Milton

¶1p. 57 DE FILIO DEI SANCTOQUE SPIRITU hoc loco dicturus, non, nisi denuo præfatus, aggrediendum esse opus tam arduum existimavi. Equidem si Romanæ ecclesiæ, quæ credi sibi propter se in omnibus fidei capitibus postulat, alumnum me esse profiterer, quamquam illa negat trinitatis doctrinam hodie receptam ullo ex loco scripturarum probari posse, tamen, sic edoctus vel saltem assuefactus, in illius solo decreto atque auctoritate acquievissem: nunc cum eorum ex numero sim, qui solum Dei verbum pro norma fidei agnoscant, id libere expromo,^la5 quod multo mihi quam recepta opinio liquere clarius ex sacris literis videtur, cur quisquam, qui vel Protestantis vel Reformati nomen eandemque mecum fidei normam præ se ferat, eam ob rem offendi in me possit non video: præsertim cum imponam nemini quicquam; quod credibilius esse arbitror tantummodo proponam; hoc unicum obtestatus qui ista legerit, ut animo veritatis duntaxat studioso minimeque præjudiciis occupato singula velit æstimare atque expendere. Neque enim scripturæ auctoritatem, quæ sacrosancta est, sed hominum interpretationes humano jure, immo vero officio, quoties ita facto est opus, suscepi redarguendas. Quod si cum iis controversia hæc esset, qui voce ipsa divina explicatam sibi cœlitus quam tuentur doctrinam præstare nobis possent, impius plane sit, qui contra vel mutire nedum obstrepere ausit. Sin ii sunt, qui supra vires humanas communemque spiritum nihil vindicare sibi queant; quid est æquius quam ut permittant alteri eandem atque ipsi ratione ac via veritatem indaganti, et prodesse aliis æque cupienti, suas quemque sedulo inquirendi libereque disserendi partes obtinere? Nunc divina ope subnixi rem ipsam aggrediamur.

¶1p. 80 I cannot enter upon subjects of so much difficulty as the SON OF GOD and the HOLY SPIRIT, without again premising a few introductory words. If indeed I were a member of the Church of Rome, which requires implicit obedience to its creed on all points of faith, I should have acquiesced from education or habit in its simple decree and authority, even though it denies that the doctrine of the Trinity, as now received, is capable of being proved from any passage of Scripture.² But since I enrol myself among the number of those who acknowledge the word of God alone as the rule of faith, and freely advance what appears to me much more clearly deducible from the Holy Scriptures than the commonly received opinion, I see no reason why any one who belongs to the same Protestant or Reformed Church, and professes to acknowledge the same rule of faith as myself, should take offence at my freedom, particularly as I impose my authority on no one, but merely propose what I think more worthy of belief than the creed in general acceptation. I only entreat that my readers will ponder and examine my statements in a p. 81spirit which desires to discover nothing but the truth, and with a mind free from prejudice. For without intending to oppose the authority of Scripture, which I consider inviolably sacred, I only take upon myself to refute human interpretations as often as the occasion requires, conformably to my right, or rather to my duty as a man. If indeed those with whom I have to contend were able to produce direct attestation from heaven to the truth of the doctrine which they espouse, it would be nothing less than impiety to venture to raise, I do not say a clamour, but so much as a murmur against it. But inasmuch as they can lay claim to nothing more than human powers, assisted by that spiritual illumination which is common to all,³ it is not unreasonable that they should on their part allow the privileges of diligent research and free discussion to another inquirer, who is seeking truth through the same means and in the same way as themselves,⁴ and whose desire of benefiting mankind is equal to their own.

¶1 cont.In reliance, therefore, upon the divine assistance, let us now enter upon the subject itself.⁵

¶1p. 58 Hactenus efficientia Dei INTERNA fuit in decretis.

¶2EXTERNA est decretorum executio, qua aliquid apud se decretum, extra se efficit.

¶3Estque vel GENERATIO vel CREATIO vel RERUM OMNIUM GUBERNATIO.

¶4GENERATIO est qua Filium ex decreto suo genuit Deus unicum: unde et Pater primario dicitur.

¶5Externam autem esse efficientiam generationem necesse est, cum Filius sit a Patre persona altera; et fatentur idem Theologi, cum emanationem quandam esse Filii a Patre ipsi tradunt; id quod clarius in doctrina de Sancto Spiritu apparebit; quem cum ejusdem essentiæ cum Patre esse doceant, emanare tamen et egredi et procedere et spirari a Patre, quæ omnia externam efficientiam testantur, non negant: addunt etiam ejusdem essentiæ cum Patre esse Filium; et ab æterno generatum. Unde hic locus et per se difficilis omnino est, et receptam methodum sectanti implicatissimus: cum enim Pater duplici sensu genuisse Filium in sacris literis dicatur, uno proprio, altero metaphorico, nempe vel producendo, vel exaltando; quæ loca ad exaltationem Filii, munusque mediatorium pertinent, ea plerique ad generationem ejus eamque æternam asserendam adhibuerunt; excusandi quidem, si excusatio hic ullum habet locum, cum versiculum tota scriptura quo generationem Filii æternam probarent, reperire potuerint nullum. Hoc constat, quicquid moderni quidam contra argutantur, Filium, Verbi sive Sermonis sub nomine, in principio extitisse, rerum creatarum primum fuisse, per quem deinde cætera omnia tam in cœlo quam in terra sunt facta. Joan. i. 1, 2, 3. in principio erat Sermo et Sermo ille erat apud Deum, p. 59eratque ille Sermo Deus &c. et xvii. 5. nunc igitur glorifica me tu Pater apud temetipsum ea gloria quam habui apud te priusquam mundus esset. Col. i. 15, 18. primogenitus omnis rei creatæ. Apoc. iii. 14. principium creationis Dei. 1 Cor. viii. 6. Jesus Christus per quem omnia. Eph. iii. 9. qui omnia hæc condidit per Jesum Christum. Col. i. 16. per eum condita sunt omnia &c. Heb. i. 2. per quem etiam mundum condidit. hinc v. 10. tu creasti: de quo plura vide infra, Cap. vii. de creatione. Hæc omnia existentiam quidem Filii ante mundum conditum testantur, generationem ejus æternam non item: cætera quæ afferuntur loca metaphoricam tantum generationem indicant, id est, suscitationem a mortuis aut ad mediatoris munera unctionem, ipso Paulo Psalmi secundi interprete. Psal. ii. 7. decretum enarraturus sum. Jehova dixit mihi, Filius meus es, ego hodie genui te. Quod sic interpretatur Paulus, Act. xiii. 32, 33. suscitato Jesu, uti etiam in Psalmo secundo scriptum est, Filius meus es, ego hodie genui te. Rom. i. 4. definito Filio Dei potenter secundum spiritum sanctitatis per resurrectionem ex mortuis: hinc Coloss. i. 18. Apoc. i. 5. primogenitus ex mortuis. deinde Heb. i. 5. ubi de exaltatione Filii supra angelos loquitur. nam cui dixit unquam angelorum, Filius meus es, ego hodie genui te. Ac rursum, ego ero illi in Patrem, et ille erit mihi in Filium. et v. 5, 6. ubi de sacerdotio Christi. ita et Christus non ipse sibi hunc honorem tribuit ut fieret pontifex, sed is qui dixit ei Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te. Sicut et in alio Psalmo dicit, tu es sacerdos in æternum &c. Quin et genuisse Deus, id est, regem creasse Filium ex Psalmo secundo intelligetur, v. 6, 7. ego inungens regem meum præfeci Sioni monti sanctitatis meæ; tum sequente versu postquam inunxerat regem suum, unde et Christus dicitur, ego, inquit, hodie genui te. Sic Heb. i. 4, 5. tanto præstantior factus angelis, quanto excellentius præ illis sortitus est nomen. Quod autem nomen nisi Filii? ut sequens versus declarat. nam cui dixit unquam angelorum, Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te. Idem ipse de se profitetur Filius, Joan. x. 35, 36. mene quem Pater sanctificavit et misit in mundum, vos dicitis blasphemare quia dixi, Filius Dei sum? Eodem loquendi tropo sanctos etiam homines genuisse Deus dicitur; ratione licet longe inferiore.

¶6p. 60 Ex omnibus autem superius citatis locis præsertim cum toto Psalmo secundo collatis et diligentissime animadversis facile apparet, non necessitate naturæ, quod contendi solet, sed decreto et voluntate Patris tam fuisse Filium quocunque modo genitum, quam pontificem et regem constitutum atque ex mortuis suscitatum. Neque vero hoc obstat quo minus vel quovis modo genitus vel proprius Dei Filius dicatur, Rom. viii. 32. Proprius enim Dei Filius non alia ratione est dictus, nisi quod non alium habuerit Patrem præter unum Deum; itaque et Deum ipse proprium dixit Patrem, Joan. v. 18. Nam Adami ex pulvere facti opifex erat Deus, potius quam Pater; Filii autem ex substantia ejus producti proprius erat Pater. Nec tamen inde sequitur ejusdem esse cum Patre essentiæ; sic enim maxime omnium improprie Filius nominaretur: proprius enim Filius non est Patri coævus, multo minus ejusdem numero essentiæ cum Patre, ne idem sit Pater et Filius ejusdem; proprius Pater non necessitate naturæ, sed libera voluntate gignit; quod et perfectius, et ad honorem paternum accommodatius est, Dei præsertim, qui omnia jam sæpius ex libris sacris ostenditur ex consilio voluntatis suæ liberrime agere; sic ergo genuisse.

¶7Poterat enim Deus certe salva essentia sua non genuisse; cum ad essentiam Dei, qui propagatione prorsus non indiget, generatio nihil pertineat: quod autem ad essentiam suam sive naturam nihil pertinet, id utique naturæ necessitate tanquam naturalis agens non agit; si natura necessario egit, Patrem^la6 sibi natura gignendo se imminuit: id quod non magis potuit Deus facere, quam seipsum negare; non igitur nisi decreto ac libera voluntate sua gignere potuit.

¶8Decreto itaque suo adeoque in tempore genuit Deus Filium; decretum enim præcesserit decreti executionem necesse fuit, id quod adjecta vox hodie satis declarat: quo proinde scripturarum loco, qui generationem Filii æternam statuunt, se tueantur nusquam reperio: nam illud Mich. v. 2. non generationem sed opera eaque a principio tantum edita p. 61præ se fert: sed de his infra fusius. Unigenitus etiam Filius dicitur. Joan. i. 14. (et spectavimus gloriam ejus, gloriam inquam ut unigeniti egressi a Patre). et v. 18. unigenitus Dei qui est in sinu Patris. iii. 16. ut filium suum unigenitum dederit. v. 18. idem. 1 Joan. iv. 9. filium suum unigenitum misit. Non tamen essentia cum Patre unum, quippe visibilem, datum, missum, egressum a Patre, sed per eminentiam unigenitum dictum aliorum multorum ratione quos itidem Deus genuisse dicitur. Joan. i. 13. ex Deo geniti. 1 Joan. iii. 9. Quisquis natus est ex Deo &c. Jacob. i. 18. Is quia voluit, progenuit nos sermone veritatis, ut &c. 1 Joan. v. 1. quisquis credit &c. ex Deo genitus est. 1 Pet. i. 3. qui ex multa sua misericordia genuit nos in spem &c. Verum cum genitus nusquam in sacris libris Filius dicatur nisi sensu, ut supra, metaphorico, credibile est filium dici unigenitum, eo potissimum quod unus sit mediator Dei atque hominum.

¶9Itaque et primogenitus dicitur Filius. Rom. viii. 29. ut is sit primogenitus inter multos fratres. Col. i. 15. primogenitus omnis rei creatæ. v. 18. primogenitus ex mortuis. Heb. i. 6. cum inducit primogenitum. Apoc. iii. 14. principium creationis Dei. Quæ loca omnia et unam ejus cum Patre essentiam, et generationis æternitatem excludunt. Quin et de Israele, Exod. iv. 22. sic dicit Jehova, Filius meus, primogenitus meus est Israel. etiam de Ephraimo, Jer. xxxi. 9. primogenitus meus est. et de piis omnibus, Heb. xii. 23. ad conventum primogenitorum.

¶10Atque hactenus fere metaphorica generatio fuit: cum autem proprie qui gignit alium a se nondum existentem, efficiat ut sit; Deusque si natura necessario gignit non nisi Deum sibi parem gignere, nec Deus gigni possit; quorum altero sequeretur duos esse Deos infinitos, altero causam primam effectum fieri, quod nemo sanus concesserit: quærendum est quo sensu quove modo Deus Pater Filium genuerit; id quoque Scriptura sacra facile expediet. Cum enim Filius dicitur primogenitus omnis rei creatæ, et Apoc. iii. 14. principium creationis Dei, quid aliud planius intelligi potest, quam quod Deus Filium rerum omnium primum divina natura præditum sua voluntate creavit sive generavit p. 62aut produxit? sicut in plenitudine temporis humanam naturam ex Maria virgine mirifice procreavit. Divinæ autem naturæ generationem nemo neque sublimius neque disertius declarat, quam apostolus ille, Heb. i. 2, 3. quem constituit hæredem omnium, per quem etiam mundum condidit. Qui cum sit effulgentia gloriæ et character subsistentiæ illius &c. Ex quo quid aliud intelligi potest quam Deum divinæ naturæ quantum voluit Filio impertisse? immo etiam substantiæ divinæ, modo ne substantia pro essentia tota accipiatur, quam Pater et Filio dederit et eandem numero sibi retinuerit; hoc enim nos^la7 est gignere sed repugnantia loqui. Hæc sunt quæ de Filii Dei generatione divinitus traduntur. Qui sapere vult altius, revera non sapit, sed inani captus philosophia vel potius sophistica implicat se statim et tenebris circumdat.

¶1p. 81 Hitherto I have considered the INTERNAL EFFICIENCY of God, as shown in his decrees.

¶2–3His EXTERNAL EFFICIENCY, or the execution of his decrees, whereby he carries into effect by external agency whatever decrees he has purposed within himself, may be comprised under the heads of GENERATION, CREATION, and the GOVERNMENT OF THE UNIVERSE.

¶4p. 82 First, GENERATION, whereby God, in pursuance of his decree, has begotten his only Son; whence he chiefly derives his appellation of Father.

¶5Generation must be an external efficiency, since the Father and Son are different persons; and the divines themselves acknowledge this, who argue that there is a certain emanation of the Son from the Father (which will be explained when the doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit is under examination); for though they teach that the Spirit is co-essential with the Father, they do not deny that it emanates, and goes out, and proceeds, and is breathed from the Father,—which are all expressions denoting external efficiency. In conjunction with this doctrine they hold that the Son is also co-essential with the Father, and generated from all eternity. Hence this question, which is naturally very obscure, becomes involved in still greater difficulties if the received opinion respecting it be followed; for though the Father be said in Scripture to have begotten the Son in a double sense, the one literal, with reference to the production of the Son, the other metaphorical, with reference to his exaltation, many commentators have applied the passages which allude to the exaltation and mediatorial functions of Christ as proofs of his generation from all eternity. They have indeed this excuse for their proceeding, if any excuse can be offered in such a case, that it was impossible to find a single text in all Scripture to prove the eternal generation of the Son. This point appears certain, notwithstanding the arguments of some of the moderns to the contrary, that the Son existed in the beginning, under the name of the logos or word, and was the first of the whole creation,⁶ by whom afterwards all other things were made both in heaven and earth. p. 83John i. 1—3. in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, &c. xvii. 5. and now, O Father, glorify me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. Col. i. 15, 18. the first-born of every creature. Rev. iii. 14. the beginning of the creation of God. 1 Cor. viii. 6. Jesus Christ, by whom are all things. Eph. iii. 9. who created all things by Jesus Christ. Col. i. 16. all things were created by him and for him. Heb. i. 2. by whom also he made the worlds, whence it is said, v. 10, thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; on which point more will be said in the seventh Chapter, on the Creation.

¶5 cont.All these passages prove the existence of the Son before the world was made, but they conclude nothing respecting his generation from all eternity. The other texts which are produced relate only to his metaphorical generation, that is, to his resuscitation from the dead, or to his unction to the mediatorial office, according to St. Paul's own interpretation of the second Psalm: I will declare the decree; Jehovah hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee—⁷ which the apostle thus explains, Acts xiii. 32, 33. God hath fulfilled the promise unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Rom. i. 4. declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. Hence, Col. i. 18. Rev. i. 4. the first begotten of the dead. Heb. i. 5, speaking of the exaltation of the Son above the angels; for unto 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. Again, v. 5, 6, with reference to the priesthood of Christ; so also Christ glorified not himself to be made an High Priest, but he that said unto him, p. 84Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee: as he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever, &c. Further, it will be apparent from the second Psalm, that God has begotten the Son, that is, has made him a king: v. 6. yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Sion; and then in the next verse, after having anointed his King, whence the name of Christ is derived, he says, this day have I begotten thee.⁸ Heb. i. 4, 5. being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. No other name can be intended but that of Son, as the following verse proves: for unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee? The Son also declares the same of himself. John x. 35, 36. say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? By a similar figure of speech, though in a much lower sense, the saints are also said to be begotten of God.⁹

¶6It is evident however upon a careful comparison and examination of all these passages, and particularly from the whole of the second Psalm, that however the generation of the Son may have taken place, p. 85it arose from no natural necessity, as is generally contended, but was no less owing to the decree and will of the Father than his priesthood or kingly power, or his resuscitation from the dead. Nor does this form any objection to his bearing the title of begotten, in whatever sense that expression is to be understood, or of God's own Son, Rom. viii. 32. For he is called the own Son of God merely because he had no other Father besides God, whence he himself said, that God was his Father, John v. 18. For to Adam God stood less in the relation of Father, than of Creator, having only formed him from the dust of the earth; whereas he was properly the Father of the Son made of his own substance. Yet it does not follow from hence that the Son is co-essential with the Father, for then the title of Son would be least of all applicable to him, since he who is properly the Son is not coeval with the Father, much less of the same numerical essence, otherwise the Father and the Son would be one person; nor did the Father beget him from any natural necessity, but of his own free will,¹—a mode more perfect and more agreeable to the paternal dignity; particularly since the Father is God, all whose works, as has been already proved from Scripture, are executed freely according to his own good pleasure, and consequently the work of generation.

¶7For questionless, it was in God's power consistently with the perfection of his own essence not to have begotten the Son, inasmuch as generation does not pertain to the nature of the Deity, who stands in no need of propagation;² but whatever does not pertain to his own p. 86essence or nature, he does not effect like a natural agent from any physical necessity. If the generation of the Son proceeded from a physical necessity, the Father impaired himself by physically begetting a co-equal; which God could no more do than he could deny himself; therefore the generation of the Son cannot have proceeded otherwise than from a decree, and of the Father's own free will.

¶8Thus the Son was begotten of the Father in consequence of his decree, and therefore within the limits of time, for the decree itself must have been anterior to the execution of the decree, as is sufficiently clear from the insertion of the word to-day. Nor can I discover on what passage of Scripture the assertors of the eternal generation of the Son ground their opinion, for the text in Micah v. 2. does not speak of his generation, but of his works, which are only said to have been wrought from of old. But this will be discussed more at large hereafter.

¶8 cont.The Son is also called only begotten. John i. 14. and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father. v. 18. the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father. iii. 16, 18. he gave his only begotten Son. 1 John iv. 9. God sent his only begotten Son. Yet he is not called essentially one with the Father, inasmuch as he was visible to sight, and given by the Father, by whom also he was sent, and from whom he proceeded; but he enjoys the title of only begotten by way of superiority, as distinguished from many others who are also said to have been born of God. John i. 13. which were born of God. 1 John iii. 9. whosoever is born of God, doth not commit sin. James i. 18. of his own will begat he us with the word of truth. 1 John v. 1. whosoever believeth, &c. is born of God. 1 Pet. i. 3. which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope. But since throughout the Scriptures the Son is never said to be begotten, except, as above, in a metaphorical sense, it seems probable that he is called only begotten principally because he is the one mediator between God and man.

¶9p. 87 So also the Son is called the first born. Rom. viii. 29. that he might be the first born among many brethren. Col. i. 15. the first born of every creature. v. 18. the first born from the dead. Heb. i. 6. when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world. Rev. iii. 14. the beginning of the creation of God,—all which passages preclude the idea of his co-essentiality with the Father, and of his generation from all eternity. Thus it is said of Israel, Exod. iv. 22. thus saith Jehovah, Israel is my son, even my first born; and of Ephraim, Jer. xxxi. 9. Ephraim is my first born; and of all the saints, Heb. xii. 23. to the general assembly of the first born.

¶10Hitherto only the metaphorical generation of Christ has been considered; but since to generate another who had no previous existence, is to give him being, and that if God generate by a physical necessity, he can generate nothing but a co-equal Deity, which would be inconsistent with self-existence, an essential attribute of Divinity; (so that according to the one hypothesis there would be two infinite Gods, or according to the other the first or efficient cause would become the effect, which no man in his senses will admit) it becomes necessary to inquire how or in what sense God the Father can have begotten the Son. This point also will be easily explained by reference to Scripture. For when the Son is said to be the first born of every creature, and the beginning of the creation of God, nothing can be more evident than that God of his own will created, or generated, or produced the Son before all things, endued with the divine nature, as in the fulness of time he miraculously begat him in his human nature of the Virgin Mary. The generation of the divine nature is described by no one with more sublimity and copiousness than by the apostle to the Hebrews, i. 2, 3. whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, &c. It must be understood from this, that God imparted to the Son as much as he pleased of the divine nature, nay of the divine substance itself, care being taken not to confound the substance with the whole essence, which would imply, that the Father had given to the Son what he retained numerically the same himself; which would be p. 88a contradiction of terms instead of a mode of generation. This is the whole that is revealed concerning the generation of the Son of God. Whoever wishes to be wiser than this, becomes foiled in his pursuit after wisdom, entangled in the deceitfulness of vain philosophy, or rather of sophistry, and involved in darkness.

¶1p. 62 Verum cum Christus non solum Dei Filius unigenitus sed etiam Deus aliquoties in scripturis nominetur, unumque omnino esse Deum omnes doceamur; plerisque hæc stare simul non posse persuasis acutioribus, ut sibi videbantur, in mentem venit res sane inaudita, et ab omni ratione alienissima, Filium, quamvis persona atque numero alterum, essentia tamen cum Patre esse unum, adeoque Deum unum.

¶2Verum nisi ratio saltem unius et duorum apud Deum atque homines eadem semper sit, frustra nobis mandatum illud primum toties intonaverit Deus, unum atque solum se esse Deum, si alter præterea existere dicatur, qui et ipse unus Deus credi debeat. Unus et alter unius essentiæ esse non possunt; Deus est unum ens, non duo; una essentia unius est entis, una etiam subsistentia, quæ nihil aliud quam essentia substantialis est: si uni essentiæ duas subsistentias dederis sive personas, repugnantia dixeris, essentiam unam et non unam: si una essentia divina communis est duorum, habebit se illa essentia sive Deitas aut ut totum ad partes, aut ut genus ad species, aut denique ut subjectum commune ad accidentia sua: nihil horum p. 63concesseris, quæ absurdissima sequantur quo alio modo una tertia possit duorum pluriumve esse, nunquam expediverint.

¶3Quod si verba ipsius Dei reges et magnates alloquentis satis expendissent, Psal. lxxxii. 6. ego dico, dii quidem estis, et filii Altissimi vos omnes. et ipsius Christi, Joan. x. 35. si illos dixit deos ad quos sermo Dei factus est, et non potest solvi scriptura. et Pauli, 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6. etiamsi sint qui dicantur dii, et in cœlo et in terra: (sicut sunt dii multi et domini multi) nobis tamen unus est Deus Pater ille a quo omnia &c. Petri denique 2. Ep. i. 4. ut per hæc efficeremini divinæ consortes vel participes naturæ: quod longe majus est quam esse deos, quo sensu reges dii dicti sunt, nec tamen sanctos quisquam ejusdem cum Deo essentiæ fore idcirco crediderit; hæc, inquam, si satis expendissent, tantam vim inferre rationi, immo scripturarum tot testimoniis luculentissimis necesse non habuissent.

¶4Nos itaque in sacris rationi renuntiemus; quod divina scriptura docet, id unice sequamur. Expectet igitur nemo dum hic longum ex metaphysicis apparatum præmittam, et personalitatum illud totum drama advocem, cum hoc primum ex plurimis sacræ scripturæ locis clarissimum sit, unum esse vere ac proprie atque a seipso summum Deum: et unus cum dicitur, quandoquidem unam duntaxat personam, quod aiunt, id est, unam numero, humana ratio et loquendi usus Deique populus Judaicus semper intellexit, ex sacris libris quæramus, quis ille unus, ille verus atque summus Deus sit: idque imprimis ex evangelio; hoc enim apertissimum esse oportet, quod Christus ipse suos apostolos, quod ipsi apostoli suos discipulos de uno Deo explanate et copiose docuerunt: hac in parte obscurum aut ambiguum esse evangelium, minime est credendum. Neque enim ad id datum est evangelium, ut de natura Dei incredibilia et nova, Deique populo antea prorsus inaudita expromeret, sed ut promissam a Deo Abrahami salutem gentium per Dei filium Messiam annuntiaret. Deum nemo vidit unquam: unigenitus Filius qui est in sinu Patris, ille nobis exposuit. Joan. i. 18. Filium itaque imprimis de Deo consulamus.

¶5p. 64 Filii apertissimo testimonio, Pater est ille unus verus Deus, a quo omnia. Marc. xii. 28, 29, 32. interrogatus a Scriba quodnam esset primum omnium mandatum, respondit ex Deut. vi. 4. primum omnium mandatum est, audi Israel, Dominus Deus noster, Dominus unus est: vel ut est Hebraice, Jehova Deus noster, Jehova unus. Assensit Scriba; unus est Deus, nec alius est præter eum. Assensum illum Christus approbavit v. 34. Scribam autem ut et omnes Judæos sic intellexisse, unum esse Deum ut qui una duntaxat, nunc vulgo quod aiunt, persona sit, manifestissimum est; eumque fuisse solum Deum Patrem probatur ex Joan. viii. 41. 54. unum Patrem habemus Deum. Pater meus is est qui glorificat me; quem vos dicitis Deum vestrum esse. et iv. 21. neque in monte hoc neque Hierosolymis adorabitis Patrem. Convenit igitur Christo cum universo populo Dei, Patrem esse unum illum atque solum Deum. Tam enim obscurum fuisse, perque tot sæcula non intellectum prorsus in ecclesia primum omnium mandatum, duasque alteras personas ignotas plane in populo Dei, divino honore ad illam usque ætatem caruisse, quis credat? cum Deus de evangelico etiam cultu docens populum suum, Jehovam unum quem semper habuerint pro Deo præmoneat habiturum, et Davidem, id est, Christum pro rege ac Domino: Jer. xxx. 9. servient Jehovæ Deo suo, et Davidi regi suo, quem excitabo ipsis. Sane hic Christus, qualem eum a populo suo sub evangelio vel nosci vel coli Deus volebat, a Jehova uno Deo et natura et titulo distinguitur. Itaque nec ipse Christus Dei Filius in Evangelio aliud nos docet de uno Deo atque lex docuerat; eumque Patrem esse suum clarissime ubique asserit. Joan. xvii. 3. hæc est vita æterna, ut cognoscant te illum solum verum Deum, et quem misisti, Jesum Christum. et xx. 17. ascendo ad Patrem meum et Patrem vestrum, et ad Deum meum et Deum vestrum. Certe si Pater est Deus Christi et Deus noster, Deusque est unus, quis est Deus præter Patrem?

¶6Hoc etiam Christi apostolus et interpres Paulus, tam clare tamque perspicue et quasi id unum agens nos docet, ut nemo in ecclesia pastor catechumenum de uno Deo, quemadmodum humana omnis ratio unum numero intelligit, disertius et planius docere potuerit. 1 Cor. viii. 4, 5, 6. p. 65scimus idolum nihil esse in mundo, et nullum esse Deum alium nisi unum: nam etiamsi sint qui dicantur dii et in cœlo et in terra (sicut sunt dii multi et domini multi) nobis tamen unus est Deus, Pater ille, a quo omnia, et nos in ipso, et unus Dominus Jesus Christus, per quem omnia et nos per ipsum. Hic nullum esse Deum alium vel alterum, nisi unum, non essentiam solum sed personam etiam alteram quamcunque excludit; diserte enim, v. 6. ille unus est Pater; non alia igitur persona nisi una; quemadmodum esse alium ad asserendam Sancti Spiritus personam Theologi ex Joan. xiv. 16. argumentari solent: et Diis dictis sive in cœlo sive in terra, solus Deus pater ille a quo omnia, et multis unus numero opponitur: Filius etsi alius Deus, hic Dominus tantum appellatur: is a quo omnia ab eo per quem omnia, clare, et siquidem diversitas causandi diversitatem essentiæ arguit, essentia distinguitur. Numerica porro differentia cum ab essentia fluat, qui duo sunt numero, duo sint etiam essentia necesse est. Unus Dominus, nempe factus a Deo paret Act. ii. 36. magis ergo Dominus Pater, qui fecit, etiamsi hic Dominus non dicatur. Nam qui Patrem Deum unum dicit, dicit eundem unum summum Dominum; ut est Psal. cx. 1. dixit Dominus Domino meo: de quo loco infra uberius. Qui unum Dominum Jesum Christum dicit, non dicit eundem unum Deum, præsertim cum et Dominus et Christus a Deo Patre sit factus Act. ii. 36. Quem itaque hic dicit unum Dominum Jesum Christum, ejusdem alibi et Deum et Dominum dicit Patrem: Eph. i. 17. Deus Domini nostri Jesu Christi. 1 Cor. xi. 3. caput Christi Deum. et xv. 28. ipse Filius subjicietur ei. Sane Pater, si Pater Christi, si Deus Christi, si caput Christi, si is cui Christus Dominus immo ipse Filius subjicitur et subjicietur, quid abest quin Pater sit ejusdem Christi Domini etiam Dominus, ejusdem Christi Dei etiam Deus; cum Christus quo modo est Dominus, quo modo Filius, eodem esse Deum necesse sit? Postremo Pater is est a quo et ex quo, et per quem, et in quem sunt omnia, Rom. xi. 36. Heb. ii. 10. Filius non a quo, sed per quem duntaxat; idque addita exceptione, omnia, nempe, quæ facta sunt, Joan. i. 3. omnia, excepto eo qui subjecit ei omnia. 1 Cor. xv. 27. Clarum est igitur intelligi debere per quem nempe secundaria ac delegata vi sunt omnia: et particulam per, p. 66cum ad Patrem refertur, principem notare causam, ut Joan. vi. 57. vivo per Patrem; cum ad Filium, secundariam et instrumentalem: de quo infra clarius.

¶7Sic Eph. iv. 4, 5, 6. unum est corpus et unus spiritus, sicut et vocati estis in unam spem vocationis vestræ: unus Dominus, una fides, unum baptisma: unus est Deus et Pater omnium, qui est supra omnes, et per omnes, et in omnibus vobis. Hic unus est spiritus, unus Dominus; at unus est Pater, et ita unus Deus, quemadmodum cætera illa omnia una sunt, id est numero, adeoque ipsa persona. 1 Tim. ii. 5. unus est Deus, unus etiam mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Jesus. Hic a natura inferiori, homo potius nominatur totus mediator, ne vel par Patri, vel idem existimetur Deus, cum de uno Deo distincte et accurate agitur. Et sane quemadmodum sui mediator ad se aliquis esse queat, expediri nulla ratione potest: juxta illud, Gal. iii. 20. mediator unius non est; Deus vero unus est. Mediator igitur Dei quo pacto Deus? Quid quod ipse de se constanter testatus est Joan. viii. 28. a seipso nihil facere, et v. 42. a seipso non venire. Certe ergo ad seipsum non agit mediatorem; ad seipsum mediator non redit. Rom. v. 10. reconciliati sumus Deo per mortem Filii ejus. Cui Deo reconciliati sumus, is si unus est, non erit Deus is per quem reconciliamur, cum alter sit; nam si est idem, ipse medius inter se et nos, reconciliabit nos sibi per se; quod prorsus inextricabile est.

¶8Cum hæc omnia per se tam clara sint, ut nulla explanatione indigeant, unum Patrem a seipso esse Deum, quod qui non est, Deus esse non potest, mirum quam putidis argutiis, ne dicam præstigiis, claritatem horum locorum obscurare atque eludere conati sint nonnulli, omnem lapidem movendo, omnia diverticula quærendo, omnia tentando, non ut evangelii simplicissimam veritatem simplicibus et pauperibus annuntiare, sed paradoxum aliquod absurdissimum, ne plane corruat, adscitis e media scholarum barbarie miris quibusdam vocabulorum ac sophismatum falsis adminiculis, summa contentione et pertinacia fulcire videantur.

¶1p. 88 Since, however, Christ not only bears the name of the only begotten Son of God, but is also several times called in Scripture God, notwithstanding the universal doctrine that there is but one God, it appeared to many, who had no mean opinion of their own acuteness, that there was an inconsistency in this; which gave rise to an hypothesis no less strange than repugnant to reason, namely, that the Son, although personally and numerically another, was yet essentially one with the Father, and that thus the unity of God was preserved.

¶2But unless the terms unity and duality be signs of the same ideas to God which they represent to men, it would have been to no purpose that God had so repeatedly inculcated that first commandment, that he was the one and only God, if another could be said to exist besides, who also himself ought to be believed in as the one God. Unity and duality cannot consist of one and the same essence. God is one ens, not two; one essence and one subsistence, which is nothing but a substantial essence, appertain to one ens; if two subsistences or two persons be assigned to one essence, it involves a contradiction of terms, by representing the essence as at once simple and compound. If one divine essence be common to two persons, that essence or divinity will either be in the relation of a whole to its several parts, or of a genus to its several species, or lastly of a common subject to its accidents. If none of these alternatives be conceded, there is no mode of escaping from the absurd consequences that follow, such as that one essence may be the third part of two or more.

¶3There would have been no occasion for the supporters of these opinions to have offered such violence to reason, nay even to so much plain p. 89scriptural evidence, if they had duly considered God's own words addressed to kings and princes,³ Psal. lxxxii. 6. I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High; or those of Christ himself, John x. 35. if he called them Gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken—; or those of St. Paul, 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6. for though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or earth, (for there be gods many and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, &c. or lastly of St. Peter, ii. 1, 4. that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, which implies much more than the title of gods in the sense in which that title is applied to kings; though no one would conclude from this expression that the saints were co-essential with God.

¶4Let us then discard reason in sacred matters, and follow the doctrine of Holy Scripture exclusively.⁴ Accordingly, no one need expect that I should here premise a long metaphysical discussion, and introduce all that commonly received drama of the personalities in the Godhead: since it is most evident, in the first place, from numberless passages of Scripture, that there is in reality but one true independent and supreme God;⁵ and as he is called one, (inasmuch as human reason and the common language of mankind, and the Jews, the people of God, have always considered him as one person only, that is, one in a numerical sense) let us have recourse to the sacred writings in order to know who this one true and supreme God is. This knowledge ought to be derived in the first instance from the gospel, since the clearest doctrine respecting the one God must necessarily be that p. 90copious and explanatory revelation concerning him which was delivered by Christ himself to his apostles, and by the apostles to their followers. Nor is it to be supposed that the gospel would be ambiguous or obscure on this subject; for it was not given for the purpose of promulgating new and incredible doctrines respecting the nature of God, hitherto utterly unheard of by his own people, but to announce salvation to the Gentiles through Messiah the Son of God, according to the promise of the God of Abraham. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him, John i. 18. Let us therefore consult the Son in the first place respecting God.

¶5According to the testimony of the Son, delivered in the clearest terms, the Father is that one true God, by whom are all things. Being asked by one of the scribes, Mark xii. 28, 29, 32. which was the first commandment of all, he answered from Deut. vi. 4. the first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord; or as it is in the Hebrew, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. The scribe assented; there is one God, and there is none other one but he; and in the following verse Christ expresses his approbation of this answer. Nothing can be more clear than that it was the opinion of the scribe, as well as of the other Jews, that by the unity of God is intended his oneness of person. That this God was no other than God the Father, is proved from John viii. 41, 54. we have one Father, even God. It is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say that he is your God. iv. 21. neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father. Christ therefore agrees with the whole people of God, that the Father is that one and only God. For who can believe that the very first of the commandments would have been so obscure, and so ill understood by the Church through such a succession of ages, that two other persons, equally entitled to worship, should have remained wholly unknown to the people of God, and debarred of divine honours even to that very day? especially as God, where he is teaching his own people respecting the nature of their worship under the gospel, forewarns them that they would have for their God the one p. 91Jehovah whom they had always served, and David, that is, Christ, for their King and Lord. Jer. xxx. 9. they shall serve Jehovah their God, and David their King, whom I will raise up unto them. In this passage Christ, such as God willed that he should be known or served by his people under the gospel, is expressly distinguished from the one God Jehovah, both by nature and title. Christ himself therefore, the Son of God, teaches us nothing in the gospel respecting the one God but what the law had before taught, and everywhere clearly asserts him to be his Father. John xvii. 3. this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. xx. 17. I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God: if therefore the Father be the God of Christ, and the same be our God, and if there be none other God but one, there can be no God beside the Father.

¶6Paul, the apostle and interpreter of Christ, teaches the same in so clear and perspicuous a manner, that one might almost imagine the inculcation of this truth to have been his sole object. No teacher of catechumens in the Church could have spoken more plainly and expressly of the one God, according to the sense in which the universal consent of mankind has agreed to understand unity of number. 1 Cor. viii. 4—6. we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one: for though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many and lords many), but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Here the expression there is none other God but one excludes not only all other essences, but all other persons whatever; for it is expressly said in the sixth verse, that the Father is that one God; wherefore there is no other person but one; at least in that sense which is intended by divines, when they argue from John xiv. 16. that there is another God, for the sake of asserting the personality of the Holy Spirit. Again, to those who are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, God the Father of whom are all things is opposed singly; he who is numerically one God, to many gods. Though the Son be another God, yet in this passage p. 92he is called merely Lord; he of whom are all things is clearly distinguished from him by whom are all things, and if a difference of causation prove a difference of essence, he is distinguished also in essence. Besides, since a numerical difference originates in difference of essence, those who are two numerically, must be also two essentially.⁶ There is one Lord, namely he whom God the Father hath made, Acts ii. 36. much more therefore is the Father Lord, who made him, though he be not here called Lord. For he who calls the Father one God, also calls him one Lord above all, as Psal. cx. 1. the Lord said unto my Lord,—a passage which will be more fully discussed hereafter. He who calls Jesus Christ one Lord, does not call him one God, for this reason among others, that God the Father hath made him both Lord and Christ, Acts ii. 36. Elsewhere therefore he calls the Father both God and Lord of him whom he here calls one Lord Jesus Christ. Eph. i. 17. the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Cor. xi. 3. the head of Christ is God. xv. 28. the Son also himself shall be subject unto him. If in truth the Father be called the Father of Christ, if he be called the God of Christ, if he be called the head of Christ, if he be called the God to whom Christ described as the Lord, nay, even as the Son himself, is subject, and shall be subjected, why should not the Father be also the Lord of the same Lord Christ, and the God of the same God Christ; since Christ must also be God in the same relative manner that he is Lord and Son? Lastly, the Father is he of whom, and from whom, and by whom, and for whom are all things; Rom. xi. 36. Heb. ii. 10. The Son is not he of whom, but only by whom; and that not without an exception, all things, namely, which p. 93were made, John i. 3. all things, except him which did put all things under him, 1 Cor. xv. 27. It is evident therefore that when it is said all things were by him, it must be understood of a secondary and delegated power; and that when the particle by is used in reference to the Father, it denotes the primary cause, as John vi. 57. I live by the Father; when in reference to the Son, the secondary and instrumental cause: which will be explained more clearly on a future occasion.

¶7Again, Eph. iv. 4—6. there is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Here there is one Spirit, and one Lord; but the Father is one, and therefore God is one in the same sense as the remaining objects of which unity is predicated, that is, numerically one, and therefore one also in person. 1 Tim. ii. 5. there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Here the mediator, though not purely human, is purposely named man, by the title derived from his inferior nature, lest he should be thought equal to the Father, or the same God, whereas the argument distinctly and expressly refers to one God. Besides, it cannot be explained how any one can be a mediator to himself on his own behalf; according to Gal. iii. 20. a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. How then can God be a mediator of God? Not to mention that he himself uniformly testifies of himself, John viii. 28. I do nothing of myself, and v. 42. neither came I of myself. Undoubtedly therefore he does not act as a mediator to himself; nor return as a mediator to himself. Rom. v. 10. we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son. To whatever God we were reconciled, if he be one God, he cannot be the God by whom we are reconciled, inasmuch as that God is another person; for if he be one and the same, he must be a mediator between himself and us, and reconcile us to himself by himself; which is an insurmountable difficulty.

¶8Though all this be so self-evident as to require no explanation,—namely, that the Father alone is a self-existent God, and that a being p. 94which is not self-existent cannot be God,—it is wonderful with what futile subtleties, or rather with what juggling artifices, certain individuals have endeavoured to elude or obscure the plain meaning of these passages; leaving no stone unturned, recurring to every shift, attempting every means, as if their object were not to preach the pure and unadulterated truth of the gospel to the poor and simple, but rather by dint of vehemence and obstinacy to sustain some absurd paradox from falling, by the treacherous aid of sophisms and verbal distinctions, borrowed from the barbarous ignorance of the schools.

¶1p. 67 At scripturarum aliarum causa hæc sese commentari defendunt, utcunque rationi videantur minus consentanea; cæteroqui scripturas inter se consentire non videri. Rationis igitur nulla ratio habeatur; scripturam rursus audiamus.

¶2Duo duntaxat loci sunt. Primus est Joan. x. 30. Ego et Pater unum sumus: id est, unum essentia, ut vulgo interpretantur. At per Deum immortalem nihil temere agamus de Deo. Non uno modo unum duæ res dici possunt. Ego et Pater unum sumus ait Filius, ait Scriptura: acquiesco. Unum essentia divinavit nescio quis: commentum humanum rejicio. Quemadmodum enim unum cum Patre sit Filius, non nobis divinandum Filius reliquit, (quisquis id primus in ecclesia sibi arrogavit) sed ipse docet clarissime quantum quidem nostra interest scire. Unum sunt Pater et Filius non utique essentia, ipse enim contra versu superiore dixerat, Pater meus qui dedit mihi eas, major omnibus est (immo cap. xiv. 28. major me est) et in sequentibus diserte negat fecisse seipsum Deum, eo quod dixisset, Ego et Pater unum sumus. Hoc tantum dixisse confirmat, quod longe minus est, v. 36. me quem Pater sanctificavit et misit in mundum, vos dicitis blasphemare, quia dixi, Filius Dei sum? Hæc de duobus essentia disparatis dici necesse est, et quidem non æqualibus. Quod si de una duorum divina essentia hæc docet Filius, cur non potius de una trium? cur individuam dividit trinitatem? Quod non est totum, non est unum. Ex ipsorum igitur sententia qui affirmant, Filius et Pater sine Spiritu essentia non sunt unum. Quemadmodum igitur non^la7 sunt? Ipse solus docere potest; et docet. Primum, quia unum loquuntur, unum agunt; atque ita se explicat eodem capite cum Judæi dictum illud perperam intelligerent; v. 38. operibus credite, ut cognoscatis et credatis Patrem in me esse, et me in eo. Sic cap. xiv. 10. non credis me in Patre et Patrem in me esse? verba quæ ego loquor vobis, a meipso non loquor; sed Pater qui in me manet, ipse facit opera. Hic Patrem a seipso toto evidenter distinguit, sed Patrem in se manere quidem ait; quod non essentiam eorum unam sed communionem tantum arctissimam declarat. Secundo, declarat se et Patrem esse unum quop. 68modo nos cum eo unum sumus: id utique non est essentia, sed dilectione, communione, consensu, charitate, animo, gloria denique. Joan. xiv. 20, 21. in illo die vos cognoscetis me esse in Patre meo, et vos in me, et me in vobis. Qui habet mandata mea et observat illa, is est qui diligit me; qui autem diligit me, diligetur a Patre meo. et xvii. 21. ut omnes unum sint, sicut tu Pater in me et ego in te; ut et ipsi in nobis unum sint &c. et v. 23. ego in iis, et tu in me, ut sint consummati in unum; et ut cognoscat mundus quod tu me miseris, et eos diligas prout me dilexisti. et v. 22. ego gloriam quam dedisti mihi dedi iis, ut sint unum sicut et nos unum sumus. Cum tot modis Filius Patrem et se esse unum clare doceat, ego eos omnes modos posthabeam? modum alium, nempe illud essentia unum, adversa atque invita ratione, ratiocinando excogitem, aut ab nescio quo primum homine excogitatum præponam? Quo fidejussore? Ecclesia? Ego vero, docente ipsa Ecclesia orthodoxa, recte aliter instituor; Christum prius esse audiendum.

¶3Alter locus, omnium ut putatur vulgo evidentissimus, quo recepta sententia de unitate trium personarum essentiali fundata est, 1 Joan. v. 7. Tres sunt qui testificantur in cœlo, Pater, Sermo, et Spiritus Sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt, præterquam quod et in Syro et duabus reliquis Orientalium versionibus, Arabica nimirum et Æthiopica, et in plerisque Græcis codicibus antiquis non reperiatur hic versus, et in quibus reperitur, mira varietate descriptus est, non magis probat, qui unum esse dicuntur, eos necessario essentia unum esse in cœlo, quam quæ sequente versu in terra unum esse dicuntur. Certe de unitate consensus et testimonii itidem ut loco proxime citato, duntaxat hic agi ab Joanne, siquidem Joannis hæc vere sunt, non vidit modo Erasmus, sed Beza etiam vel invitus agnovit; quos ipsos adire licet. Deinde tres illi quinam sunt? Tres Deos esse pernegabis; ergo nec est unus Deus, sed una trium testium testificatio, unum testimonium. Qui autem unus essentia cum Deo Patre non est, par esse Patri non potest: sed de hoc loco infra amplius capite sequente.

¶4At, inquiunt, ut verbis disertis non ponat Scriptura unum essentia esse Patrem et Filium, ratio tamen ex scripturæ vel his vel aliis p. 69locis id efficit atque evincit. Primum, ut hoc concedam quod nullo modo concedo, tamen in re tam sublimi supraque rationem posita, in ipsis fidei elementis et quasi primis postulatis, solo Dei verbo, eoque clarissimo ac disertissimo, non sola ratione, fides niti potest. Verum hic ratio voce maxima reclamat. Quid enim obsecro evincere hic potest ratio? an sententiam rationi contrariam? Certe ratio rationem parit, non notiones absurdas et ab omni humano intellectu remotissimas. Concludendum est igitur, hanc sententiam neque scriptura neque ratione constare. Reliquum est ex duobus necessario consequentibus, si Deus est unus isque Pater, et tamen Filius quoque Deus dicitur, uti is decreto, ut antedictum est, et voluntate Patris et nomen et naturam divinam a Deo Patre acceperit. Hoc neque ratio ulla redarguit, et Scriptura innumeris testimoniis docet.

¶5Sed quoniam qui Filium volunt unum esse cum Patre Deum, tametsi superioribus illis duobus locis destituantur, quibus omnes etiam non nituntur, id tamen liquido satis demonstrare se posse confidunt, si scripturarum crebris auctoritatibus probare poterunt, Filio et nomen et attributa et opera Dei, divinum denique honorem passim attribui, eandem et nos insistamus viam: neque alio postulamus ut credatur pacto unum esse Deum Patrem et præterea neminem, nisi demonstramus atque evincimus, primum, hæc omnia omnibus in locis cum ab ipso Filio, tum ab ejus apostolis uni duntaxat Deo Patri verbis disertis attribui; deinde, sicubi hæc Filio tribuuntur, id ita fieri, ut primario ac proprie Patri soli attribuenda hæc esse omnia facile possit intelligi; quicquid Filio Deitatis tribuitur, id omne Filium fateri se Patris dono singulari ac beneficio possidere, idemque apostolos testari; majorem proinde rebus omnibus Patrem Filio et ipsum Filium et apostolos ejus dictis suis omnibus et scriptis agnoscere.

¶6Scio quid hic sint responsuri, qui unum esse Deum, non unum tamen Patrem Deum esse credunt. Occurram itaque initio semel, ne ad loca singula molesti sint atque obstrepant. Duo petunt principia, quod dici solet, vel emendicant potius ut sibi gratis demus; primum, p. 70ut Dei nomen Patri soli passim attributum, οὐσιωδῶς intelligatur non ὑποστατικῶς, id est, ut unius Patris nomen tres personas significet, vel totam trinitatis essentiam, non unam Patris personam. Quæ distinctio cum multis modis absurda est, tum ad eorum duntaxat excogitata sententiam sustentandam; cum re quidem vera non eam sustentet, sed ab ea sustentetur; adeoque sententiam ipsam si infirmaveris, id est, negaveris modo, inanis illa distinctio simul cadit: quæ non inanis modo, sed omnino nulla distinctio est, immo idem per idem, græcis adverbiis ad præstringendos novitiorum oculos callide vibratum. Cum enim essentia et hypostasis, ut secundo capite ostendimus, idem sit, conjugata certe adverbia essentialiter et hypostatice nihil distinguunt. Si igitur Dei nomen soli Patri essentialiter attribuitur, hypostatice etiam soli Patri attribuetur; cum una essentia substantialis nihil aliud quam hypostasis una sit, et contra. Quæsiverim itaque ab adversariis velintne Deum Patrem ens esse an non? Ens certe entium. Ergo, inquam, ut hypostasin unam, ita essentiam quoque sibi propriam, et maxime omnium incommunicabilem habebit, nemini, id est, nulli præterea personæ, communem: nec propriam hypostasin sine propria essentia habere potest. Enti enim æque omni impossibile est essentiam suam, per quam est id quod est, et ab aliis omnibus numero differt, cum alia re quavis habere communem. Filius igitur ut propriam hypostasin, ita et propriam sibi essentiam si non habet, sed Patris, profecto eorum sententia aut non ens efficitur, aut cum Patre plane idem. Quæ quidem doctrina religionem Christianam funditus evertit. Quod autem responderi solet, essentiæ quidem unius finitæ unam duntaxat posse esse personam, infinitæ essentiæ posse esse personas plures, ridiculum est; eo enim ipso quod infinita essentia est, tanto magis nonnisi unius personæ esse potest. Patris cum essentiam tum personam omnes infinitam esse agnoscunt; communicari igitur Patris essentia personæ alteri non potest: sic enim duo infiniti esse possent, immo millies milleni.

¶7Alterum petunt, ut quicquid Divinitatis Filius Patri soli et quasi majori tribuit, id vel tanquam homo vel tanquam mediator tribuisse p. 71existimetur: quod quoties locus et res ipsa postulat, ultro idque sine ullo nostro incommodo facile dabimus; contendant enim quantum volent, Filium ut hominem duntaxat aut mediatorem Patri soli tribuisse omnia, nunquam ea ratione probaverint Deum esse cum Patre unum: quoties non ipsa res sed eorum duntaxat theses flagitant uti hoc sibi gratis demus, facile negabimus; Filiumque maxime ut Filium, etiam ut Deum, Patri tanquam Dei Deo, non sibi quocunque nomine aut ratione tribuere quæ tribuit, ostendemus.

¶1p. 94 They defend their conduct, however, on the ground, that though these opinions may seem inconsistent with reason, they are to be held for the sake of other passages of Scripture, and that otherwise Scripture will not be consistent with itself. Setting aside reason therefore, let us have recourse again to the language of Scripture.

¶2The passages in question are two only. The first is John x. 30. I and my Father are one,—that is, one in essence, as it is commonly interpreted. But God forbid that we should decide rashly on any point relative to the Deity. Two things may be called one in more than one way. Scripture saith, and the Son saith, I and my Father are one,—I bow to their authority. Certain commentators conjecture that they are one in essence,—I reject what is merely man's invention. For the Son has not left us to conjecture in what manner he is one with the Father, (whatever member of the Church may have first arrogated to himself the merit of the discovery,) but explains the doctrine himself most fully, so far as we are concerned to know it. The Father and the Son are one, not indeed in essence, for he had himself said the contrary in the preceding verse, my Father, which gave them me, is greater than all, (see also xiv. 28. my Father is greater than I,) and in the following verses he distinctly denies that he made himself God in saying, I and my Father are one; he insists that he had only said as follows, which implies far less, v. 36. say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, p. 95I am the Son of God? This must be spoken of two persons not only not co-essential, but not co-equal. Now if the Son be laying down a doctrine respecting the unity of the divine essence in two persons of the Trinity, how is it that he does not rather attribute the same unity of essence to the three persons? Why does he divide the indivisible Trinity? For there cannot be unity without totality. Therefore, on the authority of the opinions holden by my opponents themselves, the Son and the Father without the Spirit are not one in essence. How then are they one? It is the province of Christ alone to acquaint us with this, and accordingly he does acquaint us with it. In the first place, they are one, inasmuch as they speak and act with unanimity; and so he explains himself in the same chapter, after the Jews had misunderstood his saying: x. 38. believe the works; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him. xiv. 10. believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself, but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Here he evidently distinguishes the Father from himself in his whole capacity, but asserts at the same time that the Father remains in him; which does not denote unity of essence, but only intimacy of communion. Secondly, he declares himself to be one with the Father in the same manner as we are one with him,—that is, not in essence, but in love, in communion, in agreement, in charity, in spirit, in glory. John xiv. 20, 21. at that day ye shall know that I am in the Father, and ye in me, and I in you: he that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me; and he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father. xvii. 21. that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us. v. 23. I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved me. v. 22. the glory which thou gavest me I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one. When the Son has shown in so many modes how he and the Father are one, why should I set them all aside? why should I, on the strength of my own reasoning, though in opposition to reason itself, devise another mode, which makes them p. 96one in essence; or why, if already devised by some other person, adopt it, in preference to Christ's own mode? If it be proposed on the single authority of the Church, the true doctrine of the orthodox Church herself teaches me otherwise; inasmuch as it instructs me to listen to the words of Christ before all other.⁷

¶3The other passage, and which according to the general opinion affords the clearest foundation for the received doctrine of the essential unity of the three persons, is 1 John v. 7. there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. But not to mention that this verse is wanting in the Syriac⁸ and the other two Oriental versions, the Arabic and the Ethiopic, as well as in the greater part of the ancient Greek manuscripts, and that in those manuscripts which actually contain it many various readings occur, it no more necessarily proves those to be essentially one, who are said to be one in heaven, than it proves those to be essentially one, who are said to be one on earth in the following verse. And not only Erasmus, but even Beza, however unwillingly, acknowledged (as may be seen in their own writings)⁹ that if John be really the author p. 97of the verse, he is only speaking here, as in the last quoted passage, of an unity of agreement and testimony. Besides, who are the three who are said to bear witness? That they are three Gods, will not be admitted; therefore neither is it the one God, but one record or one testimony of three witnesses, which is implied. But he who is not co-essential with God the Father, cannot be co-equal with the Father. This text however will be discussed more at large in the following chapter.

¶4But, it is objected, although Scripture does not say in express words that the Father and the Son are one in essence, yet reason proves the truth of the doctrine from these, as well as from other passages of Scripture.

¶4 cont.In the first place, granting, (which I am far from doing,) that this is the case, yet on a subject so sublime, and so far above our reason, where the very elements and first postulates, as it were, of our faith are concerned, belief must be founded, not on mere reason, but on the word of God exclusively, where the language of the revelation is most clear and particular. Reason itself, however, protests strongly against the doctrine in question; for how can reason establish (as it must in the present case) a position contrary to reason? Undoubtedly the product of reason must be something consistent with reason, not a notion as absurd as it is removed from all human comprehension. Hence we conclude, that this opinion is agreeable neither to Scripture nor reason. The other alternative therefore must be adopted, namely, that if God be one God, and that one God be the Father, and if notwithstanding the Son be also called God, the Son must have received the name and nature of Deity from God the Father, in conformity with his decree and will, after the manner stated before. This doctrine is not disproved by reason, and Scripture teaches it in innumerable passages.

¶5But those who insist that the Son is one God with the Father, consider their point as susceptible of ample proof, even without the two texts already examined, (on which indeed some admit that no reliance is to be placed) if it can be demonstrated from a sufficient number of Scripture testimonies p. 98that the name and attributes and works of God, as well as divine honours, are habitually ascribed to the Son. To proceed therefore in the same line of argument, I do not ask them to believe that the Father alone and none else is God, unless I shall have proved, first, that in every passage each of the particulars abovementioned is attributed in express terms only to one God the Father, as well by the Son himself as by his apostles. Secondly, that wherever they are attributed to the Son, it is in such a manner that they are easily understood to be attributable in their original and proper sense to the Father alone; and that the Son acknowledges himself to possess whatever share of Deity is assigned to him, by virtue of the peculiar gift and kindness of the Father; to which the apostles also bear their testimony. And lastly, that the Son himself and his apostles acknowledge throughout the whole of their discourses and writings, that the Father is greater than the Son in all things.

¶6I am aware of the answer which will be here made by those who, while they believe in the unity of God, yet maintain that the Father alone is not God. I shall therefore meet their objection in the outset, lest they should raise a difficulty and outcry at each individual passage. They twice beg the question, or rather request us to make two gratuitous concessions. In the first place, they insist, that wherever the name of God is attributed to the Father alone, it should be understood οὐσιωδῶς, not ὑποστατικῶς, that is to say, that the name of the Father, who is unity, should be understood to signify the three persons, or the whole essence of the Trinity, not the single person of the Father. This is on many accounts a ridiculous distinction, and invented solely for the purpose of supporting their peculiar opinion; although in reality, instead of supporting it, it will be found to be dependent on it, and therefore if the opinion itself be invalidated, for which purpose a simple denial is sufficient, the futile distinction falls to the ground at the same time. For the fact is, not merely that the distinction is a futile one, but that it is no distinction at all; it is a mere verbal quibble, founded on the use of synonymous words, and cunningly dressed up in terms borrowed from the Greek to dazzle the eyes of novices. For since essence p. 99and hypostasis mean the same thing, as has been shown in the second Chapter, it follows that there can be no real difference of meaning between the adverbs essentially and substantially, which are derived from them. If then the name of God be attributed to the Father alone essentially, it must also be attributed to the Father alone substantially; since one substantial essence means nothing else than one hypostasis, and vice versa. I would therefore ask my adversaries, whether they hold the Father to be an abstract ens or not? Questionless they will reply, the primary ens of all. I answer, therefore, that as he has one hypostasis, so must he have one essence proper to himself, incommunicable in the highest degree, and participated by no one, that is, by no person besides, for he cannot have his own proper hypostasis, without having his own proper essence. For it is impossible for any ens to retain its own essence in common with any other thing whatever, since by this essence it is what it is,¹ and is numerically distinguished from all others. If therefore the Son, who has his own proper hypostasis, have not also his own proper essence, but the essence of the Father, he becomes on their hypothesis either no ens at all, or the same ens with the Father; which strikes at the very foundation of the Christian religion. The answer which is commonly made, is ridiculous—namely, that although one finite essence can pertain to one person only, one infinite essence may pertain to a plurality of persons; whereas in reality the infinitude of the essence affords an additional reason why it can pertain to only one person. All acknowledge that both the essence and the person of the Father are infinite; therefore the essence of the Father cannot be communicated to another person, for otherwise there might be two, or any imaginable number of infinite persons.

¶7The second postulate is, that wherever the Son attributes Deity to the Father alone, and as to one greater than himself, he must be understood to speak in his human character, or as mediator. Wherever the context and the fact itself require this interpretation, I shall readily concede it, without losing anything by the concession; for however strongly it may p. 100be contended, that when the Son attributes every thing to the Father alone, he speaks in his human or mediatorial capacity, it can never be inferred from hence that he is one God with the Father. On the other hand I shall not scruple to deny the proposition, whenever it is to be conceded not to the sense of the passage, but merely to serve their own theory; and shall prove that what the Son attributes to the Father, he attributes in his filial or even in his divine character to the Father as God of God, and not to himself under any title or pretence whatever.

¶1p. 71 Ad nomen igitur quod attinet Dei, id, ubi etiam Patris et Filii simul fit mentio, tenore perpetuo Patri soli tribuitur, si eos tantummodo excipias locos de quibus infra singulatim videbimus; cæteros longe plures, priore nunc loco, et quamvis longo, firmo tamen agmine plerosque proferemus. Joan. iii. 16. ita Deus dilexit mundum, ut Filium suum &c. et vi. 27. hunc Pater obsignavit Deus. et v. 29. hoc illud est opus Dei, ut credatis in eum quem ille misit. et xiv. 1. creditis in Deum? etiam in me credite. Credere autem in aliquem quid valeat, infra dicemus: interim hic duo disparata manifesta sunt, in Deum et in me. Sic omnes simul apostoli. Act. iv. 24. sustulerunt vocem ad Deum dixeruntque, Domine tu es Deus ille qui fecisti cœlum ac terram—qui Spiritu Sancto per os Davidis pueri tui dixisti, cur fremuerunt gentes adversus Dominum et Christum ejus? Rom. viii. 3. Deus suo ipsius Filio misso. 1 Thess. iii. 11. ipse vero Deus et Pater noster, et Dominus noster Jesus Christus dirigat &c. Col. ii. 2. ad agnitionem mysterii Dei ac Patris et Christi. et iii. 3. vita vestra abscondita est cum Christo in Deo. 2 Tim. iv. 1. obtestor te in conspectu τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Κυρίου &c. 1 Joan. iv. 9. charitas Dei, quod Filium suum &c. Sic etiam ubi Christus prior nominatur. Gal. i. 1. per Jesum Christum ac Deum Patrem qui suscitavit eum ex mortuis. 2 Thess. ii. 16. ipse vero Dominus noster Jesus Christus, et Deus ac Pater noster. Idem ex omnibus Pauli cæterorumque apostolorum epistolis, ipso statim initio, ubi maxime quisnam is sit cujus divina auctoritate sint missi, explicate, ut par est, atque distincte asseverare solent. Animadvertas licet Rom. i. 7, 8. 1 Cor. i. 1, 2, 3. 2 Cor. i. 1, 2, 3. et sic deinceps ad Apocalypsin usque. et Marc. i. 1.

¶2p. 72 Attributa etiam divina solius esse Patris docet Filius, excluso etiam seipso. Omniscientiam. Mat. xxiv. 36. de die autem illo et hora nemo novit, ne angeli quidem cœlorum, sed Pater meus solus. et clarius, Marc. xiii. 32. ne angeli quidem, nec ipse Filius, sed Pater. Supremum in cœlo ac terra imperium, summam auctoritatem, summam decernendi potestatem pro liberrima voluntate sua. Mat. vi. 13. tuum est regnum, potentia ac gloria in sæcula. Et xviii. 35. ita et Pater meus cœlestis faciet vobis; nisi remiseritis &c. et xxvi. 29. in regno Patris mei. et cap. xx. 23. sedere ad dexteram meam et sinistram meam, non est meum dare, sed quibus paratum est a Patre meo. Non est meum, mediatoris nimirum, ut vulgo interpretantur. At dubium non est, quin mater et filii tantam rem ambitiose petentes, totum Christum, quantuscunque esset, orarent, ut, quanto maxima vel hominis vel Dei potentia valebat, daret quod petebant. v. 20. adorans et petens. et 21. dic ut sedeant. His Christus etiam totus respondit, non est meum; et ne aliqua tamen ratione suum hoc esse putarent, non in sua quacunque sed in Patris potestate solius hoc esse testatur. Si ut mediator duntaxat respondisset, sophistam sane, quod absit, egisse videretur, matremque et filios ea captione elusisse, quam Logici pravam expositionem vel æquivocam vocant, cum alio quis respectu aut animi sensu respondet quam interrogatus est. Idem de aliis hujusmodi locis est dicendum, quoties Christus de se verba facit. Postquam enim duæ naturæ in unam personam hypostatice coaluere, quicquid de se loquitur Christus, non alterutram naturam, sed totam Christi personam de se toto loqui necesse est, nisi ipse distinguit. Qui unionem, quam vocant, hypostaticam arbitratu suo divellunt, nihil profecto sincerum sermonibus aut responsis Christi relinquunt; ambigua et incerta, vera et non vera omnia, non Christum, sed pro Christo nescio quem, nunc hunc nunc illum sermocinantem nobis exhibent; ut Horatianum illud in eos probe conveniat Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo? Luc. xxiii. 34. Pater, remitte hoc ipsis &c. Joan. xiv. 2. in domo Patris mei. Etiam ipse Christus Mat. xxvi. 39. Pater mi, si possibile est, abeat p. 73a me poculum istud; veruntamen non ut ego volo, sed ut tu. Certe quibus voluntas non eadem, iis nec essentia eadem. At nec intellectum nec voluntatem numero eandem esse Patris et Filii, multis ex locis docetur. Mat. xxiv. 36. nemo novit &c. sed Pater meus solus. et Marc. xiii. 32. nec ipse Filius, sed Pater. Joan. vi. 38. descendi e cœlo non ut facerem voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem mittentis me. Quibus igitur nec intellectus, nec voluntas numero eadem, iis essentia esse eadem non potest; nec tergiversandi ullus hic locus, cum de natura etiam divina Filii hæc ipse Filius protulerit. Et v. 42. idem. et v. 53. an putas me non posse nunc precari Patrem meum, qui huc sistat mihi plures quam duodecim legiones angelorum? Marc. xiv. 36. Abba, Pater, omnia fieri abs te possunt: transfer a me poculum istud &c. Luc. xxii. 29. disposuit mihi Pater meus regnum. et xxiii. 46. Pater, in manus tuas depono spiritum meum. Joan. xii. 27. Pater, libera me ab hora hac. Si solus homo petiit hæc omnia (quod solet responderi) cur a solo Patre omnia, non a seipso, siquidem ipse etiam est Deus? Si homo et summus ipse Deus, cur omnino petiit quod penes se erat? Quid divina natura cum humana in unam personam conjuncta opus fuit, si ipsa par Patre,^la8 omnia tamen Patre accepta retulit? Bonitatem summam. Matt. xix. 17. cur me dicis bonum? nullus est bonus nisi unus, nempe Deus. Si blandientium titulos Pharisæis dari solitos Christus noluit sibi sumere, eamque ob rem juvenem illum paulo severius accepit, mirum non est; hoc utique planum, cum ait, nullus est bonus nisi unus, nempe Deus, noluisse se eundem essentia cum uno illo Deo haberi: sic enim quid aliud nisi bonitatis laudem a se removisset, ut in se conferret? Joan. vi. 32. Pater meus dat vobis panem illum cœlestem verum. v. 65. neminem posse venire ad me (et hominem scilicet et Deum) nisi fuerit ei datum a Patre meo. Gloriam summam. Matt. xviii. 10. angelos eorum in cœlis per omne tempus cernere faciem Patris mei qui in cœlis est. Joan. xvii. 4. ego te glorificavi in terra &c. Quid, quod et promissio veræ sapientiæ, etiam in ipso Christo cognoscendo (id ipsum quod nunc quærimus) fit obedientibus Patri. Joan. vii. 17. 18. si quis voluerit quod p. 74ille vult facere, cognoscet de doctrina, utrum ex Deo sit, an ego ex meipso loquar. Qui a semetipso loquitur, gloriam propriam quærit: qui autem quærit gloriam ejus qui misit ipsum, hic verax est, et injustitia in eo non est. et xv. 8. in hac re glorificatus fuerit Pater meus, ut fructum multum feratis, et eritis mei discipuli. Matt. vii. 21. Nam quisquis dicit mihi Domine, Domine, non introibit in regnum cœlorum; sed qui facit quod vult Pater meus qui in cœlis est. et xii. 50. quisquis fecerit quod vult Pater meus qui est in cœlis, is est meus frater et soror et mater. Sic divina omnia Christus ipse tribuit soli Patri. Sic itidem ubique tribuunt apostoli. Rom. xv. 5, 6. Deus auctor tolerantiæ et consolationis, det vobis &c. secundum Christum Jesum. et xvi. 25, 26, 27. ei vero qui potest vos stabilire &c. ex imperio æterni Dei &c. soli inquam sapienti Deo gloria esto per Jesum Christum. Judæ 25. soli sapienti Deo servatori nostro gloria esto per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum, ut vetus interpres et nonnulli codices Græci habent. 1 Tim. vi. 13, 14, 15, 16. denuntio tibi coram Deo qui vivificat omnia, et Jesu Christo qui testatam fecit &c. usque ad illustrem illum adventum Domini nostri Jesu Christi; quem præstitutis temporibus ostendet ille beatus, Rex ille regum et Dominus dominorum: qui solus habet immortalitatem; lucem habitans inaccessam; quem vidit nemo hominum, neque videre potest; cui honor et robur in æternum. Amen.

¶3Opera. Rom. xvi. 25, 26, 27. ut supra. 1 Tim. vi. 13, 14, 15, 16. ut supra. 2 Cor. i. 21, 22. porro qui nos confirmat vobiscum in Christum, Deus est; qui etiam obsignavit nos. Deus autem qui confirmat est unus. 1 Pet. i. 2. electis ex præcognitione Dei Patris ad sanctificationem Spiritus per obedientiam et aspersionem sanguinis Jesu Christi. Etiam erga ipsum Filium opera vel in ipso Filio. Act. v. 30, 31, 32, 33. Deus ille patrum nostrorum suscitavit Jesum, quem—. hunc, inquam, Deus dextra sua evectum, constituit principem ac servatorem, ut det resipiscentiam Israeli, et remissionem peccatorum. Gal. i. 1. per Jesum Christum ac Deum Patrem, qui suscitavit eum ex mortuis. Rom. x. 9. si credideris in corde tuo quod Deus eum suscitavit ex mortuis, servaberis. 1 Cor. vi. 14. Deus et Dominum suscitavit, et nos suscitabit potentia sua. 1 Thess. p. 75i. 9, 10. ad expectandum Filium ejus e cœlis quem suscitavit ex mortuis. Heb. x. 5. sacrificium et oblationem noluisti, corpus autem adaptasti mihi. 1 Pet. i. 21. per eum credentes in Deum qui suscitavit eum ex mortuis. En quot locis a Patre solo suscitatus Filius dicitur; quibus unus ille Joan. ii. 19. destruite templum hoc, et intra triduum excitabo illud, præponderare non debet; ubi ad non suos, pleniore responso indignos, breviter et ænigmatice non explanate locutus est, adeoque paternæ potentiæ mentionem facere necesse non habuit.

¶4Honorem Divinum. Quemadmodum enim Filius Patrem solum passim adorat ac veneratur, ita et nos docet. Matt. vi. 6. ora Patrem tuum. v. 9. vos igitur orate, Pater noster qui es in cœlis. cap. xviii. 19. de omni re quam petierint, fiet iis a Patre meo qui in cœlis est. Luc. xi. 1, 2. doce nos orare &c. dixit autem iis, quum oratis dicite, Pater noster &c. Joan. ii. 16. ne facite domum Patris mei &c. et iv. 21, 23. venit tempus et nunc est, quum veri adoratores adorabunt Patrem spiritu ac veritate: etenim Pater tales quærit qui ipsum adorent. et xv. 16. ut quicquid petieritis a Patre in nomine meo, det vobis. et xvi. 23. illo die me non interrogabitis quicquam: quæcunque petieritis a Patre in nomine meo, dabit vobis. Rom. i. 8, 9. primum quidem gratias ago Deo meo per Jesum Christum super omnibus vobis, quod—testis enim mihi est Deus, quem colo spiritu meo in evangelio Filii sui &c. et v. 11. gloriamur in Deo per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. et vii. 25. gratias ago Deo meo per Jesum Christum. et xv. 6. ut concorditer uno ore glorificetis Deum ac Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi. 1 Cor. i. 4. gratias ago Deo meo semper de vobis ob gratiam Dei quæ data est vobis in Christo Jesu. 2 Cor. i. 3. benedictus est Deus ac Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi; Pater ille miserationum, et Deus omnis consolationis. Gal. i. 4, 5. qui dedit semetipsum &c. secundum voluntatem Dei ac Patris nostri; cui sit gloria in sæcula sæculorum. Eph. i. 3. benedictus Deus et Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi &c. et ii. 18. quoniam utrique per ipsum habemus aditum per unum Spiritum ad Patrem. et iii. 14. flecto genua mea ad Patrem Domini nostri. et v. 20, 21. ei vero qui summa cum exsuperantia potest omnia facere supra ea quæ petimus p. 76aut cogitamus, pro illa vi agente in nobis, ei sit gloria in ecclesia per Christum Jesum, in omnes ætates sæculi sæculorum. Philipp. i. 2, 3. gratia vobis et pax a Deo Patre nostro, et Domino Jesu Christo. gratias ago Deo meo &c. Col. i. 3. idem. et iii. 17. quicquid feceritis &c. in nomine Domini &c. gratias agentes Deo et Patri per eum. 1 Thess. i. 2, 3. gratias agimus Deo semper de omnibus vobis, mentionem vestri facientes in precibus nostris, indesinenter commemorantes efficacem vestram fidem et laboriosam charitatem, et patientem illam expectationem in Domino nostro Jesu Christo coram Deo et Patre nostro. et v. 9, 10. ad serviendum Deo vivo, et vero, et ad expectandum Filium ejus e cœlis, quem suscitavit ex mortuis &c. 2 Thess. i. 2, 3. idem. 2 Tim. i. 3. gratiam habeo Deo, quem colo a majoribus. Majores autem Pauli Deum Patrem solum colebant. Philem. iv. 5. et 1 Pet. i. 3. idem. et iv. 11. si quis &c. ut eloquia Dei, ex viribus Dei, ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus per Jesum Christum. Jacob. i. 27. religiosus autem cultus pure apud Deum et Patrem, hic est &c. 1 Joan. ii. 1. advocatum apud Patrem habemus, Jesum Christum, justum. 2 Joan. iv. 5, 6. qui sincere ambulent, sicut mandatum accepimus a Patre. hæc est charitas; ut ambulemus secundum præcepta ipsius. Apoc. i. 6. qui fecit nos reges et sacerdotes Deo ac Patri suo, ei gloria et robur in sæcula sæculorum. Matt. xxi. 12. introivit Jesus in templum Dei. At inquiunt qui adversantur, scriptum est Mal. iii. 1. veniet in templum suum ille Dominus, quem vos quæritis, et angelus &c. Respondeo, his verbis more prophetico adventum Domini in carnem significari, sive in templum corporis, ut Joan. ii. 21. Alium enim in templo neque quærebant ullum Judæi quem colerent præter Patrem; et templum ipse Patris domum, non suam, eodem capite nominavit: et illum quidem Dominum et angelum, id est, missum a Deo fœderis mediatorem, non Deum, quærebant: veniet denique in ecclesiam suam, quod templi nomine apud prophetas adumbrari solet. Sic ubi Deus et homines quasi per antithesin ponuntur, solus Pater pro uno Deo est. Jacob. iii. 9. per ipsam benedicimus Deo et Patri, et per ipsam execramur homines, ad similitudinem Dei factos. 1 Joan. ii. 15, 16. Si quis diligit mundum, non est charitas Patris in eo; non est ex Patre, sed ex mundo.

¶1p. 100 With regard to the name of God, wherever simultaneous mention is made of the Father and the Son, that name is uniformly ascribed to the Father alone, except in such passages as shall be hereafter separately considered. I shall quote in the first place the texts of the former class, which are by far the more considerable in point of number, and form a large and compact body of proofs. John iii. 16. so God loved the world, that he gave his own Son, &c. vi. 27. him hath God the Father sealed. v. 29. this is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. xiv. 1. ye believe in God, believe also in me. What is meant by believing in any one, will be explained hereafter; in the mean time it is clear that two distinct things are here intended—in God and in me. Thus all the apostles in conjunction, Acts iv. 24. lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God which hast made heaven and earth ...... who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage......against the Lord, and against his Christ? Rom. viii. 3. God sending his own Son. 1 Thess. iii. 11. now God himself, and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you. Col. ii. 2. to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ.² iii. 3. your life is hid with Christ in God. 2 Tim. iv. 1. I charge thee therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 John iv. 9. the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son. So also where Christ is named first in order. Gal. i. 1. by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. 2 Thess. p. 101ii. 16. now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father. The same thing may be observed in the very outset of all the Epistles of St. Paul and of the other apostles, where, as is natural, it is their custom to declare in express and distinct terms who he is by whose divine authority they have been sent. Rom. i. 7, 8. 1 Cor. i. 1—3. 2 Cor. i. 1—3. and so throughout to the book of Revelations. See also Mark i. 1.

¶2The Son likewise teaches that the attributes of divinity belong to the Father alone, to the exclusion even of himself. With regard to omniscience. Matt. xxiv. 36. of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the angels of heaven, but my Father only; and still more explicitly, Mark xiii. 32. not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

¶2 cont.With regard to supreme dominion both in heaven and earth, the unlimited authority and full power of decreeing according to his own independant will.³ Matt. vi. 13. thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever. xviii. 35. so likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not, &c.—xxvi. 29. in my Father's kingdom. xx. 23. to sit on my right hand and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. It is not mine—, in my mediatorial capacity, as it is commonly interpreted.⁴ But questionless when the ambition of the mother and her two sons incited them to prefer this important petition, they addressed their petition to the entire nature of Christ, how exalted soever it might be, praying him to grant their request to the utmost extent of his power whether as God or man; v. 20. worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him, and v. 21. grant that they may sit. Christ also answers with reference to his whole nature—it is not mine to give; and lest for p. 102some reason they might still fancy the gift belonged to him, he declares that it was altogether out of his province, and the exclusive privilege of the Father. If his reply was meant solely to refer to his mediatorial capacity, it would have bordered on sophistry, which God forbid that we should attribute to him; as if he were capable of evading the request of Salome and her sons by the quibble which the logicians call expositio prava or æquivoca, when the respondent answers in a sense or with a mental intention different from the meaning of the questioner. The same must be said of other passages of the same kind, where Christ speaks of himself; for after the hypostatical union of two natures in one person, it follows that whatever Christ says of himself, he says not as the possessor of either nature separately, but with reference to the whole of his character, and in his entire person, except where he himself makes a distinction. Those who divide this hypostatical union at their own discretion, strip the discourses and answers of Christ of all their sincerity; they represent every thing as ambiguous and uncertain, as true and false at the same time; it is not Christ that speaks, but some unknown substitute, sometimes one, and sometimes another; so that the words of Horace may be justly applied to such disputants: Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo?⁵ Luke xxiii. 34. Father, forgive them, &c. John xiv. 2. in my Father's house. So also Christ himself says, Matt. xxvi. 39. O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. Now it is manifest that those who have not the same will, cannot have the same essence. It appears however from many passages, that the Father and Son have not, in a numerical sense, the same intelligence or will. Matt. xxiv. 36. no man knoweth......but my Father only. Mark xiii. 32. neither the Son, but the Father. John vi. 38. I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. Those therefore whose understanding and will are not numerically the same, cannot have the same essence. Nor is there any mode of evadp. 103ing this conclusion, inasmuch as the Son himself has thus expressed himself even with regard to his own divine nature. See also Matt. xxvi. 42. and v. 53. thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? Mark xiv. 36. Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me, &c. Luke xxii. 29. I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me. xxiii. 46. Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. John xii. 27. Father, save me from this hour. If these prayers be uttered only in his human capacity, which is the common solution, why does he petition these things from the Father alone instead of from himself, if he were God? Or rather, supposing him to be at once man and the supreme God, why does he ask at all for what was in his own power?⁶ What need was there for the union of the divine and human nature in one person, if he himself, being equal to the Father, gave back again into his hands every thing that he had received from him?

¶2 cont. 2With regard to his supreme goodness. Matt. xix. 17. why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. We need not be surprised that Christ should refuse to accept the adulatory titles which were wont to be given to the Pharisees, and on this account should receive the young man with less kindness than usual; but when he says, there is none good but one, that is, God, it is evident that he did not choose to be considered essentially the same with that one God; for otherwise this would only have been disclaiming the credit of goodness in one character, for the purpose of assuming it in another. John vi. 32. my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. v. 65. no man can come unto me—that is, to me, both God and man—except it were given unto him of my Father.

¶2 cont. 3With regard to his supreme glory. Matt. xviii. 10. their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. John xvii. 4. I have glorified thee on the earth. Nay, it is to those who obey the Father that the promise of true wisdom is made even with regard to p. 104the knowing Christ himself, which is the very point now in question. John vii. 17, 18. if any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself: he that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory; but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. xv. 8. herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. Matt. vii. 21. not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father that is in heaven. xii. 50. whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

¶2 cont. 4Thus Christ assigns every attribute of the Deity to the Father alone. The apostles uniformly speak in a similar manner. Rom. xv. 5, 6. the God of patience and consolation grant you to be like minded one toward another, according to Christ Jesus. xvi. 25—27. to him that is of power to stablish you......according to the commandment of the everlasting God......to God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ—our Lord, as the Vetus Interpres and some of the Greek manuscripts read it. 1 Tim. vi. 13—16. I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who witnessed a good confession......until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which in his times he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords; who alone hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen, nor can see; to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

¶3With regard to his works. See Rom. xvi. 25—27. 1 Tim. vi. 13—16. as quoted above. 2 Cor. i. 21, 22. now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; who hath also sealed us. Now the God which stablisheth us, is one God. 1 Pet. i. 2. elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. Even those works which regard the Son himself, or which were done in him. Acts v. 30—33. the God of our fathers raised up Jesus......him hath p. 105God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. Gal. i. 1. by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. Rom. x. 9. if thou shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 1 Cor. vi. 14. God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise us up by his own power. 1 Thess. i. 10. to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead. Heb. x. 5. sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me. 1 Pet. i. 21. who by him do believe in God that raised him up from the dead. So many are the texts wherein the Son is said to be raised up by the Father alone, which ought to have greater weight than the single passage in St. John, ii. 19. destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up—where he spake briefly and enigmatically, without explaining his meaning to enemies who were unworthy of a fuller answer, on which account he thought it unnecessary to mention the power of the Father.

¶4With regard to divine honours. For as the Son uniformly pays worship and reverence to the Father alone, so he teaches us to follow the same practice. Matt. vi. 6. pray to thy Father. v. 9. after this manner therefore pray ye; Our Father, which art in heaven, &c. xviii. 19. as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. Luke xi. 1, 2. teach us to pray, &c. and he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father, which art in heaven. John ii. 16. make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. iv. 21—23. the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him. xv. 16. that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. xvi. 23. in that day ye shall ask me nothing; ......whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Rom. i. 8, 9. first, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all...... for God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, &c. v. 11. we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ. vii. 25. I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. xv. 6. that ye p. 106may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Cor. i. 4. I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ. 2 Cor. i. 3. blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort. Gal. i. 4, 5. who gave himself......according to the will of God and our Father; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Eph. i. 3. blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, &c. ii. 18. for through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. iii. 14. for this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. v. 20, 21. now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly, above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus, throughout all ages, world without end. Philipp. i. 2, 3. grace be unto you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. I thank my God upon every remembrance of you. See also Col. i. 3. and iii. 17. whatsoever ye do......do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. 1 Thess. i. 2, 3. we give thanks to God for you all, making mention of you in our prayers; remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father. v. 9, 10. to serve the living and true God; and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead. See also 2 Thess. i. 2, 3. and 2 Tim. i. 3. I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers. Now the forefathers of Paul served God the Father alone. See also Philem. 4, 5. and 1 Pet. i. 3. and iv. 10. as every man hath received the gift......let him speak as the oracles of God......as of the ability which God giveth, that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ. James i. 27. pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father, is this. 1 John ii. 1. we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 John 4—6. walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father ......this is love, that we walk after his commandments. Rev. i. 6. who made us kings and priests unto God and His Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Matt. xxi. 12. Jesus went into the p. 107temple of God. Here however my opponents quote the passage from Malachi, iii. 1. the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant. I answer, that in prophetical language these words signify the coming of the Lord into the flesh, or into the temple of the body, as it is expressed John ii. 21. For the Jews sought no one in the temple as an object of worship, except the Father; and Christ himself in the same chapter has called the temple his Father's house, and not his own. Nor were they seeking God, but that Lord and messenger of the covenant; that is, him who was sent from God as the mediator of the covenant;—he it was who should come to his Church, which the prophets generally express figuratively under the image of the temple. So also where the terms God and man are put in opposition to each other, the Father stands exclusively for the one God. James iii. 9. therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. 1 John ii. 15, 16. if any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him: for all that is in the world......is not of the Father, but of the world.

¶1p. 77 At Filius aliquoties Deus, immo Jehova dicitur; divina etiam omnia Filio quoque attribuuntur, ut multis cum veteris tum novi fœderis ex locis acriter disputant.

¶2Hoc itaque alterum ex iis est quod initio demonstrandum suscepi; quoniam ex analogia scripturæ jam satis ostendi ubi Patris et Filii mentio simul fit, nomen, attributa, opera Dei, divinum denique honorem uni ac soli Deo Patri semper attribui, ut nunc ostendam, sicubi hæc Filio tribuuntur, id ita fieri ut primario ac proprie Patri soli attribuenda hæc esse omnia, facile possit intelligi.

¶3Notandum enim imprimis est Dei nomen, Dei Patris voluntate atque concessione, etiam angelis, etiam hominibus (quanto magis unigenito Filio, Patris imagini,) haud raro impertiri.

¶4Angelis. Psal. viii. 6. minorem diis. et xcvii. 7, 9. cum Heb. i. 6. Judicibus. Exod. xxi. 6. sistet eum Dominus ejus coram diis vel magistratibus. et xxii. 8, 9, 28. idem. Psal. lxxxii. 1, 6. ego dixi, dii estis et filii excelsi vos omnes. Et toti domui Davidis, sive omnibus sanctis. Zech. xii. 8. erit domus Davidis ut dii, et angelus coram illis.

¶5Attribuitur etiam vox אֱלֹהִים pluralis numeri cum sit, (ne plurali plures personas in Deo significari putemus) uni angelo. Judic. xiii. 21. cum 22. tunc novit Manoa eum angelum Jehovæ esse, quapropter dixit Manoa uxori suæ, omnino morituri sumus, nam Deum vidimus. Uni Deo falso. Exod. xx. 3. non erunt tibi dii alii. Dagoni. Judic. xvi. 23. Et singulis idolis. 1 Reg. xi. 33. Et Mosi. Exod. iv. 16. et vii. 1. Et soli Deo Patri. Psal. ii. 7. et xlv. 8. et sæpissime.

¶6Eadem est ratio vocis אֲֽדֹנִים Domini, numero quidem plurali, sensu autem singulari; et cum affixis pluralibus Hebræorum more; et אֲֽדֹנַי cum vocali Patha, de uno homine; cum vocali Kamets, de uno Deo, aut uno angelo Dei personam gerente, passim occurrit.

¶7p. 78 Hæc sedulo ab ipsis Grammaticis et Lexicographis annotata fere sunt, ut etiam in voce בַּעַל appellative sumpta: idem fortasse de propriis nominibus בְּעָלִים et עשתְרִית censendum. Nam et apud Græcos vox δεσπότης, id est, Dominus, numero itidem plurali, sensu singulari reverentiæ nimirum et honoris causa usurpari solet. Sic apud Euripidem Iphigen. in Aulid. λίαν δεσπόταισι πιστὸς εἶ, pro δεσπότῃ.^la9 et rursus εὐκλεές τοι δεσποτῶν θνήσκειν ὕπερ, pro δεσπότου. Sic nuntius in Rheso et nuntius in Bacchis.

¶8Hæc omnia idcirco attendenda, ne quis imperitia linguarum hallucinatus, voce Elohim cum singulari adjungitur, plurium personarum unam essentiam significari, continuo sibi persuadeat. Etenim in eo siquid est, quot illa vox personas, totidem Deos innuit. Quid, quod voci Elohim nunc adjectivum nunc verbum plurale adjunctum reperitur; quod non personas tantum, sed etiam naturas significaret plures, si quid hujusmodi in syntaxi positum esset. Deut. v. 32. Deorum viventium. Jos. xxiv. 19. Dii sancti ille. Sic Jer. x. 10. Gen. xx. 13. cum me errare facerent Dii. Quid, quod occurrit etiam nonnunquam singularis אֱלֹהַּ Deut. xxxii. 18. et sæpe alias. Et nomen singulare אָדוֹן Dominus Jehovæ adjungitur, Exod. xxiii. 17. Et cum affixo singulari tribuitur Christo, Psal. cx. 1. dictum Jehovæ לַאדֹנִי Domino meo. quibus verbis propheta Christum etiam summi honoris causa Dominum hic nominatum, et alterum ab Jehova, et, si qua affixo fides, minorem dicit. At cum Patrem alloquitur, v. 5. mutato affixo אֲדֹנָי inquit, Dominus qui sedet ad dextram tuam franget &c.

¶9Nomen autem Dei videtur attributum angelis fuisse, propterea quod divinitus missi, divinæ speciem gloriæ atque personæ, immo verba ipsa Dei præ se tulerunt. ut Gen. xxi. 17, 18. et xxii. 11, 12, 15. per meipsum juro, dictum Jehovæ. Nempe quæ vox prophetis in ore tam crebro erat, alibi quidem intelligitur, hic exprimitur, ut intelligamus tandem angelos sive nuntios, tametsi loquentis Dei nomen atque personam sustinere videntur, non sua tamen verba sed mittentis Dei jussa annuntiare. p. 79Sic ipse credidit patriarcha Jacobus. Gen. xxxi. 11, 12, 13. dixit mihi angelus Dei, vidi quicquid Laban facit tibi. Ego sum Deus ille Bethelis &c. et xxxii. 30. Deum vidi hisce oculis in os, cum Hos. xii. 4, 5. principem se gessit cum Deo, cum angelo. Exod. xxiv. 10, 11. aspexerunt Deum Israelis; postquam intuiti essent Deum ipsum. Deut. iv. 33. num audierit ullus populus vocem Dei loquentis e medio ignis, ut tu audisti, et vixerit? et tamen Exod. xxxiii. 20. non potest homo videre me et vivere. Et Joan. i. 18. Deum nemo vidit unquam. et v. 37. neque vocem ejus unquam audivistis, neque speciem ejus vidistis. 1 Tim. vi. 16. lucem habitans inaccessam, quem vidit nemo hominum, neque videre potest. Qui igitur auditus quique visus fuit, sequitur Deum non fuisse; ne ubi Dei quidem, immo Jehovæ et angelorum simul fit mentio. Gen. xxviii. 12, 13. ecce angelos; ecce Jehovam. 1 Reg. xxii. 19. vidi Jehovam &c. et totum exercitum cœli &c. Isa. vi. 1, 2. vidi Dominum &c. Seraphim astantes &c. Non ipsum, inquam, Deum vidit, sed quempiam puta angelum parte aliqua indutum divinæ gloriæ, vel ipsum Dei Filium, paternæ gloriæ imaginem; ut Joan. xii. 41. quum vidit gloriam ejus. Si enim ejusdem fuisset essentiæ, non magis potuisset aspici, ne audiri quidem magis quam ipse Pater, ut infra uberius ostendetur. Hinc exanimati erant homines etiam sanctissimi viso angelo quasi vidissent ipsum Deum. Gen. xxxii. 30. Deum vidi, cum Judic. vi. 22. quum vidit Gideon angelum Jehovæ eum esse, dixit, Aha Domine Jehova, quandoquidem vidi angelum Jehovæ in os. et cap. xiii. 21, 22. ut supra. Judicibus idcirco impertitum est Dei nomen, quod ii vices Dei in judiciis exercendis quodammodo gerant. Utroque hoc modo, sive ut angelus, sive ut judex, Filius, et longe quidem præstantiore Deus, ea ipsa defensione apud Judæos pro se uti haud alienum est arbitratus, cum ab iis blasphemiæ accusaretur quod se fecisset Deum. Joan. x. 34, 35, 36. respondit Jesus, Nonne scriptum est &c. ego dixi, dii estis? si illos dixit deos ad quos sermo Dei factus est, et non potest solvi scriptura, me quem Pater sanctificavit et misit in mundum, vos dicitis blasphemare quia dixi, Filius Dei sum? præsertim cum judices filios excelsi Deus ipse dixerit ut supra. Hinc 1 Cor. viii. 4, 5. etiamsi sint qui dicantur dii et in cœlo et in terra (sicut sunt dii multi et domini multi) nobis tamen unus est p. 80Deus, Pater ille a quo omnia, et nos in ipso, et unus Dominus Jesus Christus per quem omnia, et nos per ipsum.

¶1–2p. 107 But it is strenuously urged on the other hand, that the Son is sometimes called God, and even Jehovah; and that all the attributes of the Deity are assigned to him likewise in many passages both of the Old and New Testament. We arrive therefore at the other point which I originally undertook to prove; and since it has been already shown from the analogy of Scripture, that where the Father and the Son are mentioned together, the name, and attributes, and works of the Deity, as well as divine honours, are always assigned to the one and only God the Father, I will now demonstrate, that whenever the same properties are assigned to the Son, it is in such a manner as to make it easily intelligible that they ought all primarily and properly to be attributed to the Father alone.

¶3–7It must be observed in the first place, that the name of God is not unfrequently ascribed, by the will and concession of God the Father, p. 108even to angels and men,—how much more then to the only begotten Son, the image of the Father. To angels. Psal. xcvii. 7, 9. worship him all ye gods....thou art high above all the earth; thou art exalted far above all gods, compared with Heb. i. 6. See also Psal. viii. 5. To judges. Exod. xxii. 28. thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people. See also, in the Hebrew, Exod. xxi. 6. xxii. 8, 9. Psal. lxxxii. 1, 6. he judgeth among the gods. I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High. To the whole house of David, or to all the saints. Zech. xii. 8. the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them. The word אֱלֹהִים, though it be of the plural number, is also employed to signify a single angel, in case it should be thought that the use of the plural implies a plurality of persons in the Godhead: Judges xiii. 21. then Manoah knew that he was an angel of Jehovah: and Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God. The same word is also applied to a single false god. Exod. xx. 3. thou shalt have no other gods before me. To Dagon. Judges xvi. 23. To single idols. 1 Kings xi. 33. To Moses. Exod. iv. 16. and vii. 1. To God the Father alone. Psal. ii. 7. xlv. 7. and in many other places. Similar to this is the use of the word אֲֽדֹנִים, the Lord, in the plural number with a singular meaning; and with a plural affix according to the Hebrew mode. The word אֲֽדֹנַי also with the vowel Patha is frequently employed to signify one man, and with the vowel Kamets to signify one God, or one angel bearing the character of God. This peculiarity in the above words has been carefully noticed by the grammarians and lexicographers themselves, as well as in בַּעַל used appellatively. The same thing may perhaps be remarked of the proper names בְּעָלִים and עַשְׁהָרות. For even among the Greeks the word δεσπότης, that is, Lord, is also used in the plural number in the sense of the singular, when extraordinary respect and honour are intended to be paid. Thus in the Iphigenia in Aulis of Euripides, λίαν δεσπόταισι πιστὸς εἶ, (l. 304, Beck's edition) for δεσπότῃ, and again εὐκλεές τοι δεσποτῶν θνήσκειν ὕπερ (l. 312) for δεσπότου. It is also used in the Rhesus and the Bacchæ in the same manner.⁷

¶8p. 109 Attention must be paid to these circumstances, lest any one through ignorance of the language should erroneously suppose, that whenever the word Elohim is joined with a singular, it is intended to intimate a plurality of persons in unity of essence. But if there be any significance at all in this peculiarity, the word must imply as many Gods, as it does persons. Besides, a plural adjective or a plural verb is sometimes joined to the word Elohim, which, if a construction of this kind could mean anything, would signify not a plurality of persons only, but also of natures. See in the Hebrew Deut. v. 26. Josh. xxiv. 19. Jer. x. 10. Gen. xx. 13. Further, the singular אֱלֹהַּ also sometimes occurs, Deut. xxxii. 18. and elsewhere. It is also attributed to Christ with the singular affix. Psal. cx. 1. לַאדֹנִי Jehovah said unto my Lord, in which passage the Psalmist speaks of Christ (to whom the name of Lord is assigned as a title of the highest honour) both as distinct from Jehovah, and, if any reliance can be placed on the affix, as inferior to Jehovah. But when he addresses the Father, the affix is changed, and he says, v. 5. אֲדֹנָי, the Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.

¶9The name of God seems to be attributed to angels,⁸ because as heavenly messengers they bear the appearance of the divine glory and person, and even speak in the very words of the Deity. Gen. xxi. 17, 18. xxii. 11, 12, 15, 16. by myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah. For p. 110the expression which was so frequently in the mouth of the prophets, and which is elsewhere often omitted, is here inserted, that it may be understood that angels and messengers do not declare their own words, but the commands of God who sends them, even though the speaker seem to bear the name and character of the Deity himself. So believed the patriarch Jacob; Gen. xxxi. 11—13. the angel of God spake unto me, saying....I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee. I am the God of Bethel, &c. xxxii. 30. I have seen God face to face; compared with Hos. xii. 4, 5. he had power with God, yea, he had power over the angel. Exod. xxiv. 10, 11. they saw the God of Israel... also they saw God. Deut. iv. 33. did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live? Yet it is said, Exod. xxxiii. 20. there shall no man see me, and live. John i. 18. no man hath seen God at any time. v. 37. ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. 1 Tim. vi. 16. dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen, nor can see. It follows therefore that whoever was heard or seen, it was not God; not even where mention is made of God, nay even of Jehovah himself, and of the angels in the same sentence. Gen. xxviii. 12, 13. behold the angels of God....and behold, Jehovah stood above them. 1 Kings xxii. 19. I saw Jehovah sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him. Isai. vi. 1, 2. I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne.....above it stood the seraphim. I repeat, it was not God himself that he saw, but perhaps one of the angels clothed in some modification of the divine glory, or the Son of God himself, the image of the glory of his Father, as John understands the vision, xii. 41. these things said Esaias, when he saw his glory. For if he had been of the same essence, he could no more have been seen or heard than the Father himself, as will be more fully shewn hereafter. Hence even the holiest of men were troubled in mind when they had seen an angel, as if they had seen God himself. Gen. xxxii. 30. I have seen God. Judges vi. 22. when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of Jehovah, Gideon said, Alas, O Lord Jehovah, for because I have seen an angel of Jehovah face to face. See also xiii. 21, 22. as before.

¶9 cont.p. 111 The name of God is ascribed to judges, because they occupy the place of God to a certain degree in the administration of judgement. The Son, who was entitled to the name of God both in the capacity of a messenger and of a judge, and indeed in virtue of a much better right,⁹ did not think it foreign to his character, when the Jews accused him of blasphemy because he made himself God, to allege in his own defence the very reason which has been advanced. John x. 34—36. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?—especially when God himself had called the judges, sons of the Most High, as has been stated before. Hence 1 Cor. viii. 4, 5. for though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

¶1p. 80 Hac ratione Filium esse Deum, loca ipsa præcipua quæ ad asserendam ejus deitatem afferuntur, perpensa diligenter et considerata satis declarant. Joan. i. 1. in principio erat sermo, et sermo erat ad vel apud Deum, eratque sermo Deus. In principio, inquit; non ab æterno. Sermo; audibilis ergo: at Deus, ut invisibilis est, ita et est inaudibilis. Joan. v. 37. non igitur ejusdem essentiæ sermo cum Deo. Apud Deum, eratque Deus: nimirum quia apud Deum, in sinu videlicet Patris, ut infra, v. 18. Num ergo unus essentia cum eo ad vel apud quem est? Certe non magis quam discipulus ille unus erat essentia cum Christo cujus in sinu recumbebat, cap. xiii. 23. Respuit enim hoc ratio: scriptura nusquam dicit; humana igitur commenta relinquamus. Ipsum evangelistam sui interpretem sequamur. Apoc. xix. 13. vocatur nomen ejus, sermo ille Dei: nempe unius Dei, persona ipse distincta. A quo distincta? a Deo videlicet eoque uno. Quo pacto igitur et ipse Deus? eodem nimirum quo sermo dictus est, quo Filius unigenitus; voluntate unius Dei. Quæ ratio videtur esse, cur versu secundo repetat, hic erat in principio ad vel apud Deum: inculcans id quod maxime nos velit animadvertere, non fuisse eum in principio Deum, sed fuisse eum in principio ad vel apud Deum; ut ostenderet eum proximitate solum et dilectione, non essentia Deum fuisse: id quod evangelista innumeris infra locis evangelii sui sic explanat.

¶2Alter locus est vox illa Thomæ, Joan. xx. 28. Domine mi et Deus mi. Credulus plus nimio sit is oportet, qui ex hac Thomæ abrupta exclamatione, novam fidei confessionem cæteris discipulis incognitam elicere conetur, præ admiratione non modo Christum Dominum suum sed et Deum majorum suorum, Deum scilicet Patrem inclamantis, ac si dixisset, Domine! quid video, quid audio, quid manibus tracto? Is, quem hic Deum Thomæ dici volunt, ipse paulo ante fassus de se erat v. 17. ascendo ad Deum meum et Deum vestrum. Dei autem Deus essentia unus esse non potest cum eo cujus Deus est; nunc utrius ex p. 81voce fidem nostram tutius informabimus, Christi diserte docentis, an Thomæ novitii, modo increduli, nunc subito præ admiratione et ecstasi quadam abrupte exclamantis, siquidem Christum Deum suum appellavit. Illatis enim digitis, quem tetigit, nempe hominem, quasi nescius quid diceret, Deum dixit. Neque enim credibile est, unionem hypostaticam in jus^la1 personæ sic repente intellexisse, cujus surrectionem modo non credidit. Laudatur itaque Petri fides, qui duntaxat Filium Dei viventis dixerat: beatus es Simon, Matt. xvi. 16, 17. Fides Thomæ, quamvis ad deitatem Christi asserendam, ut vulgo volunt, multo illustrior, non laudatur, immo extenuatur, et tantum non reprehenditur versu sequente; quia vidisti me, Thoma, credidisti; beati qui non viderunt, et crediderunt. Et tamen, quamvis tarditas credentis meruerit culpam, testimonii certe tanta quanta nusquam alias de Christo Deo, si plerique recte interpretantur, perspicuitas aliquam profecto laudem tulisset; tulit nullam. Quid igitur vetat hoc loco, quod dixi supra, Domine mi de Christo, Deus mi, de Deo Patre intelligi, qui Christum tam mirifice suscitando a mortuis jam suum esse Filium testatus esset?

¶3Sic Heb. i. 8. ad Filium, vel, de Filio, thronus tuus, Deus, in sæculum. At v. 9. dilexisti justitiam &c. propterea unxit te Deus, Deus tuus, oleo exultationis ultra consortes tuos; ubi singula pene verba indicant, qua ratione Christus Deus sit; et ad quidvis aliud potius citari ab hoc auctore verba illa Jehovæ, Ps. xlv. per os amasiarum, quam ad æqualitatem Filii cum Patre ostendendam, cum et hæc de Solomone etiam ibidem dicta sint; qui et Deus dici potuit utpote re^la2 annuente etiam scriptura.

¶4Atque hæc tria, eorum quæ afferuntur, certissima propemodum sunt loca: nam ex illo Matt. i. 23. vocabunt, sic enim plerique Græci codices, nomen ejus Immanuel; quod est si interpreteris, nobiscum Deus, non sequitur eum quem sic vocent necessario esse Deum, sed duntaxat a Deo missum; quemadmodum cecinit Zacharias Luc. i. 68, 69. benedictus Dominus Deus Israelis quod inviserit et redemerit populum suum, et erexerit &c. Neque ex illo Act. xvi. 31, 34. crede in Dominum Jesum p. 82Christum. Exultavit cum tota domo quod credidisset Deo. Non enim hinc sequitur, ergo Christus est Deus; neque enim Christum esse ultimum fidei objectum apostoli explanate usquam tradiderunt: sed verba sunt historici succincte loquentis id quod apostoli sine dubio explicatius docuerunt, ut crederent Deo Patri per Christum. Neque ex illo cap. xx. 28. ecclesiam Dei, quam per proprium sanguinem acquisivit: nam id est, per proprium Filium, ut alibi: Deus enim proprie sanguinem non habet; et quid frequentius quam sanguis pro sobole dicitur? Verum Syriaca versio non Dei, sed Christi ecclesiam scribit; ut nostra recens Domini ecclesiam. Neque vero Græcorum codicum certa hic fides est; quorum quinque teste Beza legunt τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ; et suspicatur is τοῦ Κυρίου ex margine irrepsisse; cum proclivius sit suspicari irrepsisse, quod additum est, καὶ Θεοῦ. Neque ex illo Rom. ix. 5. qui est supra omnes Deus benedictus in sæcula, Amen. Primum enim apud Hilarium et Cyprianum hoc loco Deus non legitur; uti nec apud alios patres nonnullos, si qua Erasmo fides: qui etiam ex varia interpunctione, in dubium vocari hujus loci sententiam posse ostendit, utrum de Filio, an potius de Patre intelligenda hæc clausula sit. Sed fac illibata hæc esse; fac de Filio dici; essentiam non attingunt, honorem duntaxat divinum a Patre cum Filio communicatum innuunt; et primum quod sit Deus dictus, ut supra copiose ostendimus. At interpellant, quæ verba habentur de Patre, Rom. i. 25. præterito creatore, qui est benedictus in sæcula, amen, eadem nunc de Filio repetuntur; Filius ergo est Patri æqualis. Immo vero inquam superior quam Pater, si hæc ratio ullius est usus: hic enim additur supra omnes: sed meminerunt intelligi sit^la3 debere, ut Joan. iii. 31, 32. qui superne venit, supra omnes est, qui e cœlo venit, supra omnes est. His verbis natura etiam divina diserte significatur, et tamen quod vidit et audivit hoc testatur; quæ verba non a seipso venisse, sed missum et obsequentem Patri declarant. Mediatorem nempe dices. At inquam mediator esse non potuit, mitti et obsequi non potuit, nisi natura minor Deo et Patre. Itaque deposito etiam mediatoris munere, quantus quantus demum erit, aut unquam fuit, subjiciendus est Deo ac Patri. Ita igitur supra omnes est, ut is semper p. 83excipiendus sit, qui subjecit ei omnia 1 Cor. xv. 27. adeoque supra eum ipsum est cui omnia subjecit. Benedictus denique si est, benedictionem etiam tam ut homo quam ut Deus, divinumque honorem accepit. Apoc. v. 12. dignus est agnus ille mactatus, qui accipiat potestatem et divitias et vires et honorem et gloriam et benedictionem. inde v. 13. ei qui insidet throno et agno benedictio et honor et gloria et robur, in sæcula sæculorum. Et ille locus 1 Tim. iii. 16. Deus conspicuus factus in carne, incerta lectione gravius etiam laborat: apud Ambrosium enim et veterem interpretem Deus hic non legitur, cum magno vetustorum exemplarium consensu; teste rursus Erasmo. Utcunque hæc sint, obscurum non est locum hunc totum de Deo Patre simul cum Filio intelligi oportere, si recte attendatur: summum enim pietatis mysterium non est Christus, sed Deus Pater in Christo, ut patet Col. ii. 2. ad cognitionem mysterii Dei ac Patris et Christi. 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. hæc autem omnia sunt ex Deo, qui reconciliavit nos sibi per Jesum Christum: nempe quia Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi, non imputando eis offensas eorum. Quidni igitur per omnia reconciliationis munera, quæ hoc ad Timotheum loco recensentur, Deus Pater in Christo fuerit? Deus conspicuus factus est in carne, nempe in Filio, imagine sua, alioqui invisibilis: non venit Christus ut se, sed ut Patrem conspicuum faceret, Joan. xiv. 8, 9. justificatus est in spiritu; quis enim justificetur potius quam Pater? conspectus est ab angelis; in hoc scilicet mysterium introspicere cupientibus, 1 Pet. i. 12. prædicatus est gentibus; Pater nimirum in Christo. fides illi habita est in mundo; cui potissimum, nisi Patri per Christum? sursum receptus est in gloriam; nempe in Filio qui fuit, facta reconciliatione, reversus cum Filio est in gloriam, vel recepit se in gloriam, quam in Filio summam reportaverat. Quid plura? qui receptam tueri sententiam omnino malunt, hæc non de Patre, sed tantum de Filio dici, cum de utroque dispari licet ratione dici possunt, Filium quidem esse Deum facile obtinuerint, non enim ibimus inficias; Deum esse summum cum Patre unum, nequaquam ex hoc loco probaverint.

¶5Proximus est locus Tit. ii. 13. apparentiam gloriæ magni Dei ac servatoris nostri Jesu Christi. Nam et intelligi hic potest gloria Dei p. 84Patris cum qua Christus sit adventurus Matt. xvi. 27. ut ex analogia scripturæ intellexit Ambrosius: vis enim tota arguendi ab articulo pendet, qui sine momento fere græcis nominibus vel adesse potest vel abesse, vel utrique nomini communis esse: et sane aliis in linguis ubi usus articuli nullus est, vel de uno vel de duobus æque possunt verba ista intelligi: et sine articulo eadem pene verba de duobus proferuntur Philipp. i. 2. et Philem. 3; nisi quod pro μεγάλου illic πατρὸς adjicitur: et 2 Pet. i. 1. per justitiam Dei nostri et servatoris nostri Jesu Christi: hic sine articulo repetitum pronomen ἡμῶν de duobus divisim hæc dici demonstrat, ut in græcis codicibus legitur. Et fides certe ea est, in re præsertim cum primis credenda, quæ non ex locis aliud agentibus, lectione etiam nonnunquam varia atque sensu dubiis, unde exprimi et quasi extorqueri, non ex articulis aut particulis aucupio quodam captari, non ex ambiguis aut obscuris quasi Pythia responsa erui, sed ex clarissimis fontibus pleno ore hauriri debeat. Hæc enim est evangelii præ lege præstantia, hæc aperta simplicitas, hæc vera lux et promissa doctrinæ perspicuitas. Postremo qui magnum Deum dicit, neque summum continuo neque cum Patre dicit essentia unum; nec tamen ea ratione Christum esse Deum magnum negat, qua supra demonstratum est.

¶6Affertur etiam locus ex 1 Joan. iii. 16. charitatem Dei, quod ille animam suam pro nobis posuit. Sed hic Syrus interpres pro Dei legit illius, et annon alii codices videndum: pronomen ille ἐκεῖνος videtur non ad Deum, sed ad Filium Dei referendum; ut ex collatis superioribus hujus epistolæ capitibus, et hujus capitis versibus 1, 2, 5, 8. colligitur; et ex Rom. v. 8. commendat suam erga nos charitatem Deus, eo quod cum &c. Christus pro nobis mortuus sit. Charitas igitur Dei charitas Patris est, qua is mundum ita dilexit, ut per proprium sanguinem acquisiverit, Act. xx. 28. et hic animam suam, id est, unigeniti Filii, posuerit ac dederit, ut ex Joan. iii. 16. et plurimorum locorum analogia interpretandum est. Quid si etiam animam suam pro dilectissimi vita Filii apostolus intellectam voluit? cum nos quotidiano usu loquendi, amicum quemque dilectissimum, animam sæpe et partem animæ dicere soleamus.

¶7p. 85 Palmarius locus, ut putatur, est 1 Joan. v. et decerpta pars versus vigesimi: nam si integer legatur, non id efficit cujus causa adducitur. sed scimus Filium Dei venisse, et dedisse nobis mentem, ut cognoscamus verum illum: et sumus in vero illo, in ejus Filio Jesu Christo; hic est verus ille Deus et vita æterna. Sumus enim in vero illo in ejus filio, id est, quatenus in illius veri filio sumus, hic est verus ille Deus; nimirum is qui modo verus ille dicebatur, omisso illic Deo hic addito: etenim is est ille verus, quem ut cognosceremus, venisse scimus Filium Dei, et mentem nobis dedisse, non is qui illius veri Filius dicitur, quamvis proxime nominatus: ipse enim sensus communis flagitat ut articulus hic ad illum verum de quo potissimum agitur, non ad illius veri Filium referatur. Similia exempla non desunt. Act. iv. 10, 11. et x. 16. 2 Thess. ii. 8, 9. 2 Joan. 7. conferatur denique Joan. xvii. 3. cum quo loco locus iste, transpositis duntaxat verbis, sensu consentire prorsus videtur. At, inquies, ex aliquot superioribus locis Christus est Deus: si autem solus verus Deus est Pater, Christus non est verus Deus; si non verus, ergo falsus. Respondeo, id propere nimis arripi: potest enim esse non verus ille, vel quia imago duntaxat est illius veri, vel quia illo vero minorem se passim declarat. Nobis hoc semper licebit non dicere de Christo quod scriptura non dicit. Deum dicit scriptura; Deum illum verum non dicit: in hoc nos cur non acquiescimus? falsus sane Deus dicendus is non est, cum quo Deus ille verus utpote dilecto Filio divinam suam potentiam ac gloriam communicavit. Affertur et Philipp. ii. 6. qui in forma Dei existens. Hoc autem non magis Deum esse demonstrat, quam quod sequitur, formam servi accipiens, demonstrat re vera fuisse servum: etenim forma pro ipso esse apud sacros scriptores nusquam legitur: quod si forma Dei pro forma essentiali contenderint hic sumi, non effugerint iidem, quin posita forma ponatur et materia, ponatur et efficiens Dei, quod merito negabant. Idem igitur videtur esse in forma ac si in imagine Dei dictum esset; quod sæpe de Christo dicitur, sicut et de homine, ratione licet longe inferiore, et imaginem eum esse Dei, et in imagine Dei esse, videlicet creatum. Plura de hoc loco infra adjiciemus. Postremus affertur locus ex Judæ v. 4. et solum dominatorem Deum p. 86ac Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum negant. Quis hic despotam sive dominatorem et Dominum non verbose nimis in unum quemlibet simul conferri dixerit? quis non potius de duobus hæc dici, de Patre nimirum solo Deo, ac Domino nostro Jesu Christo, ex collatis aliunde innumeris locis id clare confirmantibus, judicaverit? sed qui ex articulis nescio quam vim elicere solent, propterea quod hic duorum nominum priori duntaxat articulus futilitatis vitandæ causa Græce præponitur, de eodem dici posterius etiam nomen contendunt. Quod si ea vis articulorum esset, quo pacto carere iis cæteræ linguæ possent, non video. Multo minus valuerint citata ex Vetere in Novo Testamento loca, si ad aliud vel plus probandum adhibentur quam ille scriptor evangelicus probandum sibi proposuit. Eo in genere sunt Psal. lxviii. 18, 19, 20. curruum Dei duæ myriades &c. Dominus cum illis. Ascendens in sublime &c. accepisti dona hominibus. Hic præter quasdam elleipses, quas pro suo arbitrio interpretes varie supplere audent, duorum fit mentio, Dei et Domini: quod contra ipsos facit qui, collato hoc loco cum Eph. iv. 5. 8. Christi summam deitatem hinc asserere conantur: quod apostolo in mentem non venerat; ut qui longe secus disputet v. 9. illud ASCENDIT quid est, nisi quod etiam descenderet prius in infimas partes terræ? unde hoc tantum voluit ostendere, Christum Dominum modo mortuum, nunc cœlo receptum, hominibus dedisse dona quæ a Patre acceperat.

¶1p. 111 Even the principal texts themselves which are brought forward to prove the divinity of the Son, if carefully weighed and considered, are sufficient to show that the Son is God in the manner which has been explained. John i. 1. in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It is not said, from everlasting, but in the beginning. The Word,—therefore the Word was audible. But God, as he cannot be seen, so neither can he be heard; John v. 37. The Word therefore is not of the same essence with God. The Word was with God, and was God,—namely, because he was with God, that is, in the bosom of the Father, as it is expressed v. 18. Does it follow therefore that he is essentially one with him with whom he was? It no more follows, than that the disciple who was lying on Jesus' breast, John p. 112xiii. 23. was essentially one with Christ. Reason rejects the doctrine; Scripture nowhere asserts it; let us therefore abandon human devices, and follow the evangelist himself; who is his own interpreter. Rev. xix. 13. his name is called The Word of God—that is, of the one God: he himself is a distinct person. If therefore he be a distinct person, he is distinct from God, who is unity. How then is he himself also God? By the same right as he enjoys the title of the Word, or of the only begotten Son, namely, by the will of the one God. This seems to be the reason why it is repeated in the second verse—the same was in the beginning with God; which enforces what the apostle wished we should principally observe, not that he was in the beginning God, but in the beginning with God; that he might show him to be God only by proximity and love, not in essence; which doctrine is consistent with the subsequent explanations of the evangelist in numberless passages of his gospel.

¶2Another passage is the speech of Thomas, John xx. 28. my Lord and my God. He must have an immoderate share of credulity who attempts to elicit a new confession of faith, unknown to the rest of the disciples, from this abrupt exclamation of the apostle, who invokes in his surprize not only Christ his own Lord, but the God of his ancestors, namely, God the Father;—as if he had said, Lord! what do I see—what do I hear—what do I handle with my hands? He whom Thomas is supposed to call God in this passage, had acknowledged respecting himself not long before, v. 17. I ascend unto my God and your God. Now the God of God cannot be essentially one with him whose God he is. On whose word therefore can we ground our faith with most security; on that of Christ, whose doctrine is clear, or of Thomas, a new disciple, first incredulous, then suddenly breaking out into an abrupt exclamation in an ecstasy of wonder, if indeed he really called Christ his God? For having reached out his fingers, he called the man whom he touched, as if unconscious of what he was saying, by the name of God. Neither is it credible that he should have so quickly understood the hypostatic union of that person whose resurrection he had just before disbelieved. Accordingly the faith of Peter is comp. 113mended—blessed art thou, Simon—for having only said—thou art the Son of the living God, Matt. xvi. 16, 17. The faith of Thomas, although as it is commonly explained, it asserts the divinity of Christ in a much more remarkable manner, is so far from being praised, that it is undervalued, and almost reproved in the next verse—Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And yet, though the slowness of his belief may have deserved blame, the testimony borne by him to Christ as God, which, if the common interpretation be received as true, is clearer than occurs in any other passage, would undoubtedly have met with some commendation; whereas it obtains none whatever. Hence there is nothing to invalidate that interpretation of the passage which has been already suggested, referring the words—my Lord—to Christ,—my God—to God the Father, who had just testified that Christ was his Son, by raising him up from the dead in so wonderful a manner.

¶3So too Heb. i. 8. unto the Son—or of the Son—he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. But in the next verse it follows, thou hast loved righteousness, &c. therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows, where almost every word indicates the sense in which Christ is here termed God; and the words of Jehovah put into the mouth of the bridal virgins, Psal. xlv. might have been more properly quoted by this writer for any other purpose than to prove that the Son is co-equal with the Father, since they are originally applied to Solomon, to whom, as properly as to Christ, the title of God might have been given on account of his kingly power, conformably to the language of Scripture.

¶4These three passages are the most distinct of all that are brought forward; for the text in Matt. i. 23. they shall call (for so the great majority of the Greek manuscripts read it¹) his name Immanuel, which p. 114being interpreted is, God with us, does not prove that he whom they were so to call should necessarily be God, but only a messenger from God, according to the song of Zacharias, Luke i. 68, 69. blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us, &c. Nor can anything certain be inferred from Acts xvi. 31, 34. believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,—and he rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. For it does not follow from hence that Christ is God, since the apostles have never distinctly pointed out Christ as the ultimate object of faith; but these are merely the words of the historian, expressing that briefly which there can be no doubt that the apostles inculcated in a more detailed manner,—faith in God the Father through Christ. Nor is the passage in Acts xx. 28. more decisive,—the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood; that is, with his own Son, as it is elsewhere expressed, for God properly speaking has no blood; and no usage is more common than the substitution of the figurative term blood for offspring. But the Syriac version reads, not the Church of God, but the Church of Christ; and in our own recent translation it is, the Church of the Lord.² Nor can any certain dependence be placed on the authority of the Greek manuscripts, five of which read τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ,³ acp. 115cording to Beza, who suspects that the words τοῦ Κυρίου have crept in from the margin, though it is more natural to suppose the words καὶ Θεοῦ to have crept in, on account of their being an addition to the former. The same must be said respecting Rom. ix. 5. who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. For in the first place, Hilary and Cyprian do not read the word God in this passage, nor do some of the other Fathers, if we may believe the authority of Erasmus; who has also shown that the difference of punctuation may raise a doubt with regard to the true meaning of the passage, namely, whether the clause in question should not rather be understood of the Father than of the Son.⁴ But waiving these objections, and supposing that the words are spoken of the Son; they have nothing to do with his essence, but only intimate that divine honour is communicated to the Son by the Father, and particularly that he is called God; which has been already fully shown by other arguments. But, they rejoin, the same words which were spoken of the Father, Rom. i. 25. more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen, are here repeated of the Son; therefore the Son is equal to the Father. If there be any force in this reasoning, it will rather prove that the Son is greater than the Father; for according to the ninth chapter, he is over all, which however, they remind us, ought to be understood in the same sense as John iii. 31, 32. he that cometh from above, is above all; he that cometh from heaven is above all. In these words even the divine nature is clearly implied, and yet, what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth, which language affirms that he came not of himself, but was sent from the Father, and was obedient to him. It will be answered, that it is only his mediatorial character which is intended. But he never could have become a mediator, nor could he have been sent from God, or have been obedient to him, unless he had been inferior to God and the Father as to his nature. Therefore also p. 116after he shall have laid aside his functions as mediator, whatever may be his greatness, or whatever it may previously have been, he must be subject to God and the Father. Hence he is to be accounted above all, with this reservation, that he is always to be excepted who did put all things under him, 1 Cor. xv. 27. and who consequently is above him under whom he has put all things. If lastly he be termed blessed, it must be observed that he received blessing as well as divine honour, not only as God, but even as man. Rev. v. 12. worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honour and glory and blessing; and hence, v. 13. blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

¶4 cont.There is a still greater doubt respecting the reading in 1 Tim. iii. 16. God was manifest in the flesh. Here again Erasmus asserts that neither Ambrose nor the Vetus Interpres read the word God in this verse, and that it does not appear in a considerable number of the early copies.⁵ However this may be, it will be clear, when the context is duly examined, that the whole passage must be understood of God the Father in conjunction with the Son. For it is not Christ who is the great mystery of godliness, but God the Father in Christ, as appears from Col. ii. 2. the mystery of God and of the Father, and of Christ. 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ.... to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them. Why therefore should God the Father not be in Christ through the medium of all those offices of reconciliation which the apostle enumerates in this passage of Timothy? God was manifest in the flesh—namely in the Son, his own image; in any other way he is invisible: nor did Christ come to manifest himp. 117self, but his Father, John xiv. 8, 9. Justified in the Spirit—and who should be thereby justified, if not the Father? Seen of angels—inasmuch as they desired to look into this mystery, 1 Pet. i. 12. Preached unto the Gentiles—that is, the Father in Christ. Believed on in the world—and to whom is faith so applicable, as to the Father through Christ? Received up into glory—namely, he who was in the Son from the beginning, after reconciliation had been made, returned with the Son into glory, or was received into that supreme glory which he had obtained in the Son. But there is no need of discussing this text at greater length: those who are determined to defend at all events the received opinion, according to which these several propositions are predicated not of the Father but of the Son alone, when they are in fact applicable both to the one and the other, though on different grounds, may easily establish that the Son is God, a truth which I am far from denying—but they will in vain attempt to prove from this passage that he is the supreme God, and one with the Father.

¶5The next passage is Tit. ii. 13. the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. Here also the glory of God the Father may be intended, with which Christ is to be invested on his second advent, Matt. xvi. 27. as Ambrose understands the passage from the analogy of Scripture. For the whole force of the proof depends upon the definitive article, which may be inserted or omitted before the two nouns in the Greek without affecting the sense; or the article prefixed to one may be common to both.⁶ Besides, in other languages, where the article is not used, the words may be understood to apply indifferently either to one or two persons; and nearly the same words are employed without the article in reference to two persons, Philipp. i. 2. and Philem. 3. except that in the latter passages the word Father is substituted for great. So also 2 Pet. i. 1. through the righteousness of [our] God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. Here the repetition of the pronoun p. 118ἡμῶν without the article, as it is read by some of the Greek manuscripts, shows that two distinct persons are spoken of. And surely what is proposed to us as an object of belief, especially in a matter involving a primary article of faith, ought not to be an inference forced and extorted from passages relating to an entirely different subject, in which the readings are sometimes various, and the sense doubtful,—nor hunted out by careful research from among articles and particles,—nor elicited by dint of ingenuity, like the answers of an oracle, from sentences of dark or equivocal meaning—but should be susceptible of abundant proof from the clearest sources. For it is in this that the superiority of the gospel to the law consists; this, and this alone, is consistent with its open simplicity; this is that true light and clearness which we had been taught to expect would be its characteristic. Lastly, he who calls God, great, does not necessarily call him supreme, or essentially one with the Father; nor on the other hand does he thereby deny that Christ is the great God, in the sense in which he has been above proved to be such.

¶6Another passage which is also produced is 1 John iii. 16. hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us. Here however the Syriac version reads illius instead of Dei, and it remains to be seen whether other manuscripts do the same.⁷ The pronoun he, ἐκεῖνος, seems not to be referred to God, but to the Son of God, as may be concluded from a comparison of the former chapters of this epistle, and the first, second, fifth and eighth verses of the chapter before us, as well as from Rom. v. 8. God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. The love of God, therefore, is the love of the Father, whereby he so loved the world, that he purchased it with his own blood, Acts xx. 28. and for it laid down his life, that is, the life of his only begotten Son, as it may be explained from John iii. 16. and by analogy from many other passages. Nor is it extraordinary that by the phrase, his life, should be understood the life of his beloved Son, since we are ourselves in the habit p. 119of calling any much-loved friend by the title of life, or part of our life, as a term of endearment in familiar discourse.

¶7But the passage which is considered most important of all, is 1 John v. part of the twentieth verse—for if the whole be taken, it will not prove what it is adduced to support. We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, (even) in his Son Jesus Christ: this is the true God, and eternal life. For we are in him that is true in his Son,—that is, so far as we are in the Son of him that is true:—this is the true God; namely, he who was just before called him that was true, the word God being omitted in the one clause, and subjoined in the other. For he it is that is he that is true (whom that we might know, we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding) not he who is called the Son of him that is true, though that be the nearest antecedent,—for common sense itself requires that the article this should be referred to him that is true, (to whom the subject of the context principally relates,) not to the Son of him that is true.⁸ Examples of a similar construction are not wanting. See Acts iv. 10, 11. and x. 16. 2 Thess. ii. 8, 9. 2 John 7. Compare also John xvii. 3. with which passage the verse in question seems to correspond exactly in sense, the position of the words alone being changed. But it will be objected, that according to some of the texts quoted before, Christ is God; now if the Father be the only true God, Christ is not the true God; but if he be not the true God, he must be a false God. I answer, that the conclusion is too hastily drawn; for it may be that he is not he that is true, either because he is only the image of him that is true, or because he uniformly declares himself to be inferior to him that is true. We are not obliged to say of Christ what the Scriptures do not say. The Scriptures call him God, but not him that is the true God; why are we not at liberty to acquiesce in the same distinction? At p. 120all events he is not to be called a false God, to whom, as to his beloved Son, he that is the true God has communicated his divine power and glory.

¶7 cont.They also adduce Philipp. ii. 6. who being in the form of God—But this no more proves him to be God than the phrase which follows—took upon him the form of a servant—proves that he was really a servant, as the sacred writers nowhere use the word form for actual being. But if it be contended that the form of God is here taken in a philosophical sense for the essential form, the consequence cannot be avoided, that when Christ laid aside the form, he laid aside also the substance and the efficiency of God; a doctrine against which they protest, and with justice. To be in the form of God, therefore, seems to be synonymous with being in the image of God; which is often predicated of Christ, even as man is also said, though in a much lower sense, to be the image of God, and to be in the image of God, that is, by creation. More will be added respecting this passage hereafter.

¶7 cont. 2The last passage that is quoted is from the epistle of Jude, v. 4. denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Who will not agree that this is too verbose a mode of description, if all these words are intended to apply to one person? or who would not rather conclude, on a comparison of many other passages which tend to confirm the same opinion, that they were spoken of two persons, namely, the Father the only God, and our Lord Jesus Christ? Those, however, who are accustomed to discover some extraordinary force in the use of the article, contend that both names must refer to the same person, because the article is prefixed in the Greek to the first of them only, which is done to avoid weakening the structure of the sentence. If the force of the articles is so great, I do not see how other languages can dispense with them.

¶7 cont. 3The passages quoted in the New Testament from the Old will have still less weight, if they be produced to prove anything more than what p. 121the writer who quoted them intended. Of this class are, Psal. lxviii. 17—19. the chariots of God are twenty thousand, &c.......the Lord is among them, &c. thou hast ascended on high......thou hast received gifts for men. Here (to say nothing of several ellipses, which the interpreters are bold enough to fill up in various ways, as they think proper) mention is made of two persons, God and the Lord, which is in contradiction to the opinions of those who attempt to elicit a testimony to the supreme divinity of Christ, by comparing this passage with Eph. iv. 5—8. Such a doctrine was never intended by the apostle, who argues very differently in the ninth verse—now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?—from which he only meant to show that the Lord Christ, who had lately died, and was now received into heaven, gave gifts unto men which he had received from the Father.

¶1p. 86 Verum ab evangelio ad legis tempora, quod mirum est, recurrunt, qui Patrem et Filium essentia esse unum volunt; et lucem tenebris illustrare conantur. Nempe Filius non tantum Deus, sed Jehova quoque nominatur; ut ex collatis aliquot locis utriusque fœderis ostenditur. Jehova autem unus est, isque summus Deus: ergo Filius et Pater essentia unum sunt. At vero argumentum illud quam infirmum sit, facile apparebit; attributum nempe esse Filio nomen Jehovæ; cum nomen Jehovæ etiam angelis concessum sit, haud secus ac nomen Dei concessum esse supra docuimus, nimirum divinam præsentiam atque personam verbaque ipsa Jehovæ referentibus. Gen. xvi. 7. inveniens eam angelus Jehovæ. cum v. 10. iterum dixit angelus Jehovæ, valde multiplicabo semen tuum. et p. 87v. 13. tunc vocavit Hagar nomen Jehovæ alloquentis ipsam. et cap. xviii. 10. et dixit Jehova &c. apparet tamen tres illos hospites fuisse angelos. Sic Gen. xix. 1. duobus angelis. et v. 13. misit nos Jehova. cum xviii. 21, 24. ne quæso אֲדֽנָי. cui dixit ille, en acceptum habeo te. Jehova demisit pluviam ab Jehova e cœlis. et xxi. 17. inclamans angelus Dei Hagaram e cœlo &c. attendit Deus. cum v. 18. patrem gentis magnæ efficiam ipsum. Sic Exod. iii. 2, 4. angelus Jehovæ. videns Jehova. inclamavit Deus. cum Act. vii. 30. visus est ei angelus Domini. Si is Christus aut summus Deus fuisset, videtur id Stephanus tum maxime fuisse palam dicturus vel ad fidem aliis vel ad terrorem illis judicibus incutiendum. Et Exod. 20. ubi lex data est, nulla cujusquam mentio fit qui legem dederit Mosi præterquam Jehovæ; et tamen Act. vii. 38. idem Stephanus qui supra, fuit, inquit, cum angelo ipsum alloquente in monte Sina. Et v. 53. docet idem, acceptam esse legem per dispositionem angelorum. Sic Gal. iii. 19. ordinata per angelos. Heb. ii. 2. si per angelos dictus sermo fuit firmus &c. Ergo quæ illic Jehova locutus esse dicitur, non ipse, sed angeli locuti sunt nomine Jehovæ. Nec mirum; non enim convenisse videtur, ut Christus evangelii minister, idem fuerit minister legis. quanto præstantioris pacti est mediator. Heb. viii. 6. Illud vero mirum, si legis mediator fuit Christus, id tot apostolos nunquam indicasse, immo contrarium videtur monuisse. Heb. i. 1. multis vicibus, multisque modis olim Deus loquutus patribus in prophetis, ultimis diebus hisce loquutus est nobis in Filio. porro Num. xxii. 22. accensa est ira Dei, et opposuit se angelus Jehovæ. Et v. 31. tum detexit Jehova oculos Baleami, qui vidit angelum Jehovæ. Mox ille angelus v. 32. tanquam Jehova ipse; ecce ego egressus sum, ut sim tibi adversarius, quia declinat hæc via in conspectu meo. Et Baleamus v. 34. si malum videtur in oculis tuis. Et rursum angelus, tantum quod edixero tibi v. 35. cum v. 20. et cum cap. xxiii. 8, 20. Jos. v. 14. sum princeps militiæ Jehovæ, cum cap. vi. 2. dixit Jehova. Judic. vi. 11, 12. angelus Jehovæ. Jehova tecum. cum v. 14. Jehova dixit. Et rursus v. 20, 21. angelus Dei. angelus Jehovæ. et v. 22. animadvertit angelum Jehovæ eum esse &c. cum v. 23. dixit ei Jehova: quamquam angelus, ut fere alias, pro Jehova se gessit. v. 14. nonne mitto te? et v. 16. facies; p. 88nam ero tecum. et ipse Gideon tanquam Jehovam ipsum alloquitur. v. 17. te illum esse qui loqueris mecum. Sic 1 Chron. xxi. 15. miserat Deus angelum. et v. 16, 17. tum David vidit angelum, ideoque procidit, et dixit Deo. et v. 18, 19. tum angelus Jehovæ edixit Gadi. Ascendit itaque David secundum verbum Gadis, quod edixerat nomine Jehovæ.

¶2At duæ nonnunquam personæ in eadem sententia Jehova nominantur; ut Gen. xix. 24. Jehova demisit pluviam ab Jehova e cœlis. 1 Sam. iii. 21. postquam revelasset se Jehova Schemueli shilunti in sermone Jehovæ. Jer. xxxiv. 12. fuit verbum Jehovæ ad Jeremiam a Jehova, dicendo. Hos. i. 7. servabo eos per Jehovam Deum ipsorum. Zech. iii. 1, 2, 3. coram angelo. dicebat autem Jehova, increpat Jehova te. et rursus, coram ipso angelo. Respondeo, his in locis, aut alterum horum esse angelum, ut supra, aut emphatico loquendi more atque usu, bis nomen Jehovæ, de eadem tamen persona reciproce dici; nam Jehova Deus Israel, Jehova unus. At si hic uterque sua natura ac proprie Jehova est, non jam unus, sed duo plane Jehovæ sunt; itaque emphaseos duntaxat causa nomen illud iteratur. Similis locutio extat Gen. ix. 16. aspiciam, ad recordandum fœderis inter Deum et omnem animantem. et 1 Cor. i. 7, 8. expectantibus revelationem Domini nostri Jesu Christi. et 1 Thess. iii. 12, 13. faxit Dominus, ut &c. ut corda vestra stabiliat coram Deo et Patre nostro in adventum Domini nostri Jesu Christi. hic sive Deus et Pater, sive Dominus Jesus is est qui superiore versu Dominus appellatur, utrobique similis redundantia est. Certe si in locis supra citatis aliisque ejusmodi duos esse intellexissent Hebræi, quorum uterque Jehova pari jure diceretur et esset, credidissent sine dubio sicuti nunc fere creditur, inculcantibus toties prophetis, aut saltem scrupulo gravi laborassent: at ita unquam intellexisse ea loca ecclesiam illam, aut credidisse duos esse, quorum uterque pari ratione et nominaretur Jehova et esset, intelligentem credo neminem affirmaturum: non alio igitur modo intellexisse ea loca videntur atque nos hic intelligimus. Sic de hominibus 1 Reg. viii. 1. congregari jussit Solomon seniores Israelis &c. ad regem Solomonem Hierosolymas. Quis tam est fatuus ut putet, duas hic personas in eadem sententia Solomonem p. 89 nominari? Constat ergo, et ipso auctore sacro id affirmante, et iis ipsis ita credentibus quibus angeli apparuerunt, impositum angelo nomen Jehovæ; nec angelo solum verum etiam universæ ecclesiæ Jer. xxxiii. 16. ut infra. Sed quoniam hoc mirum videtur Placæo Salmuriensi, angelum præ se ferre nomen Jehovæ, et personatum quendam Jehovam sic esse, et quasi in scena histricum, ostendam ubi Deus ipse declarat suum nomen esse in angelo. Exod. xxiii. 20, 21. ecce ego mitto angelum ante te, ad servandum te in hac via &c. cave tibi ob præsentiam ejus, et ausculta voci ejus ne exacerbes eum: quia non feret defectionem vestram, quia nomen meum est in eo. Ille angelus qui ex eo tempore Israelitas alloquebatur, et cujus voci auscultare jubentur, Jehova semper dictus est, et tamen Jehova ipse non fuit. Immo, inquiunt, fuit; nam Christus fuit; 1 Cor. x. 9. neque tentemus Christum &c. Respondeo, nihil nunc interesse fueritne Christus necne: illud nunc quæro, an filii Israelis eum angelum revera Jehovam esse intellexerint? si ita intellexerunt, necesse est vel duos esse Jehovas intellexerint, vel Jehovam et illum angelum essentia unum: quod nemo sanus de illo populo dixerit: dicentem refutabit cap. xxxiii. 2, 3, 5: mittam angelum: non ascendam, ne consumam te. et audiens populus verbum malum istud, luctui se dederunt. Si credidit populus Jehovam et illum angelum essentia esse unos, divinitate ac gloria pares, cur lugebat, et Jehovam iratiorem ante se ascendere malebat, quam illum angelum, mediatorem certe, si Christus fuisset, et pacificum? si non intellexerunt illum angelum esse Jehovam, necesse est intellexisse, quo modo nos intelligimus, nomen Jehovæ præ se tulisse: idque nec absurdum esse nec histrionicum: exoratus tandem ut ipse ascenderet, hoc tantum annuit, v. 14. facies meæ præcedent: quod aliud quid est, nisi ejus nominis et gloriæ in angelo aliquo repræsentatio? Quisquis autem is fuit, sive Christus sive angelorum quisquam alius, non unum fuisse cum Jehova neque parem, verba etiam Jehovæ demonstrant: auscultare voci ejus jussi sunt, non propter ipsius nomen, sed quod nomen Jehovæ in eo esset. Si porro affirmant, illum angelum fuisse Christum, quid aliud evincunt, nisi Christum fuisse angelum, sicut et dici volunt Gen. xlviii. 16. angelus ille qui vindicat me. Isa. lxiii. 9. angelus faciei ejus, id est, qui faciem ejus sive glop. 90 riam refert et personam sustinet; officio, inquiunt, angelus, natura Jehova. Sed hæc cui probaverint? Dicitur is quidem Mal. iii. 1. angelus fœderis. et ex loco supra citato Exod. xxiii. 20, 21. cum 1 Cor. x. 9. At non idcirco ubicunque angelus de cœlo mittitur, is continuo Christus existimandus est; nec ubi Christus, is continuo Deus cum Patre unus. Enimvero legis et prophetarum obscuritas ad refutandam evangelii lucem adhiberi non debet, sed contra lux evangelica ad illustrandam prophetarum obscuritatem et tropos. Utcunque Moses certe de Christo vaticinans Deut. xviii. 15. Prophetam, inquit, e medio tui, e fratribus tuis sicut ego sum suscitabit tibi Jehova Deus tuus; ei auscultate. Humanam hic, inquies, Christi naturam prædicit; at versu, inquam, sequente divinam etiam naturam, eam dico quam Jehovæ vis esse coessentialem, plane a Christo removet, cum ait, secundum omnia quæ petiisti a Jehova Deo tuo in Horebo, dicendo, ne pergam audire vocem Jehovæ Dei &c. Christum igitur audituri, prædicente atque testante ipso Mose, non erant Jehovam Deum audituri, neque Jehovam Christum habituri.

¶3Eadem ratione expendendus est prophetici quoque libri stylus Apocalypseos. cap. i. 1. cum v. 8, 11. significavit mittens per angelum suum. mox ille angelus (qui verbis iisdem pene describitur quibus ille angelus Dan. x. 5. &c.) ego sum Alpha et Omega, dicit Dominus, qui est, et qui erat, et qui venturus est. et v. 13. similem filio hominis. et v. 17. ego sum primus ille &c. et cap. ii. 7. et sæpius, quid spiritus dicat ecclesiis. et xxii. 6. misit angelum suum. v. 8. ante pedes angeli qui mihi hæc ostendebat. et v. 9. vide ne feceris; conservus tuus sum &c. Mox idem angelus v. 12. et ecce venio cito; et merces mea &c. et v. 13. idem ait, sum Alpha et Omega &c. idem v. 14. beati qui præstant ejus mandata. et v. 16. ego Jesus misi angelum meum &c. Hæc Bezam eo redegerunt, ut librum hunc tarde ab ecclesia pro apostolico agnitum, adeoque negligentius habitum, versusque quosdam postremi capitis ab Ariano quopiam confusos atque transpositos arbitratus, eos in suum, quem ipsi videbatur, locum restituendos esse censuerit. Id quod nihil necesse erat, si animadvertisset, quod toto Vetere Testamento animadvertere cuivis licet, angelos et nomen Dei atque Jehovæ et personam et verba ipsa quasi sua p. 91 suscipere solere; nonnunquam enim et personam et verba ipsa Dei præ se fert angelus, etiam sine nomine vel Jehovæ vel Dei, sed duntaxat angeli, immo hominis, ut sentit ipse Junius in Judic. ii. 1. &c. Sed nomen Jehovæ duas res aiunt significare theologi; vel Dei naturam, vel verborum ac promissionum ejus impletionem. Si naturam adeoque personam Dei significat, cur cui personam atque præsentiam suam imponit, ei nomen eam significans non imponat? Si verborum ac promissionum ejus impletionem, cur cui verba uni Deo convenientia toties attribuit, ei nomen quoque Jehovæ, quo nomine verborum illorum et promissionum impletio significatur, non attribuat? aut si nomen illud usque eo gratum Deo fuit, ut hoc sibi uni sacrosanctum et proprium semper esse voluerit, cur in novo fœdere, ubi promissiones maxime implentur, illud nomen prorsus deposuit, illud Domini solum retinuit, quod angelis atque hominibus commune semper fuit? Si nomen denique quodcunque sic Deo cordi esset, cur se nobis sub evangelio sine ullo prorsus nomine proprio exhibuit?

¶4At instant, esse ubi Christus ipse suo nomine ac persona Jehova dicatur: ut Isa. viii. 13, 14. Jehovam exercituum ipsum sanctificate, et ipse sit timori vobis &c. et erit sanctificationi vobis: in lapidem autem allisionis et in rupem offensionis ambabus domubus Israelis &c. cum 1 Pet. ii. 7. hic factus est caput anguli, et lapis ad quem impingitur &c. Respondeo, collato versu 13tio cum 11mo, nam ita edixit Jehova mihi &c. hæc verba non Christi hortantis Israelitas ut ipsum se sanctificarent et timerent, quem nondum norant; sed verba, sicubi alias, Patris esse interminantis fore se in lapidem &c. ambabus domubus Israelis, id est, Israelitis ejus præcipue ætatis omnibus. Quod si Christum hæc respiciunt, inusitatum non est apud Prophetas, ut Deus Pater se id facturum pronuntiet, quod postea sub evangelio per Filium fecit: hinc Petrus ait, factus est caput anguli, et lapis ad quem impingitur. a quo autem factus nisi a Patre? et cap. 3tio, citato hoc ipso Esaiæ loco v. 12, 13. haud obscure Patrem indicat hæc de se locutum. v. 15. Sed Dominum Deum sanctificate. quo nomine Christum hic intelligere nemo confirmaverit. et Zech. xi. 13. edixit Jehova mihi, projice eos conferendos in figulum, magp. 92 nificum pretium quo pretiose æstimatus sum ab illis. Respondeo, id non negari; modo hoc simul memoria teneatur, Exod. xxiii. 21. non suum hoc nomen, sed Jehovæ in eo esse: quod infra planius fiet. Quamquam nihil obstat quominus ipsius Patris nomine hæc etiam dici intelligantur; qui ita accipiat quæ in Filium commissuri erant Judæi, ac si in ipsum commissa essent; quemadmodum et Filius quæ suis fidelibus facta sunt, sibimet ipsi facta esse pronuntiat: Mat. xxv. 35, 40. esurivi et dedistis mihi &c. quatenus id fecistis uni ex istis fratribus meis minimis, mihi fecistis. cujusmodi et illud Act. ix. 4, 5. Saul, Saul, quid me persequeris? Idem respondendum de Zech. xii. 10. præsertim si conferatur cum Apoc. i. 7. videbit eum omnis oculus, etiam quem transfixerunt: etenim Jehovam nemo unquam vidit, nedum Jehovam hominem vidit, nedum transfixit: deinde eum transfixerunt qui effudit spiritum gratiæ v. 10. Pater autem is erat qui per Filium effudit spiritum gratiæ, Act. ii. 33. adeptus a Patre effudit: ergo Pater is est quem in Filio transfixerunt; hinc Joannes non dicit intuebuntur me, sed intuebuntur quem transfixerunt cap. xix. 37. et eodem Zachariæ versu mutata persona dicitur, et plangent super eum, quasi planctu super unicum et primogenitum, plane quasi de alio, id est, de Filio potissimum, non de se proprie loquatur Jehova. Ejusdem explicationis est illud Mal. iii. 1. ecce ego missurus sum angelum meum, qui expediat viam meam ante me: et repente veniet in templum suum Dominus quem vos quæritis, et angelus fœderis quo vos delectamini. ecce venturus est, ait Jehova exercituum. Unde sic argumentatur Placæus. Ille ante cujus faciem mittendus est angelus Baptista, est Deus Israelis; Christus ille est; non enim missus est Baptista ante faciem Patris. At vero si Joannes Baptista dictus est Elias, Matt. xi. 14. qui præcessit cum spiritu et virtute Eliæ, Luc. i. 17. cur non mittere dicatur Pater ante faciem suam, cum mittit ante faciem ejus qui in nomine Patris venturus erat? nam Patrem esse qui misit hunc angelum, verba ipsa sequentia declarant: me enim qui mittam, et angelum fœderis qui venturus est, et Jehovam exercituum qui hæc ait, in prima ac tertia eandem esse personam, intelligi vix potest: immo hæc verba esse Patris angelum illum mittentis, interpretatur ipse Christus Matt. xi. 10. ecce ego mitto nuntium meum ante faciem tuam. p. 93 Quis jam nunc misit? Filius, ut placet Placæo: cujus ante faciem? Filii: ergo hic Filius sese alloquitur, se mittit ante faciem suam: novum plane et inauditum; præsertim cum Baptista ipse testetur se a Patre missum Joan. i. 33. ego non noveram eum; sed qui misit me—, ille mihi dixerat &c. Misit ergo Deus Pater angelum illum ante faciem Filii sui, quia Filium venturum ille angelus præcessit: misit ante faciem suam, quia ipse erat in Christo, vel quod idem est, in Filio, mundum reconcilians sibi 2 Cor. v. 19. Sic usurpari nomen et præsentiam Dei pro virtute ac potestate Dei quasi præsentis in Filio, demonstrat alter locus de Joanne Baptista: Isa. xl. 3. vox clamantis in deserto, parate viam Jehovæ, adæquate in solitudine aggerem Deo nostro. Baptista enim nusquam clamavit, Christum esse Jehovam aut Deum nostrum.

¶1p. 121 It is singular, however, that those who maintain the Father and the Son to be one in essence, should revert from the gospel to the times of the law, as if they would make a fruitless attempt to illustrate light by darkness. They say that the Son is not only called God, but also Jehovah, as appears from a comparison of several passages in both testaments. Now Jehovah is the one supreme God; therefore the Son and the Father are one in essence. It will be easy to expose the weakness of such an argument as this, which is derived from the ascription of the name of Jehovah to the Son. For the name of Jehovah is conceded even to the angels, in the same sense as it has been already shown that the name of God is applied to them, namely, when they represent the divine presence and person, and utter the very words of Jehovah. Gen. xvi. 7. the angel of Jehovah found her, compared with v. 10. the angel of Jehovah said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, and v. 13. she called the name of Jehovah who spake unto her—. xviii. 13. and Jehovah said, &c. whereas it appears that the three men whom Abraham entertained were angels. Gen. xix. 1. there came two angels. v. 13. and Jehovah hath sent us—compared with v. 18, 21, 24. Oh, not so, אֲדנָי: and he said unto him, See, I have accepted thee ....then Jehovah rained..... p. 122 from Jehovah out of heaven. Gen. xxi. 17. the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, &c....God hath heard—compared with v. 18. I will make him a great nation. So Exod. iii. 2, 4. the angel of Jehovah....when Jehovah saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him—compared with Acts vii. 30. there appeared to him an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush. If that angel had been Christ or the supreme God, it is natural to suppose that Stephen would have declared it openly, especially on such an occasion, where it might have tended to strengthen the faith of the other believers, and strike his judges with alarm. In Exod. xx. when the law was delivered, no mention is made of any one who gave it to Moses, except Jehovah, and yet Acts vii. 38. the same Stephen says, this is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina; and verse 53. he declares that the law was received by the disposition of angels. Gal. iii. 19. it was ordained by angels. Heb. ii. 2. if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, &c. Therefore what is said in Exodus to have been spoken by Jehovah, was not spoken by himself personally, but by angels in the name of Jehovah. Nor is this extraordinary, for it does not seem to have been suitable that Christ who was the minister of the gospel should also be the minister of the law: by how much more also he is the mediator of a better covenant, Heb. viii. 6. But it would indeed have been wonderful if Christ had actually appeared as the mediator of the law, and none of the apostles had ever intimated it. Nay, the contrary seems to be asserted Heb. i. 1. God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son. Again it is said, Num. xxii. 22. God's anger was kindled... and the angel of Jehovah stood in the way for an adversary unto him. v. 31. then Jehovah opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of Jehovah. Afterwards the same angel speaks as if he were Jehovah himself, v. 32. behold I went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me: and Balaam says, v. 34. if it displease thee—; to which the angel answers—only the word that I shall speak unto thee, that thou shalt speak. v. 35. compared with v. 20. and with chap. xxiii. 8, 20. Josh. v. 14. as captain of the host of Jehovah am I come, compared with vi. 2. Jehovah p. 123 said unto Joshua. Judg. vi. 11, 12. an angel of Jehovah....the angel of Jehovah—compared with v. 14. Jehovah looked upon him, and said—. Again, v. 20, 21. the angel of God.....the angel of Jehovah: and v. 22. Gideon perceived that he was an angel of Jehovah—compared with v. 23. Jehovah said unto him—although the angel here, as in other instances, personated the character of Jehovah:—v. 14. have not I sent thee? v. 16. surely I will be with thee, and thou shalt smite the Midianites: and Gideon himself addresses him as Jehovah, v. 17. show me a sign that thou talkest with me. 1 Chron. xxi. 15. God sent an angel—. v. 16, 17. and David saw the angel of Jehovah.....and fell upon his face, and said unto God—. v. 18, 19. then the angel of Jehovah commanded Gad to say unto David....and David went up at the saying of Gad, which he spake in the name of Jehovah.

¶2But it may be urged, that the name of Jehovah is sometimes assigned to two persons in the same sentence. Gen. xix. 24. Jehovah rained....from Jehovah out of heaven. 1 Sam. iii. 21. Jehovah revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of Jehovah. Jer. xxxiv. 12. the word of Jehovah came to Jeremiah from Jehovah, saying—. Hos. i. 7. I will save them by Jehovah their God. Zech. iii. 1—3. standing before the angel.....and Jehovah said unto Satan, Jehovah rebuke thee—and again, before the angel. I answer, that in these passages either one of the two persons is an angel, according to that usage of the word which has been already explained; or it is to be considered as a peculiar form of speaking, in which, for the sake of emphasis, the name of Jehovah is repeated, though with reference to the same person; for Jehovah the God of Israel is one Jehovah. If in such texts as these both persons are to be understood properly and in their own nature as Jehovah, there is no longer one Jehovah, but two; whence it follows that the repetition of the name can only have been employed for the purpose of giving additional force to the sentence. A similar form of speech occurs Gen. ix. 16. I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature: and 1 Cor. i. 7, 8. waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thess. iii. 12, 13. the Lord make you to increase, &c. to the end he may stablish your hearts.....before God, even our Father, at the coming p. 124 of our Lord Jesus Christ. Here whether it be God, even our Father, or our Lord Jesus, who is in the former verse called Lord, in either case there is the same redundance. If the Jews had understood the passages quoted above, and others of the same kind, as implying that there were two persons, both of whom were Jehovah, and both of whom had an equal right to the appellation, there can be no doubt that, seeing the doctrine so frequently enforced by the prophets, they would have adopted the same belief which now prevails among us, or would at least have laboured under considerable scruples on the subject: whereas I suppose no one in his senses will venture to affirm that the Jewish Church ever so understood the passages in question, or believed that there were two persons, each of whom was Jehovah, and had an equal right to assume the title. It would seem, therefore, that they interpreted them in the manner above mentioned. Thus in allusion to a human being, 1 Kings viii. 1. then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel .... unto king Solomon in Jerusalem. No one is so absurd as to suppose that the name of Solomon is here applied to two persons in the same sentence. It is evident, therefore, both from the declaration of the sacred writer himself, and from the belief of those very persons to whom the angels appeared, that the name of Jehovah was attributed to an angel; and not to an angel only, but also to the whole Church, Jer. xxxiii. 16.

¶2 cont.But as Placæus of Saumur thinks it incredible that an angel should bear the name of Jehovah, and that the dignity of the supreme Deity should be degraded by being personated, as it were, on a stage, I will produce a passage in which God himself declares that his name is in an angel. Exod. xxiii. 20, 21. behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, &c. beware of him, and obey his voice; provoke him not, for he will not pardon your transgressions; for my name is in him. The angel who from that time forward addressed the Israelites, and whose voice they were commanded to hear, was always called Jehovah, though the appellation did not properly belong to him. To this they reply, that he was really Jehovah, for that angel was Christ; 1 Cor. x. 9. neither let us tempt Christ, &c. I answer, that it is of no importance to the present quesp. 125 tion, whether it were Christ or not; the subject of inquiry now is, whether the children of Israel understood that angel to be really Jehovah? If they did so understand, it follows that they must have conceived either that there were two Jehovahs, or that Jehovah and the angel were one in essence; which no rational person will affirm to have been their belief. But even if such an assertion were advanced, it would be refuted by chap. xxxiii. 2, 3, 5. I will send an angel before thee.... for I will not go up in the midst of thee.....lest I consume thee in the way. And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned. If the people had believed that Jehovah and that angel were one in essence, equal in divinity and glory, why did they mourn, and desire that Jehovah should go up before them, notwithstanding his anger, rather than the angel? who, if he had indeed been Christ, would have acted as a mediator and peace-maker. If, on the contrary, they did not consider the angel as Jehovah, they must necessarily have understood that he bore the name of Jehovah in the sense in which I suppose him to have borne it, wherein there is nothing either absurd or theatrical. Being at length prevailed upon to go up with them in person, he grants thus much only, v. 14.—my presence shall go with thee—which can imply nothing else than a representation of his name and glory in the person of some angel. But whoever this was, whether Christ, or some angel different from the preceding, the very words of Jehovah himself show that he was neither one with Jehovah, nor co-equal, for the Israelites are commanded to hear his voice, not on the authority of his own name, but because the name of Jehovah was in him. If on the other hand it is contended that the angel was Christ, this proves no more than that Christ was an angel, according to their interpretation of Gen. xlviii. 16. the angel which redeemed me from all evil; and Isai. lxiii. 9. the angel of his presence saved them—that is, he who represented his presence or glory, and bore his character; an angel, as they say, by office, but Jehovah by nature. But to whose satisfaction will they be able to prove this? He is called indeed, Mal. iii. 1. the messenger of the covenant: see also Exod. xxiii. 20, 21. compared with 1 Cor. x. 9. as before. But it does not therefore follow, that whenever an angel is sent from heaven, p. 126 that angel is to be considered as Christ; nor where Christ is sent, that he is to be considered as one God with the Father. Besides that the obscurity of the law and the prophets ought not to be brought forward to refute the light of the gospel, but on the contrary the light of the gospel ought to be employed to illustrate the obscurity necessarily arising from the figurative language of the prophets. However this may be, Moses says, prophesying of Christ, Deut. xviii. 15. Jehovah thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken. It will be answered, that he here predicts the human nature of Christ. I reply that in the following verse he plainly takes away from Christ that divine nature which it is wished to make co-essential with the Father—according to all that thou desiredst of Jehovah thy God in Horeb...saying, Let me not hear again the voice of Jehovah my God, &c. In hearing Christ therefore, as Moses himself predicts and testifies, they were not to hear the God Jehovah, nor were they to consider Christ as Jehovah.

¶3The style of the prophetical book of Revelations, as respects this subject, must be regarded in the same light. Chap. i. 1, 8, 11. he sent and signified it by his angel. Afterwards this angel (who is described nearly in the same words as the angel, Dan. x. 5, &c.) says, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come. v. 13. like unto the Son of man. v. 17. I am the first and the last. ii. 7, &c. what the Spirit saith unto the churches. xxii. 6. the Lord God sent his angel. v. 8. before the feet of the angel which showed me these things. v. 9. see thou do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant, &c. Again, the same angel says, v. 12. behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me, &c. and again, v. 13. I am Alpha and Omega, &c. and v. 14. blessed are they that do his commandments; and v. 16. I Jesus have sent my angel, &c. These passages so perplexed Beza,⁹ that he was compelled to reconcile the imaginary difficulty p. 127 by supposing that the order of a few verses in the last chapter had been confused and transposed by some Arian, (which he attributed to the circumstance of the book having been acknowledged as canonical by the Church at a comparatively late period, and therefore less carefully preserved,) whence he thought it necessary to restore them to what he considered their proper order. This supposition would have been unnecessary, had he remarked, what may be uniformly observed throughout the Old Testament, that angels are accustomed to assume the name and person, and the very words of God and Jehovah, as their own; and that occasionally an angel represents the person and the very words of God, without taking the name either of Jehovah or God, but only in the character of an angel, or even of a man, as Junius himself acknowledges, Judges ii. 1, &c.¹ But according to divines the name of Jehovah signifies two things, either the nature of God, or the completion of his word and promises. If it signify the nature, and therefore the person of God, why should not he who is invested with his person and presence, be also invested with the name which represents them? If it signify the completion of his word and promises, why should not he, to whom words suitable to God alone are so frequently attributed, be permitted also to assume the name of Jehovah, whereby the completion of these words and promises is represented? Or if that name p. 128 be so acceptable to God, that he has always chosen to consider it as sacred and peculiar to himself alone, why has he uniformly disused it in the New Testament, which contains the most important fulfilment of his prophecies; retaining only the name of the Lord, which had always been common to him with angels and men? If, lastly, any name whatever can be so pleasing to God, why has he exhibited himself to us in the gospel without any proper name at all?

¶4They urge, however, that Christ himself is sometimes called Jehovah in his own name and person; as in Isai. viii. 13, 14. sanctify Jehovah of hosts himself, and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread: and he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, &c. compared with 1 Pet. ii. 7. the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, &c. I answer, that it appears on a comparison of the thirteenth with the eleventh verse,—for Jehovah spake thus to me, &c.—that these are not the words of Christ exhorting the Israelites to sanctify and fear himself, whom they had not yet known, but of the Father threatening, as in other places, that he would be for a stone of stumbling, &c. to both the houses of Israel, that is, to the Israelites, and especially to those of that age. But supposing the words to refer to Christ, it is not unusual among the prophets for God the Father to declare that he would work himself, what afterwards under the gospel he wrought by means of his Son. Hence Peter says—the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling. By whom made, except by the Father? And in the third chapter, a quotation of part of the same passage of Isaiah clearly proves that the Father was speaking of himself; v. 15. but sanctify the Lord God—under which name no one will assert that Christ is intended. Again, they quote Zech. xi. 13. Jehovah said unto me, Cast it unto the potter; a goodly price that I was prized at of them. That this relates to Christ I do not deny; only it must be remembered, that this is not his own name, but that the name of Jehovah is in him, Exod. xxiii. 21. as will presently appear more plainly. At the same time there is no reason why the words should not be understood of the Father speaking in his own p. 129 name,² who would consider the offences which the Jews should commit against his Son, as offences against himself; in the same sense as the Son declares that whatever is done to those who believed in him, is done to himself. Matt. xxv. 35, 40. I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat, &c. inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. An instance of the same kind occurs Acts ix. 4, 5. Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? The same answer must be given respecting Zech. xii. 10. especially on a comparison with Rev. i. 7. every eye shall see him, and they also that pierced him: for none have seen Jehovah at any time, much less have they seen him as a man; least of all have they pierced him. Secondly, they pierced him who poured upon them the spirit of grace, v. 10. Now it was the Father who poured the spirit of grace through the Son; Acts ii. 33. having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this. Therefore it was the Father whom they pierced in the Son. Accordingly, John does not say, they shall look upon me, but, they shall look upon him whom they pierced, chap. xix. 37. So also in the verse of Zechariah alluded to a change of persons takes place—they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son; as if Jehovah were not properly alluding to himself, but spoke of another, that is, of the Son. The passage in Malachi iii. 1. admits of a similar interpretation: behold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me, and Jehovah, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold he shall come, saith Jehovah of hosts. From which passage Placæus argues thus: He before whose face the Baptist is to be sent as a messenger, is the God of Israel; but the Baptist was not sent before the face of the Father; therefore Christ is that God of Israel. But if the name of Elias could be ascribed p. 130 to John the Baptist, Matt. xi. 14. inasmuch as he went before him in the spirit and power of Elias, Luke i. 17. why may not the Father be said to send him before his own face, inasmuch as he sends him before the face of him who was to come in the name of the Father? for that it was the Father who sent the messenger, is proved by the subsequent words of the same verse, since the phrases I who sent, and the messenger of the covenant who shall come, and Jehovah of hosts who saith these things, can scarcely be understood to apply all to the same person. Nay, even according to Christ's own interpretation, the verse implies that it was the Father who sent the messenger; Matt. xi. 10. behold, I send my messenger before thy face. Who was it that sent?—the Son, according to Placæus. Before the face of whom?—of the Son:—therefore the Son addresses himself in this passage, and sends himself before his own face, which is a new and unheard of figure of speech; not to mention that the Baptist himself testifies that he was sent by the Father, John i. 33. I knew him not, but he that sent me.... the same said unto me, &c. God the Father therefore sent the messenger before the face of his Son, inasmuch as that messenger preceded the advent of the Son; he sent him before his own face, inasmuch as he was himself in Christ, or, which is the same thing, in the Son, reconciling the world unto himself, 2 Cor. v. 19. That the name and presence of God is used to imply his vicarious power and might resident in the Son, is proved by another prophecy concerning John the Baptist, Isai. xl. 3. the voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Jehovah; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. For the Baptist was never heard to cry that Christ was Jehovah, or our God.

¶1p. 93 Ex ipso autem evangelio, quo nos præcipue fundamento niti debemus, et præsertim ex eo evangelii scriptore Joanne, qui id maxime operam dabat, ut deitatem Filii, cujusmodi esset, palam assereret, pergo illud alterum præstare quod in partitione supra sum pollicitus, ipsum Filium, non nomen Dei et Jehovæ solum, verum etiam quicquid præterea habet, Patri acceptum referre; quod idem etiam post eum testantur apostoli, ipsum videlicet esse id quod est, vitam ipsam, attributa, opera, honorem denique divinum. Joan. iii. 35. Pater diligit Filium, et omnia dedit ei in manum. et xiii. 3. sciens Jesus Patrem omnia dedisse sibi in manum, et se a Deo prodiisse. Matt. xi. 27. omnia mihi tradita sunt a Patre meo. Verum hic etiam, quod supra fecerunt, fortasse rursus interpellabunt qui adversantur: habent enim duas naturas Christi earumque simul officium mediatorium quasi parata quædam diverticula responsionum suarum, ut Vertumnum facilius comprehendas. Quod scriptura dicit de Filio, id illi divisim, quoties libet, de Filio nunc Dei nunc hominis dictum volunt; nunc de mediatore vel Deo, vel homine, vel utroque simul. Atqui ipse Filius diserte, Pater, inquit, diligit Filium et omnia dedit ei in manum, Joan. iii. 35. Nempe quia diligit, non quia genuit; nempe etiam Filio, non mediatori duntaxat. Quanto satius, quanto ad intellectum nostrum accommodatius dixisset, si id intelligi voluisset, quod illi volunt, Pater diligit Christum, vel mediap. 94 torem, vel Filium hominis? non dixit, sed absolute, Filium; id est, quicquid Filii nomen sua significatione complectitur. Quæro etiam, ut supra, ex quo mediator est factus, maneatne idem Deus qui ex eorum sententia fuit, annon? Si idem, cur a Patre potius quam a seipso petit accipitque omnia? Si a Patre omnia, quid opus est ad officium mediatoris, quod docent, ut sit verus et summus Deus, cum a Patre omnia accipiat, non mediatoris tantum quæ sunt, sed quæ etiam Filii? Si idem Deus non manet, summus nunquam fuit: hinc plane intelligitur illud Joan. xvi. 15. omnia quæ habet Pater mea sunt. Domini scilicet Patris. et xvii. 9, 10.—quos dedisti mihi quia tui sunt, et mea omnia tua sunt, et tua mea sunt.

¶2Primum itaque apertissime nomen accipit a Patre. Isa. ix. 6. cujus nomen vocat Jehova, admirabilem, &c. Patrem æternitatis; si hujus loci elleipses recte intelligantur: nam profecto proprie loquendo, Filius non est Pater, nec dici potest, neque alias usquam est dictus; ut dictum vel hic esse quoquomodo concedamus: etenim plerique Patrem futuri sæculi vertunt, non æternitatis; id est doctorem sæculi, qui et Pater sæpe dicitur. Philipp. ii. 7, 9. quapropter etiam ipsum Deus extulit; καὶ ἐχαρίσατο, ex gratia largitus est ei nomen, quod est supra omne nomen. Heb. i. 4. quanto excellentius præ illis hæreditate vel sorte accepit nomen. Eph. i. 20, 21. quem collocavit—longe supra omne imperium—, et omne nomen quod nominatur non solum in hoc sæculo, verum etiam in futuro. Quidni autem illud nomen Jehova sit, aut si quod excellentius Dei nomen est? nominis autem impositio ad majorem semper, puta patrem vel dominum, pertinere conceditur.

¶3Sed quid de nomine dubitemus, cum Filius ipsum esse itidem a Patre accipiat? Joan. vii. 29. ab ipso sum. Idem imminuitur^la4 Joan. i. 1. in principio. Æternitati enim hic repugnat et decretum, ut supra dictum est, et nomen Filii, et illa vox ego hodie genui te, et ero illi in Patrem; et principium fuisse tantummodo ante mundum conditum, ut est Joan. xvii. 5. demonstrant Coloss. i. 15, 16, 17. primogenitus omnis p. 95 rei conditæ: nam per eum condita sunt omnia quæ in cœlis sunt, et quæ in terra &c. Estque ipse ante omnia, et omnia per eum constant. Hic non homo, non mediator, sed creator Filius primogenitus ipse omnis rei creatæ dicitur. Sic Heb. ii. 11. et qui sanctificat et qui sanctificatur, ex uno sunt omnes &c. et iii. 2. fidum ei qui fecit eum. Nam qui ab æterno genitus est, eum certe Pater genuit nunquam; quod enim ab æterno est factum, id nunquam fiebat; quem Pater ab æterno genuit, eum profecto adhuc gignit; quem adhuc gignit, is nondum est genitus, nondum ergo Filius: quæ enim actio initium non habet, ea neque habet finem. Nec profecto posse fieri ullo modo videtur, ut Filius ab æterno vel gigneretur vel genitus sit. Si Filius est, aliquando certe aut in Patre fuit, et ab eo prodiit, aut separatim ut nunc a Patre in se perque se semper extitit. Si aliquando in Patre fuit, nunc vero separatim existit, mutatus olim est, adeoque mutabilis: si separatim a Patre semper in se extitit, quomodo est a Patre, quomodo genitus, quomodo Filius, quomodo denique subsistentia separatim, quin essentia quoque? cum essentia substantialis et subsistentia, si metaphysicas ineptias mittere velimus, idem sint. Utcunque hæc se habeant, differre nunc numero Filium a Patre nemo non fatebitur: qui differunt numero, eos propriis essentiis, ut loquuntur dialectici, inter se differre, clarius est quam ut quisquam ratione præditus possit inficiari. Pater itaque et Filius essentia inter se differunt. Hæc ita se habere, omni ratione constat; non itidem scriptura constare, quod adhuc reponunt adversarii, id ipsi ostendant. Neque enim obstat illud quo tantopere confiditur, adumbratum in Melchesedecho, Heb. vii. 3. sine patre, sine matre, sine genere; nec initium dierum, neque vitæ finem habens, sed assimilatus Filio Dei. Sic enim initium dierum non habuit Filius, ut fuit sine patre terreno: non habuisse ab æterno initium dierum, non magis ostenditur, quam non habuisse patrem, non fuisse filium. Quod si essentiam habuit a Patre, ea quo pacto summe divina, id est, una eademque cum Patris essentia esse potuerit, ostendatur; cum divina essentia, quæ una semper est, generare eandem et ab eadem generari nullo modo possit: nec possit hujusmodi quicquam subsistentia sive persona agere aut pati, quin essentia quoque tota idem p. 96 agat et patiatur: generatio autem cum producat aliquid quod extra generantem sit atque existat, Deus certe Deum sibi æqualem gignere non potest, cum quia ipse unus semper est, tum quia infinitus. Cum itaque Filius a Patre essentiam habeat, Filius certe non ordine solum (quæ distinctio sine scriptura multis imponit) verum etiam essentia Patre posterior est: nomenque Filii, quo potissimum nomine summam ei divinitatem astruere solent, sententiam ipsorum maxime refellit. Summus enim Deus a seipso est; qui autem a seipso non est, qui non genuit, sed genitus est, is non causa prima sed effectum est; non igitur summus Deus. Et sane qui ab æterno genitus est, ab æterno fuit; si genitus est qui ab æterno fuit, reddi nulla ratio potest, cur non et Pater sit genitus, et habuerit patrem. Quid, quod pater et filius, relata cum sint, quæ et ratione et re differunt, et juxta leges oppositorum pater non sit filius, nec filius pater, si essentiæ unius essent, quod relatis impossibile est, sequeretur patrem esse filii filium, filium esse patris patrem: quod cujusmodi sit quilibet mentis compos judicato. Nam ne ad unius essentiæ plures hypostases confugere possint, satis jam supra disseruimus. Postremo si Filius est ejusdem sesentiæ cum Patre, idemque Filius post unionem hypostaticam in unam personam cum homine coalescit, non video evadi qui possit, quin homo eadem cum Patre quoque persona sit. ex quo affirmato paradoxa non pauca nascerentur. Sed de his fortasse, cum de incarnatione Christi agendum erit.

¶4Vitam. Joan. v. 26. sicut Pater habet vitam in seipso, sic dedit et Filio habere vitam in seipso. et vi. 57. sicut misit me vivens ille Pater, et ego vivo vel propter Patrem, ita &c. idque in æternum: Heb. ii. 8. ad Filium autem, thronus tuus, Deus, in sæculum sæculi. hinc v. 11, 12. ipsi peribunt, tu autem permanes: tu autem idem es, et anni tui non deficient.

¶5Attributa; et 1m. Omnipræsentiam: nam si Pater dedit Filio omnia, si ipsum esse et vivere, dedit etiam esse ubicunque est: hinc ista intelligenda, Joan. i. 49. priusquam te Philippus vocaret, videbam te. Nam ex hoc Nathanael nihil aliud credidit quam quod professus p. 97 est v. 50.; tu es Filius Dei et cap. iii. 13. Filius hominis qui est in cœlo. Hæc Filium, sive hominis sive Dei, nunquam demonstraverint ejusdem esse essentiæ cum Patre; sed Filium quidem hominis tum cœlo descendisse cum in utero virginis conceptus est, esse in cœlo, toto nempe animo ac spiritu ut propheta summus, tamen corpore in terris tum versabatur: vel eum, qui virtute altissima nunc factus est homo, eadem virtute vel potiore natura in principio accepta, esse etiam nunc in cœlo, vel potius qui erat, ut ὢν utrumvis significat. et Matt. xviii. 20. illic sum in medio eorum: et xxviii. 20. ero vobiscum usque &c. Verum neque hæc infinitatem omnipræsentiæ assequuntur; ut sequente capite dicetur.

¶6Omniscientiam. Matt. xi. 27. omnia mihi tradita sunt a Patre meo: et nemo novit Filium nisi Pater, neque Patrem quisquam novit nisi Filius &c. Joan. v. 20. Pater amat Filium, et omnia monstrat ei. et viii. 26. quæ audivi ab eo hæc loquor. et v. 28. tunc agnoscetis me &c.; sed prout docuit me Pater ita loqui. et v. 38. loquor quod vidi apud Patrem meum. et cap. xv. 15. omnia quæ audivi a Patre meo nota feci vobis. hinc cap. ii. 24, 25. eo quod nosset omnes &c. et xxi. 17. tu nosti omnia. et xvi. 30. nunc scimus te scire omnia; per hoc credimus te a Deo prodiisse. et iii. 31, 32, 33, 34. qui e cœlo venit—: quod vidit et audivit—. is quem misit Deus verba Dei loquitur; non enim ad mensuram dat Deus spiritum. Apoc. i. 1. revelatio Jesu Christi quam dedit ipsi Deus. hinc cap. ii. 23. me esse scrutatorem renum—. nam et fideles quoque dicuntur nosse omnia: 1 Joan. ii. 20. vos unctionem habetis a sancto illo profectam, et nostis omnia. absolute autem omnia ne Filius quidem novit; sunt enim quæ Pater sibi soli arcana reservavit. Marc. xiii. 32. sed de die illo ac hora nemo scit: ne angeli quidem qui in cœlo sunt, neque ipse Filius, sed Pater. Matt. xxiv. 36. sed Pater meus solus. Act. i. 7. tempora et opportunitates quas Pater in sua ipsius auctoritate posuit.

¶7Auctoritatem. Matt. xxviii. 18. data est mihi omnis auctoritas in cœlo et in terra. Luc. xxii. 29. ego vero dispono vobis, sicut disposuit mihi Pater meus, regnum. Joan. v. 22. omne judicium dedit Filio. et v. 43. ego p. 98 veni nomine Patris mei. et cap. vii. 16. mea doctrina non est mea, sed ejus qui misit me. et viii. 42. ego a Deo egressus sum et venio; nec a meipso veni, sed ille me misit. et xii. 49, 50. ego ex meipso non locutus sum, sed qui misit me Pater, ipse mihi præcepit quid dicam et quid loquar &c. et xiv. 24; sermo quem auditis non est meus, sed ejus qui misit me, nempe Patris. et xvii. 2. sicut dedisti ei auctoritatem in omnem carnem—. Apoc. ii. 26, 27. dabo ei auctoritatem—sicut et ego accepi a Patre meo.

¶8Omnipotentiam. Joan. v. 19. non potest Filius a semetipso operari, nisi viderit Patrem operantem: quæcunque enim ille facit, hæc etiam Filius similiter facit. et v. 30. non possum a meipso facere quicquam—. et cap. x. 18. potestatem habeo deponendi eam, et rursus assumendi: hoc mandatum accepi a Patre meo. hinc Philipp. iii. 21. potest subjicere sibi omnia. Apoc. i. 8. ego ille omnipotens. quamquam hoc annon de Deo Patre dicatur ab asseverante auctoritatem suam Filio vel angelo, ut supra, videndum: quemadmodum Psal. ii. 7.

¶9Opera. Joan. v. 20, 21. Pater enim—, et opera illis majora monstrabit ei: sicut enim Pater—, ita et Filius quos vult vivificat. et v. 36. opera quæ dedit mihi Pater ut ea consummem; ipsa opera quæ ego facio testantur de me quod Pater miserit me. non igitur deitatem testantur, sed missionem a Deo; ut passim. et cap. viii. 28. tunc agnoscetis me eum esse, et a meipso nihil facere. et x. 32. multa bona opera ostendi vobis a Patre meo. et xi. 22. scio fore ut quæcunque petieris a Deo, det tibi. et v. 41. Pater, gratias ago tibi quod me audieris. Sic passim in miraculis edendis etiam ubi divinam opem non implorat, fatetur tamen. Matt. xii. 28. cum Luc. xi. 20. per spiritum, per digitum Dei, ejicio dæmonia. Joan. xiv. 10. Pater qui in me manet, ipse facit opera. Quamquam hæc non sic divina plane fuerunt, ut non ab angelis eadem quoque fierent eodem tempore, eodem in loco ubi Christus ipse quotidie versabatur. Joan. v. 4. angelus enim descendebat—. et a discipulis; cap. xiv. 12. Qui credit in me, opera quæ ego facio et ipse faciet et majora istis. Et quæ sequuntur quidem maxima, a Patre tamen accepta; 1m. conversionem. Joan. vi. 44. nemo potest venire ad me nisi Pater traxerit eum. et xvii. 2. p. 99 ut quotquot dedisti ei, det iis vitam æternam. et passim: unde Matt. xxiv. 31. electos ejus. quoties igitur Christus elegisse dicitur, ut Joan. xiii. 18. et xv. 16, 19. ad apostolicum munus duntaxat electio ea intelligenda est.

¶10Creationem; sed ita tamen ut per eum semper, non ab eo, sed a Patre. Isa. li. 16. posui verba mea in ore tuo, et umbra manus meæ texi te ad plantandum cœlos, et ad fundandum terram, et ad dicendum Tzioni, populus meus es. hoc sive de vetere sive de nova creatione intelligatur, perinde valet. Rom. xi. 36. ex eo (nimirum Patre) et per eum, et in ipsum sunt omnia; ipsi gloria in sæcula. 1 Cor. viii. 6. unus Deus Pater ille a quo omnia, et unus Dominus Jesus Christus per quem omnia. cætera loca vide infra cap. vii. de Creatione. Per autem præpositio minus principalem causam efficientem significet necesse est, ubi efficiens a quo, id est, principalis, aut nominatur aut intelligitur: intelligitur autem ex iis omnibus et quæ jam dicta sunt, et quæ post dicentur, Patrem omnibus in rebus priorem ac potiorem causam esse: id quod vel Heb. iii. a v. 1. ad 6. satis liquet. considerate apostolum—. fidum ei qui ipsum fecit. conditorem domus suæ, id est, ecclesiæ. Sed qui et ipsum v. 2. et hæc omnia construxit, est Deus, Pater nempe, v. 4.

¶11Remissionem peccatorum; etiam homo. Joan. v. 22. omne judicium dedit Filio. Matt. ix. 6. ut sciatis auctoritatem habere Filium hominis in terra remittendi peccata, tunc dicit &c. Act. v. 31. hunc Deus dextra sua evectum constituit principem ac servatorem, ut det resipiscentiam Israeli et remissionem peccatorum. hinc cap. vii. 60. Domine, ne statuas iis hoc peccatum. Ex his omnibus illud Isaiæ clarius intelligitur de Deo Patre primario dici cap. xxxv. 4, 5, 6. ecce Deus vester, ultio advenit, retributio Dei, ipse advenit servaturus nos. Tunc aperient se oculi cæcorum &c. Nam Pater et servatorem Christum constituit, Act. v. ut supra, et venire dicitur, Joan. xiv. 23. et ipsi edere opera, ut supra.

¶12Conservationem. Joan. xvii. 11, 12. Pater sancte, conserva eos per nomen tuum quos dedisti mihi; ego custodivi eos per nomen tuum. et v. 15. p. 100 rogo—; ut eos a maligno illo conserves. hinc Coloss. i. 17. omnia in eo consistunt. Heb. i. 3. sustinens omnia verbo potentiæ suæ. Sed Græce legitur non suæ sed illius, nempe Patris. plura vide infra, cap. viii. de Providentia, ubi summa rerum gubernatio solius Patris primario esse ostenditur; unde non conservator solum, sed servator etiam Pater Jehova sæpe a prophetis dicitur; quod qui de Filio propter nomen servatoris interpretantur, haud leve argumentum deitatis ejus nactos se esse putant: quasi vero in evangelio Pater etiam servator non sæpenumero dicatur, ut infra cap. xiii. patebit.

¶13Renovationem. Act. v. 31. hunc Deus dextra sua evectum constituit principem ac servatorem, ut det resipiscentiam Israeli. 1 Cor. i. 30. ex ipso vos estis in Christo Jesu, qui factus est nobis sapientia a Deo, justitiaque, et sanctificatio, et redemptio. et 2 Cor. iv. 6. quoniam Deus qui dixit, ut e tenebris lux splendesceret, is est qui splenduit in cordibus nostris ad præbendum lumen cognitionis in facie Jesu Christi. et v. 17, &c. ecce nova facta sunt omnia: hæc enim omnia sunt ex Deo, qui reconciliavit nos sibi per Jesum Christum. nempe quia Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi. rogamus Christi nomine, reconciliamini Deo; fecit enim ut qui non noverat peccatum, pro nobis peccatum esset, ut nos efficeremur justitia Dei in eo. Hinc facile explicantur loca illa Jer. xxiii. 6. et hoc est nomen quo vocabit eum, Jehova justitia nostra, cum cap. xxxiii. 16. et hoc est quod vocabit eam (nempe ecclesiam, non idcirco essentia cum Deo unam), Jehova justitia nostra; vel clariore syntaxi, Jehovam justitiam nostram; vel si quis mavult, hic qui vocabit eam, eodem pertinet.

¶14Potestatem conferendi dona; quippe quam a Patre accepit. Joan. xvii. 18. sicut me misisti in mundum, ita et ego misi eos in mundum. et xx. 21. idem. hinc Matt. x. 1. dedit iis auctoritatem adversus spiritus impuros. Act. iii. 6. in nomine Jesu ambula. et ix. 34. sanat te Jesus. Repetantur quæ supra dicta sunt de operibus ipsius. Joan. xiv. 16. rogabo Patrem et alium advocatum dabit vobis. et xvi. 13, &c. ille spiritus de meo accipiet—. omnia quæ habet Pater mea sunt; propterea dixi illum de meo accepturum. sic cap. xx. 21, 22. sicut misit me Pater, ita &c. p. 101 accipite Spiritum Sanctum. hinc Eph. iv. 8. dedit dona hominibus, cum Psal. lxviii. 19. (unde hoc petitum est) accipiens dedisti dona hominibus.

¶15Ipsum opus mediatorium vel potius passionis. Matt. xxvi. 39. Pater mi, si possibile est, abeat a me poculum istud. Luc. xxii. 43. conspectus est angelus e cœlo corroborans eum. Heb. v. 7, 8. Qui in diebus carnis suæ deprecationibus et supplicationibus oblatis cum clamore valido et lachrymis apud eum qui poterat ipsum servare a morte; et ex auditis precibus liberatus ex metu quamvis Filius esset, tamen ex iis quæ passus est didicit obedientiam. Si etiam Filius tota persona passionis opus superare per se potuit, cur se deseruit? cur Patris opem imploravit? cur angelus ad corroborandum missus? Qua igitur ratione Filius cum Patre essentia unus aut æqualis credendus? Sic in cruce, Matt. xxvii. 40. Deus mi, Deus mi, cur deseruisti me? Deus Filii etiam Dei est Pater; cur Patrem inclamavit? sensit nimirum se ad perferendos mortis dolores ne divina quidem natura sua sibi sufficere. Et moriens, Luc. xxiii. 46. Pater, in manus tuas depono spiritum meum; at cuinam potius quam sibi Deo se hominem commendasset, si divina etiam natura sua se satis potenter liberare a morte valuisset? Pater itaque solus resuscitavit; quod nunc proximum est ut videamus.

¶16Resuscitationem ad vitam. 2 Cor. iv. 14. scientes fore, ut qui suscitavit Dominum Jesum, nos quoque per Jesum suscitet, et sistat vobiscum. 1 Thess. iv. 14. Deus eos qui obdormiverint per Jesum ducet cum eo. Sed de hoc supra hoc ipso capite locis pluribus citatis uberius jam diximus.

¶17Adventum in judicium. Rom. ii. 16. quo die judicabit Deus occulta hominum secundum evangelium meum, per Jesum Christum. 1 Tim. vi. 14. usque ad illustrem adventum Domini nostri Jesu Christi.

¶1p. 130 Recurring, however, to the Gospel itself, on which, as on a foundation, our dependence should chiefly be placed, and adducing my proofs more especially from the evangelist John, the leading purpose of whose work was to declare explicitly the nature of the Son's divinity, I proceed to demonstrate the other proposition announced in my original division of the subject—namely, that the Son himself professes to have received p. 131 from the Father, not only the name of God and of Jehovah, but all that pertains to his own being,—that is to say, his individuality, his existence itself, his attributes, his works, his divine honours; to which doctrine the apostles also, subsequent to Christ, bear their testimony. John iii. 35. the Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things unto him. xiii. 3. Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things unto him, and that he was come from God. Matt. xi. 27. all things are delivered unto me of my Father.

¶1 cont.But here perhaps the advocates of the contrary opinion will interpose with the same argument which was advanced before; for they are constantly shifting the form of their reasoning, Vertumnus-like,³ and using the twofold nature of Christ developed in his office of mediator, as a ready subterfuge by which to evade any arguments that may be brought against them. What Scripture says of the Son generally, they apply, as suits their purpose, in a partial and restricted sense; at one time to the Son of God, at another to the Son of Man,—now to the Mediator in his divine, now in his human capacity, and now again in his union of both natures. But the Son himself says expressly, the Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand, John iii. 35.—namely, because he loveth him, not because he hath begotten him—and he hath given all things to him as the Son, not as Mediator only. If the words had been meant to convey the sense attributed to them by my opponents, it would have been more satisfactory and intelligible to have said, the Father loveth Christ, or the Mediator, or the Son of Man. None of these modes of expression are adopted, but it is simply said, the Father loveth the Son; that is, whatever is comprehended under the name of the Son. The same p. 132 question may also be repeated which was asked before, whether from the time that he became the Mediator, his Deity, in their opinion, remained what it had previously been, or not? If it remained the same, why does he ask and receive every thing from the Father, and not from himself? If all things come from the Father, why is it necessary (as they maintain it to be) for the mediatorial office, that he should be the true and supreme God; since he has received from the Father whatever belongs to him, not only in his mediatorial, but in his filial character? If his Deity be not the same as before, he was never the Supreme God. From hence may be understood John xvi. 15. all things that the Father hath are mine—that is, by the Father's gift. And xvii. 9, 10. them which thou hast given me, for they are thine; and all mine are thine, and thine are mine.

¶2In the first place, then, it is most evident that he receives his name from the Father. Isai. ix. 6. his name shall be called Wonderful, &c. the everlasting Father;⁴ if indeed this elliptical passage be rightly understood; for, strictly speaking, the Son is not the Father, and cannot properly bear the name, nor is it elsewhere ascribed to him, even if we should allow that in some sense or other it is applied to him in the passage before us. The last clause, however, is generally translated not the everlasting Father, but the Father of the age to come,⁵—that is, its teacher, the name of father being often attributed to a teacher. Philipp. ii. 9. wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and hath given him (καὶ ἐχαρίσατο) a name which is above every name. Heb. i. 4. being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. Eph. i. 20, 21. when he set him at his own right hand .....far above all principality, &c. and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. There is no reason why that name should not be Jehovah, or any other name pertaining to p. 133 the Deity, if there be any still higher: but the imposition of a name is allowed to be uniformly the privilege of the greater personage, whether father or lord.

¶3We need be under no concern, however, respecting the name, seeing that the Son receives his very being in like manner from the Father. John vii. 29. I am from him. The same thing is implied John i. 1. in the beginning. For the notion of his eternity is here excluded not only by the decree, as has been stated before, but by the name of Son, and by the phrases—this day have I begotten thee, and, I will be to him a father. Besides, the word beginning can only here mean before the foundation of the world, according to John xvii. 5. as is evident from Col. i. 15—17. the first born of every creature: for by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, &c. and he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Here the Son, not in his human or mediatorial character, but in his capacity of creator, is himself called the first born of every creature. So too Heb. ii. 11. for both he that sanctifieth, and they that are sanctified, are all of one; and iii. 2. faithful to him that appointed him. Him who was begotten from all eternity the Father cannot have begotten, for what was made from all eternity was never in the act of being made; him whom the Father begat from all eternity he still begets; he whom he still begets is not yet begotten, and therefore is not yet a son; for an action which has no beginning can have no completion. Besides, it seems to be altogether impossible that the Son should be either begotten or born from all eternity. If he is the Son, either he must have been originally in the Father, and have proceeded from him, or he must always have been as he is now, separate from the Father, self-existent and independent. If he was originally in the Father, but now exists separately, he has undergone a certain change at some time or other, and is therefore mutable. If he always existed separately from, and independently of, the Father, how is he from the Father, how begotten, how the Son, how separate in subsistence, unless he be also separate in essence? since (laying aside metaphysical trifling) a substantial essence and a subsistence are the same p. 134 thing. However this may be, it will be universally acknowledged that the Son now at least differs numerically from the Father; but that those who differ numerically must differ also in their proper essences, as the logicians express it, is too clear to be denied by any one possessed of common reason. Hence it follows that the Father and the Son differ in essence.

¶3 cont.That this is the true doctrine, reason shows on every view of the subject; that it is contrary to Scripture, which my opponents persist in maintaining, remains to be proved by those who make the assertion. Nor does the type of Melchisedec, on which so much reliance is placed, involve any difficulty. Heb. vii. 3. without father, without mother, without descent; having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God. For inasmuch as the Son was without any earthly father, he is in one sense said to have had no beginning of days; but it no more appears that he had no beginning of days from all eternity, than that he had no Father, or was not a Son. If however he derived his essence from the Father, let it be shown how that essence can have been supremely divine, that is, identically the same with the essence of the Father; since the divine essence, whose property it is to be always one, cannot possibly generate the same essence by which it is generated, nor can a subsistence or person become an agent or patient under either of the circumstances supposed, unless the entire essence be simultaneously agent or patient in the same manner also. Now as the effect of generation is to produce something which shall exist independently of the generator, it follows that God cannot beget a co-equal Deity, because unity and infinity are two of his essential attributes. Since therefore the Son derives his essence from the Father, he is posterior to the Father not merely in rank (a distinction unauthorized by Scripture, and by which many are deceived) but also in essence; and the filial character itself, on the strength of which they are chiefly wont to build his claim to supreme divinity, affords the best refutation of their opinion. For the supreme God is self-existent; but he who is not self-existent, who did not beget, but was begotten, is not the first cause, but the effect, p. 135 and therefore is not the supreme God. He who was begotten from all eternity, must have been from all eternity; but if he can have been begotten who was from all eternity, there is no reason why the Father himself should not have been begotten, and have derived his origin also from some paternal essence. Besides, since father and son are relative terms, distinguished from each other both in theory and in fact, and since according to the laws of contraries the father cannot be the son, nor the son the father, if (which is impossible from the nature of relation) they were of one essence, it would follow that the father stood in a filial relation to the son, and the son in a paternal relation to the father,—a position, of the extravagance of which any rational being may judge. For the doctrine which holds that a plurality of hypostasis is consistent with a unity of essence, has already been sufficiently confuted. Lastly, if the Son be of the same essence with the Father, and the same Son after his hypostatical union coalesce in one person with man, I do not see how to evade the inference, that man also is the same person with the Father, an hypothesis which would give birth to not a few paradoxes. But more may perhaps be said on this point, when the incarnation of Christ comes under consideration.

¶4With regard to his existence. John v. 26. as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. vi. 57. as the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, &c. This gift of life is for ever.⁶ Heb. ii. 8. unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,—hence xi. 12. they shall perish, but thou remainest ......but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

¶5With regard to the divine attributes. And first, that of Omnipresence; for if the Father has given all things to the Son, even his very being and life, he has also given him to be wherever he is. In p. 136 this sense is to be understood John i. 48. before that Philip called thee .....I saw thee. For Nathanael inferred nothing more from this than what he professes in the next verse,—thou art the Son of God, and iii. 13. the Son of man which is in heaven. These words can never prove that the Son, whether of man or of God, is of the same essence with the Father; but only that the Son of man came down from heaven at the time when he was conceived in the womb of the Virgin, that though he was ministering on earth in the body, his whole spirit and mind, as befitted a great prophet, were in the Father,—or that he, who when made man was endowed with the highest degree of virtue, is, by reason of that virtue, or of a superior nature given to him in the beginning,⁷ even now in heaven; or rather which was in heaven, the Greek ὢν having both significations. Again, Matt. xviii. 20. there am I in the midst of them. xxviii. 20. I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Even these texts, however, do not amount to an assertion of absolute omnipresence, as will be demonstrated in the following chapter.

¶6Omniscience. Matt. xi. 27. all things are delivered unto me of my Father, and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. John v. 20. the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things. viii. 26. I speak those things that I have heard of him. v. 28. then shall ye know that ...... as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. v. 38. I speak that which I have seen with my Father. xv. 15. all things that I have heard of my Father, I have made known unto you. ii. 24, 25. he knew all men ......for he knew what was in man. xxi. 17. p. 137 thou knowest all things. xvi. 30. now are we sure that thou knowest all things ...... by this we believe that thou camest forth from God. iii. 31—34. he that cometh from heaven ...... what he hath seen and heard ...... he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God; for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. Rev. i. 1. the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him,—whence it is written of him, ii. 23. I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts,—even as it is said of the faithful, that they know all things; 1 John ii. 20. ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. Even the Son, however, knows not all things absolutely; there being some secret purposes, the knowledge of which the Father has reserved to himself alone. Mark xiii. 32. of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father; or as it is in Matt. xxiv. 36. my Father only. Acts i. 7. the times and the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

¶7Authority.⁸ Matt. xxviii. 18. all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Luke xxii. 29. I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me. John v. 22. the Father hath committed all judgement unto the Son. v. 43. I am come in my Father's name. vii. 16. my doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. viii. 42. I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. xii. 49, 50. I have not spoken of myself, but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment what I should say, and what I should speak. xiv. 24. the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. xvii. 2. as thou hast given him power over all flesh. Rev. ii. 26, 27. to him will I give power ...... even as I received of my Father.

¶8Omnipotence. John v. 19. the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also p. 138 doeth the Son likewise. v. 30. I can of my own self do nothing. x. 18. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again: this commandment have I received of my Father. Hence Philipp. iii. 21. he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. Rev. i. 8. I am ...... the Almighty: though it may be questioned whether this is not said of God the Father by the Son or the angel representing his authority, as has been explained before: so also Psal. ii. 7.

¶9Works. John v. 20, 21. for the Father ...... will show him greater works than these .....for as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. v. 36. the works that my Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me:—it is not therefore his divinity of which they bear witness, but his mission from God; and so in other places. viii. 28. then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself. x. 32. many good works have I showed you from my Father. xi. 22. I know that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. v. 41. Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. So likewise in working miracles, even where he does not expressly implore the divine assistance, he nevertheless acknowledges it. Matt. xii. 28. compared with Luke xi. 20. I cast out devils by the spirit, or finger, of God. John xiv. 10. the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Yet the nature of these works, although divine, was such, that angels were not precluded from performing similar miracles at the same time and in the same place where Christ himself abode daily: John v. 4. an angel went down at a certain season into the pool. The disciples also performed the same works. John xiv. 12. he that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do.

¶9 cont.The following gifts also, great as they are, were received by him from the Father. First, the power of conversion. John vi. 44. no man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him. xvii. 2. that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him: and so uniformly; whence arises the expression, Matt. xxiv. 31.—his elect. p. 139 Wherever therefore Christ is said to have chosen any one, as John xiii. 18. and xv. 16, 19. he must be understood to speak only of the election to the apostolical office.

¶10Secondly, creation—but with this peculiarity, that it is always said to have taken place per eum, through him, not by him, but by the Father. Isai. li. 16. I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people. Whether this be understood of the old or the new creation, the inference is the same. Rom. xi. 36. for of him,—that is, of the Father,—and through him, and to him are all things; to whom be glory for ever. 1 Cor. viii. 6. to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things. The remaining passages on the same subject will be cited in the seventh chapter, on the Creation. But the preposition per must signify the secondary efficient cause, whenever the efficiens a quo, that is, the principal efficient cause, is either expressed or understood. Now it appears from all the texts which have been already quoted, as well as from those which will be produced hereafter, that the Father is the first or chief cause of all things. This is evident even from the single passage, Heb. iii. 1—6. consider the Apostle ...... who was faithful to him that appointed him ...... who hath builded the house, that is, the Church. But he that appointed him, v. 2. and builded all things, is God, that is, the Father, v. 4.

¶11Thirdly, the remission of sins, even in his human nature. John v. 22. the Father hath committed all judgement unto the Son. Matt. ix. 6. but that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, then saith he, &c. Acts v. 31. him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. Hence Stephen says, vii. 60. Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. It clearly appears from these passages that the following expression in Isaiah refers primarily to God the Father, xxxv. 4—6. behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompense, p. 140 he will come and save you: then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, &c. For it was the Father who appointed Christ to be a Saviour, Acts v. 31. and the Father is said to come unto him, John xiv. 23. and do the works, as has been proved before.

¶12Fourthly, preservation. John xvii. 11, 12. holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me ...... I kept them in thy name. v. 15. I pray ...... that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. Col. i. 17. by him all things consist. Heb. i. 3. upholding all things by the word of his power, where it is read in the Greek, not of his own power, but of his, namely, of the Father's power.⁹ But this subject will come under consideration again in the eighth chapter, on Providence, where the chief government of all things will be shown to belong primarily to the Father alone; whence the Father, Jehovah, is often called by the prophets not only the Preserver, but also the Saviour. Those who refer these passages to the Son, on account of the appellation of Saviour, seem to fancy that they hereby gain an important argument for his divinity; as if the same title were not frequently applied to the Father in the New Testament, as will be shown in the thirteenth chapter.

¶13Fifthly, renovation. Acts v. 31. him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel. 1 Cor. i. 30. of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. 2 Cor. iv. 6. for God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. v. 17—21. behold, all things are become new, and all things are of God, who hath reconciled himself to us by Jesus Christ...... we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled unto God: for he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might p. 141 be made the righteousness of God in him. Hence Jer. xxiii. 6. may be explained without difficulty; this is his name whereby he shall be called, Jehovah our righteousness, and xxxiii. 16. this is the name wherewith she shall be called (that is, the Church, which does not thereby become essentially one with God) Jehovah our righteousness.¹

¶14Sixthly, the power of conferring gifts—namely, that vicarious power which he has received from the Father. John xvii. 18. as thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. See also xx. 21. Hence Matt. x. 1. he gave them power against unclean spirits. Acts iii. 6. in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk. ix. 34. Jesus Christ maketh thee whole. What was said before of his works, may be repeated here. John xiv. 16. I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter. xvi. 13, &c. the Spirit shall receive of mine....all things that the Father hath are mine, therefore said I that he shall take of mine. xx. 21, 22. as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.....receive the Holy Ghost. Hence Eph. iv. 8. he gave gifts to men; compared with Psal. lxviii. 18. whence it is taken—thou hast received gifts for men.

¶15Seventhly, his mediatorial work itself, or rather his passion. Matt. xxvi. 39. O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. Luke xxii. 43. there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. Heb. v. 7, 8. who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared: though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. For if the Son was able to accomplish by his own independent power the work of his passion, why did he forsake himself; why did p. 142 he implore the assistance of his Father; why was an angel sent to strengthen him? How then can the Son be considered co-essential and co-equal with the Father? So too he exclaimed upon the cross—My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? He whom the Son, himself God, addresses as God, must be the Father,—why then did the Son call upon the Father? Because he felt even his divine nature insufficient to support him under the pains of death. Thus also he said, when at the point of death, Luke xxiii. 46. Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. To whom rather than to himself as God would he have commended himself in his human nature, if by his own divine nature alone he had possessed sufficient power to deliver himself from death? It was therefore the Father only who raised him again to life; which is the next particular to be noticed.

¶16Eighthly, his resuscitation from death. 2 Cor. iv. 14. knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus, shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. 1 Thess. iv. 14. them also which sleep in Jesus shall God bring with him. But this point has been sufficiently illustrated by ample quotations in a former part of the chapter.

¶17Ninthly, his future judicial advent.² Rom. ii. 16. in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. 1 Tim. vi. 14. until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.

¶1p. 101 Honorem divinum. Joan. v. 22, 23. omne judicium dedit Filio, ut omnes honorent Filium prout honorant Patrem—, ut qui miserit eum. Philipp. ii. 9, 10, 11. extulit; largitus est, ut ad nomen Jesu—: omnisque p. 102lingua profiteatur Jesum Christum esse Dominum ad gloriam Dei Patris. Heb. i. 6. quum inducit primogenitum in orbem terrarum, dicit, et adorent eum omnes angeli Dei. Apoc. v. 12. dignus est agnus ille mactatus qui accipiat—. unde Act. vii. 59. invocantem et dicentem, Domine Jesu. et ix. 14. qui invocant nomen tuum. 1 Cor. i. 2. cum omnibus qui invocant nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi. 2 Tim. ii. 22. cum iis qui invocant Christum ex puro corde. id esse^la5 quemadmodum explicatur Col. iii. 17. quicquid feceritis—, in nomine Domini Jesu Christi istud agite, gratias agentes Deo et Patri per eum. 2 Tim. ii. 19. quisquis nominat nomen Christi. Non alia igitur ratione Filium Dei videmur invocare, quam veluti advocatum nostrum ad Patrem. Sic Apoc. xxii. 20. Veni igitur, Domine Jesu; ad judicium nempe exercendum, quod Pater ei dedit, ut omnes honorent Filium &c. Joan. v. 22, 23. ut supra.

¶2Baptizari in nomen ejus. Matt. xxviii. 18, 19. data est mihi omnis auctoritas in cœlo et in terra; profecti igitur docete—, baptizantes eos in nomen Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti: sed de hoc amplius cap. sequente.

¶3Tum credere in eum, siquidem is honor duntaxat divinus est; creditur enim in Deum et in Mosen Exod. xiv. 31. et in prophetas 2 Chron. xx. 20. et in omnes sanctos Philem. 5. speratur etiam in Mosen Joan. v. 45. et credere in aliquem nihil aliud videtur Hebraico sermone esse quam sermone Græco aut Latino credere alicui; quicquid est distinctiunculæ, ex scholis non ex scriptura ortum habet: nam credere in aliquem, est ubi fiduciam nullam notat; Joan. ii. 23, 24. multi crediderunt in nomen ejus,—; ipse autem Jesus non credebat iis semetipsum.— et xii. 42. multi crediderunt in eum, sed propter Pharisæos hoc non profitebantur. et credere alicui summam sæpius fidem significat; Joan. v. 24. Qui credit ei qui misit me, habet vitam æternam. Rom. iv. 3. credidit Abrahamus Deo, et imputatum est ei ad justitiam. 1 Joan. v. 10. qui non credit Deo. Tit. iii. 8. idem. Sed et hoc etiam a Patre habet. Joan. iii. 35, 36. Pater omnia dedit ei in manum; qui credit in Filium, p. 103 habet—. et vi. 40. hæc est voluntas ejus qui misit me, ut quisquis credit in Filium, habeat—. et xii. 44. Jesus clamavit et dixit—, non in me, sed in eum qui—. hinc xiv. 1. creditis in Deum? etiam in me credite. 1 Joan. iii. 23. hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi. Hinc statuamus, credere in Christum nihil esse aliud nisi credere Christum esse Filium Dei a Patre missum ad salutem nostrûm. Joan. xi. 25, 26, 27. dixit ei Jesus, ego sum resurrectio et vita; qui credit in me, etiamsi mortuus fuerit, vivet: et quisquis vivit et credit in me non morietur in æternum. credis hoc? ait illi, Etiam, Domine; ego credo te esse Christum Filium Dei qui in mundum venturus erat.

¶4Gloriam denique Divinam. Joan. i. 1. sermo erat apud Deum, eratque sermo Deus. et v. 14. spectavimus gloriam ut unigeniti egressi a Patre, παρὰ πατρός. et v. 18. Deum nemo vidit unquam, unigenitus Filius qui est in, vel ad sinum Patris sui, ille enarravit. et vi. 46. non quod Patrem viderit quisquam, nisi is qui est a Deo, ὁ ὢν παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, cum capite xvii. 5. glorifica me tu, Pater, apud temetipsum ea gloria quam habui apud te priusquam mundus esset. Nemo hic dubitat quin Pater ascendentem ad se Filium in eum quem petebat pristinum gloriæ locum restituerit: is autem locus, quod nemo non fatebitur, est dextera Dei; erat igitur idem a principio gloriæ locus unde descenderat: dextera autem Dei gloriam quidem significat, non primario summe divinam, sed Deo duntaxat proximam. itaque v. 24. ut spectent gloriam illam meam quam dedisti mihi; quia dilexisti me ante jactum mundi fundamentum. His in locis, sicubi alias, de natura Filii divina docemur, ut distincta tamen a natura Patris, ac plane minore: esse enim apud Deum, πρὸς Θεὸν, et παρὰ Θεῷ; esse Deum, et esse in sinu Dei Patris; esse Deum, et esse a Deo; esse unum Deum invisibilem, et esse unigenitum aspectabilem, disparata sunt, quæ de una eademque essentia dici non possunt: gloriam autem habere datam non ab se sibi, sed a Patre, quia sit dilectus, etiam in divina natura ante jacta mundi fundamenta, minorem plane declarat. Sic Matt. xvi. 27. cum gloria Patris sui. Act. iii. 13. Deus ille Abrahami, et Isaaci, et Jacobi, Deus ille patrum nostrorum glorificavit Filium suum Jesum. Col. i. 19. quoniam p. 104 libuit Patri ut omnis plenitudo in eo inhabitaret, cum ii. 9. in eo inhabitat omnis plenitudo deitatis corporaliter. et Eph. iii. 19. ut impleamini ad omnem usque plenitudinem illam Dei. Hæc apertissime demonstrant, ita Christum suam plenitudinem accepisse a Deo, ut nos a Christo accepturi sumus: illud enim corporaliter quod adjicitur, vel idem est quod solide, ut opponatur inani deceptioni, cujus fit mentio versu præcedente, vel ad eandem cum Deo essentiam arguendam nihil penitus facit. 1 Pet. i. 21. gloriam ei dedit, ut fides ac spes vestra sit in Deo. et ii. 4. apud Deum electus, honoratus. et 2 Pet. i. 16, 17. qui oculis nostris aspeximus illius majestatem: acceperat enim a Deo Patre honorem et gloriam, voce ad eum delata hujusmodi—. et 1 Pet. iv. 11. cum 2 Pet. iii. 18. ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus per Jesum Christum: cui est gloria et robur in sæcula sæculorum. crescite in gratia et notitia Domini nostri et servatoris Jesu Christi: cui gloria et nunc, et in diem sæculi. Hic ex priore loco videtur Domini nomen, ut sæpe alias, de Patre esse intelligendum: si de Filio, eodem tamen recidit; doctrina enim superioris loci non variat. hinc Joan. xii. 41. ex Isa. lxiii. 5. hæc dixit Isaias, quando vidit gloriam ejus: id est, gloriam unigeniti, quam Pater Filio dedit. Neque obstat quod legitur Isa. xlii. 8. ego sum Jehova, illud est nomen meum; et gloriam meam alteri non dabo et laudem meam sculptilibus; tametsi enim Filius alter est a Patre, hic tamen gloriam sculptilibus et alienis diis negat se daturum, non Filio, qui effulgentia gloriæ illius et character substantiæ est, et super quem positurum se spiritum suum promiserat v. 1. Quam enim gloriam Filio dat Pater, ab se non alienat; Filius enim Patrem ubique glorificat. Joan. xiii. 31. nunc glorificatus est Filius hominis, et Deus glorificatus est in eo. et cap. viii. 50. ego vero non quæro gloriam meam; est qui quærat et judicet.

¶5Hinc Patris quæ sunt, qua ratione dicantur esse Filii, perspicuum est. Joan. xvi. 15. omnia quæ habet Pater, mea sunt. et xvii. 6, 7. tui erant, et mihi eos dedisti. nunc noverunt omnia quæ dedisti, a te esse. hinc v. 10. mea omnia tua sunt, et tua mea sunt. Nimirum quo pacto regnum suum esse dixit, Luc. xxii. 30; quia priore versu dixerat, ego paciscor vobis, prout pactus est mihi Pater meus, regnum. p. 105

¶6Adventum denique in judicium. 1 Tim. vi. 14. usque ad illustrem illum adventum Domini nostri Jesu Christi, quem præstitutis vel suis temporibus ostendet ille beatus, Rex ille regum et Dominus dominorum; qui solus habet immortalitatem, lucem habitans inaccessam, quem vidit nemo hominum neque videre potest.

¶7Cum hæc omnia a Patre acceperit, et in forma Dei esset, rapinam non duxit hoc æqualia esse cum Deo, Philipp. ii. 6. nempe quia id dono acceperat, non rapto. Esse autem æqualem, si is sensus loci illius est, unitatem essentiæ refellit potius quam probat; æqualitas enim non nisi duarum saltem potest essentiarum esse. Sicuti et istæ voces non duxit, vel non arbitratus est, et sese exinanivit, &c. convenire summo Deo non videntur: arbitrari enim quid est aliud, nisi opinari? opinio autem in Deum non cadit: nec magis exinanire se Deus infinitus potest, quam sibi contradicere; infinitum enim et inane sibi invicem repugnant. At vero cum in qua forma Dei extitit, eam exinaniverit, si forma Dei pro ipsa essentia Dei sumenda, ipsam Dei essentiam exinaniisse arguetur; quod fieri non potest.

¶8Patrem itaque majorem esse Filio (quod postremo loco demonstrandum suscepi) Filius ipse profitetur palam, atque declarat: Joan. x. 29. Pater major omnibus est. et xiv. 28. Pater major me est. homine inquis. Itane vero crediderunt discipuli hominem duntaxat hæc loqui? siccine in se credi voluit Christus? non dices opinor. Si igitur non homo tantum hæc dixit, (nam se homine majorem esse Patrem nemini erat dubium) sed, qualis ipse credi voluit, et homo et Deus, intelligi procul dubio sic debet, ac si palam dixisset, Pater major me est, quantuscunque sum, et homine et Deo: aut certe is non dixit in quem isti crediderunt, non is docuit, sed in ambiguo lusit. Naturam igitur cum persona, non naturam Dei Patris cum natura Filii hominis comparavit. Et v. 31. prout mandatum dedit mihi Pater, ita facio. Et cap. v. 18, 19. insimulatus ab Judæis quasi parem fecisset se Deo, id diserte negat: non potest, inquit, Filius a semetipso operari—. et v. 30. prout audio, judico; et judicium meum justum est, quia non quæro voluntatem meam, p. 106 sed voluntatem ejus qui misit me; id est Patris. et cap. vi. 38. descendi e cœlo ut exequar non voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem ejus qui misit me. misit autem Filium unigenitum; voluntas ergo Patris et alia est, et major voluntate unigeniti. Et vii. 28. clamabat in templo, dicens—a meipso non veni. et viii. 29. nam qui misit me mecum est: Pater me solum non reliquit; quia ego quæ placent ipsi facio semper. hæc si loquitur ut Deus, quî potuit eum Pater relinquere essentia unus? si ut homo, quid sit solum æquali deitatis potentia fultum? cur denique non reliquit solum? non quia essentia unus, sed quia quæ placent ipsi facio semper; minor scilicet quæ placent majori. Et v. 42. nec enim a meipso veni (ergo ne a deitate quidem sua) sed ille misit me; alter ergo a meipso et major. v. 49. honoro Patrem meum. v. 50. non quæro gloriam meam. et v. 54. si ego glorifico meipsum, gloria mea nihil est; minor ergo quam Patris gloria. Et cap. x. 24, 25. si tu es Christus—. opera quæ ego facio in nomine Patris mei, hæc testantur de me. et xv. 10. sicut ego Patris mei mandata observavi, et maneo in ejus charitate—. et xvi. 25. veniet tempus cum non amplius per similitudines loquar vobis, sed aperte de Patre meo nuntium afferam vobis. et xx. 17. ascendo ad Patrem meum et Patrem vestrum et ad Deum meum et Deum vestrum. conferatur Apoc. i. 11. dicentis, Ego sum Alpha et Omega—. et v. 17. ego sum primus ille et ultimus. et cap. ii. 8. idem. cum cap. iii. 12. faciam ut is sit columna in templo Dei mei. et ter deinceps idem. Hic qui primum et ultimum se modo dixerat, mox Patrem fatetur Deum suum. Matt. xi. 25, 26. confiteor, vel gratias ago tibi, Pater, Domine cœli ac terræ, quod hoc—: etiam, Pater, propterea quod ita erat bene placitum coram te.

¶9Hactenus Filii testimonia de Patre habuimus; nunc Patris de Filio audiamus: scribitur enim Matt. xi. 27. nemo novit Filium, nisi Pater; neque Patrem quisquam novit, nisi Filius, et cuicunque voluerit Filius eum retegere. 1 Joan. v. 9. hoc est testimonium Dei quod testificatus est de Filio suo—: hic Pater de Filio testaturus absolute Deus dicitur; testimonium autem illud clarissimum est: Matt. iii. 17. hic est Filius meus dilectus in quo acquievi. Isa. xlii. 1. cum Matt. xii. 18. en servus meus quem sustento, p. 107 electus meus quem benigne accipit anima mea: indam spiritum meum ipsi; et rursus Matt. xvii. 5. idem. 2 Pet. i. 17. acceperat enim a Deo Patre honorem et gloriam, voce ad eum delata hujusmodi a magnifica illa gloria, Hic est Filius ille meus dilectus in quo acquievi. Mal. iii. 1. et angelus fœderis ecce venturus est, ait Jehova exercituum. et apertissime Psal. ii. ubi introductus Deus Pater et naturam et officia Filii sui ipse palam declarat, v. 7, 8, 11, 12. decretum; Jehova dixit mihi, Filius meus es. pete a me, et dabo. colite Jehovam: osculamini Filium. his adde Heb. i. 8, 9. ad Filium autem, Thronus tuus, Deus, in sæculum sæculi—. dilexisti justitiam, et odisti legis transgressionem; propterea unxit te Deus, Deus tuus, oleo exultationis ultra consortes tuos. His denique adjiciatur testimonium Gabrielis angeli, Luc. i. 32. hic erit magnus, et Filius Altissimi vocabitur: dabitque ei Dominus Deus sedem Davidis patris ipsius. Filius Altissimi: non ergo ipse Altissimus. Idem undique confirmant apostoli: et primus omnium Baptista; Joan. i. 29. ecce agnus Dei; et v. 33, 34. ego non noveram eum; sed qui misit me ut baptizarem aqua, ille mihi dixerat—. ego igitur vidi, et testor hunc esse Filium Dei. et cap. iii. 32. &c. quod vidit et audivit, hoc testatur—. Non terrenus solum; hic non terrena solum loquitur: sed qui supra omnes est, qui e cœlo est v. 31. ne quis hæc atque hujusmodi de Christo homine dicta esse semper obtundat. 2 Cor. iv. 46. ne irradiet eos illustratio evangelii gloriæ Christi, qui est imago Dei. Col. i. 15. qui est imago Dei invisibilis, et primogenitus omnis rei creatæ. Philipp. ii. 6. in forma Dei. Heb. i. 2. quem constituit hæredem—. v. 3. effulgentia gloriæ et character substantiæ ejus. hæc omnia relata cum sint, idque in personis numero duabus, essentiam declarant et non unam, et alteram altera minorem. Sic. v. 4. tanto præstantior factus angelis, quanto excellentius præ illis hæreditate accepit nomen. 1 Cor. iii. 23. vos autem Christi; Christus vero Dei est. ubinam potius conveniebat Christum nominasse Deum? non nominavit, sed, Dei; id etiam clarius in iis quæ sequuntur: cap. xi. 3. velim vos scire—caput Christi Deum. Eph. i. 17. Deus Domini nostri Jesu Christi, 1 Cor. xv. 27. cum dicit omnia esse ei subjecta, palam est hoc dici, excepto eo qui subjecit ei omnia: postquam vero subjecta fuerint ei omnia, tunc et ipse Filius subjicietur ei qui subjecerit ipsi p. 108 omnia; ut Deus sit omnia in omnibus. Non est ut hic adversarii, quod solent, ad mediatorium munus ullo subterfugio possint recurrere: hic enim Filius cum mediatorium munus impleverit, et nihil restabit, quo minus ad pristinam unigeniti Filii gloriam restituendus sit, Patri tamen subjicietur.

¶10Hæc fuit sanctorum de Dei Filio fides, hæc eadem illius fidei celebrata confessio, hæc sola docetur, Deo accepta est, æternæ salutis promissionem habet. Mat. xvi. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. vos quem me dicitis esse? respondit Petrus, Tu es Christus Filius Dei viventis: tum Jesus, Beatus es, Simon, quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi, sed Pater meus qui est in cœlis; super hanc petram ædificabo ecclesiam meam—. Luc. ix. 20. Christum illum Dei. Joan. i. 50, 51. respondit Nathanael, Tu es Filius Dei, tu es rex Israel. et vi. 69. nos credidimus et novimus te esse Christum illum Filium Dei viventis. et ix. 35, 36, 37, 38. tune credis in Filium Dei? respondit, Quis est, Domine, ut credam in eum? dixit Jesus, Vidisti eum, et is est qui loquitur tecum: ille ait, Credo, Domine, et adoravit eum. et xi. 22, 26, 27. scio fore, ut quæcunque petieris a Deo, det tibi: quisquis vivit, et credit in eum, non morietur in æternum; credis hoc? ait illi, Etiam, Domine; ego credo te esse Christum Filium Dei, qui in mundum venturus erat. et xvi. 27, 30, 31. Pater amat vos, quia vos me amastis, et credidistis me a Deo prodiisse. nunc scimus te scire omnia; per hoc credimus te a Deo prodiisse. et xvii. 3, 7, 8, 21. hæc est vita æterna, ut cognoscant te esse illum solum verum Deum, et quem misisti Jesum Christum: nunc noverunt, omnia quæ dedisti mihi, a te esse: verba quæ tradidisti mihi tradidi iis: et vere norunt me a te prodiisse; ut credat mundus, me a te missum esse. et xx. 31. hæc scripta sunt ut credatis Jesum esse Christum Filium Dei, et ut credentes, vitam habeatis in nomine ipsius. Act. viii. 37. si credis—. credo Jesum Christum esse Filium Dei. Rom. x. 9. si credideris in corde tuo quod Deus eum suscitavit ex mortuis, servaberis. Col. ii. 2. ut consolationem habeant corda eorum, ipsis charitate compactis ad omnem opulentiam plenæ ac certissimæ intelligentiæ, ad agnitionem mysterii Dei ac Patris, et Christi. Phil. iv. 6, 7. petitiones vestræ innotescant apud Deum; et pax Dei quæ exsuperat omnem mentem custop. 109 diet corda vestra et cogitationes vestras in Christo Jesu. 1 Pet. i. 21. per eum credentes in Deum qui suscitavit eum ex mortuis, et gloriam ei dedit, ut fides ac spes vestra sit in Deo. 1 Joan. iv. 15. quisquis professus fuerit Jesum esse Filium Dei, Deus in eo habitat, et ipse in Deo. et v. 1. quisquis credit Jesum esse Christum illum, ex Deo genitus est. et v. 5. quis est qui vincit mundum, nisi qui credit Jesum esse Filium Dei?* Postremo, symbolum etiam apostolicum in ecclesia antiquissimum et receptissimum non aliam nobis fidem proponit.

¶1p. 142 Tenthly, divine honours. John v. 22, 23. the Father hath committed all judgement unto the Son; that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father......which hath sent him. Philipp. ii. 9—11. God hath highly exalted him, and hath given him a name....that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow....and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Heb. i. 6. when he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. Rev. v. 12. worthy is the Lamb p. 143 that was slain to receive power, &c. Hence Acts vii. 59. calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. ix. 14. all that call upon thy name. 1 Cor. i. 2. with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. 2 Tim. ii. 22. with them that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart, that is, as it is explained Col. iii. 17. whatsoever ye do......do it in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. 2 Tim. ii. 19. every one that nameth the name of Christ. It appears therefore that when we call upon the Son of God, it is only in his capacity of advocate with the Father. So Rev. xxii. 20. even so, come, Lord Jesus—namely, to execute judgement, which the Father hath committed unto him, that all men might honour the Son, &c. John v. 22, 23.

¶2Eleventhly, baptism in his name. Matt. xxviii. 18, 19. all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth; go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. More will be said on this subject in the next chapter.

¶3Twelfthly, belief in him; if indeed this should be considered as an honour peculiar to divinity; for the Israelites are said, Exod. xiv. 31. to believe Jehovah and his servant Moses. Again, to believe the prophets occurs 2 Chron. xx. 20. and faith toward all saints Philem. 5. and Moses in whom ye trust, John v. 45. Whence it would seem, that to believe in any one is nothing more than an Hebraism, which the Greeks or Latins express by the phrase to believe any one; so that whatever trifling distinction may be made between the two, originates in the schools, and not in Scripture. For in some cases to believe in any one implies no faith at all. John ii. 23, 24. many believed in his name....but Jesus did not commit himself unto them. xii. 42. many believed on him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him. On the other hand, to believe any one often signifies the highest degree of faith. John v. 24. he that believeth on him (qui credit ei) that sent me, hath everlasting life. Rom. iv. 3. Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 1 John v. 10. he that believeth not God. See p. 144 also Tit. iii. 8. This honour, however, like the others, is derived from the Father. John iii. 35, 36. the Father hath given all things into his hand: he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life. vi. 40. this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life. xii. 44. Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. Hence xiv. 1. ye believe in God, believe also in me. 1 John iii. 23. this is his commandment, that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ. It may therefore be laid down as certain, that believing in Christ implies nothing more than that we believe Christ to be the Son of God, sent from the Father for our salvation. John xi. 25—27. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? She saith unto him, Yea, Lord; I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

¶4Thirteenthly, divine glory. John i. 1. the Word was with God, and the Word was God. v. 14. we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, παρὰ Πατρός. v. 18. no man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. vi. 46. not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, ὁ ὢν παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ. xvii. 5. glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. No one doubts that the Father restored the Son, on his ascent into heaven, to that original place of glory of which he here speaks. That place will be universally acknowledged to be the right hand of God; the same therefore was his place of glory in the beginning, and from which he had descended. But the right hand of God primarily signifies a glory, not in the highest sense divine, but only next in dignity to God. So v. 24. that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me; for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. In these, as in other passages, we are taught that the nature of the Son is indeed divine, but distinct from and clearly inferior to the nature of the Father,—for to be with God, πρὸς Θεὸν, and to be from God, παρὰ Θεῷ,—to be God, p. 145 and to be in the bosom of God the Father,—to be God, and to be from God,—to be the one invisible God, and to be the only-begotten and visible, are things so different that they cannot be predicated of one and the same essence. Besides, the fact that the glory which he had even in his divine nature before the foundation of the world, was not self-derived, but given by the love of the Father, plainly demonstrates him to be inferior to the Father. So Matt. xvi. 27. in the glory of his Father. Acts iii. 13. the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus. Col. i. 19. it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell. ii. 9. in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Eph. iii. 19. that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. These passages most clearly evince that Christ has received his fulness from God, in the sense in which we shall receive our fulness from Christ. For the term bodily, which is subjoined, either means substantially, in opposition to the vain deceit mentioned in the preceding verse,³ or is of no weight in proving that Christ is of the same essence with God. 1 Pet. i. 21. who gave him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God. ii. 4. chosen of God and precious. 2 Pet. i. 16, 17. we were eye-witnesses of his majesty; for he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him—. 1 Pet. iv. 11. compared with 2 Pet. iii. 18. that God in all things may be glorified, through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever: but grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; to whom be glory both now and for ever. On a collation of the two passages, it would seem that the phrase our Lord, in the latter, must be understood of the Father, as is frequently the case. If however it be applied to the Son, the inference is the same, for it does not alter the doctrine of the former passage. John xii. 41. citing Isai. lxiii. 5. these things said Esaias, when p. 146 he saw his glory, and spake of him,—that is, the glory of the only-begotten, given to the Son by the Father. Nor is any difficulty created by Isai. xlii. 8. I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. For though the Son be another than the Father, God's meaning is merely that he will not give his glory to graven images and strange gods,—not that he will not give it to the Son, who is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,⁴ and upon whom he had promised that he would put his Spirit, v. 1. For the Father does not alienate his glory from himself in imparting it to the Son, inasmuch as the Son uniformly glorifies the Father.⁵ John xiii. 31. now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. viii. 50. I seek not mine own glory; there is one that seeketh and judgeth. p. 147

¶5Hence it becomes evident on what principle the attributes of the Father are said to pertain to the Son. John xvi. 15. all things that the Father hath are mine. xvii. 6, 7. thine they were, and thou gavest them me;....now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. It is therefore said, v. 10. all mine are thine, and thine are mine—namely, in the same sense in which he had called the kingdom his, Luke xxii. 30. for he had said in the preceding verse, I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me.

¶6Lastly, his coming to judgement. 1 Tim. vi. 14. until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which in his time he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see.

¶7Christ therefore, having received all these things from the Father, and being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, Philipp. ii. 5. namely, because he had obtained them by gift, not by robbery. For if this passage imply his co-equality with the Father, it rather refutes than proves his unity of essence; since equality cannot exist but between two or more essences. Further, the phrases he did not think it,—he made himself of no reputation, (literally, he emptied himself,) appear inapplicable to the supreme God. For to think is nothing else than to entertain an opinion, which cannot be properly said of God.⁶ Nor can the infinite God be said to empty himself, any more than to contradict himself; for infinity and emptiness are opposite terms. But since he emptied himself of that form of God in which he had previously existed, if the form of God is to be taken for the essence of the Deity itself, it would prove him to have emptied himself of that essence, which is impossible. p. 148

¶8Again, the Son himself acknowledges and declares openly, that the Father is greater than the Son; which was the last proposition I undertook to prove. John x. 29. my Father is greater than all. xiv. 28. my Father is greater than I. It will be answered, that Christ is speaking of his human nature. But did his disciples understand him as speaking merely of his human nature? Was this the belief in himself which Christ required? Such an opinion will scarcely be maintained. If therefore he said this, not of his human nature only, (for that the Father was greater than he in his human nature could not admit of a doubt) but in the sense in which he himself wished his followers to conceive of him both as God and man, it ought undoubtedly to be understood as if he had said, My Father is greater than I, whatsoever I am, both in my human and divine nature; otherwise the speaker would not have been he in whom they believed, and instead of teaching them, he would only have been imposing upon them with an equivocation. He must therefore have intended to compare the nature with the person, not the nature of God the Father with the nature of the Son in his human form. So v. 31. as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. John v. 18, 19. Being accused by the Jews of having made himself equal with God, he expressly denies it: the Son can do nothing of himself, v. 30. as I hear I judge, and my judgement is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of my Father which sent me. vi. 38. I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. Now he that was sent was the only begotten Son; therefore the will of the Father is other and greater than the will of the only begotten Son. vii. 28. Jesus cried in the temple, saying ...... I am not come of myself. viii. 29. he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. If he says this as God, how could he be left by the Father, with whom he was essentially one? if as man, what is meant by his being left alone, who was sustained by a Godhead of equal power? And why did not the Father leave him alone?—not because he was essentially one with him, but because he did always those things that pleased him, that is, as the less conforms himself to the will of the greater. v. 42. neither came I of myself,—not therefore of his own Godhead,— p. 149 but he sent me: he that sent him was therefore another and greater than himself. v. 49. I honour my Father. v. 50. I seek not mine own glory. v. 54. if I honour myself, my glory is nothing; it is therefore less than the Father's glory. x. 24, 25. if thou be the Christ, tell us plainly ...... the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. xv. 10. as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. xvi. 25. the time cometh when I shall no more speak to you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father. xx. 17. I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Compare also Rev. i. 11. I am Alpha and Omega, and v. 17. I am the first and the last. See also ii. 8. iii. 12. him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, which is repeated three times successively. Here he, who had just before styled himself the first and the last, acknowledges that the Father was his God. Matt. xi. 25, 26. I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth; because thou hast hid these things, &c. even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight.

¶9Thus far we have considered the testimony of the Son respecting the Father; let us now enquire what is the testimony of the Father respecting the Son: for it is written, Matt. xi. 27. no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. 1 John v. 9. this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. Here the Father, when about to testify of the Son, is called God absolutely; and his witness is most explicit. Matt. iii. 17. this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Isai. xlii. 1. compared with Matt. xii. 18. behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him:—see also Matt. xvii. 5. 2 Pet. i. 17. for he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Mal. iii. 1. even the messenger of the covenant, behold he shall come, saith Jehovah of hosts: and still more clearly Psal. ii. where God the Father is introduced in his own person as explicitly declaring the nature and offices of his Son. Psal. vii. 8, 11, 12. I will declare the decree; Jehovah hath p. 150 said unto me, Thou art my Son......ask of me and I shall give......serve Jehovah ...... kiss the Son. Heb. i. 8, 9. unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever ...... thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. To the above may also be added the testimony of the angel Gabriel, Luke i. 32. he shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest, and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. If then he be the Son of the Most High, he is not himself the Most High.

¶9 cont.The apostles every where teach the same doctrine; as the Baptist had done before them. John i. 29. behold the Lamb of God. v. 33, 34. I knew him not, but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, &c. and I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. iii. 32. what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth, &c.—not he alone that was earthly, nor did he speak only of earthly things, but he that is above all, and that cometh from heaven, v. 31. lest it should be still contended that this and similar texts refer to the human nature of Christ. 2 Cor. iv. 4, 6. lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. Col. i. 15. who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature. Philipp. ii. 6. in the form of God. Heb. i. 2. whom he hath appointed heir. v. 3. the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person. The terms here used, being all relative, and applied numerically to two persons, prove, first, that there is no unity of essence, and secondly, that the one is inferior to the other. So v. 4. being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 1 Cor. iii. 23. ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's. Here, if any where, it might have been expected that Christ would have been designated by the title of God; yet it is only said that he is God's. The same appears even more clearly in what follows; xi. 3. I would have you know that ...... the head of Christ is God. Eph. i. 17. the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Cor. xv. 27. when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all p. 151 things under him: and when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. Here the usual subterfuge of the opponents of this doctrine, that of alleging the mediatorial office of Christ can be of no avail; since it is expressly declared, that when the Son shall have completed his functions as mediator, and nothing shall remain to prevent him from resuming his original glory as only begotten Son, he shall nevertheless be subject unto the Father.

¶10Such was the faith of the saints respecting the Son of God; such is the tenor of the celebrated confession of that faith; such is the doctrine which alone is taught in Scripture, which is acceptable to God, and has the promise of eternal salvation. Matt. xvi. 15—19. whom say ye that I am? and Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God: and Jesus answered and said unto him; Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven......upon this rock I will build my Church. Luke ix. 20. the Christ of God. John i. 49, 50. Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. vi. 69. we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. ix. 35—38. dost thou believe on the Son of God? he answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? and Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee: and he said, Lord, I believe; and he worshipped him. xi. 22, 26, 27. I know that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee: whosoever liveth and believeth in me, shall never die: believest thou this? she saith unto him, Yea, Lord, I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world. xvi. 27, 30, 31. the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God: now are we sure that thou knowest all things; by this we believe that thou camest forth from God. xvii. 3, 7, 8, 21. this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent: now they have known that all things, whatsoever thou hast p. 152 given me, are of thee; for I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. xx. 31. these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, ye might have life through his name. Acts viii. 37. if thou believest, thou mayest.....I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Rom. x. 9. if thou shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Col. ii. 2. that their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ. Philipp. iv. 6, 7. let your requests be made known unto God: and the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. 1 Pet. i. 21. who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 1 John iv. 15. whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. v. 1. whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. v. 5. who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? Finally, this is the faith proposed to us in the Apostles' Creed, the most ancient and universally received compendium of belief in the possession of the Church.