that the Substance of the Father is also born and indeed from it self Therefore also the Father is the Son of himself For how is he not begotten whose substance is begotten How is he not his Son out of whose substance he is begotten There might also other Arguments be brought but we will be now content with these CHAP. V. The fifth Argument By which the Doctrine of the Incarnation of the Son of God is refelled because the Father and the holy Spirit had been also incarnated VVE must pass to the Incarnation which all they are constrained to acknowledge who hold Christ to be the most high God For since it is most manifest by the holy Scriptures that he is by nature a man and at a certain time born of a Virgin it was necessary that they should hold him or his divine Nature so to have assumed the humane that the unity of person remaining he should be at once both God and man For if God and man should be different persons neither the Son of God had been a man nor a man the Son of God no more than the Father is that Son whom they hold to be the second person of the Trinity or the holy Spirit or on the contrary yea less since the nature of those persons is held to be the same â—ot only in the genus or species but number also but the nature of the most high God and man have the farthest distance even in kind from one another But in that opinion which we have spoken of concerning the Incarnation of the Son of God begotten out of the Essence of the Father from eternity many absurdities are â—â—ntained We will here bring some only and those more pertinent to our present matter For first thence it follows that not only the Son Arg. 5 Because the Father and the holy Spirit had been incarnated but also the Father and holy Spirit have assumed a humane nature For he hath assumed an humane nature whose proper nature or substance hath assumed it and with it is personally united But if the divine Nature of Christ hath assumed an humane nature also the proper Nature of the Father and the holy Spirit hath assumed it if so be it be the same in number in those three persons And indeed the contrivance of the errour hath made that some of the Adversaries have not feared to say that the whole Trinity was incarnated and lately there was one * Cornelius a Lapide a Jesuite in his Commentary on the lesser Prophets of a certain chief Sect of the Adversaries a man of a most famous name amongst them and now indeed teaching Divinity at Rome who dedicated his Book to the uncreated Trinity and in Jesus Christ created Which if it be true both the Father and the holy Spirit was born of a Virgin and suffered and dyed and was buryed and raised again and whatsoever we read Christ to have ever done or was done to him that also agrees to the Father and holy Spirit So the Heresy of those Antients whether Sabellians or Patripassians condemned by the Adversaries themselves will revive And indeed if you consider the thing rightly the common opinion of the Trinity is nothing else but a Sabellianism a little more subtilly propounded and varnished with some new colours and choaked with new names For the same God 〈◊〉 number considered with this mode or subsistence is the Father â—ith another mode or subsistence is the Son again with another the holy Spirit Which what other thing is it in very deed than what Sabellius held For the same God in number and the same substance is also in very deed the same person having three different modes or subsistences But that we may return to that which we began to do they will say that the divine Nature indeed or substance did assume the humane but not in every subsistence but only in the subsistence of the Son to this only that union or conjunction of the humane and divine Nature is terminated You would say that these men saw with their very eyes that Incarnation who know to explain so accurately in which subsistence that union was terminated although there are three subsistences in the same nature not really as they speak different from it But that the vanity of this device may be shewed let us somewhat explain what they would if so be that the matter may be understood True and real union such as that should be which is devised by the Adversaries is at least between two things whereof of the one explainâ— or applies its terminos or extremities whether properly or improperly so called to the other The case is clear in bodily things which we see with the eyes and from which the word terminus which they use in this matter is taken For a board is joyned to a board a stone to a stone whilst the superfices of the one is joyned to the superficies of the other but the superficies is the extremity or a certain terminus of a body But because a superficies of some whole body is extended through al its sides and for examples sake one part of it is before another behind therefore it may come to pass that the union and conjunction of two bodies is not terminated unto every part of the superficies or body So two square stones touch one another according to the superficies only of one side unless perhaps the one includes the other and then the outer superficies of the containing stone will not touch the superficies of the contained in any part wherefore to that outer superficies of the containing stone that union or conjunction will not be terminated but to the inner only Now in things incorporeal there are properly no termini or extremities no diversity of such parts Whence it was necessary if the humane nature was joyned to the divine which all hold to be incorporeal that it was joyned to the whole divine Nature But yet with our Adversaries instead of divers termini there are divers subsistences or modes of the divine nature whereof one makes the Father another the Son a third the holy Spirit Now they say that this personal union is terminated to the subsistence of the Son or so far the humane nature is joyned to the divine as this subsists in the Son but not as it subsists in the Father or holy Spirit therefore the subâ— stence of the Son not that of the Father or holy Spirit is communicated to the humane nature and this subsists by that and further makes one person with the Son of God not with the Father or holy Spirit The Adversaries usually explain the matter more obscurely But either this is it theâ— would have or what indeed they would cannot at all be understooâ— But they do nothing For if the whole divine nature be joyned to the humane and there be three subsistences in that whole nature whereof one differs no more from the Essence than another or is more
sitteth upon the Throne no man can justly say that Christ is according to his humane Nature only distinguished from him being according to the divine Nature the same with him For first according to a better Nature in regard of which which only he is believed to be a Person were the same with him that sitteth upon the Throne he could not be simply distinguished from him for that would be all one as if he should simply be denied to be him that sitteth upon the Throne But that cannot simply be denied of any whole which for another nature or part is simply to be affirmed of the same although it agree not thereunto according to some one nature especially the less excellent as shall be understood from what we will afterwards speak Sect. 2. Chap. 3. How I pray you could it come to pass that in the whole description of both Visions there should not be even the least hint from whence it might appear that Christ is the same with him that sitteth upon the Throne and that the diversities of Natures should be openly expressed but the unity in the knowledge whereof there was no less moment not at all Again since to Christ as he is distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne actions agreeing to Persons are attributed as is manifest from the very Visions themselves especially the latter it is apparent that he is considered as a Person and so distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne But the Person of Christ according to the Opinion of the Adversaries is the second of the Deity and so the very divine Nature it self having its substance Wherefore if they will speak agreeable to themselves they must confess that it likewise is distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne Or if they will not confess this they must with us assert that the Person of Christ is not the second Person of the Trinity which they hold Furthermore who would believe that when divine Honour was ascribed to Christ he was considered only according to his less excellent nature and not rather whole or according to the Nature most worthy of that Honour but when that Honour is ascribed unto him he is most openly considered as distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne Wherefore whole Christ even in respect of that other Nature or a part which was in him most excellent must of necessity be distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne Finally If Christ according to a divine Nature were one and the same with him that sitteth upon the Throne either more persons namely that of the Father and the Son not to speak any thing now concerning the holy Spirit were to be expressed as sitting on the Throne or it ought to be held that the Father and the Son are the same not only in Essence but also in Person Since there is no doubt that the Person of the Father was expresâ—ed by him that sitteth upon the Throne But that there is the same Person of the Father and the Son all reject and justly condemn as a Sabellian Errour CHAP. IX Sundry Arguments are briefly intimated to shew that none but the Father of Jesus Christ is the Most High God BEsides the Arguments hitherto produced many others may be brought but because they do in a manner fall in with those which shall in the second and third Section by us be alledged therefore we will in this place in a brief manner only intimate them and not all of them neither but only the chiefest Arg. 9 That God is wont to be taken for the Father The Ninth Argument of our Opinion may be this namely That the name of God or Lord when used for the word Jehovah or Adonai is in innumerable places of the Scripture taken as proper to the Father in such a manner as that he only is understood by that name either simply put or expresly with some Epithite as that of True Living Almighty and the like and being designed by the very appellation is distinguished from Christ or the holy Spirit or from both together For that would not come to pass if not the Father only were the Most High God but also the Son and holy Spirit Concerning which matter see what we will say hereafter Sect. 2. Chap. 1. and Sect. 3. Chap. 5. and if you please also Arg. 10 The Father is of himself Chap. 9 10 11 12. of our Book concerning God and his Attributes The Tenth Argument may be this That none but the Father of Jesus Christ is of himself as having received neither his nature nor any divine thing whatsoever from another which is the property of the Most High God To which this also may be adjoyned that the Father only is as they commonly speak The Fountain of Divinity For from him the very Son himself hath his Divinity as both the thing it self speaketh and the Adversaries also commonly confess From the same also proceedeth the holy Spirit And though the Latin Churches hold that the holy Spirit doth proceed both from the Father and the Son which if rightly understood not only may but also ought to be granted nevertheless it is apparent partly from the Scripture partly from the Opinion of the Adversaries themselves that the Son cannot be the first Original of the holy Spirit as we mean when we use the word Fountain but such an original as proceeded from another which was before it For he who doth himself flow from another and from him receive his Divinity cannot be the prime Source of anothers Divinity And indeed whatsoever is spoken in the Scripture and tendeth to shew unto us that the holy Spirit doth proceed also from the Son is herein contained namely that the Son doth send the holy Spirit and pour him out upon his Confidents But the Son sendeth the holy Spirit from the Father as he himself expresly affirmed John 15.26 he also said that he would ask the Father and that he should give them another Advocate John 14.16 and having received the promise of the holy Spirit from the Father he poured out upon the Faithful so excellent a gift as Peter testifieth Acts 2.33 compare also Luk. 24.49 Joh. 7.39 Therefore the Greek Churches though they otherwise agree with the Latin concerning the Person of the holy Spirit do yet herein differ from them namely that they say the holy Spirit proceedeth or is sent or given not from the Father and the Son but from the Father by the Son which kind of speaking is more suitable to express the true Opinion It is clear therefore that none but the Father of Jesus Christ is the Fountain or prime Original of Divinity and consequently he only of whom are all things which is the property of the Most High God For as the most high God only is he of whom are all things so he only of whom are all things is the Most High God More things belonging to this Argument see afterwards Sect.
be subject to Accidents but is an heinous offence with them to say that there are Accidents in God And yet the same do not reprehend their own men who say that there is one Substance of God and that which is sung for many Ages in Temples The Father Son holy Spirit are three names all the same substance But let us free them from this fear To be subject to Accidents that is an Accident to a Substance To subsist by it self this is to be a Substance But do not the Father and the Son subsist by themselves If they subsist not by themselves nothing will subsist by it self Will you who do fear to ascribe any Accident to God perhaps make God himself an Accident But whatsoever is nor a Substance is an Accident I omit that no man can deny the Son to be a Substance but he who dares to deny him to be a man But it is necessary that the Adversaries say the same of the holy Spirit which is said of the Father and Son And because some although otherwise they say The Defence of the Argument that God is a Substance yet deny the divine Persons to be Substances as afterwards will more clearly appear Let us prove the same thing also by another reason that being assumed which is generally put out of controversie by all the Adversaries They all being taught by the Schoolmen do maintain that a person is nothing else but an intelligent Suppositum That Suppositum is the Genus of a Person Intelligent the specifical difference of it which being added to that Genus doth perfect the whole definition of a person And that word Suppositum although in this signification barbarous is very usual in Schools when they speak of the divine Persons For they say that there are three Suppositums in God But now a Suppositum as it is explained by the Schoolmen themselves the authors of that word so used is * Prima sabstantia completa a first or individual Substance compleat they are wont to add that it is incommunicable although without necessity as we shall hear presently They call it a Substance that they may exclude Accidents a first Substance that they may exclude the universal to wit Genus and Species a compleat and perfect Substance that they may exclude the parts of the substances whether integral or essential Lastly they say that it is incommunicable that it may not be common to more Suppositums nor be conjoyned with another Suppositum Which condition they have added for the sake partly of the divine essence partly of the human nature of Christ to both which all other conditions of a Suppositum do agree Therefore except they added this condition they saw it would follow that both the one and the other would be a Suppositum and since it is endued with understanding also a Person Wherefore lest thence indeed the doctrine concerning three Persons in one Essence of God here the tenet concerning the hypostatical or personal union of two natures in Christ should fall to the ground for there cannot be more persons in one person they have this prop of incommunicability put to it But that condition as far as it hinders the Substance to be common to many Suppositums is contained in the name of the first or singular Substance For it would not be singular if it were common to many singulars as we have above chap. 3. of this Section shewn But as far as it hinders lest it may be conjoyned with another Suppositum and so cohere with it that it may be partaker of its subsistence it is comprehended in the word Compleat For now it would not be compleat but it would be the part of another if it would in the manner be conjoyned with another Suppositum Of which thing we shall speak elsewhere Sect. 2. chap. 6 and 8. of this Book In this place we have need of this thing For neither the force of the Argument which we now urge is therein placed but in this that very Suppositum is a Substance That as yet seems to be added as we may more rightly perceive the reason of this description that the Schoolmen have therefore called such a Substance as I now have described a Suppositum because that at last may deserve to be called a Suppositum which is as it were put under and subjected to all other predications or things which may be predicated of some other thinâ— Briefly that which is the ultimum subjectum of which other things are predicated and it self of no other But this is no other thing but a first and singular Substance For this is predicated of no other thing because neither hath it any thing inferiour to it self nor any subjectum in which it may be inherent like an accident but it is the ultimum subjectum which both the second Substances to wit the Genus and Species and Accidents of are predicated Concerning which thing the Catagories which are inscribed Aristotles may be seen Of those also speak the vulgar Axiome Actions are of Suppositums because Actions do most properly agree to the first and that indeed perfect or compleat Substances If therefore every Person be a Suppositum and every Suppositum a Substance every person also must be a substance and further where there are more Persons it is necessary that there be also more Substances Not a few of the Adversaries have seen the force of this Argument Therefore that they might avoid it they have perverted the true definition of a person commonly received also in Schools if you consider the thing it self For they say that a Person is not a Substance or thing by it self subsisting bu an incommunicable subsistence of an intelligent nature This they say is the accurate definition of a person but that by which a person was defined in Schools to wit that it is an individual intelligent incommunicable that Substance not sustained by another is less accurate For it agrees to a person in concreto not in abstracto but the definition of Concretums are not accurate but that of Abstractums But further they say that the subsistence is a certain mode of a Being not a Being it self For it being conâ—â—â—ered by it self and abstractly hath not entity Theâ—efore the Fatâ—er Son and holy Spirit being considered by themselves and abstraâ—â—ly or distinctly from the Essence are with them non entia or no being â—nd in this indeed I assent to them that such persons as are conceived by them are non entia or no beings for they are in very deâ—d tâ—eir own devices But that the Father and Son and holy Spirit are non entia or no beings but modes only of a being it is indeed most false Certainly this thing is of it self most unworthy of God yea as we shall see by its force takes away all Empire and Honour from the Fat er and Son and doth in a manner lead men to Atheism I will not now urge that manner of speaking
which belongs to a King These things are plain and have in them no scruple and difficulty There is no need here of communication of Properties There is no need to distinguish subtilly between Expressions in concreto and in abstracto to difference the Person from the Nature again one Nature from another to seek how you may attribute humane things to the most high God and things proper to the most high God to a Man how the same Person one while governs as the most high God another while as a Mediator and so the same person is in some sort distinguished from himself Now from that which hath been said that may also be understood That there was no heed of the Union of two Natures For if there had been need of it it had been for this cause That Christ might bear and manage those Offices But Chrisâ— miâ—ht discharge them although he were but a man in Essence Yea if he had been God he could not discharge the two former he could not receive the last nor therefore discharge it because that Kingly office is not the Empire of the most high God as he is such but as the Adversaries speak such a Kingdom as Christ manageth as a Mediator And indeed the confirming our faith and hope and the Glory of the most high God required such a Kingdom But if any say that greater than humane ability or power was requisite to discharge those Offices that would be of some moment if it had been necessary that he should have that ability or power from himself nor could receive them from God himself But now since he both might receive them from God and the holy Scriptures so often testifie that he hath received them from God what need was there that he should be the most high God Rightly they say commonly God and Nature do nothing in vain although God doth those things also that Nature doth But if God does not things unnecessary much less those things which hinder and are otherwise unbeseeming his Majesty But we have shewed that that union would have hindered the administration of those Offices We have shewed also that it attributes to God not a few absurdities and things unbeseeming his Majesty and most apt either to take away out of mens minds or at least to diminish in them that veneration of it which he would establish by Christ The Third Section That the holy Spirit shouâ—d be the Son of God In which is discoursed concerning the third Person of the Supream Deity which is commonly held And it is shewed That the holy Spirit should be the Son of God if the common Opinion concerning him were true WE have said enough of the second Person which is held to be in the Trinity It remains that we add something also of the third There is no need that we should say much of it because those things which have been said of the Sons Generation out of the Essence of the Father being a little changed may be applied to that procession of the holy Spirit which the Adversaries have devised For which reason we also before sometimes have expresly joyned the holy Spirit with the Son and so anticipated the treating of those things which might have been here alleaged nor did we that without cause For if you rightly mark it both the Generation of the Essence of the Father is some Procession and on the contrary such a Procession as the Adversaries attribute to the holy Spirit is like that Generation which the Adversaries attribute to the Son of God The former the more lâ—â—rned of the Adversaries do confess who treating of the Generation of the Son and Procession of the holy Spirit say That there are two Pâ—ocessions in God But why the word Procession is accommodated perticularly to the holy Spirit and so is distinguished from the Generation of the Son they assign this to be the Reason Because there is a special word wanting by which that proper and peculiar manner whereby the holy Spirit proceeds from the Faâ—her and Son may be designed Therefore as in other things it oft comes to pass the general name is attributed as proper to the species and so is distinguished from the other species But that the Procession also of the holy Spiâ—it is a Generation if that Generation of the Son of God which the Adversaries hold be indeed a Generation is not hard to demonstrate For what other thing is required to a Generation properly to called than that one receive his Essence from another either the same in kind or as the Adversaries opinion of God is in number with his Essence from whom he receives it In brief generation properly so called is a communication of a substance with another And is not that Procession of the holy Spirit devised by the Adversaries such a communication Did not the holy Spirit by that Procession receive the same essence in number with the essence of them from whom hee proceeded So indeed Adversaries think and contend But if the Procession of the holy Spirit be a Generation properly so called we have in the Trinity two Sons one of the first person only another of the first and second and also two Fathers one of the ffrst person who will be a Father by a double name to wit because he hath begotten the second and third person of the Deity another the second person who together with the Father hath begotten the holy Spirit But we have learned both from the holy Scâ—iptures and the Adversaries that there is but only One Father and only one Son to wit by excellency so called The more acute of the Adversaries have seen this Rock of their opinion and have endeavoured to avoid it Therefore they have judged that that definition of a Generation which otherwise they themselves have delivered is to be limited and have said that not every communication of a substance with anohter is a Generation but at length that tâ—at which such a relation follows as is between Father and Son which is barbarously called Paternity and Filiation In which indeed they are rediculous As if forsooth it could be that a person may communicate his substance really to a person and yet such a relation may not thence presently follow and that person which communicates his substance to another by that very thing were not forthwith a Father or where there is a distinction of sex which is not in God a Mother and again he to whom the substance is communicated a Son or where there is a distinct sex a Daughter The Adversaries themselves confess that the words Father Son Generation Procession as also other-like words are by an Analogy said of God and creatures and that by reason of likeness they are translated from these to God But in things created as soon as the substance is produced the things is properly said to be generated nor is there any thing more required to the propriety of the word but if a person have
Lord. And how often I pray you in the Apostle is mention made of God the Father and of the Lord Jesus Christ Why then should we think that in this place the holy Spirit being once already named is understood when afterward there is distinct mention made of Lord and God Wherefore rather following the custom and analogy of the Scripture we put a difference between God Lord and Spirit as the same Apostle himself doth in the end of the latter Epistle to the Corinthians where he speaketh thus The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Love of God and the Communion of the holy Spirit be with you all CHAP. VI. The sixt Argument taken from these words 1 Tim. 2.5 There is One God and One Mediator of God and Men the Man Christ Jesus To which are added those Rom. 3.10 There is one God who justifieth the Circumcision by Faith c. Arg. 6 from 1 Tim. 2.5 OUr Argument from that place of Timothy is thus If the Father only is there understood by the name of that one God the Father only is that most high God For if any one besides the Father were the most high God he would be comprehended under the name of that one God since he is that One God besides whom there is no other Now that the Father only is there understood by the name of that One God is apparent in that he only is understood by that name between whom and Men the Apostle saith that Christ Jesus is the Mediator as is manifest from the connection of the words But he is none but the Father of Jesus Christ A further Confirmation and Defence of the Argument THat we may fully confirm this Argument that is to be proved whereof we last spake namely That the Father only is that God between whom and Men the Apostle saith That Christ is the Mediator For that Christ is the Mediator between the Father and Men no man doubteth but that he is the Mediator only between the Father and Men many men deny for they hold that Christ is the Mediator of the whole Trinity But this Opinion cannot consist for it would thence follow that Christ who is held the second Person of the Trinity would be the Mediator of himself or interveneth in the middle between himself which is contradictious Besides Christ in this place is most openly distinguished from God whose Mediator he is said to be You will say That Christ is a Mediator only according to the humane nature and that there is no absurdity to hold that Christ considered according to the humane Nature is the Mediator of himself considered according to the divine Nature and is righly distinguished from that one God But this answer is not only not brought but also wholly rejected by many of the very Adversaries for others altogether contend that Christ according to both natures is Mediator but some although they are afraid to speak so yet do they indeed say the same for they refer that office to the whole Person of Christ considered in its full latitude or to Christ as he is both God and Man As for the rest who would have Christ according to the humane Nature only to be Mediator neither do they by this distinction escape the difficulty for there are or have been some who would have the very humane nature of Christ to be indeed the Mediator and contend that it only is in Paul understood by the name of the Man Christ Jesus O These as the other Adversaries have observed are necessitated to confess that the humane Nature of Christ is a Person for both Offices such as Mediatorship is agree to none but Persons and the name of Man and also of Christ Jesus is the name of a Person But if the humane Nature of Christ is a Person he cannot be a Person of supream Deity for there would be in him two Persons a humane and a divine I say a divine one essentially But that there are two Persons in Christ all justly reject as Nestorian and contrary to the Scripture and judged to be most absurd But there are others and those far more numerous who to avoid this Rock deal more subtilly for they say that not the very humane Nature of Christ but his Suppositum or Person is properly the Mediator whereas the humane Nature is the formal Principle of that Mediation namely that part of the Subject which containeth in it self the proper cause of the action which because it is somewhat obscure is to be declared by an example Philosophers teach that a man properly doth understand love and hate and also eat drink run not the very soul or the body but that he doth understand love and hate according to the soul whereas he doth eat and drink according to the body So that the formal principle of some humane actions is the soul of others the body In like manner the Adversaries say that the Suppositum or Person of Christ that is very whole Christ is properly the Mediator and consequently doth such things as pertain to a Mediator but according to the humane Nature and they farther add this reason because should not the very Person of Christ be the Mediator the actions which he performs as Mediator would not have infinite efficacy and value nor satisfie God for the sins of men deserving infinite punishment which they think to be the proper Office of Christ the Mediator But now because his Person which is the very infinite God doth properly perform these actions though according to the humane nature hence it cometh to pass that they have an infinite force and worth But whilst they thus dispute they again shut the hole to get out at which they seemed to themselves by the distinction of natures to have opened For if the very divine Person of Christ is Mediator and performeth the actions proper to a Mediator it is necessary that the divine Nature also should perform the same and so Christ be a Mediator likewise according to the divine Nature for as the Adversaries themselves confess a divine Person doth not really differ from the divine Nature nor add any thing to the Nature but a Subsistence But a Subsistence hath of it self no poweâ— to act but all the power to act resideth in the Nature the subsistence is only a condition without which the Nature doth not act wherefore whatsoever the divine Person of Christ doth act his divine Nature endued with a subsistence doth act From whence it may be understood first that it is not rightly said that the very Suppositum as they speak or Person of Christ doth do any thing according to the humane Nature since the Person of Christ if we follow the force of the Adversaries Opinion is the very divine Nature having its subsistence But it is not rightly said that the divine Nature subsisting doth do something according to the humane Nature since the humane Nature is not a part of the divine Nature
Whereas the word according as it is used by the Adversaries includeth the relation of a part but if you take that expression as if it were said by the humane Nrture then both the Father and holy Spirit might do something according to the humane Nature of Christ though perhaps the Father not as the nearest cause and such as immediately moveth the humane Nature but the holy Spirit dwelling therein even as the nearest cause and immediately moving that Nature Again it is likewise understood from what hath been spoken that that distinction of Natures cannot cause that it may rightly be said that Christ is the Mediator of himself not only because it is incongruous to say that his Person doth do any thing according to the humane Nature if that Person be the very supream God but also because from that Opinion of the Adversaries it would follow that the very divine Nature of Christ doth primarily and properly discharge the Office of a Mediator although it make use of the humane nature in this behalf for it would be necessary that the same divine Nature should intervene in the middle between it self and Men which every one seeth to be absurd Finally it is understood that this distinction of Natures cannot cause that Christ the Mediator should be distinguished from God if Christ be very God himself Add hereunto that none but those things are simply distinguisht one from another of whom it may be simply affirmed that the one of them is not the other But in this place God and Christ who is said to be his Mediator are simply distinguished one from another wherefore neither is that God Christ nor Christ that God for the distinction of Natures cannot cause that any thing should be simply denied of some subject which for another Nature is to be simply affirmed thereof as we will shew more at large Chap. 3. of the following Section Wherefore neither can it cause that any thing should be simply distinguished from that which is to be simply predicated of it inasmuch as such a distinction as we have seen doth tacitly involve a simple negation of one in relation to the other Neither can any one here say that Christ in the words of the Apostle is therefore rightly distinguished from God and so tacitly denied that he is that one God because by the name of God or that One God the whole Trinity is understood whereas Christ is not the whole Trinity for by this reckoning it might be said that the Father himself is not God or that one God because the Father is not the whole Trinity But who could endure to hear one so speaking certainly he would openly contradict the Scripture who durst to speak in that manner Besides the very Adversaries themselves do not suppose the name of God or that one God to be collective that is so joyntly signifying three Persons that it cannot be predicated of each apart for in predicating they hold that name hath the nature of an universal so that it may be predicated of every Person in particular For instance The Father is that one God the Son is that one God the holy Spirit is that one God wherefore Christ was not therefore distinguisht from that one God and so tacitly denied to be that one God because he is not the whole Trinity but because he simply is not that one God Some one will perhaps say as it followeth not That Christ is not a man because he is the Mediator of men since he is rather therefore a Man because he is the Mediator of Men Whence the Apostle expresly saith That there is one Mediator of God and Men the Man Christ Jesus So neither from thence that Christ is said to be the Mediator of God I say the most high and only God doth it follow that he is not the most high and only God This though it be more pertinent to the second Section of this book shall notwithstanding receive a brief answer especially because the thing doth not need any long dispute for who seeth not when Christ is said to be the Mediator of Men that by the name of Men other men besides Christ are understood who were either wholy alienated from God or not so joyned but that they might be more closely joyned in a new Covenant by a Mediator but certainly Christ was not in the number of them wherefore we may rather retort this Argument upon the Adversaries for as Christ was not in the number of those men whose Mediator he was nor is comprehended under them in this place of Paul so neither is the same Christ that God or comprehended under the name of that God whose Mediator he is said to be Finally If the whole Trinity were comprehended under the name of that God whose Mediator Christ is he would also be the Mediator of the holy Spirit But this is disentanious to the truth for there would be open testimonies thereof extant in the Tables of the Covenant whose mediator Christ was But what are they We require not such places of Scripture wherein it is expresly said that Christ was the mediator of the holy Spirit but from which it may clearly appear that Christ did so intervene in the midst between the holy Spirit and us as it is needful that a mediator should intervene between them who are to be joyned in Covenant and that he performed the proper part of that Office between him and us According to our Opinion which the most learned Adversaries themselves think not to be false although they say it is imperfect It is the Office of a mediator between God and men to be the messenger of God to men and to strike a League between both and so to cause that men being instructed with the knowledge of the divine Will may address themselves to worship God But the Adversaries commonly suppose that it is the proper Office of Christ the Mediator by fully paying the punishment of all our sins to appease the wrath of God kindled against men and to intercede for them to God which we think pertaineth to a Priest But where is it taught in the Scripture that Christ was the messenger of the holy Spirit to men stroke a League between him and men and brought men indued with the knowledge of his Will to worship him Concerning the Father there are most clear testimonies of the Scripture some whereof we will alledge in the * See Sect. 2. Chap. 4 5 15. following Section Certainly Christ without expressing the Fathers name doth sometimes †John 8.26 27 28. describe him thus He that sent me and changeth this description with the name of the Father There is but one place as far as I can remember alledged out of the Scripture by the Adversaries to prove that Christ was sent by the holy Spirit and it is extant Isa 48.16 where the Prophet according to the vulgar Translation speaketh thus And now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me
ultimate scope and object of the same Nor also the whole Trinity held by the Adversaries Otherwise to Christ who would be contained in that Trinity glory would be attributed through himself as through the middle cause For as to the refuge of two Natures that hath no more place here than in the former Testimony since Christ is here considered with relation to the Office which he sustaineth in respect whereof he is the middle cause of divine Worship Whence the Adversaries themselves commonly hold when we are said to worship God through Christ that Christ is considered as Mediator But Mediation as also other Offices agreeth to none but a person as he is such Wherefore one must either say that the humane Nature of Christ is a Person and to be understood by the name of Jesus Christ or hold that Christ here is considered according to his divine Nature also or that it is primarily and directly here understood by the name of Jesus Christ as hath been shewn in the precedent Chapter It remaineth that by the name of the only wise God a certain divine Person and that Superior to Christ be understood For he is more worthy to whom glory is given as to the ultimate scope than the middle cause through which worship is exhibited to him But there is no such Person besides the Father It is in vain here to think of the holy Spirit for to omit that it is not granted that the holy Spirit is so much as a Person this is certain that the holy Spirit is not a Person worthier than the Person of Christ But we have shewn that that Person is such to whom glory is attributed through Christ Besides that the Father is worshipped by Christ is both from * See among other places Eph. 5.20 Col. 3.17 Scripture and the confession of all very manifest But that the holy Spirit is worshipped by Christ what place of the Scripture I say not doth affirm but intimate yea it is so far from saying that he is to be worshipped through Christ that it never simply saith that glory is to be attributed unto him especially in that manner which we here understand nor do we there read that it was ever attributed to him by so much as one man concerning which thing more largely in its own * Sect. 3. Chap. 2. place Neither indeed is there any cause if a certain Person is here to be understood why we should pass by the Father and understand the holy Spirit since glory is here attributed to God as the prime Author of Salvation and of the things belonging thereunto Now that all those things are wont to be ascribed to the Father as the prime Author if not only yet chiefly the Adversaries themselves do not deny and is most apparent from that place of Paul where he saith that the Father is he †1 Cor. 8.6 Rom. 11. ult Of whom are all things Whence also he constituteth him the ultimate end of the worship and honour that proceedeth from us for he is the same of whom are all things and to whom are all things The second * The second place John 5.44 of those places is extant in John where amongst other things Christ speaketh thus unto the Jews How can ye believe who receive Glory from one another and seek not the glory which is from the only God In which place that the Father is understood by the name of the only God First the whole context sheweth where Christ promiscuously mentioneth one while God another while his Father neither is there any the least cause why we should suspect that Christ in the same speech passed from one person to another since none can deny that all things which are attributed unto that God are most rightly ascribed to the Father See now the precedent and following verses yea that whole conference with the Jews beginning from the 17th verse Again Christ speaketh of that God whom the Jews acknowledge for God and concerning whom it was granted amongst them that the Glory proceeding from him is to be sought although they neglect to seek it For he speaketh of a thing which ought to precede Faith on Christ whereof because the Jews were destitute they are therefore here by Christ himself pronounced unfit to believe on him But the Jews did then acknowledge for God no other besides him whom Christ called his Father For that they did either imagine a Trinity to be God or the Son or holy SpiSpirit I suppose there is none that dareth affirm But Christ affirmeth that of his Father chap. 8.54 where he saith It is my Father that glorifieth me whom ye say that he is your God It is therefore apparent that in this place that only God is the same with the Father and the one of no larger extent than the other The third place is extant in †Third place Jude 4. Jude who if you regard his greek words saith that false Teachers who had already insinuated themselves into the Church do deny the only master God and our Lord Jesus Christ For we have already * See the Book of God and his Attributes chap. 14. elsewhere shewn not Christ as many of the Adversaries suppose but some other is understood by the only master God For first if he had understood Christ there would have been no need after he had called him the only master God to name him our Lord especially since the word Master doth comprehend all the force of the word Lord. Again neither can Christ be called the only master God since his Father so is and is so †See Luke 2.29 c. Acts 4.24 compare v. 24 with ver 30. called Master that being designed by this very name he is distinguished from Christ Neither is Christ any where called Master the greek word being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Jude maketh use of in the whole new Testament but the Father is found so stiled No marvel because in the great House of God Christ it not the Master but the Son of the Master of the Family and hath God for his Head as shall be spoken in its place But the Master of the Family hath not a Head in the House but is therein the chiefest Lord and Governour Now whereas some urge the Unity of the Article set before those words the only Master God and our Lord Jesus Christ they prevail nothing thereby For the Unity of an Article set before divers names doth not presently argue the Identity of the thing but often times doth only intimate some affinity or conjunction of divers things as namely of those which concur to the same action or about which the same action is conversant See Mat. 3.7 16.1 6.17 1.27 27.56 Ephes 2.20 3.5 4.11 1 Thes 1.8 Heb. 9.19 Certainly * See Beza's Annot on Ephes 4.11 5.5 some very learned men among the Adversaries when they had in this Argument urged the unity
of the Article elsewhere pronounce the reason fetched from thence to be but weak It is therefore apparent that Christ is not there understood by the name of the only Master God Moreover neither can we understand by that name the whole Trinity which is held otherwise what need was there after it had been said that they do deny the whole Trinity that is the Father Son and holy Spirit to add by name that they do deny our Lord Jesus Christ As if that had not been sufficiently said when it was asserted that they deny the whole Trinity You will say that the whole Trinity was but confusedly and therefore obscurely signified by the appellation of the only Master God therefore something more distinct was to be added for explications sake We answer if that reason had any moment not only the mention of our Lord Jesus Christ but also the Father and holy Spirit should have been expresly made since they are no less indistinctly and confusedly if the Opinion of the Adversaries be true signified by the name of the only Master God then Christ To omit that if Christ is dinstinguished from that only Master God it is agreeable that Person should be adjoyned to another person and not when three persons have been confusedly taken one person and that of the number of those three be subjoyned But if some certain Person is to be understood who is there that dares affirm of the holy Spirit to omit now the question concerning his personality that he the Father being passed by is joyned with Christ as one that rules and set before him not only in the order of the words but also in dignity of title For the Scripture in very many places joyneth the Father as Supream Monarch with Christ without making mention of the holy Spirit and set him before Christ both in order of words and dignity of title but never passeth by the Father joyning the holy Spirit as Lord and Prince with Christ neither indeed doth it otherwise unless it be very seldom joyn the holy Spirit with Christ so far is it from setting him before Christ in order of words or dignity of title Not to say that the Father is expresly called Master the holy Spirit no where much less is the holy Spirit designed by the name of the only Master Yea neither is the name of God any where read to be attributed unto him Concerning which in its * Sect. 3. Chap. 1. place CHAP. VIII Arg. 8 from Dan. 7. Rev. 4.5 Argument the eighth drawn from the Visions in Daniel and Johns Revelation TO the places hitherto alledged two Visions are to be added very like to one another from whence it is apparent that there is but one person of the most high God Which presently giveth us to undâ—rstand that the most high God is no other besides the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Since he by the confession of all is a divine person and the others which are also believed to be persons of supream Divinity cannot be so unless he be a divine Person since he is the fountain and original of the rest and whatsoever Divinity is in them is derived from him Wherefore if there is but one Person of supream Divinity the Father only is a Person having supream Divinity Not to say that those very Visions which we will quote do if they be compared with other places of Scripture sufficiently intimate that the God which did in a manner expose himself to the view is none but the Father The first of those Visions is extant in Daniel chap. 7.9 c. where it is said that the Antient of dayes that is the God which existed from all eternity did sit that there came to him in the clouds of heaven as it were a Son of Man and received of him Authority Honour and a Kingdom The latter is extant Rev. 4. and chap. 5. where it is also described how the Almighty and Eternal God the Creator of all things sate upon the Throne and afterwards a Lamb came to him and received a book from him which no other was worthy to open and view a Book I say of the Sacred Decrees of God concerning things to come Now in both places that Most High and Eternal God which is understood by the sitter upon the Throne is represented as one Person and openly distinguished from Christ and that even then when divine Honour is given of said to be worthy to be given unto Christ For also in Daniel it is said that to him who came as a Son of man to the Antient of dayes was by him honour given and that all People Tribes and Tongues should serve him Where certainly it is not spoken of civil honour and service to be performed unto Christ but of religious and divine And in the * Chap. 5.13 Revelation John writeth I heard every Creature which is in Heaven and on Earth and under the Earth and which are in the Sea and all the things in them saying To him that sitteth on the Throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honour and glory and power for ever Likewise †Ibid. v. 8 c. before praises were given apart to the Lamb by the four living Creatures and the four and twenty Elders and also the Angels as they had been formerly ascribed apart to the Sitter upon the Throne chap. 4.8 c. But were there many Persons of the most high God and Christ one of them many also would have been exhibited as sitting upon the Throne nor would Christ have been so distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne or from the Eternal and Almighty God but that it would appear that he likewise doth sit upon the Throne and is that Eternal and Almighty God The Defence of the Argument NOw if any one say that the divine Essence only which is one in number was represented by the Image of him that sate upon the Throne and not some Person he is exceedingly mistaken For besides the very Image of one sitting upon a Throne is indeed the Image of a Person and that one Person the actions which are attributed to him that sitteth on the Throne do altogether demonstrate that he is an intelligent Suppositum that is a Person Since actions are commonly said in the Schools to agree unto none but Suppositums But those actions which are attributed to him that sitteth upon the Throne are suitable to none but an intelligent Nature Not to say that very many Testimonies of the Scripture concerning which we shall afterwards * Sect. 2. Chap. 18. have occasion to speak being compared with these sufficiently shew that the Father of Jesus Christ is understood by him that sitteth upon the Throne for they manifestly affirm that he gave to Christ Authority Honour and a Kingdom with all other things without any where hinting that some other gave all these things to Christ As for the distinction of Christ and him that
respect of the humane Nature is distinguished from God not in respect of the divine The first exception for two causes chiefly is of no moment One is that it would thence follow either that there are two most high Gods namely the Father and Christ or that these twain though distinct in persons do yet make one God The first will not be granted by the very Adversaries The latter also cannot consist because the name of God is the name of a Person In as much as it signifieth him that exerciseth Imperial Power over others and when it is put for the most high God it designeth him who with supream Imperial Power governeth all things But this agreeth to none but a Person or as the Schools a Suppositum endued with understanding which is the definition of a person Wherefore he that saith that there is one most high God saith that there is one Person with supream imperial power ruling all things and he that saith that there are many such persons saith that there are many most high Gods Of which â—â—sing more in the second Book The other Reason is because if the name of God taken for the most high God is common to Christ with the Father there is no cause why it should be peculiarly taken for the Father and so Christ be distinguished from God For how shall a word common to the Father the Son distinguish the one from the other should he in their opinion be thought to speak rightly who should distinguish the Father from God simply put Who ever for examples sake did read the Father of God the Father sent God the Father gave God God went out from the Father if ye believe in the Father believe also in God as we read that Christ is the Son of God that God sent and gave his Son that Christ came out from God and he himself pronounceth If ye believe in God belive also in me Do not the very ears of men reject those first forms of speaking John 3.16 17. 13.3 and 14.1 as disagreeable to the use of the Scripture yea and of them with whom we have to do But if you say that a common word is therefore peculiarly attributed to the Father because he is the Fountain and Original of Divinity since the Son and holy Spirit receive their Deity from him we have already shewn * Sect. 1. Chap. 1. before that they who answer so do either contradict themselves and overthrow their own Tenet concerning a Trinity of Persons in one substance of God or say nothing and obtrude upon us empty words Wherefore we refer the Reader thither As for the latter exception which is That Christ according to the humane Nature not according to the divine is distinguished from God absolutely put this also cannot consist For first we have already shewn †Sect. 1 Cap. 6 8. above that Christ cannot simply be distinguished from God if he himself be the most high God although according to some one Nature he be not so Again according to the Opinion of the Adversaries in many of the Places quoted by us or in such as are like to them Christ is considered according to the divine Nature as when he is called the Son of God or the only begotten Son of God and also when he is said to have been in the beginning with God to have been sent from God into the world to have descended from Heaven to have come out from God to be equal to God The greatest part also refer hereunto those expressions that he is called the Image of God the Word or Speech of God and that he is said to be in the form of God Wherefore it is necessary to say that in such places whole Christ how great soever he is is distinguished from God and not in respect of one nature only But from such places judgment may easily be made of the rest For why should one seek a different reason of distinction where it is spoken of the same person when the same person may every where have place Add hereunto that we will afterwards shew that the holy Spirit also is in the same manner also distinguished from God simply put as we saw Christ was distinguished from him But if the distinction be the same why not also the reason of the distinction especially if the same may have place in both as the Adversaries either confess or are forced to confess For what reason of distinction they hold in the holy Spirit the third person of the Trinity as they believe the same must they confess may also be applied unto Christ But if you fly to a distinction of natures there will be a far different reason of distinction in both For this hath no place in the holy Spirit Wherefore the reason of the distinction between God and Christ is not to be placed in this but in some other thing But we have shewn that no other can be imagined than that the Father only be acknowledged the Most High God And let these things suffice to have been spoken concerning the first Argument CHAP. II. Arg. 2 Christ is called the Son of God The second Argument drawn from the name of The Son of God THe second Argument may he fetched from thence that Christ is so often in the Scripture called the Son of God For the Son of God cannot be the most high God To prove which we will not now repeat that which we have urged in the foregoing Chapter namely that by this very appellation the Son is distinguished from God simply so called We will not likewise urge that the substance of the Father must of necessity be different from that of the Son since every one is really the same with his Substance or Essence and consequently the Father will be the Son Lib. 2. Sect. 2. Chap. 1 c. and the Son the Father But if there be a different Essence of the Son and the Father the Son cannot be the most high God unless you hold two most high Gods We will not finally here urge that as the most ignorant understand the Son is in time after the Father whereas the most high God cannot be in time after any since he existed from all Eternity These things I say we will not now urge in as much as they are elsewhere to be urged but only this That from this appellation it followeth that the Father is more excellent than the Son But none is in any sort more excellent than the most high God For whatsoever excellency there is which is incident to supream Divinity cannot be absent from him who is the most high God Otherwise he would have some defect But such an Excellency it is to be from ones self For he is excellenter and greater who hath his Essence and whatsoever he hath from himself than he who hath from another both his Essence and all things that accompany the Essence and cannot be had without it Now that
God the Father hath from himself his Essence and all other things which he hath is granted amongst all and had he not he likewise would be the son of another or a creature not the most high God But the Son for this very reason because he is the Son hath from the Father his Essence and also consequently whatsoever accompanieth the Essence and cannot he had without it which is the cause that we may note this by the way why Christ is in the Scripture far more frequently called the Son of God than God namely because the former appellation doth so express the Divinity of Christ as that it withal distinguisheth the same from that most high and independent Divinity which belongeth to the Father whereas the word God doth not do so It is therefore manifest that the Father is more excellent than the Son and consequently that the Son cannot be the most high God Certainly even the very Adversaries themselves as we have already * Sect. 1. Cap. 1.2 Cap. 1. of this Section Cap. 14. Sect. 2. hinted several times acknowledge a Prerogative of the Father above the Son and holy Spirit in that he is the Fountain of Divinity Whence very many of the antient Doctors of the Church take that of Christ John 14. My Father is greater than I to be meant of him according to his Divinity as we shall see in its place The Defence of the Argument BUt there will not be wanting some who will say that Christ indeed as he is the Son or in regard of his Person is from the Father but not as he is God or in regard of his divine Nature For that in respect hereof he no less than the Father is from himself and as they speak Self-God Whence it followeth that a Prerogative and Excellency doth agree to the Father above the Son as he is the Son not as God But this hinders not but that Christ may be the most high God But this answer is of no efficacy For that very thing which they confess is sufficient for us to prove that which they confess not For first we have shewn that none can in any sort be more excellent than the most high God But they confess and are forced to confess that the Father is more excellent than the Son as he is the Son or in regard of his Person Add hereunto that the most high God is in no sort whatsoever that is neither in regard of his nature nor of his person that we may now in this manner distinguish these together with the Adversaries from another For whatsoever is from another dependeth on an efficient cause But the most high God in no regard dependeth on an efficient cause Wherefore if Christ is in regard of his Person distinguished from the Father he cannot be the most high God Besides it is very ill done of them so to distinguish the Person of Christ from his divine Nature as to say that the one is from the Father the other not For a divine Person is nothing but the divine Nature subsisting as we will shew in the second Book and many of the Adversaries confess For whereas they with whom we have now to do say that a person as such is nothing but a manner of subsisting which others call a subsistence they are herein wonderfully mistaken And they may learn it even from thence in that the person of the Father doth generate that of the Son is generated But a manner of existence or subsistence doth neither generate nor is by it self generated but the very nature subsisting Furthermore as from other places so chiefly from John 10.36 c. it sufficiently appeareth that Christ may of right have the name of God given him as he is the Son of God For Christ there sheweth that by the example of them whom God himself heretofore called gods he whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world may much more be called the Son of God Where for the same reason he might conclude that he might much more be called a God although he concluded it not that he might by this means shew that he assumed not to himself supream Divinity but as we have elsewhere explained it doâ— distinguish himself from the most high God by this very thing in that he had called God his Father and so affirmed himself to be his Son Certainly those very persons also whom Christ alledged for an example were in that place of the Scripture which Christ did in part alledge for the same reason called both gods and sons of God This difference only those appellations carry with them that the former doth not by it self distinguish those persons from the most high God whereas the latter doth distinguish them the one doth not express the dependency of their Divinity on the supream God although it expresseth the Divinity which doth depend on the supream Godâ— the other doth also express that dependency From whence it is understood that if Christ as the Son of God is from the Father and so the Father is more excellent than he Christ also as God is from the Father and so the Father is more excellent than he Last of all if Christ received not his nature from the Father he was not properly generated For whosoever is properly generated by another receiveth his nature from another But they as also other Adversaries do altogether hold and urge that the Son was properly generated by the Father and that otherwise he would not be the only begotten Son of God Wherefore they argue against themselves whilst they deny that Christ received his divine Nature from the Father and affirm that he hath his Person only from him Though even in that they are not alwayes very constant to themselves as hath been observed by other Adversaries For as much as none doth or can here fly to the distinction of natures in Christ we threfore touch it not CHAP. III. The Arguments which are in the sequel to be alledged being distributed a third is proposed from the words of Christ in John Chap. 5.19 The Son can do nothing of himself c. NOw that we may leave names and come to other Arguments of our Opinion we must produce such Testimonies of the Scripture wherein something is either denied of Christ which could not be denied of him or is on the contrary attributed to him which could not be attributed to him if he were the most high God For it is to be observed that some things agree to the Predicate of our Question that is to the most high God which agree not to the Subject thereof namely to Christ and on the contrary some agree to the Subject which agree not to the Predicate that is some things agree to Christ which are disagreeable to the most high God Wherefore we will draw Arguments from the things of both sorts And because amongst other Writers Arg. 3 from Joh. 5.19 John affordeth us very many Testimonies
followeth that it may be absolutely said of him that he can do all things of himself no less than he is absolutely affirmed to be the most high God Again They with whom we have to do do either confess that it may be simply or without any limitation added said of the divine Nature of Christ that it can do nothing of it self or they do not confess If they do confess why do they distinguish between the humane and divine Nature Why do they say that the words of Christ whereof we treat are not to be understood of him according to the divine but according to the humane Nature Will they perhaps say that also the divine Nature can do nothing of it self according to the humane Who seeth not that such a fashion of speaking and limiting is ridiculous Will you say that the soul of a man hath not in it self according to the body a power of thinking understanding reasoning Or that the body is not fleshly thick tall or low according to the soul But be it that it is lawful having expresly added such a limitation to deny these things of the soul as doth indeed agree unto it but do not agree unto the body and contrarily of the body such as agree to it but do not agree to the soul will it be presently lawful to do the same simply and without any limitation Who ever heard say that that should simply be taken away from the whole which doth indeed agree thereunto because it agreeth not to the other part of the same whole How then could that be simply taken away from the divine Nature which doth agree to the same namely to do all things of it self because it agreeth not to the humane Nature But if the Adversaries confess not that it may simply be said of the divine Nature of Christ that it can do nothing of it self their Opinion touching the Person of Christ falls to the ground for if the Son of God is a Person having supream Divinity it is necessary that whatsoever is simply either denied or affirmed of him may also simply be either denied or affirmed of his divine Nature For a person having supream Deity is nothing but the very divine Nature subsisting as many of the Adversaries confess and we in the second Book will shew †Sect. 1. Chap. 4. Since therefore it is simply denied of the Son of God that he can do nothing of himself whereas that same cannot be simply denied of the divine Nature it must be confessed that the Son of God is not a Person of supream Deity Neither can they escape the force of this Argument who hold a divine Person to be not the divine Nature but a subsistence of the divine Nature For first from this very place of John it is evinced either that their Opinion touching a divine Person is false or that the Son of God is not a Person endued with Supream Divinity For a Subsistence worketh nothing neither of it self nor by the shewing of another For the very nature subsisting worketh all things either by a faculty of its own or such as was received from another A Subsistence hath no faculty neither from its self nor received from another But the Son of God worketh all things by the shewing of the Father Wherefore he is not a Subsistence If the Son of God is not a subsistence either a Person of the supream Divinity will not be a Subsistence or the Son of God will not be a Person of supream Divinity Furthermore if a Subsistence did work any thing it would work in such a manner as is agreeable to the Nature wherein it is and with which it is really the same But the divine Nature wherein the divine Subsistence is and with which as the Adversaries speak it is really the same worketh of it self and not by the shewing of another wherefore the divine Subsistence also should be said to work after that manner nor could it less simply be denied that it can work of it self than the same may be denied of the divine Nature Add hereunto that it would no less ridiculously be said that the divine Subsistence can do nothing of it self according to the humane Nature than that the divine Nature can do nothing of it self acccording to the humane Nature Besides were the words of Christ to be restrained as the Adversaries would have it Christ had not spoken to the matter For it appeareth from the very place and all confess that Christ answereth the objection of the Jews and defineth those words of his namely My Father worketh hitherto and I work from all crime of Blasphemy and Arrogancy For the Jews objected it to him as a most grievous crime because by such words he calleth God his own Father making himself equal to God as we read ver 18. For thus they reason He that maketh himself equal to God committeth a crime to be expiated by death But Christ maketh himself equal to God in that he calleth God his own Father and maketh himself equal to him in working In which Argument it is spoken of whole Christ and not only of one Nature of his especially the less worthy For neither Christ when he affirmed My Father worketh and I work spake only one part of himself and that the less worthy but of himself as he was the Son of God and consequently God as the Adversaries themselves urge who are wont to object against us those words of the 18th verse to prove from thence that Christ is God by Nature because he both called God his own Father and made himself equal to God neither of which can agree to him who is not God by Nature To which Argument of the Jews Christ answereth Verily verily I say unto you the Son can do nothing of himself What would the answer make to the purpose if Christ should here speak of himself according to the humane Nature only when the question was concerning him either whole how great so ever he is or according to the divine Nature as the Adversaries will have it How had he defended his own words wherein he had spoken of his whole self or of himself as the most high God It is objected against him thou makest thy self equal to God namely in that thou makest thy self the Son of God and by that means dost as the Adversaries will have it arrogate to thy self a divine Nature Christ answers according to their Opinion the Son can do nothing of himself according to the humane Nature and is therein unequal to the Father What 's this to the matter But if you hold with us that Christ spake of himself whole how great soever he was you will find that he spake very pertinently to the matter and solidly confuted the crime that was objected against him For he answers that he doth not simply and absolutely make himself equal to God although in respect of working he compareth himself unto God because although he doth all things
that the Father doth yet can he do nothing of himself but those things only which the Father gave him a power to do wherefore in respect of the working it self he is equal to the Father in respect of the manner of working unequal For the Father worketh of himself but he only as the Father sheweth him or giveth him power wisdom and authority But herein is no Blasphemy no Arrogancy no Crime Add hereunto that that very equality which is seen in the very workers considered by themselves is not altogether absolute In that the Father will yet shew him greater works and consequently something may be yet added to that equality Finally If Christ had spoken of himself in respect of the humane Nature only when he said that he could do nothing of himself and in the mean time would have had it understood that he in respect of the divine Nature could do all things of himself he had not or rather ought not to have opposed the Father especially alone to himself in that matter but himself considered according to the divine Nature to himself look'd upon according to the humane But Christ doth not this but the other whilst he subjon'd unless he see the Father doing Also For the Father loveth the Son and sheweth to him all things whiâ—h himself doth and will shew him greater works than these For besides that the reason of the opposition doth more rightly consist if one nature of Christ be opposed to another Nature that is of a different disposition in relation to the thing spoken of than if the same should be opposed to another person no just cause can be imagined why Christ when in respect of one nature he had denied that the Son could do any thing of himself should not in respect of the other nature openly affirm of the same Son that he could do all things of himself since there was no greater cause to deny that than to affirm this That I may not say that there was greater cause to affirm this than to deny that since the question was concerning the equality of the Son and that as he is the Son with the Father Add hereunto that the divine Nature of Christ would have been the more near and proper Cause of that faculty of doing Miracles which he had received according to the humane Nature than the Father Unless perhaps you will have the divine Nature in him to be idle Wherefore the power was to be ascribed to it rather than to the Father Now whereas some affirm that Christ attributed his works rather to the Father than to his own divine Nature that he might give to the Father a Prerogative above himself this very thing overthroweth their Opinion and establisheth ours especially since it is necessary that that Prerogative should consist in this namely that the Father be held to do all things of himself the Son only by a power received from the Father For by this very thing Christ is denied to be the most high God whilst another is acknowledged to whom a Prerogative above him doth agree and whilst it is affirmed that he doth all things by a power in what manner soever received from another On the contrary the Father is alone held to be the most high God whilst to him only as the prime Cause the works of Christ are ascribed and a Prerogative attributed to him above Christ That now remaineth which we undertook to demonstrate in the third place namely that the very Distinction which the Adversaries use whilst they say that some things agree or not agree to Christ or the Son of God according to the divine others according to the humane Nature doth overthrow their Opinion concerning Christ For from this very thing it followes that the Son of God is not a person of supream Divinity the reason whereof we have somewhere already toucht For whilst the Adversaries thus distinguish they shew that the humane Nature is a part of the person of Christ and pertaineth to the constitution thereof But a humane Nature cannot be a part of a person endued with supream Divinity nor concur to the constitution thereof For whether you hold the divine person to be the divine Nature endued with a subsistence or the very subsistence it self of the divine Nature the humane Nature can neither way be a part thereof For neither is it a part of the divine Nature nor of a subsistence since neither is constituted of divers parts and both existed entire from all Eternity and consequently a humane Nature can constitute neither Certainly it is necessary to hold two persons in Christ one simple which existed from all Eternity the other compounded of a humane and divine Nature though by this means a divine person would become part of another so cease to be a person or they must bid farewel to that distinction of Nature But of this thing more in its * Lib. 2. Sect. 2. Chap. 6. place We have dwelt longer on this place of John partly because as any place doth more evidently overthrow the tenet of the Adversaries and this is one of the most evident so have they for the most part taken more pains in obscuring and turning it from the genuine sense partly because many things which have been spoken thereof will be profitable in the following places in as much as the Adversaries are wont to make answers to them either both these wayes which we have discust or at least one of them CHAP. IIII. The fourth Argument fetcht from those places in John wherein it is denied That Christ is the Prime Author of his Doctrine NOw that we may proceed to other places in John wherein some thing is denyed of Christ which could not be denyed of him if he were the most high God to that passage which we have examined in the precedent Chapter those are of kin wherein Christ denies that he is the prime Author of that Doctrine which he publisheth which places are in great number and in some of them mention is made also of works of which he maketh the prime Author not himself but the Father no less than in the precedent testimony For Chap. 7.16 17 18. when the Jews admired how he knew letters having not learnt them Jesus answered them and said My Doctrine is not mine but his that sent me If any one will do his Will he shall know of the Doctrine whether it be from God or whether I speak of my self He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory but whosoever seeks his Glory that sent him he is true and there is no unrighteousness in him And Chap. 8.28 When ye shall have lifted up the Son of Man then shall ye know that I am he and do nothing of my self but as the Father hath taught me I speak these things And chap. 12.49 50. I have not spoken of my self but the Father that sent me he gave me a Commandment what I should say and what I should
speak and I know that his Commandment is eternal Life What things therefore I speak as the Father hath said unto me so I speak And chap. 14.10 The Word that I speak I speak not of my self but the Father that abideth in me he doth the works Where under the name of works his words also are to be included as the very opposition sheweth and afterwards in the same chapter ver 24. The Word which ye have heard is not mine but the Fathers that sent me To which belong also many other Testimonies which are extant in the same Writer chap. 8. 38 40. and 15. 15 17. and 8. 14. and chap. 3. 11 32 34. Wherein we read that Christ saw those things which he spake with the Father heard them from God or the Father And that they were given him from the Father and that they were the words and speech of God or the Father from whence it is apparent that Christ is not the most high God For the most high God is the first and highest Cause of all things neither can it in any sort be said of him that his Doctrine is not his Arg. 4 Christ is not the Prime Author of his Doctrine but another persons and that he speaketh not of himself as is apparent from the proof of the major Proposition of the foregoing Argument But we say that those things are very frequently and plainly said of Christ and he constituted not the first but the second and middle cause of his Doctrine The Defence of the Argument THat the refuge of the distinction of Natures hath here no place we shewed in the last Argument when we refuted the second Answer for here Christ simply and without any limitation denieth that his Doctrine is his and that he spake of himself Therefore it is necessary that he spake of himself how great soever especially since he wholly attributeth what he denyeth of himself not to another Nature of his but to another Person namely the Father and consequâ—ntly doth therein oppose not one Nature to another but one Person to anoâ—her that is himself to the Father For were that the meaning of the words which the Adversaries using that distinction would have he must have said My Doctrine is not mine according to the humane Nature but according to the divine or is mine not as I am Man but as I am God and not My Doctrine is not mine but his that sent me to wit the Father And in that passage chap. 14.10 how unsuitable was it for him were the Adversaries Opinion true having omitted the mention of his divine Nature to say But the Father that abideth or dwelleth in me he doth the work Where his words also are to be understood as we have already hinted For when he would intimate the intrinsecal cause of his work or the cause dwelling in him why did he not rather name his divine Nature essentially dwelling in him and proper to him than a Person different from him Why when he had named the Father did he that he might more significantly exclude himself presently add the pronoun he as if he should say the Father simply doth the work Is it not manifest that Christ would distinguish himself wholly how great soever he is from the prime Cause of his Works and Words and having taken it away from himself ascribed it entirely to the Father Add hereunto that Christ when he saith My Doctrine or My Word would have it so far forth understood to be his Doctrine or Word as it was most belonging unto him and it was most his according to the opinion of the Adversaries as he was a divine Person from whom no less than from the Father that Doctrine had originally proceeded Wherefore when he had spoken this and desired to have it understood there was no cause why he should rather ascribe it to the Father then to himself or his divine Nature although divers natures had place in him Finally this thing doth here quite exclude the distinction of Natures that Christ doth here manifestly consider himself as he sustained the Office of a divine Embassadour But that Office agreeth to none but a Person as such Wherefore it is either to be held that Christ here speaketh of the divine Nature or to be confessed that Christ is not a Person of supream Divinity For as we have shewn in the foregoing chapter and will * Lib. 2. Sect 1. Chap. 14. elsewhere shew more largely a divine Person is nothing but the very divine Nature having its subsistence Besides the Adversaries will have it that Christ was first sent according to his divine Nature for they hold that the Son was sent from the Father out of Heaven to assume Flesh and consequently to undertake the business of Mans Salvation But if Christ according to his divine Nature yea according to this in the first place is the Embassadour of the Father why are those things which are attributed to him as the Embassadour of the Father restrained to the humane Nature only and not rather ascribed to whole Christ how great soever he is But if any one will have it that in these and other the like places a Prerogative is attributed to the Father above Christ and that as Christ is God as indeed the words altogether require it he must with all of necessity confess that Christ is not the most high God but that on the contrary the Father only since such a Prerogative agreeth to no other and Christ ascribeth to him entirely without making mention of any other person both his Doctrine and Works is the most high God concerning which thing it hath been spoken in the Defence of the precedent Arguments CHAP. V. Argument the fifth fetcht from those places in John wherein Christ is denyed to have come of himself LIke to the former are those places wherein Christ denyeth that he came of himself affirming that he was sent by the Father For thus he speaketh chap. 7.28 29. Whence I am ye know and I came not of my self but he is true that sent me whom ye know not but I know him because I am from him and he sent me And chap. 8.42 If God were your Father you would love me for I went out from God and am come for neither came I of my self but he sent me And chap. 5.43 he had said I am come in the name of my Father and ye received me not if another come in his own name him ye will receive But if Christ is the most high God how did he not come of himself For to come of ones self is to come of his own accord or relying on his own Authority and to discharge an office amongst men But how can the most high God be said to do that which he doth not of his own accord and authority but anothers Certainly although the Father and Son were divers Persons in the same divine Essence yet could not one be sent or come from the other
but he must withal come from himself since there will be the same numerical will in both the same Authority Wherefore the Father could decree or command nothing Arg. 5 Christ came not of himself but the Son would also decree that very thing with the same action But if it be absurd for any one to be sent from himself and Christ openly denies that he came from himself It must be held that he is not a person of the same Essence with the Father and consequently not the most high God The Defence of the Argument VVHy the Exception concerning the two Natures hath here no place hath already been shewn in the Defence of the precedent Arguments especially because Christ is here openly considered as sent from the Father which thing we said pertaineth to the whole Person of Christ and is by the Adversaries wont by name to be referred unto his divine Nature And besides when Christ would by this means procure Authority to himself and his Doctrine amongst all the People what need was there to fetch that Authority from the Father if he had had the divine Essence in himself and so no less than the Father had been God yea the self same God with the Father and would have men so to understand it according to the Opinion of the Adversaries as after he maketh mention of the Father For to what purpose is it to fetch Authority from another when you have it of your self yea the same in number with the other and would accordingly possess all men with a belief that you have it CHAP. VI. Argument the sixth fetcht from those places in John wherein Christ denies that he came to do his own will IN the sixth place those Testimonies are to be mentioned wherein Christ denyed that he came to do his own will but the will of the Father that sent him Which is a consequent of that which went before For it is the Office of an Embassadour not to do and seek his own will but the Will of the Sender And hereunto belong the words of Christ John 5.30 I seek not mine own will but the Will of him that sent me And chap. 6.30 I descended from Heaven not to do mine own will but the Will of him that sent me that is of the Father as appeareth from the following verses and many other places and from the very thing it self But if Christ were the most high God how did he not seek his own will or not come to do it For to what purpose had he come but to do the will of the most high God yea by this very thing whilst he affirmeth that he seeketh the Fathers Will and came down from Heaven to do it by this very thing I say he would affirm Arg. 6 Christ came not to do his own will that he seeketh his own will and came down from Heaven to do it if he were the same numerical God with the Father For as we before hinted they who have the same numerical Essence must also have the self same will and the same numerical act of the will as the Adversaries hold concerning God the Father and his Son The Defence of the Argument THat Exception touching the humane Nature according to which Christ spake that I may omit the repetition of other things that were formerly spoken hath therefore no place because Christ doth in the second passage from whence judgment may be made of the first expresly say that he came down from Heaven not to do his own will but the will of his Father But the descent of Christ agreeth to his whole Person or as the Adversaries believe to him according to the divine Nature For they contend that Christ according to the divine Nature came down from Heaven to be born of the Virgin wherefore he speaketh of his whole Person and not only one part thereof or if he attributed these things to himself in respect of one Nature only he is according to the Opinion of the Adversaries to be imagined to speak of the divine Nature which overthroweth it self CHAP. VII The seventh Argument drawn from thence That Christ did not seek his own glory SEventhly Hereunto belong those words of the same Christ chap. 8.50 I seek not mine own glory there is one that seeketh and judgeth And those words in the same chapter ver 54. If I glorifie my self my glory is nothing it is my Father that glorifieth me From the first of which we may thus reason If Christ had been the most high God he could not chuse but seek his own glory Since the end of all Gods actions and the ultimate scope of them that are sent by him or minister to him is the Glory of God himself Wherefore if Christ had been the most high God he could not chuse but seek his own glory Again since he openly professeth that he seeketh his Glory that sent him namely the Fathers chap. 7.18 If he had been of the same Essence with the Father and the same God with him in seeking his glory he had also sought his own Besides when he saith that the Father doth seek his glory and judge or glorifie him it would of necessity happen that Christ himself also at the same time and with the same labour doth seek his own glory and judge and consequently doth glorifie himself Arg. 7 Christ did not seek his own glory since as we formerly hinted they that have the same numerical Essence the same will and power of working must also of necessity have the same numerical operation Whence the Adversaries also hold that the works of the Trinity performed without as they speak are undivided although the reason of that Identity doth not admit a limitation and although it should be admitted yet here according to the opinion of the Adversaries must needs be the same operation because they constitute and are inforced to constitute that glorification either in the exhaltation of the humane Nature or in the manifestation of Christs glory before men But now we see that Christ openly denies that he seeketh his own glory or doth glorifie himself From the latter place we thus conclude If Christ were the most high God he could not say his glory would be nothing if he glorifie himself For how is the Glory which proceedeth from the most high God or wherewith the most high God glorifieth himself how I say is it nothing that is vain and empty Certainly it would be no more vain than the Glory that proceedeth from the Father But Christ openly saith that if he glorified himself his glory is nothing and opposeth the glorification proceeding from the Father as true and solid to the glorification proceeding from himself CHAP. VIII The eighth Argument drawn from the words of Christ John 12.44 He that believeth on me believeth not on me but on him that sent me THat these words of Christ which we have cited signifie that he is not the principal object of Faith and
the ultimate scope to which it tendeth and in which it resteth all will easily understand For thus the common custom of speaking doth require which it is certain Christ followed in that he desired to be understood by the people to whom he spake with a loud voice But from hence it followeth that Christ is not the most high God for the most high God is the ultimate scope and principal object of Faith But Christ in the word quoted denyeth that he himself is so The Defence of the Argument Arg. 8 from John 12.44 THe * See cap. 3. of this Section distinction of Natures cannot here have place both from the simple denyal and also because Christ here considered himself as he is believed or to be believed on But he is to be believed on as the Son of God and consequently if we give credit to the †See John 3.18 and 9.30 31. Jer. 17.5 Adversaries as the most high God himself For which cause when the question is concerning Christ they urge that of Jeremiah Cursed is the man that putteth confidence in man omitting or not considering that which follows and maketh flesh his arm that is placeth his strength and stay in flesh a frail thing and his heart departeth from God Neither of which hath place in the Man Christ especially placed at the right hand of God in the Heavens Wherefore that we may return unto our place whilst Christ constituteth himself the object of Faith but in the mean time denieth that he is the principal object and ultimate end thereof he speaketh of himself as the Son of God But that he according to the humane Nature only is the Son of God the Adversaries will not grant Add hereunto that he considereth himself as Embassadour of the Father for credit given to an Embassadour as such is ultimately terminated not in him but the Sender since his Authority doth depend from thence and he proposeth not his own sayings but anothers namely the Senders Indeed Christ did therefore speak this to commend the Faith placed on him namely that it resteth not on him since he speaketh not of himself but tendeth to the Father himself who sent him and is terminated in the Father But those things which are attributed to Christ as Embassadour of the Father are to be referred to Christ how great soever he is and if he be a person of supream Divinity are to be ascribed even to the divine Nature as we have formerly shewn chap. 4. of this Section But if this be absurd it must be confessed that Christ is not the most high God CHAP. IX The ninth Argument That Christ was sometimes ignorant of the last Judgement-day HItherto we have brought testimonies out of John wherein that is denyed of Christ which could not be denyed of him if he were the most high God It followeth that we produce the like Testimonies out of other sacred Writers also and that such wherein a Prerogative is attributed to the Father above Christ The first shall be that of Christ which formerly when we treated of the Father was toucht upon Arg. 9 That Christ was sometime ignorant of the last day Mark 13.32 But of that day or hour namely of the last judgment knoweth none no not the Angels in heaven nor the Son but the Father or as Mat. 24.36 speaketh but the Father only How it may be here evinced that the Father only is the most high God we have before shewn And now we must consider how it may be hence proved that the Son is not the most high God although the first being proved the second followeth by necessary consequence but we here go a contrary way to work and do not demonstrate that Christ is not the most high God because the Father only is but that the Father only is because Christ not The thing is easie and open to every one for the most high God neither is nor ever was ignorant of any thing But the Son of God was sometimes ignorant of the day and hour of the last judgement Wherefore the Son of God is not the most high God The Defence of the Argument HOw much the Adversaries have tortured themselves in unloosing this knot and what divers interpretations not only diverse but the same men have devised may be seen as in other Interpreters so chiefly in Maldonat who reports that Jerome and Austin prest with the dâ—fficulty of this testimony fled to the refuge of saying that the place was corrupted and that this was not to be read namely neither the Son but the Father contrary to the credit of all books which if we may call into question there will be nothing in the Scripture certain nothing firm nothing which one may not deny Neither must we only expunge the words of Mark but also those of Matthew which are of the same import Next the same Interpreter saith that the greater part of the antient Authors were of opinion that Christ was ignorant of the day of judgement not because himself was indeed ignorant thereof but because he made us ignorant of it because he would not reveal it to us because his Body that is the Church was ignorant of it because he dissembled the knowledge thereof and to that purpose he cites Origen Chrysostome Gregory Hierom Beda Theophilact This Interpretation if so be it deserves this name the same Interpreter doth rightly confute by this Argument because at that rate the Father also would be ignorant of the day of judgement in that he revealed it not unto us Again what manner of reasoning had Christ used were this Interpretation admitted The Disciples desired to know of him the day of judgement Christ answereth according to the opinion of these men The Son causeth you to be ignorant of the day of judgement he will not reveal it he dissembleth his knowledge thereof But this was the very thing that the Disciples ask namely that he will declare it unto them A cause should have been alledged why he would not declare it why as they speak he did dissemble it Finally what manner of Interpretation is this I know not that is I dissemble my knowledge Did Christ deal thus with his Disciples and delude them with whom he both might and ought to deal openly Such a kind of speech would be unbecoming even a grave man much more Christ Again the same Interpreter saith that others by name Origen Epiphanius Chrysostome expounded it that Christ was ignorant of the day of judgement because he had not yet experienâ—e of it This opinion he refuteth with the same reason that he did the former because by this reckoning the Father also should be ignorant of it since neither he himself as yet had experience of it He saâ—th that others affirm this to be the sence Neither doth the Son of man know it unless the Father know it but because the Father knows it the Son of man also knowes it as Enthymius speaketh Which
the right and left hand to bring him in thâ—s speaking To sit at the right hand and left hand is not mine to give but to whom it hath been prepared by my Son Would not the Father upon this account attribute some Prerogative to the Son above himself and ascribe that to him which he took away from himself Where since now the Son doth in that manner speak of himself it is to be held as we see some Interpreters do acknowledge that Christ even as he is God ascribeth some Prerogative to the Father above himself and what he attributeth unto him taketh away from himself Which if you make a true estimaâ—e of the thing is no other than to say that the Father only is the most high God but the Son is not as we have above sufficiently * Chap. 2. of this Section taught Some other will say that Christ doth not here simply deny it is his to give that one should sit at his right hand another at his lâ—ft but that it is not his to give it unto those two disciples the Sons Zebedee for that the words to you are either to be read or to be understood both because the antient Interpreters have them and the following words opposed to thoâ—e going before do require it for it followeth But to whom it hath-been provided by my Father Whence it seemeth apparent that in the foregoing words is to be understood the name of the persons to whom it suiteth not with Christ to give so great a thing and that they are those disciples who asked that of Christ and whom the antient Interpreter designed by the words to you But if those words be added you will say Christ affirmeth or denieth nothing of himself which may not be affirmed or denyed of the most high God But first no reason enforceth us to imagine that the words to you are either to be read or understood but there is rather good reason why we should conceive that they are not to be read For as for the authority of the antient Interpreter there is no cause why we should leave the Fountain and follow the Stream and think that this is purer than that yea rather the reading of the Latin Translation ought to yeild to the reading of the Greek Copies if they agree among themselves to be corrected from it But here the Greek coppies among themselves and that not only in Matthew but also in Mark where it is read in the same manner and that most learned Popish Interpreter saith he knoweth no antient Greek Interpreter who read the words to you yea not so much as Austin amongst the Latins But as for the reasons drawn from the following words that do perswade us that in the foregoing words a regard is also had of those persons to whom it concerned not Christ to give that sitting at his right hand and left but there it followeth not that the words to you must of necessity so be understood and so this great felicity is denyed to those two Disciples by name For every one seeth that these words may thus also be rightly understood as if Christ had said To sit at the right and left hand is not mine to give namely to whom soever I please even to my kinsmen such as you are having a regard to kindred only or to give it to such as simply ask and therein prevent others as you do but to them at length to whom it hath been designed by my Father Again let us grant that those words to you are either to be read or to be understood Nevertheless since Christ saith that it is not his to give that sitting but to them for whom it hath been prepared by the Father it followeth that he is not the most high God For by such words he intimateth that he is not the prime Author of so great Dignity but the Father and that he himself doth both promise and will at length give that honour according to the pleasure of another namely of the Father and the Laws appointed by him otherwise as we before hinted he would have said that so great dignity had for some been provided either by himself or at least by him the Father together But neither of those things which we have spoken is incident to the most high God for he is both the prime Author of all such Honours and Rewards and composeth himself to the pleasure of his own not of anothers will and accordingly distributeth rewards and honours The exception concerning the humane Nature according to which it was not his to give whereas it was according to the divine hath here no place both for the simple negation and also because he here opposeth not one Nature to another but his own Person to the Person of the Father and what he taketh away from himself he attribueth to him and finally because this reason would have had no force to repeal the petition of those Disciples for neither did they desire that he should give unto them what they craved according to one Nature not according to another but simply that he should give it and consequently that he should give it according as he is able Therefore if Christ had answered that it was not his to give according to the humane Nature they might presently reply that it did nothing matter them so that he gave it according to the divine according to which he was able to give it But they were nor so subtil although they believed Christ to be the Son of God as to think of that distinction Therefore they thought that a simple Negative was simply to be taken and believed that * John Maldonat Christ spake to the purpose and did not struggle besides the matter in hand I omit that the most learned of the Adversaries acknowledge that * John Maldonat Christ here spake of himself as God as we saw in the examination of the foregoing place CHAP. XI Argument the eleventh from those words of Christ Mat. 19.17 Why dost thou call me good none is good but God only THe third place shall be that which is extant in the same Matthew in the chapter immediately before going namely the 19.17 where when a certain young man had thus bespoken Christ Good Master what good shall I do that I may have eternal Life Christ answereth him with these words as it is read both in the Greek books with Matthew himself and in the Latin also with Mark and Luke †Mar. 10.18 Luke 18.19 Why dost thou call me good there is none good but one the God or God only which place both heretofore and at this day many have dared so to understand as if Christ would by the confession of that young man teach that himself was that one or most high God Which if we shew to be false the Argument will be presently retorted upon them and it will appear that the contrary to what they will have is here taken for
to any other person a power to determine of him and also to decree contrary to what himself desires and wills otherwise by this very act he would acknowledge that person superiour to himself But nothing is superiour to the most high God Whereas Christ permitteth here to another Person namely his Father a Power to determine of him and to decree even contrary to what he himself otherwise willed Again had Christ been the most high God he had also been one and the same God with the Father as the Adversaries themselves contend or of one Essence with him otherwise there would be two most high Gods But it is apparent from this place that Christ was not the same with the Father or of the same Essence with him for had he been he would likewise have had one numerical will with the Father and the same numerical act of the will as we have above * This Section Chap. 5 6 elsewhere taught But it is apparent from this place Arg. 12 from Mat. 26.39 that the will of both was different and the act thereof different yea that it might come to pass that the one might be contrary to the other in the thing here treated of although so that the will of Christ was ready to yeild to the Fathers Will otherwise he could at no hand have said Nevertheless not my will but thine be done for it could not be that his own will should not be done if his Fathers will were done nor could Christ for example desire that the cup should pass from him if the Father would not have it pass The Defence of the Argument IT will be here presently answered that it is manifestly apparent from the words that Christ speaketh thus according to the humane Nature not according to the divine And indeed we believe that Christ according to the humane Nature or the very humane Nature it self doth here speak but so that it is withal to be granted that there is not in him another Nature namely the divine For first the simple Negation Not my will be done permitteth not that there was another Nature in Christ and that a better according to which his own will ought altogether to be done as it would be necessary to hold if there had been in Christ the divine Nature the same in number with that of the Father To omit that it is absurd yea altogether impossible that in Christ at the same time there should be contrary wills concerning the same thing whereof the one would have the cup pass from him the other would not Certainly it would withal be necessary to acknowledge two Persons in him For to subjoyn another reason for which that distinction of Natures hath here no place it is necessary that Christ spake these things of himself as he is a Person for such operations as are to will and consequently also to beg agree to none but Suppositums endued with understanding as such and consequently to none but persons as such Either therefore it is necessary for the Adversaries to hold that Christ spake these things of himself as he is a divine Person namely one of the Persons of the Trinity which we have shewn to be false and they themselves who here use a distinction of Natures do acknowledge or it is necessary to acknowledge that his humane Nature according to which Christ willed and begged those things is a Person and so lest two Persons should with the Nestorians be hâ—ld to be in him contrary to all both Reason and Scripture that there is in him no divine Essence and Person Finally It is to be observed that he doth here submit himself not to the power and will of his own divine Nature but to the Will of the Father and so opposeth not Nature to Nature but to Person to Person and the will of that to the will of this Wherefore it is altogether to be confessed that there was not in the Person of Christ that will which he attributeth to the Father and simply opposeth to his own CHAP. XIII Arg. 13 from Heb. 5.5 Argument the thirteenth from the words Heb. 5.5 Christ did not glorifie himself HItherto we have cited places out of the Writers of the Evangelical History and consequently out of none but the words of Christ himself wherein those things are denied of Christ which could by no means be denyed of him if he were the most high God To which we think fit to subjoyn those words of the divine Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews which are extant chap. 5.4 5. Neither taketh any one the Honour to himself namely of the Pontificiate or high Priesthood but he that is called by God as Aaron So also Christ did not glorifie himself to become an high Priest but he that said unto him Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee For if Christ were the most high God how had he not glorified himself to become an high Priest if so be the most high God can be any high Priest Whereof hereafter For on the most high God the honour of an high Priesthood doth depend and so is conferred on others And in that the Father glorified him to become an high Priest as here it is affirmed Christ had also glorified himself to become an high Priest had he been the most high God and so one God with the Father But that is in this place denyed and he that said unto him Thou art my Son is said to have glorified him and not he himself The Defence of the Argument THe exception concerning two Natures hath no more place here than in the former places both for the simple Negation as also because Christ is here considered as he hath attained the Priestly Office which agreeth to him only as he is a Person But if that be a Person of supream Divinity those things which are here either spoken or denyed of Christ must be attributed or denyed of the very divine Nature Since a Person of supream Divinity is nothing but the divine Nature endued with a subsistence Add hereunto that those things which are here attributed unto Christ are ascribed to him as he is the Son of God for the divine Author doth not therefore take those words of the second Psalm that he may only simply describe him that glorified Christ and made him high Priest but that this very description may teach that Christ was made an high Priest by God For besides the custom both of this and other divine Authors who are wont to make use of Descriptions of Persons accommodated to the subject matter not forreign to the matter the following words also shew this thing for the divine Author addeth As he also saith in another place Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec By which words it clearly appeareth that in the former place also it is spoken of the Priesthood which was given unto Christ But that place is not commonly to be taken of Christ
according to the divine Nature and to be wrested to his Generation out of the Essence which the Father made from all Eternity which though it be absurd and besides other things repugnant to the words of Paul Act. 13.32 33. so to this very place doth yet exclude their exception concerning the humane Nature according to which this very place is to be taken of Christ Finally would the divine Author here have spoken of a certain Nature only and not of the whole Person of Christ he would not have opposed Christ to the Father but to himself according to the divine Nature and what he had taken away from the humane he would have attributed to the divine but that he neither did nor could do For if Christ was in that very thing made an high Priest by God as he was begotten by God and consequently became the Son of God as we manifestly see the divine Author intimates he could not be made an high Priest by himself no not considered according to the divine Nature otherwise Christ would have been begotten of himself considered according to the divine Nature and so would be his own Son and the divine Nature might say to him Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee Which how absurd it is and repugnant to its self every one perceiveth Now therefore he at length shall rightly understand this place and the Authors reasoning who observes that Christ is chiefly called the Son of God as by his favour he hath attained the greatest similitude with God and that Christ was never made more like to God than when he obtained the perpetual Government of the house of God and the Office of eternally looking to and saving the People of God Which thing is contained in this Priesthood for the divine Author opposeth nor that Office to the Kingly but in some sort includeth this in that But let those things be here spoken by the by in that they will prove advantagious hereafter CHAP. XIV Argument the fourteenth from the words of Christ John 14.28 My Father is greater than I. VVE have hitherto reckoned up not a few places wherein something is denyed of Christ which could not be denyed of him if he were the most high God It follows that we take a view of those places wherein something is attributed to him which could not be attributed if he were the most high God and that such in the first place wherein some Prerogative is ascribed to the Father above him and so the Father made superior to Christ Arg. 14 from John 14.28 of which sort those also were which we have hitherto alledged We will again begin from John in whom there are very many Testimonies of this kind also amongst which we will give the first place to that wherein Christ with most open words professeth that the Father is greater than he as he doth chap. 4.28 Where he saith My Father is greater than I to which ought to be added that place chap. 10.29 where the same Christ saith My Father which gave them me namely the Sheep is greater than all Where under the name of those All Christ himself also is included as both the collation with those words chap. 14. and also that doth shew that in the same place he attributeth to the Father the giving of those Sheep unto him and consequently unto himself the receiving of them from the Father But none can be greater than the most high God The Defence of the Argument HEre many of the antient Authors did grant that Christ speaketh of himself even as he is the Son of God and saith that the Father is greater than himself in as much as the name of Father signifieth the Principle and as the Greeks speak the cause of the Son Thus besides others that Popish Interpreter * John Maldonatus whom we have above quoted saith it is expounded by Athanasius Hilary Epiphanius Gregory Nazianzen Cesarius Cyril Damascen Chrysostom Leontius Theophilact Euthymius citing the places of them to that purpose But I know not saith he whether they granted more to the Adversaries namely the Arrians with whom they did dispute than was meet Indeed this acute man saw that it followeth thence that Christ even as he is the Son of God is not the most high God in that the Father is greater than he as such concerning which thing we have already above †Sect. 1. Chap. 1. sufficiently spoken Add hereunto that that fashion wherein they make the Father greater than Christ makes nothing to the purpose of Christ for Christ there renders a reason of that which he had last spoken namely If ye love me ye would rejoyce because I go to the Father By which words he signifieth that some good or happiness should arrive to him when he was gone away to the Father and consequently that the Disciples ought to rejoyce even for his sake that he went away to the Father as very learned men before us have observed But what maketh it to the purpose that the Father is greater than Christ as he is the Fountain of his divine either Nature or Person and begat him from Eternity out of his Essence doth not the thing it self hint that Christ would signifie that the Father was greater than he as he was more blessed glorious powerful and that he himself when he was more nearly joyned with the Father and received into his own seat should be partaker of the same Blessedness Glory Power and Empire But there is no need to labour much in refuting the Interpretation of the Antients since at this day there is scarce any one that followeth it For latter Writers observing that by such an Interpretation the Arrians Opinion touching the Divinity of Christ is not a little established they chiefly seized on that answer which also not a few of the Antients made use that Christ there spake not of himself according to the divine but only according to the humane Nature Which answer may be refuted by the same reason in a manner which above chap. 3. of this Section we alledged if you change a few things in some of them For not to repeat those things now whereby we have taught that there is no example of such a distinction in the Scriptures yea that this very distinction overthroweth the Opinion of the Adversaries concerning the Person of Christ we have shewn that that cannot be simply denyed of the whole which may and is wont or rather altogether ought to be simply affirmed of the same although it agree not to it according to some one part especially the less worthy Whence it followeth that also on the contrary that cannot be simply affirmed of some whole which may and is wont or rather ought to be simply denyed of the same whole although it doth agree to it according to some part especially the less worthy Now if Christ be the most high God equal to the Father in all things as the Adversaries affirm
and that without any limitation and simply yea ought simply to be denyed of him that the Father is greater than he For neither is it more lawful simply to affirm of him that he is the most high God and equal to the Father in all things than to deny that the Father is greater than he or that he is less than the Father Wherefore neither could Christ simply affirm of himself if he were the most high God that the Father is greater than he Add hereunto that such an affirmation My Father is greater than I is of equal force with such a Negation I am not so great as my Father as every one seeth by himself and the scope of these words before mentioned by us doth teach for Christ would signifie that he did yet want something which the Father hath and therefore that he also may attain the same he must go away unto the Father Wherefore since we have taught that what may or ought to be simply affirmed of the whole cannot be denyed of the same whole Christ could not thus speak of himself if for another and that a better Nature he would have the contrary understood of him Again since he who speaketh is the very Son of God for he saith My Father is greater than I thereby intimating that God the Father is greater than his Son either it is necessary to say that the Father is greater than the very divine Nature of Christ which the Adversaries by that very distinction of theirs endeavour to avoid or confess that the Son of God is not a person of supream Deity since a person of supream Deity is no other than the very divine Nature having its subsistence as we have above said chap. 3. Besides the Interpretation of the Adversaries doth altogether enervate the force of Christs words and render them invalid to his purpose For we saw that therefore Christ uttered those words that the Disciples might see that he must go away to the Father to the end he might enjoy greater happiness and therefore should not only abstain from sorrow but also rejoyce that he went a way but if Christ according to one Nature only had been less than the Father and in the mean time had in himself a Nature or Person equal to the Father in all things there would have been no need for him to go to the Father as greater to the end he might enjoy greater happiness nor would the Disciples have had cause to rejoyce that he went away from them but rather to grieve in that he would go away where as he might stay and they might presently object to the Lord yea why dost thou go away to the Father as greater than thou since thou art endued with such a Nature or Person as is equal to the Father in all things and that Nâ—ture is alwayes intimately present with thee even whilst thou art conversant with us on the Earth why rather dost thou not stay with us and here procure to thy self that happiness which thou seekest with the Father You see that by this reason if it be taken according to the sense of the Adversaries Christ could have prevailed nothing with the Disciples But he could prevail very much if omitting the distinction of Natures he would have the words taken of him simply and absolutely as they were uttered But there are some learned men of the Adversaries who think that those words of Christ as also many other places in the same John are to be taken neither of the humane Naâ—ure of Christ nor of the divine but of the whole complex * See John Calvins Admonition to the Brethren in Poland as they speak because although he were the eternal God yet when he descended to us he began to be a middle person between God and us But this is of no moment for either they will have it that the Son when he dâ—scended to us ceased to be the most high God or they will not have it If they will have it the Son neither is nor ever was the most high God for he can never cease to be the most high God If they will not have it the Son could not therefore be simply called less than the Father or which is all one the Father greater than he because none is simply yea none is any way greater than the most high God And if the Opinion of the Adversaries concerning Christ be true the Son ought to be termed equal to the Father in all things But as we have shewn before the same cannot be simply both affirmed and denyed of the same whole Again since that whole complex whereof they say that those words of Christ are to be taken is the Person of Christ or the very Son of God as neither they do deny and we have before shewn it is necessary for them to confess either that that Person is not a Person of supream Deity or else that it may be said of the divine Nature that the Father is greater than it as we have a little before demonstrated We forbear to repeat that reason whereby we have confuted the Answer which is now adayes most received among the Adversaries namely that such an Interpretation weakneth the force of Christs words and renders them ineffectual to what he intended For the same reason is also prevalent against this Interpretation for if these words be so to be taken as that nevertheless it may or rather ought to be understood that Christ is the most high God or hath in him the Nature of the most high God they are not effectual to shew that Christ must go away to the Father and his Disciples ought to rejoyce that he would go away to the Father as may be understood by what was formerly spoken Furthermore did Christ therefore call himself less than the Father because he is a middle Person between God and us he would alwayes be less than the Father in that sence even after he ascended into Heaven and sate at the right hand of God the Father since Christ is at this time a middle Person between us and God in that he is a Priest and our Advocate interceding for us with the Father for which cause the Adversaries themselves say that he is now a Mediator But Christ sheweth by these words that he after he was gone away to the Father should be no longer less than he Whence they themselves with whom we have to do affirm that Christ in those words compareth his present state with his heavenly Glory For as we already hinted before because the Son did yet want that Glory to wit Immortality and sublime Authority over all things he was therefore less than the Father having attained the same he is reputed no longer less than the Father For neither is a most exact and altogether absolute equality here to be regarded Wherefore Christ did not therefore say that he was less than the Father or the Father greater than he because he is a
middle Person between us and God I forbear to mention at this time that they with whom we have to do hold that Christ was in the same sort even from the beginning of the world a Mediator of God and Men. Whence it would follow that his divine Person existing without the humane Nature was already less than the Father before that descent which they understand neither do I here urge that if Christ because he descended to us that is as they imagine assumed a humane Nature became a middle Person between us and God and consequently less than the Father it is necessary that both the Father and the holy Spirit became middle persons between us and God and less than themselves For neither could the Son or his divine Nature assume the humane but that the Nature of the Father and of the holy Spirit and consequently the very Father and holy Spirit would together assume the same humane Nature if that be true which the Adversaries say that those three have one and the same numerical divine Nature Concerning which * Sect. 2. Chap. 5. we will treat in the second Book CHAP. XV. Arg. 15 That the Son was sent by the Father Argument the fifteenth drawn from thence That the Son was sent into the world by the Father IN the second place that may be alleaged which is so often read in John namely that Christ * See Joh. 3.17 4.33 5.23 24. and 30.37 38 and many other places was sent by God or the Father which is also found in other Writers and amongst others in Paul when he saith God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh Rom. 8.3 and Gal. 4.4 When the fulness of time came God sent his Son made of a Woman made under the Law For it followeth from hence that Christ is not the most high God since it is not for him to be sent but to send because it is not for him to receive any command from another but to give commands unto all But every Embassadour as such receiveth command from another and of necessity composeth his words or actions which he undertaketh as an Embassadour unto the will and beck of another otherwise he will not discharge the Office of an Embassadour Whence also Christ as we saw before John 12.49 saith The Father that sent me he gave me a Commandment what I should say and what I should speak And in the following verse What things therefore I speak as the Father hath said unto me so I speak The Defence of the Argument HEre the Adversaries are not easily wont to fly to a distinction of Natures partly because they hold that Christ before he was born of the Virgin was sent by the Father out of Heaven yea sent to this very end to be born of the Virgin and assume a humane Nature partly because they see that to be sent and so to sustain the Office of an Embassadour agreeth to none but a person as such That I may not say if Christ had been sent only according to the humane Nature it will follow that he was also sent by himself or by his own divine Nature when notwithstanding he every where maketh another person namely the Father to be the Author of his mission but never maketh himself yea as we formerly * John 7.28 saw he expresly denyeth that he came of himself Wherefore the Adversaries are wont to betake themselves to another refuge and to deny that Christ being sent by the Father argueth him to be less than the Father indeed the greatest part of them affirm that he saving his equality with the Father even then when he had not yet assumed a humane Nature was both before the Law and under the Law sent by God and was then oftentimes stiled an Angel or Messenger and Embassadour which we in our Book concerning God when we treated of the name Jehovah have as I suppose sufficiently refuted Now they say that it is no unusual thing that a Senator for example sake should be sent by his Collegues to whom he is otherwise equal in Authority and Power and in their name discharge an Embassage Yea that a greater Person may be sent by a less either because he doth of his own accord take upon him that Office or because it is obtained at his hands by prayers or other perswasions But first they do not refute the reason of the consequence of our Argument which being safe the Argument it self is safe Again if the thing be so in divine matters as they hold it is inhumane namely that an equal may be sent by an equal yea a greater by a less nothing will hinder but that also the Father may be sent by the Son or holy Spirit which thwarteth the Opinion of the very Adversaries who deny that the Father may be sent by the Son or holy Spirit either apart or joyntly though it is a wonder that they deny it since they hold that those three Persons are equal to one another in all things so that there is no repugnancy if one of them may be sent that the rest also may be sent But why do I say that there is no repugnancy since it cannot be that one should be sent but that the other must also be sent if so be they are of one Essence and a Person cannot be sent without the Essence For if the Essence of the Father were sent when Christ or the holy Spirit that we may now together speak of him 〈◊〉 was sent certainly it is necessary that the Father himself was sent For he is sent whose Essence is sent since every one is really the same with his Essence Besides from this answer of theirs it will follow that nothing hinders but that God or Christ may be sent by Angels and finally by Men namely being drawn by prayers or other perswasions But if all understand this to be most absurd let them also acknowledge it to be most impossible that Christ should be equal to the Father in all things if he be sent by him for neither was there any cause why all should judge either this or that which in the first place was spoke of to be absâ—rd than because reason it self hath taught all men that the Sender in respect of that thing for which he decreeth the message is as I may speak with the Vulgar the principal but the Messenger is his Minister in the same thing And withal this hath also been understood that the Father can by no means be inferiour to the Son or holy Spirit who proceeds from him have their Essence from him or be Minister much less the Minister of Men or Angels As for the Instances therefore or Examples alleaged to the contrary here they ought to remember that which they themselves are often wont to inculcate when there is no place for it namely that in this matter an Argument is ill drawn from humane things to divine Now the reason of the
diversity is this because no man unless perhaps you except sovereign Kings who are not themselves wont to discharge Embassages is so great but that he may in a certain thing be subjected or subject himself to another and so receive commands from him and minister to him Wherefore he also who is equal to another in dignity yea superiour may be sent by him and discharge an Embassage in his own name and therein become inferiour to him and in some business be subservient to him as the principal But the most high God cannot so be changed as to become inferiour to any one in any thing and to minister unto him but he is alwayes superiour our to all and all minister to him Wherefore can he neither undertake the Office of an Embassadour CHAP. XVI Argument the sixteenth drawn from thence That Christ received Commands from the Father and kept them THirdly To these are to be subjoyned those other places in John wherein Christ openly professeth that he received Commands from the Father and that he did keep them and they are many for chap. 10.18 he saith This Commandment namely of laying down my soul that I may receive it again have I received from my Father And chap. 12.49 The Father that sent me he gave me a Commandment what I should say and what I should speak Which words we have quoted in the foregoing chapter And chap. 14.31 As the Father hath given me a Commandment so Iob. And chap. 15.10 As I have kept the Commandment of my Father and abide in this Love See also chap. 4.34 and 6.38 and 8.29 55. and 17.4 and 18.11 and those places wherein it is very clearly taught that Christ obeyed God Rom. 5.19 Phil. 2.8 whereunto add Heb. 5.8 Hereunto also may be referred those places in the Prophets wherein God calleth Christ his Servant as amongst other places it is done Isa 42.1 which place is cited of Christ by Maâ— chap. 12.18 and 49.5 6. of the same Prophecy which place is in part cited Acts 13.47 and 52.13 and 53.11 and Ezek. 34.23 24. 37.24 25. and that where Christ is called a Minister of the Sanctuary Heb. 8.2 All which shew that Christ is not the most high God for he can receive Commands from none and observe none obey none be the servant of none otherwise he would not be the Most High for he is Superiour who giveth Commands and who is obeyed and served The Defence of the Argument THe common exception of the Adversaries is that those things agree to Christ only according to the humane Nature But the exception is easily overthrown by what hath been spoken above in the third and fourth chapter of this Section For first those things which we have alleaged are spoken of Christ simply and without any limitation but were the very Essence of the most high God in Christ or rather were he the most high God Arg. 16 That Christ received commands from God they ought no less simply yea much more to be denyed of the same For it would no more be lawful simply to affirm of him those things which agree unto him according to the humane Nature than to deny those things which agree not to him according to the divine but the same thing cannot be simply affirmed and denyed of the same Again If Christ be a person of supream Godhead that limitation according to the humane Nature hath no place in him neither can it cause that what agreeth to his humane Nature only should be simply affirmed of his Person For a Person of supream Divinity is the very divine Nature But it cannot be said that something agreeth to the very divine Nature according to the humane and much lâ—ss that be simply affirmed of it which is repugnant to it by it self and agreeth only to a creature such as are to receive commands from the Father to keep them to serve the Father Now the reason is so much the more to be pressed if it appear that those things which are spoken of Christ do indeed and properly agree to a Person only such as those are which were mentioned For these actions do not agree properly but to an intelligent Suppositum that is a Person as such especially because in respect of the Office which Christ sustained on the Earth he received Commands from the Father and performed them and is now called a Minister of the Sanctuary as he is a Priest But these Offices agree to none but a Person as such Now that which doth not properly agree but to the Person of Christ must needs agree to the Nature which with its Subsistence compleateth his Person But if that Nature be divine the limitation of the Adversaries restraining such Attributes to the humane Nature only falleth to the ground If it be a humane Nature either there will be two Persons in Christ a divine and a humane or that divine which the Adversaries do hold must be denyed and a humane only if you regard the Essence but a divine if you respect the Qualities whereby it is endued by God is to be acknowledged which is the thing that we would have We now forbeaâ— to mention that Christ received Commands from God as he was his Embassadour But the Adversaries hold Christ to be the Embassadour of God and not only according to the humane Nature but also and that primarily according to the divine By what means then do they restrain the receiving and keeping of Commandments and consequently the name of Servant to the humane Nature only For it is necessary that they renounce that Doctrine before they use such a limitation CHAP. XVII Arg. 17 That Christ prayed to the Father Argument the seventeenth drawn from thence That Christ poured out Prayers to the Father FOurthly We may alleage those places both in John and also other sacred Writers wherein we read that Christ prayed to the Father Now there is a large Prayer of his poured out to the Father partly for himself partly for the Disciples both present and to come in the whole 17th chapter of John To which add that in the Garden of Gethsemane Mat. 26.39 42 44. Luke 22.41 44. and that on the Cross Mat. 27.46 Luke 23 34 46. To the former of which poured out by Christ unto God for himself the divine Author to the Hebrews without doubt alluding chap. 5.7 speaketh thus Who Christ in the dayes of his flesh offering up Prayers and Supplications to him who could save him from death with strong cries tears was heard for his reverence or as it may be turned out of the Greek for his fear Furthermore we read elsewhere that he continued all night in prayer to God Luke 6.12 see also chap. 9.18 28 29. and 11.1 and John 14.16 From whence it is clear that Christ is not the most high God for he needing the help of none and depending on none doth never implore the help of any The Defence of the Argument THe answer that
Christ prayed according to the humane Nature only is sufficiently refuted by what we have spoken before both in the 3d and 14th chapter and also in the precedent one Whereunto add if Christ as this distinction supposeth had had a divine Nature in him there would have been no need that he should fly to another Person namely the Father as we read Christ very often did and also with tears and strong cryings For what need is there to ask of another and that with so great earnestness yea further with tears which you are able by your self and that by natural strength underived from another at all times most freely and easily to perform yea which you your selves have absolutely decreed to perform as certainly it is to be held of Christ if he were the most supream God or most High Some here reply that it may be that even he who may and will perform something by himself may beg it of another to the end he may honour him in this behalf and in a manner leave to him the glory of the benefit And that it became Christ as being the Son in this sort to honour the Father and to ask of the Father by name as of the Fountain those benefits which proceed from the whole Trinity Which answer first taketh not away the difficulty For they who thus answer either hold that some Prerogative agreeth to the Father above the Son and so to the first Person of the Deity above the second as such or else they hold it not If they hold it those Persons are not of the same numerical Essence nor is the Son the supream and most high God as we have already * Chap. 1 2. of this Section shewn before If they hold it not there is no cause why the Son should rather ask something of the Father than of himself if so be any one may ask any thing of himself or without any prayers performed by himself For what reason is there that in an absolute equality this honour should rather be given unto the Father and the glory of the deed attributed to him than to the Son Yea Christ should rather have taken heed lest by the example of his prayers which he is found to have poured out to the Father only he should give occasion unto others to exhibit greater honour to the Father than either to himself or to the holy Spirit For to Persons altogether equal equal honour is also due and the Adversaries themselves contend that those three Persons of Supream Divinity which they hold have equal honour and glory But if you say as indeed some do that it was Christs modesty to ask that of the Father which of himself he could either assume to himself or bestow on others Not to repeat those things which have been already spoken we may demand to which Nature they think that modesty is to be ascribed If to the humane it was not its modesty but judgement only to prefer the Father before the Son and to direct prayers rather to the more honourable It is greater modesty to make an address to the inferiour rather than to the Superiour Or if you think the Persons altogether equal you shew no greater modesty if you betake your self and convert your prayers to one than to the other If they ascribe this modesty to the divine Nature or Person as we said it was necessary if this Person were divine that is if he were the very supream God they are very absurd and injurious to the most high God For Modesty is a Vertue of Men and Angels not of the most high God It is I say a Vertue of such a Nature as may be exalted and cast down not belonging to such a nature as is not capable of exaltation and depression But if you dare to ascribe modesty to the most high God as such there will be no cause why you should so earnestly contend that Christ prayed to the Father not according to the divine Nature but according to the humane only For it would not be impossible that Christ according to the divine Nature did for modesty sake so debase himself before the Father as to pray unto him for others namely Men and obtain gifts for them which he could by himself bestow upon them which how absurd it is every one perceiveth and the Adversaries themselves sufficiently intimate that they see it whilst all that I know of do in this Argument fly to the distinction of Natures But furthermore the manner of Christs prayers to the Father chiefly expressed by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and also in part intimated by the Writers of the History of the Gospel doth at no hand admit that answer for it argueth the want of Christ and necessity of praying not modesty only This appeareth both from his great assiduity in praying and also by his strong crying and tears and perplexity of mind which shewed themselves as he prayed a little before his death If you say it was necessity that Christ prayed but modesty that he rather prayed to the Father than to himself or his own divine Nature not to repâ—â—t what was formerly spoken of the humane Nature of Christ be hâ—â—â—â—â— be personally united to the divine that necessity will quite be eâ—â—â—â—â—â—ed especially in things pertaining to Christ himself wherein notwithstanding we see that he used such cryings and tears and contention of mind For by what means for example sake could the necessity drive the humane Nature of Christ to pray so ardently unto the Father that he would not forsake it or leave it destitute of his help and that he would receive its spirit into his hands and save it from death if it had been joyned with an indissolveable tye to the divine Nature which both could and would perform it yea could not chuse but perform it Do we think that the humane Nature of Christ was afraid lest that personal union should be dissolved But the Adversaries do not so much as permit any one to doubt of that so far are they from believing that such a thing could come into the mind of Christs humane Nature or of the man Christ or could it perhaps fear lest then the union remained entire yet notwithstanding might perpetually abide in death and so the divine Nature remain to all eternity personally united to a dead and bloodless corps who would not tremble to think of this since if you make a true estimate of the thing this could not be done so much as for a moment It remaineth therefore that Christ did not for modesty but for necessity pray and that to the Father a different person from himself namely because he could not perform by himself that which he asked for himself and could not bestow that which he asked for others but by power received from the Father which by praying for others he tacitly begged should be given to himself The first of these is intimated by the divine Author to
And what I pray is that Right of ruling Is it not a right of prescribing Laws unto us and of executing them a Right of remitting our sins of defending us from our adversaries and enduing us with eternal felicity But what hath not the most high God a Right of doing all these things How then did the Father give that Right to Christ how doth he exercise the same by him if the most high God hath it not of himself Wherefore Christ also would have it of himself were he the most high God Some other things which might be here spoken shall be hereafter spoken in a more commodious place It remaineth that we examine the last and most usual Answer of all to the places alleaged by us and the Argument framed out of them which consisteth in the distinction of the Natures of Christ For they say commonly these things are spoken of Christ according to the humane Nature The sixth answer and its refutation and not according to the divine But first as we have before shewn chap. 14. it could not be simply affirmed that all these things were given and bestowed on Christ that he was exalted glorified made Lord and Christ if he had that divine Nature according to which those things could not be spoken of him Since the very same things might simply be denyed of him no less than they are simply affirmed of him in the fore-cited places Add hereunto that such places contain in them a tacit Negation and that a simple one namely that Christ hath not of himself those things which are said to have been given to him for otherwise they would not be said to be given to him But in such Negations a distinction of Natures hath no place as we have sufficiently shewn before especially when we created on that place John 5 19. Again To be or become a King Christ Lord to hold or exercise Empire and if there be any thing like to these do primarily and properly agree to none but an intelligent Suppositum or Person as such Wherefore it must be held either of a very Person having supream Divinity as such and consequently of the very divine Nature that all these things have been given to him by the Father or confest that Christ is not such a person Finally If the Essence of the Supream God were in Christ there would be no cause why it should be said that all things were given to him by another person namely by the Father and he made Lord and Christ and nor rather by himself For was the divine Nature of Christ in this behalf idle did it not give all things to the humane Nature Certainly the Adversaries contend that it did â—ive them and are forced to say so both by reason of that very straight â—â—ion of either Nature which they hold and also because the Father could not give them But that the Son should withal give the same things if he is of one Essence with the Father Why then is this attributed to the Father and to him alone not also to Christ If you say this is done because of the Prerogative of the Father above the Son you will hereby confess the Father not the Son to be the most high God Howbeit neither could a simple Prerogative cause that this should be so often attributed to the Father and so openly but never to the Son For neither are they to be heard who when they reade in certain places that God gave something to Christ glorified him exalted him made him Lord and Christ understand the whole Trinity or the divine Essence that they may attribute to Christ the same action For first since we so often read either that it is expresly written that the Father did those things as to omit other places it happeneth out of those places which are cited out of John or that God glorified the Son or gave something to him and since they themselves confess that the name of God in very many places denoteth the Father only why do they not confess that he is understood in the places under contestation doth not the very similitude of the places perswade thereunto Are not those things which seem to be spoken more generally or confusedly to be explained out of those places which express the same thing more specially and distinctly especially since they are so many in number Again Is it not manifest when the action of giving exalting glorifying is attributed unto God a Person is understood for such actions are attributed unto none but Persons and such an one as is distinct from Christ For who even amongst the Adversaries themselves would endure him that should thus speak The Son of God gave or bestowed a name on Christ the Son of God glorified Christ made Jesus Lord certainly he that should speak so would by the Adversaries and that deservedly said to savour of Nestorianism and attribute unto Christ two Persons namely the Son of God and Christ But the reason is the same if you say that God performed those things to Christ and by the name of God understand the Son Nor are the Adversaries ignorant thereof But who will say that the holy Spirit is understood who is never found in the Scripture expresly named God much less by that name distinguished from Christ and preferred before him is likewise no where read to have given any thing to Christ or to have exalted him To omit that the same question will return which we urged concerning the Father namely why those things should be attributed to the holy Spirit rather than to the Son if the Son were the most high God An Appendix of this Argument wherein is taught That Divinity was given to Christ of the Father BEfore we quite leave this Argument we think fit to add this little Appendix thereunto whereby our Opinion may be yet more confirmed For it appeareth from the places which we have alleaged that Divinity or Godhead was bestowed on Christ of the Father and consequently that he was made a God by the Father From whence it also followeth that Christ is not the most high God For he was from all eternity of himself God and did not at any time receive his Divinity from another otherwise he would not be the most high God Now that which we have said may be confirmed chiefly by two Arguments drawn from those places which we have cited and discussed The first is this He that was made Lord by another he if he be a God Arg. 1 was also made a God by another But Jesus of whom it is certain that he is a God was made Lord by God Therefore he was also made a God by him The Minor as they call it or the Assumption is Peters Acts 2. * ver 36. The Major is confirmed by this reason because if he were not made God by another when notwithstanding he is a God neither could he be made a Lord by another For he that is a God especially in
received from him Power Honour a Kingdom and Dominion over all the Peoples of the Earth which thing all see was not done from all eternity why do they laugh at this Why do they impiously oppose that which the Scripture so clearly delivereth He is not yet sufficiently acquainted with the nature of the Christian Religion who is ignorant thereof For this is the thing which doth as to this consideration separate Christians from Pagans That the Christians acknowledge one most high God nor attribute Godhead unto any else but to whom the most high God hath indeed granted it But this doth not yet distinguish them from Jews or Turks For this doth sunder them from Jews or Turks that the Christians do besides the most high God worship his Son also for their God or as Paul speaketh acknowledge One God the Father of whom are all things and for whom are we and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and by whom are we But this by the by and yet not without necessity For we ought a little to turn out of the way that we might bring them back into the way who went astray CHAP. XIX The ninteenth Argument That Christ ascribeth both his Words and Works unto the Father and that he is not the First but Second Cause of the things pertaining to Salvation THat therefore we may proceed to other Arguments of our Opinion to those Testimonies which we even now alleaged may be subjoyned those places of John wherein Christ ascribeth his Works and Words to the Father as the prime Author not to himself and any divine Nature of his own On which notwithstanding we will not here dwell long partly because we have above said something concerning them when we cited those places out of John wherein something is denyed of Christ which could not be denyed of him if he were the most high God in the second and third chapter of this Section partly also because they are so nearly allyed to those places immediately going before wherein it is said that some dignity was given to Christ by God and granted or bestowed on him so that they are in a manner of the same purport with them Nevertheless we will recite the chiefest of them wherein Christ ascribeth his works to the Father for those which †Chap. 4. speak of his Doctrine Arg. 19 That Christ is the second cause of alâ— things were for the most part brought by us before partly ascribing the very words themselves partly noting the places where they are extant and we will further add something to what hath been formerly spoken concerning that thing Wherefore to omit that famous place chap. 5. wherein Christ affirms That he can do nothing of himself that the Father sheweth him all things which himself doth and will yet shew him greater ver 19 20. Likewise chap. 14.10 where he saith That the Father which abideth in him he doth the works Of both which enough hath been already * Chap. 3. of this Section spoken Hitherto belong those words of Christ which are likewise extant chap. 5.36 I have greater testimony than that of John the Works which the Father hath given me to do the very works that I do they hear witness of me that the Father hath sent me And chap. 10.25 The works which I do in the name of my Father they testifie of me Now what is it to do them in the name of his Father than to do them by the Power Authority and Command of the Father and the same chapter ver 37 38. If I do not the Works of my Father believe me not But if I do although you will not believe me believe the Works that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in the Father And chap. 11.41 being about to raise Lazarus he thus speaketh Father I give thee thanks because thou hast heard me But I know that thou alwayes bearest me but for the Peoples sake that stand about I speak it that they may believe that thou hast sent me From which place it appeareth that Christ raised Lazarus and did other the like Miracles because he was heard by the Father and a Power to do them was alwayes afforded to him or being oâ—â—e afforded was never taken away Which very thing we see that even Martha which had already acknowledged Jesus to be the Christ the Son of God did believe as she professeth ver 22. but none of these things could be said of Christ were he the most high God and performed all those Miracles of himself or by a Vertue Power and Authority that was altogether proper to him and naturally refiding in him I omit the end of those Works clearly exprest by Christ namely That men might believe that he was sent by the Father and so that the Father was in him as in an holy Embassadour and most dear Son and likewise that he was in the Father or closely united unto him as the like words in the same John See John 6.56 and 14.20 15.4 5. 17.21 22 23 26 1 John 2.5 6 24 26 27 28 3.24 4.12 13 15 16. 5.20 are elsewhere taken But if Christ were the most high God and had done Miracles by a Power that was altogether natural unto him this ought not to have been the end of them that men should believe that he was sent by another but rather that they might understand that he came of himself and did in his own name give Precepts and propose Promises unto all We have already before stopt the gap through which men fly to a distinction of Natures inasmuch as these things are simply and without limitation uttered concerning Christ which could not be done if he were that one God because the sâ—me things should also be denyed of him without limitation Again because those operations properly agree to the Suppositum or Person of Christ as such not to a Nature which is not a Person Wherefore they ought either to confess that the humane Nature is a Person if they will understand those things of it and so are forced to deny that Christ is a divine Person and the most high God or to affirm that those things are spoken of Christ even us a divine Person and the very most high God Besides he ought not to ascribe these things to another Person but to another part of himself that is to his divine Nature unless you will have it to have been idle therein But it was impossible for it to have been idle whilst the Father wrought if both had one and the same numerical Nature To these places fetcht out of John are to be added those words of Peter Acts 2.22 Jesus of Nazareth a man approved of God among you by Signs Wonders and mighty works which God did by him in the midst of you c. And those of the same Peter chap. 10.38 where he saith How God anointed him Jesus of Nazareth with
them when tâ—ey had exalted him as is apparent from the preceding words Wherefore neither doth he suppose the former to be manifest unto them as the opinion of these men requireth Besides if Christ would have reasoned from effects he would ratâ—er have alledged his miraculous works than works of virtue and piety For they were the most manifest effects of his conjunction with the Father to which he elsewheâ—e likewise frequently appealeth when he spake of his conjunction with the Father or of some like thing as we read in the same Writer See Chap. 5.36 and 10.37 38. and 14.11 15.24 Furthermore if it appeareth from other places that this was the true cause why God was with Christ in that he alwayes did the things that pleased him their reason for whicâ— they think they must here depart from the usual and simple signification of the particle for falleth to the ground But that the thing is so is thence apparent in that Christ himself doth elsewhere render this as the reason wâ—y God did coâ—sequently love him consequently was always with him by his assistance namely because he had done and would hereafter doe those things that were pleasing to the Father and agreeable to his commandments Now it is all one for the Father not to leave Christ but to be present with him and constantly to love Christ and to be perpetually with him by his help and assistance And that this which we have said was the cause of the Fathers love towards Christ and consequently of the help which he gave him is intimated by the words of Christ which are extant afterwards Chap. 10.17 Therefore the Father loveth me because I lay down my soul that I may receive it again For this Commandment as he himself addeth in the following Verse he had received from the Father And Chap. 15.10 As the Father hath loved me so have I loved you continue in my love If you keep my Commandments ye shall continue in my love as I also have kept the Fathers Commandments and continue in his love Where whatsoever they say with whom we have to do Christ warneth his disciples that having once obtained his love they would use their endeavours not to lose it again but enjoy it perpetually and sheweth them a way how they should certainly attain it which he had also formerly intimated by a similitude in tâ—e 2d Verse namely by keeping his Commandments Moreoâ—er be illustrates this way by his own example shewing it to be the aptest yea the only means of persevering in his love in tâ—at he himself by keeping his Fathers Commandments had obtained this favour to continue in his love that is to be constantly loved of him Wherefore as we said before that reason falleth to the ground for which the particle For should be thought to signifie not the cause but the effect or sign in these words Chap. 8.29 But if it signifieth the cause the thing it self as we have seen doth evince that Christ is not the most high God This Argument of ours cannot be solved by the distinction of natures For first those causes hinder which we have above hinted in other * Chap. 3.14.10 of this Section places as namely that these things are simply spoken of Christ and that it is necessary here to consider him as a person both for his Mission and so also for the operations which he attributeth to himself according to the capacity wherein he is to be considered Again this likewise taketh away the force of that answer that notwithstanding this Christ should rather have alleaged this for the reason why the Father was with him and left him not alone because according to the divine nature to which the humane is personally united he was the same God with the Father CHAP. XXIII The three and twentieth Argument That the Father is called the God of Christ IN the tenth place we will recite those testimonies wherein the Father is called the God of Christ For thus Christ himself speaketh concerning this matter in his discourse with Mary afterward in the same John Chap. 20.17 Go to my brethren and say unto them I ascend to my Father and your Father to my God and your God And in the same Writer Rev. 3.12 In the same Verse 12. he calleth the Father his God four times whilst he saith Whosoever overcometh I will make him a pillar in the Temple of my God and he shall no more go forth and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the City of my God the New Jerusalem which descendeth out of Heaven from my God As for the other Writers first we read in Matth. and Mark that Christ when he hung upon the Cross câ—yed thus to the Father My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Matth. 27.46 Mark 15.34 And Paul Ephes 1.17 wisheth that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of glory would give unto them the Spirit of wisdom And the divine Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews Chap. 1.8 9. citeth of Christ those words of the Psalmist Psal 45.7 8. spoken heretofore of Solomon as the typâ— of Christ Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever c. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity Therefore O God thy God hath anointed thee with the oyl of gladness above thy fellows Thus also Micah speaketh of Christ Chap. 5.4 And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord in the height of the name of the Lord his God Arg. 23 That the Father is called the God of Christ From whence it appeareth that Christ is not the most high God for the most high God hath not a God or there is no other God of him For to be the God of any one is to have Empire and Power over him or to be his Benefactor or finally to be worshipt of him as his sovereign Benefactor But none hath dominion over the most high God none is his Benefactor none is worshipped of him otherwise he himself would not be the most high God The Defence of the Argument HEere they have no other refuge left them besides the distinction of Natures Though not so much as this is left them in that we have * Chap. 3.14 16. already sufficiently stopt this hole at which they endeavour to get out especially because all the circumstances of those places do argue that it is spoken concerning the whole Person of Christ or that he is considered as a Person For he is considered as the Son of God as our Saviour as our Lord as Anointed of God as God as Prince appointed of God Wherefore he cannot be a Person of supream Godhead otherwise his divine Nature also would have a God besides were Christ the most high God although he also had a humane Nature yet some other or another Person namely the Father would not be his God but he himself would be his own God For he himself would
have sovereign Power over his own humane Nature he himself would be a Benefactor to it he himself would be worshipt of it certainly no less than any other person yea more Why then is another namely the Father rather called his God than he himself called his own God But if they acknowledge it to be absurd that any one should be his own God let them also acknowledge that Christ is not the most high God CHAP. XXIV The four and twentieth Argument from these words 1 Cor. 11.3 The head of Christ is God VVE have hitherto chiefly out of the History of the Gospel penned by John produced those Testimonies wherein something is affirmed of Christ which could not be affirmed of him were he the most high God and that such ones as give the Father some Prerogative above Christ and so demonstrate that the Father only since such a Prerogative agreeth to no other is the most high God It followeth that we may also from other divine Writers draw like Testimonies and Arguments Although we have already produced not a few when we fetcht Testimonies out of John because they contained the same or the like sence Of these places therefore which remain we will give the first rank to that Arg. 24 from 1 Cor. 11.3 which is very near to those words that were last of all cited out of John and other Writers as being such wherein God is said to be the Head of Christ and this is done 1 Cor. 11.3 where Paul speaketh in this manner Now I would have you know that the Head of every Man is Christ and the Head of the Woman is the Man and the Head of Christ is God But there is no other Head of the most high God or he hath no Head above him otherwise he would not be Most High For every one easily perceiveth that to be ones Head signifieth to have some Empire or Power over him and in a certain sort to govern him The Defence of the Argument HEre the Adversaries again are wont to fly to their distinction of Natures in Christ as to a sacred Anchor which notwitstanding the Reader may observe that we have * See cap. 3.14 16. of this Section before sufficiently confuted We repeat not all things that have been spoken we only desire that it should here also be observed that Christ is here likewise considered as a person for he is considered as the head of the man consequently of every man that is as a Lord appointed to rule every man even as the man also is the head of the woman But Christ is such as he is a Person Wherefore if the Adversaries Opinion concerning Christ is true he as a divine Person and consequently the most high God must have a Head over him which implieth a contradiction and is the very thing which they endeavour to escape who here use the distinction of Natures Neither may any one here say that in the former words indeed where Christ is said to be the Head of the man he is considered as a Person but in the latter he is lookt upon only in respect of that Nature which is not a person For besides that this is affirmed without reason it is disproved by reason First beâ—â—use it is certain that God is the Head of Christ as he hath received from him Dominion and Empire over the man But Christ received that Dominion as he is a Person Why then is it not God made the head of Christ as he is here a person Again if you inquire the cause why the Apostle when he had asserted that Christ is the Head of the man did likewise say afterwards that God is the Head of Christ you shall find this to be the chief that he might not seem to leave God no further power over the man because Christ is his Head or Lord and King but rather that it might be understood that God is also upon this very account the Head or Lord or King of the man because Christ is the Head of every man in as much as God is also the Head of Christ himself For as the woman is not therefore exempted from the Empire and Power of Christ because the man is her Head in as much as Christ is also the Head and Lord of the man himself so neither is the man exempted from the Power of God because Christ is his Head since God is also the Head of Christ himself Moreover the Apostle spake this to give us to understand that if we bring any dishonour to Christ who is our Head it will at length redound to God himself who is again the Head of Christ But neither of these Reasons would be of any force if God were not the Head of Christ as he is the Head and Lord of the man But if God be the Head of Christ as he is our Lord he is the Head of that person as such Finally such a gradation ought not to be made as to ascend from the Man to Christ from Christ to God as a different person from him if besides the humane there were another Nature in Christ to which it did no less agree to be his Head than to a Person different from him but mention was to be made of that Nature as well as of this Now if any one will fly hither for refuge as to say that by the name of God the Father is not understood but the whole Trinity he must at least in the first place alleage some passage from whence it may manifestly appear that God distinguished from Christ denoteth some other besides the Father For we can alleage innumerable ones wherein even by the confession of the Adversaries themselves it denoteth none but the Father and it is otherwise apparent that such things as are like hereunto are expresly attributed to the Father in the holy Scripture For it is all one to be ones Head and to be ones God But the latter is expresly affirmed of the Father of Christ as every one may perceive from these words of Christ John 20.17 and those of the Apostle Ephes 1.17 Add hereunto that the Reasons wherefore God is called the Head of Christ do all agree to the Father Whether they agree to any other we have no assurance thereof or rather we are assured that they agree to no other namely because he gave all Empire to Christ because he gave the Laws by which he ruleth and governeth us and also because he bringeth his will to an issue by his hands and provides for his own * Isa 53.10 John 13.32 and 14.13 17. Phil. 2.11 Glory by his Empire But in the last place those Reasons which evince that Christ is here considered as a Person permit not the Trinity here to be understood by the name of God Otherwise the Person of Christ which is believed to be contained in that Trinity would be the head of it self as such Nor can you understand the Essence it self which is not a
Person For it can govern none and consequently is the head of none But it is to no purpose to feign a true God who is not a Person since the name of God is as we have already hinted †Chap. 1. of this Section before the name of a Person CHAP. XXV Arg. 25 from 1 Cor. 3. ult The five and twentieth Argument from the words of Paul 1 Cor. 3. ult Christ is Gods THe second place shall be that which is extant in the same Epistle to the Corinthians chap. 3. about the end and it is not much unlike to the foregoing one because it is therein affirmed that Christ is Gods Which thing that it may be the better understood we will set down the whole place Thus therefore speaketh Paul Let none boast in men For all are yours whether Paul or Apollo or Cephas or World or Life or Death or things present or things to come all are yours and ye are Christs and Christ is Gods Any one will easily understand from the words themselves that to be ones doth in this place signifie either to be in some sort possessed of another or to be in his Power or at least to be dedicated to his use and consequently to have another for his Superiour Whence the Apostle doth require them that none should boast in any man no not in the Apostle himself so as to brag that he is Paul's or â—pollo's or Cephas's that is Peters as the Corinthians did But all of them rather glory in Christ and consequently in God in that they themselves are no others but Christs and consequently also Gods and therefore all things on the contrary the Apostles themselves not axepted theirs For even the Apostles were consecrated to the use and salvation of Christians and so were subservient unto them and not contrariwise Whence in the latter Epistle to the same Corinthians about the end of the first chapter he saith We are not Lords of your Faith but Helpers of your Joy And chap. 4.5 We preach not our selves but Jesus Christ the Lord and our selves your Servants for Jesus sake Whence it is apparent that Christ is not the most high God For the most high God is no ones in that sence which we have explained otherwise he would not be most high Indeed God is said to be some ones God but not simply to be some ones The first signifies the supream Eminency of God above him whose God he is said to be and his Empire over him but the latter would signifie that he is as it were possest by some one Howbeit although this should in some place be affirmed yet neither would nor could it be affirmed in that sence as we see it is affirmed of Christ The Defence of the Argument THis Argument can no more be eluded by the distinction of Natures in Christ than the precedent Testimonies both for other causes formerly * Chap. 3.14 16. alleaged and also because Christ is here considered as our Lord and consequently as a Person and that no less when he is said to be Gods then when we are said to be his For Paul when he said that we are Christs again affirmeth that Christs is Gods lest any one should think that because we are Christs we are no longer Gods but rather that he might understand that we are Gods on this very account inasmuch as Christ himself and consequently all things that are his are Gods But if he be here considered as a Person his Person is not a Person of the most high God For that is not anothers unless you will have also the divine Nature to be anothers which they who here use the distinction of Natures do by this very distinction endeavour to avoid Besides if Christ were the most high God although he had withal a humane Nature yet could it not be said that he is more anothers than his own But here he is simply said to be Gods namely another Persons without making any mention that he is also his own or that his humane Nature is his divine Natures If there is any thing that belongeth to the fuller understanding of these Reasons it may be fetched from the defence of the precedent Reasons CHAP. XXVI The six and twentieth Argument from the words 1 Cor. 15.24 28. That the Son shall deliver up the Kingdom to God the Father and shall become subject to him THe third place is extant in the same Epistle chap. 15. where it is said that Christ shall deliver the Kingdom unto God the Father and be himself subject unto him who hath put all things under his subjection For thus he speaketh ver 24 25. Then cometh the end when he shall deliver the Kingdom to God even the Father when he shall abolish all Principallities and Authority and Force For he must reign until he put all his Enemies under his feet And ver 28. But when all things shall become subject unto him then shall also the Son himself be subject to him who put all things under his subjection that God may be all in all Whence we may argue in a twofold manner and so draw a double Argument which nevertheless we will reckon for a single one the first from the 24th verse the second from the 28th verse For as for the first Arg. 26 from 1 Cor. 15.24 28. we have before * Chap. 18 of this Section taught when we spake of those places wherein something or all things are said to have been delivered unto Christ by the Father that such a delivery of the Kingdom is here understood as consisteth in the deposing thereof and the resigning up the right which one had to reign so that he afterwards manageth that Kingdom neither by himself as before nor by him to whom he delivereth up the Kingdom In which manner a General appointed by a King to wage a certain war doth when the war is ended deliver his Power to the King But the most high God neither doth nor can deliver his Kingdom unto any one in this manner unless you will say that he withall ceaseth to be the most high God For if he delivereth the Kingdom unto any one as he did heretofore to Christ he doth not so deliver it as that he strippeth himself of the Kingdom but only reigneth by him as subordinate unto him to whom he delivereth the Kingdom After which sort a King wageth war by his Captains And not to stray from the matter in hand God is said to judge the World by Christ whom he hath made Judge For when he is * John 5.22 24. said to judge none the meaning is that he judgeth none by himself but by the Son to whom he hath given all Judgment for otherwise God is in several †Rom. 2.5 6. 3.6 1 Cor. 5.13 2 Thes 1.5 1 Pet. 1.17 places said to judge either absolutely without mentioning the middle Cause of that Judgment or openly declaring it whilst it is said that he will
judge the World by the ‖ Acts 17.3 man whom he hath appointed that is by Jesus Christ as we expresly read Rom. 2.16 As for the latter Argument which may be drawn out of the 28th verse it is evident that the most high God can become subject unto none But the Son of God shall at length become subject unto him who brought all things under his subjection namely to the Father Wherefore the Son of God cannot be the most high God The Defence of the Argument HEre all for the most part fly to the distinction of Natures but to no purpose both for the simple affirmation which is found in both * See cap. 3.14 16. of this Section verses and could not have place if for the other Nature namely the divine the same things ought simply to be denyed of Christ and also because Christ is here considered as a King and consequently as a Person so that either his humane Nature is to be acknowledged for a Person or these things are to be ascribed both to his divine Person and Nature whereof the first quite overthroweth the Opinion of the Adversaries the other by their own confession subverteth it self Add hereunto that in the latter place it is emphatically said the Son also himself shall become subject to him who brought all things under his subjection Now who would believe that Paul when he spake thus considered Christ not according to that Nature according to which he is the Son of God but according to another For neither can any one say that the name of the Son is in this place put absolutely without adding the name of God so that also the Son of man may be understood For the word Son is manifestly opposed to God the Father as its correlative as they speak in the Schools neither is the word Son absolutely used of Christ ever meant otherwise than as related to God as its correlative and not to any man To omit that the Emphasis which is in those two words namely also and himself doth require that Christ should be thought to be described in that manner wherein he exceedeth a l the other things there mentioned as being subject to him and not wherein he is either equal or inferiour to him and that manner is that he be called the Son of God and not the Son of Man For in the first manner he is equal to Men and inferiour to Angels But as the Son of God by way of excellency so called he is superiour unto Angels as it is openly written Heb. 1.4 5. Finally if according to the humane Nature only Christ shall deliver the Kingdom and become subject but not according to the divine why is it said that he shall deliver the Kingdom to the Father only why that he sâ—all become subject to him only and not also to himself or to his own divine Nature Why is it added that God may be all in all why should not Christ himself also be all in all For neither may any one say that there the divine Nature and that even of Christ himself is aâ—solutely meant For it is both understood from the thing it self that some Person is designed for operation and the government of all things is ascribed to him and that such an one as is distinct from Christ and all the foregoing words openly teach that it is spoken of God the Father who brought all things in subjection unto Christ and placed him at his right hand as we have elsewhere seen Now whereas some except that it is therefore said that Christ shall deliver the Kingdom to God the Father because he shall resign thar Kingdom which he hath as Mediator not which he hath as God this is also of no moment For first we have already shewn * Chap 18 of this Section before that if Christ were the most high God such a Kingdom could not be given to him because otherwise he would at the same time have the same Empire both from himself and not from himself be therein subordinate to another not therein subdinate In a word both the most high not the most high For we have taught that such a Kingdom considered by it self is contained in that Power and Empire which the most high God hath of himself For there is no act of that Empire which doth not by it self agree to the most high God But if Christ being the most high God could not receive such a Kingdom neither can he deliver it to another and depose it Wherefore since we read that he shall deliver that Kingdom to God the Fatheâ— and so depose it it is evident that he cannot â—e the most high God Add heâ—eunto that were such an answer of the Adversaries to be admitted it will follow that Christ when he hath delivered that Kingdom shall not be subject to God the Father contrary to what the Apostle manifestly witnesseth For he that retaineâ—h a supream and independent Empire over all things becometh subject unto none Otherwise he would acknowledge another above him and so not be the most high Arg. 27 That Christ is the Mediator of God and men Yea Christ after the delivery of the Kingdom which he hath as Mediator would be so far from becoming more subject to the Father than before that he ought rather to be esteemed less subject For in respect of that Kingdom he as we have said and the holy Scriptures abundantly testifie is dependant on the Father and subordinate to him which subordination containeth in it self some subjection at least which when that Kingdom should be desposed would altogether cease his supream and independent Empire in the mean time remaining which suffereth not that he be subject to any one The distinction of Natures hath here no weight partly because we have already before excluded it with reasons partly because they who use that answer will have Christ according to both Natures or the whole person of Christ to be the Mediator and consequently to have and administer that Kingdom which agreeth unto him as Mediator CHAP. XXVII The seven and twentieth Argument That Christ is the Mediator of God and Men. IN the fourth place that deserveth to be alleaged which we touched at the end of the proceding Chapter namely that Christ is called the Mediator of God and men 1 Tim. 2.5 And in the same sense The Mediator of a new or better Covenant namely than the old was Heb. 8.6.9.15.12.24 For it is meant that he intervened in the middest between God and men to make a covenant between them and was as the divine author to the Hebrews elsewhere speaketh the surety thereof Chap. 7.22 Now it is here understood that Christ is not the most high God for the most high God can be the Mediator of none but he himself rather hath a Mediator For if he were a Mediator first he should have another superiour to him between whom and men he should intervâ—ne in the midst For whether
you will have him to be called a Mediator because in making a Covenant he mâ—nageth the business of God with men as the messenger and interpreter of his will or theâ—efore because he manageth the cause and business of men with God either way he is lookt upon as inferiour to God Therefore he would at once be both the highest and not the highest Again he would be the Mediator of himself For if aâ—y one say that this latter doth not therefore follow because that God whose Mediator Christ is is none but the Father not to repeat that which we have * Chap. 1. of this Section elsewhere taught as namely that it doth not from hence follow that Christ is the most high God because he is distinguished from God simply put There are yet two things which exclude that exception The first is that no cause can be imagined why if the Father had a Mediator Christ should not also have a Mediator and that the same Mediator if he be the most high and consequently the same God with the â—ather For whether the will of the Father was to be declared unto men by a Mediator or the cause of men to be managed with God and he as they commonly believe to â—e pacified the same cause alike pertained unto Christ and to the Father if Christ also be the most high God the same with the Father The other is because for the Unity of Essence it cannot be that any one should be a Mediator of one Person and not of the other For whether one Person doth declare his will by some one or whether the business be that his will should be bended to mercy by some one It is impossible but that the will of the other Persons likewise which are of the same Essence should be declared or â—ended to mercy by the same For it is necessary that the will of those persons as also the understanding and the other properties should be the same in number and their operations be altogether the same which the Adversaries themselves confess to be true in those things which are to without such as these actions are but now it is absurd yea impossible that any one should be the Mediator of himself The Defence of the Argument THe Adversaries cannot escape by the distinction of Natures as for other causes explained oftentimes before so also because Sect. 1. chap. 6. We have taught that some of the Adversaries whilst they make Christ a Mediator according to the humane Nature do indeed make the humane Nature a Person And that others say that the very divine Suppositum or Person of Christ dischargeth the office of a Mediator but it cannot discharge it unless the very divine Nature discharge it and finally that others openly say yea contend that Christ is a Mediator according to both Natures of which their assertion they alleage this Reason among others which neither the other Adversaries can reject because otherwise he could not satisfie the divine Justice requiring an infinite price for our sins and this is either the only or chief ground of the Doctrine touching the Incarnation as they term it of the Son of God the second Person of the Trinity From which it appeareth that the Adversaries cannot here fly to the distinction of Natures in Christ Howbeit in the mean time how ill those things which they say hang together even this doth argue namely that Paul when he had said that there is one God and one Mediator of God and Men being about to describe him saith not the God and Man Jesus Christ but simply the Man Jesus Christ but he should have see spoken if the Opinion of these men were true For descriptions of Persons as we have often hinted used by the sacred Authors are as indeed they ought to be suitable to the things that are spoken of Wherefore if Christ had been a Mediator both as God and as Man or according to both Natures the Apostle when he would describe him ought to have called him not only a Man but also God especially since express mention had been made both of God and of Men whose Mediator he is And indeed the Adversaris love so to speak when they explain their Opinion with their own words CHAP. XXVIII Arg. 28 That Christ is a Priest The eight and twentieth Argument That Christ is a Priest NOt unlike to the former is this namely that Christ Psal 110.4 And so in the Epistle to the Hebrews * See Ch. 2.17.4.14.5.5 c. 6. ult chap. 7. 8 9. is many times called a Priest either simply or high Priest Therefore we will here add some things concerning the matter especially because the very Spirit of God seems by this Appellation to have provided that none should think Christ to be unsubordinate unto God because of the vast power which he hath For he that is a Priest cannot be the most high God For it belongeth to a Priest to be a Minister of the †Heb. 8.1 6. chap. 2.17 and 5.1.5.1.7.27.8.3 chap. 9. and 10. Chap 7.25 chap. 9.14 Sanctuary Whence also the very Office of Priesthood is called a Ministry It belongeth also to him to negotiate for Men with God to offer to God for them and to intercede and by that means to impetrate remission of sins from God and finally to appear before the face of God All which things are very clear both from the thing it self and also from the Epistle to the Hebrews wherein they are in general affirmed partly of Priests yea high Priests and partly in particular attributed to Christ himsef but none of these things is incident to the most high God For he it is who hath Priests high and low but is himself Priest of none to him Ministry and Oblation is performed to him intercession is made for others before his face an appearance is made that he may forgive some Persons their sins He ministers to none he offers to none he intercedes to none he makes appearance before the face of none that mens sins may be pardoned For he by his own right and authority forgiveth sins unto all Now although these things be figuratively spoken of Christ as we have elsewhere shewn yet this is certain that these kinds of speaking could by no means be applyed unto Christ if he were the first and the highest Cause of the remission of sins and forgave them unto men of himself by a power not received from another that is if he were the most high God The Defence of the Argument THe distinction of Natures hath here no more place or strength than either in other places above or in the precedent Chapter where the Office of a Mediator is handled especially because the Adversaries place the Office of Mediator which agreeth unto Christ in his Priesthood chiefly Wherefore not to repeat other things we only say thus much If Christ besides the humane Nature had also a divine one it would be necessary that
he no less than the Father should have an high Priest and this Priest be himself since neither any cause can be imagined nor can it any way be that the Father should have a Priest and Christ not have one if he be God no less than the Father yea the same God in number with him as may appear from those things which we before spake concerning the title of a Mediator But where is even the least hint in the holy Scripture whereby it may appear that Christ hath an high Priest as well as the Father Who seeth not that it is very absurd to hold that the Person of Christ offereth to himself wherefore the Priesthood of Christ is utterly inconsistent with the divine Nature which is held to be in him CHAP. XXIX The nine and twentieth Argument That Christ was raised up by the Father THe sixth Argument of this kind may be drawn from the places wherein Christ is said to have been raised by another namely his Father which reason is so much the more to be urged because the contrary thereof is urged by the Adversaries For they say Christ raised himself and by this means clearly demonstrated that he was the Son of God begotten out of his Essence and consequently the most high God But this Argument partly falls to the ground by it self in that it is grounded on a false Supposition as we will by and by demonstrate partly is weakned by another erroneous Oppinion of the same Adversaries For they hold that the Soul or Spirit of Christ which they also hold concerning the spirits of other men after he was dead did notwithstanding perform such actions as agree to none but Substances that are actually alive and understand by themselves Some say that it went down into Hell or Purgatory and brought the Souls of the Fathers out of I know not what Prison or Limbus But if the Soul of Christ even during his death did exercise such actions what hinders but that the same Soul entring into his own Body and former habitation should again unite it unto it self and by divine Power raise it up For could the Soul of Christ furnisht with divine Power do less than his whole humanity when he lived perform by the same divine Power could it do less than for example sake some one of the Apostles to whom Christ sometimes gave the power of raising the * Mat. 10.8 dead and of †Act. 9.40.41 20.9 c. whom we read that some of them did actually raise the dead ‖ 1 King 17.17 c 2 King 4.18 c. Which very thing we read likewise of Elijah and Elisha Wherefore we will far more rightly invert the Argument of the Adversaries and retort upon them that weapon which they endeavour to hurl at us For if Christ were the most high God his raising should be ascribed to himself as the true and chief Author But it is not attributed to him but to the Father as the true and chief Author thereof yea it is very openly signified that Christ iâ— you speak properly Arg. 29 That Christ was raised up by the Father did not raise himself Wherefore he is not the most high God The truth of the Major as they call it is manifest enough For none doubteth if Christ be the most high God that he did altogether raise himself and that it was most suitable that he should raise himself For since it follows from that Opinion that the humane Nature according to which Christ dyed was personâ—â—â—y united to the divine it could at no hand be that the humane Nature should perpetually abide in death and consequently in as much as that union according to their Opinion can never be dissolved that a dead corps should in an indissoluble and eternal tye be united to the divine Nature Furthermore if the humane Nature were to be raised by whom rather was it to be raised than by the divine Nature of the same Christ which both could of it self very easily perform it and by reason of that most strict union did owe this benefit unto the Nature that was joyned unto it Wherefore whether you consider the ability of performing it the divine Nature of Christ would have been the prime cause of that work for the Office of performing it it would have chiefly lain on that Nature How then would not Christ have been the true and chief Author of his own Resurrection As for the Minor there are so many and so clear Testimonies of the holy Scripture which make the Father the true and chief Author of the Resurrection of Christ and not Christ himself yea very openly take away this work from Christ though even the thing it self namely his death doth sufficiently take it away that it is a wonder that any one should doubt of it For first in certain places it is openly said that the Father raised Christ or that God raised his Son But who is that God whose Son Christ is but the Father The former is recorded by Paul in the beginning of the Epistle to the Galathians whilst he speketh thus Paul an Apostle not from men nor by man but by Jesus Christ and God the Father that raised him up from the dead The latter it is affirmed by Peter Acts 3. ult To you God having raised up his Son first sent him blessing you And Paul chap. 13.33 doth indeed assert the same whilst he saith And we declare unto you the Promise which was made unto our Fathers that God hath fulfilled it unto us their Children having raised up Jesus as it is also written in the second Psalm Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee Now that he raised him from the dead no more to return to corruption thus he said c. From which words it appeareth that he who said unto Christ thou art my Son this day â— begot thee which indeed is no other than the Father raised him from the dead The same Apostle saith 1 Thes 1.9 10. Ye turned to God from Idols to serve the true and living God and is expect his Son out of Heaven whom he raised from the dead even Jesus who delivereth us from the Wrath to come Where in like manner God is said to have raised his Son from the dead To these are added very many other places wherein it is simply written that God raised Christ of which number we will here set down only one or two with the words at large contenting our selves to quote the rest Thus therefore speaketh Peter Acts 2.24 Whom Jesus of Nazareth God raised up having loosed the Throws of Hell in that it was impossible that he should be held by it For David faith concerning him I saw the Lord alwayes before me because he is at my right hand that I may not be moved Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoyceth Moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope For thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell nor suffer
God THe last Argument of this kind shall be this that Christ is called the Image of the invisible God Col. 1.15 which is in some part also said 2 Cor. 4.4 where Christ is in like manner said to be the Image of God and Heb. 1.3 where he is said to be the Figure of the Substance or Charecter of the Person of God Chap. 1. of this Section Now we will not here use that Reason which we have already elsewhere namely that Christ is by this means openly distinguished from God that is the most high God but another Reason and that twofold the former whereof is common to all the alleaged places the latter more proper to the place Col. 1. For first no Image is of the same Essence in number with that whereof it is the Image otherwise it would be the Image of it self Wherfore since Christ is the Image of God he cannot be the same Substance in number with God and consequently not be God namely the most high God There is the same force when he is said to be the Figure of the Substance of God or Charecter of his Person Again If Christ be the Image of the invisible God he himself must not be invisible and consequently not the most high God For he is invisible 1 Tim. 1.17 Heb. 11.27 As whom none of men hath ever seen or can see John 1.18 1 Tim. 6.16 For it is sufficiently apparent that Christ is therefore called the Image of the invisible God because whereas we cannot know God by himself as being invisible Christ was given to us in whom as in an Image exposed in a manner to the sight Arg. 30 That Christ is the Image of God we may contemplate and know God as other learned men also have observed and left in writing But if Christ were no less invisible than that God whose Image he is said to be he could not be his Image but we should rather need another Image by which we should come to the knowledge of him The Defence of the Argument HEre for as much as the greatest part contend that Christ was the Image of God from all Eternity not according to the humane Nature but the divine therefore that they may solve our first Argument they are wont to fly not to the distinction of Natures in Christ but to the distinction of divers Persons in one Deity For they contend that the second Person of the Divinity is the Image of the first that is the Son the Image of the Father because the Son in respect of Essence is most like to the Father as being begotten out of his Essence But they deny that it doth thence follow that the Son will be the Image of himself because though he be of the same Essence with the Father yet he differeth from him in Person As to the latter Reason they will perhaps say that the same Son although according to the divine Nature he be God equally invisible with the Father yet having assumed a humane Nature he became visible and was seen by men But these answers do not at all take away the difficulty For as to the former first of all a Person is in vain distinguished from his own Essence in as much as every own is the same with his own Essence Wherefore if the Person of the Son be the Image of the Person of the Father the Essence also of the Son will be the Image of the Fathers Essence and consequently either both must have an Essence different in number or the same Person or Essence will be the Image of it self Add hereunto that they themselves as we have already hinted do contend that the Son in respect of Essence is most like unto the Father and consequently his Image wherefore the Son must in respect of Essence be distinct in number from the Father For an Image as it is an Image doth differ in number from that whose Image it is and one like from another For these are relatives and consequently opposites but opposites as such must at least differ in number nor can you say that one is sometimes said to be like himself For in such a kind of speech respect is had to a different time in reference to which the same is compared with it self but we here speak of like things having no regard to a different time but to the same To omit that the Adversaries themselves hold that the Son ought really to differ from the Father that he may be the Image of the Father but this would make nothing to the purpose did they not really differ as the one is the Image of the other if therefore the Son in respect of Essence be the Image of the Father the one must differ from the other in respect of Essence As to the latter exception which also striketh at our latter Reason it will effect nothing unless you say that Christ is the Image of God according to the humane Nature wherein he is or was visible which the greatest part do not admit for they as we have said hold Christ to be the Image of God as he was begotten out of the Substance of the Father and consequently hath the same Substance with him which agreeth not to him according to the humane Nature wherfore they must first renounce this Opinion before they make use of that Answer for neither can they say that there is no need that Christ as he is an Image should be visible it being sufficient that he is or was by any means visible For if it were thus the word invisible added to the name of God whose Image Christ is would be altogether idle For turn your understanding which way you please you shall find no other reason why the Apostle did in that manner here describe God than to shew that it was therefore needful that if we would know and as it were view God some Image of him namely Christ should be held forth unto us and exposed to the sight of men in as much as God is invisible and cannot be known by himself of any one of us especially in a full and perfect manner which John also signifieth saying No man hath seen God at any time The only begotten Son Joh. 1.18 who is in the bosome of the Father he hath declared him But if Christ as he is the Image of God were no less invisible than God himself we could no more know God by him than God by himself wherefore Christ could not be the Image of God For it is apparent both from this description of God and also from that which is said in the other place quoted by us 2 Cor. 4.4 that Christ was called the Image of God in respect of us namely because he did represent in himself and in a manner expose to our view the Will Goodness Power Mat. 11.27 John 14 7 9. and 18.19 and Wisdom of God Whence Christ himself saith None knoweth the Father but the Son and he
to whom the Son will reveal him and elsewhere If ye had known me ye would have known my Father also and from henceforth ye know him and a little after He that seeth me seeth the Father But furthermore although Christ was visible according to the humane Nature yet ought he not to be simply distinguished from the invisible God and herein to be opposed to him if he in the mean time were that most high and invisible God For if the name of God namely the most high God may and ought to be absolutely attributed unto Christ as they hold those things also may and ought to be absolutely attributed to him which are absolutely spoken of God and which agree to him in respect of his Essence But if Christ may and ought for the divine Nature to be absolutely called invisible he ought not absolutely to be distinguished from the invisible God Some other will perhaps say that Christ is the Image of God according to the humane Nature which seemeth not disagreeable to their Opinion who together with us confess that Christ is called the Image of God in respect of us namely because he did in himself as it were present to our view the invisible God But in the first place they are not constant enough to themselves whilst they refer that which is the same with the Image of God or at least is of the same efficacy in our Argument to the divine Nature namely that Christ is called the Character of the Substance of God for a Character hath not the same Substance with the thing whose Character it is Again By this means Christ would have been the Image no less of his own divine Person or Nature than of the Fathers neither would there have been any cause why he should be called the Image of another rather than of himself But we find not this but that rather expressed in the Scripture For when Christ is called the Image of God all the Adversaries as far as I know hold that the Father is understood and the distinction of that God from Christ and finally the collation of this kind of speaking with other-like sayings of the Scripture do sufficiently shew the same I omit that Christ did in himself as it were present to our view the invisible God in that he expressed his Will by Doctrine his Power by admirable Works and clearly demonstrated his Faith and Truth by both But these things agree only to a Person as such so that those Adversaries are forced to hold either that his divine Person as such is the Image of the Father or that the humane Nature if they will attribute this to it only is a Person The first of which overthroweth their Answer the latter their Opinion And let these things suffice to have been spoken concerning those Arguments which so shew Christ not to be the most high God as that withal they give a Prerogative to the Father above him CHAP. XXXI The one and thirtieth Argument is chiefly drawn from those causes for which Christ is in the Scriptures called The Son of God VVE must now pass to those Arguments which absolutely shew that Christ is not the most high God without having any regard to this that some Prerogative is withal given to the Father above him Now though we might in this place alleage all the attributes of the Humanity of Jesus Christ as that he was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary that he did eat drink grow that he was weary sometimes and did weep and was disturbed and finally suffered most bitter torments and dyed and the like yea this very thing that he is and was a Man in as much as none of those things can be said of the most high God as they are and that absolutely of Christ yet will we here only alleage those things which contain some other Argument of our Opinion besides that which is common to all those Attributes Now the first shall be this That if Jesus were the most high God he would no otherwise be so then because he is the Son of God For neither can any greater thing be spoken of Jesus Christ Arg. 31 from The Causes why Christ is called the Son of God then that he is the Son of God the Adversaries themselves hold that he received the divine Essence by generation from the Father which maketh him the Son of God But from whence any one hath the divine Essence he hath also from thence that he is God But Jesus is not therefore the most high God because he is the Son of God wherefore neither is he simply the most high God Our Assumption shall not here be proved by this Reason that Jesus whilst he is called the Son of God is thereby distinguished from God namely the supream and only God Nor also that he is by this very name made inferiour to the Father as wholly depending from the Father where as the Father dependeth from none other for these reasons we have before used But we will prove the same by another Argument and that a twofold one Chap. 1 2 of this Section although other things also will be brought in by the by whilst we shall be imployed in proving the former which things would also be fit to demonstrate the very Question or principal Position it self The first is this That whereas several causes are expressed in the holy Scriptures for which Jesus is the Son of God yet none of them is such as constituteth him the most high God in that they all agree to the Man Christ Jesus or that we may speak with the Adversaries agree to Christ according to the humane Nature and began at a certain time Yea they are so far from either constituting or demonstrating Christ to be the most high God as that they rather shew him not to be so and consequently each of them may justly be accounted as so many Arguments to assert our Opinion But it is impossible that if Jesus be the Son of God in such a manner as constituteth him the most high God this thing should be no where set down in Scripture partly because we see other reasons exprest which would be of far less moment than it partly because that Reason as indeed the Adversaries themselves contend would be altogether necessary to be known believed unto salvation so much the more clearly to be explained by the sacred Writers and so much the more diligently frequently to be inculcated by how much it was more removed from our sences and capacity and consequently more difficult to be known and believed For since the sacred Scriptures * Jo. 20.31 1 Jo. 4 15. chap. 5.5 Mat. 16.16 Jo. 6.69 Act. 8.37 Ch. 9.20 doth place the sum of our faith and confession concerning Christ herein that we believe and profess Jesus to be the Son of God namely in the most perfect manner so called it is necessary also that we be sure of the true and
by the intervening of his power and efficacy and so had no other Father besides God But it is incredible if there had been a far letter cause for which this Child who was to be born of Mary should from his first birth have been the Son of God that the Angel would not have hinted it and so have conceived his woâ—ds that Mary might understand that there was yet a better cause of this thing But that would have been a far better cause thereof which most Iâ—terpreters are wont to bring namely that the man which was to be born of the Virgin or rather thaâ— humane nature was to be assumed into the unity of the Person of the Son of God begotten from all Eternity out of the Essence of the Father Why then is there not the lâ—ast hint of this matter in the words of the Angel why did he not so spâ—ak that it might appear that the same person had already been the Son of God from all Eternity and should now in a new manner be the Son of God For â—either can you say with some Interpreters that the Angel did in some sort intimate it by the particle also whilst he doth not simply say Therefore the holy thing that shall be born of thee but therefore also the holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God For that the sense is that not only the person that did before exâ—st is â—he Son of God but also the holy issue of the Virgin should for this admirable conception be called the Son of God For this opinion doth make two Sons of God and consequently two persons in one Christ the one existing â—efore the Virgin the other born of her Wherefore unless you will â—ender the Greek words and therefore so that this expression may serve only to connect the sentence you must observe what a notable Interpreter amongst the Gospellers have noted on this place The conjunction also John Piscator saith he is here the mark of Parity and noteth an equal tâ—uth of the consequent with the anticedent of the Enthymem As if it sâ—ould be said how true it is that thou sâ—alt conceive by the singular ope ation of the holy Spirit and therefore being a Virgin so trâ—e also is it that the Son which thou shalt so conceive and bring forth shall be the Son of God The same Author a little after denieth that theâ—e is any such opposition or comparison here made between the humane and diviâ—e nature of Christ as these Interpreters fâ—ame and force out of the particle also which is in the words of the â—ngel The 2d cause why Christ is called the Son of God But it is now time that we proceed to other Reasons for which Christ is called the Son of God The second Cause therefore of this thing is exprest by Christ himself John 10.34 35 36. For when the Jews had charged him with the crime of Blasphemy that being a Man he made himself God namely because he had called God his Father and said that he was one with him he giveth them this Answer Is it not written in your Law I said ye are Gods If he called them Gods to whom the Word of GOD came and the Scripture cannot be broken how say you of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the World thou blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God Where it appeareth that Christ bringeth this Reason why he did with far greater Right call himself the Son of God than those Judges heretofore were called Gods because he was sanctified of the Father and sent into the World Now doth this Reason constitute Christ the most high God For doth sending that I may speak of this first constitute the most high God Hath it any conjunction with the Generation out of the Essence of the Frther And is the Sanctification that proceeded from the Father incident to the divine Nature of Christ and not rather to the humane This certainly is both confest by many of the Adversaries and averred by the thing it self For that which is sanctified of God acquireth fome sanctity in whatsoever thing the same doth consist But this is not incident to the divine Nature existing from all Eternity although it be to the humane For neither can any one say that we also sanctifie God and his Name to whom notwithstanding we procure no Sanctity For as much as it is manifest that God is sanctified of us in a differnte manner then we are sanctified of God God is sanctified of us whilst we acknowledge reverence and proclaim his Sanctity and Majesty we of God whilst through his bounty we obtain some Sanctity whereof we should otherwise be destitute Now if the manner that God sanctified Christ were of the same kind with that wherein we sanctifie God and not rather with that wherein God sanctifieth us though different in kind and perfection what would that Sanctification do to shew that Christ is by the greatest right called the Son of God For doth a Sanctification which proceedeth from us constitute God to whom it tendeth our son and not rather that which proceedeth from God to us constitute us his sons indeed in a more imperfect manner than Christ because our sanctification is also more imperfect but yet truly Now what that Sanctification of Christ is may easily be gathered from the sending that is added thereunto For that sending herein consisteth that the office of embassage unto men is committed by God to Christ But to sanctifie signifieth in the Scriptures to segregate one from others and chuse him to a singular office or as it were to prepare him for a more divine use Wherefore it is either so taken in this plrce as in Jeremiah Jer. 1.5 to whom God sometime spake in this manner Before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee and before thou camest cut of the belly I sanctified thee and gave thee a Prophet to the Nations * See John Maldonet on Jerem. John Wolf Muscul on John As learned men have noted both there and in the quoted place of Jahn for it is the same as to fill with the most singular Gifts such as is divine Power and Wisdom to discharge a most honourable Office on the Earth and having by this means segregated one from other men to prepare him in an eminent way to such an office Wherefore the sending into the world containeth in it self that very Office but the Sanctification is a designation or preparation thereunto But of what moment are these things to assert supream Divinity unto Christ or to establish the Generation of Christ out of the Essence of the Father from Eternity Yea they are so far from asserting supream Divinity unto Christ that they rather demonstrate that Christ is not the most high God As concerning sending we have formerly †shewn it The same is also to be held concerning Sanctification which is a
remission of sins was made judge of the quick and dead Again How often do the Apostles commend the exceeding great love and bounty of God exhibited in Christ Jesus to mankind But what more illustrious argument could there have been of this love then that the most high God should willingly be made man for mans sake Wherefore then is there so great silence in those places concerning this thing Namely because it never was neither was there any that we may briefly add this thing also cause which did require that the most high God the creator of Heaven and earth should assume flesh For as much as the man Christ Jesus being asisted by divine power was able to performe and did really performe when he was upon earth all things that belonged unto our salvation both in teaching and also in working miracles and finally in obeying his Father in all things and was able also to performe and did so indeed performe by the same divine power whatsoever things are required to the perfecting of our Salvation But who dares to say that God would admit a thing so contrary to his Majesty without the greatest cause or rather necessity although at length it were possible for his nature But we will not enlarge on this matter because these things are here and there handled in our Arguments that belong to this place But if any one desire to see this also more fully explained he may read elsewhere * See Socin in his fragments page 18. c. in ours CHAP. XXXIII Arg. 33 The holy Spirit was given unto Christ The three and thirtieth Argument That the holy Spirit was given unto Christ VVE will make the third Argument this that the holy Spirit was given by God unto Christ of which thing we do not read â—nly in one place of holy Scripture For both in the Old Testament chiefly in Isaiah there are some testimonies of this thing and also in the New where some places are likewise cited out of the Old For so speaketh Isaias in the beginning of the 11th Chapter And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse and a branch shall grow out of his roots And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him the Spirit of wisdom and understanding the Spirit of counsel and might the Spirit of knowledge and piety or as it is in the Hebrew of the fear of the Lord. Which all both see and confess to be spoken of Christ Likewise in the beginning of the 42d Chapter God speaketh of the same Christ Behold my servant whom I uphold mine elect in whom my soul delighteth I have put my Spirit upon him Which words are cited by Christ Matth. 12.17 And Chap. 61.1 the Prophet bringeth in Christ speaking after this manneâ— The Spirit of the Lord is upon me for that the Lord hath anointed me Which words Christ himself testifieth to be fulfilled in him Luke 4.18 c. But in the same Gospel we read how the holy Spirit descended on Christ when he was baptised of John and abode upon him Matth. 3.16 Luke 3.22 and John 1.32 33. Whence Luke in the beginning of his fourth Chapter saith That Jesus being full of the holy Spirit went up out of Jordan And Peter with the same Writer testifieth Acts 10.38 That God had anointed him with the holy Spirit and with power Whence Christ proveth that he cast out Devils in or by the Spirit of God which thing also Peter Acts 10. doth plainly shew and accuseth the Pharisees of blasphemy against the holy Spirit that they durst to ascribe to Beelzebub the Prince of Devils such kind of miracles as were done by the very power of the holy Spirit Matth. 12.28.31 Mark 3. compare vers 30. with the foregoing And Luke saith Acts 1.2 That Christ in the same day wherein he was taken up gave commandment to the Apostles by the holy Spirit that is by the motion of the holy Spirit For neither did he make use of the ministry of the holy Spirit by whose intervening help he gave commandments to his disciples although others by transposition connect the words by the holy Spirit with the following whom he had chosen whereof it is not necessary to dispute in this place For as to our purpose the force of the words will be the same to wit that Christ by the motion of the holy Spirit chose the Apostles Neither is it a wonder seeing that he was the Spirit of wisdom and understanding the Spirit of counsel the Spirit of knowledge that is who produced Wisdom Understanding Counsel Knowledge and bestowed it on Christ as appears from Isa 11. a place cited by us But that we may from hence demonstrate that Christ is not the most high God we will not now use that reason that by this means something was given unto him by God the Father which Argument we have * Chap. 18. of this Sect. elsewhere explained but this that he would not truly have stood in need of the holy Spirit if he were the most high God especially if that Opinion of the Adversaries be laid down that the holy Spirit is a Person distinct from the Father and the Son For what help I pray you can the holy Spirit yield unto the most high God What is there that the most high God cannot perform of himself For it is not what they say that Christ's humane Nature needed the assistance of the holy Spirit For that I may not urge that now that those things are spoken simply of Christ that are not to be spoken if he were the most high God as of whom they are simply to be denyed What need was there of the help of the holy Spirit the third Person of the Deity as they will have it unto the humane Nature if the very same was personally joyned to the second Person of the Deity if the whole fulness of the divine Essence as they interpret that place Col. 2.9 did dwell therein bodily if as the same persons judge that divine Nature did bestow all the supernatural Gifts upon the humane that hapned unto it if that did either communicate unto it all its Properties or at least the full knowledge of all things as the major part of the Adversaries judge Whether or no the holy Spirit could add any thing to this store Wherefore I pray is Christ deciphered rather by the holy Spirit than by his own Nature either to have cast out Devils or to have commanded any thing or to have been endued with Wisdom Understanding Counsel Might Knowledge the Fear of the Lord The Defence of the Argument SOme one will perhaps say that therefore those things are rather attributed to the holy Spirit than to the divine Nature or Person of Christ because they belong unto Christs Sanctification and that Sanctification although common to the whole Trinity is properly ascribed to the holy Spirit But they speak thus not only without reason but even contrary to reason We
will not now rehearse that that Christ's Sanctification cannot be rather attributed to the holy Spirit than to the Father to whom the same is so ascribed * John 10.36 that it is urged as a cause why Christ is his Son For hence it would follow if the the same agree rather to the holy Spirit than to the Father that the holy Spirit would be rather the Father of Christ than God himself who both is the Father of Christ and is every where in the new Testament so called That we will say here which is proper to this place if any reason can be imagined why that which is common to all the Persons should notwithstanding be ascribed rather to one than to another that here would be great cause why this action is rather to be ascribed to the Son than to any other Person and indeed a double cause The one is that most strict conjunction which agreeth unto the Son according to his humane Nature as the Adversaries Opinion urges The other is that the same Adversaries will have the Son to be the natural Wisdom and Power of God by which he makes all things and hither they bring those words which in Prov. 8. are spoken abstractively and in general touching Wisdom and also those which we read of Christ 1 Cor. 1.24 But unto which divine Person would it rather agree to bestow on the humane Nature of Christ Wisdom Understanding Counsel Knowledge than to that which was nearest unto that Nature and is the natural Wisdom of God himself To what would it better agree than to the natural Vertue and Power of God to do all those stupendious works by the humane Nature All those things therefore are rather to be attributed to the divine Nature of Christ than to the holy Spirit Besides we demand of them that make use of this kind of exception whether or no they determine that the holy Spirit contributed more to the bestowing of those Gifts upon the humane Nature than the divine Person of Christ himself or as much the one as the other Person If that they overthrow their own Opinion if this the Scripture For if they admit that either there was not so much power in the divine Person of Christ to perform the same as was in the holy Spirit or not so great a will Neither can be spoken of it if Christ were the most high God and indeed of the same Essence with the holy Spirit But if they admit this there will be no evident cause why it should be expresly attributed to the holy Spirit that he bestowed those Gifts on the man Christ and no where to the divine Person or Nature of Christ himself Wherefore this exception hath there no place and consequently neither the distinction of a humane and divine Nature in Christ For this very thing we demand why was the holy Spirit given to the humane Nature if that were personally united to the divine Nature CHAP. XXXIV Arg. 34 Christ was tempted of the Devil The four and thirtieth Argument That Christ was tempted of the Devil THe fourth Argument of this kind is this that Christ as the History of the Gospel declareth was tempted of the * Mat. 4.1 c. Mark 1.12 Luke 4.1 c. Devil and sollicited to worship him and that he was to this very end namely that he might be tempted of the Devil led by the holy Spirit into the wilderness For this would by no means have hapned if Christ had been the most high God For first what is more unworthy of God than to expose himself to this impious and wicked Enemy whom for the contempt of his Majesty most clearly heretofore seen he had thrust out of Heaven to be tempted and sollicited to the adoration of him and so to offer himself of his own accord to be mocked of the Devil Again to what purpose should Christ do this was it that it might appear that the most high God was able to endure and overcome the temptations of the Devil was there any one who could make any doubt thereof so that there should need any tryal thereof Furthermore how durst the Devil attempt so great a matter I will not now mention that the Devils tremble at the sight of the divine Majesty †Jam. 2.19 inasmuch as they are afraid at the memory of him in that they were by him cast out of Heaven and thrust down to Hell For feign you now in the wicked spirit who is very conscious both of the Wrath and invincible Power of God and of the bonds wherein he is held by him as much boldness and impudency as you please yet must you withal confess that he is exceeding cunning and I would this were not to be confest But how can it be that a most cunning spirit should tempt the most high God and endeavour to seduce him and conceive in his mind such a project as that he should sollicite him to a thing most unworthy and detestable namely the adoration of the Devil For can it be either that he should attempt a thing which he well knoweth to be impossible or should not clearly perceive that this thing is altogether impossible Neither of these things are incident to him that hath so much as a grain of wit much less could it happen to a most subtil and cunning spirit Moreover when he saith If thou art the Son of God command that these stones become loaves And again If thou art the Son of God cast thy self down He sufficiently sheweth that his intention is to make Christ by some means to begin to doubt whether he be indeed the Son of God whom he had a little before * Mat. 3. â—1 heard from Heaven that he was and consequently to seek further proofs of a thing some way doubtful But how could he hope by any means whatsoever to effect this with such a Son of God as was begotten out of the divine Essence For do we think that an enemy most practised in this kind of fighting who is commonly called the Author of a thousand cunning tricks did here use such a kind of tempting as was the unfittest of all to deceive and so made use of arms so vain and ridiculous to assail a most valiant and wise Captain What would Satan get if by any reasons he should endeavour to perswade even a common man who is well in his wits to doubt of himself whether he was a man and not rather something inferiour to a man Would not this rather be a sport than a temptation But it would be much more ridiculous by any reason whatsoever to go about to perswade the Son of God begotten out of the divine Essence that he should doubt whether he be the Son of God or not But you will understand that thing is far otherwise if you observe that Christ was pronounced by God to be his Son in such a manner as did not belong to his Essence and which was indeed
assumed that corporeal form therefore the holy Spirit is a Suppositum and consequently because also he is intelligent For he is said to search all things even the depths of God and to know the things that are Gods and other like things proper to intelligent Substances are pronounced of it he is also a person for every intelligent Suppositum is a person Since that is the definition of a person There is need of so much furniture that the person of the holy Spirit may be framed hence which they promised we should see at Jordan together with two others For neither the Trinity of the adversaries can be seen unless three persons can be seen and so as that it may appear they are persons What is to be answered to this their Argumentation shall be a little after shewed Let us do now that which we propounded that assuming those things which partly are read in that sacred History partly are affimed by the adversaries we may demostrate the holy Spirit not to be the most high God They affirme if the holy Spirit be the most high God that he ought to be altogether of the same essence with the Father yea a so with the Son Otherwise there will be either two or more most high Gods or the Father or Son whom they take for the most high God will not be the most high God But from this apparition of the holy Spirit it is manifest that there is one Essence of the holy Spirit another of the Father and Son For the Essence of the Father and Son descended not then from heaven when Christ was baptized nor took that corporeal shape the Essence of the holy Spirit as is manifest by the adversaries opinion did both Therefore the Essence of the holy Spirit is not the Essence of the Father or Son but it is necessary this to be one that to be another Neither indeed may they say that not the Essence of the holy Spirit but the person did both For first every person is a substance and a substance is an Essence subsisting by it self Wherefore whose person descended and assumed some form his essence also doth it And besides do not they themselves as we have seen urge that that which descends and sustaines a form is necessarily a substance But the substance of the holy Spirit is no other thing than its Essence and with our Adversaries it is all one to say the same is the Essence and the same is the substance of the divine persons to wit because every substance is an essence therefore the Essence of the holy Spirit must have descended And although at last a person in the Deity should not be the substance or Essence it self but something in the Essence which yet is impossible For it is repugnant to the nature of a Suppositum and further also of a person to be in another yet might not that either descend or assume a form but that its substance in which lastly all the accidents are and rest together should do the same Besides also another shorter way from that that the holy Spirit descended from heaven upon Christ that in a bodily forme or shape we may shew that he is not the most high God For the most God is not moved from place to place and consequently descends not from heaven Also no accident befalls the most high God even by the adversaries opinion But that bodily shape in which the holy Spirit descended was an accident as also that descent it self The Defence of the Argument Some adversaries observing this so explain the thing that it may sufficiently appear that they neither attribute to the holy Spirits descent properly called nor grant that he Assumed that bodily shape on himself but either that a certain true body in a doves shape descended from heaven or the shape only of a dove descending was represented to the eyes of the beholders which might be a simbole or resemblance of the presence and operation of the holy Spirit filling Christ with gifts necessary for the discharge of his prophetical office But if this be so how will hence be shewed that the holy Spirit is a thing subsistent by it self and consequently a Suppositum and person really distinct from the Father and the Son seeing he neither properly descended on Christ nor sustained that forme but was only the shape of a body set before the eyes of the beholders when indeed there was no body or as the * See Maldonat and Augustine cited by him opinion is of some of the most learned adversaries a true body which descended and sustained that shape But even things which not onely are not persons but not so much as indeed sustbances may be said to descend improperly from heaven and among others James saith chap. 1.17 Every good and perfect gift is from above that is from heaven descending from the Father of lights But that the same may be shaddowed by a certain outward shape and set before the eyes of men as besides other things that teacheth which we read Act. 2.3 of the first effusion of the holy Spirit on Christs disciples For those cloven tongues did they not express the faculty of diverse languages to be given to the disciples of Christ by the holy Spirit But nothing prohibites that they might not seem to be moved How many such shapes of things do we see set before one while the outward another while the inward senses of the Prophets Therefore nothing if the thing be so explained may be hence gathered which belongs to prove the holy Spirit to be a Suppositum much less a person Besides although they would have all those things concerning the holy Spirit to be taken figuratively yet nevertheless they must hold that here some singular operation of the holy Spirit was shaddowed not of the Father or Son or at least not equally For otherwise why should not the Father and Son also be said to have descended in a bodily shape But if the Essence of the holy Spirit would be the same with that of the Father and Son the operation no less of these than of that had been expressed by that shape and descent and so the Father and Son should be no less said to have descended in a bodily shape than the holy Spirit For such an operation is of the singular substance it self having in it self all foâ—ce of opperating Therefore seeing this is supposed the same in those three persons the same opperation also is equally to be attributed to all those persons Seeing this is not come to pass it follows that there is one essence of the holy Spirit another of the Father and Son and consequently unless the adversaries would introduce more Gods or deny the Father to be the most high God they are forced to acknowledge the holy Spirit not to be the most high God But you will say How nevertheless do those things agree to the holy Spirit to descend from heaven in a bodily shape if
only which shews its absurdity presently at the first sight that the Father Son and holy Spirit are by themselves non entia or no beings from which yet men of great name among those of their own way famous also by their writings in Divinity do not abhor Fot neither do I doubt but that many even of the Adversaries do disapprove of it But that very thing also is much unworthy that they make God and Christ that I say noâ—hing now of the â—oly Spirit a subsistence or mode of a Being For whaâ— He that is God he that hath a divine Substâ—nce is he a subsistence and nor rather a thing by it self subsisting a mode of a being not a being it self How then doth he rule How doth he do any thing How is he invocated by us And that I may comprise all in one word how is he God For actions and those things which are the pâ—oper consequents of actions are not of a subsistence but of a thing subsisting For the subsistence hath no faculty and power from which action may how but the thing subsiâ—ting Doth the subsistence actually will understand govern create preserve Do you when you call upon Goâ— invocate some mode of the divine Essence Do you ask that some mode may help or preserve you Certainly if the divine persons be that no simple or common men do believe the divine Persons being by their very subtilty altogether out of the reach of their beâ—t understanding But what do I speak only of the simple men Indeed neither most of the learned do respect to themselves such persons either when they pray or when they think any other thing of God or of Christ perhaps neither they themselves who have devised those things except then when they labour to reconcile some of their tenets to one another These things might sufficiently refute the device to spâ—ak most tenderly of those men But yet that both the Nature of a person may so much the more clearly appear and be so much the more satisfactory let us say a little more of that matter First then Whilst they make a person a subsistence they forget themselves who say the same is a Suppositum Neither indeed could I hitherto see any man who would deny that a Suppositum is the Genus of a Person and that it may accurately â—e predicated of it And this might be here enough for us that all acknowledge in God three Suppositums But now they say that a Suppositum is such a Substance as we have before described and the reason of its name which the inventers of it have looked or requires it For neither is a subsistence the ultimum subjectum or lowest subject of which ultimate all things may at last be predicated and it self of none but a Substance it self or a Being endued with subsistence subsistence is in a Being and although it be â—ot an Accident yet is it predicated of that in which it is in the manner of an Accident But all such things are denyed by all to be Suppositums Add this that the actions which are proper to Suppositums agree not to a Subsistence but to a Substance it self or a Being that hath subsistence as that which hath a power necessary for acting as we have a litâ—le before minded Subsistence doth contribute nothing less but that a Being may subsist by it self and moreover may act by it if namely it hath a power and some faculties Besides who would say that a man of an Angel is a subsistence and not rather a substance or thing by it self subsisting But every man is a person and in like manner every Angel And that we may go higher Christ also is a substance not a subsistence a being not a mode of a being But he is a person therefore a person is not a subsistence Otherwise from the Adversaries opinion we should thus argue Every person is a subsistence No Man Angel nor Christ himself is a subsistence Wherefore neither a person Perhaps some one will say that created persons are indeed substances but the divine persons are subsistences neither is a person a genus univocum to a person created and uncreated but analogum only But first we may ask of him whether he would have Christ to be a created person only or uncreated or both together If created only his opinion will be false as being one who maintains Christ to be the second person of the Trinity For this person is uncreated nor could it cease to be uncreated but that the Trinity would fall to the ground one person to wit the second being taken out of the number of the three If uncreated only Christ will be only a subsistence if a divine person be a subsistence only not a thing subsisting which all see to be false For he who is a man is certainly a substance not a subsistence If both together he will have two persons of a different nature or of a different definition For the one will be a substance the other a subsistence not a substance But there is but one Christ one person of him as all confess and urge it against Nestorians Furthermore the reason or definition of a Suppositum which agrees even to a divine or uncreated person doth not permit as we have seen the divine person to be only a subsistence I say no more than a created Lastly that very thing which is brought for a reason doth overthrow that Opinion For if a person be an analogum genus to a person both uncreated and created it must needs be that a divine person is not a subsistence but a substance For neither are analogums the subsistence of God and the created thing subsisting but the substance created is analogum to the uncreated the subsistence to the subsistence the mode to the mode and reciprocally Wherefore if the person câ—eated be a substance not a subsistence or some mode also the uncreated will be a substance not a subsisâ—ence I say a thing subsisting not a mode of a thing But as for that which they say that when a person is said to be a first intelligent substance this definition is of a person taken in concreto not in abstracto I will ask of them what they understand by the name of a person taken in concreto what likewise taken in abstracto If they do in that manner take the concretum in which substance are said of some to be concretums as man animal whose abstractums they will have to be humanity animality Of such concretums there are delivered most accurate definitions and in this manner a person is altogether to be defined in this place where it is inquired whether the Father Son and holy Spirit â—e three persons in one divine Essence For neither tâ—e Father Son and holy Spirit are personalities but persons unless you will say likewise that man is humanity animal animality Father paternity and so in the rest in which manner concretums will be abstractums and on the contrary
and so they will be in vain distinguished from one another by the Adversaries Furthermore in what manner soever at last you take conâ—â—etum it is all one to us if it be so that our definition of a person as far as concretums may be defined is good or the genus at least is rightly constituted since there it is spoken of persons taken in concreto not of personalities and it is necessary that where there are three or more concretums otherwise of the same condition as three good three wise three Kings Fathers Sons there must be also more subjectums or more substances in which that adjunct which is in concreto expressed There is the same reason also of those concretums which do in concreto express some mode of a Being or substance such as they commonly distinguish from Accidents For those several modes require several beings or substances neither the concretums otherwise of the same condition are more unless also the subjectums or beings or substances be more Lastly although at length we should grant the divine persons to be subsistences not substances nevertheless yet a contradiction would lye hid in the vulgar tenet of the Trinity For this also involves a contradiction that one substance in number hath three subsistences as we shall shew in the next chapter CHAP. V. The fifth Argument Because there cannot be three Subsistences of one and the same thing THe fifth Argument of this kind is that if there be more persons in one substance of God it is necessary also that there be more subsistences in the same as the Adversaries do not only confess but also urge since subsistence is the form of a suppositum But there cannot the same thing be multiplyed unless also the form be multiplyed Wherefore neither can the Suppositums and Persons be multiplyed unless also the Subsistences be multiplyed The same thing doth more plainly follow from their Opinion also who hold that a suppositum and person is the very subsistence But it is impossible that there should be more subsistences of one substance in number First because of one thing there cannot be more forms of the same nature whether they be substantial or accidental or with whatsoever name you may call them lest you should think the modes of things excluded I say there cannot be more either existences or inherences of one thing not more rationalities not more longitudes or whitnesses unless perhaps according to divers parts not more paternities of the same nature unless in respect of diverse or in a diverse time and so in the rest And the reason is this because the same thing cannot twice or more times be that which it is but once only namely in the same time in the same respect which is to be observed only in things related and accordâ—ng to the same parts Arg. 5 There is one subsistence of one thing Otherwise there would be a progress in infinitum For who shall here set a â—â—und What cause is there why a thing may not be infinite times that whâ—ch it is if it may be twice or thrice But a progress in infinitum is impossible even of subsistences or suppositums in God Wherefore that also is impossible whence such a progress in infinitum doth follow And that is this that one and the same thing may be more times that which it is But this again doth thence arise because the same thing might have more forms of the same condition to wit at the same time in the same respect and part For the form is that by which the thing is that which it is Wherefore where there are more forms of the same condition the thing is moâ—e times that which it is Add that if the form be that by which the thing is that which it is it being withdrawn the thing remains not any moâ—e that which it was But if there may be two such forms as we speak of of the same thing the one being withdrawn nevertheless the thing will remain that which it is But that is impossible and is contrary to the nature of the form it self But that subsistence which we have in hand is the form of a suppositum and by it the substance in which it is doth become a Suppositum For that we may expâ—aâ—n this also by the way the subsistence is taken by the Adversaries in a double manner moâ—e largely and more strictly The Subsâ—stence taken moâ—e largely is common to all Substances first second perfect imperfect whole parts and in this sence it is opposed to inherency only which is proper to accidents Therefore that subsistence is the form of each substance or that by which the substance is a substance the inherency is the form of an accident that is that by which an accident iâ— an accident Concerning this Subsistence we do not properly treat here although it be in some manner included in that subsistence which we have in hand or be presupposed by it and although it be true concerning that also that the same subsistance in number cannot have more subsistences The Subsistence taken more strictly agrees not but to Suppos tums or first that is singular and those indeed compleat and perfect Substances and is a certain form of such substances as they are such Therefore one and the same Substance cannot have more Subsistences of this sort And that you may look on the matter more nearly do you judge that the Suâ—stance of God which is one in number and compleat is either more times a Substance that is a thing which inheres not in another but suâ—sists by it self or more time compleat If more times then innumerable times also for there is no stay Besides If there be more Subsistences in the same Substance it is necessary that there be some distinction between them For if there be no distinction there will be one Subsistence not more But there is no distinction between them For the forms whether of Substances or Accidents whether they be of modes or things if they be of the same species specialissima cannot be distinguished from among themselves unless they be in divers subjectums or matters or at least in divers parts of the same subjectum or matter or be distinguished mutually among themselves by diverse time or respect But here that we may transfer this to our matter neither are there diverse Subjectums but the same divine substance in number the same time nor divers parts since neither the subsistence agrees but to the whole substance nor the divine Essence is compounded out of parts Also divers respects here have no place since subsistence is not a relatum Therefore there will be found no distinction between those subsistences and consequently between divine persons But the Adversaries would have them and the matter would require them to be distinct between themselves and that indeed really It remains therefore that they are not of the same nature and definition and consequently that they have something in which they do
throughly fastned to it the humane nature also is no more joyned to one subsistence than to another and so that union is terminated no more to one than to another and the humane nature no more subsists in the subsistence of one person than of another Yea if there could be any difference between these subsistences it should subsist rather in the subsistence of the Father as being that which is the first in the divine nature and upon which the two others do as it were lean than of the Son and holy Spirit Which that it may be made so much the more clear that is to be remembred which we shewed before that they hold that there is a certain real union between the two natures and moreover that the one nature is joyned to the other nature first and by it self but to those things which are in the nature only consequently For nothing can really be joyned and united with the moste of the thing but with the thing it self We see that in the conjunction of body and soul which example among all other things they judge to be most like to that hypostatical union For the body is first and by it self joyned unto the soul consequently to those things which are in the Soul or to its modes as to existeâ—ce or if there be any other thing which they may be pleased to call a mode But if the body he only secondarily joyned to those things which are in the soul it cannot be joyned more to one of them than to another unless perhaps one be more or before in the soul than the rest But it is already shewed that the subsistence of the Son is not in this manner in the divine Essence But moreover although in some regard the humane nature should be more joyned to the subâ—â—stence of the â—on yet it would suffice to the incarnation of the whole Trinity that the whole Essence of the Trinity is united with it For how is not that whole incarnated the whole Essence of which is incarnated Add that since those subsistences exist not without the Essence yea are in very deed the same with it it is necessary that those subsistences also be incarnated together with it Therefore the whole Trinity is incarnated hath sufferred satisfied the Father for sins Oh egregious Divinity which brings forth such fruits But let us go on to shew the absurdity of that Doctrine CHAP. VI. The second Argument Because the second person of the Divinity would cease to be a person SEcondly it follows from the same Doctrine that one person of the Divinity hath ceased to be a person for it became a part of Christ constituted of a divine and humane Nature But it is of the Essence of a Suppositum and consequen ly also of a person that it be not a part of another thing as it is confessed by all The Confirmation and Defence of the Argument The Adversaries confess and it is a thing too manifest that Christ is a certain whole consistiâ—g of a divine and huâ—ane nature Although they say that he is not an essential whole but personal W ich thing doth not infringe our Argumentation but establish it rather For what Is it not equally repugnant to a person to be the part of a personal whole that is of a person and suppositum as to be the part of an essential whole Yea verily most of all because by this means there should be two persons in one person the one a part the other a whole Therefore that which perhaps some may think is nothing that the distinction between an essential and personal whole which otherwise they use is pertinent to the subverting our reason Although also otherwise in vain is a personal whole feigned which â—ogether is not an essential But there is no need now to demonstrate that What then Will they say perhaps that the humane Nature of Christ is not a paâ—t of him Thither some of the Adversaries seem to incline although many no less contradict them than that most received opinion with the defenders concerning that â—ypostatical union for so many ages past For what is more usual with them than to oppose Christ to either nature severalâ—y taken Whereto pertaineth that distinction between whole Christ and the whole of Christ Besides if the humane Nature be not a part of the person of Christ it will be an accident of that person A g 2. The Son would cease to be a person an accident I say such as some call physical or predicable For it is easie to be shewed both by reason and the authority of the Philosopher that it is an accident which is inherent not as a part and may be absent from that in which it is Now if the humane nature of Christ be not a part of Christ all that which we have said agrees to it For it is in the person of Christ and subsists in it as the Adversaries would But now it will not be a part Lastly it may be absent from that in which it is to wit the divine Person or Nature of Christ For should the divine Nature or Person perish if the humane should be separated from it I say not that it shall be separated which they deny shall ever be But if it should be separated the divine Person should not be destroyed which is enough in this place For there are also inseparable accidents as they are caled in the Schools which although they are never separated from the subjectum yet it is therefore said that they may be absent from it because if it were supposed that they are separated from that in which they are yet it would not be necessary that the thing it self should perish But if the humane nature be an accident of the person of Christ how is the person of Christ or the Son of God a man Christ might indeed be said to be humane but not a man For that which is an accident to another is not predicated of it synonymically or univocally but paronymically So a Cup to which Gold adhers as an accident is said to be golden or gilded not a gold an Iron in which is fire is said to be fired not a fire and so in the rest But besides how is not that a whole which is one thing and consisting of two things separable in their nature But such is Christ For he is some one thing consisting of a divine and humane nature either of which in its nature is separable although this according to their opinion is not to be separated How therefore is not the humane Nature a part of Christ If it be then the other part will be the divine Nature having its subsistences that is the divine person which hath assumed the humane But a person as we have seen cannot be the part of another 〈◊〉 â—hat indeed a suppositum or person Perhaps some will say that the Iron fired is some thing united of an Iron and Fire and yet the Iron
it self doth not loose the reason or nature of a Suppositum but only the Fire subsisting in it Wherefore although Christ be somewhat consisting of a divine person humane nature yet not that but this looseth the reason or nature of a person because this subsists in that For in this part there is the same reason of a person and a suppositum because that of which we dispute whether it befal a person may therefore befal it or not befal it because it may befal or not befal a suppositum But if there be in that Iron a substantial Fiâ—e and that Fire as some part of it makes that Suppositum which is called an Iron fired certainly the Iron taken by it self without that Fire will be no more a Suppoâ—â—tum For a Suppositum should be a part of a Suppositum Neither behoves it any whit that nevertheless we should call that Iron a Suppositum For we would not call that Iron severed from the Fire a Suppositum but conjoyned with it although the denomination be made from the Iron as the chief But if that substantial Fire together with the Iron doth not make one Suppositum or is not a part of it first I see not how it may be said that it hath lost the reason oâ— nature of a Suppositum For it will be so in the Iron as the air spread through the pores of the Iron But this is in the Iron only as it is contained in a certain place neither in the mean time doth it cease to be a Suppositum as neither the water insinuating it self in the spaces of more loose bodies and diffused through them Besides this example will not serve the turn because we â—ave demonstrated the humane naâ—ure to be a part of Christ Let the Adversaries chuse now which they will of these things which we have said of the Fire for there is no need that we should decide that controversie and they shall â—nd that that instance or example of the Iron fired which in this thing they often use makes nothing to overthrow our reason CHAP. VII The third Argument Because the most high God and man are Disparatums THe third reason is because by their opinion it is necessary that Christ be together both God to wit the most hiâ—h God and Man and that God is man and man is God But the most high God and Man are Disparatums But one and the same Subjectum cannot be together two Disparatums nor one of the Disparatums be the other or as they speak in the Schools the Disparatums cannot be predicated of the same Subjectum univocally or in quid and indeed each severally without any limitation or adjection They cannot alâ—o be said one of another univocally or in quid unless perâ—aps by a metaphor or similitude as if I say a man is a Lyon or Fox that is like a Lyon or Fox But Figures here have no place For the Adversaries would have it to be so properly and are constrained so to hold partly because of their own doctrine of Christ partly because of plain expressions of the holy Scriptures Of which thing somethiâ—g shall be said afterwards But why the disparatums in that manner we have said cannot be said of one and the same subjectum muc less of one another this is the reason because the disparatums are opposite although in a looseâ— signification than Aristotle took that term And the Adversaries do not deny it For they see that the disparatums contain in them a hidden contradiction which is the greatest and unreconcileable opposition Arg. 3 God and man are Disparatums For by the essential differences by which they are opposed to each other they exclude mutually each other and the one is denyed by the other So a Man and a Horse differ as a man and not a man rational and not rational a horse and not a horse A Man and a Plant differ not only as a man and not a man but also as animal and not animal or as sensitive and not sensitive and by how much farther any thing is distant from another by so much more essential differences which they call generical are found between them and by so much more contradictions arise between them But now if any thing in the genus of the substance be distant from the man it is God if yet our Adversaries wil permit us to râ—fer God to the Genus of the Substance to hold which here there is no need Yea if we exclude him from the Genus of the Substance so much the farther will he be distant from man and so much the more differences will arise between him and man and contradictions which cause that they be opposed one to the other For man and God differs as man and not man aâ—imal and not animal natural body and not natural body and if thâ—re as yet any other differences be found by whicâ— God is severed from the genuses of a man Therfore God and man cannot be predicated of the same Subjectum as Christ is simply and absolutely and that vnivocally or in quid Neither indeed may you think those things are said of Christ synecdochycally the names of parts being put for the whole For first both words as elsewhere so also when they are used of Christ do denote nothing else but the person of Christ But the person is a whole not a part Besides if they were only predicated of Christ synecdochycally I might most rightly say Christ is not God Christ is not man yea so only should I speak properly and accurately as I say most truly that a man is not a soul a man is not flesh to wit taken distinctly from the spirit For this expression is proper and accurate the other improper and figurate to wit a man is a soul a man is flesh But who would brook him that sayes Christ is not God is not man Add that hower the parts are wont to be said synecdochycally of the whole yet are they not wont to be predicated mutually of themselves For I do not say flesh is the soul or spirit or on the contrary the soul is flesh But here God and man are predicated of each other mutually There is no need to speak of the Metaphor whereby sometimes the Disparatums are predicated of the same or mutually of each other as if I say some man is a Lyon or Fox that is like a Lyon or Fox For Christ neither after the Adversaries or our Opinion is said to be metaphorically God or man but both properly and according to them essentially according to us man indeed essentially but God in the same manner in which he is said to be a King which thing doth not reach to the Essence Not a few of the Adâ—ersaries have seen this knot which when they could not loose would notwithstanding say that this is an unusual maner of predicating and certainly it is unusual because it saith that which in its nature is impossible since as we have
shewed it implies a contradiction to wit that the same at once simply is a man and is not is God and is not Neither may any say those Disparatums which contain a hidden contradiâ—tion in them are not predicated of Christ according to the same part but diverse and indeed the one according to the divine natuâ—e the other according to the humane But that the same thing may be affirmed and denyed of the same according to divers parts For as the same thing cannot be both affirmed and denyed of the same whole simply or without a limitation or some addition although it be in it according to one part and be not in it according to another as we have shewed in the first Book Sect. 2. Chap. 3. so neither are those things said of the same Subjectum simply whâ—ch contain such a hidden contradiction in them however they may be in the same thing according to divers parts For that neverthelâ—ss would be all one as if the same should be both affirmed and denyed of the same whole simply But such we have shewed two disparatums to be which are predicated of the same subjectum univocally and properly Besides the species under which every individual is contained is never predicated of the whole in respect of one only integral part or like to the integral but of the whole as it is a whole Buâ— man is a species under which Christ is contained and if he were not it should be denyed that Christ is properly a man Wherefore man is predicated of Christ not in respect of one part only but of the whole as it is a whole Why then should not also God be the attribute of the whole as such But Disparatums cannot be said of the same whole as it is a whole for contradictories should be together predicated of the same whole as it is such CHAP. VIII Arg. 4 There would be two persons of Christ The fourth Argument Because in Christ should be two persons VVE will make the last Argument this If the humane nature We use the appellation frequent with the Adversaries be a person Christ cannot be a divine person in that manner in which the Adversaries hold it For there should be two persons in one Christ a divine and humane which thing overthrows it self But now that the humane nature of Christ is a person is proved first from the definition of a person For every first intelligent substance is a person For that which some say that this is the definition of a person taken in concreto hath here no moment For neither would we prove any other thing than that the humane nature of Christ taken in concreto is a person such as Peter Paul other men and besides every person is some concretum Therefore they will answer that this definition is more large than the thing defined For not every first that is singular and one substance intelligent is a person although the word person be taken in concreto But that is not righâ—ly answered first because otherwise it would follow that some intelligent suppositum is not a person which thing there is none which do not acknowledge to be most false for every first intelligent substance is also a suppositum even for that very reason because the action of understanding doth properly agree to it but actions do not agree save to Suppositums Lastly What instance what example will they bring to the contrary Run over all humane substances run over angelical and the natures of Devils all are persons We have shewed the same before of the divine substance And be it indeed as the Adversaâ—ies would â—hat it subsists in three subsistences and so iâ— three in persons it is enough that it is a person whether one or more For now when we assert its personality to the humane nature of Christ we dispute not of the number of persons but of the thing it self We will give you leave to feign it even three in persons But what other first intelligent substances do remain there which are not persons You will say the souls of men separated from their bodies For they are first or singular and intelligent substances For they may understand and so in very deed do understand being separated from bodies But if the thing be so why are they not persons For will they not be intelligent suppositums You will say they are not suppositums because they are natural parts of men or are by nature appointed to it that they may constitute some whole What are not the natural parts of the substances dis-joyned from each oâ—her suppositums Certainly as it is the common so also the most true opinion of the Schools that they are Suppositums at that time For it matters not that they either have been or may be naturally parts of other things if so be that now in very deed they are not but by themselves make up some wholes The actions of suppositums agree properly to them and to each separate actions Surely to the humane souls if the opinion of the Adversaries be true not only actions do agree but also even the most excllent and most proper to persons to wit to understand and will and if there be any conjoyned with these How then shall they not be suppositums how not persons But if they be not persons let not the actions proper to persons be ascribed to them Which will be done if you shall say that those souls as long as they subsist separate cannot aâ—tually understand For the soul is not intelligent ut quod or as which we speak with the Schools but ut quo or as by which that is it doth not by it self understand but is that by which the man understands Therefore as long as the man himself is not his soul by it self cannot understand But since a person is defined a first substance intelligent or an intelligent suppositum that is said to â—e intelligent which may by it self actually understand or which is understanding ut quod or as which not ut quo or as by which With what instance then will they infringe our definition Whether by the example of that nature of which we dispute But that cannot be done without begging of the Question Will they say the humane Nature of Christ is not intelligent ut quo or as which but ut quo or as by which Then it will not be a substance endued with understanding as we are and so neither a humane nature For every substance endued with understanding is intelligent ut quod or as which that is it self by its act is able to understand Of which thing we shall say more hereafter The second reason by which it is proved that the humane Nature of Christ is a person is this that it is a man I say a singular or individual man and the son of man But he who is a man or the son of man is a person for these are names of persons Whence some more acute Adversaries will
not call the humane nature in Christ a man and they say not a miss that this phrase savours of Nestorianism if any say God assâ—med man For it should be said God or the divine Nature assumeâ— a humanity or humane nature Besides if the humane Nature of Christ be in very deed a man and the son of man no man may doubt that those things are to be understood of it which are said of the man Jesus Christ or the Son of man as Christ calls himself in the holy * Mat. 16 13 15 16 John 3.14 16. 5.26 27. 1 Tim. 2.5 Scriptures For there were not two men in Christ But that son of man is called the Son of God or on the contrary the Son of God is called the Son of man The man Christ is called the Mediator and other things are attributed to him which by all mens confession agree not but to a person Certainly if that man be not a person it will be lawful so to argue The son of man is not a person the son of God is that son of man therefore that son of God is not a person But it is manifest by the definition of a man that the humane nature of Christ which they fear to call a man is in very deed and properly a man For to which the definition agrees to it also the thing defined agrees For as much as the thing defiâ—ed and the definition or the thing comprehended in the definition differ not but in the manner of explaining otherwise they are altogether the same thing But now doth not the definition of a man agree to the humane Nature of Christ Waâ— not it as all other men a â—ational animal Of its being â—ational there is no doubt for his Nature had not been humane if it had not been rational Of its being an animal also â—e ought not to doubt who knows that the animal when it is made the genus of a man is no other thing than a body endued with a sensitive soul Wâ—at was not the humane nature in Christ such a body Was it not a body that is a corporeal substance Was it not endued with a sensitive soul He hath put off all sense and reason who dares to deny it Therefore the humane nature of Christ is a man But of its singularity or individuality who doubts But if he be a man he also is the son of man as well because the holy Scriptures put promiscuously the son of man and a man as also is commonly known as because he who being a man is born of a woman cannot but be in pâ—oper speaking the son of man Perhaps some one will say that the humane nature of Christ to speak properly and accurately is neither a man nor an animal nor a body but Christ endued with humane nature is both a man and an animal and a body because a man and animal are concretums and likewise a body when it is put for the genus of a man but that the humane nature of Christ is an abstractum But we on the contrary if the humane nature of Christ speaking properly and acurately be a corporeal substance which no man can deny but he that believes not sense any more the same also is an animal since it is enâ—ued with a sensitive soul and further a man since it is also endued with a rational soul Wherefore that which they say that it is some abstractum and call it humanity or the humane nature not a man rests on their bare opinion But besides what is with them humanity corporeity animality abstract They will not say that they are universals as it were severed in the mind from singulars which sort of abstâ—actums we willingly admit in the kind of the substances for this makes nothing here to the purpose since the humane nature of Christ is singular and one in number Also they will not say that it is the form of a man animal or body For neither doth t is make any whit to the purpose since the humane nature of Christ is noâ— the form of a man but something endued with a form not a part of the humane essence but the whole essence What therefore are in their opinion those abstractums Are they the singular nature of a man an animal or some body abstracted from all these things which are not required to constitute it and considered barely by it self First what constraines to consider so the humane nature of Christ since in it there were many things not belonging to the constitution of the essence of the humanity it self as in other men And that I may more nearly touch those things which are wont commonly to be looked on in such concretums there was in him an existence proper to singulars of which no regard is had in the definition of the species and genus there were differences which they call individuating it was existent in a certain place in a certain time I say it was a being in very deed existing and as other substances subsisting but such things are not wont to be called abstractums Besides I cannot see why a whole essence and in all the parts absolute which is really existing although it be abstracted in the mind from those things which are in it deserves not the name of its species or genus why I say this humane nature which is indeed existent for of this we speak ought not to be called a man or this entire nature of an animal animal In vain the latter Philosophers seem here to have sought a distinction unknown to the Antients and by reason of difference of words although also it was necessary to feign those simple abstract words of the substances as of the humanity taken for the humane nature animality corporeity to have brought in a certain difference of the thing and signification it self But perhaps they will say that the humane nature of Christ subsists not by it self but subsists in the person of the Son of God by whose proper subsistence it is sustained Therefore he either ought not to be called a man or if he be called a man yet he is not a person But that I may omit now other things to be said a little after that subsistence which they say the humane nature of Christ wants either appertains to the constitution of the nature of a man or appertains not to it If it appertains to it the humane nature of Christ without it will not be entire and so Christ shall not be a perfect man contrary to the mind of the holy Scriptures and the Adversaries themselves If it appertains not to it its absence will no whit hinder but that the humane nature of Christ may be properly called a man Thirdly It is proved by this that the humane nature of Christ is a person because it in proper speaking doth act and sustains certain offices But aâ—tions as often we have minded after the common opinion of â—â—e Schools are not properly but of
suppositums which if they be endued with understanding by the confession of all are persons Likewise also offices are proper to persons as also the Adversaries confess it But now that the humane nature of Christ properly acts is proved by that that it doth also really subsist and hath in it self a strength or power also and faculties sufficient to act For it hath not less than any man yea by so much greater by how much greater gifts and greater power is given it of God But what is required to it that any thing may in proper speaking act but that it may really subsist and have in it self a strength or power sufficient to act Surely it should be denyed that we do properly act if that might be denyed of the humane nature of Christ which as we have said in those things that are required to the action properly so called doth not only equal us but also in many respects exceed And that we may declare that thing more peculiarly doth not it speaking properly by it self understand and reason Then it is not an intelligent substance and endued with a rational soul and further neither an humane For that is an intelligent substance that can especially with some access of use and exercise really I say properly not improperly understand and reason But even the understanding alone would suffice to prove its person for it is proper to persons as also we have before minded Further Take now other actions whether proper to men or animals as to will desire eat drink move it self in a place and stirs its members to act If the humane nature had not faculties to exercise these actions either it was not an humane nature at all or it was maimed either in respect of the body or soul The Truth or the Adversaries opinion admits neither The Antiquity condemned the Monothelites who held one only will in Christ But if there were in him a double will one in the divine nature another in the humane as the divine nature hath willed and doth will by its proper will so also the humanity by its for wherefore else should it be in it Faculties are for actions And surely his humane will shewed forth it self abundantly * Mat. 26.39 Mar. 14.35 36. Luke 22.42 whilst he sought of his Father to remove the cup frow him Although here it might be enough for us that this nature might properly will for that agâ—ees not but to Suppositums Perhaps they will say that the humane nature did not subsist by it self but in the person of the Son of God and therefore also by it self could act nothing For that which subs sts not by it self doth nothing also by it self Wherefore all the actions properly and directly are not to be ascribed to the humane nature by which they are performed but to whole Christ although according to the humane nature For in whole Christ or his person they are termâ—nated and founded But if you would directly ascribe those actions to the humane nature it self the expression or speaking would be improper as when I say the soul understands wills feels when yet the soul doth not properly understand will feel but the man with or by or according to the soul So neitâ—er doth the body eat drink but the man himself by the body So lastly neiâ—her doth the arm move it self although we sometimes so speak but the man Which things let us consider of what moment they are and first that why they deny the humane nature of Christ to subsist by it self Now theâ—e may be a threefold meaning of that expression which may here come into ones mind For first that may be said to subsist by it self which â—eeds not any subjectum in which it may in here and from which if it be removed it will loose its being In this manner all substances subsist by themselves accidents do not subs st those namely which are wont commonly to be distributed into nine Categories or Predicaments In this manner the humane nature by the Adversaries confession subsists by it self for it is a substance not an accident otherwise it would not be an humane nature Besides that subsists by it self which needs not at all any outward prop that it may subsist and be preserved entire and safe In this manner no created thing and depending on another subsists by it self But that hinders not but that the things destitute of this way of subsisting by themselves act properly as is manifest to any one For things corruptible and chiefly men want both many causes that at first they may exist and many helps that they may be conserved and yet they do properly act Wherefore that will neither hinder the humane nature that it should not speaking properly act Thirdly That subsists by it self which is not a part of another but constitutes some whole by it self and absolute in all its respects In this manner the parts of any thing whether integrant or essential are not said to subsist by themselves and therefore not to act by themselves but the whole by them And hitherto belong all those examples brought a little before Perhaps in this manner the Adversaries will say that the humane nature of Christ doth not subsist by it self because it is a part of another suppositum to wit of whole Christ or his person But if the thing be so neither that second person of the Divinity with which the humane is said to be united and which therefore is the other part of the same suppositum shall properly any more act any thing So a divine person that is of the supream God himself who speaking properly hath acted is become that which speaking properly cannot act than which nothing can be thought more absurd For certainly if the humane nature be a part there will be also some other part of the same whole But what is it besides the person by which it is assumed and with which it is said to be united Wherefore this also will be a part and consequently will no more subsist by it self to wit in that manner of subsisting which we now handle than the humane nature But besides if the humane nature of Christ be full and perfect consisting of a humane body and a rational soul both of them absolute in all respects is it not by it self an entire thing having faculties sufficient to act Certainly if you deny any of these either you will deny the entireness of the humane nature or you will deny also that we our selves are such entire things The Adversaries being constrained by the very truth of the thing grant the humane Nature of Christ to be by it self an essential whole neither dare they say it is an integrant part of Christ because they hold those only to be integrant parts which have quantity Wherefore if Christ should consist of a humane nature and a divine as integrant parts also the divine nature being the other part of this suppositum would have quantity
Therefore some say that the divine and humane nature are as it were essential parts or like essential parts and that the humane nature is as it were the matter and thing to be perfected the divine as it were the form and thing perfecting But whilst they say this they thereby confess those Natures to be improperly called parts but properly wholes or at least if the divine Nature cannot be termed a whole because it is destitute of parts the humane Nature by it self to be some whole consisting of all essential and integrant parts But this indeed is to subsist by it self when that expression is taken in the third signification which was set down by us Wherefore in vain do the Adversaries when they say that that subsistence of which we speak may by divine power be separated from an entire and perfect substance such as is the humane natuâ—e in Christ And I believe indeed it may be separated iâ— together it cease to be perfect and entire and becomes either an essential part of some thing or integrant growing together with another body But that it remaining perfect and making up an essential and integral whole by it self should not subsist by it self implies a contradiction For that would be that it compleats a whole by it self and doth not compleat it that it both is entire and perfect by it self and is not And this reason indeed doth not only shew that actions properly agree to the humane Nature whence further it is concluded that it is a suppositum and person but also doth immediately shew that For if the humane Nature be a substance subsisting by it self to wit in that stricter manner of subsisting by it self which we expounded in the third place it is altogether a suppositum for as much as this subsistence is the form of a suppositum by which a suppositum is a suppositum as the Adversaries themselves teach who also bring no other cause nor can by their opinion why the humane nature of Christ is not a suppositum and further not a person than because it is destitute of that subsistence But that we may return to actions Thence also it is manifest that they properly agree to the humane Nature because otheâ—wise it should be necessary to hold that all Christs actions whatsoever at length they have been are to be properly attributed to his divine suppositum as it is a suppositum or that that divine suppositum hath properly performed those actions But thence arise those absurdities which my mind abhors even to think of For all natural actions proper to humane imperfection and our mortality which are common to man with brutes some also however necessary yet uncomely shall properly agree not to the humane Nature but to the divine Suppositum it self that is to God himself as he is a Suppositum He who fears not to think these absurdities of God he hath not yet learned to reverence enough that dâ—eadful and most glorious Majesty and doth the greatest injury to the most holy Religion of Christ Which by this means he exposeth to the mockery of those which are without Surely that should be far from them who so much abhor to ascribe any accident to God or any genus and the like which although they were erronious yet they could be both conceived and spoken without disparagement to his Majesty But so it usually comes to pass that they which strain at a Gnat swallow an Elephant and they whom those things which pertain only to the philosophical subtlety would be wary even to superstition but in these things which touch the reverence of the Deity they are more than careless Therefore that we may return to our purpose since it is sufficiently shewed that actions do properly agree to the humane Nature it is also easy to shew that offices also agree to the same For first that the humane Nature of Christ may bear some office that which would here be sufficient for us it is easie to demonstrate For he that may discharge actions proper to intelligent beings and those very eminent may also bear some office For what else is required to the office in general Besides the same is without difficulty shewed in particular Three offices of Christ are held by all Prophetical Priestly and Kingly The part of the first is to expound confirm the divine Will to men Of the second to offer to God and to intercede for sinners Of the third to govern keep and save the people of God although also to save belongs to the Priestly office of which here is not place to speak But do not these offices agree to the humane Nature of Christ It is the office of a Prophet not to speak in his own name but anothers to wit Gods for God when he speaks in his own person doth not execute a Prophets office and to deliver Oracles or Doctrines unto others received from him See Book 1. chap. 2. Sect. 8. And Christ expresly saith of himself that he heard the things which he speak from the Father that he was taught of him that he received command from him what he ought to speak that his Doctrine was not his own but his who sent him All which things the Adversaries will have to have been said of Christ according to his humane Nature nor can they otherwise For the divine Nature or Person as such cannot learn or receive commandments all things which he hath or delivers are his not anothers But if the humane Nature properly doth not act we must say that the divine Person properly hath done those things which are said to have been done according to it It therefore hath properly heard of the Father hath properly learned received commands and further hath spoken by anothers command hath promulged anothers not his own Doctrine it properly hath managed the Prophetick office likewise also hath wrought piety temperance chastity and other vertues hath done miracles by divine Power hath by its death confirmed his Doctrine which was the complement of the Prophetick Office Now that we may come to the Priestly office To intercede for another with God agreeth not to God himself nor to a divine Person as such as even the Adversaries themselves do see likewise neither to offer to God especially because by the expiatory oblation it self the intercession is made with God for another Therefore it is necessary that it be said that Christ hath done those things according to his humane Nature Whence further it follows for the reason a little before alleaged that the humane Nature hath done or does those things and so performs the Office of a Priest Lastly Since we see that Christ is said to have been made and anointed by God a King and that all Power is given him in Heaven and in Earth since it is necessary to understand those things of Christ according to the humane Nature it follows that the humane Nature hath that Power and further also doth exercise it
and existent from all eternity No indeed but because the Father hath committed all judgment to him For so he saith The Father judgeth no man but hath committed all judgement to the Son that all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father of which thing we have spoken more in its place Since therefore we honour him because of all judgement given to him by the Father since we adore him because of his sublime power * See the Appendix of chap. 18 Sect. 2. Lib. 1. because of a name given him above every name †Phil. 2.9 c. We bow the knee to him and profess him to be our divine Lord placed at the Fathers right hand in heavenly places we reverence him as the judge and avenger of all our deeds words counsels and the inmost retirements of our mind no otherwise than as the Father do we detract any part of due honour from him But would to God that many who that they may testifie their love toward the Son of God honour him with false praises would shew more earnestness in that thing in which Christ placeth the true love towards himself and that they who would be liberal towards him of that thing which is anothers were not so strait handed in that which is their own And that indeed is that they may observe Christs precepts †John 14.21 For so saith Chrâ—st He that hath my Commandments and keepeth them he it is who loveth me Herein herein must we all throughly labour herein the greatest love towards Christ is to be shewed which if we perform we shall deny him no due honour But verily it is more easie to accumulate praises and titles of honours without measure than to execute commands as we see it more easie in humane affaires to flatter and adorn another even with too many praises than to perform the office of a true friend or faithful servant We take nothing here to our selves being rightly conscious to our selves of our defectiveness neither detract we from all others the praise of piety whilst we desire more of it in many neither are we more solicitous of anothers than of our own duty But yet we could wish less were ascribed to that love towards Christ which conâ—â—sts only in opinion and specious words and that it were at length as it ought of right to be brought into suspicion by them who too much please themselves in it Besides that we may likewise pass to other incommodities and absurdities which flow from the opinion of the Adversaries concerning more persons in the most high God they themselves who attribute to Christ false honour do in the mean time either take away from him that which is true or very much diminish and obscure it Therefore they themselves do that which wrongfully they object to us and whilst they endeavour to lift up Christ higher they unawars thrust him down from his own throne and height For that opinion touching of the second person of the Trinity or the only begotten Son of God who was begotten from all eternity out of the Fathers Essence doth so obscure the true Divinity not only of the Father but also of Jesus Christ himself born of the Virgin that it doth almost extinguish it Foâ— first it doth not permit that Jesus Christ himself that very man himself I say who in time was born of a Virgin may be acknowledged for the only begotten Son of God and so called in the holy Scriptures by way of excellency but for a certain accession of him or a nature assumed to him For although the Adversaries call the man Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God yet it is not done by them but by communication of properties by which those things which agree to Christ according to one nature are attributed to him described by the other nature But that humane substance it self consisting of a body and rational soul which they fear to call a man is not with them by any means of it self the only begotten Soâ— of God but a nature assumed by him Whence also they are wont to compare it to a garment which he hath put on Therefo e that humane substance that is if you judge of the thing according to truth the man Jesus Christ himself shall be no more the only begotten Son of God than our Body is the Soul because this is cloathed with that and knit with it in so straight a bond But it manifestly appears by those things which we have said before * Lib. 1. Sect. 2. Chap. 31. out of the holy Scriptures concerning the reason whereby Jesus is the Son of God that the man himself born of a Virgin nor any other before or besides him is the only begotten Son of God How then doth not that opinion of the adversaries lessen or rather take away his true glory To which is added that the same opinion casts down the man Christ out of the Kingly Throne in which he was placed by God and permits us not to acknowledge sincerely that he is made by God Lord and Christ For these things happen not but to a person less than the most high God such as with them neither is the man Christ or as they call it the humane nature nor his divine person Not this because it is the most high God and therefore no whit less than he not that because with them it is not a person nor can be if it subsist in another person And to what purpose is that power of the humane nature if it cannot exercise it by it self For nothing can act by it self if it be not a Suppositum but God himself only acts according to it To what purpose is a double empire in the same person which can be exercised but once by him If any one would joyn the Moon in an indissoluble tye with the Sun he should make its light superfluous and useless For neither should the Moon impart its light to us the Sun illustrating all things by its beams and as it were obscuring the Moon it self But the same disjoyned from the Sun imparts such light to the Earth however received from the Sun that it is called in the holy Book together with it a great Light * Gen. 1.16 Psal 136.7 So also the man Christ if you joyn him into one person with God he loseth that sacred splendor of his empire majesty being obscured made useless by the glory splendor of the supream divinity For that supream divinity would by it self illustrate all things sufficiently by the beams of its power wisdom goodness But if he be distinct from the most high God as in nature so also in person being as it were illustrated by his beams he imparts a most comfortable light to the Earth and makes that those who could not lift up tâ—eir eyes to the splendour of the supream divinity and behold it by its self may contemplate it in a sort more mildly
speaking properly hath done nothing but the divine person of God himself according to it But it matters much yea infinitely if we look to the power of doing whether the most high God act or man Besides nevertheless in that humane nature did an infinite power of the supream Deity personally dwell and so restrained it from all sin that it was altogether impossible for it to sin What l ke to that is in us I forbear to speak of those things which they often inculcate concerning the unlikeness between us and Christ in respect of the original sin and the same great corruption of our nature which was not at all in Christ but in us is thought to be so great that we being left to our selves can do nothing almost but sin But as to the latter to wit our felicity and the way of attaining it what marvel is it that the most high God for they will have us believe that he being made a man could die did rise again from the dead and after became immortal Is there any even the least ability remaining in us after death by which we maybe able to loose our selves from its bonds and recal our selves into life Shall we then learn by the example of Christ that we may do what he could But the opinion of the Adversaries concerning Christ doth another way also overthrow the props of our hope and trust which God set to stâ—engthen it For God would not by himself or immediately as they speak govern the whole business of our salvation and bring it to an end but hath put it into the hands of Jesus Christ both conjoyned to us by nature and having suffered all evils which happen to no serving him that so he might erect us to the furest hope namely that he would not despise our baseness but so much the more readily succour us being vexed and afflicted That which the divine author of the Epistle to the Hebrews hath shewed in several places and first indeed of all about the end of the second Chapter for he had said That Christ no where took hold of Angels but took hold of the seed of Abraham that is No where is it said in Scripture that Christ was destinated by God to lay hold on and help for that is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Angels or that he was employed therein but this was his business that he may embrace the posterity and sons of Abraham by his care that he may help and for ever keep them to wit those who were not only born of Abraham according to the flesh but those also who imitate his faith Therefore when he had said thus he adds Whence he ought to be made in all things like to his brethren to wit the true sons of Abraham yet indued with flesh and blood and subject to all kind of adversities that he might be made a merciful and a faithful high Pciest to God or in those things which pertain to God that he might make reconciliation for or expiate the sins of the people For in that in which he himself suffered and was tempted or when he was tempted he is able to help them also who are tempted Which same thing in some sort he repeateth about the end of Chapter 4. and more fully declares Chap. 5. * Compare together vers 2 3. and 7 8. ch 5. Namely the divine Author teacheth that Christ because he had experience of the same evils is so much the more prone to help and succour us being put into the like affliction But how may we sincerely enjoy this consolation if Christ be the immortal God himself and free from all even shadows of affliction For it doth no whit avail that the humane nature hath suffered and was dead if so be these things happen unto that which is not a Suppositum For if that nature be not a suppositum and consequently doth not any thing by it self but whatsoever it doth the divine person that is the most high God himself doth according to it what avails it that it suffered and had an experience of our evils For the divine person himself who is to be accommodated in very deed to do whatsoever Christ doth nevertheless did not feel those evils nor could be made more prone for that cause to help us And although the humane nature be held to concur to that action by which help is brought from Christ to us yet it shall not concur as left to its own will as that which necessarily obeys the will and impulse of the divinity without which it can neither act nor cease from acting Therefore it will be all one in this respect as if God himself immediately should govern the whole business of our salvation Therefore as they are injurious to the glory of God and the true honour of Jesus Christ so also they are very injurious to themselves who ascribe unto Christ a supream divinity But we together assert to God and Christ their true honour who adore the man Jesus Christ exalted for the death of the cross by the mighty right hand of the Father to the greatest height and made a â—rince and our Saviour and profess according to the doctrine of Paul * Phil. 2.11 him to 〈◊〉 Lord to the glory of God the Father and together are sensible both of the power of his resurrection and the fruit of his glorification and experience that to be truly said of Peter †1 Pet. 1.21 That by him we believe in Gods who raised him from the dead and gave him glory that our faith and hope might be in God in which very thing we acknowledge and with thankful mind accept the greatest goodness of God towards us Greaâ— and grievous are those discommodities of the opinion of the Adversaries which we have hitherto alleaged which even alone would suffice abundantly to shew its absurdity but there is not an end yet For one absurdity being granted many follow and a chain of errors is easily knit For besides that it is necessary that the Adversaries pervert many places of the holy Scripture repugnant to their opinion or not consonant to it and waest them to another meaning some other Doctrines very hurtful to the Salvation of men are built upon it which must needs fall down it being overthrown You may here rightly place that most gross errour of many concerning the ubiquity as they call it or omnipresence of the body of Christ by which the very substance of the body of Christ together with his divinity is fained to be entirely present in every place least and greatest which error whatever the patrons of it say suffers not Christ any more to be moved from place to place than the divine nature it self and by its force takes away whatsoever things are read in the holy Scriptures as there are read innumerable things which shew him to be comprehended in a certain compass of places and that he went from place to place and among other things
his greatest honour 305 The same is detracted from him not by our opinion 305 306. but by the opinion of the Adversaries 306. Whether his humane Nature is a Person 286. Whether a man 287 c. Whether an abstractum 288 c. Whether it does act in proper speaking 289. Whether it subsists by it self 290 291 292. Wherefore Christ is called The Image of God 139 c. He hath received both the Authority and Exercise of Ruling from the Father 104. and that indeed as the reward of his obedience 104 105. A double Empire is to no purpose ascribed unto him 307. He may yea often ought to be invocated 45. He received commands from the Father and kept them 91 92. Wherefore he is called Mediator 34. Whether he be the Mediator of tâ—e whole Trinity 31. Whether of himself 32 33. Whether of the holy Spirit 34 35. And whether according to the humane nature only or according to both natures 31 c. In what consideration he died for us 159 160. All the Offices do agree to him as a man 293 294. He is no where simply called Father 21. He ascribeth all his works unto the Father 110 c. He prayed to the Father not only out of modesty but because of necessity 93 c. He is from the Father even as he is God 51 52. He shewed himself wholly to depend from the most high God 11. How all things are by him 18 19 112 113. Whether it is rightly said that his Person doth do something according to the humane nature 32. Whether he received the power of doing all things from the Father by eternal generation 54 c. By whom he was raised and whether by himself 133 c. He is distinguished from Him that sitteth upon the Throne 40 41. He is called Gods Servant 91. Unto him was given the holy Spirit 163 c. Whether he be totum quid or a certain whole Substance consisting of a Divine and an Humane Nature 281 c. He came not of himself 67 c. nor to do his own will 68 c. He was not anointed by the holy Spirit but with the holy Spirit by God the Father pag. 188. Christ taken for the Religion by him delivered pag. 217. What that is which distinguisheth Christians from Jews or Turks pag. 110. Every communicating of a substance to another is a generation pag. 269. To Come from himself what pag. 118. Comparisons of things with persons do easily bring forth Prosopopeyas pag. 234. The force of a Contradiction lies in the distinction of things pag. 299. Things containing a hidden Contradiction are not predicated of the same Subjectum simply however they may be in it according to divers parts pag. 285. The first Creation is in the Scripture and the Apostles Creed ascribed to the Father only pag. 44 213. D. The Dative Case of a Person often denotes finem cui or the end to which pag. 217 The Descriptions of Persons in the Scriptures are not wont to be idle or useless pag. 13 17. The word To day being used even of God denotes a certain and definite time pag. 277. What the word Determined Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in the New Testament pag. 154. Every Difference doth tacitely include a contradiction in it self pag. 299. What the nature of Disparatums is pag. 283 c. Whether the divine Essence be communicable pag. 254 255. No Doctrine that implies a contradiction can be true pag. 245 246. E. Earnest what pag. 218. To be distinguished eminenter what pag. 299 300. That which is Equal hath alwayes a different essence from that to which it is equal pag. 170. That Which dependeth upon the free will of God cannot be eternal 55 56. Whatsoever is simply from eternity is also simply necessary pag. 55. What things are wont to be excepted pag. 194. Whether Eternal life consists herein that we know the Father and Christ to be the only true God pag. 10 11. F. The summe of our Faith concerning Christ pag. 143 144. There is neither any example nor any precept extant in the Scripture concerning Faith in the Holy Spirit 181. How that is to be understood which is contained of it in the Apostles Creed pag. 181. Every Father either properly or improperly so called if he be endued with understanding is a person pag. 22. The word Father doth no where in the Scripture denote the Trinity 20 c. 24. Whether God may be called Father because of the first Creation only pag. 20 21. The Father of Christ is called his God 122. and the God of the Patriarchs pag. 45 46. He is more excellent than the Son 50. His substance is different from that of the Son 50 He is worshipped through Christ 37. His manifold prerogative above the Son and the Holy Spirit 43 44. He alone is of himself pag. 43 Unusual Figures when used pag. 220. The First-fruits of a thing what pag. 224 The First-born is alwayes contained in the number of them of whom except the Parents it is said to be the first-born pag. 169. The particle For Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie an effect in the New Testament pag. 120 One thing hath but one forme pag. 261. What it is to be the same thing formally pag. 298. Future tenses are among the Hebrews frequently taken for Present tenses pag. 120. The particle from or of Lat. ex often signifies an Efficient cause pag. 222. G. Every Generation properly so called is a change from not being to being 273 c. What manner of generation that is which is said to be performed by emanation and to what it does agree 275. There is no supernatural generation out of the Essence of God 274. The Opinion touching the generation of the Son of God out of the Essence of the Father is is refelled 54 55 101 268 269 c. 278. as also the manner of it either by intellection 268 c. or by emanation 275 c. It would be the same with the procession of the holy Spirit maintained by its Patrons 295 c. How far it is necessary that the thing generated be like the thing generating pag. 297. That which any one does already possess by a full right cannot be said to be given unto him again and that indeed out of grace pag. 105 109. The Glory of God is the ultimate scope both of his own and their actions that serve him pag. 69 70. How much difference there is between the glorifying of the Father which proceeded from Christ and that of Christ which proceeded from the Father pag. 100. What absurdities the multitude of Gods bring forth pag. 303. What it is to be the God of any one pag. 123 126. What difference there is between the appellation of God and that of the Son of God pag. 52. The name God is in its own nature common 4. It is the name of a Person 48 251. whom it denotes being taken by way of
excellency 20 48 49. Whom being put subjectively 13o. It does in its own nature signifie something more excellent than the bare name Lord 20. It is in innumerable places of the Scripture taken as proper to the Father 42. One God in number cannot directly be predicated of many persons distinct in number 15. Who is to be accounted the most high God 17 18. He is in no wise from another 51. Neither is he dependent upon anothers arbitrary will especially necessaâ—ily 216. He cannot be given for an earnest or pledge 218. He can do all things of himself 53. What it is when God is said to be with one 117. God taken hypostatically or personally and essentially is the same 251 252. He is bestowed by none upon any 205. He is to us an example both of holiness and felicity 308. He can receive commands from none 91. He cannot be sent by any 89 c. In him are all perfections necessarily which can naturally be in him 266. God and Father joyned together by the copulative particle denote the same subject 22 23. Wherefore God is called Father either simply or our Father 20 21. How all things by him are 18 112 113. How fâ—r his power extendeth it self 105. Old age cannot properly be attributed unto Him 109 110. In what sense those things that are proper unto him alone are denied of them that are dependent on him 5. How he doth deliver the Kingdom unto any 128. How he sanctifieth us and how he is sanctified of us 147. It is necessary that He should be One pag. 18. How it is either repugnant or not repugnant to the Scripture to have two Gods pag. 109 110. The Opinion of the Greeks touching the procession of the holy Spirit pag. 43. H. To be ones Head what pag. 124. The opinion of Hilary touching the holy Spirit pag. 183 184. I. The Jewes did acknowledge for God none but him whom Christ called his Father pag. 38. No Image is of the same Essence in number with that whereof it is the Image pag. 139 140. The particle In is often redundant in the Hebrew tongue pag. 221. There is no mention made in the holy Scripture of the Incarnation of the most High God 160 c. There was no need of it for our Salvation 162. The absurdity of it pag. 278 c. 312 c. Whether Incommunicability is to be exprest in the definition of Suppositum pag. 257 258. There is neither any command nor any example in the Scriptre of invocating the holy Spirit 181 c. Whether it was anciently in use pag. 183. Johns scope in penning the Gospel 53. He affordeth many Arguments against the common Doctrine touching the Deity of Christ pag. 53. K. What manner of Knowledge that is wherein Religion consisteth pag. 11. The Knowledge of God is oftentimes includâ—d in the knowledge of Christ and on the contâ—ary 185 186. How the Apostles do exâ—râ—ss the knowledge of an whole Complex or Proposition pag. 11 12. L. What things agree to a Legate or Embassador 131 132. Credit given to a Legate or Embassador is ultimately terminated in the sender of him pag. 71 In what sense one is said to be like himself pag. 140 He that is made Lord by another if he be a God is also made God by another pag. 107 The name of Lord used for Jehovah or Adonai is very often taken in the Scripture as proper to the Father 42. With what difference it is used both of God and Christ 17 18. And how is it by way of excellency attributed to Christ pag. 19 Wherein the Love of God towards us is most of all shewn pag. 162 M. He that is a Man is a person pag. 287 The Miracles of Christ were the most manifest signs of his conjunction with the Father 121. Christ frequently appealeth unto them pag. 121 Modesty hath no place in God pag. 94 Moses taken for the Law delivered by him pag. 217 No Mystery is repugnant to Reason pag. 245 N. The vulgar distinction of Natures in Christ examined 56 c. It overthrows the vulgar opinion touching Christ 64 65. It cannot cause that that thing should be simply denied of the Subject which for another nature is to be simply affirmed of it 33. or that it should be simply distinguished from that which is to be simply predicated of it pag. 33 O. Offices agree to none but Persons pag. 31 What force the word only hath 2 8 c. 36. It belongs to the subject as often as it is imployed to exclude other subjects from the communion of the predicate 7. where it is wont to be placed in the whole sent tence or complex when it is referred to many subjects pag. 10 Opposites include in themselves a tacit contradiction pag. 299 P The parts of the same thing are not wont to be predicated mutually of themselves pag. 284 The parts of substances being disjoyned from each other do become Suppositums pag. 287 Person what 48 51. Whether is it a manner of subsisting or a subsistence 51 258 c. whether the definition of Person namely that it is a first substance intelligent agâ—eeth to it taken only in concreto 260 261. Whether the same definition is more large than its definitum or Person defined 286 c. VVhat a divine Person is 67. VVhether it is a substance 256 257 c. It differs not from the divine Nature 32 51 300 c. The same eason or consideâ—ation of a finite infinite Person 265 c. No Person can at the same time be so given to many that in very deed he should be or dwell in every one of â—hem 216 217. No man is sealed with a Person pag. 219 Power and Spirit are oftentimes coupled in the holy Scripture pag. 198 To heavenly and divine power divine woâ—ship is due pag. 109 The act of Predestination is in the Scripture attributed to the Father only pag. 77 The Present-tenses do among the Latines denote a frequency or custom of action pag. 120 Preterperfect tenses among the Hebrews are frequently taken for present-tenses pag. 120 He that is a Priest cannot be the most High God pag. 132 c. The Priesthood of Christ contains his Royal Power pag. 156 The style of Prophets pag. 225 R. When the same thing is wont to be Repeated by the sacred Writers pag. 25 Things really the same and really distinâ—t what pag. 255 Reason in divine things is not to be rejected pag. 245 What thinâ—s are according to Aristotle distiâ—ct in Reason pag. 301 Redemption how ascribed to the Son pag. 213 Relatives cannot be in the same thing according to the same respect part and time pag. 268 What the right of ruling given to Christ contains pag. 105 The Rising of Christ from the dead is one â—eason amongst others of his filiation 136 137. It doth sometimes comprehend his whole glory pag. 156 S. To sanctifie what it signifies in the Scripture pag. 147 Whether Sanctification is in
the Scripture attributed to the holy Spirit in a peculiar manner 164 165. Whether the same is more often ascribed to the Holy Spirit than to the Father or Son 213 c. The action of sanctifying is attributed by the Scripture even to things which are not persons pag. 213 The vulgar opinion touching the Satisfaction of Christ brings forth several absurdities and what they be pag. 312 c. The word Saviour agreeth to the Father also pag. 189 The Opinion of the Schoolmen touching the distinction between the divine Attâ—ibutes and tâ—e examination of the same 298 c. Again touching the distinction of the persons of the Trinâ—ty from the Essence pag. 300 301. Whether and how is any one said to search his own counsels pag. 235. Those that deny credit to be given to the sences overthrow the foundations of Faith pag. 311 c. To be sent agreeth not to the mo t high God 12 c. What it is to be sent into the world 149. One can be sent into the woâ—ld who never was in Heaven pag. 149 To whom is the word Son absolutely used of Christ related 129. The name Son is not essential to Christ 158. The Son of God cannoâ— be the most high God 14 50. The contrary opinion diminisheth the honour of the Father 304 305 c. neither is it conjoyned with the glory of Christ 304 c. yea it doth diminish the same 306 c. It robs both God of tâ—at glory which consists in managing our Salvation by Christ 307. and us of that incomparable fruit which God looked upon in the same 307 308 c. The Son of God is not the fiâ—st original of the holy Spirit 43. The Son of God is called the Son of man and on the contrary pag. 287 Why the Souls of men separated from their Bodies are not Persons 286 287. and how they are said to be intellâ—gent pag. 287 The Speâ—ies is predicâ—ted of the whoâ—e Individuum as such pag. 286 The woâ—d Spirit pâ—t subjectively doth no where denote the divine essence 58. nor the three persons of one divine essence 24. How it is predicated of the Father and Son pag. 24. The same put both simply and with an additament does oftentimes denote the holy Spirit pag. 24 The holy Spirit why called so 208 209. All things that come from the divine inspiration are ascribed to it 199 200. How it is said to have spoken unto any 180. How its knowledge is contained in the knowledge of the Father and Son 185 186. The holy Scripture is silent of its adoration or worship 181 c. It is often not joyned with God and Christ 185 c. even where the angels or other sacred things are mentioned 191 192. It is not the most high God 14 171 c. The contâ—ary Opinion diminisheth the honour of the Father 303 c. The same is no where called God in the Scripture 39 172 c. It is often distinguished from him 195 c. How was its descent upon Christ 241. It would not be said no not indeed by a Metonimy to be given unto men if it were the most high God 214 215. Wâ—ether the same it self be given or its effects only 206 c. How may it be distinguished from its effect 202 c. It s effusion upon the â—postles how attributed unto Christ 114. It s mission what 228. It doth admit a partition 222 c. and how 224. whetheâ— is it a person 216 217. It is no where said to have appeared in a form or shape of a person 241. It is no where comâ—â—ehended under the name of Father 21 22. It would be the Father of Christ if it were a person 204 205. It s procession what 226 c. 297 c. Whether that which is commonly maintained be any wise different from the generation of the Son of God out of the essence of the Father 295 c. How it doth proceed from the Son 43. What cause it is of the divine revelation 235. What its common signification was anciently 207 c. What manner of power or efficacy of God it is pag. 197 The same Subject is often described by diâ—ers names joyned togetâ—er by a copulative particle pag. 23. The subjects being multiplied those things also are multiplied that are distinctâ—y said of each of them pag. 250 A subsistence haâ—h of it self no power to act 32. It worketh noâ—hing 62. How many wayes it is taken by the Adversaries 262. One substance hath but one subsistence pag. 261 c. To subsist by it self how many wayes â—e said pag. 290 291 292. Whether the word substance may be used concerning God pag. 256 257 Suppositum what 257 258. wherefore be iâ— called so 258. What kind of suppositum constitutes a person pag. 286 287 T. A Temple may be his also who is not the most high God pag. 176 The things that are the same with one third thing are also among themselves the same pag. 253 c. Things are oftentimes in the Scripâ—ure joyned with persons and those divine ones 190. Things that are not persons can both descend from heaven and be shadowed by an outward specâ—es or shape pag. 240 To be tempted of the Devil agreeth agreeth not to the most high God pag. 166 c. The Common Opinion touching the Trinity may lawfully be refuted by arguments fetcht from Reason pag. 245 c. It brings in three most high Gods pag. 23 248 249 c. 302 c. It bears not a dist nction of offices and actions in the Persons 214. It overthrows it self pag. 248. It diminisâ—eth the honour of the Father 303. c. It cannot be percâ—ived by rude men 243. It is not contained in the holy Scripture 242. c. It is in very deed a Saâ—elliaâ—ism 279. It doth hinder them that aâ—e strangers to the Christian Religion from embracing it 314. Why that opinion is acurately to be examined pag. 315 Truth what pag. 300 U. The Doctrine concerning the Vbiquity of Christs Body is very absurd pag. 311 c. There was no need of the Vnion of two Natures in Christ pag. 294. From whence and how doth Paul conclude the Vnity of the Faithful pag. 25 26 Vnless for but or but if pag. 53 W. That cannot be simply denied of the whole which may or ought simply to be affirmed of the same pag. 41 59 60 c. What that is for which any one is to be worshipped pag. 108 The end or scope of the works of Christ pag. 111 With him for in like manner as to him pag. 218 Errata Pag. 7. line 17 communion p. 11. l. 18. d. ne ib. marg 1 Joh. 2.3 4 13 14. and Joh 6.69 p 23 l 41 Trâ—nity as p 24 l 28 for nor r or of p 38 l 39 f it r is p 57 l 1 dele of ib f also r so ib marg Gâ—l 3 7. p 59 l 5 f admitted r affirmed ib l 16 d not ib l 43 compositum p 60 l 45 and is wont p 61 l 40 from one part of p 62 l 5 any thing ib l 46 of one p 65 l 37 and 17. 8 14. p 70 l 9 exaltation p 72 l 9 Christ is p 73 l 11 Euthymius p 75 l 2 which he saith to the Apostles ib l 16 17. it is not the office of the Son to know that day p 78 l 17 to be p 86 l 21 f yea r it also p 95 l 6 f of r if p 100 l 3 that delivery ib Rom 2.7 10 and 5.2 marg p 104 l 29 of rule p 106 l 30 he was p 109 l 33 so divine p 117 l 6 why he ib l 25 f of r in p 125 marg and 17. 1. p 127 l 7 that Christ p 131 l 36 so p 134 l 18 f for r or p 136 l 18 would p 140 l 24 every one p 144 l 29 to be called p 149 m. Wujek p 150 m. the Son of God p 152 l 25 heareth p 153 l 45 neither p 154 l 43 cannot p 156 l 34 participle p 161 l 46 at Athens p 182 l 8 2 Cor. p 183 l 39 of him ib l 40 praises p 184 l 1 times p 188 l 26 f though r if p 200 l 1 inwardly p 202 last naturally p 208 l 3 4 either by the simple word Spirit or by the words holy Spirit p 209 l 38 by prayers for or to believers p 211 l 20 f or r as ib l 24 Hypotheses ib l 29 dwelleth ib l 37 through p 212 l 22 f gifts r goods ib l 42 43 who first heard either from Christ or from other divine men of the holy Spirit to be given to men p 213 l 11 chiefly p 220 l 3 him ib l 8 properly ib l 39 Metalepses ib l 43 which notwithstanding would c. p 230 l 12 Austin p 233 l 7 f he r we ib l 23 is not p 239 l 2 3. wrest the weapon out of c. ib l 27 also p 240 l 5 we may also another shorter way shew from hence namely ib l 6 d we may shew ib l 7 moâ— high ib l 14 Spirit a descent properly so called ib l 28 substances p 243 l 22 more than ib l 23 they must ib l 32 there of p 257 l 27 Universals ib l 38 f here r hence p 258 l 1 that manner ib l 3 have no. ib l 4 every ib l 5 that we ib l 17 d of ib l 32 incommunicable substance p 259 l 20 represent ib l 36 ultimately ib l 44 else p 260 l 40 substances p 261 l 10 add may be or exist after expressed p 262 l 46 they be modes p 278 l 24 first p 279 l 41 f explains and extremities r joyneth and extreams p 296 l 27 to another ib l 28 from which such a relation ariseth ib l 41 thing ib l 47 ro another FINIS
are attributed to the Father Son and holy Spirit and of the Reason for which they are attributed unto them and consequently of the forms of speech which are used concerning them Last of all this also may be added Arg. 12 That no other is the most high God than he who was heretofore called The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob the God of the Israelites But this is no other than the Father of Jesus Christ Whence some of the more learned * Calvin on Acts 22.14 Adversaries write That he who heretofore would be called the God of Abraham and the Fathers is now by a proper title called The Father of Christ The name indeed or description is changed the person remaining the same Hence the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the God of the Fathers Arg. 12 The Father only is the God of the Patriarchs being simply so called is manifestly put for the Father only Acts 3.13 for thus saith Peter The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob the God of our Fathers hath glorified his Son Jesus If not the Father only but also the Son and holy Spirit were the God of the Fathers why is that God of the Fathers simply so called said to have raised his Son is Christ the Son of himself and also of the holy Spirit Why also doth the divine Author to the Hebrews that I may not mention others put that God who divers and sundry wayes spake heretofore to the Fathers by the Prophets and who is ever and anon called the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob or the God of Israel why I say doth he put him simply so called for the Father For he addeth that he hath in these last times spoken to us by the Son Did he not intimate that that God who in the whole Old Testament is brought in speaking and called the God of the Fathers is the same with the Father of Christ and that the one appellation is of no larger extent than the other Certainly he must be more quick-sighted than Lynceus who will discover in the Writing of that Covenant that Christ not to speak any thing of the holy Spirit was under the old Covenant acknowledged and worshipped for the most high God so great a silence is there concerning this matter But of these things hitherto SECT II. Wherein is shewn That Christ is not the Most High God that so it may be understood That the Father only is the Most High God IN the foregoing Section we have produced those places which principally shew and that directly that the Father only is the most high God nevertheless they do also prove that Christ is not that very God which we have undertaken to prove in the second place since it pertaineth to the demonstration of the former For if Christ and we will afterwards teach that the same is to be held concerning the holy Spirit is not that one most high God it remaineth that the Father only is he since there is no other of whom a Christian can so much as suspect that he should be the most high God But we have shewn that Christ in all those places is distinguished from that One God and therefore cannot be that One God For the same should be distinguished from himself And lest any one should think that he can here evade by the distinction of Natures we have shewn that in most places out of which Judgment may easily be made concerning the rest Christ is there considered not according to some nature Arg. 1 That Chrst is frequently distinguished from God which is not a person but in regard of his very Person which according to the Opinion of the Adversaries is that One God and the second Person of the Trinity as they speak But to those Reasons we think fit to add sundry more not that they may not or ought not of themselves to be sufficient for every wise and judicious man but that it may appear with how many and how strong props of the Scripture our Opinion concerning one God the Father is supported For by this means we hope it will come to pass that all wise men will not only discharge us from all fault of impiety and rashness in departing from an opinion received for so many Ages but also begin to wonder that they were dim-sighted and saw no clearer in so great a lustre of the Truth shining on every side and of its own accord darring its beams into the eyes of all and so understand that they shall he impiously obstinate if they shall purposely shut their eyes at so great a Light and dare to reject the true Opinion which we defend First therefore we will alledge those Testimonies of the Scripture and Arguments drawn from them which principally shew that Christ is not that One or Most High God yet do in the mean time withal attribute a Prerogative to the Father above Christ and that to him alone from which it may presently be rightly concluded that the Father only is the Most High God Then we will subjoyn them which do directly demonstrate only this That Christ namely is not the most high God CHAP. I. Argument the first drawn thence That Christ is most frequently distinguished from God AS to the Testimonies of the first sort and the Arguments drawn thence we will begin from those that are largely diffused and may be referred to the names in some sort either denied or attributed unto Christ of which we will in this place alledge but two The first is That Christ is in innumerable places openly distinguished from God simply put And that we may out of so great plenty of Examples produce a few which may put the Reader in mind of the rest How often do we read that Christ is called the Son of God elsewhere we see him called the Word or Speech of God the Image of God elsewhere we find it written that he was in the beginning with God was sent from God went out from God is the Bread of God that descended from Heaven was in the form of God and equal to God sate down at the right hand of God or of the Power of God was made Lord and Christ by God was appointed Judge by God Now it is certain that by the name of God in such places the most high God is understood How then can Christ himself be the most high God For it would be necessary by this reckoning either that there are two most high Gods he namely who is signified by the name of God and Christ and that Christ is distinguished from himself which all understand to be absurd The Defence of the Argument BUt to this Argument two things are wont to be given in answer First That by the name of God in such places the Father is denoted and that since Christ is a Person different from the Father there is no marvel that Christ is distinguished from God Next that Christ in