questions wherein we dissent from our aduersaries both as touching all the offices of Christ his propheticall office kingdome and priesthood as likewise concerning the benefites purchased by the death of Christ the benefites of our redemption and saluation Now in the last place we are to prosecute such matters in question betweene vs as doe concerne the natures of Christ. And this treatise containeth three controuersies First of the humane nature of Christ. Secondly of his diuine nature Thirdly of them both considered together THE EIGHTEENTH GENERAL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE HVMANE NATVRE OF CHRIST THis Controuersie is diuided into these questions First of the vbiquitie of the humanitie of Christ. Secondly whether he encreased in wisedome Thirdly whether he suffered in soule Fourthly whether he descended into Hell Fiftly concerning the place of Hell THE FIRST QVESTION OF THE VBIQVITIE OF the bodie of Christ whether his humanitie be euery where The Papists THey doe seeme in words mightily to impugne this opinion of the Vbiquitaries error 97 as they are called which doe erroniously hold that the humanitie of Christ is euery where as his deitie is and that the properties of one nature are really imparted vnto the other whereupon it followeth that the humanitie of Christ is euery where because it is verely vnited and made one person with the Godhead in Christ. This opinion the Papists would be thought to detest and abhorre and the Iesuite bestoweth great paines by sundrie arguments to confute it as by diuers places of scripture Math. 28. He is risen he is not here vers 6. Iesus sayd Lazarus is dead and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there Ioh. 11.4 Ergo Christ as he is man is not euery where Againe the opinion of the Vbiquitaries doth ouerthrow the article of Christs ascension for if Christs bodie be euery where as they hold he can neither ascend nor descend Bellarm. de Incarnation verbi lib. 3. cap. 11.12 The Protestants IT is true Catholique and sound doctrine that the humane and diuine nature are truely vnited in Christ and doe make but one person or hypostasis neither by confusion of the natures nor conuersion of one into the other but by vnitie of person for as the bodie and soule make one man so God and man is one Christ. And the better to vnderstand this mysterie we must set downe these three positions 1. Though the two natures in Christ be so vnited that they make but one person yet neither the natures are confounded nor yet the properties but as Christ is both God and man so there is in him a double power will and vnderstanding one humane and created the other diuine and vncreated 2. By reason of this vnion all the excellent graces of the spirit in the highest degree and aboue measure are giuen and bestowed vpon the humanitie of Christ Ioh. 3.34 but such notwithstanding as destroy not his humane nature but are qualities created as his humanitie also was created 3. There is also a mutuall communication of the proprieties of both natures each to other though not really in respect of the natures So we say in Concreto in the concrete that is taking the whole person of Christ that Christus homo that is the man Christ is omnipotent is euery where and Christus Deus that is Christ being God died for vs was buried rose againe but in the abstract it is great blasphemie to say that the Godhead of Christ died was buried or rose againe or that the humanitie of Christ is omnipotent or in euery place The Vbiquitaries now hold that there is a reall communication of the proprieties of both natures therfore doubt not to say that the flesh and bodie of Christ is euery where in all places at once The Papists in outward shew are enemies to that opinion but indeed and in truth as it shall now appeare they are not farre off from being in the same error First the same arguments which they vrge against the Vbiquitaries doe returne vpon themselues for although they will not say that Christs bodie is euerie where yet they hold that it may bee in a thousand places at once yea and more to if the Sacrament be at once in so many places celebrated for Christs bodie is reallie and verely in the Sacrament But those places alleadged He is risen he is not heere and the rest doe proue that Christ can be but in one place at once This their opinion also is against the article of Christs ascension and abiding in heauen till the day of iudgement for if the same bodie wherein Christ sitteth in heauen be in the Sacrament either when he is present in earth he is absent in heauen contrary to the scripture Act. 3.21 which sayth The heauens must containe him till that all things be restored or els if he be in both places at once they must needes make his bodie infinite and so destroy the nature of his humanitie which can be but in one place If they say it is another bodie and flesh which Christ by his diuine power maketh to bee present in the Sacrament that were much more absurd for then Christ should haue many bodies and other flesh then that which was borne of the Virgine Mary We see then they are not farre off from the opinion of the Vbiquitaries 2. The Rhemists doe approue that argument whereby Hierome proueth that the Saints may euery where be present at their bodies monuments They follow the Lambe whither soeuer he goeth but the Lambe is in euery place therefore they that be with the Lambe Christ be present euery where Whereupon it followeth that the Lambe Christ in humanitie must be euery where for how can he be present els in innumerable places at once where any reliques or monuments of Saints are Neither can they excuse this vbiquitarie presence of the humanitie of Christ and the soules of Saints by their agilitie and celeritie because they can quickly passe from one place to another for if they must bee present at their monuments whensoeuer they are called vpon they must of necessitie be often in many places at once for in one and the same instant men may resort to their monuments which are in diuers places farre asunder Thus they are driuen not onely to graunt an vbiquitie or omnipresence of the humanitie of Christ but euen of Saints also which those whom they call Vbiquitaries would neuer graunt 3. The bodie of Christ is visible and palpable now in heauen and hath a place according to the quantitie of his bodie Bellarmine confesseth as much cap. 12. But that bodie which is in the Sacrament hath none of these properties it is neither seene nor felt neither hath a place according to the quantitie of a bodie for they close it vp in small round cakes Wherfore destroying these properties of the humanitie of Christ they may as well and do in effect take away the other namely the being of Christs bodie in
his Priesthood in setting vp another sacrifice Ergo your spirit is not of God 3 The Catholike Church is so called because it embraceth the whole and onely doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles Ephes. 2. vers 20. But the Romane Church receiueth many things contrary to scripture and addeth many things vnto it as it shall appeare throughout this whole discourse Ergo. 4 The Catholike Church hath the name because it is dispersed ouer the whole earth Acts 1. vers 8. But so was neuer the Romane faith which is now professed as we haue shewed before Quaest. 3. de Eccles. Not. 2. Ergo ex Amand. Polan THE SECOND PART THE CHVRCH OF Rome is not a true visible Church The Papists THeir arguments are as wee haue heard Quaest. 3. of the notes of the Church error 28 grounded vpon their succession miracles gift of prophesiyng answered sufficiently afore Not. 4.5.6 Wee neede not nor must not for breuities sake repeate the same things often Protestants WE denie vtterly that they are a true visible Church of Christ but an Antichristian Church and an assembly of heretickes and enemies to the Gospell of Iesus Christ. 1 That cannot bee a true Church where the word of God is not truely preached nor the Sacraments rightly administred according to Christs institution So are they not in the Popes Church For the word is not sincerely taught but they haue added many inuentions of their owne and doe preach contrarie Doctrines to the Scripture the Sacraments also they haue not kept for first they haue augmented the number they haue made fiue more of confirmation orders penance Matrimonie extreame vnction beside the Sacraments of Christ they haue corrupted In baptisme beside water they vse spittle salt oyle Chrisme contrarie to the institution and they lay such a necessitie vpon this Sacrament that al which die without it say they are damned In the Lordes Supper they haue turned the Sacrament to a sacrifice made an Idol of bread chaunged the Communion into priuate masses taken the cup from the lay people and many other abhominations are committed by them Ergo neither hauing the word nor Sacraments according to the institution they are no true Church 2 They which are enemies to the true Church and doe persecute the members thereof are no true visible Church they cannot be of that Church which they persecute as Bellarmine saith of Paul how could he bee of that Church which he with al his force oppressed de eccles lib. 3. cap. 7. But they persecute the Saints of God are most cruel towards them as their consciences beare them record Ergo. 3 The habitation of Antichrist cannot be the Church of Christ so is theirs the Pope himselfe is Antichrist for who else but hee sitteth in the temple being an enemie to Christ. 2. Thes. 2. Where haue you a citie in the world built vpon seauen hilles but Rome Apocalyps 17.9 But of this matter we shall of purpose intreate afterward Ergo. they are not a true visible Church THE THIRD CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING COVNCELS A Councel is nothing else but an assembly and gathering together of the people of God about the affaires and businesse of the Church and they are of two sortes either vniuersall in the name of the whole Church or particular which are either National when the learned of a whole Realme are called together or Prouincial when as the Churches of one Prouince doo assemble into one place to consult of Religion There may be two especiall occasions of Councels the one for resisting and rooting out of heresies as the Apostles and elders met together Act. 15. against those which would haue imposed the Iewish ceremonies vppon the beleeuing Gentiles So the Councell of Nice was celebrated the yeare of the Lorde 327. to confound the heresie of Arrius who denied Christ as he was God to be equall to his Father In the Councel of Constantinople Anno 383. or there aboute the heresie of Macedonius was condemned which denied the holy Ghost to bee God In the Ephesine Councel the first Nestorius heresie was ouerthrowne which affirmed Christ to haue two persons Anno 434. The Councel of Chalcedon was collected Anno 454. about the heresie of Eutiches which held that there was in Christ but one nature after his incarnation so confounding his humanitie and diuinitie together The other cause of the calling of Councels is to prouide establish holsome Lawes decrees and constitutions for the gouernement of the Church so the Apostles called the brethren together Act. 6. to take order for the poore And in the Councell of Nice an vniforme order was established for the celebration of Easter which before had much troubled the Church The questions betweene vs and the Papists concerning Councels are these First whether generall Councels be absolutely necessarie Secondly by whome they ought to be called Thirdly of what persons they ought to cōsist Fourthly who should bee the president of the Councel Fiftly concerning the authoritie of them Sixtly whether they may erre or not Seauenthly whether they are aboue the Pope Eightly of the conditions to be obserued in generall Councels of these in order THE FIRST QVESTION CONCERNING the necessitie of Councels The assertion of the Papists THey seeme in wordes to affirme that Generall Councels are not absolutelie error 29 necessarie for the Primitiue Church was without any Councel for the space of 300. yeares and more yet they hold that some Councels either generall or particular are of necessitie to be had Bellarmine de concil lib. 1. cap. 11. And yet this is to be maruelled at that they should so much stand for Councels seeing they might vse a farre more compendious way in referring all to the determination of the Pope whome they boldly but very fondly affirme that hee cannot erre Although they seeme not to lay a necessitie vpon Generall Councels yet in truth they doo contrarie for they allowe no Councels at all without the Popes consent and authoritie neither thinke it lawfull for any Nation or Prouince to make within themselues any innouation or change of Religion So in the assembly at Zuricke Anno 1523. For the reformation of Religion Faber tooke exception against that meeting affirming that it was no conuenient place nor fit time for the discussing of such matter but rather the cognition and tractation thereof belonged to a generall Councel Sleid. lib. 3. And further they hold that what hath beene decreed in a Councel cānot be dissolued but by the like Councel as if the Councel of Trent were to bee disanulled it must be done by the like Synod Bellarmine de cōcil lib. 3. ca. 21. Which Councel they affirme to haue been general therefore another general Councel must by their opinion necessarily be expected before it can be reuoked The confession of the Protestants WE doe hold that generall Councels are an holesome meanes for the repressing and reforming both of errors in Religion and corruption in manners and that true generall Councels ought to
by good workes Rhemist Rom. 2.3 Ans. This is but a late and new deuice of the first and second iustification as afterward we wil shew in the proper place The scripture teacheth vs that not onely the beginning of our righteousnes but the finishing and perfiting of it is onely by grace in Christ Ephes. 2.5.6 When we were dead in our sinnes he hath quickned vs together in Christ by whose grace yee are saued and hath raysed vs vp and made vs sit together in heauenly places We see that this saluation by grace bringeth vs vp to heauen Ergo both the first second iustification are of grace for they can bring vs no further then to heauen Rhemist 2. Workes done of nature without or before fayth cannot merite but workes done by Gods grace may and are ioyned with it as causes of saluation Ans. Not onely the workes of nature but euen of grace also are excluded Wee are saued saith the Apostle by grace through fayth not of workes And then he sheweth what workes namely good workes such as the Lord hath ordayned for vs to walke in Ephes. 2.9.10 Ergo workes also of grace wrought in vs by the spirite of God are shut out from being any causes of our saluation I conclude with Augustine vpon those wordes of the Psalme Let the Lord alway be magnified Peccatores magnificetur vt vocet consiteris magnificetur vt ignoscat iam iustè viuis magnificetur vt regat perseueras vsque ad finem magnificetur vt te glorificet Art thou a sinner let God be magnified in calling thee doest thou confesse thy sinnes let him be magnified in forgiuing them doest thou liue well let him be magnified in directing thee doest thou continue to the end let him be magnified in glorifiing thee God is as much to be praysed for all things wrought after our calâ—ing and conuersion as for mercy shewed before All then is wholly to bee ascribed to Gods grace and mercie nothing is left for our merite or desert THE FOVRTH PART OF THE distinction of merites The Papists THey make two kindes of merite Meritum de coâ—gruo merite of congruitie error 91 such are the preparatiue workes before iustification as were the prayers almes deeds of Cornelius Act. 10. which though they be not simply meritorious ex debito iustitiae by the due debt of iustice yet they deserue at Gods handes of congruitie because hee doth graciously accept them Act. 10. sect 5. The other kinde they call meritum de condigno merite of condignitie when the reward is iustly due by debt such are the workes done in the second iustification which are truely meritorious and worthy of heauen Gabriel Biel. Rhemist Rom. 2. sect 3. The Protestants FIrst wee vtterly denie any such merite of condignitie For Saint Paul sayth that the afflictions of this life are not condigne of the glory to come Rom. 8.18 Condignitie then is wholly remoued and taken away Secondly a rewarde of congruitie in some sorte we graunt but neither for any thing done before fayth or iustification for it is impossible without fayth to please God or doe any thing acceptable vnto him Hebr. 6.6 Neither is it of congruitie for the merite of our workes but it is congruum it is agreeable to the mercie and iustice of God in respect of his promise graciously made in Christ to rewarde the faithfull obedience of his seruants so then the congruitie is on Gods behalfe not in respect of our workes We are iustified sayth the Apostle Gratis per gratiam freely by grace Rom. 3.24 Ergo there is no merite either of congruitie or condignitie seeing all is done freely Augustine sayth Quid ille latro attulerat de fauce ad iudicium de iudicio ad crucem de cruce in Paradisum I pray you what merite did the theefe bring with him from the prison to iudgemeÌ„t from the iudgement place to the crosse from the crosse to Paradise Here was neither merite of congruitie nor condignitie THE FIFT PART OF THE MANner of meriting The Papists OVr workes they say are pleasing and acceptable vnto God euen after error 92 the same manner that Christ and his workes were Tapper ex Tileman loc 11. Err. 14. Christes paynes of their owne nature compared to his glorie were not any whit comparable yet they were meritorious and worthy of heauen not for the greatnes of them but for the worthines of his person So our works not of their owne nature but as they are of grace are meritorious of the ioyes of heauen Rhemist Rom. 8.18 The Protestants FIrst it is a great blasphemie to say that Christs passions in themselues deserued not that glory which he hath purchased for vs neither that there was any comparison betweene them for then how could he haue fully satisfied the wrath of God Christ hath payed the ransome for our sinnes Wee are redeemed with his precious blood as of a lambe vnspotted 1. Pet. 1.19 His blood was the price of our redemption therefore of it selfe meritorious It was not in respect of Christ of grace but of merite in him Vnto vs his redemption is of grace Rom. 3.24 Wherefore his passion being the passion of the Sonne of God was a full satisfaction and worthy desert of that glory which hee hath purchased for vs. Secondly it is another great blasphemy to match and compare in the way and maner of meriting Christs workes and ours together For first there is no merite at all in vs vnto saluation we haue no merites but Christs and are saued onely by fayth in him not by workes Ephes. 2.8 Secondly by your own confession our works are not of their nature meritorious but of grace But Christs workes were of themselues full of merite without any externall helpe or accession of grace for in himselfe did all fulnes dwell Coloss. 1.19 Augustine very well sheweth the great difference in the way of meriting betweene Christ and vs thus writing Quantum interest cum duo sint in carcere interreum visitatorem eius illum causa premit illum humanitas adduxit sic in istu mortalitate nos reatu tenebamur Christus misericordia descendit Looke what difference there is when two are in prison together betweene the prisoner and his friend that commeth to visite him the one is there of necessitie the other commeth of good will Such difference is there betweene Christ vs for when we were deteined in the prison of this mortalitie for the guilt of our sinnes Christ came in mercy to visite vs. How can there now be any proportionable or like way of meriting in the guiltie prisoner and the innocent and friendly visiter THE FOVRTH QVESTION of Iustification THe partes of this question First of the preparatiue workes to iustification Secondly of the 2. kindes of iustification the first second Thirdly of inherent iustice Fourthly of Iustification only by fayth They folow now in order THE FIRST PART OF THE PREparatiue workes The Papists
one place for it is as proper to the bodie of Christ to be seene and felt as to be in one place at once 4. Bellarmine granteth being vrged with that argument that Christs soule was in Paradise after his passion and therefore not in hell he confesseth that it was not impossible that Christs soule should be in two places at once Lib. 4. de Christi anima cap. 15. Yea he sayth that Christ may if he will turne al the world into bread and the bread so made conuert into his flesh and so his bodie may be as well in euery place of the world as now it is in the Eucharist Lib. 3. de incarnat cap. 11. What great oddes now I pray you is there between the opinion of the Vbiquitaries and of the Papists but that they say that the bodie of Christ is euery where ordinarily by the power of the Godhead the other say his flesh is in many places at once by a miracle The one sayth Christs bodie actually is in euery place the other that it may be if Christ will THE SECOND PART WHETHER OVR SAVIOVR Christ did verily encrease in knowledge and wisedome as he was man The Papists CHrist they say in the very first creation of his soule and from his conception error 98 was endued with the fulnes of al wisedome grace and knowledge neither can he be sayd properly to haue encreased in any of these gifts 1. Christ was anoynted from his mothers womb and then the spirit of God was vpon him for the Angels that appeared to the shepheards call him Christ Luk. 2.11 And Iohn sayth The word was made flesh full of grace and truth 1. vers 11. Therefore euen then he had receiued all abundance of grace and knowledge Bellarm. de Christi anima lib. 4.2 Ans. 1. We grant that our Sauiour was the Iesus the Christ euen from his natiuitie not that thē he actually straightwaies entred into those offices or receiued plenarie power of all the graces of the spirit but because he was euen from his mothers wombe consecrated and appoynted thereunto for it no more followeth because he is called Christ that he then had his actuall anoynting then that because he was called Iesus from his natiuitie that he had actually performed our redemption The full anoynting of the spirit was fulfilled in his baptisme when the holy Ghost came downe in the likenes of a Doue and then beginning to preach in his first sermon at Nazareth he sheweth the accomplishment of the prophecie of Esay The spirite of the Lord is vpon me c. Luk. 4.18 2. Neither doe the words of Iohn import so much as they gather The word was made flesh and dwelt amongst vs full of grace and truth which is not to be vnderstood of the very first assuming of the flesh but of the dwelling of the word in the flesh amongst vs and so appeared to be full of grace and truth Argum. 2. Christ was the Sonne of God in his very incarnation and euen then was the humanitie perfectly vnited to the Godhead therefore immediatly vpon this vnion and coniunction of both natures in one person must needes follow the fulnes of grace in the humane nature Againe Adam was created in perfect wisedome therefore much more the second Adam Bellar. cap. 4. Ans. 1. If presently vpon the vniting of the two natures together it had been necessarie that the humane nature of Christ should haue receiued whatsoeuer by the presence of the diuine nature was to be conferred vpon it then Christ straight waies must also both in bodie and soule haue been glorified for it can not be denied but that as the bodie of Christ after the resurrection receiued more glorie then before so also his soule being the other part of his humanitie was more glorified By this it is euident that the humanitie receiued not at once the fulnes of all grace and glorie in the first vniting of the Godhead 2. Adam was created perfect in bodie and soule and if Christ therefore ought to haue the fulnes of the gifts of the soule in his creation as Adam had why ought he not also to haue had a perfect bodie as Adam was created withall Wherefore as it was no dishonour to Christ to grow vp in stature of bodie so neither was it to encrease in the gifts of the mind The Protestants THat Christ was euen from his birth and first conception perfect God and perfect man we doe assuredly beleeue and that in the very incarnation the diuine and humane nature were vnited together Also we graunt that the Lord Christ might haue created to himselfe a soule full of all wisedome and knowledge as he might haue made himselfe a perfect bodie but seeing it pleased him to bee borne of a woman and first to dwell in the bodie of an infant wee doubt not to say as the scripture teacheth vs that he also Encreased in wisedome 1. He was in all things like to his brethren onely sinne excepted Heb. 2.17.4.15 Ergo he grew vp and encreased in knowledge according to the manner of men which may be done without sinne 2. The scripture sayth plainly which cannot lye that Iesus grew vp and encreased in wisedome and stature Luk. 2.52 And lest they should answere that this encreasing was onely in the opinion of men it followeth And in fauour with God and men he increased in wisedome stature and fauour not onely in shew before men but in truth before God and as verily and indeed he grew vp in stature so also in wisedome 3. Christ testifieth of himselfe That neither the Angels nor the Sonne of man as he is man knoweth of the day or houre of his comming to iudgement but the father onely Mark 13.31 Ergo Christ as hee was man had not at once all fulnes of knowledge Bellarmine thus expoundeth this place Filius dicitur nescire quia non sciebat ad dicendum alijs The Sonne is sayd not to knowe because he knewe it not to reueale it to others but to keepe it secret to himselfe Ans. First then by the same reason the Angels doe knowe it also but that they are charged not to declare it to men for the text sayth that neither the Angels nor the Sonne of man knoweth the time Secondly in this sense also the father might be sayd not to knowe it for neither hath he reuealed it to any Lastly although we doe affirme according to the scripture that the child Iesus did increase in the gifts of the mind as he did in the stature of his bodie yet we do put great difference between him and all other children that euer came into the world for as his conception birth were not after the cōmon manner for he was cōceiued by the holy Ghost brought forth without trauel and labour as August sayth Nec concipiendo libidinē nec pariendo perpessa est dolorē In conceauing she felt no carnal desire in bearing she suffered no payne So likewise
and of the father and not the father of the sonne Ergo the sonne is God with and of his father Rhemist ibid. Ans. This place proueth that the sonne of God as he is the sonne is of God for to be the sonne of God the word the wisedome of God 1. Cor. 1.30 His image Heb. 1.3 doe belong vnto his person So then as he is the sonne the wisedome of God or the word so he is of God namely in respect of his person but as the sonne is God he is of himselfe neither taketh he his essence but person onely of his Father The Protestants THat we may fully know the state of this question we must first set downe certain propositions First we do worship one eternal omnipotent onely wise God one and the same in power essence eternitie but three in person the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost there is the same nature essence and deitie of them all though they be distinguished in person As there is one nature of the light the heate thereof and the shining brightnes Lucis splendoris caloris as Augustine putteth the example which three differ amongst themselues in propertie and quality yet haue one and the selfe same nature and substance God the father is as the light Iam. 1.17 God the Sonne is as the brightnes of his glory Heb. 1.3 God the holy Ghost is as the heate or fire Heb. 12.29 Thus these three are one in nature and essence but three in person 2. There is somewhat communicable to them all as the Godhead and diuine power and nature Somewhat incommunicable as the seueral proprieties of the persons for it is proper onely to the father to beget proper to the Sonne onely to be begotten proper onely to the holy Ghost to proceede from them both There is no essentiall difference in the Trinitie for there is one essence and diuine nature common to them all But there is both a real and rational difference The persons differ one from another really though not essentially But the persons differ onely rationally or in respect from the essence of the Godhead as the father and the sonne amongst men differ not essentially for they are both men But they are really verily and indeede distinguished for it is one thing to be the father another to be the sonne yet from their owne essence their persons onely differ in respect and relation not verily non re sed ratione for the father is a man the sonne also is a man but in one respect he is a father in an other he is man so likewise of the sonne yet one and the same is both father and man one and the same is both sonne and man so is it in the Trinitie Now to the poynt of the question which wee haue in hand The Sonne therefore in the blessed Trinitie is begotten of his fathers essence and hath the whole essence of his father not by propagation partition profluence but onely by communication The sonne is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sonne of himselfe because he is sonne of the father But he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is very God of himself The essence or Godhead of the Sonne is of himselfe not of the father for it is one and the selfesame essence which the father hath He is indeede Deus de Deo lumen de lumine God of God light of light But not as he is God is he of God but as he is the Sonne It is one thing for the person of the Sonne to be begotten of the essence of the Father which we graunt another thing for the essence of the Sonne to be begotten which we must not yeeld to So we conclude that Christ as he is the Sonne is of God the Father as he is God he is of himselfe Argum. 1. The essence of the Father is of himselfe not begotten of any but the essence and Deitie of the Sonne is the same and all one with his Fathers Ergo it is not begotten of any other Agayne he is not God whose essence is not of himselfe therefore if Christs essence be not of himselfe he should not be God Argum. 2. Our Sauiour himselfe sayth As the Father hath life in himselfe so hee hath giuen to the Sonne also to haue life in himselfe Iohn 5.26 The Sonne then hath life in himselfe Ergo hee is GOD of himselfe Augustine vpon these wordes writeth Non quasi mutuatur vitam nec quasi particeps vitae sed ipse vitam in se habet vt ipsa vita sibi sit ipse He did not as it were borrow life of his father neither is made partaker of life but he hath life in himself he is life vnto himselfe But lest any man should thus mistake the wordes of the text that because the Father gaue to the Sonne to haue life in himself therefore hee gaue him to be God for to haue life in himselfe is to bee God Augustine thus expoundeth them Dedit filio vitam habere in se breuiter dixerim genuit filium He gaue to his Sonne to haue life in himselfe in fewe wordes He begat his Sonne As if we should say the Father which hath life in himselfe that is is God gaue to his Sonne to haue life in himselfe that is begat God the Sonne he begat him not as he was God but as he was his Sonne yet because of the neere vniting and coniunction of the person with the Godhead and diuine power to haue life in himselfe which really cannot be distinguished but onely in respect as we haue shewed the Father is said also to giue vnto the Sonne to be God and to haue life in himselfe not directly or properly but obliquely and by a consequent because his Sonne whom he begat from all eternitie must also necessarily be God And that it cannot be the proper meaning that God the Father gaue to the Sonne power to haue life in himselfe it appeareth by the words themselues for as the Father hath life in himselfe euen so hath hee giuen to the Sonne but the Father hath life in himselfe without beginning from any other Ergo so hath the Sonne There should els be a contrarietie and repugnancie in the speech for if Christ receiued life from his father he could not haue it in himselfe It must therfore of necessity be vnderstood of the person in the Trinity not of the diuine essence And so we determine that it is true in the concrete in concreto if wee say Deus Pater genuit Deum Filium God the Father begat God the Sonne but not in abstracto Deitas Patris genuit Deitatem Filium that the Godhead of the Father begat the Godhead of the Sonne But in respect of his person onely as he is the Sonne the second person in Trinitie so is hee begotten and hath his beginning of God But in respect of his diuine nature as he is God hee is begotten of none but of himselfe as God the Father
was the duetie of Angels to worship him Ergo hee merited not his glorification by his death which was due vnto him euen at his first incarnation Argum. 3. If Christ merited his owne glorification then hee also merited the hypostaticall vnion that his manhood should bee ioyned to his Godhead in vnitie of person for his glory maiestie and power giuen to his manhood doth issue and arise from the vniting of his Godhead therewith in one person but his humanity deserued not to be vnited to the Godhead Nemo tam caecus est sayth Augustine No man is so blind that he dare say that Christ by his well liuing merited to be called the Sonne of God And hee prooueth it out of the first of Luk. vers 35. Therefore shall that holy thing bee called the Sonne of God not for any workes going before but because the holy Ghost came vpon her Wherefore the diuine glorie which Christ hath was not merited but his owne it was from the beginning which glory the humane nature in Christ is made partaker of not for any merite but because it is vnited to the Godhead in the same person through the abundant and vnspeakable grace and loue of God vnto mankinde which of his free grace rather tooke vnto himselfe the nature of men then of Angels Wherefore Christ by his perfect obedience and blessed sacrifice hath merited abundantly for vs remission of sinnes and eternall life but by his merites he hath gayned nothing for himselfe neither had he any respect to the bettering of his own estate in his sufferings but onely to pay a raunsome for vs. THE TWENTIETH GENERALL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE COMMING OF CHRIST TO iudgement which appertaineth to his whole person as he is both God and man THis controuersie hath two partes First concerning the signes which must come to passe before his appearing Secondly of the time and maner of his appearing The first part contayneth three questions Frst whether the Gospell bee already preached to the whole world Secondly whether Henoch and Elias shall come in the flesh before the day of iudgement Thirdly of the great persecutions toward the end of the world THE FIRST QVESTION WHETHER the Gospel be already preached thorough the worlde The Papists error 106 THey denie that the Gospell hath beene already published to all nations of the worlde for there are many great countries which neuer heard of the Gospell as they affirme But before the comming of Christ to iudgement they say it shal be preached to the whole world Bellar. de Roman pâ—ntif lib. 3. cap. 4. Argum. 1. Math. 24.14 Christ sayth This Gospell of the kingdome shall be preached thorough the whole worlde for a witnes vnto all nations then shall the end come The end of the world shall immediately follow the generall preaching of the Gospell which if it hath been performed it is most like to haue been done in the Apostles time then the world should haue ended long agoe Bellarm. ibid. Ans. This word Then doth not alwaies in the scripture signifie a certaine and definite time presently to follow as Math. 9.1 Then he entred into a ship and so forth Luke also setteth foorth the same storie cap. 5.18 Then brought they a man lying in a bed But in saying Then they haue not relation to the same time for they keepe not the same order in rehearsing the storie Matthew setteth downe one thing that was immediatly done by our Sauiour Christ before and Luke another And so is the word Then vsed in other places not to describe a consequence of time with relation to that which went before but absolutely without any such respect to name the time present only wherein any thing is done So tunc then signifieth as much as in illo tempore in that time not which shall immediately follow vpon the generall publishing of the Gospel but which God hath appoynted We must also consider who it is that sayth Then namely God himselfe with whom a thousand yeares is as one day and one day as a thousand yeares Christ Then may come many hundred yeares after and yet it shall be true that then shall the end be But we rather take the first sense that Then is here taken indefinitely as it is thorough the whole chapter as vers 21. Then shall be great tribulation which cannot haue relation to that which he spake of before for then it must be vnderstoode of the destruction of Ierusalem but our Sauiour meaneth by Then the time towards the ende of the world as vers 29. Immediately after the tribulation of those dayes the Sunne shal be darkened Then shall the signe of the Sonne of man appeare Argum. 2. We see the Gospel hath been preached in great countreyes of late which neuer heard the Gospel afore as it is thought Rhemist Math. 24. sect 4. Ans. 1. They speake doubtfully they cannot tell as it is thought say they 2. They meane the preaching of their Friers in those newe found countreyes which was not the preaching of the Gospel but of vile superstition not to conuert the people to God but to robbe and spoyle them and make a pray of them killing slaying them without al mercy reade Benzo in historia noui orbis 3. We deny not but that the Gospell may be reuiued and renued in many countreyes where notwithstanding it was planted many yeares afore As this countrie of ours in ancient time called Britanie was first instructed in the faith by the preaching of Ioseph of Arimathea as Gildas saith or as Nicephorus saith by SimoÌ„ Zelotes yet after that the foundation of the faith thus begun it was confirmed afterward in king Lucius daies by the preaching of Fagane Damiane which at Lucius request were sent into the land from Eleutherius B. of Rome and so may it come to passe in other countreyes a second preaching therefore taketh not away the former but confirmeth and reuiueth it The Protestants THat the Gospell was by the Apostles preached to all the knowen and inhabited nations of the worlde we cannot but affirme being so taught by the scriptures Argum. 1. Our Sauiour saith to his Apostles Ye shal be my witnesses to the vttermost partes of the earth Act. 1.8 which is spoken to the persons of the Apostles not in them to all Pastors and preachers as some expound it for in the same vers there is mention made of the comming of the holy Ghost and howe first they should begin to witnesse at Ierusalem which things were indeede so accomplished in the Apostles Saint Paul also Rom. 10.18 expoundeth that place of the Psalme Their sound is gone forth into all the worlde of the Apostles Agayne seeing the Apostolicall calling and gift is now ceased neither are we to looke that men should be immediatly called from heauen and the preaching of the Gospell to all nations is an Apostolicall worke for the which the Apostles also receiued the gifts of tongues seeing now we haue neither Apostolike