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 noto • 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.

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 tenent, then he carried it craftily to do the more miſchiefe, for he thought it wiſdome to forbear when it might be much oppoſed, and to take time to ſpeak, when it might be more prevalent, that he might draw away the more Diſciples after him.

But he tells me of a contradiction. Where lies it? In theſe words, God could make uſe of no Inſtrument in the worke of creation; and God might have made uſe of an Angel, or ſome other creature, and by it have made all things. Here is a contradiction indeed, if theſe aſſertions be taken ſeparately, from other expreſions that expounded them. And here lies the injury that he doth me, which an uningaged perſon, and ſtander by betwixt us, upon his firſt reading of this charge which he makes againſt me, of contradiction, (who was preſent at the conference) ſoone diſcovered, and expreſſed himſelfe to this purpoſe, That he ſhould thinke the worſe of Mr. Knowles while he knew him, for the wrong he did me in this matter. He leaves out thoſe words which cleared it from contradiction; When I ſaid, God could uſe no inſtrument in the worke of creation, I ſpoke of ſuch an Inſtrument by whoſe force, and vertue, and power ſuch a worke might be affected, as my after words clearly ſhew; becauſe creation is the making of things out of nothing, and required an infinite power, which no creature is capable of, for it would make him a God. Theſe words do demonſtrate that I ſpake of an Inſtrument that might be co-operative with God in vertue and efficacy in ſo great a worke. But when I ſpake of an Angell as an Inſtrument, which God might have made uſe of in the creation of the world, if he would, I both meant it, and expreſſed it of ſuch a kind of Inſtrument which contributes no vertue nor efficacy to the worke, but is a means without which God will not do ſuch a worke, rather then a means by which he will do it; ſuch as the blowing with rams horns was for the bringing downe of the walls of Jericho, in which there was no vertue for the effecting of ſuch a worke, and ſo God might have made an Angell, and might have ſaid to it, Go, ſay, Let there be Heavens and earth, and at the Angels ſpeaking, it might have been; not becauſe there was any vertue in the Angels ſpeaking for the production of ſuch things; but the vertue is wholly Gods. But it is otherwiſe with Chriſt in his making of the World, the vertue is his owne, Chriſt is ſaid to ſupport al things by the word of his own power, and ſo by conſequence to create all things by the word of his owne power. Now ſuch an Inſtrument Chriſt could not be, nor any creature, nor could any creature be capable of any ſuch power: and thus I expreſſed it upon that day of conference, as there are many witneſſes. And yet thus he abuſeth me, and then gloryes over me in a large manner, and triumphs exceſſively. His words are theſe:

How to reconcile one with another is unfeaſible, you muſt confeſs you are not alwayes infalible, you ſometimes differ from your ſelfe, and then no wonder if you diſagree with others. What ſhall I take for your judgment, &c?

And thus he goes on in a vapouring way, with a deal of ſtuff ſuch as this, and his glorying over me in this, (ſeeing I am innocent wherein he accuſeth me) is not my ſhame, but his.

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 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 'tis 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.

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 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:

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 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 what to call it) of thoſe perſons who profeſs to be very ſound in the doctrine of Chriſts Godhead, but conceive of it as a very tolerable errour, in ſuch who do deny it, and make ſlight of it. Is it a ſmall thing to deny Chriſt to be the Son of God? Thoſe that deny Chriſts Godhead, do deny God in the perſon of the Son, to have taken the nature of man upon him: or, they do deny the Son of God to be incarnate, and by conſequence they do deny Chriſt to be Gods Son. For do they not know, (I ſpeak of thoſe that have not denied the Faith) if Chriſt be God, he can be God no other way, but becauſe God in the perſon of the Son, or the Son of God, took fleſh upon him: if Chriſt be Gods Son, he can be Gods Son no other way, but becauſe God in the perſon of the Son hath come in the fleſh; and if this be denied, it is denied that Chriſt is Gods Son. And is this a trivial matter? Chriſt conſiſts of two Natures; of Humanity, and ſo he is the Son of man; of the Deity, and ſo he is the Son of God, as I have ſhewed. Can Chriſt be a true Chriſt, if either of theſe be wanting? A Man conſiſts of ſoul and body: if either of theſe be wanting, can he be a true man? If the ſoul be wanting, (which is the principal part) is he any more then a ſtinking carcaſe?) If Chriſt be not the Son of God, (as, if he be not God, he is not) is he any other but a carcaſe-Chriſt? Can a thing have its truth of being, without its conſtitutive parts by which it is? So that Chriſt is deſtroyed, unlels the Son of God, and the Son of Man, united together in one perſon, be maintained.

I now come to preſent and drive on a third Argument, which is this:

Therefore this Doctrine of his denies Chriſt to be the true Son of God.

The Major Propoſition is that which will onely be denied by him; therefore I ſhall prove out of Scripture, that Chriſt cannot be a creature-ſon of God.

1. The eternal Son of God cannot be a creature-ſon of God, becauſe no creature is eternal. Or thus:

That Son of God that hath neither beginning of days, nor end of life, cannot be a creature-ſon of God, becauſe it is the moſt high God's property to be without beginning or ending.

But Chriſt is ſuch a Son of God, which is without beginning of days, and hath no end of life; which is evident from Heb. 7. 3. Melchizedek is deſcribed to have neither beginning of days, nor end of life; and therein (as a type onely) to be like the Son of God, or like Ghriſt as he is the Son of God: by which it appears, that Chriſt is ſuch a Son of God as is truely eternal, without beginning or ending. For it behoves that which is the Antitype, or the thing typified, to be that in truth, which the Type is in ſhadow. Melchizedek was in figure and in myſterie without beginning of days and end of life; Chriſt muſt therefore really and truely be without beginning and end, becauſe he, as the Son of God▪ was the perſon whom Melchizek typified herein.

Therefore, he is no creature-ſon of God.

2. The Almighty Son of God cannot be a creature-ſon of God, becauſe Almightineſs is one of the moſt high God's incommunicable attributes.

But Chriſt is ſuch a Son of God as is Almighty:

Therefore, no creature-ſon of God.

That Chriſt is ſuch a Son of God as is God Almighty, will be proved from Scripture. In Mat. 14. 32. 33, conſidered with the context, the windes were boiſterous and tempeſtous: by the vertue and power of Chriſt, (which was inherent in him, and which he was the ſubject of) they ceaſed. Hereupon, the diſciples all of them worſhipped him, and confeſſed that he was the Son of God, that is, one Almighty, whom the windes and the ſea obeyed; and this they made to be the Son of God: for they apprehended the Son of God to be ſuch an one who was cloathed with ſuch power. So in Joh. 1. 33, 34, John knew not Chriſt who he was; but the Father told him that he on whom the holy Ghoſt ſhould deſcend, ſhould baptize with the holy Ghoſt. Hence John collected, that he was the Son of God; and the text ſaith, he bare record of it. God had not told him ſo, but onely that he ſhould baptize with the holy Ghoſt; but he thence collected ſo much. But how could that be, ſeeing the diſciples baptized with the holy Ghoſt; and yet it could not be collected that they were each of them the Son of God in the ſence that John bare record of Chriſt, that he was the Son-of God? It muſt be conceived then, that John looked upon Chriſt as one in whom the power was inheto baptize with the holy Ghoſt, and that he argued after this manner. He in whom the vertue, is to baptize with the holy Ghoſt; that is, he who hath the power of enabling men to ſpeak with ſtrange tongues, and to propheſie, and to work miraculouſly, he muſt needs be the Son of God. But Chriſt is ſuch an one: Therefore, he is the Son of God. The Son of God which John ſpeaks of, is therefore an Almighty Son of God, and no creature, becauſe he can do ſuch a thing, that requireth an Almighty power. In like manner we may read in Joh. 5. 25. Chriſt ſaith, that the dead ſhall hear the voice of the Son of God, and that they that hear it ſhall live. This Son of God then can be no creature, becauſe the dead in any ſence cannot hear the voice of a creature. It is not to be denied, but that men have raiſed the dead, in what ſence ſoever it may be taken, who are but creatures: but it was not the outward voice which raiſed them, and which they heard, which external voice is the creatures voice; but it was the power that they felt, which was God's, which is called the voice behinde them, or within them, and is nothing but the power of God in working upon them, Iſa. 30. 21. But the voice by the force of which theſe dead which Chriſt ſpeaks of were to be raiſed, was the voice of the Son of God; it was Chriſt's own voice, Chriſt's own power, by which they were to be raiſed; elſe Chriſt declared neither any new thing, nor ſtrange thing, to cauſe them to believe on him, becauſe many others as inſtruments might utter ſuch a voice. And the following verſe clears it, that by the voice of the Son of God, the power of the Son of God is meant: As the Father (ſaith Chriſt) hath life in himſelf, ſo hath he given to the Son to have life in himſelf. The meaning is, that as the Father is the living God, and hath life in himſelf eſſentially, and is the root of life, to quicken the dead that are without life: ſo the Son hath life in himſelf eſſentially, and is the principle of life to others that are dead, and want it. And if this were not ſo, there could not be the ſtrength of a Reaſon to confirm the foregoing verſe. Chriſt had ſaid, They that hear the voice of the Son of God, ſhall live. How doth he prove it? Thus: As the Father hath life in himſelf; that is, As the Father is all life, eſſentially life, and the principle of life, to quicken whom he will by his mighty power: ſo the Son hath life in himſelf, (though it be communicated with his eſſence by eternal generation, which is ſutable to a Son) and is eſſentially life, all life, and nothing elſe; and is the principle of life, quickning, by that life in himſelf, whom he will. I ſhall preſent one Scripture more, in 1 Joh. 3. 8. For this purpoſe the Son of God was manifeſted, that he might deſtroy the works of the devil. This phraſe, the Son of God was manifeſted, is a parallel-phraſe with that in 1 Tim. 3. 16. God manifeſted in the fleſh. This God was God in the perſon of the Son, who was manifeſted in the fleſh, that is, took the fleſh of a Virgin upon him, and became man. For what end? The Apoſtle ſhews, that he might deſtroy (that is, in man's nature might do it) the works of the devil. The Son of God deſtroyed; but by whoſe power deſtroyed he the works of the devil? By his own power: he is called one that is ſtronger then the devil, Luke 11. 12. And if it had not been done by his own power, there was no neceſſity that the Son of God ſhould have been manifeſted in the fleſh for that purpoſe: for the Son of man might have done it as an Inſtrument, as the Diſciples caſt out devils; (which was one of the works of Satan that was deſtroyed; his work was to poſſeſs bodies, as well as ſouls; and he was caſt out; which was the deſtruction of that work:) but the vertue by which they caſt out, was none of theirs, but Chriſts; but Chriſt's vertue was his own: for, as one ſtronger, he ſpoiled Satan of all he had, and deſtroyed all his works; wherein the Almightineſs of Chriſt is manifeſt. And ſo it appears that Chriſt is ſuch a Son of God that is Almighty, and ſo conſequently no creature-ſon.

The Major is clear, becauſe Omniſciencie is like Omnipotencie; it is incommunicable to the creature, being one of Gods attributes.

The Minor may be proved from Revel. 2. 18, 23. The words are: Thus ſaith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like a flame of fire, that is, to give light to him in all the world, by which he may ſee all things. Therefore it is added. And all the Churches ſhall know that I am he that ſearcheth the heart, and trieth the reins, and giveth to every one according to his works. Chriſt ſpeaketh of himſelf, as the Son of God, and ſhews what a Son he is; ſuch a Son that is equal to his Father, who can ſearch as deep, and inward, and hidden things as the Father can: he hath his Fathers eyes, his Fathers knowledge, wiſdom, and underſtanding. It is the one onely God's priviledge and prerogative, to ſearch the heart, as I have proved from Jer. 17. 9, 10. already; and yet Chriſt as the Son of God, doth it: Therefore he is no creature-ſon, but ſuch a Son as is the one onely God alſo.

The fourth Argument, that carries on the ſame deſigne, viz. tends to prove this Doctrine of his againſt the Godhead of Chriſt to be deſtructive to the Goſpel in ſome main point of it, is this:

The Major cannot be gainſaid, becauſe Baptiſm is numbered among the higheſt Fundamentals of the Scripture, to be believed; the denying of which, will deſtroy, if any thing will deſtroy: Eph. 4. 5, 6. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptiſm; one God and Father of all. And it is called a principle, Heb. 6. 1, 2. And becauſe the fruit of Chriſt's death, which ſtands in remiſſion of ſins, is the myſtical and ſpiritual part of Baptiſm, Acts 22. 16. 1 Pet. 3. 21.

The Minor Propoſition may be thus corroborated and confirmed.

That Doctrine that brings in a Baptiſm which is into the Name of a meer creature, ſubverts and deſtroys true Scriptural Baptiſm, and brings in a falſe unſcriptural Baptiſm.

But this Doctrine of his, which makes whole Chriſt a creature, doth bring in or ſet up a Baptiſm which is into the Name of a meer creature.

Therefore, this Doctrine of his ſubverts and deſtroys true Scriptural Baptiſm.

I ſhall ſtrengthen both Propoſitions, becauſe perhaps he will deny both; and will begin with the proof of the Major, viz. that to baptize into the Name of a meer creature, deſtroys true Baptiſm, and ſets up a falſe.

1. Becauſe the true Scriptural Baptiſm is the Seal of a Covenant, betwixt that one true God, and the believer that partakes of it; in which the believer conſecrates and gives up himſelf to believe on, and be ſervant to the true God: God and the believer are the confederates. The believer is not confederate with any creature: As he gives not himſelf up to the creature, ſo neither can any creature accompliſh for him thoſe great bleſſings of the Covenant; but he depends upon God alone for them. The Covenant which is ſealed, is the Covenant of Grace, by which we are ſaved.

2. Becauſe true Goſpel-Baptiſm is the confirmation of Adoption, which reſpects the true God alone: for in Baptiſm, the Name of God is named upon the believer, and the believer carries God's Name upon him. And this the Apoſtle Paul doth point at, when he reproves the Corinthians for calling themſelves by the name of Paul, ſaying, I am of Paul. The Argument that he makes uſe of againſt them, is this: Were you baptized into the name of Paul? As if he ſhould have ſaid; His Name ye bear, and his children ye are, into whoſe Name ye were baptized: but were ye baptized into the name of Paul, that you will carry his name? No, ye were not; but into the Name of God, to note out your adoption to God. To be adopted, and to be the ſons and daughters of the Almighty, is all one, 2 Cor. 6. 18. And we are not adopted into ſonſhip to any creature: that is unſcriptural doctrine, and not to be received.

3. Becauſe true Goſpel-Baptiſm is the acknowledgement of the believers ſubjection unto Divine Soveraignty, or the authority of the moſt high God: for by Name, Authority is frequently underſtood: to do a thing in the Name of any Prince, or Monarch, or State, is to do in the Vertue, Power, and Authority of them; and to baptize in the Name, is to baptize in the Authority of God, whoſe Ordinance it is, and from whom the bleſſing muſt come.

And for ſuch-like reaſons as theſe, it was, that the Apoſtle ſhunned and declined baptizing into his own name: he looked upon it as ſacrilegious to God, and an uſurping upon God, 1 Cor. 1. 14, 15. I thank God (ſaith he) I baptized none of you, ſave Criſpus and Gaius, leſt any ſhould ſay that I baptized into mine own name. Thus jealous was Paul, leſt he ſhould aſſume and arrogate to himſelf that which is the prerogative of, and is proper to God.

The Minor Propoſition, viz. That this Doctrine of his, which makes whole Chriſt a creature, doth bring in, and ſet up, a Baptiſm which is into the name of a meer creature, carries evidence in it ſelf, becauſe Baptiſm is an Ordinance that (without contradiction) is into the Name of Chriſt, and conſequently into the name of a meer creature, if whole Chriſt be a creature.

Object.

All that (I can foreſee) can 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.

I therefore prove it by a double medium.

1. That Doctrine that denies Chriſt to be the author of ſalvation, and makes him an inſtrument onely in the hand of him that is the author; that Doctrine denies Chriſt to be a ſufficient Saviour.

But this Doctrine of his, which makes whole Chriſt a creature, doth deny Chriſt to be the author of ſalvation, and makes him onely an inſtrument in the hand of the Father, who is the author:

Therefore, this Doctrine of his denies Chriſt to be a ſufficient Saviour.

He may perhaps deny the Major, and diſtinguiſh of ſufficiencie, and ſay there is an abſolute and independent ſufficiencie, which is proper to that which is the author of a thing; and there is a limited and reſtrained ſufficiencie▪ depending upon that abſolute ſufficiencie of the author, which is ſutable and proper to an inſtrument; and this later Chriſt hath, and ſo is ſufficient through God, through the Father, for the work of ſalvation, though he be but a creature.

But ſuch an Anſwer muſt be judged weak, for two Reaſons. 1. The ſufficiencie of Chriſt to ſave, is an abſolute ſufficiencie, and ſuch as is proper to the author of ſalvation, according to the teſtimony of the Scripture, Heb. 5. 9. And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal ſalvation to them that obey him. Now I hope he will not confound the Author and the Inſtrument, and make them one perſon. An inſtrumental ſufficiencie the Scripture knows nothing of, in reference to Chriſt, nor doth attribute any ſuch to him. 2. An inſtrumental ſufficiencie is no other then inſufficiencie: for an inſtrument is not able to ſave to the utmoſt, and ſo is of himſelf inſufficient to ſave; but Chriſt is able of himſelf to ſave to the utmoſt, Heb. 7. 25.

But he perhaps will endeavour to evade the ſtrength of this Aſſertion, by ſaying, that if Chriſt be able, through God the Father, to ſave to the utmoſt, it is ſufficient for the verifying of Scripture.

But neither hath this Anſwer ſtrength in it, nor is Scripture verified by it: for Scripture ſpeaks of Chriſts ability, as ability in himſelf; Heb. 1. 3, Chriſt is deſcribed to be one that upholds all things by the word of his own power, and to purge ſin away by himſelf: and Chriſt never needed to ſay of the Father, as Paul ſaid of Chriſt, I am able to do all things through Chriſt that ſtrengthneth me; ſo Chriſt, I am able to do all things through the Father that ſtrengthens me: and though he might be ſtrengthened, as the Son of man, yet not as the Son of God; but drew on the people to believe a Divine power in himſelf: for his words are without any limitation. Doſt thou believe that I am able to do this for thee? ſaith he to one that came to be cured of him, without interpoſing any words which ſhould ſhew his dependence on another. And this ability was Divine ability, becauſe it lay in this, viz. to heal without the efficacie of means which might conduce to ſuch a purpoſe. And Chriſt is called the power of the Father, becauſe the Father's power is in him. And it is ſaid that God laid help upon one that is mighty; which, though ſpoken of David, yet of him but as the Type; and is meant of Chriſt, who is the Antitype, and who is truely mighty. This ability of Chriſt within himſelf to ſave to the utmoſt, is that which the Apoſtle diſputed for, in many places of that Epiſtle, and eſpecially in the Context of that Scripture, Heb. 7. 25. He is able to ſave to the utmoſt: for he doth detect the inſufficiencie of the High-prieſt to ſave, by ſhewing their mortality, and other infirmities; and then preſents Chriſt's ſufficiencie. And if it were ſo that God could have ſaved by an inſtrument which derives his vertue from him, and is dependent upon him, a Saviour needed not to have come from heaven; for God might have done it by any earthly creature, or by any creature-inſtrument, without any reſpect had to power or ability as inherent in it at all, but by his own power manifeſted by it; and ſo might have ſaved by an Apoſtle, equally as by a Chriſt.

But I ſhall prove what I deſigne, by another medium.

2. That Doctrine which renders Chriſt inſufficient to the work of ſaving, renders him an inſufficient Saviour, or deſtroys his ſufficiencie as a Saviour.

Inſtance 3. If Chriſt be a meer creature, then faith in a meer creature can ſave man; which is abſurd and groſs, and contrary to the Scriptures: for, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteouſneſs, Rom. 4. 3. and ſo was ſaving.

Unto theſe he oppoſeth two Propoſitions, which the Scripture (as he ſaith) will warrant, and will ſuffice for an Anſwer.

1. That that faith which is needful to ſalvation, hath a double object; God, and the man Chriſt Jeſus, Joh. 14. 1. which (he ſaith) the Scripture that I have quoted bears witneſs to, as a truth.

2. That that faith which is needful to ſalvation, acts in a divers manner on God, and on the Lord Jeſus Chriſt.

Reply. 1. Neither the Scripture that I have quoted, nor any other, bears witneſs to this, That the man Jeſus Chriſt, as man, is the object of faith▪ The Perſon of Chriſt that is man, is the object of faith; but not as man. And the place that he cites in Joh. 3. 14, 15, proves it. The Son of man ſhall be lifted up, that whoever believes on him, &c. But there is in theſe words that which is called Idiomatum communicatio; viz. that which is ſpoken in the concrete of Chriſt according to one Nature, is transferred to another Natrue: And the verſe that immediately precedes, viz. verſe 13. declares thus much: It is ſaid that the Son of man is in heaven; which at that time when Chriſt ſpake thoſe words, was impoſſible, as Chriſt is the Son of man, becauſe Ubiquity, or being everywhere at the ſame time, is not compatible to any man, as man: but it was meant of the Perſon of Chriſt, who is called the Son of man, becauſe he was truely man; but according to the other nature that was in him, viz. the Godhead, according to which he was in heaven and on earth together, becauſe he fills both, as God. And Chriſt, that did put that denomination [Son of man] upon himſelf, in verſe 13. continues it, and under that title makes himſelf the object of faith: but there is a tranſlation of that which is proper to one nature, to another nature to which it is not proper: And indeed, Chriſt as Mediator is an object of faith; but it is not as he is man that he is the object, but as he is God: which is very clear, for theſe Reaſons:

1. It is Chriſt, as he is JEHOVAH, that is the object of faith, as it juſtifies and ſaves: Iſa. 45. 24. compared with Rom. 14. 10, 11. proves it: Believers are brought in profeſſing their faith in JEHOVAH, which is Chriſt: Surely, ſhall one ſay, in JEHOVAH have I righteouſneſs and ſtrength. 1 Tim. 3. 10. God manifeſted in fleſh, is believed on in the world: not Chriſt accordi • g to his Manhood.

2. It is Chriſt as he is all-ſufficient, and able to ſave to the utmoſt, that is the object of faith, Heb. 7. 25. 2 Tim. 1. 12. But Chriſt, as he is man, is not all-ſufficient, and able to ſave to the utmoſt, but as he is the Son of God, and God, Joh. 4. 25.

3. The man that truſteth in man, is accurſed by God's own ſentence, Jer. 17. 5. Therefore faith is not in Chriſt as he is man.

4. God hath teſtified that all life is in his Son, Joh. 5. 11. and faith muſt be where life is, and nowhere elſe; and therefore not in Chriſt as man: for the Son of God is not man, but God, as hath been abundantly proved before. And it is alſo ſaid, verſe 12, He that hath the Son, that is, hath received him by faith, Joh. 1. 12. hath life; and he that hath him not, hath not life. And they are preſſed to believe in the Son of God, v. 13. that they may have eternal life.

5. Chriſt himſelf ſaith, Ʋpon this rock, viz. this profeſſion of faith, that Chriſt is the Son of God, he will build his Church, Matth. 16. 16, 18. Therefore Chriſt is the object of faith as he is the Son of God, and not as he is man.

6. If Chriſt, as meer man, and nothing more, be the object of faith; then any other man or creature whom God ſends, and by whom God ſpeaks or acts, may be the object of 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 i • 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 Father and I are one, ver. 10. Beleeveſt thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me, and that we are one God? Therefore ſeeing ye believed in the Father, believe in me alſo.

The fourth inſtance comes now next to be conſidered of, which is this:

Inſtance 5. The 5. Inſtance he forms up into an Argument, thus, That Doctrine which makes the Mediator betwixt God and man, to be a meer creature, brings in (as it were) another Goſpel, deſtroyes the true Goſpel in many of the parts of it, &c. in that it is againſt reaſon, that the Mediator ſhould be a creature, becauſe a meer creature is no way meet to be a Dayſman for God▪ & becauſe a Mediator muſt either partake of both God and man, or of neither, elſe he will be rather a party, then a Mediator, &c. and in that it oppoſeth theſe Scriptures, Mat. 1. 23. 1. Tim. 3. 16. Joh. 1. 14. But that Doctrine which denies Jeſus Christ to be the moſt high God, makes the Mediator betwixt God and man to be a meer creature. Therefore I ſhall paſſe by all thoſe lines in which he only trifles, & ſpeaks not to the Argumnet or inſtance, and mention only that which is materiall, in way of anſwer.

To the Major, and the firſt reaſon of it, viz. A meer creature is no way meet to be a Dayſman for God, He anſwers thus;

This reaſon wants a reaſon to ſupport it, what ſhould hinder (ſaith he) but the meere creature may be a Dayſman or Mediator? Is there any one work that belongs to his office, that is impoſſible for a creature to perform, notwithſtanding divine aſſiſtance with him? I dare, ſaith he, aſſert the contrary, and am able to prove in whatſoever work you can inſtance in, belonging to Christs Mediatorſhip, that of himſelf he was not able to perform it, unleſſe by the aſſiſtance of another, which he enjoyed, and ſo is a compleat Mediator:

Rep. There are many things that may hinder, that a meere creature cannot be a Dayſman, or Mediator for God: 1. The diſproportion that is betwixt God and a meere creature hinders, which diſproportion is infinite. It is againſt Gods honor and glory, that God ſhould admit of a meer ceature-Dayſman or Mediator: It is as if a worm ſhould be a Dayſman or Mediator for a man; or as if a begger ſhould be a Dayſman or Mediator for a King. Nay there is not any thing to reſemble it by among all the creatures; and there would be too much honour put upon a meer creature, if he ſhould be Mediator or Dayſman, becauſe a meer creature is infinitely below God; but a Dayſman ſhould hold ſome kind of equality with the perſon for whom he is a Dayſman: For 1. The matter is committed to him that is a Dayſman or Mediator. 2. The perſon that commits the matter to the Dayſman, commits himſelf with it to him alſo. 3. A Dayſman is one that muſt judge betwixt: now this is too low for God to admit of, and too high for man, or for any meer creature, that it ſhould be ſet • n ſuch a place. 2. The impotency and infirmiiy of the creature hinders that it cannot be a • meet Dayſman for God: For 1. No meer creature can attain unto a perfect knowledge of the treſpaſſe and offence that is committed againſt God, becauſe it is infinite, therefore no finite creature can ſearch into it, the perſon againſt whom it is committed being infinite, makes it infinite; and one of a finite knowledge cannot reach it: it may be truly ſaid, that neither man nor Angel, nor the Son of man himſelf, as man, knowes the greatneſſe of mans ſin: for unleſſe the greatneſſe of God can be meaſured, againſt whom it was committed, the greatneſſe of the ſin cannot be known. Now if it cannot be known by any meer creature, then no meere creature can be a Dayſman▪ to conſider of it. 2. No meer creature can be ſufficiently ſenſible of the great diſhonour that was offered unto God, and the great indignity and injury that was done againſt God, when man ſinned again him; for what is all creature-ſenſe, to that infinite perception which God hath of the • ffront done unto him; and unleſſe you could make the creature as God, a creature cannot have the feeling of God; and unleſſe a creature had the infinite holineſſe of God, a creature cannot know how diſtaſtfull ſin is unto God; therefore a meer creature cannot be a Mediator or Dayſman for God; for he cannot ſenſibly enough conſider of the tranſgreſſion againſt God. 3. No meer creature can make Propoſalls that are proportionable, in reference to Gods honour, that was impaired by the ſin of man, that God might be no loſer, nor might receive any detriment by Mediation; becauſe no creature knowes how much the honor of God is impaired, and if he did, yet it would be beyond his power to offer honorable terms to God in reference thereto, for a creature will act and move like a creature, and all its Propoſalls will be low and little, and defective and ſhort, yea infinitely low & ſhort, and like it ſelf, therfore a meer creature cannot be a meet Dayſman for God, becauſe he will be ſure to wrong him. 4. The Mediator betwixt God and man, is not of interceſſion onely, but of ſatisfaction; now no meer creature can give ſatisfaction for mens offences, becauſe offences are greater then can be conceived of, & the ſatisfaction muſt be like them, that is, muſt be greater then can be imagined by any creature, therefore greater then can be given by any creature. The Mediator is an undertaker to ſatisfie for what is paſt by paying the utmoſt farthing, and to render man a new creature, inclied and devoted to God, who was before an enemie. Now no meer creature can be ſuch an undertaker, becauſe he cannot give a price ſufficient nor work any ſuch transformation in man, but it belongs to him who made heaven and earth to do this.

Theſe things are impediments why a meer creature cannot be a Dayſman betwixt God and men, there are things to be known and done which creatures, as creatures, are not capable of. His daring therefore to aſſert the contrary, ſhews rather his preſumption then his wiſdome or ability.

And whereas he ſaith, that he is able to prove that Christ of himſelf was not able to perform any work belonging to his Mediatorſhip▪ unleſſe by the aſſistance of another, which he enjoyed, and ſo was a compleat Mediator.

It is utterly untrue and repugnant to the Scripture, for by himſelf he purged away our ſins, Heb. 1. 3. and herein he debaſeth Chriſt not a little, he makes him as weak as one of us, and he concurres with thoſe enemies of Chriſt in their reproaches which they caſt upon him when he was upon the Croſſe, he brings in the ſame verdict with them, yea, he hath meaner thoughts in ſome kind, then they, he ſaved others (ſaid they) but himſelf he cannot ſave, that is, by his own power, he cannot, for otherwiſe they knew God could ſave him; the Apoſtle had not ſo high thoughts of him, but he hath as low thoughts, I am able, ſaid the Apoſtle, to do all things through Chriſt ſtrengthening me, but he faith, Chriſt himſelf is able to do nothing, without the Fathers ſtrengthening of him. If this be true which he aſſerts, that Chriſt is able to petform norhing of himſelf without aſſiſtance of another: God might then have ſaved by Peter or Paul, or James or John, or any man elſe, whom he would have looked upon in reference to that work, as by Chriſt. Is ſuch a Mediator as he deciphers Chriſt to be (ſo poore, ſo empty as he makes him to be, not able to do any thing in diſcharge of that office he is deſigned to of himſelf without aſſiſtance) a meet object of the faith, and hope of the Saints?

If he had aſſerted this of the humane nature of Chriſt, that it was able to do nothing by way of ſatisfaction in the function of Mediatorſhip of it ſelf, without the aſſiſtance of the Divinity, or Godhead of Chriſt, it had been an undeniable truth, but to aſſert this of whole Chriſt, in whom the ſullneſſe of the Godhead dwelt bodily, or ſubſtantially, and eſſentially, and in whom are hid all the treaſures, all the mines of wiſdome▪ and knowledge, and all excellency, and in whom are all unſearchable riches, this is ſuch a vilifying of him, that it is a ſecond crucifying of him, and it is not his boaſting of being able to prove it that makes the evill the leſſe, but it is the more horrid by how much he is confident, This Doctrine muſt needs weaken faith, & hope, and affiance in Chriſt, and indeed if it were ſo (as he ſaith) that we had ſuch a Mediator, ſo impotent and ſo weak, of all creatures we were moſt miſerable.

But he proceeds, and attempts to break the ſtrength of the ſecond reaſon which I produced to prove, that a meer creature-Chriſt could not be Mediator betwixt God and men, which was this.

Becauſe a Mediator muſt either partake of both God and man, or of neither, elſe he will rather be a party then a Mediator.

To this he anſwers thus,

Was not Moſes a Mediator betwixt God and men, but was Moſes God and man? Gal. 3. 19.

Rep. Moſes was a typicall Mediator, and was that myſtically, and figuratively, which Chriſt was really and truly: Moſes was not God and man, but man onely eſſentially and ſubſtantially, yet he was as God to Aaron, and to the people, Exod. 4. 16. God reputatively he was, and repreſentatively; and this was ſufficient for him that was not that true Mediator, but the ſhadow of him: but he that was ſhadowed out, and is no ſhadow, but Mediator indeed and in truth, he muſt be God indeed, and in truth: And this Argument of his fetched from Moſes, is ſtrong againſt him, it is like that of Melchiſedech, produced to prove the eternity of Chriſt, upon which I have inſiſted more largely, the ſinews of which no humane ſtrength can cut aſunder.

But he ſaith, When I brought this reaſon, I knew not what I did, for it gives witneſſe againſt me. And he argues againſt me by the help of the reaſon which I have produced. I ſaid, if Christ were not God as well as man, he would rather be a party then a Mediator, and he thence diſputes againſt me thus.

If Chriſt the Mediator were God he was a party, but Chriſt the Mediator was not a party, therefore Chriſt the Mediator was not God.

Rep. The Major Propoſition how clear ſoever it is to him, is notſtithſtanding, unſound, and untrue in it ſelf, for there is a twofold Mediator, there is Mediator participationis, and Mediator negationis; a Mediator of participation, and a Mediator of negation, that is, a Mediator, that partakes of both, and a Mediator that partakes of neither. If there be a breach betwixt the father and the mother, and a child comes betwixt and mediates, the child ſtands related alike to both of them, and partakes equally of both of them, and is a Mediator of participation: If there be a breach betwixt two neighbours, and a third neighbour comes in and Mediates, he ſtands in relation to neither of them, nor partakes of either of them, he is a Mediator of negation, neither the one nor the other is any thing to him; neither of theſe Mediators are parties: the latter is not by his own confeſſion, and it is as clear that the former is not, for he is not properly a party that partakes of both, but he that partakes not of both, or at leaſt, not of both alike, but partakes of the one, and not of the other, or partakes more of the one, then of the other; for diſparity of relation in the Mediator to the perſons betwixt whom he mediates, makes the Mediator a party, and not parity and equality. If there ſhould be a difference betwixt two brethren, and a third brother come in betwixt them to mediate and make peace, he is not a party, or if he be, he is a party to both, and a party to both, is in proper manner of ſpeaking a party to neither; but if there be a controverſie between two half brothers, and another comes in to mediate who is a whole brother to one of them, he is rather a party then a Mediator, becauſe he ſtands not in ſo near a relation to the one, as to the other.

The application is eaſie, Chriſt is a Mediator betwixt God and man, not of negation but of participation, for a man he is (without all controverſie betwixt him and me) and in all things like to us, ſinne onely excepted, and if he be a man, then he partakes of man; and partaking of man, he calls men his brethren, Heb. 2. 11, and if he ſhould not partake of God equally, as he doth of man, and ſtand in like relation to God, as he doth to man, he would be a party rather than a Mediator, but being God as well as man, he is no party, but a Mediator, or a middle perſon in a proper acception, not negatively, but relatively, ſtanding in equality of relation without any diſparity; and in this ſenſe, it would be true, (as he ſaith) that if Chriſt were God, he would be a party, if he were not man alſo as well as God, for then then there would be a diſparity, and inequality of relation in Chriſt the Mediator, in reference to the one of the perſons betwixt whom he mediates; he would be more nearly allyed to the one, then to the other, more to God then to man: but as he frames the Argument, if Chriſt the Mediator be God, then he is a party, when as it is manifeſt that he is man alſo, & no nearer related to God, though he be God, then he is to man becauſe he is man: the Major is palpably falſe, & muſt be denied: by that time he hath ſeriouſly conſidered of this, which I have here preſented, I hope he will be forced to confeſſe, that I knew▪ what I did when I brought that reaſon, that Chriſt, if a meer creature, would be a party rather then a Mediator. But he gives an inſtance.

In reconciliation (ſaith he) by a Mediator, we are to ſuppoſe three: One offended, another offending, and a third mediating for peace betwixt them. God was offended, men were offenders, and Chriſt was the Mediator. Now if Chriſt had been a ſinfull man, he had been of the party offending; and and if he had been God, he was the party offended; but Christ was not a Party: From the Propoſition which I have thus confirmed, and the Aſſumption which you have acknowledged, I will draw up this Concluſion, That Chriſt the Mediator is not God.

Rep. In this Inſtance, and in the application of it, there are ſome things that are juſtly liable to exception, and other things manifeſtly falſe: 1. That there be three in reconciliation wil be granted, but that the third muſt be ſo diſtinct as he holds it forth, as not to partake of the other two, is denied: For, a ſon that mediates betwixt father and mother (which may ſomtimes be the caſe) is of the fleſh of both, and yet notwithſtanding is diſtinct from both but not ſo diſtinct as not to partake of both. So in the reconciliation made by Chriſt betwixt God and man, there are three that are diſtinct: 1. There is God offended: 2. There is man, viz. mankind, offending: 3. There is Chriſt mediating, who is neither meerly and only God, nor yet meerly and only man; but is both God and man, yet diſtinct from both God and man: Diſtinct from God becauſe he is man, and diſtinct from man, becauſe he is God. Yea there is yet a further diſtinction; for, Chriſt though he be man, viz. of that kind, for nature and eſſence, which was the offending party, yet not one of thoſe perſons in that kind, that did offend, but without ſin himſelf; and though he be God, and ſo for eſſence and nature one with that party which was offended, and was offended in his own perſon, yet diſtinct in perſonality, or (which is all one) a diſtinct perſon from the Father and the Holy Ghoſt, who more viſibly do manage the offence againſt man. For the Son, though he was offended, together with the Father, and the Holy Ghoſt, yet he appears not proſecuting the offence, but therein he is veiled, and appears only appeaſing the Father that was offended: in both theſe reſpects there are three in this buſineſſe of reconliation.

But he makes mention of three in reconciliation, which in titles and names are the ſame with the three which I have already ſpoken of; viz. God, men, & Chriſt: But when he comes to open and unfold theſe three, he makes the third, which mediates betwixt the other two, to be ſo diſtinct from both of them, as to partake of neither of them: And under this lies couched the poyſon and malignancy of his doctrine; For, as he layes it down, he not only denies the Godhead of Chriſt (which is the doctrine in diſpute betwixt us) but he deſtroyes the Manhood alſo, and overturnes that ſatisfaction, which in the nature of man he gave for man; for his words are theſe, If Chriſt had been a ſinfull man, he had been of the party offending: His deſigne is to ſhew, that he was a diſtinct perſon, & partaked of neither Party betwixt whom he mediated; He was not of the Party offending, for he was not a ſinfull man; He was not the Party offended for he could not be God, becauſe he could not be a Party: Let it be conſidered ſeriouſly what he ſaith, and it will be found to be falſe and dangerous, and reacheth not his own deſigne.

1. Falſe, for was Chriſt therefore not of that Party, becauſe he was without ſin? Was he not a true man in all things like other men, ſin onely excepted? Had he not a true Body and Soule? Was not ſoule and body ſubject to the ſame infirmities and weakneſſes (ſin excepted) as other mens ſoules and bodies were? Was he not the Seed of the Woman which was promiſed? Was he not conceived in the womb of the Virgin, and was fleſh of her fleſh? Was he not Abrahams ſeed, and Davids ſeed? Was not Satan to be broken and deſtroyed in all his ſtrength by one that muſt be of the Woman, that muſt ſpring out of her, and be her ſeed? And ſhould all this be, and yet Chriſt not this Party? He was no offender indeed, but yet he was of that Party which did offend, he had the ſame nature for eſſence: Abraham was of that Party which offended, and ſo was David, and were offenders themſelves, and he was their ſeed, and was of them and from them; therefore it is a great untruth and groſſe miſtake to ſay that he was not of that Party; for he was fleſh of their fleſh, and bone of their bone, but kept by the Holy Ghoſt from that naturall pollution and ſtaine which defiled them.

2. Dangerous; for if Chriſt were not of that party that offended, he could not ſatisfie for that party which offended; for in the ſame nature in which the offence was committed, muſt the ſatisfaction be given; for both the juſtice and truth of God required this. It was threatned that the ſoule, that is the perſon that ſins, ſhall die, and if another ſuffer that penalty, yet it muſt be one in that nature; therefore it is ſaid, he bore our ſins on his own body on the tree: It was neceſſary it ſhould be ſo, els the truth of God would not be fulfilled, nor juſtice ſatisfied. And if Chriſt be not of the off • nding party, if he be another from them, not partaking of them, but be of another nature, and not of theirs, then he might as well have been no man at all, for any fruit or bene • it that accrues to ſinfull man thereby: And Chriſt might as well have taken the nature of Angells, and as much to the benefit of loſt men, as have aſſumed fleſh, if it be not th • fl • ſh and nature of men, that did offend, if he be not of their party, though not ſpotted with their ſin.

3. It reacheth not his own deſigne, which is to make Chriſt a third and diſtinct perſon or party, from thoſe he mediates betwixt, partaking of neither; for he knowes, that if it be confeſſed, that Chriſt partakes of the nature of one of the parties whom he is to make peace betwixt, and not of the other, then he will undeniably be a party inſtead of a Mediator: to avoid therefore this, he holds that he partakes of neither; and yet he makes Chriſt a man notwithſtanding, but not a man of the offending party. But this diſtinction will not help him, for if he be a man, for ſubſtance and eſſence like othem, he is nearer related to them as ſuch, then he is to God, if he be not God; and then he will be a party ſtill, rather then a Mediator. For a party is one that partakes more of the one then of the other.

Laſtly, Suppoſe that to be (which he diſputes againſt) as a thing very abſurd, viz. that Chriſt were of the party offended, and were alſo of the party offending, as in truth and deed Chriſt is, though not in the ſenſe that he underſtands it, yet the conſequence is naught, that he muſt therefore be a party; for a party to both makes him a pa • ty to neither above other, and ſo not a party at all, but an unbyaſſed Mediator betwixt both; by all which, his much weakneſſe, accompanied with much confidence, is manifeſt to the intelligent.

In the next place he conſiders of the Scriptures which I produced, to prove the Mediator to be more then a meer creature, viz. the high God: and firſt,

I made uſe of the title that is given to Chriſt, He is called Immanuel, which is God with us, or God in our nature, Mat. 1. 23. His Anſwer is;

Immanuel was not the name of Chriſt, but a ſignification of his name Jeſus, which (ſaith he) is manifest if we compare the 21, 22, and 23. verſes together. Now the name Jeſus ſignifies not the nature, but the office of Chriſt, as the Angell expounds ver. 21. thou ſhalt call his name Jeſus, for he ſhall ſave his people from their ſins; and ſo Immanuel notes out that certain aid that God would affoord by Jeſus Chriſt to his Church.

Rep. Immanuel and Jeſus are not one and the ſame name, nor have they one and the ſame interpretation? nor doth the name Immanuel interpret the name Jeſus, nor doth Mat. 1. 21. 22, 23. ſhew any ſuch thing: all that can be collected is this, 1. That both the names do belong to Chriſt, he that is Immanuel is alſo Jeſus. 2. That theſe two names do ſo neceſſarily imply one the other, that they cannot be ſeparated, therefore the Prophet (ſpeaking of his birth) ſaith, his name ſhall be called Immanuel, and the Angel, ſpeaking of his birth, ſaith, his name ſhall be called Jeſus, alluding therein to the Prophet, becauſe Chriſt is firſt Immanuel, and afterward Jeſus, and he was Immanuel, that he might be Jeſus, and he could not be Jeſus, unleſſe he were Immanuel; this is the cauſe, and that is the effect, and he that denies him to be Immanuel, denies him to be Jeſus: therefore the Angel ſtiles him by the name, that is, the effect, and then ſends us to conſider of the name, which is the cauſe, which the Prophet gives him.

Now whereas he ſaith, the name Jeſus ſignifies not the nature, but the office of Chriſt, as the Angel expounds it, verſ. 21. This ſhews, that the name Immanuel is not the ſignification of the name Jeſus, for Immanuel doth import not office, but nature, or natures in Chriſt, viz. the divine and humane nature united into one perſon, which other Scriptures make manifeſt, which I have already quoted, in John 1. 14. 1 Tim. 3. 16. and others may be added, Phil. 2. 6. 7. he being in the form of God emptied himſelf and came in the form of a ſervant, and Heb. 2. 16. he took not the nature of Angells, but the ſeed of Abraham, and Col. 3. 9. In him dwelleth all the fullneſſe of the Godhead bodily, ſuch Scriptures as theſe ſerve to interpret the name Immanuel, & do declare that it doth denotate two natures in Chriſt, viz. the divine and humane. For if it ſhould onely import divine help, & aid reached out unto us, then every believer might carry that name as well as Chriſt, becauſe God doth reach out grace and favour, and aſſiſtance to each Saint: But without doubt becauſe there was a breach betwixt God and us through ſin, & we were driven from God, and God became a ſtranger to us, Col. 1. 31. therefore the Lord would give a ſing, as it is expreſſed in Iſa. 7. 14. in Chriſt whom he would ſend, of a reunition and conjunction betwixt himſelf and • s; we ſhall behold God & man united together a • ain in Chriſt, that we may not be faithleſſe but believe, we ſhall know that he will dwell with us; For he ſhall viſibly dwell in Chriſt to our conviction. So that there are two reaſons why Chriſt is called Jmmanuel. 1. Becauſe he is both God and man in one perſon. 2. Becauſe he is the bond of that conjunction, that is to be betwixt God and us; but withall it doth import that reconciliation which he effects as Mediator betwixt God and us, giving himſelf a ranſome that our ſins might be remitted, and we might be accepted again into favour; and if this be the certain aid that he ſpeaks of, which comes by Chriſt to the Church, he is ſo far right, but yet reacheth not the root of the matter; for this aid is from the mightineſſe of his perſon. If God had not united with our nature, our nature could never have united with God: but God came down to us, and in the perſon of Chriſt gave evidence to us that he was God with us.

The next Scripture which he undertakes to anſwer, is 1 Tim. 3. 16. without controverſie great is the mystery of godlineſſe, God was manifeſt in the fleſh.

His anſwer is, Ancient Interpreters (ſaith a learned man) as the Latine, the Syriack, the Arabick, Ambroſe and Auguſtine make this reading to be ſuſpected, for they read not as we do, for thus they read the words, And without controverſie great is the myſtery of godlineſſe, which myſterie was manifeſted in the fleſh.

Rep. It is true, that ſuch a reading is found, but ſaith Beza upon the place, repugnant perpetuo conſenſu omnes Graeci codices, that is, all the Greek copies are with one conſent against it: And a little before he ſaith, vix alius locus eſt in quo omnia redemptionis noſtrae myſteria, vel magnificent ùs vel planiùs explicentur, ut non mirum ſit foedè fuiſſe à diabolo depravatum, that is, There is hardly ſuch an other place to be found, in which all the myſteries of our redemption are unfolded either ſo magnificently or plainly as in this, ſo that it is no wonder if this text have been foully corrupted and depraved by the devill.

But if the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God, be left out, and the article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be put in inſtead of it, and ſo the words run thus, Great is the myſtery of godlineſſe, which is manifeſt, is the fleſh, why doth he not improve this reading to his own purpoſe, and interpret what is meant by the myſtery which is manifeſt in the fleſh, and make the reſt of the words to concurre with it, that he may gain credit to ſuch a reading? Alas he knows very well the following words will not quadrare, they will not correſpond nor ſuit with ſuch a reading.

By the word myſtery there are (who follow this reading) that underſtand the Goſpell, which is called a mystery, but was the Goſpell manifeſted in the fleſh, &c. and received up into glory? certainly it muſt be meant of ſome perſon, that was in fleſh, and was received up to glory; therefore if it be the myſtery that was manifeſted in the fleſh, and received up into glory, it was not the Goſpell, for the Goſpell is the glad tydings of good things in Chriſt; and was the glad tydings of good things in Chriſt manifeſt in the fleſh, and were glad tydings received up into glory? it is abſurd to be aſſerted.

If he underſtand any thing elſe by Myſtery, which was manifeſted in the fleſh then the Goſpell, it muſt be the ſoul of Chriſt, which he ſaith was created before the reſt of the creatures, and which in time took fleſh, and was manifeſted in the fleſh; but was it ſo great a Myſtery for the ſoul to come into the body after the body is formed in the womb? is it not that which is done every hour in the formation of man? doth not the ſoul unite with the body in the generation of all that are born in the world.

And indeed though he grant our reading, yet he brings all to this, for his words are,

It is not denied but that Chriſt was a God, and the Text ſaith but this, a God was manifeſted in the fleſh, that is (ſaith he) appeared viſible amongſt men, when he took unto him a body.

Rep. If Chriſt was a God before he took fleſh, then he was ever a God from the firſt that he was, and that was (by his own conceſſion) before there was any creature created, and conſequently before any actuall Soveraignty was beſtowed upon him; for that could not be before the world had an actuall exiſtence, over which he was to have his actuall Soveraignty, and then it will follow that he was God by nature from all eternity with the Father and the Holy Ghoſt, but this I have diſcuſſed before; that which I ſhall add is this, look what a God Chriſt was, ſuch a God he was in fleſh, but Jehovah he was, the mighty God he was, the great God he was, the true God he was, the everlaſting God he was, God over all bleſſed for ever he was, ſubſiſting in the form or nature of God he was, and equall with God, ſuch a God he was as is abundantly teſtified in Scripture, therefore ſuch a God he was manifeſted in fleſh.

As for Hincmarus his conceipt, that this word God was put into the Text by the Neſtorians, I have him not by me, and I much heed it not, becauſe the very Text it ſelf gives witneſſe to it ſelf, that the word is not added by mans device or fraud, for if it be left out, the reſt of the words are made nonſenſe thereby.

The third and laſt Scripture that I made uſe of to prove Chriſt as Mediator, not to be a meer creature, and nothing elſe, was this.

It is ſaid in Joh. 1. 14. The Word was made Fleſh.

His Anſwer is, The creature that was immediatly made by God, took unto it a body. I find no place (ſaith he) where the fleſh of Chriſt ſignifies any thing more then his body, according to which he died, and is no where taken for the humane nature.

Rep. This conceipt of a creature immediatly made by God, which took unto it a body, hath been at large ſpoken to, and confuted in my former Treatiſe: It hath alſo been the word, that the word Fleſh is taken Synechdochically for humane nature, a part being put for the whole. I find no cauſe to add any thing either to the one or other, but ſhall conſider of the Reaſons which he leaves me to pauſe upon, by which he would prove Chriſt the Mediator to be a meer creature.

Let me oppoſe (ſaith he) your Propoſition with two or three Reaſons.

Rea. 1. Becauſe whole Chriſt is a creature, if ſo, then either a meer creature is Mediator, or Chriſt is not a Mediator.

Rep. The greater part of my former Treatiſe is ſpent in the confuting of this aſſertion, I therefore think it needleſſe to ſpend more time or ſtrength about it, eſpecially ſeeing he refe • res to what he ſaid before, and brings no new ſtrength to it.

Rea. 2. Becauſe a Mediator is not of one, Gal. 3. 20. Now if Chriſt be God, then he is a Mediator of one; for he cannot be a Mediator to himſelf, and there is but one God.

Rep. It is true (as the Apoſtle ſaith) that a Mediator is not of one, that is, not of one Party, for a Mediators work is to make peace; now it is to be alwaies ſuppoſed, that no one is at variance with himſelf, therefore a Mediator is not of one, but of two Parties that diſſent the one from the other, which Parties are God and Man.

But his deduction which he fetcheth from this ſaying is faulty, which is this, If Chriſt be God, then is he a Mediator of one, for he cannot be a Mediator to himſelf, and God is but one: if this were a ſound conſequence, Chriſt would be Mediator to none at all, and the reaſon is this, There are but two Parties diſagreeing, God and man: Now all the Elect in all the world they are reckoned in this account but as one man; Now if Chriſt be man, took their ſeed, then he is of this Party, then he is Mediator to himſelf, and the words may be retorted, A Mediator is not of one; but if Chriſt be man, then he is a Mediator of one, for he cannot be Mediator to himſelf, for all men are but as one, come under one conſideration, and he is among them; if he be a man being of their nature, and true man of their ſeed.

Therefore there muſt be a diſtinction made concerning Chriſt; Chriſt may be conſidered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , either in his nature & perſon, as he is the ſecond in the Trinity, and the eſſentiall Son of God, or in reference to his Office, as he is God in fleſh, and King, Prieſt, and Prophet to the Church, and appointed Dayſman; and if this latter acception, he is not Mediator to himſelf, though he be God, for he is God-man, and ſo differs from himſelf, conſidered nudè, as God, or the ſecond perſon in the Divine Trinity; that which was aſſerted before concerning this man alſo conſidered.

Rea. 3. His third reaſon is the ſame for ſubſtance with the ſecond, Becauſe (ſaith he) Chriſt is a Mediator betwixt God and man, 1 Tim. 2. 5. Now if he were God, he could not be a Mediator betwixt God and men, for he could not be a Mediator to himſelf.

This hath been conſidered in the former reaſon, only there is thus much new in it which deſerves conſideration: Timothy (ſaith he) 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , both of them would have been with the Article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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.

Suitable to this is that which we read in 2 Cor. 5. 21. He made him to be ſin for us, that we might be made the righteouſneſſe of God in him. Here Chriſt is ſpoken of as a ſinner, but it is in the abſtract, to ſhew what a great ſinner he was, and the cauſes hereof are mentioned; 1. God himſelf, viz. the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, this God made Chriſt (conſidered as Mediator and ſurety of the Elect) a ſinner, that is, he accounted him ſo: here is the Efficient à quo, from whom this was, this was God. 2. Here is the materiall cauſe, which is our ſins put on him, and made his, for he had none of his own, it was for us. 3. Here is alſo the formall cauſe, which is in the imputation of our ſins to him; it was for us that he was made, that is, by laying of our iniquities upon him inſtead of us, Iſay 53. 6. 4. Here is the finall cauſe that we might be made the righteouſneſſe of God in him, in which there is, 1. The efficient cauſe, that we might be made (that is) by God, accounted, reckoned by God. 2. There is the materiall cauſe, which is the righteouſneſſe of God, viz. of Chriſt, who is called in this place God, which is put on us, for we have no righteouſneſſe of our own, as Chriſt had no ſinnes of his own. 3. There is the formall cauſe, which is Imputation; we are made, that is, by this righteouſneſs of God put on us; therefore it is ſaid, through him; that is, through the Imputation of this righteouſneſſe of his, which is called the righteouſneſſe of God, or els through him, may be through faith in him.

He alſo makes Chriſt from this text of Rom. 3. 22. to be but an inſtrumentall Agent, in this righteouſneſſe of a believer; I ſuppoſe he draws it from theſe words [by the faith of Jeſus Chriſt] for he will have this particle [by] to refer to the inſtrumentalneſſe of the thing to which it doth belong: And if it were granted him in this, it would but make faith inſtrumentall, and not Chriſt; for it refers to faith, and not to Chriſt; It is not ſaid, By Ieſus Christ, but by the faith of Ieſus Chriſt▪ and Chriſt is mentioned as the object of this faith, which the Apoſtle ſpeaks of as the inſtrument. There is the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, which is called the righteouſneſſe of God, which God looks upon, and hath reſpect to, and for the ſake of which God accounts perſons juſt and righteous: and this righteouſneſſe is therefore reputed the meritorious cauſe of our juſtification; and faith layes hold of this, and is the inſtrument to convey it to us, and to make it ours: So that this text ſerves not his purpoſe, nor doth it at all help him in that aſſertion of his, viz. of Christs instrumentalneſse in agencie in reference to this righteouſneſſe. In the meane time he hath wholly paſſed over in ſilence the text that I alledged to prove my Argument by, without ſpeaking one word in anſwer, according to the manner in which he hath dealt with me formerly.

But he undertakes to ſhew what that is in Chriſt which is imputed to us for righteouſneſſe.

It is (ſaith he) his obedience which was both active and paſſive: The opinion now adayes (ſaith he) is that the active obedience of Chriſt, whereby he did perfectly fulfill the Law, and his paſſive obedience, whereby he did perfectly ſuffer the curſe of the Law, are imputed to us for righteouſneſſe. Now he could not (ſaith he) obey the Law as he was God, nor could he ſuffer the curſe of the Law but as he was man; and ſo that righteouſneſse of Chriſt which was imputed to us was a creature-righteouſneſse.

Rep. It is granted that it is the obedience of Chriſt, both active and paſſive, that is imputed to us for righteouſneſſe: But why he expreſſeth himſelf in ſuch language [the opinion now-adayes is ſuch] as if it were but an opinion, and not the truth of God; as if it were others opinion, not his own opinion: as if it were now-adayes the opinion, not the opinion of former times; and as if onely he made uſe of it againſt me, and to promote his own aſſertion of a meer creature-righteouſneſſe imputed to us, and not that he did believe it (for ſo may any one judge that reads his expreſſion) I cannot conceive why he ſhould ſpeak thus if he be ſound in that point.

What ever his meaning may be in ſuch words, yet ſure I am his inference which he makes therefrom (notwithſtanding the reaſon wherewith he ſeemeth to inforce it) • s not right. He could not obey the Law as God, he could not ſuffer the curſe of the Law but as he was man, therefore his obedience which is imputed for righteouſneſse, was as he was a creature. There is a non ſequitur in it, • f it be put into the form of an Argument it will appear. If Chriſt could neither obey nor ſuffer but as a creature, then the obedience of Chriſt which is imputed for righteouſneſſe, is the obedience of a meer creature, for in that ſenſe he takes it: but the former is true, therefore the later. The conſequence in the major Propoſition is unſound, the reaſon is, becauſe though obedience be imputed for righteouſneſſe, yet not ſimply and meerly becauſe it was obedience, and anſwered the Law, but becauſe it was the obedience of ſuch a perſon who was ſo great and glorious, as that he was not leſſe then God, but very God, yet as God he performed it not, but as he was man; but the Godhead inabled the Manhood thereto, and did put the value, and worth, and rate, and price, upon that ſervice of the Manhood.

Nor do I underſtand how Chriſt (if he had been a meer creature) could have performed a righteouſneſſe that could have been reckoned to another, in as much as it would have been all due, wholely due to God, as from himſelf being a creature, becauſe of that abſolute Soveraignty in God over every creature; Nor doe I know how a meer creature-obedience can be imputed for righteouſneſſe to many millions of creatures, when yet any one of thoſe creatures to whom it is imputed muſt have done as much, and muſt have ſuffered as much in reference to his own tranſgreſſion, as that doing and ſuffering of Chriſt which is imputed to him amounts to, if Chriſt be but a meer creature.

And whereas he ſaith, He could not have obeyed the Law as he was God; I ſay, he could not (being but one) have obeyed the Law for ſo many, if he had not been God. He alſo ſaith, He could not have ſuffered the curſe of the Law but as he was man. But I ſay and ſhall prove it (I hope) before I finiſh this work, that if the had been no more but man, he could not have ſuffered the curſe of the Law for ſo many men.

The concluſion is this, that though a creature obeyed the Law, and a creature ſuffered the curſe of it, yet the perſon that did both the one and other was not a meer creature, but more then a creature; therefore the righteouſneſſe of this perſon was more then a meere creature righteouſneſſe.

But he ſaith, He made haſte to the ſeventh Inſtance; and it appeares he made more haſte then good ſpeed, when he left the maine work behind him undone, when he did out-run the Scripture, wherein the ſtrength of the Inſtance and Argument lay; yet as haſty as he is, though I take a little more leiſure, I doubt not but to overtake him at laſt.

Rep. He conceives me to be a very Novice in the knowledge of the Scripture, elſe he would not have preſented ſuch poor objections, or he hath a mind to cavill at expreſſions, and to contradict if all be not punctually expreſſed, though it be never ſo eaſie to be underſtood. Doth he think me to be ſo ſimple & ignorant of the truth, as that I ſhould underſtand that poſition, None can forgive ſinnes but God, in the greateſt latitude, ſo as to exclude that act of love, and charity, and mercy, and compaſſion, which is due from one man to another, in reference to ſuch perſonall treſpaſſes and offences which are committed mutually by men that converſe with one another, or to exclude miniſteriall Acts of remiſſion of ſinnes, which ſome men (which have received an office from Chriſt, and in ſuch office Authority and Commiſſion from him to remit ſinnes) have power to paſſe? I ſhould in ſo doing have robbed poor ſaint, weak, and feeble Chriſtians of a great part of that ſo lace and comfort which Chriſt hath left them here upon earth: He might therefore have known, that I underſtood the Propoſition in a limited ſenſe; None hath power in himſelf to forgive ſinne but God, none in his own Name can do it, but God: yea, did I not expreſſe my meaning in the words following? It is evident that Chriſt took Authority of forgiving ſin. I do not ſay, that Chriſt had Authority derived to him, but he took it as that which did properly belong to him: he might therefore have ſuffered the major Propoſition to have p • ſſed, and have fallen upon the minor, which at laſt he doth;

His words are theſe.

Now for your Minor, that Chriſt did forgiue ſin. 'Tis true, ſaith he, that Chriſt did forgive ſin, and that he the Son of Man had on earth power to do it, as he himſelf ſpeaks, Mark. 2. 10. But what will this help to bring in the concluſion that Chriſt is God? Doubtleſſe no, becauſe meer creatures (as above) in ſome ſenſe have power to forgive ſinne: if it can be proved that Christ is principall in forgiving, ſomewhat may be done.

Rep. If it can be proved that Chriſt is principall in forgiving, is only ſomething done? is not the whole done? I ſuppoſe there needs no more to be done: I ſhall therefore attempt the proof of that from the very Scripture he conceipts I alluded to, which he mentions, which is Mar. 2. 10. 1. It is evident from the conteſt betwixt Chriſt and the Scribes, they did not charge Chriſt (no not in their hearts) with blaſphemy, as conceiving that Chriſt did not forgive ſins miniſterially, by the authority which he derived from another, for in that ſenſe they would not have ſaid, Who can forgive ſins but God? They would not have made it proper to God to forgive ſins, for they knew that the Prieſts miniſterially did forgive the ſins of the people, that brought their ſacrifices, and the Prophets alſo in the name of God did it, as Nathan did Davids: nay in this ſenſe they could not attribute it to God at al; for God cannot be the Miniſter of any, to pardon ſin in anothers name; therefore they looked upon Chriſt as forgiving ſin in his own name, and by his own proper power, and therefore (conceiving him onely to be a man) they accuſed him of blaſphemy. Now if Chriſt had been onley a man, and had forgiven ſin miniſterially, in the name, and by the authority of the Father, and not in his own name, nor by his own power, why doth he not declare ſo much to them, and tell them that the thing was even ſo as they apprehended, that no man, nor creature hath hath any abſolute independent power in himſelf to forgive ſins, but it is the royall prerogative of God, as they conceived, but their error lay in this, they were miſtaken in him, they conceived of him that he forgave ſins in his own name, and by his own proper power; and he did it not, but it was done by a derived power, and in a miniſteriall way; why was not his way of doing it cleared up to the Scribes by him? when he knew they were right in their thoughts of the thing, onely miſtook his acting, conceiving that he acted what he did not act. But it is apparent that Chriſt doth conteſt with them upon another point, and undertook to prove that he the Son of man (though they looked upon him as a meer man, and nothing more) was yet ſuch an one, that without blaſphemie he might take upon himſelf, as a thing ſuitable to him, and very proper to forgive ſins in that very ſenſe, as they called blaſphemie, that is, in his own name, and by his own power, and authority, without any dependence upon any other, to whom it more properly belonged, as they conceived, in which conteſt with them he aſſerted himſelf to be the God to whom it belongs to pardon ſin: Therefore Chriſt charged them with evill thoughts of him, as it is expreſſed by Matthew in his relating of the ſtory, Matth. 9. 4. not becauſe they imagined that he exerciſed that power which he did not, viz. an abſolute independent power from himſelf, when as he onely exerciſed a delegated power which was derived to him: this was not the cauſe why Chriſt challenged them for thinking evill in their hearts, but becauſe they denied him to have that power which he had, and ſaid he blaſphemed becauſe he aſſumed it, and did ſo appropriate it to God, whom they conceived a ſpirit in heaven, that they denied it to him in fleſh, as he was the Son of man upon earth in a ſtate of exinanition, emptied of his glory. Therefore in Mat. 9. 6. and ſo in Mar. 2. 10. there is a concurrence of the Evangeliſts, that Chriſt to convince them of their error, in reſtraining and ſtraightning him in his power, which they would grant to God, but not to him, ſpeaks theſe words; But that you may know that the Son of man on earth, hath power to forgive ſins; I ſay unto thee, ariſe, &c. If that had not been the Scribes and Phariſees errors, that they granted that to God, which they denied to him, he ſhould rather have uſed other words then thoſe words that he did; and have ſaid rather, that you may know, I do not aſſume that power which you think I do aſſume; for ſuch words as theſe would have ſuited the Tenent of my Antagoniſt better, and the error of the Scribes, had that been their error: But Chriſt conteſts with them about power, and will make them know that he had a power which they would not grant him, but called it blaſphemie, even the very power of God, though he 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.

If Chriſt be a meer creature, then the value of that offering which Chriſt offered, when he offered himſelf to God, is taken away, and the ſatisfaction which Chriſt gave to divine juſtice, is deſtroyed; for if the perſon that dyed were a meer man, and the blood that was ſhed was the blood of a meer man, and not of God as it is called, Acts 20. 28. then how could it ſatisfie for the ſins of many tranſgreſſours? For there is no proportion betwixt one meer man dying for ſin, and many men ſinning and deſerving death each of them for the ſins they have committed. And how an finite juſtice offended ſhould be ſatisfied with a ſacrifice infinite in value, is unconceiveable, and againſt the tenor of the Scripture.

He puts it into this forme.

That doctrine which takes away the value of Chriſts offering, and destroyes the ſatisfaction which he gave to divine juſtice, brings in as it were another Goſpel, &c.

But that doctrine which makes Chriſt a meer creature, doth ſo, therefore

He grants the Major, and anſweres to the proofs of the Minor propoſition, which are preſented in the forme of two Queries, the firſt was,

If Chriſt was a meer creature, then how could he ſatisfie for the ſins of many tranſgreſſours?

To this he makes this reply.

If it pleaſe you to conſider, Rom. 5. 12▪ and ſo forward, you may anſwer your own Querie; or ſee a good reaſon of this which I ſhall now propound.

If Adam were a meer creature, how could his ſin make many tranſgreſſours? If through the offence of one, many be dead, much more the grace of God and the gift by grace by one man Jeſus Chriſt hath abounded unto many. Rom. 5. 15. Chriſt as well as Adam was a common perſon, and therefore the Lord having laid on him the iniquity of us all, and he bearing the curſe of the Law, his members are delivered both from the ſinne and curſe.

Reply, There is nothing in the place which he hath directed me to, viz. Rom. 5. 15. which he hath or can fetch out with all his conſideration that will anſwer my Querie. His asking of an other queſtion will be no anſwer to mine. Adams ſinne might make many tranſgreſſours, upon that account, as no mans righteouſneſſe can render them (being tranſgreſſours) righteous and juſt perſons. 1. All perſons which afterward ſprung from him, were in his loyns at that time when he ſinned, and were parts of him, and conſequently they ſinned in him, and with him, his ſinne was their ſinne, it extended unto them, and they could not but participate of it, as of Levi it is ſaid, that he paid tythes in Abrahams loynes, Heb. 7. 9, 10.

2. Adams ſtate in which he ſtood, when the whole world was in him, was a ſtate of grace and favour with God, from which (if he ſinned) himſelf was to fall and all his poſterity with him; after the manner of ſome perſons that holds an eſtate, upon the good will of their Lord, whom if they offend they are caſt out and all their poſterity with them, for that is the condition upon which it is given to be poſſeſſed, and the children and off-ſpring are in volved in the guilt of ſuch perſons treſpaſſes, whoſe favour is on ſuch termes; God is to be looked upon as ſoveraigne Lord of all creatures, to whom it belongs to ſhew favour to what creatures he will, and upon what termes he will, and under what conditions he pleaſeth, and under what penalties (in caſe of tranſgreſſion) liketh him; therefore it was that he ſet Adam over the works of his hands, entred into a conditionall League and Covenant with him, and did both priviledge him, and reſtrain him, and abridge him therein; and this was done under penalty of dying, both to him and his, in caſe of treſpaſſe, thou ſhalt dye the death (ſaith God) to him. And thus it came, that through the offence of one, many are dead.

3. Sinne was propagated and generated to and in Adams poſterity, after that Adam fell, and loſt Gods image. It is ſaid of him that begat a ſon after his own image, Gen. 5. 3. And ſo all perſons came to be conceived in iniquity, and to be borne in ſin, for out of an unclean thing nothing that is clean can proceed. And ſo it comes to paſſe, that Adams ſinne made many tranſgreſſours; for by propagation all men have ſins of their own (over and above the ſinne of Adam,) imputed to them. Thus the paſſage of ſin and death, from one Adam to all men, appears facile and eaſie; there is no obſtruction in the way, ſoveraignty and holineſſe and juſtice, and truth furthered it, effected it.

But now in reference to Chriſt it cannot be thus aſſerted, that righteouſneſſe paſſeth upon men after this manner. 1. Righteouſneſſe is not propagated at all, but only imputed. 2. It is not by participation, becauſe none are in Chriſts loynes by nature: Chriſt hath no naturall ſeed, that are parts of him. 3. If there be any ſuch relation betwixt Chriſt and men▪ as that Chriſt ſhould be a father to them, and they children to him, that he ſhould be as a ſecond Adam, it is not unto all, but to thoſe only that beleeve and this is alſo meerely through grace, and ſo there may be an imputation of righteouſneſſe from one to many, but it is through grace. Therefore it is ſaid, the grace of God hath abounded by one man unto many: Not unto all men, but to all that receive it, that do beleeve, verſ. 17. 4. being to be imputed through grace, there comes to be an obſtruction to it; juſtice and truth muſt be ſatisfied, before there be any place for grace; and if grace cannot paſſe, the gift of grace which is righteouſneſſe and life to men through Chriſt, cannot paſſe neither. And ſo it appears that the way of ſins paſſing is more ready from one man to many, then the way of righteouſneſſe abounding through one to many. Becauſe of ſatisfaction that muſt interpoſe, that grace may have a free and open paſſage unto many. 5, If it be through ſatisfaction, that muſt interpoſe, before the grace of God, and the gift by grace can by one abound to many; and if firſt the ſins of thoſe many, that grace abounds to, through one, muſt be laid upon that one, that that one might bear the curſe of the Law, that by this means the grace of deliverance (which conſiſts in righteouſneſſe imputed, and in life,) might paſſe over, through that one, and abound to thoſe many, (as he himſelf (though ſomewhat darkely) doth confeſſe) then this one man (through whom grace muſt abound to many) cannot be any one, but ſuch an one who is able to give ſatisfaction for many. And concerning this ſatisfaction the querie is made, how it could be that any one meer man could ſatisfie for the ſinnes of many tranſgreſſours; and the diſproportion is pleaded: No proportion betwixt one meer man dying for ſin, and many men ſinning and deſerving death, each of them for the ſins they have committed. But he makes no anſwer at all unto it, but ſends me to Rom. 5. 15. to anſwer my ſelf, which ſleight proceedings will ſatisfie none but ſuch who are willing to be deluded by him.

The queſtion only will be, what ſatisfaction is neceſſary, that grace may abound to many? Becauſe there be many that conceive that any ſatisfaction will ſerve (to make man capable of grace) which God will accept, and they do not look at proportion. And there are others that hold that no ſatisfaction at all is neceſſary, in reſpect of God, becauſe God having loved the Elect, loves them for ever, and there is no change at all in Gods love, nor is God capable of changing, but is immutable in his nature; and therefore though man ſinned, yet his love was not broken off thereby; nor was there any breach on his part at all, nor did Chriſt dye to ſatisfie him at all; for he was ſatisfied always in his own love, which continued the ſame after man had ſinned as before; for in his love he gave Chriſt after man had tranſgreſſed; therefore the breach was on mans part; he had wronged God, and merited nothing but hatred, and wrath, and all evill, and no love at all; and having an evil and guilty conſcience, he was ſuſpicious of God, and expected no good from him, but feared all evil, and could not conceive how God could love ſuch a creature, or ſhew any grace or favour to him, that had ſinned in ſuch ſort againſt him; and knew not how God could do it without ſatisfaction; Thus unſatisfied was mans conſcience (having ſinned) concerning the finding of any mercy from Gods hands; therefore God gave Chriſt and delivered him up to death, and layed him under the curſe of the Law, not to ſatisfie himſelf thereby, but to ſatisfie mans conſcience, and to give reſt and quiet to it, and that God cared not for a few drops of bloud, but there was a wound in the conſcience of thoſe that had ſinned, that would not be healed but by ſuch a manifeſtation of the Fathers love, as in giving Chriſt, and delivering him up for ſuch, appeared. And ſome ſay Chriſt came to reveal the Fathers councells, and dyed for the confirmation of them. This opinion takes hold of many, and ſpreads and prevailes much; my deſigne is not to make a large diſcourſe in way of anſwer, becauſe it is beſide my preſent undertaking; only becauſe I am neceſſitated (in reply to him) to inſiſt a little on the point of ſatisfaction, and becauſe the point is of great concernment, I ſhall not overſleightly paſſe over it, but ſtay a while in anſwer to both the forementioned Tenents, and ſhall firſt ſhew that ſome ſatisfaction to God is neceſſary, and then declare what it is.

Sol. And firſt I ſhall premiſe ſome things, and afterward lay down ſome poſitions.

That which is to be premiſed, is: 1. That there are no paſſions and affections in God, after the manner of men; there is neither love nor hatred, nor wrath, nor anger, nor joy, nor grief, nor any ſuch by which the mindes and ſpirits of men are moved and diſturbed; for God had all things before him at firſt that ſhould come to paſſe afterward; and if it were good, it was of his own operation; and if it were evill, it was of his own permiſſion and ordering alſo, and that which he could eaſily have prevented. So that it is irrationall to conceive that God ſhould be ſtirred or moved with any thing that comes to paſſe, or that he ſhould be in divers tempers or mindes, or that he ſhould be one thing to day, and an other thing to morrow; this is inconſiſtent to that abſolute bleſſedleſſe of God; therefore though theſe things are ſpoken of God in Scripture, yet they be humanitus dicta, they be attributed to God after the manner of men. And thoſe things that are paſſions and affections in men▪ are attributes and decrees, and counſels, and actions and operations in God; and imply not the leaſt mutation or change in God. As for example, Gods loving of Jacob before he had done good to deſerve ſuch a thing, what was it but Gods goodneſſe and graciouſneſſe; which is an attribute in God, noted in decreeing Iacob to glory, which is called Election; and Gods hatred to Eſau before he had done evill, what was it but his ſoveraignty and abſolute dominion which God hath over the creatures, without being capable to give any account, exerciſed i • app • inting him to perdition and deſtruction 〈◊〉 they are not paſſions and affections in God, but they are acts of the unchangeable will of God, in which the above mentioned properties in God are expreſſed. And Gods wrath and anger is not a paſſion in God, but it is an act of Gods righteouſneſſe and juſtice, by which he repells that which is evill in the creature, and contrary to his own holineſſe, in teſtification of the unſuitableneſſe of it to him, and of that which he juſtly expects from the creature.

2. There is difference to be put betwixt the decree and purpoſe of God, concerning life and glory, in reference to ſuch perſons whom he will glorifie goodneſſe towards, and the way and means by which God will effect it and accompliſh it, which is in advancing holineſſe and righteouſneſſe; in order to which he made the firſt Adam after his image, gave him an holy and righteous nature, writte his will in his heart, and then entred into a Covenant of life and peace, and glory with him upon the obſervation of his will; and threatened death, and all evil, and miſery, upon the violation thereof; and this Covenant was in reference to himſelf, and his poſterity that were in his loyns. This latter is called in Scripture the way of peace and life, Rom. 3. 16, 17. The former is hid in God; for who hath been of his counſell, or who knoweth further then he reveals? and it hath its being in God, and no where elſe. The latter is declared to the creature and it is the creatures capacity of life, or the viſible ſtate of life into which God did put him, and it hath its being in the creature.

3. There is difference to be put betwixt the love of God to the creature, and the amity of God with the creature; or betwixt the decree of grace in electing the creature to life and glory, & the proſecution of the decree in ſuteable and proportionable actings of God toward the creature.

If there be a right diſtinguiſhing betwixt theſe things that thus differ, theſe following propoſitions and concluſions will be better underſtood and more eaſily granted.

1. When ſin was committed againſt God, the love of God was not broken off, nor the councell, purpoſe and thoughts of God, concerning glorifying of ſuch perſons whom he had choſen to life and glory, were not altered, nor changed; for this foundation ſtands ſure, the Lord knoweth who are his, nor is God in this ſence like man that he ſhould repent: Thoſe whom he thus loveth, he loveth to the end, that is, he cannot caſt off whom he hath choſen. For theſe councells of grace concerning theſe perſons being without reſpect either to good or evill in the perſons themſelves, Rom. 9. 11. The good or evill that followed them in ſuch perſons, could neither confirme them nor overturne them; becauſe they ſtand upon this baſis, the immutable and unchangable Will of God, not upon the uncertain and wavering creature; and hence it came to paſſe, that when one means of effecting them, viz mans own righteouſneſſe proved ineffectual, God (to ſhew his firmeneſſe in his Councels) found out other means to accompliſh them by viz. the righteouſneſſe of another, and therefore gave Chriſt, John 3. 16.

2. Though ſinne did not, could not overturn the Decree of life, yet it broke the Covenant of life, and ſo overthrew that viſible ſtate of life in which the elect were, whom God had choſen; and ſo brought them into a dreadfull viſible ſtate of death, though not into a final miſerable ſtate, becauſe of Gods election. Sin altered the ſtate of elect perſons, though it altered not Gods thoughts concerning them; ſo that it might be ſaid, he that was before in the ſtate of ſalvatiō, is now through ſin in the ſtate of condemnation; though it cannot be ſaid that God will (becauſe of ſin) now damn that perſon, whom his thought and purpoſe was to have ſaved, Rom. 3. 11. Deſtruction and miſery is in their paths; and ver. 23. All have ſinned and fallen ſhort of the glory of God and Rom. 5. 12. As by one man ſin entred into the world, and death by ſin, ſo death paſſed over all men, becauſe all had ſinned.

3. Sin having overthrown the Covenant of life and glory, and brought men into the ſtate of death, all hope and expectation of life was (together with it) taken away, and nothing but a fearfull expectation of death and condemnation. It is ſaid of Adam when he had ſinned, that he hid himſelf from God, when God came into the Garden, as one that expected no good from Cod. We read of the condition of the elect, before deliverance, that through fear of death they were all their life ſubject to bondage. This is to be interpretend in reference to their conſciences, which tormented them with the repreſentations of death; but this will be granted, that Chriſt came to ſatisfie the conſcience and quiet, it, but not to ſatisfie God.

4. Though the election of God ſtand ſure, and the ſove of God could not be broken off, yet the amity and friendſhip of God was brought to an end, and wrath was manifeſted inſtead of love, and God inſtead of proſecuting his Decree of life, proſecutes the breach of the Covenant of life, which was violated by ſin; and ratifies the threatning, which was this, thou ſbalt ſurely die; and doth unfold the curſe in it, and open it in ſome part of its latitude, which was ſhut up under theſe generall words, thou ſhalt die, Gen. 3. 16. to 20. And Epheſ. 2. 3. Elect perſon are called Children of wrath, as well as the reprobate; they are in one ſtate till deliverance come. And 1 Theſ. 1. 10. Jeſus is ſaid to deliver us from wrath to come. Now wrath is not a paſſion in God, as I have ſhewed, but it is Gods righteouſneſſe conflicting with, and proſecuting ſinne, viz. the firſt ſin, in the violation of the Covenant of of life, and all after ſins alſo; And ſuch which ſinne, are accurſed, Gal. 3. 10. that being the ſentence of the Law, is the ſentence of God, whoſe the Law is, ſo that God as a Judge proſecuting ſinne on the Lawes behalf, is repreſented unto us.

5. If God muſt be a righteous and juſt God, and faithfull and true God, he muſt be (even he himſelf) the proſecutor of the Elect, notwithſtanding his Decree of life and glory, in which he had comprehended them, wherein his goodnes freely wrought from all eternity towards them; becauſe God had threatned, and muſt not reverſe it, leaſt he ſuffer in his truth, leaſt his word be falſified, which was, that Adam tranſgreſſing his Commandement ſhould ſurely die; and the law ſaith, That that ſoule that ſins ſhall die; His truth therefore binds him to it; God muſt be true and every man a liar, that contradicts him in that which he ſpeaks. And the Apoſtle Paul ſpeaks of ſome perſons, That knew the judgement of God, that they that commit ſuch things are worthy of death; He had mentioned many ſins which men committed, and brings in the knowledge that they had of the demerit of ſuch ſins againſt them, that ſuch ſins were worthy of death; and that it might not be thought that they judged theſe ſins worthy of death, through the working of their conſciences only, the Apoſtle ſhews that they had the knowledge of the judgement of God, and that thence it was that they judged theſe ſins worthy of death. Now the judgement of God is according to righteouſneſſe; therefore Juſtice preſſeth God on to a proſecuting where ever ſin is.

6. Though God, becauſe he hath choſen ſome to life, will not ſuffer them to periſh, but will bring them to life everlaſting, and though he love them ſo well, that to ſave them he will give Chriſt to them and for them, as from John 3. 16. is manifeſt he doth; yet in the giving of Chriſt he will have ſuch reſpect to his juſtice and to his truth, that neither of them may be violated or wronged. Hereto the Apoſtle gives witneſſe, Rom. 3. 25, 26. God hath, ſaith he, ſet forth Chriſt to declare his righteouſneſſe, that he might be juſt, and the juſtifier of them that beleeve in Jeſus. God had regard to both theſe in ſending and ſetting forth Chriſt, that he might juſtifie thoſe that he had choſen, and had brought to faith; and that he might be juſt in ſo doing, becauſe the ſinne that ſuch had commited, or participated in, was worthy of death by Gods owne dome; therefore God minds both, that goodneſs and righteouſneſſe might be exalted together in the ſame Chriſt. So in Gal. 3. 10. 13. God had an eye to his truth; when he gave Chriſt; it was written in the Law, that he that continued not in all things contained there, was accurſed; and becauſe no man did continue in all things written there, that God in the Law might be true, Chriſt (whom Gods electing love gave to the elect) became accurſed for them. Chriſt therefore died not for any ſuch end as to ratifie the doctrine which he had brought from the Father; for by his miracles he gave ſufficient witneſſe thereto, nor is this made the end of Chriſts dying any where in Scripture; but it was to appeaſe God, and to fulfill righteouſneſſe.

7. Gods laying the ſinnes of the Elect upon Chriſt, Iſa. 53. 6. was in order to ſatisfaction to God; It was not only done to aſſure us that in mercy they are taken away from us, that we might not fear, but might poſſeſſe our ſoules in quietneſſe; but it was done to aſſure us that in juſtice and righteouſneſſe they are taken away, and upon ſuch termes, as that God is no loſer, therefore they were laid upon Chriſt when he was upon the tree, 1 Pet. 2. 24. to intimate to us that it was to that end that they were laid upon him, that he might there and then ſatisfie for them; in which regard it is ſaid in Iſa. 53. 5. that he was wounded for our tranſgreſſions, he was bruſed for our iniquities, the chaſtiſement of our peace was upon him; The meaning is, he had wounds and bruiſes by chaſtiſements, which belonged to us, becauſe of our iniquities, by reaſon of which God was wrath with us, that he by enduring and bearing them might make peace for us.

8. It is aſſerted in Scripture that Chriſt ſuffered for us, died for us, Rom. 5. 6. 1 Pet. 3. 18. and in many other places, which muſt not be underſtood finaliter, as if we onely were the end of Chriſts ſufferings, and had onely ſome profit by them; but for us, is as much as in our ſtead; as when David ſaid of Abſolom, would God I had died for thee, that is, in thy ſtead; ſo it is to be underſtood in Rom. 5. 6, 7, 8. Scarcely for a righteous man would one die, that is, ſcarcely in ſtead of him, to deliver him from death; and ſo in application to Chriſt for us, is as much as in his roome, and place, and ſtead, which further appears, becauſe firſt the very evils which were due to us Chriſt endured, as firſt the wrath of God in his ſoule, ſuch which the very damned have in hell, but more intolerable; it is ſaid that his ſoul was heavy unto death, and that on a cold winters day, he did through the meere anguiſh of his ſoule, and while he was conflicting with Gods anger, ſweat drops of water and blood, notwithſtanding all the ſupport he had, which was his fathers immediate ſtroke; for no hand was upon him at this time but Gods; and it was the torment of the mind that had ſuch an influence upon his body, for his body was put to no paine. Now this wrath was upon him, becauſe wrath was due to us, we were children of wrath, Eph. 2. 3. 2. He endured the curſe of the law; and was not the curſe of the law our portion for tranſgreſſion? Col. 3. 10. 3. He ſuffered death; and was not death the wages of our ſinne? The wages of ſinne is death, ſaith the Apoſtle, Rom. 6. 23. Secondly, Chriſt endured the very evils that were due to us, to deliver us from enduring them, as 1 Theſ. 1. 10. He delivereth us from wrath to come; it was by his bearing wrath; and from the curſe he ſaves us, that is by becoming a curſe, Gal. 3. 13. And by death it was that he delivered us from the fear of death, to which we were in bondage, Heb. 2. 15. Now if he ſuffered in ſtead of us, then it was in a ſatisfactory way, becauſe our ſufferings would have been to ſatisfie the law, and Gods juſtice which is in the law; and the damned in hell do ſuffer for that reaſon, to pay that debt to juſtice, which becauſe they can never compleatly do, therefore they do ever ſuffer.

9. Our ſalvation which through Chriſt we partake of, is through redemption, Rom. 3. 24. But redemption in a proper acception, hath ſatisfaction in it; for it may be thus deſcribed, Redemption is a freeing a captive from the hands of him that detains him, by a price given unto him; as when a perſon is taken captive by the Turks, there is a price given to him for the freeing of ſuch a perſon. So it is in the redemption effected by Chriſt, on the behalfe of the Elect; and there are theſe following particulars in it.

1. The captives that are detained in bondage and miſery, theſe are thoſe that were appointed unto glory before the world was, but through ſin are become captives, Rom. 8. 21, 22, 23. Col. 1. 13. Rom. 7. 24, 25.

2. The perſon that detains them in this bondage, this is God; for it is the wrath of God that holds them in it; they are the children of wrath, under the power of wrath, Epheſ. 2. 3. and they are held under it till they be delivered from it, 1 Theſ. 1. 10. Rom. 5. 9. Now wrath relates to God, as the ſubject in whom it is; for it is God that was wronged, therefore he it is that was offended, and is angry, and whoſe wrath burnes like fire, till ſatisfaction be given, and then it is turned away. It is alſo the juſtice and judgment of God that detains them, Rom. 1. 31. The conſcience of the ſinner is brought in by the Apoſtle acknowledging the righteous judgment of God, and ſubſcribing unto this, that they that commit ſuch things are worthy of death. It is alſo the Law that detaines them; for the Law worketh wrath, Rom. 4. 15. that is, the wrath of God is revealed in the Law againſt all unrighteouſneſſe of men, and this worketh diſquietneſſe in the mind; till the Law be ſatisfied, God is not ſatisfied; for the Law is Gods Law, and his righteouſneſſe in it; and till both the Law, and God the Author of it be ſatiſfied, the priſoner the poore captive muſt nec • ſſarily be detained.

3. The enemies and evils under whom and which theſe Priſoners and Captives are detained, Theſe are Satan, death, the infernal pit, ſin. Acts 26. 18. 1 Pet. 1. 18. Col. 1. 13. Heb. 2. 45. Luke 1. 74. and unto theſe was man delivered, viz. unto the power of theſe after he had ſinned in and by that ſentence of God, viz. in the day thou eateſt thereof, thou ſhalt die the death, Gen. 2. 17. And God hath ſoveraign power over all theſe plagues and evils; for though ſome of them be Gods grand enemies, as well as ours, yet they are Gods ſervants as well as his enemies, and they do but hold men while Gods will is they ſhould, Rev. 16. 9. and chap. 19. 10, 15, 14. And indeed there is no reaſon but that Gods proceedings muſt be with men that have finned, as well as Angels that ſinned, till he have ſatisfaction, but he ſpared not the Angels that ſinned, but caſt them down to hell, and delivered them to chains of darkneſſe to be reſerved to judgement, 2 Pet. 2. 4. Therefore it is he that delivers men to death, and to him that hath the power of death, that is the devil, and to hell alſo, and thoſe chains of darkneſſe, there to be reſerved, till either ſatisfaction come, or the laſt doom be paſſed.

4. The perſon that redeems theſe captives from Gods juſt judgement, and from his wrath, and from theſe enemies and evils, and this is Chriſt, Rom. 5. 9. 1 Theſ. 1. 10. Gal. 3. 13. and chap. 4. 4, 5. Luke 1. 69, 70, 71.

5. The price that is given by this Redeemer unto God for his ſatisfaction, This is the life of Chriſt. John 10. 15. And the blood of Chriſt, 1 Pet. 1. 18, 19. Now that this life of Chriſt was laid down, and this blood of Chriſt was ſhed as a price to ranſome the Elect, who were Captives, appears clearly from Mat. 20. 28. and 1 Tim. 2. 6. where it is ſaid, that Chriſt laid down his down his life a ranſome for many, ye • for all the Elect; and the Apoſtle Peter make • a compariſon betwixt this price of Chriſts blood, and a price that is wont to be given for the ranſome of Captives in gold and ſilver, and ſuch corruptible things; and he makes this price of Chriſts blood farre more precious then the other, 1 Pet. 1. 18. 19. And that this price was, given to God, is manifeſt alſo from the ſame place of Peter, where Chriſts blood is compared to the blood of an immaculate Lambe that hath no blemiſh nor ſpot; now ſuch Lambs were treſpaſſe-offerings brought to God, who was the perſon againſt whom the treſpaſſe was committed; and it was for ſatisfaction in reference to ſin committed; and it pointed at Chriſt, who was indeed the Lambe of God that taken away the ſins of all Elect ones in the world, by that ſatisfaction or price which he gave in his own blood. Alſo David in his ſpeech to Saul▪ in 1 Sam. 26. 19. gives witneſſe to this truth, that offerings were brought to God, and that blood was the price of redemption for ſin, given to God: If God have ſtirred thee up againſt me being offended at me, (for that is the meaning of it, let him accept an offering, that is, for ſatisfaction and pacification let him accept it. But more directly and poſitively the Author to the Hebrews ſpeaks to this, Heb. 9. 14. How much more (ſaith he) ſhall the blood of Chriſt, who through the eternal ſpirit, offered himſelf without ſpot to God, purge your conſciences, &c. If then the price of redemption was given to God, God is the perſon that firſtly and principally detains the Elect as Captives in bondage; for he that receives the price is he that holds us in ſuch evil condition, and the redemption is from him, that is from that in him that holds us.

10. The reconciliation which Chriſt effected through his death and blood, was of God to us, as well as of us to God, which appears from Rom. 3, 25. where it is ſaid that God hath ſet Chriſt forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. The ſenſe of the Greek word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is Placamentum, that by which God is appeaſed and pacified, who was angry before, and gives anſwers of peace to his people, when he meets with them, as in Exod. 25. 17, 21, 22. God cauſed a Mercy-ſeat to be made, it is rendred propitiatorium, and is the ſame word with this of the Apoſtle, and he cauſed it to be put upon the Ark, and there he met with the people, and communed with them in a peaceable way and manner; This was this type of Chriſt, this appeaſed God ſacramentally, typically, figuratively; Chriſt properly, really, truly, by his blood, which ſpeaks better things in Gods ears, then the blood of Abel, that cryed for vengeance; this cries for pardon, for peace, for reconciliation; therefore the Apoſtle John ſaith, If any man ſin, we have an Advocate with the Father who is a Propitiation for our ſins, who expiates our ſins by his blood, and ſo appeaſeth God and pacifies him. And by Chriſt it is ſaid that we receive the attonement that is with God, or we have God attoned to us, Rom. 5. 11. for all the offerings of the Old Teſtament were for attonement, and the people offered them to attone him; God did not offer them to attone them or reconcile them; nor did they offer them to ſhow that they were reconciled to God; for they were offered immediately after they had ſinned, and had the ſenſe of their ſinne upon their conſciences, and knew they had angred God; that by offering them in a beleeving way, looking at Chriſt the ſinne-offering (which they ſignified) they might appeaſe him and pacifie him, and ſo might have peace in their owne hearts.

But there are many objections that are framed againſt this great and weighty truth of Chriſts making ſatisfaction for the offences of men to God.

Object. 1. It is aſſerted that there is no ſuch thing read of as ſatisfaction unto God.

Sol. Though the word it ſelf be not to be found in Scripture, yet the ſence of the word is found in many places; that which is equivalent, is found in Matth. 20. 28. and 1 Tim. 2. 6. Chriſt is ſaid to give his life 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a ranſome for many, which words do ſignifie the price of redemption, by way of ſatisfaction, paid for tranſgreſſion, and the guilt of it. And the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt is called in Rom. 5. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which may ſignifie juſt ſatisfaction, in this place moſt properly, though in ſome other places it is taken in other ſences; for there is an oppoſition betwixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the one is ſet againſt the other, the righteouſneſſe or rather righteous ſatisfaction of Chriſt againſt the offence of Adam, and the offence being but one, there is one ſatisfaction, or ſatisfaction at once ſet againſt it; for the words ought to run, as by one offence judgment came upon all men▪ ſo by one juſt ſatisfaction the free gift came upon all men unto juſtification of life.

Obj. 2.

It is aſſerted that there is no ſuch thing that we read of in Scripture as the reconciling of God to men, and that it is repugnant to Gods love in giving Chriſt, that he ſhould give him for that end to reconcile himſelfe to men; for he ſhewed himſelf reconciled to them, in that he gave Chriſt to them.

Sol. We read of God offended, becauſe of ſin; of God threatning man having ſinned; of God expulſing man from the place where himſelf had a little before placed him, in his tender love and care over him; and if his ſetting of Cherubims, and a flaming ſword turning every way, to guard the way to the tree of life, which argued a great breach betwixt God and man, and that not only on mans part, but on Gods part; for theſe were all of them paſſages of diſpleaſure and anger on Gods part; and we read of the whole poſterity of man abiding under wrath, having no other portion but wrath, having the marks of Gods wrath upon them from the womb, Epheſ. 2. 3. and we read of Gods wrath taken away in Chriſt by the ſhedding of his blood; and of the pacification of God towards men through blood, and of his being attoned to men through Chriſt; and what is all this but the reconciling of God to men?

And though love and anger would have beene 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , inconſiſtent together in God, towards the ſame ſubject perſon or object about which they would be converſant, if ſinne had not come betwixt, yet becauſe of ſins intervening, there is no more incongruity to ſay God loved ſuch a creature, and yet is angry with ſuch a creature, then to ſay a father loves ſuch a child, and yet is angry with ſuch a child, becauſe he hath offended him; eſpecially when God is wiſe enough, and knows how to declare his goodneſſe and his righteouſneſſe together, and to proſecute his decree of grace in bringing ſuch perſons to glory, and to proſecute their ſin with wrath, with a curſe, and with death at the ſame time without thwarting with himſelf; nor are love and anger oppoſite to one another, conſidered in a divers reſpect; a father loves his child as his child, yet is angry with him as wanton, as froward, as diſobedient; and God loves the elect as elect, as ſuch whom he freely choſe and ſet his heart upon, and yet is angry with them as breaking his Law, and doing things derogatory to his glory.

Obj. 3.

It is aſſerted that redemption is taken in Scripture many times in a metaphoricall ſenſe, when only power is put forth to deliver perſons from enemies, and an evil ſtate, & no price paid at all; ſo in the deliverance from Egypt, there was power exerciſed againſt Pharaoh and his Realm, by which Iſrael was fetched out from bondage, but no price paid to any, yet it is called redemption in many places, and Moſes a Redeemer, Acts 7. 35. And becauſe this deliverance from Egypt was a type of the ſpiritual deliverance which comes by Chriſt, and Moſes a type of Chriſt in this deliverance, therefore the deliverance which is effected by Chriſt, is not redemption by any price paid to God, but in a metaphorical ſenſe, by power put forth againſt Satan, death, hell, all enemies that detained the Elect.

Sol. Though redemption be taken metaphorically in ſome places of Scriptures, yet it follows not it ſhould be taken ſo in all places; and though external deliverances are many times by power only, and without price, it will not therefore follow that this great ſpiritual and eternal deliverance muſt be a deliverance of the ſame kind; And though this temporal deliverance from Egypt be a type of this ſpiritual by Chriſt from ſin, and death, and hell: yet it follows not that therefore there muſt be a ſimilitude and parity in all things betwixt them; and though Moſes be a type of Chriſt, yet the type reacheth not the perfection of the thing typified; it is clear in the perſon of Moſes compared with the perſon of Chriſt: and it is as clear in the redemption that Moſes effected from God, which was from outward ſervitude and bondage, and that redemption which was wrought by Chriſt, which was from hell and from the devil. There are many diſſimilitudes betwixt the one redemption and the other; and this is one, that there is no price paid in the one but power uſed, but in the other there was both. And to convince of this the better, conſider, the one was without blood, for there needed none; but the other muſt be with blood, for there could be no remiſſion without it, Heb. 9. 22. The one was without the intervening of the Redeemer, in the place and room of the redeemed; Moſes was not to be in bondage, in the room and & place ſtead of thoſe that were by him to be redeemed from bondage; but in this ſpiritual deliverance it muſt be ſo; the Redeemer muſt be in the condition that the redeemed were in; Chriſt muſt come▪ in the room of ſinners, and muſt bear their ſins, and ſuffer their plagues inſtead of them, as hath been proved. And the reaſon of this difference is, becauſe Moſes had not in the redemption of Iſrael, any thing to do with an offended God, who had a controverſie againſt the people whom Moſes was to redeem, and from whom he would have ſatisfaction before he would ſave them; for then in ſuch a caſe againſt the enemy that held them, power would not have been ſufficient for their deliverance, but a price would have been required; but Chriſt in his redemption hath to do with Gods wrath, and anger, and with Gods righteouſneſſe, which were ſhewed and revealed againſt the Elect; for the Elect had ſinned, whom he was to redeem; and God had threatned they ſhould die the death, and they had deſerved it, and God muſt be juſt and true in what he had ſaid; therefore Chriſt muſt firſt prevail with God in the deliverance of this people, before he could exerciſe any power agalnſt the devil, or death, or hell; and this prevailing muſt be by a price paid to ſatisfie for tranſgreſſion; for it could not be by power; God might be appeaſed, but overcome he could not be, as thoſe enemies muſt, whom he was to deliver the Elect from. THis hath all been ſhewed already, and this is it that makes the diſparity betwixt the two deliverances which do typifie one the other.

Object. 4.

It is aſſerted in Scripture that redemption in Scripture is never ſaid to be from God, as it muſt needs be, were any price paid to God, or ſatisfaction given to God; but redemption is ſaid to be from Satan, Acts 26. 18. from death, Heb, 2. 14, 15. from the power of darkneſſe, Col. 1. 13. from our vain converſation, 1 Pet. 1. 18. from iniquity, Tit. 2. 14. yea it is ſo farre from being a redemption from God, that it is a redemption to God, Rev. 14. 4.

Sol. Redemption in Scripture, though it be nowhere ſaid in ſo many words to be from God, yet it is ſaid to be from the wrath of God, from the judgement of God, from the curſe of God; the Laws curſe is Gods curſe, and ſo in a ſenſe redemption is from God, as an enemy and an Avenger; it is from God as a Judge, whoſe office is to ſearch out iniquity, and to paſſe ſentence according to the Law, and hath his officers to attend upon him, to whom he delivers up the ſinner and offender; from God as ſuch an one the redemption of Chriſt is, but not from God in reference to relation, intereſt, communion, fellowſhip, acquaintance, dependance, power, and diſpoſe, &c. for in all theſe reſpects redemption is to God, and not from him.

Though Redemption be from Sin, Satan, the world, death, hell, and all ſuch enemies and evils, yet it is to be underſtood, that it is from theſe only as the leſſe principal cauſes of the detention of Gods Elect in bondage; even as when a perſon is delivered from the Gaole, he is delivered from the Gaoler, & from the daungeon or pit into which he was caſt, and from his bolts, and chains, and from all the noiſomeneſſe, and filthineſſe, and naſtineſſe, that attends that condition; yet theſe are but the leſſe principal cauſes of the evils; he is firſtly and principally delivered from his Creditor and the Judge, that committed him to theſe; So it is in this caſe; God is the principal perſon that detains, and the reſt that are mentioned in Scripture are but his ſervants. The devil is as the officer that receives perſons that are ſentenced of God into his cuſtody; ſin is but as the fetters and cords in which ſuch perſons are held, the world is but as the priſon, and death is but as the torments perſons are put to; but properly we are Gods Captives, and are doomed and ſentenced of God to baniſhment from his preſence, as Cain was, and are delivered up to the power and diſpoſe of the God of this world; For 1. God is the Soveraign Lord, and ſupream Monarch and Judge, and the power primarily belongs to him to caſt body and ſoule into hell. 2. Men are guilty of that which they call crimen laeſae majestatis, or treaſon againſt divine Majeſty; Againſt thee, thee only I have ſinned, ſaid David, therefore worthy to be rejected.

3. Therefore they are by nature children of wrath, The wrath of God is revealed from heaven; Upon thoſe that beleeves not, the wrath of God abides; 4. We ask to be loſed and diſcharged from our ſins, not from Satan, but from God, and to be loſed from the bonds and ſnares of hell and death; therefore primarily we are held in bondage to God, and not to Satan or any other. Hereto agrees the witneſſe of Scripture, God hath ſhut up all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all, Rom. 11. 32. The Scripture, that is God in the Scripture, hath ſhut up all under ſinne, that the promiſe of faith through Ieſus Chriſt might be given unto them that beleeve, Gal. 3. 22. God gave ſome up to vile affections, Rom. 1. 26. and verſe 28. becauſe they liked not to retain God in their thoughts, therefore God gave them up to a reprobate mind, God gave them up to worſhip the Hoſt of Heaven, Acts 7. 42. The Parable of the King that was wrath with him that was unmerciful to his fellow-ſervant, is pertinent to the ſame purpoſe, he delivered him to the tormentors, Matth. 18. 34. And that exhortation of Chriſt, To agree with our adverſary while in the way, leſt the Judge deliver to the officer, &c. Which places do all ſhew that we through ſin are primarily the Captives of God, as a King and Judge offended; and that only ſecondarily we are Captives to the devil and other enemies as to Gods Miniſters and Servants, though enemies, to which we are committed; for without commiſſion and permiſſion we are taught, that the greateſt tyrants can effect nothing againſt Gods Elect; and the very devils themſelves, could not go into the herd of ſwine without leave; therefore the price paid to God to ſatisfie him is the principal thing in redemption.

It is alſo to be underſtood, that theſe two, To be redeemed from God, and to be redeemed to God, will conſiſt very well together; for the captivity of the Elect, is not like the captivation of a perſon taken in war, and detained by the enemy, from whom when he is redeemed, he is totally alienated and ſeparated, and hath no more to do with him: nor is it like the captivation of a perſon, who is violently and unjuſtly detained in the hand of a cruel one, who tyrannizeth over him after the manner of Pharaoh, who laid unjuſtly heavy burdens upon the children of Iſrael, from whom (if he be once freed) he is totally withdrawn from ſuch an one, and divided, never to come into his hands or power any more. But the captivity of the Elect is as when a ſubject for ſome offence againſt his Prince, is delivered into the Serjeants hand, or into ſome other officers cuſtody and power, to be impriſoned, or ſcourged, or puniſhed with death, according to the nature of the offence, unleſſe ſatisfaction be given, and he be releaſed upon that account; ſuch a redemption as this is, viz. of a ſubject from the wrath of his Prince, is not the alienation of the ſubject from his Prince, but the reconciliation of him to his Prince; and the perſon that is redeemed from, is redeemed to man; for theſe do conſiſt well enough together, from the wrath and juſtice of the Prince, to the love and favour of the Prince he is redeemed. And though God offended, doth deliver the Elect to enemies, and not to ſubjects; for the devil is an enemy both to God and to the Elect, and not a ſubject, yet this makes no difference but that the Elects captivation may fitly be reſembled captivation of a ſubject to his own Prince, becauſe God is the Lord of devils, and they as truly ſubject, (though not as willingly ſubject) as any other that are under Gods power.

Object. 5.

It is further aſſerted, that it is God that gave Chriſt to redeem men, and if there be any ſatisfaction given to God by Chriſt, God himſelf is the author of it, and gave it to himſelf; if he gave it to himſelf, he was ſatisfied before, and the price moves him nothing, to releaſe the captive, becauſe it is not from the captive, but from himſelf, and of his own providing; and nothing is added to God by it, for it is but Gods ſatisfying of himſelf. And what a kinde of ſatisfaction is this? In the truth of the thing it is as no ſatisfaction; for if the ſatisfaction muſt come out of himſelf, he is ſatisfied in himſelf, without any ſatisfaction from the captive.

Sol. God muſt be looked upon as one that dearly loves the captivated elect perſons, who had ſinned againſt him, and would not have them periſh; and withall he muſt be looked upon as one that dearly loved juſtice and truth, and cannot ſuffer either of them to be violated; for they are himſelf, as dear to him as himſelf; therefore he provides that Juſtice and Truth, and the life and welfare of ſuch poor captives, may conſiſt together; and becauſe he ſees it impoſſible by any thing that the electcan do, who had offended, becauſe they are without ſtrength, and can make no ſatisfaction for any treſpaſſe, therefore he himſelf in his wiſdome and love to the Elect, and in his love to Juſtice and Truth, findes out a way to ſave them from ruine, and to ſatisfie theſe. And that is by Chriſt, whom he ſends; and this is all his deſigne, and he lookes for no further gain, nor advantage to himſelf, but that his goodneſſe and righteouſneſſe and truth might be glorified together, in the ſalvation of the Elect, that had ſinned; for what ſtandeth God in need of, and what can be given to him for ſatisfaction, which may be added to his ſtore? If his juſtice and truth in reference to his law be maintained, and kept on foot, with his love to thoſe whom he hath choſen, this is more to him then all the earth and the fulneſſe of it; and other ſatisfaction he looks for none. The declaration of his juſtice and truth is ſatisfaction enough, and a motive ſtrong enough to let the captive go free, and this he obtained by the intervention of the death and blood of his Son. What advantage had Zaleucus, who made a law that adulterers ſhould loſe both their eyes, and he to ſatisfie this law, that he might be accounted juſt and impartiall therein, when his ſon (whom he loved had offended by adultery) cauſed one of his ſons eyes, and another of his own, to be put out, ſave only the praiſe of his juſtice and truth in his lawes? and this is that which God grieves at. And if the Judge, loving the priſoner that is before him, and knowing he hath nothing to pay, and yet the law recovers payment, will give his own ſon to be his ſurety, and will lay the debt upon him, and is content that his ſon ſhall fetch the price out of his own treaſure, yet the law is ſatisfied, and the judges righteouſneſſe in reference unto it, and his love to the Priſoner are glorified.

Nor is the ſatisfaction the leſſe, becauſe God the offended perſon procures it, and not man that offended him; for the truth of God ſtands firme by that means, and the law takes place, and is not made of none effect, as it would have been, had no ſatisfaction been given, which would have redounded to Gods diſhonour; Yea, the righteouſneſſe of God and his love to undeſerving creatures ſhines forth, becauſe the ſatisfaction is of Gods own procuring.

And though it proceed from God, yet it cannot be ſaid that God ſatisfies himſelf, or that he was ſatisfied before; for he that provides it, doth not act it, but it is acted in and by an other perſon. The Father ſends the Son, and the Father in the Son receives ſatisfaction; and though the Father and Son be the ſame God, yet they are not the ſame perſon, nor is the ſatisfaction that the Son gives (materially conſidered) given in the divine nature, or God-head, but the Sonne took fleſh, and in that fleſh by dying and ſheding his blood, gave ſatisfaction; ſo that it is from God, but not in God, if we ſpeak of the next and immediate ſubject, which is the man-hood, if the matter of the ſatisfaction be reſpected.

And though it may be ſaid that God was ſatisfied before in reference to his own love to ſuch perſons, he did not repent of it in ſuch ſort as to caſt them off, nor was his purpoſe of glorifying them one whit ſhaken, yet he was not ſatisfied after they had ſinned, and after he had ſentenced them to death, in point of righteouſneſſe and truth, to paſſe by their tranſgreſſion without ſatisfaction; his Law was not ſatisfied in a free forgiveneſſe without ſatisfaction, and ſo God was unſatisfied, becauſe the Law was.

Object. 6.

It is likewiſe aſſerted, that there is an unſatisfied conſcience in men; men having ſinned, cannot diſcerne how Gods heart can be towards them without ſatisfaction; therefore the Scripture ſpeaks of propitiation through Chriſts bloud, and of atonement by his death, condeſcending therein to mans infirmity, which could not otherwiſe apprehend how God could communicate life and glory to men after they had ſinned, without being firſt appeaſed and pacified by Chriſts blood: But if things be rightly conſidered in themſelves, as in truth they are, Chriſt dyed not to reconcile us to God, but to heal us of an evill conſcience, and that we might know that God loved us after we had ſinned, as well as he did before, by the gift of Chriſt, who is the manifeſtation of the Fathers love after the fall which the Elect could not be perſwaded of, but by a pledge of it; Therefore it is ſaid that Chriſt ſhed his bloud to purge our conſcience from dead works, to ſerve the living God, Heb. 9. 14. and not to ſatisfie God.

Sol. It will readily be confeſſed, that it was an end of Chriſts dying, to reconcile men to God, and that they might have the anſwer of a good conſcience before God, 1 Pet. 3. 21. But that this was the ſolitary end, or the principall end, or that ſatisfaction to God is no end, but is wholly excluded, is denyed, and hath been diſproved all along in the diſcourſe upon this ſubject.

1. What need would there have been that Chriſt ſhould have dyed at all, if only ſatisfaction to mens conſciences concerning Gods goodneſſe and love to fallen creatures had been intended therein. For God could beſt have done that by his ſpirit, and muſt yet do it by his ſpirit, if it be ever done in the hearts of men. Indeed God having given Chriſt, and delivered him up to death, the ſpirit repreſents it as a great manifeſtation of the Fathers love, but the ſpirit might have abundantly aſſured the heart of a ſinner of the Fathers love without it, ſo that there was no neceſſity of Chriſts dying in that regard.

2. The love of God repreſented unto men in giving Chriſt, is much leſſened to them in the repreſentation, if Chriſt were only given to ſatisfie their hearts in reference to their fears of God, & not to ſatisfie Gods juſtice; if there were no need of Chriſt, in reference to any danger they were in, in regard of God, if God could or would have pardoned ſin without him, and his juſtice and truth could have remitted it.

3. It is derogatorie to Gods wiſdome and love to aſſert that Chriſt was delivered up to be crucified upon the croſſe, and there to ſhed his blood principally for this end, to cure mans panique fears and his groundleſſe, cauſeles ſuſpicions of God, and not from any neceſſity that there was in mans evill condition, in regard of ſin committed by him, and of Gods righteouſneſſe and truth proſecuting it againſt him. For God might have done this in an eaſier way, and have ſpared his dear Son. God is repreſented prodigall of his dear Sons bloud, if he muſt die and bleed out his ſpirits, to cure ſome falſe conceits that men have entertained of God.

4. What need was there that the Son ſhould come in fleſh, and ſhould empty himſelf of his glory, and that he that is the Lord of glory ſhould be crucified, if no ſatisfaction to divine juſtice was looked at, but only the ſatisfaction of the conſcience? the bloud of God (as it is called) would not have been neceſſary, but the bloud of a meer creature Chriſt, would have ſerved the turne for ſuch a purpoſe, had that been all.

5. How came thoſe fears in the heart of man after the fall, after ſinne committed? What bred them? was there no ground for them? were they meer conceipts and jealouſies that wanted a right bottom? did not the threatning before ſinne was committed, cauſe the horrours and terrours that were in the ſoul after ſinne was committed? and if they had Gods threatning as the ground of them, viz. in the day thou eateſt thereof, thou ſhalt dye the death, were they not well grounded? and was it poſſible that theſe fears ſhould be cured by the bloud of Chriſt, and the cauſe not removed by the bloud of Chriſt, the threatning not taken away, the truth of God and his righteouſnes not fulfilled and ſatisfied, which were in the threatning and which bred the feares?

6. Theſe fears and terrors of the Elect, before Chriſts bloud be brought to their hearts to remove them, are they not of the ſame nature with the horrours of the reprobate in hell? And if ſo, are not both the one and the other that wrath of God which God poures into the ſoul becauſe of ſinne which he proſecutes againſt men? are they not puniſhments for ſin from God? is not Gods righteouſneſſe therein revealed againſt ſin, & the truth of God in the threatning fulfilled, which did reach to both Elect and Reprobate? And if ſo, how can God remove them from the Elect through Chriſt, without ſatisfaction given by Chriſt, and yet ſuffer them to lie upon the Reprobate, without palpable unrighteouſneſſe and untruth, when the threatning, viz. Thou ſhalt dye the death, extended to all mankinde in Adams loynes without exception?

7. How may Scripture come to be eluded, and the ſtrength and force of it infringed in all other caſes, if plain pregnant places of it may be evaded after this manner, as when it is ſaid, God hath ſet forth Chriſt to be a propitiation, that is, to be one that appeaſeth God, Rom. 3. 25. and by Chriſt we have received the attonement; Rom. 5. 11. that is, we have received God attoned to us; for all the offerings in the Law were to attone God to men that had ſinned, if ſuch an anſwer may be taken and may paſſe: God doth in theſe expreſſions condeſcend to mans infirmity, who thinks God to be angry, and had need to be appeaſed and reconciled; how eaſie would it be to wreſt and pervert all Scripture? By this that hath been repreſented, it appears that ſome ſatisfaction to God is neceſſary to be given by Chriſt, and the contrary doctrine is dangerous and deſperate, and overthrows our juſtification; for if God be not ſatisfied for our ſins, they are not pardoned, and we are yet in our ſins; and this doctrine that thus oppugnes Chriſts ſatisfaction, doth deny Chriſt to have bought us; for if he payed not any price to God for us, I am ſure he paid none to the divel, nor to any other enemy; for he conquered them by force and power and might, and paid not any price to them; therefore it utterly overthrows Chriſts purchaſe of the Elect; and yet (which is much to be lamented) this doctrine ſpreads very much and corrupts very many.

Q. 2. The ſecond thing that I promiſed to ſpeak to, is this, that ſeeing ſome ſatisfaction muſt be given to God, in reference to a treſpaſſe committed, and an offence taken, and a threatning given out upon ſuppoſition, and afterward inflicted upon the perpetration of ſuch an evill, what ſatisfaction it is that is neceſſarie: whether any ſatisfaction will ſerve, or whether it muſt be a proportionable ſatisfaction.

Sol. 1. It cannot be denyed but that God is the ſoveraigne Lord over all, and hath none above him to appoint him, or to enjoyne him, to give rules and laws to him, how he ought to walk towards the creature; none can limit or reſtraine him, or ſet bounds unto him; but his will (which is always holy and juſt and good) is the rule that he acts by; and he doth whatſoever pleaſeth him, Pſ. 115. 3. & further then he ſets bounds to himſelf, he cannot be bound up to any thing, or by any one; and further then he reſtrains and limits himſelf, he cannot be reſtrained and limited by any other. Therefore he might at the firſt (if it had pleaſed him) have pardoned ſin without ſatisfaction; or he might have accounted that for ſatisfactiō, which himſelf would accept for ſatisfaction, be it more or leſſe; and ſo the blood of bulls and goats might have ſatisfied as well as the blood of a man, and the blood of a meer man (ſuch as my Antagoniſt would have Chriſt to be) as well as the blood of Chriſt who is God and man; but this comes not home to the point; for we are to conſider what ſatisfaction is now neceſſary, & not what might at firſt have been accepted of.

2. Satisfaction that will now be admitted of and accepted, is ſatisfaction according to the Law, that holds proportion to it; for the Law is Gods Law, which flowed from Gods righteouſneſſe and holineſſe, and in which, and to which, God hath limited himſelf, and bound up himſelf, ſo that God muſt deny his own Law, and his own Truth, righteouſneſſe and holineſſe that is in it, if he do in the leaſt kind wave that ſatisfaction that it requires. Now the law to Adam (which compriſeth all his poſterity) was, Thou ſhalt not eat, &c. for if thou do eat, thou ſhalt ſurely dye; & that ſoul that ſins, ſhall dye; and curſed is every one that continues not in all things written in the Law, to do the ſame. Therefore the ſatisfaction could not have been leſſe then death, or leſſe then the curſe of the Law, what ever that evil is that is underſtood by death, or by the curſe.

3. What ever that evill is that reprobated, perſons doe or ſhall endure, upon whom the curſe of the law is laid, and the death threatned, lighteth becauſe they were in Adams loynes, when he fell under the threatning of death, and becauſe they continued not in all things written in the Law, and ſo incurred the curſe; I ſay what ever the anguiſh, torture and torment is, either in mind or body, which ſuch perſons paſs, or muſt paſs, abide, or muſtabide under at preſent, or hereafter, the like puniſhment in all degrees, without any abatement, have the Elect merited and deſerved, being in the ſame ſtate and condition with the Reprobate, being equally in the loynes of Adam with him, and not abiding any more then he did in all things written in the Law; and if there be deliverance for the Elect, and the Law in the death and curſe of it be not laid, nor doth light upon them, but ſatisfaction is made in Chriſt for them, then it muſt be a proportionable ſatisfaction that muſt be given to God, in reference to which God doth remit ſuch pains of hell, ſuch everlaſting deſtruction and perdition, and doth releaſe the Elect from them; that is, Chriſt muſt ſuffer the whole, and the full, of that which either any, or all the Elect have deſerved and from which they are acquitted and diſcharged in Chriſt; Chriſt muſt ſatisfie as far as the guilt of all and every of the Elect extends to, which is as great as the light of the Reprobate, and ſo Chriſts ſufferings in one kind or other, muſt be equivalent to the eternal damnation of all the Elect, from which they are diſcharged by his ſufferings, equivalent unto thoſe exquiſite torments which the damned in hell do, or ſhal ſuffer, which the Elect had merited as well as they.

The conſequence of this, is, that Chriſts ſufferings were not the ſufferings of a meer man; for had Chriſt been but a meer man, his ſufferings for all the Elect could not have been proportionable to their guilt & demerit. For the righteous God (which without reſpect of perſons, had laid all men under the ſame curſe and wrath, becauſe of the ſame ſin and guilt, which without difference, all were under) could not ſave by Chriſt without tranſmitting that curſe and wrath which was due to all and every of the Elect to Chriſt and if Chriſt had been but a meer man, then there would have been need of ſo many Chriſts to have ſuffered and endured as there are Elect perſons; and every one of theſe Chriſts muſt have ſuffered hel, viz. the torments of hell as well as death, and then they muſt have ſuffered ever alſo, without any end, and yet could not have juſtified the Elect, becauſe while they ſhould be ſuffering till that be ended, God could not be ſatisfied; and if God could not be ſatisfied, the Elect could not be juſtified and diſcharged, and ſo to all eternity the Elect could not be acquitted; and this appears in Chriſt, if he had ſuffered and had never got through his ſuffering we had never been ſaved; if he had dyed, and had never riſen, we had never riſen to life and glory.

And this is that which I preſented, in that Argument or Inſtance (as he calls it) of mine, viz. that the ſatisfaction which Chriſt gave to Gods juſtice is deſtroyed, if Chriſt be but a meer man and not God; for how could the blood of aman ſatisfie for the ſins of many tranſgreſſours, whereas there is no proportion betwixt one meer man dying for ſin, and many men ſinning and deſerving death, each of them for the ſins they have committed?

He grants the Major propoſition, but denies the minor, and complains for want of proof, in theſe words.

What? Muſt we again take your word for a proof? I wiſh a better, for there is no goodneſs in that; we have been too long troubled with the word (I ſay) inſteed of proof, &c.

Repl. This anſwer is much altered, it hath fallen under correction ſince it was firſt pteſented to me in the manuſcript; there was profane ſcurrility in it; wherein he ſhewed the tincture of his ſpirit: but I complained to one of his dear friends, who was too highly conceited of him, who gave him an Item of it, and ſo the words came to be changed, though there be harſhneſs enough without any juſt cauſe for it. His expreſſions did run thus.

We have already been troubled enough with the Prophet I ſay: Wherein he firſt breaks his reſt upon me. 2. He doth it in a profane way, abuſing that Evangelical Prophet Iſaiah, which abbreviated is written Iſay, whoſe perſon and name deſerve reverence, becauſe the honour of becoming the Pen-man of the holy Ghoſt was put upon him. Nor was there occaſion given him to ſport thus with the Prophets name, for I know not that any ſuch words can be found in my writing, as [I ſay] no nor yet the ſenſe of them; for I have not nakedly delivered any thing but there hath been either Scripture or Argument to inforce it; and in this very inſtance, viz. If Chriſt be a meer creature, then the interceſſion of Chriſt is overthrown; there is a reaſon to inforce it, which was thus; Becauſe a meer man being in heaven, could not know the ſtate of the Churches in all places upon earth, and therefore could not intercede according to the condition and neceſſity of the Churches: And though this reaſon was not confirmed with another, (which it ſeems he expected it ſhould have bin) yet it was not becauſe there was no good reaſon to be rendred, but becauſe I was in great ſtraits of time when I thought of, and wrote out that paper of Scripture and Arguments, and had not liberty to enlarge upon any thing, having not three hours to conſider of the thing; and becauſe I intended them to fall under the conſideration of more candid perſons; and becauſe I thought what I preſented, might eaſily be maintained from Scripture, if there ſhould be any conteſt.

Nor hath he invalidated the proof I brought for the ſtrengthning of this Argument, notwithſtanding his complaint of want of proof. Let it be conſidered what he ſaith.

What (ſaith he) have you learned to meaſure the knowledge of him who hath received the ſpirit without meaſure? Cannot he as man know in heaven what things are done on earth? Who told you ſo?

Inſt. 11. If Christ be a meer creature, then Prayer to him (being now in heaven) is altogether vain and frivolous, in as much as perſons may cry aloud long enough before Christ hear them at that distance; but the Saints have bin wont not onely to pray to God in Christs name, but to pray to Christ directly and immediately; in Acts 7. 57. Rev. 22. 20. Lord Jeſus receive my ſpirit. Come Lord Jeſus.

His anſwer is,

By the rule of the Goſpel we are to pray to God, or the Father, in the name of Christ Jeſus; you have nothing to countenance prayer to Chriſt but the two Texts you mention: If Stephen did pray directly to Jeſus Chriſt, his act might be warranted by the viſible appearance of Jeſus Chriſt, as Lot prayed to the Angel being viſible. That in Revelation is no prayer, but an intimation of the Churches deſire after Chriſt's coming: the like manner of ſpeaking we have Rev. 6. 16. which is no prayer.

Repl. Here is a bundle of concluſions, and monſtrous untruths packed up together. 1. He ſaith, By the rule of the Goſpel we are to pray to God, or the Father, in the name of Jeſus Chriſt, which being taken excluſively (as he muſt needs underſtand it, elſe he ſpeaks at randome, and not to the thing) viz. that prayer to Chriſt is againſt the rule of the Goſpel, is very falſe; and herein he condems the generation of Gods children, and Stephen more eſpecially, who prayed to God the Son; for every Text of Scripture that enjoyns prayer to God, enjoyns it to the whole Trinity, to Father, Son, and Spirit, and not to the Father only; becauſe there is no God but he, who is one in Eſſence, and three in perſons, as hath been proved before. And let him ſhew that rule that enjoyns prayer to God, viz. the Father, excluding the Son and the holy Ghoſt, if he can; and if he cannot, let him bluſh for ſhame becauſe he hath aſſerted it; and he hath offended here againſt the generation of the ſaints, who have been wont to pray to God in the perſon of the Son, not excluding the Father and the Spirit. Stephen is an example of ſuch a practiſe, and many more beſides him; in Act. 7. 59. They ſtoned Stephen, calling upon God and ſaying, Lord Jeſus receive my ſpirit. It was the ſecond perſon, the Son who took fleſh, and is God in fleſh, that was called upon, and prayed unto, and muſt he be made a Tranſgreſſor?

But he ſaith, I have nothing to countenance prayer to Chriſt but theſe two Texts which I mention, this of Stephen, and that other of John. But this is as groſs an untruth as the former, yea more palpable to all mens eyes then the former, for in 1 Cor. 1. 2. all ſaints are deſcribed to be ſuch who call upon the name of the Lord Jeſus. And the Apoſtle Paul prayed familiarly to Chriſt, in 2 Cor. 12. 8, 9. For this I beſought the Lord; what Lord was this? It was the Lord Chriſt: How may that appear? From the anſwer that he received, and the uſe he made of it; the anſwer was, My grace is ſufficient for thee, My power is made perfect in weakneſs: the uſe that he makes of it is this, moſt gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Chriſt may reſt upon me. The power that is made perfect in weakneſs, is the power of Chriſt. And in 2 Theſ. 2. 16, 17. Now the Lord Jeſus Chriſt himſelf, and God, even our Father, comfort your hearts, &c. The Apoſtle if he pray to the Father, he prays to the Son alſo, for he joyns them both together, and gives Chriſt in this place, herein the preheminence, that he mentions Chriſt before the Father in this prayer.

But he excepts againſt theſe two examples of Stephen and John; firſt he makes a queſtion of it, whether Stephen did pray directly to Chriſt or not; for he expreſſeth himſelf with an (if) as if he doubted; but to doubt in plain things is fooliſhneſs, and to ſtumble where there is no ſtone to ſtumble at, is perverſneſs. It will be granted (I hope) that he prayed to him to whom he ſpake; but he ſpake to Chriſt; and the words in the Greek make it clear, They ſtoned Stephen, calling upon and ſaying, Lord Jeſus receive my ſpirit; there is none other mentioned but the Lord Jeſus upon whom he called, and to whom he ſaid, receive my ſpirit; and he warrants it by Chriſts viſible appearance, as Lots prayer unto the Angels being viſible; but what viſible appearance was there when Paul prayed to Chriſt in the forementioned places? or when all the Saints prayed to Chriſt, as the Apoſtle intimates the practiſe to be in the primitive times? what ſight had they firſt of Chriſt before they prayed? did Chriſt appear viſibly to every one of them firſt? what a groundleſs conceit is this, and how far from truth? beſides, what did ſuch a viſible ſight advantage him, when he ſaw him in heaven; for unleſs it were in a viſion that he ſaw him, it was in heaven that he ſaw him; and if ſo, the diſtance was as great as if he had not ſeen him, therefore it could not be bottomed upon that ground; for Chriſt was never a whit the more preſent becauſe Stephen ſaw him: And ſo the example of Lots praying to the Angel is no whit ſutable, becauſe the Angel was not onely viſible, but preſent.

But what doth he mean by bringing in ſuch an inſtance of Lots praying to an Angel? will he ſet on foot the doctrine of invocation upon ſaints and Angels by it? If he would do it, that inſtance which he brings of Lot, will not help, him at all, it was neither of the two Angels that Lot prayed to, that he received into his houſe and lodged, but the third Angel before whom Abraham ſtood, who was now come to the other two, and this was Jehovah in the perſon of the Son, who often appeared as an Angel, which appeareth from, Gen. 19. ver. 17. When they had brought them forth abroad, he ſaid eſcape for thy life; that is when the two Angels which came firſt to Lot had brought Lot, and his wife and daughters out, he ſaid, that is, netiher of the two Angels, for they are mentioned joyntly all along, and neither of them ſingled out from the other, but it was the third Angel, or Jehovah (as he is called) that appeared now to Lot, and this was he to whom he prayed. This appears further from ver. 22. 23, 24. I can do nothing ſaith this Angel to whom Lot prayed, till thou come thither and afterward it is ſaid, the Lord rained &c. in the Hebrew Jehovah rained &c. from Jehovah, the Son from the Father: It was he that rained fire and brimſtone that ſaid before to Lot, in anſwer to his prayer, I have accepted thee in this thing; haſte thee thither, for I can do nothing till thou come thither: and this is called Jehovah, and it is ſaid he rained from Jehovah. So that he is groſly miſtaken in this alſo, about Lots praying to a creature Angel, by which he would prove it warrantable to pray to a creature Chriſt, but puts it upon the viſibleneſs of him, when yet this Angel was not only viſible, but preſent; and Jehovah in the perſon of a man.

He alſo excepts againſt John's prayer, he ſaith it was an intimation of the Churches deſire after Chriſts coming, but no prayers, and he quotes Rev. 6. 16. as a parallel place where ſuch expreſſions are uſed, yet no prayer: But there is a different reaſon when one ſpeaks, to irrationall things, which have no underſtanding, nor knowledge, and which are not capeable of a prayer, and when ſpeech is directed to perſons that are capable thereof: had thoſe words been ſpoken to God, let the mountains and the hills fall on us, they would have been an imprecation, which is one kind of prayer. And whereas he ſaith, if is but an intimation of deſire, and no prayer, he ſhewes himſelf ignorant of the nature of prayer; for what is prayer, but an intimation of the deſire of a perſon, to one that is able to anſwer him in it. And what are thoſe expreſſions of the Apoſtles, in their Epiſtles to the Churches, but prayers for them & yet they are intimations of the Apoſtles deſires; Grace be with you, and Peace from God the Father, and from Jeſus Chriſt our Lord. And the Grace of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt; the love of God the Father &c, and Grace be with you, and Peace from him that is, was, and which is to come, and from Jeſus Chriſt &c. 1 Cor. 1. 3. 2 Cor. 13. 14. 2 John. 2. Rev. 1 4, 5.

But he goes on and tells me,

I cannot (ſaith he) but looke on that as vain and frivolous, which you ſet up as the wals and bulworkes of your Argument, viz if Chriſt wer • but a meer creature, being in heaven, we might cry loud and long enough before he could hear us.

I would only aſk you this queſtion, whether Chriſt could not hear as far as Stephen could ſee? Stephen could ſee from earth to heaven, though he was but a man, what will hinder the man Chriſt from hearing as far?

Repl. I would alſo demand of him, and ask a queſtion or two, and if he anſwer me, he may anſwer himſelf. 1. Whether can any man on earth, and whether could Adam in his inocency hear as far as he can ſee? or whether ſuch a thing be poſſible in nature? whether the care be not ſlower in diſcerning its obiect, then the ey is in diſcerning its obiect? 2. Whether Stephen ſaw Chriſt by the ſtrength of his own natural ey ſight? if ſo, why did not all the reſt ſee Chriſt as well as he? if not, then he was ſtrengthned to ſee that which he ſaw, and ſo it was no leſs then wonderfull, that he ſaw Chriſt; God, by the greatneſs of his power made Stephen to ſee Chriſt; and ſo it may be granted that God by the exceeding greatneſs of his power, might inable the man Chriſt, or Chriſt according to his manhood to hear Stephen, but then it is a thing above nature, and ſo it comes to this, that Chriſt as man is not able but is only capable of being made able, and prayer to Chriſt is not to be bottomed upon that. 3. Whether it was the voice that Stephen uttered that was the cauſe of Chriſts hearing Stephen? or whether if there had been no voice, Chriſt could not have heard the voice of the heart, the motions of it, the cry of it? if Chriſt could notwithſtanding have heard, as is apparent from other Scriptures, then it was not the eare of the body, or the fleſhly eare with which Chriſt heard Stephen, but it was by that vaſt boundleſs knowledge, which Chriſt had, as the Son of God, and as God, and by which the diſciples told him that he knew all things: and then the compariſon which he makes betwixt Chriſt and Stephen, the one's ſeeing, and the other's hearing, might have been ſpared, for the things are not alike in which the compariſon was made. And this ſhewes the abſurdity of his imagination, viz. that the knowledge that Chriſt hath, being in heaven, of the prayers that are made on earth to him, by the hearing of the eare.

But I ſhall conſider what anſwers he gives to the laſt arguemnt, or inſtance, which is this.

He attemps according to his manner, to put this argument into forme, but fouly miſtakes himſelf therein, for it comes miſhapen from him, he cannot reduce it to moode and figure; either he was never Maſter of that Art, and ſo attempts things out of his Element, or elſe he hath greatly forgot himſelf, for it is no Syllogiſme as he hath ſhapen it. I ſhall firſt preſent it to the Reader, and then ſhew how it ought to have been formed.

That Doctrine which makes a meer creature the Judge of the world, is againſt the Scripture, Gen. 18. 15. Rom. 2. 5, 6.

But Chriſt is the Judge of the world, Therefore

That Doctrine that makes Chriſt a meer creature is againſt the ſcripture, Thus he.

That this argument is beſide rule, appeares by this; becauſe every regular Sylogiſme hath but three terms in it, viz. the Subject, the Predicate, and the Medium, but this Sylogiſme of his, hath 4 termes in it.

Therefore it is plaine that the Sylogiſme is falſe, and it ought to have been thus formed,

That Doctrine which makes a meer creature the judge of the world, is againſt the Scripture,

But that Doctrine which makes Chriſt a meer creature, is a Doctrine that makes a meer creature the judge of the world, Therefore,

That Doctrine that makes Chriſt a meer creature is againſt the Scripture.

I thought good to preſent this errour of his to the Readers view, becauſe my paper being never intended for him, was in a plaine facile way penned, that it might be the better conceived of by ſuch to whom I preſented it, who underſtood not rules of diſputing; but he puts all into a ſcholaſtique forme, and would not incounter with me in that plain way of arguing, with this deſigne (as he pretended) to make my weakneſs the more obvious, but ſure I am whether my weakneſs be obvious or not, his over ſight (that I ſay no worſe) is obvious in tranſgreſſing the rules of arguing which yet himſelf chuſeth, as pretending to have skill in them.

And whereas he anſwers to both propoſitions, his labour might have been ſpared, in reference to the Minor propoſition, which is undoubtedly true, as appears from the ſyllogiſme rightly framed; for who can deny but that doctrine which makes Chriſt a meer creature, makes a meer creature judge of the world?

The Major Propoſition can therefore only be denyed by him, and indeed he doth deny it. 1. By propoſing of examples of creatures who ſhall judge the world. 2. By diſtinguiſhing betwixt the ſupreme judge of the worrd, and a delegate Judge; and grants the propoſition to be true, only in reference to the principal or ſupreme Judge, but aſſerts it to be falſe of the delegate Judge. And this he doth with a great deal of confuſion, for I rather repreſent what he would ſay, then what he doth ſay.

Firſt he tels us of the Apoſtles. That they ſhall ſit upon twelve Thrones, judging tbe twelve Tribes of Iſrael, Mat. 19. 28. and then he tells us of the ſaints, that they ſhall judge the world, 1 Cor. 6. 2, 3. and then tells me, that doubtleſs I had not this text of Corinths when I brought this Argument in my thoughts.

Repl. Whether I had this text of the Corinths in my mind in that very moment when I penned down this Argument, I am not able to ſay; but I would not have him to be conceited as if he had brought ſome new and ſtrange thing to my knowledge, which before I underſtood not, as his words do import, which are theſe; What will you ſay if I ſhall ſhew you from the Word that the Apoſtles ſhall be Judges at the laſt day, and that the Saints ſhall judg the World? Alas, alas, that man that ſhall be non-pluſs'd with the ſhewing of ſuch a thing as this, is but poorly learned in Chriſtianity.

It is eaſily anſwered, that though the Apoſtles and Saints ſhall judg the world, &c. yet they are no where called the Judges of the World: And their judging is Catacherſtically, and very improperly ſo called. The Apoſtles more eſpecially are ſaid to judg the twelve Tribes, or the World, becauſe as Paul ſpeaks, all ſhall be judged according to their Goſpel, Rom. 2. 16. and both Apoſtles and Angels do judg the World, as Aſſeſſores, as Peter Martyr ſaith, Chriſtus Apoſtolos & Sanctos omnes cooptavit aſſeſſores; They ſit after the manner of Juſtices of the Peace upon the Bench, and hear all, and allow of all, and approve of all, and allow of all, and conſent to all, and are Witneſſes of Chriſts righteous proceedings, and in no other ſence can they be ſaid to judg; and what hath he gained by this? and what doth his new diſcovery, which he thought I never thought of, amount to?

His diſtinction is to better purpoſe which he brings afterward, of principal Judg, and Deligate or Deputy Judg; and yet it will not mar my Market, as he imagines; his words are.

In a ſence it is true, no creature can be Judg but God, that is principal in Government, God being both the Alpha and Omega of it, deriving his power from none, being the Original of all power.

And afterward he lays down two Propoſitions.

1. That the moſt high God, who is the Worlds principal Judg, will not immediately, but by a Delegate, judg the World, Acts 17. 31. John 5. 22. 1 Cor. 15. 28.

2. That Jeſus Chriſt is ſubordinate Judg, in reference unto God the ſupream Judg, but ſuperintendent in reference to the Saints, Act. 10. 42. & 3. 20. Mat. 16. 27. Joh. 5. 27.

Rep. One diſtinction which hath been often given, and is ordinary and familiar with Chriſtians, of no vaſt knowledg, will ſatisfie the Propoſitions, and anſwer all the Scriptures, and reconcile all ſeeming differences. The moſt high God, who as Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, in each perſon, is the Worlds principal Judg, and every perſon not excluding the other is ſo. And Chriſt, as he is the ſecond Perſon in the Godhead, as he is the Son, and as he is equal with the Father, is the Worlds principal Judg, conſidered a part from the fleſh, which he hath now aſſumed, the Father and the Holy Ghoſt not excluded. And this I prove from Scripture, Gen. 18. 26. The Perſon before whom Abraham ſtood was Chriſt, the ſecon • Perſon in the Trinity, not incarnate at that time; and he is calle • Iehovah, and Abraham calls him the Iudg of all the Earth: And in Gen. 19. 24. he acted as a Judg; he Jehovah the Son, rained fire and brimſtone upon Sodom from Jehovah his Father. And in Iſai. 45. 22, 23. Chriſt calls himſelf God, and ſaith, there is none elſe; and ſaith, that every knee ſhall bow to him, that is, in the day of Judgment, as the Apoſtle (an Expoſitor without exception) holds forth in Rom. 14. 10, 11. But Chriſt as conſidered in fleſh, being found in faſhion as a man, as he is Mediator betwixt God and man, being both God and man in one Perſon, is deſigned and ordained by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt to judg the world in righteouſneſs, as from Act. 17. 31. he proves. And ſo the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt judg no man, but have committed all Judgment to the Son in fleſh, Ioh. 5. 22. and in the Son in fleſh they judg, and this Power and Honour hath he received as Mediator in fleſh; but when all enemies are ſubdued and judged, then he ſhall deliver up this Kingdom and Power, and Glory to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, the one true God, who ſhall be all in all, and the Son himſelf according to the fleſh ſhall be ſubject. And in this ſence as Mediator in fleſh, he may be called a delegate Judg; for that the humane Nature of Chriſt ſhould be taken up into the fellowſhip of this Glory with the eternal Son, this was by ordination. As the Son in fleſh had been humbled, ſo the fleſh with the Son muſt be exalted to this Glory, Phil. 2. 9, 10. And the Glory which Chriſt hath as Mediator, is founded upon Chriſts ſonſhip in this reſpect as Judg, as in all other reſpects, & indeed in any other reſpect but as the Son, he is not capable of being Judg; for though whole Chriſt be Judg, yet the natural right to it, and ability to perform it, is as he is the Son; and that the whole in both Natures is Judg, is of grace, And can any rational man think, that Chriſt a meer man ſhould be able to judg the ſecrets of men, if he were not God as wel as man; ſo that that honor to judg as Mediator, is given to him in fleſh, as declarative of that eſſential Power and Glory which he had as Son with the Father and Spirit from Eternity, that all might honour the Son with the equal honour as the Father is honoured.

And whereas he ſaith, That the Father is principal in Judgment, and is the Alpha and Omega of it, alluding to the place where the Father is ſo called, why ſhould not the Son be principal in Judgment with the Father, being the Alpha and Omega of it, ſeeing he alſo is ſo called in Scripture.

Thus I have followed him in all his Evaſions and ſhifts, and have unmasked his Anſwers, and plucked off the fair Vizard that he had put upon them, and have diſcovered the deceit, and found fraud, and falſhood that was hid under them. And I have vindicated the reſt of the Scriptures that I alledged from his corrupt Interpretations that he put upon them, and have confirmed the Arguments which I produced, and they now abide in their ſtrength, and have removed and taken out of the way that which troubled their Teſtimony, which they brought to the Godhead of Chriſt, that they could not be heard, by reaſon of the noiſe that his Anſwers made in mens ears.

Let it be conſidered from firſt to laſt, what a poor, weak feeble, baſe, mean, contemptible, diſpiſeable Chriſt, Saviour, Mediator, Interceſſor he makes this great God and our Lord Jeſus to be; and what a penurious, defective lame, and beggerly righteouſneſs and ſatisfaction he brings unto us for our ſupport and how ſhamefully and reproachfully he ſtrips him, robs him of the Honour and Glory in all things that is due unto him: The worſhip which he muſt have, can but amount to Reverence, which is only due to one, that hath the meer honour to come in the name of another, which is all he grants to Chriſt; for he denies him to be the ultimate object of worſhip, and there is no intermediate object of worſhip which is not founded in the ultimate or laſt object: and all that come in Gods name, Moſes and all the Prophets ſhare with him upon that account in this reverence. And he cannot be the object of faith at all, according to him, but a medium or mean by which we come to believe • n him who is the object or end; and ſuch is the wtitten Word of God and all the publiſhers of it, mediums or means by which we come to believe on God; and herein Chriſt is become like one of them. This is an humbling of him with a witneſs: and he is but an inſtrumental Saviour whoſe vertue is in an other according to him, as there have bin many ſince the beginning of the world, and ſtill are; the beaſts which were ſacrificed, and the Prieſts who ſacrificed them, were inſtrumental ſaviours; and now the Goſpel, and the Preachers thereof are inſtrumental ſaviours, and Gods appointment and aſſiſtance (which he ſaith Chriſt had) might have made them (as he muſt needs grant) as effectual as he; thus he levels Chriſt & brings him down from his height to be like to other things, which are fellow inſtruments with him. And ſo he makes Chriſt to be a meer mediator by aſſiſtance, but impotent in himſelf; for ſaith he, what work ſoever you can inſtance in belonging to Chriſts mediatorſhip of himſelf he was not able to perform it, unleſs by the aſſiſtance of another and ſo he was a compleat Mediator; and ſo might Moſes or any other man be: and thus he is made weak and feeble like one of us, not having the leaſt ſufficiency of himſelf, but a capacity to partake of Gods ſufficiency, which alſo may be predicated of any other perſon, they may not ſay they are able to do all things that God will call them forth to, through Gods ſtrengthning them; and he makes Chriſt to be but an inſtrumental Agent in that righteouſneſs by which believers are juſtified: an inſtrumental Agent alſo in forgiving ſins; he doth but act about theſe things, is not the Author of them: and herein other men have the ſame priviledge. He himſelf tels us that it is the priviledge of ſome men to forgive all ſins in reference to the curſe of the Law, and he quotes Joh. 20. 23. which is to be underſtood in a declarative way, and Chriſt hath no greater honour then this. The ſatisfaction alſo of Chriſt is rather ſatiſfaction of grace, as he preſents it, then ſatisfaction of juſtice; it is ſatisfaction without any proportion to the offence. As he lays it down he doth in effect bring in God ſpeaking of it, as the Apoſtle brings in God ſpeaking of mercy, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and ſo he, I wil be ſatisfied wi • h what I wil be ſatisfied with, whether it be proportionable or not without reſpect to juſtice. And his ability to intercede according to the condition and neceſſity of the Church, is not from himſelf nor in himſelf, but from a communication of power from the Father. And for judging he doth it in an inſtrumental way and hath all ſaints copartners with him in the work, ſharing in the like honor only he is ſuperintendent in it, which belongs rather to order then to power.

1. The cauſes of Errours are many, by which meanes it comes to paſs that many are leavened with them.

1. There are many Apoſtate Chriſtians who have put away a good conſcience, and concerning faith they have made ſhipwrack of it, as the Apoſtle ſpeaketh 1 Tim. 1. 19. and in Gods juſt Judgement it comes to paſs, many times, that theſe have a Spirit of errour let loſe upon them; and theſe, as the falſe Prophets and falſe Apoſtles of old, go about as ſeducers, and deceivers, and ſay that they have dreamed, and they have received a word from the Lord, and they utter lyes and falſehoods in the name of the Lord; theſe have a dextrous way of inſinuation, to ingratiate themſelves among the people, and to ſteale away their hearts from their ſound and powerful Paſtors and Teachers, as the falſe Apoſtles bewitched the people, and alienated their affections from the Apoſtles of Chriſt. Theſe ſerve not the Lord Jeſus (as the Apoſtle Paul ſpeaketh Rom. 16. 17.) but their own bellies and for filthy lucre ſake, make merchandize of the ſouls of the poore people.

2. There are many perſons of great parts and gifts, and of unſanctified hearts and ſpirits: theſe are apt to be puffed up with pride, and to fall into the ſnare and condemnation of the divel. 1. Tim. 3. 6. Theſe are ambitious of glory, and would fall under obſervation for ſingularity; Theſe are ſeldom wiſe to ſobriety: theſe have bin wont to abound in notions and conceptions, & to be greatly extravagant therein; and Satan hath commiſſion given unto him to enter into them, & to work effectually in them, and by them, & they become notable inſtruments in his hands, and he is a lying ſpirit in their hearts, and tongues, and theſe have the art and skill of putting off corrupt and adulterate Doctrine, as if it had Gods touch and ſtamp upon it, & by the ſharpneſs and acuteneſs of the parts and wits of theſe, ſimple and more unwary Chriſtians come to be beguiled.

3. Many of the people are weake and injudicious, and have not a good root of knowledge in them, they do not know things in the reaſons and cauſes of them; but have received the notion of the truth without the ground of it; they have not a deep inſight, but a ſuperficiall knowledge onely; and have ſeen the out ſide, but know not the miſtery within; and ſo it comes that with every wind of Doctrine they are ſhaken, Eph. 4. 14. through the ſlight of men and cunning craftineſs: for it is eaſy to preſent things with another face, while perſons look not after that which is within, and the fraud and falſhood comes not to be diſcerned, for the net and the ſnare is not in ſight, and that which is ſpecious is only preſented.

4. Many perſons are ambitious after knowledge that they may increaſe it, and are wholy given (as the Athenians to underſtand news, ſo they) to underſtand Doctrine, & to arrive at higher notions and conceptions, nor for the honour of God, nor in affection to the truth, but to furniſh themſelves unto diſcourſe and to increaſe their repute, and ſo they become ſwift in hearing, and quick in receiving, any new Doctrine, and God gives them up to ſtrong deluſions that they may believe lyes. 2 Theſ. 2. 10 &c. who neither ſeek nor receive the truth in the love of it, that they may be ſaved, but that they may be praiſed.

5. Perſons that have a real inplantation into Chriſt, and thoſe that have onely a viſible and formal inplantation, but want a true ingraftment, they live together, not only in the world but in the Church of Chriſt alſo, and are under ſome droppings and waterings of external enjoyments, and have a name to live and yet are truly dead; and the honour and praiſe of thoſe that are ſaints indeed are put upon them. Now God that diſcernes betwixt the ſheep and the goats, and ſeperates betwixt them, and he alſo who unmaskes hypocrites, and pluckes the vizard off from them, he that can diſtinguiſh betwixt the natural complexion in his own people, and the paintings of others who pretend to him, but are none of his, he in his providence brings an houre of temptation both upon the one and other, he tryes them both with the wind of falſe Doctrine, and hereſie, and for this end he doth it, that they which are approved may be • e manifeſt, and that the hypocriſie of the reſt may be made detected; that himſelf may have glory in his own, and that the others may ly under ſhame. 1 Cor. 11. 19. And the Apoſtle John ſaith they went out from us, becauſe they were not of us; which is appliable to falſe Doctrine, and error, and hereſie; they left the truth, and thoſe that adhered to it, and they went out after error.

6 Many perſons forſake, or never put themſelves in to that order which Chriſt hath appointed for Saints to walk in, in which they might be watched over, and ſo kept, by which meanes they are in a ſtate, as ſheep without ſhepheards, and when the Wolfe commeth they become a prey; for the ſhep are not able through weakneſs and ſimplicity to defend themſelves, if there be no ſhepheard to provide for their ſafety: and poor weak well meaning Chriſtians are leſs able; ſheep will fly from danger though that doth not ſave • hem alwayes, but Saints many times miſtruſt no evill, and ſo decline not the danger.