THE DEFENCE. ARTICLE I. OF THE DEITY OF THE SON OF GOD. ALL points in Divinity are not of the like easiness of apprehension. For in some, the dim light of nature, not wholly darkened, can give a reason of that we do; as well as faith, out of precept, doth warrant what we do believe. And therefore the Gentiles both before and after the Law, were to themselves a kind of Law, even by the light of nature, not to do all those things that they did desire; but they had a thing in their hearts, equivalent to the Law in respect of forbidding, because they could accuse and excuse themselves, having the witness of their conscience present with them.* Thus the effect of all the Commandments, was in the Jews before the Law, and in the Gentiles who had not the Law, given unto them. Thus the first commandment was in Terah, Abraham's father; which was the reason of his departure from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan.† And afterwards in Jacob, when he departed out of Laban's house; above four hundred years before the law was given:‡ so the second commandment in Rachel; § the third, in Abraham to his servant: || the fourth, had a precept in the creation: the fifth, for honouring his parents, even in Esau : ¶ the sixth, in Cain, who knew the greatness of that evil which he had committed, that slew his brother; fear making him, out of a guilty conscience, to deny that, which love before had not power enough to teach him to forbear.** The seventh, in the hatred of the sin of Sichem; which Jacob, though he allowed not to be rightly punished, yet he did not approve as to be well done. The eighth, even in Egypt, which made Joseph to say, What act is that you have done? when the cup of Pharaoh was found in the sack of Benjamin.‡‡ The ninth, when Judah feared the witness of Thamar.* The last, in Abimelech for taking the wife of Abraham, where the vision did not so much tell him it was a sin, (which he knew by nature) as that she was another man's wife. Now in these things which were observed before the Moral Law, some were of more apparent dislike, even in the opinion of the heathen, who had no other direction but the light of nature; as the third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth commandments. For the Egyptians had a Law; "Swear not, lest thou die." And this was punished in the twelve tables of the Romans.§ For the fifth, Homer saith of one that had a misfortune, it was because he honoured not his parents." For the sixth, nature hath made the murderer to expect what he hath committed. For the seventh, Flee the name of an adulterer, if thou wilt escape death. For the eighth, Demosthenes against Timocrates repeateth it as Solon's Law, plainly in the very words.** And for false witness, the Romans did punish it by their twelve tables.++ But the incarnation of Christ, the Sacraments, the Trinity, the Decree of God, are matters of a deeper speculation; wherein humility must follow the direction of Faith, and not seek vainly with curiosity to know that, which our silly weakness is far unable to comprehend. For, as those things that are manifest are not to be neglected, so those things that are hid, are not to be searched; lest in the one we be unlawfully curious, and in the other be found dangerously unthankful.‡‡ Now specially for the matter of the Trinity, wherein you take exception in your two first Articles; doubtless there are few errors more dangerous, or that have stirred up greater tragedies in the church of God. §8 All men see in nature, that there is a God; but the distinction of persons, Trinity in Unity, that, Faith, in humility, must teach us to believe. For who can comprehend by reason, that in that holy and sacred Trinity, one is what three are, and that two is but one thing; and in themselves and every particular infinite; and all in every one, and every one in all, and all in all, and one in all. Fire hath three things, motion, light, and heat: Arius, divide this if thou canst, and then divide the Trinity? Out of this difficulty, together with the rash presumption of ignorant men, have proceeded those dangerous errors, that so long and so hotly have troubled the Church: thus the Manichies have denied the unity of Essence; the Valentinians (or Gnostics) from Carpocrates, held that Christ was man only, + Ibid. xx. 3. * Gen. xxxviii. 23. Diodorus Sicul. § Fustibus cæditur. Fuge nomen mæchi si mortem fugies. tt Tarpeio Saxo dejiciatur. Leg. 12. Tabul. "Quæ deus occulta esse voluit, non sunt scrutanda; quæ autem manifesta fecit, non sunt negligenda; ne et in illis illicite curiosi, et in his damnabiliter inveniantur ingrati." PROSPER. de vocat Gentium. §§" Nec periculosius alicubi erratur, nec laboriosius aliquid quæritur, nec fructuosius aliquid invenitur." AUG. lib. iv. de Trinitat. from both sexes born; but that he had such a soul, which knew all things that were above, and shewed them.* Those that have in their erroneous doctrine oppugned the Trinity, are of two sorts; they have either denied the distinction of Persons, or else the sameness of Essence thus the Arians (for we will not stand to encounter or confute all other heresies) held that Christ was a person before his incarnation; but that he was true and eternal God, equal and of the same essence with his Father, that they denied; for they hold that the Son is not eternally begotten of the substance of his Father, and so that there is an inequality, and indeed a distinction, and priority of essence. Into this dangerous and ignorant blind heresy, confuted long since with powerful and strong reasons, it seems you are of opinion that Master HOOKER is fallen, both against the truth and against the true assertions of the Reverend Fathers of our church. The ground of this so great and so uncharitable accusation, is because he saith, that "The Father alone is originally that Deity which Christ originally is not."† Where you seem to infer, against the distinction of the Trinity, that the Godhead of the Father and the Son cannot be all one, if the Son be not originally that Deity. It seems then in your opinions, that this speech uttered very learnedly, and with great wisdom, and truth; "The Father alone is originally that Deity which Christ originally is not," is both unusual, new, and dangerous. First, because it weakeneth "the eternity of the Son, in the opinion of the simple, or maketh the Son inferior to the Father in respect of the Godhead, or else teacheth the ignorant that there may be many Gods." I know your own Christian judgments could easily have freed him from all suspicion of error in this point, if your charity had been equal to your understanding: for he himself hath confessed in the very same place from whence you have taken this whereof you accuse him; that "By the gift of eternal generation, Christ hath received of the Father one, and in number the selfsame substance, which the Father hath of himself unreceived from any other." Who seeth not, saith St. Augustine, that these words, Father, and Son, shew not the diversities of natures, but the relation of persons; and therefore the Son is not of another nature and of a divers substance, because the Father is God, not from another God, but the Son is God from God his Father: "here is not declared the substance but the original; that is, not what he is, but from whence he is, or is not:" for in God the Father, and in God the Son, if we inquire the nature of them both, both are God, and but one God, neither greater nor less in essence of Godhead, one than the other. But if we speak *Aug. Tom. VI. Ser. 7. † Vol. II. p. 182. [Vol. II. p. 183.] "Hic non indicatur substantia, sed origo, id est, non quid sit, sed unde sit, vel non sit." AUG. Epist. 66. ad Maxim. of the original, saith St. Austin (which you see Master Hooker did) the Father is God originally, from whom the Son is God; but there is not from whom the Father hath originally his deity. So that to mislike this kind of speech is, contrary to all truth, to affirm, that the Son is not eternally begotten of the Father, and that the Father is not eternally a deity begetting. But here you must take heed of the error of Arius, who against the truth reasoned thus; If the Son be co-eternal with his Father, tell us, we beseech you, whether he were begotten when he was, or when he was not; if when he was, then there was before two unbegotten, and afterwards one begot the other; if when he was not, then he must needs be later, and after his Father. But saith St. Augustine, as we have known only the Father always and without beginning to be unbegotten; so we confess, the Son always and without beginning to be begotten of his Father: therefore, because the Father is originally that Deity, from whence the Son is the Son; though he be the same Deity, yet the Father alone, is originally that Deity, which the Son originally is not. The want of Identity being not in the Deity (whereof we must needs with the Church of God acknowledge an Unity) but in that it is not originally the same. "For every thing that is a beginning, is a father unto that which cometh of it, and every offspring is a son unto that out of which it groweth." "Christ then being God, by being of God, light by issuing out of light," though he be the same deity (for in the Trinity there is but one deity) yet the Father is originally that Deity alone, which Christ originally is not. Here, if you note but the difference betwixt that "Deity," and "originally that Deity," you must needs confess that Mr. Hooker speaketh with the consent of reformed antiquity, and hath said nothing to diminish the eternity of the Son, or to make him inferior, in respect of his Father; or to teach the ignorant, that there be many Gods. ARTICLE II. THE CO-ETERNITY OF THE SON, AND THE PROCEEDING OF THE HOLY GHOST. In this Article, the thing which you mislike is not any matter of his judgment, but that he seemeth to confess, either out of less learning than you have or more humility than you shew, that "the co-eternity of the Son of God with his Father, and the proceeding of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, are in Scripture no where to be found by express literal mention:"* and yet you cannot be ignorant, but that undoubtedly he believed both. Therefore, in my opinion, it is strange, * [Vol. I. p. 133.] why, out of the Second and Fifth Article holden by our Church, you allege, that "The Son is the Word of the Father, from everlasting begotten of the Father;" and, "The Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son;" as though you dealt with an adversary that denied either. You could not be ignorant (having perused his writings with that diligence to reprehend), but in this great mystery of the Trinity, both concerning the equality of the Son with the Father, and the Deity of the Holy Ghost who proceedeth from both,-see plainly that he held directly and soundly that doctrine which is most true, and every way agreeable with the judgments and expositions of the Reverend Fathers of our Church. Neither do I know whether, in this point, any of them have left behind them a more sound, learned, and virtuous Confession, than he hath done. For, saith he; "The Lord our God is but one God. In which indivisible unity, notwithstanding, we adore the Father, as being altogether of himself; we glorify that consubstantial Word, which is the Son; we bless and magnify that co-essential Spirit eternally proceeding from both, which is the Holy Ghost."* What confession can there be, in this point, of greater judgment, learning, and truth? and wherein there is less difference with that which our Church holdeth? both having their ground, as you may see by the places alleged by Mr. Hooker in the margin, from the infallible evidence of God's Word. This troubleth you, that he saith, that these points "are in Scripture no where to be found, by express literal mention:" which you, out of your learned observation, have proved (as you think) to be far otherwise, by those places of Scripture, which his careless reading and weak judgment, was no way able to observe! Where, first, to prove the co-eternity of the Son, you allege, "The Lord hath possessed me in the beginning of his way; I was before his works of old." And again, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And again, "Glorify me, thou Father, with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."§ These places I confess, by way of collection, may serve, truly to confirm in this Article, that which our Church holdeth; (and yet they are not the plainest places that might be alleged for this purpose). But in all these, where is there to be found "express literal mention," of the "co-eternity" of the Son, with the Father? Nay, for any thing that ever I could read, I do not think you are able to find the word co-eternal, or co-equal, in the whole Scripture in this sense. after the Arians had long in this point troubled the Church, the holy Fathers express what they held, by the word "Homousion;" which word St. Augustine affirmeth, not to be found in all the Scripture.|| * Vol. II. p. 172. § John xvii. 5. + Prov. viii. 22. Aug. Tom. II. epist. 174. Johni. 1. For |