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 concâ—ude 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 theâ—e to conclude thence that God abideth in us or that we are his temple because his spirit is in us and not raâ—her 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 oâ—e 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 matâ—er 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 boâ—h that is that the Father is the holy Spirit and contrarily the holy Spirit is the Father yea that the three persoâ—s which are commonâ—y held are but one and predicated one of aâ—other 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 fallâ—cious 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 efficaâ—y 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 perpeâ—ually 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 â—he words it is signified that God moved David by his Spirit â—o utter prophesâ—es 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
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
most true yet is it of no force to weaken our Argument For the knowledge of the holy Spirit is contained in the knowledge of God and Christ but not as of a person distinct from God the Father and from Christ but as of a divine thing to be communicated unto men from the Father by the Son For otherwise the knowledge of Christ is also oftentimes included in the knowledge * 2 Cor. 10.5 Ephes 1.17 Col 1.10 2 Pet. 1.3 8.8 2.20 3.18 1 Joh. 2 3 4 13. cap. 3.6 of God and on the contrary the knowledge of God is comprized in the knowledge of * 2 Cor. 10.5 Ephes 1.17 Col 1.10 2 Pet. 1.3 8.8 2.20 3.18 1 Joh. 2 3 4 13. cap. 3.6 Christ namely because he that knoweth and seeth Christ knoweth and seeth the Father John 8.19 14.7 9. And on the contrary none knoweth the Father nor cometh to him but by the Son Mat. 11.27 John 14.6 So that it is necessary if a man will attain the saving knowledge of the Father that he know the Son also Nevertheless Christ in that place of ours was not content to make mention either of the Father alone or of himself alone but joyned the knowledge of both together because his intention was to express those divine persons in the knowledge of whom eternal Life consisteth If therefore the holy Spirit were a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son he would no less have mentioned him than those two persons seeing the obtaining of eternal Life would consist no less in the knowledge of him than of them But now let us proceed to other things and because we have begun from John let us add other passages which are extant in the same writer partly in his History of the Gospel partly in the Epistles and partly in the Revelation As for the History of the Gospel among other passages Christ spaketh thus chap. 8.16 c. which place we have upon another * Sect. 2. chap. 20. occasion before discoursed If I judge my judgment is true for I am not alone but I and the Father that sent me It is also written in your Law that the testimony of two men is true I am one that bear witness of my self and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me Why now made he not mention likewise of the holy Spirit if he be the most high God as well as the Father Did he contribute less to the truth of Christs judgment than the Father although-he were one God with him Did he less give testimony to Christ why therefore did he not mention his testimony seeing the plurality of witnesses most worthy of credit addeth greater weight to the testimony and here Christ urgeth both the number and dignity of the witnesses Certainly in that place 1 John 5.7 which is at this day commonly read †See the Annot. of Erasmus and Version of Luther set forth in his life time and Joh. Buckenhag Pomerian on the Prophet Jonah though extant neither in the antient Greek Copies nor in the Syriack translation nor in most of the antient Books of the Latin Edition and omitted by many Greek Interpreters or Fathers as they call them yea and by some Latin Interpreters and rejected by some late Writers and finally not very well agreeing with the rest of the Text and for the variety of readings suspected in that place I say tâ—ere is a peculiar mention made of the witness of the holy Spirit And indeed his testimony may peculiarly be recited although he be not a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son namely because the testimony which God gave to Christ by him had something peculiar from the rest so that he doth seem in a manner to testifie a part from both but there can no cause be brought why his testimony was omitted if he be a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son but if he be the vertue and efficacy of God the Father his testimony is rightly comprehended in the testimony of the Father as it cometh to pass in the same chapter of the first Epistle of John where the place now under debate is at this day commonly read v. 9 10. which I desire you to conferre with the two preceding verses To these may be added that place likewise in the 5th chap. of his history of the Gospel v. 13. But Jesus answered them my Father worketh hitherto and I work Yea and all the râ—st that followeth where it is spoken concerning the admirable works of Christ â—oth that were already done and that were afterward to be done where there is no mention made of the holy Spirit who would have had an equall share together with the Father and the Son in effecting these works if he had been one and the same God with both But as we have declared before it would be too tedious to rehearse all such places let these likewise be lookt vpon chap. 14 22 15â— 24 1â— 3. Now that we may come to the Epistle of the same Apostle what is that which is read 1 Epist 1.3 Our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ why is it not added also with the holy Spirit if he be a divine person distinct from both and yet equal in all things to both yea one God with both What likewise is that chap. 2.24 If that which you have heard from the beginning shall remain in you you also shall continue in the Son and in the Father why not also in the holy Spirit What is that 2 Epist ver 3. Grace be with you Mercy and Peace from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the Father why not also from the holy Spirit Concerning which matter we will afterward speak more when we rehearse the salutations of Paul Add to these the words of ver 9. in the same Epistle He that abideth in the Doctrine of Christ he hath both the Father and the Son why not also the holy Spirit As for the Revelation to omit those places wherein other things or persons are joyned with God and Christ which are afterward to be rehearsed by us how famous is that place chap. 5.13 where all the Creatures which are in any place are read to have said Blessing Honour Glory and Power be unto him that sitteth upon the Throne and unto the Lamb for ever and ever why not as now a dayes all the Temples of the Adversaries do ring glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the holy Spirit why only to him that sitteth upon the Throne and unto the Lamb For that he that sitteth upon the Throne is the same with the Father whosoever doth not understand from that whole 5th chapter and from other things written in the same Book certainly he must needs be a man of very little understanding Hither belong also those words chap. 11.15 The Kingdoms of
2 Sam. 23.3 Isa 63.10 Likewise of many passages that are here and there extant in the scripture add these few Isa 11.2 and 42.1 59.21 and 61.1 Joel 1.28 Matth. 3.16 and 12.28 Rom. 15.19 1 Cor. 2.11 12.14 and 3.16 and 6.11 We have above likewise seen other places out of the same Epistle where the holy spirit is in another manner distinguished from God chap. 6.19 and chap. 12.4 5 6. and 2 Cor. 13. last which places are wont to be alledged by the Adversaries to shew that the holy spirit is a divine person But in a manifest thing no more proofs are needfull Now we have reckoned up those places of the scripture cheifly wherein the adversaries do either confess that it is spoken concerning the very person of the holy spirit or also urge it least any one should contend that it is spoken only concerning the gift proceeding from the same person and that it only but not the holy spirit properly so called is termed the spirit of God concerning which distinction we will treat in the following Argument The Defence of the Argument BUt they say that when the holy spirit it is distinguished from God or the Lord that by the name God or the Lord the Father is understood or also the son who likewise is the Lord. For therefore he is called the spirit of both because he proceedeth from both A like exception we have seen conceâ—ning Christ who is also most frequently distinguished from God Now the same things that we have there spoken to that exception Sect. 2. Chap. 1. or like unto them may here likewise be alleaged Wherefore since they may thence be fetcht there is no need to repeat them here CHAP. VI. Arg. 6 The holy Spirit is the Power of God The sixth Argument The holy Spirit is the Power of God THe second Argument of this rank but the sixth of this Section shall be this that the holy Spirit is the power or efficacy of God namely that we may explain it by tâ—e by which proceedeth from God and issuing unto men doth sanctifie and consecrate them and produce various and admirable effects in them which power they are wont to call divine inspiration but the power and efficacy of God can at no rate be the most high God or a person of supream Deity as shall better be understood in the Defence of this Argument But even our Adversaries who are a little more versed in the holy Scripture are aware that the holy Spirit is the power or efficacy of God For among others that place is very plain Luke 24.49 where Christ saith And I send the promise of my Father upon you but abide ye in the City of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high Where by all Interpreters that I know it is observed that under the name of that power with which the Apostles were to be endued the holy Spirit is understood and this was that Promise of the Father from Christ to be sent upon them See among other places Acts 1.4 5 8. and 2.4 33. Therefore this place also was brought to illustrate those other places in which the holy Spirit is signifyed by the appellation of the divine Power It likes me to set down here the words of two most learned Interpreters of the holy Scripture one a Papist the other a Protestant in their Annotations on Luke 1.35 where the Angel saith to the Virgin Mary The holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the Power of the most high shall overshadow thee For the former * John Maldonat Interpreter after he had said that Gregory Chrysostome Victor Damascen Beda Theophilact interpret the Power of the Most high to be Christ or the Son of God adds Others think that he whom before he called the holy Spirit now is called the Power of the most high God as Euthymius whom I rather follow though of less account and the only Author yet saying things more like truth than many and those of greater esteem For it is a repeating of the same sentence such as the Hebrews chiefly in songs do frequently use one sentence concluding one verse which in the fore part of the verse is expressed in some words in the latter is repeated in other words as Psal 2.4 He that dwelleth in the heavens shall deride them and the Lord shall mock them For in the same manner we see the Angel a little before to have said Hail thou that art full of favour the Lord is with thee varying the words the sence being the same And the holy Spirit is wont to be termed as the Finger so also the Power of God by the same similitude as beneath chap. 24.49 But stay ye in the City until ye be endued with Power from on high Therefore Power and Spirit are wont most often to be coupled in the holy Scriptures as below chap. 4.14 and in Acts 10.38 Rom. 1.4 and 15.13 1 Cor. 2.4 Ephes 3.16 1 Thes 1.5 But the * John Piscator latter so writes And the Power of the most high that is the same holy Spirit who is the Power proceeding from the Most High that is God the Father A description For the same sentence is repeated in other words by way of explication So below ver 24.49 the holy Spirit is named the Power from on high To them also other most learned †See John Calvin men assent For that many of the Antients have understood the Son of God by the Power of the most high that I repeat not the reason brought by a most learned Interpreter of the Papists it is also refuted by other Arguments First because Mat. 1.20 where the Angel expresseth the same thing to Joseph he mentions only the holy Spirit nor would he have left out the Son of God if Gabriel had by name conjoyned him with the holy spirit in this place and had made him Author of his own conception seeing there was no greater cause of mentioning him here than there Moreover because by this means Christ should be made the son of himself seeing in the former * Chap. 31 Section we have shewed that Christ was called the son of God by reason of so wonderful a conception and generation Perhaps some other will say that the Power of the Most High in this place signifies neither the son nor the holy spirit but the efficacy flowing from the holy spirit For here two efficient Causes of the conception of Christ are mentioned one the Person of the holy Spirit the other his Power But first that reason which we now brought concerning the son is against it because by this reason the holy spirit should be made the Father of Christ of which by it self we shall afterward in the following chapter treat Furthermore if any person here had been to be named besides the Fatâ—er of Christ such especially who being to come upon the Viâ—gin was to cause the conception of Christ the son had
be breathed then to this divine inspiration of which we treat since that comes not forth without God this proceeds from God and is inspired into men It is manifest therefore that that divine inspiration is properly termed the holy spirit not metonimycally only As to the latter I scarse believe the adversaries will deny that that very inspiration is properly given For how is that which is breathed and put into the hearts of men to their greatest profit not properly given them Therefore there is no Metalepsis here to be sought by which it may come to pass that that which properly agrees only to the effect may improperly be attributed to the efficient cause since here the very efficient cause of those effects which are understood that is the very divine inspiration is by it self given to men And let these things suffice concerning the general reason and common to all the places which we treat of As for the special Reasons more proper to certain places those words of Christ which we have before cited out of John 14.16 17. deserve to be first mentioned I will ask the Father and he shall give you another Advocate that he may abide with you for ever even the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive because it seeth him not nor knoweth him But ye know him for he dwelleth with you to wit as inhabiting in Christ he did as it were converse among the Disciples and shall be in you that is and further shall be not only with you or among you as now but also in your selves being given of the Father unto you What could be said more clearly to shew that the holy Spirit properly so called is given of God that it is a gift which may be obtained of the Father by faithful prayers For what Is not the comforter that holy Spirit properly so called or is it not but by a Metalepsis said to be given to the Disciples by the Father The former the Adversaries cannot say unless they will deny that the third person of the Deity is the holy Spirit properly so called which yet they chiefly will have For that the same is understood by the Comforter they altogether contend and urge both the name it self of Paraclet or Comforter as also the word another added to it and the actions proper to persons attributed to him in this speech of Christ of which below we will somewhat treat This may of right be said that if it be not there spoken of the holy Spirit properly so called it is no where spoken of him It remains therefore that they say that it is indeed here spoken of the third person of the Deity and that this person 〈◊〉 meant by the Paraclâ—r but that he is not said to be given to the Apostles by the Father but by a Metalepsis namely because its effects or various gifts are to be given to them But neither hath that shift here any place For by comparing of that place with the words in verse 26. of the same chapter and also with the words verse 26. of the following chapter it will easily appear to any one that Christ so far asserts that the Father being asked of him was about to give the holy Spirit to the Disciples as he â—â—ould send him in the name of Christ or Christ himself should send him unto the Disciples from the Father For so he saith in that former place But the Comforter the holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name he shall teach you all things c. But in the latter But when the Comforter is come whom I will send to you from the Father the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth from the Father he shall testifie of me And truly what other thing could either the Father of the Son do pertaining to that giving than that he should send the holy Spirit to the Disciples with that intent that he might remain in them for ever and produce those divine effects which afterwards appeared in them But that sending and the coming of the holy Spirit which follows it doth not agree first to the effects of the holy Spirit and only consequently to him which should be if it were attributed to him only by a Metalepsis but on the contrary Whence the Adversaries are wont to prove the person of the holy Spirit by that mission which they could not do if they did judge it primarily and of it self to agree to the gifts of the holy Spirit For as much as such a mission if it be in no sort proper to a person cannot also prove it But if then that mission primarily and of it self agree to the holy Spirit not to his effects there will be the same reason of the giving also which we have seen to consist in that sending But hence ariseth also another reason of the same thing For that the holy Spirit should teach the Disciples all things and recal all Christs sayings into their remembrance is put chap 14.26 as the consequent of the sending of the holy Spirit and moreover also of the giving it But if so far only the holy Spirit should be given as its gifts are bestowed that thing should be contained in the giving it self of the holy Spirit but not be a consequent of it For that imparting of the knowledge of divine things even first of all pertains to the producing of gifts coming from the holy Spirit upon the Apostles This place might have enough warned the Adversaries that they should not date to deny the holy Spirit properly so called to be given to us together with his effects But there want not also other places which do the same For by other Adversaries who therefore use not such an answer hath that place of Paul Rom. 5.5 been taken notice of where he saith The Love of God that is the sence of the divine Love is shed abroad in our hearts by the holy Spirit which is given to us Where indeed it is said concerning that Spirit which diffuseth the sence of divine Love in our hearts and so is the Author of the spiritual gift that he is given to us To which place may be added that of the same Epistle chap. 18 1â— where the Apostle saith Ye have received the Spirit of adoption whereby that is by whose force and impulse we cry Abba Father for the Spirit it self beareth witness to our spirit that we are the Children of God Of which also in the Epistle to the Galathians chap. 4.6 he saith God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts crying Abba Father So also 2 Tim. 1.7 it is said For God hath not given to us the spirit of fear but of Power of Love and of a sound mind For what else is it than that God hath not given to us such a Spirit as should effect fear and cowardise in us but such as begets in us strength and fortitude charity and prudence or sobriety But I remember not that I have hitherto
in Greek in water only in Luke 3.16 and Acts 11.16 the particle In is omitted and it is said simply and without an Hebraism that he baptized with water Wherefore the same is to be held concerning the place 1 Cor. 12. especially when by the thing it self it may sufficiently appear that the Apostle would demonstrate the unity of Believers by this that all are endued and filled with the same Spirit Which that he might the more significantly express he makes mention also of making to drink For because a man is then fully made partaker of liquor when he is both washed outwardly with it and as it were immersed in it and made to drink it or if you had rather drencht with it that he may be also inwardly filled with it Therefore Paul that he might signifie that Christians were every way replenished with the holy Spirit saith they were so made to drink that they breathed one spirit and were wholly endued with it Which agrees with that of Christ who in John inviting men to the participation of so excellent a gift thus * John 7.37 saith If any man thirst let him come to me and drink understand it of that living water which it is manifest by the things which follow is the holy Spirit Let those †Isa 61.1 Luk. 4.18 Acts 10.38 Heb. 1.9 Psal 45.8 2 Cor 1. 1 John 2.20 27.21 places also be added to these in which either Christ himself is said to be anointed or others are signified to be anointed with the holy Spirit For from all these it is understood that the holy Spirit is not a person much less the most high God Who will say that a person much less the most high God is poured out on men that men are baptized drencht and anointed with it That a man may be said to be anointed with divine Vertue this very thing sufficiently shews because Christ in that place where he is said to be anointed with the holy Spirit is said also to be anointed with Power namely divine Those things that we have said before refute the Metonymy which is feigned to be in these kinds of speech And although if it were admitted it would shew that the holy Spirit is not the most high God For who can believe that the holy Writers in the name of the most high God would so often use such Metonymies and forms of speaking which not only of themselves very much abhor from the nature of the supream Deity but the like of which do not readily occur no not in the names even of other persons either in vulgar speech or in the sacred Writings CHAP. IX The ninth Argument Drawn from those places which argue some partition of the holy Spirit BUt yet we must not altogether depart from the giving of the holy Spirit For the manner of its giving or certain words which in some places are added where there is mention made of that donation yield us yet another argument For 1 John 4.13 We read that God hath given us of his Spirit which signifies that God hath given not all his Spirit but some part of it which cannot befal a person especially divine and so the most higst God For a divine person cannot be distributed into parts and if he were given to any could not be given but whole Perhaps some will say it is read in the Greek that God hath given to us from or of his Spirit which may signifie not that God had indeed given his Spirit it self or some part of it but something flowing from that Spirit For this is often the force of the particle from or of that it signifies the efficient cause in which manner all things are said to be of or from God Rom. 11.36 1 Cor. 8.6 And the holy Conception of Mary to be of or from the holy Spirit Matth. 1.20 But that that interpretation is at no hand to be admitted in this place first a very like place in the same John where the Apostle handles the same thing doth demonstrate Now that is extant about the end of the third Chapter where when he had said being about chiefly to commend Charity that he who keepeth the commandments of God abideth in him and he in him he adds and by this we know that he abideth in us by or from the Spirit which he hath given us Do you see he saith that God hath given to us the Spirit to wit his and by it it is known that he abideth in us Why â—hen saith he not the same in our place Chap. 4.1 where when he had affirmed if we love ane another God abides in us and his love is perfected in us he adds In this we know that we dwell in him and he in us because or that he hath given us of his Spirit The very likeness of the place evinceth that John as he there said that God hath given to us his Spirit so he also here saith the same except here speaking a little more distinctly he sheweth that God hath given to us not his whole Spirit but of it or a part of it Besides the thing it seif requireth it For John whould and ought to express what God hath given to us by which we may certainly know that God dwells in us But he had not expressed that if he had only said Arg. 9 There is given of the Holy Spirit that God hath given to us from or of his Spirit as an efficient cause For what that should be he had only left it to be guessed at by us and thesentence had been maimed like as if one should say God hath given to us from or of himself as an efficient cause Which speech had not been worthy a consideraâ—e man much less the Apostle But that sentence which we have expressed is both perfect and plainly expresseth the thing given and such indeed as may demonstrate most clearly that God dwells in us in some most singular and divine manner and we in him and that theâ—e is a most strait bond of love and conjunction between us and him For how could we more straitly be joyned with him or he with us then when he hath imparted to us of his holy Spirit The same thing which is shewed in those words of John is shewed also in that manner of speaking which Luke together with the Greek Translators of the O d Testament useth describing in Greek the Speech of Peter in which the place is cited out of Joel Acts 2.18 19. For in stead of that which God saith to Joel I will pour out my Spirit it is said in Peters words I will pour out of my Spirit the sense indeed remaining the same but yet so expressed that it may be signified That God would pour out not his whole Spirit upon all flesh and upon their servants and handmaids but as it were some part of it For there is an immense plenty of it with God which is resident in him as in its fountain
Spirit are not the Father Therefore the Son and holy Spirit are not that one God In like manner we may also conclude thus concerning the Father That one God is the Son or holy Spirit The Father is not the Son nor the holy Spirit Therefore the Father is not that one God The third Reason may be fetched from the following words For if that one God were not only the Father but also some other certainly Christ would be he But Christ is here manifestly distinguished from that one God and so is demonstrated not to be that one God whilst it is added And One Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him But whereas they say that these very words intimate that when that one God is called the Father the Son or holy Spirit is not excluded from the same Godhead because neither here where that one Lord is called Jesus Christ the Father is excluded from the same Lordship they are therein exceedingly mistaken inasmuch as the word Lord doth in this place denote him who is somewayes inferiour to the most high God and subordinate to him in dominion although he be next to him that is signifieth him by whom the most high God governeth all things any way belonging to the Salvation of Men. But in this manner that one God is not Lord since he cannot in any sort be inferiour and subordinate to himself wherefore he is rightly excluded by the following words from such a Lordship And what we have spoken is proved by a twofold Reason drawn from this very place For first That one Lord is either the same with that one God or some way inferiour to him The same he is not otherwise there will be no ground of distinction nor would there be any cause why that one God should be said to be the Father and that one Lord Jesus Christ for no less that one Lord than that one God should be said to be the Father for what reason there was why that one God should be said to be the Father the same would there also be for which that one Lord should be said to be the Father It remaineth therefore that it signifieth him who is some way inferiour to that one God Again The same is proved by the descriptions which are added to both that is both to the Father and to Christ and by which they are distinguished one from another for as we hinted in the former Chapter the Descriptions that are added to things or Persons in the Scripture are not wont to be either idle or forreign to the thing which is treated of but fitted to illustrate or prove the same In this place if these descriptions make any thing to the purpose namely that the Father is he of whom are all things and we to him and Christ he by whom are all things and we by him they shew that the Father is that one God and Christ that one Lord as if the Apostle had said To us there is one God namely the Father in as much as all things are of him and we consequently to him and there is also to us one Lord namely Jesus Christ in as much as all things are by him and we consequently by him for it is necessary that he should be that one God of whom are all things that is who is the first and highest efficient cause of all those things which pertain to us Christians for that he hath a peculiar regard to Christians the word We several time repeated doth intimate and consequently to whom as the ultimate Scope we ought to look and to confer all worship and honour For he is to be accounted by us the most high God who is the first and highest Cause as of other things so of those namely which belong to us and our Salvation He also is to be accounted One who is the highest Cause not only of some things but of all for if he were not one some would proceed from him others from another as the prime Author and highest Cause and consequently the glory of those things ought by us to be referred partly to him partly to the other Now that we have one Lord even Christ is thence evident because all things are by him that is because he is the middle cause of all those things which belong to us and our salvation and in that all things are governed dispenced by him from that first Cause of all things Where also it followeth that we by him ought likewise to worship God that is that he is the middle scope and end of the honour which ought by us to be exhibited unto God for because all things are by him it is apparent not only that he is Lord but also that one Lord for if there were many some things would be administred by him others by another and so we ought to worship God partly by him partly by another Now who seeth not that these things are very suitable to the words and scope of the Apostle Neither can any one here object that it is also said sometimes concerning the most high God that all things are by him for it is certain it signifieth not that some other who is the supream Cause doth effect those things by the most high God But it is frequently said of Christ in the Scripture that some other namely God or the Father who cannot chuse but be the supream Cause doth do something by him which properly belongeth to a second cause Concerning which thing we will hereafter treat more largely in its * Sect. 2. Chap. 19. place But that in these words of Paul it is not upon the same account said that all things are done by Christ as it is elsewhere said of God is very evident because in this place those expressions Of whom are all things and by whom are all things and also those We to him and we by him are opposed the one to the other and put to distinguish divers persons Wherefore neither is that which is applied to the Father common to Christ nor that which is applied to Christ so taken as that it may he common to the Father But this will come to pass no other way than if the words annexed to the Father signifie that he is the prime efficient cause of all things and the ultimate end of us and our Religion and those things which are annexed unto Christ signifie that which the propriety of the words requireth namely that he is the middle efficient Cause of all things and the intermediate end of our Religion From whence it is how understood that that one God signifieth him who is the prime efficient Cause of all things and the ultimate end and that that one Lord signifieth him who is the middle efficient Cause of all things and likewise the intermediate end of the Worship that is to be performed to God from us and consequently that the one is superiour and greater the other some waies inferiour and
less And indeed the greatest part of Interpreters of Scripture seem to acknowledge this signification of that Lorship which is peculiarly attributed to Christ for as oft as they read that Christ is made Lord or Authority and a Kingdom given unto him or that he shall at length deliver the Kingdom to God the Father they usually say that it is there spoken of that Lordship or Kingdom over the Church which is peculiarly granted unto him as mediator by the Father Since therefore such a Lordship agreeth to Christ only why may he not in regard thereof be called that One Lord especially in this place where as we have seen that one Lord is openly distinguished from that one God and without making mention of any other is said to be Jesus Christ and Christ himself is looked upon as he by whom are all things and by whom God is to be worshipped of us which is proper to a Mediator as they commonly take the word where finally there is a plain relation to us Christians and the Church Wherefore it is evident enough that the Father is not that one Lord which is here spoken of nor doth the same Lordship which is attributed to Christ agree to him Which being so what they say concerning that one Lord is so far from overthrowing our opinion which we hold is contained in the former words speaking of that one God that it much confirms it for if when Paul saith that there is one Lord Jesus Christ his purpose was to signifie that that Lord is no other but Jesus Christ in like manner also when he saith That we have one God even the Father his purpose was to signifie that that God was no other but the Father for there is the same force and reason of the words neither hath the one less force to exclude others than the other Before we go hence we must briefly explain how that one Lord is distinguished from that one God when notwithstanding the name of Lord altogether seemeth here to be taken by way of excellency for otherwise there would be many Lords as Paul himself in the precedent words ver 5. did declare But the name of Lord taken by way of excellency seemeth to signifie no other than the most high God and that independent Monarch We answer that the name of Lord when it is put as proper to Christ is taken by way of excellency but only in respect of other Lords who are so far forth of the same kind with him as they have received their Lordship from the most high God and consequently depend on him For that Christ is of the same rank the Scriptures most manifestly testifie and we hereafter producing most clear * Sect. 2. Chap. 10. testimonies thereof will demonstrate Wherefore whatsoever that Excellency be which is contained in the word Lord when it is put for Christ or attributed to him only yet is it not of so large extent nor so sublime as to comprehend an absolute supream and independent Lordship such as is proper to the most high God and consequently neither doth the name of Lord in that sence agree to the most high God but is distinguished from him Thus namely Is it come to pass that since the name of God doth in its own nature signifie something more excellent and noble than the bare name of Lord that the name God taken by way of excellency should denote him who hath an Empire altogether independent and is the prime efficient of all things But the name of Lord distinguished from him who is called God by way of excellency should by a certain preheminency design him who amongst the Lords dependent on God holdeth the first rank and is far sublimer than all the rest Concerning which thing we could say more but that we must hasten to somewhat else The Refutation of the second Answer For now we must examine the other Answer to our Argument drawn from this place of Paul which is that Father in this place is not taken for the Father of Jesus Christ but comprizeth the whole Trinity Which answer that it should come into any ones head is a wonder certainly it is altogether inexcusable unto them who boast that they teach nothing but the meer word of God and are wont to object to us that following reason We depart from the Word of God and wrest the Scripture for what is it to speak besides the Scripture and to depart from the plain and obvious meaning thereof if this be not for by what instance will they ever prove that the word Father spoken of God doth signifie three Persons of Divinity The places are obvious to any one wherein the word Father either absolutely taken or manifestly related to us which they hold is here tacitly done denoteth the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ And indeed the same is the Father both of Christ and us as Christ himself teacheth in * Chap. 20. ver 17. John and many other things demonstrate Since therefore this signification of the word Father is notorious to all and most usual in the Scripture but that other can by no sufficient instance be demonstrated what came into their heads that leaving that they should imbrace this or rather devise it and that in such a place where Paul intended clearly to explain who that One God is and consequently to use the known signification of the word indeed they alledge places where they think God is for the Creation called Father but here they say respect is had to Creation since all things are said to be of him But this latter is taken without proof for the word All is wont to be referred to the subject matter and to be restrained thereunto But here it is spoken of us that is Christians and consequently of things peculiarly belonging unto Christians Again They do not prove that the Father who is so called for Creation is any other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Certainly we see how in that which is called The Apostles Creed the same is called the Father Almighty and the Creator of Heaven and Earth and Jesus Christ said to be his Son yea they themselves though they make creation and the other actions which are performed out of God common to the whole Trinity do yet affirm that creation is peculiarly attributed to the Father redemption to the Son sanctification to the holy Spirit Wherefore although God should in this place be called Father for Creation yet would there be no cause why we should imagine any other besides the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ to be understood but there would rather be great caus why we should think that he is peculiarly to be meant Though furthermore there is either no place at all or scarce any in the whole Scripture wherein for the first Creation only concerning what they speak God is called either simply Father or our Father but for other fatherly benefits of his toward men who call him
of all if he did understand one by the name of God another by the name of the Father The same is also evident in that he here distinguisheth that One God both from that One Lord and that One Spirit and that in such a manner as not only to design them by divers appellations and to include them in divers members of the sentence but also to interpose other things between them that it might the more clearly appear that they are different the one from the other But we saw in the foregoing Chapter that Christ is by name understood by that one Lord what other then should be understood by that One God distinguished both from that One Spirit and also from that One Lord or Christ but the Father of Christ especially since the very name of the Father is by the Apostle himself expresly added For lest you should understand the whole Trinity by the name of that God who is called One the foresaid Reason doth forbid namely in that two Persons of the Trinity were already mentioned and distinguished from that one God Again How absurd would such a speech be There is one Trinity of all and Father for to omit that a Trinit ya◠the Adversaries hold is not one God but three as shall elsewhere be †Lib. 2. Sect. 1. Chap. 1. shewn and is of it self manifest to every one if he will not for love of his prejudicate Opinion offer violence to his understanding what need is there after the whole Trinity to add the Father by name as if he had not been comprehended therein But would he have added something for Explication sake he ought to have expressed three Persons not one for neither doth he who maketh mention of one Person explain a Trinity of Persons The Defence of the Argument BUt there are not wanting some who in this place also do by the Name of the Father understand the whole Trinity or the Godhead indistinctly taken Which how absurdly they do though it may be understood by the Defence of the foregoing Argument yet is it here also to be shewn chiefly because the principal Patrons of that Opinion have proceeded so far as to say that by One Spirit One Lord One God and Father the very same is here understood there being no distinction in the thing it self but only in the words How bold and absurd that Explication of Pauls words is would be hard to utter But so was it necessary for them to do who were resolved to hold their Position and to defend any thing which the Opinion that they had once set down did require We forbear to urge that three persons every one whereof is a Spirit Lord God Father cannot possibly be one Spirit Lord God Father as they take it for granted Our demand only is By what Example they extend the name of the Spirit or the Father to the three Persons As for the name of the Father we spake of it in the forgoing Chapter from whence let those things be fetcht that are pertinent to this matter You shall find that the name of the Spirit one while put simply another while with an additament is in infinite places taken for the holy Spirit but no where for the Father or Christ Indeed the word Spirit is * Joh. 4.24 once in the Scripture predicated of the Father †1 Cor. 15.45 2 Cor. 3.17 twice in a different sence of Christ but put subjectively or designing a certain subject which is the Spirit it is no where understood of Christ nor the Father Is it then lawful to reject the most usual signification of words which it is very apparent that Paul here followed and to impose such a one upon the words as is no where extant Besides what cause can be alledged why the Apostle had rather repeat the same thing thrice than distinctly to reckon up three distinct things which might be expressed by the same words and each whereof was very pertinent to the business in hand why I say had he rather thrice to name God indistinctly and only heap up words than to mention first the Unity of the holy Spirit under the name of One Spirit than that of Christ under the name of One Lord afterward that of the Father under this very name Furthermore why did the Apostle separate these three by the interposal of other things why did he not at least conjoyn them and speak of their Unity in a continued course The other things which he joyntly mentioned we see are divers those which he mentioned apart shall we think the same We know indeed that the same thing is sometimes repeated with changes of words but when like things are reckoned up in order and each of the rest finished in particular members or * That is Points or Stops Commaes the same thing is not wont to be repeated in divers members like to the rest much less to be sundred by the interposal of like things and Commaes No such example shall be alledged either out of prophane or sacred Writers Add hereunto that the same thing is then wont to be by sacred Writers so significantly repeated as here it will come to pass when in each word there is some peculiar force which here hath no place Certainly there will be no force in the word Spirit as shall presently be understood And should the name of that One Lord here signifie the same with that One God and so design the supream Monarch of all things the whole force thereof would not only have been expressed by the name of that one God but also presently explained more clearly when after the name of the Father it is added that he is over all for it is signified that he only ruleth over all with the highest Authority that it may be thence understood that the Father was deservedly so joyned with that One God as that we should conceive him to be the same as if he had said There is one God and Father of all as who is over all for were not the Father that one God he could not rule over all with the highest authority Now then had not the force of the word Lord been sufficiently expressed in these words But what force would there be in the word Spirit for it would signifie nothing but one spiritual Essence Not to say that the Essence of God would not presently be signified let us even without reason suppose that a Spirit or Spiritual Essence being mentioned the Substance of God is by name understood What doth this make to the unity of Christians is it because they all believe the same to be but neither is the mention of their faith made in this comma and the unity thereof is peculiarly mentioned whilst it is said One Faith How was it then pertinent to the matter that there was one spiritual add if you please divine Essence nothing at all for you must understand that the Unity of the Faithful is not thence simply
concluded that every one of these things which are reckoned up is one in it self partly in kind partly in number it is common to all the Faithful for from this Communion of such excellent things or Unity of things common to Christians their Unity is concluded Wherefore all the things which are reckoned up are either such as exist in the very Christians whether apart as Hope Faith Baptism to which we may also refer that one Spirit or joyntly as that mystical Body or else they are things which do indeed exist without them but yet have a manifest relation to them and reduce them to Unity such as are that One Lord and that One God and Father common to them all who is over all that is as we said before who alone ruleth over all with the highest Sovereignty and doth alike guide and govern all and is also through all that is doth by his providence diffuse himself through all passeth through all the Members of the Christian Body and by his goodness reacheth unto all or which cometh to the same purpose is as it were conversant amongst all and is in the middle of them namely by his help aid and providence finally is in all that is dwelleth in all by his Spirit for they to whom all these things are common ought to be most closely united amongst themselves But what relation is there between the Spirit and Christians if by that name you understand the spiritual Essence of God how will that be common to all Christians for neither is it possessed by them as the things of the former sort by us reckoned up likewise it hath not a relation unto them as the word Lord God and Father Doth not the thing it self shew that if you will by this word understand a divine Spirit you must of necessity understand the holy Spirit common to all the Faithful wherewith they are as it were animated and guided for then he will be in the number of those good things which they by the divine bounty do obtain neither indeed ought the mention of him at any hand to be here omitted partly because the holy Spirit is of essential note amongst the good things common to Christians which unite them one to another in that he erecteth and sealeth them to the hope of the same happiness Whence the Apostle speaking of the same thing to the Christians after he had said that Christ or his Church is one body as it were compacted of divers members he addeth * 1 Cor. 12.13 For with one Spirit we have all been baptized into one body whether Jews or Greeks whether bond or free and we have all been drenched into one Spirit for the same cause he had in the precedent †Ver. 4. and 7. words in the same place discoursed much concerning the Unity of the Spirit lest because of such different faculties which he did put forth in different Christians they should account one another for strangers or at least in comparison of themselves dispise them who had attained lesser gifts and that they might on the contrary acknowledge one another to be different members indeed but yet of the same body since they were as it were inlivened with the same Spirit of God why therefore in this place where the Apostle handleth the same thing should he not expresly mention that Unity of the holy Spirit wherewith Christians were †That is Anointed or filled imbued add hereunto that the Apostle in the words immediately following as also in that place to the Corinthians doth discourse touching the diversities of the gifts or effects of the holy Spirit given to Christians so that there is no doubt but that he had first spoken concerning the Unity of that Spirit as in the other place But wher is he to be supposed to have mentioned it but when he spake of One Spirit unless perhaps he would have him comprehended under the name of one Baptism which notwithstanding they themselves do not admit who stifly contend that the Apostle speaketh of Water Baptism nor are we against it and certainly if it be here spoken of a divine Spirit and not of the mind and will in regard of which the Faithful ought to be one Spirit there is no doubt but the Apostle speaketh of the holy Spirit But if by one Spirit you understand the holy Spirit there is no cause why you should not by * 1 Cor. 8.6 one Lord understand Christ as in the foresaid place we see it done and consequently by the Father that which othetwise the word it self requireth the Father of Jesus Christ I suppose we have sufficiently shewn that by the name of Father in that place to the Ephesians is none meant save the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently none but he is by Paul held to be that one God Now if any one will fly to Appropreation or Attribution devised by some in this business he may easily be confuted if one consider these things which we have spoken thereof in the foregoing Chapter when we examined the first Answer to our Argument drawn out of that place so that there is no need any longer to insist upon it CHAP. IIII. The fourth Argument drawn from the words of Christ Mat. 24.36 But of that day and hour knoweth none no not the Angels of the Heavens but the Father only and Mark 13.32 But of the day and hour knoweth none no not the Angels in the Heavens no not the Son but the Father BEfore we go from the places which make express mention of the Father Arg. 4 from Mat. 24.39 and Mark 13.32 we think good to add an Argument more fetcht from the words of Christ Mat. 24. Mark 13. wherein he openly affirmeth that the Father only or which is all one that none but the Father did know of that day or hour namely of the last judgment or his coming for our Opinion is hence most clearly demonstrated for he who only sometimes knew the day or hour of the last judgment is only the most high God But by the testimony of Christ the Father only sometimes knew that day or hour Wherefore he only is the most high God The truth of the major Proposition as they call it is apparent to every one for he who only sometimes knew all things is also only the most high God for the most high God ever doth and did know all things But he who only sometimes knew the day of the last judgement did then only know all things for he that was ignorant of that day did not absolutely know all things wherefore he who only sometimes knew the day of the last judgement is also only the most high God If any thing pertaineth to the defence of this Argument although it is so clear and strong as not to need it we will speak of it * Sect. 8. Chap. 9. hereafter when we shall treat of Christ Arg. 5 from 1. Cor. 12.4 5 6. Now follows
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 †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 †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 †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
Whereas the word according as it is used by the Adversaries includeth the relation of a part but if you take that expression as if it were said by the humane Nrture then both the Father and holy Spirit might do something according to the humane Nature of Christ though perhaps the Father not as the nearest cause and such as immediately moveth the humane Nature but the holy Spirit dwelling therein even as the nearest cause and immediately moving that Nature Again it is likewise understood from what hath been spoken that that distinction of Natures cannot cause that it may rightly be said that Christ is the Mediator of himself not only because it is incongruous to say that his Person doth do any thing according to the humane Nature if that Person be the very supream God but also because from that Opinion of the Adversaries it would follow that the very divine Nature of Christ doth primarily and properly discharge the Office of a Mediator although it make use of the humane nature in this behalf for it would be necessary that the same divine Nature should intervene in the middle between it self and Men which every one seeth to be absurd Finally it is understood that this distinction of Natures cannot cause that Christ the Mediator should be distinguished from God if Christ be very God himself Add hereunto that none but those things are simply distinguisht one from another of whom it may be simply affirmed that the one of them is not the other But in this place God and Christ who is said to be his Mediator are simply distinguished one from another wherefore neither is that God Christ nor Christ that God for the distinction of Natures cannot cause that any thing should be simply denied of some subject which for another Nature is to be simply affirmed thereof as we will shew more at large Chap. 3. of the following Section Wherefore neither can it cause that any thing should be simply distinguished from that which is to be simply predicated of it inasmuch as such a distinction as we have seen doth tacitly involve a simple negation of one in relation to the other Neither can any one here say that Christ in the words of the Apostle is therefore rightly distinguished from God and so tacitly denied that he is that one God because by the name of God or that One God the whole Trinity is understood whereas Christ is not the whole Trinity for by this reckoning it might be said that the Father himself is not God or that one God because the Father is not the whole Trinity But who could endure to hear one so speaking certainly he would openly contradict the Scripture who durst to speak in that manner Besides the very Adversaries themselves do not suppose the name of God or that one God to be collective that is so joyntly signifying three Persons that it cannot be predicated of each apart for in predicating they hold that name hath the nature of an universal so that it may be predicated of every Person in particular For instance The Father is that one God the Son is that one God the holy Spirit is that one God wherefore Christ was not therefore distinguisht from that one God and so tacitly denied to be that one God because he is not the whole Trinity but because he simply is not that one God Some one will perhaps say as it followeth not That Christ is not a man because he is the Mediator of men since he is rather therefore a Man because he is the Mediator of Men Whence the Apostle expresly saith That there is one Mediator of God and Men the Man Christ Jesus So neither from thence that Christ is said to be the Mediator of God I say the most high and only God doth it follow that he is not the most high and only God This though it be more pertinent to the second Section of this book shall notwithstanding receive a brief answer especially because the thing doth not need any long dispute for who seeth not when Christ is said to be the Mediator of Men that by the name of Men other men besides Christ are understood who were either wholy alienated from God or not so joyned but that they might be more closely joyned in a new Covenant by a Mediator but certainly Christ was not in the number of them wherefore we may rather retort this Argument upon the Adversaries for as Christ was not in the number of those men whose Mediator he was nor is comprehended under them in this place of Paul so neither is the same Christ that God or comprehended under the name of that God whose Mediator he is said to be Finally If the whole Trinity were comprehended under the name of that God whose Mediator Christ is he would also be the Mediator of the holy Spirit But this is disentanious to the truth for there would be open testimonies thereof extant in the Tables of the Covenant whose mediator Christ was But what are they We require not such places of Scripture wherein it is expresly said that Christ was the mediator of the holy Spirit but from which it may clearly appear that Christ did so intervene in the midst between the holy Spirit and us as it is needful that a mediator should intervene between them who are to be joyned in Covenant and that he performed the proper part of that Office between him and us According to our Opinion which the most learned Adversaries themselves think not to be false although they say it is imperfect It is the Office of a mediator between God and men to be the messenger of God to men and to strike a League between both and so to cause that men being instructed with the knowledge of the divine Will may address themselves to worship God But the Adversaries commonly suppose that it is the proper Office of Christ the Mediator by fully paying the punishment of all our sins to appease the wrath of God kindled against men and to intercede for them to God which we think pertaineth to a Priest But where is it taught in the Scripture that Christ was the messenger of the holy Spirit to men stroke a League between him and men and brought men indued with the knowledge of his Will to worship him Concerning the Father there are most clear testimonies of the Scripture some whereof we will alledge in the * See Sect. 2. Chap. 4 5 15. following Section Certainly Christ without expressing the Fathers name doth sometimes †John 8.26 27 28. describe him thus He that sent me and changeth this description with the name of the Father There is but one place as far as I can remember alledged out of the Scripture by the Adversaries to prove that Christ was sent by the holy Spirit and it is extant Isa 48.16 where the Prophet according to the vulgar Translation speaketh thus And now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me
But besides that the Prophet doth there indeed speak of Christ himself as even some of the Adversaries have observed and if any one deny that it is to be understood of Christ the Adversaries will have nothing to prove it withal It is to be noted that those words may be rightly rendred out of the Hebrew as some latter * Castellio Interpreters have done And now the Lord God hath sent me and his Spirit Besides though the vulgar interpretation be retained it would be necessary to hold that the holy Spirit did send Christ otherwise than the Lord God from whom the holy Spirit is openly distinguished But here we speak of such a manner whereby Christ was the Embassador or Messenger of the holy Spirit as is proper to God In like manner neither is there any thing read of a Covenant-stroke between the holy Spirit and men to omit the other things that might be insisted upon As for the places which the Adversaries alledge wherein they think it is written that Christ pacified God toward us the Adversaries themselves are wont to understand them of the Father not of the holy Spirit concerning whom they produce no testimony neither are they wont to affirm that Christ doth make intercession for us to the holy Spirit but to God the Father whence * 1 John 2.2 John saith We have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous who is a Propitiation for our sins It remaineth therefore that not the whole Trinity but the Father only be understood by the name of God in this place of ours and so that one God and the Father be accounted for the same But what need many words the very similitude of this place with those which we have formerly discust wherein by the name of that One God the Father is understood or that one God is said to be the Father doth sufficiently teach every one who will not be obstinate against the truth that the same is here also to be understood Furthermore as in those places 1 Cor. 12. and Ephes 4. Paul would shew that there is the same God of all Christians not one God of these another of those so his purpose is here to shew that there is the same God of all men who accordingly is so far forth alike affected towards all as that he would have all saved and come to the knowledge of the truth and not some to be saved and others to perish Whence likewise he sent one Mediator unto men to strike the same League with all in his Name and confirm it with his Blood and so deliver all out of the bondage of sin and death having as it were given a price and testifie unto all the Soveraign Love of God towards them This place putteth us also in mind of that which is extant also in the same Apostle Rom 3.30 Rom. 3.30 where being about to shew that God will alike justifie by faith all men both Jews Gentiles he saith thus For there is One God who will justifie the Circumcision that is the circumcised or Jews by Faith and the Vncircumcision that is the uncircumcised or Gentiles by Faith Now he speaketh of that God of whom he had hitherto spoke many things and to whom he had ascribed the act of justifying whom he sundry times most openly distinguisheth from Christ amongst other things affirming of him that he appointed Christ * Ver. 25. a Propitiatory But that he is no other than the Father of Christ all seem to acknowledge Certainly that he is not the whole Trinity nor Christ himself nor the holy Spirit may be shewn partly by the same and partly by such like Reasons as we have used in the place immediately foregoing as the prudent Reader will by himself understand Wherefore we will no longer dwell herâ—upon especially because we would have this place to be only an accession of the former CHAP. VII Arg. 7 from Rom. 16.27 John 5.44 Jude 4. The seventh Argument 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 THough out of each of those places wherein after such a manner none but the Father of Jesus Christ is designed we might draw Arguments yet because the Arguments are alike among themselves we will reckon them for one Thus therefore we may conclude If by the Only God or the Only wise God or the Only Master God the Father only is some where understood and we will afterwards shew that he is so understood it is necessary that the Father only be that God namely Most High Wise Master For it is necessary simply to say the Only God or Only wise God or Only Master God is the Father and contrariwise the Father is the Only God or the Only wise God or Only master God Otherwise these could not be put for the Father as equivalent or would not signifie the Father only but some other also Take which of those Propositions you please and our Opinion will be established If the first it cannot be absolutely and simply said that the only God or only wise or only master God is the Father if the name of the only God c. is of larger extent than the Father or if any other besides the Father is the only God c. For neither is a word of a stricter signification predicated of a large one but contrariwise If you take the latter Proposition it hath bin already shewn in the Defence of the first Argument that it is all one as if you should say the Father only is God the Father only is the wise God or master God For when any one is said to be he to whom only somthing doth agree it is all one as if you should say that the same attribute agrees to him only who is first named as if I should say God is that Spirit who only existed from all Eternity it is all one as if I should say God only is that Spirit who existed from all Eternity and so in the rest The Confirmation and Defence of the Argument NOw that we may shew that the Father only is somewhere designed in such a manner we will begin from that place wherein mention is made of the only wise God as being very clear and most suitable to that which is to be proved And you shall find it at the end of the Epistle to the Romans where the Apostle saith * First place Rom. 16.27 To the only wise God through Jesus Christ be honour and glory for ever and ever That in this place by the name of the only wise God no other is understood but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ may easily be perceived For it is clear that Christ is not understood by that name since he is most openly distinguished from the only wise God and that as the middle cause of glory and honour from the
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 †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 †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 †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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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 undâ—rstand 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 †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
are attributed to the Father Son and holy Spirit and of the Reason for which they are attributed unto them and consequently of the forms of speech which are used concerning them Last of all this also may be added Arg. 12 That no other is the most high God than he who was heretofore called The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob the God of the Israelites But this is no other than the Father of Jesus Christ Whence some of the more learned * Calvin on Acts 22.14 Adversaries write That he who heretofore would be called the God of Abraham and the Fathers is now by a proper title called The Father of Christ The name indeed or description is changed the person remaining the same Hence the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the God of the Fathers Arg. 12 The Father only is the God of the Patriarchs being simply so called is manifestly put for the Father only Acts 3.13 for thus saith Peter The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob the God of our Fathers hath glorified his Son Jesus If not the Father only but also the Son and holy Spirit were the God of the Fathers why is that God of the Fathers simply so called said to have raised his Son is Christ the Son of himself and also of the holy Spirit Why also doth the divine Author to the Hebrews that I may not mention others put that God who divers and sundry wayes spake heretofore to the Fathers by the Prophets and who is ever and anon called the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob or the God of Israel why I say doth he put him simply so called for the Father For he addeth that he hath in these last times spoken to us by the Son Did he not intimate that that God who in the whole Old Testament is brought in speaking and called the God of the Fathers is the same with the Father of Christ and that the one appellation is of no larger extent than the other Certainly he must be more quick-sighted than Lynceus who will discover in the Writing of that Covenant that Christ not to speak any thing of the holy Spirit was under the old Covenant acknowledged and worshipped for the most high God so great a silence is there concerning this matter But of these things hitherto SECT II. Wherein is shewn That Christ is not the Most High God that so it may be understood That the Father only is the Most High God IN the foregoing Section we have produced those places which principally shew and that directly that the Father only is the most high God nevertheless they do also prove that Christ is not that very God which we have undertaken to prove in the second place since it pertaineth to the demonstration of the former For if Christ and we will afterwards teach that the same is to be held concerning the holy Spirit is not that one most high God it remaineth that the Father only is he since there is no other of whom a Christian can so much as suspect that he should be the most high God But we have shewn that Christ in all those places is distinguished from that One God and therefore cannot be that One God For the same should be distinguished from himself And lest any one should think that he can here evade by the distinction of Natures we have shewn that in most places out of which Judgment may easily be made concerning the rest Christ is there considered not according to some nature Arg. 1 That Chrst is frequently distinguished from God which is not a person but in regard of his very Person which according to the Opinion of the Adversaries is that One God and the second Person of the Trinity as they speak But to those Reasons we think fit to add sundry more not that they may not or ought not of themselves to be sufficient for every wise and judicious man but that it may appear with how many and how strong props of the Scripture our Opinion concerning one God the Father is supported For by this means we hope it will come to pass that all wise men will not only discharge us from all fault of impiety and rashness in departing from an opinion received for so many Ages but also begin to wonder that they were dim-sighted and saw no clearer in so great a lustre of the Truth shining on every side and of its own accord darring its beams into the eyes of all and so understand that they shall he impiously obstinate if they shall purposely shut their eyes at so great a Light and dare to reject the true Opinion which we defend First therefore we will alledge those Testimonies of the Scripture and Arguments drawn from them which principally shew that Christ is not that One or Most High God yet do in the mean time withal attribute a Prerogative to the Father above Christ and that to him alone from which it may presently be rightly concluded that the Father only is the Most High God Then we will subjoyn them which do directly demonstrate only this That Christ namely is not the most high God CHAP. I. Argument the first drawn thence That Christ is most frequently distinguished from God AS to the Testimonies of the first sort and the Arguments drawn thence we will begin from those that are largely diffused and may be referred to the names in some sort either denied or attributed unto Christ of which we will in this place alledge but two The first is That Christ is in innumerable places openly distinguished from God simply put And that we may out of so great plenty of Examples produce a few which may put the Reader in mind of the rest How often do we read that Christ is called the Son of God elsewhere we see him called the Word or Speech of God the Image of God elsewhere we find it written that he was in the beginning with God was sent from God went out from God is the Bread of God that descended from Heaven was in the form of God and equal to God sate down at the right hand of God or of the Power of God was made Lord and Christ by God was appointed Judge by God Now it is certain that by the name of God in such places the most high God is understood How then can Christ himself be the most high God For it would be necessary by this reckoning either that there are two most high Gods he namely who is signified by the name of God and Christ and that Christ is distinguished from himself which all understand to be absurd The Defence of the Argument BUt to this Argument two things are wont to be given in answer First That by the name of God in such places the Father is denoted and that since Christ is a Person different from the Father there is no marvel that Christ is distinguished from God Next that Christ in
respect of the humane Nature is distinguished from God not in respect of the divine The first exception for two causes chiefly is of no moment One is that it would thence follow either that there are two most high Gods namely the Father and Christ or that these twain though distinct in persons do yet make one God The first will not be granted by the very Adversaries The latter also cannot consist because the name of God is the name of a Person In as much as it signifieth him that exerciseth Imperial Power over others and when it is put for the most high God it designeth him who with supream Imperial Power governeth all things But this agreeth to none but a Person or as the Schools a Suppositum endued with understanding which is the definition of a person Wherefore he that saith that there is one most high God saith that there is one Person with supream imperial power ruling all things and he that saith that there are many such persons saith that there are many most high Gods Of which â—â—sing more in the second Book The other Reason is because if the name of God taken for the most high God is common to Christ with the Father there is no cause why it should be peculiarly taken for the Father and so Christ be distinguished from God For how shall a word common to the Father the Son distinguish the one from the other should he in their opinion be thought to speak rightly who should distinguish the Father from God simply put Who ever for examples sake did read the Father of God the Father sent God the Father gave God God went out from the Father if ye believe in the Father believe also in God as we read that Christ is the Son of God that God sent and gave his Son that Christ came out from God and he himself pronounceth If ye believe in God belive also in me Do not the very ears of men reject those first forms of speaking John 3.16 17. 13.3 and 14.1 as disagreeable to the use of the Scripture yea and of them with whom we have to do But if you say that a common word is therefore peculiarly attributed to the Father because he is the Fountain and Original of Divinity since the Son and holy Spirit receive their Deity from him we have already shewn * Sect. 1. Chap. 1. before that they who answer so do either contradict themselves and overthrow their own Tenet concerning a Trinity of Persons in one substance of God or say nothing and obtrude upon us empty words Wherefore we refer the Reader thither As for the latter exception which is That Christ according to the humane Nature not according to the divine is distinguished from God absolutely put this also cannot consist For first we have already shewn †Sect. 1 Cap. 6 8. above that Christ cannot simply be distinguished from God if he himself be the most high God although according to some one Nature he be not so Again according to the Opinion of the Adversaries in many of the Places quoted by us or in such as are like to them Christ is considered according to the divine Nature as when he is called the Son of God or the only begotten Son of God and also when he is said to have been in the beginning with God to have been sent from God into the world to have descended from Heaven to have come out from God to be equal to God The greatest part also refer hereunto those expressions that he is called the Image of God the Word or Speech of God and that he is said to be in the form of God Wherefore it is necessary to say that in such places whole Christ how great soever he is is distinguished from God and not in respect of one nature only But from such places judgment may easily be made of the rest For why should one seek a different reason of distinction where it is spoken of the same person when the same person may every where have place Add hereunto that we will afterwards shew that the holy Spirit also is in the same manner also distinguished from God simply put as we saw Christ was distinguished from him But if the distinction be the same why not also the reason of the distinction especially if the same may have place in both as the Adversaries either confess or are forced to confess For what reason of distinction they hold in the holy Spirit the third person of the Trinity as they believe the same must they confess may also be applied unto Christ But if you fly to a distinction of natures there will be a far different reason of distinction in both For this hath no place in the holy Spirit Wherefore the reason of the distinction between God and Christ is not to be placed in this but in some other thing But we have shewn that no other can be imagined than that the Father only be acknowledged the Most High God And let these things suffice to have been spoken concerning the first Argument CHAP. II. Arg. 2 Christ is called the Son of God The second Argument drawn from the name of The Son of God THe second Argument may he fetched from thence that Christ is so often in the Scripture called the Son of God For the Son of God cannot be the most high God To prove which we will not now repeat that which we have urged in the foregoing Chapter namely that by this very appellation the Son is distinguished from God simply so called We will not likewise urge that the substance of the Father must of necessity be different from that of the Son since every one is really the same with his Substance or Essence and consequently the Father will be the Son Lib. 2. Sect. 2. Chap. 1 c. and the Son the Father But if there be a different Essence of the Son and the Father the Son cannot be the most high God unless you hold two most high Gods We will not finally here urge that as the most ignorant understand the Son is in time after the Father whereas the most high God cannot be in time after any since he existed from all Eternity These things I say we will not now urge in as much as they are elsewhere to be urged but only this That from this appellation it followeth that the Father is more excellent than the Son But none is in any sort more excellent than the most high God For whatsoever excellency there is which is incident to supream Divinity cannot be absent from him who is the most high God Otherwise he would have some defect But such an Excellency it is to be from ones self For he is excellenter and greater who hath his Essence and whatsoever he hath from himself than he who hath from another both his Essence and all things that accompany the Essence and cannot be had without it Now that
God the Father hath from himself his Essence and all other things which he hath is granted amongst all and had he not he likewise would be the son of another or a creature not the most high God But the Son for this very reason because he is the Son hath from the Father his Essence and also consequently whatsoever accompanieth the Essence and cannot he had without it which is the cause that we may note this by the way why Christ is in the Scripture far more frequently called the Son of God than God namely because the former appellation doth so express the Divinity of Christ as that it withal distinguisheth the same from that most high and independent Divinity which belongeth to the Father whereas the word God doth not do so It is therefore manifest that the Father is more excellent than the Son and consequently that the Son cannot be the most high God Certainly even the very Adversaries themselves as we have already * Sect. 1. Cap. 1.2 Cap. 1. of this Section Cap. 14. Sect. 2. hinted several times acknowledge a Prerogative of the Father above the Son and holy Spirit in that he is the Fountain of Divinity Whence very many of the antient Doctors of the Church take that of Christ John 14. My Father is greater than I to be meant of him according to his Divinity as we shall see in its place The Defence of the Argument BUt there will not be wanting some who will say that Christ indeed as he is the Son or in regard of his Person is from the Father but not as he is God or in regard of his divine Nature For that in respect hereof he no less than the Father is from himself and as they speak Self-God Whence it followeth that a Prerogative and Excellency doth agree to the Father above the Son as he is the Son not as God But this hinders not but that Christ may be the most high God But this answer is of no efficacy For that very thing which they confess is sufficient for us to prove that which they confess not For first we have shewn that none can in any sort be more excellent than the most high God But they confess and are forced to confess that the Father is more excellent than the Son as he is the Son or in regard of his Person Add hereunto that the most high God is in no sort whatsoever that is neither in regard of his nature nor of his person that we may now in this manner distinguish these together with the Adversaries from another For whatsoever is from another dependeth on an efficient cause But the most high God in no regard dependeth on an efficient cause Wherefore if Christ is in regard of his Person distinguished from the Father he cannot be the most high God Besides it is very ill done of them so to distinguish the Person of Christ from his divine Nature as to say that the one is from the Father the other not For a divine Person is nothing but the divine Nature subsisting as we will shew in the second Book and many of the Adversaries confess For whereas they with whom we have now to do say that a person as such is nothing but a manner of subsisting which others call a subsistence they are herein wonderfully mistaken And they may learn it even from thence in that the person of the Father doth generate that of the Son is generated But a manner of existence or subsistence doth neither generate nor is by it self generated but the very nature subsisting Furthermore as from other places so chiefly from John 10.36 c. it sufficiently appeareth that Christ may of right have the name of God given him as he is the Son of God For Christ there sheweth that by the example of them whom God himself heretofore called gods he whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world may much more be called the Son of God Where for the same reason he might conclude that he might much more be called a God although he concluded it not that he might by this means shew that he assumed not to himself supream Divinity but as we have elsewhere explained it doâ— distinguish himself from the most high God by this very thing in that he had called God his Father and so affirmed himself to be his Son Certainly those very persons also whom Christ alledged for an example were in that place of the Scripture which Christ did in part alledge for the same reason called both gods and sons of God This difference only those appellations carry with them that the former doth not by it self distinguish those persons from the most high God whereas the latter doth distinguish them the one doth not express the dependency of their Divinity on the supream God although it expresseth the Divinity which doth depend on the supream Godâ— the other doth also express that dependency From whence it is understood that if Christ as the Son of God is from the Father and so the Father is more excellent than he Christ also as God is from the Father and so the Father is more excellent than he Last of all if Christ received not his nature from the Father he was not properly generated For whosoever is properly generated by another receiveth his nature from another But they as also other Adversaries do altogether hold and urge that the Son was properly generated by the Father and that otherwise he would not be the only begotten Son of God Wherefore they argue against themselves whilst they deny that Christ received his divine Nature from the Father and affirm that he hath his Person only from him Though even in that they are not alwayes very constant to themselves as hath been observed by other Adversaries For as much as none doth or can here fly to the distinction of natures in Christ we threfore touch it not CHAP. III. The Arguments which are in the sequel to be alledged being distributed a third is proposed from the words of Christ in John Chap. 5.19 The Son can do nothing of himself c. NOw that we may leave names and come to other Arguments of our Opinion we must produce such Testimonies of the Scripture wherein something is either denied of Christ which could not be denied of him or is on the contrary attributed to him which could not be attributed to him if he were the most high God For it is to be observed that some things agree to the Predicate of our Question that is to the most high God which agree not to the Subject thereof namely to Christ and on the contrary some agree to the Subject which agree not to the Predicate that is some things agree to Christ which are disagreeable to the most high God Wherefore we will draw Arguments from the things of both sorts And because amongst other Writers Arg. 3 from Joh. 5.19 John affordeth us very many Testimonies
it would follow that the Father had by that generation shewn him all things But that this is false appeareth sundry wayes first because it would follow from thence that all things had been absolutely without the exception of any thing been already shewn to Christ from eternity and that nothing more much less something greater could be further shewn unto him by that eternal Generation out of the Essence of God The Son had received the Essence of God himself and consequently also his Omnipotency together with all his natural Properties as indeed the Adversaries do believe But to him that hath these nothing farther can be shewn or a power of doing nothing can any farther be given to him no more than to the Father himself †ver 20 But Christ as we see manifestly affirmeth that the Father would yet shew unto him greater things than these which he had already shewn that is give him a faculty of performing greater works From whence it appeareth that all things had not been absolutely as yet shewn unto him Add hereunto that Christ being about to explaâ—n those greater works which the Father would shew unto him mentioneth two whereof the one is as it were subservient to the other namely a faculty of quickning the dead and authority of judging ver 21 22. But Christ afterward affirmeth that these were therefore that is should certainly be given unto him because he is the Son of Man ver 27. from whence it would follow that greater works were by the Father shewn to Christ because he is the Son of Man than by that eternal Generation out of the Essence of God which maketh him to be the most high God which overthroweth it self Besides if the Father by eternal Generation out of his own Essence had given that faculty of working to the Son he would not have given it of his own free will but of necessity For that generation is by the Adversaries held to be altogether necessary and consequently all things that are necessarily contained therein or necessarily conjoyned therewith And indeed it is necessary they should so hold otherwise that generation would not be eternal For whatsoever is simply from eternity is also simply necessary What dependeth upon the free will of God cannot be eternal because the free act of his will doth in time precede it Now Christ himself in the words ver 20. alledged by us sheweth that the Father did of his own free will not by necessiâ—y give unto him that faculty or as he himself speaketh shewed him all things For he saith The Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things which himself doth as if you should say and therefore namely because he loveth the Son he sheweth him all things which himself doth as every one doth by himself perceive But whatsoever God doth out of his love towards any one he doth it of his own free will what he doth out of necessity so that he cannot but do it he doth not out of love Finally when the Father is said to shew all things unto the Son and that out of his love towards him it is apparent that the Son already existed when he shewed him and that he is looked upon as already begotten and not as one who is in that very act begotten But in that generation Christ is not considered as already begotten otherwise he would not be begotten but as one who is in that very act produced Wherefore the shewing was not made by generation The Distinction of Natures in Christ examined As for the latter answer which by a distinction of Natures in Christ laboureth to evade the force of our Argument because the Adversaries do most frequently make use of it therefore we must for once something more diligently examine it that the Reader may in the rest where the same answer occurreth be referred hither But forasmuch as the Adversaries commonly think that they have the Apostles for the Authors of that Description and consequently also of their answer in that the Apostles say that some things agree to Christ according to the flâ—sh Therefore in the first place we will shew how much the Adversaries are mistaken therein Then we will teach that that Distinction is of no moment to solve our Argument fetcht out of John 5.19 and other the like Finally that the very saying that some things agree unto Christ according to the humane Nature and others not doth as we will shew quite overthrow the Opinion of the Adversaries touching Christ To the intent therefore that we may dispatch what we first proposed of those places in which the Adversaries commonly think that they have an example of their destinction the first is extant Acts 2.30 where Peter saith that God swore to David that he would raise up Christ out of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh The second place is extant Rom. 1.3 where Paul saith that the Son of God was made of the Seed of David according to the flesh The third is in chap. 9. of the same Epistle where it is said that Christ was according to the flesh of the Fathers Now the Adversaries think that according to the flesh is according to the humane nature and that to this member of the distinction is tacitly opposed according to the Divine Nature especially because Paul when he had in that place Rom. 9. said that Christ was of the Fathers according to the flesh he addeth these words who is over all God or rather a God blessed for evermore when he seemeth not obscurely to afford the other member of that distinction namely according to the divine Nature But how much the Adversaries are mistaken in the sence of that distinction of the Apostles use is thence apparent namely that whereas those words according to the flesh do frequently occur in the Scripture yet are they never opposed to these according to the divine Nature but alwayes to these according to the Spirit which have a far differing meaning Thus Paul to run over those places only whiâ—h come nearer to our purpose in the same Epistle to the Romans chap. 4.1 saith What then shall we say that Abraham our Father according to the flesh found For so rightly if you consider the sence the antient Interpreter hath ordered the words Where you see that Paul saith Abraham was his Father as well as the Father of the other Jews accordâ—ng to the flâ—sh which every one seeth to be like this expression that Christ was raised up of the fruit of Davids loins or made of the Seed of David or to be of the Fathers * ver 11 according to the flesh to intimate that he here considereth him not as a spiritual Father For though Abraham was also the Spiritual Father of the Apostles yet was he not also the Father of the other Jews in general with whom the Apostle joyneth himself in this place For he teacheth both in the same chapter afterwards †Gal. 1.7 and elsewhere
yea in the ninth chapter ‖ 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
Interpretation is very frivolous first in that by so speaking he had not alledged the cause why he declared not the day of judgement to his Disciples nor had diminished the desire of knowing it and inquiring it of him but increast it because by this means he had intimated that the Son of man did know that day Besides neither doth the word Son absolutely spoken of Christ denote the Son of man but the Son of God as he is such especially since the word Father is presently opposed thereunto and by it God understood and the word but in that passage but the Father agreeth not with the words nor the Son immediately going before but with those none knoweth Finally that interpretation doth thwart the words of Matthew who saith that the Father only knoweth it For how ridiculous would it be to say the Son of man knoweth not the day of judgement unless the Father only knoweth it for it is a certain contradiction in the Additament and the condition that is added subverteth that to which it is added The same Interpreter furthermore saith that many antient and grave Authors whose names he orderly reckoneth up did thus interpret That Christ as man was ignorant of the day of judgement Which he himself thinketh to be true only in this sence that Christ knew not the day of judgement upon that score or for that reason because he was man but because he was God Otherwise he supposeth it to be false and horrid to be spoken that the humane Nature of Christ was ignorant of any thing For the Papists yea certain others also imagine that the humane Nature of Christ from the very first instant of his conception and birth knew all things But that Interpretation also he refuteth because Christ not only denyeth that the Son of man he ought here rather to say the Son of God doth know the day of judgment but also affirmeth that the Father only knoweth it by which speech he seemeth to exclude not only the Son but also the holy Spirit Nevertheless now a-dayes that Interpretation which the Interpreter rejecteth namely that Christ is said truly to be ignorant of the day of judgement not according to the divine but according to the humane Nature is commonly most received even amongst them who otherwise hold that in the very moment of conception the Properties of the divine Nature were communicated to the humane or the knowledge of all things infused into the soul of Christ therefore we must here briefly refute it and having discust it in a few words also disprove that mans own interpretation Such an Interpretation therefore and Answer to our Argument as is commonly brought Arg. 9 That Châ—ist was ignorant of the last judgment day for three Reasons chiefly ought not to be admitted First because Christ simply and without any limitation denyeth that the Son knoweth the day and hour of judgement Where it followeth that he spake of himself wholly how great soever he is as we have shewn in the examination of the second Answer to that place John 5.19 Again to omit other things spoken in the same place both from the simple word Son opposed to God the Father and also by the Gradations used by Christ ascending from the Angels to the Son and from the Son to the Father it is apparent that he altogether spake of that Nature according to which he is the Son of God Thirdly Because in Matthew it is expresly said that the Father only knoweth the day and hour of judgement which sense agreeth also to the words of Mark whilst he saith None knoweth but the Father opposing the Father to the Son himself But if Christ had according to the divine Nature known the day of judgement then not only the Father but also the Son had known it and besides if we believe the Adversaries the holy Spirit Now whereas in this place they so much urge the saying of Paul Col. 2.3 In whom are all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge hidden First they do not observe that these words may as well yea far better be referred to the name of the Mystery of God and Christ the mention whereof immediately precedeth than to the name of Christ For it is there chiefly treated concerning the knowledge therof so that the sence is in the Mystery of God and Christ are all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge hidden but that Mystery is the evangelical Doctrine Chap. 1.25 26 27. Again the Wisdom and Knowledge here spoken of is to be understood of all things pertaining to mans Salvation which have also been revealed by Christ unto us and are diligently to be known by us But that the Knowledge of the day of judgement is not comprehended in the number of these things appeareth from these very words of Christ wherof we dispute To omit although otherwise it were spoken of the same kind of things yet this special saying concerning the day of judgement should derogate from the general and not be interpreted according to that but that according to it It remaineth that we speak something of that Interpretation and Answer which the Popish Interpreter having refuted the Opinions of all the rest did devise although he so proposed it as that himself seemeth to put no great confidence in it for he saith Vnless The mistaken Christ speaketh in the same manner that he had formerly said * Mat. 20.23 To sit at my right and left hand is not mine to give you but to them for whom it hath been provided by my Father Wherefore he intimateth what is more that he not only as a man but also as God was in a certain sort ignorant of the day of judgment not that he was indeed ignorant but because it was not his office to know as he said not for whom it is provided for by me but by my Father not that it was not provided by him also but because to provide the Kingdom that is to predestinate is not his office but the Fathers That also it belongeth to the Father to appoint when the world is to be dissolved and when the day of judgment is to be This is that which the Apostle saith †Acts 1.7 It is not for you to know the times and seasons which the Father hath put in his own power Therefore he alone is signified to know it And this unless I be mistaken is the true sence He did well twice to add unless I be mistaken for he was something afraid lest he should be mistaken neither did this ingenious man satisfie himse f whilst he endeavoured to satisfie others But neither did he rightly explain the place but pervert it nor take away the difficulty but in some part augment it For first he without example and any just reason departeth from the proper and usual signification of being ignorant whilst he interprets it that it is not ones duty to know unless perhaps he alledge this very thing for a reason about which
we controvert namely That it cannot be said that the Son is ignorant of the day of judgment because he ever knew as all other things so that day also Again in what manner soever he interpreteth those words it is not the office of the Son to know that day yet doth he not escape the difficulty for either it is not therefore the office of Christ because he is not bound to know that day or not obliged to know that day or because he is bound to be ignorant of that day so that it is not so much as lawful for him to know it which latter sence the places quoted by him seem to require If he hold the latter he encreaseth the difficulty instead of diminishing it and saith more than is needful For he not only saith that the Son was then ignorant of the day of judgment but that it was not so much as lawful for him to know it But how can he be the most high God who is not only ignorant of something but cannot know it or to whom it is not so much as lawful to know somethings and that as he is God And notwithstanding the places quoted by him and duly compared with this seem altogether to require such a sence for when Christ saith To sit at my right hand and left hand is not mine to give he signifieth that it lay not in his power and disposal or that it was not lawful for him to do it But the place of the Acts maketh express mention of Power and signifieth that the Father had reserved to his own power and disposal the determination and consequently also the knowledge of the times and seasons But if he grant the former first what will this make to the purpose for the sence will be that none is obliged to know the day of judgment neither the Angels nor the Son but the Father only But what then although neither Men nor the Angels nor the Son be obliged to know it yet both he and they may possibly know it and we as the Disciples may be supposed to speak although we are not bound are yet desirous to know it since saving the truth of that saying it is possible for us to know it For he against whom we dispute doth believe that although it were not the office of Christ to know the day of judgment yet he did know it By this reckoning therefore Christ had not quenched the desire and longing that the Apostles had to know that day but had left place for such a cogitation that it might be that both Men and Angels did know that day Again how can it be said that it is the Office of the Father or that the Father is obliged to know the day of judgment and the Son not obliged if he also be the Supream and consequently the same God with the Father for neither of them can be obliged to know any thing but that the other also must be obliged since both have the same numerical understanding and the self-same knowledge Besides whatsoever cause you alledge why the Father is obliged to know the day of judgment that will be common to the Son if he be the supream God with the Father yea were it possible that one of them should be obliged thereunto the other not at all or less obliged it should be held that Christ is more obliged because he sustaineth the Office of Judge and if he be the supream God doth therein depend on none so that he doth according to his own pleasure both constitute and determine the day of judgment I omit that it is not rightly said that it is the Fathers Office or that he is bound to know the day of judgment since he cannot chuse but know or if you therefore say it is his Office because he is bound to define and constitute that day consider how rightly it is said that he is bound to do that which lyeth in his own pleasure But of this so far CHAP. X. Argument the tenth from the words of Christ Mat. 20.23 To sit at my right and left hand is not mine to give THe next place shall be that which a certain Interpreter as we have seen compared with that testimony whereof we have hitherto treated and is extant in the same Matthew chap. 20. where Christ speaketh thus But to sit at the right and left hand is not mine to give So it is read in the Greek without adding to you which is found in the vulgar Translation But to whom it hath been prepared by my Father Now it is easie to every one to perceive what the meaning of Christ is namely that it is not in his power or not lawful for him aâ—cording to his own pleasure to determine who ought to sit at his right hand in his Kingdom who also at the left and so to obtain the next degree of dignity and honour after him For that this is due to them for whom it hath been designed by the Father whose Decrees Christ cannot repeal From whence it appeareth that Christ denyeth such Authority to himself as he intimateth that the Father exerciseth Whence it followeth that Christ is not the most high God For in the Power and Pleasure of the most high God are all things which fall under any power such as is that namely to give or decree that one should sit at the right hand another at the left hand of Christ in his Kingdom for Christ intimateth that that hath been prepared for some by the Father The Defence of the Argument Arg. 10 from Mat. 20.23 YOu will say that it is not lawful even for God himself to repeal his own Decrees especially such as design some good to some person And that therefore it was not lawful for Christ any further to determine according to his pleasure who ought to sit at his right hand who at his left although he be the most high God because he hath already made an immutable Decree concerning that matter We answer That that is here taken for granted which is altogether controverted and can be confirmed by no other testimony of the Scripture for * John Maldonat neither do we read in the Scripture that the Son or holy Spirit but the Father only did predestinate any one saith the most learned and popish Interpreter on this place and is not only not agreeable to the words of this place but also forreign to the same For were the thing so neither would Christ simply have said To sit at the right hand and left hand is not mine to give nor had he said of the Father only that it was provided for some by him but he would have said either that it was done by him without naming the Father or at least he would have joyned himself with the Father for who would not think it to be absurd should it be supposed that the Father of Christ had already made a decree of giving to some the dignity of sitting at
middle Person between us and God I forbear to mention at this time that they with whom we have to do hold that Christ was in the same sort even from the beginning of the world a Mediator of God and Men. Whence it would follow that his divine Person existing without the humane Nature was already less than the Father before that descent which they understand neither do I here urge that if Christ because he descended to us that is as they imagine assumed a humane Nature became a middle Person between us and God and consequently less than the Father it is necessary that both the Father and the holy Spirit became middle persons between us and God and less than themselves For neither could the Son or his divine Nature assume the humane but that the Nature of the Father and of the holy Spirit and consequently the very Father and holy Spirit would together assume the same humane Nature if that be true which the Adversaries say that those three have one and the same numerical divine Nature Concerning which * Sect. 2. Chap. 5. we will treat in the second Book CHAP. XV. Arg. 15 That the Son was sent by the Father Argument the fifteenth drawn from thence That the Son was sent into the world by the Father IN the second place that may be alleaged which is so often read in John namely that Christ * See Joh. 3.17 4.33 5.23 24. and 30.37 38 and many other places was sent by God or the Father which is also found in other Writers and amongst others in Paul when he saith God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh Rom. 8.3 and Gal. 4.4 When the fulness of time came God sent his Son made of a Woman made under the Law For it followeth from hence that Christ is not the most high God since it is not for him to be sent but to send because it is not for him to receive any command from another but to give commands unto all But every Embassadour as such receiveth command from another and of necessity composeth his words or actions which he undertaketh as an Embassadour unto the will and beck of another otherwise he will not discharge the Office of an Embassadour Whence also Christ as we saw before John 12.49 saith The Father that sent me he gave me a Commandment what I should say and what I should speak And in the following verse What things therefore I speak as the Father hath said unto me so I speak The Defence of the Argument HEre the Adversaries are not easily wont to fly to a distinction of Natures partly because they hold that Christ before he was born of the Virgin was sent by the Father out of Heaven yea sent to this very end to be born of the Virgin and assume a humane Nature partly because they see that to be sent and so to sustain the Office of an Embassadour agreeth to none but a person as such That I may not say if Christ had been sent only according to the humane Nature it will follow that he was also sent by himself or by his own divine Nature when notwithstanding he every where maketh another person namely the Father to be the Author of his mission but never maketh himself yea as we formerly * John 7.28 saw he expresly denyeth that he came of himself Wherefore the Adversaries are wont to betake themselves to another refuge and to deny that Christ being sent by the Father argueth him to be less than the Father indeed the greatest part of them affirm that he saving his equality with the Father even then when he had not yet assumed a humane Nature was both before the Law and under the Law sent by God and was then oftentimes stiled an Angel or Messenger and Embassadour which we in our Book concerning God when we treated of the name Jehovah have as I suppose sufficiently refuted Now they say that it is no unusual thing that a Senator for example sake should be sent by his Collegues to whom he is otherwise equal in Authority and Power and in their name discharge an Embassage Yea that a greater Person may be sent by a less either because he doth of his own accord take upon him that Office or because it is obtained at his hands by prayers or other perswasions But first they do not refute the reason of the consequence of our Argument which being safe the Argument it self is safe Again if the thing be so in divine matters as they hold it is inhumane namely that an equal may be sent by an equal yea a greater by a less nothing will hinder but that also the Father may be sent by the Son or holy Spirit which thwarteth the Opinion of the very Adversaries who deny that the Father may be sent by the Son or holy Spirit either apart or joyntly though it is a wonder that they deny it since they hold that those three Persons are equal to one another in all things so that there is no repugnancy if one of them may be sent that the rest also may be sent But why do I say that there is no repugnancy since it cannot be that one should be sent but that the other must also be sent if so be they are of one Essence and a Person cannot be sent without the Essence For if the Essence of the Father were sent when Christ or the holy Spirit that we may now together speak of him 〈◊〉 was sent certainly it is necessary that the Father himself was sent For he is sent whose Essence is sent since every one is really the same with his Essence Besides from this answer of theirs it will follow that nothing hinders but that God or Christ may be sent by Angels and finally by Men namely being drawn by prayers or other perswasions But if all understand this to be most absurd let them also acknowledge it to be most impossible that Christ should be equal to the Father in all things if he be sent by him for neither was there any cause why all should judge either this or that which in the first place was spoke of to be absâ—rd than because reason it self hath taught all men that the Sender in respect of that thing for which he decreeth the message is as I may speak with the Vulgar the principal but the Messenger is his Minister in the same thing And withal this hath also been understood that the Father can by no means be inferiour to the Son or holy Spirit who proceeds from him have their Essence from him or be Minister much less the Minister of Men or Angels As for the Instances therefore or Examples alleaged to the contrary here they ought to remember that which they themselves are often wont to inculcate when there is no place for it namely that in this matter an Argument is ill drawn from humane things to divine Now the reason of the
made but the Minor is to be understood only of such a giving as is made declaratively For they answer to the places wherewith we have confirmed our Assumption especially some of them that they ought not to be understood as if the Father did at a certain time really give to the Son the things mentioned therein but that he declared that the Son had them or received them by that eternal Generation causing that they should be acknowledged by all Thus many take that Glory which Christ * John 17.1 5 23 24. begged of the Father that also that God †Acts 2.36 made him Lord and Christ that also that ‖ Phil. 2.9 gave him a name which is above every name But first they themselves sufficiently see that this answer doth not agree to all the places which we have alleaged But if the rest be safe our Argument would nevertheless consist although those places which we have mentioned or some others also were to be taken in that manner as they would have Again There is no cause unless they will alleage that very thing which we oppose by this Argument for a cause wherefore we ought to depart from the propriety simplicity of the words yea there are mighty causes for which we must not depart from the same For as to that Glory which Christ beggeth of the Father Joh. 17. if Christ had it really in himself already that which they say was to be manifested namely the Majesty of that one God for this they must of necessity understand by the glory which they contend that he really had with the Father before the world was created what need was there to pray the Father that he would glorifie him for that would alwayes have been no less in the hands of Christ himself than of the Father nor would he less have glorified himself than the Father him Since it would be necessary that external works yea all should be common to them yea Christ beggeth it of the Father as the reward of the performance of a work committed to him by the Father as appeareth by the collation of ver 4 5. But besides that no reward can be given to the most high God what reward is this of a work performed that he should be acknowledged the supream God who is so is not this very justly due unto God without any respect of any work And no less to the Son than to the Father or to the holy Spirit Besides how well they explain that Father glorifie me with thy self for what is that with thy self Is it not manifest that such words are wont to be opposed and are in this place opposed unto that which is done with men or appeareth before them as in the latter words it is tacitly opposed unto them with me It is not therefore spoken of a thing which ought to be done with men such as would be that manifestation of Christs Glory which he really had from eternity but which he had with God What then ought the Father to declare unto himself the Majesty of the Son had he not sufficiently known it And when he knew it not ought he to declare it to himself or else to the Angels conversing with him in Heaven What had not they sufficiently known the Majesty of the second Person of the Trinity had they not beheld it with their eyes As to that place Act. 2. where God is said to have made Jesus Lord and Christ the words admit not such an explication for if we follow their explication Peter must be thought to speak thus Therefore let all the House of Israel assuredly know that God hath declared him both Lord and Christ even this Jesus whom ye have crucified But to whom hath he declared it was it to Angels Had not they yet known Christ to be that which he was and had long since been Was it to men But Peter and God did by him in these very words truly first declare that very thing to the Jews Again Peter deduceth these words from those in the * Psal 110.1 Psalms The Lord said unto my Lord Sit thou on my right hand But in them Christ is bidden to reign as Paul interpreteth it 1 Cor. 15.25 and is not only declared to reign What doth the Father perhaps command the Son himself to declare that he reigneth and hath alwayes reigned But they would perswade us that Christ John 17. prayed the Father to do it since he had in like manner already glorified him and would hereafter glorifie him again To this sitting at the right hand of God Paul opposeth the delivering up of the †1 Cor. 15 24 c. Kingdom which certainly shall not consist therein in that Christ shall no longer declare that he reigneth yea if Christ be that one God he will then declare unto us in Heaven that he reigneth no less than the Father since God shall be all in all I omit other things which might be said concerning these words of the Psalmist Finally They who will have it that God declared Jesus Lord and Christ either hold that he was Christ from eternity or made such at a certain time He could not be from eternity for to be Christ is to be Anointed which is not incident to the most high God as he is such neither hath any one as I know dared to say so but all say that it agreeth to Christ as he is man He was therefore at a certain time made Christ and that by him whose Anointed he is said to be namely God the Father Why then go they about the bush and seek starting holes since they are notwithstanding forced to confeâ—s that he was sometimes really and not declaratively only made by God Lord and Christ for to be the Christ is to be the Lord and King of God's People although they agree not with us about the time when it was done For that is sufficient for us here that God hath already made him Lord and Christ Although who is there that if he could but ‖ That is Obtain impetrate of himself to lay aside his prejudicate Opinion for a short space would not see that this happened after the death and resurrection of Christ Since all the circumstances of the place in hand do lead yea drive us thither that I may omit others like thereunto amongst which is that Ephes 1.19 and Heb. 1.3 As to that place Phil. 2. neither doth it admit that explication first because by those words is explained the exceeding great reward of the debasement and obedience of Christ performed to God even with the sufferance of the death of the Cross but could not be to declare who and how great he is and alwayes was that is as the Adversaries must of necessity affirm to demonstrate him to be the most high God whereof we have spoken above when we treated of the place John 17.5 Aagain Christ was therefore among other things exceedingly exalted and a name given
the holy Spirit and Power who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the Devil because God was with him Which thing Nicodemus had before acknowledged whilst he thus speaketh unto Christ We know that thou art come a Teacher from God for none can do these things which thou dost unless God be with him John 3.2 But if Christ were the most high God neither would God be said to do these things by him nor ought Peter to alleage this reason why Christ did Miracles namely because God was with him but this because he himself was God or because he had in him the divine Essence or in what manner soever he pleased to express the same thing For that it cannot here be said that by the name of God the divine Nature of Christ is understood but the Father of Christ may be shewn by the same Arguments which we made use of in the defence of the last Argument when we treated of those Testimonies wherein God is said to have given something to Christ or to have conferred something upon him Likewise we have a little before excluded the distinction of Natures But that we may not treat of the sole Miracles of Christ let us add those places of Scripture whereby is shewn that Christ was not the first but the second and intermediate cause of the other actions also which he did and which were most divine and most of all concerned our Salvation And this is understood out of those places wherein it is affirmed That all things were done by him as John 1.3 That all things were created in him that is by him For that In is after the Hebrew manner every where taken for by is most notorious unto all Col. 1.16 which is presently explained in the same verse whilst all things are said to have been created by him For whereas the vulgar translation doth there add that all things are created in him the Greek hath it for him and signifieth the end Thus a little after it is in the same place said that it pleased him namely God by him to reconcile all things which are in Heaven and in Earth Else where likewise All things are said to be by him 1 Cor. 8.6 of which place we have before * Sect. 1. chap. 2. treated where also we have shewn that it ought not to be taken in that manner as it is once and again said of God himself That all things are by him For that it is not so taken of God as if some other who is the supream Cause of the work did do something by him but simply that he is the efficient Cause of all things or that by his Power and Operation all things are brought to an issue But that it is said of Christ more than once that some other namely God whom every one knoweth to be the supream Cause of Works doth or did all things by Christ For amongst other things the Apostle saith Ephes 3.9 Who God created all things by Jesus Christ as the Greek Copies constantly read it and the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 1.2 when he had said that God in these last times speak to us in the Son that is by the Son according to the Hebrewism a little before observed he addeth By whom also he made the Worlds namely that God who spake unto us by him So also 2 Cor. 5 18. it is said That all things are of God who hath reconciled us unto himself by Jesus Christ Elsewhere That God hath given us the victory by our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 15.57 That God hath poured the holy Spirit abundantly upon us by Jesus Christ our Saviour Tit. 3.5 That God shall judge the secrets of men according to Pauls Gospel by Jesus Christ Rom. 2.16 To pass by other-like places from all which it appeareth that Christ is not the most high God For he is the first and highest Cause of all things which he doth not the second or intermediate But those places shew that Christ is the intermediate not the first and supream Cause of those thing which he doth otherwise it could not be said that God doth all things by him But if any one say that Paul affirmeth that he gave to the Thessalonians commandments by our Lord Jesus Christ or exhorteth them by Christ although Christ seemeth not to have been the middle cause of that action in respect of Paul but Paul rather in respect of Christ We answer That that signification which is also otherwise rare in the holy Scripture cannot there have any place where God is said to have done either all things or somethings by Jesus Christ as that very thing we even now speak by way of objection to our selves doth teach For in that manner that Paul saith he gave commandments or exhorteth by the Lord Jesus none but an Inferiour can do something by a Superiour for it signifieth that he did or doth these things by the Authority of the Lord Jesus interposed and that he supported his commandments and exhortations herewith But God can do nothing by any one in this manner It therefore remaineth that the most usual signification of the particle By is there to be retained where God is said to do something by Christ namely that God be esteemed the first and principal Agent Christ the second and intermediate one which dependeth on him Which is further confirmed by that famous place of Paul which is extant 1 Cor. 1.30 where the Apostle compriseth all the benefits which God hath conferred upon us by Christ whilst he speaketh thus of him namely God Ye are in Christ Jesus who hath been made unto us of God Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption You see that he is made not the prime Author of our Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption but the second cause and dependent on a former one namely God in as much as he is expresly said to be made unto us of God Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption and Freedom which likewise was signified by the precedent words wherein the Corinthians namely as they were Christians are said to be of God in Christ Jesus or by Christ Jesus There is a place like unto this Heb. 5.9 10. where it is said that Christ being made perfect was made the cause of eternal Salvation to all that obey him being called of God an high Priest after the order of Melchisedec You see that he was made the cause of eternal Salvation and that as he was called of God an high Priest With this place agreeth that which we have formerly cited out of the Acts chap. 5.31 where God is said with his right hand to have exalted Christ to be a Prince and Saviour to give Repentance unto Israel and foregiveness of sins To these add those places which spake of the effusion of the holy Spirit made by Christ which action is one of the most notable ones that pertaineth to the Salvation of mankind and to omit the
repetition of that place out of John which we have formerly alleaged when we discoursed of the Prayers that Christ poured out to the Father chap. 14.16 I will pray the Father and he shall give you another Advocate And there is yet another place in the same John concerning the same thing afterwards chap. 15.26 But when the Advocate is come whom I will send unto you from the Father Whence you see that Christ not for himself as from the prime Fountain but from the Father would send and consequently did send the holy Spirit whom he also expresly saith doth proceed from the Father making the Father the prime Cause of him and himself the middle cause Concerning the same thing there is a notable place in the Acts which we have formerly cited chap. 2 33. where immediately after the first and most illustrious effusion of the holy Spirit upon the Disciples of Christ Peter speaketh thus Therefore being exalted by the right hand of God and having received the Promise of the holy Spirit from the Father be poured out that which you now see and hear Therefore as Christ himself elsewhere speaketh he actually received from the Father the holy Spirit that had been before promised to him and so poured him out upon the Apostles Which thing doth signifie no other than that the Father was the first Cause of that effusion and Christ the second wholly depending upon the Father therein Whereby likewise it may be understood why John chap. 7.39 said that the holy Spirit was not yet given because Christ was not yet ascended namely because he could not give the holy Spirit till he was exalted by the right hand of God and glorified Whence Christ also himself said chap. 16.7 I tell you the truth it is expedient for you that I go away namely to the Father and so be glorified for unless I go away the Advocate will not come unto you But if I go away I will send him unto you Now how far distant these things are from that Opinion which maketh Christ the most high God and so the first and highest Cause of all things and actions not only we have already shewn but every one may of himself easily perceive The distinction of Natures hath no more place here than in the former passages Arguments drawn from thence both because it would be necessary that the same things should be denyed of the same Christ for his divine Nature which are here simply affirmed of him for his humane Nature and also because these places likewise contain in them a tacit Negation and that a simple one namely that Christ did not those things of himself or was not the first cause of those works and finally because those operations are not agreeable to any thing but the Suppositum or Person of Christ as it is such and partly the places themselves manifestly intimate partly the Adversaries themselves confess that Christ is considered in them either as a Mediator and Embassadour of God or as a Priest or as a King And to sum up all in a word as a Saviour and consequently as a Person For that these Offices do primarily and by themselves agree to none but a Person both we have elsewhere taught and the Adversaries themselves confess but what followeth from thence is understood from the precedent Chapter CHAP. XX. The twentieth Argument from the words of Christ John 8.16 My Judgement is true because I am not alone but I and the Father that sent me VVE might from the places which we even now and formerly alleaged form many Arguments and consequently from every one of them that is somewhat clear a particular Argument But we care not much for the number but for the weight and evidence which doth of its own accord increase the number of Arguments For this matter which we handle is so fruitful for the evident truth of the Opinion which we defend that it seemeth that we ought to be more sollicitous in speaking out the measure than the plenty of Arguments Wherefore let these places that have last been alleaged and examined be accounted for the sixth Argument of this rank wherein we are now conversant is fetched out of the Testimonies of John and also of other sacred Writers and wherein something is affirmed of Christ which could not be affirmed of him if he were the most high God Of which kind there yet remaine other places in the same John which we will not prosecute The seventh Argument therefore we will fetch from those words of Christ which are extant John 8.16 If I judge my Judgment is true because I am not alone but I and my Father that sent me By which words Christ intimateth that if he were alone and the Father not with him it might be that he might err in judging or at least that he might deservedly be doubted concerning the truth of his judgment Wherefore now there was no cause of doubting because the Father was perpetually with him and so suffered him not to err in judgment But were Christ the most high God Arg. 20 from Joh. 8.16 his Judgment would have been no less true although he had been alone than it is now to be esteemed true because the Father is present with him For is not the judgment of one person who is the most high God accompted as true if he be by himself as if it be apparent that another person which likewise is the most high God is present with him Or were they with whom Christ spake so stupid as that if they had understood Christ to be the most high God they would presently have confessed that his Judgment was most true although they had heard or thought nothing concerning some other person which was present with him as in other things so also in judging The Defence of the Argument YOu will perhaps say that Christ fitted his speech to the Opinion of the Jews who believed him to be a mere man and therefore that he could not take for granted that he was the most high God but was forced to draw his Argument from a thing manifest unto them But this Answer is of no worth For first If Christ would have taken that only for granted which the Jews believed concerning him he neither ought nor could take that for granted which he here affirmeth of himself especially if the Opinion of the Adversaries be right For they did not yet believe that God was his Father which he here taketh for granted Nor did they yet believe that his Father namely God had sent him and so was also with him Again The Adversaries cannot use this Answer unless they will confess that Christ did not therefore call God his Father because he was so generated out of his Essence as that he was one God with him for if for this cause he had called God his Father he had already taken that for granted which this answer contend he could not take For what other thing would
by our men The third Cause therefore for which Christ is called the Son of God is his resurâ—ection from the dead I say a resurrection to immoâ—tal Life For he is therefore called by Paul The first-born from the dead Col. 1.18 and also by John Rev. 1.5 But whose first-born is he but Gods Although the word Resurrection may so far be extended as to contain the fouâ—th and chief cause for which Christ is called the Son of God namely the exaltation or advancement of Christ to the Empire and soveraign Priesthood as we will afterward more plainly â—â—w Now there is a very notable place which sheweth that Christ is the Son of God by reason of his Resurrection more largely taken wherein the consequent exaltation is also comprehended namely Acts 13.32 33. where Paul speaketh this And we declare unto you the promise which was made unto our Fathers The third Cause why Christ is called the Son God The 4th Cause that God hath fulfilled it unto us their children having raised Jesus as it is also written in the 2d Psal Thou art my Son I this day begot thee A like passage to which is extant Rom. 1.4 where when the â—postle had called Christ the Son of God that he might more fully declare it he add Who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh who was determined the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead In the first place the cause why Jesus is the Son of God is alleaged to be this namely tâ—at he was â—aisd from the dead Now that this reason hath nothing common with the generation out of the Essence of God nothing common with the supream deity which agreeth to Christ is appaâ—eâ—t enough from the th ng it self sinâ—e the Resurrection is a thing of a certain time not done from eternity and agreeth to Christ only according to the humane nature as the Adversaries speak and finally is not ascribed unto Christ as the true author but to God the Father and it is so far from arguing Christ to be the most high God as that it rather demonstrateth him not to be so Chap. 29. as we have before shewn in its own place As for the latter place although these words By the resurrection of the dead may be understood meerly of the time wherein Christ was made the Son of God Nevertheless they sâ—ew manifestly enough that Christ is there said to be made the Son of God for such a cause as had no place in him especially so perfectly before the resurrection which agreeth not to that eternal generation of the Son out of the Essence of the Father nor to any cause for which Christ may be called the most high God Now tha the â—atter may the more clearly appear let us see what the adver aries answer to these places It is therefore wont to be answered unto both places that the Apostle hath no other meaning than that it was declared by the resurrection of Christ that he was the natâ—ral Son of God thaâ— is begotten out of the very Essence of God and that this is the meaning of the word determined which is in the latter place Some further add that †In the former place the word rise doth not signifie the Resurrection oâ— Christ from the dead but his exhibition in the flesh because the Apostle doth in the following verse namely 34. begin to confirm his Resurre tion Others acknowledge that the Resurrection of Christ from the deâ—d is signified by that word â—ut they say that in Greek this participle is an Aorist which hath the signification of the preteâ—perfect tense and is all one as if the Apostle had said afteâ— he had raised up Jesus So that the Apostle doth not affirm that the expression of the Psalm wherein it is spoken of Christs generation from God was fulfilled in his very resurrection but after it namely when he was exalted and made a King by God But that answer which is alleaged concerning the declaration of this namely that Christ is the Son of God is of no moment For as to the first place from whence a judgement may and ought to be made of the latter the word begotten cannot be understood of the declaration of a generation out of the Essence of God already made from eternity For to omit that by this meanes that nice observation falls to the ground which very many of the adversaries fasten upon those word to day namely that the eâ—ernity of God is thereby signified wherein there is nothing past or future but present only in as much as it cannot be said that God did from all eternity declare that Christ was begotten out of his Essencce to omit I say this nicety there are other things which overthrow that interpretation For in the first place what is this to the fulfilling of he Promise made to the Fathers which God hath actually performed to their Children They with whom we dispute confess and the thing it self sheweth that the promise of giving the Messias is here understood But how is it pertinent hereunto that God hath declared that Christ is such a Son as was eternally begotten out of his Essence for God could declare it many other wayes were the thing otherwise true than by giving or making of Jesus a King as they with whom we dispute affirm he hath declared but by this way he could in no wise declare the same for that God hath made Jesus King is so far from arguing that he was eternally begotten out of the Essence of God and consequently the most high God that the clean contrary is rather â—vinced from it as we have before shewn Chap 18. For if you say that â—e made himself King in the first place Paul doth not here urge that in as much as he manifestly attributeth not to Christ himself but to the Father both his Resurrection and consequently as they will have it the declaration of his generation out of the Essence of God But the other not this should have been urged by the Apostle would he have intimated that Christ was declared to be the Son of God begotten out of his Essence by raising up himself from the dead Again although Christ had raised up himself yet from the raising it self whether you understand it of Christs nativity or of his resurrection from the dead it would not have appeared whereas it ought to have appeared if the raising of Christ ought to declare that Jesus was begotten out of the Essence of God because he raised himself Now that it did not appear is evident enough for into whose mind would it come either that he who is born is the author of his own nativity or that he who riseth from the dead is the author of his own resurrection inasmuch as he who is born had no being befoâ—e and he that riseth had by death lost his being and is as to the strength
remission of sins was made judge of the quick and dead Again How often do the Apostles commend the exceeding great love and bounty of God exhibited in Christ Jesus to mankind But what more illustrious argument could there have been of this love then that the most high God should willingly be made man for mans sake Wherefore then is there so great silence in those places concerning this thing Namely because it never was neither was there any that we may briefly add this thing also cause which did require that the most high God the creator of Heaven and earth should assume flesh For as much as the man Christ Jesus being asisted by divine power was able to performe and did really performe when he was upon earth all things that belonged unto our salvation both in teaching and also in working miracles and finally in obeying his Father in all things and was able also to performe and did so indeed performe by the same divine power whatsoever things are required to the perfecting of our Salvation But who dares to say that God would admit a thing so contrary to his Majesty without the greatest cause or rather necessity although at length it were possible for his nature But we will not enlarge on this matter because these things are here and there handled in our Arguments that belong to this place But if any one desire to see this also more fully explained he may read elsewhere * See Socin in his fragments page 18. c. in ours CHAP. XXXIII Arg. 33 The holy Spirit was given unto Christ The three and thirtieth Argument That the holy Spirit was given unto Christ VVE will make the third Argument this that the holy Spirit was given by God unto Christ of which thing we do not read â—nly in one place of holy Scripture For both in the Old Testament chiefly in Isaiah there are some testimonies of this thing and also in the New where some places are likewise cited out of the Old For so speaketh Isaias in the beginning of the 11th Chapter And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse and a branch shall grow out of his roots And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him the Spirit of wisdom and understanding the Spirit of counsel and might the Spirit of knowledge and piety or as it is in the Hebrew of the fear of the Lord. Which all both see and confess to be spoken of Christ Likewise in the beginning of the 42d Chapter God speaketh of the same Christ Behold my servant whom I uphold mine elect in whom my soul delighteth I have put my Spirit upon him Which words are cited by Christ Matth. 12.17 And Chap. 61.1 the Prophet bringeth in Christ speaking after this manneâ— The Spirit of the Lord is upon me for that the Lord hath anointed me Which words Christ himself testifieth to be fulfilled in him Luke 4.18 c. But in the same Gospel we read how the holy Spirit descended on Christ when he was baptised of John and abode upon him Matth. 3.16 Luke 3.22 and John 1.32 33. Whence Luke in the beginning of his fourth Chapter saith That Jesus being full of the holy Spirit went up out of Jordan And Peter with the same Writer testifieth Acts 10.38 That God had anointed him with the holy Spirit and with power Whence Christ proveth that he cast out Devils in or by the Spirit of God which thing also Peter Acts 10. doth plainly shew and accuseth the Pharisees of blasphemy against the holy Spirit that they durst to ascribe to Beelzebub the Prince of Devils such kind of miracles as were done by the very power of the holy Spirit Matth. 12.28.31 Mark 3. compare vers 30. with the foregoing And Luke saith Acts 1.2 That Christ in the same day wherein he was taken up gave commandment to the Apostles by the holy Spirit that is by the motion of the holy Spirit For neither did he make use of the ministry of the holy Spirit by whose intervening help he gave commandments to his disciples although others by transposition connect the words by the holy Spirit with the following whom he had chosen whereof it is not necessary to dispute in this place For as to our purpose the force of the words will be the same to wit that Christ by the motion of the holy Spirit chose the Apostles Neither is it a wonder seeing that he was the Spirit of wisdom and understanding the Spirit of counsel the Spirit of knowledge that is who produced Wisdom Understanding Counsel Knowledge and bestowed it on Christ as appears from Isa 11. a place cited by us But that we may from hence demonstrate that Christ is not the most high God we will not now use that reason that by this means something was given unto him by God the Father which Argument we have * Chap. 18. of this Sect. elsewhere explained but this that he would not truly have stood in need of the holy Spirit if he were the most high God especially if that Opinion of the Adversaries be laid down that the holy Spirit is a Person distinct from the Father and the Son For what help I pray you can the holy Spirit yield unto the most high God What is there that the most high God cannot perform of himself For it is not what they say that Christ's humane Nature needed the assistance of the holy Spirit For that I may not urge that now that those things are spoken simply of Christ that are not to be spoken if he were the most high God as of whom they are simply to be denyed What need was there of the help of the holy Spirit the third Person of the Deity as they will have it unto the humane Nature if the very same was personally joyned to the second Person of the Deity if the whole fulness of the divine Essence as they interpret that place Col. 2.9 did dwell therein bodily if as the same persons judge that divine Nature did bestow all the supernatural Gifts upon the humane that hapned unto it if that did either communicate unto it all its Properties or at least the full knowledge of all things as the major part of the Adversaries judge Whether or no the holy Spirit could add any thing to this store Wherefore I pray is Christ deciphered rather by the holy Spirit than by his own Nature either to have cast out Devils or to have commanded any thing or to have been endued with Wisdom Understanding Counsel Might Knowledge the Fear of the Lord The Defence of the Argument SOme one will perhaps say that therefore those things are rather attributed to the holy Spirit than to the divine Nature or Person of Christ because they belong unto Christs Sanctification and that Sanctification although common to the whole Trinity is properly ascribed to the holy Spirit But they speak thus not only without reason but even contrary to reason We
will not now rehearse that that Christ's Sanctification cannot be rather attributed to the holy Spirit than to the Father to whom the same is so ascribed * John 10.36 that it is urged as a cause why Christ is his Son For hence it would follow if the the same agree rather to the holy Spirit than to the Father that the holy Spirit would be rather the Father of Christ than God himself who both is the Father of Christ and is every where in the new Testament so called That we will say here which is proper to this place if any reason can be imagined why that which is common to all the Persons should notwithstanding be ascribed rather to one than to another that here would be great cause why this action is rather to be ascribed to the Son than to any other Person and indeed a double cause The one is that most strict conjunction which agreeth unto the Son according to his humane Nature as the Adversaries Opinion urges The other is that the same Adversaries will have the Son to be the natural Wisdom and Power of God by which he makes all things and hither they bring those words which in Prov. 8. are spoken abstractively and in general touching Wisdom and also those which we read of Christ 1 Cor. 1.24 But unto which divine Person would it rather agree to bestow on the humane Nature of Christ Wisdom Understanding Counsel Knowledge than to that which was nearest unto that Nature and is the natural Wisdom of God himself To what would it better agree than to the natural Vertue and Power of God to do all those stupendious works by the humane Nature All those things therefore are rather to be attributed to the divine Nature of Christ than to the holy Spirit Besides we demand of them that make use of this kind of exception whether or no they determine that the holy Spirit contributed more to the bestowing of those Gifts upon the humane Nature than the divine Person of Christ himself or as much the one as the other Person If that they overthrow their own Opinion if this the Scripture For if they admit that either there was not so much power in the divine Person of Christ to perform the same as was in the holy Spirit or not so great a will Neither can be spoken of it if Christ were the most high God and indeed of the same Essence with the holy Spirit But if they admit this there will be no evident cause why it should be expresly attributed to the holy Spirit that he bestowed those Gifts on the man Christ and no where to the divine Person or Nature of Christ himself Wherefore this exception hath there no place and consequently neither the distinction of a humane and divine Nature in Christ For this very thing we demand why was the holy Spirit given to the humane Nature if that were personally united to the divine Nature CHAP. XXXIV Arg. 34 Christ was tempted of the Devil The four and thirtieth Argument That Christ was tempted of the Devil THe fourth Argument of this kind is this that Christ as the History of the Gospel declareth was tempted of the * Mat. 4.1 c. Mark 1.12 Luke 4.1 c. Devil and sollicited to worship him and that he was to this very end namely that he might be tempted of the Devil led by the holy Spirit into the wilderness For this would by no means have hapned if Christ had been the most high God For first what is more unworthy of God than to expose himself to this impious and wicked Enemy whom for the contempt of his Majesty most clearly heretofore seen he had thrust out of Heaven to be tempted and sollicited to the adoration of him and so to offer himself of his own accord to be mocked of the Devil Again to what purpose should Christ do this was it that it might appear that the most high God was able to endure and overcome the temptations of the Devil was there any one who could make any doubt thereof so that there should need any tryal thereof Furthermore how durst the Devil attempt so great a matter I will not now mention that the Devils tremble at the sight of the divine Majesty †Jam. 2.19 inasmuch as they are afraid at the memory of him in that they were by him cast out of Heaven and thrust down to Hell For feign you now in the wicked spirit who is very conscious both of the Wrath and invincible Power of God and of the bonds wherein he is held by him as much boldness and impudency as you please yet must you withal confess that he is exceeding cunning and I would this were not to be confest But how can it be that a most cunning spirit should tempt the most high God and endeavour to seduce him and conceive in his mind such a project as that he should sollicite him to a thing most unworthy and detestable namely the adoration of the Devil For can it be either that he should attempt a thing which he well knoweth to be impossible or should not clearly perceive that this thing is altogether impossible Neither of these things are incident to him that hath so much as a grain of wit much less could it happen to a most subtil and cunning spirit Moreover when he saith If thou art the Son of God command that these stones become loaves And again If thou art the Son of God cast thy self down He sufficiently sheweth that his intention is to make Christ by some means to begin to doubt whether he be indeed the Son of God whom he had a little before * Mat. 3. â—1 heard from Heaven that he was and consequently to seek further proofs of a thing some way doubtful But how could he hope by any means whatsoever to effect this with such a Son of God as was begotten out of the divine Essence For do we think that an enemy most practised in this kind of fighting who is commonly called the Author of a thousand cunning tricks did here use such a kind of tempting as was the unfittest of all to deceive and so made use of arms so vain and ridiculous to assail a most valiant and wise Captain What would Satan get if by any reasons he should endeavour to perswade even a common man who is well in his wits to doubt of himself whether he was a man and not rather something inferiour to a man Would not this rather be a sport than a temptation But it would be much more ridiculous by any reason whatsoever to go about to perswade the Son of God begotten out of the divine Essence that he should doubt whether he be the Son of God or not But you will understand that thing is far otherwise if you observe that Christ was pronounced by God to be his Son in such a manner as did not belong to his Essence and which was indeed
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 sâ—ew 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 sâ—ewn 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 eâ—saries 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 otâ—er 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 veâ—y 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 cleaâ—ly called God Concerning the Father there are so many and so eâ—ident places that none can deny that he is God unless he daâ—es to deny that the Sun shineth at noon Concerning Christ likewise although he be not the moâ—t 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 bâ—ind in the midst of the light But what place will they alleage where it is purposly delivered and openly wriâ—ten that the holy Spirit is God Certainly so many thoâ—sand 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 sâ—ewn 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 â—ut 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 â—y 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 littâ—e 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 Especiaâ—ly 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 foâ—ce the Lord. But first it is in none of these places openly written or puâ—posely delivered that the holy Spirit is God in that it is every wheâ—e to be concluded by some consequence and those places out of whiâ—h 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 â—nd tâ—erefore not one of a thousand amongst the â—udor 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 adversaâ—ies would have Now though we do not at all reject lawful consequences yet have we sâ—ewn 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 Spiâ—it is God For it cannot be were he the most high God but that it should most openly and fâ—equently 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 easâ—ly perceive by examining those which we saw weâ—e alleaged by â—he 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 theâ—e 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 doâ—h not prove that which the adversaries would have First because as * See the Annot. of Erasmus Beza others also have observed it is oâ—herwise 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 †John Piscator Interpreter
among the Adversaries doth read it That thou shouldest deceive the holy Spirit Which translation ‖ Beza others likewise have toucht but a prejudicare opinion hindred them from thorowly approving it And this translation is confirmed by that which is afterward read vers 9. where Peter explaineth the same fault of Ananias and Saphira in these words Why have ye agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord For it is the same to tempt the holy Spirit and to belie him Now they tempted the holy Spirit because they acted as if they would try whether the holy Spirit dwelling in the Apostles or the Apostles themselves by virtue of the holy Spirit dwelling in them would observe the deceit or not Wherefore the forecited Interpreter whom we praised before who had so rendred the words vers 5. That thou shouldest deceive the holy Spirit doth afterwards explain them in this manner That thou shouldest endeavour to deceive the holy Spirit that is us the Apostles in whom the Spirit worketh and to whom he revealeth the things that are needful to the edification of the Church and this is a Metonymie of the Adjunct I do not now mention that explication of those words whâ—ch Erasmus delivered and other learned men likewise have followed that the words may be rendred to counterfeit the holy Spirit By these things it easily appeareth that it cannot from this place be concluded that the holy Spirit is God since Peter doth in one manner speak of the holy Ghost of God in another There he saith to belye or deceive and mock the holy Spirit Here to lye to God The first doth simply note the object about which the fraud and mocking is conversant The second signifieth the utmost scope unto which that iniury and contumely doth redound For therefore Peter after he had said that Ananias would deceive the holy Spirit and mock him with his lye did add that he had not lyed unto men but to God that he might the more perceive the greatness of his sin as if he should have said Thou oughtest not to think that this injury pertaineth to us alone and is terminated in us for it tendeth to the dishonour of God himself But there had been no need to add any such thing if he had said that Ananias had lied to the holy Spirit and he had known from the doctrine of the Aposâ—les that the holy Spirit was God himself Like unto this passage is that 1 Thess 4.8 where the Apostle had said what precepts he had given to them by the Lord Jesus and upon what terms God had called them he addeth therefore he that despiseth dispiseth not man but God who hath also given his holy Spirit to us that is who hath imparted his holy Spirit unto us by whom it is apparent that we are governed by whose impulsion we do speak Whence it appeareth that this injury and contempt of us and the precepts delivered by us redound to God himself Again though it should be said that Ananias had lyed to the holy Spirit and had lyed to God withal yet it would not from thence follow that the holy Spirit is God For in one and the same aâ—t a man may lye to two and to one through another or to one immediately as here to the holy Spirit dwelling in the Apostles to another mediateâ—y as to God So he that persecuteth the faithful persecuteth Christ himself he tâ—at heareth and receiveth the Apostles or on the contrary despiseth them heareth and receiveth or despiseth Christ he that despiseth Christ despiseth also God that sent him Matth. 10.40 Luk. 10.16 Now will any one thence conclude either that the faithful or the Apostles are Christ or that Christ is he that sent him namely the Father But â—f we may reason in this manner Ananias lyed to God Ananias at the same time and in the same act lyed to the holy Ghost Therefore the holy Ghost is God it will also be â—awful to reason thus * Act 4.5 Chap. 22.7 8 Chap. 20.14 15. Paul persecuted Christ Paul at the same time and in the same act persecuted the faithful Therefore the faithful are Christ Or he that heareth tâ—e Apostles heareth Christ and also him that sent him therefore he that sent Christ is Christ What then will the adversaries answer to these arguments without doubt that there is more in the conclusion than in the premises Wherefore let them imagine that the same answer is given to them For thus it ought to be concluded therefore some one who lied to the holy Spirit lyed to God As also in those instances which we alleaged therefore some one wâ—o persecuted the faithful did persecute Christ some one who heareth him that sent Christ heareth Christ himself We have spoken the more largely of this place because greater stress is laid on it and yet not all which might be said thereupon We will run over the other more breifly As for the second place therefore which is extant 1 Cor. 6.19 20. the holy Spirit is not understood by the name of God but is openly distinguished from him For is not the holy Spirit here manifestly distinguished from God whilest it is said that they have him from God He speaketh also of the same God in the following words Therefore gloryfie God in your body c. Now that the Apostle doth not speak of the holy Ghost even that is an argument namely that he speaketh of him to whom we as servants have been bought with a price but who did ever read that we were bought to the holy Spirit that we were by Christ bought and invasseld to the Father both the thing it self speaketh and it will easily appear from these words of the Revelation which are extant Chap. 5.9.10 chap 14.4 But if they say that it is from thence proved that the holy Spirit is God because we are his temple for none but God hath a temple first it will not follow that the holy Spirit is here called God and that openly which is the thing now in debate For the same Adversaries are wont to alleage many places from whence they endeavour to evince that either the holy Spirit or Christ is the most high God where notwithstanding both they themselves confess and all see that the name of God is not attributed to Christ or the holy Spirit Again a temple may be belonging not only to the most high God â—ut also to him who is subordinate to God in divine Empire and worship not only in the opinion of men but in very deed Last of all it may be only so far forth granted that a temple belongeth to none but God himself as that a temple is not indeed dedicated to the honour of any oâ—her person nor possest by any other person by a more divine right and principally inhabited then by God Otherwise it is inhabited in a sort by Angels as the ministers of God and the virtue and efficacy of God doth in a
c. compare the said place with 2 Sam. 7.28 2 Kings 5.5 8.19 c. 1 Chron. 22.8 c. Psal 88.4.20 c. in reference to his posterity Wherefore in this matter God did not spake by David but by others to David Howbeit that this was performed by the Spirit of God this as to the force of those words is altogether by accident For it had been all one if God had spoken to David in his own person without any Prophet that was divinely inspired It is now easie to give an answer to those places likewise whereby others endeavour to prove that the holy Spirit is called Lord. For that in none of them it is plainly written that the holy Spirit is the Lord or God which that it was requisite to overthrow our Argument every man perceiveth But neither do they prove that the holy Spirit is Lord. For when it is said Deut. 32.12 The Lord alone did guide the People of Israel the word alone doth only so far forth exclude others either things or persons which are herein subordinate to God in as much as they are denyed to be the supream Leaders of that People For if they should by that Particle be wholly excluded from the action of bringing the People out of Egypt we must conclude either that Moses did not lead that people which notwithstanding the History doth most openly shew or that he also is the Lord himself Which should also be said of that Angel of whom God saith That he should go before the People and keep them in the way and bring them into the place which he had prepared in which Angel he affirmeth his name should be Exod. 23.20 21. But it is well that the very words of the place do shew that the Particle alone is indeed opposed to other Gods and persons not subordinate to the Lord in which number the holy Spirit is which dwelling chiefly in Moses led the people as may be understood from that place of Isaiah chap. 63.11 which hath been cited Now that this Spirit is not the Lord himself who is said alone to have led the People is thence apparent because in these very words of Isaiah which are compared with that place of Deuteronomy he is distinguished from the Lord whilst he is called the Spirit of the Lord and afterward the Prophet turning of his speech unto the Lord himself saith Thus didst thou lead thy People As to the other reason The Lord said that he would speak by the Prophets but the holy Spirit spake by the Prophets wherefore the holy Spirit is the Lord An answer hereunto is already evident from those things which have been spoken concerning that place 2 Sam. 23.2 for it is a Syllogism of mere Affirmatives in the second Figure And if this reason be firm it will follow that the Angels also are the Lord. For in the quoted place Numb 12.6 the Lord saith that he would in vision appear to the Prophets or would speak unto them by dreams But the Angels also did this as appeareth both from other places so especially from the Prophecy of Ezekiel Daniel Zachary and from the Revelation of John See Dan. 8.16 17. 9.21 c. cap. 10.5 c. Zach. 1.8 9 14 19. 2.1 3 c. 4.1 c. frequently in other places Rev. 1.1.17.1 c. and 19.9 10. and 21.9 c. and 22.8 c. and ver 16. Moreover we have examples hereof in the History of the Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles And that we may not go far from the places which the Adversaries alleage that very person who spake these words to Moses Exod. 4.12 was an Angel sustaining the person of God as we have elsewhere * See the Book of God and his Attributes shewn and although a man would not confess it yet seeing the Law is said to have been disposed and delivered by †Gal. 3.19 Angels in the hand of a Mediator he must needs confess that the Angel in giving the Law spake unto Moses of whom those words Exod. 4. do treat There is the same fault in the third reason namely that a conclusion is in the second Figure drawn out of mere Affirmatives The Israelites provokt the Lord the Israelites provokt the holy Spirit therefore the holy Spirit is the Lord. Which is refuted by that very place of Isaiah which is cited whilst he is said to be the Spirit of the Lord◠for he saith but they provoked to anger and grieved the holy Spirit of him that is of the Lord for of him it is spoken see ver 7 c. A like Argument hereunto would be this The Israelites were disobedient to the Lord and exasperated him The Israelites were disobedient to the voice of the Lord and exasperated his mouth Therefore the voice of the Lord or his mouth are the Lord himself Or thus The Israelites grieved the holy Spirit and resisted him The Israelites grieved Moses and resisted him as the History testifieth in sundry places yea they did chiefly so far forth grieve the holy Spirit and resist him in the wilderness as they grieved Moses in whom he dwelt and resisted him Whence it will follow if the Argument of the Adversaries be right that Moses himself was the holy Spirit For it is to be observed that the words Heb. 3.8 9. are not so attributed to the holy Spirit as if they were spoken in his person as the Adversaries conceive but because they were pronounced by the impulse of the holy Spirit Otherwise it would follow that the holy Spirit is David himself since the holy Spirit is in this place said to have uttered also these words Psal 95. To day if you will hear his voice namely God c. But it is certain that both these words and also the rest which are read in the beginning of the Psalm are pronounced in the person of David Thus we saw before that it is ascribed to the holy Spirit Rev. 2.3 that he spake those things which are most openly pronounced in the person of Christ Therefore the holy Spirit so spake those words in David as he is said to cry in our hearts Abba Father Gal. 4 6. namely because we by him that is by his impulse do so cry Rom. 8.15 and as he is said to intercede for us with groans unutterable ver 26. because he maketh us to pray and groan unto God As to the last proof therefore the words of God are attributed in Isaiah to the holy Spirit because Isaiah pronounced them by the impulse of the holy spirit Now as it doth not follow because Isaiah likewise pronounced those words that they are therefore spoken in his person and so that Isaiah is the Lord so likewise neither is it to be concluded concerning the holy Spirit by whose impulse he pronounced them It is also here to be observed what we noted in 2 Sam. 23. it is not said of the holy Spirit that he spake those
in a manner minister for which reason also he immediately subjoyneth them to God But for as much as Christ also hath these spirits of God and maketh use of them therefore having made mention of them he also commemmorateth Christ and prayeth for grace and peace to the Churches from him wherefore this wish and the imploring of the divine help comprehended therein is properly referred to God and Christ improperly to the spirits themselves Which is the cause why other divine men omit the mention of them in their salutations and wishes they who hold them to be Angels will say that this invocation is referred to them only in a secondary manner as unto Ministers not as unto Lords and the true bestowers of grace and peace and that therefore the mention of them is elsewhere omitted and they are therefore set before Christ partly because they belong unto God to whom they are next subjoyned for which cause also afterwards chap. 3. the name of the New Jerusalem is interposed betwixt that of God and Christ partly because John intendeth to speak more largely of Christ For he therefore reserveth the mention of them to the end that without disturbing the course of his speech he might more freely make an excursion into his prayers For if he would have reserved the mention of those spirits to the end he should have either used a longer Parenthesis or begun a new speech It is apparent therefore that there is nothing in those places to establish the invocation of the holy Spirit And here it is worth the rehearsing as learned men have noted that Hilary in his twelve Books concerning the Trinity never called the holy Spirit God never said that he is to be adored but only to be obtained which is likewise to be observed in other Writers both of that and former times Yea the true opinion concerning the holy Spirit was of so great power that even after those things wherein the holy Spirit began to be accounted for the most hlgh God almost all the prayers of the Churches were directed to God the Father and to Christ not to the holy Spirit And there are yet extant several Books of the Papists put forth in the former age and containing an account of Religion and Ceremonies in use among them where it is expresly declared that we must observe how every prayer is directed to God the Father or to Christ the Son and not to the holy Spirit because a gift is not asked from the gift it self but from the bestower of the gift Indeed we are not ignorant that there is an usual Hymn among them wherein they pray the holy Spirit to come and fill the heart of his People howbeit the cause which is alleaged that a gift is not asked from the gift it self but from the bestower of the gift is universal and it is clear that regard was had thereunto in most prayers of the Church and should have been had in all without exception Now that custom of praying is an open token of the true Opinion which did at first prevail in the Church For if the holy Spirit be the most high God absolutely equal to the Father and to the Son whom they likewise hold to be the most high God why was he not judged worthy of equal honour why were either all or at least the greatest part of prayers not equally directed to him as to the Father or the Son This indeed was the hinderance that in those first times it was out of controversie as both the holy Scripture doth plainly enough testifie and at this day many though therein inconstant to themselves confess that the holy Spirit is a gift For which cause Hilary before cited illustrating and confirming his opinion concerning the Trinity with that saying of Christ Mat. 28.19 Baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit doth in his second Book concerning the Trinity at the close thereof thus explain the words In the confession of the Author and of the only Begotten and of the gift which he doth there largely pursue Wherefore since they had this opinion concerning the holy Spirit they directed their prayers not to him but to the Father and the Son the bestower of that gift knowing that a gift is not asked from the gift it self but from the giver of the gift Which custom even the contrary errour hath for so many ages not been able quite to abolish CHAP. III. Arg. 3 The holy Spirit is often not joyned with God Christ The third Argument That the mention of the holy Spirit is in many places omitted and would not so have been were he the most high God THe third Argument may thence be drawn that in very many places of the Scripture where mention is made of the Father and of the Son and sometimes of Angels or other things and persons there is no mention made of the holy Spirit when nevertheless mention ought to have been made of him no less than of the Father and the Son and rather then of the Angels or of other things and persons if he were the most high God coequal as they speak to the Father and the Son Which that it may be plain we will first alleage those places wherein there is mention made of the Father and of Christ only and then those where mention is made of others whether Persons and chiefly Angels or things which ought to have been mentioned much less than the holy Spirit if he had been the most high God But for as much as the places of the former sort are almost innumerable we will here recite those only which are somewhat more illustrious and such chiefly as affirm the same thing of God and Christ within the compass of the same sentence the rest we reserve for the diligence of the Reader We will begin from John in the History of whose Gospel we will give the first place to those words of Christ which are extant chap. 17.3 This is Life eternal that they know thee Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent We do not now urge that the Father only is said to be the true God for that we have done in the * Sect. 1. chap. 1. beginning of this work but that mention is made of the Father only and of the Son and in the knowledge of these two only eternal life or the way to attain it is placed when notwithstanding were the holy Spirit no less the true God than the Father it would be necessary that eternal Life should lye no less in the knowledge of him than in the knowledge of the Father and consequently mention should have been made no less of the one than of the other much less that a divine Embassadour should rather be mentioned Neither can the Adversaries say that the knowledge of the holy Spirit is contained in the knowledge of the Father and of Christ For though this be otherwise
this world are become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ And chap. 12.10 Now is come salvation and strength and the Kingdom of our God and the Power of his Christ Why not also of the holy Spirit For neither may any one say that in the name of our God the holy Spirit is included For as we have above * Chap. i. of this Section seen neither is the holy Spirit any where called God in the Scripture and he is here called our God whose â—hrist or Anointed Jesus is for it is said and the power of his Christ that is the Christ of our God But Jesus is not the Christ of the holy Spirit nor is so any where called but the Christ of God the Father as is very apparent from the second Psalm For neither was he anointed of the holy Spirit but with the holy Spirit of God namely the Father Acts 10.38 and also Isa 42.1 Mat. 12.17 Isa 61.1 Luke 4.18 Hitherto belong also those words chap. 14.4 These are redeemed from among men the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb why not also to the holy Spirit Llike things are read of them which have a part in the first resurrection chap. 20.6 But they shall be Priests of God and of Christ why not also of the holy Spirit So also chap. 21.22 For the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the Temple of it and ver 23. for the Glory of God did lighten it and the Lamb is the Light thereof and chap. 22 1. proceeding out of the Throne of God and of the Lamb and ver 3. But the Throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it In which places there is no cause why the holy Spirit should be omitted if he be a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son but equal unto both Now that we may come to other sacred Writers what is more clear than those salutations of the Apostle Paul which are extant in the beginning of all his Epâ—stles Grace and peace unto you from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ Neither is that clause much unlike which is extant Ephes 6.23 Peace be to the Brethren and Love with Faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ We saw also a Salutation like to these of Paul in the second Epistle of John ver 3. But why doth not Paul so much as once wish grace and peace to the Faithful from the holy Spirit Was his grace less necessary to the faithful though he were the most high God or was he less the Author of that peace or felicity which Paul wished to the Faithful or less worthy to whom he should expresly give the honour of invocation then God the Father of Christ Certainly even this alone ought to admonish every man that he should not think of any third person of the Deity Now that the same Paul doth elsewhere pray for the communion of the holy Spirit that as we have seen in the former chapter maketh nothing to the invocation of the holy Spirit We have likewise given an answer to those words of the Revelation where John prayeth for Grace and Peace to the Church from the seven spirits which are before the Throne of God Add hereunto those prayers of â—he Apostle Paul for the Thessalonians 1 Thes 3 11. Now God himself even our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ direct our way unto you and 2 Thes 2.15 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God even our Father who hath loved us c. Add also those chap. 1. ult According to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ There are also other places extant in the same Apostle where there is no mention made of the holy Spirit when God the Father and Christ are named Thus Colos 2.2 he rehearseth the Mystery of God even the Father and of Christ And 2 Thes 1.1 he writeth to the Church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ So 1 Tim. 1.1 he saith that he was an Apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour aâ—â— the Lord Jesus Christ who is our hope For neither may any one think that the same person is here described for besides the very form of the speech the custome of the Apostle every where distinguishing God from Christ and the collation of other places containing the same sense sheweth that God the Father is described by the name of God the Saviour See the beginning of the second Epistle to the Corinthians and also of those which are extant to the Galatians Ephesians Collossians as also the beginning of â—he latter Epistle to the same Timotheus and to Titus in which last place he describeth God in the same manner as he doth here whilst he calleth him Our Saviour For neither is that word proper to Christ alone It doth in the first place agree to God to save and by his means likewise to others and especially to Christ whom he hath raised and sent to be a Saviour and afterwards exalted by his right hand See Acts 5.31 and 13.23 1 John 4.14 compared with vers 9.10 Hence God is called a Saviour in the same Epistle to Timothy Chap. 2.3 Where he is manifestly enough distinguished from Christ in the two following verses And Chap. 4.10 Tit. 2.3 4. where he openly distinguiâ—â—eth God the Saviour also from Christ in the two following verses Which is done likewise in the last verse of Jude where it is said To the only wise God our Saviour by Jesus Christ our Lord be glory c. Wherefore that we may returne to our place taken out of the first epistle to Timothy two different persons namely the Father and the Son without any mention of the holy Spirit are joyned together The like is done in the same epistle elsewhere For to omit that place chap. 5.21 Which pertaineth to the second rank before appointed by us Paul speakes thus chap. 6.13 I give thee charge in the sight of God who quickneth all things and before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good confession c. And in the second Epistle to the same Timothy chap. 4.1 I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdome c. There are also the like words used by the same Apostle Eph. 5.5 Where he denyeth that any fornicator or unclean person or covetous person hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God And Tit. 2.13 where he mentioneth the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ For whereas certain adversaries because of the unity of the article set before the name of God and Christ contend that the same person is designed by that name they aâ—e therein exceedingly mistaken For the unity of the article doth not alwayes denote the unity of the subject but oftentimes the conjunction of diverse subjects as we have taught
in a like place vers 4. of Jude * Sect. 1. chap. 7. where he saith of certain wicked men that they deny the only Master God and our Lord Jesus Christâ— Where there is one article prefixt both to that Master God and to the Lord Jesus Christ and yet diverse persons namely God the Father and Christ are joyned together Now that diverse persons are understood by the name of God and Christ in the quoted place is thence apparent because Paul as also other writers perpetually distinguish God put subjectively as it is done in both place from Christ Jesus Moreover if the Apostle in that place Eph. 5. would have designed the same person he would have set first the name of God as being more general and less distinctly signifying that person which he intended and would have subjoyned the name of Christ as being more distinct and fitter to explain the same whereas now â—e doth the contrary For neither may any one conceive that the â—postle did it for amplification sake intending to ascend from a lower title to an higher For that would then have had some place if the word God had bin spoken of some subject â—y way of Epithite or Predicate and not made use of to design the very subject it self which if it be one such a gradation is not wont to be observed but rather the most speciall names thereof are wont to be subjoyned to the geâ—eâ—al the more distinct to the confused ones Deservedly therefore both those places as also that of Jude a leadged â—y us on this occasion ought to be added to the other examples whereby we have shewn that God and Christ are wont to be mentioned without the holy Spirit who nevertheless should be a like mentioned if he were a divine person distinct from both yet equal to both Such places as these are also exâ—ant in Peter who in the begining of the latter epistle twice doth the same thing which we before shewed Iohn and Paul were wont to do For thus he saith vers 1. Simon Peter 〈◊〉 the Apostle of Jesus Christ to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ And again ver 2. Grace and peace be multiplyed unto you through the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ our Lord. Those places wherein it is either spoken of them who have divine empire over us or of our duty towards them do not much differ from the passages hitherto alledged but have the same force as to our purpose as making mention only of God and Christ although in a manner somewhat different Of which we will alleage some that the reader being admonished by us may also observe others that are like unto them Hereunto belongeth that famous place 1 Cor. 8.6 Where it is spoken of them who have divine empire over us and are by us to be worshipt with divine worship But to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him For why is it not added and one holy Spirit as some men indulging their error durst to add contrary to the credit of all antient books indeed he is added yea set before that one Lord and that one God in the same epistle chap. 12 4. Because there it was chiefly spoken concerning the holy Spirit aâ—â— his effects in Christians But here he ought not to be omitted if he hath divine empire over us as well as the Father and Christ and so deserveth divine worship I say a just cause may be alleaged why he was mentioned although he be not a person distinct from God and Christ for as much as things are often times in the Scâ—ipture joyned with persons and those divine ones as hath been elsewhere by our men and we our selves by and by intend by certain examples also to shew But no just cause can be alleadged why in such places the holy spirit was omitted if he be a divine person every way equal to the Father and the Son Hither to belong those words of the same Apostle which are extant in the Acts. chap. 20.21 Where he explaineth the summ both of his preaching and our duty saying that he testified both to Jews Gentiles Arg. 2 The holy Spirit iâ— often not joyned with God Christ repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and those of the same author 1 Thess 1.9 10. How ye turned from Idols to God to serve the living and true God and to wait for his son from heaven whom he raised from the dead even Jesus which delivered us from the wrath to come And 2 Thess 3.5 The Lord direct your heart into the love of God and the patient waiting for Christ And that we may also mingle other passages although written of another subject thus saith Jude vers 1. To them who are beloved in God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ And John in the Revelation bringeth in these men that fear the punishment to be inflicted on them speaking thus Fall upon us O ye Mountaines and hide us from the face of him that sitteth upon the Throne and from the wrath of the Lamb. Chap. 6. ult and Chap. 12.17 Who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ Chap. 14.12 Here is the patience of the Saints who keep the Commandments of God and the faith of Jesus And Chap. 20.4 The souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God You may also every where observe other passages which do more largely or in another form of speech make mention of God and Christ only when they speak of divine things Now that we may pass to the second rank of Places which we before appointed there is mention made of Angels the holy Spirit being omitted First in those words of Christ which are extant in Luke Chap. 9.26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words of him shall the Son of man be ashamed when he shall come in his own glory and in his Fathers and of the holy â—ngels Like unâ—o which though in a contrary matter are those words of the same Châ—ist which are read Rev. 3 5â— He that overcometh c. I will confess his name before my Father and before his Angels And those of Paul 1 Tim. 5.21 I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect Angels c. Who would believe tâ—at the holy spirit could be omitted and Angels ratâ—er mentioned in his stead were he a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son and equal to both Was a greater weight added to his words if omitting the most high God his servants were mentioned If omitting the Creator his creature weâ—e mentioned You will say that what we would have cannoâ— be concluded from that omission because otherwise the same â—â—s to
be concluded concerning the Father For that he in a place like to these two which we have cited out of Luke 9. and Rev. 3. is omitted and the Angels only mentioned namely Luke Chap. 12.8 where Christ saith Also I say unto you whosoever shall confess me before men him shall the Son of man also confess before the Angels of God c. I answer that mention is here made of the Angels only because they alone among the heavenly persons shall be really present in judgment when Christ shall either confess or deny their names that are here spoken of But in the places before alleaged by us because menâ—ion is made of the Father likewise it appeaâ—eth that Christ and Paul intended to mention all the heavenly persons whose sight we ought to reverence and before whom it is most honourable to be praised most dishonourable to be reproved and rejected Arg. 3 the holy Spirit is often not joyned with God Christ and so not to pass by them who either are or shall hereafter be present by their power only Whence it followeth that the holy spirit could not have been omitted in such places if he had been a divine person but should have been named in stead of the Angels or if it had pleased the Scripture to name them also he should have been set before them Now let us shew that other things are wont to be joyned with God and Christ whilst the name of the holy spirit is omitted For this we have a notable place in the Revelation out of which we have before alleaged many testimonies namely Chap. 3.12 where Christ promiseth a reward to him that overcometh in these words I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the City of my God new Jerusalem which cometh down out of Heaven from my God and my new name Where you see that between God and Christ or rather the name of both the New Jerusalem and the name of it is interposed Why did he not likewise say that he would write upon him the name of the holy spirit Why the name of the New Jerusalem rather than of the holy spirit if he be the most high God We will shut up all our proofes with that famous place Heb. 12.22 23 24. where not only Angels are joyned with God and Christ but also pious men partly alive partly dead or their spirits and certain other sacred things to which Christ hath given an access unto Christians but the mention of the holy Spirit is altogether omitted For thus there speaketh that divine Writer But ye are come unto Mount Sion and unto the City of the living God the heavenly Jerusalem and to an innumerable company of Angels to the general assembly and Church of the first-born which are written in Heaven and to God the judge of all and to the spirits of just men made perfect and to Jesus the Mediator of the new Covenant and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of Abel Who would believe that in so large a catalogue of persons who for their soveâ—aign excellency may be called divine the holy Spiâ—it could have been omitted if he were such a divine person as the Father or Christ Neither may any one say that under the name of God the Judge of all the holy Spirit is comprehended For this would â—e some way tollerable could but one plain place of the Scripture be alleaged wherein the holy Spirit is called God Again who perceiveth not from the places which were both above and also a little before in great number alleaged that the name of God put subjectively doth denote the Father and that he is in that manner distinguished both from all other persons also from Christ himself Neither can it seem likely unto any one that the Father was heâ—e omitted whom we never find in like places to be passed by But he was no where mentioned unless there where mention is made of God the Judge of all Neither may any one say that the Father indeed is understood yet not he alone but also the holy Spirit For if more persons were understood the person of Christ no less than that of the holy Spirit ought to be included in that name according to the opinion of the Adversaries touching the persons of the Deity But the person of Christ the Mediator is openly distinguished from that God as being afterwards mentioned apart Besides it is at no hand to be granted that there are many persons of God and not also many Gods and Judges But here mention is made of God the Judge of all and not of Gods the Judges of all But some one will perhaps object That if the reason drawn from this place were of force it would not only follow that the holy Spirit is no person but also no sacred or divine thing such as we see â—eâ—e to be recited or at least the things here mentioned are mroe divine than the holy Spirit which we our selves will not aâ—mit We answer That this Objection would have some strength if all things at least the most divine had been reckoned up as we see the most divine and holy persons are all reckoned up and also if here were the same reason of all divine things as is of persons But the thing is otherwise of the good things that are promised us of God by Jeâ—us Christ namely of immortality and remission of sins there is no express mention made but only the place thereof is figuratively mentioned namely Mount Sion and the heavenly Jerusalem and the middle efficient cause thereof namely Christ the Mediator of the new Covenant and the sprinkling of Blood which speaketh better things than that of Abel and the prime efficient cause of both even God In like manner neither was the holy Spirit mentioned which is contained among the good things which are promised to us Namely because he would reckon up all the persons with whom we have some conjunction communion by right of the Christian religion so that we may be rightly said to have access unto them but the divine author intended to mention only those sacred and divine things which are in some sort without us and elegantly answer and are in some sort opposed to those things to which the people of Israel had heretofore access when the Law was given them out of Mount Sinai by Moses the Mediator But in this number is not the divine efficacy or virtue which floweth from God to us and is sent into our hearts so neither the remission of sins and immortality But were the holy Spirit a person we had come to him no less than to the Father and should have intimate communion and society with him neither could he by any means be omitted in so large and accurate an enumeration of those persons with whom we have conjunction But it is no marvel that â—e is here omitted seeing John as we saw before describing our communion with
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 â—eneâ—al 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 doâ—h moâ—e openly include the Son or the mention of the Son include the Faâ—her than the mention of both doth the holy Spirit if he be a person distinâ—t 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 propâ—ecies and other admirable gifts and works which come from that Power and Efficacy which we are wont to call the divine Inspiration are all ascribed to the holy Spirit as to the next cause and inwardly working in men and that not because it is revealed by God that the holy Spirit doth effect them but because it is from the thing it self manifest enough if it appeare that they are performed by a divine Power See Luke 1.41 67. and 2.26 27. Acts 4.8 31. 6.10 55. 9.31 10.44 45 47. 11.15 16 24 28. 13.2 4 9 52. 15.8 28. 16.6 7.20.23 28. 21.4 11. and that I may pass by many more places of holy Scripture 1 Cor. 12.4 7 c. 2 Pet. 1.3 ult Whence also when the divine Writers would signifie any one to be divinely inspired and filled with divine power they say that he is filled with the holy Spirit or using some like manner of speaking affirm him to be endued with a divine Spirit But if the holy Spirit were not the very Power and Efficacy of God but a person distinct from the Father and Son there would be no cause why all those things should be ascribed to the holy Spirit as the next cause and inwardly working in men For as much as it might come to pass that the Father and the son by their Efficacy might effect all those things the person of the holy spirit not intervening as a middle cause Certainly although it should be manifest that prophesie or any other gift comes from God nevertheless it could not appear without manifest divine revelation that the holy spirit did intervene as a middle and next cause to perform that thing But the holy scriptures do so speak of that thing that they plainly enough shew that it is manifest by the thing it self without other peculiar revelation Neither indeed Paul when writing to the Corinthians he said * 1 Cor. 2.1 his words were in demonstration of spirit to wit divine or among other things commended himself as the servant of God †2 Cor. 6.4 in the holy Spirit would at length be understood by his words that he was endued with the holy Spirit and that from it his words or deeds came but from the thing it self But if you say that therefore al those things are ascribed to the holy Spirit and that thing was manifest to all believers because the holy spirit is God himself from whom no man is ignorant all those things come he besides that he shall take as granted the thing here controverted and unknown to those men to
whom Paul for instance chiefly would demonstrate that he spake by the spirit of God also will not loose the knot For nether are those works ascribed to the holy spirit in the same manner as to the Father who is by the confession of all the supream God nor in that manner by which they are ascribed to the son but as also the Adversaries themselves in part confess by a certain proper and peculiar manner that is as to the next cause and inwardly working in men And this is that which the holy scriptures in the places before alleaged and infinite other places would have us understand But concerning this thing nothing should be manifest from the works themselves performed by divine power if the holy spirit were that supream God and yet in person distinct from the Father son Yea if the holy spirit were the supream God it should rather be concluded that the holy spirit is not such a cause of those works For it belongs not to the supream God that personally inhabiting in men he should do any works in or by them but that he inspire Power and Efficacy to them and by that means perform works to be admired in or by them A larger Defence of the Argument SUfficiently as it seems to us we have hitherto confirmed our Argument Yet nevertheless since two answers either are wont or may seem to be made to it they are to be refelled by us The former is against the major Proposition of the Argument which by an instance the Adversaries endeavour to infringe For they say that Christ also is called the Vertue or Power of God 1 Cor. 1.24 and yet notwithstanding he is not only a Person but also the most high God himself But this latter we have above refuted and by this very thing also is sufficiently refelled in that he is the vertue of God to wit the most high and so is manifestly distinguished from the Supream God But further we take the name of Power and Efficacy in our Argument properly But when will they prove that Christ is the Vertue or Power of God properly so called For whether they take the word Power for that Vertue which naturally dwells in God or for that which flows from him as its fountain and is also in some manner communicated to the creatures neither of them is a person but a quality and that indeed an essential property of God common to three persons as they will have it But that Christ is a person all know and urge The same may be also understood by the other term of excellency which in the same place 1 Cor. 1.24 is given to Christ to wit that he is called the Wisdom of God For the Wisdom of God speaking properly is his attribute or natural property by which God both understands all things and disposeth most aptly his Counsels and Works But this is in no sort a person but in like manner is his attribute or natural property common to three persons as is the opinion of the Adversaries Certainly since Christ is a person distinct from the Father and the Father in himself or his own person hath all Wisdom whereby he understandeth and disposeth all things neither may any one understand by another person but by himself and Wisdom implanted in himself Christ cannot speaking properly be the Wisdom of God Therefore neither in like manner the Power of God For there is the same reason of both It is therefore to be understood as the preaching of the Cross in the same * 1 Cor. 1.18 place to the Corinthians is termed the Vertue or Power of God in like manner also the Gospel Rom. 1.16 to wit because in it the singular Vertue or Power of God is put forth and manifestly appears to all Believers so also Christ is called the Vertue or Power and likewise Wisdom because in him the supream Power and Wisdom of God hath been put forth and in him may most clearly be perceived by all believers Let the place it self be looked and ver 18.24 be compared together and that it is so any one will easily understand By these things then it appeareth that this instance is of no moment to invalid our Argument seeing we speak of the Efficacy of God properly so called and have shewed that the holy Spirit is the very Power or Efficacy of God proceeding and flowing from him Certainly by the Opinion of the Adversaries themselves it is necessary that in one wise Christ in an otherwise the holy Spirit be the Power of God For if Christ be the substantial Power of God having his proper person and the holy Spirit also be such a Power of God there will be two Powers or substantial Vertues in God having their personallity those two persons as such shall be altogether like to themselves Of which neither can be Not that because the one or the other efficacy should be in vain since one may altogether suffice to do all things But in him who himself doth nothing in vain nothing also is altogether in vain or nothing over much Yea it is also impossible because two forms wholly of the same Nature cannot consist in the same subject unless perhaps according to divers parts which hath no place in God For otherwise the thing would proceed in infinitum Of which we shall elsewhere * Book 2. Sâ—ct 1. Chap. 5. speak more plainly And this latter therefore cannot consist because they both hold and are constrained to hold that those divine persons so far as they are distinct from the Essence are unlike Wherefore that those absurdities of which we have spoken may not happen it is necessary to determine that the holy Spirit is such a power as is not a person And thus much concerning the former Answer to our Argument The latter Answer is placed in a distinction which otherwise the Adversaries often use when there is speech of the holy Spirit For they say the term holy Spirit is taken in a double manner one while for the third person of the Deity another while for his effect or gift flowing from him and that indeed properly is called holy Spirit but this Metonimically in that the Cause is put for the effect I remember not indeed to have read that that answer is accommodated to this our Argument But because it may yet be accommodated it will be worth our labour to examine it here chiefly because it may seem that nothing may be said more speciously For when we by Power or Efficacy of God understand a certain force flowing from God and his natural power into men some one may say that the holy Spirit is indeed such a power of God but taken metonymiâ—ally For that Efficacy of God is the effect or gift of the holy Spirit properly so called But in this place is not disputed of the holy Spirit metonymically but properly taken not of his gift but of himself Therefore our Argument is ineffectual and makes nothing to the
matter But we somewhat otherwise take the Gift of the holy Spirit in this Answer or at least stretch it wider than the Adversaries are commonly wont For so much as I have been able hitherto to find they are wont by the gift of the holy Spiâ—it to understand those admirable faculties implanted in men by divine Power as the faculty of prophesying or speaking with tongues and other whether visible as they are called or invisible or if you had rather more hidden effects of the holy Spirit in men But that Power of God of which the places of holy Scripture brought by us speak is not such a faculty or faculties rather but the efficient of them although it again flow from power naturall resident in God Wherefore if the gift of the holy Spirit should be taken so strictly this Answer could not be fitted to our Argument or the places by which we have confirmed it unless any one would perhaps say that in all those places in which the holy Spirit and Power of God are put as equipollent or the one is put instead of the other the name of the holy Spirit or divine Power is used for such a faculty divinely ingenerated in a man but no where for the divine Efficacy that effects such faculties in men which neither will the Adversaries easily say nor can it in any manner consist as partly the places themselves a little more diligently looked into will shew to every one partly will be understood by the things which follow Wherefore that that distinction may seem to make something against our Argument we will suppose that our Adversaries do make that divine Efficacy also flowing from the natural Power of God which is the cause of wonderful effects in men to be the gift of the holy Spirit and so to be understood by the name of the holy Spirit not properly but by a Metonymie only namely because it flows from the third Person of the Deity which properly may be called the holy Spirit That therefore we may refell this exception we say that it is in no wise to be granted that that Power and Efficacy of God which is in this place understood is only metonymically termed the holy Spirit and not rather properly as far indeed as propriety hath place here For if it should be called only metonymically the Spirit of God or the holy Spirit to wit because it comes from the holy Spirit properly so called there would be no cause why it should not be called likewise the Father or Son since it should no less come from the Father Son then from the holy Spirit even according to the adversaries opinion since it is some effect of the natural power of God which according to their opinion is common to the three persons of the Deity and is indeed first in the Father as the fountain of the Deity then by him as they would have it in the son and holy spirit who from him have their Essence Neither may you say that that inspiration is therefore called rather the holy spirit then the Father or son because it immediately proceeds from the holy spirit but from the Father and son onely mediately for what hindreth the Father or the son since they have the same power in themselves efficacious for all things which the person of the holy spirit hath to put it forth also by themselves as well as the person of the holy spirit as we see by the holy Scripture they have indeed put it forth Yea how can it be in this unity of Essence and all things pertaining to it that the Father and the son should not as immediately put forth their power as the holy spiâ—it For it is judged that the Father and son have so commuicated their virtue and power whence that efficacy or divine inspiration immediately comes to the holy Spirit as that nevertheless it remained the same in number in Father and Son and is put forth by the three persons by the same aâ—t altogether Whence therefore is that difference that the holy Spirit puts it forth immediately the Father and the Son mediately But if the Father and the Son put forth that force and efficacy alike immediately there is no cause wherefore that force should be termed more the holy Spirit than the Father or the Son if it be not the holy Spirit himself but be called so therefore only because it comes from him We repeat not that which we have said before that although the Father and Son should put it forth only mediately the holy Spirit immediately yet that could not â—e manifest by the thing it self without a peculiar divine revelation when nevertheless we see as soon as any thing hath been manifest to have been done by divine virtue or inspiration that forthwith is ascribed to the holy Spirit as the next cause But further the adversaries cannot use that answer in some of the places brought by us unless together they overthrow one of their chief Arguments whereby they endeavour to prove the holy Spirit to be a Suppositum and person to wit that which is drawn from the actions proper to persons or at least Suppositums For in the first place brought by us from Luke 1.34 where the holy Spirit is said to come upon Mary the Adversaries themselves seem to understand the person of the holy Spirit especially since the action of coming upon agrees not properly but to a person or at least to a Suppositum I omit that also in the place Ephes 3.20 cited by us the virtue or divine power is said to work in the Apostles Besides we shall see in the following Chapter a new Reason by which that Answer may be overthrown CHAP. VII The seventh Argument That Christ should be the Son of the holy Spirit if he were the most high God THe third Argument of this ranck which respects the defence of the next foregoing also may be this That if the holy Spirit were God or at least some person Christ also should be the son of the holy Spirit yea more rightly should be termed his son than the Fathers which thing overthrows it self For we have seen above that Sect. 2. Chap. 31. Christ therefore was first termed the Son of God because the holy Spirit came upon Mary his Mother and the power of the most high overshadowed her and so Christ was conceiâ—ed and begotten by the power of the holy Spirit But if the holy Spirit be a person who immediately put forth that force in the womb of the Virgin and produced Christ the holy Spirit is rather the Father of Christ than God the Father who performed that only by the intervening of another person Besides that sanctification John 10.34 35. which Christ himself bâ—ings as a cause why he called himself of right the son of God will agree also to the holy spirit especially by the adversaries doctrine For they Arg. 7 The holy Spirit should be the Father of Christ although they would have
all works to without as they speak to be common to the whole Trinity yet affirm that Creation agrees more properly to the Father Redemption to the Son Sanctification to the holy Spirit Lastly Paul also Rom. 1.4 as in like manner we have seen above saith Christ was constituted the Son of God in power according to the spirit of sanctification by the resurrection of the dead making the spirit of sanctification the proper and next cause of that filiation But if he be a person or comes from the person of the holy spirit the holy spirit will be the Father of Christ From which absurdity our opinion is far remote which makes not the holy spirit a person but the power and efficacy of God which however it concurred to the generation of the Son yet it concurred not as a Father but as that by which the Father begat But if the holy spirit be not a person neither is he the most high God as who is of necessity a person and indeed of this thing is here the question between us and the adversaries Whether the holy spirit be a divine person namely distinct from the Father Therefore let this be the third Argument of this rank CHAP. VIII The eighth Argument That the holy Spirit is given by God to men THe fourth Argument drawn from those things which are openly delivered in the holy Scripture concerning the holy Spirit shall be this That the holy Spirit is given to men by God and that men obtain receive and have him from God by prayers as numberless places of the holy Scriptures shew out of which it is sufficient to have looked into but these few Luke 11.13 John 7.39 and 14.16 17. Acts 5.32 and 15.8 Rom. 5.5 1 Cor. 6.19 Whence also the holy Spirit is teâ—med a Gift Acts 11.17 which compare with the precedent Yea in all those places wâ—ere mention is made of the gift of the holy Spirit For we shewed above Chap. 6. of this Section That there is not there the Genitive Case of the Efficient but of the Species otherwise both the gifts rather than the gift of the holy Spirit had been to be mentioned and by it had not â—een signified that men either have received or were to receive the holy Spirit which notwithstanding the holy Scriptures using that manner of speech would altogether shew but only some effect of it Now by these things it is evinced that the holy Spirit is not the most high God for he is given or bestowed by none upon any is obtained of none by prayers For first Every Gift and whatsoever is obtained by prayer is in the power of the giver But the most high God is not in the power of another otherwise by this very thing he should have some one above himself and moreover should not be most high Besides Arg. 8 The holy Spirit is given to men the gift is made also his to whom it is given so as that it may be possessed by him But may the most high God be so a mortal mans as that he may be possessed by him Moreover to what end should so great a gift be given to men What fruit would there be of it No other certainly can be imagined but that those effects may exist in a man which the holy Scriptures testify to be produced by the holy Spirit What then Is it needful to the end God should fill any man with such effects and gifts that he himself be given to him When the Father filleth any man with such gifts is it necessary that he himself should be given to him Why then may not the holy Spirit be able to do the same which tâ—e Father if in like manner he be most high and so the same God With the Father Lastly What cause is there why the holy Spirit should be obtained by us from the Father or Son if he himself be the most high God Why is he not given by himself if so be he may be given A larger Confirmation and Defence of this Argument TO these things I see not what they can answer who doubt not to affirm neither indeed can they otherwise as it shall hereafter be made manifest that the very person of the holy Spirit is given to men together with his effects Therefore others endeavour to decline the blow that they affirm that not the holy Spirit properly so called is given to men by God but its effect or rather various effects such as are those which 1 Cor. 12.8 c. are largly enough rehearsed and others common to all believers For these are by a Metonymie signified by the name of the holy spirit when he is said to be given unto men and so to be received and had of them For the efficient cause is put for the effect Although some who say there is a Metalepsis in the phrase seem to take the thing a little otherwise For neither do they seem to take the name of the holy Spirit it self for his effects or gifts but for that very divine person which they hold Nevertheless in the mean while they signifie that the giving passively taken is attributed to him only improperly because that which may properly agree to the effects may be also improperly attributed to the efficient cause it self seeing the effects of the holy Spirit may be properly given not he himself And indeed both these seem to themselves to deal more warily than those who simply confess that the holy Spirit himself is given yet in the mean time they do not perceive that both this hole by which they endeavour to get out is stopt and likewise although I should somewhat enlarge it to them yet are they no whit less held fast bound For first it is false that the effects only of the holy Spirit not the holy Spirit himself is given to men And further that when he is said to be given or received by us or had it is said but by a Metonymie or Metalepsis Besides although it was granted it must be no whit the less confessed that the holy Spirit is not the most high God As to the former we shall demonstrate it first by certain general reason and common to all those places of which we treat then by other more special and proper to certain places and lastly from certain hypotheses of the Adâ—ersaries As to the general reason If by the name of the holy Spirit in these places of which we treat is understood some divine and holy inspiration or some power flowing from God which is as it were breathed into men the holy Spirit is properly given that is not by a Metonymie only or by a Metalepsis is said to be given unto men to be received and had of them That the thing is so will be afterward understood For we shall first shew that such an inspiration is understood by the name of the holy spirit when he is said to be given to us to be received and had by us although
it may easily seem truth to any one by it self Christ himself shewed it and represented it by a certain external breathing when after his resurrection * See Joh. 20.22 appearing to his disciples he said Receive ye the holy Spirit For John relates that he being about to utter those words breathed into or upon the disciples For what other thing would he shew by that action than that he was about in a more diviâ—e and more secret manner to breath on them and inspire into them some heavenly power which what it should be he taught presently in express words When he added Receive ye the holy Spirit But besides the same thing is thence manifest because the holy spirit in the plâ—ce above noted by us and the like to them is taken in that sense in which at that time it was taken commonly among the Jewes For do we think that John Baptist when speaking to the people â—e said that Christ should baptize with the holy spirit did use that term in a signification unknown to the people or that the people hearing the same did not understand what John said But this is that spirit which Christ promised to them that ask and which was afterwards given to the Apostles and other disciples as is understood as well by the thing it self as also by the place Acts 1.4 5. is manifest What else meant Peter when he discoursed to the people of the holy spirit newly poured out and promised the same to the auditors Vers 38. if they would repent and be baptized into the name of Jesus Christ do we think that he used the word holy Spirit in a signification unknown to them that is that he would not be understood or at least was not understood of them In like manner when after Chap. 5. in the Senate of the Jews he said We are his witnesses of these things and so is also the holy spirit which God hath given to them that obey him do we think that he used the word holy spirit otherwise than those Elders of the Jewes were wont to take it Or did not he therefore mention these things that the adversaries well understanding what the term holy spirit signyfied and how much was to be given to its testimony might give credit to his sayings and the rest of the Apostles The same is to be held of the words of the same Peter used in the house of Cornelius in which he affirmed that Christ was anointed with the holy Spirit that by this means he might conciliate to him divine authority What that both John and Christ in him have declared the words by which the holy Spirit was more obscurely designed by the simple word either of Spirit or holy Spirit as appears by the places brought by us John 7.39 and Chap. 14.16 17. to which add vers 26. of the same chap. and 15.26 Now this doth sufficiently shew that the signification of that word was then commonly known But what did the Jews of that time commonly understand by the name of the holy Spirit did they perhaps mean a Divine person Why then comes it to pass that not so much indeed as any footsteps of that opinion remained among the Jews after that time nor doth it appear in those who were next unto those times Did they that they might disquiet the Christians forswear all their opinions comonly received by all You can never perswade this to an intilligent man What then shall we believe they understood by the name of the holy Spirit but divine inspiraâ—ion to wit that which the original both of the Hebrew word by which the Spirit is noted and of the Greek and Latine shews and which among the Gentiles also however otherwise erring in the thing it self was understood by the name of the divine Spirit For both the Hebrew word Ruach the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Latine Spiritus from Spirando properly signify a wind or blast Wherefore nothing is more apt than that to signify that divine inspiration or power which is breathed into the hearts of men from heaven Which signification as we have said was not unknown even to the Gentiles themselves although in the mean time they did most grievously erre in the thing taking a false inspiration for a true one a divelish for a divine But this pertaines not by it self to the force and significaton of the word But now if the name of the holy Spirit be taken in those places of which we treat for that divine inspiration or some power which from God flowes into men why is the holy Spirit said to be given to us or further to be received or had by us oneâ—y by a Metonymy or Metalepsis Why is not the holy Spirit properly so called as far indeed as that word in this matter may be taken properly acknowledged to be given to us For if it be not given properly either it is therefore because this holy inspiration may not be said to be the holy Spirit but only improperly to wit by a Metonâ—my of the efficient cause or because not properly but by a Metalepsis only it may be said to be given that is only in respect of the gifts and effects flowing from him But both is false For as to the former those things which are called by some name only by a Metonimy of the efficent cause do not by themselves deserve that name but therefore only are so called because they come from the efficient cause to which this name doth by it self and in the first place agree But that power which is inspired into men by God doth of it self deserve to be termed the holy Spirit and accordingly is so called without any regard had that it comes from such a cause which properly may â—e called the holy Spirit No man doubts that it is of it self holy and may be so called But that it also of it sâ—lf deserve the name of Spirit doth in like manner appear from the things already spoken to wit because it is inspired by God into men and â—en are breathed upon by it Neither is it to the purpose that meâ—â—phorically or by reason of similitude it is termed Spirit For in this place the propriety of the word is not so looked upon as opposed to a Metaphor but as to a Metonimy Since this now is the question But if thou wilt therefore say this inspiration is improperly termed the holy Spirit because it is called Spirit metaphorically see by what meanes thou wilt defend that that third person of the deity is properly called the holy Spirit For therefore also they think that person to be termed Spirit because he is breathed by the other two but not therefore because he is a spiritual substance otherwise that appellation would no more agree to that person then to the other two What then Is that person properly breathed or blown out Certainly far less doth it agree to him to
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 caâ—se 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 whoâ—e 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 thâ—ee 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 â—y 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 Faâ—her 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 tâ—e 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
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 boâ—â— 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 daâ—e 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 â—e 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 sâ—ould waâ—ne 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 wâ—om we must so speak and the Apostle so speak as is beseeming his Majesty But we have alâ—eady 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 effeâ—t of him is not yet extant among men What author What example is there for it Shall a man say he knowes not whether the most high God be because he hath not heard that certain gifts of his doe happen to men But if you shall think the holy Spirit to be a divine inspiration or a certain power issuing from God to men you will not wonder at those manners of speaking For because Christ being not yet glorified that inspiration was not wont to happen to men although beleevers and afterward also those Ephesian disciples knew not that it was done therefore John indeed said that the holy Spirit was not yet Christ being not yet glorified â—ut those disciples that they â—ad not indeed heard whether there was a holy Spirit CHAP. XI The eleventh Argument From John 15.26 where the holy Spirit is said To proceed from the Father AFter we have drawn Arguments out of those places of Scripture in which those things are said of the holy Spirit which agree not rather to persons than things it remaines that we fetch reasons also from those attributes of the holy Spirit which indeed properly taken agree onely to persons or at least Suppositums but are figuratively attributed to the holy Spirit or first and of themselves agree to Suppositums to other things onely consequently Let that be the first of them that the holy Spirit is said to proceed from the Father Joh. 15.26 There is indeed some Metaphor in the word proceeding which the adversaries also are compelled to acknowledge For to proceed doth properly agree but to men or to living creatures which move themselves from place to place but it hinders not but that we may hence draw an Argument For it is agreed between us and the Adversaries that this word being referred to the holy Spirit denotes its production from the Father by which namely the holy Spirit is in very deed that which it is Arg. 11 from Joh. 15.26 Whence the adversaries would that that procession was from eternity and say that as the Son received his Essence by geneâ—ation from the Father so the holy Spirit received the same by procession of which thing there is no need now to speak more largely It shall be done the Lord helping afterward Lib. 2. Sect. 2. Chap. 1 c. and Sect. 3. Now it is enough to have hinted what we have said For from this that the holy Spiâ—it is said to proceed from the Father and to receive his Essence it is manifest that he is not the most high God For the same reasons for which we have said before * Sect. 2. Chap. 2. that the Son of God is not the most high God because he was begotten of the Father and from him received his Essence For in this case there is the same reason of procession as there is of generation yea as we shall shew in its place that procession devised by the Adversaries is no less generation than that of the Son Wherefore what we have said of the generation of the Son of God is hither also to be transferred Add to those this reason also that Christ signifie that that procession doth even yet continue For he doth not say that the holy Spirit hath proceeded from the Father but that it doth proceed Neither indeed do the more learned adveâ—sarie deny it who have devised such a manner of procession as hath continued from all eternity is to continue unto all eternity Therefore according to their opinion the holy Spirit even yet receives his Essence from the Father and also from the Son and is to receive it unto all ages But it must needs be that the most high God hath already fully had his Essence from all eternity so that he now any more neither hath nor can possibly received it however it be supposed which is impossible that he could at any time receive his Essence from another Besides they who contend that the procession of the holy Spirit of which Christ in John speakes For there is no where else express mention made of it hath continued from all eternity and that it sâ—all continue to all eternity have not considered that Christ speakes of that procession of the holy Spirit by which it should come to pass that the holy Spirit should be sent from him to the disciples and moreover come to them For if you consider the rest of the things spoken of in the same place you will find no other cause why Christ said that the holy Spirit doth proceed from the Father than that he might declare that which he had said whom to wit the Advocate I will send to you from the Father neither do the adversaries seem to deny it But what hath that procession which continues from eternity to eternity common with the sending and coming of the holy Spirit to the disciples yea that would rather hinder this if by that the holy
Spirit should be the most high God as the adversaries would have it I omit that they the Greeks onely excepted hold that the holy Spirit doth proceed eternally no less from the Son than from the Father But Christ speaks of a thing which is proper to the Father For in this behalf in some sort he opposeth the Father to himself being about to shew why he said he would send the holy Spirit not from himself but from the Father But how much more simple and plain is it to hold that the holy Spirit doth so far proceed from God as it is the vertue and efficacy issuing from him into men than that the most high God who is but one only proceeds from another who is in like manner the most high God that he who is from no cause receives his being from another that he who hath had most fully his Essence from Eternity receives it and is to receive it yet unto all Eternity But that the same thing which we have shewed out of the words of Christ set down by John is taught also by those words of Paul in which he affirmeth that the holy Spirit is of God 1 Cor. 2.12 For he saith Now we have received not the spirit of the world but the spirit which is of God But whatsoever is of God is Gods effect and depends on him But all as we have said know that God is the effect of no thing Although there is scarce need to make mention of effect it is enough to say that the most high God is from none CHAP. XII The twelfth Argument That the holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son THe second of those Attributes which properly agree only to persons or Suppositums but are accommodated to the holy Spirit by some Trope may be that which is in the same place of John * John 15.26 14.26 16.7 cited by us in the next foregoing Chapter and is elsewhere in the same Writer extant to wit that the holy Spirit is sent from the Father and Son For that befalls not the most high God But although that mission is nothing else than the giving of the holy Spirit whence that the holy Spirit is given and sent to the Disciples from the Father are put for the same thing as is manifest by comparing the words Chap. 14.16 with the places now cited Yet because the Adversaries will have that mission to be such as that it can befall none but a person especially because Christ brings in in the same speech the holy Spirit as his certain Deputy or Embassador Sect. 2. Chap. 15. to be sent to the Disciples chiefly in Chap. 16.7 13. therefore almost in the same manner it may be hence demonstrated that the holy Spirit is not the most high God in which we have before demonstrated the same thing concerning Christ from his sending so that there is no need to add more in this place CHAP. XIII Arg. 13 From Joh. 16.13 The thirteenth Argument from the words John 16.13 He shall not speak the spirit of Truth from himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak c. BEcause towards the end of the foregoing Chapter we fell into the mention of the place John 16.13 where it is spoken of the thing joyned to the sending of the holy Spirit therefore we will here examine it also For there not only that is affirmed of the holy Spirit which could not be affirmed of him if he were the most high God but also that is denied which cannot be by any means denyed of the most high God For thus Christ saith Howbeit when he the Spirit of Truth is come he will guide you all into the Truth For he shall not speak of himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak and he will shew you things to come He shall glorifie me for he shall receive of mine and shall shew it unto you All things that the Father hath are mine Therefore I said that he shall take of mine and shall shew it unto you Here it is denied that the holy Spirit spake of himself on the contrary it is affirmed that he should speak what he heard and should receive of that which was Christs And the former indeed is therefore chiefly denyed that it may be shewed that he is rightly called the Spirit of Truth that is most true But this latter is therefore affirmed of him that it might be shewed that he should glorifie Christ But the most high God whatsoever he speaks speaks of himself and for that very thing he is true because he speakes of himself He doth not also hear what he should speak nor is instructed like an Embassador by another He receiveth nothing from any yea he bestoweth of his own upon all He hath not glorified Christ by receiving something from him but by giving to him How then is the holy Spirit the most high God It will not be amiss to cite here the words of John Maldonate a most learned Interpreter of the Papists who hath in part unfolded this difficulty speaking in this manner But Christ gives the reason as Rupertus saith why he called him the Spirit of Truth because saith he he shall not speak of himself as if if he should speak of himself he should speak not truth but a lye Which how true it is it doth not enough appear seeing he rather therefore speaks truth and cannot speak false because he speaks of himself For when he speaks of himself he speaks as God since he is nothing else but God But when he speaks as God he cannot lye which if he could do then truly could he do it when he speaks not of himself that is not as God Therefore Augustine and Bede question how it may be understood that he speakes not of himself For if there were a double nature in the holy Spirit as in Christ one a divine the other a humane or any other we might perhaps say that then he speakes not of himself when he speakes as man as we interpret what Christ saith of himself Joh. 14.4 The words which I speak to you I speak not of my self and what he said before Chap. 7.16 My doctrine is not mine but his that sent me But since the holy Spirit is but one and that a divine nature as St. Austin disputes we cannot say it and thus far he It were even to be wished to the adversaries in this place that a double nature could be feigned in the holy Spirit also as is done in Christ that they might loose this knot By what hole then do they endeavour to escape when there is none The foresaid interpreter brings a double answer One of Augustin and Bede anoâ—her his own The first is therefore the holy Spirit is said not to speak of himself because neither is he from himself as therefore saith he he is not of himself but he proceeds from the Father and Son so he shall not speak
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 wâ—ich 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
he in that speech of his in which several times he brings in the holy Spirit as a person spake to the Disciples in Parables or Figures fetcht from common use but that sometimes he would openly and plainly declare to them of the Father or of the things pertaining to the Father Chap. 16.25 But among those things even chiefly is the holy Spirit of whom there is often mention in that discourse one while more openly another while more covertly Christ afterwards indeed explained the thing clearly enough when he poured out the holy Spirit on the Disciples by which he lead them into all the Truth For it not as a true person hath declared any thing to them but as a divine inspiration inspired into their minds hath wrought and imprinted in them the fullest knowledge of the Doctrine of Christ Wherefore since the event it self hath sufficiently explained that Discourse why do we seek another Interpretation CHAP. XIV Arg. 14 from 1 Cor. 2.10 Three Arguments from 1 Cor. 2.10 c. The Spirit searcheth all things even the deep things of God c. THe fourth place in this rank we shall assigne to those words of Paul 1 Cor. 2. which the Adversaries are wont to use to prove that the holy Spirit is a divine person For thus the Apostle there speaks But God hath revealed them to us to wit those things which God hath prepared for them who love him by his Spirit For the Spirit searcheth all things even the deep things of God For who of men knoweth the things of man save the spirit of man that is in him Even so the things of God knoweth none but the Spirit of God Now we have received not the Spirit of this world but the spirit which is of God c. This place yeelds us divers Arguments some of which are above alleaged by us in Sect. 3. Chap. 5. First That the holy â—pirit is distinguished from God whilest God is said by him to reveal to us the things of salvation whilest it is called the Spirit of God whilest it is asserted that he searcheth the deep things of God and hath known the things which are of God whilest in the end Chap. 8. Chap. 11. it is said to be of God Moreover that men are said to receive it Lastly that when he is said to be of God he is made the effect of God But none of these we have shewed can befal the most high God But besides these three as many other Arguments may be fetcht from the same words The first is That God is said to have revealed something to us by his Spirit For thence it is manifest that it is not the first but the middle cause of that Revelation which agrees not to the most high God See what we have said in those places above Sect. 2. Chap. 19. in which God is said to have done either all or certain things by Christ The second is That it is said to search even the deep things of God For neither is any one said to search those things the most clear and perfect knowledge of which is first in him and which are by him first constituted and decreed But if the holy Spirit is the most high God the deep things of God that is his hidden counsels and most clear and perfect knowledge thereof in him is first resident and by him they are all first constituted and decreed How then could he be said to search them God and Christ indeed is said to search our hearts because he penetrates into the secrets of anothers breast but his own counsels his own deep things he is no where said to search Indeed neither are men said to search their own counsels unless perhaps when either they are by some means slipt out of their memory or they themselves have not yet sufficiently examined the reason of them But what can be wanting to the most high God for the most exact knowledge of his depths Arg. 11 From 1 Cor. 2.10 The Apostle in this place being about to declare that which he had said of the Spirit of God by the example of the Spirit of man doth not say that it searcheth but knows the things which are of a man although the manner of speaking which he had used of the Spirit of God would lead him thereto that he should affirm that the spirit of man also searcheth those things which are of a man But he would not affirm it of the Spirit of man because in it first are resident those things which are of a man that is his counsels and decrees and by it are constituted Therefore the same reason should be of the holy Spirit if he were the most high God We know indeed that it is said by a Metalepsis which also brings forth a certain Prosopopey that the Spirit of God searcheth all things namely because it causeth men in whom it is to find out all things even the deep and hidden counsels of God In which manner the same Spirit is said to intercede for us with unutterable groans and to cry Abba Father because it is the cause that we may do these things But the Adversaries cannot use this answer who endeavour to frame the person of the holy Spirit from this that the holy Spirit is said to know all things even those which are of God which they could not do if they would acknowledge those things to be said of the holy Spirit by a Metalepsis For it would no more thence follow that the holy Spirit is a person than that Charity is a person because so many actions proper to persons are attributed to it by a Metalepsis afterward in the same Epistle 1 Cor. 13. Moreover such a Metalepsis would be altogether unusual if the holy Spirit should be the most high God Who would say that the Father searcheth the counsel of God because he may cause another to search them Why then should the holy Spirit be said to search the deep things of God if he himself were the most high God whose are those deep things We say the same words of Paul Rom. 8.27 which we touched a little before The Spirit it self askes or makes intercession for us with unutterable groans and he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit because he maketh intercession for the Saints according to God For how could these things be said even by a Metalepsis of the holy Spirit if he were the most high God with whom the intercession is made and who searcheth the hearts and according to whom or according to whose will the Saints intercede For it is not convenient that not only humane action should be attributed to the most high God but that his own person also should be detracted from him The third Argument which may be drawn from the aforesaid place to the Corinthians is that if the holy Spirit were a person distinct from the Father and Son which speaking pâ—opeâ—ly should be said
to know it could not rightly be affirmed that none besides him knoweth the things of God For besides him also the Father and Son should know and that primarily But if they say the particle none is here opposed onely to creatures or rather comprehends onely creatures and men as if it were said no man knowes those things ouâ— opinion indeed may admit that but not the adversaries For we acknowledge in those words Arg. 16 From 1 Cor. 2.11 but the Spirit of God a metonymy of the adjunct which also brings forth some Metalepsis as if the Apostle had said None of men knowes the mysteries and hidden counsells of God besides those who are endued with his Spirit by the power of whom alone those things may be found out by us But the adversaries who would have the knowledge in this place to be properly attributed to the holy Spirit himself cannot say that and are forced to confess that the holy Spirit is therefore expresly excepted because otherwise he should be altoâ—ether comprehended in that general word none How ridâ—culous I beseech you and unworthy of the Apostle had such a speech been None of men or creatures knoweth those things which are Gods â—ut God the Father or no Angel knoweth those things which are Gods but Christ or the holy Spirit For what Is the Father in the number of men or Creatures Is Christ or the holy Spirit in the number of Angels For nothing is wont to be excepted from out of a general speech but what otherwise is of the same kind of things of which it is spoken and which therefore unless it had been excepted had been altogether cemprehended in the general speech and the same thing either affirmed or denyed of it as of the rest Wherefore if the knowledge of divine things be here properly ascribed to the holy Spirit himself as the Adversaries would and that Metonymy which we have explained is not to be acknowledged in that word the word none cannot be restrained to men or creatuâ—es aloâ—e but will comprehend also the divine persons themselves of the number of which they would have the holy Spirit to be Whence it followes seeing the holy Spirit in their opinion is a person really distinct from the Father and Son that the Father and Son are excluded from the knowledge of vine things in these words of Paul of which absurdity there is no danger in our opinion In the same manner if the Spirit of a man were a certain person distinct from the man himself whose Spirit it is said to be when it is denyed that any of men knowes those things which are of a man besides his spirit the man himself whose Spirit it is had been excluded and besides that exception should have been rediculous What man knowes the things which are of a man unless the Spirit of man which is in him For is the Spirit of man which is in him man But if you take the words of the Apostle as if he had said No man knowes the hidden counsels and thoughts of a man besides himself who conceives and understands them by his Spirit and mind the absurdity will cease For it is to be observed what Philosophy teacheth namely that not the Spirit of a man which they call the soul doth properly understand but the man by it or by its vertue or power CHAP. XV. Arg. 17 from Mat 3.16 The seventeenth Argument That the holy Spirit sometime descended upon Christ IN the last place it likes me to alleage that to which many adversaries attribute much when they endeavour to shew that the holy Spirit is not a divine vertue but a person distinct from the Father and Son And that is as Luke writes Chap. 3.22 With whom also the other writers of the Gospel History agree Mat. 3.16 Mark 1.10 Joh. 1.32 33. That the holy Spirit descended on Christ baptized by John in a corporal shape as a dove It is an old saying and at this day commonly spoken among the adversaries Go Arian to Jordan and thou shalt see the Trinity Surely if the Trinity be Father Son and holy Spirit The Father indeed who inhabiting in Heaven as the most high God and removed from mens eyes commandeth them out of his supream Authority and on the Son bestows authourity from his Majesty but the Son a true man baptized in Jordan by John and after from heaven annoiâ—ted and replenished with the holy Spirit and lastly the holy Spirit a certain thing sent down from heaven upon Christ with which he was replenisht if I say that be the Trinity he is rightly commanded to go to Jordan who doth not acknowledge the Trinity We indeed who are sometimes commanded to go thither long ago by the grace of God have been there and seen that Trinty and with willing mind acknowledge and profess it But if the Trinity be to them the conjunction of three persons really distinct amongst themselves in one and individual Essence it is so far from being seen at Jordan that rather in some sort it may be seen by the very eyes it has no existency For what sâ—ew or shadow is there of one and the same Essence in number which may be common to the Father Son and holy Spirit Is it the same numerical subâ—â—ance of God who speakes from heaven not descending hence and of him a true man who is baptized in Jordan and lastly of that thing which descends from heaven upon him I omit other things which partly are said before partly shall be said a little after They therefore who have fained such a Trinity or defend it fained â—y otheâ—s are yet to be sent to Jordan that they may as from a near place behold the true Trinity and may more rightly learn to acknowledge it We may indeed rightly send thither the Arians who hold that the Son of God is a certain invisible Spirit produced by God before the creation of the world but our adversaries who maintain him to be consubstantial it is so far of their being able to do it that the Arians rather might send them thither For the tenet of the Arians is less against that History than that of the Consubstantialists But we will not in this place urge all things which might be said but that onely which is written of the holy Spirit that we may not only wrest out the weapon of the hands of the Adversaries with which they fâ—ght against us but also may retort it on them They urge that the holy Spirit hath both decended and appeared in bodily shape to wit of a dove For from thence it follows that the holy Spirit is some substance not a quality For it belongs to substances and those only that are Suppositums to descend and to assume and sustain formes and shapes and together they say it appeares that the holy Spirit is such a substance as is really distinct from the Father and Son For neither the Father or Son descended from heaven nor
assumed that corporeal form therefore the holy Spirit is a Suppositum and consequently because also he is intelligent For he is said to search all things even the depths of God and to know the things that are Gods and other like things proper to intelligent Substances are pronounced of it he is also a person for every intelligent Suppositum is a person Since that is the definition of a person There is need of so much furniture that the person of the holy Spirit may be framed hence which they promised we should see at Jordan together with two others For neither the Trinity of the adversaries can be seen unless three persons can be seen and so as that it may appear they are persons What is to be answered to this their Argumentation shall be a little after shewed Let us do now that which we propounded that assuming those things which partly are read in that sacred History partly are affimed by the adversaries we may demostrate the holy Spirit not to be the most high God They affirme if the holy Spirit be the most high God that he ought to be altogether of the same essence with the Father yea a so with the Son Otherwise there will be either two or more most high Gods or the Father or Son whom they take for the most high God will not be the most high God But from this apparition of the holy Spirit it is manifest that there is one Essence of the holy Spirit another of the Father and Son For the Essence of the Father and Son descended not then from heaven when Christ was baptized nor took that corporeal shape the Essence of the holy Spirit as is manifest by the adversaries opinion did both Therefore the Essence of the holy Spirit is not the Essence of the Father or Son but it is necessary this to be one that to be another Neither indeed may they say that not the Essence of the holy Spirit but the person did both For first every person is a substance and a substance is an Essence subsisting by it self Wherefore whose person descended and assumed some form his essence also doth it And besides do not they themselves as we have seen urge that that which descends and sustaines a form is necessarily a substance But the substance of the holy Spirit is no other thing than its Essence and with our Adversaries it is all one to say the same is the Essence and the same is the substance of the divine persons to wit because every substance is an essence therefore the Essence of the holy Spirit must have descended And although at last a person in the Deity should not be the substance or Essence it self but something in the Essence which yet is impossible For it is repugnant to the nature of a Suppositum and further also of a person to be in another yet might not that either descend or assume a form but that its substance in which lastly all the accidents are and rest together should do the same Besides also another shorter way from that that the holy Spirit descended from heaven upon Christ that in a bodily forme or shape we may shew that he is not the most high God For the most God is not moved from place to place and consequently descends not from heaven Also no accident befalls the most high God even by the adversaries opinion But that bodily shape in which the holy Spirit descended was an accident as also that descent it self The Defence of the Argument Some adversaries observing this so explain the thing that it may sufficiently appear that they neither attribute to the holy Spirits descent properly called nor grant that he Assumed that bodily shape on himself but either that a certain true body in a doves shape descended from heaven or the shape only of a dove descending was represented to the eyes of the beholders which might be a simbole or resemblance of the presence and operation of the holy Spirit filling Christ with gifts necessary for the discharge of his prophetical office But if this be so how will hence be shewed that the holy Spirit is a thing subsistent by it self and consequently a Suppositum and person really distinct from the Father and the Son seeing he neither properly descended on Christ nor sustained that forme but was only the shape of a body set before the eyes of the beholders when indeed there was no body or as the * See Maldonat and Augustine cited by him opinion is of some of the most learned adversaries a true body which descended and sustained that shape But even things which not onely are not persons but not so much as indeed sustbances may be said to descend improperly from heaven and among others James saith chap. 1.17 Every good and perfect gift is from above that is from heaven descending from the Father of lights But that the same may be shaddowed by a certain outward shape and set before the eyes of men as besides other things that teacheth which we read Act. 2.3 of the first effusion of the holy Spirit on Christs disciples For those cloven tongues did they not express the faculty of diverse languages to be given to the disciples of Christ by the holy Spirit But nothing prohibites that they might not seem to be moved How many such shapes of things do we see set before one while the outward another while the inward senses of the Prophets Therefore nothing if the thing be so explained may be hence gathered which belongs to prove the holy Spirit to be a Suppositum much less a person Besides although they would have all those things concerning the holy Spirit to be taken figuratively yet nevertheless they must hold that here some singular operation of the holy Spirit was shaddowed not of the Father or Son or at least not equally For otherwise why should not the Father and Son also be said to have descended in a bodily shape But if the Essence of the holy Spirit would be the same with that of the Father and Son the operation no less of these than of that had been expressed by that shape and descent and so the Father and Son should be no less said to have descended in a bodily shape than the holy Spirit For such an operation is of the singular substance it self having in it self all foâ—ce of opperating Therefore seeing this is supposed the same in those three persons the same opperation also is equally to be attributed to all those persons Seeing this is not come to pass it follows that there is one essence of the holy Spirit another of the Father and Son and consequently unless the adversaries would introduce more Gods or deny the Father to be the most high God they are forced to acknowledge the holy Spirit not to be the most high God But you will say How nevertheless do those things agree to the holy Spirit to descend from heaven in a bodily shape if
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 tâ—ing 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 †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 ‖ 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
those persons will which hitherto would not beget or breath other persons Some say therefore it cannot be that the Son or holy Spirit should produce another Son or holy Spirit not because there is some impotence in the Son and holy Spirit but because whatsoever might be begotten or proceed in God that hath been already begotten and produced Arg. 2 There would be infinite Sons but that which is already generated or produced cannot any more be produced for it should at once both be and not be in which manner neither this world can be any more created by God because it is already in being not by reason of any impotence in God but by reason of the impotence of the thing it self as I may so say Indeed it is true that the world which now is cannot any more be created But do not the Adversaâ—ies believe that another world besides this may be created of God I trow they do altogether believe it Let us apply this to our purpose That Son which is already begotten cannot any more be begotten neither that holy Spirit which is already produced can any more be produced But what hinders another Son or another holy Spirit to be produced by the Son and holy Spirit and by them again others since we have shewed * Sect. 1. chap. 7. of this Book above that it follows from the Suppositions of the Adversaries that the divine Nature is capable of infinite persons in number Wherefore they say not things agreeable to their own Supposi ions when they say that whatsoever could be generated or produced in God all that is already contained in the Son whom the first person of the Divinity hath begotten and in the holy Spirit whom the first and second person hath produced and therefore another Son and another holy Spirit could not be produced by the Son and holy Spirit for as much as there as yet hath been place for infinite or innumerable persons And let this be another Argument against that eternal Generation of the Son out of the Essence of the Father CHAP. III. The third Argument Because the Son of God both had been and had not been from Eternity LEt this be the third Argument by which the same Doctrine is refelled that thence it would follow that Christ both did exist from all Eternity and did not exist that he alwayes was and sometime was not It must needs be that he was from all Eternity because both it is openly said that he was begotten from all eternity and if he had exist at last in a certain time he would not be the most high God For the most high God was existent from all eternity But that he was not from all eternity is manifest from this very thing that he was begotten and indeed in respect of his Substance and with a Generation properly so called You will here presently cry out and say that you do easily understand what I would to wit that a Generation properly so called is a change from not being to being Therefore if the Son of God was properly generated he was sometime no being or sometimes in very deed he was not existent I say this very thing I would But you will say that that definition is to be admitted only concerning natural generation not concerning supernatural But this generation of the Son of God out of the Essence of the Father is supernatural Arg. 3 The Son had been and had not been from eternity not natural When the Adversaries say these things first we very much desire constancy in them For if the Generation of the Son of God be supernatural and so different from the natural why do they so much urge in this very thing the example of the humane Generation whilst they do so often inculcate tâ—at he who is the proper only begotten natural Son of God is necessarily of the same Essence with the Father For whence do they frame such a Proposition but from humane things and altogether natural And indeed they even expresly bring examples of Sons begotten by men that they may establish that Proposition neither can they bring any other For what are there perhaps some other only begotten proper natural but supernaturally begotten Sons of any one extant whom they may bring for an example and from whom they may frame such a pâ—oposition They will say that the generation of the Son of God in that agrees with the humane and natural generation that the Son by it became like to the Father in substance not in that that sometime he was not existent But may you be allowed so to urge when you list the reason and similitude of the natural generation and when you list again to refuse it So indeed the Adversaries more than once hold forth the propriety of words when it serves their cause and when it doth withstand they reject it change the received Axiomes and Definitions in Schools inlarge restrain and bow them like a Lesbian Rule to their opinion Never did the boldness of humane wit permit it self to feign more things than concerning God as being a thing remote from our sences in which it hath believed its devices could not so easily be detected But that we may return to our matter if you urge the propriety of the word when Christ is said he is begotten of God and conclude thence he is altogether be oâ—ten out of his substance because they who are properly begotten of any must be begotten of his substance Why do you not also see that Christ out of a no Being is made a Being and so sometime was not existent since this no â—ess than that pertains to the propriety of the generation of them from whom you gather that former assertion For this a you confess is eâ—â—enâ—ial to the natural generation that it be a change from noâ— being into being Further why do you not acknowledge that there is one substance of the begetter another of the begotten Since this is at last produced by a generation that already was before existent the one is the cause the other the effect Lastly why do you not acknowledge also tâ—aâ— the Son is latter in time than the Father Buâ— if you will not acknowledge these things in the generation of the Son of God neither doth your opinion permit it you have no reason to urge the propâ—â—eâ—y of the word or estimate it from natural things But if you depaâ—t from the propriety of the word and be content with the remaâ—kable and singular similitude which is between the humane and that divine Generation we shall easily make the matter plain for you without the generation out of the Essence of God as both we treating of the Son of God did shew in the first * Sect. 2. Chap. 31. Book and is by our men elsewhere shewed But you ought so much the rather to have done this because you contend that rightly this Generation to be supernatural For look over all
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