The good An

Questionlesse, the good Angels have a gels have bene- near, and a mysticall relation unto Jesus by Chrift, Chrift; and are beholding to him, (though not so much, yet as well) as man-kind. He is a common head to both, both meeting together in him. So that place of the Apostle is most genuinely expounded, Ephef.1.10. That in the dispensation of the fulnesse of time, he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are in earth, even in him. Angels in heaven, and men upon earth, make one mysticall Body, meeting together in the same Head: So Chrift is called: As the Head of man, 1 Cor.11.3. The Head of every man is Chrift: ] So of the Angels, Colof.2.10. He is the Head of Principalities and Powers. Hence is it that the good Angels are called the Elect Angels, 1 Tim.5. 21. Now Christ is the Head of the Election; None are elected but in him, and for him, Ephef.1.4. And thus they are stiled the Sons of God, Job 1.6. & 2.1. & 38.7. Sons, not by nature: That is Christ's Prerogative, who is the onely begotten Son of God, John 1.14. & 3. 16. But by grace, the grace of Adoption; and that also must be by and through Jesus Christ, Ephef.1.5. And thus are they reckoned as a part of that πανήγυεις, the generall Assembly, the Catholick Church, Heb. 12.22. And being so, they must have some benefit by Jesus Chrift: viz. the benefit of Preservation and Confirmation. By and through him they come to have a more perfect union with God.

1

And

And thus may we understand that very ob- Colof. 1. 20. fcure Text of the Apostle, which Expositors expounded. are not a little troubled about, Colof.1.20. It pleased the Father, &c. By him, (viz. by Christ) to reconcile all things to himselfe, whether they be things in heaven, or things in earth.] Where, granting (what generally is not, and I think well cannot be denyed) that by [things in Heaven] are to be understood the Angels; the Question is, How they are faid to be reconciled unto God? To this it is answered. Properly they are not: Where there was no breach, there can be no proper Reconciliation. This is peculiar unto man; but im-ature hoc conCuicunque creproperly and analogically they may be faid so to venit, ut peccabe; and that by confirming and establishing re non poffit: her them in the grace and favour of God; taking babet ex dono away all poffibility of D Defection from him, and gratia, non ex Enmity with him. This benefit the elect An-ra. Aquin. gels may be conceived to have by Christ, Sum. par. 1. through his Mediation; thereby they are quæst. 63. brought to a more perfect adhesion unto God, Chrifti gratia to an inseparable union with him. Their peace effectum est ut and amity with him by this means is continued Angeli Deo and strengthened. And thus you see the for- ἀπεριασπάς ως mer of these two Questions briefly resolved. adharentes, à

The latter followeth.

conditione natu

Art.1.

lapsu immunes perstarens.

Quest. 2. Is Jesus Christ Mediatour onely Tilen. Synaccording to his Humane Nature? Or, if you tag. pars. 2. will, inlarge the question a little: Jesus Chrift cap. 10. fec.34. being both God and man, partaking of both Question 2. Natures; the question now is, according to According which of these his Natures, he is said to be Chrift is Me

to

Answer. A threefold epinion,

Text.

1

the Mediatour betwixt God and men. Whether only according to his Divine Nature, as God; or whether onely according to his Humane Nature, as man; or according to both, as God and man? Here are three wayes : Which shall we take?

Ans. Take which we will, we shall fall with some company. And therefore it behooveth us here to take that counsell which the - Lord giveth unto his people, Jer.6.16 to stand in these wayes, and see, and ask for the old path, where is the right way, that we may walk therein.

1. Christ is 1. In the first of these we shall find OfianMediatour on- der alone. Christ is Mediatour (faith he) onely as God: con-ly according to his Divine Nature, as God: fured from the But this opinion needeth no other refutation, then that which it meeteth with in the Text, which tels us exprefly, that the Mediatour betwixt God and man, is the Man Chrift Jefus; fo, clearly interesting the Manhood of Christ in this Office and Work of Mediatorship. Upon this account we leave him...

2. Onely as 2. The second path is more trodden. Here man: the o- we find not only Stancarus, whom Bellarmine pinion of Pa- seemeth to undertake, as being fomewhat too pifts. grosse in his opinion this way: But even Bellarmine himselfe, and most of the Dotours of the Church of Rome; who, however they acknowledge that that perfon, who was and is Mediatour, is both God and Man, Deus Humanatus, (to use Bellarmine's

1

tore. cap.

larmine's words) God made man; yet (say they) Bellarminus de he performeth and executeth that office of Chrifto Medis his Mediatorship not according to his Divine, but Humane Nature, onely as man: So the Master of the Sentences, fo Bonaventure, fo Nullo pasto Aquinas have determined it; And therein convenit Chrithey are followed by the generality of the Re-stoesse Mediamish Perswafion. Jesus Christ is Mediatour torem, in quantum Deus eft. onely according to his humane Nature; not at fed in quantum all as God, but onely as man. This is their Homo. Thom. Tenent, which they endeavour to make good 3. p.q. 26. both by Scripture and Reason...

Art. 2. Concl.

this opinion.

• - - • -

For Scripture. They have but one Text, which The Text they can find that feemeth to fpeak any thing cleared from for them in this cause; And that is this we have countenancing now in hand. There is one God, and one Me diatour betwixt God and men, the Man Chrift Jesus. In this bulrush they find two knots: From hence they take up a double Argument. First, The Apostle he recalleth this Mediatour, the Man Christ Jesus: And wherefore fo, but to expreffe and notifie that Nature ac cording to which he is Mediatour? And Secondly, He plainly diftinguisheth here betwixt God, and this Mediatour, [There is one God, and one Mediatour. And therefore Christ cannot be Mediatour as God, but only as man; Thus they argue from this Text. But how weakly will foon appear, if we come to joyne issue with them. Which I shall do with all convenient brevity, as not taking delight in controverfies, or willingly medling with them, but where I'am neceffarily ingaged to it.

Arg. I.

4

Arg. 1.
The man

Arg. 1. For the former, The Mediatour betwixt God and man, is the Man Christ

Christ Jesus. Jesus.

man:

Answer. Ans. True, he is so; but not onely as man, Not onely as there is a broad difference betwixt these two, The Man Chrift is Mediatour: and, He is Mediatour onely as man: The Apostle here afferteth the one, not so the other. He doth not say, Jesus Christus Homo, Jesus Christ the Man; that might have seemed to imply what they contend for: But Homo Jesus Christus, the Man Christ Jesus: id eft, not any other man; not any meer man: but that man, who was more then man; the Man Christ Jesus; that Person who was both God & man. Thus are we here to construe the word

A

Mediatore.

Chamier de [Man, Non naturaliter, fed Personaliter; not in the Abstract, but in the Congrete; nor cap.5. fea.5. as pointing out unto us only the humane nature of Christ, but the whole Perfon denominated and set forth unto us by and under that nature: Like phrases we meet withall elfewhere, 1 Cor.2.8. It is said that the Lord of Glory was crucified:] not that Christ was crucified in that nature; according to which he is most properly faid to be the Lord of Glory, viz his divine Nature, that was impoffible. But that Person, who being God, as well as man, was the Lord, and God of Glory, (as he is stiled Acts 7.2.) he was crucified. So in that obvious place, Acts 20.28.it is said that God now rished the Church with his blood. Not that the Godbead fuffered and died; (that had no blood

of