stretcht those words farder then they would reach so on the contrary side other Hereticks drew them into a narrower roume then they could endure For whereas by by all things we must vnderstand whatsoeuer had any beginning of being whether it be visible as the heauens the Earth the Sea men beasts fowles fishes or inuisible as the Angells and spirites some Hereticks denied that the one of these kinds was created by the Word some that the other The Valentinians were content to grant that hee made all things that are bodily and subiect to sense yea perhaps the soules of men too the Angells but yet for sooth they dreamt of I knowe not what e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud Iren. lib. 1. cap. 1. 2. 3. other conceits which were not created by him The Manichees allowed God the creation of all inuisible spirits but they thought the world and the creatures in it too base a peece of worke for so glorious a worke-master not perceiuing ignorant wretches as they were that the making of the least creature requires infinite wisdome power But what should I enter into any refutation of these Heretickes All I meane to doe in such cases is to cleare the Text from such errors as they loade it withall Therfore it shall be sufficient against the one and the other that the Euangelist not only speakes so generally All things but also adds to take away all manner of cauills that nothing or not one thing was made without him Neither will it serue the Valentinians turne to say that their fancies were not made because whatsoeuer is not God had certainely a beginning of being from and by the Sonne and therefore those multitudes of their Aeones as they call them must needes bee made For being so many and so diuerse in nature it is not possible they hould be God as themselues also grant And for the first clause By him were all things made this may suffice I come to the second And without him was nothing made that was made Here because there is some variety in ioyning or sâ—uering the words which makes a difference in the meaning of the Euangelist it behoues vs first to seeke out the true pointing of the sentence and then wee may readily proceed to enquire after the sense thereof Some mingle part of this verse and part of the next together reading it thus Without him was made nothing that was made in him taking the two last words In him from the verse that followeth But this hath so little shew of reason in it that to rehearse it is to refute it For how idle a speech is it to say that nothing was made without him that was made in him that is by him As if any reasonable man could imagin that somthing was made by him which was made without him If any man wil interpret In him as the words properly signify it is yet more absurd For neither are al things f Tertull. contra Herâ—â—g cap. 2c in the Word taking In Properly and it is a manifest contradiction to say that a thing is made in this or that and yet made without it that is not within it g August an Ioa. tract 1. Other thrust the later part of this verse to the fourth and make it part thereof in this sort That which was made in him was life And so our Rhemists traÌ„slate the place following the vulgar Latin But there is more curiosity in this reading then truth For who can beleeue that the Euangelist would trouble them that should reade or heare this Gospel with such a subtility as few men are able to vnderstand that all things which which were made before their making were life in God because they were God himself as they theÌ„ were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore life because his knowledge by which they were is his essence and so life These conceipts may perhaps be admitted in the shooles to exercise schollers witts withal but they can haue no place in the Scripture which is appointed for the instruction of the weakest capacities Besides in al likely hood if the EuaÌ„gelist had purposed to giue vs notice of that matter he would not haue said as he doth That which was made c. but rather Those or All things that were made were life in him I deny not that this translation hath some authoritie from antiquity But surely not so much as is commonly thought the very euidence of truth hath made some later Papists also reiect it The truest plainest course is to reade it as we commonly doe following the generall consent of almost al the auncient greeke writers sure the learnedst and soundest VVithout him was made nothing that was made Let no maÌ„ trouble himselfe with deuising what the reason should be why the holy Ghost adds this clause seeing hee had spoken sufficient in the former I will if it please God satisfy this doubt when I haue expounded the words and come to deliuer the meaning of the Euangelist in them Now the words are plaine enough in themselues but that the curiosity of some men and the crafty malice of Satan hath made them doubtfull yet the doubtes are neither many nor hard First by without h Origen in Ioa. lib. 3. some men will needes vnderstand that which before I noted as if the Euangelists meaning were that the word contained al things in him as the preseruer oâ— them by his infinit power and being The doctrine is true but nothing to the purpose It is easie for euery man to discerne that without him signifies no more buâ— that which was said in the former part of the sentence By him the one affirming the other denying If the Euangelist had said within him were al things theÌ„ there had bin god reason to expound without as these men doe But since he puts By him in the first part surely in the later without must haue such a sense as best agrees with that Tel me how you would vnderstand my words if I should speake thus Dauids battailes were all fought by Ioab and without him there was none fought So speaketh S. Iohn and so he is to be vnderstood But in the word without only the curiosity of men was to be blamed in the exposition of the other worde Nothing wilful ignorance and malitious peruerting of the holy Ghosts meaning bewary themselues If I should aske any reasonable man how he thinkes those wordes without him was nothing made are to bee vnderstood would he not answere me readily and plainely that the Euangelist meant to tell vs that There was not any thing made but by him Surely thus would a reasonable man answere if hee would answere like a reasonable man But i Manich. apud August de naturâ— boni cap. 25. the men of whome I speake will haue Nothing to be something And whereas S. Iohn would teach vs that whatsoeuer was made was made by him they would make him say
about a matter of so small importance only I see no necessity of any such curiosity in translating For seeing it is very apparant that the Evangelist intendeth to describe our Sauiour Christ of whome the whole Gospell doth intreate and that al the other verses and clauses of verses are applyed therevnto he must needs be lesse then a reasonable man that would pluck this verse out of the midst of the rest and conceiue that by it which neuer came into the thought of him that pend it But for the translation reade it as you please so you vnderstand the meaning of the Euangelist aright that the Word or Sonne of God our Sauiour Christ made all things This being vnderstood wee are first to enquire what this speech importeth By him then what is said of him namely what this making was and what was made By him or By it By the VVord or by the Sonne why dâ—th the Euangelist make choise of this kind of speech and not rather say plainely as he might He made all things It is and hath bin alwaies commonly held that this maner of speaking doth better set out the worke of the Creation and confirme that former point of doctrine whereby our Sauiour was affirmed to bee the sonne of God If it had bin said that The VVord created all things it might haue bin imagined that the Father had had no hand therein whereas now it is implyed that the Father made all things by the Sonne But surely sauing their better iudgemeÌ„t that thus reasoÌ„ there is no more feare least the father shoulde bee thought not to haue created the world because the sonne did then least the holy Ghost should by the same speech be imagined to haue had nothing to do therein it is as much against the truth of religion to deny or doubt of the Godhead of the holy Ghost as of the fathers being God Yea the daunger was greater concerning the holy Ghost because not only the Scripture doth more often ascribe that worke of creation to the Father then to the holy Ghost but also the generall opinion of al men makes the father a Creator whereas the diuine nature of the holy Ghost is not so commonly knowne or beleeued Neither will this kind of speech which our Euangelist here vseth though you take it neuer so largely preuent or remedy that doubt touching the worke of the holy Ghost in the Creation but that for ought that can possibly be implied in this phrase By him the spirit may be thought to be no creator But that I may omit nothing which may be gathered for our instruction out of any reasonable obseruation let vs a little consider how this manner of speaking may confirme our faith concerning our Sauiour Christs being of his father When we say By him we ofteÌ„ times imply that there was some other beside him of whom we so speak For example if I say By Ioab the Ammonits were subdued I may signifie thereby that Dauid did sub due them by Ioab So By the VVord all things were made I may hereby giue notice that the father made al things by the Word Yet to say the truth neither doth this maner oâ— speech vsually imply any such matter nor the other exclude any that are or may be held to haue bin doers therein And therfore we are faine to adde only or alone when we would haue it conceiu'd that some one was the dooer of this or that But let vs grant that By him signifieth also the working of the Father that wee maye come to the cheefe thing intended by that obseruation What if all thinges be made by the Sonne We must learne thereby that the Sonne hath all that he hath from the Father and not of himselfe The father is said to haue made all things because he is of himselfe All things are said to be made by the sonne for that he is of another I propound these things to your consideration not so much with any opinion that the Euangelist had any such meaning as for the satisfaction of some who think it not lawfull to leaue any thing vntaught which hath beene formerly observ'd and deliuered for truth And I doe it the oftener now in this beginning that I may rather bee excused hereafter for leauing that out of my exposition which hath no certaine euidence of truth nor great likelihood of reason Wherefore I will for the most part content my selfe with the alleaging and refuting of such interpretations onely as the heretikes Papists and other haue made for the avowing of some of their errors For the present to cleare that which I haue begunne to speake of the doctrine of our Sauiours receiuing his being from his Father yea the very power of creating if you consider him as a Sonne is true and souÌ„d For being so coÌ„sidred he is wholly of the Father and hath nothing of himselfe that wee may not continue a needlesse fruitlesse controuersie begune slaunderously by some Papists and ignorantly as I shewed in my last exerciâ—e concerning the Godhead of the Sonne But this Doctrine cannot necessarily be gathered from this kind of phrase But if our Euangelist had intended any such thing hee would haue said that the Father made all things by the Sonne as u Heb. 1. 2. the Apostle speaketh By whome also he made the world and not thus vncertainely and to such a purpose obscurely By him all things were made Especially since the same speech may truely be vttered euen of God the Father or of the Diuine nature in which all three Persons are comprehended I doe therefore rather perswade my selfe that the Euangelist vsed his libertie and whereas hee might say either He made all things or By him all things were made he did make choise of the later both for variety and for elegancy of speech He had spoken of the Word altogether as yet after one maner of phrase The Word was that he now varies saying not He made but By him were made and this suiteth with the next verse very fitly By him were all things made In him was life There is no question but that this making which the Euangelist here noteth was the creating of the world whereof Moses speaketh And how soeuer it is a common opinion that creating signifieth making without any matter whereof the things to bee created should be made whereas making presupposeth matter ready to be framed and formed yet indeed there caÌ„ hardly be any such distinction wrung out of the words themselues For neither hath the Hebrew that Moses vseth to set out the creation any such nature nor the Greeke by which it is translated For the former it appeareth manifestly by the ordinary vse of it in the Scripture and namely by Moses himselfe who applies the word making to that which in in the next verse he cals creating lâ—t vs make man Thus God created the man in his image The words are diuers and yet spokeÌ„ of the same thing or
Is it not enough that wee are assured by the holy Ghost in the Scripture that the Lord hath giuen them charge ouer vs Many and many times are wee defended and guided by them though wee see them not As the Diuell laboureth all hee can to drawe or thrust vs into daunger So doe they striue against him to keepe vs from it or to pull vs vs out of it How many times haue wee beene stirred vp by them to the seruice of God and the workes of our calling How often haue they made vs remember and see that wee were entring into the way of destruction It is indeede the blessed spirit of the Almightie that inclines our hearts and affections to like of and yeelde to holy motions but the Angels are they that ordinarily make these motions Beleeue then in Iesus Christ and thou art presently furnisht of a most sufficient guard both for state and strength d Psal 34. 7. The Angel of the Lord pitcheth round about them that feare him and deliuereth them King Salomon in all his royaltie in the midst of them e 2. Chr. 9. 15. 16 that carried 200 targets and 300. shieldes of beaten golde was not so richly nor so safely guarded such honour such securitie doth beleefe in Christ procure all true Christians how meanely soeuer the worlde account of them It will here perhaps bee demanded by some whether those wicked spirits which we commonly call Diuells be of the number of those Angelles or within the compasse of those All things which the Euangelist sayth were made by Christ But the question is aunswered already because these spirits are not God and yet haue a true being it must needes bee that they tooke their beginning by Creation from him Without whome nothing was made that was made Besides it is not vnknowne I thinke to any man that these euill Angells are all one for the substance of their nature and being with those other holy and glorious spirits yea the Lord doth vse them oftentimes as executioners of his iust wrath vpon the wicked I will not stand to inquire whether euer hee doe imploy those his Angels of Light in any such kinde of seruice or no or whether this office bee put off to those euill spirites onely once it is a matter out of doubt that these later are sometimes so imployed f 1. Sam. 16. 14. The spirit of the Lord departed from Saul and an euill spirit sent from the Lord vexed him And of the Israelites it is sayd in g Psal 78. 49. the Psalme That the Lord cast vpon them the fiercenes of his anger indignation and wrath and vexation by the sending out of euil Angels Such was h 1. King 22. 21. that lying spirit which offered himselfe to deceiue Ahab by the mouth of his false Prophets As for that wickednesse of theirs which now by long custome is as it were turned into nature and hath taken so full possession of them that they are vtterly reprobat to all goodnesse it was not made with them but bred and brought in by them they receiued not that corruption with their nature but by their choise of euill corrupted their nature Their estate by creation was happie their nature holy i Iud. v. 6. But they kept not their first estate but left their owne habitation as Saint Iude tells vs and as k 2. Pet. 2. 4. the Apostle Peter plainly saith They sinned The Lord found no stedfastnesse in them as l Iob. 4. 18. Eliphas affirmeth in the booke of Iob They are now euill and nothing but euill but from the beginning they were not so Yes saith one euen from the beginning witnesse our Sauiour himselfe who doubteth not to affirme that The deuill hath beene a murderer from the beginning What From the beginning of his creation That were indeed to make God the author of sinne properly and immediately But how should the Diuell bee a murtherer when as yet there was none whom he could murther yea after that Adam was created which certainly was after the creation of Angells who were in all likelihood the beginning of Gods workmanship the Diuell was not yâ—â—â— murderer For Euah by whome he preuailed to the destruction of Adam and her selfe with their whole posterity was not yet framed But as soone as the Diuell had seene the man and the woman his malice against God his enuy at their present happinesse and future glory made him attempt that murder which he so soone committed So that from the beginning is nothing else but from the first time that hee had opportunitie to doe a murther I deny not that hee was ready enough before to haue done the like but our Sauiour speakes of that actuall mutther Neither yet doe I graunt that hee was naturally so inclyned by reason of any euill created in him But this I say that being holy by nature hee wilfully rebelled against God before the creation of Adam and by that rebellion of his defaced in himself the Image of God in which hee was created and was giuen vp by God to his owne wicked heart without hope or possibilitie of recouerie This in part our Sauiour himselfe in that place signifieth when hee addes immediatly vpon the former words that Hâ—e abode not in the truth For by this speech hee doth imply that hee was first in the truth Let vs not bee afray de then to confesse that the Sonne of God made the Diuell but let vs knowe and remember that hee made him not a diuell Hee is a Spirit by creation an euill spirit by declining from that puritie wherein hee was created His being is from the will of God his being euill from his owne will But that which concernes ve especially in this matter is this that how great soeuer his power seeme to bee in the world how extreame soener his malice bee against God how desirous soeuer he bee of our destruction yet hee in whom wee beleeue that did create him both hath him at coÌ„mand as a creature and would neuer haue created him if hee had not beene able to bring his owne purpose to passe for the saluation of those that trust in him in despight of Saâ—â—n and all his instruments Therefore take courage to thy selfe whosoeuer thou art that hast committed thy selfe to Iesus Christ to bee saued by him Dooth Satan rage against thee Dooth hee beleger thee on euerie side Dooth heee come with open mouth like a Lion to deuoure thee Hee that made him and thee knowes his strength and thy weakenesse Sooner shall hee burst himselfe with swelling enuie or fret himselfe away to nothing with bootelesse anger then separate thee from thy Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ Hee loue thee for the first creation a thowsand times more for the second generation Though thy first righteousnesse was lost by sinne thy second grace shall ouercome sinne But let vs proceede to the creation of visible things Whereof I shall neede to say
not Yet the force of the light appeares in some who by it attaine to knowledge and saluation But this belongs to an other place and discourse let vs go forward in our exposition Wherein we are first to consider the words then to deliuer the sense The words are not so doubtfull in themselues as the varietie of interpretations hath made them which indeede is so great that if I should handle them at large both you and I should be sooner wearied then edified I will therefore content my selfe with some little speech concerning the diuersitie of the expositions And therein first wee must see what light it is the Euangelist speakes of then what hee saies of it that it shineth in darknes By light generallie CHRIST or his doctrine or both are thought to bee signified The variety of opinions principallie consists in the diuers respects in which hee may bee conceiued to bee spoken of All which may bee referred to these two heads his diuine Nature or his Person And so much of these respects in generall the particulars I must needs reserue till I haue shewed what is meant by darknes and not comprehending for without the knowledge of them this cannot be vnderstood In the meane while wee may easily ghesse at the Euangelists meaning if wee assure our selues as there is good cause wee should that the light here is all one with that in the former verse Whereof who can reasonably make any doubt Hath not the Euangelist held the same course before One and the same worde was in the beginning was God was with God By the same word were all things made nothing was made without him In him was life and that life which was in him was the light of men And the light shineth What light but that which he named in the clause before Now that both the person and the doctrine may well bee vnderstood by this light it is cleare by that which our Sauiour often saith of himselfe in this Gospellâ— I am Ioh. 8. 12. 1. 46. the light of the world I am come a light into the world And that this belongs to his person it is manifest because he restraines this light to his continuance in the world While I am in the world I am the light of the world walk while yee haue the light while ye haue the light beleeue in the 9. 5. 12. 35. 36. light But what neede I goe any further then this chapter What was Iohns witnesse but that Iesus was the Lambe of Ioh. 1. 6. 7. Ver. 29. Ver. 33. God that takes away the sinnes of the world That hee was the Messiah whome the father had sent Therefore doth hee as it were point him out Iohn seeth Iesus comming vnto him and saith Behold the Lambe of God And Ver. 29. Ver. 36. he beheld IESVS walking by and said Behold the Lamb of God What should I vse many words It not his person signified when Saint Iohn saith In him was Ver. 4. life It is then truely said of our Sauiours person that hee is light and shineth But how is our Sauiour light Not onely as by his diuine power he giues vs light through the worke of his Spirit in our hearts whereof in this place our Euangelist doth not speake but also in regard of the doctrine of euerlasting life which hee preached in his owne person while hee liued here amongst men and now teacheth dayly by those whome hee hath made his Ambassadors to intreat men on his behalfe and in his name that they 2. Cor. 5. 19. would bee reconciled vnto God Let vs see howe this may bee prooued Light is come into the world saith Ioh. 3. 19. our Sauiour and men loued darknesse more then light What light Namely the true knowledge of saluation whereof our Sauiour had discoursed before to Nicodemus not without his wonder and astonishment How Ver. 4. can a man be borne which is olde sayd Nicodemus when Christ preached to him of regeneration by water and the spirit without which no man can enter into heauen Afterward when he labord to instruct him in the knowledge of his corrupt naturall estate and shewd him that the spirit inlightens whome hee pleaseth as the winde blowes where it list How can these things be sayd Nicodemus Ver. 9. The world can not abide this light which discouers the shame and miserie of her darknes Men had rather continue a good opinion of their owne vertue and holines though with error then forgoe that proud conceit they haue naturally of themselues by seeing their sinnes layde open by the light of truth Thus was Christ the light of the world while he was in the world because Ioh. 9. 5. he preacht the Gospell to as many as would heare it And this was the light which shuld not as he threatens them alwaies be with them So then by light the doctrin of the Gospell and knowledge of euerlasting life is vnderstood and the person of our Sauiour there by signified so farre as concernes his deliuering and teaching of that mystery This being thus conceiued it is no hard matter to knowe what is ment by shining What else shewing and manifesting it selfe so that they which wil may see it and by it see the way to euerlasting life No man lighteth Mat. 5. 15. a candle to put it vnder a bushel but to set it on a Candlesticke that it may giue light to all that are in the house Let your light so shine before men saith our Sauiour applying the former similitude that they may see your good workes 〈◊〉 le si 〈◊〉 Arian â—â— 3. cap. 3. They that would haue the place vnderstood of that inlighting by which Christ makes vs discerne the truth of that which is taught vs doe not put any difference betwixt shining and inlighting whereas it is plaine that the holy Ghost in this place intends not to entreat of the effect in the hearts of men but of the natural property and immediate act of the light Neither doth this sense of word wel agree with that which followeth And the darknesse comprehended it not Is not this contrary to the former If the light shine so that it inlighten the darknesse how can it bee said that the darknesse doth not comprehend it For it will appeare anone that by not comprehending not acknowledging or not receiuing the light is signified But although the darknes bee not cleered and made bright by the light yet the light it self shineth that is casteth and spreadeth abroad his beams Doth not the Sun shine but when it is seene Shines it not vpon the blind Euen so the light of truth glistereth brightly though it be not discernd by theÌ„ on whoÌ„ it fals But this as I noted before is easily acknowledged the greatest doubt is why the euangelist changeth his manner of speech and speakes of the persent time The light shineth We haue had nothing hitherto but of the
white which hee sees to be blacke red yellow greene or of some other colour then white In such cases there is no manner of command in the will ouer the vnderstanding Well may it preuaile so farre as to hinder the vnderstanding in examining of a truth or in the professing of that it conceiues yea it may carry a man with violence to make contrarie profession to that he is perswaded of and knows but it cannot possibly be of force to inioyne it to holde this or that for truth otherwise then naturall or supernaturall light discouers it to be It is the will then that receiues Christ or refuseth him beleeues or beleeues not taking faith for trusting in Christ as wee doe not as the Papists doe for beleeuing the truth of that which is deliuered concerning him in the Scripture Neither yet is it to bee helde for true that there is any such power or office of free will as the Papists dreame of to bee concluded out of this place For I may not runne into a large discourse of the Doctrine but must keepe my selfe within the compasse of this one Text. The free will which the Papists fight for as for their free hold is an absolute libertie in the will of Man to choose or refuse at his owne pleasure This they say wee haue and vse in the accepting or reiecting of grace which is offered vs by God but so that it is left to vs to receiue or refuse it This Doctrine say I can not bee warranted by this scripture Let any reasonable man iudge Some refuse CHRIST some receiue him what will you inferre herevpon That therefore it is left to euerie mans choyse whether hee will receiue him or refuse him Tell me what you thinke of the first grace by which a man is inhabled to take or leaue I will speake as plaine as by any meanes I can that euery man may vnderstand mee It is agreed vpon on both sides theirs and ours that naturally no man hath any power to receiue CHRIST or to will to receiue him Therefore this Abilitie of the vsing whereof wee dispute is vouchsaf't to euery one that hath it by God and proceedes of him Shall I reason now as as our Papists doe Some men haue this grace by which they are able to beleeue some men haue it not Therefore there is free will in men to haue it or want it Will this follow vpon that No more will it that there is free will because some beleeue and some doe not Indeede if there were nothing els to bee found from which this difference might bee fetcht but onely the will of man there were some good reason to conclude freedome of will from choise and refusall But the case standing as it doth that wee can assigne a better reason of this diuersitie euen the worke of Gods spirit by grace in the hearts of as many as beleeue the Papists conclusion is weake and lame Some receiue some refuse Therefore say they there is free will by the power whereof the one sort beleeue and the other for not vsing that power beleeue not Nay rather say wee Therefore the grace of GOD workes more effectually in the hearts of some then of other some Is there any Christian soule whom this conclusion of ours will not content better then that of theirs Surely he must needs loue his owne glorie better then Gods that had rather ascribe his faith to his owne free will then to the grace of God Haue I not yet spoken enough or not plaine enough Bee not wearied I beseech you though I dwell a little longer vpon the matter I hope I shall better expresse my minde and you better vnderstand me That abilitie to beleeue comes of God and not of our selues it is out of question betwixt vs. The doubt is touching the vse of this abilitie For example Let vs suppose that both the theeues that were crucified with our Sauiour Christ had this grace bestowed on them by God that they were able to beleeue He on the right hand vseth this grace and beleeueth the other doth not vse it and continueth in vnbeliefe The question is whence this difference ariseth From the power of free will say the Papists From the workes of Gods grace say wee Wee deny not say they that the grace of God workes more effectually in the one then in the other but wee affirme that the reason of this difference in working proceeds from the diuers vse of free will in each of them If hee on the left hand had bin willing to beleeue the spirit of God would haue begotten faith in his heart If he had on the right hand bin vnwilling the grace of God would haue brought forth no faith in him Yet they touch not the point I presse them for a farder answere Whence was it that the one was willing rather then the other Speake out that all men may heare you Was it from himselfe or from God From both They are halfe ashamed to bee knowne what they hould and therefore striue to shift of the matter in this sort But it will not serue the turne I looke for a plaine and direct answere When both the theeues were alike vnwilling and might both alike become willing whence arose the beginning of difference betwixt them You cannot say it came from God for in respect of him they were yet both alike What remaines then to be answered but that the one of himselfe did yeeld to the motion of Gods spirit the other might haue done but woulde not I confesse you say there wanted assistance from God to leade him forward to the obtaining of Faith but yet you still auouch that the Originall of the difference was from the free will of man that yeelded not from the free grace of God that inclined him to yeelding For that grace was common to him with the other in whome there was no willingness at all What was become of the zeale of the glorie of God when men first broch't these deuises Is it not enough for vs that wee are willing to bee saued but that wee must also take the cheefe glorie of it to our selues Are wee so puft vp with pride and selfe loue that wee had as lieue perish as bee beholden to GOD for our saluation Blame mee not if I charge the pride of mans Nature very deepely in this case It is a matter that concernes my Lord and maister on whose message I come very neere Hath hee of himselfe vouchsafed meanes by which wee may bee saued hath hee meerely of his owne good will imparted the knowledge thereof vnto vs hath hee without any desert or desire on our part prouided to aduance vs to the estate of Sonnes from the condition of Seruants and doe wee grudge to let him haue the honour of it A little is too much for God nothing is enough for our selues Wee are content with much adoe to let it bee thought and said that wee are not able without grace
can hardly perswade my selfe to thinke so For thought it be true that by flesh and bloud man oftentimes is signified yet the wordes in that sense are neuer so diuided or placed Let vs take the examples which they alleage that so expound these wordes Flesh and bloud hath not revealed these things to thee Flesh and bloud Mat. 16. 17. 1. Cor. 15. 50 cannot inherit the kingdome of God All the rest are like these wherein who doth not easily marke both that Flesh is still set in the first place and Bloud neuer Flesh and Bloud not Bloud and Flesh and also that they are alwaies ioyned together and not seuered the one from the other If our Euangelist had meant to haue spoken of man by that kinde of speech hee woulde haue said which are borne not of flesh and bloud May wee diuide those former places Flesh hath not reuealed Bloud hath not reuealed Flesh caÌ„not inherit Bloud cannot inherit These were marueilous strange kinds of speech not agreeâ—ble to the phrase of the holy Ghost in Scripture Wherefore thoh I acknowledge that interpretatioÌ„ to be true for the generall sense of it yet I see not how I may like of it in the particulars especially seeing the holy Ghost vseth a diuers manner of speech in these 2 later from the former There hee said no more but Not of bloud In the other he denies also the will or desire not of the will of the flesh not of the will of man Let vs then if you please vnderstand by bloud the matter by flesh the man the efficient cause and maker as it were what shall wee say of the will of the flesh and man Surely I will not grratly striue with any man who thinkes it should be taken for concupiscence It is enough that I propounded the reason of my doubt before Giue mee leaue now to deliuer what I conceiue of the matter which is no more but this that I had rather vnderstand by will desire then lust What then shall bee the sense of it This as I take it that the Euangelist giues vs to vnderstand that the Sonnes of whom hee intreates are not borne according to or by any desire of man which might procure or affect or wish that kinde of Son-ship How fitly this will agree with the scope of the place it shall appeare by and by when I haue examined that which remaines All that wee haue said hitherto concerning this birth is to shew whence it is not Not of bloud not of man VVhence is it then Of God God sometimes notes the nature of the God head sometimes some one of the three persons How may wee most fitly expound it in this place What if wee referre it to the Ioh. 3. 5. sanlen in concord Euang. cap. 1. holy Ghost the spirit of whome euery man must bee borne that shall enter into the kingdome of God I doubt mee wee shall hardly finde any one place of Scripture where the worde God signifieth any seuerall person but the Father I deny not that in some place that is said to be don by God which in som other is particularly ascribed to the Sonne or to the holy Ghost but I say that in those places where God is so named the nature is to bee vnderstood nd not any one person The compareing of these places together doth teach vs that the Sonne and the holy Gost are by nature God but it doth not proue that where God is named there either of these two persons is specially signified Neither is it necessary to apply this to God the Father but rather the opposition standeth betwixt the diuine humane nature not of man that is not of man-kind or of the nature of man but of God of the diuine nature which is one and the same in all three persons Thus haue wee the meaning of the Euangelist that the Sonnes hee spake of arise not to that dignity by any power or wisedome of man but meerely and only by the mighty worke of God himselfe who begets them to himselfe by the effectuall working of his spirit and of his owne gratious fauour vouchsafeth to adopt them for his Sonnes I doe the rather make the sense so large because I woulde not willingly omitte any thing which it may bee reasonably presumed the holy Ghost did or might intende For the cleerer vnderstanding whereof let vs cal to minde what was before deliuered at the twelfth verse that there is a double Son-ship in respect of GOD the former is that whereof our LORD disputes with Nicodemus by which wee are borne againe Ioh. 3. 35. c. of the spirit and fitted for the later which is our Adoption by GGD the Father The prerogatiue of being the Sonnes of GOD is our being adopted which is not vouchsaf't vs by GOD at the first while wee are in our corrupt naturall estate but then only bestowed vpon vs when by beleeuing wee are become one with IESVS CHRIST the naturall Sonne of GOD his Father The other Sonne-ship is but a preparing of vs therevnto by which that beleefe is begotten in vs by the powerfull working of the holy Ghost in the ministery of the worde In this sense the thirteenth verse dependes thus vpon the last wordes of the twelfth Saint Iohn had said that they become the Sonnes of GOD which beleeue in the name of the Messiah Hee proceedes to shewe how they attaine to this beleefe By being borne not of bloud c but of God They haue it not by nature in their birth they get it not by any naturall desire or will but they are borne anew of God and haue it by him framed and formed in them The doctrine of both these points is most true the wordes will beare them both they will both stande with the scope of the place and purpose of the Euangelist Chrylost in Io. homil 9. The oph ad hune locum that I am not afraid of doing any wrong to the Text though I make so large an interpretation therof Let vs then in the feare of God handle these things some what particularly but shortly as the time requireth What a prerogatiue it is for men to bee the Sonnes of God wee heard in the last exercise here the Euangelist farder sets foorth the excellency thereof by shewing the basenesse of our naturall birth which for the matter of it is bloud for the making at the best but humane whereas the other is wholly and only from God I will not amplify the former point touching our naturall birth as I might doe but only referre you to the consideration of it by your selues For your better direction wherein I will name two Iob. 10. 9. 10. 11. Ezech. 16. 4. 6. places of Scripture which I commende to your humble and diligent meditation In the former the naturall breeding of man-kind is purposely described in the later his birth is shewed by way of allegory if wee consider the intent of the holy Ghost but