saith he pertaines to the constituting a person I answer he was thus although these had nothing to doe in the Constitution of his person these were but the common producers of any individual humane nature and so by consequence were accidents of ordinary personality although they were undiscerned to work any thing nay they could work nothing in his personality To the second part of this distinction or else there must be two distinct persons and so two Sons that which hath been delivered is sufficient to answer that there is but one Son and one person as Athanasius in his Creed as the Soul and Body make one man so the Divinity and Humanity make one Christ the Soul and Body have but one subsistence when they are united but two when they are severed so if the humanity had not been taken ken into the Word or should be left by it there would be two distinct subsistences and two distinct persons but being as they are united there is but one Sect. 16. He hath another objection which he esteem's of very great force pag. 102. which is thus framed When the word is the same God with the Father and the holy Ghost it should follow if the Word be made flâ—sh that the Father and the holy Ghost should be made flâ—sh likewise and so it would agree to the Father and the holy Ghost to be conceived born dy arise again as well as to the Son because Omnia opera c. all the outward works of the Trinity are inseparable For answer to this I grant that Axiome to be true and so farre forth as there is any outward action it is most true that the whole Trinity conspired in that Act they all produced this man Christ our Saviour they all preserved him in his being but the humanity of our Saviour was united onely to the Word which was his Divinity and this union was it by which he was made man nor in respect of it can it be said that that was an externall Action but a taking the humanity into unity with its sâ—lf for although the object be an externall thing yet the act being internall a reception not an extramission or working without upon it it need be no more called an externall act then God's knowledge of the Creatures whose object is externall but the act internall for all that can be said of this is that this manhood is united to the Word which union may well be a work of the Trinity although terminated in the Son as when a man tye's a knot by which two points or any other things are united the union is wrought by the man but terminated in these two so though this unity is wrought by the Trinity yet it is terminated in the Word and humanity not in the other persons or if you would have it closer suppose a man should glew a ring to the midle joynt of his little finger the man made this union but it is onely united or terminated in that joynt nor can we imagine what outward work was terminated by that joynt Scotus to this purpose excellently A point terminateâ—s a line yet hath no outward work upon it one relation terminate's another the Son the Father yet hath no outward causation or work upon him this termination which personality give 's to any individuall nature give 's it onely a finition and stint's it in these particular bounds but hath no externall work upon it at all so that the Father and the holy Ghost produce all the outward work with the Son but the Son onely is interested in the union by being made flesh c. Good Reader if my weak expressions have not rendred this high Mystery lively to thy Capacity excuse me I have done mine endeavour and since they labour with Philosophicall tricks and nice ties to â—ustian and amaze this discourse I must crosse them in their own way or else their triumph will be endlesse the truth is these Mysteries are revealed quòd sunt that they are and men ought to belâ—eve that and should go no farther but when witty men with wicked reason shall labour to lay stumbling-blocks of reason in our way to heaven it becom's us to lay them aside which I hope by the assistance of that God whose glory I endeavour I have and shall do Smalcius where before cited adde's great vaunts of this Argument with most opprobrious Terms which I meddle not with as impertinent Sect. 17. But because he make's some Queries which he think 's or seem's to think are able to stumble a Reader being unanswerable I shall putting them down endeavour to answer them although I may justly say in cases of this nature it is as true as in any that a weak and silly man may ask more then a learned man can answer His first is Potest ne fieri can it be that he who is God can do any thing not as God or in the nature of God this last phrase or in the nature of God seem's to me a strange exposition of that as God for quatenus ipsum is not in the nature of the thing which act's but according to the nature or to act out of the Principles of that nature now that may be done even by God in these outward acts of creating and governing the Creature which acts are not in but out of his nature although according to his nature I do not understand quatenus here in the strictest sense of Logicians for that which is reciprocall but in a larger as I expounded it To the Qâ—estion its self I answer to it as it seem's to be proposed as if it were in generall that nothing can act any thing which is not out of the principles of its nature for this consider Socrates is a man yet he can affect sensuall things which he doth not as a man but as a beast or a sensitive Creature he groweth and the like not as a man that is out of the principles of humanity but as a vegetable again Socrates is a Son or a Father or both he doth many things as neither he doth many being a Son and a man as a Son out of the principles of Sonship not as man out of the principles of humanity so that when any thing hath a substantial essence and a relative it may act out of the principles of that relative condition it hath and not out of the essentiall nature it hath if he speak as he doth of the persons of the Trinity no doubt but those personall actions and relations betwixt Father Son and holy Spirit although done and acted in that essence yet are not essentiall but personall and for other acts if any person assume any thing into a personal union with it it may act by and in that united nature that which it act 's not according to his Divine that is out of that principle thus may it eat walk and the like this because he still
or being idle which could not be 401 VII Vasques chargeth Lully with a mistake of a formal cause for an efficient who is mistaken by him 402 And the cause proved no less efficient then formal 403 The discourse drawn into a perfect syllogisme proving the eternal plurality of persons by production 404 The Objection urging that Angels cannot produce the like effect answer'd 405 VIII Vasques's satisfactory answer to Lully's arguments for his second Conclusion 406 The Bishop proceed's upon other grounds of his to prove the Trinity ibid. God's infinite Simplicity and Unity ibid. His spiritual faculties Understanding and Will. ibid. Himself the infinite object of his Understanding 407 Which is eternally productive of his internal word ibid. And that word substantial the same with Himself ibid. The Bishop guided to this discovery by Scripture as the Wisemen by a Star 408 IX God's will as fruitful by love as his Understanding by knowledge ibid. And so productive of a third Person which is likewise God 409 X. Misprinted XI ibid. XI These divine productions not to be multiplyed because infinite by which an objection's answer'd 410 XII The objection made by the Assertours of the Greek Church answered according to the sense of the Catholick touching the procession of the holy Ghost 411 Illustrated by a similitude to facilitate in part our apprehension of it ibid. XIII How the three Divine Persons must necessarily be Father Son and holy Spirit 412 XIV Why they are called three persons being no Scripture-language and how long ago debated by St. Augustine 414 The extent or limits of this personal distinction the Bishop reverently forbeare's to determine 415 And dislike's the rash curiosity of the Schoolmen 416 XV. His Lordship's apology for undertaking to handle the question by reason ibid. And seldom quoting the Fathers 417 A digression to the Reader ibid. CHAP. XXXVI I. Select Aphorismes out of which the Author who apologizeth for Mr. Hobbes draw's his discourse 418 A good foundation of his to build upon 419 His noble Quaere ibid. II. Animadversions upon his ambiguous sense touching the conservation of life ibid. III. His study of it as to his own particular 420 All men may not have like reason to be so intent ibid. The parts and faculties of men not to be levell'd with those of beasts 421 The publick interest to be prefer'd and preserv'd before the personal or more private ibid. IV. What right a man hath to the means of preserving life and how he is to use them 422 V. Each particular maâ— cannot pretend a right to the whole world 423 Nor to things conducing only to mediate and particular ends 424 VI. The danger of pretending a right to all and to having a right judgment of it 425 Two cannot have a right to the same thing at the same time 426 All cannot be useful to one particular person ibid. Nor every thing to every one 427 Of which no right judgment can be made for want of knowledge ibid. The use of some known interdicted to whom hurtfull ibid. VII Other rules by which to institute a right judgment beside Reason 428 How all creatures are granted to man's use limited ibid. His impossible supposition ibid. His fallacy a bene divisis c. 429 VIII The equality of right no argument that each man hath a right to all 430 The case of necessity implye's no such universal right ibid. IX Nor the dissolution of any Common-wealth 431 X. An Objection fram'd by the Author 432 A second of his not so strong ibid. The first but weakly answered by him without regard to God's end ibid. XI His first argument for universal right returning extreme necessity 433 The Bishop's severall answers to it ibid. His second argument for ancient right in a lawful defence 434 How the force or invalidity of this argument may be understood and how the practice moderated ibid. XII His Objection and Answer 435 The Bishop's Animadversions shewing the difference between just defence and unjust invasion and stating the right of possession ibid. Fear entitle's a man to nothing but a guard of himself 436 Propriety without Covenant ibid. The right to goods gotten by conquest what ibid. Thâ— Bishop's answer from the fallibility of judgment 437 XIII His the Apologist's argument against the right of Occupancy ibid. Which the Bishop shew's to hold well against Covenant ibid. What is the right in necessity ibid. Discovery give 's not an equal right with Occupancy 438 The imparity of swift and slow not considerable in the case ibid. The Author 's two Propositions destructive to humane Society 439 And Trade ibid. The difficulty of discerning different titles to goods and estates ibid. Little peace to be expected if that of Occupancy be not allowed 440 The Texts of Holy Scripture illustrated or cited GEN. Chap. Verse Page 1 28 181 29 4 3 4 126 4 9 184 4 26 125 6 5 129 Â Â 185 9 1 2. 186 3 c. 208 9 26 440 9 27 44 188 10 14 305 12 14 161 15 c. 13 3 156 4 5 13 7 143 8 9 17 6 305 19 4 183 5 c. 20 2 161 3 c. 23 3 162 4 c 32 10 309 40 5 71 41 1 ib. EXOD. 1 15 282 16 c. 4 16 329 4 36 286 7 1 ibib 7 1 330 20 2 288 22 28 286 32 7 288 32 11 290 LEVIT 24 11 289 12 c. NUMB. 15 35 290 36 c. DEUT. 9 12 288 JUDGES 4 17 156 I. SAM 17 36 270 26 7 ibid. I. KINGS 21 9 145 II. KINGS 6 25 255 JOB 10 5 314 19 25 338 26 PSAL. 2 7 334 10 6 ibid. 14 1 92 19 1 115 3 4 36 9 389 78 39 376 90 2 109 94 8 95 94 9 96 102 27 314 113 5 355 115 16 185 142 6 245 PROV 1 20 309 ECCLES 5 3 72 ISAIAH 4 6 376 6 3 344 40 3 329 55 9 306 11 312 JER 17 5 376 DAN 2 1 71 3 16 247 MIC 5 2 303 315 ZACH. 2 8 298 13 7 316 MAL. 3 4 306 312 WISD 11 20 104 13 5 116 II. MACCA 7 2 247 3 c. St. MATTH 1 20 71 3 3 330 3 11 364 3 16 387 390 3 17 334 7 2 146 10 1 386 17 11 358 18 18 298 25 45 ibid. 28 18 386 19 20 St. MARKE 13 23 258 St. LUKE 2 32 344 2 52 343 3 4 330 3 22 383 3 38 105 12 19 239 12 33 ibid. St. JOHN 1 1 318 324 328 408 1 2 352 1 3 357 1 4 361 1 5 362 1 6 ib. 1 7 363 1 9 378 1 10 365 1 11 299 374 1 14 ibid. 1 17 378 1 18 346 1 23 330 1 29 364 3 12 355 3 13 354 355 4 25 358 8 58 111 10 11 326 10 34 346 35 348 12 3 347 13 15 362 14 4 326 6 14 26 358 15 1 326 17 3 338 18 37 385 19 28 358 20 21 385 20 23 385 398 20 29 120
require's instances from the Creature is evident out of them a man when his hand is warmed by fire or cooled by Frost can by putting his hand to another warm or cool another's hand still being a mâ—n he act's according to the Condition of that quality which is added to him and not according to the principles of humanity His second Quere is Can it be that a Divine person can be a divers thing from the Divine nature I think amongst a thousand which he may read that have written about this businesse who are Orthodox he can shew none that ever affirmed it it they say that the Father Son and Spirit are diverse persons but not diverse things diversus est filius not diversum a diverse person not a diverse substance His third and last Quere is Whether it may be that there should be the same nature of all three persons and yet one of these persons acting something the nature should not act that same thing he instances in the incarnation birth death c. of the Son which had the Divine nature and yet the Father and the holy Spirit which had the same nature and essence numero that is in number with the Son should not be incarnate born c. To this I conceive I have spoken sufficiently already where I have shewed that one person can be incarnate and not the other which when it is granted all the rest will follow he may be conceived born dye c. in that nature which was united to him although not in that of which he was a person which hath been a most Catholick universally received truth these thousand yeares and upward in the Christian world and therefore ought if refused to be confuted with reasons not with opposition onely of the Authority of two or three men by a plain denyall and no more This is all of any moment that I find objected against the exposition of this place which I hope I have satisfyed and in it evinced that our Saviour is a person in the Trinity equall with the Father and distinct from the Father Sect. 18. Which being done it must needs follow that Mr. Hobbes was much too bold with him when he said he did personate the Father which as it is a language unheard-of in Scripture so it is impossible to be true he being equall to him in all things and co-acting with him whatsoever he did in Heaven or Earth what he adde's that our Saviour came to â—educe the Jews and induce all Nations into the Kingdom of his Father not as of himself but as sent from his Father was weakly affirmed if not worse for although in that errand he was sent by the Father as he was man yet he with plenarity of power did execute the same as he was the Son of God and God united to that manhood of which I think to discourse more fully hereafter but in a word for the present tâ—ke that onely one Sentence of our Saviour's which is the latter part of the 21. Verse of the 20. Chapter of St. John As my Father hath sent me even so send I you this was spoken to his Apostles here the Father sent Christ as man to bear witnesse to the Truth John 18.37 for this end was I born and for this end came I into the world that I should bâ—ar witnesse to the truth so did he command his Apostles Matth. 28.19 20. Goe teach all nations or discipulize them Verse 20. teaching them to observe all thing whatsoever I have commanded you where we see that his Authority sent them in the same errand that he was sent in himself then next which is most pertinent to this purpose in the 18. Ver. of the same 28. of St. Matth. he saith All power is given me in Heaven and in Earth so if he did not give them such Power or Authority where the greatest power is given there the lesse is included Matth. 10.1 he gave them power over unclean spirits those are the greatest and most powerfull things in the world so likewise John 20.23 whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted c. there the power of Heaven and Earth is both included and in none of these is that unworthy diminishing Term added which Mr. Hobbes intrude's not as of himself for although as man his Authority is derivative yet as God he gave these powers with Authority immediately from himself with no expression of any delegation to do it let this suffice as at the present for the examination of that speech of his concerning which I intend a farther indagation in a fuller discourse which the opportunity of another errour will invite me to CHAP. XXXIV The Holy Ghost proved to be neither Attribute nor Gospell nor a mere gift as the Socinians fancy but the third person in the holy Trinity Sect. 1. ANd now my next undertaking must be to do as much for the holy Spirit which I shall endeavour to do exceeding briefly and first I will set down what mistakes have misguided the Adversaries of this Truth and vindicating it from them shall confirm the said Truth with onely one Argument which I conceive convincing of it First then the Socinians deliver that the holy Ghost is an Attribute of the Deity not a person that it is the vertue and power of God by which he operate's and produceth those effects that are wrought amongst us but not a distinct person from either the Father or Son To confute this I shall produce that one place Luke 3.22 and the holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him and loe a voice from heaven which said Thou art my beloved Son in thee I am well pleased the Story of this is evidently thus Our Saviour was now baptized and being gone up out of the water as St. Matth. 3.16 he prayed and then the holy Spirit thus descended upon him that this was not the power of God is evident because I think no man can shew me a bare Attribute of God represented or said to appear in a bodily shape but a person or the essence and secondly if there were an Attribute expressed here by this bodily apparition it could not be the power of God that operating power by which his wonderfull works are wrought because the innocent unacting nature of a dove doth the least expresse that of any other but as Erasmus most excellently paraphrase's upon the place he shew's us here that as the dove brought aâ— Olive branch after the deluge to Noah in taken that the waters were asswaged and the wrath of God pacifyed towards mankind so the holy Spirit after the Baptisme of our Saviour by whose Baptisme ours received a confirmation if not an institution by which like as by the Ark of Noâ—h we are delivered from the wrath of God the holy Spirit appeared in the shape of that Divine messenger before and brought us comfort that we shall be delivered as in the
Ark to which St. Peter allude's 1.3.21 the like figure whereunto that is of the Ark spoken of in the 20. Verse is Baptisme well by no meanes could it any way notify the power of God in this shape but his kindness and meekness now likewise that it is a distinct person from the other is evident because in this very Verse the other persons are not intimated onely but expressed the voice from heaven uttering these words thou art my c. manifesting the Father and the person spoken to declaring the Son Sect. 2. But I find another opinion amongst them which is in the Racovian Catechisme Chapter 6. de Christi prophetico munere pag. 162. in that edition I use now at Racovia 1651. where the question being put Quid verò Spiritus Sanctus What is the holy Ghost he answer 's that first in the New Testament the Gospell of Christ is designed by it the Catechisme produceth two places of Scripture to prove this by the first 1 Cor. 2.10 but God hath revealed them that is the things which he hath prepared for them that love him unto us by his Spirit where say those Divines the holy Spirit is said to reveal the Mysteries of Godlinesse to God's Servants the other is 2 Tim. 1.10 where it is said God hath brought life and immortality to light by the Gospell now say they in this latter place the Gospell is said to do that which the Spirit was said to act in the former therefore they are one A most piteous Argument The Fire a Candle and the Sun make us see the same thing therefore they three are one but more closely the internall light in mine eye or whatsoever it is that fit 's the Organ for discerning and the externall light of the Sun which illuminate's the object both make me perceive the same visible object therefore by their Logick they are one which is absurd so is it with these two the carnall or naturall man of himself cannot behold the things of the Spirit God therefore infuseth into him the holy Ghost by which he is enabled to discern these Mysterâ—es of Godlinesse bue yet thâ— object lie's in the dark the Gospell therefore reveale's it unto them as the Kingly Prophet most punctually phrasâ—th it Psalm 36.9 in thy light we shall see light in the light of the Spirit we shall see the light of the Gospell and yet these two are very distinct nay my Text confute's all for if there be any thing in this Verse which look's like the Gospell it is the words of the voice thou art my beloved Son c. the apparition of the holy Ghost in the likenesse of a dove hath nothing to do with the Gospell therefore the Spirit here cannot be taken for the Gospell but they urge again that it is called the Gospell of the Spirit 2 Cor 3 6. I say therefore it is not the Spirit it is the Gospell of the Spirit because it reveale's the Spirit unto us and Spiritual Mysteries but nothing is the same with that which it reveale's nay if we say any thing is of another we must in that imply that it is not that other Sect. 3. But they goe farther and say that this phrase the holy Spirit signifie's Dei Donum which is given to certain men and is called the earnest of our inheritance no doubt and he cite's 2 Cor. 1.22 as Ephesians 1.14 all this is granted that the holy Spirit is taken sometimes for the Gifts but by a Metonymie the cause for the effect but that it should never be taken for that Divine person we deny and they cannot prove for as St. Paul dispute's the case at large 1 Cor. 12. The gifts of the spirit are divers but the same Spirit that third person of the Trinity is one so that although the Spirit may be called by the name of those Gifts which proceed from it yet he is distinct from them and here it is evident in my Text he was another thing besides them This is all that I find objected and all this is confuted out of this where the holy Spirit is said to descend upon our Saviour in the likeness of a dove to which none of these extravagant expressions can be applyed And now there needs no more from Scripture Their great defiance to us to produce Reason for what we speak may be defyed by us as unnecessary in a Case of Faith where we have Scripture we must believe beyond yea against reason the Scripture hath been abundantly handled by diverse although in these places which I have handled I have endeavoured to contribute something to the clearing of them The rationall laid aside by all almost as an impossible work Sect. 4. I therefore will adore and admire that high Mystery and shall most humbly thank Almighty God that he hath pleased to reveal such a sacred Truth to our Faith but then shall admire likewise his bounty to such men whose Souls and Reason he hath awakened by his Spirit to such a height as that they have made their Reason attend their Faith and follow it although non passibus aequis yet come up to it and discern that it is most rationall for a man to believe it is so What I have observed in this kind and wherein I can enlarge the Conceipt of others and explain any thing by reason I shall set down having this occasion and impart to the world with all humility to more learned men and to adoration of the Divine Excellencies which are not to be fathomed by man quid sunt what they are although quòd sunt that they are believing that they are by faith humane reason may justly strive to prove them and certainly it is a Godly work as impious to labour against it but I am discouraged mightily by the whole body of the School who almost with one voice Thomist and Scotist cry out that it is impossible to be done CHAP. XXXV Concerning God's enlarging the capacity of Nature and admitting Reason to some discovery of the Holy Trinity Of Lullies Demonstration by Aequiparance Whom the Bishop magnifies and vindicate's against Vasques c. The production of the Son and procession of the Holy Ghost by the spiritual acts of the divine Understanding and Will Sect. 1. CArthagena is so impudent that he affirme's impossibile est per Dei potentiam fieri creaturam cui sit naturalis cognitio mysterii Trinitatis in Thomam Quaest. 32. art primo conclusione secunda It is impossible that by the power of God a creature should be made to whom the knowledge of the Trinity should be natural which in my conceipt is little lesse then blasphemy for why cannot â—od make a Creature natural doe that which he can enable him to doe for these Termes naturall or supernatural are only such because God hath confined Nature to such bounds as it cannot goe farther and exalted other things to such an height as is ultra Sphaeram