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
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
sitteth upon the Throne no man can justly say that Christ is according to his humane Nature only distinguished from him being according to the divine Nature the same with him For first according to a better Nature in regard of which which only he is believed to be a Person were the same with him that sitteth upon the Throne he could not be simply distinguished from him for that would be all one as if he should simply be denied to be him that sitteth upon the Throne But that cannot simply be denied of any whole which for another nature or part is simply to be affirmed of the same although it agree not thereunto according to some one nature especially the less excellent as shall be understood from what we will afterwards speak Sect. 2. Chap. 3. How I pray you could it come to pass that in the whole description of both Visions there should not be even the least hint from whence it might appear that Christ is the same with him that sitteth upon the Throne and that the diversities of Natures should be openly expressed but the unity in the knowledge whereof there was no less moment not at all Again since to Christ as he is distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne actions agreeing to Persons are attributed as is manifest from the very Visions themselves especially the latter it is apparent that he is considered as a Person and so distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne But the Person of Christ according to the Opinion of the Adversaries is the second of the Deity and so the very divine Nature it self having its substance Wherefore if they will speak agreeable to themselves they must confess that it likewise is distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne Or if they will not confess this they must with us assert that the Person of Christ is not the second Person of the Trinity which they hold Furthermore who would believe that when divine Honour was ascribed to Christ he was considered only according to his less excellent nature and not rather whole or according to the Nature most worthy of that Honour but when that Honour is ascribed unto him he is most openly considered as distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne Wherefore whole Christ even in respect of that other Nature or a part which was in him most excellent must of necessity be distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne Finally If Christ according to a divine Nature were one and the same with him that sitteth upon the Throne either more persons namely that of the Father and the Son not to speak any thing now concerning the holy Spirit were to be expressed as sitting on the Throne or it ought to be held that the Father and the Son are the same not only in Essence but also in Person Since there is no doubt that the Person of the Father was expresâ—ed by him that sitteth upon the Throne But that there is the same Person of the Father and the Son all reject and justly condemn as a Sabellian Errour CHAP. IX Sundry Arguments are briefly intimated to shew that none but the Father of Jesus Christ is the Most High God BEsides the Arguments hitherto produced many others may be brought but because they do in a manner fall in with those which shall in the second and third Section by us be alledged therefore we will in this place in a brief manner only intimate them and not all of them neither but only the chiefest Arg. 9 That God is wont to be taken for the Father The Ninth Argument of our Opinion may be this namely That the name of God or Lord when used for the word Jehovah or Adonai is in innumerable places of the Scripture taken as proper to the Father in such a manner as that he only is understood by that name either simply put or expresly with some Epithite as that of True Living Almighty and the like and being designed by the very appellation is distinguished from Christ or the holy Spirit or from both together For that would not come to pass if not the Father only were the Most High God but also the Son and holy Spirit Concerning which matter see what we will say hereafter Sect. 2. Chap. 1. and Sect. 3. Chap. 5. and if you please also Arg. 10 The Father is of himself Chap. 9 10 11 12. of our Book concerning God and his Attributes The Tenth Argument may be this That none but the Father of Jesus Christ is of himself as having received neither his nature nor any divine thing whatsoever from another which is the property of the Most High God To which this also may be adjoyned that the Father only is as they commonly speak The Fountain of Divinity For from him the very Son himself hath his Divinity as both the thing it self speaketh and the Adversaries also commonly confess From the same also proceedeth the holy Spirit And though the Latin Churches hold that the holy Spirit doth proceed both from the Father and the Son which if rightly understood not only may but also ought to be granted nevertheless it is apparent partly from the Scripture partly from the Opinion of the Adversaries themselves that the Son cannot be the first Original of the holy Spirit as we mean when we use the word Fountain but such an original as proceeded from another which was before it For he who doth himself flow from another and from him receive his Divinity cannot be the prime Source of anothers Divinity And indeed whatsoever is spoken in the Scripture and tendeth to shew unto us that the holy Spirit doth proceed also from the Son is herein contained namely that the Son doth send the holy Spirit and pour him out upon his Confidents But the Son sendeth the holy Spirit from the Father as he himself expresly affirmed John 15.26 he also said that he would ask the Father and that he should give them another Advocate John 14.16 and having received the promise of the holy Spirit from the Father he poured out upon the Faithful so excellent a gift as Peter testifieth Acts 2.33 compare also Luk. 24.49 Joh. 7.39 Therefore the Greek Churches though they otherwise agree with the Latin concerning the Person of the holy Spirit do yet herein differ from them namely that they say the holy Spirit proceedeth or is sent or given not from the Father and the Son but from the Father by the Son which kind of speaking is more suitable to express the true Opinion It is clear therefore that none but the Father of Jesus Christ is the Fountain or prime Original of Divinity and consequently he only of whom are all things which is the property of the Most High God For as the most high God only is he of whom are all things so he only of whom are all things is the Most High God More things belonging to this Argument see afterwards Sect.
2. Chap. 2 3. and Sect. 3. Chap. 11. The Eleventh Argument is largely diffused and may be branched out into many for hereunto belong all those places of the Scripture wherein some Prerogative is given to the Father above Christ Hereunto pertain first those Testimonies of the Scripture wherein the Father is expresly said to be either * See Sect. 2. Chap. 14. greater than Christ or the †Chap. 24. Head of Christ or the ‖ Chap. 23. God of Christ those also wherein the Father is said to have given a * Chap. 16. Commandment to Christ and that Christ was his Servant and Minister Arg. 11 from the Prerogative of the Father obeyed his Command and submitted his †chap. 12. own will to his Arg. 11 from the Prerogative of the Father Likewise those where Christ is said to be ‖ chap. 25 God's to be the * chap. 27. Mediator of God the †chap. 28. Priest of God ‖ chap. 5.25 sent from the Father to have * chap. 16. come not to do his own will but the Fathers Hitherto also belong those wherein Christ professeth that not †chap. 3 19. himself but the Father is the prime Author of those wonderful works which he did that his ‖ chap. 4. Doctrine was not his own but the Fathers that he * chap. 8. which believeth on him believeth not on him but on the Sender of him namely the Father To which those also are like which teach that the Father is †chap. 19 worshiped through Christ and that whatsoever divine things Christ either hath or performeth or are performed unto him from us redound unto the glory of the Father as the utmost scope that Christ poured out ‖ chap. 17 prayers to the Father that the Father is the true Author of the * chap. 29 Resurrection of Christ that the Father †chap. 18. exalted and glorified Christ and consequently bestowed all things on him that ‖ chap. 24 Christ shall hereafter deliver up the Kingdom to the Father and become subject to him that the * chap. 19 Father did or doth all things by Christ Now we will shew in their places that whilst those things which we have reckoned up are ascribed to the Father a Prerogative is attributed unto him above Christ wholy and entirely considered and not according to one nature only and consequently also that he is greater than the holy Spirit Which is manifest even from thence namely in that those things which we have reckoned up are absolutâ—ly wont to be ascribed to the Father and no where to Christ namely in respect of some more excellent Nature and no where also to the holy Spirit Add hereunto others also which have in part been observed by the Adversaries themselves †chap. 10. See Mat. 20.23 22.1 25.34 Rom. 8 29 Gal. 1.15 16. Eph. 1.3 so on to the 13. as that the Father not Christ not the holy Spirit is said in Scripture to have predestinated men to have decreed some things to some one either before the world was created or from the foundation of the world All glory all happiness designed either to Christ or his confidents was first decreed and provided by the Father The whole reason of our Salvation dependeth on him What should I speak of the Creation of Heaven and Earth For though the Adversaries endeavour to vindicate it unto Christ and the holy Spirit yet are they themselves wont to say that it is wont to be ascribed unto the Father in a peculiar manner no otherwise than if it were proper unto him in which manner Redemption is attributed to the Son Sanctification to the holy Spirit concerning which thing we will speak somewhat hereafter Sect. 3. Hence also in that which is called the Apostles * Chap. 3. Creed the Creation of Heaven and Earth is ascribed neither to Christ nor to the holy Spirit but to the Father only For thus we say I believe in God the Father Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth and in his only begotten Son not confessing Christ himself to be the Creator but the only begotten Son of the Creator Neither indeed doth the Scripture any where ascribe to Christ the Creation of Heaven and Earth and when it attributeth a creation to him it not only speaketh of a new creation or certain reformation of things but also no where saith that the Son himself created all things but that all things were created by him and in him Finally when the Scripture speaketh either of Religion and the Worship of God in gross or of certain parts thereof it is so wont to make mention of the Father that it may easily appear unto all that the Father is he to whom in all ages worship was to be given by all men and was indeed given by all pious men and to whom only all honour is ultimately to be referred Whence also after Christ was exalted yet that custom prevailed in Christian Churches that publick Prayers should for the most part be directed to the Father some few to the Son but seldom or never any especially if you distinguish Prayers from Hymns to the holy Spirit concerning which thing we will elsewhere * Sect. 3. chap. 2. speak somewhat Whence the Prayers made in Churches are commonly wont to end in this manner Through our Lord Jesus Christ having also sometimes the name of the Son prefixt through whom namely as a Mediator and Priest prayers are poured out unto the Father himself though we otherwise not only willingly confess that prayers may be poured out to Christ himself but contend that they ought often to be poured out and in our Churches do our selves very frequently perform the same Notwithstanding that custom which hath for so many ages endured in the whole Christian world which even that vulgar opinion concerning three Persons of the most high God hath not been able to take away giveth testimony to our Opinion touching one God the Father For such a Prerogative of the Father above the Son and holy Spirit evinceth that he only is the most high God Certainly the very truth it self crept into the minds of men although they set themselves against it and darted the Beams of her clearness into them not suffering her self to be wholly darkned with the clouds of errours For there appear on every side hints and arguments from which it is clean that the Father only is he * Rom. 11.36 of whom are all things and by whom are all things and for whom are all things as Paul speaketh of the most high God that is by whose counsel and decree all things are at first constituted by whose efficacious providence and vertue all things are perfected to whom finally as the ultimate end all things are referred A diligent Reader of the Scripture will easily observe this especially being thus admonished if he heed the diversity of things which
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
to him according to his inferiour Nature Wherefore if Christ were the most high God it could not be simply or without any limitation and respect of a certain nature expresly added be denied of him that he can do any thing of himself Since therefore it is denied it is apparent that he is not the most high God Add hereunto that Christ in this place is described by the name of the Son of God and that in respect of God But most of the Adversaries refer this description only to the divine Nature of Christ all refer it to it chiefly Wherefore so much the less credit is it that that is here simply denied of him which agreeth to him according to the divine Nature and consequently both may and ought to be simply affirmed of the Son of God Certainly that would be all one as if you should say that a man or a substance endued with understanding cannot understand reason remember because he cannot do these things according to the body But against that which we have said some of the Adversaries are wont to alledge that a man according to his soul is immortal or incorruptible and yet it is simply denied that he is immortal or incorruptible But it is to be observed that we speak of those Attributes which both may and are wont to be affirmed of the whole Subject simply and without limitation although they do primarily and by themselves only agree to one part thereof so to the whole only by consequence But to be immortal or incorruptible as the very Adversaries together with us confess is not simply and without limitation affirmed of the whole man namely because we see the whol◠composition of man to be dissolved and to die and be corrupted although the Spirit remain after it But the same Adversaries contend that as all the attributes which agree to the Humanity of Christ are wont simply without limitation to be affirmed of Christ for example sake that he was conceived born of a Virgin suffered dyed was buried raised up from the dead the like so also all the attributes of the divine Nature Wherefore as they simply affirm that he is God so also they simply and without limitation affirm and if they will be true to themselves are forced to affirm that he existed from all Eternity Omnipotent Omniscient Immense Creator of Heaven and Earth Some alledge that of * Rom. 7.17 Paul where he affirmeth that the evils which he worketh he himself did not work but sin that dwelleth in him where they think that what is simply affirmed of the whole is simply denied of the same because it agreeth not to the other part And therefore that the contradiction which at first sight appeareth in these words is to be taken away by the distinction of parts But they are exceedingly mistaken for neither hath Paul respect to divers parts in the same subject as if the thing were attributed to the subject according to one part and according to the other part taken away from the same this I say is not there done but the same attribute is by an elegant Antanaclasis one while taken more largely another while more strictly namely by a certain excellency and being taken more largely is attributed to the Subject but taken more strictly it is denied of the same whole and not attributed to another part of the same Subject but to another Subject as the place it self sheweth For the man described by Paul under his own person is said to work these evils the word work being taken properly and largely but the same is denied to work them as the word work signifieth to be the prime and principal cause of working For this he saith is not he himself but sin In the same manner he elsewhere saith that he laboured more than the other * 1 Cor. 15.10 Apostles yet not he but the Grace of God that was with him He affirmeth that he himself laboured if it be properly spoken but denieth the same because he was not the prime and principal cause of the labour but the grace of God that was present with him Thus also Christ †John 7.6 saith My Doctrine is not mine but his that sent me ‖ chap. 12.44 He that believeth on me believeth not on me but on him that sent me For the Doctrine of Christ was his own because it was promulgated by him it was not his own because himself was not the prime Author thereof but he that sent him It is believed on him because he is the object of faith not on him because he is not the principal object and ultimate scope of faith for so he is that sent Christ Wherefore that we may return unto our place it is necessary that Christ when he simply denied that he could do nothing of himself did speak of himself wholly how great soever he is and not only of one part of himself or not of himself according to one part only Which that it may yet more evidently appear and the rule before set down by us be the more confirmed this is to be added If that which may is wor◠absolutely to be affirmed of the whole may also simply and absolutely without any limitation be denied of the same whole namely because it agreeth not thereunto according to some part though an inferiour one it will be lawful simply to affirm of Christ what we would have namely that he is not the most high God did not exist from Eternity did not create the World that the Son of God was not incarnate or made man was not in Heaven before he was born of the Virgin because none of these things agree to him according to the humane Nature yea it may be said that the Son of God is not the Son of God especially the only begotten one if he is held to be such as he was begotten out of the Essence of the Father which agrees not to him according to the humane Nature Finally it will be lawful to say that he was neither conceived of the holy Spirit nor born of Mary nor grew nor eat nor drank nor wept nor dyed nor rose again nor ascended into Heaven nor shall come to judgment and other things innumerable because none of these things agreeth to him according to the divine Nature Those first Expressions the Adversaries will not endure as for the rest the ears of no Christian man can endure them Who would endure such a Divinity as permitteth one simply to deny that Jesus is the Son of God or that he sometimes dyed and rose again Wherefore if those things are both * Vnheard or incredible uncouth and intollerable they ought also to imagine that their interpretation is alike intollerable whereby they say that when Christ simply saith the Son can do nothing of himself he speaketh of himself according to the humane Nature only whereas according to the divine Nature he can do all things of himself whence it
Interpretation is very frivolous first in that by so speaking he had not alledged the cause why he declared not the day of judgement to his Disciples nor had diminished the desire of knowing it and inquiring it of him but increast it because by this means he had intimated that the Son of man did know that day Besides neither doth the word Son absolutely spoken of Christ denote the Son of man but the Son of God as he is such especially since the word Father is presently opposed thereunto and by it God understood and the word but in that passage but the Father agreeth not with the words nor the Son immediately going before but with those none knoweth Finally that interpretation doth thwart the words of Matthew who saith that the Father only knoweth it For how ridiculous would it be to say the Son of man knoweth not the day of judgement unless the Father only knoweth it for it is a certain contradiction in the Additament and the condition that is added subverteth that to which it is added The same Interpreter furthermore saith that many antient and grave Authors whose names he orderly reckoneth up did thus interpret That Christ as man was ignorant of the day of judgement Which he himself thinketh to be true only in this sence that Christ knew not the day of judgement upon that score or for that reason because he was man but because he was God Otherwise he supposeth it to be false and horrid to be spoken that the humane Nature of Christ was ignorant of any thing For the Papists yea certain others also imagine that the humane Nature of Christ from the very first instant of his conception and birth knew all things But that Interpretation also he refuteth because Christ not only denyeth that the Son of man he ought here rather to say the Son of God doth know the day of judgment but also affirmeth that the Father only knoweth it by which speech he seemeth to exclude not only the Son but also the holy Spirit Nevertheless now a-dayes that Interpretation which the Interpreter rejecteth namely that Christ is said truly to be ignorant of the day of judgement not according to the divine but according to the humane Nature is commonly most received even amongst them who otherwise hold that in the very moment of conception the Properties of the divine Nature were communicated to the humane or the knowledge of all things infused into the soul of Christ therefore we must here briefly refute it and having discust it in a few words also disprove that mans own interpretation Such an Interpretation therefore and Answer to our Argument as is commonly brought Arg. 9 That Châ—ist was ignorant of the last judgment day for three Reasons chiefly ought not to be admitted First because Christ simply and without any limitation denyeth that the Son knoweth the day and hour of judgement Where it followeth that he spake of himself wholly how great soever he is as we have shewn in the examination of the second Answer to that place John 5.19 Again to omit other things spoken in the same place both from the simple word Son opposed to God the Father and also by the Gradations used by Christ ascending from the Angels to the Son and from the Son to the Father it is apparent that he altogether spake of that Nature according to which he is the Son of God Thirdly Because in Matthew it is expresly said that the Father only knoweth the day and hour of judgement which sense agreeth also to the words of Mark whilst he saith None knoweth but the Father opposing the Father to the Son himself But if Christ had according to the divine Nature known the day of judgement then not only the Father but also the Son had known it and besides if we believe the Adversaries the holy Spirit Now whereas in this place they so much urge the saying of Paul Col. 2.3 In whom are all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge hidden First they do not observe that these words may as well yea far better be referred to the name of the Mystery of God and Christ the mention whereof immediately precedeth than to the name of Christ For it is there chiefly treated concerning the knowledge therof so that the sence is in the Mystery of God and Christ are all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge hidden but that Mystery is the evangelical Doctrine Chap. 1.25 26 27. Again the Wisdom and Knowledge here spoken of is to be understood of all things pertaining to mans Salvation which have also been revealed by Christ unto us and are diligently to be known by us But that the Knowledge of the day of judgement is not comprehended in the number of these things appeareth from these very words of Christ wherof we dispute To omit although otherwise it were spoken of the same kind of things yet this special saying concerning the day of judgement should derogate from the general and not be interpreted according to that but that according to it It remaineth that we speak something of that Interpretation and Answer which the Popish Interpreter having refuted the Opinions of all the rest did devise although he so proposed it as that himself seemeth to put no great confidence in it for he saith Vnless The mistaken Christ speaketh in the same manner that he had formerly said * Mat. 20.23 To sit at my right and left hand is not mine to give you but to them for whom it hath been provided by my Father Wherefore he intimateth what is more that he not only as a man but also as God was in a certain sort ignorant of the day of judgment not that he was indeed ignorant but because it was not his office to know as he said not for whom it is provided for by me but by my Father not that it was not provided by him also but because to provide the Kingdom that is to predestinate is not his office but the Fathers That also it belongeth to the Father to appoint when the world is to be dissolved and when the day of judgment is to be This is that which the Apostle saith †Acts 1.7 It is not for you to know the times and seasons which the Father hath put in his own power Therefore he alone is signified to know it And this unless I be mistaken is the true sence He did well twice to add unless I be mistaken for he was something afraid lest he should be mistaken neither did this ingenious man satisfie himse f whilst he endeavoured to satisfie others But neither did he rightly explain the place but pervert it nor take away the difficulty but in some part augment it For first he without example and any just reason departeth from the proper and usual signification of being ignorant whilst he interprets it that it is not ones duty to know unless perhaps he alledge this very thing for a reason about which
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
Jesus Christ was declared the Son of God but how he is the Son of God for having described Christ by the name of the Son of God he accordingly declareth how this is to be understood And lest any one should perhaps think that it will thence follow that he is not the Son of David which notwithstanding the Scripture averreth he sheweth how hoth may stand together First he teacheth how he is the Son of David then how he is the Son of God wherefore he saith Who was made of the Seed of David according to the flesh who was determined or constituted the Son of God in Power according to the Spirit of Sanctification by the Resurrection from the dead Doth not the very opposition shew that as it is there taught how Christ is indeed the Son of David so it is here signified how he is indeed the Son of God for neither would a declaration be rightly opposed to the word made nor those diverse respects be one opposed to the other namely according to the flesh and according to the Spirit of Holiness that is according to the Spirit wherewith Christ was sanctified For that expression according to the flesh would signifie the reason of the subject whereas the other according to the Spirit of Holiness would denote only the middle efficient Cause Again the word here rendered determined doth no where in the Scripture yea no where at all signifie to be declared unless you take the word declared as it is then taken when one is said to be declared King or Consul whilst he is constituted and this Office is appointed to him For the Greek word properly signifies to define to determine but in the Scripture it signifies nothing but to constitute to decree or design which thing doth excellently agree to Christ in that he was made King by the intervening of the resurrection Luke 22.22 Acts 10.42 11.29 17.31 But if you will with the antient interpreter render it to predestinate although neither the simple word it self requireth that version nor the thing suffer it nevertheless it will be sufficiently evident that Christ was not really the Son of God from eternity For neither is that predestinated which is in being but which is not yet in being and here it is spoken of no other thing than of the Sonship of Christ in relation to God Yea it will follow that he at length in the resurrection was fully ordained to be the Son of God Finally in the former place Acts 13. we have shewn that the resurrection of Christ had in no wise declared that Christ was begotten of the Essence of God and so was the Son of God but rather the contrary Now that which concerns their Opinion who contend that the Greek word in Acts 13. is not to be referred unto the resurrection of Christ from the dead but unto his birth and first exhibition which although we can both grant and urge without prejudice to our principal Argument yet we will shew that this interpretation cannot subsist First because in that place as we have already observed such an act of God is spoken of as whereby he fulfilled his promise of setting up a King over the Jews which we have also shewn out of the words of the second Psalm But Christ was not then made Lord and Christ or the heavenly King of Gods People when he was born but when he was raised and set at the right hand of God Furthermore both the preceding and following words of the Apostle which they urge against us shew that it is spoken of the resurrection from the dead For when he had said that God had raised him Christ on the third day he adds being seen many dayes of those that accompanyed him from Galilee to Jerusalem who are his witnesses unto the people until now But whereof were they witnesses if not of that which he had just now mentioned and told them had been in some measure presented to their view namely the resurrection of Christ and his exaltation which followed thereupon for of this thing they were properly witnesses See above chap. 1.22 2.32 3.15 4.33 5.32 compared with the foregoing and chap. 10.40 41 42. Therefore seeing the Apostle subjoyns And we declare this unto you which was promised to our Fathers because or that God hath fulfilled the same unto us their Children having raised up Jesus and it is necessary that he himself should speak of the resurrection of Christ from the dead For he affirms that he had now declared the same thing to the Jews at Antioch that the other Apostles had testified to the People of Judea If he then told them that he was a witness to the people of the resurrection and following exaltation he intimates that he now also speaketh of the same thing But that which belongs to the following words by them urged against us is not at length proved in that place that Christ was raised from the dead but that being supposed as already sufficiently proved it only shews that Christ was so raised from the dead as no more to return to corruption For some one might have scrupled that though Christ were indeed raised from the dead yet the promise made unto the Fathers be unperformed seeing Christ might have been so raised as afterwards to have returned unto corruption whereas the Messiah promised of old unto the Fathers and his Government ought to endure unto the end of the world as the Writings of the Prophets teach See 2 Sam. 7.13 14. and compare it with Heb. 1.5 and Psal 45.7 compared with Heb. 1.8 and 110.1 4. and Dan. 7.14 as also John 12.34 The Apostle therefore removes this doubt from his hearers whilst he adds But that he hath raised him from the dead no more to return unto corruption thus he said I will give unto you the sure Mercies of David namely the Promise that proceeded from Grace and Mercy and so onward Whereby we understand that he had spoken of the resurrection in the words immediately preceding and sufficiently proved the same now to remove all manner of doubt he is willing to speak of the same matter somewhat larger although that be also absurd that Paul having but newly said that Christ was at first exhibited and either born or sent into the world should presently add that God had so raised him from the dead as no more to return to corruption For what connexion is there Is it not evident that those latter words require that the Apostle should speak next of his Resurrection But that which concerns those who say that the promise of Christ and that expression in the second Psalm God had not fulfilled in raising of Christ but when he was risen we will not much contend with them for we our selves freely confess if the raising of Christ be taken in a strict sence barely for his returning to life without respect to his exaltation afterwards that divine promise and expression of
the Psalm had not as yet been really performed But yet notwithstanding it is to be noted first that the expression of raising or resurrection of Christ doth sometimes by a kind of Synecdoche joyned with a Metonymie comprehend the whole Glory of Christ to wit Immortality and Supream Power that he obtained by the Resurrection And in this sence only this word seems to be taken Acts. 2.32 33. and 4.33 compared with 5.32 10 40 c. Rom. 4.25 10.9 Phil. 3.10 1 Pet. 1.3 and 3.21 Furthermore it is also to be observed that the Participle Aorists being joyned to Verbs of the Pretertense have oftentimes the same force as Participles of the Presentense when they are joyned to the same Verbs Whereof you have examples amongst others in Heb. 1.4 7.21 11.9 2 Pet. 2.6 15. besides that which is every where found in the Evangelists he answering said Wherefore it may be rightly concluded that the Apostles words are to be understood as if he had said God hath fulfilled the Promise made unto the Fathers having raised as an antient Interpreter hath it or in raising Jesus chiefly because unto Christs generation of God the very restoring of him to life did also conduce seeing that thereby he was as it were begotten again but the Immortality which Christ obtained by the intervening of the Resurrection was far more available After this manner indeed he became like unto God in his Nature whereupon our Resurrection also is called Regeneration and Christ affirmeth that they who shall be counted worthy of that Age and the resurrection from the dead are the Sons of God seeing they are the Children of the Resurrection Luke 20.36 And Paul affirmeth That we look for the adoption of the Sons of God even the redemption of our bodies Rom. 8.23 For the fellowship or participation of the divine Nature which Peter speaks of 2 Pet. 1 4. doth principally consist in Immortality But hither tends most of all the divine Empire and Power of Christ for which he is the Son of God in the perfectest manner If therefore you will only interpret the Greek Particle Jesus being risen or after that he had raised Jesus we should understand that the Promise made unto the Fathers was then really and perfectly fulfilled touching the Messiah or an extraordinary King that was to be given to the Israelites and moreover also that expression of the Psalm Thou art my Son to day have I begotten thee when Jesus was raised from the dead by God and set at his right hand in the heavenly places and so made Christ or a King and Lord by the Power and Grace of God For hence as we have already * Chap. 28. of this Sect. seen doth the Divine Author to the Hebrews chap. 5.5 take those words of the Psalm touching the glorification of Christ on the Priestly honour that was conferred upon him which doth indeed contain his Royal Power seeing that his Kingdom is Priestly and his Priesthood Royal. And hereupon they are elsewhere also in holy Scripture taken for the same thing that Jesus is the Son of God and that Jesus is Christ that is a King anointed by God over his people or a Lord even him by whom alone God would administer and govern his Church with all things belonging to her For upon this account the principal doctrine of the supream dignity of Christ and our faith and confession of him are promiscuously †Compare Mat. 16.16 Mark 8.29 Luke 9.20 Joh. 1.50 Act. 8.37.9 20 22. Rom. 10.9 1 Cor. 12.3 Phil. 2.11 1 Joh. 4.15.5 1. and 5. also 2.22.4 2.3 2 Joh. 4. compare those also Matth. 27.41.42.43 and Luk. 23.35 add 22.67 69 70. and see the same places placed in this that Jesus is Christ or Lord or that Jesus is the Son of God Whence it likewise comes to pass that as often as those two namely to be Christ and to be the Son of God are mentioned together of Jesus of Nazareth they are never joyned by the copulative particle and as things different although this particle hath often times the force of explication only but they are without it everywhere joyned by apposition to shew that different things are not connected but the same thing is diversly described See Matth. 16.16.26.63 John 6.69.11.27.20.31 And it is first of all to be noted that that famous Confession of Peter touching Christ and his supream dignity being likewise declared in the name of the other disciples is described by Matthew Chap. 16.16 in these words Thou art Christ the Son of the living God But by Mark Chap. 8.29 only in these words Thou art Christ By Luke Chap. 9 20. The Christ of God Which two latter Evangelists would have left out one and a principal part indeed of that confession if it had been one thing to be the Son of the living God and another thing to be Christ But if both be indeed the same thing they have in effect omitted nothing but only expressed the same thing more briefly But now to be Christ or to be anointed of God doth in no wise constitue the most high God nor argue him to be so but the contrary seeing that the most high God can be anointed by none nor be made a King by any one And least haply any should say that there still remaines another and that a more sublime cause for which Jesus may be called the Son of God that is refuted partly by the Scriptures silence thereof which could not have omitted so great a matter and partly from those testimonies of Scripture we have hitherto alleaged For not here to repeat other things if there had been any other weightier cause for for which Jesus might be called the Son of God it could in no wise have been omitted in the place before examined by us Rom. 1.4 For there as we have seen the Apostle intended to shew by what reason Christ may be called the Son of God but he doth not in that place take the name of the Son of God in any other signification than that which is most excellent whilst he describeth him by the appellation of the Son of God the proper name of Jesus Christ haâ—ing not as yet been expressed Wherefore we ought to think that he hath expressed the most excellent or if you will rather the true and genuine reason of that appellation But doth he express that to be the cause of that thing that Christ was begotten out of the Essence of God from eternity and so was the most high God by no means but this rather which contradicts that and suffeâ—s not that Christ should be the most high God when he saith that he was made the Son of God and indeed according to the Spirit of holiness that is according to the Spirit wherewith he was sanctified and that by the resurrection from the dead for that some understand by the Spirit of holiness the divine Essence it is done both without an example
this world are become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ And chap. 12.10 Now is come salvation and strength and the Kingdom of our God and the Power of his Christ Why not also of the holy Spirit For neither may any one say that in the name of our God the holy Spirit is included For as we have above * Chap. i. of this Section seen neither is the holy Spirit any where called God in the Scripture and he is here called our God whose â—hrist or Anointed Jesus is for it is said and the power of his Christ that is the Christ of our God But Jesus is not the Christ of the holy Spirit nor is so any where called but the Christ of God the Father as is very apparent from the second Psalm For neither was he anointed of the holy Spirit but with the holy Spirit of God namely the Father Acts 10.38 and also Isa 42.1 Mat. 12.17 Isa 61.1 Luke 4.18 Hitherto belong also those words chap. 14.4 These are redeemed from among men the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb why not also to the holy Spirit Llike things are read of them which have a part in the first resurrection chap. 20.6 But they shall be Priests of God and of Christ why not also of the holy Spirit So also chap. 21.22 For the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the Temple of it and ver 23. for the Glory of God did lighten it and the Lamb is the Light thereof and chap. 22 1. proceeding out of the Throne of God and of the Lamb and ver 3. But the Throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it In which places there is no cause why the holy Spirit should be omitted if he be a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son but equal unto both Now that we may come to other sacred Writers what is more clear than those salutations of the Apostle Paul which are extant in the beginning of all his Epâ—stles Grace and peace unto you from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ Neither is that clause much unlike which is extant Ephes 6.23 Peace be to the Brethren and Love with Faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ We saw also a Salutation like to these of Paul in the second Epistle of John ver 3. But why doth not Paul so much as once wish grace and peace to the Faithful from the holy Spirit Was his grace less necessary to the faithful though he were the most high God or was he less the Author of that peace or felicity which Paul wished to the Faithful or less worthy to whom he should expresly give the honour of invocation then God the Father of Christ Certainly even this alone ought to admonish every man that he should not think of any third person of the Deity Now that the same Paul doth elsewhere pray for the communion of the holy Spirit that as we have seen in the former chapter maketh nothing to the invocation of the holy Spirit We have likewise given an answer to those words of the Revelation where John prayeth for Grace and Peace to the Church from the seven spirits which are before the Throne of God Add hereunto those prayers of â—he Apostle Paul for the Thessalonians 1 Thes 3 11. Now God himself even our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ direct our way unto you and 2 Thes 2.15 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God even our Father who hath loved us c. Add also those chap. 1. ult According to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ There are also other places extant in the same Apostle where there is no mention made of the holy Spirit when God the Father and Christ are named Thus Colos 2.2 he rehearseth the Mystery of God even the Father and of Christ And 2 Thes 1.1 he writeth to the Church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ So 1 Tim. 1.1 he saith that he was an Apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour aâ—â— the Lord Jesus Christ who is our hope For neither may any one think that the same person is here described for besides the very form of the speech the custome of the Apostle every where distinguishing God from Christ and the collation of other places containing the same sense sheweth that God the Father is described by the name of God the Saviour See the beginning of the second Epistle to the Corinthians and also of those which are extant to the Galatians Ephesians Collossians as also the beginning of â—he latter Epistle to the same Timotheus and to Titus in which last place he describeth God in the same manner as he doth here whilst he calleth him Our Saviour For neither is that word proper to Christ alone It doth in the first place agree to God to save and by his means likewise to others and especially to Christ whom he hath raised and sent to be a Saviour and afterwards exalted by his right hand See Acts 5.31 and 13.23 1 John 4.14 compared with vers 9.10 Hence God is called a Saviour in the same Epistle to Timothy Chap. 2.3 Where he is manifestly enough distinguished from Christ in the two following verses And Chap. 4.10 Tit. 2.3 4. where he openly distinguiâ—â—eth God the Saviour also from Christ in the two following verses Which is done likewise in the last verse of Jude where it is said To the only wise God our Saviour by Jesus Christ our Lord be glory c. Wherefore that we may returne to our place taken out of the first epistle to Timothy two different persons namely the Father and the Son without any mention of the holy Spirit are joyned together The like is done in the same epistle elsewhere For to omit that place chap. 5.21 Which pertaineth to the second rank before appointed by us Paul speakes thus chap. 6.13 I give thee charge in the sight of God who quickneth all things and before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good confession c. And in the second Epistle to the same Timothy chap. 4.1 I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdome c. There are also the like words used by the same Apostle Eph. 5.5 Where he denyeth that any fornicator or unclean person or covetous person hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God And Tit. 2.13 where he mentioneth the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ For whereas certain adversaries because of the unity of the article set before the name of God and Christ contend that the same person is designed by that name they aâ—e therein exceedingly mistaken For the unity of the article doth not alwayes denote the unity of the subject but oftentimes the conjunction of diverse subjects as we have taught
be concluded concerning the Father For that he in a place like to these two which we have cited out of Luke 9. and Rev. 3. is omitted and the Angels only mentioned namely Luke Chap. 12.8 where Christ saith Also I say unto you whosoever shall confess me before men him shall the Son of man also confess before the Angels of God c. I answer that mention is here made of the Angels only because they alone among the heavenly persons shall be really present in judgment when Christ shall either confess or deny their names that are here spoken of But in the places before alleaged by us because menâ—ion is made of the Father likewise it appeaâ—eth that Christ and Paul intended to mention all the heavenly persons whose sight we ought to reverence and before whom it is most honourable to be praised most dishonourable to be reproved and rejected Arg. 3 the holy Spirit is often not joyned with God Christ and so not to pass by them who either are or shall hereafter be present by their power only Whence it followeth that the holy spirit could not have been omitted in such places if he had been a divine person but should have been named in stead of the Angels or if it had pleased the Scripture to name them also he should have been set before them Now let us shew that other things are wont to be joyned with God and Christ whilst the name of the holy spirit is omitted For this we have a notable place in the Revelation out of which we have before alleaged many testimonies namely Chap. 3.12 where Christ promiseth a reward to him that overcometh in these words I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the City of my God new Jerusalem which cometh down out of Heaven from my God and my new name Where you see that between God and Christ or rather the name of both the New Jerusalem and the name of it is interposed Why did he not likewise say that he would write upon him the name of the holy spirit Why the name of the New Jerusalem rather than of the holy spirit if he be the most high God We will shut up all our proofes with that famous place Heb. 12.22 23 24. where not only Angels are joyned with God and Christ but also pious men partly alive partly dead or their spirits and certain other sacred things to which Christ hath given an access unto Christians but the mention of the holy Spirit is altogether omitted For thus there speaketh that divine Writer But ye are come unto Mount Sion and unto the City of the living God the heavenly Jerusalem and to an innumerable company of Angels to the general assembly and Church of the first-born which are written in Heaven and to God the judge of all and to the spirits of just men made perfect and to Jesus the Mediator of the new Covenant and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of Abel Who would believe that in so large a catalogue of persons who for their soveâ—aign excellency may be called divine the holy Spiâ—it could have been omitted if he were such a divine person as the Father or Christ Neither may any one say that under the name of God the Judge of all the holy Spirit is comprehended For this would â—e some way tollerable could but one plain place of the Scripture be alleaged wherein the holy Spirit is called God Again who perceiveth not from the places which were both above and also a little before in great number alleaged that the name of God put subjectively doth denote the Father and that he is in that manner distinguished both from all other persons also from Christ himself Neither can it seem likely unto any one that the Father was heâ—e omitted whom we never find in like places to be passed by But he was no where mentioned unless there where mention is made of God the Judge of all Neither may any one say that the Father indeed is understood yet not he alone but also the holy Spirit For if more persons were understood the person of Christ no less than that of the holy Spirit ought to be included in that name according to the opinion of the Adversaries touching the persons of the Deity But the person of Christ the Mediator is openly distinguished from that God as being afterwards mentioned apart Besides it is at no hand to be granted that there are many persons of God and not also many Gods and Judges But here mention is made of God the Judge of all and not of Gods the Judges of all But some one will perhaps object That if the reason drawn from this place were of force it would not only follow that the holy Spirit is no person but also no sacred or divine thing such as we see â—eâ—e to be recited or at least the things here mentioned are mroe divine than the holy Spirit which we our selves will not aâ—mit We answer That this Objection would have some strength if all things at least the most divine had been reckoned up as we see the most divine and holy persons are all reckoned up and also if here were the same reason of all divine things as is of persons But the thing is otherwise of the good things that are promised us of God by Jeâ—us Christ namely of immortality and remission of sins there is no express mention made but only the place thereof is figuratively mentioned namely Mount Sion and the heavenly Jerusalem and the middle efficient cause thereof namely Christ the Mediator of the new Covenant and the sprinkling of Blood which speaketh better things than that of Abel and the prime efficient cause of both even God In like manner neither was the holy Spirit mentioned which is contained among the good things which are promised to us Namely because he would reckon up all the persons with whom we have some conjunction communion by right of the Christian religion so that we may be rightly said to have access unto them but the divine author intended to mention only those sacred and divine things which are in some sort without us and elegantly answer and are in some sort opposed to those things to which the people of Israel had heretofore access when the Law was given them out of Mount Sinai by Moses the Mediator But in this number is not the divine efficacy or virtue which floweth from God to us and is sent into our hearts so neither the remission of sins and immortality But were the holy Spirit a person we had come to him no less than to the Father and should have intimate communion and society with him neither could he by any means be omitted in so large and accurate an enumeration of those persons with whom we have conjunction But it is no marvel that â—e is here omitted seeing John as we saw before describing our communion with
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
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
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
whom you most respect and approve how few Argumentations will you find which are manifest from the holy Scriptures What is more usual than such Argumentations as these To whom the Properties of that One God agree he is that one God But to Christ or the holy Spirit these agree Again To whom actions proper to persons agree he is a person But they agree to the holy Spirit But where are those Propositions which they call major Propositions that I say nothing now of Assumptions written whence will they draw them but from reason But if Argumentation when we treat even of Mysteries may be firm from one Proposition which Reason only supplies why may it not be also from two if as well Reason approves both as one Besides if we argue either from the Opinions of the Adversaries themselves or from Opinions and Principles confessed by all who can reprehend it unless most unjustly especially if we shew that that Doctrine implies as they speak a contradiction and overthrows it self For all men who are of right understanding do confess that no doctrine can be true which implies a contradiction or the force of which is such that it is necessary that the same thing be and not be together to wit in the same respect part time For this principle being taken away all Science is taken away and although you should a thousand times demonstrate God to be three in persons yet it might be allowed for another alike truely to say that he is not three and so in all other things But we may without difficulty shew that the common Doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in one numerical Essence doth imply a contradiction What then remains but that it be acknowledged by all to be false But that the thing is so as we have said being holpen by Divine Aid we shall demonstrate in the following Book THE SECOND BOOK OF John Crellius Concerning One God the Father HAving shewed from the holy Scriptures the Most High God to be none other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Now we will confirm the same chiefly by other Arguments and indeed so that we may refel the Doctrine contrary to this Opinion partly from the very nature of it and the received opinions of the Adversaries partly from other principles The truth of which may be demonstrated in a certain manner But we shall divide this whole tract again into three Sections In the first we shall in general discourse of those three Persons of supream Divinity which are maintained and shall shew that that Doctrine doth oppose it self and also other Suppositions of the Adversaries In the second of the second Person of that Trinity which they hold to be the Son of God In the third we shall speak of the third Person which they make the holy Spirit Which being finished we shall so conclude this whole work as to shew the manifold Use of this Disputation The first Section Arg. 1 There would be three Gods In which is generally treated concerning the three Persons of the supream Deity which are commonly maintained CHAP. I. The first Argument By which is shewed That the common Doctrine of the Trinity overthrows it self because there would be at once one and three Gods THat we may therfore perform that which we have propounded in the first place first Thence it is manifest that the common Doctrine of three Persons in one God doth imply a contradiction and so overthroweth it self because both one God and three Gods to wit Most High are there asserted together One God indeed expresly but three if you consider the force of the Opinion For they say That there are three Persons really distinct from among themselves each of which is God For as much as they are wont to say and are compelled to say by the force of their Opinion The Father is God The Son is God The holy Spirit is God but they alwayes speak of the same Most high God But now where there are three persons really distinct from among themselves each of which is the most high God there are three most high Gods Reckon up now those Persons and you will have three most high Gods for the first will be the Father the second the Son the third the holy Spirit The matter needs no disputation with him who by reason of a preconceived Opinion concerning God when there it is treated of him hath not forgat to number three A larger Defence and Confirmation of the Argument BUt nevertheless they urge that those three are one God If they should so call those three one God as we call three or more Senators one Senate since it cannot be said of them separately thus far it might be pardoned to them But seeing they pronounce the name of the most high God of each person distinctly taken and are altogether compelled to pronounce it by the force of their Opinion they cannot say it For from this Opinion it doth altogether follow that either the Father is the Son and holy Spirit and reciprocally or the Father is one God in number another the Son another the holy Spirit the former of which takes away the real distinction of the persons the latter overthrows the Unity of God and manifestly makes three Gods in number For as to the former thus I will argue That one God is the Father as the holy Scriptures testifie it and the Adversaries confess it But the Son according to the Adversaries Opinion is that one God that same even in number who was now called the Father Therefore the Son is the Father But the same Argumentation may be also inverted the premises being converted and transposed and in like manner may be framed concerning the holy Spirit in relation to the Father and Son Nor can it otherwise be dissolved unless you say that the Son is one God in number the Father another likewise the holy Spirit another and so there are three Gods in number Therefore whithersoever the Adversaries turn themselves by that their Tenet they overthrow both their own Doctrine and the sence of the holy Scriptures Moreover do I not rightly argue thus The Father is a divine Person the Son is a divine Person the holy Spirit is a divine Person therefore there are three divine Persons not one The Adversaries will altogether so assert Why then do I not likewise rightly argue The Father is the most high God the Son is the most high God the holy Spirit is the most high God therefore there are three most high Gods not one If we would urge examples fetcht from things created Peter is a man Paul is a man John is a man therefore there are three men not one or Michael is an Angel Gabriel is an Angel Raphael is an Angel therefore there are three Angels not one if I say we would urge these examples the Adversaries would cry out that the thing is one way in creatures another way in God But now when we use the
produced a person presently the one is called a Father or as we have said a Mother the other a Son or Daughter Therefore that which in God is analogum to that Generation doth also deserve to be termed Generation But that is a production of another person or a communication of the substance with another person And the necessary consequence hereof is Paternity and Filiation Analogum to that which we see in humane generations For that generation is conversant among Persons But say some therefore the production of a person is called a generation because by it a person is produced not only like to the producer in essence but also in some other peculiar respect For that second person as such is the image of the first as that which is hath produced by understanding it self but that the Image is like to that the image of which it is They say there is another reason of the Procession of the holy Spirit for he is produced from the Father and Son by willing But it is not the property of the will to produce something like to that thing which it wills and desires Therefore that the holy Spirit however by his Procession he is become like to the Father and Son in Essence or rather the same yet in respect of his person by which he is distinguished from the Father and the Son he is like to neither But that Procession at last is rightly termed a Generation by which the person produced becomes altogether like the producer but that procession is rightly distinguished from a generation of which in that respect there is a different reason But these subtil devices avail them nothing For besides that we have refuted already * Sect. 3. Chap. 1. above that device of the production of persons which may be by understanding or willing There are yet two things which shew the vanity of this exception The former is that to the propriety of a generation from another it is not at all required that the thing generated be like the thing generating in all things but it is enough if it be like to it in essence or substance from which likeness follows also a likeness of natural properties and common to the whole genus or species although the property of generation by it self is not seen in this but in that and if it could be that the substance of the thing generated were like to the substance of the thing generating but the properties of both divers nevertheless the property of generation would be certain although perhaps it might not be so easiely acknowledged because we for the most part know things themselves by the proper tokens and consequents of things Wherefore if the holy Spirit by vertue of his procession became like in substance to the Father and Son yea the same for according to the Adversaries identity takes not away procession nor generation in divine persons the holy Spirit was generated of the Father and Son and so that his procession is generation In how many things if you except the Essence and properties immediately following it are sons wont to be unlike the Fathers yet nevertheless they are not therefore less properly said to be generated of them or to be their Sons But here the essence and natural properties are altogeâ—her the same What then is there wanting in the holy Spiâ—it to the propriety of generation That I may omit that the holy Spirit cannot be unlike the Father and Son no not indeed in that propriety or character which they call hypostatical if another opinion of the same Adversaries concerning those personal properties be true For they hold them to be the same really with the Essence common to the three persons and only distinguished from it by the understanding Whence it necessarily follows that he that hath that essence in himself as each of those three persons hath hath also all those properties in him and that those properties are no less common to the three persons than the Essence Although that opinion overthrows it self For they will be at once common and proper in respect of the same persons and will make those persons unlike and not unlike diverse and not diverse The latter Why that reason or exception of the Adversaries cannot have place is Because if we follow their opinion concerning the divine attributes nothing can proceed from the will but together it proceeds from the understanding and on the contrary For with them all the divine attributes and so the understanding and will if you consâ—der the thing it self are altogether the same thing For they are the very Essence of God to which indeed doth agree no not the least composition or true diversity And indeed many Schoolmen say that they may express their opinion That the understanding and will in God as also his other attributes are not only really but also formally the same thing that is that they are not only so joyned together as that they can never be severed from one another but also are not so much as indeed by proper forms or essences and definitions distinguished from each other Aristotle would say they are the same in reallity and reason For with Aristotle those things are the same in reason which have the same form and the same definition he saith they differ in reason who have diverse Now if in this manner the will and understanding are the same thing in God and so the understanding as the will it self and reciprocally whatsoever procedes or is generated from the understanding procedes also and is generated from the will and on the contrary Therefore the production by the understanding is no more generation than that which is said to proceed from the will nor doth that produce a person like to the producer more than this neither is the Son more a Son than the holy Spirit neither is the same Son less the holy Spirit than the third person of the Trinity For the Son hath no less proceeded from the will than the holy Spirit nor the holy Spirit less from the understanding than the Son These indeed are the fruits of the subtilties wherewith the Scholastick-Divinity swarmes And yet we see that those who acknowledge the holy Scriptures for the only Rule of Faith do follow and admire them But they will say the same Schoolmen have prevented these difficulties For the divine attributes by their doctrine although they be not actually distinguished by the nature of the thing or without the consideration of our mind in any manner neither really nor formally yet are they distinguished eminenter that is vertually and potentially And this difference is the foundation of the diversity between the processions of two persons of which we now treat and likewise between various effects flowing from God and lastly between the conceits and cogitations of our mind concerning the divine attributes For we do inadequately conceive the divine attributes by reason of the imperfection of our understanding and therefore consider
them as diverse which in reality are altogether the same thing And this the Schoolmen call distinction of reason which they very often use For when they have confounded together things diverse yet because the diversity of things offer it self of its own accord to the minds of them that contemplate them and they themselves are compelled to speak and dispute of them as diverse they fly to this irrational difference of reason as to a sacred Anchor But although we might dispatch this errour lying hid even in obscurity of words as in its lurking hole yet I am willing first to draw it out thence that the thing may be more clearly seen by them who were never conversant in the Schools To be distinguished eminenter and to be distinguished actu are by the Schoolmen opposed one to another for it is known that potentia and virtus are opposed to actus with the Philosophers and when the Schoolmen say that something is distinguished eminenter it is all one with them as if they said it is distinguished vertually and potentially Those things then are distinguished eminenter which however they are the same altogether actually yet may be distinguished because they have in some manner the force of more things on because diverse operations and effects may flow from them or because being compared with things diverse in some manner they answer to the forms of each or have divers respects to the same But what ever they imagine either there is an actual difference in the thing of which it is treated or there is no distinction For those things are actually distinct of one of which something is rightly affirmed which of the other at the same time is rightly denyed For if those things nevertheless be altogether the same thing actually contradictories will be together in the same thing or the same thing will be together both affirmed denyed of the same thing which is impossible But if you would be so obstinate against the most dear Truth as to say nothing hinders but that contradictories may agree to the same thing if so be that it may vertually or potentially be more things nothing will hinder but that all things which are any where extant are one thing actually but diverss vertually or potentially and if any will assert it he can be refuted by no reason For if contradictions do not evince those things of which they are spoken to be diverse actually nothing will be able to evince it For whatsoever differenceth one thing from another differenceth it by the force of a contradiction and every opposition every difference doth tacitly include it in it self and unless it did include it there would be nothing to hinder but that opposites should agree to the same thing Rightly hath the Philosopher said and said it indeed according to the common consent of all men if two things are said to be the same whatsoever is said of the one of them is said also of the other If thou any thing truly may be said of one thing which is to be denyed of the other those things cannot simply be the same actually but it is necessary that they be distinguished in the thing or in reason that is in form and proper essence That thing verily doth necessarily happen in the understanding and divine will if those things be true which we discoursed before according to the mind of tne antient Fathers and Schoolmen concerning the diversity between the Generation of the Son and Procession of the holy Spirit For the Generation is said to have been performed by the operation of the understanding the Procession of the holy Spirit not so this again by the operation of the will that not so it is said to agree to the understanding to produce something altogether like to the thing understood which is denyed of the will the Father alone is said to have produced the Son by the understanding the Father not alone but together with the Son is said to have produced the holy Spirit by the will But if these things be true and did exist actually before all consideration of our mind it is necessary that the divine Understanding and Will were also actually distinct without all operation of our mind Wherefore let them either cease to deny that there is indeed any actual difference between the divine attributes or let them take away the difference between the generation of the Son and of the holy Spirit and say that the Son is the holy Spirit the holy Spirit again the Son by which very thing they will overthrow the Doctrine of the Trinity For so besides the Father there will be only one person the difference between the Son and holy Spirit being taken away Before we put an end to this disputation since we are fallen into this discourse concerning the vertual distinction as they speak I am willing to add this fuâ—ther that the devise of the same Schoolmen is very vain when they say that the persons of the Trinity are distinguished from the Essence neither really nor formally but eminenter only and further by the intellect which may even there conceive a distinction where there is actually none For if as they hold the divine Essence be actually communicable to more persons and was communicable before all operation of our understanding but on the contrary a person is incommunicable to more persons also there must actually be a difference between the essence and person otherwise if altogether they are actually the same thing contradictories may together be actually in the same thing as is said before Neither indeed in that alone which we have now expressed a contradiction will be implyed but in all those things in which the person is distinguished from the Essence as for example That is a suppositum or person this is not that is really distinguished from the other persons this is not distinguished that hath properly begotten or was begotten or proceeded from the Father and the Son this not so But what need we more words altogether irrational as we have said is that distinction of reason which is there fained where indeed there is none Truly they who apply this distinction of reason to things are much like to them who when they see but one man they seem to themselves they see two These are deceived in their eyes those in their minds For the opinion of our mind cannot be true if it conceive the thing otherwise than it is For Truth is adequation as they speak or agreement of our understanding and further also of our words with the thing it self But if men do truly conceive that as distinct which is not in very deed distinct the conceits of the same thing contrary to one another will be true to wit of God and morral men For God and the blessed Angels and Men who see God as he is conceive in their mind no difference in God if the opinion of these men concerning the divine attributes be true because