the conception of him in the womb of the Virgin unless any say that the Virgin was farther extended not only than her garment or house but all heavens likewise also his ascent into heaven and return from it so necessary as they call them Articles of Christian Religion and Faith which whilst they defend who also hold the ubiquity of the body of Christ they contradict themselves and assert neither of them fully and constantly This is a grievous error both of it self and if you mark it because it overthrows the foundations of all Christian knowledge and faith For it denies credit to be given to the senses and will not that any more credit â—e given to the eyes nor hands by which Christ overcame of old the most stiff incredulity as * Luke 24.39 c. of other disciples so †John 20.27 28. of Thomas For it requires to be believed that Christ was in very deed in that place already before he came into which he was seen by their eyes to have come and that nevertheless he remained in his very body in that place from which he was seen to have departed and that now also those places are full of the body of Christ consisting of flesh blood and bones which not only the eyes but also the hands do testifie to be empty of it and to be filled with other bodies But if Faith be to be denied to these witnesses there will be no cause why Christ should not be discredited * John 3.11 32. testifying those things which he hath seen there will be no reason why we should believe the Apostles affirming Christs Miracles Death Resurrection which they perceived †Joh. 20.30 31. 1 Cor. 15.5 c. by their outward sences and those holy Writers who affirm that they ‖ Luke 1.2 rest themselves on the credit of eye witnesses In vain did John write * 1 John 1.1 What we have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have beheld and our hands have handled of the word of Life if both the eyes and the hands may be deceived in so manifest a thing yea we must also doubt whether we read those things in the holy Scriptures which we do read But I will say no more of this error as being not common to all the Adversaries Although in the mean while also a greater part of them affirmes the like things concerning the presence of the substance of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist against the credit of the senses themselves And lastly none of them can satisfie thoroughly the patrons of that ubiquity as long as they hold the humane nature of Christ to be joyned by an inseparable tie to the divine which wholly may subsist in its essence in all places For unless the humane nature be altogether in the same places in which the divine is the humane nature will at the same time be joyned and not joyned in place to the whole divinity But there is another errour both injurious to the greatest goodness of God towards us and also very hurtful to piety and consequently also to mens salvation which leans on that doctrine and is vulgarly common to all the Adversaries For if Christ be the most high God who dejected himself from the heavens into the Virgins womb who an infant cried in the cradle who eat drank wept and underwent as other things proper to humane frailty so also a grievous death there was to be sought some end agreeing to so absurd a thing that is equally absurd which hath put the most high God willing to save us on this necessity Now that is commonly held to be that the infinite God partly might make a full compensation for the disobedience of infinite numbers of men by the infinite merit of his obedience which they call active partly also by the infinite price of his death might most fully satisfie his Father angry with us for all our sins both past and present and to come and might fully discharge all our debts to him yea if those things which they say be true might also pay much more than we should owe since they say that even one drop of the blood of Christ as being infinite God hath satisfied for all the sins of the whole world Such a satisfaction seeing because it could be made by no creature and yet was necessary to appease the wrath of God therefore they say that God ought to be incarnated There are indeed some found who have rejected the former part of that satisfaction which consists in the active obedience of Christ as they call it For they saw that if Christ by his obedience had fully recompenced our disobedience there would remain no sins for which he should satisfie by his death all being already abundantly recompenced and extinct by that obedience But they are both few and nevertheless vehemently urge the latter satisfaction consisting in the passive obedience or Passion and Death More are found who also have endeavoured to mitigate somewhat the other part of that opinion either because they have taken away the necessity of it or because they have asserted that that satisfaction by its own virtue doth not extinguish our debts unless the bounty of God be added But besides that that opinion which we have before explained is more common it must needs be that that was a necessary and inevitable thing which compelled tâ—e most high God to that thing than which nothing can be imagined more unworthy of him and very many of them who deny the necessâ—ty of that satisfaction not depending on the Decree of God nevertheless do hold that price which was paid for us to be infinite in worth and equall to our debts But this opinion besides that it permits not to acknowledge the true virtue of Christs death in procuring us the remission of our sins and eternal Salvation it deprives God himâ—elf also of the praise of the greatest goodness which he hath afforded us sinners yea and takes away from him the right of further requiring piety from us by which very thing it both destroyes the study of piety in us and together with piety takes away salvation For God hath neither pardoned our sins to us if all that which was due to him was paid to him by another in our stead and name nor did he bestow his Son for us a price of our Redemption if it was paid him by the death of his Son Where then is that which the * Eph. 1.7 Apostle speaks of so much That we have Redemption in Christ by his blood even the Remission of sins according to the riches of the Divine Grace The holy Bible especially of the New Testament is †See among other places John 3.16 Rom. 3.5 6 c. 8.32 2 Cor. 5.18 c. Eph. 2.4 c. Col. 1.14 1 John 4.9 c. full of the praises of so great a bounty and immense love of God towards us But by what
followeth that it may be absolutely said of him that he can do all things of himself no less than he is absolutely affirmed to be the most high God Again They with whom we have to do do either confess that it may be simply or without any limitation added said of the divine Nature of Christ that it can do nothing of it self or they do not confess If they do confess why do they distinguish between the humane and divine Nature Why do they say that the words of Christ whereof we treat are not to be understood of him according to the divine but according to the humane Nature Will they perhaps say that also the divine Nature can do nothing of it self according to the humane Who seeth not that such a fashion of speaking and limiting is ridiculous Will you say that the soul of a man hath not in it self according to the body a power of thinking understanding reasoning Or that the body is not fleshly thick tall or low according to the soul But be it that it is lawful having expresly added such a limitation to deny these things of the soul as doth indeed agree unto it but do not agree unto the body and contrarily of the body such as agree to it but do not agree to the soul will it be presently lawful to do the same simply and without any limitation Who ever heard say that that should simply be taken away from the whole which doth indeed agree thereunto because it agreeth not to the other part of the same whole How then could that be simply taken away from the divine Nature which doth agree to the same namely to do all things of it self because it agreeth not to the humane Nature But if the Adversaries confess not that it may simply be said of the divine Nature of Christ that it can do nothing of it self their Opinion touching the Person of Christ falls to the ground for if the Son of God is a Person having supream Divinity it is necessary that whatsoever is simply either denied or affirmed of him may also simply be either denied or affirmed of his divine Nature For a person having supream Deity is nothing but the very divine Nature subsisting as many of the Adversaries confess and we in the second Book will shew †Sect. 1. Chap. 4. Since therefore it is simply denied of the Son of God that he can do nothing of himself whereas that same cannot be simply denied of the divine Nature it must be confessed that the Son of God is not a Person of supream Deity Neither can they escape the force of this Argument who hold a divine Person to be not the divine Nature but a subsistence of the divine Nature For first from this very place of John it is evinced either that their Opinion touching a divine Person is false or that the Son of God is not a Person endued with Supream Divinity For a Subsistence worketh nothing neither of it self nor by the shewing of another For the very nature subsisting worketh all things either by a faculty of its own or such as was received from another A Subsistence hath no faculty neither from its self nor received from another But the Son of God worketh all things by the shewing of the Father Wherefore he is not a Subsistence If the Son of God is not a subsistence either a Person of the supream Divinity will not be a Subsistence or the Son of God will not be a Person of supream Divinity Furthermore if a Subsistence did work any thing it would work in such a manner as is agreeable to the Nature wherein it is and with which it is really the same But the divine Nature wherein the divine Subsistence is and with which as the Adversaries speak it is really the same worketh of it self and not by the shewing of another wherefore the divine Subsistence also should be said to work after that manner nor could it less simply be denied that it can work of it self than the same may be denied of the divine Nature Add hereunto that it would no less ridiculously be said that the divine Subsistence can do nothing of it self according to the humane Nature than that the divine Nature can do nothing of it self acccording to the humane Nature Besides were the words of Christ to be restrained as the Adversaries would have it Christ had not spoken to the matter For it appeareth from the very place and all confess that Christ answereth the objection of the Jews and defineth those words of his namely My Father worketh hitherto and I work from all crime of Blasphemy and Arrogancy For the Jews objected it to him as a most grievous crime because by such words he calleth God his own Father making himself equal to God as we read ver 18. For thus they reason He that maketh himself equal to God committeth a crime to be expiated by death But Christ maketh himself equal to God in that he calleth God his own Father and maketh himself equal to him in working In which Argument it is spoken of whole Christ and not only of one Nature of his especially the less worthy For neither Christ when he affirmed My Father worketh and I work spake only one part of himself and that the less worthy but of himself as he was the Son of God and consequently God as the Adversaries themselves urge who are wont to object against us those words of the 18th verse to prove from thence that Christ is God by Nature because he both called God his own Father and made himself equal to God neither of which can agree to him who is not God by Nature To which Argument of the Jews Christ answereth Verily verily I say unto you the Son can do nothing of himself What would the answer make to the purpose if Christ should here speak of himself according to the humane Nature only when the question was concerning him either whole how great so ever he is or according to the divine Nature as the Adversaries will have it How had he defended his own words wherein he had spoken of his whole self or of himself as the most high God It is objected against him thou makest thy self equal to God namely in that thou makest thy self the Son of God and by that means dost as the Adversaries will have it arrogate to thy self a divine Nature Christ answers according to their Opinion the Son can do nothing of himself according to the humane Nature and is therein unequal to the Father What 's this to the matter But if you hold with us that Christ spake of himself whole how great soever he was you will find that he spake very pertinently to the matter and solidly confuted the crime that was objected against him For he answers that he doth not simply and absolutely make himself equal to God although in respect of working he compareth himself unto God because although he doth all things
Christ prayed according to the humane Nature only is sufficiently refuted by what we have spoken before both in the 3d and 14th chapter and also in the precedent one Whereunto add if Christ as this distinction supposeth had had a divine Nature in him there would have been no need that he should fly to another Person namely the Father as we read Christ very often did and also with tears and strong cryings For what need is there to ask of another and that with so great earnestness yea further with tears which you are able by your self and that by natural strength underived from another at all times most freely and easily to perform yea which you your selves have absolutely decreed to perform as certainly it is to be held of Christ if he were the most supream God or most High Some here reply that it may be that even he who may and will perform something by himself may beg it of another to the end he may honour him in this behalf and in a manner leave to him the glory of the benefit And that it became Christ as being the Son in this sort to honour the Father and to ask of the Father by name as of the Fountain those benefits which proceed from the whole Trinity Which answer first taketh not away the difficulty For they who thus answer either hold that some Prerogative agreeth to the Father above the Son and so to the first Person of the Deity above the second as such or else they hold it not If they hold it those Persons are not of the same numerical Essence nor is the Son the supream and most high God as we have already * Chap. 1 2. of this Section shewn before If they hold it not there is no cause why the Son should rather ask something of the Father than of himself if so be any one may ask any thing of himself or without any prayers performed by himself For what reason is there that in an absolute equality this honour should rather be given unto the Father and the glory of the deed attributed to him than to the Son Yea Christ should rather have taken heed lest by the example of his prayers which he is found to have poured out to the Father only he should give occasion unto others to exhibit greater honour to the Father than either to himself or to the holy Spirit For to Persons altogether equal equal honour is also due and the Adversaries themselves contend that those three Persons of Supream Divinity which they hold have equal honour and glory But if you say as indeed some do that it was Christs modesty to ask that of the Father which of himself he could either assume to himself or bestow on others Not to repeat those things which have been already spoken we may demand to which Nature they think that modesty is to be ascribed If to the humane it was not its modesty but judgement only to prefer the Father before the Son and to direct prayers rather to the more honourable It is greater modesty to make an address to the inferiour rather than to the Superiour Or if you think the Persons altogether equal you shew no greater modesty if you betake your self and convert your prayers to one than to the other If they ascribe this modesty to the divine Nature or Person as we said it was necessary if this Person were divine that is if he were the very supream God they are very absurd and injurious to the most high God For Modesty is a Vertue of Men and Angels not of the most high God It is I say a Vertue of such a Nature as may be exalted and cast down not belonging to such a nature as is not capable of exaltation and depression But if you dare to ascribe modesty to the most high God as such there will be no cause why you should so earnestly contend that Christ prayed to the Father not according to the divine Nature but according to the humane only For it would not be impossible that Christ according to the divine Nature did for modesty sake so debase himself before the Father as to pray unto him for others namely Men and obtain gifts for them which he could by himself bestow upon them which how absurd it is every one perceiveth and the Adversaries themselves sufficiently intimate that they see it whilst all that I know of do in this Argument fly to the distinction of Natures But furthermore the manner of Christs prayers to the Father chiefly expressed by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and also in part intimated by the Writers of the History of the Gospel doth at no hand admit that answer for it argueth the want of Christ and necessity of praying not modesty only This appeareth both from his great assiduity in praying and also by his strong crying and tears and perplexity of mind which shewed themselves as he prayed a little before his death If you say it was necessity that Christ prayed but modesty that he rather prayed to the Father than to himself or his own divine Nature not to repâ—â—t what was formerly spoken of the humane Nature of Christ be hâ—â—â—â—â— be personally united to the divine that necessity will quite be eâ—â—â—â—â—â—ed especially in things pertaining to Christ himself wherein notwithstanding we see that he used such cryings and tears and contention of mind For by what means for example sake could the necessity drive the humane Nature of Christ to pray so ardently unto the Father that he would not forsake it or leave it destitute of his help and that he would receive its spirit into his hands and save it from death if it had been joyned with an indissolveable tye to the divine Nature which both could and would perform it yea could not chuse but perform it Do we think that the humane Nature of Christ was afraid lest that personal union should be dissolved But the Adversaries do not so much as permit any one to doubt of that so far are they from believing that such a thing could come into the mind of Christs humane Nature or of the man Christ or could it perhaps fear lest then the union remained entire yet notwithstanding might perpetually abide in death and so the divine Nature remain to all eternity personally united to a dead and bloodless corps who would not tremble to think of this since if you make a true estimate of the thing this could not be done so much as for a moment It remaineth therefore that Christ did not for modesty but for necessity pray and that to the Father a different person from himself namely because he could not perform by himself that which he asked for himself and could not bestow that which he asked for others but by power received from the Father which by praying for others he tacitly begged should be given to himself The first of these is intimated by the divine Author to
made but the Minor is to be understood only of such a giving as is made declaratively For they answer to the places wherewith we have confirmed our Assumption especially some of them that they ought not to be understood as if the Father did at a certain time really give to the Son the things mentioned therein but that he declared that the Son had them or received them by that eternal Generation causing that they should be acknowledged by all Thus many take that Glory which Christ * John 17.1 5 23 24. begged of the Father that also that God †Acts 2.36 made him Lord and Christ that also that ‖ Phil. 2.9 gave him a name which is above every name But first they themselves sufficiently see that this answer doth not agree to all the places which we have alleaged But if the rest be safe our Argument would nevertheless consist although those places which we have mentioned or some others also were to be taken in that manner as they would have Again There is no cause unless they will alleage that very thing which we oppose by this Argument for a cause wherefore we ought to depart from the propriety simplicity of the words yea there are mighty causes for which we must not depart from the same For as to that Glory which Christ beggeth of the Father Joh. 17. if Christ had it really in himself already that which they say was to be manifested namely the Majesty of that one God for this they must of necessity understand by the glory which they contend that he really had with the Father before the world was created what need was there to pray the Father that he would glorifie him for that would alwayes have been no less in the hands of Christ himself than of the Father nor would he less have glorified himself than the Father him Since it would be necessary that external works yea all should be common to them yea Christ beggeth it of the Father as the reward of the performance of a work committed to him by the Father as appeareth by the collation of ver 4 5. But besides that no reward can be given to the most high God what reward is this of a work performed that he should be acknowledged the supream God who is so is not this very justly due unto God without any respect of any work And no less to the Son than to the Father or to the holy Spirit Besides how well they explain that Father glorifie me with thy self for what is that with thy self Is it not manifest that such words are wont to be opposed and are in this place opposed unto that which is done with men or appeareth before them as in the latter words it is tacitly opposed unto them with me It is not therefore spoken of a thing which ought to be done with men such as would be that manifestation of Christs Glory which he really had from eternity but which he had with God What then ought the Father to declare unto himself the Majesty of the Son had he not sufficiently known it And when he knew it not ought he to declare it to himself or else to the Angels conversing with him in Heaven What had not they sufficiently known the Majesty of the second Person of the Trinity had they not beheld it with their eyes As to that place Act. 2. where God is said to have made Jesus Lord and Christ the words admit not such an explication for if we follow their explication Peter must be thought to speak thus Therefore let all the House of Israel assuredly know that God hath declared him both Lord and Christ even this Jesus whom ye have crucified But to whom hath he declared it was it to Angels Had not they yet known Christ to be that which he was and had long since been Was it to men But Peter and God did by him in these very words truly first declare that very thing to the Jews Again Peter deduceth these words from those in the * Psal 110.1 Psalms The Lord said unto my Lord Sit thou on my right hand But in them Christ is bidden to reign as Paul interpreteth it 1 Cor. 15.25 and is not only declared to reign What doth the Father perhaps command the Son himself to declare that he reigneth and hath alwayes reigned But they would perswade us that Christ John 17. prayed the Father to do it since he had in like manner already glorified him and would hereafter glorifie him again To this sitting at the right hand of God Paul opposeth the delivering up of the †1 Cor. 15 24 c. Kingdom which certainly shall not consist therein in that Christ shall no longer declare that he reigneth yea if Christ be that one God he will then declare unto us in Heaven that he reigneth no less than the Father since God shall be all in all I omit other things which might be said concerning these words of the Psalmist Finally They who will have it that God declared Jesus Lord and Christ either hold that he was Christ from eternity or made such at a certain time He could not be from eternity for to be Christ is to be Anointed which is not incident to the most high God as he is such neither hath any one as I know dared to say so but all say that it agreeth to Christ as he is man He was therefore at a certain time made Christ and that by him whose Anointed he is said to be namely God the Father Why then go they about the bush and seek starting holes since they are notwithstanding forced to confeâ—s that he was sometimes really and not declaratively only made by God Lord and Christ for to be the Christ is to be the Lord and King of God's People although they agree not with us about the time when it was done For that is sufficient for us here that God hath already made him Lord and Christ Although who is there that if he could but ‖ That is Obtain impetrate of himself to lay aside his prejudicate Opinion for a short space would not see that this happened after the death and resurrection of Christ Since all the circumstances of the place in hand do lead yea drive us thither that I may omit others like thereunto amongst which is that Ephes 1.19 and Heb. 1.3 As to that place Phil. 2. neither doth it admit that explication first because by those words is explained the exceeding great reward of the debasement and obedience of Christ performed to God even with the sufferance of the death of the Cross but could not be to declare who and how great he is and alwayes was that is as the Adversaries must of necessity affirm to demonstrate him to be the most high God whereof we have spoken above when we treated of the place John 17.5 Aagain Christ was therefore among other things exceedingly exalted and a name given
so perfect a signification as Christ is asserted to be a God is likewise a Lord and if he be a God of himself he is also of himself a Lord and therefore cannot any further be made a Lord by another The same may also be confirmed by this Reason The Lordship of Christ is either the same with his Godhead or different from it If the same certainly when he was made a Lord he was also made a God If different it is either equal to his Godhead or less For Christ hath nothing greater than his Godhead If equal though they cannot speak thus who attribute to him the supream and independent Godhead there is the same reason thereof with his Godhead and there is no cause why if he was made Lord he was not also made a God If less it will in like manner follow that he hath not of himself this priviledge of being a God For if he have not of himself that which is less much less that which is greater In which place it is not to be omitted that Ambrose in those very words of Peter instead of the word Lord doth read the name of God as if Peter had said And God hath made him God and Christ this Jesus c. The second Argument is this He to whom that is given or granted for which he ought to be worshipped with divine Worship hath also Godhead given and granted to him For neither is there any thing besides Godhead for which we ought to worship any one with divine Worship or causeth that any one is worthy of that worship But we read how that was given and granted unto Christ for which he ought to be worshipped with divine Worship namely all Judgment and a Name above every name for so as we have seen Christ himself speaketh John 5.22 23. For neither doth the Father judge any one but hath given all judgment to the Son that all might honour the Son at they honour the Father he that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father that sent him And Paul Phil. 2.9 c. saith Wherefore also God hath exceedingly exalted him and given him a Name which is above every name that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven and in the earth and under the earth and that every tongue might confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the Father Now that in both places it is spoken of the divine Honour Adoration which is due to Christ from all both the thing it self sheweth and all confess But that this worship is to be exhibited unto him for all Judgment given him by the Father for a Name given him above every name the same Testimonies do clearly shew The same may easily be proved likewise out of that place in Daniel chap. 7.13 Where Christ is said to have received from the Antient of dayes that is his Father Power and Honour and a Kingdom and it is added that all Peoples Tribes and Tongues should serve him namely for so great Power and the Kingdom given to him For who would not serve his King Now this Service is not meant a civil one as being to be given to one that was not an earthly King but a religious and divine one as to be exhibited to a divine and heavenly King Why then do the greater part of the Adversaries deny that Godhead was given or granted unto Christ And indeed not a few both of the antient modern Interpreters of the Scripture * See among others Corn. a Lapide in this place Joh. 1.1 affirm that when Paul saith there was given unto Christ a Name above every name that the name of a God is there understood because there is no other name extant besides that which is above every name Though therein many are mistaken who conceive that by Name is meant the very Appellation or Title of a God For how was this Appellation given him at length after his death when John saith that the Word or Speech was a God in the beginning namely of that thing whereof he speaketh which is the Gospel Add hereunto that Paul speaketh of the reward which God gave to Christ for so great debasement and obedience to the very death of the Cross But what manner of reward is this to give to any one a Title if you give him not the thing designed by that Title Doth the most bountiful and rich God in this manner render rewards for so great Piety such a reward would be unbeseeming even a Prince or other Potentate Besides when any one hath the thing it self and that most rightfully there is no need to give or grant to him the name whereby that thing is designed especially when that thing hath a name already set and appointed as here it cometh to pass If any one be indeed a King and that very rightfully there is no need to confer upon him the title of a King since none can deny the same unto him but wrongfully But that is said to be conferred which might of right be denyed Wherefore we must understand by that Name not a Title but Dignity or Power as you have it in a like place Ephes 1.21 So that a Name above every name is Dignity and Power higher than all other For this is the proper cause of so great Worship and Honour For as civil Worship is due to earthly and civil Power and divine Worship is due to heavenly and divine as also that place John 5.22 doth shew where it is taught that divine Honour is to be exhibited by all unto Christ for the Power of judging which is the greatest part of his Power yea contained in a manner all Now if the thing be thus why do the Adversaries so insult over us for saying that Christ is a God by the Grace of God the Father that Godhead was given to Christ by the Father and he made and constituted a God by him Why do they upbraid us saying that we have two Gods the one as some are not afraid to jest in so serious a matter an old God the other a young God As if we had either two supream Gods or to have one supream God and another dependent on him and subordinate to him is contrary to the Scripture which expresly affirmeth that there are many Gods and affirmeth in down-right terms that we have one God the Father of whom are all things and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things or as if the Father because he was God from all eternity may therefore be deservedly called an old God or Christ a young God because he is after him in time as a Son is after his Father since old age and youth have place in none but corruptible things but ceaseth in such as are incorruptible and immortal Now if they would have God so to be old as Daniel calleth him the Antient of Dayes to whom he that was like unto the Son of Man was brought and
To which may be added that place of the Epiâ—le to the Hebrews chap. 5.7 which we formerly * Chap. 17 of this Section conside ed when we discoursed of the prayers which Christ poured out to the Father for it is thence evinced by a double reason that Christ could not raise himself from the dead and consequently did not partly because he did with so earnest prayers with so earnest cryings seconded also with tears beseech the Father to do it partly because he to whom he made such supplications is thus described and distinguished from Christ namely that he was able to save him from death Conceâ—ning both which things see what we have formerly said Finally that place Ephes 1.19 20. may be added which we have formerly alleaged where it is shewn how great Power how great Might God the Father did put forth when he raised Christ from the dead and set him at his right hand in the Heavens But what need would there have been of so great Power or how could it at all have been employed by God the Father if Christ had raised himself by a Power altogether proper and natural to him Now if you say that the same Power did also belong to Christ as being common to the Father with the Son there can no cause be alleaged why it should he said to be put forth rather by the Father than by Christ in as much as we have already shewn that the contrary ought rather to be done The third cause wherefore that first exception ought to be esteemed of no weight is this namely that such a sence doth exceedingly weaken Pauls Argument whereby from the Resurrection of Christ he asserteth the truth of our resurrection as he chiefly doth 1 Cor. 15.11 c and so throweth down the strongest prop of our hope For Paul doth thence shew that we shall arise because Christ arose Bâ—t if Christ raised himself from the dead by a power that was inbred and altogether natural to him and could not but raise himself the consequence is of no force For how followeth it if Christ raised himself by a power that was proper and altogether natural and could not but raise himself that we also who are altogether distitute of that Power and whom our nature doth not vindicate from eternal death shall assuredly rise There is now scarce any need to speak of the latter exception which is that by the name of God who is said to have raised Christ either the whole Trinity wherein Christ also is contained or the divine Essence which was no less in Christ than in the Father may be understood For we have brought Arguments even out of those places where the Adversaries themselves dare not apply that exception wherein is shewn that Christ did not raise himself from the dead the contrary whereof is required by that exception But furthermore who doth not understand that when God or he that raised Jesus from the dead is distinguished from Christ a person distinct from Christ is understood which is in this place sufficient for us That a person is understood is intimated by the name God which we have * Chap. 1. of this Section before shewn to be proper to a Person and also by the action of raising which agreeth to nothing but a Person but that one Person is understood the very word God as also that description He that raised Jesus Christ from the dead being uttered in the singular number doth manifest For neither is the word God a collective neither is that expression wherein mention is made of him who raised Christ from the dead general and common but proper and singular but the distinction between Christ and him that raised Christ from the dead is manifest from the very places Nor as we have else where hinted would he escape the Tax of Nestorianism who by the word God understanding Christ himself by name Chap 18. of this Section should say that he raised Christ or did any like thing about him for it would be all one as if he should say the Son of God raised Christ But what need more words When the very Scripture explaineth it self for what it in one place attributeth to God simply named it elsewhere openly attributeth to the Father either expressing the very name of the Father or describing him whom God raised by the appellation of his Son If therefore there were any obscurity or ambiguity in those places wherein the raising of Christ is simply attributed unto God without the addition of any other note implying that it was spoken of the Father yet would the other places shew that they are to be understood of the Father For the obscure passages are to be explained by the plain ones the confused ambiguous passages by the distinct ones But there is no ambiguity no obscurity in the word God since there can no place of the Scripture be alleaged where the name God put subjectively and also distinguished from Christ both which happen in these Testimonies is taken of any other but the Father Now whereas certain Testimonies of the Scripture are alleaged wherein the raising of Christ seemeth to be attributed to himself as that he himself said that he would in three dayes raise up the Temple namely of his Body John 2.20 21. and that he had power both to lay down his soul and to take or receive the same again for so the greek word may indifferently be rendered John 10.18 These passages evince no other than that Christ was the cause of his Resurrection and that it was so put in his hands as I may say that it could be taken away from him and interrupted by none After which manner the same Christ saith in Luke That he that shall lose his Soul shall find it chap. 9.24 or quicken it chap. 17.33 And John saith of them who believed in Christ and so are born of God that the word namely Christ Gave them Power to become the Sons of God that is to become immortal John 1.13 For othrewise so few Testimonies whereof the first as every one seeth is altogether figurative ought at no hand to be opposed to so many and so evident Testimonies and Reasons drawn from thence wherewith it is evinced that this action is properly to be attributed not to Christ but to the Father Indeed more might be said of these two places which are alleaged to the contrary but it is not now our intention and work to confute the Arguments of the Adversaries but with Arguments to assert our own Opinion Wherefore let it now suffice to have touched these places We Meddle not here with the exception of two Natures in Christ for the intelligent Reader if he shall consider both our Argument or Arguments rather and also what we have spoken of that distinction in the former chapters will easily understand that it cannot here have place CHAP. XXX The thirtieth Argument That Christ is called the Image of the invisible
whereby he might rise like unto him who is to be born It would be therefore necessary that it should some otherway have been evident that there was another Nature in him which did both really exist before his Nativity and also actually lived during his death and consequently was the true cause either of his Nativity or of his Resurrection but this was the very thing which the Adversaries hold to have been declared by the raising him up and to have been apparent from it Finally although it had been apparent that Christ had raised up himself yet how had it thence appeared that he was the natural Son of God eternally begotten out of his Essence For not to repeat that which we formerly shewd namely that from the Opinion of the Adversaries it followeth that the Soul of Christ could by divine Power raise its own Body to omit likewise that some other Spirit which had before been united to his Body might by divine Power have performed this if the most high God can raise up himself what hinders but that it was either the Father himself or the holy Spirit whom they make the third Person of the Deity Be it therefore that it appeared from the raising of Christ that he himself was the Author thereof be it that it appeared that he was the most high God what argueth that he was eternally begotten out of the Essence of God what connexion is there of the one with the other Furthermore what man is there who haveing looked into the words of the Psalm doth not observe that this is the meaning of them Thou art my Son because I have this day begotten thee What man also is there who doth not withal observe that it is far more suitable to this sence that the word begotten should rather be taken to denote the act of generating than the declaration of a generation What man is there who if he here such words as these would understand them thus Thou art my Son because I have this day declared that I have begotten thee and not rather thus Thou art my Son because I have this day really begoten thee But what need many words for if the resurrection of Christ and the consequent exaltation or advancement to a Kingdom especially a Priestly one is a certain generation from God and one may therefore be justly called the Son of God although no other more sublime generation did precede why should any one understand that generation whereof mention is made in the words of the Psalm rather of the declaration of an antecedent generation than of the very act of generating Since that which is expressed by the word begotten was accomplished by the resurrection and exaltation of Christ But we have already shewn that the Resurrection of Christ was a certain Generation from God and we will a little after more largely shew the same Concerning the advancement to a Kingdom none can make a question who considers that Kings Princes and Judges are by God himself called both gods and also the sons of God or of the Most High Psal 82.6 which place Christ citeth John 10.34 to shew that he did not blaspheme in â—aying that he was the Son of God But in that place regard is had to nothing but the authority and dominion to which they were advanced by God For to all them in general the name of gods and sons of God is attributed as they are distingushed from men of an inferiour rank And see I pray you how excellently these things agree both to the other words of the second Psalm and also to the scope of the Apostle fetching a Testimony from thence For it is apparent from both that in these words Thou art my Son I have this day begotten thee it is spoken of making Christ a King For after God had said I have set my King on Zion my holy Mount David subjoyneth I will declare the Decree what Decree but such a one as was made concerning that thing whereof he had begun to speak namely that God had set him King on Zion his holy Mountain But what are the words of the Decree The Lord saith he said unto me Thou art my Son I this day begat thee Why then do we seek starting holes why go we about the bush why do not we directly and simply understand these things concerning the Generation of Christ which consisteth in advancing him to a Kingdom by that Resurrection rather then concerning the declaration of a Generation out of the Essence of God from al eternity whereof there is here neither hint nor footstep By this means we may elegantly apply these words likewise to David a Type of Christ although in a far lower sence to whom that they are to be applyed both the very words of the Psalm make a shew and others also before us have observed For when God had sometimes rescued David out of sundry calamities and also out of the very jaws of death and made him Kiâ—â— over his People he did in a manner beget him and make him his Son and that such a Son as would in respect of other earthly Kings become the first-born in power and dignity Whence God speaketh thus of him Psal 89.28 I will make him my First-born higher than the Kings of the Earth But what agreed to David in that sence doth in a far nobler way agree to Christ who being raised from the dead was set at the right hand of God in heavenly places far above all Principallities and Powers and Force and Dominion and every name that is named not only in this world but also in the world to come and all things were put in subjection under his feet and he was made Head over all things to the Church which is his Body the fulness of him that filleth all in all May he not justly be said to have been begotten by God to have become his Son for he was not only begotten anew to an immortal life by the resurrection but also did by the bounty of God become very like to him in Power and Empire for which God himself is called God But by reason of similitude with God both Angels and Men are called Sons of God which the greater it is the more justly doth this name agree unto them but no compleater similitude can be imagined than that which we even now shewed to agree to Christ whereby he doth so far surpass both all Angels and Men that they in respect of Christ are rather to be called Servants than Sons From hence it is already apparent what is also to be thought of that other place Rom. 1.4 Although the place doth sufficiently guard it self without forreign help against the vulgar interpretation For nei-doth the scope of the Apostle nor the words nor the thing it self suffer us to understand that Christ by the resurrection from the dead was declared the Son of God begotten out of his Essence For the scope of the Apostle is to explain not how
John 15.22 and spoken to them they should not have had sin but now they have no cloak for their sin Let them think that the same thing is said to them to whose hands these Writings come whence they might learn the truer opinion But let all together know that by how much the more our opinion is agreeable to piety by so much the more must they who have embraced it give diligence that they joyn holiness of life with it being assured that the knowledge of the Truth without Godliness will more hurt than profit them The God of Peace grant that all be mutually affected one to another with the same mind according to Christ Jesus that with one heart and one mouth they may glorifie the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ to whom himself also be honour for ever AMEN An INDEX of CHAPTERS of both BOOKS touching One GOD the FATHER The FIRST BOOK SECTION I. Wherein is directly proved That only the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the most high God And first out of those Testimonies of the sacred Scriptures which speak expresly of the Father Chap. I. Argum. I. FRom the words of Christ John 17.3 This is life eternal that they may know thee Father the only true God and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ pag. 1 Chap. II Arg. II Taken out of the words of Paul 1 Cor. 8.6 To us there is one God the Father of whom are all things pag. 13 Chap. III Arg. III From the place of Paul Ephes 4.6 There is one God and Father of all pag. 22 Chap. IV Arg. IV Drawn from the words of Christ Mat. 24.36 But of that day and hour knoweth none no not the Angels of the Heavens but the Father only And Mark 13.32 But of the day and hour knoweth none no not the Angels in the Heavens no not the Son but the Father pag. 27 Now follow Arguments drawn out of those places wherein though the Name of the Father be not expressed yet it is indeed spoken of him Chap. V Arg. V Drawn from the words of Paul 1 Cor. 12.4 5 6. There are diversities of Gifts but the same Spirit and diversities of Administrations but the same Lord and diversities of Operations but the same God pag. 28 Chap. VI Arg. VI Taken from these words 1 Tim. 2.5 There is One God and One Mediator of God and Men the Man Christ Jesus To which are added those Rom. 3.10 There is One God c. pag. 30 Chap. VII Arg. VII Drawn out of those places wherein by the Name of the Only God or the Only wise God or the Only Master God none but the Father of Jesus Christ is designed pag. 36 Chap. VIII Arg. VIII Drawn from the Visions in Daniel and Johns Revelation pag. 40 Chap. IX Sundry Arguments are briefly intimated to shew that none but the Father of Jesus Christ is the most high God pag. 42 SECTION II. Wherein is shewn That Christ is not the most high God so that it may be understood that the Father only is the most high God Chap. I Argum. I DRawn thence That Christ is most frequently distinguished from God pag. 47 Chap. II Arg. II Drawn from the Name of the Son of God pag. 50 Chap. III The Arguments which are in the sequel to be alleaged being distributed a third is proposed from the words of Christ in John Chap. 5.19 The Son can do nothing of himself pag. 52 Chap. IV Arg. IV Fetcht from the places in John wherein it is denied That Christ is the prime Author of his Doctrine pag. 65 Chap. V Arg. V Fetcht from those places in John wherein Christ is denied to have come of himself pag. 67 Chap. VI Arg. VI Fetcht from those places in John wherein Christ denies that he came to do his own will pag. 68 Chap. VII Arg. VII Drawn from thence That Christ did not seek his own glory pag. 69 Chap. VIII Arg. VIII Drawn from the words of Christ John 12.44 He that believeth on me believeth not on me but on him that sent me pag. 70 Chap. IX Arg. IX That Christ was sometimes ignorant of the last Judgement pag. 71 Chap. X Arg. X From the words of Christ Mat. 20.23 To sit at my right hand is not mine to give pag. 76 Chap. XI Arg. XI From those words of Christ Mat. 19.17 Why dost thou call me good none is good but God only pag. 79 Chap. XII Arg. XII From the words of Christ to the Father Not as I will but as thou pag. 81 Chap. XIII Arg. XIII From the words Heb. 5.5 Christ did not glorifie himself pag. 83 Chap. XIV Arg. XIV From the words of Christ John 14.28 My Father is greater than I pag. 84 Chap. XV Arg. XV Drawn from thence That the Son was sent into the world by the Father pag. 89 Chap. XVI Arg. XVI Drawn from thence That Christ received Commands from the Father and kept them pag. 91 Chap. XVII Arg. XVII Drawn from thence That Christ poured out Prayers to the Father pag. 93 Chap. XVIII Arg. XVIII Drawn from thence That all things are given to Christ from the Father pag. 96 An Appendix of this Argument wherein is taught That Divinity was given to Christ of the Father pag. 107 Chap. XIX Arg. XIX That Christ ascribeth both his words and works unto the Father and that he is not the first but second cause of the things pertaining to Salvation pag. 110 Chap. XX Arg. XX From the words of Christ John 8.16 My Judgement is true because I am not alone but I and the Father that sent me pag. 115 Chap. XXI Arg. XXI From the words of Christ John 8.14 My Testimony is true because I know whence I am and whither I go pag. 118 Chap. XXII Arg. XXII From the words of Christ John 8.29 The Father hath not left me alone because I alwayes do the things that are pleasing unto him pag. 119 Chap. XXIII Arg. XXIII That the Father is called the God of Christ pag. 122 Chap. XXIV Arg. XXIV From these words 1 Cor. 11.3 The head of Christ is God pag. 123 Chap. XXV Arg. XXV From the words of Paul 1 Cor. 3. last Christ is God's pag. 126 Chap. XXVI Arg. XXVI From the words 1 Cor. 15.24 28. That the Son shall deliver up the Kingdom to God the Father and shall become subject to him pag. 127 Chap. XXVII Arg. XXVII That Christ is the Mediator of God and Men pag. 130 Chap. XXVIII Arg. XXVIII That Christ is a Priest pag. 132 Chap. XXIX Arg. XXIX That Christ was raised up by the Father pag. 133 Chap. XXX Arg. XXX That Christ is called the Image of the invisible God pag. 139 Chap. XXXI Arg. XXXI Chiefly drawn from those causes for which Christ is in the Scriptures called The Son of God pag. 142 Chap. XXXII Arg. XXXII That there is no mention â—adâ— in the holy Scripture of the Incarnation of the most high God pag. 160 Chap. XXXIII Arg. XXXIII That
right could God any more exact of us the duty of piety if Christ hath abundantly performed and recompensed all things both by obeying the Law in our stead and also of which thing now there was no more need more than sufficiently discharging all the punishments of our sins by his death For him it is lawful to exact as yet something from the debtor himself who is not yet fully satisfied by another in the name and stead of the debtor He who payes for the debtor hath a right of receiving that which is his own from him unless he hath promised that he will forgive it unto him But Christ will not have that right if he be the same God with the Father For if the matter be so Christ himself was to be satisfied no less than the Father and when he satisfied him he satisfied himself also if so be that any can satisfie himself If therefore that he paid of his own not of anothers we remaine his debtors we owe as much to him as before to his Father There is a transferring of debts alike grievous to us unless you make the Son more kind than the Father For if there remain an infinite debt as before not to be dischaâ—ged but by an eternal death neither is there any more provided for our Salvaâ—ion than before But no man doth easily think that all willingly believe that it is paid no man thinks that he doth owe so much as he did owe before Therefore God and Christ have lost their right of commanding piety to us and if we refuse to perform it of punishing us This besides that it is an impiety to think it also takes away the necessity of living piously but if there be no necessity for us to live piously piety is lost Who is there that without necessity would undertake a thing which is hardest of all For if there be any that sayes piety is not necessary to salvation yet in the mean while lives piously he understands not himself sufficienâ—ly thinks better than he speaks For indeed he acknowledgeth the necessity of a pious living and would also profess it if he did either better search or would express the secret meaning of his mind But it is known too much the more is the pity how dangerous and how contrary doctrines which it would be too long here to rekcon up to piety are built upon this one thing of which we have now spoken Withdraw from them the foundation ill laid even the opinion concerning the supream Deity of Christ you will perceive them all by and by to fall to the ground But that opinion of the Supream Deity of Christ doth not only hurt them that hold it but also others for it keeps back those from the embracing of the Christian Religion who are as yet averse from it and further suffers them not to enter into the way of Salvation For whilst that those things are the heads and the chief heads of the Christian Religion which are commonly believed of Christians concerning the Triune God the Incarnation of the most high God and the rest which in some manner depend on those and yet in the mean time do perceive partly from the light of their Reason partly from the holy Scriptures of the Old Testament the manifest falsity of them they cannot but be averse from Christian Religion as false and not instituted by â—od For how can that be a true Religion how instituted by God some doctrine of which altogether pertaining to the constitution of it is found to be manifestly false and contrary to those Writings which came from God Wherefore it becomes no man to be so careless of his own and others salvation that I say not an enemy to it tâ—at he may not care what he hold and profess in this matter neither ought it seem marvelous to any that we have not doubted to forsake an opinion commonly received for so many Ages although we be therefore exposed to the desquietiâ—g hatred and infestations of all men and the pâ—rpetual losses of Fortunes and lastly of Life it self For we judge that fruit which we have taught to redound thence to the glory of God the true honour of Christ lastly to our own and others salvation to be far greater than that our Life and Fortunes and whatsoever in humane affaires we count dâ—ar may come into comparison with it Whence also we judge that those who refuse to lose their life for the profession of this Truth dishonestly forsake betray it being acknowledged are to be numbred among those who are ashamed of the Son of Man and his words Luke 9.26 and who neither love the glory of God and of Christ nor their own salvation as it is meet nor prefer it before all other things by whom what is to be expected every one may easily imagine Yea that also is hence easily understood what we are to think of them who when they have all helps and more thâ—n a common occasion of acknowledging the true opinion which we defend yet contemn it yea also contumaciously resist it to wit that they will together with other contemners of the Truth of God and enemies of the divine glory and piety receive punishments unless they repent In the mean time it is not our part to condemn them who out of meer ignorance adhere to the contrary opinion or perhaps by reason of long accustomedness to errour and other things which procure it a shew of Truth cannot leave it without great difficulty if so be that otherwise they are studious of piety and do not prosecute dissenters with hatred For Charity enclines us to the part which is more favourable where the manifest sentence of the Supream Law-giver and Judge doth not force us to the part more severe The opinion of the Adversaries is dangerous and of it self injurious both to God and Christ and also to piety but we think pardon may be given by the most gracious Judge on this side indeed to error and ignorance if contumacy and contempt be absent on that side to piety partly lessening partly covering the absuâ—dity of the opinion and so much the more easily by how much the same men shall less condemn others for the contrary and more true opinion But what hope is there for them who wanted not helps to know the truth whose either negligence or pertinacy appeared manifest in so great a matter whom nothing but the fear of men and the shunning of the cross of Christ and such things as are like to them have kept back from the true opinion What will they pretend for their error when they shall stand before the Tribunal of the most dreadful Judge But what will they do who damn others as is done by most so rigidly so proudly for this opinion and not only enveigh against them by reproaches but even censure them as to be put to death or at least to be driven into banishment If I had not come saith Christ