both and these are at once in time for in the first moment that there is a fountain there is the bubling of water or the rising up or boyling of it and no sooner is the bubling but there is an issuing or proceeding of water the water runs from it if there be passage and yet in order the fountain is first the bubling is next and the proceeding of water is last but they are together in time And may it not be said that the impression of the Trinity is here but the character in which the Trinity is written in the book of the creatures is smaller and darker then that every one can read when yet things of the God-head some of them may more easily be spelled forth 5. Though we affirm that the Father creates and the Son creates and the Holy Ghost creates and that these three are three persons yet we do not hold that these three are three reall distinct Agents but one Agent For they are all of them but one thing but one God and so really but one Agent but this one Agent subsists divers ways in three persons as one God subsists divers ways in three persons and these persons are not another thing from that one God and so not another thing from that one Agent So that he goes upon a mistake while he disputes against three principall Agents As suppose there were one soul in three bodies moving them alike in all operations and acting by them these three bodies would not be three Agents but one Agent though all the bodies perform the work And if there be one God in three persons or which is all one subsisting three manner of ways yet the three manner of ways of subsisting doth not make three Gods nor three Agents But there is no similitude that will rightly and exactly and fully in all things hold forth the working of God in trinity of persons only some little crevice of light may be opened to give a little insight into this truth 6. Our Divines when they have confessed that God is known by the Creation but have denyed that God the Father Son and Holy Ghost are known thereby they have meant it of a demonstrative knowledge which of God men may arrive at but of the Trinity they cannot yet there may be some things that may shadow it out though very darkly 7. It is certain that that which is clearly seen of God in the Creation belongs to his Essence For the Apostle tels us so much Rom. 1. 20. his Godhead is seen things belonging to his Essence viz. his power his wisdome the liberty of his will his goodnesse holinesse and many more properties belonging to his Essence which are common to all the persons but those subsistantiall personall properties they are not by any visible characters to be discern'd But he objects against our Divines for saying God is known from the Creation but not Father Son and Holy Ghost and he objects against the reason that they render viz. That the efficient force and vertue by which the world was created belongs to the Essence of God and not to the personall subsistence his words are these Yet by their leave God is a Person all actions being proper unto persons therefore by their grant the work of creation holds forth but one Agent for it is not imaginable that if there were more then one principall Agent they should not all be equally discovered by the work Repl. I have answered unto this Gods being a Person and have declared that God rather imports essentiality then personality yet withall I have shewed that essence is never separated from person but subsists in it and if God be properly spoken of there the essence is meant as it subsists in three persons in Father Son and Holy Spirit Yet when it respects acting things without them these three persons act in that which is common to them all and wherein they are in one and not wherein they are distinguished and are three they act by the same essentiall property as power wisdome c. and these are one and the same in them all and so it is Gods work in Father Son and Holy Ghost and not the Fathers work alone and apart nor God the Sons work alone and apart nor God the Holy Ghost's work alone and apart nor yet the work of all these wherein they differ and are three distinct from each other but the work of all as they are one And the Father is no more discovered then the Son nor any one more then other but God in all is discovered So that he is upon a mistake when he speaks of three principall Agents that must be discovered in the work of creation For these persons that are work but one thing one being one God one reall Agent for the very thing that the Father acts the Son acts and the Holy Ghost acts and the power is one and the wisdome is one and the act is one Or suppose it were granted that there are three principall Agents yet there are not three Agents essentially distinct but personally only and so it comes all to one whether one say that there are three Agents that may be called principall or whether one say there is one principall Agent for the one Agent is in three persons and acts with some personall diversity and the three Agents are but one in essence and but one thing and act one thing and by one power therefore it is not materiall how it is expressed Agent as it relates to God may admit of the same distinction as is made when we speak of God Agent is considered either essentially or subsistentially Essentially and then there is but one as there is but one God Subsistentially and then there are three as there are three Persons But they do not differ really and essentially one from another as the Persons do not but onely in the manner of acting And Agent taken personally though they should be three yet need not be discovered each of them in the work because as they are essentially one so they work one individuall work by one individuall power and force and efficacy which is numerically the same
to the Gospel and the testimony of other Scriptures with some further proofes not purposing at all to desert my former grounds which I confide in as much as ever but intending in my following discourse to free them from his evasions by which he would elude the strength of them And thus I argue Arg. 1. That doctrine that denyes and destroyes that one onely true God and brings in a strange and a false God that Doctrine destroyes the true Gospel and Scriptures and brings in another Gospel and Scriptures But this Doctrine of his that makes whole Christ a creature doth so Therfore c. The Major admits of no doubt because the Scripture is cleer that there is but one onely true God Deut. 6. 4. 1 Cor. 8. 6. The Minor must have proof and thus I confirm it If the one onely true God be both three and one three in Persons and one in Essence be Father Son and Spirit which are called three and yet are but one then that Doctrine which makes God to be but one and one viz. one in person and one in essence and makes the Father onely to be God excluding the Son and Spirit denyes and destroyes the true God and sets up a false God My proof for the Minor again for the Major is unquestionable is 1 Joh. 5. 7 9. There are three that bear witness in heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one What will he answer to this Scripture He will not deny but that the three that are here spoken of the Father the Word and the Spirit are three persons for he hath granted it all along in his discourse that they are three distinct persons but the oneness of these three in essence is that which he denyes that they are one God is not yeilded by him because the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not found in one copy of the Greek But this answer may be given that in all other copies these words are found which renders that copy where they are wanting suspicious and the 9. verse makes it manifest that it is so for the three witnesses in the 7. ver are called the witness of one God in ver 9. if we receive the witness of man the witness of God is greater what witness of God is this it is the witness of the three that was spoken of in ver 7. which are said to be but one God And it is observable that the three witnesses on earth are said to agree in one ver 8. but those in heaven to be one it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ver 7. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ver 8. in all the most approved copies which the concurrence of ver 9. with ver 7. justifies as was said before However it be there is strength enough in this argument to them that grant the God-head of Christ they must confess whether they will or no that the true God is denyed and a false God brought in for if the Father be God and the Son be God and the Son be not the Father nor the Father the Son and yet there be not two Gods but one God then this one God is the Father and Son I do not exclude the Spirit but I speak to those who acknowledge Father and Son both of them to be God they must confess that they are both of them but one and the same God and then it comes to this that the true God is one in two and it is two in one according to their tenent that is one God in essence and two in persons or two persons in one essence the consequence of which is this they must conclude that whoever makes the essence to be one and the person to be but one the Father to be God and he alone to be God and the Son not to be God much less the holy Ghost such an one brings in a strange God and unscripturall God destroyes the true God which is Father and Son as themselves acknowledg yea and Spirit also as they will not deny And how then can any such person make the denying of Christ to be God a triviall errour not greatly consequential nor of such moment as to be so greatly contended for not fundamentall nor damnable though persisted in when as yet it is the denying of the onely God which is not Father alone but Father Son and Spirit But why should I contest with friends which confesse the Diety of Christ I am sorry there should be any occasion I will turn again upon the adversary Either Father and Son I exclude not the Spirit but I am pleading the Sons Godhead and not the Spirits and shewing the heinousness of the errour of denying it I say either the Father and the Son are the onely God or else there is no God at all for the Scripture saith Joh. 10. 30 that the Father and Christ are one in power which is an essentiall attribute and then they are one in essence and so one God and yet they are two distinct persons Joh. 8. 17. 18. It is written in your law that the testimony of two men is true I am one that bear witness of my self and my Father heareth witness of me If the Father and the Son be two distinct witnesses then they two are distinct persons for none can be witnesses but persons and two manifestations of the same person cannot be said to be two distinct witnesses nor would the proof which is fetcht from the law where the witnesses were distinct persons be sutable But he will confess this that the Father and Son are distinct persons and distinct witnesses also and if so he cannot with any face deny the other that they are one as well as two because Christ saith so in the above named place one viz. in power in essence in Godhead And indeed the very context where they are called two witnesses will witness that they are but one God the Jews reject his witness of himself such as they took him to be which was a meer man for the law alowed it not that any man should be admitted to bear witness of himself but he notwithstanding bears himself out by the law to be an adequate witnesse of himself but herein he hath recourse to that of himself which they saw not which they knew not as ver 14. shewes I know whence I came ye cannot tell whence I came He could not mean it of his soul for they could not look upon him without a soul and soul and body made but one man and notwithstanding both he would be an unadequate witness of himself But he means another thing distinct both from soul and body and from his manhood which might be a witness of him as man and this could be nothing but his Godhead and he joynes himself according to this with the Father as a distinct witness but the same God The result is then that the one true God though but one in essence yet
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
alwaies to the end of the world But whether this be sollidly or slightly done I shall leave to the Reader to judge after I have presented it to his view The tenth Argument or Instance was this Inst 10. If Christ be a meer creature then how can he protect and defend and save and direct and rule and govern his Church in all the world in every condition and against all enemies he being at such a distance and remoteness from the Church and yet it is said of him that he is able to save to the utmost those that come to God by him Heb. 1. 25. and that he is with them to the end of the world And Christ stood by Paul and strengthned him in suffering Acts 23. 11. And Christ saith Rev. 3. 10. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience I will also keep thee from the hour of Temptation So that it is Christ now in heaven that keeps the saints on earth which being a meer creature he cannot do The Reader may easily observe that the force of this Instance lies in two particulars especially 1. If he be a meer creature how will he be able how can he have power to perform such acts as those are that are mentioned conducing to the safety and welfare of his Church having such enemies to conflict with and such evils to save from 2. How can he do it at such distance How can he do it he being in heaven and they being on earth What vertue is that that is in Christ as meer man that reacheth the Saints in all places and is sufficient to preserve and keep and rule and govern them He may also cast his eye upon the Scriptures which I quote of which Matth. 28. 20. is but one to which he refers me and the rest he passeth over in silence as if they were all of them answered in his answer to Matth. 28. 20. but let his answer to that text be surveyed and it will appear to be otherwise I shall re-mind the Reader of the sum of it These works of instructing comforting strengthning he doth in his absence by his Spirit whom the Father hath sent in his Name for the Spirit which came in Christs name was the instrument by which Jesus Christ did the work Doth this answer of his satisfie in reference to that Text in Heb. 7. 2. He is able to save to the utmost those that come to God by him Is this the meaning of it he is not able by himself to save to the utmost but by the Spirit who is his Instrument he is able If it be then Christ alone is not a sufficient Saviour but Christ and the Spirit together or rather Christ is insufficient but the Spirit is sufficient and yet but a creature and inferiour to Christ and his Instrument But the Apostles designe is to set out not the Spirits sufficiency but Christs sufficiency Much less is satisfaction given by this answer of his to Acts 23. 11. where it is said that the Lord stood by Paul and said be of good cheer Paul for as thou hast testified of me at Jerusalem so must thou bear witness of me at Rome Suppose this were done in a Vision yet the Vision is of Christ not of the Spirit I have not said that the Spirit stood by the Lord and it is the presence of Christ himself and the consolation of Christ himself that Paul in this Vision is instructed of though neither the Father nor the holy Ghost is to be excluded for Father Son and holy Ghost are all of them present with all saints alwaies and do all of them work the same work the order still observed So that when it is said that the Father and the Son do instruct or protect by the Spirit it must not be understood that they are causa adjuvantes causes helping one another for all of them are all-sufficient and all of them do effect the whole work in such an order of working much less that the Spirit is only operative and the Father and Son are inactive in the work and are onely authorative in it and do imploy the Spirit as their instrument as the lord of the house doth act things by his servants whom he imploys as messengers to effect such things or whom he appoints or designs for such undertakings for so would he have us to conceive of Christ that he doth nothing himself but is contained in heaven and is neither present nor acts any thing on earth but sends the Spirit to effect all for him and this Spirit is present and doth all that is done and Christ himself doth nothing For this is confuted in this Vision where the Lord shew himself present and he himself gives out the word of good cheer and effects it also by his own power The next Instance or Argument in order which he gives answer to I shall pass over reserving it to the last place and shall vindicate the Instance that follows as is last in the paper from that unkind dealing which it meets with from him The Argument is this Inst 11. If Christ be a meer creature then Prayer to him being now in heaven is altogether vain and frivolous in as much as persons may cry aloud long enough before Christ hear them at that distance but the Saints have bin wont not onely to pray to God in Christs name but to pray to Christ directly and immediately in Acts 7. 57. Rev. 22. 20. Lord Jesus receive my spirit Come Lord Jesus His answer is By the rule of the Gospel we are to pray to God or the Father in the name of Christ Jesus you have nothing to countenance prayer to Christ but the two Texts you mention If Stephen did pray directly to Jesus Christ his act might be warranted by the visible appearance of Jesus Christ as Lot prayed to the Angel being visible That in Revelation is no prayer but an intimation of the Churches desire after Christ's coming the like manner of speaking we have Rev. 6. 16. which is no prayer Repl. Here is a bundle of conclusions and monstrous untruths packed up together 1. He saith By the rule of the Gospel we are to pray to God or the Father in the name of Jesus Christ which being taken exclusively as he must needs understand it else he speaks at randome and not to the thing viz. that prayer to Christ is against the rule of the Gospel is very false and herein he condems the generation of Gods children and Stephen more especially who prayed to God the Son for every Text of Scripture that enjoyns prayer to God enjoyns it to the whole Trinity to Father Son and Spirit and not to the Father only because there is no God but he who is one in Essence and three in persons as hath been proved before And let him shew that rule that enjoyns prayer to God viz. the Father excluding the Son and the holy Ghost if he can and if he cannot let him
then in the words of the 8. verse sets him before men for the consolation of the righteous and terrour of the wicked as present calling to them I am Alpha and Omega c. who will make doubt of my coming who can intercept it I am Alpha and Omega c. But he imagines other Arguments will be made use of to prove this place to refer to Christ and disputes against them his words are these You will peradventure say that the thing is evident in that he is called Lord or you will bring the Testimony of learned Authors who have interpreted the words as spoken by Christ And he confutes both these reasons and saith God or the Father distinct from Christ is called Lord Act. 3. 19. 20. c. And Beza saith he conceived that these words are spoken of God absolutely taken And Pareus confesseth certain Orthodox Interpreters do attribute the words to God absolutely considered Repl. The Title Lord because it is rarely attributed to the Father in the New Testament and when it is attributed to him it is done with such clearness that it is easily discerned and because it is first commonly attributed to Christ therefore it may be a ground of a probable Argument that Christ is meant by it but a necessary Argument cannot be deducted from it therefore I wave it and it had been wisdom if he had done so also till he had discerned that I had made use of it as an Argument As for learned Interpreters though I honour them much yet it hath not been my custom to bottom the sense that I put upon Scriptures upon them but to prove it from the Scripture either the Text it self or context or some other parallel place therefore he might have spared his labour in citing Authors unless I had provoked him thereto But if he will produce Authors why will he offer wrong to the Authors whom he produceth and make them speak that which they speak not that hath been the way to uphold a rotten tenent and he treads in that way I cannot find the words he cites in Beza and he mentions not the place and if he can shew them in Beza I can shew that Beza contradicts himself If Beza have so expressed himself probably he would do it when he came to give the sense of the place but there his words are these Christus hic loquitur ut aeternus Deus acsi diceret ego is sum ante quem nihil est immo per quem factum est quicquid factum est quicque ut omnia intereant superstes illis omnibus maneam c. That is Christ here speaks as the eternal God as if he should say I am he before whom there is nothing yea and by whom every thing is made that is made and am one who do abide and am surviving when all other things perish As for Pareus I confess he cites his words aright and yet abuseth him egregiously for though he grants that some Orthodox Writers do apply these words to God absolutely considered yet he doth not grant that they are Orthodox in their Interpretation of that Text but disputes against them and renders reasons why the words must be applyed to Christ And in the very place from whence he fetcheth those words of Pareus which he mentions in his Margin these words immediately follow causas tamen evidentes sententiae huic obstare prius ostendi that is though some Orthodox Interpreters do apply these words to God absolutely taken or to the Trinity yet I have before shewed manifest reasons which do cross this Opinion of theirs Now he mentions the former words of this Author and silenceth these latter words and so deals unkindly and uncandidly with him But he saith We must betake our selves to reason whereby the Spirit may convince us of whom the Text in controversies is to be understood Repl. This is new Doctrine that is here taught us viz. that reason is the Spirits organ or instrument in its convictions that it sets upon men and it is dangerous desperate Doctrine which hath been exploded by all humble sober Christians if a man must be believe no further then he can see the whole Gospel must be rejected for it is an high mystery which reason cannot look into and the love of the Father and of Christ hath an heigth and depth c. which passeth knowledge must not persons believe it I have heard it and do believe it that the Spirit is sent to convince according to the revealation of Scripture whether we can reach it with our reason or cannot reach it but reason is now advanced as the only medium to Faith which was formerly cryed down as the great Enemy of Faith But let his reasons be considered of 1. This Text saith he declares the principal Author of those things which John the Divine was to communicate to the seven Churches for these words begin a new matter and are no part of the salutation They speak of God even the Father who is of highest authority and from whom originally this Revelation was Christ he is spoken of ver 11. and is to be considered as the principal instrument in conveying this Revelation to the Churches for God gave it to him to shew to his servants those things which were shortly to come to pass vers 1. Rep. 1. This reason asserts several things and proves nothing and so leaves the Reader altogether unsatisfied unless bare words must pass for currant 2. There is no truth in any thing that he asserts in relation to this text in controversie for though there might be some colour for such a collection that God the Father is the principal Authour of this Revelation and Christ the principal Instrument of conveying this Revelation to the Churches which is only in a sense true not of whole Christ but of one part of him to be understood in relation to the first verse because there it is said that God gave it to Christ yet in relation to verse 8. of which the dispute is there is not the least shadow of ground for any one to conceive much less to utter such things For if Alpha signifie the first or the beginning yet it must not be restrained to this Revelation but must be extended to all things and whether the Father or Christ be meant yet a person that is from everlasting to everlasting and that is the root and fountain of all things and that comprehends all things is meant as all the letters in the Greek Alphabet are comprehended betwixt Alpha and Omega 3. It is unreasonable for him or any one to apply the letter Alpha to the Father in verse 8. and thence to deduce this conclusion the Father is of highest authority and from him originally this Revelation was and then to apply the same letter Alpha in verse 11. to Christ and thence to deduce a diverse if not contrary yea contradictory conclusion viz. Christ is the principal instrument in conveying this
Revelation to the Churches For if Christ be but the principal instrument in conveying it then he is not of highest authority nor from him originally was the 〈◊〉 Now it is sensless and notoâ—iously 〈◊〉 to imagine that contrary conclusions 〈◊〉 proceed from the same premises 〈…〉 to the Father he argues thus from verse 8 The Father is Alpha therefore he is of highest authority and the original of this Revelation But in reference to Christ he argues thus from verse 11. Christ is Alpha therefore he is not of highest authority nor the original of this Revelation but the principal instrument only in conveying this Revelation to the Churches Would one think that rational persons should be taken with such kind of sottish and repugnant arguing which crosseth it self 4. In reference to verse 1. which is the text that seems most to countenance his assertions there is much unsoundness in his collections for either it must be thus understood that though God the Father gave this Revelation to Christ yet God the Father gave it not to Christ as an instrument simply considered but unto Christ who was his fellow for it is said of Christ That he shewed it to his servants and signified it by his Angel to his servant John so that Christ is set forth here in his dominion and Lordship equall with the Father over the creatures for more could not have been said of the Father in reference to the creatures then his servants his Angel his servant John or else if Christ be an Instrument and that God gave this Revelation to him as an Instrument yet this God is God the Father Son and Spirit that gave it to him for the word God must be taken essentially not personally and if Father had been named as it is not for it is said God gave unto him yet not of the Father exclusively and dividedly from the Son and Spirit must it be understood that he gave this Revelation to Christ Nor of whole Christ is it to be understood neither but of Christ according to his humane nature considered and so God viz. Father Son and Spirit gave this Revelation to Christ viz. to the Man Christ or Christ considered in his Man-hood and so Christ though in one respect he be an Instrument yet in another respect he is the principal Authour and original cause with the Father 5. Neither is there any new matter begun in this 8. verse as he affirms for if it be begun in it it is also ended in it for in the 9. verse there is a change of the person speaking but it is the conclusion of the Exordium or Preface Christ was described to come in the clouds and what an one he is that shall come in the clouds Christ himself giving witness to what John asserted declares who he is I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end saith the Lord Christ who will come in the clouds for either this 8. verse must have relation to verse 7. or else it is independent and hath relation to nothing But let the second Reason be looked into and proved whether there be any more strength in it 2. Because saith he those titles are no where in the Scripture attributed to Jesus Christ he is indeed called Alpha and Omega the first and the last verse 11. but not Alpha and Omega as signifying the beginning and the end Rep. There is a great deal of untruth in this assertion and much weakness unworthy of one that pretends to instruct others and to be a guide unto them in a way which they have not known 1. There is untruth for these titles are attributed in Scripture to Jesus Christ he is not onely called Alpha and Omega the first and the last but he is called Alpha and Omega as signifying the beginning and the ending in Revel 22. 13. the words are these I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end the first and the last Where we may observe 1. The person speaking which is Christ as may appear from verse 12. compared with verse 28. In verse 12. we have these words behold I come quickly and there is no change of the person in ver 13. but the same I saith I am Alpha and Omega but what person is it the Father or Christ he in his third Reason saith it is the Father But first the Scripture speaks not of the Fathers coming unless in the Son in Christ to give rewards but of Christs coming only in 1 Thes 1. 9. 10. They turned from Idols to serve the living God and to wait for his Son from heaven and Acts 3. 20. he shall send Jesus viz. the Father shall send him but of the Fathers coming Scripture speaks nothing 2. The Apostle John himself ends the controversie betwixt us verse 20. where first we have the same words spoken viz. surely I come quickly 2. We have the sense of them in reference to the person speaking them in the Apostle John's wish and desire Amen saith he come Lord Jesus he understood the person that spake those words to be Christ and not the Father 3. Christ himself clears it that it was he that spake those words I am Alpha and Omega verse 16. I Jesus saith Christ have sent mine Angel weigh the verses together from verse 13. to verse 16. and see whether there be any change of person but the same person that said I am Alpha and Omega said I Jesus have sent my Angel so that it is manifest that with a great deal of boldness he falsifies the truth in saying that Alpha and Omega as signifying the beginning and the end is no where in Scripture attributed to Christ 2. There is weakness in this Assertion of his unworthy of a Teacher in Israel 1. Because Alpha and Omega as signifying first and last are equivalent to Alpha Omega as signifying beginning and end for that whis is first is of it self and hath no cause and is eternal and without beginning and is the beginning of other things and this the very Heathens from the light of Reason within them will confess and that which is last must needs be the end 2. Because first and last which he grants to be attributed to Christ are Attributes of the most high God as he is distinguished froÌ„ the creature See Isai 41. 4. and 48. 12. but especially 44. 6. The words are I am the first and the last and besides me there is no God Here the most high God his design being to declare himself to be the most high God doth assume this title first last as proper to him who is God alone and there is none besides him 3. Because the true English of Alpha and Omega being Greek letters is first and last beginning and end for Alpha is the first and the beginning of the letters and Omega is the last and the end of the letters and these two letters do equally signifie beginning and end as first and last therefore we
find these letters sometimes interpreted beginning and end Rev. 1. 8. which is the Text in controversie sometimes first and last as ver 11. sometimes beginning and end and first and last Rev. 22. 13. therefore his attempting to make a difference betwixt Alpha and Omega as signifying beginning and end and as signifying first and last is very frivolous and senseless I shall now examine his third Reason and see whether that will speed any better 3. Because saith he the terms in the Text are elsewhere apparently and professedly given to God the Father distinct from the Son he is called Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end Rev. 21. 5. 6. And he that sate upon the Throne said I am Alpha and Omega The Angel useth the same phrase Rev. 22. 13. and doubtless in the same manner Repl. Suppose it should be granted that these terms Alpha and Omega be given to God the Father dinstinct from the Son Rev. 21. 6. yet they are not attributed to the Father Rev. 22. 13. but to the Son as hath been evidently proved already and it is not his doubtless the same phrase Rev. 22. 13. is used in the same manner that will carry it against such uncontroulable reasons that have been brought for it viz. that Christ distinct from the Father is called Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end And hence I would draw an Argument If these termes Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end be professedly given to the Father distinct from the Son Rev. 21. 5. 6. and the same termes be given to the Son distinct from the Father Rev. 22. 13. then the Father and the Son are one and the same God and distinct only in their personality for he confesseth himself that these termes Alpha and Omega as signifying beginning end areproper to the most high God and denies that they are given to Christ if then they be given to both the Father and to Christ then it will follow that the Father and Christ are this high God and this is the consequence of his own premises Oh that he might once come to see the sadness of his state to be left to such blindness and darkness as not to be able to see or else to such pertinacie and obstinacie of spirit that he will not see when such clear palpable not one but many texts are before him which have the truth of the coeternity coessentially and coequality of Christ with the Father written engraven upon them which every ingenuous Reader must will acknowledge Truly if there were no more Texts nor Arguments for Christs Diety but these which do denominate Christ to be Alpha and Omega the first and the last the beginning and the end And the Arguments which may be drawn from these they may be able being throughly weighed to convince any person that is rational and acknowledgeth the Scriptures that Christ is the most high God unless God have shut him up under that curse of Isaiah viz. Seeing they shall see and not understand and hearing they shall hear and not perceive c. That which he speaks of these words viz. He that is he which was and he which is to come as referring to the Father in vers 4. of this first Chapter is true but impugneth not our Position viz. That the same words in vers 8. of the same Chapter are referred to Christ who is elsewhere called Jehovah frequently the proper signification of which word is He which is he which was and he which is to come Having vindicated this Scripture of Rev. 1. 8. The next which follows is to be considered of which is Joh. 1. 1. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God That which he clouds the simplicity of this Text which gives such full witness to Christs eternal Diety with is another Translation or Reading which he frames and puts upon the Text which is this In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God and the Word was a God And he puts this sense upon them In the beginning in the first part of time was the Word Jesus Christ according to the Spirit of holiness and he means the soul of Christ did exist And the Word was with the God this Jesus Christ was a delight to the most high God and did converse with him And the Word was a God this Jesus Christ had power committed to him whereby he might represent the most high God This Translarion he fetcheth from the omission of the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ is called God without the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put therto but the Article is annexed to God referring to the Father and then he puts his Gloss upon it in a strange exposition of the words Rep. I grant his Observation to be true that in this place of John where God refers to the Father there is an Article affixed but where God refers to Christ there the Article is not affixed But is this a ground of such a Translation or Version which he hath framed is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God with an Article to be taken evermore for the most high God and is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God without an Article to be taken evermore for one that represents the most high God but is not the most high God If this be so then Christ is the most high God for he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God with an article in Heb. 1. 7. which is fetched from Psa 45. 6. which he hath so much disputed against endeavouring to prove Christ in that place to be but a creature God in the former part of his answer which I in my former Treatise of Reply have vindicated against him And the Father whom he hath stood for to the derogation of the other two persons endeavouring to prove him to be the only high God is not the high God at all for in Heb. 1. 6. he is spoken of as God without an Article Let all the Angels of God worship him that is Christ it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is without an Article Do but observe how God leaves him to confound himself because though he have parts yet he abuseth them and God takes the wise in their own craftiness And it is to be observed that Christ is called God with an Article annexed to it in the same verse where the Father is spoken of as his God and with an Article also Heb. 1. 9 which according to his collection makes both the Father and Christ to be the God that is the most high God and so to be coessential because there cannot be the most high God but one most high God Thus Christ is justified in his Diety by himself against his will Quest But the Question may be moved Why is the Article affixed to God when the Father is spoken of and not affixed to God when Christ is spoken
God have all the Angels to wait upon him and all the creatures at his command to go for him and to do for him what he appoints yet if he were not essentially present himself with all and in all he could not supply all with all good that they want for he could not see all and know all if he were not present in all if he did not fill all and if all did not live and move and had not being in him Therefore the Lord argues in Jer. 23. 24. from his filling all to his knowing all the words are these Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him do not I fill heaven and earth saith the Lord and if this be so of God that he works all by his presence with all then it is so of Christ also and the words I will be with you though they may extend to actions of love and kindness and may comprise well dealing and doing good within them yet they do properly hold out the way and means in which Christ will be helpful to them he is with them alwaies to take notice of their condition and to apply himself thereto and Christ doth assure them that though he shall be bodily absent from them and in heaven yet in the eternal Spirit in the divine nature he is alwaies present with them In which sense he saith that he the Son of man though upon earth in his flesh was yet according to his diety in heaven John 3. 13. and chap. 17. 24. But he goes on and saith Jesus Christ is present with his Messengers and deals well with them when he doth instruct comfort strengthen and protect them and all these he doth in his absence by his Spirit whom the Father hath sent in his name John 14. 26. And he instanceth in instruction and saith Christ instructed his Apostles but not immediately for the Spirit saith he that came in Christs name and received of his was the instrument by which Iesus Christ did work And he cites Iohn 16. 13 14 15. for it Rep. I have shewed already that these operations of grace do not hinder the essential presence of Christ according to his Godhead with the Apostles but do rather imply it but he excludes it and saith he doth all these things in his absence by his Spirit Now though there be a truth in it that Christ being in heaven in flesh and absent from earth so far as respects the flesh doth effect all things by the Spirit yet it is not onely false but foolish in the sense that he intends it and in the words that he expresseth it in 1. I shall readily grant it in a sense that Christ works all by the Spirit and that there is an order of working among the persons in the Godhead and in this order the Father works by the Son and by the Spirit and the Son works from the Father and by the Spirit and the Spirit works from the Father and from the Son by himself and the Father is the person sending both the Son and the Spirit and the Son is the person sent from the Father and sending the Spirit with the Father and the Spirit is the person sent both from the Father and from the Son but it will not follow that therefore Christ though bodily absent is personally absent from his Messengers and instructs them not immediately by himself but onely by the Spirit For as it is said in Iohn 5. 17. by Christ of the Father My Father worketh hitherto and I work The Father worketh all things by the Son he made the world by the Son and he judgeth no man but hath committed all judgement to the Son that is by the Son he judgeth and manageth all things and not without him yet he worketh that cannot be denied though by the Son yea the very works that the Son worketh and all of them and none other but them the Father worketh the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father and the Father and the Son are one in essence though two in personality and the Father and the Son work one thing the Father by the Son and the Son from the Father and the Son can do nothing of himself apart from the Father nor the Father any thing apart from the Son but by him as I have shewed at large in my former Treatise so it may be said of the Son and of the holy Ghost that the Son worketh hitherto and the holy Ghost worketh that is they work the same work the Son by the holy Ghost and the holy Ghost from the Son and the holy Ghost shall not speak of himself nor act of himself as saith the Scripture which he cites that is he shall not speak or work any thing apart from the Son but what he shall hear and see that shall he speak and do and the Son doth speak and act by him the same things and nothing else for the Son is in the holy Ghost and the holy Ghost in the Son and they are one in essence and therefore cannot be divided in operation but work the same things in such an order of working and to this the Scripture gives witness in 2 Cor. 3 17. The Lord is called the Spirit and the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Lord Christ how can this be Essentially the Lord Christ is the Spirit they are one Personally considered the Spirit is the Spirit of the Lord Christ and the Lord Christ is not the Spirit And Rev. 2. 1. to 6. compared with verse 7. In verse 1. to 6. Christ is the person that speaks to the Church and so to all the Churches and commands John to write but in verse 7. it is said he that hath an ear to hear let him hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches so that Christ speaks and yet the Spirit speaks and Christ and the Spirit are one in essence though two in persons and Christ spake to the Churches by the Spirit and the Spirit spake from Christ But they act and work together the same things and none other as the Father and the Son do so do the Son and Spirit and indeed Father and Son and Spirit are one in essence and one in operation the order of working onely excepted 1 John 5. 7. so that Christs instructing by the Spirit obstructs not Christs personal presence with the Disciples here upon earth though his body be in heaven And the sending of the Spirit both by the Father and by the Son are acts of counsel among the persons in the Godhead as hath been fully declared in reference to Christ who was sent of the Father and yet gave himself And the Spirit though sent when he cometh acteth not meerly as one sent according to the will of another but as himself willeth 1 Cor. 12. 11. so that his sending was by counsel with his own consent 2. In the sense that he asserts it that Christ in Heaven acts
by his Spirit I shall utterly deny it as that which both wants truth in it and is absurd as that which is neither consistent with Scripture nor reason nor congruous to his own Opinion for he takes away Christs immensity and ubiquity and puts it upon the Spirit to prevent Christs being in Heaven and on Earth at once and his filling of Heaven and Earth with his presence that he might not thereby be acknowledged God and yet he makes the Spirit to be universally present and so makes him more then a creature wherein he contradicts himself for his words are these Christ doth all these works in his absence by his Spirit therefore the Spirit is present for he supplies the defect of Christs presence and yet withall he saith The spirit which received of Christs was Christs instrument by which Jesus Christ did the work Therefore he is not God for God cannot be an instrument therefore he is but a creature wherein he crosseth himself So then what must not be yielded to in Christ least he should be God he yields to the Spirit whom he makes not God but a creature And in this he not only sets Christ below the Father whom he acknowledgeth to be God but he sets him below the Spirit whom he acknowledgeth but a creature and now Christ is neither God nor yet the first and chief of the creatures for the Spirit is more excellent then he for the Spirit can be present with all the Apostles in all the parts and Climats of the World at one time to instruct them comfort them c. and Christ is shut up in Heaven and cannot And this is contradictory to himself for he makes Christ the first of the creatures and the Maker of the rest and the Lord of them and he makes him a Spirit in his first existence and yet the Spirit that was made by him can be with all the Apostles and Disciples and Saints also and abide with them for ever and administer to them all good but Christ who is his Lord and Maker cannot O monstrous and senseless Opinion wherein God leaves him to be confounded But how contradictory to reason is this that the Spirit should be the instrument of Christ and so a creature inferiour to Christ and yet be present in all places in Heaven in Earth in the Sea and every where for where ever Saints be there the Spirit is Saints are in all these places The Spirit is one that bears witness in Heaven 1 Joh. 5. 7. Therefore there he is and he bears witness on Earth in the hearts of Believers in Rom. 8. 16. and therefore there he is And the whole Spirit dwels in every Saint for we do not read of any parts of the Spirit into which he is divided and if Saints be every where the whole Spirit is every where and such a boundless Essence is not competent to any creature it is that which God himself arrogates as proper to him do not I fill Heaven and Earth Jer. 23. 24. whole God fils every place and the whole Spirit fils every Saint As bodies have their loca their places so Spirits all created ones have their ubi their some where out of which and beyond which they are not they are confined if they be not circumscribed but of the Spirit it is said whither shall I go from thy Spirit the Spirit is everywhere It is also extreamly repugnant to Scripture that the Spirit should be Christs instrument and consequently a creature and it is as gross as the denying of the Diety of Christ and his Heresie is multiplyed in this Assertion 1. An Instrument acts and works after the will of the principal efficient but the Spirit after his own will as himself pleaseth and therefore no instrument 2. The person by whom Christ wrought Miracles was no instrument but Christ according to his humane nature wrought Miracles by the vertue and power of the Spirit therefore he was no instrument Mat. 12. 28. Acts 10. 38. 3. He that was the uncture with which Christ was annoynted and became more excellent and glorious then all his fellows he that was the enrichment of Christ as man as a creature above all creatures that exalted him in eminency above all Angels c. was not any instrument inferiour to Christ but superiour to him as a creature but the Spirit was the uncture wherewith Christ was annoynted Act. 10. 38. and he received not the Spirit by measure as others did but beyond all measure Joh. 3. 34. whence he came to excell all his fellows Heb. 1. 9. 4. He that is the Spirit of God and is to God as the spirit of a man is to man he that alone knoweth the deep things of God and searcheth them that is hath deep full perfect knowledge of them he cannot be an instrument to Christ to take what Christ a creature as he makes Christ to be shews him and no more and to shew them to men but the Spirit is the Spirit of God and stands to God as the Spirit of a man stands to man and searcheth the deep things of God therefore cannot be an instrument to take from Christ and bring and shew to men And it is contrary to Scripture to make the Spirit a creature as if he be a creatures instrument as he would make him he must needs be 1. He is called God by the Apostles of Christ therefore he is God Act. 5. 3 4. compared together prove it in the 3. ver Peter saith to Ananias Thou hast lyed to the holy Ghost in the 4. vers he saith Thou hast lyed to God He makes the holy Ghost to be God for he shews the person against whom the sin was committed it was not man it was not any creature it did rise higher it was the holy Ghost he was God So that the holy Ghost and God are one and the same thing And 1 Cor. 3. 16. Paul makes him God in these words Know ye not that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you This latter is the proof of the former because the Spirit of God dwels in you therefore saith the Apostle you are the temple of God here is no mention of Gods dwelling in them but of the Spirits dwelling in them if therefore the Spirit were not God the Argument of the Apostle were nought And by the Evangelist Luke in Act. 10. 3. 19 20. compared together he is called God in vers 3. it is said The Angel of God came in to Cornelius and commanded him to send men for Peter in vers 19. 20. it is said That the Spirit told Peter that he had sent those men to him and therefore he must go with them The men were sent upon the command of the Spirit therefore the Spirit was that God that sent the Angel and to be the Angel of the Spirit and the Angel of God is all one 2. He is called the God of Israel 2 Sam.
Beza that is When as the self-same Lord Jesus had said a little before Me you shall not have alwayes and was to ascend a little after it is apparent that there must be a distinction respecting the maner and way of Christs presence and absence in body he is absent but in vertue he is wholly most present in which vertue he doth communicate himself and all his things really in a spiritual way by faith unto us Here is not one Word of the Spirit of God but of the vertue and power of Christ in which he is present which cannot be the vertue of his body or of his Humane Nature in which he was so far absent for none of that could extend so far unless conveyed by that which was present viz. the divine Nature which is present everywhere and conveyes vertue from whole Christ to believers The next Scripture which he invades and labours to overthrow is Rev. 2. 2. I know thy works whence I infer Christs Godhead because otherwise at such distance he could not know all their works But he answers with Intergatories of admiration because of the absurdity which he pretends to apprehend in it His words are these What could he not Is any thing too hard for the Lord Could the Prophet Elisha know at a very great distance what the King of Syria said in his Bed-chamber and yet cannot Christ know at a distance He hath the Spirit viz. Wisdom and power c. given him without measure Joh. 3 34. and therefore can know beyond what we can conceive Rep. When our Lord Jesus Christ tels the Churches that he knows their works his scope is not to discover to them what knowledge he had by revelation from the Father but it was to make them sensible what quick sharp piercing eye-sight he himself had and what a vaste incomprehensible understanding and knowledge he had for the comfort of all true Saints and for the terror of all Hypocrites in all the Churches and this is maniffest from 23. ver of the same Chapter had he but read the Chapter over he would not have admired at me viz. at my collection but at his own Answers I will kill her children saith Christ with death and all the Churches shall know that I am he that searcheth the reines and hearts c. In these words we may observe first what a knowledge it is that Christ hath of the works and wayes of the Church and what it is he knows it is an inward penetrating knowledge it is of the most unsearchable parts it is of the most hidden works it is of the works of the hearts and reines of men Secondly how Christ came by this knowledge not by any discovery that any other made to him but by and from himself he hath this knowledge it is a knowledge which he hath in himself it is his own knowledge I search the hearts and the reines Thirdly for what end Christ declares this his exquisite and perfect knowledge of all things in man which he hath in himself that all the Churches may know who he was what an one he was more observant of all secret wickedness then they were aware of that they might fear tremble more in reference to the eye of Christ then they did before Fourthly what this science or knowledge of Christ doth denotate and demonstrate Christ to be no less then the most high God for the most high God doth assume power and perfection of searching and trying hearts and reines to himself as his own proper prerogative which none is enabled to challenge in Jer. 179 10. The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked who can know it as if he should have said None can know it But then he excepts himself I the Lord search the heart and try the reines that is I alone do it and yet Christ attributes this high Divine transcendent knowledge to himself and with such suitable words as if Christ were the person speaking in Jeremie or as if the person speaking in Jeremie spake also in the Revelation as if one and the same person spake in both places for they challenge one the same thing the close of the speech in both places is the same and it shews that one and the same God speaks in both places if not one and the same person And now if Mr. Knowles have any ingenuity in him he will open his eyes and lie under the conviction of this Text unless he have sold himself to be deluded and to seduce others It appears by what hath been presented that he cannot evade the strength of this Text of Rev. 2. 2. and the collection made there-from with his instance of Elisha who knew what the King of Syria spake in his Bed-chamber which was done not by any wisdome that was in him but by the revelation of God but Christs knowledge was not such was not from an other but from and in himself But he rests not in that but flies to the Spirit which he saith was given unto him beyond all measure Joh. 3. 34. But what is this Spirit which was given to him which made him thus wise that he could know all the works of the Churches This Spirit is in his opinion but a creature he called him but very lately Christs instrument and his whole scope in his Book is to shew that the Father alone is God the most high God therefore according to him the Spirit is but a creature And shall Christ have all this help from a creature to know all the works of the Churches Doth the Spirit himself know all the hidden workings of the hearts of all Churches and of all Saints There are works of the hearts and reines doth the Spirit know them if he be but a creature The Scripture tels us that none can know them but God Psal 26. 2. 139. 23. and Jer. 11. 20. Chap. 20. 12. But he saith the Spirit is not God therefore cannot know such things therefore by the gift of him Christ cannot come to know such things And how comes the Spirit being but a creature to know more then Christ and to be Christs instructor when Christ is the chief of all the creatures and a God in wisdom and strength in comparison of them according to his opinion is not here an inconsistency which doth always attend falshood Nor can the Spirit without measure be given to Christ if the Spirit as he asserts be but a creature for then himself is measured being finite and not infinite and must be given in measure therefore by the gift of him Christ cannot know all things Yea further it may be said though the Spirit were infinite as indeed he is infinite and is good whatever he weakly and sinfully asserts to the contrary yet Christ being but a creature as he desperately argues he cannot be given without measure for things are received according to the capacity of that which doth receive and not above it and so
be alleadged by him against this is That Baptism is principally into the Name of the Father and that it is through Christ as an instrument through whom the Father doth bestow the blessings of Baptism Sol. But 1. How doth Scripture justifie this where doth it give witness to it If not it is not derogatory to Christ to imagine it 2. Why doth Christ joyn himself and the Spirit with the Father as three associates without any shadow of difference or disparity whose Persons are three but whose Name is but one It is not said Names but Name for as their Essence is one so their Name is one as they are one Lord so their Name is one 3. Baptism hath been into the Name of the Lord Jesus alone without the mention of the Father at all Acts 19. 5. When they heard this they were baptized into the Name of the Lord Jesus Baptism did run in such a form as that sometimes the Name of Christ was onely used and the Father and the holy Ghost were wholly silenced but never excluded And can it be conceived that if the Name of the Father be the Name of that person which is principal and the Name of the Son be the Name of a person that is onely instrumental that in the form of Baptism or words of institution the Name of the principal person should be pretermitted and and the name of the Name of the instrument mentioned There is neither Sence nor Reason nor Pattern nor Example for it Object But it may be objected That Moses was but an instrument in that Baptism of the cloud and of the sea that is spoken of in 1 Cor. 10. 2. and yet it is said that they were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea Sol. Moses is not to be considered as an Instrument but as a Type of Christ who was present with the children of Israel in the pillar of the cloud and in the pillar of fire and they were baptized into Moses mystically and figuratively as into the Type but really and truely they were baptized into Christ who was the Antitype and in whom that which was in shadow in reference to Moses was in substance and was fulfilled in reference unto Christ as hath been demonstrated before For further conviction because I discern that some are slowe of heart to believe the desperateness and damnableness of this Doctrine I shall propound another Argument to prove the destructiveness of this his Tenent to the Gospel and Scriptures in some main points of them Arg. 5. That Doctrine which denies and destroys the sufficiencie of Christ as a Saviour denies and destroys the true Gospel and Scripture and not onely in a main point but in the main scope of them But this Doctrine of his which makes whole Christ a creature doth deny and destroy the sufficiencie of Christ as a Saviour Therefore this Doctrine of his doth deny and destroy the Gospel and whole Scripture not onely in a main point but in the main scope of them The Major Proposition will be readily confessed by him and denied by none therefore needs no proof The Minor Proposition must be fortified else it will be challenged as slanderous I therefore prove it by a double medium 1. That Doctrine that denies Christ to be the author of salvation and makes him an instrument onely in the hand of him that is the author that Doctrine denies Christ to be a sufficient Saviour But this Doctrine of his which makes whole Christ a creature doth deny Christ to be the author of salvation and makes him onely an instrument in the hand of the Father who is the author Therefore this Doctrine of his denies Christ to be a sufficient Saviour He may perhaps deny the Major and distinguish of sufficiencie and say there is an absolute and independent sufficiencie which is proper to that which is the author of a thing and there is a limited and restrained sufficiencie depending upon that absolute sufficiencie of the author which is sutable and proper to an instrument and this later Christ hath and so is sufficient through God through the Father for the work of salvation though he be but a creature But such an Answer must be judged weak for two Reasons 1. The sufficiencie of Christ to save is an absolute sufficiencie and such as is proper to the author of salvation according to the testimony of the Scripture Heb. 5. 9. And being made perfect he became the author of eternal salvation to them that obey him Now I hope he will not confound the Author and the Instrument and make them one person An instrumental sufficiencie the Scripture knows nothing of in reference to Christ nor doth attribute any such to him 2. An instrumental sufficiencie is no other then insufficiencie for an instrument is not able to save to the utmost and so is of himself insufficient to save but Christ is able of himself to save to the utmost Heb. 7. 25. But he perhaps will endeavour to evade the strength of this Assertion by saying that if Christ be able through God the Father to save to the utmost it is sufficient for the verifying of Scripture But neither hath this Answer strength in it nor is Scripture verified by it for Scripture speaks of Christs ability as ability in himself Heb. 1. 3 Christ is described to be one that upholds all things by the word of his own power and to purge sin away by himself and Christ never needed to say of the Father as Paul said of Christ I am able to do all things through Christ that strengthneth me so Christ I am able to do all things through the Father that strengthens me and though he might be strengthened as the Son of man yet not as the Son of God but drew on the people to believe a Divine power in himself for his words are without any limitation Dost thou believe that I am able to do this for thee saith he to one that came to be cured of him without interposing any words which should shew his dependence on another And this ability was Divine ability because it lay in this viz. to heal without the efficacie of means which might conduce to such a purpose And Christ is called the power of the Father because the Father's power is in him And it is said that God laid help upon one that is mighty which though spoken of David yet of him but as the Type and is meant of Christ who is the Antitype and who is truely mighty This ability of Christ within himself to save to the utmost is that which the Apostle disputed for in many places of that Epistle and especially in the Context of that Scripture Heb. 7. 25. He is able to save to the utmost for he doth detect the insufficiencie of the High-priest to save by shewing their mortality and other infirmities and then presents Christ's sufficiencie And if it were so that God could have saved by an instrument
which derives his vertue from him and is dependent upon him a Saviour needed not to have come from heaven for God might have done it by any earthly creature or by any creature-instrument without any respect had to power or ability as inherent in it at all but by his own power manifested by it and so might have saved by an Apostle equally as by a Christ But I shall prove what I designe by another medium 2. That Doctrine which renders Christ insufficient to the work of saving renders him an insufficient Saviour or destroys his sufficiencie as a Saviour But this Doctrine of his renders Christ insufficient to perform the work of saving c. Which I prove thus If Christ be a meer creature he is insufficient to execute those three Offices of King Priest and Prophet to perform the work which those Offices do call for for the saving of men I shall begin with his Prophetical Office unto the execution of which it is necessary not onely to open the Scriptures to men that they may conceive of them but to open the understandings of men to understand them and to give them eye-salve that they may see which because it belongs to his Office as a Prophet he must be able to do from vertue and ability within himself But no creature can effect this by any power of its own nor is capable to receive such power from another because it is not competent to the creature and consequently Christ being onely a creature as he holds him is disabled in the principal work of that Office And as a Priest he was to offer up himself to God through the eternal Spirit that he might purge away sin and that his Blood might be of greater efficacie then the blood of bulls and goats and that he might purchase eternal redemption for believers which as a creature he could not do Heb. 9. 12. So that he disables him in the works of his Priestly Office in holding him onely to be a creature And as a King he must conquer Death by raising himself up from the dead which he was to suffer as a Priest to take away sin And he must also destroy sin in its regnancie by Kingly power in his members as he was to condemn it in its guilt by his death which work is above the power of any meer creature So that by this opinion of his he is made weak to perform all his Offices which yet he came into the world to accomplish and that he is made an insufficient Saviour which overturns the Gospel in the principal scope of it But of this more hereafter The last Argument which I shall now produce to prove another Gospel and Scripture to be brought in and the true Gospel and Scripture to be destroyed is this Arg. 6. That Doctrine which tends to overturn and destroy the mystery of godliness tends also to overturn and destroy the Gospel and Scripture But this Doctrine of his serves to overturn and destroy the mystery of godliness Therefore it destroys the Gospel and Scripture The Major Proposition he will not have the boldness to make question of The Minor Proposition I prove from 1 Tim. 3. 16. Great is the mystery of godliness God manifest in the flesh justified in the spirit seen of Angels preached to the Gentiles believed on in the world received up into glory Thus the words run in all the Original Copies unless one in which the word God is left out as is conceived expunged by the Arrians but the sence of all comes to be subverted by it I shall give the sence of the words and then deduct the consequence from it and shall begin with the subject that is spoken of and then speak of the predicate of that which is asserted God manifest in the flesh The Son of God or God in the person of the Son appearing in flesh by assuming flesh and uniting it to his own person Justified in the Spirit Justified by the Godhead to be God that is by the rays and beams that sparkled out and shined forth in the flesh sutable to the expressions of the Apostle Joh. 1. 14. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the onely begotten Son of God c. Seen of angels Attended by Angels in his incarnation ministery sufferings rising ascending as the story of the Gospel shews which gave witness to this mystery of God in flesh Preached to the Gentiles Preached in this mystery of the incarnation to be God over all blessed for ever Believed on in the world Received as God in our nature as the Immanuel as very God as the most high God by faith as Thomas did receive him so all Saints ought My Lord saith he and my God Received up into glory Taken up to heaven to receive the glory not that which was of new given to him as a reward of his sufferings but the glory which he had before the world was which Divine glory was made more apparent in flesh which was obscured before very much and veiled in it That which is predicated or declared of this subject is that it is a mystery of godliness Great is the mystery It is one of the great depths of God it is the depth of depths the head and height of all mysteries which eye hath not seen and ear hath not heard and which hath not entred into the heart of man to conceive which flesh and blood hath not revealed but the Father that is in heaven by the Spirit viz. that God in the person of the Son was sent by the Father and by consent with the Father gave himself to a state of debasement humbled himself and appeared in the fashion of a man by taking flesh of the Virgin and becoming together with it one person viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man God in the person of the Son and the Son of man making one Christ This truth was witnessed by the Spirit viz. by the Divinity of the second person made flesh by some glory of the Godhead of the Son which in flesh appeared and declared him to be what he was and testified by the attendance of Angels and preached and believed by all sorts of men whom God hath ordained to life and sealed to the satisfaction of all that might doubt by his assumption into glory Jehovah the Father therein speaking to Jehovah the Son Sit thou at my right hand till I make thine enemies thy foot stool Some such enemies were those which contradicted him and called it blasphemy when he said that he was the Son of God or God in the person of the Son which is all one This saith the Apostle is the great mystery which is transcendent above all reason in the sons of men Of godliness This is that truth in the acknowledgement of which and in the assent to which all godliness is founded and bottomed For it is the Gospel in the grand mystery of it the
Father and I are one ver 10. Beleevest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father is in me and that we are one God Therefore seeing ye believed in the Father believe in me also The fourth instance comes now next to be considered of which is this Instance 4. If Christ be but a meer creature then a meer creature is the Saviour of men saving them with a mighty and eternal salvation as the Scripture speaks but this is against the whole current of the Gospel which speaks of God our Saviour Tit. 2. 10 13. And in many other places In answer to this he saith Against this your instance I shall level this assertion which will be sufficient to discover its weakness and confute it That to affirm Jesus Christ to be the Saviour of men without God or equal with God is contrary to the current of the whole Scripture which doth distinguish God from Christ in the work of Salvation calling him a Saviour as distinct from Christ 1 Tim. 1. 1. where God is said to be our Saviour and the Lord Jesus Christ to be our hope and in the Text you alledge and elsewhere frequently Rep. To level one assertion against another is to level Arguments by way of opposition not to answer Arguments by way of satisfaction Yea it is to evade answering by objecting And it is a slie and crafty way of answering when there is a knot which is difficult and perhaps impossible to be untyed in any Scripture or Argument to pass it over with silence and onely propose somewhat which may trouble and perplex the truth in it or the mind rather of him that reads it Thus he did in his Answer to the two last Instances and now again he runs to these fig-leaves to cover the nakedness of his Tenent from that shame which this Argument or Instance enforced with so uncontroulable a Scripture would cast upon it But I shall inforce the Scripture alleadged by me conceiving it will carry conviction along with it to the hearts of such who shall duely perpend and consider it and afterwards shew the weakness of his assertion In this Scripture of Tit. 2. 10 11 13. the Apostle speaks of Christ all along in v. 10. he calls the doctrine of the Gospel the Doctrine of our Saviour God So it is in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That they may adorn the Gospel of our Saviour God in v. 11. he speaks of the same God Christ for by the grace of God he means the Gospel of grace or the Doctrine of Grace which he had in the former verse called the Doctrine of our Saviour God This Doctrine or Gospel hath appeared unto all men in ver 13 he stiles Christ the blessed hope which is elsewhere made the title of God Rom. 15. 13. 1 Pet. 1. 21. And he puts the denomination of the great God and our Saviour upon Christ It is not a great God without an article as he alleadged to evade the strength of Joh. 1. 1. But it is the great God with an Article This Text I presented among the Scriptures which I produced and it was the third in order but he passed over it then promising to speak to it when he should give in his answer to another Paper and here he takes no notice of it neither What may be the reason but because he is not able to present any thing which can clould and darken the bright evidence of it for it witnesseth two things with great clearness 1. That Christ is God great God the great God or that one great God 2. That Christ though he be man as well as God yet he is Saviour chiefly and especially as he is God and not as he is man For considered as God he is able to save to the utmost As he is man there are actions done by him and sufferings born by which men are saved but the vertue force efficacie and valour of both the one and other are as he is God And he saveth with the Father as the principal efficient Isa 45. 21. I am a just God and a Saviour and there is none beside me This is the person that took flesh that thus speaks It is cleer from Rev. 14. 10 11 that it is Christ but the Father is not excluded and the meaning is there is none other God that saves but what Christ is Because the Father and Christ and the Spirit are one principal efficient that saves It is further confirmed Hos 1. 7. I will save them by Jehovah their God it is the speech of Jehovah the Father concerning Jehovah the Son whom he calls their God and promiseth them to save by him And it must not be understood that this salvation is instrumentally effected because it is said I will save them by c. For the titles given to the person by whom the Father will save do shew that he is not an instrument Is Jehovah their God but an instrument in saving Is one Jehovah instrumental to another or is it onely the order of working betwixt the Father and the Son Are there two Jehovahs and both of them our God Moses tells Israel Jehovah our God is our Jehovah for Essence one though two in persons Deut. 60. 4. The order then betwixt the persons is onely to be observed and acknowledged not any superiority or inferiority in working But let me consider his assertion To affirm Jesus Christ to be the Saviour of men without God or equal with God is contrary to the current of Scripture Thus he But against what expressions of mine is this assertion levelled I have affirmed that whoever saves must be God therefore Christ because he saves must be God But where have I said that Christ saves without God To save as God and to save without God are these two one thing Or are they not rather repugnant and contrary to one another But suppose as it must needs be that by God he means the Father I have not asserted that Christ saves without the Father by way of efficiency but the Father saves by the Son Christ Jesus and the Son saves from the Father But I assert them to be equals in saving notwithstanding this order betwixt them for it is but one God that saves though in diversity of persons and this one God cannot be superiour and inferiour to himself And all the confirmation that he himself gives of his own Position is this That God in Scripture is distinguished from Christ in the work of Salvation and he quotes 1 Tim. 1. 1. where God is said to be our Saviour and the Lord Jesus is onely said to be our hope But this hath no strength in it for in Tit. 1. 4. God hath not the title of Saviour given unto him when he is mentioned with Christ but hath the relative title of Father onely given him but Christ is called Saviour and is distinguished from God by that name Is therefore God viz. the Father less a
speaks a truth concerning which there is no controversie betwixt him and me He tells me of a righteousnesse of God by the Faith of Jesus Christ and of Gods being the principall Author of this righteousnesse which I grant though not in his sense for he means it of the Father alone but I understand it of Father Son and Spirit this God is the efficient à quo the efficient from whom righteousnesse is for it is he that doth account persons that believe righteous and doth acquit them from sin for the sake of Christ Rom. 8. 33. 34. Ephes 4. 32. But what is this to the purpose is this any Answer to my Argument or to the Scripture I produced I spake of a righteousnesse imputed to believers which is the materiall cause of a believers justification or of his righteousnesse in the sight of God and the imputation of this righteousnesse is the formall cause of Justification and this righteousnesse that is imputed is called the righteousnesse of God Philip. 3. 9. but he tells me of a righteousnesse of God which is from God as the Author or principall Efficient which is only true in this sense as God is he that appointed decreed and instituted the righteousnesse of Christ for the Justification of Beleevers and doth also pronounce them just upon that account But the Apostle Philip. 3. 9. doth not call the righteousnesse of Christ the righteousnesse of God in that sense the words are these That I may be found in him not having on mine own righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through Faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God through Faith The Apostle in this place speaks of a righteousnesse which is by the Faith of Christ materially as it is opposite to that righteousnesse which he calls his own righteousnesse and the one viz. his own righteousnesse he calls the righteousnesse which is ex Lege of the Law now this must be understood materially not efficiently God did account persons just while the Covenant of works was afoot in reference to righteousnesse which materially did consist in our obedience of the Law the obedience of the Law was the matter of it therefore it is called the righteousnesse which is of the Law The other viz. that righteousnesse which is through the Faith of Christ that is which is conveyed to us through Faith viz. Christ he calls the righteousnesse which is of God not efficiently but materially for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex Deo not à Deo of God not from God God now accounts persons just this Covenant of Grace being on foot in reference to righteousnesse not ours of the Law but that of God viz. that of the person who is God the active and passive obedience of Christ who is God which Faith in Christ possesseth us of and makes ours instead of that which was ours viz. that of the Law for the Apostle speaks of righteousnesse which he would not be found in and of righteousnesse which he would be found in the former is Lis own of the Law the latter is of God by Faith that is of Christ who is God through faith in Christ The Apostle speaks not here of an Act of Grace in God that imputes the righteousnesse of an other unto Beleevers as theirs and so accepts of it but he speaks of that which is imputed and is become a covering in which he would be found and this he calls the righteousnesse not of the Law but of God viz. the obedience of that person who is God-man viz. Christ Suitable to this is that which we read in 2 Cor. 5. 21. He made him to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him Here Christ is spoken of as a sinner but it is in the abstract to shew what a great sinner he was and the causes hereof are mentioned 1. God himself viz. the Father Son and Holy Ghost this God made Christ considered as Mediator and surety of the Elect a sinner that is he accounted him so here is the Efficient à quo from whom this was this was God 2. Here is the materiall cause which is our sins put on him and made his for he had none of his own it was for us 3. Here is also the formall cause which is in the imputation of our sins to him it was for us that he was made that is by laying of our iniquities upon him instead of us Isay 53. 6. 4. Here is the finall cause that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him in which there is 1. The efficient cause that we might be made that is by God accounted reckoned by God 2. There is the materiall cause which is the righteousnesse of God viz. of Christ who is called in this place God which is put on us for we have no righteousnesse of our own as Christ had no sinnes of his own 3. There is the formall cause which is Imputation we are made that is by this righteousness of God put on us therefore it is said through him that is through the Imputation of this righteousnesse of his which is called the righteousnesse of God or els through him may be through faith in him He also makes Christ from this text of Rom. 3. 22. to be but an instrumentall Agent in this righteousnesse of a believer I suppose he draws it from these words by the faith of Jesus Christ for he will have this particle by to refer to the instrumentalnesse of the thing to which it doth belong And if it were granted him in this it would but make faith instrumentall and not Christ for it refers to faith and not to Christ It is not said By Iesus Christ but by the faith of Iesus Christ and Christ is mentioned as the object of this faith which the Apostle speaks of as the instrument There is the righteousnesse of Christ which is called the righteousnesse of God which God looks upon and hath respect to and for the sake of which God accounts persons just and righteous and this righteousnesse is therefore reputed the meritorious cause of our justification and faith layes hold of this and is the instrument to convey it to us and to make it ours So that this text serves not his purpose nor doth it at all help him in that assertion of his viz. of Christs instrumentalnesse in agencie in reference to this righteousnesse In the meane time he hath wholly passed over in silence the text that I alledged to prove my Argument by without speaking one word in answer according to the manner in which he hath dealt with me formerly But he undertakes to shew what that is in Christ which is imputed to us for righteousnesse It is saith he his obedience which was both active and passive The opinion now adayes saith he is that the active obedience of Christ whereby he did perfectly fulfill the Law and his passive obedience whereby he did perfectly
be also the Son of man on earth And therefore he useth these words That ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth This contest of Christ with the Scribes puts it out of doubt that Christ challenged to be principall and equal with the Father in pardoning sin and would not own himself to be ministeriall or instrumentall therein 2. It appears by this that Christ is principall in forgiving because the Scribes and Pharisees had no sooner conceived thoughts of a difference betwixt God and him denying him to be God and charging him with blasphemie for assuming that power which was peculiar to God but while such imaginations were in their hearts Christ before they could or did utter them did discover them and reprove them and therein Christ gave a signe to them that they had evill thoughts of him while they looked upon him as lesse then God or as below God for they might confute themselves in their own false conceits of Christ After this manner do we charge this person with blaspemie because he forgives sins being but a man and not God as we have thought and yet he knows the thoughts of our hearts and discovers that which we had only conceived and had not uttered and who can do such a thing as this but God Whether is it easier to say thy sins are forgiven thee or to say wherefore think you evill in your hearts when we expressed nothing with our lips Is it not as great a work to know the heart as to forgive sins Doth not Solomon speak to God after this manner Thou onely knowest the hearts of the children of men 2 Chron. 6. 30. Certainly this person though in flesh is notwithstanding more then flesh none other but God Christ administred matter of such expostulation to them that they might correct their former erring thoughts But if they were not instructed thereby yet we should understand what thence may be collected The same person forgave sins as discerned hearts but Christ not as man but as God discerned hearts therefore not as man but as God he forgave sins Nor can it be said that Christ knew their thoughts because God revealed them to him or because they gave some signes what imaginations were in them for Mark declares that Christ knew what they thought in and from his own Spirit that is by himself and not from any other therefore he forgave sins by and from himself and not by or from any other Mark 2. 8. 3. It is manifest from the Miracle that Christ wrought that Christ was principall in forgiving and that by and from himself he did it and not by power derived to him for he wrought the Miracle authoritatively and by his own power he did not work it in his Fathers name that is by way of dependence upon him and by prayer to his Father as sometimes he did when he would shew his manhood that he was the Son of man as wel as the Son of God but he wrought it by command speaking in his own name I say unto thee arise take up thy bed and walk and this authoritative command cameforth of his mouth was effectual before their eyes for this end that he might confute those evil thoughts they had conceived and harboured in their hearts concerning him viz. that he had blasphemed because being but a man he had arrogated and assumed that power to himself which is proper to God Had this been the Scribes and Pharisees errour that they thought he took to himself that power which indeed he did not viz. an absolute and independent power in remitting sins and yet it was but a derived power which he had from another and that it was not his own which he exercised then in the working of this miracle that they might know that they erred in their conceptions concerning his manner of working he should at this time especially rather then at another time by invocation upon his Father have effected it And the reason is because Christs designe was in working this miracle to teach them somewhat which they understood not and to rectifie their apprehensions concerning himself as these words import That ye may know that the Sonne of man hath power on earth to forgive sins I say unto thee who art sick c. arise and walk Now what was it that he would teach them was this it that he did act dependently upon his Father and had no such power of his own to forgive sins but derived it from his Father If so was this the means or the way to convince them of it to command in his own name the impotent man that was sick of so deadly a disease to arise and walk without any looking up to heaven or groaning in his spirit or speaking unto God his Father to effect it in him or by him Was it not rather the way to confirme them in their errour if that were their errour then to bring them to the knowledg of the truth therefore it is manifest and clear that he would teach them some other thing wherein indeed they erred and stood in need to be rectified they thought him but a man and that he usurped that power which belonged not unto him but was proper to God and that was to forgive sinnes in his own name and not ministerially but by and from himself this they called blasphemy Now he would in this rectifie their erring judgements by working a miracle in his own name and by a commanding word accompanied with answerable power and therefore saith That you may know that the Son of man even he himself hath power in himself and not derived from any other to forgive sins I say even I speak it as one that have authority in my self and need not to seek out to any other I say arise and walk This absolute and independent way and manner of working this miracle is a good demonstration in what way and after what manner he forgave sins and both by the one and by the other he would convince the Scribes and Pharisees that he though clothed in flesh and appearing only as a man was yet God equall with his Father and could work the same works of his Father Now though Christ seems to speak of the act of forgiving sins as an easier work then if he should say to the sick man arise and walk as these words of his seem to import Whether is it easier c. yet the works are both alike though one not easier then the other nor did Christ look upon the one as easier then the other nor did the Scribes and Pharisees look upon one as easier then the other for they look upon the act of absolving from sinne as proper to God and not appertaining to man But withall they thought that he deluded the people when he spake the words thy sins are forgiven thee because the effect was inward and not to be discerned by the eyes of the body and so the people could not
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
of God they are but as Wormes and Grashoppers What then if the fault be against God who is the Prince of all Princes and before whom the highest is but as the dust of the ballance who is infinite in his nature and in all his attributes the guilt of such a fault will be according to the person infinite as the person is and hence it is that it cannot be expiated by persons that commit a fault against God no not by sufferings therefore the wicked and ungodly suffer for ever because they can never suffer enough in any time to give satisfaction to God for their transgression therefore they must always suffer and there must be infinity in their suffering so far as they are capable of infinity we say that that which hath no end is infinite but the sufferings of the Reprobate have no end This comes from the Justice of the infinite God which in punishing the creature that sins against him considers the infinite distance that is betwixt him and it and makes the punishment proportionable which made Eli say to his sons If a man sinne against a man the Judge shall judge him but if man sinne against the Lord who shall intreat for him the distance is such that there is no mediatour that the creature can find out for him but he is punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord. 4. That sacrifice is something that was ordained of God to satisfie the justice of God which must needs be confessed if it can be proved that God was attoned appeased pacified by sacrifice and that transgressions against God which carry infinite guilt in them are remitted by them but this is manifest from many places of Scripture Lev. 1. 4. and chap. 4. 26 31 34. and divers others 5. The sacrifice that Christ offered to God when he offered himself to God was sufficient to satisfie Gods justice though infinitely wronged and offended by the Elects transgressions Rom 8. 33 34. Who can lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect it is God that justifieth but how can that be when so just and so holy a law hath been transgressed and the justice of God calling upon God for satisfaction The Apostle answers it in the next words Who can condemne it is Christ that died or rather that is risen again This imports that Christ by dying hath given such satisfaction that nothing can condemne the Law that was transgressed cannot Gods justice cannot Heb. 9. 26. Christ hath once in the end of the world appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself and ver 12. Christ by his own blood entred once into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption for us The minor Proposition or the Assumption is undeniable and needs no proof which is this A sacrifice finite in value cannot satisfie an infinite justice offended for there must be some proportion betwixt the offence by which infinite justice is ingaged against persons that commit it and the satisfaction that is tendred and given to justice so ingaged in reference to transgression but what proportion betwixt a finite sacrifice of a finite value and vertue and infinite justice moved stirred offended and ingaged against men Now unto this Argument there is no answer returned but some little arguing there is against an infinite sacrifice which is rather a denying of the conclusion then an answering to any premise of the Argument Notwithstanding it is necessary that I consider what he objecteth against the thing which I drive at though he comes not near the Argument which I propounded to arrive at it Repl. How doth that appear in my expressions when I onely ask a question how a Sacrifice finite in value can satisfie an infinite Justice offended And in steed of answering it there is deep silence he passeth it over as if he had not observed it Yet he saith The Scripture tels us that Christ was made sin or a sin-offering for us by taking our sins and bearing the Curse but how this Sacrifice was infinite to me is unconceivable Repl. And doth not the Scripture tell us that the person that was made this sin-offering was God therefore his bloud is called the bloud of God Acts 20. 28. was the Lord of glory therefore it is said had they known him they would never have crucified the Lord of glory now this is the Title of the most high God Psal 24. 7. Psal 29. 3. Was the great Shepherd of the sheep yea the chief Shepherd which is equivalent to the most high God for the most high is familiarly in Scripture called a Shepherd Psal 23. 1 and Psal 80. 1. And if so then he is chief Shepherd and if chief Shepherd then Christ is he because there are not two chief Shepherds but one chief Shepherd and so the Father and Christ are one and the same chief Shepherd Heb. 13. 20. 1 Pet. 5. 4. The great or chief Shepherd is said to be brought again from the dead by the Father so that the person that was this sin-offering was as great as high as excellent as can be imagined as high as the highest infinitely high and great as these Scriptures do declare for such a person according to the flesh that he assumed was crucified did shed his bloud was raised again by the Father in some places of Scripture by himself in other for the Father and he work the same works the Father raiseth the dead yea the dead body of Christ and the Son raiseth the dead and his own dead body also as hath been shewed before Yea further Doth not the Scripture tell us that Christ through the eternal Spirit offered up himself without spot to God and that his blood in this regard is made more effectual for the purging away of sin than the bloud of Bulls and Goats Heb. 9. 14. How much more saith the Apostle shall the bloud of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered up himself to God purge your Consciences from dead works to serve the living God In this Scripture here is both the Sacrifice and the Priest that offered it Christ according to his Humanity is the sacrifice it was himself according to the Flesh that was offered up and Christ according to his Divinity or Deity was the Priest that offered up him according to the Flesh It is said that Christ did it through the Eternal Spirit What is this Eternal Spirit It was not the soul of Christ for first The soul of Christ is not properly eternal no more then he will grant the sufferings of the creature in hell to be infinite and yet they never shall have end that is properly eternal which neither hath beginning nor ending and so cannot be measured and therefore nothing can be said to be past and nothing future and to come in that which is eternal and eternity is one of the Attributes of the most high God and incommunicable to the creature though somtimes that which hath no end
blush for shame because he hath asserted it and he hath offended here against the generation of the saints who have been wont to pray to God in the person of the Son not excluding the Father and the Spirit Stephen is an example of such a practise and many more besides him in Act. 7. 59. They stoned Stephen calling upon God and saying Lord Jesus receive my spirit It was the second person the Son who took flesh and is God in flesh that was called upon and prayed unto and must he be made a Transgressor But he saith I have nothing to countenance prayer to Christ but these two Texts which I mention this of Stephen and that other of John But this is as gross an untruth as the former yea more palpable to all mens eyes then the former for in 1 Cor. 1. 2. all saints are described to be such who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus And the Apostle Paul prayed familiarly to Christ in 2 Cor. 12. 8 9. For this I besought the Lord what Lord was this It was the Lord Christ How may that appear From the answer that he received and the use he made of it the answer was My grace is sufficient for thee My power is made perfect in weakness the use that he makes of it is this most gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities that the power of Christ may rest upon me The power that is made perfect in weakness is the power of Christ And in 2 Thes 2. 16 17. Now the Lord Jesus Christ himself and God even our Father comfort your hearts c. The Apostle if he pray to the Father he prays to the Son also for he joyns them both together and gives Christ in this place herein the preheminence that he mentions Christ before the Father in this prayer But he excepts against these two examples of Stephen and John first he makes a question of it whether Stephen did pray directly to Christ or not for he expresseth himself with an if as if he doubted but to doubt in plain things is foolishness and to stumble where there is no stone to stumble at is perversness It will be granted I hope that he prayed to him to whom he spake but he spake to Christ and the words in the Greek make it clear They stoned Stephen calling upon and saying Lord Jesus receive my spirit there is none other mentioned but the Lord Jesus upon whom he called and to whom he said receive my spirit and he warrants it by Christs visible appearance as Lots prayer unto the Angels being visible but what visible appearance was there when Paul prayed to Christ in the forementioned places or when all the Saints prayed to Christ as the Apostle intimates the practise to be in the primitive times what sight had they first of Christ before they prayed did Christ appear visibly to every one of them first what a groundless conceit is this and how far from truth besides what did such a visible sight advantage him when he saw him in heaven for unless it were in a vision that he saw him it was in heaven that he saw him and if so the distance was as great as if he had not seen him therefore it could not be bottomed upon that ground for Christ was never a whit the more present because Stephen saw him And so the example of Lots praying to the Angel is no whit sutable because the Angel was not onely visible but present But what doth he mean by bringing in such an instance of Lots praying to an Angel will he set on foot the doctrine of invocation upon saints and Angels by it If he would do it that instance which he brings of Lot will not help him at all it was neither of the two Angels that Lot prayed to that he received into his house and lodged but the third Angel before whom Abraham stood who was now come to the other two and this was Jehovah in the person of the Son who often appeared as an Angel which appeareth from Gen. 19. ver 17. When they had brought them forth abroad he said escape for thy life that is when the two Angels which came first to Lot had brought Lot and his wife and daughters out he said that is netiher of the two Angels for they are mentioned joyntly all along and neither of them singled out from the other but it was the third Angel or Jehovah as he is called that appeared now to Lot and this was he to whom he prayed This appears further from ver 22. 23 24. I can do nothing saith this Angel to whom Lot prayed till thou come thither and afterward it is said the Lord rained c. in the Hebrew Jehovah rained c. from Jehovah the Son from the Father It was he that rained fire and brimstone that said before to Lot in answer to his prayer I have accepted thee in this thing haste thee thither for I can do nothing till thou come thither and this is called Jehovah and it is said he rained from Jehovah So that he is grosly mistaken in this also about Lots praying to a creature Angel by which he would prove it warrantable to pray to a creature Christ but puts it upon the visibleness of him when yet this Angel was not only visible but present and Jehovah in the person of a man He also excepts against John's prayer he saith it was an intimation of the Churches desire after Christs coming but no prayers and he quotes Rev. 6. 16. as a parallel place where such expressions are used yet no prayer But there is a different reason when one speaks to irrationall things which have no understanding nor knowledge and which are not capeable of a prayer and when speech is directed to persons that are capable thereof had those words been spoken to God let the mountains and the hills fall on us they would have been an imprecation which is one kind of prayer And whereas he saith if is but an intimation of desire and no prayer he shewes himself ignorant of the nature of prayer for what is prayer but an intimation of the desire of a person to one that is able to answer him in it And what are those expressions of the Apostles in their Epistles to the Churches but prayers for them yet they are intimations of the Apostles desires Grace be with you and Peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ our Lord. And the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ the love of God the Father c and Grace be with you and Peace from him that is was and which is to come and from Jesus Christ c. 1 Cor. 1. 3. 2 Cor. 13. 14. 2 John 2. Rev. 1 4 5. But he goes on and tells me I cannot saith he but looke on that as vain and frivolous which you set up as the wals and bulworkes of your Argument viz if Christ werâ— but a meer creature being in
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