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
it be only a divine virtue and efficacy not a Suppositum or Person This although it properly pertain not to the matter in hand yet we will briefly explain that no scruple may remain First we have already seen that some of the adversaries by the force of their own opinion are forced to hold that those things are not properly said of the holy Spirit but that bodily shape and its descent from heaven was only an outward resemblance of the holy Spirit filling Christ with his gifts which same thing why it may not be said of divine efficacy there is no cause Besides If we would by all means have it so that those things are properly spoken of the holy Spirit it is to be understood as to that descent and motion that the qualities were moved together with their subjects and consequently in them Wherefore also the divine efficacy if it may exist in a man and in him or together with him be moved it may descend from heaven in another thing likewise which God will use in the carrying down of it Neither indeed is there wanting to God a convenient and beseâ—ming Vehicle that I may so speak for that efficacy But as to the shape it the subject of thar efficacy have a certain shape especially such as may shew and resemble the latent efficacy nothing at all hinders but that it may be said that that virtue descends in or with that shape But of these things if God will we shall say more else where This we would have here observed although it be written that the holy spirit did then descend on Christ in a bodily form and it may be easily understood that which all seem commonly to think that it appeared in some bodily form on the day of Pentecost yet neither here nor else where is it ever said to have appeared in the shape and form of any person as we read of the Father and Christ when they appeared in a certain form and also of the Angels But if the holy Spirit were a person Why had it not also appeared in the shape of a person For whether you hold it to have been the shape of a Dove in which it descended on Christ as commonly all contend or any other it is certain that was not the form of a person For neither is the Fire or Dove a Person seeing a person is nothing but a substance endued with understanding As for that whereby from the Apostles words in which it is said it searcheth or knows they endeavour to evince the holy Spirit to be endued with understanding it is refuted in the foregoing Chapter CHAP. XVI The Conclusion of the first Book in which it is shewed That the Adversaries opinion concerning the Trinity is refuted by the very silence of the holy Scriptures neither doth any thing hinder but that it may be oppugned by Arguments fetcht from Reason VVE have shewed enough out of holy writ that neither Christ nor the holy Spirit but only the Father is the most high God and that the most high God is one as in Essence so also in person not as it is commonly believed three in respect of persons Which opinion although there were not so many reasons as we have produced might be refelled by the bare silence of holy Scriptures For is it credible that Christ and the Apostles that I may omit now the Prophets would have concealed a thing as it is commonly believed and as the reason of the tenet holds forth so necessary to be known so hard to be believed and far exceeding all the capacity of humane wit Doth not the thing it self shew us by how much that tenet should be more necessary both to be known and more hard to be perceived by so much the clearer they would have propounded it and so the oftenner and more diligently have inculcated it Their diligence in other things much less and easier to be perceived compels us to believe as well as the earnest desire or rather endeavour of the same persons towards the Salvation of mankind and also that office which they undertook and sustained Shall we think Christ our Saviour the Apostles other divine men had less care of the Salvation of men than they who either heretofore have defended that tenet as the cheife concern of our Salvation or at this day maintain it Was there in them less intelligence of that mystery which they commonly adore or were words wanting by which they should describe it Could Athanasius in his Creed express it more clearly than Christ than the Apostles Whosoever saith he will be saved before all things it is necessary that he hold the Chatolick faith which unless a man keep whole and inviolate without doubt he shall perish for ever But the Catholick faith is this that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity neither confounding the persons nor seperating the substance For there is one person of the Farher another of the Son another of the holy Spirit The Scripture doth not teach that God is trinune But there is one divinity of the Father Son and holy Spirit equal glory coeternal Majesty c. What I beseech you is there like these things in all the holy Scriptures We will not now refute the errors of them who beleeve not all things necessary to salvation to be contained in the holy Scriptures which is done by our men * See John Volkelius of the true Religion lib. 5. Chap. 7. elsewhere This onely we say that however some positions necessary to salvation should not be contained in the holy Scriptures yet this which is made the cheif and as it were the foundation of other things by them that it is not openly contained there is to be judged altogether incredible But letting these pass let us deal with them who acknowledge and urge that all things which are necessary to salvation are comprehended in the compass of the sacred Volumnes What reason will they aleage why that tenet is not plainly contained in holy Scripture Not few say that though it be not expresly comprehended in them yet it may be deduced from them by a good consequence But that I may now omit other things we have shewed a little before that in so hard a thing so remore from our capacity so necessary there should be fully shewn not onely consequences but clear and distinct explication and that repeated more than once especially because simple men to whom God would have the way of salvation to be manifest equally that I say not more to learned and ingenious men understand not those consequences and besides must take paines not onely in perceiving the reason of the consequence but also in the force of the opinion it self which is scarce perceived by the learned if yet that may be perceived which is repugnant to it self Moreover if they speak true who say that the Tenet of the Trinity pertains even chiefly to the Catholick Faith without which no man
ultimate scope and object of the same Nor also the whole Trinity held by the Adversaries Otherwise to Christ who would be contained in that Trinity glory would be attributed through himself as through the middle cause For as to the refuge of two Natures that hath no more place here than in the former Testimony since Christ is here considered with relation to the Office which he sustaineth in respect whereof he is the middle cause of divine Worship Whence the Adversaries themselves commonly hold when we are said to worship God through Christ that Christ is considered as Mediator But Mediation as also other Offices agreeth to none but a person as he is such Wherefore one must either say that the humane Nature of Christ is a Person and to be understood by the name of Jesus Christ or hold that Christ here is considered according to his divine Nature also or that it is primarily and directly here understood by the name of Jesus Christ as hath been shewn in the precedent Chapter It remaineth that by the name of the only wise God a certain divine Person and that Superior to Christ be understood For he is more worthy to whom glory is given as to the ultimate scope than the middle cause through which worship is exhibited to him But there is no such Person besides the Father It is in vain here to think of the holy Spirit for to omit that it is not granted that the holy Spirit is so much as a Person this is certain that the holy Spirit is not a Person worthier than the Person of Christ But we have shewn that that Person is such to whom glory is attributed through Christ Besides that the Father is worshipped by Christ is both from * See among other places Eph. 5.20 Col. 3.17 Scripture and the confession of all very manifest But that the holy Spirit is worshipped by Christ what place of the Scripture I say not doth affirm but intimate yea it is so far from saying that he is to be worshipped through Christ that it never simply saith that glory is to be attributed unto him especially in that manner which we here understand nor do we there read that it was ever attributed to him by so much as one man concerning which thing more largely in its own * Sect. 3. Chap. 2. place Neither indeed is there any cause if a certain Person is here to be understood why we should pass by the Father and understand the holy Spirit since glory is here attributed to God as the prime Author of Salvation and of the things belonging thereunto Now that all those things are wont to be ascribed to the Father as the prime Author if not only yet chiefly the Adversaries themselves do not deny and is most apparent from that place of Paul where he saith that the Father is he †1 Cor. 8.6 Rom. 11. ult Of whom are all things Whence also he constituteth him the ultimate end of the worship and honour that proceedeth from us for he is the same of whom are all things and to whom are all things The second * The second place John 5.44 of those places is extant in John where amongst other things Christ speaketh thus unto the Jews How can ye believe who receive Glory from one another and seek not the glory which is from the only God In which place that the Father is understood by the name of the only God First the whole context sheweth where Christ promiscuously mentioneth one while God another while his Father neither is there any the least cause why we should suspect that Christ in the same speech passed from one person to another since none can deny that all things which are attributed unto that God are most rightly ascribed to the Father See now the precedent and following verses yea that whole conference with the Jews beginning from the 17th verse Again Christ speaketh of that God whom the Jews acknowledge for God and concerning whom it was granted amongst them that the Glory proceeding from him is to be sought although they neglect to seek it For he speaketh of a thing which ought to precede Faith on Christ whereof because the Jews were destitute they are therefore here by Christ himself pronounced unfit to believe on him But the Jews did then acknowledge for God no other besides him whom Christ called his Father For that they did either imagine a Trinity to be God or the Son or holy SpiSpirit I suppose there is none that dareth affirm But Christ affirmeth that of his Father chap. 8.54 where he saith It is my Father that glorifieth me whom ye say that he is your God It is therefore apparent that in this place that only God is the same with the Father and the one of no larger extent than the other The third place is extant in †Third place Jude 4. Jude who if you regard his greek words saith that false Teachers who had already insinuated themselves into the Church do deny the only master God and our Lord Jesus Christ For we have already * See the Book of God and his Attributes chap. 14. elsewhere shewn not Christ as many of the Adversaries suppose but some other is understood by the only master God For first if he had understood Christ there would have been no need after he had called him the only master God to name him our Lord especially since the word Master doth comprehend all the force of the word Lord. Again neither can Christ be called the only master God since his Father so is and is so †See Luke 2.29 c. Acts 4.24 compare v. 24 with ver 30. called Master that being designed by this very name he is distinguished from Christ Neither is Christ any where called Master the greek word being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Jude maketh use of in the whole new Testament but the Father is found so stiled No marvel because in the great House of God Christ it not the Master but the Son of the Master of the Family and hath God for his Head as shall be spoken in its place But the Master of the Family hath not a Head in the House but is therein the chiefest Lord and Governour Now whereas some urge the Unity of the Article set before those words the only Master God and our Lord Jesus Christ they prevail nothing thereby For the Unity of an Article set before divers names doth not presently argue the Identity of the thing but often times doth only intimate some affinity or conjunction of divers things as namely of those which concur to the same action or about which the same action is conversant See Mat. 3.7 16.1 6.17 1.27 27.56 Ephes 2.20 3.5 4.11 1 Thes 1.8 Heb. 9.19 Certainly * See Beza's Annot on Ephes 4.11 5.5 some very learned men among the Adversaries when they had in this Argument urged the unity
but he must withal come from himself since there will be the same numerical will in both the same Authority Wherefore the Father could decree or command nothing Arg. 5 Christ came not of himself but the Son would also decree that very thing with the same action But if it be absurd for any one to be sent from himself and Christ openly denies that he came from himself It must be held that he is not a person of the same Essence with the Father and consequently not the most high God The Defence of the Argument VVHy the Exception concerning the two Natures hath here no place hath already been shewn in the Defence of the precedent Arguments especially because Christ is here openly considered as sent from the Father which thing we said pertaineth to the whole Person of Christ and is by the Adversaries wont by name to be referred unto his divine Nature And besides when Christ would by this means procure Authority to himself and his Doctrine amongst all the People what need was there to fetch that Authority from the Father if he had had the divine Essence in himself and so no less than the Father had been God yea the self same God with the Father and would have men so to understand it according to the Opinion of the Adversaries as after he maketh mention of the Father For to what purpose is it to fetch Authority from another when you have it of your self yea the same in number with the other and would accordingly possess all men with a belief that you have it CHAP. VI. Argument the sixth fetcht from those places in John wherein Christ denies that he came to do his own will IN the sixth place those Testimonies are to be mentioned wherein Christ denyed that he came to do his own will but the will of the Father that sent him Which is a consequent of that which went before For it is the Office of an Embassadour not to do and seek his own will but the Will of the Sender And hereunto belong the words of Christ John 5.30 I seek not mine own will but the Will of him that sent me And chap. 6.30 I descended from Heaven not to do mine own will but the Will of him that sent me that is of the Father as appeareth from the following verses and many other places and from the very thing it self But if Christ were the most high God how did he not seek his own will or not come to do it For to what purpose had he come but to do the will of the most high God yea by this very thing whilst he affirmeth that he seeketh the Fathers Will and came down from Heaven to do it by this very thing I say he would affirm Arg. 6 Christ came not to do his own will that he seeketh his own will and came down from Heaven to do it if he were the same numerical God with the Father For as we before hinted they who have the same numerical Essence must also have the self same will and the same numerical act of the will as the Adversaries hold concerning God the Father and his Son The Defence of the Argument THat Exception touching the humane Nature according to which Christ spake that I may omit the repetition of other things that were formerly spoken hath therefore no place because Christ doth in the second passage from whence judgment may be made of the first expresly say that he came down from Heaven not to do his own will but the will of his Father But the descent of Christ agreeth to his whole Person or as the Adversaries believe to him according to the divine Nature For they contend that Christ according to the divine Nature came down from Heaven to be born of the Virgin wherefore he speaketh of his whole Person and not only one part thereof or if he attributed these things to himself in respect of one Nature only he is according to the Opinion of the Adversaries to be imagined to speak of the divine Nature which overthroweth it self CHAP. VII The seventh Argument drawn from thence That Christ did not seek his own glory SEventhly Hereunto belong those words of the same Christ chap. 8.50 I seek not mine own glory there is one that seeketh and judgeth And those words in the same chapter ver 54. If I glorifie my self my glory is nothing it is my Father that glorifieth me From the first of which we may thus reason If Christ had been the most high God he could not chuse but seek his own glory Since the end of all Gods actions and the ultimate scope of them that are sent by him or minister to him is the Glory of God himself Wherefore if Christ had been the most high God he could not chuse but seek his own glory Again since he openly professeth that he seeketh his Glory that sent him namely the Fathers chap. 7.18 If he had been of the same Essence with the Father and the same God with him in seeking his glory he had also sought his own Besides when he saith that the Father doth seek his glory and judge or glorifie him it would of necessity happen that Christ himself also at the same time and with the same labour doth seek his own glory and judge and consequently doth glorifie himself Arg. 7 Christ did not seek his own glory since as we formerly hinted they that have the same numerical Essence the same will and power of working must also of necessity have the same numerical operation Whence the Adversaries also hold that the works of the Trinity performed without as they speak are undivided although the reason of that Identity doth not admit a limitation and although it should be admitted yet here according to the opinion of the Adversaries must needs be the same operation because they constitute and are inforced to constitute that glorification either in the exhaltation of the humane Nature or in the manifestation of Christs glory before men But now we see that Christ openly denies that he seeketh his own glory or doth glorifie himself From the latter place we thus conclude If Christ were the most high God he could not say his glory would be nothing if he glorifie himself For how is the Glory which proceedeth from the most high God or wherewith the most high God glorifieth himself how I say is it nothing that is vain and empty Certainly it would be no more vain than the Glory that proceedeth from the Father But Christ openly saith that if he glorified himself his glory is nothing and opposeth the glorification proceeding from the Father as true and solid to the glorification proceeding from himself CHAP. VIII The eighth Argument drawn from the words of Christ John 12.44 He that believeth on me believeth not on me but on him that sent me THat these words of Christ which we have cited signifie that he is not the principal object of Faith and
and that without any limitation and simply yea ought simply to be denyed of him that the Father is greater than he For neither is it more lawful simply to affirm of him that he is the most high God and equal to the Father in all things than to deny that the Father is greater than he or that he is less than the Father Wherefore neither could Christ simply affirm of himself if he were the most high God that the Father is greater than he Add hereunto that such an affirmation My Father is greater than I is of equal force with such a Negation I am not so great as my Father as every one seeth by himself and the scope of these words before mentioned by us doth teach for Christ would signifie that he did yet want something which the Father hath and therefore that he also may attain the same he must go away unto the Father Wherefore since we have taught that what may or ought to be simply affirmed of the whole cannot be denyed of the same whole Christ could not thus speak of himself if for another and that a better Nature he would have the contrary understood of him Again since he who speaketh is the very Son of God for he saith My Father is greater than I thereby intimating that God the Father is greater than his Son either it is necessary to say that the Father is greater than the very divine Nature of Christ which the Adversaries by that very distinction of theirs endeavour to avoid or confess that the Son of God is not a person of supream Deity since a person of supream Deity is no other than the very divine Nature having its subsistence as we have above said chap. 3. Besides the Interpretation of the Adversaries doth altogether enervate the force of Christs words and render them invalid to his purpose For we saw that therefore Christ uttered those words that the Disciples might see that he must go away to the Father to the end he might enjoy greater happiness and therefore should not only abstain from sorrow but also rejoyce that he went a way but if Christ according to one Nature only had been less than the Father and in the mean time had in himself a Nature or Person equal to the Father in all things there would have been no need for him to go to the Father as greater to the end he might enjoy greater happiness nor would the Disciples have had cause to rejoyce that he went away from them but rather to grieve in that he would go away where as he might stay and they might presently object to the Lord yea why dost thou go away to the Father as greater than thou since thou art endued with such a Nature or Person as is equal to the Father in all things and that Nâ—ture is alwayes intimately present with thee even whilst thou art conversant with us on the Earth why rather dost thou not stay with us and here procure to thy self that happiness which thou seekest with the Father You see that by this reason if it be taken according to the sense of the Adversaries Christ could have prevailed nothing with the Disciples But he could prevail very much if omitting the distinction of Natures he would have the words taken of him simply and absolutely as they were uttered But there are some learned men of the Adversaries who think that those words of Christ as also many other places in the same John are to be taken neither of the humane Naâ—ure of Christ nor of the divine but of the whole complex * See John Calvins Admonition to the Brethren in Poland as they speak because although he were the eternal God yet when he descended to us he began to be a middle person between God and us But this is of no moment for either they will have it that the Son when he dâ—scended to us ceased to be the most high God or they will not have it If they will have it the Son neither is nor ever was the most high God for he can never cease to be the most high God If they will not have it the Son could not therefore be simply called less than the Father or which is all one the Father greater than he because none is simply yea none is any way greater than the most high God And if the Opinion of the Adversaries concerning Christ be true the Son ought to be termed equal to the Father in all things But as we have shewn before the same cannot be simply both affirmed and denyed of the same whole Again since that whole complex whereof they say that those words of Christ are to be taken is the Person of Christ or the very Son of God as neither they do deny and we have before shewn it is necessary for them to confess either that that Person is not a Person of supream Deity or else that it may be said of the divine Nature that the Father is greater than it as we have a little before demonstrated We forbear to repeat that reason whereby we have confuted the Answer which is now adayes most received among the Adversaries namely that such an Interpretation weakneth the force of Christs words and renders them ineffectual to what he intended For the same reason is also prevalent against this Interpretation for if these words be so to be taken as that nevertheless it may or rather ought to be understood that Christ is the most high God or hath in him the Nature of the most high God they are not effectual to shew that Christ must go away to the Father and his Disciples ought to rejoyce that he would go away to the Father as may be understood by what was formerly spoken Furthermore did Christ therefore call himself less than the Father because he is a middle Person between God and us he would alwayes be less than the Father in that sence even after he ascended into Heaven and sate at the right hand of God the Father since Christ is at this time a middle Person between us and God in that he is a Priest and our Advocate interceding for us with the Father for which cause the Adversaries themselves say that he is now a Mediator But Christ sheweth by these words that he after he was gone away to the Father should be no longer less than he Whence they themselves with whom we have to do affirm that Christ in those words compareth his present state with his heavenly Glory For as we already hinted before because the Son did yet want that Glory to wit Immortality and sublime Authority over all things he was therefore less than the Father having attained the same he is reputed no longer less than the Father For neither is a most exact and altogether absolute equality here to be regarded Wherefore Christ did not therefore say that he was less than the Father or the Father greater than he because he is a
the Hebrews chap. 5.8 whilst without expressing his proper name he thus describeth him to whom Christ offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears namely Who was able to save him from death or deliver him from death For by that description he would distinguish that Person from the Person of Christ and withal assign the cause why he offered up prayers unto him and finally intimate what he did then so earnestly beg for himself But neither had he by this means distinguished that Person from Christ if Christ had been as able to save himself from death as the Father was to save him since common things do not distinguish but proper neither had he brought a sufficient reason why he made supplication unto him with crying and tears that he would deliver him from death CHAP. XVIII Arg. 18 That all things were given to Christ Argument the eighteenth drawn from thence That all things are given to Christ from the Father 〈◊〉 IN the fifth place Those passages may be alleaged where it is written that all things were given to Christ by the Father and that partly in general partly in special terms that is certain things given to him by the Father being expressed by name Whereunto belong very many places not only in John but also other Writers And for as much as we are citing the Testimonies taken out of John chiefly therefore let us begin from him principally because it is most frequently in him than in other Writers expresly writen that the Father gave something to the Son Thus therefore he saith chap. 3.35 The Father loveth the Son and hath given all things into his hand And chap. 5. Christ being about to declare those words whereof we have formerly spoken The Father loveth the Son and sheweth all things to him which himself doth and will shew him greater works than these that ye may marvel amongst these things he saith ver 22. For neither doth the Father judge any one but hath given all judgment to the Son that all may honour the Son as they honour the Father And ver 26. For as the Father hath life in himself so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself and he hath given him also power to do judgement because he is the Son of Man To which places as touching the Life given to the Son by the Father that other is not unlike which you find chap. 6.29 As the living Father hath sent me and I live by reason of the Father even so he that eateth me shall live by reason of me every thing that the Father giveth to me that is every man of an honest heart whom the Father draweth to me shall come unto me which in some sort he repeateth ver 39. and chap. 10.29 My Father which gave them the Sheep me is greater than all Chap. 13.3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands And chap 17.2 Thou Father hast given him the Son power over all flesh that every thing which thou hast given unto him he should give unto them eternal Life Ver. 5. Glorifie me thou Father with thy own self with the Glory which I had before the World was with thee For it is all one to glorifie as to give glory as it is of it self apparent and is also evident from ver 22.24 Again ver 6. I have manifested thy Name to the Men whom thou hast given to me out of the world thine they were and thou hast given them to me And by and by ver 7. Now have they known that all the things that thou hast given to me are from thee See also ver 9.11 12 14. and ver 22. And the Glory which thou hast given me have I given them And ver 24. That they may see my Glory which thou hast given to me because thou lovedst me before the making of the World The same John at the beginning of the Revelation saith The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto him This Revelation is largely related afterwards chap. 5. from the beginning unto the 10th verse And this cause therefore is added For he was slain and bought us by his blood and made us Kings and Priests unto our God Let the whole place be read as in a very lively manner setting forth all the business Moreover In the second chapter about the end the very Son of God saith He that overcometh â—â—d keepeth to the end my works I will give unto him power over the Nations and he shall rule them with an Iron rod c. as I have also reâ—eived of my Father Which very same thing he explaineth in other words afterwards about the end of the third chapter ver 21. Now that we may come to the other Writers of the New Testament who either expresly or with words equivalent affirm that something yea all things even the divinest of all were delivered unto Christ by God the Father First Among other things Christ himself Mat. 11.27 speaketh on this wise All things have been delivered unto me by my Father And chap. 21.24 he citeth concerning himself these words Psal 118.21 The Stâ—ne which the Builders refused the same is become the head of the corner this was the Lords doing and it is marvellous in our eyes Which place is also in part cited Acts 14.11 and elsewhere although the word Give is not extant yet is the thing extant which is signified by that word that is it is intimated that the Glory Power and Empire is given unto Christ by God Concerning which thing Mat. 28.18 Christ speaketh more plainly and openly whilst he saith All Power in Heaven and in Earth is given unto me Likewise in Luke chap. 1.32 the Angel speaketh of him thus He shall be great and he shall be called the Son of the Most High and the Lord God shall give unto him the Throne of David his Father And he shall reign over the House of Jacob for ever and of his Kingdom there shall be no end And chap. 22.30 Christ himself saith And I dispose to you a Kingdom as my Father hath disposed unto me For that disposal argueth a giving Likewise in the same Writer Acts 2.33 Peter saith Being therefore exalted namely Christ by the right hand of God and having received the promise of the holy Spirit from the Father he hath poured out this which ye now see and hear And presently after when he had cited the words of David concerning Christ The Lord saith unto my Lord sit at my right hand until I make thy enemies the footstool of thy feet He addeth ver 35. Wherefore let all the House of Israel know assuredly that God hath made him both Lord and Christ even this Jesus whom you have crucified And chap. 3.13 The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob the God of our Fathers hath glorified his Son Jesus And chap. 5.31 Him hath God exalted by his right hand to be a Prince
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
most true yet is it of no force to weaken our Argument For the knowledge of the holy Spirit is contained in the knowledge of God and Christ but not as of a person distinct from God the Father and from Christ but as of a divine thing to be communicated unto men from the Father by the Son For otherwise the knowledge of Christ is also oftentimes included in the knowledge * 2 Cor. 10.5 Ephes 1.17 Col 1.10 2 Pet. 1.3 8.8 2.20 3.18 1 Joh. 2 3 4 13. cap. 3.6 of God and on the contrary the knowledge of God is comprized in the knowledge of * 2 Cor. 10.5 Ephes 1.17 Col 1.10 2 Pet. 1.3 8.8 2.20 3.18 1 Joh. 2 3 4 13. cap. 3.6 Christ namely because he that knoweth and seeth Christ knoweth and seeth the Father John 8.19 14.7 9. And on the contrary none knoweth the Father nor cometh to him but by the Son Mat. 11.27 John 14.6 So that it is necessary if a man will attain the saving knowledge of the Father that he know the Son also Nevertheless Christ in that place of ours was not content to make mention either of the Father alone or of himself alone but joyned the knowledge of both together because his intention was to express those divine persons in the knowledge of whom eternal Life consisteth If therefore the holy Spirit were a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son he would no less have mentioned him than those two persons seeing the obtaining of eternal Life would consist no less in the knowledge of him than of them But now let us proceed to other things and because we have begun from John let us add other passages which are extant in the same writer partly in his History of the Gospel partly in the Epistles and partly in the Revelation As for the History of the Gospel among other passages Christ spaketh thus chap. 8.16 c. which place we have upon another * Sect. 2. chap. 20. occasion before discoursed If I judge my judgment is true for I am not alone but I and the Father that sent me It is also written in your Law that the testimony of two men is true I am one that bear witness of my self and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me Why now made he not mention likewise of the holy Spirit if he be the most high God as well as the Father Did he contribute less to the truth of Christs judgment than the Father although-he were one God with him Did he less give testimony to Christ why therefore did he not mention his testimony seeing the plurality of witnesses most worthy of credit addeth greater weight to the testimony and here Christ urgeth both the number and dignity of the witnesses Certainly in that place 1 John 5.7 which is at this day commonly read †See the Annot. of Erasmus and Version of Luther set forth in his life time and Joh. Buckenhag Pomerian on the Prophet Jonah though extant neither in the antient Greek Copies nor in the Syriack translation nor in most of the antient Books of the Latin Edition and omitted by many Greek Interpreters or Fathers as they call them yea and by some Latin Interpreters and rejected by some late Writers and finally not very well agreeing with the rest of the Text and for the variety of readings suspected in that place I say tâ—ere is a peculiar mention made of the witness of the holy Spirit And indeed his testimony may peculiarly be recited although he be not a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son namely because the testimony which God gave to Christ by him had something peculiar from the rest so that he doth seem in a manner to testifie a part from both but there can no cause be brought why his testimony was omitted if he be a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son but if he be the vertue and efficacy of God the Father his testimony is rightly comprehended in the testimony of the Father as it cometh to pass in the same chapter of the first Epistle of John where the place now under debate is at this day commonly read v. 9 10. which I desire you to conferre with the two preceding verses To these may be added that place likewise in the 5th chap. of his history of the Gospel v. 13. But Jesus answered them my Father worketh hitherto and I work Yea and all the râ—st that followeth where it is spoken concerning the admirable works of Christ â—oth that were already done and that were afterward to be done where there is no mention made of the holy Spirit who would have had an equall share together with the Father and the Son in effecting these works if he had been one and the same God with both But as we have declared before it would be too tedious to rehearse all such places let these likewise be lookt vpon chap. 14 22 15â— 24 1â— 3. Now that we may come to the Epistle of the same Apostle what is that which is read 1 Epist 1.3 Our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ why is it not added also with the holy Spirit if he be a divine person distinct from both and yet equal in all things to both yea one God with both What likewise is that chap. 2.24 If that which you have heard from the beginning shall remain in you you also shall continue in the Son and in the Father why not also in the holy Spirit What is that 2 Epist ver 3. Grace be with you Mercy and Peace from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the Father why not also from the holy Spirit Concerning which matter we will afterward speak more when we rehearse the salutations of Paul Add to these the words of ver 9. in the same Epistle He that abideth in the Doctrine of Christ he hath both the Father and the Son why not also the holy Spirit As for the Revelation to omit those places wherein other things or persons are joyned with God and Christ which are afterward to be rehearsed by us how famous is that place chap. 5.13 where all the Creatures which are in any place are read to have said Blessing Honour Glory and Power be unto him that sitteth upon the Throne and unto the Lamb for ever and ever why not as now a dayes all the Temples of the Adversaries do ring glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the holy Spirit why only to him that sitteth upon the Throne and unto the Lamb For that he that sitteth upon the Throne is the same with the Father whosoever doth not understand from that whole 5th chapter and from other things written in the same Book certainly he must needs be a man of very little understanding Hither belong also those words chap. 11.15 The Kingdoms of
rest in him only come ultimately to him alone but is dispersed among more persons who are held to be altogether equal to him likewise both honour and trust and invocation and all sorts of praises are ultimately divided unto more which wholly ought to come at length to one person And these absurdities indeed arise as well from the opinion of the supream deity of the Son as from the doctrine concerning the supream deity of the holy Spirit But that is more proper to the opinion concerning the holy Spirit that divine empire and government is attributed to it which doth not at all agree to it and moreover it is held to be God to be adored of it self invocated and celebrated as the giver of all good things whatsoever whereas none of these as we have seen * Lib. 1. Sect. 3. Chap. 1 3 are attributed to it in the holy Scriptures nor can be attributed since it is not a person Therefore although otherwise the holy Spirit be subordinate to the most high God as the middle cause of most divine actions yet is it not so subordinate as a person is wont to be to whom an empire and manageing of affaires and the parts of honour and worship which are wont and ought to follow it are granted by another in which manner we see Christ who is expresly both called God and being placed in the Throne of God is said to command all things to be subordinate to God Whence also it is commanded that he be adored by all and that all men put their trust in him and so be bold to implore his aid neither is there any part of the divine Honour which is not found to be attributed to him although so that it tend ultimately to the Father None of these things are found concerning the holy Spirit Wherefore the Adversaries do not only sin in that that they make the holy Spirit the most high God but also simply in that that they hold it to be a God or endued with a divine Empire and governing humane affaires and further that they say that it is no less to be invocated and adored than Christ and that other things also are to be attributed to it which properly are due to a divine and heavenly King and Lord being unmindful of the most plain words of the Apostle asserting 1 Cor. 8.6 That to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we for him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him But although this absurdity which we have explained in the latter place doth more appear in the common opinion concerning the holy Spirit than concerning the Son of God yet it doth appear also in this and unless another errour to wit of the incarnation of the Son of God had somewhat corrected that other it would be yet more grievous For whilst before and besides Jesus Christ born of the Virgin I say that man whom they call the humane nature only there is feigned an only begotten Son of God who existed from all eternity who was alwayes endowed together with the Father with a divine Empire over all things a Deity is attributed to that thing which not only was not subordinate to the most high God or invested with so high an Empire by him but indeed was never existent And in this latter part this errour of it self is more grievous than that which is committed about the Deity of the holy Spirit For the holy Spirit not only existed and doth yet exist but is also as we have said a most divine thing and truly united with and subordinate to the most high God in most excellent works We hear sometimes some saying that even therefore their opinion touching Christ is to be preferred before our because it is conjoyned with his greater Glory But the very love towards Christ our Saviour requireth that we rather add some honour to him than detract from him Which men indeed first so deal as if the matter did depend on our arbitrement and were not altogether to be estimated by the determination of the holy Scriptures that is of God himself and the manifest reason of the thing it self Seeing therefore the holy Scriptures themselves have in this part set us certain limits beyond which it is unlawful to pass as it is not lawful for us to take away any tâ—ing from the â—onour of Christ so neither to add any thing to it Neitheâ— indeed doth the true love towards Christ how great soever it be require that we ascribe any thing to him beyond truth and honour him with false titles and praises For neither is he delâ—ghted with false honour who abounds with true honour neither doth he account any thing to be his praise which doth diminish the glory of his Father from whom all honour all divinity is derived But that opinion of the Adversaries conceâ—ning the supream divinity of Christ doth as we have seen diminish it Therefore although it should at length be lawful out of our affection to add something to the honour of Christ yet that would not be lawful which is conjoyned with the Fathers injury It is not lawful to detract any thing from the honour of Christ But neither is it lawful to take away any thing from the honour of the Father It is not lawful to detract any thing fâ—om the love towards the Son But neither is it lawful to take away any thing from the love towards the Father Since even that former is not lawful because whilst the honour due to Christ is denyed also the honour due to the Father is denyed and whilst the Son is less loved than is meet the Father is less loved For * John 5.23 He that honoureth not the Son saith Christ himself honoureth not the Father who sent him And †John 15.23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also For as John saith ‖ 1 John 5.1 He that loveth him that begat loveth also him that is begotten of him Therefore the most high regard is to be had to the honour of the Son but no less to that of the Father for whose sake he is honoured and beloved Neither indeed are we those who detract any part of honour from the Son or desire to detract for whose glory trusting to his aid we refuse not indeed even the cruellâ—st death Being instructed by him we refel the honour falsly and with imminution of the divine glory ascribed to him That which he himself refuseth we will not do And that you may see that we leave to Christ his honour undiminished and endeavour as we are able to maintain it what more doth Christ himself requiâ—e of us than that we honour him as we honour the Father Doth any greater honour agree to him I think none but he that is out of his wits will say it But for what cause doth Christ chaâ—lenge that honour to himself Is it therefore because he is the most high God
the Scripture attributed to the holy Spirit in a peculiar manner 164 165. Whether the same is more often ascribed to the Holy Spirit than to the Father or Son 213 c. The action of sanctifying is attributed by the Scripture even to things which are not persons pag. 213 The vulgar opinion touching the Satisfaction of Christ brings forth several absurdities and what they be pag. 312 c. The word Saviour agreeth to the Father also pag. 189 The Opinion of the Schoolmen touching the distinction between the divine Attâ—ibutes and tâ—e examination of the same 298 c. Again touching the distinction of the persons of the Trinâ—ty from the Essence pag. 300 301. Whether and how is any one said to search his own counsels pag. 235. Those that deny credit to be given to the sences overthrow the foundations of Faith pag. 311 c. To be sent agreeth not to the mo t high God 12 c. What it is to be sent into the world 149. One can be sent into the woâ—ld who never was in Heaven pag. 149 To whom is the word Son absolutely used of Christ related 129. The name Son is not essential to Christ 158. The Son of God cannoâ— be the most high God 14 50. The contrary opinion diminisheth the honour of the Father 304 305 c. neither is it conjoyned with the glory of Christ 304 c. yea it doth diminish the same 306 c. It robs both God of tâ—at glory which consists in managing our Salvation by Christ 307. and us of that incomparable fruit which God looked upon in the same 307 308 c. The Son of God is not the fiâ—st original of the holy Spirit 43. The Son of God is called the Son of man and on the contrary pag. 287 Why the Souls of men separated from their Bodies are not Persons 286 287. and how they are said to be intellâ—gent pag. 287 The Speâ—ies is predicâ—ted of the whoâ—e Individuum as such pag. 286 The woâ—d Spirit pâ—t subjectively doth no where denote the divine essence 58. nor the three persons of one divine essence 24. How it is predicated of the Father and Son pag. 24. The same put both simply and with an additament does oftentimes denote the holy Spirit pag. 24 The holy Spirit why called so 208 209. All things that come from the divine inspiration are ascribed to it 199 200. How it is said to have spoken unto any 180. How its knowledge is contained in the knowledge of the Father and Son 185 186. The holy Scripture is silent of its adoration or worship 181 c. It is often not joyned with God and Christ 185 c. even where the angels or other sacred things are mentioned 191 192. It is not the most high God 14 171 c. The contâ—ary Opinion diminisheth the honour of the Father 303 c. The same is no where called God in the Scripture 39 172 c. It is often distinguished from him 195 c. How was its descent upon Christ 241. It would not be said no not indeed by a Metonimy to be given unto men if it were the most high God 214 215. Wâ—ether the same it self be given or its effects only 206 c. How may it be distinguished from its effect 202 c. It s effusion upon the â—postles how attributed unto Christ 114. It s mission what 228. It doth admit a partition 222 c. and how 224. whetheâ— is it a person 216 217. It is no where said to have appeared in a form or shape of a person 241. It is no where comâ—â—ehended under the name of Father 21 22. It would be the Father of Christ if it were a person 204 205. It s procession what 226 c. 297 c. Whether that which is commonly maintained be any wise different from the generation of the Son of God out of the essence of the Father 295 c. How it doth proceed from the Son 43. What cause it is of the divine revelation 235. What its common signification was anciently 207 c. What manner of power or efficacy of God it is pag. 197 The same Subject is often described by diâ—ers names joyned togetâ—er by a copulative particle pag. 23. The subjects being multiplied those things also are multiplied that are distinctâ—y said of each of them pag. 250 A subsistence haâ—h of it self no power to act 32. It worketh noâ—hing 62. How many wayes it is taken by the Adversaries 262. One substance hath but one subsistence pag. 261 c. To subsist by it self how many wayes â—e said pag. 290 291 292. Whether the word substance may be used concerning God pag. 256 257 Suppositum what 257 258. wherefore be iâ— called so 258. What kind of suppositum constitutes a person pag. 286 287 T. A Temple may be his also who is not the most high God pag. 176 The things that are the same with one third thing are also among themselves the same pag. 253 c. Things are oftentimes in the Scripâ—ure joyned with persons and those divine ones 190. Things that are not persons can both descend from heaven and be shadowed by an outward specâ—es or shape pag. 240 To be tempted of the Devil agreeth agreeth not to the most high God pag. 166 c. The Common Opinion touching the Trinity may lawfully be refuted by arguments fetcht from Reason pag. 245 c. It brings in three most high Gods pag. 23 248 249 c. 302 c. It bears not a dist nction of offices and actions in the Persons 214. It overthrows it self pag. 248. It diminisâ—eth the honour of the Father 303. c. It cannot be percâ—ived by rude men 243. It is not contained in the holy Scripture 242. c. It is in very deed a Saâ—elliaâ—ism 279. It doth hinder them that aâ—e strangers to the Christian Religion from embracing it 314. Why that opinion is acurately to be examined pag. 315 Truth what pag. 300 U. The Doctrine concerning the Vbiquity of Christs Body is very absurd pag. 311 c. There was no need of the Vnion of two Natures in Christ pag. 294. From whence and how doth Paul conclude the Vnity of the Faithful pag. 25 26 Vnless for but or but if pag. 53 W. That cannot be simply denied of the whole which may or ought simply to be affirmed of the same pag. 41 59 60 c. What that is for which any one is to be worshipped pag. 108 The end or scope of the works of Christ pag. 111 With him for in like manner as to him pag. 218 Errata Pag. 7. line 17 communion p. 11. l. 18. d. ne ib. marg 1 Joh. 2.3 4 13 14. and Joh 6.69 p 23 l 41 Trâ—nity as p 24 l 28 for nor r or of p 38 l 39 f it r is p 57 l 1 dele of ib f also r so ib marg Gâ—l 3 7. p 59 l 5 f admitted r affirmed ib l 16 d not ib l 43 compositum p 60 l 45 and is wont p 61 l 40 from one part of p 62 l 5 any thing ib l 46 of one p 65 l 37 and 17. 8 14. p 70 l 9 exaltation p 72 l 9 Christ is p 73 l 11 Euthymius p 75 l 2 which he saith to the Apostles ib l 16 17. it is not the office of the Son to know that day p 78 l 17 to be p 86 l 21 f yea r it also p 95 l 6 f of r if p 100 l 3 that delivery ib Rom 2.7 10 and 5.2 marg p 104 l 29 of rule p 106 l 30 he was p 109 l 33 so divine p 117 l 6 why he ib l 25 f of r in p 125 marg and 17. 1. p 127 l 7 that Christ p 131 l 36 so p 134 l 18 f for r or p 136 l 18 would p 140 l 24 every one p 144 l 29 to be called p 149 m. Wujek p 150 m. the Son of God p 152 l 25 heareth p 153 l 45 neither p 154 l 43 cannot p 156 l 34 participle p 161 l 46 at Athens p 182 l 8 2 Cor. p 183 l 39 of him ib l 40 praises p 184 l 1 times p 188 l 26 f though r if p 200 l 1 inwardly p 202 last naturally p 208 l 3 4 either by the simple word Spirit or by the words holy Spirit p 209 l 38 by prayers for or to believers p 211 l 20 f or r as ib l 24 Hypotheses ib l 29 dwelleth ib l 37 through p 212 l 22 f gifts r goods ib l 42 43 who first heard either from Christ or from other divine men of the holy Spirit to be given to men p 213 l 11 chiefly p 220 l 3 him ib l 8 properly ib l 39 Metalepses ib l 43 which notwithstanding would c. p 230 l 12 Austin p 233 l 7 f he r we ib l 23 is not p 239 l 2 3. wrest the weapon out of c. ib l 27 also p 240 l 5 we may also another shorter way shew from hence namely ib l 6 d we may shew ib l 7 moâ— high ib l 14 Spirit a descent properly so called ib l 28 substances p 243 l 22 more than ib l 23 they must ib l 32 there of p 257 l 27 Universals ib l 38 f here r hence p 258 l 1 that manner ib l 3 have no. ib l 4 every ib l 5 that we ib l 17 d of ib l 32 incommunicable substance p 259 l 20 represent ib l 36 ultimately ib l 44 else p 260 l 40 substances p 261 l 10 add may be or exist after expressed p 262 l 46 they be modes p 278 l 24 first p 279 l 41 f explains and extremities r joyneth and extreams p 296 l 27 to another ib l 28 from which such a relation ariseth ib l 41 thing ib l 47 ro another FINIS
our Cause holding that we are not onely excluded out of Heaven but ought also to be banished out of all Countreys think with thy self that to condemn Men before their Cause is heard is to condemn them as innocent Neither will it be enough for thee to refer the labour of examining unto others so as to follow their Judgment without thine own Think that thou thy self must answer for thy self Thou thou I say according to thy Understanding and Opportunity oughtest to try all things and hold fast that which is good For shalt thou commit all things unto others take heed and that very diligently lest thou commit thy self and thy Salvation unto men either negligent or puffed up with an Opinion of Learning and Knowledge or wholly addicted to humane Authority and pre-conceived Opinion or otherwise obstinate and not knowing how to yeild or loving their own quiet and security rather than their own or others Salvation or cowardly and not daring to utter their Opinion In short lest blindly following blind Guides thou fall with them into the Ditch Think not they are Godly and Lovers of the Truth whom I follow For to omit that this Opinion concerning others is often-times confuted by their manners and Actions there are many hiding holes of Vices and private Closets in the Brests of Men into which none but God and Christ can penetrate so that we are in greater danger of mistaking in our Judgment concerning other mens Piety when we go this way to work than if the question only is concerning an Opinion concerning which we dare not pass Sentence Neither canst thou say These things are too subtile for my Understanding For if thou considerest the Opinion it self whereof we here dispute what is more plain and simple than it for what doth it contain above that which is called the Apostles Creed which Children are acquainted with namely that that One God is no other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ If you look upon the Arguments which we have drawn out of the Scriptures they are of themselves plain and easie so that the Adversaries can no other way decline their force than by turning away from the simplicity of the Word and endeavouring to draw us away from the same Yea those Arguments vvhich vve have fetch'd from Reason if you except a few vvhich vve have added for the sake of Learned Men are so clear that one must rather offer violence to his Reason and Understanding that he may not admit the force of them than use any great intention of Mind to understand them But perhaps if any thing occur in the defence of the Arguments fetch'd out of the Scripture vvhich may to a Man unskill'd in the Art of Disputing seem somewhat subtile he may pass it by for the other things vvhich may easily be understood by every one vve are confident will be sufficient for him to pass sentence concerning this Cause Though vve have so tempered this vvhole kind of Writing that all things may be understood by a man indifferently versed in Learning even those vvhich in the second Book we have culled out of Philosophy and the received Opinion of the Schools Neither indeed is it to be imputed to us if now and then vve speak something vvhich the ruder sort may call subtile but to the Adversaries vvho as vve have said do draw us avvay from the simplicity both of the Words and meaning of the Spirit of God which Reason doth dictate to the unlearned themselves and by the subtilties of distinctions endeavour to elude the most plain Arguments which we produce for our Opinion Wherefore we friendly admonish and beseech all them to whom this Writing of ours shall come that they would diligently weigh and examine our Words by the Ballance of the Divine Oracles and offer no violence to their conscience when they have found the Truth and so either by resisting it or perpetually burying it in silence increase their own and others servitude but use diligence to draw Others partly to the truer Opinion partly to more moderate Counsels and as much as in them lies cause that all may dare to erect their Mind to a free Inquiry touching sacred Matters and to lift up their Eyes to the Light thereof And that so through the whole World Men may with Piety of Mind Mouth and Life praise that One God the Father of whom are all things and that One Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things To Him be Glory and Power for ever and ever AMEN The Scope AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE WORK THe scope of this our Work is to shew That the most High God is no other besides the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Now we will divide the whole Work into two Books In the first we will confirm our Opinion with Scripture-Testimonies and Arguments drawn thence In the latter we will make use of other sufficient Reasons to prove the same and refute the contrary Though even there we will now and then recal the Reader to the Scriptures But in the former part of the Work we will so proceed as that we will first directly prove That onely the Father of Jesus Christ is the most high God and that partly by those Testimonies of the sacred Scripture which make open mention of the Father Partly by those wherein the Name of the Father is not indeed exprest yet is he truly spoken of Then will we demonstrate the same indirectly as they say when we shall shew out of the same holy Scripture That neither Christ whom otherwise we confess to be by the Gift of the Father a God over all to be blessed for evermore is the most High God nor the Holy Spirit whom we will prove to be the Vertue and Efficacy of the most High God Book 1. Sect. 3. Chap. 5. For so it will remain that the Father onely is the most High God since no other else can be imagined Touching ONE GOD The Father Arg. 1 from Joh. 17.3 THE FIRST BOOK SECT I. Wherein is directly proved that onely 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. The first Argument from the words of Christ John 17.3 This is Life eternal that they might know thee Father the Onely true God and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ THe first Testimony therefore and Argument of our Opinion shall be that of Christ himself speaking to his Father in these words This is Life eternal c. Here none doubteth that by the Name of the true God is understood the most high God Wherefore since Christ so describeth the Father as to call him the Onely true God it is understood that onely the Father of Christ is the most High God The Defence of the Argument The first Answer to the Argument and the Refutation MAny there are who forced by the evidence of the Words
grant all that which we say but not to the same purpose For they say that the Father is not therefore called the only true God to exclâ—de the Son and holy Spirit from the same Godhead but only to exclude Idols or the false Gods of the Heathen For that here the TRUE God is opposed to false ones And indeed it is true that only the Father is therefore called the true God to exclude them from true Godhead who were then falsely esteemed and worshipped for gods but nevertheless it is done by Christ in such a manner as is of larger extent and excludeth not only them but all others also besides the Father from the most high Godhead Wherefore it is given us to understand that if the most high Godhead is attributed to any one besides the Father of Jesus Christ it is done erroneously Now as for that which we assert both the force of the words and the occasion or cause intimated by the Adversaries themselves doth require For as to the first such is the force of the word ONLY as that it excludeth all others from the communion of the predicate besides him to whom it is applied But he to whom the word ONLY if you consider the sence for we will afterwards speak of the construction of the words is applied is the Father of Jesus Christ as they themselves confess with whom we have now to do And the Predicate is THE TRUE GOD or the Most High God Wherefore the word ONLY doth from the communion of the Predicate exclude all besides the Father and consequently Christ and the holy Spirit As to the latter either therefore the gods of the Heathen are by these words of Christ understood to be excluded from true Godhead because it is apparent that they are different from the Father whom Christ calleth the only true God or because it is already apparent that they are false gods Not for the latter cause for otherwise they would be judged already excluded from true Godhead before they were understood to be excluded by vertue of the words of Christ nor would there be need to make use of these words to that purpose If for the former cause it is necessary that all who are apparently different from the Father of Jesus Christ should be excluded from that true or most high Godhead for otherwise the Argument which should from these words be drawn to exclude the Idols of the Heathen from the true Godhead would be invalid For it would be thus if it should by way of Syllogism be proposed some different from the Father of Jesus Christ are not the true God The Idols of the Heathen are different from the Father of Jesus Christ therefore are not the true god The Major would be particular in the first figure which makes the consequence invalid Wherefore although the false Opinion of the Heathen touching their Idols gave occasion to Christ to call his Father the only true God yet did he so shape his words that others also might be excluded from that true Godhead and not only they to whom supream Godhead was then falsely attributed but such also to whom the same might in time to come be likewise falsly attributed For that we may add this also who doubteth that Peter for example Paul Gabriel Michael are by vertue of these words of Christ strongly excluded from the most high Godhead But there was then none that held them to be most high Gods nor consequently did Christ specially intend to exclude them from the Deity Wherefore the force of the words and meaning is of a larger extent than the occasion of them and is rightly drawn forth to others likewise besides the Idols of the Gentiles Neither may any one here say that therefore not only the Idols of the Gentiles but also those Men and Angels are by vertue of these words excluded from the most high Godhead because they are not of the same essence or substance but that the Son and holy Spirit are not excluded because they are of the same Essence with the Father Since it is agreeable if any thing be attributed to the Father only that those persons should not be excluded from the communion thereof which have the same numerical substance For besides that this is indeed nothing else than to take that for granted which is most in controversie when Christ called his Father the only true God he meant no less the only Person of the Father then the Essence or Substance consequently no less excluded them from that true and most high Godhead who were different Persons from the Father then who were different Substances For Christ useth a popular kind of speaking and applyeth himself to the capacity of his Disciples For therefore he with a clear voice uttered Prayers to the Father in their presence that he might both instruct and comfort them no less with this supplication to the Father then he had formerly by speaking to them But among the people yea among all THE FATHER ONLY doth no less denote the only person of the Father then the Substance and consequently doth no less exclude all different persons from the Father than Substances Besides when the Vulgar think of a Person different from the Father they also presently think of a Substance different from him Where they conceive one Substance they cannot think of a different Person Certainly concerning Moods Subsistences Suppositalities and Personalities which existing in the same numerical Substance do constitute Persons really distinct even at this day the vulgar sort of Christians do not think so unlikely is it that heretofore among the Jews even Fishermen did know them Wherefore if Christ fitting himself to the capacity of the Vulgar would have all different Substances from the Father be excluded from the most high Godhead he would also have all different Persons from the Father excluded from the same Whence we are given to understand that in these words the contrary to what is urged in this exception is rather taken for granted namely that he who is distinguished in Person from the Father as Christ is is also distinguished from him in Substance and consequently by virtue of these words of Christ are excluded from that true and most high Godhead And this is so much the more to be believed touching Christ in that the Disciples who were then present did not only see him to be a true man but also heard him distinguished from the Father as a Messenger from the Sender and also that he poured out prayers unto the same and begged glory of him Again if none by vertue of these words of Christ is excluded from the true Godhead although he manifestly differ in person from the Father unless it be also apparent that he is different from him in Essence it will follow that he cannot be confuted by these words who shall say that Gabriel for example Peter Paul or finally Jupiter Neptune or the other gods of the Heathen are the true
which are alone brought by some to illustrate their Explication of this place and are extant 1 Cor. 9.6 for thus it is there to be read out of the Greek Or have only I and Barnabas no power to forbear working But in this place of ours not alone the word only but together the whole Predicate namely The true God is interposed between these two Subjects to which it is thought to be referred that is to say between the word Thee and Jesus Christ whom the Father hath sent To omit that the Article set before the word only doth not suffer that it should be in that manner joyned either with the word Thee or with the words Jesus Christ as all who are not ignorant of the Greek Tongue will confess Again By this means notwithstanding the Opinion of the Adversaries touching the Deity of the holy Spirit will be overthrown for if the Father and Christ only be the true God the holy Spirit cannot also he The same will also follow although you so take the words as if Christ had said That they know thee Father and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ to be that God who only is the true God For we have before shown that this is all one as if it had been said Thee and Jesus Christ only to be the true God there is I say no difference in this behalf whether the word Only be presently added to the first Subject or to that Subject which is part of the Predicate Besides it is false That Eternal Life or the Way to attain Eternal Life doth herein consist that men know the Father and Christ to be the only true God Properly taken it cannot consist otherwise it would be both necessary requisite and also sufficient to acknowledge the Father and Christ for the only true God But by this account all who comprehend that Opinion in their minds should attain Eternal Life when nevertheless they may withal stick in those vices concerning which the Scripture openly pronounceth that they who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven You will say therefore that it is to be taken improperly that this knowledge may comprehend in it self faith in Christ working by love and all kind of vertues namely by a Metonimy or Transnomination joyned with a Synecdoche whereby under the name of the cause the effect is also comprehended After which manner Eternal Life seemeth in the Scripture to be ascribed to that Faith whereby men believe That * Joh. 20.31 Jesus is the Christ the Son of God But neither can this consist for even so nevertheless it would be signified that this Knowledge is necessary for all unto eternal Life and a certain ground of faith working by Love But that this is false doth hence appear in that not only Christ himself who was sent by God to declare unto men the way of Salvation and implant in them Saving-Faith did ne-never openly deliver or inculcato to men this Doctrine yea neither his Apostles the most clear Preachers both of his Divinity and Doctrine For as to Christ he did not only of his own accord not teach and inculcate that he together with the Father is the only true God but also when a commodious occasion was afforded him to pronounce that concerning himself did yet abstain from so doing speaking in such a manner of himself as that he openly differenced himself from God taken by way of excellency and shewed that himself wholly depended on him as appeareth from the 10th chapter of this very Gospel verse 33 c. concerning which words we have elsewhere * In the Book of God and his Attributes chap. 13. spoken and shall †Lib. 1. Sect. 2. Chap. 31. hereafter speak in its place But the Apostles when they speak of the Dignity of Christ the Knowledge whereof is the ground of that Faith and Piety whereby we are saved do mention no higher things than that Jesus is the Christ or the Son of God both which they put for the same and that is very frequent in this Writer Concerning which thing likewise we shall have occasion to speak of * Sect 2. Chap. 31. hereafter Moreover the sacred Writers and John by name when they speak of that Knowledge wherein Religion or the Way to eternal Life consisteth intend not such a Knowledge whereby some attribute essential to God or Christ is known to be in him such as this knowledge would be that the Father and Christ is the only true God but they mean the knowledge of God simply whereof we suppose Christ here speaketh †Joh. 8.19 55. 14 7. 16.3 17.25 Joh. 1.2 3 4. 13.14 3.1 4.7 5.20 compared with Ephes 1.17 and Col. 1.9 Joh. 6 6 9. compared with v. 12 24 25 17.25 understanding the knowledg of God chiefly in respect of his will and of the things any way thereunto belonging and also the knowledge of Christ in respect of his office which wholly pertaineth to discover confirm execute and perfect the Divine Will I pass by the manner of speaking such as neither John nor any Writer of the new Covenant useth when he speaketh of the knowledge of some whole complex or proposition for the Sacred Writers would express this sâ—nce which they with whom we now dispute would have to be comprehended in those words of Christ in this manner That they know that thou art the only true God c. as they who are more diligently versed in the reading of the Scripture will observe Thus for example sake we read in the same John * Chap. 6.69 Who have known that thou art the Christ the Son of God †Chap. 7.26 The Rulers have known that this is the Christ I forbear to urge what we will elsewhere demonstrate that neither the prayers which Christ here poureth out to the Father nor his sending from the Father whereof in these very words he maketh mention do admit that Christ should be accounted the true and supream God together with the Father I will only here speak what hath in some measure been observed by certain very learned Adversaries namely that it is not agreeable to this place that Christ should pronounce concerning himself that he together with the Father is the only true God partly because he prayeth to the Father and so speaketh most modestly of himself partly because he considereth and describeth himself as the Fathers Embassador For praying to the Father he is not to be thought to have equalized himself to the Father and to have pronounced that of himself then which the Father hath nothing greater but as it became one that is very modest and a supplicant to have set himself below him Furthermore in that he here considereth and describeth himself as the Fathers Embassador he is not to be thought to have attributed unto himself the supream Majesty and Glory of the Father that sent him which herein consisteth that he is the
But besides that the Prophet doth there indeed speak of Christ himself as even some of the Adversaries have observed and if any one deny that it is to be understood of Christ the Adversaries will have nothing to prove it withal It is to be noted that those words may be rightly rendred out of the Hebrew as some latter * Castellio Interpreters have done And now the Lord God hath sent me and his Spirit Besides though the vulgar interpretation be retained it would be necessary to hold that the holy Spirit did send Christ otherwise than the Lord God from whom the holy Spirit is openly distinguished But here we speak of such a manner whereby Christ was the Embassador or Messenger of the holy Spirit as is proper to God In like manner neither is there any thing read of a Covenant-stroke between the holy Spirit and men to omit the other things that might be insisted upon As for the places which the Adversaries alledge wherein they think it is written that Christ pacified God toward us the Adversaries themselves are wont to understand them of the Father not of the holy Spirit concerning whom they produce no testimony neither are they wont to affirm that Christ doth make intercession for us to the holy Spirit but to God the Father whence * 1 John 2.2 John saith We have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous who is a Propitiation for our sins It remaineth therefore that not the whole Trinity but the Father only be understood by the name of God in this place of ours and so that one God and the Father be accounted for the same But what need many words the very similitude of this place with those which we have formerly discust wherein by the name of that One God the Father is understood or that one God is said to be the Father doth sufficiently teach every one who will not be obstinate against the truth that the same is here also to be understood Furthermore as in those places 1 Cor. 12. and Ephes 4. Paul would shew that there is the same God of all Christians not one God of these another of those so his purpose is here to shew that there is the same God of all men who accordingly is so far forth alike affected towards all as that he would have all saved and come to the knowledge of the truth and not some to be saved and others to perish Whence likewise he sent one Mediator unto men to strike the same League with all in his Name and confirm it with his Blood and so deliver all out of the bondage of sin and death having as it were given a price and testifie unto all the Soveraign Love of God towards them This place putteth us also in mind of that which is extant also in the same Apostle Rom 3.30 Rom. 3.30 where being about to shew that God will alike justifie by faith all men both Jews Gentiles he saith thus For there is One God who will justifie the Circumcision that is the circumcised or Jews by Faith and the Vncircumcision that is the uncircumcised or Gentiles by Faith Now he speaketh of that God of whom he had hitherto spoke many things and to whom he had ascribed the act of justifying whom he sundry times most openly distinguisheth from Christ amongst other things affirming of him that he appointed Christ * Ver. 25. a Propitiatory But that he is no other than the Father of Christ all seem to acknowledge Certainly that he is not the whole Trinity nor Christ himself nor the holy Spirit may be shewn partly by the same and partly by such like Reasons as we have used in the place immediately foregoing as the prudent Reader will by himself understand Wherefore we will no longer dwell herâ—upon especially because we would have this place to be only an accession of the former CHAP. VII Arg. 7 from Rom. 16.27 John 5.44 Jude 4. The seventh Argument 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 THough out of each of those places wherein after such a manner none but the Father of Jesus Christ is designed we might draw Arguments yet because the Arguments are alike among themselves we will reckon them for one Thus therefore we may conclude If by the Only God or the Only wise God or the Only Master God the Father only is some where understood and we will afterwards shew that he is so understood it is necessary that the Father only be that God namely Most High Wise Master For it is necessary simply to say the Only God or Only wise God or Only Master God is the Father and contrariwise the Father is the Only God or the Only wise God or Only master God Otherwise these could not be put for the Father as equivalent or would not signifie the Father only but some other also Take which of those Propositions you please and our Opinion will be established If the first it cannot be absolutely and simply said that the only God or only wise or only master God is the Father if the name of the only God c. is of larger extent than the Father or if any other besides the Father is the only God c. For neither is a word of a stricter signification predicated of a large one but contrariwise If you take the latter Proposition it hath bin already shewn in the Defence of the first Argument that it is all one as if you should say the Father only is God the Father only is the wise God or master God For when any one is said to be he to whom only somthing doth agree it is all one as if you should say that the same attribute agrees to him only who is first named as if I should say God is that Spirit who only existed from all Eternity it is all one as if I should say God only is that Spirit who existed from all Eternity and so in the rest The Confirmation and Defence of the Argument NOw that we may shew that the Father only is somewhere designed in such a manner we will begin from that place wherein mention is made of the only wise God as being very clear and most suitable to that which is to be proved And you shall find it at the end of the Epistle to the Romans where the Apostle saith * First place Rom. 16.27 To the only wise God through Jesus Christ be honour and glory for ever and ever That in this place by the name of the only wise God no other is understood but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ may easily be perceived For it is clear that Christ is not understood by that name since he is most openly distinguished from the only wise God and that as the middle cause of glory and honour from the
2. Chap. 2 3. and Sect. 3. Chap. 11. The Eleventh Argument is largely diffused and may be branched out into many for hereunto belong all those places of the Scripture wherein some Prerogative is given to the Father above Christ Hereunto pertain first those Testimonies of the Scripture wherein the Father is expresly said to be either * See Sect. 2. Chap. 14. greater than Christ or the †Chap. 24. Head of Christ or the ‖ Chap. 23. God of Christ those also wherein the Father is said to have given a * Chap. 16. Commandment to Christ and that Christ was his Servant and Minister Arg. 11 from the Prerogative of the Father obeyed his Command and submitted his †chap. 12. own will to his Arg. 11 from the Prerogative of the Father Likewise those where Christ is said to be ‖ chap. 25 God's to be the * chap. 27. Mediator of God the †chap. 28. Priest of God ‖ chap. 5.25 sent from the Father to have * chap. 16. come not to do his own will but the Fathers Hitherto also belong those wherein Christ professeth that not †chap. 3 19. himself but the Father is the prime Author of those wonderful works which he did that his ‖ chap. 4. Doctrine was not his own but the Fathers that he * chap. 8. which believeth on him believeth not on him but on the Sender of him namely the Father To which those also are like which teach that the Father is †chap. 19 worshiped through Christ and that whatsoever divine things Christ either hath or performeth or are performed unto him from us redound unto the glory of the Father as the utmost scope that Christ poured out ‖ chap. 17 prayers to the Father that the Father is the true Author of the * chap. 29 Resurrection of Christ that the Father †chap. 18. exalted and glorified Christ and consequently bestowed all things on him that ‖ chap. 24 Christ shall hereafter deliver up the Kingdom to the Father and become subject to him that the * chap. 19 Father did or doth all things by Christ Now we will shew in their places that whilst those things which we have reckoned up are ascribed to the Father a Prerogative is attributed unto him above Christ wholy and entirely considered and not according to one nature only and consequently also that he is greater than the holy Spirit Which is manifest even from thence namely in that those things which we have reckoned up are absolutâ—ly wont to be ascribed to the Father and no where to Christ namely in respect of some more excellent Nature and no where also to the holy Spirit Add hereunto others also which have in part been observed by the Adversaries themselves †chap. 10. See Mat. 20.23 22.1 25.34 Rom. 8 29 Gal. 1.15 16. Eph. 1.3 so on to the 13. as that the Father not Christ not the holy Spirit is said in Scripture to have predestinated men to have decreed some things to some one either before the world was created or from the foundation of the world All glory all happiness designed either to Christ or his confidents was first decreed and provided by the Father The whole reason of our Salvation dependeth on him What should I speak of the Creation of Heaven and Earth For though the Adversaries endeavour to vindicate it unto Christ and the holy Spirit yet are they themselves wont to say that it is wont to be ascribed unto the Father in a peculiar manner no otherwise than if it were proper unto him in which manner Redemption is attributed to the Son Sanctification to the holy Spirit concerning which thing we will speak somewhat hereafter Sect. 3. Hence also in that which is called the Apostles * Chap. 3. Creed the Creation of Heaven and Earth is ascribed neither to Christ nor to the holy Spirit but to the Father only For thus we say I believe in God the Father Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth and in his only begotten Son not confessing Christ himself to be the Creator but the only begotten Son of the Creator Neither indeed doth the Scripture any where ascribe to Christ the Creation of Heaven and Earth and when it attributeth a creation to him it not only speaketh of a new creation or certain reformation of things but also no where saith that the Son himself created all things but that all things were created by him and in him Finally when the Scripture speaketh either of Religion and the Worship of God in gross or of certain parts thereof it is so wont to make mention of the Father that it may easily appear unto all that the Father is he to whom in all ages worship was to be given by all men and was indeed given by all pious men and to whom only all honour is ultimately to be referred Whence also after Christ was exalted yet that custom prevailed in Christian Churches that publick Prayers should for the most part be directed to the Father some few to the Son but seldom or never any especially if you distinguish Prayers from Hymns to the holy Spirit concerning which thing we will elsewhere * Sect. 3. chap. 2. speak somewhat Whence the Prayers made in Churches are commonly wont to end in this manner Through our Lord Jesus Christ having also sometimes the name of the Son prefixt through whom namely as a Mediator and Priest prayers are poured out unto the Father himself though we otherwise not only willingly confess that prayers may be poured out to Christ himself but contend that they ought often to be poured out and in our Churches do our selves very frequently perform the same Notwithstanding that custom which hath for so many ages endured in the whole Christian world which even that vulgar opinion concerning three Persons of the most high God hath not been able to take away giveth testimony to our Opinion touching one God the Father For such a Prerogative of the Father above the Son and holy Spirit evinceth that he only is the most high God Certainly the very truth it self crept into the minds of men although they set themselves against it and darted the Beams of her clearness into them not suffering her self to be wholly darkned with the clouds of errours For there appear on every side hints and arguments from which it is clean that the Father only is he * Rom. 11.36 of whom are all things and by whom are all things and for whom are all things as Paul speaketh of the most high God that is by whose counsel and decree all things are at first constituted by whose efficacious providence and vertue all things are perfected to whom finally as the ultimate end all things are referred A diligent Reader of the Scripture will easily observe this especially being thus admonished if he heed the diversity of things which
according to the divine Nature and to be wrested to his Generation out of the Essence which the Father made from all Eternity which though it be absurd and besides other things repugnant to the words of Paul Act. 13.32 33. so to this very place doth yet exclude their exception concerning the humane Nature according to which this very place is to be taken of Christ Finally would the divine Author here have spoken of a certain Nature only and not of the whole Person of Christ he would not have opposed Christ to the Father but to himself according to the divine Nature and what he had taken away from the humane he would have attributed to the divine but that he neither did nor could do For if Christ was in that very thing made an high Priest by God as he was begotten by God and consequently became the Son of God as we manifestly see the divine Author intimates he could not be made an high Priest by himself no not considered according to the divine Nature otherwise Christ would have been begotten of himself considered according to the divine Nature and so would be his own Son and the divine Nature might say to him Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee Which how absurd it is and repugnant to its self every one perceiveth Now therefore he at length shall rightly understand this place and the Authors reasoning who observes that Christ is chiefly called the Son of God as by his favour he hath attained the greatest similitude with God and that Christ was never made more like to God than when he obtained the perpetual Government of the house of God and the Office of eternally looking to and saving the People of God Which thing is contained in this Priesthood for the divine Author opposeth nor that Office to the Kingly but in some sort includeth this in that But let those things be here spoken by the by in that they will prove advantagious hereafter CHAP. XIV Argument the fourteenth from the words of Christ John 14.28 My Father is greater than I. VVE have hitherto reckoned up not a few places wherein something is denyed of Christ which could not be denyed of him if he were the most high God It follows that we take a view of those places wherein something is attributed to him which could not be attributed if he were the most high God and that such in the first place wherein some Prerogative is ascribed to the Father above him and so the Father made superior to Christ Arg. 14 from John 14.28 of which sort those also were which we have hitherto alledged We will again begin from John in whom there are very many Testimonies of this kind also amongst which we will give the first place to that wherein Christ with most open words professeth that the Father is greater than he as he doth chap. 4.28 Where he saith My Father is greater than I to which ought to be added that place chap. 10.29 where the same Christ saith My Father which gave them me namely the Sheep is greater than all Where under the name of those All Christ himself also is included as both the collation with those words chap. 14. and also that doth shew that in the same place he attributeth to the Father the giving of those Sheep unto him and consequently unto himself the receiving of them from the Father But none can be greater than the most high God The Defence of the Argument HEre many of the antient Authors did grant that Christ speaketh of himself even as he is the Son of God and saith that the Father is greater than himself in as much as the name of Father signifieth the Principle and as the Greeks speak the cause of the Son Thus besides others that Popish Interpreter * John Maldonatus whom we have above quoted saith it is expounded by Athanasius Hilary Epiphanius Gregory Nazianzen Cesarius Cyril Damascen Chrysostom Leontius Theophilact Euthymius citing the places of them to that purpose But I know not saith he whether they granted more to the Adversaries namely the Arrians with whom they did dispute than was meet Indeed this acute man saw that it followeth thence that Christ even as he is the Son of God is not the most high God in that the Father is greater than he as such concerning which thing we have already above †Sect. 1. Chap. 1. sufficiently spoken Add hereunto that that fashion wherein they make the Father greater than Christ makes nothing to the purpose of Christ for Christ there renders a reason of that which he had last spoken namely If ye love me ye would rejoyce because I go to the Father By which words he signifieth that some good or happiness should arrive to him when he was gone away to the Father and consequently that the Disciples ought to rejoyce even for his sake that he went away to the Father as very learned men before us have observed But what maketh it to the purpose that the Father is greater than Christ as he is the Fountain of his divine either Nature or Person and begat him from Eternity out of his Essence doth not the thing it self hint that Christ would signifie that the Father was greater than he as he was more blessed glorious powerful and that he himself when he was more nearly joyned with the Father and received into his own seat should be partaker of the same Blessedness Glory Power and Empire But there is no need to labour much in refuting the Interpretation of the Antients since at this day there is scarce any one that followeth it For latter Writers observing that by such an Interpretation the Arrians Opinion touching the Divinity of Christ is not a little established they chiefly seized on that answer which also not a few of the Antients made use that Christ there spake not of himself according to the divine but only according to the humane Nature Which answer may be refuted by the same reason in a manner which above chap. 3. of this Section we alledged if you change a few things in some of them For not to repeat those things now whereby we have taught that there is no example of such a distinction in the Scriptures yea that this very distinction overthroweth the Opinion of the Adversaries concerning the Person of Christ we have shewn that that cannot be simply denyed of the whole which may and is wont or rather altogether ought to be simply affirmed of the same although it agree not to it according to some one part especially the less worthy Whence it followeth that also on the contrary that cannot be simply affirmed of some whole which may and is wont or rather ought to be simply denyed of the same whole although it doth agree to it according to some part especially the less worthy Now if Christ be the most high God equal to the Father in all things as the Adversaries affirm
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
another reason of diversity in that we speak of such a Giving as an Inferiour cannot exercise towards a Superiour such as is the conferring of power and right on another the giving of life or the like things But the delivery of the Kingdom may be incident to an Inferiour in respect of a Superiour yea can be incident to none but such But every one doth easily perceive how much that delivery whereby Christ shall render the Kingdom to God the Father doth differ from that whereby the Father gave to Christ the Throne of David and all Power in Heaven and Earth and consequently the other things Because when those things were given to Christ by the Father he was said to have been made Lord and Christ But who dare to say of the Father that he when Christ delivereth the Kingdom to him shall then be made and constituted by him Lord and Christ But further let us grant that something may be given to God who is there that dare to say that all things have been delivered to the most high God by another That all Power in Heaven and Earth hath been given to him as Christ affirmeth concerning himself Would it agree to the Father whom all grant to be the most high God to speak in this manner I dispose to you a Kingdom as my Son hath disposed unto me Could it be said that it is given to the Father by another to have life in himself that he liveth by another Would this speech be suitable to him My Son who gave me the Sheep is greater than all or this Thine were they Disciples O Son and thou hast given them unto me Run over the rest and see whether you can without Blasphemy apply them to the Father or the most high God Hence it easily appeareth how frivolous that other thing is which they alleage out of John 17.2 4. touching the glorifying of the Father For there is as wide a difference between the glorifying of Christ which he begs of the Father and the glorifying of the Father made by Christ on the Earth as is between the Glory * Rom. 2.7 Joh. 5.2 1 Thes 2.12 1 Pet. 5.10 John 12.26 1 Cor. 4.4 which God promiseth to us and will at length give by Christ and that which we are said to give or render unto God between the blessing whereby God blesseth us and that whereby we bless God between the praise and honour which he will sometimes give to us and that which we give to him for the glorifying of the Father which proceeded from Christ was only the illustration of the divine Name or the celebration or manifestation of the Fathers Goodness Power and Wisdom but that which Christ did beg consisted in the conferring Immortality and Sovereign Power Which is manifest by it self and shall be shewn afterwards when we shall refute the third Answer to our Argument So that in the words of Christ Joh. 17.2 4. there is such an elegant Antanaclasis as if some one of us should say Glorifie us O God that we may glorifie thee praise and honour us that we may praise and honour thee Or we have glorified thee on Earth praised thee honoured thee finished the work which thou hast given us to do wherefore glorifie us with thy self with that glory which thou didst design to us before the world was created * The second answer and its refutation But now it is time that we see other Answers to our Argument or rather interpretations of the places from whence it is drawn Some therefore answer that all things were given to Christ from the Father by an eternal generation out of his Essence Which answer likewise seemeth to strike at the Major of our Argument and so deny it to be universally true For it is tacitly said that it is only true of the Father but not of the Son or also of the holy Spirit But this answer is not to be admitted chiefly for two Reasons First Because as we †Chap. 2 3. of this Section already above hinted it doth sundry wayes imply a contradiction for it maketh the same to be at once both eternal and not eternal both the most high God and not the most high God the same in Essence with the Father and not the same equal to him and not equal The one while it attributeth to him the same Essence in number with the Father and affirmeth that he existed from all eternity the other while it affirmeth that he was generated out of the Essence of the Father and received all things of him which he hath in respect of his Deity Next because it evidently thwarteth very many of the places quoted by us For some openly speak of a thing which was done in time and not from all eternity as the place Luke 1.32 and John 5.20 c. where also life is mentioned which the Father hath given to the Son to have in himself that is as most learned Interpreters do * John Calvin Wolfg Musc John Maldonat observe a power and vertue of quickning which many hold that he received by that eternal Generation from the Father So also chap. 6.37 and 17.4 Acts 2.33 c. and chap. 3.13 and chap. 5.31 and 1 Cor 15.27 Ephes 1.20 Phil 2.9 c. whereunto add all those places which we have cited out of the Epistle to the Hebrews out of the Epistle of Peter out of the Revelation also out of the Psalms and out of Daniel Some also express such a cause of that giving as hath nothing common with that eternal Generation out of the Essence of God †Chap. 3. of this Section As that the Father loved the Son John 3.35 and 5.20 and 17.24 which cause pertaineth also to the Life which the Father gave unto the Son to have in himself Or that the Son namely of God is the Son of Man John 5.27 or that he was obedient to the Father even to the death of the Cross Phil. 2.9 and that he glorified the Father on the Earth and finished the work which he had given him to do John 17.4 5. or that he did desire and obtain it from the Father ibid. and Psal 2.8 Let these things suffice to have been spoken concerning the second Answer Now that we may come to those Answers which endeavour by a distinction to solve the Argument they again are divers For some seem to distinguish the word ‖ Third Answer and its Refutation Give and others that have the same force others those things which are said to be given others finally him to whom they are given in respect of the divers Natures that are in him one whereof is such that according to it something may be given to him and consequently all things have been given the other such that according to it nothing hath been given to him Wherefore the first will say that the word Give in the major Proposition is to be taken of a giving which is really
them when tâ—ey had exalted him as is apparent from the preceding words Wherefore neither doth he suppose the former to be manifest unto them as the opinion of these men requireth Besides if Christ would have reasoned from effects he would ratâ—er have alledged his miraculous works than works of virtue and piety For they were the most manifest effects of his conjunction with the Father to which he elsewheâ—e likewise frequently appealeth when he spake of his conjunction with the Father or of some like thing as we read in the same Writer See Chap. 5.36 and 10.37 38. and 14.11 15.24 Furthermore if it appeareth from other places that this was the true cause why God was with Christ in that he alwayes did the things that pleased him their reason for whicâ— they think they must here depart from the usual and simple signification of the particle for falleth to the ground But that the thing is so is thence apparent in that Christ himself doth elsewhere render this as the reason wâ—y God did coâ—sequently love him consequently was always with him by his assistance namely because he had done and would hereafter doe those things that were pleasing to the Father and agreeable to his commandments Now it is all one for the Father not to leave Christ but to be present with him and constantly to love Christ and to be perpetually with him by his help and assistance And that this which we have said was the cause of the Fathers love towards Christ and consequently of the help which he gave him is intimated by the words of Christ which are extant afterwards Chap. 10.17 Therefore the Father loveth me because I lay down my soul that I may receive it again For this Commandment as he himself addeth in the following Verse he had received from the Father And Chap. 15.10 As the Father hath loved me so have I loved you continue in my love If you keep my Commandments ye shall continue in my love as I also have kept the Fathers Commandments and continue in his love Where whatsoever they say with whom we have to do Christ warneth his disciples that having once obtained his love they would use their endeavours not to lose it again but enjoy it perpetually and sheweth them a way how they should certainly attain it which he had also formerly intimated by a similitude in tâ—e 2d Verse namely by keeping his Commandments Moreoâ—er be illustrates this way by his own example shewing it to be the aptest yea the only means of persevering in his love in tâ—at he himself by keeping his Fathers Commandments had obtained this favour to continue in his love that is to be constantly loved of him Wherefore as we said before that reason falleth to the ground for which the particle For should be thought to signifie not the cause but the effect or sign in these words Chap. 8.29 But if it signifieth the cause the thing it self as we have seen doth evince that Christ is not the most high God This Argument of ours cannot be solved by the distinction of natures For first those causes hinder which we have above hinted in other * Chap. 3.14.10 of this Section places as namely that these things are simply spoken of Christ and that it is necessary here to consider him as a person both for his Mission and so also for the operations which he attributeth to himself according to the capacity wherein he is to be considered Again this likewise taketh away the force of that answer that notwithstanding this Christ should rather have alleaged this for the reason why the Father was with him and left him not alone because according to the divine nature to which the humane is personally united he was the same God with the Father CHAP. XXIII The three and twentieth Argument That the Father is called the God of Christ IN the tenth place we will recite those testimonies wherein the Father is called the God of Christ For thus Christ himself speaketh concerning this matter in his discourse with Mary afterward in the same John Chap. 20.17 Go to my brethren and say unto them I ascend to my Father and your Father to my God and your God And in the same Writer Rev. 3.12 In the same Verse 12. he calleth the Father his God four times whilst he saith Whosoever overcometh I will make him a pillar in the Temple of my God and he shall no more go forth and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the City of my God the New Jerusalem which descendeth out of Heaven from my God As for the other Writers first we read in Matth. and Mark that Christ when he hung upon the Cross câ—yed thus to the Father My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Matth. 27.46 Mark 15.34 And Paul Ephes 1.17 wisheth that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of glory would give unto them the Spirit of wisdom And the divine Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews Chap. 1.8 9. citeth of Christ those words of the Psalmist Psal 45.7 8. spoken heretofore of Solomon as the typâ— of Christ Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever c. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity Therefore O God thy God hath anointed thee with the oyl of gladness above thy fellows Thus also Micah speaketh of Christ Chap. 5.4 And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord in the height of the name of the Lord his God Arg. 23 That the Father is called the God of Christ From whence it appeareth that Christ is not the most high God for the most high God hath not a God or there is no other God of him For to be the God of any one is to have Empire and Power over him or to be his Benefactor or finally to be worshipt of him as his sovereign Benefactor But none hath dominion over the most high God none is his Benefactor none is worshipped of him otherwise he himself would not be the most high God The Defence of the Argument HEere they have no other refuge left them besides the distinction of Natures Though not so much as this is left them in that we have * Chap. 3.14 16. already sufficiently stopt this hole at which they endeavour to get out especially because all the circumstances of those places do argue that it is spoken concerning the whole Person of Christ or that he is considered as a Person For he is considered as the Son of God as our Saviour as our Lord as Anointed of God as God as Prince appointed of God Wherefore he cannot be a Person of supream Godhead otherwise his divine Nature also would have a God besides were Christ the most high God although he also had a humane Nature yet some other or another Person namely the Father would not be his God but he himself would be his own God For he himself would
have sovereign Power over his own humane Nature he himself would be a Benefactor to it he himself would be worshipt of it certainly no less than any other person yea more Why then is another namely the Father rather called his God than he himself called his own God But if they acknowledge it to be absurd that any one should be his own God let them also acknowledge that Christ is not the most high God CHAP. XXIV The four and twentieth Argument from these words 1 Cor. 11.3 The head of Christ is God VVE have hitherto chiefly out of the History of the Gospel penned by John produced those Testimonies wherein something is affirmed of Christ which could not be affirmed of him were he the most high God and that such ones as give the Father some Prerogative above Christ and so demonstrate that the Father only since such a Prerogative agreeth to no other is the most high God It followeth that we may also from other divine Writers draw like Testimonies and Arguments Although we have already produced not a few when we fetcht Testimonies out of John because they contained the same or the like sence Of these places therefore which remain we will give the first rank to that Arg. 24 from 1 Cor. 11.3 which is very near to those words that were last of all cited out of John and other Writers as being such wherein God is said to be the Head of Christ and this is done 1 Cor. 11.3 where Paul speaketh in this manner Now I would have you know that the Head of every Man is Christ and the Head of the Woman is the Man and the Head of Christ is God But there is no other Head of the most high God or he hath no Head above him otherwise he would not be Most High For every one easily perceiveth that to be ones Head signifieth to have some Empire or Power over him and in a certain sort to govern him The Defence of the Argument HEre the Adversaries again are wont to fly to their distinction of Natures in Christ as to a sacred Anchor which notwitstanding the Reader may observe that we have * See cap. 3.14 16. of this Section before sufficiently confuted We repeat not all things that have been spoken we only desire that it should here also be observed that Christ is here likewise considered as a person for he is considered as the head of the man consequently of every man that is as a Lord appointed to rule every man even as the man also is the head of the woman But Christ is such as he is a Person Wherefore if the Adversaries Opinion concerning Christ is true he as a divine Person and consequently the most high God must have a Head over him which implieth a contradiction and is the very thing which they endeavour to escape who here use the distinction of Natures Neither may any one here say that in the former words indeed where Christ is said to be the Head of the man he is considered as a Person but in the latter he is lookt upon only in respect of that Nature which is not a person For besides that this is affirmed without reason it is disproved by reason First beâ—â—use it is certain that God is the Head of Christ as he hath received from him Dominion and Empire over the man But Christ received that Dominion as he is a Person Why then is it not God made the head of Christ as he is here a person Again if you inquire the cause why the Apostle when he had asserted that Christ is the Head of the man did likewise say afterwards that God is the Head of Christ you shall find this to be the chief that he might not seem to leave God no further power over the man because Christ is his Head or Lord and King but rather that it might be understood that God is also upon this very account the Head or Lord or King of the man because Christ is the Head of every man in as much as God is also the Head of Christ himself For as the woman is not therefore exempted from the Empire and Power of Christ because the man is her Head in as much as Christ is also the Head and Lord of the man himself so neither is the man exempted from the Power of God because Christ is his Head since God is also the Head of Christ himself Moreover the Apostle spake this to give us to understand that if we bring any dishonour to Christ who is our Head it will at length redound to God himself who is again the Head of Christ But neither of these Reasons would be of any force if God were not the Head of Christ as he is the Head and Lord of the man But if God be the Head of Christ as he is our Lord he is the Head of that person as such Finally such a gradation ought not to be made as to ascend from the Man to Christ from Christ to God as a different person from him if besides the humane there were another Nature in Christ to which it did no less agree to be his Head than to a Person different from him but mention was to be made of that Nature as well as of this Now if any one will fly hither for refuge as to say that by the name of God the Father is not understood but the whole Trinity he must at least in the first place alleage some passage from whence it may manifestly appear that God distinguished from Christ denoteth some other besides the Father For we can alleage innumerable ones wherein even by the confession of the Adversaries themselves it denoteth none but the Father and it is otherwise apparent that such things as are like hereunto are expresly attributed to the Father in the holy Scripture For it is all one to be ones Head and to be ones God But the latter is expresly affirmed of the Father of Christ as every one may perceive from these words of Christ John 20.17 and those of the Apostle Ephes 1.17 Add hereunto that the Reasons wherefore God is called the Head of Christ do all agree to the Father Whether they agree to any other we have no assurance thereof or rather we are assured that they agree to no other namely because he gave all Empire to Christ because he gave the Laws by which he ruleth and governeth us and also because he bringeth his will to an issue by his hands and provides for his own * Isa 53.10 John 13.32 and 14.13 17. Phil. 2.11 Glory by his Empire But in the last place those Reasons which evince that Christ is here considered as a Person permit not the Trinity here to be understood by the name of God Otherwise the Person of Christ which is believed to be contained in that Trinity would be the head of it self as such Nor can you understand the Essence it self which is not a
thine holy One to see corruption And a little after ver 32. This Jesus hath God raised up whereof we are all witnesses See also what the same Peter faith afterwards chap. 3.15 which verse compare with the 13th and 4.10 and 5.30 and 10.40 and Paul chap. 7.31 and Rom. 4.24 and 8.11 and 10.19 and also 1 Cor. 6.14 and 15.15 and 2 Cor. 4.14 and 13.4 But there is amongst others a notable place in the same Apostle Ephes 1.9 20. where amongst other things he wisheth to them That they might know what is the exceeding greatness of his power namely whom he had ver 17. called the God of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of Glory towards us who believe according to the working of his mighty Power which he wrought in Christ having raised him from the dead and set him at his own right hand in heavenly places c. And likewise those words which we read chap. 2.5 and those that are like unto them Col. 2.12 13. Add also those of the divine Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews chap. 13.24 and those of 1 Pet. 1.21 We mention not those Testimonies which indeed are not few wherein it is simply affirmed that Christ was raised from the dead which being so often repeated doth altogether signifie that he was raised by another as also the circumstances of some places do plainly intimate See amongst others 1. Cor. 15.4 12 c. where that manner of speaking is seven times used and afterwards ver 15. it is openly asserted that God did it and the Resurrection of Christ is made the pattern of our resurrection which also happeneth elsewhere A more full Confirmation and Defence of the Argument YOu will say that although Christ is said to have been raised by another yet it followeth not that he was not raised by himself in as much as the same action may proceed from many causes and those equal among themselves Moreover that in those places wherein it is asserted that God raised up Christ by the name of God may be understood the whole Trinity or the divine nature of Christ especially in that elsewhere the raising of himself seems to be ascribed unto Christ But the first is not to be admitted for three causes chiefly The first is because that at least followeth from those places which we have alleaged That Christ is not the principal cause of his Resurrection For why should the raising of him â—e so often and so openly ascribed to another person Arg. 28 That Christ was raised up by the Father namely the Father and not rather to Christ himself But even this thing alone might here be sufficient for us to shew that Christ is not the most high God For we have before shewn that he if he were the most high God would altogether be the principal Author of his own Resurrection Another cause is because the holy Scripture doth so attibute the raising of Christ to God the Father that it doth not obscurely yea very openly intimate that the same action doth not indeed agree to Christ himself First because if Christ had raised himself from the dead and that by such a power as was natural and altogether proper unto him it ought to have been mentioned at least in some of those testimonies which we have alleaged and to omit other places this ought chiefly to be done Acts 2.24 c. and Rom. 10.9 10. 2 Cor. 13.4 For as to the first place when Peter had affirmed that Christ had been raised from the dead in that it was impossible for him to be held by death was there not veâ—y great cause to say that it was therefore impossible because he was the most high God who accordingly could not leave his soul in Hell and suffer his body to see corruption For this would have been the proper yea the only cause thereof wheâ—eas he having alleaged the words of David and applyed them to Christ produceth a far different cause namely that Christ alwayes saw the Lord before his eyes because he was alwayes at his right hand lest he should be moved Whence he conceived joy whence hope that the Lord would not leaâ—e his soul in Hell nor suffer his holy one to see corruption whereunto the following words also pertain where Christ in the Person of David professeth that God had made known unto him the wayes of life and would fill him with gladness Which cause hath nothing common with that which should have been alleaged yea doth subvert it Rom. 10.9 As to the second place it should therefore have been there rather said that Christ raised up himself from the dead if so be any one can raise up himself from the dead then that God did it because that is there set down which is in a special manner both to be believed with the heart and to be confessed with the mouth concerning the dignity of Christ and which if we believe and confess we shall obtain salvation But if Christ had raised himself from the dead we ought altogether to believe and confess it as the Adversaries themselves confess yea urge and consequenely it should by no means have here been omitted by the Apostle For he had omitted that which did not only contain in it self the gâ—eater dignity of Christ but was as necessary to be believed by us as that which he expressed * 2 Cor. 13.4 As to the third testimony for this reason in stead of that which is there said That Christ doth live by the Power of God It should rather have been said that he doth live by his own power because the power of Christ is here in question and it is shewn that he is powerful in the Corinthians by removing the suspicion of infirmity which might be grounded on his cruel death To which purpose nothing had been more apt than if it had been said that he revived by his own power and vanquished the force of death Again it is apparent from Acts 13.33 and Rom. 1.4 Col. 1.18 Rev. 1.5 that the raising of Christ was such an action Arg. 29 That Christ was raised up by the Father as that by it he was generated by God and became his Son * Sect. 8. Chap 31. Concerning which matter more hereafter But Christ did not generate himself nor is the Son of himself Thirdly In some places alleaged by us God or the Father of Christ is without expressing his name thus described He that raised Jesus Christ from the dead is by that description distinguished from Christ himself See Rom. 4.24 and 8.11 2 Cor. 4.14 Whence it appeareth that this action is not common to Christ with the Father but proper to the Father otherwise this description would no less that I mgiht not say more agree to Christ than to the Father and consequently â—e who raised Christ from the dead could not be distinguished from Christ for common things as we have elsewhere hinted do not distinguish but proper ones
act of will makes the third person of the Divinity For both that love is in God and infinite and moreover no less God than that Image produced by the understanding but in person is necessarily distinct from them by whom he is produced These Mysteries do they open unto us concerning the production of two divine persons it is wonderful with what deep silence of the holy Scriptures kept secret and how forreign from those things which the same holy Scriptures do in most plain words deliver concerning the Generation of the Son by God and in their due place * Sect. 2. Lib. 1. Chap. 31. are produced by us Here they who cry out that Reason is blind in divine things who would not that any may dispute from it against the Trinity who have often that in their mouth The searcher of the Majesty shall be oppressed by its Glory as they think was written by Solomon here I say they ought to cry out that Reason is blind that these search the divine Majesty that it is unlawful to attempt to express the unutterable Mysteries But unless such things had been devised they had not at this day had their Trinity But it is wonderful how preposterously the Adversaries do here behave themselves For whilst they do so urge the simplicity that whatsoever is in God they hold to be God yet in the mean time bring in more persons into him and if you consider the force of their opinion infinite or numberless they by this very reason quite destroy the Simplicity But that is yet more grievous that whilst they seem to be willing to have such regard to the Simplicity of which notwithstanding the holy Scriptures are silent as being not necessary to be known to the salvation and are altogether unknown to the more simple men they take away the unity which the holy Scriptures so often and so plainly inculcate But let us now let pass both these and not a few other absurdities which are contained in this opinion of which some are shewn above some shall be shewn afterward and let us demonstrate that which a little before we propounded to wit that hence it follows That the Son of God is his own Son Neither is it difficult to demonstrate that For if the Essence and moreover the Understanding of the Father and the Son be the same in number there is also the same operation in number of the understanding especially because the more acute Adversaries by reason of the greatest Simplicity of God hold that his intellect and intellection are the same thing Therefore if the Father hath begotten the Son by the operation of his understanding the Son also whos 's the same operation was begat himself Yea further the holy Spirit begat that Son of God existing from eternity and so is the Father of the Son and Principle of his own Principle For by the same intellection together with the Father and Son from all eternity he understood and contemplated himself and his Essence and also even the Father and the Son And so because with the same act of will the holy Spirit together with the Father and Son willed and loved whatsoever they will and love if the holy Spirit be a certain act of will or something produced by the Father and Son by the operation of will the holy Spirit also hath produced himself Besides It is to be affirmed that by this means not only the same persons have produced themselves but also infinite or innumerable others For since each person understands both himself and the other persons and desâ—res and loves them it is necessary that each again produce more both Sons and holy Spirits if those things be true which they inculcate to us concerning the divine Intellection and love For there must be a different and so an unlike Image of the Father as he is the Father and of the Son as he is the Son and of the holy Spirit as such For the Father and Son as such are opposite between themselves and in like sort the holy Spirit as he is produced by both For they are relatives and all relatives as we have said above are opposite but there must be opposite Images of opposite things However this be there must be different Images of those things which really differ which may exactly express them and not only shew how they agree between themselves but also how they differ But according to the diversity and multitude of those Images there will arise also a multitude of acts of wil love with which those several persons embrace those Images and again those Images prosecute the persons by which they are produced and each also themselves and at length one another Wherefore if both those Images produced by the intellect and those acts of will in God are persons or at least principles of divers persons the persons will be in infinitum multiplyed Although if whatsoever is in God be God another way also will divine persons arise For in God there is an Image of every thing in particular which he understands if an intellection be not in God but by an Image likewise both decrees of infinite things and love towards things created and divers acts of will All these things therefore shall be God yet shall differ in persons from him or those from whom they are produced Therefore even thence we shall have infinite or innumerable persons in God CHAP. II. The second Argument Because there would be innumerable Sons as also innumerable holy-Spirits LEst any one perhaps should think that they only should fear an infinite multitude of divine persons who have devised that manner of generation of the Son of God and procession of the holy Spirit which in the precedent chapter we have explained we shall shew that others also must hold the same who will have the Son of God to have been generated from eternity out of the Essence of the Father and moreover since they see that the infinite multitude of the divine persons is most absurd they must acknowledge that also the Doctrine from whence it flows is most abhorrent from the truth For if God have begotten the Son out of his Essence and again together with the Son have produced the holy Spirit and these are with him the same God there is no cause why the son also hath not begotten another Son again and in like manner the holy Spirit another and this also another and so in infinitum For what cannot the Son and holy Spirit do what the Father could Then they are not the same God with him since they have not the same faculty and power but an unequal one Will you say that they would not But such things which pertain to things ad intra or to within as they speak in God are altogether necessary and are not subject to the free will But if they be subject to the free will it may come to pass that within some time more divine persons may grow when
there is none in him mortal men do But true cannot be contrary to true no more yea less than an Egg to an Egg Milk to Milk Neither may they fetcht patronage of so absurd a distinction from Aristotle who saith as we have before minded that some things are really distinct some in reason For with him those things are distinct in reason which the schoolmen say are formally distinguished that is which although they be united together and by a certain indissolvable knot either on both sides or on one part joyned yet differ in forms and proper Essences as docility and the faculty of admiring in the same man generation and corruption For every natural and properly so called Generation is the corruption of another thing and on the contrary Nevertheless these things differ yea are opposite and so have opposite essences also which are in the same matter in respect of divers things For one thing is corrupted another thing is generated So the foundations also are distinguished from the relations which rest on them But those things differ also in the whole genus or predicament So also the comparisons of the same thing with divers relations have forms and essences divers either in the genus or species or number as also termini and correlata differ Therefore the intellect doth not feign those distinctions in things but in very deed finds them in them and the Schoolmen themselves say that those things are distinct actually which although we think not of them are distinct in forms although they exist together But if they would acknowledge such a difference between the divine persons and essence the Patrons of it will neither be able to reconcile the common Doctrine of the Trinity with it self nor with their other Doctrines Not with it self for by this means each person will have its proper form and essence and so those persons will be and will not be at once of one essence Not with their other doctrines because the exactest simplicity of God will fall But if they acknowledge not that distinction then the Trinity will fall all true difference between the essence and the persons and thereupon of the persons also between themselves being taken away Wherefore which way soever the Adversaries turn themselves they will not be able to defend that their Trinity or plurality of persons in one Essence of God and therefore there remains no other thing than that they confess together with us that there is no less one person than one substance of God The use of this Disputation The Conclusion of the Work In which the Use of this Disputation concerning One God the Father is explained THerefore having demonstrated that the most high God is no less one in person than in essence and that he is no other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ it remains that we shew the Use of this Doctrine Now this is so much the greater by how much the contrary Doctrine is more hurtful and so much the farther it spreads it self by how much the farther the incommodities of the contrary opinion are extended For first how necessary it is to understand and believe that there is only One most high God both the holy Scriptures shew which do often inculcate it and all men easily understand But now unless you hold that there is only One Person of the Supream Deity you can neither sufficiently understand nor constantly believe and maintain the Unity of the supream Deity For as much as it is sufficiently shewed by us that more persons having supream Divinity are more most high Gods But although this errour be somewhat infringed and diminished by another errour whilst it is affirmed that there is one essence in number of those persons yet it is not altogether taken away and suffers not men to understand sufficiently and to believe constantly that which is said of the Unity of the divine Essence For although you endeavour never so much you cannot conceive in your mind one and the same essence of three persons really distinct from among themselves especially if you will think of those things that which either the holy Scriptures or the Adversaries themselves asserâ— of the Father Son and holy Spirit belonging to the differencing of them from each other For whosoever hears even those very names and thinks the Son to be truly begotten of the Father the holy Spirit to have proceeded from both forthwith he must needs think three essences divers in number however otherwise most like one another or in some certain manner coupled together Likewise he who thinks that the Father sent the Son and again both together the holy Spirit that the Son descended from Heaven and as they hold assumed flesh neither of the other descended or assumed flesh again that the holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape the Father and the Son not descending how is he not together constrained to cocceive in his mind distinct essences And if he shall attribute supream Deity to each of them he will conceive three Gods in number although most like one another and in a certain manner united together Seeing therefore by this means a multitude of Gods is brought in by that opinion it is necessary that that by the same means also fall into those absurdities which follow from the multitude of Gods He that holds more most high Gods distributes the glory and honour due to one unto more and as much as he attributes to the rest so much he takes away from that one For since they are held to be equal one to another nor is one acknowledged to be subordinate to the other although also a false opinion of subordination is as none that which is attributed to one doth not come to another Wherefore he who acknowledgeth and worshippeth more persons having supream Divinity transfers to more that which was due to one and detracts from that one that which he attributes to the rest And that you may more nearly behold the matter if the Father alone as we have demonstrated be the most high God who doth not see that those absurdities do follow from the contrary opinion concerning the Trinity For first the honour of the Father is diminished whilst that which by far he hath of all things most sacred and wherein he excels all things is equally communicated with others to wit the supream Deity and further whatsoever things are proper to this alone whether they be his works or ours respecting his Glory and Honour For presently it is necessary that both the creation of Heaven and Earth and that I may let pass other innumerable works the raising up and exaltation of Christ which we have shewed * Lib. 1. Sect. 2. chap. 18 29. by most clear testimonies of Scripture to be imputed to the Father alone be thought common to the whole Trinity as indeed the Adversarias think So neither doth the love of men which ought to come ultimately to the Father alone and to
shiniâ—g in Christ and that those who could not by reason of so great distance of nature elevate their minds to the most high God may be bold to lift them up to Christ conjoyned in the vicinity and similitude of nature with them Which that it may be the better understood we shall recite yet more discommodities of that opinion which makes Christ the most high God that it may be understood that we have not rashly but for most weighty causes departed from that opinion which hath been received in so many ages For that opinion in a great part takes away that end for which God would have the whole affair of our salvation to be mannaged by a man and further also it suffers us not to understand why God would so do For God looked on two things in that matter to wit the eternal glory of his Name for which he does all things and the incomparable fruit of mankind They take that away from God who make Christ such a one as that he could receive nothing from his Father and could do all things by his own strength without anothers aid which thing they do who make him the most high God For in that so great a glory of God which he looked after is chiefly placed that he hath performed so hard things by a man in whom otherwise there is not so great an abilâ—ty and being raised from the dead hath lifted him up to so sublime an height of empire in the heavens But the same men take away from us the fruit of so great a thing because they withdraw from us the props and helps of our hope and trust by which through so hard a journey we endeavour towards heaven For first they enervate the example both of so laborious piety and felicity propounded to us by him which we ought to take from Christ For God would that in Christ we should see not only what we ought either to perform or to attain to but also what we might God himself might be to us an example both of holiness and felicity to which we ought to aspire as indeed he is propounded to be looked on by us in both For we are commanded * 1 Pet. 1.15 16. to be holy as God is holy †1 John 1.7 To walk in the light as he is in the light That I may omit other things by which we are incited from the example of God to some ‖ See among other places Mat. 5. last Luke 6.35 36. Ephes 4. last chap. 5.1 certain and very excellent virtues And it is promised that we shall be at last * 1 John 3.2 like God and be partakers †2 Pet. 1.4 of the divine nature But men wanted a nearer example and more fitted to their weakness For by the example of God himself they might indeed learn what that is which they ought to do or hope for although neither that indeed exactly enough since on both sides much iâ— wanting to a fuller likeness but they could not know thence what they could do But that we learn abundantly from the example of Christ For thereby God hath taught us that we may perform and obtain those things by his power which we could not by our own For as concerâ—ing the former thing even Christ was encompassed with flesh like to our flesh that is as Paul speaks ‖ Rom. 8.3 Flesh of sin or sinful which also all the occasions which draw us to sin might of themselves invite and provoke It did no less abhor than ours from so bitter a death as was set before him But that which it could not do of it self God effected by his help in it For he brought Christ to the most exact holiness and free from all blemish that thence might flow to us an example by which we might be forbidden to doubt that we being supported by divine aid might perform that piety which God requires of us not indeed equal but like to the holiness of Christ And hither among other things doth Paul look when he writes to the Romans especially if you view his words in Greek What was impossible to the Law in as much as it was weakned by flesh God having sent his Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin and or and that for sin condemned sin in the flesh that the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit It was impossible for the Mosaical Law to free us from the empire and power of sin and consequently also of the everlasting death It endeavoured indeed to perform it but our flesh so prone to sin withstood its endeavour and lessened its force so as it could not attain to that which it would What therefore the Law could not effect in us that God afterwards effected by his Son Jesus Christ For he sent him to us encompassed with flesh like to ours which is so prone to sin and obnoxious to the same evils with which sinners aâ—e wont to be pressed and that he might abolish sin in us first he took away and blotted out its force in the flesh of Christ that so the justification which the Law promised indeed but could not as was said perform by reason of our flesh might happen to us also living after the example of Christ not after the lusts of the flesh but after the guidance of the Spirit By which things it easily appears that God would propound to us in Christ such an example of piety as by which we might learn not only what we ought to do but also what we may do beiâ—g enabled by his aid As to the latter thing we are in like manner taught by the example of Christ not only what that is which we ought to obtain but also that we may obtain it although we can by no means by our own strength For even Christ also who was heretofore mortal wholly lâ—ke to us in natuâ—e became immortal and indeed in that way which exceeds all limits of nature that is by the resurrection Whence as we have demonstrated in the fiâ—st book * Sect. 2. chap. 29. Paul manifestly shews that we also may rise and so shall rise if Christ have risen fâ—om the dead But now they weaken the example of both that is piety and felicity and take away its greatest force whosoever makes Christ the most high God For as to the former what marvel is it that the most high God lived holily Can we learn from him what we are able to do Is there such a proportion of strength pertaining to the holiness between us and him as there ought to be between us and Christ in respect of his holiness But if you say that the humane nature of Christ nevertheless was like unto ours which was endued with such holiness by divine aid that from it we may take such an example you are much deceived For if the humane nature was not a Suppositum it also
speaking properly hath done nothing but the divine person of God himself according to it But it matters much yea infinitely if we look to the power of doing whether the most high God act or man Besides nevertheless in that humane nature did an infinite power of the supream Deity personally dwell and so restrained it from all sin that it was altogether impossible for it to sin What l ke to that is in us I forbear to speak of those things which they often inculcate concerning the unlikeness between us and Christ in respect of the original sin and the same great corruption of our nature which was not at all in Christ but in us is thought to be so great that we being left to our selves can do nothing almost but sin But as to the latter to wit our felicity and the way of attaining it what marvel is it that the most high God for they will have us believe that he being made a man could die did rise again from the dead and after became immortal Is there any even the least ability remaining in us after death by which we maybe able to loose our selves from its bonds and recal our selves into life Shall we then learn by the example of Christ that we may do what he could But the opinion of the Adversaries concerning Christ doth another way also overthrow the props of our hope and trust which God set to stâ—engthen it For God would not by himself or immediately as they speak govern the whole business of our salvation and bring it to an end but hath put it into the hands of Jesus Christ both conjoyned to us by nature and having suffered all evils which happen to no serving him that so he might erect us to the furest hope namely that he would not despise our baseness but so much the more readily succour us being vexed and afflicted That which the divine author of the Epistle to the Hebrews hath shewed in several places and first indeed of all about the end of the second Chapter for he had said That Christ no where took hold of Angels but took hold of the seed of Abraham that is No where is it said in Scripture that Christ was destinated by God to lay hold on and help for that is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Angels or that he was employed therein but this was his business that he may embrace the posterity and sons of Abraham by his care that he may help and for ever keep them to wit those who were not only born of Abraham according to the flesh but those also who imitate his faith Therefore when he had said thus he adds Whence he ought to be made in all things like to his brethren to wit the true sons of Abraham yet indued with flesh and blood and subject to all kind of adversities that he might be made a merciful and a faithful high Pciest to God or in those things which pertain to God that he might make reconciliation for or expiate the sins of the people For in that in which he himself suffered and was tempted or when he was tempted he is able to help them also who are tempted Which same thing in some sort he repeateth about the end of Chapter 4. and more fully declares Chap. 5. * Compare together vers 2 3. and 7 8. ch 5. Namely the divine Author teacheth that Christ because he had experience of the same evils is so much the more prone to help and succour us being put into the like affliction But how may we sincerely enjoy this consolation if Christ be the immortal God himself and free from all even shadows of affliction For it doth no whit avail that the humane nature hath suffered and was dead if so be these things happen unto that which is not a Suppositum For if that nature be not a suppositum and consequently doth not any thing by it self but whatsoever it doth the divine person that is the most high God himself doth according to it what avails it that it suffered and had an experience of our evils For the divine person himself who is to be accommodated in very deed to do whatsoever Christ doth nevertheless did not feel those evils nor could be made more prone for that cause to help us And although the humane nature be held to concur to that action by which help is brought from Christ to us yet it shall not concur as left to its own will as that which necessarily obeys the will and impulse of the divinity without which it can neither act nor cease from acting Therefore it will be all one in this respect as if God himself immediately should govern the whole business of our salvation Therefore as they are injurious to the glory of God and the true honour of Jesus Christ so also they are very injurious to themselves who ascribe unto Christ a supream divinity But we together assert to God and Christ their true honour who adore the man Jesus Christ exalted for the death of the cross by the mighty right hand of the Father to the greatest height and made a â—rince and our Saviour and profess according to the doctrine of Paul * Phil. 2.11 him to 〈◊〉 Lord to the glory of God the Father and together are sensible both of the power of his resurrection and the fruit of his glorification and experience that to be truly said of Peter †1 Pet. 1.21 That by him we believe in Gods who raised him from the dead and gave him glory that our faith and hope might be in God in which very thing we acknowledge and with thankful mind accept the greatest goodness of God towards us Greaâ— and grievous are those discommodities of the opinion of the Adversaries which we have hitherto alleaged which even alone would suffice abundantly to shew its absurdity but there is not an end yet For one absurdity being granted many follow and a chain of errors is easily knit For besides that it is necessary that the Adversaries pervert many places of the holy Scripture repugnant to their opinion or not consonant to it and waest them to another meaning some other Doctrines very hurtful to the Salvation of men are built upon it which must needs fall down it being overthrown You may here rightly place that most gross errour of many concerning the ubiquity as they call it or omnipresence of the body of Christ by which the very substance of the body of Christ together with his divinity is fained to be entirely present in every place least and greatest which error whatever the patrons of it say suffers not Christ any more to be moved from place to place than the divine nature it self and by its force takes away whatsoever things are read in the holy Scriptures as there are read innumerable things which shew him to be comprehended in a certain compass of places and that he went from place to place and among other things