The Defence of the Argument.

The first Answer to the Ar­gument and the Refuta­tion.MAny there are, who forced by the evidence of the Words, grant all that which we say, but not to the same pur­pose: For they say, that the Father is not therefore called the only true God, to excl [...]de the Son and holy Spirit from the same Godhead; but only to exclude Idols, or the false Gods of the Heathen. For that here the TRUE God is opposed to false ones. And indeed it is true, that only the Fa­ther is therefore called the true God, to exclude them from true God­head, who were then falsely esteemed and worshipped for gods: but nevertheless, it is done by Christ in such a manner, as is of larger ex­tent, and excludeth not only them, but all others also, besides the Father, from the most high Godhead.

Wherefore it is given us to understand, that if the most high God­head is attributed to any one besides the Father of Jesus Christ, it is done erroneously. Now as for that which we assert, both the force of the words, and the occasion or cause intimated by the Adversa­ries themselves doth require. For as to the first, such is the force of the word, ONLY, as that it excludeth all others from the communi­on of the predicate, besides him to whom it is applied. But he to whom the word ONLY, if you consider the sence (for we will af­terwards speak of the construction of the words) is applied, is the Father of Jesus Christ, as they themselves confess; with whom we have now to do. And the Predicate is, THE TRUE GOD, or the Most High God: Wherefore the word ONLY doth from the commu­nion of the Predicate, exclude all besides the Father, and consequent­ly Christ and the holy Spirit. As to the latter; either therefore the gods of the Heathen, are by these words of Christ understood to be excluded from true Godhead, because it is apparent that they are different from the Father, whom Christ calleth the only true God; or because it is already apparent that they are false gods. Not for the lat­ter cause, for otherwise they would be judged already excluded from true Godhead, before they were understood to be excluded by ver­tue of the words of Christ, nor would there be need to make use of these words to that purpose. If for the former cause, it is necessary that all, who are apparently different from the Father of Jesus Christ, should be excluded from that true or most high Godhead; for other­wise the Argument which should from these words be drawn to ex­clude the Idols of the Heathen from the true Godhead, would be in­valid. For it would be thus, if it should by way of Syllogism be pro­posed: some different from the Father of Jesus Christ, are not the true God. The Idols of the Heathen are different from the Father of Jesus Christ; therefore are not the true god. The Major would be [Page 3] particular in the first figure, which makes the consequence invalid. Wherefore although the false Opinion of the Heathen touching their Idols, gave occasion to Christ, to call his Father the only true God, yet did he so shape his words, that others also might be excluded from that true Godhead? and not only they, to whom supream Godhead was then falsely attributed, but such also to whom the same might in time to come be likewise falsly attributed. For, that we may add this also, who doubteth that Peter (for example) Paul, Gabriel, Michael, are by vertue of these words of Christ, strongly excluded from the most high God­head? But there was then none, that held them to be most high Gods; nor consequently did Christ specially intend, to exclude them from the Deity. Wherefore the force of the words and meaning is of a larger extent than the occasion of them, and is rightly drawn forth to others likewise, besides the Idols of the Gentiles. Neither may any one here say, that therefore not only the Idols of the Gentiles, but also those Men and Angels, are by vertue of these words, excluded from the most high Godhead, because they are not of the same essence or substance, but that the Son and holy Spirit are not excluded, because they are of the same Essence with the Father; Since it is agreeable, if any thing be attributed to the Father only, that those persons should not be excluded from the communion thereof, which have the same numerical substance: For besides, that this is indeed nothing else than to take that for granted which is most in controversie; when Christ called his Father the only true God, he meant no less the only Person of the Father, then the Essence or Substance, & consequently no less excluded them from that true and most high Godhead, who were different Persons from the Father, then who were different Substan­ces. For Christ useth a popular kind of speaking, and applyeth him­self to the capacity of his Disciples. For therefore he with a clear voice uttered Prayers to the Father in their presence, that he might both instruct and comfort them no less with this supplication to the Father, then he had formerly by speaking to them. But among the people, yea among all, THE FATHER ONLY doth no less denote the only person of the Father, then the Substance; and consequently doth no less exclude all different persons from the Father, than Substances. Besides, when the Vulgar think of a Person different from the Fa­ther, they also presently think of a Substance different from him. Where they conceive one Substance, they cannot think of a different Person. Certainly concerning Moods, Subsistences, Suppositalities and Personalities, which existing in the same numerical Substance, do con­stitute Persons really distinct, even at this day the vulgar sort of Chri­stians do not think: so unlikely is it, that heretofore among the Jews, even Fishermen did know them.

Wherefore if Christ fitting himself to the capacity of the Vulgar, would have all different Substances from the Father, be excluded from the most high Godhead, he would also have all different Persons from the Father excluded from the same. Whence we are given to under­stand that in these words, the contrary to what is urged in this ex­ception, [Page 4] is rather taken for granted, namely, that he who is distin­guished in Person from the Father, as Christ is, is also distinguished from him in Substance; and consequently, by virtue of these words of Christ, are excluded from that true and most high Godhead.

And this is so much the more to be believed touching Christ, in that the Disciples, who were then present, did not only see him to be a true man, but also heard him distinguished from the Father, as a Messenger from the Sender; and also that he poured out prayers un­to the same, and begged glory of him. Again, if none by vertue of these words of Christ, is excluded from the true Godhead, although he manifestly differ in person from the Father, unless it be also appa­rent that he is different from him in Essence, it will follow, that he can­not be confuted by these words, who shall say, that Gabriel (for exam­ple) Peter, Paul, or finally Jupiter, Neptune, or the other gods of the Heathen, are the true 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 so [...]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 [Page 5] 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 [Page 6] 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 to take away his Understanding, and to cause that he who comprehended something, does now comprehend nothing at all: Which will also happen to lear­ned Men, if they will endeaver to consider things, and rather conceive them in their mind, then to cozen themselves and others with a meer sound of words. By this also it may easily be understood, how we ought to answer them who say that the Name of GOD is by an attribu­tion or an appropriation, as they speak, both here and elsewhere ascri­bed to the Father, and that, as we now suppose, to him onely: for either they grant that the Name of GOD is by reason of the Preroga­tive which the Father hath above the Son and holy Spirit, attributed to him onely as proper, and so tacitly taken away from the Son and holy Spirit; or without any regard to that Prerogative: If the first, how they may be refuted, we have already spoken; if the latter, they shall be able to shew by no sufficient Example, out of either sacred or pro­phane Writers, or out of the vulgar Custom of speaking, that an At­tribute equally common to Many, may be rightly ascribed to but One of them, in such a manner as that it may be said to agree to him ONLY. Wherefore no regard is to be had to such an attribution in these words of Christ.

The se­cond an­swer to the Argu­ment.But now let us refute other things which are wont to be alledged by way of answer to this first Testimony of our Opinion. There are therefore some who deny that the words of Christ before cited, con­tain this Opinion, which is admitted by others, namely, That the Fa­ther Onely is the true God; for they explain the Words in another, and that a two-fold way: Some say that the word ONLY doth not belong to the Subject of Christs words, which if we consider the sence is the Father, but to the Predicate, namely, The TRUE GOD, for that Christ doth say, That THE FATHER IS THE ONELY TRUE GOD, [Page 7] and not THE FATHER ONLY IS THE TRUE GOD: Which first pro­position doth not hinder, but that the Son also, or the holy Spirit may be called the True God, yea, the Onely True God: Inasmuch as these Propositions are not repugnant one to the other, the Father is the on­ly true God, and the Son or the holy Spirit is the true God, or the on­ly true God. But The third An­swer to the Argu­ment. others contend that these words are so to be or­dered and construed, that the sence may be, THIS IS LIFE ETER­NAL, THAT THEY KNOW THEE, AND WHOM THOƲ HAST SENT JESƲS CHRIST, TO BE THE ONLY TRƲE GOD: So that these words are so far from excluding Christ from supream Deity, that they rather are to be thought expresly to attribute the same unto him; Which Answers, what weight they carry with them, let us fee.

As to the first therefore, they are exceedingly mistaken: The con­futation of the se­cond An­swer. for the Adjective ONLY, as oft as it is imployed to exclude other Subjects from the communion of the Predicate, belongs to the Subject, not the Pre­dicate. Now that in this place the word Onely is imployed to exclude other Subjects, namely, Idols, from the communion the Predicate, which is the True God, all the Adversaries contend; wherefore it be­longeth not to the Predicate, but to the Subject, which, if we consider the sence, is none but the Father. And that you may more plainly per­ceive the thing, see whether by our or their opinion, the Idols or gods of the Gentiles are strongly excluded from true Deity: If you follow our Opinion, the business is dispatched▪ for, if Onely the Father of Christ be the true God, certainly Idols cannot so be, since they are not the Father of Christ. But if you follow their Opinion, the business is not yet dispatched: for they hold, that notwithstanding that Proposition, THE FATHER IS THE ONLY TRƲE GOD, the same Predicate may also be applied to other Subjects: for that it may nevertheless be said THE SON IS THE TRUE GOD, yea, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, in like manner also the Holy Spirit. And therefore these words of Christ would not by themselves hinder, but that the same Predicate might also be attributed to infinite other Subjects: so that it would not be apparent from these words of Christ, that Idols are not the true God, but that were wholly to be understood from elsewhere.

Perhaps some one will say, That the Subject, to which the word ONLY is immediately adjoyned, is the name of GOD, not the FA­ther; and the Predicate from the Communion whereof other Subjects are excluded, is the word TRUE. For that the sence is, that the Fa­ther is that God, who only is true. But this shift likewise is vain, and that for two Reasons; First, Because the word TRUE is not here such a Predicate, as here signifieth any thing by it self, and denoteth some peculiar Attribute of any thing, but only together with it, whereto it is adjoyned. For neither doth TRUE in this place signifie the same with Trusty, or truth speaking; but when it is opposed to a thing that is false, or falsely so called, it signifies nothing but the reality of the thing to which it is annexed. And therefore it is predicated of no­thing by it self, but together with it to which it is annexed which in this place, is God. So that, being taken together with that word, it [Page 8] signifies him, who in truth and very deed, and not only in the opi­nion of men, is God. Thus we say that Christ is a true Man, is the true Messiah, and so forth. For it is all one as if you should say, that he is truly and in very deed a Man, and the Messiah; not falsely, nor on­ly in the Opinion of Men. Wherefore these words, THE TRUE GOD, are not so to be parted, as that the one may again constitute a Subject, the other a Predicate, and the word ONLY thought to be ap­plied to that of GOD, that the Predicate of TRUE may be removed from all other Subjects besides God; but the words TRUE GOD, do joyntly constitute one Predicate; and the word ONLY must be thought to be annexed unto the Subject thereof, namely, the Father; that all other Subjects beside the Father, may be excluded from the Com­munion of this Predicate, namely, The True God. And indeed the de­sign of Christ was not simply to exclude Idols, or the Gods of the Hea­then from truth, but to shew that they are to be excluded from true Godhead, or not to be accounted true Gods. But if you say, the word GOD is again to be repeated, that the sence may be, That the Father is that God who onely is the true God; what else will you do, than make Christ to speake that by circuity of words, which any one would simply utter, and so without necessity double both the Subject and the Predicate, referring the Subject again to the Predicate; as if any one should take this speech directed to Christ, THAT THEY MAY KNOW THEE THE ONLY TRUE CHRIST OR MESSIAS, and rather ex­press it thus, THAT THEY MAY KNOW THEE TO BE THAT CHRIST WHICH ONLY IS THE TRUE CHRIST; then simply to say, THAT THEY MAY KNOW THEE WHO ONLY ART THE TRUE CHRIST OR MESSIAS. For, that we may also adde the other Rea­son, although the words were so to be taken, as if it were said that the Father is that God who only is the true God; yet would it be all one as if it were said, That the Father onely is the true God: As if I should say, Christ is that Man who Onely was born of a Virgin, or Christ is that Man who Onely is the true M [...]ssias; it is all one as if I should say, Christ Onely is the Man born of a Virgin, Christ Onely is the true Messias. Thus also, Elias is that Prophet who Onely was carried towards Heaven in a fie­ry Chariot; it is all one as if I should say, Elias Onely is that Prophet who was carried towards Heaven in a fiery Chariot: Likewise Gabriel is that Angel who Onely declared to the Virgin Mary the Conception of Christ, it is all one as if you should say, Gabriel Onely is that Angel which decla­red to the Virgin Mary the Conception of Christ. Neither shall they bring any instance to the contrary, either our of the Scripture or other ap­proved Authors, or out of the common and vulgar use of speaking. Certain it is, that as often as any one is said to be that, to which onely some other thing is attributed, it is all one as if it should be said that both did joyntly agree to that first subject only.

Neither do they quit themselves handsomely, who feign Examples of this sort; as namely, That a certain Church (we for instance sake, will take the ancient Church of Antioch) is that Church which onely is a true Church, although there be other true Churches extant toge­ther [Page 9] with it: for they say, that we must speak thus, The Church of An­tioch is a Church that onely is true; namely, because it is of the number of those Churches which onely are true Churches. Thus another would say, Peter is a living Creature which onely is rational, because he is one of those living Creatures which onely are rational. But those Examples are without Example: for it should be proved by some sufficient Example, either sacred or prophane, that one may rightly speak in that manner: Out of the Scripture they shall not produce an Example, neither do the Vulgar speak so: But Christ speaks after the Vulgar fashion. Now that they do not speak rightly, who make use of such Examples, is hence evident: because wh [...]n we say, that any Church onely is a true Church, if so be we hold that there are many true Churches by the name of that Church which onely is true, we do not understand any particular Church taken separately, but the whole kind or rather species of that Church: for it cannot be said of any par­ticular Church taken separately, that it onely is a true Church: other­wise it would be rightly said, that the Church of Antioch onely was a true Church, which they themselves will not admit, who feign such Examples: But that doth agree as proper to that whole species or kind of Churches, namely, which professeth the saving Doctrine of Christ, and is rightly said to accord to that onely.

Now this which we say, is also hence apparant, in that when we will attribute to any Church Onely the name of a true Church, we cannot adde to that Church the word every, which would signifie that the same might be affirmed of all Churches separately: for it is not a­greeable to say, Every Church professing the saving Doctrine of Christ is onely a true Church; but onely simply, A Church professing the saving Doctrine of Christ, onely is a true Church: But when we call the Church of Antioch a Church, we so take the name of the Church, as that it de­noteth a particular Church, and one considered separately; or a Church taken distributively, not collectively: For one cannot separately pre­dicate the whole kinde, or species taken collectively, of any Individuum. Wherefore one cannot likewise say, That the Church of Antioch is that Church which onely is true. In the same manner it is not rightly said, That Peter is that living Creature that onely is rational; for Peter is not that whole kinde or species of a living Creature, to which onely it agreeth to be rational: and so in the rest.

Hitherto therefore it remaineth unshaken, that in the words of Christ this meaning is contained, That the Father only is the true God. We say this sence is contained in these words: for that we may adde this likewise, which will give great light both to the words of Christ, and to our Opinion: These words, The onely true God, are put by ap­position to the preceeding word, Thee, designing the Father; as if it were said, Who onely art the True God: And therefore the article set be­fore the word onely in the Greek, sheweth that the same thing is again described, as it is elsewhere wont to come to pass in appositions. You have a place very like to this, 1 Tim. 6.16. where, when Paul had said, Which (namely, the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ) in his times he [Page 10] will shew, who is the blessed and onely Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; he addeth, Who onely hath Immortality: Where every one seeth that these words agree with the former by apposition, and that the article in the Greek serveth to joyn this new description of God with those going before, and that the word Onely is referred to the subject; Wherefore let none imagine that we think that the word one­ly, if we consider the grammatical construction, is to be connected with the precedent word Thee: for both the article set before the word only doth hinder, and by this means we must understand the Verb TO BE: For it would be all one as if Christ had said, Thee only to be the true God; which though it is by it self true, will yet presently after ap­pear to be disagreeable unto the sence of this place.

For now it is time to examine and confute their Opinion likewise, who so take these words, as if Christ had said, This is life eternal that they know thee (Father) and him whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ, to be the only true God. First, we say, that this Explication cannot there­fore consist, because it refers the word Only to the Predicate; name­ly, The true God, which we before shewed was to be referred to the Subject. But if any one will so take the word, as if it were said, Thee, and whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ only, to be the true God; First, the placing of the word Only doth hinder it; for when the word Only is referred to many subjects at once, it is wont either to be set after all, as we even now did, or to be set before all. Which latter happeneth in those words of Paul, which are alone brought by some to illustrate their Explication of this place, and are extant, 1 Cor. 9.6. for thus it is there to be read out of the Greek, Or have only I and Barnabas no power to forbear working? But in this place of ours, not alone the word only, but together the whole Predicate, namely, The true God, is interposed between these two Subjects, to which it is thought to be referred; that is to say, between the word Thee, and Jesus Christ, whom the Father hath sent. To omit, that the Article set before the word only, doth not suffer, that it should be in that manner joyned either with the word Thee, or with the words Jesus Christ; as all who are not ignorant of the Greek Tongue will confess.

Again, By this means notwithstanding, the Opinion of the Adversa­ries touching the Deity of the holy Spirit, will be overthrown: for if the Father and Christ only be the true God, the holy Spirit cannot also he. The same will also follow, although you so take the words, as if Christ had said, That they know thee (Father) and whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ, to be that God who only is the true God. For we have before shown, that this is all one as if it had been said, Thee and Jesus Christ only to be the true God; there is, I say, no difference in this be­half, whether the word Only be presently added to the first Subject, or to that Subject which is part of the Predicate. Besides, it is false, That Eternal Life, or the Way to attain Eternal Life, doth herein con­sist, that men know the Father and Christ to be the only true God: Properly taken it cannot consist; otherwise it would be both necessa­ry, [Page 11] requisite, and also sufficient to acknowledge the Father and Christ for the only true God. But by this account, all, who comprehend that Opinion in their minds, should attain Eternal Life, when never­theless they may withal stick in those vices, concerning which the Scripture openly pronounceth, that they who do such things, shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

You will say therefore, that it is to be taken improperly, that this knowledge may comprehend in it self faith in Christ, working by love and all kind of vertues; namely, by a Metonimy or Transnomination joyned with a Synecdoche; whereby under the name of the cause, the effect is also comprehended. After which manner Eternal Life seem­eth in the Scripture to be ascribed to that Faith whereby men believe, That Joh. 20.31. Jesus is the Christ the Son of God. But neither can this con­sist, for even so nevertheless, it would be signified, that this Know­ledge is necessary for all unto eternal Life, and a certain ground of faith working by Love: But that this is false, doth hence appear, in that not only Christ himself, who was sent by God to declare unto men the way of Salvation, and implant in them Saving-Faith, did ne­never openly deliver, or inculcato to men this Doctrine; yea, nei­ther his Apostles, the most clear Preachers both of his Divinity and Doctrine. For as to Christ, he did not only of his own accord not teach and inculcate, that he together with the Father, is the only true God, but also when a commodious occasion was afforded him to pro­nounce that concerning himself, did yet abstain from so doing, speak­ing in such a manner of himself, as that he openly differenced himself from God, taken by way of excellency, and shewed that himself wholly depended on him; as appeareth from the 10th chapter of this very Gospel, verse 33, &c. concerning which words we have else­where In the Book of God and his At­tributes chap. 13. spoken; and shall Lib. 1. Sect. 2. Chap. 31. hereafter speak in its place: But the Apostles when they speak of the Dignity of Christ, the Knowledge where­of is the ground of that Faith and Piety, whereby we are saved, do mention no higher things, than that Jesus is the Christ, or the Son of God; both which they put for the same; and that is very frequent in this Writer.

Concerning which thing likewise, we shall have occasion to speak of Sect 2. Chap. 31. hereafter.

Moreover, the sacred Writers, and John by name, when they speak of that Knowledge wherein Religion, or the Way to eternal Life con­sisteth, intend not such a Knowledge whereby some attribute, essen­tial to God or Christ, is known to be in him such as this knowledge would be, that the Father and Christ is the only true God: but they mean the knowledge of God simply; whereof we suppose Christ here speaketh, Joh. 8.19, 55. & 14, 7. & 16.3. & 17.25. Joh. 1.2, 3, 4. & 13.14. & 3.1. & 4.7. & 5.20. compa­red with Ephes. 1.17. and Col. 1.9. Joh. 6 6, 9. com­pared with v. 12, 24, 25 & 17.25. understanding the knowledg of God chiefly in respect of his will, and of the things any way thereunto belonging; and also the knowledge of Christ in respect of his office, which wholly pertaineth to discover, confirm, execute, and perfect the Divine Will. I pass by the manner of speaking such, as neither John nor any Writer of the new Covenant useth, when he speaketh of the knowledge of some [Page 12] whole complex or proposition; for the Sacred Writers would ex­press this s [...]nce, which they with whom we now dispute, would have to be comprehended in those words of Christ, in this manner, That they know, that thou art the only true God, &c. as they, who are more diligently versed in the reading of the Scripture, will observe: Thus for example sake, we read in the same John, Chap. 6.69 Who have known that thou art the Christ the Son of God. Chap. 7.26. The Rulers have known that this is the Christ.

I forbear to urge (what we will elsewhere demonstrate) that nei­ther the prayers which Christ here poureth out to the Father, nor his sending from the Father, whereof in these very words he ma­keth mention, do admit, that Christ should be accounted the true and supream God, together with the Father. I will only here speak, what hath in some measure been observed by certain very learned Adver­saries, namely, that it is not agreeable to this place, that Christ should pronounce concerning himself, that he together with the Father is the only true God; partly because he prayeth to the Father, and so speaketh most modestly of himself; partly because he considereth and describeth himself as the Fathers Embassador. For praying to the Father, he is not to be thought to have equalized himself to the Father, and to have pronounced that of himself, then which the Fa­ther hath nothing greater, but as it became one that is very modest, and a supplicant, to have set himself below him. Furthermore, in that he here considereth and describeth himself as the Fathers Em­bassador, he is not to be thought to have attributed unto himself the supream Majesty and Glory of the Father that sent him, which herein consisteth that he is the only true God. Besides, both the order and the meetness of the speech, doth require that the first description should be proper to the Father, to whom it is immediately joyned, as the latter is peculiar to Christ, and not Christ be described both in a peculiar manner; and again, in such an one, as is common to him with the Father, and that in those words, which, if you respect the order, seem no less properly to be attributed to the Father, than the latter to Christ. And the first of these three Reasons was in some measure toucht by a most accute and learned popish John Maldo­nat on this place Interpreter. For amongst other causes, for which Christ in this place called not himself, but the Father, the only true God, he alledgeth this also, that Christ would, as it became a Son, speak honorably of his Father, but very modestly of himself; (wherefore saith he) he called not himself God, but the Father. Ʋpon the same account, I suppose, neither would he name himself; for he said, not that they may know thee and me, but that they may know thee, and whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ, speaking of him­self in the third Person, which argueth greater modesty than to name him­self, when he treateth of honorable things, such as this was. But if Christ is to be thought to have here regarded Modesty in so small a matter, how much more in not saying, that he together with the Father, is that only true and most high God? although Christ would not only have regard to modesty, but to the very thing it self; for he [Page 13] would joyn himself to the Father, and the knowledge of himself to that of the Father, in such a manner, as that he might withal shew what difference there was between them: for he would signifie that the Father is to be known as the supream Monarch and Prince of all things, and that his will is to be regarded by its self; but that he himself was to be looked upon as his Embassador, who declareth his will, and demonstrateth it by most certain proofs, being after­wards in the name of God, to execute and compleat the same; for such descriptions of Persons in the Scripture, are not wont to be idle, but fitted to illustrate the thing that is treated of. But enough of this.

He that liketh plain Interpretations of the Scripture, cannot chuse but reject this which we oppose, and imbrace ours, unless he will pre­fer his pre-conceived opinion concerning that thing, before any proof whatsoever.

The Defence of the Argument.

THese things though they be so plain and clear, that at the first sight they gained belief, yet hath the love of defending mens Opinions, prompted them somewhat to answer thereunto.

Answ. 1 For some except, that Paul doth not say, that that one God is only the Father, but simply is the Father; by which means the other Per­sons are not excluded: and that they may not seem to speak this without ground, they alledge the words immediately following, where Paul affirmeth, That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. But (say they) none will say that that one Lord is Christ only; otherwise the Father would not be that one Lord, which every one may see to be most absurd, inasmuch as that one God cannot chuse but be that one Lord.

Answ. 2 Others answer, that the name of the Father being used in divine things, is ambiguous; for it is one while taken essentially, signifying indistinctly the Godhead or whole Trinity; another while hypostati­cally, that is personally, denoting the first Person of the Trinity (as they speak) even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that in this place it is taken in the first signification, not in the second, as our Opinion requireth.

The Con­futation of the first An­swer.But as to the first Adversaries, we have already shewn, that the force of these words of Paul is such, as if it were said, that that one God is no other besides the Father: For the Apostle would here ex­plain who that one God is. But doth he rightly explain a thing, who omitteth not only as much, but more also then he expresseth, when in the mean time that which he omitteth, is necessary to explain the thing, and instead of three Persons, mentioneth but one; as the Apostle by this account would do? Who, I pray you, of our Adver­saries, when he is to explain who that one God is, doth so handle the matter, as that he maketh mention of the Father only, and saith, that there is one God, namely, the Father of Jesus Christ? which of them doth not or would not rather say thus, there is one God, name­ly, the Father, Son and holy Spirit? for indeed, he ought so to speak, if he will speak agreeable to his Opinion: But had the Apostle been of the same Opinion with the Adversaries, he should rather have spoken so, to avoid the giving of occasion to this Opinion of ours; which (as they imagine) is an errour so grievous and pestilent, namely, that that one God should be accounted one no less in Person than in Es­sence, and believed to be no other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; especially since the distinction of a Person from its Essence was not then commonly known, or to speak more rightly was not yet invented: and besides, it might justly be doubted of the Son and holy Spirit, whether they were the most high God, partly be­cause it was confessed amongst all, that both do proceed from the Fa­ther, partly because the Apostles did most frequently distinguish both from God simply so called, by calling the one the Son of God, the other the Spirit of God: Wherefore that most faithful Teacher, who was most studious of mens salvation, ought not to speak so danger­ously, and give to the faithful an occasion of so great and pernicious an Errour, as they are pleased to stile it. From whence also it ap­peareth, that that is nothing which some here answer; namely, that [Page 15] Paul said by an Attribution or Appropriation, as they call it, that that one God is the Father; for by this course he had not at all in­structed the vulgar sort of Christians, but had rather, as we have al­ready said, intangled them with most grievous errour; for of that Attribution which is here held, the Vulgar doth not understand the reason, since many of the very Learned themselves have not so much as heard of it: So that it was not worth the while, to use this figure to the detriment of the thing it self. In explaining of things, all faithful Teachers study clearness; and that the more, the greater the things are, and the greater the danger is that may accrue from ob­scurity.

But who was more faithful than the Apostle? What was grea­ter than the things treated of? What Errour, especially if we be­lieve our Adversaries, more grievous? What Danger more prejudi­tial? Besides, what kind of Attribution or Appropriation is this? is it such a one, that a word of a stricter signification, namely, The Fa­ther, should be a larger word, and actually comprehending in it ma­ny persons, namely, God, be joyned by apposition, or simply predi­cated of it? But by what instance will they shew, that this may rightly be done? Indeed the name of an Individual is sometimes wont to he adjoyned to the name of the Species; as the name of Jesus Christ to the word Man: but then the name of the Species doth not actually comprehend many Individuals, but only denoteth some one Individual comprehended under it. But if they say that the Appro­priation lies herein, namely, that the word God, which otherwise is common to many persons in number, that is, to the Father, Son and holy Spirit, is here taken as proper to one, to wit, the Father. First, they take that for granted, which is not only controverted, but also false, and ought to be accounted contrary to these very words of Paul; namely, that the name God, when it is put for the most high God, is common to many persons in number; so that it may univo­cally, or essentially be predicated of each: in which manner they hold that the Father is God, and the Son God, and the holy Spirit God. For since the most high God is but one in number, and is so here by Paul said to be, he cannot in that manner be predicated of many di­stinct in number; for one in number cannot be univocally predicated of many differing in number, since that it is proper only to the Spe­cies and the Genus, or rather to that which is one in Genus or Spe­cies.

Again, by this means, that aforesaid Answer to our Argument, namely, that the Apostle saith not, that that one God is the Father on­ly, falleth to the ground; for if the word God, is in this place taken as proper to the Father, certainly it is agreeable to his mind to say, that that one God is the Father only: for if he were not the Father only, but also the Son and holy Spirit, then the word God would not be taken as proper to the Father, but as common to the three Per­sons. Wherefore at the beginning, they ought not to deny th [...] Paul saith that which we affirm, namely, That that one God is the Father [Page 16] Only; or reciprocally, That the Father only is that one God; but only to dispute with us concerning the sence of this very assertion. Furthermore, if the word God is here used as proper to the Father, it is either taken by way of excellency, and signifieth that Person which is the fountain of the others: or without any regard to that excel­lency, is simply put for the Father. If the first be said, we have al­ready shewn in the foregoing Chapter, that they who so speak, do ei­ther contradict themselves, and hold the Father only to be indeed the most high God, or say nothing to the purpose. If the latter, the Apo­stle had not spoken to the thing in hand; for the question was not, whether there be one Father, but whether there be one God; as is manifest from the preceding words of the Apostle, though even on the first account the Apostle had not spoken to the matter; for the question was not, whether there were but one, that was the fountain of other persons, endued with supream Deity; but simply, whether there were one or more, who indeed had supream Deity, and con­sequently were originally and by themselves capable of Divine Wor­ship.

Hitherto we have explained and defended one reason chiefly whereby their answer is confuted, who denied it to be the meaning of Pauls words, That that one God is the Father only.

Another reason is, that if you will say, that that one God is not the Father only, but also other Persons; namely, the Son and holy Spi­rit, you must of necessity fall into one of these two absurdities; ei­ther to say, that the Father is not that one God, nor likewise the Son, nor the holy Spirit; or that every one of these Persons is both the Father, and Son, and holy Spirit: for when you assert, that the Apo­stle saith not, that that one God is the Father only, but only that that one God is the Father, either you hold that the expres­sion of the Apostle is not proper, but by a Synecdoche, one Person of the Trinity is put for the whole Trinity; whereas the pro­per expression would be this, That one God is the Father, Son and holy Spirit, or the whole Trinity; or else you suppose this expressi­on, That one God is the Father, to be proper; but yet not such, but that we may notwithstanding properly say, that one God is the Son, that one God is the holy Spirit. If you hold the first, either every Person of the Trinity is the whole Trinity, or is not that one God: For thus we may argue, That one God is the whole Trinity, or the Father Son and holy Spirit joyntly. But the Father is that one God; therefore the Father is the whole Trinity. There is the like reasoning concerning the Son and holy Spirit. But if you ac­knowledge the conclusion to be absurd, you must deny the Minor; which is partly confirmed out of the Scripture, partly out of your Opinion. For thus we may reason; That one God is the whole Trinity. The Father is not the whole Trinity: Therefore the Fa­ther is not that one God. In like manner may we discourse concer­ning the Son and holy Spirit. If you hold the latter, we will thus reason; That one God is the Father; That one God is the Son and [Page 17] holy Spirit; Therefore the Son and holy Spirit are the Father; and contrariwise.

Now we add not in the conclusion the particle, Some one, because the terms are singular. But if you will not admit the conclusion as being absurd, you must again deny the Minor: For thus we will dis­pute; That one God is the Father. The Son and holy Spirit are not the Father; Therefore the Son and holy Spirit are not that one God. In like manner we may also conclude thus concerning the Father, That one God is the Son, or holy Spirit. The Father is not the Son, nor the holy Spirit; Therefore the Father is not that one God.

The third Reason may be fetched from the following words; For if that one God were not only the Father, but also some other, cer­tainly Christ would be he. But Christ is here manifestly distinguished from that one God; and so is demonstrated not to be that one God, whilst it is added, And One Lord Jesus Christ: by whom are all things: and we by him.

But whereas they say, that these very words intimate, that when that one God is called the Father, the Son or holy Spirit is not ex­cluded from the same Godhead; because neither here, where that one Lord is called Jesus Christ, the Father is excluded from the same Lordship; they are therein exceedingly mistaken, inasmuch as the word Lord doth in this place denote him who is somewayes inferiour to the most high God, and subordinate to him in dominion, although he be next to him; that is, signifieth him: by whom the most high God governeth all things any way belonging to the Salvation of Men. But in this manner that one God is not Lord, since he cannot in any sort be inferiour and subordinate to himself: wherefore he is rightly excluded by the following words from such a Lordship. And what we have spoken, is proved by a twofold Reason drawn from this very place. For first, That one Lord, is either the same with that one God, or some way inferiour to him. The same he is not, otherwise there will be no ground of distinction, nor would there be any cause, why that one God should be said to be the Father, and that one Lord, Je­sus Christ; for no less that one Lord, than that one God, should be said to be the Father; for what reason there was, why that one God should be said to be the Father, the same would there also be, for which that one Lord should be said to be the Father: It remaineth therefore, that it signifieth him, who is some way inferiour to that one God. Again, The same is proved by the descriptions which are added to both; that is, both to the Father and to Christ; and by which they are distinguished one from another; for, as we hinted in the former Chapter, the Descriptions that are added to things or Persons in the Scripture, are not wont to be either idle, or forreign to the thing which is treated of, but fitted to illustrate or prove the same. In this place, if these descriptions make any thing to the purpose, name­ly, that the Father is he, of whom are all things, and we to him, and Christ he, by whom are all things, and we by him, they shew that the [Page 18] Father is that one God, and Christ that one Lord; as if the Apostle had said, To us there is one God, namely, the Father, in as much as all things are of him, and we consequently to him; and there is also to us one Lord, namely, Jesus Christ, in as much as all things are by him, and we consequently by him; for it is necessary that he should be that one God, of whom are all things; that is, who is the first and highest efficient cause of all those things which pertain to us Christi­ans (for that he hath a peculiar regard to Christians, the word We several time repeated doth intimate) and consequently to whom, as the ultimate Scope we ought to look, and to confer all worship and honour: For he is to be accounted by us the most high God, who is the first and highest Cause, as of other things, so of those, namely, which belong to us and our Salvation. He also is to be accounted One, who is the highest Cause, not only of some things, but of all; for if he were not one, some would proceed from him, others from another, as the prime Author and highest Cause; and consequently, the glory of those things ought by us to be referred partly to him, partly to the other. Now that we have one Lord, even Christ, is thence evident, because all things are by him; that is, because he is the middle cause of all those things which belong to us and our salvation, and in that all things are governed & dispenced by him from that first Cause of all things. Where also it followeth, that we by him ought likewise to wor­ship God; that is, that he is the middle scope and end of the honour, which ought by us to be exhibited unto God: for because all things are by him, it is apparent not only that he is Lord, but also that one Lord; for if there were many, some things would be administred by him, others by another, and so we ought to worship God partly by him, partly by another. Now who seeth not that these things are very suitable to the words and scope of the Apostle? Neither can any one here object, that it is also said sometimes concerning the most high God, that all things are by him; for it is certain it signifieth not, that some other who is the supream Cause, doth effect those things by the most high God. But it is frequently said of Christ in the Scripture, that some other, namely, God or the Father, who cannot chuse but be the supream Cause, doth do something by him, which properly belongeth to a second cause. Concerning which thing, we will hereafter treat more largely in its Sect. 2. Chap. 19. place.

But that in these words of Paul it is not upon the same account said, that all things are done by Christ, as it is elsewhere said of God, is very evident; because in this place those expressions, Of whom are all things, and by whom are all things; and also those, We to him, and we by him, are opposed the one to the other, and put to distinguish divers persons. Wherefore neither is that which is applied to the Father, common to Christ; nor that which is applied to Christ, so taken, as that it may he common to the Father. But this will come to pass no other way, than if the words annexed to the Father, signifie that he is the prime efficient cause of all things, and the ultimate end of us and our Religion: and those things which are annexed unto Christ, signifie [Page 19] that which the propriety of the words requireth; namely, that he is the middle efficient Cause of all things, and the intermediate end of our Religion. From whence it is how understood, that that one God signifieth him, who is the prime efficient Cause of all things, and the ultimate end; and that that one Lord signifieth him, who is the mid­dle efficient Cause of all things, and likewise the intermediate end of the Worship that is to be performed to God from us; and consequent­ly, that the one is superiour and greater, the other some waies inferi­our and less. And indeed the greatest part of Interpreters of Scrip­ture, seem to acknowledge this signification of that Lorship which is peculiarly attributed to Christ; for as oft as they read that Christ is made Lord, or Authority and a Kingdom given unto him, or that he shall at length deliver the Kingdom to God the Father, they usually say, that it is there spoken of that Lordship or Kingdom over the Church, which is peculiarly granted unto him, as mediator, by the Father. Since therefore such a Lordship agreeth to Christ only, why may he not in regard thereof, be called that One Lord, especially in this place; where, as we have seen, that one Lord is openly distinguish­ed from that one God; and without making mention of any other, is said to be Jesus Christ, and Christ himself is looked upon as he, by whom are all things, and by whom God is to be worshipped of us; which is proper to a Mediator, as they commonly take the word; where finally there is a plain relation to us Christians and the Church. Wherefore it is evident enough, that the Father is not that one Lord which is here spoken of, nor doth the same Lordship which is attri­buted to Christ agree to him. Which being so, what they say con­cerning that one Lord, is so far from overthrowing our opinion which we hold is contained in the former words, speaking of that one God, that it much confirms it; for if when Paul saith, that there is one Lord Jesus Christ, his purpose was to signifie, that that Lord is no other but Jesus Christ; in like manner also when he saith; That we have one God, even the Father, his purpose was to signifie that that God was no other but the Father, for there is the same force and rea­son of the words; neither hath the one less force to exclude others than the other,

Before we go hence, we must briefly explain, how that one Lord is distinguished from that one God, when notwithstanding the name of Lord altogether seemeth here to be taken by way of excellency, for otherwise there would be many Lords; as Paul himself in the precedent words, ver. 5. did declare. But the name of Lord taken by way of excellency, seemeth to signifie no other than the most high God; and that independent Monarch. We answer, that the name of Lord, when it is put as proper to Christ, is taken by way of excellen­cy, but only in respect of other Lords, who are so far forth of the same kind with him, as they have received their Lordship from the most high God, and consequently depend on him: For that Christ is of the same rank, the Scriptures most manifestly testifie; and we, here­after producing most clear Sect. 2. Chap. 10. testimonies thereof, will demonstrate. [Page 20] Wherefore whatsoever that Excellency be, which is contained in the word Lord when it is put for Christ, or attributed to him only, yet is it not of so large extent, nor so sublime, as to comprehend an abso­lute supream and independent Lordship, such as is proper to the most high God? and consequently neither doth the name of Lord in that sence agree to the most high God, but is distinguished from him. Thus namely, Is it come to pass, that since the name of God doth in its own nature signifie something more excellent and noble, than the bare name of Lord, that the name God taken by way of excellency, should denote him, who hath an Empire altogether independent, and is the prime efficient of all things: But the name of Lord distinguished from him, who is called God by way of excellency, should by a cer­tain preheminency design him, who amongst the Lords dependent on God, holdeth the first rank, and is far sublimer than all the rest. Concerning which thing we could say more, but that we must hasten to somewhat else.

The Refutati­on of the second Answer.For now we must examine the other Answer to our Argument drawn from this place of Paul; which is, that Father in this place is not taken for the Father of Jesus Christ, but comprizeth the whole Trinity: Which answer, that it should come into any ones head, is a wonder: certainly it is altogether inexcusable unto them, who boast that they teach nothing but the meer word of God, and are wont to object to us that following reason, We depart from the Word of God, and wrest the Scripture; for what is it to speak besides the Scripture, and to depart from the plain and obvious meaning thereof, if this be not? for by what instance will they ever prove that the word Father, spo­ken of God, doth signifie three Persons of Divinity? The places are obvious to any one, wherein the word Father either absolutely taken, or manifestly related to us (which they hold is here tacitly done) de­noteth the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. And indeed the same is the Father both of Christ and us; as Christ himself teacheth in Chap. 20. ver. 17. John, and many other things demonstrate. Since therefore this signification of the word Father, is notorious to all, and most usual in the Scripture, but that other can by no sufficient instance be demon­strated; what came into their heads, that leaving that, they should imbrace this, or rather devise it, and that in such a place, where Paul intended clearly to explain who that One God is, and consequently to use the known signification of the word? indeed they alledge pla­ces where they think God is for the Creation called Father; but here, they say, respect is had to Creation, since all things are said to be of him. But this latter is taken without proof; for the word All is wont to be referred to the subject matter, and to be restrained there­unto. But here it is spoken of us; that is, Christians, and conse­quently of things peculiarly belonging unto Christians.

Again, They do not prove, that the Father, who is so called for Creation, is any other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Certainly we see how in that which is called The Apostles Creed, the [Page 21] same is called the Father Almighty, and the Creator of Heaven and Earth, and Jesus Christ said to be his Son; yea, they themselves, though they make creation, and the other actions, which are performed out of God, common to the whole Trinity, do yet af­firm, that creation is peculiarly attributed to the Father, redempti­on to the Son, sanctification to the holy Spirit. Wherefore although God should in this place be called Father for Creation, yet would there be no cause why we should imagine any other besides the Fa­ther of our Lord Jesus Christ to be understood: but there would rather be great caus why we should think that he is peculiarly to be meant.

Though furthermore, there is either no place at all, or scarce any in the whole Scripture, wherein, for the first Creation only, concern­ing what they speak, God is called either simply Father, or our Fa­ther, but for other fatherly benefits of his toward men, who call him their Father, and for a certain Creation, not common to all men, but peculiar to his People. Certainly in the new Testament, it may be justly denied, that God is any where, for the first Creation only, either simply called Father, or our Father in particular; for where­soever the causes of that appellation are alledged, others are alledged besides the first Creation. Finally, they shall no where shew, that Christ is simply called Father, but only once in Chap. 9. ver. 6. Isaiah, Father of the Age, and that, as the Greek and Latin translation addeth, to come. Besides, it is one thing for the name of Father to be some where pre­dicated of one; another when the name of Father is applied to sig­nifie a certain subject which is the Father; that he should in particu­lar be understood, or be comprehended with others. As for the holy Spirit, they do so slightly prove that he is the Father, that I am even sorry to mention what they alledge. The cheifest & almost only proof is, that we are regenerated by him, and that Christ saith Joh. 3.6. Whatsoever is born of the Spirit is Spirit. But by this means, they ought to make Water likewise the Father, since Christ a little before, joyned it with the Ver. 5. Spirit in this business, saying, that we ought to be born again of it and the Spirit, Ʋnless, saith he, a man be born again of Water and the Spirit (the vulgar translation addeth holy) he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Now by Water, they are wont to understand, the elementary water which is used in baptisme, and whatsoever you understand by it, it is not a person. Thus also they ought to make Gods, Word the Father, because. 1 Epis. 1.23. Peter writeth, That we are born again not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever. The same reason would also be of force in generation properly so called. Wherefore as oft as it is written, that Christ, for example sake, was born of the Seed of Da­vid, the Seed of David would be accounted the Father of Christ; So in the rest. But if they cannot prove that the holy Spirit is the Father, or may rightly be so called, how much less will they be able to prove, that he is any where designed by, or comprehended under the name of Father, when the Father is used to design a certain sub­ject, as here it is done?

But furthermore, although such a signification of this word were somewhere found, yet would it here have no place where the Fa­ther is manifestly distinguished from Christ, and that by a certain mark; for the Father essentially taken, as they speak, doth in their opinion also include Christ: But he is here in such a manner, as we have before discussed, opposed to the Father, and contra distin­guished from him as they speak. Finally, there lies a contradiction in this opinion of theirs: for either the Father, of whom they under­stand these words, is a Person, or is not: If he is a Person, why do they oppose him to the Father, taken personally? why do they not suffer him to be the Father of Christ; for either he is one Person, or more: if one, what other can be here understood besides the Fa­ther of Christ? If more, he must not be called Father, but Fathers.

But if he be not a Person, he is not the Father; for every father, though figuratively so called, if he be indued with understanding, is a Person; for a father is so called for some action, and chiefly for generation, either properly or figuratively so called. But such acti­ons agree to none but Suppositums; that is, prime Substances com­pleat; as we will explain in its Lib. 2. Sect. 1. Chap. 4. place. But every Suppositum, be­ing indued with understanding, by the consent of all, is a Person. It is therefore necessary, that this Father, whereof Paul speaketh, should be a Person, and but one But the Father taken for one Person in Di­vinity, by the confession of the very Adversaries, is none but the Fa­ther of Christ. So that their indeavour is vain, who to dull the edge of this and the like places, have devised this new signification of the word.

The Defence of the Argument.

BUt there are not wanting some, who in this place also do by the Name of the Father, understand the whole Trinity, or the God­head indistinctly taken. Which how absurdly they do, though it may be understood by the Defence of the foregoing Argument, yet is it here also to be shewn; chiefly because the principal Patrons of that Opinion have proceeded so far, as to say, that by One Spirit, One Lord, One God, and Father, the very same is here understood, there being no distinction in the thing it self, but only in the words. How bold and absurd that Explication of Pauls words is, would be hard to utter. But so was it necessary for them to do, who were resolved to hold their Position, and to defend any thing which the Opinion that they had once set down, did require.

We forbear to urge, that three persons, every one whereof is a Spirit, Lord, God, Father, cannot possibly be one Spirit, Lord, God, Father, as they take it for granted.

Our demand only is, By what Example they extend the name of the Spirit or the Father to the three Persons? As for the name of the Father, we spake of it in the forgoing Chapter: from whence let those things be fetcht, that are pertinent to this matter.

You shall find that the name of the Spirit, one while put simply, another while with an additament, is in infinite places taken for the holy Spirit, but no where for the Father or Christ. Indeed the word Spirit is Joh. 4.24. once in the Scripture predicated of the Father 1 Cor. 15.45. 2 Cor. 3.17. twice in a different sence of Christ: but put subjectively, or designing a certain subject which is the Spirit, it is no where understood of Christ, nor the Father. Is it then lawful to reject the most usual signification of words, which it is very apparent that Paul here followed, and to impose such a one upon the words as is no where extant? Besides, what cause can be alledged, why the Apostle had rather repeat the same thing thrice, than distinctly to reckon up three distinct things, which might be expressed by the same words, and each whereof was very pertinent to the business in hand? why, I say, had he rather thrice to name God indistinctly, and only heap up words, than to mention first the Unity of the holy Spirit, under the name of One Spi­rit, than that of Christ, under the name of One Lord, afterward that of the Father, under this very name? Furthermore, why did the Apostle separate these three by the interposal of other things? why did he not at least conjoyn them, and speak of their Unity in a continued course? The other things which he joyntly mentioned, we see are divers, those which he mentioned apart, shall we think the [Page 25] same? We know indeed that the same thing is sometimes repeated with changes of words; but when like things are reckoned up in or­der, and each of the rest finished in particular members, or That is Points or Stops. Com­maes, the same thing is not wont to be repeated in divers members like to the rest; much less to be sundred by the interposal of like things and Commaes. No such example shall be alledged either out of prophane or sacred Writers Add hereunto, that the same thing is then wont to be by sacred Writers so significantly repeated, (as here it will come to pass) when in each word there is some peculi­ar force which here hath no place. Certainly there will be no force in the word Spirit; as shall presently be understood: And should the name of that One Lord here signifie the same with that One God, and so design the supream Monarch of all things, the whole force thereof would not only have been expressed by the name of that one God, but also presently explained more clearly, when after the name of the Fa­ther it is added, that he is over all; for it is signified that he only ru­leth over all with the highest Authority, that it may be thence under­stood, that the Father was deservedly so joyned with that One God, as that we should conceive him to be the same; as if he had said, There is one God and Father of all, as who is over all; for were not the Fa­ther that one God, he could not rule over all with the highest autho­rity. Now then, had not the force of the word Lord been sufficient­ly expressed in these words?

But what force would there be in the word Spirit? for it would signifie nothing but one spiritual Essence. Not to say, that the Es­sence of God would not presently be signified, let us even without reason suppose, that a Spirit, or Spiritual Essence, being mentioned, the Substance of God is by name understood? What doth this make to the unity of Christians? is it because they all believe the same to be? but neither is the mention of their faith made in this comma; and the unity thereof is peculiarly mentioned, whilst it is said, One Faith. How was it then pertinent to the matter, that there was one spiritual, add, if you please, divine Essence? nothing at all: for you must understand that the Unity of the Faithful, is not thence simply 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 [Page 26] 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 [Page 27] 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.

The Defence of the Argument.

HEre we do not much fear, lest any one of the Adversaries should so take these three, namely, The same Spirit, the same Lord, the same God, as we said, that some interpreted the like words, Ephes. 4. as, namely, to assert, That all these are common to the Trinity, and do not each of them denote divers persons, or things, but that the same Trinity is described in three divers manners. For, not to repeat what was said in that place to the Ephesians, where we saw that that one Spirit is openly distinguished from that one Lord, and that one God, and that each of these names doth design particular persons or things; whence it is easie to collect, the same is done in this place like­wise; which is very like to that of the Ephesians, partly in words, partly in regard of the Argument and drift: add hereunto, that by [Page 29] this means the word Spirit would not signifie the holy Spirit distin­guished from the Father and the Son, but would be taken for a spiri­tual Substance; as we saw some took it in that place of the Ephesi­ans. But besides, that this is other waies foolish, and foreign to the meaning of the Apostle, as may from thence appear; neither doth the foregoing nor following words endure that interpretation; for that the Apostle doth speak of the holy Spirit by name, which he ver. 7, 8, 9, 11, 13. af­terwards sundry times designeth by the simple name of the Spirit; all the circumstances do argue; for he began ver. 1. to speak of spiritual Gifts, or such as proceed from the holy Spirit, and in the very beginning proposed a Rule whereby the Corinthians should discern the holy Spirit from the impure one, and a divine In­spiration from a diabolical, which might perhaps pass under the name of a divine one. Which very Rule John also, though in other words, doth in his first Epistle 1 John 4.2, 3. deliver: for thus speaketh ver. 3. Paul, None speaking by the Spirit of God, calleth Jesus accursed: and none can call Jesus Lord, but by the holy Spirit. When he had spoken thus, he ad­deth, But there are diversities of Gifts, yet the same Spirit; where every one seeth that respect is had to that Spirit whereof immedi­ately before mention was made: as if he should say to all, who speak by the impulsion of Gods Spirit, this is common, that they call Christ Lord, but other wayes very divers are the Gifts flowing from that Spirit into men who have been filled with him, although that Spirit be the same, and not divers. Besides, afterwards, ver. 8, &c. he largely reckoneth up those various effects of the holy Spirit, to the end he might explain that which he had before said, namely, That there are diversities of Gifts, but the same Spirit. These things being apparent to every one, there is, as we said, no great fear, lest any one should seek to get out at that chink, although error is wont to seek all possible wayes to escape.

But there are not wanting some, who say that the holy Spirit is de­scribed in those three manners, and contend that he is one while cal­led, the same Spirit, another while the same Lord, another while the same God; but this Interpretation is easily confuted by the collation of this place with that to the † Ephesians, Ephes. 4.4, 5, 6. where the Apostle handling the same Argument, doth, as we have seen, manifestly distinguish one Spirit both from one Lord, and one God, and from the unity of each draws particular Arguments to demonstrate, that Christians ought very studiously to maintain spiritual union among themselves; and not for diversity of spiritual Gifts, or such like things, to sepa­rate one from another; which very thing is by the Apostle here also done; as any one may easily perceive if he read over this Chapter. Wherefore it is unsuitable, that the Apostle should here confound them, whom elsewhere, treating of the same thing, he had so open­ly distinguished; and when, using the same words, he might bring three distinct arguments very fit for his purpose, he would rather comprehend but one, drawn from the unity or sameness of the holy Spirit only: Besides, neither doth the thing it self, nor this place, ad­mit [Page 30] that the holy Spirit should be understood, when Paul saith, that there is the same Lord, or the same God; for he speaketh not only of some most high God, or Lord of Christians, by way of excellency so called, but of him, besides whom there is no other; for the meaning of the Apostle is not, that some most high God, or some Lord of Christi­ans, by way of excellency so called, is the same; but simply that, that most high God, and Lord, by way of excellency so called, is the same. But none is Ignorant, that besides the holy Spirit, the Father is the most high God, to whom in innumerable places, the name of God is attributed as proper unto him, as the Adversaries themselves confess, and is in this very place done, ver. 2: where the Spirit is cal­led the Spirit of God. Certainly, that the Spirit it self, is not there understood by the name of God, appeareth to every one. In like manner that there is also, besides the holy Spirit, a Lord, by way of excellency so called, innumerable places of the Scripture so teach; wherein, by the confession of the Adversaries themselves, the name of Lord is used as proper to Christ; yea, in this very place, in the same second verse, it is affirmed, that Jesus is the Lord. And how often, I pray you, in the Apostle is mention made of God the Father, and of the Lord Jesus Christ? Why then should we think, that in this place the holy Spirit being once already named, is understood, when afterward there is distinct mention made of Lord and God? Where­fore rather following the custom and analogy of the Scripture, we put a difference between God, Lord, and Spirit; as the same Apostle himself doth in the end of the latter Epistle to the Corinthians, where he speaketh thus, The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Love of God, and the Communion of the holy Spirit be with you all.

A further Confirmation and Defence of the Argument.

THat we may fully confirm this Argument that is to be proved, whereof we last spake; namely, That the Father only is that God: between whom and Men the Apostle saith, That Christ is the Mediator. For that Christ is the Mediator between the Father and Men, no man doubteth: but that he is the Mediator only between the Father and Men, many men deny; for they hold that Christ is the Mediator of the whole Trinity. But this Opinion cannot con­sist; for it would thence follow, that Christ, who is held the second Person of the Trinity, would be the Mediator of himself, or inter­veneth in the middle between himself, which is contradictious. Be­sides, Christ in this place is most openly distinguished from God, whose Mediator he is said to be. You will say, That Christ is a Mediator only according to the humane nature, and that there is no absurdity to hold, that Christ considered according to the humane Nature, is the Mediator of himself considered according to the divine Nature, and is righly distinguished from that one God. But this answer is not on­ly not brought, but also wholly rejected, by many of the very Adver­saries; for others altogether contend, that Christ according to both natures is Mediator: but some, although they are afraid to speak so, yet do they indeed say the same, for they refer that office to the whole Person of Christ, considered in its full latitude, or to Christ as he is both God and Man. As for the rest, who would have Christ accor­ding to the humane Nature only, to be Mediator; neither do they by this distinction escape the difficulty; for there are or have been some, who would have the very humane nature of Christ to be in­deed the Mediator; and contend, that it only is in Paul understood by the name of the Man Christ Jesus. O These, as the other Adversa­ries have observed, are necessitated to confess, that the humane Na­ture of Christ is a Person; for both Offices, such as Mediatorship is, agree to none but Persons; and the name of Man, and also of Christ Jesus, is the name of a Person. But if the humane Nature of Christ is a Person, he cannot be a Person of supream Deity; for there would be in him two Persons, a humane and a divine; I say, a divine one essentially. But that there are two Persons in Christ, all justly reject as Nestorian and contrary to the Scripture, and judged to be most ab­surd.

But there are others, and those far more numerous, who to avoid this Rock, deal more subtilly; for they say, that not the very humane Nature of Christ, but his Suppositum, or Person, is properly the Mediator; whereas the humane Nature, is the formal Principle of that Mediation; namely, that part of the Subject, which containeth in it self the proper cause of the action; which because it is somewhat obscure, is to be declared by an example. Philosophers teach, that [Page 32] a man properly doth understand, love, and hate, and also eat, drink, run, not the very soul or the body; but that he doth understand, love, and hate according to the soul, whereas he doth eat and drink accor­ding to the body: So that the formal principle of some humane actions is the soul, of others the body. In like manner the Adver­saries say, that the Suppositum or Person of Christ, that is, very whole Christ, is properly the Mediator, and consequently doth such things as pertain to a Mediator, but according to the humane Na­ture: and they farther add this reason, because, should not the very Person of Christ be the Mediator, the actions which he performs as Mediator, would not have infinite efficacy and value, nor satisfie God for the sins of men, deserving infinite punishment, which they think to be the proper Office of Christ the Mediator. But now because his Person, which is the very infinite God, doth properly perform these actions, though according to the humane nature, hence it cometh to pass that they have an infinite force and worth. But whilst they thus dispute, they again shut the hole to get out at, which they seemed to themselves by the distinction of natures to have opened: For if the very divine Person of Christ is Mediator, and performeth the actions proper to a Mediator, it is necessary that the divine Nature also should perform the same, and so Christ be a Mediator likewise according to the divine Nature: for as the Adversaries themselves confess, a di­vine Person doth not really differ from the divine Nature, nor add any thing to the Nature but a Subsistence. But a Subsistence hath of it self no powe [...] to act, but all the power to act resideth in the Nature: the subsistence is only a condition, without which the Nature doth not act: wherefore whatsoever the divine Person of Christ doth act, his divine Nature endued with a subsistence doth act. From whence it may be understood, first, that it is not rightly said, that the very Sup­positum, as they speak, or Person of Christ, doth do any thing accor­ding to the humane Nature, since the Person of Christ, if we follow the force of the Adversaries Opinion, is the very divine Nature, ha­ving its subsistence. But it is not rightly said, that the divine Nature subsisting, doth do something according to the humane Nature, since the humane Nature is not a part of the divine Nature. Whereas the word according, as it is used by the Adversaries, includeth the relati­on of a part; but if you take that expression, as if it were said, by the humane Nrture, then both the Father and holy Spirit might do some­thing according to the humane Nature of Christ, though perhaps the Father not as the nearest cause, and such as immediately moveth the humane Nature, but the holy Spirit dwelling therein, even as the nearest cause, and immediately moving that Nature.

Again, it is likewise understood from what hath been spoken, that that distinction of Natures cannot cause that it may rightly be said, that Christ is the Mediator of himself, not only because it is in­congruous to say, that his Person doth do any thing according to the humane Nature, if that Person be the very supream God; but also, because from that Opinion of the Adversaries it would follow, that [Page 33] the very divine Nature of Christ, doth primarily and properly dis­charge the Office of a Mediator, although it make use of the humane nature in this behalf; for it would be necessary, that the same divine Nature should intervene in the middle between it self and Men, which every one seeth to be absurd. Finally, it is understood, that this di­stinction of Natures cannot cause, that Christ the Mediator should be distinguished from God, if Christ be very God himself. Add hereun­to, that none but those things are simply distinguisht one from ano­ther: of whom it may be simply affirmed, that the one of them is not the other. But in this place God and Christ, who is said to be his Mediator, are simply distinguished one from another; wherefore neither is that God Christ, nor Christ that God; for the distinction of Natures cannot cause, that any thing should be simply denied of some subject, which for another Nature is to be simply affirmed thereof; as we will shew more at large Chap. 3. of the following Section. Wherefore neither can it cause, that any thing should be simply di­stinguished from that, which is to be simply predicated of it, inas­much as such a distinction as we have seen, doth tacitly involve a sim­ple negation of one in relation to the other.

Neither can any one here say, that Christ in the words of the Apo­stle, is therefore rightly distinguished from God, and so tacitly denied that he is that one God, because by the name of God, or that One God, the whole Trinity is understood, whereas Christ is not the whole Tri­nity: for by this reckoning it might be said, that the Father himself is not God, or that one God, because the Father is not the whole Tri­nity. But who could endure to hear one so speaking? certainly he would openly contradict the Scripture, who durst to speak in that manner. Besides, the very Adversaries themselves do not suppose the name of God, or that one God, to be collective; that is, so joyntly signifying three Persons, that it cannot be predicated of each apart: for in predicating, they hold that name hath the nature of an univer­sal, so that it may be predicated of every Person in particular. For instance; The Father is that one God, the Son is that one God, the holy Spirit is that one God; wherefore Christ was not therefore di­stinguisht from that one God, and so tacitly denied to be that one God, because he is not the whole Trinity, but because he simply is not that one God.

Some one will perhaps say, as it followeth not, That Christ is not a man, because he is the Mediator of men, since he is rather therefore a Man, because he is the Mediator of Men: Whence the Apostle ex­presly saith, That there is one Mediator of God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus: So neither from thence, that Christ is said to be the Mediator of God, I say, the most high and only God, doth it follow, that he is not the most high and only God. This, though it be more pertinent to the second Section of this book, shall notwithstanding receive a brief answer; especially, because the thing doth not need any long dispute: for who seeth not, when Christ is said to be the Mediator of Men, that by the name of Men, other men besides Christ are un­derstood, [Page 34] [...] [Page 35] [...] [Page 32] [...] [Page 33] [...] [Page 34] who were either wholy alienated from God, or not so joyn­ed, but that they might be more closely joyned in a new Covenant by a Mediator? but certainly Christ was not in the number of them; wherefore we may rather retort this Argument upon the Adversa­ries: for as Christ was not in the number of those men whose Medi­ator he was, nor is comprehended under them in this place of Paul; so neither is the same Christ that God, or comprehended under the name of that God whose Mediator he is said to be.

Finally, If the whole Trinity were comprehended under the name of that God whose Mediator Christ is; he would also be the Media­tor of the holy Spirit. But this is disentanious to the truth; for there would be open testimonies thereof extant in the Tables of the Covenant, whose mediator Christ was. But what are they? We re­quire not such places of Scripture wherein it is expresly said, that Christ was the mediator of the holy Spirit, but from which it may clearly appear, that Christ did so intervene in the midst between the holy Spirit and us, as it is needful that a mediator should intervene between them who are to be joyned in Covenant, and that he per­formed the proper part of that Office between him and us. Accor­ding to our Opinion, which the most learned Adversaries themselves think not to be false, although they say it is imperfect, It is the Office of a mediator between God and men, to be the messenger of God to men, and to strike a League between both, and so to cause, that men being instructed with the knowledge of the divine Will, may address themselves to worship God. But the Adversaries commonly suppose, that it is the proper Office of Christ the Mediator, by fully paying the punishment of all our sins, to appease the wrath of God kindled against men, and to intercede for them to God (which we think pertaineth to a Priest.) But where is it taught in the Scripture, that Christ was the messenger of the holy Spirit to men, stroke a League between him and men, and brought men indued with the knowledge of his Will to worship him?

Concerning the Father, there are most clear testimonies of the Scripture: some whereof we will alledge in the See Sect. 2. Chap. 4, 5, 15. following Section. Certainly Christ, without expressing the Fathers name, doth some­times John 8.26, 27, 28. describe him thus; He that sent me; and changeth this de­scription with the name of the Father. There is but one place, as far as I can remember, alledged out of the Scripture by the Adversa­ries, to prove that Christ was sent by the holy Spirit, and it is extant, Isa. 48.16. where the Prophet, according to the vulgar Translation, speaketh thus, And now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me. But besides, that the Prophet doth there indeed speak of Christ himself, as even some of the Adversaries have observed, and if any one deny that it is to be understood of Christ, the Adversaries will have no­thing to prove it withal: It is to be noted, that those words may be rightly rendred out of the Hebrew, as some latter Castel­lio. Interpreters have done, And now the Lord God hath sent me and his Spirit. Besides, though the vulgar interpretation be retained, it would be necessary to [Page 35] hold, that the holy Spirit did send Christ otherwise than the Lord God, from whom the holy Spirit is openly distinguished. But here we speak of such a manner, whereby Christ was the Embassador or Mes­senger of the holy Spirit, as is proper to God. In like manner, nei­ther is there any thing read of a Covenant-stroke, between the holy Spirit and men, to omit the other things that might be insisted upon. As for the places which the Adversaries alledge, wherein they think it is written, that Christ pacified God toward us: the Adversaries themselves are wont to understand them of the Father, not of the holy Spirit: concerning whom they produce no testimony: neither are they wont to affirm, that Christ doth make intercession for us to the holy Spirit, but to God the Father: whence 1 John 2.2. John saith, We have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, who is a Propitiation for our sins. It remaineth therefore, that not the whole Trinity, but the Father only be understood by the name of God in this place of ours; and so that one God, and the Father, be accounted for the same. But what need many words? the very similitude of this place, with those which we have formerly discust, wherein by the name of that One God, the Father is understood, or that one God, is said to be the Father, doth sufficiently teach every one, who will not be obstinate against the truth, that the same is here also to be under­stood. Furthermore, as in those places, 1 Cor. 12. and Ephes. 4. Paul would shew, that there is the same God of all Christians, not one God of these, another of those; so his purpose is here to shew, that there is the same God of all men, who accordingly is so far forth alike affected towards all, as that he would have all saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, and not some to be saved, and others to pe­rish. Whence likewise he sent one Mediator unto men, to strike the same League with all in his Name, and confirm it with his Blood, and so deliver all out of the bondage of sin and death, having, as it were, given a price, and testifie unto all the Soveraign Love of God to­wards them.

This place putteth us also in mind of that which is extant also in the same Apostle, Rom 3.30. Rom. 3.30. where being about to shew that God will alike justifie by faith all men, both Jews & Gentiles, he saith thus, For there is One God, who will justifie the Circumcision (that is, the cir­cumcised, or Jews) by Faith, and the Ʋncircumcision (that is the un­circumcised, or Gentiles) by Faith: Now he speaketh of that God, of whom he had hitherto spoke many things, and to whom he had ascribed the act of justifying, whom he sundry times most openly distinguisheth from Christ, amongst other things, affirming of him, that he appointed Christ Ver. 25. a Propitiatory. But that he is no other than the Father of Christ, all seem to acknowledge. Certainly that he is not the whole Trinity, nor Christ himself, nor the holy Spirit, may be shewn, partly by the same, and partly by such like Reasons as we have used in the place immediately foregoing, as the prudent Rea­der will by himself understand. Wherefore we will no longer dwell her [...]upon, especially because we would have this place to be only an accession of the former.

The Confirmation and Defence of the Argument.

NOw that we may shew, that the Father only is somewhere design­ed in such a manner, we will begin from that place wherein mention is made of the only wise God, as being very clear and most suitable to that which is to be proved. And you shall find it at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, where the Apostle saith, First place Rom. 16.27. To the only [Page 37] wise God through Jesus Christ be honour and glory for ever and ever. That in this place by the name of the only wise God, no other is understood but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, may easily be perceived. For it is clear that Christ is not understood by that name, since he is most openly distinguished, from the only wise God, and that as the middle cause of glory and honour from the ultimate scope and object of the same. Nor also the whole Trinity held by the Adversaries. Other­wise to Christ, who would be contained in that Trinity, glory would be attributed through himself, as through the middle cause. For as to the refuge of two Natures, that hath no more place here, than in the former Testimony: since Christ is here considered with relation to the Of­fice which he sustaineth, in respect whereof he is the middle cause of divine Worship. Whence the Adversaries themselves commonly hold, when we are said to worship God through Christ, that Christ is con­sidered as Mediator. But Mediation, as also other Offices, agreeth to none but a person as he is such. Wherefore one must either say, that the humane Nature of Christ is a Person, and to be understood by the name of Jesus Christ; or hold that Christ here is considered, according to his divine Nature also; or that it is primarily and direct­ly here understood by the name of Jesus Christ, as hath been shewn in the precedent Chapter. It remaineth, that by the name of the on­ly wise God, a certain divine Person, and that Superior to Christ, be un­derstood. For he is more worthy, to whom glory is given as to the ultimate scope, than the middle cause, through which worship is ex­hibited to him. But there is no such Person besides the Father. It is in vain here to think of the holy Spirit: for to omit, that it is not gran­ted, that the holy Spirit is so much as a Person, this is certain, that the holy Spirit, is not a Person worthier than the Person of Christ: But we have shewn that that Person is such to whom glory is attribu­ted through Christ. Besides, that the Father is worshipped by Christ, is both from See a­mong o­ther pla­ces, Eph. 5.20. Col. 3.17: Scripture, and the confession of all, very manifest. But that the holy Spirit is worshipped by Christ, what place of the Scripture, I say not doth affirm, but intimate? yea it is so far from saying that he is to be worshipped through Christ, that it never simply saith, that glory is to be attributed unto him, especially in that manner which we here understand; nor do we there read that it was ever attributed to him by so much as one man, concerning which thing more largely in its own Sect. 3. Chap. 2. place. Neither indeed is there any cause if a certain Person is here to be understood, why we should pass by the Father, and understand the holy Spirit, since glory is here attributed to God as the prime Au­thor of Salvation, and of the things belonging thereunto. Now that all those things are wont to be ascribed to the Father, as the prime Au­thor, if not only, yet chiefly the Adversaries themselves do not de­ny, and is most apparent from that place of Paul, where he saith that the Father is he, 1 Cor. 8.6. Rom. 11. ult. Of whom are all things. Whence also he constitu­teth him the ultimate end of the worship and honour that proceedeth from us; for he is the same, of whom are all things, and to whom are all things. The second The second place John 5.44. of those places is extant in John, where [Page 38] amongst other things Christ speaketh thus unto the Jews, How can ye believe, who receive Glory from one another, and seek not the glory which is from the only God? In which place that the Father is under­stood by the name of the only God; First, the whole context shew­eth where Christ promiscuously mentioneth one while God, another while his Father, neither is there any the least cause why we should suspect that Christ in the same speech passed from one person to ano­ther: since none can deny that all things which are attributed unto that God, are most rightly ascribed to the Father. See now the pre­cedent and following verses, yea that whole conference with the Jews, beginning from the 17th verse. Again, Christ speaketh of that God, whom the Jews acknowledge for God, and concerning whom it was granted amongst them, that the Glory proceeding from him is to be sought, although they neglect to seek it. For he speaketh of a thing which ought to precede Faith on Christ; whereof because the Jews were destitute, they are therefore here by Christ himself pronoun­ced unfit to believe on him. But the Jews did then acknowledge for God, no other besides him, whom Christ called his Father. For that they did either imagine a Trinity to be God, or the Son, or holy Spi­Spirit, I suppose there is none that dareth affirm. But Christ affirm­eth that of his Father, chap. 8.54. where he saith, It is my Father that glorifieth me, whom ye say that he is your God. It is therefore apparent that in this place, that only God is the same with the Father, and the one of no larger extent than the other.

The third place is extant in Third place, Jude 4. Jude, who if you regard his greek words, saith, that false Teachers, who had already insinuated them­selves into the Church, do deny the only master God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. For we have already See the Book of God and his Attri­butes, chap. 14. elsewhere shewn not Christ, as many of the Adversaries suppose, but some other is understood by the only master God. For first, if he had understood Christ, there would have been no need after he had called him the only master God, to name him our Lord; especially since the word Master doth comprehend all the force of the word Lord. Again, neither can Christ be called the on­ly master God, since his Father so is, and is so See Luke 2.29, &c. Acts 4.24. com­pare v. 24, with ver. 30. called Master, that be­ing designed by this very name, he is distinguished from Christ. Nei­ther is Christ any where called Master (the greek word being [...] which Jude maketh use of) in the whole new Testament; but the Fa­ther is found so stiled. No marvel, because in the great House of God Christ it not the Master, but the Son of the Master of the Family; and hath God for his Head, as shall be spoken in its place. But the Ma­ster of the Family hath not a Head in the House, but is therein the chiefest Lord and Governour. Now whereas some urge the Unity of the Article set before those words, the only Master God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, they prevail nothing thereby. For the Unity of an Arti­cle set before divers names, doth not presently argue the Identity of the thing, but often times doth only intimate some affinity or con­junction of divers things; as namely of those which concur to the [Page 39] same action, or about which the same action is conversant. See Mat. 3.7. & 16.1. & 6.17. & 1.27. & 27.56. Ephes. 2.20. & 3.5. & 4.11. 1 Thes. 1.8. Heb. 9.19. Certainly See Be­za's An­not. on Ephes. 4.11. & 5.5. some very learned men among the Adversaries, when they had in this Argument urged the unity of the Article, elsewhere pronounce the reason fetched from thence to be but weak. It is therefore apparent that Christ is not there under­stood by the name of the only Master God. Moreover, neither can we understand by that name the whole Trinity, which is held; other­wise what need was there, after it had been said that they do deny the whole Trinity, that is the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, to add by name that they do deny our Lord Jesus Christ? As if that had not been sufficiently said, when it was asserted that they deny the whole Trinity. You will say that the whole Trinity was but confusedly, and therefore obscurely signified by the appellation of the only Master God; therefore something more distinct was to be added for explications sake. We answer, if that reason had any moment, not only the men­tion of our Lord Jesus Christ, but also the Father, and holy Spirit, should have been expresly made, since they are no less indistinctly and confusedly (if the Opinion of the Adversaries be true) signified by the name of the only Master God, then Christ: To omit, that if Christ is dinstinguished from that only Master God, it is agreeable that Person should be adjoyned to another person, and not when three persons have been confusedly taken, one person, and that of the number of those three, be subjoyned. But if some certain Person is to be under­stood, who is there that dares affirm of the holy Spirit (to omit now the question concerning his personality) that he, the Father being pas­sed by, is joyned with Christ as one that rules, and set before him not only in the order of the words, but also in dignity of title? For the Scripture in very many places joyneth the Father, as Supream Mo­narch with Christ, without making mention of the holy Spirit, and set him before Christ both in order of words and dignity of title: but never passeth by the Father, joyning the holy Spirit, as Lord and Prince, with Christ; neither indeed doth it otherwise, unless it be ve­ry seldom, joyn the holy Spirit with Christ; so far is it from setting him before Christ in order of words or dignity of title. Not to say that the Father is expresly called Master, the holy Spirit no where; much less is the holy Spirit designed by the name of the only Master. Yea, neither is the name of God, any where read to be attributed unto him. Concerning which in its Sect. 3. Chap. 1. place

The Defence of the Argument.

NOw if any one say, that the divine Essence only, which is one in number, was represented by the Image of him that sate upon the Throne, and not some Person; he is exceedingly mistaken. For besides the very Image of one sitting upon a Throne, is indeed the Image of a Person, and that one Person: the actions which are attri­buted to him that sitteth on the Throne, do altogether demonstrate that he is an intelligent Suppositum; that is, a Person. Since actions are commonly said in the Schools to agree unto none but Suppositums: But those actions which are attributed to him that sitteth upon the Throne, are suitable to none but an intelligent Nature. Not to say that very many Testimonies of the Scripture, concerning which we shall afterwards Sect. 2. Chap. 18. have occasion to speak, being compared with these, sufficiently shew that the Father of Jesus Christ is understood by him that sitteth upon the Throne: for they manifestly affirm, that he gave to Christ Authority, Honour, and a Kingdom, with all other things, without any where hinting that some other gave all these things to Christ.

As for the distinction of Christ, and him that sitteth upon the Throne, no man can justly say, that Christ is according to his humane Nature only distinguished from him, being according to the divine Nature the same with him. For first, according to a better Nature, in regard of which, & which only, he is believed to be a Person, were the same with him that sitteth upon the Throne; he could not be simply distinguish­ed from him, for that would be all one as if he should simply be deni­ed to be him that sitteth upon the Throne. But that cannot simply be denied of any whole, which for another nature or part is simply to be affirmed of the same, although it agree not thereunto according to some one nature, especially the less excellent, as shall be understood from what we will afterwards speak, Sect. 2. Chap. 3. How, I pray you, could it come to pass, that in the whole description of both Visions, there should not be even the least hint, from whence it might appear, that Christ is the same with him that sitteth upon the Throne, and that the diversities of Natures should be openly expressed, but the unity in the knowledge whereof there was no less moment, not at all? A­gain, since to Christ, as he is distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne, actions agreeing to Persons are attributed, as is manifest from the very Visions themselves, especially the latter; it is apparent that he is considered as a Person, and so distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne. But the Person of Christ according to the [Page 42] Opinion of the Adversaries, is the second of the Deity; and so the very divine Nature it self having its substance. Wherefore if they will speak agreeable to themselves, they must confess that it likewise is distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne: Or if they will not confess this, they must with us assert, that the Person of Christ is not the second Person of the Trinity, which they hold Further­more, who would believe, that when divine Honour was ascribed to Christ, he was considered only according to his less excellent nature, and not rather whole, or according to the Nature most worthy of that Honour? but when that Honour is ascribed unto him, he is most open­ly considered as distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne. Wherefore whole Christ, even in respect of that other Nature, or a part, which was in him most excellent, must of necessity be distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne. Finally, If Christ according to a divine Nature, were one and the same with him that sitteth upon the Throne, either more persons, namely, that of the Father and the Son (not to speak any thing now concerning the holy Spirit) were to be expressed as sitting on the Throne; or it ought to be held, that the Father and the Son are the same, not only in Essence, but also in Person. Since there is no doubt, that the Person of the Father was expres [...]ed by him that sitteth upon the Throne. But that there is the same Person of the Father and the Son, all reject, and justly condemn, as a Sabellian Errour.

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 respect of the humane Nature is distinguished from God, not in respect of the divine.

The first exception for two causes chiefly, is of no moment. One is, that it would thence follow, either that there are two most high Gods, namely, the Father and Christ; or that these twain, though di­stinct in persons, do yet make, one God. The first will not be gran­ted by the very Adversaries. The latter also cannot consist, because the name of God, is the name of a Person. In as much as it signifieth him that exerciseth Imperial Power over others; and when it is put for the most high God, it designeth him, who with supream Imperial Power governeth all things. But this agreeth to none but a Person, or, as the Schools, a Suppositum endued with understanding, which is the definition of a person. Wherefore he that saith that there is one most high God, saith that there is one Person with supream impe­rial power ruling all things: and he that saith that there are many such persons, saith that there are many most high Gods. Of which [...]sing, more in the second Book. The other Reason is, because if the name of God taken for the most high God, is common to Christ with the Fa­ther, there is no cause why it should be peculiarly taken for the Fa­ther; and so Christ be distinguished from God. For how shall a word common to the Father & the Son, distinguish the one from the other? should he in their opinion be thought to speak rightly, who should distinguish the Father from God simply put? Who ever, for exam­ples sake, did read, the Father of God, the Father sent God, the Father gave God, God went out from the Father, if ye believe in the Father, be­lieve also in God, as we read that Christ is the Son of God, that God sent and gave his Son, that Christ came out from God; and he himself pronounceth, If ye believe in God, belive also in me? Do not the very ears of men reject those first forms of speaking, John 3.16, 17. & 13.3. and 14.1. as disagreeable to the use of the Scripture, yea, and of them with whom we have to do? But if you say, that a common word is therefore peculiarly attribu­ted to the Father, because he is the Fountain and Original of Divini­ty; [Page 49] since the Son and holy Spirit receive their Deity from him: we have already shewn Sect. 1. Chap. 1. before, that they who answer so, do either con­tradict themselves, and overthrow their own Tenet concerning a Tri­nity of Persons in one substance of God, or say nothing, and obtrude upon us empty words. Wherefore we refer the Reader thither.

As for the latter exception, which is, That Christ according to the humane Nature, not according to the divine, is distinguished from God absolutely put: this also cannot consist. For first we have already shewn Sect. 1: Cap. 6, 8. above, that Christ cannot simply be distinguished from God, if he himself be the most high God, although according to some one Na­ture he be not so. Again, according to the Opinion of the Adversa­ries, in many of the Places quoted by us, or in such as are like to them, Christ is considered according to the divine Nature; as when he is cal­led the Son of God, or the only begotten Son of God; and also when he is said to have been in the beginning with God, to have been sent from God into the world, to have descended from Heaven, to have come out from God, to be equal to God. The greatest part also re­fer hereunto those expressions, that he is called the Image of God, the Word or Speech of God, and that he is said to be in the form of God. Wherefore it is necessary to say, that in such places, whole Christ, how great soever he is, is distinguished from God, and not in respect of one nature only. But from such places, judgment may easily be made of the rest. For why should one seek a different reason of distinction, where it is spoken of the same person, when the same person may every where have place? Add hereunto, that we will afterwards shew that the holy Spirit also is in the same manner also distinguished from God simply put, as we saw Christ was distinguished from him. But if the distinction be the same, why not also the reason of the distinction; especially if the same may have place in both, as the Adversaries either confess, or are forced to confess. For what reason of distinction they hold in the holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, as they be­lieve, the same must they confess may also be applied unto Christ. But if you fly to a distinction of natures, there will be a far different rea­son of distinction in both. For this hath no place in the holy Spirit. Wherefore the reason of the distinction between God and Christ, is not to be placed in this, but in some other thing. But we have shewn that no other can be imagined, than that the Father only be acknow­ledged the Most High God. And let these things suffice to have been spoken concerning the first Argument.

The Defence of the Argument.

BUt there will not be wanting some, who will say that Christ in­deed, as he is the Son, or in regard of his Person, is from the Fa­ther; but not as he is God, or in regard of his divine Nature. For that in respect hereof, he, no less than the Father, is from himself, and as they speak, Self-God. Whence it followeth, that a Prerogative and Excellency, doth agree to the Father above the Son, as he is the Son, not as God. But this hinders not, but that Christ may be the most high God. But this answer is of no efficacy. For that very thing which they confess, is sufficient for us to prove that which they confess not. For first, we have shewn, that none can in any sort be more ex­cellent, than the most high God. But they confess, and are forced to confess, that the Father is more excellent than the Son, as he is the Son, or in regard of his Person. Add hereunto, that the most high God is in no sort whatsoever, that is, neither in regard of his nature, nor of his person (that we may now in this manner, distinguish these toge­ther with the Adversaries) from another. For whatsoever is from another, dependeth on an efficient cause. But the most high God in no regard dependeth on an efficient cause. Wherefore if Christ is in regard of his Person, distinguished from the Father, he cannot be the most high God Besides, it is very ill done of them, so to distinguish the Person of Christ from his divine Nature, as to say, that the one is from the Father, the other not. For a divine Person, is nothing but the divine Nature subsisting, as we will shew in the second Book, and ma­ny of the Adversaries confess. For whereas they, with whom we have now to do, say, that a person, as such, is nothing but a manner of subsisting, which others call a subsistence; they are herein won­derfully mistaken. And they may learn it even from thence, in that the person of the Father doth generate, that of the Son is generated.

But a manner of existence, or subsistence, doth neither generate, nor is by it self generated, but the very nature subsisting. Furthermore, as from other places, so chiefly from John 10.36, &c. it sufficiently appeareth, that Christ may of right have the name of God given him, as he is the Son of God. For Christ there sheweth that, by the example of them, whom God himself heretofore called gods, he, whom the Father had sanctified, and sent into the world, may much more be called the Son of God. Where, for the same reason, he might conclude, that he might much more be called a God, although he con­cluded it not, that he might by this means shew, that he assumed not to himself supream Divinity, but, as we have elsewhere explained it, do [...] [Page 52] distinguish himself from the most high God, by this very thing, in that he had called God his Father, and so affirmed himself to be his Son. Certainly, those very persons also whom Christ alledged for an exam­ple, were, in that place of the Scripture which Christ did in part al­ledge, for the same reason called both gods, and sons of God. This difference only those appellations carry with them, that the former doth not by it self distinguish those persons from the most high God, whereas the latter doth distinguish them: the one doth not express the dependency of their Divinity on the supream God, although it ex­presseth the Divinity, which doth depend on the supream God [...] the other doth also express that dependency. From whence it is under­stood, that if Christ, as the Son of God, is from the Father, and so the Father is more excellent than he, Christ also as God, is from the Fa­ther, and so the Father is more excellent than he. Last of all, if Christ received not his nature from the Father, he was not properly generated. For whosoever is properly generated by another, recei­veth his nature from another. But they, as also other Adversaries, do altogether hold and urge, that the Son was properly generated by the Father, and that otherwise he would not be the only begotten Son of God. Wherefore they argue against themselves, whilst they deny that Christ received his divine Nature from the Father, and af­firm, that he hath his Person only from him. Though even in that they are not alwayes very constant to themselves, as hath been obser­ved by other Adversaries.

For as much as none doth or can here fly to the distinction of na­tures in Christ, we threfore touch it not.

The Defence of the Argument.

TO this Argument a double answer is wont to be brought, neither whereof is indeed altogether direct; since one maketh a shew of weakning the Major; the other by either distinguishing or limit­ing the Premises, endeavoureth to make the whole Argument inval­lid. For some answer, that Christ therefore saith, he can do nothing of himself, because he hath not the power of working from himself, but receiveth it from the Father, by the eternal generation out of his Essence; and therefore they confess that Christ here speaketh of him­self according to his Divinity, and consequently as he is the most high God: and they accordingly deny, that there is any repugnancy for one to be the most high God, and to do all things not of himself, but by a power received from another. Others answer, that Christ here speak­eth of himself according to his humane Nature, not according to his divine. So that from this Argument no other thing will follow, than that Christ according to his humane Nature, is not the most high God; which themselves willingly confess.

As to the former answer, that cannot consist, for two causes chiefly. The first is, in that it doth sundry wayes involve a contradiction, For first, it maketh the same person both to be the most high God, and not the most high God, the most high God expresly, not the most high God, in that it affirmeth him to do all things by a power received from another. For whilst it holdeth so, it denieth him to be the first cause of all things, and so to be the most high God, as appeareth from what was said before. Again, whilst it saith that Christ was generated from all Eternity, it together saith, both that he is Eternal, and not Eter­nal; Eternal expresly, not Eternal tacitly, whilst it affirmeth him to be generated. Besides, whilst he saith that he was indeed generated out of the Essence of the Father, but so, that he hath the same nume­rical Essence; yet saith that the same Christ is generated of himself. Since every one, as we hinted before, is the same with his Essence, and the Adversaries confess, that the divine Persons are really the same with the Essence, although they would have them really to dif­fer amongst themselves. The second cause, for which the former an­swer cannot consist, is that such an explication of the words of Christ, is repugnant to the Text, and thirdly to the words of the following verse, wherein Christ being about to explain the reason of his saying, speaketh thus, Ver. 20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things which himself doth; and will shew him greater works than these, that you marvel. Now that the whole business may be the plainer, some things are here beforehand to be observed. First, these twain as we have already hinted, are opposed, so to do something of himself, and so to do something if he see the Father doing it; and Christ doth therefore deny the first of himself, because he affirmeth the latter of himself. Again, [Page 55] so to do somewhat of ones self, is to work by a power, wisdom and au­thority of his own, and not received from another. Whence it fol­loweth, that to do something, if he see the Father do it, is to do it not by a power, wisdom and authority of his own, but such as was recei­ved from the Father. For Christ in this place compareth the Father to an Artist, which by his own example instructeth his Son, and most faithfully sheweth him what is to be done, and by that means causeth that he likewise may do the same: but himself he likeneth to such a Son, that beholdeth the things shewn unto him by the Father, and learneth, and imitateth them; namely, because he received from him that power, wisdom and authority whereof we have spoken. By giving this therefore, the Father doth shew, by receiving the same the Son doth see. Whence we argue thus; if Christ did therefore de­ny, that he can to do any thing of himself, because he received from the Father by eternal generation, a Power of doing all things; it would follow that the Father had by that generation shewn him all things. But that this is false, appeareth sundry wayes: first, because it would follow from thence, that all things had been absolutely, without the exception of any thing, been already shewn to Christ from eternity, and that nothing more, much less something greater, could be further shewn unto him, by that eternal Generation, out of the Essence of God. The Son had received the Essence of God himself, and conse­quently also his Omnipotency, together with all his natural Properties, as indeed the Adversaries do believe. But to him that hath these, nothing farther can be shewn, or a power of doing nothing, can any farther be given to him no more than to the Father himself. ver: 20 But Christ, as we see manifestly, affirmeth, that the Father would yet shew unto him greater things than these which he had already shewn; that is, give him a faculty of performing greater works. From whence it appear­eth, that all things had not been absolutely as yet shewn unto him. Add hereunto, that Christ being about to expla [...]n those greater works which the Father would shew unto him, mentioneth two, whereof the one is as it were subservient to the other; namely, a faculty of quickning the dead, and authority of judging, ver. 21, 22. But Christ afterward affirmeth, that these were therefore, that is, should cer­tainly be given unto him, because he is the Son of Man, ver. 27. from whence it would follow, that greater works were by the Father shewn to Christ, because he is the Son of Man, than by that eternal Genera­tion out of the Essence of God, which maketh him to be the most high God; which overthroweth it self. Besides, if the Father by eter­nal Generation out of his own Essence, had given that faculty of work­ing to the Son, he would not have given it of his own free will, but of necessity. For that generation is by the Adversaries held to be alto­gether necessary, and consequently all things that are necessarily con­tained therein, or necessarily conjoyned therewith. And indeed it is necessary they should so hold, otherwise that generation would not be eternal. For whatsoever is simply from eternity, is also simply necessary. What dependeth upon the free will of God, cannot be [Page 56] eternal, because the free act of his will, doth in time precede it. Now Christ himself in the words, ver. 20. alledged by us, sheweth that the Father did of his own free will, not by necessi [...]y, give unto him that faculty, or as he himself speaketh, shewed him all things. For he saith, The Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things which him­self doth; as if you should say, and therefore, namely, because he loveth the Son, he sheweth him all things which himself doth: as eve­ry one doth by himself perceive. But whatsoever God doth out of his love towards any one, he doth it of his own free will; what he doth out of necessity, so that he cannot but do it, he doth not out of love. Finally, when the Father is said to shew all things unto the Son, and that out of his love towards him, it is apparent that the Son alrea­dy existed when he shewed him, and that he is looked upon as al­ready begotten, and not as one who is in that very act begotten. But in that generation Christ is not considered as already begotten (other­wise he would not be begotten) but as one who is in that very act produced. Wherefore the shewing was not made by generation.

The Di­stinction of Natures in Christ exami­ned.As for the latter answer, which by a distinction of Natures in Christ, laboureth to evade the force of our Argument, because the Adversa­ries do most frequently make use of it; therefore we must for once something more diligently examine it, that the Reader may in the rest, where the same answer occurreth, be referred hither. But for­asmuch as the Adversaries commonly think, that they have the Apo­stles for the Authors of that Description, and consequently also of their answer, in that the Apostles say, that some things agree to Christ, ac­cording to the fl [...]sh. Therefore in the first place we will shew how much the Adversaries are mistaken therein. Then we will teach that that Distinction is of no moment to solve our Argument fetcht out of John 5.19. and other the like Finally, that the very saying that some things agree unto Christ according to the humane Nature, and others not, doth, as we will shew, quite overthrow the Opinion of the Ad­versaries touching Christ. To the intent therefore that we may dis­patch what we first proposed, of those places in which the Adversa­ries commonly think, that they have an example of their destinction, the first is extant Acts 2.30. where Peter saith, that God swore to Da­vid, that he would raise up Christ out of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh. The second place is extant, Rom. 1.3. where Paul saith, that the Son of God was made of the Seed of David according to the flesh. The third is in chap. 9. of the same Epistle, where it is said, that Christ was according to the flesh of the Fathers. Now the Adversaries think, that according to the flesh, is according to the humane nature, and that to this member of the distinction is tacitly opposed, according to the Divine Nature; especially, because Paul, when he had in that place Rom. 9. said, that Christ was of the Fathers according to the flesh, he addeth these words, who is over all, God (or rather a God) blessed for evermore; when he seemeth not obscurely to afford the other mem­ber of that distinction, namely, according to the divine Nature: But how much the Adversaries are mistaken in the sence of that distincti­on, [Page 57] of the Apostles use, is thence apparent; namely, that whereas those words, according to the flesh, do frequently occur in the Scripture, yet are they never opposed to these, according to the divine Nature, but alwayes to these, according to the Spirit, which have a far differing meaning. Thus Paul (to run over those places only whi [...]h come nearer to our purpose) in the same Epistle to the Romans, chap. 4.1. saith, What then shall we say, that Abraham our Father according to the flesh found? For so rightly if you consider the sence, the antient In­terpreter hath ordered the words. Where you see, that Paul saith, Abraham was his Father, as well as the Father of the other Jews, ac­cord [...]ng to the fl [...]sh, which every one seeth to be like this expression, that Christ was raised up of the fruit of Davids loins, or made of the Seed of David, or to be of the Fathers ver. 11 according to the flesh, to intimate that he here considereth him not as a spiritual Father. For though Abraham was also the Spiritual Father of the Apostles, yet was he not also the Father of the other Jews in general, with whom the Apo­stle joyneth himself in this place. For he teacheth both in the same chapter afterwards, Gal. 1.7. and elsewhere, yea in the ninth chapter Ver. 7, 8. of this Epistle, That Abraham is the true Father of none but Believers, and that they only are the true seed of Abraham, to which the spiritual Promises of God belong. In the same manner, Rom. 9. where Christ is said to be of the Fathers according to the flesh; a little before, ver. 3. the Apostle calleth the Jews, his kindred according to the flesh, tacitly oppe­sing them to his spiritual kindred, or to his kindred according to the spirit. Thus, 1 Cor. 10.18. he commandeth to view Israel according to the flesh, likewise opposing it to Israel according to the Spirit; that is, the Christian People; for the People of Christ is the true and spiritu­al Israel of God, Rom. 9.6. Gal. 6.16. thus, 2 Cor. 5.16. he saith, that he henceforth knoweth (that is, esteemed and approved) none accor­ding to the flesh; and if he hath at any time known Christ according to the flesh, he now no longer knoweth him: where likewise according to the flesh, is tacitly opposed to that which is according to the spirit, and is to be looked upon either in Christ, or in them who are in Christ. Likewise that place is very notable, which is extant, Gal. 4. where one son of Abraham, namely, Ishmael, is said to be born according to the flesh, ver. 23, 29. but the other, namely, Isaac, according to the spirit, ver. 20. whereby is meant not according to the divine Nature, but by the divine Power: which for the divine Promises given before, did inter­vene to accomplish his nativity, compare ver. 23, 28. and Rom. 9.8, 9. although the same Isaac, if his generation be compared with the spi­ritual generation of the Christians, not with the birth of Ishmael, it may be said of right, to be made according to the flesh. Thus also Masters according to the flesh, are fleshly Masters, as the old Interpre­ter hath it, Col. 3.22. that is, such as have power to command only in things according to the flesh, and this earthly life, but not spiritual things. And lest there should be any place for an evasion, that very place, Rom. 1.3. which the Adversaries think make for them, doth confirm our Opinion. For thus saith the Apostle, Who was made of [Page 58] the Seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared (Gr. defi­ned or constituted) Son of God in power according to the Spirit of Holi­ness by the resurrection from the dead. You see that these words, accor­ding to the flesh, are opposed to those according to the Spirit of Holi­ness; that is, the Spirit wherewith Christ was sanctified, and that the discourse is concerning the matter, whereof Christ was made the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead. Concerning which, we will speak more hereafter, chap. 31. but according to the Spirit, doth no where signifie according to the divine Nature; neither doth the word Spirit, put subjectively either alone, or with some addition, any where denote the divine Nature or Essence. And the very word Sanctifica­tion in this place applied unto it, may sufficiently intimate to every one, that it is not here spoken concerning the holy Spirit, the divine Vertue, whereby Christ was raised from the dead, and appointed hea­venly King of the People of God, and consequently made the Son of God by way of excellency. For we shall see hereafter, chap. 31. that, oftentimes in the Scripture, to be Christ, or the King anointed by God, is all one with being the Son of God; from whence also may be un­derstood, another passage in the same Epistle, chap. 9.5. For in what manner Christ is the Son of God, in the most perfect manner so called, in the same also is he a God over all to be blessed for evermore. But he was made or constituted the Son of God in power by the resurrection from the dead; wherefore a God over all to be blessed for ever more. And in­deed those words according to the flesh, annexed to the precedent ones, seem to require that the other members of distinction, should in the following member Or sen­tence. be understood, it is no hard thing to discern, that what we would have, is rather to be understood, than what was ac­cording to the Adversaries Opinion to be supplied. For these words, according to the divine Nature, would be childishly understood. For this the Apostle must be imagined to speak, Who according to the divine Nature, is God over all blessed for evermore. But when you have men­tioned the divine Nature or Essence, you have indeed already menti­oned that which is annexed But the absurdity ceaseth if you under­stand that which we say the Apostle expresseth, chap. 1. of the same Epistle; namely, according to the Spirit of Holiness. I omit that nei­ther Peter in that whole Sermon of his, wherein he affirmeth that God swore to David, that he would from the fruit of his loins, raise up Christ according to the flesh, that argueth a divine Essence in Christ, but the resurrection and exaltation of Christ wrought by divine Ver­tue, whereby he became the Son of God in the most perfect manner, as we have already seen in part, and will more fully shew in its place; wherefore there is nothing in those places, that may establish the distin­ction of the Adversaries. But if there be nothing in them that may establish it, although among others they seem most of all to confirm it, it may of right be concluded, that neither is there any else in the Scrip­tures that may establish it, and consequently that it should not be ap­plied to restrain so many places of the Scripture, speaking simply, and used to turn them from their plain meaning. But now we must come [Page 59] to that which we have undertaken to prove in the second place, name­ly, that this distinction is of no moment to invalide our Argument drawn from that place, John 5.19. or others like thereunto.

For first, the custom of speaking, doth not admit that what may or ought simply to be admitted of any whole should simply be denied of the same, although it agreeth to the whole, according to one part only, and not according to the other. For who for example sake, will simply deny, that a man doth eat, drink, or is fleshly, thick, tall, or of a low stature, because his soul, or he according to his soul, doth not eat, drink, nor is fleshly, thick, tall, or on the contrary of a short sta­ture? Although the soul be the better part of a man, and those things agree to him only according to the body. But if Christ be the most high God, it is to be simply affirmed of him, that he can do all things of himself; as was before shewn: neither do the Adversaries, who say, that these words of Christ whereof we treat, are to be understood of him according to the humane nature only, not deny, but rather urge it. For neither are they wont less simply to affirm of Christ, what agreeth unto him, according to his better Nature, than to deny what agreeth not to him, according to his inferiour Nature. Wherefore if Christ were the most high God, it could not be simply or without any limitation, and respect of a certain nature, expresly added, be denied of him that he can do any thing of himself. Since therefore it is denied, it is apparent that he is not the most high God. Add here­unto, that Christ in this place is described by the name of the Son of God and that in respect of God. But most of the Adversaries refer this description only to the divine Nature of Christ, all refer it to it chief­ly. Wherefore so much the less credit is it, that that is here simply de­nied of him which agreeth to him according to the divine Nature, and consequently both may and ought to be simply affirmed of the Son of God. Certainly that would be all one as if you should say, that a man or a substance endued with understanding, cannot understand, reason, re­member, because he cannot do these things according to the body.

But against that which we have said, some of the Adversaries are wont to alledge, that a man according to his soul is immortal, or in­corruptible, and yet it is simply denied, that he is immortal or incor­ruptible. But it is to be observed that we speak of those Attributes, which both may and are wont to be affirmed of the whole Subject simply and without limitation, although they do primarily and by themselves only agree to one part thereof, so to the whole only by consequence. But to be immortal or incorruptible, as the very Ad­versaries together with us confess, is not simply and without limitati­on affirmed of the whole man; namely, because we see the whol [...] composition of man to be dissolved, and to die, and be corrupted, al­though the Spirit remain after it. But the same Adversaries contend, that as all the attributes which agree to the Humanity of Christ, are wont simply & without limitation to be affirmed of Christ, for exam­ple sake, that he was conceived, born of a Virgin, suffered, dyed, was bu­ried, raised up from the dead, & the like, so also all the attributes of the [Page 60] divine Nature. Wherefore as they simply affirm that he is God, so al­so they simply and without limitation affirm, and if they will be true to themselves, are forced to affirm, that he existed from all Eternity, Omni­potent, Omniscient, Immense, Creator of Heaven and Earth. Some alledge that of Rom. 7.17. Paul, where he affirmeth, that the evils which he worketh, he himself did not work, but sin that dwelleth in him; where they think, that what is simply affirmed of the whole, is simply denied of the same, because it agreeth not to the other part. And therefore that the contradiction which at first sight appeareth in these words, is to be taken away by the distinction of parts. But they are exceed­ingly mistaken, for neither hath Paul respect to divers parts in the same subject, as if the thing were attributed to the subject according to one part, and according to the other part taken away from the same, this, I say, is not there done: but the same attribute is by an elegant Antanaclasis, one while taken more largely, another while more strictly, namely, by a certain excellency; and being taken more largely, is attributed to the Subject; but taken more strictly, it is de­nied of the same whole, and not attributed to another part of the same Subject, but to another Subject, as the place it self sheweth. For the man described by Paul under his own person, is said to work these evils, the word work being taken properly and largely: but the same is denied to work them, as the word work signifieth, to be the prime and principal cause of working. For this, he saith, is not he himself, but sin. In the same manner he elsewhere saith, that he labour­ed more than the other 1 Cor. 15.10. Apostles, yet not he, but the Grace of God that was with him. He affirmeth, that he himself laboured, if it be properly spoken; but denieth the same, because he was not the prime and principal cause of the labour; but the grace of God that was pre­sent with him. Thus also Christ John 7.6. saith, My Doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. chap. 12.44. He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. For the Doctrine of Christ was his own, because it was promulgated by him; it was not his own, because himself was not the prime Author thereof, but he that sent him. It is believed on him, because he is the object of faith, not on him because he is not the principal object and ultimate scope of faith; for so he is that sent Christ.

Wherefore that we may return unto our place, it is necessary that Christ when he simply denied, that he could do nothing of himself, did speak of himself wholly, how great soever he is, and not only of one part of himself, or not of himself according to one part only. Which that it may yet more evidently appear, and the rule before set down by us, be the more confirmed, this is to be added; If that which may, is wor [...] absolutely to be affirmed of the whole, may also simply and absolutely, without any limitation, be denied of the same whole; namely, because it agreeth not thereunto according to some part, though an inferiour one, it will be lawful simply to affirm of Christ, what we would have; namely, that he is not the most high God, did not exist from Eternity, did not create the World, that the Son of God [Page 61] was not incarnate, or made man, was not in Heaven before he was born of the Virgin: because none of these things agree to him accor­ding to the humane Nature: yea, it may be said, that the Son of God, is not the Son of God, especially the only begotten one, if he is held to be such, as he was begotten out of the Essence of the Father, which agrees not to him according to the humane Nature. Finally, it will be lawful to say, that he was neither conceived of the holy Spirit, nor born of Mary, nor grew, nor eat, nor drank, nor wept, nor dyed, nor rose again, nor ascended into Heaven, nor shall come to judgment, and other things innumerable, because none of these things agreeth to him according to the divine Nature. Those first Expressions the Adver­saries will not endure; as for the rest, the ears of no Christian man can endure them. Who would endure such a Divinity, as permitteth one simply to deny, that Jesus is the Son of God, or that he sometimes dyed and rose again. Wherefore if those things are both Ʋn­heard, or incredi­ble. uncouth, and intollerable, they ought also to imagine, that their interpretation is alike intollerable; whereby they say, that when Christ simply saith, the Son can do nothing of himself, he speaketh of himself according to the humane Nature only; whereas according to the divine Nature, he can do all things of himself; whence it followeth, that it may be absolutely said of him, that he can do all things of himself, no less than he is absolutely affirmed to be the most high God.

Again, They with whom we have to do, do either confess, that it may be simply, or without any limitation added, said of the divine Na­ture of Christ, that it can do nothing of it self, or they do not con­fess. If they do confess, why do they distinguish between the humane and divine Nature? Why do they say, that the words of Christ where­of we treat, are not to be understood of him according to the divine, but according to the humane Nature? Will they perhaps say, that also the divine Nature can do nothing of it self according to the humane? Who seeth not that such a fashion of speaking and limiting is ridicu­lous? Will you say that the soul of a man hath not in it self according to the body, a power of thinking, understanding, reasoning? Or that the body is not fleshly, thick, tall, or low according to the soul? But be it that it is lawful, having expresly added such a limitation, to de­ny these things of the soul as doth indeed agree unto it, but do not agree unto the body; and contrarily of the body, such as agree to it, but do not agree to the soul, will it be presently lawful to do the same simply, and without any limitation? Who ever heard say, that that should simply be taken away from the whole which doth indeed agree thereunto, because it agreeth not to the other part of the same whole? How then could that be simply taken away from the divine Nature, which doth agree to the same; namely, to do all things of it self, be­cause it agreeth not to the humane Nature? But if the Adversaries confess not, that it may simply be said of the divine Nature of Christ, that it can do nothing of it self, their Opinion touching the Person of Christ falls to the ground; for if the Son of God is a Person having supream Divinity, it is necessary that whatsoever is simply either de­nied [Page 62] or affirmed of him, may also simply be either denied or affirm­ed of his divine Nature. For a person having supream Deity, is no­thing but the very divine Nature subsisting; as many of the Adversa­ries confess; and we in the second Book will shew. Sect. 1. Chap. 4. Since therefore it is simply denied of the Son of God, that he can do nothing of him­self, whereas that same cannot be simply denied of the divine Nature, it must be confessed, that the Son of God is not a Person of supream Deity. Neither can they escape the force of this Argument, who hold a divine Person to be not the divine Nature, but a subsistence of the divine Nature. For first, from this very place of John, it is evinced either that their Opinion touching a divine Person, is false, or that the Son of God is not a Person endued with Supream Divinity. For a Subsistence worketh nothing neither of it self, nor by the shewing of another. For the very nature subsisting, worketh all things, either by a faculty of its own, or such as was received from another. A Subsi­stence hath no faculty neither from its self, nor received from another. But the Son of God worketh all things by the shewing of the Father. Wherefore he is not a Subsistence. If the Son of God is not a subsi­stence, either a Person of the supream Divinity will not be a Subsi­stence, or the Son of God will not be a Person of supream Divinity. Furthermore, if a Subsistence did work any thing, it would work in such a manner, as is agreeable to the Nature wherein it is, and with which it is really the same. But the divine Nature, wherein the di­vine Subsistence is, and with which, as the Adversaries speak, it is re­ally the same, worketh of it self, and not by the shewing of another; wherefore the divine Subsistence also should be said to work after that manner; nor could it less simply be denied, that it can work of it self, than the same may be denied of the divine Nature. Add hereunto, that it would no less ridiculously be said, that the divine Subsistence can do nothing of it self according to the humane Nature, than that the divine Nature can do nothing of it self acccording to the humane Nature.

Besides, were the words of Christ to be restrained, as the Adversa­ries would have it, Christ had not spoken to the matter. For it ap­peareth from the very place, and all confess, that Christ answereth the objection of the Jews, and defineth those words of his, namely, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work, from all crime of Blasphemy and Arrogancy. For the Jews objected it to him as a most grievous crime, because by such words, he calleth God his own Father, making him­self equal to God, as we read ver. 18. For thus they reason; He that maketh himself equal to God, committeth a crime to be expiated by death. But Christ maketh himself equal to God, in that he calleth God his own Father, and maketh himself equal to him in working. In which Argument it is spoken of whole Christ, and not only of one Nature of his, especially the less worthy. For neither Christ when he affirmed, My Father worketh, and I work, spake only one part of him­self, and that the less worthy, but of himself as he was the Son of God, and consequently God, as the Adversaries themselves urge, who are [Page 63] wont to object against us those words of the 18th verse; to prove from thence, that Christ is God by Nature, because he both called God his own Father, and made himself equal to God: neither of which can agree to him, who is not God by Nature. To which Argument of the Jews Christ answereth, Verily, verily I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself. What would the answer make to the purpose, if Christ should here speak of himself, according to the humane Na­ture only; when the question was concerning him, either whole, how great so ever he is, or according to the divine Nature, as the Adver­saries will have it? How had he defended his own words, wherein he had spoken of his whole self, or of himself, as the most high God? It is objected against him, thou makest thy self equal to God; namely, in that thou makest thy self the Son of God, and by that means dost (as the Adversaries will have it) arrogate to thy self a divine Nature. Christ answers (according to their Opinion) the Son can do nothing of himself according to the humane Nature, and is therein unequal to the Father. What's this to the matter? But if you hold with us, that Christ spake of himself whole, how great soever he was, you will find that he spake very pertinently to the matter, and solidly confuted the crime that was objected against him. For he answers, that he doth not simply and absolutely make himself equal to God, although in respect of working, he compareth himself unto God: because al­though he doth all things that the Father doth; yet can he do nothing of himself, but those things only which the Father gave him a power to do. wherefore in respect of the working it self, he is equal to the Father; in respect of the manner of working, unequal. For the Father worketh of himself, but he only as the Father sheweth him, or giveth him power, wisdom and authority. But herein is no Blas­phemy, no Arrogancy, no Crime. Add hereunto, that that very equality which is seen in the very workers, considered by themselves, is not altogether absolute. In that the Father will yet shew him grea­ter works, and consequently something may be yet added to that equality.

Finally, If Christ had spoken of himself in respect of the humane Nature only, when he said that he could do nothing of himself, and in the mean time would have had it understood, that he in respect of the divine Nature, could do all things of himself, he had not, or rather ought not to have opposed the Father, especially alone to himself in that matter, but himself considered according to the divine Nature, to himself look'd upon according to the humane. But Christ doth not this, but the other, whilst he subjon'd, unless he see the Father doing. Also, For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth to him all things whi [...]h himself doth; and will shew him greater works than these. For besides that, the reason of the opposition doth more rightly consist, if one na­ture of Christ be opposed to another Nature; that is, of a different disposition in relation to the thing spoken of, than if the same should be opposed to another person; no just cause can be imagined, why Christ, when in respect of one nature, he had denied that the Son could [Page 64] do any thing of himself, should not in respect of the other nature, open­ly affirm of the same Son, that he could do all things of himself, since there was no greater cause to deny that, than to affirm this. That I may not say, that there was greater cause to affirm this, than to deny that; since the question was concerning the equality of the Son, and that as he is the Son, with the Father. Add hereunto, that the divine Na­ture of Christ would have been the more near and proper Cause of that faculty of doing Miracles, which he had received according to the hu­mane Nature, than the Father. Unless perhaps you will have the di­vine Nature in him to be idle. Wherefore the power was to be ascribed to it rather than to the Father. Now whereas some affirm that Christ attributed his works rather to the Father, than to his own divine Na­ture, that he might give to the Father a Prerogative above himself; this very thing overthroweth their Opinion, and establisheth ours; especially since it is necessary, that that Prerogative should consist in this, namely, that the Father be held to do all things of himself, the Son only by a power received, from the Father. For by this very thing, Christ is denied to be the most high God, whilst another is ac­knowledged to whom a Prerogative above him doth agree; and whilst it is affirmed that he doth all things by a power, in what manner soever received from another. On the contrary, the Father is alone held, to be the most high God, whilst to him only, as the prime Cause, the works of Christ are ascribed, and a Prerogative attributed to him above Christ.

That now remaineth which we undertook to demonstrate in the third place, namely, that the very Distinction which the Adversaries use, whilst they say that some things agree or not agree to Christ, or the Son of God▪ according to the divine, others according to the humane Nature, doth overthrow their Opinion concerning Christ. For from this very thing it followes, that the Son of God is not a person of su­pream Divinity, the reason whereof we have somewhere already toucht. For whilst the Adversaries thus distinguish, they shew that the humane Nature is a part of the person of Christ, and pertaineth to the constitution thereof. But a humane Nature cannot be a part of a person endued with supream Divinity, nor concur to the constituti­on thereof. For whether you hold the divine person to be the divine Nature endued with a subsistence, or the very subsistence it self of the divine Nature; the humane Nature can neither way be a part thereof. For neither is it a part of the divine Nature, nor of a subsistence, since neither is constituted of divers parts, and both existed entire from all Eternity, and consequently a humane Nature can constitute neither. Certainly it is necessary to hold two persons in Christ, one simple, which existed from all Eternity; the other compounded of a humane and divine Nature (though by this means a divine person would be­come part of another, & so cease to be a person) or they must bid fare­wel to that distinction of Nature. But of this thing more in its Lib. 2. Sect. 2. Chap. 6. place.

We have dwelt longer on this place of John, partly because as any place doth more evidently overthrow the tenet of the Adversaries, [Page 65] (and this is one of the most evident) so have they for the most part taken more pains in obscuring and turning it from the genuine sense, partly because many things which have been spoken thereof, will be profitable in the following places, in as much as the Adversaries are wont to make answers to them, either both these wayes which we have discust, or at least one of them.

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 conse­qu [...]ntly doth therein oppose not one Nature to another, but one Per­son to ano [...]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 [Page 67] 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 d [...]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, [Page 73] 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 experien [...]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 sa [...]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 Interpre­tation is very frivolous; first, in that by so speaking, he had not alledg­ed the cause, why he declared not the day of judgement to his Disci­ples, nor had diminished the desire of knowing it, and inquiring it of him, but increast it; because by this means he had intimated, that the Son of man did know that day. Besides, neither doth the word Son, absolutely spoken of Christ, denote the Son of man, but the Son of God, as he is such, especially since the word Father is presently op­posed thereunto, and by it God understood; and the word but, in that passage, but the Father, agreeth not with the words, nor the Son, imme­diately going before, but with those, none knoweth. Finally, that in­terpretation doth thwart the words of Matthew, who saith, that the Father only knoweth it. For how ridiculous would it be to say, the Son of man knoweth not the day of judgement, unless the Father on­ly knoweth it? for it is a certain contradiction in the Additament, and the condition that is added, subverteth that to which it is added. The same Interpreter furthermore saith, that many antient and grave Authors, whose names he orderly reckoneth up, did thus interpret, That Christ, as man, was ignorant of the day of judgement. Which he himself thinketh to be true only in this sence, that Christ knew not the day of judgement upon that score, or for that reason, because he was man, but because he was God. Otherwise he supposeth it to be false, and horrid to be spoken, that the humane Nature of Christ was ignorant of any thing. For the Papists, yea, certain others also, imagine, that the humane Nature of Christ, from the very first instant of his con­ception and birth, knew all things. But that Interpretation also he re­futeth, because Christ not only denyeth, that the Son of man (he ought here rather to say the Son of God) doth know the day of judgment; but also affirmeth, that the Father only knoweth it; by which speech he seem­eth to exclude, not only the Son, but also the holy Spirit.

Nevertheless, now a-dayes that Interpretation which the Interpre­ter rejecteth, namely, that Christ is said truly to be ignorant of the day of judgement, not according to the divine, but according to the humane Nature, is commonly most received even amongst them, who otherwise hold, that in the very moment of conception, the Properties of the divine Nature were communicated to the humane, or the know­ledge of all things infused into the soul of Christ: therefore we must here briefly refute it, and having discust it in a few words, also disprove that mans own interpretation.

Such an Interpretation therefore, and Answer to our Argument as is commonly brought, Arg. 9 That Ch [...]ist was ig­norant of the last judgment day. for three Reasons chiefly ought not to be admit­ted. First, because Christ simply and without any limitation, denyeth that the Son knoweth the day and hour of judgement. Where it fol­loweth, that he spake of himself wholly, how great soever he is; as we have shewn in the examination of the second Answer to that place, John 5.19. Again, to omit other things spoken in the same place, both from the simple word Son opposed to God the Father, and also by the Gradations used by Christ, ascending from the Angels to the Son, and from the Son to the Father, it is apparent that he altogether spake of that Nature according to which he is the Son of God. Third­ly, Because in Matthew it is expresly said, that the Father only know­eth the day and hour of judgement: which sense agreeth also to the words of Mark, whilst he saith, None knoweth but the Father, opposing the Father to the Son himself. But if Christ had according to the di­vine Nature, known the day of judgement, then not only the Father, but also the Son had known it, and besides, if we believe the Adversa­ries, the holy Spirit.

Now whereas in this place they so much urge the saying of Paul, Col. 2.3. In whom are all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge hidden. First, they do not observe, that these words may as well, yea, far bet­ter, be referred to the name of the Mystery of God and Christ; the mention whereof immediately precedeth, than to the name of Christ. For it is there chiefly treated concerning the knowledge therof, so that the sence is, in the Mystery of God and Christ, are all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge hidden; but that Mystery is the evangelical Doctrine, Chap. 1.25, 26, 27. Again, the Wisdom and Knowledge here spoken of, is to be understood of all things pertaining to mans Salva­tion, which have also been revealed by Christ unto us, and are diligent­ly to be known by us. But that the Knowledge of the day of judge­ment is not comprehended in the number of these things, appeareth from these very words of Christ, wherof we dispute. To omit, although otherwise it were spoken of the same kind of things, yet this special saying concerning the day of judgement, should derogate from the ge­neral, and not be interpreted according to that, but that according to it. It remaineth that we speak something of that Interpretation and Answer which the Popish Interpreter, having refuted the Opinions of all the rest, did devise, although he so proposed it, as that himself seem­eth to put no great confidence in it; for he saith, Ʋnless The mistaken, Christ speaketh in the same manner that he had formerly said, Mat. 20.23. To sit at my right and left hand, is not mine to give you, but to them for whom it hath been provided by my Father. ‘Wherefore he intimateth what is more; that he not only as a man, but also as God, was in a certain sort igno­rant of the day of judgment, not that he was indeed ignorant; but be­cause it was not his office to know, as he said not, for whom it is pro­vided for by me, but by my Father, not that it was not provided by him also; but because to provide the Kingdom, that is, to predestinate, is not his office, but the Fathers. That also it belongeth to the Fa­ther, [Page 75] to appoint when the world is to be dissolved, and when the day of judgment is to be. This is that which the Apostle saith, Acts 1.7. It is not for you to know the times and seasons which the Father hath put in his own power. Therefore he alone is signified to know it. And this, unless I be mistaken, is the true sence.’ He did well, twice to add unless I be mistaken; for he was something afraid, lest he should be mistaken; neither did this ingenious man satisfie himse f, whilst he en­deavoured to satisfie others. But neither did he rightly explain the place, but pervert it, nor take away the difficulty, but in some part augment it. For, first, he without example, and any just reason, de­parteth from the proper and usual signification, of being ignorant, whilst he interprets it, that it is not ones duty to know, unless per­haps he alledge this very thing for a reason about which we contro­vert, namely, That it cannot be said that the Son is ignorant of the day of judgment, because he ever knew, as all other things, so that day al­so. Again, in what manner soever he interpreteth those words, it is not the office of the Son to know that day, yet doth he not escape the difficulty; for either it is not therefore the office of Christ, because he is not bound to know that day, or not obliged to know that day, or because he is bound to be ignorant of that day; so that it is not so much as lawful for him to know it; which latter sence, the places quoted by him, seem to require. If he hold the latter, he encreaseth the diffi­culty instead of diminishing it, and saith more than is needful. For he not only saith, that the Son was then ignorant of the day of judgment, but that it was not so much as lawful for him to know it. But how can he be the most high God, who is not only ignorant of something, but cannot know it, or to whom it is not so much as lawful to know somethings, and that as he is God? And notwithstanding the pla­ces quoted by him, and duly compared with this, seem altogether to require such a sence; for when Christ saith, To sit at my right hand and left hand, is not mine to give, he signifieth, that it lay not in his pow­er and disposal, or that it was not lawful for him to do it. But the place of the Acts maketh express mention of Power, and signifieth that the Father had reserved to his own power and disposal the deter­mination, and consequently also the knowledge of the times and sea­sons. But if he grant the former, first, what will this make to the pur­pose? for the sence will be, that none is obliged to know the day of judgment, neither the Angels, nor the Son, but the Father only. But what then? although neither Men, nor the Angels, nor the Son be ob­liged to know it, yet both he and they may possibly know it, and we, (as the Disciples may be supposed to speak) although we are not bound, are yet desirous to know it, since, saving the truth of that say­ing, it is possible for us to know it. For he against whom we dispute, doth believe, that although it were not the office of Christ to know the day of judgment, yet he did know it. By this reckoning there­fore, Christ had not quenched the desire and longing that the Apostles had to know that day, but had left place for such a cogitation, that it might be, that both Men and Angels did know that day. Again how [Page 76] can it be said, that it is the Office of the Father, or that the Father is obliged to know the day of judgment, and the Son not obliged, if he also be the Supream, and consequently the same God with the Fa­ther? for neither of them can be obliged to know any thing, but that the other also must be obliged, since both have the same nume­rical understanding, and the self-same knowledge. Besides, whatso­ever cause you alledge, why the Father is obliged to know the day of judgment, that will be common to the Son, if he be the supream God with the Father; yea, were it possible, that one of them should be obliged thereunto, the other not at all or less obliged; it should be held, that Christ is more obliged, because he sustaineth the Office of Judge; and if he be the supream God, doth therein depend on none; so that he doth according to his own pleasure both constitute and determine the day of judgment. I omit that it is not rightly said, that it is the Fathers Office, or that he is bound to know the day of judgment, since he cannot chuse but know; or if you therefore say, it is his Office because he is bound to define and constitute that day, con­sider how rightly it is said, that he is bound to do that which lyeth in his own pleasure. But of this so far.

The Defence of the Argument.

Arg. 10 from Mat. 20.23.YOu will say, that it is not lawful even for God himself, to repeal his own Decrees, especially such as design some good to some per­son. And that therefore it was not lawful for Christ any further to de­termine according to his pleasure, who ought to sit at his right hand, who at his left, although he be the most high God, because he hath al­ready made an immutable Decree concerning that matter. We an­swer, That that is here taken for granted, which is altogether contro­verted, and can be confirmed by no other testimony of the Scripture, (for, John Maldonat neither do we read in the Scripture, that the Son or holy Spirit, but the Father only did predestinate any one, saith the most learned and popish Interpreter on this place) and is not only not agreeable to the words of this place, but also forreign to the same. For were the thing so, neither would Christ simply have said, To sit at the right hand and left hand, is not mine to give; nor had he said of the Father only, that it was provided for some by him, but he would have said, either that it was done by him, without naming the Father, or at least he would have joyned himself with the Father; for who would not think it to be absurd, should it be supposed that the Father of Christ had alrea­dy made a decree of giving to some the dignity of sitting at the right and left hand, to bring him in th [...]s speaking? To sit at the right hand and left hand, is not mine to give, but to whom it hath been prepared by my Son. Would not the Father upon this account, attribute some Prero­gative to the Son above himself, and ascribe that to him, which he took away from himself? Where since now the Son doth in that manner speak of himself, it is to be held, as we see some Interpreters do ac­knowledge, that Christ, even as he is God, ascribeth some Preroga­tive to the Father above himself, and what he attributeth unto him, taketh away from himself. Which if you make a true estima [...]e of the thing, is no other than to say, that the Father only is the most high God, but the Son is not; as we have above sufficiently Chap. 2. of this Section. taught.

Some other will say, that Christ doth not here simply deny, it is his to give, that one should sit at his right hand, another at his l [...]ft; but that it is not his to give it unto those two disciples, the Sons Ze­bedee; for that the words to you are either to be read, or to be under­stood, both because the antient Interpreters have them, and the fol­lowing words opposed to tho [...]e going before, do require it; for it fol­loweth, But to whom it hath-been provided by my Father. Whence it seemeth apparent, that in the foregoing words, is to be understood the name of the persons, to whom it suiteth not with Christ to give so great a thing, and that they are those disciples who asked that of Christ, and whom the antient Interpreter designed by the words to you. But if those words be added, you will say, Christ affirmeth or denieth no­thing of himself, which may not be affirmed or denyed of the most [Page 78] high God. But, first, no reason enforceth us to imagine, that the words to you are either to be read or understood; but there is rather good reason, why we should conceive that they are not to be read. For as for the authority of the antient Interpreter, there is no cause why we should leave the Fountain, and follow the Stream, and think that this is purer than that; yea, rather the reading of the Latin Translation ought to yeild to the reading of the Greek Copies, if they agree among themselves, & to be corrected from it. But here the Greek cop­pies among themselves, and that not only in Matthew, but also in Mark, where it is read in the same manner, and that most learned Popish In­terpreter saith, he knoweth no antient Greek Interpreter, who read the words to you, yea, not so much as Austin amongst the Latins. But as for the reasons drawn from the following words, that do perswade us, that in the foregoing words, a regard is also had of those persons, to whom it concerned not Christ to give that sitting at his right hand and left; but there it followeth not, that the words to you must of ne­cessity so be understood, and so this great felicity is denyed to those two Disciples by name. For every one seeth, that these words may thus also be rightly understood, as if Christ had said, To sit at the right and left hand is not mine to give, namely, to whom soever I please, even to my kinsmen, such as you are, having a regard to kindred only, or to give it to such as simply ask, and therein prevent others as you do, but to them at length to whom it hath been designed by my Father. Again, let us grant, that those words, to you, are either to be read, or to be understood. Nevertheless, since Christ saith, that it is not his to give that sitting, but to them for whom it hath been prepared by the Father, it followeth that he is not the most high God. For by such words he intimateth, that he is not the prime Author of so great Dig­nity, but the Father, and that he himself doth both promise, and will at length give that honour, according to the pleasure of another, name­ly, of the Father, and the Laws appointed by him; otherwise, as we before hinted, he would have said, that so great dignity had for some been provided either by himself, or at least by him & the Father toge­ther. But neither of those things which we have spoken, is incident to the most high God; for he is both the prime Author of all such Honours and Rewards, and composeth himself to the pleasure of his own, not of anothers will, and accordingly distributeth rewards and honours.

The exception concerning the humane Nature, according to which it was not his to give, whereas it was according to the divine, hath here no place, both for the simple negation, and also because he here opposeth not one Nature to another, but his own Person to the Per­son of the Father, and what he taketh away from himself, he attribu­eth to him; and finally, because this reason would have had no force to repeal the petition of those Disciples; for neither did they desire, that he should give unto them what they craved, according to one Nature, not according to another, but simply that he should give it, and consequent­ly, that he should give it according as he is able. Therefore if Christ had answered, that it was not his to give according to the humane Na­ture, [Page 79] they might presently reply, that it did nothing matter them, so that he gave it according to the divine, according to which he was able to give it. But they were nor so subtil, although they believed Christ to be the Son of God, as to think of that distinction. Therefore they thought that a simple Negative was simply to be taken, and believed, that John Maldo­nat. Christ spake to the purpose, and did not struggle besides the matter in hand. I omit that the most learned of the Adversaries ac­knowledge, that John Maldo­nat. Christ here spake of himself as God; as we saw in the examination of the foregoing place.

The Defence of the Argument.

IT will be here presently answered, that it is manifestly apparent, from the words, that Christ speaketh thus according to the hu­mane Nature, not according to the divine. And indeed we believe, that Christ according to the humane Nature, or the very humane Na­ture it self, doth here speak, but so, that it is withal to be granted, that there is not in him another Nature, namely, the divine. For, first, the simple Negation, Not my will be done, permitteth not that there was another Nature in Christ, and that a better, according to which his own will ought altogether to be done, as it would be necessary to hold, if there had been in Christ the divine Nature, the same in num­ber with that of the Father. To omit, that it is absurd, yea, altoge­ther impossible, that in Christ at the same time, there should be con­trary wills concerning the same thing; whereof the one would have the cup pass from him, the other would not. Certainly it would with­al be necessary to acknowledge two Persons in him. For, to subjoyn another reason for which that distinction of Natures hath here no place, it is necessary that Christ spake these things of himself as he is a Person; for such operations as are, to will, and consequently also to beg, agree to none but Suppositums, endued with understanding, as such; and consequently, to none but persons as such. Either there­fore it is necessary for the Adversaries to hold, that Christ spake these things of himself as he is a divine Person, namely, one of the Persons of the Trinity; which we have shewn to be false, and they themselves, who here use a distinction of Natures, do acknowledge: or it is ne­cessary to acknowledge, that his humane Nature, according to which Christ willed and begged those things, is a Person; and so, lest two Persons should with the Nestorians be h [...]ld to be in him, contrary to all, both Reason and Scripture, that there is in him no divine Essence and Person. Finally, It is to be observed, that he doth here submit himself not to the power and will of his own divine Nature, but to the Will of the Father, and so opposeth not Nature to Nature, but to Person to Person, and the will of that, to the will of this. Where­fore it is altogether to be confessed, that there was not in the Person of Christ, that will, which he attributeth to the Father, and simply opposeth to his own.

The Defence of the Argument.

THe exception concerning two Natures, hath no more place here, than in the former places; both for the simple Negation, as also because Christ is here considered as he hath attained the Priestly Of­fice, which agreeth to him only as he is a Person. But if that be a Person of supream Divinity, those things which are here either spoken or denyed of Christ, must be attributed or denyed of the very divine Nature. Since a Person of supream Divinity is nothing but the divine Nature endued with a subsistence. Add hereunto, that those things which are here attributed unto Christ, are ascribed to him as he is the Son of God; for the divine Author doth not therefore take those words of the second Psalm, that he may only simply describe him that glorified Christ, and made him high Priest, but that this very de­scription may teach, that Christ was made an high Priest by God. For besides the custom both of this and other divine Authors, who are wont to make use of Descriptions of Persons accommodated to the subject matter, not forreign to the matter; the following words also [Page 84] shew this thing; for the divine Author addeth, As he also saith in ano­ther place, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. By which words it clearly appeareth, that in the former place also it is spoken of the Priesthood which was given unto Christ. But that place is not commonly to be taken of Christ according to the divine Nature, and to be wrested to his Generation out of the Essence which the Fa­ther made from all Eternity; which though it be absurd, and besides other things, repugnant to the words of Paul, Act. 13.32, 33. & so to this very place, doth yet exclude their exception concerning the humane Nature, according to which this very place is to be taken of Christ. Finally, would the divine Author here have spoken of a certain Nature only, and not of the whole Person of Christ, he would not have op­posed Christ to the Father, but to himself according to the divine Nature, and what he had taken away from the humane, he would have attribu­ted to the divine; but that he neither did, nor could do. For if Christ was in that very thing made an high Priest by God, as he was begotten by God, and consequently became the Son of God; as we manifestly see the divine Author intimates; he could not be made an high Priest by himself, no not considered according to the divine Nature; other­wise Christ would have been begotten of himself, considered accor­ding to the divine Nature, and so would be his own Son, and the divine Nature might say to him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Which how absurd it is, and repugnant to its self, every one percei­veth. Now therefore he at length shall rightly understand this place, and the Authors reasoning, who observes that Christ is chiefly called the Son of God, as by his favour he hath attained the greatest simili­tude with God; and that Christ was never made more like to God, than when he obtained the perpetual Government of the house of God, and the Office of eternally looking to, and saving the People of God. Which thing is contained in this Priesthood; for the divine Au­thor opposeth nor that Office to the Kingly, but in some sort includeth this in that. But let those things be here spoken by the by, in that they will prove advantagious hereafter.

The Defence of the Argument.

HEre many of the antient Authors did grant, that Christ speaketh of himself, even as he is the Son of God, and saith that the Fa­ther is greater than himself, in as much as the name of Father signifi­eth the Principle, and as the Greeks speak, the cause of the Son. Thus besides others, that Popish Interpreter, John Maldo­natus. whom we have above quo­ted, saith, it is expounded by Athanasius, Hilary, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Cesarius, Cyril, Damascen, Chrysostom, Leontius, Theophilact, Euthymius, citing the places of them to that purpose. But I know not, saith he, whether they granted more to the Adversaries (namely, the Arri­ans, with whom they did dispute) than was meet. Indeed this acute man saw, that it followeth thence, that Christ even as he is the Son of God, is not the most high God, in that the Father is greater than he, as such: concerning which thing, we have already above Sect. 1. Chap. 1. sufficiently spoken. Add hereunto, that that fashion wherein they make the Fa­ther greater than Christ, makes nothing to the purpose of Christ; for Christ there renders a reason of that which he had last spoken, name­ly, If ye love me, ye would rejoyce because I go to the Father. By which words he signifieth, that some good or happiness should arrive to him, when he was gone away to the Father, and consequently, that the Disciples ought to rejoyce even for his sake, that he went away to the Father; as very learned men before us have observed. But what ma­keth it to the purpose, that the Father is greater than Christ, as he is the Fountain of his divine either Nature or Person, and begat him from Eternity out of his Essence? doth not the thing it self hint, that Christ would signifie, that the Father was greater than he, as he was more blessed, glorious, powerful? and that he himself, when he was more nearly joyned with the Father, and received into his own seat, should be partaker of the same Blessedness, Glory, Power and Empire? But there is no need to labour much in refuting the Interpretation of [Page 86] the Antients, since at this day there is scarce any one that followeth it. For latter Writers observing, that by such an Interpretation, the Arrians Opinion touching the Divinity of Christ, is not a little establish­ed; they chiefly seized on that answer, which also not a few of the An­tients made use, that Christ there spake not of himself according to the divine, but only according to the humane Nature. Which an­swer may be refuted by the same reason in a manner, which above, chap. 3. of this Section, we alledged, if you change a few things in some of them. For not to repeat those things now, whereby we have taught, that there is no example of such a distinction in the Scriptures, yea, that this very distinction overthroweth the Opinion of the Adver­saries concerning the Person of Christ, we have shewn that that can­not be simply denyed of the whole, which may, and is wont, or rather altogether ought to be simply affirmed of the same, although it agree not to it according to some one part, especially the less worthy. Whence it followeth, that also on the contrary, that cannot be simply affirmed of some whole, which may, and is wont, or rather ought to be simply denyed of the same whole, although it doth agree to it ac­cording to some part, especially the less worthy. Now if Christ be the most high God equal to the Father in all things, as the Adversaries affirm, and that without any limitation, and simply; yea, ought sim­ply to be denyed of him, that the Father is greater than he. For nei­ther is it more lawful simply to affirm of him, that he is the most high God, and equal to the Father in all things, than to deny that the Fa­ther is greater than he, or that he is less than the Father. Wherefore neither could Christ simply affirm of himself, if he were the most high God, that the Father is greater than he. Add hereunto, that such an affirmation, My Father is greater than I, is of equal force with such a Negation, I am not so great as my Father; as every one seeth by him­self, and the scope of these words before mentioned by us, doth teach; for Christ would signifie, that he did yet want something which the Father hath; and therefore that he also may attain the same, he must go away unto the Father. Wherefore since we have taught, that what may or ought to be simply affirmed of the whole, cannot be de­nyed of the same whole; Christ could not thus speak of himself, if for another, and that a better Nature, he would have the contrary un­derstood of him. Again, since he who speaketh is the very Son of God; for he saith, My Father is greater than I; thereby intimating, that God the Father is greater than his Son: either it is necessary to say, that the Father is greater than the very divine Nature of Christ, which the Adversaries by that very distinction of theirs, endeavour to avoid, or confess that the Son of God is not a person of supream Deity, since a person of supream Deity, is no other than the very divine Nature having its subsistence; as we have above said, chap. 3. Besides, the In­terpretation of the Adversaries, doth altogether enervate the force of Christs words, and render them invalid to his purpose. For we saw that therefore Christ uttered those words, that the Disciples might see that he must go away to the Father, to the end he might enjoy [Page 87] greater happiness; and therefore should not only abstain from sorrow, but also rejoyce that he went a way: but if Christ according to one Nature only, had been less than the Father, and in the mean time, had in himself a Nature or Person equal to the Father in all things, there would have been no need for him to go to the Father as greater, to the end he might enjoy greater happiness; nor would the Disciples have had cause to rejoyce that he went away from them, but rather to grieve, in that he would go away, where as he might stay, and they might presently object to the Lord, yea, why dost thou go away to the Father as greater than thou, since thou art endued with such a Na­ture or Person as is equal to the Father in all things, and that N [...]ture is alwayes intimately present with thee, even whilst thou art conver­sant with us on the Earth; why rather dost thou not stay with us, and here procure to thy self that happiness which thou seekest with the Father? You see, that by this reason, if it be taken according to the sense of the Adversaries, Christ could have prevailed nothing with the Disciples. But he could prevail very much, if omitting the distinction of Natures, he would have the words taken of him simply and abso­lutely, as they were uttered.

But there are some learned men of the Adversaries, who think that those words of Christ, as also many other places in the same John, are to be taken neither of the humane Na [...]ure of Christ, nor of the divine, but of the whole complex, See John Calvins Admoni­tion to the Bre­thren in Poland. as they speak; because although he were the eternal God, yet when he descended to us, he began to be a middle person between God and us. But this is of no moment; for either they will have it, that the Son, when he d [...]scended to us, ceased to be the most high God, or they will not have it. If they will have it, the Son neither is, nor ever was the most high God; for he can never cease to be the most high God. If they will not have it, the Son could not therefore be simply called less than the Father, or, which is all one, the Father greater than he; because none is simply, yea none is any way greater than the most high God. And if the Opini­on of the Adversaries concerning Christ, be true, the Son ought to be termed equal to the Father in all things. But as we have shewn be­fore, the same cannot be simply both affirmed and denyed of the same whole. Again, since that whole complex whereof they say, that those words of Christ are to be taken, is the Person of Christ, or the very Son of God; as neither they do deny, and we have before shewn; it is necessary for them to confess, either that that Person is not a Person of supream Deity, or else that it may be said of the divine Nature, that the Father is greater than it, as we have a little before demon­strated. We forbear to repeat that reason whereby we have confuted the Answer which is now adayes most received among the Adversa­ries; namely, that such an Interpretation weakneth the force of Christs words, and renders them ineffectual to what he intended. For the same reason is also prevalent against this Interpretation: for if these words be so to be taken, as that nevertheless it may or rather ought to be understood, that Christ is the most high God; or hath in him the [Page 88] Nature of the most high God; they are not effectual to shew, that Christ must go away to the Father, and his Disciples ought to rejoyce, that he would go away to the Father; as may be understood by what was formerly spoken. Furthermore, did Christ therefore call himself less than the Father, because he is a middle Person between God and us; he would alwayes be less than the Father in that sence, even after he ascended into Heaven, and sate at the right hand of God the Fa­ther: since Christ is at this time a middle Person between us and God, in that he is a Priest, and our Advocate, interceding for us with the Father: for which cause the Adversaries themselves say, that he is now a Mediator. But Christ sheweth by these words, that he, after he was gone away to the Father, should be no longer less than he. Whence they themselves, with whom we have to do, affirm, that Christ in those words compareth his present state with his heavenly Glory. For, as we already hinted before, because the Son did yet want that Glory, to wit, Immortality, and sublime Authority over all things, he was there­fore less than the Father; having attained the same, he is reputed no lon­ger less than the Father. For neither is a most exact and altogether ab­solute equality here to be regarded. Wherefore Christ did not there­fore say, that he was less than the Father, or the Father greater than he, because he is a middle Person between us and God. I forbear to mention at this time, that they with whom we have to do, hold that Christ was in the same sort even from the beginning of the world, a Mediator of God and Men. Whence it would follow, that his divine Person existing without the humane Nature, was already less than the Father, before that descent which they understand; neither do I here urge, that if Christ, because he descended to us, that is, as they ima­gine, assumed a humane Nature, became a middle Person between us and God, and consequently less than the Father; it is necessary that both the Father and the holy Spirit became middle persons between us and God, and less than themselves. For neither could the Son or his divine Nature, assume the humane, but that the Nature of the Fa­ther, and of the holy Spirit, and consequently the very Father and holy Spirit, would together assume the same humane Nature, if that be true which the Adversaries say, that those three have one and the same numerical divine Nature. Concerning which Sect. 2. Chap. 5. we will treat in the second Book.

The Defence of the Argument.

HEre the Adversaries are not easily wont to fly to a distinction of Natures, partly because they hold, that Christ before he was born of the Virgin, was sent by the Father out of Heaven, yea, sent to this very end, to be born of the Virgin, and assume a humane Na­ture, partly because they see, that to be sent, and so to sustain the Of­fice of an Embassadour, agreeth to none but a person, as such. That I may not say, if Christ had been sent only according to the humane Nature, it will follow, that he was also sent by himself, or by his own divine Nature, when notwithstanding he every where maketh another person, namely, the Father, to be the Author of his mission, but ne­ver maketh himself; yea, as we formerly John 7.28. saw, he expresly denyeth, that he came of himself.

Wherefore the Adversaries are wont to betake themselves to ano­ther refuge, and to deny that Christ being sent by the Father, argu­eth him to be less than the Father; indeed the greatest part of them affirm, that he, saving his equality with the Father, even then when he had not yet assumed a humane Nature, was both before the Law, and under the Law sent by God, and was then oftentimes stiled an Angel, or Messenger and Embassadour; which we in our Book concerning [Page 90] God, when we treated of the name Jehovah, have, as I suppose, suffi­ciently refuted. Now they say that it is no unusual thing, that a Sena­tor, for example sake, should be sent by his Collegues, to whom he is otherwise equal in Authority and Power, and in their name discharge an Embassage. Yea, that a greater Person may be sent by a less, ei­ther because he doth of his own accord take upon him that Office, or because it is obtained at his hands by prayers, or other perswasions. But, first, they do not refute the reason of the consequence of our Ar­gument; which being safe, the Argument it self is safe. Again, if the thing be so in divine matters, as they hold, it is inhumane; namely, that an equal may be sent by an equal, yea, a greater by a less, nothing will hinder but that also the Father may be sent by the Son, or holy Spirit▪ which thwarteth the Opinion of the very Adversaries, who deny that the Father may be sent by the Son or holy Spirit, either apart or joyntly, though it is a wonder that they deny it, since they hold, that those three Persons are equal to one another in all things; so that there is no repugnancy if one of them may be sent, that the rest also may be sent. But why do I say, that there is no repugnancy? since it cannot be, that one should be sent, but that the other must al­so be sent, if so be they are of one Essence, and a Person cannot be sent without the Essence. For if the Essence of the Father were sent when Christ or the holy Spirit (that we may now together speak of him [...]) was sent, certainly it is necessary that the Father himself was sent. For he is sent, whose Essence is sent, since every one is really the same with his Essence. Besides, from this answer of theirs, it will fol­low, that nothing hinders, but that God or Christ may be sent by An­gels, and finally, by Men; namely, being drawn by prayers or other perswasions. But if all understand this to be most absurd, let them al­so acknowledge it to be most impossible, that Christ should be equal to the Father in all things if he be sent by him; for neither was there any cause why all should judge either this or that, which in the first place was spoke of, to be abs [...]rd, than because reason it self hath taught all men, that the Sender in respect of that thing for which he decreeth the message, is, as I may speak with the Vulgar, the principal: but the Messenger is his Minister in the same thing. And withal, this hath also been understood, that the Father can by no means be inferiour to the Son or holy Spirit, who proceeds from him, & have their Essence from him, or be Minister, much less the Minister of Men or Angels. As for the Instances therefore, or Examples alleaged to the contrary, here they ought to remember that which they themselves are often wont to in­culcate when there is no place for it; namely, that in this matter an Argument is ill drawn from humane things to divine. Now the rea­son of the diversity is this, because no man (unless perhaps you except sovereign Kings, who are not themselves wont to discharge Embassa­ges) is so great, but that he may in a certain thing, be subjected, or subject himself to another, and so receive commands from him, and minister to him. Wherefore he also who is equal to another in digni­ty, yea, superiour, may be sent by him, and discharge an Embassage [Page 91] in his own name, and therein become inferiour to him, and in some business be subservient to him as the principal. But the most high God cannot so be changed, as to become inferiour to any one in any thing, and to minister unto him: but he is alwayes superi­our our to all, and all minister to him. Wherefore can he neither under­take the Office of an Embassadour.

The Defence of the Argument.

THe common exception of the Adversaries is, that those things agree to Christ only according to the humane Nature. But the excep­tion is easily overthrown by what hath been spoken above in the third and fourth chapter of this Section. For, first, those things which we have alleaged, are spoken of Christ simply, and without any limitation: [Page 92] but were the very Essence of the most high God in Christ, or rather were he the most high God, Arg. 16 That Christ re­ceived com­mands from God they ought no less simply, yea, much more to be denyed of the same. For it would no more be lawful simply to affirm of him, those things which agree unto him according to the humane Nature, than to deny those things which agree not to him ac­cording to the divine; but the same thing cannot be simply affirmed and denyed of the same. Again, If Christ be a person of supream Godhead, that limitation according to the humane Nature, hath no place in him, neither can it cause, that what agreeth to his humane Nature only, should be simply affirmed of his Person. For a Person of su­pream Divinity, is the very divine Nature. But it cannot be said, that something agreeth to the very divine Nature according to the humane, and much l [...]ss that be simply affirmed of it, which is repugnant to it by it self, and agreeth only to a creature, such as are, to receive com­mands from the Father, to keep them, to serve the Father. Now the reason is so much the more to be pressed, if it appear that those things which are spoken of Christ, do indeed and properly agree to a Person only, such as those are which were mentioned. For these actions do not agree properly but to an intelligent Suppositum; that is, a Person as such, especially because in respect of the Office which Christ sustain­ed on the Earth, he received Commands from the Father, and per­formed them, and is now called a Minister of the Sanctuary, as he is a Priest. But these Offices agree to none but a Person, as such. Now that which doth not properly agree but to the Person of Christ, must needs agree to the Nature, which, with its Subsistence, compleateth his Person: But if that Nature be divine, the limitation of the Ad­versaries restraining such Attributes to the humane Nature only, falleth to the ground. If it be a humane Nature, either there will be two Persons in Christ, a divine and a humane, or that divine, which the Adversaries do hold must be denyed, and a humane only, if you re­gard the Essence; but a divine, if you respect the Qualities, whereby it is endued by God, is to be acknowledged, which is the thing that we would have. We now forbea [...] to mention, that Christ received Com­mands from God, as he was his Embassadour. But the Adversaries hold Christ to be the Embassadour of God, and not only according to the humane Nature, but also, and that primarily, according to the di­vine. By what means then do they restrain the receiving and keeping of Commandments, and consequently, the name of Servant to the hu­mane Nature only? For it is necessary that they renounce that Do­ctrine before they use such a limitation.

The Defence of the Argument.

THe answer that Christ prayed according to the humane Nature only, is sufficiently refuted by what we have spoken before both in the 3d and 14th chapter, and also in the precedent one. Whereun­to add, if Christ, as this distinction supposeth, had had a divine Nature in him, there would have been no need that he should fly to another Person, namely, the Father; as we read Christ very often did, and also with tears and strong cryings. For what need is there to ask of another, and that with so great earnestness, yea, further with tears, which you are able by your self, and that by natural strength underived from another at all times, most freely and easily to perform, yea, which you your selves have absolutely decreed to perform, as certainly it is to be held of Christ if he were the most supream God, or most High. Some here reply, that it may be, that even he who may and will per­form something by himself, may beg it of another, to the end he may honour him in this behalf, and in a manner leave to him the glory of the benefit. And that it became Christ, as being the Son; in this sort to honour the Father, and to ask of the Father by name, as of the Fountain, those benefits which proceed from the whole Trinity. Which answer, first, taketh not away the difficulty. For they who [Page 94] thus answer, either hold that some Prerogative agreeth to the Father above the Son, and so to the first Person of the Deity above the se­cond, as such, or else they hold it not. If they hold it, those Persons are not of the same numerical Essence, nor is the Son the supream and most high God; as we have already Chap. 1, 2. of this Section. shewn before. If they hold it not, there is no cause why the Son should rather ask something of the Father, than of himself (if so be any one may ask any thing of him­self) or without any prayers performed by himself. For what rea­son is there, that in an absolute equality, this honour should rather be given unto the Father, and the glory of the deed attributed to him, than to the Son? Yea, Christ should rather have taken heed, lest by the example of his prayers, which he is found to have poured out to the Father only, he should give occasion unto others, to exhibit greater honour to the Father, than either to himself, or to the holy Spirit. For to Persons altogether equal, equal honour is also due; and the Adversaries themselves contend, that those three Persons of Supream Divinity, which they hold, have equal honour and glory. But if you say, as indeed some do, that it was Christs modesty to ask that of the Father, which of himself he could either assume to himself, or bestow on others. Not to repeat those things which have been already spoken, we may demand, to which Nature they think that modesty is to be a­scribed? If to the humane, it was not its modesty, but judgement on­ly, to prefer the Father before the Son, and to direct prayers rather to the more honourable. It is greater modesty to make an address to the inferiour, rather than to the Superiour. Or if you think the Persons altogether equal, you shew no greater modesty if you betake your self, and convert your prayers, to one, than to the other. If they a­scribe this modesty to the divine Nature or Person (as we said it was necessary, if this Person were divine, that is, if he were the very su­pream God) they are very absurd and injurious to the most high God. For Modesty is a Vertue of Men and Angels, not of the most high God; It is, I say, a Vertue of such a Nature, as may be exalted, and cast down; not belonging to such a nature as is not capable of exaltation and depression. But if you dare to ascribe modesty to the most high God, as such, there will be no cause why you should so earnestly con­tend, that Christ prayed to the Father not according to the divine Na­ture, but according to the humane only. For it would not be impos­sible, that Christ according to the divine Nature, did for modesty sake so debase himself before the Father, as to pray unto him for others, namely, Men, and obtain gifts for them, which he could by himself be­stow upon them: which, how absurd it is, every one perceiveth, and the Adversaries themselves sufficiently intimate, that they see it, whilst all that I know of, do in this Argument fly to the distinction of Na­tures.

But furthermore, the manner of Christs prayers to the Father, chiefly expressed by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and al­so in part intimated by the Writers of the History of the Gospel, doth at no hand admit that answer; for it argueth the want of Christ, and [Page 95] necessity of praying, not modesty only. This appeareth both from his great assiduity in praying, and also by his strong crying and tears, and perplexity of mind, which shewed themselves, as he prayed a little before his death. If you say it was necessity that Christ prayed, but mo­desty that he rather prayed to the Father, than to himself, or his own divine Nature, not to rep [...]t what was formerly spoken of the humane Nature of Christ, be h [...] be personally united to the divine, that necessity will quite be e [...]ed, especially in things pertaining to Christ himself, wherein notwithstanding we see, that he used such cryings, and tears, and contention of mind. For by what means, for exam­ple sake, could the necessity drive the humane Nature of Christ to pray so ardently unto the Father, that he would not forsake it, or leave it destitute of his help, and that he would receive its spirit into his hands, and save it from death, if it had been joyned with an indis­solveable tye to the divine Nature, which both could and would per­form it, yea, could not chuse but perform it? Do we think that the humane Nature of Christ was afraid, lest that personal union should be dissolved. But the Adversaries do not so much as permit any one to doubt of that; so far are they from believing that such a thing could come into the mind of Christs humane Nature, or of the man Christ, or could it perhaps fear, lest then the union remained entire, yet not­withstanding might perpetually abide in death, and so the divine Na­ture remain to all eternity, personally united to a dead and bloodless corps? who would not tremble to think of this, since if you make a true estimate of the thing, this could not be done so much as for a mo­ment. It remaineth therefore, that Christ did not for modesty, but for necessity, pray, and that to the Father, a different person from him­self; namely, because he could not perform by himself that which he asked for himself, and could not bestow that which he asked for others, but by power received from the Father, which by praying for others, he tacitly begged should be given to himself. The first of these is in­timated by the divine Author to the Hebrews, chap. 5.8. whilst, without expressing his proper name, he thus describeth him, to whom Christ offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, namely, Who was able to save him from death, or deliver him from death. For by that description▪ he would distinguish that Person from the Person of Christ, and withal assign the cause why he offered up pray­ers unto him, and finally intimate, what he did then so earnestly beg for himself. But neither had he by this means distinguished that Per­son from Christ, if Christ had been as able to save himself from death, as the Father was to save him, since common things do not distinguish, but proper; neither had he brought a sufficient reason why he made supplication unto him, with crying and tears, that he would deliver him from death.

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 mi [...]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 another reason of diversity, in that we speak of such a Giving, as an [Page 100] Inferiour cannot exercise towards a Superiour, such as is the confer­ring of power and right on another, the giving of life, or the like things. But the delivery of the Kingdom may be incident to an Inferiour, in respect of a Superiour, yea, can be incident to none but such. But every one doth easily perceive, how much that delivery, whereby Christ shall render the Kingdom to God the Father, doth differ from that, whereby the Father gave to Christ the Throne of David, and all Power in Heaven and Earth, and consequently the other things. Be­cause when those things were given to Christ by the Father, he was said to have been made Lord and Christ. But who dare to say of the Father, that he, when Christ delivereth the Kingdom to him, shall then be made and constituted by him Lord and Christ.

But further, let us grant that something may be given to God, who is there that dare to say, that all things have been delivered to the most high God by another? That all Power in Heaven and Earth hath been given to him? as Christ affirmeth concerning himself. Would it agree to the Father, whom all grant to be the most high God, to speak in this manner: I dispose to you a Kingdom, as my Son hath disposed unto me? Could it be said, that it is given to the Father by another to have life in himself? that he liveth by another? Would this speech be suitable to him, My Son, who gave me the Sheep, is greater than all? or this, Thine were they (Disciples) O Son, and thou hast given them unto me? Run over the rest, and see whether you can without Blas­phemy apply them to the Father, or the most high God. Hence it easily appeareth, how frivolous that other thing is which they alleage out of John 17.2, 4. touching the glorifying of the Father. For there is as wide a difference between the glorifying of Christ which he begs of the Father, and the glorifying of the Father made by Christ on the Earth, as is between the Glory Rom. 2.7. Joh. 5.2. 1 Thes. 2.12. 1 Pet. 5.10. John 12.26. 1 Cor. 4.4. which God promiseth to us, and will at length give by Christ, and that which we are said to give or render unto God: between the blessing, whereby God blesseth us, and that whereby we bless God: between the praise and honour which he will sometimes give to us, and that which we give to him: for the glorify­ing of the Father, which proceeded from Christ, was only the illustra­tion of the divine Name, or the celebration, or manifestation of the Fathers Goodness, Power and Wisdom; but that which Christ did beg, consisted in the conferring Immortality, and Sovereign Power. Which is manifest by it self, and shall be shewn afterwards when we shall re­fute the third Answer to our Argument. So that in the words of Christ, Joh. 17.2, 4. there is such an elegant Antanaclasis, as if some one of us should say, Glorifie us O God, that we may glorifie thee: praise and honour us, that we may praise, and honour thee: Or, we have glorified thee on Earth, praised thee, honoured thee, finished the work which thou hast given us to do; wherefore glorifie us with thy self with that glory which thou didst design to us, before the world was crea­ted.

The se­cond an­swer and its refu­tation.But now it is time that we see other Answers to our Argument, or rather interpretations of the places from whence it is drawn. Some [Page 101] therefore answer, that all things were given to Christ from the Fa­ther, by an eternal generation out of his Essence. Which answer like­wise seemeth to strike at the Major of our Argument, and so deny it to be universally true. For it is tacitly said, that it is only true of the Father, but not of the Son, or also of the holy Spirit. But this an­swer is not to be admitted, chiefly for two Reasons. First, Because, as we Chap. 2, 3. of this Se­ction. already above hinted, it doth sundry wayes imply a contradicti­on, for it maketh the same to be at once both eternal and not eternal; both the most high God, and not the most high God; the same in Es­sence with the Father, and not the same; equal to him, and not equal. The one, while it attributeth to him the same Essence in number with the Father, and affirmeth that he existed from all eternity; the other, while it affirmeth, that he was generated out of the Essence of the Fa­ther, and received all things of him, which he hath in respect of his Deity. Next, because it evidently thwarteth very many of the places quoted by us. For some openly speak of a thing which was done in time, and not from all eternity; as the place, Luke 1.32. and John 5.20, &c. where also life is mentioned which the Father hath given to the Son to have in himself; that is, as most learned Interpreters do John Calvin Wolfg Musc. & John Maldo­nat. observe, a power and vertue of quickning, which many hold that he received by that eternal Generation from the Father. So also chap. 6.37. and 17.4. Acts 2.33, &c. and chap. 3.13. and chap. 5.31. and 1 Cor 15.27. Ephes. 1.20. & Phil 2.9, &c. whereunto add all those places which we have cited out of the Epistle to the Hebrews, out of the Epistle of Peter, out of the Revelation, also out of the Psalms, and out of Daniel. Some also express such a cause of that giving, as hath nothing common with that eternal Generation out of the Essence of God. Chap. 3. of this Section. As that the Father loved the Son, John 3.35. and 5.20. and 17.24. which cause pertaineth also to the Life which the Father gave unto the Son, to have in himself; Or, that the Son, namely, of God, is the Son of Man, John 5.27. or that he was obedient to the Fa­ther even to the death of the Cross, Phil. 2.9. and that he glorified the Father on the Earth, and finished the work which he had given him to do, John 17.4, 5. or that he did desire and obtain it from the Father, ibid. and Psal. 2.8. Let these things suffice to have been spoken con­cerning the second Answer.

Now that we may come to those Answers which endeavour by a distinction, to solve the Argument, they again are divers, For some seem to distinguish the word Third Answer and its Refuta­tion. Give, and others that have the same force, others those things which are said to be given, others finally him to whom they are given, in respect of the divers Natures that are in him, one whereof is such, that according to it, something may be given to him, and consequently all things have been given; the other such, that according to it, nothing hath been given to him. Where­fore the first will say, that the word Give in the major Proposition, is to be taken of a giving which is really 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; [Page 102] 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 [Page 103] 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 confe [...]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 unto him above every name, that the knees of all things in Heaven also might be bowed to him. But what need had the heavenly things of such a declaration, that they might bend their knees to Christ, being the second Person of the Deity, [Page 104] whom they had alwayes very well-known, and, as I may say, had be­held with their eyes, and did yet behold. But furthermore, the col­lation of this place, partly with the two precedent ones, partly with other testimonies of the Scripture, which admit not that explication, and are very like unto this place, shew that the same is here also to be rejected. Finally, though we grant that those places are to be un­derstood only of the declaration of Christs Majesty and Glory, never­theless, it will from thence appear, that Christ is not the most high God. For otherwise why should the declaration be attributed to the Father, and not to Christ himself? For could not, and would not Christ alwayes declare the same by himself? yea, he could not but declare it when the Father did declare it; as we have in this Chapter a little be­fore hinted. And thus far concerning the third Answer.

But as for them who endeavour to escape chiefly by distinguishing the things given to Christ, they again differ among themselves. For some (which is the fourth The 4th and 5th Answer and the Refuta­tion of both. Answer) when they read that all Power was given to Christ, that he was set at the right hand of God, that he was made Lord and Christ, and other such like things, say this is to be un­derstood, not of the right of ruling, but of the act and exercise of Rule. Others The 4th and 5th Answer and the Refuta­tion of both. and (which is the fifth Answer) grant that it is spoken also of the right of ruling, which Christ got to himself by his obedience, and death, as Mediator and Redeemer. But, first, the same may be said of both answers, that was of the third preceding, namely, al­though this explication of those places was admitted, yet our Argu­ment would be safe, whilst the other places wherewith it is supported, and which refuse that explication, remain safe. Again, as to the for­mer, those places of the Scripture admit it not, for all power in Hea­ven and Earth denoteth not the act, or exercise, or rule; that is, the actions which proceed from the Regal Office; but this very right and plenary Authority to rule and govern. There is the same force of this sitting at the right hand of God, or in the Throne of God, or in the Throne of David. For when any one is placed by another in the Roy­al Throne, or commanded to sit, not only the exercise of rule, yea, not the exercise it self is primarily given, as which doth properly depend on him that is placed on the Royal Throne; but the very Office, Power and Dignity is granted to him. In like manner one is not said to be made Lord and Christ, or King, when he exerciseth the rule which he by full right obtaineth, and actually possesseth, but when he is put into possession thereof. Besides, that we may together treat of the latter answer also, either Christ alwayes had a full right or fa­culty to reign, or else he had not. If he had not, how can he be the most high God? Can he be the most high God, who hath not alwayes a full right to rule? If he had, how was it given and bestowed on him at a certain time by another; namely, by the Father, either that he might actually rule, or attain the right of ruling? How could such an Empire be given to h [...]m by the Father for a reward of his debasement and obedience? as not only that place of John 17.4, 5. but also Phil. 29, &c. and sundry other places intimate, that it was given to him. [Page 105] See Isa. 53.10, 11, 12. Luke 24.26, 46, 47. Heb. 2.9, 10. and 12.2. 1 Pet. 1.11. Rev. 3.21. For what one already hath in his power, and what he alwayes possessed with most full right, that cannot be paid unto him for a reward, nor at all be given by another. For if any one say, that it may be that one should obtain the same thing by a double, yea, a treble right and title; as if he to whom another is indebted, should both by nature and by will, become his universal Heir, likewise that it may be, that he who already possesseth a thing, may have a new right to possess the same; We answer, if any one already possess any thing, and that by a full right, it can at no hand be said, that it is then given to him by another, when he hath a new right to possess the same. For that which is mine, can no more be made mine, and therefore neither given by another. But further, who would say, that that thing is then bestowed on him, and given of Grace? who would say, that it is then paid unto him for a reward? would you not laugh at him who should affirm, that he did bestow on thee, or appoint for thee a reward of thy labour, and consequently pay unto thee in lieu of recompence, a thousand Crowns which thou already possessest, and that by very good right? yea, though thou didst not yet possess them, so they were by very good right due to thee, none would either bestow them on thee, or appoint them for a reward of thy labour as, yet to be performed, and consequently pay them in lieu of recompence. Wouldst thou not justly laugh at thy debtor, who should say, that he bestowed on thee, or for some certain labour which thou hast performed to him, pay [...]th to thee in lieu of reward the money which thou hadst lent him? How much less therefore could Power and Empire he bestowed on Christ, and paid in lieu of reward if he had already perpetually obtained it by the greatest and the fullest Right; although a new right to possess the same▪ had accreued to him? Wherefore since all Power and Empire is said to have been given, and bestowed on Christ by another, since he is affirmed to have been made by God both Lord and Christ after his resurrection. Finally, since he obtained this as the reward of his debasement and obedience, it could not be that he did already possess it before, yea, nor so much as that, that he should have a full right un­to that thing before he had performed that obedience; which if it be so; how can he be the most high God? Nor may any one here think, that that right of ruling which Christ hath as Mediator and Redeem­er, is not contained in that Right and Power which the most high God hath of himself, and consequently that it might be given by another unto Christ, although he were the most high God. For the Right and Power of the most high God, extendeth it self to all things that are not in their nature unjust, but certainly that Empire is not unjust, which is attributed to Christ as Mediator and Redeemer. And what, I pray, is that Right of ruling? Is it not a right of prescribing Laws un­to us, and of executing them, a Right of remitting our sins, of de­fending us from our adversaries, and enduing us with eternal felicity? But what? hath not the most high God a Right of doing all these things? How then did the Father give that Right to Christ? how doth [Page 106] he exercise the same by him, if the most high God, hath it not of himself? Wherefore Christ also would have it of himself were he the most high God. Some other things which might be here spoken, shall be hereafter spoken in a more commodious place.

It remaineth that we examine the last, and most usual Answer of all, to the places alleaged by us, and the Argument framed out of them, which consisteth in the distinction of the Natures of Christ. For they say commonly these things are spoken of Christ, according to the humane Nature, The sixth answer, and its refutati­on. and not according to the divine. But, first, as we have before shewn chap. 14. it could not be simply affirmed, that all these things were given and bestowed on Christ, that he was exalted, glorified, made Lord and Christ, if he had that divine Nature, according to which those things could not be spoken of him. Since the very same things might simply be denyed of him, no less than they are simply affirmed of him in the fore-cited places. Add hereunto, that such pla­ces contain in them a tacit Negation, and that a simple one; namely, that Christ hath not of himself those things which are said to have been given to him, for otherwise they would not be said to be given to him. But in such Negations, a distinction of Natures hath no place, as we have sufficiently shewn before, especially when we created on that place John 5 19. Again, To be, or become a King, Christ, Lord, to hold, or exercise Empire, and if there be any thing like to these, do primarily and properly agree to none but an intelligent Suppositum, or Person as such. Wherefore it must be held, either of a very Per­son, having supream Divinity, as such, and consequently of the very divine Nature, that all these things have been given to him by the Fa­ther, or confest that Christ is not such a person. Finally, If the Es­sence of the Supream God were in Christ, there would be no cause why it should be said, that all things were given to him by another person; namely, by the Father, and he made Lord and Christ, and nor rather by himself. For was the divine Nature of Christ in this behalf idle? did it not give all things to the humane Nature? Certainly the Adversaries contend, that it did [...]ive them, and are forced to say so both by reason of that very straight [...]ion of either Nature which they hold, and also because the Father could not give them. But that the Son should withal give the same things, if he is of one Essence with the Fa­ther. Why then is this attributed to the Father, and to him alone, not also to Christ? If you say, this is done because of the Prerogative of the Father above the Son, you will hereby confess the Father, not the Son, to be the most high God. Howbeit, neither could a simple Prerogative, cause that this should be so often attributed to the Father, and so openly, but never to the Son. For neither are they to be heard, who, when they reade in certain places, that God gave some­thing to Christ, glorified him, exalted him, made him Lord, and Christ, understand the whole Trinity, or the divine Essence, that they may attribute to Christ the same action. For, first, since we so often read, either that it is expresly written, that the Father did those things; as to omit other places, it happeneth out of those places which are cited [Page 107] out of John, or that God glorified the Son, or gave something to him, and since they themselves confess, that the name of God in very many places, denoteth the Father only, why do they not confess, that he is understood in the places under contestation? doth not the very si­militude of the places perswade thereunto? Are not those things which seem to be spoken more generally or confusedly to be explain­ed out of those places which express the same thing more specially and distinctly, especially since they are so many in number? Again, Is it not manifest, when the action of giving, exalting, glorifying, is attri­buted unto God, a Person is understood (for such actions are attribu­ted unto none but Persons) and such an one as is distinct from Christ? For who even amongst the Adversaries themselves, would endure him that should thus speak? The Son of God gave or bestowed a name on Christ; the Son of God glorified Christ, made Jesus Lord, certainly he that should speak so; would by the Adversaries, and that deser­vedly, said to savour of Nestorianism, and attribute unto Christ two Persons, namely, the Son of God and Christ. But the reason is the same, if you say that God performed those things to Christ, and by the name of God, understand the Son. Nor are the Adversaries igno­rant thereof. But who will say, that the holy Spirit is understood? who is never found in the Scripture expresly named God, much less by that name distinguished from Christ, and preferred before him, is likewise no where read to have given any thing to Christ, or to have exalted him. To omit that the same question will return which we urged concerning the Father, namely, why those things should be at­tributed to the holy Spirit, rather than to the Son, if the Son were the most high God.

The Defence of the Argument.

YOu will perhaps say, that Christ fitted his speech to the Opinion of the Jews, who believed him to be a mere man, and therefore that he could not take for granted that he was the most high God, but was forced to draw his Argument from a thing manifest unto them. But this Answer is of no worth. For first, If Christ would have taken that only for granted which the Jews believed concerning him, he nei­ther ought, nor could take that for granted which he here affirmeth of himself, especially if the Opinion of the Adversaries be right. For they did not yet believe, that God was his Father, which he here ta­keth for granted. Nor did they yet believe that his Father, namely, God, had sent him, and so was also with him. Again, The Adversa­ries cannot use this Answer, unless they will confess, that Christ did not therefore call God his Father, because he was so generated out of his Essence, as that he was one God with him; for if for this cause he had called God his Father, he had already taken that for granted, which this answer contend he could not take. For what other thing would 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 th [...]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 [Page 117] 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 t [...]at Christ was a more ex­cellent one than they. But unless you will acknowledge t [...]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 not [...]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 it [...] er, and apply to the matter in hand.

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 [Page 119] ones, Again, I leave the World, and go to the Father, are to be un­derstood of a local departure from the Earth 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?

The Defence of the Argument.

VVHen they Maldo­na [...]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 ra­t [...]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 the [...]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 therefo [...]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, [...]ut in the future, for thou wilt hear me; which may contain the cause why David cryed to God, namely [...]e­c [...]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. p [...]eterperfect as well as future Psal. 1.2, 3, 4.2 1, 2, 4, 5.4.6, 7, 10.7.9 8.4. See Va­ta [...] and the Heb. Text on these pla­ces. tenses are f [...]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 t [...]ou art wont to hea [...] 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 [Page 121] 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 [...]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 m [...]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 them, when t [...]ey had exalted him, as is apparent from the preceding words. Wherefore nei­ther doth he suppose the former to be manifest unto them, as the opi­nion of these men requireth. Besides, if Christ would have reasoned from effects, he would rat [...]er have alledged his miraculous works, than works of virtue and piety. For they were the most manifest effects of his conjunction with the Father, to which he elsewhe [...]e likewise fre­quently appealeth when he spake of his conjunction with the Father, or of some like thing, as we read in the same Writer: See Chap. 5.36. and 10.37, 38. and 14.11. & 15.24. Furthermore, if it appeareth from other places, that this was the true cause why God was with Christ, in that he alwayes did the things that pleased him, their reason, for whic [...] they think they must here depart from the usual and simple signification of the particle for, falleth to the ground: But that the thing is so, is thence apparent, in that Christ himself doth elsewhere render this as the reason, w [...]y God did co [...]sequently love him, & consequently was always with him by his assistance, namely because he had done and would here­after doe those things that were pleasing to the Father, and agreeable to his commandments. Now it is all one for the Father not to leave Christ, but to be present with him, and constantly to love Christ, and to be perpetually with him by his help and assistance. And that this which we have said was the cause of the Fathers love towards Christ, and consequently of the help which he gave him, is intimated by the words of Christ, which are extant afterwards, Chap. 10.17. Therefore the Father loveth me, because I lay down my soul that I may receive it a­gain. For this Commandment, as he himself addeth in the following Verse, he had received from the Father. And Chap. 15.10. As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you; continue in my love. If you keep my Commandments ye shall continue in my love, as I also have kept the Fathers Commandments, and continue in his love. Where, whatsoever they say, with whom we have to do, Christ warneth his disciples, that having once obtained his love, they would use their endeavours not to lose it again, but enjoy it perpetually; and sheweth them a way how they should certainly attain it; which he had also formerly intima­ted by a similitude in t [...]e 2d. Verse, namely, by keeping his Command­ments. Moreo [...]er, be illustrates this way by his own example, shew­ing it to be the aptest, yea the only means of persevering in his love, in t [...]at he himself by keeping his Fathers Commandments, had obtain­ed [Page 122] this favour, to continue in his love, that is, to be constantly loved of him. Wherefore as we said before, that reason falleth to the ground, for which the particle For should be thought to signifie not the cause but the effect or sign in these words, Chap. 8.29. But if it signifieth the cause, the thing it self, as we have seen, doth evince, that Christ is not the most high God.

This Argument of ours cannot be solved by the distinction of na­tures. For first, those causes hinder which we have above hinted in o­ther Chap. 3.14.10. of this Section. places; as namely, that these things are simply spoken of Christ, and that it is necessary here to consider him as a person, both for his Mission, and so also for the operations which he attributeth to himself according to the capacity wherein he is to be considered. Again, this likewise taketh away the force of that answer, that notwithstanding this, Christ should rather have alleaged this for the reason why the Father was with him, and left him not alone, because according to the divine nature to which the humane is personally united, he was the same God with the Father.

The Defence of the Argument.

HEere they have no other refuge left them besides the distinction of Natures. Though not so much as this is left them, in that we have Chap. 3.14, 16. already sufficiently stopt this hole at which they endeavour to get out; especially because all the circumstances of those places do argue, that it is spoken concerning the whole Person of Christ, or that he is considered as a Person. For he is considered as the Son of God, as our Saviour, as our Lord, as Anointed of God, as God, as Prince appointed of God. Wherefore he cannot be a Per­son of supream Godhead, otherwise his divine Nature also would have a God: besides, were Christ the most high God, although he also had a humane Nature, yet some other, or another Person, namely, the Father, would not be his God, but he himself would be his own God. For he himself would have sovereign Power over his own hu­mane Nature; he himself would be a Benefactor to it; he himself would be worshipt of it, certainly no less than any other person, yea, more. Why then is another, namely, the Father, rather called his God, than he himself called his own God? But if they acknowledge it to be absurd, that any one should be his own God, let them also acknowledge, that Christ is not the most high God.

The Defence of the Argument.

HEre the Adversaries again are wont to fly to their distinction of Natures in Christ, as to a sacred Anchor, which notwitstanding the Reader may observe, that we have See cap. 3.14, 16. of this Section. before sufficiently confuted. We repeat not all things that have been spoken; we only desire that it should here also be observed, that Christ is here likewise considered as a person; for he is considered as the head of the man, & consequently of every man, that is, as a Lord appointed to rule every man, even as the man also is the head of the woman. But Christ is such, as he is a Person. Wherefore if the Adversaries Opinion concerning Christ, is true, he, as a divine Person, and consequently the most high God, must have a Head over him, which implieth a contradiction, and is the very thing which they endeavour to escape, who here use the distinction of Natures. Neither may any one here say, that in the former words indeed, where Christ is said to be the Head of the man, he is consider­ed as a Person, but in the latter he is lookt upon only in respect of that Nature which is not a person.

For besides that, this is affirmed without reason, it is disproved by reason. First, be [...]use it is certain that God is the Head of Christ, as he hath received from him Dominion and Empire over the man. But Christ received that Dominion as he is a Person. Why then is it not God made the head of Christ as he is here a person? Again, if you inquire the cause, why the Apostle, when he had asserted that Christ is the Head of the man, did likewise say afterwards, that God is the Head of Christ, you shall find this to be the chief, that he might not seem to leave God no further power over the man, because Christ is his Head, or Lord and King: but rather that it might be understood, that God is also upon this very account the Head or Lord, or King of the man, because Christ is the Head of every man, in as much as God is also the Head of Christ himself For as the woman is not therefore exempted from the Empire and Power of Christ, because the man is her Head, in as much as Christ is also the Head and Lord of the man himself, so neither is the man exempted from the Power of God, be­cause Christ is his Head: since God is also the Head of Christ himself. [Page 125] Moreover, the Apostle spake this to give us to understand, that if we bring any dishonour to Christ, who is our Head, it will at length re­dound to God himself, who is again the Head of Christ. But neither of these Reasons would be of any force, if God were not the Head of Christ, as he is the Head and Lord of the man. But if God be the Head of Christ, as he is our Lord, he is the Head of that person, as such. Finally, such a gradation ought not to be made, as to ascend from the Man to Christ, from Christ to God, as a different person from him, if besides the humane, there were another Nature in Christ, to which it did no less agree, to be his Head, than to a Person different from him, but mention was to be made of that Nature as well as of this. Now if any one will fly hither for refuge, as to say, that by the name of God the Father is not understood, but the whole Trinity, he must, at least, in the first place alleage some passage, from whence it may manifestly appear, that God distinguished from Christ, denoteth some other besides the Father. For we can alleage innumerable ones, wherein even by the confession of the Adversaries themselves, it deno­teth none but the Father, and it is otherwise apparent, that such things as are like hereunto, are expresly attributed to the Father in the holy Scripture. For it is all one to be ones Head, and to be ones God. But the latter is expresly affirmed of the Father of Christ, as every one may perceive from these words of Christ, John 20.17. and those of the Apostle, Ephes: 1.17. Add hereunto, that the Reasons where­fore God is called the Head of Christ, do all agree to the Father. Whe­ther they agree to any other, we have no assurance thereof: or ra­ther we are assured, that they agree to no other; namely, because he gave all Empire to Christ; because he gave the Laws by which he ru­leth and governeth us; and also because he bringeth his will to an issue by his hands, and provides for his own Isa. 53.10. John 13.32. and 14.13, 17. Phil. 2.11. Glory by his Empire. But in the last place, those Reasons which evince that Christ is here considered as a Person, permit not the Trinity here to be understood by the name of God. Otherwise the Person of Christ, which is be­lieved to be contained in that Trinity, would be the head of it self, as such. Nor can you understand the Essence it self, which is not a Per­son. For it can govern none, and consequently is the head of none. But it is to no purpose to feign a true God who is not a Person; since the name of God is, as we have already hinted Chap. 1. of this Section. before, the name of a Person.

The Defence of the Argument.

THis Argument can no more be eluded by the distinction of Na­tures in Christ, than the precedent Testimonies: both for other causes formerly Chap. 3.14, 16. alleaged, and also because Christ is here considered as our Lord, and consequently as a Person; and that no less, when he is said to be Gods, then when we are said to be his. For Paul, when he said that we are Christs, again affirmeth, that Christs is Gods, lest any one should think, that because we are Christs, we are no longer Gods, but rather that he might understand that we are Gods on this very ac­count, inasmuch as Christ himself, and consequently all things that are his, are Gods. But if he be here considered as a Person, his Person is not a Person of the most high God. For that is not anothers, un­less you will have also the divine Nature to be anothers, which they who here use the distinction of Natures, do by this very distinction endeavour to avoid. Besides, if Christ were the most high God, al­though he had withal a humane Nature, yet could it not be said, that he is more anothers than his own. But here he is simply said to be Gods; namely, another Persons, without making any mention that he is also his own, or that his humane Nature is his divine Natures. If there is any thing that belongeth to the fuller understanding of these Reasons, it may be fetched from the defence of the precedent Rea­sons.

The Defence of the Argument.

HEre all for the most part fly to the distinction of Natures, but to no purpose, both for the simple affirmation, which is found in both See cap. 3.14, 16. of this Section. verses, and could not have place, if for the other Nature, name­ly the divine, the same things ought simply to be denyed of Christ; and also because Christ is here considered as a King, and consequently, as a Person, so that either his humane Nature is to be acknowledged for a Person, or these things are to be ascribed both to his divine Per­son and Nature; whereof the first quite overthroweth the Opinion of the Adversaries, the other by their own confession subverteth it self. Add hereunto, that in the latter place it is emphatically said, the Son al­so himself shall become subject to him, who brought all things under his subjection. Now who would believe that Paul, when he spake thus, considered Christ not according to that Nature, according to which he is the Son of God, but according to another? For neither [Page 129] can any one say, that the name of the Son, is in this place put abso­lutely without adding the name of God, so that also the Son of man may be understood. For the word Son is manifestly opposed to God the Father as its correlative, as they speak in the Schools; neither is the word Son absolutely used of Christ, ever meant otherwise, than as related to God as its correlative, and not to any man. To omit that the Emphasis which is in those two words, namely, also and himself, doth require that Christ should be thought to be described in that manner, wherein he exceedeth a l the other things there mentioned, as being subject to him, and not wherein he is either equal, or inferiour to him, and that manner is that he be called the Son of God, and not the Son of Man. For in the first manner he is equal to Men, and inferiour to Angels. But as the Son of God, by way of excellency so called, he is superiour unto Angels, as it is openly written, Heb. 1.4, 5. Finally, if according to the humane Nature only, Christ shall deliver the Kingdom and become subject, but not according to the divine, why is it said, that he shall deliver the Kingdom to the Father only, why that he s [...]all become subject to him only, and not also to himself, or to his own di­vine Nature? Why is it added that God may be all in all? why should not Christ himself also be all in all? For neither may any one say, that there the divine Nature, and that even of Christ himself, is a [...]solutely meant. For it is both understood from the thing it self, that some Person is designed, (for operation and the government of all things, is ascri­bed to him) and that such an one as is distinct from Christ, and all the foregoing words openly teach, that it is spoken of God the Father, who brought all things in subjection unto Christ, and placed him at his right hand; as we have elsewhere seen. Now whereas some except, that it is therefore said, that Christ shall deliver the Kingdom to God the Father, because he shall resign thar Kingdom which he hath, as Me­diator, not which he hath as God, this is also of no moment. For, first, we have already shewn Chap 18 of this Section. before, that if Christ were the most high God, such a Kingdom could not be given to him, because otherwise he would at the same time, have the same Empire both from himself, and not from himself, be therein subordinate to another & not therein sub­dinate. In a word, both the most high, & not the most high. For we have taught, that such a Kingdom considered by it self is contained in that Power and Empire which the most high God hath of himself, For there is no act of that Empire, which doth not by it self agree to the most high God. But if Christ, being the most high God, could not receive such a Kingdom, neither can he deliver it to another, and depose it. Wherefore since we read, that he shall deliver that Kingdom to God the Fathe [...], and so depose it, it is evident that he cannot [...]e the most high God. Add he [...]eunto, that were such an answer of the Adversaries to be admitted, it will follow, that Christ when he hath delivered that Kingdom, shall not be subject to God the Father, contrary to what the Apostle manifestly witnesseth: For he that retaine [...]h a supream and in­dependent Empire over all things, becometh subject unto none: Other­wise he would acknowledge another above him, and so not be the most [Page 130] high. Arg. 27 That Christ is the Mediator of God and men. Yea, Christ after the delivery of the Kingdom which he hath as Mediator, would be so far from becoming more subject to the Father than before, that he ought rather to be esteemed less subject. For in respect of that Kingdom, he, as we have said, and the holy Scrip­tures abundantly testifie, is dependant on the Father, and subordinate to him; which subordination containeth in it self, some subjection at least, which when that Kingdom should be desposed, would altogether cease his supream and independent Empire in the mean time remaining, which suffereth not that he be subject to any one. The distinction of Natures hath here no weight, partly because we have already before excluded it with reasons; partly because they who use that answer, will have Christ according to both Natures, or the whole person of Christ to be the Mediator, and consequently to have and administer that Kingdom which agreeth unto him as Mediator.

The Defence of the Argument.

THe Adversaries cannot escape by the distinction of Natures, as for other causes explained oftentimes before, so also because, Sect. 1. chap. 6. We have taught, that some of the Adversaries, whilst they make Christ a Mediator according to the humane Nature, do indeed make the humane Nature a Person: And that others say, that the very divine Suppositum, or Person of Christ, dischargeth the office of a Me­diator (but it cannot discharge it, unless the very divine Nature dis­charge it) and finally, that others openly say, yea, contend, that Christ is a Mediator according to both Natures: of which their assertion, they alleage this Reason among others, which neither the other Ad­versaries can reject, because otherwise he could not satisfie the divine Justice, requiring an infinite price for our sins; and this is either the only or chief ground of the Doctrine touching the Incarnation, as they term it, of the Son of God, the second Person of the Trinity. From which it appeareth, that the Adversaries cannot here fly to the distinction of Natures in Christ. Howbeit, in the mean time, how ill those things which they say hang together, even this doth argue, name­ly, that Paul when he had said, that there is one God, and one Mediator of God and Men, being about to describe him, saith not the God and Man Jesus Christ, but simply, the Man Jesus Christ: but he should have see spoken, if the Opinion of these men were true. For descriptions of Persons, as we have often hinted, used by the sacred Authors, are, as indeed they ought to be, suitable to the things that are spoken of. Wherefore if Christ had been a Mediator, both as God, and as Man, or according to both Natures, the Apostle, when he would describe him, ought to have called him not only a Man, but also God, especially since express mention had been made both of God, and of Men, whose Mediator he is. And indeed the Adversaris love so to speak, when they explain their Opinion with their own words.

The Defence of the Argument.

THe distinction of Natures hath here no more place or strength, than either in other places above, or in the precedent Chapter, where the Office of a Mediator is handled, especially because the Ad­versaries place the Office of Mediator, which agreeth unto Christ in his Priesthood chiefly. Wherefore not to repeat other things, we only say thus much. If Christ, besides the humane Nature, had also a divine one, it would be necessary, that he no less than the Father, [Page 133] 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.

A more full Confirmation and Defence of the Argument.

YOu will say, that although Christ is said to have been raised by ano­ther, yet it followeth not that he was not raised by himself, in as much as the same action may proceed from many causes, and those e­qual among themselves. Moreover that in those places wherein, it is asserted, that God raised up Christ, by the name of God, may be under­stood the whole Trinity, or the divine nature of Christ, especially, in that elsewhere the raising of himself seems to be ascribed unto Christ.

But the first is not to be admitted for three causes chiefly.

The first is, because that at least followeth from those places which we have alleaged, That Christ is not the principal cause of his Resur­rection. For why should the raising of him [...]e so often and so openly [Page 136] ascribed to another person, Arg. 28 That Christ was rai­sed up by the Father. namely the Father, and not rather to Christ himself? But even this thing alone might here be sufficient for us to shew that Christ is not the most high God. For we have before shewn that he, if he were the most high God, would altogether be the principal Author of his own Resurrection. Another cause is, because the holy Scripture doth so attibute the raising of Christ to God the Father, that it doth not obscurely, yea, very openly intimate, that the same action doth not indeed, agree to Christ himself. First, because if Christ had raised him­self from the dead, and that by such a power as was natural and altoge­ther proper unto him, it ought to have been mentioned at least in some of those testimonies which we have alleaged; and to omit other pla­ces, this ought chiefly to be done, Acts 2.24. &c. and Rom. 10.9, 10. 2 Cor. 13.4. For as to the first place, when Peter had affirmed, that Christ had been raised from the dead, in that it was impossible for him to be held by death; was there not ve [...]y great cause to say, that it was therefore impossible, because he was the most high God, who accord­ingly could not leave his soul in Hell, and suffer his body to see cor­ruption? For this would have been the proper, yea, the only cause thereof, whe [...]eas he having alleaged the words of David, and apply­ed them to Christ, produceth a far different cause, namely, that Christ alwayes saw the Lord before his eyes, because he was alwayes at his right hand, lest he should be moved; Whence he conceived joy, whence hope, that the Lord would not lea [...]e his soul in Hell, nor suffer his ho­ly one to see corruption; whereunto the following words also per­tain, where Christ in the Person of David, professeth that God had made known unto him, the wayes of life, and would fill him with glad­ness. Which cause hath nothing common with that which should have been alleaged, yea, doth subvert it.

Rom. 10.9As to the second place, it should therefore have been there rather said, that Christ raised up himself from the dead, (if so be any one can raise up himself from the dead) then that God did it, because that is there set down, which is in a special manner both to be believed with the heart, and to be confessed with the mouth, concerning the digni­ty of Christ; and which if we believe and confess, we shall obtain sal­vation. But if Christ had raised himself from the dead, we ought al­together to believe and confess it, as the Adversaries themselves con­fess, yea, urge, and consequenely it should by no means, have here been omitted by the Apostle. For he had omitted that which did not only contain in it self the g [...]eater dignity of Christ, but was as necessary to be believed by us, as that which he expressed. 2 Cor. 13.4. As to the third testimo­ny; for this reason in stead of that, which is there said, That Christ doth live by the Power of God. It should rather have been said, that he doth live by his own power, because the power of Christ is here in que­stion: and it is shewn that he is powerful in the Corinthians, by re­moving the suspicion of infirmity, which might be grounded on his cruel death. To which purpose nothing had been more apt, than if it had been said, that he revived by his own power, and vanquished the force of death. Again, it is apparent from Acts 13.33. and Rom. 1.4. [Page 137] Col. 1.18. Rev. 1.5. that the raising of Christ was such an action, Arg. 29 That Christ was rai­sed up by the Father. as that by it he was generated by God, and became his Son. Sect. 8. Chap, 31. Concerning which matter more hereafter. But Christ did not generate himself, nor is the Son of himself.

Thirdly, In some places alleaged by us, God, or the Father of Christ, is, without expressing his name, thus described, He that raised Jesus Christ from the dead; & is by that description distinguished from Christ himself. See Rom. 4.24. and 8.11. 2 Cor. 4.14. Whence it appeareth, that this action is not common to Christ with the Father, but proper to the Fa­ther, otherwise this description, would no less, that I mgiht not say more, agree to Christ than to the Father; and consequently, [...]e who raised Christ from the dead, could not be distinguished from Christ, for common things, as we have elsewhere hinted, do not distinguish, but proper ones. To which may be added that place of the Epi [...]le to the Hebrews, chap. 5.7. which we formerly Chap. 17 of this Section. conside ed, when we dis­coursed of the prayers which Christ poured out to the Father; for it is thence evinced by a double reason, that Christ could not raise him­self from the dead, and consequently did not: partly because he did with so earnest prayers, with so earnest cryings, seconded also with tears, beseech the Father to do it; partly because he to whom he made such supplications, is thus described and distinguished from Christ, namely, that he was able to save him from death. Conce [...]ning both which things, see what we have formerly said. Finally, that place, Ephes. 1.19, 20. may be added, which we have formerly alleaged, where it is shewn, how great Power, how great Might God the Father did put forth when he raised Christ from the dead, and set him at his right hand in the Heavens. But what need would there have been of so great Power, or how could it at all have been employed by God the Father, if Christ had raised himself by a Power altogether proper and natural to him? Now if you say, that the same Power did also belong to Christ, as being common to the Father with the Son, there can no cause be alleaged, why it should he said to be put forth rather by the Father, than by Christ, in as much as we have already shewn that the contrary ought rather to be done.

The third cause wherefore that first exception ought to be esteem­ed of no weight, is this, namely, that such a sence doth exceedingly weaken Pauls Argument, whereby from the Resurrection of Christ, he asserteth the truth of our resurrection (as he chiefly doth, 1 Cor. 15.11, &c) and so throweth down the strongest prop of our hope. For Paul doth thence shew, that we shall arise because Christ arose: B [...]t if Christ raised himself from the dead by a power that was inbred, and altogether natural to him, and could not but raise himself, the conse­quence is of no force. For how followeth it, if Christ raised himself by a power that was proper and altogether natural, and could not but raise himself, that we also, who are altogether distitute of that Pow­er, and whom our nature doth not vindicate from eternal death, shall assuredly rise?

There is now scarce any need to speak of the latter exception, which [Page 138] is, that by the name of God, who is said to have raised Christ, either the whole Trinity, wherein Christ also is contained, or the divine Es­sence, which was no less in Christ, than in the Father, may be under­stood. For we have brought Arguments even out of those places, where the Adversaries themselves dare not apply that exception, wherein is shewn that Christ did not raise himself from the dead, the contrary whereof is required by that exception. But furthermore, who doth not understand, that when God, or he that raised Jesus from the dead, is distinguished from Christ, a person distinct from Christ, is understood, which is in this place sufficient for us? That a person is understood, is intimated by the name God, which we have Chap. 1. of this Section. before shewn to be proper to a Person, and also by the action of rai­sing, which agreeth to nothing but a Person; but that one Person is understood the very word God, as also that description, He that raised Jesus Christ from the dead, being uttered in the singular number, doth manifest. For neither is the word God a collective, neither is that expression, wherein mention is made of him, who raised Christ from the dead, general and common, but proper and singular, but the di­stinction between Christ, and him that raised Christ from the dead, is manifest from the very places. Nor as we have else where hinted, would he escape the Tax of Nestorianism, who by the word God, un­derstanding Christ himself by name, Chap 18. of this Section. should say that he raised Christ, or did any like thing about him, for it would be all one as if he should say, the Son of God raised Christ. But what need more words? When the very Scripture explaineth it self, for what it in one place attributeth to God simply named, it elsewhere openly attributeth to the Father, either expressing the very name of the Father, or describing him, whom God raised by the appellation of his Son. If therefore there were any obscurity, or ambiguity in those places, wherein the raising of Christ is simply attributed unto God, without the addition of any other note, implying that it was spoken of the Fa­ther, yet would the other places shew that they are to be understood of the Father. For the obscure passages are to be explained by the plain ones, & the confused & ambiguous passages, by the distinct ones. But there is no ambiguity, no obscurity in the word God, since there can no place of the Scripture be alleaged, where the name God put subjectively, and also distinguished from Christ, both which happen in these Testimonies, is taken of any other but the Father.

Now whereas certain Testimonies of the Scripture are alleaged, wherein the raising of Christ seemeth to be attributed to himself, as that he himself said, that he would in three dayes raise up the Tem­ple, namely, of his Body, John 2.20, 21. and that he had power both to lay down his soul, and to take or receive the same again; for so the greek word may indifferently be rendered, John 10.18. These passages evince no other than that Christ was the cause of his Resur­rection, and that it was so put in his hands, as I may say, that it could be taken away from him, and interrupted by none. After which [Page 139] manner the same Christ saith in Luke, That he that shall lose his Soul, shall find it, chap. 9.24, or quicken it, chap. 17.33. And John saith of them who believed in Christ, and so are born of God, that the word, namely, Christ, Gave them Power to become the Sons of God; that is, to become immortal, John 1.13. For othrewise so few Testimonies, whereof the first, as every one seeth, is altogether figurative, ought at no hand to be opposed to so many and so evident Testimonies and Reasons drawn from thence, wherewith it is evinced, that this acti­on is properly to be attributed, not to Christ, but to the Father. In­deed more might be said of these two places, which are alleaged to the contrary, but it is not now our intention and work to confute the Arguments of the Adversaries, but with Arguments to assert our own Opinion. Wherefore let it now suffice, to have touched these places.

We Meddle not here with the exception of two Natures in Christ, for the intelligent Reader, if he shall consider both our Argument, or Arguments rather, and also what we have spoken of that distinction in the former chapters, will easily understand that it cannot here have place.

The Defence of the Argument.

HEre, for as much as the greatest part contend, that Christ was the Image of God from all Eternity, not according to the humane Nature, but the divine: therefore that they may solve our first Argu­ment, they are wont to fly not to the distinction of Natures in Christ, but to the distinction of divers Persons in one Deity. For they con­tend, that the second Person of the Divinity, is the Image of the first; that is, the Son the Image of the Father, because the Son in respect of Essence, is most like to the Father, as being begotten out of his Es­sence. But they deny that it doth thence follow, that the Son will be the Image of himself, because though he be of the same Essence with the Father, yet he differeth from him in Person. As to the latter Reason, they will perhaps say, that the same Son, although according to the divine Nature he be God, equally invisible with the Father, yet having assumed a humane Nature, he became visible, and was seen by men. But these answers do not at all take away the difficulty. For as to the former, first of all, a Person is in vain distinguished from his own Essence; in as much as every own is the same with his own Es­sence. Wherefore if the Person of the Son be the Image of the Per­son of the Father, the Essence also of the Son will be the Image of the Fathers Essence; and consequently either both must have an Es­sence different in number, or the same Person or Essence, will be the Image of it self. Add hereunto, that they themselves, as we have al­ready hinted, do contend, that the Son in respect of Essence, is most like unto the Father, and consequently his Image; wherefore the Son must in respect of Essence, be distinct in number from the Father. For an Image, as it is an Image, doth differ in number from that whose Image it is, and one like from another For these are relatives, and consequently opposites, but opposites, as such, must at least differ in number; nor can you say, that one is sometimes said to be like him­self. For in such a kind of speech, respect is had to a different time, in reference to which, the same is compared with it self: but we here speak of like things, having no regard to a different time, but to the same. To omit that the Adversaries themselves, hold that the Son ought really to differ from the Father, that he may be the Image of the Father, but this would make nothing to the purpose, did they not really differ as the one is the Image of the other, if therefore the Son in respect of Essence, be the Image of the Father, the one must differ from the other in respect of Essence.

As to the latter exception, which also striketh at our latter Rea­son, it will effect nothing, unless you say, that Christ is the Image of God according to the humane Nature, wherein he is or was visible, which the greatest part do not admit, for they, as we have said, hold Christ to be the Image of God, as he was begotten out of the Sub­stance of the Father, and consequently hath the same Substance with him, which agreeth not to him according to the humane Nature; wher­fore they must first renounce this Opinion, before they make use of that Answer; for neither can they say, that there is no need, that Christ as he is an Image, should be visible, it being sufficient that he is or was by any means visible. For if it were thus, the word invisible added to the name of God, whose Image Christ is, would be altogether idle. For turn your understanding which way you please, you shall find no other reason, why the Apostle did in that manner here describe God, than to shew that it was therefore needful, that if we would know, and as it were view God, some Image of him, namely, Christ, should be held forth unto us, and exposed to the sight of men, in as much as God is invisible, and cannot be known by himself of any one of us, es­pecially in a full and perfect manner: which John also signifieth, say­ing, No man hath seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, Joh. 1.18. who is in the bosome of the Father, he hath declared him. But if Christ, as he is the Image of God, were no less invisible than God himself, we could no more know God by him, than God by himself; wherefore Christ could not be the Image of God. For it is apparent both from this description of God, and also from that which is said in the other place quoted by us, 2 Cor. 4.4. that Christ was called the Image of God in respect of us; namely, because he did represent in himself, and in a manner expose to our view the Will, Goodness, Power, Mat. 11.27. John 14 7, 9. and 18.19. and Wisdom of God. Whence Christ himself saith, None knoweth the Father, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him: and elsewhere, If ye had known me, ye would have known my Father also, and from henceforth ye know him: and a little after, He that seeth me, seeth the Father. But furthermore, although Christ was visible according to the humane Na­ture, yet ought he not to be simply distinguished from the invisible God, and herein to be opposed to him, if he in the mean time were that most high and invisible God. For if the name of God, namely, the most high God, may and ought to be absolutely attributed unto Christ, as they hold; those things also may and ought to be absolutely attri­buted to him; which are absolutely spoken of God, and which agree to him in respect of his Essence. But if Christ may and ought for the divine Nature, to be absolutely called invisible, he ought not abso­lutely to be distinguished from the invisible God.

Some other will perhaps say, that Christ is the Image of God accor­ding to the humane Nature; which seemeth not disagreeable to their Opinion, who together with us confess, that Christ is called the Image of God in respect of us, namely, because he did in himself, as it were present to our view, the invisible God. But in the first place, they are not constant enough to themselves, whilst they refer that which is the [Page 142] same with the Image of God, or at least is of the same efficacy in our Argument, to the divine Nature; namely, that Christ is called the Cha­racter of the Substance of God; for a Character hath not the same Sub­stance with the thing whose Character it is. Again, By this means Christ would have been the Image no less of his own divine Person or Nature, than of the Fathers; neither would there have been any cause why he should be called the Image of another, rather than of himself. But we find not this, but that rather expressed in the Scrip­ture. For when Christ is called the Image of God, all the Adversa­ries, as far as I know, hold that the Father is understood; and the di­stinction of that God from Christ, and finally, the collation of this kind of speaking, with other-like sayings of the Scripture, do suffici­ently shew the same.

I omit that Christ did in himself, as it were present to our view, the invisible God, in that he expressed his Will by Doctrine, his Pow­er by admirable Works, and clearly demonstrated his Faith and Truth by both. But these things agree only to a Person, as such, so that those Adversaries are forced to hold, either that his divine Person, as such, is the Image of the Father, or that the humane Nature, if they will attribute this to it only, is a Person. The first of which, over­throweth their Answer, the latter their Opinion. And let these things suffice to have been spoken concerning those Arguments which so shew Christ not to be the most high God, as that withal they give a Prero­gative to the Father above him.

A fuller Confirmation and Defence of this Argument.

NOw that it may appear that in the Scripture no such reason for which Christ is the son of God is expressed, as maketh him the most high God, but only such as agree to the humane nature of Christ (or to speak more rightly) to the man Jesus Christ; we will rehearse these places wherein the causes are declared for which Jesus hath been called the Son of God,, some of which Testimonies, at least, are so or­dere [...], that if Jesus had then already been the Son of God, for some better reason, and namely, because he had from all eternity been gene­rated out of the Es [...]ence of the Father, it ought not to have been o­mitted. Now the causes for which Jesus is called the Son of God, have a certain order amongst themselves, and the latter still addeth some­thing to the former, The first Cause why Christ is called the the Son of God. Luke 1.35. John Maldo­natus. and maketh Jesus Christ the Son of God in a mo [...]e perfect manner than before.

The first cause is declared by the Angel in Luke, where amongst other things Gabriel thus speaketh unto Mary. The holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the most high shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing that shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. Where we cannot but set down those things which the most learned Popish Interpreter doth amongst other t ings note upon this place. for he rightly both saw and explained the sence of the words. And first of all as concerning the last words of this place, he noteth that to call doth here signifie to be, according to the idiom of the Hebrews, who take the consequent or effect for the antecedent cause, of which he had also spoken in the 32d. vers. for there the Angel likewise saith of the Virgins Son that was to be born, And he shall be called, that is, shall [...]e, the Son of the Most High. This In [...]erpreter hath aleaged examples of that Hebruisme out of Isa. 1.26. and the 4.3. to which is also added that place Gen. 21.12. compared with Rom. 9.7. Those likewise might be added, Matth. 5.9, 19. and 21.13. Isa. 56.7. and Luke 1.76. Rom. 9.26. Hos. 1.10. Wherefore the same Interpreter doth afterwards justly reprove Calvin, who to escape the Argument of Servetus, d [...]awn f [...]om those words of the Angel, saith that to be called, doth here signi­fie, to be declared the Son of God. For how, saith he, can the reason of the Angel agree with this interpretation. Therefore the holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (We ought not to abuse the holy Scripture that we may refute Hereticks.) Again, explaining that reason for which the Angel said that Christ should be called, that is, [Page 145] should be the Son of God; he saith, all others whom I have seen inter­pret this, as if the Angel spake of Christ as God, or at least as man assumed into one person with God in that both wayes Christ is the true and natural Son of God: How be it a little a [...]ter he writeth after this manner. ‘Though I for my part suppose that the words carry another sense, and are not to be understood of Christ as God, nor as a man united to a divine person, but only of his conception and humane generation, as if the Angel should say, He shall be called, that is be the Son of God, because he shall be begotten not by a man but by God through the power of the holy Spirit. For neither did the Angel speak concern­ing the nature of Christ, but of the manner of his generation. And the cause which he renders, why he should be the Son of God, in that the holy Spirit should come upon the Virgin, and the power of the most high overshadow her, was not apt to prove that Christ should be the Son of God, as he was God, or man assumed into the same per­son with God; because a meer man might be conceived by the super­vening of the holy Spirit, and overshadowing power of the most high, who would be the Son of God neither of those wayes; in as much as he was neither God, nor joyned to a divine Person. But to prove that what was to be born of the Virgin, should be the Son of God in such a sence as I have declared, the reason of the Angel was very apt, in as much as the Child was to be conceived not of a man but of God alone. Wherefore, although Christ had not been God, yet being born in such a manner as he was, he had deservedly been called the Son of God, not only as other holy men, of whom it is said, I said ye are Gods, and ye are all Sons of the most high: but in a singular and proper manner, because he had no other Father than God, being be­gotten by no other than him.’ What I pray you could be spoken more aptly and more suitably to the place? I was therefore willing to ex­plain the whole matter in his words rather than in mine own, that it might with all appear by the testimony of a Papist, how evident this opinion is which we defend, concerning the reason exprest in these words of the Angel, for which Jesus is called the Son of God. For what else but the evidence of the thing it self could move a Papist, especially of that order to which he was adicted, that contrary to the consent of all other Interpreters which he had seen, he should follow the opinion which we hold? especially since he knew that they whom he judged Hereticks, did urge this place for their opinion concerning Christ. Al­though we see that some, even of them who are called [...]ospellers, assent both to him and us in this behalf. This then is the first cause, See Gual­ter on this place Je. Zanc. lib. 2. de tribus E­lohim. for which Jesus was the Son of God, in that he was conceived and born, not of a man but of God, by the intervening of his power and efficacy, and so had no other Father besides God. But it is incredible, if there had been a far letter cause for which this Child, who was to be born of Mary, should from his first birth have been the Son of God, that the Angel would not have hinted it, and so have conceived his wo [...]ds, that Mary might understand that there was yet a better cause of this thing. But that would have been a far better cause thereof, which [Page 146] most I [...]terpreters are wont to bring, namely, that the man which was to be born of the Virgin, or rather tha [...] humane nature, was to be assu­med into the unity of the Person of the Son of God, begotten from all Eternity out of the Essence of the Father. Why then is there not the l [...]ast hint of this matter in the words of the Angel? why did he not so sp [...]ak, that it might appear that the same person had already been the Son of God from all Eternity; and should now in a new manner be the Son of God? For [...]either can you say with some Interpreters, that the Angel did in some sort intimate it by the particle also, whilst he doth not simply say; Therefore the holy thing that shall be born of thee, but, therefore also the holy thing that shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. For that the sense is, that not only the person, that did before ex [...]st, is [...]he Son of God, but also the holy issue of the Virgin should for this admirable conception be called the Son of God. For this opinion doth make two Sons of God, and consequently two persons in one Christ, the one existing [...]efore the Virgin, the other born of her. Where­fore unless you will [...]ender the Greek words, and therefore, so that this expression may serve only to connect the sentence, you must observe what a notable Interpreter amongst the Gospellers have noted on this place. ‘The conjunction also, John Pi­scator. saith he, is here the mark of Parity, and noteth an equal t [...]uth of the consequent with the anticedent of the Enthymem. As if it s [...]ould be said, how true it is that thou s [...]alt conceive by the singular ope ation of the holy Spirit, and therefore being a Virgin: so tr [...]e also is it that the Son which thou shalt so conceive and bring forth shall be the Son of God.’ The same Author a little after deni­eth that the [...]e is any such opposition or comparison here made between the humane and divi [...]e nature of Christ, as these Interpreters f [...]ame, and force out of the particle also, which is in the words of the [...]ngel.

The 2d. cause why Christ is called the Son of God.But it is now time that we proceed to other Reasons, for which Christ is called the Son of God.

The second Cause therefore of this thing, is exprest by Christ him­self, John 10.34, 35, 36. For when the Jews had charged him with the crime of Blasphemy, that being a Man, he made himself God, name­ly, because he had called God his Father, and said that he was one with him, he giveth them this Answer, Is it not written in your Law, I said ye are Gods? If he called them Gods to whom the Word of GOD came, and the Scripture cannot be broken: how say you of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the World: thou blasphemest: because I said, I am the Son of God? Where it appeareth, that Christ bringeth this Reason, why he did with far greater Right call himself the Son of God, than those Judges heretofore were called Gods, because he was sanctified of the Father, and sent into the World. Now doth this Reason con­stitute Christ the most high God? For doth sending, that I may speak of this first, constitute the most high God? Hath it any conjunction with the Generation out of the Essence of the Frther? And is the Sanctification, that proceeded from the Father, incident to the divine Nature of Christ, and not rather to the humane? This certainly is both [Page 147] confest by many of the Adversaries, and averred by the thing it self. For that which is sanctified of God, acquireth fome sanctity, in what­soever thing the same doth consist. But this is not incident to the divine Nature existing from all Eternity, although it be to the hu­mane. For neither can any one say, that we also sanctifie God and his Name, to whom notwithstanding we procure no Sanctity. For as much as it is manifest, that God is sanctified of us in a differnte man­ner, then we are sanctified of God. God is sanctified of us, whilst we acknowledge reverence, and proclaim his Sanctity and Majesty; we of God, whilst through his bounty we obtain some Sanctity, where­of we should otherwise be destitute. Now if the manner that God sanctified Christ, were of the same kind with that wherein we sancti­fie God, and not rather with that wherein God sanctifieth us, though different in kind and perfection, what would that Sanctification do to shew that Christ is by the greatest right called the Son of God? For doth a Sanctification which proceedeth from us, constitute God to whom it tendeth, our son? and not rather that which proceedeth from God to us, constitute us his sons; indeed in a more imperfect man­ner than Christ, because our sanctification is also more imperfect: but yet truly. Now what that Sanctification of Christ is, may easily be gathered from the sending that is added thereunto. For that sending herein consisteth, that the office of embassage unto men, is commit­ted by God to Christ. But to sanctifie, signifieth in the Scriptures, to segregate one from others, and chuse him to a singular office, or, as it were, to prepare him for a more divine use. Wherefore it is either so taken in this plrce, as in Jeremiah, Jer. 1.5. to whom God sometime spake in this manner, Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee, and before thou camest cut of the belly, I sanctified thee, and gave thee a Prophet to the Nations. See John Maldo­net. on Jerem. & John, & Wolf Muscul on John As learned men have noted both there, and in the quoted place of Jahn: for it is the same as to fill with the most singu­lar Gifts, such as is divine Power and Wisdom, to discharge a most honourable Office on the Earth, and having by this means segregated one from other men, to prepare him in an eminent way to such an of­fice, Wherefore the sending into the world, containeth in it self that very Office: but the Sanctification is a designation, or preparation thereunto. But of what moment are these things, to assert supream Divinity unto Christ, or to establish the Generation of Christ out of the Essence of the Father from Eternity? Yea, they are so far from asserting supream Divinity unto Christ, that they rather demonstrate that Christ is not the most high God. As concerning sending, we have formerly † shewn it. The same is also to be held concerning Sanctifi­cation, which is a 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 somet [...]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 [Page 148] 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 [Page 149] 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 whi [...]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 elsewhe [...]e.

We must now p [...]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 fathe [...]ly love towards him; of which things enough elsewhere hath been spoken by our men.

The third Cause therefore for which Christ is called the Son of God, is his resur [...]ection from the dead, I say, a resurrection to immo [...] ­tal Life.

For he is therefore called by Paul, The first-born from the dead, Col. 1.18. and also by John, Rev. 1.5. But whose first-born is he but Gods? Although the word Resurrection may so far be extended, as to contain the fou [...]th and chief cause for which Christ is called the Son of God, namely, the exaltation or advancement of Christ to the Empire, and soveraign Priesthood, as we will afterward more plainly [...]w. Now there is a very notable place which sheweth that Christ is the Son of God by reason of his Resurrection more largely taken, wherein the consequent exaltation is also comprehended, namely, Acts 13.32, 33. where Paul speaketh this. And we declare unto you the promise which was made unto our Fathers, The third Cause why Christ is called the Son God. The 4th Cause. that God hath fulfilled it unto us their children, having raised Jesus, as it is also written in the 2d. Psal. Thou art my Son, I this day begot thee. A like passage to which is extant, Rom. 1.4. where when the [...]postle had called Christ the Son of God, that he might more fully declare it, he add, Who was made of the seed of David ac­cording to the flesh, who was determined the Son of God in power, accord­ing to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. In the first place the cause why Jesus is the Son of God, is alleaged to be this, namely, t [...]at he was [...]aisd from the dead. Now that this reason hath nothing common with the generation out of the Essence of God, no­thing common with the supream deity, which agreeth to Christ, is ap­pa [...]e [...]t enough from the th ng it self, sin [...]e the Resurrection is a thing of a certain time, not done from eternity, and agreeth to Christ only according to the humane nature, as the Adversaries speak; and finally is not ascribed unto Christ as the true author, but to God the Father; and it is so far from arguing Christ to be the most high God, as that it rather demonstrateth him not to be so, Chap. 29. as we have before shewn in its own place. As for the latter place although these words, By the resur­rection of the dead, may be understood meerly of the time wherein Christ was made the Son of God. Nevertheless they s [...]ew manifestly enough, that Christ is there said to be made the Son of God for such a cause as had no place in him, especially so perfectly before the resurrection; which agreeth not to that eternal generation of the Son out of the Essence of the Father, nor to any cause for which Christ may be called the most high God.

Now tha the [...]atter may the more clearly appear, let us see what the adver aries answer to these places. It is therefore wont to be an­swered unto both places, that the Apostle hath no other meaning than that it was declared by the resurrection of Christ, that he was the na­t [...]ral Son of God, tha [...] is begotten out of the very Essence of God, and that this is the meaning of the word determined, which is in the latter place. Some further add, that In the former place. the word rise doth not signifie the Re­surrection o [...] Christ from the dead, but his exhibition in the flesh; be­cause the Apostle doth in the following verse, namely, 34. begin to confirm his Resurre tion. Others acknowledge that the Resurrection of Christ from the de [...]d is signified by that word; [...]ut they say that in Greek this participle is an Aorist, which hath the signification of the prete [...]perfect tense, and is all one as if the Apostle had said, afte [...] he [Page 151] had raised up Jesus. So that the Apostle doth not affirm, that the ex­pression of the Psalm wherein it is spoken of Christs generation from God, was fulfilled in his very resurrection, but after it, namely, when he was exalted, and made a King by God. But that answer which is alleaged concerning the declaration of this, namely, that Christ is the Son of God, is of no moment. For as to the first place, from whence a judgement may and ought to be made of the latter, the word begotten cannot be understood of the declaration of a generation out of the Essence of God already made from eternity. For to omit that by this meanes that nice observation falls to the ground, which very many of the adversaries fasten upon those word, to day, namely, that the e [...]er­nity of God is thereby signified, wherein there is nothing past or future, but present only, in as much as it cannot be said, that God did from all eternity declare, that Christ was begotten out of his Essencce; to o­mit, I say, this nicety, there are other things which overthrow that in­terpretation. For in the first place, what is this to the fulfilling of he Promise made to the Fathers, which God hath actually performed to their Children? They with whom we dispute confess, and the thing it self sheweth, that the promise of giving the Messias is here understood. But how is it pertinent hereunto, that God hath declared that Christ is such a Son, as was eternally begotten out of his Essence, for God could declare it many other wayes, were the thing otherwise true, than by giving or making of Jesus a King, as they, with whom we dis­pute affirm he hath declared, but by this way he could in no wise de­clare the same, for that God hath made Jesus King, is so far from ar­guing that he was eternally begotten out of the Essence of God, and consequently the most high God, that the clean contrary is rather [...] ­vinced from it, as we have before shewn, Chap 18. For if you say that [...]e made himself King, in the first place, Paul doth not here urge that, in as much as he manifestly attributeth not to Christ himself but to the Father, both his Resurrection, and consequently (as they will have it) the declaration of his generation out of the Essence of God. But the other, not this, should have been urged by the Apostle, would he have intimated that Christ was declared to be the Son of God, begotten out of his Essence, by raising up himself from the dead. Again, although Christ had raised up himself, yet from the raising it self, whether you understand it of Christs nativity, or of his resurrection from the dead, it would not have appeared, whereas it ought to have appeared, if the raising of Christ ought to declare that Jesus was begotten out of the Essence of God, because he raised himself. Now that it did not ap­pear is evident enough, for into whose mind would it come, either that he who is born is the author of his own nativity, or that he who riseth from the dead is the author of his own resurrection? inasmuch as he who is born had no being befo [...]e, and he that riseth had by death lost his being, and is, as to the strength whereby he might rise, like unto him who is to be born.

It would be therefore necessary, that it should some otherway have been evident, that there was another Nature in him, which did both [Page 152] really exist before his Nativity, and also actually lived during his death, and consequently was the true cause either of his Nativity, or of his Resurrection: but this was the very thing which the Adversaries hold to have been declared by the raising him up, and to have been appa­rent from it. Finally, although it had been apparent, that Christ had raised up himself, yet how had it thence appeared, that he was the natural Son of God, eternally begotten out of his Essence? For not to repeat that which we formerly shewd, namely, that from the Opi­nion of the Adversaries, it followeth, that the Soul of Christ could by divine Power raise its own Body; to omit likewise, that some other Spirit, which had before been united to his Body, might by divine Power have performed this: if the most high God can raise up him­self, what hinders but that it was either the Father himself or the ho­ly Spirit, whom they make the third Person of the Deity. Be it there­fore that it appeared from the raising of Christ, that he himself was the Author thereof; be it that it appeared that he was the most high God, what argueth that he was eternally begotten out of the Essence of God? what connexion is there of the one with the other?

Furthermore, what man is there, who haveing looked into the words of the Psalm, doth not observe that this is the meaning of them, Thou art my Son, because I have this day begotten thee? What man also is there who doth not withal observe, that it is far more suitable to this sence, that the word begotten, should rather be taken to denote, the act of ge­nerating, than the declaration of a generation? What man is there, who, if he here such words as these, would understand them thus, Thou art my Son, because I have this day declared that I have begotten thee; and not rather thus, Thou art my Son, because I have this day really be­goten thee? But what need many words? for if the resurrection of Christ, and the consequent exaltation or advancement to a Kingdom, especially a Priestly one, is a certain generation from God, and one may therefore be justly called the Son of God, although no other more sublime generation did precede, why should any one understand that generation, whereof mention is made in the words of the Psalm, ra­ther of the declaration of an antecedent generation, than of the very act of generating? Since that which is expressed by the word begot­ten, was accomplished by the resurrection and exaltation of Christ. But we have already shewn, that the Resurrection of Christ, was a certain Generation from God; and we will a little after more large­ly shew the same.

Concerning the advancement to a Kingdom, none can make a questi­on, who considers that Kings, Princes and Judges, are by God himself called both gods, and also the sons of God, or of the Most High, Psal. 82.6. which place Christ citeth, John 10.34. to shew that he did not blaspheme in [...]aying, that he was the Son of God. But in that place, regard is had to nothing but the authority and dominion, to which they were advanced by God. For to all them in general, the name of gods, and sons of God is attributed as they are distingushed from men of an inferiour rank. And see, I pray you, how excellently these [Page 153] things agree both to the other words of the second Psalm, and also to the scope of the Apostle, fetching a Testimony from thence. For it is apparent from both, that in these words, Thou art my Son, I have this day begotten thee, it is spoken of making Christ a King. For after God had said, I have set my King on Zion, my holy Mount, David sub­joyneth, I will declare the Decree; what Decree, but such a one as was made concerning that thing, whereof he had begun to speak; name­ly, that God had set him King on Zion, his holy Mountain? But what are the words of the Decree? The Lord saith he said unto me, Thou art my Son, I this day begat thee. Why then do we seek starting holes? why go we about the bush? why do not we directly and simply un­derstand these things concerning the Generation of Christ, which con­sisteth in advancing him to a Kingdom by that Resurrection, rather then concerning the declaration of a Generation out of the Essence of God from al eternity, whereof there is here neither hint, nor footstep? By this means we may elegantly apply these words likewise to David, a Type of Christ, although in a far lower sence; to whom, that they are to be applyed, both the very words of the Psalm make a shew, and others also before us have observed. For when God had sometimes rescued David out of sundry calamities, and also out of the very jaws of death, and made him Ki [...] over his People, he did in a manner be­get him, and make him his Son, and that such a Son, as would in respect of other earthly Kings, become the first-born in power and dig­nity. Whence God speaketh thus of him, Psal. 89.28. I will make him, my First-born, higher than the Kings of the Earth. But what agreed to David in that sence, doth in a far nobler way agree to Christ, who being raised from the dead, was set at the right hand of God in heavenly places, far above all Principallities, and Powers, and Force, and Domi­nion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in the world to come; and all things were put in subjection under his feet, and he was made Head over all things to the Church, which is his Body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. May he not justly be said to have been begotten by God, to have become his Son? for he was not only begotten anew to an immortal life by the resurrection, but also did by the bounty of God, become very like to him in Power and Empire, for which God himself is called God. But by reason of similitude with God, both Angels and Men are called Sons of God; which the greater it is, the more justly doth this name agree unto them: but no compleater similitude can be imagined than that which we even now shewed to agree to Christ, whereby he doth so far surpass both all Angels and Men, that they in respect of Christ, are rather to be called Servants than Sons.

From hence it is already apparent, what is also to be thought of that other place, Rom. 1.4. Although the place doth sufficiently guard it self without forreign help against the vulgar interpretation. For nei-doth the scope of the Apostle, nor the words, nor the thing it self, suffer us to understand, that Christ by the resurrection from the dead, was declared the Son of God begotten out of his Essence. For the [Page 154] scope of the Apostle is to explain not how Jesus Christ was declared the Son of God, but how he is the Son of God; for having described Christ by the name of the Son of God, he accordingly declareth how this is to be understood. And lest any one should perhaps think, that it will thence follow, that he is not the Son of David, which notwith­standing the Scripture averreth, he sheweth how hoth may stand to­gether. First, he teacheth how he is the Son of David, then how he is the Son of God; wherefore he saith, Who was made of the Seed of David according to the flesh, who was determined or constituted the Son of God in Power according to the Spirit of Sanctification, by the Resurrection from the dead. Doth not the very opposition shew, that, as it is there taught how Christ is indeed the Son of David, so it is here signified how he is indeed the Son of God? for neither would a declaration be rightly opposed to the word made, nor those diverse respects be one opposed to the other, namely, according to the flesh, and according to the Spirit of Holiness; that is, according to the Spirit wherewith Christ was sanctified. For that expression according to the flesh, would sig­nifie the reason of the subject; whereas the other, according to the Spirit of Holiness, would denote only the middle efficient Cause. A­gain, the word here rendered determined, doth no where in the Scrip­ture, yea, no where at all, signifie to be declared, unless you take the word declared, as it is then taken when one is said to be declared King or Consul, whilst he is constituted, and this Office is appointed to him. For the Greek word properly signifies to define, to determine, but in the Scripture it signifies nothing but to constitute, to decree or design, which thing doth excellently agree to Christ, in that he was made King by the intervening of the resurrection. Luke 22.22. Acts 10.42 & 11.29. & 17.31. But if you will with the anti­ent interpreter, render it to predestinate, although neither the simple word it self requireth that version, nor the thing suffer it; neverthe­less, it will be sufficiently evident, that Christ was not really the Son of God from eternity. For neither is that predestinated which is in being, but which is not yet in being, and here it is spoken of no other thing, than of the Sonship of Christ in relation to God. Yea, it will follow, that he at length in the resurrection, was fully ordained to be the Son of God. Finally, in the former place, Acts 13. we have shewn that the resurrection of Christ, had in no wise declared, that Christ was begotten of the Essence of God, and so was the Son of God, but rather the contrary.

Now that which concerns their Opinion, who contend that the Greek word in Acts 13. is not to be referred unto the resurrection of Christ from the dead: but unto his birth and first exhibition, which although we can both grant and urge without prejudice to our principal Argu­ment, yet we will shew that this interpretation cannot subsist. First, because in that place, as we have already observed, such an act of God is spoken of, as whereby he fulfilled his promise of setting up a King over the Jews; which we have also shewn out of the words of the second Psalm. But Christ was not then made Lord and Christ, or the heavenly King of Gods People when he was born: but when he was [Page 155] raised and set at the right hand of God. Furthermore, both the pre­ceding and following words of the Apostle, which they urge against us, shew that it is spoken of the resurrection from the dead. For when he had said, that God had raised him (Christ) on the third day, he adds, being seen many dayes of those that accompanyed him from Galilee to Jeru­salem, who are his witnesses unto the people until now. But whereof were they witnesses, if not of that which he had just now mentioned, and told them had been in some measure presented to their view, namely, the resurrection of Christ, and his exaltation, which followed thereupon? for of this thing they were properly witnesses. See above, chap. 1.22. & 2.32. & 3.15. & 4.33. & 5.32. compared with the fore­going, and chap. 10.40, 41, 42. Therefore seeing the Apostle subjoyns, And we declare this unto you which was promised to our Fathers, because (or that) God hath fulfilled the same unto us their Children, having raised up Jesus; and it is necessary that he himself should speak of the re­surrection of Christ from the dead. For he affirms that he had now declared the same thing to the Jews at Antioch, that the other Apostles had testified to the People of Judea. If he then told them that he was a witness to the people of the resurrection, and following exalta­tion, he intimates that he now also speaketh of the same thing. But that which belongs to the following words by them urged against us, is not at length proved in that place, that Christ was raised from the dead: but that being supposed as already sufficiently proved, it on­ly shews, that Christ was so raised from the dead, as no more to re­turn to corruption. For some one might have scrupled, that though Christ were indeed raised from the dead, yet the promise made unto the Fathers be unperformed, seeing Christ might have been so raised, as afterwards to have returned unto corruption; whereas the Messiah promised of old unto the Fathers, and his Government, ought to endure unto the end of the world; as the Writings of the Prophets teach; See 2 Sam. 7.13, 14. and compare it with Heb. 1.5. and Psal. 45.7. (compared with Heb. 1.8.) and 110.1, 4. and Dan. 7.14. as also John 12.34. The Apostle therefore removes this doubt from his hearers, whilst he adds, But that he hath raised him from the dead, no more to re­turn unto corruption, thus he said, I will give unto you the sure Mercies of David; namely, the Promise that proceeded from Grace and Mercy, and so onward. Whereby we understand that he had spoken of the re­surrection in the words immediately preceding, and sufficiently pro­ved the same; now to remove all manner of doubt, he is willing to speak of the same matter somewhat larger, although that be also ab­surd, that Paul, having but newly said that Christ was at first exhibited, and either born or sent into the world, should presently add, that God had so raised him from the dead, as no more to return to corruption. For what connexion is there? Is it not evident, that those latter words require that the Apostle should speak next of his Resurrection?

But that which concerns those, who say that the promise of Christ, and that expression in the second Psalm, God had not fulfilled in raising of Christ, but when he was risen; we will not much contend with them [Page 156] for we our selves freely confess, if the raising of Christ be taken in a strict sence, barely for his returning to life, without respect to his exalta­tion afterwards, that divine promise and expression of the Psalm, had not as yet been really performed. But yet notwithstanding it is to be noted first, that the expression of raising, or resurrection of Christ, doth sometimes by a kind of Synecdoche joyned with a Metonymie, comprehend the whole Glory of Christ, to wit, Immortality and Su­pream Power that he obtained by the Resurrection. And in this sence only this word seems to be taken, Acts. 2.32, 33. and 4.33. (compared with 5.32. & 10 40, &c.) Rom. 4.25. & 10.9. Phil. 3.10. 1 Pet. 1.3. and 3.21. Furthermore, it is also to be observed, that the Participle Ao­rists, being joyned to Verbs of the Pretertense, have oftentimes the same force as Participles of the Presentense when they are joyned to the same Verbs. Whereof you have examples amongst others in Heb. 1.4. & 7.21. & 11.9▪ 2 Pet. 2.6, 15. besides that which is every where found in the Evangelists, he answering, said. Wherefore it may be rightly concluded, that the Apostles words are to be understood, as if he had said, God hath fulfilled the Promise made unto the Fathers, having raised (as an antient Interpreter hath it) or in raising Jesus; chiefly because unto Christs generation of God, the very restoring of him to life, did also conduce, seeing that thereby he was as it were begotten again: but the Immortality which Christ obtained by the intervening of the Resurrection, was far more available. After this manner indeed he became like unto God in his Nature; whereupon our Resurrection also is called Regeneration: and Christ affirmeth, that they who shall be counted worthy of that Age, and the resurrecti­on from the dead, are the Sons of God, seeing they are the Children of the Resurrection, Luke 20.36 And Paul affirmeth, That we look for the a­doption of the Sons of God, even the redemption of our bodies, Rom. 8.23. For the fellowship or participation of the divine Nature, which Peter speaks of 2 Pet. 1, 4. doth principally consist in Immortality. But hither tends most of all the divine Empire and Power of Christ, for which he is the Son of God in the perfectest manner. If therefore you will only interpret the Greek Particle, Jesus being risen, or after that he had raised Jesus, we should understand, that the Promise made un­to the Fathers, was then really and perfectly fulfilled touching the Messiah, or an extraordinary King that was to be given to the Isra­elites, and moreover also, that expression of the Psalm, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee, when Jesus was raised from the dead by God, and set at his right hand in the heavenly places, and so made Christ, or a King, and Lord, by the Power and Grace of God. For hence, as we have already Chap. 28. of this Sect. seen, doth the Divine Author to the He­brews, chap. 5.5. take those words of the Psalm, touching the glori­fication of Christ, on the Priestly honour that was conferred upon him, which doth indeed contain his Royal Power, seeing that his Kingdom is Priestly, and his Priesthood Royal. And hereupon they are elsewhere also in holy Scripture, taken for the same thing, that Jesus is the Son of God, and that Jesus is Christ, that is, a King anoin­ted [Page 157] by God over his people, or a Lord, even him by whom alone God would administer and govern his Church, with all things belonging to her. For upon this account the principal doctrine of the supream dig­nity of Christ, and our faith and confession of him are promiscuously Com­pare Mat. 16.16. Mark 8.29. Luke 9.20. Joh. 1.50. Act. 8.37.9, 20, 22. Rom. 10.9 1 Cor. 12.3. Phil. 2.11. 1 Joh. 4.15.5, 1. and 5. al­so 2.22.4, 2.3. 2 Joh. 4. compare those al­so Matth. 27.41.42.43. and Luk. 23.35. add 22.67, 69, 70. and see the same places, placed in this, that Jesus is Christ or Lord, or that Jesus is the Son of God. Whence it likewise comes to pass, that as often as those two, namely, to be Christ, and to be the Son of God, are mentioned to­gether of Jesus of Nazareth, they are never joyned by the copulative particle and, as things different (although this particle hath often times the force of explication only) but they are without it everywhere joyned by apposition, to shew that different things are not connected, but the same thing is diversly described. See Matth. 16.16.26.63. John 6.69.11.27.20.31. And it is first of all to be noted, that that famous Confession of Peter, touching Christ and his supream dignity, being likewise declared in the name of the other disciples, is described by Matthew, Chap. 16.16. in these words, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. But by Mark Chap. 8.29. only in these words, Thou art Christ: By Luke, Chap. 9 20. The Christ of God: Which two latter Evangelists would have left out one, and a principal part indeed of that confession, if it had been one thing to be the Son of the living God, and another thing to be Christ. But if both be indeed the same thing, they have in effect omitted nothing, but only expressed the same thing more briefly. But now to be Christ, or to be anointed of God, doth in no wise constitue the most high God, nor argue him to be so, but the con­trary, seeing that the most high God can be anointed by none, nor be made a King by any one.

And least haply any should say that there still remaines another, and that a more sublime cause, for which Jesus may be called the Son of God; that is refuted partly by the Scriptures silence thereof, which could not have omitted so great a matter, and partly from those testi­monies of Scripture we have hitherto alleaged. For not here to re­peat other things, if there had been any other weightier cause for for which Jesus might be called the Son of God, it could in no wise have been omitted in the place before examined by us, Rom. 1.4. For there, as we have seen, the Apostle intended to shew by what reason Christ may be called the Son of God; but he doth not in that place take the name of the Son of God in any other signification than that which is most excellent, whilst he describeth him by the appellation of the Son of God, the proper name of Jesus Christ ha [...]ing not as yet been expressed. Wherefore we ought to think that he hath expressed the most excellent, or if you will rather, the true and genuine rea­son of that appellation. But doth he express that to be the cause of that thing, that Christ was begotten out of the Essence of God from eternity, and so was the most high God? by no means: but this rather, which contradicts that and suffe [...]s not that Christ should be the most high God, when he saith, that he was made the Son of God, and in­deed according to the Spirit of holiness, that is according to the Spirit wherewith he was sanctified, and that by the resurrection from the dead. [Page 158] for that some understand, by the Spirit of holiness, the divine Essence, it is done both without an example and without reason, yea contrary to the word ordained or appointed, and finally to the resurrection from the dead, from which, or by which that might have come to pass. It is manifest therefore that there is no other more sublime cause for which Jesus may be called the Son of God but this, that being raised from the dead, he was made by God both Lord and Christ, or the hea­venly and eternal King of his people. Moreover the same thing is plainly seen from the second Psalm, a place that we have explained al­ready. For all, as I know, confess, that when God speaketh thus unto Christ, thou art my Son, the name of the Son of God is taken in the most excellent manner. But we have seen that this is the cause why he is in that place called the Son of God, because he, being raised from the dead, was not only made immortal, but also the King of Gods peo­ple, and besides, the Priest and Prince of our Salvation, as we have shewn partly from the very Psalm, and partly from Acts 13. and Heb. 5. Whereto may be added Heb. 1.4, 5. For, when the divine Author had there said, that Christ having purged away our sins by himself, was set at the right hand of God on high, he adds: Being made so much better, or rather more honourable than the Angels, as he had inherited a more dif­ferent (that is) a better and more excellent name than they. For to which of the Angels said he at any time: thou art my Son, this day have I begot­ten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son. From which place it is understood, that the name of the Son of God is not Essential unto Christ, whilst he is said to have inherited it, nor that it is the name of the most high God, for as much as by his ex­altation he obtained a dignity and excellency, equal to that name and title, which doth not happen to the most high God. Besides the thing it self shews that Christ is here spoken of according to his hu­mane nature, as they say, and also that this is such a name as agrees to Christ according to that nature. Unto which also the following passage accords, I will be unto him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son, wherein the same sence is expressed. For these words do in like man­ner argue that it is not spoken of such a thing, as is proper to the most high God, and was in being from all eternity. For both the words do openly respect something future, and in the first and literal sense, as they say, were spoken most clearly of Solomon the type of Christ in that respect, as others also confess. Compare 2 Sam. 7.14. with the words both foregoing and following, and 1 Chron. 22.10. and 26.6. compare also 1 King 5.5.8.19. It is therefore necessary, that there should be such a similitude and analogie between the reason whereby Christ is the Son of God, & that whereby Solomon was the Son of God, inasmuch as this is a certain representation of that; but how was that, whereby Solomon was the Son of God, a certain representation of this whereby Christ is the Son of God, if Jesus be therefore the Son of God, because he was begotten of the Fathers Essence from eternity, and so the same God with the Father? But if Jesus be the Son of God, by reason of most high love, and the benefits flowing from the same, which God [Page 159] bestowed upon him, amongst which the heavenly Kingdom and Em­pire, that was granted unto him, holdeth the principal place. Solo­mon is rightly constituted the type of Christ, and the wo [...]ds, uttered of him in the litteral sense, are rightly and elegantly referred unto him, in a mystical and far stricter sense. It is evident therefore, that neither in the words of the second Psalm, there cited, is any thing contained of the eternal generation of Christ out of the Fathers Essence. Final­ly, who doubteth, when Peter had confessed that Jesus was the Son of God, or when we are commanded to believe and confess the same thing of him, if we would be accounted Christians, and be saved, that the name of the Son of God, is taken in the most perfect signification, where­in it agrees unto Christ? But we saw then that it doth in very deed signify no otherwise, than that Jesus is Christ, or a King appointed of God, and set over his people, to defend and preserve them for ever. wherefore it is to be concluded that this is the principal reason, for which he is called the Son of God, neither can any better be found. But since that doth not constitute Christ the most high God, but ra­ther shews that he is not the most high God; it follows, that there is no other cause of his Son-ship, as they say, which can make Christ the most high God.

We have spoken somewhat largly of the first reason, which shews, that Christ is not the most high God, therefore because he is the Son of God; partly because, if we rightly observe, there are more arguments of our opinion contained in it; and partly because this, that Christ is the Son of God, is commonly believed to contain the strongest argument of the contrary opinion. Wherefore it is to be shewn in a few wo [...]ds, how exceedingly men commonly err, and the true opinion be proved from the reason whereby Christ is the Son of God.

There follows now another proof of the principal Arguments Assum­ption, which we will dispatch very briefly, namely, 2 Proof of the principal Argu­ments. Assump­tion. that it is very clear from the holy Scrip [...]ure, that Christ died for us, according to that na­ture, according to which he was the Son of God, and indeed only be­gotten and proper. But if [...]e were in that manner the Son of God as he was begotten of the Essence of God, and so was the most high God, he could not have died according to that nature, according to which he is the Son of God. For the most high God, as such, cannot die, yea, cannot in any respect whatsoever. But that which we have already spoken of Christ, is from thence manifest, that the greatest love of God towards us, is in the holy Scriptures shewn from this, that he de­livered his only begotten, or, his own Son unto death for us. See John 3.16. compared with vers. 14. and Rom, 8.32. 1 John 4.10. compared with vers. 9. aforegoing: add also Rom. 5.10. compared with vers. 8. But if Christ died not according to that nature, according to which he was the Son of God; but according to another nature, which was added to the person of the only begotten Son of God, it can neither be truly said of the proper and only begotten Son of God, that he died, or was given for us; neither can the greatest love of God towards us be from thence collected. For what so great wonder is it, for some ac­cession [Page 160] of the only begotten Son of God, or some nature, that was ad­ded 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 enti [...]e, nor had he felt any the least pain thereby? Wherefore then is this so vehemently urged, that God delive [...]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 [...]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, t [...] 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,

The Defence of the Argument.

SOme one will perhaps say, that therefore those things are rather attributed to the holy Spirit, than to the divine Nature or Person of Christ, because they belong unto Christs Sanctification, and that Sanctification, although common to the whole Trinity, is properly a­scribed to the holy Spirit. But they speak thus not only without rea­son, but even contrary to reason. We will not now rehearse that, that Christ's Sanctification cannot be rather attributed to the holy Spirit, than to the Father, to whom the same is so ascribed, John 10.36. that it is urged as a cause why Christ is his Son: For hence it would follow, if the the same agree rather to the holy Spirit, than to the Father, that the holy Spirit would be rather the Father of Christ, than God himself, who both is the Father of Christ, and is every where in the new Te­stament so called. That we will say here, which is proper to this place, if any reason can be imagined, why that, which is common to all the Persons, should notwithstanding be ascribed rather to one, than [Page 165] to another; that here would be great cause, why this action is rather to be ascribed to the Son, than to any other Person, and indeed a dou­ble cause. The one is that most strict conjunction which agreeth un­to the Son according to his humane Nature; as the Adversaries Opi­nion urges. The other is, that the same Adversaries will have the Son to be the natural Wisdom and Power of God, by which he makes all things; and hither they bring those words which in Prov. 8. are spoken abstractively, and in general touching Wisdom; and also those which we read of Christ, 1 Cor. 1.24. But unto which divine Person would it rather agree to bestow on the humane Nature of Christ Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, Knowledge, than to that, which was nearest unto that Nature, and is the natural Wisdom of God him­self? To what would it better agree, than to the natural Vertue and Power of God, to do all those stupendious works by the humane Na­ture? All those things therefore are rather to be attributed to the di­vine Nature of Christ, than to the holy Spirit.

Besides, we demand of them that make use of this kind of excepti­on, whether or no they determine, that the holy Spirit contributed more to the bestowing of those Gifts upon the humane Nature, than the divine Person of Christ himself, or as much the one as the other Person? If that, they overthrow their own Opinion; if this, the Scrip­ture. For if they admit that, either there was not so much power in the divine Person of Christ to perform the same, as was in the ho­ly Spirit, or not so great a will. Neither can be spoken of it, if Christ were the most high God, and indeed of the same Essence with the ho­ly Spirit. But if they admit this, there will be no evident cause, why it should be expresly attributed to the holy Spirit, that he be­stowed those Gifts on the man Christ, and no where to the divine Person or Nature of Christ himself. Wherefore this exception hath there no place, and consequently neither the distinction of a humane and divine Nature in Christ. For this very thing we demand, why was the holy Spirit given to the humane Nature, if that were personally united to the divine Nature.

The Defence of the Argument.

NEither may any one say, that these things which we have dedu­ced from this History, do therefore not follow, because Christ was tempted according to his humane Nature only, and not ac­cording to his divine Nature. For to omit the repetition of other things, that have formerly been often spoken, the same ab­surdities will still follow, although you hold that Satan tempted the humane Nature only, but personally united to the most high God, and joyned by an indissolvable tye; and that God willed that this humane Nature should be tempted. For it would have been unworthy of the most high God, to expose himself in a Nature personally united to him, to an impious and detestable Adversary, that he might mock him and sollicite him to his worship. For the humane Nature could do nothing, unless the divine did consent thereunto. Wherefore Sa­tan soliciting the humane Nature of Christ to worship him, should to­gether have sollicited the divine Nature to consent to so horrid a crime, and to permit it unto the humane Nature. Likewise it had been su­persluous, to shew, that a Nature personally united to the most high God, could endure and vanquish the temptation of Satan. For who could make any doubt concerning that matter? Whence it is also ap­parent, that Satan could not have the least hope to overcome it. For what? could Satan believe it possible, that the divine Nature should so far forsake the humane, personally united to it, as to yield to him, and commit a most heinous offence, and so become lyable to eternal damnation? did not Satan perceive that he had to do, not only with the humane, but also with the divine Nature; and that this Nature was to be seduced, and the wickedness to be perswaded to it, if the humane Nature ought to be overcome? What therefore remaineth, but to say, that Satan had no certain knowledge of that union of the humane Nature with the divine? but what? Did not Satan, who un­dertook to oppose this very thing, that Jesus was the Son of God, understand what these words did signifie? But, if the Opinion of the Adversaries be true, they signifie, that the man Jesus is one Person with the son of God, eternally begotten out of the substance of God. Who would believe, if, as the Adversaries hold, the Incarnation of the Son, eternally b [...]gotten out of the Essence of God, was foretold in the holy Scripture, declared to the Virgin Mary, and afterward actually performed and acknowledged by her and others, and signified by the heavenly voice of Christ's Baptism, that Satan should have no certainty of this very thing? especially if he hereto­fore saw God in Heaven, and in him all his Decrees (for the Adversa­ries hold these to be really the same with God or his Essence) and con­sequently understood, that the second Person of the Trinity should in those dayes be incarnated. But in a thing that is evident, there need­eth no more to be spoken; only we will add this thing, that whereas [Page 169] Satan intended to make Christ doubt, whether he were the Son of God, namely, that Son, whom he had a little before heard the divine voice, pronounce him to be, it is not suitable that he should in his temptation pass by that Nature of Christ, according to which he was the Son of God. But the Adversaries hold this to be the divine Na­ture. Wherefore they must renounce either this opinion, or this limi­tation, whereby they restrain this temptation to the humane Na­ture.

Now we do not conceive, that any discreet man will say, that this Argument is drawn from the testimony of the Devil, who is a lying spirit. For we, contrary to the intention of the Devils words, urge, that that very man, whom the Devil tempted, was and is the Son of God, a little before commended by the heavenly Voice in Baptism. Wherefore the Argument is not drawn from the testimony of the De­vil, as if he had said that very thing, we would have; but partly from the act of God, appointing Christ to be tempted, and exposed to the snares of Satan; partly from the sence, words and intention of Satan, as effect, which could not have come to pass, unless our Opinion were true.

The Defence of the Argument.

FOr whereas they commonly so expound the place, as if it were said, that Christ was born before every creature; this, if it be so taken, as that Christ should be wholly exempted out of the number of all Creatures, is done without any example, and contrary to the received use of speaking in the holy Scripture, and in ordinary speech. [Page 170] Which very thing, certain very learned men among the Adversaries, have sufficiently perceived. For John Piscator, although he allow that Exposition as Orthodox, doth notwithstanding propose it to con­sideration, whether a different Exposition brought by him, be not genuine, namely, that we should understand Christ to be called the First-born of every Creature, because he is the chief Heir of all things. And he a little after addeth, ‘That the native signification of the word First-born, hindreth it from being understood of the divine Genera­tion of the Son of God out of the Substance of the Father, for it properly signifieth him who is born at the first birth; and so agree­eth to the Mother, not to the Father.’

The Defence of the Argument.

VVE will here omit that place, which some have used, or rather abused, God is a Spirit, John 4.34. For as much as the greatest part of the Adversaries have observed and s [...]ewn, that in this place the name of Spirit doth not denote the holy Ghost, but a spiritu­all substance. For indeed it is there spoken of the Father, as the fore­going words do manifestly demonstrate; neither hath the word Spirit the place of the subject (whence likewise it wanteth an article, which notwithstanding is prefixt to the word God) [...]ut of the predicate. For the sense is, God is a Spirit, that is, a spiritual Essence or Substance. These things therefore, because either all or the greatest part of the Ad­versaries do acknowledge them, shall now be passed [...]y.

But for the most part of them, that dispute concerning this subject, their main Achilles is that place, which is extant Acts 5.3, 4. where when Peter, as it is read in the vulgar translation, had said to Ananias, Why did Satan tempt thy heart to lye to the holy Spirit? he addeth a litt [...]e after, Thou hast not lied to men but to God. Much likewise is by some attributed to those words of Paul, 1 Cor. 6.19, 20. Where when he had said, Your members are the temple of the holy Spirit, which is in you, which you have from God, he addeth; Glorifie God in your body. And to those in the same Epistle, Chap. 12.4, 5, 6. There are diversities of Gifts, but the same Spirit; and diversities of administrations, but the same Lord; and diversities of opperations, but the same God, which worketh all things in all. Especia [...]ly because it is afterward said in the 11th. vers. All these things worketh one and the same Spirit, distributing to every one as he will. Likewise out of the Old Testament, those words of David, are wont to be alleaged, 2 Sam. 23.2, 3. The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue. The God of Israel said to me, the migh­ty one of Israel spake to me. They further add those places wherein they think the holy Spirit is called the Lord.

First, they say, That in Deut. 32.12. it is said, The Lord alone led him (namely, the people of Israel in the Wilderness) and there was no strange God with him. Now the same thing is affirmed of the holy Spi­rit, namely, that he led Israel, Isa. 63.14. Where it is read, The Spirit of the Lord did lead him.

Again, they say, That the Lord, Exod. 4.12. Numb. 12.6. and else­where declared, that he would speak by the Prophets. But Acts 1.16. the same is attributed to the holy Spirit; as also in that place that was a little before quoted, 2 Sam. 23.2.

Thirdly, they say, That the Lord was oftentimes provoked by the Israelites. But this is referred to the holy Spirit, Isa. 63.10. Heb. 3.89. Acts 7.51.

Finally, Those words of the Lord, Isa. 6.9, &c. are attributed to the holy Spirit, Act. 28.25, 26.

These, as far as I have hitherto been able to observe, are the chiefe testimonies, whereby the adversaries endeavour to prove, that the ho­ly Spirit is called God, or which is some way of a greater fo [...]ce, the Lord.

But first, it is in none of these places openly written or pu [...]posely delivered, that the holy Spirit is God in that it is every whe [...]e to be concluded by some consequence; and those places, out of whi [...]h it is concluded, that the holy Spirit is called the Lord, are for the most part written in such places, as are very distinct one from the o­ther: [...]nd t [...]erefore not one of a thousand amongst the [...]udor sort, un­less he be admonished by some other, will compare those places toge­ther, especially so, as to draw such a conclusion from thence, as the ad­versa [...]ies would have. Now, though we do not at all reject lawful con­sequences, yet have we s [...]ewn, that in this case, it is necessary, there should be such places extant in the holy Scripture, wherein it is openly written, that the holy Spi [...]it is God. For it cannot be, were he the most high God, but that it should most openly and f [...]e­quently be written and purposely declared. Wherefore if such places cannot be alleadged, it may of right be concluded that the con­sequences, which are drawn to prove the matter are not legitimate. And this you will eas [...]ly perceive by examining those, which we saw we [...]e alleaged by [...]he adversaries. For the Arguments, which are fetcht out of those places, are for the most part grounded on this reason; that those things, which in one place are attributed to God, or the Lord, are either elsewhere, or in the same place, attributed to the holy Spirit. Which reason, how frivolous it is, may from thence be understood, that by this meanes it might not only be concluded, that the holy Spirit is God, or the Lord, but likewise, that he is Father or the Son; and likewise, that the Son is the Father, and contrarily the Father the Son. For the adversaries themselves contend, that the external works of the Trinity are undivided or comon to all the persons; and alleadge many places, where either in the same or in diverse words, the same thing is attributed, either to all those persons, or to two of them. And the rea­son is manifest enough, why such a consequence is illegitimate; because like things may proceed from diverse causes, or be conversant about di­verse objects, or exist in diverse subjects, yea, the self same works may proceed from diverse causes, either coordinate, (as they speak) and united among themselves, or subordinate; whereof the one doth depend on the o her; or is subservient thereun­to. If the [...]e doth seem to be any further strenght in those places, that, when we have examined each, will easily be found, to be indeed none.

Wherefore, that we may examine each place as much as it is needful; the first place, quoted out of Acts 5, do [...]h not prove that which the ad­versaries would have. First, because, as See the Annot. of Erasmus & Beza others also have observed, it is o [...]herwise read in the Greek, than in the vulgar translation. For it is not there written, That thou shouldest lye to the holy Ghost, but that thou shouldest belye the holy Ghost: Or (as a very learned John Piscator Interpreter a­mong [Page 175] the Adversaries doth read it) That thou shouldest deceive the holy Spirit: Which translation Beza others likewise have toucht; but a pre­judicare opinion hindred them from thorowly approving it. And this translation is confirmed by that, which is afterward read vers. 9. where Peter explaineth the same fault of Ananias and Saphira, in these words. Why have ye agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? For it is the same to tempt the holy Spirit, and to belie him. Now they tempted the holy Spirit, because they acted, as if they would try, whether the holy Spirit dwelling in the Apostles, or the Apostles themselves, by vir­tue of the holy Spirit dwelling in them, would observe the deceit or not. Wherefore the forecited Interpreter, whom we praised before, who had so rendred the words, vers. 5. That thou shouldest deceive the holy Spirit, doth afterwards explain them in this manner: That thou shouldest endeavour to deceive the holy Spirit, that is, us the Apostles, in whom the Spirit worketh, and to whom he revealeth the things that are needful to the edification of the Church; and this is a Metonymie of the Ad­junct. I do not now mention that explication of those words wh [...]ch Erasmus delivered, and other learned men likewise have follow­ed, that the words may be rendred, to counterfeit the holy Spirit.

By these things it easily appeareth, that it cannot from this place be concluded, that the holy Spirit is God; since Peter doth in one man­ner speak of the holy Ghost, of God in another. There he saith, to be­lye, or deceive and mock the holy Spirit; Here to lye to God. The first doth simply note the object, about which the fraud and mocking is conver­sant: The second signifieth the utmost scope unto which that iniury and contumely doth redound. For, therefore Peter, after he had said, that Ananias would deceive the holy Spirit, and mock him with his lye, did add, that he had not lyed unto men but to God, that he might the more perceive the greatness of his sin: as if he should have said: Thou oughtest not to think, that this injury pertaineth to us alone, and is ter­minated in us, for it tendeth to the dishonour of God himself. But there had been no need to add any such thing, if he had said, that Ana­nias had lied to the holy Spirit, and he had known from the doctrine of the Apos [...]les, that the holy Spirit was God himself Like unto this passage is that 1 Thess. 4.8. where the Apostle had said, what precepts he had given to them by the Lord Jesus, and upon what terms God had called them, he addeth; therefore he that despiseth, dispiseth not man but God, who hath also given his holy Spirit to us; that is, who hath imparted his holy Spirit unto us, by whom it is apparent that we are governed, & by whose impulsion we do speak, Whence it appeareth that this injury and contempt of us, and the precepts delivered by us, redound to God himself. Again, though it should be said that Ananias had lyed to the ho­ly Spirit, and had lyed to God withal, yet it would not from thence follow, that the holy Spirit is God. For in one and the same a [...]t a man may lye to two, and to one through another; or to one immediately, as here to the holy Spirit dwelling in the Apostles; to another mediate [...]y, as to God. So he, that persecuteth the faithful, persecuteth Christ him­self: [Page 176] he t [...]at heareth and receiveth the Apostles, or, on the contrary, despiseth them, heareth and receiveth or despiseth Christ: he that despiseth Christ, despiseth also God that sent him, Matth. 10.40. Luk. 10.16. Now will any one thence conclude either, that the faithful or the Apostles are Christ, or that Christ is he that sent him, namely the Father? But [...]f we may reason in this manner: Ananias lyed to God: Ananias (at the same time and in the same act) lyed to the holy Ghost: Therefore the holy Ghost is God, it will also be [...]awful to reason thus: Act 4.5. Chap. 22.7, 8 Chap. 20.14, 15. Paul perse­cuted Christ: Paul (at the same time and in the same act persecuted the faithful: Therefore the faithful are Christ, Or, he that heareth t [...]e Apostles, heareth Christ, and also him that sent him: therefore he that sent Christ is Christ. What then, will the adversaries answer to these arguments? without doubt, that there is more in the conclusion than in the premises. Wherefore let them imagine, that the same answer is given to them. For thus it ought to be concluded: therefore some one who lied to the holy Spirit lyed to God. As also in those instances, which we alleaged: therefore some one w [...]o persecuted the faithful, did persecute Christ; some one who heareth him that sent Christ, heareth Christ himself. We have spoken the more largely of this place, because greater stress is laid on it, and yet not all which might be said thereup­on. We will run over the other more breifly.

As for the second place therefore, which is extant 1 Cor. 6.19, 20. the holy Spirit is not understood by the name of God but is openly distinguished from him. For is not the holy Spirit here manifestly distinguished from God, whilest it is said that they have him from God? He speaketh also of the same God in the following words, Therefore gloryfie God in your body, &c. Now, that the Apostle doth not speak of the holy Ghost, even that is an argument, namely, that he speaketh of him, to whom we, as ser­vants, have been bought with a price, but who did ever read that we were bought to the holy Spirit? that we were by Christ bought and invasseld to the Father, both the thing it self speaketh, and it will ea­sily appear from these words of the Revelation, which are extant Chap. 5.9.10. chap 14.4. But if they say, that it is from thence proved, that the holy Spirit is God, because we are his temple: for none but God hath a temple: first it will not follow, that the holy Spirit is here called God, and that openly, which is the thing now in debate; For the same Adversaries are wont to alleage many places, from whence they endeavour to evince, that either the holy Spirit, or Christ is the most high God, where notwithstanding both they themselves con­fess, and all see, that the name of God is not attributed to Christ or the holy Spirit. Again, a temple may be belonging not only to the most high God, [...]ut also to him, who is subordinate to God in divine Empire and worship, not only in the opinion of men but in very deed. Last of all, it may be only so far forth granted, that a temple belongeth to none but God himself, as that a temple is not indeed dedicated to the honour of any o [...]her person, nor possest by any other person by a more divine right and principally inhabited then by God. Otherwise it is inhabited in a sort by Angels as the ministers of God, and the virtue and efficacy of [Page 177] God doth in a manner dwell therein, so that it may be rightly said to be the temple of the divine efficacy and virtue; seeing God by his effi­cacy and virtue doth inhabite his temple, especially that which is treat­ed of in that place to the Corinths. wherefore if any one will conc [...]ude that the holy Ghost is God, in that our body is his temple, he must de­monstrate that our body is so the temple of the holy Spirit, as that he is a person, to whose honour it is dedicated, and by whom our body is, by such a right as is proper to the divine Majesty, possessed and princi­pally inhabited. But it is impossible to demonstrate this, and it doth even from thence seem to be false, because in a place, very like to this place of ours, which is extant before in the same Epistle to the Corinths, Chap. 3.16. the Apostle doth thence clearly prove, that we are the tem­ple of God, because his Spirit dwelleth in us. As also John proveth that God abideth in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit, 1 John 3.24. and 4.13. For if the holy Spirit were such a person, as before we said, and consequently the most high God, what need was the [...]e to conclude thence, that God abideth in us, or, that we are his temple, because his spirit is in us; and not ra [...]her from thence, because that very spirit that dwelleth in us is God? What need is there, I say, to shew, that we are the temple of God, who is di­stinguished from the holy spirit, and by the interveining of him dwell­eth in us; and not rather of God, which is the very spirit himself dwelling in us, and inhabiting us as his temple, not by another person, as our Adversaries would have it, but by himself? But the Apo­stles knew, that it belongeth not to the supream deity, in his own per­son and substance to inhabite any temple whatsoever on the earth, and to dwell in the breasts of men, but by his virtue and efficacy, and there­fore they do not conclude, that we are the temple of God, or that God abideth in us, because the holy spirit that dwelleth in us, is the supream God, but because the spirit of that God dwelleth in us, and was by him given to us. For if the spirit, or force and efficacy of any deity dwell­eth in any place, the very deity it self is said to dwell there, and that is the temple thereof, wherein his virtue hath as it were fixed his abode.

The third place which is extant, 1 Cor. 12.5, 6. doth likewise plainly prove the contrary, for there one and the same spirit is manifestly distin­guished both from one and the same God, and from one and the same Lord, of which matter we have Sect. 1. Chap 4. before treated. But if they will collect from the unity of operation, which appeareth from the collation of vers. 6. with the 11th. that that o [...]e God, and that one spirit are the same; first, it is one thing that the holy Spirit should be that one God, another, that he should be called that one God, concerning which mat [...]er we here treate. Again, we must conclude that that God also, which worketh all these things by his spirit, is the same with his spirit, in that the same operations agree to bo [...]h; that is, that the Father is the holy Spirit, and contrarily, the holy Spirit is the Father: yea, that the three perso [...]s which are common [...]y held are but one, and predicated one of a [...]other, because they have the same external operations concerning which we here speak. But of this matter also it was formerly treated.

In like manner neither doth the fourth place, which is extant 2 Sam. 23.2. prove that the holy Spirit is God, but rather, that he is not so; so far is he from being there openly called God or the Lord. For he is there openly distinguished from the Lord, which is that one God, whilst he is called the Spirit of the Lord, of which matter more in the Below, Chap. 5. follow­ing discourse. Now whereas they reason thus: God spake by David: The holy Spirit spake by David: Therefore the holy Spirit is God; any one easily perceiveth how fall [...]cious this reasoning is; in that it consisteth of meer affirmatives in the second figure, as they speak in the schooles. For if such an argument is to be admitted, we may thus also conclude; God the Father spake by David: The holy spirit spake by David: There­fore the holy spirit is God the Father. For the Major is to be granted by the Adversaries, both for the communion of operations, which they hold to be among the persons of the Trinity, and also for the saying of the holy scripture. For that I may produce but on place; the Apostles, Acts 4.25. say of God the Father, that he spake by the mouth of David his ser­vant, namely by the holy spirit, as the vulgar translation hath it. But that God the Father is there understood, is apparent from vers. 27. where Jesus is called the son of that God, whom the Apostles spake unto. And indeed God spake by his Spirit, or the intervening of his Spirit by David, in that by his Spirit and effica [...]y he disclosed to him those things, which he ought to speak, and moved him to utter them. Thus in Rev. Chap. 2. and 3. at the end of every Epistle directed to the Angels of the Asian Churches, these words are read; Let him that hath an ear, hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches. But in these Epistles Christ the son of God doth perpe [...]ually speak. Wherefore if we ought to fol­low the reasoning of the adversaries, we must conclude that that Spirit, namely, the holy Spirit, is Christ the son of God. Indeed Christ did there speak, but by his Spirit, to whom for that reason the act of speak­ing is likewise there attributed. Now if the adversaries will invert their major proposition, and argue in this manner; whosoever spake by David he is the God of Israel; neither that proposition will be contain­ed, in the place quoted, from whence the Argument is drawn, nor is to be admitted, unless it be thus taken: Whatsoever person principally spake by David, he is the God of Israel. But if you subsume: The holy Spirit is a principal person spaking by David; it likewise will neither be contained in the place that was quoted, nor is at any hand to be granted. But again, David spaketh there one way concerning God, another concerning the holy Spirit. Of the Spirit he saith: The Spirit of the Lord spake by me; but of God he saith, The God of Israel spake to me; neither is it spoken of the same thing in both places. For in the former part of [...]he words it is signified, that God moved Da­vid by his Spirit [...]o utter prophes [...]es: in the latter, that he spake something to David himself, or caused something to be declared to him, namely concerning the regal dignity, which he first conferred upon him by Sa­muel, 1 Sam. 16.13. afterward confirmed by Nathan, 2 Sam. 7.12, &c. (compare the said place with 2 Sam. 7.28. 2 Kings 5.5. & 8.19, &c. 1 Chron. 22.8, &c. Psal. 88.4.20, &c.) in reference to his pos­terity. [Page 179] Wherefore in this matter, God did not spake by David, but by others to David. Howbeit, that this was performed by the Spirit of God, this, as to the force of those words, is altogether by acci­dent. For it had been all one, if God had spoken to David in his own person without any Prophet that was divinely inspired.

It is now easie to give an answer to those places likewise, whereby others endeavour to prove, that the holy Spirit is called Lord. For that in none of them it is plainly written, that the holy Spirit is the Lord or God, which that it was requisite to overthrow our Argument, every man perceiveth. But neither do they prove that the holy Spi­rit is Lord. For when it is said, Deut. 32.12. The Lord alone did guide the People of Israel; the word alone, doth only so far forth exclude others, either things or persons, which are herein subordinate to God, in as much as they are denyed to be the supream Leaders of that People. For if they should by that Particle, be wholly excluded from the acti­on of bringing the People out of Egypt, we must conclude, either that Moses did not lead that people, which notwithstanding the History doth most openly shew; or, that he also is the Lord himself. Which should also be said of that Angel, of whom God saith, That he should go before the People, and keep them in the way, and bring them into the place which he had prepared, in which Angel he affirmeth his name should be, Exod. 23.20, 21. But it is well that the very words of the place do shew, that the Particle alone is indeed opposed to other Gods, and persons not subordinate to the Lord; in which number the holy Spirit is, which dwelling chiefly in Moses, led the people, as may be understood from that place of Isaiah, chap. 63.11. which hath been cited. Now that this Spirit is not the Lord himself, who is said alone to have led the People, is thence apparent, because in these very words of Isaiah, which are compared with that place of Deuteronomy, he is distinguished from the Lord, whilst he is called the Spirit of the Lord: and afterward the Prophet turning of his speech unto the Lord him­self, saith, Thus didst thou lead thy People.

As to the other reason: The Lord said, that he would speak by the Prophets; but the holy Spirit spake by the Prophets; wherefore the holy Spirit is the Lord, An answer hereunto is already evident from those things which have been spoken concerning that place, 2 Sam. 23.2. for it is a Syllogism of mere Affirmatives in the second Figure. And if this reason be firm, it will follow, that the Angels also are the Lord. For in the quoted place, Numb. 12.6. the Lord saith, that he would in vision appear to the Prophets, or would speak unto them by dreams. But the Angels also did this, as appeareth both from other places, so especially from the Prophecy of Ezekiel, Daniel, Zachary, and from the Revelation of John. See Dan. 8.16, 17. & 9.21, &c. cap. 10.5, &c. Zach. 1.8, 9, 14, 19. & 2.1, 3, &c. & 4.1, &c. & frequently in other places; Rev. 1.1.17.1, &c. and 19.9, 10. and 21.9, &c. and 22.8, &c. and ver. 16. Moreover, we have examples hereof in the History of the Gospel, and in the Acts of the Apostles. And that we may not go far from the places which the Adversaries alleage; that very person, who spake [Page 180] these words to Moses, Exod. 4.12. was an Angel sustaining the person of God, as we have elsewhere See the Book of God and his Attri­butes. shewn; and although a man would not confess it, yet seeing the Law is said to have been disposed, and deli­vered by Gal. 3.19. Angels, in the hand of a Mediator, he must needs confess, that the Angel, in giving the Law, spake unto Moses, of whom those words, Exod. 4. do treat.

There is the same fault in the third reason, namely, that a conclusi­on is in the second Figure drawn out of mere Affirmatives: The Isra­elites provokt the Lord; the Israelites provokt the holy Spirit; there­fore the holy Spirit is the Lord. Which is refuted by that very place of Isaiah, which is cited, whilst he is said to be the Spirit of the Lord [...] for he saith, but they provoked to anger, and grieved the holy Spirit of him; that is, of the Lord, for of him it is spoken; see ver. 7, &c. A like Argument hereunto would be this; The Israelites were disobe­dient to the Lord, and exasperated him; The Israelites were disobe­dient to the voice of the Lord, and exasperated his mouth; There­fore the voice of the Lord, or his mouth, are the Lord himself. Or thus; The Israelites grieved the holy Spirit, and resisted him. The Israelites grieved Moses, and resisted him, as the History testifieth in sundry places; yea, they did chiefly so far forth grieve the holy Spi­rit, and resist him in the wilderness, as they grieved Moses, in whom he dwelt, and resisted him. Whence it will follow, if the Argument of the Adversaries be right, that Moses himself was the holy Spirit. For it is to be observed, that the words, Heb. 3.8, 9. are not so attri­buted to the holy Spirit, as if they were spoken in his person, as the Adversaries conceive, but because they were pronounced by the im­pulse of the holy Spirit. Otherwise it would follow, that the holy Spirit is David himself, since the holy Spirit is in this place said to have uttered also these words, Psal. 95. To day if you will hear his voice, namely, God, &c. But it is certain, that both these words, and also the rest, which are read in the beginning of the Psalm, are pro­nounced in the person of David. Thus we saw before, that it is a­scribed to the holy Spirit, Rev. 2.3. that he spake those things which are most openly pronounced in the person of Christ. Therefore the holy Spirit so spake those words in David, as he is said to cry in our hearts, Abba Father, Gal. 4 6. namely, because we by him, that is, by his impulse, do so cry, Rom. 8.15. and as he is said to intercede for us with groans unutterable, ver. 26. because he maketh us to pray and groan unto God.

As to the last proof; therefore the words of God are attributed in Isa­iah, to the holy Spirit, because Isaiah pronounced them by the impulse of the holy spirit. Now as it doth not follow, because Isaiah likewise pronounced those words, that they are therefore spoken in his per­son, and so that Isaiah is the Lord; so likewise neither is it to be con­cluded, concerning the holy Spirit, by whose impulse he pronounced them. It is also here to be observed, what we noted in 2 Sam. 23. it is not said of the holy Spirit, that he spake those words unto Isaiah, but only by Isaiah▪ But the Lord did not only speak them by Isaiah, [Page 181] but also, as appeareth by the Prophecy it self, to Isaiah; because he spake openly by him, as one person doth to another; which is nei­ther here nor elsewhere attributed to the holy Spirit. For if the ho­ly Spirit is read to have said any thing to any one, it is found to have no otherwise come to pass, than, because somethings were declared to some one from God, by the intervening of some Prophet. For in that the Prophets spake by divine Inspiration; therefore the holy Spirit is said to have spoken by them. But when God spaketh open­ly to any one, or an Angel sustaining his person, the holy Spirit is not said to have spoken to him. And thus much concerning our first Ar­gument.

The Defence of the Argument.

Arg. 2 The Scripture speaks nothing of worship­ping the holy Spi­rit.INdeed the Adversaries endeavour sometimes a by certain consequen­ces, to evince that these things are some way contained in the holy Scripture, but here we shall not deal with consequences, but as we have taught, with open precepts, that might be evident to every one, though otherwise he were but a simple man.

As for Invocation, some imagine they have an example thereof, both in Paul, 1 Cor. 13. ult. who wisheth to the Corinthians, The communion of the holy Spirit: and also in John Rev. 1.4. who wisheth to the seven Asian Churches, Grace and peace to the seven Spirits that are before the Throne of God. But they are exceedingly mistaken; for as to the wish of Paul, it is one thing to wish that the communion of the holy Spi­rit should be with men; another thing to invocate the holy Spirit him­self; for the first is no other than to wish, that the holy Spirit should be communicated unto men, or being cummunicated, should abide with them. For neither doth the Apostle take the communion of the holy Spirit actively, as if he wished that the holy Spirit should com­municate something; otherwise he would have added the name of something which he would have to be communicated to the Corinthi­ans by the holy Spirit; but as we have already hinted passively. Thus the communion of the Blood of Christ, and the communion of the Body of Christ, 1 Cor. 10.16. is taken, where there is the same word in the Greek, as in that place, 2 Cor. 13. ult. For whilst the Apostle wisheth the communion of the holy Spirit to the Corinthians, he ex­plaineth in what manner chiefly he desireth that God and Christ should testifie their Grace and Love towards them, namely, in giving his ho­ly Spirit to them, or in cherishing and augmenting the same already gi­ven unto them, And indeed it would be a wonder, if Paul should here wish for something from the holy Spirit, as a divine person, that he should so often have omitted the mention of him elsewhere in the like prayers. Of which matter more hereafter.

As to the wish of John, the very number of those spirits sufficient­ly hinteth, that this place maketh nothing to the invocation of the ho­ly Spirit, whom they would have to be the third Person in the God­head. For then we should make seven spirits instead of one, so that for three Persons of the Deity, we should have nine. Which, when others perceived, they said, that by these spirits, is to be understood the various power of God, or, as they speak, the various gift of the holy Spirit. And therefore it is all one, as if John should pray for Grace and Peace from the holy Spirit himself. But besides that, the Adversaries agree not among themselves concerning this matter (for some by that name understand seven chief Angels of God; others the manifold providence of God and Christ) what is there that evinceth, that this vertue proceedeth from the holy Spirit, which is a third Per­son of the Deity? and that he is invocated, when John prayeth for [Page 183] Grace and Peace from those seven Spirits of God? There is not the least hint thereof in the Revelation, where mention is several times made of those seven spirits. See besides the very place of the first chapter, chap. 3.1. & 4.5. & 5.6. which two places compare with Zach. 4.2, 10. from whence they are in a manner taken. In these places thou shalt see those spirits called the spirits of God, they are said to stand be­fore the Throne. Christ is said to have them as eyes and horns. For they are to him instead of eyes, because by them he overseeth and taketh care of his Disciples, and provideth for them; and instead of horns, because by them he pusheth his enemies, and driveth them a­way, and chaseth them from his People. What hint is here of the holy Spirit, that should be a third Person of the Deity? Doth not the thing it self shew, that if the manifold vertue and efficacy of God which he hath communicated with Christ, be to be understood, John, whilst he wisheth grace and peace from those spirits, doth so mention them, as if they were certain persons distinct from God and Christ; yet in the mean time, doth only declare the means & manner whereby he de­sireth that grace & peace should proceed from God to the Churches? and so doth tacitly repeat the invocation of God himself, whom he had before named, and whose spirits they principally are, and to whom they do in a manner minister? for which reason also he immediately subjoyneth them to God. But for as much as Christ also hath these spirits of God, and maketh use of them, therefore having made men­tion of them, he also commemmorateth Christ, and prayeth for grace and peace to the Churches from him; wherefore this wish, and the im­ploring of the divine help comprehended therein, is properly refer­red to God and Christ, improperly to the spirits themselves. Which is the cause why other divine men omit the mention of them in their salutations and wishes: they who hold them to be Angels, will say that this invocation, is referred to them only in a secondary manner, as unto Ministers, not as unto Lords, and the true bestowers of grace and peace; and that therefore the mention of them is elsewhere o­mitted, and they are therefore set before Christ, partly because they belong unto God, to whom they are next subjoyned (for which cause also afterwards, chap. 3. the name of the New Jerusalem is interposed betwixt that of God and Christ) partly because John intendeth to speak more largely of Christ. For he therefore reserveth the menti­on of them to the end, that without disturbing the course of his speech, he might more freely make an excursion into his prayers. For if he would have reserved the mention of those spirits to the end, he should have either used a longer Parenthesis, or begun a new speech. It is apparent therefore that there is nothing in those places, to establish the invocation of the holy Spirit. And here it is worth the rehearsing, (as learned men have noted) that Hilary in his twelve Books concerning the Trinity, never called the holy Spirit God, ne­ver said that he is to be adored, but only to be obtained: which is like­wise to be observed in other Writers both of that and former times. Yea, the true opinion concerning the holy Spirit, was of so great pow­er, [Page 184] that even after those things, wherein the holy Spirit began to be ac­counted for the most hlgh God, almost all the prayers of the Churches were directed to God the Father, and to Christ, not to the holy Spi­rit. And there are yet extant, several Books of the Papists, put forth in the former age, and containing an account of Religion and Cere­monies in use among them, where it is expresly declared, that we must observe how every prayer is directed to God the Father, or to Christ, the Son, and not to the holy Spirit, because a gift is not asked from the gift it self, but from the bestower of the gift. Indeed we are not ignorant, that there is an usual Hymn among them, wherein they pray the holy Spirit to come, and fill the heart of his People; how­beit, the cause which is alleaged, that a gift is not asked from the gift it self, but from the bestower of the gift, is universal, and it is clear that regard was had thereunto in most prayers of the Church, and should have been had in all without exception. Now that custom of praying, is an open token of the true Opinion, which did at first pre­vail in the Church. For if the holy Spirit be the most high God, ab­solutely equal to the Father, and to the Son, whom they likewise hold to be the most high God, why was he not judged worthy of equal honour? why were either all, or at least the greatest part of pray­ers not equally directed to him, as to the Father or the Son? This in­deed was the hinderance, that in those first times, it was out of con­troversie; as both the holy Scripture doth plainly enough testifie, and at this day many (though therein inconstant to themselves) con­fess that the holy Spirit is a gift. For which cause Hilary, before ci­ted, illustrating and confirming his opinion concerning the Trinity, with that saying of Christ, Mat. 28.19. Baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, doth in his second Book concerning the Trinity, at the close thereof, thus explain the words, In the confession of the Author, and of the only Begotten, and of the gift, which he doth there largely pursue. Wherefore since they had this opinion concerning the holy Spirit, they directed their pray­ers not to him, but to the Father and the Son, the bestower of that gift; knowing, that a gift is not asked from the gift it self, but from the giver of the gift. Which custom, even the contrary errour hath for so many ages not been able quite to abolish.

The Defence of the Argument.

BUt they say, that when the holy spirit it is distinguished from God, or the Lord, that by the name God, or the Lord, the Father is understood, or also the son, who likewise is the Lord. For therefore he is called the spirit of both, because he proceedeth from both. A like exception we have seen conce [...]ning Christ, who is also most frequently distin­guished from God? Now the same things, that we have there spoken to that exception, Sect. 2. Chap. 1. or like unto them, may here likewise be alleaged; Wherefore since they may thence be fetcht, there is no need to repeat them here.

A larger Defence of the Argument.

SUfficiently, as it seems to us, we have hitherto confirmed our Ar­gument. Yet nevertheless, since two answers either are wont, or may seem to be made to it, they are to be refelled by us. The former is against the major Proposition of the Argument, which by an instance, the Adversaries endeavour to infringe. For they say, that Christ also is called the Vertue or Power of God, 1 Cor. 1.24. and yet notwithstanding, he is not only a Person, but also the most high God himself. But this latter we have above refuted: and by this very thing also, is sufficiently refelled, in that he is the vertue of God, to wit, the most high, and so is manifestly distinguished from the Supream God. But further, we take the name of Power and Efficacy, in our Argument, properly. But when will they prove, that Christ is the Vertue or Power of God properly so called? For whether they take the word Power, for that Vertue which naturally dwells in God, or for that which flows from him as its fountain, and is also in some man­ner communicated to the creatures; neither of them is a person, but a quality; and that indeed, an essential property of God common to three persons, as they will have it. But that Christ is a person, all know, and urge. The same may be also understood by the other term of excellency, which in the same place (1 Cor. 1.24.) is given to Christ, to wit, that he is called the Wisdom of God. For the Wisdom of God speaking properly, is his attribute, or natural property, by which God both understands all things, and disposeth most aptly his Counsels and Works. But this is in no sort a person, but in like man­ner is his attribute, or natural property, common to three persons; as is the opinion of the Adversaries. Certainly, since Christ is a person distinct from the Father, and the Father in himself, or his own person, hath all Wisdom, whereby he understandeth and disposeth all things; neither may any one understand, by another person, but by himself, and Wisdom implanted in himself; Christ cannot, speaking properly, be the Wisdom of God. Therefore neither in like manner, the Power of God. For there is the same reason of both. It is therefore to be understood, as the preaching of the Cross in the same 1 Cor. 1.18. place to the Corinthians is termed, the Vertue or Power of God: in like manner also the Gospel, Rom. 1.16. to wit, because in it the singular Vertue or Power of God is put forth, and manifestly appears to all Believers: so also Christ is called the Vertue or Power, and likewise Wisdom; because in him the supream Power and Wisdom of God hath been put forth, and in him may most clearly be perceived by all believers. Let the place it self be looked, and ver. 18.24. be compared together; and that it is so, any one will easily understand. By these things then [Page 202] it appeareth, that this instance is of no moment to invalid our Argu­ment, seeing we speak of the Efficacy of God properly so called, and have shewed, that the holy Spirit is the very Power or Efficacy of God, proceeding and flowing from him. Certainly, by the Opinion of the Adversaries themselves, it is necessary that in one wise Christ, in an otherwise the holy Spirit, be the Power of God. For if Christ be the substantial Power of God, having his proper person, and the holy Spi­rit also be such a Power of God, there will be two Powers, or substan­tial Vertues in God, having their personallity; those two persons, as such, shall be altogether like to themselves: Of which, neither can be. Not that, because the one or the other efficacy should be in vain; since one may altogether suffice to do all things. But in him, who himself doth nothing in vain, nothing also is altogether in vain, or nothing over much. Yea, it is also impossible, because two forms wholly of the same Nature, cannot consist in the same subject, unless perhaps ac­cording to divers parts; which hath no place in God. For other­wise the thing would proceed in infinitum. Of which we shall else­where Book 2. S [...]ct. 1. Chap. 5. speak more plainly.

And this latter therefore cannot consist, because they both hold, and are constrained to hold, that those divine persons, so far as they are distinct from the Essence, are unlike. Wherefore, that those absurdi­ties, of which we have spoken, may not happen, it is necessary to de­termine, that the holy Spirit is such a power as is not a person. And thus much concerning the former Answer to our Argument.

The latter Answer is placed in a distinction, which otherwise the Ad­versaries often use, when there is speech of the holy Spirit. For they say, the term holy Spirit is taken in a double manner: one while for the third person of the Deity: another while for his effect or gift flow­ing from him, and that indeed properly is called, holy Spirit; but this Metonimically, in that the Cause is put for the effect. I remember not indeed to have read, that that answer is accommodated to this our Argument. But because it may yet be accommodated; it will be worth our labour to examine it here, chiefly because it may seem that no­thing may be said more speciously. For when we by Power or Effi­cacy of God, understand a certain force flowing from God, and his natural power into men, some one may say, that the holy Spirit is in­deed such a power of God, but taken metonymi [...]ally. For that Effi­cacy of God, is the effect or gift of the holy Spirit, properly so cal­led. But in this place is not disputed of the holy Spirit metonymi­cally, but properly taken▪ not of his gift, but of himself. Therefore our Argument is ineffectual, and makes nothing to the matter. But we somewhat otherwise take the Gift of the holy Spirit in this An­swer, or at least stretch it wider than the Adversaries are commonly wont. For so much as I have been able hitherto to find, they are wont by the gift of the holy Spi [...]it, to understand those admirable faculties implanted in men by divine Power; as the faculty of prophesying, or speaking with tongues, and other, whether visible, as they are called, or invisible, or if you had rather more hidden effects of the holy Spi­rit [Page 203] in men. But that Power of God, of which the places of holy Scripture, brought by us, speak, is not such a faculty, or faculties ra­ther, but the efficient of them, although it again flow from power naturall resident in God. Wherefore, if the gift of the holy Spirit should be taken so strictly, this Answer could not be fitted to our Ar­gument, or the places by which we have confirmed it; unless any one would perhaps say, that in all those places in which the holy Spi­rit, and Power of God, are put as equipollent, or the one is put in­stead of the other, the name of the holy Spirit, or divine Power, is used for such a faculty divinely ingenerated in a man; but no where for the divine Efficacy that effects such faculties in men; which nei­ther will the Adversaries easily say, nor can it in any manner consist; as partly the places themselves, a little more diligently looked into, will shew to every one; partly will be understood by the things which follow. Wherefore that that distinction may seem to make something against our Argument, we will suppose that our Adversaries do make that divine Efficacy, also flowing from the natural Power of God, which is the cause of wonderful effects in men, to be the gift of the holy Spirit, and so to be understood by the name of the holy Spirit, not properly, but by a Metonymie only; namely, because it flows from the third Person of the Deity, which properly may be called the holy Spirit.

That therefore we may refell this exception, we say that it is in no wise to be granted, that that Power and Efficacy of God, which is in this place understood, is only metonymically termed the holy Spi­rit, and not rather properly, as far indeed as propriety hath place here. For if it should be called only metonymically, the Spirit of God or the holy Spirit, to wit because it comes from the holy Spirit properly so called; there would be no cause why it should not be called likewise the Father or Son, since it should no less come from the Father & Son, then from the holy Spirit even according to the adversaries opinion, since it is some effect of the natural power of God: which according to their opinion is common to the three persons of the Deity; and is indeed first in the Father, as the fountain of the Deity; then by him, as they would have it, in the son and holy spirit, who from him have their Essence. Neither may you say that that inspiration is therefore called rather the holy spirit, then the Father or son; because it immediately proceeds from the holy spirit, but from the Father and son onely mediately; for what hindreth the Father or the son; since they have the same power in themselves, efficacious for all things, which the person of the holy spirit hath, to put it forth also by themselves, as well as the person of the holy spirit? as we see by the holy Scripture they have indeed put it forth. Yea how can it be, in this unity of Essence, and all things pertaining to it, that the Father and the son should not as immediately put forth their power, as the holy spi [...]it? For it is judged that the Father and son have so commuicated their virtue and power, whence that efficacy or divine inspiration im­mediately comes, to the holy Spirit, as that nevertheless it remained [Page 204] the same in number in Father and Son, and is put forth by the three persons by the same a [...]t altogether. Whence therefore is that differ­ence, that the holy Spirit puts it forth immediately, the Father and the Son mediately? But if the Father and the Son put forth that force and efficacy alike immediately; there is no cause, wherefore that force should be termed more the holy Spirit than the Father or the Son, if it be not the holy Spirit himself, but be called so therefore only because it comes from him. We repeat not that which we have said before, that although the Father and Son should put it forth only mediately, the holy Spirit immediately, yet that could not [...]e manifest by the thing it self, without a peculiar divine revelation; when nevertheless we see, as soon as any thing hath been manifest to have been done by divine virtue or inspiration, that forthwith is ascribed to the holy Spirit, as the next cause. But further, the adversaries cannot use that answer in some of the places brought by us, unless together they overthrow one of their chief Arguments, whereby they endeavour to prove the holy Spirit to be a Suppositum and person; to wit, that which is drawn from the acti­ons proper to persons, or at least Suppositums. For in the first place brought by us from Luke 1.34. where the holy Spirit is said to come upon Mary, the Adversaries themselves seem to understand the person of the holy Spirit, especially since the action of coming upon agrees not pro­perly but to a person, or at least to a Suppositum. I omit that also in the place ( Ephes. 3.20.) cited by us, the virtue or divine power is said to work in the Apostles. Besides we shall see in the following Chapter a new Reason by which that Answer may be overthrown.

A larger Confirmation and Defence of this Argument.

TO these things I see not what they can answer, who doubt not to affirm (neither indeed can they otherwise, as it shall hereafter be made manifest) that the very person of the holy Spirit is given to men, together with his effects. Therefore others endeavour to decline the blow, that they affirm, that not the holy Spirit properly so called, is gi­ven to men by God: but its effect, or rather various effects, such as are those which, 1 Cor. 12.8, &c. are largly enough rehearsed, and others, common to all believers. For these are by a Metonymie signified by the name of the holy spirit, when he is said to be given unto men, and so to be received and had of them. For the efficient cause is put for the ef­fect. Although some who say, there is a Metalepsis in the phrase, seem to take the thing a little otherwise. For neither do they seem to take the name of the holy Spirit it self for his effects or gifts, but for that ve­ry divine person which they hold. Nevertheless, in the mean while, they signifie that the giving, passively taken, is attributed to him only improperly; because that which may properly agree to the effects, may be also improperly attributed to the efficient cause it self; seeing the effects of the holy Spirit may be properly given, not he himself. And indeed both these seem to themselves to deal more warily, than those who simply confess that the holy Spirit himself is given, yet in the mean time they do not perceive, that both this hole by which they en­deavour to get out is stopt; and likewise, although I should somewhat enlarge it to them, yet are they no whit less held fast bound. For first, it is false, that the effects only of the holy Spirit, not the holy Spirit him­self, is given to men. And further, that when he is said to be given, or received by us, or had, it is said but by a Metonymie or Metalepsis. [Page 207] Besides, although it was granted, it must be no whit the less confessed, that the holy Spirit is not the most high God.

As to the former; we shall demonstrate it, first by certain general rea­son, and common to all those places of which we treat; then by other more special and proper to certain places; and lastly from certain hy­potheses of the Ad [...]ersaries.

As to the general reason; If by the name of the holy Spirit in these places, of which we treat, is understood some divine and holy inspirati­on, or some power flowing from God, which is as it were breathed into men; the holy Spirit is properly given, that is, not by a Metonymie only, or by a Metalepsis is said to be given unto men, to be received and had of them. That the thing is so, will be afterward understood. For we shall first shew that such an inspiration is understood by the name of the holy spirit, when he is said to be given to us, to be received and had by us: although it may easily seem truth to any one by it self. Christ himself shewed it and represented it by a certain external breathing, when after his resurrection See Joh. 20.22. appearing to his disciples, he said, Receive ye the holy Spirit. For John relates, that he being about to utter those words breathed into or upon the disciples. For what other thing would he shew by that action, than that he was about in a more divi [...]e and more secret manner to breath on them, and inspire into them some heavenly power, which what it should be, he taught presently in express words, When he added, Receive ye the holy Spirit. But besides, the same thing is thence manifest, because the holy spirit in the pl [...]ce above noted by us, and the like to them, is taken in that sense in which at that time it was taken commonly among the Jewes. For do we think that John Ba­ptist, when speaking to the people [...]e said; that Christ should baptize with the holy spirit, did use that term in a signification unknown to the people? or that the people hearing the same, did not understand what John said? But this is that spirit, which Christ promised to them that ask, and which was afterwards given to the Apostles and other disciples, as is understood as well by the thing it self, as also by the place, Acts 1.4, 5. is manifest. What else meant Peter when he discoursed to the people of the holy spirit newly poured out, and promised the same to the auditors, Vers. 38. if they would repent and be baptized into the name of Jesus Christ; do we think, that he used the word holy Spirit, in a significati­on unknown to them, that is, that he would not be under­stood, or at least was not understood of them? In like manner when after Chap. 5. in the Senate of the Jews, he said, We are his wit­nesses of these things, and so is also the holy spirit, which God hath given to them that obey him; do we think that he used the word holy spirit o­therwise than those Elders of the Jewes were wont to take it? Or did not he therefore mention these things that the adversaries well under­standing what the term holy spirit signyfied, and how much was to be given to its testimony, might give credit to his sayings, and the rest of the Apostles? The same is to be held of the words of the same Peter used in the house of Cornelius, in which he affirmed, that Christ was anointed [Page 208] with the holy Spirit, that by this means he might conciliate to him di­vine authority. What? that both John, and Christ in him, have declar­ed the words, by which the holy Spirit was more obscurely designed by the simple word either of Spirit or holy Spirit: as appears by the places brought by us, John 7.39. and Chap. 14.16, 17. to which add vers. 26. of the same chap. and 15.26. Now this doth sufficiently shew, that the signification of that word was then commonly known. But what did the Jews of that time commonly understand by the name of the holy Spirit? did they perhaps mean a Divine person? Why then comes it to pass, that not so much indeed as any footsteps of that opinion remained among the Jews after that time, nor doth it appear in those who were next unto those times? Did they, that they might disquiet the Christians, forswear all their opinions comonly received by all? You can never perswade this to an intilligent man. What then shall we believe, they understood by the name of the holy Spirit, but divine inspira [...]ion; to wit, that which the original both of the Hebrew word, by which the Spirit is noted, and of the Greek and Latine shews, and which among the Gentiles also how­ever otherwise erring in the thing it self, was understood by the name of the divine Spirit. For both the Hebrew word Ruach & the Greek [...] which is from [...] as the Latine Spiritus from Spirando, proper­ly signify a wind or blast. Wherefore nothing is more apt than that, to signify that divine inspiration, or power which is breathed into the hearts of men from heaven. Which signification, as we have said, was not unknown even to the Gentiles themselves, although in the mean time they did most grievously erre in the thing, taking a false inspiration for a true one, a divelish for a divine. But this pertaines not by it self to the force and significaton of the word. But now if the name of the holy Spirit be taken in those places of which we treat, for that divine inspiration or some power which from God flowes into men; why is the holy Spirit said to be given to us, or further to be received or had by us, one [...]y by a Metonymy or Metalepsis? Why is not the holy Spirit properly so called (as far indeed as that word in this matter may be ta­ken properly) acknowledged to be given to us? For if it be not given properly, either it is therefore, because this holy inspiration may not be said to be the holy Spirit, but only improperly, to wit, by a Meton [...]my of the efficient cause; or because not properly but by a Metalepsis only it may be said to be given, that is only in respect of the gifts and effects flowing from him. But both is false. For as to the former, those things which are called by some name only by a Metonimy of the efficent cause, do not by themselves deserve that name, but therefore only are so called, because they come from the efficient cause, to which this name doth by it self and in the first place agree. But that power which is inspired into men by God doth of it self deserve to be termed the holy Spirit, and accordingly is so called, without any regard had, that it comes from such a cause, which properly may [...]e called the holy Spirit: No man doubts that it is of it self holy, and may be so called. But that it also of it s [...]lf deserve the name of Spirit, doth in like manner appear from the things already spoken: to wit, because it is inspired by God into men, [Page 209] and [...]en are breathed upon by it. Neither is it to the purpose that me­ [...]phorically, or by reason of similitude, it is termed Spirit: For in this place the propriety of the word is not so looked upon as opposed to a Metaphor, but as to a Metonimy. Since this now is the question. But if thou wilt therefore say this inspiration is improperly termed the holy Spirit, because it is called Spirit metaphorically; see by what meanes thou wilt defend that that third person of the deity is properly called the holy Spirit. For therefore also they think that person to be termed Spirit, because he is breathed by the other two: but not therefore be­cause he is a spiritual substance; otherwise that appellation would no more agree to that person, then to the other two. What then? Is that person properly breathed or blown out? Certainly far less doth it agree to him to be breathed then, to this divine inspiration, of which we treat: since that comes not forth without God; this proceeds from God, and is inspired into men. It is manifest therefore that that divine inspiration is properly termed the holy spirit not metonimycally only. As to the latter I scarse believe the adversaries will deny that that very inspiration is properly given. For how is that which is breathed and put into the hearts of men to their greatest profit, not properly given them? Therefore there is no Metalepsis here to be sought, by which it may come to pass, that that which properly agrees only to the effect, may improperly be attributed to the efficient cause, since here the very efficient cause of those effects, which are understood, that is the very divine inspiration, is by it self given to men. And let these things suf­fice concerning the general reason, and common to all the places which we treat of.

As for the special Reasons, more proper to certain places, those words of Christ, which we have before cited out of John 14.16, 17. de­serve to be first mentioned, I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Advocate, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth,; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor know­eth him. But ye know him; for he dwelleth with you (to wit, as inha­biting in Christ, he did as it were converse among the Disciples) and shall be in you; that is, and further, shall be not only with you, or among you, as now, but also in your selves, being given of the Father unto you. What could be said more clearly, to shew that the holy Spirit, properly so called, is given of God, that it is a gift which may be ob­tained of the Father by faithful prayers? For what? Is not the com­forter that holy Spirit properly so called; or is it not but by a Metalep­sis, said to be given to the Disciples by the Father? The former the Adversaries cannot say, unless they will deny that the third person of the Deity, is the holy Spirit, properly so called; which yet they chiefly will have. For that the same is understood by the Comforter, they al­together contend, and urge both the name it self of Paraclet, or Com­forter, as also the word another added to it, and the actions proper to persons attributed to him in this speech of Christ; of which below we will somewhat treat. This may of right be said, that if it be not there spoken of the holy Spirit, properly so called, it is no where [Page 210] spoken of him. It remains therefore, that they say that it is indeed here spoken of the third person of the Deity, and that this person [...] meant by the Paracl [...]r: but that he is not said to be given to the Apo­stles by the Father, but by a Metalepsis: namely, because its effects or various gifts are to be given to them. But neither hath that shift here any place. For by comparing of that place with the words in verse 26. of the same chapter, and also with the words verse 26. of the fol­lowing chapter, it will easily appear to any one, that Christ so far as­serts, that the Father being asked of him, was about to give the holy Spirit to the Disciples, as he [...]ould send him in the name of Christ, or Christ himself should send him unto the Disciples from the Father. For so he saith in that former place, But the Comforter, the holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, &c. But in the latter, But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testifie of me. And truly what other thing could either the Father of the Son do, pertaining to that giving, than that he should send the holy Spirit to the Disciples with that intent, that he might remain in them for ever, and produce those divine effects, which af­terwards appeared in them? But that sending, and the coming of the holy Spirit, which follows it, doth not agree first to the effects of the holy Spirit, and only consequently to him; which should be, if it were at­tributed to him only by a Metalepsis; but on the contrary. Whence the Adversaries are wont to prove, the person of the holy Spirit by that mission; which they could not do, if they did judge it primari­ly, and of it self to agree to the gifts of the holy Spirit. For as much as such a mission, if it be in no sort proper to a person, cannot also prove it. But if then that mission primarily and of it self agree to the holy Spirit, not to his effects, there will be the same reason of the gi­ving also, which we have seen to consist in that sending. But hence ariseth also another reason of the same thing. For that the holy Spi­rit should teach the Disciples all things, and recal all Christs sayings in­to their remembrance, is put chap, 14.26. as the consequent of the sending of the holy Spirit; and moreover also of the giving it. But if so far only the holy Spirit should be given, as its gifts are bestowed, that thing should be contained in the giving it self of the holy Spirit, but not be a consequent of it. For that imparting of the knowledge of divine things, even first of all pertains to the producing of gifts coming from the holy Spirit upon the Apostles.

This place might have enough warned the Adversaries, that they should not date to deny the holy Spirit properly so called, to be given to us together with his effects. But there want not also other places which do the same. For by other Adversaries, who therefore use not such an answer, hath that place of Paul, Rom. 5.5. been taken no­tice of, where he saith, The Love of God (that is, the sence of the di­vine Love) is shed abroad in our hearts by the holy Spirit which is given to us. Where indeed it is said concerning that Spirit which diffuseth the sence of divine Love in our hearts, and so is the Author of the spi­ritual [Page 211] gift, that he is given to us. To which place may be added that of the same Epistle, chap. 18.1 [...]. where the Apostle saith, Ye have re­ceived the Spirit of adoption, whereby (that is, by whose force and im­pulse) we cry, Abba (Father) for the Spirit it self beareth witness to our spirit, that we are the Children of God. Of which also in the Epi­stle to the Galathians, chap. 4.6. he saith, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba (Father.) So also 2 Tim. 1.7. it is said, For God hath not given to us the spirit of fear, but of Power, of Love, and of a sound mind. For what else is it, than that God hath not given to us such a Spirit, as should effect fear, and cowardise in us, but such as begets in us, strength and fortitude, charity and prudence, or sobri­ety? But I remember not that I have hitherto heard or read of any, who could dare to deny that the divine Spirit, the efficient cause of these gifts, is the holy Spirit, properly so called. Neither indeed in these places, hath the Metalepsis devised by others any place. For the effects also of the holy Spirit, are rehearsed in the same places, as some things diverse from the holy Spirit given, and so, as effects of the thing given. But if by that Metalepsis, the holy Spirit were said to be given, to wit, in respect of the effects, those effects should be contained in the thing given, nor should be mentioned, or distinct from it. And let these things be said out of the sacred Writings against the Metonimy and Metalepsis, devised in these manners of speak­ing.

As to the Hypothesis of the Adversaries, although we have used them in some part already, yet it is further to be added, that by such an Answer to our Argument, their own reason is vehemently over­thrown, which they are wont to bring further to prove the immensi­ty of the holy Spirit, and consequently its supream Deity; to wit, that the holy Spirit dwelt in all Believers dispersed through the whole world. For two wayes they weaken this Argument. First, because if the very holy Spirit, properly so called, be not given to Believers, but only its effects, it cannot be proved that the holy Spirit himself, or his Essence, is in very deed in every Believer, which is necessary to the concluding of their reason. Again, Because neither such immen­sity, as they understand, can be thence proved, unless withal they make also the effect of the holy Spirit, or at least all its effects disper­sed in the hearts of Believers, though the whole world joyned toge­ther to be immense, and the supream God. Therefore the Adversa­ries cannot deny, that the holy Spirit it self; to wit, properly so cal­led, is given by God to believers, but that together they take away both the testimonies of the holy Scripture, and their own asserti­ons.

But now let us somewhat loosen those bonds by which we have shewn them to be held, and let us grant to them, seeing they will have it so, that not the holy Spirit, properly so called, is given to Be­lievers, but its effect only, yet they shall not escape. For neverthe­less, we will hence shew that the holy Spirit is not the most high God.

For first, if the holy Spirit were the most high God, it could not be said, no not by a Metonymy or Metalepsis, of him, that he is given or bestowed by another upon men, or that men receive him. For who would not reject such a manner of speaking, as absurd and unworthy of the most high God? More soberly do the holy Scripture speak of the most high God, than to feign in his names such trops. But if yet any man contend, that such speaking is not unbeseeming God, or absurd, let him shew an example of the like manner of speaking, in the name either of the most high God, or the Father, or any other which is equi­valent. Besides, if it were so, it should not be understood that that certain gift, or if you had rather, kind of gifts is given, which yet all understand to be given, when the holy Spirit is said to be given. For the gifts and effects of the most high God, are of most large extent; for what good soever there is, it comes from him. Therefore if thou shouldst hear that the most high God is given, namely, because his gifts are given, either thou wouldst understand that all gifts are given toge­ther, or, if thou wouldst understand only a certain kind of gifts to be given, thou wouldst believe that to be given, which is of all the most excellent, either alone, or conjoyned with others. The same thing therefore should be thought of the holy Spirit, if he were the most high God, and not said to be given but in respect of gifts and effects only. But neither all gifts are understood to be given, when we hear the holy Spirit is given; nor that which is of all the greatest, to wit, immortal life, or perfect justification; but presently our mind is carri­ed to a divine breathing or inspiration, or the effects of it in men; to wit, because the divine Spirit, properly so called, is a divine inspiration, or a force flowing from God into men, breathed from heaven into their hearts. This, I say, is the true ca [...]se, why our mind hearing the holy Spirit to be given, is carried to that certain kind of gift or gifts. But the adversaries will except that there is in this case another reason of the name of God, or the Father, or also of the Son, another of the name of the holy Spirit, although he be the Supream God. For they so dispute, as we have before shewed; although all the works to with­out are common to the who [...]e Trinity, yet in a certain peculiar respect creation is attributed to the Father, remdeption to the Son, sanctificati­on to the holy Spirit. Now then they will say, that that kind of gift or gifts, which we understand, as soon as we hear the holy Spirit is given, doth pertain to sanctification. Therefore it is not designed by the name of God common to three persons, not by the name of the Father, nor Son, but the holy Spirit. Thou seest by what circuits the mind is led by the ad­versaries thither, whither it is forthwith straight carried. But is it credi­ble that those, whether Jews o [...] Gentiles (who first heard of the holy Spirit to be given to men) either from Christ, or other divine men did either al­ready know those things, or being ignorant of them did not understand, what was signified by the name of the holy Spirit, and what was pro­mised both to them and to others? Were those auditors of Iohn Baptist or Peter, whom we mentioned before, so knowing of those things, that they could think at first, when they heard of the holy Spirit [Page 213] to be poured out upon them, that some effect should be given them, not peculiar to the first and second person of the Deity, but the third to whom it is proper to sanctify; therefore that effect did pertain to sancti­fication, and withal was a divine inspiration? Was it not more ready for them to think that which the word it self declared, that a divine inspiration or its effects were promised to them? But besides, whence is it manifest to the adversaries, that the th [...]ee persons of the Deity have a­mong themselves thus parted those three gifts? Were they perhaps pre­sent at their councel, that they so boldly affirme these things? They will say, from the holy Scriptures it is manifest to them concerning that thing, as which doth chefliy ascribe creation to the Father, redemption to the Son, sanctification to the holy Spirit. Of creation and redemp­tion there is not now place of disputing. Yet it may be said [...]y the way, that creation, or that first production of all things, is ascribed to the Father, not cheifly only but also solely, since he was the sole author of it. That redemption is ascribed to the Son, neither alone simply, nor as the first author; but as the cheif middle cause, who in the name of the Father and by his command, performed the whole work of our redemption and salvation, and as yet performes it. As to sanctifi­cation; neither is that more often ascribed unto the holy Spirit, than to the Father or Son, especially openly; neither is it attributed as to some person, but as to a thing by which sanctification is performed. Which first, is manifest from thence, that where as it is read expres­ly of the Father that he sanctifies, as also of Christ; it is no where said of the holy Spirit, that I know, that it sanctifies, bu [...] onely that in or by it men are sanctified, or some such way which is not proper to a person, is sanctification ascribed unto it. Of the Father you have plain places, Joh. 10.36.17.17. to which add 1 Thess. 5.23. Where it easily appeares, that there it is spoken of the Father, since the holy Scripture understand him alone by the name of God subjectively put, cheifly when he is distin­guished from Christ. Neither shall I easily beleeve that the Adversaries will take this place of the holy Spirit onely. Also in the Old testament many places occur, in which God affirmes, that he it is who sanctifyes the people of Israel, which either speak of the Father alone, as we think, or at least of the Father also, not of the holy Spirit alone. Of Christ you have testimonies, Eph. 5.26. Heb. 2.11.13.12. For I pass by those places, in which in some other manner sanctification is ascribed either to the Father or the Son. But if the holy Spirit were a divine person equal to the Father in all things, and to him in some cheif respect the action of sanctifying did agree, how could it be, that of him it should not be once said, that he sanctifies, but of the Father and Son it should be said plainly? The action of sanctifying might be directly at­tributed indeed to the holy Spirit, although it were not a person: since we see, that to many other Mat. 23.17, 19. Heb. 9.13. things, and chiefly to qualities which they call active, actions are directly attributed in holy Scripture, and also the very act of sanctifying. But it cannot be that the holy Spirit should be a person, and that the act of sanctifying should agree to it in a pecu­liar manner, above the Fa [...]her and the Son, and yet not be directly any [Page 214] where attributed to it. We have by the way touched above also other reasons; for we shewed in the Argument next foregoing, that it would follow out of that supposition of the adversaries, that the holy Spirit is the Father of Christ, rather than God, who is every where said to be his Father.

We have seen also Chap. 3. of this Section. above in the Epistle of Jude, that Sanctification is ascribed to the Father, Preservation of us to Christ, the holy Spirit be­ing not indeed so much as mentioned: For so the Greek Text hath it; Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and the brother of James, to them that are sanctified in God the Father and preserved in Christ Jesus, the called. Or, as some later Interpreters, in some manner studying the perspicuity of the sentence, have rendred it, called of God the Father (or by the Father) sanctified and saved by Jesus Christ.

Is it credible, if the holy Spirit were a divine person, to whom the action of sanctifying in some respect should rather agree, than to the Father and Son, that this action should be attributed, as proper, to the Fa­ther, the mention of the holy Spirit, being altogether omitted? We have seen it also affirmed by Paul, 1 Cor. 8.6. That all things, in any manner pertain­ing to our Salvation, are from God the Father, as the first cause; all things in like manner by the Son, as the middle cause, no mention be­ing made of the holy Spirit. But if t [...]e holy Spirit were a divine per­son, to whom so notable an action, so greatly pertaining to our salvati­on, should agree, in some remarkable respect, above those two persons: not onely the mention of it could not be omitted, but also it could not be rightly affirmed, that all things are of the Father, or that all things are by Christ. For that person of the holy Spirit, either as the first and supream cause, should have something in so great a matter above the Father; or as a midle cause above the Son; when notwithstanding not some, but all things are entirely attributed to the Father as the first cause, and to the Son as the midle cause, yet holding the next place from the first. Lastly the common opinion concerning the Trinity doth not bear such a par­tition of actions and offices. For if those persons have one and the same numerical understanding, will, power, & there is not any of these more in one than in the rest; it is necessary, that there be also one operation in number of all these, as even the adversaries confess; and that one person act not any thing, more than another. For such diversity or inequality of action could not arise any otherwise thence, than that one person of this thing, another of that, a third of another thing, should either think rather, or would rather exercise it, or lastly could better perfome it. But such a difference cannot be held in that unity: because seeing those persons think altogether with the same understanding, not with another and another; in like manner also they both will with the same will, and work outwardly by the same power in number: one thinks, wills, and workes as much as another; not one more than another. It is ma­nifest therefore that sanctification, and whatsoever pertaines to it, doth in no wise more agree to the holy Spirit, than to the Father and Son, if he were one God with both. And hence ariseth a third reason, by which it is demonstrated that it cannot indeed be said, no not by a Metonymie [Page 215] of the holy Spirit, that he is given or received by men, if he be held to be that one God together with the Father and Son. For it will follow that the holy Spirit is no more given to us, and received of us, than the Father and the Son. For those gifts and effects, in respect of which, the holy Spirit should be said to be given, should no more come from the holy Spirit, than from the Father and the Son; nor in one respect from these, and in another from that, but in the same altoge­ther. But who hath ever heard, who hath read, that the Father was given to any, or, was prayed to be given to us, when the gifts of the holy Spirit were prayed for? Who asks at this day, that the Son might be given to him, being about to ask for those same gifts? Who would brook him, that should ask Christ that he would give the Fa­ther to him, or would pray to the person of the holy Spirit, that he would bestow the Father and Son, and himself also upon us? But if you look on the some of the Adversaries opinion, it will be very law­full to pray after that manner. And certainly believers, when they ask spiritual gifts, do not intend, that those things be given, which may by name come from the third person of the Deity; as if it were not all one to them, whether the same come immediately either from the Father or the Son. For what other thing do they then seek, than that being endued with divine virtue, they may be filled either with more plentiful knowledge of divine mysteries, or some coelestial joy, or singular fervour of piety, or other heavenly gifts? All which that they may immediately come, as well from the Father and Son, as from the supposed person of the holy Spirit, is easily understood by all. Wherefore, if the holy Spirit be the most high God, there is no cause, why those gifts should be rather called the holy Spirit, than the Fa­ther or Son: Or, when the same are asked or given of God, the holy Spirit should rather be said to be asked or given, than the Father and Son.

Lastly, If the holy Spirit were the most high God, he should not be given by another person, nor commanded to be asked; but from him­self rather, as both the chief and proper fountain, those gifts should at least somewhere, be commanded to be asked: But that is no where done. In some sort a double reason doth lye hid in this one Argu­ment.

One, That the gifts flowing from him, are no where com­manded to be asked of him, as neither any thing else; of which mat­ter something hath been said above, Chap. 2. of this Section. so that there is no need I should here stay on it.

Another, That the holy Spirit is commanded to be asked, and said to be given of another, to wit, the Father.

For, from hence it follows, that the holy Spirit cannot chose but di­stribute his gifts, when the Father so wills; and on the contrary, not distribute them when the Father will not. For if he could distribute them when the Father is unwilling, or not distribute them though the Father be willing; it were better to ask the holy Spirit himself, that he would bestow them on us, than the Father. Besides, that it would [Page 216] thence follow, that the Father is not the most high God; as who hath not all gifts absolutely in his own power, and although he would give some gifts to men, yet he cannot but by anothers consent. But now if the holy Spirit cannot but distribute his gifts, when the Father will, and not distribute them when the Father will not, and so necessarily con­form himself to anothers will, he is not the most high God. For the most high God is altogether at his own will, at his own dispose, nor doth he ever fashion himself after anothers will, especially necessarily. For he should be in anothers power, and so acknowledge another supe­riour, by which very thing, he would cease to be the most high God. Now, if you say, that the holy Spirit indeed cannot do otherwise than the Father will, but that cometh to pass, not because he is in the Fathers power, but because he is of the same numerical Essence and Will with him, so that he cannot otherwise either will or doe, than the Father willeth or doth. See into what difficulties and snares you cast your self. For if the Father and holy Spirit, by reason of that unity, neces­sarily will and do the same thing, as indeed it cannot otherwise be, if they were of the same Essence; when the Father willed to send, and so hath sent the holy Spirit, the holy Spirit also willed to send, and conse­quently hath indeed sent himself; and on the contrary, when the holy Spirit would be sent, the Father himself also would be sent; when the holy Spirit would, in a corporeal shape, descend upon Christ, and did accordingly descend, the Father also would descend in the same, and did accordingly descend. And what end at length will there be of absurdi­ties? But it is necessary that they cast themselves into Quagmires, yea, into Precipices, who of their own accord turn from a plain and simple Truth, so clearly expressed in holy Scriptures, which they do, who con­tend that the holy Spirit himself is not given us, but his effect only. We following that strait path, having shewen, that it follows from this, namely, that the holy Spirit is given to men, that he is not the supream God; now we shall also s [...]ew that he is not a person.

Now this hence is easily manifest, that no person at the same time can be so given to many, much less to innume [...]able men, that in very deed he should be and dwell in every one of them. And, we have alrea­dy seen, that the holy Spirit is thus given to believers, dispersed through the whole world. But that a person cannot be given in the said man­ner, is hence manifest, that that person is either infinite or finite; if in­finite, t [...]ere is no necessity that it be given to men, that it may exist and dwell in them, yea, it cannot indeed be given, since it alwayes was in them, and by reason of its infinitie could not but be so; to omit o­ther difficulties. If finite; that I urge not, that it cannot by the adver­saries be acknowleged for the most high God, it cannot be so given at once to many, and consequently to innumerable men, that in very deed it should exist in every one; otherwise it would be torn into parts, which very thing it self would destroy that person.

It is easie now to observe, that that instance of the Adversaries, fetcht from the giving of Christ, hath no force: For they say that Christ also was given to us, Isa. 9.6. Some add also that of Paul, Rom. [Page 217] 8.32. That God will with Christ give us all things. But they say that Christ is both a person, and besides the most high God. That he is not the most high God we have shewn before, and it may be evinced even out of those very places which are alleaged: For the most high God is nei­ther a little one, nor is born, nor is the Son of God; he cannot be de­livered for us, no not indeed by himself, much less by another; he is not such as that he could be spared or not spared.

But besides, that we may mind what is proper to this place; when it is said by Isaias, that a son is given to us, it is not signified, that he is so given to us, that he may be indeed in us or posessed by us in any manner, in which sence the holy Spirit is said to be given to us, but that he is gi­ven for our profit, or for our cheifest good and benefit; which easily appears from the preceeding verse, where in the same sense he is said to be a little one born to us. For neither is Christ said to be born to us, that he should exist in us, or be possessed by us, but that by him we should be profited. For the Dative case of the person often signifies, finem cui, the end to which, as they speak, not the possessor, as is observed by learned men. And hence the appellation of the end to which ariseth. But if any say, although from that place of Isa. it cannot be evinced, that Christ is so given to us, as to dwell in us, Ephes. 3.17. yet that it is manifest from elsewhere; For the Apostle wisheth to the Ephesians, that Christ may dwel by faith in their hearts: it is first to be observed, that Christ dwells in the hearts of beleevers, not by vertue of that giving, of which there is mention in Isa. as the next cause; as the holy Spirit dwels in them as soon as he is given to beleevers, since that giving of Christ hath hap­ned to men even as yet unbeleevers, and hath been accomplished as soon as he was born: but Christ dwells not in the hearts of men but by faith, as the place it self shewes. Besides, this is to be observed, that Christ is there taken Metonymically for the religion or doctrine by him deliver­ed, as it is also beneath in the same epistle chap. 4.20, 21. So also Moses is taken for the Law delivered by him, Acts. 15.21. 2 Cor. 3.15. The sense then of the words of the Apostle is. That God may give you, that you may believe in your hearts, and adhere constantly to the doctrine of Christ, and that it may be thorowly fixed in your mindes by faith. And though at length it were spoken of the person of Christ; yet it would not follow that Paul willeth, that he in very deed and properly should dwell in the hearts of beleevers, but that he should do it by his grace, aide and spirit, which both the Apostles wish, and the manner or middle cause of that inhabitation expressed by him, to wit, by faith, doth sufficiently shew; For if Christ by his Essence should dwell in them, he should dwell in all men, whether beleevers or not beleevers. For that would be by reason of his natural immensity, which would be excluded from no place whatsoever it be; neither in that thing could there be regard had either of faith or infidelity. For it is necessary, that what is immense in Essence, fill all places and all mens hearts. Neither then that place of Isa. not this to the Ephesians makes any thing to purpose. But that place of the Epistle to the Romans (chap. 8. 32.) saith not the same with that of Isa. For that all things shall be given to us with Christ, [Page 218] we may so interpret, and indeed more rightly, that God wil give to us all things (to wit, which he hath promised us) even as to Christ, or as before in the same chap. the Apostle had said, that we shall be co-heirs of Christ, and be glorified together with him, vers. 17. For we must be made con­formable to the image of the Son of God, that he may be the first-born among many brethren vers. 29. which verse the Apostle seemes here to eye. But the manner of speaking, should offend none, as if, with him, could not signifie, in like manner as to him, since we have seen alrea­dy, we are to be together glorified, to wit, with Christ; that is, so as Christ was glorified. So in the same Epistle, Rom. 6.6, 8. it is said, that we are bu­ryed with him, (that is, as well as he) and that our old man is crucified with him: that we are dead with him: that we shall live with him; that is, no otherwise than as he. See also 2 Tim. 2.11, 12.

The Defence and Confirmation of the Argument.

BUt we have already above, shut up this way for escape, to wit, that these things are to be understood of the gift or effect of the holy Spirit, who is a divine person. Besides that it may appear by some places, Chap. 8. of this Section. alleaged by us, and the like to them, that that Spirit, of which these things are said, is one thing, the gift understood by the adversaries another thing, namely, a quality or motion imprinted on men by a divine spirit. See Numb. 11 25, &c. Compare together Joel 2.28, 29. Zach. 12.10. and Isa. 11.2. John 3.34. That I mention not now the History it self, of the effusion of the holy Spirit, set down, Acts 2. by which it is manifest, that the holy Spirit poured out on the Apostles, and distributed, is one thing, the gift flowing from thence, another thing. See vers. 3.4. But of the same Spirit also other places are to be understood.

Out of the places hitherto brought by us, you may easily frame many arguments. For every manner of expression used in the testimonies, sig­nifying either more openly, or more covertly, some division of the holy Spirit; may supply us with a several reason. For they so abhor from the supream deity, that no man may da [...]e to use them of it. No such thing surely is so much as intimated in the holy Scriptures, either of the Father or of the Son. Who hath either heard or dare say, that there is [Page 225] taken of the Father or of Christ, that there is given or poured out of him, that he is distributed or doubled, that he is given either in measure or without measure, that any one has the first fruits of him, or the first and better parts of him? But what other cause is there of this thing, then because they are persons and indeed divine ones; although the latter, not of himself, but by the grace and gift of God. Therefore there would be the same reason of the holy Spirit also, if it were likewise the most high God.

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 fo [...]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 it be only a di­vine virtue and efficacy, not a Suppositum or Person? This although it properly pertain not to the matter in hand, yet we will briefly explain that no scruple may remain.

First, we have already seen, that some of the adversaries, by the force of their own opinion, are forced to hold, that those things are not pro­perly said of the holy Spirit, but that bodily shape and its descent from heaven, was only an outward resemblance of the holy Spirit, filling Christ with his gifts, which same thing, why it may not be said of di­vine efficacy, there is no cause.

Besides, If we would by all means have it so, that those things are properly spoken of the holy Spirit, it is to be understood, as to that de­scent and motion, that the qualities were moved together with their subjects, and consequently in them. Wherefore also the divine efficacy, if it may exist in a man, and in him, or together with him, be moved, it may descend from heaven in another thing likewise, which God will use in the carrying down of it. Neither indeed is there wanting to God a convenient and bese [...]ming Vehicle, that I may so speak, for that efficacy. But as to the shape, it the subject of thar efficacy have a cer­tain shape, especially such as may shew and resemble the latent efficacy, nothing at all hinders but that it may be said, that that virtue descends in or with that shape. But of these things, if God will, we shall say more else where.

This we would have here observed, although it be written, that the holy spirit did then descend on Christ in a bodily form, and it may be easily understood, that which all seem commonly to think, that it appeared in some bodily form on the day of Pentecost; yet neither here nor else where, is it ever said to have appeared in the shape and form of any person, as we read of the Father and Christ, when they appeared in a certain form, and also of the Angels. But if the holy Spirit were a person, Why had it not also appeared in the shape of a person? For whether you hold it to have been the shape of a Dove, in which it descended on Christ, as commonly all con­tend, [Page 242] or any other; it is certain that was not the form of a person. For neither is the Fire or Dove a Person, seeing a person is nothing but a substance endued with understanding. As for that whereby from the Apostles words, in which it is said, it searcheth or knows, they endea­vour to evince, the holy Spirit to be endued with understanding, it is refuted in the foregoing Chapter.

A larger Defence and Confirmation of the Argument.

BUt nevertheless, they urge, that those three are one God. If they should so call those three one God, as we call three or more Se­nators one Senate, since it cannot be said of them separately, thus far it might be pardoned to them. But seeing they pronounce the name of the most high God, of each person distinctly taken, and are altoge­ther compelled to pronounce it by the force of their Opinion, they can­not say it. For from this Opinion it doth altogether follow, that either the Father is the Son and holy Spirit; and reciprocally, or the Father is one God in number, another the Son, another the holy Spirit: the former of which takes away the real distinction of the persons; the latter overthrows the Unity of God, and manifestly makes three Gods in number. For as to the former, thus I will argue, That one God is the Father, as the holy Scriptures testifie it, and the Adversaries con­fess it. But the Son, according to the Adversaries Opinion, is that one God, that same even in number, who was now called the Father; There­fore the Son is the Father. But the same Argumentation may be also inverted, the premises being converted and transposed, and in like manner may be framed concerning the holy Spirit, in relation to the Father and Son. Nor can it otherwise be dissolved, unless you say that the Son is one God in number, the Father another, likewise the holy Spirit another, and so there are three Gods in number. There­fore, whithersoever the Adversaries turn themselves, by that their Te­net, they overthrow both their own Doctrine, and the sence of the holy Scriptures. Moreover, do I not rightly argue thus; The Father is a divine Person, the Son is a divine Person, the holy Spirit is a di­vine Person; therefore there are three divine Persons, not one? The Adversaries will altogether so assert. Why then do I not likewise rightly argue, The Father is the most high God, the Son is the most high God, the holy Spirit is the most high God; therefore there are three most high Gods, not one? If we would urge examples fetcht from things created; Peter is a man, Paul is a man, John is a man, therefore there are three men, not one: or Michael is an Angel, Gabri­el is an Angel, Raphael is an Angel; therefore there are three Angels, not one: if, I say, we would urge these examples, the Adversaries would cry out, that the thing is one way in creatures, another way in God. But now, when we use the example of divine Persons, what will they say? That the thing is one way in divine Persons, another way in God? Is it so? But what if we demonstrate, that that very God, of whom we treat, is a divine Person, as also on the contrary? Will they yet deny that that is in force in God, which is in force in a divine Person? But it is easie to demonstrate that, partly from the holy Scriptures, partly from the Opinion of the Adversaries them­selves. [Page 250] They say, that each divine Person is that one God, and why may they not say it? Forasmuch as they hold, that each of them hath the whole Essence of the one God; neither can they say otherwise with­out overthrowing that Doctrine of the Trinity. Now the holy Scrip­tures plainly affirm of the Father, that he is that one God. But that will be false, if that one God be not a divine Person. For it may be rightly argued thus; That One God is not a divine Person, the Fa­ther is a divine Person; therefore the Father is not that one God. The same arguing according to the Adversaries Opinion, will be found con­cerning the Son and holy Spiri [...].

These things which are said of us to confirm the first Argument, might also by themselves be alleaged to refel the Adversaries Opinion. But it matters not on our behalf, whether they be taken for peculiar Arguments, or for props of the first. Although this may be confir­med also by another general reason, for, wheresoever subjects are in very deed multiplyed, those things also are multiplyed, which are said di­stinctly of each: and are indeed multiplyed according to the number of their subjects. We have already declared the thing by examples, both di­vine, and angelical, and humane: neither can it at all be refelled by any example. Run over all kinds of things, and you will find that the thing is so. As many men as there are, so many living creatures, bo­dies, substances are there; as many Angels, so many Spirits; as ma­ny Lines, so many Longitudes and Quantities; as many Vertues, so many Habits, so many Qualities; as many Fathers, so many Relates; and so in the rest. To wit, because all those Predicates are multiply­ed according to the number of their Subjects. Wherefore also as ma­ny divine Persons as there are, so many Gods, and indeed most high Gods, there will be, seeing the most high God is distinctly predica­ted of each divine person. Whence it appeareth, that the Athanasian Creed, doth plainly contradict it self, while it thus pronounceth, The Father is God, The Son is God, The holy Spirit is God; and yet there are not three Gods, but one God. And also, the Father is Eternal, Omnipo­tent, Infinite; in the same manner both the Son and holy Spirit: and yet there are not three Eternals, Omnipotents, Infinits; but on Eter­nal, Omnipotent, Infinite.

Perhaps some one will say, that the word God is one way taken when it is predicated of each person; another way when it is put absolute­ly: there it is taken hypostatically, or personally; here essentially. Truly I do not believe, that the more accute Adversaries will so an­swer, since they will have God, as also some the Father, essentially taken, to be predicated also of each of the persons. Add hereunto, that it would be necessary to make the same Ambiguity in the word Eternal, Omnipotent, Infinite, that one should be said to be essentially eternal, omnipotent, infinite, not personally: another on the contra­ry personally. Otherwise they should again labour to reconcile that contradiction which may seem to be in those words, that since the Fa­ther is both eternal, and omnipotent, and infinite, and likewise the Son and the holy Spirit; and yet there are not three eternals, omnipo­tents, [Page 251] infinites, but one only. But I remember not that I have ever read, or heard, that the Adversaries do feign the same ambiguity in the word Eternal, Omnipotent, Infinite. Wherefore I do not easily believe, as I said, that the more acute Adversaries will so answer. Ne­vertheless, if any shall so answer, what other thing will he say, than that the Athanasian Creed playes sophistically, and deceives rude and simple men with the ambiguity of a word? For who of them would think, that the word God is there taken two manner of wayes. For to what purpose, I pray you, are those words added, And yet there are not three Gods, but one God? Is it not for that cause, lest any, espe­cially of the ruder sort of men, hearing the Father to be God, the Son to be God, the holy Spirit to be God, should thence gather, that there are three Gods? But in what signification? surely in that in which he had heard, that the Father is God, like­wise both the Son and the holy Spirit. For this scruple doth first a­rise, neither presently the other signification of the word comes into the mind of a rude man. This opinion therefore is refuted by those words; and further, the word God is taken in the same manner in both places, not one way then when it is spoken of each of the persons, and another way then when it is put absolutely, and God is said to be one. Besides, from such an exception it follows nevertheless, that it may be rightly said, that there are three Gods, if the word God be ta­ken personally, as indeed the Adversaries confess it is often so taken in the holy Scriptures. And it might indeed seem strange, that they do not expresly say, that there are three Gods, but that they see, that it is most openly repugnant to the holy Scriptures: whilest they are bold to say, that there are three Elohim; and some Books are extant concerning three Elohim, written by divers Adversaries. For what other thing doth Elohim signifie, than Gods? Therefore three Elohim are three Gods; namely, they endeavour by an Hebrew, and less known word somewhat, but ridiculously, to cover the absurdity. Indeed such manner of speaking is reprehended by some more accute Adver­saries; of the number of whom yet there are not wanting, who judge the Hebrew Elohim, when it is pronounced of the most high God, to be plural, no less in signification than Grammatical form. But if it be plural in signification also, it signifies Gods, no less than the Greek Theoi, or other words answering to it in other languages. Therefore there are more Gods. But moreover, the distinction between God hypostatically or personally and essentially taken, is altogether vain, especially when it is spoken concerning the most high God. For both the very word God, is the name of a person, since it is the name chiefly of him that hath command over others; and the most high God signi­fies the supream Ruler and Monarch of all things. But to command and rule belongs only to persons. Add, that we have shewed above in this very chapter, that that one God, besides whom there is no other, is a person; as on the contrary, there cannot be any one hypo­statically or personally God, I say, the most high God, but he is also essentially so. For is not he essentially God, who hath the di­vine [Page 252] Essence? But whosoever is hypostatically the most high God, he hath the divine Essence. But if you will say that God taken essenti­ally, signifies the Essence it self, which is neither Father, nor Son, nor holy Spirit, or contrarily, but something subsisting in those three: First, I shall not easily believe that the Adversaries, who speak more accurately, will admit that, since the essence, especially so taken, as that it cannot be predicated of each of the divine persons, signifies some­thing abstract. But God is concrete, such indeed as is found in Sub­stances, and denotes an Essence, together with an Existence or Subsi­stence. But further, whatever at last the Adversaries will determine of this matter, we have already shewn, that the name of God is the name of a person; and since it is certain, that the name of one God is so used in the holy Scriptures, that it is directly predicated of the Fa­ther: but the Adversaries would have it so, that it should be predi­cated also of the Son, and the holy Spirit; it will be necessary to shew, where the word God, when there it is spoken of that one God, de­notes some such thing, as neither is Father, nor Son, nor holy Spirit. Lastly, Such a signification will make nothing to the matter. For we dispute of that God of whom the Adversaries speak, when they say, that the Father is God, the Son is God, the holy Spirit is God: and not of that God, who cannot after that manner be predicated of the divine persons. And thus much concerning the first Argument.