of Proclus taken out of Plato as you may reade in Stenchus de perenni phi lib. 2. c. 16. These two saith hee unity and Being consisting in the Trinity the first begetting the second begotten the one perfecting the other perfected it must needs be that there is a certaine power by the which and with the which that unity gives subsistence and perfection unto that being For both the procession from that unity to being and the returne from that being unto unity must be by a middle power betweene them both For how can unity bee Being or Being bee one but by that power which is in both And this Trinity is the excellency of all understanding unity power Being the one bringing forth the other brought forth and power proceeding from unity ioyned with being And this is the first Trinitie that can bee understood or conceived to bee unity being and the power of them both by which divinity is the Father of being being is of unity The Father is the father of wisdome and wisdome the Son of the Father and between these a most high power hidden in the one of producing in the other of being produced as Plato hath shewed it wonderfully Thus Proclus The argument of Pythagoras is not of lesse weight That which is unchangeable must needs be eternal and alwayes one And as al change in every body is by reason of inequality of the parts so that which is absolutely and ever one must be ever in equality so verity and equalitie must be eternall and multiplicity and inequality must necessarily bee after unity and equalitie And as unity is the cause of connexion or being one so inequality is of division And the effect of the first cause must have priority before the effects of the second cause Therefore connexion also must be before division and change and if before change then also eternall And because there can bee but one eternall therefore unity equality and connexion must bee one thing And this is that threefold unity which Pythagoras taught was to bee adored Pet. Blondus de Trenario pag. 106. 107. And Cusa de Docta ignorantia lib. 1. cap. 7. Neither is that reason which Cusa Exerercit lib. 7. pag. 134 brings from Aristotle to bee slighted especially by Thomas that great Aristotelian Aristotle saith that the first cause of all must needs be both efficient formall and the end And three firsts there cannot be because before all plurality there must needs be unity Therefore it being one first it must bee a threefold cause efficient formall and finall The efficient cause is neither Formall nor Finall and the formall is neither finall nor efficient Therefore they are three distinct causes considered in their severall subsistences but considered in their firstnesse they are in being one alone many such reasons and authorities to this purpose you may reade in Struchus De perenni Phi. lib. 1. 2. But how much yet more fitly and more fully hath the illuminated Raimund shewed both this point and all those other which Tho. Aqu. hath given over as past all proofe For Raimund taking all those conditions of the divine being which the holy Scripture gives to God and without which that being could not be perfect and supposing and proving them to be infinite with all the conditions of infinity both in being and working hath taught the way to shew the Trinity of Persons in unity of being by every one of those conditions see Art mag Part. 9. And though his words seeme borrel and rude as bonificant bonificabile Bonificare in una bonitatis essentia Possificans possificabile and possificare in the being of power yet they are full of excellent meaning The learned and witty Cusa de visione Dei cap. 17. gives instance in the unity which is either unity uniting unity united or the union or knot of them both yet all these in the most simple being of unity And againe in love which is either in the Person loving or in the Person loved or in the knot of the Love betweene them all according in the nature of Love and without any of these Love cannot be perfect and compleate yet may every one of these be understood apart inasmuch as a man may love and not be loved loved and not love againe But where that which is Lovely is also loving there the bond of love is firmely tyed and love in every part entire yet is this love but in shadowes among us but perfect in the endlesse and perfect being of love 1 Ioh. 4.8.16 And thus in other conditions of the divine nature have other learned and devout men endevoured to shew their understanding and firme consent unto this high article of the christian Faith one in the power of God another in his wisdome c. according to the proofes you read before And therefore not to goe about to overthrow the reasons brought by Thomas because the authority of so great a Doctor may cut deeper than his reasons and so cut off if not the strength of the reasons in the articles following yet that comfort which the faithfull soule might have thereby I say that all the reasons which are brought to this article and so for the most part in all the rest are onely of two kindes First and chiefely from the impossibilities which would follow upon the contradiction of the thing in question which kinde of discourse I have taught as I can log cap. 8. n. 7. and chap. 26. more at large Secondly by that kinde of demonstration which I call by conversion of termes as I shewed log cap. 18. n. 3. in the syllogisticall handling of such arguments as in effect are all one with them which log cap. 13. n. 5. I shewed to bee by rule in the second kinde of equivalence Now both these kindes of argument prove the question onely that it is that is to say shew onely that the proposition is true and neither prove nor enquire how or for what superiour cause which in this and in many of the other questions here handled cannot be given And there is no proposition how true how universall or manifest soever but it may be proved by these meanes both in the affirmative For in things of the same nature and being whatsoever agrees to one most needs agree to the other and in the negative the ground of impossibilities and all negative discourse whatsoever is denied to the predicate must also bee denyed to the subject Now I thinke it is no more derogation from the truth to bee thus confirmed than it is simplie to bee affirmed as it is in the article of the Creed As if I say there is an eternall being the cause of all Beings there is an infinite wisdome the disposer of all an infinite power that governes all and thereupon conclude that there is a God What dishonour is here offered to God or his truth are not all these termes an eternall Being the cause of all beings An
XXIII That the Second Person of the Trinitie the Son of God only tooke on Himselfe our flesh IS it true that God will dwell with man Behold the heavens and the heavens of heavens cannot containe Him how much lesse a house of clay whose foundation was in the dust yet doth wisdome take her solace in the compasse of His earth and her delight is with the Sonnes of Men Prou. 8.31 So the Word was made flesh and dwelt in us Ioh. 1.14 And though he were in the forme of God and thought it no robbery to be equall to God yet as man had beene made in his likenesse and lost it so would hee bee made in the likenesse of man and to restore that first image unto man became obedient unto death even the death of the crosse Phil. 2.6.7.8 O Holy and most blessed teacher of our most glorious faith what high doctrine what holy mysteries what pretious promises doth the Christian faith containe That which is infinite dwels in in that which is finite the circumference in the centre The greatest of beings and the least are one Two births eternall and temporary and but one Sonne And because the essentiall proprieties of both natures doe still remaine he that is the Father of eternity is become a childe Esay 9.6 And hee that is the wisdome of the Father increases in knowledge Luk. 2.52 hee that no place can containe doth grow in stature and the Sonne of an eternall love doth grow in favour with God and Man In briefe hee that hath all things with God the Father save this that he is begotten hath all things with man except his sinne But although there be two generations and that of divers kindes eternall and in time in which respect almost all things are double in him yet is not hee two sonnes because Sonneship respects not the diversity of the natures divine and humane but onely the unity of the Person so that if there be but one Person of both natures there can be but one Son Wherefore seeing the Sonne of God took on Him not the Person but the nature of man yet the whole nature body and soule of the substance of his Mother And seeing that whole nature subsists in the Person of the eternall Son He in both respects both of his divine and humane generation is still the onely begotten Sonne of the Father onely begotten I say that he may be discerned from us that are adopted only sonne because we are not hereafter to looke for any other Saviour His onely Sonne not of Ioseph or any man according to the flesh For as according to the law of the eternall life which is in God He is begotten of the substance of the Father not without but in the Person of the Fathâ—r yet distinct therefrom so according to that generation whi h was in time was He begotten by the power of the Father without the Person of the Father being conceived in the wombe of the virâ—in For as a thing conceived in the minde of a man is the first wâ—rd or expression of his understanding which being spoken or written becomes sensible and to bee understood of others So the Sonne is in the Fathâ—r that eternall word understood conceived or begotten before the worlds and in the fullnesse of time not ceasing to be eternally begotten as before He was made manifest in the flesh even that word or life which was eternally with the Father was seene with eyes was looked upon and was handled with hands 1 Ioh. 1.1 2. So that as there is but one Father both in the eternall and timely generation so is there but one Sonne by a most holy most true and substantiall generation God and Man the Sonne of God and the blessed virgin Mary Now this one Sonne one Christ one Immanuel one Mediator one Person is such not by mixture not by confusion not by composition of the two natures nor yet by change of one into another but one by assumption or taking of the humane nature into the divine wherein the deity is to dwell eternally without separation but not without distinction And these two natures so dwell together in the Person of our Saviour as that for the unity of the Person the attributes which belong to one nature are given to the other as Ioh. 3.13 No man hath ascended up to heaven but hee that came downe from heaven even the Sonne of man which is in heaven And againe Acts 20.28 Feed the church of God which He hath purchased with his owne bloud And although I said before chap. 11. that relation properly so called was not in the divine generation but supereminent because all things here are coessentiall a the subjects no other beings than the termes that is the Father and the Sonne the foundation also coessential that is the divine and unconceiveable generation for the termes sake in the Father active in the Sonne passive And although in the second generation neither the subjects nor the termes are coessentiall the subjects are the Person of the eternall word and the Virgin Mary the foundation is the generation whereby the manly being passively was taken of the Virgin unto the person of the word yet in respect of this hypostaticall union or ioyning of the humanity unto the Person of the Eternall Sonne Mary the mother of Iesus is truely said the mother of God not that the Godhead tooke beginning from her but because she brought out that manly being which from the time of its first union was never separated from the Godhead And because the supposition or person wherein both natures are is one Christ of which Person she is truely called the mother though she be mother onely according to the flesh as is said Math. 1.23 A virgin shall bring forth a Sonne and they shall call his name God with us And againe Rom. 9.5 of the Israelites as concerning the flesh came Christ who is God blessed above all for evermore Amen But although there be one only Sonne yet in respect of the two nativities Hee is truely called the Sonne of God and the Sonne of the virgin though with this difference that by the eternall generation he tooke of the Father both his eternall nature and his Person by which he is the sonne of his Father by a supereminent reall relation but of his mother he tooke in time the humane nature but not any humane Person And therefore this Sonship is only rationall except it bee understood with the divine person in which the humanity subsists and so hee is truly said this man and the son of the virgin For as b he tooke on him the humanity soule and body to dwell therein for ever as the Evangelist speaks Ioh. 1.14 The word became flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and made his tabernacle in us So did hee give unto the humane nature to bee one Person in him So that God is now truely one with us that wee hereafter may bee one with him according
argument is in effect all one with the former And you ought to have remembred that it hath often beene said that the distinction of the persons is reall and therefore not in our understanding onely The Persons taken together in their absolute essence admit no distinction but are all essentially one God And so every person by himselfe in his essence is likewise God But the persons understood apart according to the propriety of their personall beings are really distinguished and that reall distinction is their Personality and that personality is their reall distinction and that relation whereby they are distinguished is nothing different from any of these nor yet the propriety of their personall being is any other thing than that relation Therefore though the persons are not distinguished by or in that absolute being wherein they are all one yet is it most falsely brought in thereby that any thing shall bee in them beside their essence whereby they are distinguished For the distinction or difference of the persons arises from the action onely or working of the Absolute Being which yet is essentially in the absolute Being and differs not therefrom no more than heat in the fyer doth differ essentially from the fyer or reason feeling and growth in a man doth differ essentially from the soule of man 8. Every relative depends necessarily upon the correlative But nothing which is depending upon another can be truely God Therefore either the Persons differ not by relations only or none of the persons can be God or else there is no relation and so no distinction of the persons at all Answer It is a fallacious and froward kinde of arguing to presse the propriety of speech or use of words to darken the truth of things see log cap. 21. n. 5. It hath beene said 1. that the being of God is supereminently above all being above all created understanding to conceive 2. That relation in created things doth not onely presuppose a subject but also some quantity quality action or other affection in the subject whereon that relation doth depend 3. That those relations in the persons of the deity are nothing else but the very personall proprieties and that the word Relation as many other beside is taken into use in this argument onely to helpe the expressing of our understanding though indeed properly it bee not in the divine being yet can we not conceive but that there is an order in the procession of the persons as I have said elsewhere yet not such as shall bring in any dependence no not in the personall proprieties because the action or eternall working whence the personall differences doe proceed is essentially in the Godhead or if dependence must needes bee yeelded unto yet seeing it can bee nothing but onely the order of procession in the persons of the Godhead it brings in no such inconvenience as that thereupon it should follow that either the Sonne or the Holy Ghost were not God So the foundation of the doubt being but a hil of sand the whole building proves but a trifle And these are the principall reasons brought for the Sabellian heresie The authorities of the Holy Scripture which they falsely alleage hereto are such as prove the absolute unitie of the divine Being as you have heard before in the end of the eighth Chapter which Texts as they doe most strongly confirme the eternall truth of the absolute being of one God so doe they nothing gainsay the Trinitie of the Persons which other Texts of the Scripture teach as you have partly heard and shall heare further hereafter when wee come to speake in particular of the Persons of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost So it remaines now only to answer that which is brought for the opinion of the Tritheites which poore fancie though it may vanish at the fight of the Reasons which have beene brought for the simple and one Being of God in the eight Chapter yet because it would justifie it selfe by this doctrine of the Trinitie you shall see what the strength of their Reason is 9 That which is begotten and that which is not begotten must needs be very different The persons of the Trinity are begotten as the Sonne and not begotten as the Father and the Holy Ghost Therefore if every person be God they are different Gods Answer The things which in no respect are different must be the same and there can bee no difference put betweene things which brings not in a deniall on the one side and an affirmation on the other And this opposition is betweene all things howsoever differing So betweene the Persons of the Deity there must be a relative opposition As the Father ergo not the Sonne the Sonne ergo not the Father c. because there is a relative distinction but this doth nothing at all enforce a plurality of Gods or a difference of absolute Beings but of the Persons onely And if you desire to see other arguments like these reade Thomas Aquinas cont Gent. lib. 4. Cap. 10. and their Answers cap. 14. see also the note a on the 24. chap. following sect 9. and note a on the 33. chap. But the answers to all objections will bee easie if you remember what hath beene said and suffer not your selfe to be carryed away with shew of reasons taken from naturall things which though they bee most true in the creature which had a beginning yet can they no way bound or binde the infinite and eternall truth of Him that is Lord and Creator of nature as I have remembred you elsewhere Remember also to consider in Christ his essence which in all the Persons is coeternall and one and His Person begotten eternally of the Father And in this Person distinguish His natures divine and humane from his offices wherein remember 1. that His sending and obedience abate nothing from His equalitie with the Father concerning the unity of their essence 2. that these names which import His office are spoken of Him in respect of both His natures CHAP. XII That in the Glorious Deity there be Three Persons and no moe YOu misse here a great deale of learning and wit which other men have shewed in the mystery of unity and the number of the Three But because the reasons that might bee made from thence would bee but onely inductive and I desire to stand with you on the lower and plaine ground let us leave those high Speculations to them that please to read them among the Cabalists in Brixianus his comment Symbol and elsewhere and see what other reasons can be brought for the question in hand 1. Nothing can possibly be in the Deity but according to the uttermost perfection of Being that is essentially and necessarily Therefore if it bee not necessary to put moe Persons than Three in the Godhead then is it not possible But it is not necessary to put moe persons in the divine Being either Father Son or holy Ghost For so the
herewith if you will Iacobi Brocardi Myst cap 1.49 and note b on Chapter 13. number 7. And hee that followes that rule of one onely literall sence as hee makes no difference betweene the historicall bookes of the Old Testament and any other true historie so doth hee deprive himselfe of that hope and comfort which he might receive by them concerning Christ and makes them frustrate of their chiefest end and directly gainesayes that of the Apostle Heb. 1.1 After sundrie sorts God spake in times past to the Fathers See Iacobi Brocardi praefat in intâ—pretat Bib. fol. 25 26 c. if their doings and sufferings were not predictions of the sufferings of Christ and of the glories that should follow How much better was that saying of the father The new Testament is hidden in the old and the Old is manifest in the New But you say by these allegoricall and mysticall sences of Agar and Sinai and the like any forrein sence may be concluded I Answer The Scriptures being to give us hope and comfort in Christ there is one rule for their interpretation which out of Saint Peter I remembred even now that the interpretation be to manifest the sufferings of Christ and thereby our deliverance from the punishment of our sinne or the glory of Christ and therewith the hopes that are laid up for us in heaven And what allegoricall mysticall or anagogicall sence soever is brought in beside this rule the rule of our holy faith is as easily thrust out as it is brought in And this is the true Cabala of the Scripture both old and new Troubled with all kinde of heresies The heresies or errors about this truth of our Lord Christ incarnate are in briefe of three kindes The first concerning the person who was this Christ the second concerning His nature and being the third concerning the attributes or proprieties of his being The most ancient heresie concerning the person of the Messiah was that of the Herodians of whom you reade in the Gospell Matth. 22.16 Marke 3.6 These as Epiâ—â—anius remembers Panarii lib. 1. held that Herod the sonne of Antipater the Idumean was the true Christ promised to the Fathers because the scepter did utterlie cease from Iuda in his time but the gathering of the nations was not to Herod as Iacob prophesied so their heresie vanished Hitherto you may bring all those false glosses of the Iewes who turne the prophecies fulfilled in Christ to other persons as to Ezechiah to Zorobabel to Nehemiah to Iehoshua and to others as they thinke fittest to mocke of the holy oracles from the true Messiah as you may reade in Pet. Galat. lib. 4 cap. 17. and in the note h above But their greatest mistaking was in their counterfeit Messiah who from Numb 24.17 called himselfe Barchâ—chab that is the sonne of the Scarre of whom they were foretold by our Lord himselfe Iohn 5.43 If another shall come in his owne namâ— him ye will receive But it cost them the dâ—struction of their citie by Titus and so many miseries as ensued thereon Such another Barchâ—zibâ— they had in the dayes of Adrian by whom after the slaughter of innumerable They ciâ—â— the author of the booke Iuâ—hâ—sia for tâ—iâ—e so many as went out of Egypt Postel de orbe cond wâ—ites 600000 of both these you may reade Galatin lib. 4. cap. 21. persons they were utterlie chased out of their countrie and not so much as the name of their citiâ— fâ—â—m his owne name called Aelia left unto thâ—m and thus have they lived iâ— banishment ever since But the lewdnesse and follie of other succeeding hereticks did equall this of the Iewes And first that of Simon the Witch who gave out himselfe to bee the Christ which though Augustinâ— affirme in so many words yet Tertullian and Epiphanius have onelie so much in effect that hee was that virtue and great power of God as you reade Acts 8.10 How great then was his schollar Menander who to all the falshood of his Mâ—ster added this that hee was greater than Simon Epiphanius in Pan. The hereticks called the Sethians held that Christ which was borne of the Virgin Mary was no other then Seth named Gen. 4. the sonne of Adam The Ophites held that the Serpent which deceived Eve was Christ as Augustine saith but neither Irenaeus Tertullian nor Epiphanius affirme it But Augustines authoritie alone is sufficient to make us thinke that the Maniches held that the Serpent which taught Eve knowledge and came in the last dayes to save the soules of men must needs bee Christ But these sotteries were so sencelesse as that they neither lasted long nor spread farre But the enemie of mankinde would not suffer the fountaine of life the sincere doctrine of Christ to bee untroubled and therefore beside these heresies concerning the person who was that Christ promised to the Fathers hee brought into this faith which wee hold concerning Christ the sonne of the Virgin Mary such confusion of opinions concerning his nature and properties for his offices are in question now that Mahumed Alcoran Cap. 20. rejoyced in himselfe that hee was delivered from the opinions of the Christians so monstrous in themselves so contrarie one to another that the verie enemies of these heresies were in confusion thereabout and as here and there contrary one to another so sometime to themselves You may reade if you will the stories of the hereticks in the Fathers Irenaeus Epiphanius Theodoret Isidore Eusebius Ruffinus and other historians of the Church and in briefe he that gathered from them all the commentator on Aug. de haer I for avoiding of confusion will remember as occasion is the heresies under the name or names of the most famoused authors or defenders therof and that without respect either of the time wherein they lived or other opinions which they held beside for I write not the historie of the wars but the triumph onely of the Christian faith 1. The Monophysitae or hereticks which held but one onely nature in Christ were of divers families for Eutiches while hee went about to refute Nestorius who held as two natures so two persons in Christ confessed that Christ was of two natures God and man before the uniting of them both but after the union of them they became as one person so one nature because the manly being was utterlie swallowed up of the Divine and changed thereinto as a drop of vineger in the Sea doth utterly loose both the taste and being of vineger This the Armenians and Iacobites heretoforâ— have held but now they are returned to the true faith Mr. Brerewoods Enquirie pag. 154. and page 173. Euagriuâ— hist Ecclesiast lib. 4. Cap. 9 10 11. charges Anthimus Bishop of Constant Theod sius Bishop of Alexandria and Severus to have taught one onely nature in Christ but what or how he shewes not But you may finde in Theodotus the â—eâ—der Collect. lib. 2. that their heresie was one with this of Eutyches 2.
us before the Father till the day of our redemption when he shall present us unblameable in his sight as it is said Heb. 2.3 Behold me and the children which thou hast given me see Ioh. 6.39 But see the reason of this heresie of Eutyches delivered by that second Synod of Ephesus called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which murthered the vertuous and faithfull Flavian and blasted with their stinking curs all them that should affirme that there were two natures in Christ forsooth because hee is the onely Sonne of God not two Sonnes not two Persons but one Sonne one Person Euagrius Hist Eccles lib. 2. cap. 18. And yet our Lord saith of himselfe whom doe men say that I the Sonne of man am Math. 16.3 And as often is hee called in the Scripture the Sonne of man the Sonne of David the Sonne of the virgin of the carpenter c. as the Sonne of God and yet but one Sonne and yet but one person of both natures divine and humane as I shewed before in the beginning of the 23. chapter I referre you thither But the answer of that wise Prince of the Sarazens Alamundarus was sufficient to stop the croaking of those foule birds of the Ephisine cage of whom some comming to tainte him with that bane he told them that he had received letters that Michael the Archangel was lately dead when they answered that it was impossible that an Angel should suffer either sicknesse or death hee replyed And if Christ have not two natures aswell the manly as the divine how could hee endure the paines and death of the Crosse For if an Angel cannot dye much lesse hee that is onely God Theod. Collect. loc cit And this may be sufficient for all the rable rout of Eutyches But if you desire more reasons against his opinion you may finde them in Tho. Aq. cont Gent. lib. 4. cap. 35. And although this heresie be imputed unto Eutyches as I have shewed yet it is plaine that it was an heresie before Eutyches was borne For Saint Athanasius in his sixt Sermon hath most wittily and plainely refuted it § 2. The heresie of Apollinaris is as wide from the truth on the other side and as it favours of the heresie of the Theopaschites which you shall heare anon so it favours that sottery of the Manichees that made the Godhead divisible into parts as you have heard before chap. 8. note 6. 5. 3. or rather yet worse than so if any thing can be worse than that which is worst or more false than that which is most false 1. For if any part of God became man then God in part of Himselfe must cease to be God and God must suffer detriment or losse when part of His being is either taken away or changed to the worse 2. So God also should bee subject to composition and accidents contrary to that which hath beene proved chap. 9 numb 3.5.6 3. Whereupon it would also follow that seeing his being is most simple and pure if any of his divine being were coessentiall to his humanity then also the whole 4. And moreover it would follow that God were neither infinite nor eternall For whatsoever is changed into another ceases to be that which it was before But this is contrarie to that which hath bin shewed c. 2 3. so then all these things are impossible And therefore the Scripture concludes against this opinion that God is eternally one and the same as S. Iames also saith c. 1.17 that in Him there is neither variablenesse nor shadow of Change 1. But see their arguments First The Word became flesh Ioh. 1.14 Therefore the Word was changed into flesh bones sinewes haire c. Answer The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was became or was made hath divers significations because a thing may be said to bee to become or to be made this or that by any property or accident that is therein as a man at 20. yeeres old is made or becomes able to guide a Ship Cicero became or was made more learned by reading the bookes of Plato But thus the Word was not made flesh when hee tooke our nature on him for so should we make God subject to accidents so also our mediator after the union of both natures should not be essentially both God and man which must of necessity fall into one of these two Gulphs either that the manly being in Christ was but fantasticall and in shew onely as the Manichees and some other hereticks held or else that Hee may cease to bee a mediator betweene God and the Creature which were to take away our hope of everlasting happinesse Againe a thing may bee said to be to become or to bee made this or that substantially as when the food is changed into the substance of that which is nourished thereby then it is made or become that which it doth nourish But thus the Word could not become flesh but rather flesh should have bin made the Word For in al manner of working to the change of one thing into another the more noble and powerfull agent must have the preeminence But this is neither affirmed in the Scripture nor possible to be true Thirdly a thing may be said to become or to be made this or that essentially as every particular matier and forme under every species become or are made one individuall as the body and soule in Plato essentially become the proper person which we call Plato But thus the deity and humanity became not essentially one individuall under any common species or kinde For the deity came not to the humanity as the forme thereof which had the full and perfect proper forme the humane soâ—le and understanding Moreover all formes are ordeined for their matiers and all matiers have in them a naturall appetite to those formes whereof they are capeable But nothing of this was in that above-wonderfull generation For neither could the humanity when it was not desire that the deity should dwell therein neither was the deity ordained for any such end as to dwell in man but of his owne onely holy will and love to man was he pleased so to blesse the creature Therefore the Word was made flesh onely by the This woâ—â—â— was made signifies an â—nion not a Câ—â—â—ersâ—on Aâ—â—â—na Serm. 6. uniting or taking of the manhood unto himselfe whereby both the divine and humane nature became in Him one subsistence one Mediator one Person one Immanuel to which union in natures nâ—thing in nature can be equal or like For this is that wonder of wonders which passes the understaâ—ding of men and Angels to conceive for which his wondrous conception by the Holy Ghost his wonderfull birth of a virgin were by which his glorious miracles his wonderfull resurrection and ascepsion and the wonderfull happinesse and eternity of his creature are wrought And although as the two natures so their proprieties are different in Him so that wee may truely say of Him according
to the severall natures that hee was dead and yet could not dye that Hee suffered and yet could not suffer or the like yet must all these contradictions of necessity hee understood of the distinct natures in the unity of that one Person indistinct so that the difference bee in the natures not in the Person And thus the Scripture hath taught us to speake as it is said Ioh. 1.10 He was in the world and the world was made by him which clauses though they may receive distinction by the differences of his being yet in the unity of his Person none at all For the same Person hath made the world and yet was in the world as another man For to respect the Sonne according to the perfection of his deity although nothing be essentiall unto him but that hee bee eternally begotten of the substance of the Father yet since he was pleased to take on him the office of our Mediator it was necessary that hee should take also our being wherein alone the satisfaction for us should be wrought For as it was necessary that our Mediator should be God that hee might be able to save and to support the manhood induring that punishment which might satisfie the infinite Iustice and raise it up againe to life lest being swallowed up of those torments Hee should not bee able to give life to them for whom Hee suffered for the State of the members cannot bee better than of the head So was it necessarie that hee should bee made flesh that is become truly and essentially man that the punishment being borne in the nature that had offended that nature might bee restored to the favour which it had lost Necessary I say but I meane not by any absolute necessitie on the behalfe of God for Hee is Debtor to no man nor on him can any necessitie bee layd toward the creature without which he is infinite in glory and perfection but yet necessarie with that necessity of supposition that seeing God for the praise of his Grace would by Himselfe restore His Creature that had sinned it was necessarie that hee should take on him the nature and being of that creature at â—east in part if He would restore it but in part but because the creature had sinned in the whole not in soule alone nor in body alone nor in the one without the other it was necessarie that He should become whole and entire man not to take on Him the soule of man onely but to become also flesh that he might redeeme both soule and body 2. But they object that out of Saint Iohn chap. 1.14 wherein it is said that He dwelt in us as in a tabernacle and againe it is said by Saint Paul Rom. 8.3 and Phil. 2.7 that He was made in the likenesse of man By which texts it may be gathered that he was made man in respect of some property or accident only For he that dwels in an house is not said to be one thing with his house and may goe out of it when he list and he that is like another can no way possible be the same For nothing is said to be like to but to be it selfe I answ that neither by the one speech nor by the other is it meant but that he was truely and very man of soule and body as we are but seeing the humane nature hath a certaine shew or resemblance of clothing to the deity because the Godhead is not seene or apprehensible of the creature in his owne being but onely as He is man Therefore by that Metaphore of his dwelling in us as in a tabernacle are we called to the meaning and true understanding of the Mâ—saicall tabernacle whereby his manhood was figured and the promises after a sort made visible to the Fathers as by those texts of S. Paul we are brought to remember that as Adam was created in the likenesse of God and lost it so the Mediator that second Adam to restore that first image was made true man in the likenesse of the first Adam For this is one immortall hope that as hee is truely and indeed partaker of our nature and one with us so shall we be truly partakers of the divine nature 1 Pet. 1.4 and one with Him Ioh. 17.21.22.23 3. A fourth being cannot come into the Trinity but if that being which was taken of the virgin doe still continue a manly being so that neither the Godhead be changed into the flesh nor that into the Godhead it must needes follow that a fourth being is taken into the Trinity and so we are bound to worship a Quaternity for a Trinity Answer This seemed no inconvenience to the ancient Fathers as it appeareth by Athan. epist de Incar dom nost Ie. Chri. contra Apollinar For to this objection hee answers that the humane body of Christ is the body of the increated word and therefore is adored lawfully And the first councell of Ephesus against Nestorius see can 7.8 13. doe not suffer the use of the word Coadoration or Conglorification of the body of Christ lest they should seeme to make two Sonnes or two Persons or any way to admit any kinde of division betweene the divine and humane nature as Nestorius taught but that with one adoration wee ought to worship Immanuel For the two natures therein make not two Persons but one Mediator in one Person in which person we adore the deity in the holy Temple of his humanity according to the commandement Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only thou shalt serve For neither is His humanity a person nor yet possible to be separate from His deity And seeing his humanity from the very instant of his conception never had any being but with the deity to part one of these from the other were to destroy the present being of his Mediatorship and to put Him in that state in which Hee was before his incarnation and that were to make void his sufferings and the glories which have hitherto followed thereon If you desire to intangle your selfe further in this question you may reade Athanas serm 6. epist ad Epict. and epist de incarnatione Dom. contra Apollinar and Epiph. advers Dimaeritas § 3. Now concerning that confusion or mingling of the two natures in Christ into one which the Timotheans imagined if neither the beings nor the proprieties of the beings divine and humane bee changed neither the Divine into the Humane as Eutyches imagined nor the divine into the humane as Apollinarius supposed it cannot bee inferred by any reason that any such confusion is or ought to be yeelded unto It is true which the Timotheans supposed that if any such mixture were the thing that did arise from that mixture must needs bee a third thing differing from them both For true mixture is the union of bodily parts changed by the mixture from their former being so that neither the being nor accidents of the things mingled is saved or kept
of God and the Son of man and againe Ioh. 3.13 Hee that came downe from heaven is the Sonne of man and againe Ioh. 3.13 He that came downe from heaven is the Sonne of man which is in heaven For hee that ascended is even Hee that descended Eph. 4.9 Moreover it is said Heb. 9.14 That Christ by his eternall spirit offered himselfe without spot unto God But if the humanity of Christ be another person beside the deity then he offered not himselfe but that other person of the humanity by whose death our reconciliation was wrought and so not by his owne bloud but by the bloud of another person should hee have entred into the holy place So God should not have sent his owne Sonne into the world that the world by him might be saved contrary to that which is Heb. 9.12 Ioh. 2.16.17 But he that is mighty to save even Iehovah our king hath saved us Esay 23 22. and that not with forraine bloud but by his owne offering of himselfe hath he purchased for us eternall redemption This then being the great mystery of our salvation that God was manifest in the flesh 1 Tim. 3.16 That God is one with us Matth. 1.23 That that holy thing which was borne of the virgin is the Sonne of God Luk. 1.35 it may appeare how detestable that heresie of Photinus and his predecessours was who made our Mediator the Sonne of man by nature and the Sonne of God by adoption only and how dangerous this consequence of Nestorius is who of that one Mediator betweene God and man 1 Tim 2.5 would make two persons If you desire to know the growth of this heresie and the other positions of the Nestorians you may reade M. Broerewoods enquiries chap. 19. § 9. Arius and his followers held that Christ was truly man so that be might truly be called the Sonne of the virgin Mary borne in time as concerning his manly body and the Sonne of God as being the first begotten of every creature and so the most excellent creature created by the will of God the Father before all times and ages but not coeternall with him because there was a continuance when he was not and therefore was hee not say they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or coessentiall with the Father because hee was created of that which was not from which Errour these Arians were also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This poysonous fountaine overflowed afterward into divers streames For the halfe Arians of whom Acatius was chiefe held that Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of the like being with the Father by nature but others said that this likenesse was not in nature but only in will and powerfull working Whereupon Asterius is by some affirmed to have said that Christ was the vertue only or a creature indued with the power of God other heretickes againe as Aetius and his scholler Ennomius said that Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of another manner of being unlike to the Father both in nature and will and hence arose the errour of the Dulians who thought him onely the servant of God in the worke of the creature and so of the Bonosians who held him to bee the Sonne of God onely by adoption And although this Hydra might seeme to have beene nipt in the head by the writings of Athanasius and other learned men of former times and especially by the first Councell of Nice Anno 327. and other that followed afterward yet never was there any heresie in the primitive Church that went on with that violence and strength or that caused more trouble and persecution as being confirmed by divers Councels and set forward by the authority of sundry Emperours And for the continuance thereof it hath been such as that unto this day not onely among the Turkes but ever in the Church of Christ if at least they may bee said to bee of his Church who falsly denie unto him the truth and excellencie of his being some have beene found from time to time even since the clearer light of the truth hath shined that have maintained this heresie of Arius in whole or in part as Socinus Gittichius David the Hollander Servetus Neuserus and with us Legat Mannering and others In Polonia also and Transylvania they swarme as you may reade in Wents à Bud. pag. 229 c. But say you is it possible that an heresie so foule as this is taken to bee should continue so long and be upheld by Councels and maintained by Emperours and justified by learned men except there were both reason and authority of Scripture for it For as no man is wilfully ill but by the errour of his judgement betweene good and bad so no man doth erre wilfully but onely by mistaking of falshood for the truth Answer Saint Paul saith that there must be heresies and this I suppose should come to passe because men would not be content to learne the doctrine of Christ and his truth according to the simplicity of the truth as he had taught it in the holy Scriptures whereunto if men would take heed and trie the truth as they ought the things of God by the word of God matiers of Religiâ—n by the rule of Religion that is the holy Sâ—ripture alone so many heresies had not sprung up For mans understanding so long as it doth follow the true guide thereof the revealed truth of God it cannot deceive nor be deceived But if it will presume to be guide and make the truth of the Scriptures to follow it it is impossible not to stray and so by the just judgement of God men also grow hard and obstinate in their owne errours not onely to resist the truth but also to persecute it as these Arians did very grievously at severall times But see their reasons and their authorities 1. The Godhead is in the Father wholly or else hee cannot bee perfect God and if the Deitie be wholly in the Father then can it not be in the Sonne nor in the holy Ghost Answer The word wholly is equivocall or of doubtfull meaning for wholly may signifie as much as with all the parts but this cannot belong to that which is infinite or wholly may signifie onely and so the proposition is false or it may meane asmuch as perfectly and so the proposition is true but the consequence is false for the Deitie is wholly and perfectly in all the persons alike 2. He onely is the true God that is prayed unto by the Mediator But God the Father onely is so prayed unto therefore God the Father onely is the true God I answer If we worship the Godhead in the nature or being of God we worship one onely being in the three Persons But if we worship the persons we worship them in the vnitie of the Godhead that is acknowledging every person to be God And this is that Father that one God whom we pray unto by that one Mediator of God and man the
wash't his hands Matth. 27.24 And was He innocent and just most vnjust and wicked Iudge ought not a Iudge aswell to defend and deliver the innocent as to punish the wicked If He be innocent Why doest thou most unrighteous Iudge betray the innocent to the power of His accusers Take yee Him and iudge Him after your owne Law Iohn 18.31 If He be innocent Why doest thou torture Him with scourges and thornes and the mockery of a purple robe Iohn 19.1 2 c. Why doest thou deliver Him to the will of His enemies Luke 23.35 Thus the wicked play in the credit and welfare of the righteous and account it no sinne if they can have any pretext to say they are innocent Thus our Lord was denyed His right to His Kingdome Luke 19.14 betrayed by His rebellious Subjects His life was set at nought to save a murderer vnjustly accused stript of His clothing And beside all this of losse which He endured He suffered all that paine and punishment which they could bring upon Him As first His base and scornefull apprehension as of a thiefe in the night 2. His being hurried from place to place from Iudge to Iudge 3. The most unjust sentences of Blasphemy of Treason of Death 4. His Buffeting Mocking Whipping Crowning with all kind of contempt and scorne and 5. That by a most unjust Iudge who still profest Him innocent He was betrayed to the will of His adversaries to be Crucified 6. And yet because nothing could glut the gorges of those bloody Priests in the agonyes of death behold a fresh onset of Scorne and Reviling Matth. 27 41. 7. Neither will the abjects be left out with their Gall and Vinegar 8. No nor yet the theeves in the same condemnation with their upbraidings O man of sorrowes and contradiction Behold and see all you that passe by if there were ever any sorrow like unto that which was done unto Him wherewith the Lord afflicted Him in the day of His fierce anger Yet were all these things but small afflictions in comparison of this that God had withdrawne the light of His comforts from Him For this cause alone were His roarings powred out My God my God why hast thou fo saken mee Yet may it not be thought but that He was still one with the Person of the God-head and that not onely in His agony on the Crosse but in death also when His soule was parted from the body So that although there was a dissolution in nature of the Soule and the Body yet the unity of the Man-hood with the God-head was still saved in the Person of the God-head See Acts 2.27 But although this acte of Pilate in himselfe was most unjust yet in God the Father whose Person Pilate in that iudgement did represent the act was most righteous and just That Pilate in his Iudgement represented God the Father it is manifest not onely by this That all power is of God Rom. 13.1 but even in this very case by that which our Saviour answered unto Pilate Thou couldest have no power at all against mee except it were given thee from above Iohn 19.11 In this act therefore of Pilate God did summon and judge the whole world to answere for their sinnes And because euery mouth was stopped and the whole world was found subject to the judgement and wrath of God for their sinne therefore was it necessary that the condemnation and punishment should fall on Him to the full that had set Himselfe to answere for us lest no flesh should be saved So through His sufferings as we were condemned in Him by Him are we also saved But it comes now to be enquired Why our Sauiour should be condemned to a death so infamous as to be 2 Crucified THere were foure kinds of death appointed for Malefactors by the Law of God Stoning Burning the Sword Hanging by the necke The particular offences you may finde gathered from the Hebrew Doctors by Henry Ainsw on Exod. 21.12 And although Hanging amongst all those was accounted the most easie death yet on that kind of death was the curse pronounced as you see Deut. 21.22 But if they that committed the least sinnes and therefore suffred the most easie death were accursed as the adulterer c. how much more they which sinned in higher degrees and were judged worthy of greater punishment This kind of death by nailing to a Crosse more cruell then any appointed by the Law of God was in common use among the Romanes after their first Kings especially for their slaves See M. T. Cic orat pro Rab perduell and Lips de Cruce lib. 1. cap. 12. over whom every Lord had power and vsed to crucifie them for theft and especially for running away After it grew in use for the baser sort of malefactors though free-men as theeues and such like and for their provincialls And when the lawlesse power of the Emperours had made all slaues then they that called themselues Free-men and Citizens of Rome were also crucified at the will of the Emperours as you may see Lips de Cruce lib. cap. 15. et lib. 2. cap. 7. But although this kinde of nayling on the tree by which our Lord did dye was not in use among the Iewes as Lip de Cruce lib. 1. cap. 11. supposes unduly confounding the staking strangling on a Gibbet or bough and nayling on a Crosse yet by the interpretation of S. Paul Gal. 3 13. did the curse directly belong to this suffering of Christ wherein He was made a Curse for vs. Now among those reasons why our Saviour should dye by this most vile and infamous death of the Crosse The first shall bee even from thence because it was most base and shamefull For seeing man-kind by his sinne had forsaken God his just and lawfull Lord and made himselfe a slaue to the Divell what manner of death but the most vile and shamefull could He be judged worthy of that had so falsly and basely transgressed And therefore was it necessary that He who had made Himselfe mans surety and put Himselfe in his stead to beare his punishment should also die by the most infamous death of the Crosse the punishment of slaves that had run away from their Lords 2. It is fit and necessary that the Sonne of God should be exalted to the highest degree of glory The greatest glory is not due but to the greatest humility The lowest degree of humility that can be is to be subject to the most shamefull death Therefore that our Lord the Sonne of God might be exalted to the highest degree of glory it was necessary that He should first be abased to the death of the Crosse Neither is this an argument of amplification but founded in the rules of the infinite Iustice and therefore urged by Saint Paul Philip. 2. verse 8 9 10. He humbled Himselfe and became obedient unto death even the death of the Crosse Therefore God hath exalted Him and given Him the Name which is
that the longer he thought thereon the more hard and darke the thing seemed unto him What thanks therefore can we give unto God who by his holy word hath so fully revealed himselfe unto us that the holy Angels themselues with wonder desire to pry into those mysteries whâ—ch hee hath made manifest unto his Church by Christ 1 Pet. 1.12 1. Therefore his being is most simple 6.1 Against this conclusion a doubt or two may be raised 1. being without addition is affirmable of every thing But the being of God is not so For wee say the body or soule of a Man or an Angell is being yet not God Therefore the being of God is not a being without Addition And if addition bee made to the being of God whereby it may be distinguished from other beings it will seeme not to be a simple but a compound being I answer that the proposition being without addition is affirmable of every thing is true of that common predicate or transcendent being onely of which I speake Introd logic sect 3 n. 2 3. But the being of God is that one proper and pure being which belongs to him alone and receives no addition nor is affirmable of any other thing beside himselfe Secondly I answer that the conclusion of this syllogisme the being of God is not without additition being granted takes not away the former conclusion that his being is simple and pure Neither is the consequence rightly gathered thereon that if Addition be made it is not then a simple being For these additions bring in no such beings as to make the being of God either compound or mixt but only distinguishable from other beings For to say the being of God is one is pure is simple is incommunicable are here onely negation differences as one therefore it cannot belong to any beside himselfe Pure that is not mixt Simple that is not compounded Incommunicable whereof none can be partaker beside himselfe Nay those very positive additions of Goodnesse eternity infinity power wisdome c. are not additions of new beings but onely essential conditions of the same most simple being distinguished by us in our understanding For because our understanding receives nothing but by the sences from the creatures Therefore when it findes these severall perfections in the creature and acknowledges that no perfection can be in the effect which is not more eminently and excellently in the cause thereof it is compelled as it received these perfections in the creature with differences so also to referre them unto the Creator So this difference or plurality of attributes in God growes first in regard of the weakenesse of our understanding and secondly by that superexcellency of the divine nature whereby the understanding is so farre exceeded Therefore although our understanding bee no way able to compare all these severall perfections of goodnesse power wisdome c. together and then to conceive them as one but onely in one yet our undertakings how ever wandring or unable to conceive them as one infinite being can no way make any difference or othernesse in them or put any thing to the purity and simplicity thereof but must acknowledge the more pure the being is the more powerfull and therefore by one only action of that simplicity and one manner of working doth it bring forth most different and manifold effects both of the object and in the object or matier whereon it workes 2. Secondly it may be objected that the simplicity is more where there is no distinction than where there is But in the Godhead there is distinction of persons Therefore it may seeme his being is not most simple I answer That the distinction is not made in the nature or being of the Godhead which thing only takes away simplicity but only in the reall relations in which the being is still one and the same in all And although the relations be truly and really distinct yet that reall distinction or distinct realitie is but only relative and not bringing in any other being than is in the Godhead understood without these relations but only imports the order or manner of being 3. Thirdly it may bee objected that every thing that is must participate of being that it may bee and of some other thing that it may be something or a being in it selfe distinct from other beings So God by his being is and by his greatnesse and power He is infinite and almighty Therefore it may seeme his being is not simple I say the proposition is true onely in things that are by participation But God is absolutely of himselfe not by participation and that absolute and simple being of His is of it selfe essentially infinite and almighty and not by participation as was shewed chap. 8. ante in the answer to the first objection CHAP. X. That God is altogether as infinite in working as he is in Being A Most necessary truth and needing sufficient proofe not onely for the cleering of that which hath beene spoken but especially for laying the sure ground-worke of that which is to follow concerning the Trinity Therefore lend me the eare of your understanding that we may goe together in a matter of such weight And although the word worke in our common English in which I desire to speake is growne to meane almost onely bodily toyle yet you know there is the working of the minde also and according to the things spoken of you are bound either in your wit or honesty ever to be as gentle as you can in the meaning of words and to take them according to their greatest fitnesse But first you will say it ought to appeare that God doth worke For as Epicurus thought He neither troubles himselfe with any care or businesse of his owne neither yet is troublous to any other or mindes what they doe or say For if so then as he supposed He cannot in any wise be happy that hath so many things to thinke of But against this thicke-skin lazy opinion of Epicurus it shall appeare that this working or Action of God is his endlesse glory But you must understand that this worke whereof I speake is not meant of that whereby the dignities of God are manifested without in the creature but of that which is in himselfe alone And that he doth worke is most plaine 1. For as an infinite action cannot be without an infinite power so an infinite resting cannot bee but either with an infinite unablenesse or want of skill or infinite unwillingnesse to worke but an infinite unablenesse cannot stand with an infinite power nor want of skill with infinite wisdome nor unwillingnesse with infinite will And it was proved before that the power wisdome and will of God are infinite therefore he worketh also infinitelie but if the resting be not infinite but supposed to be slacknesse onlie or by turnes because of wearinesse that cannot stand with an infinite power nor with the simplicitie of the divine being for wearinesse cannot befall but
the foundation of our faith and hope for if Christ our Saviour be not very God and very man the being of our Mediatour and the alsufficiencie of his merit is utterly vanished fourthlie it is one of the maine and principall differences between our most high Religion taught us by God himselfe and the false worship of Idolaters of the Iewes Turkes Arians and other hereticks which from time to time have turned the truth of God into a lye Fifthlie we follow herein the holy Martyrs and the Fathers in the primitive Church and those Councells which have from time to time maintained this truth against all heresies And although it cannot bee denied but that even among the Heathens some of their wisest both Poets and Philosophers knew this mysterie by heare-say as they had received it from the Hebrewes as you may reade in Thom. Aquin. in lib. 1. dist 3. q 2. and more at large in Struchus de peren Philos lib. 1. 2. and from them in Philip Mornay of the truenesse of Christian Religion Chap. 6. yet among the Hebrewes themselves except the Prophets and schooles of the Prophets this secret was not knowne or taught and that as it may seem lest the misunderstanding multitude might fall into the Idolatrie of many Gods therefore is this thing so taught in the holy text of the Old Testament that the wise onely might understand it for although the Prophets knew well enough that in the dayes of the king Messiah this mysterie should be knowne even to the Gentiles for of him it is written in the 40. Psalme vers 9.10 I will not refraine my lips O Lord thou knowest but I have declared thy truth and thy salvation I have not concealed thy mercy and thy truth from the great Congregation Yet because they knew they ministred those things of which they spake not to themselves nor to the people of their owne times but for us unto whom the treasuries of the riches of God in Christ were more fullie to bee opened therefore they taught according to the dispensation of the Holy Ghost who hath so from time to time opened the fountaines of knowledge unto his Church and hereafter will as the holy Church shall be able to receive it This glorious truth then being plainely discovered to us in the New Testament let us see with what diligence and faithfulnesse reason that servant of God doth wait on the authoritie of his Lord and how thereby a wee are summoned to hearken unto this truth for although reason could never have found it out yet being taught what the truth of God is herein it joyes to see the necessitie of that truth which it is bound to beleeve But because I have written somewhat to this Argument already which that you misse not I have caused to bee printed at the end of this booke I may be somewhat more briefe herein Onely the reasons I take up here together and adde such other supplies as seeme to be wanting in that treatise § 2. The word Father is taken either personally as it signifies the first Person of the blessed Trinitie with the relation to the Eternall Sonne or else it is spoken essentially of all the three Persons in the Godhead with respect of the creature which is created susteined and governed thereby Of this through his helpe we shall speake hereafter Chap. 13. but first of the first person of the holie Trinitie The Greeke Churches by the authoritie of the Apostle Heb. 1.3 for the severall distinctions of the Persons in the Godhead hold the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hypostasis which wee from the Latin call a Subsistence or severall substantiall being by it selfe But the Latin Church turned it Persona from an old word Persola because it meanes one onely being intire of it selfe for Solus is of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is whole in it selfe and entire with all the parts but yet is Persona a title of honour given unto men alone for they define it to be Rationalis naturae individua substantia that is an individeable substance of a reasonable nature and from thence it is translated to God and Angels A Person then of the holy Trinitie is an incommunicable subsistence in the Divine nature These words have their ground in the holy Scripture to which in this great Article of our faith wee must ever have recourse by reason of the many and strong heresies that have beene thereabout Trinitie Triunitie or a threefold being in one hath ground in that Text which is in Matthew 28.19 Goe teach all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost But certaine it is that in our Baptisme wee bind our faith and allegiance unto Gâ—d alone So 1. Iohn 5.7 There are three that beare witnesse in heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are â— one thing or one being By subsistence understand a substantiall or essentiall being not comming to or being in the Deitie by chance It answers to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is different from substance nature being or the like teâ—mes that signifie any common or universall b ing for an Hypostasis meanes a peculiar being wherein the common nature is whollâ— and entyre as I said before and will say untill you understand mee For example the whole nature or being of man is understood in that word Man and so the Angelicall nature in that word Angell but Peter or Gabriel meane that particular person in which the common being is whole and entyre I meane so as that there is nothing essentiall in the being a man or Angell whereof Peter and Gabriel are not partakers essentially so wee understand the difference The being or essence of the Godhead is one individuall most simplie absolutelie and substantiallie one which infinite and undivideable being of the Godhead is yet neverthelesse in everie Person entyre and wholly so that nothing of the essentiall being of the Godhead is in one which is not in the other And therefore Iustin the Martyr and from him Damascen Dialect Cap. 66. and after them our sound Doctors of all sides agree that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a subsistence is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that manner of being proprietie or reall relation which belongs to every one Person in the Holy Trinitie You may here not unfitly note the difference of these words Being Substance and Subsistence Being is that which is common to all things that are The word Substance properlie doth not so much import the verie inward being as that respect which it hath to the accidents that are therein Subsistence signifies that speciall manner of being which belongs to substances that are actually being If you will enquire further you may see what Thom. Aquin. hath writ hereto in Sent. lib. 1. Dist 23. qu. 4. or if you will the Introduct to log Sect. 4. Incommunicable that is peculiar proper or belonging to one alone so that one
to debarre the use of reason in the questions of faith and if that bodily presence of Christ in every place for which he labours so had any ground in the Scripture if it brought any hope or comfort to the conscience if the Primitive Church or the Councels or the ancient Fathers had ever taught it I thinke that by this time reason would have found how to make it more probable than it is but because it is no Article of our Creed it is not fit to trouble you any further hereabout d Therefore God doth bring forth eternally his Sonne Re. 4. The truth of this conclusion hath beene diversly gainsaid For some have utterly denyed the Trinitie of Persons in the Unitie of the Godhead others with this truth have blended their owne devices The hereticks which held that as there was but one being in the Deitie so there was but one Person called by divers names of the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost were of divers families according to the names of the speciall maintainers of this opinion but best knowne by the name of Sabellius one of the most subtile defenders thereof about the yeere 260. which heresie after a long sleepe was againe awaked about the yeere 1110 by one Porretanus who affirmed that the Persons in the Godhead differ not save onely in the apprehensions of our minde not by any reall or true distinction The Iewes likewise among other reasons doe therefore disclaime the Christian Religion because they suppose that by the Trinitie of Persons is taught a pluralitie of Gods contrarie to that which is Deut. 6.4 The Lord our God is one Lord. The Turkes also denie the Trinitie of Persons and hold it therefore impossible for God to have a Sonne because he never had a wife Now of those that held a Trinitie Simon that witch of whom you reade Actes 8. when the gall of his bitternesse had levened him thorowout gave out of himselfe that he in the person of the Father gave the Law to Moses in the dayes of Tiberius suffered in shew under the Person of the Sonne and afterward came downe on the Apostles in fierie tongues August de Haeres cap. 1. Hierarcha also from the words of the Niâ—en Creed that Christ was light of light affirmed that the three Persons were as three lights of which one tooke light of another and so he made the beings of the persons separate and apart whereas the Fathers in that Câ—uncell meant not any division or being apart but that the Sonne is of the substance of the Father without any lessening or abatement of the Fathers being as one light takes light of another without any loâ—e of light in the former The Metangismonites so called from their opinion taken from vessels that they might avoid the opinion of the separate being of the Persons held that they were as vessels contained one within another falselie supposing with the Anthropomorphites or Man-shapers that God was bodily and so conteined within a certaine space and againe misunderstanding that text of Scripture Iohn 14.11 where our Lord saith I am in the Father so that in the Divine nature they supposed some thing greater which was the Father and something lesse which was the Sonne and a third thing within them both which was the Holy Ghost But against that bodily being which they conceived you have reasons sufficient in the 9. Chapter The text of S. Iohn makes the matter more plaine for as it is impossible that two bodies should bee each one within another except by way of commixation so it quite overthrowes that foolish opinion because it is thrice there added that the Father is in the Sonne so that of necessitie there can bee but one being of them both For if the being of God be not most simple and pure as was shewed before Chap. 9. And if every being answers to the Originall then the essence of the Sonne must be most pure as the Father is so that if each of the Persons be in the other there can be no difference but onely in the manner of being onely See August de Civit. Dei lib. 11. Cap 10. Then concerning that third falshood which they supposed of a greater and lesser being it cannot possiblie stand with the nature of infinitie whether it be understood of extension or of vertue onely The Triformians likewise to crosse the errour of Sabellius affirmed three Persons and that the whole and entyre being of the Godhead was in all the three taken together yet not in every person wholly but so as one part of it was in the Father another part in the Sonne and a third part in the Holy Ghost By which falshood it would follow that the Godhead were in it selfe a divideâ—ble being and so a compound contrary to that which is concluded Chap. 9. The Tritheites are yet more mad then the former that it may appeare how boundlesse errour is They make the being of God not one and the samâ— as the Triformians did but affirme that there is a threefold nature and distinguish the Persons in their essence or absolute being in place also and other differences of particular substances as Peter James and Iohn and so make three Gods different and apart each from other The Tetratheites would seeme more subtile then all that had beene before them for they beside the three Persons of the Godhead supposed a fourth being which did communicate it selfe to all the three by which communication of divine nature everie one of those three became God By which sottish opinion it must follow that none of those three Persons could be either infinite or eternall if they receive their being from another if they be God by grace onely and communication of another being than their owne neither can their being be simple and one having one being of themselves and another imparted unto them But if that being which they call that fourth common being be that one most simple pure and eternall being which wee confesse to be God then it must follow necessarilie that in that being there bee three Pers ns as hath been declared in the Chapter before in every one of which the whole Godhead is all in all and all in everie one not by communication from another nor by participation onely but by the whole and proper possession of every Person essentially so that the Godhead is no other being than that which is in the three persons nor the three Persons any other thing than that manner of being which is in the Godhead eternally but they prove it thus Where are one and three trulie and really different there must needs bee foure But in the Deitie there is one being and three Persons really distinguished therefore foure severall beings I answer Where is one and three absolute beings there must needs be foure but in the Godhead there is one absolute being and three manners of being which are the Persons but the manner of being doth not make a number
Porretanus that the distinction of the Persons was onely in names or our understanding holds the Persons to differ really and to be different things eternally without and utterly beyond our understanding yet conceive him so as that these reall differences are onely personall and in the order or manner of their being as I have shewed before But it may bee that you are not yet satisfied for the seeming difference between these Doctors for if this relation which they make betweene the Persons of the Deitie be neither substance nor accident nor at all any thing of very being as Keckerman supposes but onely a manner of being which for ought that I can conceive being nothing of being must bee but a meere conceit of ours the opinion of Sabellius must stand for truth and so on the other side if these relations be the very beings or things subsisting nay if the Divine being be the very relation of the Fatherhood and Sonneship as Thomas affirmes both contra Gent. lib. 4. c. 14. then if the Fatherhood differ from the Sonneship and that reallie as being in Divine essence the difference must be most reall and so the Sonneship from the Fatherhood and both of them from the procession of the Holy Ghost it seemes that the Divine being must differ really from it selfe and so there can bee but one being of all the Persons as Arrius affirmed By relation you may understand either that logicall notion which is between the termes relative correlative and so the sayings of Kecker are justifiable or else you may meane thereby the things spoken of with that mutuall respect which they have each to other and so you must understand the doctrine of S. Thomas For your further satisfaction remember what I told you Introduct in log Sect. 4. n. 11. That those relations which I call necessary commonly called secundum esse are such words as signifie first that mutuall respect which they have to their correlatives and then those beings whereon they depend fundamentally As the name Father first hath reference to a childe next it imports the subsistence or person as of Abraham or Iesse so double first understands single lesse greater next quantities Therefore though I thinke it not fitly said that the fatherhood is the divine essence or that the essence is in the Fatherhood as Thomas speakes for essence imports the simple and absolute being and fatherhood that reference which is to another yet these relations shall not bee so meerely the manner of being but that they may make a reall difference from their correlatives not onely in regard of that substratum or thing meant in their second signification which is really differing from the thing opposed as a Father from a Sonne Iesse from David but also in respect of that being whereon these relations are founded immediately as in Abraham that lively or naturall strength whereby he is enabled to beget his like in Isaack that lively humanity which was begotten As unity the transcendent is convertible with being both which in quantities are the ground of evennesse or equality in qualities of likenesse And therefore Keckerman to shun a pluralitie of being doth unnecessarily avoyd that reall difference which it is necessary to put in the Persons of the Trinity wherein there are more or divers subsistent beings if you respect the Persons or relations but one thing alone if you regard the essence For the realty in the difference of the relations can no way enforce a plurality in their absolute beings but onely an incommunicable propriety in the things that are different For although in natures created some attributes be essentiall which are in the thing most perfectly Some accidentall as learning Iustice and such other which are not perfect in us some againe are but onely relative which of all other most imperfectly belong unto us as not necessary to our being but sometime depend on things without as a mastership on his servants a fatherhood on his children and even those relations which are nearest doe presuppose not only the being of the subject but also such accidents in the subject from whence the Relation doth arise as the right hand and left hand from the position of the members yet in the super excellencie of the divine being whereto no perfection can bee wanting which is possible to be either in the being or manner of being in the working or manner of working it is necessary that all things be supereminently according to the most perfect manner of being that is essentially And therefore these relations which are in the Godhead are not so called properly as being utterly in the simplicity of that being which is utterly independent yet because hee hath reveiled himselfe unto us by the name of the Father the Word and the Spirit one being in the consideration of which wee come nearest to that relation which is properly so called in the creature we are compeld for helpe of our owne understanding which wee finde so dazeled at that infinite light to hide our Eyes and by little and little as by degrees to take a glympse thereof and so to speake according to that light which we discerne And as in the degrees of light first we see the dawning then the shine or cleare light after the Beames and lastly the body of the Sunne So contrariwise in the knowledge of God from that fountaine of Light His being which is reflected in all the creatures wee view the beames or immediate perfections thereof His goodnesse eternity wisdome and glory and these shew themselves first in their inward working and afterward at an infinite distance in the creature outwardly In their inward working because they are infinite we must acknowledge an infinite agent an infinite object an infinite action or the termes or limits of all action from whence wherto the middle terme between these two which we call Persons And so though our guide his word bee that Light which shines in the darkenesse yet we must confesse that he dwels in the Light whereto none can approach which to us is all one with that darkenesse which he hath made his pavillion And as in the Being which wee conceive absolute wee put different perfections of wisdome of power of goodnesse c. which neverthelesse wee must confesse to bee one perfection though they bee truly distinguished betweene themselves So in the different relations which wee call Persons though wee know and confesse them to bee really different yet must wee acknowledge the subsistences one in their absolute being And although the understanding in the consideration of created beings wonders how all these things can bee in that uttermost simplicity and unity of Being and that after one most simple manner of Being essentially yet when it remembers that that being is therefore most perfect because it is most simple and that no degree of perfection can bee wanting to that which is most perfect it dispoiles it selfe of all those rules which it doth
and so to bring out other Persons as this lewd consequence would enforce But the ground of this mistaking which I tell you of for avoyding of the like cavils is this that they consider not the superexcellency of the Divine being but measure it by the short and scanty rules whereby they measure the creature It is true in things here below that according to those naturall causes wherby everie thing is brought forth so may it likewise bring forth the like because that strength or power is given thereto for the propagation and preservation of kinde in the like which it cannot uphold in it selfe by reason of corruption neither is the generation of naturall things but with imperfection and their multiplication by decision of the seed into divers parts Neither doth any father communicate his whole being to that which is begotten by him neither can the species or common nature so farre forth as it is multiplicable even by one alone be savâ—d whole and entire in any one individuall But nothing of all this is in the most glorious spirituall and divine generation for that power of generation is not received but essentiall so that which is begotten is eternall and incorruptible The generation also is in the uttermost perfection because the whole infinite being is communicate thereby but that not for any abasement in the principle but because of the infinite perfection thereof Neither is matier for multiplication either possible or needfull here because all the fulnesse of Fatherhood Sonneship and procession are herein perfectly substantially infinitely and eternally because the procession is not such as tends to any thing without for so that which proceedeth should not bee coequall to the principle from whence it doth proceed But this procession is in the Divine being onely in every Person according to his peculiar subsistence answerable whereto no generation can be found in all the creatures 2. Another objection there is to the like purpose out of Heb. 1.3 where it is said of the second Person that hee susteineth all things by the Word of his power So that if hee being the Word of his Father have also a Word whereby he susteineth all things which therefore is another Word and not the things that are susteined thereby it may seeme that there is a multiplication of Persons and that the former objection is not fully answered I have said Log. Chap. 29. n. 5. That the appointment of all naturall causes to the bringing forth of their effects is the rule or law of Nature Now this law is that necessitie fate or destinie which is ordained by his eternall decree that made Nature and all things therein and blessed all the living creature with power to bring forth according to kinde as it appeares Gen. 1. And this is that Word of which S. Paul speakes No other divine Person but that Word whereby he melteth the yee and Snow Psal 147.18 that ordinance which the creature cannot passe Psal 148.6 Of which you may reade every where in the Holy text and especially in that admirable booke of naturall and Divine Philosophie the booke of Iob in comparison of which all Aristotles naturalls are not worth the while For seeing all naturall causes have their strength from him hath not hee bound nature within those limits beyond which hee gave it no further power to worke And within which hee is trulie said to worke by his word or by his power in the strength of which alone Nature her selfe doth worke Maker of Heaven and Earth CHAP. XIII That the World is not Eternall Section 1. THe puritie or uttermost simplicitie of the Divine being is the fountaine from whence all the perfections which are therein doe flowe for neither can any thing be living powerfull wise continuall glorious c. except it bee neither can any thing be such infinitely if it have not an infinite being but an infinitie of being cannot be but with the uttermost simplicitie of being For whatsoever is put to being takes away the simplicitie thereof and must needs be a limitation thereto and so take away the infinitie also The manifold perfections therefore in the Divine being are not additions of other beings to make composition therein or to take away the simplicitie thereof seeing they all signifie one and the same being but because the most simple being must needs bee the first of beings as being altogether in act or perfection and no way in possibilitie of being for then wereit not a most simple being if it were both in act of being that which it is and in possibilitie of being that which it is not therefore must all other beings depend hereon nay bee herein because all things are virtually contained in their principles And this is that eternitie of the creature which it had in the infinite wisdome and power of God before it was Gen. 2.5 For seeing that in God is infinite perfection and that nothing can bee wanting to that which is perfect neither yet can any thing be perfect but in him therefore the first and highest being of all things must bee in his perfection But because absolute perfection must needs bee with the uttermost simplicitie without othernesse or change therefore must all things in God bee one and he though one alone yet virtually all things But because all things were in him eternally one that they might in time bee different in themselves for otherwise they could never at all either have beene or have beene different It is necessarie to grant that in that one absolute being which the creature had in God there must be first a possibilitie for it to be in it selfe for as things utterlie impossible can never be so can there bee no possibilitie of being but by him Secondly a possibilitie for the things being to be different among themselves and that not onely in their severall kindes but also in their particular existences and this for the manifestation of that manifold wisdome of the Maker And from hence thirdly succeeds that actuall being which things that are being have by that Holy pleasure or will by which they are and continue in their severall beings which Will must needs bee partaker both of the infinite power and infinite wisdome that it might effect that which was possible and foreseene And thus is there in the Unitie of the creature a Trinitie also in possibilitie in difference and actuall being that wee should never forget to adore the eternall Trinitie in the Unitie But the question of the worlds eternitie is onely about this last manner of actuall being for it is not denyed that it is eternall in respect of that being which it had in God as the cause or in it selfe as possible to bee because that while it was not being it had not any power to resist that Almightinesse which called it out of not being into being though to speake more properlie that eternity which it had in pure possibilitie was not in it selfe because it was
August de Civitate Dei lib. 10. Cap. 22. 2. God might seeme towards man an accepter of persons and towards the Angels that sinned severe and mercilesse if hee should condemne them to the paynes of eternall fire and yet accept man to mercy when no satisfaction had beene made for mans sinne in the nature that had sinned But both these things are utterly impossible and against the justice of God therefore the punishment of the sinne of man must be borne in the nature of man 3. The iust Law and sentence of the most wise Lawmaker and just judge ought to stand sure and inviolable But the sentence of death was decreed and pronounced against man if hee sinned Gen. 2.17 Therefore by man is the expiation and satisfaction to bee made for sinne 4. Every restoring of any want or corruption in nature must be by that which is of the same kinde as if any flesh in man be rotten the member is not made whole againe but by the supply of sound flesh in stead thereof If a bone be broken the breach is not made up with a sticke nor a cut sinew by a catlin so the nature of man being corrupted by the disobedience of one could not be restored againe but by the obedience of one in whom the nature of man being restored all that are partakers of his in corruption may also be partakers of his immortalitie because mans nature doth not now stand absolutely condemned in Gods justice as before 5. This argument the Apostle urgeth 1. Cor. 15.21 For since by man came death by man also came the resurrection of the dead And againe Rom. 5.19 As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many bee made righteous You may yet see more reasons for this conclusion in the Chapter next following CHAP. XXI That the Mediatour for the sinne of man must bee God THat the Angels in glorie with such perfections as they had should sinne malitiously when there was no tempter makes their sinne without excuse and them in justice unpardonable and although the sinne of man in comparison of theirs may seeme much lesse and more pardonable in respect of that low estate of mens creation in comparison of the Angels that his sinne was not malitious nor without a Tempter yet when it is well thought on how hatefull a thing to God sinne is how His pure eyes cannot behold ungodlinesse and wrong how his infinite iustice is violate thereby and what iealousie so glorious and infinite a being ought to have of his owne honour so set at nought by so base and unworthie a thing as man who also by that sinne of his disordered the whole creature so farre forth as it was for his use and made it subject to vanitie and corruption it may well appeare of what man infinite difficultie it was to restore man to that favour and grace from which hee had fallen For in beings of which one is finite the other infinite there must bee an infinite difference and if they bee of contrarie conditions the one pure and righteous the other sinnefull and impure that contrarietie must needs likewise be infinite and an infinite contrarietie can no way be accorded or reconciled but by an infinite concord which cannot be but in Him which is partaker both of the finite and infinite being And because it hath before appeared chap. 18. That man was to be restored to the favour of God and to be reconciled againe unto him it must follow necessarily that this peacemaker must be both God and man For infinitie is with the greatest greatnesse of being and containes all the extremities thereof and such is the Being of God but the Creature being finite is set at an infinite distance from that which is infinite and therefore in a lessenesse of being as having no being at all of it selfe but only imparted by that infinite being from which degree of participation if it fall as man did by his sinne it still falls unto a further lessenesse or badnesse of estate and so becomes utterly desperate except it be upheld as man was by that hope The seed of the woman shall bruise the Serpents head And seeing the greatest greatnesse of being and the least littlenesse of being cannot bee accorded but by an equalitie of being which cannot bee but in that which doth equally participate both of that greatnesse and that littlenesse that is essentially therefore it is most necessarie that our gracious Mediatour bee essentially both God and man which will yet further appeare by these reasons that follow 1. That all mankinde by the sinne of Adam is deprived of the favour and glorie of God hath beene proved in the 17. Chapter and that there is a restoring of mankinde was shewed in the 18. Chap. Now if it bee not in the power of man or of any other finite being to restore man being fallen into the favour of God it followes of necessitie that the Mediatour or restorer must bee God But the first was abundantly proved in the 19. Chapter Ergo the second followes of necessitie 2. For every infinite offence an infinite amends must needs bee made or else there is no satisfaction The sinne of man was an infinite offence See Chap. 19. Answ to the 1. Object But an infinite amends could not be made by a finite creature Ergo the Mediatour for the sinne of man must bee God And although God cannot suffer at all yet because the punishment due to man for sinne was more than any man was able to beare it was necessarie that the manhood in that conflict should bee upheld by the Godhead that the sinne being balanced by the punishment the worthinesse of the person might make the suffering of infinite merit for the sinnes of of the whole world 3. No effect can bee eternall but by a cause that is eternall for whatsoever is this or that by accident must of necessitie be made such by that which is such of it selfe But the restoring of man is to an estate of life and happinesse which is to bee eternall as it will further appeare in the Article of Everlasting life therefore it is necessarie that it bee wrought by a cause which is also eternall But it is proved that nothing can bee eternall but God alone therefore the restorer of mankinde must be God 4. The enemie of mans everlasting salvation is the devill a most powerfull enemie whose power is yet greater against man because he pleades the justice of God against sinners therefore it was necessarie that the authour and finisher of our salvation should bee God and man that he might be able both to satisfie the infinite justice and by a greater power of his owne to withstand the great power of the devill 5. Contrarie causes must have contrarie effects and so contrarie effects must have contrarie causes and one of these is ever knowne and discerned by the other so that man by his sinne being subject
to that prayer of our eternall mediator Iohn 17. I in them and thou in mee that they may bee one as wee are one So the advantage is onely on our side For the humane nature comming to our Lord in the perfection of the infinite deity could adde nothing to His perfection onely the infinite love of God toward man was perfected thereby because the humane nature being taken unto the Sonne of his love wee are assured thereby of his eternall love that Hee hath loved us as Hee hath loved Him Ioh. 17.23 Whereas if our Lord had assumed the person of any man though therewith hee had taken also the common nature of mankinde yet that Person had had peculiar interest in the eternall and infinite love and wee had beene unequally subjected one to another but now the common nature onely being taken unto the deity every person hath equall interest as in the common nature so in the eternall love Now let us see the reasons of the proposition 1. It is necessary that all the actions of God be done according to the perfection of that order which is most fit and agreeable unto those actions But seeing it stood with the Love of God to dwell in mans being as it hath bin proved it was most convenient that the Sonne of God should take our nature on him For first the Son is the image of God increated man his created image and that all perfection of an image might bee in the increated image it was necessarie that hee should bee also the created image of his Father Secondly seeing that by the eternall nativitie hee is the eternall Sonne that the perfection of all Sonne-ship might bee in him it was necessarie that hee should bee that Sonne that should bee borne in time Thirdly and because it pleased the Father that all fulnesse should dwell in him Colossians 1. verse 19. Seeing hee was brought forth by an eternall nativitie hee must also perfect that nativitie which was in time Fourthly and because all things both which are in heaven and in earth were created by him it was necessarie that all things by him should bee restored Fifthly Mans nature is the daughter of God therefore being led away captive by sinne was to be rescued by his Sonne Sixthly Man fell from grace by the craft of the devill therefore by the wisdome of God was hee to be brought to favour againe Seventhly Mankinde is the peculiar possession of the Sonne by the speciall gift of the Father Psal 2.8 Iohn 17.2 therefore being lost it was to be recovered by his speciall purchase And if there bee any other personall proprietie of the Sonne of obedience or the like it sorts better with him to bee incarnate than either with the Father or the holie Ghost All the arguments which prove that it was necessarie that Christ should dye may bee brought hither See them in the 27. Chapter 2. Nothing can bee admitted in the actions of the Deitie which takes away the distinction of their personall proprieties seeing God is the author of order not of confusion But if either the Father or the holy Ghost had beene incarnate then their personall proprieties were thereby in utter confusion for if the Father had beene incarnate then should hee not be eternally a Father that had in time become a Sonne so also neither the perfection of fatherhood should be in the Father nor of Sonne-ship in the Sonne And concerning the holy Ghost seeing hee is that emanation breath or effluence of the power wisdome life c. whereby the worke of God is perfected if he should have beene incarnate the same being should be both the worker and the thing wrought See Luke 1.35 But all these things are impossible Therefore the Sonne of God onely tooke on him our flesh 3. The greatest excellencie which God can love in himselfe is the image of himselfe beheld in himselfe that is the Sonne of his eternall love The greatest excellencie which God can love without himselfe is the image of himselfe beheld in his creature Therfore it is necessarie that the Sonne of his eternall love be also incarnate that the love of God be most perfect toward his Sonne with all perfections of love which can bee either within or without himselfe 4. It was said before Chap. 11. that the goodnesse infinitie eternitie wisdome and power of God being viewed or objected to the infinite wisdome by the infinite action of his understanding was the Sonne Now if the Sonne be incarnate then the actions of all the divine dignities are perfected and may be infinite both in their internall and as much as may be in their externall object But if either the Father or holy Ghost had beene incarnate then the object of those dignities could not bee one and if the object were not one then could it not be beheld with one action of understanding But it is impossible either that there should be two infinite objects or two infinite actions Moreover if the holy Ghost had been incarnate then the infinite internall action should have become the externall object if the Father then the fountaine of the Deitie should become not the objectant or being which understandeth but onely the object understood But all these things are impossible for God is not the author of confusion therefore it was necessarie that the Sonne should be incarnate 5. The doctrine concerning the Mediatour conteined in these foure Chapters is as the substantiall ground of the Christian Religion so is it that foundation on which all the Prophets and Apostles have builded for as Saint Peter saith 1. Pet. 1.11 That which the Prophets by the spirit of Christ did search into was the time when the sufferings of Christ should be reveiled and the glories that should follow after The summe then of the whole Scripture being to shew the redemption of man by the death of our Saviour God and man the authorities are not farre to seeke Many of the texts of the old Testament you shall finde most excellently brought together and interpreted by Iustine Martyr against the Iewes in his dialogue of the truth of the Christian Religion which is intituled Tryphon Some most evident texts you shall have out of the new Testament and more hereafter as need is Iohn 3.16.17 God so loved the world that hee gave his onely begotten Sonne that whosoever beleeveth in him should not perish but have everlasting life for God sent not his Sonne into the world to condemne the world but that the world by him might bee saved Gal. 4.4 But when the fulnesse of time was come God sent forth his Sonne made of a woman made under the Law that hee might redeeme them that were under the Law that wee might receive the adoption of sonnes Phil. 2.6.7 Christ Iesus being in the forme of God thought it no robbery to bee equall with God but tooke on him the forme of a servant and was made like unto man and was found in shape like
a man Colos 1.13.14 God hath delivered us from the power of darkenesse and hath translated us into the kingdome of his deare Sonne in whom wee have redemption through his blood Col. 2.9 In Christ dwelleth the fulnesse of the Godhead bodily 1. Tim. 3.16 Great is the mysterie of Godlinesse God was manifest in the flesh justified in the Spirit seene of Angels preached unto the Gentiles beleeved on in the world received up to glorie 1. Iohn 4.14 Whosoever shall confesse that Iesus is the Sonne of God God dwelleth in him â—nd hee in God By which texts it is plaine that the Saviour of mankind must bee both man and God dwelling in man and the second person of the holy Trinitie which we call the Sonne Notes a THe subject no other than the termes For the understanding of this see my second part of Logonomia Introduct Sect. 4. numb 11. b Hee tooke on him the humanitie If it bee most true which is said Col. 1.19 that all fulnesse should dwell in him yea all the fulnesse of the Godhead bodilie how can it bee but that if Christ dwell in our flesh all the persons likewise must bee incarnate For all the Persons together make but one infinite fulnesse of the Deitie And therefore 1. Tim. 3.16 it is spoken without any distinction of Persons that God was manifest in the flesh Answer To become man was a personall proprietie of the Sonne of God for the incarnation was not of the Godhead wherein the Persons are one but of that subsistence according to which the three Persons are distinguished So that as in the Trinitie there be three persons in one nature so in the mysterie of the incarnation there is one person in two natures Now why the person of the Sonne and none other could become man the reasons before doe make it plaine And although it bee most true that all the Persons together are but one God in the infinitie or fulnesse of the Deitie yet is it as true that the infinite fulnesse of the Deitie is in all and every person alike as the fulnesse or perfection of mankinde is in every man equally Neither is that in Tim. spoken without distinction of the persons for it followes immediately He was justified in the Spirit What is that but that the Spirit of God the holy Ghost did justifie his doctrine and Gospell as most true in causing the hearts of all the faithfull to beleeve it But it is most manifest that the witnesse is neither the thing witnessed nor the person in whose behalfe the witnesse is given Neither was this witnesse of the Holy Ghost onely but also of the Father from heaven 2. Peter 4.17 1. Iohn 5.9 10 11. Compare herewith if you please the note g on Chap. 24. § 9. Object 1. In the end of which Chapter you may see other objections fully answered Our Lord. CHAP. XXIIII That this Jesus the Sonne of the Virgin Mary whom the Christian faith confesseth is the Saviour of the world THat reverend and fearfull name of God is a name of glory but the word Lord importeth the title of that right which he hath in his creature And how justly this belongs to our Lord Christ may appeare by that interest which he hath in us â—oth by thâ— right of our creation and of our redemptiâ—n and of all the benefits which we hope thereby What right he â—ath in us for our creation it hath appeared in that wee are his workemanship Chap. 13. § 9. Now it remaineth that we make it manifest that he alone is our Mediatour and that besides him there is no other for if the Saviour of the world must of necessitie be man that hee might satisfie the justice of God for the sinne of man as we have proved Chap. 20. and likewise that he must be God that hee may be able to heare and to save all them that come unto him as was manifest Chap. 21. and that the Sonne of God tooke on him our flesh that by him the love of God might be manifest to the creature as it was proved Chap. 23. If there can be but one Sonne of God as it was shewed Chap. 12. and the note thereto it must follow of necessity that there can be but one onely Saviour of mankinde which Saviour is our Lord Iesus the Sonne of the blessed Virgin Mary as it is further manifest by these reasons following 1. It is necessary that all the dignities of God bee magnified in the creature according to the uttermost greatnesse which they can have therein But if this Iesus whom we confesse be the Saviour of the world then all the dignities of God are magnified according to the uttermost extent of greatnesse which it is possible they should have in the creature and that without any abatement or lâ—sning in any one of them for his mercy is magnified to the uttermost in pardoning the sins of many for the merit of one his justice and love in this that he spared not his only Son but gave him to death for a satisfaction for the sin of mankinde his glory in that â—he creature once sinfull and mortall is made partaker of glorie and immortality his wisdome that out of the greatest ill the destructi n of the creature by the malice of the devill he hath brought the greatest good that is the exaltation of the creature beyond that state of happinesse wherein it was created Chap. 18. § 2. and so in the rest But if this Iesus bee not the Saviour of the world as the Iewes affirme if when that other Bar-Coziba of theirs shall come he preach the same doctrine and doe the same glorious miracles which our Lord hath done though it be impossible that God should suffer the world to be so mocked then the same most high and glorious truth should bee both preached and confirmed by a most false and lying Prophet who should professe himselfe the Saviour of the world and was not yet neverthelesse seeing our Lord was the authour and manifester of that truth he shall have the honour to be beleeved and the falshood shall dwell with that other to come But if he shall preach any other doctrine than this which wee have received then neither can the dignities of God bee magnified in his greatest and most excellent worke in the creature that is in the salvation of mankinde as was shewed before neither can his Scriptures bee of absolute authority when another manner of Saviour shall come than they have described unto us but both these things are utterly impossible and therefore this Iesus whom the Christian faith confesseth to be our Lord is the Saviour of the world and beside him there is no other 2. If this Iesus whom wee acknowledge bee the Saviour of the world then the expectation of the most excellent and virtuous men is quieted and at rest in the assurance of his heavenly promise But if this bee not hee but that the Saviour is yet to
Apâ—llinaris as others Apollinarius contrarily upon that text of Ioâ—n 1.14 The word bâ—camâ— flesh held that in Christ the flesh and the word were câ—nsubstaâ—tiate or made one substance so that somewhat of the word was turned into flesh not remembring the interpretation which followes in the same place that the word made his tabernacle or dwelling in us 3. The Timotheans said That of the two natures thus united in Christ a third thing must result which is neither very God nor very mâ—n but a confused effect of both natures And this third being the Theodâ—sians held to be mortall but the Armenians hold it to be immortall and no way subject to any suffâ—ring The Cophti in Egypt hold but one nature in Christ not by commixture to cause a third being of both but interpret their meaning according to the true faith Brerewood Enquirâ—e Cap 22. 4. But on the other side Ebion Carpocrates and Theodotion affirmed that Christ was pure and onely man begotten by Ioseph of his wife Mary as other children and that God was in him as in Peter or Paul or any other man and by a greater progresse in virtue hee came to be more righteous than other because he received a more noble soule than other men by which he knew and reveiled heavenly truths and by an assisting power of God he wrought miracles as Moses or other of the Prophets had done before This heresie the Socinians as Wentz à Budowecks doth charge them have renewed of late yet after by him it seemes they are come to yeeld unto Christ as much as Arius 5. Artemâ—n Theodotus of Byzant or Constantinople Paulus of Samosata and Photinus held that Christ had no being before hee tooke beginning of his mother and so was onely man by nature but that God which Epiphanius expounds the Word descended into him which error Athanasius Epistola de incarnat contra Paulum Samosat holds to be all one with that of Carpocraâ—es 6. Cerinthus to that progresse in virtue of Ebion and Carpocrates aâ—ded this That Christ which hee interpreted the holy Ghost descended into Iesus the son of Mary when he was baptised in Iordan and made knowne unto him the Father whom hee knew not before and hence it came to passe that Iesus afterward did such great miracles because Christ was in him Thus of one hee made two Mediators one Iesus wherein Christ was and another Iesus without Christ for hee added that Iesus suffered and died but that Christ without any suffering flew backe to heaven as Colarbasus also after him did teach This Cerinthus is that hereticke as saith Epiphanius that troubled the Church in the Apostles time affirming that the Gentiles ought to bee circumcised and keepe the Law which heresie of his the Councell of Ierusalem determined Acts 15. 7. The hereticks called Alogiani because they denied Christ to bee God the Word hold in effect as much as the former concerning his nature but yet deny not but that for his great grace and virtue he was made the Mediator for other men But the writings of Saint Iohn they vtterlie denie because say they the other Evangelists doe no where call Christ the Word Answer But they call him and prove him to bee God as Matth. 1.23 God with us from whence is the gift of pophecie and power to cast out devils Matth. 7.22 so Marke 1.24 The devils confesse his power and him to be the Holy one of God And Luk. 1. 34.35 The Angel professes that holy thing which was to bee borne of the Virgin to be the Sonne of God All his glorious miracles prove as much which were neither wrought by the power of Baalzebub as the old Iewes nor yet by magicke or by the meanes of the Cabala as the later Iewes affirmed but onely by the power of God as our Lord himselfe proves by an unanswerable argument Luk. 11. â—â—rs 14. to 23. And these are the most famoused heresies of them who held but one nature in Christ â—iâ—ine as Eutyckes who changed the humane nature into the divine or humane as Apollinarius who thought the divine nature was changed into the humane or one mixt nature of both these as the Timotheans beleeved or purely humane as Ebion Cerinthus Phâ—tinus and the Alogians wherein it will not be unfit that we briefly consider their reasons and see what answers are or may be madâ— thereto § 1. And first concerning the heresie of Eutyches you may by this see how dangerous it is For if it be put that after the union of both natures the humane nature was utterly swallowed up of the divine so that the divine-nature onely remayned then it must follow of necessity either that we are still in the state of damnation or that God must suffer and dye for us in the divine nature which as it is impossible so yet should wee be still in the state of câ—ndemâ—ation For if our redemption bee not wrought for us in our owne natâ—re the divine Iustice is still unsatisfied so wee are still in our siâ—ne And therefore the Councell of Chalâ—edon held by six hundred and thirty Fathers to condemne these errours of his viz. that the natures were apart before the union as if the humanity had had any being before it was taken to the Godhead or that the beings in themselves or their proprieties were either confused or changed confessed him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is one and the same Sonne in the two natures but remember the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the nature together with the proprieties thereof neither by mixture nor change of natures but as one individuall being consisting of both natures inseparably But some of the later Eutichians minced the mattier and said that unity of nature was not till after His resurrection But that both against the authority of the Scripture and reason it selfe For Hee received power of the Father to raise the dead to give eternall life to execute the Iudgement as he is the Sonne of man Ioh. 5. v. 25.26.27 all these things not yet performed And how can the heavens containe Him Act. 3.21 if hee bee onely God whom the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot containe Kings 8.27 or what hope can wee have of being made like unto Him if Hee bee onely God yet have we assurance that as we have borne the image of the earthly so shall wee also beare the image of the heavenly 1 Cor. 15.49 The words of our Lord himselfe are yet more cleare Luk. 24.39 Handle me and see me for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as yee see me have The truth of his bodily being after his resurrection is there argued by his eating and many other infallible proofes during the time of 40. dayes Act. 1.3 And in the last two chapters of Saint Iohns Gospell all to this purpose that wee may beleeve that he that descended into the grave is even the same that ascended in the perfection of His manly being to appeare for
de Carâ—â— Christi Epiphan haeres 28. 30. And especially in Tertul. de Trinit if that booke be his Thus we have seene the falshood of the Monophysites now it remaines that we also take a view of their opinions that hold more natures than one in Christ and among them to see the heresies of Nestorius 1. and Arius 2. and then the late opinion of Postellus 3. § 8. Concerning the position of Nestorius it may seeme that all authors agreed not what it was For hee that made that addition of the Timothean Nestorian and Eutychian heresie unto Saint Augustine makes the heresie of Nestorius nothing else but a mingle-mangle of the Photinian and Timothean heresie That Christ was man onely not conceived of the Holy Ghost but that afterward God was mixt with that man Againe Socrates Hist Eccles lib. 7. cap. 32. writes that many supposed that Nestorius sought to bring in the Heresie of Photinus whereas saith hee it is plaine by the writings of Nestorius that he onely avoided this that the virgin should be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Mother of God But Tho. Aquin. contra gent. lib. 4. cap. 38. cites Damascen to this purpose We affirme that there is a perfect union of the two natures not according to the Person as the enemy of God Nestorius affirmed but also according to the Hypostasis From whence Tho. concludes that this was the position of Nestorius to confesse one person in Christ and two Hypostases If by Hypostases he meant the Divine and humane natures united in the one Person of our Mediator neither Damascen nor Thomas can blame him for it But if by the manly Hypostasis consisting of body and soule he must meane a humane person as Thomas in the same place out of Boâ—tius determines you may see how they made a quarrell more than needed For though Nestorius had beene madd yet would he never have held one Person of both natures and also two persons But it is cleare by the later Historians of the Church that this among other was the heresie of Nestorius that as in Christ there were two natures so there were also two persons which opinion might easily take the originall from Cerinthus Phoâ—iâ—us and such as stunk of that Pumpe For if God the Word came to dwell in Jesus the sonne of Mary being a perfect humane person of body and soule whether at his Baptisme as Cerinthus taught or from the very instant of his conception as the Nestorians of this time affirme the position of Nestorius must follow of necessitie that there be in him as two natures so two persons For the Godhead destroyed nothing of the humane perfection which it found So that if it came not to the humane nature but in the subsistence of a manly person then that humane nature must remaine in the perfection of a person as it was before Whence that followes also not unfitly which hee further affirmed that the things of infirmity which were in Christ as to eate to drinke to sleepe to gâ—ow in wisedome c. belonged to the sonne of Mary without the Sonne of God and all the glorious miracles which Christ did worke were done by the Sonne of God without the sonne of Mary But the supposition of Nestorius that the deitie came into the humanity when the humanitie had perfect subsistence in soule and body that is in the perfection of a personall beeing is most false For the Word taking flesh of the Virgin caused it to become one person with himselfe so that the body assumed was the proper and peculiar body of God and the humane soule the soule of God not of any other Person but the body and soule of the Sonne of God and this not onely while the soule dwelt in the body according to the naturall life but also while he was yet under the burden of our sinnes his body in the grave his soule in Hell as the Apostle cites the Scripture Act. 2.27 Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell neither wilt thou give thy Holy one to see corruption So then the body in the grave was the Holy One of God for nothing else of him was subject to corruption and though it were for a time forsaken of the soule yet not of the Godhead which thing the words of the Angel doe confirme Matth. 28.6 Come see the place where the Lord lay So that our Saviour on the Crosse yea even in the bands of death as concerning his body was still the Lord and God of glory 1 Cor. 2.8 Aâ—d if it be most true that God is more inward and more neare unto every thing than can be expressed by any words of beeing of essence of nature substance moities forme proprietie or the like because he is the foundation unto all these and in him all things consist How much more shall hee bee inward and fundamentall unto that body soule and Spirit of Iesus which hee was pleased to make his own that by that body and blood of his he might redeeme his Church as it is said Acts 20.28 That God purchased his Church with his owne blood that is with the life and blood of that body which was proper and peculiar unto himselfe Thus then the word was made flesh not by any transmutation or change of the one or the other from their true and naturall being but because that by a secret and unspeakable conjunction the Word was made one with the flesh and the flesh with the Word So then the Sonne of GOD tooke the humanitie not that it might be another person beside himselfe but being in himselfe perfect God he would also in himselfe be perfect man taking flesh of the Virgin The differences of union you may see if you will in the principles of N. Byfield Chap. 16. This union of the Godhead and Manhood is manifest by divers Texts of the holy Scripture For evidence of which we will first put this infallible axiome That of two different persons one cannot possibly bee affirmed of the other as to say that Peter is Iohn or Iohn is Peter neither yet that the proprieties of the one can belong to the other as to say that the Gospell of Saint Iohn is the Epistle of Saint Peter Now it is said Ioh. 16.28 I came forth from the Father and am come into the world which belongs to Him as to the Sonne of God as Iohn expounds it 1 Epist 4.9 and then it followes Againe I leave the world and goe to the Father which is peculiar to him as man as it is said Act. 3.21 Therefore Iesus the Sonne of God and the Sonne of the virgin is one and the same person so Col. 1.16 that same He by whom all things were made v. 18. is the head of the Church and the first borne from the dead and Rom. 9.5 Hee who is of the Fathers concerning the flesh is God blessed above all This our Lord affirmed of himselfe Math. 26.63.64 to be the Sonne
the same theme which might easily be written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he created Let the students of the holy mysteries give all diligence to read the holy Scriptures in their proper language For there this treason of Arius and all other hereticks is easily discovered 7. Hee that denyes himselfe to be good cannot be God But Christ saith of himselfe Math. 19.27 why callest thou me good there is none good but one even God Answ Good is either absolute and perfect which is God alone or else imparted the image of that Good and so every thing created was very good Gen. 1. Goodnesse is likewise in the vertue and disposition of the minde as Barnabas was a good man Act. 11.24 or manifest in the workes and thus Dorcas was full of good workes Act. 9.36 and our Lord wrought many good workes among the Iewes Ioh. 10.32 In these three kindes our Lord was good as man supereminently above all the orders of created things In the first kinde he was good as God which absolute goodnesse he denyed not to himselfe no more than Hee denyed himselfe to bee God at that confession of Thomas My Lord and my God but rather taught that young man if he had had wit to follow that perfection which hee prescribed For being by the young mans owne confession good it must follow of necessity by that rule of perfection Follow me that he was God and ought to be followed and obeyed Eph. 5.1.1 Cor. 11.1 8. Like unto this are those other arguments which they bring as where it is said Ioh. 6.57 Like as the living Father sent me and I live by the Father So hee c. If he live not by himselfe he cannot be God I answer that this life which the Sonne receives of the Father is not accidentall not of grace not of foresight or purpose but substantiall and eternall seeing the generation is according to the immutable being and eternall working of the Father and his spirituall perfection onely So they object from Heb. 3.2 That hee was faithfull to him that made him and Ioh. 14.28 My father is greater than I so 1 Cor. 15.28 when all things are subdued unto Him then also shall the Sonne himselfe be subject unto him that did put all things under him and many other which you may finde cited and answered by Athanasius and especially by Epiphanius in the places quoted before Wherein observe diligently the differences betweene those termes which signifie his nature and those which have reference to the office of his Mediatorship as in the first place of Heb. 3. Consider what he was made It is plaine by the verses before hee was made the Apostle and high Priest of our profession in which office he was faithfull to him that made him or appointed him thereunto so in the second place to that The Father is greater than I note the difference betweene the Divine and humane nature for the Sonne is inferiour to the Father by nature as man and so as he is the Mediatour in the dispensation of his offices as with us he makes up the body of his Church nay even in the Divine nature the Father is that eternall fountaine whence the Sonne hath his eternall originall although the honour of sending takes not away the equalitie of power nor the excellencie of nature from him that is sent so the greatnesse there spoken of is with respect of the office of the Sonne sent into the world that the world by him might be saved In the third place of delivering the kingdome to God the Father note the communication of idiomes or proprieties of speech according to the rules of Theodoret. That the words proper to either nature become common and indifferent to the Person as the God of glory was crucified 1 Cor. 2.8 that is that Person which is the God of glorie was crucified concerning his humane nature Secondly that the communitie of names makes no confusion in natures now the word Sonne belongs to Christ indifferently either as he is the Sonne of God and so shall hee raigne with the Father and the holy Ghost eternally and of his kingdome there shall be no end Dan. 6.36 Luk. 1.33 And seeing that he as the Son of man hath received all power Mat. 28.18 John 3.35 and 13 3. as to governe his Church Psal 45. so to raise the dead and to execute judgement Iohn 5.26 27. Acts 17.31 Hee shall raigne till all things bee subdued unto him and that he hath utterlie destroyed all the workes of the devill sinne ignorance and death Iohn 1.3.8 that as God the Father doth now raigne by him so he having performed all things which belong to him as the Mediatour may thereafter as God raigne with the Father eternally our everlasting king of glory when God shall be all in all his children as he is in him I am the more briefe in this argument because their arguments are answered in part before § 4. And because this question is neere to that which followes immediately and againe because it is the principall subject of that treatise by me so often mentioned therefore for conclusion first consider the danger of this venome which at once poysons all our hopes of that full satisfaction which is made unto the justice of God by the death of Christ for if he be a creature only then can he not be infinite and if not infinite then cannot the infinite justice that is offended by our sinnes receive a full and sufficient satisfaction by him as you might see it proved in the 21 Chapter before And beside these reasons you may take with you these remembrances against all Arians Turkes Iewes Socinians and other hereticks whatsoever and give honour and glory unto Iesus our Lord and God Esay 9.6 Vnto us a childe is borne unto us a Sonne is given and his name shall be called The Mightie God the Everlasting Father the prince of peace Ier. 33.15 16. In those dayes the branch of righteousnesse shall grow up unto David and Ierusalem shall dwell safely and he that shall call her See Mat. 11.28 is Iehovah our righteousnesse Micah 5.2 Out of Bethlehem shall hee come forth unto mee that shall be ruler in Israel whose goings forth are from everlasting Rom. 9.5 Christ is over all God blessed for ever and ever Amen and 1 Iohn 5.20 We are in him that is true even in his Sonne Iesus Christ This is the true God and eternall life § 10. Thus then our Lord Iesus being declared mightily to be Sonne of God by the testimony of the Father from heaven by his owne profession of himselfe confirmed by his glorious miracles Iohn 5.36.37 by his resurrection from the dead Rom. 1.4 by the consent of the Apostles and Prophets and by the testimony of the holy Ghost in the hearts of all his Children and being truly man by the testimony of his very enemies the onely question remaining concerning his beeing is that seeing all fulnesse must dwell in him
easily drawne to a wilfull sinne Therefore the devill doth here first perswade the woman to distrust the truth and goodnesse of God as being an enemy to him and his creature man as was said before chap. 22. But if the devill had in so many words affirmed that which Postellus doth yet we know he is a lyar from the beginning and abode not in the truth 11 Gen. 19.24 it is said that the Lord rayned upon Sodome fire and brimstone from the Lord by which place though it may appeare that the Sonne is coessentiall with the Father for both are named by the name of Iehova yet the Father hath the excellency of honour before Him and that he executes no Iudgement iâ— the creature but by his fathers beheast which is yet more evident by that which is Zach. 3.2 And the Lord said unto Satan The Lord rebuke thee O Satan whereby it may seeme either that there is not an equality of power in the Persons of the Trinity or else that there is a created Mediator in whom the second Person of the Trinity doth dwell Aâ—s If the dignities of the deity be essential as was proved then if there be one nature of the Father and the Sonne it followes that their power and all other dignities are coequall Onely the Father hath the prerogative of originall in this that the Son is of the Father but the Father is not of the Sonne though he never were without the Sonne And therefore those professions of our Lord all power is given unto me both in heaven and in earth Math. 28 18. And the Father hath committed all judgement to the Sonne Ioh. 5.22 are first and above all to beare witnesse to the truth Ioh. 18.37 For if he received his being originally from the Father then of necessity that power also which is essentiall unto him Secondly that as a Sonne he might honour His Father in the dispensation of that power and execution of his Mediatorship And thus hee destroyed Sodome by the power of the Father and thus he prayes that Satan may bee rebuked and the faith of his disciples confirmed Luk. 22.32 Thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as ioying in the glory and excellency of the Father as Ignatius speakes Epist ad Smyâ—â—enses Fourthly that wee may know that we have one and the same gratious Mediator which did evermore save and defend his church both before and after his incarnation 12. But it is written Exod 23.20 c. Behold I send an Angel before thee beware of him and obey his voice provoke him not for hee will not pardon your transgressions for my name it in him That this Speaker was Christ who had brought the Israelites out of Egypt it is manifest 1 Cor. 10 9 That this Angel may meane Moses it sorts not with some circumstances especially that He will not pardon your transgressions Therefore some Rabbines understand by this Angell Michael the Prince or Angel that standeth for the nation of the Iewes Dan. 10.13.21 but neither can an Angel forgive sinnes Therefore being compared with Exod. 33. v. 2.3 I will send an Angell before thee but I will not goe up with thee least I consume thee in the way it must follow of necessity that this Angell is not the second Person in the Trinity but that created Mediator the Son of man who had power in earth to forgive sinnes Math. 9.6 Answer That being granted which is Ioh. 10.38 Ioh. 14.10 That Christ is in the Father and the Father in Him these words being spoken in the Person of the Father wil prove that Christ is the worker of al deliverances for his Church both temporâ—ll and eterâ—all and that he hath power to forgive sins and that the name or being of God is truely in Him So by this Angell no created Mediator can be understood for every sin is a breach of the law of God against an infinite Iustice which God alone and no creature can forgiue And therefore that sonne of man which had power on earth to forgive sinne must of necessity bee God and not a created Mediator And although Israel were here threatned that God would depart from them for their Calfe yet it is manifest vers 17. that God at the prayer of Moses pardoned their sinne and brought them into Canaan But to take the objection as it may make most for this opinion that God doth threaten to send a created Angel yet these words My name is in him cannot prove him to be this created Mediator but rather that the Angell to be sent should have a power delegate whereby to punish the rebellions of the people without sparing and that power was the power or name of God in him 13. I but Psal 45 6. after the Prophet had confessed unto Christ Thy throne O God is for ever and ever thou hast loved righteousnesse and hated iniquity hee addes verse 7. Therefore God even thy God hath annointed thee By which it may seeme that Christ though God yet hath a God and is God by grace and a created mediator as Hermes Trismeg in Asclep cals the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Creator of this God Answer Christ though God eternall yet as man a created Mediator hath a God as he saith Ioh. 20.17 I ascend to my God and your God and in this sence God is his God which hath annointed Him with the oyle of gladnesse above all that are partakers with him of flesh and bloud For he received not the spirit by measure but of his fulnesse have we received grace 14. Esay saith Chap. 43. v. 10. Before mee was no God formed neither shall there bee after mee Therefore the Mediatour that spake there must bee a created Mediatour Answer It followes Esay 44.6 I am the first and I am the last and beside mee there is no God therefore he is not a created Mediatour but the Creator of all things But that text of 43.10 it seemes did somewhat trouble the Greeke interpreters who with one consent translated the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was formed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was to this sence there was no God before me though some of them left out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and some kept it according to the Hebrew but this text proves nothing to that purpose for which it is cited but rather as it followeth on the verse before thus much That if none of the Gods of the nations could bring forth their witnesses that they had promised and performed then the Iewes might witnesse with him and especially his chosen servant Iesus in whom all his promises are yea and Amen that hee was before all their formed Gods and should be after them So that if hee were before and after all their formed Gods whom yet they did confesse to bee immortall for no man takes him for a god that must dye Ioh. 12.34 therefore against themselves they must witnesse that he was the true God 15. It is said
effects of originall sinne is false For man being that creature in whom GOD would shew the superexcellencie of His goodnesse wisedome glory c. Ephe. 3.10 It was expedient that he being to be brought to that height of happinesse and perfection whereto no other creature can attaine should have experience of all infirmitie or weaknes first from not being to the meanest degree of being and so from state to state till he have at last arrived vnto that state of perfection when God shall be All in all And because it was necessary that our Lord should bee in every thing like His brethren except their sinne therefore tooke Hee on Him whatsoever was naturall unto man the substance not the sinne the perfections not the infections But sinne was contrary to mans nature the deformitie and poyson thereof wrought onely by the Devill in man after the worke of God was perfect in him And therefore our Lord did grow in wisedome and Stature like other men as all the sonnes of Adam should have done though hee had neâ—er sinned And thus Christ tooke on him our infirmities and that for this end that Hee might beare our sinne that is might set himse fe in our stead to beare the punishment of our sinnes thâ—t by His stripes wee might bee healed And thus the Lord laid on Him the burthen of vs all Reade Es 53. Object 2 But it is said 2. Cor. 5.21 that God made him to bee sinne for vs. Answere This text is cited as that text of the Psalme in Matth. 4.6 is cited by the Devill Say that which followes Who know no sinne and it cuts the throâ—t of the objection But I say that Saiâ—t Paul reâ—erreth vs secretly to that sacrifice â—or the sinne of the High-priest in Exod. 29.14 which is there called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chattach § Sin meaning an offering for sinne as Psal 118.17 the sacrifice is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chagh the feast or holy-day by a Metonymia meaning the sacrifice proper for the holy-day For the purpose of Saint Paul in that Epistle being to prove the end of the Law in Christ referres vs to that sacrifice which shewes that the High-priest himselfe needed another Mediatour For although hee did eate the sinne offering of the people and so did beare or take away their sinne Levit. 10.17 Yet his owne sin offering he might not eat And therefore that was to be burnt without the campe as Christ did suffer without the gate Heb. 13.11 c. Object 3 Moreover Iob saith 14.4 Who can bring a cleane thing out of an vncleane Not one Whereâ—y it is plaine that although Christ were conceived by the Holy-Ghost and so no staine or touch of concupiscence came to the body of the Virgin by that con eâ—tion yet seeing the Virgin her seâ—fe was conceived and borne as all man-kind it must likewiâ—e follow that if Christ had his whole manly being oâ—ely from her then as shee her selfe was stâ—ined in her whole being with originall sinne so likewise that which was conâ—erved of her Answere It is likewise written Deut. 4.24 The Lord thy God is a consuming fire And the propertie of fire is to separate all such things as are heterogeneous to part and divide Elements as experience sheweth Now although it bee plaine that the heavens are impure in His sight that Hee found no stedfastnesse in His Angels that no creature could bee a Tabernacle worthy His dwelling much lesse the body of sinfull man Yet seeing thâ—t glorioâ—s fire was able to purifie and perfit whatsoever body that was which He would vouchsafe to take unto Himselfe therefore although for the reasons in the Chapter following it was meet that Christ should bee borne of a Virgin yet not to take any holinesse from her For if it had seemed good vnto His wisedome to take His man-hood from a corrupted Rahab or a Tamar as hee did originally yet was Hee able to sanctifie and cle se it as He doth clense or take away the sinnes of the world And concerning that manly being which our Lord did take of the holy Virgin though it were the most pure in all man-kind though the vttermost puritie in all the creature as being without the sinne of the creature as I said before yet was it not of it selfe worthy to bee His pavillion but became a dwelling worthy of His presen e onely beâ—ause He by that assumption of it unto himselfe did make it worthy of Himselfe as Hee saith Iohn 17.14 For their sakes doe I sanctifie my selfe What is that His Divine being is perfect holinesse and thereby did He sanctifie His body which was Himâ—elfe contrary to the wickednesse of Nestorius that that likewise might bee Holinesse to the Lord and a sufficient sacrifice sanctified by that offering of Himselfe for the sinnes of the world And this sanctifying of that Tabernacle of His manhood was figured by the Cloud which filled the Tabernacle Exod. 40.34.35 and the Temple 1. Kings 8.10.11 into which seeing the Priests could not enter because of the Cloud the Holy-Ghost signified that when God should dwell in the temple of our flesh the ministerie of the Leviticall Priest-hood must have an end b No agent can worke beyond the power of its owne nature It were a wicked and Manichean conclusion from that text which is in Matth. 13.38 The tares are the Children of the Devill to thinke that any of man-kind should bee begotten by wicked sprights yet such fancyes hath the devill hatched in some mens mindes to dishonour this most glorious worke of God the Incarnation of his sonne And although it appeare by the manifest authoritie of the holy Scripture that man was that speciall creature of God whereabout to speake as a man Hee tooke most care Let vs make man in our image Gen. 1.26 Hee hath made vs not wee our selues Psal 100. Thy hands have made mee and fashioned mee Psal 119.73 and Psal 139. almost wholely to this purpose yet hath Postel in his Booke de Nat. Med. told vs of the Alani a people among the Tartars which saith hee was begotten by Spirits Thus also hath he disgraced the noble Nation of the Hungars beside other particular persons among whom our British Merlin But beside the generall truth of this rule doth not common experience shew that different kinds bring out that which is neutrall as the kindes of Horâ—es and Asses Mules which ingender not to bring out their like because nature will not endure so great a disgrace as to have her kindes multiplied contrary to kind Moreover seeing every thing brings forth the like as a Man a Man a Lion a Lion Fire Fire c. What possibilitie is there that a spirit should beget any thing but a spâ—rit as it appeares in the workes of the devill in our fantasies and affections by which secondly hee may also cause vs to worke on that which is in our power not in his I know that in the vegetable where much seed
that dwelt therein Against the errors about the soule of Christ whether that of Arius or Apollinarius or them that had broached the opinion before their time that Christ had not an humane soule Ignat. Epist ad Philadelph you shall have the most effectuall reasons out of Athanasius Epist de Incarn D. I. C. contra Apoll. 1. There were so many parts in Christ living as He was resolved into when He was dead But He was resolved into two the body which was buryed and the soule which went downe to hell Therefore there were two parts of Christs humane being a body and a soule which two together doe make a whole and perfect man 2. If either the Word or a supercelestiall understanding had beene in a sencelesse body then could not that body have felt either paine without or much lesse inward griefe But the soule of our Saviour was heavy unto death Mat. 26.38 Therefore Hee had a humane soule 3. A thing of one kind cannot bee given as a fit ransome for a thing of another kind but a body must bee given for the ransome of a body and a soule for the ransome of a soule Therefore that Christ might be a sufficient Redeemer it was necessary that He should have both an humane body and a humane soule 4. If either the created Deitie of Arius or the supercelestiall spirit of Apollinarius had beene in Christ in stead of the humane soule then could He not have given His soule for His sheepe But Hee was that Good Sepherd which said downe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His owne soule or life for His sheepe Iohn 10.11 Therefore He had a humane soule 5. If Christ had not had a soule by the departure of which His body was dead then had not He by His death destroyed him that had the power of death Hebr. 2.14 neither had he triumphed over death by His resurrection neither had Hee beene a sufficient sacrifice and redemption for them that were dead in trespasses and sinnes and so had His comming beene in vaine But all these things are impossible Therefore Hee was in all things like His brethren except their sinnes Hebr. 2.17 6. If Christ had had either a life-lesse body or sensitive onely and in stead of the humane soule either a created deitie or a supercelestiall spirit then had He beene neither God nor man and so an unmeet and insufficient Redeemer of the world For neither had such a body beene perfect man neither is a supercelestiall spirit nor a created deitie perfect God Yet had Apollinarius his reasons though hee erred from the truth and by his reasons it seemes that he had most reverent thoughts of Christ For thus he argues 1. Mans soule is the seate of sinne of anger concupiscence and the like But these things could not be in Christ Therefore neither the humane soule in which onely they dwell Answere Anger sorrow compassion ioy and such motions of the soule are either ordinate which are subject to Wisedome and the rules of the divine Iustice expressed in the Law of God and these were in Christ and were not sinfull But the inordinate affections onely are sinfull and could not bee in Him which knew no sinne 2. Two perfect things in their perfection could not possibly become one Therefore that the God-head with the man-hood might become one Mediator it was necessary that the man-hood should bee assumed imperfit otherwise the Mediator had been two persons Answ This argument was answered before Note g Chapter 24. § 8. Yet in briefe I say that the word perfect hâ—th a two-fold meaning For the God-head tooke the Man-hood unto Himseâ—fe perfect that is According to those parts wherein the perfection of the Man-hood doth consist of Body and Soule But as our Lord in His child-hood did grow in Age Stature Wisedome c. So before His birth did he grow from state to state till the full time of naturall birth And thus the Man-hood was assumed imperfect that is Not yet having attained unto that perfection whereto it was destinate in the Birth the Youth the Manly age and state Therefore that feare of Apollinarius of two persons in Christ was needlesse For beside this that the Humane nature was both conceived and taken to the Divine in one instant nothing in mankind can be called a person till it be living and that it be per se sola of it selfe which seemes not to be before the birth But this is without doubt that that which is sustained or hath the being in another can no way of it selfe be accounted a person But it is manifest that the Humanity of Christ is sustained onely in His divinity You know the received opinion touching the originall of the Soule § 3. Though by all these heapes of Arguments which you may read from Chapter 21. to this place I have beaten out the braines of that beggerly Brat of Ebion which affirmed that our Lord was begotten by Ioseph of his wife Mary as all other children yet you may see how the stinke of that carcase doth rise vp against this Article that He was borne of a Virgin so dangerous a thing an heresie is in matters of Faith But for answere to those reasons that are brought hereto you may reade the Note g § 4. on the 24. Chapter before And although it bee proved by infallible arguments that is to say from authority of Holy Scripture and reasons drawne there-from that our Lord Iesus was both conceived and borne of a Virgin that Hee might be free from originall sinne whereto all the race of man-kind is subject which are begotten and borne according to the common law of humane generation yet would I not be understood in any thing which I haue said thereto to speake contrary to that which the Apostle hath Heb. 13.4 That marriage is honourable among all men for whom it is necessary But notwithstanding the reasons that Christ must be borne of a Virgin the mind will still be asking how He could bee truely man and yet His mother a Virgin Seeing wee have detested the heresies of Valentine Apelles and all such madnesse Whereto I answere That the mysterie of the Gospel is as the treasure of the unsearchable riches so of the manifold Wisedome of God into which the Angels desire to looke Eph. 3.8.10 1. Pet. 1.12 And therefore the pure and simple truth of God being delivered unto you by His holy Apostles and Prophets and after being made manifest by such proofes as reason cannot except against it may seeme an unreasonable thing yet further to require satisfaction for the possibilitie thereof For to an infinite power all things are possible And as our Saviour was conceived so also was Hee borne and His mothers Virginitie saved As He came to the Apostles when the dores were shut Iohn 20.19.26 But you say His body was then changed and made Spirituall He being raised from the dead I confesse it But yet that power by which He hid or made Himselfe
in Himselfe by whom the perfection and happinesse of the creature is to be wrought and by whom the greatest aduersary to God and to the happinesse of the creature must be subdued But it is manifest that our happinesse is to be perfected onely by Christ our Saviour and that the workes of the devill our aduersary are to be destroyed onely by Him 1. Iohn 3.8 Therefore it is necessary that He sit at the right hand of the power in heaven 4. It is beseeming and necessary that Hee should have b some preeminence above mankind by whom all joy and blessednesse was procured unto mankind in as much as that blessednesse belongs properly unto Him that purcha'ste it but to him for whom it was purcha'ste it belongs onely by grace and participation But the resurrection of the body and ascension into heaven belong to us as it were in common with Christ in as much as the faithfull must rise againe and after judgement ascend with Him into Heaven Iohn 17.24 and 2 Thes 5.17 Therefore to sit at the right hand of the power of God is peculiar unto Christ alone And although it be said Ephes 2.6 that we are made to sit together in heavenly places in Christ yet that is spoken onely of that abundant happinesse and joy which we shall finde in eternall life as the text was cited euen now out of Psal 16.11 Notes a BEcause of His vnion with the God-head The Apostle in the first Chap. of the Epistle to the Hebrewes proves by many arguments that the Mediator must be God in the second Chapter that Hee must bee man Among those reasons whereby He proves that Christ is God this is one because it was said vnto Him Sit at my right hand For God that gives not His glory unto another Esay 42.8 doth not give this glory to sit at His right hand unto any one that is a creature onely Therefore doth not our Lord sit at the right hand of God but as man subsisting in the Person of the Sonne of God neither yet as God being one with the Father in the infinitie of being and power is Hee said to bee so exalted as to Sit at the right hand of God but onely as He is God manifested in the flesh For this exaltation and glory was given unto Christ as the reward of His humiliation as it is said Phil. 2.8.9 Hee humbled Himselfe and became obedient unto death even the death of the Crosse Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him and given Him a Name which is above every name c. So that the glory of sitting at the right hand of God is due unto Christ as the Mediator that is both God and man in one Person b Some preheminence above man-kind Although the graces and perfections and consequently the glory of Christs humanity in the Person of the Godhead be so super-excellent as all the Angels in heaven cannot comprehend yet doth not that glory and perfection take away the proprieties of the humane nature nor yet His sitting at the right hand of God take away His subjection unto God For Hee is excepted that did put all things under Him and when all things are subdued unto Him then the Sonne also Himselfe shal be subject that God may be All in All 1. Cor. 15.27.28 because that then the government and mediation of the Sonne is perfected in the creature when it doth appeare that God hath loved the Church euen as He hath loved Him Iohn 17.23 If then Christ our Lord be still God and man or else He ceases to be our Mediator and if to take away the properties of His humanity as to be contained in a certaine place be to deny Him to be man as Saint Augustine saith Take away place and you deny all bodily being How can that falshood of the every-where being of Christs body be iustified I said enough against this errour in the Note on the Chapter before but they argue also from this Article thus The right hand of God is every where Christ in His bodily being sits at the right hand of God Ergo His body is every where If this be a good conclusion then why not this The right hand of God is eternall Christ in His bodily being sits at the right hand of God Ergo His body is eternall But this against the Article He was borne of a Virgin Beside the Assumption should be the body of Christ is the right hand of God but that is most false and this is most faulty of all to take a tropicall speech as if it dâ—d signifie properly See Log chap. 21. N. 5. The errours mentioned with this in the Note on the Chapter before need not to be remembred Another errour against this Article of Christs sitting at the right hand of God and maâ—ing intercession for the Saints is of them who pray to Saints and Angels and so deny the Al-sufficiency of His mediation and mâ—ke â—oiâ— that text of the Scripture 1. Tim. 2.5 There iâ— one Mediator betweene God and man the man Christ IESVS But they have a pretty distinction for it if it were ought worth that the Saints are not Mediators of satisfaction for to is Christ alone but of Intercession only If we should be â—ontent with this yet all their workes of Supereâ—ogâ—tion are vanished and all their saleable treasure of their Church not worth a mite For the merit of Christ is not saleable but foâ— every one that will to bâ—y without money Esay 55.1 And that because it is infinite and unvalâ—able aâ— the ransome of sinne must be and no mans merit can be Beside the Scripture saith That Abâ—aham knowes us not and Israel is ignorant of us Esay 63 1â— And therefore as â— Father saith It is the most safe aduenture for a man to commit himselfe onely to the hands of God A third erroâ—r is of them who sacrilegiously withhold those tithes which God hath allotted for the Ministers of the Church as you may see it prooved by them who have writ to this argument whatsoever any lying Legend hath brought to the contrary you may reade Sir Henry Spelman Iames Sempil and especially the Reverend Bishop of Chichester to this argument And so no lesse are they in this heresie who withhold or curtaile or inuert by any meanes those maintenances which the founders of Schooles or Colledges have appointed as Seed-plots for the Church And these sacrilegious errours are the more damnable as an errour in fact is worse then an errour in opinion And if you looke unto the state of those Churches where that competency of which they prate was first established in France in Germany and else-where you in may see not onely the contempt and beggery wherein the Ministers live but that even the whole Churches have ever since the time of this competency lived under persecution And if whole Churches and Common-wealths suffer for this shall you sacrilegious Impropriators you saleable Latrones and you false feoffees that are
or Writings 1. First that wee through patience and comfort of these Scriptures might have firme and sure hope in God and His promises Rom. 15.4 2. Secondly that nothing through mans infirmity might be forgotten of all that which ought to be in continuall remembrance 3. Lest by the wickednesse of men and the subtilty of the devil inciting them thereto the holy Doctrine of God might be corrupted from the native and true meaning and so new Doctrines and new Religions brought in in stead of that Service which we owe onely to God and that according to His owne revealed Will and Word 4. No man knoweth the thoughts of a man but onely that spirit of a man which is within him much lesse can any know the things of God but onely the holy Spirit of God The things of God of which I speake are either such as concerne Himselfe or us Himselfe as that in His being He is a Spirit Eternall infinite in Wisedome c. In essence one in Persons three in His dispensation towards us that in the fulnesse of time the Eternall Sonne should dwell in the Tabernacle of our flesh that in our nature and for us He might make satisfaction for our sinne that we might be restored againe to the favour of God which wee had lost by our transgression and so have hope of the full enjoying of those benefits which come unto us thereby as the resurrection of our bodies and eternall life both in body and soule And because it was impossible for us to understand those things except God Himselfe had revealed them unto us therfore it was necessary that He should vouchsafe the certaine and immutable knowledge of them by His Holy Word 5. No Kingdome can bee ordered according to Iustice wherein the Lawes are not manifest and to bee knowne of every subject that will know them But Christ is that King that is to raigne in Iustice Esay 32.1 Therefore it was necessary that the lawes and ordinances of His Kingdome which peculiarly is His Church should be so published that every one both small and great might take knowledge of them 6. No punishment is due but for some offence and where no law is there is no transgression Rom. 4.15 So no reward is due but either in justice for some merit above dutie as the merit of Christ on our behalfe or else in mercie by promise for the carefull performance of that which is due But neither duty nor punishment nor merit nor mercie can either appeare or be such where no law is Therefore it was necessary that God by His Word should both shew what duty He did require of us and what punishment was due to the breakers of His law and what reward was due to the observers as the law declares And moreover because no man in this state of corruption by originall sinne is able to performe the law of God as he ought in perfect righteousnesse Therefore it was also necessary in this impossibilitie on our parts to make it knowne how wee might bee delivered from the punishment by the mediation of another as the Gospel shewes 7. And because so great a benefit as the deliverance of mankind from the thraldome of the devill was never to bee forgotten therefore it was necessary not onely that the Church should bee prepared unto the expectation thereof and dayly put in mind by such lively signes as the sacrifices were the true meaning of which they were taught by the Prophets but also when the time came that the promises should bee fulfilled that the Church should be throughly informed and confirmed in the trueth thereof by the powerfull doctrine and glorious miracles which were done both by the authour and finisher of our faith and by those who were eye-witnesses of all things which they testified to the world Therefore it was necessary that both before the comming of Christ the Church should be catechised unto Christ by the doctrine of the Law and the Prophets and after His comming bee fully instructed by the Apostles and Evangelists the Holy-Ghost evermore working in the hearts of the elect that the things which were taught should be beleeved § 3. Hath it indeede beene the practise of the devill by his principall agents the persecuters of the Church to deface the Holy Scripture and to put out their remembrance among men Histories affirme it Neither can the Father of lies hate any thing so much as the trueth nor the enemie of man-kind endeavour any thing so earnestly as to deface that by the knowledge whereof man may find the way to eternall life yet great was the trueth and prevailed Then by hereticks he would corrupt it but yet the trueth prevailed Then hee would keepe it from us in an unknowne tongue but yet the trueth appeared and every man may reade in his owne tongue the wonderfull workes of God English and Germanes and French and the rest yet the devill had one tricke more in his budget that seeing hee could neither deface nor corrupt nor conceale the bookes of Holy Scripture in a forraine tongue whose vulgar use is vanish't among men he would shuffle in other bookes among them that so we might not discerne the true Mother from the false And if any question grew about the Child traditions which wee must receive with equall affection of piety must decide it Strange Divinitie Did the Church deale thus of ancient time For you onely are wise you onely will be the people Shew the custome of the Church you claime to Fathers shew it from them Saint Athanasius in Synops. divides the bookes of the Old-Testament as wee into Canonicall and not Canonicall The Canonicall he accounts all as wee save Esther the not Canonicall he accounts the booke of Wisdome Esther Iudith and Tobit The books of the New-Testament all Canonicall hee numbers as wee the foure Gospels the Actes the seven Catholike Epistles fourteene of Saint Paul among which following Saint Peter Second Epistle 3.15 he puts that to the Hebrewes and the Revelation Epiphanius also Lib. de Mens pond accounts the Canonicall bookes as Athanasius but puts Esther among them he accounts Wisedome and Ecclesiasticus to be apocryphal Ierom. in Prol. Gal. accounts the Canonicall bookes of the Old-Testament as Epiphanius and as the manner of the Hebrewes was of old they count the books according to the number of the Hebrew letters 22. as the knops nuts or almonds on the golden candlestick were 22. for the Lamentations was one book with the prophesie of Ieremiah and the 12. small Prophets made but one Booke and as five of their bookes were double that is Iude and Ruth 2. of Samuel 2. of Kings and 2. of Chron. Ezra and Nehem. in one booke so are 5. of their letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the end of words are thus written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But in Summe they speake of their bookes altogether the Law and the Prophets as Luk. 16.29 and 31. and 24.27 Actes
nature produce his like as much as in it is as a man begetteth a man trees bring forth seed whereof their like in nature may spring and in like wise every other thing Therefore the infinite Power of God begetteth His like also which is the Sonne the image of the invisible God the first begotten of every creature Col. 1.15 But none can be like unto God in His Being who is not very God therefore Christ the onely begotten of the Father is also very God Maruail not that I make this argument from the creature to the Creator for in this very point of the Power and Godhead the Holy-Ghost Himselfe teacheth me to reason of the invisible things of God by the things visible Rom. 1.20 And hereby also learne to help your ignorance and put away your wonder how God should be one and yet three See you not how the understanding the Sun-light also is one in nature and yet three in evident and cleare distinction though in so base and imperfect order as that which is in all perfection is possible to be above it And further see you not in every thing a bodie a spirit and a life which is the knot betweene them Or rather see you not how the very bodily composition is both one and three one body which is united of three bodies that is earth water and ayre or oyle which yet againe in the roote of their nature are but one For oyle is but a due mixture of water and earth meanely fixt and meanely volatil and earth is but fixed water so that water which is but one is the roote of the three as it is manifest Gene. 1. and 2. Pet. 3.5 They which understand the rules of Pyronomie know what I say and if you understood me◠well you would confesse that not onely this instance which I have brought of earth water and ayre but even the whole frame of Nature did proclaime the Trinitie in the Vnitie If I should here tell you how the Heaven the Earth and the Deepe Gene. 1. might bee understood mystically and the Analogie betweene the Creator and the creature therein and then tell you what Let the earth bring forth living soule might meane and compare it with that place That which was made in Him was life and then particularly for man The Lord God also made the man of the dust of the earth and tell you that it was so necessary because that Christ is Terra viventium and inforce an argument to prove the Tri-Vnitie by that treeble repetition of the man made in the image of God comparing it with that place 1. Cor. 11.3 and 7. If I should then tell you that it was necessary that the Sonne of God must become flesh as well that the infinite iustice of God might be actuated in Him which could not be actuated in Him being onely God as for many other reasons Both from the Iustice and Mercie and Wisedome of God though to a well-sighted understanding I might seeme to have laid a precious foundation of Philosophie divine and naturall yet to you I might rather seeme perhaps to have proposed Cabalisticall dreames then any sound argument to the thing in question Yet this will I tell you and hold it for good Divinity that the mayne drift and scope of the whole Scripture is to shew the creation of all things in Christ through Him and for Him and the restoring of the whole creature in man by Him That in all things He might have the preeminence Coloss 1. Neither doth this any whit derogate from the honour of the Father For first It hath pleased the Father that in Him should all fulnesse dwell and besides it is an honour above all honours unto the Father to be the Father of so glorious a Sonne Therefore is this world and all the things therein created to the Image of Christ to expresse His glory even as He is the expressed Image and glory of the Father And here is the worlds Eternity which had in Christ an eternall Being according to that His Name Esay 9 6. The Father of Eternity Here are those separate Ideas about which Plato and Aristotle could never agree and which neither both of them nor many of their followers did perfectly understand not that they might not by the frame of nature and the wisedome which God had given to man be understood For is not this world as a booke wherein we may read and understand by the created truths what is the Truth which is increated but all true knowledge is the gift of God Therefore wrest not that place Coloss 2.8 against the Christian search after the knowledge of nature whereby above all other humane knowledges a man is brought to know God and to honour Him as he ought but rather be sorry that your knowledge of Nature is no more For this will I tell you to teach you to know your selfe that there is nothing in the creature which may be knowne and all may be knowne that is in the creature but man ought to know it and to glorifie the Creator thereby And this great labour hath God given to men that knowing how short they are of that they ought to be they might be humbled thereby Psal 1.11 Eccles. 1.13 And why ought this to seeme strange doth not God require that perfection at mans hand wherein He did create Him and was he not created with perfect discourse to know the creature that he might therein behold the Creator and so glorifie His wondrous power and goodnesse But this question would draw me from the question in hand and therfore I will briefly adde one reason more and because my leisure is little I will be as short as I can but I pray you lend me your eare for it is hard in English an inartificiall language to expresse my mind but because you told me you could a little Latine I will be bold here and there to use a word my reason is thus The whole and perfect nature of a Principle or Beginning is in God who is alone the beginner of all things Now a Principle is of three sorts whereof every one is so clearely distinct from another as that one cannot possibly be that other therefore in the Vnitie of the Deitie there is also such cleare distinction into a Trinitie as that one distinct cannot possible be that other from which He is distinguished yet in the Vnitie of essence they are all one The differences of a beginning stand thus It is either Principium principians non principiatum that is a Beginning which is a Beginner unto another yet hath not His beginning from another lest there should be a processe into Infinitie à parte antè this is God the Father to whom it is peculiar to beget the Son yet is Himselfe neither made nor created nor begotten of any other Secondly there is Principium principiatum principians to wit a Beginning which hath his beginning of another and is also a beginning