he no less than the Father should have an high Priest and this Priest be himself since neither any cause can be imagined nor can it any way be that the Father should have a Priest and Christ not have one if he be God no less than the Father yea the same God in number with him as may appear from those things which we before spake concerning the title of a Mediator But where is even the least hint in the holy Scripture whereby it may appear that Christ hath an high Priest as well as the Father Who seeth not that it is very absurd to hold that the Person of Christ offereth to himself wherefore the Priesthood of Christ is utterly inconsistent with the divine Nature which is held to be in him CHAP. XXIX The nine and twentieth Argument That Christ was raised up by the Father THe sixth Argument of this kind may be drawn from the places wherein Christ is said to have been raised by another namely his Father which reason is so much the more to be urged because the contrary thereof is urged by the Adversaries For they say Christ raised himself and by this means clearly demonstrated that he was the Son of God begotten out of his Essence and consequently the most high God But this Argument partly falls to the ground by it self in that it is grounded on a false Supposition as we will by and by demonstrate partly is weakned by another erroneous Oppinion of the same Adversaries For they hold that the Soul or Spirit of Christ which they also hold concerning the spirits of other men after he was dead did notwithstanding perform such actions as agree to none but Substances that are actually alive and understand by themselves Some say that it went down into Hell or Purgatory and brought the Souls of the Fathers out of I know not what Prison or Limbus But if the Soul of Christ even during his death did exercise such actions what hinders but that the same Soul entring into his own Body and former habitation should again unite it unto it self and by divine Power raise it up For could the Soul of Christ furnisht with divine Power do less than his whole humanity when he lived perform by the same divine Power could it do less than for example sake some one of the Apostles to whom Christ sometimes gave the power of raising the * Mat. 10.8 dead and of †Act. 9.40.41 20.9 c. whom we read that some of them did actually raise the dead ‖ 1 King 17.17 c 2 King 4.18 c. Which very thing we read likewise of Elijah and Elisha Wherefore we will far more rightly invert the Argument of the Adversaries and retort upon them that weapon which they endeavour to hurl at us For if Christ were the most high God his raising should be ascribed to himself as the true and chief Author But it is not attributed to him but to the Father as the true and chief Author thereof yea it is very openly signified that Christ iâ— you speak properly Arg. 29 That Christ was raised up by the Father did not raise himself Wherefore he is not the most high God The truth of the Major as they call it is manifest enough For none doubteth if Christ be the most high God that he did altogether raise himself and that it was most suitable that he should raise himself For since it follows from that Opinion that the humane Nature according to which Christ dyed was personâ—â—â—y united to the divine it could at no hand be that the humane Nature should perpetually abide in death and consequently in as much as that union according to their Opinion can never be dissolved that a dead corps should in an indissoluble and eternal tye be united to the divine Nature Furthermore if the humane Nature were to be raised by whom rather was it to be raised than by the divine Nature of the same Christ which both could of it self very easily perform it and by reason of that most strict union did owe this benefit unto the Nature that was joyned unto it Wherefore whether you consider the ability of performing it the divine Nature of Christ would have been the prime cause of that work for the Office of performing it it would have chiefly lain on that Nature How then would not Christ have been the true and chief Author of his own Resurrection As for the Minor there are so many and so clear Testimonies of the holy Scripture which make the Father the true and chief Author of the Resurrection of Christ and not Christ himself yea very openly take away this work from Christ though even the thing it self namely his death doth sufficiently take it away that it is a wonder that any one should doubt of it For first in certain places it is openly said that the Father raised Christ or that God raised his Son But who is that God whose Son Christ is but the Father The former is recorded by Paul in the beginning of the Epistle to the Galathians whilst he speketh thus Paul an Apostle not from men nor by man but by Jesus Christ and God the Father that raised him up from the dead The latter it is affirmed by Peter Acts 3. ult To you God having raised up his Son first sent him blessing you And Paul chap. 13.33 doth indeed assert the same whilst he saith And we declare unto you the Promise which was made unto our Fathers that God hath fulfilled it unto us their Children having raised up Jesus as it is also written in the second Psalm Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee Now that he raised him from the dead no more to return to corruption thus he said c. From which words it appeareth that he who said unto Christ thou art my Son this day â— begot thee which indeed is no other than the Father raised him from the dead The same Apostle saith 1 Thes 1.9 10. Ye turned to God from Idols to serve the true and living God and is expect his Son out of Heaven whom he raised from the dead even Jesus who delivereth us from the Wrath to come Where in like manner God is said to have raised his Son from the dead To these are added very many other places wherein it is simply written that God raised Christ of which number we will here set down only one or two with the words at large contenting our selves to quote the rest Thus therefore speaketh Peter Acts 2.24 Whom Jesus of Nazareth God raised up having loosed the Throws of Hell in that it was impossible that he should be held by it For David faith concerning him I saw the Lord alwayes before me because he is at my right hand that I may not be moved Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoyceth Moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope For thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell nor suffer
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
and Saviour to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins And chap. 10.42 And he Christ commanded us to preach to the People and testifie that it is he who is appointed of God Judge of quiâ—k and dead Which Paul afterward doth repeat in part chap. 17.31 Out of whose Epistles that we may not be too tedious we will produce certain places 1 Cor. 15.27 He saith out of the 8th Psalm He God the Father hath put all things in subjection under his feet namely Christ But when he saith that all things are in subjection to him it is manifest that he is excepted who put all things in subjection to him Which he also clearly explaineth Ephes 1.20 c. where he saith that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ * ver 17. the Father of Glory did set Christ at his right hand in heavenly places far above all principality and power and might and authority and every name that is named nâ—â— only in this world but also in that which is to come and hath put all things in subjection under his feet and hath given him head over all things to the Church which is his Body And Phil. 2.9 Wherefore namely because Christ humbled himself becoming obedient to the very death of the Cross God also hath highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name that in the name of Jesus every knee should how of things in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and every tongue might confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father And who is able to reckon up all the places of the Scripture See among others Heb. 1.2 and so forth to the end of the chapter and chap. 2.7 8 9. and chap 3.2 c. chap. 5.5 6 7 8 9. and 1 Pet. 1.21 Now in the Old Testament besides the places which are contained in the Testimonies of the Writers of the New Covenant cited by us namely out of Psal 8. and 110. that passage of the second Psalm ver 6 7 8. is very notable I God the Father have set my King upon my holy Mountain Sion I will declare the Decree namely whereby I have been constituted a King for they are the words of Christ the Antitype of David The Lord said unto me Thou art my Son I this day begot thee Ask of me and I will give unto thee the Nations for thine inheritance and the ends of the Earth for thy possession thou shalt rule them with a rod of Iron c. To which is to be joyned that famous Vision in Daniel chap. 7.13 where he saith I saw in the night Vision and behold in the Clouds of Heaven there came one like the Son of Man and he came to the antient of dayes that is the eternal God before cited ver 9.10 and they offered him in his sight and he the Antient of dayes gave unto him Power and Honour and a Kingdom and all people tribes and tongues shall serve him his power is an everlasting Power which shall not be taken away and his Kingdom that which shall not be destroyed We wittingly and willingly omit more places Now from these passages it is evinced that Christ is not the most high God for none can bestow any thing on him much less all things since he bestoweth all things upon all But we see that the Father hath bestowed on Christ so many and so great things yea all things Wherefore Christ is not the most high God You might also frame more Arguments especially out of those places wherein the word give or bestow is not met withal but there is the same force of Argument as if you should say He that is exalted by God or glorified by him or made Lord and Christ is not the most high God The Defence of the Argument TO this Argument and the places of Scripture whereon it is built neither do all nor the same persons every where make the same answer For some directly seem to deny the Major as they call it of our Argument others seek refuge in distinctions For as to the former some say that even the * The first answer and its refutation Apostle doth affirm that Christ shall deliver the Kingdom to God even the Father 1 Cor. 15.24 In which place there is the same word that Christ useth Mat. 11.27 when he saith All things are delivered unto me by my Father Wherefore they say that something miâ—ht be delivered or given even to the most high God Again as Christ John 17.2 5. desireth of his Father to be glorified and so that Glory should be given to him so also doth he there affirm that he had glorified the Father and hereafter would glorifie him But first we will speak of such a Giving as proceedeth from the grace and bounty of the Giver for which cause we did in our Argument make use of this word bestow For such is that Giving whereby all things have been given to Christ by the Father For Christ openly ascribeth it to the love of the Father towards him in the 3d and the 5th chapters of John and chap. 17. he doth intreat for the Glory designed unto him And God in the second Psalm saith to the Son Ask of me and I will give unto thee the Nations for thine inheritance c. And Paul Phil. 2. saith there was bestowed on Christ or given out of grace for so the Greek word signifieth a Name that is above every name And the reason for which the power of quickning and exercising Judgment was given unto Christ namely because he is the Son of Man doth sufficiently argue that it was such a Giving as we have spoken of which very thing is evident from that place of Daniel chap. 7. and others like thereunto But that the giving whereby Christ shall deliver the Kingdom to God the Father is not such an one all men do of themselves easily perceive For neither can it be imputed to the grace or bounty of Christ towards the Father who needeth the bounty of none For that is such a delivery of the Kingdom as for example sake when a General appointed by his King to manage a certain War doth when it is ended lay down the Power that was given unto him and restore it unto his King who had hitherto exercised it by him that if he be so pleased he may hereafter exercise it by himself And all this is no other than what Right it self doth require in as much as the Power was given unto him by the King for the management of that War only In like manner Christ who hath received Royal Power from the Father to subdue his and our enemies and hitherto exerciseth the same in the Fathers name when all the enemies are subdued shall yield it up to his Father that is so lay it down that the Father may afterwards exercise it by himself and as Paul speaketh God may be all in all From whence also ariseth
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