THe next Scripture that I produced for the confirmation of the Diety of Jesus Christ , ( after Joh. 8. 58. ) was Rev. 1. 8. I am Alpha and Omega , the beginning and the ending , saith the Lord , which is , and which was , and which is to come , the Almighty .

But he encounters with this Text , and would evade the force of it , in these words : How can you demonstrate ( saith he ) that these are the words of Christ , and do relate to him ?

Repl. 1. I do demonstrate it from that agreement which these words in the 8. verse have with the words of the 11. and of the 17. verses , which words of both places do refer to Christ , by his own confession , and without the contradiction of any , as the 13. and 17. verses do evidence to the Reader , in which it appears to be Christ that assumed the Titles of Alpha and Omega to himself .

2. I do collect it , because Christ is one of the speakers which we usually meet with in this Prophecy , but the Father is rarely or never found to be a speaker through this whole Book .

3. Because the things that are in this Book represented , are given by the Father unto Christ , but are shewed and signified by Christ unto his servants ; now this is one thing that Christ shewed , which respected himself what he was , I am ( saith he ) Alpha and Omega .

4. Because there are no more speakers in this Chapter , but Christ and John , who can be made evidently to appear ; therefore all that is spoken in it , must be referred to one of the two ; but the 8. verse cannot be referred to John , therefore to Christ .

5. Because it concludes the prooeme , and gives a period to the Preface , ( as Pareus shews upon the place , ) John had represented him comming in the clouds , in the 7. verse , and then in the words of the 8. verse , sets him before men , ( for the consolation of the righteous , and terrour of the wicked ) as present , calling to them , I am Alpha and Omega , &c. who will make doubt of my coming ? who can intercept it ? I am Alpha and Omega , &c. But he imagines other Arguments will be made use of , to prove this place to refer to Christ , and disputes against them , his words are these :

You will peradventure say , that the thing is evident , in that he is called Lord , or you will bring the Testimony of learned Authors , who have interpreted the words as spoken by Christ : And he confutes both these reasons , and saith , God , or the Father , distinct from Christ , is called Lord , Act. 3. 19. 20. &c. And Beza ( saith he ) conceived that these words are spoken of God , absolutely taken . And Pareus confesseth certain Orthodox Interpreters do attribute the words to God absolutely considered .

Repl. The Title Lord , because it is rarely attributed to the Father in the New Testament , and when it is attributed to him , it is done with such clearness , that it is easily discerned , and because it is first commonly attributed to Christ , therefore it may be a ground of a probable Argument , that Christ is meant by it ; but a necessary Argument cannot be deducted from it ; therefore I wave it ; and it had been wisdom if he had done so also , till he had discerned that I had made use of it as an Argument . As for learned Interpreters , though I honour them much , yet it hath not been my custom to bottom the sense that I put upon Scriptures upon them ; but to prove it from the Scripture , either the Text it self or context , or some other parallel place ; therefore he might have spared his labour in citing Authors , unless I had provoked him thereto .

But if he will produce Authors , why will he offer wrong to the Authors whom he produceth ? and make them speak that which they speak not ? that hath been the way to uphold a rotten tenent , and he treads in that way . I cannot find the words he cites in Beza , and he mentions not the place ; and if he can shew them in Beza , I can shew that Beza contradicts himself . If Beza have so expressed himself , probably he would do it when he came to give the sense of the place , but there his words are these : Christus hic loquitur ut aeternus Deus , acsi diceret , ego is sum ante quem nihil est , immo per quem factum est quicquid factum est , quicque ut omnia intereant , superstes illis omnibus maneam , &c. That is , Christ here speaks as the eternal God , as if he should say , I am he before whom there is nothing , yea and by whom every thing is made that is made , and am one who do abide , and am surviving when all other things perish . As for Pareus , I confess he cites his words aright , and yet abuseth him egregiously ; for though he grants that some Orthodox Writers do apply these words to God , absolutely considered , yet he doth not grant that they are Orthodox in their Interpretation of that Text , but disputes against them , and renders reasons why the words must be applyed to Christ . And in the very place from whence he fetcheth those words of Pareus , which he mentions in his Margin , these words immediately follow , causas tamen evidentes sententiae huic obstare , prius ostendi , that is , though some Orthodox Interpreters do apply these words to God absolutely taken , or to the Trinity , yet I have before shewed manifest reasons which do cross this Opinion of theirs . Now he mentions the former words of this Author , and silenceth these latter words , and so deals unkindly and uncandidly with him .

But he saith , We must betake our selves to reason , whereby the Spirit may convince us , of whom the Text in controversies is to be understood .

Repl. This is new Doctrine that is here taught us , viz. that reason is the Spirits organ or instrument in its convictions that it sets upon men ; and it is dangerous desperate Doctrine , which hath been exploded by all humble sober Christians ; if a man must be believe no further then he can see , the whole Gospel must be rejected ; for it is an high mystery which reason cannot look into , and the love of the Father and of Christ hath an heigth and depth , &c. which passeth knowledge : must not persons believe it ? I have heard it , and do believe it , that the Spirit is sent to convince according to the revealation of Scripture , whether we can reach it with our reason , or cannot reach it ; but reason is now advanced as the only medium to Faith , which was formerly cryed down as the great Enemy of Faith .

But let his reasons be considered of .

1. This Text ( saith he ) declares the principal Author of those things which John the Divine was to communicate to the seven Churches ; for these words begin a new matter , and are no part of the salutation : They speak of God even the Father , who is of highest authority , and from whom originally this Revelation was . Christ he is spoken of ver. 11. and is to be considered as the principal instrument , in conveying this Revelation to the Churches ; for God gave it to him , to shew to his servants those things which were shortly to come to pass . vers. 1.

Rep. 1. This reason asserts several things , and proves nothing , and so leaves the Reader altogether unsatisfied , unless bare words must pass for currant .

2. There is no truth in any thing that he asserts in relation to this text in controversie ; for though there might be some colour for such a collection , that God the Father is the principal Authour of this Revelation , and Christ the principal Instrument of conveying this Revelation to the Churches , ( which is only in a sense true , not of whole Christ , but of one part of him , to be understood ) in relation to the first verse ; because there it is said that God gave it to Christ ; yet in relation to verse 8. of which the dispute is , there is not the least shadow of ground for any one to conceive , much less to utter such things : For if Alpha signifie the first , or the beginning , yet it must not be restrained to this Revelation , but must be extended to all things ; and whether the Father or Christ be meant , yet a person that is from everlasting to everlasting , and that is the root and fountain of all things , and that comprehends all things , is meant , as all the letters in the Greek Alphabet are comprehended betwixt Alpha and Omega .

3. It is unreasonable for him , or any one , to apply the letter Alpha to the Father in verse 8. and thence to deduce this conclusion , the Father is of highest authority , and from him originally this Revelation was , and then to apply the same letter Alpha in verse 11. to Christ , and thence to deduce a diverse , if not contrary , yea contradictory conclusion , viz. Christ is the principal instrument in conveying this Revelation to the Churches : For if Christ be but the principal instrument in conveying it , then he is not of highest authority , nor from him originally was the 〈◊〉 . Now it is sensless and noto●iously 〈◊〉 , to imagine that contrary conclusions 〈◊〉 proceed from the same premises ; 〈…〉 to the Father , he argues thus from verse 8 , The Father is Alpha , therefore he is of highest authority , and the original of this Revelation : But in reference to Christ he argues thus from verse 11. Christ is Alpha , therefore he is not of highest authority , nor the original of this Revelation , but the principal instrument only in conveying this Revelation to the Churches . Would one think that rational persons should be taken with such kind of sottish and repugnant arguing which crosseth it self ?

4. In reference to verse 1. which is the text that seems most to countenance his assertions , there is much unsoundness in his collections ; for either it must be thus understood , that though God the Father gave this Revelation to Christ , yet God the Father gave it not to Christ as an instrument simply considered ; but unto Christ who was his fellow ; for it is said of Christ , That he shewed it to his servants , and signified it by his Angel to his servant John , so that Christ is set forth here in his dominion and Lordship , equall with the Father over the creatures ; for more could not have been said of the Father in reference to the creatures , then his servants , his Angel , his servant John ; or else if Christ be an Instrument , and that God gave this Revelation to him as an Instrument , yet this God is God the Father , Son and Spirit that gave it to him ; for the word God must be taken essentially , not personally ; and if Father had been named , as it is not , for it is said God gave unto him , yet not of the Father exclusively and dividedly from the Son and Spirit must it be understood , that he gave this Revelation to Christ : Nor of whole Christ is it to be understood neither , but of Christ according to his humane nature considered , and so God , viz. Father , Son and Spirit gave this Revelation to Christ , viz. to the Man Christ , or Christ considered in his Man-hood ; and so Christ though in one respect he be an Instrument , yet in another respect he is the principal Authour , and original cause with the Father .

5. Neither is there any new matter begun in this 8. verse , as he affirms ; for if it be begun in it , it is also ended in it ; for in the 9. verse there is a change of the person speaking ; but it is the conclusion of the Exordium , or Preface ; Christ was described to come in the clouds , and what an one he is that shall come in the clouds , Christ himself giving witness to what John asserted , declares who he is ; I am Alpha and Omega , the beginning and the end , saith the Lord Christ , who will come in the clouds ; for either this 8. verse must have relation to verse 7. or else it is independent , and hath relation to nothing .

But let the second Reason be looked into and proved , whether there be any more strength in it .

2. Because ( saith he ) those titles are no where in the Scripture attributed to Jesus Christ ; he is indeed called Alpha and Omega , the first and the last , verse 11. but not Alpha and Omega as signifying the beginning and the end .

Rep. There is a great deal of untruth in this assertion , and much weakness , unworthy of one that pretends to instruct others , and to be a guide unto them in a way which they have not known .

1. There is untruth , for these titles are attributed in Scripture to Jesus Christ , he is not onely called Alpha and Omega , the first and the last ; but he is called Alpha and Omega , as signifying the beginning and the ending , in Revel. 22. 13. the words are these , I am Alpha and Omega , the beginning and the end , the first and the last . Where we may observe , 1. The person speaking , which is Christ , as may appear from verse 12. compared with verse 28. In verse 12. we have these words , behold I come quickly ; and there is no change of the person in ver. 13. but the same ( I ) saith , I am Alpha and Omega ; but what person is it ? the Father or Christ ? he in his third Reason saith it is the Father : But first , the Scripture speaks not of the Fathers coming , ( unless in the Son , in Christ ) to give rewards , but of Christs coming only ; in 1 Thes. 1. 9. 10. They turned from Idols to serve the living God , and to wait for his Son from heaven , and Acts 3. 20. he shall send Jesus , viz. the Father shall send him ; but of the Fathers coming Scripture speaks nothing . 2. The Apostle John himself ends the controversie betwixt us , verse 20. where first we have the same words spoken , viz. surely I come quickly . 2. We have the sense of them in reference to the person speaking them , in the Apostle John's wish , and desire , Amen , ( saith he ) come Lord Jesus ; he understood the person that spake those words to be Christ , and not the Father . 3. Christ himself clears it , that it was he that spake those words , I am Alpha and Omega , verse 16. I Jesus ( saith Christ ) have sent mine Angel : weigh the verses together , from verse 13. to verse 16. and see whether there be any change of person , but the same person , that said I am Alpha and Omega , said , I Jesus have sent my Angel : so that it is manifest that with a great deal of boldness he falsifies the truth , in saying that Alpha and Omega , as signifying the beginning and the end , is no where in Scripture attributed to Christ .

2. There is weakness in this Assertion of his , unworthy of a Teacher in Israel . ( 1. ) Because Alpha and Omega as signifying first and last , are equivalent to Alpha & Omega as signifying beginning and end ; for that whis is first is of it self , and hath no cause , and is eternal , and without beginning , and is the beginning of other things ; and this the very Heathens from the light of Reason within them will confess : and that which is last must needs be the end . ( 2. ) Because first and last ( which he grants to be attributed to Christ ) are Attributes of the most high God , as he is distinguished from the creature ; See Isai. 41. 4. and 48. 12. but especially 44. 6. The words are , I am the first and the last , and besides me there is no God . Here the most high God ( his design being to declare himself to be the most high God ) doth assume this title first & last , as proper to him who is God alone , and there is none besides him . ( 3. ) Because the true English of Alpha and Omega ( being Greek letters ) is first and last , beginning and end , for Alpha is the first , and the beginning of the letters , and Omega is the last , and the end of the letters ; and these two letters do equally signifie beginning and end , as first and last ; therefore we find these letters sometimes interpreted beginning and end , Rev. 1. 8. which is the Text in controversie : sometimes first and last as ver. 11. sometimes beginning and end , and first and last , Rev. 22. 13. therefore his attempting to make a difference betwixt Alpha and Omega , as signifying beginning and end , and as signifying first and last , is very frivolous and senseless .

I shall now examine his third Reason , and see whether that will speed any better .

3. Because ( saith he ) the terms in the Text are elsewhere apparently and professedly given to God the Father , distinct from the Son ; he is called Alpha and Omega , the beginning and the end Rev. 21. 5. 6. And he that sate upon the Throne said , I am Alpha and Omega : The Angel useth the same phrase , Rev. 22. 13. and doubtless in the same manner .

Repl. Suppose it should be granted , that these terms Alpha and Omega be given to God the Father dinstinct from the Son , Rev. 21. 6. yet they are not attributed to the Father , Rev. 22. 13. but to the Son , as hath been evidently proved already ; and it is not his ( doubtless the same phrase Rev. 22. 13. is used in the same manner ) that will carry it against such uncontroulable reasons that have been brought for it , viz. that Christ distinct from the Father , is called Alpha and Omega , the beginning and the end .

And hence I would draw an Argument .

If these termes , Alpha and Omega , the beginning and the end , be professedly given to the Father distinct from the Son Rev. 21. 5. 6. and the same termes be given to the Son , distinct from the Father , Rev. 22. 13. then the Father and the Son are one and the same God , and distinct only in their personality ; for he confesseth himself that these termes , Alpha and Omega , as signifying beginning & end , areproper to the most high God , and denies that they are given to Christ : if then they be given to both the Father and to Christ , then it will follow that the Father and Christ are this high God , and this is the consequence of his own premises . Oh that he might once come to see the sadness of his state , to be left to such blindness and darkness , as not to be able to see , or else to such pertinacie and obstinacie of spirit , that he will not see when such clear palpable ( not one but many ) texts are before him , which have the truth of the coeternity , coessentially and coequality of Christ , with the Father written & engraven upon them , which every ingenuous Reader must & will acknowledge . Truly , if there were no more Texts , nor Arguments for Christs Diety , but these which do denominate Christ to be Alpha and Omega , the first and the last , the beginning and the end : And the Arguments which may be drawn from these , they may be able , being throughly weighed , to convince any person that is rational , and acknowledgeth the Scriptures , that Christ is the most high God , unless God have shut him up under that curse of Isaiah , viz. Seeing they shall see and not understand , and hearing they shall hear and not perceive , &c.

That which he speaks of these words , viz. He that is , he which was , and he which is to come , as referring to the Father in vers. 4. of this first Chapter is true , but impugneth not our Position , viz. That the same words in vers. 8. of the same Chapter are referred to Christ , who is elsewhere called Jehovah frequently ; the proper signification of which word is , He which is , he which was , and he which is to come .

Having vindicated this Scripture of Rev. 1. 8. The next which follows is to be considered of , which is , Joh. 1. 1. In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God , and the Word was God .

That which he clouds the simplicity of this Text ( which gives such full witness to Christs eternal Diety ) with , is another Translation , or Reading which he frames , and puts upon the Text , which is this ,

In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with the God , and the Word was a God ; And he puts this sense upon them , In the beginning ( in the first part of time ) was the Word , ( Jesus Christ ) according to the Spirit of holiness ( and he means the soul of Christ did exist ) And the Word was with the God ( this Jesus Christ was a delight to the most high God , and did converse with him ; ) And the Word was a God , ( this Jesus Christ had power committed to him , whereby he might represent the most high God . This Translarion he fetcheth from the omission of the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Christ is called God without the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put therto , but the Article is annexed to God , referring to the Father ; and then he puts his Gloss upon it , in a strange exposition of the words .

Rep. I grant his Observation to be true , that in this place of John , where ( God ) refers to the Father , there is an Article affixed ; but where God refers to Christ , there the Article is not affixed . But is this a ground of such a Translation or Version which he hath framed ? is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , God , with an Article to be taken evermore for the most high God ? and is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , God , without an Article to be taken evermore for one that represents the most high God , but is not the most high God ? If this be so , then Christ is the most high God , for he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , God , with an article in Heb. 1. 7. which is fetched from Psa. 45. 6. which he hath so much disputed against , endeavouring to prove Christ in that place to be but a creature God , in the former part of his answer , which I in my former Treatise of Reply have vindicated against him . And the Father , ( whom he hath stood for , to the derogation of the other two persons , endeavouring to prove him to be the only high God ) is not the high God at all ; for in Heb. 1. 6. he is spoken of as God without an Article , Let all the Angels of God worship him , that is Christ , it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , it is without an Article : Do but observe how God leaves him to confound himself , because though he have parts , yet he abuseth them , and God takes the wise in their own craftiness .

And it is to be observed , that Christ is called God with an Article annexed to it , in the same verse where the Father is spoken of as his God , and with an Article also , Heb. 1. 9 , which ( according to his collection ) makes both the Father and Christ to be the God . that is , the most high God , and so to be coessential , because there cannot be the most high God , but one most high God . Thus Christ is justified in his Diety by himself against his will .

Quest. But the Question may be moved , Why is the Article affixed to God when the Father is spoken of , and not affixed to God when Christ is spoken of ?

Answ. There is great reason for it in this place of John ; for if it were not so , the persons of the Father and of Christ would be confounded ; for the words run thus ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , And the Word was with God , and the Word was God ; had there been an Article prefixed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , God , had it been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , it must have been translated , and God was the Word , and not the Word was God , and then God & the Word would have been confounded , viz. God the Father of whom it is spoken that Chirst was with him , would have been confounded with Christ , for God , with the Article affixed would have been ( in right translation ) the subject , and the Word would have been the predicate , and then it must have been rendred , God was the Word , and not the Word was God , as it now runs , according to the intention of the Holy Ghost , whose design is by omission of the Article to manifest forth the distinction of the persons of the Father and Son in unity of Essence ; both are God , yet the one is not the other .

The like omission of the Article we may observe in Joh. 4. 24. The words in Greek are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and it is translated , and truly ( because the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is left out before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) God is a Spirit ; whereas had the Article been affixed , it had altered the Translation , and it must have been thus rendred , the Spirit is God , or a Spirit is God , and so the sense would be changed ; other instances there might be were they needful . And this he might have observed from Beza , had he been willing to have had his eyes opened .

As for the Gloss that he makes upon the words , I confuted it formerly in part , and have shewed in my other Treatise , that by beginning the first part of time is meant , and that the Verb or Particle ( was ) shews a preexistence before the beginning , or before time was , and not that Christ had his first existence then when the beginning was ; for the heavens and the earth had their existence then when time first was in the beginning of it , and subsisted together with it , as Moses records it ; but the Word was before it , and so was eternal , for nothing was before the beginning but eternity . And whereas he makes this to be the sense of these words , The Word was with God ; This Jesus Christ was a delight to the most high God , and did converse with him ; restraining high God to the Father , and excluding Christ , it is but the venting of his own conceit in stead of Truth ; for God there is taken personally , and not essentially , as I have shewed before oftentimes ; and the meaning is , the person of the Son was with the person of the Father from all eternity , and was a delight before the world was founded , as from Pro. 8. appears , He was as one brought up with the Father from everlasting , and was daily his delight . But the sense that he puts upon the last words ( viz. and the Word was a God ) is the most gross of all , and palpably corrupt , viz. This Jesus Christ had power committed to him , whereby he might represent the most High God : And the reason which he renders doth not make it more tollerable , viz. the name God is common to God and creatures : for I have shewed , that never any single person was called God absolutely without limitation and restriction . And in this place it is said , that Christ was God from the first , that he was , and he was when the beginning was ; and it is not said that he began to be when the beginning was , therefore he was before , and consequently he was God before ; and it will follow that he was God from eternity , and not in regard of any power committed to him , whereby he might represent the most high God ; for there was neither heaven nor earth when he was God , over whom to exercise any power , nor any creature to whom to represent God . And I have shewed that power which he had , was power in himself ( as life was in himself ) and was not , neither could be power committed to him , power in him being such as no creature was capable of , by which he at first created , and doth yet uphold the world , Heb. 1. 3.

And whereas he gives reasons from this text , why Christ should not be the most high God , viz. Because he is distinguished from God , and God cannot be distinguished from himself , he himself answers it by the mention which he makes of personality , Christ is distinguished from God taken personally , viz. for the Father , from the person of the Father is Christ distinguished , but not from God essentially taken , nor from the essence of the Father , for so he and his Father are one . But he takes not upon him to answer us in this distinction , and to overthrow it , though he knows that our great strength lies in it , but insteed of answering , chargeth us to say that which we say not , viz. that we call the Father God by way of eminency , and disputes against this , as inconsistent to that coequality which we hold , and shelters himself under it . But he wrongs us , for we say the Son is called God as distinct from the Father , but not by way of eminency , they cannot both be eminent one above the other , and yet coequal . That which follows of The God and A God which he flies to , as a reason why Christ is not the most high God , I have answered before , and need say no more of it .

After John 1. 1. Mat. 28. 20. was produced by me to prove the God head of Christ , are these , Lo I am with you alwaies unto the end of the world , to which text he answers thus .

The meaning of the phrase , I am with you , &c. is no more then this , I will do you good , whilest ye remain imployed in my work : And he brings Jacob as the author of the interpretation ; Old Jacob ( saith he ) no bad interpreter , is my Authour , Gen. 31. 3. compared with Chap. 32. 9. in the one place God promiseth to be with him , in the other place Jacob expounds it to be Gods dealing well with him .

Rep. This metaphorical presence , in actions of grace and favours , ( which he would have to be the sole meaning of the words , I will be with thee ) doth not exclude the essential presence , but doth rather include it ; for how is Christ able to do all good to his Apostles and Disciples in all places of the world , and in all conditions and necessities , in which they might be , and at all times , and yet not be essentially present with them ? If he can declare it , let him declare it ; In the mean time that parallel place , ( which he cites from Gen. 31. 3. compared with chap. 32. 9. ) is against him , for God is inabled to do good to all , ( and so to Jacob ) by his essential presence with all , and in all , and so with Jacob , and in Jacob . And though God have all the Angels to wait upon him , and all the creatures at his command to go for him , and to do for him what he appoints , yet if he were not essentially present himself with all , and in all , he could not supply all with all good that they want ; for he could not see all and know all , if he were not present in all , if he did not fill all , and if all did not live and move and had not being in him . Therefore the Lord argues in Jer. 23. 24. from his filling all , to his knowing all , the words are these , Can any hide himself in secret places , that I shall not see him ? do not I fill heaven and earth , saith the Lord ? and if this be so of God , that he works all by his presence with all , then it is so of Christ also ; and the words I will be with you , though they may extend to actions of love and kindness , and may comprise well dealing and doing good within them , yet they do properly hold out the way and means in which Christ will be helpful to them , he is with them alwaies to take notice of their condition , and to apply himself thereto , and Christ doth assure them , that though he shall be bodily absent from them , and in heaven , yet in the eternal Spirit , in the divine nature , he is alwaies present with them : In which sense ( he saith ) that he the Son of man ( though upon earth in his flesh ) was yet according to his diety in heaven , John 3. 13. and chap. 17. 24.

But he goes on , and saith , Jesus Christ is present with his Messengers , and deals well with them , when he doth instruct , comfort , strengthen and protect them ; and all these he doth in his absence by his Spirit , whom the Father hath sent in his name . John 14. 26. And he instanceth in instruction , and saith , Christ instructed his Apostles , but not immediately ; for the Spirit ( saith he ) that came in Christs name , and received of his , was the instrument by which Iesus Christ did work : And he cites Iohn 16. 13 , 14 , 15. for it .

Rep. I have shewed already that these operations of grace do not hinder the essential presence of Christ , according to his Godhead , with the Apostles , but do rather imply it ; but he excludes it , and saith he doth all these things in his absence by his Spirit . Now though there be a truth in it , that Christ being in heaven in flesh , and absent from earth , so far as respects the flesh , doth effect all things by the Spirit , yet it is not onely false , but foolish in the sense that he intends it , and in the words that he expresseth it in .

1. I shall readily grant it in a sense , that Christ works all by the Spirit , and that there is an order of working among the persons in the Godhead ; and in this order the Father works by the Son , and by the Spirit ; and the Son works from the Father and by the Spirit ; and the Spirit works from the Father and from the Son , by himself ; and the Father is the person sending both the Son and the Spirit ; and the Son is the person sent from the Father , and sending the Spirit with the Father ; and the Spirit is the person sent both from the Father and from the Son ; but it will not follow that therefore Christ ( though bodily absent ) is personally absent from his Messengers , and instructs them not immediately by himself , but onely by the Spirit : For as it is said in Iohn 5. 17. by Christ of the Father , My Father worketh hitherto and I work : The Father worketh all things by the Son ; he made the world by the Son ; and he judgeth no man , but hath committed all judgement to the Son ; that is , by the Son he judgeth and manageth all things , and not without him ; yet he worketh , that cannot be denied , though by the Son ; yea the very works that the Son worketh , and all of them and none other but them , the Father worketh ; the Father is in the Son , and the Son is in the Father , and the Father and the Son are one in essence , though two in personality , and the Father and the Son work one thing ; the Father by the Son , and the Son from the Father , and the Son can do nothing of himself apart from the Father , nor the Father any thing apart from the Son , but by him , as I have shewed at large in my former Treatise ; so it may be said of the Son and of the holy Ghost , that the Son worketh hitherto , and the holy Ghost worketh ; that is , they work the same work , the Son by the holy Ghost , and the holy Ghost from the Son ; and the holy Ghost shall not speak of himself , nor act of himself ( as saith the Scripture which he cites ) that is , he shall not speak or work any thing apart from the Son , but what he shall hear and see , that shall he speak and do ; and the Son doth speak and act by him the same things , and nothing else ; for the Son is in the holy Ghost , and the holy Ghost in the Son , and they are one in essence , and therefore cannot be divided in operation , but work the same things in such an order of working , and to this the Scripture gives witness in 2 Cor. 3 ▪ 17. The Lord is called the Spirit , and the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Lord Christ ; how can this be ? Essentially the Lord Christ is the Spirit , they are one : Personally considered , the Spirit is the Spirit of the Lord Christ , and the Lord Christ is not the Spirit : And Rev. 2. 1. to 6. compared with verse 7. In verse 1. to 6. Christ is the person that speaks to the Church , and so to all the Churches , and commands John to write ; but in verse 7. it is said , he that hath an ear to hear let him hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches ; so that Christ speaks , and yet the Spirit speaks , and Christ and the Spirit are one in essence , though two in persons ; and Christ spake to the Churches by the Spirit , and the Spirit spake from Christ . But they act and work together the same things , and none other ; as the Father and the Son do , so do the Son and Spirit , and indeed Father and Son and Spirit are one in essence , and one in operation , the order of working onely excepted , 1 John 5. 7. so that Christs instructing by the Spirit , obstructs not Christs personal presence with the Disciples here upon earth , though his body be in heaven . And the sending of the Spirit both by the Father and by the Son , are acts of counsel among the persons in the Godhead , as hath been fully declared in reference to Christ , who was sent of the Father , and yet gave himself . And the Spirit though sent , when he cometh acteth not meerly as one sent , according to the will of another , but as himself willeth , 1 Cor. 12. 11. so that his sending was by counsel with his own consent .

2. In the sense that he asserts it , that Christ in Heaven acts by his Spirit , I shall utterly deny it , as that which both wants truth in it , and is absurd ; as that which is neither consistent with Scripture nor reason , nor congruous to his own Opinion : for he takes away Christs immensity , and ubiquity , and puts it upon the Spirit , to prevent Christs being in Heaven and on Earth at once , and his filling of Heaven and Earth with his presence , that he might not thereby be acknowledged God , and yet he makes the Spirit to be universally present , and so makes him more then a creature , wherein he contradicts himself , for his words are these , Christ doth all these works in his absence by his Spirit ; therefore the Spirit is present , for he supplies the defect of Christs presence , and yet withall he saith , The spirit which received of Christs was Christs instrument by which Jesus Christ did the work : Therefore he is not God , for God cannot be an instrument , therefore he is but a creature ; wherein he crosseth himself . So then what must not be yielded to in Christ , least he should be God , he yields to the Spirit whom he makes not God , but a creature . And in this he not only sets Christ below the Father , whom he acknowledgeth to be God , but he sets him below the Spirit , whom he acknowledgeth but a creature , and now Christ is neither God , nor yet the first and chief of the creatures , for the Spirit is more excellent then he , for the Spirit can be present with all the Apostles in all the parts and Climats of the World at one time , to instruct them , comfort them , &c. and Christ is shut up in Heaven and cannot . And this is contradictory to himself , for he makes Christ the first of the creatures , and the Maker of the rest , and the Lord of them , and he makes him a Spirit in his first existence , and yet the Spirit that was made by him can be with all the Apostles , and Disciples , and Saints also , and abide with them for ever , and administer to them all good , but Christ who is his Lord and Maker cannot . O monstrous and senseless Opinion , wherein God leaves him to be confounded !

But how contradictory to reason is this , that the Spirit should be the instrument of Christ , and so a creature inferiour to Christ , and yet be present in all places in Heaven , in Earth , in the Sea , and every where , for where ever Saints be , there the Spirit is , & Saints are in all these places , The Spirit is one that bears witness in Heaven , 1 Joh. 5. 7. Therefore there he is , and he bears witness on Earth in the hearts of Believers , in Rom. 8. 16. and therefore there he is . And the whole Spirit dwels in every Saint , for we do not read of any parts of the Spirit , into which he is divided , and if Saints be every where , the whole Spirit is every where , and such a boundless Essence is not competent to any creature ; it is that which God himself arrogates as proper to him , do not I fill Heaven and Earth ? Jer. 23. 24. whole God fils every place , and the whole Spirit fils every Saint . As bodies have their loca , their places ; so Spirits , all created ones , have their ubi , their some where , out of which and beyond which they are not ; they are confined , if they be not circumscribed ; but of the Spirit it is said , whither shall I go from thy Spirit , the Spirit is everywhere .

It is also extreamly repugnant to Scripture , that the Spirit should be Christs instrument , and consequently a creature , and it is as gross as the denying of the Diety of Christ , and his Heresie is multiplyed in this Assertion .

1. An Instrument acts and works after the will of the principal efficient , but the Spirit after his own will as himself pleaseth , and therefore no instrument .

2. The person by whom Christ wrought Miracles , was no instrument , but Christ according to his humane nature wrought Miracles by the vertue and power of the Spirit , therefore he was no instrument , Mat. 12. 28. Acts 10. 38.

3. He that was the uncture , with which Christ was annoynted and became more excellent and glorious then all his fellows ; he that was the enrichment of Christ as man , as a creature , above all creatures , that exalted him in eminency above all Angels , &c. was not any instrument inferiour to Christ , but superiour to him as a creature , but the Spirit was the uncture wherewith Christ was annoynted , Act. 10. 38. and he received not the Spirit by measure as others did , but beyond all measure , Joh. 3. 34. whence he came to excell all his fellows , Heb. 1. 9.

4. He that is the Spirit of God , and is to God as the spirit of a man is to man , he that alone knoweth the deep things of God and searcheth them ; that is , hath deep full perfect knowledge of them , he cannot be an instrument to Christ , to take what Christ a creature , ( as he makes Christ to be ) shews him , and no more , and to shew them to men , but the Spirit is the Spirit of God , and stands to God as the Spirit of a man stands to man ; and searcheth the deep things of God , therefore cannot be an instrument to take from Christ , and bring and shew to men . And it is contrary to Scripture to make the Spirit a creature , as if he be a creatures instrument ( as he would make him ) he must needs be .

1. He is called God by the Apostles of Christ , therefore he is God , Act. 5. 3 , 4. compared together , prove it : in the 3. ver. Peter saith to Ananias , Thou hast lyed to the holy Ghost ; in the 4. vers. he saith , Thou hast lyed to God : He makes the holy Ghost to be God , for he shews the person against whom the sin was committed , it was not man , it was not any creature ; it did rise higher , it was the holy Ghost , he was God . So that the holy Ghost and God are one and the same thing . And 1 Cor. 3. 16. Paul makes him God , in these words , Know ye not that you are the temple of God , and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you ? This latter is the proof of the former , because the Spirit of God dwels in you , therefore saith the Apostle , you are the temple of God ; here is no mention of Gods dwelling in them , but of the Spirits dwelling in them ; if therefore the Spirit were not God , the Argument of the Apostle were nought . And by the Evangelist Luke in Act. 10. 3. 19 , 20. compared together , he is called God : in vers. 3. it is said , The Angel of God came in to Cornelius , and commanded him to send men for Peter , in vers. 19. 20. it is said , That the Spirit told Peter that he had sent those men to him , and therefore he must go with them . The men were sent upon the command of the Spirit , therefore the Spirit was that God that sent the Angel , and to be the Angel of the Spirit , and the Angel of God is all one .

2. He is called the God of Israel , 2 Sam. 23. 2 , 3. compared together do confirm it : in vers. 2. it is said , The Spirit of the Lord spake by me , and his word was in my mouth ; in vers 3. it is said , The God of Israel said , the Rock of Israel spake to me ; he that in vers. 2. is called the Spirit of the Lord ; in vers. 3. is called the God of Israel ; for one and the same person spake to David , not two persons spake to him , but one . And in Luk. 1. 68. 70. compared together , and both of them compared with 2 Pet. 1. 21. in vers. 63. Zachary blessed the Lord God of Israel who visited and redeemed his people , &c. in vers. 70. Zachary makes this Lord God of Israel to be the person that spake by the mouth of the Prophets , but who is he that spake by the mouth of the Prophets ? the Spirit is he ; Peter tels us so much , ( and in many other places we read so much , ) 2 Pet. 1. 21. Holy men spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost . Therefore if he inspired the Prophets , and spake in them and by them , he is the Lord God of Israel .

3. He is called the most High , Luk. 1. 35. The Angel speaks thus to Mary , The holy Ghost shall come upon thee , and the power of the Highest shall over shadow thee ; This latter is but an enlargement of the former , the same person is spoken of in both propositions , with this difference only ; the name of the person spoken of , is put upon him in the former proposition , viz the holy Ghost ; the Title of the person is given to him in the latter ; the Highest with his power shall over-shadow thee , so that the holy Ghost is the highest . But some may object against this , and say , that the holy Ghost is not called the highest , but he is called the power of the Highest , or the vertue of the Highest , because the Highest by the vertue of the holy Ghost would form Christ in the womb of the Virgin , or would cause her to conceive , & so the holy Ghost and power are one thing , but not the holy Ghost and the Highest : If this were true , yet seeing a person is spoken of and not a thing , and this person is called the vertue or power of the Highest in so miraculous a work , he cannot be inferiour to the Highest ; for he by whose force , and power , and vertue the highest shews himself to be the Highest , works as the Highest , must needs be as high as he , and if the Father should be the Highest in this place , yet the holy Ghost is made equal to him , which shews the Father and the holy Ghost to be one in Essence , though two in personality , because there can be but one Highest .

But it appears to be otherwise , that Spirit and power are not confounded , but distinguished , and there distinguished where God is mentioned in Rom. 15. 18 , 19. God made the Gentiles obedient to the Gospel , through mighty signs and wonders done by the power of the Spirit of God ; here is power , and Spirit , and God , and all distinguished from other ; by God , the Father is meant ; by Spirit , the holy Ghost is meant ; and by power , the vertue , might , and efficacy of the holy Ghost is meant ; and it appears ( which alone is sufficient to prove holy Ghost to be God ) that mighty signs and wonders were done by the proper power of the holy Ghost ; it is not said that they were done by the power of God , viz. the Father , but by the power of the Spirit of God , by the Spirits own proper power .

4. He is called God most high , and Almighty , all these titles are put upon the Spirit in Numb. 24. 2. 16. compared together : In verse 2. it is said of Balaam , that the Spirit of God came upon him ; in verse 16. Balaam describes himself to be one that heard the words of God ; that knew the knowledge of the most high , and saw the visions of the Almighty , and all this was but the Spirit of God , which came upon him .

I might speak of the attributes of the Spirit , which are proper to the most high God , and prove him to be such , as of Omnipotency , Omnisciency , Omnipresence , &c. But he himself hath held forth these in his Letter , when he lived about Glocester , which in my former Treatise is printed to the view of the World , at which time his eyes were open , and he saw these attributes in the Spirit , and acknowledged the holy Ghost to be God upon the sight thereof , though his Faith had been suspended before ; but now he denies what he confessed then , and is left to blindness and darkness , and speaks opprobriously of the Spirit of Grace , when he cals him the instrument of an instrument ; for he makes Christ himself no more but the Fathers instrument and a creature ; and the Spirit is no more but Christs instrument , and a creature of a creature . I shall now conclude with an Answer to what he closeth his Answers to this Text of Math. 28 , with . He saith , this kinde of presence by the Spirit , Beza and others understand to be intended in Mat. 28. 20.

Reply . 1. Neither Beza nor any else save Arians and Socinians do hold such a kinde of presence of the Spirit , as he hath held forth , viz. of the Spirit as an instrument by which Jesus Christ did work , but only of the Spirit as God , and as the third person in the Trinity , equal with the Father & with the Son , by whom the Father and Son do work , not as by an instrument , but as by an associate , not as imparting any superiority in them , or inferiority in the Spirit , but Order only , that they which are one in Essence but distinct in personality , might not be confounded ( as they cannot be divided from one another ) in operation ; therefore as they are in one another , so they work from and by one another .

2. The words which he mentions in the Margent , as Bezaes upon the place , though I have diligently perused Beza , I cannot find neither in Matthew the Text that is controverted betwixt us ; nor yet in any of those Texts in John which speak of the Spirit which he cites : neither would they be any whit advantageous to him , were they found in Beza ; for they speak of Christ as absent in body , which none denies ; but that whole Christ is absent is not asserted , in the words ; but the contrary seems to be implyed ; for the absence of Christ is limited to his body , Caeterum corpore abest , are the words , so that Christ may be present in that spirit of holiness , which is his divine Nature , of which Paul speaks in Rom. 1. 4. without any contradiction to Beza , if any such words may be found in him .

3. The words of Beza upon the place do differ greatly from the words he presents as his , and do not favour his exposition at all , but may well be interpreted so as to cohere with the use I make of that Text , Cum autem idem ipse dominus paulo ante dixerit , &c. saith Beza ; that is , When as the self-same Lord Jesus had said a little before , Me you shall not have alwayes , and was to ascend a little after ; it is apparent that there must be a distinction , respecting the maner and way of Christs presence and absence ; in body he is absent , but in vertue he is wholly most present ; in which vertue he doth communicate himself , and all his things really in a spiritual way by faith unto us . Here is not one Word of the Spirit of God , but of the vertue and power of Christ in which he is present , which cannot be the vertue of his body , or of his Humane Nature in which he was so far absent ; for none of that could extend so far unless conveyed by that which was present , viz. the divine Nature , which is present everywhere , and conveyes vertue from whole Christ to believers .