A Vindication, Instance 7
Inſtance 7. If Christ were a meer creature, then to pardon ſinne belongs not to him, becauſe the Scripture testifies that none can forgive ſinnes but God, becauſe all ſinne is against God, therefore none can forgive it but God. But it is evident, that Chriſt took the Authority of forgiving ſinne, Sonne, ſaith Chriſt, thy ſinnes are forgiven thee, Luke 7. 48.
His Anſwer is, becauſe many think that ſome weight lies in theſe words, I ſhall be a little the more large in my Anſwer to it.
Rep. No queſtion but the Reader would conceive weight to be in the reſt, becauſe they were conſonant to that Doctrine which hath been commonly received, and were looked upon as main points of Faith: But he thinks he hath more advantage againſt me in this inſtance, then in the reſt, …nd that Scripture favours him more in the …etter of the words, then it did in ſome of the reſt, however it be; let it be conſidered what it is he ſaith to diſable it.
He frames it into an Argument, but impaires the ſtrength of it, though he ſaid he would not marr it.
None can forgive ſins but God:
But Chriſt did forgive ſin, Luke 7. 48.
Therefore Chriſt is God:
If he had done me right, the Argument ſhould have run thus.
He that took the authority of forgiving ſins, is not a meere creature, but is God.
But Chriſt took the authority of forgiving ſin:
Therefore Chriſt is God.
Had the Argument been thus formed, his anſwer to the major might have been ſpared, and ſo might my Reply: but now I muſt follow him as he hath framed it.
He replies to the Major, viz. none can forgive ſins but God.
1. By objecting againſt the Witneſſe, which he ſuppoſeth I bring from Mar. 2. 7. which he ſaith is no part of the Standard; for (ſaith he) the dark Scribes, who were enemies to Chriſt, did ſpeak it.
Rep. If I had quoted Mar. 2. 7. he might have had ſome advantage againſt me, but ſeeing I did not, he might well have forborn me: Might not I collect it from the Teſtimony of the Scripture in very many places, where it is attributed to God by Moſes, and the Prophets; yea where God himſelf doth aſſume it to himſelf, as his own Royall priviledge, Exod. 34. 7. Pſal. 32. 2. Eſay 43. 25. and Chap. 55. 7. Jer. 31. 34. yea certainly, when I uſed thoſe words which the Scripture teſtifies; I minded ſuch like Scripture as theſe, yet I will not deny, but that the ſaying of the Scribes and Phariſes was in my mind; and if I had quoted the place where they aſſert it, as the Prerogative of God to forgive ſinnes, I need not be aſhamed, becauſe as dark as they were in other things, they are clear enough in this, and aſſerted nothing but what the Scripture clearly held out, as I have ſhewed.
2. By objecting againſt the Doctrine which he ſaith I teach; for (ſaith he) that none can forgive ſinnes in any ſenſe but God only, may paſſe for an errour, for it is the duty of all men to forgive ſinnes which others commit againſt them, Mat. 6. 14. And it is the priviledge of ſome men to forgive all ſins, in reference to the curſe of the Law, John 20. 23.
Rep. He conceives me to be a very Novice in the knowledge of the Scripture, elſe he would not have preſented ſuch poor objections, or he hath a mind to cavill at expreſſions, and to contradict if all be not punctually expreſſed, though it be never ſo eaſie to be underſtood. Doth he think me to be ſo ſimple & ignorant of the truth, as that I ſhould underſtand that poſition, None can forgive ſinnes but God, in the greateſt latitude, ſo as to exclude that act of love, and charity, and mercy, and compaſſion, which is due from one man to another, in reference to ſuch perſonall treſpaſſes and offences which are committed mutually by men that converſe with one another, or to exclude miniſteriall Acts of remiſſion of ſinnes, which ſome men (which have received an office from Chriſt, and in ſuch office Authority and Commiſſion from him to remit ſinnes) have power to paſſe? I ſhould in ſo doing have robbed poor ſaint, weak, and feeble Chriſtians of a great part of that ſo lace and comfort which Chriſt hath left them here upon earth: He might therefore have known, that I underſtood the Propoſition in a limited ſenſe; None hath power in himſelf to forgive ſinne but God, none in his own Name can do it, but God: yea, did I not expreſſe my meaning in the words following? It is evident that Chriſt took Authority of forgiving ſin. I do not ſay, that Chriſt had Authority derived to him, but he took it as that which did properly belong to him: he might therefore have ſuffered the major Propoſition to have p…ſſed, and have fallen upon the minor, which at laſt he doth;
His words are theſe.
Now for your Minor, that Chriſt did forgiue ſin. 'Tis true, ſaith he, that Chriſt did forgive ſin, and that he the Son of Man had on earth power to do it, as he himſelf ſpeaks, Mark. 2. 10. But what will this help to bring in the concluſion that Chriſt is God? Doubtleſſe no, becauſe meer creatures (as above) in ſome ſenſe have power to forgive ſinne: if it can be proved that Christ is principall in forgiving, ſomewhat may be done.
Rep. If it can be proved that Chriſt is principall in forgiving, is only ſomething done? is not the whole done? I ſuppoſe there needs no more to be done: I ſhall therefore attempt the proof of that from the very Scripture he conceipts I alluded to, which he mentions, which is Mar. 2. 10. 1. It is evident from the conteſt betwixt Chriſt and the Scribes, they did not charge Chriſt (no not in their hearts) with blaſphemy, as conceiving that Chriſt did not forgive ſins miniſterially, by the authority which he derived from another, for in that ſenſe they would not have ſaid, Who can forgive ſins but God? They would not have made it proper to God to forgive ſins, for they knew that the Prieſts miniſterially did forgive the ſins of the people, that brought their ſacrifices, and the Prophets alſo in the name of God did it, as Nathan did Davids: nay in this ſenſe they could not attribute it to God at al; for God cannot be the Miniſter of any, to pardon ſin in anothers name; therefore they looked upon Chriſt as forgiving ſin in his own name, and by his own proper power, and therefore (conceiving him onelyonly to be a man) they accuſed him of blaſphemy. Now if Chriſt had been onley a man, and had forgiven ſin miniſterially, in the name, and by the authority of the Father, and not in his own name, nor by his own power, why doth he not declare ſo much to them, and tell them that the thing was even ſo as they apprehended, that no man, nor creature hath hath any abſolute independent power in himſelf to forgive ſins, but it is the royall prerogative of God, as they conceived, but their error lay in this, they were miſtaken in him, they conceived of him that he forgave ſins in his own name, and by his own proper power; and he did it not, but it was done by a derived power, and in a miniſteriall way; why was not his way of doing it cleared up to the Scribes by him? when he knew they were right in their thoughts of the thing, onelyonly miſtook his acting, conceiving that he acted what he did not act. But it is apparent that Chriſt doth conteſt with them upon another point, and undertook to prove that he the Son of man (though they looked upon him as a meer man, and nothing more) was yet ſuch an one, that without blaſphemie he might take upon himſelf, as a thing ſuitable to him, and very proper to forgive ſins in that very ſenſe, as they called blaſphemie, that is, in his own name, and by his own power, and authority, without any dependence upon any other, to whom it more properly belonged, as they conceived, in which conteſt with them he aſſerted himſelf to be the God to whom it belongs to pardon ſin: Therefore Chriſt charged them with evill thoughts of him, as it is expreſſed by Matthew in his relating of the ſtory, Matth. 9. 4. not becauſe they imagined that he exerciſed that power which he did not, viz. an abſolute independent power from himſelf, when as he onelyonly exerciſed a delegated power which was derived to him: this was not the cauſe why Chriſt challenged them for thinking evill in their hearts, but becauſe they denied him to have that power which he had, and ſaid he blaſphemed becauſe he aſſumed it, and did ſo appropriate it to God, whom they conceived a ſpirit in heaven, that they denied it to him in fleſh, as he was the Son of man upon earth in a ſtate of exinanition, emptied of his glory. Therefore in Mat. 9. 6. and ſo in Mar. 2. 10. there is a concurrence of the Evangeliſts, that Chriſt to convince them of their error, in reſtraining and ſtraightning him in his power, which they would grant to God, but not to him, ſpeaks theſe words; But that you may know that the Son of man on earth, hath power to forgive ſins; I ſay unto thee, ariſe, &c. If that had not been the Scribes and Phariſees errors, that they granted that to God, which they denied to him, he ſhould rather have uſed other words then thoſe words that he did; and have ſaid rather, that you may know, I do not aſſume that power which you think I do aſſume; for ſuch words as theſe would have ſuited the Tenent of my Antagoniſt better, and the error of the Scribes, had that been their error: But Chriſt conteſts with them about power, and will make them know that he had a power which they would not grant him, but called it blaſphemie, even the very power of God, though he be alſo the Son of man on earth. And therefore he uſeth theſe words, That ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth. This conteſt of Chriſt with the Scribes puts it out of doubt that Chriſt challenged to be principall and equal with the Father in pardoning ſin, and would not own himſelf to be miniſteriall or inſtrumentall therein.
2. It appears by this, that Chriſt is principall in forgiving, becauſe the Scribes, and Phariſees, had no ſooner conceived thoughts of a difference betwixt God and him, denying him to be God, and charging him with blaſphemie for aſſuming that power which was peculiar to God: but while ſuch imaginations were in their hearts, Chriſt (before they could or did utter them) did diſcover them, and reprove them: and therein Chriſt gave a ſigne to them, that they had evill thoughts of him while they looked upon him as leſſe then God, or as below God; for they might confute themſelves in their own falſe conceits of Chriſt. After this manner do we charge this perſon with blaſpemie, becauſe he forgives ſins being but a man, and not God, as we have thought, and yet he knows the thoughts of our hearts, and diſcovers that which we had only conceived, and had not uttered, and who can do ſuch a thing as this, but God? Whether is it eaſier to ſay thy ſins are forgiven thee, or to ſay, wherefore think you evill in your hearts? when we expreſſed nothing with our lips. Is it not as great a work to know the heart, as to forgive ſins? Doth not Solomon ſpeak to God after this manner, Thou onelyonly knoweſt the hearts of the children of men, 2 Chron. 6. 30. Certainly, this perſon (though in fleſh) is notwithſtanding more then fleſh, none other but God. Chriſt adminiſtred matter of ſuch expoſtulation to them, that they might correct their former erring thoughts. But if they were not inſtructed thereby, yet we ſhould underſtand what thence may be collected. The ſame perſon forgave ſins as diſcerned hearts: but Chriſt not as man, but as God, diſcerned hearts; therefore not as man, but as God he forgave ſins. Nor can it be ſaid that Chriſt knew their thoughts, becauſe God revealed them to him, or becauſe they gave ſome ſignes what imaginations were in them; for Mark declares that Chriſt knew what they thought in and from his own Spirit, that is, by himſelf, and not from any other; therefore he forgave ſins by and from himſelf, and not by or from any other, Mark 2. 8.
3. It is manifeſt from the Miracle that Chriſt wrought, that Chriſt was principall in forgiving, and that by and from himſelf he did it, and not by power derived to him, for he wrought the Miracle authoritatively, and by his own power, he did not work it in his Fathers name, that is, by way of dependence upon him, and by prayer to his Father, as ſometimes he did when he would ſhew his manhood, that he was the Son of man, as wel as the Son of God, but he wrought it by command, ſpeaking in his own name, I ſay unto thee ariſe, take up thy bed and walk; and this authoritative command cameforth of his mouth, was effectual before their eyes, for this end, that he might confute thoſe evil thoughts they had conceived and harboured in their hearts concerning him, viz. that he had blaſphemed; becauſe being but a man, he had arrogated and aſſumed that power to himſelf, which is proper to God. Had this been the Scribes and Phariſees errour, that they thought he took to himſelf that power which indeed he did not, viz. an abſolute and independent power in remitting ſins, and yet it was but a derived power which he had from another, and that it was not his own which he exerciſed then in the working of this miracle, that they might know that they erred in their conceptions concerning his manner of working; he ſhould at this time eſpecially, rather then at another time, by invocation upon his Father have effected it. And the reaſon is, becauſe Chriſts deſigne was in working this miracle, to teach them ſomewhat which they underſtood not, and to rectifie their apprehenſions concerning himſelf, as theſe words import, That ye may know that the Sonne of man hath power on earth to forgive ſins. I ſay unto thee who art ſick, &c. ariſe and walk. Now what was it that he would teach them? was this it, that he did act dependently upon his Father, and had no ſuch power of his own to forgive ſins, but derived it from his Father? If ſo, was this the means or the way to convince them of it, to command in his own name the impotent man that was ſick of ſo deadly a diſeaſe, to ariſe and walk, without any looking up to heaven, or groaning in his ſpirit, or ſpeaking unto God his Father to effect it in him or by him? Was it not rather the way to confirme them in their errour (if that were their errour) then to bring them to the knowledg of the truth? therefore it is manifeſt and clear that he would teach them ſome other thing wherein indeed they erred, and ſtood in need to be rectified; they thought him but a man, and that he uſurped that power which belonged not unto him, but was proper to God, and that was to forgive ſinnes in his own name, and not miniſterially, but by and from himſelf; this they called blaſphemy. Now he would in this rectifie their erring judgements, by working a miracle in his own name, and by a commanding word, accompanied with anſwerable power; and therefore ſaith, That you may know that the Son of man, even he himſelf hath power in himſelf, and not derived from any other; to forgive ſins I ſay, even I ſpeak it as one that have authority in my ſelf, and need not to ſeek out to any other, I ſay, ariſe and walk. This abſolute and independent way and manner of working this miracle, is a good demonſtration in what way, and after what manner he forgave ſins; and both by the one and by the other, he would convince the Scribes and Phariſees, that he (though clothed in fleſh, and appearing only as a man) was yet God, equall with his Father, and could work the ſame works of his Father.
Now, though Chriſt ſeems to ſpeak of the act of forgiving ſins as an eaſier work then if he ſhould ſay to the ſick man, ariſe and walk, as theſe words of his ſeem to import, Whether is it eaſier, &c. yet the works are both alike, though one not eaſier then the other; nor did Chriſt look upon the one as eaſier then the other, nor did the Scribes and Phariſees look upon one as eaſier then the other; for they look upon the act of abſolving from ſinne as proper to God; and not appertaining to man; But withall they thought that he deluded the people when he ſpake the words, thy ſins are forgiven thee, becauſe the effect was inward, and not to be diſcerned by the eyes of the body, and ſo the people could not diſcover the fraud and falſhood in working; therefore they imagined it was farre eaſier for Chriſt to ſay thy ſinnes are forgiven thee, in which he could not be detected, if the effect followed not, then for him to ſay, ariſe and walk, which if he had not had a power anſwerable to that word of command, would diſcover his impoſtures, and expoſe him to ſhame and reproach; in this ſenſe it was eaſier for one that would delude, to ſay thy ſinnes are forgiven thee, then to ſay ariſe and walk; but Chriſt would ſhew that the one was as truly wrought and done as the other, and both of them done by the power of his Godhead.
There are alſo other Scriptures which may give light, that Chriſt in forgiving ſins was principall, and not receiving power from another: 1. Chriſt gave power to his Diſciples, John 20. 23. (the place which he quoted) to remit ſins, effectually, ſo & as that they ſhould be remitted and to retaine ſins effectually, and ſo as that they ſhould be retained. Now this power of delegating power to others, doth ſhew a power reſiding in Chriſt himſelf, and doth ſhew that Chriſt is the principall Lord againſt whom ſins are committed, becauſe he both conveyes a power to the Apoſtles, and doth ratifie the exerciſe of it. 2. The Apoſtle forgave ſins in the perſon of Chriſt in 2 Cor 2. 10. that is, he did it inſtrumentally and repreſentatively, and in the name of another who was chief in it, and that was Chriſt. It is not ſaid in the perſon of God, as it ſhould have been ſaid, if Chriſt had not been God, and principall in that power of forgiving.
But he ſaith, It cannot be, becauſe the Scripture cannot oppoſe it ſelf. And he preſents what Scripture. Tels us, The Scripture (ſaith he) tels us that we are justified by the man Jeſus Chriſt, Acts 13 38, 39. be it known unto you men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveneſſe of ſinnes, and by him all that do beleeve are juſtified, &c.
Reply. The Scripture tels us, that through the man Chriſt we are juſtified, but the Scripture tels us not that we are juſtified by Chriſt as man; It is a granted thing by us all, that the perſon that juſtifies us is man (for we ſay he is both God and Man) But that he juſtifies as man, or remits ſinnes as man, is denyed by us, and the contrary hath already been proved; I have ſhewed before that the Sonne of man is ſaid to be heaven, which was impoſſible, becauſe he was on earth when he ſpake theſe words; the words are therefore thus to be underſtood, the perſon, that is, the Sonne of man, being alſo God, was in heaven at that time, but not as the Sonne of man, but as God, ſo in this place it is to be underſtood.
There is ſome difference to be made in Chriſts juſtifying of us. If we ſpeak of the meritorious cauſe of Juſtification, whole Chriſt, and the whole of Chriſt doth concurre in it, contribute to it, and effect it for God (looking upon that which was done and ſuffered, and upon the perſon, (viz. the excellency and glory of the perſon) that did it, and ſuffered it; in which, both the Godhead and the manhood acted the one by obeying, the other by enabling and preſenting as his (as indeed it was) (the union betwixt the two natures conſidered) pronounced beleevers juſt upon that account. Not that the manhood of Chriſt merited, but the whole of Chriſt acted in thoſe things wher…in the merit was. But if we ſpeak of the efficient cauſe of juſtification, or of pardon of ſinne, Chriſt conſidered in his divine nature as God only is agent in it, becauſe he alone againſt whom ſinne is committed, can from and by himſelf acquit and diſchare therefrom; and ſo Chriſt as God can only do it, and he did it as God, as I have proved from Mark 22. 10.
I conceive that in this Text Chriſt is not ſpoken of as the efficient, from whom juſtification and pardon of ſins comes, but as Mediator through whom, or as the means and merit by whom forgiveneſſe of ſinnes comes; in which ſenſe it is ſaid that Chriſt was the Lamb of God which took away the ſinnes of the world. My reaſon is, becauſe it is ſaid, through this man is preached forgiveneſſe, and by him all that beleeve are juſtified, not efficiently, but mediatoriouſly and meritoriouſly. It is not ſaid he pardoned ſin, but through him pardon was preached; nor is it ſaid he juſtified, but through him are juſtified thoſe that beleeve; that is, through him as the meanes; and herein the manhood is not to be excluded from acting in thoſe works which God accounts for a beleevers righteouſneſſe, and in reference to which God juſtifies; but principally, yea ſolely to be acknowledged, but ſo farre as concernes the reſpect that God gives to ſuch actions, and the acceptance that they find with God, which is this, viz. God imputes them unto beleevers as their righteouſneſſe, and for the ſake of them doth pardon their ſins; the manhood is not at all herein to be mentioned. But nothing that can be anſwered to this can reach the inſtance, becauſe this text was impertinent, and I might have paſſed it by, without giving any anſwer to it, becauſe Chriſts pardoning of ſinne in way of efficiency, is that which the Inſtance or Argument which I produced, intends and proves, and this Scripture diſables it not, becauſe it ſpeaks of another thing, and not of that.
But he goes on, and tels us what Scripture ſaith farther, viz. That Christ prayed to another (on the Jewes befalfe) for the forgiveneſſe of ſinne, Luke 23. 34. Then ſaid Jeſus, Father forgive them, for they know not what they do. Therefore Chriſt is not the principall forgiver of ſins, according to Scripture.
Reply. Chriſt prayed to another, viz the Father, for the forgiveneſſe of ſin, and another prayed to him for the pardon of ſin, viz. Stephen, and the Jewes were the ſubjects that were prayed for in both; What muſt then be ſaid to this? and what anſwer is to be given to it? Alas it is not difficult to ſpeak to it. The Scripture hath clearly untyed the knot; If Chriſt were not a man, he could not pray to another; and if he were nothing more then a man, another could not pray to him; and the Scripture declares both, while it ſhewes him to be God and man. As man therefore he humbles himſelf, he prayes unto him that was God. It was a time of Humiliation to Chriſt, and this was an action of humiliation in Chriſt, but as God he was prayed to by him that was a man, and with adoration alſo, though he was in heaven in reference to his manhood, he veiled his Godhead when he prayed to God; Stephen unveiled it, when he prayed to him. So that there is no good conſequence in this, that becauſe both the Scripture and himſelf do declare him to be man in his praying for the pardon of ſins, therefore Scripture and himſelf have denied him to be God in his pardoning of mens ſins.
His third Scripture is 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 forgiveneſſe of ſins; Hence he collects that Chriſt received from another his power of forgiving ſins.
Rep. This Scripture ſeems to favour his opinion more then any that he hath alledged, and it hath the moſt ſeeming ſtrength in it for his purpoſe. But this anſwer may be returned unto it. Chriſt doth fall under a double conſideration in Scripture, he may be looked upon abſolutely as the Son of God, and ſecond perſon in the Trinity, as Jehovah, and as foreign very God; or he may be looked upon relatively, as foreign, God man, as …mmanuel, God with us, or in our nature, as God manifeſt in the fleſh, and as ſent into the world, and executing the office of Mediator. If he be conſidered in the former acception, he is eſſentially Lord; and that one Lawgiver in all the creatures are the works of his giver hands, and ſubject to him, and every tranſgreſſion and ſinne that is committed, is againſt him; and it belongs to him with the Father and the holy Ghoſt (who are one God with himſelf) to pardon ſinne, to acquit from the guilt, and to deliver from the curſe thereof, becauſe he can turn away his wrath, and hath power over all plagues, and can ſave from them, and ſo he receives no power to forgive ſins, but it belongs to him and cannot be ſeparated from his Godhead, but is naturally, eſſentially and eternally his. But if he be conſidered in the latter acception, then many things are derived to him, as the office of Mediatorſhip, and a Lordſhip, and the name Saviour is given him upon that account, which is a name above every name of the Creatures, and Prince and Captaine of our ſalvation, is a name put upon him, and belonging to him; in this ſenſe it is given to him to give repentance unto Iſrael and remiſſion of ſins. Now it muſt be underſtood as I have expreſſed in my former Treatiſe, that the giving of theſe things doth not deny any intrinſecall or inward perfection which Chriſt hath, but rather ſuppoſeth it; and it muſt be granted, that Chriſt, to whom theſe things are given, according to his due nature, hath all his perfection without the gift of theſe, and that theſe are but declarative, and ſerve to manifeſt that eſſentiall riches and glory which he had with the Father from eternity, and that his naturall Dominion and Lordſhip (which cannot be ſeparated from his Deity) is that which founds ſuch donations and gifts which are too high for any creature, and would carry away Divine glory from him, who is God, if they ſhould be given to any meere creature, and they are to be exerciſed by the help of the Godhead of Chriſt, elſe they could not be acted by him, as being too great for any man or meere creature. Indeed the humanity hath fellowſhip with the Godhead in the glory of the having and executing theſe things; and to the manhood it is glory derived, which was not before, but to the Deity of Chriſt it is glory manifeſted and declared only.
More particularly, It is given to Chriſt as Mediator to diſpenſe pardon of ſin, and it belongs to his Prieſt-hood to do it. The Prieſts of the Law they did it, externally and miniſterially, figuratively and typically; they pronounced clean and unclean, ſo farre as concerned the fleſh; but Chriſt did it, and doth it effectually, and ſpiritually, pronouncing and diſcharging the conſcience from all ſinne; and what was the reaſon of this difference? They did it as men, therefore in weakneſſe, and could ſpeak, but were not able to effect what they ſpake; but Chriſt did it as the Sonne of God, yea as the eternall Son of God, as the Apoſtle teſtifies, Heb. 7. 3. So that the very Prieſt-hood of Chriſt, that it might be effectuall in the works of it (and this of pardoning of ſin, was one of them) was founded in the eternall Son-ſhip of Chriſt, and therein lay this ability and power to performe the works of it, and principally this work of remitting ſinnes: So that though the way of diſpenſing pardon be given to Chriſt, yet the power of diſpenſing was not given, but is as ancient as his Son-ſhip; therefore he erres in his inference which he fetcheth from this Text of Acts 5. 31. When he ſaith, that he received from another his power of forgiving ſins: For it was not power that he received, but the way of exerciſing of it. It is acted in the fleſh as Mediator, even ſince Chriſt came in the fleſh, and now the Son of man, forgives ſinnes, that is, the perſon that is man and the ſon of man forgives, but not as he is man or the ſon of man, but as he is God and the Son of God. For though it may be ſaid that the Mediator pardoneth ſin efficiently, as well as Meritoriouſly, as Prieſt; yet it cannot be ſaid that the whole of the Mediator doth it, but the divine nature alone acts in it. It may be ſaid of a man who conſiſts of ſoul and body, that he meditateth, but it cannot be ſaid of the whole of man that he meditateth, but of the minde only. It may alſo be ſaid of of him that he walketh; but it is to be underſtood of his body only, and not of his minde, yet becauſe of the union betwixt body and ſoul (both of them making but one man) what either doth is attributed to the whole. So it is with Chriſt our Mediator, he bore our ſinnes as man only, for the God-head could not ſuffer, he purged away our ſinnes as God-man: for the man-hood acted, and the God-head merited, he pardoned ſin as God only, becauſe he is ſupream Lord only as he is God: yet the Mediator doth all theſe, that is, he that is both God and man doth them; but in this different way he doth them. And ſo it appears that ſtill he is the principall in this work of forgiving ſins, becauſe he doth it as God, and that this gift (which reſpects not the power it ſelf of diſpenſing, but the way only of diſpenſing doth adde nothing to the intrinſicall perfection of Chriſt, but is manifeſtive of that inward eſſentiall glory, which he had with the Father before any beginning was, which was vailed by Chriſts aſſuming fleſh, and yet manifeſted in fleſh, by acts which were too high for fleſh, of which nature this of pardoning ſin was one.
The concluſion is this, the work of forgiving ſin is high and glorious, proper and peculiar, and ſuitable to this great and moſt high God, Jeſus Chriſt; the Mediatorly the way of diſpenſing it is below this excellent perſon Chriſt, who is not only the ſon of the higheſt, but the higheſt, and it was the humbling and debaſing and emptying of himſelf to act ſuch a work in ſuch a way.