that the Substance of the Father is also born and indeed from it self Therefore also the Father is the Son of himself For how is he not begotten whose substance is begotten How is he not his Son out of whose substance he is begotten There might also other Arguments be brought but we will be now content with these CHAP. V. The fifth Argument By which the Doctrine of the Incarnation of the Son of God is refelled because the Father and the holy Spirit had been also incarnated VVE must pass to the Incarnation which all they are constrained to acknowledge who hold Christ to be the most high God For since it is most manifest by the holy Scriptures that he is by nature a man and at a certain time born of a Virgin it was necessary that they should hold him or his divine Nature so to have assumed the humane that the unity of person remaining he should be at once both God and man For if God and man should be different persons neither the Son of God had been a man nor a man the Son of God no more than the Father is that Son whom they hold to be the second person of the Trinity or the holy Spirit or on the contrary yea less since the nature of those persons is held to be the same â—ot only in the genus or species but number also but the nature of the most high God and man have the farthest distance even in kind from one another But in that opinion which we have spoken of concerning the Incarnation of the Son of God begotten out of the Essence of the Father from eternity many absurdities are â—â—ntained We will here bring some only and those more pertinent to our present matter For first thence it follows that not only the Son Arg. 5 Because the Father and the holy Spirit had been incarnated but also the Father and holy Spirit have assumed a humane nature For he hath assumed an humane nature whose proper nature or substance hath assumed it and with it is personally united But if the divine Nature of Christ hath assumed an humane nature also the proper Nature of the Father and the holy Spirit hath assumed it if so be it be the same in number in those three persons And indeed the contrivance of the errour hath made that some of the Adversaries have not feared to say that the whole Trinity was incarnated and lately there was one * Cornelius a Lapide a Jesuite in his Commentary on the lesser Prophets of a certain chief Sect of the Adversaries a man of a most famous name amongst them and now indeed teaching Divinity at Rome who dedicated his Book to the uncreated Trinity and in Jesus Christ created Which if it be true both the Father and the holy Spirit was born of a Virgin and suffered and dyed and was buryed and raised again and whatsoever we read Christ to have ever done or was done to him that also agrees to the Father and holy Spirit So the Heresy of those Antients whether Sabellians or Patripassians condemned by the Adversaries themselves will revive And indeed if you consider the thing rightly the common opinion of the Trinity is nothing else but a Sabellianism a little more subtilly propounded and varnished with some new colours and choaked with new names For the same God 〈◊〉 number considered with this mode or subsistence is the Father â—ith another mode or subsistence is the Son again with another the holy Spirit Which what other thing is it in very deed than what Sabellius held For the same God in number and the same substance is also in very deed the same person having three different modes or subsistences But that we may return to that which we began to do they will say that the divine Nature indeed or substance did assume the humane but not in every subsistence but only in the subsistence of the Son to this only that union or conjunction of the humane and divine Nature is terminated You would say that these men saw with their very eyes that Incarnation who know to explain so accurately in which subsistence that union was terminated although there are three subsistences in the same nature not really as they speak different from it But that the vanity of this device may be shewed let us somewhat explain what they would if so be that the matter may be understood True and real union such as that should be which is devised by the Adversaries is at least between two things whereof of the one explainâ— or applies its terminos or extremities whether properly or improperly so called to the other The case is clear in bodily things which we see with the eyes and from which the word terminus which they use in this matter is taken For a board is joyned to a board a stone to a stone whilst the superfices of the one is joyned to the superficies of the other but the superficies is the extremity or a certain terminus of a body But because a superficies of some whole body is extended through al its sides and for examples sake one part of it is before another behind therefore it may come to pass that the union and conjunction of two bodies is not terminated unto every part of the superficies or body So two square stones touch one another according to the superficies only of one side unless perhaps the one includes the other and then the outer superficies of the containing stone will not touch the superficies of the contained in any part wherefore to that outer superficies of the containing stone that union or conjunction will not be terminated but to the inner only Now in things incorporeal there are properly no termini or extremities no diversity of such parts Whence it was necessary if the humane nature was joyned to the divine which all hold to be incorporeal that it was joyned to the whole divine Nature But yet with our Adversaries instead of divers termini there are divers subsistences or modes of the divine nature whereof one makes the Father another the Son a third the holy Spirit Now they say that this personal union is terminated to the subsistence of the Son or so far the humane nature is joyned to the divine as this subsists in the Son but not as it subsists in the Father or holy Spirit therefore the subâ— stence of the Son not that of the Father or holy Spirit is communicated to the humane nature and this subsists by that and further makes one person with the Son of God not with the Father or holy Spirit The Adversaries usually explain the matter more obscurely But either this is it theâ— would have or what indeed they would cannot at all be understooâ— But they do nothing For if the whole divine nature be joyned to the humane and there be three subsistences in that whole nature whereof one differs no more from the Essence than another or is more
throughly fastned to it the humane nature also is no more joyned to one subsistence than to another and so that union is terminated no more to one than to another and the humane nature no more subsists in the subsistence of one person than of another Yea if there could be any difference between these subsistences it should subsist rather in the subsistence of the Father as being that which is the first in the divine nature and upon which the two others do as it were lean than of the Son and holy Spirit Which that it may be made so much the more clear that is to be remembred which we shewed before that they hold that there is a certain real union between the two natures and moreover that the one nature is joyned to the other nature first and by it self but to those things which are in the nature only consequently For nothing can really be joyned and united with the moste of the thing but with the thing it self We see that in the conjunction of body and soul which example among all other things they judge to be most like to that hypostatical union For the body is first and by it self joyned unto the soul consequently to those things which are in the Soul or to its modes as to existeâ—ce or if there be any other thing which they may be pleased to call a mode But if the body he only secondarily joyned to those things which are in the soul it cannot be joyned more to one of them than to another unless perhaps one be more or before in the soul than the rest But it is already shewed that the subsistence of the Son is not in this manner in the divine Essence But moreover although in some regard the humane nature should be more joyned to the subâ—â—stence of the â—on yet it would suffice to the incarnation of the whole Trinity that the whole Essence of the Trinity is united with it For how is not that whole incarnated the whole Essence of which is incarnated Add that since those subsistences exist not without the Essence yea are in very deed the same with it it is necessary that those subsistences also be incarnated together with it Therefore the whole Trinity is incarnated hath sufferred satisfied the Father for sins Oh egregious Divinity which brings forth such fruits But let us go on to shew the absurdity of that Doctrine CHAP. VI. The second Argument Because the second person of the Divinity would cease to be a person SEcondly it follows from the same Doctrine that one person of the Divinity hath ceased to be a person for it became a part of Christ constituted of a divine and humane Nature But it is of the Essence of a Suppositum and consequen ly also of a person that it be not a part of another thing as it is confessed by all The Confirmation and Defence of the Argument The Adversaries confess and it is a thing too manifest that Christ is a certain whole consistiâ—g of a divine and huâ—ane nature Although they say that he is not an essential whole but personal W ich thing doth not infringe our Argumentation but establish it rather For what Is it not equally repugnant to a person to be the part of a personal whole that is of a person and suppositum as to be the part of an essential whole Yea verily most of all because by this means there should be two persons in one person the one a part the other a whole Therefore that which perhaps some may think is nothing that the distinction between an essential and personal whole which otherwise they use is pertinent to the subverting our reason Although also otherwise in vain is a personal whole feigned which â—ogether is not an essential But there is no need now to demonstrate that What then Will they say perhaps that the humane Nature of Christ is not a paâ—t of him Thither some of the Adversaries seem to incline although many no less contradict them than that most received opinion with the defenders concerning that â—ypostatical union for so many ages past For what is more usual with them than to oppose Christ to either nature severalâ—y taken Whereto pertaineth that distinction between whole Christ and the whole of Christ Besides if the humane Nature be not a part of the person of Christ it will be an accident of that person A g 2. The Son would cease to be a person an accident I say such as some call physical or predicable For it is easie to be shewed both by reason and the authority of the Philosopher that it is an accident which is inherent not as a part and may be absent from that in which it is Now if the humane nature of Christ be not a part of Christ all that which we have said agrees to it For it is in the person of Christ and subsists in it as the Adversaries would But now it will not be a part Lastly it may be absent from that in which it is to wit the divine Person or Nature of Christ For should the divine Nature or Person perish if the humane should be separated from it I say not that it shall be separated which they deny shall ever be But if it should be separated the divine Person should not be destroyed which is enough in this place For there are also inseparable accidents as they are caled in the Schools which although they are never separated from the subjectum yet it is therefore said that they may be absent from it because if it were supposed that they are separated from that in which they are yet it would not be necessary that the thing it self should perish But if the humane nature be an accident of the person of Christ how is the person of Christ or the Son of God a man Christ might indeed be said to be humane but not a man For that which is an accident to another is not predicated of it synonymically or univocally but paronymically So a Cup to which Gold adhers as an accident is said to be golden or gilded not a gold an Iron in which is fire is said to be fired not a fire and so in the rest But besides how is not that a whole which is one thing and consisting of two things separable in their nature But such is Christ For he is some one thing consisting of a divine and humane nature either of which in its nature is separable although this according to their opinion is not to be separated How therefore is not the humane Nature a part of Christ If it be then the other part will be the divine Nature having its subsistences that is the divine person which hath assumed the humane But a person as we have seen cannot be the part of another 〈◊〉 â—hat indeed a suppositum or person Perhaps some will say that the Iron fired is some thing united of an Iron and Fire and yet the Iron
middle Person between us and God I forbear to mention at this time that they with whom we have to do hold that Christ was in the same sort even from the beginning of the world a Mediator of God and Men. Whence it would follow that his divine Person existing without the humane Nature was already less than the Father before that descent which they understand neither do I here urge that if Christ because he descended to us that is as they imagine assumed a humane Nature became a middle Person between us and God and consequently less than the Father it is necessary that both the Father and the holy Spirit became middle persons between us and God and less than themselves For neither could the Son or his divine Nature assume the humane but that the Nature of the Father and of the holy Spirit and consequently the very Father and holy Spirit would together assume the same humane Nature if that be true which the Adversaries say that those three have one and the same numerical divine Nature Concerning which * Sect. 2. Chap. 5. we will treat in the second Book CHAP. XV. Arg. 15 That the Son was sent by the Father Argument the fifteenth drawn from thence That the Son was sent into the world by the Father IN the second place that may be alleaged which is so often read in John namely that Christ * See Joh. 3.17 4.33 5.23 24. and 30.37 38 and many other places was sent by God or the Father which is also found in other Writers and amongst others in Paul when he saith God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh Rom. 8.3 and Gal. 4.4 When the fulness of time came God sent his Son made of a Woman made under the Law For it followeth from hence that Christ is not the most high God since it is not for him to be sent but to send because it is not for him to receive any command from another but to give commands unto all But every Embassadour as such receiveth command from another and of necessity composeth his words or actions which he undertaketh as an Embassadour unto the will and beck of another otherwise he will not discharge the Office of an Embassadour Whence also Christ as we saw before John 12.49 saith The Father that sent me he gave me a Commandment what I should say and what I should speak And in the following verse What things therefore I speak as the Father hath said unto me so I speak The Defence of the Argument HEre the Adversaries are not easily wont to fly to a distinction of Natures partly because they hold that Christ before he was born of the Virgin was sent by the Father out of Heaven yea sent to this very end to be born of the Virgin and assume a humane Nature partly because they see that to be sent and so to sustain the Office of an Embassadour agreeth to none but a person as such That I may not say if Christ had been sent only according to the humane Nature it will follow that he was also sent by himself or by his own divine Nature when notwithstanding he every where maketh another person namely the Father to be the Author of his mission but never maketh himself yea as we formerly * John 7.28 saw he expresly denyeth that he came of himself Wherefore the Adversaries are wont to betake themselves to another refuge and to deny that Christ being sent by the Father argueth him to be less than the Father indeed the greatest part of them affirm that he saving his equality with the Father even then when he had not yet assumed a humane Nature was both before the Law and under the Law sent by God and was then oftentimes stiled an Angel or Messenger and Embassadour which we in our Book concerning God when we treated of the name Jehovah have as I suppose sufficiently refuted Now they say that it is no unusual thing that a Senator for example sake should be sent by his Collegues to whom he is otherwise equal in Authority and Power and in their name discharge an Embassage Yea that a greater Person may be sent by a less either because he doth of his own accord take upon him that Office or because it is obtained at his hands by prayers or other perswasions But first they do not refute the reason of the consequence of our Argument which being safe the Argument it self is safe Again if the thing be so in divine matters as they hold it is inhumane namely that an equal may be sent by an equal yea a greater by a less nothing will hinder but that also the Father may be sent by the Son or holy Spirit which thwarteth the Opinion of the very Adversaries who deny that the Father may be sent by the Son or holy Spirit either apart or joyntly though it is a wonder that they deny it since they hold that those three Persons are equal to one another in all things so that there is no repugnancy if one of them may be sent that the rest also may be sent But why do I say that there is no repugnancy since it cannot be that one should be sent but that the other must also be sent if so be they are of one Essence and a Person cannot be sent without the Essence For if the Essence of the Father were sent when Christ or the holy Spirit that we may now together speak of him 〈◊〉 was sent certainly it is necessary that the Father himself was sent For he is sent whose Essence is sent since every one is really the same with his Essence Besides from this answer of theirs it will follow that nothing hinders but that God or Christ may be sent by Angels and finally by Men namely being drawn by prayers or other perswasions But if all understand this to be most absurd let them also acknowledge it to be most impossible that Christ should be equal to the Father in all things if he be sent by him for neither was there any cause why all should judge either this or that which in the first place was spoke of to be absâ—rd than because reason it self hath taught all men that the Sender in respect of that thing for which he decreeth the message is as I may speak with the Vulgar the principal but the Messenger is his Minister in the same thing And withal this hath also been understood that the Father can by no means be inferiour to the Son or holy Spirit who proceeds from him have their Essence from him or be Minister much less the Minister of Men or Angels As for the Instances therefore or Examples alleaged to the contrary here they ought to remember that which they themselves are often wont to inculcate when there is no place for it namely that in this matter an Argument is ill drawn from humane things to divine Now the reason of the
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
God THe last Argument of this kind shall be this that Christ is called the Image of the invisible God Col. 1.15 which is in some part also said 2 Cor. 4.4 where Christ is in like manner said to be the Image of God and Heb. 1.3 where he is said to be the Figure of the Substance or Charecter of the Person of God Chap. 1. of this Section Now we will not here use that Reason which we have already elsewhere namely that Christ is by this means openly distinguished from God that is the most high God but another Reason and that twofold the former whereof is common to all the alleaged places the latter more proper to the place Col. 1. For first no Image is of the same Essence in number with that whereof it is the Image otherwise it would be the Image of it self Wherfore since Christ is the Image of God he cannot be the same Substance in number with God and consequently not be God namely the most high God There is the same force when he is said to be the Figure of the Substance of God or Charecter of his Person Again If Christ be the Image of the invisible God he himself must not be invisible and consequently not the most high God For he is invisible 1 Tim. 1.17 Heb. 11.27 As whom none of men hath ever seen or can see John 1.18 1 Tim. 6.16 For it is sufficiently apparent that Christ is therefore called the Image of the invisible God because whereas we cannot know God by himself as being invisible Christ was given to us in whom as in an Image exposed in a manner to the sight Arg. 30 That Christ is the Image of God we may contemplate and know God as other learned men also have observed and left in writing But if Christ were no less invisible than that God whose Image he is said to be he could not be his Image but we should rather need another Image by which we should come to the knowledge of him The Defence of the Argument HEre for as much as the greatest part contend that Christ was the Image of God from all Eternity not according to the humane Nature but the divine therefore that they may solve our first Argument they are wont to fly not to the distinction of Natures in Christ but to the distinction of divers Persons in one Deity For they contend that the second Person of the Divinity is the Image of the first that is the Son the Image of the Father because the Son in respect of Essence is most like to the Father as being begotten out of his Essence But they deny that it doth thence follow that the Son will be the Image of himself because though he be of the same Essence with the Father yet he differeth from him in Person As to the latter Reason they will perhaps say that the same Son although according to the divine Nature he be God equally invisible with the Father yet having assumed a humane Nature he became visible and was seen by men But these answers do not at all take away the difficulty For as to the former first of all a Person is in vain distinguished from his own Essence in as much as every own is the same with his own Essence Wherefore if the Person of the Son be the Image of the Person of the Father the Essence also of the Son will be the Image of the Fathers Essence and consequently either both must have an Essence different in number or the same Person or Essence will be the Image of it self Add hereunto that they themselves as we have already hinted do contend that the Son in respect of Essence is most like unto the Father and consequently his Image wherefore the Son must in respect of Essence be distinct in number from the Father For an Image as it is an Image doth differ in number from that whose Image it is and one like from another For these are relatives and consequently opposites but opposites as such must at least differ in number nor can you say that one is sometimes said to be like himself For in such a kind of speech respect is had to a different time in reference to which the same is compared with it self but we here speak of like things having no regard to a different time but to the same To omit that the Adversaries themselves hold that the Son ought really to differ from the Father that he may be the Image of the Father but this would make nothing to the purpose did they not really differ as the one is the Image of the other if therefore the Son in respect of Essence be the Image of the Father the one must differ from the other in respect of Essence As to the latter exception which also striketh at our latter Reason it will effect nothing unless you say that Christ is the Image of God according to the humane Nature wherein he is or was visible which the greatest part do not admit for they as we have said hold Christ to be the Image of God as he was begotten out of the Substance of the Father and consequently hath the same Substance with him which agreeth not to him according to the humane Nature wherfore they must first renounce this Opinion before they make use of that Answer for neither can they say that there is no need that Christ as he is an Image should be visible it being sufficient that he is or was by any means visible For if it were thus the word invisible added to the name of God whose Image Christ is would be altogether idle For turn your understanding which way you please you shall find no other reason why the Apostle did in that manner here describe God than to shew that it was therefore needful that if we would know and as it were view God some Image of him namely Christ should be held forth unto us and exposed to the sight of men in as much as God is invisible and cannot be known by himself of any one of us especially in a full and perfect manner which John also signifieth saying No man hath seen God at any time The only begotten Son Joh. 1.18 who is in the bosome of the Father he hath declared him But if Christ as he is the Image of God were no less invisible than God himself we could no more know God by him than God by himself wherefore Christ could not be the Image of God For it is apparent both from this description of God and also from that which is said in the other place quoted by us 2 Cor. 4.4 that Christ was called the Image of God in respect of us namely because he did represent in himself and in a manner expose to our view the Will Goodness Power Mat. 11.27 John 14 7 9. and 18.19 and Wisdom of God Whence Christ himself saith None knoweth the Father but the Son and he
suppositums which if they be endued with understanding by the confession of all are persons Likewise also offices are proper to persons as also the Adversaries confess it But now that the humane nature of Christ properly acts is proved by that that it doth also really subsist and hath in it self a strength or power also and faculties sufficient to act For it hath not less than any man yea by so much greater by how much greater gifts and greater power is given it of God But what is required to it that any thing may in proper speaking act but that it may really subsist and have in it self a strength or power sufficient to act Surely it should be denyed that we do properly act if that might be denyed of the humane nature of Christ which as we have said in those things that are required to the action properly so called doth not only equal us but also in many respects exceed And that we may declare that thing more peculiarly doth not it speaking properly by it self understand and reason Then it is not an intelligent substance and endued with a rational soul and further neither an humane For that is an intelligent substance that can especially with some access of use and exercise really I say properly not improperly understand and reason But even the understanding alone would suffice to prove its person for it is proper to persons as also we have before minded Further Take now other actions whether proper to men or animals as to will desire eat drink move it self in a place and stirs its members to act If the humane nature had not faculties to exercise these actions either it was not an humane nature at all or it was maimed either in respect of the body or soul The Truth or the Adversaries opinion admits neither The Antiquity condemned the Monothelites who held one only will in Christ But if there were in him a double will one in the divine nature another in the humane as the divine nature hath willed and doth will by its proper will so also the humanity by its for wherefore else should it be in it Faculties are for actions And surely his humane will shewed forth it self abundantly * Mat. 26.39 Mar. 14.35 36. Luke 22.42 whilst he sought of his Father to remove the cup frow him Although here it might be enough for us that this nature might properly will for that agâ—ees not but to Suppositums Perhaps they will say that the humane nature did not subsist by it self but in the person of the Son of God and therefore also by it self could act nothing For that which subs sts not by it self doth nothing also by it self Wherefore all the actions properly and directly are not to be ascribed to the humane nature by which they are performed but to whole Christ although according to the humane nature For in whole Christ or his person they are termâ—nated and founded But if you would directly ascribe those actions to the humane nature it self the expression or speaking would be improper as when I say the soul understands wills feels when yet the soul doth not properly understand will feel but the man with or by or according to the soul So neitâ—er doth the body eat drink but the man himself by the body So lastly neiâ—her doth the arm move it self although we sometimes so speak but the man Which things let us consider of what moment they are and first that why they deny the humane nature of Christ to subsist by it self Now theâ—e may be a threefold meaning of that expression which may here come into ones mind For first that may be said to subsist by it self which â—eeds not any subjectum in which it may in here and from which if it be removed it will loose its being In this manner all substances subsist by themselves accidents do not subs st those namely which are wont commonly to be distributed into nine Categories or Predicaments In this manner the humane nature by the Adversaries confession subsists by it self for it is a substance not an accident otherwise it would not be an humane nature Besides that subsists by it self which needs not at all any outward prop that it may subsist and be preserved entire and safe In this manner no created thing and depending on another subsists by it self But that hinders not but that the things destitute of this way of subsisting by themselves act properly as is manifest to any one For things corruptible and chiefly men want both many causes that at first they may exist and many helps that they may be conserved and yet they do properly act Wherefore that will neither hinder the humane nature that it should not speaking properly act Thirdly That subsists by it self which is not a part of another but constitutes some whole by it self and absolute in all its respects In this manner the parts of any thing whether integrant or essential are not said to subsist by themselves and therefore not to act by themselves but the whole by them And hitherto belong all those examples brought a little before Perhaps in this manner the Adversaries will say that the humane nature of Christ doth not subsist by it self because it is a part of another suppositum to wit of whole Christ or his person But if the thing be so neither that second person of the Divinity with which the humane is said to be united and which therefore is the other part of the same suppositum shall properly any more act any thing So a divine person that is of the supream God himself who speaking properly hath acted is become that which speaking properly cannot act than which nothing can be thought more absurd For certainly if the humane nature be a part there will be also some other part of the same whole But what is it besides the person by which it is assumed and with which it is said to be united Wherefore this also will be a part and consequently will no more subsist by it self to wit in that manner of subsisting which we now handle than the humane nature But besides if the humane nature of Christ be full and perfect consisting of a humane body and a rational soul both of them absolute in all respects is it not by it self an entire thing having faculties sufficient to act Certainly if you deny any of these either you will deny the entireness of the humane nature or you will deny also that we our selves are such entire things The Adversaries being constrained by the very truth of the thing grant the humane Nature of Christ to be by it self an essential whole neither dare they say it is an integrant part of Christ because they hold those only to be integrant parts which have quantity Wherefore if Christ should consist of a humane nature and a divine as integrant parts also the divine nature being the other part of this suppositum would have quantity
speak and I know that his Commandment is eternal Life What things therefore I speak as the Father hath said unto me so I speak And chap. 14.10 The Word that I speak I speak not of my self but the Father that abideth in me he doth the works Where under the name of works his words also are to be included as the very opposition sheweth and afterwards in the same chapter ver 24. The Word which ye have heard is not mine but the Fathers that sent me To which belong also many other Testimonies which are extant in the same Writer chap. 8. 38 40. and 15. 15 17. and 8. 14. and chap. 3. 11 32 34. Wherein we read that Christ saw those things which he spake with the Father heard them from God or the Father And that they were given him from the Father and that they were the words and speech of God or the Father from whence it is apparent that Christ is not the most high God For the most high God is the first and highest Cause of all things neither can it in any sort be said of him that his Doctrine is not his Arg. 4 Christ is not the Prime Author of his Doctrine but another persons and that he speaketh not of himself as is apparent from the proof of the major Proposition of the foregoing Argument But we say that those things are very frequently and plainly said of Christ and he constituted not the first but the second and middle cause of his Doctrine The Defence of the Argument THat the refuge of the distinction of Natures hath here no place we shewed in the last Argument when we refuted the second Answer for here Christ simply and without any limitation denieth that his Doctrine is his and that he spake of himself Therefore it is necessary that he spake of himself how great soever especially since he wholly attributeth what he denyeth of himself not to another Nature of his but to another Person namely the Father and consequâ—ntly doth therein oppose not one Nature to another but one Person to anoâ—her that is himself to the Father For were that the meaning of the words which the Adversaries using that distinction would have he must have said My Doctrine is not mine according to the humane Nature but according to the divine or is mine not as I am Man but as I am God and not My Doctrine is not mine but his that sent me to wit the Father And in that passage chap. 14.10 how unsuitable was it for him were the Adversaries Opinion true having omitted the mention of his divine Nature to say But the Father that abideth or dwelleth in me he doth the work Where his words also are to be understood as we have already hinted For when he would intimate the intrinsecal cause of his work or the cause dwelling in him why did he not rather name his divine Nature essentially dwelling in him and proper to him than a Person different from him Why when he had named the Father did he that he might more significantly exclude himself presently add the pronoun he as if he should say the Father simply doth the work Is it not manifest that Christ would distinguish himself wholly how great soever he is from the prime Cause of his Works and Words and having taken it away from himself ascribed it entirely to the Father Add hereunto that Christ when he saith My Doctrine or My Word would have it so far forth understood to be his Doctrine or Word as it was most belonging unto him and it was most his according to the opinion of the Adversaries as he was a divine Person from whom no less than from the Father that Doctrine had originally proceeded Wherefore when he had spoken this and desired to have it understood there was no cause why he should rather ascribe it to the Father then to himself or his divine Nature although divers natures had place in him Finally this thing doth here quite exclude the distinction of Natures that Christ doth here manifestly consider himself as he sustained the Office of a divine Embassadour But that Office agreeth to none but a Person as such Wherefore it is either to be held that Christ here speaketh of the divine Nature or to be confessed that Christ is not a Person of supream Divinity For as we have shewn in the foregoing chapter and will * Lib. 2. Sect 1. Chap. 14. elsewhere shew more largely a divine Person is nothing but the very divine Nature having its subsistence Besides the Adversaries will have it that Christ was first sent according to his divine Nature for they hold that the Son was sent from the Father out of Heaven to assume Flesh and consequently to undertake the business of Mans Salvation But if Christ according to his divine Nature yea according to this in the first place is the Embassadour of the Father why are those things which are attributed to him as the Embassadour of the Father restrained to the humane Nature only and not rather ascribed to whole Christ how great soever he is But if any one will have it that in these and other the like places a Prerogative is attributed to the Father above Christ and that as Christ is God as indeed the words altogether require it he must with all of necessity confess that Christ is not the most high God but that on the contrary the Father only since such a Prerogative agreeth to no other and Christ ascribeth to him entirely without making mention of any other person both his Doctrine and Works is the most high God concerning which thing it hath been spoken in the Defence of the precedent Arguments CHAP. V. Argument the fifth fetcht from those places in John wherein Christ is denyed to have come of himself LIke to the former are those places wherein Christ denyeth that he came of himself affirming that he was sent by the Father For thus he speaketh chap. 7.28 29. Whence I am ye know and I came not of my self but he is true that sent me whom ye know not but I know him because I am from him and he sent me And chap. 8.42 If God were your Father you would love me for I went out from God and am come for neither came I of my self but he sent me And chap. 5.43 he had said I am come in the name of my Father and ye received me not if another come in his own name him ye will receive But if Christ is the most high God how did he not come of himself For to come of ones self is to come of his own accord or relying on his own Authority and to discharge an office amongst men But how can the most high God be said to do that which he doth not of his own accord and authority but anothers Certainly although the Father and Son were divers Persons in the same divine Essence yet could not one be sent or come from the other
he no less than the Father should have an high Priest and this Priest be himself since neither any cause can be imagined nor can it any way be that the Father should have a Priest and Christ not have one if he be God no less than the Father yea the same God in number with him as may appear from those things which we before spake concerning the title of a Mediator But where is even the least hint in the holy Scripture whereby it may appear that Christ hath an high Priest as well as the Father Who seeth not that it is very absurd to hold that the Person of Christ offereth to himself wherefore the Priesthood of Christ is utterly inconsistent with the divine Nature which is held to be in him CHAP. XXIX The nine and twentieth Argument That Christ was raised up by the Father THe sixth Argument of this kind may be drawn from the places wherein Christ is said to have been raised by another namely his Father which reason is so much the more to be urged because the contrary thereof is urged by the Adversaries For they say Christ raised himself and by this means clearly demonstrated that he was the Son of God begotten out of his Essence and consequently the most high God But this Argument partly falls to the ground by it self in that it is grounded on a false Supposition as we will by and by demonstrate partly is weakned by another erroneous Oppinion of the same Adversaries For they hold that the Soul or Spirit of Christ which they also hold concerning the spirits of other men after he was dead did notwithstanding perform such actions as agree to none but Substances that are actually alive and understand by themselves Some say that it went down into Hell or Purgatory and brought the Souls of the Fathers out of I know not what Prison or Limbus But if the Soul of Christ even during his death did exercise such actions what hinders but that the same Soul entring into his own Body and former habitation should again unite it unto it self and by divine Power raise it up For could the Soul of Christ furnisht with divine Power do less than his whole humanity when he lived perform by the same divine Power could it do less than for example sake some one of the Apostles to whom Christ sometimes gave the power of raising the * Mat. 10.8 dead and of †Act. 9.40.41 20.9 c. whom we read that some of them did actually raise the dead ‖ 1 King 17.17 c 2 King 4.18 c. Which very thing we read likewise of Elijah and Elisha Wherefore we will far more rightly invert the Argument of the Adversaries and retort upon them that weapon which they endeavour to hurl at us For if Christ were the most high God his raising should be ascribed to himself as the true and chief Author But it is not attributed to him but to the Father as the true and chief Author thereof yea it is very openly signified that Christ iâ— you speak properly Arg. 29 That Christ was raised up by the Father did not raise himself Wherefore he is not the most high God The truth of the Major as they call it is manifest enough For none doubteth if Christ be the most high God that he did altogether raise himself and that it was most suitable that he should raise himself For since it follows from that Opinion that the humane Nature according to which Christ dyed was personâ—â—â—y united to the divine it could at no hand be that the humane Nature should perpetually abide in death and consequently in as much as that union according to their Opinion can never be dissolved that a dead corps should in an indissoluble and eternal tye be united to the divine Nature Furthermore if the humane Nature were to be raised by whom rather was it to be raised than by the divine Nature of the same Christ which both could of it self very easily perform it and by reason of that most strict union did owe this benefit unto the Nature that was joyned unto it Wherefore whether you consider the ability of performing it the divine Nature of Christ would have been the prime cause of that work for the Office of performing it it would have chiefly lain on that Nature How then would not Christ have been the true and chief Author of his own Resurrection As for the Minor there are so many and so clear Testimonies of the holy Scripture which make the Father the true and chief Author of the Resurrection of Christ and not Christ himself yea very openly take away this work from Christ though even the thing it self namely his death doth sufficiently take it away that it is a wonder that any one should doubt of it For first in certain places it is openly said that the Father raised Christ or that God raised his Son But who is that God whose Son Christ is but the Father The former is recorded by Paul in the beginning of the Epistle to the Galathians whilst he speketh thus Paul an Apostle not from men nor by man but by Jesus Christ and God the Father that raised him up from the dead The latter it is affirmed by Peter Acts 3. ult To you God having raised up his Son first sent him blessing you And Paul chap. 13.33 doth indeed assert the same whilst he saith And we declare unto you the Promise which was made unto our Fathers that God hath fulfilled it unto us their Children having raised up Jesus as it is also written in the second Psalm Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee Now that he raised him from the dead no more to return to corruption thus he said c. From which words it appeareth that he who said unto Christ thou art my Son this day â— begot thee which indeed is no other than the Father raised him from the dead The same Apostle saith 1 Thes 1.9 10. Ye turned to God from Idols to serve the true and living God and is expect his Son out of Heaven whom he raised from the dead even Jesus who delivereth us from the Wrath to come Where in like manner God is said to have raised his Son from the dead To these are added very many other places wherein it is simply written that God raised Christ of which number we will here set down only one or two with the words at large contenting our selves to quote the rest Thus therefore speaketh Peter Acts 2.24 Whom Jesus of Nazareth God raised up having loosed the Throws of Hell in that it was impossible that he should be held by it For David faith concerning him I saw the Lord alwayes before me because he is at my right hand that I may not be moved Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoyceth Moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope For thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell nor suffer
designation or preparation to that Office Chap. 15 For if the Office it self be not incident to the most high God neither can the designation or preparation to that Office be incident unto him although the same may also be shewn from those things which we have said concerning the places wherein it is affirmed that sometâ—ing was given of God to Christ For he that is sanctified of God hath thereby something conferred upon him by God But none conferreth any thing on the most high God who giveth all things to all Besides if Christ had been the most high God if he had been begotten out of the Essence of the Father from eternity and for that cause the Son of God how could it be he should here conceale it For if there were any place where this were to be expressed certainly this were the place Christ had affirmed that he was one with the Father which the Adversaries will have to be spoken in respect of a divine Nature for they say that it was therefore affirmed of him that God was his Father because he was begotten out of his Essence that he was therefore one with him because he had the same Essence in number with him Moreover the Jews did upon that account charge him with Blasphemy because that being a man he made himself God Where they take the name of God in such a manner as is not incident to a man and our Adversaries contend that they mean it of the most high God namely because they observed that Christ did not obscurely affirm himself to be God in such a manner But if it be thus it would have been altogether necessary that Christ should bring such a Reason wherefore he is the Son of God as might shew him to be begotten out of the Essence of the Father to have the same Essence with him for otherwise how had he defended that saying of his which the Jews charged with Blasphemy How had he shewn that he of right called himself the Son of God in such a manner as the Adversaries would have it The Jews according to the Opinion of our Adversaries object to Christ Thou art a Blasphemer because thou affirmest thy self to be the Son of God begotten out of his Essence because thou makest thy self the most high God Christ answereth I rightly affirm this of my self nor am I therein a Blasphemer because the Father hath sanctified me and sent me into the world What is this to a generation out of the Essence of God What is this to the Supream and Independent Godhead which Christ is believed to have challenged to himself You will say that Christ sufficiently intimated that he was begotten out of the Essence of the Father and consequently the most high God because he said that he was sent of the Father into the world For that this sheweth that he before he was born of the Virgin had been perpetually with God in Heaven and afterwards descended thence into the Virgins Womb and became Man which is incident to none but the most high God But how frivolous these thing be men would easily observe if they would a little set aside a predudicate Opinion For first he might both be sent and come into the World who never was in Heaven The words of Christ himself concerning the Apostles are in the same John very evident where he also compareth them with himself in this behalf chap. 17.18 As thou Father hast sent me into the world have I also sent them into the world And John saith of false Prophets Ephes 4.1 that many false Prophets are gone out into the world But neither had these nor those been either in Heaven or in any other place out of this World whence they might afterwards enter into this World But they were appointed the Embassadours of Christ unto men and designed to preach the Gospel unto them and these came of their own accord unto men and as if they had been sent of God unto them presuming to promulgate a new Doctrine amongst them Wherefore to be sent into the World by God or Christ is to be constituted his Embassadour unto men but he may be the Embassadour of God unto men who never was in Heaven Again though it were altogether necessary that he whom God sent into the world should first have been in Heaven and have descended thence to the Earth which thing we otherwise willingly confess concerning Christ yet what hinders that he who is in his Nature nothing but a man should be assumed of God into Heaven and being there furnished with instructions be afterwards sent down unto the Earth to men and indeed it is altogether necessary to hold it so if you think that Christ could not be sent into the World or at least was not otherwise sent then that he properly descended from Heaven to the Earth For it is sufficiently apparent from our words that this sending did agree to Christ only according to the humane Nature which certainly was not generated in Heaven but on the Earth and consequently if it was in Heaven as we also acknowledge it must needs have ascended thither And indeed Christ himself doth intimate as much whilst he saith in this Writer chap. 3.13 None hath ascended into Heaven but he that descended from Heaven the Son of Man which is or rather was in Heaven Whence afterwards chap. 6.63 he saith If therefore ye shall see the Son of Man ascend where he was hefore In both places he spaketh of the Son of Man and here he doth not say that he was at that very time in the Heaven but had been formerly and should afterwards ascend thither From whence it manifestly appears that he speaks not of the divine Nature which is neither the Son of Man nor could ever leave Heaven nor ever ascend thither But furthermore cannot an Angel whiâ—h hath continually been in Heaven be sent thence to the Earth and so to men themselves Wherefore what Christ here affirmeth of himself containeth no intimation of supream Divinity To omit that although it contained yet would it not presently follow that he was the Son of God and not the holy Spirit if the holy Spirit likewise be as they hold the most high God For he also is sent out of Heaven and nothing hinders if the Son of God would assume a humane Nature that he likewise should assume it yea it was necessary that it should be so if he assumed who is of the same Essence with him Concerning which thing elsewheâ—e We must now pâ—oceed to the other Causes for which Christ is called the Son of God but with the omission of them which are also common to Believers if you except the high perfection of them although they yet lead a mortal life namely that he was most like unto God in Holiness and most intimate to him See Soc in against Wevick chap. 5. for the more than fatheâ—ly love towards him of which things enough elsewhere hath been spoken
unto him to have been bestowed on us if in the mean while the only begotten Son of God who was from eternity had apparently remained safe and entiâ—e nor had he felt any the least pain thereby Wherefore then is this so vehemently urged that God deliveâ—ed up his Son for us even his proper and only begotten Son or that he should dy for us that from thence the greatness of the divine love might â—e understood But if thou beleevest that even he the man Christ Jesus that was begotten of the Virgin Mary by a divine power that was sanctified and sent by God into the world tâ— at was appointed Ruler and Governour of all things even before the foundations of the world were laid who was most like God in holiness wisdome and power and as Paul * speaketh Phil. 2 6. was in the form of God and equall to God and whom God as it appeares so entirely loved if I say thou beleevest that he was the only begotten and proper Son of God then thou mayst at length understand that the only begotten Son of God and not any thing that was added to him died for us and from thence mayst learn to judge both of the love of God and of his only begotten Son who gave himself up to a death so cruel for our sakes Thus much for the first argument of this order CHAP. XXXII The two and thirtieth Argument That there is no mention made in holy Scripture of the Incarnation of the most high God VVE are able to frame a second Argument that if Christ were the most high God who as that opinion requires came down from heaven into the womb of a Virgin and was there incarnated it were altogether necessary that this incarnation ought to have been most plainly expressed not in one but many places by the Writers of the Gospel and other divine men and the Apostles For to repeat some of those things that have in this place by our men bin very fully explaind elsewhere we see that those things are most clearly and frequently declared in the Scriptures which are somewhat hard to be believed yet most necessary to be believed as the creation of Heaven and earth Gods providence over humane affairs the knowledge of our thoughts the resurrection of the dead and eternal life to be bestowed on men Nor do we see only those things which are aâ—together necessary to be believed most elegantly expressed in Scripture But also other things besides which we said were in themselves of lesser moment as that Christ came of the seed of David But now the incarnation of the most high God would be altogether necessary to be believed if it had really been although most haâ—d to be believed of which that is urged by the adversaries who therefore accuse us of most grievous heresie and highest impiety that we deny it but this they freely confess Arg. 32 The Scripture speaks nothing of the incarnation of God and are forced to confess For who seeth not that this thing is exceedingly contrary to the judgement of reason and such at least as meer reason will judge impossible Wherefore it were necessary that that incarnation should both have been most plainly described in the Scriptures and also most frequently repeated and inculcated by Godly men that were very carefull of our salvation so that indeed no one might doubt that it was asserted and urged by them But that that is not done is manifest partly from thence that what places soever the adversaries produce to prove that opinion are such that there is need of consequences to the end they may deduce this opinion that the most high God was incarnated or made man partly because that incarnation is not expressed in those places in which if it had been true it must needs have been expressed For when Matthew * Mat. 118 chap 2 and Luke describe the †Luke 1.26 c. Chap. 2.7 c. history of Christs nativity and rehearse some things that are of a much lesser moment than that incarnation of the most high God as that he was born of that Virgin that was espoused to an Husband that he was conceived by the holy Spirit that he was born in Bethlehem that I may not repeat other things which Luke very diligently declares and Matthew omitts how can it be that they should have omitted what had been the principal thing of all in the whole mattter and most necessary to be known and believed to wit that the most high God came downe into the womb of a Virgin and there assumed flesh and afterwards was born Luke speaks of the manger wherein Christ was laid so soon as he was born and would he have been silent of the incarnation of the most high God the hypostatical union of the divine and humane nature whereas our adversaries cannot now speak touching Christs nativity without mentioning that thing yea how could it come to pass that Mark should leave out all the history of Christs nativity wherein the incarnation should have been contained and John whom they judge to have written of the incarnation should so briefly so obscurely touch and handle the same How can it be that the Apostles when they would bring men to Christ and exhorted them to beleeve on him and to that end declareed his majesty should make no mention of a thing so necessary Peter preacheth the * Acts 2.14 c. first Sermon after he had received the holy spirit whereupon three thousand men beleeved in Christ and were baptized in his name and also a †Chap 3 13 c. second to the same people but there was no mention made of the incarnation Nor also in the speeches that the same Apostle made either to the * Acts. 4.8 c. Chap. 5.30 c. Rulers and Elders of the people or to †Chap. 10.36 c Cornelius and others concerning Jesus Christ There was no mention made of it in Pauls oration ‖ Ch. 13.17 c. which he made in the synagogue at Antioch none in that at * Chap. 17 22. c. Athens on Mars-hil none in †26.2 c. that at ‖ See amongst others Rom. 5.5 c. 8.31 c. 2 Cor. 5.14 c. Eph. 13 c. 2. throughout Col. 1.12 c. 1 Tim. 2.3 c. 2 Tim. 1.9 c. Tit. 2.11 c. 3.4 c. 1 Pet. 1.3 c. 2 Pet. 1.3 c. 1. John 3.1 c. 4.8 c. Cesarea before King Agrippa the Festus President and many others And indeed Athens he had a fair occasion to declare that thing when he spake of the unknown God But in all those speeches of the Apostles you can read nothing of Christ more sublime than that he had â—een raised by God from the dead was received into Heaven was made Lord and Christ was exalted by the right hand of God to be a Prince and Saviour to give repentance and
grounded on the divine Love and therein chiefly consisted that he was already designed to be the Messias or heavenly or eternal King of the People of God such an one as he after actually became For you will easily understand that this most cunning enemy did not fight so foolishly when he called that in question and that there was no need of a buckler to receive his weapons I at present omit other things which occur in that History of the temptation of Christ as that Satan having brought him into a most high Mountain shewed him all the Kingdoms of this World and the glory thereof as not sufficiently known or not sufficiently observed by his eye to the end that he might the more easily allure him to worship the Devil and that he durst to say before him to this very end All this power will I give †Luke 4.6 thee and the glory thereof for they are delivered to me and to whom I will I give them For it is apparent that Satan understood well enough that he had not to do with the most high God but with him who in respect of his Essence was a Man but out of the singular Love of God was his Son whom because God had of his own accord offered to him to be tempted to the end he might give a proof of his Vertue and Piety he thought it not altogether impossible by his arts to draw him from God But the ingenious Reader will of himself observe both these and other things The Defence of the Argument NEither may any one say that these things which we have deduced from this History do therefore not follow because Christ was tempted according to his humane Nature only and not according to his divine Nature For to omit the repetition of other things that have formerly been often spoken the same absurdities will still follow although you hold that Satan tempted the humane Nature only but personally united to the most high God and joyned by an indissolvable tye and that God willed that this humane Nature should be tempted For it would have been unworthy of the most high God to expose himself in a Nature personally united to him to an impious and detestable Adversary that he might mock him and sollicite him to his worship For the humane Nature could do nothing unless the divine did consent thereunto Wherefore Satan soliciting the humane Nature of Christ to worship him should together have sollicited the divine Nature to consent to so horrid a crime and to permit it unto the humane Nature Likewise it had been supersluous to shew that a Nature personally united to the most high God could endure and vanquish the temptation of Satan For who could make any doubt concerning that matter Whence it is also apparent that Satan could not have the least hope to overcome it For what could Satan believe it possible that the divine Nature should so far forsake the humane personally united to it as to yield to him and commit a most heinous offence and so become lyable to eternal damnation did not Satan perceive that he had to do not only with the humane but also with the divine Nature and that this Nature was to be seduced and the wickedness to be perswaded to it if the humane Nature ought to be overcome What therefore remaineth but to say that Satan had no certain knowledge of that union of the humane Nature with the divine but what Did not Satan who undertook to oppose this very thing that Jesus was the Son of God understand what these words did signifie But if the Opinion of the Adversaries be true they signifie that the man Jesus is one Person with the son of God eternally begotten out of the substance of God Who would believe if as the Adversaries hold the Incarnation of the Son eternally bâ—gotten out of the Essence of God was foretold in the holy Scripture declared to the Virgin Mary and afterward actually performed and acknowledged by her and others and signified by the heavenly voice of Christ's Baptism that Satan should have no certainty of this very thing especially if he heretofore saw God in Heaven and in him all his Decrees for the Adversaries hold these to be really the same with God or his Essence and consequently understood that the second Person of the Trinity should in those dayes be incarnated But in a thing that is evident there needeth no more to be spoken only we will add this thing that whereas Satan intended to make Christ doubt whether he were the Son of God namely that Son whom he had a little before heard the divine voice pronounce him to be it is not suitable that he should in his temptation pass by that Nature of Christ according to which he was the Son of God But the Adversaries hold this to be the divine Nature Wherefore they must renounce either this opinion or this limitation whereby they restrain this temptation to the humane Nature Now we do not conceive that any discreet man will say that this Argument is drawn from the testimony of the Devil who is a lying spirit For we contrary to the intention of the Devils words urge that that very man whom the Devil tempted was and is the Son of God a little before commended by the heavenly Voice in Baptism Wherefore the Argument is not drawn from the testimony of the Devil as if he had said that very thing we would have but partly from the act of God appointing Christ to be tempted and exposed to the snares of Satan partly from the sence words and intention of Satan as effect which could not have come to pass unless our Opinion were true CHAP. XXXV The five and thirtieth Argument That Christ is the First-born of every Creature THe fifth Argument may be drawn from thence that Christ is called the First-born of every Creature Col. 1.15 and he doth in the same sence call himself the Beginning of the Creation of God Rev. 3.14 Now as for the first the Adversaries hold that it is spoken of Christ according to a divine Nature and is no mean Argument of that very Nature when nevertheless the First-born must of necessity be alwayes contained in the number of them of whom except the Parents it is said to be the first-born and consequently Christ must be comprehended in the number of Creatures whose First-born he is said to be which cannot agree to the most high God The Defence of the Argument FOr whereas they commonly so expound the place as if it were said that Christ was born before every creature this if it be so taken as that Christ should be wholly exempted out of the number of all Creatures is done without any example and contrary to the received use of speaking in the holy Scripture and in ordinary speech Which very thing certain very learned men among the Adversaries have sufficiently perceived For John Piscator although he allow that Exposition as Orthodox doth
it self doth not loose the reason or nature of a Suppositum but only the Fire subsisting in it Wherefore although Christ be somewhat consisting of a divine person humane nature yet not that but this looseth the reason or nature of a person because this subsists in that For in this part there is the same reason of a person and a suppositum because that of which we dispute whether it befal a person may therefore befal it or not befal it because it may befal or not befal a suppositum But if there be in that Iron a substantial Fiâ—e and that Fire as some part of it makes that Suppositum which is called an Iron fired certainly the Iron taken by it self without that Fire will be no more a Suppoâ—â—tum For a Suppositum should be a part of a Suppositum Neither behoves it any whit that nevertheless we should call that Iron a Suppositum For we would not call that Iron severed from the Fire a Suppositum but conjoyned with it although the denomination be made from the Iron as the chief But if that substantial Fire together with the Iron doth not make one Suppositum or is not a part of it first I see not how it may be said that it hath lost the reason oâ— nature of a Suppositum For it will be so in the Iron as the air spread through the pores of the Iron But this is in the Iron only as it is contained in a certain place neither in the mean time doth it cease to be a Suppositum as neither the water insinuating it self in the spaces of more loose bodies and diffused through them Besides this example will not serve the turn because we â—ave demonstrated the humane naâ—ure to be a part of Christ Let the Adversaries chuse now which they will of these things which we have said of the Fire for there is no need that we should decide that controversie and they shall â—nd that that instance or example of the Iron fired which in this thing they often use makes nothing to overthrow our reason CHAP. VII The third Argument Because the most high God and man are Disparatums THe third reason is because by their opinion it is necessary that Christ be together both God to wit the most hiâ—h God and Man and that God is man and man is God But the most high God and Man are Disparatums But one and the same Subjectum cannot be together two Disparatums nor one of the Disparatums be the other or as they speak in the Schools the Disparatums cannot be predicated of the same Subjectum univocally or in quid and indeed each severally without any limitation or adjection They cannot alâ—o be said one of another univocally or in quid unless perâ—aps by a metaphor or similitude as if I say a man is a Lyon or Fox that is like a Lyon or Fox But Figures here have no place For the Adversaries would have it to be so properly and are constrained so to hold partly because of their own doctrine of Christ partly because of plain expressions of the holy Scriptures Of which thing somethiâ—g shall be said afterwards But why the disparatums in that manner we have said cannot be said of one and the same subjectum muc less of one another this is the reason because the disparatums are opposite although in a looseâ— signification than Aristotle took that term And the Adversaries do not deny it For they see that the disparatums contain in them a hidden contradiction which is the greatest and unreconcileable opposition Arg. 3 God and man are Disparatums For by the essential differences by which they are opposed to each other they exclude mutually each other and the one is denyed by the other So a Man and a Horse differ as a man and not a man rational and not rational a horse and not a horse A Man and a Plant differ not only as a man and not a man but also as animal and not animal or as sensitive and not sensitive and by how much farther any thing is distant from another by so much more essential differences which they call generical are found between them and by so much more contradictions arise between them But now if any thing in the genus of the substance be distant from the man it is God if yet our Adversaries wil permit us to râ—fer God to the Genus of the Substance to hold which here there is no need Yea if we exclude him from the Genus of the Substance so much the farther will he be distant from man and so much the more differences will arise between him and man and contradictions which cause that they be opposed one to the other For man and God differs as man and not man aâ—imal and not animal natural body and not natural body and if thâ—re as yet any other differences be found by whicâ— God is severed from the genuses of a man Therfore God and man cannot be predicated of the same Subjectum as Christ is simply and absolutely and that vnivocally or in quid Neither indeed may you think those things are said of Christ synecdochycally the names of parts being put for the whole For first both words as elsewhere so also when they are used of Christ do denote nothing else but the person of Christ But the person is a whole not a part Besides if they were only predicated of Christ synecdochycally I might most rightly say Christ is not God Christ is not man yea so only should I speak properly and accurately as I say most truly that a man is not a soul a man is not flesh to wit taken distinctly from the spirit For this expression is proper and accurate the other improper and figurate to wit a man is a soul a man is flesh But who would brook him that sayes Christ is not God is not man Add that hower the parts are wont to be said synecdochycally of the whole yet are they not wont to be predicated mutually of themselves For I do not say flesh is the soul or spirit or on the contrary the soul is flesh But here God and man are predicated of each other mutually There is no need to speak of the Metaphor whereby sometimes the Disparatums are predicated of the same or mutually of each other as if I say some man is a Lyon or Fox that is like a Lyon or Fox For Christ neither after the Adversaries or our Opinion is said to be metaphorically God or man but both properly and according to them essentially according to us man indeed essentially but God in the same manner in which he is said to be a King which thing doth not reach to the Essence Not a few of the Adâ—ersaries have seen this knot which when they could not loose would notwithstanding say that this is an unusual maner of predicating and certainly it is unusual because it saith that which in its nature is impossible since as we have
not call the humane nature in Christ a man and they say not a miss that this phrase savours of Nestorianism if any say God assâ—med man For it should be said God or the divine Nature assumeâ— a humanity or humane nature Besides if the humane Nature of Christ be in very deed a man and the son of man no man may doubt that those things are to be understood of it which are said of the man Jesus Christ or the Son of man as Christ calls himself in the holy * Mat. 16 13 15 16 John 3.14 16. 5.26 27. 1 Tim. 2.5 Scriptures For there were not two men in Christ But that son of man is called the Son of God or on the contrary the Son of God is called the Son of man The man Christ is called the Mediator and other things are attributed to him which by all mens confession agree not but to a person Certainly if that man be not a person it will be lawful so to argue The son of man is not a person the son of God is that son of man therefore that son of God is not a person But it is manifest by the definition of a man that the humane nature of Christ which they fear to call a man is in very deed and properly a man For to which the definition agrees to it also the thing defined agrees For as much as the thing defiâ—ed and the definition or the thing comprehended in the definition differ not but in the manner of explaining otherwise they are altogether the same thing But now doth not the definition of a man agree to the humane Nature of Christ Waâ— not it as all other men a â—ational animal Of its being â—ational there is no doubt for his Nature had not been humane if it had not been rational Of its being an animal also â—e ought not to doubt who knows that the animal when it is made the genus of a man is no other thing than a body endued with a sensitive soul Wâ—at was not the humane nature in Christ such a body Was it not a body that is a corporeal substance Was it not endued with a sensitive soul He hath put off all sense and reason who dares to deny it Therefore the humane nature of Christ is a man But of its singularity or individuality who doubts But if he be a man he also is the son of man as well because the holy Scriptures put promiscuously the son of man and a man as also is commonly known as because he who being a man is born of a woman cannot but be in pâ—oper speaking the son of man Perhaps some one will say that the humane nature of Christ to speak properly and accurately is neither a man nor an animal nor a body but Christ endued with humane nature is both a man and an animal and a body because a man and animal are concretums and likewise a body when it is put for the genus of a man but that the humane nature of Christ is an abstractum But we on the contrary if the humane nature of Christ speaking properly and acurately be a corporeal substance which no man can deny but he that believes not sense any more the same also is an animal since it is enâ—ued with a sensitive soul and further a man since it is also endued with a rational soul Wherefore that which they say that it is some abstractum and call it humanity or the humane nature not a man rests on their bare opinion But besides what is with them humanity corporeity animality abstract They will not say that they are universals as it were severed in the mind from singulars which sort of abstâ—actums we willingly admit in the kind of the substances for this makes nothing here to the purpose since the humane nature of Christ is singular and one in number Also they will not say that it is the form of a man animal or body For neither doth t is make any whit to the purpose since the humane nature of Christ is noâ— the form of a man but something endued with a form not a part of the humane essence but the whole essence What therefore are in their opinion those abstractums Are they the singular nature of a man an animal or some body abstracted from all these things which are not required to constitute it and considered barely by it self First what constraines to consider so the humane nature of Christ since in it there were many things not belonging to the constitution of the essence of the humanity it self as in other men And that I may more nearly touch those things which are wont commonly to be looked on in such concretums there was in him an existence proper to singulars of which no regard is had in the definition of the species and genus there were differences which they call individuating it was existent in a certain place in a certain time I say it was a being in very deed existing and as other substances subsisting but such things are not wont to be called abstractums Besides I cannot see why a whole essence and in all the parts absolute which is really existing although it be abstracted in the mind from those things which are in it deserves not the name of its species or genus why I say this humane nature which is indeed existent for of this we speak ought not to be called a man or this entire nature of an animal animal In vain the latter Philosophers seem here to have sought a distinction unknown to the Antients and by reason of difference of words although also it was necessary to feign those simple abstract words of the substances as of the humanity taken for the humane nature animality corporeity to have brought in a certain difference of the thing and signification it self But perhaps they will say that the humane nature of Christ subsists not by it self but subsists in the person of the Son of God by whose proper subsistence it is sustained Therefore he either ought not to be called a man or if he be called a man yet he is not a person But that I may omit now other things to be said a little after that subsistence which they say the humane nature of Christ wants either appertains to the constitution of the nature of a man or appertains not to it If it appertains to it the humane nature of Christ without it will not be entire and so Christ shall not be a perfect man contrary to the mind of the holy Scriptures and the Adversaries themselves If it appertains not to it its absence will no whit hinder but that the humane nature of Christ may be properly called a man Thirdly It is proved by this that the humane nature of Christ is a person because it in proper speaking doth act and sustains certain offices But aâ—tions as often we have minded after the common opinion of â—â—e Schools are not properly but of
which belongs to a King These things are plain and have in them no scruple and difficulty There is no need here of communication of Properties There is no need to distinguish subtilly between Expressions in concreto and in abstracto to difference the Person from the Nature again one Nature from another to seek how you may attribute humane things to the most high God and things proper to the most high God to a Man how the same Person one while governs as the most high God another while as a Mediator and so the same person is in some sort distinguished from himself Now from that which hath been said that may also be understood That there was no heed of the Union of two Natures For if there had been need of it it had been for this cause That Christ might bear and manage those Offices But Chrisâ— miâ—ht discharge them although he were but a man in Essence Yea if he had been God he could not discharge the two former he could not receive the last nor therefore discharge it because that Kingly office is not the Empire of the most high God as he is such but as the Adversaries speak such a Kingdom as Christ manageth as a Mediator And indeed the confirming our faith and hope and the Glory of the most high God required such a Kingdom But if any say that greater than humane ability or power was requisite to discharge those Offices that would be of some moment if it had been necessary that he should have that ability or power from himself nor could receive them from God himself But now since he both might receive them from God and the holy Scriptures so often testifie that he hath received them from God what need was there that he should be the most high God Rightly they say commonly God and Nature do nothing in vain although God doth those things also that Nature doth But if God does not things unnecessary much less those things which hinder and are otherwise unbeseeming his Majesty But we have shewed that that union would have hindered the administration of those Offices We have shewed also that it attributes to God not a few absurdities and things unbeseeming his Majesty and most apt either to take away out of mens minds or at least to diminish in them that veneration of it which he would establish by Christ The Third Section That the holy Spirit shouâ—d be the Son of God In which is discoursed concerning the third Person of the Supream Deity which is commonly held And it is shewed That the holy Spirit should be the Son of God if the common Opinion concerning him were true WE have said enough of the second Person which is held to be in the Trinity It remains that we add something also of the third There is no need that we should say much of it because those things which have been said of the Sons Generation out of the Essence of the Father being a little changed may be applied to that procession of the holy Spirit which the Adversaries have devised For which reason we also before sometimes have expresly joyned the holy Spirit with the Son and so anticipated the treating of those things which might have been here alleaged nor did we that without cause For if you rightly mark it both the Generation of the Essence of the Father is some Procession and on the contrary such a Procession as the Adversaries attribute to the holy Spirit is like that Generation which the Adversaries attribute to the Son of God The former the more lâ—â—rned of the Adversaries do confess who treating of the Generation of the Son and Procession of the holy Spirit say That there are two Pâ—ocessions in God But why the word Procession is accommodated perticularly to the holy Spirit and so is distinguished from the Generation of the Son they assign this to be the Reason Because there is a special word wanting by which that proper and peculiar manner whereby the holy Spirit proceeds from the Faâ—her and Son may be designed Therefore as in other things it oft comes to pass the general name is attributed as proper to the species and so is distinguished from the other species But that the Procession also of the holy Spiâ—it is a Generation if that Generation of the Son of God which the Adversaries hold be indeed a Generation is not hard to demonstrate For what other thing is required to a Generation properly to called than that one receive his Essence from another either the same in kind or as the Adversaries opinion of God is in number with his Essence from whom he receives it In brief generation properly so called is a communication of a substance with another And is not that Procession of the holy Spirit devised by the Adversaries such a communication Did not the holy Spirit by that Procession receive the same essence in number with the essence of them from whom hee proceeded So indeed Adversaries think and contend But if the Procession of the holy Spirit be a Generation properly so called we have in the Trinity two Sons one of the first person only another of the first and second and also two Fathers one of the ffrst person who will be a Father by a double name to wit because he hath begotten the second and third person of the Deity another the second person who together with the Father hath begotten the holy Spirit But we have learned both from the holy Scâ—iptures and the Adversaries that there is but only One Father and only one Son to wit by excellency so called The more acute of the Adversaries have seen this Rock of their opinion and have endeavoured to avoid it Therefore they have judged that that definition of a Generation which otherwise they themselves have delivered is to be limited and have said that not every communication of a substance with anohter is a Generation but at length that tâ—at which such a relation follows as is between Father and Son which is barbarously called Paternity and Filiation In which indeed they are rediculous As if forsooth it could be that a person may communicate his substance really to a person and yet such a relation may not thence presently follow and that person which communicates his substance to another by that very thing were not forthwith a Father or where there is a distinction of sex which is not in God a Mother and again he to whom the substance is communicated a Son or where there is a distinct sex a Daughter The Adversaries themselves confess that the words Father Son Generation Procession as also other-like words are by an Analogy said of God and creatures and that by reason of likeness they are translated from these to God But in things created as soon as the substance is produced the things is properly said to be generated nor is there any thing more required to the propriety of the word but if a person have
and existent from all eternity No indeed but because the Father hath committed all judgment to him For so he saith The Father judgeth no man but hath committed all judgement to the Son that all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father of which thing we have spoken more in its place Since therefore we honour him because of all judgement given to him by the Father since we adore him because of his sublime power * See the Appendix of chap. 18 Sect. 2. Lib. 1. because of a name given him above every name †Phil. 2.9 c. We bow the knee to him and profess him to be our divine Lord placed at the Fathers right hand in heavenly places we reverence him as the judge and avenger of all our deeds words counsels and the inmost retirements of our mind no otherwise than as the Father do we detract any part of due honour from him But would to God that many who that they may testifie their love toward the Son of God honour him with false praises would shew more earnestness in that thing in which Christ placeth the true love towards himself and that they who would be liberal towards him of that thing which is anothers were not so strait handed in that which is their own And that indeed is that they may observe Christs precepts †John 14.21 For so saith Chrâ—st He that hath my Commandments and keepeth them he it is who loveth me Herein herein must we all throughly labour herein the greatest love towards Christ is to be shewed which if we perform we shall deny him no due honour But verily it is more easie to accumulate praises and titles of honours without measure than to execute commands as we see it more easie in humane affaires to flatter and adorn another even with too many praises than to perform the office of a true friend or faithful servant We take nothing here to our selves being rightly conscious to our selves of our defectiveness neither detract we from all others the praise of piety whilst we desire more of it in many neither are we more solicitous of anothers than of our own duty But yet we could wish less were ascribed to that love towards Christ which conâ—â—sts only in opinion and specious words and that it were at length as it ought of right to be brought into suspicion by them who too much please themselves in it Besides that we may likewise pass to other incommodities and absurdities which flow from the opinion of the Adversaries concerning more persons in the most high God they themselves who attribute to Christ false honour do in the mean time either take away from him that which is true or very much diminish and obscure it Therefore they themselves do that which wrongfully they object to us and whilst they endeavour to lift up Christ higher they unawars thrust him down from his own throne and height For that opinion touching of the second person of the Trinity or the only begotten Son of God who was begotten from all eternity out of the Fathers Essence doth so obscure the true Divinity not only of the Father but also of Jesus Christ himself born of the Virgin that it doth almost extinguish it Foâ— first it doth not permit that Jesus Christ himself that very man himself I say who in time was born of a Virgin may be acknowledged for the only begotten Son of God and so called in the holy Scriptures by way of excellency but for a certain accession of him or a nature assumed to him For although the Adversaries call the man Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God yet it is not done by them but by communication of properties by which those things which agree to Christ according to one nature are attributed to him described by the other nature But that humane substance it self consisting of a body and rational soul which they fear to call a man is not with them by any means of it self the only begotten Soâ— of God but a nature assumed by him Whence also they are wont to compare it to a garment which he hath put on Therefo e that humane substance that is if you judge of the thing according to truth the man Jesus Christ himself shall be no more the only begotten Son of God than our Body is the Soul because this is cloathed with that and knit with it in so straight a bond But it manifestly appears by those things which we have said before * Lib. 1. Sect. 2. Chap. 31. out of the holy Scriptures concerning the reason whereby Jesus is the Son of God that the man himself born of a Virgin nor any other before or besides him is the only begotten Son of God How then doth not that opinion of the adversaries lessen or rather take away his true glory To which is added that the same opinion casts down the man Christ out of the Kingly Throne in which he was placed by God and permits us not to acknowledge sincerely that he is made by God Lord and Christ For these things happen not but to a person less than the most high God such as with them neither is the man Christ or as they call it the humane nature nor his divine person Not this because it is the most high God and therefore no whit less than he not that because with them it is not a person nor can be if it subsist in another person And to what purpose is that power of the humane nature if it cannot exercise it by it self For nothing can act by it self if it be not a Suppositum but God himself only acts according to it To what purpose is a double empire in the same person which can be exercised but once by him If any one would joyn the Moon in an indissoluble tye with the Sun he should make its light superfluous and useless For neither should the Moon impart its light to us the Sun illustrating all things by its beams and as it were obscuring the Moon it self But the same disjoyned from the Sun imparts such light to the Earth however received from the Sun that it is called in the holy Book together with it a great Light * Gen. 1.16 Psal 136.7 So also the man Christ if you joyn him into one person with God he loseth that sacred splendor of his empire majesty being obscured made useless by the glory splendor of the supream divinity For that supream divinity would by it self illustrate all things sufficiently by the beams of its power wisdom goodness But if he be distinct from the most high God as in nature so also in person being as it were illustrated by his beams he imparts a most comfortable light to the Earth and makes that those who could not lift up tâ—eir eyes to the splendour of the supream divinity and behold it by its self may contemplate it in a sort more mildly
shewed it implies a contradiction to wit that the same at once simply is a man and is not is God and is not Neither may any say those Disparatums which contain a hidden contradiâ—tion in them are not predicated of Christ according to the same part but diverse and indeed the one according to the divine natuâ—e the other according to the humane But that the same thing may be affirmed and denyed of the same according to divers parts For as the same thing cannot be both affirmed and denyed of the same whole simply or without a limitation or some addition although it be in it according to one part and be not in it according to another as we have shewed in the first Book Sect. 2. Chap. 3. so neither are those things said of the same Subjectum simply whâ—ch contain such a hidden contradiction in them however they may be in the same thing according to divers parts For that neverthelâ—ss would be all one as if the same should be both affirmed and denyed of the same whole simply But such we have shewed two disparatums to be which are predicated of the same subjectum univocally and properly Besides the species under which every individual is contained is never predicated of the whole in respect of one only integral part or like to the integral but of the whole as it is a whole Buâ— man is a species under which Christ is contained and if he were not it should be denyed that Christ is properly a man Wherefore man is predicated of Christ not in respect of one part only but of the whole as it is a whole Why then should not also God be the attribute of the whole as such But Disparatums cannot be said of the same whole as it is a whole for contradictories should be together predicated of the same whole as it is such CHAP. VIII Arg. 4 There would be two persons of Christ The fourth Argument Because in Christ should be two persons VVE will make the last Argument this If the humane nature We use the appellation frequent with the Adversaries be a person Christ cannot be a divine person in that manner in which the Adversaries hold it For there should be two persons in one Christ a divine and humane which thing overthrows it self But now that the humane nature of Christ is a person is proved first from the definition of a person For every first intelligent substance is a person For that which some say that this is the definition of a person taken in concreto hath here no moment For neither would we prove any other thing than that the humane nature of Christ taken in concreto is a person such as Peter Paul other men and besides every person is some concretum Therefore they will answer that this definition is more large than the thing defined For not every first that is singular and one substance intelligent is a person although the word person be taken in concreto But that is not righâ—ly answered first because otherwise it would follow that some intelligent suppositum is not a person which thing there is none which do not acknowledge to be most false for every first intelligent substance is also a suppositum even for that very reason because the action of understanding doth properly agree to it but actions do not agree save to Suppositums Lastly What instance what example will they bring to the contrary Run over all humane substances run over angelical and the natures of Devils all are persons We have shewed the same before of the divine substance And be it indeed as the Adversaâ—ies would â—hat it subsists in three subsistences and so iâ— three in persons it is enough that it is a person whether one or more For now when we assert its personality to the humane nature of Christ we dispute not of the number of persons but of the thing it self We will give you leave to feign it even three in persons But what other first intelligent substances do remain there which are not persons You will say the souls of men separated from their bodies For they are first or singular and intelligent substances For they may understand and so in very deed do understand being separated from bodies But if the thing be so why are they not persons For will they not be intelligent suppositums You will say they are not suppositums because they are natural parts of men or are by nature appointed to it that they may constitute some whole What are not the natural parts of the substances dis-joyned from each oâ—her suppositums Certainly as it is the common so also the most true opinion of the Schools that they are Suppositums at that time For it matters not that they either have been or may be naturally parts of other things if so be that now in very deed they are not but by themselves make up some wholes The actions of suppositums agree properly to them and to each separate actions Surely to the humane souls if the opinion of the Adversaries be true not only actions do agree but also even the most excllent and most proper to persons to wit to understand and will and if there be any conjoyned with these How then shall they not be suppositums how not persons But if they be not persons let not the actions proper to persons be ascribed to them Which will be done if you shall say that those souls as long as they subsist separate cannot aâ—tually understand For the soul is not intelligent ut quod or as which we speak with the Schools but ut quo or as by which that is it doth not by it self understand but is that by which the man understands Therefore as long as the man himself is not his soul by it self cannot understand But since a person is defined a first substance intelligent or an intelligent suppositum that is said to â—e intelligent which may by it self actually understand or which is understanding ut quod or as which not ut quo or as by which With what instance then will they infringe our definition Whether by the example of that nature of which we dispute But that cannot be done without begging of the Question Will they say the humane Nature of Christ is not intelligent ut quo or as which but ut quo or as by which Then it will not be a substance endued with understanding as we are and so neither a humane nature For every substance endued with understanding is intelligent ut quod or as which that is it self by its act is able to understand Of which thing we shall say more hereafter The second reason by which it is proved that the humane Nature of Christ is a person is this that it is a man I say a singular or individual man and the son of man But he who is a man or the son of man is a person for these are names of persons Whence some more acute Adversaries will