concluded that every one of these things which are reckoned up is one in it self partly in kind partly in number it is common to all the Faithful for from this Communion of such excellent things or Unity of things common to Christians their Unity is concluded Wherefore all the things which are reckoned up are either such as exist in the very Christians whether apart as Hope Faith Baptism to which we may also refer that one Spirit or joyntly as that mystical Body or else they are things which do indeed exist without them but yet have a manifest relation to them and reduce them to Unity such as are that One Lord and that One God and Father common to them all who is over all that is as we said before who alone ruleth over all with the highest Sovereignty and doth alike guide and govern all and is also through all that is doth by his providence diffuse himself through all passeth through all the Members of the Christian Body and by his goodness reacheth unto all or which cometh to the same purpose is as it were conversant amongst all and is in the middle of them namely by his help aid and providence finally is in all that is dwelleth in all by his Spirit for they to whom all these things are common ought to be most closely united amongst themselves But what relation is there between the Spirit and Christians if by that name you understand the spiritual Essence of God how will that be common to all Christians for neither is it possessed by them as the things of the former sort by us reckoned up likewise it hath not a relation unto them as the word Lord God and Father Doth not the thing it self shew that if you will by this word understand a divine Spirit you must of necessity understand the holy Spirit common to all the Faithful wherewith they are as it were animated and guided for then he will be in the number of those good things which they by the divine bounty do obtain neither indeed ought the mention of him at any hand to be here omitted partly because the holy Spirit is of essential note amongst the good things common to Christians which unite them one to another in that he erecteth and sealeth them to the hope of the same happiness Whence the Apostle speaking of the same thing to the Christians after he had said that Christ or his Church is one body as it were compacted of divers members he addeth * 1 Cor. 12.13 For with one Spirit we have all been baptized into one body whether Jews or Greeks whether bond or free and we have all been drenched into one Spirit for the same cause he had in the precedent †Ver. 4. and 7. words in the same place discoursed much concerning the Unity of the Spirit lest because of such different faculties which he did put forth in different Christians they should account one another for strangers or at least in comparison of themselves dispise them who had attained lesser gifts and that they might on the contrary acknowledge one another to be different members indeed but yet of the same body since they were as it were inlivened with the same Spirit of God why therefore in this place where the Apostle handleth the same thing should he not expresly mention that Unity of the holy Spirit wherewith Christians were †That is Anointed or filled imbued add hereunto that the Apostle in the words immediately following as also in that place to the Corinthians doth discourse touching the diversities of the gifts or effects of the holy Spirit given to Christians so that there is no doubt but that he had first spoken concerning the Unity of that Spirit as in the other place But wher is he to be supposed to have mentioned it but when he spake of One Spirit unless perhaps he would have him comprehended under the name of one Baptism which notwithstanding they themselves do not admit who stifly contend that the Apostle speaketh of Water Baptism nor are we against it and certainly if it be here spoken of a divine Spirit and not of the mind and will in regard of which the Faithful ought to be one Spirit there is no doubt but the Apostle speaketh of the holy Spirit But if by one Spirit you understand the holy Spirit there is no cause why you should not by * 1 Cor. 8.6 one Lord understand Christ as in the foresaid place we see it done and consequently by the Father that which othetwise the word it self requireth the Father of Jesus Christ I suppose we have sufficiently shewn that by the name of Father in that place to the Ephesians is none meant save the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently none but he is by Paul held to be that one God Now if any one will fly to Appropreation or Attribution devised by some in this business he may easily be confuted if one consider these things which we have spoken thereof in the foregoing Chapter when we examined the first Answer to our Argument drawn out of that place so that there is no need any longer to insist upon it CHAP. IIII. The fourth Argument drawn from the words of Christ Mat. 24.36 But of that day and hour knoweth none no not the Angels of the Heavens but the Father only and Mark 13.32 But of the day and hour knoweth none no not the Angels in the Heavens no not the Son but the Father BEfore we go from the places which make express mention of the Father Arg. 4 from Mat. 24.39 and Mark 13.32 we think good to add an Argument more fetcht from the words of Christ Mat. 24. Mark 13. wherein he openly affirmeth that the Father only or which is all one that none but the Father did know of that day or hour namely of the last judgment or his coming for our Opinion is hence most clearly demonstrated for he who only sometimes knew the day or hour of the last judgment is only the most high God But by the testimony of Christ the Father only sometimes knew that day or hour Wherefore he only is the most high God The truth of the major Proposition as they call it is apparent to every one for he who only sometimes knew all things is also only the most high God for the most high God ever doth and did know all things But he who only sometimes knew the day of the last judgement did then only know all things for he that was ignorant of that day did not absolutely know all things wherefore he who only sometimes knew the day of the last judgement is also only the most high God If any thing pertaineth to the defence of this Argument although it is so clear and strong as not to need it we will speak of it * Sect. 8. Chap. 9. hereafter when we shall treat of Christ Arg. 5 from 1. Cor. 12.4 5 6. Now follows
Spirit are not the Father Therefore the Son and holy Spirit are not that one God In like manner we may also conclude thus concerning the Father That one God is the Son or holy Spirit The Father is not the Son nor the holy Spirit Therefore the Father is not that one God The third Reason may be fetched from the following words For if that one God were not only the Father but also some other certainly Christ would be he But Christ is here manifestly distinguished from that one God and so is demonstrated not to be that one God whilst it is added And One Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him But whereas they say that these very words intimate that when that one God is called the Father the Son or holy Spirit is not excluded from the same Godhead because neither here where that one Lord is called Jesus Christ the Father is excluded from the same Lordship they are therein exceedingly mistaken inasmuch as the word Lord doth in this place denote him who is somewayes inferiour to the most high God and subordinate to him in dominion although he be next to him that is signifieth him by whom the most high God governeth all things any way belonging to the Salvation of Men. But in this manner that one God is not Lord since he cannot in any sort be inferiour and subordinate to himself wherefore he is rightly excluded by the following words from such a Lordship And what we have spoken is proved by a twofold Reason drawn from this very place For first That one Lord is either the same with that one God or some way inferiour to him The same he is not otherwise there will be no ground of distinction nor would there be any cause why that one God should be said to be the Father and that one Lord Jesus Christ for no less that one Lord than that one God should be said to be the Father for what reason there was why that one God should be said to be the Father the same would there also be for which that one Lord should be said to be the Father It remaineth therefore that it signifieth him who is some way inferiour to that one God Again The same is proved by the descriptions which are added to both that is both to the Father and to Christ and by which they are distinguished one from another for as we hinted in the former Chapter the Descriptions that are added to things or Persons in the Scripture are not wont to be either idle or forreign to the thing which is treated of but fitted to illustrate or prove the same In this place if these descriptions make any thing to the purpose namely that the Father is he of whom are all things and we to him and Christ he by whom are all things and we by him they shew that the Father is that one God and Christ that one Lord as if the Apostle had said To us there is one God namely the Father in as much as all things are of him and we consequently to him and there is also to us one Lord namely Jesus Christ in as much as all things are by him and we consequently by him for it is necessary that he should be that one God of whom are all things that is who is the first and highest efficient cause of all those things which pertain to us Christians for that he hath a peculiar regard to Christians the word We several time repeated doth intimate and consequently to whom as the ultimate Scope we ought to look and to confer all worship and honour For he is to be accounted by us the most high God who is the first and highest Cause as of other things so of those namely which belong to us and our Salvation He also is to be accounted One who is the highest Cause not only of some things but of all for if he were not one some would proceed from him others from another as the prime Author and highest Cause and consequently the glory of those things ought by us to be referred partly to him partly to the other Now that we have one Lord even Christ is thence evident because all things are by him that is because he is the middle cause of all those things which belong to us and our salvation and in that all things are governed dispenced by him from that first Cause of all things Where also it followeth that we by him ought likewise to worship God that is that he is the middle scope and end of the honour which ought by us to be exhibited unto God for because all things are by him it is apparent not only that he is Lord but also that one Lord for if there were many some things would be administred by him others by another and so we ought to worship God partly by him partly by another Now who seeth not that these things are very suitable to the words and scope of the Apostle Neither can any one here object that it is also said sometimes concerning the most high God that all things are by him for it is certain it signifieth not that some other who is the supream Cause doth effect those things by the most high God But it is frequently said of Christ in the Scripture that some other namely God or the Father who cannot chuse but be the supream Cause doth do something by him which properly belongeth to a second cause Concerning which thing we will hereafter treat more largely in its * Sect. 2. Chap. 19. place But that in these words of Paul it is not upon the same account said that all things are done by Christ as it is elsewhere said of God is very evident because in this place those expressions Of whom are all things and by whom are all things and also those We to him and we by him are opposed the one to the other and put to distinguish divers persons Wherefore neither is that which is applied to the Father common to Christ nor that which is applied to Christ so taken as that it may he common to the Father But this will come to pass no other way than if the words annexed to the Father signifie that he is the prime efficient cause of all things and the ultimate end of us and our Religion and those things which are annexed unto Christ signifie that which the propriety of the words requireth namely that he is the middle efficient Cause of all things and the intermediate end of our Religion From whence it is how understood that that one God signifieth him who is the prime efficient Cause of all things and the ultimate end and that that one Lord signifieth him who is the middle efficient Cause of all things and likewise the intermediate end of the Worship that is to be performed to God from us and consequently that the one is superiour and greater the other some waies inferiour and
respect of the humane Nature is distinguished from God not in respect of the divine The first exception for two causes chiefly is of no moment One is that it would thence follow either that there are two most high Gods namely the Father and Christ or that these twain though distinct in persons do yet make one God The first will not be granted by the very Adversaries The latter also cannot consist because the name of God is the name of a Person In as much as it signifieth him that exerciseth Imperial Power over others and when it is put for the most high God it designeth him who with supream Imperial Power governeth all things But this agreeth to none but a Person or as the Schools a Suppositum endued with understanding which is the definition of a person Wherefore he that saith that there is one most high God saith that there is one Person with supream imperial power ruling all things and he that saith that there are many such persons saith that there are many most high Gods Of which â—â—sing more in the second Book The other Reason is because if the name of God taken for the most high God is common to Christ with the Father there is no cause why it should be peculiarly taken for the Father and so Christ be distinguished from God For how shall a word common to the Father the Son distinguish the one from the other should he in their opinion be thought to speak rightly who should distinguish the Father from God simply put Who ever for examples sake did read the Father of God the Father sent God the Father gave God God went out from the Father if ye believe in the Father believe also in God as we read that Christ is the Son of God that God sent and gave his Son that Christ came out from God and he himself pronounceth If ye believe in God belive also in me Do not the very ears of men reject those first forms of speaking John 3.16 17. 13.3 and 14.1 as disagreeable to the use of the Scripture yea and of them with whom we have to do But if you say that a common word is therefore peculiarly attributed to the Father because he is the Fountain and Original of Divinity since the Son and holy Spirit receive their Deity from him we have already shewn * Sect. 1. Chap. 1. before that they who answer so do either contradict themselves and overthrow their own Tenet concerning a Trinity of Persons in one substance of God or say nothing and obtrude upon us empty words Wherefore we refer the Reader thither As for the latter exception which is That Christ according to the humane Nature not according to the divine is distinguished from God absolutely put this also cannot consist For first we have already shewn †Sect. 1 Cap. 6 8. above that Christ cannot simply be distinguished from God if he himself be the most high God although according to some one Nature he be not so Again according to the Opinion of the Adversaries in many of the Places quoted by us or in such as are like to them Christ is considered according to the divine Nature as when he is called the Son of God or the only begotten Son of God and also when he is said to have been in the beginning with God to have been sent from God into the world to have descended from Heaven to have come out from God to be equal to God The greatest part also refer hereunto those expressions that he is called the Image of God the Word or Speech of God and that he is said to be in the form of God Wherefore it is necessary to say that in such places whole Christ how great soever he is is distinguished from God and not in respect of one nature only But from such places judgment may easily be made of the rest For why should one seek a different reason of distinction where it is spoken of the same person when the same person may every where have place Add hereunto that we will afterwards shew that the holy Spirit also is in the same manner also distinguished from God simply put as we saw Christ was distinguished from him But if the distinction be the same why not also the reason of the distinction especially if the same may have place in both as the Adversaries either confess or are forced to confess For what reason of distinction they hold in the holy Spirit the third person of the Trinity as they believe the same must they confess may also be applied unto Christ But if you fly to a distinction of natures there will be a far different reason of distinction in both For this hath no place in the holy Spirit Wherefore the reason of the distinction between God and Christ is not to be placed in this but in some other thing But we have shewn that no other can be imagined than that the Father only be acknowledged the Most High God And let these things suffice to have been spoken concerning the first Argument CHAP. II. Arg. 2 Christ is called the Son of God The second Argument drawn from the name of The Son of God THe second Argument may he fetched from thence that Christ is so often in the Scripture called the Son of God For the Son of God cannot be the most high God To prove which we will not now repeat that which we have urged in the foregoing Chapter namely that by this very appellation the Son is distinguished from God simply so called We will not likewise urge that the substance of the Father must of necessity be different from that of the Son since every one is really the same with his Substance or Essence and consequently the Father will be the Son Lib. 2. Sect. 2. Chap. 1 c. and the Son the Father But if there be a different Essence of the Son and the Father the Son cannot be the most high God unless you hold two most high Gods We will not finally here urge that as the most ignorant understand the Son is in time after the Father whereas the most high God cannot be in time after any since he existed from all Eternity These things I say we will not now urge in as much as they are elsewhere to be urged but only this That from this appellation it followeth that the Father is more excellent than the Son But none is in any sort more excellent than the most high God For whatsoever excellency there is which is incident to supream Divinity cannot be absent from him who is the most high God Otherwise he would have some defect But such an Excellency it is to be from ones self For he is excellenter and greater who hath his Essence and whatsoever he hath from himself than he who hath from another both his Essence and all things that accompany the Essence and cannot be had without it Now that
both of the one and other sort when in the mean time it is commonly believed that his end in writing the Gospel was to shew that Christ is the most high God which existed from all Eternity therefore we will take our rise from him and shew that he was so far from proposing to himself the defence of that which is commonly believed that no sacred Writer hath with more and clearer Arguments overthrown that Opinion For indeed his drift was to shew the Divinity of Christ but such a one as is wholly dependant on God For these things saith he are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God John 20.31 and that believing you may have life by his Name But this very thing that Jesus is the Christ that is the Anointed and Son of God doth manifestly distinguish him from the most high God and sheweth that Christ doth wholy how great soever he is depend on him and is inferiour to him Now of those Testimonies which may be fetched out of this Writer wherein something is denied of Christ which could not be denied of him were he the most high God the first shall be this which is extant chap. 5.19 The Son can do nothing of himself unless he see the Father doing it Which is in part repeated afterwards ver 30. where he saith I can do nothing of my self In the former words as certain very learned * John Maldonatus men among the Adversaries have shewn the word unless is put for but if as it elsewhere hapneth both in the same †John 15.4 John and in other sacred ‖ Mat. 12.14 1 Cor. 7.17 Gal. 2.16 Rev. 9.4 21.27 Writers with whom it is sometimes simply set for but. For otherwise did the Particle retain its force it would follow that Christ would signifie that he could do something of himself namely if he saw the Father do it when nevertheless these twain are opposed to do something of himself and to do something then when he seeth the Father do it so that the meaning of Christ is that he can do nothing of himself but then only when he seeth the Father do it and as it were go before him therein as any one will by himself easily observe and the words repeated in the 30th verse does shew From this place we thus argue The most high God can do all things of himself Christ can do nothing of himself therefore Christ is not the most high God The major Proposition as they call it in the Schools is by it self manifest For the most high God is the first and supream Cause of all things and consequently whatsoever he doth he doth it of himself not from another otherwise he would not be the first and supream Cause but the Person rather from whom he had a faculty or power to do something The Assumption or Minor is Christs The Defence of the Argument TO this Argument a double answer is wont to be brought neither whereof is indeed altogether direct since one maketh a shew of weakning the Major the other by either distinguishing or limiting the Premises endeavoureth to make the whole Argument invallid For some answer that Christ therefore saith he can do nothing of himself because he hath not the power of working from himself but receiveth it from the Father by the eternal generation out of his Essence and therefore they confess that Christ here speaketh of himself according to his Divinity and consequently as he is the most high God and they accordingly deny that there is any repugnancy for one to be the most high God and to do all things not of himself but by a power received from another Others answer that Christ here speaketh of himself according to his humane Nature not according to his divine So that from this Argument no other thing will follow than that Christ according to his humane Nature is not the most high God which themselves willingly confess As to the former answer that cannot consist for two causes chiefly The first is in that it doth sundry wayes involve a contradiction For first it maketh the same person both to be the most high God and not the most high God the most high God expresly not the most high God in that it affirmeth him to do all things by a power received from another For whilst it holdeth so it denieth him to be the first cause of all things and so to be the most high God as appeareth from what was said before Again whilst it saith that Christ was generated from all Eternity it together saith both that he is Eternal and not Eternal Eternal expresly not Eternal tacitly whilst it affirmeth him to be generated Besides whilst he saith that he was indeed generated out of the Essence of the Father but so that he hath the same numerical Essence yet saith that the same Christ is generated of himself Since every one as we hinted before is the same with his Essence and the Adversaries confess that the divine Persons are really the same with the Essence although they would have them really to differ amongst themselves The second cause for which the former answer cannot consist is that such an explication of the words of Christ is repugnant to the Text and thirdly to the words of the following verse wherein Christ being about to explain the reason of his saying speaketh thus * Ver. 20 For the Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things which himself doth and will shew him greater works than these that you marvel Now that the whole business may be the plainer some things are here beforehand to be observed First these twain as we have already hinted are opposed so to do something of himself and so to do something if he see the Father doing it and Christ doth therefore deny the first of himself because he affirmeth the latter of himself Again so to do somewhat of ones self is to work by a power wisdom and authority of his own and not received from another Whence it followeth that to do something if he see the Father do it is to do it not by a power wisdom and authority of his own but such as was received from the Father For Christ in this place compareth the Father to an Artist which by his own example instructeth his Son and most faithfully sheweth him what is to be done and by that means causeth that he likewise may do the same but himself he likeneth to such a Son that beholdeth the things shewn unto him by the Father and learneth and imitateth them namely because he received from him that power wisdom and authority whereof we have spoken By giving this therefore the Father doth shew by receiving the same the Son doth see Whence we argue thus if Christ did therefore deny that he can to do any thing of himself because he received from the Father by eternal generation a Power of doing all things
to him according to his inferiour Nature Wherefore if Christ were the most high God it could not be simply or without any limitation and respect of a certain nature expresly added be denied of him that he can do any thing of himself Since therefore it is denied it is apparent that he is not the most high God Add hereunto that Christ in this place is described by the name of the Son of God and that in respect of God But most of the Adversaries refer this description only to the divine Nature of Christ all refer it to it chiefly Wherefore so much the less credit is it that that is here simply denied of him which agreeth to him according to the divine Nature and consequently both may and ought to be simply affirmed of the Son of God Certainly that would be all one as if you should say that a man or a substance endued with understanding cannot understand reason remember because he cannot do these things according to the body But against that which we have said some of the Adversaries are wont to alledge that a man according to his soul is immortal or incorruptible and yet it is simply denied that he is immortal or incorruptible But it is to be observed that we speak of those Attributes which both may and are wont to be affirmed of the whole Subject simply and without limitation although they do primarily and by themselves only agree to one part thereof so to the whole only by consequence But to be immortal or incorruptible as the very Adversaries together with us confess is not simply and without limitation affirmed of the whole man namely because we see the whol◠composition of man to be dissolved and to die and be corrupted although the Spirit remain after it But the same Adversaries contend that as all the attributes which agree to the Humanity of Christ are wont simply without limitation to be affirmed of Christ for example sake that he was conceived born of a Virgin suffered dyed was buried raised up from the dead the like so also all the attributes of the divine Nature Wherefore as they simply affirm that he is God so also they simply and without limitation affirm and if they will be true to themselves are forced to affirm that he existed from all Eternity Omnipotent Omniscient Immense Creator of Heaven and Earth Some alledge that of * Rom. 7.17 Paul where he affirmeth that the evils which he worketh he himself did not work but sin that dwelleth in him where they think that what is simply affirmed of the whole is simply denied of the same because it agreeth not to the other part And therefore that the contradiction which at first sight appeareth in these words is to be taken away by the distinction of parts But they are exceedingly mistaken for neither hath Paul respect to divers parts in the same subject as if the thing were attributed to the subject according to one part and according to the other part taken away from the same this I say is not there done but the same attribute is by an elegant Antanaclasis one while taken more largely another while more strictly namely by a certain excellency and being taken more largely is attributed to the Subject but taken more strictly it is denied of the same whole and not attributed to another part of the same Subject but to another Subject as the place it self sheweth For the man described by Paul under his own person is said to work these evils the word work being taken properly and largely but the same is denied to work them as the word work signifieth to be the prime and principal cause of working For this he saith is not he himself but sin In the same manner he elsewhere saith that he laboured more than the other * 1 Cor. 15.10 Apostles yet not he but the Grace of God that was with him He affirmeth that he himself laboured if it be properly spoken but denieth the same because he was not the prime and principal cause of the labour but the grace of God that was present with him Thus also Christ †John 7.6 saith My Doctrine is not mine but his that sent me ‖ chap. 12.44 He that believeth on me believeth not on me but on him that sent me For the Doctrine of Christ was his own because it was promulgated by him it was not his own because himself was not the prime Author thereof but he that sent him It is believed on him because he is the object of faith not on him because he is not the principal object and ultimate scope of faith for so he is that sent Christ Wherefore that we may return unto our place it is necessary that Christ when he simply denied that he could do nothing of himself did speak of himself wholly how great soever he is and not only of one part of himself or not of himself according to one part only Which that it may yet more evidently appear and the rule before set down by us be the more confirmed this is to be added If that which may is wor◠absolutely to be affirmed of the whole may also simply and absolutely without any limitation be denied of the same whole namely because it agreeth not thereunto according to some part though an inferiour one it will be lawful simply to affirm of Christ what we would have namely that he is not the most high God did not exist from Eternity did not create the World that the Son of God was not incarnate or made man was not in Heaven before he was born of the Virgin because none of these things agree to him according to the humane Nature yea it may be said that the Son of God is not the Son of God especially the only begotten one if he is held to be such as he was begotten out of the Essence of the Father which agrees not to him according to the humane Nature Finally it will be lawful to say that he was neither conceived of the holy Spirit nor born of Mary nor grew nor eat nor drank nor wept nor dyed nor rose again nor ascended into Heaven nor shall come to judgment and other things innumerable because none of these things agreeth to him according to the divine Nature Those first Expressions the Adversaries will not endure as for the rest the ears of no Christian man can endure them Who would endure such a Divinity as permitteth one simply to deny that Jesus is the Son of God or that he sometimes dyed and rose again Wherefore if those things are both * Vnheard or incredible uncouth and intollerable they ought also to imagine that their interpretation is alike intollerable whereby they say that when Christ simply saith the Son can do nothing of himself he speaketh of himself according to the humane Nature only whereas according to the divine Nature he can do all things of himself whence it
Interpretation is very frivolous first in that by so speaking he had not alledged the cause why he declared not the day of judgement to his Disciples nor had diminished the desire of knowing it and inquiring it of him but increast it because by this means he had intimated that the Son of man did know that day Besides neither doth the word Son absolutely spoken of Christ denote the Son of man but the Son of God as he is such especially since the word Father is presently opposed thereunto and by it God understood and the word but in that passage but the Father agreeth not with the words nor the Son immediately going before but with those none knoweth Finally that interpretation doth thwart the words of Matthew who saith that the Father only knoweth it For how ridiculous would it be to say the Son of man knoweth not the day of judgement unless the Father only knoweth it for it is a certain contradiction in the Additament and the condition that is added subverteth that to which it is added The same Interpreter furthermore saith that many antient and grave Authors whose names he orderly reckoneth up did thus interpret That Christ as man was ignorant of the day of judgement Which he himself thinketh to be true only in this sence that Christ knew not the day of judgement upon that score or for that reason because he was man but because he was God Otherwise he supposeth it to be false and horrid to be spoken that the humane Nature of Christ was ignorant of any thing For the Papists yea certain others also imagine that the humane Nature of Christ from the very first instant of his conception and birth knew all things But that Interpretation also he refuteth because Christ not only denyeth that the Son of man he ought here rather to say the Son of God doth know the day of judgment but also affirmeth that the Father only knoweth it by which speech he seemeth to exclude not only the Son but also the holy Spirit Nevertheless now a-dayes that Interpretation which the Interpreter rejecteth namely that Christ is said truly to be ignorant of the day of judgement not according to the divine but according to the humane Nature is commonly most received even amongst them who otherwise hold that in the very moment of conception the Properties of the divine Nature were communicated to the humane or the knowledge of all things infused into the soul of Christ therefore we must here briefly refute it and having discust it in a few words also disprove that mans own interpretation Such an Interpretation therefore and Answer to our Argument as is commonly brought Arg. 9 That Châ—ist was ignorant of the last judgment day for three Reasons chiefly ought not to be admitted First because Christ simply and without any limitation denyeth that the Son knoweth the day and hour of judgement Where it followeth that he spake of himself wholly how great soever he is as we have shewn in the examination of the second Answer to that place John 5.19 Again to omit other things spoken in the same place both from the simple word Son opposed to God the Father and also by the Gradations used by Christ ascending from the Angels to the Son and from the Son to the Father it is apparent that he altogether spake of that Nature according to which he is the Son of God Thirdly Because in Matthew it is expresly said that the Father only knoweth the day and hour of judgement which sense agreeth also to the words of Mark whilst he saith None knoweth but the Father opposing the Father to the Son himself But if Christ had according to the divine Nature known the day of judgement then not only the Father but also the Son had known it and besides if we believe the Adversaries the holy Spirit Now whereas in this place they so much urge the saying of Paul Col. 2.3 In whom are all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge hidden First they do not observe that these words may as well yea far better be referred to the name of the Mystery of God and Christ the mention whereof immediately precedeth than to the name of Christ For it is there chiefly treated concerning the knowledge therof so that the sence is in the Mystery of God and Christ are all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge hidden but that Mystery is the evangelical Doctrine Chap. 1.25 26 27. Again the Wisdom and Knowledge here spoken of is to be understood of all things pertaining to mans Salvation which have also been revealed by Christ unto us and are diligently to be known by us But that the Knowledge of the day of judgement is not comprehended in the number of these things appeareth from these very words of Christ wherof we dispute To omit although otherwise it were spoken of the same kind of things yet this special saying concerning the day of judgement should derogate from the general and not be interpreted according to that but that according to it It remaineth that we speak something of that Interpretation and Answer which the Popish Interpreter having refuted the Opinions of all the rest did devise although he so proposed it as that himself seemeth to put no great confidence in it for he saith Vnless The mistaken Christ speaketh in the same manner that he had formerly said * Mat. 20.23 To sit at my right and left hand is not mine to give you but to them for whom it hath been provided by my Father Wherefore he intimateth what is more that he not only as a man but also as God was in a certain sort ignorant of the day of judgment not that he was indeed ignorant but because it was not his office to know as he said not for whom it is provided for by me but by my Father not that it was not provided by him also but because to provide the Kingdom that is to predestinate is not his office but the Fathers That also it belongeth to the Father to appoint when the world is to be dissolved and when the day of judgment is to be This is that which the Apostle saith †Acts 1.7 It is not for you to know the times and seasons which the Father hath put in his own power Therefore he alone is signified to know it And this unless I be mistaken is the true sence He did well twice to add unless I be mistaken for he was something afraid lest he should be mistaken neither did this ingenious man satisfie himse f whilst he endeavoured to satisfie others But neither did he rightly explain the place but pervert it nor take away the difficulty but in some part augment it For first he without example and any just reason departeth from the proper and usual signification of being ignorant whilst he interprets it that it is not ones duty to know unless perhaps he alledge this very thing for a reason about which
received from him Power Honour a Kingdom and Dominion over all the Peoples of the Earth which thing all see was not done from all eternity why do they laugh at this Why do they impiously oppose that which the Scripture so clearly delivereth He is not yet sufficiently acquainted with the nature of the Christian Religion who is ignorant thereof For this is the thing which doth as to this consideration separate Christians from Pagans That the Christians acknowledge one most high God nor attribute Godhead unto any else but to whom the most high God hath indeed granted it But this doth not yet distinguish them from Jews or Turks For this doth sunder them from Jews or Turks that the Christians do besides the most high God worship his Son also for their God or as Paul speaketh acknowledge One God the Father of whom are all things and for whom are we and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and by whom are we But this by the by and yet not without necessity For we ought a little to turn out of the way that we might bring them back into the way who went astray CHAP. XIX The ninteenth Argument That Christ ascribeth both his Words and Works unto the Father and that he is not the First but Second Cause of the things pertaining to Salvation THat therefore we may proceed to other Arguments of our Opinion to those Testimonies which we even now alleaged may be subjoyned those places of John wherein Christ ascribeth his Works and Words to the Father as the prime Author not to himself and any divine Nature of his own On which notwithstanding we will not here dwell long partly because we have above said something concerning them when we cited those places out of John wherein something is denyed of Christ which could not be denyed of him if he were the most high God in the second and third chapter of this Section partly also because they are so nearly allyed to those places immediately going before wherein it is said that some dignity was given to Christ by God and granted or bestowed on him so that they are in a manner of the same purport with them Nevertheless we will recite the chiefest of them wherein Christ ascribeth his works to the Father for those which †Chap. 4. speak of his Doctrine Arg. 19 That Christ is the second cause of alâ— things were for the most part brought by us before partly ascribing the very words themselves partly noting the places where they are extant and we will further add something to what hath been formerly spoken concerning that thing Wherefore to omit that famous place chap. 5. wherein Christ affirms That he can do nothing of himself that the Father sheweth him all things which himself doth and will yet shew him greater ver 19 20. Likewise chap. 14.10 where he saith That the Father which abideth in him he doth the works Of both which enough hath been already * Chap. 3. of this Section spoken Hitherto belong those words of Christ which are likewise extant chap. 5.36 I have greater testimony than that of John the Works which the Father hath given me to do the very works that I do they hear witness of me that the Father hath sent me And chap. 10.25 The works which I do in the name of my Father they testifie of me Now what is it to do them in the name of his Father than to do them by the Power Authority and Command of the Father and the same chapter ver 37 38. If I do not the Works of my Father believe me not But if I do although you will not believe me believe the Works that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in the Father And chap. 11.41 being about to raise Lazarus he thus speaketh Father I give thee thanks because thou hast heard me But I know that thou alwayes bearest me but for the Peoples sake that stand about I speak it that they may believe that thou hast sent me From which place it appeareth that Christ raised Lazarus and did other the like Miracles because he was heard by the Father and a Power to do them was alwayes afforded to him or being oâ—â—e afforded was never taken away Which very thing we see that even Martha which had already acknowledged Jesus to be the Christ the Son of God did believe as she professeth ver 22. but none of these things could be said of Christ were he the most high God and performed all those Miracles of himself or by a Vertue Power and Authority that was altogether proper to him and naturally refiding in him I omit the end of those Works clearly exprest by Christ namely That men might believe that he was sent by the Father and so that the Father was in him as in an holy Embassadour and most dear Son and likewise that he was in the Father or closely united unto him as the like words in the same John See John 6.56 and 14.20 15.4 5. 17.21 22 23 26 1 John 2.5 6 24 26 27 28 3.24 4.12 13 15 16. 5.20 are elsewhere taken But if Christ were the most high God and had done Miracles by a Power that was altogether natural unto him this ought not to have been the end of them that men should believe that he was sent by another but rather that they might understand that he came of himself and did in his own name give Precepts and propose Promises unto all We have already before stopt the gap through which men fly to a distinction of Natures inasmuch as these things are simply and without limitation uttered concerning Christ which could not be done if he were that one God because the sâ—me things should also be denyed of him without limitation Again because those operations properly agree to the Suppositum or Person of Christ as such not to a Nature which is not a Person Wherefore they ought either to confess that the humane Nature is a Person if they will understand those things of it and so are forced to deny that Christ is a divine Person and the most high God or to affirm that those things are spoken of Christ even us a divine Person and the very most high God Besides he ought not to ascribe these things to another Person but to another part of himself that is to his divine Nature unless you will have it to have been idle therein But it was impossible for it to have been idle whilst the Father wrought if both had one and the same numerical Nature To these places fetcht out of John are to be added those words of Peter Acts 2.22 Jesus of Nazareth a man approved of God among you by Signs Wonders and mighty works which God did by him in the midst of you c. And those of the same Peter chap. 10.38 where he saith How God anointed him Jesus of Nazareth with
repetition of that place out of John which we have formerly alleaged when we discoursed of the Prayers that Christ poured out to the Father chap. 14.16 I will pray the Father and he shall give you another Advocate And there is yet another place in the same John concerning the same thing afterwards chap. 15.26 But when the Advocate is come whom I will send unto you from the Father Whence you see that Christ not for himself as from the prime Fountain but from the Father would send and consequently did send the holy Spirit whom he also expresly saith doth proceed from the Father making the Father the prime Cause of him and himself the middle cause Concerning the same thing there is a notable place in the Acts which we have formerly cited chap. 2 33. where immediately after the first and most illustrious effusion of the holy Spirit upon the Disciples of Christ Peter speaketh thus Therefore being exalted by the right hand of God and having received the Promise of the holy Spirit from the Father be poured out that which you now see and hear Therefore as Christ himself elsewhere speaketh he actually received from the Father the holy Spirit that had been before promised to him and so poured him out upon the Apostles Which thing doth signifie no other than that the Father was the first Cause of that effusion and Christ the second wholly depending upon the Father therein Whereby likewise it may be understood why John chap. 7.39 said that the holy Spirit was not yet given because Christ was not yet ascended namely because he could not give the holy Spirit till he was exalted by the right hand of God and glorified Whence Christ also himself said chap. 16.7 I tell you the truth it is expedient for you that I go away namely to the Father and so be glorified for unless I go away the Advocate will not come unto you But if I go away I will send him unto you Now how far distant these things are from that Opinion which maketh Christ the most high God and so the first and highest Cause of all things and actions not only we have already shewn but every one may of himself easily perceive The distinction of Natures hath no more place here than in the former passages Arguments drawn from thence both because it would be necessary that the same things should be denyed of the same Christ for his divine Nature which are here simply affirmed of him for his humane Nature and also because these places likewise contain in them a tacit Negation and that a simple one namely that Christ did not those things of himself or was not the first cause of those works and finally because those operations are not agreeable to any thing but the Suppositum or Person of Christ as it is such and partly the places themselves manifestly intimate partly the Adversaries themselves confess that Christ is considered in them either as a Mediator and Embassadour of God or as a Priest or as a King And to sum up all in a word as a Saviour and consequently as a Person For that these Offices do primarily and by themselves agree to none but a Person both we have elsewhere taught and the Adversaries themselves confess but what followeth from thence is understood from the precedent Chapter CHAP. XX. The twentieth Argument from the words of Christ John 8.16 My Judgement is true because I am not alone but I and the Father that sent me VVE might from the places which we even now and formerly alleaged form many Arguments and consequently from every one of them that is somewhat clear a particular Argument But we care not much for the number but for the weight and evidence which doth of its own accord increase the number of Arguments For this matter which we handle is so fruitful for the evident truth of the Opinion which we defend that it seemeth that we ought to be more sollicitous in speaking out the measure than the plenty of Arguments Wherefore let these places that have last been alleaged and examined be accounted for the sixth Argument of this rank wherein we are now conversant is fetched out of the Testimonies of John and also of other sacred Writers and wherein something is affirmed of Christ which could not be affirmed of him if he were the most high God Of which kind there yet remaine other places in the same John which we will not prosecute The seventh Argument therefore we will fetch from those words of Christ which are extant John 8.16 If I judge my Judgment is true because I am not alone but I and my Father that sent me By which words Christ intimateth that if he were alone and the Father not with him it might be that he might err in judging or at least that he might deservedly be doubted concerning the truth of his judgment Wherefore now there was no cause of doubting because the Father was perpetually with him and so suffered him not to err in judgment But were Christ the most high God Arg. 20 from Joh. 8.16 his Judgment would have been no less true although he had been alone than it is now to be esteemed true because the Father is present with him For is not the judgment of one person who is the most high God accompted as true if he be by himself as if it be apparent that another person which likewise is the most high God is present with him Or were they with whom Christ spake so stupid as that if they had understood Christ to be the most high God they would presently have confessed that his Judgment was most true although they had heard or thought nothing concerning some other person which was present with him as in other things so also in judging The Defence of the Argument YOu will perhaps say that Christ fitted his speech to the Opinion of the Jews who believed him to be a mere man and therefore that he could not take for granted that he was the most high God but was forced to draw his Argument from a thing manifest unto them But this Answer is of no worth For first If Christ would have taken that only for granted which the Jews believed concerning him he neither ought nor could take that for granted which he here affirmeth of himself especially if the Opinion of the Adversaries be right For they did not yet believe that God was his Father which he here taketh for granted Nor did they yet believe that his Father namely God had sent him and so was also with him Again The Adversaries cannot use this Answer unless they will confess that Christ did not therefore call God his Father because he was so generated out of his Essence as that he was one God with him for if for this cause he had called God his Father he had already taken that for granted which this answer contend he could not take For what other thing would
it be to take for granted that God was his Father than that he also was the most high God But we manifestly see that Christ here supposeth that God was his Father Now if you reply that Christ doth indeed suppose this but implicitly and accutely so that the Jews did not understand it that will fall to the ground which our Adversaries are wont to say namely that for Christ to call God his Father and himself the Son of God was so manifest an Argument for the Generation of Christ out of the Essence of God that even the Jews themselves do understand it And thâ—s they will have to be the cause why they charged him with the crime of Blasphemy thereupon and would have stoned him and did at length crucifie him in that he called God his Father and himself the Son of God namely because they understood that he did by this means intimate that he was begotten out of the Essence of God and so hath one Essence with him For hither they are wont to draw those places in John chap. 5.17 18. and chap. 10.30 and chap. 19.7 and Mat. 26.63 c. Some other will perhaps say That Christ intended to say that very thing wich we deny namely that he was that one God with the Father For this was the cause why they affirmed that he was not alone but the Father was with him and consequently that he could not err in judging because the Father was joyned to him by unity of Essence But first he had spoken too obscurely if he would have comprehended so great a matter in those words For who is there if any one say I am not alone but I and the Father would understand his meaning to be that he is of one Essence with God For if you say that this is sufficiently hinted by the word Father it is to be noted that the force of Christ words or as they speak the middle term of the principal Argument consisteth not of the word Father but in this that the Father was present with Christ But that God or the Father should be with any one hath a far different meaning than to have one Essence with him For it signifieth according to the use of speaking very familiarly unto all but chiefly to the Jews that God is present with some one by his favour and assistance Wherefore the Jews by this means would not have perceived the mind of Christ and the force of the Argument Besides if there is so great force in the word Father why said Christ that his Father was with him As if some one might imagine that they whom he already understood to be of one Essence might be parted asunder and the one be left from the other Finally that description of the Father that he sent him namely Christ is repugnant to that Opinion partly because it is altogether unnecessary that there should be one Essence of him that sendeth another of him that is sent by him nor can he be the most high God who is sent by another but inferiour to him as hath formerly in its place been shewn partly because in this description of the Father the reason is plainly rendered why Christ was not alone but the Father was with him namely because Christ was the Embassadour of the Father and that an extraordinary one For God is alwayes by his favour and assistance present with all his Embassadours in all things which their office doth any way require and so much the more with Christ than with others in tâ—at Christ was a more excellent one than they But unless you will acknowledge tâ—is that description of the Father will make nothing to the present matter Whereas Christ is not wont to make use of idle descriptions and such as are notâ—ing to the purpose But that the Father sent Christ can no way be the cause that Christ should be of one Essence with the Father The distinction of two Natures in Christ if any one will here apply it is easily refuted by the same Reasons that we have used in the Defence of the precedent Arguments which accordingly a wise Reader changing as they say what is to be changed may of himself transfer itâ— er and apply to the matter in hand CHAP. XXI Arg. 21 from Joh. 8.14 Argument the one and twentieth from the words of Christ John 8.14 My Testimony is true because I know whence I am and whither I go IN the eighth place may be allâ—aged these words of Câ—rist in the same eight chapter of John whence we cited the last Testimony which certain acute men amongst the Adversaries have endeavoured to draw to their Opinion they are extant in ver 14. where Christ speaketh in this manner Though I give testimony of my self my testimony is true because I know whence I am and whither I go For had Christ been the most high God he ought not to bring and consequently would not have brought this reason that he knoweth whence he cometh and whither he goeth but rather this that he himself is the most high God or some such things containing the same sence But Christ did not alleage this but that cause The Defence of the Argument THey whom we mentioned here rise up and say That Christ alleaged this very cause for he spake figuratively and intimated more than he spaketh namely that he is the natural Son of God But if you object Why then did he not openly say because I am God They answer that Christ used the figure of insinuation accommodated and in a manner necessary for the persons with whom he spake For say they the Jews could not have endured it if he had openly called himself God or the Son of God Wherefore he spake what was true and what was necessary to the cause but so spake as that he might delude his Adversaries with the ambiguity and obscurity of his words But these men have by this explication deluded themselves and others but so did not Christ the Jews They confess and it is a plain case that Christ doth by those words intimate that he came from the Father came out of Heaven and shall again go into Heaven to the Father For who would make any doubt that Christ intended here to signifie what he elsewhere speaketh in the same John chap. 16.18 I went out from the Father and came into the World Again I leave the Word and go unto the Father Which thing is more than once repeated in other or the like words with the same Writer But such words as these are so far from signifying that Christ is the most high God that they imply the quite contrary For if these words I went out from the Father and came into the World be taken of a local motion as they spake that is of a descent from Heaven to Earth properly so called as those opposite ones Again I leave the World and go to the Father are to be understood of a local departure from the Earth
been to be named whom the Adversaries hold to have descended from heaven into the Virgins womb and there to have assumed humane flesh But we have already shewed and it is laid down in this exception which we now refute that the son was not named in the words of the Angel as the Author of his conception Lastly such an opinion should require that that Power of which in the words of the Angel there is mention should be called the power of the holy spirit or by the name of the Most High whose power he is said to be should be understood the holy spirit But any one sees the former was not done The latter is hereby refelled because both by the following words and also by comparing with the 32d verse it sufficiently appears that by the words The Most High the Father of Jesus Christ is understood Wherefore this is another place from whence it is proved that the holy spirit is the divine power or efficacy The third place is extant in Paul 1 Cor. 2.4 5. where he saith And my speech and my preaching was not in the enticing words of mans wisdom but in demonstration of the spirit and of power that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but in the Power of God Where you see the Apostle instead of that which he had before expressed in two words spirit and power afterwards puts only the power of God To which are to be added also those words of Peter in Acts 10.38 of Christ how God anointed him with the holy Ghost and with Power and those of the Angel in Luke 1.17 of John Baptist And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias For the same thing in very deed is designed by the name of spirit or holy spirit and power Neither is it of moment that some where the power of the holy spirit is mentioned For both of power and efficacy there may be again other power and efficacy depending on that former And furthermore it is to be observed that the Genitive Case of the holy spirit may with good right be taken for the Genitive of the species After which manner both the gift of the holy spirit is taken for that gift which is the holy spirit Acts 2.38 10 45 comp chap 11.15 16 17. and the earnest of the spirit for the earnest which is the holy spirit 2 Cor. 1.22 and 5 5. as both of it self it is easily understood as also by comparing with the words Ephes 1.14 is perceived So also the promise of the holy spirit Acts 2.33 is taken for the thing promised which is the holy spirit But there is no need of more examples when frequently enough the Genitive Case put after another Noun signifies its certain species as it is observed by learned men To the places hitherto brought the words Ephes 3.7 20. may be added in which if in the place of divine power you put the holy spirit you will see that there indeed will be no difference of the sence as also on the contrary where mention is made of the holy spirit if you put power or divine efficacy or divine inspiration there will arise no diversity of meaning although there where the name of Power as a genus is put before it the manner of speaking is to be somewhat changed or where that is added for explication sake it is not any more afterwards to be repeated Those words also of Christ in Luke chap 11.20 may be added in which he affirms that by the Finger of God he cast out Devils Where it is easily to be seen that by the name of Finger the power and efficacy of God is understood as it also happens elsewhere * Psal 8.4 compared with Exod 8.19 in the holy Scripture in which manner also the hand of God is taken For therefore that by which God performs his Works that is his Power or Efficacy is termed Hand or Finger because we are wont to effect our works with hands and fingers as others have long since observed But Christ expressing the same thing in Maâ— 12 28. saith that he cast out Devils in the spirit of God so that the Finger of God or the Power and Efficacy is the same with the Spirit of God Lastly That the holy Spirit is the Power or Efficacy of God thence appeareth because both propâ—ecies and other admirable gifts and works which come from that Power and Efficacy which we are wont to call the divine Inspiration are all ascribed to the holy Spirit as to the next cause and inwardly working in men and that not because it is revealed by God that the holy Spirit doth effect them but because it is from the thing it self manifest enough if it appeare that they are performed by a divine Power See Luke 1.41 67. and 2.26 27. Acts 4.8 31. 6.10 55. 9.31 10.44 45 47. 11.15 16 24 28. 13.2 4 9 52. 15.8 28. 16.6 7.20.23 28. 21.4 11. and that I may pass by many more places of holy Scripture 1 Cor. 12.4 7 c. 2 Pet. 1.3 ult Whence also when the divine Writers would signifie any one to be divinely inspired and filled with divine power they say that he is filled with the holy Spirit or using some like manner of speaking affirm him to be endued with a divine Spirit But if the holy Spirit were not the very Power and Efficacy of God but a person distinct from the Father and Son there would be no cause why all those things should be ascribed to the holy Spirit as the next cause and inwardly working in men For as much as it might come to pass that the Father and the son by their Efficacy might effect all those things the person of the holy spirit not intervening as a middle cause Certainly although it should be manifest that prophesie or any other gift comes from God nevertheless it could not appear without manifest divine revelation that the holy spirit did intervene as a middle and next cause to perform that thing But the holy scriptures do so speak of that thing that they plainly enough shew that it is manifest by the thing it self without other peculiar revelation Neither indeed Paul when writing to the Corinthians he said * 1 Cor. 2.1 his words were in demonstration of spirit to wit divine or among other things commended himself as the servant of God †2 Cor. 6.4 in the holy Spirit would at length be understood by his words that he was endued with the holy Spirit and that from it his words or deeds came but from the thing it self But if you say that therefore al those things are ascribed to the holy Spirit and that thing was manifest to all believers because the holy spirit is God himself from whom no man is ignorant all those things come he besides that he shall take as granted the thing here controverted and unknown to those men to
us but that by him we should be profited For the Dative case of the person often signifies finem cui the end to which as they speak not the possessor as is observed by learned men And hence the appellation of the end to which ariseth But if any say although from that place of Isa it cannot be evinced that Christ is so given to us as to dwell in us Ephes 3.17 yet that it is manifest from elsewhere For the Apostle wisheth to the Ephesians that Christ may dwel by faith in their hearts it is first to be observed that Christ dwells in the hearts of beleevers not by vertue of that giving of which there is mention in Isa as the next cause as the holy Spirit dwels in them as soon as he is given to beleevers since that giving of Christ hath hapned to men even as yet unbeleevers and hath been accomplished as soon as he was born but Christ dwells not in the hearts of men but by faith as the place it self shewes Besides this is to be observed that Christ is there taken Metonymically for the religion or doctrine by him delivered as it is also beneath in the same epistle chap. 4.20 21. So also Moses is taken for the Law delivered by him Acts. 15.21 2 Cor. 3.15 The sense then of the words of the Apostle is That God may give you that you may believe in your hearts and adhere constantly to the doctrine of Christ and that it may be thorowly fixed in your mindes by faith And though at length it were spoken of the person of Christ yet it would not follow that Paul willeth that he in very deed and properly should dwell in the hearts of beleevers but that he should do it by his grace aide and spirit which both the Apostles wish and the manner or middle cause of that inhabitation expressed by him to wit by faith doth sufficiently shew For if Christ by his Essence should dwell in them he should dwell in all men whether beleevers or not beleevers For that would be by reason of his natural immensity which would be excluded from no place whatsoever it be neither in that thing could there be regard had either of faith or infidelity For it is necessary that what is immense in Essence fill all places and all mens hearts Neither then that place of Isa not this to the Ephesians makes any thing to purpose But that place of the Epistle to the Romans chap. 8. 32. saith not the same with that of Isa For that all things shall be given to us with Christ we may so interpret and indeed more rightly that God wil give to us all things to wit which he hath promised us even as to Christ or as before in the same chap. the Apostle had said that we shall be co-heirs of Christ and be glorified together with him vers 17. For we must be made conformable to the image of the Son of God that he may be the first-born among many brethren vers 29. which verse the Apostle seemes here to eye But the manner of speaking should offend none as if with him could not signifie in like manner as to him since we have seen already we are to be together glorified to wit with Christ that is so as Christ was glorified So in the same Epistle * Rom. 6.6 8. it is said that we are buryed with him that is as well as he and that our old man is crucified with him that we are dead with him that we shall live with him that is no otherwise than as he See also 2 Tim. 2.11 12. An Appendix of the precedent Argument in which the places are urged in which the holy Spirit is called The Earnest and by it men are said to be sealed and to be powered upon baptized and drencht TO the testimonies which speak of the giving and receiving of the holy Spirit let us joyn others which although of themselves also they might be urged against the vulgar opinion concerning the holy Spirit yet because they are not much unlike to the former therefore we will have them to be as an overplus of the former Argument And first hither pertaine those testimonies of Scripture in which the holy Spirit is called a Pledge 2 Cor. 1.22 5.5 Ephes 1.14 or rather as the Greek Text hath it The Earnest either simply or of our inheritance But the earnest is part of the thing promised given before hand which makes him to whom any thing is promised certain of the residue also Therefore seeing God doth not as yet in very deed exhibit the inheritance promised he gives to us as it were aforehand the holy Spirit which may make us sure of the future inheritance until he really bring us into the possession of it But hence it sufficiently appears that the holy Spirit is not the most high God For he is the promiser not the earnest or pledge of the thing promised Who doth pledge or give himself for an earnest Or how can God be received of a man for an earnest or pledge For an earnest is in some manner possessed by him to whom it is given But how may the most high God be possessed by a man Besides is it credible that God hath now already given us more than he promised he will give in time to come That surely neither doth the nature of an earnest bear nor this suffer to wit that by the confession of all we shall here after at length become far more happy and excellent in dignity yea then truly happy and glorious But he had given us more now than is the inheritance it self promised unto us if the holy Spirit were the most high God For who dares to compare our inheritance though infinite in time with God himself But the places quoted advertise us also of another manner of speaking used of the holy Spirit which shews that he is not a divine person And that is that Believers are said to be sealed with the holy Spirit For so it is plainly written Ephes 1.13 to which the place chap. 4.30 is like For though it is said in the latter place that the Ephesians were sealed in the holy Spirit which some interpret by the holy Spirit yet we shall shew a little after that also in other places and those such indeed where it is spoken of the holy Spirit the particle in by an Hebraism is redundant and that it is so in this place is apparent enough both by comparing of the words chap. 1.13 where that particle is omitted and by the thing it self For neither here would the Apostle shew who hath sealed but with how excellent a sign we have been marked and as it were secured by God considering which we might not doubt of our future redemption and further considering how much is given to us we might diligently take heed that we do not peradventure by vanity of words deprive our selves of so great a good and rase and blot
grant all that which we say but not to the same purpose For they say that the Father is not therefore called the only true God to exclâ—de the Son and holy Spirit from the same Godhead but only to exclude Idols or the false Gods of the Heathen For that here the TRUE God is opposed to false ones And indeed it is true that only the Father is therefore called the true God to exclude them from true Godhead who were then falsely esteemed and worshipped for gods but nevertheless it is done by Christ in such a manner as is of larger extent and excludeth not only them but all others also besides the Father from the most high Godhead Wherefore it is given us to understand that if the most high Godhead is attributed to any one besides the Father of Jesus Christ it is done erroneously Now as for that which we assert both the force of the words and the occasion or cause intimated by the Adversaries themselves doth require For as to the first such is the force of the word ONLY as that it excludeth all others from the communion of the predicate besides him to whom it is applied But he to whom the word ONLY if you consider the sence for we will afterwards speak of the construction of the words is applied is the Father of Jesus Christ as they themselves confess with whom we have now to do And the Predicate is THE TRUE GOD or the Most High God Wherefore the word ONLY doth from the communion of the Predicate exclude all besides the Father and consequently Christ and the holy Spirit As to the latter either therefore the gods of the Heathen are by these words of Christ understood to be excluded from true Godhead because it is apparent that they are different from the Father whom Christ calleth the only true God or because it is already apparent that they are false gods Not for the latter cause for otherwise they would be judged already excluded from true Godhead before they were understood to be excluded by vertue of the words of Christ nor would there be need to make use of these words to that purpose If for the former cause it is necessary that all who are apparently different from the Father of Jesus Christ should be excluded from that true or most high Godhead for otherwise the Argument which should from these words be drawn to exclude the Idols of the Heathen from the true Godhead would be invalid For it would be thus if it should by way of Syllogism be proposed some different from the Father of Jesus Christ are not the true God The Idols of the Heathen are different from the Father of Jesus Christ therefore are not the true god The Major would be particular in the first figure which makes the consequence invalid Wherefore although the false Opinion of the Heathen touching their Idols gave occasion to Christ to call his Father the only true God yet did he so shape his words that others also might be excluded from that true Godhead and not only they to whom supream Godhead was then falsely attributed but such also to whom the same might in time to come be likewise falsly attributed For that we may add this also who doubteth that Peter for example Paul Gabriel Michael are by vertue of these words of Christ strongly excluded from the most high Godhead But there was then none that held them to be most high Gods nor consequently did Christ specially intend to exclude them from the Deity Wherefore the force of the words and meaning is of a larger extent than the occasion of them and is rightly drawn forth to others likewise besides the Idols of the Gentiles Neither may any one here say that therefore not only the Idols of the Gentiles but also those Men and Angels are by vertue of these words excluded from the most high Godhead because they are not of the same essence or substance but that the Son and holy Spirit are not excluded because they are of the same Essence with the Father Since it is agreeable if any thing be attributed to the Father only that those persons should not be excluded from the communion thereof which have the same numerical substance For besides that this is indeed nothing else than to take that for granted which is most in controversie when Christ called his Father the only true God he meant no less the only Person of the Father then the Essence or Substance consequently no less excluded them from that true and most high Godhead who were different Persons from the Father then who were different Substances For Christ useth a popular kind of speaking and applyeth himself to the capacity of his Disciples For therefore he with a clear voice uttered Prayers to the Father in their presence that he might both instruct and comfort them no less with this supplication to the Father then he had formerly by speaking to them But among the people yea among all THE FATHER ONLY doth no less denote the only person of the Father then the Substance and consequently doth no less exclude all different persons from the Father than Substances Besides when the Vulgar think of a Person different from the Father they also presently think of a Substance different from him Where they conceive one Substance they cannot think of a different Person Certainly concerning Moods Subsistences Suppositalities and Personalities which existing in the same numerical Substance do constitute Persons really distinct even at this day the vulgar sort of Christians do not think so unlikely is it that heretofore among the Jews even Fishermen did know them Wherefore if Christ fitting himself to the capacity of the Vulgar would have all different Substances from the Father be excluded from the most high Godhead he would also have all different Persons from the Father excluded from the same Whence we are given to understand that in these words the contrary to what is urged in this exception is rather taken for granted namely that he who is distinguished in Person from the Father as Christ is is also distinguished from him in Substance and consequently by virtue of these words of Christ are excluded from that true and most high Godhead And this is so much the more to be believed touching Christ in that the Disciples who were then present did not only see him to be a true man but also heard him distinguished from the Father as a Messenger from the Sender and also that he poured out prayers unto the same and begged glory of him Again if none by vertue of these words of Christ is excluded from the true Godhead although he manifestly differ in person from the Father unless it be also apparent that he is different from him in Essence it will follow that he cannot be confuted by these words who shall say that Gabriel for example Peter Paul or finally Jupiter Neptune or the other gods of the Heathen are the true
to take away his Understanding and to cause that he who comprehended something does now comprehend nothing at all Which will also happen to learned Men if they will endeaver to consider things and rather conceive them in their mind then to cozen themselves and others with a meer sound of words By this also it may easily be understood how we ought to answer them who say that the Name of GOD is by an attribution or an appropriation as they speak both here and elsewhere ascribed to the Father and that as we now suppose to him onely for either they grant that the Name of GOD is by reason of the Prerogative which the Father hath above the Son and holy Spirit attributed to him onely as proper and so tacitly taken away from the Son and holy Spirit or without any regard to that Prerogative If the first how they may be refuted we have already spoken if the latter they shall be able to shew by no sufficient Example out of either sacred or prophane Writers or out of the vulgar Custom of speaking that an Attribute equally common to Many may be rightly ascribed to but One of them in such a manner as that it may be said to agree to him ONLY Wherefore no regard is to be had to such an attribution in these words of Christ The second answer to the Argument But now let us refute other things which are wont to be alledged by way of answer to this first Testimony of our Opinion There are therefore some who deny that the words of Christ before cited contain this Opinion which is admitted by others namely That the Father Onely is the true God for they explain the Words in another and that a two-fold way Some say that the word ONLY doth not belong to the Subject of Christs words which if we consider the sence is the Father but to the Predicate namely The TRUE GOD for that Christ doth say That THE FATHER IS THE ONELY TRUE GOD and not THE FATHER ONLY IS THE TRUE GOD Which first proposition doth not hinder but that the Son also or the holy Spirit may be called the True God yea the Onely True God Inasmuch as these Propositions are not repugnant one to the other the Father is the only true God and the Son or the holy Spirit is the true God or the only true God But * The third Answer to the Argument others contend that these words are so to be ordered and construed that the sence may be THIS IS LIFE ETERNAL THAT THEY KNOW THEE AND WHOM THOV HAST SENT JESVS CHRIST TO BE THE ONLY TRVE GOD So that these words are so far from excluding Christ from supream Deity that they rather are to be thought expresly to attribute the same unto him Which Answers what weight they carry with them let us fee. As to the first therefore they are exceedingly mistaken The confutation of the second Answer for the Adjective ONLY as oft as it is imployed to exclude other Subjects from the communion of the Predicate belongs to the Subject not the Predicate Now that in this place the word Onely is imployed to exclude other Subjects namely Idols from the communion the Predicate which is the True God all the Adversaries contend wherefore it belongeth not to the Predicate but to the Subject which if we consider the sence is none but the Father And that you may more plainly perceive the thing see whether by our or their opinion the Idols or gods of the Gentiles are strongly excluded from true Deity If you follow our Opinion the business is dispatched for if Onely the Father of Christ be the true God certainly Idols cannot so be since they are not the Father of Christ But if you follow their Opinion the business is not yet dispatched for they hold that notwithstanding that Proposition THE FATHER IS THE ONLY TRVE GOD the same Predicate may also be applied to other Subjects for that it may nevertheless be said THE SON IS THE TRUE GOD yea THE ONLY TRUE GOD in like manner also the Holy Spirit And therefore these words of Christ would not by themselves hinder but that the same Predicate might also be attributed to infinite other Subjects so that it would not be apparent from these words of Christ that Idols are not the true God but that were wholly to be understood from elsewhere Perhaps some one will say That the Subject to which the word ONLY is immediately adjoyned is the name of GOD not the FAther and the Predicate from the Communion whereof other Subjects are excluded is the word TRUE For that the sence is that the Father is that God who only is true But this shift likewise is vain and that for two Reasons First Because the word TRUE is not here such a Predicate as here signifieth any thing by it self and denoteth some peculiar Attribute of any thing but only together with it whereto it is adjoyned For neither doth TRUE in this place signifie the same with Trusty or truth speaking but when it is opposed to a thing that is false or falsely so called it signifies nothing but the reality of the thing to which it is annexed And therefore it is predicated of nothing by it self but together with it to which it is annexed which in this place is God So that being taken together with that word it signifies him who in truth and very deed and not only in the opinion of men is God Thus we say that Christ is a true Man is the true Messiah and so forth For it is all one as if you should say that he is truly and in very deed a Man and the Messiah not falsely nor only in the Opinion of Men. Wherefore these words THE TRUE GOD are not so to be parted as that the one may again constitute a Subject the other a Predicate and the word ONLY thought to be applied to that of GOD that the Predicate of TRUE may be removed from all other Subjects besides God but the words TRUE GOD do joyntly constitute one Predicate and the word ONLY must be thought to be annexed unto the Subject thereof namely the Father that all other Subjects beside the Father may be excluded from the Communion of this Predicate namely The True God And indeed the design of Christ was not simply to exclude Idols or the Gods of the Heathen from truth but to shew that they are to be excluded from true Godhead or not to be accounted true Gods But if you say the word GOD is again to be repeated that the sence may be That the Father is that God who onely is the true God what else will you do than make Christ to speake that by circuity of words which any one would simply utter and so without necessity double both the Subject and the Predicate referring the Subject again to the Predicate as if any one should take this speech directed to Christ THAT THEY MAY KNOW
of all if he did understand one by the name of God another by the name of the Father The same is also evident in that he here distinguisheth that One God both from that One Lord and that One Spirit and that in such a manner as not only to design them by divers appellations and to include them in divers members of the sentence but also to interpose other things between them that it might the more clearly appear that they are different the one from the other But we saw in the foregoing Chapter that Christ is by name understood by that one Lord what other then should be understood by that One God distinguished both from that One Spirit and also from that One Lord or Christ but the Father of Christ especially since the very name of the Father is by the Apostle himself expresly added For lest you should understand the whole Trinity by the name of that God who is called One the foresaid Reason doth forbid namely in that two Persons of the Trinity were already mentioned and distinguished from that one God Again How absurd would such a speech be There is one Trinity of all and Father for to omit that a Trinit ya◠the Adversaries hold is not one God but three as shall elsewhere be †Lib. 2. Sect. 1. Chap. 1. shewn and is of it self manifest to every one if he will not for love of his prejudicate Opinion offer violence to his understanding what need is there after the whole Trinity to add the Father by name as if he had not been comprehended therein But would he have added something for Explication sake he ought to have expressed three Persons not one for neither doth he who maketh mention of one Person explain a Trinity of Persons The Defence of the Argument BUt there are not wanting some who in this place also do by the Name of the Father understand the whole Trinity or the Godhead indistinctly taken Which how absurdly they do though it may be understood by the Defence of the foregoing Argument yet is it here also to be shewn chiefly because the principal Patrons of that Opinion have proceeded so far as to say that by One Spirit One Lord One God and Father the very same is here understood there being no distinction in the thing it self but only in the words How bold and absurd that Explication of Pauls words is would be hard to utter But so was it necessary for them to do who were resolved to hold their Position and to defend any thing which the Opinion that they had once set down did require We forbear to urge that three persons every one whereof is a Spirit Lord God Father cannot possibly be one Spirit Lord God Father as they take it for granted Our demand only is By what Example they extend the name of the Spirit or the Father to the three Persons As for the name of the Father we spake of it in the forgoing Chapter from whence let those things be fetcht that are pertinent to this matter You shall find that the name of the Spirit one while put simply another while with an additament is in infinite places taken for the holy Spirit but no where for the Father or Christ Indeed the word Spirit is * Joh. 4.24 once in the Scripture predicated of the Father †1 Cor. 15.45 2 Cor. 3.17 twice in a different sence of Christ but put subjectively or designing a certain subject which is the Spirit it is no where understood of Christ nor the Father Is it then lawful to reject the most usual signification of words which it is very apparent that Paul here followed and to impose such a one upon the words as is no where extant Besides what cause can be alledged why the Apostle had rather repeat the same thing thrice than distinctly to reckon up three distinct things which might be expressed by the same words and each whereof was very pertinent to the business in hand why I say had he rather thrice to name God indistinctly and only heap up words than to mention first the Unity of the holy Spirit under the name of One Spirit than that of Christ under the name of One Lord afterward that of the Father under this very name Furthermore why did the Apostle separate these three by the interposal of other things why did he not at least conjoyn them and speak of their Unity in a continued course The other things which he joyntly mentioned we see are divers those which he mentioned apart shall we think the same We know indeed that the same thing is sometimes repeated with changes of words but when like things are reckoned up in order and each of the rest finished in particular members or * That is Points or Stops Commaes the same thing is not wont to be repeated in divers members like to the rest much less to be sundred by the interposal of like things and Commaes No such example shall be alledged either out of prophane or sacred Writers Add hereunto that the same thing is then wont to be by sacred Writers so significantly repeated as here it will come to pass when in each word there is some peculiar force which here hath no place Certainly there will be no force in the word Spirit as shall presently be understood And should the name of that One Lord here signifie the same with that One God and so design the supream Monarch of all things the whole force thereof would not only have been expressed by the name of that one God but also presently explained more clearly when after the name of the Father it is added that he is over all for it is signified that he only ruleth over all with the highest Authority that it may be thence understood that the Father was deservedly so joyned with that One God as that we should conceive him to be the same as if he had said There is one God and Father of all as who is over all for were not the Father that one God he could not rule over all with the highest authority Now then had not the force of the word Lord been sufficiently expressed in these words But what force would there be in the word Spirit for it would signifie nothing but one spiritual Essence Not to say that the Essence of God would not presently be signified let us even without reason suppose that a Spirit or Spiritual Essence being mentioned the Substance of God is by name understood What doth this make to the unity of Christians is it because they all believe the same to be but neither is the mention of their faith made in this comma and the unity thereof is peculiarly mentioned whilst it is said One Faith How was it then pertinent to the matter that there was one spiritual add if you please divine Essence nothing at all for you must understand that the Unity of the Faithful is not thence simply
Whereas the word according as it is used by the Adversaries includeth the relation of a part but if you take that expression as if it were said by the humane Nrture then both the Father and holy Spirit might do something according to the humane Nature of Christ though perhaps the Father not as the nearest cause and such as immediately moveth the humane Nature but the holy Spirit dwelling therein even as the nearest cause and immediately moving that Nature Again it is likewise understood from what hath been spoken that that distinction of Natures cannot cause that it may rightly be said that Christ is the Mediator of himself not only because it is incongruous to say that his Person doth do any thing according to the humane Nature if that Person be the very supream God but also because from that Opinion of the Adversaries it would follow that the very divine Nature of Christ doth primarily and properly discharge the Office of a Mediator although it make use of the humane nature in this behalf for it would be necessary that the same divine Nature should intervene in the middle between it self and Men which every one seeth to be absurd Finally it is understood that this distinction of Natures cannot cause that Christ the Mediator should be distinguished from God if Christ be very God himself Add hereunto that none but those things are simply distinguisht one from another of whom it may be simply affirmed that the one of them is not the other But in this place God and Christ who is said to be his Mediator are simply distinguished one from another wherefore neither is that God Christ nor Christ that God for the distinction of Natures cannot cause that any thing should be simply denied of some subject which for another Nature is to be simply affirmed thereof as we will shew more at large Chap. 3. of the following Section Wherefore neither can it cause that any thing should be simply distinguished from that which is to be simply predicated of it inasmuch as such a distinction as we have seen doth tacitly involve a simple negation of one in relation to the other Neither can any one here say that Christ in the words of the Apostle is therefore rightly distinguished from God and so tacitly denied that he is that one God because by the name of God or that One God the whole Trinity is understood whereas Christ is not the whole Trinity for by this reckoning it might be said that the Father himself is not God or that one God because the Father is not the whole Trinity But who could endure to hear one so speaking certainly he would openly contradict the Scripture who durst to speak in that manner Besides the very Adversaries themselves do not suppose the name of God or that one God to be collective that is so joyntly signifying three Persons that it cannot be predicated of each apart for in predicating they hold that name hath the nature of an universal so that it may be predicated of every Person in particular For instance The Father is that one God the Son is that one God the holy Spirit is that one God wherefore Christ was not therefore distinguisht from that one God and so tacitly denied to be that one God because he is not the whole Trinity but because he simply is not that one God Some one will perhaps say as it followeth not That Christ is not a man because he is the Mediator of men since he is rather therefore a Man because he is the Mediator of Men Whence the Apostle expresly saith That there is one Mediator of God and Men the Man Christ Jesus So neither from thence that Christ is said to be the Mediator of God I say the most high and only God doth it follow that he is not the most high and only God This though it be more pertinent to the second Section of this book shall notwithstanding receive a brief answer especially because the thing doth not need any long dispute for who seeth not when Christ is said to be the Mediator of Men that by the name of Men other men besides Christ are understood who were either wholy alienated from God or not so joyned but that they might be more closely joyned in a new Covenant by a Mediator but certainly Christ was not in the number of them wherefore we may rather retort this Argument upon the Adversaries for as Christ was not in the number of those men whose Mediator he was nor is comprehended under them in this place of Paul so neither is the same Christ that God or comprehended under the name of that God whose Mediator he is said to be Finally If the whole Trinity were comprehended under the name of that God whose Mediator Christ is he would also be the Mediator of the holy Spirit But this is disentanious to the truth for there would be open testimonies thereof extant in the Tables of the Covenant whose mediator Christ was But what are they We require not such places of Scripture wherein it is expresly said that Christ was the mediator of the holy Spirit but from which it may clearly appear that Christ did so intervene in the midst between the holy Spirit and us as it is needful that a mediator should intervene between them who are to be joyned in Covenant and that he performed the proper part of that Office between him and us According to our Opinion which the most learned Adversaries themselves think not to be false although they say it is imperfect It is the Office of a mediator between God and men to be the messenger of God to men and to strike a League between both and so to cause that men being instructed with the knowledge of the divine Will may address themselves to worship God But the Adversaries commonly suppose that it is the proper Office of Christ the Mediator by fully paying the punishment of all our sins to appease the wrath of God kindled against men and to intercede for them to God which we think pertaineth to a Priest But where is it taught in the Scripture that Christ was the messenger of the holy Spirit to men stroke a League between him and men and brought men indued with the knowledge of his Will to worship him Concerning the Father there are most clear testimonies of the Scripture some whereof we will alledge in the * See Sect. 2. Chap. 4 5 15. following Section Certainly Christ without expressing the Fathers name doth sometimes †John 8.26 27 28. describe him thus He that sent me and changeth this description with the name of the Father There is but one place as far as I can remember alledged out of the Scripture by the Adversaries to prove that Christ was sent by the holy Spirit and it is extant Isa 48.16 where the Prophet according to the vulgar Translation speaketh thus And now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me
speak and I know that his Commandment is eternal Life What things therefore I speak as the Father hath said unto me so I speak And chap. 14.10 The Word that I speak I speak not of my self but the Father that abideth in me he doth the works Where under the name of works his words also are to be included as the very opposition sheweth and afterwards in the same chapter ver 24. The Word which ye have heard is not mine but the Fathers that sent me To which belong also many other Testimonies which are extant in the same Writer chap. 8. 38 40. and 15. 15 17. and 8. 14. and chap. 3. 11 32 34. Wherein we read that Christ saw those things which he spake with the Father heard them from God or the Father And that they were given him from the Father and that they were the words and speech of God or the Father from whence it is apparent that Christ is not the most high God For the most high God is the first and highest Cause of all things neither can it in any sort be said of him that his Doctrine is not his Arg. 4 Christ is not the Prime Author of his Doctrine but another persons and that he speaketh not of himself as is apparent from the proof of the major Proposition of the foregoing Argument But we say that those things are very frequently and plainly said of Christ and he constituted not the first but the second and middle cause of his Doctrine The Defence of the Argument THat the refuge of the distinction of Natures hath here no place we shewed in the last Argument when we refuted the second Answer for here Christ simply and without any limitation denieth that his Doctrine is his and that he spake of himself Therefore it is necessary that he spake of himself how great soever especially since he wholly attributeth what he denyeth of himself not to another Nature of his but to another Person namely the Father and consequâ—ntly doth therein oppose not one Nature to another but one Person to anoâ—her that is himself to the Father For were that the meaning of the words which the Adversaries using that distinction would have he must have said My Doctrine is not mine according to the humane Nature but according to the divine or is mine not as I am Man but as I am God and not My Doctrine is not mine but his that sent me to wit the Father And in that passage chap. 14.10 how unsuitable was it for him were the Adversaries Opinion true having omitted the mention of his divine Nature to say But the Father that abideth or dwelleth in me he doth the work Where his words also are to be understood as we have already hinted For when he would intimate the intrinsecal cause of his work or the cause dwelling in him why did he not rather name his divine Nature essentially dwelling in him and proper to him than a Person different from him Why when he had named the Father did he that he might more significantly exclude himself presently add the pronoun he as if he should say the Father simply doth the work Is it not manifest that Christ would distinguish himself wholly how great soever he is from the prime Cause of his Works and Words and having taken it away from himself ascribed it entirely to the Father Add hereunto that Christ when he saith My Doctrine or My Word would have it so far forth understood to be his Doctrine or Word as it was most belonging unto him and it was most his according to the opinion of the Adversaries as he was a divine Person from whom no less than from the Father that Doctrine had originally proceeded Wherefore when he had spoken this and desired to have it understood there was no cause why he should rather ascribe it to the Father then to himself or his divine Nature although divers natures had place in him Finally this thing doth here quite exclude the distinction of Natures that Christ doth here manifestly consider himself as he sustained the Office of a divine Embassadour But that Office agreeth to none but a Person as such Wherefore it is either to be held that Christ here speaketh of the divine Nature or to be confessed that Christ is not a Person of supream Divinity For as we have shewn in the foregoing chapter and will * Lib. 2. Sect 1. Chap. 14. elsewhere shew more largely a divine Person is nothing but the very divine Nature having its subsistence Besides the Adversaries will have it that Christ was first sent according to his divine Nature for they hold that the Son was sent from the Father out of Heaven to assume Flesh and consequently to undertake the business of Mans Salvation But if Christ according to his divine Nature yea according to this in the first place is the Embassadour of the Father why are those things which are attributed to him as the Embassadour of the Father restrained to the humane Nature only and not rather ascribed to whole Christ how great soever he is But if any one will have it that in these and other the like places a Prerogative is attributed to the Father above Christ and that as Christ is God as indeed the words altogether require it he must with all of necessity confess that Christ is not the most high God but that on the contrary the Father only since such a Prerogative agreeth to no other and Christ ascribeth to him entirely without making mention of any other person both his Doctrine and Works is the most high God concerning which thing it hath been spoken in the Defence of the precedent Arguments CHAP. V. Argument the fifth fetcht from those places in John wherein Christ is denyed to have come of himself LIke to the former are those places wherein Christ denyeth that he came of himself affirming that he was sent by the Father For thus he speaketh chap. 7.28 29. Whence I am ye know and I came not of my self but he is true that sent me whom ye know not but I know him because I am from him and he sent me And chap. 8.42 If God were your Father you would love me for I went out from God and am come for neither came I of my self but he sent me And chap. 5.43 he had said I am come in the name of my Father and ye received me not if another come in his own name him ye will receive But if Christ is the most high God how did he not come of himself For to come of ones self is to come of his own accord or relying on his own Authority and to discharge an office amongst men But how can the most high God be said to do that which he doth not of his own accord and authority but anothers Certainly although the Father and Son were divers Persons in the same divine Essence yet could not one be sent or come from the other
and that without any limitation and simply yea ought simply to be denyed of him that the Father is greater than he For neither is it more lawful simply to affirm of him that he is the most high God and equal to the Father in all things than to deny that the Father is greater than he or that he is less than the Father Wherefore neither could Christ simply affirm of himself if he were the most high God that the Father is greater than he Add hereunto that such an affirmation My Father is greater than I is of equal force with such a Negation I am not so great as my Father as every one seeth by himself and the scope of these words before mentioned by us doth teach for Christ would signifie that he did yet want something which the Father hath and therefore that he also may attain the same he must go away unto the Father Wherefore since we have taught that what may or ought to be simply affirmed of the whole cannot be denyed of the same whole Christ could not thus speak of himself if for another and that a better Nature he would have the contrary understood of him Again since he who speaketh is the very Son of God for he saith My Father is greater than I thereby intimating that God the Father is greater than his Son either it is necessary to say that the Father is greater than the very divine Nature of Christ which the Adversaries by that very distinction of theirs endeavour to avoid or confess that the Son of God is not a person of supream Deity since a person of supream Deity is no other than the very divine Nature having its subsistence as we have above said chap. 3. Besides the Interpretation of the Adversaries doth altogether enervate the force of Christs words and render them invalid to his purpose For we saw that therefore Christ uttered those words that the Disciples might see that he must go away to the Father to the end he might enjoy greater happiness and therefore should not only abstain from sorrow but also rejoyce that he went a way but if Christ according to one Nature only had been less than the Father and in the mean time had in himself a Nature or Person equal to the Father in all things there would have been no need for him to go to the Father as greater to the end he might enjoy greater happiness nor would the Disciples have had cause to rejoyce that he went away from them but rather to grieve in that he would go away where as he might stay and they might presently object to the Lord yea why dost thou go away to the Father as greater than thou since thou art endued with such a Nature or Person as is equal to the Father in all things and that Nâ—ture is alwayes intimately present with thee even whilst thou art conversant with us on the Earth why rather dost thou not stay with us and here procure to thy self that happiness which thou seekest with the Father You see that by this reason if it be taken according to the sense of the Adversaries Christ could have prevailed nothing with the Disciples But he could prevail very much if omitting the distinction of Natures he would have the words taken of him simply and absolutely as they were uttered But there are some learned men of the Adversaries who think that those words of Christ as also many other places in the same John are to be taken neither of the humane Naâ—ure of Christ nor of the divine but of the whole complex * See John Calvins Admonition to the Brethren in Poland as they speak because although he were the eternal God yet when he descended to us he began to be a middle person between God and us But this is of no moment for either they will have it that the Son when he dâ—scended to us ceased to be the most high God or they will not have it If they will have it the Son neither is nor ever was the most high God for he can never cease to be the most high God If they will not have it the Son could not therefore be simply called less than the Father or which is all one the Father greater than he because none is simply yea none is any way greater than the most high God And if the Opinion of the Adversaries concerning Christ be true the Son ought to be termed equal to the Father in all things But as we have shewn before the same cannot be simply both affirmed and denyed of the same whole Again since that whole complex whereof they say that those words of Christ are to be taken is the Person of Christ or the very Son of God as neither they do deny and we have before shewn it is necessary for them to confess either that that Person is not a Person of supream Deity or else that it may be said of the divine Nature that the Father is greater than it as we have a little before demonstrated We forbear to repeat that reason whereby we have confuted the Answer which is now adayes most received among the Adversaries namely that such an Interpretation weakneth the force of Christs words and renders them ineffectual to what he intended For the same reason is also prevalent against this Interpretation for if these words be so to be taken as that nevertheless it may or rather ought to be understood that Christ is the most high God or hath in him the Nature of the most high God they are not effectual to shew that Christ must go away to the Father and his Disciples ought to rejoyce that he would go away to the Father as may be understood by what was formerly spoken Furthermore did Christ therefore call himself less than the Father because he is a middle Person between God and us he would alwayes be less than the Father in that sence even after he ascended into Heaven and sate at the right hand of God the Father since Christ is at this time a middle Person between us and God in that he is a Priest and our Advocate interceding for us with the Father for which cause the Adversaries themselves say that he is now a Mediator But Christ sheweth by these words that he after he was gone away to the Father should be no longer less than he Whence they themselves with whom we have to do affirm that Christ in those words compareth his present state with his heavenly Glory For as we already hinted before because the Son did yet want that Glory to wit Immortality and sublime Authority over all things he was therefore less than the Father having attained the same he is reputed no longer less than the Father For neither is a most exact and altogether absolute equality here to be regarded Wherefore Christ did not therefore say that he was less than the Father or the Father greater than he because he is a
and Saviour to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins And chap. 10.42 And he Christ commanded us to preach to the People and testifie that it is he who is appointed of God Judge of quiâ—k and dead Which Paul afterward doth repeat in part chap. 17.31 Out of whose Epistles that we may not be too tedious we will produce certain places 1 Cor. 15.27 He saith out of the 8th Psalm He God the Father hath put all things in subjection under his feet namely Christ But when he saith that all things are in subjection to him it is manifest that he is excepted who put all things in subjection to him Which he also clearly explaineth Ephes 1.20 c. where he saith that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ * ver 17. the Father of Glory did set Christ at his right hand in heavenly places far above all principality and power and might and authority and every name that is named nâ—â— only in this world but also in that which is to come and hath put all things in subjection under his feet and hath given him head over all things to the Church which is his Body And Phil. 2.9 Wherefore namely because Christ humbled himself becoming obedient to the very death of the Cross God also hath highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name that in the name of Jesus every knee should how of things in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and every tongue might confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father And who is able to reckon up all the places of the Scripture See among others Heb. 1.2 and so forth to the end of the chapter and chap. 2.7 8 9. and chap 3.2 c. chap. 5.5 6 7 8 9. and 1 Pet. 1.21 Now in the Old Testament besides the places which are contained in the Testimonies of the Writers of the New Covenant cited by us namely out of Psal 8. and 110. that passage of the second Psalm ver 6 7 8. is very notable I God the Father have set my King upon my holy Mountain Sion I will declare the Decree namely whereby I have been constituted a King for they are the words of Christ the Antitype of David The Lord said unto me Thou art my Son I this day begot thee Ask of me and I will give unto thee the Nations for thine inheritance and the ends of the Earth for thy possession thou shalt rule them with a rod of Iron c. To which is to be joyned that famous Vision in Daniel chap. 7.13 where he saith I saw in the night Vision and behold in the Clouds of Heaven there came one like the Son of Man and he came to the antient of dayes that is the eternal God before cited ver 9.10 and they offered him in his sight and he the Antient of dayes gave unto him Power and Honour and a Kingdom and all people tribes and tongues shall serve him his power is an everlasting Power which shall not be taken away and his Kingdom that which shall not be destroyed We wittingly and willingly omit more places Now from these passages it is evinced that Christ is not the most high God for none can bestow any thing on him much less all things since he bestoweth all things upon all But we see that the Father hath bestowed on Christ so many and so great things yea all things Wherefore Christ is not the most high God You might also frame more Arguments especially out of those places wherein the word give or bestow is not met withal but there is the same force of Argument as if you should say He that is exalted by God or glorified by him or made Lord and Christ is not the most high God The Defence of the Argument TO this Argument and the places of Scripture whereon it is built neither do all nor the same persons every where make the same answer For some directly seem to deny the Major as they call it of our Argument others seek refuge in distinctions For as to the former some say that even the * The first answer and its refutation Apostle doth affirm that Christ shall deliver the Kingdom to God even the Father 1 Cor. 15.24 In which place there is the same word that Christ useth Mat. 11.27 when he saith All things are delivered unto me by my Father Wherefore they say that something miâ—ht be delivered or given even to the most high God Again as Christ John 17.2 5. desireth of his Father to be glorified and so that Glory should be given to him so also doth he there affirm that he had glorified the Father and hereafter would glorifie him But first we will speak of such a Giving as proceedeth from the grace and bounty of the Giver for which cause we did in our Argument make use of this word bestow For such is that Giving whereby all things have been given to Christ by the Father For Christ openly ascribeth it to the love of the Father towards him in the 3d and the 5th chapters of John and chap. 17. he doth intreat for the Glory designed unto him And God in the second Psalm saith to the Son Ask of me and I will give unto thee the Nations for thine inheritance c. And Paul Phil. 2. saith there was bestowed on Christ or given out of grace for so the Greek word signifieth a Name that is above every name And the reason for which the power of quickning and exercising Judgment was given unto Christ namely because he is the Son of Man doth sufficiently argue that it was such a Giving as we have spoken of which very thing is evident from that place of Daniel chap. 7. and others like thereunto But that the giving whereby Christ shall deliver the Kingdom to God the Father is not such an one all men do of themselves easily perceive For neither can it be imputed to the grace or bounty of Christ towards the Father who needeth the bounty of none For that is such a delivery of the Kingdom as for example sake when a General appointed by his King to manage a certain War doth when it is ended lay down the Power that was given unto him and restore it unto his King who had hitherto exercised it by him that if he be so pleased he may hereafter exercise it by himself And all this is no other than what Right it self doth require in as much as the Power was given unto him by the King for the management of that War only In like manner Christ who hath received Royal Power from the Father to subdue his and our enemies and hitherto exerciseth the same in the Fathers name when all the enemies are subdued shall yield it up to his Father that is so lay it down that the Father may afterwards exercise it by himself and as Paul speaketh God may be all in all From whence also ariseth
made but the Minor is to be understood only of such a giving as is made declaratively For they answer to the places wherewith we have confirmed our Assumption especially some of them that they ought not to be understood as if the Father did at a certain time really give to the Son the things mentioned therein but that he declared that the Son had them or received them by that eternal Generation causing that they should be acknowledged by all Thus many take that Glory which Christ * John 17.1 5 23 24. begged of the Father that also that God †Acts 2.36 made him Lord and Christ that also that ‖ Phil. 2.9 gave him a name which is above every name But first they themselves sufficiently see that this answer doth not agree to all the places which we have alleaged But if the rest be safe our Argument would nevertheless consist although those places which we have mentioned or some others also were to be taken in that manner as they would have Again There is no cause unless they will alleage that very thing which we oppose by this Argument for a cause wherefore we ought to depart from the propriety simplicity of the words yea there are mighty causes for which we must not depart from the same For as to that Glory which Christ beggeth of the Father Joh. 17. if Christ had it really in himself already that which they say was to be manifested namely the Majesty of that one God for this they must of necessity understand by the glory which they contend that he really had with the Father before the world was created what need was there to pray the Father that he would glorifie him for that would alwayes have been no less in the hands of Christ himself than of the Father nor would he less have glorified himself than the Father him Since it would be necessary that external works yea all should be common to them yea Christ beggeth it of the Father as the reward of the performance of a work committed to him by the Father as appeareth by the collation of ver 4 5. But besides that no reward can be given to the most high God what reward is this of a work performed that he should be acknowledged the supream God who is so is not this very justly due unto God without any respect of any work And no less to the Son than to the Father or to the holy Spirit Besides how well they explain that Father glorifie me with thy self for what is that with thy self Is it not manifest that such words are wont to be opposed and are in this place opposed unto that which is done with men or appeareth before them as in the latter words it is tacitly opposed unto them with me It is not therefore spoken of a thing which ought to be done with men such as would be that manifestation of Christs Glory which he really had from eternity but which he had with God What then ought the Father to declare unto himself the Majesty of the Son had he not sufficiently known it And when he knew it not ought he to declare it to himself or else to the Angels conversing with him in Heaven What had not they sufficiently known the Majesty of the second Person of the Trinity had they not beheld it with their eyes As to that place Act. 2. where God is said to have made Jesus Lord and Christ the words admit not such an explication for if we follow their explication Peter must be thought to speak thus Therefore let all the House of Israel assuredly know that God hath declared him both Lord and Christ even this Jesus whom ye have crucified But to whom hath he declared it was it to Angels Had not they yet known Christ to be that which he was and had long since been Was it to men But Peter and God did by him in these very words truly first declare that very thing to the Jews Again Peter deduceth these words from those in the * Psal 110.1 Psalms The Lord said unto my Lord Sit thou on my right hand But in them Christ is bidden to reign as Paul interpreteth it 1 Cor. 15.25 and is not only declared to reign What doth the Father perhaps command the Son himself to declare that he reigneth and hath alwayes reigned But they would perswade us that Christ John 17. prayed the Father to do it since he had in like manner already glorified him and would hereafter glorifie him again To this sitting at the right hand of God Paul opposeth the delivering up of the †1 Cor. 15 24 c. Kingdom which certainly shall not consist therein in that Christ shall no longer declare that he reigneth yea if Christ be that one God he will then declare unto us in Heaven that he reigneth no less than the Father since God shall be all in all I omit other things which might be said concerning these words of the Psalmist Finally They who will have it that God declared Jesus Lord and Christ either hold that he was Christ from eternity or made such at a certain time He could not be from eternity for to be Christ is to be Anointed which is not incident to the most high God as he is such neither hath any one as I know dared to say so but all say that it agreeth to Christ as he is man He was therefore at a certain time made Christ and that by him whose Anointed he is said to be namely God the Father Why then go they about the bush and seek starting holes since they are notwithstanding forced to confeâ—s that he was sometimes really and not declaratively only made by God Lord and Christ for to be the Christ is to be the Lord and King of God's People although they agree not with us about the time when it was done For that is sufficient for us here that God hath already made him Lord and Christ Although who is there that if he could but ‖ That is Obtain impetrate of himself to lay aside his prejudicate Opinion for a short space would not see that this happened after the death and resurrection of Christ Since all the circumstances of the place in hand do lead yea drive us thither that I may omit others like thereunto amongst which is that Ephes 1.19 and Heb. 1.3 As to that place Phil. 2. neither doth it admit that explication first because by those words is explained the exceeding great reward of the debasement and obedience of Christ performed to God even with the sufferance of the death of the Cross but could not be to declare who and how great he is and alwayes was that is as the Adversaries must of necessity affirm to demonstrate him to be the most high God whereof we have spoken above when we treated of the place John 17.5 Aagain Christ was therefore among other things exceedingly exalted and a name given
the holy Spirit and Power who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the Devil because God was with him Which thing Nicodemus had before acknowledged whilst he thus speaketh unto Christ We know that thou art come a Teacher from God for none can do these things which thou dost unless God be with him John 3.2 But if Christ were the most high God neither would God be said to do these things by him nor ought Peter to alleage this reason why Christ did Miracles namely because God was with him but this because he himself was God or because he had in him the divine Essence or in what manner soever he pleased to express the same thing For that it cannot here be said that by the name of God the divine Nature of Christ is understood but the Father of Christ may be shewn by the same Arguments which we made use of in the defence of the last Argument when we treated of those Testimonies wherein God is said to have given something to Christ or to have conferred something upon him Likewise we have a little before excluded the distinction of Natures But that we may not treat of the sole Miracles of Christ let us add those places of Scripture whereby is shewn that Christ was not the first but the second and intermediate cause of the other actions also which he did and which were most divine and most of all concerned our Salvation And this is understood out of those places wherein it is affirmed That all things were done by him as John 1.3 That all things were created in him that is by him For that In is after the Hebrew manner every where taken for by is most notorious unto all Col. 1.16 which is presently explained in the same verse whilst all things are said to have been created by him For whereas the vulgar translation doth there add that all things are created in him the Greek hath it for him and signifieth the end Thus a little after it is in the same place said that it pleased him namely God by him to reconcile all things which are in Heaven and in Earth Else where likewise All things are said to be by him 1 Cor. 8.6 of which place we have before * Sect. 1. chap. 2. treated where also we have shewn that it ought not to be taken in that manner as it is once and again said of God himself That all things are by him For that it is not so taken of God as if some other who is the supream Cause of the work did do something by him but simply that he is the efficient Cause of all things or that by his Power and Operation all things are brought to an issue But that it is said of Christ more than once that some other namely God whom every one knoweth to be the supream Cause of Works doth or did all things by Christ For amongst other things the Apostle saith Ephes 3.9 Who God created all things by Jesus Christ as the Greek Copies constantly read it and the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 1.2 when he had said that God in these last times speak to us in the Son that is by the Son according to the Hebrewism a little before observed he addeth By whom also he made the Worlds namely that God who spake unto us by him So also 2 Cor. 5 18. it is said That all things are of God who hath reconciled us unto himself by Jesus Christ Elsewhere That God hath given us the victory by our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 15.57 That God hath poured the holy Spirit abundantly upon us by Jesus Christ our Saviour Tit. 3.5 That God shall judge the secrets of men according to Pauls Gospel by Jesus Christ Rom. 2.16 To pass by other-like places from all which it appeareth that Christ is not the most high God For he is the first and highest Cause of all things which he doth not the second or intermediate But those places shew that Christ is the intermediate not the first and supream Cause of those thing which he doth otherwise it could not be said that God doth all things by him But if any one say that Paul affirmeth that he gave to the Thessalonians commandments by our Lord Jesus Christ or exhorteth them by Christ although Christ seemeth not to have been the middle cause of that action in respect of Paul but Paul rather in respect of Christ We answer That that signification which is also otherwise rare in the holy Scripture cannot there have any place where God is said to have done either all things or somethings by Jesus Christ as that very thing we even now speak by way of objection to our selves doth teach For in that manner that Paul saith he gave commandments or exhorteth by the Lord Jesus none but an Inferiour can do something by a Superiour for it signifieth that he did or doth these things by the Authority of the Lord Jesus interposed and that he supported his commandments and exhortations herewith But God can do nothing by any one in this manner It therefore remaineth that the most usual signification of the particle By is there to be retained where God is said to do something by Christ namely that God be esteemed the first and principal Agent Christ the second and intermediate one which dependeth on him Which is further confirmed by that famous place of Paul which is extant 1 Cor. 1.30 where the Apostle compriseth all the benefits which God hath conferred upon us by Christ whilst he speaketh thus of him namely God Ye are in Christ Jesus who hath been made unto us of God Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption You see that he is made not the prime Author of our Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption but the second cause and dependent on a former one namely God in as much as he is expresly said to be made unto us of God Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption and Freedom which likewise was signified by the precedent words wherein the Corinthians namely as they were Christians are said to be of God in Christ Jesus or by Christ Jesus There is a place like unto this Heb. 5.9 10. where it is said that Christ being made perfect was made the cause of eternal Salvation to all that obey him being called of God an high Priest after the order of Melchisedec You see that he was made the cause of eternal Salvation and that as he was called of God an high Priest With this place agreeth that which we have formerly cited out of the Acts chap. 5.31 where God is said with his right hand to have exalted Christ to be a Prince and Saviour to give Repentance unto Israel and foregiveness of sins To these add those places which spake of the effusion of the holy Spirit made by Christ which action is one of the most notable ones that pertaineth to the Salvation of mankind and to omit the
them when tâ—ey had exalted him as is apparent from the preceding words Wherefore neither doth he suppose the former to be manifest unto them as the opinion of these men requireth Besides if Christ would have reasoned from effects he would ratâ—er have alledged his miraculous works than works of virtue and piety For they were the most manifest effects of his conjunction with the Father to which he elsewheâ—e likewise frequently appealeth when he spake of his conjunction with the Father or of some like thing as we read in the same Writer See Chap. 5.36 and 10.37 38. and 14.11 15.24 Furthermore if it appeareth from other places that this was the true cause why God was with Christ in that he alwayes did the things that pleased him their reason for whicâ— they think they must here depart from the usual and simple signification of the particle for falleth to the ground But that the thing is so is thence apparent in that Christ himself doth elsewhere render this as the reason wâ—y God did coâ—sequently love him consequently was always with him by his assistance namely because he had done and would hereafter doe those things that were pleasing to the Father and agreeable to his commandments Now it is all one for the Father not to leave Christ but to be present with him and constantly to love Christ and to be perpetually with him by his help and assistance And that this which we have said was the cause of the Fathers love towards Christ and consequently of the help which he gave him is intimated by the words of Christ which are extant afterwards Chap. 10.17 Therefore the Father loveth me because I lay down my soul that I may receive it again For this Commandment as he himself addeth in the following Verse he had received from the Father And Chap. 15.10 As the Father hath loved me so have I loved you continue in my love If you keep my Commandments ye shall continue in my love as I also have kept the Fathers Commandments and continue in his love Where whatsoever they say with whom we have to do Christ warneth his disciples that having once obtained his love they would use their endeavours not to lose it again but enjoy it perpetually and sheweth them a way how they should certainly attain it which he had also formerly intimated by a similitude in tâ—e 2d Verse namely by keeping his Commandments Moreoâ—er be illustrates this way by his own example shewing it to be the aptest yea the only means of persevering in his love in tâ—at he himself by keeping his Fathers Commandments had obtained this favour to continue in his love that is to be constantly loved of him Wherefore as we said before that reason falleth to the ground for which the particle For should be thought to signifie not the cause but the effect or sign in these words Chap. 8.29 But if it signifieth the cause the thing it self as we have seen doth evince that Christ is not the most high God This Argument of ours cannot be solved by the distinction of natures For first those causes hinder which we have above hinted in other * Chap. 3.14.10 of this Section places as namely that these things are simply spoken of Christ and that it is necessary here to consider him as a person both for his Mission and so also for the operations which he attributeth to himself according to the capacity wherein he is to be considered Again this likewise taketh away the force of that answer that notwithstanding this Christ should rather have alleaged this for the reason why the Father was with him and left him not alone because according to the divine nature to which the humane is personally united he was the same God with the Father CHAP. XXIII The three and twentieth Argument That the Father is called the God of Christ IN the tenth place we will recite those testimonies wherein the Father is called the God of Christ For thus Christ himself speaketh concerning this matter in his discourse with Mary afterward in the same John Chap. 20.17 Go to my brethren and say unto them I ascend to my Father and your Father to my God and your God And in the same Writer Rev. 3.12 In the same Verse 12. he calleth the Father his God four times whilst he saith Whosoever overcometh I will make him a pillar in the Temple of my God and he shall no more go forth and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the City of my God the New Jerusalem which descendeth out of Heaven from my God As for the other Writers first we read in Matth. and Mark that Christ when he hung upon the Cross câ—yed thus to the Father My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Matth. 27.46 Mark 15.34 And Paul Ephes 1.17 wisheth that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of glory would give unto them the Spirit of wisdom And the divine Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews Chap. 1.8 9. citeth of Christ those words of the Psalmist Psal 45.7 8. spoken heretofore of Solomon as the typâ— of Christ Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever c. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity Therefore O God thy God hath anointed thee with the oyl of gladness above thy fellows Thus also Micah speaketh of Christ Chap. 5.4 And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord in the height of the name of the Lord his God Arg. 23 That the Father is called the God of Christ From whence it appeareth that Christ is not the most high God for the most high God hath not a God or there is no other God of him For to be the God of any one is to have Empire and Power over him or to be his Benefactor or finally to be worshipt of him as his sovereign Benefactor But none hath dominion over the most high God none is his Benefactor none is worshipped of him otherwise he himself would not be the most high God The Defence of the Argument HEere they have no other refuge left them besides the distinction of Natures Though not so much as this is left them in that we have * Chap. 3.14 16. already sufficiently stopt this hole at which they endeavour to get out especially because all the circumstances of those places do argue that it is spoken concerning the whole Person of Christ or that he is considered as a Person For he is considered as the Son of God as our Saviour as our Lord as Anointed of God as God as Prince appointed of God Wherefore he cannot be a Person of supream Godhead otherwise his divine Nature also would have a God besides were Christ the most high God although he also had a humane Nature yet some other or another Person namely the Father would not be his God but he himself would be his own God For he himself would
thine holy One to see corruption And a little after ver 32. This Jesus hath God raised up whereof we are all witnesses See also what the same Peter faith afterwards chap. 3.15 which verse compare with the 13th and 4.10 and 5.30 and 10.40 and Paul chap. 7.31 and Rom. 4.24 and 8.11 and 10.19 and also 1 Cor. 6.14 and 15.15 and 2 Cor. 4.14 and 13.4 But there is amongst others a notable place in the same Apostle Ephes 1.9 20. where amongst other things he wisheth to them That they might know what is the exceeding greatness of his power namely whom he had ver 17. called the God of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of Glory towards us who believe according to the working of his mighty Power which he wrought in Christ having raised him from the dead and set him at his own right hand in heavenly places c. And likewise those words which we read chap. 2.5 and those that are like unto them Col. 2.12 13. Add also those of the divine Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews chap. 13.24 and those of 1 Pet. 1.21 We mention not those Testimonies which indeed are not few wherein it is simply affirmed that Christ was raised from the dead which being so often repeated doth altogether signifie that he was raised by another as also the circumstances of some places do plainly intimate See amongst others 1. Cor. 15.4 12 c. where that manner of speaking is seven times used and afterwards ver 15. it is openly asserted that God did it and the Resurrection of Christ is made the pattern of our resurrection which also happeneth elsewhere A more full Confirmation and Defence of the Argument YOu will say that although Christ is said to have been raised by another yet it followeth not that he was not raised by himself in as much as the same action may proceed from many causes and those equal among themselves Moreover that in those places wherein it is asserted that God raised up Christ by the name of God may be understood the whole Trinity or the divine nature of Christ especially in that elsewhere the raising of himself seems to be ascribed unto Christ But the first is not to be admitted for three causes chiefly The first is because that at least followeth from those places which we have alleaged That Christ is not the principal cause of his Resurrection For why should the raising of him â—e so often and so openly ascribed to another person Arg. 28 That Christ was raised up by the Father namely the Father and not rather to Christ himself But even this thing alone might here be sufficient for us to shew that Christ is not the most high God For we have before shewn that he if he were the most high God would altogether be the principal Author of his own Resurrection Another cause is because the holy Scripture doth so attibute the raising of Christ to God the Father that it doth not obscurely yea very openly intimate that the same action doth not indeed agree to Christ himself First because if Christ had raised himself from the dead and that by such a power as was natural and altogether proper unto him it ought to have been mentioned at least in some of those testimonies which we have alleaged and to omit other places this ought chiefly to be done Acts 2.24 c. and Rom. 10.9 10. 2 Cor. 13.4 For as to the first place when Peter had affirmed that Christ had been raised from the dead in that it was impossible for him to be held by death was there not veâ—y great cause to say that it was therefore impossible because he was the most high God who accordingly could not leave his soul in Hell and suffer his body to see corruption For this would have been the proper yea the only cause thereof wheâ—eas he having alleaged the words of David and applyed them to Christ produceth a far different cause namely that Christ alwayes saw the Lord before his eyes because he was alwayes at his right hand lest he should be moved Whence he conceived joy whence hope that the Lord would not leaâ—e his soul in Hell nor suffer his holy one to see corruption whereunto the following words also pertain where Christ in the Person of David professeth that God had made known unto him the wayes of life and would fill him with gladness Which cause hath nothing common with that which should have been alleaged yea doth subvert it Rom. 10.9 As to the second place it should therefore have been there rather said that Christ raised up himself from the dead if so be any one can raise up himself from the dead then that God did it because that is there set down which is in a special manner both to be believed with the heart and to be confessed with the mouth concerning the dignity of Christ and which if we believe and confess we shall obtain salvation But if Christ had raised himself from the dead we ought altogether to believe and confess it as the Adversaries themselves confess yea urge and consequenely it should by no means have here been omitted by the Apostle For he had omitted that which did not only contain in it self the gâ—eater dignity of Christ but was as necessary to be believed by us as that which he expressed * 2 Cor. 13.4 As to the third testimony for this reason in stead of that which is there said That Christ doth live by the Power of God It should rather have been said that he doth live by his own power because the power of Christ is here in question and it is shewn that he is powerful in the Corinthians by removing the suspicion of infirmity which might be grounded on his cruel death To which purpose nothing had been more apt than if it had been said that he revived by his own power and vanquished the force of death Again it is apparent from Acts 13.33 and Rom. 1.4 Col. 1.18 Rev. 1.5 that the raising of Christ was such an action Arg. 29 That Christ was raised up by the Father as that by it he was generated by God and became his Son * Sect. 8. Chap 31. Concerning which matter more hereafter But Christ did not generate himself nor is the Son of himself Thirdly In some places alleaged by us God or the Father of Christ is without expressing his name thus described He that raised Jesus Christ from the dead is by that description distinguished from Christ himself See Rom. 4.24 and 8.11 2 Cor. 4.14 Whence it appeareth that this action is not common to Christ with the Father but proper to the Father otherwise this description would no less that I mgiht not say more agree to Christ than to the Father and consequently â—e who raised Christ from the dead could not be distinguished from Christ for common things as we have elsewhere hinted do not distinguish but proper ones
Jesus Christ was declared the Son of God but how he is the Son of God for having described Christ by the name of the Son of God he accordingly declareth how this is to be understood And lest any one should perhaps think that it will thence follow that he is not the Son of David which notwithstanding the Scripture averreth he sheweth how hoth may stand together First he teacheth how he is the Son of David then how he is the Son of God wherefore he saith Who was made of the Seed of David according to the flesh who was determined or constituted the Son of God in Power according to the Spirit of Sanctification by the Resurrection from the dead Doth not the very opposition shew that as it is there taught how Christ is indeed the Son of David so it is here signified how he is indeed the Son of God for neither would a declaration be rightly opposed to the word made nor those diverse respects be one opposed to the other namely according to the flesh and according to the Spirit of Holiness that is according to the Spirit wherewith Christ was sanctified For that expression according to the flesh would signifie the reason of the subject whereas the other according to the Spirit of Holiness would denote only the middle efficient Cause Again the word here rendered determined doth no where in the Scripture yea no where at all signifie to be declared unless you take the word declared as it is then taken when one is said to be declared King or Consul whilst he is constituted and this Office is appointed to him For the Greek word properly signifies to define to determine but in the Scripture it signifies nothing but to constitute to decree or design which thing doth excellently agree to Christ in that he was made King by the intervening of the resurrection Luke 22.22 Acts 10.42 11.29 17.31 But if you will with the antient interpreter render it to predestinate although neither the simple word it self requireth that version nor the thing suffer it nevertheless it will be sufficiently evident that Christ was not really the Son of God from eternity For neither is that predestinated which is in being but which is not yet in being and here it is spoken of no other thing than of the Sonship of Christ in relation to God Yea it will follow that he at length in the resurrection was fully ordained to be the Son of God Finally in the former place Acts 13. we have shewn that the resurrection of Christ had in no wise declared that Christ was begotten of the Essence of God and so was the Son of God but rather the contrary Now that which concerns their Opinion who contend that the Greek word in Acts 13. is not to be referred unto the resurrection of Christ from the dead but unto his birth and first exhibition which although we can both grant and urge without prejudice to our principal Argument yet we will shew that this interpretation cannot subsist First because in that place as we have already observed such an act of God is spoken of as whereby he fulfilled his promise of setting up a King over the Jews which we have also shewn out of the words of the second Psalm But Christ was not then made Lord and Christ or the heavenly King of Gods People when he was born but when he was raised and set at the right hand of God Furthermore both the preceding and following words of the Apostle which they urge against us shew that it is spoken of the resurrection from the dead For when he had said that God had raised him Christ on the third day he adds being seen many dayes of those that accompanyed him from Galilee to Jerusalem who are his witnesses unto the people until now But whereof were they witnesses if not of that which he had just now mentioned and told them had been in some measure presented to their view namely the resurrection of Christ and his exaltation which followed thereupon for of this thing they were properly witnesses See above chap. 1.22 2.32 3.15 4.33 5.32 compared with the foregoing and chap. 10.40 41 42. Therefore seeing the Apostle subjoyns And we declare this unto you which was promised to our Fathers because or that God hath fulfilled the same unto us their Children having raised up Jesus and it is necessary that he himself should speak of the resurrection of Christ from the dead For he affirms that he had now declared the same thing to the Jews at Antioch that the other Apostles had testified to the People of Judea If he then told them that he was a witness to the people of the resurrection and following exaltation he intimates that he now also speaketh of the same thing But that which belongs to the following words by them urged against us is not at length proved in that place that Christ was raised from the dead but that being supposed as already sufficiently proved it only shews that Christ was so raised from the dead as no more to return to corruption For some one might have scrupled that though Christ were indeed raised from the dead yet the promise made unto the Fathers be unperformed seeing Christ might have been so raised as afterwards to have returned unto corruption whereas the Messiah promised of old unto the Fathers and his Government ought to endure unto the end of the world as the Writings of the Prophets teach See 2 Sam. 7.13 14. and compare it with Heb. 1.5 and Psal 45.7 compared with Heb. 1.8 and 110.1 4. and Dan. 7.14 as also John 12.34 The Apostle therefore removes this doubt from his hearers whilst he adds But that he hath raised him from the dead no more to return unto corruption thus he said I will give unto you the sure Mercies of David namely the Promise that proceeded from Grace and Mercy and so onward Whereby we understand that he had spoken of the resurrection in the words immediately preceding and sufficiently proved the same now to remove all manner of doubt he is willing to speak of the same matter somewhat larger although that be also absurd that Paul having but newly said that Christ was at first exhibited and either born or sent into the world should presently add that God had so raised him from the dead as no more to return to corruption For what connexion is there Is it not evident that those latter words require that the Apostle should speak next of his Resurrection But that which concerns those who say that the promise of Christ and that expression in the second Psalm God had not fulfilled in raising of Christ but when he was risen we will not much contend with them for we our selves freely confess if the raising of Christ be taken in a strict sence barely for his returning to life without respect to his exaltation afterwards that divine promise and expression of
in a manner minister for which reason also he immediately subjoyneth them to God But for as much as Christ also hath these spirits of God and maketh use of them therefore having made mention of them he also commemmorateth Christ and prayeth for grace and peace to the Churches from him wherefore this wish and the imploring of the divine help comprehended therein is properly referred to God and Christ improperly to the spirits themselves Which is the cause why other divine men omit the mention of them in their salutations and wishes they who hold them to be Angels will say that this invocation is referred to them only in a secondary manner as unto Ministers not as unto Lords and the true bestowers of grace and peace and that therefore the mention of them is elsewhere omitted and they are therefore set before Christ partly because they belong unto God to whom they are next subjoyned for which cause also afterwards chap. 3. the name of the New Jerusalem is interposed betwixt that of God and Christ partly because John intendeth to speak more largely of Christ For he therefore reserveth the mention of them to the end that without disturbing the course of his speech he might more freely make an excursion into his prayers For if he would have reserved the mention of those spirits to the end he should have either used a longer Parenthesis or begun a new speech It is apparent therefore that there is nothing in those places to establish the invocation of the holy Spirit And here it is worth the rehearsing as learned men have noted that Hilary in his twelve Books concerning the Trinity never called the holy Spirit God never said that he is to be adored but only to be obtained which is likewise to be observed in other Writers both of that and former times Yea the true opinion concerning the holy Spirit was of so great power that even after those things wherein the holy Spirit began to be accounted for the most hlgh God almost all the prayers of the Churches were directed to God the Father and to Christ not to the holy Spirit And there are yet extant several Books of the Papists put forth in the former age and containing an account of Religion and Ceremonies in use among them where it is expresly declared that we must observe how every prayer is directed to God the Father or to Christ the Son and not to the holy Spirit because a gift is not asked from the gift it self but from the bestower of the gift Indeed we are not ignorant that there is an usual Hymn among them wherein they pray the holy Spirit to come and fill the heart of his People howbeit the cause which is alleaged that a gift is not asked from the gift it self but from the bestower of the gift is universal and it is clear that regard was had thereunto in most prayers of the Church and should have been had in all without exception Now that custom of praying is an open token of the true Opinion which did at first prevail in the Church For if the holy Spirit be the most high God absolutely equal to the Father and to the Son whom they likewise hold to be the most high God why was he not judged worthy of equal honour why were either all or at least the greatest part of prayers not equally directed to him as to the Father or the Son This indeed was the hinderance that in those first times it was out of controversie as both the holy Scripture doth plainly enough testifie and at this day many though therein inconstant to themselves confess that the holy Spirit is a gift For which cause Hilary before cited illustrating and confirming his opinion concerning the Trinity with that saying of Christ Mat. 28.19 Baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit doth in his second Book concerning the Trinity at the close thereof thus explain the words In the confession of the Author and of the only Begotten and of the gift which he doth there largely pursue Wherefore since they had this opinion concerning the holy Spirit they directed their prayers not to him but to the Father and the Son the bestower of that gift knowing that a gift is not asked from the gift it self but from the giver of the gift Which custom even the contrary errour hath for so many ages not been able quite to abolish CHAP. III. Arg. 3 The holy Spirit is often not joyned with God Christ The third Argument That the mention of the holy Spirit is in many places omitted and would not so have been were he the most high God THe third Argument may thence be drawn that in very many places of the Scripture where mention is made of the Father and of the Son and sometimes of Angels or other things and persons there is no mention made of the holy Spirit when nevertheless mention ought to have been made of him no less than of the Father and the Son and rather then of the Angels or of other things and persons if he were the most high God coequal as they speak to the Father and the Son Which that it may be plain we will first alleage those places wherein there is mention made of the Father and of Christ only and then those where mention is made of others whether Persons and chiefly Angels or things which ought to have been mentioned much less than the holy Spirit if he had been the most high God But for as much as the places of the former sort are almost innumerable we will here recite those only which are somewhat more illustrious and such chiefly as affirm the same thing of God and Christ within the compass of the same sentence the rest we reserve for the diligence of the Reader We will begin from John in the History of whose Gospel we will give the first place to those words of Christ which are extant chap. 17.3 This is Life eternal that they know thee Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent We do not now urge that the Father only is said to be the true God for that we have done in the * Sect. 1. chap. 1. beginning of this work but that mention is made of the Father only and of the Son and in the knowledge of these two only eternal life or the way to attain it is placed when notwithstanding were the holy Spirit no less the true God than the Father it would be necessary that eternal Life should lye no less in the knowledge of him than in the knowledge of the Father and consequently mention should have been made no less of the one than of the other much less that a divine Embassadour should rather be mentioned Neither can the Adversaries say that the knowledge of the holy Spirit is contained in the knowledge of the Father and of Christ For though this be otherwise
in a like place vers 4. of Jude * Sect. 1. chap. 7. where he saith of certain wicked men that they deny the only Master God and our Lord Jesus Christâ— Where there is one article prefixt both to that Master God and to the Lord Jesus Christ and yet diverse persons namely God the Father and Christ are joyned together Now that diverse persons are understood by the name of God and Christ in the quoted place is thence apparent because Paul as also other writers perpetually distinguish God put subjectively as it is done in both place from Christ Jesus Moreover if the Apostle in that place Eph. 5. would have designed the same person he would have set first the name of God as being more general and less distinctly signifying that person which he intended and would have subjoyned the name of Christ as being more distinct and fitter to explain the same whereas now â—e doth the contrary For neither may any one conceive that the â—postle did it for amplification sake intending to ascend from a lower title to an higher For that would then have had some place if the word God had bin spoken of some subject â—y way of Epithite or Predicate and not made use of to design the very subject it self which if it be one such a gradation is not wont to be observed but rather the most speciall names thereof are wont to be subjoyned to the geâ—eâ—al the more distinct to the confused ones Deservedly therefore both those places as also that of Jude a leadged â—y us on this occasion ought to be added to the other examples whereby we have shewn that God and Christ are wont to be mentioned without the holy Spirit who nevertheless should be a like mentioned if he were a divine person distinct from both yet equal to both Such places as these are also exâ—ant in Peter who in the begining of the latter epistle twice doth the same thing which we before shewed Iohn and Paul were wont to do For thus he saith vers 1. Simon Peter 〈◊〉 the Apostle of Jesus Christ to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ And again ver 2. Grace and peace be multiplyed unto you through the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ our Lord. Those places wherein it is either spoken of them who have divine empire over us or of our duty towards them do not much differ from the passages hitherto alledged but have the same force as to our purpose as making mention only of God and Christ although in a manner somewhat different Of which we will alleage some that the reader being admonished by us may also observe others that are like unto them Hereunto belongeth that famous place 1 Cor. 8.6 Where it is spoken of them who have divine empire over us and are by us to be worshipt with divine worship But to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him For why is it not added and one holy Spirit as some men indulging their error durst to add contrary to the credit of all antient books indeed he is added yea set before that one Lord and that one God in the same epistle chap. 12 4. Because there it was chiefly spoken concerning the holy Spirit aâ—â— his effects in Christians But here he ought not to be omitted if he hath divine empire over us as well as the Father and Christ and so deserveth divine worship I say a just cause may be alleaged why he was mentioned although he be not a person distinct from God and Christ for as much as things are often times in the Scâ—ipture joyned with persons and those divine ones as hath been elsewhere by our men and we our selves by and by intend by certain examples also to shew But no just cause can be alleadged why in such places the holy spirit was omitted if he be a divine person every way equal to the Father and the Son Hither to belong those words of the same Apostle which are extant in the Acts. chap. 20.21 Where he explaineth the summ both of his preaching and our duty saying that he testified both to Jews Gentiles Arg. 2 The holy Spirit iâ— often not joyned with God Christ repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and those of the same author 1 Thess 1.9 10. How ye turned from Idols to God to serve the living and true God and to wait for his son from heaven whom he raised from the dead even Jesus which delivered us from the wrath to come And 2 Thess 3.5 The Lord direct your heart into the love of God and the patient waiting for Christ And that we may also mingle other passages although written of another subject thus saith Jude vers 1. To them who are beloved in God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ And John in the Revelation bringeth in these men that fear the punishment to be inflicted on them speaking thus Fall upon us O ye Mountaines and hide us from the face of him that sitteth upon the Throne and from the wrath of the Lamb. Chap. 6. ult and Chap. 12.17 Who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ Chap. 14.12 Here is the patience of the Saints who keep the Commandments of God and the faith of Jesus And Chap. 20.4 The souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God You may also every where observe other passages which do more largely or in another form of speech make mention of God and Christ only when they speak of divine things Now that we may pass to the second rank of Places which we before appointed there is mention made of Angels the holy Spirit being omitted First in those words of Christ which are extant in Luke Chap. 9.26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words of him shall the Son of man be ashamed when he shall come in his own glory and in his Fathers and of the holy â—ngels Like unâ—o which though in a contrary matter are those words of the same Châ—ist which are read Rev. 3 5â— He that overcometh c. I will confess his name before my Father and before his Angels And those of Paul 1 Tim. 5.21 I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect Angels c. Who would believe tâ—at the holy spirit could be omitted and Angels ratâ—er mentioned in his stead were he a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son and equal to both Was a greater weight added to his words if omitting the most high God his servants were mentioned If omitting the Creator his creature weâ—e mentioned You will say that what we would have cannoâ— be concluded from that omission because otherwise the same â—â—s to
be breathed then to this divine inspiration of which we treat since that comes not forth without God this proceeds from God and is inspired into men It is manifest therefore that that divine inspiration is properly termed the holy spirit not metonimycally only As to the latter I scarse believe the adversaries will deny that that very inspiration is properly given For how is that which is breathed and put into the hearts of men to their greatest profit not properly given them Therefore there is no Metalepsis here to be sought by which it may come to pass that that which properly agrees only to the effect may improperly be attributed to the efficient cause since here the very efficient cause of those effects which are understood that is the very divine inspiration is by it self given to men And let these things suffice concerning the general reason and common to all the places which we treat of As for the special Reasons more proper to certain places those words of Christ which we have before cited out of John 14.16 17. deserve to be first mentioned I will ask the Father and he shall give you another Advocate that he may abide with you for ever even the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive because it seeth him not nor knoweth him But ye know him for he dwelleth with you to wit as inhabiting in Christ he did as it were converse among the Disciples and shall be in you that is and further shall be not only with you or among you as now but also in your selves being given of the Father unto you What could be said more clearly to shew that the holy Spirit properly so called is given of God that it is a gift which may be obtained of the Father by faithful prayers For what Is not the comforter that holy Spirit properly so called or is it not but by a Metalepsis said to be given to the Disciples by the Father The former the Adversaries cannot say unless they will deny that the third person of the Deity is the holy Spirit properly so called which yet they chiefly will have For that the same is understood by the Comforter they altogether contend and urge both the name it self of Paraclet or Comforter as also the word another added to it and the actions proper to persons attributed to him in this speech of Christ of which below we will somewhat treat This may of right be said that if it be not there spoken of the holy Spirit properly so called it is no where spoken of him It remains therefore that they say that it is indeed here spoken of the third person of the Deity and that this person 〈◊〉 meant by the Paraclâ—r but that he is not said to be given to the Apostles by the Father but by a Metalepsis namely because its effects or various gifts are to be given to them But neither hath that shift here any place For by comparing of that place with the words in verse 26. of the same chapter and also with the words verse 26. of the following chapter it will easily appear to any one that Christ so far asserts that the Father being asked of him was about to give the holy Spirit to the Disciples as he â—â—ould send him in the name of Christ or Christ himself should send him unto the Disciples from the Father For so he saith in that former place But the Comforter the holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name he shall teach you all things c. But in the latter But when the Comforter is come whom I will send to you from the Father the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth from the Father he shall testifie of me And truly what other thing could either the Father of the Son do pertaining to that giving than that he should send the holy Spirit to the Disciples with that intent that he might remain in them for ever and produce those divine effects which afterwards appeared in them But that sending and the coming of the holy Spirit which follows it doth not agree first to the effects of the holy Spirit and only consequently to him which should be if it were attributed to him only by a Metalepsis but on the contrary Whence the Adversaries are wont to prove the person of the holy Spirit by that mission which they could not do if they did judge it primarily and of it self to agree to the gifts of the holy Spirit For as much as such a mission if it be in no sort proper to a person cannot also prove it But if then that mission primarily and of it self agree to the holy Spirit not to his effects there will be the same reason of the giving also which we have seen to consist in that sending But hence ariseth also another reason of the same thing For that the holy Spirit should teach the Disciples all things and recal all Christs sayings into their remembrance is put chap 14.26 as the consequent of the sending of the holy Spirit and moreover also of the giving it But if so far only the holy Spirit should be given as its gifts are bestowed that thing should be contained in the giving it self of the holy Spirit but not be a consequent of it For that imparting of the knowledge of divine things even first of all pertains to the producing of gifts coming from the holy Spirit upon the Apostles This place might have enough warned the Adversaries that they should not date to deny the holy Spirit properly so called to be given to us together with his effects But there want not also other places which do the same For by other Adversaries who therefore use not such an answer hath that place of Paul Rom. 5.5 been taken notice of where he saith The Love of God that is the sence of the divine Love is shed abroad in our hearts by the holy Spirit which is given to us Where indeed it is said concerning that Spirit which diffuseth the sence of divine Love in our hearts and so is the Author of the spiritual gift that he is given to us To which place may be added that of the same Epistle chap. 18 1â— where the Apostle saith Ye have received the Spirit of adoption whereby that is by whose force and impulse we cry Abba Father for the Spirit it self beareth witness to our spirit that we are the Children of God Of which also in the Epistle to the Galathians chap. 4.6 he saith God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts crying Abba Father So also 2 Tim. 1.7 it is said For God hath not given to us the spirit of fear but of Power of Love and of a sound mind For what else is it than that God hath not given to us such a Spirit as should effect fear and cowardise in us but such as begets in us strength and fortitude charity and prudence or sobriety But I remember not that I have hitherto
Spirit should be the most high God as the adversaries would have it I omit that they the Greeks onely excepted hold that the holy Spirit doth proceed eternally no less from the Son than from the Father But Christ speaks of a thing which is proper to the Father For in this behalf in some sort he opposeth the Father to himself being about to shew why he said he would send the holy Spirit not from himself but from the Father But how much more simple and plain is it to hold that the holy Spirit doth so far proceed from God as it is the vertue and efficacy issuing from him into men than that the most high God who is but one only proceeds from another who is in like manner the most high God that he who is from no cause receives his being from another that he who hath had most fully his Essence from Eternity receives it and is to receive it yet unto all Eternity But that the same thing which we have shewed out of the words of Christ set down by John is taught also by those words of Paul in which he affirmeth that the holy Spirit is of God 1 Cor. 2.12 For he saith Now we have received not the spirit of the world but the spirit which is of God But whatsoever is of God is Gods effect and depends on him But all as we have said know that God is the effect of no thing Although there is scarce need to make mention of effect it is enough to say that the most high God is from none CHAP. XII The twelfth Argument That the holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son THe second of those Attributes which properly agree only to persons or Suppositums but are accommodated to the holy Spirit by some Trope may be that which is in the same place of John * John 15.26 14.26 16.7 cited by us in the next foregoing Chapter and is elsewhere in the same Writer extant to wit that the holy Spirit is sent from the Father and Son For that befalls not the most high God But although that mission is nothing else than the giving of the holy Spirit whence that the holy Spirit is given and sent to the Disciples from the Father are put for the same thing as is manifest by comparing the words Chap. 14.16 with the places now cited Yet because the Adversaries will have that mission to be such as that it can befall none but a person especially because Christ brings in in the same speech the holy Spirit as his certain Deputy or Embassador Sect. 2. Chap. 15. to be sent to the Disciples chiefly in Chap. 16.7 13. therefore almost in the same manner it may be hence demonstrated that the holy Spirit is not the most high God in which we have before demonstrated the same thing concerning Christ from his sending so that there is no need to add more in this place CHAP. XIII Arg. 13 From Joh. 16.13 The thirteenth Argument from the words John 16.13 He shall not speak the spirit of Truth from himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak c. BEcause towards the end of the foregoing Chapter we fell into the mention of the place John 16.13 where it is spoken of the thing joyned to the sending of the holy Spirit therefore we will here examine it also For there not only that is affirmed of the holy Spirit which could not be affirmed of him if he were the most high God but also that is denied which cannot be by any means denyed of the most high God For thus Christ saith Howbeit when he the Spirit of Truth is come he will guide you all into the Truth For he shall not speak of himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak and he will shew you things to come He shall glorifie me for he shall receive of mine and shall shew it unto you All things that the Father hath are mine Therefore I said that he shall take of mine and shall shew it unto you Here it is denied that the holy Spirit spake of himself on the contrary it is affirmed that he should speak what he heard and should receive of that which was Christs And the former indeed is therefore chiefly denyed that it may be shewed that he is rightly called the Spirit of Truth that is most true But this latter is therefore affirmed of him that it might be shewed that he should glorifie Christ But the most high God whatsoever he speaks speaks of himself and for that very thing he is true because he speakes of himself He doth not also hear what he should speak nor is instructed like an Embassador by another He receiveth nothing from any yea he bestoweth of his own upon all He hath not glorified Christ by receiving something from him but by giving to him How then is the holy Spirit the most high God It will not be amiss to cite here the words of John Maldonate a most learned Interpreter of the Papists who hath in part unfolded this difficulty speaking in this manner But Christ gives the reason as Rupertus saith why he called him the Spirit of Truth because saith he he shall not speak of himself as if if he should speak of himself he should speak not truth but a lye Which how true it is it doth not enough appear seeing he rather therefore speaks truth and cannot speak false because he speaks of himself For when he speaks of himself he speaks as God since he is nothing else but God But when he speaks as God he cannot lye which if he could do then truly could he do it when he speaks not of himself that is not as God Therefore Augustine and Bede question how it may be understood that he speakes not of himself For if there were a double nature in the holy Spirit as in Christ one a divine the other a humane or any other we might perhaps say that then he speakes not of himself when he speakes as man as we interpret what Christ saith of himself Joh. 14.4 The words which I speak to you I speak not of my self and what he said before Chap. 7.16 My doctrine is not mine but his that sent me But since the holy Spirit is but one and that a divine nature as St. Austin disputes we cannot say it and thus far he It were even to be wished to the adversaries in this place that a double nature could be feigned in the holy Spirit also as is done in Christ that they might loose this knot By what hole then do they endeavour to escape when there is none The foresaid interpreter brings a double answer One of Augustin and Bede anoâ—her his own The first is therefore the holy Spirit is said not to speak of himself because neither is he from himself as therefore saith he he is not of himself but he proceeds from the Father and Son so he shall not speak
John 15.22 and spoken to them they should not have had sin but now they have no cloak for their sin Let them think that the same thing is said to them to whose hands these Writings come whence they might learn the truer opinion But let all together know that by how much the more our opinion is agreeable to piety by so much the more must they who have embraced it give diligence that they joyn holiness of life with it being assured that the knowledge of the Truth without Godliness will more hurt than profit them The God of Peace grant that all be mutually affected one to another with the same mind according to Christ Jesus that with one heart and one mouth they may glorifie the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ to whom himself also be honour for ever AMEN An INDEX of CHAPTERS of both BOOKS touching One GOD the FATHER The FIRST BOOK SECTION I. Wherein is directly proved That only the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the most high God And first out of those Testimonies of the sacred Scriptures which speak expresly of the Father Chap. I. Argum. I. FRom the words of Christ John 17.3 This is life eternal that they may know thee Father the only true God and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ pag. 1 Chap. II Arg. II Taken out of the words of Paul 1 Cor. 8.6 To us there is one God the Father of whom are all things pag. 13 Chap. III Arg. III From the place of Paul Ephes 4.6 There is one God and Father of all pag. 22 Chap. IV Arg. IV Drawn from the words of Christ Mat. 24.36 But of that day and hour knoweth none no not the Angels of the Heavens but the Father only And Mark 13.32 But of the day and hour knoweth none no not the Angels in the Heavens no not the Son but the Father pag. 27 Now follow Arguments drawn out of those places wherein though the Name of the Father be not expressed yet it is indeed spoken of him Chap. V Arg. V Drawn from the words of Paul 1 Cor. 12.4 5 6. There are diversities of Gifts but the same Spirit and diversities of Administrations but the same Lord and diversities of Operations but the same God pag. 28 Chap. VI Arg. VI Taken from these words 1 Tim. 2.5 There is One God and One Mediator of God and Men the Man Christ Jesus To which are added those Rom. 3.10 There is One God c. pag. 30 Chap. VII Arg. VII Drawn out of those places wherein by the Name of the Only God or the Only wise God or the Only Master God none but the Father of Jesus Christ is designed pag. 36 Chap. VIII Arg. VIII Drawn from the Visions in Daniel and Johns Revelation pag. 40 Chap. IX Sundry Arguments are briefly intimated to shew that none but the Father of Jesus Christ is the most high God pag. 42 SECTION II. Wherein is shewn That Christ is not the most high God so that it may be understood that the Father only is the most high God Chap. I Argum. I DRawn thence That Christ is most frequently distinguished from God pag. 47 Chap. II Arg. II Drawn from the Name of the Son of God pag. 50 Chap. III The Arguments which are in the sequel to be alleaged being distributed a third is proposed from the words of Christ in John Chap. 5.19 The Son can do nothing of himself pag. 52 Chap. IV Arg. IV Fetcht from the places in John wherein it is denied That Christ is the prime Author of his Doctrine pag. 65 Chap. V Arg. V Fetcht from those places in John wherein Christ is denied to have come of himself pag. 67 Chap. VI Arg. VI Fetcht from those places in John wherein Christ denies that he came to do his own will pag. 68 Chap. VII Arg. VII Drawn from thence That Christ did not seek his own glory pag. 69 Chap. VIII Arg. VIII Drawn from the words of Christ John 12.44 He that believeth on me believeth not on me but on him that sent me pag. 70 Chap. IX Arg. IX That Christ was sometimes ignorant of the last Judgement pag. 71 Chap. X Arg. X From the words of Christ Mat. 20.23 To sit at my right hand is not mine to give pag. 76 Chap. XI Arg. XI From those words of Christ Mat. 19.17 Why dost thou call me good none is good but God only pag. 79 Chap. XII Arg. XII From the words of Christ to the Father Not as I will but as thou pag. 81 Chap. XIII Arg. XIII From the words Heb. 5.5 Christ did not glorifie himself pag. 83 Chap. XIV Arg. XIV From the words of Christ John 14.28 My Father is greater than I pag. 84 Chap. XV Arg. XV Drawn from thence That the Son was sent into the world by the Father pag. 89 Chap. XVI Arg. XVI Drawn from thence That Christ received Commands from the Father and kept them pag. 91 Chap. XVII Arg. XVII Drawn from thence That Christ poured out Prayers to the Father pag. 93 Chap. XVIII Arg. XVIII Drawn from thence That all things are given to Christ from the Father pag. 96 An Appendix of this Argument wherein is taught That Divinity was given to Christ of the Father pag. 107 Chap. XIX Arg. XIX That Christ ascribeth both his words and works unto the Father and that he is not the first but second cause of the things pertaining to Salvation pag. 110 Chap. XX Arg. XX From the words of Christ John 8.16 My Judgement is true because I am not alone but I and the Father that sent me pag. 115 Chap. XXI Arg. XXI From the words of Christ John 8.14 My Testimony is true because I know whence I am and whither I go pag. 118 Chap. XXII Arg. XXII From the words of Christ John 8.29 The Father hath not left me alone because I alwayes do the things that are pleasing unto him pag. 119 Chap. XXIII Arg. XXIII That the Father is called the God of Christ pag. 122 Chap. XXIV Arg. XXIV From these words 1 Cor. 11.3 The head of Christ is God pag. 123 Chap. XXV Arg. XXV From the words of Paul 1 Cor. 3. last Christ is God's pag. 126 Chap. XXVI Arg. XXVI From the words 1 Cor. 15.24 28. That the Son shall deliver up the Kingdom to God the Father and shall become subject to him pag. 127 Chap. XXVII Arg. XXVII That Christ is the Mediator of God and Men pag. 130 Chap. XXVIII Arg. XXVIII That Christ is a Priest pag. 132 Chap. XXIX Arg. XXIX That Christ was raised up by the Father pag. 133 Chap. XXX Arg. XXX That Christ is called the Image of the invisible God pag. 139 Chap. XXXI Arg. XXXI Chiefly drawn from those causes for which Christ is in the Scriptures called The Son of God pag. 142 Chap. XXXII Arg. XXXII That there is no mention â—adâ— in the holy Scripture of the Incarnation of the most high God pag. 160 Chap. XXXIII Arg. XXXIII That