this That doctrine which denyes and destroyes that one only true Christ and brings in a strange and a false Christ that doctrine destroyes the true Gospell and Scriptures and brings in another Gospell and Scripture in a main point of it But this doctrine of his which makes Christ a creature doth thus therefore this doctrine brings in another Gospell and Scripture in a main point of it The Major is so void of controversie that it will not be stuck at but the Minor will be denyed and therefore must be confirmed That doctrine that denyes Christ to be the proper Son of God and makes Christ to be onely the Son of man that doctrine denyes and destroyes that one only true Christ and brings in a strange and a false Christ but this doctrine of his doth thus therefore this doctrine of his denyes and destroyes that onely true Christ and brings in a false Christ and strange to Scripture The Major will again passe without exception but proofe will be required for the Minor And I confirme it thus That doctrine which takes Christs God-head from him that doctrine denies Christ to be the proper Son of God and makes him to be meerly the son of man But this doctrine of his which makes Christ to be a meere creature and nothing more takes Christs God-head from him Therefore this doctrine of his denyes him to be the proper Son of God and makes him to be meerely and only the son of man The Major wil now only be in question for the Minor is without question true if God-head be taken in a proper sense as I have taken it in my arguing with him all along For the proofe then of the Major proposition I shall present and make out two things 1. that these two things God and Son of God are all one in reference to Christ therefore whoever teacheth any doctrine against the one viz. that Christ is not God teacheth doctrine against the other viz. that Christ is not the Son of God 2. Christ cannot be God any other way or under any other consideration but as he is the Son of God 1. God and Son of God are all one thing in reference to Christ my meaning is not that the termes are confounded for the word God respects the essence more properly and subsisting in a person and the words Son of God respect the second person in the Trinity as distinguished from the Father and the holy Ghost subsisting in the Godhead But my meaning is that where ever the one is expressed the other is implyed and that a divine person subsisting in the Godhead is meant evermore and in the order of existing and working the second person for proofe of this consider these following particulars 1. Christ himself confounds these two God and Son of God by using them promiscuously John 10. 33. 36. In ver 33. the Jewes said they stoned him because he blasphemed and said he was God Christ repeats their words and blames them for charging him with blasphemie because he said he was the Son of God ver 36. those were not their expressions but Christ makes them their expressions therefore in a sense they were one and the same thing and Son of God was as much as God else Christ had both extenuated their fault spoken untruly of them But in truth and deed Christ said of himself neither the one nor the other in express words but said he and his Father were one ver 30. and if the Son of God did not import as much as God their collection in their own words that he made himselfe God in making himselfe one with the Father was more naturall in reference to Christs words then as Christ repeated them For the Father is God and not the Son of God and when Christ said he and his Father were one they might rather conclude that Christ made himselfe God then that he made himself the Son of God unless the Son of God were also God and so Christ might be the Son of God and yet one in Godhead with the Father 2. The Apostle John 1 Joh. 5. 20. makes the Son of God and the true God to be all one in reference to Christ You are in him that is true even in his Son Jesus Christ and this true one this Son Jesus Christ this very person is the true God As if the Apostle should have said when I speak of the Son of God I would have you to know whom I mean by him I do not mean a man a meer creature and nothing else but I mean a person that is the true God 3. The Apostles in their professions of faith if they do agree therein and I suppose none will say that they do disagree therein do make these two to be one and the same thing The Apostle Peter professeth his faith in these words I beleeve that thou art Christ the Son of the living God But the Apostle Thomas in these words My Lord and my God Peter beleeved him to be the Son of God Thomas beleeved him to be very God and very Lord yea his God and his Lord in an applicative way and Christ doth not look upon one as two low for him nor upon the other as too high for him but upon both as professions of their true faith in him he tells Peter that upon the rock of such a profession he would build his Church and he puts a blessing upon all those that shall beleeve as Thomas beleeved his slowness only to beleeve depending upon sight excepted 4. The grounds whereupon the followers of Christ have some of them stiled him the Son of God and others of them have stiled him God are alike and high enough all of them to cause them to entitle him God Nathaneel sees his omnipresence and omniscience when Christ told him before Philip called thee I saw thee under the fig tree and he glorifies him with the title of Son of God Thou art the Son of God Thomas discerns his omnipotence in raising himself from the dead according as he had foretold destroy this temple and I will raise it up in three dayes and he attributes the name of God to him My Lord and my God Had Thomas apprehended Christ to have been passive in the resurrection and raised meerly by the power of the Father and not his own why should he denominate him God upon this occasion and not rather put that crown upon the Father that raised him if the Father only and not the Son wrought in it 5. The high Priests and Scribes and Pharisees thought it to be blasphemy alike in Christ when he made himself the Son of God and made God his natural Father as when he made himself God as they truly collected from those words of his I and my Father are one Compare Joh. 5. 18. with Joh. 10. 31 33. and the truth of this wil appear And they made account when he stiled himself the Son of God that he therein assumed to
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
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
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
declared it and there may be yet more glorious effects of it if he shall please then any that have been wrought But this concession hurts not my assertion viz that an infinite power is required in creation and he hath not denyed the truth and clearness of the manifestation of it therein though he say there may by a fuller manifestation of it which by the multiplication of mighty works which God can effect must needs be because every work will bear witness thereof in reference to it self But if he should mean by more power a greater power or more in measure and degree then yet he hath used and manifested in the creation and in the works which he hath wrought it must not be yeilded to him for though there might be a greater work yet not a greater power for the same power is manifested in the one as in the other viz. an infinite power and there are no degrees in that which is infinite though one worke may more fully speak to us that infinity of power which is put forth therein then an other doth The work of creation is that work that God glories in in the Scripture and he doth appropriate it to himself and doth give witness therein to the world that he is the most high God Jer. 10. 10 11 12. And the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are cleerly seen being understood by the the things that are made even his eternall power and Godhead so that the very heathen are left without excuse Rom. 1. 20. And a greater work then creation is from which an ampler testimony of the infinity of Gods power may be fetched for the conviction of the creature in some sense there can be none for there is an infinite distance betwixt something and nothing and onely an infinite power can get over it for that which cannot be measured is infinite but the distance betwixt something and nothing is such as cannot be measured and creation is a bringing of something out of nothing therefore the power that effects it must be infinite therefore infinite power or infinity of power is manifested in great fulnesse and clearenesse in creation His 2d. answer that he gives is this 2. Your assertion plainly denyes the man Christ Jesus to be God Almighty or infinite in power for you say that God could not give or derive an infinite power to any creature and that a creature cannot be God Almighty c. The man Christ Jesus was a creature How then can that person be God Repl. This reasoning is unworthy a man of parts a very child that hath learned the first principles might answer him The man Christ Jesus is a creature that is the son of Mary the seed of Abraham is a creature and I do deny this seed of Abraham as the seed of Abraham to be God or Almighty or capable of an infinite power and therfore God could not derive it nor was Christ Almighty as man as the son of man But this man Christ Jesus was God as well as man that is this person Christ Jesus was both God and man not that the manhood was turned into the Godhead and so became God but that the eternall Son of God who is by nature God with the Father and the Holy Ghost assumed manhood tooke the nature of man the seed of Abraham and became one person with it and this person was Almighty as he was the Son of God not as man and this almightinesse was not by derivation from the Father but was an essentiall attribute in him His third Argument is this The Ground saith he of your Argument is straw and stubble for infinite power may be manifested by them to whom 't is not communicated And he gives instances many Repl. Because I soresaw he might give such an answer therefore on that day of the conference which he spoke of I mentioned such an instrument which he now speaks of which is not the subject of the power but a meanes without which God will not exercise the power which he himselfe is the subject of and I granted God might have made use of such an instrument but Christ in creation as also in preservation is the subject of the power and I spoke of such an instrument which is the subject of power and shewed it was impossible that there should be such an instrument and therefore Christ having such power in himselfe could not be an instrumentall but the principall Agent He comes in the last place to consider of the Minor of the Argument which he had cast the Scriptures I produced into fetched from Christs creating which is this All things were made by Christ Jesus His answer is It is true Christ being excepted of whose creaturall being I have already spoken But against this answer he frames an obction Obj. You will say saith he that in Joh. 1. 3. it is said that without him was nothing made that was made And he answers it Sol. The words are to be restrained to all those things which by the use of an instrument were made in the first verse the creation of Jesus Christ is included and in this 3 verse he is spoken of as the instrument of God in creating all things therefore he is there to be excepted And he gives some instances which I omit the mention of because I shall have no need to return answer to them Repl. If indeed the creation of Jesus Christ be included in ver 1. then I shall grant that Jesus Christ is excepted in ver 3. but if not then ver 3. is strong against him The words in ver 1. In the beginning was the word and that is granted by both sides that then he was but that then he began is not asserted by the Apostle and is denyed by us if he will have it to be so let him shew in his next how he will fetch out creation from these words In the beginning was the word God the Father was in the beginning was God the Father therefore created in the beginning The next Scripture produced by me to prove Christ's Deity by was Heb. 7. 3. Without father without mother without descent having neither beginning of dayes nor end of life made like unto the Son of God abideth a Priest continually Christ is here resembled to Melchisedech in reference to eternity But what answer makes he to this text Truly it is an impotent lame and poor answer Was Melchisedech saith he eternall if so then he was God but he was neither the Father nor the Son nor the Holy Ghost I hope you will not allow a quaternity of persons in unity of essence and therefore will allow the words to be taken in a figurative sense Melchisedech was without beginning of dayes and end of life in that there is no mention made either of his birth or death in the History of Moses or especially in reference to his Priesthood the time of it's beginning or ending being not
prout is rightly translated even as the son Christ is even as the Father I suppose it cannot be spoken of any creature so the words è regione ex adverso are rendred over against right against which is spoken of a thing or person that matcheth an other set this against that to fellow it or match it But what creature is there that may be set up è regione Dei patris opposite to God to match him And so secundum juxta which signifie according hard by beside or nigh another thing or person and it is rendred equal juxta à jugo saith the Etymologist Now fellows are joyned in the yoke such a nighnesse as that the son fellows the Father And if the words do any of them sometimes in their use import an afternesse or a seconding and following it may be granted and yet to the other sense that they carry of equality hold notwithstanding for in order of subsisting and working though in nature and essence not so the Son is after and second and yet is God the Fathers fellow I grant that the word is rendred a neighbour in Levit. 6. 2. and proximus is Englished a neighbour and therefore I accord with Tremelius who saith the Hebrew word doth sound as much as proximus a neighbour and we know who is mans neighbour one of the same kind a man like himselfe and in that respect his fellow his equall But who is this Lord of Hoasts neighbour any meere man consisting onely of soul and body Then God and man have one and the same neighbour but it is little less then blasphemy to say that any creature is Gods neighbour no it is a person of the same nature and essence that is his neighbour the eternall Son of God is the Fathers neighbour was nigh him and by him from Eternity And to be in the bosome of the Father and at his right hand is not a place fit for any meere creature but fit for one equall But he makes two collections from the signification of the word 1. Saith he Christ is the principall object of Gods dearest love The man my fellow whom I most love saith Grotius Repl. This will be readily granted and the other viz. coequallity not impedited nor gainsaid by it for the Father loves his coequall better then all others and because he is of the same nature and therein coequall therfore he loves him best 2. Saith he Christ is Gods principall servant in his high transactions one that is Gods representative Repl. That Christ according to his humane nature is Gods servant is granted but that it may be collected from this place of Zachery that he is Gods servant or that the Hebrew word translated fellow doth import so much or that whole Christ is Gods servant is denyed and is not proved by him but is his naked assertion He concludes thus I might now collect from the words something to oppose the doctrine you assert they being spoken of a man and in reference to the Lord of Hosts who cannot possibly have an equall unless it were possible to have two Gods Repl. This man that is spoken of in the words which have been now discussed is that Lord of Hoasts spoken of in Zech. 2. 8 9 10 11. And if so I hope one Lord of Hoasts is fellow equall to an other Lord of Hoasts and yet it will not follow that there are two Gods but onely two persons in the Godhead which do fellow one another and are equall The next Scripture in my paper that I presented him with for the confirming of the undoubted truth of Christ's Godhead was John 3. 13. No man hath ascended up into heaven but he that came down from heaven the Son of man which is in heaven To this Text he gives this answer by which he would evade the omnipresence of Christ and so not confesse him to be God The words saith he may be thus understood No man hath ascended up into heaven that is no man hath known those divine things c. but he that came down from heaven that is the Son being excepted who was in heaven and descended thence for some works that he was to do on earth Who is in heaven that is in the bosome of the Father knowing secrets and divine things as they are in themselves Repl. This interpretation is neither concordant to it selfe nor to the truth 1. To it selfe it agrees not because ascending and descending and existing in relating all to heaven are all to be taken either literally according as the words sound or else they are all to be taken metaphorically and spiritually but he expounds some of them in a mysticall figurative sense and others in a plain literall sense To ascend up to heaven is not to be understood as he gives the exposition of a personall ascension but of a mentall contemplation And to be in heaven is only in a spirituall sense in speculation in beholding with the eyes of the soul divine things and the Fathers secrets But to descend from heaven that must have no metaphoricall sense as the rest had but a literall sense put upon it and the descension must be personall Now here is a discordancie in these things and he gives no reason of this varying in his interpreting Ascending and descending are also opposites and if so then they must be taken in an opposite sense if ascending then be taken for deep knowledge and science of divine things then descending is departing from deep knowledge and science of divine things which will be very absurd in his own conceptions 2. This exposition agrees not with the truth for ascending in Scripture is taken when it refers to Christ as well as when it refers to others In another sense viz. in the plain literall externall sense John 6. 62. What if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before And chap. 20. 17. I ascend unto my Father and unto your Father c. And touch me not I am not yet ascended And Ephes 4. 8 9 10. And I do not remember any one place where ascending into heaven is taken in his sense but in the literall sense And it seems to be discrepant and disagreeing to the phrase and manner of Scripture expression For when divine knowledge and wisdome is spoken of or other such gifts they are said to come down from heaven from above unto men and men are not said to ascend up to heaven though there may be a truth in it that a man ascends up to heaven not in his knowing so much as in the use of his knowledge in his beholding and viewing of spirituall things And if a spirituall sense is not proper unto ascending into heaven then is not Christ's being in heaven to be interpreted in a spirituall or mysticall sense but look in what sense he ascended and descended in that sense it may be said he is in heaven that is in a literall sense nor is this spiritual
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
is not one single person but subsists in a plurality of persons Therefore he that makes his subsistence to be single and such as his essence is denyes and destroyes this one onely God Which I prove further The Father is said to be the onely true God John 17. 3. and the Son is called the true God 1 John 5. 20. This Adjective onely refers not to the subject person Father but refers to the predicate or thing that the Father is said to be viz. the true God which is but onely one which is clear from a paralell place in Jer. 22. 30. where the word onely is used in like manner the children of Israel and Judah have onely done evill have onely provoked me The word onely is not to be applyed to the subject persons spoken of as if they onely and no other people had done evill and provoked God but it is to be applyed to the thing that is spoken of them they have only done evill and onely provoked that is they have done nothing else but evill nothing else but provoke so in John the Father is said to be the one only true God but not he only to be the true God for the Son is called the true God as wel as he in the place before named in 1 Joh. 5. 20. Whence I argue that the one only true God is Father and Son as for the holy Ghost I always include him though I have not occasion to speak of him here there is no God no true God but that God that is Father and Son and he that denys either of these denyes this one onely true God He then that acknowlegeth the person of the Father to be God but acknowledgeth not the person of the Son to be God brings in a strange God an unscripturall God and a false God For there is no such God as subsists in the person of the Father onely and hence it is that the Apostle John saith 1 John 2. 22 23. he is an Antichrist that denyeth the Father and the Son And he that denyeth the Son denyeth the Father also that is such an one acknowledgeth not the true God at all what-ever men may think of him Yet further the Father is called the only God Joh. 17. 3. Christ is cald the only God Jud. 4 24 25. But some think otherwise that the Father and not Christ is called the only God and that Jude speaks in ver 4. of Jesus Christ afterwards as distinct from the onely God but that it is otherwise I prove first from the right translation of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is denying the onely God and Master the Lord Jesus Christ It is not said the onely God and the Master with an article the Lord Jesus Christ for then he had spoken of two persons that they denyed viz. the onely God that is one and the Master the Lord Jesus Christ that is another but it is said the onely God and Master the Lord Jesus Christ as speaking of one person only which is Christ 2. From the concordance betwixt this Scripture and that in 2 Pet. 2. 1. They are paralell in three particulars 1. In the title that is put upon Christ in both places he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in both places is translated in our Bibles Lord but is rather to be turned Master 2. The crime and fault that is charged upon them is the same it is denying their Lord or their Master 3. The persons seeme to be the same in both places for they are in all things described alike false Teachers in one place filthy dreamers in the other place they privily come in and act and worke in the one place they creep in at unawares in the other place They walke after the flesh and despise government in one place They defile the flesh despise dominion in the other place Their judgement of long time lingreth not and their damnation slumbreth not in one place and they were before of old ordained to condemnation in the other place Their ruine is set forth by the punnishment which God inflicted upon the Angells that fell and upon the old world and upon Sodom and Gomorrah in one place and in the other place by the Children of Israel that fell in the Wildernesse by unbeliefe and by the Apostate Angells and by Sodom and Gomorrah and the Cities about them So that it seems to be one and the same Prophecie wherewith both Peter and Jude were inspired and which they have left upon record for the benefit of the Church Therefore the one must help to expound the other the crime then of denying which both the Apostles speake of hath the same object viz. Jesus Christ and not the Father it is clear that Christ alone is the object of that wicked act of those spoken of in Peter therefore Christ alone and not the Father is the object of the same wicked act spoken of in Jude And indeed there were never any Christian Teachers and of such both the Apostles speake that did deny the Father to be God but the Son Jesus Christ was denyed by many And if we make a serious inspection into verse 25. of Jude and compare it with the precedent verse we shall find that Christ is spoken of and not the Father and if so then Christ is called the onely wise God for it is the same person that presents saints faultless before the presence of his glory who is called the onely wise God But who is that The Apostle Paul declares who he is in Eph. 5. 27. it is Christ who is described to give himselfe for the Chuch and to have washed it with his owne bloud that he may present it a glorious Church to himselfe Whence I thus Argue If the Father be the only God and if the Son be also the only God and yet there are not two only Gods but one onely God then this one onely God is both Father and Son that is this one onely God though but one in essence yet is two at least in persons but indeed is three but that is somewhat beside my undertaking and then it will follow that that God where an unity onely is granted both in essence and personality is not the onely God which the Gospel and other Scriptures hold out and consequently is a false God for I would ask this question suppose a person should acknowledge Christ to be the only God and should deny the Father to be God could this man be said to acknowledge the one onely true God which the Scriptures speak of I suppose none will be so absurd as to assert it therefore if Christ be the onely God as the Father is he that acknowledgeth the Father without him acknowledgeth not the only true God and so is guilty of destroying the Scriptures and bringing in another Scripture in a maine fundamental point of it Ar. 2. But for further satisfaction I shall propound a 2d Argument which is
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
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
heaven earth under the earth are represented by John in the service of blessing praising honouring glorifying the Father and the Son in like manner without any distinction they are not heard worshipping the Father through the Son but worshipping and honouring both Father and Son in like manner as two equals or as two coessential persons in the Godhead Yea lest it should be imagined that he that sitteth upon the Throne is the principal object of the worship and that the Lamb is the less principal subordinate and intermediate object of it because he is mentioned first and the Lamb is mentioned after him therefore vers 14. the four and twenty Elders are brought in in this vision worshipping him alone who liveth for ever and ever without the mention of any other though other persons are not excluded And who is this person that liveth for ever and ever It is Christ who gives himself this Title though it be his Fathers Title also Rev. 1. 18. I am he that liveth and was dead and behold I live for ever and ever So it is in the Greek and it concurs in words with this Text of Rev. 5. 14. 3. This distinction as he brings it and means it opens a door to the worshipping of men or Angels any that may be called God's representatives and which act among men in Gods Name for if that be the formal reason of worship given to Christ He is Gods Vice-Roy or Representative which are not Scriptural Titles but names of his own or others devising and he is one that acts in Gods Name then worship may be given to Moses Joshua the Prophets for Moses was in Gods stead to Aaron and to the people I have made thee a God to Aaron sairh the Lord to him Exod. 4. 16. And the Prophets came in Gods Name may they therefore be worshipped According to his Argument they may yea any person or thing that is a means by whom or by which God dispenseth himself to men in a Religious or spiritual way or by whom or which we come to God in worship may be an intermediate object of Religious worship and so we may worship our Ministers which go to God for us and from God come to us and we may worship the Scriptures and the Ordinances by which we have communion with God for these are intermediate things betwixt God and us in worship may they therefore be intermediate objects of worship Seeing he makes Christ such a god as other creatures are but more eminent then they such a god as Moses was as Magistrates and Judges were which carried Gods authority in the Offices upon them a god of the same kinde with them What reason can be rendered if Christ be worshipped upon that account why they also being such-like gods as he and coming with God's authority betwixt God and us should not be worshipped as intermediate objects upon the same account But this is very gross and makes his assertion concerning worshipping Christ as an intermediate object betwixt God and us very gross also 4. It is apparent that Christ both assumed and Saints and Angels have given to him that very worship and honour and service which is peculiar to the high God alone both for matter and for manner 1. Doctrines Institutions and Ordinances have been received submitted to upon the testimony and authority of Christ alone Mat. 5. 21 22. 1 Cor. 11. 23 24. 2. The Ordinances Institutions Laws and Rites of Moses were altered changed abrogated abolished by the Power and Lordship of Christ alone Acts 15. 28. 1 Cor. 12. 5. Heb. 3. 5 6. 3. Believers have rested trusted and depended upon Christ for spiritual help and supply of grace according to their needs Phil. 4. 13. and 2 Cor. 12. 8 9. a place worthy consideration and very convincing if rightly understood and duely weighed 4. Saints have acquiesced and quietly submitted and rested satisfied with the will of Christ and have given up themselves wholly to him to be disposed of according to his pleasure whether to do or to suffer Act. 9. 10. to 17. 2 Cor. 8. 5. 5. Religious praying or prayer for spiritual blessings as it is an act of Religion is a service and worship that hath been given to Christ Luk. 17. 5 the Disciples pray to Christ to increase their faith 2 Thess 2. 16 17 the Apostle Paul prayed to him and Hos 12. 4 Jacob of old time wept and made supplication to him 6. Praise also as it is an act of Religion hath been offered up to him 2 Pet. 2. 18. Jud. v. 24 25. Rev. 1. 6. 7. Swearing hath been by his Name Rom. 9. 1 Paul attests Christ flees to him as a witness and to his conscience let the place be weighed and it will â—ppear to be an Oath and that the words in Christ â—â— as much as by Christ Isa 45. 23. compared with Rom. 14. 11. Philip. 2. 10 11. And Rev. 10. 5 6 the Angel sware by him that liveth for ever and ever who created heaven and the things therein and the earth and the things that are therein and the sea and the things that are therein And who is this It is Christ to whom the Creation is attributed and to live for ever and ever is assumed by himself and he makes himself known by this attribute as I have shewed before from Rev. 1. 18. 8. In casting of the lot Christ was invocated for the disposing of it Acts 1. 24. That it was Christ whom they prayed to appears from hence 1. They call him Lord whom they pray to which is Christ's usual name in the New-Testament by which he was distinguished from the Father 2. To chuse an Apostle was Christ's proper work he chose the twelve Apostles and therefore must chuse him who must come in room and place of Judas who was one of the twelve and who fell from his Apostleship by transgression therefore they use it as an argument in their prayer Shew whether of these two thou hast chosen that he may take part oâ— this ministery from which Judas by transgression fell 3. Christ is the great Lord of the Church anâ— he ascended up on high that he might give these gifts to his Church Apostles Evangelists c. Eph. 4. 10 11. And he is the great Lord of all his Churches and administers all such things that respect the good of his Churches 1 Cor. 12. 5. 9. The conscience is subjected to Jesus Christ Eph. 6. 5 6 7 9. Masters and servants are enjoyned in this place by the Apostle to do their duties to each other with an eye to Christ and as the servants of Christ and as to the Lord and not to men and as having a Master in heaven with whom there is no respect of persons The Apostle would engage their consciences in the thing and therefore speaks so much of Christ and he could have laid no greater bond upon them if he had mentioned the Father See Col. 3. 22 23 24 where
yet all that he says is but may be which we have been troubled enough with already He doth not say there is a defect in the words but it may be there is which we know proves nothing Yet I shall pass over his may be in silence but say somthing to that which he bottoms it upon he saith Some Greek Copies read it thus which he hath purchased with the bloud of his own meaning Son but Beza saith it is one Copie that the words run so in whether shall I believe for I have not seen all the Greek Copies my self though I have examined some Beza or him When he comes up to Beza's learning and integrity I shall be at a stand whose testimony to take but not till then However this will do him no good for the bloud is the price wherewith the purchase was made and it was his bloud that made it for it was not made with an others bloud but the Text is cleer and he cannot overthrow it that the person that purchased it is God then the bloud must needs be the bloud of God also because therewith he purchased So that if there be one Copie that saith which he purchased with the bloud of his own yet the defect will be in the word self that is wanting and not in the word Son that is wanting and the words must run thus which he purchased with the bloud of his own self And if it were as he would have it with the bloud of his own Son yet it is a proper Son that is spoken of and the Apostle makes him God in that expression As the Jews said of Christ that he made himself equal with God because he said God was his own proper Father as the words are in the Original John 5. 18. and this amounts to as much as I intended in the quotation of the place this puts value and merit enough upon the satisfaction of Christ that it was the bloud of a person that was God and equal with the Father that was shed for the taking away of sin But he hath a third evasion and if he be beaten out from the covert of that whither will he then fly 3. If both these be removed saith he yet the words may have an other meaning then what you and many others do allot them Christs bloud may be said to be Gods own bloud in way of eminency it being more excellent by far then the bloud of the Legal Sacrifices In the old Testament tall Trees are called the Cedars of God in this sense also Christ is called the Lamb of God John 1. 36. because he was far more excellent then either the paschal Lamb or any other Lamb which was to be slain in way of Sacrifice And the Author to the Hebrews in this sense prefers the bloud of Christ far before all other bloud shed for the expiation of sin Heb. 9. 13 14. Repl. If he could but turn the word may into the word must and could be able to make it out from the text or context that the sense that he puts upon the words must be the true sense of the place and that none other that any other allots to it can stand or consist with it there would be some weight in his words but this may be hath nothing but weakness and uncertainty in it 2. The sense that he puts upon the text is without sense there is not the least footing for it in the Text it is a meer invention without the shadow of reason in it for that which it is grounded on is not to be found in the Text there is no mention of the bloud of God in the Text and therefore no reason he should parallel it with such like phrases as the Trees of God the Cedars of God which are of the same nature with other trees but are more excellent and are therefore called the Trees and Cedars of God The words in the Greek are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Beza renders suo illo proprio sanguine that is by that his own proper bloud and it relates to the subject spoken of before which is God for the exhortation is to seed the Church of God and it is added which he that is which God hath purchased with his own proper bloud so that it is the bloud of God through the relation it hath to a person that is called God whose bloud it is and not by way of eminency as trees are called the trees of God for the excellency they have in them above other trees which yet stand in no relation to God Now if he be able to prove that God is not here spoken of but it is another that is not God though he be called God then may he prove that the bloud that is said to be his bloud is yet not the bloud of the person that is God but the bloud of anothet that is called God but is not God otherwise it stands in force the bloud of Christ is not the bloud of a meer creature but the bloud of God whence the merit of it proceeds for the expiating of sin Whereas he saith that in this sense Christ is called the Lamb of God because he was far more excellent then the Paschal Lamb oa any other Lamb that was sacrificed It is granted that he was so called for that reason and not only because Christ who was slain was man and those Lambs were bur bruit creatures and so inferior to him but because the person of this Lamb slain was more then a man was the Son of God and very God but not slain like a Lamb as he was the Son of God and very God but according to the humanity which he assumed and as the son of man and very man so was he slain It is said the son of man must be delivered up into the hands of men and they shall kill him yet though he could not suffer as God he notwithstanding by the eternal Spirit viz. by the Divinity or God-head offered up himself a sacrifice a Lamb without spot and blemish to God which made his bloud more effectual to expiate sin then the blood of Goats could be for otherwise there would have been no difference in point of worth and value in purging away of sins of men for the bloud of a man at the most could but satisfie for the offence of a man and not of many men and to this purpose the bloud of a man would have been as ineffectual as the bloud of a beast I have been large in the vindication of this instance because the matter of it was weighty it being a great Truth of God and of high concernment to the Saints I shall be the briefer in the next The ninth Argument or Instance that I produced was this Inst 9. If Christ be a meer creature then the Intercession of Christ is overthrown for Christ if a meer man being in heaven cannot know the state of the Church in all places upon earth
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
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
instrument 3. That whereas the Father and the Son are mentioned together they are made equall in manner of working and they are either both instruments or both principall Agents and Efficients for Paul was an Apostle by Jesus Christ and by God the Father and Jesus Christ hath the leading place In Rom. 11. 36. For of him and by him and to him are all things Here the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is translated by or through is attributed to God and he will say that the Father is meant and only the Father and we may observe two things 1. According to the truth of the thing the particles of and by are all one and that by doth not import any instrumentalness for God in no sense can be an instrument 2. According to the sense that he puts upon the particle by God is both the principall Agent because of him are all things and he is also the Instrument of all things for by him are all things Also in Heb. 2. 10. where the Creation is spoken of and attributed to the Father and not to the Son it is not attributed to him as something 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but as somthing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as of him but as by him The words are these It behoved him for whom are all things and by whom are all things to make the Prince and Captain c. Yet he will not say that the Father is an Instrument I shall not multiply places these Texts are sufficient to shew the absurdity and falseness of the gloss that he puts upon the prepositions of and by That which he asserts of the Fathers that they frequently call him Gods instrument and servant is true of Christ as the son of man according to his humane nature and they call him no other then the Prophet Isa 42. 1. which must he so understood In the next place after his Arguments where he placed his own strength for the proving of Christs instrumentalness in Creation he comes to consider my Argument against it which was this God could not make use of an instrument in the work of creating of the world To this he answers 1. This Assertion derogates from Gods al-sufficiency Is any thing impossible with God is any thing too hard for the Lord Rep. This Assertion as it is laid down with a reason to explain it is so far from derogating from Gods al-sufficiency that it is the magnifying of Gods al-sufficiency there is such an infinity of perfection in Gods al-sufficiency that it is incommunicable to the creature God cannot make another as sufficient as himself that is It is so transcendently excellent that no creature is capable of it And whereas he demands Is any thing too hard for God Is any thing impossible to the Lord he may receive this answer What-ever may be done by power God can do it because he hath sufficiency of power in himself to do it But that which cannot be done in the nature of the thing which implyes a contradiction if it were supposed to be done that is impossible with God or in it self rather as It is impossible for the most high God to make a God most high because God most high hath his being of himself and is uncreated and eternall and gives being to other things Therefore a created most high God carries a contradiction with it therefore is a thing not to be done and God cannot do it yet it argues not any weakness in God because he cannot do it 2. He saith I contradict my own testimony and he minds me of the time I remember saith he that in a Conference where I exercised both silence and patience to the glory of God since I received your paper you did affirm in the hearing of not a few that God might have made an Angel or some other creature at the first and by it have made all things Repl. I do remember that time he speaks of and so do some scores of persons as well as I will remember it while they live wherein he exercised not silence altogether for he spake at the last in the close of the conference it had been better he had been silent then to speak as he did for he asserted an untruth in those few words he did speak he uttered words to this purpose That it was strange to him that he should be brought upon the stage in so publick a way for holding such an opinion when he had not declared himself in a positive way at any time about it Which caused me to mind him of his first Sermon in which he broached his opinion in a positive way in this assertion That Christ is not the ultimate and last rest of Saints but the Father and that Christ was but the way to it Which if Christ be coessentiall with the Father is false therfore his assertion did deny by an undenyable consequence the coessentiality of Christ with the Father And at another time he publickly in his preaching speaking his opinion on John 3. 13. No man hath ascended up into heaven but he that came down from heaven even the Son of man which is in heaven said that he could not conceive how Christ being at that time on earth could be in heaven unlesse it were in respect of that knowledg which he had of the Father and the things of heaven or words to this effect In which he denyed the omnipresence of Christ and consequently the Godhead of Christ And yet in that short speech of his he would make fair weather of it and put a face upon it as if he were not the man he was taken for Concerning his patience not I alone but many others did judge it stupidity rather then patience for scarce any one that had had the spirit of a man could have been dumb and not open his mouth when he was so palpably called forth to appear in the cause It did certainly strike amazement in very many that knew he was there and yet could not hear him speak one word having so many strong invitations thereto Or if it were not stupidity it was cunning craftiness for he knew how to make advantage by being here and keeping silence and he could reserve himself in point of speaking to a more hopefull time and fairer opportunity in which he might by speaking propagate his opinion there was little hope of advantaging his cause at that time when there were so many to contradict him And yet he might feele mens pulses by being there and discern who were his friends and who his enemies and who might probably be wrought upon and who not But he saith it was to the glory of God that he exercised silence and patience But it was every to way the dishonor of God for if truth were in his tenent then he shamefully deserted it when he should have committed himself to God in the maintaining of it who ever opposed it And if Errour and Heresie were in his
certainly known So our High Priest Jesus Christ is without beginning of dayes or end of life Repl. This answer is too light and frothy in a subject so serious It was not mine intent or designe and he knows it very well to make Melchisedech God nor any of the persons of the Godhead nor yet to make a quaternity of persons but to make Christ God to whom that in truth belongs which in type only and in a figure mystically is attributed to Melchisedech Moses and David speak of Melchisedech as if he had been one who had glided down out of heaven and come from above and had again soon after conveyed himself thither for there is not any mention at all made of his birth or death of his father or mother or kindred or when he became Priest nor when he laid down his Priesthood And the Apostle saw the mysterie in it and that it behoved him so to be described and set out that he might be a Type of Christ both of his Person and Priesthood And therefore when he makes use of him as a Type to set out Christ by he describes him to be without father and so was Christ as he was man and without mother and so was Christ as he was God having no beginning of dayes nor end of life nor had Christ according to his divine Nature considered either beginning or end of dayes but acording to his humane he had both and both of them described and well known by all that are versed in Scripture-story and the Apostle knowing these things in expresse words makes Melchisedech the Type of him discerning that the Holy Ghost in concealing these things of him had made him so and intended him to be so as these words import Made like unto the Son of God for he is described saith Beza as if he had neither been mortall man nor had been born of a mortall woman which because it could by no means agree with any meer man born of men therefore the Apostle saith that he is peculiarly the figure of that one only begotten Son of God and that it was so intended by the Holy Ghost Now then the strength of the Argument fetch'd from this Scripture lies here First Melchisedech is a Type of Christ that is without controversie Secondly He is a Type in these things mentioned of him Without father without mother without beginning of dayes and end of time Otherwise in vain doth the Apostle mention these things of Melchisedech but as a type for in truth it was not so of Melchisedech And it appears by the scope of the Apostle which was to interpret the words of David A Priest after the order of Melchisedech therefore it was necessary for him to set forth what Melchisedech was in his person and in his office and in his person he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Without father without mother not in truth but they are not mentioned and so it is as if it had been so and that in type he might be so and therein resemble the Son of God that in truth was so Thirdly Melchisedech being only a type in these things of Christ it was not necessary that he should be such in truth but only in a figure mystically as indeed he was not but it was necessary that Christ should be so in truth being the Anti-type that is being the substance of that which Melchisedech was but a shadow of therefore in John 1. 17. it is said that the law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ That is there were many shadows in the law of Moses but Christ came and fulfilled them and was the truth of them We read of David that he said of himselfe They pierced my hands and my feet they gave me vineger and gall to drink which really were not done to David but mystically and in a figure as David was the type of Christ but these things were really done to Christ and in truth were fulfilled in Christ So the bloud of buls and calves and of such beasts which were sacrificed and offered they took away sin cleansed away the guilt and brought pardon and purged the conscience and brought peace but none of these did so in truth but mystically in type only as they shadowed out and pointed at the sacrifice of Christ and at his bloud but the bloud of Christ really and in truth did take away sin did clense the conscience did bring remission peace Heb. 9. 9 12 13 14. More instances might be given but indeed there is evidence enough in the very nature of a type and antitype There is a mystery in the type and there is the impletion or fulfilling of the mystery in the Antitype or the thing of the mystery is to be seen in the Antitype But enough of this unless he had said more to impugne it I now come to consider of his answer to Pro. 8. 22. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way before his works of old I was set up from everlasting from the beginning or ever the earth was To this he thus answers And gives this sense The Lord who is Possessour of heaven and earth obtained or created me when he began to worke before his antient workes And I was set up or annoynted to have the dominion of all things and that from everlasting that is from the beginning before the earth was Repl. The word indeed signifies to obtain or to possess which is sometimes done by creation and so when heaven and earth were created they were possessed by God or as he saith God was Possessour of them But in this place it is an obtaining or possessing as is done by generation I gave an instance in Eve in reference to Cain I have gotten a man it was by a begetting or generating there and in this place it is so also Christ is called the onely begotten of the Father and here in ver 24. Christ the wisdome of God declares how he was possessed viz. as a Son that is brought forth by a woman travelling in which Christ is said to be born and is called the first-born to exclude creation and that it might be by generation and the act of the Father in communicating the divine essence to the Son is called after the manner of men that it may be better conceived of a begetting or generating suteable to which is the Hebrew word Amun v. 30. which signifies a child nursed nourished brought up with a father and such was Christ which is thus expressed to hold forth his generation and not creation for when God created Adam he created him a man but Christ is represented as a child to shew how he was begotten and it is added that Christ was his Fathers delight and a sport before him for so it is in the Hebrew and this is humanitùs dictum is is spoken after the manner of Fathers who take dear delight in the childe that comes out of their
owne bowels and when it is little it is very pleasant and makes the Father sport and by it is signified to us what an one Christ was what a son he was that he was his owne proper son not created but generated having his very essence from the Father by an act of eternall generation and in whom God taketh delight after the manner of parents in a child that comes out of their bowells and is a part of themselves that is the highest dearest delight and the most naturall and intimate delight beyond which there neither is or can be any delight It is manifest therefore that he confounds things that must not be confounded he would have possessing or obtaining to be one with creating in this place but it is a gross mistake in him But when was it that God did thus possess or beget Christ He would have it to be when God began to work then God created Christ saith he before his works of old But it is manifest that the very words that set forth Gods eternity are used here See two of the words Megnolam which signifies from everlasting and Meas which signifies à tunc from then or from of old as it is translated and both are used in Psal 39. 2. and applied to the most high God Thy throne is established of old thou art from everlasting and kedem is in many places applyed to God for such antiquity which is eternity Deut. 33. 27. the eternall God is my refuge so that Christs eternity is set forth in this place of the Proverbs He was brought forth or possessed from eternity And though it be said in the beginning of his way yet this makes nothing against Christs eternity because it is added that it was before his works so that this was points at eternity for who will assert that creation was the beginning of Gods way did God act nothing before he created it is undoubtedly false So that again he is to blame to confound beginning as he understands beginning and everlasting as if they were one when as they differ as much as eternity and time do differ But he presents us with the Septuagint version but it is not at hand and I dare not take his word without viewing it he hath so often deceived me in his quotations Then he gives in Montanus his version but that is not against my assertion nor doth it favour his doctrine Lastly he alledges ver 30. as speaking of Christs being before Gods works of old but he saith it is a created being but he is mistaken in the mention of the verse for it speaks of no such thing and I have made use of it against him Zech. 13. 7. hath the next place in my paper and in his answer The words are Awake oh sword against my shepherd against the man that is my fellow saith the Lord of hoasts His answer is When you inferred coequality from this place you hearkned rather to the sound then to the sense of our English word fellow which doth not alwayes note equality as from Psal 45. 7. Heb. ◠19. you may be informed where the Saints are called the fellowes of Christ and yet are not equall Repl. To evade the strength of this allegation from Zecharie he flyes from the sound to the sense of the English word fellow and saith it signifies not alwayes equality and yet he declares not in what other sense it is taken neither can I imagine what sense he can devise or frame other then equality for I appeale to all rationall English men whether fellow be not equall in our English acception of the word not but that I grant that the person that is a fellow and so an equall in some respect may be a superior or in inferior in other respects as a school-fellow a play-fellow a chamber-fellow they are fellowes not in a generall latitude in all things but in a particular respect so far as concerns such a business there is an equality they are equally invested into the priviledges of the School and carry on that work of learning with equality together and so in play there is no respect of persons in it but a parity and equality therein be they great or mean they are all fellows that is equalls in that And so it may be said of Christ in reference to Saints though Christ have a superiority even as he is the son of man much more as he is the Son of God over all them and over Angels also and all creatures yet Christ is fellow to the Saints and they fellows to him in some respects he calls them brethren Psal 40. I will declare thy name unto my brethren He makes himself herein a fellow to them and makes them fellows with him John 20. 17. Go to my brethren and say Pascend to my Father and to your Father to my God and your God In bearing the crosse he became like to them yea he set himself below them in taking their nature upon himself and infirmities c. he became like to them and was as they and became their fellow and in condescension in coming to minister rather then to be ministred to he was their fellow at the least if not below their fellow Persons of the same nature and essence may be fellows equalls Kings and peasants were alike from Adam do alike partake of flesh and blood and were formed alike in the womb But God and the creature can be equal in nothing for finite cannot in any thing equal infinite 2 He betakes himselfe to the Hebrew word and tels me If I had consulted with it I would have been a stranger to so strange an inference and then tels me of divers acceptions of the word as Citizen Neighbour Second Lieutenent Vicar friend and alledgeth the Septuagint which he saith translate it citizen and Tremelius which translates it Proximum Neighbour or next And Tremelius and Junius in their Marginall notes a near friend one that stands over against another and is at hand to all friendly offices and makes it the same as to be in the bosome of the Father Repl. That the word in the Originall signifies either Citizen Lieutenent Vicar representative is barely asserted and if he have so strictly surveyed the originall as that he dare challenge me for not surveying it he might have done well to have directed me or the Reader to the places where the word admits of such acceptions but this he hath not done therefore I shall conclude that either he hath presented his owne imagination insteed of the true sense of the word or more probably hath relyed upon some who have deceived him I have viewed the originall and do find that the word Gnamith which is rendred Socius proximus proceeds from the the radix Gnammath which signifies secundùm juxta and sometimes è regione ex adverso and is as much as Ca-asher which is rendred prout all which do hold forth equality To begin with this last
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
their due And he mentions Prov. 30. 4. Who hath ascended up into heaven and descended c. Repl. Some conceive that Agur speaks of God in the persons of the Father and the Son whom he describes to ascend up into heaven and descend to give signes of his presence in both places and be every where and who gathers the winds in his fist and binds the waters in a garment and that he proposeth this as an hard question to his two friends Ithiel and Vcal Others conceive that Agur doth speak of man and that his interrogation is in the force and vertue of it a negation Who hath ascended c. that is no man can do such things as he mentions and that if his friends do know any that can effect such things let them declare what his name is and what his sons name is But they all understand it of ascending to the very place of heaven and not any that I have seen in the sense that he drives at nor doth either the text or context necessitate that this ascending should be a discovering of Gods hidden secrets for what then is descending As for Piscator I have never seen him upon the Proverbs and can say nothing to it He mentions Pauls rapture into the third heaven to be only a discovery of the things of God It 's somewhat presumptuous for him to determine when the Apostle himself durst not for whether he was in the body or out of the body he could not tell But if his rapture were not reall it was in vision and to the third heaven and paradise he went either really or in vision to the place he went that he might understand the thing But he quotes Grotius and Musculus and Bucer as Writers who understand ascending in a spirituall sense for penetrating the secrets of heaven I confesse some good Expositors do so interpret the word ascend but how it will quadrare and what adequateness there will be betwixt the sense they give to the word ascend and the sense they put upon the word descend I cannot understand However it be the concurrence of Expositors in the interpretation of ascending will avail him nothing in reference to the controversie betwixt him and me for it lies not in that word but in these words is in heaven whether they be literally to be understood or in respect of knowledge onely Expositors do not at all countenance his Metaphoricall sense he gives of those words but they fall upon the distinction of Natures and say Christ was in heaven according to the Deity but not in heaven according to the Humanity 3. He saith his sense is fitly conjoyned with the context Christ saith he reproves Nichodemus his unbeleef aggravating it from the certainty of the things spoken We speak what we know And then from the perspicuity in speaking If I have told you of earthly things that is either things that may or are necessary to be known in the earth Or else the words respect the manner of Christs holding them forth And ye beleeve not how can yee beleeve if I should tel you of heavenly things In this 13. verse you have a exclusion of all men Christ excepted from the knowledge of heavenly things Repl. All may be granted that he saith till he come to the 13. ver which is more probably an explication of the 11. ver We speak what we know and testifie what we have seen saith Christ Nichodemus and others might object against the certainty of those things that Christ asserted and might say The judgments and wayes of the Lord are unsearchable who hath known the mind of the Lord Who shall ascend into heaven for us to relate the mind of the Lord to us Unto this Christ answers No man hath ascended nor can ascend up to heaven to make discovery of the will of God of the deep things of God but the onely begotten Son he came from God and he ascends thither again and he hath seen and known and what he hath seen he declares and testifies and if you be not satisfied with that which the Son hath brought you from heaven who also ascends thither again it is an aggravation of your unbelief And unto this coherence there is a concurrence of Expositors in their witnesse The last Scripture is now to be discussed which he hath excepted against and laboured to disable that it might not speak that which I brought it to give witnesse to which was to justifie the deity of Christ and it is Joh. 17. 5. And now ô Father glorifie me with thine owne selfe with the glory I had with thee before the World was He gives his gloss to these words after this manner O thou Father who dost abound in kindness and art the Fountain of goodness the time being come of finishing my course in earth and returning to thy selfe glorifie me in Heaven who have emptied my selfe taking to me a naturall and mortall body and walking among men in forme of a servant and now being ready to humble my selfe to the death of the Cross in obedience to thee with that glory which I had in Heaven before the world was being then with thee as heir of all things clothed with Majesty and glory answerable to that high station wherein thy pleasure was to set me and to that great domminion wherewithall thou wast pleased to invest me And then he concludes that all lyes in darkenesse which I can fetch to countenance my opinion Repl. He knowes what is written in Rev. 22. 18 19. in terrour to those that add to the word of God I wonder therefore how he dare interpose words in this prayer of Christ according to his owne fancy and not fear and tremble 1. He inserts these words into the preface of Christs prayer Thou O Father who art the fountain of goodness And this he doth unnescessarily for in this prayer-of Christ there is no preface at all and why should be frame one this is not to interpret Scripture but it is plainly to add to it and it is done with a designe which makes it the worse for he would bring Christ in acknowledging the Father the sole fountain of goodnesse excluding himselfe as Son of the Father and excluding the Holy Ghost which is a false thing and full of injury to Christ who was so far from making such an acknowledgment that he thought it not robbery to be equall with God his assuming of equality with the Father was not counted robbery by himselfe 2. He inserts these words in the close of Christs prayer speaking of the glory Christ had with God he addes these words answerable to that high state wherein thy pleasure was to set me and to that great dominion wherewithall thou wast pleased to invest me These words wherein thy good pleasure was to set me and wherewithall thou wast pleased to invest me are not in the text nor is there any thing that lookes that way that might give him occasion to
he had a glory it was not any created glory for that consisted in dominion which was not til the world was and then what glory could it be but that which we contend for divine uncreated glory which holds forth him to be an uncreated and eternal being and by consequence to be the most high God But he brings reasons for his own tenent that whole Christ is a creature from this Text of John and attempts the overthrow of my assertion of Christs Deity which I contend for from this Text. 1. Saith he If Christ were equall with the Father why doth Christ direct his prayer to his Father There had been no need nor can cause be shewed why he should supplicate to his Father and not act relyance on the Godhead Repl. I have rendred reasons for it in my former Treatise in my reply to his fift argument which was this He that acteth with dependance on another is a creature but whole Christ acteth with dependance To which I referre the reader because it is largely discussed there and it is a tedious unpleasing thing to multiply repetitions though he delights himselfe too much therein yet lest that Treatise should not be at hand I shall satisfie the Reader thus far It behooved the Godhead in the person of the Son to be veyled for this was the Sons emptying of himselfe but not so the Godhead in the person of the Father therefore the Son acts not dependance upon the Godhead that dwelt in himself in the person of the Son or as it was in himself but as it was in the Father 2. He saith We do not use to pray but praise for things we have if we know that we have them Now Christ could not want the highest glory in any sense if he were a person in the Trinity coequall with the Father especially not be without it with the Father nor in heaven in any sense whatsoever as by the clouding darkning or obscuring of it therefore the glory which he had with the Father was not the highest glory but a glory proceeding from the highest and by consequence Christ was but a creature Repl. It is true that the highest glory he being a person in the Trinity coequall with the Father could not be separated from him for it follows the divine essence and cannot be divided from it but it might be and indeedwas obscured and clouded not to the Father nor to the Son himselfe for the Father saw it and gave witnesse to it and so did the Son and comprehended it fully but to the creature it was darkned and obscured and but some small beams and rayes of it appeared the Son was incarnate or in flesh but the glory of the Son appeared not in flesh in fulnesse of lustre like the glory of the Son but the form of God in the Son was veyled and hidden in the form of a servant Now Christ prayes that that essentiall divine glory might be manifested in flesh that he the Son in flesh might appear in glory when he should come to heaven as he did before he took flesh that as the Godhead was hidden in the manhood so the manhood might be glorified with the Godhead that the flesh might be taken up into the fellowship of the glory of the Divinity by the shining forth and breaking out of the glory of the Divinity in the flesh 3. It appears saith he that the glory which he had with the Father was not divine or the highest glory because it was to be communicated Glorifie me O Father with that glory c. Now the highest glory being infinite could not be given or communicated to the humane nature which was finite and so uncapable of it c. Repl. Though the divine glory cannot be communicated to humane nature so as that it should be inherent in the humane nature yet it may gloriously shine forth upon it and appear in it which it did not before yea by reason of the hypostaticall union betwixt the divine nature and the humane nature the glory of the divine nature becomes the glory of the whole person so as that when the glory of the Son shines forth in its greatest strength in the flesh it may be predicated and asserted of the man Christ that he is glorified with the glory which the Son had with the Father before the world was Because the man Christ is the same person with the eternall Son of God Thus all the Scriptures which I drew witness to that Jesus Christ is the true God and the most high God notwithstanding all his endeavours to suffocate their testimony and his attempts by violence to silence them that they should not speak what they would speak yet they have with open mouth with one consent given glory unto Christ by witnessing to his Godhead and to his coessentialness and to his coequality with the Father I shall conclude my Vindication of them with these words Let God be true in what he hath testifyed of his Son in Scripture and every man that opposeth let him be a lyer My next undertaking must be the defence of the Arguments which I produced and drew up from Scripture by which I attempted to prove the destructivenesse of the Doctrine which he holds making whole Christ a creature to the true Gospel and oppositeness of it to the Scripture in many main points and truths of it My Assertion was That the doctrine which makes Christ a meer creature brings in as it were another Gospel and destroyes the true Gospel in many parts thereof and brings in another Scripture in many main points He cals this a reason against his doctrine of Christ a meere creature and so it is not onely to shew the falsenesse of such doctrine but also to discover the horridnesse and hideousness of the doctrine that all might be warned of it and with fear and trembling may decline it But he wisheth him to be Anathema that holds any such doctrine that destroyes the Gospel or the Scripture and falls upon the examination of the instances or Arguments which I produced to confirme that generall reason Therefore because he is so confident that his doctrine will not prove such and because he hath possessed the people that though there should be a mistake in it on his part yet it is not so dangerous as I would make it and that the salvation of mens soules is not so nearly concerned in it as I would have men to conceive and that Christ is never a whit less a sufficient Saviour though but a creature and that it is enough to beleeve unto Salvation that Christ is Lord viz. made Lord and that God raised him from the dead by which means persons have become lesse solicitous what doctrine they entertain they see it hath a specious shew and conceive it will not prove destructive though it should prove false therefore I think it expedient to fortifie my position which respects the oppositenesse of this doctrine of his both
divine faith and so Moses and the Prophets may be the object of faith which is gross 2. Though God viz. the Father and Jesus Christ be two objects of divine Faith yet it is not true in the sence that he represents it in viz. that they are two objects really distinct from one another for the Father that sent the Son Jesus Christ and the Son Jesus Christ that was sent are not two distinct Gods but one God they are not two distinct Essences though they be two distinct subststences or persons so the object essentially and really is but one To this agrees the place which he quotes Joh. 12. 44. He that beleeveth on me beleeveth not on me but on him that sent me An Expositor of note puts this sence upon it Not on me that is such whom you take me to be a man and no more but on me the Eternal God and then same in Essence with him that sent me He puts another sence upon it saying He that beleeves one beleeves both because God appears merciful in the face of Christ and Christ appears instrumental in the hand of God Rom. 4. 24. and 10. 9. And so he makes Christ an instrument who could not as he saith raise himself from the dead the object of faith concerning our Resurrection and Salvation which is gross for Christ is the object of our faith as he is able to save not himself onely but us to the utmost And though Christ be the Son considered as sent and as having taken flesh and as Mediator and so is the object of faith yet he is the same person as before he took Flesh and was Mediator though under another consideration yet the taking of Flesh hath not made him another person much less another being and still he remains the same God with his Father And though as he is considered in Flesh and as Mediator he be an intermediate object of faith yet he is also the principal and ultimate object of faith as he is the Eternal Son and second person in the Trinity for the same person may be both the intermediate and the ultimate object of Faith under a divers consideration this was one part of his emptying of himself the Son became Mediator in Flesh and so the intermediate object of faith who yet was with the Father the ultimate Object of it And Christ though he had been Mediator yet if he had not been God he could not have been the intermediate Object of Faith no more then Moses was who was Mediator he was not the Object of Faith nor could be because he was but a creature Moses was one by whom they beleeved on God and so were the Prophets and also the Apostles Paul saith of himself and of Apollo that they were Ministers by whom the Corinthians beleeved 1 Cor. 3. 5. Mediums or means by whom they were brought to faith in Christ and God but Objects they were not no not intermediate objects of their Faith so Christ could have been but a means of faith in God if he had been no more but a man and had not been God The brazen Serpent which was a Type of Christ to which the promise was made That whoever looked up to it should be healed and it was really so they were healed as God in the promise said Numb 21. 8 9. was onely a means by which they beleeved in God being but a creature and not an intermediate Object of Faith they did not beleeve on it at all but through it on God and so it must have been said of Christ had he been but a meer creature had he been but onely the man Jesus Christ And though it cannot be denyed but that whole Christ as consisting of two natures being God and man is Mediator and materially considered is the intermediate Object of Faith yet not the whole of Christ is the formal cause of faith in Christ but the Divinity or Godhead of Christ alone is the formal cause and reason and ground of the faith of Christians in Christ for that is the Rock upon which the souls of Saints are built and a firm unshaken unmoveable Rock it is and the gates of hell shall never prevail against Beleevers whose faith doth bottom them upon this Rock But he saith It is from Gods commandment that faith in Christ is needful Joh. 3. 23. And it is from Gods appointment that faith in Christ is saving Joh. 6. 40. Rep. All faith that justifies and saves as well that which hath God viz. the Father for its Object as that which hath Christ for its Object is by Gods commandment and appointment justifying and saving for the first Covenant was of Works which men brake and were under death by breaking it and then came both the commandment of faith and the promise of life that was made to faith Gal. 3. 8. The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through faith c. God freely made choyce of faith to save men by it as well of that which respects himself as that which respects Christ I hope he will confess that it was by institution that faith in him that sent Christ viz. the Father is needful and is saving But if his meaning be that no faith was due to Christ naturally save what is due by vertue of appointment and commandment It is utterly untrue if extendeded to whole Christ for Christ is the natural Essential Son of God and look what faith was due to the Father the same faith is due to Christ as the Eternall Co-effential Son of God Or if this sense be given to the words that there was nothing but a Commandment that could move or draw to faith in Christ that is false also for Nathanael was drawn to beleeve without any commandment that came to him to that purpose from those beams of his Deity which sparkled upon him in those words of his Before Philip called thee when thou wast under the Fig-tree I saw thee And many others believed on him when they saw his Miracles So that not the commandment onely but his own Almightiness and Infinite Excellency brought credit and gained faith to him The conclusion is this Though it should be granted that Faith in the Father and faith in Christ do act in a divers manner as indeed it must Christ being considered as Mediator yet it will not follow that either in one manner or another Faith doth act upon a creature but that still the person is God that it acteth upon And it is to be observed that he hath not invalidated that Scripture in Joh. 14. 1. but it stands in full force still for though he would have iâ— to be man Christ that is there spoken of yet it cannot be for Christs Argument would not be good in that sence Ye beleeve in God therefore beleeve in me a man there is no good consequence in it But the Argument is good Ye beleeve in God the Father beleeve in me the Son also for the
Saviour or an unequal Saviour to Christ because Christ and not he is called a Saviour And is not Christ called both the blessed hope and the great God our Saviour Are not both titles put upon him as due to him And though they are used by the Apostle to distinguish the persons of Father and Son from each other when they are spoken of together yet both these are applyed to both persons and are proper to him alone that is the most high God But he saith Scripture doth prefer God in the work of salvation before our Lord Jesus Christ making him to be the principal Agent therein when it declares that the work of Christ in saving was from the purpose of God who appointed him for it from the precept of God who injoyned him to it and from the presence of God who assisted him in it Reply But where doth Scripture witness this of God the Father in reference to the whole of Christ He saith Scripture doth abundantly set forth all these but he doth not quote any one place for proof of them but would have us receive it upon his word That God purposed to save by Christ considered as David's and Mary's son considered according to his Manhood that God enjoyned him as such that God assisted him as such God being taken essentially and properly for Father Son and holy Ghost and not improperly and personally for the Father will be granted and it will be plentifully made out by Scripture but that the Father purposed without the Son and holy Ghost and commanded and enjoyned without the Son and holy Ghost and assisted without the Son and holy Ghost this is denied For as the Father without the Son and holy Ghost made not man but the Trinity sate in Councel Let us make man so it was in the work of Salvation it was an act of Councel The Father gave the Son and the Son gave himself emptied himself every Person concurred and wrought in the work so far as concerns efficiencie All decreed it all acted in it as one principal Agent and onely the Humanity of Christ was Instrumental And if we consider the Material and Meritorious cause of mens salvation God the Father or God in the person of the Father is far from being the Principal cause thereof for he is no cause at all for the Father took not flesh upon him nor was Mediator either of Satisfaction or Intercession he made not the Atonement but this was the Son's sole work he did all in it he was the person that was made of a Virgin and was made under the Law he was the person that was made flesh and manifested in flesh and hath a peculiar right in this respect to the denomination of Saviour And though all was acted and endured in and by the flesh that he assumed for he bare our sins on his body on the tree yea and in his soul also when he cried out My God my God c. in such manner yet if that flesh had not been supported by the Godhead of the Son which assumed it it would have been crumbled to dust and powder by that weight of wrath that lay upon it So that it was by the vertue and power of the Godhead that such actings and such sufferings were and all was accounted as done and suffered by the Son though the Son as the Son was not capable of it but by assuming flesh into the unity of his person and so it came to be reckoned as his work and it was in account as if the Lord of glory had been crucified and as if the blood of God had been spilt and the merit was from the excellencie of the person of the Son that did and suffered all But he further saith That the Scripture revealeth the Lord Christ to be in the work of salvation but an instrumental Saviour For this saith he see Tit. 3. 4 5 6. which puts it past all question But after that the kindness and love of God and our Saviour towards man appeared not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Lord. Reply Here is in these words of his First A bold assertion viz. That Scripture revealeth Christ to be but an instrumental Saviour Secondly A peremptory Conclusion that Tit. 3. 4 5 6. puts it out of question Thirdly A defective and insufficient probation or confirmation he alledgeth the words of the Text as if they did carry with them conviction of what he asserts in the very letter of them when as there is no such matter 1. Scripture is so far from revealing such a thing of Christs instrumentalness that it reveals the contrary to it in Heb. 1. 3. it is said That Christ by himself purged away our sins but of any instruments can it be said that by himself he doth any thing Doth an instrument act by himself that is by his own vertue and sufficiency and by himself that is without the power of the principal efficient Is an Instrument any thing out of the hand of the chief Agent Also in Heb. 7. 25. it is said That Christ is able to save to the utmost But is any Instrument able to save to the utmost Hath he the ability within himself So that it may be said of him that he is able What greater thing can be predicated of the principal efficient or chief Agent then that he is able to save to the utmost This is too high an expression for an Instrument And in Psal 89. 19 it is said of Christ whom David typified that God had laid help upon one that was mighty If Christ be onely but an Instrument what needs he to be mighty in himself for every Instrument if it be mighty through the might of another as the Rams horns were it is sufficient What needed the choice of a mighty one if the Saviour be onely instrumental The weaker the Instrument the more honour will the Principal Efficient have The excellencie of Power is known to be of God when the instrumental means is Weakness and Foolishness Why also could not the blood of Goats have cleansed the Conscience but the Blood of JESUS CHRIST God's Son was necessary if an Instrument may be a Saviour Doubtless a word of Institution would have made the one as effectual as the other But indeed there is no might that any creature-Instrument is capable to be recipient or the subject of that can save to the utmost because it requires an infinite power to conquer Sin and Satan Death and Hell to abolish these and to bring Life and Immortality to light to effect a first and second Resurrection for men who were to be saved Secondly The Scripture that he alleadgeth out of Titus 3. 3 4 â— hath no such thing engraven upon it as he produceth it for such that he that runs may read it
calls the Mediator betwixt God and man the man Christ Let the whole text in that place of Tim. be considered and duely weighed together with the Apostles scope and design and with the observation of a learned man upon it and it will prove Christ to be both God and man and Mendiator betwixt God and man for the words in the Greek run thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be thus rendred For the man Christ Jesus is one God and one Mediator betwixt God and man There may be these reasons for such a version or translation of the words 1. Because the subject person that is spoken of is but one and that is the man Jesus Christ and of him it is predicated and asserted that he is one God and one Mediator betwixt God and man all is spoken of him for if there were two divers subjects spoken of viz. God the Father and the Mediator Jesus Christ as is generally conceived and must be granted according to the ordinary translation of the words then the Articles would not have been omitted as those that understand the Greek Tongue understand very well If God had been the subject spoken of and if it had been asserted or predicated that he had been one the words would have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if the word Mediator had been the subject and that it had been predicated and asserted of him that he had been one the words wold then have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both of them would have been with the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this Article is not prefixed to either of them therefore neither of them are the subject spoken of but rather they are things that are spoken of an other which other is the man Jesus Christ he is one God and one Mediator betwixt God and man and if it be otherwise then I have held forth it is quite against the manner of the Greeks and there will be hardly any place to be found that will parallell this where there is such an Omission Now if it should be objected that there is no Article prefixed before the man Christ Jesus which yet I say is the subject of whom these things are spoken I answer that there needs not any Article there because of the proper names Jesus Christ before which the Article is usually pretermitted If we also consider the scope of the Apostle it is more congruous thereto the words being translated as I have presented for his degsin is to prove that now the Church of God was not to be kept within the narrow bounds limits of Judea as heretofore but to consist both of Jews and Gentiles as the verse before shews and many other God wil have all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth But how doth the Apostle prove that by this fifth ver he proves it for saith he the man Jesus Christ is one God and one Mediator betwixt God and men if the words did run as they are translated For there is one God and one Mediator betwixt God and man there would be no such good consequence for there was ever one God and ever one Mediator betwixt God and men and yet the Church did not extend beyond the bounds of Judea therefore the Apostle speaks of God under a new consideration which was not before till the Apostles times and that is of the man Jesus Christ who is God blessed for ever more and whose work is to unite both Jews and Gentiles into one as in Gal. 3. 28. Ephes 2. 11 And when he calls this man Jesus Christ one God it must be taken of Deus uniens God making one in a practicall way as in Zach. 14. 9. The Lord shall be King in all the earth and in that day the Lord shall be one and his Name one This Lord is Christs for of his Kingdome is this spoken which shall be set up in all the earth and in that day viz. the day of his regnancy over all Nations both Jews and Gentiles for it is a prophecy of such a time the Lord shall be one and his Name one it is not meant of the onenesse of essence for the Lord was alwaies one in that sense but of operation effectivè he shall be one he shall work alike and in one manner in all Nations and shall make them all one in him they shall all serve him with one shoulder with one consent So in this of Timothy God would have all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth for Jesus Christ is one God and one Mediator that is God uniting all in one and reconciling all in one The man Christ is God and Mediator effecting this This was foretold long before but God is come in flesh now to accomplish it But if this exposition should not passe it is easie to give another for it is not denied but that Christ Jesus was and is a man nor is it denied but that as Mediator he was a man and it will be further confessed that he could not have been Mediator unlesse he had been man for therefore it was that he took not the nature of Angells but the seed of Abraham that he might be a meet Mediator to reconcile us to God But the point in dispute is Whether as Mediator he was not more then a man or then a meer creature and I have already shewed that to mediate for God and to God required more sufficiency and ability then can be found in man or any creature The next Instance or Argument that I produced was this Instance 6. If Christ be but a meer creature then the righteousnesse of Christ which is imputed to believers is not the righteousnesse of God but the righteousnesse of a meer creature but this is against the tenure of the Scripture Phil. 3. 9. To this he thus answers I suppose from some terms in your Instance and From the text you alledge that by righteousnesse you mean that righteousnesse whereby believers stand in the sight of God free and cleare from all sin in reference to the curse of the Law thus he is the righteousnesse of God through the faith of Jesus Christ that is that in Jesus Christ which is the object of faith unto all and upon all them that believe Rom. 3. 22. God is the principall Author Christ the instrumentall Agent Rep. It is evident I can meane no other righteousnesse then that which he mentions whereby believers stand cleare from all sin in reference to the stain and pollution of sin as well as in reference to the curse of the Law Now what is it that he answers to this He produceth a text out of Rom. 3. 22. by the mention of which he would divert the eyes of the Reader from the consideration of Philip. 3. 9. which was the Text that I produced for the confirmation of my Instance or Argument and would carry them to the consideration of another Text which
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
the same bond is laid upon them with some change of words he presseth obedience upon servants with singleness of heart and urgeth them first with the fear of God in stead of mentioning Christ and afterward he fetcheth arguments from Christ as he had done in his other Epistle 10. Religious adoration was given to Christ with the body and never reprehended but accepted of by him Mark 5. 22. Luk. 17. 16. Joh. 11. 32. Mark 3. 11. Rev. 5. 8. Acts 7. 59 60. And if we have an eye to the manner of worship we shall finde that Christ required it and believers give it to him in such sort as the most high God can onely challenge it 1. An absolute and universal trust and confidence is put in Christ such as that he who is confessed to be the most high God can challenge no more and this both in the matters of the soul in reference to which he is called the hope of Israel Act. 28. 20. and the person in whom the Gentiles trust Rom. 15. 12. and also in matters of common providence Phil. 2. 19. I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus unto you shortly that is I trust that Christ will so mercifully order it that I shall send him and that all impediments will be taken away And if the providence of Christ doth extend to all things and that the homage of dependance be given upon this account what more can be said of the most high God 2. An absolute and full love is both required and given to Christ so that God even the Father can require no more Matth. 10. 37 He that loveth father or mother or son or daughter more then me saith Christ is not worthy of me But Luke expresseth it more fully Luk. 14. 36. He that doth not hate father and mother wife and children brethren and sisters yea and his own life for Christs sake from that dear respect he bears to Christ is not worthy of him And Christ would draw Peter up to a love above his necessary food Lovest thou me said Christ more then these The meat that was before him was meant the fishes that they were to feed on And the Spouse was sick of love Cant. 5. 8. And what greater proportion can the Father himself require then what Christ asked and what the Saints gave to him The Inference then must needs be this Christ is worshipped and honoured and served with the worship and honour and service not of an Intermediate object but of the Principal and Ultimate object and all such texts which give the same worship to the Son as to the Father do prove it And if it were not so men had need to look to their affiance and affection to Christ lest it should exceed and that they neither put their whole trust in Christ nor set their whole hearts upon him which would be due to him alone who is the high God and the principal and ultimate object of these motions of the soul So that this Doctrine of his doth call off the soul from being too much set upon Christ as if it were possible to minde him too much and affect him too dearly which should make all the true lovers of Christ to abhor it the more Object There is one knot yet to be untied before I pass off from this point of Worship It may be said Christ is to be worshipped as Mediator the Scripture is clear and manifest for it Phil. 2. 10 At the Name of Jesus every knee shall how here is worship due to Christ as exalted by the Father Now he was exalted as he was Mediator in reference to an Office that he had executed and being Mediator he is an intermediate object of worship for a Mediator is one betwixt God and men by which men come to God and as such an one Christ is worshipped Sol. As Christ is Mediator he hath a Lordship given to him in which respect he said to be made Lord as he is made Mediator and so there is worship belonging to him But it must be thus understood That as his Official Oeconomical and Mediatorly Lordship was founded in his Natural Essential Lordship as he was the Son of God and the most high God coessential with the Father as hath been proved before so the Worship which he receives as Mediator as King Priest and Prophet of his Church is founded not simply in or upon the Office but upon the Excellencie of the person that manageth the Office and if at all upon the Office it is because such an Office cannot be executed but by such a person who is the Son of God and very God For if it were possible to conceive how such a Mediatorly function could be performed by one that is not God Divine religious worship would not be due unto him upon that account It is the dignity of the Person that founds the Worship and the Work doth but quicken to it or becomes a motive the rather to perform such homage and worship to him to whom it is due upon another account upon another ground if that Work had never been Worship and honour and glory belonged to him as the second Person in the blessed Trinity as the Eternal Son of God and God and if over and above this glorious and ever to be honoured and adored person become Mediator it is the more readily and forwardly to be exhibited given As every mercie received from the Father of mercie becomes a further engagement to worship and serve this Father of mercies but the primitive ground is This Father of mercies is God otherwise all mercie without consideration of the excellencie of the person from whom it proceeds is not a right bottom to found worship upon Moses was a Mediator betwixt God and men and a Type of this our glorious Mediator Christ but Moses was but a Servant not a Son but a Creature not God and there was no religious worship nor honour that belonged to him in reference to that work because a meer creature performed it And if it be otherwise in reference to Christ that Christ as Mediator deserves to be worshipped the reason is because such a Mediatorship as Christ performed could not have been performed unless Christ had been God because to execute that Function requires the infinite power and wisdom of the Godhead And therefore Moses was the Type of that which Christ really and effectually and powerfully was Moses was internuncius one that went betwixt God and the people but Christ made the atonement and the peace being greater then Moses he being onely typically God but Christ really and truely God And though Christ be intermediate being Mediator yet he would not could not thence become an intermediate object of Worship unless because the same person though not according to both Natures is also the principal and ultimate object of of it which shews thus much That this Worship which Christ the Mediator had was due upon another account then his