Sermons Upon John 1 — Anthony Wotton

Sermons Upon John 1 · Anthony Wotton

THE SECOND SERmon, vponupon the firſt Chapter of IOHN.

Iohn, 1. Verſe, 1. 2.

1. In the beginning was the VVord, and the VVord was with God, and the VVord was God.

2. The ſame was in the beginning with God.

IT is generally thought, and I thinke not vntruly, that the blaſphemous hereſies of fAnno, 85Ebion, and gAnno 95Cerinthus (who denyed that our Sauiour was God, or had anie being, before he tooke fleſh of the holy Virgine his mother) was one eſpeciall occaſion of writing this Goſpell. To root out that impious conceit, and to eſtabliſh the faithful in an aſſured beliefe of our bleſſed Sauiours eternall God-head, our Euangeliſt, truly, and with Apoſtolicall authority affirmeth, that the VVord was in the beginning. Neither doth he content himſelfe therewithall: but for the further inſtruction of them that belieue, hee addes, that The VVord was with God, and was God, yea that The ſame VVord was in the beginning with GOD.

The firſt point of our Sauiours eternitie, was expounded (as it pleaſed God to enhable mee) in my former exerciſe: I am now (by his gracious aſſiſtance) to goe forwarde with that, which followes; The VVord was with God. Wherein for the words themſelues, firſt wee muſt enquire, what is meant by God, then what the Euangeliſt woulde teach vsus, when hee ſayth, The VVord was with God.

1. hOrig. in Ioa. lib. 2. Chryſoſt. in Ioan. hom. 2God, when the word is properly taken, not applied to a creature, ſignifieth either the Diuine nature in all three perſons, The Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost, or only the firſt of the three, The Father. Examples of the former are in euerie leafe, and page of the Scripture.

Let vsus alleage one or two out of this Goſpell. iIoh 4. 24God is a ſpirit. Not God the Father onelyonly: but the Sonne alſo, and the holy Ghoſt. For this ſpiritualneſſe is a propertie of the diuine nature, not of anie one perſon therein: elſe ſhould not the other two bee ſpirituall. The kIoh. 16. 2.time ſhall come, that whoſoeuer killeth you, vvill thinke, he doth God ſeruice. Surely no man, that killeth Chriſtians, for beleeuing in CHRIST IESVS, can thinke hee doth ſeruice to the Trinity. For our Sauiour CHRIST is one of the three. But the idolatrous heathen, and the ſuperſtitious Iewes make accompt, that they performe acceptable ſeruice to God, namely to the diuine nature, when they deſtroy them, that acknowledge the three perſons to bee one God, or deny that there are more Gods then one, or worſhippe our Sauiour Chriſt as God.

Of the later, the old Teſtament affords vsus few examples or none, the new very many: and to make ſhort, whereſoeuer God and the Sonne or Ieſus Chriſt are mē tioned together, there by God, the Father is ſignified. lIoh. 3. 16So God loued the world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne; God? what? not the diuine nature. For that hath no Son to giuegive: elſe ſhould the ſecond perſon hauehave a Sonne, and the third to; becauſe both the Sonne and the holie Ghost are the diuine nature or God, no leſſe then the Father. But eueryevery mans owne reaſon teacheth him, that the Sonne is the Fathers Sonne. So that by God, which gaue his Sonne, God the Father is vnderſtood. The ſame Father is alſo meant by the name of God, when hee is mentioned with Chriſt. mRom. 1. 8I thanke my God (ſayth the Apoſtle) through IESVS CHRIST, euen him, whom in the next Verſe before he had called God our Father; Verſe, 7 Verſe, 9and whoſe Sonne in the ver. following he maketh Ieſus Chriſt. God is my witneſſewhome I ſerue with my ſpirit in the Goſpell of his Sonne. Of the ſame kinde are all thoſe places, where there is any mention of praying to God, in, or thorough CHRIST. For, to him hath our Sauiour taught vsus to pray. nLuke, 11. 2VVhen yee pray ſaie, Our Father vvhichwhich art in heauen, oIoh. 16. 23VVhatſoeuer yee aske the Father in my name hee will giuegive it you.

Now let vsus ſee, in whether of theſe two ſignifications the word God is to bee taken, in this place. Surelie, not in the former, becauſe then The VVord ſhould hauehave beene with himſelfe: which is no reaſonable ſpeech. For who vnderſtands not, that eueryevery thing which is ſaid to be with an other, is diuerſe from that, with which it is ſayde to bee? Therefore if the VVord vverewith God; the VVord was not God. But the Euangeliſt directly auoucheth, that the VVord vvas God: What remaines then, if by God wee will hauehave the Diuine nature to bee meant, but that wee muſt confeſſe, there are two Gods? The Ʋ Ʋord, and hee, vvith vvhom the Ʋ Ʋord vvas. But it is certaine in Religion and reaſon, that there is but one God. And therefore God may not at any hand bee conceiued in this place to bee put for the Diuine Nature or Godhead. If it ſeeme to any man, that the VVord may bee ſayd to be with God, though it be God, as a mans ſoule is ſaid to be with him, whoſe ſoule it is; pAuguſt. de Trinit. lib. 6. cap 2.I muſt deſire him to conſider, that the reaſon is not alike. For the ſoule is part of the man, with whome it is ſayd to be; but the word is not part of the diuine nature: which is moſt ſimple, and free from all kinde of compoſition.

It is eaſie then for any man to conclude, that God in this part of the Verſe, is the firſt perſon in the Trinitie, God the Father. And that it may the rather appeare, vntounto vsus, that wee rightly vnderſtand and expound the Euangeliſt, we hauehave his owne warrant; where ſpeaking of the ſame our bleſſed Sauiour, hee ſayth of him, that q1. Ioh. 1. 2Hee was with the Father: I forbeare to enlarge the matter. EueryEvery man may eaſily perceiue that our Euange. liſt handles the ſame point in both places, that hee need not doubt, but that God, rforeignwith whom the Word was, is God the Father. What ſhall we ſay then of that collection, that ſome make vponupon the Article, which is vſed by the Euangeliſt, in the Greeke? He ſaith not ſimply, God (ſay theſe men) but The God, giuing vsus thereby to vnderſtand, that our Sauiour was with the true God; not with him who was God, but onelyonly by fauour, and not alſo by nature. That, they ſay concerning God, is true and certaine. But we hauehave learned, that the perſon is there ſignified, and not the nature. And therefore it coulde not bee the Euangeliſts meaning to note vntounto vsus the truth of the diuine nature by that article.

Neither (I thinke) was there euer any heretick found, who denied that God, with whome the word is ſaid to hauehave bin, was God by nature; what thē meaneth the article? Doubtleſs, either it is added only according to the cuſtome of the greeke tongue, wherof there are infinite examples in all authors, and namely in the new Teſtament; or els (if any thing were intended by it) the Euangeliſt meant to ſhew, that in this clauſe of the ſentence he put the word God in another ſenſe, then hee doth in the clauſe following, where the article is omitted: but I rather perſwade my ſelfe, that there is nothing intended therin by the holy Ghoſt; but the manner of ſpeech obſerued, according to the nature of the language.

Some man perhaps will yet farder demand, why the Euangeliſt did not ſpeak plainly, as he meant, and call him the Father, rather then God. To whom I anſwer, that the Euangeliſt, hauing in the former part named The VVord, and not The Sonne, doth here more fitlie mention God, then the Father. For ſo the nature of the things ſeemes to require; The Sonne of the Father, the Word of God. Beſides, it helpes that elegancie, which the holy Ghoſt vſeth in this place, making the laſt word of the former clauſe, the firſt of the later. In the beginning was the VVord, and the VVord was with God, and God vvas the VVord. For ſo lie the words in the Greeke, whereof anone. Now if in the ſecond clauſe, hee had ſayde, The VVord vvas vvith the Father, the grace of the ſpeech had beene loſt, becauſe he could not hauehave repeated the word in the beginning of the clauſe, that followes. For it cannot be truely ſaid, that the Father is the VVord, or the VVord the Father: but to ſay, God vvas the the VVord, is a true and an elegant ſpeech. What if we adde hereunto, that in the olde Teſtament, where the Meſſiah is ſpoken of, there (ordinarily) not the Father, but God is named? when the firſt inkling of the promiſe was giuen, who gaue it but God? Then fGen. 3. 14. 15the Lord God ſaid to the Serpent. Come to the expreſſe making of the promiſe, to which the holy Ghoſt calls vsus, tRom. 4. 13. 16 Ga…. 3. 14. 16when he ſpeaks of the promiſe by name, and which uGal. 3. 8the Apoſtle Paul tearmes the preaching of the Goſpell: Was it not God that ſaid to Abraham, xGen. 12. 1. 3In thee ſhal all the families of the earth be bleſſed? To be ſhort look from the beginning of Geneſis to the end of Malachy, and ſee how often you finde any diſtinct mention of the firſt perſon, vnderunder the name of the Father. Therefore he that made choiſe of ſuch a name for our Sauiour CHRIST, as hee was well knowen by, among the Iewes, could not doe better, then by the like wiſdom, ſo to ſpeak of God the Father, as his ſpeech might bee beſt approued, and vnderſtood.

God then, in this ſecond part of the verſe, ſignifies The Father. But what is the Euangeliſts meaning when hee ſayth, The VVord was with God? What is it to bee with the Father? Manie and diuers hauehave beene the coniectures of the learned, concerning this matter. That the vnity of nature in the Father, and the Sonne, was hereby ſignified. But that is ſufficiently manifeſt, by the laſt clauſe, where the Word is affirmed to bee God For ſeeing there can bee but one God, and that the Sonne is auouched to bee God, as well as the Father, who ſees not, that they are both one and the ſame God, and ſo all one in their diuine nature? But this and moſt of the other opinions, which I will not trouble you withall in this kinde of exerciſe, are rather conſequents that follow vponupon that, which our Euangeliſt intended, then the verie point it ſelfe, which hee did intende. Firſt therefore let vsus ſearch out the principall drift of theſe words, and afterwarde as neede ſhall bee, purſue thoſe points, that are neceſſary. What may then bee the ſenſe of this word with? what ſhoulde wee ſeeke farre? yBaſil. homil. in haec verba.take it as it commonly ſignifies, and it will agree with Saint Iohns occaſion and purpoſe. Hee had ſayde in the former wordes that The Ʋ Ʋord had alreadie his beeing, when all things, that euer were created, began firſt to bee. What would a man reaſonably doubt of heereupon? Was the Word before the world, before the creation, before there was anie time or place, wherein hee might bee? where was he then? To this, our Euangeliſt anſweres plainly and readily. The VVord was with God. As if hee ſhould hauehave ſaide: Doe you doubt whether the Ʋ Ʋord were in the beginning or no, becauſe you cannot imagine, vvhere hee ſhould bee, when as yet there was no world to be in? Can you conceiue, that God was, who is the Father of the VVord? Looke then vvhere hee vvas, and there vvas the Ʋ Ʋord. For the Ʋ Ʋord vvas vvith God. Euen as the inwarde conception or word, which the vnderſtanding of man frameth within him, is with the man, where hee is: ſo the Word of God, is with God. This I take to bee the plaine and certaine meaning of the Euangeliſt, and that according to the true iudgement of ſome auntient and later writers.

Here Arius beſtirres himſelfe, and hearing that our Sauiour The Ʋ Ʋord was with God, hee dreames, that Hee vvas nothing elſe, but a created Spirit, created indeede before the world, but yet created; as (ſayth hee) it may euidently bee gathered, becauſe The Ʋ Ʋord being with God, was not God, with whom he was. Who is ſo blind, as hee, that wilfully refuſeth to ſee? EueryEvery childe can anſwer Arius, that The Ʋ Ʋord was not God the Father, with whome hee is ſayde to hauehave beene: yet was the ſame God: diſtinct in perſon, all one in nature: ſo then hee was truely with the Father, as another Alius, nou aliudperſon, not of a diuerſe nature from the Father, a… another God.

GiueGive mee leaue heere, I pray you, to beginne a ſhort examination, and refutation of our Rhemiſts annotations, vponupon their Teſtament; I will take them in my waie, as I goe, from verſe to verſe. *Genebrard. d… Trinit. lib. 1. Lindan. dialog 2. Petrus Camſ le Ioa. Baptiſta in praeſat.Some of the Papiſts, of more reading then iudgement, rayſed a ſlaunder of Caluine, as a blaſphemer, becauſe hee denved CHRIST to bee God of God the Father, and affirmed, that being Iehouah, hee was, in that reſpect, of himſelfe. This our Rhemiſts lay hold on, and boldly enough cenſure him for blaſphemy. I hauehave no purpoſe to diſpute the queſtion with them; neyther indeede, do they ſo much as offer, eyther to refute Caluines opinion, or to confirm their own. If ſhal be enough therfore to controll their malapertneſſe, and to ouer-waigh their preſumption, that aBellarm. tom. 1 de Chriſio. lib. 2. cap. 19.Cardinall Bellarmine, where he diſputes the point of ſet purpoſe, after he had conſidered all that the authours of that ſlander bring out of Caluin, and examined Caluins writings himſelfe, refuſeth to condemne him of anie ſuch hereſie, as Genebrard, Lindan, Caniſius, and theſe Rhemiſts charge him withall. Yea, hee proceedes to alleage proofe out of Caluin, that hee conceiued truely, and writ accordingly, of our Sauiour Chriſts diuine nature and perſon. The ſumme of that which Caluine holdes touching this point, is thus deliuered by Bellarmine: that our Sauiours diuine nature is ſo of himſelfe, that if you remoue from the Son, all relation to the Father, there will remaine nothing, but the diuine eſſence, which is of it ſelfe. That is, in playne wordes, If you conſider our Sauiour as GOD onelyonly, not as the Sonne, hee is not of the Father, but of himſelfe. This is that daungerous hereſie, for which our iudicious Rhemiſts hauehave giuen ſentence againſt Caluine, as a blaſphemer. Bellarmine cleares him of the fault, and condemnes onelyonly the tearmes, wherein hee deliuers his minde. But it were eaſie to iuſtifie both the one, and the other, by the writings of bSee Thom. de error. Graec. cap. 4. Guliel. Occhā. Centilog. Theolog. concluſ. 62 Holkot in detec. q. 5. art. 2. ad 6. contra 1. concl. & q. 10. art. 3.the moſt ſubtill Schoolemen, if it were fit for this place, and auditory. In priuate I will bee readie to giuegive anie man ſatisfaction.

But to leaue theſe matters whereinto the peruerſeneſs of men hath drawn vsus, & to return to the Euangeliſts purpoſe: It is to be held for an vndoubted truth in diuinity, that our Sauiour, the VVord, was with God before the beginning of the world: will you heare him ſay as much of himſelfe. cprouer. 8. 27 Ver. 29. 30VVhen he prepared the heauens, I was there: when hee ſet the compaſſe vponupon the deepe. A little after, when hee appointed the foundations of the earth, then was I with him; Not onelyonly reioycing to ſee the glory of God his Father, but beeing himſelfe full poſſeſſer of that glory: which ſhone ſo bright, that when he came into the world, ouer-ſhadowed with the darkenes of our humane nature, yet all the Angels of God diſcerned it, and dHeb. 6. 1.fell downe to worſhip him.

The comfort of a poore diſtreſſed ſoule is in e1. Cor. 2. 2.Ieſus Chriſt crucified: But the glory of a Chriſtian is in Ieſus Chriſt reigning with God his Father. Therefore when the ende of his life approached, fIohn 17. 24.He prayed that all which his Father had giuen him, might be euen where he was, that they might behold his glory, which God had giuen him. But what glory meanes he? Any new honour of late vouch ſaf't him? No, no. It is the ſame glory, which he alwayes had, and ſhall hauehave. Glorifie me thou Father, with Verſe. 5.thine owne ſelfe, with the glory, which I had with thee, before the world was. Let mee ſpeake now to thee poore ſoule whoſoeuer thou art, that findeſt thy ſelfe grieuouſly vexed, and daungerouſly aſſaulted by Sathan, concerning theſe great myſteries of Religion: would hee hauehave thee doubt, whether our bleſſed Sauiour was before his mother or no? The holy Ghoſt aſſures thee by the penne of our Euangeiiſt, that The word was in the beginning. Doth he preſſe thee farther, to tell him, where he was, as if he could not be, becauſe there was no world for him to be in? Herein alſo the wiſedome of God, hath preuented him. The Word was with God. Thou art perſwaded aſſuredly, that God was before the world: elſe, how ſhould hee hauehave created the world? Canſt thou tell me where he was? or doeſt thou thinke hee is any where now, where hee was not then? This goodly frame of the world, which thou beholdeſt, and wondereſt at, not without great cauſe, is not any new houſe built for God to dwell in; but a faire peece of workemanſhip, that thou mighteſt ſee a little ſhadow of the workemans skill, power and glory. God is a Spirit, infinite in all perfections, that cannot remooue from one place to another, becauſe hee is eueryevery where. If thou canſt beleeue theſe things, which the very light of Nature can teach thee, thou haſt wherewithall readily to anſwere Satan; The Word was with God. If thou Satā, dar'ſt not, nor canſt for very ſhame deny or doubt that God was before the foundations of the world were layd; where thou ſeeſt God, I ſee the Word my appointed Sauiour with him.

This I take to be the true & natural ſenſe of the words, and the very proper meaning of our holy Euangeliſt, S. Iohn. Now let vsus adde the other obſeruations, rather then interpretations: which, as before I ſignified, are not directly intended, but neceſſarily followe vppon the former doctrine. And firſt we will conſider that, which ſhewes our Sauiours Diuine Nature: then we will deliuer thoſe poyntes, which concerne his perſon; both, ſhortly, and plainely, as it ſhall pleaſe God to vouchſafe aſſiſtance. Now the Diuine Nature or Godhead of our Sauiour Chriſt appeares in this, that being with God, when as yet there neuer had bin any thing created, he culd be no other, but God. For how is it poſſible, that when there is nothing but God, that, which is then, ſhould not bee God? If you ſay with Arius, that hee was created; you deny that the beginning of all creation is truely deſcribed by Moſes when he ſaith, gGen. 1. 1.In the beginning God created heauen and earth. For if that you ſay bee true, the moſt excellent part of the creation was already paſt, namely the making of him, by whom all theſe things afterward were created. Who taught this ſtrange Diuinity? Where is any ſuch thing recorded in any part of Scripture? Who is ſo ſhameleſſe, as to ſay he hath it by reuelation? Who ſo ſenſeleſſe as to beleeue him, that will ſay ſo? This is our wiſedome, to know what it hath pleaſed God to reueale to vsus in the Scripture, either expreſly, or by conſequence, and to accompt nothing elſe a matter neceſſary to bee beleeued. So then, when we read or heare that our Sauiour was with God, wee learne thereby, that hee is himſelfe God. For what can be bee but God, that had his being before, and without all creation?

The word perhaps troubles thee, becauſe he is ſaid to hauehave beene with God, and therefore as it may ſeeme, not God, but an other. An other? Thou ſaieſt well. hTertullian. contra Praxeā cap. 8.For hee is indeede in perſon (as I aunſwered once before) another. But where thou ſaieſt not God, thou …rt deceiued, vnleſſe by God thou vnderſtand the perſon of the Father. VVith God ſignifies diſtinction of perſon, not diuerſitie of Nature.

Therefore ⁱ ſome learned Diuines, by with, thinke the holy Ghoſt meant to note his coniunction with Hilar. de Triit. lib. 2.God the Father, whereby they are one in vnitie of the ſame Diuine ſubſtance. To which alſo, they apply that which followeth in this Chapter, where kIohn 1. 18.The onelyonly begotten Sonne, is ſaid to bee in the boſome of the Father, and that lIoh. 14. 10. 11Chapter 14. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; yea mEpiphan. …aereſ. 93.ſaith one, He is ſo with God, that hee is in the ſubſtance of God, and his very nature. Wherfore if at any time thou beeſt diſquieted by the word with, as if it …mplied ſome difference betwixt God and the Word, remember that God ſignifies the perſon of the Father, …rom whom the Sonne is truly and really diſtinguiſht; …et not by the nature of his Godhead, which is one in both, but by the property of his being the Sonne, in which the Father and hee are alwayes not one but two: …he one the Father, the other the Sonne.

And this laſt point, concerning our Sauiour Chriſts perſon, nTertullian. contra Praxeā cap. 12.is manifeſtly, & vndoubtedly prooued by this part of the verſe. For it cannot bee imagined, that any thing beeing in all reſpects, one and the ſame, ſhould bee ſaide to bee with it ſelfe, or in it ſelfe. The word was with God: If there be no diſtinction betwixt the word & God, how can it be conceiued that the word was with God? I ſhall neede to ſpend the leſſe time and paines in this matter, becauſe none but oAuguſt. de haer. cap. 4.the Sabellians, euer made queſtion of it. They deceiued themſelues and other men, with an vnlikely fancy, againſt euidence of Scripture, that God was but one perſon; called in diuers reſpects, ſometimes the Father, ſometimes the Sonne, & ſometimes the holy Ghoſt. But what reſpect can make this ſpeech reaſonable, if there be but one perſon in the Godhead? Let vsus conſider the point a little better. Dauid was in regard of his gouernment a king, in reſpect of his ſonne Salomon a father, in relation to his wife Berſheba an husband, for his generall nature a man. May I ſay of him, becauſe of theſe diuers reſpects, that the father of Saelomon, was with Dauid; or with the man, meaning Dauid? Would not a man laugh at the abſurditie of ſuch a ſpeech? It cannot be then, but that hee, which was with God, was really diſtinct, or was truely and indeed another from him, with whom hee was. No reſpect will free the ſpeech from a iuſt imputation of abſurditie, if the partie ſpoken of, bee one and the ſame, as well for perſon, as for nature. I reſerue the farder handling of this matter till I come to the end of the verſe following, where I purpoſe if it pleaſe God, to deliuer the doctrine of the holy Trinitie.

It may alſo farder be gathered, that the Euangeliſt in ſaying, The word was with God, would hauehave vsus to vnderſtand, that he, pGal. 4. 4.which, in the fulneſſe of time appointed by God, tooke fleſh of the Virgin Mary, was till that time with God, though vnſeene and vnknowen to the world; not as if he were not there ſtill, (for euen while he was here vponupon the earth, he was alſo at the ſame time continually in heauen; qIoh. 3. 13. & 17. 23.The Sonne of man, which is in heauen: and I will that they be, where I am) but becauſe he came into the world, where before he had not beene in the nature of man. Heereto belongeth that, which is other-where written by the r1. Iohn. 1. 2. 3.ſame Saint Iohn. VVee declare vntounto you the eternall life, which was with Father, and was made manifeſt to vsus. Hee was with the Father from euerlaſting, he appeared in the world, at the appointed time. So is he now againe with God, becauſe he is no longer viſible on earth, as ſometimes he was.

We may alſo adde hereunto, that ſAmbroſ. de incarna. domini Greg. Nyſten. de fide ad Simplic. Rupertus a… hunc locum Cyril. Hieoroſol. Catecheſ 11.this being with the Father implies the glory, he had, and hath with him: as if he ſhould hauehave ſaid, The word which was in the beginning, was at the right hand of God, in the glory of the Father, equall to the Father. Why ſeeke you the Creator amongſt the Creatures? If you deſire to know where the VVord was, conſider that he was at the right hand of God the Father, partaker of that glory, which the Lord neither will, nor can giuegive to any, which is not the ſame God with him. But of this enough. Let vsus come to the laſt part of the verſe.

And the VVord was God; or as the Greeke words lie, God was the VVord: but our tongue will hardly beare that kind of ſpeech, vnleſſe the ſenſe be altred. For if you ſay, God was the VVord, an Engliſh man will conceiue that you tell him what God was, and not what the Word was. The Greeke, and Latine may well beare ſuch placing of the words, the Engliſh will not: yet perhaps it had beene plainer euen in the Greeke, to hauehave ſet the words in order, as the ſenſe of them was intended, and to hauehave ſaid, The word was God.

But the Euangeliſt (as I noted once before, vponupon occaſion) followed an elegancie of ſpeech, which had bin loſt, if he had kept the naturall order of the words. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and God was the word. The like figure alſo hath Moſes. tGene. 1. 1.In the beginning God created heauen and earth, and the earth was without forme. But our Euangeliſt affordes vsus more examples of it. uIohn. 1. 4. 5In it was life, and that life was the light of men. And the light ſhineth in darkeneſſe, and the darkeneſſe comprehended it not. Can any man doubt, that the holy Ghoſt intended to keepe the elegancy of the figure? Are not the Sermons of our Sauiour himſelfe beautified with flowers of Eloquence? Doth not the prophecie of Eſaie flowe with ſtreames of Rhetoricke? I dare boldly ſay, It is a very hard matter, to match the beginning of that booke, for varietie and force of Eloquence, out of the writings of any of the heathen Orators, Greeke or Latine, quantitie for quantitie; That we may iuſtly blame the ignorance, and boldneſſe of them, who thinke it a diſhonour to the Goſpell, that the preaching thereof ſhould be graced with humane Eloquence.

I would know of theſe men, what it is, they call humane Eloquence: and what Eloquence there is in the Scripture, which may not beare that name, without any diſgrace thereunto. Are there not the ſame tropes, and figures, both of the word and the ſentence in the writings of men, yea of heathen men, which are in the Scripture? Or if the Scripture hauehave any, which men hauehave not yet obſerued, may they not learne from thence, asto liue holily, ſo to ſpeake eloquently? If any man imagine, that the holy Ghoſt hath either appropriated any ornament of ſpeech to himſelfe, in the Scripture, or that he deuiſed new tropes and figures, for his owne Secretaries the holy Prophets and Apoſtles; the writings of the heathen (wherein all thoſe elegancies are to bee found) will giuegive euidence againſt his ignorance. I deny not, that there is a certaine maieſtie ſhining in the Scripture, which no man can worthily expreſſe by imitation, or by meditation conceiue ſufficiently. But this ariſeth, partly from the matter it ſelfe, and partly from the skill of vſing thoſe Rhetoricall ornaments, wherein, as in all things, the holy Ghoſt, that taught them, is perfect; whereas men hauehave but a ſhadow as it were of his perfection. But I may not ſpend too much time in this matter: onelyonly thus much, I will adde; that he, which in his publike miniſtrie ſhall either willingly refraine, or careleſſely neglect to vſe the helpe of humaine learning, and namely of Rhetoricke (whereof onelyonly wee hauehave now occaſion to ſpeake) ſhall both faile in his duetie to God, and come ſhort of that worthy effect of preaching, whereby the louelove of God to vsus, is moſt gloriouſly ſet foorth, and our louelove to God moſt ardently ſet on fire. It is the ſpirit of God, that begets faith and obedience: But not without thoſe meanes, by which hee hath enabled his ſeruants to teach, and perſwade. The principall thing, is the matter, as it were the dart or arrowe that pierceth the heart of man, by the power of the Spirit. But ſpeech is, as it were the arme; and Eloquence, the thong or ſtring, whereby it is ſent with force to the marke it aymes at. He that truſts in Eloquence, makes fleſh his arme. Hee that deſpiſeth Eloquence, takes ſtrength from his arme. It is our duetie to vſe the meanes. It is Gods bleſſing that the meanes take effect: and of this, vponupon this occaſion, enough.

Now in expounding the words, ere I come to the meaning of the place, I will firſt touch a cauill of xAuguſt. de doctrin. Chriſtia. lib. 3. cap. 2.the Arians, whereby they endeauoured to voyde the euidence, that is brought in heere for our Sauiour Chriſts Godhead. What could be ſpoken more plaine, then for the Euangeliſt to ſay, The VVord was God? Yet would they ſhift off the matter, by mangling the ſentence, in this ſort. God VVas; ſay the Arians; what ſhall then become of the Word? That (ſay they) belongs to the next verſe, which muſt thus bee read; The ſame word was in the beginning with God. I told you before, that the order of the words in the text is, God was the VVord. In our language, word may not bee put before this, or this ſame: In Greeke it may, and ſo in Latine. How then ſhall wee anſwere the Arians? Plainely, and truely; that there was no reaſon, why the Euangeliſt ſhould tell vsus, that God was. For neither did any man doubt of it, and hee had ſaid ſufficient to that purpoſe in the former clauſe, when he affirmed that The Word was with God: with whom the Word, could not be conceiued to be, but that the being of God muſt of neceſſitie bee preſuppoſed. Beſides, the holy Ghoſt in the Scripture, neuer ſpeakes of God, to ſhewe his being by Was, but either by Is, the preſent tenſe or time, as we call it; yExod. 3. 14I am ſent me: or by all three times; *Reuel. 1. 8.Is, VVas, Shall be; which was, which is, and which is to come: yea the very clauſes of the verſe might hauehave taught them, that the VVord muſt needes belong to this verſe. In the beginning was the VVord, and the VVord was with God, and the VVord was God. Cut off the VVord from this laſt clauſe, and you make it altogether vnlike the former, and ſpoile the grace of the ſpeech. Let the Arians goe then with their fooliſh ſhift, and goe wee forward in our expoſition.

Wherein we are firſt to learne, what the Euangeliſt meanes by God, then to ſhew how the ſentence it ſelfe is to be vnderſtood. In the former clauſe one perſon of the Trinitie, euen the firſt, God the Father was ſignified, by the name of God, which is common to all the three. Here the ſame word is taken in the proper ſenſe, nothing the Diuine Nature. There needs no other proofe of this matter, but onelyonly to make you ſee that if you vnderſtādit of any one perſō, you auouch ſomwhat which is vntrue. For example, will you ſay God the Father is the Word, or the Word was the Father? By this maner of ſpeech you confound, & ſo deſtroy the perſons, whoſe very being neceſſarily requireth, that the one bee not the other. Neither may we ſay, that the holy Ghoſt was the Word, or the Word the holy Ghoſt. For the ſame errors enſue thereupon, and the Trinitie of perſons is ouerthrowen thereby. It cannot be then, but that God, in this laſt part of the verſe, muſt of neceſſity be taken for the Godhead or Diuine nature; whereupon it followes neceſſarily, that our Sauiour Chriſt is God.

Againſt this the Sabellians (who acknowledge no diſtinction of perſons) except; and labour to perſwade vsus, that the Euangeliſt is rather thus to bee expounded: God was the Word, that is (ſay they) That God the Father, with whom the word was, was nothing elſe, but the word it ſelfe. How falſe, & fooliſh this expoſition is, if any man ſee not by himſelfe, he may thus eaſily diſcerne. To what purpoſe could it be, for the Euangeliſt to tell vsus, that the VVord was with God, if hee were nothing elſe, but God, in no reſpect truely and really diſtinct from him, with whom hee is ſaid to hauehave beene? Had it not bene readier, and fitter for him, to hauehave added this laſt clauſe to the firſt, and to hauehave left the middlemoſt out? If you doubt where This VVord was, who I ſay was in the beginning, he was God: who can looke for any better anſwere? For it were a ſenſeleſſe blaſphemie to aske, where God was, whom all men graunt to bee infinite. But that middle clauſe, The VVord was with God, troubles the whole ſentence, darkens the ſenſe, yea to ſay the truth, leaues no ſenſe at all, if there be no diſtinction of Perſons. For (as I ſhewed erewhile) no man can either truely ſay, or reaſonably conceiue, that any thing, becauſe of ſome diuers accidentall reſpects, is with itſelfe. Our Euangeliſt Saint Iohn was an Apoſtle of our Sauiour Chriſt, the Diſciple, whom Ieſus loued, the brother of Iames, the ſonne of Zebede; I might adde many other ſuch differences. But, might I therefore ſay of him, The Diſciple, whom Ieſus loued, was with the Euangeliſt Iohn, and that Diſciple was Iohn? It is one thing to be the Euangeliſt Iohn, another thing to be with the Euangeliſt Iohn. That agrees to none, but to Iohn himſelfe: this may belong to any, but to him. Therefore howſoeuer theſe later words, God was the VVord, might of their own nature admit ſuch an interpretation; yet conſidering the former clauſe, to which they are ioyned, it is abſurd ſo to expound them. What if I adde herunto, that the holy Ghoſt himſelfe ſeemes to tell vsus, that the word God is not to be vnderſtood, in this laſt clauſe, as it was in the former, becauſe it is put here without the Article? Surely the Sabellians ſhall hauehave nothing to aunſwere, but that which will confirme the diſtinction of the Father, and of the Sonne, as two perſons. But of this, by and by.

The order of the words in Engliſh, ſhewes the ſenſe; in Greeke it doth not ſo: but that word, which is firſt in place, oftentimes is laſt in the meaning of the writer, or ſpeaker. God was the VVord, ſaith our Euangeliſt. Yet aBaſil. homil. in haec verba Hilar de Trinit. lib. 7.the firſt word God in ſenſe followes the laſt, as if he ſhould hauehave ſaid, The VVord was God: How ſhall that appeare, ſince the wordes will beare aſwell the one as the other? It ſhall appeare by theſe reaſons. Firſt the queſtion was not of God, whether he were before the beginning of the world or no, for that was neither denied, nor doubted of by Chriſtians, or Heretickes. But the eternall Beeing of our Sauiour Chriſt, and his Godhead were impugned by Cerinthus, and Ebion, which gaue our Euangeliſt ſome occaſion of writing this Goſpell. It was fit therefore, that hee ſhould teach the Church, and confound the Heretickes by ſaying, that The VVord was God. Secondly, we hauehave direction for the expounding of this clauſe, from both the former: wherein The VVord is ſtill the firſt part of the ſentence; and looke what is affirmed, it is affirmed of the VVord. The VVord was in the beginning: The VVord was with God; In like manner, the Euangeliſt, continuing his diſcourſe, muſt needs bee vnderſtood to ſay, The VVord was God; which indeede was the very thing, hee meant to auouch of him. This is farder confirmed, by that, which followes All things were made by it, and without it was made no…hing, Verſe, 3. 4that was made. In it was life, and ſo foorth. Do you not perceiue, that all theſe particulars, here ſpoken, are ſpoken of the word? If then both the clauſes that goe before, and the ſentences, that follow after, belong to the word, and not to God, what ſhew of reaſon is there, to take that one peece out of the middeſt of the reſt, and apply it to God, contrary to the whole courſe of the matter, and intent of the writer? I wil not adde farder (as I might) that not only this beginning of the Goſpell, but the whole frame of it, and the maine ſcope of it, is to teach vsus, bIohn, 20. 31That Ieſus is the Chriſt, the Sonne of God. If any man be ſo peruerſe, as that all, which hitherto hath bin ſaid, will not ſatisfie him; yet let him be perſwaded by the Euangeliſt himſelf, who leauing out the Article before cforeignGod, and putting it before the Word, leades vsus to begin at the end, for the ſenſe of that hee writes. This cannot bee expreſt in Engliſh, nor will be conceiued by them, that hauehave no skill in the originall Greeke: but in the text it ſelfe, the difference is very manifeſt.

Wee hauehave then the true meaning of the holy Ghoſt in theſe words, The VVord was God. He, that was in the beginning, and was with God, was alſo himſelfe God. Here ariſeth a doubt, why the Euangeliſt addeth this clauſe; ſeeing the Godhead of our Sauiour might be certainly, and neceſſarily concluded out of the two former branches, as it hath manifeſtly appeared in the opening of them. He, that had a being, when as yet there was no creature, and was with God, when there was nothing that was not God, could not poſſibly be any other then God. Why then is it added that The VVord was God? Surely (as I take it) to preuent that obiection, which might ariſe in the conceit of ſome; If he were with God, it may ſeeme, that he was not God. To which, the Euangeliſt thus anſweres in effect. Though he were with God, in reſpect of his perſon; yet, in regard of his nature, hee himſelfe was God. This I graunt was implied in the former: but in a matter of ſo great moment, it pleaſed the holy ſpirit of God to hauehave a gratious regard of our weakeneſſe, and to ſpeake ſo, as the true…l might bee euident to all men, and ſo high a myſterie of Religion hauehave a cleare and ſound demonſtration.

The point then, which is here deliuered, is this; Ieſus Christ, the promiſed Meſſi…h, is God. And becauſe, the matter is of eſpeciall importance, and no place ſo fit, as this, for the handling of it, I thinke it beſt to follow it ſomewhat largely: the rather becauſe I meane to doe it now once for all; but as occaſion ſhall be offred, for the cleering of ſome textes, here and there, in this Goſpell. The firſt proofe that our Sauiour Chriſt is God, may be taken from thoſe places of Scripture, where the names, that are proper to the true & only God, are giuen to Ieſus Chriſt. For it is out of queſtiō, that howſoeuer ſome of thoſe titles are, now and then, aſcribed to men, with ſome addition, or in ſome reſpect; yet no creature is abſolutely called God, Lord, the moſt high, or by any other ſuch name. Of all theſe the moſt common, for ordinary vſe, is God; which we find oftē in eueryevery leafe of the Scripture, where the true God Iehouah is ſpoken of. How often is our Sauiour called God? Thomas acknowledgeth him to be ſo, when he ſaith vntounto him, dIoh. 20. 28.My Lord, and my God; allnding queſtionleſs to the ordinary title, which is giuen to God, in the old Teſtament; The Lord thy God. eExod. 20. 2.I am the Lord thy God. fLeuit. 19. 10.I am the Lord your God. gDeut. 4. 2.The commandements of the Lord your God. And in a word, the ſame Chapter affords vsus the like examples 15. or 16. times. So doth hAct. 20. 28.the Apoſtle Paul call him. Take heed to all the flocke whereof the holy Ghoſt hath made you ouerſeers, to feede the Church of God, which he hath purchaſed with his owne blood; Who purchaſed the Church with his blood, but Ieſus Chriſt? Him therefore doth the Apoſtle call God. And …n another place he doubteth not bodly to affirme, that Chriſt is God ouer all, to be bleſſed for euer. Of him it is that iRom. 9. 5. Heb. 1. 8.the ſame Apoſtle ſaith, Thy throne (O God) endureth for …uer; not only calling him God, but profeſſing him to …e that God, which in the beginning created heauen & Verſe 10…arth. Thou Lord in the beginning laydſt the foundation of of the earth. I wil end, with that in the lReuel. 4. 8.Reuelation; The foure beaſts ceaſed not day, nor night, ſying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God almighty. But how ſhould we be aſſured, that by this Lord God Almightie, Ieſus Chriſt is ſignified? That, which followeth, will put the matter out of doubt mChap. 14. 8.which was, and which is, and which is to come. For this … …he Title, which is giuen to our Sauiour twice in the firſt Chapter of the ſame booke. This alſo the 24. Elders preſently after confirme when worſhipping the ſame partie, whom the foure beaſts had honoured, they ſpeake thus; Thou art worthy (O Lord) to receiue glory, …ap. 4. 11.honour and power: for thou haſt created all things. Aske the holy Apoſtle S. Paul, who is the Creatour of all things. He… … hath anſwered already, that the Lord, which laid the foundation of the earth, is IESVS CHRIST, the Sonne of God. The ſame teſtimonie of him giueth our Euangeliſt in the next verſe ſame one; Heb. 1. 10.By him were all things made. Iohn. 1. 3.What ſhould let then, but we may conclude, that Ieſus, beeing ſo often called God in Scripture, is in deed very God?

The like I ſay of the title Lord, by which the 70. tranſlate foreignthat name Iehouah; which is neuer attributed to any in the Scripture, but onelyonly to the true God: neither indeede may it in any ſort. For it ſignifieth him This is ſpoken not the Greeke, …ut of the Hebrew word.that hath his being of himſelfe, that giues to all things, whatſoeuer being they hauehave: yea it implieth ſuch a being, as is alwayes one & the ſame; euen eternall, without beginning, without ending, without chaunge, without ſucceſſiō. Now if this name be aſcribed to our Sauior by holy Ghoſt, how can it be doubted, but that hee is very God? And doth not oIere. 33. 16Ieremie aſcribe it to him, when he ſaith, This is the name, whereby they ſhall call him, The Lord our righteouſneſſe? or, as it may better be read, He, that ſhall call her, is the Lord our righteouſneſſe. It is out of queſtion, that the Meſſiah is there ſpoken of, whom the Prophet called Iehouah The Lord: Or if any man will needes apply it to the Church, he ſhall call her The Lord our righteouſneſſe (which yet hath no warrant, nor any great reaſon) let him remember, that the Church cannot hauehave this title, but onelyonly in reſpect of Chriſt her husband, and head; as ſhe is alſo called Chriſt. p1. Cor. 12. 12.As the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body which is one, though they be many, yet are but one body; euen ſo is Chriſt, that is the Church of Chriſt; which being conſidered with her Head Chriſt, is vouchſafed his name, becauſe ſhe is his body. Let vsus come to the new Teſtament: and leauing thoſe places, where the Diſciples, and ſuch as intreate fauour (for their curing) of our Sauiour, call him Lord; becauſe neither their word is any warrant for doctrine, and it may be ſayd they ſpake to him by that name, as wee ordinarily doe, when wee ſay Sir; which indeede was common among the Grecians: Let vsus take ſuch textes onelyonly as can admit neither of theſe exceptions. Of which kinde are the ſalutations vſed by the Apoſtles in the beginning of their Epiſtles. qRom. 1. 7.Grace be with you, and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Ieſus Chriſt. Where not onelyonly our Sauiour is tearmed Lord, but acknowledged to be the Author, and giuer of Grace and peace, with God his Father. But it were a vaine thing to heape vp many teſtimonies to this purpoſe. No man can look into the writings of the Apoſtles, but he ſhall ſee them in eueryevery page. Being the Lord then, he muſt needs be God.

What ſhould I ſtand vponupon eueryevery particular at large? Who is the God of glory, but Iehouah the great God of heauen and earth? For ſo is he called, that appeared to Abraham rGene. 12. 1. 2in Geneſis; The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, sAct. 7. 2.ſaith the holy Martyr Saint Steuen. Aske the enemies of Chriſt the Iewes, and they will tell you with one voice, that this was the great God of Iſrael. And yet the Apoſtle Paul giues this title to our Sauiour Chriſt; where he ſaith, that if the princes of this world, had knowen the wiſedome of God in the myſterie of our redemption, t1. Cor. 2. 8.They would not hauehave crucifi…d the Lord of glory. Hereto belongs that Title; u1. Tim. 6. 15the King of kings, and Lord of lords. And whereas ſome vaine men, gouernours of ſome ſmall part of this little ſpot of earth, doting vponupon their owne imagined greatneſſe hauehave either giuen themſelues this vnlimited title, or accepted it, being giuen by the palpable flattery of their baſe vaſſals; yet alwayes the wiſer ſort tooke iuſt occaſion thereby, rather to ſcorne their preſumptuous folly, then to bee drawen into any admiration of their glorious power. But the Lord Ieſus, our bleſſed Sauiour, hath this name by good right; as hee, of whom …ll the Kings of the earth, hold their Crownes and Prou. 8 15. 16Scepters. By mee (^x ſaith hee, that is the wiſedome o… God) Kings reigne, and Princes decree iuſtice. By mee Princes rule, and the Nobles, and all the Iudges of the earth. yPſal. 2. 8. Verſe 9.For to him hath God giuen the heathen for his inheritance, and the vtmost parts of the earth for his poſſeſſion. He ſhall cruſh them with a Scepter of Iron, and breake them in peeces like a potters veſſell. Therefore are they aduiſed, and charged to kiſſe the Son, leaſt he be angry, to their deſtructiō. Verſe 12.There is good cauſe then, why he ſhould be ſtiled, the Lord of lords, and King of kings. What though he be the Lambe, meeke and tender; yea bound, and ſlaine? yet *Reuel. 17. 14.ſhall he ouercome the 10. kings that fight againſt him. For he is the Lord of lords, and King of kings: yea, aReuel. 19. 16.he hath that name written vponupon his garment, & vponupon his thigh, The king of kings and Lord of lords. His glory & his ſtrength ſhew him to be no leſſe. And can we doubt whether hee bee God, or no? If I ſhould recite the Attributes or Epithets, which being proper to God, are belonging to our Sauiour Chriſt: If I ſhould but name thoſe admirable effects of his, which are aboue the ſtrength of any and all creatures, the time would ſooner faile me, then varietie of matter; which doth offer it ſelfe to me ſo plentifully, that it is harder to find, where to make an end, thē what to ſay. Do you wonder at the eternity of God, as a thing not to bee reacht vntounto by the conceit of man? Behold him, that is bReuel. 1. 8.A & Ω, the beginning & the ending, which was, which is, and which is to come. What ſay I, was, is, is to come? Thus indeed hath it pleaſed our gratious Sauiour, to ſpeake of his eternall being, to our capacity. But let vsus heare him ſpeake more like himſelfe, that is more like God: cIohn 8. 58.Before Abraham was I am. This is a ſpeech better beſeeming his maieſty. For nothing can be properly ſaid of him, concerning his being, but onelyonly that he is. That, which was, either is not at all, or at the leaſt, is not, in all reſpects, the ſame, that it was. That, which is to come, as yet either hath no being at all, or ſurely no ſuch being, as is ſignified it ſhall hauehave in time to come. But what ſtand I repeating that, which before I deliuered? Let vsus paſſe from this infiniteneſſe in time, which wee call eternitie, and come to another like attribute: which wants a name, but belongs to quantity; and might be tearmed Immenſitie, if our eares and vnderſtanding were acquainted with it. As eternity ſignifies the infiniteneſſe of God in time, ſo doth Immenſitie in greatneſſe. dIſai. 61. 8.Thus ſaith the Lord, The heauen is my throne, and the earth is my footſtoole. There is no number of yeeres that can expreſſe the Lords Eternitie: no compaſſe of place that is able to containe his Immenſitie. ePſal. 139. 7 Verſe 8.Whither ſhall I flee from thy preſence? ſaith the king of Iſrael, that had choice enough of roome, wherein to hide himſelfe. If I aſcend into heauen, thou art there. If I he downe in hell, thou art there. Let me take the wings of Verſe 9. Verſe 10.the morning, and dwell in the vttermoſt parts of the Sea: yet thither ſhall thy hand leade me, and thy right hand ſhall hold me. But what need many particulars? Hee that is preſent in heauen and in earth, can be ſhut out of no place, whatſoeuer: our Sauiour is aſcended into heauen, yet is he ſtill preſent with his children here in earth: fMatth. 28. 2…Behold I am with you, till the end of the world. By his power (you wil ſay) not by his preſence. Doubtleſſe an infinite power, ſuch as protecteth the Church of Chriſt, cannot be in a finite nature. Let vsus heare him ſpeake more plaine; gMatth. 18. 20Wherſoeuer two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midſt of them. Or if this alſo may applied to power; yet that place is without exception: hIohn 3. 13.No man aſcendeth vp to heauen, but he that came downe frō heauen, the Son of man, which is in heauen. He came downe frō heauen, becauſe being God, he became man: he was for all that ſtill in heauen, becauſe being man, he ceaſed not to be God. Therefore alſo, while he was aliue on earth, before his paſſion, he doubted not to auouch, that hee was euen then in heauen. iIohn. 17. 24Father, I will that they, which thou haſt giuen me, be with me, euen where I am, that they may behold that my glory. Where is that to be ſeene, but in heauen? For ſo hath our Sauiour ſaid himſelfe, before in that prayer; And now glorifie me (thou father) with thine Verſe 5.owne ſelfe, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. Not as if heauen, or neuer ſo many heauens were able to conteine that his infinite glory, which can be no way bounded by any meanes, but becauſe there i… ſhews it ſelf moſt apparātly. Shal I need to add hereunto his power, or rather Almightineſſe? kReuel. 1. 8I am A & Ω, the beginning & the ending ſaith the lord, which is, which was, & which is to come, euen the Almighty. And twice afterward in the ſame booke, he is called lReu. 4. 8. & 11. 17.The Lord God Almighty. But if the Scripture had not ſaid any ſuch thing of him, yet his admirable works ſound out his power & glory. The heauens (mPſal. 19. 1 ſayth the Prophet) declare the glory of God, and the firmament ſheweth the worke of his hands. Yea the ſigns, which he did in the ſight of his friends & enemies, were ſo high aboue the power of man, that they may aſſure vsus, nIoh. 20. 31that our Sauiour Ieſus Chriſt was the Sonne of God. But of theſe in the Goſpell oftentimes hereafter, if it pleaſe God; euen God the Sonne, IESVS CHRIST, of whom we ſpeake.

But ere I proceed any farder, I muſt againe encounter the Arians; who bend all their forces to ouerthrowe the God-head of our Sauiour Chriſt. Do you not perceiue (ſay they) that although hee be called God: yet he is not ſo indeed by nature, but by fauour? HaueHave you not obſerued, that in the ſecond clauſe, where the true God is ſpoken of, there the article is added in the text; oforeignThe Word was with the God? as you would ſay, The true God; but here in the third part, the ſame article is omitted: as if the holy Ghoſt would hauehave vsus know thereby, that he hath his God-head, ſuch as it is, onelyonly by grace: and that diuers from him, that is the true God. O, that fooliſh men ſhould take ſuch paines to kick againſt the prickes, and to procure their owne deſtruction! Can there be more force in the omitting of one poore letter, to make you denie our Sauiours diuine nature, then in ſo many reaſons to wring out of you a confeſſion therof? pOrigen. in Ioa. lib. 2Too much curioſity, in an opinion of this learned obſeruation, hath deceiued you. Is not Ieſus Chriſt the true God, becauſe the article is not added? Or is the article neuer omitted, where the true God is ſpoken of? I will goe no furder to confute this error, then this preſent Chap. Was it not the true God, that ſent Iohn Baptiſt before the Meſſiah? Is not he called the Lord of hoſts by qMa…ach. 3. 1the Prophet Malachy? Behold I will ſend my meſſenger. Who wil ſend? In the latter end of the ver; Behold he ſhall come, ſayth the Lord of hoſts. And yet of him rIoh. 1. 6ſaith our Euangeliſt, There was a man ſent sforeign.from God, vvhere there is no article: Shall we belieue the Prophet of the Lord, or this falſe Prophet Arius? The one ſaith the Lord of hoſts ſent Iohn the Bap. the other tels vsus, Hee, that ſent him, was not the true God, becauſe the article is not ſet before God. This one place were ſufficient to confound that vaine and falſe exception, eſpecially beeing in the ſame Euangeliſt, and within ſo few lines after the former. But I will briefly note ſome other, to make it more cleere, if it may be. It cannot bee doubted, but that God, whom no man hath ſeene at anie time, is the true God. tExo. 34. 20. 23Thou canſt not ſee my face, ſaith the true God, to Moſes: thou ſhalt ſee my back parts, but my face ſhall not be ſeene.

Doth not S. Iohn ſpeake of the ſame true God, when he ſayth, uIoh. 1. 18No man hath ſeen God at any time? Is not xforeign.the Word in this place alſo, without an article? So is it there, To them he gaue prerogatiue, to be the ſons of yforeign.God. The like examples are eueryevery where to bee found, in this and the other Euangeliſts, & in the writings of the Apoſtles.

And ſurely, if the addition of the article be ſufficient to proue, that the true God is ſignified, whereſoeuer that is ſet before, the Arians are manifeſtly conuinced by that place of *Rom. 9. 5 Chryſoſt. in Ioa. hom. 3. Theophil. a… hunc locum.Saint Paul, who is God aboue all: which is ſpoken of our Sauiour Chriſt, and yet hath the article, though not immediately before it. If you enquire more particularly, why the article is put in before God, in the former clauſe, and left out in the later: Firſt I ſay the Euangeliſt might vſe his liberty, as all, that write in Greeke doe, to take it, or leaue it, at his good pleaſure, where the matter did not require the preſence of it. Secondly, it was fit rather to put the word without it, then with it: becauſe (as I ſignified before) God, in the former place, noteth the perſon of the Father, who is the firſt of the three in order; but in the later, the nature of God, which is common to all three perſons. If he ſhould hauehave left it, or vſed it in both, the ſenſe would hauehave bene more darke, and the diſtinction of the perſons not ſo eaſily obſerued. Thirdly, it could not hauehave bene ſo plaine or certaine, that the word was to be taken …or the former part of the ſpeech; but it would hauehave beene much doubted, whether the Euangeliſt meant to tell vsus, that God was the word, as the words lie, or that the word was God, as ſome hauehave vnderſtood him. Therefore there is neuer a word, nor letter in this firſt verſe, wherby our Chriſtian faith, touching our Sauiours God head, can be weakned.

Nor any thing, ſaith Arius, whereby it may be ſtrengthened. No? Doth not the holy Ghoſt auouch, that …e is eternall, hauing his perfect being already, when all things created began firſt to be? Is it not affirmed that He was with God, when nothing had any being but God? your vaine and friuolous exceprions hauehave bin prooued void. Let all this paſſe. Can any thing be plainer, then this direct affirmation, that the word was God? The word (ſaith Arius) was God: but no otherwiſe then ſome men are called by that name. The true God aExod. 7. 1ſayd to Mo…es, I hauehave made thee a God to Pharaoh: yea to all them, to whom the word of God came, he ſaith as much, bPſal. 82. 6.I hauehave ſaid, yee are Gods. A poore ſhift; The very ſight of the place affords a ſufficient anſwere. cHilar. de Trinit. lib. 7.Moſes is made Pharaohs God; and thoſe Rulers were ſaid to be Gods. Doth the holy Ghoſt ſay either of Moſes, or any other, that they were God ſimplie, as our Euangeliſt doth of the VVord. If the VVord had bene made God, or if the Lord had onelyonly affirmed of him, that he had called him God, there might hauehave bene ſom occaſion of doubting; becauſe there are ſome ſuch like ſpeeches of other men in the Scripture. But what wilfull wrangling is it, to call ſo plain a matter into queſtion, vponupon ſo vnlike a maner of ſpeech? Moſes was God to Pharaoh, not ſimply God. They were vouchſaf't the name of gods. They were not ſimply gods. There was no daunger in either of both thoſe ſpeeches. Hee that reades, I hauehave made thee God, can readily conceiue, that this made God, is not the true God. And as eaſie is it for any man to aſſure himſelfe, that thoſe rulers are not God indeed: aſwel becauſe they were many (but God is one) is alſo for that they are preſently threatned, dPſal. 82: 7that they ſhall dye like men: But ſimply to name him God, whoſe eternity was before auouched, whoſe preſēce with God, before the world, was affirm'd, and to whom afterward the creation of all things is aſcribed; had been the realy waie to fill the hearts of men with idolary, if Ieſus had not been indeed very God by nature. Therefore it is not poſſible to perſwade any Chriſtian man, whoſe eyes are not blinded with the miſt of preiudice and error, that the holy Ghoſt would open ſuch a gate to impiety, calling him God, without addition, limitation or expoſition, who had affirmed aſmuch of himſelfe, and of whome the whole Chriſtian world was ſo perſwaded, when this Goſpell was to be written. Nay rather he would by all meanes hauehave refrayned to giuegive the …eaſt ſuſpicion of ſuch a conceit, by which men might hauehave beene drawen into ſo horrible, and dangerous an …ereſie. But no truth of reaſon, no authority of Scripture, could reforme the error, or ſtop the mouth of that wretched hereticke, till the Lord Ieſus himſelfe, our God, vtterly deſtroyed him by a moſt fearefull iudgement. For eRuffin. hiſt. eccl. lib. 1 cap. 3at the verie time when hee was ready to goe to the Chruch to maintaine his blaſphemous hereſie, being forced, by neceſſity of nature, to goe aſide into a cōmon place, appointed for that purpoſe, as it might be Queen hithe here in London, he voyded (with reuerence bee it ſpoken) his very entrails, and ſo ended at once, both his life and his blaſphemie.

Doe wee tremble, at the horror of this iudgement? Oh then let vsus take heede, my brethren, how wee like of his doctrine, of whoſe puniſhment we are ſo affraid. And yet, what was this extremity, in compariſon of the intolerable wrath of God in the fire of hel? where there is neither eaſe of pain, nor end of miſery. fPſal. 2. 12.O kiſs the Son, leaſt he be angry, and ye periſh in the way. g1. Cor. 10. 22Doe we prouoke the Lord to anger? Are we ſtronger then he? hReuel. 6. 15Doe not the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chiefe Captaines, and the mightie men, hide themſelues in dens, and among the rockes of the mountaines? Doe they not Verſe, 16crie out moſt lamentably to the mountaines and rockes, Fall on vsus, and hide vsus from the preſence of him that ſitteth vponupon the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb? Oh miſerable & comfortleſs wretches! Flee you from the Lamb? It is hee iIoh. 1. 29that taketh away the ſins of the world. If there be ny drop of mercy, it is by the bloud of the Lamb; if there be any hope of comfort, it is in the gentleneſſe of the Lamb. They are abſolutely without al poſſibility of the leaſt relief, that can find no fauor at the hands of the Lamb. If the Lamb frown, who wil look cheerfully vponupon vsus? And dare any wretched miſcreant nouriſh in his heart, doubtfull thoughts of our bleſſed Sauiours eternall God-head? For it is almoſt incredible, that any man ſhould be ſo deſperate, as blaſphemouſly to denie it. If we could heare (but as it were a far off) the hideous ſhreeks, and moſt wofull lamentations of that wretch I ſpake of ere while, our haire would ſtand vpright on our heads with horror, and our hearts ſink in our bodies, for feare. kIoh. 5. 22Hath not the Father committed all iudgement vntounto him? Muſt we not all ſtand before his throne, to receiue ſentence from him, either of life or death? Oh I where wilt thou beſtow thy ſelf, poor, naked, miſerable diſtreſſed ſoule? It is vnpoſſible for thee to hide thy ſelfe. To behold the wrathfull countenance of the Iudge, it is intolerable. Oh! how wilt thou tremble, when thou ſhalt heare that dreadful voice, lLuk. 19. 27.Thoſe mine enimies, that would not that I ſhould raigneouer them, bring them hither & ſlaie them before my face? Slay them? I: but ſo, that they ſhal alwaies be dying, and neuer dye. For ſo is that …eatefull …entence, which will looſe the ioints, & make the knees knock together, when it ſhall be heard: mMat. 25. 41Depart from me ye curſed into euerlasting fire, which is prepared for the diuell and his angells. Is it not better for vsus then, to acknowledge Ieſus Chriſt to be God, while we liue here, & may learn it, then to be driuē to confeſs it, when it ſhal auaile vsus to nothing, but to increaſe our iuſt damnation? I am ſory & a ſham'd, that in this cleere ſun-ſhine of the Goſpell, any man making profeſſion of Chriſtian religion, ſhould make doubt of ſo main a ground therof. Neither would I hauehave wearied you & my ſelfe, with ſo large an exhortatiō, but that I know too wel, there is too iuſt occaſion of it. Yet I may not forget my ſelfe too much. That, which hath bin ſaid is ſufficient, with the bleſſing of God; without it, nothing that can be ſay de.

Let vsus now come neerer home, and betake our ſelue… to that, which is more proper to our calling. For as the Angells that are miniſtring ſpirits, though they be faine oftentimes to oppoſe themſelues, againſt the malice and fury of ſatan, & his inſtruments; yet hauehave not this office properly aſſign'd vntounto them, but as it furthereth their principle charge, to helpe them forward which ſhall be heires of ſaluation: ſo the miniſters of the Goſpel muſt account it their eſpecial duty to inſtruct & comfort them that are the true members of the body of Ieſus Chriſt. To you therfore beloued in the ſame our Sauiour, will I now addreſſe my ſpeech, euen to all you, that beleeue in Chriſt to iuſtification. HaueHave you learned, that the Meſſiah your Sauiour is God almighty? Do you firmly and ſtedfaſtly beleeue this, without wilfull gain-ſaying or doubting? Aſſure your ſelues, the holy Ghoſt hath ſet you in the waie to euerlaſting life. But me thinkes I heare ſome poore ſoule, ſighing in himſelf, & ſtriuing if it were poſſible, to conceale his own thoughts from his own heart. What is it thou doſt ſo labour to ſuppreſſe? what art thou ſo affray de to be knowen of? Be not diſmaied, nor diſcouraged: If thou tremble like nMarke 5. 33.her, that heard our Sauiour aske, who hath touched him, remember with what ioy to her ſelfe ſhe was diſcouered. Promiſe thy ſelfe no leſſe from him, who will certainly oMat. 11. 28refreſh all them, that being heauy laden come vntounto him. What? Thoſe, that hauehave (now and then) ſome doubt in them of his eternall God-head? I: euen thoſe; in deſpight of Satan and all his treacherie. Let mee reaſon with thee a little. Doſt thou not beleeue, that the ſcripture is the vndoubted word of God? yes: thou dooſt. Art thou not perſwaded, that the ſame Scripture teacheth thee, that thy Sauiour Chriſt is very God? Thou art. But thou haſt many times ſome doubting of the point within thy heart. What? Doſt thou doubt willingly, as one that either thinkes it not to be ſo, or at the leaſt, that was neuer reſolutely perſwaded, that it is ſo? Let me ſay more to thee. Wouldſt thou hauehave him bee God or no? If thy affection deſire to honour him, all that may be, if thy weake faith labour to ouercome this doubting; Satan would hauehave thee doubt, & makes thee afraid thou doubteſt, but indeed thou doſt beleeue. It is not a property of the moſt ſanctified men to bee without tentations, but not to yeelde to them with ioy and liking. True faith may be weake, though perfect faith cannot. Weaknes of faith wil admit occaſion of doubting, but not giuegive place to doubting. Dooſt thou not finde it in thy ſelfe? thy doubting neither brings forth denying, nor receiues any kinde entertainement at thy hands: then art thou wholly free from wilfull gaineſaying, or doubting.

Satan can not make thee beleeue, that thy Sauiour is not God. Only he makes thee afraid, leaſt he ſhould not be God. And how comes hee to this aduantage? Surely by no other meanes, but by driuing thee to examine the point by reaſon. There can be but one God: which is he, that ſent Ieſus Chriſt into the world, and not Ieſus himſelfe. If thou tell him of the three perſons, hee demaunds further, how thou canſt conceiue, that there ſhould be three ſuch perſons, and all they but one God; As if p2. Cor. 5. 7.wee walkt heere by ſight, and not by faith. I know it is poſſible to beate the Deuill at his owne weapons, and by the force of reaſon to maintaine againſt him, that there is a Trinity of perſons; though that myſtery, by diſcourſe of reaſon, could neuer be attained to, without reuelation from God. But this is not the armour a Chriſtian truſts to. Thy bulwark muſt bee the ſhield of faith, borne vp, and held out by ſome ſtrong reſt of holy ſcripture. The word was God: Saith our Euangeliſt. By it were all things made. Let Satan caſt his fiery, and poyſonous darts againſt vsus: This ſhield quencheth the fury and killeth the ſtrength of their fire and poyſon. As for his diſtinctions and reſpects, wherby he ſweats, and tyres himſelfe to proue, that our Sauiour is but God by fauour, not by nature, becauſe he is imploied in ſuch an office, not becauſe he is eternally begotten of God his father: they are ſparkles that keepe a cracking, with more feare, then hurt; and venom that raiſeth a few Pimples, in the outer skin, with more trouble then danger. Keepe thee cloſe vnderunder the ſhield of faith: and though Satan make thee ſtagger, yet hee ſhall neuer ouerthrow thee.

Being then thus armed at all points, with an aſſured perſwaſion of our Sauiour Chriſts diuine nature, and hauing beaten the enemy that charged vsus with ſuch force and fury; let vsus peaceably, and carefully conſider with our ſelues, what vſe wee may hauehave of that fort which wee now poſſeſſe in ſafety. Is this Sauiour of ours God eternal, infinite in wiſedome, in power, in holineſſe, in all worth and perfection? Surely then may wee truely and bodly ſay, that pPſal. 89. 19.God hath layed help vponupon one, that is mighty, more mighty to reſcue his people out of the hands of ſinne and Satan, then Dauid was to free the people of Iſraell from the Philiſtines, and all other that oppreſſed them. Are they mighty, that are againſt vsus? Hee that is with vsus, is more mighty. Doe you not heare the Apoſtle, as it were defying all the world, in confidence of this aſſiſtance? ^r If God (ſaith he) be on our Rom. 8. 31.ſide, who can be againſt vsus? What though hee ſpeakes of God the Father? Is not the Sonne our Sauiour the ſame God, of the ſame power? Me thinkes I am encouraged by this meditation to dare Satan, and to bid him battaile to his face. Let him not ſpare to magnify the iuſtice of God, to amplifie the grieuouſneſſe of my ſinne, to lay out to the vttermoſt the furiouſneſſe of Gods diſpleaſure, to ſet before me the weakeneſſe of my eſtate, to recken vp as it were on his fingers, the huge ſummes of my debt; what is all this, If Ieſus Chriſt be God? Though the iuſtice of God will not bee corrupted, by feare, pity, bribery, or flattery: yet it will bee ſatiſfied. If the wrath of God be infinite againſt my ſinne, an infinite ſacrifice may appeaſe it. I hauehave nothing to pay. But he, that is God, is all-ſufficient. ſMic. 67.Will not the Lord bee pleaſed with thouſands oſ Rams, nor with ten thouſand riuers of oyle? tHeb. 10. 4. & …. 12.Is it vnpoſſible that the bloud of Buls, and Goates, ſhould take away ſinne? Yet uAct. 20. 28.hath Ieſus Chriſt, who is God, by his owne blood entred once into the holy place, and obtained eternall redemption for vsus. God (^x ſaith the Apoſtle) hath purchaſed the Church with his owne blood. What though yM…c. 6. 7.the Lord will not accept my firſt borne for my tranſgreſſion? Will he alſo refuſe the ſacrifice of his owne firſt begotten, yea *Ioh. 1. 18.of his onelyonly begotten, which is in his boſome? No, no, he hath proclaimed him from heauen aMat. 3. 17.to be his ſonne that beloued one, in whom he is well pleaſed.

Now, the ſufficiency of this worthy ſacrifice, ariſeth not from the bloud of man, though it be more excellent then that of buls or goates, but frō the inualuable worth of the perſon, whoſe blood is ſacrifice. Could the bloud of Iſaac, of Abell, or of Adam, while he was innocent and holy, hauehave beene a ſufficient ranſome for ſinne, committed againſt the infinite maieſtie of God? Looke how much it lacks of infiniteneſſe in valew, ſo much it lacks alſo of worth to make ſatiſfaction. For no finit ſum can diſcharge an infinit debt. But as God himſelfe, ſo ſin againſt God is infinit. Multiply any finit nū ber, though neuer ſo great, that which proceeds of it wil be but finit. And whatſoeuer is finite (imagine it as great as you can in number or meaſure) is no neerer infinitnes, then the leaſt point or fraction, that can bee conceiued. For there is no kinde of proportion betwixt them: elſe ſhould finit & infinit be al one. Becauſe that which hath any part of it finit, being compoūded of finite parts put together, muſt of neceſſity it ſelfe be vnderſtood to bee finite. For the parts make the whole: and that taketh it nature from theſe. Now, who knows not that the holineſſe, and nature of man is finit? Such therfore would the whole lumpe bee, if all that is, or can bee in al men, were gathered together into one. How then can a ſacrifice, which is but finite, make due ſatiſfaction for ſin, that is infinite? And that, which I ſpeake of men, I would hauehave vnderſtood alſo, of all creatures whatſoeuer, Angels or other. For ſince their nature and worth is finit, it is as farre from infiniteneſſe (be what it will in compariſon of the valew of other finite things) as nothing is from all; that which is, from that which is not.

There is then nothing at all left, wherein wee may hauehave any truſt, or hope of hauing ſatiſfaction made to God for vsus, but onelyonly the inualuable ſacrifice of our Sauiour Ieſus Chriſt; bHeb. 10. 14VVho with one offering hath conſecrated for euer them that are ſanctified. cIoh. 1. 29.Behold (ſaith he that was ſent to ſhew him) the lambe of God that taketh awaie the ſinnes of the world. But whence hath our bleſſed Sauiour this ineſtimable valew? I know not (ſaith one) neither will I trouble my head about it. I beleeue his ſacrifice was ſufficient; and that ſerues my turne, without any further adoe. Oh my brethren: let vsus not be ſo vnkind to our bleſſed ſauiour, ſo vnthankfull to God the father, ſo contemptuous againſt the holy ghoſt, ſo retchleſſe of our owne ſaluation. Is it not monſtrous vnkindneſſe, to hauehave ſo incompatable a fauour done thee, and not to labour to know that, which is moſt honorable to him that did it? How ſhalt thou worthily lift vp thy heart to praiſe, and magnifie the Father that ſent his ſonne for thy redemption, if thou neglect to vnderſtand how glorious he was, whom hee ſent? At the leaſt deſpiſe not the wiſedome, and prouidence of the holy ſpirit: as if hee had troubled himſelfe in vain, with ſetting his Secretaries on worke to pen the particulars of thy ſaluation, for thy full ſatiſfaction and comfort. Well, let all this goe: If thou beeſt not aſhamed of ſo vnreaſonable vnkindneſſe, vnthankfulneſſe, contemptuouſneſſe; yet bee afraid, leaſt thou loſe that, which thou thinkeſt thou haſt. Art thou ſo grounded and ſetled in aſſurance of ſufficient ſatiſfaction made by Chriſt, that it is vnpoſſible thou ſhouldſt be (I will not ſay caſt downe, but) ſhaken? Take heed this conceit of thine, bee not like that of the Phariſe, dLuke. 18. 11.Lord I thanke thee, that I am not like other men. Looke about thee on eueryevery ſide, and behold the ſpirituall battaile, that is againſt thee.

Take a view how thy fellow ſouldiers are intreated. Thou maiſt ſee many a one, that hath bin as confident as thou art, and yet now is to ſeeke for comfort. Belike thou haſt had hitherto either no aſſault at all, or but ſome weake battery againſt thy ſoule. If thou be once wholly charg'd, and hardly purſued, thou wilt find thy ſelfe to ſtand in need of all the ayde, that may poſſibly bee had. Then thou wilt begin to ſee, and feele, that if Chriſt were not God, thy truſt in him might eaſily deceiue thee. Be wiſe therefore, and while thou haſt fayre weather, prouide for the ſtorme, that eyther is comming, or may come: leaſt if it fall vponupon thee, and take thee vnprouided, it driue thee on the rocks of deſpaire, to the wracke or hazard of thy pretious ſoule.

But I am perſwaded better things of you my bretheren, that you hunger, and thirſt after the word of God the food of your ſoules: that you long to vnde ſtand the myſtery of your glorious redemptiō, that you think nothing vnworthy your learning, which the H. Ghoſt hath thought worthy of his teaching. Let vsus proceede then, in the feare of God: you, with this reſolution in your ſelues; I, with this perſwaſion of you. Wee ſee with what excellent wiſdome our holy Euangeliſt hath begunne his Goſpell; and we find our ſelues as it were double arm'd by this bleſſed inſtruction, againſt heretickes, that would corrupt our iudgement, and againſt Satan that would ouerthrow our faith. Hearken not to either of theſe, at any hand: but reſt thy ſelfe ſtedfaſtly vponupon the authority of the holy Ghoſt, who telles thee plainly and truly, that The word was God. Being ſetled in this beliefe, thou art prepared againſt the aſſaults of the diuell, when hee ſhall marſhall thy ſinnes againſt thee, and charge thee with them. The greatneſſe of ſin cannot make any man deſpaire, that knows the price of his redemption to be the bloud of God infinit in valew. The more Satan extolleth the iuſtice of God, the more he doth aſſure vsus of ſaluation. For ſince the ſatiſfaction, which was made for vsus, is ſo ineſtimable, the iuſter God is, the more he holdes himſelfe ſatisfied. If wee had to deale with an vniuſt tyran, that regarded not iuſtice & equity, whatſoeuer our ſatisfaction were, wee could hardly be out of danger. But our moſt iuſt God, that valewes all things aright, finding the ſacrifice to be ſufficient, cleerly acquites all them, for whom it was offred; yea, holds himſelf ſo fully contented, that he will neuer remember their tranſgreſſions any more. But of this matter, and of this verſe enough. It followeth in the next.

This was in the beginning with God. The knowledge of the words leades & directs vsus to the vnderſtanding of the matter. But there is no word of importance in this verſe, which hath not beene alreadie expounded in the former; as I doubt not, but eueryevery one of you perceiue at the firſt ſight or hearing of them. Yet to make a cleere way to the interpretation of them, we muſt conſider to what the firſt worde This belongeth: and alſo how this verſe dependeth on the former; The originall Greeke giues vsus iuſt occaſion of this in quiry, becauſe in it This may be referred either to the word, or to God. The Engliſh affords the like cauſe of doubting, though the Latin do not. But this queſtion is eaſily anſwered, that the Euangeliſt meanes this word & not this God. For neither was there any reaſon to ſay, This God was with God; vnderſtanding that, in the laſt clauſe, it ſignified the diuine nature: and if it note the perſon, out of doubt the Euangeliſt would neuer hauehave chāged his former ſpeech, being ſo plaine & eaſie, for a doubtfull, & hard word. It is not nothing, that, in all the 3 clauſes, The VVord is …till the partie, that is ſpoken of, & that the verſes following are alſo of him, and not of God. This; namely this World, of which I hauehave written ſo excellent things.

The other queſtion is a great deale harder. I will bee as ſhort, and plaine, as the matter will let me. I ſay then that this ſecond verſe maie bee either a repetition, and expoſition of the pointes (all or ſome) formerly deli…ered, or an addition of ſome newe matter to the ſame purpoſe. If we adde, that it both expoundeth what was …aid before, & declareth alſo ſom further matter, I think we ſhall leaue nothing vnſaid, that may reaſonably be coniectured. To repeat that, which went immedi…tly before, in ſo fewe wordes, and ſo plaine, without adding ſomewhat, is neither vſual in the Scripture …or agreeable to the wiſedome of our Evangeliſt. Therefore, that we maie be ſure to omit nothing, which the holy Ghoſt meant to teach vsus, let vsus take it in the …argeſt ſenſe, it will afford. And firſt for repetition, wee …aue here 2. of the former points, namely the firſt, and …econd, that The VVord was in the beginning, and that He was with God. eLeontius ad hunc loc. … de Trinit. lib. 2.Some thinke the laſt alſo is implied. And ſo it is, in ſome ſort: But ſurely it is not repeated. For that only may be truly ſaid to be repeated, which is expreſly, and plainely deliuered, as the other 2 points are. But why ſhould there be any ſuch repetition? Both that the Heretikes might ſee and acknowledge their error, and that the faithfull might the better be confirmed in the truth, which they ſaw doubled, and as it were twice confirmed by the holy Ghoſt.

But if this repetition bring alſo an expoſition with it, who ſees not the neceſſity and profit of it? What is there then to be learned by the expoſitiō? Namely that thoſe words In the beginning, which were only in the 1. clauſe, are alſo to be referred to the ſecond; that we may knowe, that as the Word was in the beginning: ſo hee was with God in the beginning: But this (to confeſle the truth) is neceſſarily implied, and ſo eaſily to bee gathered out of the former verſe, that I can hardly perſwade my ſelfe, it ſhould be the meaning of the holy Ghoſt to put vsus in minde of any ſuch obſeruation, by repetition. For when he had ſaid, that The VVord was in the beginning, and added preſently, that The worde was with God, did he not plainly tell vsus, That the VVord… was in the beginning with God? Surely the queſtion was, where The VVord remained, or had his being, before, & in the creation of the world. To which, the Euangeliſ… aunſwers that He was with God. Whē was he with God? In the beginning, when all things created, began, firſt to be. There is then no great likelyhood, that the reaſō of this repetition was to teach vsus that in the beginning muſt be added to the ſecond clauſe, or vnderſtood with it. How much eaſier might it hauehave bin ſet down in the place, to which it properly belonged, if there had been any need thereof?

There fTertullian. con. Praxean. ca. 15is another coniecture ſomewhat more likely, that it was the purpoſe of the holy Ghoſt, to giuegive vsus to vnderſtand, that the Word, before the creation, was with God onelyonly, and ſo continued, though hee were not ſeene of men, till his incarnation. But this expoſition alſo was needleſſe. For where could he be conceiv'd to be, but with God, when as there was nothing, but God? As for the time of his incarnation, the Euangeliſt ſignifies that afterward, where hee ſayth, The VVord became Verſe 14.fleſh, and we ſawe his glory. Yea, the whole Goſpel is well knowen to all men, to be nothing els, but an hiſtory of his comming into the world, and continuance there, till the time of his aſcending vp to heauen. I would not trouble you with this diuerſity of interpretations, but that I am deſirous, now in the beginning, both to ſpeake fully of ſuch matters, as concerne the God-head of our Sauiour, and the holy Trinity, and alſo to giuegive you ſom direction, by example, how to iudge of the expoſitions of Scripture.

Let vsus ſee now what new matter we may gather out of this verſe, if it be not intended as a repetition. Firſt, it ſerues to ſtop the mouthes of thoſe Heretickes, who fondly and lewdly teach, that there are two Wordes: one which is indeed, as it were, in God; the other without him, or not vnited to him. The former (ſay they) was not the Meſſiah, but the later: and of the former, S. Iohn ſpeaketh in the beginning of this Goſpell. It is hard to ſay, whether this conceit be more blaſphemous, or more abſurd. What is it, but blaſphemy, to denie, that our Sauiour is the ſame God with the Father? And what is more abſurde, then to dreame of two Words, without anie inkling of ſuch a matter giuen by the Euangeliſt? or to imagine, that the word, here ſpoken of, … not the ſame, that afterward became fleſh? Firſt, this …erſe is apparantly of the ſame Word, that was deſcri…ed in the former: as if the Euangeliſt had ſayd, This …ord, which I have auouched to gIoh. 1. 1. 2.have been in the beginning, …o hauehave been with God, and to be God, this ſame word was in the beginning with God. Is there any leaſt ſignification here of any Word, but one? what followes? By it were Verſe 3.all things made. By what? By the Word. What word, but that which was mentioned before? For, to what elſe can it poſſibly be referred? Let vsus goe forwarde. In it was life, and ſo to the ſixt verſe. Who ſees not, that the Euangeliſt continues his ſpeech of the ſame Word? Verſe 4.Then followes Iohn the Baptiſts teſtimony: Of whom, Verſe 6.but the ſame Word, the light of men, as before ver. 4. who is afterward called the true light. What need more Verſe 9. Ver. 10. 11 Verſe, 12.words? his intertainement, hee had by men, is ſhewed, and the honour they hauehave, that receiue him by faith, deſcribed. From which, the Euangeliſt paſſeth to the incarnation of (why ſhould I doubt to ſay ſo?) the ſame Ver. 14Word. And the VVord (ſaith he) became fleſh. Be not ſo vnreaſonable, as to imagin, that the holy Ghoſt would make a diſcourſe in ſo many verſes of one Word, and vponupon a ſodaine fal into a new matter of an other Word, neuer heard of, neuer thought of before. Tell mee, I pray you, if you can, to what purpoſe all the forme… ſpeech was, if our Euangeliſt now firſt begin to write of him whome only his Goſpell dooth concerne. But what doe I ſpend time in refuting ſuch abſurdities? It is one and the ſame Word, that was in the beginning with God, & that, in due time, took fleſh of the bleſſed Virgin Mary his mother.

But theſe heretickes make ſhewe of proofe, for that they ſay; as if they were blaſphemous with reaſon. If Chriſt (ſay they) be that Word of the Father; ſince the Father and the Word are of the ſame ſubſtance, the Father alſo muſt be the word. Firſt this makes no more againſt our Sauiours being the Word, then againſt the the other Word, which you fancy to your ſelues. For the Father, and that Word alſo, by the like reaſon, muſt be one word, becauſe they are one in ſubſtance, that is one God, and yet not one Word; becauſe to bee the word, is a propertie belonging to the perſon, not to the nature or ſubſtance of God; as it ſhall appeare God willing, when I handle the Doctrine of the Trinitie. They add, that the word being as it were made by ſpeaking, muſt needes differ from the word which is ſpoken, for the making or producing of it; wilfully refuſing to vnderſtand, that although the act of ſpeaking, and the word that is ſpoken be diſtinct, each from other; yet there are not two Words, but one; namely that which is formed by ſpeaking. The Father doth not ſpeake one word, by which the ſecond is framed; but by ſpeaking frames, & begets the Word. Laſtly whereas they tel vsus, that the word, which our Sauiour ſaith hee kept, and which the Iewes heard of him, was not all one with Chriſt himſelfe, they ſay true, but nothing to purpoſe. For that worde was not any thing vnited in nature to God, but the Cōmandemēt of God, which is ordinarily in the Scripture called the word of God. As for their groſſe & abſurd conceite, that the Word meant by our Sauiour in ſuch ſpeeches of his, ſhould be I knowe not what ſpeaking in him, as it were a ſpirit in a body poſſeſſed, it is fitter to be laught at, then laboured againſt. For how is our Sauiour Chriſt ſaid, hIoh 8. 55.to keepe the worde of God, which is the place which theſe fonde Heretikes bring? By hauing it ſhut vp within him, as it were in priſon? & not rather by remembring, and dooing that, which God enioyneth? The other place they alleage is no leſſe abſurd. iIoh. 14. 24.The word, that yee heare, is not mine, but the Fathers that ſent me. Is it not euident, that our Sauiour means the word ſpokē, the word that I ſpeak? So ſpake verſe 23.he before. If any mā will louelove me, he wil keepe my word. And immediatly before the words, they bring, Hee that loueth me not, keepeth not my word; then followeth, And that word, which you heare, is not mine. Hee ſhould rather hauehave ſaid in your ſenſe. And it is I, that you heare ſpeaking. But to conclude this point, that which our Sauior ſaith here of the word, he ſpeaks in another place of his doctrine. kIoh. 17. 16.My doctrine is not mine, but his that ſent me. Thus much and indeed too much for this ſottiſh hereſie.

It is alſo gathered from hence by ſome, that the word is coeternall or equal to the Father in eternity. A doctrin very true, & needfull to be knowne; but ſuch as was ſignified before, when it was ſaid that The VVord was in the beginning, & that it was with God. Neither doth the beginning, in this or the former clauſe note eternity, but the time, when all things began to be created. Wherfore to ſhut vp the interpretation of this verſe with ſhewing what I concei…e to be intended in it, by the holy ghoſt; I am perſwaded, that the purpoſe of the Evangeliſt was to repeate that, which in the former verſe he had deliuered. For if he had meāt to add a fourth point of the like kind to the other 3; in all liklyhood, he would hauehave continued the ſame manner of writing, by coupling this to that, which went before, and hauehave ſaid; And this was in the beginning with God. If any man obiect, that he doth not ſo in that which followeth: he is already anſwered, that in the next words the Evangeliſt comes to a new kinde of argument, wherby he proues that, which before hee had avoucht: namely that the word was in the beginning, & was God, At the leaſt he deſcribes the Word by outward effects towards the creatures, not by his owne nature or properties. Neither is this a bare repetition, but a plainer inſtruction for the ſimpleſt, that they may …ſſure thē ſelues, that the Word was in the beginning with God. I graunt ſo much was implied before: but not expreſt to eueryevery mans capacity. Here the Evangeliſt ſpeaketh ſo, that all may vnderſtād him, & giues directiō for the interpreting of that clauſe, The VVord was with God. When was the Word with God? In the beginning. When as yet there was neither time, nor place, euen then had the Word his being with God.

I would gladly adde to all this, that, which is obſeru'd by lToletus in Io…n. cap. 1. Annot. 11.ſome, as I perſwade my ſelfe, not without great likelihood: that the Euangeliſt by his repetition, would, farther giuegive vsus to vnderſtand, that The VVord, not only, was in the beginning, but was then with God a worker in the creation of all things. The ground of this interpretation, is taken from that place in mPro. 8. 22.the Prouerbs, where this ſame Word is deſcribed by the name of wiſdom. There firſt his eternal Being is deſcribed, Verſe 30The Lord poſſeſſed me in the beginning of his waie. I was before his works of old: I was ſet-vp from euerlaſting, &c. This deſcription is continued to the end of ver. 26. In the 27. the holy Ghoſt proceeds to ſhew vsus, that the ſame wiſdome was with God, as a nouriſher, when hee prepared the heauens, when he ſet the compaſſe vponupon the deep &c. Yea, it may be ſomewhat more particularly applyed; Salomon ſayth, when he prepared the heauens, I was there. To that anſwereth this of our Euangeliſt; This was in the beginning with God.

His nouriſhing as ſome expound it, his creating or ordering of all things, the holy Ghoſt heere expreſſeth at large, in the words following, By him were al things made. The conference of theſe two places ſeemes to warrant this expoſition, as we hauehave ſeene. I wil not ſtriue much about it; ſo wee apply this repetition to the ſtrengthening of our fayth. Concerning our Sauiour Chriſts eternall God-head, doubtleſſe we attaine to the principall thing intended by the holy Ghoſt. And of that point, what Chriſtian can doubt, though he would neuer ſo faine? Doſt thou not perceiue, that the holie Euangeliſt deliuers it with aduiſe and deliberation? It is not a matter, that hee hits vponupon, but a point choſen by him, to begin his Goſpell withal. It ſlips not from him at vnawares: but is repeated, vponupon good aduiſement. Certainly this doubling of the point, makes it manifeſt, that the holy ghoſt would hauehave vsus view and conſider it throughly on al ſides. It is neither of ſmall importance, that it need not to be learned; nor eaſie to be beleeued, that it need not to be taught but once. Wherefore is it propounded, and repeated, but that it might be vnderſtood, and remembred? Vnderſtood, that no hereticks deceiue vsus; remembred, that our hearts faynt not: Hee, that is God Almighty hath redeemed vsus: who ſhall bee able to hold vsus Captiues? Let vsus not be afraid to defye ſin, hel, death and the deuil himſelfe? nRom. 8. 31.God is on our ſide: who can be againſt vsus?

Hauing thus expounded theſe two verſes, and finding in them ſome poynts, which concerne the admirarable Doctrin of the moſt glorious, and holy Trinity; ſo many things alſo, beeing ſpoken eueryevery where, in this goſpel, of the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit: I hauehave thought it neceſſarie, both ſor your inſtruction, and the diſcharge of my dutie, to beſtow the reſt of this hower in opening that bleſſed myſtery. Wherein (according to the example of our Euangeliſt, & the whole courſe of the ſcripture) I will content my ſelfe with the Euidence of the word, without the curioſity of ſchoole diuinity. It ſhall be ſufficient for vsus vnderſtand, that the ſcripture affirmeth, that there is one God, and three perſons, though we can ſee no reaſon how it can be ſo: And farder, in ſhewing that the three perſons are indeed diſtinct one from another, and not diuers reſpects of one and the ſame. I will not ſtand vponupon their nature in themſelues, ſo much as vponupon thoſe effects, which beeing aſcrib'd to them in the Scripture, cannot, as in ſhall appeare, bee performed by anie one perſon. Our Euangeliſt deliuers the point of our Sauiours diuine nature in a few words here in the beginning of the Goſpell. Hee proues it at large by many wonderfull works of his, through the whole courſe of his writing. This ſhal be my example and warrant. Yet I would not hauehave any man think, that I either condemne their paines and care, who hauehave laboured to explaine theſe myſteries, by the light of reaſon, or affirme, that the points themſelues cannot ſtand with reaſon. They are indeed aboue reaſon, but yet not againſt reaſon. As the light of nature, cannot diſcerne them: ſo it cannot diſproue thē. And the chiefe end of them, that endeuoured to diſcuſſe theſe maters, in ſome ſort by reaſon, was rather to ſtop their mouths, that would not beleeue, thē to inforce thē to beleeue. Now this courſe, in this place and auditorie (I truſt) is needleſſe; I am ſure with the greateſt part it would be bootleſſe. For how many, or rather how few are there heere preſent, that are able to examine; or conceiue the ſubtill arguments that hauehave been deuiſed, and vſed in theſe queſtions? Neither are wee to ſettle our faith by the waight of humane reaſon, but to ground it vponupon diuine authority. Now to the matter.

Wherein, that I may proceede the more orderly, and be the more eaſily vnderſtood; Firſt I will ſpeake of the vnity of the godhead, that there is but one God; Secondly of the Trinity of the perſons. Where, the firſt poynt muſt be to proue, that there are three perſons; the ſecond, to ſhew how they are diſtinguiſht one from an other. And becauſe there is in our Church ſeruice a treatiſe to this purpoſe, knowne in part to all, that are preſent, commonly called the Creed of Athanaſius, who like a valiant champion maintein'd the godhead of Chriſt, againſt the Aſſaults of Arius, I will referre you from point to point to that diſcourſe.

That there is but one God, the ſame one God witneſſeth himſelfe in ſcripture. oExod. 20. 2. 3.I am the Lord thy God, thou ſhalt hauehave none other Gods but me. Which is not ambitiouſly ſpoken, as if ſome one God would hauehave the honor frō all the reſt; but enioyned with authority by him who onelyonly had right to claime ſuch preheminence. Els, neither had he done done iuſtly, that gaue this charge (and how ſhould he be conceiu'd to be God, that is knowne to be vniuſt) and the Iewes to whom he gaue it, ſhould hauehave hurt themſelues as much, by diſpleaſing all the other Gods, whom they refuſed to acknowledge, as help themſelues by pleaſing that one, whome they did acknowledge. Vnleſle perhaps wee may ridiculouſly think, that for quietnes ſake, the other Gods were content to put vp this iniury, or that they were all agreed to part ſtakes, as the heathen abſurdly feyne of their three Gods. Whereof Iupiter the eldeſt took heauen for his ſhare, Neptune the ſecond got the gouernment of the Sea, and Pluto the yongeſt, rather then he would ſit out quite, was content to play ſmall game (as we ſay) and to take Hell for his part rather then nothing. Theſe are liker fancies of men in a dreame, then diſcourſes of learned writers. And yet neither could theſe three brothers well agree at all times: and to ſay the truth, Iupiter, whom the other two aknowledged for their Soueraign, was the onelyonly God, in the Iudgement of the heathen. But whatſoeuer they imagined, wee are ſure our God doth ſo ſpeake of himſelfe, pDeut. 32. 39.Behold now: for I am he, and there is no Gods with me. That appeares by the effects; I kill (ſaith he) & giuegive life, I wound and I make whole. Are not theſe the works of god? In whoſe hāds are death & life, but in Gods? But hath this God only that power? Are there not other, that hauehave it, aſwell as he? No ſure: as himſelfe addeth; There is none that can deliuer out of my hands. Thus he ſpeaketh of himſelfe: thus the prophet Moſes qExod. 33. 11.that talked with him face to face, ſpeaketh of him; VntoUnto thee it was ſhew'd rDeut. 435.(ſaith Moſes to I ſrael) that thou mightſt knowe that the Lord hee is God, and that there is none other, but hee alone. And afterward: Vnderſtand v. 39.therfore this day, and conſider in thy heart, that the Lord, he is God, in heauen aboue, and vponupon the earth beneath, there is none other. I might recken vp many like teſtimonies. But whom will not theſe content, if enough will content him?

Will any fooliſh blaſphemer now except againſt theſe proofes, as if they were to be vnderſtood of the general nature of God, not of any one, who onelyonly is God? how fond and abſurd muſt ſuch an exception needs bee! ſeeing all men know by reaſon, that generalls hauehave not any reall being, diuers from the ſpecials, or ſpecies, nor can be ſaid to perform any particular action. For example (to make the matter as plaine as I can) Man, as it ſignifieth that nature, which is common, or generall to eueryevery ſeuerall man, is not any thing ſubſiſting by itſelfe, but hath it whole being in the particulars of that kind. Therefore alſo it cannot be ſaid, that the generall nature of man doth reaſon or ſpeake; but that this, or that man doth ſo. But God ſaith, I kill & giuegive life: neither can the general nature, which is leudly & abſurdly conceiv'd, ſay truely of itſelfe; Behold I am hee, and there are no gods with me; neither were ſuch a ſpeech to any purpoſe or of any vſe: as if it were to bee thought that any man could imagin, that there are more, then one general nature of any one kinde. There is then but one God only. For if there were more, God could not ſay, there are no more: euen as Adam, after Caine and Abel were borne, could not affirme, That he alone was man, and that there was none beſide him.

The ſame trueth is confirmed in the new Teſtament by the ſ1. Cor. 8 4.Apoſtle Paule; We know (ſaith he) that an Idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God, but one. As if he ſhould hauehave ſaid: Howſoeuer there are diuers idols, of this, and that ſhape, men idols and women Idols; yet we know there are no ſuch diuine powers in the world, as theſe (according to the fancy of men) repreſent; yea we are are ſure, there is but one God. The heathen indeed hauehave many, whom they call God and Lord: but to vsus, that vnderſtand the truth, there is but one Ver. 6.God. So doth the Scripture euerie where ſpeake of God, as of one; tRom. 1. 21. 23.When they knew God, they glorified him not as God. The glorie of the incorruptible God. What ſhal I need to heape vp many teſtimonies, in a caſe, that is not doubtfull? All the wiſe and learned, both Chriſtians, Iewes, & Heathen, agree with one conſent, that there cannot be any more, then one God.

All this notwithſtanding, wee finde that in the Scrip…ure there are more then one, that are ſayde to bee God Firſt, there is one called the Father, whom al men acknowledge to be God; uRom. 1. 7.Grace be with you, and peace from God our Father. x1 Cor. 8. 6.To vsus there is but one God, which is the Father. yEph. 1. 3.Bleſſed bee God, euen the Father of our Lord Ieſu Chriſt. Secondly, as I ſhewed before, Ieſus Chriſt, or the Word, is alſo vouched to bee God. In the former verſe The word was God. *Rom. 9. 5.Chriſt is God ouer all, belſſed for euer Thirdly, it is manifeſt, in the ſame Scripture, that the holy Ghoſt, in like ſort, is God. For although there be no… one place, wherein hee is ſo tearmed by name: yet the comparing of one text with another, puts the matter out of queſtion. The Lord ſaith to the people of Iſraell, that if aNum. 12 6.there be a Prophet amongst them, he, the Lord, wil appear to him in a viſion, he will talke with him in a dreame. It was the Lord therefore that ſpake in and by the Prophets This Lord ſaith b1. Pet. 1. 11.Saint Peter, was the ſpirit. The ſpirit teſtified before of Chriſt. c2. Pet. 1. 21.Prophecie came not in olde time by the will of man: but holy men of God, ſpake, as they were moued by the holy Ghoſt. So God is ſaid to bee hee dAct. 2. 24. 25. & 1. 16that ſpake by the mouth of Dauid: and the ſame God it tearmed the holy Ghoſt in an other place. It is welknown that euerie where in the olde Teſtament the Iewes are accuſed reſiſting God. That, eAct. 7. 51.Stephen expoundeth of the holy Ghoſt: O yee of vncircumciſed harts, and eares, ye hauehave alwaies reſiſted the holy ghost; as your fathers, ſo you If then there bee but one God and …et three diſtinct one from another, be euerie one of them God; how can it be denied, that there are three perſons, fMat. 28. 19.the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghoſt. To this, the beginning as it were of our Profeſſion leades vsus, when wee are baptiſed in or into the name of the Father, and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghoſt.

Now for the better conceiuing of this great myſterie, touching the three perſons: it is neceſſarie for vsus to vnderſtand, what a perſon is; And then wee ſhall the more eaſily perceiue, that euerie one of the three is a perſon. And here, if I ſhould ſtand curiouſly to deliuer an exact definition of the thing, and tell you that a Perſon is an indiuiduall …ubſistence in an intellectuall nature, or a ſeuerall or ſingular thing, that ſubſiſteth by it ſelfe, in a nature indued with vnderſtanding; I ſhould either leaue you more vncertaine, then I found you, or beſtowe more time in expounding the wordes, then ſhall neede (I hope) to make you diſcerne of the matter it ſelfe. Wherefore (to ſpeake plainely, rather then artificially) it may pleaſe you firſt to bee perſwaded, that although the word perſon, bee not in the Scripture applyed to the Father the Sonne, and the holy Ghoſt: yet euerie one of them is ſo deſcribed therein, that wee may, and muſt needes conceiue him to bee a perſon, according as wee vnderſtand the word. Firſt, who knowes not, that there is no perſon. but where there is a nature, that hath reaſon and vnderſtanding. For no man euer calles any creature, that is not indued with reaſon; by the name of a perſon. Who will, or may ſay of tenne or twentie Lions, Horſes, Oxen, Apes, or any creatures of the like kinde, that there are tenne or twentie perſons? For example, if wee hauehave a denne, or a ſtall, that will receiue tenne Lions, or tenne Oxen: no man will ſay, ſuch a denne or ſtall will holde tenne perſons. But if there bee a Table, whereat tenne men may ſit, it is an vſuall ſpeech, to ſay, it will holde tenne perſons. So that firſt to the being of a Perſon, it is neceſſary, that the thing, which wee call a Perſon, bee by nature indued with reaſon: otherwiſe, it cannot by any meanes be a perſon. Secondly, wee are farther to vnderſtand, that the word perſon notes vntounto vsus ſome one of that kinde, and not many conſidered together. For, it were abſurd to ſay of thoſe tenne men before mentioned, though neceſſarily they hauehave euerie one of them, the vſe of reaſon, that they are a Perſon. There…ore by Perſon wee meane any one of ſuch a kinde. EueryEvery man, eueryevery woman, eueryevery childe is a perſon; becauſe eueryevery one of them hath vnderſtanding by nature, and is ſeuerall or diſtinct by himſelfe, from al other: ſo that no other man, woman, or child in the world in heauen or in earth, is or can be the ſame perſon. Some man perhaps will imagin, that thoſe qualities, or vertues, which are no where to bee found, but where firſt there is reaſon, as iuſtice, wiſedome, temperance, fortitude, and ſuch like, may bee tearmed Perſons; eſpecially ſince euerie one of theſe, is ſeuerall from other. But that cannot bee: becauſe whatſoeuer is a Perſon muſt depend on nothing as a part or property therof, but muſt be intire of it ſelfe. None of theſe qualities are ſuch: but all of them hauehave their being in ſome one perſon or other. Salomons wiſedom, and Samſons ſtrengt… hauehave no being, but in Salomon, and Samſon: with them: they are; if they ceaſe to bee, they are not. The caſe is farre otherwiſe with Salomon, and Samſon themſelues. Let the wiſedome of the one, and the fortitude of the other be turned into folly and Cowardiſe, yet ſhal each of them be ſtill a perſon, as before he was: yea, if there were no more Men, Women, nor Children in the world, but they two or either of them: yet ſhould they both, if both continued, or the one of them, if the one continued, bee two perſons or one perſon. So then to the being of a Perſon it is required, for the generall, that the thing bee of ſuch a kinde, as hath natu…ally reaſon or vnderſtanding; more parrticularly, that it be one ſingular thing of that kind, and that it be ſuch a thing, as hath a ſubſiſtence by it ſelf, and depend not vponupon any other, as a part, or property thereof; wherſoeuer we find ſuch a thing, we hauehave a Perſon, yea ſo many Perſons as wee hauehave ſuch things. Now let vsus apply this to the bleſſed Trinity.

And firſt concerning the nature of God, it neither is nor can be doubted, but that he is the very fountain & ſpring of all vnderſtanding. Frō which, the ſmal ſtreams continually do flowe, which wee ſee in the ſhallowe channelles of the creatures. gPſal. 94. 9.Hee, that planted the eare, ſhall hee not heare? Hee that formed the eye, ſhall hee not ſee? hRom. 16. 27.To God only wiſe, be prayſe through Ieſus Chriſt foreuer, Amen. Secondly, it is apparāt in the Scripture, that the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghoſt are diſtinct each from the two other; ſo that there is iAthanal. Creed. ver. 24.But one Father, one Sonne, one holy Ghoſt, and neither the Father is the Sonne, or the holy Ghoſt: nor the Sonne the Father, or the holy Ghoſt: nor the holy Ghoſt, the Father, or the Sonne. Which proueth manifeſtly that euerie one of theſe three, hath his ſubſiſtence by himſelfe, and ſo is a perſon. Looke not that I ſhould repeate that, which before I deliuered: take that one place for all: Baptiſe them in the name of the Father, of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghoſt. Theſe three names, Father, Sonne, and holy Ghoſt, doe not ſignifie three vertues, or qualities of one perſon, but three diſtinct perſons.

Therfore, are they alſo alleag'd by the Apoſtle as three witneſſes. kI. Iohn. 5. 7.There are three that beare record in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghoſt. But this mater belongs rather to the ſecond part of this diſcourſe: wherin I am to ſhew, how they are diſtinguiſht one from an other. But ere I come to that point (and yet I will haſten to it, all I can) I muſt needes forewarne you, that none of vsus, for ought that hath beene, or ſhall bee ſayde, conceiue of God, as of the creatures. There is one generall nature common to all men, whereby they are men; and ſo men, as that euerie ſeueral perſon, is a ſeueral man. Paul, Peter, Iames, and Iohn, are foure men, aſwell as foure perſons. But the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghoſt, are onelyonly three perſons, and not three Gods, For the eſtabliſhing of your faith in this point, I pray you remember, that I hauehave made it euident to you, out of the ſcripture, both that euerie one of theſe is a ſeuerall perſon, and alſo that they are all three but one God. That eueryevery one of them is God, it hath been manifeſtly proued; and no leſſe, that there is but one God. Whereupon it muſt neceſſarily follow, that they are all three, not three Gods, but one God. And this is that which you hauehave, ſet downe in the Creede named before, lAth…naſ. Creed. ver. 3.That we worſhippe one God in Trinitie, and Trinitie in Vnitie, that is, one God and yet three perſons; Three perſons, and yet one God.

If any man, for the ſatisfying of his minde, deſire farther to vnderſtand the reaſon of this difference, betwixt the Creator, and the Creatures; why euerie ſeuerall perſon amongſt men, ſhould be alſo a ſeuerall man, and not all one man: and yet the three perſons, but one God; he muſt knowe, that this proceedes from the diuerſitie of nature in God and man. The nature of man being finit, may be multiplyed into many ſeuerall men of the ſame kindes: But the nature of God being infinit, cannot poſſibly admitte any multiplication; becauſe there cannot be many infinits, or infinit ſubſtances, as there may be and are verie many finit ſubſtances, ſeuerall and differing each from other. He, that can with iudgement and learning examine thoſe points, that concerne the nature of God, may conceiue the truth of that I ſay: they that cannot, hauehave ſufficient ground for their beliefe in the word of that God, who neither can be deceiv'd in diſcerning his owne nature, becauſe he is infinitly wiſe; nor will deceiue any man, in ſpeaking of it, becauſe hee is infinite in truth and goodnes. …et vsus goe forwarde therefore to learne of him the doctrine of the Trinitie.

The word Trinitie (as I ſayd ere while of Perſon) is in no place of Scripture: but the thing being there, we are not to refuſe, or miſlike the word; eſpecially, ſince it is of good vſe, and hath beene of ſo long continuance in the Chruch. It is enough, if wee vnderſtand; that whenſoeuer the Trinitie is named, all three perſons are ſignified: as for example; when wee ſay, the Trinitie is holy, bleſſed and glorious; wee meane, that the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghoſt, are holy, bleſſed, and glorious. When wee ſay the Trinitie of perſons, it is our purpoſe to ſhew the nūber of the perſons, that they are three. Theſe two points, touching the vnitie of the god head, and Trinitie of the perſons, are ſet out at large in l…th. maſ. Creed. ver. 3. 4. 5 &c. Ver. 4.the forenamed Creed, from the beginning of the third verſe, to the ende of the twentie one verſe. The ſumme of all is this, that wee muſt neither confound the perſons, nor diuide the ſubſtance. To confound, in that place, ſignifies to mingle together, and ſo to make one of many: and that is the verie naturall meaning of the Latine word. So that, when wee are forbidden to confound the perſons, wee are taught that wee may not ſo hold the vnitie of the Godhead, that we denie the Trinitie of the perſons, and in ſtead of three, make but one; whereas, Ver. 5.according to the next verſe, There is one perſon of the Father, another of the Sonne, and another of the holy Ghoſt; and not one of all three.

Neither yet may wee diuide the ſubſtance, as if the diuine nature were multiplied, according to the number Ver. 6. 7.of the perſons. For (as it followeth immediately) the Godhead of the Father, of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghoſt is all one, the glorie equall, the maieſtie coaeternall. Therefore all the attributes, properties, and titles, which appertaine to God, belong equally, and in the ſame reſpects, to all, onelyonly they are diſtinguiſhed by that which is proper to each perſon. The particulars, whereby Ve. 8 9. 10, &c.this matter is declared in the ſame Creede, are theſe; To be vncreated, Incomprehenſible, Eternall, Almightie, to be God, and Lord. All theſe, and all the reſt of this kind, which are many, are common to all three perſons, becauſe the nature of all three is one, and the ſame: wherefore although wee muſt acknowledge euerie perſon by himſelfe Ver 19.to bee God and Lord: yet wee may not ſay, there are three Gods or three Lords.Ver. 20.

I hauehave ſhewed you, that there is but one God, which is three perſons; euerie one of them being alike, and equall in all things, that belong to the nature of the godhead. It remaines, that I ſhould ſpeake of the diſtinction of the three perſons; onelyonly ſo farre, as to make vsus vnderſtand, wherein that diſtinction conſiſts. For the better conceiuing whereof, wee may ſay, in one word, that the manner of being, which each perſon hath proper to himſelfe, is that, by which they are diſtinguiſhed; in all other things, there is no reall diſtinction of any one of them, from another. The very names themſelues, which are giuen to them ſeuerally in Scripture, point to the diſtinction, that is amongſt them. The Father, as eueryevery man knowes, in that hee is a Father, or, as hee is a Father, is conceiv'd to bee of himſelfe, and to giuegive being to his Sonne. Conſider Adam the firſt man, without looking backe to his creation, by which he had his being from God: but, looke onelyonly forward as hee was his Son Abels Father: Do you not plainely perceiue, that Adam thus conſidered, is author o… Abels being? Apply this to God the Father. Being God, hee canne, in that regard, hauehave no authour, nor beginning of being. Conſider him as the Father: Hee Ver. 21is of himſelfe, not made, not created, not begotten, not proceeding. It is not poſſible truly to imagine any thing of his Being; but that Hee is.

May wee reaſonably affirme the like of the Sonne? Surely, as hee is God, there can nothing be ſayd or conceiv'd of the Father, but may truely and muſt neceſſarily bee ſpoken, and thought of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghoſt ſeuerally, aſwel as of the Father: wherin then lies the diſtinction? EueryEvery man can readily anſwer, In his manner of being, or in his being the Sonne. Take the former example. Adam and Abel are both men, & in reſpect of their humane nature, there is no difference betwixt them. What then? Is there none at all therefore? yes ſure: Adam hath not his being of any other, as hee is a Father; Abell hath his, as hee is a Sonne, of his Father Adam. Let it not trouble you, that I mention a difference betwixt Adam and Abell, and acknowledge no difference, but onelyonly a diſtinction betwixt God the Father and the Sonne: the reaſon is, becauſe Adam and Abell are, as two perſons, ſo two men: God Ver. 22.the Father, and God the Sonne are indeede two perſons, but not two Gods. Wee ſee then, that the Father, is truely and really a diſtinct perſon from the Sonne: who though hee be neither made, nor created by the Father, yet is begotten of him; and ſo hath not his being of himſelfe, but of his father, and therefore, in the manner of his being, is diſtinguiſht from the Father.

So is the holy Ghoſt, or ſpirit from both of them. You wil aske me, by what he is diſtinguiſht from them. I anſwereVer. 23. by his proceeding from them. Firſt, it is manifeſt he is diſtinct from the father; becauſe he is not of himſelfe, in regard of his perſon, as the father is. Secondly, although he agree with the Sonne, in that each of them hath his being from a Third, namely the Father; yet in the particular maner of his being, he is diſtinguiſht frō him. For the Sonne is begotten by the Father, & ſo hath his being: but the holy Ghoſt is not begotten, but proceedeth. From whome doth the holy Ghoſt proceed? From the other two perſons, the Father and the Sonne. Of his proceeding frō the Father, our Sauiour mIoh. 15. 26.ſpeaks diſtinctly and plainely, The comforter ſhall come, whom I will ſend you from from the Father, the ſpirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father. Therefore alſo hee is called the ſpirit of the Father. It is not you that ſpeake nMat. 10. 2…(ſaith our Sauiour) but the ſpirit of your Father, which ſpeaketh in you. Now that he alſo proceedeth from the Sonne, it may thus appeare: All things (oIoh. 16. 15. ſaith our Sauior) that the Father hath, are mine. And ſpeaking to the Father he pIoh. 17. 10.ſait… All thine are mine. The later of theſe two Texts may be vnderſtood (I grant) of thoſe things that are (as wee ſpeake) without God: but becauſe it hath vſually beene applyed to proue this point, I thought fit to alleadge it. You will reply, that all the Fathers, is not the Sons; That perſonall property, whereby he is the Sonne, is not the Fathers, but the Sonnes: & that, by which the Father is the Father, is not the Sonnes, but the Fathers. Whatſoeuer elſe the Father hath, the Sonne hath alſo. But that the holy Ghoſt proceeds from the Father, is not the perſonall property of the Father; and therefore the Sonne hath that, and ſo with the Father, as it were by breathing, produceth the holy Ghoſt: who therfore is called the ſpirit of the Sonne, and of Chriſt, qGal 46.God hath ſent the ſpirit of his Sonne into your hearts. If any man rRom 89.hauehave not the ſpirit of Chriſt, the ſame is not Chriſtes. It is not ſaid indeed, that the holy Ghoſt proceedeth from the Sonne, as it is, that he proceedeth from the Father: but ſince he is called the ſpirit of the Sonne, as wel as of the Father, wee truely gather, that hee proceedeth no leſſe from the Sonne, then from the Father, though the one be expreſt, and the other be not.

To conclude then, we ſee what the properties are, by which the perſons are diſtinguiſht among themſelues; The Father begetteth, & neither is begotten, nor proceedeth: the Sonne is begotten, but proceedeth not: the holy Ghoſt neither begetteth, nor is begotten, but proceedeth. All theſe 3. He that begetteth, He that is begotten, and He that proceedeth, are all one and the ſame God, to bee bleſſed and praiſed for euer and euer, Amen. Therefore are all 3 abſolutely equall in all matters, appertaining to the nature of God: only there are 2 things, wherein the Father hath as it were ſome praeeminence among the perſons. The one I noted by the way before; that He is of himſelfe: ſo is neither of the other, but both are of him. The other is, that the father is the firſt in order; &, in theſe reſpects, he is ſometime called by Diuines the fountaine v…rſe. 25.of the Trinitie. And whereas it is ſaid in that Creed oftē named, that None of the 3 perſons is afore or after other; the meaning is, that none of them is in time afore or after Verſe. 26.other, all being eternall, as the next verſe ſheweth: ſaying, that All 3 are coeternall, that is alike eternall. The Sonne alſo hath the like preaeminence aboue the holy Ghoſt. For both he is in order before him, beeing the ſecond: and the holy Ghoſt is of him, as well as of the Father. But theſe praeeminences concerne the perſons, which are diſtinct, not the diuine nature, which is wholly & abſolutely one; as by which, theſe 3 perſons are one God. To whome be all glory &c.

Sermons Upon John 1, Sermon 2

p. 49THE SECOND SERmon, vponupon the firſt Chapter of IOHN.

THE SECOND SERmon, vponupon the firſt Chapter of IOHN.