Again, man was made in the image and likeness of him that speaks and all that are as it were conferred with: “ Let us make man in our image.” But man was not made in the image and likeness of angels, but in the image and likeness of God,—that is, of God alone, as it is expressed in the next verse. And the image here mentioned doth not denote that which is made to answer an- other thing, but that which another is to answer unto: “Let us make man in our image,’—that is, conformable unto our nature. Now, God and angels have not one common nature, that should be the exemplar and prototype in the creation of man. Their na- tures and properties are infinitely distant. And that likeness which
SECT. 7.] IN THE COUNSEL OF GOD. 53
is between angels and men doth no way prove that man was made in the image of angels, although angels should be supposed to be made before them; for more is required hereunto than a mere simi- litude and likeness, as one egg is like another, but not the image of another. A design of conforming one to another, with its de- pendence on that other, is required hereunto; so was man made in the image of God alone. But he further excepts:—
“Sed quid tum, si omnia demus, Deum non creaturis presenti- bus, neque illis esse allocutum his verbis? Sequitur ne eum qui locutus est cum illis quos allocutus est ejusdem esse nature et es- sentize? Hoc enim isti moliuntur. Certe fatuum est ita colligere. Tile qui loquitur et ilh quos alloquitur sunt ejusdem essentiz. Sic enim serpens erit Eva, et homo diabolus et quid non ?”
At whose door the censure of folly will rest, a little examination of this sophism will discover. For, whatever this man may imagine, it will certainly follow, that if God spake unto any, and they were not creatures, those to whom he spake were of the same nature and essence with him that spake; for God and creatures divide the whole nature of beings, and therefore if any be spoken unto that is not a creature, he is God,—unless he can discover a middle sort of being, that is not God nor a creature, neither the Maker nor made. Again, it is a wondrous vain supposition, that our argument from hence is taken from such a general proposition, “ He that speaks and he that is spoken unto are of the same nature;” the absurdity whereof is obvious unto children. But here is such a speaking of one as de- clares him in some respect to be more than one; and they are all assumed into the same society in the forming of man in the like- ness of that one natwre whereof they are equally partakers. All these pretences, therefore, are at last deserted by our author, who betakes himself unto that which is inconsistent with them :—
“ Sed excipient fortasse, Mosem non tantum hoc significare, Deum esse allocutum preesentes illos, sed eos in societatem operis vocasse, et creationis participes fecisse? ‘Faciamus,’ inquit. At qui Creator est hominis, est etiam universi; qui uviversi, est solus et verus Deus. Hoe igitur jam diligentius excutiendum est; an Deus in hoc verbo ‘Faciamus, secum alios incluserit, atque creationem hominis aliis quoque communicavit? Nos enim dicimus, illud ‘ Faciamus,’ etiamsi forma et voce sit plurale, tamen significatione et vi esse singulare; neque de ullo alio nisi de solo loquente, hoc est de Deo esse intel- ligendum.”
As he here at once overthrows all his former pretences, with some others also that he adds from the Jews in the close of his discourse, sufficiently manifesting that it is not truth, or the true sense of the words, which he inquires after, but merely how he may multiply
54 ORIGINAL OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST [EXERC. XXVII.
captious exceptions unto the sense by us pleaded for, so now, when he comes to own a direct opposition unto it, his discourse, wherein he states the matter in difference, is composed of sophistical ex- pressions; for whereas he pretends that our judgment is, that “ God by these words calls in others besides himself unto himself into the society of this work,” whereby it is proved that both he that speaks and they that are spoken unto are of the same nature, he doth but - attempt to deceive the unwary reader. For we say not that God
speaks unto others besides himself, nor calls in others to the work
of creation; but God alone speaks in himself and to himself, because
as he is one in essence, so as to personal subsistence there are three
in one, as many other places of the Scripture do testify. And these
three are each of them intelligent operators, though all working by
that nature, which is one, and common to or in them all. There-
fore are they expressed as speaking thus in the plural number,
which could not be, in any congruity of speech, were he that speaks
but one person as well as one in nature. And were not the doc-
trine of the Trinity clearly revealed in other places of Scripture,
there could be no proper interpretation given of these words, so as
to give no countenance unto polytheism; but that being so revealed
and taught elsewhere, the interpretation of this place is facile and