all works to without as they speak to be common to the whole Trinity yet affirm that Creation agrees more properly to the Father Redemption to the Son Sanctification to the holy Spirit Lastly Paul also Rom. 1.4 as in like manner we have seen above saith Christ was constituted the Son of God in power according to the spirit of sanctification by the resurrection of the dead making the spirit of sanctification the proper and next cause of that filiation But if he be a person or comes from the person of the holy spirit the holy spirit will be the Father of Christ From which absurdity our opinion is far remote which makes not the holy spirit a person but the power and efficacy of God which however it concurred to the generation of the Son yet it concurred not as a Father but as that by which the Father begat But if the holy spirit be not a person neither is he the most high God as who is of necessity a person and indeed of this thing is here the question between us and the adversaries Whether the holy spirit be a divine person namely distinct from the Father Therefore let this be the third Argument of this rank CHAP. VIII The eighth Argument That the holy Spirit is given by God to men THe fourth Argument drawn from those things which are openly delivered in the holy Scripture concerning the holy Spirit shall be this That the holy Spirit is given to men by God and that men obtain receive and have him from God by prayers as numberless places of the holy Scriptures shew out of which it is sufficient to have looked into but these few Luke 11.13 John 7.39 and 14.16 17. Acts 5.32 and 15.8 Rom. 5.5 1 Cor. 6.19 Whence also the holy Spirit is teâ—med a Gift Acts 11.17 which compare with the precedent Yea in all those places wâ—ere mention is made of the gift of the holy Spirit For we shewed above Chap. 6. of this Section That there is not there the Genitive Case of the Efficient but of the Species otherwise both the gifts rather than the gift of the holy Spirit had been to be mentioned and by it had not â—een signified that men either have received or were to receive the holy Spirit which notwithstanding the holy Scriptures using that manner of speech would altogether shew but only some effect of it Now by these things it is evinced that the holy Spirit is not the most high God for he is given or bestowed by none upon any is obtained of none by prayers For first Every Gift and whatsoever is obtained by prayer is in the power of the giver But the most high God is not in the power of another otherwise by this very thing he should have some one above himself and moreover should not be most high Besides Arg. 8 The holy Spirit is given to men the gift is made also his to whom it is given so as that it may be possessed by him But may the most high God be so a mortal mans as that he may be possessed by him Moreover to what end should so great a gift be given to men What fruit would there be of it No other certainly can be imagined but that those effects may exist in a man which the holy Scriptures testify to be produced by the holy Spirit What then Is it needful to the end God should fill any man with such effects and gifts that he himself be given to him When the Father filleth any man with such gifts is it necessary that he himself should be given to him Why then may not the holy Spirit be able to do the same which tâ—e Father if in like manner he be most high and so the same God With the Father Lastly What cause is there why the holy Spirit should be obtained by us from the Father or Son if he himself be the most high God Why is he not given by himself if so be he may be given A larger Confirmation and Defence of this Argument TO these things I see not what they can answer who doubt not to affirm neither indeed can they otherwise as it shall hereafter be made manifest that the very person of the holy Spirit is given to men together with his effects Therefore others endeavour to decline the blow that they affirm that not the holy Spirit properly so called is given to men by God but its effect or rather various effects such as are those which 1 Cor. 12.8 c. are largly enough rehearsed and others common to all believers For these are by a Metonymie signified by the name of the holy spirit when he is said to be given unto men and so to be received and had of them For the efficient cause is put for the effect Although some who say there is a Metalepsis in the phrase seem to take the thing a little otherwise For neither do they seem to take the name of the holy Spirit it self for his effects or gifts but for that very divine person which they hold Nevertheless in the mean while they signifie that the giving passively taken is attributed to him only improperly because that which may properly agree to the effects may be also improperly attributed to the efficient cause it self seeing the effects of the holy Spirit may be properly given not he himself And indeed both these seem to themselves to deal more warily than those who simply confess that the holy Spirit himself is given yet in the mean time they do not perceive that both this hole by which they endeavour to get out is stopt and likewise although I should somewhat enlarge it to them yet are they no whit less held fast bound For first it is false that the effects only of the holy Spirit not the holy Spirit himself is given to men And further that when he is said to be given or received by us or had it is said but by a Metonymie or Metalepsis Besides although it was granted it must be no whit the less confessed that the holy Spirit is not the most high God As to the former we shall demonstrate it first by certain general reason and common to all those places of which we treat then by other more special and proper to certain places and lastly from certain hypotheses of the Adâ—ersaries As to the general reason If by the name of the holy Spirit in these places of which we treat is understood some divine and holy inspiration or some power flowing from God which is as it were breathed into men the holy Spirit is properly given that is not by a Metonymie only or by a Metalepsis is said to be given unto men to be received and had of them That the thing is so will be afterward understood For we shall first shew that such an inspiration is understood by the name of the holy spirit when he is said to be given to us to be received and had by us although
genuine Reason for which he is called such a Son of God For neither is it enough to know and pronounce the words but it is necessary to know and comprehend in the mind the thing it self as far as it falls under our capacity otherwise you shall neither truly believe the thing nor heartily profess it Now the thing that is signified by those words consisteth in the genuine reason for which Jesus is called the Son of God by way of excellency which according to the opinion of the adversarie is because he was from eternity begotten out of the Essence of the Father Neither indeed did this opinion otherwise agree either with it self or with the holy Scriptures would any other reason be more true or genuine If theâ—efore we find not this reason expressed in the holy Scripture but others far different from it we must hold that it is not t e true one The latter Argument wherewith our assumption is confirmed shall afterwards be seen in this Chapter A fuller Confirmation and Defence of this Argument NOw that it may appear that in the Scripture no such reason for which Christ is the son of God is expressed as maketh him the most high God but only such as agree to the humane nature of Christ or to speak more rightly to the man Jesus Christ we will rehearse these places wherein the causes are declared for which Jesus hath been called the Son of God some of which Testimonies at least are so ordereâ— that if Jesus had then already been the Son of God for some better reason and namely because he had from all eternity been generated out of the Esâ—ence of the Father it ought not to have been omitted Now the causes for which Jesus is called the Son of God have a certain order amongst themselves and the latter still addeth something to the former The first Cause why Christ is called the the Son of God Luke 1.35 John Maldonatus and maketh Jesus Christ the Son of God in a moâ—e perfect manner than before The first cause is declared by the Angel in Luke where amongst other things Gabriel thus speaketh unto Mary The holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the power of the most high shall overshadow thee therefore also that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God Where we cannot but set down those things which the most learned Popish Interpreter doth amongst other t ings note upon this place for he rightly both saw and explained the sence of the words And first of all as concerning the last words of this place he noteth that to call doth here signifie to be according to the idiom of the Hebrews who take the consequent or effect for the antecedent cause of which he had also spoken in the 32d vers for there the Angel likewise saith of the Virgins Son that was to be born And he shall be called that is shall â—e the Son of the Most High This Inâ—erpreter hath aleaged examples of that Hebruisme out of Isa 1.26 and the 4.3 to which is also added that place Gen. 21.12 compared with Rom. 9.7 Those likewise might be added Matth. 5.9 19. and 21.13 Isa 56.7 and Luke 1.76 Rom. 9.26 Hos 1.10 Wherefore the same Interpreter doth afterwards justly reprove Calvin who to escape the Argument of Servetus dâ—awn fâ—om those words of the Angel saith that to be called doth here signifie to be declared the Son of God For how saith he can the reason of the Angel agree with this interpretation Therefore the holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God We ought not to abuse the holy Scripture that we may refute Hereticks Again explaining that reason for which the Angel said that Christ should be called that is should be the Son of God he saith all others whom I have seen interpret this as if the Angel spake of Christ as God or at least as man assumed into one person with God in that both wayes Christ is the true and natural Son of God How be it a little aâ—ter he writeth after this manner Though I for my part suppose that the words carry another sense and are not to be understood of Christ as God nor as a man united to a divine person but only of his conception and humane generation as if the Angel should say He shall be called that is be the Son of God because he shall be begotten not by a man but by God through the power of the holy Spirit For neither did the Angel speak concerning the nature of Christ but of the manner of his generation And the cause which he renders why he should be the Son of God in that the holy Spirit should come upon the Virgin and the power of the most high overshadow her was not apt to prove that Christ should be the Son of God as he was God or man assumed into the same person with God because a meer man might be conceived by the supervening of the holy Spirit and overshadowing power of the most high who would be the Son of God neither of those wayes in as much as he was neither God nor joyned to a divine Person But to prove that what was to be born of the Virgin should be the Son of God in such a sence as I have declared the reason of the Angel was very apt in as much as the Child was to be conceived not of a man but of God alone Wherefore although Christ had not been God yet being born in such a manner as he was he had deservedly been called the Son of God not only as other holy men of whom it is said I said ye are Gods and ye are all Sons of the most high but in a singular and proper manner because he had no other Father than God being begotten by no other than him What I pray you could be spoken more aptly and more suitably to the place I was therefore willing to explain the whole matter in his words rather than in mine own that it might with all appear by the testimony of a Papist how evident this opinion is which we defend concerning the reason exprest in these words of the Angel for which Jesus is called the Son of God For what else but the evidence of the thing it self could move a Papist especially of that order to which he was adicted that contrary to the consent of all other Interpreters which he had seen he should follow the opinion which we hold especially since he knew that they whom he judged Hereticks did urge this place for their opinion concerning Christ Although we see that some even of them who are called â—ospellers assent both to him and us in this behalf This then is the first cause See Gualter on this place Je. Zanc. lib. 2. de tribus Elohim for which Jesus was the Son of God in that he was conceived and born not of a man but of God
2 Sam. 23.3 Isa 63.10 Likewise of many passages that are here and there extant in the scripture add these few Isa 11.2 and 42.1 59.21 and 61.1 Joel 1.28 Matth. 3.16 and 12.28 Rom. 15.19 1 Cor. 2.11 12.14 and 3.16 and 6.11 We have above likewise seen other places out of the same Epistle where the holy spirit is in another manner distinguished from God chap. 6.19 and chap. 12.4 5 6. and 2 Cor. 13. last which places are wont to be alledged by the Adversaries to shew that the holy spirit is a divine person But in a manifest thing no more proofs are needfull Now we have reckoned up those places of the scripture cheifly wherein the adversaries do either confess that it is spoken concerning the very person of the holy spirit or also urge it least any one should contend that it is spoken only concerning the gift proceeding from the same person and that it only but not the holy spirit properly so called is termed the spirit of God concerning which distinction we will treat in the following Argument The Defence of the Argument BUt they say that when the holy spirit it is distinguished from God or the Lord that by the name God or the Lord the Father is understood or also the son who likewise is the Lord. For therefore he is called the spirit of both because he proceedeth from both A like exception we have seen conceâ—ning Christ who is also most frequently distinguished from God Now the same things that we have there spoken to that exception Sect. 2. Chap. 1. or like unto them may here likewise be alleaged Wherefore since they may thence be fetcht there is no need to repeat them here CHAP. VI. Arg. 6 The holy Spirit is the Power of God The sixth Argument The holy Spirit is the Power of God THe second Argument of this rank but the sixth of this Section shall be this that the holy Spirit is the power or efficacy of God namely that we may explain it by tâ—e by which proceedeth from God and issuing unto men doth sanctifie and consecrate them and produce various and admirable effects in them which power they are wont to call divine inspiration but the power and efficacy of God can at no rate be the most high God or a person of supream Deity as shall better be understood in the Defence of this Argument But even our Adversaries who are a little more versed in the holy Scripture are aware that the holy Spirit is the power or efficacy of God For among others that place is very plain Luke 24.49 where Christ saith And I send the promise of my Father upon you but abide ye in the City of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high Where by all Interpreters that I know it is observed that under the name of that power with which the Apostles were to be endued the holy Spirit is understood and this was that Promise of the Father from Christ to be sent upon them See among other places Acts 1.4 5 8. and 2.4 33. Therefore this place also was brought to illustrate those other places in which the holy Spirit is signifyed by the appellation of the divine Power It likes me to set down here the words of two most learned Interpreters of the holy Scripture one a Papist the other a Protestant in their Annotations on Luke 1.35 where the Angel saith to the Virgin Mary The holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the Power of the most high shall overshadow thee For the former * John Maldonat Interpreter after he had said that Gregory Chrysostome Victor Damascen Beda Theophilact interpret the Power of the Most high to be Christ or the Son of God adds Others think that he whom before he called the holy Spirit now is called the Power of the most high God as Euthymius whom I rather follow though of less account and the only Author yet saying things more like truth than many and those of greater esteem For it is a repeating of the same sentence such as the Hebrews chiefly in songs do frequently use one sentence concluding one verse which in the fore part of the verse is expressed in some words in the latter is repeated in other words as Psal 2.4 He that dwelleth in the heavens shall deride them and the Lord shall mock them For in the same manner we see the Angel a little before to have said Hail thou that art full of favour the Lord is with thee varying the words the sence being the same And the holy Spirit is wont to be termed as the Finger so also the Power of God by the same similitude as beneath chap. 24.49 But stay ye in the City until ye be endued with Power from on high Therefore Power and Spirit are wont most often to be coupled in the holy Scriptures as below chap. 4.14 and in Acts 10.38 Rom. 1.4 and 15.13 1 Cor. 2.4 Ephes 3.16 1 Thes 1.5 But the * John Piscator latter so writes And the Power of the most high that is the same holy Spirit who is the Power proceeding from the Most High that is God the Father A description For the same sentence is repeated in other words by way of explication So below ver 24.49 the holy Spirit is named the Power from on high To them also other most learned †See John Calvin men assent For that many of the Antients have understood the Son of God by the Power of the most high that I repeat not the reason brought by a most learned Interpreter of the Papists it is also refuted by other Arguments First because Mat. 1.20 where the Angel expresseth the same thing to Joseph he mentions only the holy Spirit nor would he have left out the Son of God if Gabriel had by name conjoyned him with the holy spirit in this place and had made him Author of his own conception seeing there was no greater cause of mentioning him here than there Moreover because by this means Christ should be made the son of himself seeing in the former * Chap. 31 Section we have shewed that Christ was called the son of God by reason of so wonderful a conception and generation Perhaps some other will say that the Power of the Most High in this place signifies neither the son nor the holy spirit but the efficacy flowing from the holy spirit For here two efficient Causes of the conception of Christ are mentioned one the Person of the holy Spirit the other his Power But first that reason which we now brought concerning the son is against it because by this reason the holy spirit should be made the Father of Christ of which by it self we shall afterward in the following chapter treat Furthermore if any person here had been to be named besides the Fatâ—er of Christ such especially who being to come upon the Viâ—gin was to cause the conception of Christ the son had
whom Paul for instance chiefly would demonstrate that he spake by the spirit of God also will not loose the knot For nether are those works ascribed to the holy spirit in the same manner as to the Father who is by the confession of all the supream God nor in that manner by which they are ascribed to the son but as also the Adversaries themselves in part confess by a certain proper and peculiar manner that is as to the next cause and inwardly working in men And this is that which the holy scriptures in the places before alleaged and infinite other places would have us understand But concerning this thing nothing should be manifest from the works themselves performed by divine power if the holy spirit were that supream God and yet in person distinct from the Father son Yea if the holy spirit were the supream God it should rather be concluded that the holy spirit is not such a cause of those works For it belongs not to the supream God that personally inhabiting in men he should do any works in or by them but that he inspire Power and Efficacy to them and by that means perform works to be admired in or by them A larger Defence of the Argument SUfficiently as it seems to us we have hitherto confirmed our Argument Yet nevertheless since two answers either are wont or may seem to be made to it they are to be refelled by us The former is against the major Proposition of the Argument which by an instance the Adversaries endeavour to infringe For they say that Christ also is called the Vertue or Power of God 1 Cor. 1.24 and yet notwithstanding he is not only a Person but also the most high God himself But this latter we have above refuted and by this very thing also is sufficiently refelled in that he is the vertue of God to wit the most high and so is manifestly distinguished from the Supream God But further we take the name of Power and Efficacy in our Argument properly But when will they prove that Christ is the Vertue or Power of God properly so called For whether they take the word Power for that Vertue which naturally dwells in God or for that which flows from him as its fountain and is also in some manner communicated to the creatures neither of them is a person but a quality and that indeed an essential property of God common to three persons as they will have it But that Christ is a person all know and urge The same may be also understood by the other term of excellency which in the same place 1 Cor. 1.24 is given to Christ to wit that he is called the Wisdom of God For the Wisdom of God speaking properly is his attribute or natural property by which God both understands all things and disposeth most aptly his Counsels and Works But this is in no sort a person but in like manner is his attribute or natural property common to three persons as is the opinion of the Adversaries Certainly since Christ is a person distinct from the Father and the Father in himself or his own person hath all Wisdom whereby he understandeth and disposeth all things neither may any one understand by another person but by himself and Wisdom implanted in himself Christ cannot speaking properly be the Wisdom of God Therefore neither in like manner the Power of God For there is the same reason of both It is therefore to be understood as the preaching of the Cross in the same * 1 Cor. 1.18 place to the Corinthians is termed the Vertue or Power of God in like manner also the Gospel Rom. 1.16 to wit because in it the singular Vertue or Power of God is put forth and manifestly appears to all Believers so also Christ is called the Vertue or Power and likewise Wisdom because in him the supream Power and Wisdom of God hath been put forth and in him may most clearly be perceived by all believers Let the place it self be looked and ver 18.24 be compared together and that it is so any one will easily understand By these things then it appeareth that this instance is of no moment to invalid our Argument seeing we speak of the Efficacy of God properly so called and have shewed that the holy Spirit is the very Power or Efficacy of God proceeding and flowing from him Certainly by the Opinion of the Adversaries themselves it is necessary that in one wise Christ in an otherwise the holy Spirit be the Power of God For if Christ be the substantial Power of God having his proper person and the holy Spirit also be such a Power of God there will be two Powers or substantial Vertues in God having their personallity those two persons as such shall be altogether like to themselves Of which neither can be Not that because the one or the other efficacy should be in vain since one may altogether suffice to do all things But in him who himself doth nothing in vain nothing also is altogether in vain or nothing over much Yea it is also impossible because two forms wholly of the same Nature cannot consist in the same subject unless perhaps according to divers parts which hath no place in God For otherwise the thing would proceed in infinitum Of which we shall elsewhere * Book 2. Sâ—ct 1. Chap. 5. speak more plainly And this latter therefore cannot consist because they both hold and are constrained to hold that those divine persons so far as they are distinct from the Essence are unlike Wherefore that those absurdities of which we have spoken may not happen it is necessary to determine that the holy Spirit is such a power as is not a person And thus much concerning the former Answer to our Argument The latter Answer is placed in a distinction which otherwise the Adversaries often use when there is speech of the holy Spirit For they say the term holy Spirit is taken in a double manner one while for the third person of the Deity another while for his effect or gift flowing from him and that indeed properly is called holy Spirit but this Metonimically in that the Cause is put for the effect I remember not indeed to have read that that answer is accommodated to this our Argument But because it may yet be accommodated it will be worth our labour to examine it here chiefly because it may seem that nothing may be said more speciously For when we by Power or Efficacy of God understand a certain force flowing from God and his natural power into men some one may say that the holy Spirit is indeed such a power of God but taken metonymiâ—ally For that Efficacy of God is the effect or gift of the holy Spirit properly so called But in this place is not disputed of the holy Spirit metonymically but properly taken not of his gift but of himself Therefore our Argument is ineffectual and makes nothing to the
matter But we somewhat otherwise take the Gift of the holy Spirit in this Answer or at least stretch it wider than the Adversaries are commonly wont For so much as I have been able hitherto to find they are wont by the gift of the holy Spiâ—it to understand those admirable faculties implanted in men by divine Power as the faculty of prophesying or speaking with tongues and other whether visible as they are called or invisible or if you had rather more hidden effects of the holy Spirit in men But that Power of God of which the places of holy Scripture brought by us speak is not such a faculty or faculties rather but the efficient of them although it again flow from power naturall resident in God Wherefore if the gift of the holy Spirit should be taken so strictly this Answer could not be fitted to our Argument or the places by which we have confirmed it unless any one would perhaps say that in all those places in which the holy Spirit and Power of God are put as equipollent or the one is put instead of the other the name of the holy Spirit or divine Power is used for such a faculty divinely ingenerated in a man but no where for the divine Efficacy that effects such faculties in men which neither will the Adversaries easily say nor can it in any manner consist as partly the places themselves a little more diligently looked into will shew to every one partly will be understood by the things which follow Wherefore that that distinction may seem to make something against our Argument we will suppose that our Adversaries do make that divine Efficacy also flowing from the natural Power of God which is the cause of wonderful effects in men to be the gift of the holy Spirit and so to be understood by the name of the holy Spirit not properly but by a Metonymie only namely because it flows from the third Person of the Deity which properly may be called the holy Spirit That therefore we may refell this exception we say that it is in no wise to be granted that that Power and Efficacy of God which is in this place understood is only metonymically termed the holy Spirit and not rather properly as far indeed as propriety hath place here For if it should be called only metonymically the Spirit of God or the holy Spirit to wit because it comes from the holy Spirit properly so called there would be no cause why it should not be called likewise the Father or Son since it should no less come from the Father Son then from the holy Spirit even according to the adversaries opinion since it is some effect of the natural power of God which according to their opinion is common to the three persons of the Deity and is indeed first in the Father as the fountain of the Deity then by him as they would have it in the son and holy spirit who from him have their Essence Neither may you say that that inspiration is therefore called rather the holy spirit then the Father or son because it immediately proceeds from the holy spirit but from the Father and son onely mediately for what hindreth the Father or the son since they have the same power in themselves efficacious for all things which the person of the holy spirit hath to put it forth also by themselves as well as the person of the holy spirit as we see by the holy Scripture they have indeed put it forth Yea how can it be in this unity of Essence and all things pertaining to it that the Father and the son should not as immediately put forth their power as the holy spiâ—it For it is judged that the Father and son have so commuicated their virtue and power whence that efficacy or divine inspiration immediately comes to the holy Spirit as that nevertheless it remained the same in number in Father and Son and is put forth by the three persons by the same aâ—t altogether Whence therefore is that difference that the holy Spirit puts it forth immediately the Father and the Son mediately But if the Father and the Son put forth that force and efficacy alike immediately there is no cause wherefore that force should be termed more the holy Spirit than the Father or the Son if it be not the holy Spirit himself but be called so therefore only because it comes from him We repeat not that which we have said before that although the Father and Son should put it forth only mediately the holy Spirit immediately yet that could not â—e manifest by the thing it self without a peculiar divine revelation when nevertheless we see as soon as any thing hath been manifest to have been done by divine virtue or inspiration that forthwith is ascribed to the holy Spirit as the next cause But further the adversaries cannot use that answer in some of the places brought by us unless together they overthrow one of their chief Arguments whereby they endeavour to prove the holy Spirit to be a Suppositum and person to wit that which is drawn from the actions proper to persons or at least Suppositums For in the first place brought by us from Luke 1.34 where the holy Spirit is said to come upon Mary the Adversaries themselves seem to understand the person of the holy Spirit especially since the action of coming upon agrees not properly but to a person or at least to a Suppositum I omit that also in the place Ephes 3.20 cited by us the virtue or divine power is said to work in the Apostles Besides we shall see in the following Chapter a new Reason by which that Answer may be overthrown CHAP. VII The seventh Argument That Christ should be the Son of the holy Spirit if he were the most high God THe third Argument of this ranck which respects the defence of the next foregoing also may be this That if the holy Spirit were God or at least some person Christ also should be the son of the holy Spirit yea more rightly should be termed his son than the Fathers which thing overthrows it self For we have seen above that Sect. 2. Chap. 31. Christ therefore was first termed the Son of God because the holy Spirit came upon Mary his Mother and the power of the most high overshadowed her and so Christ was conceiâ—ed and begotten by the power of the holy Spirit But if the holy Spirit be a person who immediately put forth that force in the womb of the Virgin and produced Christ the holy Spirit is rather the Father of Christ than God the Father who performed that only by the intervening of another person Besides that sanctification John 10.34 35. which Christ himself bâ—ings as a cause why he called himself of right the son of God will agree also to the holy spirit especially by the adversaries doctrine For they Arg. 7 The holy Spirit should be the Father of Christ although they would have
held to be infinite in number also not finite and that three only For between three things and one is not only a finite but also a very little difference You will say that this reason doth not evince that there are in God infinite or innumerable persons but that there may be or that nothing hinders but that there may be because the infiniteness of his Essence may permit it But besides that the Adversaries say that Esse and Posse are the same in God this is certain that whatever things may be naturally in God and do not depend on his free will they are in very deed also and necessarily in him For it is necessary that they conâ—â—â—n in them some perfection and that a natural one But no natural perfection which can agree to God can be absent from him since he cannot be of an imperfect nature or such as to whom any thing of perfection may be yet added Something pertaining to this exception shall be said in the following Sections where the manner of the Generation of the Son and Procession of the holy Spirit devised by the Adversaries shall be examined The Second Section In which is discoursed concerning the Second Person of the Supream Deity which is held by the Adversaries HAving refuted the Doctrine of the Trinity from those things which pertain generally to the three persons which are held to be in God it remains that we refel the same Doctrine from these things which particularly are asserted concerning certain persons And they are those things which properly do pertain to the second and third Person of the Trinity or also to the first in respect of these two And in this Section we shall indeed treat of the Second Person as in the beginning of this Book we promised In which place two Doctrines chiefly occur to be examined The one is concerning his Generation out of the Essence of the Father from all eternity the other concerning his Incarnation For either of them being taken away that Opinion commonly received concerning the second Person of the Trinity falls to the ground CHAP. I. Arg. 1 The Son of God should be the Son of himself The first Argument By which is refelled the Doctrine of the eternal Generation of the Son of God out of the Essence of the Father because the Son should be the Son of himself THat therefore we may come to that former Doctrine the Adversaries affirm and unless they would affirm it they could not defend the Doctrine of the Trinity that the Son was so begotten from eternity out of the Essence of the Father that nevertheless he hath the same Essence in number with the Father But that doctrine is full of many contradictions and absurdities For first it follows thence that the Son is the Son and Father of himself For out of whose Essence any one is generated he is his Son But if that opinion of the Adversaries concerning the Son of God be true it follows that the Son is begotten out of his own Essence wherefore the Son shall be his own Son and moreover the Father of himself which thing implies a manifest contradiction There is no need to demonstrate the Proposition of the Argument which they call the Major seeing the thing is manifest even with the Adversaries But the Assumption or Minor is thence manifest because if the Essence of the Father and Son be the same in number certainly if the Son be begotten out of the Essence of the Father he is bâ—gotten out of his own Essence Neither indeed can they say that that Essence was not yet the Essence of the Son because they hold there was no time in which the Son was not existent and had not the divine Essence otherwise he should not be the most high God You may also in this manner propound the same Argument None is generated of himself for then he should be before he is he should be so because he should be the principle and cause of his own generation he should not be so because he should be generated That of which any thing is generated and that which is generated of it are relatives But relatives cannot be in the same thing in the same respect and at the same time for they are opposites But the nature of opposites is such that they mutually destroy one another in the same subject at the same time and respect according to the same thing or the same part But now if the Son be begotten out of the Essence of the Father and the Essence of the Father and Son be the same in number the Son is begotten of himself because he is begotten also out of his own Essence But none can more properly be begotten of any one than when he is begotten out of his Essence The same absurdity is manifest also from the manner in which the antient Fathers partly the Architects partly the Patrons of the common opinion concerning the Trinity have affirmed that the Son of God is generated from eternity which also at this day very many acknowledge since they cannot devise another manner by any reason agreeable to their opinion For they say The Father hath begotten the Son by understanding himself as again they hold that the Father and the Son together have produced and breathed the holy Spirit by willing and loving Which thing may be thus explained after the Adversaries mind There are in God only two operative Principles or that have some power of working whose operations may be both immanent that is may remain in God himself and do not pass into any other subject and be employed about God himself to wit understanding and will For God both understands himself and wills and loves himself as the chiefest good Indeed the Omnipotence of God is also an operative Principle but its opperations are imployed only about other things not about God himself and are terminated to other subjects Now from these things then the Adversaries draw out the second and third Persons of the Divinity in this manner They say the understanding doth not understand but by the Image of that thing which it understands Wherefore since God hath understood himself from all eternity it is necessary that he conceived an Image of himself also from all eternity And this must be necessarily God himself For they say that both whatsoever is in God is God by reason of his greatest simplicity and that Image of the infinite God must be infinite But nothing is infinite besides God But they say that it is likewise necessary that that Image be a distinct person from him that produced it otherwise God should have produced himself Whence at last they conclude that that Image is the Son of God because it is both produced and like to the producer as his Image and the same in substance with him But further because God loves himself being known and that his Image which by understanding he produced and is again loved by it this very
act of will makes the third person of the Divinity For both that love is in God and infinite and moreover no less God than that Image produced by the understanding but in person is necessarily distinct from them by whom he is produced These Mysteries do they open unto us concerning the production of two divine persons it is wonderful with what deep silence of the holy Scriptures kept secret and how forreign from those things which the same holy Scriptures do in most plain words deliver concerning the Generation of the Son by God and in their due place * Sect. 2. Lib. 1. Chap. 31. are produced by us Here they who cry out that Reason is blind in divine things who would not that any may dispute from it against the Trinity who have often that in their mouth The searcher of the Majesty shall be oppressed by its Glory as they think was written by Solomon here I say they ought to cry out that Reason is blind that these search the divine Majesty that it is unlawful to attempt to express the unutterable Mysteries But unless such things had been devised they had not at this day had their Trinity But it is wonderful how preposterously the Adversaries do here behave themselves For whilst they do so urge the simplicity that whatsoever is in God they hold to be God yet in the mean time bring in more persons into him and if you consider the force of their opinion infinite or numberless they by this very reason quite destroy the Simplicity But that is yet more grievous that whilst they seem to be willing to have such regard to the Simplicity of which notwithstanding the holy Scriptures are silent as being not necessary to be known to the salvation and are altogether unknown to the more simple men they take away the unity which the holy Scriptures so often and so plainly inculcate But let us now let pass both these and not a few other absurdities which are contained in this opinion of which some are shewn above some shall be shewn afterward and let us demonstrate that which a little before we propounded to wit that hence it follows That the Son of God is his own Son Neither is it difficult to demonstrate that For if the Essence and moreover the Understanding of the Father and the Son be the same in number there is also the same operation in number of the understanding especially because the more acute Adversaries by reason of the greatest Simplicity of God hold that his intellect and intellection are the same thing Therefore if the Father hath begotten the Son by the operation of his understanding the Son also whos 's the same operation was begat himself Yea further the holy Spirit begat that Son of God existing from eternity and so is the Father of the Son and Principle of his own Principle For by the same intellection together with the Father and Son from all eternity he understood and contemplated himself and his Essence and also even the Father and the Son And so because with the same act of will the holy Spirit together with the Father and Son willed and loved whatsoever they will and love if the holy Spirit be a certain act of will or something produced by the Father and Son by the operation of will the holy Spirit also hath produced himself Besides It is to be affirmed that by this means not only the same persons have produced themselves but also infinite or innumerable others For since each person understands both himself and the other persons and desâ—res and loves them it is necessary that each again produce more both Sons and holy Spirits if those things be true which they inculcate to us concerning the divine Intellection and love For there must be a different and so an unlike Image of the Father as he is the Father and of the Son as he is the Son and of the holy Spirit as such For the Father and Son as such are opposite between themselves and in like sort the holy Spirit as he is produced by both For they are relatives and all relatives as we have said above are opposite but there must be opposite Images of opposite things However this be there must be different Images of those things which really differ which may exactly express them and not only shew how they agree between themselves but also how they differ But according to the diversity and multitude of those Images there will arise also a multitude of acts of wil love with which those several persons embrace those Images and again those Images prosecute the persons by which they are produced and each also themselves and at length one another Wherefore if both those Images produced by the intellect and those acts of will in God are persons or at least principles of divers persons the persons will be in infinitum multiplyed Although if whatsoever is in God be God another way also will divine persons arise For in God there is an Image of every thing in particular which he understands if an intellection be not in God but by an Image likewise both decrees of infinite things and love towards things created and divers acts of will All these things therefore shall be God yet shall differ in persons from him or those from whom they are produced Therefore even thence we shall have infinite or innumerable persons in God CHAP. II. The second Argument Because there would be innumerable Sons as also innumerable holy-Spirits LEst any one perhaps should think that they only should fear an infinite multitude of divine persons who have devised that manner of generation of the Son of God and procession of the holy Spirit which in the precedent chapter we have explained we shall shew that others also must hold the same who will have the Son of God to have been generated from eternity out of the Essence of the Father and moreover since they see that the infinite multitude of the divine persons is most absurd they must acknowledge that also the Doctrine from whence it flows is most abhorrent from the truth For if God have begotten the Son out of his Essence and again together with the Son have produced the holy Spirit and these are with him the same God there is no cause why the son also hath not begotten another Son again and in like manner the holy Spirit another and this also another and so in infinitum For what cannot the Son and holy Spirit do what the Father could Then they are not the same God with him since they have not the same faculty and power but an unequal one Will you say that they would not But such things which pertain to things ad intra or to within as they speak in God are altogether necessary and are not subject to the free will But if they be subject to the free will it may come to pass that within some time more divine persons may grow when
the holy Spirit was given unto Christ pag. 163 Chap. XXXIV Arg. XXXIV That Christ was tempted of the Devil pag. 166 Chap. XXXV Arg. XXXV That Christ is the first-born of every Creature pag. 169 Chap. XXXVI Arg. XXXVI That Christ is equal to God pag. 170 SECTION III. Wherein is shewn That the Holy Spirit is not the most high God that it may appear that the Father onely is the most high God pag. 171 Chap. I Argum. I THat the Holy Spirit is no where openly called God in the holy Scripture pag. 172 Chap. II Arg. II That it is no where in the holy Scripture commanded that we should adore or invocate the Holy Spirit yea there is not so much as any example thereof pag. 181 Chap. III Arg. III. That the mention of the Holy Spirit is in many places omitted and would not so have been were he the most high God pag. 185 Chap. IV Arg. IV. From Mat. 11.27 None knoweth the Son but the Father neither knoweth any one the Father but the Son c. pag. 194 Chap. V Arg. V That the Holy Spirit is very often distinguished from God pag. 195 Chap. VI Arg. VI The Holy Spirit is the power of God pag. 197 Chap. VII Arg. VII That Christ should be the Son of the Holy Spirit if he were the most High God pag. 204 Chap. VIII Arg. VIII That the Holy Spirit is given by God to men pag. 205 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 Poured upon Baptized and Drencht pag. 218 Chap. IX Arg. IX Drawn from those places which argue some partition of the Holy Spirit pag 222 Chap. X Arg. X That we are forbidden to quench the Spirit and we read that the Holy Spirit sometime was not and that some Disciples were ignorant whether there were any Holy Spirit pag. 225 Chap. XI Arg. XI From John 15.26 Where the Holy Spirit is said To proceed from the Father pag. 226 Chap. XII Arg. XII That the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son pag. 228 Chap. XIII Arg. XIII From the words of John 16.13 He shall not speak the Spirit of Truth from himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak c. pag. 229 Chap. XIV Three Arguments From 1 Cor. 2.10 c. The Spirit searcheth all things even the deep things of God c. pag. 235 Chap. XV Arg. XVII That the Holy Spirit sometime descended upon Christ pag. 238 Chap. XVI The Conclusion of the First Book in which it is shewed That the Adversaries opinion concerning the Trinity is refuted by the very silence of the holy Scriptures neither doth any thing hinder but that it may be oppugned by Arguments fetcht from Reason pag. 242 The SECOND BOOK SECTION I. In which is generally treated concerning the Three Persons of the Supream Deity which are commonly maintained pag. 247 Chap. I. Argum. I. BY which is shewed That the common Doctrine of the Trinity overthrows it self because there would be at once One and Three Gods pag. 248 Chap. II Arg. II Because each Divine Person would be Three in Persons pag. 252 Chap. III Arg. III Because the Divine Persons would in very deed be the same and divers pag. 253 Chap. IV Arg. IV Because there would be at once One and Three Substances of the Supream Deity pag. 256 Chap. V Arg. V Because there cannot be Three Substances of One and the Same Thing pag. 261 Chap. VI Arg. VI That the Divine Persons should be at once both communicable and incommunicable pag. 264 Chap. VII Arg. VII Drawn from the Analogy with the things created where it it is shewed That unless there be held One Person of God there must be held infinite in number pag. 265 SECTION II. In which is discoursed concerning the Second Person of the Supream Deity which is held by the Adversaries pag. 267 Chap. I Argum. I BY which is refelled the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son of God out of the Essence of the Father Because the Son should be the Son of himself pag. 268 Chap. II Arg. II Because there would be innumerable Sons as also innumerable Holy Spirits pag. 271 Chap. III Arg. III Because the Son of God both had been and had not been from Eternity pag. 272 Chap. IV. Arg. IV Because the Son of God should be already generated and to be generated unto Eternity pag. 276 Chap. V Arg. I By which the Doctrine of the Incarnation of the Son of God is refelled Because the Father and the Holy Spirit had been also Incarnated pag. 278 Chap. VI Arg. II Because the Second Person of the Deity would cease to be a Person pag. 281 Chap. VII Arg. III Because the most High God and Man are Disparatums pag. 283 Chap. VIII Arg. IV Because in Christ should be two Persons pag. 286 SECTION III. IN which is discoursed concerning the Third Person of the Supream Deity which is commonly held And it is shewed That the holy Spirit should be the Son of God if the common Opinion concerning him were true pag. 295 The CONCLSION of the WORK IN which the use of this Disputation concerning One God the Father is explained pag. 302 An INDEX of places of the holy Scripture which are in this Book either wholy explained or in some part illustrated Chap. Vers Page  Deuteronom  21. 17. 224. 32. 12. 173 179.  II. Samuel  23 2 3. 173 178.  II. Kings  2. 9. 123.  Psalm  2. 6. 152.  7. 152 156 276 c. 17. 6. 120. 118. 21. 92.  Isaiah  6. 9 c. 173 180 c. 9. 6. 216 217. 63. 10. 173 179.  Jeremiah  17. 5. 71.  Daniel  7. 9 c. 40.  Matth.  1. 20. 222. 3. 16. 228 c. 11. 27. 194 c. 12. 4. 53. 16. 16. 157. 19. 17. 79. 20. 23. 76 c. 23. 8 9 10. 80. 24. 36. 27 72. 26. 39. 81. 28. 18. 104 c.  19. 244.  Mark.  1. 10. 238. 13. 32. 27 72.  Luke  1. 17. 199.  32. 101.  35. 144 c. 197 c. 3. 22. 238 c. 11. 20. 199. 12. 8. 191. 22. 42. 81. 24. 49. 197.  John  1. 1. 109.  13. 139.  32 33. 238 c. 2. 20 21. 138 139 3. 34. 224 c. 4. 34. 173. 5. 13. 187.  17. 62 63.  19. 52 c.  20. 101.  22. 109 128.  24. 128.  44. 36 37 38. 6. 59. 96.  69. 12. 7. 16. 60.  37. 221.  39. 114 226. 8. 14. 118 c.  16. 115 c.  16 c. 186 187  19. 11.  29. 115 c.  55. 11. 10. 18. 91 138 139.  25. 111.  29. 85.  34 c. 51 52 146
but he must withal come from himself since there will be the same numerical will in both the same Authority Wherefore the Father could decree or command nothing Arg. 5 Christ came not of himself but the Son would also decree that very thing with the same action But if it be absurd for any one to be sent from himself and Christ openly denies that he came from himself It must be held that he is not a person of the same Essence with the Father and consequently not the most high God The Defence of the Argument VVHy the Exception concerning the two Natures hath here no place hath already been shewn in the Defence of the precedent Arguments especially because Christ is here openly considered as sent from the Father which thing we said pertaineth to the whole Person of Christ and is by the Adversaries wont by name to be referred unto his divine Nature And besides when Christ would by this means procure Authority to himself and his Doctrine amongst all the People what need was there to fetch that Authority from the Father if he had had the divine Essence in himself and so no less than the Father had been God yea the self same God with the Father and would have men so to understand it according to the Opinion of the Adversaries as after he maketh mention of the Father For to what purpose is it to fetch Authority from another when you have it of your self yea the same in number with the other and would accordingly possess all men with a belief that you have it CHAP. VI. Argument the sixth fetcht from those places in John wherein Christ denies that he came to do his own will IN the sixth place those Testimonies are to be mentioned wherein Christ denyed that he came to do his own will but the will of the Father that sent him Which is a consequent of that which went before For it is the Office of an Embassadour not to do and seek his own will but the Will of the Sender And hereunto belong the words of Christ John 5.30 I seek not mine own will but the Will of him that sent me And chap. 6.30 I descended from Heaven not to do mine own will but the Will of him that sent me that is of the Father as appeareth from the following verses and many other places and from the very thing it self But if Christ were the most high God how did he not seek his own will or not come to do it For to what purpose had he come but to do the will of the most high God yea by this very thing whilst he affirmeth that he seeketh the Fathers Will and came down from Heaven to do it by this very thing I say he would affirm Arg. 6 Christ came not to do his own will that he seeketh his own will and came down from Heaven to do it if he were the same numerical God with the Father For as we before hinted they who have the same numerical Essence must also have the self same will and the same numerical act of the will as the Adversaries hold concerning God the Father and his Son The Defence of the Argument THat Exception touching the humane Nature according to which Christ spake that I may omit the repetition of other things that were formerly spoken hath therefore no place because Christ doth in the second passage from whence judgment may be made of the first expresly say that he came down from Heaven not to do his own will but the will of his Father But the descent of Christ agreeth to his whole Person or as the Adversaries believe to him according to the divine Nature For they contend that Christ according to the divine Nature came down from Heaven to be born of the Virgin wherefore he speaketh of his whole Person and not only one part thereof or if he attributed these things to himself in respect of one Nature only he is according to the Opinion of the Adversaries to be imagined to speak of the divine Nature which overthroweth it self CHAP. VII The seventh Argument drawn from thence That Christ did not seek his own glory SEventhly Hereunto belong those words of the same Christ chap. 8.50 I seek not mine own glory there is one that seeketh and judgeth And those words in the same chapter ver 54. If I glorifie my self my glory is nothing it is my Father that glorifieth me From the first of which we may thus reason If Christ had been the most high God he could not chuse but seek his own glory Since the end of all Gods actions and the ultimate scope of them that are sent by him or minister to him is the Glory of God himself Wherefore if Christ had been the most high God he could not chuse but seek his own glory Again since he openly professeth that he seeketh his Glory that sent him namely the Fathers chap. 7.18 If he had been of the same Essence with the Father and the same God with him in seeking his glory he had also sought his own Besides when he saith that the Father doth seek his glory and judge or glorifie him it would of necessity happen that Christ himself also at the same time and with the same labour doth seek his own glory and judge and consequently doth glorifie himself Arg. 7 Christ did not seek his own glory since as we formerly hinted they that have the same numerical Essence the same will and power of working must also of necessity have the same numerical operation Whence the Adversaries also hold that the works of the Trinity performed without as they speak are undivided although the reason of that Identity doth not admit a limitation and although it should be admitted yet here according to the opinion of the Adversaries must needs be the same operation because they constitute and are inforced to constitute that glorification either in the exhaltation of the humane Nature or in the manifestation of Christs glory before men But now we see that Christ openly denies that he seeketh his own glory or doth glorifie himself From the latter place we thus conclude If Christ were the most high God he could not say his glory would be nothing if he glorifie himself For how is the Glory which proceedeth from the most high God or wherewith the most high God glorifieth himself how I say is it nothing that is vain and empty Certainly it would be no more vain than the Glory that proceedeth from the Father But Christ openly saith that if he glorified himself his glory is nothing and opposeth the glorification proceeding from the Father as true and solid to the glorification proceeding from himself CHAP. VIII The eighth Argument drawn from the words of Christ John 12.44 He that believeth on me believeth not on me but on him that sent me THat these words of Christ which we have cited signifie that he is not the principal object of Faith and
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
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
To which may be added that place of the Epiâ—le to the Hebrews chap. 5.7 which we formerly * Chap. 17 of this Section conside ed when we discoursed of the prayers which Christ poured out to the Father for it is thence evinced by a double reason that Christ could not raise himself from the dead and consequently did not partly because he did with so earnest prayers with so earnest cryings seconded also with tears beseech the Father to do it partly because he to whom he made such supplications is thus described and distinguished from Christ namely that he was able to save him from death Conceâ—ning both which things see what we have formerly said Finally that place Ephes 1.19 20. may be added which we have formerly alleaged where it is shewn how great Power how great Might God the Father did put forth when he raised Christ from the dead and set him at his right hand in the Heavens But what need would there have been of so great Power or how could it at all have been employed by God the Father if Christ had raised himself by a Power altogether proper and natural to him Now if you say that the same Power did also belong to Christ as being common to the Father with the Son there can no cause be alleaged why it should he said to be put forth rather by the Father than by Christ in as much as we have already shewn that the contrary ought rather to be done The third cause wherefore that first exception ought to be esteemed of no weight is this namely that such a sence doth exceedingly weaken Pauls Argument whereby from the Resurrection of Christ he asserteth the truth of our resurrection as he chiefly doth 1 Cor. 15.11 c and so throweth down the strongest prop of our hope For Paul doth thence shew that we shall arise because Christ arose Bâ—t if Christ raised himself from the dead by a power that was inbred and altogether natural to him and could not but raise himself the consequence is of no force For how followeth it if Christ raised himself by a power that was proper and altogether natural and could not but raise himself that we also who are altogether distitute of that Power and whom our nature doth not vindicate from eternal death shall assuredly rise There is now scarce any need to speak of the latter exception which is that by the name of God who is said to have raised Christ either the whole Trinity wherein Christ also is contained or the divine Essence which was no less in Christ than in the Father may be understood For we have brought Arguments even out of those places where the Adversaries themselves dare not apply that exception wherein is shewn that Christ did not raise himself from the dead the contrary whereof is required by that exception But furthermore who doth not understand that when God or he that raised Jesus from the dead is distinguished from Christ a person distinct from Christ is understood which is in this place sufficient for us That a person is understood is intimated by the name God which we have * Chap. 1. of this Section before shewn to be proper to a Person and also by the action of raising which agreeth to nothing but a Person but that one Person is understood the very word God as also that description He that raised Jesus Christ from the dead being uttered in the singular number doth manifest For neither is the word God a collective neither is that expression wherein mention is made of him who raised Christ from the dead general and common but proper and singular but the distinction between Christ and him that raised Christ from the dead is manifest from the very places Nor as we have else where hinted would he escape the Tax of Nestorianism who by the word God understanding Christ himself by name Chap 18. of this Section should say that he raised Christ or did any like thing about him for it would be all one as if he should say the Son of God raised Christ But what need more words When the very Scripture explaineth it self for what it in one place attributeth to God simply named it elsewhere openly attributeth to the Father either expressing the very name of the Father or describing him whom God raised by the appellation of his Son If therefore there were any obscurity or ambiguity in those places wherein the raising of Christ is simply attributed unto God without the addition of any other note implying that it was spoken of the Father yet would the other places shew that they are to be understood of the Father For the obscure passages are to be explained by the plain ones the confused ambiguous passages by the distinct ones But there is no ambiguity no obscurity in the word God since there can no place of the Scripture be alleaged where the name God put subjectively and also distinguished from Christ both which happen in these Testimonies is taken of any other but the Father Now whereas certain Testimonies of the Scripture are alleaged wherein the raising of Christ seemeth to be attributed to himself as that he himself said that he would in three dayes raise up the Temple namely of his Body John 2.20 21. and that he had power both to lay down his soul and to take or receive the same again for so the greek word may indifferently be rendered John 10.18 These passages evince no other than that Christ was the cause of his Resurrection and that it was so put in his hands as I may say that it could be taken away from him and interrupted by none After which manner the same Christ saith in Luke That he that shall lose his Soul shall find it chap. 9.24 or quicken it chap. 17.33 And John saith of them who believed in Christ and so are born of God that the word namely Christ Gave them Power to become the Sons of God that is to become immortal John 1.13 For othrewise so few Testimonies whereof the first as every one seeth is altogether figurative ought at no hand to be opposed to so many and so evident Testimonies and Reasons drawn from thence wherewith it is evinced that this action is properly to be attributed not to Christ but to the Father Indeed more might be said of these two places which are alleaged to the contrary but it is not now our intention and work to confute the Arguments of the Adversaries but with Arguments to assert our own Opinion Wherefore let it now suffice to have touched these places We Meddle not here with the exception of two Natures in Christ for the intelligent Reader if he shall consider both our Argument or Arguments rather and also what we have spoken of that distinction in the former chapters will easily understand that it cannot here have place CHAP. XXX The thirtieth Argument That Christ is called the Image of the invisible
remission of sins was made judge of the quick and dead Again How often do the Apostles commend the exceeding great love and bounty of God exhibited in Christ Jesus to mankind But what more illustrious argument could there have been of this love then that the most high God should willingly be made man for mans sake Wherefore then is there so great silence in those places concerning this thing Namely because it never was neither was there any that we may briefly add this thing also cause which did require that the most high God the creator of Heaven and earth should assume flesh For as much as the man Christ Jesus being asisted by divine power was able to performe and did really performe when he was upon earth all things that belonged unto our salvation both in teaching and also in working miracles and finally in obeying his Father in all things and was able also to performe and did so indeed performe by the same divine power whatsoever things are required to the perfecting of our Salvation But who dares to say that God would admit a thing so contrary to his Majesty without the greatest cause or rather necessity although at length it were possible for his nature But we will not enlarge on this matter because these things are here and there handled in our Arguments that belong to this place But if any one desire to see this also more fully explained he may read elsewhere * See Socin in his fragments page 18. c. in ours CHAP. XXXIII Arg. 33 The holy Spirit was given unto Christ The three and thirtieth Argument That the holy Spirit was given unto Christ VVE will make the third Argument this that the holy Spirit was given by God unto Christ of which thing we do not read â—nly in one place of holy Scripture For both in the Old Testament chiefly in Isaiah there are some testimonies of this thing and also in the New where some places are likewise cited out of the Old For so speaketh Isaias in the beginning of the 11th Chapter And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse and a branch shall grow out of his roots And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him the Spirit of wisdom and understanding the Spirit of counsel and might the Spirit of knowledge and piety or as it is in the Hebrew of the fear of the Lord. Which all both see and confess to be spoken of Christ Likewise in the beginning of the 42d Chapter God speaketh of the same Christ Behold my servant whom I uphold mine elect in whom my soul delighteth I have put my Spirit upon him Which words are cited by Christ Matth. 12.17 And Chap. 61.1 the Prophet bringeth in Christ speaking after this manneâ— The Spirit of the Lord is upon me for that the Lord hath anointed me Which words Christ himself testifieth to be fulfilled in him Luke 4.18 c. But in the same Gospel we read how the holy Spirit descended on Christ when he was baptised of John and abode upon him Matth. 3.16 Luke 3.22 and John 1.32 33. Whence Luke in the beginning of his fourth Chapter saith That Jesus being full of the holy Spirit went up out of Jordan And Peter with the same Writer testifieth Acts 10.38 That God had anointed him with the holy Spirit and with power Whence Christ proveth that he cast out Devils in or by the Spirit of God which thing also Peter Acts 10. doth plainly shew and accuseth the Pharisees of blasphemy against the holy Spirit that they durst to ascribe to Beelzebub the Prince of Devils such kind of miracles as were done by the very power of the holy Spirit Matth. 12.28.31 Mark 3. compare vers 30. with the foregoing And Luke saith Acts 1.2 That Christ in the same day wherein he was taken up gave commandment to the Apostles by the holy Spirit that is by the motion of the holy Spirit For neither did he make use of the ministry of the holy Spirit by whose intervening help he gave commandments to his disciples although others by transposition connect the words by the holy Spirit with the following whom he had chosen whereof it is not necessary to dispute in this place For as to our purpose the force of the words will be the same to wit that Christ by the motion of the holy Spirit chose the Apostles Neither is it a wonder seeing that he was the Spirit of wisdom and understanding the Spirit of counsel the Spirit of knowledge that is who produced Wisdom Understanding Counsel Knowledge and bestowed it on Christ as appears from Isa 11. a place cited by us But that we may from hence demonstrate that Christ is not the most high God we will not now use that reason that by this means something was given unto him by God the Father which Argument we have * Chap. 18. of this Sect. elsewhere explained but this that he would not truly have stood in need of the holy Spirit if he were the most high God especially if that Opinion of the Adversaries be laid down that the holy Spirit is a Person distinct from the Father and the Son For what help I pray you can the holy Spirit yield unto the most high God What is there that the most high God cannot perform of himself For it is not what they say that Christ's humane Nature needed the assistance of the holy Spirit For that I may not urge that now that those things are spoken simply of Christ that are not to be spoken if he were the most high God as of whom they are simply to be denyed What need was there of the help of the holy Spirit the third Person of the Deity as they will have it unto the humane Nature if the very same was personally joyned to the second Person of the Deity if the whole fulness of the divine Essence as they interpret that place Col. 2.9 did dwell therein bodily if as the same persons judge that divine Nature did bestow all the supernatural Gifts upon the humane that hapned unto it if that did either communicate unto it all its Properties or at least the full knowledge of all things as the major part of the Adversaries judge Whether or no the holy Spirit could add any thing to this store Wherefore I pray is Christ deciphered rather by the holy Spirit than by his own Nature either to have cast out Devils or to have commanded any thing or to have been endued with Wisdom Understanding Counsel Might Knowledge the Fear of the Lord The Defence of the Argument SOme one will perhaps say that therefore those things are rather attributed to the holy Spirit than to the divine Nature or Person of Christ because they belong unto Christs Sanctification and that Sanctification although common to the whole Trinity is properly ascribed to the holy Spirit But they speak thus not only without reason but even contrary to reason We
will not now rehearse that that Christ's Sanctification cannot be rather attributed to the holy Spirit than to the Father to whom the same is so ascribed * John 10.36 that it is urged as a cause why Christ is his Son For hence it would follow if the the same agree rather to the holy Spirit than to the Father that the holy Spirit would be rather the Father of Christ than God himself who both is the Father of Christ and is every where in the new Testament so called That we will say here which is proper to this place if any reason can be imagined why that which is common to all the Persons should notwithstanding be ascribed rather to one than to another that here would be great cause why this action is rather to be ascribed to the Son than to any other Person and indeed a double cause The one is that most strict conjunction which agreeth unto the Son according to his humane Nature as the Adversaries Opinion urges The other is that the same Adversaries will have the Son to be the natural Wisdom and Power of God by which he makes all things and hither they bring those words which in Prov. 8. are spoken abstractively and in general touching Wisdom and also those which we read of Christ 1 Cor. 1.24 But unto which divine Person would it rather agree to bestow on the humane Nature of Christ Wisdom Understanding Counsel Knowledge than to that which was nearest unto that Nature and is the natural Wisdom of God himself To what would it better agree than to the natural Vertue and Power of God to do all those stupendious works by the humane Nature All those things therefore are rather to be attributed to the divine Nature of Christ than to the holy Spirit Besides we demand of them that make use of this kind of exception whether or no they determine that the holy Spirit contributed more to the bestowing of those Gifts upon the humane Nature than the divine Person of Christ himself or as much the one as the other Person If that they overthrow their own Opinion if this the Scripture For if they admit that either there was not so much power in the divine Person of Christ to perform the same as was in the holy Spirit or not so great a will Neither can be spoken of it if Christ were the most high God and indeed of the same Essence with the holy Spirit But if they admit this there will be no evident cause why it should be expresly attributed to the holy Spirit that he bestowed those Gifts on the man Christ and no where to the divine Person or Nature of Christ himself Wherefore this exception hath there no place and consequently neither the distinction of a humane and divine Nature in Christ For this very thing we demand why was the holy Spirit given to the humane Nature if that were personally united to the divine Nature CHAP. XXXIV Arg. 34 Christ was tempted of the Devil The four and thirtieth Argument That Christ was tempted of the Devil THe fourth Argument of this kind is this that Christ as the History of the Gospel declareth was tempted of the * Mat. 4.1 c. Mark 1.12 Luke 4.1 c. Devil and sollicited to worship him and that he was to this very end namely that he might be tempted of the Devil led by the holy Spirit into the wilderness For this would by no means have hapned if Christ had been the most high God For first what is more unworthy of God than to expose himself to this impious and wicked Enemy whom for the contempt of his Majesty most clearly heretofore seen he had thrust out of Heaven to be tempted and sollicited to the adoration of him and so to offer himself of his own accord to be mocked of the Devil Again to what purpose should Christ do this was it that it might appear that the most high God was able to endure and overcome the temptations of the Devil was there any one who could make any doubt thereof so that there should need any tryal thereof Furthermore how durst the Devil attempt so great a matter I will not now mention that the Devils tremble at the sight of the divine Majesty †Jam. 2.19 inasmuch as they are afraid at the memory of him in that they were by him cast out of Heaven and thrust down to Hell For feign you now in the wicked spirit who is very conscious both of the Wrath and invincible Power of God and of the bonds wherein he is held by him as much boldness and impudency as you please yet must you withal confess that he is exceeding cunning and I would this were not to be confest But how can it be that a most cunning spirit should tempt the most high God and endeavour to seduce him and conceive in his mind such a project as that he should sollicite him to a thing most unworthy and detestable namely the adoration of the Devil For can it be either that he should attempt a thing which he well knoweth to be impossible or should not clearly perceive that this thing is altogether impossible Neither of these things are incident to him that hath so much as a grain of wit much less could it happen to a most subtil and cunning spirit Moreover when he saith If thou art the Son of God command that these stones become loaves And again If thou art the Son of God cast thy self down He sufficiently sheweth that his intention is to make Christ by some means to begin to doubt whether he be indeed the Son of God whom he had a little before * Mat. 3. â—1 heard from Heaven that he was and consequently to seek further proofs of a thing some way doubtful But how could he hope by any means whatsoever to effect this with such a Son of God as was begotten out of the divine Essence For do we think that an enemy most practised in this kind of fighting who is commonly called the Author of a thousand cunning tricks did here use such a kind of tempting as was the unfittest of all to deceive and so made use of arms so vain and ridiculous to assail a most valiant and wise Captain What would Satan get if by any reasons he should endeavour to perswade even a common man who is well in his wits to doubt of himself whether he was a man and not rather something inferiour to a man Would not this rather be a sport than a temptation But it would be much more ridiculous by any reason whatsoever to go about to perswade the Son of God begotten out of the divine Essence that he should doubt whether he be the Son of God or not But you will understand that thing is far otherwise if you observe that Christ was pronounced by God to be his Son in such a manner as did not belong to his Essence and which was indeed
words unto Isaiah but only by Isaiah But the Lord did not only speak them by Isaiah but also as appeareth by the Prophecy it self to Isaiah because he spake openly by him as one person doth to another which is neither here nor elsewhere attributed to the holy Spirit For if the holy Spirit is read to have said any thing to any one it is found to have no otherwise come to pass than because somethings were declared to some one from God by the intervening of some Prophet For in that the Prophets spake by divine Inspiration therefore the holy Spirit is said to have spoken by them But when God spaketh openly to any one or an Angel sustaining his person the holy Spirit is not said to have spoken to him And thus much concerning our first Argument CHAP. II. The second Argument That it is no where in holy Scripture commanded that we should adore or invocate the holy Spirit yea there is not so much as any example thereof LEt the next Argument be this that we are no where either enjoyned or any way admonished in the holy Scripture to adore or invocate the holy Spirit Yea so far it is that there is any precept or admonition concerning this thing that there is not so much as one example of any man there to be found which hath done it Now though it is said in that which is called the Apostles Creed that we are to believe in the holy Spirit as many of the Antients did in like manner say that we are to believe in the Catholick Church and in the other things that are there mentioned yet is it no where expresly said in the holy Scripture that we ought to believe in the holy Spirit or that any one did believe in him But were the holy Spirit the most high God how could it be that all those things should not be openly enjoyned and many examples of them found in holy men first because these things would be necessary to be known and practised of all men to salvation were the holy Spirit the most high God Again because these things are not only often but most openly writ concerning the Father but also concerning the Son there are partly precepts partly admonitions and very many examples although we have shewn that he is not the most high God How much more therefore would there be many examples extant concerning the holy Spirit were he the most high God The Defence of the Argument Arg. 2 The Scripture speaks nothing of worshipping the holy Spirit INdeed the Adversaries endeavour sometimes a by certain consequences to evince that these things are some way contained in the holy Scripture but here we shall not deal with consequences but as we have taught with open precepts that might be evident to every one though otherwise he were but a simple man As for Invocation some imagine they have an example thereof both in Paul 1 Cor. 13. ult who wisheth to the Corinthians The communion of the holy Spirit and also in John Rev. 1.4 who wisheth to the seven Asian Churches Grace and peace to the seven Spirits that are before the Throne of God But they are exceedingly mistaken for as to the wish of Paul it is one thing to wish that the communion of the holy Spirit should be with men another thing to invocate the holy Spirit himself for the first is no other than to wish that the holy Spirit should be communicated unto men or being cummunicated should abide with them For neither doth the Apostle take the communion of the holy Spirit actively as if he wished that the holy Spirit should communicate something otherwise he would have added the name of something which he would have to be communicated to the Corinthians by the holy Spirit but as we have already hinted passively Thus the communion of the Blood of Christ and the communion of the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 is taken where there is the same word in the Greek as in that place 2 Cor. 13. ult For whilst the Apostle wisheth the communion of the holy Spirit to the Corinthians he explaineth in what manner chiefly he desireth that God and Christ should testifie their Grace and Love towards them namely in giving his holy Spirit to them or in cherishing and augmenting the same already given unto them And indeed it would be a wonder if Paul should here wish for something from the holy Spirit as a divine person that he should so often have omitted the mention of him elsewhere in the like prayers Of which matter more hereafter As to the wish of John the very number of those spirits sufficiently hinteth that this place maketh nothing to the invocation of the holy Spirit whom they would have to be the third Person in the Godhead For then we should make seven spirits instead of one so that for three Persons of the Deity we should have nine Which when others perceived they said that by these spirits is to be understood the various power of God or as they speak the various gift of the holy Spirit And therefore it is all one as if John should pray for Grace and Peace from the holy Spirit himself But besides that the Adversaries agree not among themselves concerning this matter for some by that name understand seven chief Angels of God others the manifold providence of God and Christ what is there that evinceth that this vertue proceedeth from the holy Spirit which is a third Person of the Deity and that he is invocated when John prayeth for Grace and Peace from those seven Spirits of God There is not the least hint thereof in the Revelation where mention is several times made of those seven spirits See besides the very place of the first chapter chap. 3.1 4.5 5.6 which two places compare with Zach. 4.2 10. from whence they are in a manner taken In these places thou shalt see those spirits called the spirits of God they are said to stand before the Throne Christ is said to have them as eyes and horns For they are to him instead of eyes because by them he overseeth and taketh care of his Disciples and provideth for them and instead of horns because by them he pusheth his enemies and driveth them away and chaseth them from his People What hint is here of the holy Spirit that should be a third Person of the Deity Doth not the thing it self shew that if the manifold vertue and efficacy of God which he hath communicated with Christ be to be understood John whilst he wisheth grace and peace from those spirits doth so mention them as if they were certain persons distinct from God and Christ yet in the mean time doth only declare the means manner whereby he desireth that grace peace should proceed from God to the Churches and so doth tacitly repeat the invocation of God himself whom he had before named and whose spirits they principally are and to whom they do
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
this world are become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ And chap. 12.10 Now is come salvation and strength and the Kingdom of our God and the Power of his Christ Why not also of the holy Spirit For neither may any one say that in the name of our God the holy Spirit is included For as we have above * Chap. i. of this Section seen neither is the holy Spirit any where called God in the Scripture and he is here called our God whose â—hrist or Anointed Jesus is for it is said and the power of his Christ that is the Christ of our God But Jesus is not the Christ of the holy Spirit nor is so any where called but the Christ of God the Father as is very apparent from the second Psalm For neither was he anointed of the holy Spirit but with the holy Spirit of God namely the Father Acts 10.38 and also Isa 42.1 Mat. 12.17 Isa 61.1 Luke 4.18 Hitherto belong also those words chap. 14.4 These are redeemed from among men the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb why not also to the holy Spirit Llike things are read of them which have a part in the first resurrection chap. 20.6 But they shall be Priests of God and of Christ why not also of the holy Spirit So also chap. 21.22 For the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the Temple of it and ver 23. for the Glory of God did lighten it and the Lamb is the Light thereof and chap. 22 1. proceeding out of the Throne of God and of the Lamb and ver 3. But the Throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it In which places there is no cause why the holy Spirit should be omitted if he be a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son but equal unto both Now that we may come to other sacred Writers what is more clear than those salutations of the Apostle Paul which are extant in the beginning of all his Epâ—stles Grace and peace unto you from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ Neither is that clause much unlike which is extant Ephes 6.23 Peace be to the Brethren and Love with Faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ We saw also a Salutation like to these of Paul in the second Epistle of John ver 3. But why doth not Paul so much as once wish grace and peace to the Faithful from the holy Spirit Was his grace less necessary to the faithful though he were the most high God or was he less the Author of that peace or felicity which Paul wished to the Faithful or less worthy to whom he should expresly give the honour of invocation then God the Father of Christ Certainly even this alone ought to admonish every man that he should not think of any third person of the Deity Now that the same Paul doth elsewhere pray for the communion of the holy Spirit that as we have seen in the former chapter maketh nothing to the invocation of the holy Spirit We have likewise given an answer to those words of the Revelation where John prayeth for Grace and Peace to the Church from the seven spirits which are before the Throne of God Add hereunto those prayers of â—he Apostle Paul for the Thessalonians 1 Thes 3 11. Now God himself even our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ direct our way unto you and 2 Thes 2.15 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God even our Father who hath loved us c. Add also those chap. 1. ult According to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ There are also other places extant in the same Apostle where there is no mention made of the holy Spirit when God the Father and Christ are named Thus Colos 2.2 he rehearseth the Mystery of God even the Father and of Christ And 2 Thes 1.1 he writeth to the Church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ So 1 Tim. 1.1 he saith that he was an Apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour aâ—â— the Lord Jesus Christ who is our hope For neither may any one think that the same person is here described for besides the very form of the speech the custome of the Apostle every where distinguishing God from Christ and the collation of other places containing the same sense sheweth that God the Father is described by the name of God the Saviour See the beginning of the second Epistle to the Corinthians and also of those which are extant to the Galatians Ephesians Collossians as also the beginning of â—he latter Epistle to the same Timotheus and to Titus in which last place he describeth God in the same manner as he doth here whilst he calleth him Our Saviour For neither is that word proper to Christ alone It doth in the first place agree to God to save and by his means likewise to others and especially to Christ whom he hath raised and sent to be a Saviour and afterwards exalted by his right hand See Acts 5.31 and 13.23 1 John 4.14 compared with vers 9.10 Hence God is called a Saviour in the same Epistle to Timothy Chap. 2.3 Where he is manifestly enough distinguished from Christ in the two following verses And Chap. 4.10 Tit. 2.3 4. where he openly distinguiâ—â—eth God the Saviour also from Christ in the two following verses Which is done likewise in the last verse of Jude where it is said To the only wise God our Saviour by Jesus Christ our Lord be glory c. Wherefore that we may returne to our place taken out of the first epistle to Timothy two different persons namely the Father and the Son without any mention of the holy Spirit are joyned together The like is done in the same epistle elsewhere For to omit that place chap. 5.21 Which pertaineth to the second rank before appointed by us Paul speakes thus chap. 6.13 I give thee charge in the sight of God who quickneth all things and before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good confession c. And in the second Epistle to the same Timothy chap. 4.1 I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdome c. There are also the like words used by the same Apostle Eph. 5.5 Where he denyeth that any fornicator or unclean person or covetous person hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God And Tit. 2.13 where he mentioneth the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ For whereas certain adversaries because of the unity of the article set before the name of God and Christ contend that the same person is designed by that name they aâ—e therein exceedingly mistaken For the unity of the article doth not alwayes denote the unity of the subject but oftentimes the conjunction of diverse subjects as we have taught
be concluded concerning the Father For that he in a place like to these two which we have cited out of Luke 9. and Rev. 3. is omitted and the Angels only mentioned namely Luke Chap. 12.8 where Christ saith Also I say unto you whosoever shall confess me before men him shall the Son of man also confess before the Angels of God c. I answer that mention is here made of the Angels only because they alone among the heavenly persons shall be really present in judgment when Christ shall either confess or deny their names that are here spoken of But in the places before alleaged by us because menâ—ion is made of the Father likewise it appeaâ—eth that Christ and Paul intended to mention all the heavenly persons whose sight we ought to reverence and before whom it is most honourable to be praised most dishonourable to be reproved and rejected Arg. 3 the holy Spirit is often not joyned with God Christ and so not to pass by them who either are or shall hereafter be present by their power only Whence it followeth that the holy spirit could not have been omitted in such places if he had been a divine person but should have been named in stead of the Angels or if it had pleased the Scripture to name them also he should have been set before them Now let us shew that other things are wont to be joyned with God and Christ whilst the name of the holy spirit is omitted For this we have a notable place in the Revelation out of which we have before alleaged many testimonies namely Chap. 3.12 where Christ promiseth a reward to him that overcometh in these words I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the City of my God new Jerusalem which cometh down out of Heaven from my God and my new name Where you see that between God and Christ or rather the name of both the New Jerusalem and the name of it is interposed Why did he not likewise say that he would write upon him the name of the holy spirit Why the name of the New Jerusalem rather than of the holy spirit if he be the most high God We will shut up all our proofes with that famous place Heb. 12.22 23 24. where not only Angels are joyned with God and Christ but also pious men partly alive partly dead or their spirits and certain other sacred things to which Christ hath given an access unto Christians but the mention of the holy Spirit is altogether omitted For thus there speaketh that divine Writer But ye are come unto Mount Sion and unto the City of the living God the heavenly Jerusalem and to an innumerable company of Angels to the general assembly and Church of the first-born which are written in Heaven and to God the judge of all and to the spirits of just men made perfect and to Jesus the Mediator of the new Covenant and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of Abel Who would believe that in so large a catalogue of persons who for their soveâ—aign excellency may be called divine the holy Spiâ—it could have been omitted if he were such a divine person as the Father or Christ Neither may any one say that under the name of God the Judge of all the holy Spirit is comprehended For this would â—e some way tollerable could but one plain place of the Scripture be alleaged wherein the holy Spirit is called God Again who perceiveth not from the places which were both above and also a little before in great number alleaged that the name of God put subjectively doth denote the Father and that he is in that manner distinguished both from all other persons also from Christ himself Neither can it seem likely unto any one that the Father was heâ—e omitted whom we never find in like places to be passed by But he was no where mentioned unless there where mention is made of God the Judge of all Neither may any one say that the Father indeed is understood yet not he alone but also the holy Spirit For if more persons were understood the person of Christ no less than that of the holy Spirit ought to be included in that name according to the opinion of the Adversaries touching the persons of the Deity But the person of Christ the Mediator is openly distinguished from that God as being afterwards mentioned apart Besides it is at no hand to be granted that there are many persons of God and not also many Gods and Judges But here mention is made of God the Judge of all and not of Gods the Judges of all But some one will perhaps object That if the reason drawn from this place were of force it would not only follow that the holy Spirit is no person but also no sacred or divine thing such as we see â—eâ—e to be recited or at least the things here mentioned are mroe divine than the holy Spirit which we our selves will not aâ—mit We answer That this Objection would have some strength if all things at least the most divine had been reckoned up as we see the most divine and holy persons are all reckoned up and also if here were the same reason of all divine things as is of persons But the thing is otherwise of the good things that are promised us of God by Jeâ—us Christ namely of immortality and remission of sins there is no express mention made but only the place thereof is figuratively mentioned namely Mount Sion and the heavenly Jerusalem and the middle efficient cause thereof namely Christ the Mediator of the new Covenant and the sprinkling of Blood which speaketh better things than that of Abel and the prime efficient cause of both even God In like manner neither was the holy Spirit mentioned which is contained among the good things which are promised to us Namely because he would reckon up all the persons with whom we have some conjunction communion by right of the Christian religion so that we may be rightly said to have access unto them but the divine author intended to mention only those sacred and divine things which are in some sort without us and elegantly answer and are in some sort opposed to those things to which the people of Israel had heretofore access when the Law was given them out of Mount Sinai by Moses the Mediator But in this number is not the divine efficacy or virtue which floweth from God to us and is sent into our hearts so neither the remission of sins and immortality But were the holy Spirit a person we had come to him no less than to the Father and should have intimate communion and society with him neither could he by any means be omitted in so large and accurate an enumeration of those persons with whom we have conjunction But it is no marvel that â—e is here omitted seeing John as we saw before describing our communion with
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
it may easily seem truth to any one by it self Christ himself shewed it and represented it by a certain external breathing when after his resurrection * See Joh. 20.22 appearing to his disciples he said Receive ye the holy Spirit For John relates that he being about to utter those words breathed into or upon the disciples For what other thing would he shew by that action than that he was about in a more diviâ—e and more secret manner to breath on them and inspire into them some heavenly power which what it should be he taught presently in express words When he added Receive ye the holy Spirit But besides the same thing is thence manifest because the holy spirit in the plâ—ce above noted by us and the like to them is taken in that sense in which at that time it was taken commonly among the Jewes For do we think that John Baptist when speaking to the people â—e said that Christ should baptize with the holy spirit did use that term in a signification unknown to the people or that the people hearing the same did not understand what John said But this is that spirit which Christ promised to them that ask and which was afterwards given to the Apostles and other disciples as is understood as well by the thing it self as also by the place Acts 1.4 5. is manifest What else meant Peter when he discoursed to the people of the holy spirit newly poured out and promised the same to the auditors Vers 38. if they would repent and be baptized into the name of Jesus Christ do we think that he used the word holy Spirit in a signification unknown to them that is that he would not be understood or at least was not understood of them In like manner when after Chap. 5. in the Senate of the Jews he said We are his witnesses of these things and so is also the holy spirit which God hath given to them that obey him do we think that he used the word holy spirit otherwise than those Elders of the Jewes were wont to take it Or did not he therefore mention these things that the adversaries well understanding what the term holy spirit signyfied and how much was to be given to its testimony might give credit to his sayings and the rest of the Apostles The same is to be held of the words of the same Peter used in the house of Cornelius in which he affirmed that Christ was anointed with the holy Spirit that by this means he might conciliate to him divine authority What that both John and Christ in him have declared the words by which the holy Spirit was more obscurely designed by the simple word either of Spirit or holy Spirit as appears by the places brought by us John 7.39 and Chap. 14.16 17. to which add vers 26. of the same chap. and 15.26 Now this doth sufficiently shew that the signification of that word was then commonly known But what did the Jews of that time commonly understand by the name of the holy Spirit did they perhaps mean a Divine person Why then comes it to pass that not so much indeed as any footsteps of that opinion remained among the Jews after that time nor doth it appear in those who were next unto those times Did they that they might disquiet the Christians forswear all their opinions comonly received by all You can never perswade this to an intilligent man What then shall we believe they understood by the name of the holy Spirit but divine inspiraâ—ion to wit that which the original both of the Hebrew word by which the Spirit is noted and of the Greek and Latine shews and which among the Gentiles also however otherwise erring in the thing it self was understood by the name of the divine Spirit For both the Hebrew word Ruach the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Latine Spiritus from Spirando properly signify a wind or blast Wherefore nothing is more apt than that to signify that divine inspiration or power which is breathed into the hearts of men from heaven Which signification as we have said was not unknown even to the Gentiles themselves although in the mean time they did most grievously erre in the thing taking a false inspiration for a true one a divelish for a divine But this pertaines not by it self to the force and significaton of the word But now if the name of the holy Spirit be taken in those places of which we treat for that divine inspiration or some power which from God flowes into men why is the holy Spirit said to be given to us or further to be received or had by us oneâ—y by a Metonymy or Metalepsis Why is not the holy Spirit properly so called as far indeed as that word in this matter may be taken properly acknowledged to be given to us For if it be not given properly either it is therefore because this holy inspiration may not be said to be the holy Spirit but only improperly to wit by a Metonâ—my of the efficient cause or because not properly but by a Metalepsis only it may be said to be given that is only in respect of the gifts and effects flowing from him But both is false For as to the former those things which are called by some name only by a Metonimy of the efficent cause do not by themselves deserve that name but therefore only are so called because they come from the efficient cause to which this name doth by it self and in the first place agree But that power which is inspired into men by God doth of it self deserve to be termed the holy Spirit and accordingly is so called without any regard had that it comes from such a cause which properly may â—e called the holy Spirit No man doubts that it is of it self holy and may be so called But that it also of it sâ—lf deserve the name of Spirit doth in like manner appear from the things already spoken to wit because it is inspired by God into men and â—en are breathed upon by it Neither is it to the purpose that meâ—â—phorically or by reason of similitude it is termed Spirit For in this place the propriety of the word is not so looked upon as opposed to a Metaphor but as to a Metonimy Since this now is the question But if thou wilt therefore say this inspiration is improperly termed the holy Spirit because it is called Spirit metaphorically see by what meanes thou wilt defend that that third person of the deity is properly called the holy Spirit For therefore also they think that person to be termed Spirit because he is breathed by the other two but not therefore because he is a spiritual substance otherwise that appellation would no more agree to that person then to the other two What then Is that person properly breathed or blown out Certainly far less doth it agree to him to
that he would bestow the Father and Son and himself also upon us But if you look on the some of the Adversaries opinion it will be very lawfull to pray after that manner And certainly believers when they ask spiritual gifts do not intend that those things be given which may by name come from the third person of the Deity as if it were not all one to them whether the same come immediately either from the Father or the Son For what other thing do they then seek than that being endued with divine virtue they may be filled either with more plentiful knowledge of divine mysteries or some coelestial joy or singular fervour of piety or other heavenly gifts All which that they may immediately come as well from the Father and Son as from the supposed person of the holy Spirit is easily understood by all Wherefore if the holy Spirit be the most high God there is no cause why those gifts should be rather called the holy Spirit than the Father or Son Or when the same are asked or given of God the holy Spirit should rather be said to be asked or given than the Father and Son Lastly If the holy Spirit were the most high God he should not be given by another person nor commanded to be asked but from himself rather as both the chief and proper fountain those gifts should at least somewhere be commanded to be asked But that is no where done In some sort a double reason doth lye hid in this one Argument One That the gifts flowing from him are no where commanded to be asked of him as neither any thing else of which matter something hath been said above * Chap. 2. of this Section so that there is no need I should here stay on it Another That the holy Spirit is commanded to be asked and said to be given of another to wit the Father For from hence it follows that the holy Spirit cannot chose but distribute his gifts when the Father so wills and on the contrary not distribute them when the Father will not For if he could distribute them when the Father is unwilling or not distribute them though the Father be willing it were better to ask the holy Spirit himself that he would bestow them on us than the Father Besides that it would thence follow that the Father is not the most high God as who hath not all gifts absolutely in his own power and although he would give some gifts to men yet he cannot but by anothers consent But now if the holy Spirit cannot but distribute his gifts when the Father will and not distribute them when the Father will not and so necessarily conform himself to anothers will he is not the most high God For the most high God is altogether at his own will at his own dispose nor doth he ever fashion himself after anothers will especially necessarily For he should be in anothers power and so acknowledge another superiour by which very thing he would cease to be the most high God Now if you say that the holy Spirit indeed cannot do otherwise than the Father will but that cometh to pass not because he is in the Fathers power but because he is of the same numerical Essence and Will with him so that he cannot otherwise either will or doe than the Father willeth or doth See into what difficulties and snares you cast your self For if the Father and holy Spirit by reason of that unity necessarily will and do the same thing as indeed it cannot otherwise be if they were of the same Essence when the Father willed to send and so hath sent the holy Spirit the holy Spirit also willed to send and consequently hath indeed sent himself and on the contrary when the holy Spirit would be sent the Father himself also would be sent when the holy Spirit would in a corporeal shape descend upon Christ and did accordingly descend the Father also would descend in the same and did accordingly descend And what end at length will there be of absurdities But it is necessary that they cast themselves into Quagmires yea into Precipices who of their own accord turn from a plain and simple Truth so clearly expressed in holy Scriptures which they do who contend that the holy Spirit himself is not given us but his effect only We following that strait path having shewen that it follows from this namely that the holy Spirit is given to men that he is not the supream God now we shall also sâ—ew that he is not a person Now this hence is easily manifest that no person at the same time can be so given to many much less to innumeâ—able men that in very deed he should be and dwell in every one of them And we have already seen that the holy Spirit is thus given to believers dispersed through the whole world But that a person cannot be given in the said manner is hence manifest that that person is either infinite or finite if infinite tâ—ere is no necessity that it be given to men that it may exist and dwell in them yea it cannot indeed be given since it alwayes was in them and by reason of its infinitie could not but be so to omit other difficulties If finite that I urge not that it cannot by the adversaries be acknowleged for the most high God it cannot be so given at once to many and consequently to innumerable men that in very deed it should exist in every one otherwise it would be torn into parts which very thing it self would destroy that person It is easie now to observe that that instance of the Adversaries fetcht from the giving of Christ hath no force For they say that Christ also was given to us Isa 9.6 Some add also that of Paul Rom. 8.32 That God will with Christ give us all things But they say that Christ is both a person and besides the most high God That he is not the most high God we have shewn before and it may be evinced even out of those very places which are alleaged For the most high God is neither a little one nor is born nor is the Son of God he cannot be delivered for us no not indeed by himself much less by another he is not such as that he could be spared or not spared But besides that we may mind what is proper to this place when it is said by Isaias that a son is given to us it is not signified that he is so given to us that he may be indeed in us or posessed by us in any manner in which sence the holy Spirit is said to be given to us but that he is given for our profit or for our cheifest good and benefit which easily appears from the preceeding verse where in the same sense he is said to be a little one born to us For neither is Christ said to be born to us that he should exist in us or be possessed by
in Greek in water only in Luke 3.16 and Acts 11.16 the particle In is omitted and it is said simply and without an Hebraism that he baptized with water Wherefore the same is to be held concerning the place 1 Cor. 12. especially when by the thing it self it may sufficiently appear that the Apostle would demonstrate the unity of Believers by this that all are endued and filled with the same Spirit Which that he might the more significantly express he makes mention also of making to drink For because a man is then fully made partaker of liquor when he is both washed outwardly with it and as it were immersed in it and made to drink it or if you had rather drencht with it that he may be also inwardly filled with it Therefore Paul that he might signifie that Christians were every way replenished with the holy Spirit saith they were so made to drink that they breathed one spirit and were wholly endued with it Which agrees with that of Christ who in John inviting men to the participation of so excellent a gift thus * John 7.37 saith If any man thirst let him come to me and drink understand it of that living water which it is manifest by the things which follow is the holy Spirit Let those †Isa 61.1 Luk. 4.18 Acts 10.38 Heb. 1.9 Psal 45.8 2 Cor 1. 1 John 2.20 27.21 places also be added to these in which either Christ himself is said to be anointed or others are signified to be anointed with the holy Spirit For from all these it is understood that the holy Spirit is not a person much less the most high God Who will say that a person much less the most high God is poured out on men that men are baptized drencht and anointed with it That a man may be said to be anointed with divine Vertue this very thing sufficiently shews because Christ in that place where he is said to be anointed with the holy Spirit is said also to be anointed with Power namely divine Those things that we have said before refute the Metonymy which is feigned to be in these kinds of speech And although if it were admitted it would shew that the holy Spirit is not the most high God For who can believe that the holy Writers in the name of the most high God would so often use such Metonymies and forms of speaking which not only of themselves very much abhor from the nature of the supream Deity but the like of which do not readily occur no not in the names even of other persons either in vulgar speech or in the sacred Writings CHAP. IX The ninth Argument Drawn from those places which argue some partition of the holy Spirit BUt yet we must not altogether depart from the giving of the holy Spirit For the manner of its giving or certain words which in some places are added where there is mention made of that donation yield us yet another argument For 1 John 4.13 We read that God hath given us of his Spirit which signifies that God hath given not all his Spirit but some part of it which cannot befal a person especially divine and so the most higst God For a divine person cannot be distributed into parts and if he were given to any could not be given but whole Perhaps some will say it is read in the Greek that God hath given to us from or of his Spirit which may signifie not that God had indeed given his Spirit it self or some part of it but something flowing from that Spirit For this is often the force of the particle from or of that it signifies the efficient cause in which manner all things are said to be of or from God Rom. 11.36 1 Cor. 8.6 And the holy Conception of Mary to be of or from the holy Spirit Matth. 1.20 But that that interpretation is at no hand to be admitted in this place first a very like place in the same John where the Apostle handles the same thing doth demonstrate Now that is extant about the end of the third Chapter where when he had said being about chiefly to commend Charity that he who keepeth the commandments of God abideth in him and he in him he adds and by this we know that he abideth in us by or from the Spirit which he hath given us Do you see he saith that God hath given to us the Spirit to wit his and by it it is known that he abideth in us Why â—hen saith he not the same in our place Chap. 4.1 where when he had affirmed if we love ane another God abides in us and his love is perfected in us he adds In this we know that we dwell in him and he in us because or that he hath given us of his Spirit The very likeness of the place evinceth that John as he there said that God hath given to us his Spirit so he also here saith the same except here speaking a little more distinctly he sheweth that God hath given to us not his whole Spirit but of it or a part of it Besides the thing it seif requireth it For John whould and ought to express what God hath given to us by which we may certainly know that God dwells in us But he had not expressed that if he had only said Arg. 9 There is given of the Holy Spirit that God hath given to us from or of his Spirit as an efficient cause For what that should be he had only left it to be guessed at by us and thesentence had been maimed like as if one should say God hath given to us from or of himself as an efficient cause Which speech had not been worthy a consideraâ—e man much less the Apostle But that sentence which we have expressed is both perfect and plainly expresseth the thing given and such indeed as may demonstrate most clearly that God dwells in us in some most singular and divine manner and we in him and that theâ—e is a most strait bond of love and conjunction between us and him For how could we more straitly be joyned with him or he with us then when he hath imparted to us of his holy Spirit The same thing which is shewed in those words of John is shewed also in that manner of speaking which Luke together with the Greek Translators of the O d Testament useth describing in Greek the Speech of Peter in which the place is cited out of Joel Acts 2.18 19. For in stead of that which God saith to Joel I will pour out my Spirit it is said in Peters words I will pour out of my Spirit the sense indeed remaining the same but yet so expressed that it may be signified That God would pour out not his whole Spirit upon all flesh and upon their servants and handmaids but as it were some part of it For there is an immense plenty of it with God which is resident in him as in its fountain
presently by mens ears as absurd Some prophets use a more lofty and figurative style than the Apostles which is seen especially in Psalmes and songs For they contain some kind of verse and as is observed by learned men come nearer to the style of Poets than to speech in prose But you shall read no such thing there of God much less ought we to think that the Apostle who scarce riseth above common speech hath in delivering precepts used so bold and unusual a figure if you acknowledge that the holy Spirit is properly a divine inspiration or certain power flowing from God into men you will easily understand that that manner of speaking is not at all absurd For nothing hinders that a divine inspiration especially in this or that man may cease and be extinguished Hence also may be understood that manner of speech concerning the holy Spirit used by John The holy spirit was not yet Because that Jesuit was not yet glorified Arg. 10 from 1 Thes 5.19 John 7 30 Act. 19.3 Which some of the adversaries perceiving not to be agreeable to their opinion of the holy Spirit they have thought it to be thus read The Spirit was not yet given which reading others * See Beza Acts 19.3 of the adversaries have noted and shewed that it is not to be admitted Not much different from this manner of speaking is that which those disciple that were found by Paul at Ephesus used For when Paul had asked of them whether since they believed they had received the holy Spirit they answered John 7.39 that they had not so much as heard whether there were a holy Spirit Let the Adversaries feign here what Tropes they will yet will they never perswade a serious man and one that considers in what manner we are wont to speak of any thing that either John or those disciples could speak so of the holy Spirit if the holy Spirit were God Wil t thou say God is not yet the Father is not yet the Son is not yet because a certain effeâ—t of him is not yet extant among men What author What example is there for it Shall a man say he knowes not whether the most high God be because he hath not heard that certain gifts of his doe happen to men But if you shall think the holy Spirit to be a divine inspiration or a certain power issuing from God to men you will not wonder at those manners of speaking For because Christ being not yet glorified that inspiration was not wont to happen to men although beleevers and afterward also those Ephesian disciples knew not that it was done therefore John indeed said that the holy Spirit was not yet Christ being not yet glorified â—ut those disciples that they â—ad not indeed heard whether there was a holy Spirit CHAP. XI The eleventh Argument From John 15.26 where the holy Spirit is said To proceed from the Father AFter we have drawn Arguments out of those places of Scripture in which those things are said of the holy Spirit which agree not rather to persons than things it remaines that we fetch reasons also from those attributes of the holy Spirit which indeed properly taken agree onely to persons or at least Suppositums but are figuratively attributed to the holy Spirit or first and of themselves agree to Suppositums to other things onely consequently Let that be the first of them that the holy Spirit is said to proceed from the Father Joh. 15.26 There is indeed some Metaphor in the word proceeding which the adversaries also are compelled to acknowledge For to proceed doth properly agree but to men or to living creatures which move themselves from place to place but it hinders not but that we may hence draw an Argument For it is agreed between us and the Adversaries that this word being referred to the holy Spirit denotes its production from the Father by which namely the holy Spirit is in very deed that which it is Arg. 11 from Joh. 15.26 Whence the adversaries would that that procession was from eternity and say that as the Son received his Essence by geneâ—ation from the Father so the holy Spirit received the same by procession of which thing there is no need now to speak more largely It shall be done the Lord helping afterward Lib. 2. Sect. 2. Chap. 1 c. and Sect. 3. Now it is enough to have hinted what we have said For from this that the holy Spiâ—it is said to proceed from the Father and to receive his Essence it is manifest that he is not the most high God For the same reasons for which we have said before * Sect. 2. Chap. 2. that the Son of God is not the most high God because he was begotten of the Father and from him received his Essence For in this case there is the same reason of procession as there is of generation yea as we shall shew in its place that procession devised by the Adversaries is no less generation than that of the Son Wherefore what we have said of the generation of the Son of God is hither also to be transferred Add to those this reason also that Christ signifie that that procession doth even yet continue For he doth not say that the holy Spirit hath proceeded from the Father but that it doth proceed Neither indeed do the more learned adveâ—sarie deny it who have devised such a manner of procession as hath continued from all eternity is to continue unto all eternity Therefore according to their opinion the holy Spirit even yet receives his Essence from the Father and also from the Son and is to receive it unto all ages But it must needs be that the most high God hath already fully had his Essence from all eternity so that he now any more neither hath nor can possibly received it however it be supposed which is impossible that he could at any time receive his Essence from another Besides they who contend that the procession of the holy Spirit of which Christ in John speakes For there is no where else express mention made of it hath continued from all eternity and that it sâ—all continue to all eternity have not considered that Christ speakes of that procession of the holy Spirit by which it should come to pass that the holy Spirit should be sent from him to the disciples and moreover come to them For if you consider the rest of the things spoken of in the same place you will find no other cause why Christ said that the holy Spirit doth proceed from the Father than that he might declare that which he had said whom to wit the Advocate I will send to you from the Father neither do the adversaries seem to deny it But what hath that procession which continues from eternity to eternity common with the sending and coming of the holy Spirit to the disciples yea that would rather hinder this if by that the holy
excellency 20 48 49. Whom being put subjectively 13o. It does in its own nature signifie something more excellent than the bare name Lord 20. It is in innumerable places of the Scripture taken as proper to the Father 42. One God in number cannot directly be predicated of many persons distinct in number 15. Who is to be accounted the most high God 17 18. He is in no wise from another 51. Neither is he dependent upon anothers arbitrary will especially necessaâ—ily 216. He cannot be given for an earnest or pledge 218. He can do all things of himself 53. What it is when God is said to be with one 117. God taken hypostatically or personally and essentially is the same 251 252. He is bestowed by none upon any 205. He is to us an example both of holiness and felicity 308. He can receive commands from none 91. He cannot be sent by any 89 c. In him are all perfections necessarily which can naturally be in him 266. God and Father joyned together by the copulative particle denote the same subject 22 23. Wherefore God is called Father either simply or our Father 20 21. How all things by him are 18 112 113. How fâ—r his power extendeth it self 105. Old age cannot properly be attributed unto Him 109 110. In what sense those things that are proper unto him alone are denied of them that are dependent on him 5. How he doth deliver the Kingdom unto any 128. How he sanctifieth us and how he is sanctified of us 147. It is necessary that He should be One pag. 18. How it is either repugnant or not repugnant to the Scripture to have two Gods pag. 109 110. The Opinion of the Greeks touching the procession of the holy Spirit pag. 43. H. To be ones Head what pag. 124. The opinion of Hilary touching the holy Spirit pag. 183 184. I. The Jewes did acknowledge for God none but him whom Christ called his Father pag. 38. No Image is of the same Essence in number with that whereof it is the Image pag. 139 140. The particle In is often redundant in the Hebrew tongue pag. 221. There is no mention made in the holy Scripture of the Incarnation of the most High God 160 c. There was no need of it for our Salvation 162. The absurdity of it pag. 278 c. 312 c. Whether Incommunicability is to be exprest in the definition of Suppositum pag. 257 258. There is neither any command nor any example in the Scriptre of invocating the holy Spirit 181 c. Whether it was anciently in use pag. 183. Johns scope in penning the Gospel 53. He affordeth many Arguments against the common Doctrine touching the Deity of Christ pag. 53. K. What manner of Knowledge that is wherein Religion consisteth pag. 11. The Knowledge of God is oftentimes includâ—d in the knowledge of Christ and on the contâ—ary 185 186. How the Apostles do exâ—râ—ss the knowledge of an whole Complex or Proposition pag. 11 12. L. What things agree to a Legate or Embassador 131 132. Credit given to a Legate or Embassador is ultimately terminated in the sender of him pag. 71 In what sense one is said to be like himself pag. 140 He that is made Lord by another if he be a God is also made God by another pag. 107 The name of Lord used for Jehovah or Adonai is very often taken in the Scripture as proper to the Father 42. With what difference it is used both of God and Christ 17 18. And how is it by way of excellency attributed to Christ pag. 19 Wherein the Love of God towards us is most of all shewn pag. 162 M. He that is a Man is a person pag. 287 The Miracles of Christ were the most manifest signs of his conjunction with the Father 121. Christ frequently appealeth unto them pag. 121 Modesty hath no place in God pag. 94 Moses taken for the Law delivered by him pag. 217 No Mystery is repugnant to Reason pag. 245 N. The vulgar distinction of Natures in Christ examined 56 c. It overthrows the vulgar opinion touching Christ 64 65. It cannot cause that that thing should be simply denied of the Subject which for another nature is to be simply affirmed of it 33. or that it should be simply distinguished from that which is to be simply predicated of it pag. 33 O. Offices agree to none but Persons pag. 31 What force the word only hath 2 8 c. 36. It belongs to the subject as often as it is imployed to exclude other subjects from the communion of the predicate 7. where it is wont to be placed in the whole sent tence or complex when it is referred to many subjects pag. 10 Opposites include in themselves a tacit contradiction pag. 299 P The parts of the same thing are not wont to be predicated mutually of themselves pag. 284 The parts of substances being disjoyned from each other do become Suppositums pag. 287 Person what 48 51. Whether is it a manner of subsisting or a subsistence 51 258 c. whether the definition of Person namely that it is a first substance intelligent agâ—eeth to it taken only in concreto 260 261. Whether the same definition is more large than its definitum or Person defined 286 c. VVhat a divine Person is 67. VVhether it is a substance 256 257 c. It differs not from the divine Nature 32 51 300 c. The same eason or consideâ—ation of a finite infinite Person 265 c. No Person can at the same time be so given to many that in very deed he should be or dwell in every one of â—hem 216 217. No man is sealed with a Person pag. 219 Power and Spirit are oftentimes coupled in the holy Scripture pag. 198 To heavenly and divine power divine woâ—ship is due pag. 109 The act of Predestination is in the Scripture attributed to the Father only pag. 77 The Present-tenses do among the Latines denote a frequency or custom of action pag. 120 Preterperfect tenses among the Hebrews are frequently taken for present-tenses pag. 120 He that is a Priest cannot be the most High God pag. 132 c. The Priesthood of Christ contains his Royal Power pag. 156 The style of Prophets pag. 225 R. When the same thing is wont to be Repeated by the sacred Writers pag. 25 Things really the same and really distinâ—t what pag. 255 Reason in divine things is not to be rejected pag. 245 What thinâ—s are according to Aristotle distiâ—ct in Reason pag. 301 Redemption how ascribed to the Son pag. 213 Relatives cannot be in the same thing according to the same respect part and time pag. 268 What the right of ruling given to Christ contains pag. 105 The Rising of Christ from the dead is one â—eason amongst others of his filiation 136 137. It doth sometimes comprehend his whole glory pag. 156 S. To sanctifie what it signifies in the Scripture pag. 147 Whether Sanctification is in