A friendly DEBATE On a WEIGHTY SUBJECT: OR, A Conference by Writing Betwixt Mr SAMVEL ETON AND Mr JOHN KNOWLES Concerning the DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST: For the beating out, and further clearing up of TRUTH.  
LONDON, Printed by T. N. for GYLES CALVERT, at the black spread-Eagle at the West-end of Paul's, MDCL.   

presented Truths, nor thine own Eyes to be too much weakened by over much use of the clouded spectacles of Ancient terms and opinions: but in regard there must be some Oneness, and Analogy between the Recipient, and the thing received, to make up an intellectual, and perfect conjunction; (as the Metaphysics say:) be exhorted in the fervent Love of the Love-working Spirit, to understand what you receive, and to receive what you convincingly understand; let not ancient Authority darken Truth's glory, though newly discovered; nor new Errors shake Truth settled, though anciently confirmed, but as the Apostle saith in the Spirit of the Father, Try all things. The Treatise designs the confirmation of the Negative part of this Logical Question, Whether Jesus Christ the Son of the Most High God, be that God? the nature thereof is of high concernment, and calls for the greatest, the gravest consideration. 'Tis the exhortation of the Spirit, 
Heb. 3.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Heb. 3.1. Holy Brethren consider, the word is weighty. Beloved Christians, the Son requires the understanding of a sublimated spirit, sunk down into the very Centre of the Soul, expunged from the Relics of the dregs of vain delusions. Professors of all sorts examine principles already taken in; try it with your own hands, especially this here presented, it is matter of moment, and that for these Arguments.  
1. In regard of the Excellency of this Knowledge, 
Phil. 3.8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  so Paul calls it, Phil. 3.8. 'tis the knowledge of him that lay in the womb of Eternity; that received, that revealed, the bosom-secrets of glory, 1 joh. 1.18. 'Tis the knowledge of our friend, that is crowned King in the Assembly of Heaven, and contains the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, Psal. 2.6. Col. 2.3.  
2. In regard of the Mystery of this Knowledge. Every Truth is a secret, and that in regard of its proximity (that I may not say Identity) to the highest: Then that, sure, more eminently which the Spirit of God intentionally signs so. The Son's name is a secret, as that Angels, Judg. 13.18. Phelij, a secret, a wonderful name; a wonderful name indeed would it be, were his name in the number thereof made known. And Col. 4.3. Eph. 3.3. Col. 2.2. 
Col. 4.3. Ephes. 3.3. Col. 2.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The disquisition and search of things remote, separate, and transcendent, is a work for Spirits generated in the Divine Love, and tinctured with the Divine Nature, which ennobles them above all acts seemingly glorious in the world's view; especially  
3. In regard of the Utility thereof: The Knowledge of the Son is very profitable: by the right understanding whereof many prophecies concerning the Church lie either chained up in darkness, and undiscovered, or appear so mighty, that they are by most too too rashly censured & condemned. 'Tis no less than eternal life in all the parts thereof, John 17.3. 1 John 5.20. Nay, 
John 17.3. 1 John 5.20. John 14.9.  'tis to know the Being of all knowledge; and the centre of every Being, John 14.9.  
Friends, sit down no longer in deadness, in darkness: but consider these things in yourselves once and again, and then judge according to the spirit of Oneness and divine Revelation that works in you. See more by your own Eyes; that the Babel of Traducall Doctrines authorised only by man, may fail and fall. To believe this or that to be, without a spiritual light and intelligent persuasion, is but an implicit faith, and comes under the Roman condemnation. He knows best that hath truth written upon his own soul.  
But when on the one hand I weigh the wantonness of these days, in lifting up the heel against many Truth's pressing near; and the facility on the other hand to entertain without knowledge and understanding, it prompts me to premeditate the various effects this ensuing Treatise will produce: Some Luxuriant and heady spirits will (peradventure) draw the curtains before they know 'tis night, and sit down in their retired, their forced darkness. Others, whose ears stands always open, and Athenian-like, are wand'ring, are waiting for some new thing, will too easily welcome it as an Angel of Light, and lodge it with them without so much as quaering What are you? But are afterwards as soon drawn out of it as dallied to it. Yet is it my hopes that some Valiant one in spiritual Israel, whose sword is on his thigh, Cant. 3.7, 8. will enter the List with her, to the discovery of her strength or weakness, and endeavour the settlement of this point in Question.  
Happily this may be the time that the Truth of these Mysteries of the Father and of Christ shall be manifested: who sees not the multitude of divisions, haesitations, acceptations concerning God, Christ, and the Spirit. The smoke of the pit ascends very high; me thinks it proclaims the glory of the Lord to be rising for the breaking of the cloud, to the ushering in of the day.  

But why are such things brought forth to trouble the people?  
'Tis not (I can assure thee) blazoned with singularity or effected publicity; but that that Doctrine formerly received might have better foundations than the Philosophers Jus Rationis, or occulta qualitas to palliate their ignorance, that things might come to a particular scrutiny, and that the seemingly fair face of many mental buildings may be searched, and their body examined to the very Basis.  
Let no man be offended at the style thereof, plainness of language may be no hindrance to her entertainment: she may happily make better provision in that kind, when humane Eloquence is made the Watchword in the Lord's Army; and yet if any shall wonder why it adventures abroad in such a clothing; give me leave to Apologise a little for her Garments, and tell you that she risen in haste, and intended only a visitation to a private friend, upon a more than earnest invitation; but by the way meeting with some adventitious Salutants, she was unwillingly arrested, and now pressed to hazard herself upon the doubtful multitude.  
Lastly, (for I am writing an Epistle) if any Man from its pretence to Light, and claim to Reason (especially the Gentleman for whom it was intended, and to whom 'tis committed) shall deign to descend the Sands with it, Let him in Love, and in the Spirit know, That reviling is no reason, and that he adds nothing to Truth that belcheth forth bitterness from a distempered spirit; Let him teach himself in the Doctrine of Luther, Non convitiis sed argumentis errantis conscientia est erigenda. And if yet any man shall indiscreetly and scornfully handle his weapons, the return of the Author I (suppose) will be silence.    

Master Eaton's Scriptures and Instances.  
THe Doctrine against Christ being God, is not only contradictory to the Scripture which doth most clearly hold him out to be so, as when he is called God, in Psal. 45.6. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; The mighty God, Isa. 9.6. The great God and our Saviour, in Tit. 2.13. The true God, Joh. 5.20. and when the incommunicable name Jehovah is attributed to him in Jer. 23.6 which signifies one that hath being of himself, and gives being to his promises; and so becomes proper to the most high God alone: and when he is called The everlasting Father, Isa. 9.6. and in that saying of Christ to the Jews, Before Abraham was, I am, Joh. 8.58. and in that Rev. 1.8. I am Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, saith the Lord, which was, is, and which is to come; the Almighty: and when he is said to be in the beginning, and to be with God, and to be God, Joh. 1.1. and when it is said that by him all things were made and without him nothing is made that was made: and when Christ saith that he is always, and so with all the faithful to the end of the world, Matth. 28.20. and when he asserts that he knew all the works of the Churches, which at that distance, (as mere man) he could not do, Rev. 2.2. and when he is said to be the firstborn of every creature, where his eternal generation is held out, Col. 1.15. and that by him all things were created vers. 16. Now because Creation is a making of all things out of nothing, and required an infinite power, God could make use of no instrument, inasmuch as God cannot give an infinite power to any creature, because no creature is capable of such a divine attribute; for it would make him God, to be almighty, or to be infinite in power: And when he is resembled in reference to his eternity to Melchizedek; Without beginning of days, or end of life, Heb. 7.3. and that in Prov. 8.22. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way (saith Christ:) Before his works of old, I was set up from everlasting, verse, 30. Then was I by him, as one brought up with him, etc. And that in Zech. 13.7. Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, against the man that is my fellow. And that in Joh. 3.13. No man hath ascended up into heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man that is in heaven. And that in Joh. 17.5. Glorify me, O Father, with that glory I had with thee before the world was. There be many other pregnant Scriptures, which would be too long to mention, for the proving of Christ to be God in that sense which we usually speak of God: and therefore that opinion that denies it, contradicts these Scriptures.  
But further, it may be truly said that this Doctrine that makes Christ a mere creature, brings in as it were another Gospel; destroys the true Gospel in many of the parts of it, and brings in another Scripture in many points.  
1. As first, if Christ be but a mere creature, and not God, than the giving of Divine worship, and honour, and service to a mere creature is lawful and warrantable, and yet everywhere forbidden in reference to any creature; but is practised to Christ, in Rev. 5.12, 13, 14. and would be Idolatry, if Christ were not God.  
2. If Christ be a mere creature, than it is lawful and warrantable to believe in a mere creature, which is against the tenor of the whole Scripture; but is commanded in reference unto Christ, Joh. 14.1. and salvation is annexed to it, Joh. 3.36.  
3. If Christ be but a mere creature, than faith in a mere creature can save man, which is absurd and gross, and contrary to the Scriptures: for Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness, Rom. 4.3. and so was saving.  
4. If Christ be but a mere creature, than a mere creature is the Saviour of men, saving them with a mighty and eternal salvation, as the Scripture speaks: but this is against the whole current of the Gospel, which speaks of God our Saviour, Tit. 2.10, 13, and in many other places.  
5. If Christ be but a mere creature, than a mere creature is Mediator betwixt God and Man; which cannot be, because a mere creature is no way meet to be a days-man for God; and because a Mediator must either partake of both God and Man, or of neither; else he will rather be a party then a Mediator, if he partake of Man's nature, and not of Gods; if he be Man, and not God. Therefore this Mediator betwixt God and Man is called Emmanuel, that is, God with us, or God in our nature; God manifested in the flesh, 1 Tim. 3.16. or God made flesh, as in Joh. 1.14.  
6. If Christ be but a mere creature, than the righteousness of Christ which is imputed to believers, is not the righteousness of God, but the righteousness of a mere creature: But this is against the tenor of the Scripture, Phil. 3.9.  
7. If Christ be but a mere creature, then to pardon sin belongs not to him, because Scripture testifies that none can forgive sin but God, because all sin is against God, therefore none can forgive it but God. But it is evident Christ took the authority of forgiving sin: Son, (saith Christ) thy sins are forgiven thee: and Luke 7.48.  
8. If Christ be but a mere creature, than the value of that offering which Christ offered, when he offered himself to God, is taken away, and the satisfaction which Christ gave to Divine justice is destroyed: for if the person that died were a mere man, and the blood that was shed, the blood of a mere man, and not of God, as it is called. Acts 20.28. then how could it satisfy for the sins of many transgressors? for there is no proportion betwixt one mere man dying for sins, and many men sinning, and deserving death each of them for the sins they have committed. And how an infinite Justice offended, should be satisfied with a sacrifice finite in value, is unconceivable, and against the tenor of the Scripture.  
9 If Christ be a mere creature, than the intercession of Christ is utterly overthrown: for Christ, (if mere man) being in heaven, cannot know the state of his Church in all places upon earth, therefore cannot intercede for it.  
10. If Christ be a mere creature, then how can he protect, and defend, and save, and direct, and rule, and govern his Church in all the world, in every condition, and against all enemies, he being at such a distance and remoteness from the Church; and yet it is said of him, that he is able to save to the utmost those that come to God by him, Heb. 7.25. and that he is with them to the end of the world; and Christ stood by Paul, and strengthened him in suffering, Acts 23.11. and Rev. 3.10. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I will keep thee in the hour of temptation: so that it is Christ now in heaven that keeps the Saints on earth; which, being a mere creature, he cannot do.  
11. If Christ be a mere creature, than a mere creature is the judge of the world; which is against the Scripture: for the Judge of all the world is God; before whom Abraham stood, Gen. 18.25. when he pleaded for Sodom. Rev. 2.5, 6, the day of judgement is called the day of the revelation of the righteous judgement of God, who will render to every man according to his works.  
12. Lastly (which should have been before) if Christ be a mere creature, than prayer to him, being now in heaven, is altogether vain and frivolous, insomuch as persons may cry loud, long enough before Christ hear them at that distance. But the Saints have been wont not only to pray to God in Christ's Name, but to pray to Christ directly and immediately, as in Acts 7.59. Rev. 22.20. Lord Jesus receive my spirit. Come, Lord Jesus, etc.   

Master KNOWLS his Answer to the Arguments and Scriptures alleged by M. Samuel Eton concerning the Divinity of CHRIST.  
SIR,  
IT is a good thing (as the Author to the Hebrews speaks) that the heart be established in grace: and to me it is an indubitable truth, that unsettlement is sometimes the next way to a right and firm establishment: For Error, whilst misapprehended, is entertained in gracious hearts as a welcome guest; and Truth, whilst received hand over head by tradition only, is as a Building whose foundation is but sandy, which holds up no longer than the waves and winds hold in. Whether most Professors have not swallowed without chewing much of that Doctrine they now profess, is not my work to determine. It is enough for me with shame to confess, that I have been of the number of those (if any such be) who see with other men's eyes, and pin their faith (as we usually speak) on the Church's sleeve. But having now through the goodness of God turned over leaf, and learned a new course, I am resolved to examine all things by the Touchstone of Truth, that I may unlearn what I have learned amiss, and hold fast that only which in my understanding is good. Upon this account being somewhat willing to make a scrutiny into the Common Doctrine of the holy Trinity, (of which in most ages there have been some scruples amongst men of parts and learning) and exhorting others to the same practice for the abovenamed ends; but especially reasoning thereof as one dubious therein, I was suspected (to say no more) by you and others, to be in Faith unsound and Heterodox. Wherefore that the Common Doctrine might be supported, you published a Paper, and did cast the same into my hands; which lying open to many Objections, I promised (being urged) to present you therewith, upon this condition That nothing spoken might be taken for my judgement: To which you agreed, and therefore I shall act freely, as if I were in judgement directly opposite to you; and shall desire that neither you nor others do conclude, before I profess what my judgement is. I was about to present you with an exact Epitome of the common Doctrine of the holy Trinity, with Interrogations about it, Arguments against it, and seeming Contradictions in it; but have forborn, till I find by a modest Answer to this, that your spirit is able to bear.  
Now ad rem, to the business in hand; which is concerning the Deity of jesus Christ. The Question is not clearly stated in your Paper; wherefore give me leave to do it.  
The Question is not Whether Jesus Christ be a God in Name and Office Nor whether the Father dwell in him: but Whether he be That most high God, whose Being and Actings are originally of himself. That he is, you assert but I deny, and that for the beating out and further clearing up of Truth. The way you have taken (by Scripture and Reason) to make good your Assertion, I cannot dislike; the truth is, I like no other way. Whether the Scriptures brought speak on your side, and whether your Reasons have weight in them, is now the thing in debate.  
I shall begin with your Scriptures, and with that first which first appears, which is Psal. 5.6. Thy throne (O God) is for ever and ever: and the Sceptre of thy Kingdom is a right Sceptre.  
Answ. First, that no Argument can be found in the text to confirm the thing you assert: for though it were granted, that this Psalm is a Prophecy only of jesus Christ, (which I shall not allow, it being spoken, according to a literal sense, of Solomon the King; to which Willet, Pareus, Hugo Grotius junius, Cotton, and almost all Interpreters do consent) yet this Title God will not bolster up your opinion of Christ. For the name Aelohim, which here is attributed unto Christ, is common with the most High to Creatures, both Angels and Men. It is given to Angels, Psal. 8.5. Thou hast made him (that is, Christ) a little lower than Aelohim Gods, (so in the Hebrew) which is translated by the Author to the Hebrews, Chap. 2.7. the Angels. To men, Psal. 82.1. God judgeth among the Gods, that is, the Rulers of Israel. So vers. 6. I have said, Ye are gods. Likewise in Exod. 22.8, 9 where the word is translated Judges.  
Secondly, that some Arguments may be drawn from this Psalm to deny the thing you assert. Take these.  
1. He that is blessed of God, is not the most high God: For without all contradiction, the less is blessed of the better, Heb. 7.7. But this God (Jesus Christ). is blessed of God, vers. 2. Grace is poured into thy lips, therefore god hath blessed thee for ever.  
2. That God which hath a God, is not the most high God. But this God (Jesus Christ) hath a God: Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness; therefore, O God, thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows, vers. 7. Therefore, etc.  
3. That God whose authority is derivative, is not the most high God. But the authority of this God (Jesus Christ) is derivative, vers. 7. where he is said to be anointed by God, that is to receive Kingly or Godlike power form him. Therefore this God Jesus Christ, is not the most high God.  
Now I hasten to your second Scripture, Isa. 9.6. And his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The ever lasting Father, The Prince of Peace.  
Answ. These two Titles, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, you dig out of the text, and lay them as the foundation of your faith, that Jesus Christ is the most high God.  
To this Scripture take this Reply:  
1. That according to some men's reading, those Titles do not at all belong in this place to Jesus Christ: and after some men's expounding, they appertain not to Christ only. Some Jews thus read the words: And this is the name by which The Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, etc. shall call him, to wit, The Prince of Peace. This lection Calvin mentions; and knowing that the words may admit of this construction, the verb being of a neutral as well as a passive signification speaks in objecting no more than this; Quorsum tot epitheta in Deum Patrem hoc loce congesta forent? 
Calv. Instit. l. 1. Cap. 13. p. 35.  That is; To what end should so many epithets be heaped together in this place on God the Father? when the purpose of the Prophet was to adorn Christ with famous titles which might build up our faith in him. Wherefore 'tis no doubt, but that by the same reason he is now called The strong God, as a little before Immanuel.  
Others there be that give those Titles typically to King Hezekiah. Amongst whom, 
Et vocabitur nomen ejus] In Hebraeo est, vocabit. Supple quisque. Notum autem Hebraeis dici sic vel sic vocari aliquem, cui tales tituli aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conveniunt. Hugo Grot. in loc.  that learned man Hugo Grotius is one, whose Annotations on the place be pleased to take.  
And his name shall be called] Every one (that's supplied) shall call him. Now 'tis known to the Hebrews, that any one is thus named, or called thus, to whom such titles or epithets do agree.  
Wonderful] For those very excellent virtues which shall be in him.  
Counsellor, mighty God] Yea rather, one that asketh counsel of the mighty God. One that in all businesses seeks counsel from God, to wit, by the Prophets.  
The Father of an age] One who should leave after him many posterities, and for a long time.  
2. But were it granted that the Text speaks only of Jesus Christ, yet would not the thing in question be thence concluded, Because that the Titles amount not to so much as most high God, which are the terms of the Question. Ael Gibbor, Mighty God, is not so much as Ael Shaddai, Almighty God, by which the most High is called, Gen. 17.1. And both these terms are communicable to the Creature. Ael is used Psal. 82.1. Aelohim standeth in the assembly of Ael; which is translated the mighty, but is the same with this in Isaiah, Englished God. That it is here attributed unto Magistrates, appears from the Septuagint, reading these words thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. God standeth in the assembly of gods, the Magistrates in Israel. And the other epither mighty, is given to the Captains of Nebuchadnezzar's Army, Ezek. 32.12. if we consult with the Septuagintversion, where the words are thus read; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a strong God; to which is exegetically added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lord, to expound it: or, with Symmachus and Theodoret, with whom the words are thus rendered, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, strong, mighty, putting a Comma between the words, as Montanus doth in his Interlinial Bible: we shall not find so much strength in the words, as some suppose, to bear up the Doctrine now in dispute.  
Now for this Title Everlasting Father;  
1. Our Translation differs from most (if not all) both Greek and Latin Versions. The Septuagint thus renders, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] A Father of Eternity (life or world) to come. Sym. thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A Father of the world. Theod. thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is from the Hebrew word for word, and may be thus Englished: A Father unto posterity. Hierome, pater futuri saeculi in the Margin, but in the Line pater aeternitatis, a Father of Eternity; to which Tremellius and Piscator agree. Now the reason saith Paraem why he is called a Father of Eternity, is, because he is the Author of Eternal life.  
2. Our Translation gain-says a main part of the Common opinion. It is the Doctrine of our Divines, that the Persons in the Trinity may be distinguished, but not divided, nor confounded. The Person of the Father (say they) is not the Person of the Son; nor is the Son the Father, etc. Now there is but one Everlasting Father. But if Christ be the Everlasting Father, either there are two Everlasting Fathers, or the Person of the Father and the Son are confounded.  
3. But in the last place, were it granted that those titles belong to Christ only, and that they are equivalent with that of Most High God: yet will it not of necessity follow, that Jesus Christ is the Most High God:  
1. Because titles may be translated from one to another, to whom they properly do not belong. Daniel calls Nabuchadnezzar King of Kings, Dan. 2.37. In the Old Testament 'tis a usual thing, for Angels and Men, who did represent God to bear his Name.  
2. Because enough may be found in the Text to distinguish this glorious one, who bears those glorious names, from the Most High God: 1. In that those titles of glory are given to the Child, that should be born, (which was the Man Christ Jesus) without making mention of any other nature, v. 6. 2. In that the Person to whom those titles appertain is called a Son, and is said to be given. Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, etc. which notes out another person, and one greater: for he that gives, is greater than he that's given; for none but Superiors can give or dispose of others.  
3. Because there is another spoken of in the Text, who is exalted above him, to whom those titles belong, by a name more noble, jehovah of Sabbaoth or Hosts, which by the Apostle from Esay 6.3. is translated Lord Almighty, Rev. 4.8. and given to him that sits on the Throne, who is distinguished from the Lamb, chap. 5.13. And in that all those things spoken of the Son are appropriated to another as the Author thereof. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall perform or do this, v. 7.  
Now I shall close up the Answer with an Exposition, that a learned & godly man gives of the place. His words are these:  
Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called WONDERFUL (by reason of his exaltation, which is so strange and wonderful, that even the greatest part of Christian's cannot believe it, and therefore imagine another nature in Christ, besides his Humane Nature, as thinking a man uncapable of so transcendent an exaltation) COUNSELLOR (In being made acquainted with all the Counsels of God) MIGHTY GOD (by reason of the Divine Empire over all things both in Heaven and Earth, conferred on him by the Father, agreeably whereunto Paul calleth him God over all blessed for evermore, Rom. 9.5. A Father of the age (In being the Author of the age to come, as both the Septuagint, and old Latin Interpreter expound it: or else a Father of Eternity, in being Author of Eternal Life to all that obey him. For to render the words as the English Translators do, who here call Christ the Everlasting Father, is to confound the Person of the Son with that of the Father, and so to introduce Sabellianism.  
Your Third Scripture is, 
Tit. 3.13.  Tit. 3.13. which I shall pass over till I come to your second paper, where it is brought forth in a more formal way, and with an appearance of greater strength.  
THat which follows is, 
1 john 5.20.  1 john 5.20. This is the true God, and eternal life.  
Answ. Christ is the most high God, in that he is, (as you suppose) here called the true God. The words I confess at the first blush seems to stand on your side: but if well considered they speak not a word for your cause; for they relate not to the Son, but to the Father only.  
First, if we consider these words, this is the true God, and eternal life, as an entire body of themselves, not having dependence on the words immediately preceding, as probably they have not, being by a full point separated from them: then they are the Epitome, Abridgement, or sum of the whole Epistle.  
And so the Apostles mind seems to be this: This Father which I have in this my Epistle treated of, is the true God; and this jesus Christ of whom I have spoken, and in whom ye have believed is eternal life; that is the way to it.  
Secondly, but were it granted, that these words, This is the true God, do depend on the foregoing words: yet will it not of necessity follow, that the Son, not the Father is the Antecedent to the Relative, this; and so that the sentence must be thus understood, This Son is the true God. In the precedent words there is mention made of the Father: [And we know (saith the Apostle) that the Son of God is come,] i. e. We Believers assuredly know, that the Son of God is already come in the flesh, notwithstanding many at this time gainsay and deny it, [And hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true] and this Jesus Christ, being in the bosom of the Father, and having received from him the promise of the spirit, hath anointed the eyes of our minds, that we might savingly know him that is true, that is, the true God; as some Greek Copies have it. [And we are in him that is true, etc.] If with Erasmus and Tindal we read the words thus: and we are in him that is true through his Son Jesus Christ; the meaning is this, We have not only an apprehension of, but also union and communion with him who is the true God, by the means of his Son Jesus Christ. But if we follow Piscator, the words hold out that oneness and fellowship, which the Saints have with the Father, and his Son Jesus: For thus he would have them read, And we are in him that is true, (to with the Father) and in his Son jesus Christ. But last of all, if we consent with Hierome, who by making 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a redundant hath them thus, and we are in this true Son jesus Christ; they speak only of that oneness we have with Christ. Now the words that follow, relate to the Father; This is the true God. The Apostle intends the Father: But because his assertion is contrary to many men's interpretation, take for the backing of it these few Reasons.  
1. Because the Text will Grammatically bear it: for the words may be thus rendered, That is the true God; and so the Antecedent to the Relative, is not the Person immediately foregoing, which is Jesus Christ, but another spoken of at a farther distance, to wit the Father.  
2. Because Jesus Christ no where in the Scripture is called the true God; and therefore is it the more questionable, whether he be so called here the place being somewhat doubtful and ambiguous.  
3. Because the Father is called the true God distinct from the Son, 1 Thess. 1.9, 10. For they themselves show of us, what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from Idols, to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from Heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even jesus which delivered us from the wrath to come. It is evident from this Text, that the Father distinct from the Son, is called the living and true God; and therefore is it probable, that in the Text under Examination, the Father only is intended in this expression, this is the true God.  
4. Because the Father is called the only true God, John 17.3. And this is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God, and whom thou hast sent jesus Christ. Here the Father is called the only true God, and so the Son is excluded from being the true God, and therefore of necessity in 1 john 5.20. The Father only is intended.  
THe Text which comes next to be scanned, 
jer. 23 6.  is, jer. 23.6. And this is his name, whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness. Hence is gathered that jesus Christ is the most High God, because the incommunicable name Jehovah is attributed to him.  
Answ. First, that it is a probable conjecture that our English Translators saw not this Mystery wrapped up in the name Jehovah. In that they do not here follow their usual custom in giving the Hebrew name: for they read not Jehovah, but the Lord our righteousness. Yea, that the Apostles themselves were ignorant of the use, where unto the name Jehovah is put by you and others. For though we have in the New Testament Hebrew names, yet Jehovah appears not there; but in stead thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lord, which is a common name.  
Against this you once objected, That the name jehovah cannot be expressed in the Greek language. But to me this seems not true; for there is no letter in jehovah which the Greeks want, but may be found in other names, which in the New Testament are rendered in imitation of the Hebrew; as jacob, Abraham, David. And it cannot but seem strange, that that name, which cannot (as you say) be expressed in the Greek language (by which the Old and New Testament was published to the greatest part of the world) should be a foundation for that, which you call a truth fundamental.  
Secondly, that it is not an undeniable consequent that Jesus Christ is the Most High God, because called jehovah; for although the name may most properly belong to the most High God: yet 'tis communicated in the Scripture unto creatures. To Angels frequently, Gen. 19.24. Then jehovah reigned upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from jehovah out of Heaven; That is, the Angel which did sustain the name of jehovah, he reigned, etc. If credit may be given to some, the title jehovah is in this of jeremiah appropriated to the people of Israel and judah. They read the words thus, and this is the name which they shall call it, [to wit the people,] jehovah our righteousness; that is, God hath done well for us. In jer. 33.16. the people of jerusalem and judah in the letter, but according to a Mystical sense, the Church of Christ is called jehovah our righteousness. In those days shall judah be saved, and jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, jehovah our righteousness. Also the City jerusalem is called jehovah, Ezek. 48.35. And the name of the City from that day shall be jehovah is there. Yea, the Altar, which Moses erected when the Amalekites were discomfited is called jehovah Nissi, The Lord my Hunter, Exodus 17.15. I know you will not say, that the Church is the most High God, much less the Altar or City jerusalem; yet you may see that the Incommunicable name jehovah is, communicated to them. How your inference concerning Christ may be justified, is yet not evident: but remains dubious, not only for the commonness of the name, but also because this jehovah is said to be raised by another, v. 5.  
THE Scripture which occupies the next place hath been already insisted on: wherefore that which follows being john 8.58. 
John 8.58.  Before Abraham was, I am, is now to be spoken to.  
Answ. The words rightly understood will no ways countenance your inference from them. In the words we have a Grammatical Figure which they call Enallage, whereby, one time is put for another, as here the present tense for the praeter, Am for Was, Before Abraham was, I was: and so they note out and signify one or both of the things that follow.  
1. That jesus Christ was instituted and revealed before Abraham had a being. If we take the word I, to signify the Whole of Christ, there is a necessity that the words be thus understood: for Christ according to the flesh was not in being before Abraham was. That he was revealed before Abraham was, is clear and evident: for the seed of the woman at the beginning was made known to Adam. That he was ordained before Abraham had a being is from Scripture not a little manifest, as 1 Pet. 1.20. And by the same reason he may here be said to be before Abraham was, as he is elsewhere called the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, Rev. 13.8.  
2. That he had a real being and existence before Abraham was; this cannot be asserted of whole Christ, and therefore according to this Exposition the Figure Synecdoche (whereby the whole is put for a part) must be understood in the Text. It is granted by all that contend for, and by some that deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ, that he had a being and existence before Abraham was: but what this being was is the only doubt. Some affirm that Jesus Christ, before he was born of the Virgin Mary, had no other existence, but in the Godhead, and was only to be considered as the Son eternally begotten of the Father. Others assert that this conceit is neither Scriptural nor Rational, but unsound and absurd: and that he had a created being before Abraham was; yea, that he was the first creature, and so Lord of all.  
That this Controversy may be decided, I shall lay down three Positions.  
1. That whole Christ doth consist of flesh and spirit. Position 1  
Every man is constituted of two parts, flesh and spirit, 2 Cor. 7.1. jam. 2.26. and so is Christ, as in Rom. 1.3, 4. where the Apostle speaking of whole Christ, mentions nothing but flesh and spirit. According to the flesh, that is, the body of Christ, he was of the seed of David: But after the spirit of holiness, he was the Son of God.  
He that can find another part besides those two, or any nature besides what belongs to his flesh and spirit, may have liberty to bring forth, (for aught I know) what he may find out.  
Position 2 That Christ before he took upon him the seed of Abraham did exist only according to the spirit. He had no being but a spiritual one: But this is no controversal thing, being on all hands concluded for truth. The only disagreement is, whether this spirit of holiness after which Christ is the Son of God doth signify the Divine Nature, and Godhead, or else the soul which was created or form, and did exist distinct from the flesh or body of Christ.  
Wherefore the third Position is:  
Position 3 That the Spirit of Christ, according to which he was the Son of God, is a Creature.  
To support this take these Reasons:  
1. Because to affirm that the Spirit of Christ did exist distinct from his body, and may be spoken of as a person, is not in the least absurd. For the spirit or soul of a man may exist distinct from the body, and is spoken of as a person. What are those spirits of just men made perfect, Heb. 12.23. but the souls of good men glorified in Heaven, whose bodies were in the graves. In Luke 23.43. saith Christ to the Thief, This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise; Thou, that is, thy soul or spirit, shall be with me, that is, with my spirit in Paradise.  
2. Because the titles which most properly belong to Christ before he took flesh, do hold him forth to be a Creature; first, he is called the Son of God, Luke 1.35. Now this title informs us of his Inferiority to God, his Existency of God, and his Superiority over all things.  
1. It holds forth his Inferiority to God, God is his Father; but a son is inferior to a father, and by the Law is bound to honour and obey him.  
Wherefore Christ confesseth that his Father was greater than he, john 14.28. My Father is greater than I And professeth that he did honour his Father, john 8.49. jesus answered, I have not a Devil: but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.  
That this might be put past all doubt, he is called the Son of the Highest, Luke 1.32. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest, and the Lord God shall give unto him the Throne of his Father David. And therefore not the Highest, for there can be but one Highest; and he is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.  
2. This title Son of God proclaims his Existency on God.  
A Son is of a Father, and therefore the being of a Father is before the being of a Son; God as he is a Creator, is the Father of all, Eph. 4.6. And all men as creatures, are God's offspring. Acts 17.28. Angels and Men who are principal creatures, are called the Sons of God, Job 38.7. Luke 3 38. They that hold the Deity of Christ, do affirm, that the Son was of the Father by an Eternal Generation. But what this Generation is, they cannot declare, and therefore call it ineffable; Yet M. Perkins will tell us, that the Son was generated of the Father, in that the Divine Essence was communicated to him. But who can tell what this Him, was, to whom this Essence was communicated? And who can affirm, that this Essence was communicated to this Him, and yet assert, and evidence that he was never without it? And that he was God, and yet distinct from the Essence; for it is said that the Essence was communicated to Him? Where Scripture doth assert, and how reason will make out an Eternal Generation, and whether the phrase Eternal Generation doth not contain in it a mere contradiction, let him that can, show.  
Now let it be asserted, That Jesus Christ is the Son of God as he is a creature, and then let us see, whether a definition may not be made of his Generation.  
His Generation is that act of Creation, whereby the God of all beings did immediately and in the first place, bring forth and produce him.  
Generation and Creation, to beget and create, are sometimes in Scripture terms equivalent: As is evident from the work of God in changing the creature which is sometimes called a new Creation, sometimes Regeneration; and the person changed is in one place said to be created in another to be begotten.  
In the last place this title Son of God, sets forth his superiority over all things. We shall find that Son of God, & Christ are terms convertible, if we compare Matth. 16.16. with Mark 8.29. when Christ asked his Disciples this query, Whom think ye that I am? Then Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. So Matthew: But Mark in relating the same answer, gives it thus, Thou art the Christ. From which is evident, that Christ and the Son of God are terms equivalent; for one Evangelist useth both, that one might expound the other, but another leaves out one of the terms, because either was sufficient, both being Synonamas. So likewise in Acts 9.20. compared with vers. 22. of the same chap. And 'tis as manifest in the scripture, that Christ, King of Israel; and chosen of God are convertible terms, noting out one and the same thing, to wit, Authority, Dominion, and Power. It will appear to you as clear as the sun, if you compare these Texts together, Matth. 27.42. 
Filij dicuntur qui aliqua exparte alicui sunt similes.  Mark 15.32. Luke 23.35. Magistrates and Princes, by reason of that Dominion they have over others, are called the the sons of the most High, Ps. 82.6. I have said ye are Gods: and all of you are sons of the most High.  
So David is called in Psal. 2.7. which mystically and more properly belong to Christ, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, which sets forth the Kingly Office of Jesus Christ, according to the confession of all. Now Christ is named The son of God in way of Eminency, as being King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. That this superiority which Christ hath over all things might be the more perspicuous, he bears this name also; The only begotten Son of God, Jo. 3.16. which title points at his Heirship. Jesus Christ by whom God made the world, was appointed to be heir of all things, Heb. 1.2. now he that is an Heir, is (as the Apostle speaks) Lord of all, Gal. 4.1. In this sense Isaac is said to be Abraham's only begotten son, Heb. 11.17. not that Abraham had no other son, (for he had one by Hagar, and divers by Keturah) but because Isaac was his heir. To the rest he gave gifts, but to Isaac all that he had.  
The second Title is the word of God, Rev. 19.13. And his name is called, The Word of God.  
This name is imposed on him for two Causes.  
First, because he is the Image of God's invisibility, God is invisible, and dwells in unaccessible light: and therefore in this life he cannot be known as he is; notwithstanding, because the knowledge of God is eternal life; he hath revealed himself so far as necessary, and in a way suitable to our capacity. This discovery of God is made in his son Jesus, who is therefore called (Col. 1.15.) the Image of the invisible God; and also the brightness of the Father's glory, character of his substance, Heb. 1.3. And this Image Jesus Christ hath his Shadows, whereby he reveals himself, and so consequently the Father. His shadows are the works of God, Christ being Gods principal and immediate Instrument in all his works: And also the words of God are a shadow of Christ, for by them are the works of God made known or made more clear unto us, and therefore Christ is fitly called The word of God, in that a word or speech is the discoverer of man's invisibility. The excellency or deformity of the mind, the tongue makes evident.  
Secondly, because he was produced by God immediately. This title declares not only that he was made, but also that he was Gods immediate work. Facere verba, to make words is no unusual phrase; men's words are their creatures. And for the producing or making of words no instrument distinct from the Agent intervenes; but the Agent is the instrument: Therefore a word is a lively shadow of Jesus Christ, who was the first creature that ever God made, and the instrument by which he made all things.  
The third title is this, The firstborn of every Creature, Coll. 1.15. It is evident from the Text, that this title is appropriated to Jesus Christ, by whom all things are made: and it cannot be appliable to him any otherwise, but as a creature; and it holds him forth to be the first of Creatures. A man's firstborn is the first that he begets, and is brought forth to him. The same word is used to express the firstborn among the Egyptians children, Heb. 11.28.  
The fourth title is, The beginning of the creation of God, Rev. 3.14. The beginning of the creation of God, that is, the first of God's creatures; the words will bear this exposition: for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, beginning, signifies the first part of any thing, or the first of things in the same kind: so in Luke 1.2. Mat. 24.8. Joh. 2.11. But some will say, that he is called the beginning, because he is the Prince of the creation. But where the word is used in the singular number to signify a Prince, I do not at present mind. True it is, that Christ is the chief, because he is the first of all the Creatures. Others will affirm, that he is thus called, because he is the Author of the creation. But this exposition is excluded, in that the creation whereof he is the beginning, is called the Creation of God, who is the author of all created things.  
Now for the third reason which doth confirm the third position, That the Spirit of Christ, according to which he is the Son of God, is a Creature.  
Reason 3 Because whole Christ is a creature.  
If whole Christ be, then doubtless every part of Christ is a creature.  
That whole Christ is a creature, these following Arguments will demonstrate.  
Argum. 1 That which is distinct from GOD is a creature.  
But whole CHRIST is distinct from GOD, therefore whole CHRIST is a CREAIURE.  
The Major is evident to sense and Reason: for God is but one, and 'tis absurd to imagine him distinct from himself. But some peradventure will make use of the usual distinction betwixt person and essence, and so affirm, that one may be distinguished from God personally, and yet be one in essence with him.  
To this distinction hear what a learned and godly man speaks: His words are these: As for this wretched distinctions (to omit the mention of the Fathers) is not only unheard of in Scripture, but is also disclaimed by Reason. For, 1. it is impossible for any man, if he would but endeavour to conceive the thing, and not delude both himself and others with empty terms and words without understanding, to distinguish the person from the essence of God, and not to frame two beings or things in his mind, and consequently two Gods. Secondly, if the Person be distinct from the Essence of God, than it is either something or nothing; If nothing, how can it be distinguished, seeing nothing hath no accidents? If something, then either some finite or infinite thing; if finite, then there will be something finite in God, and consequently (since by the confession of the Adversaries themselves, every thing in God is God) God will be finite, which the Adversaries themselves will confess to be absurd. If infinite, then there will be two infinites in God, to wit, the Person and the Essence of God, and consequently two Gods; which is more absurd than the former. Thirdly, to talk of God taken only essentially is ridiculous; not only because there is no example thereof in Scripture; but because God is the name of a Person, and signifieth him that ruleth over others; and when it is put for the most High God, it denoteth him who with sovereign and absolute authority ruleth over all, but none but a Person can rule over others, all actions being proper to persons: wherefore to take God otherwise then personally, is to take him otherwise then he is, and indeed to mistake him.  
Thus much for the Major.  
The Minor, which is, That whole Christ is distinct from God, is now to be proved. The Scripture being full and frequent in the demonstration of this, I shall speak but a few words to it.  
First, Christ himself doth confess it, John 8.42. Jesus said unto them (to wit the Jews) if God were your Father, ye would love me; for I proceeded forth, and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. In this Text we may note these few things:  
1. That God is a Person, and that Father is his name, If God were your Father ye would love me, etc.  
2. That Christ doth plainly distinguish himself from God: If God were your Father, ye would love me; for I proceeded forth, and came from God, etc. Yea, he affirms that of himself, which denies him to be God; to wit, change of place, I proceeded (saith he) and came forth from God. And subjection to God; I came not of myself, but he (that is, God) sent me.  
Christ also distinguisheth himself from God, Lu. 18.18, 19 And a certain ruler, asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? Jesus answered, and said, Why callest thou me good? none is good save one, that is, GOD. Here Christ affirmeth, that there is but one God, (to wit, by way of eminency) and excludes himself from being this one God. Why callest thou me Good, there is but one good, even God. Were Jesus Christ the most High GOD, and were this a fundamental, (as you assert;) it is imaginable, that Jesus Christ, who came, not to condemn, but to save the world, should never say it, and should in this place so much cloud it.  
Secondly, now let us hear some testimonies that the Apostles (who were to speak nothing but what their Lord and Master Jesus Christ did command them) have given to the thing in hand, Let Paul (as Peter was wont to do) speak for the rest: In 1 Cor. 12.4, 5, 6. He tells us, That there are diversity of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are diver sity of operations, but 'tis the same God which worketh all in all.;; Here the Apostle doth distinguish the Spirit, and the Lord, from GOD; and shows, that those gifts which were distributed to men by the Spirit, that they might be fitted for several ministrations in the Kingdom of the Lord Christ, did all of them proceed from God.  
The same Apostle in the same Epistle, Chap. 8.5, 6. doth as one designing the thing, distinguish the Lord Jesus from God. For though there be saith he) that are called Gods, whether in heaven, or in earth, (as there be Gods many and Lords many) but unte us there is one GOD, even the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him: and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Here we have the Apostles and Primitive Christians Creed: They believe that there is but one GOD, (in way of eminency) to wit, the Father of whom (as the first cause) are all things, and unto whom (as the ultimate end) Saints are, and so all things; and that there is but one Lord, (in way of eminency, amongst all made Lords) even jesus, by whom (as the great instrument of God) are all things, and we by him. See Ephes. 4.4, 5, 6. where a plain distinction is made betwixt the Spirit, the Lord, and GOD, But enough of this.  
Obj. But Christ doth say that he is one with the Father, John 10.30.  
Sol. 'Tis true, Christ doth say that he and the Father are one: But one what? one Person? that none will assert. But are they one God, one Essence: Yea, that's the thing, which many will subscribe to, as Christ's meaning here. But did Christ intent to signify that? Doubtless no, which appears, not only from the absurdity of the thing, but also evidently from Christ's vindication of himself from the accusation of the Pharisees, who misconstruing of this did mis-inferre, from this saying of his, I and my Father are one. In this vindication we may observe:  
First, that Christ denies the Premise of their conclusion. They concluded that he spoke blasphemy, (and therefore went about to stone him) because (as they understood) he made himself God, to wit, the most High God) and so made more Gods then one, Verse 33. This Christ denies, affirming that his saying did amount to no more than this, The son of God, verse 36. that is, God's representative.  
Secondly, Christ asserts the lawfulness of his saying, by an argument drawn à minori ad majus, from the less to the greater. If they to whom the Word of GOD came, (to wit, the Judges of the great Synedrion, who received a commandment from God to judge the people of Israel) were without blasphemy called Gods: then he whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world (to have dominion over all mankind) may without blasphemy be called God, or the Son of God. But they to whom the word of God came were called Gods: This Christ proves from Psalm 82.6. Jesus answered and said, Is it not written in your Law, I said ye are Gods, verse 34. Therefore he that the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, may without blasphemy be called God, or the Son of GOD. That this might be applied to Christ, Christ himself appeals to his works, sending the Pharisees thither, to satisfy themselves, that he was sent of the Father. If I do not (saith he) the works of My Father, believe me not: But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him, verse 37, 38.  
Thirdly, he declares his inferiority to God; in that he saith, that the Father sanctified and sent him into the world, that is, prepared and gave him a Commandment for the exercise of a very great authority, ver. 36.  
Hence may be easily seen by a judicious ey, that Christ intended not by this saying of his, I and my Father are one, to hold himself equal to the Father, or one in Essence with him. But how are we then to understand the words? This sentence, I and my Father are one, admits of this meaning. I and my Father are one in work; the same work that I do, my Father he doth also. The like phrase by the consent of all is taken in the like sense, 1 Cor. 3.8. Now he that planteth, and he that watereth are one: How one, unless in work? The context will constrain us (if we consider it well) to baptise Christ's expression into the same acceptation. For the words in dispute close up a glorious discovery of that gracious protection, which Christ affords to the sheep of his Pasture, which also he affirms to be the work of his Father: and so in work they are one.  
Now who can hinder the drawing up of this conclusion, That whole Christ is a Creature?  
The second Argument contributing something to this Position, That whole Christ is a Creature, now follows:  
Argum. 2 He that lives by another is a Creature: But whole Christ lives by another: Therefore whole Christ is a Creature.  
That God lives of himself is a general and undeniable Maxim: Wherefore I should but waste time, if I should spend time in the confirmation of this, that he is a creature who lives not by himself but by another.  
But for the Minor, That whole Christ lives of another, there is need of proof. That scripture, which without stammering doth speak it forth, is, John 6.57. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. Here Christ speaks no parable, but plainly shows us, that life is originally in the Father; and that he himself is sent by, and so subject to the Father; and that he lives (not by the Godhead as united in one person with the Man hood, but) by the Father: even as believers live by him, in that they do not immediately derive their life from the Father, but mediately through the Son. Therefore whole Christ is a Creature.  
The third Argument, which takes part with the foregoing, appears clothed with these expressions.  
Argum. 3 He that hath what he hath from another, is a Creature.  
But whole Christ hath what he hath from another.  
Therefore whole Christ is a creature.  
The Major is as clear as the Sun shining at noon day, the truth whereof men need not put on spectacles to see: wherefore I shall pass by it as needless to be spoken to, and hasten to the Minor, which doubtless some will deny, That what Christ hath, what he hath received from another the Scripture doth abundantly speak, and bear witness to. Christ confesseth that all things are delivered to him of the Father, Luke 10.22. The Father (saith John the Baptist) loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand, John 3.35. That this may be more evident, I shall instance in a few particulars, and therein confine myself to the Authority and sufficiency of Jesus Christ, which are the main, and things including in them all the rest.  
1. I shall begin with Christ's Authority, which though it be exceeding great and glorious; Christ being a God, a King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and having a name or authority above every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, yet it is derived from, and subjected to the power and authority of another. He is a Lord, but Peter tells us that he is a made Lord, Acts 2.36. Therefore let the house of Israel (saith he) Know assuredly, that God hath made that same jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. He was appointed and anointed by the Father both for the having and exercising of Sovereign Authority and power, Heb. 1.2. with the ninth of the same chap. both which places (as all confess) speak of Christ in the highest consideration. Paul, Ephes. 1.20, 21, 22. doth plainly informus, that the Father of Glory (whom he calls, v. 17. the God of our Lord jesus Christ) having raised up Christ from the dead, did set him at his own right hand in the Heavenly places far above all Principality and Power, and Might and Dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but in that which is to come, and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the Head over all things to the Church.  
That his Name, Power, or Authority, was by gift, doth with the greatest evidence shine forth from Matth. 28.18. and Phil. 2.9.  
2. Now let us come to the next thing, the Sufficiency of Jesus Christ, which though it be All-sufficient in reference to his Work and Offices, yet is not Originally his, but from another, as the Fountain thereof. I shall illustrate this in some few particulars.  
First, Christ's sufficiency to instruct in Doctrine was from another; All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in Jesus Christ, Col. 2.3. And his lips have abundantly, yea, sufficiently dropped the honey and the honey comb, I mean the doctrine of the Gospel.  
This Doctrine was not Originally his, he enjoyed it being conveyed from another to him, and did by the assistance of another, teach and publish the same. Christ himself affirms, that the Doctrine he taught was not his own, but his that sent him; that it was of God, and that he spoke not of himself, Joh. 7.16, 17.  
He received what he hath delivered unto us. Grace was poured into his lips, Psal. 45.2. He testifies what he hath seen, and heard, as in John 3.32. What he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth, and no man receiveth his testimony, said john the Baptist; This was spoken of Christ who came from Heaven, as is evident from the precedent verse; To this Christ bears witness in that saying of his to his Disciples, john 15.15. Henceforth I call you not servants, for the servant knoweth not what his Lord doth; But I have called you friends: for all things that I have heard of my Father, I have made known unto you. That which Christ by the Angel signified to john, God gave him Rev. 1.1. He also in the work was assisted by another. The Spirit of the Lord was upon him, because he had anointed him to preach the Gospel to the poor, etc. Luke 4.18.  
Secondly, His sufficiency to effect Miracles was from another.  
The testimony that Christ gives of himself, we may without scruple receive. The Son (saith he) can do nothing of himself, John 5.19. he was God's instrument in the Miracles wrought by him, Acts 2.22. Ye men of Israel (saith Peter) hear these words, jesus of Nazareth a man approved of God, among you, by Miracles, Wonders, and Signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know, etc. So that God the Father was the Principal Agent in all these Miracles, which Christ wrought or effected, which is farther confirmed by Christ's saying, john 14.10.  
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself, but the Father that dwelleth in me, He doth the Work. In that the power by which Christ did work was the power of God, as is manifest from Matth. 12.28. But if I, (saith Christ) in God's Spirit (so in the Original) cast out Devils, Then is the kingdom of God come unto you. By God's Spirit, we are not here to understand the Holy Ghost, but the Power of God, which was present with Christ for his assistance: as will manifestly appear by comparing with this Text, Luke 11.20. where the same speech is thus represented; But if I in (or by) Gods finger cast out Devils, doubtless the Kingdom of God is come unto you. The finger of God's power manifested in operation, as in Exod. 8.19. the like phrase in the like sense is used. And therefore Christ is said to do Miracles, (not because he was God but) because God was with him, Acts 10.38. He did his Miracles in his Father's name, John 10.25. When the Jews desired Christ to tell them plainly, whether he were the Christ: the text tells us, that Jesus answered thus; I told you, and ye believed not; The works that I do in my Father's Name, they bear witness of me: Whereby Christ owned the Father's Authority over him, and acknowledged that his power to work was from him: As the Apostles did in reference to Christ by doing miracles in his name, Ast. 3.6. The works Christ did, the Father gave him to finish, that they might bear witness (not that he was God, but) that the Father sent him, Jo. 5.36. But I have greater witness (saith Christ) then that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Rise of all was (not his merits, but) the Father's Love, John 5.20.  
Thirdly, His sufficiency to bestow the spirit was from another.  
The spirit is principally from the Father, wherefore Christ prayed to the Father for it, john 14.16. And the Father sent the Spirit in Christ's name, john 14.26. And Christ having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, shed it forth upon his Disciples, Acts 2.33.  
Fourthly and Lastly, (to name no more) Christ's sufficiency to quicken the dead, is from another, John 5.21. comp. with the 26 v. The Son quickeneth the dead, but it is given to him to have life in himself.  
Now why may not this Conclusion, [therefore whole Christ is a creature,] appear with boldness, being ushered in with so strong a guard as the precedent Argument is?  
The fourth Argument which drives on the same design, now puts forth its hands to the work.  
Argum. 4 He that acteth in obedience to another, is a creature.  
But whole Christ acteth in obedience to another.  
Christ is the Head of the Church, but God is the Head of Christ, 1 Cor. 11.3.  
The Father is the God, and Father of our Lord jesus Christ. Christ is called God's Servant, Esay 42.1. And is said to be sent of the Father, john 10.36. Now the Master is greater than the Servant, and he that sends, than he that is sent, john 13.16. He came in his Father's name, john 5.43. He came into the world to do the will of God, Heb. 10.7. Lo I come to do thy will, O God. He himself was not this God, but the Father was this God, whose will Christ came to do: For he came not to do his will, but the Fathers, john 6.38, 39 I came down from Heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me, and this is the Father's will, which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing, etc. The Authority and Directory of Jesus Christ was the Father's Commandment, john 12.49, 50. I have not (saith Christ) spoken of myself; but the Father which hath sent me, he gave me a Commandment what I should say, and what I should speak, and I know that his Command meant is life everlasting: Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said untome, so I speak:  
Therefore whole Christ is a creature.  
The Argument, which at this time is appointed to bring up the rear, witnesseth what hath been said by the former, to wit,  
That whole Christ is a creature.  
He that acteth with dependence on another, is a creature.  
But whole Christ acteth with dependence on another.  
Therefore whole Christ is a creature.  
No man is so Independent in respect of sense and reason as to deny the Major: Wherefore let us see, whether Scripture, (which in no part thereof is an enemy unto Reason) will vote for the Minor.  
Argum. 5 That whole Christ acteth with dependence on another, is made evident from his Petitions and Professions, of which the Scripture is not silent.  
1. Let us take a view of Christ's Petitions; Christ prays to another, and thereby shows his dependence on another. In the work of our Redemption we shall find Christ busy in the work of Prayer. See that Prophecy of Christ which you have in the 22 Psalms, and you will presently see the truth of the thing asserted. Reflect your eyes on the 11 verse, and there shall you hear Christ praying thus: Be not far from me, for trouble is near, for there is none to help, and so on to the 19 ver. where again he doth breath forth the requests of his heart. Be not far from me, o Lord, o my strength, hast thee to help me, etc. Add to this Prophecy the Author to the Hebrews testimony, concerning its fulfilling, Heb. 5.7. Who (that is, Christ) in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up Prayers and Supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared. So in his working of Miracles, we find him in the same work of Prayer, Mark 7.34. and that to the Father as is clear from john 11.41, 42.  
2. Now for Christ's Professions, Christ professeth that God is the object of his dependence, Psal. 16.1. Preserve me, O God, for in thee do I put my trust. And he professeth that the ground of his confidence was another's assistance, Psal. 16.8, 9 I have set the Lord always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth, my flesh also shall rest in hope, etc. Also in Esay 50.7. The Lord God will help me, therefore shall I not be confounded, therefore have I set my face as a flint; and I know that I shall not be ashamed, etc.  
The Minor being made clear, the Conclusion will not hid its face. Therefore whole Christ is a Creature. Thus I have done with the third Position, and so have brought my Answer relating to John the 8. & 58. unto a period:  
WHerefore I shall now scan the Scripture which meeteth us next, which is Rev. 1.8:  
Answ. From this Text you would infer: 
Rev. 1.8. Answ.  that Jesus Christ is the most High God: and that doubtless for this cause. Because Christ here speaking of himself, doth appropriate to himself terms equivalent to that of most high God: But Sir, how can you demonstrate that these are the words of Christ; and that they are here appropriated, and do relate to him? You peradventure will say, that the thing is evident, in that he is called the Lord, who here speaks, and to whom those Titles are applied. If this be your demonstration it is full of darkness, and helps nothing to resolve the scruple: For God or the Father distinct from Christ is called the Lord, Acts 3.19, 20. chap. 4.26. And frequently in this Book of the Revelation. To this Title you will (it may be) add the testimony of learned Interpreters, who take the words as spoken by Christ and of himself. 
Confirmatio salutis praecedentis à dei ipsius verbis: quae suam operationem in res creatas singulas, aeternitatem immutabilè in s●se, & in omnibus suam omnipotentiam asserit & illam trinitatem quae ante lict a est, divinibus concluditur essentiae suaeunitate. Bez. Non negamus quosdam etiam Orthodoxos Interpretes, Lyranum item & Riberam Jesuitam, haec Deo absolutè, seu Trinitati tribueri hoc loco. Par.  It is true, that some so conceive of the words, but not all; Beza conceives that these words are spoken of God absolutely taken. Pareus confesseth that certain Orthodox Interpreters do attribute the word to God as they consihim absolutely: And therefore if our faith be built upon the say of men, we shall not here know what to believe. Wherefore we must betake ourselves to Reason, whereby the spirit may convince us, of whom the Text in controversy is to be understood. That it is to be understood of the Father these Reasons may help forwards to satisfaction.  
1. Because this Text declares the principal Author of those things, which John the Divine was to communicate to the seven Asian Churches. For these words begin a new matter, and are no part of the salutation. They speak of God even the Father, who is of highest Authority, and from whom originally this Revelation was. Christ he is spoken of verse the 11. and is to be considered as the Principal Instrument in conveying this Revelation to the Churches: for God gave it to him, to show unto his servants those things, which were shortly to come to pass, verse 1.  
2. Because those Titles are not where in the Scripture attributed to Jesus Christ. He is indeed called Alpha and Omega, the first and last, verse 11. but not Alpha and Omega, as signifying the beginning and the end.  
3. Because the terms in the Text are elsewhere apparently and professedly given to God the Father, distinct from the Son. He is called Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, Rev. 21.5, 6. And he that sat upon the throne said, behold, I make all things New, And he said unto me Writ: for these words are true and faithful: And he said unto me, it is done, I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end, etc. The Angel useth the same phrase Rev. 22.13. And doubtless in the same manner. In the fourth verse of this first Chapter: the Father (as all men acknowledge) is said to be, He that is, he which was, and he which is to come.  
THe Scripture which follows, and is now to be considered of, is John 1.1. In the beginning was the Word, 
John 1.1.  and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  
Expositors on this Text usually bring forth Plato's invented terms, whereby they do not a little cloud the simplicity of the Word of Truth. The words may be thus read. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was a God. And they may have this sense, In the beginning (in the first part of time) was the Word, (jesus Christ according to the spirit of holiness did exist) And the Word was with the God (This Jesus Christ was a delight to the most high God, and did converse with him) and the Word was a God. (This jesus Christ had power committed to him, whereby he might represent the Most High God.)  
Now for your inference from the Text, that jesus Christ is the most high God.  
1. I answer that nothing is found in the Text, that doth assert jesus Christ to be the most high God? He is called GOD, 'tis true; but what of that? Will necessity bring in this Conclusion, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Just. Mart. p. 490.  that he is the most high God? Nothing less: For the name (as it hath been showed before) is common with God and Creatures. To what hath been said, I shall only add a saying of Justin Martyrs, Whatsoever Angels (saith he) have appeared in the place of God, or acted with men, they have obtained the name of God, as he which spoke with jacob and Moses: Yea, and men also are called Gods; but this appellation is granted to both, for some Office committed to them, etc.  
2. That something may be found in this Text to deny jesus Christ to be the most high God: he is here distinguished from God: for the Text saith, the Word was with God: and so he was distinct from God. That the Phrase notes out a distinction all men grant; I shall leave Reason to draw up the Conclusion; therefore Jesus Christ is not the most high God. God cannot be distinguished from himself, therefore he that is distinguished from God must be considered under another notion. But some do infer from this distinction that which they call personality, (which hath already been spoken to) taking God in the first place to signify the Person of the Father, who is wont (say they) to be called God in way of eminency; a strange saying in the mouths of those, who hold Co-equality amongst the Persons in the Trinity.  
And also Christ is here differenced from the most high God: in that he is called a God, but he with whom he was The God in way of eminency: the omission of the Article is not a little considerable. That which you add from the third verse of this Chapter, will find elsewhere a fit place to receive an Answer in.  
NOw I come to Matth. 28.20. 
Matth. 28.20.  Lo I am with you always to the end of the world.  
Answ. Sir, from the scope of your Paper it is easily seen what you would infer hence; but as yet the Reason of your inference lies in the dark: the meaning of this phrase, I am with you always unto the end of the World; is no more than this, I will do you good, whilst ye remain employed in my work. My Author in this Exposition is old Jacob, no bad Interpreter, Gen. 31.3. the Lord commanded Jacob to return into the Land of his Fathers, and to his kindred, and for his encouragement adds to the promise thus, I will be with thee: which Jacob in chap. 32.9. thus expounds, I will deal well with thee, or I will do thee good. Jesus Christ is present with his Messengers, or deals well with them, when he doth instruct, comfort, strengthen, or protect them: and all these works he doth in his absence by his spirit, whom the Father hath sent in his Name, Joh. 14.26. Let me only (for brevity sake) instance in the work of instruction. Christ instructed his Apostles, but not immediately; for the spirit which came in Christ's Name, and received of his, was the Instrument, by which Jesus Christ did the work, John 16.13, 14, 15. When he the spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself: but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak, and he will show you things things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you, all things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, 
Hic locus de modo praeseutiae spiritus quo se suaque nobis communicate: caeterum corpore abest. Beza in loc.  he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you. Christ is now in Heaven, sitting at the right hand of God, and is present with the Saints in Earth by the spirit, and glorious influences of grace and mercy, John 14.16, 17, 18. This kind of presence by the spirit Beza and others understand to be intended in Matth. 28.20.  
REv. 2.2. is now to be minded, 
Rev. 2.2.  whether it doth join with the foregoing Texts, in speaking any thing by way of Justification to your Assertion or not.  
Answ. Christ could not (say you) at so great a distance know all the works of the Churches as mere man.  
What could he not? Is any thing too hard for the Lord? What could the Prophet Elisha know at a very great distance, what the King of Syria said in his bedchamber? And yet cannot Christ know at a distance? He hath the spirit (to wit wisdom, power, etc.) given him without measure, John 3.34.  
And therefore can know beyond what we can conceive: And yet is not the most high God, for his knowledge is of another, John 5.30. I can of mine own self do nothing; as I hear, I judge; and my judgement is just, because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. Though he always knew all things necessary for the perfect discharge of his Offices; yet there was a time when he was excluded from the knowledge of the hour and day of judgement, Mark 13.32. The words from the Greek are these: But of that day and hour no one knoweth, neither the Angels which are in Heaven. Nor the Son, unless the Father. Hence it is plain, that the Father only knew the day and hour of Judgement, and that the Son himself was at that time excluded from the knowledge of it; therefore this knowledge was not originally of himself nor always perfect.  
COl. 1.15. 
Col. 1.15.  I find next in your Paper, but have already spoken to it; yet was willing here to mention it; lest you should think I had forgot it. Sir, this Text you say, holds forth the Eternal Generation of Jesus Christ. I pray consider it again, and by your next let me hear what part thereof it is in which Christ's Eternal Generation may be seen.  
THe next Scripture is Col. 1.16. 
Col. 1.16. with John 1.3.  To which I shall add John 1.3. being reserved for this place.  
Answ. Sir, here you harp upon two other strings, and think they sound that aloud in your ears which you have entertained in your thoughts, to wit, that Jesus Christ is the most high God. But pray Sir, consider whether your Conclusion be the Echo of those Texts, or else of your own thoughts only. But you seem to gather this Argument from the words to manifest the verity of your thoughts.  
He by whom all things were made is the most high God. But all things were made by Jesus Christ.  
Therefore jesus Christ is the most High God.  
I shall answer to your Major by distinguishing betwixt the Agent Principal and Instrumental. That there may be in one and the same work, one Principal and another Instrumental Agent none will deny. But whether there were in the work of Creation one Principal, and another Instrumental, is a thing to be proved. That the Father was Principal therein, and so the most high God, comes not under debate. But whether the Son was only Instrumental in that great work of Creation, is the Controversy, and must be the subject of our present inquiry. I affirm, that jesus Christ was only an Instrumental Agent in the Creation of the worlds.  
The Reasons by which, I shall at this time guard mine assertion from suspicion of error, are these that follow.  
The first is drawn from the silence of all creatures. The book of the Creatures, as well as the book of the Scriptures, 
Ex Creatioue agnoscitur Deus, sed non Deus pater, fill. & spir. si quoni in vis illa efficiens quia mundus fuit creatus, pertinet ad Essentiam Dei, non ad subsistentiam ejus personalem, Amesius.  speak forth with open mouth, this sacred truth that there is one first cause, and Principal Agent of all things. Of a Trinity of Persons in Unity of Essence, as Principal Agents in the work of Creation; the whole Creation is wholly silent: Wherefore our Divines acknowledge, that God is known from the Creation, but not God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because that efficient power, by which the world was created, belongs to the Essence of God, not to his personal subsistence.  
Yet by their leave, God is a Person, all actions being proper unto persons; and therefore by their grant, the works of Creation hold forth but one Agent, who must needs be the Principal (if not the only) Agent therein; for it is not imaginable, that if there were then one Principal Agent, they should not all be equally discovered by the work, being equally concerned in it: Therefore if Christ were an Agent, he was but an instrumental one.  
The Second Reason proceeds from the verdict of pure Reason. If Reason may obtain credit, she will tell us, that there could be in the work of Creation but one Principal Agent, because there is by nature and in way of eminency but one God: For if there were two Principal Agents, there must be two Gods in way of eminency, (the terms being convertible) which to affirm would be absurd, and easily disproved. And therefore if Jesus Christ were any, he was but an Instrumental Agent in that work of Creation.  
The Third Reason issues from the nature of Christ's being. That whole Christ is a creature, hath been already proved: yet let me add a word from Col. 1.15. which doth immediately precede the Text now in question. Christ is there called the image of the invisible God; and so is distinguished from God, because the image and the thing whereof it is an image are not the same; in that nothing can be the image of its self  
Now he is called the image of the invisible God, in that God through him did principally manifest and declare his Divine Glory, and in that the chiefest Dominion of the creature was by the Father committed to him; in this sense man is called the image and glory of God, 1 Cor. 11.7.  
He is also called the firstborn of every creature; whereby he is ranked among the creatures, yet so as that he is the Head of them.  
Now if whole Christ be a creature, then will it unavoidably follow, that he was but an Instrument in the work of Creation: for God and creatures are contradistinct, and he could not be, unless he were God, a Principal Agent.  
The fourth Reason doth spring from the manner of Christ's working.  
1. Though he had an hand in the Creation of the world, yet was it not originally of him, 1 Cor. 8.6. where the Apostle doth plainly show us, that all things are of God, even the Father, and that all things are by, not of Jesus Christ, and so the Son is distinguished from the Father in the work of Creation; the Father being the first cause, and original of all things, and Christ the instrument of the Father, by whom he did manifest his Divine Glory in producing creatures.  
2. 
Instrumentum & Minist. Ter.  In that in the work of Creation the Scripture tells us, that God acted by him, Ephes. 3.9. where 'tis said, That God created all things by Jesus Christ: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theoph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Origin.  So in Heb. 1.2. which openly hold forth Jesus Christ as God's instrument in creating the world.  
He is frequently called by the Fathers the Instrument and Servant of God.  
But you endeavour to strengthen your Proposition by a Reason (such as 'tis) drawn from impossibility; God could (say you) make use of no instrument in the work of Creation. But Sir, this assertion derogates from God's All-sufficiency. Is any thing impossible with God? Is any thing too hard for the Lord?  
2. It contradicts your own testimony. I remember that in a Conference (where I exercised both silence and patience, to the Glory of God,) since I received your paper, you did affirm in the hearing of not a few, that God might at first have made an Angel, or some other creature, and by it have made all things.  
How to reconcile one with the other is a thing unfeasible; and therefore you must confess, that you are not always infallible: yea, that sometimes you differ from yourself; and so 'tis no wonder, if you disagree with others. But what shall I take from your present judgement? Must your last words stand? If so, than you have weakened your cause; and I may save a labour in returning an answer to that, which follows in your paper: If the former, than you must recant what you last said, and I must not here make an end of my Reply to your Major. The truth is, I honour Reason so much, that I should rather prostrate myself to its shadow and appearance, then to the best man's testimony and assertion: wherefore I shall honour Reason so much as not to pass by without examination that which appears in your paper, with Reasons dress on it. Your Reason thus runs,  
Now because Creation is a making of all things out of nothing, and required an infinite power, God can make use of no Instrument: inasmuch as God cannot derive and give an infinite power to any creature, because no creature is capable of such a Divine Attribute, for it would make him God, to be Almighty, or to be infinite in power.  
Answ. I shall not answer to all in this Reason which seems not to be sound doctrine, but only so far as the matter in hand requires.  
1. Though it be true that God's infinite power was manifested in the work of Creation: yet was not the Infinity of his Power manifested fully in that, or any other work; for he hath more power than ever yet he had need to use, or then could in any work be fully declared.  
2. Your assertion plainly denies the man Christ Jesus to be God; Almighty, or Infinite in power; for you say that God could not give or derive an infinite power to any creature, and that a creature cannot be God, Almighty, etc. The man Christ Jesus was a creature, how then can that Person be God?  
3. The ground of your Argument is straw and stubble; For infinite power may be manifested by them, to whom 'tis not communicated, and so their proper power; As is evident in those that wrought miracles and raised the dead, in which infinite power was manifested, and yet the instruments thereof were not in power infinite. The like might be said of Gospel-Preachers, whom God makes his Instruments in men's conversion, as great a work as the world's Creation. The same might be said of Christ in his work of our Redemption.  
But enough of this.  
I shall now examine your Minor, which was, That all things were made by jesus Christ.  
This is true, Christ being excepted, of whose Creatural being I have already spoken.  
Obj. But you will say, that in john 1.3. it is said, That all things were made by him, and without him was nothing Made, that was Made.  
Sol. The words are to be restrained to all those things which by the use of an instrument were made and created. In the first verse of this Chapter, the creation of Jesus Christ is included, and in this third verse he is spoken of as the instrument of God in creating all things, and therefore is here to be excepted. As when John the Baptist speaking of Christ, (John 3.32.) said, What he hath seen and heard that he testifieth, and no man receiveth his testimony; it is evident that john was to be excepted. Persons are sometimes segregated from others of the same kind, in way of eminency, being chief amongst them. Thus in Psal. 18.1. where 'tis said, that David sang that song, when the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul. What, was Saul none of Davide enemies? he was the chiefest, and therefore segregated from the rest.  
Thus having taken off the Chariot wheels of your Argument, the Conclusion cannot advance up by its assistance.  
I Come now to Heb. 7.3. 
Heb. 7.3. Answ.   
I perceive you are willing to gather from this Text the Eternity of jesus Christ; (but on this tree grows no such fruit,) You say that Christ is here resembled, in reference to his Eternity, to Melchisedek, without beginning of days, or end of life. Pray Sir, was Melchisedek Eternal? If so, than he was God. But he was neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Ghost, whatever some have conceived, I hope you will not allow a quaternity of Persons in Unity of Essence. And therefore will allow that the words be taken in a figurative sense. 
Quod non narratur ponitur quasi non sit.  Melchisedek was without beginning of days or end of life, in that there is no mention made either of his birth or death, in the History of Moses: or especially in reference to his Priesthood, the time of its beginning and ending being not certainly known. So our High Priest Jesus Christ is without beginning of days, or end of life.  
YOur next Scripture is Prov. 8.22. 
Prov. 8.22.   
Answ. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old: I was set up from Everlasting, from the Beginning, or ever the Earth was.  
The meaning is this, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Sept.  The Lord who is Possessor of Heaven and Earth, obtained or created me when he began to work, before all his ancient works. And I was set up, or anointed to have the dominion of all things, and that from Everlasting, that is, from the Beginning, before the Earth was.  
The Septuagint have the words thus: The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works. 
Dominus acquisivit me principium viaesuae, ante opera ex tunc, A saeculo principatum babui à capite, ab initiis terrae. Mont.  He founded me in the Beginning before the Earth was made. Montanus thus: The Lord obtained me the beginning of his way, before his works from thence; I had dominion from Everlasting from the Beginning, from the beginning of the Earth.  
The thirtieth verse speaks of Christ as having a being before God's works of old; yet so as that it was created one.  
THE Scripture which follows next in your Paper, 
Zach. 13.7.  is, Zach. 13.7.  
Awake, O Sword, against my Shepherd, against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of Hosts.  
Answ. I suppose that you would infer hence the coequality of Jesus Christ with the Lord of Hosts, whose words those are. But doubtless when you drew up this Conclusion, you harkened to the sound, not the sense of our English word Fellow, which doth not always note equality, as from Psalm 45.7. and Heb. 1.9. you may be informed, where the Saints are called the Fellows of Christ; from which none acquainted with Reason or Scripture will conclude their coequality with him. Had you consulted with the Hebrew word used in the Text, you would have been a stranger to so strange an inference. For the words translated, My Fellow, might be rendered, My Citizen, my Neighbour, my Second, 
Hebraea vox proximum aut amicum sonat qui stat è regione alterius. Et praesto est à emnia amici officia comparatus quamobrem idem in sinu patris esse, & ad dexteram illius sedere dicitur intercedens pro nobis. Trem. in Locum.  my Lieutenant, my Vicar, my Friend; So the Septuagint [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the man, my Citizen, or Neighbour. Tremelius, thus: [Virum proximum meum] The man my Second, my Lieutenant, my Neighbour, my Vicar, or the like.  
Tremellius and junius in their Marginal Notes speak thus. The Hebrew word (say they) signifies one that is very near, or a friend, who stands over against another, and is ready at hand for all friendly offices; wherefore the same, to wit, Jesus Christ) is said to be in the bosom of the Father, and to sit at his right hand, interceding for us. And so the words acquaint us with these two things especially,  
1. That Christ is the Principal object of God's dearest affection. The man my fellow, quem maxime amo, saith Groti us, whom I most of all love.  
2. That Christ is God's Principal Servant in his highest tranfactions. One that is God's Representative, as the word in the Text holds forth, and the Scripture everywhere speaks. I might now collect from the words something to oppose the Doctrine you assert, they being spoken of a man, and in reference to the Lord of Hosts, who cannot possibly have an equal, unless it were possible to have two Gods;  
BUT I shall pass by that, and hasten to the Scripture next appearing, which is, john 3.13. 
John 3.13.  And no man hath ascended up to Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven, the Son of Man which is in Heaven.  
Answ: Sir, what your intent was in alleging this Text, I no whit doubt, but the reason of your inference thence is yet to me unknown. Thus the words may be understood; [No man hath ascended up into Heaven] that is, no man hath known those Divine things, the knowledge whereof is reserved for another life; or those Divine things which are known in this life, as they are in themselves, nakedly appearing without their earthly habits, and as expressed in a remote and Angelical Language. [But he that came down from Heaven, the Son of Man being in Heaven] that is, The Son being excepted, who was in Heaven, and descended thence, for some work which he had to do on Earth; or thus, he being excepted who came down from Heaven, to wit, the Son of Man, who is in Heaven, that is, in the bosom of the Father, knowing his Secrets, and Divine things as they are in themselves; notwithstanding he speaks only of those things, and in that way which men are now capable of.  
I shall countenance this Exposition with a few Reasons.  
1. Because this sense and meaning wherewithal I have clothed those words, is no way opposite to the analogy of faith. There is nothing (as I suppose) to be picked out of my words, which the Doctrine of the Gospel will pick a quarrel with. But this Exposition lessens the number of those Texts, that plead for Christ as most high God. But let not Scripture be forced; let every Text speak what it knows. To misapply is to pervert Scriptures.  
2. Because the sense, which I would that this text should own and allow, is elsewhere challenged by the like phrases to themselves as their due. Ascendere in coelum, to ascend into heaven, is to penetrate the secrets of heaven, as Grotius speaks on this place. In the like manner doth Musculus and Bucer understand the words.  
In the same sense is the like phrase to be taken, Prov. 30.4. and so Piscator expounds it. And thus, to be in heaven, is to enjoy the discoveries of God's hidden secrets. Thus Paul was in the third heavens, when he heard unspeakable words, which is not possible for a man to utter, 2 Cor. 12. In this sense Christ was in heaven, saith Grotius; Christus introspexit patris intima, saith he, Christ looked into the most secret things of the Father.  
3. Because this sense which I have joined to this text, makes the text appear as fitly joined with its context. In those two verses, which immediately precede this; Christ doth reprove Nicodemus for his unbelief; which he aggravates from the certainty of the thing spoken: Verily, verily, we speak what we know, etc. and then from his perspicuity in speaking; if I have told you earthly things (that is, either things that may, and are necessary to be known in the earth; or else the words have respect only to the manner of Christ's holding them forth) and ye believe not: how can ye believe, if I should tell you of heavenly things: In this thirteenth verse you have an exclusion of all men, (Christ excepted) from the knowledge of heavenly things which are reserved for another world, or which are known here, as they are in themselves.  
THe last Scripture which I find in your Paper, 
John 17.15.  is joh. 17.5. And now, o Father, glorify me with thine own self, with the glory I had with thee before the world was.  
Answ. This Verse is part of Christ's prayer, and will no way disrelish this meaning.  
O thou Father, who dost abound in kindness, and art the fountain of goodness, the time being come of finishing my course in earth, and returning to thyself; glorify me in heaven, (who have emptied myself, taking to me a natural and mortal body, and walking among men in form of a servant; and now being ready to humble myself to the death, even the death of the Cross in obedience to thee) with that glory which I had in heaven before the world was: being then with thee as Heir of all things, clothed with Majesty and Glory, answerable to that high station, wherein thy pleasure was to set me; and to that great dominion, wherewithal thou wast pleased to invest me.  
SIR, What you can fetch from this scripture, to confirm your doctrine of Christ's Deity, doth lie (as yet) under the shadow of darkness, and in the land of obscurity. That much might be gathered hence, by a good deduction, to make opposition against your assertion, is not a little perspicuous and apparent. A few things I shall present you with, as a taste of that which might be gathered hence, to disown that point and conclusion, which with so much heat and passion you endeavour to uphold and maintain amongst us.  
It appears from this Scripture, That whole Christ is a Creature.  
First, in that he directs his prayer to the Father. If our Lord Jesus were God equal with the Father, there had been no need, nor can cause be showed, why he should supplicate to the Father, a Person in the Trinity, and not act reliance on the Godhead, which dwelled in him bodily. These words spoke jesus and lift up his eyes to heaven, v. 1.  
Secondly, in that the Glory was not divine, which he had with the Father before the world was. Because this Glory, which he had in heaven with the Father before the world was, at this time of his praying was separated from him. This must be asserted, or I know not how Christ's prayer can be justified.  
We do not pray but praise for things we have, if we know, that we have them; but it cannot be imagined that Christ was ignorant of what he had. Now, if Christ were a person in the Trinity, coequal with the Father, and so enjoying by the same right the highest Glory, he could not, especially with the Father (or in heaven) be without it in any sense whatsoever, as by the clouding, darkening, or obscuring of it: Therefore the glory which he had with the Father was not the highest glory, but a glory proceeding from the Highest: and so by good consequence, He who at that time was the subject of it, was really and indeed a Creature.  
Thirdly, it appears that the Glory which he had with the Father was not Divine, or the highest Glory, because it was to be communicated. Glorify me, o Father, with that glory, etc. Now the Highest Glory being infinite, could not be given or communicated to the humane nature, which was finite, and so uncapable of it; (This is but your own assertion, in what you speak relating to the creation) but 'tis absurd to conceive, that the Divine glory, which is essential in God, could be communicated to the Divine Nature of Jesus Christ. And therefore this Glory was not the highest, and the subject of it was a Creature.  
Thus I shall take my leave of the Scriptures, which you allege (to confirm, that Jesus Christ is the most High God) leaving them for that they are intended for; being without controversy not useless, but exceeding useful.  
SIR, Unto your texts of Scripture you adjoin one Reason (if it please you so to call it) which I shall set down in your own words, thus.  
It may be said truly, that this Doctrine, which makes Christ a mere creature, brings in, as it were another Gospel, destroys the true Gospel in many of the parts of it, and brings in another Scripture in many main points.  
Come now let us reason together concerning this your Reason, which is formidable in appearance to your Antagonists; but whether it carries the Sword of truth in its hand, and strength of conviction let us now seriously consider. That we may with the more certainty, and facility determine, I shall be your leave draw your Reason into the form of an Argument, Thus:  
That Doctrine which brings in, as it were, another Gospel, destroys the true Gospel in many of the parts of it, etc. is erroneous and to be rejected.  
But that Doctrine which makes Christ a mere creature doth so. Therefore.  
SIR, I shall subscribe with both hands (if need be) to the Major, that it is true: And if the Minor be of the same blood, I shall conclude with you in the conclusion, and let him be Anathema that holds the contrary. But how will it appear, that that Doctrine which makes Christ a mere creature, doth bring in, as it were, another Gospel, destroys the true Gospel in many of the parts of it, & c? That it might be evident, you bring in twelve Instances, which, were they good and true (though fewer) might serve for a sufficient Jury to bring in a final verdict concerning the thing in debate: but of what moment your Instances are, let us now examine.  
Instance 1 If Christ be but a mere creature and not God, than the giving of Divine worship, and honour, and service to a mere creature is lawful and warrantable; which yet everywhere is forbidden in reference to any creature, but is practised unto Christ in Rev. 5.12, 13, 14. and would be Idolatry if Christ were not God.  
Answ. I shall put this Instance in form of an Argument, that the fallacy and insufficiency thereof may the better appear.  
That it is contrary to the Scripture to give Divine worship, honour and service to a mere Creature.  
But Divine worship, honour and service is by the warrant of the Scripture given to Christ jesus, Rev. 5.12, 13, 14.  
Therefoae Christ jesus is not a mere creature.  
To the Major I shall thus reply:  
1. I conceive that your expressions (having in them some ambiguity) need explanation. If by Divine worship, honour and service, you mean that worship, honour and service, which is in any sense Divine, I utterly deny your Proposition as erroneous and unsound: For there is no worship, honour and service, which of right belongs to the creature, but is in a sense Divine, God being the principal Author, and ultimate Centre thereof, Rom. 13. Eph. 5.7.  
But if you mean in the strictest sense, that worship, honour, and service which is peculiar unto the most High God, then shall I say with you, that it is Idolatry, and contrary to the Scripture to give it to any creature whatsoever. That worship, honour and service which is peculiar unto God, differs from that which may be yielded to the Creature, partly in the matter, but wholly in the manner of it. We must pray to God for all things we want, and may pray to men for what they can give; we must obey God, and we must obey men, who are set over us by God; but we may not worship, honour, or serve men in the like manner as we do the most High God, who is the Principal and Ultimate Object of all worship, honour and service; his right thereto being only of himself, and he himself being the sole end thereof. According to this sense is that command which our Saviour mentions (Mat. 4. ●0.) to be understood: Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.  
2. I wonder at this adjection MERE, which you have added to creature; as if a creature in essence could be more than a mere creature; or as if some creature might have as its right and due, that honour, worship and service which the Scripture doth appropriate to the most High God.  
Sure I am, that creatures as creatures are excluded from sharing with GOD in that worship and service which is peculiar to him.  
Now for your Minor, That Divine worship, honour, and service is by Scripture-warrant given to Christ jesus.  
Answ. Sir, it is granted that Jesus Christ is the intermediate object of Divine worship, honour and service, being God's Viceroy, and acting amongst men in his Father's name, which the Scripture you bring helps to confirm. But where the Scripture allows worship, honour and service to be given to him, as the Principal and ultimate Object thereof, is not yet made to appear; and therefore the Conclusion may not have liberty to pass as an unquestiovable truth.  
Instance 2 If Christ be a mere creature, than it is lawful and warrantable to believe in a mere Creature, which is against the tenure of the whole Scripture. But it is commanded in reference unto Christ, Joh. 14.1. and salvation is annexed to it, Jo. 3.36.  
Instance 3 If Christ be a mere creature, than faith in a mere creature can save man, which is absurd and gross, and contrary to the Scriptures: for Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for Righteousness, Rom. 4.3. and so was saving.  
Answ. SIR, these two instances, the one being in respect of the other flesh of its flesh, and bone of its bone, I have joined together, and shall oppose unto these, two Propositions which the Scripture will warrant, and may suffice for an Answer.  
1. That that Faith which is needful and necessary to salvation hath a double object, God, and the man Christ Jesus, Joh. 14.1. the Scripture which you quote bears witness to this as a truth.  
We are to believe on him that sent Jesus Christ, Joh. 5.24. Verily, verily, I say unto you, (saith Christ) he that heareth my Word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death to life; And also on Jesus Christ that was sent, John 6.29. As the Serpent was lifted up in the wilderness; so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life, John 3.14, 15. That faith which hath but a single object is not a saving faith. It is impossible that men should by a Gospel-light believe in God, and not in Christ, or in Christ and not in God: Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me, John 12.44. For by the Gospel God appears merciful in the face of Christ, & Christ appears instrumental in the hand of God, Rom. 4.24. Rom. 10.9. Though in some places but one is expressed: yet there the other is clearly employed.  
2. That that Faith which is needful and necessary to salvation acts in a divers manner on God, and the Lord Christ Jesus.  
It acts towards God as the Principal and ultimate, and towards jesus Christ, as the Secondary and mediate Object of Faith. Peter shows that the Saints to whom he wrote did believe in God through jesus Christ; and so that God was the Ultimate, and Christ the Mediate object of their faith, 1 Pet. 1.21. 'Tis from God's Commandment that faith in Christ is needful, 1 john 3.23. And 'tis from God's appointment that faith in Christ is saving, Joh. 6.4. This is the will of him that sent me (saith Christ) that every one which seethe the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life.  
Instance 4 If Christ be but a mere creature, than a mere creature is the Saviour of men, saving them with a mighty and eternal salvation as the Scripture speaks, but this is against the whole current of the Gospel which speaks of God our Saviour, Tit. 2.10, 13. and in many other places.  
Answ. Against this your instance I shall level this Assertion, which will be sufficient to discover its weakness, and confute it; That to affirm Jesus Christ to be the Saviour of men without God, or equal with God, is contrary to the current of the whole Scripture; which doth distinguish God from Christ in the work of Salvation, calling him a Saviour, as distinct from Christ, as in the 1 Tim. 1.1. where God is said to be our Saviour, and the Lord Jesus Christ to be our hope; and in the Text you allege, and frequently elsewhere.  
And in that the Scripture doth prefer God in the work of Salvation before our Lord Jesus Christ, making God to be the principal Agent therein, when it declares that the work of Christ in saving men was from the purpose of God, who appointed him for it, and from the Precept of God, who enjoined him to it, and from the Presence of God, who assisted him in it, all which from the Scriptures might be abundantly set forth unto us: and also revealing the Lord Christ Jesus to be in the work of Salvation an instrumental Saviour. For this see only Tit. 3. v. 4, 5, 6. which puts it past all question. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour towards man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washof Regeneration, and renewing of the holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour.  
Instance 5 If Christ be but a mere Creature, than a mere Creature is Mediator betwixt God and Men, which cannot be, because a mere creature is no way meet to be a Daysman for God and because a Mediator must either partake of both God and Man, or of neither, else he will rather be a Party then a Mediator, if he partakes of man's nature, and not of Gods if he be man and not God, Therefore this Mediator betwixt God and man is called Emmanuel, that is God with us, or God manifested in the flesh, 1 Tim. 3.16. or God made flesh, John. 1.14.  
Answ. This your fifth Instance doubtless is intended for the same purpose as the former. But if it bring not with it more evidence of truth than they afforded, the Doctrine which denies Christ to be the most high God, may yet be accounted free from those high and capital Crimes, of bringing in as it were another Gospel, and the like, wherewithal it is accused.  
That we may the better understand what it speaks, I shall reduce it into the form of an Argument: and that we may more clearly discern what truth it speaks, I shall spend some time to examine it. If we consider the words of this Instance with the scope of it, we shall perceive, as a natural offspring, this argument to issue from it;  
Instance 5 That Doctrine, Which makes the mediator betwixt God and man to be a mere creature, brings in as it were another Gospel, destroys the true Gospel in many of the parts of it, etc. in that it is against Reason, that the mediator should be a creature; Because a mere creature is no way meet to be a Days-man for God; and because a mediator must either partake of both God and man, or of neither, else he Will be rather a party then a mediator, etc. and in that it opposeth these Scriptures, Mat. 1.23. 1 Tim. 3.16. Io. 1.14. But, that Doctrine which denies Jesus Christ to be the most high God, makes the mediator betwixt God and man to be a mere creature. Therefore.  
Answ. Although (Sir) your major deserves not esteem, notwithstanding that attendance of Reason and Scripture you have allotted to it; your Reasons being strangers to Reason, and your Scriptures not bearing the Livery of your Doctrine: yet you merit a Reply, for that appearance of Reason and Scripture, which you have drawn after your majors heels.  
The first Reason you bring to justify your Accusation of that Doctrine, which makes the mediator betwixt God and man to be a mere creature, as destructive to the Gospel in (at least) some main part of it is this,  Because a mere creature is no way meet to be a daysman for God 
Sir, this Reason wants a Reason to support it; for 'tis not in itself so evident to Reason, as that none may suspect it; neither is your word a sufficient Reason for any to believe it.  
What should hinder but that a mere Creature (to use your own terms) may be a Daysman or mediator betwixt God and man? Is there any work which belongs to his Office, which is impossible for a Creature to perform, notwithstanding Divine Assistance with him? I dare assert the contrary, and am able to prove in whatsoever work you can in sance, belonging to Christ's Mediatorship, that of himself he was not able to perform it, unless by the assistance of another, which he enjoyed, and so is a complete mediator.  
Your second Reason which joins hand with the former, and speaks to as little purpose, is this, Because a mediator must either partake of both God and man, or of neither; else he Will rather be a party then a mediator.  
Sir, that there is a necessity, that Christ the mediator must be God and man, or else he will be rather a party then a mediator, you say, but why, is yet to be learned. Was not Moses a mediator betwixt God (or the Angels) and men? But was Moses God and man, or Angel and man? Moses was a mere man, as all will confess; but that he was a mediator betwixt God and men, or Angels and men the Scripture declares. Gal. 3.19. When you brought in this Reason, you did you knew not what, for it gives witness against you. By the assistance thereof I shall expect an Argument, by which the supposed Deity of the Mediator will be denied; and shall leave you to show where its weakness lies.  
If Christ the mediator Were God, he was a Party; but Christ the mediator was not a Party; Therefore Christ the mediator was not God.  
The major is clear. Let me only in the work of Reconciliation give an instance. In Reconciliation by a mediator we are to suppose three, one offended, another offending, and a third mediating for peace betwixt them: God was offended, men were offenders, and Christ was the mediator. Now if Christ had been a sinful man, he had been of the party offending and if he had been God he was the party offended. But Christ, was not a party say you, and therefore I need not prove the minor; but from the Proposition which I have confirmed, and the Assumption, which you have acknowledged, draw up the Conclusion, that Christ the mediator is not God.  
Now I shall consider the Scriptures you bring, and hear what testimony they afford to the thing you assert, that Christ the mediator is the most high God. Your first Scripture is Matth. 1.23. where Christ's name is called Emmanuel, the signification whereof is God with us. Whence you would collect that there are two natures in Christ the mediator.  
This is I confess a common inference, but that it is natural from it I cannot yet understand. Emmanuel was not the name of Christ, but a signification of his name Jesus, which is evident if you compare the 21, 22, & 23. verses of this chap. together; now the name Jesus signifies not the nature, but the office of Christ, as the Angel expounds it, verse 21. Thou shalt call his Name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins. And so Emmanuel notes out that certain aid that God would afford by Jesus Christ to the Church.  
THe next Scripture is 1 Tim. 3.16. Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifested in the flesh, etc. Ancient interpreters (saith a learned man) as the Latin, the Syriack, the Arabic, Ambrose and Augustine, 
1 Tim. 3.16.  make this Reading to be suspected, for they read not as we do, for thus they read the words, And Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness which (mystery) was manifested in the flesh, etc.  
And Hincmarus addeth that this word God was put in the Text by the Nestorians. But if we allow our Reading, this Text will make nothing for your purpose; for it is not denied, but that Christ was a God, and the Text saith but this, a God was manifest in flesh, that is appeared visibly amongst men, when he took unto him a body.  
YOur third and last Scripture is, John 1.14. where 'tis said That the Word Was made flesh; the meaning is this, That Creature which was immediately made by God, took unto it a body; I find no place where the flesh of Christ signifies any thing more than his body, according to which he died, 
1 John 14.  and is nowhere taken for the Humane Nature.  
Let me now oppose your Proposition by two or three Reasons, which I shall leave you to pause upon. Christ the Mediator is a mere Creature;  
1. Because whole Christ is a creature: For this see before. Now if whole Christ be a creature, then either a mere creature is the Mediator, or Christ is not a Mediator.  
2. Because a Mediator is not of one, Gal. 3.20. now if Christ be God, than he is a Mediator of one: for he cannot be a Mediator to himself, and there is but one God.  
3. Because Christ is a Mediator betwixt God and Men, 1 Tim. 2.5. Now if he were God, he could not be a Mediator betwixt God and Men, for he could not be a Mediator to himself. And Paul in that of Timothy calls the Mediator betwixt God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus. Thus having taken away the Major, though the Minor were granted: yet would not your Conclusion stand, having but one leg to rest upon.  
I am now come to your sixth Instance: which is this,  
Instance 6 If Christ be but a mere creature, than the Righteousness of Christ, which is imputed to Believers, is not the Righteousness of God, but the righteousness of a mere creature; but this is against the tenure of the Scriptures, in Phil. 3.9.  
Answ. Sir, I suppose from some terms in this your Instance, and from the Text you allege, that by Righteousness you mean that righteousness Whereby Believers stand in the sight of God free and clear from all sin, in reference to the curse of the Law. This is the Righteousness of God, by the Faith of Jesus Christ, (that is, that in Jesus Christ which is to be the object of our faith) unto all and upon all that believe, Rom. 3.22. God is the Principal Author of this Righteousness, and Christ is an Instrumental Agent therein. Now that in Christ which is imputed to us for righteousness, is his obedience; which was both active and passive. The opinion  is, that the active obedience of Christ, whereby he did perfectly fulfil the Law, and his passive obedience, whereby he did perfectly suffer the curse of the Law, are imputed to us for righteousness. Now he could not obey the Law as he was God, nor could the suffer the curse of the Law, but as he was Man; and so that righteousness of Christ, which was imputed unto us, was a creatures righteousness.  
Now I shall hasten to your seventh Instance, which here follows.  
Instance 7 If Christ Were a mere creature, then to pardon sin belongs not to him, because the Scripture testifies, that none can forgive sins but God, because all sin is against God; therefore none can for give it but God: but it is evident, that Christ took the Authority of forgiving sin: Son (saith Christ) thy sins are forgiven thee, Luke 7.48.  
Answ. Because many think that some weight lies in these words, I shall be a little the more large in my Answer to it; I shall without marring it, make this Argument of it.  
None can forgive sin but God.  
But Christ did forgive sin, Luke 7.48.  
Therefore Christ is God.  
I shall reply to your Major, that none can forgive sin but God.  
1. By objecting against the witness you bring for it; for your proof alludes to that which we have in Mark 2.7. Who can for give sins but God only? This though it be in the Scripture, yet is it no part of the Standard; for the dark Scribes who were enemies to Christ, did speak it.  
2. By objecting against the Doctrine you teach in it. That none can for give sin in any sense, but God only, may pass for an error: for it is the duty of all men, to for give others those sins they commit against them, Matth. 6.14. And it is the privilege of some men to forgive all sins, in reference to the curse of the Law, John 20.23. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and Whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. That none can forgive sins as God doth, shall have my leave to pass for a truth. God in forgiving of sin is Principal, doing it by his own Authority, not receiving power from another.  
Now for your Minor, That Christ did for give sin. 'Tis true, that Christ did forgive sin; and that he the Son of Man had on Earth power to do it, as he himself speaks, Mar. 2.10. But what will this help to bring in the Conclusion, that Christ is God? Doubtless no, because mere creatures (as above) have in some sense power to forgive sin. If it can be proved, that Christ is Principal in forgiving, something may done. But that cannot be, because the Scripture cannot oppose itself. The Scripture tells us, that we are justified by the Man Christ jesus, Acts 13.38, 39 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins. And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses. And it also shows us that Christ is not the Principal forgiver of sins; in that he prayed to another (on the Jews behalf) for the forgiveness of sin, Luke 23.34. Then said Jesus, Father forgive them, for they know not What they do. And in that he received from another his power of forgiving sins, Acts 5.30, 31. The God of our Fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance unto Israel, and forgiveness of sins.  
Thus I have blocked up the way, that your Conclusion cannot pass, but opened a way for myself, to pass from your seventh Instance to that which follows.  
Instance 8 If Christ be a mere creature, than the value of that offering, which Christ offered, when he offered himself to God, is taken away, and the satisfaction which Christ gave to Divine Justice is destroyed: for if the person that died were a mere man, and the blood that was shed were the blood of a mere man, and not of God, as it is called, Acts 20.28. then how could it satisfy for the sins of many transgressors; for there is no proportion betwixt one mere man dying for sin, and many men sinning and deserving death, each of them for the sins they have committed. And how an Infinite Justice offended should be satisfied with the sacrifice finite in value, is unconceivable and against the tenure of the Scripture.  
Answ. Considering the words of this Instance with its scope, we may draw up this Argument.  
That Doctrine which takes away the value of Christ's offering, and destroys the satisfaction which he gave to Divine justice brings in as it were another Gospel, etc.  
But that Doctrine which makes Christ a mere creature doth so. Therefore.  
I shall grant the Major; but how prove you the Minor? You would confirm your Doctrine by ask two Queries:  
1. If Christ was (say you) a mere creature, than who could he satisfy for the sins of many transgressors, & c?  
Sir, if it please you to consider Rom. 5.12. and so forward, you may answer your own Query, or see as good Reason of this, which I shall now propound.  
If Adam were a mere creature, how could his sin make many transgressors? If through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God and the gift by grace, by one man, jesus Christ hath abounded unto many, Rom. 5.15. Christ (as well as Adam) was a common person, and therefore the Lord having laid upon him the iniquities of us all, and he bearing the curse of the Law, his Members are delivered from both the sin and the curse.  
Your Second Query is this, How is it conceivable that an Infinite justice offended should be satisfied by a Sacrifice finite in value?  
What matters it (Sir,) if it be unconceivable? must it therefore be uncredible? Doubtless in all Controversall doctrines, you will not hold this for an Orthodoxal tenant. In the Doctrine of the Trinity credit must be given to things unconceivable; but the like liberty (it seems) will not be allowed in Christ's Mediatorship. Eut Sir, the foundation you build upon is not a little questionable: you take that for granted, and so infer from it, which you are to confirm. Sure I am, that not a few errors may lie under your Non-Scripturall-Language. Ye tell us of an Infinite Sacrifice, but what you mean by it, and where Scripture tells us, I am yet for to learn. The Scripture tells us, that Christ was made sin, or a sin offering for us, by taking our sins and bearing the curse: But how this Sacrifice was infinite, remains to me unconceivable. If the suffering of Christ had been Infinite, there had been no end of it: If the curse had been Infinite, man could not have born it, being uncapable of any thing Infinite in the Infinity of it. It is enough for me, to believe that my Lord Jesus suffered for me, whatever I deserved to suffer; and that was the curse of the Law, be that what it will.  
There is a Scripture which I find in your Instance, and that is Acts 20.28. and I knew no fitteer place than the close of my Answer for it.  
Sir, I shall offer these few things to your consideration:  
1. That there may be some mistake in the Text. God may be put for Lord or Christ, which if granted, the words are thus to be read: Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of Christ, which he hath purchased with his own blood. The Churches of the Saints are called the Churches of Christ, Rom. 16.16. This conceit of a mistake may receive countenance from the possibility, probability and facility thereof. It is possible that the Scribe through carelessness, or something worse, might here put God for Christ. There are two places, one in the Old Testament, another in the New, which Willet conceiveth to have been mistaken by the Scribes negligence, or something worse.  
The first is Psal. 22.16. where Caari, signifying as a Lion, is put for Caru, they pierced. The other is Rom. 12.11. we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 time for Lord, Also it is probable, that here is a mistake, for as Grotius observes, many Copies have Lord, and the Syriack Christ, not God. last, it was easy to mistake taking one for the other, from that compendious writing which was anciently much in use: where for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they wrote only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
2. But in the next place, if it be proved that there is no mistake in the Text, yet there may be a defect in the words. For the last clause some Greek copies thus have it; which he hath purchased with the blood of his own, and so the word Son is to be understood with the blood of his own Son.  
3. Last of all, if both these may be removed, yet the words may have another meaning then what you and many others allot to them. Christ's blood may be said to be Gods own blood, in way of eminency, it being more excellent by fare then the blood of the Legal Sacrifices. In the old Testament tall trees are called Cedars of God; the like Phrases are frequently there to be found. And the New Testament is not wholly a stranger to the like Phrases. In this sense Christ is called the Lamb of God, Joh. 1.36. because he was far more excellent than either the Paschall Lamb, or any other Lamb, which was to be slain in way of Sacrifice, under the levitical Priesthood. The Divine Author to the Hebrews speaking both of the blood of legal sacrifices, and of Christ Jesus, prefers the blood of Christ far before all other blood that was shed for the expiation of sin Heb. 9.13.14.  
Now I hasten to your ninth substance, which is this.  
Instance 1 If Christ be a mere creature, than the intercession of Christ is overthrown, for Christ if mere man being in heaven, cannot know the state of the Church in all places upon earth, therefore cannot intercede for it.  
Answ. Sir, the reducing of this your Instance into an Argument will be sufficient to discover its vanity and weakness.  
Thus it may be form without the least injury to your meaning, if your mind agree with the import of your words.  
That Doctrine which utterly overthrows the Intercession of Christ, brings in as it were another Gospel, etc.  
But the Doctrine which makes Christ to be a mere creature, utterly overthrows the intercesson of Christ. Therefore.  
Sir, to your major I yield the fullest concession, being so much a friend to Christ's Incercession.  
Your minor brings in an high accusation, but pray Sir, how is it attended with probation? you only say, that if Christ were a mere creature, being in heaven, he could not know the state of the Churches in all places upon earth, and therefore if he were but a mere creature he could not intercede.  
What must we again take your word for a proffer? I wish a better, for there is no goodness in that. We have already been too long troubled with the word, I say in stead of proof. What have you learned to measure the knowledge of him, who hath received the spirit without measure? cannot he as man know in heaven what things are done in earth?  
Who told you so?  
None but the man Christ Jesus can intercede, it being absurd to conceive, that God can interede, unless it might be conceived that God hath a Superior. Now if the man Christ Jesus doth intercede for his Church he knows her state, and why he may not know the state of the Church by a communication of power from the Father, notwithstanding he be not God and man in one Person, is a riddle for the unfolding whereof I would willingly blow with your heifer. Thus I take leave of your ninth Instance, that I may visit the tenth, which because it is of the same value, and in that part which I would deny it, already answerded in my reply to Matth. 28.20. whither I refer you. I shall pass it by, and be take myself to examine the eleventh which now follows.  

●●●●nce 11.  If Christ be a mere creature than a mere creature is the Judge of the World, which is against the Scritpure, for the Judge of the World is God, before whom Abraham stood in Gen. 18.25. When he pleaded for Sodom, Rom. 2.5, 6. though day of judgement is called the day of Revelation of the righteous Judgement of God, who will render to every man according to his words.  
Answ. Sir, this Argument will speak out the mid of this Instance.  
That Doctrine which makes a mere creature the judge of the world, is against the Scripture, Gen. 18.15. Rom. 2.5, 6. But Christ is the judge of the world. Therefore that doctrine which makes Christ a mere creature, is against the Scripture.  
To your Major take these Answers: 1. That in a sense it is false; for Christ shall judge the world. But you will say he is not a mere creature. But what say you to the Apostles? were not they mere creatures: but what will you say, if I shall show from the word, that they shall be judges at the last day: see Mat. 19.28. and you shall hear Christ telling Peter, that they of the Apostles, Who had followed him in the regeneration, should sit upon 12 Thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel. And are not all the Saints mere creatures? Doubtless at that instant, when you framed this Instance, you had not in your mind what Paul speaks in 1 Cor. 6.2, 3. Do ye not know, saith he, that the Saints shall judge world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters; Know ye not that we shall judge Angels? 2. That in a sense it is true, no creature can be as God is, the judge of the world; for God is Principal in the judgement, being both the Alpha & Omega of it, deriving his power from none, being the original of all power.  
Thus you may see, that your Proposition is, and is not true. I pray for the future make distinctions, where need requires.  
Now for your Minor, that Christ is the judge of the world.  
Sure you take this for a granted truth, that no proof is brought to confirm it. I shall grant it. What then?  
Will your design of drawing up the Conclusion prosper? nothing less: For it hath been brought to light, that mere creatures shall be Judges of the world. Wherefore if you cannot from evident scriptures demonstrate this, That Jesus Christ is Principal in judging the world; deriving from none his power of judgement, you will do nothing to purpose.  
But Sir, that I may preserve you from such an endless labour, I shall ay down these Propositions, which also will spoil your present Market.  
Propos. 1. That the most High God, who is the world's Principal judge, will not immediately, but by a Delegat judge the world. In Acts 17.31. the Apostle tells us, That God hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. In john 5.22. Christ thus speaks, The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgement to the Son: Christ must reign till all enemies are put under his feet; and when all things shall be subdued to him, then shall the Son also himself be subject to the Father, that God may be all in all, 1 Cor. 15.28.  
That Jesus Christ is a subordinate Judge in reference unto God the supreme Judge; but superintendent in reference to the Saints his assessors in judgement.  
That Christ is not the supreme Judge, is evident from these Scriptures. In Acts 10. Peter shows, that the Apostles were commanded of God to preach unto the people, and to testify That jesus Christ is ordained of God to be judge of quick and dead. Christ when he comes shall be sent, Acts 3.20. and shall come in the glory of the Father, as Viceroy and Lord Deputy, Mat. 16.27. The Father hath given him authority to execute Judgement, Io. 5.27. And all that honour which shall be given to him, shall be for the Father's glory, Phil. 2.11.  
I am now to deal with your last Jnstance, which is like to deal as unkindly with you as the former.  
If Christ be a mere creature, Instance 12 then Prayer to him being now in Heaven, is altogether vain and frivolous, inasmuch as persons may cry loud long enough, before Christ hear them at that distance, but the Saints have been wont not only to pray to God in Christ's Name, but to pray to Christ directly and immediately, in Acts 7.59. Rev. 22.20. Lord jesus receive my spirit. Come Lord Jesus.  
Answ. By the rule of the Gospel we are to pray to God, or the Father in the Name of Christ Jesus. You have nothing to countenance Prayer to Christ, but the two Texts you mention. If Stephen did pray directly to Jesus Christ, his act might be warranted by the visible appearance of Chrise; As Let prayed to the Angel, being visible, That in the Revelation is no Prayer, but an intimation of the Churches desire after Christ's coming. The like manner of speaking we have Rev. 6.16. which is no Prayer. I cannot but look upon that as vain and frivolous; which you set as the Walls and Bulwarks of your Argument.  
If Christ were but a mere creature, being in heaven, we might cry loud and long enough before he could hear us.  
I would only ask you this question, whether Christ could not hear as far as Stephen could see. Stephen could see from Earth to Heaven, though he was but a man. What will hinder the Man Christ from hearing as far?  
Thus I have with much brevity (though a considerable Volume might have been written) concluded my answer to your Instances, which are twelve in number after your own reckoning, though they might have been fewer by many, being branches one of another. I have studied to forget your person, and endeavoured only to discover the weakness of your arguing. Whether I have done any thing to purpose, I leave you to be judge, when with sobriety and impartiality you are capable to examine. And so in the midst of my many other occasions, I have brought my whole Answer to a full period; and have time to say no more but this, that my desires are, that the God of light and strength would be pleased to enlighten your eyes, that you may rightly discern all things; and so order your spirit, that by modestliness you may breathe forth truth in replying to him who is,  
Sir, yours whilst you are for the truth.  
FINIS.