God have all the Angels to wait upon him and all the creatures at his command to go for him and to do for him what he appoints yet if he were not essentially present himself with all and in all he could not supply all with all good that they want for he could not see all and know all if he were not present in all if he did not fill all and if all did not live and move and had not being in him Therefore the Lord argues in Jer. 23. 24. from his filling all to his knowing all the words are these Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him do not I fill heaven and earth saith the Lord and if this be so of God that he works all by his presence with all then it is so of Christ also and the words I will be with you though they may extend to actions of love and kindness and may comprise well dealing and doing good within them yet they do properly hold out the way and means in which Christ will be helpful to them he is with them alwaies to take notice of their condition and to apply himself thereto and Christ doth assure them that though he shall be bodily absent from them and in heaven yet in the eternal Spirit in the divine nature he is alwaies present with them In which sense he saith that he the Son of man though upon earth in his flesh was yet according to his diety in heaven John 3. 13. and chap. 17. 24. But he goes on and saith Jesus Christ is present with his Messengers and deals well with them when he doth instruct comfort strengthen and protect them and all these he doth in his absence by his Spirit whom the Father hath sent in his name John 14. 26. And he instanceth in instruction and saith Christ instructed his Apostles but not immediately for the Spirit saith he that came in Christs name and received of his was the instrument by which Iesus Christ did work And he cites Iohn 16. 13 14 15. for it Rep. I have shewed already that these operations of grace do not hinder the essential presence of Christ according to his Godhead with the Apostles but do rather imply it but he excludes it and saith he doth all these things in his absence by his Spirit Now though there be a truth in it that Christ being in heaven in flesh and absent from earth so far as respects the flesh doth effect all things by the Spirit yet it is not onely false but foolish in the sense that he intends it and in the words that he expresseth it in 1. I shall readily grant it in a sense that Christ works all by the Spirit and that there is an order of working among the persons in the Godhead and in this order the Father works by the Son and by the Spirit and the Son works from the Father and by the Spirit and the Spirit works from the Father and from the Son by himself and the Father is the person sending both the Son and the Spirit and the Son is the person sent from the Father and sending the Spirit with the Father and the Spirit is the person sent both from the Father and from the Son but it will not follow that therefore Christ though bodily absent is personally absent from his Messengers and instructs them not immediately by himself but onely by the Spirit For as it is said in Iohn 5. 17. by Christ of the Father My Father worketh hitherto and I work The Father worketh all things by the Son he made the world by the Son and he judgeth no man but hath committed all judgement to the Son that is by the Son he judgeth and manageth all things and not without him yet he worketh that cannot be denied though by the Son yea the very works that the Son worketh and all of them and none other but them the Father worketh the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father and the Father and the Son are one in essence though two in personality and the Father and the Son work one thing the Father by the Son and the Son from the Father and the Son can do nothing of himself apart from the Father nor the Father any thing apart from the Son but by him as I have shewed at large in my former Treatise so it may be said of the Son and of the holy Ghost that the Son worketh hitherto and the holy Ghost worketh that is they work the same work the Son by the holy Ghost and the holy Ghost from the Son and the holy Ghost shall not speak of himself nor act of himself as saith the Scripture which he cites that is he shall not speak or work any thing apart from the Son but what he shall hear and see that shall he speak and do and the Son doth speak and act by him the same things and nothing else for the Son is in the holy Ghost and the holy Ghost in the Son and they are one in essence and therefore cannot be divided in operation but work the same things in such an order of working and to this the Scripture gives witness in 2 Cor. 3 17. The Lord is called the Spirit and the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Lord Christ how can this be Essentially the Lord Christ is the Spirit they are one Personally considered the Spirit is the Spirit of the Lord Christ and the Lord Christ is not the Spirit And Rev. 2. 1. to 6. compared with verse 7. In verse 1. to 6. Christ is the person that speaks to the Church and so to all the Churches and commands John to write but in verse 7. it is said he that hath an ear to hear let him hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches so that Christ speaks and yet the Spirit speaks and Christ and the Spirit are one in essence though two in persons and Christ spake to the Churches by the Spirit and the Spirit spake from Christ But they act and work together the same things and none other as the Father and the Son do so do the Son and Spirit and indeed Father and Son and Spirit are one in essence and one in operation the order of working onely excepted 1 John 5. 7. so that Christs instructing by the Spirit obstructs not Christs personal presence with the Disciples here upon earth though his body be in heaven And the sending of the Spirit both by the Father and by the Son are acts of counsel among the persons in the Godhead as hath been fully declared in reference to Christ who was sent of the Father and yet gave himself And the Spirit though sent when he cometh acteth not meerly as one sent according to the will of another but as himself willeth 1 Cor. 12. 11. so that his sending was by counsel with his own consent 2. In the sense that he asserts it that Christ in Heaven acts
23. 2 3. compared together do confirm it in vers 2. it is said The Spirit of the Lord spake by me and his word was in my mouth in vers 3. it is said The God of Israel said the Rock of Israel spake to me he that in vers 2. is called the Spirit of the Lord in vers 3. is called the God of Israel for one and the same person spake to David not two persons spake to him but one And in Luk. 1. 68. 70. compared together and both of them compared with 2 Pet. 1. 21. in vers 63. Zachary blessed the Lord God of Israel who visited and redeemed his people c. in vers 70. Zachary makes this Lord God of Israel to be the person that spake by the mouth of the Prophets but who is he that spake by the mouth of the Prophets the Spirit is he Peter tels us so much and in many other places we read so much 2 Pet. 1. 21. Holy men spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost Therefore if he inspired the Prophets and spake in them and by them he is the Lord God of Israel 3. He is called the most High Luk. 1. 35. The Angel speaks thus to Mary The holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall over shadow thee This latter is but an enlargement of the former the same person is spoken of in both propositions with this difference only the name of the person spoken of is put upon him in the former proposition viz the holy Ghost the Title of the person is given to him in the latter the Highest with his power shall over-shadow thee so that the holy Ghost is the highest But some may object against this and say that the holy Ghost is not called the highest but he is called the power of the Highest or the vertue of the Highest because the Highest by the vertue of the holy Ghost would form Christ in the womb of the Virgin or would cause her to conceive so the holy Ghost and power are one thing but not the holy Ghost and the Highest If this were true yet seeing a person is spoken of and not a thing and this person is called the vertue or power of the Highest in so miraculous a work he cannot be inferiour to the Highest for he by whose force and power and vertue the highest shews himself to be the Highest works as the Highest must needs be as high as he and if the Father should be the Highest in this place yet the holy Ghost is made equal to him which shews the Father and the holy Ghost to be one in Essence though two in personality because there can be but one Highest But it appears to be otherwise that Spirit and power are not confounded but distinguished and there distinguished where God is mentioned in Rom. 15. 18 19. God made the Gentiles obedient to the Gospel through mighty signs and wonders done by the power of the Spirit of God here is power and Spirit and God and all distinguished from other by God the Father is meant by Spirit the holy Ghost is meant and by power the vertue might and efficacy of the holy Ghost is meant and it appears which alone is sufficient to prove holy Ghost to be God that mighty signs and wonders were done by the proper power of the holy Ghost it is not said that they were done by the power of God viz. the Father but by the power of the Spirit of God by the Spirits own proper power 4. He is called God most high and Almighty all these titles are put upon the Spirit in Numb 24. 2. 16. compared together In verse 2. it is said of Balaam that the Spirit of God came upon him in verse 16. Balaam describes himself to be one that heard the words of God that knew the knowledge of the most high and saw the visions of the Almighty and all this was but the Spirit of God which came upon him I might speak of the attributes of the Spirit which are proper to the most high God and prove him to be such as of Omnipotency Omnisciency Omnipresence c. But he himself hath held forth these in his Letter when he lived about Glocester which in my former Treatise is printed to the view of the World at which time his eyes were open and he saw these attributes in the Spirit and acknowledged the holy Ghost to be God upon the sight thereof though his Faith had been suspended before but now he denies what he confessed then and is left to blindness and darkness and speaks opprobriously of the Spirit of Grace when he cals him the instrument of an instrument for he makes Christ himself no more but the Fathers instrument and a creature and the Spirit is no more but Christs instrument and a creature of a creature I shall now conclude with an Answer to what he closeth his Answers to this Text of Math. 28 with He saith this kinde of presence by the Spirit Beza and others understand to be intended in Mat. 28. 20. Reply 1. Neither Beza nor any else save Arians and Socinians do hold such a kinde of presence of the Spirit as he hath held forth viz. of the Spirit as an instrument by which Jesus Christ did work but only of the Spirit as God and as the third person in the Trinity equal with the Father with the Son by whom the Father and Son do work not as by an instrument but as by an associate not as imparting any superiority in them or inferiority in the Spirit but Order only that they which are one in Essence but distinct in personality might not be confounded as they cannot be divided from one another in operation therefore as they are in one another so they work from and by one another 2. The words which he mentions in the Margent as Bezaes upon the place though I have diligently perused Beza I cannot find neither in Matthew the Text that is controverted betwixt us nor yet in any of those Texts in John which speak of the Spirit which he cites neither would they be any whit advantageous to him were they found in Beza for they speak of Christ as absent in body which none denies but that whole Christ is absent is not asserted in the words but the contrary seems to be implyed for the absence of Christ is limited to his body Caeterum corpore abest are the words so that Christ may be present in that spirit of holiness which is his divine Nature of which Paul speaks in Rom. 1. 4. without any contradiction to Beza if any such words may be found in him 3. The words of Beza upon the place do differ greatly from the words he presents as his and do not favour his exposition at all but may well be interpreted so as to cohere with the use I make of that Text Cum autem idem ipse dominus paulo ante dixerit c. saith
therefore cannot intercede for it He reduceth this into the form of an Argument to little purpose but to fill up paper after this manner That Doctrine which utterly overthrows the Intercession of Christ brings in as it were another Gospel But the Doctrine that makes Christ a meer creature utterly overthrows the Intercession of Christ Therefore He grants the Major proposition but denies the minor and complains for want of proof in these words What Must we again take your word for a proof I wish a better for there is no goodness in that we have been too long troubled with the word I say insteed of proof c. Repl. This answer is much altered it hath fallen under correction since it was first ptesented to me in the manuscript there was profane scurrility in it wherein he shewed the tincture of his spirit but I complained to one of his dear friends who was too highly conceited of him who gave him an Item of it and so the words came to be changed though there be harshness enough without any just cause for it His expressions did run thus We have already been troubled enough with the Prophet I say Wherein he first breaks his rest upon me 2. He doth it in a profane way abusing that Evangelical Prophet Isaiah which abbreviated is written Isay whose person and name deserve reverence because the honour of becoming the Pen-man of the holy Ghost was put upon him Nor was there occasion given him to sport thus with the Prophets name for I know not that any such words can be found in my writing as I say no nor yet the sense of them for I have not nakedly delivered any thing but there hath been either Scripture or Argument to inforce it and in this very instance viz. If Christ be a meer creature then the intercession of Christ is overthrown there is a reason to inforce it which was thus Because a meer man being in heaven could not know the state of the Churches in all places upon earth and therefore could not intercede according to the condition and necessity of the Churches And though this reason was not confirmed with another which it seems he expected it should have bin yet it was not because there was no good reason to be rendred but because I was in great straits of time when I thought of and wrote out that paper of Scripture and Arguments and had not liberty to enlarge upon any thing having not three hours to consider of the thing and because I intended them to fall under the consideration of more candid persons and because I thought what I presented might easily be maintained from Scripture if there should be any contest Nor hath he invalidated the proof I brought for the strengthning of this Argument notwithstanding his complaint of want of proof Let it be considered what he saith What saith he have you learned to measure the knowledge of him who hath received the spirit without measure Cannot he as man know in heaven what things are done on earth Who told you so Repl. These are strange expressions to proceed from one that denyes the Deity of the Spirit equally as he doth the Deity of Christ and who makes both the Son and the holy Ghost finite creatures and who makes the Son the first and principall of all the creatures and the Lord of all the rest yea God in some sence to them all and so the spirit himself is servant unto Christ and Christ is his Lord and in a kind his God The conradictions in this expostulation of his What have you learned to measure the knowledge of him who hath received the spirit without measure in reference to the forementioned Tenents of his are not a few His expressions seem to me to carry such a sense 1. That Christs knowledge is so great that it is unmeasurable and consequently infinite and yet he himself but a creature and consequently finite which is a contradiction 2. That this knowledge of Christ came to be unmeasurable because the spirit was given to him without measure and yet the spirit himself is finite and consequently measurable according to him And if the spirit were infinite and his wisdom infinite as indeed he is though he denye it yet if Christ be a meer creature and wholely finite as he holds the maxime is infallible that quicquid recipitur recipitur ad modum recipientis What ever thing is received is received according to the Capacity of that which doth receive it and consequently when Christ who receives the Spirit is finite he is not capable to receive any proportion of the spirit but what is finite and be may measured though the spirit were infinite And so there is a double contradiction 3. That this excellent knowledge of Christ which he saith cannot be measured was received by his receiving of the spirit and yet Christ is greater and more excellent then this spirit and the Creator of him and Lord and God unto him which is an other contradiction Obj. But he may plead for himself and lay that his words are wrested and that he demands of me whether I have learned to measure the knowledge of him c Sol. Though I am not able to measure the knowledge of Christ who received the Spirit positively so as to declare exactly what measure he received and no more yet I am able to measure the knowledge of Christ which he had by the donation of the Spirit negatively I can say it was not unmeasurable it was not infinite But he bottoms this interrogation upon a Scripture viz. John 3. 34. where he saith that God giveth not his Spirit by measure to him And he interprets it to be without measure and by consequence infinitely But he is mistaken for there is a comparison betwixt Christ and John the Baptist and other Ministers of the Church for they received the Spirit and are limitted and stinted and receive not all that they are capable of and must have but the Spirit is divided to them as it pleaseth God to one man is given Wisdom and to an other Knowledge c. 1 Cor. 12. 11. and Eph. 4. 7. and Rom. 12. 3. but to Christ is given the Spirit not by measure that is not according to this measure for Christ hath all these and he hath the Spirit in perfection and not imperfectly as men here have and he hath the whole as he is capable of as man but yet the whole is not infinite nor unmeasurable of which I have largely before spoken and therefore shall not inlarge here It may be further said by way of negation that all the knowledge that Christ hath received as man by the donation of the Spirit doth not inable him as man and being in heaven to know the state of all Saints in all places on earth unless it be by revelation from God immediately and a new every moment The reason is because as Christs body is confined to heaven so his soul
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
of Answ There is great reason for it in this place of John for if it were not so the persons of the Father and of Christ would be confounded for the words run thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Word was with God and the Word was God had there been an Article prefixed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God had it been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it must have been translated and God was the Word and not the Word was God and then God the Word would have been confounded viz. God the Father of whom it is spoken that Chirst was with him would have been confounded with Christ for God with the Article affixed would have been in right translation the subject and the Word would have been the predicate and then it must have been rendred God was the Word and not the Word was God as it now runs according to the intention of the Holy Ghost whose design is by omission of the Article to manifest forth the distinction of the persons of the Father and Son in unity of Essence both are God yet the one is not the other The like omission of the Article we may observe in Joh. 4. 24. The words in Greek are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is translated and truly because the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is left out before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is a Spirit whereas had the Article been affixed it had altered the Translation and it must have been thus rendred the Spirit is God or a Spirit is God and so the sense would be changed other instances there might be were they needful And this he might have observed from Beza had he been willing to have had his eyes opened As for the Gloss that he makes upon the words I confuted it formerly in part and have shewed in my other Treatise that by beginning the first part of time is meant and that the Verb or Particle was shews a preexistence before the beginning or before time was and not that Christ had his first existence then when the beginning was for the heavens and the earth had their existence then when time first was in the beginning of it and subsisted together with it as Moses records it but the Word was before it and so was eternal for nothing was before the beginning but eternity And whereas he makes this to be the sense of these words The Word was with God This Jesus Christ was a delight to the most high God and did converse with him restraining high God to the Father and excluding Christ it is but the venting of his own conceit in stead of Truth for God there is taken personally and not essentially as I have shewed before oftentimes and the meaning is the person of the Son was with the person of the Father from all eternity and was a delight before the world was founded as from Pro. 8. appears He was as one brought up with the Father from everlasting and was daily his delight But the sense that he puts upon the last words viz. and the Word was a God is the most gross of all and palpably corrupt viz. This Jesus Christ had power committed to him whereby he might represent the most High God And the reason which he renders doth not make it more tollerable viz. the name God is common to God and creatures for I have shewed that never any single person was called God absolutely without limitation and restriction And in this place it is said that Christ was God from the first that he was and he was when the beginning was and it is not said that he began to be when the beginning was therefore he was before and consequently he was God before and it will follow that he was God from eternity and not in regard of any power committed to him whereby he might represent the most high God for there was neither heaven nor earth when he was God over whom to exercise any power nor any creature to whom to represent God And I have shewed that power which he had was power in himself as life was in himself and was not neither could be power committed to him power in him being such as no creature was capable of by which he at first created and doth yet uphold the world Heb. 1. 3. And whereas he gives reasons from this text why Christ should not be the most high God viz. Because he is distinguished from God and God cannot be distinguished from himself he himself answers it by the mention which he makes of personality Christ is distinguished from God taken personally viz. for the Father from the person of the Father is Christ distinguished but not from God essentially taken nor from the essence of the Father for so he and his Father are one But he takes not upon him to answer us in this distinction and to overthrow it though he knows that our great strength lies in it but insteed of answering chargeth us to say that which we say not viz. that we call the Father God by way of eminency and disputes against this as inconsistent to that coequality which we hold and shelters himself under it But he wrongs us for we say the Son is called God as distinct from the Father but not by way of eminency they cannot both be eminent one above the other and yet coequal That which follows of The God and A God which he flies to as a reason why Christ is not the most high God I have answered before and need say no more of it After John 1. 1. Mat. 28. 20. was produced by me to prove the God head of Christ are these Lo I am with you alwaies unto the end of the world to which text he answers thus The meaning of the phrase I am with you c. is no more then this I will do you good whilest ye remain imployed in my work And he brings Jacob as the author of the interpretation Old Jacob saith he no bad interpreter is my Authour Gen. 31. 3. compared with Chap. 32. 9. in the one place God promiseth to be with him in the other place Jacob expounds it to be Gods dealing well with him Rep. This metaphorical presence in actions of grace and favours which he would have to be the sole meaning of the words I will be with thee doth not exclude the essential presence but doth rather include it for how is Christ able to do all good to his Apostles and Disciples in all places of the world and in all conditions and necessities in which they might be and at all times and yet not be essentially present with them If he can declare it let him declare it In the mean time that parallel place which he cites from Gen. 31. 3. compared with chap. 32. 9. is against him for God is inabled to do good to all and so to Jacob by his essential presence with all and in all and so with Jacob and in Jacob And though
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
sense of these words is in heaven agreeable to the acception of the like words and phrase of speaking used else-where in John 17. 24. Father I will that those whom thou hast given me be where I am that they may behold my glory Christ here speaks of heaven and of his glory in heaven and of the disciples coming thither and beholding his glory there and he speaks not in a mysticall sense of his own knowledge of divine things nor of the disciples knowing of such things as he knew but in a literall sense he speaks all and he saith I am there and yet he was on earth according to his manhood but he was in heaven also Where I am saith he that was heaven Christ was there How was that possible if Christ was not God if the words be taken literally there in Joh. 17. 24 then they are literally to be taken here in John 3. 13. The place discussed betwixt us the comparing of these two places together clears the sense of both and is repugnant to his interpretation And though he gives a literall sense to these words But he that came down from heaven viz. the Son being excepted who was in heaven and descended thence yet it is a corrupt and false and very dangerous sense that he gives which I met with in my former Treatise For he represents Christ in his descension as leaving heaven departing from thence and coming upon earth but this is contrary to the next expressions the sense of which I have cleared up where it is said that Christ was in heaven still notwithstanding that he descended so that it is a reall true descention or a true coming and appearing upon earth but not locall such as is appliable to the creature for that is not proper to Christ The creature in descending moves from the place it was in and leaves it but 't is not so to be conceived of Christ But thus Christ is said to descend in reference to his incarnation he being the Son of God assumed flesh of the Virgine by the divine inspiration of the Spirit of God and so was made the Son of man and so the Son of God appeared in the Son of man and this is called descending This is made manifest to us from John 1. 14. The word was made flesh and dwelt among us even the word dwelt among us in flesh and we beheld his glory in flesh the glory as of the begotten Son of God This glory was in heaven now in the Sons assuming flesh it is seen on earth in the seed of the woman this is the descending of Christ and after this manner the most high God is said to descend in Scripture God came into the temple after this manner not by moving from place to place which is not congruous to God but by a work declaring God to be there where he was not seen before And so God descended to see the tower that was built in a work and no other way and it is called descending after the manner of men and it is Gods descending all that is competent to God And this kind of descending of Christ must of necessity be yeelded unto because the locall is excluded by Christ in the very place where his descending is mentioned Having shewed the inconsistency of the exposition which he framed and gave of this Text of John and having fortified the sense in which I made use of it and for which I produced it I shall now answer unto that which by way of objection may be urged against the sense that I have put upon it Object It may be thus argued A locall corporeall ascension cannot be understood in reference to Christ because it is expressed in the preterperfect-Tense as a thing done but that was in a literall locall acception taken inconsistent to Christ because he was then upon earth and as he saith afterward was not ascended to the Father Sol. The preterperfect-tense hath ascended refers to no man not to Christ and there is an Elipsis in the words or a defectiveness in the expressions in reference to Christ therein of necessity that the words supplied should run in the preterperfect-tense but they may run in the future tense thus But he that descended shall ascend viz. the Son of man which is in heaven Or if the words should be supplied in the preterperfect-tense yet a change of tense which notes out the assurance of the thing it is spoken of as done because assuredly it is to be done cannot overturn the genuine sense of the place Obj. 2. It may be farther objected that the son of man is the subject who is said to be in heaven but the son of man is Christ under the consideration of his manhood and under that consideration it was impossible for him to be at that time in heaven for it is contradictory to the truth of his humanity to be at two places so greatly distant at the same time Sol. Here is in these expressions viz. the son of man which is in heaven that which they call Idiomatum communicationem that which is spoken in the concrete of Christ according to one nature transferred to another nature is as he himself must confess in other cases according to his Tenent to be often found in the Sripture in these words they would never have crucified the Lord of glory it is to be observed Christ was crucified according to the flesh but he was not the Lord of glory according to the flesh but spirit of holiness yet it is said the Lord of glory was crucified so it is said the son of man was in heaven but it is meant of the son of God and the meaning is the person that is called the son of man was in heaven though not as the son of man but according to the other nature as the Son of God But let us try the strength of his reasons which he brings for the countenancing of this exposition of his 1. Saith he this sense and meaning wherewithall I have clothed those words is no waies opposite to the analogie of faith There is nothing as I suppose in it which the doctrine of the Gospel will pick a quarrell with Repl. The nakedness of this reason is discovered in what I have already presented I have shewed that Christs ascending up to heaven is not any where taken in that sense which he puts upon it And that Christs being in heaven in the sense that he clothes it with is repugnant to a paralell place in Joh. 17. 24. so that he makes Scripture quarrell with it selfe and such an exposition which he hath given of Christs descending stands at defiance against all those pregnant places which do proclaim Christ to be coessential with the Father therefore both Old Testament and New will rise up against it and condemn it 2. He saith That the sense that he would have this Text to own is elsewhere challenged by the like phrases to themselves as
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
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