Answ.

I do believe also with the Catholike Church, that there is One, and but one most high God, Creator of all things, and first cause of all things pertaining to our Salvation; He is the first principall, the most universall, and as the Phrase of that burned is, Primordiatissi­ma causa Ludov. a Dola, p. 1. c. 2. de concursu Dei cum Creaturis. Of all the Creatures, and of all things pertaining to our Salvation:

In the next words taken in your sense begins the difference, your consequence is inconsequent; for this first cause, is not only the ultimate object of our faith and worship, if they be understood, as they should be properly, but he is the onely object of those di­vine acts, which cannot without dishonour to the great God be exhibited to any creature, how high and glorious soever he be, if he be compared with other creatures, for we have this infallible dire­ction from the mouth of truth it self, affirmatively thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, there negatively no creature, for him onely shalt thou serve, Matth. 4.10.

Your assertion that this God is none but the first person of the holy Trinity is against the faith; for Father Son and holy Ghost, are not three Principles, but one onely, one Creator, one God August. tit. 5, de Trinitate cap. 14 and to restrain Creation to one of the sa­cred Persons, as the principal cause thereof, is opposite to the holy Scriptures: 'tis excellently said in the eleventh Synod of Toledo, These three are one thing in nature, not in person; nor can the Persons be separated one from another; none of them subsists or works before another, none after another, none without the o­other; for they are inseparable in that which they are, and in that which they work; they which [...]ave the same individual essence, which is the formal reason of external actions, as the Schoolman speaks, have one and the same operation. Yet I deny not, there is a difference, as in the order of subsisting, so likewise of working. Scotus and his followers do speak harshly, yet is their sense ortho­doxal, the Father hath primariam authoritatem causandi, the Son of God and the Holy Ghost have subauthoritatem in causando, not meaning thereby any imperfection or dependency on the Father; they expound themselves that the Father hath the formal reason of working from himself, not from any other, but the Son hath the very self same Principle of working not from himself, but from his Father, Rada B. of Aragon, part 2. Cont. Scotiam Controv. 1. and although sometimes mention is made of three causes of divine works, yet are they in truth but one cause, and in a diverse respect is called so­litary in regard of the perfection and vertue of working, and a so­ciat cause in regard of union and communion of persons, and be­cause one holy person cannot be without the other, neither can it work without the other, and yet in a sense, the Father is called the first of these causes, quasi inchoans, the Son the second as con­tinuing [Page 69]it, and the Holy Ghost the third, as it were consumma­ting it, or the third person may be called the next cause, the se­cond the middle cause, not in regard of power to work, as the Ad­versaries plead, but in regard of the manner and order of working, and the first cause may be called the originall cause, Bisterfeld con­tra Crellium.

We will now consider, whether there is any validity or worth in your proofs.

Ans.

This holy Text of S John is placed by the Adversary, and by Crellius in the forefront, and looked upon by them as an invinci­ble Argument, but without good reason, as I will demonstrate, the strength of the Objection lies in these words, The Father is the one­ly true God, and therefore neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost are the true God.

1. To this an answer is shaped by some eminent Divines by deni­al, for these words, the only true God, as many ancient and late wri­ters do attest are referred not onely to the Father, but to the Son also, as if they had run thus, The Father and the Son are the only true God, and this is as they say, the Logicall order of the words, of this Judgement are these ancient Fathers, Ambrose, Cyril, Chrysostome, and Austine cited by Bellarmine, lib. 1. de Christo, cap. 17. S. Chry­sostome alledgeth a parallel Scripture, as he thinketh to illustrate the Meaning of that Sacred Text, 1. Corinthians chap. 9. v. 6. [Page 70] or I onely and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working, where the word onely doth not exclude Barnabas, but include him rather, and our learned Junius in three places at least, both in his second and third books of the defence of the Trinity, and in his annota­tions on the forequoted place of Bellarmine is positive for this ex­position, and faith, that if the words be narrowly viewed, they will hold forth that sense, the article [...] (saith he) evinceth it) for he is also the true God, 1 John 5.20. if this exposition holds true, then is this text so far from disproving, that it strongly proves the Deity of our blessed Saviour.

Secondly I answer, if (onely) be applyed to the Father in this holy Text, suppose it had run thus, onely the Father is the true God, yet doth not that attribution exclude the Son and the Holy Ghost, from being the true God: it is a rule in Logick, exclusiva particula subjecti non excludit concomitantia, or inclusa, id est, neces­sary accidents connexed, and necessary consequents, it is not sim­ply exclusive, but secundum quid, that is, it excludes not the Son and holy Ghost from being the true God, but all that are out of the Father sc, which are not true gods, so that all false gods which have been, are, or shall hereafter be devised are opposed to the true God, and some of our adversaries are forced to make use of this an­swer, saying, when the Scriptures say onely, the Lord God is im­mortall, wise, these speeches do not exclude others from being wise and immortall, but that God is onely immortall and wise of him­self, so Volkelius and Schlichtingius, see Placeus lib. 2. Disput. 20. Christus est verus Deus. Now this title onely God, is attributed to the Father, in regard of order, and that gracious dispensation, which by consent of all three persons was vouchsafed for our salva­tion, and therefore it is not said, 'tis life eternal to know thee to be God, but the onely true God, (and verily Christ is no idol god) to evidence that the gods of the Gentiles, are not truly but falsely called gods. If the adversaries Collection was good, Christ should be the onely true God, see Esa. 45.56 18.21. meant of him, when I say, the Sun onely enlightens the world, are the beams thereof excluded? no, onely such things are excluded, which are not naturally annexed to the Sun: now the Son and the Holy Ghost have the same individuall nature with the first person of the Holy Trinity.

Thirdly, observe it well, which is the most commonly received [Page 71]answer and clear in the Text, if the words had been an entire Axiome of themselves, as they are not, the Father is the onely true God, that exclusio non est ex parte suppositi, sed appositi, Hales de Trinit. q. 65. monitio. 3 artic. &c. then there is fallacia compositionis, and the word, onely, is not confined to the subject. The Father; it is not onely said, the Father is the true God. The Article is [...] shews it pertains to the predicate, the Father is the onely true God, and the sense is, that they may know thee to be that God, which alone is the true God, and the onely true God is not a proper predicate, but common to three, and this is a difference to be insisted on, the Father is the onely true God; therefore the Son is not the onely true God, I deny the Inference, for the Sonne also is the onely true God, and the Holy Ghost is the onely true God, and the reason is convincing, because all the three persons have one and the same singular Godhead, and by consequence e­very one of them is the onely true God, as if I should say, this Plant is that onely true Acorus of Dioscorides. This Gold is the only true native Gold; and so in other examples, when the totum is si­mile, not excluding other individuals of the same kind, but those which are diverse from it.

I will communicate to the Reader the Exposition of Gaspar Eras­mus, Brockmand lib. de Deo Filio cap. 2. qu. 1. which he believes may be naturally given out of the Text, it is plain (saith he) in what sense Christ calls the Father the onely true God. Our Lord lifts up his eyes to heaven, and calls him Father, which presupposeth he hath a son, by the phrase then he teaching the Father to be the on­ly true God, implyeth that he hath a Son, Omnipotent, Eternal, and which had glory with him, before the Creation of the world, v. 5. so that the very naming of God to be the true God, doth vertually infer the Son also to be true God, and take away the deity of the Son, and you have destroyed the definition of the Father: an e­ternall Father must of necessity have a Son, which is eternall, in this sense also is Jesus Christ, called our onely Saviour, which surely excludes not the Father from being our Saviour, and yet might the Socinians conclude this latter, as well as the former.

This Text being thus cleared up, the Inferences will easily be an­swered.

1. Infer. Christ (say you) setting down the persons necessarily to be known, if we look for eternal life, mentions not the Holy [Page 72]Ghost, and were he God, the knowledge of him would be as ne­cessary as of the Father.

To this I do answer, First that you do well to desert your Rabbins, which do assert without mentioning of the knowledge of Gods na­ture, that obedience to Gods Commandements, and believing his promises, are the two parts of Christian Religion, and that in this Text, John 17.3. is not meant so much the knowledge of his be­ing, as of his will; see Thornbeck, lib. 1. de script. & Religione cap. 9. Sect. 2.

Secondly, nor can this Text well stand with the Principles of So­cinianisme, which do willingly yield salvation to the Heathens, which conformed their lives according to the rules of their reason, in honouring a Deity, as well as they could, yea and to the holy ones in the old Testament without Christ, which utterly over­throweth the necessity of the Christian Religion, time was then and yet is, when this knowledge was not necessary.

Thirdly, I grant this assertion is true, without the know­ledge of God and Christ, men of years cannot ordinarily be saved, but the Holy Text saith not, that a man knowing the Father and the Son, without knowledge of any other person may attain salva­tion. These are necessary, but not onely these, a man must know himself to be in a damnable condition, which is not here expressed, and without which knowledge he cannot know God and Christ, viz. practically, which is here required, it cannot be proved, that all persons needfull to be known should be mentioned in every Text.

Fourthly, I adde, it is very strange, that the Adversary having ascribed so much to the Holy Ghost, as he hath done, especially in the sixh Article, and third Argument against the Trinity, confes­sing him to be one of the persons of the holy Trinity, and fre­quently mentioned in Gods word, should not be the object of sa­ving faith, and that he should assert the knowledge of him not to be necessary to salvation, being our enlightner and our guide, seeing the Creed commonly called the Apostles, is with an unanimous consent approved by the Socinians, as they would have the world believe, as Jonas Schlichtingius, professeth in the name of the Polo­nian Churches and names knowledge, as antecedent, and saith of the Trinity, naming God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

Fiftly, I adde more clearly, albeit the holy Ghost is not mention­ed here, yet is he not excluded, the reason is, because he is not out [Page 73]of the Father, and the Sonne of God, as false and Idol gods are but in regard of the unity of the divine Nature, he is both in the first and second person in an admirable manner, 1 Cor. 12.3. the Father is called God, and Christ Lord, the Holy Ghost is included implicitly, as in the old Testament, the faithfull implicitly, though not explicitly called on the Father in the name of Christ, Iohn 16.24. for as ex parte subjecti, knowledge is onely na­med, which is the primary and universall root of all saving know­ledge, yet is not every knowledge sufficient, but that which is af­fective knowledge and practical, not onely in the head, but in the heart and life, as holy habits, repentance for sinnes committed, hea­venly mindednesse, a holy and humble walking with God, are ne­cessary to attain salvation: so also ex parte objecti, for as the know­ledge of our Mediatour and peace-maker is added to the knowledge of God, because we can have no accesse to the Father, but by him, nor can he be savingly known without the Sonne, no more can the Father and the Son be known without the guidance, illumination, and sanctification of the Holy Ghost.

Whereas you say, if the Holy Ghost was God, to know him was as necessary, as to know God the Father. I deny this Inference to be generally and at all times true. Christ speaks of the know­ledge which he was pleased to reveal before his passion and Ascensi­on; many things were reserved to be fully known by the pouring out of the Holy Ghost. Christ prayes here as a Priest not yet entred into the Sanctuary; so that it was not needfull to make expresse mention of the Holy Ghost; for in that state Christ manifested not the holy Ghost, but the holy Ghost rather manifest [...]d Christ unlesse I go away, the Comforter will not come; now was the time that the Son should be glorified; Iohn 8.16 but the time of the spirits witness was not yet come, Iohn 7.39 and consequently, that he should be in a speciall manner glorified.

Answ.

The Adversary saith, Christ is Gods chief Son, which in a good sense is undoubtedly true, though not in the meaning intended by [...]im: he is the naturall Son of God, and thus is he not the chief, but the onely Son of God, he is also the Son of God by the grace of hypostaticall union, as he is the Son of man, propinquity of speech will not permit us to say, that a Father which hath an onely [Page 107]Son, as God the Father hath but one natural Son, that that Son is his chief Son, albeit in a latitude it is said of him Cant. 5. that he is the chief of ten thousand.

M. Biddle, addes that Christ is the second cause of all things pertain­ing to our salvation, this in his sense is absolutely denyed; we deny not an order in the working of the Trinity, in which respect and not in regard of a different power of working, the Father may be said to be the first cause, as the beginner, the Son the second cause, as the continuer of the action, and the Holy Ghost the next or third cause consummating it, yet all of them are truly but one solitary cause in regard of perfection and power of working, but social in regard of union and communion, because one cannot be, or work without the rest. Bisterfield against Crettius: but I deny that the Father is the principal efficient cause, as it is opposed to the lesse principal, whether it be instrumentall or ministeriall, as some distin­guish, for the lesse principal requires these conditions. 1. That it be under a superiour Agent by which it is ordered and directed, and the second is, that it hath a proper causality and influence into the effects of the first cause, for otherwise it is not an efficient cause. 3. That the causality be dependent and inferiour as a second cause, for the first being is essentially, and quidditatively more perfect then the second: the distinction of first and second cause takes place in God, who is the first cause, & causa causarum, and the creatures which in respect of God are the second causes, but God the Father is not the first cause properly, and Christ the second cause, whether he be considered simply as God, or relatively, as the naturall Son of God, and if we speak of his Mediatory works, wrought for our salvation, the Principle whence their merit and vertue of satisfaction ariseth, is absolutely, the Divine Essence which is one and the same in all the three Persons, and thus are the Per­sons co-ordinate in this work, as those magnificent titles import, that he is [...] the Authour of Eternal Salvation, Heb. 5.9. the Prince and Saviour [...], and how could he pour out the holy Spirit, as he said he would do in effect, John 15.26. and 16.14. were he not the most high God? though he be sub­ordinated to God in respect of the humane nature, as the same man, may be a King and a Duke: thus were our English Kings, when we had Normandy in France, co-ordinate to the French King, as he was a King, and sub-ordinate to him, as he was a Duke of a French [Page 108]Province: the Divine Persons having one and the self-same Es­sence, are not three causes, but one supreme cause of every essen­tial work produced by them, yet with a distinction of the personal order of working, which is answerable to the order of subsisting. The Father, as he is of himself, so doth he work from himself, and from no other immdiately by the Son, the Son from the Father, and both Father and Son by the Holy Ghost, not as by an instru­ment, a subordinate of, or second cause of the work, but as by a Divine Person, which hath the same infinite Essence, Wisdome, Power, and other Perfections with the first and second Person, the works, as they are divine, are by the works of Jehova, of God, as they are attributed to this or that Person in regard of the speciall manner or order of working, so they are not ascribed to others, that as by the equall application of the works to the three persons, we may collect the Unity of the Divine Essence, so by the distinct order and manner of working we may observe the diversity of the Divine Persons.

The Adversary saith, that the Son of God is the intermediate object of Faith and Worship ambiguously spoken, this should have been explicated and cleared up, how Christ, who in his opinion a meere creature can be the object of these Religious Acts, especi­ally since he cannot be ignorant what sharp conflicts there have bin amongst themselves touching this subject, as Franciscus, Davidis, Budnius, Christianus Franker, and others, which do determine, that it is flat idolatry to pray unto Christ with Religious Worship, for as they say well, this honour is most properly due to the most high God, and thus they strongly reason, as great as the distance is be­twixt the Creatour and the Creature, so great ought that difference to be betwixt that honour which is exhibited to the Creatour and to the Creature, but their distance is greatest, whether their nature or Dignity and Excellency be considered; they then that take away the formall cause or Foundation of Religious Wor­ship, The Deity of our Saviour, cannot justly thus worship him; See Hornbeck apparat. ad Controv. Socin. and the terror of that sentence, Jeremie 17.5, 6. Cursed be he that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord, but blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, he that trust­eth in man is cursed, but he that trusteth in Christ is not cur­sed, therefore Christ is not man, viz. onely, but God also: [Page 109]to say as Socinus, he that trusteth in man as the sole and prime cause of happinesse, is cursed, but not he that trusteth in man, as the second or intermediate Cause, this is to forsake the wholesome words of Scripture, and to furnish all enemies with a shifting answer to elude Scripture, for what Christians, Jews, Mahume­tans and Heathen people, which trust in the arm of flesh, will not call on God for help, and confesse, that they look upon man as an intermediate or second cause to help them? if con­fidence in Christ, as the Author of good is prohibited, how happens it that the Scripture doth no where forewarn us of that sin, but doth most constantly require it and command it? and where saith the Scripture even in that sense, cursed is he that trusteth in Christ, for a malediction is to be shunned as much, as a Benediction is to be pur­sued. Besides, if Christ was onely a second cause, he was not to be trusted in, nor to be worshipped, because the second Cause is in the Power of the first, its being life, Knowledge, Will, Power, Action may be destroyed, changed and hindred at the Will and Pleasure of the first and principall Cause, and that heart that trusts in the second Cause, departs from the Living Lord, Jeremy 17.5. nor can this be safely done, for he in whom we trust, must be a Searcher a Knower of our Hearts, Prayers, Dangers, be able to help us in our greatest Straits, and be present with us in all places, and at all times: to ascribe these to any creature, is to rob God of the Glory due to his Majesty. I forbear to adde more Reasons to con­found the Adversary.

Jesus Christ is (saith Mr. Biddle) the second Person of the Holy Trinity, true, till Christ was conceived in his mothers womb, there was no holy Trinity at all, according to the Adver­saries supposition, and the Holy Ghost, which was in nature a more excellent substance, created in time before Christ, and next unto God himself is put out of his place, and if I may have liberty to allude, he that came after him, is preferred be­fore him, he is the second person of the holy Trinity, and the ho­ly Spirit the third.

Answ.

In the ensuing discourse I shall have occasion frequently to mention the hypostatical union of the two natures in one person, it will not therefore be amisse, once for all to discourse of that, which without controversie is a great mystery. God manifested in the flesh, and that as fully and as plainly as I am able to unfold it, and then as occasion is, but to name it in answer to the Adver­sary.

The Lord decreeing from Eternity to create a free and a rational Creature after his own image, which freedome is the subject and root of contingency, and the all-seeing God infallibly fore­knowing what would become of man, being left to such and such temptations, and not willing that one of the noblest kind of his creatures should utterly be lost, he resolves as the Supreme cause, the wise and great Potter out of the same masse and lump of man­kind, out of the whole race of man from the first to the last, to make some vessels to honour and some to dishonour.

I will not dispute, what God might have done by his absolute power, by his free bounty and mercy, as Lord of all his own crea­tures, but seeing it was his Majesties pleasure to have his Justice sa­tisfied, as well as his mercy delared, the salvation of the elect was without a sufficient ransome, a thing impossible not simply impossible, but impossible upon a presupposition of his decree, by this and no other means to effect its but who could reconcile us to God, and make up the breach, which was made upon the whole nature of man? who could deliver us from the guilt, the slavery and bondage of sin and Sathan, from Gods curse? this could not possibly be brought to passe by man or Angels, for they are not [Page 111]able sufficiently to be thankfull to God for their own being, their own happy being, much lesse to deserve for others.

Not to relate Scholasticall disputations, whether it is in it self repugnant to avouch, that either the Father or the Holy Ghost might have been incarnated, as well as the Son of God, and whe­ther all three persons might not have assumed mans nature; Aqui­nas and Halensis are for the affirmative: certain it is, that none could be found but the holy Trinity, or one of the persons of the sacred Trinity, which in our nature could satisfie divine Justice and suffer the punishment due to sin, and free us from the inherent pollution thereof, in whom our nature was found in an excellent manner, it seems incongruous, that the wo [...]ld should honour any other as the Saviour, but him whom it honoureth, as the Creatour of the world, neither was it fit to admit any way of saving man, but by man himself, and by this means Gods love and mercy are become such a Spectacle, that neither man nor Angels can behold without divine astonishment.

There are no doubt, many reasons which may be alledged touch­ing this divine choice, though not such, as will convince an obsti­nate Adversary, why the Son of God, and not the Father and the blessed Spirit should become the Son of man, and this in our ap­prehension was most congruous for such reasons as these are. 1. It becomes not the Father, Lombar. l. 3. distin. 1. for Incarnation is a kind of mission into the world, for he being of none, could not be sent by any, to send him is inconsistent with the most ordinate ha­bitude and emanution of the divine persons, and the most natural order saith Bisterfield: nor was it fit for the holy Ghost to become the Son of man, but the name of Son should be attributed to two divine Persons in the holy Trinity, much lesse for the same cause should the Father become the Son of man, August. de dogmat. Ec­cles. cap. 2 Aquin. 3 par. qu. 3. and albeit the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, yet is he not the first proceeding Person, the first proceeding Person was fittest to reconcile us to God, and the second to give gifts to reconciled friends. Secondly, who was more fit to make us the adopted sons of God by grace, then he who was the beloved Son of God by nature? who fitter to make us beloved sons of God, then he who was the Son of his love? who fitter to repair the image of God which consisted in Righteousnesse and Holinesse, then he who was Gods essential [Page 112]image! man lost Gods image, and the image of God takes up mans image; man cannot conform himself unto God, the Son of God conforms himself to man, and this seems to be most agreeable to that sinne, which was the first motive of the Incarnation, it was a sin against the Wisdome of God, our first Parents affected to be like God; by eating the forbidden fruit, and God descending from heaven ironically upbraids him, Behold the man is like one of us. 1. Like the Son of God. and by Incarnation we may also say, behold, God is as one of us. Lastly, who was more meet to be a Mediatour of reconciliation, then the middle Person of the Sa­cred Trinity, who was the Mediatour of union, as Divines do speak in the state of Creation, and before the fall of Adam.

Having thus far proceeded touching the necessity of a Saviour, and that the Son of God was designed to the office of a Media­tour. I am not to shew that he took to himself our flesh, and by Incarnation made it our flesh, and by this means he had of his own, though from us, what to offer unto God for us: the manner of this divine mystery, no man is able to conceive fully, much lesse to expresse perfectly, God tries our faith by those things wherein our capacities are not strong, that is an object of our faith to be­lieve that the humane nature is united personally to the Son of God, and to make this as plain as I am able, I do conceive it is the readi­est way to illustrate it negatively, first, to shew what it is not, and then we shall the better conceive what it is.

First of all, the two natures united, do not constitute a third out of them, as is done when there is no repugnancy, but mutu­all dependence as in the Union of the soul and body which makes a man, but this Union whereof I speak, is not the constitution of a third nature out of the parts united; for then that properly would be neither God nor man, as a man so constituted of soul and body, is neither soul nor body; the infinite person subsisting from Eter­nity is not changed by the humane nature, which was in time united to it, this is illustrated by a humane person, which subsist­ing hath in time teeth in the mouth, the man ceaseth not to be a person, nor is he changed into another person, nor doth he thereby grow up to a third, which is neither man nor teeth, and to speak properly there is not a composition, but as Divines do speak, quasi compositum, the person of Christ is not but in a ve­ry generall sense, a compound person, and the reason is, because [Page 113]a Compositum is more perfect then the parts which do compound it, but nothing can be more perfect then the divine person; nothing can be added to it, which had from Eternity all the perfection of the humanity in a more eminent manner, then it is in it self.

Secondly, God did not take upon him the person of man, but the nature of man, Christ is not divided into two persons, viz. the Person of the Son of God, and the Person of the Son of man, as Nestorius the Heretick held, that he was a Person begotten of God before all worlds, and a Person born of the Virgin Mary in our flesh, its true, the Essentiall parts of a mans body and soul be­ing united, would have constituted a person, as they do in all other men, if they had been left to themselves, it was prevented and stay­ed from subsisting in it self, and was drawn into the Unity of the second person by divine and supernatural operation, whereby it was highly advanced, and subsists in a more eminent sort then it could have done if it had bacome a rational humane person. The ground of the errour of Nestorius was this, he took not heed to the first beginning of that admirable combination of God with man: the Son of God did not take to himself a man then existing and perfect­ed, but the humane nature and conjunction with Gods Son, be­gan both at one instant: his making and taking our flesh was but one act; the Son of God did not assume a mans person to his own, but a mans nature to his own person; he did not advance any one person amongst men above all others, but wisdome hath built her house of that nature which is common to all men, she made not this or that man her habitation, but dwelt in us.

Thirdly, as Nestorius believed well, that God and man are di­stinct natures, but erred in that he denyed they were one person, so Eutyches did orthodoxically believe, that the two natures were united in one person, yet became unsound by denying the differ­ence, which still continueth betwixt the natures: this conjunction abolisheth not, nor confoundeth the natural properties, but from the first combination, they have been, are, and shall be for ever inseparable; when his soul forsook the Tabernacle of his body, his Deity forsook neither body nor soul; the principall ground, which misled both these Hereticks, was one and the same; every nature, and perfect rational subsistence is a person, but Christ was perfect God and perfect man, therefore, both of them were Persons: So Nestorius, but Eutyches reason thus, in [Page 114]Christ there is but one person, therefore after Union, there is but one nature, of the different sorts of these Eutychians, both an­ciently, and in the latter dayes: See Zanchius de incarnat. lib. 2. cap. 1.

Fourthly, the Union of the two Natures in Christ is not in the Substantiall indistance of these, for God is every where present, and if it consisted in this, not onely the humane nature. but the most abject creature would be truly assumed into the person of the Son of God, nor is it simply in conferring admirable gifts and qua­lities, for then holy men and holy Angels, should be thus united to the Son of God, which is not to be admitted.

Fifthly, neither the Divine Nature simply considered, nor as three divine persons subsist in it, is incarnated, for then the whole Trinity (which is not done) should take our nature, but as the divine nature is in the Son of God, as by his property he is distin­guished from the first and third person, in Christ there is but one personall subsistence, and that was from Everlasting, and by his ta­king the nature of man, he still continueth one person, and chan­geth but the manner of his subsisting, which was before in the meere glory of the Son of God, and is now in the verity of our flesh Now whether this by a proper appellation, be called an influx, or illapsus arcanus of the personality of the Word, or any other singular operation of the Deity, by which the humane nature of Christ, is, as it were, most intimately drawn to the person of the Son of God, or an extraordinary dispensation, as Tertullian phra­seth it, or whether it cannot be expressed by a certain name, as some Schoolmen, 'tis not much materiall, but the manner here­of is, mirabiliter singularis, & singulariter mirabilis, and tran­scends the capacity both of men and Angels, saith learned Ger­hard.

To illustrate in some sort this great mystery, both ancient and la­ter Divines have used diverse similitudes, which are very imperfect, and not able to the life to express this Union, as that of a fiery sword, which doth both cut and burn, it cuts simply in regard of the sharpnesse of the mettal, but it burns as it is fiery: two acti­ons here are produced from two natures, which are to be distin­guished, yet there is but one sword, another, as the body and soul of man do make one man, so the Divine and humane nature do make one Christ, or this mystery may be compared to one man, which [Page 115]hath two accidental forms, as to be a Lawyer and a Physician, one may say, this Lawyer is a Physician, and this Physician is a Lawyer, or the humane nature of Christ is like to Missletow, which hath no subsistence of its own, to be by it self, but alwayes in a Tree, yet herein the comparison fails, that such is the weaknesse of the Plant, that it cannot subsist by it self, no more then a mans arm can live out of a humane body; that Resemblance which is most fit and cometh nearest the matter, to shadow out this Personall Union of the nature of God and of man in one Person, is of a Tree. Suppose an Apple Tree grow up, into which the branch of another Tree is engrafted, which makes not the Tree to be of a compound or middle nature, but causing the branch, which be­ing set into the ground, might have proved an entire Tree of it self to pertain to the Unity of the Tree into which it is implant­ed, and yet retains its own nature, and bears its own fruit, and as you may truly say, this Harvy Tree is a Pippin Tree, and this Pippin Tree is a Harvy Tree, and consequently this Harvy Tree beareth Pippins, and this Pippin Tree brings forth Harvies, so may we say of the Person of Christ, consisting of the natures of God and man: The Son of God, who was a compleat and perfect Per­son hath added to it the humane nature in the Unity of the same Person; as the Divine Nature of our Saviour, notwithstanding the Personall Union is not capable of any humane imperfections, no more is the humane nature, (in that respect a finite creature) capa­be of any divine and infinite perfection; the weaknesse and infir­mity of man was not swallowed up in the Majesty of God, nor was Gods Majesty in the least diminished really by the assumption of man; the Union of the word, in regard of the persons subsistence gratiously bestowed on the humane nature, is not finite, nor the hu­mane nature infinite, and as the fore-named Tree is but one, and yet hath two different natures in it, and beareth two kinds of fruits, so the holy Son of God is but one person, & yet hath two different natures, & by them performeth the distinct operations pertainining to either of them, and as we say, this Pippin Tree is a Harvy Tree, so doth Scriptures teach us to say, the Son. of God is the Son of Mary, and this Son of Mary is the Son of God, so that both na­tures remain in Christ with their distinct properties; this Union addes perfection to the weak, to the humane nature, but to the nobler part the divine nature accrues no alteration at all, there [Page 116]being nothing more naturall to God, then not to be subject to a­ny change, 'tis set down as a rule or Principle (saith our learned Hooker in his 5.6. of Eccl. Pol.) so necessary, as nothing more to the plain deciding of all doubts and questions about the Union of both natures in Christ that of both natures there is a co-operation often, an association alwayes, but never any mutuall participation, whereby the properties of the one, are infused into the other.

From this greatest honour and highest grace that could be vouchsafed to humane nature, that it should be united to the per­son of the onely begotten Son of God, whereby this creature is exalted above all creatures, and hath all creatures under it: can we conceive that sithence God hath made the manhood his own inse­parable habitation, that the parts of our Nature, the soul and body of Christ, received no influences of Deity, no abilities of operation, no vertue or qualities above nature? no doubt but it had from the grace of U [...]ion, the grace of Unction, both for the ornament and exaltation of the humane nature, and enabling it to go through with the work of our salvation which required an unmatchable degree of Perfection, proport onable to that high undertaking, to this purpose we read, that God anointed him with the Oyl of gladnesse above his fellows. Heb. 1.9. and replenished him with those gra­ces, which are above the reach of our Capacities, so that he had fulnesse of grace, both for the Essence and vertue of it, intensivè and extensivè, as far forth, as may be had at least, according to the exigence of that oeconomie, which was agreeable to Gods own purposes, intents, and counsels, and to all services, the sub­ject duly considered, whereunto grace doth or can extend it self, Aquin. 3 par qu. 7. artic 9. his graces were without measure, John 3.34. and of his fulnesse, we all receive our scant measures, John 1.16.

The second Effect or Consequent of this personall Union is not as the Lutherans say, Kemnitius, Brackman, Gerhard, Cramerus, and others, a communication of the Divine properties to the man­hood, so that it should be truly omnipotent and omnipresent, not to insist on the Confutation of this Heterodoxe at present, an in­stance shall suffice to shew the contrary: the hand of man is joyn­ed with mans immortall soul, and informed, quickned and acted by it, will it thence follow, that wheresoever the sense is present, there the hand must be? verily no, the soul is in the foot, and [Page 117]in other parts of the body, where every one sees the hand is not, if this be not the effect of personall Union, what is it then? it is cal­led the communication of the properties to the person, and that is, When the properties of either nature considered singly, and apart are attributed to the person, from which soever nature it be denominated; to understand this the better, we are to take no­tice of abstract and concrete terms, as Divines do call them, an abstract word denotes the nature simply, as deitie, humanity: a Concrete term imports the person that hath the same nature, viz. God, man; we cannot truly say, the Deity is the huma­nity, or the humanity is the Deity, or the Deity is man, or the humanity is God in the Concrete; nor thus the humanity is un­created, the Deity is created, the Deity is passible, the huma­nity is impassible, nor that the humanity is every where, and the Divinity limited to a certain place, but we may say, God is man and man is God; God suffered death, as well as he rai­sed the dead from their graves; the Son of Mary created the world, we cannot properly say, that the Virgin Mary bore, or the Baptist did Baptize, or Pilate did Condemne, or the Jewes Crucified the nature of Man, because all these are per­sonall Attributes, his person is the Subject of all these, and it is but one Subsistence, his Nature is that which makes his person capable to receive, so that of Necessity we must ap­ply that to the Person of the Sonne of God, which was spo­ken of Christ according to his Humane Nature, that he was according to the Flesh Born of the Virgin Mary, Bapti­zed of John in the River of Jordan, and judged by Pilate to dye and put to death by the Jews, because there is but one Personal Divine Subsistence, so that no Person was born of the Virgin Mary, but the Sonne of God, no Person was baptized, accused, con­demned and crucified, but the Son of God; all such Actions and Passions agree to the Person really; though sometimes in respect of one Nature, sometimes in respect of the other: when we say, God is Man, we mean, that two Natures meet in one Person, and man is God for the same Reason: And therefore this Mutuall Conversive Predication is not properly called Communication of properties, nor are they re­gular, but unusuall and reciprocall, but when the Proper­ties of the humane nature, are attributed to the person denomina­ted [Page 118]from the divine nature, these are called crosse and circulatorie speeches, by reason of association of natures in one subject, 'tis said, the Jews crucified the Lord of glory, 1 Cor. 2.8. we must needs understand the whole person of Christ, who being Lord of glory, was crucified, but not in that nature, for which he is called Lord of glory, so is it said, that the Son of man came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which (being on earth) is in heaven, John 3.13. at the same instant. The Son of man is taken for the whole person of Christ, who being man on earth filled heaven with his glorious presence, but nor according to that nature for which he is called man, so that in these speeches there is mutuall cir­culation, and the concrete names, God and man, do take inter­changeably one anothers room and place; this communication of the properties is reall in respect of the person, not verbal, and though the properties of either nature do really belong to the Di­vine person, yet are they not, as I said, really communicated to the other nature, but each nature retains its native qualities: Thus the Deity is infinite and the Humanity is finite, in which re­spect all things in Christ, excepting his person, are double, there are two natures, two wills, which are the cause and grounds of different operations, and therefore albeit there is in the Trinity, alius & alius, yet is there not aliud & aliud, there is diversity of persons, but not of natures, but it is far otherwise in Christ, for there is not alius & alius, that is, two persons, yet is there aliud, & aliud, diversity of natures, and hence it is, that the properties are affirmed of the person, albeit the denomination is from the other nature, and then to prevent scandall, and occasion of error, we are to adde such an explication, as this is, this speech is verified of Christ according to the other nature, thus for example, when we say, Christ the Son of God is a creature, we adde in regard of his humane nature, much more might be added, but this which I have premised, is the principall to clear up truths, and to confute the Adversary, because I do observe, that he is led into pernicious errours, and draws unsound Collections from the word of God for want of understanding of the premises, because what is spo­ken of the person of Christ in reference to one part, he takes it usually as spoken of our Saviour in all his parts, and thence dedu­ceth his Arguments to the deluding of himself, and others, if I should thus argue a man is mortall, subject to be annoyed by [Page 119]heat, cold; and therefore the soul of man is mortall and subject to such hurtfull passions. Will not every intelligent Reader discern the fallacy? I shall now by the help of God, tread in the steps of my Adversary, and returne a punctuall answer to his writing.

Answ.

That Christ is the Son of God, who doubts? The Socinians fall short of truth, and do not speak so highly of his glorious Sonship as we do, for we maintain he was so the Son of God, that we do believe he alwayes was Gods Son, and of the same infinite nature with his heavenly Father, and that he cannot as he was man, be called the adopted Son of God, because to be a Son, is a personall property; persons and not natures are born, and the humane nature being assumed into the Unity of the person (as it were) a part of it, the whole Person, that is Christ in both na­tures, is called the naturall Son of God; for so saith the Text, He shall be called, i.e. declared, manifested, and professed to be the Son of the most High, not the natural Son of the most high, by vertue of the Holy Ghost, for then the Holy Ghost should have been his natural Father, and the humane nature should have been Divine, because that which is begotten is produced out of the sub­stance of him that doth beget.

As for that Title most High, it is attributed to God. Either in respect of place. 1. Because God dwelleth in the highest heavens, which are above all created Substance. 2. Or in regard of his Es­sence, because he hath the most excellent and highest nature, how low, how nothing are all creatures compared to God? 3. Or in regard [Page 120]of his Person, because both divinely inspired Scriptures, and rea­son sets him forth most truly, to be a person above all created sub­sistences, he being independent, and they all of them depending on him. 4. He is said to be most high in regard of exaltation, be­cause he is exalted above all which are thought to be, and are called Gods. Thou Lord art exalted above all gods, Psal. 97.9.

The Title most high, is taken I grant, for the Father in this Text, and he is distinguished from the Son of God, not simply by vertue of his Title most high, but by vertue of the Text, it is one thing to say by this Title in this Text, the Father is onely meant, and another thing it is to avouch absolutely that he is simply distin­guished from the Son, hereby the word Lord in many places of the Scripture is limited to Christ, and yet by vertue of that title we cannot say he is absolutely distinguished from God, who is of­ten called Lord; the utmost then that can be deduced from these words, is this, that Christ is the Son of the most high, i.e. of the Father, therefore he is not the most high Father, he is distin­guished from him in regard of his person, but not in regard of his Essence, to be most high in it self is an Essentiall Attri­bute of God; they are the Personall properties, which are pro­per to persons, but Essentiall Attributes are common to all the glorious Persons, for they belong to them, not as they are persons, but as they are Gods: the Father is most high, and the Son also is most high, and yet there are not two most high Gods, but one most high; in this sense it is often taken in the old Testa­ment, I will cry unto God most high, Psal. 57.2. its spoken in oppo­sition to the creatures, he is high above all, in power, in wisdome, in glory, yea Jesus Christ himself is stiled Almighty, and his name is Jehovah, can there be any higher then the Almighty God, than Jehovah? to Christ every knee must bow, Isa. 45.11. compared with Rom. 14.9, 10. and men are to know, that he whose name a­bove is Jehovah, is the most high over all the earth, Psal. 83.18. and this Title is not obscurely attributed by John the Baptist to the Sons of God, he that cometh from above, is above all, he that cometh from heaven is above all. Is not [...]his verse 76. Zachary full of the Holy Ghost, said, that his Son John should be a Prophet of the Highest, meaning, as is most probable of our Saviour, whose forerunner he was, preaching Repentance, and so fitting men for Christ, equivalent to the most high? for the strengthening of the [Page 121]Argument out of the Psal. It is to be observed, that Christ is that person whom the Angels are commanded to worship, Psal. 97.8. and for the true God of Israel, the God of all the earth, and that Psalm, as the Socinians themselves do grant, is a Prophetical Psalm of Christ, for thou God art most high, for it is most fitly alledged, as a reason why he is called the God of the whole earth, is because he is most high above all the earth. The hils melted like wax at the presence of the Lord; To return to John Baptist endued with the life, zeal & authority that Elias had, he being his fore-runner, was to go before the face of the Lord their God, Heb. 1.16, 17. To turn the hearts of the Fathers to the children, Matth. 11.10. Mal. 3.1. Christs coming into the world, is the coming of God himself.

To the Text, John 10.28. The Father is greatet then I, the same is to shew, that he was to leave them, and go to his Father from whence he came, this should be no discouragement to them, but matter of joy, because it will be an advancing of him to a higher condition then he was then, and to comfort them, in that they shall be more safely protected by his Fathers greatnesse, then by his own corporall presence. I do observe that the Adversary would obtrude upon this usuall fallacy, à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, for though the Son be equall to his Father touching his Deity, and in this respect they are co-essentiall and equall in essentiall properties, as wisdome, power, equall in Ma­jesty, honour and glory, for he saith, the Father is in me, if the Son be lesser then the Father, how can the greater (adequably) be in the lesser, Greg. Nyss. orat. de Deitate filii & Spiritus sancti, and he proves it, because the Son of God swore to Abraham by himself, because he had no greater to swear by, yet in a threefold respect, the Son may be said, to be lesser then the Father.

First, because the Father, as he is the Father, is Principle of his Sons Person, though he be not before him in nature, nor in time, nor in any Divine & Essential perfection, which is called perfectio simpli­citer simplex seu absoluta, nor in a Relative pefection which is called perfectio in suo genere, which includes something, which belongs not to another, as the Divine persons are relatively opposed, yet with an equal perfection, yet as the Father gives & communicates the divine Essence to the Son, but the Father hath not his eternal Essence from the Son of God; so may he be called a Principle of his Son, greater than the Son, as a King that takes his Son to partake with him [Page 122]in an equall power of governing his Kingdome is greater than his Son, as he is his Father, but equall to him, as he is a man, and as he is a King; so that when in the Athanasian Creed, 'tis said, no one in the Trinity is greater then another, 'tis meant in regard of nature and Essentiall properties, but there was no meaning to take away the reason of the Principle of originall; for we may not think that Athanasius contradicts himself, and he himself orat. 2. contra Arianos, near the end, acknowledgeth that in this respect the Father is greater then the Son, he is God by a kind of Excel­lency in a Rhetoricall not a Logicall or Metaphysicall sense, Bister­field, the greater number of the Greek Fathers, which were op­posite to the Arrians approve this Exposition: the Fathers of the Sardicane Councel Theodoret Histor. lib. 2. cap. 15. Basil Epistle 143 ad Caesar. & lib. 1. advers. Eunom. Damascen. lib. 1. de or­thodoxa fide c. 9. and Gregory Nazianzene preferres this sense of the Text in orat. 4. de Theolog. Object. 3. before the second which shall be mentioned.

The second which is more easie to be understood, and preferred before the other by Chrysost. and Theophilact in loc. and generally ap­proved by the Orthodox, is this, the Son is lesse then the Father, in respect of the humane nature which was assumed, not into the unity of the person of the Father, but of the son of God, in this respect, the Father is simply greater than the son, for he is the Eternal son of God and Creatour of the humanity, nor is he in this Considera­tion onely lesse than the Father, but the Holy Ghost is greater and in order before him, yea further, in this respect is he lesse then himself, as God, he is both lesse and greater than himself, a servant and a Lord, subject, and not subject to himself, and this with great reason, because there is but one person, and these different attribu­tions pertained to him in regard of the different natures, and I adde that he was made for a short time lower than the Angels, Heb. 2. in regard of his sufferings; these words objected in saint John were spoken by Christ, as he was the son of man, and not simply as he was the son of God; the truth her of appears by the light of the pre­cedent words, I go to the Father, in this respect the Father is greater than I am, for as he was the son of God, he was always with the Fa­ther, and to confirm this Exposition, it is no where said in all the Scripture, if I mistake not, that the Holy Ghost is lesse than the first Person of the Holy Trinity.

Thirdly, the Father may be said to be greater than the son, not simply as he was God, nor as he was the naturall son of God by eternal generation, for so they are equall, but in regard of his of­fice of a Mediatour; the humane nature is the foundation of this manner of speaking. I am my Fathers Ambassadour, and I go to my Father, as he is sent of the Father, he that sends, as such is ordinarily greater than he that is sent, the Son of God by di­vine dispensation became the son of man, died for us, sits at the right hand of God, and is exalted by the Father to the highest ho­nour, far above all Principalities and Powers; in a word, the Fa­ther is greater than the Son, if not in regard of his Divine natu [...]e, for that was not capable to acquire any new perfection, but in re­gard of his Office, whereby he did more fully manifest his Fathers and his own glory. Was it never heard, that a man hath underta­ken to be a Mediatour to another man? and must this man of ne­cessity, because he may be said to be inferiour to another in regard of this friendy office, be inferiour also in regard of his nature and place?

Answ.

To this Charge, I have as I suppose, returned a sufficient answer, which may be further illustrated, your reason may be thus framed.

This is evidently a false Syllogi [...]me, as the meanest Logician knows, and paralel to this to make the fallacy appear.

The assumption or Minor Proposition in this Figure must not be negative, as it is.

If you frame your Argument thus,

The Minor is materially false, and the Conclusion is yielded.

The Father in this Text as I have shewed, is called the most High, and by this Title distinguished from the Son, because it is not taken absolutely, but with a limitation, a Synecdoche generis, as appears by the circumstances of the Text: the Father is sometimes distin­guished from God Jehovah, Psalm 45.7. Heb. 18. shall we from thence conclude, that he is not God, not Jehovah? yea, and sometimes created Angels to speak in the sense of the Adver­saries, and thereby to confute them, are called Jehovah: shall we therefore say, that the created Angels are onely Jehovah? though Christ is not the person which is in this place understood by the most High, yet notwithstanding, he onely is not the most High God; unlesse we shall absurdly say, there are two most High Gods, it is a fallacy somewhat like to this.

Melanchthon shewes, that there is a Fallacy à non Distributo ad Distributum: Major non potest resolvi in hanc verè Ʋniver­salem.

De quocunque verum est dicere, quod est Essentia Divina, illud est Pater, for this is equally verified of the Sonne and Holy Ghost, as well as of the Father, and this Text is so far from proving what the Adversary intends, that the Contrary there­to is fairly concluded, for he being the Sonne of God, and by Conference with other Scriptures, the onely Begotten Sonne, his onely natural Son, it follows, that he is co-essentiall and co-eter­nall with the Father, and therefore he is true God.

Answ.

Thou seest (Christian Reader) into what horrible Blasphe­mies, wanton wits, for not embracing the Truth in the love thereof, though Gods dreadfull Judgement may fall both to to their own eternal ruine, if they repent not, and to the Destructi­on of others deceived by them. The Adversary doth here im­plicitly deny, and it is his corrupt Judgement, that God is not on Earth, but the holy Scriptures have taught us to have more honourable apprehension of the infinite God, Psalm 139.7. where the presence of Gods Essence is clearly asserted to be in places, which are most unlikely, if there were any such, that God be absent from them, as Hell, and the extreamest parts of the Sea, yet God is present there, Jer. 23.23. all things are known to God. Am I saith the Lord, a God at hand, and not a God afar off? So Isa. 66.1. he is substantially present, as well to his Footstool, as to his Throne, Acts 17.27, 28. Ephes. 4.6. its a safe Rule to take Scriptures properly, unlesse manifest necessity enforceth to take them Tropically, Augustine de Doctrina Christiana, lib. 3. cap. 10.16. how else should God be infinite? How should he be the Cause of all Physicall natu­rall Actions, if he be not present with them? For the transient Actions of Spirituall Substances require the presence of the A­gents; nor is God onely in the World, but without it also, for the World it self is finite, and Gods Essence if it were inclu­ded in the World, could not be infinite, hence wise Salomon saith 1 Kin. 8.27. That the Heaven of Heavens contains him not, the highest Heavens do not limit him, he is higher than the Heavens, the Truth is, he is in all imaginary spaces, and nowhere in that respect now, where he was not from Eternity; this Atheisticall Heresie is con­futed by Fathers, Schoolmen, Tomb. 1. Senten. Distin. 37. and the Commentatours on their Master, and by the Unani­mous Consent I thinke of Protestants, except that abhor­red [Page 126]on Vorstius and the Socinians, from whom he seems to have sucked his poyson.

The holy Apostle, 2 Phil 6.7. sets down in a few words very much what we are to believe touching the Son of God before his Incarnation.

First, That he was a person before the assumption of our flesh, for there was a time, so I must speak, when he had not assumed our flesh.

Secondly, because holy Angels are compleat rational substances, and therefore Persons, to shew evidently, that he is not in the num­ber of created Angels, he tells us, that he was in the Form of God.

Thirdly, because the Father is God, and a divine Person by way of distinction from him; it is said, he was in the Form of God, the Essentiall image of his Father.

Fourthly, because there are many which are called gods, which are not so by nature, but in the opinion of Idolaters onely, or by grace and favour, as Angels, Kings and Princes, therefore it is said he was God, and thought it no prey or injury to be so, as Sa­tan and Adam would have made a prey of the Divinity, a Son assumed by the Father to the Government of the Kingdome, holds it not as a prey or robbery, for he did not forcibly take that ho­nour on him, but the Father gave it him.

Fifthly, least any should think that Christ, albeit he was God by nature, yet he was inferiour to the Father, he addes that he was equall to the Father.

Lastly, against Sabellius the Apostle shews, that the Person of Christ is distinct from the Person of the Father, for otherwise he could not be equall to him, equality is alwayes betwixt two at least.

Mr. Biddle with others, expounds not this Scripture of Christ, be­fore the Assumption of our nature, but they contend it is to be un­derstood of Christ manifested in the Flesh by his miracles to be in the form of God, and albeit the Lutherans do not abhor from this sense, that he had in his humane nature divine Majesty communicated to him, which he might at pleasure most gloriously manifest, yet will not this be serviceable to the Adversary, because, as they say, this follows upon the Personall Union, and presupposeth that this man Christ Jesus was true God, which Mr. Biddle denies: he saith, [Page 127]he was in the form of God, for the free exercise of the Divine power, others adde in governing the world, and being worshipped, these are but consequences of the Deity, and he was God before the Creation, and when there was no Creature to worship him, and will so continue after the generall Judgement to all Eternity.

2. Neither doth God simply rule, as God, but as Lord: God was alwayes actually God, but not alwayes actually Lord, he was not till he had Servants subject to him, for Dominus & servus sunt relata & simul natura.

3. If that be the form of God, then Christ was seldome in the form of God: What exteriour form of God could the Wise men see in Jesus when he lay in the Manger? and others when he was poor, and had not a house to lay his head in? as a worm and no man.

4. And if this be the meaning, then were the Apostles in the Form of God, though in an inferiour degree, and gradus non mu­tat essentiam, for they had the gift of working miracles.

Lastly, nothing in all the world is said to subsist in its actions, but Christ should subsist in actions, if they were the Form of God.

The Adversary asserts a monstrous piece of Divinity, that the di­vine Power was communicated to a Creature; this must needs be then either when he began to be a Creature, what needed he then have any created gifts above men and Angels? is not the light of a Candle superfluous, when we have the light of the bright Sun­shine? 1. Besides, suppose this divine power was given to Christ at any time, this divine Power is either the same infinite Power which is in God, or diverse from it; if the first, how can that which is fi­nite be capable of that which is infinite? must not the Subject either by nature, or divine operation be proportionable to the Attribute? and how can the same infinite vertue be communicated to the crea­ture, to the humane nature, and not the Divine nature it self, when these are in truth all one? and how can the infinite Power of God which is in him, and which he doth retain be necessary and concurre to effect that to the which the Person of God is not ne­cessary, nor doth concur? This is to make a divorce betwixt the na­tural Power of the person, and the person himself, which implies a contradiction: if this Divine power be diverse from that of God, there must be granted an infinite created power, which seems to be impossible; besides, it will follow, that there are two omnipo­tent [Page 128]and two infinite Powers, and why may not the in finite divine Nature be multiplied, as well as the infinite Power of God? and if the divine Nature is multiplied, there are more Gods than one? if two Gods, why not three, four, and so in infinitum? this must be granted, or else 'tis not the divine Power which the Creature hath, but the effect thereof.

I add, is this Divine Power a substance, or an accident? if it be a substance, then are there two substances in Christ, which the Ad­ver saries deny, the one must be finite, the other infinite: besides this infinite substance being compleat and understanding, must needs be a Person, for it is not an infinite Person, if it doth not understand and will, and exist of it self: if it be an accident, then it is not infi­nite, for an infinite Power can create a finite subject, and that in an instant, and standeth not in need of a substance wherin it must exist, for if it was so weak that it could not subsist of it self, and preserve it self, how then can it be called an infinite Power? o­therwise the vertue thereof is not infinite, but finite and limi­ted.

Furthermore, it implies a contradiction, to say a property can exist out of its subject, if it belongs to more than one, it ceaseth to be a property, and tis a common attribute, the property of the soul cannot be derived to the body, so as to inhere in it, as the subject of it, but the operation of the soul by such a property is in the body, nor is it easie to be understood how in the same subject, in the same part of the subject there can be a finite and an infinite Power, a Power limited and unlimited: its true, that the same Person at the same time hath that power which is both finite and infinite, but 'tis in divers natures: in the Divine, the Power is infinite, in the hu­mane, finite.

Again, if one property of God is communicated to a finite crea­ture, then are they all, for the Divine Attributes are the Divine Essence it self, his glory, his Godhead, but the humane nature is not capable of eternity, properly so called, and therefore of none of the Attributes, Against the Lutherans it is thus argued, As is the union, so is the communication: but the union is reciprocal, thus man is God, and God is man, but the Deity cannot be said to be mortal, weak, therefore the humanity cannot be said to be immortal, this cōmuni­cation is an effect of union by emanation: we cannot say the humane nature is God, therefore we cannot say the humane Nature is Omni­potent. [Page 129]I am not ignorant that there are distinctions which are brought to salve and qualifie the matter, which are throughly dis­cussed by learned men: but to be short, it is ignominious to the Di­vine Majesty, that any creature should be equallized to him, and in truth to destroy the humanity of Christ who was like us in all things, sin only excepted; which could not be verified of him, if the Divine properties belonged to the humane Nature of our Saviour, to say the Divine properties are communicated to the humane, not for­mally, essentially, and subjectively, but per [...] is to speak with­out Book, for no Example in all the world can be alledged, that any thing is in another, but it must be one of those fore-named ways, and be in a thing either as a substance or as an accident. I grant in the Concrete (as I premised) that the Man Christ, or Son of Man, is not in the title only, but really omnipotent, eternal, most wise, and infinite, but the humanity of Christ is not so, nor can there power be given to the most excellent creature which is equal to the infi­nite power of the Creator.

Answ.

There are two things touching Christ, which are distinguished in this text, the one is the exinanition of his Person in some sense, who being in the form of God, emptied himself, or made himself of no reputation, not as he is God absolutely considered, for so he is most simple, full of glory, power, Majesty: but as he is considered rela­tively, in regard of the manifesting of himself to them for their sal­vation; thus he lessened, and humbled himself from the condition of being Lord of all, to that of an ordinary man.

Secondly, the Text declareth the submission of his Person thus emp­tied in these words: he humbled himself the Adversary makes no mention of the former, which yet in the first words is only meant, and confines the meaning of the Holy Ghost to the second: Christ emptied himself, when he who was the eternal Son of God, the true God, infinite in all perfections assumed our flesh into the unity of his Person, to be as we all are, truly, really Man, by means whereof [Page 130]he is capable of meaner offices, then were consistent with the blessed Deity: the only gain which he purchased to himself thereby, was to be capable of losse and detriment, for the benefit and salvation of sinful Men: the Lord possessor of all things conversed amongst men, as though he had nothing at all, his divinity was obscured in the humanity, not in it self, but as the brightness of the Sun is by the intervening of a thick cloud betwixt us and the body of that great light, or it was like a glass with a Candle in it dawbed over with mire, or like a sword in a sheath not yet drawn out of it: by these comparisons do our Divines labour to illustrate this high mystery. Mr. Biddles Exposition hath no savour in it, nor likelihood of truth, for who is so simple to believe that Christ emptied not himself til he was 33. years old, and then being in the form of God, yielded him­self to be apprehended of the Officers?

Your Exposition of Christs taking on him the form of a servant to be whipt, is too short, he was indeed Gods servant, but not the servant of man, nor did he wear the ensigns of a servant to be known by, nor was he whipt as a servant, but as they counted him sedi­tious: besides we read of the afflictions for Christ his sake, as Paul was apprehended, bound and whipped, yet is he not said to take upon him the form of a servant, yea, Princes have been wronged by their Subjects, apprehended, imprisoned, yet are they not said to take upon them the form of servants, nor is it the property of ser­vants willingly to be whipped as Christs was for our sakes, and if some are not deceived, Pilate scourged Jesus, John 19.1. that he might be freed from the further cruelty of the Jews.

I add, That it was no way necessary that a servant should be ap­prehended, whipped: is not a servant in the form of a servant when none of these evils do befall him? or is every one that is apprehen­ded & scourged by the authority of a Magistrate, a servant? servants as servants are not so handled, but as they are judged to be offen­ders, as Christ spoke, Luke 22.52. Be ye come out with swords and staves to apprehend me as a Thiefe? nor did Christ when he was ap­prehended, and on the crosse lay down his divine power, for when they which were sent to take him, heard him say, I am he whom ye seek, they fell backward, and then he healed the ear of Malcus which Peter had cut off, and he commanded effectually, if ye seeke me, let these my Disciples go their way, and on the cross he converted the Thief: Christs suffering of himself to be apprehended, bound, [Page 131]as if he could no more resist than ordinary men, are not the form of a servant, but the consequents of it, without which the form of a ser­vant may be continued as experience, and the name of form it self importeth.

In the old Testament the Son of God appeared often, sometimes in the likeness of a man, he spake also to Moses out of the bramble Bush, which seemed to be on a flame, and yet was not consumed: and he as a Conductor led the Israelites in the wilderness by a cloud; but he is not therefore said to make himselfe of no reputation, but then did he take upon him the form of a servant when he became man, and was in that nature [...], this is not an external, but a real form, he was really Gods servant in his humane nature, and undertook an office designed him by God, and most faithfully obeying him for our salvation. I do grant that we do not say, that perfect Man in state of innocency was in the form, of a servant, or when he shal be glorious in heaven, these words belong to Christ in the state of humiliation, as God was made Man, so was he made a servant for man, and being omnipotent, he became weak; and being immortal, he became mortal, not simply as he was in the form of God, for so is he always equall to his Father, but because he became mortal to make us im­mortal, he took our nature, with all the natural properties thereof, and was like us in all things, sin only excepted.

Answ.

The Apostle particularly explicates what he understood by the form of a servant, if any one should question what that form was? was it the form of a created Angel? or of a heavenly body? or of a new created thing? the Apostle denies all this, and tels us he was made in the likeness of man; that is, as is confessed, of ordinary and vulgar men; likeness here is not of imitation and representation, as Anabaptists do from hence collect, that he is not co-essential to us, but it is of identity and participation, as one Egg is like an Egg, and yet is an Egg in substance, and the Son is like the Father, Gen. 5.3. [Page 132]yet is he truly a man; Christ seemed not to be what he was not in truth, a man in appearance, but he was truly a man; he was like other men both in body and soul, both in essentials and accidentals, sin only excepted.

From the adjunct the subject is proved, he was made in the like­ness of man, when in the Virgins womb he assumed our nature, and not else properly, though it is true, he was wrapped in swadling cloaths, was visible, palpable, as an Infant now is, and yet is he not said upon that account to be made in the likeness of man, and mans nature in Heaven is without hunger and thirst, and such a state wher­by a man is truly obnoxious to misery.

The Exposition of the next words may pass, if rightly understood: He was found, namely, by those which conversed with him, in the habite in his outward condition, no whit differing from a common man. Many of the ancient Fathers do usually compare the Son of Gods taking our flesh into his Person to a mans putting on his Gar­ments, Ambrose de fide contra Arianos cap. 8. Especially and most frequently doth Athenasius so speak, which holds truly in some things, that as we are not changed by putting on our garments, nor the garments themselves by being put on; so neither is the Son of God changed (he remains what he was) nor mans assumed na­ture. Christ by putting on man as a [...]garment, did neither change his own substance, nor the substance of man, Amb. and as by put­ting on our garments we do not really communicate the properties of our bodies to our garments, nor are the properties of our garments derived to our bodies, so is it with Christ, he by taking our nature doth not communicate the essential properties of the Deity into his soul or body: or on the contrary, the humane properties into the Deity, and as garments do cover our bodies, so was the Humanity as a veil to cover the Deity, that the Son of God might familiarly converse with the Sons of men. 'Tis true, there are many dissimili­tudes: as, omne simile est dissimile, for the garment doth not essentially pertain to the being of man, nor can we be said to be born, & not til then when we are first cloathed, nor can a man be said to be made his garments, as all these are verified of the Son of God in our nature: but suppose the Apostle alludes not to garments in this place, as I think he did not [...], which often signifies externall habit, doth here signifie the outward appearance of man, which doth not ex­clude, but include the inward being, and the reality of his humane [Page 133]Nature in his face and outward actions; he appeared in a body, which was truly such a one as it seemed to be: he was found, and undoubtedly known to be a true Man, they that conversed with him had the experience and good proof thereof as if one having the full trial of the honesty of a man, should say, I have found this man to be a good and honest man, I have found him to be such a one, that none can with reason doubt of his honesty.

I have now by Gods assistance examined your weak and insuffi­cient, yea erroneous paraphrase of this holy scripture, and will try your skill and strength in your worthy observations, which do level at this mark, to weaken the proof of the Deity of our Saviour, groundedly built on this text.

Answ.

There is no controversie about the general scope of the words, that it is to shame the Philippians, and to exhort them to humility, and to this end he alledgeth the Example of Jesus Christ, which is an Argument a majori ad minus, the greater is his humiliation, the more convincing will his example be to move us to be humble. Here the Divinity of Christ is asserted, and that precedaneous to his humilia­tion, the rise whereof is much increased by this unparalleld pat­tern of greatest condescention, and yet nevertheless the greatest manifestation of Christ his glory: never so much of the Divine power and glory was seen on the earth, as in this example which was without example, the Son of God became the Son of man, and not in the form of a glorious King, as Solomon was, but of a dispised servant, [Page 134]and albeit he contracted no sinne, either by propagation or action, yet were our sinnes imputed to him, as our surety, to pay our debts, as the shadow of the Sun went backten degrees, that King Hezekiah might have a certain sign of his recovery to health and happinesse, so hath the Son of God by taking our Flesh gone back many degrees, that our sick souls might be freed from sins, and e­ternally happy.

This cannot be an example saith the Adversary, because it is not manifest, no, nor can the holy Angels comprehend it. What false and weak arguing is this? Who is so weak, that he perceives it not? It is plainly to confound those things which should be distinguish­ed: it is to us manifest, that the Son of God became the Son of man, and as Bernard, Serm. 1. de Annunciat. ventu Dom. he had a Father in Heaven, and sought a Mother on Earth; this do we stedfastly believe, because it is attested by the infallible Testimony of the Holy Ghost, who is the first verity, and we know, that this Sacramentum pietatis, is not Detrimentum veritatis. 1. This Assumption was [...] the natures are not changed hereby, as is a drop of water when it falls into a full vessel of wine, and it is [...] never to be separated. 2. Death dissolves the nature, and destroyes the person of man, but in death it self, the body and foul were inseparably united to the Son of God, and albeit there is a greatly quickning vertue in God than there is in a reasonable soul, and without the separation of the soul from the body, man cannot dye, yet follows it not, that God should be separated from the flesh, that it should dye, because the dying vertue quickens not the Creature, as the soul doth the body, viz. formally and necessa­rily, but efficiently, and therefore as Christ suffered when his Di­vine Power was not diminished, so did he die, when life it self was not actually separated.

Well then, it is manifest I say, that Christ is incarnated, and not onely the holy Angels, but men of ordinary capacities do appre­hend this Divine Truth, albeit, if all Angels and Saints in Heaven and Earth should communicate their deliberate notions one to ano­ther about this subject, though the [...] thereof be well known, yet the manner of the Union is mirabiliter singularis, and they would acknowledge this mystery to be not onely inexplicable and unspeak­able, but unconceivable and incomprehensible; it is mysterious to have three natures, the soul, the body, and the Deity in one person, [Page 135]and the Tirnity of the Divine Persons in one individual infinite Na­ture, which though men cannot apprehend by naturall Reason, yet can they submit to Gods Revelation, by his illumination; and be­sides this, there are many passages of Gods providence which are too great a deep for us to reach to their bottom, all which depths at the Revelation of Jesus Christ shall be cleared; Reason may be an Instrument to apprehend, but no Rule to judge of the Articles of Faith. Excellently saith Scaliger against Cardan, Subtil. Exercitat. 365. against such who would measure immensos Religionis nostrae a­gros augusto humanae Rationis decempede, the immense Fields of our Religion by the short Pole of humane Reason, Sec. 9. interest (saith he) & nostrae pietatis & Dei immensitatis ea sentire—quae sentire non possumus, sentire quidem in ipso per ipsum quae per nos sentire ne queamus: which is to this effect, our piety, and Gods immensity do require, that we should apprehend those things which we can­not apprehend, apprehend them in God, and by God, which by our selves we cannot apprehend.

By this discourse it is evident that the ground of this inference is false, for this condescention of Christ is manifest to us by the Eye of Faith, and the souls apprehention of it: and is not this sufficient to be an example to a reasonable creature? will you require that it must be manifest to our outward senses: how sensless a conceit this is may be shewed from Examples of men: Abrahams Faith is an Example for others, but no living man hath seen Abraham or his working Faith: and so is Jobs patience, and the Prophets sufferings Jam. 5.10. as also an Example of Gods severity in punishing the Divels, casting them out of Heaven, and reserving them in everlasting chains under darkness, that sinners also shal be punished, Jude 4.5, 6. yea, and the holy Angels, who are to us invisible, are patterns of imitation for us, as we pray, Thy will be done in Earth, as it is done in Heaven, viz. by the Angels; yea, and the invisible God, for who hath at any time seen the divine Essence and glorious attributes? in regard of his visible works is an Example to us: Doe good to your Enemies; why? for God makes his Sun to shine, and the showres of Heaven to descend for the comfort of the worst men, yea, and we are exhorted to be holy and to be mercifull, for our God is holy and mercifull; to forgive one another, even as God for Christ his sake hath forgiven you, Ephes. 5.2. 1. John 4.11. Math. 5.48, Luke 6.36.

The Question betwixt us is, whether the Son of God be incarna­ted or no: some learned men you say deny it, and your self say, there is no Scripture for it▪ learned men say you, I answer scarce one of a thousand, and if you should grant this, the question was decided, and we should be agreed, and to us it is a truth not repugnant to reason, that an infinite God should unite to himself [...] a finite creature, and though there be no equality betwixt finite and infinite, yet is there such a proportion, as is be­twixt the first Cause, and the Effect produced by it, betwixt the Act and Power, betwixt an infinite Good, and some Good; there is no repugnancy betwixt them and Consequents, no Contradicti­on is implyed in saying, the Son of God assumed our nature, and if the Loadstone can draw iron to it self, and unite it to it self by moving iron and it self remains immoveable, why should it seem in­credible, that God who is infinite in wisdome and power should produce and draw our nature to himself, to be hypostatically and inseparably united to his Person.

Scriptures we have many, both expresse and by Consequence to confirm this great mystery, God was manifested in the flesh, 1 Tim. 3.16. John 1. The word was made flesh. Christ is called man, and he is called God, he is called the Son of man, and he is called the Son of God, there is ascribed to him the form of man, and there is ascribed to him the form of God; he is described, as having the properties of man, and the properties of God also; the Actions of men, and the Actions of God, the infirmities of man, and the power of God, the sufferings of man and the glory of God, to die as a man, and to have the life of God, to raise himself from death, the reproaches of man, or to have glory divine, and to be wor­shipped as God, these and many more Arguments than these, are the grounds of our belief, that the Son of God was incarnated.

Answ.

The Attributes of the totum, the whole, are twofold, some of them do appertain to the whole, as it is the whole; for example, a man consists of soul and body, and some in respect of a part, as a man understands, and a man is visible, the one in respect of the body, the other of the soul. Again, some things belong to the parts, as they are parts, as the soul understandeth, which are com­municated to the whole man, other things belong to the parts, as they are in themselves considered, and which are not communica­ted to the whole by vertue of the Union, as the soul is invisible, spirituall, immortall, a man in respect of his body understands not, and in regard of the soul is not handless, mortall, to answer this charge distinctly, it is expedient to distinguish the various A [...]tri­butes given to the second person of the blessed Trinity, some things are predicated of Christ, in reference to one nature, which are called Essentiall Attributes, some which are personall, those things which are predicated of Christ according to the Divine nature simply, do equally belong to the first and third person, as to be God omnipotent to have Essentiall Dominion over all things personall, to be the onely begotten Son of God: other things are ascribed to Christ in respect of his office, and which do belong to him in regard of both natures, either of them alwayes remain­ing distinct in Essence, properties and operations: now if we speak of the Actions and Passions of our Mediatour, as he is Me­diatour, the Divine Nature is the principal cause of them, and the Humane Nature in reference hereunto, but the instrument all; these Titles of Christ Jesus belong to him in a different manner; to be cal­led Jesus or Saviour; belongs to the Son of God, denoting the final cause, but to be called Christ, that is, King, Priest, and Pro­phet, appertaining to his Office by divin [...]vocation, that he might save us: this latter is a suitable means to the former, as the end thereof, hence it is, that those Actions and sufferings of Christ, which were requisite for his Office, and that end for which his Fa­ther sent him into the world, as to die for satisfaction of our sinnes, to triumph over the Devil, do belong to the same person according to both natures, he who was highest became voluntarily man, that he might be a meet person to save us.

Observe the perpetual errour of the Adversary, that he doth [...] [Page 138]not God also, which is the controverted question betwixt us, there is not doubt at all that Christ was true man, but that he was onely a man, neither the titles Christ Jesus, nor any circumstances in this sacred text, Phil 2. can evince, but the quite contrary, these names and titles are distinct not confounded, and are of a different impor­tance, though they do belong to the same person, as for those places quoted out of Saint Luke, to shew that he was Christ, as he was a man anointed; we grant the person was anointed, but it was not touching his Divine nature, but in the humane nature the Texts do speak of the Incarnation of Christ, and by Cousequence and Logicall Deduction, if not expresly of his Divine Nature, Luke 1.35. as it is true, that thou Mary shalt be with Child of the Holy Ghost, and so continue a virgin, notwithstanding this Conception, in that thou (carnally) knowest not a man, so is it also true that the Son which thou shalt conceive and bring forth, shall be the Son of God, the reason is taken from the Prophesie of Isa. 1.7. v. 14. therefore in the Text is not referred to the Conception of Christ, as the cause of his Divine Sonship, he shall be called, i.e. declared and manifested to be the Son of God, which Declaration was in time, but he was the Son of God before all time, his name was Emmanuel, Matth. 1.20. not so called when he was circumcised, but it was nomen natu­rae & officii, that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the Prophet Isa. Hence is the Virgin Mary called the Mother of God, not the Mother of the Deity in the Abstract, yea, and in this Text to the Philippians, 'tis said, he was in the form of God; he was not onely the Son of man, but he was also the Son of God; as in regard of his humane nature, he was onely the Son of man, so in his Divine Person simply considered, he was onely the Son of God his Father, and albeit we cannot say, Christ as he is man, is the Son of God, yet may we truly say, this man Iesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, and so all things in Christ, as I often said are double, natures and properties, persons onely excepted; the wisdome of Christ, as he is God, is infinite, the wisdome of Christ, as man, is tantum non infinita, farre above the wisdome of men and An­gels.

Answ.

It is good to change for the better, time was when Mr. Biddle gave the sense thus, Christ did not account it a prey, i.e. he did not assume or arrogate to be equal with God, or seise upon equality with God, oh what corrupted and deceitfull dealing was this, [...], fignifieth properly a prey or booty in warre taken from ene­mies, and so 'tis holden fast say you, as men hold fast their lands and necessaries for this present life, yet Abraham, Gen. 14.23. as David 1 Sam. 3.26. held not fast the spoil of enemies, Christ counted it no prey, no robbery, no injustice to be equall with God, [...], and to be looked upon as God, or appearing, like God, but to be equall with God, as may be discoverd by Saint Luke 6. c. 34. to receive from others as great benefits, equally va­luable, that is, the Son of God was of the same real power and Divinity with God the Father, the Adversary is now ashamed of the aforesaid interpretation, Eaton against Knowls, page 141. and at the end of the book, page 7. and now retracts it.

The Lord was really and eternally God when he came down from heaven, and was in Majesty and all the Divine Attributes equal to the Father, for though the Father is not here expressed, nor the Son, yet both must of necessity be understood, for is not Christ the Son of God, and how can a Son be conceived without relation to his Father? besides, is there any other God (to speak ad hominem) but God the Father? if none other, than without all evasions, God the Father must needs be meant, nor can any made God take place here, for is not the Son of God above them all? [Page 140]surely he is not equal, but superiour to them, observe, how by the Adversaries confession, if it had been said, the Son is equal to the Father, the words had directly thwarted our Saviour, The Father is greater than I am: But without controversie, Christ saith, he is e­qual to God the Father, we can readily unty the knot, and recon­cile these seeming Contradictions by a Distinction, he is equall, as God, but unequal as man, but Mr. Biddles which denies the two natures in Christ can never do it, but he is entangled in the Briars and Thorns, and so scratched, that he knows not which way to turn him.

The Father and Son I grant are one in Essence, albeit there is a difference in their manner of having the Deity: the Son is consub­stantial to his Father, according to the Deity, and consubstantiall with us men according to his Humanity, yet with this clear diffe­rence the Son of God hath the same individual nature with the Fa­ther, because it is infinite and not capable of multiplication but the Humanity of Christ being finite, is not one with ours in number (for every singular man hath his own individual nature) but one as they say in kind, but your Supposition if equall, then one in Essence, is a mistake, if I have not forgotten the little Logick and skill in Metaphysicks which I had sometimes learned, for no Essence or substance, as Essence or Substance, can in that notion be equal to another.

It is congruous to say, that upon the Unity of Essence is founded identity, upon the Unity of the Divine Attributes, is founded simi­litude, and upon the Unity of Divine magnitude is founded equa­lity: magnitude in God, is not magnitudo nobis, sed perfectionis essentialis, if essential perfection: there is I grant, the same Power, Wisdome and Eternity in God the Father, and God the Son, for these do absolutely belong to God as God, in these the Father is not greater than the Son, for they are equal, equality is a property be­longing to quality, or as Logicians speak to the same degrees of quality; it is true, as the Schoolmen speak, that the Divine es­quality doth not in the formal conception thereof include the Es­sence, nor the Relations of originall, but it imports the Essence fundamentally, and the personal relation of originals, praeexigitive but there is a most pefect equality in the Divine Attributes, which have the consideration of greatnesse, on which equality is founded, and this greatnesse is one in number with the three Divine persons, as [Page 141]by consequence, the Unity of equality is greater in this mystery, than the Unity of equality in the creatures, because in the former it is on­ly numericall, but in the creatures it is specificall, there it is indivi­sible, but here it is divisible: there are three infinite eternal per­sons, and yet there are not three infinite creatures, & gubernantes omnium, be cause there is but one God, but one onely Divine Essence in wisdome, power and goodnesse equall in honour and glory, ap­pears, because the Son as well as the Father hath life in himself, the Son searcheth the hearts and reins, as well as the Father, the Son quickneth whom he will, as doth the Father: the Son hath equal power with his Father, both in heaven and in earth, and reigns with the highest authority, all men and Angels are bound to worship the Son as they do the Father, if then the Father be infinite, the Son is also infinite, else should there be that proportion and equality betwixt them, as we have shewed there is.

Answ.

Equality to speak of that which is actuall, and not potential, presupposeth alwayes a comparison betwixt two at least, for no­thing can be equal to it self properly, improperly it may, and as the same thing be diversly considered, as Scaliger de subtil. Exercit. 300 saith Equality in Mathematicis, est quasiquaedam unitas magni­tudinum, at unitas ab unitate non differt, est enim quantitatm aequali­tas idem quod identitas substantiarum, a man may be like himself in a sort, Why then not equal to himself, as Caesar said in an Epistle to Cicero, Nihil malo. quàm & me mei similem esse, & illos sui, the Apo­stle saith, that false Apostles measured themselves by themselves, 2 Cor. 10.12. and its an usual thing, such a saying was done by such a man like himself, that is, according to his ordinary practice, well or ill yet properly as nothing is sibi simile, so can nothing be equal to it self, nor can it be said, (if we will speak as we ought to doin disputa­tion) as you do, that which is equal is absolute, because to be e­qual is a Relative Term, Aequale est aequali aequale, and it is a Contradiction to say, they which are equall doe admit co nomine [Page 142]of more or lesse, there are qualities indeed which may be intended and remitted, but quantities caunot ex parte sui, and it is a rule in Aristotle quite contrary to this Assertion, Quantitas non recipit ma­gis & minus, for if the one be more or lesse in reall or vertual quantity, then as Logicians speak, the comparison is drawn from unequals, either a majore ad minus, or contra in other respects, things compared together may be more or lesse, but you destroy equality, if the one in that comparison be greater or lesser than the other, for it is a rule in Logick, mutatâ affectione mutatur Ar­gumentum.

Otherwise say you, God is not the most high, yet in comparison of all creatures, they are infinitely below him, but not most high exclusively, in regard of the Son and holy Ghost, as I have for­merly shewed.

Answ.

This Description of Christ to be in the form of God, is so fat from being superfluous to prove his equality with the Father, that it is the most certain and infallible ground thereof, nor could he have been equal to God the Father if he had not been in the form of God, the Text saith not the form of God became man, that is, the Divine nature simply and absolutely considered, but he that is the person, which was the Son, being truly God became man, and by a natural and unavoidable consequence, he was equal to his Fa­ther, this is enough to overthrow all your building, this form of God doth not signifie the Divine Nature simply and precisely, and notionally abstracted, but the Divine Nature with Divine Majesty, glory and power, and then this is the sense, Christ who was God full of glory and power took on him the form of a servant.

Whereas you say, the form is something visible and outward, [Page 143]sometimes it is so, but not alwayes; for form signifies not onely an external shape, but sometimes an inward form, of it self invisible, the forms of all natural things, as all Philosophers know, are in­ternal, and invisible, and so is the form of God, the Divine Na­ture a most simple infinite being, in [...]t self not seen, and yet in some sense Saints and Angels in heaven do see the face of God, and in such a sense the form of God [...] s [...]le, not onely to the sacred Trinity, and to those ceastial furstances, but in the effects thereof his form is delared and mainieffed [...]t some times to mortal creatures, and in this sense he being first in the form of God assumed, after­wards into his person the form of a Servant, that is, the humane nature, with the natural infirmities to which it was obnoxious.

The place in Mark 16.22. proves nothing at all, sometimes the form of a thing is taken for the external shape thereof, therefore it must be taken so in this place, this Inference is apparently false, I adde that this form supposed the true substance of a man. What was this form in which Christ appecare [...]? i [...] proves no real change that he had another form in regard of his colour, eys, countenance, & stature like unto Polypus changing his shape often; this other form was one­ly in the apprehension of these two travellers, and it is spoken [...] according to their apprehension, and this appears by Saint Luke, which sets down more langely the same story, then S. Mark, and saith, Luke 24.16. That their eyes were held, that they did not know Christ. Why should their eyes be held? Doth not this imply, that their not knowing him, was not because Christs body was diver­sified from it self but because God by his providence so disposed and held their eys, that they were ignorant and knew not that it was Je­sus that talked with them, they saw a traveller that he came to them, journeyed with them, and discoursed with them, and therefore [...] in this respect signifies a true man with his outward ap­pearance, and the case was then like this, a stranger walks with us, and converseth with us, suppose the space of an houre or two, though we know not his Countrey, his name, his course of life, his form was the form of a man, and he is a true man, though we be ignorant of such particulars.

Answ.

The foundation, that is, the interpetation of this Text given by the Adversary being destroyed, how can such Inferences stand upright?

First, I say these words are neither true, for you have not yet proved, nor can prove, that the Son of God is not equal to his Father in regard of the Divine Power, nor do they agree to your own words, page 10. there you say, the Divine Power was with­in Christ; the Exercise then of his Power was visible I grant, but not the power it self, who sees that which is within a man, but by the effects? nor are they but short of what other Socinians hold, not limiting the form of God, to the Exercise and Demonstration of the Divine Power of working Miracles, but to extend it to the go­vernment of his Church, and to the worship which is exhibited to him. Your Exposition is so short, that if it be true, Christ should not now be in the Form of God (which you will not avouch) be­cause no visible Miracles are now wrought by him.

Secondly, The words agree not to the Adversaries Position and Exposition of the other words, the form of a servant denotes the humane nature, with humane infirmities, and by proportion the form of God must signifie the Divine nature with Glory and Pow­er, and the Exercise and Demonstration thereof when he pleased.

Thirdly, the Adversary crosseth the words of the Article, saying, Christ in working Miracles was equal to God, for I would willingly learn of him, how the second and subordinate cause can be equal in working with the first and Supream cause? Where there is equality, there may be co-ordination, but no subordina­tion, as you grant there is in working, and if they be equal in their Operations, why not in Power, Glory and Worship.

This assertion of this equality cannot be satisfied, for this power ex­ercised by Christ, was either finite, or infinite; for there is not, nor can be named a third, if you will say it was finite, I do then con­clude, that it was not equal to that which is infinite; if infinite. I then demand, how that which is finite can be so far advanced, as to be capable of that which is infinite? can you shew any probable reason for that which you boldly plead for, that any meer creature should make use of the infinite power of God when it pleaseth? is an infinite power instrumentall to man? what is this else but to make a Creature the first cause, and Gods power, which is God himself, to be subordinate to him?

To the exception of the Jews, John 5.18. they objected, not a­gainst our Saviour simply, because he wrought a miracle, but because trey in their superstitious rigor adhering to the Letter of the Law, thought he had violated the Sabbath days rest, Christ replieth to this. God my Father, whose example I do follow did not so rest on that day, but that ever since he sanctified it, he hath done works of mercy and preservation every day, and why may not I his Son do so also without reprehension? but the chiefest cause indeed why the Jews were angry with him, was, because he called God his Father; and made himself thereby, as they justly inferred, equal to him, and in the former verse he saith, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work: wherein we may note three things: first, that the work of the Fa­ther and Son is one work, the same work is common both to the Fa­ther and the Son, wrought by the same Divine power, in that he useth the present tense, doth work: this is proper to God, to whom all things are present. And thirdly, that he always wrought the fame works with his Father, he worketh hitherto at all times, the works are the same: and hence in the fourth place did the Jews in­fer, that he made himself the natural Son of God, and equal with his Father: the Jews truly conceived this to be the meaning of Christ, though they did not believe him; but Mr. Biddle is more dull then they were, and doth neither appprehend the meaning of the words so well as the Jews, nor believe them.

To your Argument I answer, that there is a prerogative of a Fa­ther above a Son in humane, but not in divine generation; this Arguing is falacia non parium, tis a matching and comparing things together as equall, which are in the main unequall; for it cannot be proved, that there is in Biddles sense a prerogative in the Divine [Page 146]persons either in nature, or divine Attribute, the Father (as is not desired) is a Principle of the Son, and yet to speak properly, the Son was not beholding to his Father, for his being, as by an uncouth phrase, the Adversary speaketh, as children are to their Parents, who do voluntarily, and in time beget them, but God the Father necessarily and from his intrinsecall Principle begets and could not do otherwise but beget his Son, and therefore from all Eternity begot his Son, and therefore is he co-eternal with his Father.

Answ.

It is lost labour to spend precious time about such trifles, the Ad­versary seeks a knot in a bulrush, and being ready to sink by the weight of this clear Scripture, catcheth at a rotten stick, which will do him no service; for from whence I pray you did the Jews col­lect, that Christ made himself equal with God? was it not because he wrought the same works which his Father did, and chiefly because he called God his Father, his natural Father, and consequently, that he was not himself his adopted, but his natural Son? and it is a hard Task to shew how Christ could be equal to God in working, if he was not equal to him in subsisting.

Answ.

The person of Christ, or whole Christ was equal to his Father, and thus, he could not really be exalted to God in regard of essentiall glory, yet in regard of the manifestation of that glory obscurd (as it were) and vailed by our flesh, as the Sun by a cloud, he may be said to be glorified by his Father, John 17.5. as Saint Am­brose observeth de Fide contra Arianos cap. 8. though whole Christ was equal to the Father, yet the whole of Christ was not equal, he had a humane nature, which was truly inferiour to God, and in [Page 147]that, and as he was a Mediator, he was highly exalted, and sits at the right hand of God, and gloriously triumphs over his enemies, pro­tects and advanceth his loyal subjects, and is honoured and worship­ped by them.

Your inference, if Christ be equal with God, and excedingly exalted by him, then he should be higher than God, who is most high, is both absurd and impious, this he seems to have learned from Paul Best, who strongly, as he soolishly thought, argued against us from our own Principles, if Christ be equal to his Father as touching his Godhead, then by the addition of the glory super­added to the humane nature, he would be higher then the highest, chapter 5. for to adde to equals makes them unequalls, I answer, this rule is good, and holds infinite things, but not when we do speak of the infinite God, for God contains eminently and vertu­ally all created perfections, insomuch that the whole world addes nothing above Gods perfection, intensivè and whether it addes extensivè is not materiall, and I leave the decision hereof to the de­termination of the Schools, for as an imaginable addition of milli­ons of years to Eternity, doth not make Eternity one jot longer than it is, so the assuming and glorifying of a created being, taken into the personall Union of an infinite being, can adde nothing in greatnesse to the invisible, and indivisible God, What is a drop of water, that falls into the Sea to make it greater than it is? and sup­pose it should imperceptibly do so, yet would it not follow, that God could be made greater than he is by the addition of any created excellency for the Sea is finite, and God is infinite, and betwixt these, two there can be no equall proportion?

Answ.

Take notice (Christian Reader) how the Adversary contradicts himself, and so palpably that he cannot salve it, and when he would hurt he helps us, he had not the Essence and liknesse of a man, and so was no true man, and by men are meant ordinary and vulgar man. Are not these true men? He was like vulgar and ordinary men who denies it? As by the form of God, is not the Divine Na­ture cloathed, if I may so speak with glory and Majesty? which is in it self nothing but the Divine Nature, albeit it is by a rational conception distinguished from it, so do we understand by the form of a servant the nature of man, with the ordinary infirmities there­of, nor doth it follow from hence, that he was not true man, but rather the contrary, for likenesse here, is not of representation, but of identity and participation, he took on him the form of a servant, so un [...]ting the Godhead and manhood together in the uni­ty of person into one Christ, as the reasonable soul the flesh is uni­ted into one man, a distinction there is of the Natures, but no Con­fusion of Substances. He was made in the liknesse of man, the A­postles meaning is, he took not on him the Nature and qualities of Angels, but he took the seed of Abraham our nature into his per­son, and with our nature all the properties thereof, as the Facul­ties of understanding, willing, which are inseparable from the rea­sonable soul, and those accidentall ones, which are separable from man, which belonged to him in the state of humiliation, all defects which are without sinne, and which do belong to the condition of all men, as to be mortal, hungry, thirsty, weary, heavy; he was con­ceived in his mothers womb, like other men and continued in that dark place, the same length of time, that ordinary conceptions do, he was born in the fullnesse of time, and his mother gave him suck, as o­ther mothers are accustomed to do to their children, he was obedi­ent to his Parents, as all other children ought to be, he had all sinless infirminties, which are natural and not personal, because he took not the person, but the nature of man into his blessed person, so much and no more can be inferred from these words.

Answ.

There is little sense or reason, much lesse sound Divinity in this long mishapen Consequence, and a false interpretation of Christs emptying himself, which imports that his manhood was not forcibly imposed upon him, but that he voluntarily descending from his Ma­jesty, was partaker of our misery: the Angels which kept not their first estate were cast down from heaven, and reserved in everlasting Chains under darknesse, unto the Judgement of the Great Day, but the Son of God, when he was equal unto God in fulness of Power, Glory, and Majesty, abased himself, and of Almighty, made himself full of infirmities, and of immortal, mortall.

S. Chrysostome doth most excellently and copiously discourse on this Text, and saith, it is an active two edged sword, which cuts in pieces a thousand Enemies or ranks of men which oppose it, be­cause nothing can withstand the sharpnesse thereof, of this force are the words of the Spirit, whereby he casts down the He­resies of Arius, a Presbyter of Alexandria, of Paulus Sa­mosatenus, of Marcellus the Galathian, of Sabellus the Lybian, of Marcion of Pontus, of Valentinus and Manes the Lybian, of A­pollinaris of Laodicea, of Photinus, of the Sophronii, and of us He­reticks, which are all cast down to the ground with one blow: it is a comfortable Spectacle to see all Enemies, and the Power of the Devil overthrown with this Sword of the Spirit; after this Gene­ral he runs over the Particulars, what Paul speaks of Christs emp­tying himself is not spoken, but in reference to what follows (it is not in those words specified how he emptyed himself) he was in the form of God, as the precedent words declare, & had he so continued for ever, it had been the losse of our happinesse, but no diminution of his own Glory, and least any Christian should conceive, that albeit he was glorious, yet was he not so glorious as his Father, but unequal and inferiour to him.

The Apostle wisely prevents such erroneous conceits, and informs us in expresse forms, that he was equal to his Father, and if one should further inquire, whence this equality betwixt them should arise, he tells us, that he hath it not by violence and unjust usur­pation, which to be sure could not possibly be attained by unjust means, as our first Parents by a proud disobedience indeavoured to be like him Gen 3.5. S. Chrysostome argues acutely, if Christ was far inferiour to God, how could he possibly snatch power, and forci­bly raise himself to be equall with God! a man cannot by any ra­pine make himself equal to an holy Angel, nor can a horse, if he would attempt it, raise himself up to be equall with man, shall we commend a private mans low estate, when 'tis apparent he cannot be a King? he is then equal by nature and eternal generation, and albeit he had never been made flesh, but remained alwayes in the form of God, yet the son of God, without any unjust usurpation or robbery (which is done by them which ascribe equality of any thing with God, (as you do Mr. Biddle) which is not God) the son I say, had been equal to his Father then follow those words, but he emptied himself, viz. by being made man, to suffer and dye, to make a reconciliation betwixt God and man, for which condescenti­on and obedience, his Father highly exalted him, whereas had he been a meere creature, and the Father his Lord by Creation, his hum­bling himself to death, could not have been satisfactory and in re­ference to the Father, would not have been thanks worthy; his o­bedience was onely in the humane nature, but he emptying himself to become flesh, was a voluntary condescention, full of glory, wherein the Fathers will concurred with his, to glorifie both lu­stice and mercy towards God and man, which plainly proves that Christ did not by compulsion but voluntarily vail his glory in our flesh. for he pefectly knew his own greatnesse, and his equality with the Father, and that he might if his pleasure had been so, have re­tained it without cover, as he had formerly done in heaven, and that from all eternity, or openly shewed it to all with whom he conversed on earth, if he had pleased so to have done, but out of his surpassing Charity to man for his salvation, he as it were laid a­side his glory for a time of his own accord, I mean the m [...]n fe­station of it, knowing that it should break forth again, as the Sun out of a cloud, and shine in his full brightnesse.

This is a cle [...]r Paraphrase of this Text, but the Advesaries offer [Page 151]violence to it, and is irrational, and confounds those things which are to be disjoyned, wherein is Christ equal with God, it is say you, in the exercise of a Divine Power, 1. In working Mira­cles, and this was the form of God, but Christ was in the form of God, before he was in the form of a servant, as the Socinians grant, but he was in the form of a Servant, as soon as he was man. 1. Sub­ject to infirmities, hunger, thirst. 2. Subject to the Law, as Cir­cumcision, Gal. 4.4.3. and of a mean condition. Besides, form is sometimes so taken for an accidental, and often for a substantial form, but never for an Action which is exterior, as Saint Chrysostome observes, and 3. if working Miracles was to be in the form of God, then the Apostles which had the gift of working Miracles, were al­so in the form of God, which is never in Scripture said of them. 4. I adde Saint Chrysostomes Reasons, The form of God is oppo­sed to the form of a servant in this place. Now what is the form of a servant? Is it not to converse with other men like them in an exte­riour form? it signifies not a work, but the nature of men, in ap­pearance like other men: 5. and it is not onely a Contradiction, but blasphemy to say, that a Creature can be equal to the Creatour, in any imaginable perfection, to say, that Gods Poweris communica­ted to him, either this must be intrinsecally, so that the man Christ should be omnipotent, which is impossible, or extrinsecally, be­cause the omnipotent God dwelleth in him, the Apostle then had spoken nothing touching the singular excellency of Christ in kind, for on this account the holy ones should be equal with God, for they are all of them the Temples of God, in which he doth dwell, we may observe that Christ is said, to be made flesh, but never to be made God,

This form of God say you, is a gift of God. I do distinguish of gifts, a gift is either accidental to him to whom it is given, as faith, knowledge, Ephes. 1.2, 8. faith is the gift of God I have given thee (Salomon) wisdome, or essentiall; God giveth to every seed its own body, 1 Cor. 15.38. this form of God may be called a gift actu­ally given in time for us, John 3.16. but not a gift in your sense, as he was in the form of God, for he was so before all time, the Di­vine Nature being communicated to him by eternal generation. I adde, that it is against experience to think a man cannot have a gift from God, and know it to be so indeed (as in the extraordinary gift of tongues and working miracles) but he must think it to be a [Page 152]prey and not a gift of God, if he useth it not to his honour that gave it; it is true that the holy One in all miracles wrought by him, and when he manifested his Glory to his Disciples, sought not his own glory, but the glory of God; yea many gifts are held forth and held fast which are not a prey, as Eloquence, Beauty, Strength, Houses, Friends, yea, when some of them cannot be kept at some time without Gods dishonour, and that in suffering times. Fur­ther, seeing, as you say, he was to lay aside his Divine Power, that he might suffer according to the Will of God, it is consequential that this gift was not equally in God and in him, but that he was in the use thereof subject to God, and would not act in this kinde in as free and uncontrouled a manner as God himselfe, which is con­trary both to your own Exposition and the truth.

Mr. Biddle concludes his long and tedious discourse and sinfull paines, to corrupt this precious Text by false Glosses, with an ad­miration, and in a triumphing manner, as if he had quite discomfited his Adversaries, and clearely won the Field, and yet let the Reader well observe, that notwithstanding all his shifts, he hath not brought one instance, nor possible can he do it to shew one instance, that Forme is taken any where for an externall and visible action, which yet of necessity must be done if he look to win any credit to his wretched forgeries,

Answer.

And I do also wonder with you, and at your wonder, and do tell you-that were you not hardned with affected ignorance, with the power of prejudice and self-conceitedness, you would not shut your eyes against the luster of the brightness which shines forth out of the Text, to prove the Diety of the Son of God, you would not take such groundless fancies as you have done for real truths, not unlike herein to a child which takes the raiking of the clouds to be an Army of men; it is true, as you argue, one can­not be equal to himself, because every comparison requires more then one, God the Son is not equal to God the Son, we are not so [Page 153]stupid to avouch it, but to God the Father, God the father, and God the Son, are one in Essence, not in personality, are you a wri­ter and pretender to Learning and know not this? May not he that runs read this in Gods Word, and in all Orthodoxall Writers? but it seems, that you to make an impression on ignorant souls by the help of a word, viz. God, which is of various significations, will pro­fesse at least not to see that which one would think you cannot a­void to see, that God is taken essentially, when it is said, Christ was in the form of God, and personally when it is said, he was e­qual with God.

I will close up this Discourse on this Text, by recollecting & repre­senting to the view of the Reader, the Arguments which this singu­lar Scripture holds forth to prove the Deiy of our blessed Saviour.

He that is equal to God, is God,

The Son of God is equal with God, Ergo

No accidental form can infer equality with God, for whatsoever God is, and whatsoever is in God, is the Divine essence, which is al­wayes one and the same.

2. The form of man which the Son of God assumed, was not essen­tial but accidental then Christ was not true man, as in this member true man is described, so by the same reason, by the form of God is proved, that the Son of God is true God, Tertul. contra Mar. l. 1. c. 20. [...]3. The concession of the adversary evinceth it, for whosoever repre­sents God the Father in Power, Life, and Works, he must needs have the same nature with the Father, for none can perform the proper a­ctions of another equally which partakes not of the same nature and essence, and which hath it equally or eminently, as common sense and reason demonstrate, if Glory and Power which is simply Divine, should be communicated to the Humane nature, then that which is infinite should, as it were, be trausfused to that which is finite, and that which is finite should be advanced to an infinite being or an in­finite property, would cease-to-be infinite and become finite, now sithence the Divine properties are really the same with God himself, the humane nature in this concession would be omniscient, omni­potent, and infinite, which is to overthrow the nature of a Creature.

Answ.

This Text hath been fully discussed, page 99. and defended against the Cavils of the Adversary, and retorted against him, by sundry Arguments out of the Text it self, God as considered without per­sons, is not a person, not precisely Father, Son or holy Ghost, but signifies the Divine Essence, which subsists in three Persons, but here its taken for God the Father, who is described by his proper effect in opposition to Idols, he creates and governs all things, which idol gods cannot do, and the very same things are ascribed to God the Son also, as all Creatures are from the Father, so are they also by the Son: Ob. 1 the latitude in the Text is equal to them both, but (saith he) all things not simply are by Christ, but all things pertain­ing to mans salvation, because he speaks to Christians, this reason is confuted by the Text, for doth not he speak to Christians also, when immediately before he mentions God the Father, and may not Chhristians to their great benefit be informed of the great works of our Saviour, in creating and governing the world? must they hear of nothing, but what directly appertains to their salvation?

The second reason, Ob. 2 is, because the Apostle puts an Article before (all) [...], which implyes a generall restriction, to this I an­swer in a few words, why is there a restriction more in this clause, than in the former, where all things are referred to God the Fa­ther, or will you exclude him from having a principall hand in our salvation? Articles have many uses, and are not alwayes taken by way of restriction, but as in this place by way of amplification? to this effect, there is one God the Father, who is without condescen­sion of his Person, in the oeconomie of our salvation, from whom are all things. First of all in regard of the order of working, and his Son who makes all things, and by whom they do subsist, emptied himself to be our Saviour, and as by the absolute Power of Christ over the Creatures, the Father is not excluded from the Govern­ment of the world, no more can it be soundly inferred from those words, we have one God the Father, the Son is excluded from be­ing God.

Answ.

These five Texts are alledged to little advantage of the Adversa­ries, as appears by the particulars.

To the first Text, I answer, 'tis to be observed, that 'tis not said, he made him God, which is impossible, but Lord and Christ; there is a double Lordship of Christ, the one is Eternall, as was his Es­sence, so was his Lordship communicated to him from all Eternity: as Christ is God by nature, so is he also Lord by nature, for Domi­nion cannot be separated from Deity, hence is he frequently called Jehovah, and the Lord God Almighty, and in this sense he was not made Lord, Secondly, the Lordship of Christ is officiall, and this Lordship belongs to him, as he is our Mediatour; he was made Lord, as he was Mediatour, this is not a necessary, but a voluntray Lordship, which sometimes was, and might have been alwayes se­parated from the Son of God, this was assumed, and by Counsel (his Fathers and his own) and taken up in time, as the Office of a Mediatour was, and this appertains to Christ as he is God-man, de­pends upon the former Lordship, is exercised by vertue of it, and it declarative of it, he was truly Lord before his Resurrection Ye call me Lord, Lord, and ye say well, for so I am, John 13.13. And he saith, all things are delivered to me of my Father, Matth. 11.27, and before his Ascension, he saith, all power is given to me, both in heaven and in earth, Mat. 28.19. and from his Nativity, he was Gods Son, and born a King, Gal. 4.4. John 18.37. and by his Miracles, which he wrought, his Divine Power was declared; so that by his being made Lord in that Text, is not the conferring of Lordship on him [Page 156]simply, but the more clear manifestation and execution of the Acts of his Dominion.

The Scriptures alledged, Phil. 2.9. 1 Pet. 1.21. and that Acts 2.36. do shew, that Christ had laid down all our natural infirmities, and a Sacrifice made to offended Justice, and a ransome paid for offen­ders, he acquires novum jus Domini, & novum jus Imperii, as So­veraigne Power over the World, or at least the Power which he formerly had, he now fully makes use of, [...], which he could have demonstrated before, as appears. John 18.6. he struck down the Jews with a word as with a thunderbolt this dominion then was gi­ven unto him declaratively or by way of reward, & he was advanced in his humane nature to the highest degree of glory that a creature was capable of. God made this God man the Prince of the Church, that he was exalted in our nature above Angels, Principalities and Powers, for the Name above every name respects every name of creatures, and not of Christ himself, for he had a greater Name, as God-man, tobe called a Saviour, and none else could be called a Sa­viour in that sense as he was called, and this Name he had, not onely as the Son of God, but as God and man, for whole Christ is our Saviour, it was then above every Name the Crea­tures had, yet it was not a greater Name than Christ himself had before this time, for he was called God, and the Son of God, which are Names of Essence, and do naturally imply Lordship, this Name in the Epistle to the Philippians was given to him in time, and there is a greater belonging to him, which he had before all time, none of these quoted places do prove that Christ was onely man, and not truly God, which yet was necessarily requisite to bee done by the Adversary. Can this Writer shew, that any of ours do not acknowledge all this to be true? Christ doth at this day, sitting on the right hand of God retain the Properties of the Humane Nature, and what ever accrued to him by his Exaltation, was onely in a finite manner.

It is true, the Glory of the Son redounds to the Glory of the Father, Philippians 2.21. and that we believe in God through Iesus Christ, 1 Pet. 1.21. and Christians by believing on Christ, do not depart from the living God, but do indeed more firmly depend on the Omnipotent God, who hath rai­sed him from the dead, Iesus Christ cryed and said, He that be­lieves [Page 157]on me, believes not in me, but in him that sent me, Iohn 12.44. Where there is Antanaclysis i e. one word in the same verse is used in a different sense, if this be not granted, there is a plain Contra­diction, which is not to be admitted, believeth on me, believeth not on me, viz. onely or according to the false opinion of the Jews, who believed he was onely a man, yea, an impostour, and had no Commandement from God to teach, and by consequent they were not bound to believe in him. This Scrcipture is no Disadvantage to us, but strongly proves Christ to be God, and one in Essence with the Father, in that he saith, He that believes in the Son believes in the Father, whose Commission he had, and whose Doctrines he taught, both persons equally are the Object of a Christians faith.

To the last Scripture, Rom. 16.27. To God onely wise, I an­swer, God the onely wise God, infinitely wise, the Fountain of Wisdome, and by his Son being made flesh and dying for our sal­vation, Gods Wisdome is revealed to the World, if the first Per­son had been meant, the Son and Holy Ghost had not been excluded, but the creatures onely, as Saint Chrysostome hath well observed; the word onely is taken, diversly, sometimes to exclude all other persons, as Elias complained, I am left alone, 1 Kings 19.14. sometimes to exclude strangers, as Balaam prophesied when the peo­ple shall dwell alone, and Job 31.17. If I have eaten my morsels alone, and the Fatherless have not eaten thereof. In the former sense, the Fa­ther alone begets the Son, in the latter the Father alone is to be glo­rified, how is he simply alone when the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Holy Ghost, Iohn 14.17. I am not alone, but the Father is with me, Iohn 16.32. and therefore the Fathers being the onely wise God, excludes not the Son, because of the identity of the same undivided Essence both of the Father and Son.

This is the most common and received answer, there is another re­lated by learned Iunius. The Text evinceth, not that the name of God is to be taken personally, and that the Father by reason of the men­tion of Iesus Christ is onely meant, for Christ in a relative oppo­sition, is considered in a twofold consideration, either according to nature or a gracious occonomie; according to nature, and so the Opposition is ad intra, as the Schoolmen speak, when the second per­son relates either to the first, the Father, or else to the third Person of the Sacred Trinity, and when so, God is taken Personally, but [Page 158]the Relation in regard of the mystery of Grace, is ad extra, when Christ hath reference to the Church, being as the head to the mem­bers, for their incorporation and preservation in the mysticall body; in this respect the person of Christ is taken singly by himself, or with his Members joyntly, 1 Cor. 12. and called Christ; so is Christ in this sense, the words run thus, that Jesus Christ, who is God in the Unity of Essence with the Father and the Holy Ghost, is the head and Saviour of his body by the dispensation of graces, and by vertue of the head the Church, gives Glory to him who is God a­lone, working in his Members effectually, Fphes. 3.20.21.

It is confessed, that as we have all spirituall blessings from God the Father by the hand of our Mediatour, so all our returns of Prayers and Prayses to God for all, if they are acceptable, are by Jesus Christ, Col. 3.17. without whom none of our Sacrifices can please him, but this doth not prove, that Christ is not God, and by consequent as you say, subordinate to God, but that he is our Mediatour to God, and in that respect, as he is man, and Me­diatour, inferiour to him, and not as he is God, for the Glory which is due to God the Father, is due also to his Son, being Authour of the grace for which he is to be honoured.

Answ.

The summe of this Argument is to this effect,

He that shall give up his Kingdome, and cease to reign is not the most high God, but Christ shall do so, as the Text shews.

For answer to this, we must take notice, that God hath three Kingdomes in specie, over mankind, whereof the two first are in [Page 159]earth, and the third in heaven (though they may in regard of the same Soveraign and Subjects be called one) these are grounded on a threefold right of propriety and government, Gods creating re­deeming, and glorifying us, the first is naturall and essentiall, and the other is according to the voluntary dispensation of grace, the first belongs to the whole Deity, in which Kingdome the three sa­cred Persons do rule with equal power, Majesty and Glory, in the Unity of Essence, in all things and above all things unchangeably for ever and ever, in this sense there is no end of his Kingdome, for as the ruling of God the Son doth not exclude the Father from go­verning the world and the Church: so the giving up the Kingdome into the hands of God, doth not absolutely exclude him in other respects to reign for ever. Some Divines do make another Distincti­on or explication of Gods Kingdome over Mankind by right of Creation, and that was over perfect man, which Kingdome is ne­ver called the Kingdome of the Son or redeemer, or Mediatour, this endured but till the fall of man, Baxter against Crandon.

The second Kingdome is the Kingdome of the Son or Redeemer, distinguished from the other by the foundation of right, viz. re­demption by it Ends, Laws and State of the Subjects, this is called by Divines oeconomium, vicarium, dispensativum regnum, for by such phrases is this Kingdome of grace usually expressed: this Kingdome is temporarie, and belongs not to Christ, as he is God, but as he is one Mediatour by a voluntary condescension. Saint Paul speaks expreslly of this latter Kingdome and not of the for­mer; he that had from the beginning reigned with equall power and glory with his Father, did voluntarily humble himself (yet preserving the natural right of his Dominion over all things) to ef­fect mans care and recovery, and to bring the lapsed disobedient Creature to a conformity and obedience to God again, and to per­fect the Saints, our blessed Saviour and head doth now govern, as he useth his power to call the elect effectually, & to protect his Church in the midst of hisenemies, & at last to exalt them to a glorious con­dition; this Monarchy of Christ can never totally be subdued, as ter­rene Monarchies are, and have been from time to time, and other new Lords have sate on Thrones and ruled them, neither force nor fraud, nor the gates of hell can possibly prevail over the Church; this rule and Dominion our Mediatour hath received from God, and doth most holily govern at his commands, and shall continue to [Page 160]Govern till hee hath put all his Enemies, the Devil and his Angels, all the wicked of the World, sin and death under his feet, and having compleated this blessed work, he delivers up the Kingdome, as having no longer any enemies to disturb these hap­py Subjects, this is not unlike to the fact of a King, who sends his Son with Authority and Commission to protect his good Subjects against impious Rebels that molested them; this Son when he hath by Gods blessing quelled and conquered them, and settled his Fa­thers people in a quiet and secure habitation, returns triumphant­ly to his Father, and resigns up that powerfull Commission, which he had vested him withal. The Case is not unlike in this great work of mans Redemption, and when our Saviour at the end of the World resignes this Kingdome he doth not simply cease to govern to all Eternity, as the Father at this present rules by his Son, so shall the Son for ever rule with his Father; this resigning then, is not meant in respect of the Divine Nature, for in this respect the Son of God is equal with his Father, nor is it understood of the Hu­mane Nature of Christ, for that hath been, is now, and shall be alwayes subject to the Father, but this is meant of Christ, as he is our Mediatour: this way of government, when all enemies are sub­dued, and all the Saints glorified, will be uselesse, he will then o­penly resign it into the hands of his Father, from whom in time he received it. In a word, to close up this Section, Christ was alwayes and ever will be the most high God, although he shall not alwayes reign in such a manner, and by such means as now he doth.

Answ.

It had been more for your credit (Mr. Biddle) to have passed over that well grounded Distinction of the two Natures of Christ, than by a Rhetoricall preterition, to have affixed an unworthy scoffe, calling it in scorn a goodly Distinction, and erroneously pro­fessing, that it is no where to be found in the word of God, if this could not be made good out of that unerring Rule, we do professe [Page 161]that we have no reason to own it, but we are confident, that it is there, & evidently there, see Rom. 1.3 4. Joh. 1.14. 1 Tim. 3.16. 1 Pet. 3.18, 19. as hath bin already & shall be more fully in due place proved.

2. Whereas you say, it is a signe of a desperate cause, to take for granted what is in Controversie, I answer, to do so when a man is an Opponent and not a respondent, is a shrewd signe of a very bad or a weak Disputant, but I say, if the Adversary writes his ve­ry thoughts, he may be ranked with egregious sophisters, and fallacious Disputants, but he is to learn the very Principles of Dis­putation for mark my friend, you are now in hand to prove your Heresie, by Objections against a most necessary and comfortable truth: the answerer bath done his part, if he can with reason deny a Proposition, or clear it up by a Distinction, or shew in what Respect the Proposiitions are true, and in what Respects they are false, if the answerer will give a reason of his deniall, or Distinction, 'tis done ex abundante, and more to avoid confusi­on, then by the strict Laws of Disputation can be required.

Answ.

You have brought us as you think by this Dilemma into a great strait, but the horns thereof like those of Zedechiah, 1 King, 22.11. have no strength to push us down, and you will prove but a false Prophet. I answer then, that without contradiction of any, a per­son is meant by him that rules, and not the nature or natures in abstracto: but in concreto. I do yield also, that the humane nature of Christ is not a person, and that (which will be no advantage to you) he resigned up the Kingdome to God the Father, but I do peremptorily deny your Distinction, there is not a full enumerati­tion of the parts, as there ought to be, one member is wanting, ei­ther [Page 162]he must cease to be the most high God (which is impossible) or else (say you) his Humane Nature must be a person, this is in­consequent, for that person which was true God, was also true man, and the giving up of his Kingdome was not the diminution of his natural and infinite power, as he was God, nor in regard of his person simply, but partly by subjection, which was evidently seen in the Humane Nature, and chiefly by laying down his Rule, as Mediatour, his work being done as a Physitian, that hath finish­ed his cure, now as I have often said to the accomplishment of this medicinal work, there was necessarily required the concurrence of both Natures, in the Unity of one person.

Answ.

The scope of the Apostle is to be observed, he had proved by sundry Arguments, that the dead must be raised; he meets with an Objection, which for Substance the Sadduces, made use of against our Saviour, If there shall be a Resurrection, whose Wife shall she be, that had seven Husbands? You erre (saith our Saviour) not knowing the Scripture, nor the power of God. There will be no marriages in heaven, as there are in this World, but there will be an end of the state of this World: other men which knew not the Scriptures, are ready thus to think of men when they shall be raised, what con­fusions will there be in the World? every one will go to the place of his former habitation, and lay claim to their Lands, because they judge the other world will be like this: the Apostle to pre­vent such surmises, saith, the end of the World shall be after the [Page 163]Resurrection, not simply, as I conceive, in regard of the substance, but the state and condition of it, and that will be when Christ shall give up his Kingdome to God, that is, all the Elect shall be ad­vanced from faith to vision in heaven, this Vicarium Regnum, is in the hands of our Mediatour, who is both God and man, the Fa­ther will have no communion with Creatures polluted with sinnes, but onely by the Mediation of his dear Son: this holy Son, as he is simply God, remaineth alwayes the naturall and eternal Lord of all things; but now, as he is God-man, the same Person of a Mediatour, He had all Power given him, by his Father, both in heaven and Earth, Mat. 28 and he is said to reign, as he useth that Power, to convert, protect, and advance the Elect, to clarifie them from all their sins, to bridle and to subdue all his Enemies: this Kingdome must continue so long, as any Enemies can hurt his Members, which being fully vanquished, he gives up this Kingdome, that is; all the Elect, or his Office and government, not simply, but as he was our Mediatour, for he hath done the work for which he was sent into the World, as the Romane Dictatours, when the Warre was ended, laid aside that Dignity and acted in their former Offices, and Christ having done his work, enjoys the fruit of his Passion, and reigns most gloriously and peaceably with the Father, and the Holy Ghost most pefectly without the least contradiction, and immediately without the holy Word, Sacraments, Discipline, with­out the Spirits working in the Saints, as in this life, and without a Med [...]atour betwixt God and us, as the Father by giving the King­dome to Christ, did not cease to be King of the Church, so Christ by giving up the Kingdome to the Father, doth not deprive him­self of all government, but together with the Father rules for ever, in this reasoning then of the Adversary, there is his usuall fallacy, à dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter; the Son shall be subject to the Father; the Divine Nature simply is not subject, for that is common, as the Name of God, but the Divine Nature of the Fa­ther denotes the Essence it self, and the manner of having it, is the Father, the Divine Nature of the Son, is the Son, for it is consi­dered, not as commune indivisum, but as determinate and subsist­ing in the persons, with the manner how; he is then subject, not in regard of his Divine Nature, but as touching his voluntary subje­ction, whereby he emptied himself, and took into the Unity of his Person the form of a servant; nature is the Principle of naturall [Page 164]actions, but this subjection is in regard of his voluntary conde­scension, which is the Principle of voluntary actions, who knows not, that men of equal rank may voluntarily submit themselves to others for some good? Now that which is subject by nature, is in­feriou [...] to that which subjects it, but not that person which volunta­rily submits himself, as our blessed Saviour did for our salvation. It is one thing to say, the Son is inferiour to the Father, subjecti­vè i.e. in the Divine Nature, another to say he is so causaliter, i. e. ex conditione naturae, See Junius against Bellarmine, Controv. 2. l. cap. 16. The Son himself shall be subject, as he was alwayes in his hu­mane Nature, being created obedient to and depending on the will of God, and thus is he likewise inferiour now in heaven, he shall be subject in another manner, because this Kingdome of Mediatour, which though not formally, yet vertually and fundamentally is contained under the Natural Kingdome, being laid aside, God shall no longer reign by the Humanity of Christ, but by himself, he shall be all in all, and this Kingdome is so much more per­fect than the Kingdome of the Mediatour, as such, as the ut­most End is more perfect than the Means, which are Divinely ordained, to attain that Glorious End, and as Eternal things are better than Temporall; now God rules by Christ, but then, not onely the Saints, which are the Members of Christ, shall be subjected to God, but the Humanity of Christ shall no longer act in the management of this Government for the Elect as former­ly, but there shall be another reason of subjection than there is at present, so Glorious shall be the Majesty of God the Fa­ther, Son and Holy Ghost, from thenceforth for ever, that all the happy ones shall see the blessed God reign solely, not onely over all the rest of these Holy ones, but over the Humanity of Christ it self, in the night the Sun rules, but it is by the Moon, (saith Zanchy) because the moon shines by the borrowed light of the Sun, in the night it doth not appear evidently that the Sun rules, but when the Sun is risen, then the Moon her self enlightens not the earth, but is subject to the Sun, but how? not by any new sub­jection, but by a manifestation to others of the former subjection, and that the Sun doth excell that Planet in glory, thus is it likewise true of our Saviour touching his humanity.

Whereas the Adversary saith; the best part of Christ is subject to God, this should have been proved, which is both fallaciously [Page 165]and falsely spoken, Logick might have taught him, that there is no good consequence from the person to the nature, from the whole to every part thereof, Will any wise man yield this to be a good reasoning: A man sleepeth, therefore the best part of a man sleep­eth, that is, his soul, it follows not, or thus a man is mortall, there­fore the soul of a man is mortall, a man as subjectum quod, understandeth, therefore the body of a man understandeth, a man groweth in stature, and is sometime sick, therefore the soul groweth in stature and is subject to diseases; a mans person may be in bondage, and tyrannized over by a cruel Lord, therefore his soul is not free, but in bondage, where there is no in­quisition, can there be any jurisdiction? Will any reasonable man allow these consequences? and will not every one plainly perceive, the weaknesse of the Adversaries disputing by these few Instances? Have you never heard, that by reason of the Union of two Na­tures in one Person of Christ, how that is ascribed to the Person from a Denomination, which is peculiar to one Nature onely? as that which is finite, and not to the other which is infinite? Well then, when Christ shall cease to rule in the Elect, as our Media­tour, in which respect he is inferiour and subordinate to the Father, and as man he is a part of the Church, though he is the head and most eminent part thereof, even as the first A­dam was both a Root of Mankind and a Part thereof, in this respect I say, shall God deal immediately with him, as with the whole Body of the blessed ones, which shall have immediate ac­cesse to his Majesty, and without a Mediatour partake of his Glory, and Happinesse, then shall our Union with God be im­mediate, yet so, that the Glory and Praise thereof, shall be for ever peculiar to Christ, who was the sole Procurer, and all-sufficient Purchaser of this our happy Union with the Glori­ous Trinity.

Before I leave this sacred scripture, I wil propound a question to the Adversary, and desire to know his positive resolution thereof, whe­ther Christ in the intrim now reigning in the midst of his enemies, be not truly inferiour and subordinate to God the Father, and whe­ther he be not in your sense the second cause of our salvation; if you shall have the face to deny this, then besides a contradiction to your self in the body of this ARticle, how can you make good your Argu­ment against the Diety of our Savior, i [...] which you so much triumph? [Page 166]God is not the most High, if the Son of God be equall to him, will not this reason upon this concession fall flat to the ground? if you yeeld he was alwayes subject to God, what singular thing is here to helpe you foretold (unless in the meaning whch I have formerly mentioned) which was not alwayes in being in the King­dome of the Messias? This Text is so farre fron Socinianisme, that it affordeth an Argument against all sorts of Arians, and those many learned ones, which you say were converted by it, I do truly say, they were perverted, and the Spiders have sucked their poyson out of this sweet Flower.

Answ.

All this in terms (excepting your Inference) the Orthodoxe Christians do believe, and by so doing we are it seems in your judge­ment in a safe condition touching our salvation, if the bare assent­ing to that holy Text will serve the turn, how are we guilty then, (as you falsly accuse us) of making defection from the true God, and that we hold grosse opinions touching three persons in one God, which made way for pollutions in worship, and lying now at the bottome, corrupteth almost our whole Religion in the Pre­face, page 2.

2. It follows then, the Adversary himself being Judge, that a bare acknowledgement of these words abstracted from other Principles of faith, will not be sufficient to save us, for himself alledgeth, John 17.3. This is life eternal, (the way to happinesse) to know God the Father, as well as Jesus Christ whom he sent, and Mr. Bid­dle asserts another Article, that the holy Trinity consists of one God, of one Lord, and of one Spirit, and he addes the holding of [Page 167]this Trinity, doth nearly concern Gods glory and the salvation of man, so that to speak fully and properly, 'tis not a sufficient faith to save us, to believe and confesse that God raised Christ from the dead, but this portion of Scripture must be taken in the full lati­tude, and many other particulars under this are to be understood, and are vertually implyed, which in other Texts concerning our Saviour, are expresly mentioned, and from thence to be sup­plyed.

Thirdly it remaineth then, that we search out the true sense, and if we grossely fail in this, which is the main and principal thing, notwithstanding a verbal profession, and a saying in general terms, you believe on Christ with your heart, and professe him to be Lord, you may be far enough from salvation, what Christian else would be damned? we say to professe, that Christ is Lord in spight of all dangers and persecutions that will attend on the profession of the Christian faith, and to believe on him with the heart, which is the original and Principle of Christian practise, our forsaking sin and the actions of a new life, in imitation of Christs Resurrection, is to professe that he is the Son of God, our Lord and Saviour, not onely by right of Creation, Preservation and Gubernation, in which respects all creatures, even the very Devils, are forced to be subject to him, but by vertue of redemption, and under the resurrection of Christ by a Synecdoche, his Conception, Birth, Life, Death and Buriall, which preceded his resurrection, so likewise the Conse­quents thereof, his Ascension into heaven, his glorious advance­ment, sitting at the right hand of his Father, and many other Ar­ticles of Faith, there are besides these to be distinctly and explicit­ly believed, but one reason why this touching Christ is specified, is because he is properly the object of a saving faith, as it is saving, now we do constantly avouch, and you can never disprove it, that this could not be done, but upon supposition that Christ was the t [...]ue God, and that the infinite excellency of the Deity, made his sufferings meritorious and satisfactory to Divine Justice for us; but your confession of faith, that Christ is a meere creature, robs God of his glory, and a christians soul of true and solid comfort.

Fourthly, you say, God raised up Christ, and that he raised not up himself, herein you discover how grossely ignorant you are, or wilfully bent to pervert and deny the Principles of religion, clearly set down in holy Writ, John 2.19. Destroy this Temple, that is this [Page 168]my Body, as is afterwards cleared, and within three dayes, I will raise it up, when you have killed it, John 2.19.21. by this miracle his Doctrine was to be confirmed, John 10.18. I have power (vo­luntarily) to lay down my life, otherwise it is not in the power of man forcibly to take it away, and I have power to take it up again, I am able to raise it up again, for he is Almighty, John 5.19.6.54. Revel. 1. and Apocal. 18 this is a strong Argument against the So­cinians, which may be thus framed.

He that can raise up himself from death to life is God, for to raise up the dead, is a work of omnipotency.

But Christ raised up himself from death to life, as the alledged Scriptures do prove, Ergo he is God.

Your Argument to the contrary is, he raised not up himself, be­cause God the Father raised him, is inconsequent, the reason is be­cause the raising of Christ to be the first begotten of the dead, Rev. 1.5. and the first fruits of them that are raised from the dead, 1 Cor. 15.20.23. is a work as they say ad extra, common to all the Per­sons of the holy Trinity, the Father by his omnipotent Power rai­sed him, and the Son by the same Power raised his dead Body lying in the Grave, as the Father gave his Son to dye for us, Rom. 8.32. and the Son gave himself, Gal. 2.20. the Father makes the Enemies of Christ his footstool, Psal. 110 3. and Christ himself puts all his enemies under his feet, 1 Cor. 15 25. the resurrection of our Savi­our is often ascribed to the Father, not onely because he is the foun­tain of the Deity, and by consequence of the operations thereof, but also because of the Office of Christ, for Christ is not onely considered as dead, but as justly dead for our sins; therefore God raised him not onely as God, but as Judge, who accepted his per­fect satisfaction for us, and lastly for our Christian comfort, for they are by the resurrection of Christ assured that their sins are ex­piated, and God is well pleased with them.

Answ.

Albeit this Creed was the composure of one man, if so it were, yet doth it not relie on the Testimony of one single Father who composed it (though famous in his time, and in all ages since a­mongst the Orthodoxe Professours) but on the Testimony of the Catholick Church, which hath retained it in her Liturgies, and com­mended it to all her children, as the Buckler of the true Christian faith, as touching the Divine truths and strict exacting of belief of his Creed from all Christians that look to be saved, it is to be remem­bred, that it was written in a zealous opposition to the trouble­some Arians, so that it doth not involve under damnable guilt, the pure ignorant, but the stubborn heretiques, it doth not condemn the bare nescience, but the stiffe negarion of the Catholick Faith, especially in these two main points, which he so much insists upon, viz. the holy Trinity, and the mysterious Incarnation of our Sa­viour, the Vision and fruition of the blessed Trinity, being the chiefest happinesse of man, and the incarnation of our Saviour, with the consequents thereof, being the direct means to attain it, so that there is no contrariety betwixt Saint Paul and Athanasius, albeit Athanasius out of his Fatherly care of the Church, hath a more full and exp [...]esse Declaration of the necessity of the Catho­lick faith oppugned by Heretiques, to awaken the Sons of the Church diligently to entertain it by the terrour of his Preface, as well of the Apostles Creed, page 246. Nescit, planè nescit vitam suam, qui Christum ut verum Deum ita ut verum hominem ignorat, Hilar. lib. 9. de Trinitat. he plainly knows not his life who is ig­norant that Christ is so the true God, as he is true man, the Scriptures quoted again, John 17.3. Ephes. 4 4. have been ful­ly discussed in the first Article, and therefore [...]omit them. Thus much touching the second Article.

Answ.

In this Article the Adversary discovers his meaning most fully, and that he dissents from the old Arians, which disturbed the Church, especially in the dayes of blessed Athanasius and at other times, which though they agreed not in all things amongst them­selves, yet in this they were unanimous, that the Son of God had a created being, that God first created him before he made any o­ther creatures, and that under God by him all other things were made, Epiphan. Tom. 1. contra haeres. lib. 3. haer. 73. who in these last times came down from above, and was conceived in the womb, and born of a pure Virgin, according to the Scriptures, and was made man, the Mediatour between God and men, and they believe the Ar­ticles which follow in the Apostles Creed, as is professed in a Synod at Antioch, in the dayes of Constantius the Arian Emperour: See also Socrates lib. 2. Histor. c. 14 and in the Synod of Arimine, saith the same Authour c. 19. the like Confession of faith was pro­posed and allowed in the Synod of Seleucia, idem cap. 32.

And as Mr. Biddle discusseth from these Arian Heretiques, touch­ing his opinion of the Son of God, so in this doth he forsake his Masters, the Macedonian Heretiques, which albeit they denied the Deity of the Holy Ghost, yet did they resolutely maintain the Deity of the Son of God against the Arians, and for this their Be­lief were persecuted by Valens the Emperour, and by the Arian Bishop Eudoxius, and fled to Valentinian the Emperour in the West, and Tiberias Bishop of Rome for succour, and they exhibited to them this Form of their saith, confessing that Jesus Christ was begotten of the substance of his Father, that he was not made, but was consubstantial to the Father, and as for those who say of the Son of God, that there was a time when he was not; a time be­fore he was made of nothing, or had any other substance then that of his Fathers communicated to him: such as these the Catho­lick Apostolical Church doth curse, Socrates Histor. lib. 4. cap. 11: but Mr. Biddle against all these and all Catholicks avoucheth, that Christ hath no other but a humane nature, and that he is not one­ly in that nature a Person, but also our Lord and God, which is ambiguously spoken with a Design to delude the people.

That our blessed Saviour was true man, we to our great comfort [Page 171]do acknowledge, but that he is onely man, it hath been hitherto our businesse, and shall be in that which follows to disprove; the deniall of his Deity hath a malignant influence upon the holy Gospel of Jesus Christ, and overthrows where it is embraced, the unshaken Foundation of our dearly purchased Redemption: our great Adversary Sathan, knows full well where the greatest strength of Christians lies, Who then can marvel, if he to the utmost im­proves his skill, and as much as is possible to take away the lowest foundation and corner stone, that our precious faith, and hope built on him might fall to the ground? Yea, and we do further open­ly professe that the son of God deigning to become man for our salvation, and Eternal God is a greater incouragement, both to Piety and Humility, than if he had been onely man.

Whereas you say, Christ in this nature is a person, that is, a sub­stance which subsisteth of it self without the subsistence of the Son of God communicated to him, this Nestorian Heresie we do with the Church of God detest, the Nature of man, although it be a totum essentiale most perfect in regard of Essence, yet it is not totum personale, and as they speak suppositale, nor doth it act as prin­cipium quod, sed ut Principium quo, because it wants the proper, personal subsistence, and is a part to be perfected by another part, the Deity, the humane nature indeed is substantia prima, the first substance, as it is called, and an understanding being, yet because it is not a substance compleatly incommunicable, ac ultimo subsi­stens, it is not a person, as it follows not, a mans hand is a living substantial body, therefore it is a person, or the reasonable soul joyned to the Body, is a living and understanding substance, there­fore it is a person, it is such a totum, as is a part of another totum, and therefore no person.

That the Son of God took the nature and not the person of man is thus proved. First, because if the nature of man had subsisted by it self, before it had been assumed into the unity of the person of Gods Son, if it had been conceived out of the person of the son of God, then that word could not have been made flesh, as Saint John saith it was, John 1.14. Nor secondly, could it be truly said, according to the Articles of our faith, that the son of God was conceived by the Holy Ghost, besides, if the Son of God had assumed the person of man, the Son of God would be two persons, the one created and the other uncreated, but it is impossible for one [Page 172]and the same Son to be two persons, if the humane nature had been a person, it would follow in the fourth place, that the word could not be truly called man; for one person cannot be another, nor predicated of another, Peter is not Paul, but this eternal word is man, and truly called man, and in the fifth place upon this account, it is also that the Properties of the humane nature, as for example, to be born to die, to be buried, &c. are attributed to the person. God is born, God shed his blood, &c. and so on the con­trary, the Properties of the divine Nature are ascribed to the man Christ, as to quicken the dead, and to give eternal life, which could not be truly verified, if there were two distinct persons, if the same person was not both God and man.

Lastly, they could not be one Lord, if one of the persons was crea­ted, and the other uncreated, one of the persons finite, and the o­ther infinite, but he is one Lord, 1 Cor. 8.6. Eph. 4.4. nay one and the self same Lord to descend down from heaven, and to ascend up to heaven, to have the form of God, and at the same time the form of a servant, to be God blessed for ever, and to be of the Father, ac­cording to the flesh Ephes 4.10. Rom 95. and therefore the Son of God assuming the Nature of man, did not take the person of a man, and consequently he is onely one person, and not two, these Ar­guments are strong against the Nestorians, and they do also, being taken out of Scriptures, confute Mr. Biddle, in saying the Lord Christ hath onely the Nature of man, and that this is a person; he is a true man, albeit he is not a humane person, for a man is not a a man by his personality, but by his humane nature, for by it be is formally a man: as a man is wise by wisdome, so a man is a man by his humane nature, and God by his Deity, materially I grant when we speak of other men, the humane nature doth denote a person, or that which hath the humane nature.

The Adversary addes, that none but a humane person can be our brother, this is denied, and cannot be proved, for Christ having the same specificall, albeit not the same numerical nature with us, being conceived and born with our natural infirmities, hath learned out of his experience of sorrows to be a mercifull High Priest, Heb. 2.17. and to take pity upon us in our miseries, had his humane na­ture been exempted from the condition and properties of other men touching natural infirmities, something I confesse had been spoken, but not enough, for they that have one Father, are brethren [Page 173]Angels, which have not a humane person are the Sons of God, Job 38, 67. and so in that respect are brethren, but to wave that, sithence as Scriptures hold forth to us, that Christ was not free in the dayes of his flesh being in the World, from infirmities, which are natural: Your Argument comes to nothing; nor was it any disparagement to the humane nature, to be so prevented, as it was from being a person of, and by it self, as is the singular nature of all other men, but a higher honour to be assumed to the person of the Son of God, where it is more eminently then humane nature can be in a humane person, as it is for the vegetative and sensitive faculties to be in the soul of man, though not the forms of man, as they are of Plants and Animals.

Answ.

There is one God in Essence (opposed to all created and named Gods) who denies this? surely we plead not for many Gods, but do all of us religiously believe, & sincerely confesse this Fundamentall Article, now God is taken either essentially, as in the third verse, Pray for all men, for this is good and acceptable in Gods sight. The A­postles Argument may thus be framed, they that have one God ought to pray to this one God (the giuer of every good gift) for one another, and therefore all Christians ought to pray for all men, for Rulers, &c. but if the name of God be taken persona [...]lly, as it seems to be by the restriction in the Text, whereby God is distinguished from Christ, which notes a personall opposition, and a personal si­gnification, the scope is to shew, that there is a God of all the elect, & he names God the Father, the note of Unity, but doth it there­fore follow that only the Father is God, I deny the sequel, for this not only against [...]he custom of the holy scriptures, but the first rudi­ments of Rhetorick who wil not allow of such an argument, as this is, [Page 174]when I say the Poet, I mean Homer, when I say the Oratour, I mean Cicero, when I name man, I understand thereby onely A­dam, or the King, for onely David, therefore onely Homer is a Po­et, onely Cicero is an Oratour, onely Adam is man, onely David is King. As we may not conclude, the word man is put for Christ onely, therefore he is onely man, no more can we justly infer. God is here put onely for the Father, therefore he onely is God.

I will recite Bisterfields sense against Crellius, which he borrow­ed from no others, but out of his own observation, and he tells us that the naturall order of the words are inverted, and thus to be placed, the man Christ Jesus is one God, and one Mediatour be­twixt God and man, the man Christ Jesus is as the subject of this Proposition, and to be one God and one Mediatour, a copulative consequent thereof, as Zach 14.9. if this be the sense of the A­postle, the Deity of our Saviour is directly confirmed by it, this I onely name, let the impartiall Reader judge.

As there is one God, so saith the Text, there is one Mediatour, and this one Mediatour and Peace-maker, is opposed to all Media­tours, which are barely and nakedly creatures.

This holy Scripture, as the rest recited by you, proveth that Christ is a man, but it proves not, which is the Controversie, that he is onely man. The Office of a Mediatour is to reconcile parties that are at variance, and is commonly called a Mediatour of Redemption, or to unite them in a league of friendship, which formerly had not friendly entercourse amongst themselves. In this gracious Media­tour, both extremes do happily meet in the same person: the word which was one with God by ineffable Unity, became one with man by admirable Union; this truth doth the holy Word of God teach, this doth the Church of God believe, and this do we before God and the world religiously professe.

The order of the Apostles words are to be observed, he saith the man Christ, not Christ the man; there is a difference betwixt these two, when (man) precedes, and Christ is added thereto by way of limitation, he sheweth of what man he meaneth, homo Christus notes the Person of Christ, and we may truly affirm such Proposi­tions as these to be true, the man Christ is omnipotent, the man Christ is every where present, though the humane Nature be not omniscient, omnipotent, and every where, but whatsoever Christ hath in that created Nature is finite, and he is circumscribed in a cer­tain [Page 175]place as he is man; the reason of this difference is because the concrete word denotes the Person, though so denominated from the abstract, I mean the humane nature: but you may not say, Christ­man is every where essentially present, for that is all one, as to say, Christ as he is a man is every where.

Nor can we Logically infer as the Pontificians do, that Christ who is God, is our Mediatour onely in the humane nature, I will not digresse and enter the Lists with those Adversaries at this time, how­ever both by them and us it is not doubted, that this Person where­of we speak, is both God and man, that he might be able to save us to the uttermost, that he might satisfie Gods Justice, appease his wrath, take away the sinnes of his people, pull down the Tyran­ny of the Devil, and the power of death, that he might restore Gods image in us, conser and preserve our graces, and bring us to glory; these great evils could not be removed, nor could those great mercies have been bestowed on us, unlesse he had been both God and man.

This place then makes nothing for the Adversary, but if it be well observed, it makes much against him, because it is said, he is the Mediatour betwixt God and man. What shall we say onely of those that lived since his Incarnation? no verily, Christ is like the Sun in the Firmament, which casteth beams and Influences; as well backward as forward, he is a Mediatour for man, implying that he was not onely a Mediatour for men that lived since his Nati­vity, but that all the Elect from Adam till that joyfull time were reconciled to God by him, for of necessity it must follow, that ei­ther these happy ones had no Mediatour which lived and died be­fore his Nativity, which is a grosse errour, contrary to Gods Word, for all of them were saved by believing on the promised seed, which was to come, who was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the World, and was alwayes the same, yesterday, to day, and for ever, or else Christ was their Mediatour transacting the affairs of his people by vertue of his future Incarnation, and meritorious passi­on, which he could not possibly have done, if he had not been God, a divine person, Non entis nullae sunt operationes. Those saithfull ones, eundem habuerunt Christum in persona, non in carne assumpta, they and we had the same Christ in regard of his person, Deity, and Humanity, though not after the same manner, the faithfull which lived before his Conception firmly believed, that he should [Page 176]come in our flesh, we in these latter times do believe that he is al­ready come, that he hath perfectly done and suffered whatsoever was requisite for our salvation.

I may further adde, which is observed by others, that man is mentioned not to exclude the Deity, but because the Apostle is de­lighted with the elegancy of speech, for having told us in the for­mer verse, that God would have all men to be saved, he addes, there is one Mediatour, betwixt God and man, the man Jesus Christ, or which is another reason, because he was presently to treat of his passion, he gave himself a Ransome for us, that we men in regard he was man, might have strong consolation, and by him go boldly to the Throne of Grace in this act of Mediation, the Natures of Christ are not seperated, but yet they are distinguished, none can be a Mediatour according to substance, that is not a Mediatour ac­cording to operation, nor can any be a Mediatour according to operation, who is not a Mediatour also according to substance, Camier Paustral de officio Mediatoris, lib. 7. c. 5.

Your next place is Joh 3.13. No man hath ascended into heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man, which is in heaven.

1. This Text proveth (which we do not deny) that Christ is true man, but will it from hence follow, that he is not true God also? No verily, its not said, as Anabaptists do dream, that this flesh came from heaven, Angels have descended from heaven, and have assumed bodies, but it follows not the Angels brought those bodies from heaven with them, and 'tis said, the Holy Ghost descen­ded from heaven in a bodily shape, Will it follow, that this was a celestiall body?

2. I say, it is the Adversaries mishap to alledge such Scriptures, which do directly overthrow his own Tenet: the scope of this Text, is to shew as appears by the Context, that Christ was in the bosome of his Father, intimately acquainted with his secrets (an allusion perhaps to great Moses, that went up to God in the Mo [...]nt Sinai to know his pleasure, and went down from God to the Israe­sites to acquaint them with his holy Laws, as learned Camere gues­seth). Christ being in heaven came down from heaven, was made man, to publish his fathers pleasure; this is a transcendent Prero­gative, which cannot belong to any creature, the meaning is, Christ was in heaven, descended from heaven viz. the Son of man in the person of God, Synech. integri pro Membro, the crosse and [Page 181]circulatory speech, called communication of properties takes place here, when that which belongs solely to one nature is attributed to the person denominated from the other nature, the cause whereof is the association of Natures in one Subject; or else it is an effect of the personal Union: he came down from heaven, how? by assuming our humane nature, and in revealing Gods counsels to us, when he before that time, as he was God, is said to dwell in heaven, 'tis added, the Son of man which is in heaven. How in Heaven? not as he was the Son of man, that is not in his Humane Nature, for that was at that very time, and had been alwayes onely on earth, and never before in heaven, behold he was here, saith Saint Augu­stine, tract, in Iohan. and he was in heaven, here he was in the flesh, but he was in heaven, yea every wh [...]re in his Divinity, but this was verified, if we ascribe to both natures in the person, what belongs onely to the Divine Nature, he was then at once, both in heaven and on earth, and consequently every where, and from thence fairly conclude, that he was not onely man, but God also.

As for your novel criticisme, whereby you go against the streams. I think of all Translations, [...] say you, may and must be rendred, was, being as well of the Preterimperfect as the Present Tense. I would gladly see an example in Scripture, where the word is so ta­ken (unlesse Tropically) do not you observe how clearly these two are distinguished, [...], which is, and which was, Rev. 18. &c. 4.8 & 11. ch. v. 17. might not the Spirit, if you had been in the right, by using [...] have prevented a generall mistake.

2. Besides, when had our Saviour been in Heaven (being in your sense only a Creature, before these words were spoken by the Redeemer of the World? must this man go up to Heaven to be in­formed there of Divine secrets, and could not the God of all the World receal them unto him without his ascention into the highest Heavens? Shall we without the warrant of Scripture say, that he was taken up thither, whether in the body or out of the body, God knoweth: This is a groundlesse and senseless Fiction, devised with­out any col [...]ur of Scripture, or reason to support it.

3. The words of the Text are against the Adversary, and do prove that Christ was first in Heaven, and in that he ascended thi­ther, he came first down from Heaven, he then first came down from Heaven, which is contrary to Biddle, before he ascended thi­ther.

Wheres you give your reason, why the Text must be Translated [Page 182]was, otherwise there will be a contradiction, for how could he still be in heaven when he descended thence? could he be both in heaven and earth at the same time? To this we can readily and easi­ly answer, and make it appeare that there is no contradiction at all in these words, nor any necessity why the Adversary should cor­rupt the Text with a false and unheard of Translation; marke then Christ speaking to Nicodemus, saith that he at that time was in heaven, viz as he was God, and to shew the Divine relation be­twixt the Father and the Son in the unity of the same Essence, and the ineffable communication of the Father to his Son, especially in his dealing towards the Elect, be viz. Gods Son manifested his pre­fence on earth by assuming our flesh, and even then he being the true God ceased not to be in heavn, albeit he was not included ei­ther in heaven or in earth, but within these, and without them too. The Son of man descended not from heaven as he was the son of man, that is, in regard of his humane nature, for then it would follow, which implies a real contradiction that he was a man before he was a man, a man in heaven before he was a man in earth.

Nor is it a contradiction to say the same person is at the same time both in heaven and earth, this is verified of God alwayes; and to speak to the matter in hand, in reserence to Christ, it is a received rule in contradictions, that they are to be vnderstood in the same respect; marke then the words. The Text saith not that our Lord, as he is the son of man descended from heaven, or that he came downe from heaven in regard of his humane Nature, but thus the son of man descends; the Reader must remember that there is a vast difference betwixt these two expessions; the one of them is true, and the other false, for the son of man denotes not the Nature but the Person, the person of the son was at once both in heaven and in earth. The Person which is both God and man is every where essentially present at the same time, but now, as he was the Son of man, that is, taken in the notion of the humane nature so had he not at all been in heaven, nor descended from hea­ven, nor was at that instant in heaven, nor is it now being exalted to glory in earth, for a finite nature cannot be infinite, but is limi­ted to a place.

The next objected place out of the same Evangelist, John 6.62. what if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he may be free: this place is not paralell to the former, nor a confirmation [Page 183]of it: the same Tense here is not in the originall, he that was in heaven and descended from heaven, is not in heaven, but Christ was in heaven before, and therefore he (being on earth) is not now in heaven. I deny the Major, it is false, Christ was in heaven, but it followeth not that he is not in heaven: see your errour by other examples taken out of Scripture; the world was in the beginning, therefore the word is not now, the word was with God, will it follow therefore the word is not with God: that word was God, therefore the word is not God, is this sound arguing? in him was life, therefore life is not in him, can you say so? he was in the world, therefore he is not in the world, are these Inferences taken out of one chapter of Saint John 1. to name no more Scriptures to­lerable? just of this stamp is your proof to justifie your corupt tran­slation, John 3.13.

Seven times is it said in this sixth of Iohn, that Christ descended from heaven, and by consequence he was in heaven before, the drift of our Saviour is to withdraw the Capernaites from a grosse con­ceit of a carnal eating of the flesh of the Son of man, which as in nature was incredible, so was it not possible for them to do, if they would advisedly consider of the great distance betwixt his body and those which should feed on him, which is as great, as betwixt hea­ven and earth, as is betwixt the beginning of the world and the end thereof, and his end and drift was to raise up their hearts from the thoughts of a corporall to a spirituall eating thereof by faith, which cannot be hindred, by distance of time and place, and which was also in a heavenly manner done, when Christ was not incarnated, for all the holy ones which lived before his Nativity, did verily and in truth feed on him, and were in their souls nourished by that blessed food of life, for this is the strength and excellency of saith, comfortably to rely on those precious promises in Christ, which were not then accomplished, as well as on present truths; Christ then mentioning his bodily Ascension into heavean, where he had been before, though not in his body, but in his Deity, and shewing also, that he shall not alwayes touching his corporal pre­sence converse with them on earth, and moreover declaring that he always hath been and shall be ever the food of his people, doth clearly evince the verity of his two Natures, which the Adversary doth peremptorily oppose.

Answ.

The Adversary heaps up many Texts of Scripture, to shew that Christ was man, the Son of man, but to no purpose, for we all of us do willingly subscribe, and do make an open profession to our solide comfort, that Christ is man and the Son of man, urge them us much as you please against such fantasticks, which deny Christ to be a true man, or that he had not his flesh from his blessed Mo­ther. I will not spend time to examine the sense of all the particulars, but will try the strength of your Inferences deduced from them, onely, I shall acquaint the Reader with the mind of Bisterfield, touching that 7. of Daniel, 13, 14. he saith, Christ is not meant by one like the Son of man, but some glorious chief King, by whose hands Christ shall destroy his enemies, verse 26, 27. because it is said in the Text, he comes to the ancient of dayes, yea is brought to him, this belongs not to Christ, he is not brought to God, and by the ancient of dayes is meant Christ, because a form and figure is given to him, but not to the Father, and because Christ is so de­scribed, Rev. 14.

Answ.

Glorious things indeed are spoken of Christs humanity, but I do deny that the most excellent things are spoken of Christ under the notion of a man, for some things are a tributed to him, which were meerely Divine, as the Attributes of God, and the Decrees which are immanent acts, and some works, as creation, guberna­tion and others, which do not appertain to the humane nature, at least not primarily, as to give grace, forgive sinnes, &c. but onely instrumentally, not that it is a separate instrument, as a Saw an Axe is to the Carpenter, but conjunct, as the Humane body is to the reasonable soul: this and the like to these most glorious things are truly verified of him who is the most High God, nor can they truly appertain to any created person.

Now that you may not complain, that we do vilifie the humane nature of, our Saviour; be it known unto you, that we do warran­tably plead for many glorious priviledges, which you do unwarran­tably deny to his great dishonour. First, that he was conceived without the seed of man, not apart from the person of the Word, and Secondly, that it alone was assumed into the Unity of the per­son of the Son of God. Thirdly, that the properties of either nature are really attributed to the other in the concrete, that is, to the per­son by vertue of that Union. Fourthly, that in the Offices of the Messias, each nature hath its proper operation, with communion of the other, the properties and differences of each nature being entire to it self. Fifthly that whole Christ, God and man, in both natures is present with and governs the Church, as the head is pre­sent with the members: these are Prerogative and glorious things spoken of the humane nature, which you Mr. Biddle will not in a true sense ascribe to him.

Besides, glorious things are spoken of Christ, in regard of the grace of Unction, which albeit, it is not in its own nature infinite, but a concreated being, yet in the nature of grace, it had no limita­tion, the reason here of is, because grace was given to Christ, not as to a particular, but to an universal cause, whence it was to be derived from him to others, for of his fulnes we all receive grace, 1 John 16. our [Page 186]light is from his Son, our water is from his unexhausted fountain, our sap from his root, and congruous it is because of the grace of Union, the humane nature being united to the word, that he being nearer the fountain and prime cause of grace than any other creatures, should more abound in the degree and quantity of grace than all others: the nearer any one is in blood to a King the foun­tain of honour being taken in that consideration, the more honou­rable he is, so that in respect of God, these graces were most meet for our Saviour: 1. That he might most exactly do his Fathers work, and glorifie him. 2. In regard of himself, that he might be a meet and alsufficient Mediatour, and 3. In respect of his chosen people, that they might receive all good, both spirituall and eterna from him.

To your question, why should we imagine another nature in him beside his humane to sustain his great dignity.

First, I must tell the Adversary, and I desire the Christian Rea­der, to observe it, that he doth not fitly speak as it becometh a Di­vine, nor agreeably to the language of Gods holy Spirit; we do not say, nor hath Gods word taught us to speak in that manner that the nature of man is sustained in another nature, for the di­vine nature as simply and absolutely such considered, was not made flesh, for then no doubt, all the three persons should have been in­carnated, which to affirm is not consonant to Scripture, and the Catholick faith, but it was onely the Son of God, or the Divine Nature of the second Person of the holy Trinity, which did sustain the humane nature, and the great Dignity conferred on it.

2. Do you Christian Readers, abstract the humane Nature of Christ, I do not say that this can be really done, but let it be done in a mental consideration from his blessed person, and then I do a­vouch, that all the graces, which were plentifully bestowed on the humane nature, could not have enabled him to be a King, a Priest, a Prophet, our Saviour, our Judge with qualifications, to perform those sacred Offices for our eternal happinesse, he might have been I confesse a happy man in regard of himself, but considering that it was Gods pleasure, that his Justice should be satisfied, or else man should never be saved, he could not have been a happy Saviour for us: besides it must not be forgotten, the Man, and Sonne of of Man do note the Divine Person, though so demoninated from the humane nature.

Answ.

Thus may this Reason be framed.

If the Scripture calleth Christ a Person, naming him Mediator, King Judge, and speaketh of him as man in these offices, then he hath only a humane nature: the former is true by the inspection of the Quotation: Ergo, he hath only a humane Nature and Person.

To this I answer by granting that all these recited titles which are predicated of our Saviour, do denote a Person, and not simply Na­ture, Person is that Quod est, as the thing that is, and the Nature is that Quo est, whereby it is such a being: the condi­tion of personall being, addeth to an individuall nature, a negation of dependance, or of being sustained by another, every individuall ra [...]ionall Nature, which is in and for it selfe is personall being; to be this or that in and for another, is to pertain to the Person or subsi­stence of an [...]ther: these titles then attributed to our Saviour Christ doe plainely proclaime that hee was a Person, and this you will yield; yet I deny this inference, therefore Christ according to his humane nature is a Person, they are glorious expressions of such a Christ as we do plead for, but altogether inconsistent to a Creature; Christ which is your vilifying assertion, whole Christ according to his Deity and humanity, is a Mediator, a Rede [...]mer, a King, a Priest, and a Prophet, a Lord, and Judge of all the World, and which is more then another kind of Adversaries the Pontificians will grant, who yet do soundly prove both his Natures; he is our Mediator ac­cording to both Natures, as the nature of man was truly given and communicated to the Person of the Son of God, and hereupon he is truly and really man; so the Person of the Son of God was as truly communicated to the Nature of man, that it might subsist in that Divine Person, that so it might not only be holy, but the holiest of all, even the Son of God, yea, and truly God. Hence is there [Page 188](as I have often sayd) a communication of the Divine properties to man, not by Phisicall communication or effusion, as the heat is from the fire, which is inherent as an accident in the water; for if so then would there follow a confusion and conversion, and an equal­ling of the natures, and naturall properties, but this communica­tion is personall, whereby the humane nature subsists in the Person of the Son of God, and it is called the Grace of Union, which is in regard of the thing that is, the personall subsistence gratiously be­stowed on the humane nature in the Virgins womb, was infinite; yet observe that the relation of dependency founded on the humane Nature, whereby it is [...], united to the Person of the Son of God, is a finite and created being.

Whereas you say all actions are of Persons, this is not true, unless it be understood with caution, hath the soule of man no distinct actions when it informes the body, and when it is separated from it? We do believe, that as there are two Natures in Christ, two Wills, two kinds of properties answerable to their natures; so that there are also two kinds of operations in him, all such are double in him. Divines do call the actions appertaining to the office of our Media­tor, Divinely Humane, or Humainly Divine; the Person, I confess, the Quod that worketh is but one, not two, and [...], the work which is produced by the actions flowing from two princi­ples thereof, is also but one, and called elegantly [...], in refe­rence to God, the principle is Divine, and as man is an inward principle, 'tis a Humane action, and upon this account it is, that the works of our Mediator performed by both Natures, are other­wise ascribed to the Person in respect of the Divine Nature, for in­stance, in miraculous works, and to give the Holy Ghost by his effi­catious power, the divine is the sole efficient principal, otherwise to the humane, viz. by intercession, impetration: the conclusson is, you have not by all these texts proved the humane Nature to be a Person, or rather to have a humane personality, but they doe eff [...] ­ctually prove that it is united to that Person which is infinite, and which hath all perfections eminently in it, and consequently that it is a high honour for the humane nature to he there, when it would never have been in, and for it selfe in such a transcendant manner of excellency, as now it is, whence it is also that the actions of the hu­mane Nature have in them a greater perfection then can be found in the actions of any meer man, arising from the assistance of the [Page 189]Deity, which dwelleth [...], personally, and essentially in him, Colos. 2.9.

Answ.

This Section may either be true or false, as it is capable of a va­rious interpretation, if the Adversary meaneth, as he must accor­ding to his own principles, that the Person of the Prophet did not subsist in the dayes that Moses Prophesied of him, as in some sort future, then it is false and justly denyed by us, for The Word was in the beginning (of the Creation) 1. John 1. and himselfe, whose wit­ness is undeniably true, saith of himselfe, Before Abraham was I am, and then of necessity it must follow, that it was also true, Before Moses was I am, and he was in a comfortable way alwayes, the Prophet of the Catholick Church: and this is one Reason among o­thers, why he is called The Word, the Embassadour of his heavenly Father, the Angel of the Covenant, Counsellor, and by such like titles. But how? this office he powerfully and savingly performed from the beginning, but it was done in reference to the humane Nature to be assumed into the unity of his Person, he alwayes by his Spirit repeated the Divine Truths which were to be believed and practised, and that for the most part by the Ministry of his Servants deputed to that office, and he was the person that alwayes enlightned his people in all ages with saving knowledge and other sanctifying Graces.

It is very true that he did not subsist both God and Man, till many ages after this Prophesie of Moses, we are far from such a dotage to assert that the humanity of Christ was eternall; but we say, that he was only in the form of God, till the fulness of time when he tooke flesh of the blessed Virgin Mary, Gal. 4.4. and whereas you infer much less was he the Lord God that raised up himseife to be a Pro­phet, this is granted in a sense. he raised not up himself totaliter to [Page 190]be a Prophet in both Natures; nor was he the Lord God that raised him up: but it doth not from hence follow, that he was not the true God, this work being a work ad extra, excluded no Person of the holy Trinity from the production of that nature, but terminative­ly, this appertained only to the Son of God, which assumed this hu­mane nature into his Person.

Besides, consider Christ in that respect, as he was really raised up, to be a Prophet in time, which was accomplished in the humane Na­ture, and so is he not formally the Lord God, for who will or can assert the humanity of the Son of God to be very God?

Answ,

That Jesus Christ was truly man none of ours do make any que­stion, and that he did also work miracles as he pleased, and when he would; the History of the Gospel doth clearly hold forth, as also that God by him wrought those wonderfull Works, but for better understanding hereof we are to take notice that Christ is a Receiver from another by three degrees.

First, as he was the Son of God, he receved his Divine Nature by eternal generation; and thus he hath one and the self same numeri­call substance with, and from the Father only, the Father is alone originally that Deity, which Christ is not originally; whatsoever Christ thus receiveth, he hath it naturally and eternally, and tis not bestowed on him by way of favour and benevolence in this respect Though God the Father works miracles by the Son, and an order is observed in working them, yet is not the Son of God subordinate to him, or an instrument of these glorious works.

Secondly, Christ is a Receiver in this particular, that the Humane Nature hath had the grace, the greatest grace that man was capa­ble of, to be united to the Person of his only begotten Son, in this he differeth from all men, because he is that man of whom God is himselfe a part.

Thirdly, from the Grace of union is derived the Grace of Unction, by meanes whereof sundry eminent Graces have followed as effects from the Deity into our nature, which is joyned with it, enriching our nature with such degrees of grace and influences of the Deity, both into the soul and body proportionable, to the great imploy­ment of our Saviour, and to his own purposes, ends, and Counsels, and we will not stick to grant, that God by Christ in respect of the humane Nature was the principal, and our Nature the instrumentall cause of working miracles.

We do further from these miraculous Works conclude, that our Saviour is the true God, for God alone works wonders, and our Saviour convinceth the Jews his maligning opposers, that because he hath power to work miracles, he had power to forgive sins, Mat. 9.5. which none but God could do, for the clearing whereof we may take notice of three kindes of works wrought by Christ our Saviour, as Sophronius in that notable Epistle of his doth distinguish them in the sixt generall Synod, Activ. 11.

First some are meerly Divine. as to create the world.

Secondly some are meerly humane, as to eat and sleep, and such like naturall actions, the formall principle whereof is the Humane Nature, yet to be considered as existing in the person of the Son of God, and not without it: these were actions of the Mediator, be­cause they kept him in the being of a Mediator, but not parts and a­ctions of his Mediatourship, as the Israelites eating and drinking in Egypt, was no part of the task of brick imposed on them, but qua­lified them to perform their task.

Thirdly, some actions are partly Divine, and partly humane, I instance in most of the miracles of our Saviour, as one is, to walke upon the waters, for as simply to walk on them was a humane action, yet to give firmnesse and solidity to the liquid waters (if the mira­cles was in the waters) to bear up the weight of his heavy body, or if the miracle was in the body of our Lord, by holding it up, or o­therwise that it should not sink; this I say, was an action of the Dei­ty: thus was it also touching other miracles wrought by our blessed [Page 192]Saviour, both the Deity and Humanity concurred to their produ­ction; but in different manner, as in healing the sick, giving Sight to the Blind, Hearing to the Deafe, Raising the Dead: the efficacy of the Spirit of the Deity, as the principall cause was seen in working the miracle, and the humane nature concurred instrumen­tally both in respect of his body and his soul, in regard of the for­mer, that he touched them, or they him that were to be healed, or spake to them as to Lazarus lying in the grave, Come forth, or commanded the Devil to come out of them that were possessed by him; in respect of his soul, that he desired, approved, and rejoy­ced in that supernatural work, which the divine power brought to passe, this shewed that the humane nature neither had, nor possibly could have that Divine power residing in it to work miracles, but it was onely the Instrument of the Deity in these words of wonder.

Bid. Secondly, When he saith, that Jesus being exalted at the right hand of God, and hauing received the promise of the Holy Ghost from the Father poured it out on the Apostles, this argueth, that he gave the Holy Ghost as a man, since he neither could be exalted by God, nor re­ceive the promise of the Holy Ghost from the Father, for according to the supposition of the Adversaries themselves, the holy Spirit proceed­eth from Christ, as he is God, as well as from the Father, and conse­quently the holy Spirit himself is so far from being God (in as much as it is absurd, yea impossible that God should be received by promise from any one) as that he is not equal to Christ, as man, since his ex­altation, because he that is given and disposed of by another, must be inferiour in Dignity to him that giveth him.

Ans. The Son of God, which did first humble himself by taking our nature upon him, descended afterwards much lower, and in regard of his flesh became obedient, so far as to suffer even the cursed death of the Crosse for our salvation, hecause it was his Fathers will and pleasure that he should do so, he thus dying and being bu­ried, was brought to the lowest condition, insomuch that his wick­ed enemies thought, as the brethren of Joseph did, when they had sold him to strangers, that they had so taken him out of the way, that they should never again be troubled with him; but see to our unspeakable comfort how much they were deceived? as Christ by his manhood had glorified God on earth, in his suffering, so God hath glorified that humane nature, and exalted him in Dignity, far above all Angels and men, and he now sitting at the [Page 193]right hand of God, hath fulnesse of power over the whole world, and fills the Church with the gracious and happy fruits of his saving presence, and exerciseth the Dominion, wherein the humanity o [...] Christ is inseparably united to the Deity of the Son of God, but doth this concession touching the humane nature infer a denial of the Divine? in no wise, this is done by no better Logick, than by our asserting one constituting part of a created person; to think it convincing, that there is no other, as if I should say, this man hath a body, and prove plainly that he hath so, therefore he hath not a soul, and suppose it onely without proof.

You infer that Jesus Christ gave the Holy Ghost, as a man, this quatenus and Inference is denyed, this follows, he that gave the Holy Ghost was a man, and his manhood was inseparably united to the person of the Son of God, and is no where actually sever­ed from him but the conjunction with the Deity is extended as far as the Deity, though the actuall position thereof is restrained to a limited place; the infinite word is not divisible into parts, and there­fore could not in part, but wholly be incarnated as the light in the beginning, which was created by God did enlighten the Creation, but after the Sun and stars were created, the world was illuminated by them, so in our present case, the Deity which before our Lords in­carnation wrought all things without man, doth now in the affairs of the Church work nothing wherein the assumed nature of man is absent, or not in a sense co-working with it: the promise then of the holy Ghost (to clear the meaning thereof) is the holy Ghost promi­sed, & it is in another place called the promise of the Father, Act. 14.5. or the promise which Christ gave the Disciples from the Father, which was meant of the liberal gifts of the spirit, & this comforter he promised to send to the Apostles, Joh. 14.16. and 16.7. now Ss Peter alledgeth this promise, and 33. c. 2. that the Jews might undoubtedly know that this great gift of speaking with tongues was not suddenly given but that our Lord Christ was faithful and true to perform his promise made to them, the Father of our Lord Christ poured out the holy Ghost on him, not as he was God, for that was not possible, but as he was our Mediatour, to prepare & furnish him with gifts for that high office, the human nature of his divine person must have eminent graces conferred on it without measure, not simply infinite, because that nature is simply finite; observe then, Christ receives this pro­mise from his Father, as he is our Mediatour, and he sent the [Page 194]Holy Ghost on the Apostles as he was God; it is the office of our Mediator, as he is our Mediator to reconcile us to his Father, and to confer on us his servants in some degree, what he receives from the Father, so far as is expedient for our salvation.

Our supposition is a true position, that the Holy Ghost proceeds both from God the Father, and God the Son, in an ineffable and inconceiveable manner to us, but not from man, nor is this pro­cession properly in time, but from all eternity, whereas you say that Christ gave the Holy Ghost, as he was man. You mean by his humane glorified nature, this we do absolutely deny, and we are sure you can never prove it, the Son of God which is our happy Media­tor, gave him to his Disciples? but how was he given? in regard of the plentifull gifts which he bestowed on them; he was from the beginning given to the Elect to sanctifie them, and in regard of common Graces to Reprobates also, but not in that ample and great measure as he was given in the latter dayes; the Holy Ghost thus was not given, because Jesus Christ was not yet glorified, John 7.39. which is clearly meant of the Holy Ghosts visible descending upon the Disciples in the appearance of cloven Tongues like fire, Acts 2.2.33. by which he should give testimony of the truth of all that Christ had said unto them, John 15.26. and secondly testifie also to others, that whatsoever they should teach was also the will of God. and so authorize them to give solemn testimony of the resur­rection of Jesus Christ, and give them commission and graces to discharge their whole Ministery, as choice Witnesses now designed by him to declare to Israel, and not only to Jews, but to Gentiles also what Christ had done, and preached in their presence, and that he was risen from the dead. Dr. Hammond on Act. 1. Note is, see also John 6.4.7. He that was man gave the Holy Ghost, but not as he was man. Mr. Biddle that sits doth write, but not as he sitteth; he sitting doth eat, but not as he sits, for then every one that sits should write and eat: This is a transparent fallacy.

You tell us (in a Parenthesis) that it is impossible that God should be received by promise from any,

1. Consider well, and this will prove the Holy Ghost to be God, because he is at once received of many, and of those which are di­stant one from another; 'tis a strange creature to admiration that can be in this Apostle; and in others essentially as far remote a [Page 195]East from West, in this place and not in that which is contiguous to it.

2. Secondly, it is no absurdity at all, no false assertion, but a Divine Truth full of heavenly comfort, that God the Father by his Son should give the Holy Ghost, who was essentialy every where, and in all times present to be in another way present, that is, accor­ding to promise, gratiously present, and in a speciall manner to dwell with his Servants: See my answer against Biddle in defence of the Holy Ghost, 7. Reason.

The Holy Ghost (say you) is not equall to Christ as man, since his ex­altation, because he gives and disposeth him.

To this first I answer, that the Holy Ghost is so far from being inferior to the Humane Nature, that he is in that respect superior to him, not only because in that consideration he sent Christ, Esay 61.1. This is a strong Argument against the Adversary, because he would by this prove the Holy Ghost to be inferior to God, but be­cause he received his created being from him: He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, Mat. 1. as also because he was corporally raised from death by him, Rom. 8.11. and Christ himselfe saith, It was a greater sin which is committed against the Holy Ghost, then that sin which is committed against the Son of Man, Mat 12.31.32.

2. But the Adversary seems to grant that the Son was not grea­ter then the Holy Ghost. till his exaltation. First this crosseth his Exposition of Phil. 2. when he was in the form of God, and equall to God, was he not then the second Person of the holy Trinity, and greater then the Holy Ghost? 2. I deny that in his humane nature he was, when exalted greater then the Spirit of God; the Argu­ment is too weak to prove it, and false, for the Humane Nature gives not the Holy Ghost to the Servants of God, but tis the blessed Father by the Son of God; it is the Person of the Son, and not the Humane Nature in a seperated consideration that gives him.

Thirdly, although the Holy Ghost be given in regard of his Gra­ces by the Son of God, yet doth it not follow that he is inferior in dignity to him that gives him; the Son of man gives himself for us, & is given for us, yea and the holy Ghost doth give himselfe to us, be­cause his grace is from his free and absolute power, The Spirit blows where he will, John 3. and divides to every one his Gifts as he pleaseth, 1. Cor. 1.2. See of this largely my answer to his 7. v. against the Holy Ghost.

Touching the word (disposing) The Spirit is disposed by Christ, we do utterly disclaim it, being no Scripture-term, and apt to mislead the ignorant.

Answ.

The Text hath been fully discussed above p. 1067. which doth wel prove that the Humane Nature was a Person, but that he was a Person that was made Lord, which none of us denie, and that he was raised and honoured by his Father, not simply, as he was the Son of God, and really in the Divine Nature, which is most high. But that he was in his Humane Nature annoynted to be King, and to have the regency and dominion of the Church, which is so to be understood, not that he in his manhood was simply before that time without possession of the same power, but because the full use there­of, and the exercise of this power was suspended, till the state of his humiliation, which vailed Divine Majesty, was laid aside, and this also shall cease, when there shall be no Church militant to governe, no enemy to subdue and annoy his chosen ones.

Touching the Description of the Trinity feigned out of your own brain, I say at present, the Son of God by being made flesh, hath changed the manner of his personall subsistance, which before was solitary, but hath now associated the humane Nature to his Person, without any alteration accruing thereby to the Nature of God: the Son of God I say is the second Person of the glorious Trinity, though not so denominated by his Humane Nature highly exalted, for upon this account the blessed Trinity should not have been at all till above four thousands of years after the Creation, which is irra­tionall to conceive: the Holy Ghost is now and ever was the third Person of the holy Trinity called a Gift, but not such a gift as is [Page 197]subject to the command of a superior, nor such a gift which is in the power of another to dispose of at pleasure, betwixt God giving and this gift given, there is co-ordination, and no subordination, and consents with the Father that gives him, and gives himself gratious­ly, it is consensus amicitiae non imperii, he is denominated a gift in time.

Answ.

Mr. Bidddle might boast of himself to this effect: Shall such a one as I am, enamoured with the strong delusions of Sathan, and imbra­cing carnall Reason, an empty shaddow in stead of solid soul-reviving, and soul-refreshing truth? shall I who am so highly conceited of my self, that I do sleight the judgment of the ancient Fathers, of modern Writers, and of the Catholick Church, albeit grounded not only on immediate, naturall and necessary consequences of Scripture, which are the objects of divine faith, but on many clear and express Texts of holy Writ which I have sweat and laboured in vain, as the Disciples which fished all night and cought nothing, to elude with my cursed glosses and forced interpretations? shall I so far abase my self as to write Retractations, and cry mightily to the Lord to pardon me for dishonouring his dear Son, and doing injury to his Church, by seducing unstable souls? shall I who yet have not learned to put a difference betwixt Person and Natures, betwixt concrete and abstract terms staine my cheeks with the blushings of Recantations? far be it from me so to do.

The Adversary cannot apprehend how the Humane Nature should be united to the Divine, & I can as little conceive how at once it can subsist in the same subject, which you will have to be but a meere Man, the greatest Power, and the greatest Infirmity; the Fountain of life, and Mortality, power to raise up the dead, and the weakness of Nature, which is subject to hunger, thirst, feare, and to death it selfe. It's true indeed that Reason after all its advancements and improvements, must stand far off in Atrio Gentium, it cannot by its own principles enter into the Temple of God, and discerne these [Page 198]abstruse mysteries, yet by divine help and revelation it may do some­thing this way, nor should it seem absurd to the Adversary, that the Son of God should be incarnated, for themselves confesse, that God by his Grace dwelt with Christ in a peculiar manner, whereup­on he is called God; why then may not the Son of God right him­selfe in a singular manner according to essence, to the humanity of Christ, who is essentially present to all things.

Nor is it a strange thing, but usuall and lawfull to confirm Arti­cles of faith by consequences deduced out of holy Scriptures: thus did our Saviour Christ confute the Saduces, and proved the resur­rection of the dead, Math. 22.23. by a consequence out of Exod 3.6. and Paul proved, that Jesus whom he preached was the Christ, by opening the Scriptures to them in the Old Testament, Act. 17.2.3. and Act. 26.22.23. genuine consequences are to be credited, as the plain word it selfe.

Answ

This is a slander groundlessely raised against the Orthodox, both in regard of his Humane Nature, and Divine; in regard of the Hu­mane Nature, for none of ours do deny, but do professe the great and transcendent exaltation of our Saviours Humanity to be far above principalities and powers, above all Angels and every created Name; in regard of the Divine Nature your slander is insinuated, as if we believed not that it was simply infinite, and altogether un­capable of exaltation.

Secondly, the Adversaries Exposition is without any Warrant, nor is it full, but by much restrained, for he is wonderfull in regard of his Person, being both God and Man in one Person, he is won­derfull also in his Conception, Nativity, and wonderfull in all his Offices, &c.

Answ.

Christ is called a Counsellor, not in a Passive, but Active sense, not because he was made acquainted with Gods Counsels, but for giving Counsell, Esa. 40. who as a Counsellor hath taught him? he was joyned in Counsel with his Father from all eternity; yet will I not deny, but he was also a Counsellor in your sense, because he acquaints us with the Counsels of God, by what means we may at­tain eternall life.

A made God is not a mighty God El Gibbor is a mighty God in a proper sense appropriated to the most high God of Israel. I reason thus:

The strong God is truly and properly the most high God, the God of Israel, Iesus Christ is the strong God. Ergo.

The major proposition is so evident, that no instance can be al­ledged to weaken the truth thereof: this Epithite of strong doth not weaken or change the strength and signification of the word God, no more then the like titles, by calling him the great God, the living God, the just God, and the like, but it hath use to di­stinguish him from made Gods, who are not mighty Gods but weak men, or Angels, and at the command of this mighty God, albeit seperately, El God is attributed sometimes to Magistrates, Psal. 82.1. and Gibbarim, mighty to the Captains of Nebuchadnez­zars Army, Ezech. 32.12. yet in this Scripture, these two joyntly are never attributed to any but to the God of Israel. Thus is God described, The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob to the mighty God. Nor doth this title only distinguish the true God from all other Gods, but it is added to the name of God, when he is de­scribed in his glory and magnificence, Deuter. 10.17. The Lord your God is a God of gods, a great God, a mighty and a terrible God: the like also Nehem. 9.32. and Jerem. 32.18. Thou art the great the mighty God, the Lord of Hostes is his name: yea, and it is added to the name Jehovah, for the greater Emphasis; who is this King of glory? the Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battell, Psal. 24.8.

The Minor is proved by the words of the Text, and Christ is de­clared to be a mighty God by his working of Miracles by his owne power, by sending the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and raising up the dead. Who can think this man was well advised, and not rather voyd of common sense, that hee hath the face to alledge this Scrip­ture to prove our Saviour not to be true God?

Answ.

How could a child be called the Father of eternity, if he was no­thing else but a child new born? and if he be so called because he is the Author and Fountain of Eternity, how can he be so called who was a mortall child? you say he is so called, because he is the Author of the age to come of eternall life to them that obey him. I grant that he is so indeed, both by the merit of his passion, which you do impiouslly deny, and by efficacy also, both which depended on the worthinesse of his person being God, there can be but one Author of the glorification of the Saints, which is the most high God, and do you intend by this Title to exclude the first Person of the sacred Trinity from being the Author of Salvation? Doth he so leave this work to his dear Son, that he himselfe is not the principall Author thereof? Is not the future Age more excel­lent then that which is past or present? It is a greater honour to be the Father of the future Age, than of that which is past and present, that then which is lesse is ascribed only to God, and that which is greater and more is ascribed to Man only, and is he called the Fa­ther of Eternall life in the abstract, and not in the concrete? Is he not a Father of them which have eternall life communicated to them by him? Is the Church called the Mother of us all, Gal. 4.26. and shall not the Spouse and Husband of the Church be called the Father of us all.

The word [...] taken absolutely, and by it selfe, as here it is, doth never precisely signifie the Age to come, but it is a Divine Title of God himselfe, who is said to inhabite Eternity, Esa. 57.15. and it signifies properly re [...]petuity of being, without beginning, without any succession, [...], or ending, go as far backward as you will, and his Name is [...] yet; and as far forward as you will, and he is Father yet; tis a title that properly cannot belong to any creature, and proves in truth Christ to be the high God, for how can he who by nature is onely a man, be the Father of Eternity? God alwayes is one and remains the same; this divine Eternity, which is an Attribute of him who is by nature the true God, and in time manifested himselfe in our flesh, is considered either in regard of God, and so it is simply without parts and succession of time, we do illustrate this to help our understanding, by comparing it to an indivisible poynt, or to a moment of [...], God doth co-exist with all things that are, he is totus & totaliter with them, and Creatures do co-exist with the whole eternity of God, yet not totally, but by parts and succession.

You cavill at our Translation which loseth not the sense of the place, by turning it everlasting Father; it is the idiom of our En­glish congue to translate the Substantive in the originall by the Ad­jective, Gen. 21.33. The God of Eternity [...]s turned, the everl [...]sting God: The God of Antiquity (Deuter. 33.27.) is translated, The eternall God, and Arms of Eternity, eternall or everlasting Arms: and who would carp at this Translation but Mr. Biddle?

Lastly, whereas be faith this Translation confounds the Persons of the Trinity, and introduceth Sabellianism: I do deny the con­sequence, the Adversary takes advantage of the Homonimy or va­rious signification of the word Father; for Father hath relation to his Son, this is Relatio ad intra, and so in this consideration the Son of God is not the Father, but distinguished from him.

Secondly, Father is taken for the Creator of all things, and the God of Nature, Job 38.28. Hath the Raine a Father? none but God, or who hath begotten the drops of the Dew: as if he had said, None but I my selfe. Thus not onely the first Person of the Tri­nity, but the Son and Holy Spirit are Father of all created things.

Thirdly, a Father is taken for the authour of Spirituall graces, as the Divine persons are one in essence, so are they one in Father­hood, and the Son is called the Father of Eternity, not onely be­cause he with the Father created all things, but because we are by him the adopted sons of God, elect and regenerated to inherit e­ternal life.

Answ.

Is Christ the Prince of Peace. Doth not this title demonstrate him to be the most high God? he might have been called and acknow­ledged to be the way and means of Peace, but not the Prince of Peace, who can at his pleasure give Peace, unlesse he had been the most high God?

Nor doth the Text say any such matter as you do intimate, that he was the great God, in that he was a child: it is manifest that these titles belong not to a child as a child, but to him that was a child, and such a child as was more than a child, more than an ordinary man: there is a great deal of difference betwixt these two, Christ in his humane nature is a mighty God, and the Person that was a child, is a mighty God: by calling him child it is declared, that he in time was to be born of his Mother, but in saying, a son is gi­ven, (this is not a needlesse repetition of the same preceding thing) he points with his finger to the eternal generation of the Son of God, Cramer. Schola prophetica in locum: there is a double Nativi­ty of our Saviour, the one is temporal, in that he is called a child, this from his Mother, the other eternal, in that he is called a Son, he was born from the deep beneath, as he was a child, and from the heighth above as he was a Son, Isa. 7. and this is from his Father; the same person which was an Infant in regard of his Mother, is also an eternal Son in regard of his Father, Councel of Trent, 2 Can. and this Person doth exercise in both natures, albeit in a dif­ferent manner, the threefold offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, for our salvation.

Answ.

Who can imagine that this Adversary will at any time want proo [...], that Christ is onely man, when he alledgeth a Scripture to this purpose, approved by the Lord himself, which directly and in expresse terms asserts him to be his Lord and his God? Thomas Di­dimus suddenly by a kind of holy admiration, and not without taking shame to himself, for his former incredulity was convinced, partly by his Resurrection from the dead, and partly by his perfect knowledge of what Thomas had spoken privately to the Apostles, that he was not onely man, but Lord and God, the omnipotent God of heaven, yea, his Lord and his God; he alludes, as Zan­chie guesseth to the Text in the Law, Deut. 6.4 where he is called the Lord our God, the Evangel [...]st turns Jehovah, following the Septu [...]gints by [...], Thomas spoke the Hebrew then in use, and called him Jehovah, nor might the Jews call any, but onely the most High God by that name, and the enlightening understanding of Thomas carried him from the sight of Christ-man, to believe on Christ-God, and by what was wrought in the Humanity and dis­covered by the Lord to Thomas, he acknowledged h [...]s Deity, as Calvin speaks to this purpose excellently, and do not we read how Moses and the Israelites, when some visible sign of Gods presence was exhibited to them directed their Divine Worship to the invisi­ble God which they saw not.

Answ.

Our grand Adversary the Devil cannot endure the Doctrine of the Deity of the Son, whereby his head was chiefly broken, and therefore he provoketh his choice instruments to accuse it as blas­phemy, tending to the dishonour of the most high God, and they that have this his mark upon their foreheads, openly professe their abhorrency from it, and in their hands do write against it, and la­bour to vent their sophistical Wares to delude ignorant and unsta­ble fouls.

First, the Jews inferred, and that very soundly, which Mr. Bid­dle cannot see, that Christ professeth himself to be God, by his say­ing, that Christ and his Father are one, and this their Collection is not denyed by our blessed Saviour, nor doth he blame them, and tell them plainly, that they were mistaken, and that he was not very God, as John the Baptist told them [...]nly, that he was not the Christ, whereby he satisfied the Jews, and cleared their judge­ment in that point.

Secondly, our Saviour sheweth that the Jews ought not to take offence for his calling himself the Son of God, albeit he had been onely man, for be it granted, that I am onely man, yet ought you not to judge this my speech a strange language, for in your Law (the Divine word in Psal. 82.) Magistrates who were but ordinary Judges of those times, which were chosen by men, and advanced to that office, have their Authority from God, and are Gods Vice­gerents, [Page 205]yea and have the Title of God put upon them, I said ye are Gods and Sons of the most high: how much more may I who have a commission, immediatly from God the Father, and who sent me into the World to be a Mediator betwixt God and men, without blasphemy say, that I am the Son of God? this being granted, yet will it not follow that Christ is no otherwise the Son of God then Kings and Magistrates are denominated his Sons, but our Saviour vanquished the slander of the Jewes by that divine testimony, and proveth thereby, that it was no blasphemy in him, nor dishonour done to God to call him his Father; to this I may adde with learned Camer. that the knowledge of Christs Divinity was not clearly re­vealed in those dayes as it was after his resurrection and ascention into Heaven, nor doth Christ so evidently call himselfe God, as he was afterwards famously known to be, but this he leaves to be col­lected from his gratious words & miraculous works, that he was the naturall Son of God, and by consequent that God was his Father, which relation lifts up Christ above a [...]l creatures.

Thirdly, I may clear up this testimony as other Writers before me have done in this manner. Christ shakes off the imputation of blasphemy unworthily charged on him, and proves himselfe to be the true God by an argument taken from a comparison of the lesser to the greater, as the Logicians speak, and that is drawn from the example of the Magistrates. which in Psal. 82. are called gods: thus may the Syllogism be formed:

If the Magistrates are called Gods, much more am I a God. No, but the Magist [...]ates are called gods, Psal. 82. Ergo, if to that which is lesse a title proportionable lesse is attributed, then to the greater a title proportionably greater is due; if to a subject which is lesse the title of gods belongs, then to a subject which is greater that is to Christ [...], who is the Lord of all Magistrates a greater title is due. 1. The name of the Son of God, or the chiefe God; the con­sequence is proved, because Christ was sanctified, and set apart to be a Mediator and Saviour of the World, and he sanctifies himselfe for the sake of his Disciples, John 17.10 sanctification is a most holy de­stination of a most holy Person, that he sanctifying himselfe might sanctifie all the Elect He was sanctified, and he sanctified himself; he was given, and he gave himself; the Father and the Son joyntly acted in that gratious work, and he being sent must really exist be­fore he was sent, and this office, as I have often said, he could not [Page 206]form, had he not been God as well as Man: this is a better testimo­ny to shew what Christ was, and a better Warrant to call himselfe God, then Magistrates have which had Gods word, that is authori­ty from God, and commandement to dease justly betwixt man and man, and this will more evidently appear, if we consider that God, 1. Christ speakes, and Bisterf. observes that many of the Psalmes which have this title, To Asaph, do treat of the Kingdome of Christ, at or after the conversion of the Jewes, and 2. the words of this Psalm do prove it, God said, You are the Sons of the most high: had it been meant of God the Father only, it would have been said My Sons, v. 6. and v. 8. Arise O God and judge the Earth (that is the Office of our Saviour) for thou shalt inherit all Nations: all shall in time become Christs, who is the King of the Saints, Revel. 15.3. and in John 10.34. is it not written in the Law, I (the Messias) have said ye are gods?

Lastly, Christ doth appeal to his Works, ver. 37. that the Father was in him, and he in the Father, that they were one, which none of the Prophets ever asserted, from that which is more known, Christ teacheth that which is lesse knowne, which proofe is most popular, and most efficatious: this Scripture then (all things prudently consi­dered) is strong against the Adversary to prove the Deity of the Son of God,

Answ.

The design of the Adversary is to intangle us with a contradiction, out of which we can easily extricate our selves: I say it is no con­tradiction to say Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost, and borne of the Virgin Mary, and to say again, he was not conceived of the Holy Ghost nor born of the Virgin Mary, if these seemingly oppo­site propositions be not spoken in the same respect, though they spoken of the same person; no person was borne of the Virgin but the Son of God; no person was baptized but the Son of God, no Person but the Son of God was condemned and crucified. Hence is it that the Jews are said to have crucified the Lord of glory, death is a­scribed to the Lord of glory, wherof the divine nature was not capa­ble, & therfore we must needs understand the whole Person of Christ, who being the Lord of glory was crucified indeed but not in that na­ture for which he is termed the Lord of glory, which one only point of our Christian Faith (the infinitenes I mean of his Divine Person) is the ground of all things believed concerning our happiness, by that which Christ either did or suffered as he was man in our behalfe.

Upon this ground I deny your consequence, if Christ had a Divine nature in being the eternal Son of God; the Angel would not have told Joseph, that what was conceived in the womb of his wife was of the Holy Spirit, otherwise the eternal Son himself, would be by the Spirit, and be caused by the Spirit, these are loose, groundlesse conse­quences easily blown away with the breath of the truth, and by the light of the former discourse: mark then the Son of God simply, as he is God, & solely the Son of God is not conceived by the holy Ghost, nor born of the Virgin Mary, but the Son of God in respect of the humane N [...]ture, which was hypostatically united to his sacred per­son, his humane Nature I say, was by the powerfull operation of the holy Ghost, by which the blessed virgin was pregnant, as Ju­stin Martyr saith Apolog. 2. Secondly it was the work of the Holy Spirit, that the virgin should conceive without the seed of man, and that he should not have a Father immediately on earth. Thirdly that the masse which the Son of man assumed, should be purified and that corruption should not be derived to him by the chanel of natu­ral generation, 4. And that the Divine and humane nature, should be in an admirable manner united in one person; this Son of God was begotten of his Father by eternal generation before the Crea­tion, yet became also man of the substance of his mother by tempo­rall [Page 208]generation, this was wrought in a moment, and wonderfully the power of the Holy Ghost shall overshadow thee, Luke 1.35. as it is true, that thou (O blessed virgin, shalt conceive by the powerfull operation of the Holy Ghost, and not by mans seed, and therefore thou shalt be a Mother virgin, so is it as true, that that which thou shalt conceive and bear, is the Son of God, yet is it not an orthodoxal expression to say, Christ as he is man, or according to his humane nature, is the Son of God, for in this consideration he is onely the Son of man, of David, yet may we by the warrant of Scripture language say, God manifested in the flesh is the Son of God, or this man which is called Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, begotten by his Father, by eternal generation, and is there­fore called the onely begotten Son of God.

You adde, had Christ been the eternal Son of God, he needed not the assistance of the Holy Ghost to furnish him with a humane nature, being himself able to produce it, unlesse you will say, his Divine nature was idle.

I answer, all this is spoken both ignorantly and blasphemously, for the holy Ghost had no efficiency or causality in the incarnation of our blessed saviour, which was not common to the Trinity, for as Father, son and holy Ghost are inseparable, touching the Di­vine Essence and power of working, so likewise are they inseparable in their operations. The persons of the holy Trinity, have one ab­solute, entire Essence and existence, and therefore being one and the same God, it followeth that their transient and outward actions in reference to the Creatures, are undivided and common to them all, as one formal Principle of them; albeit, I deny not that power by a phrase of speech, called by the Schoolmen appropriation, is ascri­bed to the Father, Wisdome to Gods Son, and holinesse to the blessed spirit, so that to speak properly, all the three persons, which are one essentiall and absolute God, blessed for ever, did without any peculiar efficiency to any one of them frame the humane nature of Christ, though it was terminative (as they say) assumed onely by the second person, which denotes the dependency of that hu­mane nature on the Divine Person, without any difference of cau­sality betwixt them. Tis a common comparison to illustrate this truth; three Vergins doe joyntly make up a garment for one of them onely to weare, so all the three persons as one cause did pro­duce the Humane Nature, yet was it taken only into the Person of [Page 209]the Son of God. Christ became Man, not in regard of the Divine Nature simply, which is common to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but as it subsists in the Son of God, tis true if we respect the original of working there is a difference, the Father as he is of himself, and from no other, so doth he work from himselfe, not from the Son, and the Son as he is from the Father, so he doth also work from the Father, but because there is no distinction of the Persons in regard of the formall, essentiall principle of working, it follows there is no distinction or separation of the Divine Persons in the work it self.

It was therefore both an absurd and a blasphemous inference, and that, as you say, from our principle, either that it was needlesse for the Holy Ghost to frame the body of our Lord, or else that the Divine Nature of the Son of God was idle: will you grant then (which by this your reason must needs follow) because Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost, therefore God the Father was idle, and not the prime Worker of this marvellous conception, unheard of in the world ti [...]l this time, that a Virgin should be Mother to a Son, by this instance to inlarge no more on this subject, at present you will I suppose see your errour.

Answ,

To this I answer, If Justin Martyr in his second Apology (for in that and not the first, there is som thing to be found tending that way) takes the Holy Ghost for the Son of God, his Exposition is singular, and we own it not, nor are we bound to maintain it; they which do seem to the vulgar sort to value the Fathers Writings at a high rate, yet will not defend, but reject a single testimony, when it is opposite to all, or the greater number of the Ancients, and do answer, One Swallow makes not a Summer: Sextus Senexsis Biblioth. lib. 5. Annotat. 247. yet albeit Justin Martyr might faile in his Ex­position of that sacred Text, his judgement notwithstanding is clear against you for the Deity of the Son of God; yea, and this very place might have informed you to say now no more. For how should he [Page 210]be able to make of the Virgin, and assume our nature, had he not been God? the Virgin Mary said, How can this be, seeing I know not a man, Luk. 1.34. doth not the Angel confine her by saying, Nothing is unpossible to God, v. 37. If the Virgin Mary then con­ceived by the Son of God, it follows that he was God.

Secondly, I do not a little wonder if that Ancient Father and blessed Martyr should take the Holy Ghost in that sense, that he is alledged by the Adversary; my reason is, because he often men­tions the Holy Ghost, both in that Apology and in his other tracts, as distinct from Father and Son, and never confounds them, and why he should in one place so mistake, I see no ground; this I am sure he did not, because as you say he was pressed with any difficulty in the Text.

Thirdly, the Martyr possibly may mean the Son of God, not as he is distinguished from the Holy Ghost, but spoken of him in opposition to the Creatures, that no Angel or Man had a hand in that wonderfull conception, but not denying the same miracle to be wrought by the Holy Ghost, nor indeed could he exclude him, because he asserts in the Treatise of the Exposition of faith that the three Divine Persons are but one Essence which powerfully workes by all three conjunctim.

Lastly, if thus he meant not, then perhaps he mentions the Son of God in regard of the term ad quem, in what this Nature was assumed into, and depended on the Person, not of the Father, or Holy Ghost, but of the Son of God, in this regard it is erroneous to ascribe the worke terminative to any but to the Sonne of God, whose person, wee grant was compleat and per­fect in it selfe from all eternity, nor was there any thing wanting to the perfection of it, yet in regard of the perfection of one end, I mean the Salvation of the Churh, there was wanting the humane Nature, which must be assumed by the Son of God, that the Elect amongst the Sons of men might be saved.

Answ.

Who sees not the sawcinesse and presumption of Mr. Biddle to prescribe to the Holy Ghost how he shall speak? in the former dis­course I have shewed, that this work of framing the body of Christ, albeit it be in regard of appropriation ascribed to the Holy Ghost, being a work of holinesse to free it from originall sin, yet it is a com­mon work of the Trinity, albeit the Son only assumed the body into the unity of his Person.

Touching the place objected in S. Luke, it doth not follow that Christ was not the Son of God before the conception, but the con­trary rather is implied by that particle [...], also to intimate that Christ was in another respect the Son of God, viz. as he was be­gotten of the substance of his Father, then that which is here alled­ged, that he was not conceived of mans seed in regard of his man­hood, and so he was not in that regard the Son of Man, but con­ceived by the Holy Ghost, this is observed by Epiphanius; so that this is no good consequence, the Angel alledgeth one cause why Christ is called the Son of God, which was agreeable to the present occasion, and therefore there was no other cause why he should be so called, this then is a fallacy, a non causa ut causa, not that there are two Persons in Christ, and two Mediators, and two Sons, the same Christ is the Son of God as begotten of his Fathers substance as he is God, and the same Christ as he is conceived of the Holy Ghost as he is Man, and in regard of hypostatical union with the Word is the Son of God, and yet there are not three Sons, but one Son: besides it is not said in the Text simply, therefore he shall be the Son of God, but he shall be called, that is, acknowledged, and Chri­stians shall professe him to be the Son of God, the fallacy here is a Dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, because in this respect he shall be c [...]lled the Son of God, therefore he was not till now the Son of God, and not simply before, though as a Man, and as con­ceived by the Holy Ghost, he was not in that respect called Gods Son till now.

Lastly, you have learned Adversaries which doe refer the particle [Page 212]therefore not to the conception of Christ, as the cause of his divine Sonship, but to the prohelie of Isa. v. 31. Matth. 1.22.

Answ.

It is no difficult matter to answer both the Text of Scripture, and the questions inferred from it, for the first, albeit Christ was God, yet was he also man, and the annointing him, the consecra­ting him to the office of a mediatour, the largest gifts bestowed up­on him, and setting him over the Church, and above all his fellows both men and Angels, was by the graces of the spirit, which not by small drops, but (as it were) buckets full were poured out on him in a high degree, which was requisite for him that should be our mediatour, but he was also annointed, i.e. marked out by a voice from heaven, This is my beloved Son and by the coming down of the spirit upon him, and was demonstrated thereby to be the promised Messias, Isa. 61.1. Luke 4.18. what makes this for your purpose? surely nothing at all.

2. Now to your questions, could not he that created the worll do miracles without being impowered by another? he was not ena­bled to do miracles by another essentially differing from him. The Son of God, as he is the son of God, creatour of the world was not impowered by the Holy Ghost to do miracles, but the son of God by the holy Ghost, which you will not see, gives vertue to Christ in his humane nature instrumentally to work signes and wonders.

2. To the second, he wrought miracles, and it would not be said, because God was with him, but rather because he was God.

I answer, 'tis not for us to teach the Spirit of God how to speak, but I answer, both these might be truly said of him, God was with him, as [...]e was with God, John 1.1. and as this is most certain to us, so doth the Adversary unawares, attest to this truth, by the [Page 213]words of Thomas, he was God, and God was with him, as he was a man, and our Mediatour.

Answ.

Christ was truly a man, and acted at present as a man; the presence of his Disciples was a comfort to him, and when they had forsaken him, and outward comforts failed, a holy Angel from heaven, an invisible comforter seasonably acted, and strengthened him, most probably this was done by representing to him such con­siderations and benefits of his death, as might make him at that time to bear the heavy burthen chearfully.

Your Objection, then the Divine Nature would be idle and use­lesse borders at least on blaspemy, the Son of God as touching his Divine Nature, being a most free agent, may suspend some acti­ons, as to his humane nature, and as to our head Christ Iesus, so likewise to us his members, and not alwayes communicate those ravishing rayes and those liberall influences, to which joy is insepa­rably annexed, the inference: then the Divine Nature is idle and uselesse, is both false, scandalous and blaspemous, for nothing is idle and fruitlesse, but that which works not when it ought to work, and which bears not fruit in its due time and season, as Scaliger de subtil. Exercit. 6. sc. 9. doth well define it, is a tree to be called fruit­lesse, because it bears not fruit in winter, by this reason God him­self being from all Eternity most happy, by the infinite knowledge and fruition of himself, without and before the Creation, might have been truly said to be idle, God is a voluntary and a most free Agent, and hath good reason for whatsoever he doth, and for what­soever he doth not, and it is high presumption for a silly creature to say, by way of finding fault with him, why doest thou so, Dan. 4.35. or why doest thou not so?

Bid. Mat. 27.46. Jesus cried with a loud voyce, saying, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why should he so earnestly expostulate with God for forsaking him, had he had a Divine Nature, and was God himself? could he that was very God himselfe cry out thus? was he his own God, and had he forsaken himselfe?

Answ.

These specious Interrogations which seem to have much strength in them, are in truth very weake and easily answered, by distingui­shing, as often we have done, of his Natures; thus he that was ve­ry God could cry out in his Humane Nature directly to God his Father. Was he (say you) his own God? an uncouth phrase: we must now look upon Christ voluntarily humbling himselfe as our Surety to a cursed death for the sins of his people, and being in this condition, he not only might be forsaken, but it was expedient that he should be forsaken of God in regard of the Divine Oeconomy, and the work he was to finish for our salvation.

I will take liberty to expatiate on this comfortable Text, which argued then an uncomfortable condition of our Lord and Saviour: How could he expostulate with God (say you) if he were God? to this I answer, he did not expostulate with God by way of reprehension of him for his present state, as it is taken John 8.44. Why do ye not understand my speech? nor by way of murmurring against God, as the Israelites did often for want of water, and for want of flesh, Numb. 11.18. nor because he was ignorant and forgetfull of the reason of his passion, which is the usuall ground of our Interroga­tions. How should there be forgetfulness in him, when he should most of all remember why he suffered? even for the working out of our Redemption. What then? shall we say that this is a question of admiration, like that in the Psalm 36.8. How excellent is thy Mercy O God! Can it be that thou shouldst so love the World, that thou shouldst forsake me thy deare Son to redeem the world? or shall we say that Christ debateth the matter with his Father fami­liarly, reverently, and holily, which Interrogation ariseth from a filial confidence in him, as David did in his misery, Psal. 42.9. Why hast thou forsaken me? Why go I mourning? or is it not sciscitan­di, but instandi & vehementiùs asserendi gratia, Quintilian l. 9. cap 2. as Naomi said to Ruth, Shall not I seek rest for thee my Daugh­ter? Is any thing hard to God? and such like, or is it Vox flectentis aut provocantis Deum ad misericordiam: He complains for want of comfort to move God to have mercy on him, as Exod. 32.11. Deut. 5.25. these last are the most probable reasons of the interroga­tion.

Touching the matter of his complaint, that he was forsaken. Nega­ti [...]y thus: he was not forsaken really by the withdrawing of his [Page 215]essentiall presence from his Son, and no marvel, for he is every where present, and absent from no place, nor was this done [...], he complaineth not in the contemplation and commiseration of other mens miseries only, but in the sense of his owne want of comfort, and feeling of his own sorrows; nor was this dereliction the disso­lution of the hypostaticall, when once flesh or nature of man was [...], it never after became [...], but was as a Garment put on, never to be put off againe; nor was hee forsaken in regard of that influxus conservativus of God, there was no losse or impai­ing of his holy Graces: his grief was intolerable which constrained his holy nature, without prejudice to the fulnesse of his sanctity to cry out and groane for these great evils which he indured. Thus Adam in the state of innocency, or a blessed Angel would have done, by necessity, not by corruption of nature, if a burthen too heavy for them had been layd upon them, this was not unlike the shaking of pure water in a Christall glasse, which hath no settlings in it, it remaineth pure. Lastly, in this complaint he wanted not the assurance of full deliverance after a short suffering, how else could he have said in the same period, my God, my God? how could he pray with strong cries as he did to his Father, who heard him al­ways? how else could he say to Caiaphas, thou shalt see the Son of Man comming in the Clouds of Heaven? how could he have promi­sed to that converted Thiefe which was crucified with him, that he should be that very day with him in Paradise? how else could he have commended his soul into his Fathers hands?

Thus was he not forsaken: how then positively was he forsaken? first in that the Father did not protect him, and rescue him out of the hands of his cruel, bloudy, and mercilesse enemies, in this sense David prayes to God Psal. 38.2. Forsake me not O Lord. Secondly, God may be said to forsake Christ, because he with-held that solace and comfort from him which he formerly injoyed, for albeit joy doth naturally flow from the Vision of God, as light doth from the Sun, and heat from the fire, yet as the Sun somtimes, as now in our Lords passion lost his light, and the fire burned not the three noble Confessors, Dan. 3. Sic deitas cohibuit redundantiam beatificae visionis, saith the Canarian Bishop Melchior Canus loc. lib. 12. cap. 13. and Maldonate cals this Compressionem Deitatis, Christ did not on­ly see, but injoy God for the present, as a man in great distresse may eat of the fruit of his own Tree, and look upon his dearest Re­lations [Page 216]without delight, the Sun goes downe to him at Noone day. Nor is this all, we are not yet come to the Pillars of Hercules; the Father poured on him the infinite Sea of his wrath, the due defert of our sins, as he was our Surety, and as he was to be our Satisfier; this was done to him, so far as it might stand with the dignity and worthinesse of the Person, the holiness of his Nature, and the per­formance of his Worke of our Redemption. Christ-suffered great tortures in his body, but greater in his soule; Gùm sit tantus dolor exterior, interior tamen planctus gravior, the anguish of his soul far exceeded the tortures of his hody, and the invisible crosse did more afflict him then the visible; and he having experience in his owne feeling of the bitternesse of his Crosse, hath learned experimentally to have compassion on afflicted Spirits, which is a misery of mise­ries. Hence were made those deep impressions in all the faculties of his soul, natural, vital, animal, and rational, which, as is thought, ha­stened his death as an inward cause of it, so that he was dead sooner then the Thieves which were crucified with him, yea, so soon that Pilate himselfe marvelled, Mark 15.44. how else happens it that Martyrs have rejoyced, and in their sufferings, and at their death? Miles poterit, imperator non audebit? Austen, doth the Souldier that is to be crowned rejoyce that death is at hand? and shall the Prince and Captain of our salvation who is to crown him, be very heavy in his soul when he is to die and sweat drops of clottered bloud?

Briefly we must here distinguish, that what befel our Saviour was not criminis, sed conditionis effectum, it was [...], not [...], as Damascene saith, lib. 3. de Orthod. fide, cap. 25. If we look upon Christ in regard of his H [...]mane Nature simply, as he was united to God affectione justitiae, by the affection of Vertue; as he did love him, fear him, trust in him, and obey him, as he gave him the glory which belonged to his Name; look upon him, I say, in such a for­mall consideration, and the Father did not forsake him, no not for a moment; but now look upon him as he was our Saviour, our Ad­vocate, as our sins were layd upon him, being our Surety as he was made sin, a Sacrifice for sin, so was his Humane Nature left for a short time to grapple with the wrath of God, to make an attone­ment, and to procure reconciliation with God, that we might in­joy pleasure, and have ineffable delights in the presence of God for ever more.

I have contracted and presented to thy view, Christian Reader, [Page 217]part of a larger discourse on this Text the product of mature delibe­ration preached before a learned Auditory many years ago, not ne­cessitated to do so by my Adversary, but to mind him, by this ex­ample if he be ungratious to reason with himselfe, how will he be able to bear Gods wrath? and where shall be at the dreadfull day appear, when his sins shall be deeply charged on him? did God deal thus with his Son? how will he deal with sinners? how will they be able to dwell with everlasting burnings? if the reader be in Christ, to provoke him to be thankfull both to God and him, and to learn by his sufferings how hateful a thing sin is in it selfe, how odious to the holy God look upon it as a most ill-favoured thing, and never so long as we live to have a liking of it; and if God shall forsake us as he did now his dear Son, yea, if we can see nothing but warre in his face, if his fiery Sword be drawn against us, yet not to despair but still to trust in God, as our Saviour in this case did, saying, My God, my God, and as Job did resolve, Though he kill me, yet will I trust in him. Job 13.15. with assurance that ere long they shall in this black cloud, see the bow of the Lord that at last God himself will ap­pear to them with a Rainbow about his Throne, with a tokenof his Covenant of grace.

Answ.

So you say but I do not find any such matter in him and if he was [...]puzzled, and could not readily unty all seeming knots, what is that [...]ou [...]? nay rather, this argueth that he was sound in the main now in controversie betwixt us, but as for us, we considering the present state of our Saviour Christ, and his undertaking by his passion to re­concile us to his Father: do not wonder, that he having a humane body and a reasonable soul, and forsaken both of men of Angels, and God himself, should cry out in his bitter passion, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Answ.

Our blessed Saviour stands not in need of any false titles to ho­nour him withall, but for you Mr. Biddle, to pretend zeal to the Son of God, and to struggle against his Eternal Deity, and his sa­tisfaction to Gods Iustice for mans salvation, 'tis no better then if a vile slanderous tongue, accustomed to disgrace the eldest Son of a Royall King, should say, he was a base begger, for in denying his Eternal Deity, you rob him as much as lies in you, of his highest excellency.

Answ.

The Adversary proceeds in his ingratitude and impiety against the Son, and indeavours to shew that there was no reason of the hypo­staticall Conjunction of the Divine and humane Nature, to make satisfaction for us, the necessity whereof we believe, and without it there could be no hope of reconciliation, betwixt God and man, there were indeed many other causes why this conjuncti­on was necessary, besides that of satisfaction, Socinians hold that Christ was our chief Prophet, Priest, and King, in regard of the Propheticall office, he was to be our Doctour and Teacher in the most perfect way, his humane nature was needfull to teach us both by his gracious words and unblameable example, it was needfull also, that he should be God, that he might be the most ex­cellent Teacher, and who is such a Teacher, as God? and this is the most excellent way of Teaching, when God assuming the form of man doth vouchsafe to teach familiarly talking and conversing with us, as he taught Abraham, Gen. 19. which is most profitable and honourable for men, and this will appear, if we particularly con­sider what he taught, he promised eternal life, and that he would give it to them that believe in him, he promised the Resurrection of the dead, and that he himself would raise them. Is it not ne­cessary, that a holy unerring Prophet, which teacheth in this manner, should be God? and how did he teach? unheardly he spake to the ears, as man, and as he was God he enlightned the minds and opened the hearts of such believers, as he was pleased to con­vert, [Page 219] Luk. 17.5. and 24.45. Act. 16.14 and when the Apostles prayd Lord increase our Faith, he returned not an answer unto them, as Jacob did to Racbel, when she said Give me children: am I (saith he in anger) in Gods stead?

As it was requisite our chiefe Prophet should be God, so is it likewise needful as he was our King, which Office he could not per­forme without an infinite power, how else could he efficatiously overcome all our enemies, the Divel, the World, Sin, and Death? How could he subject all things to himself, raise up the dead to life, governe and protect, and provide for his Members all the world o­ver? how could he do whatsoever he pleaseth both in Heaven and Earth, without an infinite omnipotent vertue?

Lastly, it was necessary that he should be God as he was Priest, that he might herein answer the type of Melchisedech, who is said to be without beginning of dayes; and end of life, Heb. 7.3.16. He had no [...] been a sacrifice if he had not been man; he could not be Priest, and act all as he did, had he nor been God, as Moses the typicall Mediator had a typical Tabernacle, Exod. 26. which he made, so the true Mediator had a true Tabernacle, which he was himself to make, Heb, 3.34. and no marvel if he who made all things should make his own Tabernacle of flesh, his Humane Nature to dwell in: by what hath been spoken, and much more which might have been ad­ded, evident it is that there were other causes besides the sati, faction of Christ, why he must be the true God: but now to the point.

Gods revealed will was made known to Adam and Eve, At the day thou eatest the forbidden fruit, thou shalt dye the death: this Scrip­ture must be some way fulfilled, the Socinians do hold that death is not a punnishment of sin, but the condition of our Nature, and that man should have died albeit he never had sinned; and they seem to maintaine this errour, which the Catholick Church never held, saith S. Austen Epist. 106. that they with the Pelagians, Au­gust. de Haeres. c. 88. might be the better able to defend this Heresie, Infants are not borne with originall sin, experience taught them that many of them dyed before they were in a capacity to commit actuall sin. Secondly, because they make this a singular Argument of the Divinity of Christ, that he was the first Author and publisher of immortality, given and promised to Man, and that it is an injury done to Christ to say, man in the beginning was immortall, Smul­cius de Divin. Christi, c. 17. Thirdly, because they deny the satis­faction [Page 220]of our Saviour for our sins, and the reason is, death is not a punishment, say they, for if it be a punishment, it must be a pu­nishment of sins; if so, then because Christ had no sins of his owne, it must be for the sins of others, and by consequent, his death must be satisfactory.

This is the Catholick Faith, that as in Adams standing in grace, all Mankind in his loins stood; so in his fall all his posterity fell with him: all our estates (as Mr. Sheppard saith) were ventured in this Ship, therefore if we will pertake of his gaine, if we had not made shipwrack of his graces, 'tis but equal we should partake of his losses too: In Adam we all sinned saith S. Paul, Rom. 5.12. and by his sin Death entred into the World: Adam was the Head of all Mankinde, and all his posterity are naturally Members of that Head; if the Head plots Treason against a State, the whole Body is found guilty, and the who [...]e Body must suffer; Adam was the poysoned root and fountain of all Man kind, now the branches & streams being in the root and fountain originally, are therefore tainted with the same poysoned principles, and the wages of sin is death, Rom. 6. ult. not only temporal, but that death which is opposed to eternal life, which is in justice as due to a sinner, as wages is to a hireling when he hath done his work

Our good God (presupposing his immutable Decree, and revea­led will to the contrary) could not receive sinners to grace by a free condonation [...], without a satisfaction and price given and paid for mans sin; for he being a just Judge, neither will nor can pronounce a sinner just, without righteousness. What, shall not the Judge of all the World do right? now it is all one to be righteous without righteousness, as to be learned without learning, wise without wis­dome, and holy without holiness, which are impossible, and as we must have righteousness if we look to be happy, so must we have that righteousness also which will satisfie the justice of God in this great business of Mans Redemption Rom. 3.25. by R [...]ghteousness in that place is not meant that Righteousness which God works in us, onimputes to us, but the righteousness which is in God, for it fol­loweth v. 26. to declare his righteousnesse, that he might be righteous, appear to be just [...] the exercise or effect of this righteousness depends on the free act of God. which will punish the sinner in himselfe or in his Surety, and as it is their righteousness which are subject to the Law, to conform their actions thereunto, so is it the righteousness [Page 221]of a Judge, as he is Judge to pass sentence according to his commi­nations and threatnings, which are the Rule of his proceedings.

I grant, a few small sparks of grace may make a good satisfaction to an indulgent Father, for the great offences of his Son, but he is a graceless childe that will misconstrue his Fathers good nature and actions, as to judge a few tears a full ransome for great offences: the Lord our God being not only a mercifull Father, but a righte­ous Judge, requires not only a satisfaction of complacency, or an interpretative compensation founded on divine favour, but a satis­faction of condignity, or a full and compleat payment for the debt of sinners; but where is this righteousness to be found? surely not in a bare creature, for how should a finite Good cover an infinite Evil, is not this too short a garment which will not cover halfe the body? is not this a plaister too narrow for the wound? and how should the best men which were poor themselves make others rich? how should they which needed righteousness themselves, impart their righteousness to make others righteous? the only means then to make an attonement for us, is the Lord our Righteousness. Jer. 23.6. Et sic Deus justitiam exequendo misericordiam non evacuat, & misericordiam exercendo justitiae suae nihil demit: and so to God being infinitely just; Christ being infinitely good, hath satisfied for man being in a sort infinitely sinfull: Christ hath paid a price of ransom, and a price of purchase, to merit Heaven for us, by standing in the roome of the Elect as their Surety, Hebr. 7.22. 2. By taking from them the eternal guilt of sin, and assuming it to himselfe, 2. Cor. 5.22. hence Luther saith, Christ was the greatest sinner, viz. by imputation of our sinnes to him. 3. By bearing the curse and wrath of God due to the sins of his people, he drinks up their Cup at one draught, which they should be drinking and tormented with to all eternity. 4. Gods justice required perf [...]ct righteousness to the whole Law, Rom. 5.11. these four things Gods justice required, and Christ satisfies justice by satisfying them all, and was the number of Believers never so small, they would stand in need of this total satisfaction of Christ, and was their number never so much multi­tiplied, as millions of Believers for one, they should all of them by Christ find a full satisfaction for their sinnes, which is fitly so called, because it hath the same effect in and for us, as a full and compleat payment hath, for the good of the Debtor; the Son of God being made man and suffering for man, it is evident that man in him was [Page 222]punished as Gods Justice required, and that being performed, which the Lord had threatned, his truth was justified, the offender was pitied in mercy, and God and man was reconciled in the Lord our peace-maker, in whom Mercy and Peace are met together, righte­ousnesse and Peace have kissed each other, Psal. 85.12.

I will not enter into that question disputed by some of ours, and by the Schoolmen themselves, the Thomists, & the Scotists, whether the satisfaction of Christ be infinite in the formall intrinsecall Nature of it, as the Thomists hold: We must distinguish of the sufferings of Christ, which if we take them Metaphysically, in regard of their Entity, simply considered, and so they were finite, and neither could nor ought they to be infinite, yet if we do consider them forensirati­one & aestimatione, so are they esteemed infinite by the reason of the personal Union of the humane nature with the Divine Person, and so sins, albeit in regard of their Entity, are finite, yea sometimes they have no Entity at all either formally or materially, as sins of omissi­on, yet as they are against an infinite God, they are in a sort infi­nite, and thus are we to judge of the sufferings of Christ, the di­gnity of the Person being God, makes his Sufferings in Gods Judgement and the Court of Heaven infinite, as also in respect of the price offered, which was himself a sacrifice for our sinnes. Esther had not her nature increased, when she married to Ahashuerosh, but her honour and dignity was much increased thereby, albeit this con­junction was neither personall nor natural, nor indissoluble, who then can doubt, that the humane nature of Christ was highly ex­alted, being joyned to an infinite Person in a most perfect Union, which is both personall and perpetual, and consequently his suffer­ings are to be looked on, as of an infinite value, especially consi­dering, that actions and passions are of persons, as is commonly said, and not of natures.

This being supposed 'tis questioned next, whether the divine accep­tation there of be not required, and the favour of the Creditour, so that he wa [...] bound in rigor to accept it, how precious soever it was for the Remission of our sins, and whether there be not a relaxati­on of the Law, which is not to be denied, not onely because Christ our Mediatour is Gods gift, it was his grace and favour to appoint him to that office, and God was not bound to accept of a surety in our stead, but might have charged, the debt on our persons, and this relation I say, is not to be denyed, when compensation is annexed to [Page 223]it, because by this means the authority of the Law, is very little dimi­nished, and the reason and end of the Law is attained, as if a man be bound to restore a pledge, if he gives the value of it, he is not charge­able with injustice, Hugo Grotius de satisfact. Christi c. 5. the decision hereof, as to our present controversie is impertinent, I will there­fore say no more of it, but omit it, and answer the Cavils of the Adversary.

How can God satisfie God? Can any one (say you) make satis­faction to himself?

To this I answer, why not in a sense? it is not needfull that the person satisfying should be separated from the person satisfied? for who sayes so? doth God? Where is such a saying to be found? The Law requires, that he who sustains the person of a sinner, whe­ther he be separated from the Judge or not, satisfies the Law, and consequently the Judge. God the Son our mediatour can satisfie God our Father, and when God the Father is satisfied, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are satisfied also, and he in his own per­son satisfied Divine Justice, which is common to the Trinity, and therefore in our assumed nature, as he is our Mediatour, he satis­fles himsel [...] by himself, and so brings us to himself as he is God. He that is a Testatour of the Testament, which is a Covenant, he is the chief Authour of the Covenant but Christ is so, Heb. 915, 16. & so he is concerned in the breach thereof, and in that respect to be satisfied, to be a Mediatoar is a name of Office, and not of na­ture, and requisite it was, that he should be both God and man, and no other person did or could satisfie Gods justice.

You say, that none can satisfie himselfe.

Why may not a man satisfie himselfe, may not a man be a Law to himselfe, accuse, judge, and condemn himself, yea and punish him­selfe? as he in Terrence [...], may not a man be reven­ged on himselfe for his idlenesse, by doubling his ordinary labour, for his excesse in meats, and drinks by abstinence and fasting, and course, spare diet, 2. Cor. 7.11.? nay, may not the Judge himselfe be a breaker of the Law, and as a guilty person condemne himselfe, and punish himselfe? I say not that he can satisfie himselfe, by pay­ing mony to himselfe, but by submitting himselfe to be punished in one kind or another, as Attitius Regulus went voluntarily to Car­thage, though he knew he should undergo exquisite torments to sa­tisfie and make good his oath, and his faith promised to the Car­ginian [...].

But I need not insist in this answer, I assert there is a difference betwixt the Son of God as simply considered, and as the party of­fended, and considered as the Son of God incarnated, who became our Mediator; the Person is one and the same, but variously consi­dered: this satisfaction diminished not the dignity of Christ, but exalted his mercy: the act of a Mediator usually hath reference to another Person, as the act of justice also hath, I meane then where the Mediator is a middle Person bewixt the party offending and the party offended, but as a man analogically may do justice to himselfe, so likewise may he perform the act of Mdiation, which tends to the Reconciliation of himselfe with the party which hath offended him, if he be pleased gratiously to descend, and to remit of his owne righ [...]. I grant, if there be a third Person vigrously to mediate, 'tis rare, for one of the parties to do the office of a Mediator, when ano­ther is willing to undertake that imployment, and able also to effect the business. But now if there be not a third person to be found, (as in this case there is not) then either one of the offended Persons must be a Mediator, or else we must perish everlastingly; for in­stance, suppose a King of Bohemia elected and crowned to sit on that royall throne after his Fathers decease, should equally with his Father be offended with his Subjects for their rebellion, and that he should become a Mediator for them to his Father, with a pu [...]pose to pardon them, if they will submit, and prove loyall for the time to [...]me, and should moreover bestow many favours, and grant ample p [...]iledges to him, having regard both to his Fathers honour, and the peoples safety: is this impossible to be done? or is it not a princely and most commendable virtue if it be done? and shall this be denied to the Son of God? nor is the Precept of Christ wanting to inforce this duty, Math. 5.23. If thy Brother hath offended thee, goe and be reconciled to him: yea God himselfe, when Adam had eaten of the forbidden fruit, and had most hainously provoked him to wrath, yet did he discover his affections to him in a gracious manner, after he had once convinced him of his sin Genes. 3. and do not we read that the Israelites after their rebellion against David, and the death of the head Traytor Absalom made meanes to David to bring him back to Jerusalem and to be reconciled to their Soveraign, 2 Sam. 19.12.? and shall it be judged then absurd for the Son of God to reconcile Mankind to the most High?

I conclude, he who is not medius in regard of his person, yet may [Page 225]he be medius ratione officii & oeoonomiae, which, as we see sometimes is a duty commanded by Christ, and which hath been practised by o­thers, the genus, as Logicians teach us, ceaseth not, unless all the spe­cies do cease, nor doth a Mediator cease to be a Mediator, unlesse all the acts and offices of a Mediator do cease.

Answ,

The whole Trinity, and not onely the Father in this sense freely forgives us, I even I am he, that blotteth out transgressions for mine own sake, our sins were written in Gods book, and a large Volume of iniquity is blotted out in a moment; there is not so much evil in sin, nor so much sin in man, as there is goodnesse in God; sin is onely termed infinite, in respect of the infinite Object against which it is committed, but God is absolutely infinite, there cannot be a summum malum, as there is a summum bonum, its true, we by our selves could do nothing to procure our pardon, but they are not freely pardoned in regard of Christ our Surety, who hath dear­ly bought us with the price of his most precious bloud, whereby he became our perfect Saviour and made full measure to God for us, heaped and running over, and it is as a rich Treasure to pay our debts never to be exhausted, Weare freely justified, saith Saint Paul, Rom. 3.24. yet it is added in the Text, by the Redemption in Christ: this Act of Christ in respect of the Law, is called a relaxation, or a dispensation, but in respect of us, who are debtours to Gods Ju­stice, 'tis called remission, depending on foregoing satisfaction, which is admitted by our gatious God to make way for the remissi­on of our sins, which are then actually done away, when we do be­lieve in Christ, when we do convert to God, and ask pardon of them, God doth as it were dip his pen in the blood of our Saviour and so dasheth out all our iniquity.

Nor doth this satisfaction obscure the riches of Gods mercies towards us, or make the: [...]mission of our sins to be lesse free, for seeing the Commination of the Law, and the Office of the Judge to execute the Law, hindred the justification of repenting sinners, could there be a greater Demonstration of admirable love and mer­cy, then to transser our punishment, which we deserved, on his Son our Surety, rather than we should everlastingly perish? and therefore this is set out by Scripture, as the highest strain of love. so God loved the World, that he gave his onely begotten Son (to dye for us) that we might not dye, but live for ever, John 3.16. it was much that the party offended, should not hate us, who grievously offend­ed [Page 228]him: but it was more, that he should love us, and have mercy on us, and yet more, that he should bestow many blessings upon us, but it is a most transcendent and unparalelled love and mercy, to give his onely begotten Son to die a cursed death for us, to free us from the everlasting curse, yea, and this was also the admirable love and condescention of the Son of God, who was not [...], but [...], consubstantial with his Father, to become man volun [...]ari­ly, and as Mediatour in both natures, to make satisfaction for us to the Trinity, for surely, there was no attract ve magnetical ver­tue in an undone and bankrupted creature, to draw down our Sa­viour from heaven to cloud the lustre of his Divin [...]ty by the inter­position of a mortal body; nor doth the Son of God, as he is the Son of God simply, or as he is God in that notion considered, free­ly forgive our sins without satisfaction, for albeit, this is not made by a third person, yet as Mediatour, he satisfied Divine Justice in his own person, which Justice is common to the Trinity, and in our assumed nature, reconciles himself to us as God, and satisfieth himself, as I said above, by himself, and upon this account i [...] is, that Gods justice is more satisfied by every believer, than by the dam­ned which are tortured in Hell to all eternity, for they are always suffering, and yet can never satisfie and pay their debts, but every Believer hath by his Surety paid all to the utmost farthing.

Answ.

It is a comfortable truth, that as there are evidently two Natures in Christ, not to be considered apart one from the other in this great businesse, but always in the hypostaticall union, for neither can the Humane Nature reconcile us to God, nor can God, as he is only God, reconcile us to God by way of satisfaction, and there­fore the Humanity is assumed into the Person of the Son of God that he might be a meet and all-sufficient Mediator; and as the Na­tures in the union do for ever remain distinct, so do the operations-also, each Nature acting according to its own operative principle, and we do both from Scriptures and reasons deduced thence assert, thus the Word incarnated is, as the School-men speak, Principium [Page 229]quod, and the Deity as well as the Humanity is the Principium quo, the formal and immediate principle of, the worke of redemption, for God resolving to declare his righteousnesse and truth in his recon­ciliation to Man, Rom. 3.25. could not bring this to passe without satisfaction to his justice, I do not say it is in our Surety in every re­spect answerable to the Law, the dignity of his Person, together with the Deity concurring to the work of our redemption, procure not only acceptation with God, and makes his passion meritorious for us, but abundantly makes compensation for such circumstances, as the place where, and the time how long we should have suffered, which were not beseeming, nor rational for him to undergoe; it is a very dotage in Socinus, to say, that the dignity of the Person addes nothing to the value of the punishment, for albeit he had been God, yet the Deity suffered not: this is as absurd, as to say, it's all one to smite a King and a private man, to beat a mans Father, or a Stranger, be­cause stroaks are on the body, not on the dignity, or consanguinity.

And as there is a difference in the working principles, so do the effects belong to the Mediator in a different manner, to both natures, as to forgive sins, Mar. 2. [...], he hath authority to remit sins, not a Ministery, as his Servants have to remit them, so likewise doth he give the Holy Spirit, John 16. not the Humanity alone, but our Mediator, as also to save his People, and to unite us to God by his bloud to cleanse us from all our sins, so that we constantly affirm, that Christ according to both Natures united in one Person, is our Mediator, with the Mediation which is called both operative and substantiall, and this is a Rock to build on, which all the powers of H [...]ll cannot prevail against. This satisfaction of Christ is the most pretious treasure of the Church, and the main ground of our Salva­tion, Athanas. Orat. de Passio & cruce Christi: It is a shaddow un­der wh [...]ch we are safe from the heat of divine wra [...]h it is a garment that covers our imperfections, that they are not seen by Gods re­venging Eye, it's a buckler which we may hold against an angry God to keep off the fiery darts. It is reported of one Endoxus that he desired to see the Sun immedia [...]ly to contemplate the magn [...]tude and motion thereof, though for a reward of his curiosity he was presen [...]ly burnt by it, the same will be [...]all all Eudoxeans which with­out the satisfaction of Christ do behold God, the Son of Righteous­ness, he will be a consuming fire to them, Stegman.

You tell us Christs satisfaction is a meer device of Man, and not [Page 230]soundly collected out of Scriptures: Learned Gerhard treating against this Socinian Heresie, saith hereof, Hic ungnes apparent Diaboli, and his intention is by this grosse heresie, to raze the foundation of our s [...]vation and confolation, which are built on the satisfaction of Christ, and out of a holy zeal and detestation hereof, he breaks out into this imprecation, Exurgat Deu [...] & coelesti fulmine, imò infer­ [...]ali fulmine hasces Adversariorum suorum blasphemias vindicet: this is to ask the Kingdom, also to take away all Religion, and happiness from Solomon, as Solomon of Adonijahs policy, 1 Kings 2 22.

I will not make a large business to prove this necessary and com­fortable truth, which the holy Scriptures clearly hold forth to us, so that all that are not blind may see the bright sh [...]ning thereof, yet I will not dismiss the Reader without some fair convincing evidences to prove the truth: God who hath supream authority, and is subject to no Law may lay on Christ neerly joyned to us by nature; our head by office and surety for us may also undertake to die for us, having power to lay down his life, which we have not: it was his love to become our Surety, it was his incredible Love to perform the debt of his promise, he is in the number of those Sureties, which being snared with the words of his mouth, his promise, Prov. 6.2. did willingly in the fulness of time make his promise good.

First, because our Mediator by divine ordination was wounded for our transgressions, and was bruised for our iniquities, Esa. 53.5. he suffered for us, and this [for us] notes the impulsive, and merito­rious cause of his suffering, it was not for himselfe, but for us. See Grotius de satisfact. cap. 1. and v. 6. Esa 53. there is an Emphati­call expression [...]. God hath made all our infirmities and sins to meet in Christ, who is as the center of them all, & in the same place tis said, by his stripes are we healed: this Chapter was a Prophesie of our Saviour, and was accomplished by him in the dayes of his mortality: and S. Paul saith, He was made a curse for us, this curse which was due to us for our sins was layd on him, and he free­ly and voluntarily did bear it, Gal. 3.13. 2. Cor. 5.15. Rom. 4 25. what do these Phrases import, but that he in propriety of speech made satisfaction to God for our sins?

Secondly, Christ did not suffer to pay his own personall debts, for he had none of his own, he experimentally knew no sinne, he committed no sinne, but he suffered for our sin, he gave himself to be [...], Matth. 20.28. hence the old Latine Lustrum, a year of [Page 231]expiating sins by Sacrifices, a ransome to free us from punish­ment by punishment, he came not into the world to seek his own benefit, but in charity to dye, and be a ransome for us, he was [...], 1 Tim. 2.6. [...] in composition signifies sometimes contra against, as Antichrist an enemy to Christ, which agrees not to this place, or compensation, as [...] when a man dies to free ano­other from death, he poured out his blood in our stead, thereby to redeem us from our sins, from death, and the power of the De­vil; he is also said to bear our sins, 1 Pet. 2.24. as a heavy burthen laid upon him, i.e. the punishment of our fins, Levit. 5.1. and so to bear our sins, that we may be freed from bearing the punishment of them, and to the same purpose are we said, to be reconciled freely by his grace [...] by the Redemption, which is by Je­sus Christ, Rom. 3.24. The Lord shews us a way whereby he will be propitious to us, not by any legall performances, but through faith in his blood, and he is also called [...] an oblation for sins, Eph. 5.2. Heb. 9.14. We are saved by a precious price, viz. the obedi­ence of Christ. 1 Cor 6 19. he is also called [...], a propitiation for our sins, the appeaser of Gods wrath, in these and the like pas­sages of Scripture, the Adversaries denying satisfaction, must needs confesse that there is Redemption without emption, a buying with­out a price, praetium sine valore, valorem sine solutione, solutioneus sine satisfactione, Dr. Prideux lect. 19

Thirdly, this is proved by those Scriptures, which inform us that Christ was given for us, the just and Righteous once died for us being unjust, and when we were enemies to God he reconciled us by his death to him, 1 Pet 3.18. and Christ being an innocent person was made sin a Sacrifice for our sins, that we through his deat [...] might be justified: For the transgression of my people, was he smitten. Isa 53.8. the word in the original [...] if there be not an Epenthesis of t [...]e Letter m, as is commonly thought, then is there ad Enallage of the Plural number for the Singular, which is more pro [...]able saith Glassius, Philolog. sacra tractat. 1. de punitate tex­tus Hebraei. n. L [...]. and if so, the observation of Brentius is most remarkable, that the Plural number being spoken of Christ, in­timates that he did in his Passion stand in the room of all his peo­ple, and that the judgement which passed on the Messias, was im­posed on them all, yet so, that Christ alone did bear the burthen of it, and what doth this import, but that he satisfied for them? [Page 232]So that Christ suffered not onely to give us an example, but for our profit to free us from eternall death. Was Paul crucified for the faithfull? yea, for their good he suffered Gol. 1.24. but not as Christ suffered for us, to free us from everlast [...]ng damnation, he suffered in our rooms, that we might not suffer, so did not Paul.

Fourthly, the satisfaction of Christ was typified by legal S [...]crifices, namely by the Paschall Lamb hence is he called the Lamb of God, the Lamb was a type of Christ, both in regard of meeknesse, and innocency, as also in regard of the oblation, and slaying him, 1. Pet. 1.19. this was also prefigured by the red heifer slain before Eleazar, Numb. 19. Heb. 31.12. as also by the live Goat, on whom the sinnes of the people were laid, and he carried them away. Levit. 16.22. all which related to, and were fulfilled in the death of Christ, Isa. 53. to say nothing of private Sacrifices, for Christ died for single persons, which is not opposed, but subordinated to the death of Christ, for all his, Levit. 17 11. the blood on the Altar makes an Atonement for the soul, Levit. 1.4. and 4.21.20.31. both in the type and the antitype, a free condination is excluded without satisfaction.

Lastly, this is likewise implied by that Scripture which saith, that Christ performed that for us by the effusion of his blood in a mortall body like ours, without which it bad been impossible for us to have been reconciled to God, Rom 8.2, 3. the causes of Christs sufferings which Secinians do render are not necessary, the holiness of his life and his Doctrine wh [...]ch was sufficiently declared by his Miracles, and after his holy life on earth without death, as did Elias, he might have ascended into Heaven, and declared his Majesty and power on earth.

Further, if they say true Christ shed his blood in vain, because God might have saved man without his death, for according to their Tenet, his Justice did not require his bloody passion, being most ready to be reconc [...]led to man, and desirous to make man to take notice of his willingness to forgiue sinners; nor did Gods wis­dom require his death, seeing the good Sons under the Law were fa­ved without it, when the precepts and rules of life, as they say, were more imperfect then they are under the Gospel: Besides, he shed his blood imprudently, becau [...]e notwithstanding his death, in the opinion of the Adversaries, which do deny eternall Elect on, and 'tis Gods knowledge of future contingencie, haply not one [Page 233]man should have been save [...] therby and Christ should not have been the King of the Church, if he had no Subjects to rule over; nor should the glory of God have been promoted therby, and in vain should God have loved us, which is so highly commended in Scripture, for giving his Son to dye for us: If we could haue been saved without it. But to returne to the point, the Scripture tells us, That as by the disobedience of one (of Adam) we were all made sin­ners, and subject to death, which was threatned, if he should eat of the forbidden Fruit; so by the perfect and exact obedience of one (the second Adam) who suffered death for us, to make satis­faction for us to sa [...]isfie Gods Justice shall all the faithfull be justi­fied, and made righteous, Rom. 5.18 19. from all the Premisses its clear Paenam omnem nobis debitam, ac tum etiam supernaturalem. Christum Jesum pertulisse, cum ad id & sponsione devinctus & debito obligatus. & lege districtus, & justitia Dei addictus & necessitate ob­volutus videntur Perk de descens. Cler. l. 3. n. 52. And though Christ according to the substance of punishment suffered no more then was required by the Law, yet in regard of some circumstances he suffer­ed more, if we respect the person that suffered: The cause of his suffering and the efficacy of his Passion for the Law did not require that God should die, nor that any one should suffer without his own offence nor did it require such a death, which should not one­ly abolish death, but advance us to a life, which many degrees is better than Adam lost idem [...]n 51. hence Anselm Cur D [...]us homo c. 24. the life of Christ was incomparably a greater good, than those sins are evil which his death destroyed.

These are so id Proofs that our Saviour made an Atonement and satisfaction for us, and what you can quickly shew to the contrary, are but like bubbles on the water, and empty nothings, qu [...]rks of wit, and vain sophistry, which are as quickly disproved, as they are propounded, and which being touched will, like the Apple of Sodome, vanish into Ashes, so much of this third Article.

Answ.

The words of this Article, contain no new thing, but what hath been often mentioned by the Adversary, yet the fraud is to be dis­covered: he labours to conceal the horridnesse of his Tenet, by calling Christ our God, and this is, as it were a bait, whereby he would allure the unwary Reader, to swallow it down, that he might prevail with his pernicious hook.

Secondly, we do not deny, but both to our singular comfort, and exceeding great profit, do heartily acknowledge, that the Son of God in our nature is exalted in power, honour and Dignity, far a­bove men and Angels, yea and the highest pitch of Majesty, that any creature is capable of.

Thirdly, Yet in the third place this concession will be no advantage to the Adversary for besides all that he hath spoken of Christ in that nature, our Saviour hath the same Divine nature with the Father, and he is the same God, though not the same person, and there­fore he doth infinitely abase him, by making him onely a creature God, and if he should strip him of all Soveraignty over us, and worship due thereto, yea, and esteem him in feriour to a worm he could not so much dishonour him, as he hath done in denying his Divinity, for the distance of one creature compared to another is but finite, but that which is betwixt God and the most eminent crea­ture is infinite, and Christ being the most high God, is not in that regard subordinate to his Father, but co-ordinate with him, for sub­ordinate causes are not in the same order of causality, as if one of them be particular, the other is universall; if one be the first cause, the other is the second; if one of them be the principal cause, the other is an instrument or lesse principal, which have no place in the persons of the holy Trinity.

Fourthly, albeit some eminent creatures, or which are taken to be such, may in diverse respects be called Elohim, yet is it not agree­able to the Scripture- phrase not to the analogy of Faith to call that Creature our God, or my God.

Fiftly and lastly, the holy Scriptures which the Adversary alled­geth for the proof of this Article are positively assented to, albeit the Adversaries inferences from them, that in no other respects Christ is God, then are here named, are justly denied.

Answ.

In the first Text, John 20.17. our blessed Saviour contents not himselfe by saying God, but he adds, my God, your Father, and your God, intimating hereby the near conjunction betwixt himselfe and the faithfull, in two respects: first, that as he is Gods Son, calling the first person our Father, and the Father of Christ: secondly, because he is our God and Creator, as he is of Christ, in regard of his Man­hood; Christ as he was God simply, had not a God, but as Son he had a Father; but being both God and Man in regard of his Hu­mane Nature he hath a God, and yet is God, as somethings belong to a Person in regard of a part, as man is mortal, though his soule is immortal: now as God is the God and Father of Christ, and of his servants in the fore-mentioned respect, yet in a different manner, in­sinuated, in that Christ saith not, I ascend to our Father, and to our God, but to my Father, and your Father, to shew a difference be­twixt his Son ship and ours, betwixt his creation and ours, that he is in a more excellent manner his Father then ours, and therefore first he saith, my Father, and then your Father. This is denoted by the Article prefixed before the one, & not the other, God is not therfore the Father of Christ because he is our Father, but he is therefore our Father because he is his Father. We are Gods Sons onely by the grace of adoption, whereas Christ was not made the Son of God, but he was born the onely begotten Son of God, and touching his Humane Nature, he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and that flesh was singularly united to the word by hypostatical union. Secondly in that notion, he was created in a more excellent manner then we are, but Christ as the Words not only created, but assumed that Nature into the unity of his person, and so may in a good sence be said to create himself, viz. touching his Humane Nature, but who can say that he created himselfe, save Christ only? and there is yet ano­ther difference, Christ was created without mans seed, he had no [Page 236]im mediate Father on earth, and by consequence he was not polluted with originall sinne, as all other men in the World besides him are stained with that pollution; and lastly hi [...]foul was adorned with those eminent divine qualities, and that from the conception which do transcend the excellencies of any rational creature.

In a word, God in this Scripture is not taken essentially for one that governs all with supream dominion, but personally, which in the intrinsecall conception doth denote an intrinsecal relation in the most simple unity of the Godhead, its taken for the Father, the first Person of the sacred Trinity, as the inspection of the Text evinceth, and from hence you may conclude a distinction betwixt the divine Persons, that the Son of God is not the Father, but you cannot in­fer that he is not God; but the contrary rather, because he in his hu­mane nature ascended into Heaven by his own omnipotent power.

2. Your next place Ephes. 1.17. holds forth that the Apostle prays to the Lord, who is in these Latter dayes made known to us by a more glorious title then that of The God of Abraham, even the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, unlesse haply there be a rajection of the words as Piscator guesseth, God and Father, the God of glory and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: God the Father is called the God of our Savior, because he was as man both created and preserved by him, as also because he was in regard of his office of being our Me­diator subject to him, and became obedient to the death of the crosse. Lastly he may be called the God of Christ, as he was the God of Abraham, that is the true God, because he sent him to re­concile sinners to himselfe, and that God which Christ preached to the world? Zanch. is this any thing for the Adversaries advantage?

To that Text, Hebr. 1.8.9. I say it is a clear demonstration of the Son of God, for God the Father speaks of his Son by the mouth or Pen of David, Psal 45.7.8. and cals him God absolutely, not eiffe­ring from himself in Deity, but in personality, and ascribes to him an eternal throne and dominion, and not for a long time, as in this sense [...] is sometime taken but [...] both joyn [...]d toge­ther doth always signifie eternity, as is observed verse 9 Where O God, in the vocative case, God, that is, God the Father hath an­noynted thee, O God the Son, the same person that is, God is an­noynted and turn [...]ed with extraordinary gifts for an excraordina­ry calling, not simply as he is God, but respectively in reference to his humanity, in which respect God is superior to him, and in refe­rence [Page 237]to his Divinity the Son of God is God, and hath a God; but how taken? personally, and not essentially, for this being attribu­ted to God secundum quid, may be both affirmed and denied of the same subject without violation of the Laws of opposition, when it is considered in divers respects: the Father is God begetting, the Son is God begotten, not the God of his Son, as God simply, but as God the Father beget [...]ing, nor is the Son simply God, but God the Son begotten, he is both God and the highest God, because he is be­gotten of his Father by eternal generation, hence doth the Nicene Creed assert, that Christ is God of God, begotten, not made, yet doth not the Christian Religion permit us to say, that God begets another God, for that phrase implies there are more Gods then one, but God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, are simply one and the same Jehovah

Now that the weaknesse of the Adversaries Argument may more clearly be discerned, I will reduce it into a syllogistical term, thus:

He that hath a God is not the most high God.

Our Saviour hath a God, ergo, he is not the most high God. The major is evident, or else we must maintain that there are two Gods: the minor is proved by the alledged Scriptures.

I answer to to the major by limitting it thus:

He that hath properly a God, as he is God, is not the most high God, this proposition thus taken is assented to, if otherwise, it is deni [...]d.

[...]o the minor I answer, by distinguishing of the subject Christ in respect of his humane Nature hath a God, and in his sense the con­cludon is yielded but Christ as he is God so hath be not properly a God; but God senecdochically taken, but as he is God the Son, s [...]he hath God the Father, and reciprocally God the Father hath God the Son to clear this we do thus distinguish of man; man in regard of his body is mortal but in regard of his soule that's immor­tall, God the Father and God the Son are relatives, and do prove the distinction of Person in the u [...]jty of the Go head, the premisses duty considered, the Adversaries specious inference, that Christ is not them [...]st high God, grou [...]ded on the Homonimy of the word God, and most High comes to nothing.

Answ.

I answer to that place, Heb. 7.1. Melchisedech was in name and in truth answerable to his name, King of righteousnesse, he was also Priest, of the most high God, God here is taken essential­ly and absolutely, he was a Priest of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, vertually at least the Son and holy Ghost are implyed, they are not excluded by that title. Very well. Christ was not the most high, but subordinate to him according to this Text, who denies this? for no creature can be equal to the most high creatour, what then? therefore Christ, say you, being typified by this Melchisedich, as is proved Psal. 110.4. without all contradiction, is also subordinated to the most high God, this is most true, for Melchisedeck both in respect of his Person, and his office, was not a type of Christ, in respect of his Divine Nature simply considered, nor in respect of his person, for then your proofs I confesse would have been to good purpose, but he was on Embleme of him in regard of his office, as he was our Mediatour, both God and man, for Christ in respect of his Person, had a Fa­ther in heaven, and he so calls him, when be conversed amongst mortal men, and in respect of his Genealogie [...]sh had no other sub­stance but humane, the blessed Virgin his mother, was a woman well known, so that in this respect Melchisedeck was most unlike unto Christ, for he is described in the word, without any mention of his Father and Mother, of his Genealogy and death but Christs Father and Mother, his Genealogy, his Nativity and death, are a­curately described in Gods book, so that in this respect he had be­ginning of his dayes; as he was man, and there was an end of his life, as is clear in the Gospel, and as he was God in regard of the [Page 239]Divine Nature, he neither was nor could be a Priest.

How then is it said, that Christ was without. Father and Mother? the Apostle Rom. 9.5. resolves us by distinguishing Christ, as he was man, according to the flesh, was of the Father, the Son of A­braham, the Sonne of David, yet had he no immediate Father on earth, as he was man, and as he was God, the Son of God ac­cording to the Spirit, he had a Father, and not a Mother, no be­ginning of dayes, nor an end of his life, this Text then doth evi­dently prove, that Christ hath another nature than the humane, or else the Apostle was wide in making them to be like, wherein they are most unlike, this then must be meant of Christ, God-man, as our Mediatour in both natures, he had no Father, nor Mother, in that he had no predecessour, to whom he succeeded in that office, nor any successour to stand up in his room when he died, as Aaron had, and therefore he fitly resembles Melchisedech, who had no Predecessour in that office recorded in the Scripture, nor any Suc­cessour; there is no Genealogie of Priests of that order after him, in which respect he was a proper type by Divine appointment of our Saviours Priesthood, and yet the dignity and efficacy of the Priest­hood of Christ depended upon the Deity, by which he offered him­self an immaculate Sacrifice to God, and some acts of his Priest­hood were performed, before his Nativity of the Virgin Mary, and all the faithfull, before she had a being in the world, were freed from the guilt of their sins, and sanctified and saved by the benefit of Christs Priesthood, not by the Levitical, not by their own works, it must be then by the efficacy of Christs Priesthood, and this must needs be, because Gods covenant is eternal, and before the Law, Gal. 3.17. and shadowed out by those illustrious types of Sarah and Hagar, Gal. 4.24. now the covenant is not more ancient than the Mediatour of the covenant: Hagar was not before Sarah, nor was Jerusalem, which was above before her husband, for she had not two husbands, and was longer barren, Gal. 4.27. now she is not called barren, which is not, or which is not married.

To that place out of Deuteronomie, I answer, first according to the Adversaries supposition, that Christ could no [...] be comprehend­ed under the name of Gods and Lords, because then he had not a being, when those words were spoken, God of Gods, and Lord of Lords, that which is not, cannot be an inferiour Lord and God.

Secondly, I answer, that God is taken here essentially, as most [Page 240]frequently in the old Testament, not excluding the Sonne of God, and the Holy Ghost: Gods Son is God of Gods, and Lord of Lords, infinitely superiour to them that are onely made Gods, whe­ther dead and fictitious, which are esteemed such by their idolatrous worshippers, or whether they be living Gods, as Princes and Angels, which is so true, that you have none of ours to be your Adversary, and you might well have spared this proof, for God is truly God of gods, and Lord of Lords

The Adversary is very confident, that his Argument cannot be eluded, or rather the vanity thereof detected, because God the Father (as he takes for granted) is onely the most high God, and Christ then must needs be subordinate to him, but this is in truth a plain dotage, to say the Son is in a lesse perfect manner God, then the Father, because he hath a God; it is true, God creates, preserves, and governs all and all the made gods, who have truly a God above them, are under him, but the Son, as he is simply the Son of God, is co-equall and co-essentiall with his Father, even Jehovah himself, the great and the most high God, albeit the same person, in regard of his humane nature, is inferiour, and subordi­nate to him, and albeit Christ is not the Person, which is in many places called God. yet is he the same God, John 1.1. the highest God is understood, yet is not every one perfect, that is, the high­est God understood thereby, and as in some places, the Son is di­stinguished from God, so be there other places wherein the Father is distinguished from God Psal. 45.7. and Heb. 1.8 yea, and from Jehovah, for according to the Adversaries, the angels are some­times called Jehovah. Shall we from hence conclude, that onely cre­ated Angels are Jehovah.

Bid. For the further cleering of this matter, I will here exactly unfold the appellation of God, as I find it delineated in Scriptures, for many being ignorant hereof, hold very great and inexplicable errors, touching the Godhead of Christ.

First therefore the appellation of God denoteth him that hath a super­natural substance as Esa 31.3. The Aegyptians are Men, & not God, Ezech. 28.2.9. Because thy heare is lifted up, and thou (Prince of Tyrus) hast said, I am god, yet thou art a man and not God: which werds do plainly intimate, that by God is meant a supernaturall sub­stance that cannot die, whereas every natural substance may die: thus is the Lord called God, and the Angels, because they are immortall.

Answ.

What singular thing you have performed in your delineation of the several ways how God is taken, will in part, by the sequel be discovered, and albeit you preferred exactnesse in this search of Scripture, yet is not your enumeration full, there are some other expressions, besides those here specified, which belong to Christ, and which cannot appertain to a creature-God; but whether the igno­rance of others, (thus doth he speak of our most eminent Divines, to whom others of meaner parts are but Scholars) in this poynt produceth strange errors touching the Deity of our Saviour, or your own prejudicate blindnesse in the mis-application of them is to be tried by the unerring testimony of the holy Ghost speaking in the Scriptures.

The first way is not generally true, for the soul of man is in some sense a supernatural living substance, which cannot be slain, and yet is never in Scripture language called god, and Divels which can­not die are indeed called the gods of this world.

Was ever any one of our Writers ignorant of this deep mystery discovered by you, that God is taken for a supernatural living sub­stance that cannot die, and could our blessed Saviour in his Divine Nature die? we would forthwith and that most justly disclaime his Divinity How this can consist with your Exposition of Scripture and judgement, that Christ when he was God by his power to work miracles, and yet even then was subject to death, and at length crucified, I leave to your better thoughts.

I adde the opposition in the Text cited by you, is betwixt God and men, and doth not extend to all that have in your sense a su­pernatural being, to wit, Angels, tis betwixt those Heathenish peo­ple which were creatures, as the Prince of Tyrus, which albeit he compared himselfe to God, chiefly in regard of wisdom, as the fol­lowing Verses clear, yet I can scarcely believe that he was so sottish to think that he should live for ever, as Meander the Samaritan and a wretched Disciple of Simon Magus perswaded himself & by his ma­gical [...]llusions would have perswaded others, in Justin Martyrs days Apol. 2. pro Christiani Iren. l. 1 c 21. that neither he nor the should ever die, and David Grover the Father of the Family of Love did foolishly feign unto himselfe a certain immortality in this world; I Knew stil against the Herisie of H.N. Or shal we say that they had an opinion as the Britons had of K. Arthur, that he was not dead many [Page 242]hundred years after his departure, Ʋsser de Britan. Eccles. primor­dils pag. 321. the opposition I say is betwixt mortall men and the everliving Creator, they must die, but God is immortal and lives for ever. Bidd.

Secondly, him that hath a supernaturall dominion, or such a dominion as is not managed in a naturall and visible way, but in a hidden manner exceeding the limits of Nature, Numb. 26.27.16. Let the Lord, the God of the Spirits of all flesh, set a man over this Congregation: therefore called the God of the Spirits of men, because he ruleth over them, but such rule and dominion is more then naturall, for they that exercise a natural or civil dominion have power over the flesh only, hence Paul saith Ephes. 6 5. Servants be obedient to your Masters accor­ding to the flesh, opposing them to the Lord of their Spirits: In this sense is the Lord also sayd to be the God of Gods, Psal. 136.2. because he exerciseth dominion over the Angels, which in Scripture are called gods, as in Psal. 97.7. Worship him all ye gods: This cannot be meant of Idols which are not to be worshipped. See also Psal 8.5. Thou hast made Man a little lower then Elohim, then Ang [...]ls: Now the dominion which the Lord exerciseth over Angels is not natural or civil, but exceeding the limits of nature, in that the very subjects of this do­minion are supernaturall.

Answ.

For substance nothing is in all these Scriptures presented to our view by the Adversiry which is not obvious and assented to, onely some expressions are to be rectified.

First in that he saith, Gods dominion over the Angels is not natural, which in propriety of speech is very erroneous; the highest crea­tures are subject to the natural Kingdome or rule of God, as to their Creator, and it is as natural for the God of Spirits, being him­self an infinite all-knowing Spirit, to rule over all created Spirits, as for a mortal man to rule over Man who is mortal, yea and much more fully then so: it is true, Gods Rule is not properly civil, as that is of man which is over the flesh and body directly, but more glorious and Divine, for God hath absolute, and uncontrolled au­thority and soveraignty over all the creatures in the world.

Secondly, you a [...]d, The spirits which are the subjects of this dominion are supernaturall. This in a good sense is not strange and no marvel, if Angels are called supernatural, for the same attribute is veri­fied of all other creatures, they have their being not from Nature [Page 243]simply, but from the omnipotent will of the most high God. A­gath, all creatures may in another sense be called naturall, as having their being and subsistence from the great God, who is, Natura Naturans: the usuall distinction of natural and supernatural is not in regard of substance: a thing is not called supernatural, but in regard of the accidental [...]orm, and those gratious qualities where­with it is endowed, as the word it selfe imports, and it perfects a created substance above that which it hath by its natural constitu­tion: 'tis of a higher order, and tends to a supernatural end.

The Scriptures alledged Psal. 97.7. and applied to Christ. Heb. 1. that all the Angels are commanded to worship him is a very strong proofe of his Deity, in that he is worshipped with religious adora­tion, whereof a creature, whose wisdome and power is but finite, is not capable, and well have the ancient Fathers judged the Arians to be Idolaters, and so have some Socinians censured their fellowes for worshipping Christ with religious worship, and yet do maintain that he is but a Creature, a created God.

Your other place, Heb. 2.3. Thou hast made him a little lower, understand it lower for a short time, and that not simply neither, but because he humbled himselfe, as he was a man, to death, but all the Angels are immortal substances; for this speech being compa­rative, extends only to that particular wherein holy Jesus and the Angels are compared together; as Angels are in many respects more excellent then men, yet men have some perfections agreeable to their state, which Angels want, for instance vis productiva prolis Scotis in 4. Sentent. dis 49. So albeit Christ was in regard of his pas­sion lower then the Angels, yet as he was the Son of God, and had the Humane Nature hypostatically united to the Person of the Son of God, and as it was enriched with supernaturall gifts above measure, he was thus above Angels, and who was no doubt in the state of his infirmity and in the days of his flesh, as the Apostle speaketh, wor­shipped by the holy Angels.

Answ.

This third way, and the former in the main (as touching sub­lime Dominion) are one and the same, and in that respect 'tis al­ledged for a vain shew, to multiplie wayes which are not in truth distinguish [...]d, but whereas he addes Dominion conferred, I observe that the name of God is not here as in all the rest, agreeable to the most high God, for who can conferre sublime Dominion on him? nor is this title appropriated to th [...]m which have sublime dig­nity, but it is applyed to inferiour Magistrates also, which are ad­vanced to their places in an ordinary way, Psal. 1.6. and Iohn 10.34.

'Tis true, Moses was a made God to Pharaoh by participation and similitude so called, because he had something Divine and above nature, valour and the gift of miracles communicated to him; as also to make known Gods word and Pleasure, but your placing Nebuchaanezzar, or as others understand i [...] Merodac [...]a­ladan in the same rank with Moses, is very incong [...]uou▪ First there is no reason to con [...]ound these two, viz to have gifts given imme­diately, and in a supernatural way, who ha [...]h taught you thus to speak; all things at first were immediately created by God, and had whatever they had immediately from his own h [...]nd and to this day many things are immediately given to the creatures, to instance in the soul and infused habi [...]s, yet would it be very improper to say, they are given in a supernatural way, nor had that King wh [...]soe­ver he was, any thing conferred on him, but that which is na­tural. Secondly your proof falls short, for it appears not that the King is called God, as you tra [...]slate the Text, our English, is Migh­ty one, so Junius Piscator most migh [...]y El [...] an adjuctive faith Schin [...]ter, that famous Hebrician, and signifies mighty, power­full, [...]s Gen. 31.19. Laban vainly boasted, that it was in the power of his ha [...]d to do mischief, and in many other places and you had no reason to render it into the hand of the God of Nati­ons, for to be sure, the King of Babylon being compared with o­ther [Page 245]Princes, was more mighty then they were potent, I will help you to a fitter example. Sathan is called the God of this World, 2 Cor. 4.4. the naturall endowments in cursed Spirits, were not lost by their fall, some of them had greater power conferred on them then others, the order amongst them is sacred, in respect of God ordaining it, for he useth the power of the Devil to accomplish his own holy ends, but this power on the Devils part abusing it to the dishonour of God, and the hurt of men, 'tis wicked.

Answ.

Touching this fourth way, I with good reason justly expected a proof from Scripture, that in this regard, a creature is called God, because he is a bestower of supernatural benefits, as you have done in all the rest, though all in vain.

If we respect the matter it self, here is another deep mysterie, whereof the learned forsooth are ignorant, God gives both grace and glory, who doubts of that? your Exposition of the third of Exodus is too short, it comprehends more, that God by speciall Covenant, was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Iacob, not onely by a rich preparative, destining that Land of Canaan and in that Land a famous City Ierusalem for their posterity, and in that mystically prenguring heaven above, a singular argument of his love and fa­vour, that they should live in his sight to all Eternity, he did not onely this, but he qualified the [...] by his grace to be meet for it which he also really bestowed upon them.

Answ.

Temporal things are common to good men and to bad, and by [Page 246]them simply considered, no man can know whether God loves him, or hates him, but to Gods children, which are partakers of the Di­vine nature, and which do use them to his holier ends, and to pro­mote their own good, they are sweet pledges and tokens of his love, and their smell is as a field which God hath blessed.

I do observe the Title, God is a Soveraign Benefactour, I demand, if there can be a Soveraign Benefactour, which is not the most high God? to be Soveraign is too great for a creature, God. It is in­congruous, to say, a person, which is a ministeriall or subordinate cause of good, is, or can be a Soveraign Benefactour, to say no­thing, that this fourth and fifth way, are in effect coincident, and do onely gradually differ, let us now take notice of the application of these severall respects to our Saviour.

Answ.

All this is spoken to blear the eyes of the Reader, and 'tis nothing but sophisticall juggling, he saith, Christ is true God, but he de­nies, that he is the eternal and omnipotent God.

All the particulars are absolutely true of him, as he is God, but in an improper and limited sense, as he is man.

The Dominion of Christ over all, both naturall as he is God, and do native conferred on him, as he is our Mediatour in time, we do to our great comfort acknowledge, as also that he bestows spirituall blessings, yea, the Holy Ghost in the Scripture sense, and eternall life, grace and peace, and glory are from him, as he is God, and as he is Mediatour, both God and man, and that is done dispositivè, or per modum praeparantis, by preparing and fitting men for grace by his passion, satisfying Gods wrath, removing all matter of dislike, meriting the favour and acceptation of God for us, which depened upon the excellency of his person, and on the Divine Nature which [Page 247]made his passion meritorious for us; Christ is also the soveraigne Author of grace effective, per modum impertientis, by way of efficacy conferring to us grace by the operation of his Holy Spirit; for he alone enlightens the dark understandings of men, he alone softens their hard hearts, and sanctifies their disordered affections, and re­formes the whole man.

But this Antitrinitarian albeit he cals Christ a true God, yet doth not the definition of God in his sense belong to him, for he will in no case say, he is a spiritual eternal essence infinite in all perfections.

Secondly, there is a wide difference betwixt these two to be called a God, as sometimes in holy Scriptures some creatures are, and to be a God in reality.

Thirdly, all or most of the former particulars do not demonstra­tively prove, that those to whom they are attributed are truly God, but there is further required the Divine Nature and omnipo­tency, Jerem 10.11. if he be God, he hath made Heaven and Earth, as Christ indeed is the Author of these great Works; besides it is ne­ver said, which is carefully to be observed, that Christ in the Scrip­ture phrase is a made God, but he was even in the depth and lowest degree of his humiliation called, and that most truly as he was God, and our God.

Answ.

All this we do heartily imbrace, and willingly subscribe unto, but these passages are not in the least to the prejudice of our cause, but do make much for us, and do afford a double Argument to prove the property, so called Deity of Gods Son.

First, because he wrought miracles by his owne power, for God alone is the soveraign Author of miraculous works, Psal. 72.18. and our Saviour argueth from his works, and proves his equality with the Father, John 5.18. which the Jewes charged on him to be no less [Page 248]a sin then blasphemy, and in the next verse he saith, Whatsoever things the Father doth, the very same doth the Son likewise: that is, by the sameness of his essence, and most perfect equality with the Father; and we may take notice how both Natures of our Saviour concurred in his miraculous works very frequently, in his Humane Nature he received power in time, but in his Divine Nature he had power eternally in himselfe to work them, as he was God he ope­ned the eyes of the blind, as he was man, he touched sometimes the ill affected member; as he was man he touched the Leper, as he was God, he said, I will, be thou clean, and the Leprous was cleansed Mat. 8.3. as he was man he looked up to Heaven and sighed, and put his fingers into the ears of a deaf man, he spit and touched his tongue, as he was God he said (with authority) Ephphatha, be thou opened, and immeditely he had the use of his ears and of his tongue, Mar. 37.33.34. as he was man, he wept, he sighed, thanked God, and spoke to dead Lazarus, Come forth, as he was God, he raised him from the dead, John 11.43. When we see a candle shine through the horns of a Lanthorn, we do not fix our mindes on the Lanthorn, which hath no native vertue thus to shine, but on the Candle it selfe, which sends forth thorough its radiant light; in like manner when we do contemplate the glorious works which our Saviour in­strumentally wrought by his humane Nature, we must not rest in the meditation of the visible creature, but by it transmit our mindes to the invisible God, who was the proper and principal cause of them.

Secondly, our Saviour had not only power to work miracles him­self, but he gave power and authority to whom and when he plea­sed to work them in his name, Act. 3.12.16.38. this is so transcen­dent a favour, that no Apostle nor any creature can give to any o­ther, but it is an honour which is peculiarly reserved in the hands of supream Majesty, and it was a palpable error in Simon Magus, and so it is in any other man to think otherwise, Act. 8.19.

It was the infirmity of John, a beloved Apostle to be envious that any one which was not a professed Disciple should have the gift of working miracles in the Name of Christ, herein he was not unlike to Josuah, Numb. 11.18. which was troubled that Eldad and Me­dad prophesied in their tents, and Jesus in effect answered him as, Moses did his servant, let as many as wil cast out Divels in my Name, though they keep not company with us, no man is so foolishly vain; [Page 249]that will at the same time both make use of and blaspheme my Name, He that is a Souldier and fights not against me (according to the Pro­verb) he is for me, in that he makes use of my Name for such a purpose, according to that famous speech of Caius Caesar, Grotius in hom: yea, our blessed Saviour confers this great gift (such was his bounty) not only on him which was not then a professed Disciple, but on the Reprobates which at the last day will plead for themselves, that they had in the Name of Christ cast out Divels, to whom Christ will an­swer, Depart ye wicked, I know you not: verily this makes much a­gainst, but nothing at all for the Adversary.

Answ.

There is I grant, a difference betwixt the second and third Person of the holy Trinity in working miracles. For the Holy Ghost was not incarnated, as was the Son of God, and both Natures as I have shewed, concurred, although in a different manner in their produ­ction very frequently: as also in the order of working, which agrees to the order of subsisting, as the Divine Nature with all essentiall properties were communicated to the Holy Ghost, by the Father and Son of God, not as two Agents but as one principle, so doth the Son work by the Holy Ghost: this granted, yet the vertue and power conferred on the Apostles and others in those dayes, whereby they cured diseases without Physick, yea and inflicted formidable Judgments as Paul on Elymas, yea death it selfe as Peter did on Ananias and Saphirah his Wife, and whereby they cast out Divels in the name of Jesus Christ was one and the same power in the Son and Holy Ghost, that is, a Divine Power, for ability to work mira­cles is proper to God, and so doth equally belong to God the Fa­ther, [Page 250]God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, and that we might not doubt hereof the Holy Ghost in the Text 1. Cor. 12. is declared to be an absolute Author of such gifts, and bestows them where and how, and to whom he pleaseth, nor is there the least superiority discovered in the diversity of operations ascribed to God the Father, and in the diversity of gifts ascribed to God the Holy Ghost, and of administrations to the Lord; is not the Spirit made the absolute Authour of gifts, and the Son of administrations, as God is of operations? shall we say that the Spirit is not so the Author of gifts, as God is the Author of them? to be Author of gifts and admini­strations imports it not equal glory as to be Author of operations? operation proceeds from administration, and administration depends on gifts! what preheminence hath the Father in that tis said, [...] that the Holy Ghost divides gifts to every one as he will: search and con­sider if there can be more spoken of the Father, who is by the Adver­sary confessed to be the most high God? can an Instrument under another dispence gifts to any as he will?

It is confessed that the Disciples are not said to cast out Divels in the name of the Holy Ghost, as they did expresly in the name of Jesus Christ, yet did they in very truth cast them out in his name; for what is it to cast out Divels in the name of the Holy Ghost? is it not to do it by his power, and by a gift received from him? this they received, 1. Cor. 12. as the text proveth; for how else I pray you, could the Holy Ghost give this to others? and not only did the Apostles, but Christ himselfe also as he was man cast out Divels in the Name of the Holy Ghost, for he did then by the finger of God, 12. Mat. 28. besides there was an evident reason why the holy Apo­stles should make an open profession that they cast out Divels in the Name of Christ, not only to renounce thereby all honour and glory as due to themselves by such eminent works, as they were instru­ments to produce, but to advance the honour of Christ, obscured and vailed by his sufferings in the flesh, he was a person contemned and slighted by the Jews and Gentiles, now this seasonable profes­ssion of the Apostles, that all they did in that kind was by the name of Jesus, was a notable demonstration of the glory of the Son of God, whom the Jews had crucified.

Answ.

This place hath been already examined page 266. and these that follow, and I purpose not largely, actum agere, and to roll the same stone, in that holy Text, our Saviour is described, both as he is the Son of God simply, and likewise in regard of his offices, and the benefits which do flow from that fountain to us. In the first Consideration, he is stiled the mighty God, a Title too high and lofty for any creature, and which can fitly appertain to none but the most high God, nor will this sacred Scripture evince, that Christ is made a mighty God by the bounty and favour of the Lord of hosts, as you do most unworthily confound things that do differ, for I demand, what is that the Lord of hosts will perform, is it to make Christ really to be almighty God? Surely not this by any na­turall Deduction, but by a forced Interpretation without any foo­ting in the Text, what then? he shall have the Throne of David, (who is a mighty God touching his person) he shall order and sta­blish it in Justice, from hence forth for ever, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts will perform this: now the Distinction betwixt the Lord of Hosts giving a Throne, and the promised Messias to whom it is given, is not denied, but unanimously acknowledged by us, for who is so rude to confound the Lord of Hosts, the eternal God with the humane nature of our Saviour, or with the Mediatour be­twixt God and man? and we are sure by the Testimony of the Scrip­tures. That it was a singular Priviledge to the Jews, that Christ, as concerning the flesh came of them, Rom. 9.5. and a greater favour to the house and posterity of David, that the Lord would both make and ratifie that happy promise, and the words insisted on, are [Page 252]as a Seal annexed to the promise, that the zeal, the exceeding great love, which God did ever bear to the Church, and his indignati­on against the enemies thereof, will by his mighty power accom­plish that gracious promise for the benefit of mankind, which we to the joy of our hearts, do see in part already fulfilled. It is an u­suall practise of the Adversary to spend time and paper, to prove that which is not denied, and to leave that naked, which should be proved.

Answ.

O that foolish man should take such pains to kick against the pricks, to make light to be darknesse, and to draw a curtain over his eyes to keep out the light from shining to them, and for no o­ther reward, but to procure his own damnation? this place is so clear a proof of the Divinity of Christ, that as Doctour Hammond observes out of Proclus de fide, it convinceth all the Heresies touching him, and it shuts and walls up all passages for calumny from them that are contumelious to our Saviour Can there be more force in omitting one poore letter to make the Adversary de­ny our Saviours Deity, than in many strong reasons to wring out from him a Confession of this necessary truth? Too much curiosity in this Criticisme hath deceived him, is not Christ Jesus the true God, because the Article is omitted, or is the Article never omit­ted, when the most high God is most undoubtedly spoken of?

First I say, this exception is but a vain elusion, for Articles are not alwayes added, no, not to that person, who is in the Adver­saries sense the most high God, and there are infinite examples in all Writers in that tongue, and many in the new Testament, which will to the eye of the intelligent Reader make this good: See Mat. 4.4. and 5.9. and 12.28. and 14.31. Philip. 2.6. as Saint Chry­sostome [Page 253]on that place observeth, equal to a God, shall we thus ren­der it, and such instances are every where obvious, which are need­lesse to be repeated: the Article where God is spoken of, is wanting in an hundred places, saith Beckman, yea in no few­er in the New Testament than two hundred, saith Stegma. Disput. 3. qu. 6. Shall we then conclude from them, that the Father is a God, not the most high God?

But perhaps you will object and say, that albeit the Article is sometimes omitted when the most high God is mentioned, yet is it never prefixed when the Son of God is called God: if this could be truly spoken, it would be some prejudice against the Argument, but how false it is, will be made out even in this very Text, for albe­it it is not added immediately before the name of God, yet it is here done remotely, and vertually appe [...]tains to it, the Text is [...], and more plainly, Matthew 1.23. Act. 20.28. Tit. 2.13. Heb. 1.8. and 1 John 5.20. shewing hereby, that no great stresse is to be put to a place in reference to an Article, [2 Pet. 1.1. our God and Saviour, the Articles is added to [...], but omitted in [...], to intimate that one person is meant by both] sithence the holy Text sometimes omitteth and sometimes addeth it, yea, to false gods, as to Moloch and to Remphan, in the Prophet Amos, c. 5.26. called Chiun, rendered by the Septuagint Rephan, retaining the sense, not the word, whereby we are to understand Hercules, who in the Egyptian language was called Chon, for [...] in the holy Tongue signifieth, gyants, and by Hercules the Sun is meant, accor­ding to some Etymologists, from the Hebrew [...], because it enlightens all things, Goodwin Synag. lib. 4. c. 2. yea voluptuous men make their belly their God, [...], yea it is affixed to the Devil himself, for he is called [...], the god of this World, out of your own words I frame this Argument.

That God which hath an Article prefixed before him, is the most High God.

The name God, when applied to the Son of God, hath an Article prefixed before him. Ergo, he is true God.

When you say, over all, would be superfluous and incongru [...]us, were God a proper name.

Here is (say I) a piece of new learning as though every periphra­sis of a name was needlesse? what more usual then to adde, for teaching and illustration sake, expressions fitted to a proper name? [Page 254]and whereas you object David over all, is incongruous. First, you omit what is in the Text [...] Christ being God over all. Secondly, I do not see any inconvenience to say in a qualified sence (for other­wise the words you relate are not true) this is Moses, and this is David, who is over all; and above all the Israelites; but it is well, that you do not with your heretical Simmists shamefully per­vert the plain words of the Text, affirming without proofe, that there is a point after [...], and the following words are a wish ap­pertaining only to God the Father. Let the God that is over all, be blessed for ever.

Answ.

You discover to us a great mystery to no purpose, and an obser­vation, which, as I conceive, is not taken notice of, either by the an­cient or modern Writers, whose knowledge surely was not below Mr. Biddles in Criticism, and if in one place the name God is sup­plied, which is your only proofe; Doth it follow that it is always to be understood in a hundred? and why may not the name God be proper to the great God, as it is in other places, you do not demon­strate: I am to learn how this which you here say can either hurt us, or advantage you; it had been well for you, if you had had lesse of the Grammarian, if you had had more of the sober and learned Divine.

It is true that Christ is so God over all, that he himselfe hath a God, I mean the Father distinguished from him; yet will it not fol­low, because he hath a Father which is God over all, that therefore the Son is not God over all for this is an honor necessarily annexed to the Deity to be over all, and by consequent, which is contrary to [Page 255]the Adversaries collection, this is a title which doth equally belong to God the Father and God the Son.

You do object, that the title cannot be taken without exception, for then Christ should be over God the Father also: the answer is easie: this Elogy is not ascribed to him to exalt him above the Fa­ther, but above all creatures, as it appeareth by 1. Cor. 15.27. all things are put under the feet of Christ, but God the Father is excep­ted, that put all things under his feet, and you also do attest, that he is according to the Scripture, Ephes. 1.20 above all creatures, the highest of them all both men and Angels.

This Text hath invincible proofs of the Deity of the Son of God, in that his office is not described, nor is he above all by a gift con­ferred on him in time by his Father, but by nature and eternal ge­neration.

First, because he is said to be of the Jews according to the flesh, which is spoken by way of limitation, more then intimating thereby that he hath not only a Humane Nature, but the Divine, which is not of the Fathers, for flesh is frequently taken for man, Luk. 3.6. Math. 24.22. 1. Pet. 1.24. yea, as it refers to Christ, Rom. 8.3. he was of the seed of David according to the flesh, as other children are of the seed of their Parents: now Philosophy teacheth us that it is the man, the totum that is generated, and not the body only with­out their souls. Luk. 1.35.

Secondly, this is evinced by the description of Christ, that he is God over all blessed for ever, which cannot appertain to any but to the most high God: whosoever is a God over all blessed for ever, he is the true and the eternal God; there are Synonymies, as homo and animal rationale, it is a reasonable animal: Ergo, it is a man, and as evident reason, so the words of the Apostle do prove it, Rom 1.25. What is ascribed in one place to the Creator of all things, that in the other is ascribed to the Son of God: it was a custome solemnly observed by the Jewes, when ever the Priests in the Sanctuary spoke of the Name of God, the people used some words of blessing or praising God, which forms were after added [...] for ever and ever, the evidences of which custome Doctor Hammond in locum sheweth both out of the old and new Testament, and the Writings of the Jewes.

Answ.

That passage to the Romanes, c 9. v. 5. wants not a member oppo­sed to it, but it is expressed in those words, who is over all, God blessed for ever, and a paralel Scripture, to illustrate this, is Rom. 1.3, 4. where the same opposition is, I grant, for substance observa­ble, as Adam is of the earth, as touching his body, but he is not of the earth as touching his soul, thus is it touching our Savi­our, who is of his Fathers touching his flesh, but by God his Fa­ther touching the Spirit of holinesse, let us now see what you can make out of this latter place, to elude the strength of our Argu­ment drawn from the former.

Answ.

The Adversary takes occasion to vent his grosse and senselesse fancies, and in this his Exposition he doth extremely crosse other Socinians, which do understand by eternal Spirit, a divine Spirit, or gifts given unto Christ without measure, or that he offered him­self spiritually and not carnally, and by his voluntary oblation procured eternal Redemption for us, with such like devised shifts. S [...] Paraeus in locum, but they hit not on your strange Exposition, that by eternal spirit a spirituall body is meant, which no where in Scripture, I am sure, is called an Eternal spirit: the body indeed is cal­led by Saint Paul after the Resurrection, a Spiritual body, but it is never called a Spirit. Will you say, that Christs glorified body in hea­ven is made of aire, or a heavenly substance? and how should that body offer it self to God? much more rationally might you have said with some of ours, that by Eternal Spirit is meant the Eter­nal and immortall soul, intimating thereby, that he knowingly and willingly in obedience to his Father, suffered death for us: but this is rather to be understood, as most commonly it is by ancient Fathers, and later Writers, of his Divine natu [...]e which made his bloudy sacrifice on the Crosse, acceptable to God, and able to purge us from dead works, that is, from sins which deserve death; for the dignity of his worthy sacrifice ariseth not from the blood, or soul of man, though it be more excellent than the bloud of Bulls and goats, but from the invaluable worth of the person, whose blood was sacrificed: no satisfaction of a creature can take away sinne, which hath a kind of infinity, in that it is committed against an infinite person, Aquin. Sum. par. 3. q. 1 art 2. no finite sum can discharge an infinite debt; the nature and worth of a holy man be­ing finite, is as far from infinitnesse (be it what it will be in com­parison of other finite things) as nothing at all is from all, or as that which is from that which is not. This then affords an Argu­ment to prove, that Christ was not onely man, but the true and Eternal God, for by his Spirit, his own Eternal Spirit, he offered himself to God, and the holy Apostles make a clear difference be­twixt the flesh which was offered, and the Spirit, which at the same time offered it, and by consequence Christ is a Priest, not onely according to the humane, but the Divine Nature also, for being a Priest, he offered his flesh and blood as man, but the worth and efficacy of his bitter passion flowed from his Eternall Spirit, that is, [Page 265]his Divine nature, as the principle thereof, the Eternal Spirit of our Saviour procured that his Passion should work an Eternall Redem­ption and purgation of our sinnes.

You adde out of the fifth to the Hebrews, that flesh and spirit are opposed, as Eternity is to dayes: this we grant to be true, but it is to be observed that the opposition is to be taken in regard of the same time: in this manner he offered (and sacrificed) by his Eter­nal spirit, which he then had, and not onely after, as you say, when he had been crucified. Besides, doth this opposition betwixt flesh and Spirit, prove at all, that an immortall glorified body is signi­fied by the eternall spirit: verily, if there was nothing else eter­nall but a glorified body, the point had been fully proved, but sith this is attributed not onely to Angels their souls now, and bodies after the Resurrection. A Conclusion à genere ad speciem affirmative, was never held Logick; this his body is an element, Ergo it is fire: it follows not.

Answ.

Batts and owls may conceive and pretend, that they can see further with their weak eyes and dimme sight, than the quick-sighted Ea­gles can discern. The deep speculation of this Seraphicall and illumi­nated Doctour is this; Christ made his offering for our sinnes in heaven, and not on the Crosse: this Divinity is strange in the ears of our people, and directly contrary to the holy Scriptures, the rule of our faith, if we will speak as the Apostle doth in that Text of his expiatory and satisfactory oblation.

1. Christ was a common person, no otherwise then the first Adam was, who is called the figure of Christ, Rom. 5.14. and Christ him­self is called the second Adam, 1 Cor. 15.45. as sinne and death is from the one, so is righteousnesse and life from the other, and this is effected by his oblation, whereby he undertook as a surety to pay our debts, and satisfie divine Justice, by undergoing the punish­ment [Page 266]due to our sins, and this was done by his bloudy death, Mat. 20.28. Rom. 3.25. 1 Pet. 1.19. and by many other Texts to this purpose not needfull to be named. Augustin. in Psal. 37. saith ex­presly, that Christ sustained the Person of the first Adam on his Crosse, and Theodoret. Dialog. 3. compares the first and second Adam together, as the Physick with the Disease, as the Plaister with the Wound, Righteousness with Sin, Blessing with Cursing, Forgivenes with Condemnation, Observation of the Law with the Transgres­sion of it, as Life with Death, and Heaven with Hell, Christ with Adam, and Man with Man.

Secondly, our Saviour himselfe said John 19 30. when he was de­parting out of this life, It is finished, and bowing downe his head a gesture of Prayer, he said, Father into thy hands I commit my Spirit, and gave up the Ghost: our Redemption according to the Oracles of the Prophets was now wrought, and what was signified by legal types, which were shaddows of good things to come, was then ac­complished, and the Sun of righteousness being risen, these shad­dows and dark resemblances of good things to come by Christ are vanished.

Thirdly I add, that Christ acted as a Priest, whiles he was on earth, for he taught the heavenly Doctrine, he prayed, he blessed, he offered up himselfe, he purged us from our sins, and then he sat in Heavenly places, Heb. 1.3. he offered up prayers with strong cries, Heb. 5.7. plainly relating to his bitter agony in his passion, and if you please to penetrate into that divine Epistle, there are convincing proofes to manifest this truth, chap. 9. v. 13. Christ sacrificed neither by the bloud of Buls and Goats, but by his own bloud he entred in once into the holy place (Heaven) having obtained eternal redemption for us, and not for a time onely, as were the legal justifications by types, but this Redemption shall continue to the end of the World, and the efficacy thereof reached backward even to the be­ginning, Act. 15.11. the faithfull all of them make but one Catho­lick Church, and are all of them saved by him and by no other: now this Redemption is not purchased without shedding of bloud, which was done on Earth, and not in Heaven, and vers. 15. 'tis ex­presly said, that by the death of the Mediator, the truly reformed and penitent have the redemption of their transgressions, and the expiation of their sins, and this the Apostle proves, that his oblation was in his passion, because he could not die often, and therefore he [Page 267]could not be offered more then once, ver. 25, 26. this Argument of the Apostle would not be of any force, unlesse this be granted, he offered himselfe but once, therefore he could not die often, and v. 26. Once hath he appeared to put away sins, [...], to frustrate the end or design of sin, which was to get us into its power, to reign in our mortall bodies, and then maliciously to bind us over to eternal punishment, from both which Christs death was designed to redeem us, and takes away sin, quoad vim dominandi & damnandi, non quoad actum inhaerendi, & vim inficiendi in hac vita, B. Davenant Determinat. 5. and further v. 28. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; he bore our sins up to the Crosse with him, 1 Pet. 2.24. and died as our Surety; now the sacrifice was killed on the Al­tar: Christ therefore by his bloudy death and passion, and not by any feigned offering up himselfe in our names after his glorious Re­surrection hath put away our sins.

Fourthly, Gods Justice and his truth required that our sins were to be satisfied for by the death of the Messias, whereby God gathe­red together in one all things both in Heaven and in Earth, Ephes. 1.10. [...] in Christ, as the head, even all men, all the faithfull which were from the beginning of the world to the end thereof, as Irenae. lib. 3. cap. 33, opens it, the transgressors of Gods Law were threatned with death, Genes. 2.17. and the sinners are worthy of death, as the hired servant is worthy of his wages, Rom. 1.27. and 6. ult. If it was possible then for us to be saved, Gods ju­stice must be satisfied, and the truths of his threatnings must be per­formed: who could do this but our Saviour? he being the Almighty God infinite in wisdome, in power, and in holinesse, in all worth and perfection was able to satisfie to the utmost farthing, and we may truly and confidently say; God hath laid help on him that is mighty.

Lastly, where there is properly no Altar, there is no sacrifice of­fered up to God; but in Heaven there is no Altar, as there was no Altar for burnt offering in the Sanctuary, but an Altar of Incense, which was not raised up for [...], sac [...]ifices, and so by consequent Christs oblation was not properly in Heaven, but on the Altar of the Crosse, on which he cancelled the hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us, and destructive to us, Col. 2.14. and by his bloud shed on the Crosse made our Peace with God, Col. 1.20. drawing us who were far from him in regard of any gratious condition, and sa­ving [Page 268]relation to be neerly and savingly united to him, Ephes. 2.12.13.

Answ.

The type of the Levitical Priesthood, in that he made the yearly attonement, which was ceremonially in an external and visible man­ner performed by him, for the sins of the people, did signifie, as we all confesse, the true, real and spiritual expiation of all our sins, by Christ Jesus our high Priest, who was a Priest not after the or­der of Aaron, but Melchisedech; and as the Levitical Priest per­formed some duties pertaining to his Office out of the Sanctuary, as to pray for the People, to offer sacrifices for sinnes, which were done by him out of the Sanctuary, and to bring in the bloud of the sacrifice into the Sanctuary, and there to make intercession for the People; thus is it likewise touching our Priest prefigured hereby; his Priesthood and some acts thereof were begun and finished on Earth, as to pray for us, John 17. in the Garden and on the Crosse, and to offer up his body a sacrifice for us; so doth he continue a Priest in Heaven for ever, entring into that Building not made with hands, with his body as it were sprinkled with his owne bloud, and there making continual intercession for us.

Nor did the high Priest only on the day of attonement prefigure our Saviour, but he himselfe also in his office at other times; yea, and the inferior Priests in their dayly sacrifices, which never entred into the Sanctum sanctorum, typified him, and made attonement for the sins of Israelites. And as the High Priest was truly a High Priest, and discharged his office before he went into the Sanctuary, the Sanctum sanctorum, which was a type of the highest Heavens, 1 Chron. 6.49. and in case of sicknesse and pollution had an Assistant [Page 269]to perform his office, as Zephaniah, called the second Priest, was to Semaiah the chiefe Priest, Jer. 52.24. as Annas was thought to be to Caiaphas, Luke 3.2. See Joseph. Scaliger in Prolegom. ad Euseb. Casaubon. ad ann. 31. se. 4 n. 9. as the Patriark of Constantinople had his Proto-syncellus, the Roman Centurion his Optio Leivtenant and the heads of our Colledges their Presidents: as the High Priest, I say, was truly a High Priest before he went into the Sanctuary, so was Jesus Christ a Priest of earth, though not an earthly Priest, or of an earthly condition, for then he could not of himselfe, by his owne vertue have expiated our sins, nor was he a Priest on Earth to offer up to God Levitical sacrifices, Heb. 8.4. nor did he die for our sins as he was a Priest, but as he was a sacrifice; nor was he so a Priest on earth, as to remain on earth so long as he was a Priest, as those did which were of the order of Aaron, for had he not entred into the heavenly Sanctuary, he could not have been a Priest for us, and opened the Kingdome of heaven for us to enter into it; and as the high Priest did not offer Sacrifices (to speak properly) in the Sanctuary, for they were offered on the brasen Altar before he went into the most holy place, which as the daily Sacrifice and other Sacrifices at all times were offered and burnt on the Altar; and as Abraham is said to offer up his Son, Heb 11.17. because he intend­ed to sacrifice him on the Altar, so Jesus Christ our high Priest once offered up himself, a Sacrifice in his manhood on the Crosse, and not in heaven, for he is a Priest there, albeit his body is not there to be an unbloody Sacrifice, and albeit he hath not a certain host in external proper manner to make perpetuall oblation thereby in the Church, though he doth not exercise a visible and external act of sacrificing in heaven, as Papists say, Rhemists on Heb. 8.3. v. and Fulk against them.

To prosecute the comparison betwixt the Typicall and spirituall high Priest: as the high Priest went into the Sanctuary with some part of the blood of this Sacrifice, and sweet Incense beaten small, which prefigured the bitter agony and death of our Saviour; so Jesus Christ having made an atonement for us by his oblation and passi­on, entred into the highest heavens, and remains there a Priest for ever to make intercession for us, not as in the dayes of his humilia­tion by vocall external prayers, nor by offering an externall sacri­fice for us, for our Redemption was purchased, and expiation was [Page 270]made before Christ entered into heaven, but by appearing in the presence of God, and to negotiate as the Priest did in the holy of holies, and on our behalf, and to relieve us in our wants, Heb. 9.27. by the vigorous effect of his Sacrifice, once performed for us: if the blood of Abel unjustly shed cries for vengeance continually, how much more shall the blood of Christ shed but once for our sins, cry alwayes for mercy and reconciliation.

It is true, that the Apostle makes mention of Christs [...] in heaven, his manifestation or apparition there for us, but this is not [...], an oblation for us, but an application of his oblation to us; not a Sacrifice, but a commemoration of his bloody Sacri­fice, and he alwayes appears before God, but he was never but once offered. Heb 7.27. and 9.25.28. By his offering himself once, he was our Saviour meritoriously: by his presenting himself before God the Father, he is our Saviour essicaciously, and that not by any new oblation, but by vertue of a former oblation on the Crosse: it is true, the same effects are ascribed to the resurrection of Christ, but not in the same manner, but first in respect of manifestation, be­cause his resurrection, ascension and glory in heaven are an evident testimony of our Redemption. 2 In regard of Confirmation, be­cause by these acts, our faith touching the pardon and future abo­lishment of our sinnes is confirmed. 3. In respect of application to save us by his life, Rom. 5.10. 4. In respect of actuall absoluti­on, There is no damnation to them that are in Christ: the truth is▪ Christs acting in heaven is in no place of Scripture called [...], an oblation or offering up himself for us, an expiatory and propitia­tory oblation.

By this time the event discovereth to us what is the Adversaries penetrating into the profound Epistle to the Hebrews; in truth, 'tis not to disclose those heavenly treasures, wrapt up in those sacred leaves for the enriching of the Reader, but to offer a profane vio­lence to that divine Epistle, and to rob us of those blessed truths, which it plainly reveals to us: and it is no marvel, if they which take away Christs natural glory, the glory of his Deity properly so called, do also deny his true Priesthood contradistinguished from his Kingly and prophetical offices, and if they do not acknowledge the chief benefits thereof.

Answ.

Your far fetcht addition, and supply in your mind, hath no better ground for you to build on, than teste meipso, and if you bear witness of your self, your witnesse is not true, but false and contempti­ble: that Scripture Rom. 9.5. hath been already vindicated from your corrupt glosses, and they being discovered can your Building stand upright? The paralel place, Rom. 1.34. is notoriously depra­ved by you, for he was not made the Son of God after his Resurre­ction by the glorification and exaltation of his humane nature, for the Socinians themselves will confesse, that Christ was the Son of God before that time, viz. as is clear by his conception and birth, Luke 1.35. by his sanctification with a Divine power to save ma­ny, John 10.36. by Gods special love to Christ, Math. 3.17. by his resurrection from the dead, Acts 13.32. and lastly, by his exal­tation into glory, Heb. 5.7. but Christ was not made the Son of God by any of these means, for he was long before, even from Eterni­ty the Son of God, the Text saith he was declared to be the Son of God by that omnipotent work of raising his body from death to be the most high God, this was it which manifested the Sonship of Christ by raising up his body to an immortall state, and offering violence to death by his own glorious power, and not, as you wildly [Page 272]infer, that he was not God blessed for ever before his resurrection. This Scripture hath been already discussed, I will therefore passe it over, and conclude with a sentence out of the Ancient Father Ori­gen. lib. 7, in Epist. ad Roman. What will some say of this place of the Apostle Paul, in which Christ is evidently called God over all? and a little after, he that is above all, hath none above him, for the Son is not after the Father, but of the Father, and he addes; manifestly is the nature of the Trinity held forth, and that there is one substance which is above all: can any thing be spoken more clearly for us, and against the Adversary?

Answ.

Thomas never doubted of the Divinity of God the Father, but of Christ, but being now convinced hereof by his divine knowledge, he faitfully confessed him to be Lord and God; yea, his God, and his Lord: nor did our Saviour reject this confession, but he accep­ted it as a title due to him, Because thou hast seen, thou believest: when the people in their acclamation to Herods Oration, said, The voyce was the voyce of a God, and not of a Man, and he was puffed up with vain glory: this was in him so great a fault, that God smote so signal an offendor with worms, base creatures to pull down his pride, Act. 12.21. and would our Saviour, think we, build up Tho­mas and the rest of the Apostles in a dangerous errour, by owning that title of God, which Thomas ascribed to him, and take this glory to himselfe, if he had not been truly the mighty God?

It is true, at that time Christ was visibly seen by Thomas, and from hence you argue he is not God, because God is invisible. I grant that in the same respect that any thing is visible, it is not invi­sible, yet may the same thing be in divers respects both visible and invisible, as man and beast are visible touching their bodies, but in­visible in regard of their souls; yea, Christ himselfe is undeniably the object of faith▪ He said to the blinde man miraculously cured, Dost thou believe on the Son of God, John 9.35. and yet he saith, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee, vers. 37. not­withstanding the Apostle saith, that faith is of things that are not seen, Heb. 11. viz. of such things whereof none have an ocular or sensi­ble demonstration. How can these jarring sentences be reconciled? very well: though faith may be of things which are seen by the eyes of the body, yet it doth not depend on them in that notion and con­sideration, as they are so seen, but as they are seen with the eyes of the minde illustrated by the shining truth in the word. Lombar. lib. 3. Dist. 24. cap. 3, the Apostle distinguisheth, We look on the things which are not seen: we look on them, and yet they are not seen by us, 2 Cor. 4.18. and albeit God is said to be invisible in regard of his essence, yet it is said, that the time will come when we shall see God face to face, 1 Cor. 13.12. for as the great School-man Alexander Halensis saith, there are three degrees of knowledge of God in the understanding answerable to the three degrees of knowledge by our Senses, as we know sweetness: first, by hearing, Honey is sweet: to this a kind of faith is answerable; for faith comes by hearing: Se­condly, by seeing sweet things: speculative knowledge in the under­standing is correspondent to this: and thirdly, by tasting Honey to be sweet, experimental knowledge answereth to this: yea, as the Sun is seen divers wayes by the eyes of the body, so likewise is God by the eyes of the mind; sometimes through a clear bright Cloud, so is God seen by the Angels and glorified Saints: sometimes through a dark Cloud, thus God was seen by Adam in the state of innocency: sometimes through a compounded glasse whereby we see the image of the image: thus do we see Gods face now by faith in the glasse of the word: briefly, as the acts of the reasonable soule do discover that immortal substance, which cannot without absurdity be denied; so likewise, albeit God is in his essence invisible, yet by our Saviours works Thomas discovered him to be the most High God. Thomas [Page 274]saw Christ, and this proved him to be a Man; Thomas saw the Di­vine Workes of Christ, and they proved him to be the invisible God.

Answ.

An image (as here it is taken) is a resemblance derived from that thing which it represents, and therefore albeit milk is like to milk, yet is not milk an image of milk, and if it be a natural image, it hath a habitude to designe the nature of that thing whose image it is; a Crow is not the image of a Blackmoore, though they are like in co­lour, because it neither denotes the same kinde of Creature, nor doth it designe the nature of a Blackmoore, But his accidentall quality only.

1. Christ is the image of his Father in a common respect, as he is man, for men are made in the likeness of God, and this is not meant: or in a singular consideration, and that

2, First, primarily he is Gods image in respect of his Person, the essential image of his Fathers Person, an infinite and most perfect image of an infinite Father, whose Son he is by paternal, and eter­nal generation. Seth was the Image of his Father Adam, not only his accidental image, in regard of the corruption of nature derived from him, but his substantial image also, because he received his substance from his Father, the same in kind with his: the Adversary, as his usual manner is, by the term (God) taking it essentially, which in this text is to be understood synecdochically of God the Father; the Son of God we all grant is not an image of God or the Deity, absolutely taken, for that is one and the same individually, both in the Father and the Sonne of God, but there is a rela­tive opposition betwixt an image and that which is represented thereby, so that these Relatives must be two at least; so that albeit Christ is one in essence, yet is he not one in Person with the Father, [Page 275] In similitudine hac summa differentia & summa convenientia concur­runt: the agreement in regard of the essence, and the difference in regard of their Person, and to the same purpose he is called The Character of his Fathers Person, Heb. 1.3. and coequal with him, as the Character is neither greater nor lesser then the stamp: and he represents his person not only to men, when he was manifested in the flesh, but to Angels before his incarnation, but he was from all eternity the express image of his Father, by himselfe, and in himselfe, and in this also he is like to God, whereas the Holy Ghost is not said to be Gods image, because the Son is Productivus of the Holy Ghost, but the Holy Ghost is not Productivus; yea, and the Son would have been his image for ever, if neither men nor Angels had been created by him; if a man should never see the image of Caesar, yet would that remain his image still; for to be seen is onely acci­dental to an image and separable from it, and Christ as he was God was the visible image of his Father, which Moses did behold, Numb. 12.8. this image was not corporeal but Spiritual and Divine, and consequently the most high God, and Divines do render a rea­son why God the Father is called invisible, because he was never seen of any man, as the Son of God hath appeared more then once in the Old Testament.

3. As Christ in regard of natural generation is the essential image of his Father, so likewise in a secondary consideration he is the image of God, as he is our Mediator, and as God manifested in the flesh, for in this notion he hath more lively then ever was or could be done by a creature expressed the will of his Father by his Divine wisdome and heavenly Doctrine, and miraculous works, and made thereby the invisible God to be seen in him, as a body is in a Chrystal Glasse, for in him the Mercy, Justice, Truth, and power of God are represented to us, insomuch that our Lord saith, He that sees me hath seen the Father, John 14.9. He that knows me, and by faith be­lieves that I am Gods Son, needs not ask to see the Father, because they are one God, Zanch. de Incarnat. filii Dei, lib. 2 yet is not Christ the image of himselfe, though of the same essence with the Father, first, because he is a distinct person from the Father. Secondly, because he is not an image of the Divine Essence, but of the Fathers Person, nor is the Holy Ghost, though he hath the same Essence with the Father, the Fathers image, by Christ, who is God manifested in the [Page 276]Flesh, 1 Tim. 3.16. God the Father is manifested, and he is the light, the way and the truth, by whom we do know the will of the invisi­ble God, a d by whom we have accesse to his Majesty, and do with great pleasure and delight behold his lively image, Jesus Christ. B. Davenant in 1. Coloss. 15.

Answ.

Mr. Biddle is wickedly industrious in obscuring the lustre of this sa­cred Text, wherein the Deity of Gods Son doth as clearly shine forth, as doth the glorious sun with its radiant beams in a fair sum­mers day, and his successe is no better then a dogs barking against the Moon, as by Gods help shall be demonstrated.

The are many wayes how the word was in the beginning: in re­spect of generation, as he is simply the Sonne of God: and in predestination, or preordination with God in promise: by ex­hibition or publick manifestation, or in regard of institution and sanctification of him to the office of a Mediatour. Beginning in respect of generation and preordination, belongs to Eternity; in re­spect of promise, to the beginning of fathers, man: beginning in respect of exhibition, to the manifestation of Christ in the flesh; in regard of declaration, to the beginning of his publick ministry: in regard of institution and sanctification of him to that sacred of­fice was done by his Father, when the Holy Ghost descended on him at his Baptisme in the likenesse of a Dove, and when by his Fa­thers voice he was called to the publick office of a Mediatour.

These I will not insist on at present, many of them not agreeing to the beginning in Saint John, I will onely mention two, wherein both of them do thus far concur, that our Saviours eternal being, is signified thereby, though they differ much in the meaning of the word it self.

First, some will have beginning understood of the relation ad [Page 277]intra, that is, the word was in the Father who is principium ori­ginarium, this Exposition is for the matter true, for the Son is in the Father, but the word beginning is never so taken in Gods holy Oracles, and therefore not warrantable to give a strange sense to a word in this place, where no necessity infor­ceth it.

Others by beginning do note eternity to be meant thereby, Our Apostle and Evangelist, like an Eagle, flies higher then the Creation, aymes at a higher beginning, lookes upon the Sun, and fastens his eyes on the eternal beginning of eternity; in this sense beginning seems to be taken, when our Saviour saith, he knew from the [beginning] who they were that believed not, John 6.64. now this he certainly knew from eternity, for no­thing is hid from him, who is the God everlasting, but all things are open in his sight, and the Apostle Paul, Coloss. 1.18. He is the Beginning, which is more fitly referred to our Saviour as he is our Mediator, but that place is evident Revel. 1.8. where he is called Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End: here the Lords everlasting being is described; beginning of it selfe doth not note eternity necessarily, yet the word End being added, it doth, and to put the matter out of doubt, the Apostle saith, that God from the beginning chose the Thessa­lonians, 2 Thess. 2.13. what is from the beginning, but as the same Apostle speakes in like manner in another place, before the foundation of the World, Ephes. 1.4. and Origene saith, (of whom that is proverbially spoken; Where he spake well, none spake better) in the beginning of his Works the first of Genesis, In the beginning God created Heaven: what other be­ginning is there of all things, but his Word? Our Lord by whom he made Heaven and Earth, as Saint John in the beginning of his Gospel saith, in the beginning was the Word. Thus Origen: this I confess is not a primary, and a proper Exposition of the Text, but a secondary, and no way convincing the Adversary, for if this had been the minde of the Holy Ghost, one would think that the words would have been thus, the Word was from eternity, rather then in eternity.

The second and common Exposition of the Orthodox is, that by beginning, is to be understood the beginning of those [Page 278]things which have a beginning, Principium principiatorum, viz. of those things which begin in time, and it notes out pro­perly the first moment and point of time, when time, place, creation, and things created in time and place began to be, and herein our Evangelist in all probability hath relation to the first words of the first Chapter of Genesis, In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth: and Grotius saith, that so the Syriac hath it [...] out of the Hebrew in this place, so that Moses the first Pen man of the blessed Spirit, and Saint John the last Evangelist, Prophet, and Pen-man of the Scriptures do use the selfe same first word in both their Writings, In the beginning, and our Saviour is most fitly excluded out of the number of the Creatures (for the Evangelist saith not the Word [...], but [...], he was in the beginning) within which the blasphemy of the Hereticks would include him, and consequently he had his being from all eternity, for every thing that is not eternal, had its first beginning in time, and to be before the world, and to be eternal, are equivalent in Scripture Phrase; as Moses saith, Psal. 90.2. Before the Moun­tains were brought forth, and thou hadst formed the Earth and the World, even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God. and the Wise man, Prov. 8.22. and Paul, Ephes. 1.4. do speak to the same purpose: this Exposition is proper, and cleared up by the context, as shall be proved.

Mr. Biddle expounds beginning not as I have done, nor as the old Arians, viz. of the Creation of the World, but of the beginning of the Gospel, and spiritual world, because the word is to be restrained to the matter in hand. This is a com­mendable Rule to which I do willingly subscribe, and I know it will not advantage his cause, but overthrow his Heretical Doctrine: Beginning, when it speaks of Time, signifies the beginning of time, or the world, unless the subject matter hindred, as here no circumstances shew it to be taken [...], but absolutely, and therefore is not to be restrained to the beginning of preaching the Gospel. It is a true Rule in Logick, Talia esse subjecta qualia permittuntur esse à Praedicatis suis commodè intellectis; & vice versa, Talia esse praedicata qualia esse à subject is permittuntur. Whereas he saith, the subject matter is [Page 279]to treat of the Gospel; to this I answer, by granting that the general scope of this Evangelist is to declare the Gospel, yet this is not intended in every passage of the Gospel, but the proper drift of this part is to treat of a Divine Person: Quae non suppointur temporali principio, sed praeponitur; and to sa­tisfie a question, where the word was in the beginning, and in effect the answer is, when the world began, he began not with it, nor was made when the world was made, but he was before it.

The places which are alledged as parallel to this in S. John are altogether unlike it, or else they do make against him. I will lay down this Rule not to be contradicted: That which is not determined in it selfe, may and must be explicated accor­ding to the circumstances of the Text, or concurrent Scriptures when they agree together in matter and analogy, and not other wise; here is treated of the Word absolutely, and touching his essence, but in most of the places alledged by the Adversaries is meant a temporary beginning of those that are spoken of, and in this absolute sense the Church of Christ for many ages hath expounded them, till men rose up which were bold to pervert plain Scriptures: besides, the Socinian sense is absurd, for thus it must be; in the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus, was Jesus Christ; or, in the beginning of the Gospel, Jesus Christ was the first Preacher of the Gospel: what is Gospel, but glad tidings of the comming of Christ? the Evangelist then sheweth in the beginning, when it was declared that Christ was come. Christ was; Is this a sentence beseeming the wise­dome of the Apostle to be placed in the front, and most conspi­cuous place of the Gospel? besides, this would render the first word of the Gospel to be ambiguous, for the beginning of the Gospel may be variously assigned. Mathew begins his Gospel from the Nativity of Christ, Luke b [...]gins from the Conception of John the Baptist, S. Mark begins it at the Preaching of John the Baptist, S. Peter from the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost fell upon the Apostles in the similitude of cloven fiery tongues. The text taken in the Adversaryes sense doth not de­cide these doubts, nor can any one of them agree to the scope of it. See Placens lib. 1. Arg. 19. I will now examine the alledged Texts.

Mark 1.1. In the beginning; in what beginning? not in a beginning simply taken, but [...], in the beginning of the Gospel: here beginning is clearly restrained in the Text to the Gospel. This may be retorted: Why doth Saint John simply say in the beginning and doth not add as Mark doth, in the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, if he had intended they should have been taken in that restrained sense.

The second place is Luke 1.2. Things famously acted amongst us, were delivered to us by such Instruments, which were from the beginning eye witnesses; this Text is unlike that of Saint John, for the Explication opening what is meant by the word, beginning, is evidently annexed to it.

The third place, 1 John 2.7. I write unto you no new com­mandement, but an old, which ye had from the beginning: the restriction is here also expressed, Ye have heard from the begin­ning, viz. of the Apostles preaching the Gospel, and their re­ceiving the faith; what he commandeth, they had received formerly for Gods truth, and they ought not now to be drawn away to other perswasions, to think, as the Gnosticks held, that they might live unchristian lives, and yet be good Christians, Dr. Hammond, this Text there is also impertinently alledged.

The fourth place, v. 24. this place hath also a restriction in the words themselves. You have heard from the beginning of your Christianity, when the Gospel was first preached to you: these. Christians must needs have a being in this beginning. 5. And S. Peter, 1. Pet. 3.11. doth necessarily admit the same Exposition: Love is the Fundamental Doctrine which hath been pressed on you from the beginning, viz from the time the Gospel was first preached to you.

As the fore alledged places make nothing for the Adversary, so the two remaining are against him.

1 Iohn, 1.1.7. That which was from the beginning, is meant of the Divine nature, which was in the beginning of the Creati­on of the World, who was the fountain of life, who from al Eter­nity continued with the Father, and who was in the Decree and purpose of God, and afterwards was foretold by him, and became man, that which we have heard from God speak­ing [Page 281]from heaven, and really beheld, and was made known to our senses by seeing and handling him: he alludes to Luke 24.39. and John 20.20. so that as Beza saith, he speaketh of Christ, as God, but not as simply God, but as God manifested in our flesh; so that both the Divine and humane nature do apper­tain to the Unity of the same person, and both are true in sun­dry respects, he was seen and handled as he was man, but the whole of the word of life was neither seen nor handled.

1 John 2.13.14. Beginning here doth not denote the begin­ning of the holy Gospel; the Text doth not thus run, you have known him, from the beginning of the Gospel, but, you have known him who was from the beginning: it is agreeable for old men, for men of your age being ancient to know the Ancient of dayes.

Thus hath Mr. Biddle jumbled together many sacred texts, and some of them do make directly against him, and the rest are not paralells to the first of John, and by consequent they are not pertinently alledged, as I have cleared them up, and as it is said, they have solutionem in latere, but our commonly re­ceived opinion formerly proved by me, is most agreeable both to the occasionall time of writing this Gospel, which (as is probable) was after Saint Iohns return from his banishment out of Pathmos, both to supply what was wanting in the other Evangelists, as also to be an Antidote against Mr. Biddles he­resie, which Ebion and Cerinthus bad hatched in those days, and others also, which called into question the Godhead of our blessed Saviour; now the Apostles purpose was not, nor did it become the authority of him who was the Lords Secretary, to dispute in his writings with profane and blasphemous Here­ticks, but to instruct the Church of God, and positively to assert that Divine Truth formerly delivered and professed by the Church, and this he doth with that Majesty and Authority, that he may well be called a son of thunder, and in this re­spect as I said, he is compared to an Eagle, as Saint Mat­thew is to a man, because he begins his Gospel with the pedi­gree of our Saviours humanity; Saint Mark to a Lion, be­ginning with John Baptist, a man of courage; Luke to a calf, be­ginning with Zachary a Priest, and so is Saint Iohn like an [Page 282]Eagle the chiefe of Birds, who mounted above the pitch of the other three Evangelists, even to the height of the Godhead of Christ, and to the most unsearchable mystery of the most glo­rious and blessed Trin-unity, and do thou Christian Reader cast thy self upon the wings of this quick-sighted Eagle, and thou shalt (as it were) be carried into the bosom of God, and acquainted with those heavenly truths, which, had they not been revealed by God himselfe, could never have been dis­covered or imagined: by the first words of this holy Gospel, those wicked Hereticks which denied the Deity of Gods Son are refuted, as witnesseth S. Irenaeus, lib. 3. adver. haereses, cap. 11. who lived long before Athanasius and the Nicene Synod. Epi­phan. haeres. 51. Augustin. de Haeres. cap. 8.10. Theodoret. haeretic. fabul. lib. 2. thou avouchest (wretched Heretick as thou art) that Christ had no real being, til he was conceived in the womb of his blessed Mother; but the holy Ghost who leadeth into all truth, saith, he was in the beginning: whom will you be­lieve, Mr. Biddle or sacred Scripture? thou pleadest to make him yonger then his Virgin Mother, but the Holy Ghost makes him elder then Adam, who was the root of all Mankind. His Exposition agreeth not to the subject treated of, who was a Person, even God with the Father, and was also God in the be­ginning, which do transcend all temporal beginnings; nor doth it agree with the effects that follow, that is, all things were made by him: as this Exposition is unjust, so is it foolish and absurd. What is the meaning of these words, In the beginning was the Word? that is (saith Biddle) he was when he began to Preach the Gospel: what wise man useth such a manner of speech? he was a Man when he governed the Common-wealth, he was a man when he Preached; we may say indeed, he preached, therefore he had existence, and was a man: Ab est tertii ad­jecti, ad est secundi adjecti valet consequentia: but to say thus, he was when he began to govern, is unsavoury, not fit to come forth out of the mouth of a reasonable man, much less of a holy and divinely enlightned Apostle. Let us now further see what you can say for the confirmation of your para­dox.

Answ.

This is to be laid downe as an undoubted conclusion, that Jesus Christ in his Humane Nature was not the first publisher of the Gospel, and of eternal life to Believers, as Socinians say: there is no express promise hereof, either to Moses or the Pro­phets: but how false this is Kemnitius hath diligently demon­strated; first, from the fall of Adam to the flood, Genes. 3.15. and 4.7.5.14. as is explicated Heb. 11.4.5.7. 2 Pet. 2.5. Se­condly, from the flood to Moses, Genes. 8.21.9.26. and many other places; compare with these, Heb. 11.21. Thirdly, from Moses to the Prophets: figures hereof are the Levitical sacrifi­ces, the brazen Serpent, plain predictions, Deut. 18.11. Act. 7.37. Fourthly, from the Prophets to Christ, 2. Sam. 11.12. in Solomon a type of Christ, Esa. 53. and many others, John 5.39.40.

Nor can the beginning of the Gospel be from Christ, as man, these pertained to the Gospel, the sending of the Angel to Za­chary the Priest, as also to the blessed Virgin, to the Shep­heards, to Joseph, Mary's Husband; the incarnation and con­ception of Christ, the calling of John the Baptist to his Office, his Preaching and Baptism, did not these pertain to the Gospel? did not the Baptism of Christ, his sending to Preach, and gists bestowed on him, pertain to the Gospel?

The Son of God is the Word here spoken of, and [...], the word, is a proper name, and the subject of the proposition [Page 284]the Word was in the beginning, and is in order of nature be­fore the Attribute: and this [...] was anciently in use amongst the Platonists (from the use whereof Saint John is called [...], the Divine) which caused Amelius when he read the be­ginning of this Gospel to cry out of him, This Barbarian is of our Plato's Religion, that the Word of God is in the order of principles, the Maker of the Universe, and Tertullian adversus Gentes: their Wise-men, as Zeno by name, acknowledged [...] made all things, and to the same purpose writes Lactantius. See Grotius in locum. Our inquiry then must be to shew in what respects this word [...] belongeth to our Saviour, and the rea­sons alledged do concern our Saviour either as he is simply the Son of God, or as he is our Mediator, and both of them do confirm the Deity of our blessed Saviour.

1. The natural, the only begotten and eternal Son of God the Father is called the Word, not in that sense as the Holy Scriptures, written by Gods commandement do disclose his will and pleasure, are called, and therefore as Beza saith, the Article to distinguish this Word from the Law and Prophets, is prefixed before it, and for this cause also Christ is never called in the new Testament [...], which is an outward Word, and that either audible, which may be heard, or visible, which may be seen, and the Chaldee useth for [...], but he is cal­led [...] in a more divine, eminent, and ineffable sort to express unto us in some measure by a term agreeable to our capacity, that the Son of God from eternity was born of God the Fa­ther, as our prime conceit (which is our internal and mental Word) is and issueth out of his understanding. Ignatius in his Epistle ad Magnesios, saith, that Christ is the Word of God, [...], not a word spoken, but his essential word. Gregor. Nazianz. Ser. 2. de Filio. and later Divines from him do shaddow out this unspeakable mystery, and do give us a glympse of this dazling light, by comparing God the Fa­ther, our understanding and to God the Son to that which our understanding inwardly conceives; when an intelligent man inwardly discourseth with him selfe, it is evident that he frameth in his minde a certain kind of speech, or sentence, and (as it were) a word without sound, which is called the concep­tion [Page 283]of the minde; if this man desireth to communicate his conceptions to others, then doth he form some outward speech or words, and delivers out, if I may have leave so to speak, a copy of that, the originall whereof he reserveth still within, wherein it was first conceived. Consider with all reve­rence and humility, that God the Father being from all Eter­nity infinite in wisdome, hath had alwayes some conception in him, as a man hath in his understanding when he discourseth; this conception of man is not of the substance of the soul, but in God, who is absolutely most simple, and without all man­ner of composition, there can be nothing, which is not his di­vine substance: now this conception of God the Father, is his eternal Son, but the like conception of man, is not the Son of man, whereas the Word being the Son of God must needs be of the same nature with the Father; this then is the first reason why the Son of God is called the Word, because he is so begotten of his Father, in such a manner, as our inward word or conception is framed in us, unlesse we do speak more fitly, and commodiously (saith learned Junius) in saying the Son of God is not [...], but [...], or [...], as an essentiall faculty of the soul, lib. 1. de Christo contra Bellar. cap. 6. If either this or the former sense be concluded by the holy Evangelist (as many learned Writers, both ancient and modern do perswade themselves that it is) and which if the Adversary had disliked, he should have disproved, the cause is gained, and the Adversary vanquished; these are high noti­ons and hard to be understood I grant; but as Bisterfield against Crellius, l 2 praefat. ad sect. 1 faith, I truly have in the fear of God often and seriously perpended the point, & do professe, that the profound mystery of the holy Trinity seems not to be so incom­prehensible to me, and perplexed with difficulties, as is the depth of Eternity; how the first being should be of himself from all Eternity: the cause hereof, because we are more puzled by these terms, which are more simply first of all, and higher than others; now to be, and to be of himself, is more simple than unum & trinum.

2. There is another Exposition, not opposite to the for­mer, but distinct from it, and this is more easie to be under­stood [Page 286]than the former; that Christ hath his name given him in reference to his Mediatourship, and to this Exposition in the general the Adversary agreeth, albeit not in that latitude which belongs to him, for this is a title which is given to him with adjection, [...], the word of God, Apoc. 19.13. where Christ is described [...]s a most potent King, that had ma­ny diadems on his head, and is called the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, & this is a name which no manknoweth but him­self, and yet it may be meant in part of his prophetical office, be­cause he reveals Gods counsels to us as a Prophet, touching our salvation and in such a manner, as no other ever did, and there­fore no Apostle is called [...]: he is called the Angel of the Covenant, and the Ambassadour of his Father to make his will known by word of mouth in his own person, and by the ministry of his servants imployed by him to that purpose, and he so reveals the counsel of God to us in the businesse of our souls, as we do by word of mouth communicate our minds to others; not that he was not the Word till he became man, for on this account the Adversaries Exposition would have been justifiable, but he was the Word, and taught the wayes of God to his people before his incarnation by his spirit and Divinity, and upon this account, as is commonly received, and cannot be disproved, we read, that the second person of the Trinity appeared often in the old Testament, namely, to Abra­ham, to Isaac and to Jacob; and others and then you may well conceive, yea see and hear the Son of God reval by himself im­mediately some part of his fathers will to these eminent per­sons he appeared unto, and thus did he also by his Spirit disco­ver Gods mind by his Prophets to them which were in Cove­nant with him, and in the last times God spake to his servants by his Word, the Son incarnated: this Exposition is approved by Origen. Tom. 1. in Iohan. by Augustin. in lib. quaestionum exeutroque Testamento, cap. 122. and Greg. Nazian. in loco praedicto.

Thirdly, because the Son of God was designed by his Father from eternity to be the Messias, and the Jews knew him by that title, The Word of God, and so called, because he was often spo­ken of, and the great promise which the Lord made to his peo­ple, [Page 287]who was the glory of Israel, and the expectation of the Gentiles. A Promise is often called The Word: Quioken me, O Lord, according to thy Word; I have trusted in thy Word: and many the like. The promised Messias is the main promise, and that on which all other promises which are blessings do depend; he is the pith and marrow, (as it were) and the scope of Gods Word, the center of the whole Scripture, and the abstract of the Prophets Sermons. Act. 10.45. and the Commission is granted to preach Christ, and nothing but in reference to Christ; no marvel then if our Evangelist makes choice of that title for him, by which the Septuagint, which translated the old Testament into Greek, often expressed the promises of God, as may be seen by perusing these places, Psal. 105.5. and Psal. 119.78.45.65.74.76. Psal. 130.1. nor do we in our English tongue call a mans promise his speech, but his Word. See Glassius in [...]. Messiae p. 276. and D. Hammond on 1. Luk Anotat. 6.

Maldonate, a learned Jesuite, on this Text dislikes this reason, If the Son (saith he) be called the Word, because he was pro­mised; then was not he the Word in the beginning of the World, because he was not promised til after mans fall: but he should have considered the words of the Text better: our E­vangelist faith not, he was the Word in the beginning but, the Word was in the beginning: that is, he that was promised to be the Messias had already his being, an eternal subsistence, when all created things began first to be.

Fourthly, the Son of God may be called the Word from an usual Phrase amongst the men of this world; some things are done by man not without the hands, the essential instrument, such is mans weakness, he may say, Let such an house be built, but all in vain, for his saying will not build it: other things are done with a word spoken, and they that have power in their hands may glory, that they can with a word, that is, a com­mand, do great things, as the Centurion reasoned and applied his words to our Saviour, I have Servants under me, and I say to one, go, and he goeth. Hence is i [...], that seeing the Father doth all things by his Son, both those things which concern the first and second Creation, id est, our Redemption, he is called the Word. When God in the Hebrew is said to do or speake any [Page 286]thing, the Chaldee Paraphrast turns it as if it had been written; God did it, or spake it by his Word, Genes. 3.11. The Lord said behold the man [...] the Targum hath it. And the Word of the Lord God said, behold Adam. See Paulus Fagius on that place on the Chaldee Paraphrase, and in other places, as Esa. 1.17. and 45.17. Jer. 1.8. Psal. 110.1. The Lord said to my Lord: they read, The Lord said to his Word, Genes. 15.1. See Grotius in loc. [...], and Dr. Hammond on 1. Luke note 6. and another clear Example, Hos. 11.7. I will save the house of Judah by the Lord their God. the Chaldee turneth it, I will redeeme them by the Word of God their Lord. This is the Exposition of learned Ca­mer. on 1. Cap. ad Hebraeos. I will alledge another considera­tion out of his Successor at Salmur, the famous Placens, who proves at large, Arg. 21 lib. 1. that S. John alludes to the Crea­tion, Gen. 1. where mention is made of Gods speaking or word, and Psal 33.6. Heb. 11.3. and so the admirable analogy be­twixt the first and second Creation is apparent. As to the repa­ration of the World, the Father, the Son, and Spirit concur­red: so likewise to the Creation, the Person commanding, viz. the Father; the command, viz. the second Person; and the third Person executing the command, viz. the Holy Ghost.

These several Expositions of [...], which are agreeable to the analogy of faith, I have layd before thine eys (Christian Reader) and left to thy choice to adhere to one or more of them, which shal seeem to be most congruous to the Text; every of them is against Mr. Biddle, and asserteth the Divinity of the Son of God.

1. John 1.8. The place alledged by Mr. Biddle, to prove his forced sense, fals very short to make good his designe, but it agrees to the second Exposition, why the Son is called the Word; no man hath lived so familiarly with God to see into these Secrets. No man by the sharpness of his understanding hath known so much of God, of his Attributes, and Will as is necessary for his salvation, but true Believers by Gods gift have these secrets revealed to them; if you ask by whom? the Text informs us, the Son of God, who is in the bosome of his Fa­ther hath discovered them to us: what is it for one to be in the bosome of God? this notes the internal relation betwixt [Page 287]the Father and the Son, which is mutual. A bosome is attributed to the Father by a Metaphor taken from Man [...] used amongst the Jews in their Feasts, where the best beloved▪ most honorable, and intimate did lie in the bosome of the chiefe Persons, as the beloved Disciple John did in our Saviours bosome; and in this place it sheweth the most intimate; yea, and all secrets without exception were by him most lovingly communicated to his Son, and that not in time, but by eternal generation, and the bles­sed Son brings these secrets to light which concerns us, and de­clares them to us, and which were hidden from the world til his discovery of them.

Answ.

With God the Father taken up into Heaven? a strange, groundless & corrupt exposition of the Text. But when was he taken up into Heaven? was it as Schlichtingius and other Soci­nians do imp [...]dently affirm, when he had fasted forty dayes, then he was miraculously rapt up into Gods presence? were you ashamed to set down the time when he ascended, because you have no Scripture for it, but rather the contrary? what Prophet foretold, what Apostle revealed this? where is it said in any Scripture, that Christ in his Humane Nature returned from Heaven before his Passion? this could not be done with­out multiplied miracles, nor ought to be believed without re­velation to confirm it: and is it credible, seeing 'tis recorded that Christ was led into the Wildernesse to be tempted, and was there amongst the Beasts forty dayes and forty nights, and [Page 290]sith many other things are recorded touching our Saviour, that that which is th [...] principal should be omitted? Search the Scrip­tures, and there it is said, He ascended into Heaven by his own blood, Heb. 9.12.24. He entred once. If a man should go to Rome, and returning thence, should go thither again; we do not say well, he once was in Rome, but this is twice, or the second time, why doth not the Apostle say (if Biddle rightly expounds the Text) that the Word was in Heaven or with God in Heaven, and by this means the sense had been more cleared, ambiguity removed, and danger of Error taken away. Lastly, by the hy­pothesis of the Adversaries, the Word should not have been with God, til he had been on Earth, and then with him but for a short time: but this agrees not with the Word; for Gods Word is with his Father before he is with other things, for the Word of God proceeds from God, and from no other, and therefore we must not imagine that first he is far from God, then ascended to God, and is after sent from God. Can we imagine, not truly I am sure, that he first ascended from Earth to Heaven, before he descended from Heaven to the Earth?

Paul indeed was rapt up into Heaven, and Moses went up to God on the Mount; for these we have plain Scriptures, but it is no where said, that Christ ascended up into Heaven, till af­ter his Resurrection; now was there any need that he should be rapt up into Heaven to be taught of God as they were, for a fuller confirmation of his Office, sith the Holy Ghost at his Bap­tism descended on him, and the Father testified of him, that he was his Beloved Son, and people were commanded to hear him, sith the Godhead dwelt in him bodily, and sith he was alwayes in the Father, and the Father in him.

Secondly, I do observe the discord betwixt Mr. Biddle and some of his Brethren, Smalcius See Plac. Arg. [...]8. wih God that is, known only to God: a strange Exposition! the Di­vels, and Antichrist and all wicked Men are known to God; yea, and all things else; were they therfore with God, as the Word is here said to be with him? yea Christs conception was foretold by an Angel to the Virgin, and his Nativity by those Heavenly Messengers, to Shepheards. But I do further observe a contra­diction in the Adversary: Mark here that he saith, Christ was [Page 291]taken up into Heaven, that he received absolute and certain knowledge of the Kingdome of Heaven, and became the im­mediate Interpreter of Gods Will: but in his sixt Article, pag. 47. you shall hear him sing another Song: Whereas Christ (saith he) whiles he lived a mortal life on Earth (which certainly he did til after his passion) was wont in many things to be taught by the Spirit, Esa. 11.2. yet after his exaltation he gave the Spirit instruction, what he was to make known to his Disciples; how do these things hang together? to say he was taught being in Heaven with God before he preached, and he had absolute knowledge of the Kingdome of Heaven, before he made choice of his Disciples, and at the same time, and after to be taught many things by the Spirit, is an irreconcileable con­tradiction.

Thirdly, I must mind both mine Adversary and the Reader once again of the unreasonable and horrible blasphemy invol­ved in his words; that God as touching his essentiall presence is onely in heaven and that it was needfull for Christ to as­cend locally to the throne of the Divine Majesty, before he published the Gospel, as though God could not instruct him as his Ambassadour to man, what was the pleasure of God touching mans salvation whiles he was on earth, without his Ascension into heaven? true and enflamed zeal for God cannot without indignation and horrour, read such intollera­ble blasphemies. Gods ubiquity, 'tis true, as his Essence, is alto­gether unknown to us, whence that rule; whatsoever is spoken of God, taken from the consideration of the creatures, is to be understood rather negatively than affirmatively, and when the perfection of the creatures is attributed to God, it is (as Schoolmen say) secundum supereminentiae modum, in that su­pereminent manner, which is imperceptible to us: thus we say, God is every where: this Proposition is not affirmatively true, but according to that supereminent manner, which is un­known to us, sith the diuine Majesty, as the Councel of Ephesus saith, is above all place and every measure, and sith Gods ubi­quity respect no perfection in the creature, it is to be expound­ed negatively thus, God is every where, i.e. hath no limits of nature, nor is excluded out of any thing: no more of that.

The Adversaries Exposition being confuted, I will indeavour to shew the true meaning of the Text, The Word was with God. Verily, there is but one God; God then must not be taken for the Godhead simply and absolutely, but for God the Father; the person is signified and not the Divine Nature, whence the Sabellians are confuted, which fancied against evi­dence of Scripture, that God was but one person called in di­vers respects, sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, and somtimes the Holy Ghost, but no respects can make this speech reasonable, if there be but one person in the Godhead: as a man may say, John was an Apostle, Iohn was an Evangelist, Iohn was the Disciple that Christ loved; but none can well say, Iohn was with the Disciple whom Christ loved: it is one thing to be with the Evangelist Iohn; and another thing; to be the Evangelist Iohn, that may belong to any but to Iohn, this a­greeth to none but Iohn himself: no respect will clear that speech from absurdity, if the party spoken of be one and the same, as well for person as for nature.

1. The Evangelist having in the former clause named the Word. In the beginning was the Word: he doth not say, in the beginning was the Son, but he doth here more fitly mention the Word God, then God the Father; for so the correspon­dence betwixt them seems to require; the Son of the Father, and the Word of God with God: here is distinction and re­lation of the persons with God, not as an Attribute, but as a person distinctly existing.

Besides, it helps the elegancy of speech, which the Holy Ghost useth, in that he makes the last word of the first clause, the first of the second, thus; In the beginning was the Word, then revealed, and the word was with God; and in the next also, God was the word, for so runs the originall: suppose now Saint John had said, The word was with the Father, the grace of the speech had been lost, because he could not have repeated the Word, in the beginning of the following clause; for it cannot be said, the Father is the Word, or the Word the Fa­ther, but to say, God was the Word, is a true and elegant speech compared with the former.

Thirdly, I may adde also, that in the old Testament, where [Page 291]the Messias is prophetically spoken of, as in Gen. 3.15. and Gen. 12.12. rarely shall you find any distinct mention of the first person under the name of the Father; therefore the holy A­postle makes choice of such a name of God the Father, as that whereby his speech might best be approved and understood.

Thus have I out of our best interpreters collected (as I con­ceive) what may give some light to this Scripture under de­bate, the scope and principal drift whereof was this, as Saint Basil in verba, Iohn having said, The word was in the beginning, and that he had already his glorious being, when all things that were originally created began to be. Well then, if the Word subsisted before the World began, if he really was before there was any time and place wherein he might subsist, some may haply demand, where was he then before the World and time? The Evangelist answereth plainly and satisfactorily, he was with God, even as the inward Word or conception which a man frameth within himself, or as his [...] is with the man where he is, so is the eternal Word with God; but mark the distinction in the different manner of being. The word was not God the Father, with whom he was from all eternity; for albeit they are one in nature, for the Son is not a diverse nature from the Father, as another God, yet are they really distinct persons, so that Christ was with his Fa­ther not after he was incarnated onely, and after his Passion, by his local ascension up into heaven, but before the beginning of the World, even in the first moment of the first beginning, when as yet there was neither time nor place compleated, even then had the Word his being with God.

To this I further adde what is asserted by Tolet the Jesuit on the place, and approved by some of ours to carry great pro­bability; that the Evangelist by this repetition would further give us to understand, that the Word was not onely in the be­ginning, but was then with God the Father a co-worker in the Creation of all things: the ground of this Interpretation is from Prover. 8. where first his eternity is described, v. 22. and v. 27. the same Wisdome was with God as a nourisher when he prepared the heavens, that is, creating and ordering all things, and he saith, When he prepared the heaven, I was there: to this of the Wise man, these words of Saint John do [Page 292]correspond, The Word was with God from the beginning.

1. The Texts alledged out of the sixth chapter of Saint John are in themselves clear enough to overthrow all that Master Biddle intends to build up thereby.

Iohn 6.38. I descended from heaven, but is it said, as your words pretend, after he had been tempted in the wildernesse? no such matter: how then? distinguish betwixt the whole and a part, betwixt his person and a part of his person, that is, his flesh; the words are spoken, and meant not in respect of his Deity, or humanity considered apart, but as the Sonne uni­ted himself hypostatically to the humane nature, Christ de­scended from heaven, and the Word was made flesh, but his hu­manity had never then been in heaven, and the Deity to speak properly, neither ascends nor descends, nor doth the speech belong to the whole person wholly and conjunctim considered, as our Mediatour, for the flesh of Christ was from his Mo­thers substance: the Text then is to be understood of the per­son of Christ, which is said to descend from heaven, but dif­ferently in regard of his two natures: in regard of his huma­nity, as it was assumed into the Person of Gods Son; and in regard of the Deity, as the word was incarnated, thus is he said to descend from Heaven, who is every where present, who containes all things, and is contained of nothing, because in the Heavens properly taken his glorious Majesty is more mani­fested then in other parts of the World, and he is said to de­scend from Heaven when he was made man, and declared the divine mysteries, and Gods Will, that all Believers shall be sa­ved, See Beza in locum.

Verse 46. Not that any man hath seen the Father, viz. per­fectly: hereby all Creatures are excluded, for in another sense the holy Angels always see the face of God, Mat. 18 and Saints on Earth, as Moses, by faith do see him who is invisible, Heb. 11.27. but the Son of God hath seen the Father, and hereby he is distinguished from al the holy Angels and Prophets: and tis observable that he cals himselfe [...], as if he had said [...], for all creatures were made by God. Our Saviour then sig­nifies hereby, that he is from God in a far different manner then the holy men and Angels are from him, namely, as the natural Son is from his Father, John 7.29. [...], [Page 293] I am from him, that is, from his substance: by these words our Saviour would draw his Disciples from the consideration of his flesh to the contemplation of his Deity personally united to his Humane Nature, that they may be assured he knows the mind of his Father, and his seecret counsel touching mans Re­demption.

Vers. 51. I am the living bread which came down from Heaven, and this bread which I will give is my flesh: he mentions his descent from Heaven to signifie his dignity, and the efficacy of his Spirit in raising the dead; he mentions his flesh to intimate his passion, and the effusion of his bloud for us: our Saviour makes a comparison in dissimilitude betwixt Manna and himselfe, as our food to feed on; that gave not immortality, as this bread doth, to those that by faith do feed on him; that came not down from Heaven properly so called, but from the Aire, the first Heaven, but Christ came down from the highest Heavens; that bread was not very flesh, as this bread is my flesh; that is, my body which I will give to be crucified, as the means whereby this flesh comes to be quickning food. Manna was given for the preserving of the life of one people onely, and that for a few years only; but this bread came down from Heaven, not only for the salvation of the Jews but Gentiles also at all times.

John 6.62. What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend where he was before? See, idest, or know by the testimony of others; the Son of Man, i. e. true man; where he was before, not as man, but as God: by a Synec. called communication of pro­perties, as before we have heard out of John 3.13. that is ascribed to the Son of Man which belongs to him as he is [...]; so do we call a man, soul and body a part, and Homer gives the proper names of men to separated souls: so Grotius. There is an Aposiope­sis, which may be thus supplied; this much more would scandalize you, or would not you then perceive, which you see not now, that my body being in Heaven could not possibly in a proper notion be eaten, and that it was as credible he should ascend into heaven (bodily) as that he should descend and take our nature on him? our Saviour saith not, what if you shall see the Son of Man ascend whither he ascended before: but where he was before, viz. in his Deity. John 17.5. an Angel after his first message from Heaven to Earth ascends to Heaven, where he [Page 294]was before, yet could not he be said before this message to ascend from Earth. These words have been discussed above, I will therefore say no more at present.

Answ.

Mr. Biddle, a forward Disciple of Socinus, shuts up God in regard of his essence, in Heaven, and saith he is every where in regard of his knowledge and operations only; it is true, God is not as bodies are, circumscribed in any place, or confined to any time; but he is immensive present every where, substantially present, praesentia indistantiae, as the Learned term it: he is present every where repletivè: yet take heed that you conceive not God to be every where present, as the aire fils up the space betwixt Heaven and Earth, or as if one part of God should fill up one part of the World, and another part the remainder of it, but his whole essence is every where; and neither hath li­mits actually or potentially in adessendo, he is not confined with­in the limits of the whole world, but is wholly and indivisibly present in every imaginable space: See Ambros: de fide ad Gra­tianum. Gods immensity is his absolute property eternally be­longing to him, and Gods ubiquity is founded on his immensity, and notes a habitude to a place existing in time; the former is as the first act, and this latter as the second act: the main contro­versie is not touching the manner of Gods presence, but of the ubi of his presence; whether he is present in Heaven, & how he is present, are two questions: and its one question, whether God is present on earth, and how he is there present is another que­stion; the School-men (saith Vasquez) do agree that God [Page 295]in all things, but yet they doe vary in assigning the manner of his presence, as S. Chrysost. Homil. 1. de incomprehensibili Dei natura: I know God is every where, and wholly in every part of the world, but how I know not.

The question is of the essential not, vertual or operative pre­sence of God, not by diffusion or extension of his essence (for these belong to bodily substances) but he is instar puncti, be­cause he is an infinite incorporeal substance without parts.

1. Arg. The truth of his essential presence is proved first by Scriptures. 1 King. 8.27. The Heaven (saith Solomon) and the Heaven of Heavens cannot contain thee; much lesse can this house: we are not to have the least thoughts that Solomon built an house to contain God, for he is not contained in the heavens, much less in this house; he doth not only speak of Gods vertue and providence, but of God himselfe, as Gods provi­dence cannot be comprehended in Heaven, no more can God himselfe, for otherwise God should be infinite in regard of his providence, but not infinite in regard of his essence: can an infi­nite vertue pertain to a finite essence? nay verily, the power of God can be no more infinite then his essence, for God by his essence of and by himself is powerful and infinite.

The Psalmist lends us his suffrage to this truth: Whither shall I go from thy spirit? if I ascend into Heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in Hell, behold, thou art there; if I go to the utter­most parts of the Sea, thou are there also, Psal. 139.7, 8, 9. God is in Heaven, and in Hell, and in all parts of the World, not only in regard of his knowledge and providence, but of his essence, for he is so on Earth, as he is in Heaven; nor doth the Psalmist say, How shall I flie from thy Providence? but, from thy Spirit, from thy face: nor is any action of God any where but God is essentially present there.

Jerem, 23.23. Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himselfe in secret places, that I shall not see him, saith the Lord? Do not I (saith God) fill Heaven and Earth: in this Text, as in the rest where mention is made of Gods presence, Heaven and Earth are joyned together, and 'tis alwayes said, either he can be contained in no place, or that he fils all places, and is alwayes in himselfe most present to all things: nor doth this help the Adversary, to say such places are [Page 296]ment of Gods power and providence, because 'tis said, he is not a God afar off, for he saith expresly of his person, in the first per­son, I, and not I, in regard of his operation onely. This is an un­worthy consequence; God can do all things afar off, and there­fore in regard of his Essence he is not present with all things: 'tis all one in regard of God, whether he be said to be nearer or further off from men, seeing he is every where present, and fills heaven and earth, and hypocrites are more fully convin­ced of their folly by this phrase, in thinking they can hide themselves from God, for he in regard of his essence fills all places, he is not distant from any creature by any imagina­ry space interposed betwixt Gods existence, and the creatures substance.

2. Arg. The second Argument is drawn from Gods Attri­bute of perfection: God is most absolutely perfect; to be e­very where in regard of essence, denotes a higher degree of perfection, then to be limited to a place, as it would be a greater perfection to a King to be essentially present all over his King­dome, then to be there by his Authority and power onely, for on this account we excuse disorders in a Kingdome, and often justly; because such is mans condition, that he cannot know abuses being absent so well as if he had been every where present; so is it true, that Gods ubiquity is no imperfection, but a high degree of perfection, as it is by the Adversaries ac­knowledged to be a higher degree of perfection to be every where present in regard of operation, than either to work in heaven alone, or on earth, or any one place: Gods power is not separated from his essence.

3. Arg. Thirdly, this is proved from the consideration of Gods nature, which is infinite without measure, end or bounds, which depends on no creature, who hath no Superiour nor e­quall to limit his nature, and the Adversaries granting that the power and Wisdome of God (which they take to be acci­dents in God) are infinite and incomprehensible, must by con­sequence yield, that Gods essence is infinite, for how is it pos­sible, that infidite accidents in intension should be in a sub­ject of finite extension? for the manner of working doth not exceed the manner of being; an essence that is not infinite cannot produce infinite operations, nor can it have an infinite [Page 297]vertue to produce them; in an infinite there is nothing that ad­mits more or lesse and this is true of God and of his Attributes.

4. Arg. Fourthly, God is not so essentially in the Heavens, but that he is out of the Heavens also, he is not contained in Heaven, and this is proved. 1. God was not in Heaven before the Creation, and when they were created, we must not think he went out of himself, changing, as it were, h [...]s place, and betaking himself to dwell in that Heavenly Pallace, when it was created in the beginning, for certainly before there was a­ny creature, God was alone, he was to himself, the World, and place, and all things, Tertull advers. Prax. 2. If God should annihilate all the world, as he is able to do, would not God be there where he is now? and therefore he is not af­fixed to heaven. 3. If God should create new heavens (as 'tis not impossible for him to do) could not God, or would not God be in those Heavens also? yes verily, though not as locatum in loco, but as in himself blessed for ever, as a cause creating and preserving all things per essentiae [...]

5. Arg. if God was not essentially present every where, these and the like absurdities would necessarily follow. First, God should be measured by place, as his duration by time, and his substance should be circumscribed in a place, or limited by it, which is a property of a creature, and to avouch that Gods substance can be dilated or contracted, is anathematized in the Synod of Syrmium. Secondly, Then should Gods greatnesse in respect of his Essence and presence differ from that of a creature, not in kind, but gradually. Thirdly, Gods Essence either fills the whole heavens, or a part of it onely: if you say the whole, I ask then, Why cannot Gods Essence be out of heaven, and have either a greater or a lesser place? Who limits him, or what is it that sets bounds to his supream Maje­sty, saying, as to the sea, Hither mayest thou go, but no fur­ther? If you say a part of heaven, I demand again, Why this part rather than that? and why so much place, and no more? Cannot he remove to another place? and if so he is, and if he be essentially absent in any place of heaven, he is then no more in that place, by the Adversaries Confession, then on the earth.

I have touched on this Subject above, and have now in a fifth place more fully confirmed this truth denied by the Adversary [Page 298]to the great dishonour of God Almighty: much more is set down in large Discourses of our learned Writers touching Gods omnipresence, chiefly in Dr. Hammond.

The Text cited John 8.42. proves, that Christ did not run and prophesie before he was sent, as the Jews his professed ene­mies imagined, but that he was immediatly sent from his Father, and what he did in his office was not done of his own motion, but by Commission from God: he ran not before he was sent, as false Prophets were wont to do, but by his Fathers counsel and authority, this he speaks to stop the mouths of the J [...]ws, and to gaine authority to his Doctrine, because the Fathers au­thority was his.

Christs going out from the Father, and coming into the World, do denote something which follows his mission, and appertains to the execution thereof. If you ask, why Christ went out from his Father, who is (as they say) terminus à quo, and why he came into the World, as the terminus ad quem, it is fitly answered, as in the Text, because he was sent of his Father, for the end of the execution of the Mission cannot be obtained, unlesse an Ambassadour goes out from his Prince that sent him, and so going out from his Father, signifies his going from his Father out of heaven, and on this ground it is, that no Prophets or Apostles are said in Scripture to go out from God, Placens Disput. 3.

This Text then chiefly denotes the external relation of Gods Son to his Father, and is terminated in that considera­tion, nor doth it intend (as Arians and Politicians dream) a locall descent of a meer creature from heaven, but the end is chiefly to be considered, which is not to teach the eternal ge­neration of Gods Son, but his mission and office to be a Sa­viour, and doe import that he that was sent was Gods natural Son, as S. Cyril saith; to proceed from the Father, ar­gues his Divinity; to come into the world, argues his Huma­nity: Gods Son incarnated is manifested thereby to come into the world; yea God himselfe is said to descend from Heaven, Genes. 11.1. i.e. he manifested himself by some remarkable sign of his presence: yea, and our Saviour himselfe saith, I and my Father will come to the faithfull and dwell with them, as the Fa­ther [Page 297]comes to his children,: so Christ, as the Letter of the Text sounds, comes to them: doth the Father come locally, and as it were with his feet? nor do we confound the Person sending with him that is sent; but we do distinguish them: it is the Adversary that brings in confusion, because he would haue a Father without his true and natural Son, and a Son without his natural and coessential Father, but who is so blind, as he that shuts his eyes, and will not see? Christ came into the World where he was not before, viz. in his Humane Nature: yea, to take notice of your wise choice, 1. John 15. the Text saith, He was before John, though born after him: he was not only preferred before him in favour and dignity, but He was before me: i. e. he had a being long, even infinitely before me; for he was begotten of his Father before all things, Colos. 1.15.17. this cau­sal [...] being a proofe of the former, must somewhat differ from it, or else the same thing is proved by it selfe. The other alledged Scrip­ture will prove what is confessed, that Christ was God, manifested in the flesh, and undertook to be our Mediator and Peace-maker, and no more then I have confessed.

Bid. And the word was a God (as being indued with divine power and Empire) for according to the reasoning of Christ himself John 10.35. if the Psalmist cals them Gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken (as it would, if any one should deny them to be Gods) is not he much more a God, who is indued with so divine a dominion, that he is the very substantiall Son of God?

An. The holy Evangelist, lest any man from what was formerly said in this verse touching the relation to, and distinction of the second Person from the first, should think that the Father was only the true God, expresly asserteth, that the WORD is God also: the words in the original run thus for elegancies sake, and God was the Word: yet the genuine construction, and placing them in their natu­ral order, which is also followed by the Adversary is, The Word was God, not only because it agrees not to the subject of a proposition to be more large than the predicate, as otherwise here it would be, for God belongs to the Father and the Holy Ghost, as well as to the Son; but because [...], the Article presixed, sheweth that the word is the subject and not the predicate in this clause by it selfe enun­ciated, and lest any should conceive that the Word was God, (as the Arians were wont to do, and in this the Socinians agree with them) to avoid the evidence of the place, he saith in the con­text, that he made all things: and in another place he saith, that he [Page 294]was the true God, 1 Joh. 5.20. See Aug: de Doctr. Christiana l. 3. c. 2.

Whereas Mr. Biddle saith, that he is God, in that he was indued with Divine power: this explication in an orthodox sense is admit­ted, for how can Christ be God, if he hath not Divine power, but in the Socinian sense tis inconsistent with the truth, as I have at large demonstrated, Gods power is Gods glory, Esay 42. which he will give to no other, nor can a creature which is finite be capable of that po­wer which is infinite. I ask, how is Christ indued with Divine power which is surely infinite? hath he it intrinsecally, so as to denominate the Humane Nature truly omnipotent? if so, then hath he the infinite essence, and by consequent is true God, which the Adversary will not admit. Or hath he it extrinsecally, because the omnipotent God dwels in him? if in this latter sense, what singular thing is here a­vouched which belongs not to all the faithfull?

I grant, some Attributes of God are said to be communicable, as others are called incommunicable; but how communicable? only by analogical accommodation, not in respect of the properties themselves, which are all of them infinite, yea in truth one infinite God, but in regard of the effects of those properties, wherein the creature doth imperfectly resemble the Creator. Gods Attributes are the Divine essence it self, his Name, his Glory, his Godhead, and if any of the properties were truly communicated, the essence of God must be multiplied, divided, or distracted from it selfe, but there cannot possibly be more then one infinite; and therefore all Gods Attributes do signifie one single and infinite perfection, as wisedome, power, mercy.

The scope of the Evangelist will make good what we do maintain against the Socinians: the Scripture saith he was God; the Text saith not that the Word is God, but the Word was God, namely, in the beginning: if then we shall grant with the Adversary, that Christ was only man, and that by beginning, is meant the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel, then cannot it be made out by any other text of Scripture, that Christ was God at that time: if then the Apostle intended to prove Jesus to be the Messias, as the Adversaries say, who can believe that he would in the first verse set down that which was more obscure then that which he inten­ded to prove, and which could not be proved to be true by any other Text. 2. And if he was not God, but because he was made God, why should not he rather have said [...], he was made God, then [...], he was God, and why verse 14. saith he not he was flesh, [...] ra­ther [Page 295]then [...]; the Adversary contends in regard of nature, that he was flesh, in regard of his office a God: was it without di­vine direction that the Apostle when he speaks of the word useth [...] eight times, and [...] but once, because flesh is made, but God is not made? 3. The order of nature would be inverted, for speaking of the word, verse 1. he saith he was God, but of the flesh o [...] the word, not til the 14. verse; but the Adversaries say, he was first flesh, and then in time afterwards God: it is one thing to be God, and another thing to be a Divine man. Paul may be called a divine man, not God, Plac. Disput. 24.

To the tenth of Saint John I have largely answered, and 'tis need­lesse to repeat what may there be read: angels and men in the old Testament are sometimes called Gods, the shadow of good things remaining, and the Sun not being risen to expell them; and they are so called in the Plural number only, and a singular Magistrate is not called a God, nor were they then to be worshipped with Divine Worship, nor equall with God, nor searchers of mens hearts, and reins, but the Word is called God, when the day is come, and that in the singular number particularly is the name of God, yea and Divine Worship, attributed to him, who accounts it no robbe­ry to be equal with God, and whose Prerogative it is to be a search­er of the reins and hearts, and who is the Judge of the whole World, from whose Throne there can be no appeal.

The Adversary calls our Saviour the Substantiall Word, and that without ambiguity stands not well with his own principles, but where is the man amongst us, which will say otherwise? The words in Saint John are evident: the word was not onely with God, whose being depends not upon time, place, or any creatures, all which were made by him, but the Word was God, that is, the Divine Na­ture, and not in regard of any office; for there is no testimony of Scripture, which denies him to be by nature God, or which affirms him to be made a God at any time, nor is there any Text of Scrip­ture, which shews him to be man in the beginning, or that he which was God, might not become man also v. 14. never was there a question, or so much as doubted, that God was before the beginning of the World, but there were found some miscreants, as Ebion and Cerinthus, before the writing of the Gospel, and the Arians after them, which impugned this Deity of our Saviour: the holy Evangelist decides the doubt, and expresly saith, he was God; which was the thing, which he intended to avouch of him: hence there [Page 300]have been found men, which have so much admired this first verse, that they have wished it was written with letters of Gold, and to put all out of doubt, in the next verse he signifies the Divinity, E­ternity, Omnipotency, and Equality of the Word, or Son with God the Father, by saying, all things were made by him, both vi­sible and invisible, Col. 1. whereupon it is evident that he is no creature, because he is the Creatour of all things, and v. 4. In him was life. All the particulars here spoken of, are spoken of the Word, and the whole frame and scope of the Gospel, is to teach us, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing we might live through him, John 21 31.

Bid. This Passage also sheweth, that Christ is not the most high God, the same with the Father, for when he is said to have been with God, the Word (God) then by the Confession of all, signifieth the most high God, since the very Article in the Greek set before it importeth so much.

Answ.

The Son of God is one and the same in Essence, though not one in person with God the Father? 'Tis confessed, that God in the se­cond clause, is taken for God the Father, and Saint John giveth us to understand, that the Word hath his proper subsistence, and per­sonality distinct from God his Father (for a person cannot be said to be with himself) whereby the Heretick Sabellius is confuted, and 'tis also unanimously acknowledged, that God the Father is the most high God; but your negative Inference from that concession, that the Word his Son is not the most high God, is utterly rejected, be­cause, as I have often proved, to be most high is a common Attribute, equally belonging to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

Answer.

This Article is unlike its fellowes, in that the Commentary and the Text is more concise then the Article it self, and might well have been omitted, as having no new and singular matter or proof contained in it; but that only is aimed at, which hath been fre­quently inculcated; viz. That Christ is a God, not by Nature, but by favour; and that he hath his Godhead (such as it is) only by Grace; and that Godhead is different also from the Godhead of the Father, who is the true and most high God: What is singular in this Article concerneth the manner of speeches and phrases, and not at all the substance of the Question under debate, so that I might without any prejudice to the maine cause have passed it o­ver in silence, and have given you leave to speak your owne [Page 274]termes, if you had concurred with us in the substance of the question; but lest you should complain, I have done you this need­lesse right to set down your own words, with a few Animadversions on them.

The Scripture speaketh of many gods, yet not of two Gods, or diverse Gods. I must tell you, that there is a vast difference be­twixt the attribution of God to a creature, or Idol God, and to the Son of God. The true God saith, I have made thee a God to Pha­raoh, Ex. 7. and it calleth all those Rulers which had their commissi­on from God by the name of Gods: but doth the Scripture say in any one place, That Moses or the Magistrates were God simply? No: Or saith the Holy Ghost in any divine Book, That Christ was a made God? He that reads, I have made thee a God, can rea­dily conceive, this made God is not the true God; and as easie it is for any man to assure himself, that those Governors were not Gods indeed, not only because they were many (whereas God is but one) but because they ar [...] presently threatned, that they shaldy like men; But now when the Scripture speaketh of Christ, it doth in some places simply and absolutely call him God, whose eternity and presence with God the Father before the world, is avouched, & to whom the Creation of all things is ascribed. If the Holy Ghost had said, that Christ had been a made God, or if the Lord had only affirmed, that he had called him God, there might have been then some occasion to doubt of the truth of his Deity, because there are some such like speeches attributed to other men in Scripture; but it is wilful wrangling to call so plain a truth into question, upon so unlike a manner of speech. A subordinate God is a God, as a subordinate cause is truly a cause: and to say in your sense, there is one high God, and another inferior God, yea, and many Gods, and yet not to allow by a distinction, to say, there are two Gods or many Gods; viz. one properly so called, and another impro­perly, is (as I conceive) to abandon reason with devotion; to acknowledg many Gods, and yet in that sense as there are many, to deny two Gods, is an implicite contradiction, for the greater number must necessarily include the lesser; and there cannot be many, except there be two: and what inconvenience upon con­cession will follow, if the former limitation be observed, I would gladly learn. May not I say, that a sick man is cured by two ef­ficient causes, by God principally, and by the Physician under [Page 275]God instrumentally? That Miracles were wrought by the Name, Authority and Power of Christ as the prime Agent, and by the ho­ly Apostles and others ministerially?

Touching your rule, (to passe by that which you take for gran­ted, and which in your sense is undoubtedly false,) That the Father is only God by way of excellency, excluding the Son of God and the Holy Ghost, and not only the creatures from partaking of his Excellency. It may thus far be well granted, when thus limited, If a word properly and by way of excellency is ascribed to one per­son, then can it not properly (I mean) and in the same respect by way of excellency, belong to any other person; yet this hinders not but the same name improperly, or for some Analogical resemblance may be attributed to others. Thus may we say, that Angels and Magistrates are called Gods, and other Gods distinguished from God Almighty.

To illustrate your rule, you add (magisterially without proof) When two are segregated in this manner out of many, they claim to themselves excellency alike. One faithful man may be called the Son of God, yet may we not say, there is another Son of God, or two Sons of God, this would be to make alike excellent. If this which you speak in reference to Christ had been true, as it is not, he differing from other sons of God not only gradually but specifically, yet in your sense that rule is false; for Christ is Gods Son, you think, only in a more excellent degree then others. Shall we say, that Isaac had not two sons, or that Esau was not Jacobs brother? That Abra­ham had not two sons, because Isaac was the son of the Promise, a better son, and more beloved of Abraham then Ishmael? Or, that Jacob had not twelve sons, because Reuben, (if he had not fallen) was to have been honoured as his first born, the excellency of Dig­nity, and the excellency of Power? Or, that Joseph had not ma­ny brethren, because Jacob his father loved him above all his chil­dren and made him a coat of diverse colours? Besides, to say thus, Christ is the natural Son of God, and as he is our Mediator, Gods Son by grace of union; and Abraham is the adopted son of God; two sons in a different sense, is no way absurd: and why may not I say God hath two sons in such a family, twenty in such a Congre­gation? This is truly spoken, and doth not at all import, that there are many sons alike excellent; and Solomon in a special manner is called son of God, a Type of our Saviour, and what is spoken of [Page 276]him as a Type, is improper, and properly belonged to Christ as prefigured by him. But how will you shift off this instance, and be true to your own rule? Christ is called an Apostle, Hebr. 3.1. and you neither can nor will deny, but he is so called by way of excel­lency; and yet we do read of twelve Apostles, and that the new Jerusalem had twelve gates, which had the names of the twelve A­postles, Revel. 21. Cannot I say that Peter is an Apostle, but he must be as excellent as Christ? the like may be said of the name Teacher, Saviour, Servant, Isai. 42. Numb. 12. by way of excel­lency ascribed to Christ; yet are there other Teachers, called also Saviours in Obadiah; others then Christ called Saviours; and other servants.

I grant, An Attribute common to many is not common to them alwayes taken singly, neither Attributivè, as the Learned phrase it; or if so, yet not Subjectivè; an example of the first kind, Ma­gistrates are in Scripture called sometimes Gods; yet take this or that Magistrate, and then in an approved phrase, it is not the custom to say (which hath a great sway in phrase) I have seen God to day, I have saluted God: or if a Magistrate hath done any thing, we do not say, relating to him, God hath done this or that thing. An example of the latter kind, Consecrated Bread and Wine in Scripture are called the Body and Blood of Christ; the name of the body of Christ is attributed to Bread, yet if this bread falls to the ground, or this Wine is spilt, the Scripture phrase is not to say, Christs body fell to the ground, or his blood was spilt; and Bap­tismal water is called the Laver of Regeneration, yet do not we say, If this water be cast on the ground, the water of Regenerati­on is cast down. To apply this, To be called Gods sons belong [...] to Angels, to all the faithful, and to the Son of God, as a common name to them all: but take them singly, and then no man in Scripture saith, (as Christ-doth) I am Gods Son; nor is it ever in Scripture, if my memory faile not, said to a sin­gle man, that he is the Son of God, unlesse he be the root of man­kind, as Adam, Luke 3. ult. or a Type of Christ, as Solomon, or a collective body, as Israel is my Son, Exod. 4.22. But it is most usually said, I saw one of the sons of God, or one of the sons of God did this or that: but Christ is absolutely and emphatically called Gods Son, [...], his natural son, and so as no other is Gods son.

Answer.

There were some Christians in those Primitive dayes (Gnosticks) which asserted their liberty to eat at the Idol Feasts, because forsooth they argued, an Idol was nothing. The Apostle confesseth their ob­jections to be true, that the Heathen Gods were the fictions of mens braines, and their Images and representations the works of mens hands, and that there is to us Christians but one God. This Scripture hath been already discussed, Page 70. The sum of the Adversaries Argument is this, There is but one God the Father, therefore but one divine person: The Antecedent is the Doctrine and confession of the Prophets and Apostles: But the Conse­quence is denyed, There is but one God, but there are three con­substantial Persons. Mans specifical nature, as the Learned know, is but one, yet are there many humane persons. The Adversary restrains the name one God to one person, but God essentially or in regard of essence is common to them. God who is only one in Essence, is not only one in person.

The Translation savours of novelty, falsehood or nonsense: There is no Idol in the world, so the words do run in the Original. And why, I pray, do you follow the order of the words here as they are in the Greek, and take liberty to do the contrary, 1 John? The word was God: the Greek tongue may without danger bear such a placing of the words, but our English will not do it unlesse the sense be changed; nor is it positively true to say, there are no I­dols in the world; alas, there are too many, not only amongst In­fidels but Christians also; yet this is true, an Idol which is in the world is nothing; something it is in regard of the matter whereof it is made, as Brasse, Stone, Wood, Silver, &c. it may be some­thing also in form and representation; they may represent Crea­tures, or be creatures of Gods making; as Sun, Moon, and Stars of heaven, which have been worshipped, and Idols have been made of them; yet are they nothing as touching the entity of the true God, they have no force or efficacy to do good or hurt; [Page 278]the word [...], is from [...], that signifies Nothing: they are not the living God, but empty representations, and deceitful nothings.

The Text Hebr. 2.10 doth nothing at all disadvantage us, if the words, For whom are all things, and by whom are all things, be a description of God the Father, as the Adversary with many others doth read them. What is here spoken of the Father, which is not as fully attributed to Gods Son? Col. 1.16. All things were made by Christ, and for Christ, do as effectually prove his Deity, as these words to the Hebrews do the Deity of God the Father; but if the alledged words are thus to be ordered (as Paraus conceives their meaning to be) It became God to perfect through sufferings him, (viz. Gods Son) for whom are all things, and by whom are all things (as in the cited place to the Colossians) and who was to bring ma­ny Sons to glory, the Prince (I say) of their salvation. (See Par. in locum.) then the Text may be retorted against the Adver­sary. However the Deity of our Saviour is implied in that Title, by calling him the Prince of our salvation; for had he not been the Most High God, had he beene only a holy and innocent man, hee might have saved himselfe, but he could not have saved others.

I have now faithfully refuted, and by the help of God examined what the Adversary hath objected against the holy Trinity, and what he hath to say against the eternal being of the Son of God, and what for his subordination, as he is a God to his Father; and I have shewed, that the holy Texts mustered by him have no hand to strike a stroke in that Battle for which they are levied. A poi­sonful Doctrine this is, and stoutly asserted, but can never be sound­ly proved by any Socinian, as it doth, I hope, partly appear by my answer to the Adversaries Objections, and by his subtle elusi­ons to avoid the strength of our Arguments. He is much to be pitied for taking such paines as he hath done to darken the Sun, and with­out repentance to procure his own destruction: and how th [...] Lord was displeased with the Ringleader of the Arians, we may re [...] in Athanasius, Orat. 1. contra Arianos: And in Ruffin his Ecclesi [...]st. History lib. 1. cap. 13. and in many others. Athanasius saith in his E­pistle to Serapion, That Arius swore that he embraced the Catholick faith. Constantine the Emperor saith, If thy faith be right, thou hast sworn well; but if it be wicked, and thou hast sworn to the [Page 279]faith established in Nice, God will condemn thee for this thy Oath. But when no authority of Scripture could reform the heart, and stop the mouth of that perjured Heretick, Arius being ready to go to the Church at Constantinople, to maintain and set up his Blas­phemy, Alexander the faithful Bishop of that City prayed all that night in the Church where the Council should be held the next day, Ruffin. lib. 1. cap. 12. And particularly (saith Athanasius) that either he would take him out of the world, if Arius should enter into it; or else if he would spare his Church, that he would take Arius out of the way. Arius, I say, at that very time when he intended to advance his Heresie, being forced by the necessity of Nature to go aside into a common place appointed for that purpose, for his ease, voided his very Entrals, and so ended at once his life and blasphe­my; and this happily sel out by Gods singular providence, hereby fulfilling both the threatning of that pious Prince, and the prayers of his holy servant whereby the Lord interposed himself as a severe Judge and condemned the Arian Heresie, saith Athanasius. Bee warned by this dreadful example Mr. Bidle, otherwise you have good cause to fear, lest the Lord Jesus, whom you have very much dishonoured, should to astonishment, destroy you also by a fearful judgment; or if you escape in this life, yet lest a worse evil (without your repentance) befal you in the life to come.

Answer.

The substance of this sixth Article, as it is explicated touching the Holy Ghost, is comprized in the twelve Arguments, which this [Page 280]Author hath levied against the Deity of the Holy Ghost, which have been confuted by Doctor Cloppenburg, Professour of Divini­ty at Franeker in Friesland, and after him by a learned man, who desires, such is his modesty, to have his name concealed; and be­fore them both, I my self, a fraile man, and miserable sinner, the Lord be merciful to me, have punctually answered whatsoever was of any moment in them, and have performed this task at least to my own satisfaction. This Adversary, for what reasons moving him, knowes best, and I can guesse at some of them, though there is a new Edition of them in the year of our Lord 1653. takes no notice of them. I will not mispend my short and precious time in doing that again, which is (as I conceive) already sufficiently done, in answering all the particulars at large; but if any ingenuous Rea­der, desirous to be informed in the truth of this divine Mysterious Article of faith, shall be puzled with Scripture phrases which he alledgeth to his seeming advantage, or with his specious and falla­cious Inferences deduced from those sacred Texts, I do advise him to consult with those answers returned in all or any of the aforesaid Writings, and he shall see (if he be not wilfully blind) the mist which appeared to him fairly scattered, and the heavenly truth cleared up to his delight and comfort. Somewhat there is new in this Article, though not much, besides there is an addition to the twelfth Article; the remainder is but an abridgement of his twelve Reasons, and a confirmation against his fellow Socinians, That the Holy Ghost is a Person distinct from the Father and the Son: I will by Gods assistance briefly examine what is material both touching his alledged Scriptures, and deductions from those holy Fountains.

Answer.

The design of our Lord in these words is to comfort his Disci­ples, which were (no doubt) full of grief when they heard his dis­course of going away from them to the Father, v. 12. he was in his bodily presence a great comfort to them; this needs not trouble them, for in his steed, in the absence of his humane Nature, they should have another Comforter, which should abide, not only with the Apostles, but with the Church, and every faithful mem­ber thereof for ever.

The word [...], ha [...]h various significations, but no reason upon this account to retain Paraclete in the English, lest, as the Rhemists say, they should abridg the sense of the place. And saith our Doctor Fulk, in this Marginal Note; upon this ground you must leave five hundred words more untranslated then you have done. In the Latine Churches they barbarously read and sung Paraclitus, Penultima brevi, for Paracletus, penultima longa; which error being detected by Erasmus, occasioned great contenti­ons, Apud Onagros quosdam Mutaeologos, saith Beza. The Syri­an Interpreter hath [...], in all places to the matter in hand.

The word Paraclete is of large and doubtful signification, and consequently may be rendred as usually it is, Comforter, agreea­bly to the condition of the Disciples at present, by reason of the spiritual joy and comfort, which usually is the work, and accompa­nieth the office of the Holy Ghost, being Advocate (as Camero guesseth; or it is taken for an Exhorter, which belongs to the bles­sed Spirit in reference to the people of God, both to do what is commanded, and to suffe [...] what is inflicted: but I will not deny your (rather) that the word is to be taken, as most usually it is; yea with an exclusion of the other two Tra [...]slations, for an Ad­vocate, and I will not deny that he is not an Advocate or Inter­locutor, both of the Christians cause with God and with men. But here is your mistake, which I desire that you and others also would [Page 282]take notice of, He is not an Advocate to plead their cause with God immediately, and in his own person, as Lawyers do their Clyents cause before a Judge; this indeed would have argued both his actual separation from, and his inferiority to the great God; but this is done by his gracious works in the hearts of Disciples and Christians, teaching them, as your self confesse in your first reason of this Name, how to plead the cause of Christ against persecuting Rulers, and a world of unbelievers. This is done, as the Learned briefly answer, not formaliter by him, but efficienter; and this was foretold to the comfort and strengthning the faith of the Apostles, That when Christ was gone corporally from them, the Paraclete should come to them, & they should see his power in convincing and converting many of the unbelieving world, of the Jews immediately, and of Gentiles in future times by the Ministry of the Apostles: the Spirit by them should reprove the world of sin, of righteousnesse and of judgment, John 16.8. The coming of the Holy Ghost should be a convincing Argument that Christ was a true Prophet; and therefore the Jewes that had a hand in his death, were guilty of a great sin in not believing on him, and of a greater in crucifying him. And this is the first work, and necessary to fit a sinner for Christ. 2. He would convince the world of Righteousnesse; by assuring the Disciples of Christ, that albeit he suffered as a Male­factor, yet he was an innocent person; which is proved by this, That God took him up into heaven, whither no unholy and un­clean person can enter. And 3 of Judgment, given to Christ, and a­gainst Satan, that put it into the hearts of Scribes, Pharisees, and their associates to accuse Christ, and put him to a shameful death. Now by the coming of the Holy Ghost, the Kingdom of Satan, by the preaching of the everlasting Gospel, shall be gradually destroy­ed; yea, and his professed enemies were shortly after ruined; and this Prophesie began to be fulfilled, Acts 2. when three thousand were converted by one plain Sermon of Peter. Thus in effect is the Text opened by Piscator, Grotius, D. Hammon.

2. Secondly, He is (say you) an Advocate, Because when Chri­stians are in great straits, and know not which way to turn themselves, he assists them with prayer to God. But how? Not himself praying for us, but pouring on us the Spirit of Supplication, whereby we do our selves pray unto God with sighes and groans (See Pneuma­tology answer to the ninth reason.) The Spirit is said to do that which [Page 283]he maketh us to do, Matth. 10.20. The Spirit of your Father speaketh in you; which is thus expounded Luke 21.15. I wil give you a mouth and wisdom; which all your Adversaries shall not be able to gainsay and resist; and by the Spirit we cry Abba, Father, Rom. 8.15. and which is for sense equivalent hereunto, Gods Spirit in our hearts cries, Abba, Father, Gal. 4.6. And doth not the Spirit help our in­firmities in our prayers, and teach us how to pray as we ought? By the Context, the Adversary might have learned this Exposition from himself; for as he is our Advocate, because he instructs us to plead the cause of Christ with opposing men; (this was your first reason of the Name;) so must he likewise by analogy be called our Advocate, Because he teacheth us how to plead our cause with God, he in­structeth us how and what to pray for. This Text then is so far from weakning of the Deity of the holy Ghost, that it strongly proves him to be the great Jehovah; for who but the Lord God can instruct all the Disciples of Christ in all the world, and at all times to plead the cause of Christ, and teach them in their needs what to pray?

Answer.

He that is sent is inferiour to him that sends him; the Holy Ghost is sent, and by consequent he is not God.] I answer, the Antecedent, (If it be true in matter) is particular, and then it is Asyllogistical, for the first figure or explicate Syllogism doth alwayes require that the Major be general, or a proper Axiome. If it be generally meant, it is false and denyed, for sending is not alwayes a command of a Superiour over an Inferiour, but sometimes an act of wisdom and of counsel; the Holy Ghost is sent both by the Father and the Son with his own consent, and doth not argue their dominion over him. An equal person by consent, may be sent by him that is e­qual to him, and then he that is sent is the primary cause of his own misson, and derogates nothing from the perfection of him [Page 284]that is sent; and how false the rule of Bidle is, that Inferiours are only sent, may (besides experience) be evinced out of Zachary, ch. 2.8. and 10.11. and 4.8, 9. and 6.12. the person that sends, and the person that is sent, is called, The Lord of Hosts. Can the Creator be sent by the Creature? The Lord by his servant? The Lord of Hosts by a man? And although simply it is no absurdity to say, that God be­ing equal to his Son and the Holy Ghost, might in that respect be sent by them; yet in that Scripture it is said, the Son is sent by the Father, and the Holy Ghost is sent by God; yet [...]t is never said, that the first person is sent; and to say so, is to depart from the pattern of wholsom words; and its also against the decorum, That the Son should send his Father who begot him, or the Holy Ghost who proceeds from him. The Equality or Identity of the Essence and Persons, takes not away the original of the Persons, and the order agreeable thereunto. Non repugnat Patri, ut Pater, quà est aequalis Filio & Spiritui Sancto, mit [...]atur; repugnat tamen ordinatis­simae ipsorum habitudini & emanationi, & naturalissimo ipsorum or­dini.

Nor doth the Son of God, as he was the Son of man, send the Holy Ghost, though the person which was the son of man sent him; but as God he promised, and as he was our Mediatour he merited for us, that God the Father in his Name should send the Holy Ghost, without whose inward teaching of the heart, all outward preaching would be ineffectual. Nor is the sending of the Holy Ghost to be understood in regard of his person simply, but in regard of his Gifts and graces, whether they be common, Hebr. 6.4. as the gift of Miracles, which is consequential to faith, either saving or unsound, common illumination, and such like: or such as belong to the Elect, whether it be by giving the first grace, making way into our hearts, or opening the door as it were, that he may come in and dwell with us in an eminent manner, being our Guide and Sanctifier; and to possesse us for Christ, and to secure his inte­rest in us, helping us in duties and against temptations, and ma­king us to strive against our own corruptions. The Holy Ghost sent to his, changeth not place; he is every where present, and can­not be in any place where he was not before; but this sending im­ports a new manifestation of his presence by some gracious operation (I speak in a large sense) in them to whom hee is sent, and with whom hee was alwayes essentially pre­sent. [Page 285]See my Answer to Bidle's sixth Argument against the Holy Ghost.

Answer.

It is a usual trick of Adversaries, to make the beautiful face of truth, if possibly they can, to appear deformed, to stamp upon it the odious name of Popery: but they do too much honour Popery, which do say, the Holy Spirits processi [...]n from God the Father, and God the Son, is a Romish tradition; for this is for certain more ancient then Popery it self; and we blesse God, that this divine mystery was not corrupted (as many other points of faith have been) by that adulterous and corrupt Church: we do not, nor ought we in duty depart from Romanists, when they do not depart from the truth of the Gospel.

Touching the procession of the Holy Ghost from God the Fa­ther and God the Son (not to insist on the proof of that which is elsewhere fully demonstrated) we must not forget to abandon all thoughts of any corporal procession, ad extra; or spiritual proces­sion in created ministerial substances, which are called Metaphy­sical. Such processions are apparantly no persons, nor are they the very substance of Spirits: for they are, as the Learned speak, [Page 286]Immanent, and for the most part voluntary acts; but here we do mean a Metaphysical or divine procession; in this notion, that person which proceeds is a distinct person from the first and second of the holy Trinity, and subsists by himself.

The Son of God doth likewise proceed from the Father, but with difference from the procession of the Holy Ghost.

1 For in regard of the principle, as the Learned speak, the Son of God proceeds from his Father only; but the Holy Ghost proceeds both from the Father and the Son of God. And

2 In regard of the manner of procession, the Son proceeds from his Father by eternal generation; but the Holy Ghost proceeds not from the Father (as for distinction divines do speak) by way of ge­neration, but procession.

3 In regard of order, the Son (if I may so speak) proceeds im­mediately and only from the Father; hence it is that the Son is the second person of the sacred Trinity in regard of order; the Holy Ghost so proceeds from the Father and Son of God, that he is in order the third person of the holy Trinity.

And what though in Scripture it be not said in so many terms, that the Holy Ghost proceedes from the Son of God; yet is this divine truth sufficiently and soundly collected from Gods word; yea, even from this very Text, because it is avouched he proceeds from the Father; now this cannot be meant of him, as he is for­mally Father, for then the Spirit of God should be called the Son of God; but from the Father as he is a person hath the same divine Essence with his Son, and consequently he proceeds from the Son also: and this is more clearly proved from those Texts where he is called the Spirit of the Son, Rom. 8.9. Gal. 4.6. and where he is said to be sent by the Son from the Father, Joh. 15.26. and to be given by him, Joh. 20.22.

I know there hath been a hot contention betwixt the Greek and Latine Church touching this point, whether the Holy Ghost pro­ceeds from the Son? Yet both sides do agree

First, That the Holy Ghost is the most high God, against the Macedonian Hereticks.

Secondly, They do acknowledg also against the Sabellians that he is, by opposite relations, a distinct person from the Father and from the Son of God.

Thirdly, That he is coessential and coequal with God the Father and God the Son.

Fourthly, The Grecians do acknowledg that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son, and that he is from the Father by the Son; so that as the Grecians do expound themselves, the point of diffe­rence is not (as I conceive) fundamental; neither is it magni mo­menti, of any great moment, had not the chiefe Agents in this que­stion been imbittered one against another by the spirit of ambition, saith Peter Martyr: and it is a disagreement rather in words then in sense, saith the Master of the Sentences, Lombard. l. 1. qu. 11. c. 4 Touching this point, I have more amply written in answer to a Je­suite, lib. 1. to p. 202, 203. It was a rash censure of Bellarmine, lib. 2. de Christo, cap. 30. to say that Constantinople the Imperial City of that Greek Empire was taken by the Turks in the year of our Lord, 1452. on the Feast of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, to ma­nifest thereby their Error against the Holy Ghost. I say, that those Christians were ruined at that time, and are now justly in thral­dome for their sins; but this great evil might befal them as well for their impious lives and base Idolatry, as for their error in this point. And it is more then probable, if we respect the Judgment in it self considered, that God raised up the Turks as a corporal plague to punish spiritual Idolaters, Rev. 9.20.

This wretched man blasphemes the Holy Ghost, saying, that his proc [...]ssion is absurd, as we hold it, and a senselesse figment. The truth of whose infinite person hath been cleerly proved, and his fa­lacies detected in a set Treatise. We do not admit reason, as now it is by the fall of Adam corrupted, to be the supreme Judge of these deep mysteries; but we do assert, that it is intolerable presumption, without the word to pry into these secrets touching the Almighty God; and like the stedfast looking on the glorious Sun, the more you gaze on it, the more dazled are your eyes. As Saint Basil speaks on 1 John 1. a breaking through the bounds which God hath fixed, and approaching too neer to the Mount of Gods se­crets. There are many things demonstrated most effectually, and yet the manner is so obscure, that the contrary objections can hardly be answered; as the first original of occult qualities, the union and communion of the reasonable soul with the body, of the divisibi­lity of quantity in infinitum; and as Besterfeld against Crellius hath avouched, we do believe the unity and distinction of the di­vine perfection in God more congruously, then the Adversaries can imagine to do by their opinion; for verily the unity of Essence is [Page 288]greater then the unity of that which is compounded of a subject and accidents: there is a greater essential unity of three, then a conjunction of many absolute things together; a more perfect distinction of three relations, then of ten ab­solute things: if it stands not with the divine perfection, that there are three persons in God, whereof every one of them is the divine Essence, and are so perfectly related one to another, that one of them can neither be, nor be perfectly known without the other; how is it then opposite to the divine perfection, that there are ma­ny Attributes in God, and none of them can be the divine Essence; and which are so distinguished one from another, that their es­sence is diverse, and one after another, and one sometimes without the other, yea, one of them cannot subsist with the other, as they do dispute of Gods Justice and Mercy?

Answer.

In the holy Text, [...] is twice repeated, once in re­ference to the mission of the Holy Ghost, which is both from the Father and the Son, as being one in nature, and supposeth the Deity of the Son, in that he sends the Holy Ghost. Can the Crea­tor be sent by the creature? This is spoken to the comfort of the Disciples, that the Holy Ghost should be sent to them: this is cal­led a temporal procession or mission, He shall testifie of me when he comes (to you,) outwardly, by signes and miracles, and by his instruction and assistance of Preachers; and inwardly, really con­vincing [Page 289]the hearts of the Elect, that Christ is God, and the Savi­our of the world, and the works of saving grace hath been alwayes the fruit of the holy Spirit from the beginning; and more eminent­ly will he act thus in his office in all the Elect, and in all places to the end of the world. And doth not this sufficiently prove that he is the most high God? and that the second Person of the sacred Trinity must be God also? for who but an Infinite person can send an Infinite Person?

Secondly, And with difference from the former, he is said [...], to proceed from the Father. Now in these words, by general consent, the eternal and essential procession of the blessed Spirit From the Father is confirmed. This is a Superla­tive comfort to persecuted Christians, that not a created Spirit gives testimony of the Son, but he doth it which proceeds out of the substance of his Father, who hath the divine Essence, and all the essential properties communicated to him, who must needs be a witnesse without exception; He is [...], Emanatio Dei, as Allenagoras speaks: [...], as the beame from the Sun, as light from fire, saith Justin Martyr. And I am confirmed in this exposition, because there is a description of the person to be sent, and it is said of him in the holy Text [...], in the Present Tense, He doth proceed. 'Tis an eternal Im­manent act (as it were;) so that when he was not sent from heaven, yet then and alwayes did he proceed from the Father: These high mysteries are far above us, and it is a far lesse impropriety to say, that the Firmament is a Nutshel, or the Sun is a Glow-worm, or to denominate the reason of man, from the apprehension of a flye or worm, then we to say, we can perfectly understand these myste­ries; for there is some likenesse betwixt these, but betwixt finite and infinite there is no proportion, saith Mr. Baxter against Mr. Kendal. We must say, God knoweth, and he must say to us; for else man could not hear or speak of God, if God condescended not to the language and capacity of men.

Beza was a famous servant of God, and a gre [...]t instrument of the Churches good, and such was no doubt his piety and modesty, that he had a mind prepared and ready to yeeld to the truth, if it had been in this particular revealed to him; but his single testimony can be no prejudice to the sounder and common opinion of the Learned; yet doth that Worthy, notwithstanding his failing in [Page 290]the Exposition of that Text (in which kind the most able and or­thodoxal may dissent) in the main agree with the Orthodox touch­ing the Deity and Ubiquity of the Holy Ghost.

Your arguing from earthly persons to the divine, is not safe, and sometimes destroyes the faith; for every thing in this matter is superlative; and one is bold to say, that not one of the names that we attribute to God hath a notion which hath in God a for­mal object; nor do you say properly, that the Holy Ghost goeth; for what can go that hath not feet? The blessed Spirit is an in­corporeal substance; Might not you prove by this reasoning, that God hath head, feet, eyes, a soul, a heart, because Scriptures do in a far fetch'd metaphor ascribe these parts to the Invisible, Infi­nite Spirit, and so infect the minds of men with anthropopophi­cal conceits of the Great God? In these words is involved a dou­ble blasphemy; the one is against God the Father, as though the blessed Spirit by his procession from the Father, went from the es­sential presence of the most high God, and so it would follow that he is not every where present; and when he confines God to a cer­tain place, saith, that yet he shifts not place; This must needs argue weakness in him, being supposed to be finite, not to be able to move from place to place. The other Blasphemy is against God the Holy Ghost, inferring unworthily from the propriety of the word in Greek, which is not to be urged in these divine mysteries, that the Holy Ghost by this procession and mission is locally and es­sentially present where the Father is not present; for he was not so sent from heaven, but only touching the manifestation of his pre­sence by some rare works, as not being at that instant in heaven, 1 John 5.7.

Answer.

The first part is thus answered, The Spirit will lead you into all truth; not simply into all Moral, Philosophycal and Logical Truths; but in [...]o all truths which Christ had yet to say to them, v. 12. This is true, and is more fully explicated into all Truths which were necessary for their condition and salvation, which also they had not heard from Christ, or which they understood not, o [...] had forgotten, especially touching the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law, conversion of the Gentiles, and plantation of Ch [...]stian Churches.

Whereas you interpret these words, Whatsoever he shall hear, shall be speak;] therefore till Christ revealed them, the Holy Ghost was ig­norant of them. This is an abhorred Inference, and a sory requi­tal so [...]r Gods condescension to man: Thus, because Gods Son be­came the son of man, Socinians would dispute him out of his God­head; and thus do unthankful wretches deal with the Holy Ghost for his condescension to our weak capacities, and do expound it properly, which is improperly spoken; for the Spirit is Omnisci­ent, and was alwayes every where; the Spirit speaketh not of him­self; it shall be no private Doctrine which he shall reveal to you, but what he heareth, that he speaketh; they are no private Do­ctrines of his own which he shall reveal to you, but that which he heareth of the Father, that which the Prophets fore: old, and that which Christ wrought for us, those things the Spirit shall teach you. This phrase notes an order, but no inequality betwixt the divine Persons; as the Holy Ghost is not of himself in regard of his person, but from the Father and the Son, so doth he act from them both; and the phrase imports the consent that was betwixt the first and third Person, as if Christ had said, the Father shall not teach one Doctrine, and the Holy Ghost another, but both shall agree. (See my Defence of the Deity of the Holy Ghost. pag. 44.45.) In a word, the Holy Ghost doth not know these Truths by revelation, for he hath perfect knowledge of all things alwayes; not by learning, but by proceeding, because the Father and the Son communicating the divine essence to the Holy Ghost, did com­municate life, power, knowledg, and all the essential properties. I will acquaint the Reader with Learned Bisterfelds Exposition; Here, by a Metonymical Metaphor is to know those things that are pleasing to others.

He shall take of mine.] Christ hereby excludes not the Father, he doth not intend to impropriate any thing to himselfe, nor will the Holy Ghost bring any new Doctrine to you or others; he wil not set up a new kingdom, but establish mine, and glorifie me, that is, by you and Believers; for the workings of the Spirit in you, and his applying of my Righteousnesse, Wisdom and Holinesse to you, are to this end, that you may glorifie me, that my Doctrine and Kingdom may be established, and that I may be acknowledg­ed to be the natural Son of God, the true God; for the scope of the Holy Ghosts conferring extraordinary gifts to the Apo­stles, was that Christ might be owned by others, both by their Preaching and Miracles, to be (as in truth he was with his Father before the Creation) the natural Son of God, and that both Jews and Gentiles, by the powerful work of the Spirit, might be un­der him as the head of the Church: and ver. 15. All things that the Father hath are mine; the same Deity, Power, Goodnesse, and Majesty belong to the Father and the Son; the Father hath them, and I have them. See Pneumatol. p. 54.

Answer.

That the Adversary contradicts himself, these words compared with those in pag, 39. hath been already observed.

Christ in his humane nature whiles he was on earth, had the ful­nesse [Page 293]of grace, the gifts of the Spirit plentifully bestowed on him, but not on his person, and the Deity his better part; nor did our Saviour after his Exaltation instruct the Holy Ghost, who was e­ver Omniscient, Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his Counsellor, who hath taught him? Isai. 40.13. But Christs send­ing him, implies not any Superiority over him, as his Lord; but an order in the principle of original, and an order of working agreeable to the order of subsisting.

It is not doubted, that Jesus Christ, God Man, the Mediator betwixt God and man, is Head over all created Angels; and it is a part of his Royalty, to imploy what Creatures he plea­seth to make use of, even a created Angel, as is clear from the Text Revel. 1. in the affairs of his people purchased by his blood; and it is their great honour to be serviceable to so mighty a Lord.

To what end you cite ver. 13. of the first Chapter is not spe­cified; if to signifie the Angel mentioned ver. 1. was meant there­by, what is this else but to illustrate a clear Text by an obscure one, as to the point of an Angel? nor is there the least probability of that bold assertion: but by the Context it will appear, if we con­sider what went before, and what followes after, that it can be in­terpreted of no other person but of Jesus Christ. As for your con­sequence, He was like the Son of man, therefore he was not the Son of man, is justly denyed, for likenesse is more then once in Scrip­ture put for Identity. You might have learned from Mr. Bright­man, who is afterwards alledged as one of your witnesses, what is the reason of that manner of speech: He is said to be like the Son of man, not because he was not the Son of man himself; but be­cause he appeared in Vision to Saint John, not in that form which he took of the blessed Virgin, and in which he being full of glory sits at the right hand of his Father; and this may be the reason, why Articles are not prefixed, as is usually done in other places, as Beza hath observed; but he appeared in a form which suited to the condition of the Church of Christ, as it was in those dayes. The like was signified to Moses when he saw a Bush on fire and not con­sumed, Exod. 3. and Zach. 1.8. A man in vision (Christ) was seene in the night amongst the Myrtle Trees (the Saints which do flou­rish and are a sweet favour to God) that are in the bottom; sig­nifying thereby the low and persecuted estate of the Church: so [Page 294]when the Spouse of Christ is in a better condition, and countenan­ced by many chief Rulers, Christ had many Crowns on his head, Rev. 19.11, 12.

That by the Spirit is meant the third Person of the Holy Trinity, in the Acclamation at the end of every one of the seven Epistles, Let him that hath an ear, hear (and lay it to his heart) what the Spirit saith unto the Churches. This in the general is true without con­tradiction; but that this holy Spirit should be understood to be the Angel mentioned chap. 1. v. 1. is spoken without Authority of the Scripture, and (as I conceive) without the suffrage of any appro­ved Author; yea, it is utterly to be rejected as an audacious fig­ment of a seducing spirit: And that the holy Text, is to be under­stood of an uncreated spirit, may be collected, chap. 2. v. 7. partly, because if the Angel spoken of chap. 1, v. 1. had been intended, chap. 2. v 7. the Text would have run thus, to prevent mistakes, and am­biguities, He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear what the Angel (not what the Spirit, [...], and that with an Article prefixed) saith to the Churches: partly; because of the unlikelihood of the Adversaries exposition, for he cannot shew one Text in all the Bi­ble, where the Holy Ghost is called an Angel; not will that Inter­pretation stand with the Texts if they be compared together; for the Angel sent by Jesus Christ was to shew this revelation immedi­ately to his servant John, and not to the Churches, or Angels of the Churches, as the holy Spirit doth in these Epistles, and therefore that Angel and the holy Spirit are not one and the same individual per­son.

Answer.

These Scriptures have been abundantly spoken to formerly, and your Inference from thence confuted. Is it agreeable to the nature [Page 295]of an Instrument to bestow spiritual gifts, as he will himself? 1 Cor. 12. Can there be any thing more appositely spoken of the first and principal cause?

Tertullian is in the Catalogue of Fathers alledged afterwards, and he acknowledged and professed the truth of the Deity, both of Gods Son, and of the Holy Ghost, as shall be proved; yet is not the impro­ety of his phrase denied, nor can be justly urged against us: He is cal­led Villicus, or Dispenser of the gifts of the Father, as a coessential Person with him; and this is intimated, John 14.26. and 15.26. and 16.13, 14 as sent by Christ; and as Grotius saith, the Pation of the cause of Christians, on 16 Joh. 12.

Answer.

It is very true, The holy Trinity consists of one God, one Lord, and one Spirit in a Catholick sense; and that the Holy Ghost is distinguished, as in the Text, from that one God and one Lord, and the Adversary hath no reason to conceive that we do confound the persons; yet is his Inference denied, and can never be proved; He is distinguished from God, therefore saith he, He is not God: The Adversary would alwayes get some advantage from the ho­monymie of the word, God, but it will not, nor may it be allowed him; for God is not taken in those recited Scriptures essentially and absolutely; that is, for that one God which createth and ruleth all things, for the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; but God is taken secundum quid, in a restrained sense; I mean, for God the Father, as is implicitely signified by the Context, which the Adversary neither can nor will deny. It is a Paralogism to argue from the signification of a word restrained, to an exclusion of all others from the common signification of the word, God. I grant, That God simply and absolutely taken is none of the sacred Persons, which would destroy Trinity, and raise up a beliefe of quaternity; yet God as here, being taken for the Father, is undoubtedly one of the Persons of the Holy Trinity; for so it is modus substantialis, & [Page 296]Entitativus. It implies the divine Essence, and a peculiar man­ner of subsistence, which are necessarily required to personality; and consequently the divine Nature, as simply such, is not a per­son; and this is the very Doctrine of the rule of faith, which we are not ashamed to defend with our blood and dearest lives, sith it so neerly concernes the glory of God, and the salvation of men.

Answer.

Still Mr. Bidle is like himself in making use of an equivocal term; God is here also in this Scripture taken for the first Person, and we do religiously and unanimously avouch that the Spirit of God is di­stinguished from God the Father; but your next assertion, that the Spirit is an Instrument, (if you take an Instrument in the pro­per notion) we do peremptorily deny. Your only ground is, Be­cause he reveals the Gospel by the Spirit: an infallible witnesse; sometimes I confesse the Particle [...], by, denotes an Instrument under a principal cause. The Israelites came out of Egypt by Moses, Hebr. 3.10. God led the Israelites through the wildernesse by the hand of Moses. And thus (as most Divines do speak) we are justified by faith. Sometimes it signifies a necessary condition to obtain an end, as to enter into heaven through afflictions, Hebr. 2.10. and again, We must through many afflictions enter into the Kingdom of God, Act. 14.22. sometimes it implies Authority: the words of men many times will not be taken as infallible, and to end their contro­versies they swear by him that is greater then themselves; yea, & God swears by himself. And sometimes it signifies the efficient cause by it self, Act. 17.28. By God we live, and move, and have our being: And Rom. 11.36. God is said to make all things by his Son, & to reveal the Gospel by his Spirit; not as by an Instrument, as the Axe is to the Carpenter, but as a Coessential and Coeternal Efficient with himself: in the In­divisible Deity there is an order observed, the first person is in order first; thus doth a man understand by his reason; and writes by his hand: had the Adversary reduced his reason into a Syllogism, the fallacie would soon appear.

Whosoever worketh by another, that other is an Instrument to the chief Worker. This Major Proposition being general, is false; but if it had been thus framed,

Some person that worketh by another, useth that other as an Instrument. This Major is true in matter, yet being particular in the first figure is Assyllogistical, and against the rules of Logick; nay, by this reason we may prove that God the Father is an Instru­ment, for some things are said to be done by him, as I have for­merly proved.

Answer.

Mr. Bidle takes notice, I see, of the different phrases, viz. of the spirit of man which is within him, but it is not said, the Spirit of God within him: but why you have noted this, I apprehend not the reason. To passe by this weighty consideration, that God is a most free Agent, and may speak as he pleaseth. I do apprehend two things may be alledged; first, because of the dissimilitude be­twixt the Spirit of God and the Spirit of man; mans spirit is an es­sential part, constituting, perfecting and distinguishing man from all other things; or at least a chief faculty of the reasonable soul, which is the form of man; but neither of these two are verified of the Spirit of God. Secondly, Because there are innumertable spirits of men, even as many spirits as there are men, and all the rest are excluded from knowing the things of man, only mans Spirit with­in [Page 298]him, knowes them very imperfectly: whereas there is but one eter­nal Spirit of God; therefore these two the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of God within him, are but one and the same individual person in all, and therefore it was not needful to add the Spirit of God within him; yet notwithstanding it had been true, if it had been said, The Spirit of God within him; both ac­cording to your supposition, judging him to be but a prime Crea­ture, for all Creatures are in God, in him we live, Acts 17. as the creating or procreating, and conserving cause of them all: and according to the truth; for as the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, so is it true of the Holy Ghost; he is in God the Father without separation, commixtion or confusion, in regard of the Identity of Essence with the divine relation.

Your dis-junction doth containe a full numeration of all the parts; but your application in your discourse to one of the kinds singly and exclusively, is not full, but lame and imperfect: It is true, that all Angels are excepted from knowing the things of man, unlesse it pleaseth God, as sometimes he hath done, to reveal these secrets to them: but that men are not accepted, is very absurd to affirm, for Angels are of a more penetrating nature then men; if Angels know them not, much lesse can men: for certain neither men nor Angels ordinarily know them. Your Inference, that then the Holy Ghost should be a man, hath no foundation at all, no not from your own rule, for singular men are comprehended under the general, and [none] is a general word extensive to men, and all in­tellectual beings, but the Holy Spirit. Gods own Spirit knowes deep mysteries, be they never so secret in God, even as perfect­ly (yea, far more perfectly) then our Spirits do know our secrets: and therefore though none else, (my meaning is not to exclude di­vine Persons) yet his Spirit can reveal divine mysteries to us; and this argues infallibly his Divinity, and that he is not a created Person; See Pneumatol. p. 90.

Answer.

That God giveth more eminent gifts to some, then he doth to others, and that he more familiarly revealed himself to Moses then to all the Israelites, is no question at all; nor that such men exalted above their brethren, and higher then the rest of them, as Saul was from the shoulders upward by a kind of excellency, may be segregated, and that by a usual Trope from all others of the same kind; as to say, the Poet, meaning Homer or Virgil; the Ora­tour, meaning Cicero; the divine Apostle, meaning John; the Do­ctour of the Gentiles, meaning Paul; is not to be doubted of. I do not deny that God hath used in former ages, and now doth al­so make use of the Ministry of his holy Angels to convey the know­ledge of his will to his servants, which sometimes is known to men themselves, Deut. 8.19. and 9.21. and 10.14. and to many o­thers recorded in the Scriptures; and sometimes this Ministry is se­cret and unknown; for these ministring Spirits have their hands under their wings, and do work invisibly both in Civil and Eccle­siastical affairs, Ezek. 1.8. But that the Holy Ghost is a created substance, and called at any time in any Text of the holy Scriptures, a holy Angel, is utterly denyed, nor could the Adversary with all his curious search find out any more then one poor proof hereof; & that is in the first and second Chapters of the Revelation compared together, which yet is improbable, and further from the truth then the mention of the Angel in the first Chapter is distant from that of the Spirit in the second.

The examples then which you have brought in as Parallels are not like these under debate, 1 Cor. 9.5. Peter had no Prerogative in that matter in hand; so that the naming of Peter the chief A­postle, the other Apostles are not excluded, nor had he in carrying about a Sister any priviledg above them in the second place. The test were Davids enemies from whom he was delivered, as well, though not so great enemies as Saul. But neither is the Holy Spirit an Angel, nor do those Spirits ordinarily know the secrets of man. Nor is it any marvel that our Saviour was segregated from men, not only because he was more eminent as he was man then other men, but because he was more then a man, even the [Page 300]Son of God, who gave Commission to Paul to preach the Gospel.

These things being urged by Bidle, supposing the Holy Ghost to be a person, he doth well maintain in the general the common o­pinion of the personality of the Holy Ghost, and he foundly con­futes some mistaking Socinians, which do deny this truth and do be­lieve him to be the divine power and efficacy. Thus are these Here­ticks, like the Babylonian Builders, confounded by their jarring Lan­guages.

After the Adversary had sufficiently confuted his brethren in almost five pages, both to prove the personality of the Holy Ghost, and to refute objections against that truth, in the close of all he speaks of the peculiar priviledges and operations of the Holy Ghost. I will not meddle with what is not controverted, but passe all over in silence.

Answer.

The Holy Spirit is never called in the New Testament an Angel, nor Maleach in the Hebrew, and your confident perswasion with­out proof, that he is so called, is no better then the Melancholists, who thought and said, that every ship which sailed into the Haven was his own.

Every Angel, according to the signification of the Name, is a Messenger; but reciprocally, every one that is sent, is not in truth, nor is called an Angel, or to speak properly a Messenger; and he that can extract this out of Saint Peter, he must needs be an excellent Chymist, and may safely undertake to draw water out of a Pumice stone. The Lord would have the Prophets know that [Page 301]they were employed about such divine Prophesies which were not to be fulfilled in their dayes, but that they should hereby do ser­vice to the Evangelical Churches; and he sheweth that as the Holy Ghost dictated these to the Prophets: so also that the same Spirit of Christ works wonderfully first and principally in the Apostles, and then in all faithful Ministers in the power of the Gospel: and that the Holy Ghosts mission imports not a servile subjection or any lo­cal motion from heaven, but some notable effect or signe of his presence, hath been demonstrated; and he is so far from being cal­led an Angel or a creature Messenger, that he is manifestly distin­guished from such a one. The Spirit reveals, and Angels desire to pry into those truths: the truths of the Gospel are such excellent mysteries, that the holy Angels with wonderful purity and singular exactnesse do desire to look into them, being in a readinesse to do any service for the Church; (an allusion (as is thought) to the Cherubims above the Ark in the Sanctuary;) the Angels look on the affairs of the Church, as the Cherubims did look on the Ark, stretching out their wings, being in a posture fit to succour Gods people: and that which they most wonder at, is the marvellous fa­vour of God in the mediation of Jesus Christ, reconciling God to man, justly displeased with him for the breach of his Lawes.

As for the operations peculiarly belonging to the Holy Ghost, which are reckoned up by Mr. Bidle, they are very suitable to such a holy and eternal Spirit, which we contend for, but altogether in­consistent with a created Spirit.

Thus have I held forth in brief an Antidote also against the poi­son of this sixth Article: And so I have by the help of God fini­shed my Answer both to his Preface and to all his Articles. There remaineth a rejoynder to be made to his Additions to the twelfth Article, and to his Answer to the Ubiquity of the Holy Ghost.

Answer.

Here is nothing new for matter, but what hath been abundant­ly (I think) answered by me both in the Defence of the Deity of the Holy Ghost, and in this Treatise touching the Text, John 16.13. but I take liberty to mention it once more, because the manner of speech is singularly vaine, in that the Adversary looks upon these two Texts as his terrible Goliah, which makes all the Host of Israel to tremble; but you cannot, I believe, name one Captain which hath gone into the field to encounter with the Socinians, but hath made it good, that these Texts are vainly produced, and that they do not make any thing against us. As for your reason, because we say Texts are improperly taken, it is lighter then vanity it self: for if all things which are spoken of God in Scripture must be litte­rally and properly taken, and you will plead that they ought to be taken according to the sound of the words, and from thence draw us a Systeme of Divinity; without doubt it will be a monstrous one. This will justifie the Egyptian Monks, which were Anthropomorphiles, and hold that God was a bodily substance, and had humane members, because the Scripture saith, God made man in his own Image; and because it is said, that God hath a heart, head, face, eyes, hands and other humane members: thus to ground on the letter of the Scripture, is to ground on that letter which killeth: to take that properly which is to be understood tropically, is sometimes to ex­pose such Interpreters to scorne and laughter; as Cassian Collat. 8. cap. 3. records of some simple Monks, which when they had read those words in the Gospel, He that takes not up the Crosse of Christ is not worthy of me; took the words literally and made themselves wooden Crosses, which they carried about on their shoulders, not to their Edification, but to their scorn and de­rision.

The Holy Spirit is without doubt the Authour of prayers; the servants of the Lord are bound to pray, and when they pray ac­ceptably, it is by the Holy Ghost, Jude v. 20. [...], whe­ther the prayers were ordinary, or whether they were extraordi­nary, as sometimes, especially in the Primitive Church, some special servants of God had that gift conferred, as the gift of healing & pro­phecy [...]ng. If they were prayers indeed, the holy Ghost was the Author and Moderator of them; and is it consistent with the happiness of the Holy Ghost to sigh and groan? this agrees well to the state [Page 303]of the Church Militant, not to the Triumphant. The Spirit prayes, as he sighes and groans; he doth neither of them formally, but makes us to pray with sighes and groans. I demand then, with what face the Adversary could say, Ours are non-plussed because they say, the Holy Ghost prayes for us improperly? when he himself is in the same verse forced to acknowledg an improper speech in sighes and groanes attributed to the Spirit, which cannot agree to him that is perfectly blessed?

Answer.

The Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Father in regard of Personality, not of Omniscience, which is an essential Attribute; nor will this alledged testimonie prove what you intend thereby: for the Spirit willeth and desireth as he prayeth; that is, he makes us by his help to will, desire and pray. See Pneumatol. pag 90. and so it is true, that the Spirit in regard of the work wrought in his servants is distinguished from God, and we who have the assistance of the holy Spirit, are not the searchers of mens hearts: this is Gods Royalty. See against Bidle pag. 89.90. That Text is full, 1 Cor. 2.10. The Spirit searcheth all things, even the deep things of God, and he knoweth the things of God. I will add but this one pas­sage and convincing testimony touching this Subject, Rom. 9.1. where the Apostle appeals to the Holy Ghost, whose special office and Prerogative it is, as to plant purity and sincerity in the hearts, so to be privy to the secrets and motions thereof. I say the truth, and protest before Christ, and in the presence of the Holy Ghost, who is my witnesse; How could he be his witnesse, if he knew not his heart?

Your Instance taken from two men falls to the ground, and serves not to illustrate what you intend, because of the homonymie of the [Page 304]word, Spirit, which is not taken for the third Person simply, but for the work of the Spirit in the Saints; and thus the Spirit is distin­guished from the Father.

Answer.

The premisses in your sense having been overthrown, the conclu­sion falls of it self to the ground; surely we never would contend for the Deity of the Holy Ghost, were we not perswaded that he is a searcher of hearts.

You tell us, If the Holy Ghost searched hearts, yet would it not fol­low that he was God, unlesse he had this faculty originally of himself; but it might be conferred on him as on Christ to know all things. These words require explication. We do not hold that God hath a fa­cultie as men and Angels have to search, distinguished from their spiritual substances, but the very essence of God doth immediately and without such faculty perfectly know all things: nor do we sim­ply deny, that the Holy Ghost hath this faculty (as you call it) from another, for it is solely belonging to the first Person of the sacred Trinity to be of himself Principium sine Principio; and the Holy Ghost hath Omniscience communicated to him by eternal pro­cession; but your meaning is, this gift conferred on him in time by God as his Superiour. What God may do, is one thing, and what he doth actually is another: Do you believe that he bestowed this gift on him, or not? If not, What needed this exception? If he did, Why do you deny it, and dispute against this his know­ledg? I grant, That God may make knowne the secrets of this or that man to any one; to a Prophet, as he discovered to Elisha what was done in the Chamber of the King of Syria: and to Saint Peter the secrets of Ananias and Saphira his wife; yet are they not on that account said to search the hearts of men: It was not their [Page 305]searching, but Gods revealing a few particular secrets to his servants that made them knowne to them: And upon the Adversaries suppo­sition it is not possible for a creature finite in Essence and vertue to know at once all the hearts of all the men in the world. This know­ledg of God is incommunicable to any creature: the example of our Saviour Christ is not pertinent to this businesse; the common princi­ple of this judgment at the last day, is the holy Trinity, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; the proper term of this great action by voluntary dispensation, is the Son of God, performed by the divine Nature principally, and by the humane instrumentally and visibly, so that it is ascribed to the humanity, not in it self, but in the person by the grace of union.

Answer.

It being supposed, but not granted, that you have well transla­ted the Original, Deceived, as it is also in the Margin of our new Translation, You argue thus:

He that may be deceived, is not God. This Proposition needs no proof.

The Holy Ghost may be deceived, as he was by Ananias.

To this I answer, by distinguishing of the third Argument or middle Term, deceived; A person is deceived either properly or improperly.

1. Properly, when there is an involuntary mistake out of igno­rance. For instance, Good men may be deceived in judging chari­tably that a Demas is a Saint and an honest man, when he discovers himself to be a rotten hypocrite, a profane worldling, and a very Cheator. Or thus, when such or such a thing is promised to be [Page 306]done by such a man, and he failes to make his word good, he that gave credit to him was deceived by him. In this sense God to whom all things are exactly known, is never deceived.

2. One may be deceived improperly. When some things Ana­logically are attributed to God, which accompanies deceived man. Thus hope and expectation are in Scripture ascribed to God, which do not import in him any ignorance of the events of things, and future contingencies, but duty to be done by any in thankfulnesse and obedience answerable to mercies received, which being not performed, Gods expectation is said to be frustrated by them. God planted a noble Vineyard, and bestowed cost upon it, and he looked for Grapes (which were but due) but it brought forth wild grapes, Isai. 5.4. And the Lord sharply reproves Jerusalem, That whereas he had cut off the Nations for their sakes, And I said, Surely thou wilt fear me, thou wilt receive instruction; But did they not make void Gods hopes? Yes, for they rose early, and corrupted all their ways, Zephan. 3.7.

The Proposition is true in the first sense, but false in the second; so the dint of the stroak is easily declined.

You tell us, That the Holy Ghost may be deceived, or at least Ananias thought so. This is a poor proof against the Deity of the Holy Ghost, which a Puny in Divinity may be easily thought to answer; He thought he might deceive the Holy Ghost. What then? Ergo, He is not the High God. The Consequence is denyed, as though foolish men may not have Atheistical thoughts of the Great God and think to keep their counsels from the Almighty, and their actions from him, that he knoweth them not nor seeth them? The wickedness of men sheweth there are many such Atheists in the world: Thus did this man and woman tempt the Holy Spirit, ver. 9. This was surely finis operis, whatsoever was finis operantium. They would make a tryal whether he knew their sin, and would punish them for it. They that think thus to deceive the Holy Ghost, shall find in the end, that the Holy Ghost was not deceived, but that they them­selves were deceived in thinking to deceive him.

The substance of this Objection hath been at large answered in my Pneumatol. p. 3, 4, 5, 6.

[...], are the same originally spoken of the same Ananias, in the same matter by the same Apostle, in the same tract of reproof, and there concurred many sins, lying, fraud, hypo­crisie, [Page 307]and Sacriledge, and this was the principal, in robbing and depriving God of that portion which was vowed or promised; or for saying they brought the whole for the relief of poor Christians, part whereof they unconscionably detained: In this sense is God said to be robbed, Mal. 3.8. in that they paid not their Tithes and Offer­ings. What was given for holy ends, was really accepted by the Holy Ghost, as given to him, and laid at the Apostles feet, as the Jew­ish Oblations given to God, were brought to God and presented to the Priest. We do hence thus argue,

He to whom Ananias told a lye, or whom he tempted, is God, for it is not a lying to men only but to God, Saint Peter tells us, that it is not unto man, but unto God; now had not the Holy Ghost been God, he would have said, you have not lyed to man, nor to the Holy Ghost, but to God, and by consequence, either the Holy Ghost is a man, (which is absurd,) or God; or in counter­feiting the Holy Ghost, you have not counterfeited man, but God; nor is it likely that he pretended to have a command, as you say he had, to sell his farme; for the Text saith, he had [...], a power of right, and a freedom of will to dispose it as he pleased, ver. 4. but his sin was aggravated hereby, that he pretended to give the whole.

Answer.

This kind of arguing and illustrating Texts in the old Testament, by the new, when the parallels are right, can never be too frequent­ly used against the Adversary, but are alwayes of a prevailing ver­tue to satisfie the lovers of the Truth, and to conquer the opposers thereof, albeit they will not acknowledge themselves to be con­quered; for it is God whose testimony is infallible, who speaks both in the old and new Testament, as the Priest in the Taberna­cle lighted one Lamp from another Numb. 8.4. Ainsw. which taught them and us also to unfold and enlighten a dark Scripture by the light of a clearer; and it is a common saying, The Gospel is vailed in the Law, and the Law is revealed by the Gospel.

Isai. 6.1. The Prophet saw in a Vision, The Lord sitting upon a Throne, that denotes the Kingly office of Christ; and his skirts fil­led the Temple, that proves his Priestly Office; this was meant of Christ, as is expounded by Saint John, chap. 12.41. These things spake Isaiah of the blinded Jewes, when he saw the glory of Christ, and spake of him: and he is the Lord of Hosts, ver. 5. and ver. 9.10. The Lord said to Isaiah, Ye shall see indeed, but ye shall not understand; Saint Paul expounds whom he means by Lord, Well said the Holy Ghost by Isaiah. Hence it is evident that the Holy Ghost is the Lord that sent Isaiah.

Your elusions to avoid the strength of the Argument are vaine, and your examples taken out of the Scriptures are fallacia parium, are unlike to this in hand: sometimes an Instrument speaks in the name of the great God that sent him. This must be your Evasion, therefore it must be so taken, Isai. 6. compared with Acts 28. this is a plain fallacy.

Exod. 32. Moses calleth the Israelites, Gods people in Covenant with him; and God calls them, the People of Moses, being under the curse of the Law, by reason of their Idolatry: and because he [Page 309]was Gods instrument to bring them out of Egypt, and to conduct them in the wildernesse; it is apparent to every one, and the Text holds it forth, that they were otherwise Gods people, and otherwise the people of Moses; he being a finite, distinct and separate substance from the Lord God Almighty. We grant, That because these are different, therefore it would be absurd to infer, That Moses is the Lord. Where is the Holy Ghost called Gods servant, or Gods Instrument?

The second place, Isai. 65.1. with Rom. 10.20. in the one place it is said, I am found of those that sought me not; so saith God in a­nother place. Isaiah saith the same words; therefore Isaiah is the Lord. It is clear, the Lord by Isaiah foretold the conversion of the Gentiles, and that he by his grace moved them to seek him before they looked for salvation by Christ. Saint Paul relating the same Text sheweth, that Isaiah freely spoke of the calling of the Gentiles. Who is so blind as not to see clearly, that Isaiah u­sed those words as Gods Messenger in the name of the Lord, and what is more usual with the Prophets, then to use such words, to gain due respect to their words? Thus saith the Lord: This ex­ample then is not parallel to that under debate; it is not agreea­ble to the Scripture language for the Holy Ghost to speak in the name of the Lord.

The third, touching Gods saving and Pauls saving is as unfit, and as far from the mark, as the former; for evident it is, that Paul himself could not plant, except God gave the blessing, and he alwayes ascribes salvation to God as the principal c [...]u [...]e there­of, and confesseth that he is but Gods Instrument, by whose Ministery he saved much people. A Creature cannot be properly called God, nor doth any other Scripture, or the nature of the thing it self teach any such thing; nor doth the new Testa­ment, unlesse by quoting Texts out of the old shadowes being gone, use such expressions, lest we should conceive Gods subordinate to the high God: this you grant; but you add withal, That you can make the same answer touching the Lord and the Holy Ghost. You have the face not to blush at strange answers: What is it that you cannot write? But if you should be pe [...]emptory in such an answer, you cannot make it good. What line in Gods Words, yea, what probability can you produce for this parallel? It is great reason, that if a man will forsake the common road, that he should give a [Page 310]good account of his going into by-wayes not troden by Passengers many hundred years together; it is well that by your owne confes­sion, the other alledged Scriptures do clearly distinguish betwixt the principal cause and instruments; and it will be requisite, if you look to be credited, that you demonstrate by the circumstances of the Text, Isai. 6. or by some other convincing proof; that the ho­ly Spirit is a created Angel, and that he is in a proper notion Gods Ambassadour, and his instrument to inspire the holy Prophets, to discharge their Embassie, which is a task, I know, impossible to be performed by you.

There is (say you) an intimation in the Texts themselves; for I­salah only heard the words in a vision, and was to tell them to the peo­ple not present with him: But Paul ascribes them to the Holy Ghost, because whatsoever was spoken in the Scripture, is recorded by the In­spiration of the Holy Ghost, and so spoken by him. This is then his meaning: These words were from the Lord as first delivered by him to Isaiah; and from the Holy Ghost as they were penned in the Scripture. This is a senselesse and a groundlesse figment, as though the Holy Ghost spoke not as well to Isaiah, in that vision to deliver his message ot the people, as to inspire him to write infal­libly what he had heard in that divine Vision. Is there any in­timation of different persons in these to be distinguished actions? And as though the Lord himself did not both? The current of the Scripture is to this purpose without a shadow of contradiction. Take that one place, 2 Pet. 1.20, 21. No Prophesie of Scripture is of any private interpretation. Prophets proposed not to their Au­ditors their own sense, but Gods mind: for prophesie came not at any time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; so that they were acted by the Spirit, not only in writing, but in speaking: Yea, those Prophets which were not Gods Penmen as Elias and Elish [...]h, yet were inspired by the Holy Ghost. Such vaine fancies as yours are Mr. Bi­dle, can please none but vain and unsetled heads.

Mr. Bidle spends many words to answer the grand Objection (as he rightly calleth it) to prove the Deity of the Holy Ghost; but the substance of his evasions is sufficiently confuted in my answer to the eighth Argument and sixth Article. It will be needless there­fore to enlarge my self on this Subject; I shall only point at some novelties and conclude.

Answer.

I will not enter into a dispute, whether the Spirit in himself in­visible did at all appear in any bodily form, or whether the mean­ing of the Text was this, that when Christ was baptized, John saw (John 1.33.) the heaven opened, (or cleft asunder, not impro­perly, to note a clearer revelation of light, but properly not only to shew that Christ was annointed with heavenly and extraordina­ty gifts to impart to his, but that heaven it self is opened for belie­vers) and he saw the Spirit descending like a Dove, and lighting up­on Christ. The Spirit descendeth as a Dove, or something resem­bling a Dove with the wings spread abroad, and hovering over one, viz. Angels, the token of Gods presence. See Dr. Hammond on Matth. 3. Annotat. K. But take the ordinary meaning which is most probable, Luke 3.22. and it will not from thence follow that the Holy Ghost changed place in respect of his essential presence. But this mission from heaven the Palace of the great King, denotes a manifestation of the Holy Ghost, where he was not so manifested before, or a new manner of his presence, as touching some real o­peration, whether he be sent into the hearts of his children invisi­bly to sanctifie them, or visibly in the shape of a Dove, or in fie­ry cloven tongues, which lighted on the Apostles, Act. 2. These were signes and operations of the Holy Ghost, the invisible God; no channels to convey the Holy Ghost or his vertue to them: and that there might be no offence taken at such expressions; the great God, as the Adversary will grant, is said to walk in the Garden, [Page 312] Gen. 3.8. and so according to his supposition, must needs come down from heaven; yea, and he professed that he would go down to So­dome, and see whether those Citizens had done according to the cry of it, which is come to me, Gen. 18.21. and shall we from thence infer a local change in God, and that he by relation of Angels understood the state of Sodom, and would be more fully informed touching that report? But this is contradicted by the Adversary himself, who confesseth that God is every where touching know­ledge, that he knowes all things; and he saith by the con­fession of all, God cannot shift place, Article 6. pag. 46.47. If God then, being an infinite Being, cannot according to sub­stance change place, when yet in regard of some operations he is said to descend, and to be where so he was not before; the very same do we avouch touching the holy Ghost, and that by the instruction of the holy Scripture, Psal. 139. and yet have assu­rance enough, where the Scripture speaketh of an Angels descen­ding from heaven, that their persons then in regard of sub­stance are where they were not before, because they are finite sub­stances, and not every where; but do shift their places, though they be no where commensurativè, but definitive only.

Answer.

Metaphorical or borrowed expressions touching God are to be cleared by those which more properly do belong to him, and not evident and literal, reduced to those which are metapho­rical.

The Adversary would ward off the blow reached to him by this Text, Psal. 139. First, by relating what others say, and yet he himself approves not their judgment, and therefore he names it, but asserts it not; for if he should, then all his Arguments to prove the Spirit of God to be a person, will come to nothing: and if in the greatest number of Scriptures, or all other places where the Spirit of God is mentioned, a person is to be understood, why not here also? What reason can be alledged to the contrary? And if not in this Psalm, why in others? And if any of ours do under­stand Gods properties, as some there be, I deny not, of that mind; yet even they also are clear for the Ubiquity of the Holy Ghost, nor can Gods Power and Wisdom be any where, where the Holy Ghost is not; and this Power and Wisdom being essential Properties, are the Power and Wisdom of the Holy Ghost, and by consequence in their judgments, God is taken Essentially for God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

By the Spirit (you grant) may be meant the Holy Ghost; and then (say you) he is every where present not at once; but where David should be, there might the Spirit be. This answer is very weak and against the holy Text: for it is not said, he may be there, but he is there: and as he is with David in the East, is he not with Peter also in the West, and with other Saints also at the same time; for, Why should he rather be essentially present with David, then with any other Saint or Creature? This Answer then is a plain and absurd corruption of the Text.

Answer.

The Holy Ghost, I grant, is present every where both in regard of his Power, because he works all in all, and in that admirable [Page 314]manner that he orders all to his glory: He is present also in regard of his knowledge, for all things are naked to him; he sees, and he knowes all things: But the concession of these is no prejudice to us, for he is essentially present every where, and he is not, nor can be distant from any Creature, no more then the soul is from the parts of the body, which it informs. You believe that God is pre­sent in regard of his All-seeing eye: but how do you prove, that his Essence is excluded from being every where? For as you will grant, that God is in heaven not only in regard of his Knowledge and Efficacy, but in regard of his Essence also: (If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there, saith the Text) in the same manner is he also out of heaven in all places, and according to his Essence also; If I make my bed in hell, behold thou art there also, &c. Since the Psalmist doth so manifestly set forth the immense Omnipresence of God, and of his face, what ground have we to make a Divorce, as it were, betwixt his Essence and his Knowledge, in explicating the words of the Psalmist, That he should be knowingly and pow­erfully there, where he is not essentially present? Is there any ap­pearance by the Text, that his Nature should be separated from his Action and Power of Working? And whatsoever you believe, yet most certain it is, that the Omnipresence of the Holy Ghost doth not consist with local mutation and change of places.

Answer.

It is an Argument of a wretched Blasphemer boldly to deny the Infinitie of God, and to offer violence to a clear Text, that it might serve his own turn, he makes a local and real separation betwixt Gods Essence and his Knowledge: Now since the Psalmist doth e­vidently shew the illimited presence of God, and of his face, how dares he say, his face is any where, where his personal presence is not? He objects, That it is not said, he knew Davids thoughts neer at hand, but afar off. An Exposition this is, both false in it self, [Page 315]and unexcusable in the Adversary, who is accustomed curiously to pry into the placing of the words in the Original; they are not thus, Thou afar off knowest my thoughts; but, Thou knowest my thoughts afar off; (viz. from me, not from God, but) long be­fore I conceived them: And the Context justifies this exposition, for David having confessed that he could not attain unto, or com­prehend this knowledg, ver. 6. he declareth that God did not on­ly know him in secret, viz. when he was conceived in his mothers womb, and curiously wrought and embroidered with Arteries, Veins, Sinews, and variety of members, but they were all of them written down, and perfectly known of God, when as yet there was none of them, ver. 16. I will say no more, for the truth of Gods Omnipresence hath been proved at large in this Tractate.

Answer.

God being essentially in heaven doth not exclude his Essential presence from other places, who is both in heaven, and in all real and imaginable places: but he is said most frequently to be in hea­ven for such considerations as these are,

First, Because as God is most glorious, so no other place is so glorious as heaven, the highest heaven.

Secondly, Because his infinite greatnesse, his Incomprehen­sible sublimity and eternal glory, his infinite Power and Goodness are more conspicuous and manifested in heaven, then in any other places.

Thirdly, Because those heavenly Inhabitants, the holy Angels, and blessed Saints have a greater measure of his love and goodness, and of his special blessings communicated to them, then are con­ferred to any in other parts of his dominion; in this respect the soul also is said to be in every part of the body essentially, and to informe the meanest member, as well as the most noble; yet is it said to be in head, the brain or the heart, in regard of more ex­cellent operations thereof in those prime parts, then in other members of the body.

Answer.

The Holy Ghost (I grant) dwelleth in his Saints by his Gifts: He that is essentially present with all men, is gracious­ly present by his saving Graces, whereby a holy person is be­come the Temple of the Holy Ghost. The Blessed Spirit is not said to dwell in any which have only common Graces be­stowed on them for the good of others, for he rules not in them; and hee will dwell no where, where he governs not: but such are said to have the Holy Ghost touching those Gifts; and be­cause saving Graces are not equally bestowed on all the Saints, therefore they are said to have the Holy Ghost, but not e­qually. Augustin. Epist. 57. ad Dardanum. The more Holy, Charitable, Heavenly-minded any one is, the more abun­dantly and fully he hath the Holy Ghost dwelling in him, as one and the self-same sound in the Aire is more distinctly per­ceived by him that hath a quick hearing, then by him that hath a dull ear. So the Holy Ghost being in himselfe Im­mutable and filling all things with his natural presence, is not had at all of the wicked touching his gracious presence (as the sound in the Aire is not perceived by deaf men) and of some men he is enjoyed more then by others according to the degrees of holy graces bestowed on them.

Whereas you say, no other dwelling can be imagined then by his gifts, not to speak of imaginary suppositions: The assertion in your sense is false, for you do fallaciously divide and separate what ought to be conjoyned: for you do hereby exclude his personal presence, whereas his essential [Page 317]presence is not to be separated from his gracious presence, but it is necessarily presupposed, where ever he dwells as Lord and Commander. It is a strange phrase to say, That a Prince which hath many houses adorned with rich Furniture dwels at once in them all, as the Holy Ghost doth at the same time in all the Saints all the world over: This Argument then is de­monstrative, that the Holy Ghost is truly God. I have now done with the Additions which have any seeming strength in them.