into the Heavens they are not incident to the most high God For he as all confess is not moved out of his place But if you so take them as that they signifie that Christ had God the Father as the Author of his Embassy to whom he shal return as it may easily be understood out of the ver 42. of the same chapter neither doth this argue him to be the most high God but rather inferiour to the most high God and depending on him and having a different Essence from him But there is no other sence of these words remaining For if you say that Christ therefore came out from God because he was eternally begotten of his Essence as they against whom we chiefly dispute seem to hold this is quite forreign to the place For it appeareth manifestly enough that the going of Christ forth from his Father was joyned with his coming into the world as his return to God was with his leaving of the world and consequently that the discourse is of a thing that was done at a certain time and not from all eternity which is also manifest enough from the 42d verse a little before quoted And withal it is likewise apparent that this going forth from the Father is such a thing us may elegantly be opposed to his return to the Father and cannot co-exist therewith But what opposition is there between eternal generation out of the Essence of the Father and a return to the Father from the Earth into Heaven Or why cannot that return to the Father co-exist with that Generation if it as the Adversaries must of necessity hold doth as yet continue CHAP. XXII Argument the two and twentieth from the words of Christ John 8.29 The Father hath not left me alone because I alwayes do the things that are pleasing unto him THe ninth Testimony of this kind is extant in the same 8th chapter of John ver 29. where Christ spaketh thus And he that sent me is with me The Father hath not left me alone because I alwayes do things that are pleasing to him The former part of which sentence is also afterwards extant chap. 16.32 where Christ thus speaketh to his Disciples Behold the hour cometh and now is wherein shall every one of you be dispersed to your own homes and leave me alone yet I am not alone because the Father is with me From which place it followeth that Christ is not the most high God and out of the former for a double reason First Because Christ doth â—y the words of both places intimate that he should not have sufficient help and assistance if he weâ—e forsaken by the Father which cannot be thought of the most high God For he hath alwayes of himself abundance of help and assistance Arg. 22 from Joh. 8.29 nor is there any need that any oâ—e should be present wiâ—h him and give him help Again weâ—e Christ the most high God of the same Essence with the Father he ought not to bring nor consequently would he have brought the reason why the Father was with him because he alwayes doth the things that are pleasing unto him but this because he is of one Essenâ—e with him For tâ—is would indeed have been both the necessary and the only cause why the Father was with Christ which being supposed he could not chuse but â—e with Christ and whereunto other causes that might be imagined could not possibly add any furtâ—er moment For that conjunction would not only have preceded those causes in time â—ut would have likewise been already at the height and so compleat and aâ—solute that the Fatâ—er and Christ could not as yet be joyned toâ—ether with any sinner or sâ—â—aiter tye The Defence of the Argument VVHen they * Maldonaâ—us with the Authors which he cites who endeavoured to turn the precedent place also to a contrary sense did see the force of this latter Argument they said that the particle For doth signifie not the cause but ratâ—er the effect and sign or argument drawn from the consequence for that the Father was not therefore with Christ because he did the things that were pleasing to him as if he would not have been with him but on the contrary that Christ theâ—efore did these things because the Father was with him For there a e innumerable examples even in the very Psalm where the particle For is so used out of which they produce that Psal 17.6 I cried because thou hast heard me O God For he did not therefore cry because he was heard but was therefoâ—e heard because he cryed But what cause was there that drove them to depart from the usual and simple signification of that particle which here presently cometh into the mind of every one Certainly none but the opinion whereof we now here dispute for they saw that otherwise this place would not comply with their Doctrine concerning Christ Howbeit this use of the particle For is not so frequent as they say especially in the New Testament and that example fetched out of the Psalms is not to the purpose For to omit that it is not read in the Hebrew For thou hast heard me â—ut in the future for thou wilt hear me which may contain the cause why David cryed to God namely â—ecâ—use he was certainly perswaded that he should be heard of God It is fu ther well known that amongst the Hebrews †See among innumerable ones Psal 1.1 2.1.10.31 6.10 17.11.1.7.12.5.14.1.15.3 4 5. pâ—eterperfect as well as future ‖ Psal 1.2 3 4.2 1 2 4 5.4.6 7 10.7.9 8.4 See Vataâ—â— and the Heb. Text on these places tenses are fâ—equently taken for present tenses do like present tenses among the Latines denote a frequency or custome of action As if David should have said Because tâ—ou art wont to heaâ— me whence also certain late * See the Bibles of Vatab. Jun and Tremel Writers do thus translate the place Because thou hearest me but may not this denote the cause for which David cried unto God Yea most of all For it doth most of all encourage us to pray unto God in that we see that God is wont to hear us Againe if Christ would have reasoned from thence that he alwayes did those things that are pleasing to the Father as from an effect he had taken that as sufficiently known to the Jews with whom he discoursed that â—e alwayes did the things that were pleasing to the Father But Christ doth not do this for otherwise he ought likewise to suppose this as mâ—nifest enough to the Jews that he did nothing of himself but so spake as the Father taught him For every one seeth if Christ alwayes did those things that pleased the Father that he also did nothing of himself or of his own accord nor spake any thing besides what the Father had taught him But this latter Christ doth not suppose as manifest to the Jews but affirmeth that it should then be known unto
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
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
and Saviour to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins And chap. 10.42 And he Christ commanded us to preach to the People and testifie that it is he who is appointed of God Judge of quiâ—k and dead Which Paul afterward doth repeat in part chap. 17.31 Out of whose Epistles that we may not be too tedious we will produce certain places 1 Cor. 15.27 He saith out of the 8th Psalm He God the Father hath put all things in subjection under his feet namely Christ But when he saith that all things are in subjection to him it is manifest that he is excepted who put all things in subjection to him Which he also clearly explaineth Ephes 1.20 c. where he saith that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ * ver 17. the Father of Glory did set Christ at his right hand in heavenly places far above all principality and power and might and authority and every name that is named nâ—â— only in this world but also in that which is to come and hath put all things in subjection under his feet and hath given him head over all things to the Church which is his Body And Phil. 2.9 Wherefore namely because Christ humbled himself becoming obedient to the very death of the Cross God also hath highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name that in the name of Jesus every knee should how of things in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and every tongue might confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father And who is able to reckon up all the places of the Scripture See among others Heb. 1.2 and so forth to the end of the chapter and chap. 2.7 8 9. and chap 3.2 c. chap. 5.5 6 7 8 9. and 1 Pet. 1.21 Now in the Old Testament besides the places which are contained in the Testimonies of the Writers of the New Covenant cited by us namely out of Psal 8. and 110. that passage of the second Psalm ver 6 7 8. is very notable I God the Father have set my King upon my holy Mountain Sion I will declare the Decree namely whereby I have been constituted a King for they are the words of Christ the Antitype of David The Lord said unto me Thou art my Son I this day begot thee Ask of me and I will give unto thee the Nations for thine inheritance and the ends of the Earth for thy possession thou shalt rule them with a rod of Iron c. To which is to be joyned that famous Vision in Daniel chap. 7.13 where he saith I saw in the night Vision and behold in the Clouds of Heaven there came one like the Son of Man and he came to the antient of dayes that is the eternal God before cited ver 9.10 and they offered him in his sight and he the Antient of dayes gave unto him Power and Honour and a Kingdom and all people tribes and tongues shall serve him his power is an everlasting Power which shall not be taken away and his Kingdom that which shall not be destroyed We wittingly and willingly omit more places Now from these passages it is evinced that Christ is not the most high God for none can bestow any thing on him much less all things since he bestoweth all things upon all But we see that the Father hath bestowed on Christ so many and so great things yea all things Wherefore Christ is not the most high God You might also frame more Arguments especially out of those places wherein the word give or bestow is not met withal but there is the same force of Argument as if you should say He that is exalted by God or glorified by him or made Lord and Christ is not the most high God The Defence of the Argument TO this Argument and the places of Scripture whereon it is built neither do all nor the same persons every where make the same answer For some directly seem to deny the Major as they call it of our Argument others seek refuge in distinctions For as to the former some say that even the * The first answer and its refutation Apostle doth affirm that Christ shall deliver the Kingdom to God even the Father 1 Cor. 15.24 In which place there is the same word that Christ useth Mat. 11.27 when he saith All things are delivered unto me by my Father Wherefore they say that something miâ—ht be delivered or given even to the most high God Again as Christ John 17.2 5. desireth of his Father to be glorified and so that Glory should be given to him so also doth he there affirm that he had glorified the Father and hereafter would glorifie him But first we will speak of such a Giving as proceedeth from the grace and bounty of the Giver for which cause we did in our Argument make use of this word bestow For such is that Giving whereby all things have been given to Christ by the Father For Christ openly ascribeth it to the love of the Father towards him in the 3d and the 5th chapters of John and chap. 17. he doth intreat for the Glory designed unto him And God in the second Psalm saith to the Son Ask of me and I will give unto thee the Nations for thine inheritance c. And Paul Phil. 2. saith there was bestowed on Christ or given out of grace for so the Greek word signifieth a Name that is above every name And the reason for which the power of quickning and exercising Judgment was given unto Christ namely because he is the Son of Man doth sufficiently argue that it was such a Giving as we have spoken of which very thing is evident from that place of Daniel chap. 7. and others like thereunto But that the giving whereby Christ shall deliver the Kingdom to God the Father is not such an one all men do of themselves easily perceive For neither can it be imputed to the grace or bounty of Christ towards the Father who needeth the bounty of none For that is such a delivery of the Kingdom as for example sake when a General appointed by his King to manage a certain War doth when it is ended lay down the Power that was given unto him and restore it unto his King who had hitherto exercised it by him that if he be so pleased he may hereafter exercise it by himself And all this is no other than what Right it self doth require in as much as the Power was given unto him by the King for the management of that War only In like manner Christ who hath received Royal Power from the Father to subdue his and our enemies and hitherto exerciseth the same in the Fathers name when all the enemies are subdued shall yield it up to his Father that is so lay it down that the Father may afterwards exercise it by himself and as Paul speaketh God may be all in all From whence also ariseth
it be to take for granted that God was his Father than that he also was the most high God But we manifestly see that Christ here supposeth that God was his Father Now if you reply that Christ doth indeed suppose this but implicitly and accutely so that the Jews did not understand it that will fall to the ground which our Adversaries are wont to say namely that for Christ to call God his Father and himself the Son of God was so manifest an Argument for the Generation of Christ out of the Essence of God that even the Jews themselves do understand it And thâ—s they will have to be the cause why they charged him with the crime of Blasphemy thereupon and would have stoned him and did at length crucifie him in that he called God his Father and himself the Son of God namely because they understood that he did by this means intimate that he was begotten out of the Essence of God and so hath one Essence with him For hither they are wont to draw those places in John chap. 5.17 18. and chap. 10.30 and chap. 19.7 and Mat. 26.63 c. Some other will perhaps say That Christ intended to say that very thing wich we deny namely that he was that one God with the Father For this was the cause why they affirmed that he was not alone but the Father was with him and consequently that he could not err in judging because the Father was joyned to him by unity of Essence But first he had spoken too obscurely if he would have comprehended so great a matter in those words For who is there if any one say I am not alone but I and the Father would understand his meaning to be that he is of one Essence with God For if you say that this is sufficiently hinted by the word Father it is to be noted that the force of Christ words or as they speak the middle term of the principal Argument consisteth not of the word Father but in this that the Father was present with Christ But that God or the Father should be with any one hath a far different meaning than to have one Essence with him For it signifieth according to the use of speaking very familiarly unto all but chiefly to the Jews that God is present with some one by his favour and assistance Wherefore the Jews by this means would not have perceived the mind of Christ and the force of the Argument Besides if there is so great force in the word Father why said Christ that his Father was with him As if some one might imagine that they whom he already understood to be of one Essence might be parted asunder and the one be left from the other Finally that description of the Father that he sent him namely Christ is repugnant to that Opinion partly because it is altogether unnecessary that there should be one Essence of him that sendeth another of him that is sent by him nor can he be the most high God who is sent by another but inferiour to him as hath formerly in its place been shewn partly because in this description of the Father the reason is plainly rendered why Christ was not alone but the Father was with him namely because Christ was the Embassadour of the Father and that an extraordinary one For God is alwayes by his favour and assistance present with all his Embassadours in all things which their office doth any way require and so much the more with Christ than with others in tâ—at Christ was a more excellent one than they But unless you will acknowledge tâ—is that description of the Father will make nothing to the present matter Whereas Christ is not wont to make use of idle descriptions and such as are notâ—ing to the purpose But that the Father sent Christ can no way be the cause that Christ should be of one Essence with the Father The distinction of two Natures in Christ if any one will here apply it is easily refuted by the same Reasons that we have used in the Defence of the precedent Arguments which accordingly a wise Reader changing as they say what is to be changed may of himself transfer itâ— er and apply to the matter in hand CHAP. XXI Arg. 21 from Joh. 8.14 Argument the one and twentieth from the words of Christ John 8.14 My Testimony is true because I know whence I am and whither I go IN the eighth place may be allâ—aged these words of Câ—rist in the same eight chapter of John whence we cited the last Testimony which certain acute men amongst the Adversaries have endeavoured to draw to their Opinion they are extant in ver 14. where Christ speaketh in this manner Though I give testimony of my self my testimony is true because I know whence I am and whither I go For had Christ been the most high God he ought not to bring and consequently would not have brought this reason that he knoweth whence he cometh and whither he goeth but rather this that he himself is the most high God or some such things containing the same sence But Christ did not alleage this but that cause The Defence of the Argument THey whom we mentioned here rise up and say That Christ alleaged this very cause for he spake figuratively and intimated more than he spaketh namely that he is the natural Son of God But if you object Why then did he not openly say because I am God They answer that Christ used the figure of insinuation accommodated and in a manner necessary for the persons with whom he spake For say they the Jews could not have endured it if he had openly called himself God or the Son of God Wherefore he spake what was true and what was necessary to the cause but so spake as that he might delude his Adversaries with the ambiguity and obscurity of his words But these men have by this explication deluded themselves and others but so did not Christ the Jews They confess and it is a plain case that Christ doth by those words intimate that he came from the Father came out of Heaven and shall again go into Heaven to the Father For who would make any doubt that Christ intended here to signifie what he elsewhere speaketh in the same John chap. 16.18 I went out from the Father and came into the World Again I leave the Word and go unto the Father Which thing is more than once repeated in other or the like words with the same Writer But such words as these are so far from signifying that Christ is the most high God that they imply the quite contrary For if these words I went out from the Father and came into the World be taken of a local motion as they spake that is of a descent from Heaven to Earth properly so called as those opposite ones Again I leave the World and go to the Father are to be understood of a local departure from the Earth
designation or preparation to that Office Chap. 15 For if the Office it self be not incident to the most high God neither can the designation or preparation to that Office be incident unto him although the same may also be shewn from those things which we have said concerning the places wherein it is affirmed that sometâ—ing was given of God to Christ For he that is sanctified of God hath thereby something conferred upon him by God But none conferreth any thing on the most high God who giveth all things to all Besides if Christ had been the most high God if he had been begotten out of the Essence of the Father from eternity and for that cause the Son of God how could it be he should here conceale it For if there were any place where this were to be expressed certainly this were the place Christ had affirmed that he was one with the Father which the Adversaries will have to be spoken in respect of a divine Nature for they say that it was therefore affirmed of him that God was his Father because he was begotten out of his Essence that he was therefore one with him because he had the same Essence in number with him Moreover the Jews did upon that account charge him with Blasphemy because that being a man he made himself God Where they take the name of God in such a manner as is not incident to a man and our Adversaries contend that they mean it of the most high God namely because they observed that Christ did not obscurely affirm himself to be God in such a manner But if it be thus it would have been altogether necessary that Christ should bring such a Reason wherefore he is the Son of God as might shew him to be begotten out of the Essence of the Father to have the same Essence with him for otherwise how had he defended that saying of his which the Jews charged with Blasphemy How had he shewn that he of right called himself the Son of God in such a manner as the Adversaries would have it The Jews according to the Opinion of our Adversaries object to Christ Thou art a Blasphemer because thou affirmest thy self to be the Son of God begotten out of his Essence because thou makest thy self the most high God Christ answereth I rightly affirm this of my self nor am I therein a Blasphemer because the Father hath sanctified me and sent me into the world What is this to a generation out of the Essence of God What is this to the Supream and Independent Godhead which Christ is believed to have challenged to himself You will say that Christ sufficiently intimated that he was begotten out of the Essence of the Father and consequently the most high God because he said that he was sent of the Father into the world For that this sheweth that he before he was born of the Virgin had been perpetually with God in Heaven and afterwards descended thence into the Virgins Womb and became Man which is incident to none but the most high God But how frivolous these thing be men would easily observe if they would a little set aside a predudicate Opinion For first he might both be sent and come into the World who never was in Heaven The words of Christ himself concerning the Apostles are in the same John very evident where he also compareth them with himself in this behalf chap. 17.18 As thou Father hast sent me into the world have I also sent them into the world And John saith of false Prophets Ephes 4.1 that many false Prophets are gone out into the world But neither had these nor those been either in Heaven or in any other place out of this World whence they might afterwards enter into this World But they were appointed the Embassadours of Christ unto men and designed to preach the Gospel unto them and these came of their own accord unto men and as if they had been sent of God unto them presuming to promulgate a new Doctrine amongst them Wherefore to be sent into the World by God or Christ is to be constituted his Embassadour unto men but he may be the Embassadour of God unto men who never was in Heaven Again though it were altogether necessary that he whom God sent into the world should first have been in Heaven and have descended thence to the Earth which thing we otherwise willingly confess concerning Christ yet what hinders that he who is in his Nature nothing but a man should be assumed of God into Heaven and being there furnished with instructions be afterwards sent down unto the Earth to men and indeed it is altogether necessary to hold it so if you think that Christ could not be sent into the World or at least was not otherwise sent then that he properly descended from Heaven to the Earth For it is sufficiently apparent from our words that this sending did agree to Christ only according to the humane Nature which certainly was not generated in Heaven but on the Earth and consequently if it was in Heaven as we also acknowledge it must needs have ascended thither And indeed Christ himself doth intimate as much whilst he saith in this Writer chap. 3.13 None hath ascended into Heaven but he that descended from Heaven the Son of Man which is or rather was in Heaven Whence afterwards chap. 6.63 he saith If therefore ye shall see the Son of Man ascend where he was hefore In both places he spaketh of the Son of Man and here he doth not say that he was at that very time in the Heaven but had been formerly and should afterwards ascend thither From whence it manifestly appears that he speaks not of the divine Nature which is neither the Son of Man nor could ever leave Heaven nor ever ascend thither But furthermore cannot an Angel whiâ—h hath continually been in Heaven be sent thence to the Earth and so to men themselves Wherefore what Christ here affirmeth of himself containeth no intimation of supream Divinity To omit that although it contained yet would it not presently follow that he was the Son of God and not the holy Spirit if the holy Spirit likewise be as they hold the most high God For he also is sent out of Heaven and nothing hinders if the Son of God would assume a humane Nature that he likewise should assume it yea it was necessary that it should be so if he assumed who is of the same Essence with him Concerning which thing elsewheâ—e We must now pâ—oceed to the other Causes for which Christ is called the Son of God but with the omission of them which are also common to Believers if you except the high perfection of them although they yet lead a mortal life namely that he was most like unto God in Holiness and most intimate to him See Soc in against Wevick chap. 5. for the more than fatheâ—ly love towards him of which things enough elsewhere hath been spoken
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
God differing indeed from the Father in Persons but yet of the same Essence with him namely in such a manner as they commonly think of Christ or the holy Spirit But who seeth not that such Persons whether true or feigned are by vertue of these words of Christ most efficaciously excluded from the Deity so that one confess them to be DIVERS from the Father But they say that we our selves contend that if any thing be attributed to God only it is not presently denied to them who depend on him or are subordinate to him in the number of whom we rank Christ Wherefore although the FATHER ONLY be called the true God yet is not Christ presently denied to be a true God As neither when God only is said to be * Rom. 16.27 1 Tim. 1.17 Jude 25 wise or †1 Tim. 6.15 potent or to have ‖ Ibid. ver 16. Immortality are they excluded from these attributes who have received them from God But this Objection if the thing be rightly understood is so far from overthrowing our Opinion and Argumentation from the words of Christ that it doth confirm it For neither do we hold that Christ is by vertue of these words wholy excluded from true Godhead namely if true Godhead be more largely taken so as to comprehend that Godhead also which doth indeed and not only in the false opinion of men depend on the most high Godhead * Chap. 13. Chap. 8 9. For we have shown in our Book of God and his Attributes that the name GOD is in its own Nature common and agreeth to all them who have soâ—e sublime Empire or eminent Power as to Princes and Magistrates on the Earth in the Heavens to Angels and above all these to Christ the Head of all Angels and King of all kings but by way of Excellency to that Supream and Independent Monarch and attributed to him as proper Wherefore our meaning only is that Christ by vertue of the words in contest is excluded from that true Deity by way of excellency so called that is from Supream and Independent Deity For by these words first all besides the Father are held to be excluded from Supream Godhead and consequently from Deity taken more largely all such who have not received it from the Father to whom alone supream and independent Divinity is said to agree For he is accounted as Independent who doth not depend on him on whom only he can truly depend Whence all the Idols of the Gentiles are by vertue of these words or rather of the sence therein comprehended simply excluded from true Godhead since they were so far from truly depending on the Father as that they were not believed to depend But Christ is not excluded therefrom because his dependance on the Father in respect of his Divine Empire over all things and Worship suitable to such an Empire hath by most evident proofs been demonstrated Now what we speak touching this place doth likewise come to pass in others wherein such Attributes are attributed to God only which nevertheless are communicated to others besides him For in them likewise all besides God are excluded from the Communion of those Attributes taken by way of excellency and strictly For God is said to be only wise powerful having Immortality not because he alone is simply wise powerful immortal but because he is only such of himself And therefore all others besides God are by vertue of such words excluded from independent and underived Wisdom Power and Immortality and then at length simply and universally excluded from those Attributes when it is apparent that they have not received them from God to whom they first agree and consequently do not herein indeed depend on him A seigned Dependency is by right accounted for nothing Whence it is understood what our meaning is when we say That if any thing is in the Scripture attributed to God only it is not presently denyed to them who are dependent on God and subordinate to him For we mean not that such Attributes are in no wise denyed unto them for they are denied unto them being taken by way of Excellency but that they are not presently denyed simply and universally or in a larger signification But perhaps they with whom we now have to do will object and say that they do in some sort hold the same For that the Father only is called the true or most high God because he is the Fountain of Divinity and consequently in regard thereof hath a Prerogative above the Son and holy Spirit inasmuch as They have the Divine Essence from Him but He from no other For which reason they expresly call the Father God of himself thereby opposing him to the Son and holy Spirit But they who answer thus either contradict themselves or say nothing and obtrude upon us bare words instead of things for if the Father hath a true Prerogative or Excellency above the Son and holy Spirit so that for it the Name of GOD may be attributed to the Father alone but taken away from the Son and holy Spirit it cannot be that the Son and holy Spirit should be the supream and most high God for nothing in any wise more worthy nothing more excellent than the most high God can possibly be imagined And they themselves in Athanasius's Creed contend that in the Trinity nothing is before or after nothing greater or less But if the Father is the Fountain of Divinity in respect of the Son and holy Spirit how will there be the same Numerical Divinity of the Father Son and holy Spirit for the Father would be the Fountain of his own Divinity or Divine Essence before and after himself How if the Father be the Fountain of the other Persons shall not the Son and holy Spirit depend on the Father How shall not each be an Effect of the Father and finally How shall the Son and holy Spirit be the supream and most high God for He is dependent on none is the Effect of none But if they will not acknowledge these things what else do they then obtrude upon us empty words instead of things and so say nothing and upon what ground I pray dare they to this purpose wrest the words of the Scripture which are most plain and exposed to the capacity of the rudest understanding for how can an ignorant man that I may not now speak any thing of the Learned conceive in his mind that the Father only is the most high God when in the mean time he is commanded to believe that also the Son and holy Spirit is the same most high God How can he imagine a Prerogative of any one above one who is the most high God How the Prerogative of him above one who is the same Numerical God with himself How him to be the Fountain of other Persons on whom they do not depend as Effects on a Cause Certainly this is not to teach an ignorant man but quite
concluded that every one of these things which are reckoned up is one in it self partly in kind partly in number it is common to all the Faithful for from this Communion of such excellent things or Unity of things common to Christians their Unity is concluded Wherefore all the things which are reckoned up are either such as exist in the very Christians whether apart as Hope Faith Baptism to which we may also refer that one Spirit or joyntly as that mystical Body or else they are things which do indeed exist without them but yet have a manifest relation to them and reduce them to Unity such as are that One Lord and that One God and Father common to them all who is over all that is as we said before who alone ruleth over all with the highest Sovereignty and doth alike guide and govern all and is also through all that is doth by his providence diffuse himself through all passeth through all the Members of the Christian Body and by his goodness reacheth unto all or which cometh to the same purpose is as it were conversant amongst all and is in the middle of them namely by his help aid and providence finally is in all that is dwelleth in all by his Spirit for they to whom all these things are common ought to be most closely united amongst themselves But what relation is there between the Spirit and Christians if by that name you understand the spiritual Essence of God how will that be common to all Christians for neither is it possessed by them as the things of the former sort by us reckoned up likewise it hath not a relation unto them as the word Lord God and Father Doth not the thing it self shew that if you will by this word understand a divine Spirit you must of necessity understand the holy Spirit common to all the Faithful wherewith they are as it were animated and guided for then he will be in the number of those good things which they by the divine bounty do obtain neither indeed ought the mention of him at any hand to be here omitted partly because the holy Spirit is of essential note amongst the good things common to Christians which unite them one to another in that he erecteth and sealeth them to the hope of the same happiness Whence the Apostle speaking of the same thing to the Christians after he had said that Christ or his Church is one body as it were compacted of divers members he addeth * 1 Cor. 12.13 For with one Spirit we have all been baptized into one body whether Jews or Greeks whether bond or free and we have all been drenched into one Spirit for the same cause he had in the precedent †Ver. 4. and 7. words in the same place discoursed much concerning the Unity of the Spirit lest because of such different faculties which he did put forth in different Christians they should account one another for strangers or at least in comparison of themselves dispise them who had attained lesser gifts and that they might on the contrary acknowledge one another to be different members indeed but yet of the same body since they were as it were inlivened with the same Spirit of God why therefore in this place where the Apostle handleth the same thing should he not expresly mention that Unity of the holy Spirit wherewith Christians were †That is Anointed or filled imbued add hereunto that the Apostle in the words immediately following as also in that place to the Corinthians doth discourse touching the diversities of the gifts or effects of the holy Spirit given to Christians so that there is no doubt but that he had first spoken concerning the Unity of that Spirit as in the other place But wher is he to be supposed to have mentioned it but when he spake of One Spirit unless perhaps he would have him comprehended under the name of one Baptism which notwithstanding they themselves do not admit who stifly contend that the Apostle speaketh of Water Baptism nor are we against it and certainly if it be here spoken of a divine Spirit and not of the mind and will in regard of which the Faithful ought to be one Spirit there is no doubt but the Apostle speaketh of the holy Spirit But if by one Spirit you understand the holy Spirit there is no cause why you should not by * 1 Cor. 8.6 one Lord understand Christ as in the foresaid place we see it done and consequently by the Father that which othetwise the word it self requireth the Father of Jesus Christ I suppose we have sufficiently shewn that by the name of Father in that place to the Ephesians is none meant save the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently none but he is by Paul held to be that one God Now if any one will fly to Appropreation or Attribution devised by some in this business he may easily be confuted if one consider these things which we have spoken thereof in the foregoing Chapter when we examined the first Answer to our Argument drawn out of that place so that there is no need any longer to insist upon it CHAP. IIII. The fourth Argument drawn from the words of Christ Mat. 24.36 But of that day and hour knoweth none no not the Angels of the Heavens but the Father only and Mark 13.32 But of the day and hour knoweth none no not the Angels in the Heavens no not the Son but the Father BEfore we go from the places which make express mention of the Father Arg. 4 from Mat. 24.39 and Mark 13.32 we think good to add an Argument more fetcht from the words of Christ Mat. 24. Mark 13. wherein he openly affirmeth that the Father only or which is all one that none but the Father did know of that day or hour namely of the last judgment or his coming for our Opinion is hence most clearly demonstrated for he who only sometimes knew the day or hour of the last judgment is only the most high God But by the testimony of Christ the Father only sometimes knew that day or hour Wherefore he only is the most high God The truth of the major Proposition as they call it is apparent to every one for he who only sometimes knew all things is also only the most high God for the most high God ever doth and did know all things But he who only sometimes knew the day of the last judgement did then only know all things for he that was ignorant of that day did not absolutely know all things wherefore he who only sometimes knew the day of the last judgement is also only the most high God If any thing pertaineth to the defence of this Argument although it is so clear and strong as not to need it we will speak of it * Sect. 8. Chap. 9. hereafter when we shall treat of Christ Arg. 5 from 1. Cor. 12.4 5 6. Now follows
2. Chap. 2 3. and Sect. 3. Chap. 11. The Eleventh Argument is largely diffused and may be branched out into many for hereunto belong all those places of the Scripture wherein some Prerogative is given to the Father above Christ Hereunto pertain first those Testimonies of the Scripture wherein the Father is expresly said to be either * See Sect. 2. Chap. 14. greater than Christ or the †Chap. 24. Head of Christ or the ‖ Chap. 23. God of Christ those also wherein the Father is said to have given a * Chap. 16. Commandment to Christ and that Christ was his Servant and Minister Arg. 11 from the Prerogative of the Father obeyed his Command and submitted his †chap. 12. own will to his Arg. 11 from the Prerogative of the Father Likewise those where Christ is said to be ‖ chap. 25 God's to be the * chap. 27. Mediator of God the †chap. 28. Priest of God ‖ chap. 5.25 sent from the Father to have * chap. 16. come not to do his own will but the Fathers Hitherto also belong those wherein Christ professeth that not †chap. 3 19. himself but the Father is the prime Author of those wonderful works which he did that his ‖ chap. 4. Doctrine was not his own but the Fathers that he * chap. 8. which believeth on him believeth not on him but on the Sender of him namely the Father To which those also are like which teach that the Father is †chap. 19 worshiped through Christ and that whatsoever divine things Christ either hath or performeth or are performed unto him from us redound unto the glory of the Father as the utmost scope that Christ poured out ‖ chap. 17 prayers to the Father that the Father is the true Author of the * chap. 29 Resurrection of Christ that the Father †chap. 18. exalted and glorified Christ and consequently bestowed all things on him that ‖ chap. 24 Christ shall hereafter deliver up the Kingdom to the Father and become subject to him that the * chap. 19 Father did or doth all things by Christ Now we will shew in their places that whilst those things which we have reckoned up are ascribed to the Father a Prerogative is attributed unto him above Christ wholy and entirely considered and not according to one nature only and consequently also that he is greater than the holy Spirit Which is manifest even from thence namely in that those things which we have reckoned up are absolutâ—ly wont to be ascribed to the Father and no where to Christ namely in respect of some more excellent Nature and no where also to the holy Spirit Add hereunto others also which have in part been observed by the Adversaries themselves †chap. 10. See Mat. 20.23 22.1 25.34 Rom. 8 29 Gal. 1.15 16. Eph. 1.3 so on to the 13. as that the Father not Christ not the holy Spirit is said in Scripture to have predestinated men to have decreed some things to some one either before the world was created or from the foundation of the world All glory all happiness designed either to Christ or his confidents was first decreed and provided by the Father The whole reason of our Salvation dependeth on him What should I speak of the Creation of Heaven and Earth For though the Adversaries endeavour to vindicate it unto Christ and the holy Spirit yet are they themselves wont to say that it is wont to be ascribed unto the Father in a peculiar manner no otherwise than if it were proper unto him in which manner Redemption is attributed to the Son Sanctification to the holy Spirit concerning which thing we will speak somewhat hereafter Sect. 3. Hence also in that which is called the Apostles * Chap. 3. Creed the Creation of Heaven and Earth is ascribed neither to Christ nor to the holy Spirit but to the Father only For thus we say I believe in God the Father Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth and in his only begotten Son not confessing Christ himself to be the Creator but the only begotten Son of the Creator Neither indeed doth the Scripture any where ascribe to Christ the Creation of Heaven and Earth and when it attributeth a creation to him it not only speaketh of a new creation or certain reformation of things but also no where saith that the Son himself created all things but that all things were created by him and in him Finally when the Scripture speaketh either of Religion and the Worship of God in gross or of certain parts thereof it is so wont to make mention of the Father that it may easily appear unto all that the Father is he to whom in all ages worship was to be given by all men and was indeed given by all pious men and to whom only all honour is ultimately to be referred Whence also after Christ was exalted yet that custom prevailed in Christian Churches that publick Prayers should for the most part be directed to the Father some few to the Son but seldom or never any especially if you distinguish Prayers from Hymns to the holy Spirit concerning which thing we will elsewhere * Sect. 3. chap. 2. speak somewhat Whence the Prayers made in Churches are commonly wont to end in this manner Through our Lord Jesus Christ having also sometimes the name of the Son prefixt through whom namely as a Mediator and Priest prayers are poured out unto the Father himself though we otherwise not only willingly confess that prayers may be poured out to Christ himself but contend that they ought often to be poured out and in our Churches do our selves very frequently perform the same Notwithstanding that custom which hath for so many ages endured in the whole Christian world which even that vulgar opinion concerning three Persons of the most high God hath not been able to take away giveth testimony to our Opinion touching one God the Father For such a Prerogative of the Father above the Son and holy Spirit evinceth that he only is the most high God Certainly the very truth it self crept into the minds of men although they set themselves against it and darted the Beams of her clearness into them not suffering her self to be wholly darkned with the clouds of errours For there appear on every side hints and arguments from which it is clean that the Father only is he * Rom. 11.36 of whom are all things and by whom are all things and for whom are all things as Paul speaketh of the most high God that is by whose counsel and decree all things are at first constituted by whose efficacious providence and vertue all things are perfected to whom finally as the ultimate end all things are referred A diligent Reader of the Scripture will easily observe this especially being thus admonished if he heed the diversity of things which
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
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
granted by Christ They indeed believe Christ to reason in this manner None is good but God namely the most high God I by thy confession am good I therefore am the most high God But first Christ no where though he had far greater occasions of doing so did either expresly say or openly teach that he is God as will appear to every one reading the History of the Gospel yea as we have above some where hinted when it was objected against him that he made himself God he purposely declined the name of God and professed himself the Son of God so * Sect. 1. chap. 1. Sect. 2. Chap. 2. Joh. 10.33 far was he from professing or endeavouring to demonstrate that he was the most high God How much less therefore in this place did he from the bare appellation of Good and that added to the name of Master collect so great a thing Again if Christ would teach this young man that himself were the most high God he would have had him also to understand that there was none besides himself to whom the name of God or Good taken by way of excellency doth agree for he said that there is none good besides one namely God But we have already †Sect. 1. indefence of the first Argument chap. 7 elsewhere shewn that if any one be said to be he Arg. 11 from Mat. 19.17 to whom only something doth agree the same is to be attributed also to that very subject only if Christ would teach that himself was that God who only is good he would have had the young man to understand that there is none such besides himself But this is false since besides Christ the Father is such namely that God of whom as different from himself he elsewhere very frequently and in the same discourse speaketh But if any one say that Christ would have it understood that there was no other in regard of Essence to whom the name of God and Good taken by way of excellency doth agree howbeit that there is another in regard of Person he will take for granted what all acknowledge to be most false that the young man already knâ—w how to distinguish between the Essence and Person and that it was apparent unto him that many divine Persons might be in one numerical Essence or he would be forced to say that Christ did by this speech of his drive the young man ignorant of that distinction into a most grievous errour namely to believe that there was no other Person besides Christ to whom the name of God and Good so taken as we have said doth agree Could it be that Christ should touch so great a matter so briefly and not instruct an ignorant man concerning it Finally the very words of Christ Why dost thou call me good there is none good but God only do openly enough teach that Christ rejected so great a title as agreeing to God only so far was he from snatching it to conclude thence a thing as yet more incredible namely that he was the most high God What then will you say will not Christ be good We answer That the word Good when it is so taken as to agree only to the most high God in which manner it is here done by Christ as we have * Rom. 16.1 Tim. 1.6 before hinted taken by way of excellency and denoteth him who is in the most perfect manner of all and of himself good In which sort we have elsewhere seen that Wisdom Power and Immortality is taken when God only is said to be Wise Powerful and Immortal In this signification Christ denyeth that he is good For if you object that the †See Sect. 1. defence of the first Argument young man did not simply call Christ Good but Good Master and so took not the word Good in so perfect a signification but in such an one as might agree to a Master given by God We answer That the young man did both in an unusual manner so * That is spoke to accost Christ O good Master in which manner we no where find that he is at any other time stiled and also would in a singular fashion call him good and attribute this name unto him by a certain excellency Now although he thought not of so perfect a signification as agreeth to God only yet such an appellation by reason of its singularity receding from the common custom seemed to favour of a signification so perfect and so of a certain Divinity It became the great Modesty of Christ not to admit this title as truly agreeing only to God but to decline and reject it And this was far more becoming than to draw this title uttered in another sence to the Confession of his supream Deity In like manner the same Christ below Mat. 23.8 9 10. admonisheth his Disciples that they suffer not themselves to be adorned with the titles of Rabbies and Masters because there is one Master of ours the Christ nor that they call any one on Earth Father because there is one Father of ours who is in the Heavens Although perhaps they who called them Rabby or Master did not at all think of so perfect a signification wherein those Appellations did agree to none but Christ yea although it were not so much as likely that they did think neither also did we take the name of the Father in so excellent a signification wherein it agreed to none but the most high God for it is sufficient that such a custom of * That is speaking to accosting doth savour of something too much and consequently of something more divine which agreeth to none but Christ or to the most high God for Modesty doth shun even those things also which have a shew of too much What therefore the Master of most perfect Humility in those words taught the Disciples that in this place of ours did he teach by example whilst he rejected the title of Good as too much and proper to God only Hence also it is apparent that Christ reasons far otherwise than the Adversaries and consequently after a contrary manner namely thus None is good but God namely the most high God which is all one as if he should say Whosoever is good namely by way of Ex ellency he is the most high God But I am not the most high God wherefore I am not good taking this name by way of excellency neither was I so to be called by thee CHAP. XII Argument the twelfth from the words of Christ to the Father Not as I will but as thou THe fourth place shall be that where Christ in this maner concluded his prayer to the Father †Mat. 26.39 Nevertheless not as I will but as thou Or as Luke speaketh ‖ Luke 22.42 Not my will but thine be done For from those words it is collected that Christ is not the most high God for the most high God neither permitteth nor can permit
made but the Minor is to be understood only of such a giving as is made declaratively For they answer to the places wherewith we have confirmed our Assumption especially some of them that they ought not to be understood as if the Father did at a certain time really give to the Son the things mentioned therein but that he declared that the Son had them or received them by that eternal Generation causing that they should be acknowledged by all Thus many take that Glory which Christ * John 17.1 5 23 24. begged of the Father that also that God †Acts 2.36 made him Lord and Christ that also that ‖ Phil. 2.9 gave him a name which is above every name But first they themselves sufficiently see that this answer doth not agree to all the places which we have alleaged But if the rest be safe our Argument would nevertheless consist although those places which we have mentioned or some others also were to be taken in that manner as they would have Again There is no cause unless they will alleage that very thing which we oppose by this Argument for a cause wherefore we ought to depart from the propriety simplicity of the words yea there are mighty causes for which we must not depart from the same For as to that Glory which Christ beggeth of the Father Joh. 17. if Christ had it really in himself already that which they say was to be manifested namely the Majesty of that one God for this they must of necessity understand by the glory which they contend that he really had with the Father before the world was created what need was there to pray the Father that he would glorifie him for that would alwayes have been no less in the hands of Christ himself than of the Father nor would he less have glorified himself than the Father him Since it would be necessary that external works yea all should be common to them yea Christ beggeth it of the Father as the reward of the performance of a work committed to him by the Father as appeareth by the collation of ver 4 5. But besides that no reward can be given to the most high God what reward is this of a work performed that he should be acknowledged the supream God who is so is not this very justly due unto God without any respect of any work And no less to the Son than to the Father or to the holy Spirit Besides how well they explain that Father glorifie me with thy self for what is that with thy self Is it not manifest that such words are wont to be opposed and are in this place opposed unto that which is done with men or appeareth before them as in the latter words it is tacitly opposed unto them with me It is not therefore spoken of a thing which ought to be done with men such as would be that manifestation of Christs Glory which he really had from eternity but which he had with God What then ought the Father to declare unto himself the Majesty of the Son had he not sufficiently known it And when he knew it not ought he to declare it to himself or else to the Angels conversing with him in Heaven What had not they sufficiently known the Majesty of the second Person of the Trinity had they not beheld it with their eyes As to that place Act. 2. where God is said to have made Jesus Lord and Christ the words admit not such an explication for if we follow their explication Peter must be thought to speak thus Therefore let all the House of Israel assuredly know that God hath declared him both Lord and Christ even this Jesus whom ye have crucified But to whom hath he declared it was it to Angels Had not they yet known Christ to be that which he was and had long since been Was it to men But Peter and God did by him in these very words truly first declare that very thing to the Jews Again Peter deduceth these words from those in the * Psal 110.1 Psalms The Lord said unto my Lord Sit thou on my right hand But in them Christ is bidden to reign as Paul interpreteth it 1 Cor. 15.25 and is not only declared to reign What doth the Father perhaps command the Son himself to declare that he reigneth and hath alwayes reigned But they would perswade us that Christ John 17. prayed the Father to do it since he had in like manner already glorified him and would hereafter glorifie him again To this sitting at the right hand of God Paul opposeth the delivering up of the †1 Cor. 15 24 c. Kingdom which certainly shall not consist therein in that Christ shall no longer declare that he reigneth yea if Christ be that one God he will then declare unto us in Heaven that he reigneth no less than the Father since God shall be all in all I omit other things which might be said concerning these words of the Psalmist Finally They who will have it that God declared Jesus Lord and Christ either hold that he was Christ from eternity or made such at a certain time He could not be from eternity for to be Christ is to be Anointed which is not incident to the most high God as he is such neither hath any one as I know dared to say so but all say that it agreeth to Christ as he is man He was therefore at a certain time made Christ and that by him whose Anointed he is said to be namely God the Father Why then go they about the bush and seek starting holes since they are notwithstanding forced to confeâ—s that he was sometimes really and not declaratively only made by God Lord and Christ for to be the Christ is to be the Lord and King of God's People although they agree not with us about the time when it was done For that is sufficient for us here that God hath already made him Lord and Christ Although who is there that if he could but ‖ That is Obtain impetrate of himself to lay aside his prejudicate Opinion for a short space would not see that this happened after the death and resurrection of Christ Since all the circumstances of the place in hand do lead yea drive us thither that I may omit others like thereunto amongst which is that Ephes 1.19 and Heb. 1.3 As to that place Phil. 2. neither doth it admit that explication first because by those words is explained the exceeding great reward of the debasement and obedience of Christ performed to God even with the sufferance of the death of the Cross but could not be to declare who and how great he is and alwayes was that is as the Adversaries must of necessity affirm to demonstrate him to be the most high God whereof we have spoken above when we treated of the place John 17.5 Aagain Christ was therefore among other things exceedingly exalted and a name given
so perfect a signification as Christ is asserted to be a God is likewise a Lord and if he be a God of himself he is also of himself a Lord and therefore cannot any further be made a Lord by another The same may also be confirmed by this Reason The Lordship of Christ is either the same with his Godhead or different from it If the same certainly when he was made a Lord he was also made a God If different it is either equal to his Godhead or less For Christ hath nothing greater than his Godhead If equal though they cannot speak thus who attribute to him the supream and independent Godhead there is the same reason thereof with his Godhead and there is no cause why if he was made Lord he was not also made a God If less it will in like manner follow that he hath not of himself this priviledge of being a God For if he have not of himself that which is less much less that which is greater In which place it is not to be omitted that Ambrose in those very words of Peter instead of the word Lord doth read the name of God as if Peter had said And God hath made him God and Christ this Jesus c. The second Argument is this He to whom that is given or granted for which he ought to be worshipped with divine Worship hath also Godhead given and granted to him For neither is there any thing besides Godhead for which we ought to worship any one with divine Worship or causeth that any one is worthy of that worship But we read how that was given and granted unto Christ for which he ought to be worshipped with divine Worship namely all Judgment and a Name above every name for so as we have seen Christ himself speaketh John 5.22 23. For neither doth the Father judge any one but hath given all judgment to the Son that all might honour the Son at they honour the Father he that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father that sent him And Paul Phil. 2.9 c. saith Wherefore also God hath exceedingly exalted him and given him a Name which is above every name that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven and in the earth and under the earth and that every tongue might confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the Father Now that in both places it is spoken of the divine Honour Adoration which is due to Christ from all both the thing it self sheweth and all confess But that this worship is to be exhibited unto him for all Judgment given him by the Father for a Name given him above every name the same Testimonies do clearly shew The same may easily be proved likewise out of that place in Daniel chap. 7.13 Where Christ is said to have received from the Antient of dayes that is his Father Power and Honour and a Kingdom and it is added that all Peoples Tribes and Tongues should serve him namely for so great Power and the Kingdom given to him For who would not serve his King Now this Service is not meant a civil one as being to be given to one that was not an earthly King but a religious and divine one as to be exhibited to a divine and heavenly King Why then do the greater part of the Adversaries deny that Godhead was given or granted unto Christ And indeed not a few both of the antient modern Interpreters of the Scripture * See among others Corn. a Lapide in this place Joh. 1.1 affirm that when Paul saith there was given unto Christ a Name above every name that the name of a God is there understood because there is no other name extant besides that which is above every name Though therein many are mistaken who conceive that by Name is meant the very Appellation or Title of a God For how was this Appellation given him at length after his death when John saith that the Word or Speech was a God in the beginning namely of that thing whereof he speaketh which is the Gospel Add hereunto that Paul speaketh of the reward which God gave to Christ for so great debasement and obedience to the very death of the Cross But what manner of reward is this to give to any one a Title if you give him not the thing designed by that Title Doth the most bountiful and rich God in this manner render rewards for so great Piety such a reward would be unbeseeming even a Prince or other Potentate Besides when any one hath the thing it self and that most rightfully there is no need to give or grant to him the name whereby that thing is designed especially when that thing hath a name already set and appointed as here it cometh to pass If any one be indeed a King and that very rightfully there is no need to confer upon him the title of a King since none can deny the same unto him but wrongfully But that is said to be conferred which might of right be denyed Wherefore we must understand by that Name not a Title but Dignity or Power as you have it in a like place Ephes 1.21 So that a Name above every name is Dignity and Power higher than all other For this is the proper cause of so great Worship and Honour For as civil Worship is due to earthly and civil Power and divine Worship is due to heavenly and divine as also that place John 5.22 doth shew where it is taught that divine Honour is to be exhibited by all unto Christ for the Power of judging which is the greatest part of his Power yea contained in a manner all Now if the thing be thus why do the Adversaries so insult over us for saying that Christ is a God by the Grace of God the Father that Godhead was given to Christ by the Father and he made and constituted a God by him Why do they upbraid us saying that we have two Gods the one as some are not afraid to jest in so serious a matter an old God the other a young God As if we had either two supream Gods or to have one supream God and another dependent on him and subordinate to him is contrary to the Scripture which expresly affirmeth that there are many Gods and affirmeth in down-right terms that we have one God the Father of whom are all things and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things or as if the Father because he was God from all eternity may therefore be deservedly called an old God or Christ a young God because he is after him in time as a Son is after his Father since old age and youth have place in none but corruptible things but ceaseth in such as are incorruptible and immortal Now if they would have God so to be old as Daniel calleth him the Antient of Dayes to whom he that was like unto the Son of Man was brought and
the holy Spirit and Power who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the Devil because God was with him Which thing Nicodemus had before acknowledged whilst he thus speaketh unto Christ We know that thou art come a Teacher from God for none can do these things which thou dost unless God be with him John 3.2 But if Christ were the most high God neither would God be said to do these things by him nor ought Peter to alleage this reason why Christ did Miracles namely because God was with him but this because he himself was God or because he had in him the divine Essence or in what manner soever he pleased to express the same thing For that it cannot here be said that by the name of God the divine Nature of Christ is understood but the Father of Christ may be shewn by the same Arguments which we made use of in the defence of the last Argument when we treated of those Testimonies wherein God is said to have given something to Christ or to have conferred something upon him Likewise we have a little before excluded the distinction of Natures But that we may not treat of the sole Miracles of Christ let us add those places of Scripture whereby is shewn that Christ was not the first but the second and intermediate cause of the other actions also which he did and which were most divine and most of all concerned our Salvation And this is understood out of those places wherein it is affirmed That all things were done by him as John 1.3 That all things were created in him that is by him For that In is after the Hebrew manner every where taken for by is most notorious unto all Col. 1.16 which is presently explained in the same verse whilst all things are said to have been created by him For whereas the vulgar translation doth there add that all things are created in him the Greek hath it for him and signifieth the end Thus a little after it is in the same place said that it pleased him namely God by him to reconcile all things which are in Heaven and in Earth Else where likewise All things are said to be by him 1 Cor. 8.6 of which place we have before * Sect. 1. chap. 2. treated where also we have shewn that it ought not to be taken in that manner as it is once and again said of God himself That all things are by him For that it is not so taken of God as if some other who is the supream Cause of the work did do something by him but simply that he is the efficient Cause of all things or that by his Power and Operation all things are brought to an issue But that it is said of Christ more than once that some other namely God whom every one knoweth to be the supream Cause of Works doth or did all things by Christ For amongst other things the Apostle saith Ephes 3.9 Who God created all things by Jesus Christ as the Greek Copies constantly read it and the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 1.2 when he had said that God in these last times speak to us in the Son that is by the Son according to the Hebrewism a little before observed he addeth By whom also he made the Worlds namely that God who spake unto us by him So also 2 Cor. 5 18. it is said That all things are of God who hath reconciled us unto himself by Jesus Christ Elsewhere That God hath given us the victory by our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 15.57 That God hath poured the holy Spirit abundantly upon us by Jesus Christ our Saviour Tit. 3.5 That God shall judge the secrets of men according to Pauls Gospel by Jesus Christ Rom. 2.16 To pass by other-like places from all which it appeareth that Christ is not the most high God For he is the first and highest Cause of all things which he doth not the second or intermediate But those places shew that Christ is the intermediate not the first and supream Cause of those thing which he doth otherwise it could not be said that God doth all things by him But if any one say that Paul affirmeth that he gave to the Thessalonians commandments by our Lord Jesus Christ or exhorteth them by Christ although Christ seemeth not to have been the middle cause of that action in respect of Paul but Paul rather in respect of Christ We answer That that signification which is also otherwise rare in the holy Scripture cannot there have any place where God is said to have done either all things or somethings by Jesus Christ as that very thing we even now speak by way of objection to our selves doth teach For in that manner that Paul saith he gave commandments or exhorteth by the Lord Jesus none but an Inferiour can do something by a Superiour for it signifieth that he did or doth these things by the Authority of the Lord Jesus interposed and that he supported his commandments and exhortations herewith But God can do nothing by any one in this manner It therefore remaineth that the most usual signification of the particle By is there to be retained where God is said to do something by Christ namely that God be esteemed the first and principal Agent Christ the second and intermediate one which dependeth on him Which is further confirmed by that famous place of Paul which is extant 1 Cor. 1.30 where the Apostle compriseth all the benefits which God hath conferred upon us by Christ whilst he speaketh thus of him namely God Ye are in Christ Jesus who hath been made unto us of God Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption You see that he is made not the prime Author of our Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption but the second cause and dependent on a former one namely God in as much as he is expresly said to be made unto us of God Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption and Freedom which likewise was signified by the precedent words wherein the Corinthians namely as they were Christians are said to be of God in Christ Jesus or by Christ Jesus There is a place like unto this Heb. 5.9 10. where it is said that Christ being made perfect was made the cause of eternal Salvation to all that obey him being called of God an high Priest after the order of Melchisedec You see that he was made the cause of eternal Salvation and that as he was called of God an high Priest With this place agreeth that which we have formerly cited out of the Acts chap. 5.31 where God is said with his right hand to have exalted Christ to be a Prince and Saviour to give Repentance unto Israel and foregiveness of sins To these add those places which spake of the effusion of the holy Spirit made by Christ which action is one of the most notable ones that pertaineth to the Salvation of mankind and to omit the
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
unto him to have been bestowed on us if in the mean while the only begotten Son of God who was from eternity had apparently remained safe and entiâ—e nor had he felt any the least pain thereby Wherefore then is this so vehemently urged that God deliveâ—ed up his Son for us even his proper and only begotten Son or that he should dy for us that from thence the greatness of the divine love might â—e understood But if thou beleevest that even he the man Christ Jesus that was begotten of the Virgin Mary by a divine power that was sanctified and sent by God into the world tâ— at was appointed Ruler and Governour of all things even before the foundations of the world were laid who was most like God in holiness wisdome and power and as Paul * speaketh Phil. 2 6. was in the form of God and equall to God and whom God as it appeares so entirely loved if I say thou beleevest that he was the only begotten and proper Son of God then thou mayst at length understand that the only begotten Son of God and not any thing that was added to him died for us and from thence mayst learn to judge both of the love of God and of his only begotten Son who gave himself up to a death so cruel for our sakes Thus much for the first argument of this order CHAP. XXXII The two and thirtieth Argument That there is no mention made in holy Scripture of the Incarnation of the most high God VVE are able to frame a second Argument that if Christ were the most high God who as that opinion requires came down from heaven into the womb of a Virgin and was there incarnated it were altogether necessary that this incarnation ought to have been most plainly expressed not in one but many places by the Writers of the Gospel and other divine men and the Apostles For to repeat some of those things that have in this place by our men bin very fully explaind elsewhere we see that those things are most clearly and frequently declared in the Scriptures which are somewhat hard to be believed yet most necessary to be believed as the creation of Heaven and earth Gods providence over humane affairs the knowledge of our thoughts the resurrection of the dead and eternal life to be bestowed on men Nor do we see only those things which are aâ—together necessary to be believed most elegantly expressed in Scripture But also other things besides which we said were in themselves of lesser moment as that Christ came of the seed of David But now the incarnation of the most high God would be altogether necessary to be believed if it had really been although most haâ—d to be believed of which that is urged by the adversaries who therefore accuse us of most grievous heresie and highest impiety that we deny it but this they freely confess Arg. 32 The Scripture speaks nothing of the incarnation of God and are forced to confess For who seeth not that this thing is exceedingly contrary to the judgement of reason and such at least as meer reason will judge impossible Wherefore it were necessary that that incarnation should both have been most plainly described in the Scriptures and also most frequently repeated and inculcated by Godly men that were very carefull of our salvation so that indeed no one might doubt that it was asserted and urged by them But that that is not done is manifest partly from thence that what places soever the adversaries produce to prove that opinion are such that there is need of consequences to the end they may deduce this opinion that the most high God was incarnated or made man partly because that incarnation is not expressed in those places in which if it had been true it must needs have been expressed For when Matthew * Mat. 118 chap 2 and Luke describe the †Luke 1.26 c. Chap. 2.7 c. history of Christs nativity and rehearse some things that are of a much lesser moment than that incarnation of the most high God as that he was born of that Virgin that was espoused to an Husband that he was conceived by the holy Spirit that he was born in Bethlehem that I may not repeat other things which Luke very diligently declares and Matthew omitts how can it be that they should have omitted what had been the principal thing of all in the whole mattter and most necessary to be known and believed to wit that the most high God came downe into the womb of a Virgin and there assumed flesh and afterwards was born Luke speaks of the manger wherein Christ was laid so soon as he was born and would he have been silent of the incarnation of the most high God the hypostatical union of the divine and humane nature whereas our adversaries cannot now speak touching Christs nativity without mentioning that thing yea how could it come to pass that Mark should leave out all the history of Christs nativity wherein the incarnation should have been contained and John whom they judge to have written of the incarnation should so briefly so obscurely touch and handle the same How can it be that the Apostles when they would bring men to Christ and exhorted them to beleeve on him and to that end declareed his majesty should make no mention of a thing so necessary Peter preacheth the * Acts 2.14 c. first Sermon after he had received the holy spirit whereupon three thousand men beleeved in Christ and were baptized in his name and also a †Chap 3 13 c. second to the same people but there was no mention made of the incarnation Nor also in the speeches that the same Apostle made either to the * Acts. 4.8 c. Chap. 5.30 c. Rulers and Elders of the people or to †Chap. 10.36 c Cornelius and others concerning Jesus Christ There was no mention made of it in Pauls oration ‖ Ch. 13.17 c. which he made in the synagogue at Antioch none in that at * Chap. 17 22. c. Athens on Mars-hil none in †26.2 c. that at ‖ See amongst others Rom. 5.5 c. 8.31 c. 2 Cor. 5.14 c. Eph. 13 c. 2. throughout Col. 1.12 c. 1 Tim. 2.3 c. 2 Tim. 1.9 c. Tit. 2.11 c. 3.4 c. 1 Pet. 1.3 c. 2 Pet. 1.3 c. 1. John 3.1 c. 4.8 c. Cesarea before King Agrippa the Festus President and many others And indeed Athens he had a fair occasion to declare that thing when he spake of the unknown God But in all those speeches of the Apostles you can read nothing of Christ more sublime than that he had â—een raised by God from the dead was received into Heaven was made Lord and Christ was exalted by the right hand of God to be a Prince and Saviour to give repentance and
Interpreter of anothers will But that he saith those words in ver 14.15 He shall receive of mine are spoken accommodately to humane sence if he mean this that he should indeed receive nothing from Christ because he alwayes had all things but that it should seem so to men what else doth he but to elude Christs words as if forsooth Christ spake of it what men however falsely should imagine concerning that matter and not rather what should truly be though there may be some figure in the words Do we think that Christ would have said that the holy Spirit should glorifie him because men should falsely think that the holy spirit received of that which is Christs Or do we think that he would acknowledge for his glory the glory that is founded in the vain opinion of men and besides that pertaineth to some deminution of the dignity of the holy Spirit that is as it pleaseth them of the most high God But if he mean that that the holy Spirit should indeed truly receive something of that which is Christs but yet that a figure or trope fetcht from humane things is in the word of receiving let him strain himself as he will and turn himself every way He shall shew by no example that it can be said that he shall receive from another that he shall speak not from himself but things heard from another who is first author of his words and to whom those words are not delivered or some way wrought or imprinted by another at a certain time Although besides if the holy Spirit were no less properly the Legate of the Son than the Son formerly of the Father no impropriety of speech which might here be of any moment in that matter of which it is here disputed is to be admitted either in the word of hearing or of receiving For it will be altogether signified that those things which the holy Spirit hath said were manifested and committed to him by Christ For that belongs to such a Legate as Christ was and such aâ— they hold the holy Spirit to be By which it is now understood that the difficulty is not taken away by such an answer nor our Argument solved because what ever you devise these words cannot consist unless it be acknowledged that the holy Spirit is not the first author of those things which he made known to the Disciples of Christ but it came to pass by the will of another to wit Christ and so of God the Father himself Arg. 13 From Joh. 15.13 that he should reveal those things that he dictated to the disciples But this befalls not the most high God For he is the first author of those things which he either revealeth to men or otherwise doth Neither is it caused by the will of another that he doth reveal any thing to men Of which see what we have said above Sect. 2. Chap. 3. and 4. disputing of Christ when he weighed those his words John 5.19 The Son can do nothing of himself And those John 7.16 My doctrine is not mine and others like to these But perhaps this scruple will trouble some how it can be that the holy Spirit may be said to hear and to receive from another what he may declare to others if it be but only a divine inspiration or virtue and efficacy I answer Since the Adversaries also confess and the thing it self shews that those things cannot be properly taken concerning the holy Spirit there is no necessity that we should shew that they may be taken properly concerning divine inspiration But if a figure in the words is to be admitted it is not hard to shew that they may be rightly and elegantly said concerning divine inspiration or virtue inspired from heaven into the Apostles Out of those things wâ—ich follow it will be manifest that many things are found in the holy Scripture spoken by a Prosopopoea concerning the holy Spirit as also concerning other things And that this figure is abhorrent from the place of John of which we treat shall be by and by shewn All men perceive that it is here spoken of the holy Spirit as of a Legate who is to be sent by Christ to the disciples It belongs to a Legate as we have said before not to speak of himself but to declare to others the commands heard and received from him by whom he is sent These things then are accommodated and that by right also to the divine vertue long since inspired into the Apostles For there is something in that divine inspiration which very well answers to hearing and receiving from another and declaring and which consequently hath made way for the Metaphor out of which the Prosopopoea ariseth For not the divine inspiration but he from whom that inspiration comes is the true author of those things which are revealed by it to men neither can that divine virtue implant any other thing in the spirits and minds of men than he would from whom it is inspired into men who is here indeed Christ Therefore it is like to some Legate who declares nothing save the things heard and received from his Prince and Lord to those to whom he is sent But why doth here Christ speak by Prosopopey concerning the holy Spirit this is chiefly the cause because in some manner he compares him with himself and considers him as it were to be sent into his place to the Disciples now sadned by his instant departure For Christ hitherto hath been as it were their Comforter Therefore he said to them being fadned by the notice of his departure That he asking the Father would give to them or would send to them from the Father another Comforter who might abundantly supply his room in this behalf But comparisons of things with persons Arg. 13 from John 16.13 do easily bring forth Prosopopeys Hence that we may illustrate the thing by examples David comparing the testimonies of God with Princes who spake and took counsel against him and opposing the one to the other he calls them his Counsellors or as it is in the Hebrew the men of his Counsel Psal 119.24 Hence also arose that famous Prosopopey in Solomon who brings in wisdom and foolishness contrary to it as certain women inviting men to them by reason of the comparison of a strange woman as most learned men have noted See Cornelius Jansen on the Proverbs Let the whole place be read beginning at Proverbs 7.5 where that comparison begins and is continued through the rest of the whole chapter and the two following Chapters Compare also with this place Chap. 24. Eccles More might be said of this matter but there is now no place for it and something also shall yet be said hereafter by which it shall appear that no man ought to marvel that such a Prosopopey or Fiction of a Person is used concerning the holy Spirit Although even that alone may take away wondring from any one that Christ himself confesseth that
to know it could not rightly be affirmed that none besides him knoweth the things of God For besides him also the Father and Son should know and that primarily But if they say the particle none is here opposed onely to creatures or rather comprehends onely creatures and men as if it were said no man knowes those things ouâ— opinion indeed may admit that but not the adversaries For we acknowledge in those words Arg. 16 From 1 Cor. 2.11 but the Spirit of God a metonymy of the adjunct which also brings forth some Metalepsis as if the Apostle had said None of men knowes the mysteries and hidden counsells of God besides those who are endued with his Spirit by the power of whom alone those things may be found out by us But the adversaries who would have the knowledge in this place to be properly attributed to the holy Spirit himself cannot say that and are forced to confess that the holy Spirit is therefore expresly excepted because otherwise he should be altoâ—ether comprehended in that general word none How ridâ—culous I beseech you and unworthy of the Apostle had such a speech been None of men or creatures knoweth those things which are Gods â—ut God the Father or no Angel knoweth those things which are Gods but Christ or the holy Spirit For what Is the Father in the number of men or Creatures Is Christ or the holy Spirit in the number of Angels For nothing is wont to be excepted from out of a general speech but what otherwise is of the same kind of things of which it is spoken and which therefore unless it had been excepted had been altogether cemprehended in the general speech and the same thing either affirmed or denyed of it as of the rest Wherefore if the knowledge of divine things be here properly ascribed to the holy Spirit himself as the Adversaries would and that Metonymy which we have explained is not to be acknowledged in that word the word none cannot be restrained to men or creatuâ—es aloâ—e but will comprehend also the divine persons themselves of the number of which they would have the holy Spirit to be Whence it followes seeing the holy Spirit in their opinion is a person really distinct from the Father and Son that the Father and Son are excluded from the knowledge of vine things in these words of Paul of which absurdity there is no danger in our opinion In the same manner if the Spirit of a man were a certain person distinct from the man himself whose Spirit it is said to be when it is denyed that any of men knowes those things which are of a man besides his spirit the man himself whose Spirit it is had been excluded and besides that exception should have been rediculous What man knowes the things which are of a man unless the Spirit of man which is in him For is the Spirit of man which is in him man But if you take the words of the Apostle as if he had said No man knowes the hidden counsels and thoughts of a man besides himself who conceives and understands them by his Spirit and mind the absurdity will cease For it is to be observed what Philosophy teacheth namely that not the Spirit of a man which they call the soul doth properly understand but the man by it or by its vertue or power CHAP. XV. Arg. 17 from Mat 3.16 The seventeenth Argument That the holy Spirit sometime descended upon Christ IN the last place it likes me to alleage that to which many adversaries attribute much when they endeavour to shew that the holy Spirit is not a divine vertue but a person distinct from the Father and Son And that is as Luke writes Chap. 3.22 With whom also the other writers of the Gospel History agree Mat. 3.16 Mark 1.10 Joh. 1.32 33. That the holy Spirit descended on Christ baptized by John in a corporal shape as a dove It is an old saying and at this day commonly spoken among the adversaries Go Arian to Jordan and thou shalt see the Trinity Surely if the Trinity be Father Son and holy Spirit The Father indeed who inhabiting in Heaven as the most high God and removed from mens eyes commandeth them out of his supream Authority and on the Son bestows authourity from his Majesty but the Son a true man baptized in Jordan by John and after from heaven annoiâ—ted and replenished with the holy Spirit and lastly the holy Spirit a certain thing sent down from heaven upon Christ with which he was replenisht if I say that be the Trinity he is rightly commanded to go to Jordan who doth not acknowledge the Trinity We indeed who are sometimes commanded to go thither long ago by the grace of God have been there and seen that Trinty and with willing mind acknowledge and profess it But if the Trinity be to them the conjunction of three persons really distinct amongst themselves in one and individual Essence it is so far from being seen at Jordan that rather in some sort it may be seen by the very eyes it has no existency For what sâ—ew or shadow is there of one and the same Essence in number which may be common to the Father Son and holy Spirit Is it the same numerical subâ—â—ance of God who speakes from heaven not descending hence and of him a true man who is baptized in Jordan and lastly of that thing which descends from heaven upon him I omit other things which partly are said before partly shall be said a little after They therefore who have fained such a Trinity or defend it fained â—y otheâ—s are yet to be sent to Jordan that they may as from a near place behold the true Trinity and may more rightly learn to acknowledge it We may indeed rightly send thither the Arians who hold that the Son of God is a certain invisible Spirit produced by God before the creation of the world but our adversaries who maintain him to be consubstantial it is so far of their being able to do it that the Arians rather might send them thither For the tenet of the Arians is less against that History than that of the Consubstantialists But we will not in this place urge all things which might be said but that onely which is written of the holy Spirit that we may not only wrest out the weapon of the hands of the Adversaries with which they fâ—ght against us but also may retort it on them They urge that the holy Spirit hath both decended and appeared in bodily shape to wit of a dove For from thence it follows that the holy Spirit is some substance not a quality For it belongs to substances and those only that are Suppositums to descend and to assume and sustain formes and shapes and together they say it appeares that the holy Spirit is such a substance as is really distinct from the Father and Son For neither the Father or Son descended from heaven nor
can be saved ruder men must despaire of salvation For if to believe be not only to utter the words with the mouth but also to embrace and firmly to hold in the mind the meaning of them who is thereof the more simple who believes that tenet For if any man would comprehend in mind the meaning of that position it is necessary that he distinguish between the divine essence and person For unless he distinguish them either he will believe that there is in very deed only one divine Person as one Essence or hold three Essences and so three Gods no less than three divine Persons either of which deprives a man of Salvation according to the Opinion of the Adversaries But how many are there who know how to distinguish a divine Person from the Essence and so may conceive three Persons that he may not imagine to himself together three Substances subsisting by themselves Verily he must be a subtile man and hold a marvellous opinion of a Person who doth otherwise What then shall become of the ruder men for whom alike Christ dyed But let us grant that the ruder may perceive that tenet will there not be need of a clear frequent and diligent explication of that tâ—ing to them But where shall we chiefly seek an explication of so abstruse a thing is it not in the holy Scriptures Therefore if the perspicuous explication of this thing be not so much as once indeed contained in them it is to be concluded that that doctrine is false and cannot be deduced indeed no not by good consequence from the holy Scripture We refuse not therefore lawful consequences which we also our selves willingly use but in such a doctrine as that is of which we dispute we rightly hold that there are no lawful consequences unless together a perspicuous and open explication thereof could be held forth Others say that not only this Doctrine may be drawn by lawful consequences from the holy Scriptures but also that it is really contained in them For though the word Trinity be not extant in them yet the meaning of it is extant But neither do we require that they shew the very name of the Trinity but the thing and meaning which they commonly comprehend in that name clearly and perspicuously expressed That I say we require that they shew where it is written that God is One in Essence Three in Persons the Father to be God the Son to be God to wit most high the holy Spirit to be God and yet there are not three Gods but those three are one God So the Father to be eternal likewise the Son and holy Spirit and yet these are not three eternals but one eternal We require these or the like to them the meaning of which may be manifest to all men such as are those of Athanasius with which at this day all the Temples do ring but when they bring forth such places in which there is need of consequence that it may be made manifest that this is the meaning of them which they would have they shall perform no more than those who would have so great a thing drawn out of holy Scriptures by consequences only See their two Achilles or chief Champions * Mat. 28 29. Baptise into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit how far distant are these from those positions Are there three persons in one Essence of God We see three things we see not three persons nor more one Essence of those three yea rather we see divers Essences and those between themselves unequal Here certainly there is need of consequences Again †1 John 5.7 There are three who give testimony in Heaven the Father the Word and the holy Spirit and these three are one I repeat not now that which we shewed ‖ Cap. 3. of this Section before how suspected this place is Let us grant it to be undoubted Whence is it manifest that here is understood the Unity of Essence They are one are they therefore one in Essence Not only the meaning it self is not extant but neither indeed can it be evinced by lawful consequence To be One is a general word and contains more species under it self One in essence One in consent either of mind or testimony or of some other thing But the genus being proposed some species is indeed proposed but not forthwith a determinate One as in this place One in Essence And indeed it were easier from this place to shew that there are diverse Essences of those three than one yea it is impossible to shew this Besides in which words is it said that the holy Spirit is a person They must of necessity fly to consequences Now by the things said it appears how injuriously they deal who when Arguments from Reason are brought against that Doctrine cry that this is a mystery which is to be believed not searched into that Reason cannot comprehend these things that we must rest simply upon the holy Scriptures We should yield to those men if they would prove that Doctrine by perspicuous testimonies of holy Scripture and not rather assert it against open and clear testimonies of them But now when they cannot produce such places they do in vain affright us with the name of a mystery that we might not here use our reason and so endeavour as with a Gorgons head set before us to turn us into stones Although the tryal of Reason were not indeed no not then to be declined if it were manifest that Mystery to have been revealed from God For what Mystery will they produce out of holy Scriptures which is repugnant to Reason Mysteries indeed exceed Reason but do not overthrow it they do not extinguish the light of it but perfect it yea Reason alone both perceiveth and embraceth and defends the Mysteries revealed to it which it could not of it self find out Paul useth Reason when he proves the Resurrection * 1 Cor. 15 12 c. which Mystery even most of all exceeds Reason Further add that the Adversaries themselves do that ill which they forbid us to do well I will not now rehearse it that they cannot discourse of the difference of essence and person without the help of Reason For where are those things written in the holy Scriptures And though they were written they could not be perceived nor explained without Reason I now urge that that all use consequences when they dispute of this Doctrine which they call a Mystery What then doth not he use Reason who useth Consequences Are perhaps all those Argumentations written in the holy Scriptures You will say that the propositions of the Arguments are written First Let it be so But the form it self of Argumentation is not there delivered neither is it shewed that this which you use is lawful that which the Adversaries use is unlawful What then doth shew it Reason But moreover resolve your Argumentations and those of yours
John 15.22 and spoken to them they should not have had sin but now they have no cloak for their sin Let them think that the same thing is said to them to whose hands these Writings come whence they might learn the truer opinion But let all together know that by how much the more our opinion is agreeable to piety by so much the more must they who have embraced it give diligence that they joyn holiness of life with it being assured that the knowledge of the Truth without Godliness will more hurt than profit them The God of Peace grant that all be mutually affected one to another with the same mind according to Christ Jesus that with one heart and one mouth they may glorifie the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ to whom himself also be honour for ever AMEN An INDEX of CHAPTERS of both BOOKS touching One GOD the FATHER The FIRST BOOK SECTION I. Wherein is directly proved That only the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the most high God And first out of those Testimonies of the sacred Scriptures which speak expresly of the Father Chap. I. Argum. I. FRom the words of Christ John 17.3 This is life eternal that they may know thee Father the only true God and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ pag. 1 Chap. II Arg. II Taken out of the words of Paul 1 Cor. 8.6 To us there is one God the Father of whom are all things pag. 13 Chap. III Arg. III From the place of Paul Ephes 4.6 There is one God and Father of all pag. 22 Chap. IV Arg. IV Drawn from the words of Christ Mat. 24.36 But of that day and hour knoweth none no not the Angels of the Heavens but the Father only And Mark 13.32 But of the day and hour knoweth none no not the Angels in the Heavens no not the Son but the Father pag. 27 Now follow Arguments drawn out of those places wherein though the Name of the Father be not expressed yet it is indeed spoken of him Chap. V Arg. V Drawn from the words of Paul 1 Cor. 12.4 5 6. There are diversities of Gifts but the same Spirit and diversities of Administrations but the same Lord and diversities of Operations but the same God pag. 28 Chap. VI Arg. VI 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 c. pag. 30 Chap. VII Arg. VII Drawn out of those places wherein by the Name of the Only God or the Only wise God or the Only Master God none but the Father of Jesus Christ is designed pag. 36 Chap. VIII Arg. VIII Drawn from the Visions in Daniel and Johns Revelation pag. 40 Chap. IX Sundry Arguments are briefly intimated to shew that none but the Father of Jesus Christ is the most high God pag. 42 SECTION II. Wherein is shewn That Christ is not the most high God so that it may be understood that the Father only is the most high God Chap. I Argum. I DRawn thence That Christ is most frequently distinguished from God pag. 47 Chap. II Arg. II Drawn from the Name of the Son of God pag. 50 Chap. III The Arguments which are in the sequel to be alleaged being distributed a third is proposed from the words of Christ in John Chap. 5.19 The Son can do nothing of himself pag. 52 Chap. IV Arg. IV Fetcht from the places in John wherein it is denied That Christ is the prime Author of his Doctrine pag. 65 Chap. V Arg. V Fetcht from those places in John wherein Christ is denied to have come of himself pag. 67 Chap. VI Arg. VI Fetcht from those places in John wherein Christ denies that he came to do his own will pag. 68 Chap. VII Arg. VII Drawn from thence That Christ did not seek his own glory pag. 69 Chap. VIII Arg. VIII Drawn from the words of Christ John 12.44 He that believeth on me believeth not on me but on him that sent me pag. 70 Chap. IX Arg. IX That Christ was sometimes ignorant of the last Judgement pag. 71 Chap. X Arg. X From the words of Christ Mat. 20.23 To sit at my right hand is not mine to give pag. 76 Chap. XI Arg. XI From those words of Christ Mat. 19.17 Why dost thou call me good none is good but God only pag. 79 Chap. XII Arg. XII From the words of Christ to the Father Not as I will but as thou pag. 81 Chap. XIII Arg. XIII From the words Heb. 5.5 Christ did not glorifie himself pag. 83 Chap. XIV Arg. XIV From the words of Christ John 14.28 My Father is greater than I pag. 84 Chap. XV Arg. XV Drawn from thence That the Son was sent into the world by the Father pag. 89 Chap. XVI Arg. XVI Drawn from thence That Christ received Commands from the Father and kept them pag. 91 Chap. XVII Arg. XVII Drawn from thence That Christ poured out Prayers to the Father pag. 93 Chap. XVIII Arg. XVIII Drawn from thence That all things are given to Christ from the Father pag. 96 An Appendix of this Argument wherein is taught That Divinity was given to Christ of the Father pag. 107 Chap. XIX Arg. XIX 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 pag. 110 Chap. XX Arg. XX From the words of Christ John 8.16 My Judgement is true because I am not alone but I and the Father that sent me pag. 115 Chap. XXI Arg. XXI From the words of Christ John 8.14 My Testimony is true because I know whence I am and whither I go pag. 118 Chap. XXII Arg. XXII From the words of Christ John 8.29 The Father hath not left me alone because I alwayes do the things that are pleasing unto him pag. 119 Chap. XXIII Arg. XXIII That the Father is called the God of Christ pag. 122 Chap. XXIV Arg. XXIV From these words 1 Cor. 11.3 The head of Christ is God pag. 123 Chap. XXV Arg. XXV From the words of Paul 1 Cor. 3. last Christ is God's pag. 126 Chap. XXVI Arg. XXVI 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 pag. 127 Chap. XXVII Arg. XXVII That Christ is the Mediator of God and Men pag. 130 Chap. XXVIII Arg. XXVIII That Christ is a Priest pag. 132 Chap. XXIX Arg. XXIX That Christ was raised up by the Father pag. 133 Chap. XXX Arg. XXX That Christ is called the Image of the invisible God pag. 139 Chap. XXXI Arg. XXXI Chiefly drawn from those causes for which Christ is in the Scriptures called The Son of God pag. 142 Chap. XXXII Arg. XXXII That there is no mention â—adâ— in the holy Scripture of the Incarnation of the most high God pag. 160 Chap. XXXIII Arg. XXXIII That