and pernicious an Errour as they are pleased to stile it From whence also it appeareth that that is nothing which some here answer namely that Paul said by an Attribution or Appropriation as they call it that that one God is the Father for by this course he had not at all instructed the vulgar sort of Christians but had rather as we have already said intangled them with most grievous errour for of that Attribution which is here held the Vulgar doth not understand the reason since many of the very Learned themselves have not so much as heard of it So that it was not worth the while to use this figure to the detriment of the thing it self In explaining of things all faithful Teachers study clearness and that the more the greater the things are and the greater the danger is that may accrue from obscurity But who was more faithful than the Apostle What was greater than the things treated of What Errour especially if we believe our Adversaries more grievous What Danger more prejuditial Besides what kind of Attribution or Appropriation is this is it such a one that a word of a stricter signification namely The Father should be a larger word and actually comprehending in it many persons namely God be joyned by apposition or simply predicated of it But by what instance will they shew that this may rightly be done Indeed the name of an Individual is sometimes wont to he adjoyned to the name of the Species as the name of Jesus Christ to the word Man but then the name of the Species doth not actually comprehend many Individuals but only denoteth some one Individual comprehended under it But if they say that the Appropriation lies herein namely that the word God which otherwise is common to many persons in number that is to the Father Son and holy Spirit is here taken as proper to one to wit the Father First they take that for granted which is not only controverted but also false and ought to be accounted contrary to these very words of Paul namely that the name God when it is put for the most high God is common to many persons in number so that it may univocally or essentially be predicated of each in which manner they hold that the Father is God and the Son God and the holy Spirit God For since the most high God is but one in number and is so here by Paul said to be he cannot in that manner be predicated of many distinct in number for one in number cannot be univocally predicated of many differing in number since that it is proper only to the Species and the Genus or rather to that which is one in Genus or Species Again by this means that aforesaid Answer to our Argument namely that the Apostle saith not that that one God is the Father only falleth to the ground for if the word God is in this place taken as proper to the Father certainly it is agreeable to his mind to say that that one God is the Father only for if he were not the Father only but also the Son and holy Spirit then the word God would not be taken as proper to the Father but as common to the three Persons Wherefore at the beginning they ought not to deny thââ Paul saith that which we affirm namely That that one God is the Father Only or reciprocally That the Father only is that one God but only to dispute with us concerning the sence of this very assertion Furthermore if the word God is here used as proper to the Father it is either taken by way of excellency and signifieth that Person which is the fountain of the others or without any regard to that excellency is simply put for the Father If the first be said we have already shewn in the foregoing Chapter that they who so speak do either contradict themselves and hold the Father only to be indeed the most high God or say nothing to the purpose If the latter the Apostle had not spoken to the thing in hand for the question was not whether there be one Father but whether there be one God as is manifest from the preceding words of the Apostle though even on the first account the Apostle had not spoken to the matter for the question was not whether there were but one that was the fountain of other persons endued with supream Deity but simply whether there were one or more who indeed had supream Deity and consequently were originally and by themselves capable of Divine Worship Hitherto we have explained and defended one reason chiefly whereby their answer is confuted who denied it to be the meaning of Pauls words That that one God is the Father only Another reason is that if you will say that that one God is not the Father only but also other Persons namely the Son and holy Spirit you must of necessity fall into one of these two absurdities either to say that the Father is not that one God nor likewise the Son nor the holy Spirit or that every one of these Persons is both the Father and Son and holy Spirit for when you assert that the Apostle saith not that that one God is the Father only but only that that one God is the Father either you hold that the expression of the Apostle is not proper but by a Synecdoche one Person of the Trinity is put for the whole Trinity whereas the proper expression would be this That one God is the Father Son and holy Spirit or the whole Trinity or else you suppose this expression That one God is the Father to be proper but yet not such but that we may notwithstanding properly say that one God is the Son that one God is the holy Spirit If you hold the first either every Person of the Trinity is the whole Trinity or is not that one God For thus we may argue That one God is the whole Trinity or the Father Son and holy Spirit joyntly But the Father is that one God therefore the Father is the whole Trinity There is the like reasoning concerning the Son and holy Spirit But if you acknowledge the conclusion to be absurd you must deny the Minor which is partly confirmed out of the Scripture partly out of your Opinion For thus we may reason That one God is the whole Trinity The Father is not the whole Trinity Therefore the Father is not that one God In like manner may we discourse concerning the Son and holy Spirit If you hold the latter we will thus reason That one God is the Father That one God is the Son and holy Spirit Therefore the Son and holy Spirit are the Father and contrariwise Now we add not in the conclusion the particle Some one because the terms are singular But if you will not admit the conclusion as being absurd you must again deny the Minor For thus we will dispute That one God is the Father The Son and holy
grounded on the divine Love and therein chiefly consisted that he was already designed to be the Messias or heavenly or eternal King of the People of God such an one as he after actually became For you will easily understand that this most cunning enemy did not fight so foolishly when he called that in question and that there was no need of a buckler to receive his weapons I at present omit other things which occur in that History of the temptation of Christ as that Satan having brought him into a most high Mountain shewed him all the Kingdoms of this World and the glory thereof as not sufficiently known or not sufficiently observed by his eye to the end that he might the more easily allure him to worship the Devil and that he durst to say before him to this very end All this power will I give â Luke 4.6 thee and the glory thereof for they are delivered to me and to whom I will I give them For it is apparent that Satan understood well enough that he had not to do with the most high God but with him who in respect of his Essence was a Man but out of the singular Love of God was his Son whom because God had of his own accord offered to him to be tempted to the end he might give a proof of his Vertue and Piety he thought it not altogether impossible by his arts to draw him from God But the ingenious Reader will of himself observe both these and other things The Defence of the Argument NEither may any one say that these things which we have deduced from this History do therefore not follow because Christ was tempted according to his humane Nature only and not according to his divine Nature For to omit the repetition of other things that have formerly been often spoken the same absurdities will still follow although you hold that Satan tempted the humane Nature only but personally united to the most high God and joyned by an indissolvable tye and that God willed that this humane Nature should be tempted For it would have been unworthy of the most high God to expose himself in a Nature personally united to him to an impious and detestable Adversary that he might mock him and sollicite him to his worship For the humane Nature could do nothing unless the divine did consent thereunto Wherefore Satan soliciting the humane Nature of Christ to worship him should together have sollicited the divine Nature to consent to so horrid a crime and to permit it unto the humane Nature Likewise it had been supersluous to shew that a Nature personally united to the most high God could endure and vanquish the temptation of Satan For who could make any doubt concerning that matter Whence it is also apparent that Satan could not have the least hope to overcome it For what could Satan believe it possible that the divine Nature should so far forsake the humane personally united to it as to yield to him and commit a most heinous offence and so become lyable to eternal damnation did not Satan perceive that he had to do not only with the humane but also with the divine Nature and that this Nature was to be seduced and the wickedness to be perswaded to it if the humane Nature ought to be overcome What therefore remaineth but to say that Satan had no certain knowledge of that union of the humane Nature with the divine but what Did not Satan who undertook to oppose this very thing that Jesus was the Son of God understand what these words did signifie But if the Opinion of the Adversaries be true they signifie that the man Jesus is one Person with the son of God eternally begotten out of the substance of God Who would believe if as the Adversaries hold the Incarnation of the Son eternally bâgotten out of the Essence of God was foretold in the holy Scripture declared to the Virgin Mary and afterward actually performed and acknowledged by her and others and signified by the heavenly voice of Christ's Baptism that Satan should have no certainty of this very thing especially if he heretofore saw God in Heaven and in him all his Decrees for the Adversaries hold these to be really the same with God or his Essence and consequently understood that the second Person of the Trinity should in those dayes be incarnated But in a thing that is evident there needeth no more to be spoken only we will add this thing that whereas Satan intended to make Christ doubt whether he were the Son of God namely that Son whom he had a little before heard the divine voice pronounce him to be it is not suitable that he should in his temptation pass by that Nature of Christ according to which he was the Son of God But the Adversaries hold this to be the divine Nature Wherefore they must renounce either this opinion or this limitation whereby they restrain this temptation to the humane Nature Now we do not conceive that any discreet man will say that this Argument is drawn from the testimony of the Devil who is a lying spirit For we contrary to the intention of the Devils words urge that that very man whom the Devil tempted was and is the Son of God a little before commended by the heavenly Voice in Baptism Wherefore the Argument is not drawn from the testimony of the Devil as if he had said that very thing we would have but partly from the act of God appointing Christ to be tempted and exposed to the snares of Satan partly from the sence words and intention of Satan as effect which could not have come to pass unless our Opinion were true CHAP. XXXV The five and thirtieth Argument That Christ is the First-born of every Creature THe fifth Argument may be drawn from thence that Christ is called the First-born of every Creature Col. 1.15 and he doth in the same sence call himself the Beginning of the Creation of God Rev. 3.14 Now as for the first the Adversaries hold that it is spoken of Christ according to a divine Nature and is no mean Argument of that very Nature when nevertheless the First-born must of necessity be alwayes contained in the number of them of whom except the Parents it is said to be the first-born and consequently Christ must be comprehended in the number of Creatures whose First-born he is said to be which cannot agree to the most high God The Defence of the Argument FOr whereas they commonly so expound the place as if it were said that Christ was born before every creature this if it be so taken as that Christ should be wholly exempted out of the number of all Creatures is done without any example and contrary to the received use of speaking in the holy Scripture and in ordinary speech Which very thing certain very learned men among the Adversaries have sufficiently perceived For John Piscator although he allow that Exposition as Orthodox doth
manner dwell therein so that it may be rightly said to be the temple of the divine efficacy and virtue seeing God by his efficacy and virtue doth inhabite his temple especially that which is treated of in that place to the Corinths wherefore if any one will concâude that the holy Ghost is God in that our body is his temple he must demonstrate that our body is so the temple of the holy Spirit as that he is a person to whose honour it is dedicated and by whom our body is by such a right as is proper to the divine Majesty possessed and principally inhabited But it is impossible to demonstrate this and it doth even from thence seem to be false because in a place very like to this place of ours which is extant before in the same Epistle to the Corinths Chap. 3.16 the Apostle doth thence clearly prove that we are the temple of God because his Spirit dwelleth in us As also John proveth that God abideth in us because he hath given us of his Spirit 1 John 3.24 and 4.13 For if the holy Spirit were such a person as before we said and consequently the most high God what need was theâe to conclude thence that God abideth in us or that we are his temple because his spirit is in us and not raâher from thence because that very spirit that dwelleth in us is God What need is there I say to shew that we are the temple of God who is distinguished from the holy spirit and by the interveining of him dwelleth in us and not rather of God which is the very spirit himself dwelling in us and inhabiting us as his temple not by another person as our Adversaries would have it but by himself But the Apostles knew that it belongeth not to the supream deity in his own person and substance to inhabite any temple whatsoever on the earth and to dwell in the breasts of men but by his virtue and efficacy and therefore they do not conclude that we are the temple of God or that God abideth in us because the holy spirit that dwelleth in us is the supream God but because the spirit of that God dwelleth in us and was by him given to us For if the spirit or force and efficacy of any deity dwelleth in any place the very deity it self is said to dwell there and that is the temple thereof wherein his virtue hath as it were fixed his abode The third place which is extant 1 Cor. 12.5 6. doth likewise plainly prove the contrary for there one and the same spirit is manifestly distinguished both from one and the same God and from one and the same Lord of which matter we have * Sect. 1. Chap 4. before treated But if they will collect from the unity of operation which appeareth from the collation of vers 6. with the 11th that that oâe God and that one spirit are the same first it is one thing that the holy Spirit should be that one God another that he should be called that one God concerning which matâer we here treate Again we must conclude that that God also which worketh all these things by his spirit is the same with his spirit in that the same operations agree to boâh that is that the Father is the holy Spirit and contrarily the holy Spirit is the Father yea that the three persoâs which are commonây held are but one and predicated one of aâother because they have the same external operations concerning which we here speak But of this matter also it was formerly treated In like manner neither doth the fourth place which is extant 2 Sam. 23.2 prove that the holy Spirit is God but rather that he is not so so far is he from being there openly called God or the Lord. For he is there openly distinguished from the Lord which is that one God whilst he is called the Spirit of the Lord of which matter more in the * Below Chap. 5. following discourse Now whereas they reason thus God spake by David The holy Spirit spake by David Therefore the holy Spirit is God any one easily perceiveth how fallâcious this reasoning is in that it consisteth of meer affirmatives in the second figure as they speak in the schooles For if such an argument is to be admitted we may thus also conclude God the Father spake by David The holy spirit spake by David Therefore the holy spirit is God the Father For the Major is to be granted by the Adversaries both for the communion of operations which they hold to be among the persons of the Trinity and also for the saying of the holy scripture For that I may produce but on place the Apostles Acts 4.25 say of God the Father that he spake by the mouth of David his servant namely by the holy spirit as the vulgar translation hath it But that God the Father is there understood is apparent from vers 27. where Jesus is called the son of that God whom the Apostles spake unto And indeed God spake by his Spirit or the intervening of his Spirit by David in that by his Spirit and efficaây he disclosed to him those things which he ought to speak and moved him to utter them Thus in Rev. Chap. 2. and 3. at the end of every Epistle directed to the Angels of the Asian Churches these words are read Let him that hath an ear hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches But in these Epistles Christ the son of God doth perpeâually speak Wherefore if we ought to follow the reasoning of the adversaries we must conclude that that Spirit namely the holy Spirit is Christ the son of God Indeed Christ did there speak but by his Spirit to whom for that reason the act of speaking is likewise there attributed Now if the adversaries will invert their major proposition and argue in this manner whosoever spake by David he is the God of Israel neither that proposition will be contained in the place quoted from whence the Argument is drawn nor is to be admitted unless it be thus taken Whatsoever person principally spake by David he is the God of Israel But if you subsume The holy Spirit is a principal person spaking by David it likewise will neither be contained in the place that was quoted nor is at any hand to be granted But again David spaketh there one way concerning God another concerning the holy Spirit Of the Spirit he saith The Spirit of the Lord spake by me but of God he saith The God of Israel spake to me neither is it spoken of the same thing in both places For in the former part of âhe words it is signified that God moved David by his Spirit âo utter prophesâes in the latter that he spake something to David himself or caused something to be declared to him namely concerning the regal dignity which he first conferred upon him by Samuel 1 Sam. 16.13 afterward confirmed by Nathan 2 Sam. 7.12
it be only a divine virtue and efficacy not a Suppositum or Person This although it properly pertain not to the matter in hand yet we will briefly explain that no scruple may remain First we have already seen that some of the adversaries by the force of their own opinion are forced to hold that those things are not properly said of the holy Spirit but that bodily shape and its descent from heaven was only an outward resemblance of the holy Spirit filling Christ with his gifts which same thing why it may not be said of divine efficacy there is no cause Besides If we would by all means have it so that those things are properly spoken of the holy Spirit it is to be understood as to that descent and motion that the qualities were moved together with their subjects and consequently in them Wherefore also the divine efficacy if it may exist in a man and in him or together with him be moved it may descend from heaven in another thing likewise which God will use in the carrying down of it Neither indeed is there wanting to God a convenient and beseâming Vehicle that I may so speak for that efficacy But as to the shape it the subject of thar efficacy have a certain shape especially such as may shew and resemble the latent efficacy nothing at all hinders but that it may be said that that virtue descends in or with that shape But of these things if God will we shall say more else where This we would have here observed although it be written that the holy spirit did then descend on Christ in a bodily form and it may be easily understood that which all seem commonly to think that it appeared in some bodily form on the day of Pentecost yet neither here nor else where is it ever said to have appeared in the shape and form of any person as we read of the Father and Christ when they appeared in a certain form and also of the Angels But if the holy Spirit were a person Why had it not also appeared in the shape of a person For whether you hold it to have been the shape of a Dove in which it descended on Christ as commonly all contend or any other it is certain that was not the form of a person For neither is the Fire or Dove a Person seeing a person is nothing but a substance endued with understanding As for that whereby from the Apostles words in which it is said it searcheth or knows they endeavour to evince the holy Spirit to be endued with understanding it is refuted in the foregoing Chapter 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 VVE have shewed enough out of holy writ that neither Christ nor the holy Spirit but only the Father is the most high God and that the most high God is one as in Essence so also in person not as it is commonly believed three in respect of persons Which opinion although there were not so many reasons as we have produced might be refelled by the bare silence of holy Scriptures For is it credible that Christ and the Apostles that I may omit now the Prophets would have concealed a thing as it is commonly believed and as the reason of the tenet holds forth so necessary to be known so hard to be believed and far exceeding all the capacity of humane wit Doth not the thing it self shew us by how much that tenet should be more necessary both to be known and more hard to be perceived by so much the clearer they would have propounded it and so the oftenner and more diligently have inculcated it Their diligence in other things much less and easier to be perceived compels us to believe as well as the earnest desire or rather endeavour of the same persons towards the Salvation of mankind and also that office which they undertook and sustained Shall we think Christ our Saviour the Apostles other divine men had less care of the Salvation of men than they who either heretofore have defended that tenet as the cheife concern of our Salvation or at this day maintain it Was there in them less intelligence of that mystery which they commonly adore or were words wanting by which they should describe it Could Athanasius in his Creed express it more clearly than Christ than the Apostles Whosoever saith he will be saved before all things it is necessary that he hold the Chatolick faith which unless a man keep whole and inviolate without doubt he shall perish for ever But the Catholick faith is this that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity neither confounding the persons nor seperating the substance For there is one person of the Farher another of the Son another of the holy Spirit The Scripture doth not teach that God is trinune But there is one divinity of the Father Son and holy Spirit equal glory coeternal Majesty c. What I beseech you is there like these things in all the holy Scriptures We will not now refute the errors of them who beleeve not all things necessary to salvation to be contained in the holy Scriptures which is done by our men * See John Volkelius of the true Religion lib. 5. Chap. 7. elsewhere This onely we say that however some positions necessary to salvation should not be contained in the holy Scriptures yet this which is made the cheif and as it were the foundation of other things by them that it is not openly contained there is to be judged altogether incredible But letting these pass let us deal with them who acknowledge and urge that all things which are necessary to salvation are comprehended in the compass of the sacred Volumnes What reason will they aleage why that tenet is not plainly contained in holy Scripture Not few say that though it be not expresly comprehended in them yet it may be deduced from them by a good consequence But that I may now omit other things we have shewed a little before that in so hard a thing so remore from our capacity so necessary there should be fully shewn not onely consequences but clear and distinct explication and that repeated more than once especially because simple men to whom God would have the way of salvation to be manifest equally that I say not more to learned and ingenious men understand not those consequences and besides must take paines not onely in perceiving the reason of the consequence but also in the force of the opinion it self which is scarce perceived by the learned if yet that may be perceived which is repugnant to it self Moreover if they speak true who say that the Tenet of the Trinity pertains even chiefly to the Catholick Faith without which no man
can be saved ruder men must despaire of salvation For if to believe be not only to utter the words with the mouth but also to embrace and firmly to hold in the mind the meaning of them who is thereof the more simple who believes that tenet For if any man would comprehend in mind the meaning of that position it is necessary that he distinguish between the divine essence and person For unless he distinguish them either he will believe that there is in very deed only one divine Person as one Essence or hold three Essences and so three Gods no less than three divine Persons either of which deprives a man of Salvation according to the Opinion of the Adversaries But how many are there who know how to distinguish a divine Person from the Essence and so may conceive three Persons that he may not imagine to himself together three Substances subsisting by themselves Verily he must be a subtile man and hold a marvellous opinion of a Person who doth otherwise What then shall become of the ruder men for whom alike Christ dyed But let us grant that the ruder may perceive that tenet will there not be need of a clear frequent and diligent explication of that tâing to them But where shall we chiefly seek an explication of so abstruse a thing is it not in the holy Scriptures Therefore if the perspicuous explication of this thing be not so much as once indeed contained in them it is to be concluded that that doctrine is false and cannot be deduced indeed no not by good consequence from the holy Scripture We refuse not therefore lawful consequences which we also our selves willingly use but in such a doctrine as that is of which we dispute we rightly hold that there are no lawful consequences unless together a perspicuous and open explication thereof could be held forth Others say that not only this Doctrine may be drawn by lawful consequences from the holy Scriptures but also that it is really contained in them For though the word Trinity be not extant in them yet the meaning of it is extant But neither do we require that they shew the very name of the Trinity but the thing and meaning which they commonly comprehend in that name clearly and perspicuously expressed That I say we require that they shew where it is written that God is One in Essence Three in Persons the Father to be God the Son to be God to wit most high the holy Spirit to be God and yet there are not three Gods but those three are one God So the Father to be eternal likewise the Son and holy Spirit and yet these are not three eternals but one eternal We require these or the like to them the meaning of which may be manifest to all men such as are those of Athanasius with which at this day all the Temples do ring but when they bring forth such places in which there is need of consequence that it may be made manifest that this is the meaning of them which they would have they shall perform no more than those who would have so great a thing drawn out of holy Scriptures by consequences only See their two Achilles or chief Champions * Mat. 28 29. Baptise into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit how far distant are these from those positions Are there three persons in one Essence of God We see three things we see not three persons nor more one Essence of those three yea rather we see divers Essences and those between themselves unequal Here certainly there is need of consequences Again â 1 John 5.7 There are three who give testimony in Heaven the Father the Word and the holy Spirit and these three are one I repeat not now that which we shewed â Cap. 3. of this Section before how suspected this place is Let us grant it to be undoubted Whence is it manifest that here is understood the Unity of Essence They are one are they therefore one in Essence Not only the meaning it self is not extant but neither indeed can it be evinced by lawful consequence To be One is a general word and contains more species under it self One in essence One in consent either of mind or testimony or of some other thing But the genus being proposed some species is indeed proposed but not forthwith a determinate One as in this place One in Essence And indeed it were easier from this place to shew that there are diverse Essences of those three than one yea it is impossible to shew this Besides in which words is it said that the holy Spirit is a person They must of necessity fly to consequences Now by the things said it appears how injuriously they deal who when Arguments from Reason are brought against that Doctrine cry that this is a mystery which is to be believed not searched into that Reason cannot comprehend these things that we must rest simply upon the holy Scriptures We should yield to those men if they would prove that Doctrine by perspicuous testimonies of holy Scripture and not rather assert it against open and clear testimonies of them But now when they cannot produce such places they do in vain affright us with the name of a mystery that we might not here use our reason and so endeavour as with a Gorgons head set before us to turn us into stones Although the tryal of Reason were not indeed no not then to be declined if it were manifest that Mystery to have been revealed from God For what Mystery will they produce out of holy Scriptures which is repugnant to Reason Mysteries indeed exceed Reason but do not overthrow it they do not extinguish the light of it but perfect it yea Reason alone both perceiveth and embraceth and defends the Mysteries revealed to it which it could not of it self find out Paul useth Reason when he proves the Resurrection * 1 Cor. 15 12 c. which Mystery even most of all exceeds Reason Further add that the Adversaries themselves do that ill which they forbid us to do well I will not now rehearse it that they cannot discourse of the difference of essence and person without the help of Reason For where are those things written in the holy Scriptures And though they were written they could not be perceived nor explained without Reason I now urge that that all use consequences when they dispute of this Doctrine which they call a Mystery What then doth not he use Reason who useth Consequences Are perhaps all those Argumentations written in the holy Scriptures You will say that the propositions of the Arguments are written First Let it be so But the form it self of Argumentation is not there delivered neither is it shewed that this which you use is lawful that which the Adversaries use is unlawful What then doth shew it Reason But moreover resolve your Argumentations and those of yours
example of divine Persons what will they say That the thing is one way in divine Persons another way in God Is it so But what if we demonstrate that that very God of whom we treat is a divine Person as also on the contrary Will they yet deny that that is in force in God which is in force in a divine Person But it is easie to demonstrate that partly from the holy Scriptures partly from the Opinion of the Adversaries themselves They say that each divine Person is that one God and why may they not say it Forasmuch as they hold that each of them hath the whole Essence of the one God neither can they say otherwise without overthrowing that Doctrine of the Trinity Now the holy Scriptures plainly affirm of the Father that he is that one God But that will be false if that one God be not a divine Person For it may be rightly argued thus That One God is not a divine Person the Father is a divine Person therefore the Father is not that one God The same arguing according to the Adversaries Opinion will be found concerning the Son and holy Spiriâ These things which are said of us to confirm the first Argument might also by themselves be alleaged to refel the Adversaries Opinion But it matters not on our behalf whether they be taken for peculiar Arguments or for props of the first Although this may be confirmed also by another general reason for wheresoever subjects are in very deed multiplyed those things also are multiplyed which are said distinctly of each and are indeed multiplyed according to the number of their subjects We have already declared the thing by examples both divine and angelical and humane neither can it at all be refelled by any example Run over all kinds of things and you will find that the thing is so As many men as there are so many living creatures bodies substances are there as many Angels so many Spirits as many Lines so many Longitudes and Quantities as many Vertues so many Habits so many Qualities as many Fathers so many Relates and so in the rest To wit because all those Predicates are multiplyed according to the number of their Subjects Wherefore also as many divine Persons as there are so many Gods and indeed most high Gods there will be seeing the most high God is distinctly predicated of each divine person Whence it appeareth that the Athanasian Creed doth plainly contradict it self while it thus pronounceth The Father is God The Son is God The holy Spirit is God and yet there are not three Gods but one God And also the Father is Eternal Omnipotent Infinite in the same manner both the Son and holy Spirit and yet there are not three Eternals Omnipotents Infinits but on Eternal Omnipotent Infinite Perhaps some one will say that the word God is one way taken when it is predicated of each person another way when it is put absolutely there it is taken hypostatically or personally here essentially Truly I do not believe that the more accute Adversaries will so answer since they will have God as also some the Father essentially taken to be predicated also of each of the persons Add hereunto that it would be necessary to make the same Ambiguity in the word Eternal Omnipotent Infinite that one should be said to be essentially eternal omnipotent infinite not personally another on the contrary personally Otherwise they should again labour to reconcile that contradiction which may seem to be in those words that since the Father is both eternal and omnipotent and infinite and likewise the Son and the holy Spirit and yet there are not three eternals omnipotents infinites but one only But I remember not that I have ever read or heard that the Adversaries do feign the same ambiguity in the word Eternal Omnipotent Infinite Wherefore I do not easily believe as I said that the more acute Adversaries will so answer Nevertheless if any shall so answer what other thing will he say than that the Athanasian Creed playes sophistically and deceives rude and simple men with the ambiguity of a word For who of them would think that the word God is there taken two manner of wayes For to what purpose I pray you are those words added And yet there are not three Gods but one God Is it not for that cause lest any especially of the ruder sort of men hearing the Father to be God the Son to be God the holy Spirit to be God should thence gather that there are three Gods But in what signification surely in that in which he had heard that the Father is God likewise both the Son and the holy Spirit For this scruple doth first arise neither presently the other signification of the word comes into the mind of a rude man This opinion therefore is refuted by those words and further the word God is taken in the same manner in both places not one way then when it is spoken of each of the persons and another way then when it is put absolutely and God is said to be one Besides from such an exception it follows nevertheless that it may be rightly said that there are three Gods if the word God be taken personally as indeed the Adversaries confess it is often so taken in the holy Scriptures And it might indeed seem strange that they do not expresly say that there are three Gods but that they see that it is most openly repugnant to the holy Scriptures whilest they are bold to say that there are three Elohim and some Books are extant concerning three Elohim written by divers Adversaries For what other thing doth Elohim signifie than Gods Therefore three Elohim are three Gods namely they endeavour by an Hebrew and less known word somewhat but ridiculously to cover the absurdity Indeed such manner of speaking is reprehended by some more accute Adversaries of the number of whom yet there are not wanting who judge the Hebrew Elohim when it is pronounced of the most high God to be plural no less in signification than Grammatical form But if it be plural in signification also it signifies Gods no less than the Greek Theoi or other words answering to it in other languages Therefore there are more Gods But moreover the distinction between God hypostatically or personally and essentially taken is altogether vain especially when it is spoken concerning the most high God For both the very word God is the name of a person since it is the name chiefly of him that hath command over others and the most high God signifies the supream Ruler and Monarch of all things But to command and rule belongs only to persons Add that we have shewed above in this very chapter that that one God besides whom there is no other is a person as on the contrary there cannot be any one hypostatically or personally God I say the most high God but he is also essentially so For is not he essentially God who
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 desâres 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
that the Substance of the Father is also born and indeed from it self Therefore also the Father is the Son of himself For how is he not begotten whose substance is begotten How is he not his Son out of whose substance he is begotten There might also other Arguments be brought but we will be now content with these CHAP. V. The fifth Argument 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 VVE must pass to the Incarnation which all they are constrained to acknowledge who hold Christ to be the most high God For since it is most manifest by the holy Scriptures that he is by nature a man and at a certain time born of a Virgin it was necessary that they should hold him or his divine Nature so to have assumed the humane that the unity of person remaining he should be at once both God and man For if God and man should be different persons neither the Son of God had been a man nor a man the Son of God no more than the Father is that Son whom they hold to be the second person of the Trinity or the holy Spirit or on the contrary yea less since the nature of those persons is held to be the same âot only in the genus or species but number also but the nature of the most high God and man have the farthest distance even in kind from one another But in that opinion which we have spoken of concerning the Incarnation of the Son of God begotten out of the Essence of the Father from eternity many absurdities are âântained We will here bring some only and those more pertinent to our present matter For first thence it follows that not only the Son Arg. 5 Because the Father and the holy Spirit had been incarnated but also the Father and holy Spirit have assumed a humane nature For he hath assumed an humane nature whose proper nature or substance hath assumed it and with it is personally united But if the divine Nature of Christ hath assumed an humane nature also the proper Nature of the Father and the holy Spirit hath assumed it if so be it be the same in number in those three persons And indeed the contrivance of the errour hath made that some of the Adversaries have not feared to say that the whole Trinity was incarnated and lately there was one * Cornelius a Lapide a Jesuite in his Commentary on the lesser Prophets of a certain chief Sect of the Adversaries a man of a most famous name amongst them and now indeed teaching Divinity at Rome who dedicated his Book to the uncreated Trinity and in Jesus Christ created Which if it be true both the Father and the holy Spirit was born of a Virgin and suffered and dyed and was buryed and raised again and whatsoever we read Christ to have ever done or was done to him that also agrees to the Father and holy Spirit So the Heresy of those Antients whether Sabellians or Patripassians condemned by the Adversaries themselves will revive And indeed if you consider the thing rightly the common opinion of the Trinity is nothing else but a Sabellianism a little more subtilly propounded and varnished with some new colours and choaked with new names For the same God ãâã number considered with this mode or subsistence is the Father âith another mode or subsistence is the Son again with another the holy Spirit Which what other thing is it in very deed than what Sabellius held For the same God in number and the same substance is also in very deed the same person having three different modes or subsistences But that we may return to that which we began to do they will say that the divine Nature indeed or substance did assume the humane but not in every subsistence but only in the subsistence of the Son to this only that union or conjunction of the humane and divine Nature is terminated You would say that these men saw with their very eyes that Incarnation who know to explain so accurately in which subsistence that union was terminated although there are three subsistences in the same nature not really as they speak different from it But that the vanity of this device may be shewed let us somewhat explain what they would if so be that the matter may be understood True and real union such as that should be which is devised by the Adversaries is at least between two things whereof of the one explainâ or applies its terminos or extremities whether properly or improperly so called to the other The case is clear in bodily things which we see with the eyes and from which the word terminus which they use in this matter is taken For a board is joyned to a board a stone to a stone whilst the superfices of the one is joyned to the superficies of the other but the superficies is the extremity or a certain terminus of a body But because a superficies of some whole body is extended through al its sides and for examples sake one part of it is before another behind therefore it may come to pass that the union and conjunction of two bodies is not terminated unto every part of the superficies or body So two square stones touch one another according to the superficies only of one side unless perhaps the one includes the other and then the outer superficies of the containing stone will not touch the superficies of the contained in any part wherefore to that outer superficies of the containing stone that union or conjunction will not be terminated but to the inner only Now in things incorporeal there are properly no termini or extremities no diversity of such parts Whence it was necessary if the humane nature was joyned to the divine which all hold to be incorporeal that it was joyned to the whole divine Nature But yet with our Adversaries instead of divers termini there are divers subsistences or modes of the divine nature whereof one makes the Father another the Son a third the holy Spirit Now they say that this personal union is terminated to the subsistence of the Son or so far the humane nature is joyned to the divine as this subsists in the Son but not as it subsists in the Father or holy Spirit therefore the subâ stence of the Son not that of the Father or holy Spirit is communicated to the humane nature and this subsists by that and further makes one person with the Son of God not with the Father or holy Spirit The Adversaries usually explain the matter more obscurely But either this is it theâ would have or what indeed they would cannot at all be understooâ But they do nothing For if the whole divine nature be joyned to the humane and there be three subsistences in that whole nature whereof one differs no more from the Essence than another or is more
there is none in him mortal men do But true cannot be contrary to true no more yea less than an Egg to an Egg Milk to Milk Neither may they fetcht patronage of so absurd a distinction from Aristotle who saith as we have before minded that some things are really distinct some in reason For with him those things are distinct in reason which the schoolmen say are formally distinguished that is which although they be united together and by a certain indissolvable knot either on both sides or on one part joyned yet differ in forms and proper Essences as docility and the faculty of admiring in the same man generation and corruption For every natural and properly so called Generation is the corruption of another thing and on the contrary Nevertheless these things differ yea are opposite and so have opposite essences also which are in the same matter in respect of divers things For one thing is corrupted another thing is generated So the foundations also are distinguished from the relations which rest on them But those things differ also in the whole genus or predicament So also the comparisons of the same thing with divers relations have forms and essences divers either in the genus or species or number as also termini and correlata differ Therefore the intellect doth not feign those distinctions in things but in very deed finds them in them and the Schoolmen themselves say that those things are distinct actually which although we think not of them are distinct in forms although they exist together But if they would acknowledge such a difference between the divine persons and essence the Patrons of it will neither be able to reconcile the common Doctrine of the Trinity with it self nor with their other Doctrines Not with it self for by this means each person will have its proper form and essence and so those persons will be and will not be at once of one essence Not with their other doctrines because the exactest simplicity of God will fall But if they acknowledge not that distinction then the Trinity will fall all true difference between the essence and the persons and thereupon of the persons also between themselves being taken away Wherefore which way soever the Adversaries turn themselves they will not be able to defend that their Trinity or plurality of persons in one Essence of God and therefore there remains no other thing than that they confess together with us that there is no less one person than one substance of God The use of this Disputation The Conclusion of the Work In which the Use of this Disputation concerning One God the Father is explained THerefore having demonstrated that the most high God is no less one in person than in essence and that he is no other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ it remains that we shew the Use of this Doctrine Now this is so much the greater by how much the contrary Doctrine is more hurtful and so much the farther it spreads it self by how much the farther the incommodities of the contrary opinion are extended For first how necessary it is to understand and believe that there is only One most high God both the holy Scriptures shew which do often inculcate it and all men easily understand But now unless you hold that there is only One Person of the Supream Deity you can neither sufficiently understand nor constantly believe and maintain the Unity of the supream Deity For as much as it is sufficiently shewed by us that more persons having supream Divinity are more most high Gods But although this errour be somewhat infringed and diminished by another errour whilst it is affirmed that there is one essence in number of those persons yet it is not altogether taken away and suffers not men to understand sufficiently and to believe constantly that which is said of the Unity of the divine Essence For although you endeavour never so much you cannot conceive in your mind one and the same essence of three persons really distinct from among themselves especially if you will think of those things that which either the holy Scriptures or the Adversaries themselves asserâ of the Father Son and holy Spirit belonging to the differencing of them from each other For whosoever hears even those very names and thinks the Son to be truly begotten of the Father the holy Spirit to have proceeded from both forthwith he must needs think three essences divers in number however otherwise most like one another or in some certain manner coupled together Likewise he who thinks that the Father sent the Son and again both together the holy Spirit that the Son descended from Heaven and as they hold assumed flesh neither of the other descended or assumed flesh again that the holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape the Father and the Son not descending how is he not together constrained to cocceive in his mind distinct essences And if he shall attribute supream Deity to each of them he will conceive three Gods in number although most like one another and in a certain manner united together Seeing therefore by this means a multitude of Gods is brought in by that opinion it is necessary that that by the same means also fall into those absurdities which follow from the multitude of Gods He that holds more most high Gods distributes the glory and honour due to one unto more and as much as he attributes to the rest so much he takes away from that one For since they are held to be equal one to another nor is one acknowledged to be subordinate to the other although also a false opinion of subordination is as none that which is attributed to one doth not come to another Wherefore he who acknowledgeth and worshippeth more persons having supream Divinity transfers to more that which was due to one and detracts from that one that which he attributes to the rest And that you may more nearly behold the matter if the Father alone as we have demonstrated be the most high God who doth not see that those absurdities do follow from the contrary opinion concerning the Trinity For first the honour of the Father is diminished whilst that which by far he hath of all things most sacred and wherein he excels all things is equally communicated with others to wit the supream Deity and further whatsoever things are proper to this alone whether they be his works or ours respecting his Glory and Honour For presently it is necessary that both the creation of Heaven and Earth and that I may let pass other innumerable works the raising up and exaltation of Christ which we have shewed * Lib. 1. Sect. 2. chap. 18 29. by most clear testimonies of Scripture to be imputed to the Father alone be thought common to the whole Trinity as indeed the Adversarias think So neither doth the love of men which ought to come ultimately to the Father alone and to
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
his greatest honour 305 The same is detracted from him not by our opinion 305 306. but by the opinion of the Adversaries 306. Whether his humane Nature is a Person 286. Whether a man 287 c. Whether an abstractum 288 c. Whether it does act in proper speaking 289. Whether it subsists by it self 290 291 292. Wherefore Christ is called The Image of God 139 c. He hath received both the Authority and Exercise of Ruling from the Father 104. and that indeed as the reward of his obedience 104 105. A double Empire is to no purpose ascribed unto him 307. He may yea often ought to be invocated 45. He received commands from the Father and kept them 91 92. Wherefore he is called Mediator 34. Whether he be the Mediator of tâe whole Trinity 31. Whether of himself 32 33. Whether of the holy Spirit 34 35. And whether according to the humane nature only or according to both natures 31 c. In what consideration he died for us 159 160. All the Offices do agree to him as a man 293 294. He is no where simply called Father 21. He ascribeth all his works unto the Father 110 c. He prayed to the Father not only out of modesty but because of necessity 93 c. He is from the Father even as he is God 51 52. He shewed himself wholly to depend from the most high God 11. How all things are by him 18 19 112 113. Whether it is rightly said that his Person doth do something according to the humane nature 32. Whether he received the power of doing all things from the Father by eternal generation 54 c. By whom he was raised and whether by himself 133 c. He is distinguished from Him that sitteth upon the Throne 40 41. He is called Gods Servant 91. Unto him was given the holy Spirit 163 c. Whether he be totum quid or a certain whole Substance consisting of a Divine and an Humane Nature 281 c. He came not of himself 67 c. nor to do his own will 68 c. He was not anointed by the holy Spirit but with the holy Spirit by God the Father pag. 188. Christ taken for the Religion by him delivered pag. 217. What that is which distinguisheth Christians from Jews or Turks pag. 110. Every communicating of a substance to another is a generation pag. 269. To Come from himself what pag. 118. Comparisons of things with persons do easily bring forth Prosopopeyas pag. 234. The force of a Contradiction lies in the distinction of things pag. 299. Things containing a hidden Contradiction are not predicated of the same Subjectum simply however they may be in it according to divers parts pag. 285. The first Creation is in the Scripture and the Apostles Creed ascribed to the Father only pag. 44 213. D. The Dative Case of a Person often denotes finem cui or the end to which pag. 217 The Descriptions of Persons in the Scriptures are not wont to be idle or useless pag. 13 17. The word To day being used even of God denotes a certain and definite time pag. 277. What the word Determined Gr. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifies in the New Testament pag. 154. Every Difference doth tacitely include a contradiction in it self pag. 299. What the nature of Disparatums is pag. 283 c. Whether the divine Essence be communicable pag. 254 255. No Doctrine that implies a contradiction can be true pag. 245 246. E. Earnest what pag. 218. To be distinguished eminenter what pag. 299 300. That which is Equal hath alwayes a different essence from that to which it is equal pag. 170. That Which dependeth upon the free will of God cannot be eternal 55 56. Whatsoever is simply from eternity is also simply necessary pag. 55. What things are wont to be excepted pag. 194. Whether Eternal life consists herein that we know the Father and Christ to be the only true God pag. 10 11. F. The summe of our Faith concerning Christ pag. 143 144. There is neither any example nor any precept extant in the Scripture concerning Faith in the Holy Spirit 181. How that is to be understood which is contained of it in the Apostles Creed pag. 181. Every Father either properly or improperly so called if he be endued with understanding is a person pag. 22. The word Father doth no where in the Scripture denote the Trinity 20 c. 24. Whether God may be called Father because of the first Creation only pag. 20 21. The Father of Christ is called his God 122. and the God of the Patriarchs pag. 45 46. He is more excellent than the Son 50. His substance is different from that of the Son 50 He is worshipped through Christ 37. His manifold prerogative above the Son and the Holy Spirit 43 44. He alone is of himself pag. 43 Unusual Figures when used pag. 220. The First-fruits of a thing what pag. 224 The First-born is alwayes contained in the number of them of whom except the Parents it is said to be the first-born pag. 169. The particle For Gr. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã may signifie an effect in the New Testament pag. 120 One thing hath but one forme pag. 261. What it is to be the same thing formally pag. 298. Future tenses are among the Hebrews frequently taken for Present tenses pag. 120. The particle from or of Lat. ex often signifies an Efficient cause pag. 222. G. Every Generation properly so called is a change from not being to being 273 c. What manner of generation that is which is said to be performed by emanation and to what it does agree 275. There is no supernatural generation out of the Essence of God 274. The Opinion touching the generation of the Son of God out of the Essence of the Father is is refelled 54 55 101 268 269 c. 278. as also the manner of it either by intellection 268 c. or by emanation 275 c. It would be the same with the procession of the holy Spirit maintained by its Patrons 295 c. How far it is necessary that the thing generated be like the thing generating pag. 297. That which any one does already possess by a full right cannot be said to be given unto him again and that indeed out of grace pag. 105 109. The Glory of God is the ultimate scope both of his own and their actions that serve him pag. 69 70. How much difference there is between the glorifying of the Father which proceeded from Christ and that of Christ which proceeded from the Father pag. 100. What absurdities the multitude of Gods bring forth pag. 303. What it is to be the God of any one pag. 123 126. What difference there is between the appellation of God and that of the Son of God pag. 52. The name God is in its own nature common 4. It is the name of a Person 48 251. whom it denotes being taken by way of
the Scripture attributed to the holy Spirit in a peculiar manner 164 165. Whether the same is more often ascribed to the Holy Spirit than to the Father or Son 213 c. The action of sanctifying is attributed by the Scripture even to things which are not persons pag. 213 The vulgar opinion touching the Satisfaction of Christ brings forth several absurdities and what they be pag. 312 c. The word Saviour agreeth to the Father also pag. 189 The Opinion of the Schoolmen touching the distinction between the divine Attâibutes and tâe examination of the same 298 c. Again touching the distinction of the persons of the Trinâty from the Essence pag. 300 301. Whether and how is any one said to search his own counsels pag. 235. Those that deny credit to be given to the sences overthrow the foundations of Faith pag. 311 c. To be sent agreeth not to the mo t high God 12 c. What it is to be sent into the world 149. One can be sent into the woâld who never was in Heaven pag. 149 To whom is the word Son absolutely used of Christ related 129. The name Son is not essential to Christ 158. The Son of God cannoâ be the most high God 14 50. The contrary opinion diminisheth the honour of the Father 304 305 c. neither is it conjoyned with the glory of Christ 304 c. yea it doth diminish the same 306 c. It robs both God of tâat glory which consists in managing our Salvation by Christ 307. and us of that incomparable fruit which God looked upon in the same 307 308 c. The Son of God is not the fiâst original of the holy Spirit 43. The Son of God is called the Son of man and on the contrary pag. 287 Why the Souls of men separated from their Bodies are not Persons 286 287. and how they are said to be intellâgent pag. 287 The Speâies is predicâted of the whoâe Individuum as such pag. 286 The woâd Spirit pât subjectively doth no where denote the divine essence 58. nor the three persons of one divine essence 24. How it is predicated of the Father and Son pag. 24. The same put both simply and with an additament does oftentimes denote the holy Spirit pag. 24 The holy Spirit why called so 208 209. All things that come from the divine inspiration are ascribed to it 199 200. How it is said to have spoken unto any 180. How its knowledge is contained in the knowledge of the Father and Son 185 186. The holy Scripture is silent of its adoration or worship 181 c. It is often not joyned with God and Christ 185 c. even where the angels or other sacred things are mentioned 191 192. It is not the most high God 14 171 c. The contâary Opinion diminisheth the honour of the Father 303 c. The same is no where called God in the Scripture 39 172 c. It is often distinguished from him 195 c. How was its descent upon Christ 241. It would not be said no not indeed by a Metonimy to be given unto men if it were the most high God 214 215. Wâether the same it self be given or its effects only 206 c. How may it be distinguished from its effect 202 c. It s effusion upon the âpostles how attributed unto Christ 114. It s mission what 228. It doth admit a partition 222 c. and how 224. whetheâ is it a person 216 217. It is no where said to have appeared in a form or shape of a person 241. It is no where comââehended under the name of Father 21 22. It would be the Father of Christ if it were a person 204 205. It s procession what 226 c. 297 c. Whether that which is commonly maintained be any wise different from the generation of the Son of God out of the essence of the Father 295 c. How it doth proceed from the Son 43. What cause it is of the divine revelation 235. What its common signification was anciently 207 c. What manner of power or efficacy of God it is pag. 197 The same Subject is often described by diâers names joyned togetâer by a copulative particle pag. 23. The subjects being multiplied those things also are multiplied that are distinctây said of each of them pag. 250 A subsistence haâh of it self no power to act 32. It worketh noâhing 62. How many wayes it is taken by the Adversaries 262. One substance hath but one subsistence pag. 261 c. To subsist by it self how many wayes âe said pag. 290 291 292. Whether the word substance may be used concerning God pag. 256 257 Suppositum what 257 258. wherefore be iâ called so 258. What kind of suppositum constitutes a person pag. 286 287 T. A Temple may be his also who is not the most high God pag. 176 The things that are the same with one third thing are also among themselves the same pag. 253 c. Things are oftentimes in the Scripâure joyned with persons and those divine ones 190. Things that are not persons can both descend from heaven and be shadowed by an outward specâes or shape pag. 240 To be tempted of the Devil agreeth agreeth not to the most high God pag. 166 c. The Common Opinion touching the Trinity may lawfully be refuted by arguments fetcht from Reason pag. 245 c. It brings in three most high Gods pag. 23 248 249 c. 302 c. It bears not a dist nction of offices and actions in the Persons 214. It overthrows it self pag. 248. It diminisâeth the honour of the Father 303. c. It cannot be percâived by rude men 243. It is not contained in the holy Scripture 242. c. It is in very deed a Saâelliaâism 279. It doth hinder them that aâe strangers to the Christian Religion from embracing it 314. Why that opinion is acurately to be examined pag. 315 Truth what pag. 300 U. The Doctrine concerning the Vbiquity of Christs Body is very absurd pag. 311 c. There was no need of the Vnion of two Natures in Christ pag. 294. From whence and how doth Paul conclude the Vnity of the Faithful pag. 25 26 Vnless for but or but if pag. 53 W. That cannot be simply denied of the whole which may or ought simply to be affirmed of the same pag. 41 59 60 c. What that is for which any one is to be worshipped pag. 108 The end or scope of the works of Christ pag. 111 With him for in like manner as to him pag. 218 Errata Pag. 7. line 17 communion p. 11. l. 18. d. ne ib. marg 1 Joh. 2.3 4 13 14. and Joh 6.69 p 23 l 41 Trânity as p 24 l 28 for nor r or of p 38 l 39 f it r is p 57 l 1 dele of ib f also r so ib marg Gâl 3 7. p 59 l 5 f admitted r affirmed ib l 16 d not ib l 43 compositum p 60 l 45 and is wont p 61 l 40 from one part of p 62 l 5 any thing ib l 46 of one p 65 l 37 and 17. 8 14. p 70 l 9 exaltation p 72 l 9 Christ is p 73 l 11 Euthymius p 75 l 2 which he saith to the Apostles ib l 16 17. it is not the office of the Son to know that day p 78 l 17 to be p 86 l 21 f yea r it also p 95 l 6 f of r if p 100 l 3 that delivery ib Rom 2.7 10 and 5.2 marg p 104 l 29 of rule p 106 l 30 he was p 109 l 33 so divine p 117 l 6 why he ib l 25 f of r in p 125 marg and 17. 1. p 127 l 7 that Christ p 131 l 36 so p 134 l 18 f for r or p 136 l 18 would p 140 l 24 every one p 144 l 29 to be called p 149 m. Wujek p 150 m. the Son of God p 152 l 25 heareth p 153 l 45 neither p 154 l 43 cannot p 156 l 34 participle p 161 l 46 at Athens p 182 l 8 2 Cor. p 183 l 39 of him ib l 40 praises p 184 l 1 times p 188 l 26 f though r if p 200 l 1 inwardly p 202 last naturally p 208 l 3 4 either by the simple word Spirit or by the words holy Spirit p 209 l 38 by prayers for or to believers p 211 l 20 f or r as ib l 24 Hypotheses ib l 29 dwelleth ib l 37 through p 212 l 22 f gifts r goods ib l 42 43 who first heard either from Christ or from other divine men of the holy Spirit to be given to men p 213 l 11 chiefly p 220 l 3 him ib l 8 properly ib l 39 Metalepses ib l 43 which notwithstanding would c. p 230 l 12 Austin p 233 l 7 f he r we ib l 23 is not p 239 l 2 3. wrest the weapon out of c. ib l 27 also p 240 l 5 we may also another shorter way shew from hence namely ib l 6 d we may shew ib l 7 moâ high ib l 14 Spirit a descent properly so called ib l 28 substances p 243 l 22 more than ib l 23 they must ib l 32 there of p 257 l 27 Universals ib l 38 f here r hence p 258 l 1 that manner ib l 3 have no. ib l 4 every ib l 5 that we ib l 17 d of ib l 32 incommunicable substance p 259 l 20 represent ib l 36 ultimately ib l 44 else p 260 l 40 substances p 261 l 10 add may be or exist after expressed p 262 l 46 they be modes p 278 l 24 first p 279 l 41 f explains and extremities r joyneth and extreams p 296 l 27 to another ib l 28 from which such a relation ariseth ib l 41 thing ib l 47 ro another FINIS
ultimate scope and object of the same Nor also the whole Trinity held by the Adversaries Otherwise to Christ who would be contained in that Trinity glory would be attributed through himself as through the middle cause For as to the refuge of two Natures that hath no more place here than in the former Testimony since Christ is here considered with relation to the Office which he sustaineth in respect whereof he is the middle cause of divine Worship Whence the Adversaries themselves commonly hold when we are said to worship God through Christ that Christ is considered as Mediator But Mediation as also other Offices agreeth to none but a person as he is such Wherefore one must either say that the humane Nature of Christ is a Person and to be understood by the name of Jesus Christ or hold that Christ here is considered according to his divine Nature also or that it is primarily and directly here understood by the name of Jesus Christ as hath been shewn in the precedent Chapter It remaineth that by the name of the only wise God a certain divine Person and that Superior to Christ be understood For he is more worthy to whom glory is given as to the ultimate scope than the middle cause through which worship is exhibited to him But there is no such Person besides the Father It is in vain here to think of the holy Spirit for to omit that it is not granted that the holy Spirit is so much as a Person this is certain that the holy Spirit is not a Person worthier than the Person of Christ But we have shewn that that Person is such to whom glory is attributed through Christ Besides that the Father is worshipped by Christ is both from * See among other places Eph. 5.20 Col. 3.17 Scripture and the confession of all very manifest But that the holy Spirit is worshipped by Christ what place of the Scripture I say not doth affirm but intimate yea it is so far from saying that he is to be worshipped through Christ that it never simply saith that glory is to be attributed unto him especially in that manner which we here understand nor do we there read that it was ever attributed to him by so much as one man concerning which thing more largely in its own * Sect. 3. Chap. 2. place Neither indeed is there any cause if a certain Person is here to be understood why we should pass by the Father and understand the holy Spirit since glory is here attributed to God as the prime Author of Salvation and of the things belonging thereunto Now that all those things are wont to be ascribed to the Father as the prime Author if not only yet chiefly the Adversaries themselves do not deny and is most apparent from that place of Paul where he saith that the Father is he â 1 Cor. 8.6 Rom. 11. ult Of whom are all things Whence also he constituteth him the ultimate end of the worship and honour that proceedeth from us for he is the same of whom are all things and to whom are all things The second * The second place John 5.44 of those places is extant in John where amongst other things Christ speaketh thus unto the Jews How can ye believe who receive Glory from one another and seek not the glory which is from the only God In which place that the Father is understood by the name of the only God First the whole context sheweth where Christ promiscuously mentioneth one while God another while his Father neither is there any the least cause why we should suspect that Christ in the same speech passed from one person to another since none can deny that all things which are attributed unto that God are most rightly ascribed to the Father See now the precedent and following verses yea that whole conference with the Jews beginning from the 17th verse Again Christ speaketh of that God whom the Jews acknowledge for God and concerning whom it was granted amongst them that the Glory proceeding from him is to be sought although they neglect to seek it For he speaketh of a thing which ought to precede Faith on Christ whereof because the Jews were destitute they are therefore here by Christ himself pronounced unfit to believe on him But the Jews did then acknowledge for God no other besides him whom Christ called his Father For that they did either imagine a Trinity to be God or the Son or holy SpiSpirit I suppose there is none that dareth affirm But Christ affirmeth that of his Father chap. 8.54 where he saith It is my Father that glorifieth me whom ye say that he is your God It is therefore apparent that in this place that only God is the same with the Father and the one of no larger extent than the other The third place is extant in â Third place Jude 4. Jude who if you regard his greek words saith that false Teachers who had already insinuated themselves into the Church do deny the only master God and our Lord Jesus Christ For we have already * See the Book of God and his Attributes chap. 14. elsewhere shewn not Christ as many of the Adversaries suppose but some other is understood by the only master God For first if he had understood Christ there would have been no need after he had called him the only master God to name him our Lord especially since the word Master doth comprehend all the force of the word Lord. Again neither can Christ be called the only master God since his Father so is and is so â See Luke 2.29 c. Acts 4.24 compare v. 24 with ver 30. called Master that being designed by this very name he is distinguished from Christ Neither is Christ any where called Master the greek word being ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which Jude maketh use of in the whole new Testament but the Father is found so stiled No marvel because in the great House of God Christ it not the Master but the Son of the Master of the Family and hath God for his Head as shall be spoken in its place But the Master of the Family hath not a Head in the House but is therein the chiefest Lord and Governour Now whereas some urge the Unity of the Article set before those words the only Master God and our Lord Jesus Christ they prevail nothing thereby For the Unity of an Article set before divers names doth not presently argue the Identity of the thing but often times doth only intimate some affinity or conjunction of divers things as namely of those which concur to the same action or about which the same action is conversant See Mat. 3.7 16.1 6.17 1.27 27.56 Ephes 2.20 3.5 4.11 1 Thes 1.8 Heb. 9.19 Certainly * See Beza's Annot on Ephes 4.11 5.5 some very learned men among the Adversaries when they had in this Argument urged the unity
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 â 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. â1 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
in a like place vers 4. of Jude * Sect. 1. chap. 7. where he saith of certain wicked men that they deny the only Master God and our Lord Jesus Christâ Where there is one article prefixt both to that Master God and to the Lord Jesus Christ and yet diverse persons namely God the Father and Christ are joyned together Now that diverse persons are understood by the name of God and Christ in the quoted place is thence apparent because Paul as also other writers perpetually distinguish God put subjectively as it is done in both place from Christ Jesus Moreover if the Apostle in that place Eph. 5. would have designed the same person he would have set first the name of God as being more general and less distinctly signifying that person which he intended and would have subjoyned the name of Christ as being more distinct and fitter to explain the same whereas now âe doth the contrary For neither may any one conceive that the âpostle did it for amplification sake intending to ascend from a lower title to an higher For that would then have had some place if the word God had bin spoken of some subject ây way of Epithite or Predicate and not made use of to design the very subject it self which if it be one such a gradation is not wont to be observed but rather the most speciall names thereof are wont to be subjoyned to the geâeâal the more distinct to the confused ones Deservedly therefore both those places as also that of Jude a leadged ây us on this occasion ought to be added to the other examples whereby we have shewn that God and Christ are wont to be mentioned without the holy Spirit who nevertheless should be a like mentioned if he were a divine person distinct from both yet equal to both Such places as these are also exâant in Peter who in the begining of the latter epistle twice doth the same thing which we before shewed Iohn and Paul were wont to do For thus he saith vers 1. Simon Peter ãâã the Apostle of Jesus Christ to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ And again ver 2. Grace and peace be multiplyed unto you through the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ our Lord. Those places wherein it is either spoken of them who have divine empire over us or of our duty towards them do not much differ from the passages hitherto alledged but have the same force as to our purpose as making mention only of God and Christ although in a manner somewhat different Of which we will alleage some that the reader being admonished by us may also observe others that are like unto them Hereunto belongeth that famous place 1 Cor. 8.6 Where it is spoken of them who have divine empire over us and are by us to be worshipt with divine worship But to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him For why is it not added and one holy Spirit as some men indulging their error durst to add contrary to the credit of all antient books indeed he is added yea set before that one Lord and that one God in the same epistle chap. 12 4. Because there it was chiefly spoken concerning the holy Spirit aââ his effects in Christians But here he ought not to be omitted if he hath divine empire over us as well as the Father and Christ and so deserveth divine worship I say a just cause may be alleaged why he was mentioned although he be not a person distinct from God and Christ for as much as things are often times in the Scâipture joyned with persons and those divine ones as hath been elsewhere by our men and we our selves by and by intend by certain examples also to shew But no just cause can be alleadged why in such places the holy spirit was omitted if he be a divine person every way equal to the Father and the Son Hither to belong those words of the same Apostle which are extant in the Acts. chap. 20.21 Where he explaineth the summ both of his preaching and our duty saying that he testified both to Jews Gentiles Arg. 2 The holy Spirit iâ often not joyned with God Christ repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and those of the same author 1 Thess 1.9 10. How ye turned from Idols to God to serve the living and true God and to wait for his son from heaven whom he raised from the dead even Jesus which delivered us from the wrath to come And 2 Thess 3.5 The Lord direct your heart into the love of God and the patient waiting for Christ And that we may also mingle other passages although written of another subject thus saith Jude vers 1. To them who are beloved in God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ And John in the Revelation bringeth in these men that fear the punishment to be inflicted on them speaking thus Fall upon us O ye Mountaines and hide us from the face of him that sitteth upon the Throne and from the wrath of the Lamb. Chap. 6. ult and Chap. 12.17 Who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ Chap. 14.12 Here is the patience of the Saints who keep the Commandments of God and the faith of Jesus And Chap. 20.4 The souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God You may also every where observe other passages which do more largely or in another form of speech make mention of God and Christ only when they speak of divine things Now that we may pass to the second rank of Places which we before appointed there is mention made of Angels the holy Spirit being omitted First in those words of Christ which are extant in Luke Chap. 9.26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words of him shall the Son of man be ashamed when he shall come in his own glory and in his Fathers and of the holy ângels Like unâo which though in a contrary matter are those words of the same Châist which are read Rev. 3 5â He that overcometh c. I will confess his name before my Father and before his Angels And those of Paul 1 Tim. 5.21 I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect Angels c. Who would believe tâat the holy spirit could be omitted and Angels ratâer mentioned in his stead were he a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son and equal to both Was a greater weight added to his words if omitting the most high God his servants were mentioned If omitting the Creator his creature weâe mentioned You will say that what we would have cannoâ be concluded from that omission because otherwise the same ââs to
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 menâion is made of the Father likewise it appeaâeth 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 soveâaign excellency may be called divine the holy Spiâit 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 âe 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 heâe 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 âeâe to be recited or at least the things here mentioned are mroe divine than the holy Spirit which we our selves will not aâmit 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 Jeâus 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 âe is here omitted seeing John as we saw before describing our communion with
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 conceâning 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 tâe 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 â 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 Fatâer of Christ such especially who being to come upon the Viâgin was to cause the conception of Christ the son had
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 Spiâit 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 spiâit 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 aât 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 âe 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 conceiâed 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 bâings 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
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 teâmed a Gift Acts 11.17 which compare with the precedent Yea in all those places wâere 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 âeen 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 tâe 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 Adâersaries 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
heard or read of any who could dare to deny that the divine Spirit the efficient cause of these gifts is the holy Spirit properly so called Neither indeed in these places hath the Metalepsis devised by others any place For the effects also of the holy Spirit are rehearsed in the same places as some things diverse from the holy Spirit given and so as effects of the thing given But if by that Metalepsis the holy Spirit were said to be given to wit in respect of the effects those effects should be contained in the thing given nor should be mentioned or distinct from it And let these things be said out of the sacred Writings against the Metonimy and Metalepsis devised in these manners of speaking As to the Hypothesis of the Adversaries although we have used them in some part already yet it is further to be added that by such an Answer to our Argument their own reason is vehemently overthrown which they are wont to bring further to prove the immensity of the holy Spirit and consequently its supream Deity to wit that the holy Spirit dwelt in all Believers dispersed through the whole world For two wayes they weaken this Argument First because if the very holy Spirit properly so called be not given to Believers but only its effects it cannot be proved that the holy Spirit himself or his Essence is in very deed in every Believer which is necessary to the concluding of their reason Again Because neither such immensity as they understand can be thence proved unless withal they make also the effect of the holy Spirit or at least all its effects dispersed in the hearts of Believers though the whole world joyned together to be immense and the supream God Therefore the Adversaries cannot deny that the holy Spirit it self to wit properly so called is given by God to believers but that together they take away both the testimonies of the holy Scripture and their own assertions But now let us somewhat loosen those bonds by which we have shewn them to be held and let us grant to them seeing they will have it so that not the holy Spirit properly so called is given to Believers but its effect only yet they shall not escape For nevertheless we will hence shew that the holy Spirit is not the most high God For first if the holy Spirit were the most high God it could not be said no not by a Metonymy or Metalepsis of him that he is given or bestowed by another upon men or that men receive him For who would not reject such a manner of speaking as absurd and unworthy of the most high God More soberly do the holy Scripture speak of the most high God than to feign in his names such trops But if yet any man contend that such speaking is not unbeseeming God or absurd let him shew an example of the like manner of speaking in the name either of the most high God or the Father or any other which is equivalent Besides if it were so it should not be understood that that certain gift or if you had rather kind of gifts is given which yet all understand to be given when the holy Spirit is said to be given For the gifts and effects of the most high God are of most large extent for what good soever there is it comes from him Therefore if thou shouldst hear that the most high God is given namely because his gifts are given either thou wouldst understand that all gifts are given together or if thou wouldst understand only a certain kind of gifts to be given thou wouldst believe that to be given which is of all the most excellent either alone or conjoyned with others The same thing therefore should be thought of the holy Spirit if he were the most high God and not said to be given but in respect of gifts and effects only But neither all gifts are understood to be given when we hear the holy Spirit is given nor that which is of all the greatest to wit immortal life or perfect justification but presently our mind is carried to a divine breathing or inspiration or the effects of it in men to wit because the divine Spirit properly so called is a divine inspiration or a force flowing from God into men breathed from heaven into their hearts This I say is the true caâse why our mind hearing the holy Spirit to be given is carried to that certain kind of gift or gifts But the adversaries will except that there is in this case another reason of the name of God or the Father or also of the Son another of the name of the holy Spirit although he be the Supream God For they so dispute as we have before shewed although all the works to without are common to the whoâe Trinity yet in a certain peculiar respect creation is attributed to the Father remdeption to the Son sanctification to the holy Spirit Now then they will say that that kind of gift or gifts which we understand as soon as we hear the holy Spirit is given doth pertain to sanctification Therefore it is not designed by the name of God common to three persons not by the name of the Father nor Son but the holy Spirit Thou seest by what circuits the mind is led by the adversaries thither whither it is forthwith straight carried But is it credible that those whether Jews oâ Gentiles who first heard of the holy Spirit to be given to men either from Christ or other divine men did either already know those things or being ignorant of them did not understand what was signified by the name of the holy Spirit and what was promised both to them and to others Were those auditors of Iohn Baptist or Peter whom we mentioned before so knowing of those things that they could think at first when they heard of the holy Spirit to be poured out upon them that some effect should be given them not peculiar to the first and second person of the Deity but the third to whom it is proper to sanctify therefore that effect did pertain to sanctification and withal was a divine inspiration Was it not more ready for them to think that which the word it self declared that a divine inspiration or its effects were promised to them But besides whence is it manifest to the adversaries that the thâee persons of the Deity have among themselves thus parted those three gifts Were they perhaps present at their councel that they so boldly affirme these things They will say from the holy Scriptures it is manifest to them concerning that thing as which doth chefliy ascribe creation to the Father redemption to the Son sanctification to the holy Spirit Of creation and redemption there is not now place of disputing Yet it may be said ây the way that creation or that first production of all things is ascribed to the Father not cheifly only but also solely since he was the sole author of
it That redemption is ascribed to the Son neither alone simply nor as the first author but as the cheif middle cause who in the name of the Father and by his command performed the whole work of our redemption and salvation and as yet performes it As to sanctification neither is that more often ascribed unto the holy Spirit than to the Father or Son especially openly neither is it attributed as to some person but as to a thing by which sanctification is performed Which first is manifest from thence that where as it is read expresly of the Father that he sanctifies as also of Christ it is no where said of the holy Spirit that I know that it sanctifies buâ onely that in or by it men are sanctified or some such way which is not proper to a person is sanctification ascribed unto it Of the Father you have plain places Joh. 10.36.17.17 to which add 1 Thess 5.23 Where it easily appeares that there it is spoken of the Father since the holy Scripture understand him alone by the name of God subjectively put cheifly when he is distinguished from Christ Neither shall I easily beleeve that the Adversaries will take this place of the holy Spirit onely Also in the Old testament many places occur in which God affirmes that he it is who sanctifyes the people of Israel which either speak of the Father alone as we think or at least of the Father also not of the holy Spirit alone Of Christ you have testimonies Eph. 5.26 Heb. 2.11.13.12 For I pass by those places in which in some other manner sanctification is ascribed either to the Father or the Son But if the holy Spirit were a divine person equal to the Father in all things and to him in some cheif respect the action of sanctifying did agree how could it be that of him it should not be once said that he sanctifies but of the Father and Son it should be said plainly The action of sanctifying might be directly attributed indeed to the holy Spirit although it were not a person since we see that to many other * Mat. 23.17 19. Heb. 9.13 things and chiefly to qualities which they call active actions are directly attributed in holy Scripture and also the very act of sanctifying But it cannot be that the holy Spirit should be a person and that the act of sanctifying should agree to it in a peculiar manner above the Faâher and the Son and yet not be directly any where attributed to it We have by the way touched above also other reasons for we shewed in the Argument next foregoing that it would follow out of that supposition of the adversaries that the holy Spirit is the Father of Christ rather than God who is every where said to be his Father We have seen also * Chap. 3. of this Section above in the Epistle of Jude that Sanctification is ascribed to the Father Preservation of us to Christ the holy Spirit being not indeed so much as mentioned For so the Greek Text hath it Jude a servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James to them that are sanctified in God the Father and preserved in Christ Jesus the called Or as some later Interpreters in some manner studying the perspicuity of the sentence have rendred it called of God the Father or by the Father sanctified and saved by Jesus Christ Is it credible if the holy Spirit were a divine person to whom the action of sanctifying in some respect should rather agree than to the Father and Son that this action should be attributed as proper to the Father the mention of the holy Spirit being altogether omitted We have seen it also affirmed by Paul * 1 Cor. 8.6 That all things in any manner pertaining to our Salvation are from God the Father as the first cause all things in like manner by the Son as the middle cause no mention being made of the holy Spirit But if tâe holy Spirit were a divine person to whom so notable an action so greatly pertaining to our salvation should agree in some remarkable respect above those two persons not onely the mention of it could not be omitted but also it could not be rightly affirmed that all things are of the Father or that all things are by Christ For that person of the holy Spirit either as the first and supream cause should have something in so great a matter above the Father or as a midle cause above the Son when notwithstanding not some but all things are entirely attributed to the Father as the first cause and to the Son as the midle cause yet holding the next place from the first Lastly the common opinion concerning the Trinity doth not bear such a partition of actions and offices For if those persons have one and the same numerical understanding will power there is not any of these more in one than in the rest it is necessary that there be also one operation in number of all these as even the adversaries confess and that one person act not any thing more than another For such diversity or inequality of action could not arise any otherwise thence than that one person of this thing another of that a third of another thing should either think rather or would rather exercise it or lastly could better perfome it But such a difference cannot be held in that unity because seeing those persons think altogether with the same understanding not with another and another in like manner also they both will with the same will and work outwardly by the same power in number one thinks wills and workes as much as another not one more than another It is manifest therefore that sanctification and whatsoever pertaines to it doth in no wise more agree to the holy Spirit than to the Father and Son if he were one God with both And hence ariseth a third reason by which it is demonstrated that it cannot indeed be said no not by a Metonymie of the holy Spirit that he is given or received by men if he be held to be that one God together with the Father and Son For it will follow that the holy Spirit is no more given to us and received of us than the Father and the Son For those gifts and effects in respect of which the holy Spirit should be said to be given should no more come from the holy Spirit than from the Father and the Son nor in one respect from these and in another from that but in the same altogether But who hath ever heard who hath read that the Father was given to any or was prayed to be given to us when the gifts of the holy Spirit were prayed for Who asks at this day that the Son might be given to him being about to ask for those same gifts Who would brook him that should ask Christ that he would give the Father to him or would pray to the person of the holy Spirit
whom you most respect and approve how few Argumentations will you find which are manifest from the holy Scriptures What is more usual than such Argumentations as these To whom the Properties of that One God agree he is that one God But to Christ or the holy Spirit these agree Again To whom actions proper to persons agree he is a person But they agree to the holy Spirit But where are those Propositions which they call major Propositions that I say nothing now of Assumptions written whence will they draw them but from reason But if Argumentation when we treat even of Mysteries may be firm from one Proposition which Reason only supplies why may it not be also from two if as well Reason approves both as one Besides if we argue either from the Opinions of the Adversaries themselves or from Opinions and Principles confessed by all who can reprehend it unless most unjustly especially if we shew that that Doctrine implies as they speak a contradiction and overthrows it self For all men who are of right understanding do confess that no doctrine can be true which implies a contradiction or the force of which is such that it is necessary that the same thing be and not be together to wit in the same respect part time For this principle being taken away all Science is taken away and although you should a thousand times demonstrate God to be three in persons yet it might be allowed for another alike truely to say that he is not three and so in all other things But we may without difficulty shew that the common Doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in one numerical Essence doth imply a contradiction What then remains but that it be acknowledged by all to be false But that the thing is so as we have said being holpen by Divine Aid we shall demonstrate in the following Book THE SECOND BOOK OF John Crellius Concerning One God the Father HAving shewed from the holy Scriptures the Most High God to be none other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Now we will confirm the same chiefly by other Arguments and indeed so that we may refel the Doctrine contrary to this Opinion partly from the very nature of it and the received opinions of the Adversaries partly from other principles The truth of which may be demonstrated in a certain manner But we shall divide this whole tract again into three Sections In the first we shall in general discourse of those three Persons of supream Divinity which are maintained and shall shew that that Doctrine doth oppose it self and also other Suppositions of the Adversaries In the second of the second Person of that Trinity which they hold to be the Son of God In the third we shall speak of the third Person which they make the holy Spirit Which being finished we shall so conclude this whole work as to shew the manifold Use of this Disputation The first Section Arg. 1 There would be three Gods In which is generally treated concerning the three Persons of the supream Deity which are commonly maintained CHAP. I. The first Argument By which is shewed That the common Doctrine of the Trinity overthrows it self because there would be at once one and three Gods THat we may therfore perform that which we have propounded in the first place first Thence it is manifest that the common Doctrine of three Persons in one God doth imply a contradiction and so overthroweth it self because both one God and three Gods to wit Most High are there asserted together One God indeed expresly but three if you consider the force of the Opinion For they say That there are three Persons really distinct from among themselves each of which is God For as much as they are wont to say and are compelled to say by the force of their Opinion The Father is God The Son is God The holy Spirit is God but they alwayes speak of the same Most high God But now where there are three persons really distinct from among themselves each of which is the most high God there are three most high Gods Reckon up now those Persons and you will have three most high Gods for the first will be the Father the second the Son the third the holy Spirit The matter needs no disputation with him who by reason of a preconceived Opinion concerning God when there it is treated of him hath not forgat to number three A larger Defence and Confirmation of the Argument BUt nevertheless they urge that those three are one God If they should so call those three one God as we call three or more Senators one Senate since it cannot be said of them separately thus far it might be pardoned to them But seeing they pronounce the name of the most high God of each person distinctly taken and are altogether compelled to pronounce it by the force of their Opinion they cannot say it For from this Opinion it doth altogether follow that either the Father is the Son and holy Spirit and reciprocally or the Father is one God in number another the Son another the holy Spirit the former of which takes away the real distinction of the persons the latter overthrows the Unity of God and manifestly makes three Gods in number For as to the former thus I will argue That one God is the Father as the holy Scriptures testifie it and the Adversaries confess it But the Son according to the Adversaries Opinion is that one God that same even in number who was now called the Father Therefore the Son is the Father But the same Argumentation may be also inverted the premises being converted and transposed and in like manner may be framed concerning the holy Spirit in relation to the Father and Son Nor can it otherwise be dissolved unless you say that the Son is one God in number the Father another likewise the holy Spirit another and so there are three Gods in number Therefore whithersoever the Adversaries turn themselves by that their Tenet they overthrow both their own Doctrine and the sence of the holy Scriptures Moreover do I not rightly argue thus The Father is a divine Person the Son is a divine Person the holy Spirit is a divine Person therefore there are three divine Persons not one The Adversaries will altogether so assert Why then do I not likewise rightly argue The Father is the most high God the Son is the most high God the holy Spirit is the most high God therefore there are three most high Gods not one If we would urge examples fetcht from things created Peter is a man Paul is a man John is a man therefore there are three men not one or Michael is an Angel Gabriel is an Angel Raphael is an Angel therefore there are three Angels not one if I say we would urge these examples the Adversaries would cry out that the thing is one way in creatures another way in God But now when we use the
hath the divine Essence But whosoever is hypostatically the most high God he hath the divine Essence But if you will say that God taken essentially signifies the Essence it self which is neither Father nor Son nor holy Spirit or contrarily but something subsisting in those three First I shall not easily believe that the Adversaries who speak more accurately will admit that since the essence especially so taken as that it cannot be predicated of each of the divine persons signifies something abstract But God is concrete such indeed as is found in Substances and denotes an Essence together with an Existence or Subsistence But further whatever at last the Adversaries will determine of this matter we have already shewn that the name of God is the name of a person and since it is certain that the name of one God is so used in the holy Scriptures that it is directly predicated of the Father but the Adversaries would have it so that it should be predicated also of the Son and the holy Spirit it will be necessary to shew where the word God when there it is spoken of that one God denotes some such thing as neither is Father nor Son nor holy Spirit Lastly Such a signification will make nothing to the matter For we dispute of that God of whom the Adversaries speak when they say that the Father is God the Son is God the holy Spirit is God and not of that God who cannot after that manner be predicated of the divine persons And thus much concerning the first Argument CHAP. II. The second Argument Because each divine Person would be three in Persons ANother Reason by which it is shewed that the common Doctrine of the Trinity doth overthrow it self is that thence it follows that each person of the Deity is three in persons and so it is both one and not one together For so say the Adversaries that that one God is three in persons The same again as we have said affirm that each divine person is that one God Whence it follows that each divine Person is three in persons The Defence of the Argument Neither indeed may you say that the Major is particular For it is singular which here answers to an universal since nothing may be subsummed in the Minor which is not contained under that singular which is the subject of the Major and the middle term of the Argument or of which that singular may not be said But the conclusion is most false and as we have seen overthrows it self But if any will here use a distinction and say that the Major speaks of God essentially taken the Minor of God personally taken he shall be no whit advantaged For we have in the foregoing chapter refuted that distinction shewing each divine person to be God essentially taken because it hath the whole Essence of God Therefore in whichsoever manner you take the word God yet the Minor will be true even as I believe all the more learned Adversaries will also say But besides let us feign Arg. 2 Every divine Person would be three that an Essence which neither is Father nor Son nor holy Spirit may be rightly called God and that it is three in persons which manner of expression I remember not that I have read in the Adversaries yet if that whole Essence be in each person the Trinity will be in each person and so each person no less than that Essence will be three in persons For in what the Essence is in that is also that whole whatsoever is in that Essence and is predicated of it in the concrete especially if that thing be of it self and not by accident in the Essence as here altogether the Adversaries would have with whom not only the divine persons cannot be accidents of the divine Essence but there is no accident at all in God CHAP. III. The third Argument Because the divine Persons would in very deed be the same and diverse THe third Argument is That the Adversaries maintain that the Essence is in very deed the same with the Persons and that the Persons do really differ from among themselves For hence it follows that the same thing is at once both one thing and more than one differ really from it self and not differ For those things which are the same really with some one thing are really the same among themselves also But the three divine Persons really distinct among themselves are really the same with some one thing namely the divine Essence Therefore the three persons really distinct among themselves are really the same among themselves The Conclusion doth manifestly contradict it self The Proposition which they call the Major rests on a Principle known to all which they do commonly thus express Those things which are the same with one third thing that is with something wherewith they are conferred are also among themselves the same And there is the same force of the Axiome if you add both in the predicate and in the subject of that enunciation the word Really For those things which are really the same with one third are one and the same thing with the third For what other thing is it to be the same things really than to be one and the same thing But those things which are one and the same with one third it is necessary that they be the same thing also among themselves otherwise that third thing with which those things are the same thing should at once be both one thing and more things So some of the Adversaries themselves are wont to prove that the divine Attributes are not really distinguished among themselves The divine Attributes say they are really the same thing with the divine Essence Therefore they are really the same thing among themselves Because those things which are really the same with one third Arg. 3 The divine Persons would be indeed the same are also really the same among themselves But others * See Becan in the Treatise concerning God cap. 1. Sect 1. Part. 1. who see that their Opinion concerning the Trinity is by this means everted say that this Reason is not firm and that common Axiome Those things which are the same with one third are the same among themselves ought thus to be understood Those things which are the same with one third thing incommunicable are the same among themselves But it is manifest that the divine Essence is not incommunicable since it is the same in number in the three Persons really distinct among themselves Neither indeed can the Adversaries bring any other instance by which they may invalid that Axiome besides that thing of which is here the controversie and is refelled by this very Reason But that Major proposed both by us and others admits no instance or exception because the reason of it is altogether universal For unless it be admitted a plain contradiction follows as we have seen to wit that one and the same thing is at once
which belongs to a King These things are plain and have in them no scruple and difficulty There is no need here of communication of Properties There is no need to distinguish subtilly between Expressions in concreto and in abstracto to difference the Person from the Nature again one Nature from another to seek how you may attribute humane things to the most high God and things proper to the most high God to a Man how the same Person one while governs as the most high God another while as a Mediator and so the same person is in some sort distinguished from himself Now from that which hath been said that may also be understood That there was no heed of the Union of two Natures For if there had been need of it it had been for this cause That Christ might bear and manage those Offices But Chrisâ miâht discharge them although he were but a man in Essence Yea if he had been God he could not discharge the two former he could not receive the last nor therefore discharge it because that Kingly office is not the Empire of the most high God as he is such but as the Adversaries speak such a Kingdom as Christ manageth as a Mediator And indeed the confirming our faith and hope and the Glory of the most high God required such a Kingdom But if any say that greater than humane ability or power was requisite to discharge those Offices that would be of some moment if it had been necessary that he should have that ability or power from himself nor could receive them from God himself But now since he both might receive them from God and the holy Scriptures so often testifie that he hath received them from God what need was there that he should be the most high God Rightly they say commonly God and Nature do nothing in vain although God doth those things also that Nature doth But if God does not things unnecessary much less those things which hinder and are otherwise unbeseeming his Majesty But we have shewed that that union would have hindered the administration of those Offices We have shewed also that it attributes to God not a few absurdities and things unbeseeming his Majesty and most apt either to take away out of mens minds or at least to diminish in them that veneration of it which he would establish by Christ The Third Section That the holy Spirit shouâd be the Son of God 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 WE have said enough of the second Person which is held to be in the Trinity It remains that we add something also of the third There is no need that we should say much of it because those things which have been said of the Sons Generation out of the Essence of the Father being a little changed may be applied to that procession of the holy Spirit which the Adversaries have devised For which reason we also before sometimes have expresly joyned the holy Spirit with the Son and so anticipated the treating of those things which might have been here alleaged nor did we that without cause For if you rightly mark it both the Generation of the Essence of the Father is some Procession and on the contrary such a Procession as the Adversaries attribute to the holy Spirit is like that Generation which the Adversaries attribute to the Son of God The former the more lâârned of the Adversaries do confess who treating of the Generation of the Son and Procession of the holy Spirit say That there are two Pâocessions in God But why the word Procession is accommodated perticularly to the holy Spirit and so is distinguished from the Generation of the Son they assign this to be the Reason Because there is a special word wanting by which that proper and peculiar manner whereby the holy Spirit proceeds from the Faâher and Son may be designed Therefore as in other things it oft comes to pass the general name is attributed as proper to the species and so is distinguished from the other species But that the Procession also of the holy Spiâit is a Generation if that Generation of the Son of God which the Adversaries hold be indeed a Generation is not hard to demonstrate For what other thing is required to a Generation properly to called than that one receive his Essence from another either the same in kind or as the Adversaries opinion of God is in number with his Essence from whom he receives it In brief generation properly so called is a communication of a substance with another And is not that Procession of the holy Spirit devised by the Adversaries such a communication Did not the holy Spirit by that Procession receive the same essence in number with the essence of them from whom hee proceeded So indeed Adversaries think and contend But if the Procession of the holy Spirit be a Generation properly so called we have in the Trinity two Sons one of the first person only another of the first and second and also two Fathers one of the ffrst person who will be a Father by a double name to wit because he hath begotten the second and third person of the Deity another the second person who together with the Father hath begotten the holy Spirit But we have learned both from the holy Scâiptures and the Adversaries that there is but only One Father and only one Son to wit by excellency so called The more acute of the Adversaries have seen this Rock of their opinion and have endeavoured to avoid it Therefore they have judged that that definition of a Generation which otherwise they themselves have delivered is to be limited and have said that not every communication of a substance with anohter is a Generation but at length that tâat which such a relation follows as is between Father and Son which is barbarously called Paternity and Filiation In which indeed they are rediculous As if forsooth it could be that a person may communicate his substance really to a person and yet such a relation may not thence presently follow and that person which communicates his substance to another by that very thing were not forthwith a Father or where there is a distinction of sex which is not in God a Mother and again he to whom the substance is communicated a Son or where there is a distinct sex a Daughter The Adversaries themselves confess that the words Father Son Generation Procession as also other-like words are by an Analogy said of God and creatures and that by reason of likeness they are translated from these to God But in things created as soon as the substance is produced the things is properly said to be generated nor is there any thing more required to the propriety of the word but if a person have
produced a person presently the one is called a Father or as we have said a Mother the other a Son or Daughter Therefore that which in God is analogum to that Generation doth also deserve to be termed Generation But that is a production of another person or a communication of the substance with another person And the necessary consequence hereof is Paternity and Filiation Analogum to that which we see in humane generations For that generation is conversant among Persons But say some therefore the production of a person is called a generation because by it a person is produced not only like to the producer in essence but also in some other peculiar respect For that second person as such is the image of the first as that which is hath produced by understanding it self but that the Image is like to that the image of which it is They say there is another reason of the Procession of the holy Spirit for he is produced from the Father and Son by willing But it is not the property of the will to produce something like to that thing which it wills and desires Therefore that the holy Spirit however by his Procession he is become like to the Father and Son in Essence or rather the same yet in respect of his person by which he is distinguished from the Father and the Son he is like to neither But that Procession at last is rightly termed a Generation by which the person produced becomes altogether like the producer but that procession is rightly distinguished from a generation of which in that respect there is a different reason But these subtil devices avail them nothing For besides that we have refuted already * Sect. 3. Chap. 1. above that device of the production of persons which may be by understanding or willing There are yet two things which shew the vanity of this exception The former is that to the propriety of a generation from another it is not at all required that the thing generated be like the thing generating in all things but it is enough if it be like to it in essence or substance from which likeness follows also a likeness of natural properties and common to the whole genus or species although the property of generation by it self is not seen in this but in that and if it could be that the substance of the thing generated were like to the substance of the thing generating but the properties of both divers nevertheless the property of generation would be certain although perhaps it might not be so easiely acknowledged because we for the most part know things themselves by the proper tokens and consequents of things Wherefore if the holy Spirit by vertue of his procession became like in substance to the Father and Son yea the same for according to the Adversaries identity takes not away procession nor generation in divine persons the holy Spirit was generated of the Father and Son and so that his procession is generation In how many things if you except the Essence and properties immediately following it are sons wont to be unlike the Fathers yet nevertheless they are not therefore less properly said to be generated of them or to be their Sons But here the essence and natural properties are altogeâher the same What then is there wanting in the holy Spiâit to the propriety of generation That I may omit that the holy Spirit cannot be unlike the Father and Son no not indeed in that propriety or character which they call hypostatical if another opinion of the same Adversaries concerning those personal properties be true For they hold them to be the same really with the Essence common to the three persons and only distinguished from it by the understanding Whence it necessarily follows that he that hath that essence in himself as each of those three persons hath hath also all those properties in him and that those properties are no less common to the three persons than the Essence Although that opinion overthrows it self For they will be at once common and proper in respect of the same persons and will make those persons unlike and not unlike diverse and not diverse The latter Why that reason or exception of the Adversaries cannot have place is Because if we follow their opinion concerning the divine attributes nothing can proceed from the will but together it proceeds from the understanding and on the contrary For with them all the divine attributes and so the understanding and will if you consâder the thing it self are altogether the same thing For they are the very Essence of God to which indeed doth agree no not the least composition or true diversity And indeed many Schoolmen say that they may express their opinion That the understanding and will in God as also his other attributes are not only really but also formally the same thing that is that they are not only so joyned together as that they can never be severed from one another but also are not so much as indeed by proper forms or essences and definitions distinguished from each other Aristotle would say they are the same in reallity and reason For with Aristotle those things are the same in reason which have the same form and the same definition he saith they differ in reason who have diverse Now if in this manner the will and understanding are the same thing in God and so the understanding as the will it self and reciprocally whatsoever procedes or is generated from the understanding procedes also and is generated from the will and on the contrary Therefore the production by the understanding is no more generation than that which is said to proceed from the will nor doth that produce a person like to the producer more than this neither is the Son more a Son than the holy Spirit neither is the same Son less the holy Spirit than the third person of the Trinity For the Son hath no less proceeded from the will than the holy Spirit nor the holy Spirit less from the understanding than the Son These indeed are the fruits of the subtilties wherewith the Scholastick-Divinity swarmes And yet we see that those who acknowledge the holy Scriptures for the only Rule of Faith do follow and admire them But they will say the same Schoolmen have prevented these difficulties For the divine attributes by their doctrine although they be not actually distinguished by the nature of the thing or without the consideration of our mind in any manner neither really nor formally yet are they distinguished eminenter that is vertually and potentially And this difference is the foundation of the diversity between the processions of two persons of which we now treat and likewise between various effects flowing from God and lastly between the conceits and cogitations of our mind concerning the divine attributes For we do inadequately conceive the divine attributes by reason of the imperfection of our understanding and therefore consider
rest in him only come ultimately to him alone but is dispersed among more persons who are held to be altogether equal to him likewise both honour and trust and invocation and all sorts of praises are ultimately divided unto more which wholly ought to come at length to one person And these absurdities indeed arise as well from the opinion of the supream deity of the Son as from the doctrine concerning the supream deity of the holy Spirit But that is more proper to the opinion concerning the holy Spirit that divine empire and government is attributed to it which doth not at all agree to it and moreover it is held to be God to be adored of it self invocated and celebrated as the giver of all good things whatsoever whereas none of these as we have seen * Lib. 1. Sect. 3. Chap. 1 3 are attributed to it in the holy Scriptures nor can be attributed since it is not a person Therefore although otherwise the holy Spirit be subordinate to the most high God as the middle cause of most divine actions yet is it not so subordinate as a person is wont to be to whom an empire and manageing of affaires and the parts of honour and worship which are wont and ought to follow it are granted by another in which manner we see Christ who is expresly both called God and being placed in the Throne of God is said to command all things to be subordinate to God Whence also it is commanded that he be adored by all and that all men put their trust in him and so be bold to implore his aid neither is there any part of the divine Honour which is not found to be attributed to him although so that it tend ultimately to the Father None of these things are found concerning the holy Spirit Wherefore the Adversaries do not only sin in that that they make the holy Spirit the most high God but also simply in that that they hold it to be a God or endued with a divine Empire and governing humane affaires and further that they say that it is no less to be invocated and adored than Christ and that other things also are to be attributed to it which properly are due to a divine and heavenly King and Lord being unmindful of the most plain words of the Apostle asserting 1 Cor. 8.6 That to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we for him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him But although this absurdity which we have explained in the latter place doth more appear in the common opinion concerning the holy Spirit than concerning the Son of God yet it doth appear also in this and unless another errour to wit of the incarnation of the Son of God had somewhat corrected that other it would be yet more grievous For whilst before and besides Jesus Christ born of the Virgin I say that man whom they call the humane nature only there is feigned an only begotten Son of God who existed from all eternity who was alwayes endowed together with the Father with a divine Empire over all things a Deity is attributed to that thing which not only was not subordinate to the most high God or invested with so high an Empire by him but indeed was never existent And in this latter part this errour of it self is more grievous than that which is committed about the Deity of the holy Spirit For the holy Spirit not only existed and doth yet exist but is also as we have said a most divine thing and truly united with and subordinate to the most high God in most excellent works We hear sometimes some saying that even therefore their opinion touching Christ is to be preferred before our because it is conjoyned with his greater Glory But the very love towards Christ our Saviour requireth that we rather add some honour to him than detract from him Which men indeed first so deal as if the matter did depend on our arbitrement and were not altogether to be estimated by the determination of the holy Scriptures that is of God himself and the manifest reason of the thing it self Seeing therefore the holy Scriptures themselves have in this part set us certain limits beyond which it is unlawful to pass as it is not lawful for us to take away any tâing from the âonour of Christ so neither to add any thing to it Neitheâ indeed doth the true love towards Christ how great soever it be require that we ascribe any thing to him beyond truth and honour him with false titles and praises For neither is he delâghted with false honour who abounds with true honour neither doth he account any thing to be his praise which doth diminish the glory of his Father from whom all honour all divinity is derived But that opinion of the Adversaries conceâning the supream divinity of Christ doth as we have seen diminish it Therefore although it should at length be lawful out of our affection to add something to the honour of Christ yet that would not be lawful which is conjoyned with the Fathers injury It is not lawful to detract any thing from the honour of Christ But neither is it lawful to take away any thing from the honour of the Father It is not lawful to detract any thing fâom the love towards the Son But neither is it lawful to take away any thing from the love towards the Father Since even that former is not lawful because whilst the honour due to Christ is denyed also the honour due to the Father is denyed and whilst the Son is less loved than is meet the Father is less loved For * John 5.23 He that honoureth not the Son saith Christ himself honoureth not the Father who sent him And â John 15.23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also For as John saith â 1 John 5.1 He that loveth him that begat loveth also him that is begotten of him Therefore the most high regard is to be had to the honour of the Son but no less to that of the Father for whose sake he is honoured and beloved Neither indeed are we those who detract any part of honour from the Son or desire to detract for whose glory trusting to his aid we refuse not indeed even the cruellâst death Being instructed by him we refel the honour falsly and with imminution of the divine glory ascribed to him That which he himself refuseth we will not do And that you may see that we leave to Christ his honour undiminished and endeavour as we are able to maintain it what more doth Christ himself requiâe of us than that we honour him as we honour the Father Doth any greater honour agree to him I think none but he that is out of his wits will say it But for what cause doth Christ chaâlenge that honour to himself Is it therefore because he is the most high God
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 necessaâily 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 fâr 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 includâd in the knowledge of Christ and on the contâary 185 186. How the Apostles do exârâss 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 agâeeth 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 consideâation 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 âhem 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 woâship 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 distinât what pag. 255 Reason in divine things is not to be rejected pag. 245 What thinâs are according to Aristotle distiâct 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 âeason 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
The Two BOOKS OF John Crellius FRANCUS Touching ONE GOD THE FATHER Wherein many things also concerning the Nature of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are discoursed of Translated out of the Latine into English Printed in Kosmoburg at the Sign of the Sun-beams in the Year of our Lord MDCLXV John Crellius Minister of the Racovian Church To the Christian Reader GREETING WE set forth not long since Christian Reader a Book touching God and his Attributes which we prefixed before the Books of John Volkelius touching the true Religion When we discoursed therein touching the Unity of God it seemed requisite to the full explication of that Unity that we should shew the most high God to be One not in Essence onely but also in Person and to be no other then the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and indeed we began to demonstrate this with divers Arguments and to guard those Arguments against such Exceptions as were either common or somewhat more specious and plausible But since the Work did as we there said grow under our hand we thought that this Treatise was to be parted from the rest of the Work For not onely the plenty of Arguments which did of their own accord offer themselves to us out of the Scripture increased the bulk of our Writing but also our desire not willingly to omit any of those things which might seem to men to be of some moment for the over-throwing of out Arguments For since for this Opinion chiefly touching One God the Father though grounded upon many most clear Testimonies of the Scripture we are exposed to the most bitter hatred and Persecution of all men I thought it very expedient to shew what great injury was done unto us in this behalf yea how injurious the Christian World was to it self in so obstinately rejecting this part of the Divine Truth especially since there is so various and notable use of this Doctrine in Divinity and in the whole Christian Religion as by the help of God we will shew in the end of these Books Now I thought this Book to be the more necessary in that I saw our Men whilst they were dayly opposed by the Adversaries for the most part with an hostile Mind and Pen were chiefly busied in answering their Reasons inserting their own Arguments commonly in brief and in a scattered manner here and there inasmuch as they acted the parts of Respondents rather than Opponents For though certain Eminent Men in our Church did sometimes begin to take upon them the Office of Opponents in this Controversie yet being diverted by other labour of Writing they were sorced to lay this out of their hands Wherefore they left to us nothing but the beginning of that Work which they undertook to this end and which we certain years ago did publish Certainly it was a thing exceedingly to be desired that such men far better furnished with Wit and with Knowledge of Divine Things than we are had rather finished this Work than left it to Us to be perfected But inasmuch as that hath not been done by them we ought not to suffer that it should never be accomplished Now we might the more boldly attempt this labour in that the evident Truth of the Opinion and the multitude of most solid Arguments arising of their own accord out of the holy Scriptures did ease the meanness of our Wit and in that we saw how the Opinion it self had for so many years together been opposed by so many and so acute Adversaries with all sorts of Arms and Engines to no purpose wherefore we took Courage from the Goodness of the Cause Truly we hope in God and Christ that they who are studious of knowing the Truth when they shall have weighed our Arguments will see the Truth of that Opinion that we hold yea that they also whose minds are so beset and besieged with pre-conceived Opinions that they will at no hand give place to the Truth will notwithstanding perceive if they will have but the patience to reade our Writing that we were not moved with slight Reasons from that Opinion which hath for so many Ages been received in the Christian World and if they have any Equity and Humanity left in them will cease to pursue us with so great an hatred for so doing For though we relying on the Divine Help are ready to suffer any thing for the Truths sake yet would it be the part of others not only to abstain from all bitterness of Hatred but also to be touched with compassion towards them whom they thought to be fallen indeed into a great Error but yet were driven thereinto with no slight grounds For it is not the part of a Christian yea not of a Man when he thinketh any one fallen into some Error of Judgment though in a weighty matter not onely to forbear in a courteous way to raise him up out of the same but also with a bitter spirit to plunge him further thereinto But let them do what they please we in the mean time trust in God that they shall never be able to make us repent of the Opinion which we profess Howbeit Christian Reader we beseech thee by the love both of the Truth and of thy own Salvation that thou wouldest diligently consider the things which we write and examine them by the Rule of Gods Word We crave nothing which the Apostle hath not already required of thee whilst he commandeth to try all things and hold fast that which is good To despise and slight those things is altogether inconsistent with Piety For though we should omit other things which are to be mentioned in their place consider that the Glory of God is herein concerned the least part whereof is greater than the greatest of humane Affairs whereon notwithstanding see how much pains all and thou perhaps thy self doest bestow The ignorance of these things is excusable in another because he hath perhaps wanted an opportunity to be acquainted with them and so is not guilty of contempt but thou canst have no excuse for thy self before that Judge who that thou mayst no longer be ignorant offers thee an occasion of better information thereby causing that thou canst not be ignorant of those things without contempt The Divine Truth suffers not it Self to be despised Scot-free Thou knowest that of our Saviour Luk. 12.48 To whom much is given of him much shall be required and with whom they have deposited much the more shall be expected of him The Lord will require more of thee than of others because he affordeth thee a more ample occasion of knowing the Truth than to many others Beware lest that most Righteous Judge finde thee an Unrighteous Judge in this Cause who when thou hearest our Adversaries every where opposing us for the most part with Rayling rather than Reason dost notwithstanding refuse to hear us who defend our Selves and our Opinion in a modest manner But if thou farther darest to condemn
our Cause holding that we are not onely excluded out of Heaven but ought also to be banished out of all Countreys think with thy self that to condemn Men before their Cause is heard is to condemn them as innocent Neither will it be enough for thee to refer the labour of examining unto others so as to follow their Judgment without thine own Think that thou thy self must answer for thy self Thou thou I say according to thy Understanding and Opportunity oughtest to try all things and hold fast that which is good For shalt thou commit all things unto others take heed and that very diligently lest thou commit thy self and thy Salvation unto men either negligent or puffed up with an Opinion of Learning and Knowledge or wholly addicted to humane Authority and pre-conceived Opinion or otherwise obstinate and not knowing how to yeild or loving their own quiet and security rather than their own or others Salvation or cowardly and not daring to utter their Opinion In short lest blindly following blind Guides thou fall with them into the Ditch Think not they are Godly and Lovers of the Truth whom I follow For to omit that this Opinion concerning others is often-times confuted by their manners and Actions there are many hiding holes of Vices and private Closets in the Brests of Men into which none but God and Christ can penetrate so that we are in greater danger of mistaking in our Judgment concerning other mens Piety when we go this way to work than if the question only is concerning an Opinion concerning which we dare not pass Sentence Neither canst thou say These things are too subtile for my Understanding For if thou considerest the Opinion it self whereof we here dispute what is more plain and simple than it for what doth it contain above that which is called the Apostles Creed which Children are acquainted with namely that that One God is no other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ If you look upon the Arguments which we have drawn out of the Scriptures they are of themselves plain and easie so that the Adversaries can no other way decline their force than by turning away from the simplicity of the Word and endeavouring to draw us away from the same Yea those Arguments vvhich vve have fetch'd from Reason if you except a few vvhich vve have added for the sake of Learned Men are so clear that one must rather offer violence to his Reason and Understanding that he may not admit the force of them than use any great intention of Mind to understand them But perhaps if any thing occur in the defence of the Arguments fetch'd out of the Scripture vvhich may to a Man unskill'd in the Art of Disputing seem somewhat subtile he may pass it by for the other things vvhich may easily be understood by every one vve are confident will be sufficient for him to pass sentence concerning this Cause Though vve have so tempered this vvhole kind of Writing that all things may be understood by a man indifferently versed in Learning even those vvhich in the second Book we have culled out of Philosophy and the received Opinion of the Schools Neither indeed is it to be imputed to us if now and then vve speak something vvhich the ruder sort may call subtile but to the Adversaries vvho as vve have said do draw us avvay from the simplicity both of the Words and meaning of the Spirit of God which Reason doth dictate to the unlearned themselves and by the subtilties of distinctions endeavour to elude the most plain Arguments which we produce for our Opinion Wherefore we friendly admonish and beseech all them to whom this Writing of ours shall come that they would diligently weigh and examine our Words by the Ballance of the Divine Oracles and offer no violence to their conscience when they have found the Truth and so either by resisting it or perpetually burying it in silence increase their own and others servitude but use diligence to draw Others partly to the truer Opinion partly to more moderate Counsels and as much as in them lies cause that all may dare to erect their Mind to a free Inquiry touching sacred Matters and to lift up their Eyes to the Light thereof And that so through the whole World Men may with Piety of Mind Mouth and Life praise that One God the Father of whom are all things and that One Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things To Him be Glory and Power for ever and ever AMEN The Scope AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE WORK THe scope of this our Work is to shew That the most High God is no other besides the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Now we will divide the whole Work into two Books In the first we will confirm our Opinion with Scripture-Testimonies and Arguments drawn thence In the latter we will make use of other sufficient Reasons to prove the same and refute the contrary Though even there we will now and then recal the Reader to the Scriptures But in the former part of the Work we will so proceed as that we will first directly prove That onely the Father of Jesus Christ is the most high God and that partly by those Testimonies of the sacred Scripture which make open mention of the Father Partly by those wherein the Name of the Father is not indeed exprest yet is he truly spoken of Then will we demonstrate the same indirectly as they say when we shall shew out of the same holy Scripture That neither Christ whom otherwise we confess to be by the Gift of the Father a God over all to be blessed for evermore is the most High God nor the Holy Spirit whom we will prove to be the Vertue and Efficacy of the most High God Book 1. Sect. 3. Chap. 5. For so it will remain that the Father onely is the most High God since no other else can be imagined Touching ONE GOD The Father Arg. 1 from Joh. 17.3 THE FIRST BOOK SECT I. Wherein is directly proved that onely the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the most High God and first out of those Testimonies of the Sacred Scriptures which speak expresly of the Father CHAP. I. The first Argument from the words of Christ John 17.3 This is Life eternal that they might know thee Father the Onely true God and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ THe first Testimony therefore and Argument of our Opinion shall be that of Christ himself speaking to his Father in these words This is Life eternal c. Here none doubteth that by the Name of the true God is understood the most high God Wherefore since Christ so describeth the Father as to call him the Onely true God it is understood that onely the Father of Christ is the most High God The Defence of the Argument The first Answer to the Argument and the Refutation MAny there are who forced by the evidence of the Words
of all if he did understand one by the name of God another by the name of the Father The same is also evident in that he here distinguisheth that One God both from that One Lord and that One Spirit and that in such a manner as not only to design them by divers appellations and to include them in divers members of the sentence but also to interpose other things between them that it might the more clearly appear that they are different the one from the other But we saw in the foregoing Chapter that Christ is by name understood by that one Lord what other then should be understood by that One God distinguished both from that One Spirit and also from that One Lord or Christ but the Father of Christ especially since the very name of the Father is by the Apostle himself expresly added For lest you should understand the whole Trinity by the name of that God who is called One the foresaid Reason doth forbid namely in that two Persons of the Trinity were already mentioned and distinguished from that one God Again How absurd would such a speech be There is one Trinity of all and Father for to omit that a Trinit yaâ the Adversaries hold is not one God but three as shall elsewhere be â Lib. 2. Sect. 1. Chap. 1. shewn and is of it self manifest to every one if he will not for love of his prejudicate Opinion offer violence to his understanding what need is there after the whole Trinity to add the Father by name as if he had not been comprehended therein But would he have added something for Explication sake he ought to have expressed three Persons not one for neither doth he who maketh mention of one Person explain a Trinity of Persons The Defence of the Argument BUt there are not wanting some who in this place also do by the Name of the Father understand the whole Trinity or the Godhead indistinctly taken Which how absurdly they do though it may be understood by the Defence of the foregoing Argument yet is it here also to be shewn chiefly because the principal Patrons of that Opinion have proceeded so far as to say that by One Spirit One Lord One God and Father the very same is here understood there being no distinction in the thing it self but only in the words How bold and absurd that Explication of Pauls words is would be hard to utter But so was it necessary for them to do who were resolved to hold their Position and to defend any thing which the Opinion that they had once set down did require We forbear to urge that three persons every one whereof is a Spirit Lord God Father cannot possibly be one Spirit Lord God Father as they take it for granted Our demand only is By what Example they extend the name of the Spirit or the Father to the three Persons As for the name of the Father we spake of it in the forgoing Chapter from whence let those things be fetcht that are pertinent to this matter You shall find that the name of the Spirit one while put simply another while with an additament is in infinite places taken for the holy Spirit but no where for the Father or Christ Indeed the word Spirit is * Joh. 4.24 once in the Scripture predicated of the Father â 1 Cor. 15.45 2 Cor. 3.17 twice in a different sence of Christ but put subjectively or designing a certain subject which is the Spirit it is no where understood of Christ nor the Father Is it then lawful to reject the most usual signification of words which it is very apparent that Paul here followed and to impose such a one upon the words as is no where extant Besides what cause can be alledged why the Apostle had rather repeat the same thing thrice than distinctly to reckon up three distinct things which might be expressed by the same words and each whereof was very pertinent to the business in hand why I say had he rather thrice to name God indistinctly and only heap up words than to mention first the Unity of the holy Spirit under the name of One Spirit than that of Christ under the name of One Lord afterward that of the Father under this very name Furthermore why did the Apostle separate these three by the interposal of other things why did he not at least conjoyn them and speak of their Unity in a continued course The other things which he joyntly mentioned we see are divers those which he mentioned apart shall we think the same We know indeed that the same thing is sometimes repeated with changes of words but when like things are reckoned up in order and each of the rest finished in particular members or * That is Points or Stops Commaes the same thing is not wont to be repeated in divers members like to the rest much less to be sundred by the interposal of like things and Commaes No such example shall be alledged either out of prophane or sacred Writers Add hereunto that the same thing is then wont to be by sacred Writers so significantly repeated as here it will come to pass when in each word there is some peculiar force which here hath no place Certainly there will be no force in the word Spirit as shall presently be understood And should the name of that One Lord here signifie the same with that One God and so design the supream Monarch of all things the whole force thereof would not only have been expressed by the name of that one God but also presently explained more clearly when after the name of the Father it is added that he is over all for it is signified that he only ruleth over all with the highest Authority that it may be thence understood that the Father was deservedly so joyned with that One God as that we should conceive him to be the same as if he had said There is one God and Father of all as who is over all for were not the Father that one God he could not rule over all with the highest authority Now then had not the force of the word Lord been sufficiently expressed in these words But what force would there be in the word Spirit for it would signifie nothing but one spiritual Essence Not to say that the Essence of God would not presently be signified let us even without reason suppose that a Spirit or Spiritual Essence being mentioned the Substance of God is by name understood What doth this make to the unity of Christians is it because they all believe the same to be but neither is the mention of their faith made in this comma and the unity thereof is peculiarly mentioned whilst it is said One Faith How was it then pertinent to the matter that there was one spiritual add if you please divine Essence nothing at all for you must understand that the Unity of the Faithful is not thence simply
Arguments drawn out of those places wherein though the name of the Father be not expressed yet it is indeed spoken of him CHAP. V. Argument the fifth drawn from the words of Paul 1 Cor. 12 4 5 6. There are diversities of Gifts but the same Spirit and diversities of Administrations but the same Lord and diversities of Operations but the same God IN these words of the Apostle which we have alledged it is apparent that these words the same God doth signifie that one God common to all Christians Now since the Apostle doth distinguish him both from the same Spirit and the same Lord whom we have before * Chap. 2. seen by two places of the same Apostle to be Christ it is clear that that God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and no other besides him for what other can be imagined who being distinguished from that one Spirit and one Lord of Christians namely Christ should be designed by the name of same God besides the Father of Christ But how was it possible that under this name of the same God he should be distinguished from the same Spirit and the same Lord if that one Spirit and that one Lord were no less that very same God than the Father Neither will any one doubt of this meaning of that place who will compare these things with what we have spoken concerning those two places of the same Apostle 1 Cor. 8.6 Ephes 4.5 6. The Defence of the Argument HEre we do not much fear lest any one of the Adversaries should so take these three namely The same Spirit the same Lord the same God as we said that some interpreted the like words Ephes 4. as namely to assert That all these are common to the Trinity and do not each of them denote divers persons or things but that the same Trinity is described in three divers manners For not to repeat what was said in that place to the Ephesians where we saw that that one Spirit is openly distinguished from that one Lord and that one God and that each of these names doth design particular persons or things whence it is easie to collect the same is done in this place likewise which is very like to that of the Ephesians partly in words partly in regard of the Argument and drift add hereunto that by this means the word Spirit would not signifie the holy Spirit distinguished from the Father and the Son but would be taken for a spiritual Substance as we saw some took it in that place of the Ephesians But besides that this is other waies foolish and foreign to the meaning of the Apostle as may from thence appear neither doth the foregoing nor following words endure that interpretation for that the Apostle doth speak of the holy Spirit by name which he * ver 7 8 9 11 13. afterwards sundry times designeth by the simple name of the Spirit all the circumstances do argue for he began â ver 1. to speak of spiritual Gifts or such as proceed from the holy Spirit and in the very beginning proposed a Rule whereby the Corinthians should discern the holy Spirit from the impure one and a divine Inspiration from a diabolical which might perhaps pass under the name of a divine one Which very Rule John also though in other words doth in his first Epistle â 1 John 4.2 3. deliver for thus speaketh * ver 3. Paul None speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed and none can call Jesus Lord but by the holy Spirit When he had spoken thus he addeth But there are diversities of Gifts yet the same Spirit where every one seeth that respect is had to that Spirit whereof immediately before mention was made as if he should say to all who speak by the impulsion of Gods Spirit this is common that they call Christ Lord but other wayes very divers are the Gifts flowing from that Spirit into men who have been filled with him although that Spirit be the same and not divers Besides afterwards ver 8 c. he largely reckoneth up those various effects of the holy Spirit to the end he might explain that which he had before said namely That there are diversities of Gifts but the same Spirit These things being apparent to every one there is as we said no great fear lest any one should seek to get out at that chink although error is wont to seek all possible wayes to escape But there are not wanting some who say that the holy Spirit is described in those three manners and contend that he is one while called the same Spirit another while the same Lord another while the same God but this Interpretation is easily confuted by the collation of this place with that to the â Ephesians * Ephes 4.4 5 6. where the Apostle handling the same Argument doth as we have seen manifestly distinguish one Spirit both from one Lord and one God and from the unity of each draws particular Arguments to demonstrate that Christians ought very studiously to maintain spiritual union among themselves and not for diversity of spiritual Gifts or such like things to separate one from another which very thing is by the Apostle here also done as any one may easily perceive if he read over this Chapter Wherefore it is unsuitable that the Apostle should here confound them whom elsewhere treating of the same thing he had so openly distinguished and when using the same words he might bring three distinct arguments very fit for his purpose he would rather comprehend but one drawn from the unity or sameness of the holy Spirit only Besides neither doth the thing it self nor this place admit that the holy Spirit should be understood when Paul saith that there is the same Lord or the same God for he speaketh not only of some most high God or Lord of Christians by way of excellency so called but of him besides whom there is no other for the meaning of the Apostle is not that some most high God or some Lord of Christians by way of excellency so called is the same but simply that that most high God and Lord by way of excellency so called is the same But none is Ignorant that besides the holy Spirit the Father is the most high God to whom in innumerable places the name of God is attributed as proper unto him as the Adversaries themselves confess and is in this very place done ver 2 where the Spirit is called the Spirit of God Certainly that the Spirit it self is not there understood by the name of God appeareth to every one In like manner that there is also besides the holy Spirit a Lord by way of excellency so called innumerable places of the Scripture so teach wherein by the confession of the Adversaries themselves the name of Lord is used as proper to Christ yea in this very place in the same second verse it is affirmed that Jesus is the
Lord. And how often I pray you in the Apostle is mention made of God the Father and of the Lord Jesus Christ Why then should we think that in this place the holy Spirit being once already named is understood when afterward there is distinct mention made of Lord and God Wherefore rather following the custom and analogy of the Scripture we put a difference between God Lord and Spirit as the same Apostle himself doth in the end of the latter Epistle to the Corinthians where he speaketh thus The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Love of God and the Communion of the holy Spirit be with you all CHAP. VI. The sixt Argument taken from these words 1 Tim. 2.5 There is One God and One Mediator of God and Men the Man Christ Jesus To which are added those Rom. 3.10 There is one God who justifieth the Circumcision by Faith c. Arg. 6 from 1 Tim. 2.5 OUr Argument from that place of Timothy is thus If the Father only is there understood by the name of that one God the Father only is that most high God For if any one besides the Father were the most high God he would be comprehended under the name of that one God since he is that One God besides whom there is no other Now that the Father only is there understood by the name of that One God is apparent in that he only is understood by that name between whom and Men the Apostle saith that Christ Jesus is the Mediator as is manifest from the connection of the words But he is none but the Father of Jesus Christ A further Confirmation and Defence of the Argument THat we may fully confirm this Argument that is to be proved whereof we last spake namely That the Father only is that God between whom and Men the Apostle saith That Christ is the Mediator For that Christ is the Mediator between the Father and Men no man doubteth but that he is the Mediator only between the Father and Men many men deny for they hold that Christ is the Mediator of the whole Trinity But this Opinion cannot consist for it would thence follow that Christ who is held the second Person of the Trinity would be the Mediator of himself or interveneth in the middle between himself which is contradictious Besides Christ in this place is most openly distinguished from God whose Mediator he is said to be You will say That Christ is a Mediator only according to the humane nature and that there is no absurdity to hold that Christ considered according to the humane Nature is the Mediator of himself considered according to the divine Nature and is righly distinguished from that one God But this answer is not only not brought but also wholly rejected by many of the very Adversaries for others altogether contend that Christ according to both natures is Mediator but some although they are afraid to speak so yet do they indeed say the same for they refer that office to the whole Person of Christ considered in its full latitude or to Christ as he is both God and Man As for the rest who would have Christ according to the humane Nature only to be Mediator neither do they by this distinction escape the difficulty for there are or have been some who would have the very humane nature of Christ to be indeed the Mediator and contend that it only is in Paul understood by the name of the Man Christ Jesus O These as the other Adversaries have observed are necessitated to confess that the humane Nature of Christ is a Person for both Offices such as Mediatorship is agree to none but Persons and the name of Man and also of Christ Jesus is the name of a Person But if the humane Nature of Christ is a Person he cannot be a Person of supream Deity for there would be in him two Persons a humane and a divine I say a divine one essentially But that there are two Persons in Christ all justly reject as Nestorian and contrary to the Scripture and judged to be most absurd But there are others and those far more numerous who to avoid this Rock deal more subtilly for they say that not the very humane Nature of Christ but his Suppositum or Person is properly the Mediator whereas the humane Nature is the formal Principle of that Mediation namely that part of the Subject which containeth in it self the proper cause of the action which because it is somewhat obscure is to be declared by an example Philosophers teach that a man properly doth understand love and hate and also eat drink run not the very soul or the body but that he doth understand love and hate according to the soul whereas he doth eat and drink according to the body So that the formal principle of some humane actions is the soul of others the body In like manner the Adversaries say that the Suppositum or Person of Christ that is very whole Christ is properly the Mediator and consequently doth such things as pertain to a Mediator but according to the humane Nature and they farther add this reason because should not the very Person of Christ be the Mediator the actions which he performs as Mediator would not have infinite efficacy and value nor satisfie God for the sins of men deserving infinite punishment which they think to be the proper Office of Christ the Mediator But now because his Person which is the very infinite God doth properly perform these actions though according to the humane nature hence it cometh to pass that they have an infinite force and worth But whilst they thus dispute they again shut the hole to get out at which they seemed to themselves by the distinction of natures to have opened For if the very divine Person of Christ is Mediator and performeth the actions proper to a Mediator it is necessary that the divine Nature also should perform the same and so Christ be a Mediator likewise according to the divine Nature for as the Adversaries themselves confess a divine Person doth not really differ from the divine Nature nor add any thing to the Nature but a Subsistence But a Subsistence hath of it self no poweâ to act but all the power to act resideth in the Nature the subsistence is only a condition without which the Nature doth not act wherefore whatsoever the divine Person of Christ doth act his divine Nature endued with a subsistence doth act From whence it may be understood first that it is not rightly said that the very Suppositum as they speak or Person of Christ doth do any thing according to the humane Nature since the Person of Christ if we follow the force of the Adversaries Opinion is the very divine Nature having its subsistence But it is not rightly said that the divine Nature subsisting doth do something according to the humane Nature since the humane Nature is not a part of the divine Nature
Whereas the word according as it is used by the Adversaries includeth the relation of a part but if you take that expression as if it were said by the humane Nrture then both the Father and holy Spirit might do something according to the humane Nature of Christ though perhaps the Father not as the nearest cause and such as immediately moveth the humane Nature but the holy Spirit dwelling therein even as the nearest cause and immediately moving that Nature Again it is likewise understood from what hath been spoken that that distinction of Natures cannot cause that it may rightly be said that Christ is the Mediator of himself not only because it is incongruous to say that his Person doth do any thing according to the humane Nature if that Person be the very supream God but also because from that Opinion of the Adversaries it would follow that the very divine Nature of Christ doth primarily and properly discharge the Office of a Mediator although it make use of the humane nature in this behalf for it would be necessary that the same divine Nature should intervene in the middle between it self and Men which every one seeth to be absurd Finally it is understood that this distinction of Natures cannot cause that Christ the Mediator should be distinguished from God if Christ be very God himself Add hereunto that none but those things are simply distinguisht one from another of whom it may be simply affirmed that the one of them is not the other But in this place God and Christ who is said to be his Mediator are simply distinguished one from another wherefore neither is that God Christ nor Christ that God for the distinction of Natures cannot cause that any thing should be simply denied of some subject which for another Nature is to be simply affirmed thereof as we will shew more at large Chap. 3. of the following Section Wherefore neither can it cause that any thing should be simply distinguished from that which is to be simply predicated of it inasmuch as such a distinction as we have seen doth tacitly involve a simple negation of one in relation to the other Neither can any one here say that Christ in the words of the Apostle is therefore rightly distinguished from God and so tacitly denied that he is that one God because by the name of God or that One God the whole Trinity is understood whereas Christ is not the whole Trinity for by this reckoning it might be said that the Father himself is not God or that one God because the Father is not the whole Trinity But who could endure to hear one so speaking certainly he would openly contradict the Scripture who durst to speak in that manner Besides the very Adversaries themselves do not suppose the name of God or that one God to be collective that is so joyntly signifying three Persons that it cannot be predicated of each apart for in predicating they hold that name hath the nature of an universal so that it may be predicated of every Person in particular For instance The Father is that one God the Son is that one God the holy Spirit is that one God wherefore Christ was not therefore distinguisht from that one God and so tacitly denied to be that one God because he is not the whole Trinity but because he simply is not that one God Some one will perhaps say as it followeth not That Christ is not a man because he is the Mediator of men since he is rather therefore a Man because he is the Mediator of Men Whence the Apostle expresly saith That there is one Mediator of God and Men the Man Christ Jesus So neither from thence that Christ is said to be the Mediator of God I say the most high and only God doth it follow that he is not the most high and only God This though it be more pertinent to the second Section of this book shall notwithstanding receive a brief answer especially because the thing doth not need any long dispute for who seeth not when Christ is said to be the Mediator of Men that by the name of Men other men besides Christ are understood who were either wholy alienated from God or not so joyned but that they might be more closely joyned in a new Covenant by a Mediator but certainly Christ was not in the number of them wherefore we may rather retort this Argument upon the Adversaries for as Christ was not in the number of those men whose Mediator he was nor is comprehended under them in this place of Paul so neither is the same Christ that God or comprehended under the name of that God whose Mediator he is said to be Finally If the whole Trinity were comprehended under the name of that God whose Mediator Christ is he would also be the Mediator of the holy Spirit But this is disentanious to the truth for there would be open testimonies thereof extant in the Tables of the Covenant whose mediator Christ was But what are they We require not such places of Scripture wherein it is expresly said that Christ was the mediator of the holy Spirit but from which it may clearly appear that Christ did so intervene in the midst between the holy Spirit and us as it is needful that a mediator should intervene between them who are to be joyned in Covenant and that he performed the proper part of that Office between him and us According to our Opinion which the most learned Adversaries themselves think not to be false although they say it is imperfect It is the Office of a mediator between God and men to be the messenger of God to men and to strike a League between both and so to cause that men being instructed with the knowledge of the divine Will may address themselves to worship God But the Adversaries commonly suppose that it is the proper Office of Christ the Mediator by fully paying the punishment of all our sins to appease the wrath of God kindled against men and to intercede for them to God which we think pertaineth to a Priest But where is it taught in the Scripture that Christ was the messenger of the holy Spirit to men stroke a League between him and men and brought men indued with the knowledge of his Will to worship him Concerning the Father there are most clear testimonies of the Scripture some whereof we will alledge in the * See Sect. 2. Chap. 4 5 15. following Section Certainly Christ without expressing the Fathers name doth sometimes â John 8.26 27 28. describe him thus He that sent me and changeth this description with the name of the Father There is but one place as far as I can remember alledged out of the Scripture by the Adversaries to prove that Christ was sent by the holy Spirit and it is extant Isa 48.16 where the Prophet according to the vulgar Translation speaketh thus And now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me
of the Article elsewhere pronounce the reason fetched from thence to be but weak It is therefore apparent that Christ is not there understood by the name of the only Master God Moreover neither can we understand by that name the whole Trinity which is held otherwise what need was there after it had been said that they do deny the whole Trinity that is the Father Son and holy Spirit to add by name that they do deny our Lord Jesus Christ As if that had not been sufficiently said when it was asserted that they deny the whole Trinity You will say that the whole Trinity was but confusedly and therefore obscurely signified by the appellation of the only Master God therefore something more distinct was to be added for explications sake We answer if that reason had any moment not only the mention of our Lord Jesus Christ but also the Father and holy Spirit should have been expresly made since they are no less indistinctly and confusedly if the Opinion of the Adversaries be true signified by the name of the only Master God then Christ To omit that if Christ is dinstinguished from that only Master God it is agreeable that Person should be adjoyned to another person and not when three persons have been confusedly taken one person and that of the number of those three be subjoyned But if some certain Person is to be understood who is there that dares affirm of the holy Spirit to omit now the question concerning his personality that he the Father being passed by is joyned with Christ as one that rules and set before him not only in the order of the words but also in dignity of title For the Scripture in very many places joyneth the Father as Supream Monarch with Christ without making mention of the holy Spirit and set him before Christ both in order of words and dignity of title but never passeth by the Father joyning the holy Spirit as Lord and Prince with Christ neither indeed doth it otherwise unless it be very seldom joyn the holy Spirit with Christ so far is it from setting him before Christ in order of words or dignity of title Not to say that the Father is expresly called Master the holy Spirit no where much less is the holy Spirit designed by the name of the only Master Yea neither is the name of God any where read to be attributed unto him Concerning which in its * Sect. 3. Chap. 1. place CHAP. VIII Arg. 8 from Dan. 7. Rev. 4.5 Argument the eighth drawn from the Visions in Daniel and Johns Revelation TO the places hitherto alledged two Visions are to be added very like to one another from whence it is apparent that there is but one person of the most high God Which presently giveth us to undârstand that the most high God is no other besides the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Since he by the confession of all is a divine person and the others which are also believed to be persons of supream Divinity cannot be so unless he be a divine Person since he is the fountain and original of the rest and whatsoever Divinity is in them is derived from him Wherefore if there is but one Person of supream Divinity the Father only is a Person having supream Divinity Not to say that those very Visions which we will quote do if they be compared with other places of Scripture sufficiently intimate that the God which did in a manner expose himself to the view is none but the Father The first of those Visions is extant in Daniel chap. 7.9 c. where it is said that the Antient of dayes that is the God which existed from all eternity did sit that there came to him in the clouds of heaven as it were a Son of Man and received of him Authority Honour and a Kingdom The latter is extant Rev. 4. and chap. 5. where it is also described how the Almighty and Eternal God the Creator of all things sate upon the Throne and afterwards a Lamb came to him and received a book from him which no other was worthy to open and view a Book I say of the Sacred Decrees of God concerning things to come Now in both places that Most High and Eternal God which is understood by the sitter upon the Throne is represented as one Person and openly distinguished from Christ and that even then when divine Honour is given of said to be worthy to be given unto Christ For also in Daniel it is said that to him who came as a Son of man to the Antient of dayes was by him honour given and that all People Tribes and Tongues should serve him Where certainly it is not spoken of civil honour and service to be performed unto Christ but of religious and divine And in the * Chap. 5.13 Revelation John writeth I heard every Creature which is in Heaven and on Earth and under the Earth and which are in the Sea and all the things in them saying To him that sitteth on the Throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honour and glory and power for ever Likewise â Ibid. v. 8 c. before praises were given apart to the Lamb by the four living Creatures and the four and twenty Elders and also the Angels as they had been formerly ascribed apart to the Sitter upon the Throne chap. 4.8 c. But were there many Persons of the most high God and Christ one of them many also would have been exhibited as sitting upon the Throne nor would Christ have been so distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne or from the Eternal and Almighty God but that it would appear that he likewise doth sit upon the Throne and is that Eternal and Almighty God The Defence of the Argument NOw if any one say that the divine Essence only which is one in number was represented by the Image of him that sate upon the Throne and not some Person he is exceedingly mistaken For besides the very Image of one sitting upon a Throne is indeed the Image of a Person and that one Person the actions which are attributed to him that sitteth on the Throne do altogether demonstrate that he is an intelligent Suppositum that is a Person Since actions are commonly said in the Schools to agree unto none but Suppositums But those actions which are attributed to him that sitteth upon the Throne are suitable to none but an intelligent Nature Not to say that very many Testimonies of the Scripture concerning which we shall afterwards * Sect. 2. Chap. 18. have occasion to speak being compared with these sufficiently shew that the Father of Jesus Christ is understood by him that sitteth upon the Throne for they manifestly affirm that he gave to Christ Authority Honour and a Kingdom with all other things without any where hinting that some other gave all these things to Christ As for the distinction of Christ and him that
sitteth upon the Throne no man can justly say that Christ is according to his humane Nature only distinguished from him being according to the divine Nature the same with him For first according to a better Nature in regard of which which only he is believed to be a Person were the same with him that sitteth upon the Throne he could not be simply distinguished from him for that would be all one as if he should simply be denied to be him that sitteth upon the Throne But that cannot simply be denied of any whole which for another nature or part is simply to be affirmed of the same although it agree not thereunto according to some one nature especially the less excellent as shall be understood from what we will afterwards speak Sect. 2. Chap. 3. How I pray you could it come to pass that in the whole description of both Visions there should not be even the least hint from whence it might appear that Christ is the same with him that sitteth upon the Throne and that the diversities of Natures should be openly expressed but the unity in the knowledge whereof there was no less moment not at all Again since to Christ as he is distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne actions agreeing to Persons are attributed as is manifest from the very Visions themselves especially the latter it is apparent that he is considered as a Person and so distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne But the Person of Christ according to the Opinion of the Adversaries is the second of the Deity and so the very divine Nature it self having its substance Wherefore if they will speak agreeable to themselves they must confess that it likewise is distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne Or if they will not confess this they must with us assert that the Person of Christ is not the second Person of the Trinity which they hold Furthermore who would believe that when divine Honour was ascribed to Christ he was considered only according to his less excellent nature and not rather whole or according to the Nature most worthy of that Honour but when that Honour is ascribed unto him he is most openly considered as distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne Wherefore whole Christ even in respect of that other Nature or a part which was in him most excellent must of necessity be distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne Finally If Christ according to a divine Nature were one and the same with him that sitteth upon the Throne either more persons namely that of the Father and the Son not to speak any thing now concerning the holy Spirit were to be expressed as sitting on the Throne or it ought to be held that the Father and the Son are the same not only in Essence but also in Person Since there is no doubt that the Person of the Father was expresâed by him that sitteth upon the Throne But that there is the same Person of the Father and the Son all reject and justly condemn as a Sabellian Errour CHAP. IX Sundry Arguments are briefly intimated to shew that none but the Father of Jesus Christ is the Most High God BEsides the Arguments hitherto produced many others may be brought but because they do in a manner fall in with those which shall in the second and third Section by us be alledged therefore we will in this place in a brief manner only intimate them and not all of them neither but only the chiefest Arg. 9 That God is wont to be taken for the Father The Ninth Argument of our Opinion may be this namely That the name of God or Lord when used for the word Jehovah or Adonai is in innumerable places of the Scripture taken as proper to the Father in such a manner as that he only is understood by that name either simply put or expresly with some Epithite as that of True Living Almighty and the like and being designed by the very appellation is distinguished from Christ or the holy Spirit or from both together For that would not come to pass if not the Father only were the Most High God but also the Son and holy Spirit Concerning which matter see what we will say hereafter Sect. 2. Chap. 1. and Sect. 3. Chap. 5. and if you please also Arg. 10 The Father is of himself Chap. 9 10 11 12. of our Book concerning God and his Attributes The Tenth Argument may be this That none but the Father of Jesus Christ is of himself as having received neither his nature nor any divine thing whatsoever from another which is the property of the Most High God To which this also may be adjoyned that the Father only is as they commonly speak The Fountain of Divinity For from him the very Son himself hath his Divinity as both the thing it self speaketh and the Adversaries also commonly confess From the same also proceedeth the holy Spirit And though the Latin Churches hold that the holy Spirit doth proceed both from the Father and the Son which if rightly understood not only may but also ought to be granted nevertheless it is apparent partly from the Scripture partly from the Opinion of the Adversaries themselves that the Son cannot be the first Original of the holy Spirit as we mean when we use the word Fountain but such an original as proceeded from another which was before it For he who doth himself flow from another and from him receive his Divinity cannot be the prime Source of anothers Divinity And indeed whatsoever is spoken in the Scripture and tendeth to shew unto us that the holy Spirit doth proceed also from the Son is herein contained namely that the Son doth send the holy Spirit and pour him out upon his Confidents But the Son sendeth the holy Spirit from the Father as he himself expresly affirmed John 15.26 he also said that he would ask the Father and that he should give them another Advocate John 14.16 and having received the promise of the holy Spirit from the Father he poured out upon the Faithful so excellent a gift as Peter testifieth Acts 2.33 compare also Luk. 24.49 Joh. 7.39 Therefore the Greek Churches though they otherwise agree with the Latin concerning the Person of the holy Spirit do yet herein differ from them namely that they say the holy Spirit proceedeth or is sent or given not from the Father and the Son but from the Father by the Son which kind of speaking is more suitable to express the true Opinion It is clear therefore that none but the Father of Jesus Christ is the Fountain or prime Original of Divinity and consequently he only of whom are all things which is the property of the Most High God For as the most high God only is he of whom are all things so he only of whom are all things is the Most High God More things belonging to this Argument see afterwards Sect.
2. Chap. 2 3. and Sect. 3. Chap. 11. The Eleventh Argument is largely diffused and may be branched out into many for hereunto belong all those places of the Scripture wherein some Prerogative is given to the Father above Christ Hereunto pertain first those Testimonies of the Scripture wherein the Father is expresly said to be either * See Sect. 2. Chap. 14. greater than Christ or the â Chap. 24. Head of Christ or the â Chap. 23. God of Christ those also wherein the Father is said to have given a * Chap. 16. Commandment to Christ and that Christ was his Servant and Minister Arg. 11 from the Prerogative of the Father obeyed his Command and submitted his â chap. 12. own will to his Arg. 11 from the Prerogative of the Father Likewise those where Christ is said to be â chap. 25 God's to be the * chap. 27. Mediator of God the â chap. 28. Priest of God â chap. 5.25 sent from the Father to have * chap. 16. come not to do his own will but the Fathers Hitherto also belong those wherein Christ professeth that not â chap. 3 19. himself but the Father is the prime Author of those wonderful works which he did that his â chap. 4. Doctrine was not his own but the Fathers that he * chap. 8. which believeth on him believeth not on him but on the Sender of him namely the Father To which those also are like which teach that the Father is â chap. 19 worshiped through Christ and that whatsoever divine things Christ either hath or performeth or are performed unto him from us redound unto the glory of the Father as the utmost scope that Christ poured out â chap. 17 prayers to the Father that the Father is the true Author of the * chap. 29 Resurrection of Christ that the Father â chap. 18. exalted and glorified Christ and consequently bestowed all things on him that â chap. 24 Christ shall hereafter deliver up the Kingdom to the Father and become subject to him that the * chap. 19 Father did or doth all things by Christ Now we will shew in their places that whilst those things which we have reckoned up are ascribed to the Father a Prerogative is attributed unto him above Christ wholy and entirely considered and not according to one nature only and consequently also that he is greater than the holy Spirit Which is manifest even from thence namely in that those things which we have reckoned up are absolutâly wont to be ascribed to the Father and no where to Christ namely in respect of some more excellent Nature and no where also to the holy Spirit Add hereunto others also which have in part been observed by the Adversaries themselves â chap. 10. See Mat. 20.23 22.1 25.34 Rom. 8 29 Gal. 1.15 16. Eph. 1.3 so on to the 13. as that the Father not Christ not the holy Spirit is said in Scripture to have predestinated men to have decreed some things to some one either before the world was created or from the foundation of the world All glory all happiness designed either to Christ or his confidents was first decreed and provided by the Father The whole reason of our Salvation dependeth on him What should I speak of the Creation of Heaven and Earth For though the Adversaries endeavour to vindicate it unto Christ and the holy Spirit yet are they themselves wont to say that it is wont to be ascribed unto the Father in a peculiar manner no otherwise than if it were proper unto him in which manner Redemption is attributed to the Son Sanctification to the holy Spirit concerning which thing we will speak somewhat hereafter Sect. 3. Hence also in that which is called the Apostles * Chap. 3. Creed the Creation of Heaven and Earth is ascribed neither to Christ nor to the holy Spirit but to the Father only For thus we say I believe in God the Father Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth and in his only begotten Son not confessing Christ himself to be the Creator but the only begotten Son of the Creator Neither indeed doth the Scripture any where ascribe to Christ the Creation of Heaven and Earth and when it attributeth a creation to him it not only speaketh of a new creation or certain reformation of things but also no where saith that the Son himself created all things but that all things were created by him and in him Finally when the Scripture speaketh either of Religion and the Worship of God in gross or of certain parts thereof it is so wont to make mention of the Father that it may easily appear unto all that the Father is he to whom in all ages worship was to be given by all men and was indeed given by all pious men and to whom only all honour is ultimately to be referred Whence also after Christ was exalted yet that custom prevailed in Christian Churches that publick Prayers should for the most part be directed to the Father some few to the Son but seldom or never any especially if you distinguish Prayers from Hymns to the holy Spirit concerning which thing we will elsewhere * Sect. 3. chap. 2. speak somewhat Whence the Prayers made in Churches are commonly wont to end in this manner Through our Lord Jesus Christ having also sometimes the name of the Son prefixt through whom namely as a Mediator and Priest prayers are poured out unto the Father himself though we otherwise not only willingly confess that prayers may be poured out to Christ himself but contend that they ought often to be poured out and in our Churches do our selves very frequently perform the same Notwithstanding that custom which hath for so many ages endured in the whole Christian world which even that vulgar opinion concerning three Persons of the most high God hath not been able to take away giveth testimony to our Opinion touching one God the Father For such a Prerogative of the Father above the Son and holy Spirit evinceth that he only is the most high God Certainly the very truth it self crept into the minds of men although they set themselves against it and darted the Beams of her clearness into them not suffering her self to be wholly darkned with the clouds of errours For there appear on every side hints and arguments from which it is clean that the Father only is he * Rom. 11.36 of whom are all things and by whom are all things and for whom are all things as Paul speaketh of the most high God that is by whose counsel and decree all things are at first constituted by whose efficacious providence and vertue all things are perfected to whom finally as the ultimate end all things are referred A diligent Reader of the Scripture will easily observe this especially being thus admonished if he heed the diversity of things which
yea in the ninth chapter â Ver. 7 8. of this Epistle That Abraham is the true Father of none but Believers and that they only are the true seed of Abraham to which the spiritual Promises of God belong In the same manner Rom. 9. where Christ is said to be of the Fathers according to the flesh a little before ver 3. the Apostle calleth the Jews his kindred according to the flesh tacitly oppesing them to his spiritual kindred or to his kindred according to the spirit Thus 1 Cor. 10.18 he commandeth to view Israel according to the flesh likewise opposing it to Israel according to the Spirit that is the Christian People for the People of Christ is the true and spiritual Israel of God Rom. 9.6 Gal. 6.16 thus 2 Cor. 5.16 he saith that he henceforth knoweth that is esteemed and approved none according to the flesh and if he hath at any time known Christ according to the flesh he now no longer knoweth him where likewise according to the flesh is tacitly opposed to that which is according to the spirit and is to be looked upon either in Christ or in them who are in Christ Likewise that place is very notable which is extant Gal. 4. where one son of Abraham namely Ishmael is said to be born according to the flesh ver 23 29. but the other namely Isaac according to the spirit ver 20. whereby is meant not according to the divine Nature but by the divine Power which for the divine Promises given before did intervene to accomplish his nativity compare ver 23 28. and Rom. 9.8 9. although the same Isaac if his generation be compared with the spiritual generation of the Christians not with the birth of Ishmael it may be said of right to be made according to the flesh Thus also Masters according to the flesh are fleshly Masters as the old Interpreter hath it Col. 3.22 that is such as have power to command only in things according to the flesh and this earthly life but not spiritual things And lest there should be any place for an evasion that very place Rom. 1.3 which the Adversaries think make for them doth confirm our Opinion For thus saith the Apostle Who was made of the Seed of David according to the flesh who was declared Gr. defined or constituted Son of God in power according to the Spirit of Holiness by the resurrection from the dead You see that these words according to the flesh are opposed to those according to the Spirit of Holiness that is the Spirit wherewith Christ was sanctified and that the discourse is concerning the matter whereof Christ was made the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead Concerning which we will speak more hereafter chap. 31. but according to the Spirit doth no where signifie according to the divine Nature neither doth the word Spirit put subjectively either alone or with some addition any where denote the divine Nature or Essence And the very word Sanctification in this place applied unto it may sufficiently intimate to every one that it is not here spoken concerning the holy Spirit the divine Vertue whereby Christ was raised from the dead and appointed heavenly King of the People of God and consequently made the Son of God by way of excellency For we shall see hereafter chap. 31. that oftentimes in the Scripture to be Christ or the King anointed by God is all one with being the Son of God from whence also may be understood another passage in the same Epistle chap. 9.5 For in what manner Christ is the Son of God in the most perfect manner so called in the same also is he a God over all to be blessed for evermore But he was made or constituted the Son of God in power by the resurrection from the dead wherefore a God over all to be blessed for ever more And indeed those words according to the flesh annexed to the precedent ones seem to require that the other members of distinction should in the following member * Or sentence be understood it is no hard thing to discern that what we would have is rather to be understood than what was according to the Adversaries Opinion to be supplied For these words according to the divine Nature would be childishly understood For this the Apostle must be imagined to speak Who according to the divine Nature is God over all blessed for evermore But when you have mentioned the divine Nature or Essence you have indeed already mentioned that which is annexed But the absurdity ceaseth if you understand that which we say the Apostle expresseth chap. 1. of the same Epistle namely according to the Spirit of Holiness I omit that neither Peter in that whole Sermon of his wherein he affirmeth that God swore to David that he would from the fruit of his loins raise up Christ according to the flesh that argueth a divine Essence in Christ but the resurrection and exaltation of Christ wrought by divine Vertue whereby he became the Son of God in the most perfect manner as we have already seen in part and will more fully shew in its place wherefore there is nothing in those places that may establish the distinction of the Adversaries But if there be nothing in them that may establish it although among others they seem most of all to confirm it it may of right be concluded that neither is there any else in the Scriptures that may establish it and consequently that it should not be applied to restrain so many places of the Scripture speaking simply and used to turn them from their plain meaning But now we must come to that which we have undertaken to prove in the second place namely that this distinction is of no moment to invalide our Argument drawn from that place John 5.19 or others like thereunto For first the custom of speaking doth not admit that what may or ought simply to be admitted of any whole should simply be denied of the same although it agreeth to the whole according to one part only and not according to the other For who for example sake will simply deny that a man doth eat drink or is fleshly thick tall or of a low stature because his soul or he according to his soul doth not eat drink nor is fleshly thick tall or on the contrary of a short stature Although the soul be the better part of a man and those things agree to him only according to the body But if Christ be the most high God it is to be simply affirmed of him that he can do all things of himself as was before shewn neither do the Adversaries who say that these words of Christ whereof we treat are to be understood of him according to the humane nature only not deny but rather urge it For neither are they wont less simply to affirm of Christ what agreeth unto him according to his better Nature than to deny what agreeth not
And what I pray is that Right of ruling Is it not a right of prescribing Laws unto us and of executing them a Right of remitting our sins of defending us from our adversaries and enduing us with eternal felicity But what hath not the most high God a Right of doing all these things How then did the Father give that Right to Christ how doth he exercise the same by him if the most high God hath it not of himself Wherefore Christ also would have it of himself were he the most high God Some other things which might be here spoken shall be hereafter spoken in a more commodious place It remaineth that we examine the last and most usual Answer of all to the places alleaged by us and the Argument framed out of them which consisteth in the distinction of the Natures of Christ For they say commonly these things are spoken of Christ according to the humane Nature The sixth answer and its refutation and not according to the divine But first as we have before shewn chap. 14. it could not be simply affirmed that all these things were given and bestowed on Christ that he was exalted glorified made Lord and Christ if he had that divine Nature according to which those things could not be spoken of him Since the very same things might simply be denyed of him no less than they are simply affirmed of him in the fore-cited places Add hereunto that such places contain in them a tacit Negation and that a simple one namely that Christ hath not of himself those things which are said to have been given to him for otherwise they would not be said to be given to him But in such Negations a distinction of Natures hath no place as we have sufficiently shewn before especially when we created on that place John 5 19. Again To be or become a King Christ Lord to hold or exercise Empire and if there be any thing like to these do primarily and properly agree to none but an intelligent Suppositum or Person as such Wherefore it must be held either of a very Person having supream Divinity as such and consequently of the very divine Nature that all these things have been given to him by the Father or confest that Christ is not such a person Finally If the Essence of the Supream God were in Christ there would be no cause why it should be said that all things were given to him by another person namely by the Father and he made Lord and Christ and nor rather by himself For was the divine Nature of Christ in this behalf idle did it not give all things to the humane Nature Certainly the Adversaries contend that it did âive them and are forced to say so both by reason of that very straight ââion of either Nature which they hold and also because the Father could not give them But that the Son should withal give the same things if he is of one Essence with the Father Why then is this attributed to the Father and to him alone not also to Christ If you say this is done because of the Prerogative of the Father above the Son you will hereby confess the Father not the Son to be the most high God Howbeit neither could a simple Prerogative cause that this should be so often attributed to the Father and so openly but never to the Son For neither are they to be heard who when they reade in certain places that God gave something to Christ glorified him exalted him made him Lord and Christ understand the whole Trinity or the divine Essence that they may attribute to Christ the same action For first since we so often read either that it is expresly written that the Father did those things as to omit other places it happeneth out of those places which are cited out of John or that God glorified the Son or gave something to him and since they themselves confess that the name of God in very many places denoteth the Father only why do they not confess that he is understood in the places under contestation doth not the very similitude of the places perswade thereunto Are not those things which seem to be spoken more generally or confusedly to be explained out of those places which express the same thing more specially and distinctly especially since they are so many in number Again Is it not manifest when the action of giving exalting glorifying is attributed unto God a Person is understood for such actions are attributed unto none but Persons and such an one as is distinct from Christ For who even amongst the Adversaries themselves would endure him that should thus speak The Son of God gave or bestowed a name on Christ the Son of God glorified Christ made Jesus Lord certainly he that should speak so would by the Adversaries and that deservedly said to savour of Nestorianism and attribute unto Christ two Persons namely the Son of God and Christ But the reason is the same if you say that God performed those things to Christ and by the name of God understand the Son Nor are the Adversaries ignorant thereof But who will say that the holy Spirit is understood who is never found in the Scripture expresly named God much less by that name distinguished from Christ and preferred before him is likewise no where read to have given any thing to Christ or to have exalted him To omit that the same question will return which we urged concerning the Father namely why those things should be attributed to the holy Spirit rather than to the Son if the Son were the most high God An Appendix of this Argument wherein is taught That Divinity was given to Christ of the Father BEfore we quite leave this Argument we think fit to add this little Appendix thereunto whereby our Opinion may be yet more confirmed For it appeareth from the places which we have alleaged that Divinity or Godhead was bestowed on Christ of the Father and consequently that he was made a God by the Father From whence it also followeth that Christ is not the most high God For he was from all eternity of himself God and did not at any time receive his Divinity from another otherwise he would not be the most high God Now that which we have said may be confirmed chiefly by two Arguments drawn from those places which we have cited and discussed The first is this He that was made Lord by another he if he be a God Arg. 1 was also made a God by another But Jesus of whom it is certain that he is a God was made Lord by God Therefore he was also made a God by him The Minor as they call it or the Assumption is Peters Acts 2. * ver 36. The Major is confirmed by this reason because if he were not made God by another when notwithstanding he is a God neither could he be made a Lord by another For he that is a God especially in
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
have sovereign Power over his own humane Nature he himself would be a Benefactor to it he himself would be worshipt of it certainly no less than any other person yea more Why then is another namely the Father rather called his God than he himself called his own God But if they acknowledge it to be absurd that any one should be his own God let them also acknowledge that Christ is not the most high God CHAP. XXIV The four and twentieth Argument from these words 1 Cor. 11.3 The head of Christ is God VVE have hitherto chiefly out of the History of the Gospel penned by John produced those Testimonies wherein something is affirmed of Christ which could not be affirmed of him were he the most high God and that such ones as give the Father some Prerogative above Christ and so demonstrate that the Father only since such a Prerogative agreeth to no other is the most high God It followeth that we may also from other divine Writers draw like Testimonies and Arguments Although we have already produced not a few when we fetcht Testimonies out of John because they contained the same or the like sence Of these places therefore which remain we will give the first rank to that Arg. 24 from 1 Cor. 11.3 which is very near to those words that were last of all cited out of John and other Writers as being such wherein God is said to be the Head of Christ and this is done 1 Cor. 11.3 where Paul speaketh in this manner Now I would have you know that the Head of every Man is Christ and the Head of the Woman is the Man and the Head of Christ is God But there is no other Head of the most high God or he hath no Head above him otherwise he would not be Most High For every one easily perceiveth that to be ones Head signifieth to have some Empire or Power over him and in a certain sort to govern him The Defence of the Argument HEre the Adversaries again are wont to fly to their distinction of Natures in Christ as to a sacred Anchor which notwitstanding the Reader may observe that we have * See cap. 3.14 16. of this Section before sufficiently confuted We repeat not all things that have been spoken we only desire that it should here also be observed that Christ is here likewise considered as a person for he is considered as the head of the man consequently of every man that is as a Lord appointed to rule every man even as the man also is the head of the woman But Christ is such as he is a Person Wherefore if the Adversaries Opinion concerning Christ is true he as a divine Person and consequently the most high God must have a Head over him which implieth a contradiction and is the very thing which they endeavour to escape who here use the distinction of Natures Neither may any one here say that in the former words indeed where Christ is said to be the Head of the man he is considered as a Person but in the latter he is lookt upon only in respect of that Nature which is not a person For besides that this is affirmed without reason it is disproved by reason First beââuse it is certain that God is the Head of Christ as he hath received from him Dominion and Empire over the man But Christ received that Dominion as he is a Person Why then is it not God made the head of Christ as he is here a person Again if you inquire the cause why the Apostle when he had asserted that Christ is the Head of the man did likewise say afterwards that God is the Head of Christ you shall find this to be the chief that he might not seem to leave God no further power over the man because Christ is his Head or Lord and King but rather that it might be understood that God is also upon this very account the Head or Lord or King of the man because Christ is the Head of every man in as much as God is also the Head of Christ himself For as the woman is not therefore exempted from the Empire and Power of Christ because the man is her Head in as much as Christ is also the Head and Lord of the man himself so neither is the man exempted from the Power of God because Christ is his Head since God is also the Head of Christ himself Moreover the Apostle spake this to give us to understand that if we bring any dishonour to Christ who is our Head it will at length redound to God himself who is again the Head of Christ But neither of these Reasons would be of any force if God were not the Head of Christ as he is the Head and Lord of the man But if God be the Head of Christ as he is our Lord he is the Head of that person as such Finally such a gradation ought not to be made as to ascend from the Man to Christ from Christ to God as a different person from him if besides the humane there were another Nature in Christ to which it did no less agree to be his Head than to a Person different from him but mention was to be made of that Nature as well as of this Now if any one will fly hither for refuge as to say that by the name of God the Father is not understood but the whole Trinity he must at least in the first place alleage some passage from whence it may manifestly appear that God distinguished from Christ denoteth some other besides the Father For we can alleage innumerable ones wherein even by the confession of the Adversaries themselves it denoteth none but the Father and it is otherwise apparent that such things as are like hereunto are expresly attributed to the Father in the holy Scripture For it is all one to be ones Head and to be ones God But the latter is expresly affirmed of the Father of Christ as every one may perceive from these words of Christ John 20.17 and those of the Apostle Ephes 1.17 Add hereunto that the Reasons wherefore God is called the Head of Christ do all agree to the Father Whether they agree to any other we have no assurance thereof or rather we are assured that they agree to no other namely because he gave all Empire to Christ because he gave the Laws by which he ruleth and governeth us and also because he bringeth his will to an issue by his hands and provides for his own * Isa 53.10 John 13.32 and 14.13 17. Phil. 2.11 Glory by his Empire But in the last place those Reasons which evince that Christ is here considered as a Person permit not the Trinity here to be understood by the name of God Otherwise the Person of Christ which is believed to be contained in that Trinity would be the head of it self as such Nor can you understand the Essence it self which is not a
judge the World by the â Acts 17.3 man whom he hath appointed that is by Jesus Christ as we expresly read Rom. 2.16 As for the latter Argument which may be drawn out of the 28th verse it is evident that the most high God can become subject unto none But the Son of God shall at length become subject unto him who brought all things under his subjection namely to the Father Wherefore the Son of God cannot be the most high God The Defence of the Argument HEre all for the most part fly to the distinction of Natures but to no purpose both for the simple affirmation which is found in both * See cap. 3.14 16. of this Section verses and could not have place if for the other Nature namely the divine the same things ought simply to be denyed of Christ and also because Christ is here considered as a King and consequently as a Person so that either his humane Nature is to be acknowledged for a Person or these things are to be ascribed both to his divine Person and Nature whereof the first quite overthroweth the Opinion of the Adversaries the other by their own confession subverteth it self Add hereunto that in the latter place it is emphatically said the Son also himself shall become subject to him who brought all things under his subjection Now who would believe that Paul when he spake thus considered Christ not according to that Nature according to which he is the Son of God but according to another For neither can any one say that the name of the Son is in this place put absolutely without adding the name of God so that also the Son of man may be understood For the word Son is manifestly opposed to God the Father as its correlative as they speak in the Schools neither is the word Son absolutely used of Christ ever meant otherwise than as related to God as its correlative and not to any man To omit that the Emphasis which is in those two words namely also and himself doth require that Christ should be thought to be described in that manner wherein he exceedeth a l the other things there mentioned as being subject to him and not wherein he is either equal or inferiour to him and that manner is that he be called the Son of God and not the Son of Man For in the first manner he is equal to Men and inferiour to Angels But as the Son of God by way of excellency so called he is superiour unto Angels as it is openly written Heb. 1.4 5. Finally if according to the humane Nature only Christ shall deliver the Kingdom and become subject but not according to the divine why is it said that he shall deliver the Kingdom to the Father only why that he sâall become subject to him only and not also to himself or to his own divine Nature Why is it added that God may be all in all why should not Christ himself also be all in all For neither may any one say that there the divine Nature and that even of Christ himself is aâsolutely meant For it is both understood from the thing it self that some Person is designed for operation and the government of all things is ascribed to him and that such an one as is distinct from Christ and all the foregoing words openly teach that it is spoken of God the Father who brought all things in subjection unto Christ and placed him at his right hand as we have elsewhere seen Now whereas some except that it is therefore said that Christ shall deliver the Kingdom to God the Father because he shall resign thar Kingdom which he hath as Mediator not which he hath as God this is also of no moment For first we have already shewn * Chap 18 of this Section before that if Christ were the most high God such a Kingdom could not be given to him because otherwise he would at the same time have the same Empire both from himself and not from himself be therein subordinate to another not therein subdinate In a word both the most high not the most high For we have taught that such a Kingdom considered by it self is contained in that Power and Empire which the most high God hath of himself For there is no act of that Empire which doth not by it self agree to the most high God But if Christ being the most high God could not receive such a Kingdom neither can he deliver it to another and depose it Wherefore since we read that he shall deliver that Kingdom to God the Fatheâ and so depose it it is evident that he cannot âe the most high God Add heâeunto that were such an answer of the Adversaries to be admitted it will follow that Christ when he hath delivered that Kingdom shall not be subject to God the Father contrary to what the Apostle manifestly witnesseth For he that retaineâh a supream and independent Empire over all things becometh subject unto none Otherwise he would acknowledge another above him and so not be the most high Arg. 27 That Christ is the Mediator of God and men Yea Christ after the delivery of the Kingdom which he hath as Mediator would be so far from becoming more subject to the Father than before that he ought rather to be esteemed less subject For in respect of that Kingdom he as we have said and the holy Scriptures abundantly testifie is dependant on the Father and subordinate to him which subordination containeth in it self some subjection at least which when that Kingdom should be desposed would altogether cease his supream and independent Empire in the mean time remaining which suffereth not that he be subject to any one The distinction of Natures hath here no weight partly because we have already before excluded it with reasons partly because they who use that answer will have Christ according to both Natures or the whole person of Christ to be the Mediator and consequently to have and administer that Kingdom which agreeth unto him as Mediator CHAP. XXVII The seven and twentieth Argument That Christ is the Mediator of God and Men. IN the fourth place that deserveth to be alleaged which we touched at the end of the proceding Chapter namely that Christ is called the Mediator of God and men 1 Tim. 2.5 And in the same sense The Mediator of a new or better Covenant namely than the old was Heb. 8.6.9.15.12.24 For it is meant that he intervened in the middest between God and men to make a covenant between them and was as the divine author to the Hebrews elsewhere speaketh the surety thereof Chap. 7.22 Now it is here understood that Christ is not the most high God for the most high God can be the Mediator of none but he himself rather hath a Mediator For if he were a Mediator first he should have another superiour to him between whom and men he should intervâne in the midst For whether
he no less than the Father should have an high Priest and this Priest be himself since neither any cause can be imagined nor can it any way be that the Father should have a Priest and Christ not have one if he be God no less than the Father yea the same God in number with him as may appear from those things which we before spake concerning the title of a Mediator But where is even the least hint in the holy Scripture whereby it may appear that Christ hath an high Priest as well as the Father Who seeth not that it is very absurd to hold that the Person of Christ offereth to himself wherefore the Priesthood of Christ is utterly inconsistent with the divine Nature which is held to be in him CHAP. XXIX The nine and twentieth Argument That Christ was raised up by the Father THe sixth Argument of this kind may be drawn from the places wherein Christ is said to have been raised by another namely his Father which reason is so much the more to be urged because the contrary thereof is urged by the Adversaries For they say Christ raised himself and by this means clearly demonstrated that he was the Son of God begotten out of his Essence and consequently the most high God But this Argument partly falls to the ground by it self in that it is grounded on a false Supposition as we will by and by demonstrate partly is weakned by another erroneous Oppinion of the same Adversaries For they hold that the Soul or Spirit of Christ which they also hold concerning the spirits of other men after he was dead did notwithstanding perform such actions as agree to none but Substances that are actually alive and understand by themselves Some say that it went down into Hell or Purgatory and brought the Souls of the Fathers out of I know not what Prison or Limbus But if the Soul of Christ even during his death did exercise such actions what hinders but that the same Soul entring into his own Body and former habitation should again unite it unto it self and by divine Power raise it up For could the Soul of Christ furnisht with divine Power do less than his whole humanity when he lived perform by the same divine Power could it do less than for example sake some one of the Apostles to whom Christ sometimes gave the power of raising the * Mat. 10.8 dead and of â Act. 9.40.41 20.9 c. whom we read that some of them did actually raise the dead â 1 King 17.17 c 2 King 4.18 c. Which very thing we read likewise of Elijah and Elisha Wherefore we will far more rightly invert the Argument of the Adversaries and retort upon them that weapon which they endeavour to hurl at us For if Christ were the most high God his raising should be ascribed to himself as the true and chief Author But it is not attributed to him but to the Father as the true and chief Author thereof yea it is very openly signified that Christ iâ you speak properly Arg. 29 That Christ was raised up by the Father did not raise himself Wherefore he is not the most high God The truth of the Major as they call it is manifest enough For none doubteth if Christ be the most high God that he did altogether raise himself and that it was most suitable that he should raise himself For since it follows from that Opinion that the humane Nature according to which Christ dyed was personââây united to the divine it could at no hand be that the humane Nature should perpetually abide in death and consequently in as much as that union according to their Opinion can never be dissolved that a dead corps should in an indissoluble and eternal tye be united to the divine Nature Furthermore if the humane Nature were to be raised by whom rather was it to be raised than by the divine Nature of the same Christ which both could of it self very easily perform it and by reason of that most strict union did owe this benefit unto the Nature that was joyned unto it Wherefore whether you consider the ability of performing it the divine Nature of Christ would have been the prime cause of that work for the Office of performing it it would have chiefly lain on that Nature How then would not Christ have been the true and chief Author of his own Resurrection As for the Minor there are so many and so clear Testimonies of the holy Scripture which make the Father the true and chief Author of the Resurrection of Christ and not Christ himself yea very openly take away this work from Christ though even the thing it self namely his death doth sufficiently take it away that it is a wonder that any one should doubt of it For first in certain places it is openly said that the Father raised Christ or that God raised his Son But who is that God whose Son Christ is but the Father The former is recorded by Paul in the beginning of the Epistle to the Galathians whilst he speketh thus Paul an Apostle not from men nor by man but by Jesus Christ and God the Father that raised him up from the dead The latter it is affirmed by Peter Acts 3. ult To you God having raised up his Son first sent him blessing you And Paul chap. 13.33 doth indeed assert the same whilst he saith And we declare unto you the Promise which was made unto our Fathers that God hath fulfilled it unto us their Children having raised up Jesus as it is also written in the second Psalm Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee Now that he raised him from the dead no more to return to corruption thus he said c. From which words it appeareth that he who said unto Christ thou art my Son this day â begot thee which indeed is no other than the Father raised him from the dead The same Apostle saith 1 Thes 1.9 10. Ye turned to God from Idols to serve the true and living God and is expect his Son out of Heaven whom he raised from the dead even Jesus who delivereth us from the Wrath to come Where in like manner God is said to have raised his Son from the dead To these are added very many other places wherein it is simply written that God raised Christ of which number we will here set down only one or two with the words at large contenting our selves to quote the rest Thus therefore speaketh Peter Acts 2.24 Whom Jesus of Nazareth God raised up having loosed the Throws of Hell in that it was impossible that he should be held by it For David faith concerning him I saw the Lord alwayes before me because he is at my right hand that I may not be moved Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoyceth Moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope For thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell nor suffer
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 âe 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 veây 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 wheâeas 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 leaâe 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 gâeater 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 âe 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 whom the Son will reveal him and elsewhere If ye had known me ye would have known my Father also and from henceforth ye know him and a little after He that seeth me seeth the Father But furthermore although Christ was visible according to the humane Nature yet ought he not to be simply distinguished from the invisible God and herein to be opposed to him if he in the mean time were that most high and invisible God For if the name of God namely the most high God may and ought to be absolutely attributed unto Christ as they hold those things also may and ought to be absolutely attributed to him which are absolutely spoken of God and which agree to him in respect of his Essence But if Christ may and ought for the divine Nature to be absolutely called invisible he ought not absolutely to be distinguished from the invisible God Some other will perhaps say that Christ is the Image of God according to the humane Nature which seemeth not disagreeable to their Opinion who together with us confess that Christ is called the Image of God in respect of us namely because he did in himself as it were present to our view the invisible God But in the first place they are not constant enough to themselves whilst they refer that which is the same with the Image of God or at least is of the same efficacy in our Argument to the divine Nature namely that Christ is called the Character of the Substance of God for a Character hath not the same Substance with the thing whose Character it is Again By this means Christ would have been the Image no less of his own divine Person or Nature than of the Fathers neither would there have been any cause why he should be called the Image of another rather than of himself But we find not this but that rather expressed in the Scripture For when Christ is called the Image of God all the Adversaries as far as I know hold that the Father is understood and the distinction of that God from Christ and finally the collation of this kind of speaking with other-like sayings of the Scripture do sufficiently shew the same I omit that Christ did in himself as it were present to our view the invisible God in that he expressed his Will by Doctrine his Power by admirable Works and clearly demonstrated his Faith and Truth by both But these things agree only to a Person as such so that those Adversaries are forced to hold either that his divine Person as such is the Image of the Father or that the humane Nature if they will attribute this to it only is a Person The first of which overthroweth their Answer the latter their Opinion And let these things suffice to have been spoken concerning those Arguments which so shew Christ not to be the most high God as that withal they give a Prerogative to the Father above him CHAP. XXXI The one and thirtieth Argument is chiefly drawn from those causes for which Christ is in the Scriptures called The Son of God VVE must now pass to those Arguments which absolutely shew that Christ is not the most high God without having any regard to this that some Prerogative is withal given to the Father above him Now though we might in this place alleage all the attributes of the Humanity of Jesus Christ as that he was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary that he did eat drink grow that he was weary sometimes and did weep and was disturbed and finally suffered most bitter torments and dyed and the like yea this very thing that he is and was a Man in as much as none of those things can be said of the most high God as they are and that absolutely of Christ yet will we here only alleage those things which contain some other Argument of our Opinion besides that which is common to all those Attributes Now the first shall be this That if Jesus were the most high God he would no otherwise be so then because he is the Son of God For neither can any greater thing be spoken of Jesus Christ Arg. 31 from The Causes why Christ is called the Son of God then that he is the Son of God the Adversaries themselves hold that he received the divine Essence by generation from the Father which maketh him the Son of God But from whence any one hath the divine Essence he hath also from thence that he is God But Jesus is not therefore the most high God because he is the Son of God wherefore neither is he simply the most high God Our Assumption shall not here be proved by this Reason that Jesus whilst he is called the Son of God is thereby distinguished from God namely the supream and only God Nor also that he is by this very name made inferiour to the Father as wholly depending from the Father where as the Father dependeth from none other for these reasons we have before used But we will prove the same by another Argument and that a twofold one Chap. 1 2 of this Section although other things also will be brought in by the by whilst we shall be imployed in proving the former which things would also be fit to demonstrate the very Question or principal Position it self The first is this That whereas several causes are expressed in the holy Scriptures for which Jesus is the Son of God yet none of them is such as constituteth him the most high God in that they all agree to the Man Christ Jesus or that we may speak with the Adversaries agree to Christ according to the humane Nature and began at a certain time Yea they are so far from either constituting or demonstrating Christ to be the most high God as that they rather shew him not to be so and consequently each of them may justly be accounted as so many Arguments to assert our Opinion But it is impossible that if Jesus be the Son of God in such a manner as constituteth him the most high God this thing should be no where set down in Scripture partly because we see other reasons exprest which would be of far less moment than it partly because that Reason as indeed the Adversaries themselves contend would be altogether necessary to be known believed unto salvation so much the more clearly to be explained by the sacred Writers and so much the more diligently frequently to be inculcated by how much it was more removed from our sences and capacity and consequently more difficult to be known and believed For since the sacred Scriptures * Jo. 20.31 1 Jo. 4 15. chap. 5.5 Mat. 16.16 Jo. 6.69 Act. 8.37 Ch. 9.20 doth place the sum of our faith and confession concerning Christ herein that we believe and profess Jesus to be the Son of God namely in the most perfect manner so called it is necessary also that we be sure of the true and
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 theâefore 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 Esâence 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 moâe 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 âe the Son of the Most High This Inâerpreter 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 dâawn fâom 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 aâter 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 âospellers 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
the Psalm had not as yet been really performed But yet notwithstanding it is to be noted first that the expression of raising or resurrection of Christ doth sometimes by a kind of Synecdoche joyned with a Metonymie comprehend the whole Glory of Christ to wit Immortality and Supream Power that he obtained by the Resurrection And in this sence only this word seems to be taken Acts. 2.32 33. and 4.33 compared with 5.32 10 40 c. Rom. 4.25 10.9 Phil. 3.10 1 Pet. 1.3 and 3.21 Furthermore it is also to be observed that the Participle Aorists being joyned to Verbs of the Pretertense have oftentimes the same force as Participles of the Presentense when they are joyned to the same Verbs Whereof you have examples amongst others in Heb. 1.4 7.21 11.9 2 Pet. 2.6 15. besides that which is every where found in the Evangelists he answering said Wherefore it may be rightly concluded that the Apostles words are to be understood as if he had said God hath fulfilled the Promise made unto the Fathers having raised as an antient Interpreter hath it or in raising Jesus chiefly because unto Christs generation of God the very restoring of him to life did also conduce seeing that thereby he was as it were begotten again but the Immortality which Christ obtained by the intervening of the Resurrection was far more available After this manner indeed he became like unto God in his Nature whereupon our Resurrection also is called Regeneration and Christ affirmeth that they who shall be counted worthy of that Age and the resurrection from the dead are the Sons of God seeing they are the Children of the Resurrection Luke 20.36 And Paul affirmeth That we look for the adoption of the Sons of God even the redemption of our bodies Rom. 8.23 For the fellowship or participation of the divine Nature which Peter speaks of 2 Pet. 1 4. doth principally consist in Immortality But hither tends most of all the divine Empire and Power of Christ for which he is the Son of God in the perfectest manner If therefore you will only interpret the Greek Particle Jesus being risen or after that he had raised Jesus we should understand that the Promise made unto the Fathers was then really and perfectly fulfilled touching the Messiah or an extraordinary King that was to be given to the Israelites and moreover also that expression of the Psalm Thou art my Son to day have I begotten thee when Jesus was raised from the dead by God and set at his right hand in the heavenly places and so made Christ or a King and Lord by the Power and Grace of God For hence as we have already * Chap. 28. of this Sect. seen doth the Divine Author to the Hebrews chap. 5.5 take those words of the Psalm touching the glorification of Christ on the Priestly honour that was conferred upon him which doth indeed contain his Royal Power seeing that his Kingdom is Priestly and his Priesthood Royal. And hereupon they are elsewhere also in holy Scripture taken for the same thing that Jesus is the Son of God and that Jesus is Christ that is a King anointed by God over his people or a Lord even him by whom alone God would administer and govern his Church with all things belonging to her For upon this account the principal doctrine of the supream dignity of Christ and our faith and confession of him are promiscuously â Compare Mat. 16.16 Mark 8.29 Luke 9.20 Joh. 1.50 Act. 8.37.9 20 22. Rom. 10.9 1 Cor. 12.3 Phil. 2.11 1 Joh. 4.15.5 1. and 5. also 2.22.4 2.3 2 Joh. 4. compare those also Matth. 27.41.42.43 and Luk. 23.35 add 22.67 69 70. and see the same places placed in this that Jesus is Christ or Lord or that Jesus is the Son of God Whence it likewise comes to pass that as often as those two namely to be Christ and to be the Son of God are mentioned together of Jesus of Nazareth they are never joyned by the copulative particle and as things different although this particle hath often times the force of explication only but they are without it everywhere joyned by apposition to shew that different things are not connected but the same thing is diversly described See Matth. 16.16.26.63 John 6.69.11.27.20.31 And it is first of all to be noted that that famous Confession of Peter touching Christ and his supream dignity being likewise declared in the name of the other disciples is described by Matthew Chap. 16.16 in these words Thou art Christ the Son of the living God But by Mark Chap. 8.29 only in these words Thou art Christ By Luke Chap. 9 20. The Christ of God Which two latter Evangelists would have left out one and a principal part indeed of that confession if it had been one thing to be the Son of the living God and another thing to be Christ But if both be indeed the same thing they have in effect omitted nothing but only expressed the same thing more briefly But now to be Christ or to be anointed of God doth in no wise constitue the most high God nor argue him to be so but the contrary seeing that the most high God can be anointed by none nor be made a King by any one And least haply any should say that there still remaines another and that a more sublime cause for which Jesus may be called the Son of God that is refuted partly by the Scriptures silence thereof which could not have omitted so great a matter and partly from those testimonies of Scripture we have hitherto alleaged For not here to repeat other things if there had been any other weightier cause for for which Jesus might be called the Son of God it could in no wise have been omitted in the place before examined by us Rom. 1.4 For there as we have seen the Apostle intended to shew by what reason Christ may be called the Son of God but he doth not in that place take the name of the Son of God in any other signification than that which is most excellent whilst he describeth him by the appellation of the Son of God the proper name of Jesus Christ haâing not as yet been expressed Wherefore we ought to think that he hath expressed the most excellent or if you will rather the true and genuine reason of that appellation But doth he express that to be the cause of that thing that Christ was begotten out of the Essence of God from eternity and so was the most high God by no means but this rather which contradicts that and suffeâs not that Christ should be the most high God when he saith that he was made the Son of God and indeed according to the Spirit of holiness that is according to the Spirit wherewith he was sanctified and that by the resurrection from the dead for that some understand by the Spirit of holiness the divine Essence it is done both without an example
and without reason yea contrary to the word ordained or appointed and finally to the resurrection from the dead from which or by which that might have come to pass It is manifest therefore that there is no other more sublime cause for which Jesus may be called the Son of God but this that being raised from the dead he was made by God both Lord and Christ or the heavenly and eternal King of his people Moreover the same thing is plainly seen from the second Psalm a place that we have explained already For all as I know confess that when God speaketh thus unto Christ thou art my Son the name of the Son of God is taken in the most excellent manner But we have seen that this is the cause why he is in that place called the Son of God because he being raised from the dead was not only made immortal but also the King of Gods people and besides the Priest and Prince of our Salvation as we have shewn partly from the very Psalm and partly from Acts 13. and Heb. 5. Whereto may be added Heb. 1.4 5. For when the divine Author had there said that Christ having purged away our sins by himself was set at the right hand of God on high he adds Being made so much better or rather more honourable than the Angels as he had inherited a more different that is a better and more excellent name than they For to which of the Angels said he at any time thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee And again I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Son From which place it is understood that the name of the Son of God is not Essential unto Christ whilst he is said to have inherited it nor that it is the name of the most high God for as much as by his exaltation he obtained a dignity and excellency equal to that name and title which doth not happen to the most high God Besides the thing it self shews that Christ is here spoken of according to his humane nature as they say and also that this is such a name as agrees to Christ according to that nature Unto which also the following passage accords I will be unto him a Father and he shall be to me a Son wherein the same sence is expressed For these words do in like manner argue that it is not spoken of such a thing as is proper to the most high God and was in being from all eternity For both the words do openly respect something future and in the first and literal sense as they say were spoken most clearly of Solomon the type of Christ in that respect as others also confess Compare 2 Sam. 7.14 with the words both foregoing and following and 1 Chron. 22.10 and 26.6 compare also 1 King 5.5.8.19 It is therefore necessary that there should be such a similitude and analogie between the reason whereby Christ is the Son of God that whereby Solomon was the Son of God inasmuch as this is a certain representation of that but how was that whereby Solomon was the Son of God a certain representation of this whereby Christ is the Son of God if Jesus be therefore the Son of God because he was begotten of the Fathers Essence from eternity and so the same God with the Father But if Jesus be the Son of God by reason of most high love and the benefits flowing from the same which God bestowed upon him amongst which the heavenly Kingdom and Empire that was granted unto him holdeth the principal place Solomon is rightly constituted the type of Christ and the woâds uttered of him in the litteral sense are rightly and elegantly referred unto him in a mystical and far stricter sense It is evident therefore that neither in the words of the second Psalm there cited is any thing contained of the eternal generation of Christ out of the Fathers Essence Finally who doubteth when Peter had confessed that Jesus was the Son of God or when we are commanded to believe and confess the same thing of him if we would be accounted Christians and be saved that the name of the Son of God is taken in the most perfect signification wherein it agrees unto Christ But we saw then that it doth in very deed signify no otherwise than that Jesus is Christ or a King appointed of God and set over his people to defend and preserve them for ever wherefore it is to be concluded that this is the principal reason for which he is called the Son of God neither can any better be found But since that doth not constitute Christ the most high God but rather shews that he is not the most high God it follows that there is no other cause of his Son-ship as they say which can make Christ the most high God We have spoken somewhat largly of the first reason which shews that Christ is not the most high God therefore because he is the Son of God partly because if we rightly observe there are more arguments of our opinion contained in it and partly because this that Christ is the Son of God is commonly believed to contain the strongest argument of the contrary opinion Wherefore it is to be shewn in a few woâds how exceedingly men commonly err and the true opinion be proved from the reason whereby Christ is the Son of God There follows now another proof of the principal Arguments Assumption which we will dispatch very briefly namely 2 Proof of the principal Arguments Assumption that it is very clear from the holy Scripâure that Christ died for us according to that nature according to which he was the Son of God and indeed only begotten and proper But if âe were in that manner the Son of God as he was begotten of the Essence of God and so was the most high God he could not have died according to that nature according to which he is the Son of God For the most high God as such cannot die yea cannot in any respect whatsoever But that which we have already spoken of Christ is from thence manifest that the greatest love of God towards us is in the holy Scriptures shewn from this that he delivered his only begotten or his own Son unto death for us See John 3.16 compared with vers 14. and Rom 8.32 1 John 4.10 compared with vers 9. aforegoing add also Rom. 5.10 compared with vers 8. But if Christ died not according to that nature according to which he was the Son of God but according to another nature which was added to the person of the only begotten Son of God it can neither be truly said of the proper and only begotten Son of God that he died or was given for us neither can the greatest love of God towards us be from thence collected For what so great wonder is it for some accession of the only begotten Son of God or some nature that was added
unto him to have been bestowed on us if in the mean while the only begotten Son of God who was from eternity had apparently remained safe and entiâe nor had he felt any the least pain thereby Wherefore then is this so vehemently urged that God deliveâed up his Son for us even his proper and only begotten Son or that he should dy for us that from thence the greatness of the divine love might âe understood But if thou beleevest that even he the man Christ Jesus that was begotten of the Virgin Mary by a divine power that was sanctified and sent by God into the world tâ at was appointed Ruler and Governour of all things even before the foundations of the world were laid who was most like God in holiness wisdome and power and as Paul * speaketh Phil. 2 6. was in the form of God and equall to God and whom God as it appeares so entirely loved if I say thou beleevest that he was the only begotten and proper Son of God then thou mayst at length understand that the only begotten Son of God and not any thing that was added to him died for us and from thence mayst learn to judge both of the love of God and of his only begotten Son who gave himself up to a death so cruel for our sakes Thus much for the first argument of this order CHAP. XXXII The two and thirtieth Argument That there is no mention made in holy Scripture of the Incarnation of the most high God VVE are able to frame a second Argument that if Christ were the most high God who as that opinion requires came down from heaven into the womb of a Virgin and was there incarnated it were altogether necessary that this incarnation ought to have been most plainly expressed not in one but many places by the Writers of the Gospel and other divine men and the Apostles For to repeat some of those things that have in this place by our men bin very fully explaind elsewhere we see that those things are most clearly and frequently declared in the Scriptures which are somewhat hard to be believed yet most necessary to be believed as the creation of Heaven and earth Gods providence over humane affairs the knowledge of our thoughts the resurrection of the dead and eternal life to be bestowed on men Nor do we see only those things which are aâtogether necessary to be believed most elegantly expressed in Scripture But also other things besides which we said were in themselves of lesser moment as that Christ came of the seed of David But now the incarnation of the most high God would be altogether necessary to be believed if it had really been although most haâd to be believed of which that is urged by the adversaries who therefore accuse us of most grievous heresie and highest impiety that we deny it but this they freely confess Arg. 32 The Scripture speaks nothing of the incarnation of God and are forced to confess For who seeth not that this thing is exceedingly contrary to the judgement of reason and such at least as meer reason will judge impossible Wherefore it were necessary that that incarnation should both have been most plainly described in the Scriptures and also most frequently repeated and inculcated by Godly men that were very carefull of our salvation so that indeed no one might doubt that it was asserted and urged by them But that that is not done is manifest partly from thence that what places soever the adversaries produce to prove that opinion are such that there is need of consequences to the end they may deduce this opinion that the most high God was incarnated or made man partly because that incarnation is not expressed in those places in which if it had been true it must needs have been expressed For when Matthew * Mat. 118 chap 2 and Luke describe the â Luke 1.26 c. Chap. 2.7 c. history of Christs nativity and rehearse some things that are of a much lesser moment than that incarnation of the most high God as that he was born of that Virgin that was espoused to an Husband that he was conceived by the holy Spirit that he was born in Bethlehem that I may not repeat other things which Luke very diligently declares and Matthew omitts how can it be that they should have omitted what had been the principal thing of all in the whole mattter and most necessary to be known and believed to wit that the most high God came downe into the womb of a Virgin and there assumed flesh and afterwards was born Luke speaks of the manger wherein Christ was laid so soon as he was born and would he have been silent of the incarnation of the most high God the hypostatical union of the divine and humane nature whereas our adversaries cannot now speak touching Christs nativity without mentioning that thing yea how could it come to pass that Mark should leave out all the history of Christs nativity wherein the incarnation should have been contained and John whom they judge to have written of the incarnation should so briefly so obscurely touch and handle the same How can it be that the Apostles when they would bring men to Christ and exhorted them to beleeve on him and to that end declareed his majesty should make no mention of a thing so necessary Peter preacheth the * Acts 2.14 c. first Sermon after he had received the holy spirit whereupon three thousand men beleeved in Christ and were baptized in his name and also a â Chap 3 13 c. second to the same people but there was no mention made of the incarnation Nor also in the speeches that the same Apostle made either to the * Acts. 4.8 c. Chap. 5.30 c. Rulers and Elders of the people or to â Chap. 10.36 c Cornelius and others concerning Jesus Christ There was no mention made of it in Pauls oration â Ch. 13.17 c. which he made in the synagogue at Antioch none in that at * Chap. 17 22. c. Athens on Mars-hil none in â 26.2 c. that at â See amongst others Rom. 5.5 c. 8.31 c. 2 Cor. 5.14 c. Eph. 13 c. 2. throughout Col. 1.12 c. 1 Tim. 2.3 c. 2 Tim. 1.9 c. Tit. 2.11 c. 3.4 c. 1 Pet. 1.3 c. 2 Pet. 1.3 c. 1. John 3.1 c. 4.8 c. Cesarea before King Agrippa the Festus President and many others And indeed Athens he had a fair occasion to declare that thing when he spake of the unknown God But in all those speeches of the Apostles you can read nothing of Christ more sublime than that he had âeen raised by God from the dead was received into Heaven was made Lord and Christ was exalted by the right hand of God to be a Prince and Saviour to give repentance and
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 ânly 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
notwithstanding propose it to consideration whether a different Exposition brought by him be not genuine namely that we should understand Christ to be called the First-born of every Creature because he is the chief Heir of all things And he a little after addeth That the native signification of the word First-born hindreth it from being understood of the divine Generation of the Son of God out of the Substance of the Father for it properly signifieth him who is born at the first birth and so agreeeth to the Mother not to the Father CHAP. XXXVI The thirty sixth Argument That Christ is equal to God THat place Phil. 2.6 c. which is wont to be urged against us containeth several Arguments of our Opinion For besides what we have formerly urged that Christ is there several times distinguished from God simply put that he was obedient unto God that he was exalted by him and that to him was given by God a name above every name and that the Dignity and Honour given to him is affirmed to redound to the glory of God the Father as to the utmost object thereof besides all these things I say this also argueth Christ not to be the most high God that he is said to be equal unto God Which the greatest part of the Adversaries say is spoken of him according to the divine Nature and is an open proof of that Nature But that which is equal hath alwayes a different Essence from that to which it is equal otherwise the same thing would be equal to it self whereas equals are relatives and consequently opposites If therefore Christ be equal to God and that as they imagine in respect of Essence and essential Properties the Essence of Christ must of necessity be different from the Essence of God Wherefore they must either hold two divine independent Essences or two most high Gods or that Christ is not the most higst God More Arguments might be brought but we will at present be content with these especially because some of them shall hereafter be touched when we shall prove our Opinion out of such Principles as Reason it self affordeth For neither will we so draw Arguments from Reason as that we will not now and then recal the Adversaries to the Testimonies of the Scripture SECT III. Wherein is shewn that the holy Spirit is not the most high God that it may appear that the Father only is the most high God IT now followeth that we should shew what we undertook to demonstrate in the third place namely That the holy Spirit is not the most high God Although the business may easily be decided by what we have disputed concerning Christ For though those testimonies also of the holy Scripture which sâew that the Father only is the most high God do withall strongly demonstrate that the holy Spirit is not the most high God seeing it is granted that the holy Spirit is not the Father yet will we not use them in this place For in this place we do not demonstrate that the holy Spirit is not the most high God because the Father only is the most high God but on the contrary because neither the Son nor the holy Spirit is the most high God we evince that the Father only is the most high God But with those testimonies wherewith we have sâewn that Christ is not the most high God we can here also demonstrate that the holy Spirit is not the most high God For neither can it be if Christ be not the most high God that the holy Spirit should be the most high God Whence neither was there ever any man that I know of who not acknowledging Christ for the most high God did imagine that the holy Spirit notwithstanding was the most high God And the reason hereof is manifest whether you consider the thing it self or the opinion of the Adversaries For as to the thing it self how could it come to pass that Christ should send the holy Spirit and give him to men if the holy Spirit were the most high God and Christ were not so For could he send and give the most high God who is inferior to him And as for the opinion of the Ad eâsaries they hold that the holy Spirit hath his Essence as from the Father so also from the Son But how can the most high God have his Essence from him that is not the most high God the Creator from a creature He that was from all eternity from him that began to exist at a certain time Wherefore having shewn that Christ is not the most high God we might here stop and bring no otâer Arguments to shew that the holy Spirit is not the most high God Nevertheless that the thing may be made the more manifest we will demonstrate the same with farther arguments And in the first place we will draw Arguments from thence Arg. 1 The holy Spirit is no where called God that many things are omited concerning the holy Spirit in the Scripture which could by no means have been omitted if he had been the most high God Next we will draw Arguments from these things which are expresly delivered concerning the holy Spirit in the same Scripture CHAP. I. Argument the first That the holy Spirit is no where openly called God in the holy Scripture AS therefore to the first sort of Arguments we will begin from the veây Name of God For there can no place of the Scripture be alleaged wherein the holy Spirit is openly called God But were the holy Spirit God how could it come to pass that there should not be so much as one place in the huge Volume of the Scripture where he is openly and cleaâly called God Concerning the Father there are so many and so eâident places that none can deny that he is God unless he daâes to deny that the Sun shineth at noon Concerning Christ likewise although he be not the moât high God yet there are certain plain places of the Scripture which shew that he is God which are commonly known to all men And shall there be no place at all concerning the holy Spirit although he be the most high God as well as the Father and not only not inferiour to Christ but also for as much as Christ is a man by nature far superiour Besides the Adversaries hold that it is necessary to salvation for a man to believe that the holy Spirit is God yea the most high God And indeed if he were the most high God it would seem altogether necessary to be known for what faithful man ought to be ignorant of his most high God and not to worship him But the thing would withall be such that unless it were divinely revealed unto us we could have no certain knowledge thereof in as much as it is not manifest to our sences How then should a thing so great so necessary to be known so abstruce not be clearly explained and purposely delivered by divine men at
the motion of the Spirit himself How would it not have been again and again repeated and inculcated that none might be ignorant thereof unless he were resolved to be bâind in the midst of the light But what place will they alleage where it is purposly delivered and openly wriâten that the holy Spirit is God Certainly so many thoâsand Adversaries so many learned men perpetually conversant in the reading of the Scripture have for so many ages wherein this opinion concerning the holy Spirit hath prevailed not been able to find out so much as one which will easily appear if we examine the principal places which they alleage endeavouring to shew that the name of God is attributed to the holy Spirit The Defence of the Argument VVE will here omit that place which some have used or rather abused God is a Spirit John 4.34 For as much as the greatest part of the Adversaries have observed and sâewn that in this place the name of Spirit doth not denote the holy Ghost but a spirituall substance For indeed it is there spoken of the Father as the foregoing words do manifestly demonstrate neither hath the word Spirit the place of the subject whence likewise it wanteth an article which notwithstanding is prefixt to the word God âut of the predicate For the sense is God is a Spirit that is a spiritual Essence or Substance These things therefore because either all or the greatest part of the Adversaries do acknowledge them shall now be passed ây But for the most part of them that dispute concerning this subject their main Achilles is that place which is extant Acts 5.3 4. where when Peter as it is read in the vulgar translation had said to Ananias Why did Satan tempt thy heart to lye to the holy Spirit he addeth a littâe after Thou hast not lied to men but to God Much likewise is by some attributed to those words of Paul 1 Cor. 6.19 20. Where when he had said Your members are the temple of the holy Spirit which is in you which you have from God he addeth Glorifie God in your body And to those in the same Epistle Chap. 12.4 5 6. There are diversities of Gifts but the same Spirit and diversities of administrations but the same Lord and diversities of opperations but the same God which worketh all things in all Especiaâly because it is afterward said in the 11th vers All these things worketh one and the same Spirit distributing to every one as he will Likewise out of the Old Testament those words of David are wont to be alleaged 2 Sam. 23.2 3. The Spirit of the Lord spake by me and his word was in my tongue The God of Israel said to me the mighty one of Israel spake to me They further add those places wherein they think the holy Spirit is called the Lord. First they say That in Deut. 32.12 it is said The Lord alone led him namely the people of Israel in the Wilderness and there was no strange God with him Now the same thing is affirmed of the holy Spirit namely that he led Israel Isa 63.14 Where it is read The Spirit of the Lord did lead him Again they say That the Lord Exod. 4.12 Numb 12.6 and elsewhere declared that he would speak by the Prophets But Acts 1.16 the same is attributed to the holy Spirit as also in that place that was a little before quoted 2 Sam. 23.2 Thirdly they say That the Lord was oftentimes provoked by the Israelites But this is referred to the holy Spirit Isa 63.10 Heb. 3.89 Acts 7.51 Finally Those words of the Lord Isa 6.9 c. are attributed to the holy Spirit Act. 28.25 26. These as far as I have hitherto been able to observe are the chiefe testimonies whereby the adversaries endeavour to prove that the holy Spirit is called God or which is some way of a greater foâce the Lord. But first it is in none of these places openly written or puâposely delivered that the holy Spirit is God in that it is every wheâe to be concluded by some consequence and those places out of whiâh it is concluded that the holy Spirit is called the Lord are for the most part written in such places as are very distinct one from the other ând tâerefore not one of a thousand amongst the âudor sort unless he be admonished by some other will compare those places together especially so as to draw such a conclusion from thence as the adversaâies would have Now though we do not at all reject lawful consequences yet have we sâewn that in this case it is necessary there should be such places extant in the holy Scripture wherein it is openly written that the holy Spiâit is God For it cannot be were he the most high God but that it should most openly and fâequently be written and purposely declared Wherefore if such places cannot be alleadged it may of right be concluded that the consequences which are drawn to prove the matter are not legitimate And this you will easâly perceive by examining those which we saw weâe alleaged by âhe adversaries For the Arguments which are fetcht out of those places are for the most part grounded on this reason that those things which in one place are attributed to God or the Lord are either elsewhere or in the same place attributed to the holy Spirit Which reason how frivolous it is may from thence be understood that by this meanes it might not only be concluded that the holy Spirit is God or the Lord but likewise that he is Father or the Son and likewise that the Son is the Father and contrarily the Father the Son For the adversaries themselves contend that the external works of the Trinity are undivided or comon to all the persons and alleadge many places where either in the same or in diverse words the same thing is attributed either to all those persons or to two of them And the reason is manifest enough why such a consequence is illegitimate because like things may proceed from diverse causes or be conversant about diverse objects or exist in diverse subjects yea the self same works may proceed from diverse causes either coordinate as they speak and united among themselves or subordinate whereof the one doth depend on the o her or is subservient thereunto If theâe doth seem to be any further strenght in those places that when we have examined each will easily be found to be indeed none Wherefore that we may examine each place as much as it is needful the first place quoted out of Acts 5 doâh not prove that which the adversaries would have First because as * See the Annot. of Erasmus Beza others also have observed it is oâherwise read in the Greek than in the vulgar translation For it is not there written That thou shouldest lye to the holy Ghost but that thou shouldest belye the holy Ghost Or as a very learned â John Piscator Interpreter
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 âhrist 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 Epâstles 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 âhe 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 aââ 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 âhe 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 distinguiââeth 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 aâe 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
divine persons which deserve to be so called by way of excellency saith 1 John 1.3 That our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ Intimating that it consisteth within the compass of those persons Indeed the communion of the holy Spirit is with us because we are partakers of him but we are not said to have fellowship with him because our fellowship is not with the gift but either with him who bestoweth the gift on us or with him that hath the same gift with us or is in some sort of the same condition CHAP. IV. Arg. 4 from Matth. 11.27 The fourth Argument from Matth. 11.27 None knoweth the Son but the Father neither knoweth any one the Father but the Son c. VVE have hitherto alleaged testimonies enough wherein the mention of the holy Spirit is omitted but ought not to be omitted if he were a divine person We will now subjoyne one place that is different from the former testimonies and more like to them wherein something is expresly denyed of the holy spirit Because though it make not express mention of the holy Spirit yet doth it in general deny something of him that could not be denyed were he a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son and equal unto both This place is extant Matth. 11.27 where Christ speaketh thus None knoweth the Son but the Father neither knoweth any one the Father save the Son c. But how could this be true were the holy Spirit a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son and in all things equal unto both for some other besides the Father would have known the Son and some other besides the Son would have known the Father namely the holy Spirit Yea he would have known him without the revelation of another The Defence of the Argument Neither can it be here said that the word none is put onely to exclude creatures For otherwise why is it added save the Father Why is he excepted Is he haply ranked among the creatures so that he was there expresly to be excepted For that only is excepted which otherwise is comprehended under the general name and which had it not been excepted might be thought to have been comprehended under the âeneâal speech and so the same either affirmed or denyed of it which is affirmed or denyed of others belonging to the same kind There is the same difficulty concerning the Son if you consider the opinion of the adversaries For they hold him as he is the Son of God to be no creature But here he is lookt upon as he is the Son Neither may any one say that the holy Spirit is tacitly included in the Father and the Son For if the holy Spirit be a person distinct from both by what right is this affirmed Again is the holy Spirit more included in the Father and the Son than either the Son in the Father or contrarywise the Father in the Son Certainly no more Wherefore if no mention be made of the holy Spirit because he is included in both there ought to be no express mention made either of the Son or of the Father because the one is included in the other And truly the mention of the Father doâh moâe openly include the Son or the mention of the Son include the Faâher than the mention of both doth the holy Spirit if he be a person distinât from both yea there is not so much as any suspicion that he is included But there the very names have a mutual relation each to other Wherefore mention should rather have been made of the holy Spirit than either of the Father when it is spoken concering the knowledge of the Son or of the Son when it is spoken concerning the knowledge of the Father Finally neither may any one say that the holy Spirit is comprehended among them to whom the Son will reveal the Father or himself because he bestoweth on him as the Essence so also the knowledge of the Father For to omit that nothing is revealed to any one unless he doth already exist it is here spoken of such a revelation as happeneth at a certain time and dependeth on the will of the Son and not on the necessity of nature But that revelation if it ought to have such a name as it is caused by the procession of the holy Spirit from the Essence of the Son is conceived both to have been from all eternity and not to depend on the will of the son but on the necessity of nature Doth not the thing it self intimate that men are here understood to whom Christ is willing to deliver the knowledge of the Father by the doctrine of the Gospel Though further this very thing that is affirmed in this exception demonstrateth the holy spirit not to be the most high God For he is not the most high God who receiveth his Essence and whatsoever he hath from another but he who hath that from himself as we have taught in our * Sect. 2. Chap. â disputation concerning Christ CHAP. V. The fifth Argument That the holy Spirit is very often distinguished from God AFter that we seem to have spoken enough of those things which are not mentioned in the Scripture concerning the holy Spirit and which would not have been omitted were he the most high God it follows that we view those things also which are expresly delivered concerning him in the holy Scripture and are such as that they shew the holy Spirit not to be the most high God And they are of two sorts For some are such as being properly taken agree no more to persons than to other things or also at no hand agree to persons but are only proper to things But some are such as taken properly agree to persons only but are ascribed to the holy Spirit by a certaine figure To which we will add those also which primarily and by themselves agree to singular substances and onely consequently unto other things We beginning from the first will teach that the holy Spirit is so far from being the most high God as that he is not a person although this last is not proved by all the arguments we shall alledge but yet it is by many of them Arg. 5 The holy Spirit is distinguished from God Our first Argument therefore drawn from these things which agree no more to persons than things shall be this That the holy Spirit is oftentimes most openly distinguished from God or the Lord. Now that the holy spirit is oftentimes and most openly distinguished from God or the Lord even those places do shew wherein he is called the Spirit of God or of the Lord or God or the Lord calleth him his spirit many of which are extant in the holy scripture of which we have before seen one or two alleaged by the adversaries to shew that the holy spirit is called God or the Lord or understood by his name namely those two
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 propâecies 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 â 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
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. Sâct 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 metonymiâally 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
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 sâew 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 innumeâable 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 tâere 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
us but that by him we should be profited For the Dative case of the person often signifies finem cui the end to which as they speak not the possessor as is observed by learned men And hence the appellation of the end to which ariseth But if any say although from that place of Isa it cannot be evinced that Christ is so given to us as to dwell in us Ephes 3.17 yet that it is manifest from elsewhere For the Apostle wisheth to the Ephesians that Christ may dwel by faith in their hearts it is first to be observed that Christ dwells in the hearts of beleevers not by vertue of that giving of which there is mention in Isa as the next cause as the holy Spirit dwels in them as soon as he is given to beleevers since that giving of Christ hath hapned to men even as yet unbeleevers and hath been accomplished as soon as he was born but Christ dwells not in the hearts of men but by faith as the place it self shewes Besides this is to be observed that Christ is there taken Metonymically for the religion or doctrine by him delivered as it is also beneath in the same epistle chap. 4.20 21. So also Moses is taken for the Law delivered by him Acts. 15.21 2 Cor. 3.15 The sense then of the words of the Apostle is That God may give you that you may believe in your hearts and adhere constantly to the doctrine of Christ and that it may be thorowly fixed in your mindes by faith And though at length it were spoken of the person of Christ yet it would not follow that Paul willeth that he in very deed and properly should dwell in the hearts of beleevers but that he should do it by his grace aide and spirit which both the Apostles wish and the manner or middle cause of that inhabitation expressed by him to wit by faith doth sufficiently shew For if Christ by his Essence should dwell in them he should dwell in all men whether beleevers or not beleevers For that would be by reason of his natural immensity which would be excluded from no place whatsoever it be neither in that thing could there be regard had either of faith or infidelity For it is necessary that what is immense in Essence fill all places and all mens hearts Neither then that place of Isa not this to the Ephesians makes any thing to purpose But that place of the Epistle to the Romans chap. 8. 32. saith not the same with that of Isa For that all things shall be given to us with Christ we may so interpret and indeed more rightly that God wil give to us all things to wit which he hath promised us even as to Christ or as before in the same chap. the Apostle had said that we shall be co-heirs of Christ and be glorified together with him vers 17. For we must be made conformable to the image of the Son of God that he may be the first-born among many brethren vers 29. which verse the Apostle seemes here to eye But the manner of speaking should offend none as if with him could not signifie in like manner as to him since we have seen already we are to be together glorified to wit with Christ that is so as Christ was glorified So in the same Epistle * Rom. 6.6 8. it is said that we are buryed with him that is as well as he and that our old man is crucified with him that we are dead with him that we shall live with him that is no otherwise than as he See also 2 Tim. 2.11 12. An Appendix of the precedent Argument in which the places are urged in which the holy Spirit is called The Earnest and by it men are said to be sealed and to be powered upon baptized and drencht TO the testimonies which speak of the giving and receiving of the holy Spirit let us joyn others which although of themselves also they might be urged against the vulgar opinion concerning the holy Spirit yet because they are not much unlike to the former therefore we will have them to be as an overplus of the former Argument And first hither pertaine those testimonies of Scripture in which the holy Spirit is called a Pledge 2 Cor. 1.22 5.5 Ephes 1.14 or rather as the Greek Text hath it The Earnest either simply or of our inheritance But the earnest is part of the thing promised given before hand which makes him to whom any thing is promised certain of the residue also Therefore seeing God doth not as yet in very deed exhibit the inheritance promised he gives to us as it were aforehand the holy Spirit which may make us sure of the future inheritance until he really bring us into the possession of it But hence it sufficiently appears that the holy Spirit is not the most high God For he is the promiser not the earnest or pledge of the thing promised Who doth pledge or give himself for an earnest Or how can God be received of a man for an earnest or pledge For an earnest is in some manner possessed by him to whom it is given But how may the most high God be possessed by a man Besides is it credible that God hath now already given us more than he promised he will give in time to come That surely neither doth the nature of an earnest bear nor this suffer to wit that by the confession of all we shall here after at length become far more happy and excellent in dignity yea then truly happy and glorious But he had given us more now than is the inheritance it self promised unto us if the holy Spirit were the most high God For who dares to compare our inheritance though infinite in time with God himself But the places quoted advertise us also of another manner of speaking used of the holy Spirit which shews that he is not a divine person And that is that Believers are said to be sealed with the holy Spirit For so it is plainly written Ephes 1.13 to which the place chap. 4.30 is like For though it is said in the latter place that the Ephesians were sealed in the holy Spirit which some interpret by the holy Spirit yet we shall shew a little after that also in other places and those such indeed where it is spoken of the holy Spirit the particle in by an Hebraism is redundant and that it is so in this place is apparent enough both by comparing of the words chap. 1.13 where that particle is omitted and by the thing it self For neither here would the Apostle shew who hath sealed but with how excellent a sign we have been marked and as it were secured by God considering which we might not doubt of our future redemption and further considering how much is given to us we might diligently take heed that we do not peradventure by vanity of words deprive our selves of so great a good and rase and blot
out the character and mark stamped on us by God But the Apostle had not expressed that if he had only said that we are sealed by the holy Spirit unless perhaps any one should take such words in such a sence in which we would have them said to wit that it may be understood that we have been sealed with the divine Spirit or that the holy Spirit is as it were a sign mark and character impressed on us by which God hath marked us as his proper goods and hath made us sacred and inviolable and safe from all danger of perishing if we do our duty The same thing the Apostle hath shewed 2 Cor. 1.22 especially if one compare the place with those two which we have cited out of the Epistle to the Ephesians and chiefly with the former For in both places the same thing is explained nor do the words much differ For there indeed after the Apostle had said ver 21. Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ Greek into Christ and hath anointed us is God He adds ver 22. who hath also sealed us and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts But here he saith In whom that is by whom to wit Christ also after that ye believed ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise that is the holy Spirit promised which is the Pledge or Earnest of our inheritance unto the day of redemption c. namely the latter clause is added for explication of the former and what is the earnest of our inheritance the same is also the seal with which we are marked Hence then it again appears that the holy Spirit is neither the most high God nor a person For neither is any thing sealed with a person but with some thing nor is any thing more absurd than to say that the most high God whose propriety we are and who hath sealed us unto the day of redemption is the seal it self wherewith we are sealed By these things also it appears that the Adversaries labour in vain who endeavour out of the words Ephes 4.30 to deduct the person of the holy Spirit because he is said to be grieved and vexed by us as if the like things were not attributed to Charity which is said to rejoyce in the Truth and on the contrary not to rejoyce which is all one as to be grieved with Iniquity and as if it were not more easie to find here a seigning of a person than to shew that to some person and he indeed the most high God it agrees to be a seal imprinted on men Certainly they who else where * Ro. 8.26 The Defence will they nill they are forced to acknowledge that groans are improperly attributed to the holy Spirit have no cause why they will not have grieving figuratively to be ascribed to it especially when neither themselves can properly asscribe grieving to it seeing that doth not proper befal God But if they say that that also is improperly and by a Metaphor said of the holy Spirit that we are sealed by it we answer Although the thing expressed by that metaphorical kind of speaking be conceived in proper words yet nevertheless the force of our Argument would be the same For it is signified as was said that the holy Spirit is a certain thing given unto us by God by which we may be certified of our future redemption and the happiness promised us Besides although that manner of speaking be metaphoricall yet it is not such as is fitted to a person For neither is every Metaphor accommodated to every thing Let there be brought forth but one place either out of profane or sacred Writers where some one is said to be sealed with any person Wherefore if the holy Spirit were a person Paul would have used such a Metaphor as might have been fitted to a person and had not less expressed the thing which he here handled than the word of sealing He had said to wit that the holy Spirit was a surety or undertaker or hostage or had been content with the name of earnest or pledge which last word is sometime by a Metaphor accommodated to persons But it is altogether unheard of that any person who is given to another to certifie him of his salvation and safety is compared to a seal imprinted on him who is secured or any one said to be sealed by him Neither indeed in the places alleaged doth any thing go before which gave occasion to the Apostle for so bold yea absurd a kind of metaphor rather then for another a like fitted to his purpose and more to the person But unusual metaphors and figures are not wont to be used by considerate and grave men unless special occasion invites them and leads them thereto much less that they speak so absurdly without any necessity The same we would have also said unto them who say these things are pronounced of the holy Spirit by a Metonimy or Metalepsis to wit in respect of the gifts which come from hint For there are also other Metalepsis in some manner accommodated to persons or at least more in use But unusual ones are not to be ascribed to considerate men unless it appears that they are led to them by some certain occasion Although the same Adversaries also are bound to excuse a Metaphor which would nothing less concur with a Metalepsis In the third place those places of holy Scripture deserve to be mentioned in which the holy Spirit is said to be poured out on men such as are these Isa 44.3 Joel 2.28 29. which place is cited by Peter Acts â 18 19. Zach. 12.10 Tit. 3.6 to which also those are to be joyned in which men are said to be baptized in or with it and its baptism is opposed to the baptism of water used by John as it is Mat. 3.11 and the places in the other Evangelists answering to it and likewise John 1.33 Acts 1.5 11 16. add 1 Cor. 12.13 although there to be baptized in one spirit is taken by some for to be baptized by one Spirit so we might say we are baptized by Christ by whom God hath poured out abundantly the holy Spirit upon us Tit. 3.6 when nevertheless otherwise where ever that phrase To be baptized in spirit is extant it signifies nothing else as all confess than to be baptized with the spirit the particle in among the Greeks being redundant which hath flowed from an Hebraism For because that which the Greeks express by the simple Dative case the Latins by the Ablative the Hebrews cannot express without the Particle prefixed which is for the most part Be that is In therefore it is often retained by the he braising Greek Writers and prefixed to the dative which alone would have that force But that those words in the holy Spirit are elsewhere so to be understood easily appears by the opposite member For in most places in which it is said that John baptized with water it is
but proceeds and flows from him when so far as he will not otherwise than the light from the Sun or that force which they call influence from Stars or as heat from fire upon things put to it For let me be allowed to illustrate a thing most divine by similitudes to which you have not unlike ones concerning wisdom issuing from God in the Author of the Book of Wisdom Chap. 7.26.27 Therefore as the things mentioned by us diffuse their power and distribute it into many subjects and that often unequally so also God communicateth his power and virtue to many and not to all in the same measure and the same degree whence there ariseth some partition of his power so that no man may wonder that we following the Scripture urge some partition of the holy Spirit Although what need is there to defend or excuse that which the holy Writings do so plainly assert For what is it which the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews Chap. 2.4 saith That God confirmed by his testimony the Doctrine of the Gospel concerning everlasting salvation as well by signes and wonders and divers miracles as also by the distributions or divisions of the holy Spirit that is by distributing the holy Spirit among believers and imparting it to them in various measures as it hath pleased him What likewise is that which God long since said to Moses Num. 11.17 I will take off thy Spirit and put on them to wit the seventy Elders which also we see was done afterward in the very deed For so we read after Vers 25. And took the Lord of the Spirit which was in Moses and gave it to the seventy Elders and when the spirit had rested on them 2 Kings 2.9 they prophesied c. What moreover that which we read of Eliseus who would have given to him a double spirit of Elias or as it is in the Hebrew the mouth of two in the spirit of Elias that is a double part of his Spirit or sufficient for two as it is explained by learned men by comparing this place with that Deut. 21.17 where the same phrase occurrs although in another matter For there the Father is commanded to give doubles Heb. the mouth of two or a double part of goods to his first-born Son although boââ of the hated wife Neither truly did Elizeus in vain ask for that as is understood by the following words of that place Moreover Paul makes mention also of the first-fruits of the Spirit Rom. 8.2 3. Now what else are the first-fruits of any thing but the first and select parts of it Lastly When John saith that God giveth the Spirit not by measure John 3.34 what other thing would he than that God gives the Spirit most plentifully But that cannot be said of a thing which can in no manner be encreased nor deminished nor divided into some parts And surely John doth tacitely intimate that God hath given or doth give the Spirit in some certain measure but to Christ alone he hath imparted a certain unmeasurable plenty of it But it is not necessary for us in this place to say all things which pertain to a further explication of those places that shall be done if God will else where For it is enough now to have shewn that a certian distribution doth befal the holy Spirit which cannot by any means befall a divine person yea no person at all unless with some corruption of it But the distribution of the holy Spirit brings no corruption to it The Defence and Confirmation of the Argument BUt we have already above shut up this way for escape to wit that these things are to be understood of the gift or effect of the holy Spirit who is a divine person Besides that it may appear by some places * Chap. 8. of this Section alleaged by us and the like to them that that Spirit of which these things are said is one thing the gift understood by the adversaries another thing namely a quality or motion imprinted on men by a divine spirit See Numb 11 25 c. Compare together Joel 2.28 29. Zach. 12.10 and Isa 11.2 John 3.34 That I mention not now the History it self of the effusion of the holy Spirit set down Acts 2. by which it is manifest that the holy Spirit poured out on the Apostles and distributed is one thing the gift flowing from thence another thing See vers 3.4 But of the same Spirit also other places are to be understood Out of the places hitherto brought by us you may easily frame many arguments For every manner of expression used in the testimonies signifying either more openly or more covertly some division of the holy Spirit may supply us with a several reason For they so abhor from the supream deity that no man may daâe to use them of it No such thing surely is so much as intimated in the holy Scriptures either of the Father or of the Son Who hath either heard or dare say that there is taken of the Father or of Christ that there is given or poured out of him that he is distributed or doubled that he is given either in measure or without measure that any one has the first fruits of him or the first and better parts of him But what other cause is there of this thing then because they are persons and indeed divine ones although the latter not of himself but by the grace and gift of God Therefore there would be the same reason of the holy Spirit also if it were likewise the most high God CHAP. X. The tenth Argument 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 THe words of the Apostle 1 Thes 5.19 where speaking of the holy Spirit âe warnes that we quench not the Spirit deserve the sixth place in this rank whence in like manner is understood that the holy Spirit is not the most high God For these words shew that that Spirit may be quenched But who dares say that in any wise of the most high God Who would brook him who sâould waâne thus beware thou extinguish not God the Father Would not our very eares refuse such formes of speaking But there is the same reason of the holy Spirit as of the Father if the holy Spirit be the most high God For that therefore cannot be said of God the Father because he is the most high God But if thou wouldst excuse it by some trope which otherwise we deny not to be in the words it is to be considered which we a little before have minded that tropes ought to be modest most of all when the name of the most high God is used of wâom we must so speak and the Apostle so speak as is beseeming his Majesty But we have alâeady hinted that such manner of speaking agrees not to God and is rejected
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 effeât 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 âut those disciples that they âad 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 geneâation 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 Spiâit 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 adveâsarie 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 sâall 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
Interpreter of anothers will But that he saith those words in ver 14.15 He shall receive of mine are spoken accommodately to humane sence if he mean this that he should indeed receive nothing from Christ because he alwayes had all things but that it should seem so to men what else doth he but to elude Christs words as if forsooth Christ spake of it what men however falsely should imagine concerning that matter and not rather what should truly be though there may be some figure in the words Do we think that Christ would have said that the holy Spirit should glorifie him because men should falsely think that the holy spirit received of that which is Christs Or do we think that he would acknowledge for his glory the glory that is founded in the vain opinion of men and besides that pertaineth to some deminution of the dignity of the holy Spirit that is as it pleaseth them of the most high God But if he mean that that the holy Spirit should indeed truly receive something of that which is Christs but yet that a figure or trope fetcht from humane things is in the word of receiving let him strain himself as he will and turn himself every way He shall shew by no example that it can be said that he shall receive from another that he shall speak not from himself but things heard from another who is first author of his words and to whom those words are not delivered or some way wrought or imprinted by another at a certain time Although besides if the holy Spirit were no less properly the Legate of the Son than the Son formerly of the Father no impropriety of speech which might here be of any moment in that matter of which it is here disputed is to be admitted either in the word of hearing or of receiving For it will be altogether signified that those things which the holy Spirit hath said were manifested and committed to him by Christ For that belongs to such a Legate as Christ was and such aâ they hold the holy Spirit to be By which it is now understood that the difficulty is not taken away by such an answer nor our Argument solved because what ever you devise these words cannot consist unless it be acknowledged that the holy Spirit is not the first author of those things which he made known to the Disciples of Christ but it came to pass by the will of another to wit Christ and so of God the Father himself Arg. 13 From Joh. 15.13 that he should reveal those things that he dictated to the disciples But this befalls not the most high God For he is the first author of those things which he either revealeth to men or otherwise doth Neither is it caused by the will of another that he doth reveal any thing to men Of which see what we have said above Sect. 2. Chap. 3. and 4. disputing of Christ when he weighed those his words John 5.19 The Son can do nothing of himself And those John 7.16 My doctrine is not mine and others like to these But perhaps this scruple will trouble some how it can be that the holy Spirit may be said to hear and to receive from another what he may declare to others if it be but only a divine inspiration or virtue and efficacy I answer Since the Adversaries also confess and the thing it self shews that those things cannot be properly taken concerning the holy Spirit there is no necessity that we should shew that they may be taken properly concerning divine inspiration But if a figure in the words is to be admitted it is not hard to shew that they may be rightly and elegantly said concerning divine inspiration or virtue inspired from heaven into the Apostles Out of those things wâich follow it will be manifest that many things are found in the holy Scripture spoken by a Prosopopoea concerning the holy Spirit as also concerning other things And that this figure is abhorrent from the place of John of which we treat shall be by and by shewn All men perceive that it is here spoken of the holy Spirit as of a Legate who is to be sent by Christ to the disciples It belongs to a Legate as we have said before not to speak of himself but to declare to others the commands heard and received from him by whom he is sent These things then are accommodated and that by right also to the divine vertue long since inspired into the Apostles For there is something in that divine inspiration which very well answers to hearing and receiving from another and declaring and which consequently hath made way for the Metaphor out of which the Prosopopoea ariseth For not the divine inspiration but he from whom that inspiration comes is the true author of those things which are revealed by it to men neither can that divine virtue implant any other thing in the spirits and minds of men than he would from whom it is inspired into men who is here indeed Christ Therefore it is like to some Legate who declares nothing save the things heard and received from his Prince and Lord to those to whom he is sent But why doth here Christ speak by Prosopopey concerning the holy Spirit this is chiefly the cause because in some manner he compares him with himself and considers him as it were to be sent into his place to the Disciples now sadned by his instant departure For Christ hitherto hath been as it were their Comforter Therefore he said to them being fadned by the notice of his departure That he asking the Father would give to them or would send to them from the Father another Comforter who might abundantly supply his room in this behalf But comparisons of things with persons Arg. 13 from John 16.13 do easily bring forth Prosopopeys Hence that we may illustrate the thing by examples David comparing the testimonies of God with Princes who spake and took counsel against him and opposing the one to the other he calls them his Counsellors or as it is in the Hebrew the men of his Counsel Psal 119.24 Hence also arose that famous Prosopopey in Solomon who brings in wisdom and foolishness contrary to it as certain women inviting men to them by reason of the comparison of a strange woman as most learned men have noted See Cornelius Jansen on the Proverbs Let the whole place be read beginning at Proverbs 7.5 where that comparison begins and is continued through the rest of the whole chapter and the two following Chapters Compare also with this place Chap. 24. Eccles More might be said of this matter but there is now no place for it and something also shall yet be said hereafter by which it shall appear that no man ought to marvel that such a Prosopopey or Fiction of a Person is used concerning the holy Spirit Although even that alone may take away wondring from any one that Christ himself confesseth that
both the same thing and more things Wherefore if something be feigned communicable which is the same thing really with three things really distinct among themselves as here the divine Essence which is one thing with the three Persons that shall at once be both one thing and more than one Therefore such a communicable thing is not to be admited if it be brought for an instance to invalid that Axiome in this our controversie this will be a mere begging of that which ought to be proved since that communicable thing by this very reason may be refelled But it easily appeareth to any one that such a communicable thing imply a contradiction if you consider what may be here understood by that word For here they call that thing Communicable which when it is one in number yet may be common to more in number For so they would have the divine Essence to be communicable For as much as they acknowledge together with us that it is one in number but will have it common to three persons in number so that it may be distinctly predicated in concrete of each of them namely in this manner The Father is God the Son is God the holy Spirit is God and yet they would have those three to be one God For what other thing is this than that one thing in number is more things in number that it is individuum and not individuum For it is individuum because it is one in number not individuum because it may be so divided into more things of the same name that yet the whole may be in each of them which thing is altogether repugnant to the Reason of individuum Therefore that Reason which we have propounded is firm which if it please you you may also so propound that it may be concluded that the divine Essence shall be at once both one only thing and more than one For all confess indeed that it is one but it follows from their tenet that it is more than one because they maintain it to be really the same thing with three persons really distinct among themselves For if those three Persons are really distinct among themselves it is necessary that they are three distinct things For the same thing really is that which is one thing really distinct which are more things which both the thing it self shews and the chief of the Adversaries confess and they who deny it know not what they say For they are necessitated to maintain the same thing to differ really from it self which overthrows it self Now if the Essence be really the same thing with three persons really distinct among themselves it is necessary that it be the same thing with three distinct things But that which is the same thing with three distinct things it is necessary that it should be three things Wherefore the divine Essence shall be together both one thing and three things which as we have said is repugnant to it self Let us add a Corollary to this Argument that the divine Persons will be together one of themselves and one only by Accident and so one of themselves and not of themselves by accident and not by accident For those things which are one in respect of Essence and that indeed the same in number are chiefly one of themselves Greater Unity cannot indeed be imagined among those things which are conceived like diverse things And in that manner are the divine Persons maintained to be one thing But again those things which are actually and in the ultimate perfection two or more are not one of themselves but one only by accident For those things which are of themselves one thing are such and so fitted together that either one of them doth so respect the other as Potentia doth its Actus or as the thing to be perfected doth some further perfection or may be perfected together by some other Actus in as much as yet it hath not in it self its ultimate perfection For it is the Actus which both conjoyns and separates It conjoyns if one it dis-joyns if more than one But the divine Persons are neither so referred to themselves mutually nor to some other thing as potentia to actus and further perfection having already attained their utmost perfection The Essence cannot be such actus For the persons rather add to the Essence something of perfection to wit subsistence and personal propriety than on the contrary and that subsistence presupposeth the Essence not on the contrary CHAP. IV. Arg. 4 There would be three substaâces of God The fourth Argument Because there would be at once one and three Substances of the Supream Deity FOurthly By this reason also a contradiction may be shewed in that tenet because it introduceth together both one and more Substances of God All maintain that there is one Substance of one God But the plurality of persons necessarily requires more For if a person be no other thing than an ultimate intelligent Substance where there are more persons it is necessary that there be more ultimate intelligent substances For the Definitum or the thing defined being multiplyed which is here a person the whole definition is also multiplyed or that whole which is expressed in the definition For the Definitum or the thing defined and the definition or that which is exprest in the definition are really one and the same thing and differ only in the manner of explaining You may also propound the same Reason more briefly thus If each Person be a Substance where there are more persons there also are more substances For individuals being multiplyed that also which obtains the place of a genus as well as that which obtains the place of a species is multiplied in the same individuals Because individuals are nothing else than that which is expressed by the name of the species and genus being contracted by differences which they call individuating differences Therefore unless that which hath the place of the species and genus so as we have said contracted be multiplyed individuals are not multiplyed Now persons are individuals whose genus is substance But that every Person is a Substance and that a Substance is predicated of a Person as a Superiour on its Inferiour is first manifest by induction For both a humane and Angelical and divine Person is a substance But besides these there is no other person if under the name of Angels you comprehend also evil Angels or Devils Who doubts Peter or Paul or other men to be Substances Who Gabriel Michael or other Angels Who likewise the Devils For we regard not mân of wanton wit who make the Devils I know not what against so many plain testimonies of the holy Scripture which same men neither will nor can say them to be persons Will you perhaps deny the Father and the Son to be Substances For there are certain superstitious men who dare not use the word Substance concerning God because it belongs to a Substance to
supernatural divine Generations you will find none in which God hath begotten any thing out of his Essence Neither may you want examples there are as many as there are Angels who are all called the Sons of God as many as godly men and believing in Christ there are extant as many as there sâall hereafter become immortal For all these are either begotten or as yet to be begotten of God as is manifest from the holy Scriptures Neither is there need you should fear lest that in a Generation of this sort you should find no special manner which may he either altogether peculiar to Christ or so remarkable as to exempt him from the catalogue of the rest and make him the only begotten Son of God For those things which are disputed both by us in the said place and by others elsewhere will free you from this fear But besides that I may omit that the Generation out of the Essence of him who generates such as the Adversaries will have Christs to be even chiefly is natural not supernatural every Generation properly so called whatsoever whether you would have it to be natural or supernatural is a change from not being into being So namely that it is necessary that that which is begotten did sometime not exist and afterward by the generation began to exist For what is not every Generation properly so called a production and acquisition of an Essence I say an acquisition in respect of a begotten But how can the Essence of that be produced which doth already exist and was in very deed alwayes in being How can that acquire an Essence which alwayes had it Is not perhaps the supernatural Generation although substantial and properly so called a production and acquisition of an Essence or Substance If it be not we understand no more no not indeed the name of the generation when it is uttered concerning supernatural things and you do use an unknown tongue who tells us of such a generation But what ever at length you think this is certain that the holy Scriptures when they mention the Generation of the Son of God do speak with us in a popular language and therefore do so speak that we may perceive the force and meaning of the words although we do not thorowly understand the whole reason or nature of the thing But go to if it be not necessary that that which is generated should not before exist that may be generated which now is very deed is existent and further nothing will hinder that he who to day in very deed is ceaseth not to be to morrow or the next day may properly be generated By this means he hath been in the end of the way to which he tends before he hath entered into the way or gone through it For the generation is the way to to be in very deed to be or to have an Essence is the end of that way Who therefore doth not see that to be absurd and against all the nature of the Generation That may indeed be conserved which is already in being but not generated But if the generation may be of a thing already existent as it existeth the generation will be the conservation of a thing But the generation is the Antecedent of the conservation that produceth the thing this upholds it being produced If therefore it be repugnant to the nature of the generation that that be generated which already doth in very deed exist it is necessary that that which properly is generated sometime was no being or sometime was not in very deed existent They will perhaps say that to that Generation which may be performed by an Emanation as they call it it is not required that the thing generated sometime should not exist for it is enough that it hath not its Essence from it self but from another to wit from that from which it emanateth or flows So the light or beams perpetually flow from the Sun and are generated not therefore because they were not before existent but because they have not their Essence from themselves but from the Sun For imagine say they the Sun to have been existent from eternity it will be necessary that it begat light and beams from eternity and so beams although generated should have existed from eternity But now they say that the Son of God is begotten of the Father by an Emanation For he is begotten of the Father whilst he understands himself and conceives the image of himself which action perpetually endureth Likewise also that the holy Spirit is produced by a continued act of the will Of which thing we have treated above But by this device they profit nothing For that I may let pass other things mentioned above in the first chapter of this Section the example of the Sun-beams which they think to be most fitted to their opinion makes not for it Seeing we with our Adversaries here speak of the Generation properly so called But there is no Generation properly so called of light and beams since they are Accidents But Generation properly so called is not of Accidents but of Substances only as is well known But if the Emanation of beams from the Sun were a generation properly so called there had been no necessity that the Adversaries should so carefully distinguish between the natural and supernatural generation when we urge that whatsoever is properly generated it necessarily sometime was not existent since the Emanation of beams from the Sun is natural and if it be a Generation properly so called then they will have an example of a natural generation in which that which is generated even now before as themselves here urge was existent and might alwayes be existent Further those things which in a sort are generated by an Emanation have not a perfect and consistent Essence but their being as they speak is in fieri that is they are only in being in that they are produced and pass even as actions and motions But the Son of God hath a perfect and consistent not transient Substance Wherefore he is not begotten by an Emanation Lastly Also in those things which continually do emanate and in that regard are as it were generated that is generated which was not before existent For those things have successive parts whereof one goes before another follows and that which once was generated because it hath already received its being is not generated any more but another which was not yet existent wherefore if the light be generated perpetually by the Sun another and another successive part is still generated Otherwise if the whole were once produced according to all parts which should be ever existent it should not be continually generated but being once produced should be conserved only By these things that also appears that the Son of God cannot be generated by a continued Emanation or if they will have him to be generated by an Emanation he cannot be the most high God For the most high God
hath not parts by which he may be successively generated that I may forbear to say that whatsoever is generated by an Emanation whether perpetual or not perpetual the Essence of it depends on that from which it flows But the Essence of the most high God depends on none CHAP. IV. The fourth Argument Because the Son of God should be already generated and to be generated unto eternity THe fourth Argument may be hence drawn That if God have begotten the Son out of his Essence from eternity he doth also now beget the same and shall beget him unto eternity Which thing even many of the Adversaries confess they especially who say that the Son is generated of God by the intellection For that intellection perpetually endureth and will endure unto all ages But not only they who acknowledge such a manner of the generatioâ of the Son of God are compelled to confess it but all others also unless they would overthrow their other Doctrines For if God begat the Son from eternity and now begets him not any more he is made of a âegeâter a not begetter which change since it respects not the creatures but abides within God himself befalls not God nor is acknowledged by the Adversaries to befall him Add that either the Son is not the most high God or was begotten of the Father by necessity of nature For if the Father had not begotten him by necessity of nature he had begotten him freely and contingently But he is nor the most high God who exists contingently not necessarily But if God have begotten the Son by necessity of nature he doth perpetually beget him since his nature is alwayes altogether the same Besides with God if we believe the Adversaries there is no distinction of time but the whole eternity is gathered together at once with him and contracted to a certain point Therefore whatsoever he doth it is necessary that he doth it in all eternity and so perpetually Add that not a few urge that of Psal 2.7 To day have I begotten thee For they say that the word of the preter tense I have begotten thee signifies that Generation to be already finished but the word to day signifies it to be as yet present Arg. 4 Because the Son of God should be already generated and to be generated unto all eternity because to day notes the present time That is indeed frivolous which they urge but you may flay the Adversary with his own even a leaden Sword as if indeed to day had not a latitude and did not comprehend something even paâ as also fuâure Do all things which are done to day as yet continue or which are to be are they already Do you as yet speak all things which you have spoken to day oâ all the things you are about to speak to day do you already speak Do I as yet write what things I have written to day You will say that in men or creatures the matter is so not in God But whence do you know that to day notes the present time with God Is it not from this that otherwise it is alwayes taken for the present time Do you perhaps conclude that to day notes the present time from this that that word is used of God but with God there is nothing but present I trow not But in that manner it is also manifest that to day hath a latitude and consists not in an indivisible moment but comprehends some certain tract of time Because otherwise it is alwayes so used But that there may be no place of tergiversation I say that the word to day being used of God himself denotes a certain and definite time and the actions which âhe is said to have done or to be about to do to day are circumscribed with a certain time and so are not eternal and that is indeed perpetual since that word is no where used of God otherwise For that I may pass by those words of Cain to God * Gen. 4.14 Thou drivest me this day from the face of the earth So Moses saith of him â Exod. 14.13 See the great things of God he is about to do to day Did God peâhaps even then when Moses spake so do those things yea had he done them from all eternity or was about to do them to all eternity Moreover God himself also saith of himself * Exod. 34.11 Observe all things which I command thee to day And again Moses â Lev. 9.4 For the Lord will appear to you to day See also Deut. 2 25 26. 16.18 29.12 Jos 3.7 5.9 1 Sam 4.3 and 11.13 and 15.28 and 26.8 23. and 28.18 That I omit many other places which every one by himself may observe by reading the holy Scâiptures But now even from this very tâing it appears that God doth not any more beget nor that he will beget the Son unto all eternity since he hath said that he hath begotten him to day which tâat it signifies a certain space or article of Time in which that aââion hath been finished appears from the examples of the like expressions brought by us especially since a contrary example cannot be brought and the Adversaries themselves confess that the word I have begotten signifies that that generation is already finished or that the Son by that generation is already perfectly produced But it should not signifie that unless it might have the force of the time past But what need we many words The thing it self shews that he who is already long ago in very deed and perfectly extant as it is manifest that the Son of God is extant cannot be any more begotten which both we have before proved by Reason and all they acknowledge whose minds thâ false Philosophy doth not pervert And many indeed are wont to hide that their mystery from men ignorant of that their Philosophy unless when they are constrained in some manner to open it because they see they shall not easily be credited by them and it seems absurd to any in his wits that the Son of God whom he knows to have been existent in very deed for so many ages past should now be begotten and to be begotten perpetually That also may be added to the Argument already brought That since a person is nothing else but a first intelligent Substance as was shewed in the foregoing Section if the second person of the Deity be begotten out of the Substance of the first there will be two Substances in God the one of the first person out of which the Son was begotten the other which is the Son himself Which also follows from this that a generation properly so called such as they will have the Generation of the Son of God to be is not but of a Substance Now a substance cannot be born but of a substance Yet again if the Substance of the Son be born and the Substance of the Son and Father be the same in number it follows
it self doth not loose the reason or nature of a Suppositum but only the Fire subsisting in it Wherefore although Christ be somewhat consisting of a divine person humane nature yet not that but this looseth the reason or nature of a person because this subsists in that For in this part there is the same reason of a person and a suppositum because that of which we dispute whether it befal a person may therefore befal it or not befal it because it may befal or not befal a suppositum But if there be in that Iron a substantial Fiâe and that Fire as some part of it makes that Suppositum which is called an Iron fired certainly the Iron taken by it self without that Fire will be no more a Suppoââtum For a Suppositum should be a part of a Suppositum Neither behoves it any whit that nevertheless we should call that Iron a Suppositum For we would not call that Iron severed from the Fire a Suppositum but conjoyned with it although the denomination be made from the Iron as the chief But if that substantial Fire together with the Iron doth not make one Suppositum or is not a part of it first I see not how it may be said that it hath lost the reason oâ nature of a Suppositum For it will be so in the Iron as the air spread through the pores of the Iron But this is in the Iron only as it is contained in a certain place neither in the mean time doth it cease to be a Suppositum as neither the water insinuating it self in the spaces of more loose bodies and diffused through them Besides this example will not serve the turn because we âave demonstrated the humane naâure to be a part of Christ Let the Adversaries chuse now which they will of these things which we have said of the Fire for there is no need that we should decide that controversie and they shall ând that that instance or example of the Iron fired which in this thing they often use makes nothing to overthrow our reason CHAP. VII The third Argument Because the most high God and man are Disparatums THe third reason is because by their opinion it is necessary that Christ be together both God to wit the most hiâh God and Man and that God is man and man is God But the most high God and Man are Disparatums But one and the same Subjectum cannot be together two Disparatums nor one of the Disparatums be the other or as they speak in the Schools the Disparatums cannot be predicated of the same Subjectum univocally or in quid and indeed each severally without any limitation or adjection They cannot alâo be said one of another univocally or in quid unless perâaps by a metaphor or similitude as if I say a man is a Lyon or Fox that is like a Lyon or Fox But Figures here have no place For the Adversaries would have it to be so properly and are constrained so to hold partly because of their own doctrine of Christ partly because of plain expressions of the holy Scriptures Of which thing somethiâg shall be said afterwards But why the disparatums in that manner we have said cannot be said of one and the same subjectum muc less of one another this is the reason because the disparatums are opposite although in a looseâ signification than Aristotle took that term And the Adversaries do not deny it For they see that the disparatums contain in them a hidden contradiction which is the greatest and unreconcileable opposition Arg. 3 God and man are Disparatums For by the essential differences by which they are opposed to each other they exclude mutually each other and the one is denyed by the other So a Man and a Horse differ as a man and not a man rational and not rational a horse and not a horse A Man and a Plant differ not only as a man and not a man but also as animal and not animal or as sensitive and not sensitive and by how much farther any thing is distant from another by so much more essential differences which they call generical are found between them and by so much more contradictions arise between them But now if any thing in the genus of the substance be distant from the man it is God if yet our Adversaries wil permit us to râfer God to the Genus of the Substance to hold which here there is no need Yea if we exclude him from the Genus of the Substance so much the farther will he be distant from man and so much the more differences will arise between him and man and contradictions which cause that they be opposed one to the other For man and God differs as man and not man aâimal and not animal natural body and not natural body and if thâre as yet any other differences be found by whicâ God is severed from the genuses of a man Therfore God and man cannot be predicated of the same Subjectum as Christ is simply and absolutely and that vnivocally or in quid Neither indeed may you think those things are said of Christ synecdochycally the names of parts being put for the whole For first both words as elsewhere so also when they are used of Christ do denote nothing else but the person of Christ But the person is a whole not a part Besides if they were only predicated of Christ synecdochycally I might most rightly say Christ is not God Christ is not man yea so only should I speak properly and accurately as I say most truly that a man is not a soul a man is not flesh to wit taken distinctly from the spirit For this expression is proper and accurate the other improper and figurate to wit a man is a soul a man is flesh But who would brook him that sayes Christ is not God is not man Add that hower the parts are wont to be said synecdochycally of the whole yet are they not wont to be predicated mutually of themselves For I do not say flesh is the soul or spirit or on the contrary the soul is flesh But here God and man are predicated of each other mutually There is no need to speak of the Metaphor whereby sometimes the Disparatums are predicated of the same or mutually of each other as if I say some man is a Lyon or Fox that is like a Lyon or Fox For Christ neither after the Adversaries or our Opinion is said to be metaphorically God or man but both properly and according to them essentially according to us man indeed essentially but God in the same manner in which he is said to be a King which thing doth not reach to the Essence Not a few of the Adâersaries have seen this knot which when they could not loose would notwithstanding say that this is an unusual maner of predicating and certainly it is unusual because it saith that which in its nature is impossible since as we have
not call the humane nature in Christ a man and they say not a miss that this phrase savours of Nestorianism if any say God assâmed man For it should be said God or the divine Nature assumeâ a humanity or humane nature Besides if the humane Nature of Christ be in very deed a man and the son of man no man may doubt that those things are to be understood of it which are said of the man Jesus Christ or the Son of man as Christ calls himself in the holy * Mat. 16 13 15 16 John 3.14 16. 5.26 27. 1 Tim. 2.5 Scriptures For there were not two men in Christ But that son of man is called the Son of God or on the contrary the Son of God is called the Son of man The man Christ is called the Mediator and other things are attributed to him which by all mens confession agree not but to a person Certainly if that man be not a person it will be lawful so to argue The son of man is not a person the son of God is that son of man therefore that son of God is not a person But it is manifest by the definition of a man that the humane nature of Christ which they fear to call a man is in very deed and properly a man For to which the definition agrees to it also the thing defined agrees For as much as the thing defiâed and the definition or the thing comprehended in the definition differ not but in the manner of explaining otherwise they are altogether the same thing But now doth not the definition of a man agree to the humane Nature of Christ Waâ not it as all other men a âational animal Of its being âational there is no doubt for his Nature had not been humane if it had not been rational Of its being an animal also âe ought not to doubt who knows that the animal when it is made the genus of a man is no other thing than a body endued with a sensitive soul Wâat was not the humane nature in Christ such a body Was it not a body that is a corporeal substance Was it not endued with a sensitive soul He hath put off all sense and reason who dares to deny it Therefore the humane nature of Christ is a man But of its singularity or individuality who doubts But if he be a man he also is the son of man as well because the holy Scriptures put promiscuously the son of man and a man as also is commonly known as because he who being a man is born of a woman cannot but be in pâoper speaking the son of man Perhaps some one will say that the humane nature of Christ to speak properly and accurately is neither a man nor an animal nor a body but Christ endued with humane nature is both a man and an animal and a body because a man and animal are concretums and likewise a body when it is put for the genus of a man but that the humane nature of Christ is an abstractum But we on the contrary if the humane nature of Christ speaking properly and acurately be a corporeal substance which no man can deny but he that believes not sense any more the same also is an animal since it is enâued with a sensitive soul and further a man since it is also endued with a rational soul Wherefore that which they say that it is some abstractum and call it humanity or the humane nature not a man rests on their bare opinion But besides what is with them humanity corporeity animality abstract They will not say that they are universals as it were severed in the mind from singulars which sort of abstâactums we willingly admit in the kind of the substances for this makes nothing here to the purpose since the humane nature of Christ is singular and one in number Also they will not say that it is the form of a man animal or body For neither doth t is make any whit to the purpose since the humane nature of Christ is noâ the form of a man but something endued with a form not a part of the humane essence but the whole essence What therefore are in their opinion those abstractums Are they the singular nature of a man an animal or some body abstracted from all these things which are not required to constitute it and considered barely by it self First what constraines to consider so the humane nature of Christ since in it there were many things not belonging to the constitution of the essence of the humanity it self as in other men And that I may more nearly touch those things which are wont commonly to be looked on in such concretums there was in him an existence proper to singulars of which no regard is had in the definition of the species and genus there were differences which they call individuating it was existent in a certain place in a certain time I say it was a being in very deed existing and as other substances subsisting but such things are not wont to be called abstractums Besides I cannot see why a whole essence and in all the parts absolute which is really existing although it be abstracted in the mind from those things which are in it deserves not the name of its species or genus why I say this humane nature which is indeed existent for of this we speak ought not to be called a man or this entire nature of an animal animal In vain the latter Philosophers seem here to have sought a distinction unknown to the Antients and by reason of difference of words although also it was necessary to feign those simple abstract words of the substances as of the humanity taken for the humane nature animality corporeity to have brought in a certain difference of the thing and signification it self But perhaps they will say that the humane nature of Christ subsists not by it self but subsists in the person of the Son of God by whose proper subsistence it is sustained Therefore he either ought not to be called a man or if he be called a man yet he is not a person But that I may omit now other things to be said a little after that subsistence which they say the humane nature of Christ wants either appertains to the constitution of the nature of a man or appertains not to it If it appertains to it the humane nature of Christ without it will not be entire and so Christ shall not be a perfect man contrary to the mind of the holy Scriptures and the Adversaries themselves If it appertains not to it its absence will no whit hinder but that the humane nature of Christ may be properly called a man Thirdly It is proved by this that the humane nature of Christ is a person because it in proper speaking doth act and sustains certain offices But aâtions as often we have minded after the common opinion of ââe Schools are not properly but of
and existent from all eternity No indeed but because the Father hath committed all judgment to him For so he saith The Father judgeth no man but hath committed all judgement to the Son that all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father of which thing we have spoken more in its place Since therefore we honour him because of all judgement given to him by the Father since we adore him because of his sublime power * See the Appendix of chap. 18 Sect. 2. Lib. 1. because of a name given him above every name â Phil. 2.9 c. We bow the knee to him and profess him to be our divine Lord placed at the Fathers right hand in heavenly places we reverence him as the judge and avenger of all our deeds words counsels and the inmost retirements of our mind no otherwise than as the Father do we detract any part of due honour from him But would to God that many who that they may testifie their love toward the Son of God honour him with false praises would shew more earnestness in that thing in which Christ placeth the true love towards himself and that they who would be liberal towards him of that thing which is anothers were not so strait handed in that which is their own And that indeed is that they may observe Christs precepts â John 14.21 For so saith Chrâst He that hath my Commandments and keepeth them he it is who loveth me Herein herein must we all throughly labour herein the greatest love towards Christ is to be shewed which if we perform we shall deny him no due honour But verily it is more easie to accumulate praises and titles of honours without measure than to execute commands as we see it more easie in humane affaires to flatter and adorn another even with too many praises than to perform the office of a true friend or faithful servant We take nothing here to our selves being rightly conscious to our selves of our defectiveness neither detract we from all others the praise of piety whilst we desire more of it in many neither are we more solicitous of anothers than of our own duty But yet we could wish less were ascribed to that love towards Christ which conââsts only in opinion and specious words and that it were at length as it ought of right to be brought into suspicion by them who too much please themselves in it Besides that we may likewise pass to other incommodities and absurdities which flow from the opinion of the Adversaries concerning more persons in the most high God they themselves who attribute to Christ false honour do in the mean time either take away from him that which is true or very much diminish and obscure it Therefore they themselves do that which wrongfully they object to us and whilst they endeavour to lift up Christ higher they unawars thrust him down from his own throne and height For that opinion touching of the second person of the Trinity or the only begotten Son of God who was begotten from all eternity out of the Fathers Essence doth so obscure the true Divinity not only of the Father but also of Jesus Christ himself born of the Virgin that it doth almost extinguish it Foâ first it doth not permit that Jesus Christ himself that very man himself I say who in time was born of a Virgin may be acknowledged for the only begotten Son of God and so called in the holy Scriptures by way of excellency but for a certain accession of him or a nature assumed to him For although the Adversaries call the man Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God yet it is not done by them but by communication of properties by which those things which agree to Christ according to one nature are attributed to him described by the other nature But that humane substance it self consisting of a body and rational soul which they fear to call a man is not with them by any means of it self the only begotten Soâ of God but a nature assumed by him Whence also they are wont to compare it to a garment which he hath put on Therefo e that humane substance that is if you judge of the thing according to truth the man Jesus Christ himself shall be no more the only begotten Son of God than our Body is the Soul because this is cloathed with that and knit with it in so straight a bond But it manifestly appears by those things which we have said before * Lib. 1. Sect. 2. Chap. 31. out of the holy Scriptures concerning the reason whereby Jesus is the Son of God that the man himself born of a Virgin nor any other before or besides him is the only begotten Son of God How then doth not that opinion of the adversaries lessen or rather take away his true glory To which is added that the same opinion casts down the man Christ out of the Kingly Throne in which he was placed by God and permits us not to acknowledge sincerely that he is made by God Lord and Christ For these things happen not but to a person less than the most high God such as with them neither is the man Christ or as they call it the humane nature nor his divine person Not this because it is the most high God and therefore no whit less than he not that because with them it is not a person nor can be if it subsist in another person And to what purpose is that power of the humane nature if it cannot exercise it by it self For nothing can act by it self if it be not a Suppositum but God himself only acts according to it To what purpose is a double empire in the same person which can be exercised but once by him If any one would joyn the Moon in an indissoluble tye with the Sun he should make its light superfluous and useless For neither should the Moon impart its light to us the Sun illustrating all things by its beams and as it were obscuring the Moon it self But the same disjoyned from the Sun imparts such light to the Earth however received from the Sun that it is called in the holy Book together with it a great Light * Gen. 1.16 Psal 136.7 So also the man Christ if you joyn him into one person with God he loseth that sacred splendor of his empire majesty being obscured made useless by the glory splendor of the supream divinity For that supream divinity would by it self illustrate all things sufficiently by the beams of its power wisdom goodness But if he be distinct from the most high God as in nature so also in person being as it were illustrated by his beams he imparts a most comfortable light to the Earth and makes that those who could not lift up tâeir eyes to the splendour of the supream divinity and behold it by its self may contemplate it in a sort more mildly
speaking properly hath done nothing but the divine person of God himself according to it But it matters much yea infinitely if we look to the power of doing whether the most high God act or man Besides nevertheless in that humane nature did an infinite power of the supream Deity personally dwell and so restrained it from all sin that it was altogether impossible for it to sin What l ke to that is in us I forbear to speak of those things which they often inculcate concerning the unlikeness between us and Christ in respect of the original sin and the same great corruption of our nature which was not at all in Christ but in us is thought to be so great that we being left to our selves can do nothing almost but sin But as to the latter to wit our felicity and the way of attaining it what marvel is it that the most high God for they will have us believe that he being made a man could die did rise again from the dead and after became immortal Is there any even the least ability remaining in us after death by which we maybe able to loose our selves from its bonds and recal our selves into life Shall we then learn by the example of Christ that we may do what he could But the opinion of the Adversaries concerning Christ doth another way also overthrow the props of our hope and trust which God set to stâengthen it For God would not by himself or immediately as they speak govern the whole business of our salvation and bring it to an end but hath put it into the hands of Jesus Christ both conjoyned to us by nature and having suffered all evils which happen to no serving him that so he might erect us to the furest hope namely that he would not despise our baseness but so much the more readily succour us being vexed and afflicted That which the divine author of the Epistle to the Hebrews hath shewed in several places and first indeed of all about the end of the second Chapter for he had said That Christ no where took hold of Angels but took hold of the seed of Abraham that is No where is it said in Scripture that Christ was destinated by God to lay hold on and help for that is here ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Angels or that he was employed therein but this was his business that he may embrace the posterity and sons of Abraham by his care that he may help and for ever keep them to wit those who were not only born of Abraham according to the flesh but those also who imitate his faith Therefore when he had said thus he adds Whence he ought to be made in all things like to his brethren to wit the true sons of Abraham yet indued with flesh and blood and subject to all kind of adversities that he might be made a merciful and a faithful high Pciest to God or in those things which pertain to God that he might make reconciliation for or expiate the sins of the people For in that in which he himself suffered and was tempted or when he was tempted he is able to help them also who are tempted Which same thing in some sort he repeateth about the end of Chapter 4. and more fully declares Chap. 5. * Compare together vers 2 3. and 7 8. ch 5. Namely the divine Author teacheth that Christ because he had experience of the same evils is so much the more prone to help and succour us being put into the like affliction But how may we sincerely enjoy this consolation if Christ be the immortal God himself and free from all even shadows of affliction For it doth no whit avail that the humane nature hath suffered and was dead if so be these things happen unto that which is not a Suppositum For if that nature be not a suppositum and consequently doth not any thing by it self but whatsoever it doth the divine person that is the most high God himself doth according to it what avails it that it suffered and had an experience of our evils For the divine person himself who is to be accommodated in very deed to do whatsoever Christ doth nevertheless did not feel those evils nor could be made more prone for that cause to help us And although the humane nature be held to concur to that action by which help is brought from Christ to us yet it shall not concur as left to its own will as that which necessarily obeys the will and impulse of the divinity without which it can neither act nor cease from acting Therefore it will be all one in this respect as if God himself immediately should govern the whole business of our salvation Therefore as they are injurious to the glory of God and the true honour of Jesus Christ so also they are very injurious to themselves who ascribe unto Christ a supream divinity But we together assert to God and Christ their true honour who adore the man Jesus Christ exalted for the death of the cross by the mighty right hand of the Father to the greatest height and made a ârince and our Saviour and profess according to the doctrine of Paul * Phil. 2.11 him to ãâã Lord to the glory of God the Father and together are sensible both of the power of his resurrection and the fruit of his glorification and experience that to be truly said of Peter â 1 Pet. 1.21 That by him we believe in Gods who raised him from the dead and gave him glory that our faith and hope might be in God in which very thing we acknowledge and with thankful mind accept the greatest goodness of God towards us Greaâ and grievous are those discommodities of the opinion of the Adversaries which we have hitherto alleaged which even alone would suffice abundantly to shew its absurdity but there is not an end yet For one absurdity being granted many follow and a chain of errors is easily knit For besides that it is necessary that the Adversaries pervert many places of the holy Scripture repugnant to their opinion or not consonant to it and waest them to another meaning some other Doctrines very hurtful to the Salvation of men are built upon it which must needs fall down it being overthrown You may here rightly place that most gross errour of many concerning the ubiquity as they call it or omnipresence of the body of Christ by which the very substance of the body of Christ together with his divinity is fained to be entirely present in every place least and greatest which error whatever the patrons of it say suffers not Christ any more to be moved from place to place than the divine nature it self and by its force takes away whatsoever things are read in the holy Scriptures as there are read innumerable things which shew him to be comprehended in a certain compass of places and that he went from place to place and among other things
the conception of him in the womb of the Virgin unless any say that the Virgin was farther extended not only than her garment or house but all heavens likewise also his ascent into heaven and return from it so necessary as they call them Articles of Christian Religion and Faith which whilst they defend who also hold the ubiquity of the body of Christ they contradict themselves and assert neither of them fully and constantly This is a grievous error both of it self and if you mark it because it overthrows the foundations of all Christian knowledge and faith For it denies credit to be given to the senses and will not that any more credit âe given to the eyes nor hands by which Christ overcame of old the most stiff incredulity as * Luke 24.39 c. of other disciples so â John 20.27 28. of Thomas For it requires to be believed that Christ was in very deed in that place already before he came into which he was seen by their eyes to have come and that nevertheless he remained in his very body in that place from which he was seen to have departed and that now also those places are full of the body of Christ consisting of flesh blood and bones which not only the eyes but also the hands do testifie to be empty of it and to be filled with other bodies But if Faith be to be denied to these witnesses there will be no cause why Christ should not be discredited * John 3.11 32. testifying those things which he hath seen there will be no reason why we should believe the Apostles affirming Christs Miracles Death Resurrection which they perceived â Joh. 20.30 31. 1 Cor. 15.5 c. by their outward sences and those holy Writers who affirm that they â Luke 1.2 rest themselves on the credit of eye witnesses In vain did John write * 1 John 1.1 What we have heard what we have seen with our eyes what we have beheld and our hands have handled of the word of Life if both the eyes and the hands may be deceived in so manifest a thing yea we must also doubt whether we read those things in the holy Scriptures which we do read But I will say no more of this error as being not common to all the Adversaries Although in the mean while also a greater part of them affirmes the like things concerning the presence of the substance of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist against the credit of the senses themselves And lastly none of them can satisfie thoroughly the patrons of that ubiquity as long as they hold the humane nature of Christ to be joyned by an inseparable tie to the divine which wholly may subsist in its essence in all places For unless the humane nature be altogether in the same places in which the divine is the humane nature will at the same time be joyned and not joyned in place to the whole divinity But there is another errour both injurious to the greatest goodness of God towards us and also very hurtful to piety and consequently also to mens salvation which leans on that doctrine and is vulgarly common to all the Adversaries For if Christ be the most high God who dejected himself from the heavens into the Virgins womb who an infant cried in the cradle who eat drank wept and underwent as other things proper to humane frailty so also a grievous death there was to be sought some end agreeing to so absurd a thing that is equally absurd which hath put the most high God willing to save us on this necessity Now that is commonly held to be that the infinite God partly might make a full compensation for the disobedience of infinite numbers of men by the infinite merit of his obedience which they call active partly also by the infinite price of his death might most fully satisfie his Father angry with us for all our sins both past and present and to come and might fully discharge all our debts to him yea if those things which they say be true might also pay much more than we should owe since they say that even one drop of the blood of Christ as being infinite God hath satisfied for all the sins of the whole world Such a satisfaction seeing because it could be made by no creature and yet was necessary to appease the wrath of God therefore they say that God ought to be incarnated There are indeed some found who have rejected the former part of that satisfaction which consists in the active obedience of Christ as they call it For they saw that if Christ by his obedience had fully recompenced our disobedience there would remain no sins for which he should satisfie by his death all being already abundantly recompenced and extinct by that obedience But they are both few and nevertheless vehemently urge the latter satisfaction consisting in the passive obedience or Passion and Death More are found who also have endeavoured to mitigate somewhat the other part of that opinion either because they have taken away the necessity of it or because they have asserted that that satisfaction by its own virtue doth not extinguish our debts unless the bounty of God be added But besides that that opinion which we have before explained is more common it must needs be that that was a necessary and inevitable thing which compelled tâe most high God to that thing than which nothing can be imagined more unworthy of him and very many of them who deny the necessâty of that satisfaction not depending on the Decree of God nevertheless do hold that price which was paid for us to be infinite in worth and equall to our debts But this opinion besides that it permits not to acknowledge the true virtue of Christs death in procuring us the remission of our sins and eternal Salvation it deprives God himâelf also of the praise of the greatest goodness which he hath afforded us sinners yea and takes away from him the right of further requiring piety from us by which very thing it both destroyes the study of piety in us and together with piety takes away salvation For God hath neither pardoned our sins to us if all that which was due to him was paid to him by another in our stead and name nor did he bestow his Son for us a price of our Redemption if it was paid him by the death of his Son Where then is that which the * Eph. 1.7 Apostle speaks of so much That we have Redemption in Christ by his blood even the Remission of sins according to the riches of the Divine Grace The holy Bible especially of the New Testament is â See among other places John 3.16 Rom. 3.5 6 c. 8.32 2 Cor. 5.18 c. Eph. 2.4 c. Col. 1.14 1 John 4.9 c. full of the praises of so great a bounty and immense love of God towards us But by what
right could God any more exact of us the duty of piety if Christ hath abundantly performed and recompensed all things both by obeying the Law in our stead and also of which thing now there was no more need more than sufficiently discharging all the punishments of our sins by his death For him it is lawful to exact as yet something from the debtor himself who is not yet fully satisfied by another in the name and stead of the debtor He who payes for the debtor hath a right of receiving that which is his own from him unless he hath promised that he will forgive it unto him But Christ will not have that right if he be the same God with the Father For if the matter be so Christ himself was to be satisfied no less than the Father and when he satisfied him he satisfied himself also if so be that any can satisfie himself If therefore that he paid of his own not of anothers we remaine his debtors we owe as much to him as before to his Father There is a transferring of debts alike grievous to us unless you make the Son more kind than the Father For if there remain an infinite debt as before not to be dischaâged but by an eternal death neither is there any more provided for our Salvaâion than before But no man doth easily think that all willingly believe that it is paid no man thinks that he doth owe so much as he did owe before Therefore God and Christ have lost their right of commanding piety to us and if we refuse to perform it of punishing us This besides that it is an impiety to think it also takes away the necessity of living piously but if there be no necessity for us to live piously piety is lost Who is there that without necessity would undertake a thing which is hardest of all For if there be any that sayes piety is not necessary to salvation yet in the mean while lives piously he understands not himself sufficienâly thinks better than he speaks For indeed he acknowledgeth the necessity of a pious living and would also profess it if he did either better search or would express the secret meaning of his mind But it is known too much the more is the pity how dangerous and how contrary doctrines which it would be too long here to rekcon up to piety are built upon this one thing of which we have now spoken Withdraw from them the foundation ill laid even the opinion concerning the supream Deity of Christ you will perceive them all by and by to fall to the ground But that opinion of the Supream Deity of Christ doth not only hurt them that hold it but also others for it keeps back those from the embracing of the Christian Religion who are as yet averse from it and further suffers them not to enter into the way of Salvation For whilst that those things are the heads and the chief heads of the Christian Religion which are commonly believed of Christians concerning the Triune God the Incarnation of the most high God and the rest which in some manner depend on those and yet in the mean time do perceive partly from the light of their Reason partly from the holy Scriptures of the Old Testament the manifest falsity of them they cannot but be averse from Christian Religion as false and not instituted by âod For how can that be a true Religion how instituted by God some doctrine of which altogether pertaining to the constitution of it is found to be manifestly false and contrary to those Writings which came from God Wherefore it becomes no man to be so careless of his own and others salvation that I say not an enemy to it tâat he may not care what he hold and profess in this matter neither ought it seem marvelous to any that we have not doubted to forsake an opinion commonly received for so many Ages although we be therefore exposed to the desquietiâg hatred and infestations of all men and the pârpetual losses of Fortunes and lastly of Life it self For we judge that fruit which we have taught to redound thence to the glory of God the true honour of Christ lastly to our own and others salvation to be far greater than that our Life and Fortunes and whatsoever in humane affaires we count dâar may come into comparison with it Whence also we judge that those who refuse to lose their life for the profession of this Truth dishonestly forsake betray it being acknowledged are to be numbred among those who are ashamed of the Son of Man and his words Luke 9.26 and who neither love the glory of God and of Christ nor their own salvation as it is meet nor prefer it before all other things by whom what is to be expected every one may easily imagine Yea that also is hence easily understood what we are to think of them who when they have all helps and more thân a common occasion of acknowledging the true opinion which we defend yet contemn it yea also contumaciously resist it to wit that they will together with other contemners of the Truth of God and enemies of the divine glory and piety receive punishments unless they repent In the mean time it is not our part to condemn them who out of meer ignorance adhere to the contrary opinion or perhaps by reason of long accustomedness to errour and other things which procure it a shew of Truth cannot leave it without great difficulty if so be that otherwise they are studious of piety and do not prosecute dissenters with hatred For Charity enclines us to the part which is more favourable where the manifest sentence of the Supream Law-giver and Judge doth not force us to the part more severe The opinion of the Adversaries is dangerous and of it self injurious both to God and Christ and also to piety but we think pardon may be given by the most gracious Judge on this side indeed to error and ignorance if contumacy and contempt be absent on that side to piety partly lessening partly covering the absuâdity of the opinion and so much the more easily by how much the same men shall less condemn others for the contrary and more true opinion But what hope is there for them who wanted not helps to know the truth whose either negligence or pertinacy appeared manifest in so great a matter whom nothing but the fear of men and the shunning of the cross of Christ and such things as are like to them have kept back from the true opinion What will they pretend for their error when they shall stand before the Tribunal of the most dreadful Judge But what will they do who damn others as is done by most so rigidly so proudly for this opinion and not only enveigh against them by reproaches but even censure them as to be put to death or at least to be driven into banishment If I had not come saith Christ
John 15.22 and spoken to them they should not have had sin but now they have no cloak for their sin Let them think that the same thing is said to them to whose hands these Writings come whence they might learn the truer opinion But let all together know that by how much the more our opinion is agreeable to piety by so much the more must they who have embraced it give diligence that they joyn holiness of life with it being assured that the knowledge of the Truth without Godliness will more hurt than profit them The God of Peace grant that all be mutually affected one to another with the same mind according to Christ Jesus that with one heart and one mouth they may glorifie the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ to whom himself also be honour for ever AMEN An INDEX of CHAPTERS of both BOOKS touching One GOD the FATHER The FIRST BOOK SECTION I. Wherein is directly proved That only the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the most high God And first out of those Testimonies of the sacred Scriptures which speak expresly of the Father Chap. I. Argum. I. FRom the words of Christ John 17.3 This is life eternal that they may know thee Father the only true God and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ pag. 1 Chap. II Arg. II Taken out of the words of Paul 1 Cor. 8.6 To us there is one God the Father of whom are all things pag. 13 Chap. III Arg. III From the place of Paul Ephes 4.6 There is one God and Father of all pag. 22 Chap. IV Arg. IV Drawn from the words of Christ Mat. 24.36 But of that day and hour knoweth none no not the Angels of the Heavens but the Father only And Mark 13.32 But of the day and hour knoweth none no not the Angels in the Heavens no not the Son but the Father pag. 27 Now follow Arguments drawn out of those places wherein though the Name of the Father be not expressed yet it is indeed spoken of him Chap. V Arg. V Drawn from the words of Paul 1 Cor. 12.4 5 6. There are diversities of Gifts but the same Spirit and diversities of Administrations but the same Lord and diversities of Operations but the same God pag. 28 Chap. VI Arg. VI Taken from these words 1 Tim. 2.5 There is One God and One Mediator of God and Men the Man Christ Jesus To which are added those Rom. 3.10 There is One God c. pag. 30 Chap. VII Arg. VII Drawn out of those places wherein by the Name of the Only God or the Only wise God or the Only Master God none but the Father of Jesus Christ is designed pag. 36 Chap. VIII Arg. VIII Drawn from the Visions in Daniel and Johns Revelation pag. 40 Chap. IX Sundry Arguments are briefly intimated to shew that none but the Father of Jesus Christ is the most high God pag. 42 SECTION II. Wherein is shewn That Christ is not the most high God so that it may be understood that the Father only is the most high God Chap. I Argum. I DRawn thence That Christ is most frequently distinguished from God pag. 47 Chap. II Arg. II Drawn from the Name of the Son of God pag. 50 Chap. III The Arguments which are in the sequel to be alleaged being distributed a third is proposed from the words of Christ in John Chap. 5.19 The Son can do nothing of himself pag. 52 Chap. IV Arg. IV Fetcht from the places in John wherein it is denied That Christ is the prime Author of his Doctrine pag. 65 Chap. V Arg. V Fetcht from those places in John wherein Christ is denied to have come of himself pag. 67 Chap. VI Arg. VI Fetcht from those places in John wherein Christ denies that he came to do his own will pag. 68 Chap. VII Arg. VII Drawn from thence That Christ did not seek his own glory pag. 69 Chap. VIII Arg. VIII Drawn from the words of Christ John 12.44 He that believeth on me believeth not on me but on him that sent me pag. 70 Chap. IX Arg. IX That Christ was sometimes ignorant of the last Judgement pag. 71 Chap. X Arg. X From the words of Christ Mat. 20.23 To sit at my right hand is not mine to give pag. 76 Chap. XI Arg. XI From those words of Christ Mat. 19.17 Why dost thou call me good none is good but God only pag. 79 Chap. XII Arg. XII From the words of Christ to the Father Not as I will but as thou pag. 81 Chap. XIII Arg. XIII From the words Heb. 5.5 Christ did not glorifie himself pag. 83 Chap. XIV Arg. XIV From the words of Christ John 14.28 My Father is greater than I pag. 84 Chap. XV Arg. XV Drawn from thence That the Son was sent into the world by the Father pag. 89 Chap. XVI Arg. XVI Drawn from thence That Christ received Commands from the Father and kept them pag. 91 Chap. XVII Arg. XVII Drawn from thence That Christ poured out Prayers to the Father pag. 93 Chap. XVIII Arg. XVIII Drawn from thence That all things are given to Christ from the Father pag. 96 An Appendix of this Argument wherein is taught That Divinity was given to Christ of the Father pag. 107 Chap. XIX Arg. XIX That Christ ascribeth both his words and works unto the Father and that he is not the first but second cause of the things pertaining to Salvation pag. 110 Chap. XX Arg. XX From the words of Christ John 8.16 My Judgement is true because I am not alone but I and the Father that sent me pag. 115 Chap. XXI Arg. XXI From the words of Christ John 8.14 My Testimony is true because I know whence I am and whither I go pag. 118 Chap. XXII Arg. XXII From the words of Christ John 8.29 The Father hath not left me alone because I alwayes do the things that are pleasing unto him pag. 119 Chap. XXIII Arg. XXIII That the Father is called the God of Christ pag. 122 Chap. XXIV Arg. XXIV From these words 1 Cor. 11.3 The head of Christ is God pag. 123 Chap. XXV Arg. XXV From the words of Paul 1 Cor. 3. last Christ is God's pag. 126 Chap. XXVI Arg. XXVI From the words 1 Cor. 15.24 28. That the Son shall deliver up the Kingdom to God the Father and shall become subject to him pag. 127 Chap. XXVII Arg. XXVII That Christ is the Mediator of God and Men pag. 130 Chap. XXVIII Arg. XXVIII That Christ is a Priest pag. 132 Chap. XXIX Arg. XXIX That Christ was raised up by the Father pag. 133 Chap. XXX Arg. XXX That Christ is called the Image of the invisible God pag. 139 Chap. XXXI Arg. XXXI Chiefly drawn from those causes for which Christ is in the Scriptures called The Son of God pag. 142 Chap. XXXII Arg. XXXII That there is no mention âadâ in the holy Scripture of the Incarnation of the most high God pag. 160 Chap. XXXIII Arg. XXXIII That