Arguments drawn out of those places wherein though the name of the Father be not expressed yet it is indeed spoken of him CHAP. V. Argument the fifth drawn from the words of Paul 1 Cor. 12 4 5 6. There are diversities of Gifts but the same Spirit and diversities of Administrations but the same Lord and diversities of Operations but the same God IN these words of the Apostle which we have alledged it is apparent that these words the same God doth signifie that one God common to all Christians Now since the Apostle doth distinguish him both from the same Spirit and the same Lord whom we have before * Chap. 2. seen by two places of the same Apostle to be Christ it is clear that that God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and no other besides him for what other can be imagined who being distinguished from that one Spirit and one Lord of Christians namely Christ should be designed by the name of same God besides the Father of Christ But how was it possible that under this name of the same God he should be distinguished from the same Spirit and the same Lord if that one Spirit and that one Lord were no less that very same God than the Father Neither will any one doubt of this meaning of that place who will compare these things with what we have spoken concerning those two places of the same Apostle 1 Cor. 8.6 Ephes 4.5 6. The Defence of the Argument HEre we do not much fear lest any one of the Adversaries should so take these three namely The same Spirit the same Lord the same God as we said that some interpreted the like words Ephes 4. as namely to assert That all these are common to the Trinity and do not each of them denote divers persons or things but that the same Trinity is described in three divers manners For not to repeat what was said in that place to the Ephesians where we saw that that one Spirit is openly distinguished from that one Lord and that one God and that each of these names doth design particular persons or things whence it is easie to collect the same is done in this place likewise which is very like to that of the Ephesians partly in words partly in regard of the Argument and drift add hereunto that by this means the word Spirit would not signifie the holy Spirit distinguished from the Father and the Son but would be taken for a spiritual Substance as we saw some took it in that place of the Ephesians But besides that this is other waies foolish and foreign to the meaning of the Apostle as may from thence appear neither doth the foregoing nor following words endure that interpretation for that the Apostle doth speak of the holy Spirit by name which he * ver 7 8 9 11 13. afterwards sundry times designeth by the simple name of the Spirit all the circumstances do argue for he began †ver 1. to speak of spiritual Gifts or such as proceed from the holy Spirit and in the very beginning proposed a Rule whereby the Corinthians should discern the holy Spirit from the impure one and a divine Inspiration from a diabolical which might perhaps pass under the name of a divine one Which very Rule John also though in other words doth in his first Epistle †1 John 4.2 3. deliver for thus speaketh * ver 3. Paul None speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed and none can call Jesus Lord but by the holy Spirit When he had spoken thus he addeth But there are diversities of Gifts yet the same Spirit where every one seeth that respect is had to that Spirit whereof immediately before mention was made as if he should say to all who speak by the impulsion of Gods Spirit this is common that they call Christ Lord but other wayes very divers are the Gifts flowing from that Spirit into men who have been filled with him although that Spirit be the same and not divers Besides afterwards ver 8 c. he largely reckoneth up those various effects of the holy Spirit to the end he might explain that which he had before said namely That there are diversities of Gifts but the same Spirit These things being apparent to every one there is as we said no great fear lest any one should seek to get out at that chink although error is wont to seek all possible wayes to escape But there are not wanting some who say that the holy Spirit is described in those three manners and contend that he is one while called the same Spirit another while the same Lord another while the same God but this Interpretation is easily confuted by the collation of this place with that to the †Ephesians * Ephes 4.4 5 6. where the Apostle handling the same Argument doth as we have seen manifestly distinguish one Spirit both from one Lord and one God and from the unity of each draws particular Arguments to demonstrate that Christians ought very studiously to maintain spiritual union among themselves and not for diversity of spiritual Gifts or such like things to separate one from another which very thing is by the Apostle here also done as any one may easily perceive if he read over this Chapter Wherefore it is unsuitable that the Apostle should here confound them whom elsewhere treating of the same thing he had so openly distinguished and when using the same words he might bring three distinct arguments very fit for his purpose he would rather comprehend but one drawn from the unity or sameness of the holy Spirit only Besides neither doth the thing it self nor this place admit that the holy Spirit should be understood when Paul saith that there is the same Lord or the same God for he speaketh not only of some most high God or Lord of Christians by way of excellency so called but of him besides whom there is no other for the meaning of the Apostle is not that some most high God or some Lord of Christians by way of excellency so called is the same but simply that that most high God and Lord by way of excellency so called is the same But none is Ignorant that besides the holy Spirit the Father is the most high God to whom in innumerable places the name of God is attributed as proper unto him as the Adversaries themselves confess and is in this very place done ver 2 where the Spirit is called the Spirit of God Certainly that the Spirit it self is not there understood by the name of God appeareth to every one In like manner that there is also besides the holy Spirit a Lord by way of excellency so called innumerable places of the Scripture so teach wherein by the confession of the Adversaries themselves the name of Lord is used as proper to Christ yea in this very place in the same second verse it is affirmed that Jesus is the
the motion of the Spirit himself How would it not have been again and again repeated and inculcated that none might be ignorant thereof unless he were resolved to be bâ—ind in the midst of the light But what place will they alleage where it is purposly delivered and openly wriâ—ten that the holy Spirit is God Certainly so many thoâ—sand Adversaries so many learned men perpetually conversant in the reading of the Scripture have for so many ages wherein this opinion concerning the holy Spirit hath prevailed not been able to find out so much as one which will easily appear if we examine the principal places which they alleage endeavouring to shew that the name of God is attributed to the holy Spirit The Defence of the Argument VVE will here omit that place which some have used or rather abused God is a Spirit John 4.34 For as much as the greatest part of the Adversaries have observed and sâ—ewn that in this place the name of Spirit doth not denote the holy Ghost but a spirituall substance For indeed it is there spoken of the Father as the foregoing words do manifestly demonstrate neither hath the word Spirit the place of the subject whence likewise it wanteth an article which notwithstanding is prefixt to the word God â—ut of the predicate For the sense is God is a Spirit that is a spiritual Essence or Substance These things therefore because either all or the greatest part of the Adversaries do acknowledge them shall now be passed â—y But for the most part of them that dispute concerning this subject their main Achilles is that place which is extant Acts 5.3 4. where when Peter as it is read in the vulgar translation had said to Ananias Why did Satan tempt thy heart to lye to the holy Spirit he addeth a littâ—e after Thou hast not lied to men but to God Much likewise is by some attributed to those words of Paul 1 Cor. 6.19 20. Where when he had said Your members are the temple of the holy Spirit which is in you which you have from God he addeth Glorifie God in your body And to those in the same Epistle Chap. 12.4 5 6. There are diversities of Gifts but the same Spirit and diversities of administrations but the same Lord and diversities of opperations but the same God which worketh all things in all Especiaâ—ly because it is afterward said in the 11th vers All these things worketh one and the same Spirit distributing to every one as he will Likewise out of the Old Testament those words of David are wont to be alleaged 2 Sam. 23.2 3. The Spirit of the Lord spake by me and his word was in my tongue The God of Israel said to me the mighty one of Israel spake to me They further add those places wherein they think the holy Spirit is called the Lord. First they say That in Deut. 32.12 it is said The Lord alone led him namely the people of Israel in the Wilderness and there was no strange God with him Now the same thing is affirmed of the holy Spirit namely that he led Israel Isa 63.14 Where it is read The Spirit of the Lord did lead him Again they say That the Lord Exod. 4.12 Numb 12.6 and elsewhere declared that he would speak by the Prophets But Acts 1.16 the same is attributed to the holy Spirit as also in that place that was a little before quoted 2 Sam. 23.2 Thirdly they say That the Lord was oftentimes provoked by the Israelites But this is referred to the holy Spirit Isa 63.10 Heb. 3.89 Acts 7.51 Finally Those words of the Lord Isa 6.9 c. are attributed to the holy Spirit Act. 28.25 26. These as far as I have hitherto been able to observe are the chiefe testimonies whereby the adversaries endeavour to prove that the holy Spirit is called God or which is some way of a greater foâ—ce the Lord. But first it is in none of these places openly written or puâ—posely delivered that the holy Spirit is God in that it is every wheâ—e to be concluded by some consequence and those places out of whiâ—h it is concluded that the holy Spirit is called the Lord are for the most part written in such places as are very distinct one from the other â—nd tâ—erefore not one of a thousand amongst the â—udor sort unless he be admonished by some other will compare those places together especially so as to draw such a conclusion from thence as the adversaâ—ies would have Now though we do not at all reject lawful consequences yet have we sâ—ewn that in this case it is necessary there should be such places extant in the holy Scripture wherein it is openly written that the holy Spiâ—it is God For it cannot be were he the most high God but that it should most openly and fâ—equently be written and purposely declared Wherefore if such places cannot be alleadged it may of right be concluded that the consequences which are drawn to prove the matter are not legitimate And this you will easâ—ly perceive by examining those which we saw weâ—e alleaged by â—he adversaries For the Arguments which are fetcht out of those places are for the most part grounded on this reason that those things which in one place are attributed to God or the Lord are either elsewhere or in the same place attributed to the holy Spirit Which reason how frivolous it is may from thence be understood that by this meanes it might not only be concluded that the holy Spirit is God or the Lord but likewise that he is Father or the Son and likewise that the Son is the Father and contrarily the Father the Son For the adversaries themselves contend that the external works of the Trinity are undivided or comon to all the persons and alleadge many places where either in the same or in diverse words the same thing is attributed either to all those persons or to two of them And the reason is manifest enough why such a consequence is illegitimate because like things may proceed from diverse causes or be conversant about diverse objects or exist in diverse subjects yea the self same works may proceed from diverse causes either coordinate as they speak and united among themselves or subordinate whereof the one doth depend on the o her or is subservient thereunto If theâ—e doth seem to be any further strenght in those places that when we have examined each will easily be found to be indeed none Wherefore that we may examine each place as much as it is needful the first place quoted out of Acts 5 doâ—h not prove that which the adversaries would have First because as * See the Annot. of Erasmus Beza others also have observed it is oâ—herwise read in the Greek than in the vulgar translation For it is not there written That thou shouldest lye to the holy Ghost but that thou shouldest belye the holy Ghost Or as a very learned †John Piscator Interpreter
it That redemption is ascribed to the Son neither alone simply nor as the first author but as the cheif middle cause who in the name of the Father and by his command performed the whole work of our redemption and salvation and as yet performes it As to sanctification neither is that more often ascribed unto the holy Spirit than to the Father or Son especially openly neither is it attributed as to some person but as to a thing by which sanctification is performed Which first is manifest from thence that where as it is read expresly of the Father that he sanctifies as also of Christ it is no where said of the holy Spirit that I know that it sanctifies buâ— onely that in or by it men are sanctified or some such way which is not proper to a person is sanctification ascribed unto it Of the Father you have plain places Joh. 10.36.17.17 to which add 1 Thess 5.23 Where it easily appeares that there it is spoken of the Father since the holy Scripture understand him alone by the name of God subjectively put cheifly when he is distinguished from Christ Neither shall I easily beleeve that the Adversaries will take this place of the holy Spirit onely Also in the Old testament many places occur in which God affirmes that he it is who sanctifyes the people of Israel which either speak of the Father alone as we think or at least of the Father also not of the holy Spirit alone Of Christ you have testimonies Eph. 5.26 Heb. 2.11.13.12 For I pass by those places in which in some other manner sanctification is ascribed either to the Father or the Son But if the holy Spirit were a divine person equal to the Father in all things and to him in some cheif respect the action of sanctifying did agree how could it be that of him it should not be once said that he sanctifies but of the Father and Son it should be said plainly The action of sanctifying might be directly attributed indeed to the holy Spirit although it were not a person since we see that to many other * Mat. 23.17 19. Heb. 9.13 things and chiefly to qualities which they call active actions are directly attributed in holy Scripture and also the very act of sanctifying But it cannot be that the holy Spirit should be a person and that the act of sanctifying should agree to it in a peculiar manner above the Faâ—her and the Son and yet not be directly any where attributed to it We have by the way touched above also other reasons for we shewed in the Argument next foregoing that it would follow out of that supposition of the adversaries that the holy Spirit is the Father of Christ rather than God who is every where said to be his Father We have seen also * Chap. 3. of this Section above in the Epistle of Jude that Sanctification is ascribed to the Father Preservation of us to Christ the holy Spirit being not indeed so much as mentioned For so the Greek Text hath it Jude a servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James to them that are sanctified in God the Father and preserved in Christ Jesus the called Or as some later Interpreters in some manner studying the perspicuity of the sentence have rendred it called of God the Father or by the Father sanctified and saved by Jesus Christ Is it credible if the holy Spirit were a divine person to whom the action of sanctifying in some respect should rather agree than to the Father and Son that this action should be attributed as proper to the Father the mention of the holy Spirit being altogether omitted We have seen it also affirmed by Paul * 1 Cor. 8.6 That all things in any manner pertaining to our Salvation are from God the Father as the first cause all things in like manner by the Son as the middle cause no mention being made of the holy Spirit But if tâ—e holy Spirit were a divine person to whom so notable an action so greatly pertaining to our salvation should agree in some remarkable respect above those two persons not onely the mention of it could not be omitted but also it could not be rightly affirmed that all things are of the Father or that all things are by Christ For that person of the holy Spirit either as the first and supream cause should have something in so great a matter above the Father or as a midle cause above the Son when notwithstanding not some but all things are entirely attributed to the Father as the first cause and to the Son as the midle cause yet holding the next place from the first Lastly the common opinion concerning the Trinity doth not bear such a partition of actions and offices For if those persons have one and the same numerical understanding will power there is not any of these more in one than in the rest it is necessary that there be also one operation in number of all these as even the adversaries confess and that one person act not any thing more than another For such diversity or inequality of action could not arise any otherwise thence than that one person of this thing another of that a third of another thing should either think rather or would rather exercise it or lastly could better perfome it But such a difference cannot be held in that unity because seeing those persons think altogether with the same understanding not with another and another in like manner also they both will with the same will and work outwardly by the same power in number one thinks wills and workes as much as another not one more than another It is manifest therefore that sanctification and whatsoever pertaines to it doth in no wise more agree to the holy Spirit than to the Father and Son if he were one God with both And hence ariseth a third reason by which it is demonstrated that it cannot indeed be said no not by a Metonymie of the holy Spirit that he is given or received by men if he be held to be that one God together with the Father and Son For it will follow that the holy Spirit is no more given to us and received of us than the Father and the Son For those gifts and effects in respect of which the holy Spirit should be said to be given should no more come from the holy Spirit than from the Father and the Son nor in one respect from these and in another from that but in the same altogether But who hath ever heard who hath read that the Father was given to any or was prayed to be given to us when the gifts of the holy Spirit were prayed for Who asks at this day that the Son might be given to him being about to ask for those same gifts Who would brook him that should ask Christ that he would give the Father to him or would pray to the person of the holy Spirit
God the Father hath from himself his Essence and all other things which he hath is granted amongst all and had he not he likewise would be the son of another or a creature not the most high God But the Son for this very reason because he is the Son hath from the Father his Essence and also consequently whatsoever accompanieth the Essence and cannot he had without it which is the cause that we may note this by the way why Christ is in the Scripture far more frequently called the Son of God than God namely because the former appellation doth so express the Divinity of Christ as that it withal distinguisheth the same from that most high and independent Divinity which belongeth to the Father whereas the word God doth not do so It is therefore manifest that the Father is more excellent than the Son and consequently that the Son cannot be the most high God Certainly even the very Adversaries themselves as we have already * Sect. 1. Cap. 1.2 Cap. 1. of this Section Cap. 14. Sect. 2. hinted several times acknowledge a Prerogative of the Father above the Son and holy Spirit in that he is the Fountain of Divinity Whence very many of the antient Doctors of the Church take that of Christ John 14. My Father is greater than I to be meant of him according to his Divinity as we shall see in its place The Defence of the Argument BUt there will not be wanting some who will say that Christ indeed as he is the Son or in regard of his Person is from the Father but not as he is God or in regard of his divine Nature For that in respect hereof he no less than the Father is from himself and as they speak Self-God Whence it followeth that a Prerogative and Excellency doth agree to the Father above the Son as he is the Son not as God But this hinders not but that Christ may be the most high God But this answer is of no efficacy For that very thing which they confess is sufficient for us to prove that which they confess not For first we have shewn that none can in any sort be more excellent than the most high God But they confess and are forced to confess that the Father is more excellent than the Son as he is the Son or in regard of his Person Add hereunto that the most high God is in no sort whatsoever that is neither in regard of his nature nor of his person that we may now in this manner distinguish these together with the Adversaries from another For whatsoever is from another dependeth on an efficient cause But the most high God in no regard dependeth on an efficient cause Wherefore if Christ is in regard of his Person distinguished from the Father he cannot be the most high God Besides it is very ill done of them so to distinguish the Person of Christ from his divine Nature as to say that the one is from the Father the other not For a divine Person is nothing but the divine Nature subsisting as we will shew in the second Book and many of the Adversaries confess For whereas they with whom we have now to do say that a person as such is nothing but a manner of subsisting which others call a subsistence they are herein wonderfully mistaken And they may learn it even from thence in that the person of the Father doth generate that of the Son is generated But a manner of existence or subsistence doth neither generate nor is by it self generated but the very nature subsisting Furthermore as from other places so chiefly from John 10.36 c. it sufficiently appeareth that Christ may of right have the name of God given him as he is the Son of God For Christ there sheweth that by the example of them whom God himself heretofore called gods he whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world may much more be called the Son of God Where for the same reason he might conclude that he might much more be called a God although he concluded it not that he might by this means shew that he assumed not to himself supream Divinity but as we have elsewhere explained it doâ— distinguish himself from the most high God by this very thing in that he had called God his Father and so affirmed himself to be his Son Certainly those very persons also whom Christ alledged for an example were in that place of the Scripture which Christ did in part alledge for the same reason called both gods and sons of God This difference only those appellations carry with them that the former doth not by it self distinguish those persons from the most high God whereas the latter doth distinguish them the one doth not express the dependency of their Divinity on the supream God although it expresseth the Divinity which doth depend on the supream Godâ— the other doth also express that dependency From whence it is understood that if Christ as the Son of God is from the Father and so the Father is more excellent than he Christ also as God is from the Father and so the Father is more excellent than he Last of all if Christ received not his nature from the Father he was not properly generated For whosoever is properly generated by another receiveth his nature from another But they as also other Adversaries do altogether hold and urge that the Son was properly generated by the Father and that otherwise he would not be the only begotten Son of God Wherefore they argue against themselves whilst they deny that Christ received his divine Nature from the Father and affirm that he hath his Person only from him Though even in that they are not alwayes very constant to themselves as hath been observed by other Adversaries For as much as none doth or can here fly to the distinction of natures in Christ we threfore touch it not CHAP. III. The Arguments which are in the sequel to be alledged being distributed a third is proposed from the words of Christ in John Chap. 5.19 The Son can do nothing of himself c. NOw that we may leave names and come to other Arguments of our Opinion we must produce such Testimonies of the Scripture wherein something is either denied of Christ which could not be denied of him or is on the contrary attributed to him which could not be attributed to him if he were the most high God For it is to be observed that some things agree to the Predicate of our Question that is to the most high God which agree not to the Subject thereof namely to Christ and on the contrary some agree to the Subject which agree not to the Predicate that is some things agree to Christ which are disagreeable to the most high God Wherefore we will draw Arguments from the things of both sorts And because amongst other Writers Arg. 3 from Joh. 5.19 John affordeth us very many Testimonies
whereby he might rise like unto him who is to be born It would be therefore necessary that it should some otherway have been evident that there was another Nature in him which did both really exist before his Nativity and also actually lived during his death and consequently was the true cause either of his Nativity or of his Resurrection but this was the very thing which the Adversaries hold to have been declared by the raising him up and to have been apparent from it Finally although it had been apparent that Christ had raised up himself yet how had it thence appeared that he was the natural Son of God eternally begotten out of his Essence For not to repeat that which we formerly shewd namely that from the Opinion of the Adversaries it followeth that the Soul of Christ could by divine Power raise its own Body to omit likewise that some other Spirit which had before been united to his Body might by divine Power have performed this if the most high God can raise up himself what hinders but that it was either the Father himself or the holy Spirit whom they make the third Person of the Deity Be it therefore that it appeared from the raising of Christ that he himself was the Author thereof be it that it appeared that he was the most high God what argueth that he was eternally begotten out of the Essence of God what connexion is there of the one with the other Furthermore what man is there who haveing looked into the words of the Psalm doth not observe that this is the meaning of them Thou art my Son because I have this day begotten thee What man also is there who doth not withal observe that it is far more suitable to this sence that the word begotten should rather be taken to denote the act of generating than the declaration of a generation What man is there who if he here such words as these would understand them thus Thou art my Son because I have this day declared that I have begotten thee and not rather thus Thou art my Son because I have this day really begoten thee But what need many words for if the resurrection of Christ and the consequent exaltation or advancement to a Kingdom especially a Priestly one is a certain generation from God and one may therefore be justly called the Son of God although no other more sublime generation did precede why should any one understand that generation whereof mention is made in the words of the Psalm rather of the declaration of an antecedent generation than of the very act of generating Since that which is expressed by the word begotten was accomplished by the resurrection and exaltation of Christ But we have already shewn that the Resurrection of Christ was a certain Generation from God and we will a little after more largely shew the same Concerning the advancement to a Kingdom none can make a question who considers that Kings Princes and Judges are by God himself called both gods and also the sons of God or of the Most High Psal 82.6 which place Christ citeth John 10.34 to shew that he did not blaspheme in â—aying that he was the Son of God But in that place regard is had to nothing but the authority and dominion to which they were advanced by God For to all them in general the name of gods and sons of God is attributed as they are distingushed from men of an inferiour rank And see I pray you how excellently these things agree both to the other words of the second Psalm and also to the scope of the Apostle fetching a Testimony from thence For it is apparent from both that in these words Thou art my Son I have this day begotten thee it is spoken of making Christ a King For after God had said I have set my King on Zion my holy Mount David subjoyneth I will declare the Decree what Decree but such a one as was made concerning that thing whereof he had begun to speak namely that God had set him King on Zion his holy Mountain But what are the words of the Decree The Lord saith he said unto me Thou art my Son I this day begat thee Why then do we seek starting holes why go we about the bush why do not we directly and simply understand these things concerning the Generation of Christ which consisteth in advancing him to a Kingdom by that Resurrection rather then concerning the declaration of a Generation out of the Essence of God from al eternity whereof there is here neither hint nor footstep By this means we may elegantly apply these words likewise to David a Type of Christ although in a far lower sence to whom that they are to be applyed both the very words of the Psalm make a shew and others also before us have observed For when God had sometimes rescued David out of sundry calamities and also out of the very jaws of death and made him Kiâ—â— over his People he did in a manner beget him and make him his Son and that such a Son as would in respect of other earthly Kings become the first-born in power and dignity Whence God speaketh thus of him Psal 89.28 I will make him my First-born higher than the Kings of the Earth But what agreed to David in that sence doth in a far nobler way agree to Christ who being raised from the dead was set at the right hand of God in heavenly places far above all Principallities and Powers and Force and Dominion and every name that is named not only in this world but also in the world to come and all things were put in subjection under his feet and he was made Head over all things to the Church which is his Body the fulness of him that filleth all in all May he not justly be said to have been begotten by God to have become his Son for he was not only begotten anew to an immortal life by the resurrection but also did by the bounty of God become very like to him in Power and Empire for which God himself is called God But by reason of similitude with God both Angels and Men are called Sons of God which the greater it is the more justly doth this name agree unto them but no compleater similitude can be imagined than that which we even now shewed to agree to Christ whereby he doth so far surpass both all Angels and Men that they in respect of Christ are rather to be called Servants than Sons From hence it is already apparent what is also to be thought of that other place Rom. 1.4 Although the place doth sufficiently guard it self without forreign help against the vulgar interpretation For nei-doth the scope of the Apostle nor the words nor the thing it self suffer us to understand that Christ by the resurrection from the dead was declared the Son of God begotten out of his Essence For the scope of the Apostle is to explain not how
among the Adversaries doth read it That thou shouldest deceive the holy Spirit Which translation ‖ Beza others likewise have toucht but a prejudicare opinion hindred them from thorowly approving it And this translation is confirmed by that which is afterward read vers 9. where Peter explaineth the same fault of Ananias and Saphira in these words Why have ye agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord For it is the same to tempt the holy Spirit and to belie him Now they tempted the holy Spirit because they acted as if they would try whether the holy Spirit dwelling in the Apostles or the Apostles themselves by virtue of the holy Spirit dwelling in them would observe the deceit or not Wherefore the forecited Interpreter whom we praised before who had so rendred the words vers 5. That thou shouldest deceive the holy Spirit doth afterwards explain them in this manner That thou shouldest endeavour to deceive the holy Spirit that is us the Apostles in whom the Spirit worketh and to whom he revealeth the things that are needful to the edification of the Church and this is a Metonymie of the Adjunct I do not now mention that explication of those words whâ—ch Erasmus delivered and other learned men likewise have followed that the words may be rendred to counterfeit the holy Spirit By these things it easily appeareth that it cannot from this place be concluded that the holy Spirit is God since Peter doth in one manner speak of the holy Ghost of God in another There he saith to belye or deceive and mock the holy Spirit Here to lye to God The first doth simply note the object about which the fraud and mocking is conversant The second signifieth the utmost scope unto which that iniury and contumely doth redound For therefore Peter after he had said that Ananias would deceive the holy Spirit and mock him with his lye did add that he had not lyed unto men but to God that he might the more perceive the greatness of his sin as if he should have said Thou oughtest not to think that this injury pertaineth to us alone and is terminated in us for it tendeth to the dishonour of God himself But there had been no need to add any such thing if he had said that Ananias had lied to the holy Spirit and he had known from the doctrine of the Aposâ—les that the holy Spirit was God himself Like unto this passage is that 1 Thess 4.8 where the Apostle had said what precepts he had given to them by the Lord Jesus and upon what terms God had called them he addeth therefore he that despiseth dispiseth not man but God who hath also given his holy Spirit to us that is who hath imparted his holy Spirit unto us by whom it is apparent that we are governed by whose impulsion we do speak Whence it appeareth that this injury and contempt of us and the precepts delivered by us redound to God himself Again though it should be said that Ananias had lyed to the holy Spirit and had lyed to God withal yet it would not from thence follow that the holy Spirit is God For in one and the same aâ—t a man may lye to two and to one through another or to one immediately as here to the holy Spirit dwelling in the Apostles to another mediateâ—y as to God So he that persecuteth the faithful persecuteth Christ himself he tâ—at heareth and receiveth the Apostles or on the contrary despiseth them heareth and receiveth or despiseth Christ he that despiseth Christ despiseth also God that sent him Matth. 10.40 Luk. 10.16 Now will any one thence conclude either that the faithful or the Apostles are Christ or that Christ is he that sent him namely the Father But â—f we may reason in this manner Ananias lyed to God Ananias at the same time and in the same act lyed to the holy Ghost Therefore the holy Ghost is God it will also be â—awful to reason thus * Act 4.5 Chap. 22.7 8 Chap. 20.14 15. Paul persecuted Christ Paul at the same time and in the same act persecuted the faithful Therefore the faithful are Christ Or he that heareth tâ—e Apostles heareth Christ and also him that sent him therefore he that sent Christ is Christ What then will the adversaries answer to these arguments without doubt that there is more in the conclusion than in the premises Wherefore let them imagine that the same answer is given to them For thus it ought to be concluded therefore some one who lied to the holy Spirit lyed to God As also in those instances which we alleaged therefore some one wâ—o persecuted the faithful did persecute Christ some one who heareth him that sent Christ heareth Christ himself We have spoken the more largely of this place because greater stress is laid on it and yet not all which might be said thereupon We will run over the other more breifly As for the second place therefore which is extant 1 Cor. 6.19 20. the holy Spirit is not understood by the name of God but is openly distinguished from him For is not the holy Spirit here manifestly distinguished from God whilest it is said that they have him from God He speaketh also of the same God in the following words Therefore gloryfie God in your body c. Now that the Apostle doth not speak of the holy Ghost even that is an argument namely that he speaketh of him to whom we as servants have been bought with a price but who did ever read that we were bought to the holy Spirit that we were by Christ bought and invasseld to the Father both the thing it self speaketh and it will easily appear from these words of the Revelation which are extant Chap. 5.9.10 chap 14.4 But if they say that it is from thence proved that the holy Spirit is God because we are his temple for none but God hath a temple first it will not follow that the holy Spirit is here called God and that openly which is the thing now in debate For the same Adversaries are wont to alleage many places from whence they endeavour to evince that either the holy Spirit or Christ is the most high God where notwithstanding both they themselves confess and all see that the name of God is not attributed to Christ or the holy Spirit Again a temple may be belonging not only to the most high God â—ut also to him who is subordinate to God in divine Empire and worship not only in the opinion of men but in very deed Last of all it may be only so far forth granted that a temple belongeth to none but God himself as that a temple is not indeed dedicated to the honour of any oâ—her person nor possest by any other person by a more divine right and principally inhabited then by God Otherwise it is inhabited in a sort by Angels as the ministers of God and the virtue and efficacy of God doth in a
in a manner minister for which reason also he immediately subjoyneth them to God But for as much as Christ also hath these spirits of God and maketh use of them therefore having made mention of them he also commemmorateth Christ and prayeth for grace and peace to the Churches from him wherefore this wish and the imploring of the divine help comprehended therein is properly referred to God and Christ improperly to the spirits themselves Which is the cause why other divine men omit the mention of them in their salutations and wishes they who hold them to be Angels will say that this invocation is referred to them only in a secondary manner as unto Ministers not as unto Lords and the true bestowers of grace and peace and that therefore the mention of them is elsewhere omitted and they are therefore set before Christ partly because they belong unto God to whom they are next subjoyned for which cause also afterwards chap. 3. the name of the New Jerusalem is interposed betwixt that of God and Christ partly because John intendeth to speak more largely of Christ For he therefore reserveth the mention of them to the end that without disturbing the course of his speech he might more freely make an excursion into his prayers For if he would have reserved the mention of those spirits to the end he should have either used a longer Parenthesis or begun a new speech It is apparent therefore that there is nothing in those places to establish the invocation of the holy Spirit And here it is worth the rehearsing as learned men have noted that Hilary in his twelve Books concerning the Trinity never called the holy Spirit God never said that he is to be adored but only to be obtained which is likewise to be observed in other Writers both of that and former times Yea the true opinion concerning the holy Spirit was of so great power that even after those things wherein the holy Spirit began to be accounted for the most hlgh God almost all the prayers of the Churches were directed to God the Father and to Christ not to the holy Spirit And there are yet extant several Books of the Papists put forth in the former age and containing an account of Religion and Ceremonies in use among them where it is expresly declared that we must observe how every prayer is directed to God the Father or to Christ the Son and not to the holy Spirit because a gift is not asked from the gift it self but from the bestower of the gift Indeed we are not ignorant that there is an usual Hymn among them wherein they pray the holy Spirit to come and fill the heart of his People howbeit the cause which is alleaged that a gift is not asked from the gift it self but from the bestower of the gift is universal and it is clear that regard was had thereunto in most prayers of the Church and should have been had in all without exception Now that custom of praying is an open token of the true Opinion which did at first prevail in the Church For if the holy Spirit be the most high God absolutely equal to the Father and to the Son whom they likewise hold to be the most high God why was he not judged worthy of equal honour why were either all or at least the greatest part of prayers not equally directed to him as to the Father or the Son This indeed was the hinderance that in those first times it was out of controversie as both the holy Scripture doth plainly enough testifie and at this day many though therein inconstant to themselves confess that the holy Spirit is a gift For which cause Hilary before cited illustrating and confirming his opinion concerning the Trinity with that saying of Christ Mat. 28.19 Baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit doth in his second Book concerning the Trinity at the close thereof thus explain the words In the confession of the Author and of the only Begotten and of the gift which he doth there largely pursue Wherefore since they had this opinion concerning the holy Spirit they directed their prayers not to him but to the Father and the Son the bestower of that gift knowing that a gift is not asked from the gift it self but from the giver of the gift Which custom even the contrary errour hath for so many ages not been able quite to abolish CHAP. III. Arg. 3 The holy Spirit is often not joyned with God Christ The third Argument That the mention of the holy Spirit is in many places omitted and would not so have been were he the most high God THe third Argument may thence be drawn that in very many places of the Scripture where mention is made of the Father and of the Son and sometimes of Angels or other things and persons there is no mention made of the holy Spirit when nevertheless mention ought to have been made of him no less than of the Father and the Son and rather then of the Angels or of other things and persons if he were the most high God coequal as they speak to the Father and the Son Which that it may be plain we will first alleage those places wherein there is mention made of the Father and of Christ only and then those where mention is made of others whether Persons and chiefly Angels or things which ought to have been mentioned much less than the holy Spirit if he had been the most high God But for as much as the places of the former sort are almost innumerable we will here recite those only which are somewhat more illustrious and such chiefly as affirm the same thing of God and Christ within the compass of the same sentence the rest we reserve for the diligence of the Reader We will begin from John in the History of whose Gospel we will give the first place to those words of Christ which are extant chap. 17.3 This is Life eternal that they know thee Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent We do not now urge that the Father only is said to be the true God for that we have done in the * Sect. 1. chap. 1. beginning of this work but that mention is made of the Father only and of the Son and in the knowledge of these two only eternal life or the way to attain it is placed when notwithstanding were the holy Spirit no less the true God than the Father it would be necessary that eternal Life should lye no less in the knowledge of him than in the knowledge of the Father and consequently mention should have been made no less of the one than of the other much less that a divine Embassadour should rather be mentioned Neither can the Adversaries say that the knowledge of the holy Spirit is contained in the knowledge of the Father and of Christ For though this be otherwise
2 Sam. 23.3 Isa 63.10 Likewise of many passages that are here and there extant in the scripture add these few Isa 11.2 and 42.1 59.21 and 61.1 Joel 1.28 Matth. 3.16 and 12.28 Rom. 15.19 1 Cor. 2.11 12.14 and 3.16 and 6.11 We have above likewise seen other places out of the same Epistle where the holy spirit is in another manner distinguished from God chap. 6.19 and chap. 12.4 5 6. and 2 Cor. 13. last which places are wont to be alledged by the Adversaries to shew that the holy spirit is a divine person But in a manifest thing no more proofs are needfull Now we have reckoned up those places of the scripture cheifly wherein the adversaries do either confess that it is spoken concerning the very person of the holy spirit or also urge it least any one should contend that it is spoken only concerning the gift proceeding from the same person and that it only but not the holy spirit properly so called is termed the spirit of God concerning which distinction we will treat in the following Argument The Defence of the Argument BUt they say that when the holy spirit it is distinguished from God or the Lord that by the name God or the Lord the Father is understood or also the son who likewise is the Lord. For therefore he is called the spirit of both because he proceedeth from both A like exception we have seen conceâ—ning Christ who is also most frequently distinguished from God Now the same things that we have there spoken to that exception Sect. 2. Chap. 1. or like unto them may here likewise be alleaged Wherefore since they may thence be fetcht there is no need to repeat them here CHAP. VI. Arg. 6 The holy Spirit is the Power of God The sixth Argument The holy Spirit is the Power of God THe second Argument of this rank but the sixth of this Section shall be this that the holy Spirit is the power or efficacy of God namely that we may explain it by tâ—e by which proceedeth from God and issuing unto men doth sanctifie and consecrate them and produce various and admirable effects in them which power they are wont to call divine inspiration but the power and efficacy of God can at no rate be the most high God or a person of supream Deity as shall better be understood in the Defence of this Argument But even our Adversaries who are a little more versed in the holy Scripture are aware that the holy Spirit is the power or efficacy of God For among others that place is very plain Luke 24.49 where Christ saith And I send the promise of my Father upon you but abide ye in the City of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high Where by all Interpreters that I know it is observed that under the name of that power with which the Apostles were to be endued the holy Spirit is understood and this was that Promise of the Father from Christ to be sent upon them See among other places Acts 1.4 5 8. and 2.4 33. Therefore this place also was brought to illustrate those other places in which the holy Spirit is signifyed by the appellation of the divine Power It likes me to set down here the words of two most learned Interpreters of the holy Scripture one a Papist the other a Protestant in their Annotations on Luke 1.35 where the Angel saith to the Virgin Mary The holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the Power of the most high shall overshadow thee For the former * John Maldonat Interpreter after he had said that Gregory Chrysostome Victor Damascen Beda Theophilact interpret the Power of the Most high to be Christ or the Son of God adds Others think that he whom before he called the holy Spirit now is called the Power of the most high God as Euthymius whom I rather follow though of less account and the only Author yet saying things more like truth than many and those of greater esteem For it is a repeating of the same sentence such as the Hebrews chiefly in songs do frequently use one sentence concluding one verse which in the fore part of the verse is expressed in some words in the latter is repeated in other words as Psal 2.4 He that dwelleth in the heavens shall deride them and the Lord shall mock them For in the same manner we see the Angel a little before to have said Hail thou that art full of favour the Lord is with thee varying the words the sence being the same And the holy Spirit is wont to be termed as the Finger so also the Power of God by the same similitude as beneath chap. 24.49 But stay ye in the City until ye be endued with Power from on high Therefore Power and Spirit are wont most often to be coupled in the holy Scriptures as below chap. 4.14 and in Acts 10.38 Rom. 1.4 and 15.13 1 Cor. 2.4 Ephes 3.16 1 Thes 1.5 But the * John Piscator latter so writes And the Power of the most high that is the same holy Spirit who is the Power proceeding from the Most High that is God the Father A description For the same sentence is repeated in other words by way of explication So below ver 24.49 the holy Spirit is named the Power from on high To them also other most learned †See John Calvin men assent For that many of the Antients have understood the Son of God by the Power of the most high that I repeat not the reason brought by a most learned Interpreter of the Papists it is also refuted by other Arguments First because Mat. 1.20 where the Angel expresseth the same thing to Joseph he mentions only the holy Spirit nor would he have left out the Son of God if Gabriel had by name conjoyned him with the holy spirit in this place and had made him Author of his own conception seeing there was no greater cause of mentioning him here than there Moreover because by this means Christ should be made the son of himself seeing in the former * Chap. 31 Section we have shewed that Christ was called the son of God by reason of so wonderful a conception and generation Perhaps some other will say that the Power of the Most High in this place signifies neither the son nor the holy spirit but the efficacy flowing from the holy spirit For here two efficient Causes of the conception of Christ are mentioned one the Person of the holy Spirit the other his Power But first that reason which we now brought concerning the son is against it because by this reason the holy spirit should be made the Father of Christ of which by it self we shall afterward in the following chapter treat Furthermore if any person here had been to be named besides the Fatâ—er of Christ such especially who being to come upon the Viâ—gin was to cause the conception of Christ the son had
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
be breathed then to this divine inspiration of which we treat since that comes not forth without God this proceeds from God and is inspired into men It is manifest therefore that that divine inspiration is properly termed the holy spirit not metonimycally only As to the latter I scarse believe the adversaries will deny that that very inspiration is properly given For how is that which is breathed and put into the hearts of men to their greatest profit not properly given them Therefore there is no Metalepsis here to be sought by which it may come to pass that that which properly agrees only to the effect may improperly be attributed to the efficient cause since here the very efficient cause of those effects which are understood that is the very divine inspiration is by it self given to men And let these things suffice concerning the general reason and common to all the places which we treat of As for the special Reasons more proper to certain places those words of Christ which we have before cited out of John 14.16 17. deserve to be first mentioned I will ask the Father and he shall give you another Advocate that he may abide with you for ever even the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive because it seeth him not nor knoweth him But ye know him for he dwelleth with you to wit as inhabiting in Christ he did as it were converse among the Disciples and shall be in you that is and further shall be not only with you or among you as now but also in your selves being given of the Father unto you What could be said more clearly to shew that the holy Spirit properly so called is given of God that it is a gift which may be obtained of the Father by faithful prayers For what Is not the comforter that holy Spirit properly so called or is it not but by a Metalepsis said to be given to the Disciples by the Father The former the Adversaries cannot say unless they will deny that the third person of the Deity is the holy Spirit properly so called which yet they chiefly will have For that the same is understood by the Comforter they altogether contend and urge both the name it self of Paraclet or Comforter as also the word another added to it and the actions proper to persons attributed to him in this speech of Christ of which below we will somewhat treat This may of right be said that if it be not there spoken of the holy Spirit properly so called it is no where spoken of him It remains therefore that they say that it is indeed here spoken of the third person of the Deity and that this person 〈◊〉 meant by the Paraclâ—r but that he is not said to be given to the Apostles by the Father but by a Metalepsis namely because its effects or various gifts are to be given to them But neither hath that shift here any place For by comparing of that place with the words in verse 26. of the same chapter and also with the words verse 26. of the following chapter it will easily appear to any one that Christ so far asserts that the Father being asked of him was about to give the holy Spirit to the Disciples as he â—â—ould send him in the name of Christ or Christ himself should send him unto the Disciples from the Father For so he saith in that former place But the Comforter the holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name he shall teach you all things c. But in the latter But when the Comforter is come whom I will send to you from the Father the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth from the Father he shall testifie of me And truly what other thing could either the Father of the Son do pertaining to that giving than that he should send the holy Spirit to the Disciples with that intent that he might remain in them for ever and produce those divine effects which afterwards appeared in them But that sending and the coming of the holy Spirit which follows it doth not agree first to the effects of the holy Spirit and only consequently to him which should be if it were attributed to him only by a Metalepsis but on the contrary Whence the Adversaries are wont to prove the person of the holy Spirit by that mission which they could not do if they did judge it primarily and of it self to agree to the gifts of the holy Spirit For as much as such a mission if it be in no sort proper to a person cannot also prove it But if then that mission primarily and of it self agree to the holy Spirit not to his effects there will be the same reason of the giving also which we have seen to consist in that sending But hence ariseth also another reason of the same thing For that the holy Spirit should teach the Disciples all things and recal all Christs sayings into their remembrance is put chap 14.26 as the consequent of the sending of the holy Spirit and moreover also of the giving it But if so far only the holy Spirit should be given as its gifts are bestowed that thing should be contained in the giving it self of the holy Spirit but not be a consequent of it For that imparting of the knowledge of divine things even first of all pertains to the producing of gifts coming from the holy Spirit upon the Apostles This place might have enough warned the Adversaries that they should not date to deny the holy Spirit properly so called to be given to us together with his effects But there want not also other places which do the same For by other Adversaries who therefore use not such an answer hath that place of Paul Rom. 5.5 been taken notice of where he saith The Love of God that is the sence of the divine Love is shed abroad in our hearts by the holy Spirit which is given to us Where indeed it is said concerning that Spirit which diffuseth the sence of divine Love in our hearts and so is the Author of the spiritual gift that he is given to us To which place may be added that of the same Epistle chap. 18 1â— where the Apostle saith Ye have received the Spirit of adoption whereby that is by whose force and impulse we cry Abba Father for the Spirit it self beareth witness to our spirit that we are the Children of God Of which also in the Epistle to the Galathians chap. 4.6 he saith God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts crying Abba Father So also 2 Tim. 1.7 it is said For God hath not given to us the spirit of fear but of Power of Love and of a sound mind For what else is it than that God hath not given to us such a Spirit as should effect fear and cowardise in us but such as begets in us strength and fortitude charity and prudence or sobriety But I remember not that I have hitherto
heard or read of any who could dare to deny that the divine Spirit the efficient cause of these gifts is the holy Spirit properly so called Neither indeed in these places hath the Metalepsis devised by others any place For the effects also of the holy Spirit are rehearsed in the same places as some things diverse from the holy Spirit given and so as effects of the thing given But if by that Metalepsis the holy Spirit were said to be given to wit in respect of the effects those effects should be contained in the thing given nor should be mentioned or distinct from it And let these things be said out of the sacred Writings against the Metonimy and Metalepsis devised in these manners of speaking As to the Hypothesis of the Adversaries although we have used them in some part already yet it is further to be added that by such an Answer to our Argument their own reason is vehemently overthrown which they are wont to bring further to prove the immensity of the holy Spirit and consequently its supream Deity to wit that the holy Spirit dwelt in all Believers dispersed through the whole world For two wayes they weaken this Argument First because if the very holy Spirit properly so called be not given to Believers but only its effects it cannot be proved that the holy Spirit himself or his Essence is in very deed in every Believer which is necessary to the concluding of their reason Again Because neither such immensity as they understand can be thence proved unless withal they make also the effect of the holy Spirit or at least all its effects dispersed in the hearts of Believers though the whole world joyned together to be immense and the supream God Therefore the Adversaries cannot deny that the holy Spirit it self to wit properly so called is given by God to believers but that together they take away both the testimonies of the holy Scripture and their own assertions But now let us somewhat loosen those bonds by which we have shewn them to be held and let us grant to them seeing they will have it so that not the holy Spirit properly so called is given to Believers but its effect only yet they shall not escape For nevertheless we will hence shew that the holy Spirit is not the most high God For first if the holy Spirit were the most high God it could not be said no not by a Metonymy or Metalepsis of him that he is given or bestowed by another upon men or that men receive him For who would not reject such a manner of speaking as absurd and unworthy of the most high God More soberly do the holy Scripture speak of the most high God than to feign in his names such trops But if yet any man contend that such speaking is not unbeseeming God or absurd let him shew an example of the like manner of speaking in the name either of the most high God or the Father or any other which is equivalent Besides if it were so it should not be understood that that certain gift or if you had rather kind of gifts is given which yet all understand to be given when the holy Spirit is said to be given For the gifts and effects of the most high God are of most large extent for what good soever there is it comes from him Therefore if thou shouldst hear that the most high God is given namely because his gifts are given either thou wouldst understand that all gifts are given together or if thou wouldst understand only a certain kind of gifts to be given thou wouldst believe that to be given which is of all the most excellent either alone or conjoyned with others The same thing therefore should be thought of the holy Spirit if he were the most high God and not said to be given but in respect of gifts and effects only But neither all gifts are understood to be given when we hear the holy Spirit is given nor that which is of all the greatest to wit immortal life or perfect justification but presently our mind is carried to a divine breathing or inspiration or the effects of it in men to wit because the divine Spirit properly so called is a divine inspiration or a force flowing from God into men breathed from heaven into their hearts This I say is the true caâ—se why our mind hearing the holy Spirit to be given is carried to that certain kind of gift or gifts But the adversaries will except that there is in this case another reason of the name of God or the Father or also of the Son another of the name of the holy Spirit although he be the Supream God For they so dispute as we have before shewed although all the works to without are common to the whoâ—e Trinity yet in a certain peculiar respect creation is attributed to the Father remdeption to the Son sanctification to the holy Spirit Now then they will say that that kind of gift or gifts which we understand as soon as we hear the holy Spirit is given doth pertain to sanctification Therefore it is not designed by the name of God common to three persons not by the name of the Father nor Son but the holy Spirit Thou seest by what circuits the mind is led by the adversaries thither whither it is forthwith straight carried But is it credible that those whether Jews oâ— Gentiles who first heard of the holy Spirit to be given to men either from Christ or other divine men did either already know those things or being ignorant of them did not understand what was signified by the name of the holy Spirit and what was promised both to them and to others Were those auditors of Iohn Baptist or Peter whom we mentioned before so knowing of those things that they could think at first when they heard of the holy Spirit to be poured out upon them that some effect should be given them not peculiar to the first and second person of the Deity but the third to whom it is proper to sanctify therefore that effect did pertain to sanctification and withal was a divine inspiration Was it not more ready for them to think that which the word it self declared that a divine inspiration or its effects were promised to them But besides whence is it manifest to the adversaries that the thâ—ee persons of the Deity have among themselves thus parted those three gifts Were they perhaps present at their councel that they so boldly affirme these things They will say from the holy Scriptures it is manifest to them concerning that thing as which doth chefliy ascribe creation to the Father redemption to the Son sanctification to the holy Spirit Of creation and redemption there is not now place of disputing Yet it may be said â—y the way that creation or that first production of all things is ascribed to the Father not cheifly only but also solely since he was the sole author of
out the character and mark stamped on us by God But the Apostle had not expressed that if he had only said that we are sealed by the holy Spirit unless perhaps any one should take such words in such a sence in which we would have them said to wit that it may be understood that we have been sealed with the divine Spirit or that the holy Spirit is as it were a sign mark and character impressed on us by which God hath marked us as his proper goods and hath made us sacred and inviolable and safe from all danger of perishing if we do our duty The same thing the Apostle hath shewed 2 Cor. 1.22 especially if one compare the place with those two which we have cited out of the Epistle to the Ephesians and chiefly with the former For in both places the same thing is explained nor do the words much differ For there indeed after the Apostle had said ver 21. Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ Greek into Christ and hath anointed us is God He adds ver 22. who hath also sealed us and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts But here he saith In whom that is by whom to wit Christ also after that ye believed ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise that is the holy Spirit promised which is the Pledge or Earnest of our inheritance unto the day of redemption c. namely the latter clause is added for explication of the former and what is the earnest of our inheritance the same is also the seal with which we are marked Hence then it again appears that the holy Spirit is neither the most high God nor a person For neither is any thing sealed with a person but with some thing nor is any thing more absurd than to say that the most high God whose propriety we are and who hath sealed us unto the day of redemption is the seal it self wherewith we are sealed By these things also it appears that the Adversaries labour in vain who endeavour out of the words Ephes 4.30 to deduct the person of the holy Spirit because he is said to be grieved and vexed by us as if the like things were not attributed to Charity which is said to rejoyce in the Truth and on the contrary not to rejoyce which is all one as to be grieved with Iniquity and as if it were not more easie to find here a seigning of a person than to shew that to some person and he indeed the most high God it agrees to be a seal imprinted on men Certainly they who else where * Ro. 8.26 The Defence will they nill they are forced to acknowledge that groans are improperly attributed to the holy Spirit have no cause why they will not have grieving figuratively to be ascribed to it especially when neither themselves can properly asscribe grieving to it seeing that doth not proper befal God But if they say that that also is improperly and by a Metaphor said of the holy Spirit that we are sealed by it we answer Although the thing expressed by that metaphorical kind of speaking be conceived in proper words yet nevertheless the force of our Argument would be the same For it is signified as was said that the holy Spirit is a certain thing given unto us by God by which we may be certified of our future redemption and the happiness promised us Besides although that manner of speaking be metaphoricall yet it is not such as is fitted to a person For neither is every Metaphor accommodated to every thing Let there be brought forth but one place either out of profane or sacred Writers where some one is said to be sealed with any person Wherefore if the holy Spirit were a person Paul would have used such a Metaphor as might have been fitted to a person and had not less expressed the thing which he here handled than the word of sealing He had said to wit that the holy Spirit was a surety or undertaker or hostage or had been content with the name of earnest or pledge which last word is sometime by a Metaphor accommodated to persons But it is altogether unheard of that any person who is given to another to certifie him of his salvation and safety is compared to a seal imprinted on him who is secured or any one said to be sealed by him Neither indeed in the places alleaged doth any thing go before which gave occasion to the Apostle for so bold yea absurd a kind of metaphor rather then for another a like fitted to his purpose and more to the person But unusual metaphors and figures are not wont to be used by considerate and grave men unless special occasion invites them and leads them thereto much less that they speak so absurdly without any necessity The same we would have also said unto them who say these things are pronounced of the holy Spirit by a Metonimy or Metalepsis to wit in respect of the gifts which come from hint For there are also other Metalepsis in some manner accommodated to persons or at least more in use But unusual ones are not to be ascribed to considerate men unless it appears that they are led to them by some certain occasion Although the same Adversaries also are bound to excuse a Metaphor which would nothing less concur with a Metalepsis In the third place those places of holy Scripture deserve to be mentioned in which the holy Spirit is said to be poured out on men such as are these Isa 44.3 Joel 2.28 29. which place is cited by Peter Acts â— 18 19. Zach. 12.10 Tit. 3.6 to which also those are to be joyned in which men are said to be baptized in or with it and its baptism is opposed to the baptism of water used by John as it is Mat. 3.11 and the places in the other Evangelists answering to it and likewise John 1.33 Acts 1.5 11 16. add 1 Cor. 12.13 although there to be baptized in one spirit is taken by some for to be baptized by one Spirit so we might say we are baptized by Christ by whom God hath poured out abundantly the holy Spirit upon us Tit. 3.6 when nevertheless otherwise where ever that phrase To be baptized in spirit is extant it signifies nothing else as all confess than to be baptized with the spirit the particle in among the Greeks being redundant which hath flowed from an Hebraism For because that which the Greeks express by the simple Dative case the Latins by the Ablative the Hebrews cannot express without the Particle prefixed which is for the most part Be that is In therefore it is often retained by the he braising Greek Writers and prefixed to the dative which alone would have that force But that those words in the holy Spirit are elsewhere so to be understood easily appears by the opposite member For in most places in which it is said that John baptized with water it is
but proceeds and flows from him when so far as he will not otherwise than the light from the Sun or that force which they call influence from Stars or as heat from fire upon things put to it For let me be allowed to illustrate a thing most divine by similitudes to which you have not unlike ones concerning wisdom issuing from God in the Author of the Book of Wisdom Chap. 7.26.27 Therefore as the things mentioned by us diffuse their power and distribute it into many subjects and that often unequally so also God communicateth his power and virtue to many and not to all in the same measure and the same degree whence there ariseth some partition of his power so that no man may wonder that we following the Scripture urge some partition of the holy Spirit Although what need is there to defend or excuse that which the holy Writings do so plainly assert For what is it which the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews Chap. 2.4 saith That God confirmed by his testimony the Doctrine of the Gospel concerning everlasting salvation as well by signes and wonders and divers miracles as also by the distributions or divisions of the holy Spirit that is by distributing the holy Spirit among believers and imparting it to them in various measures as it hath pleased him What likewise is that which God long since said to Moses Num. 11.17 I will take off thy Spirit and put on them to wit the seventy Elders which also we see was done afterward in the very deed For so we read after Vers 25. And took the Lord of the Spirit which was in Moses and gave it to the seventy Elders and when the spirit had rested on them 2 Kings 2.9 they prophesied c. What moreover that which we read of Eliseus who would have given to him a double spirit of Elias or as it is in the Hebrew the mouth of two in the spirit of Elias that is a double part of his Spirit or sufficient for two as it is explained by learned men by comparing this place with that Deut. 21.17 where the same phrase occurrs although in another matter For there the Father is commanded to give doubles Heb. the mouth of two or a double part of goods to his first-born Son although boâ—â— of the hated wife Neither truly did Elizeus in vain ask for that as is understood by the following words of that place Moreover Paul makes mention also of the first-fruits of the Spirit Rom. 8.2 3. Now what else are the first-fruits of any thing but the first and select parts of it Lastly When John saith that God giveth the Spirit not by measure John 3.34 what other thing would he than that God gives the Spirit most plentifully But that cannot be said of a thing which can in no manner be encreased nor deminished nor divided into some parts And surely John doth tacitely intimate that God hath given or doth give the Spirit in some certain measure but to Christ alone he hath imparted a certain unmeasurable plenty of it But it is not necessary for us in this place to say all things which pertain to a further explication of those places that shall be done if God will else where For it is enough now to have shewn that a certian distribution doth befal the holy Spirit which cannot by any means befall a divine person yea no person at all unless with some corruption of it But the distribution of the holy Spirit brings no corruption to it The Defence and Confirmation of the Argument BUt we have already above shut up this way for escape to wit that these things are to be understood of the gift or effect of the holy Spirit who is a divine person Besides that it may appear by some places * Chap. 8. of this Section alleaged by us and the like to them that that Spirit of which these things are said is one thing the gift understood by the adversaries another thing namely a quality or motion imprinted on men by a divine spirit See Numb 11 25 c. Compare together Joel 2.28 29. Zach. 12.10 and Isa 11.2 John 3.34 That I mention not now the History it self of the effusion of the holy Spirit set down Acts 2. by which it is manifest that the holy Spirit poured out on the Apostles and distributed is one thing the gift flowing from thence another thing See vers 3.4 But of the same Spirit also other places are to be understood Out of the places hitherto brought by us you may easily frame many arguments For every manner of expression used in the testimonies signifying either more openly or more covertly some division of the holy Spirit may supply us with a several reason For they so abhor from the supream deity that no man may daâ—e to use them of it No such thing surely is so much as intimated in the holy Scriptures either of the Father or of the Son Who hath either heard or dare say that there is taken of the Father or of Christ that there is given or poured out of him that he is distributed or doubled that he is given either in measure or without measure that any one has the first fruits of him or the first and better parts of him But what other cause is there of this thing then because they are persons and indeed divine ones although the latter not of himself but by the grace and gift of God Therefore there would be the same reason of the holy Spirit also if it were likewise the most high God CHAP. X. The tenth Argument That we are forbidden to quench the Spirit and we read that the holy Spirit sometime was not and that some disciples were ignorant whether there were any holy Spirit THe words of the Apostle 1 Thes 5.19 where speaking of the holy Spirit â—e warnes that we quench not the Spirit deserve the sixth place in this rank whence in like manner is understood that the holy Spirit is not the most high God For these words shew that that Spirit may be quenched But who dares say that in any wise of the most high God Who would brook him who sâ—ould waâ—ne thus beware thou extinguish not God the Father Would not our very eares refuse such formes of speaking But there is the same reason of the holy Spirit as of the Father if the holy Spirit be the most high God For that therefore cannot be said of God the Father because he is the most high God But if thou wouldst excuse it by some trope which otherwise we deny not to be in the words it is to be considered which we a little before have minded that tropes ought to be modest most of all when the name of the most high God is used of wâ—om we must so speak and the Apostle so speak as is beseeming his Majesty But we have alâ—eady hinted that such manner of speaking agrees not to God and is rejected
to know it could not rightly be affirmed that none besides him knoweth the things of God For besides him also the Father and Son should know and that primarily But if they say the particle none is here opposed onely to creatures or rather comprehends onely creatures and men as if it were said no man knowes those things ouâ— opinion indeed may admit that but not the adversaries For we acknowledge in those words Arg. 16 From 1 Cor. 2.11 but the Spirit of God a metonymy of the adjunct which also brings forth some Metalepsis as if the Apostle had said None of men knowes the mysteries and hidden counsells of God besides those who are endued with his Spirit by the power of whom alone those things may be found out by us But the adversaries who would have the knowledge in this place to be properly attributed to the holy Spirit himself cannot say that and are forced to confess that the holy Spirit is therefore expresly excepted because otherwise he should be altoâ—ether comprehended in that general word none How ridâ—culous I beseech you and unworthy of the Apostle had such a speech been None of men or creatures knoweth those things which are Gods â—ut God the Father or no Angel knoweth those things which are Gods but Christ or the holy Spirit For what Is the Father in the number of men or Creatures Is Christ or the holy Spirit in the number of Angels For nothing is wont to be excepted from out of a general speech but what otherwise is of the same kind of things of which it is spoken and which therefore unless it had been excepted had been altogether cemprehended in the general speech and the same thing either affirmed or denyed of it as of the rest Wherefore if the knowledge of divine things be here properly ascribed to the holy Spirit himself as the Adversaries would and that Metonymy which we have explained is not to be acknowledged in that word the word none cannot be restrained to men or creatuâ—es aloâ—e but will comprehend also the divine persons themselves of the number of which they would have the holy Spirit to be Whence it followes seeing the holy Spirit in their opinion is a person really distinct from the Father and Son that the Father and Son are excluded from the knowledge of vine things in these words of Paul of which absurdity there is no danger in our opinion In the same manner if the Spirit of a man were a certain person distinct from the man himself whose Spirit it is said to be when it is denyed that any of men knowes those things which are of a man besides his spirit the man himself whose Spirit it is had been excluded and besides that exception should have been rediculous What man knowes the things which are of a man unless the Spirit of man which is in him For is the Spirit of man which is in him man But if you take the words of the Apostle as if he had said No man knowes the hidden counsels and thoughts of a man besides himself who conceives and understands them by his Spirit and mind the absurdity will cease For it is to be observed what Philosophy teacheth namely that not the Spirit of a man which they call the soul doth properly understand but the man by it or by its vertue or power CHAP. XV. Arg. 17 from Mat 3.16 The seventeenth Argument That the holy Spirit sometime descended upon Christ IN the last place it likes me to alleage that to which many adversaries attribute much when they endeavour to shew that the holy Spirit is not a divine vertue but a person distinct from the Father and Son And that is as Luke writes Chap. 3.22 With whom also the other writers of the Gospel History agree Mat. 3.16 Mark 1.10 Joh. 1.32 33. That the holy Spirit descended on Christ baptized by John in a corporal shape as a dove It is an old saying and at this day commonly spoken among the adversaries Go Arian to Jordan and thou shalt see the Trinity Surely if the Trinity be Father Son and holy Spirit The Father indeed who inhabiting in Heaven as the most high God and removed from mens eyes commandeth them out of his supream Authority and on the Son bestows authourity from his Majesty but the Son a true man baptized in Jordan by John and after from heaven annoiâ—ted and replenished with the holy Spirit and lastly the holy Spirit a certain thing sent down from heaven upon Christ with which he was replenisht if I say that be the Trinity he is rightly commanded to go to Jordan who doth not acknowledge the Trinity We indeed who are sometimes commanded to go thither long ago by the grace of God have been there and seen that Trinty and with willing mind acknowledge and profess it But if the Trinity be to them the conjunction of three persons really distinct amongst themselves in one and individual Essence it is so far from being seen at Jordan that rather in some sort it may be seen by the very eyes it has no existency For what sâ—ew or shadow is there of one and the same Essence in number which may be common to the Father Son and holy Spirit Is it the same numerical subâ—â—ance of God who speakes from heaven not descending hence and of him a true man who is baptized in Jordan and lastly of that thing which descends from heaven upon him I omit other things which partly are said before partly shall be said a little after They therefore who have fained such a Trinity or defend it fained â—y otheâ—s are yet to be sent to Jordan that they may as from a near place behold the true Trinity and may more rightly learn to acknowledge it We may indeed rightly send thither the Arians who hold that the Son of God is a certain invisible Spirit produced by God before the creation of the world but our adversaries who maintain him to be consubstantial it is so far of their being able to do it that the Arians rather might send them thither For the tenet of the Arians is less against that History than that of the Consubstantialists But we will not in this place urge all things which might be said but that onely which is written of the holy Spirit that we may not only wrest out the weapon of the hands of the Adversaries with which they fâ—ght against us but also may retort it on them They urge that the holy Spirit hath both decended and appeared in bodily shape to wit of a dove For from thence it follows that the holy Spirit is some substance not a quality For it belongs to substances and those only that are Suppositums to descend and to assume and sustain formes and shapes and together they say it appeares that the holy Spirit is such a substance as is really distinct from the Father and Son For neither the Father or Son descended from heaven nor
assumed that corporeal form therefore the holy Spirit is a Suppositum and consequently because also he is intelligent For he is said to search all things even the depths of God and to know the things that are Gods and other like things proper to intelligent Substances are pronounced of it he is also a person for every intelligent Suppositum is a person Since that is the definition of a person There is need of so much furniture that the person of the holy Spirit may be framed hence which they promised we should see at Jordan together with two others For neither the Trinity of the adversaries can be seen unless three persons can be seen and so as that it may appear they are persons What is to be answered to this their Argumentation shall be a little after shewed Let us do now that which we propounded that assuming those things which partly are read in that sacred History partly are affimed by the adversaries we may demostrate the holy Spirit not to be the most high God They affirme if the holy Spirit be the most high God that he ought to be altogether of the same essence with the Father yea a so with the Son Otherwise there will be either two or more most high Gods or the Father or Son whom they take for the most high God will not be the most high God But from this apparition of the holy Spirit it is manifest that there is one Essence of the holy Spirit another of the Father and Son For the Essence of the Father and Son descended not then from heaven when Christ was baptized nor took that corporeal shape the Essence of the holy Spirit as is manifest by the adversaries opinion did both Therefore the Essence of the holy Spirit is not the Essence of the Father or Son but it is necessary this to be one that to be another Neither indeed may they say that not the Essence of the holy Spirit but the person did both For first every person is a substance and a substance is an Essence subsisting by it self Wherefore whose person descended and assumed some form his essence also doth it And besides do not they themselves as we have seen urge that that which descends and sustaines a form is necessarily a substance But the substance of the holy Spirit is no other thing than its Essence and with our Adversaries it is all one to say the same is the Essence and the same is the substance of the divine persons to wit because every substance is an essence therefore the Essence of the holy Spirit must have descended And although at last a person in the Deity should not be the substance or Essence it self but something in the Essence which yet is impossible For it is repugnant to the nature of a Suppositum and further also of a person to be in another yet might not that either descend or assume a form but that its substance in which lastly all the accidents are and rest together should do the same Besides also another shorter way from that that the holy Spirit descended from heaven upon Christ that in a bodily forme or shape we may shew that he is not the most high God For the most God is not moved from place to place and consequently descends not from heaven Also no accident befalls the most high God even by the adversaries opinion But that bodily shape in which the holy Spirit descended was an accident as also that descent it self The Defence of the Argument Some adversaries observing this so explain the thing that it may sufficiently appear that they neither attribute to the holy Spirits descent properly called nor grant that he Assumed that bodily shape on himself but either that a certain true body in a doves shape descended from heaven or the shape only of a dove descending was represented to the eyes of the beholders which might be a simbole or resemblance of the presence and operation of the holy Spirit filling Christ with gifts necessary for the discharge of his prophetical office But if this be so how will hence be shewed that the holy Spirit is a thing subsistent by it self and consequently a Suppositum and person really distinct from the Father and the Son seeing he neither properly descended on Christ nor sustained that forme but was only the shape of a body set before the eyes of the beholders when indeed there was no body or as the * See Maldonat and Augustine cited by him opinion is of some of the most learned adversaries a true body which descended and sustained that shape But even things which not onely are not persons but not so much as indeed sustbances may be said to descend improperly from heaven and among others James saith chap. 1.17 Every good and perfect gift is from above that is from heaven descending from the Father of lights But that the same may be shaddowed by a certain outward shape and set before the eyes of men as besides other things that teacheth which we read Act. 2.3 of the first effusion of the holy Spirit on Christs disciples For those cloven tongues did they not express the faculty of diverse languages to be given to the disciples of Christ by the holy Spirit But nothing prohibites that they might not seem to be moved How many such shapes of things do we see set before one while the outward another while the inward senses of the Prophets Therefore nothing if the thing be so explained may be hence gathered which belongs to prove the holy Spirit to be a Suppositum much less a person Besides although they would have all those things concerning the holy Spirit to be taken figuratively yet nevertheless they must hold that here some singular operation of the holy Spirit was shaddowed not of the Father or Son or at least not equally For otherwise why should not the Father and Son also be said to have descended in a bodily shape But if the Essence of the holy Spirit would be the same with that of the Father and Son the operation no less of these than of that had been expressed by that shape and descent and so the Father and Son should be no less said to have descended in a bodily shape than the holy Spirit For such an operation is of the singular substance it self having in it self all foâ—ce of opperating Therefore seeing this is supposed the same in those three persons the same opperation also is equally to be attributed to all those persons Seeing this is not come to pass it follows that there is one essence of the holy Spirit another of the Father and Son and consequently unless the adversaries would introduce more Gods or deny the Father to be the most high God they are forced to acknowledge the holy Spirit not to be the most high God But you will say How nevertheless do those things agree to the holy Spirit to descend from heaven in a bodily shape if
only which shews its absurdity presently at the first sight that the Father Son and holy Spirit are by themselves non entia or no beings from which yet men of great name among those of their own way famous also by their writings in Divinity do not abhor Fot neither do I doubt but that many even of the Adversaries do disapprove of it But that very thing also is much unworthy that they make God and Christ that I say noâ—hing now of the â—oly Spirit a subsistence or mode of a Being For whaâ— He that is God he that hath a divine Substâ—nce is he a subsistence and nor rather a thing by it self subsisting a mode of a being not a being it self How then doth he rule How doth he do any thing How is he invocated by us And that I may comprise all in one word how is he God For actions and those things which are the pâ—oper consequents of actions are not of a subsistence but of a thing subsisting For the subsistence hath no faculty and power from which action may how but the thing subsiâ—ting Doth the subsistence actually will understand govern create preserve Do you when you call upon Goâ— invocate some mode of the divine Essence Do you ask that some mode may help or preserve you Certainly if the divine persons be that no simple or common men do believe the divine Persons being by their very subtilty altogether out of the reach of their beâ—t understanding But what do I speak only of the simple men Indeed neither most of the learned do respect to themselves such persons either when they pray or when they think any other thing of God or of Christ perhaps neither they themselves who have devised those things except then when they labour to reconcile some of their tenets to one another These things might sufficiently refute the device to spâ—ak most tenderly of those men But yet that both the Nature of a person may so much the more clearly appear and be so much the more satisfactory let us say a little more of that matter First then Whilst they make a person a subsistence they forget themselves who say the same is a Suppositum Neither indeed could I hitherto see any man who would deny that a Suppositum is the Genus of a Person and that it may accurately â—e predicated of it And this might be here enough for us that all acknowledge in God three Suppositums But now they say that a Suppositum is such a Substance as we have before described and the reason of its name which the inventers of it have looked or requires it For neither is a subsistence the ultimum subjectum or lowest subject of which ultimate all things may at last be predicated and it self of none but a Substance it self or a Being endued with subsistence subsistence is in a Being and although it be â—ot an Accident yet is it predicated of that in which it is in the manner of an Accident But all such things are denyed by all to be Suppositums Add this that the actions which are proper to Suppositums agree not to a Subsistence but to a Substance it self or a Being that hath subsistence as that which hath a power necessary for acting as we have a litâ—le before minded Subsistence doth contribute nothing less but that a Being may subsist by it self and moreover may act by it if namely it hath a power and some faculties Besides who would say that a man of an Angel is a subsistence and not rather a substance or thing by it self subsisting But every man is a person and in like manner every Angel And that we may go higher Christ also is a substance not a subsistence a being not a mode of a being But he is a person therefore a person is not a subsistence Otherwise from the Adversaries opinion we should thus argue Every person is a subsistence No Man Angel nor Christ himself is a subsistence Wherefore neither a person Perhaps some one will say that created persons are indeed substances but the divine persons are subsistences neither is a person a genus univocum to a person created and uncreated but analogum only But first we may ask of him whether he would have Christ to be a created person only or uncreated or both together If created only his opinion will be false as being one who maintains Christ to be the second person of the Trinity For this person is uncreated nor could it cease to be uncreated but that the Trinity would fall to the ground one person to wit the second being taken out of the number of the three If uncreated only Christ will be only a subsistence if a divine person be a subsistence only not a thing subsisting which all see to be false For he who is a man is certainly a substance not a subsistence If both together he will have two persons of a different nature or of a different definition For the one will be a substance the other a subsistence not a substance But there is but one Christ one person of him as all confess and urge it against Nestorians Furthermore the reason or definition of a Suppositum which agrees even to a divine or uncreated person doth not permit as we have seen the divine person to be only a subsistence I say no more than a created Lastly that very thing which is brought for a reason doth overthrow that Opinion For if a person be an analogum genus to a person both uncreated and created it must needs be that a divine person is not a subsistence but a substance For neither are analogums the subsistence of God and the created thing subsisting but the substance created is analogum to the uncreated the subsistence to the subsistence the mode to the mode and reciprocally Wherefore if the person câ—eated be a substance not a subsistence or some mode also the uncreated will be a substance not a subsisâ—ence I say a thing subsisting not a mode of a thing But as for that which they say that when a person is said to be a first intelligent substance this definition is of a person taken in concreto not in abstracto I will ask of them what they understand by the name of a person taken in concreto what likewise taken in abstracto If they do in that manner take the concretum in which substance are said of some to be concretums as man animal whose abstractums they will have to be humanity animality Of such concretums there are delivered most accurate definitions and in this manner a person is altogether to be defined in this place where it is inquired whether the Father Son and holy Spirit â—e three persons in one divine Essence For neither tâ—e Father Son and holy Spirit are personalities but persons unless you will say likewise that man is humanity animal animality Father paternity and so in the rest in which manner concretums will be abstractums and on the contrary
our Cause holding that we are not onely excluded out of Heaven but ought also to be banished out of all Countreys think with thy self that to condemn Men before their Cause is heard is to condemn them as innocent Neither will it be enough for thee to refer the labour of examining unto others so as to follow their Judgment without thine own Think that thou thy self must answer for thy self Thou thou I say according to thy Understanding and Opportunity oughtest to try all things and hold fast that which is good For shalt thou commit all things unto others take heed and that very diligently lest thou commit thy self and thy Salvation unto men either negligent or puffed up with an Opinion of Learning and Knowledge or wholly addicted to humane Authority and pre-conceived Opinion or otherwise obstinate and not knowing how to yeild or loving their own quiet and security rather than their own or others Salvation or cowardly and not daring to utter their Opinion In short lest blindly following blind Guides thou fall with them into the Ditch Think not they are Godly and Lovers of the Truth whom I follow For to omit that this Opinion concerning others is often-times confuted by their manners and Actions there are many hiding holes of Vices and private Closets in the Brests of Men into which none but God and Christ can penetrate so that we are in greater danger of mistaking in our Judgment concerning other mens Piety when we go this way to work than if the question only is concerning an Opinion concerning which we dare not pass Sentence Neither canst thou say These things are too subtile for my Understanding For if thou considerest the Opinion it self whereof we here dispute what is more plain and simple than it for what doth it contain above that which is called the Apostles Creed which Children are acquainted with namely that that One God is no other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ If you look upon the Arguments which we have drawn out of the Scriptures they are of themselves plain and easie so that the Adversaries can no other way decline their force than by turning away from the simplicity of the Word and endeavouring to draw us away from the same Yea those Arguments vvhich vve have fetch'd from Reason if you except a few vvhich vve have added for the sake of Learned Men are so clear that one must rather offer violence to his Reason and Understanding that he may not admit the force of them than use any great intention of Mind to understand them But perhaps if any thing occur in the defence of the Arguments fetch'd out of the Scripture vvhich may to a Man unskill'd in the Art of Disputing seem somewhat subtile he may pass it by for the other things vvhich may easily be understood by every one vve are confident will be sufficient for him to pass sentence concerning this Cause Though vve have so tempered this vvhole kind of Writing that all things may be understood by a man indifferently versed in Learning even those vvhich in the second Book we have culled out of Philosophy and the received Opinion of the Schools Neither indeed is it to be imputed to us if now and then vve speak something vvhich the ruder sort may call subtile but to the Adversaries vvho as vve have said do draw us avvay from the simplicity both of the Words and meaning of the Spirit of God which Reason doth dictate to the unlearned themselves and by the subtilties of distinctions endeavour to elude the most plain Arguments which we produce for our Opinion Wherefore we friendly admonish and beseech all them to whom this Writing of ours shall come that they would diligently weigh and examine our Words by the Ballance of the Divine Oracles and offer no violence to their conscience when they have found the Truth and so either by resisting it or perpetually burying it in silence increase their own and others servitude but use diligence to draw Others partly to the truer Opinion partly to more moderate Counsels and as much as in them lies cause that all may dare to erect their Mind to a free Inquiry touching sacred Matters and to lift up their Eyes to the Light thereof And that so through the whole World Men may with Piety of Mind Mouth and Life praise that One God the Father of whom are all things and that One Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things To Him be Glory and Power for ever and ever AMEN The Scope AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE WORK THe scope of this our Work is to shew That the most High God is no other besides the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Now we will divide the whole Work into two Books In the first we will confirm our Opinion with Scripture-Testimonies and Arguments drawn thence In the latter we will make use of other sufficient Reasons to prove the same and refute the contrary Though even there we will now and then recal the Reader to the Scriptures But in the former part of the Work we will so proceed as that we will first directly prove That onely the Father of Jesus Christ is the most high God and that partly by those Testimonies of the sacred Scripture which make open mention of the Father Partly by those wherein the Name of the Father is not indeed exprest yet is he truly spoken of Then will we demonstrate the same indirectly as they say when we shall shew out of the same holy Scripture That neither Christ whom otherwise we confess to be by the Gift of the Father a God over all to be blessed for evermore is the most High God nor the Holy Spirit whom we will prove to be the Vertue and Efficacy of the most High God Book 1. Sect. 3. Chap. 5. For so it will remain that the Father onely is the most High God since no other else can be imagined Touching ONE GOD The Father Arg. 1 from Joh. 17.3 THE FIRST BOOK SECT I. Wherein is directly proved that onely the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the most High God and first out of those Testimonies of the Sacred Scriptures which speak expresly of the Father CHAP. I. The first Argument from the words of Christ John 17.3 This is Life eternal that they might know thee Father the Onely true God and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ THe first Testimony therefore and Argument of our Opinion shall be that of Christ himself speaking to his Father in these words This is Life eternal c. Here none doubteth that by the Name of the true God is understood the most high God Wherefore since Christ so describeth the Father as to call him the Onely true God it is understood that onely the Father of Christ is the most High God The Defence of the Argument The first Answer to the Argument and the Refutation MAny there are who forced by the evidence of the Words
God differing indeed from the Father in Persons but yet of the same Essence with him namely in such a manner as they commonly think of Christ or the holy Spirit But who seeth not that such Persons whether true or feigned are by vertue of these words of Christ most efficaciously excluded from the Deity so that one confess them to be DIVERS from the Father But they say that we our selves contend that if any thing be attributed to God only it is not presently denied to them who depend on him or are subordinate to him in the number of whom we rank Christ Wherefore although the FATHER ONLY be called the true God yet is not Christ presently denied to be a true God As neither when God only is said to be * Rom. 16.27 1 Tim. 1.17 Jude 25 wise or †1 Tim. 6.15 potent or to have ‖ Ibid. ver 16. Immortality are they excluded from these attributes who have received them from God But this Objection if the thing be rightly understood is so far from overthrowing our Opinion and Argumentation from the words of Christ that it doth confirm it For neither do we hold that Christ is by vertue of these words wholy excluded from true Godhead namely if true Godhead be more largely taken so as to comprehend that Godhead also which doth indeed and not only in the false opinion of men depend on the most high Godhead * Chap. 13. Chap. 8 9. For we have shown in our Book of God and his Attributes that the name GOD is in its own Nature common and agreeth to all them who have soâ—e sublime Empire or eminent Power as to Princes and Magistrates on the Earth in the Heavens to Angels and above all these to Christ the Head of all Angels and King of all kings but by way of Excellency to that Supream and Independent Monarch and attributed to him as proper Wherefore our meaning only is that Christ by vertue of the words in contest is excluded from that true Deity by way of excellency so called that is from Supream and Independent Deity For by these words first all besides the Father are held to be excluded from Supream Godhead and consequently from Deity taken more largely all such who have not received it from the Father to whom alone supream and independent Divinity is said to agree For he is accounted as Independent who doth not depend on him on whom only he can truly depend Whence all the Idols of the Gentiles are by vertue of these words or rather of the sence therein comprehended simply excluded from true Godhead since they were so far from truly depending on the Father as that they were not believed to depend But Christ is not excluded therefrom because his dependance on the Father in respect of his Divine Empire over all things and Worship suitable to such an Empire hath by most evident proofs been demonstrated Now what we speak touching this place doth likewise come to pass in others wherein such Attributes are attributed to God only which nevertheless are communicated to others besides him For in them likewise all besides God are excluded from the Communion of those Attributes taken by way of excellency and strictly For God is said to be only wise powerful having Immortality not because he alone is simply wise powerful immortal but because he is only such of himself And therefore all others besides God are by vertue of such words excluded from independent and underived Wisdom Power and Immortality and then at length simply and universally excluded from those Attributes when it is apparent that they have not received them from God to whom they first agree and consequently do not herein indeed depend on him A seigned Dependency is by right accounted for nothing Whence it is understood what our meaning is when we say That if any thing is in the Scripture attributed to God only it is not presently denyed to them who are dependent on God and subordinate to him For we mean not that such Attributes are in no wise denyed unto them for they are denied unto them being taken by way of Excellency but that they are not presently denyed simply and universally or in a larger signification But perhaps they with whom we now have to do will object and say that they do in some sort hold the same For that the Father only is called the true or most high God because he is the Fountain of Divinity and consequently in regard thereof hath a Prerogative above the Son and holy Spirit inasmuch as They have the Divine Essence from Him but He from no other For which reason they expresly call the Father God of himself thereby opposing him to the Son and holy Spirit But they who answer thus either contradict themselves or say nothing and obtrude upon us bare words instead of things for if the Father hath a true Prerogative or Excellency above the Son and holy Spirit so that for it the Name of GOD may be attributed to the Father alone but taken away from the Son and holy Spirit it cannot be that the Son and holy Spirit should be the supream and most high God for nothing in any wise more worthy nothing more excellent than the most high God can possibly be imagined And they themselves in Athanasius's Creed contend that in the Trinity nothing is before or after nothing greater or less But if the Father is the Fountain of Divinity in respect of the Son and holy Spirit how will there be the same Numerical Divinity of the Father Son and holy Spirit for the Father would be the Fountain of his own Divinity or Divine Essence before and after himself How if the Father be the Fountain of the other Persons shall not the Son and holy Spirit depend on the Father How shall not each be an Effect of the Father and finally How shall the Son and holy Spirit be the supream and most high God for He is dependent on none is the Effect of none But if they will not acknowledge these things what else do they then obtrude upon us empty words instead of things and so say nothing and upon what ground I pray dare they to this purpose wrest the words of the Scripture which are most plain and exposed to the capacity of the rudest understanding for how can an ignorant man that I may not now speak any thing of the Learned conceive in his mind that the Father only is the most high God when in the mean time he is commanded to believe that also the Son and holy Spirit is the same most high God How can he imagine a Prerogative of any one above one who is the most high God How the Prerogative of him above one who is the same Numerical God with himself How him to be the Fountain of other Persons on whom they do not depend as Effects on a Cause Certainly this is not to teach an ignorant man but quite
which are alone brought by some to illustrate their Explication of this place and are extant 1 Cor. 9.6 for thus it is there to be read out of the Greek Or have only I and Barnabas no power to forbear working But in this place of ours not alone the word only but together the whole Predicate namely The true God is interposed between these two Subjects to which it is thought to be referred that is to say between the word Thee and Jesus Christ whom the Father hath sent To omit that the Article set before the word only doth not suffer that it should be in that manner joyned either with the word Thee or with the words Jesus Christ as all who are not ignorant of the Greek Tongue will confess Again By this means notwithstanding the Opinion of the Adversaries touching the Deity of the holy Spirit will be overthrown for if the Father and Christ only be the true God the holy Spirit cannot also he The same will also follow although you so take the words as if Christ had said That they know thee Father and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ to be that God who only is the true God For we have before shown that this is all one as if it had been said Thee and Jesus Christ only to be the true God there is I say no difference in this behalf whether the word Only be presently added to the first Subject or to that Subject which is part of the Predicate Besides it is false That Eternal Life or the Way to attain Eternal Life doth herein consist that men know the Father and Christ to be the only true God Properly taken it cannot consist otherwise it would be both necessary requisite and also sufficient to acknowledge the Father and Christ for the only true God But by this account all who comprehend that Opinion in their minds should attain Eternal Life when nevertheless they may withal stick in those vices concerning which the Scripture openly pronounceth that they who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven You will say therefore that it is to be taken improperly that this knowledge may comprehend in it self faith in Christ working by love and all kind of vertues namely by a Metonimy or Transnomination joyned with a Synecdoche whereby under the name of the cause the effect is also comprehended After which manner Eternal Life seemeth in the Scripture to be ascribed to that Faith whereby men believe That * Joh. 20.31 Jesus is the Christ the Son of God But neither can this consist for even so nevertheless it would be signified that this Knowledge is necessary for all unto eternal Life and a certain ground of faith working by Love But that this is false doth hence appear in that not only Christ himself who was sent by God to declare unto men the way of Salvation and implant in them Saving-Faith did ne-never openly deliver or inculcato to men this Doctrine yea neither his Apostles the most clear Preachers both of his Divinity and Doctrine For as to Christ he did not only of his own accord not teach and inculcate that he together with the Father is the only true God but also when a commodious occasion was afforded him to pronounce that concerning himself did yet abstain from so doing speaking in such a manner of himself as that he openly differenced himself from God taken by way of excellency and shewed that himself wholly depended on him as appeareth from the 10th chapter of this very Gospel verse 33 c. concerning which words we have elsewhere * In the Book of God and his Attributes chap. 13. spoken and shall †Lib. 1. Sect. 2. Chap. 31. hereafter speak in its place But the Apostles when they speak of the Dignity of Christ the Knowledge whereof is the ground of that Faith and Piety whereby we are saved do mention no higher things than that Jesus is the Christ or the Son of God both which they put for the same and that is very frequent in this Writer Concerning which thing likewise we shall have occasion to speak of * Sect 2. Chap. 31. hereafter Moreover the sacred Writers and John by name when they speak of that Knowledge wherein Religion or the Way to eternal Life consisteth intend not such a Knowledge whereby some attribute essential to God or Christ is known to be in him such as this knowledge would be that the Father and Christ is the only true God but they mean the knowledge of God simply whereof we suppose Christ here speaketh †Joh. 8.19 55. 14 7. 16.3 17.25 Joh. 1.2 3 4. 13.14 3.1 4.7 5.20 compared with Ephes 1.17 and Col. 1.9 Joh. 6 6 9. compared with v. 12 24 25 17.25 understanding the knowledg of God chiefly in respect of his will and of the things any way thereunto belonging and also the knowledge of Christ in respect of his office which wholly pertaineth to discover confirm execute and perfect the Divine Will I pass by the manner of speaking such as neither John nor any Writer of the new Covenant useth when he speaketh of the knowledge of some whole complex or proposition for the Sacred Writers would express this sâ—nce which they with whom we now dispute would have to be comprehended in those words of Christ in this manner That they know that thou art the only true God c. as they who are more diligently versed in the reading of the Scripture will observe Thus for example sake we read in the same John * Chap. 6.69 Who have known that thou art the Christ the Son of God †Chap. 7.26 The Rulers have known that this is the Christ I forbear to urge what we will elsewhere demonstrate that neither the prayers which Christ here poureth out to the Father nor his sending from the Father whereof in these very words he maketh mention do admit that Christ should be accounted the true and supream God together with the Father I will only here speak what hath in some measure been observed by certain very learned Adversaries namely that it is not agreeable to this place that Christ should pronounce concerning himself that he together with the Father is the only true God partly because he prayeth to the Father and so speaketh most modestly of himself partly because he considereth and describeth himself as the Fathers Embassador For praying to the Father he is not to be thought to have equalized himself to the Father and to have pronounced that of himself then which the Father hath nothing greater but as it became one that is very modest and a supplicant to have set himself below him Furthermore in that he here considereth and describeth himself as the Fathers Embassador he is not to be thought to have attributed unto himself the supream Majesty and Glory of the Father that sent him which herein consisteth that he is the
only true God Besides both the order and the meetness of the speech doth require that the first description should be proper to the Father to whom it is immediately joyned as the latter is peculiar to Christ and not Christ be described both in a peculiar manner and again in such an one as is common to him with the Father and that in those words which if you respect the order seem no less properly to be attributed to the Father than the latter to Christ And the first of these three Reasons was in some measure toucht by a most accute and learned popish * John Maldonat on this place Interpreter For amongst other causes for which Christ in this place called not himself but the Father the only true God he alledgeth this also that Christ would as it became a Son speak honorably of his Father but very modestly of himself wherefore saith he he called not himself God but the Father Vpon the same account I suppose neither would he name himself for he said not that they may know thee and me but that they may know thee and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ speaking of himself in the third Person which argueth greater modesty than to name himself when he treateth of honorable things such as this was But if Christ is to be thought to have here regarded Modesty in so small a matter how much more in not saying that he together with the Father is that only true and most high God although Christ would not only have regard to modesty but to the very thing it self for he would joyn himself to the Father and the knowledge of himself to that of the Father in such a manner as that he might withal shew what difference there was between them for he would signifie that the Father is to be known as the supream Monarch and Prince of all things and that his will is to be regarded by its self but that he himself was to be looked upon as his Embassador who declareth his will and demonstrateth it by most certain proofs being afterwards in the name of God to execute and compleat the same for such descriptions of Persons in the Scripture are not wont to be idle but fitted to illustrate the thing that is treated of But enough of this He that liketh plain Interpretations of the Scripture cannot chuse but reject this which we oppose and imbrace ours unless he will prefer his pre-conceived opinion concerning that thing before any proof whatsoever CHAP. II. The second Argument taken out of the words of Paul 1 Cor. 8.6 To us there is One God the Father of whom are all things THe second testimony of our Opinion touching One God the Father Arg. 2 from 1 Cor. 8.6 shall be that notable place of Paul where he explaineth to us who is that One God whilst he speaketh in this manner To us there is One God the Father of whom are all things and we to him or for him What could be more clearly spoken to shew that that One God is no other besides the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ For Paul explaining who that One God is simply saith That he is the Father not the Father Son and holy Spirit But it could no way come to pass that Paul being about to explain who that one God is should mention the Father only omitting the other persons if that one God were not only the Father but also the Son and holy Spirit since those two Persons besides the Father were as necessary to declare who that one God is as the Father himself so that they could not here by him be omitted or concealed The Defence of the Argument THese things though they be so plain and clear that at the first sight they gained belief yet hath the love of defending mens Opinions prompted them somewhat to answer thereunto Answ 1 For some except that Paul doth not say that that one God is only the Father but simply is the Father by which means the other Persons are not excluded and that they may not seem to speak this without ground they alledge the words immediately following where Paul affirmeth That there is one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him But say they none will say that that one Lord is Christ only otherwise the Father would not be that one Lord which every one may see to be most absurd inasmuch as that one God cannot chuse but be that one Lord. Answ 2 Others answer that the name of the Father being used in divine things is ambiguous for it is one while taken essentially signifying indistinctly the Godhead or whole Trinity another while hypostatically that is personally denoting the first Person of the Trinity as they speak even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and that in this place it is taken in the first signification not in the second as our Opinion requireth The Confutation of the first Answer But as to the first Adversaries we have already shewn that the force of these words of Paul is such as if it were said that that one God is no other besides the Father For the Apostle would here explain who that one God is But doth he rightly explain a thing who omitteth not only as much but more also then he expresseth when in the mean time that which he omitteth is necessary to explain the thing and instead of three Persons mentioneth but one as the Apostle by this account would do Who I pray you of our Adversaries when he is to explain who that one God is doth so handle the matter as that he maketh mention of the Father only and saith that there is one God namely the Father of Jesus Christ which of them doth not or would not rather say thus there is one God namely the Father Son and holy Spirit for indeed he ought so to speak if he will speak agreeable to his Opinion But had the Apostle been of the same Opinion with the Adversaries he should rather have spoken so to avoid the giving of occasion to this Opinion of ours which as they imagine is an errour so grievous and pestilent namely that that one God should be accounted one no less in Person than in Essence and believed to be no other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ especially since the distinction of a Person from its Essence was not then commonly known or to speak more rightly was not yet invented and besides it might justly be doubted of the Son and holy Spirit whether they were the most high God partly because it was confessed amongst all that both do proceed from the Father partly because the Apostles did most frequently distinguish both from God simply so called by calling the one the Son of God the other the Spirit of God Wherefore that most faithful Teacher who was most studious of mens salvation ought not to speak so dangerously and give to the faithful an occasion of so great
less And indeed the greatest part of Interpreters of Scripture seem to acknowledge this signification of that Lorship which is peculiarly attributed to Christ for as oft as they read that Christ is made Lord or Authority and a Kingdom given unto him or that he shall at length deliver the Kingdom to God the Father they usually say that it is there spoken of that Lordship or Kingdom over the Church which is peculiarly granted unto him as mediator by the Father Since therefore such a Lordship agreeth to Christ only why may he not in regard thereof be called that One Lord especially in this place where as we have seen that one Lord is openly distinguished from that one God and without making mention of any other is said to be Jesus Christ and Christ himself is looked upon as he by whom are all things and by whom God is to be worshipped of us which is proper to a Mediator as they commonly take the word where finally there is a plain relation to us Christians and the Church Wherefore it is evident enough that the Father is not that one Lord which is here spoken of nor doth the same Lordship which is attributed to Christ agree to him Which being so what they say concerning that one Lord is so far from overthrowing our opinion which we hold is contained in the former words speaking of that one God that it much confirms it for if when Paul saith that there is one Lord Jesus Christ his purpose was to signifie that that Lord is no other but Jesus Christ in like manner also when he saith That we have one God even the Father his purpose was to signifie that that God was no other but the Father for there is the same force and reason of the words neither hath the one less force to exclude others than the other Before we go hence we must briefly explain how that one Lord is distinguished from that one God when notwithstanding the name of Lord altogether seemeth here to be taken by way of excellency for otherwise there would be many Lords as Paul himself in the precedent words ver 5. did declare But the name of Lord taken by way of excellency seemeth to signifie no other than the most high God and that independent Monarch We answer that the name of Lord when it is put as proper to Christ is taken by way of excellency but only in respect of other Lords who are so far forth of the same kind with him as they have received their Lordship from the most high God and consequently depend on him For that Christ is of the same rank the Scriptures most manifestly testifie and we hereafter producing most clear * Sect. 2. Chap. 10. testimonies thereof will demonstrate Wherefore whatsoever that Excellency be which is contained in the word Lord when it is put for Christ or attributed to him only yet is it not of so large extent nor so sublime as to comprehend an absolute supream and independent Lordship such as is proper to the most high God and consequently neither doth the name of Lord in that sence agree to the most high God but is distinguished from him Thus namely Is it come to pass that since the name of God doth in its own nature signifie something more excellent and noble than the bare name of Lord that the name God taken by way of excellency should denote him who hath an Empire altogether independent and is the prime efficient of all things But the name of Lord distinguished from him who is called God by way of excellency should by a certain preheminency design him who amongst the Lords dependent on God holdeth the first rank and is far sublimer than all the rest Concerning which thing we could say more but that we must hasten to somewhat else The Refutation of the second Answer For now we must examine the other Answer to our Argument drawn from this place of Paul which is that Father in this place is not taken for the Father of Jesus Christ but comprizeth the whole Trinity Which answer that it should come into any ones head is a wonder certainly it is altogether inexcusable unto them who boast that they teach nothing but the meer word of God and are wont to object to us that following reason We depart from the Word of God and wrest the Scripture for what is it to speak besides the Scripture and to depart from the plain and obvious meaning thereof if this be not for by what instance will they ever prove that the word Father spoken of God doth signifie three Persons of Divinity The places are obvious to any one wherein the word Father either absolutely taken or manifestly related to us which they hold is here tacitly done denoteth the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ And indeed the same is the Father both of Christ and us as Christ himself teacheth in * Chap. 20. ver 17. John and many other things demonstrate Since therefore this signification of the word Father is notorious to all and most usual in the Scripture but that other can by no sufficient instance be demonstrated what came into their heads that leaving that they should imbrace this or rather devise it and that in such a place where Paul intended clearly to explain who that One God is and consequently to use the known signification of the word indeed they alledge places where they think God is for the Creation called Father but here they say respect is had to Creation since all things are said to be of him But this latter is taken without proof for the word All is wont to be referred to the subject matter and to be restrained thereunto But here it is spoken of us that is Christians and consequently of things peculiarly belonging unto Christians Again They do not prove that the Father who is so called for Creation is any other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Certainly we see how in that which is called The Apostles Creed the same is called the Father Almighty and the Creator of Heaven and Earth and Jesus Christ said to be his Son yea they themselves though they make creation and the other actions which are performed out of God common to the whole Trinity do yet affirm that creation is peculiarly attributed to the Father redemption to the Son sanctification to the holy Spirit Wherefore although God should in this place be called Father for Creation yet would there be no cause why we should imagine any other besides the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ to be understood but there would rather be great caus why we should think that he is peculiarly to be meant Though furthermore there is either no place at all or scarce any in the whole Scripture wherein for the first Creation only concerning what they speak God is called either simply Father or our Father but for other fatherly benefits of his toward men who call him
Whereas the word according as it is used by the Adversaries includeth the relation of a part but if you take that expression as if it were said by the humane Nrture then both the Father and holy Spirit might do something according to the humane Nature of Christ though perhaps the Father not as the nearest cause and such as immediately moveth the humane Nature but the holy Spirit dwelling therein even as the nearest cause and immediately moving that Nature Again it is likewise understood from what hath been spoken that that distinction of Natures cannot cause that it may rightly be said that Christ is the Mediator of himself not only because it is incongruous to say that his Person doth do any thing according to the humane Nature if that Person be the very supream God but also because from that Opinion of the Adversaries it would follow that the very divine Nature of Christ doth primarily and properly discharge the Office of a Mediator although it make use of the humane nature in this behalf for it would be necessary that the same divine Nature should intervene in the middle between it self and Men which every one seeth to be absurd Finally it is understood that this distinction of Natures cannot cause that Christ the Mediator should be distinguished from God if Christ be very God himself Add hereunto that none but those things are simply distinguisht one from another of whom it may be simply affirmed that the one of them is not the other But in this place God and Christ who is said to be his Mediator are simply distinguished one from another wherefore neither is that God Christ nor Christ that God for the distinction of Natures cannot cause that any thing should be simply denied of some subject which for another Nature is to be simply affirmed thereof as we will shew more at large Chap. 3. of the following Section Wherefore neither can it cause that any thing should be simply distinguished from that which is to be simply predicated of it inasmuch as such a distinction as we have seen doth tacitly involve a simple negation of one in relation to the other Neither can any one here say that Christ in the words of the Apostle is therefore rightly distinguished from God and so tacitly denied that he is that one God because by the name of God or that One God the whole Trinity is understood whereas Christ is not the whole Trinity for by this reckoning it might be said that the Father himself is not God or that one God because the Father is not the whole Trinity But who could endure to hear one so speaking certainly he would openly contradict the Scripture who durst to speak in that manner Besides the very Adversaries themselves do not suppose the name of God or that one God to be collective that is so joyntly signifying three Persons that it cannot be predicated of each apart for in predicating they hold that name hath the nature of an universal so that it may be predicated of every Person in particular For instance The Father is that one God the Son is that one God the holy Spirit is that one God wherefore Christ was not therefore distinguisht from that one God and so tacitly denied to be that one God because he is not the whole Trinity but because he simply is not that one God Some one will perhaps say as it followeth not That Christ is not a man because he is the Mediator of men since he is rather therefore a Man because he is the Mediator of Men Whence the Apostle expresly saith That there is one Mediator of God and Men the Man Christ Jesus So neither from thence that Christ is said to be the Mediator of God I say the most high and only God doth it follow that he is not the most high and only God This though it be more pertinent to the second Section of this book shall notwithstanding receive a brief answer especially because the thing doth not need any long dispute for who seeth not when Christ is said to be the Mediator of Men that by the name of Men other men besides Christ are understood who were either wholy alienated from God or not so joyned but that they might be more closely joyned in a new Covenant by a Mediator but certainly Christ was not in the number of them wherefore we may rather retort this Argument upon the Adversaries for as Christ was not in the number of those men whose Mediator he was nor is comprehended under them in this place of Paul so neither is the same Christ that God or comprehended under the name of that God whose Mediator he is said to be Finally If the whole Trinity were comprehended under the name of that God whose Mediator Christ is he would also be the Mediator of the holy Spirit But this is disentanious to the truth for there would be open testimonies thereof extant in the Tables of the Covenant whose mediator Christ was But what are they We require not such places of Scripture wherein it is expresly said that Christ was the mediator of the holy Spirit but from which it may clearly appear that Christ did so intervene in the midst between the holy Spirit and us as it is needful that a mediator should intervene between them who are to be joyned in Covenant and that he performed the proper part of that Office between him and us According to our Opinion which the most learned Adversaries themselves think not to be false although they say it is imperfect It is the Office of a mediator between God and men to be the messenger of God to men and to strike a League between both and so to cause that men being instructed with the knowledge of the divine Will may address themselves to worship God But the Adversaries commonly suppose that it is the proper Office of Christ the Mediator by fully paying the punishment of all our sins to appease the wrath of God kindled against men and to intercede for them to God which we think pertaineth to a Priest But where is it taught in the Scripture that Christ was the messenger of the holy Spirit to men stroke a League between him and men and brought men indued with the knowledge of his Will to worship him Concerning the Father there are most clear testimonies of the Scripture some whereof we will alledge in the * See Sect. 2. Chap. 4 5 15. following Section Certainly Christ without expressing the Fathers name doth sometimes †John 8.26 27 28. describe him thus He that sent me and changeth this description with the name of the Father There is but one place as far as I can remember alledged out of the Scripture by the Adversaries to prove that Christ was sent by the holy Spirit and it is extant Isa 48.16 where the Prophet according to the vulgar Translation speaketh thus And now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me
But besides that the Prophet doth there indeed speak of Christ himself as even some of the Adversaries have observed and if any one deny that it is to be understood of Christ the Adversaries will have nothing to prove it withal It is to be noted that those words may be rightly rendred out of the Hebrew as some latter * Castellio Interpreters have done And now the Lord God hath sent me and his Spirit Besides though the vulgar interpretation be retained it would be necessary to hold that the holy Spirit did send Christ otherwise than the Lord God from whom the holy Spirit is openly distinguished But here we speak of such a manner whereby Christ was the Embassador or Messenger of the holy Spirit as is proper to God In like manner neither is there any thing read of a Covenant-stroke between the holy Spirit and men to omit the other things that might be insisted upon As for the places which the Adversaries alledge wherein they think it is written that Christ pacified God toward us the Adversaries themselves are wont to understand them of the Father not of the holy Spirit concerning whom they produce no testimony neither are they wont to affirm that Christ doth make intercession for us to the holy Spirit but to God the Father whence * 1 John 2.2 John saith We have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous who is a Propitiation for our sins It remaineth therefore that not the whole Trinity but the Father only be understood by the name of God in this place of ours and so that one God and the Father be accounted for the same But what need many words the very similitude of this place with those which we have formerly discust wherein by the name of that One God the Father is understood or that one God is said to be the Father doth sufficiently teach every one who will not be obstinate against the truth that the same is here also to be understood Furthermore as in those places 1 Cor. 12. and Ephes 4. Paul would shew that there is the same God of all Christians not one God of these another of those so his purpose is here to shew that there is the same God of all men who accordingly is so far forth alike affected towards all as that he would have all saved and come to the knowledge of the truth and not some to be saved and others to perish Whence likewise he sent one Mediator unto men to strike the same League with all in his Name and confirm it with his Blood and so deliver all out of the bondage of sin and death having as it were given a price and testifie unto all the Soveraign Love of God towards them This place putteth us also in mind of that which is extant also in the same Apostle Rom 3.30 Rom. 3.30 where being about to shew that God will alike justifie by faith all men both Jews Gentiles he saith thus For there is One God who will justifie the Circumcision that is the circumcised or Jews by Faith and the Vncircumcision that is the uncircumcised or Gentiles by Faith Now he speaketh of that God of whom he had hitherto spoke many things and to whom he had ascribed the act of justifying whom he sundry times most openly distinguisheth from Christ amongst other things affirming of him that he appointed Christ * Ver. 25. a Propitiatory But that he is no other than the Father of Christ all seem to acknowledge Certainly that he is not the whole Trinity nor Christ himself nor the holy Spirit may be shewn partly by the same and partly by such like Reasons as we have used in the place immediately foregoing as the prudent Reader will by himself understand Wherefore we will no longer dwell herâ—upon especially because we would have this place to be only an accession of the former CHAP. VII Arg. 7 from Rom. 16.27 John 5.44 Jude 4. The seventh Argument drawn out of those places wherein by the name of the Only God or the Only wise God or the Only master God none but the Father of Jesus Christ is designed THough out of each of those places wherein after such a manner none but the Father of Jesus Christ is designed we might draw Arguments yet because the Arguments are alike among themselves we will reckon them for one Thus therefore we may conclude If by the Only God or the Only wise God or the Only Master God the Father only is some where understood and we will afterwards shew that he is so understood it is necessary that the Father only be that God namely Most High Wise Master For it is necessary simply to say the Only God or Only wise God or Only Master God is the Father and contrariwise the Father is the Only God or the Only wise God or Only master God Otherwise these could not be put for the Father as equivalent or would not signifie the Father only but some other also Take which of those Propositions you please and our Opinion will be established If the first it cannot be absolutely and simply said that the only God or only wise or only master God is the Father if the name of the only God c. is of larger extent than the Father or if any other besides the Father is the only God c. For neither is a word of a stricter signification predicated of a large one but contrariwise If you take the latter Proposition it hath bin already shewn in the Defence of the first Argument that it is all one as if you should say the Father only is God the Father only is the wise God or master God For when any one is said to be he to whom only somthing doth agree it is all one as if you should say that the same attribute agrees to him only who is first named as if I should say God is that Spirit who only existed from all Eternity it is all one as if I should say God only is that Spirit who existed from all Eternity and so in the rest The Confirmation and Defence of the Argument NOw that we may shew that the Father only is somewhere designed in such a manner we will begin from that place wherein mention is made of the only wise God as being very clear and most suitable to that which is to be proved And you shall find it at the end of the Epistle to the Romans where the Apostle saith * First place Rom. 16.27 To the only wise God through Jesus Christ be honour and glory for ever and ever That in this place by the name of the only wise God no other is understood but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ may easily be perceived For it is clear that Christ is not understood by that name since he is most openly distinguished from the only wise God and that as the middle cause of glory and honour from the
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
are attributed to the Father Son and holy Spirit and of the Reason for which they are attributed unto them and consequently of the forms of speech which are used concerning them Last of all this also may be added Arg. 12 That no other is the most high God than he who was heretofore called The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob the God of the Israelites But this is no other than the Father of Jesus Christ Whence some of the more learned * Calvin on Acts 22.14 Adversaries write That he who heretofore would be called the God of Abraham and the Fathers is now by a proper title called The Father of Christ The name indeed or description is changed the person remaining the same Hence the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the God of the Fathers Arg. 12 The Father only is the God of the Patriarchs being simply so called is manifestly put for the Father only Acts 3.13 for thus saith Peter The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob the God of our Fathers hath glorified his Son Jesus If not the Father only but also the Son and holy Spirit were the God of the Fathers why is that God of the Fathers simply so called said to have raised his Son is Christ the Son of himself and also of the holy Spirit Why also doth the divine Author to the Hebrews that I may not mention others put that God who divers and sundry wayes spake heretofore to the Fathers by the Prophets and who is ever and anon called the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob or the God of Israel why I say doth he put him simply so called for the Father For he addeth that he hath in these last times spoken to us by the Son Did he not intimate that that God who in the whole Old Testament is brought in speaking and called the God of the Fathers is the same with the Father of Christ and that the one appellation is of no larger extent than the other Certainly he must be more quick-sighted than Lynceus who will discover in the Writing of that Covenant that Christ not to speak any thing of the holy Spirit was under the old Covenant acknowledged and worshipped for the most high God so great a silence is there concerning this matter But of these things hitherto SECT II. Wherein is shewn That Christ is not the Most High God that so it may be understood That the Father only is the Most High God IN the foregoing Section we have produced those places which principally shew and that directly that the Father only is the most high God nevertheless they do also prove that Christ is not that very God which we have undertaken to prove in the second place since it pertaineth to the demonstration of the former For if Christ and we will afterwards teach that the same is to be held concerning the holy Spirit is not that one most high God it remaineth that the Father only is he since there is no other of whom a Christian can so much as suspect that he should be the most high God But we have shewn that Christ in all those places is distinguished from that One God and therefore cannot be that One God For the same should be distinguished from himself And lest any one should think that he can here evade by the distinction of Natures we have shewn that in most places out of which Judgment may easily be made concerning the rest Christ is there considered not according to some nature Arg. 1 That Chrst is frequently distinguished from God which is not a person but in regard of his very Person which according to the Opinion of the Adversaries is that One God and the second Person of the Trinity as they speak But to those Reasons we think fit to add sundry more not that they may not or ought not of themselves to be sufficient for every wise and judicious man but that it may appear with how many and how strong props of the Scripture our Opinion concerning one God the Father is supported For by this means we hope it will come to pass that all wise men will not only discharge us from all fault of impiety and rashness in departing from an opinion received for so many Ages but also begin to wonder that they were dim-sighted and saw no clearer in so great a lustre of the Truth shining on every side and of its own accord darring its beams into the eyes of all and so understand that they shall he impiously obstinate if they shall purposely shut their eyes at so great a Light and dare to reject the true Opinion which we defend First therefore we will alledge those Testimonies of the Scripture and Arguments drawn from them which principally shew that Christ is not that One or Most High God yet do in the mean time withal attribute a Prerogative to the Father above Christ and that to him alone from which it may presently be rightly concluded that the Father only is the Most High God Then we will subjoyn them which do directly demonstrate only this That Christ namely is not the most high God CHAP. I. Argument the first drawn thence That Christ is most frequently distinguished from God AS to the Testimonies of the first sort and the Arguments drawn thence we will begin from those that are largely diffused and may be referred to the names in some sort either denied or attributed unto Christ of which we will in this place alledge but two The first is That Christ is in innumerable places openly distinguished from God simply put And that we may out of so great plenty of Examples produce a few which may put the Reader in mind of the rest How often do we read that Christ is called the Son of God elsewhere we see him called the Word or Speech of God the Image of God elsewhere we find it written that he was in the beginning with God was sent from God went out from God is the Bread of God that descended from Heaven was in the form of God and equal to God sate down at the right hand of God or of the Power of God was made Lord and Christ by God was appointed Judge by God Now it is certain that by the name of God in such places the most high God is understood How then can Christ himself be the most high God For it would be necessary by this reckoning either that there are two most high Gods he namely who is signified by the name of God and Christ and that Christ is distinguished from himself which all understand to be absurd The Defence of the Argument BUt to this Argument two things are wont to be given in answer First That by the name of God in such places the Father is denoted and that since Christ is a Person different from the Father there is no marvel that Christ is distinguished from God Next that Christ in
respect of the humane Nature is distinguished from God not in respect of the divine The first exception for two causes chiefly is of no moment One is that it would thence follow either that there are two most high Gods namely the Father and Christ or that these twain though distinct in persons do yet make one God The first will not be granted by the very Adversaries The latter also cannot consist because the name of God is the name of a Person In as much as it signifieth him that exerciseth Imperial Power over others and when it is put for the most high God it designeth him who with supream Imperial Power governeth all things But this agreeth to none but a Person or as the Schools a Suppositum endued with understanding which is the definition of a person Wherefore he that saith that there is one most high God saith that there is one Person with supream imperial power ruling all things and he that saith that there are many such persons saith that there are many most high Gods Of which â—â—sing more in the second Book The other Reason is because if the name of God taken for the most high God is common to Christ with the Father there is no cause why it should be peculiarly taken for the Father and so Christ be distinguished from God For how shall a word common to the Father the Son distinguish the one from the other should he in their opinion be thought to speak rightly who should distinguish the Father from God simply put Who ever for examples sake did read the Father of God the Father sent God the Father gave God God went out from the Father if ye believe in the Father believe also in God as we read that Christ is the Son of God that God sent and gave his Son that Christ came out from God and he himself pronounceth If ye believe in God belive also in me Do not the very ears of men reject those first forms of speaking John 3.16 17. 13.3 and 14.1 as disagreeable to the use of the Scripture yea and of them with whom we have to do But if you say that a common word is therefore peculiarly attributed to the Father because he is the Fountain and Original of Divinity since the Son and holy Spirit receive their Deity from him we have already shewn * Sect. 1. Chap. 1. before that they who answer so do either contradict themselves and overthrow their own Tenet concerning a Trinity of Persons in one substance of God or say nothing and obtrude upon us empty words Wherefore we refer the Reader thither As for the latter exception which is That Christ according to the humane Nature not according to the divine is distinguished from God absolutely put this also cannot consist For first we have already shewn †Sect. 1 Cap. 6 8. above that Christ cannot simply be distinguished from God if he himself be the most high God although according to some one Nature he be not so Again according to the Opinion of the Adversaries in many of the Places quoted by us or in such as are like to them Christ is considered according to the divine Nature as when he is called the Son of God or the only begotten Son of God and also when he is said to have been in the beginning with God to have been sent from God into the world to have descended from Heaven to have come out from God to be equal to God The greatest part also refer hereunto those expressions that he is called the Image of God the Word or Speech of God and that he is said to be in the form of God Wherefore it is necessary to say that in such places whole Christ how great soever he is is distinguished from God and not in respect of one nature only But from such places judgment may easily be made of the rest For why should one seek a different reason of distinction where it is spoken of the same person when the same person may every where have place Add hereunto that we will afterwards shew that the holy Spirit also is in the same manner also distinguished from God simply put as we saw Christ was distinguished from him But if the distinction be the same why not also the reason of the distinction especially if the same may have place in both as the Adversaries either confess or are forced to confess For what reason of distinction they hold in the holy Spirit the third person of the Trinity as they believe the same must they confess may also be applied unto Christ But if you fly to a distinction of natures there will be a far different reason of distinction in both For this hath no place in the holy Spirit Wherefore the reason of the distinction between God and Christ is not to be placed in this but in some other thing But we have shewn that no other can be imagined than that the Father only be acknowledged the Most High God And let these things suffice to have been spoken concerning the first Argument CHAP. II. Arg. 2 Christ is called the Son of God The second Argument drawn from the name of The Son of God THe second Argument may he fetched from thence that Christ is so often in the Scripture called the Son of God For the Son of God cannot be the most high God To prove which we will not now repeat that which we have urged in the foregoing Chapter namely that by this very appellation the Son is distinguished from God simply so called We will not likewise urge that the substance of the Father must of necessity be different from that of the Son since every one is really the same with his Substance or Essence and consequently the Father will be the Son Lib. 2. Sect. 2. Chap. 1 c. and the Son the Father But if there be a different Essence of the Son and the Father the Son cannot be the most high God unless you hold two most high Gods We will not finally here urge that as the most ignorant understand the Son is in time after the Father whereas the most high God cannot be in time after any since he existed from all Eternity These things I say we will not now urge in as much as they are elsewhere to be urged but only this That from this appellation it followeth that the Father is more excellent than the Son But none is in any sort more excellent than the most high God For whatsoever excellency there is which is incident to supream Divinity cannot be absent from him who is the most high God Otherwise he would have some defect But such an Excellency it is to be from ones self For he is excellenter and greater who hath his Essence and whatsoever he hath from himself than he who hath from another both his Essence and all things that accompany the Essence and cannot be had without it Now that
it would follow that the Father had by that generation shewn him all things But that this is false appeareth sundry wayes first because it would follow from thence that all things had been absolutely without the exception of any thing been already shewn to Christ from eternity and that nothing more much less something greater could be further shewn unto him by that eternal Generation out of the Essence of God The Son had received the Essence of God himself and consequently also his Omnipotency together with all his natural Properties as indeed the Adversaries do believe But to him that hath these nothing farther can be shewn or a power of doing nothing can any farther be given to him no more than to the Father himself †ver 20 But Christ as we see manifestly affirmeth that the Father would yet shew unto him greater things than these which he had already shewn that is give him a faculty of performing greater works From whence it appeareth that all things had not been absolutely as yet shewn unto him Add hereunto that Christ being about to explaâ—n those greater works which the Father would shew unto him mentioneth two whereof the one is as it were subservient to the other namely a faculty of quickning the dead and authority of judging ver 21 22. But Christ afterward affirmeth that these were therefore that is should certainly be given unto him because he is the Son of Man ver 27. from whence it would follow that greater works were by the Father shewn to Christ because he is the Son of Man than by that eternal Generation out of the Essence of God which maketh him to be the most high God which overthroweth it self Besides if the Father by eternal Generation out of his own Essence had given that faculty of working to the Son he would not have given it of his own free will but of necessity For that generation is by the Adversaries held to be altogether necessary and consequently all things that are necessarily contained therein or necessarily conjoyned therewith And indeed it is necessary they should so hold otherwise that generation would not be eternal For whatsoever is simply from eternity is also simply necessary What dependeth upon the free will of God cannot be eternal because the free act of his will doth in time precede it Now Christ himself in the words ver 20. alledged by us sheweth that the Father did of his own free will not by necessiâ—y give unto him that faculty or as he himself speaketh shewed him all things For he saith The Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things which himself doth as if you should say and therefore namely because he loveth the Son he sheweth him all things which himself doth as every one doth by himself perceive But whatsoever God doth out of his love towards any one he doth it of his own free will what he doth out of necessity so that he cannot but do it he doth not out of love Finally when the Father is said to shew all things unto the Son and that out of his love towards him it is apparent that the Son already existed when he shewed him and that he is looked upon as already begotten and not as one who is in that very act begotten But in that generation Christ is not considered as already begotten otherwise he would not be begotten but as one who is in that very act produced Wherefore the shewing was not made by generation The Distinction of Natures in Christ examined As for the latter answer which by a distinction of Natures in Christ laboureth to evade the force of our Argument because the Adversaries do most frequently make use of it therefore we must for once something more diligently examine it that the Reader may in the rest where the same answer occurreth be referred hither But forasmuch as the Adversaries commonly think that they have the Apostles for the Authors of that Description and consequently also of their answer in that the Apostles say that some things agree to Christ according to the flâ—sh Therefore in the first place we will shew how much the Adversaries are mistaken therein Then we will teach that that Distinction is of no moment to solve our Argument fetcht out of John 5.19 and other the like Finally that the very saying that some things agree unto Christ according to the humane Nature and others not doth as we will shew quite overthrow the Opinion of the Adversaries touching Christ To the intent therefore that we may dispatch what we first proposed of those places in which the Adversaries commonly think that they have an example of their destinction the first is extant Acts 2.30 where Peter saith that God swore to David that he would raise up Christ out of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh The second place is extant Rom. 1.3 where Paul saith that the Son of God was made of the Seed of David according to the flesh The third is in chap. 9. of the same Epistle where it is said that Christ was according to the flesh of the Fathers Now the Adversaries think that according to the flesh is according to the humane nature and that to this member of the distinction is tacitly opposed according to the Divine Nature especially because Paul when he had in that place Rom. 9. said that Christ was of the Fathers according to the flesh he addeth these words who is over all God or rather a God blessed for evermore when he seemeth not obscurely to afford the other member of that distinction namely according to the divine Nature But how much the Adversaries are mistaken in the sence of that distinction of the Apostles use is thence apparent namely that whereas those words according to the flesh do frequently occur in the Scripture yet are they never opposed to these according to the divine Nature but alwayes to these according to the Spirit which have a far differing meaning Thus Paul to run over those places only whiâ—h come nearer to our purpose in the same Epistle to the Romans chap. 4.1 saith What then shall we say that Abraham our Father according to the flesh found For so rightly if you consider the sence the antient Interpreter hath ordered the words Where you see that Paul saith Abraham was his Father as well as the Father of the other Jews accordâ—ng to the flâ—sh which every one seeth to be like this expression that Christ was raised up of the fruit of Davids loins or made of the Seed of David or to be of the Fathers * ver 11 according to the flesh to intimate that he here considereth him not as a spiritual Father For though Abraham was also the Spiritual Father of the Apostles yet was he not also the Father of the other Jews in general with whom the Apostle joyneth himself in this place For he teacheth both in the same chapter afterwards †Gal. 1.7 and elsewhere
yea in the ninth chapter ‖ Ver. 7 8. of this Epistle That Abraham is the true Father of none but Believers and that they only are the true seed of Abraham to which the spiritual Promises of God belong In the same manner Rom. 9. where Christ is said to be of the Fathers according to the flesh a little before ver 3. the Apostle calleth the Jews his kindred according to the flesh tacitly oppesing them to his spiritual kindred or to his kindred according to the spirit Thus 1 Cor. 10.18 he commandeth to view Israel according to the flesh likewise opposing it to Israel according to the Spirit that is the Christian People for the People of Christ is the true and spiritual Israel of God Rom. 9.6 Gal. 6.16 thus 2 Cor. 5.16 he saith that he henceforth knoweth that is esteemed and approved none according to the flesh and if he hath at any time known Christ according to the flesh he now no longer knoweth him where likewise according to the flesh is tacitly opposed to that which is according to the spirit and is to be looked upon either in Christ or in them who are in Christ Likewise that place is very notable which is extant Gal. 4. where one son of Abraham namely Ishmael is said to be born according to the flesh ver 23 29. but the other namely Isaac according to the spirit ver 20. whereby is meant not according to the divine Nature but by the divine Power which for the divine Promises given before did intervene to accomplish his nativity compare ver 23 28. and Rom. 9.8 9. although the same Isaac if his generation be compared with the spiritual generation of the Christians not with the birth of Ishmael it may be said of right to be made according to the flesh Thus also Masters according to the flesh are fleshly Masters as the old Interpreter hath it Col. 3.22 that is such as have power to command only in things according to the flesh and this earthly life but not spiritual things And lest there should be any place for an evasion that very place Rom. 1.3 which the Adversaries think make for them doth confirm our Opinion For thus saith the Apostle Who was made of the Seed of David according to the flesh who was declared Gr. defined or constituted Son of God in power according to the Spirit of Holiness by the resurrection from the dead You see that these words according to the flesh are opposed to those according to the Spirit of Holiness that is the Spirit wherewith Christ was sanctified and that the discourse is concerning the matter whereof Christ was made the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead Concerning which we will speak more hereafter chap. 31. but according to the Spirit doth no where signifie according to the divine Nature neither doth the word Spirit put subjectively either alone or with some addition any where denote the divine Nature or Essence And the very word Sanctification in this place applied unto it may sufficiently intimate to every one that it is not here spoken concerning the holy Spirit the divine Vertue whereby Christ was raised from the dead and appointed heavenly King of the People of God and consequently made the Son of God by way of excellency For we shall see hereafter chap. 31. that oftentimes in the Scripture to be Christ or the King anointed by God is all one with being the Son of God from whence also may be understood another passage in the same Epistle chap. 9.5 For in what manner Christ is the Son of God in the most perfect manner so called in the same also is he a God over all to be blessed for evermore But he was made or constituted the Son of God in power by the resurrection from the dead wherefore a God over all to be blessed for ever more And indeed those words according to the flesh annexed to the precedent ones seem to require that the other members of distinction should in the following member * Or sentence be understood it is no hard thing to discern that what we would have is rather to be understood than what was according to the Adversaries Opinion to be supplied For these words according to the divine Nature would be childishly understood For this the Apostle must be imagined to speak Who according to the divine Nature is God over all blessed for evermore But when you have mentioned the divine Nature or Essence you have indeed already mentioned that which is annexed But the absurdity ceaseth if you understand that which we say the Apostle expresseth chap. 1. of the same Epistle namely according to the Spirit of Holiness I omit that neither Peter in that whole Sermon of his wherein he affirmeth that God swore to David that he would from the fruit of his loins raise up Christ according to the flesh that argueth a divine Essence in Christ but the resurrection and exaltation of Christ wrought by divine Vertue whereby he became the Son of God in the most perfect manner as we have already seen in part and will more fully shew in its place wherefore there is nothing in those places that may establish the distinction of the Adversaries But if there be nothing in them that may establish it although among others they seem most of all to confirm it it may of right be concluded that neither is there any else in the Scriptures that may establish it and consequently that it should not be applied to restrain so many places of the Scripture speaking simply and used to turn them from their plain meaning But now we must come to that which we have undertaken to prove in the second place namely that this distinction is of no moment to invalide our Argument drawn from that place John 5.19 or others like thereunto For first the custom of speaking doth not admit that what may or ought simply to be admitted of any whole should simply be denied of the same although it agreeth to the whole according to one part only and not according to the other For who for example sake will simply deny that a man doth eat drink or is fleshly thick tall or of a low stature because his soul or he according to his soul doth not eat drink nor is fleshly thick tall or on the contrary of a short stature Although the soul be the better part of a man and those things agree to him only according to the body But if Christ be the most high God it is to be simply affirmed of him that he can do all things of himself as was before shewn neither do the Adversaries who say that these words of Christ whereof we treat are to be understood of him according to the humane nature only not deny but rather urge it For neither are they wont less simply to affirm of Christ what agreeth unto him according to his better Nature than to deny what agreeth not
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
middle Person between us and God I forbear to mention at this time that they with whom we have to do hold that Christ was in the same sort even from the beginning of the world a Mediator of God and Men. Whence it would follow that his divine Person existing without the humane Nature was already less than the Father before that descent which they understand neither do I here urge that if Christ because he descended to us that is as they imagine assumed a humane Nature became a middle Person between us and God and consequently less than the Father it is necessary that both the Father and the holy Spirit became middle persons between us and God and less than themselves For neither could the Son or his divine Nature assume the humane but that the Nature of the Father and of the holy Spirit and consequently the very Father and holy Spirit would together assume the same humane Nature if that be true which the Adversaries say that those three have one and the same numerical divine Nature Concerning which * Sect. 2. Chap. 5. we will treat in the second Book CHAP. XV. Arg. 15 That the Son was sent by the Father Argument the fifteenth drawn from thence That the Son was sent into the world by the Father IN the second place that may be alleaged which is so often read in John namely that Christ * See Joh. 3.17 4.33 5.23 24. and 30.37 38 and many other places was sent by God or the Father which is also found in other Writers and amongst others in Paul when he saith God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh Rom. 8.3 and Gal. 4.4 When the fulness of time came God sent his Son made of a Woman made under the Law For it followeth from hence that Christ is not the most high God since it is not for him to be sent but to send because it is not for him to receive any command from another but to give commands unto all But every Embassadour as such receiveth command from another and of necessity composeth his words or actions which he undertaketh as an Embassadour unto the will and beck of another otherwise he will not discharge the Office of an Embassadour Whence also Christ as we saw before John 12.49 saith The Father that sent me he gave me a Commandment what I should say and what I should speak And in the following verse What things therefore I speak as the Father hath said unto me so I speak The Defence of the Argument HEre the Adversaries are not easily wont to fly to a distinction of Natures partly because they hold that Christ before he was born of the Virgin was sent by the Father out of Heaven yea sent to this very end to be born of the Virgin and assume a humane Nature partly because they see that to be sent and so to sustain the Office of an Embassadour agreeth to none but a person as such That I may not say if Christ had been sent only according to the humane Nature it will follow that he was also sent by himself or by his own divine Nature when notwithstanding he every where maketh another person namely the Father to be the Author of his mission but never maketh himself yea as we formerly * John 7.28 saw he expresly denyeth that he came of himself Wherefore the Adversaries are wont to betake themselves to another refuge and to deny that Christ being sent by the Father argueth him to be less than the Father indeed the greatest part of them affirm that he saving his equality with the Father even then when he had not yet assumed a humane Nature was both before the Law and under the Law sent by God and was then oftentimes stiled an Angel or Messenger and Embassadour which we in our Book concerning God when we treated of the name Jehovah have as I suppose sufficiently refuted Now they say that it is no unusual thing that a Senator for example sake should be sent by his Collegues to whom he is otherwise equal in Authority and Power and in their name discharge an Embassage Yea that a greater Person may be sent by a less either because he doth of his own accord take upon him that Office or because it is obtained at his hands by prayers or other perswasions But first they do not refute the reason of the consequence of our Argument which being safe the Argument it self is safe Again if the thing be so in divine matters as they hold it is inhumane namely that an equal may be sent by an equal yea a greater by a less nothing will hinder but that also the Father may be sent by the Son or holy Spirit which thwarteth the Opinion of the very Adversaries who deny that the Father may be sent by the Son or holy Spirit either apart or joyntly though it is a wonder that they deny it since they hold that those three Persons are equal to one another in all things so that there is no repugnancy if one of them may be sent that the rest also may be sent But why do I say that there is no repugnancy since it cannot be that one should be sent but that the other must also be sent if so be they are of one Essence and a Person cannot be sent without the Essence For if the Essence of the Father were sent when Christ or the holy Spirit that we may now together speak of him 〈◊〉 was sent certainly it is necessary that the Father himself was sent For he is sent whose Essence is sent since every one is really the same with his Essence Besides from this answer of theirs it will follow that nothing hinders but that God or Christ may be sent by Angels and finally by Men namely being drawn by prayers or other perswasions But if all understand this to be most absurd let them also acknowledge it to be most impossible that Christ should be equal to the Father in all things if he be sent by him for neither was there any cause why all should judge either this or that which in the first place was spoke of to be absâ—rd than because reason it self hath taught all men that the Sender in respect of that thing for which he decreeth the message is as I may speak with the Vulgar the principal but the Messenger is his Minister in the same thing And withal this hath also been understood that the Father can by no means be inferiour to the Son or holy Spirit who proceeds from him have their Essence from him or be Minister much less the Minister of Men or Angels As for the Instances therefore or Examples alleaged to the contrary here they ought to remember that which they themselves are often wont to inculcate when there is no place for it namely that in this matter an Argument is ill drawn from humane things to divine Now the reason of the
And what I pray is that Right of ruling Is it not a right of prescribing Laws unto us and of executing them a Right of remitting our sins of defending us from our adversaries and enduing us with eternal felicity But what hath not the most high God a Right of doing all these things How then did the Father give that Right to Christ how doth he exercise the same by him if the most high God hath it not of himself Wherefore Christ also would have it of himself were he the most high God Some other things which might be here spoken shall be hereafter spoken in a more commodious place It remaineth that we examine the last and most usual Answer of all to the places alleaged by us and the Argument framed out of them which consisteth in the distinction of the Natures of Christ For they say commonly these things are spoken of Christ according to the humane Nature The sixth answer and its refutation and not according to the divine But first as we have before shewn chap. 14. it could not be simply affirmed that all these things were given and bestowed on Christ that he was exalted glorified made Lord and Christ if he had that divine Nature according to which those things could not be spoken of him Since the very same things might simply be denyed of him no less than they are simply affirmed of him in the fore-cited places Add hereunto that such places contain in them a tacit Negation and that a simple one namely that Christ hath not of himself those things which are said to have been given to him for otherwise they would not be said to be given to him But in such Negations a distinction of Natures hath no place as we have sufficiently shewn before especially when we created on that place John 5 19. Again To be or become a King Christ Lord to hold or exercise Empire and if there be any thing like to these do primarily and properly agree to none but an intelligent Suppositum or Person as such Wherefore it must be held either of a very Person having supream Divinity as such and consequently of the very divine Nature that all these things have been given to him by the Father or confest that Christ is not such a person Finally If the Essence of the Supream God were in Christ there would be no cause why it should be said that all things were given to him by another person namely by the Father and he made Lord and Christ and nor rather by himself For was the divine Nature of Christ in this behalf idle did it not give all things to the humane Nature Certainly the Adversaries contend that it did â—ive them and are forced to say so both by reason of that very straight â—â—ion of either Nature which they hold and also because the Father could not give them But that the Son should withal give the same things if he is of one Essence with the Father Why then is this attributed to the Father and to him alone not also to Christ If you say this is done because of the Prerogative of the Father above the Son you will hereby confess the Father not the Son to be the most high God Howbeit neither could a simple Prerogative cause that this should be so often attributed to the Father and so openly but never to the Son For neither are they to be heard who when they reade in certain places that God gave something to Christ glorified him exalted him made him Lord and Christ understand the whole Trinity or the divine Essence that they may attribute to Christ the same action For first since we so often read either that it is expresly written that the Father did those things as to omit other places it happeneth out of those places which are cited out of John or that God glorified the Son or gave something to him and since they themselves confess that the name of God in very many places denoteth the Father only why do they not confess that he is understood in the places under contestation doth not the very similitude of the places perswade thereunto Are not those things which seem to be spoken more generally or confusedly to be explained out of those places which express the same thing more specially and distinctly especially since they are so many in number Again Is it not manifest when the action of giving exalting glorifying is attributed unto God a Person is understood for such actions are attributed unto none but Persons and such an one as is distinct from Christ For who even amongst the Adversaries themselves would endure him that should thus speak The Son of God gave or bestowed a name on Christ the Son of God glorified Christ made Jesus Lord certainly he that should speak so would by the Adversaries and that deservedly said to savour of Nestorianism and attribute unto Christ two Persons namely the Son of God and Christ But the reason is the same if you say that God performed those things to Christ and by the name of God understand the Son Nor are the Adversaries ignorant thereof But who will say that the holy Spirit is understood who is never found in the Scripture expresly named God much less by that name distinguished from Christ and preferred before him is likewise no where read to have given any thing to Christ or to have exalted him To omit that the same question will return which we urged concerning the Father namely why those things should be attributed to the holy Spirit rather than to the Son if the Son were the most high God An Appendix of this Argument wherein is taught That Divinity was given to Christ of the Father BEfore we quite leave this Argument we think fit to add this little Appendix thereunto whereby our Opinion may be yet more confirmed For it appeareth from the places which we have alleaged that Divinity or Godhead was bestowed on Christ of the Father and consequently that he was made a God by the Father From whence it also followeth that Christ is not the most high God For he was from all eternity of himself God and did not at any time receive his Divinity from another otherwise he would not be the most high God Now that which we have said may be confirmed chiefly by two Arguments drawn from those places which we have cited and discussed The first is this He that was made Lord by another he if he be a God Arg. 1 was also made a God by another But Jesus of whom it is certain that he is a God was made Lord by God Therefore he was also made a God by him The Minor as they call it or the Assumption is Peters Acts 2. * ver 36. The Major is confirmed by this reason because if he were not made God by another when notwithstanding he is a God neither could he be made a Lord by another For he that is a God especially in
he no less than the Father should have an high Priest and this Priest be himself since neither any cause can be imagined nor can it any way be that the Father should have a Priest and Christ not have one if he be God no less than the Father yea the same God in number with him as may appear from those things which we before spake concerning the title of a Mediator But where is even the least hint in the holy Scripture whereby it may appear that Christ hath an high Priest as well as the Father Who seeth not that it is very absurd to hold that the Person of Christ offereth to himself wherefore the Priesthood of Christ is utterly inconsistent with the divine Nature which is held to be in him CHAP. XXIX The nine and twentieth Argument That Christ was raised up by the Father THe sixth Argument of this kind may be drawn from the places wherein Christ is said to have been raised by another namely his Father which reason is so much the more to be urged because the contrary thereof is urged by the Adversaries For they say Christ raised himself and by this means clearly demonstrated that he was the Son of God begotten out of his Essence and consequently the most high God But this Argument partly falls to the ground by it self in that it is grounded on a false Supposition as we will by and by demonstrate partly is weakned by another erroneous Oppinion of the same Adversaries For they hold that the Soul or Spirit of Christ which they also hold concerning the spirits of other men after he was dead did notwithstanding perform such actions as agree to none but Substances that are actually alive and understand by themselves Some say that it went down into Hell or Purgatory and brought the Souls of the Fathers out of I know not what Prison or Limbus But if the Soul of Christ even during his death did exercise such actions what hinders but that the same Soul entring into his own Body and former habitation should again unite it unto it self and by divine Power raise it up For could the Soul of Christ furnisht with divine Power do less than his whole humanity when he lived perform by the same divine Power could it do less than for example sake some one of the Apostles to whom Christ sometimes gave the power of raising the * Mat. 10.8 dead and of †Act. 9.40.41 20.9 c. whom we read that some of them did actually raise the dead ‖ 1 King 17.17 c 2 King 4.18 c. Which very thing we read likewise of Elijah and Elisha Wherefore we will far more rightly invert the Argument of the Adversaries and retort upon them that weapon which they endeavour to hurl at us For if Christ were the most high God his raising should be ascribed to himself as the true and chief Author But it is not attributed to him but to the Father as the true and chief Author thereof yea it is very openly signified that Christ iâ— you speak properly Arg. 29 That Christ was raised up by the Father did not raise himself Wherefore he is not the most high God The truth of the Major as they call it is manifest enough For none doubteth if Christ be the most high God that he did altogether raise himself and that it was most suitable that he should raise himself For since it follows from that Opinion that the humane Nature according to which Christ dyed was personâ—â—â—y united to the divine it could at no hand be that the humane Nature should perpetually abide in death and consequently in as much as that union according to their Opinion can never be dissolved that a dead corps should in an indissoluble and eternal tye be united to the divine Nature Furthermore if the humane Nature were to be raised by whom rather was it to be raised than by the divine Nature of the same Christ which both could of it self very easily perform it and by reason of that most strict union did owe this benefit unto the Nature that was joyned unto it Wherefore whether you consider the ability of performing it the divine Nature of Christ would have been the prime cause of that work for the Office of performing it it would have chiefly lain on that Nature How then would not Christ have been the true and chief Author of his own Resurrection As for the Minor there are so many and so clear Testimonies of the holy Scripture which make the Father the true and chief Author of the Resurrection of Christ and not Christ himself yea very openly take away this work from Christ though even the thing it self namely his death doth sufficiently take it away that it is a wonder that any one should doubt of it For first in certain places it is openly said that the Father raised Christ or that God raised his Son But who is that God whose Son Christ is but the Father The former is recorded by Paul in the beginning of the Epistle to the Galathians whilst he speketh thus Paul an Apostle not from men nor by man but by Jesus Christ and God the Father that raised him up from the dead The latter it is affirmed by Peter Acts 3. ult To you God having raised up his Son first sent him blessing you And Paul chap. 13.33 doth indeed assert the same whilst he saith And we declare unto you the Promise which was made unto our Fathers that God hath fulfilled it unto us their Children having raised up Jesus as it is also written in the second Psalm Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee Now that he raised him from the dead no more to return to corruption thus he said c. From which words it appeareth that he who said unto Christ thou art my Son this day â— begot thee which indeed is no other than the Father raised him from the dead The same Apostle saith 1 Thes 1.9 10. Ye turned to God from Idols to serve the true and living God and is expect his Son out of Heaven whom he raised from the dead even Jesus who delivereth us from the Wrath to come Where in like manner God is said to have raised his Son from the dead To these are added very many other places wherein it is simply written that God raised Christ of which number we will here set down only one or two with the words at large contenting our selves to quote the rest Thus therefore speaketh Peter Acts 2.24 Whom Jesus of Nazareth God raised up having loosed the Throws of Hell in that it was impossible that he should be held by it For David faith concerning him I saw the Lord alwayes before me because he is at my right hand that I may not be moved Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoyceth Moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope For thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell nor suffer
remission of sins was made judge of the quick and dead Again How often do the Apostles commend the exceeding great love and bounty of God exhibited in Christ Jesus to mankind But what more illustrious argument could there have been of this love then that the most high God should willingly be made man for mans sake Wherefore then is there so great silence in those places concerning this thing Namely because it never was neither was there any that we may briefly add this thing also cause which did require that the most high God the creator of Heaven and earth should assume flesh For as much as the man Christ Jesus being asisted by divine power was able to performe and did really performe when he was upon earth all things that belonged unto our salvation both in teaching and also in working miracles and finally in obeying his Father in all things and was able also to performe and did so indeed performe by the same divine power whatsoever things are required to the perfecting of our Salvation But who dares to say that God would admit a thing so contrary to his Majesty without the greatest cause or rather necessity although at length it were possible for his nature But we will not enlarge on this matter because these things are here and there handled in our Arguments that belong to this place But if any one desire to see this also more fully explained he may read elsewhere * See Socin in his fragments page 18. c. in ours CHAP. XXXIII Arg. 33 The holy Spirit was given unto Christ The three and thirtieth Argument That the holy Spirit was given unto Christ VVE will make the third Argument this that the holy Spirit was given by God unto Christ of which thing we do not read â—nly in one place of holy Scripture For both in the Old Testament chiefly in Isaiah there are some testimonies of this thing and also in the New where some places are likewise cited out of the Old For so speaketh Isaias in the beginning of the 11th Chapter And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse and a branch shall grow out of his roots And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him the Spirit of wisdom and understanding the Spirit of counsel and might the Spirit of knowledge and piety or as it is in the Hebrew of the fear of the Lord. Which all both see and confess to be spoken of Christ Likewise in the beginning of the 42d Chapter God speaketh of the same Christ Behold my servant whom I uphold mine elect in whom my soul delighteth I have put my Spirit upon him Which words are cited by Christ Matth. 12.17 And Chap. 61.1 the Prophet bringeth in Christ speaking after this manneâ— The Spirit of the Lord is upon me for that the Lord hath anointed me Which words Christ himself testifieth to be fulfilled in him Luke 4.18 c. But in the same Gospel we read how the holy Spirit descended on Christ when he was baptised of John and abode upon him Matth. 3.16 Luke 3.22 and John 1.32 33. Whence Luke in the beginning of his fourth Chapter saith That Jesus being full of the holy Spirit went up out of Jordan And Peter with the same Writer testifieth Acts 10.38 That God had anointed him with the holy Spirit and with power Whence Christ proveth that he cast out Devils in or by the Spirit of God which thing also Peter Acts 10. doth plainly shew and accuseth the Pharisees of blasphemy against the holy Spirit that they durst to ascribe to Beelzebub the Prince of Devils such kind of miracles as were done by the very power of the holy Spirit Matth. 12.28.31 Mark 3. compare vers 30. with the foregoing And Luke saith Acts 1.2 That Christ in the same day wherein he was taken up gave commandment to the Apostles by the holy Spirit that is by the motion of the holy Spirit For neither did he make use of the ministry of the holy Spirit by whose intervening help he gave commandments to his disciples although others by transposition connect the words by the holy Spirit with the following whom he had chosen whereof it is not necessary to dispute in this place For as to our purpose the force of the words will be the same to wit that Christ by the motion of the holy Spirit chose the Apostles Neither is it a wonder seeing that he was the Spirit of wisdom and understanding the Spirit of counsel the Spirit of knowledge that is who produced Wisdom Understanding Counsel Knowledge and bestowed it on Christ as appears from Isa 11. a place cited by us But that we may from hence demonstrate that Christ is not the most high God we will not now use that reason that by this means something was given unto him by God the Father which Argument we have * Chap. 18. of this Sect. elsewhere explained but this that he would not truly have stood in need of the holy Spirit if he were the most high God especially if that Opinion of the Adversaries be laid down that the holy Spirit is a Person distinct from the Father and the Son For what help I pray you can the holy Spirit yield unto the most high God What is there that the most high God cannot perform of himself For it is not what they say that Christ's humane Nature needed the assistance of the holy Spirit For that I may not urge that now that those things are spoken simply of Christ that are not to be spoken if he were the most high God as of whom they are simply to be denyed What need was there of the help of the holy Spirit the third Person of the Deity as they will have it unto the humane Nature if the very same was personally joyned to the second Person of the Deity if the whole fulness of the divine Essence as they interpret that place Col. 2.9 did dwell therein bodily if as the same persons judge that divine Nature did bestow all the supernatural Gifts upon the humane that hapned unto it if that did either communicate unto it all its Properties or at least the full knowledge of all things as the major part of the Adversaries judge Whether or no the holy Spirit could add any thing to this store Wherefore I pray is Christ deciphered rather by the holy Spirit than by his own Nature either to have cast out Devils or to have commanded any thing or to have been endued with Wisdom Understanding Counsel Might Knowledge the Fear of the Lord The Defence of the Argument SOme one will perhaps say that therefore those things are rather attributed to the holy Spirit than to the divine Nature or Person of Christ because they belong unto Christs Sanctification and that Sanctification although common to the whole Trinity is properly ascribed to the holy Spirit But they speak thus not only without reason but even contrary to reason We
will not now rehearse that that Christ's Sanctification cannot be rather attributed to the holy Spirit than to the Father to whom the same is so ascribed * John 10.36 that it is urged as a cause why Christ is his Son For hence it would follow if the the same agree rather to the holy Spirit than to the Father that the holy Spirit would be rather the Father of Christ than God himself who both is the Father of Christ and is every where in the new Testament so called That we will say here which is proper to this place if any reason can be imagined why that which is common to all the Persons should notwithstanding be ascribed rather to one than to another that here would be great cause why this action is rather to be ascribed to the Son than to any other Person and indeed a double cause The one is that most strict conjunction which agreeth unto the Son according to his humane Nature as the Adversaries Opinion urges The other is that the same Adversaries will have the Son to be the natural Wisdom and Power of God by which he makes all things and hither they bring those words which in Prov. 8. are spoken abstractively and in general touching Wisdom and also those which we read of Christ 1 Cor. 1.24 But unto which divine Person would it rather agree to bestow on the humane Nature of Christ Wisdom Understanding Counsel Knowledge than to that which was nearest unto that Nature and is the natural Wisdom of God himself To what would it better agree than to the natural Vertue and Power of God to do all those stupendious works by the humane Nature All those things therefore are rather to be attributed to the divine Nature of Christ than to the holy Spirit Besides we demand of them that make use of this kind of exception whether or no they determine that the holy Spirit contributed more to the bestowing of those Gifts upon the humane Nature than the divine Person of Christ himself or as much the one as the other Person If that they overthrow their own Opinion if this the Scripture For if they admit that either there was not so much power in the divine Person of Christ to perform the same as was in the holy Spirit or not so great a will Neither can be spoken of it if Christ were the most high God and indeed of the same Essence with the holy Spirit But if they admit this there will be no evident cause why it should be expresly attributed to the holy Spirit that he bestowed those Gifts on the man Christ and no where to the divine Person or Nature of Christ himself Wherefore this exception hath there no place and consequently neither the distinction of a humane and divine Nature in Christ For this very thing we demand why was the holy Spirit given to the humane Nature if that were personally united to the divine Nature CHAP. XXXIV Arg. 34 Christ was tempted of the Devil The four and thirtieth Argument That Christ was tempted of the Devil THe fourth Argument of this kind is this that Christ as the History of the Gospel declareth was tempted of the * Mat. 4.1 c. Mark 1.12 Luke 4.1 c. Devil and sollicited to worship him and that he was to this very end namely that he might be tempted of the Devil led by the holy Spirit into the wilderness For this would by no means have hapned if Christ had been the most high God For first what is more unworthy of God than to expose himself to this impious and wicked Enemy whom for the contempt of his Majesty most clearly heretofore seen he had thrust out of Heaven to be tempted and sollicited to the adoration of him and so to offer himself of his own accord to be mocked of the Devil Again to what purpose should Christ do this was it that it might appear that the most high God was able to endure and overcome the temptations of the Devil was there any one who could make any doubt thereof so that there should need any tryal thereof Furthermore how durst the Devil attempt so great a matter I will not now mention that the Devils tremble at the sight of the divine Majesty †Jam. 2.19 inasmuch as they are afraid at the memory of him in that they were by him cast out of Heaven and thrust down to Hell For feign you now in the wicked spirit who is very conscious both of the Wrath and invincible Power of God and of the bonds wherein he is held by him as much boldness and impudency as you please yet must you withal confess that he is exceeding cunning and I would this were not to be confest But how can it be that a most cunning spirit should tempt the most high God and endeavour to seduce him and conceive in his mind such a project as that he should sollicite him to a thing most unworthy and detestable namely the adoration of the Devil For can it be either that he should attempt a thing which he well knoweth to be impossible or should not clearly perceive that this thing is altogether impossible Neither of these things are incident to him that hath so much as a grain of wit much less could it happen to a most subtil and cunning spirit Moreover when he saith If thou art the Son of God command that these stones become loaves And again If thou art the Son of God cast thy self down He sufficiently sheweth that his intention is to make Christ by some means to begin to doubt whether he be indeed the Son of God whom he had a little before * Mat. 3. â—1 heard from Heaven that he was and consequently to seek further proofs of a thing some way doubtful But how could he hope by any means whatsoever to effect this with such a Son of God as was begotten out of the divine Essence For do we think that an enemy most practised in this kind of fighting who is commonly called the Author of a thousand cunning tricks did here use such a kind of tempting as was the unfittest of all to deceive and so made use of arms so vain and ridiculous to assail a most valiant and wise Captain What would Satan get if by any reasons he should endeavour to perswade even a common man who is well in his wits to doubt of himself whether he was a man and not rather something inferiour to a man Would not this rather be a sport than a temptation But it would be much more ridiculous by any reason whatsoever to go about to perswade the Son of God begotten out of the divine Essence that he should doubt whether he be the Son of God or not But you will understand that thing is far otherwise if you observe that Christ was pronounced by God to be his Son in such a manner as did not belong to his Essence and which was indeed
notwithstanding propose it to consideration whether a different Exposition brought by him be not genuine namely that we should understand Christ to be called the First-born of every Creature because he is the chief Heir of all things And he a little after addeth That the native signification of the word First-born hindreth it from being understood of the divine Generation of the Son of God out of the Substance of the Father for it properly signifieth him who is born at the first birth and so agreeeth to the Mother not to the Father CHAP. XXXVI The thirty sixth Argument That Christ is equal to God THat place Phil. 2.6 c. which is wont to be urged against us containeth several Arguments of our Opinion For besides what we have formerly urged that Christ is there several times distinguished from God simply put that he was obedient unto God that he was exalted by him and that to him was given by God a name above every name and that the Dignity and Honour given to him is affirmed to redound to the glory of God the Father as to the utmost object thereof besides all these things I say this also argueth Christ not to be the most high God that he is said to be equal unto God Which the greatest part of the Adversaries say is spoken of him according to the divine Nature and is an open proof of that Nature But that which is equal hath alwayes a different Essence from that to which it is equal otherwise the same thing would be equal to it self whereas equals are relatives and consequently opposites If therefore Christ be equal to God and that as they imagine in respect of Essence and essential Properties the Essence of Christ must of necessity be different from the Essence of God Wherefore they must either hold two divine independent Essences or two most high Gods or that Christ is not the most higst God More Arguments might be brought but we will at present be content with these especially because some of them shall hereafter be touched when we shall prove our Opinion out of such Principles as Reason it self affordeth For neither will we so draw Arguments from Reason as that we will not now and then recal the Adversaries to the Testimonies of the Scripture SECT III. Wherein is shewn that the holy Spirit is not the most high God that it may appear that the Father only is the most high God IT now followeth that we should shew what we undertook to demonstrate in the third place namely That the holy Spirit is not the most high God Although the business may easily be decided by what we have disputed concerning Christ For though those testimonies also of the holy Scripture which sâ—ew that the Father only is the most high God do withall strongly demonstrate that the holy Spirit is not the most high God seeing it is granted that the holy Spirit is not the Father yet will we not use them in this place For in this place we do not demonstrate that the holy Spirit is not the most high God because the Father only is the most high God but on the contrary because neither the Son nor the holy Spirit is the most high God we evince that the Father only is the most high God But with those testimonies wherewith we have sâ—ewn that Christ is not the most high God we can here also demonstrate that the holy Spirit is not the most high God For neither can it be if Christ be not the most high God that the holy Spirit should be the most high God Whence neither was there ever any man that I know of who not acknowledging Christ for the most high God did imagine that the holy Spirit notwithstanding was the most high God And the reason hereof is manifest whether you consider the thing it self or the opinion of the Adversaries For as to the thing it self how could it come to pass that Christ should send the holy Spirit and give him to men if the holy Spirit were the most high God and Christ were not so For could he send and give the most high God who is inferior to him And as for the opinion of the Ad eâ—saries they hold that the holy Spirit hath his Essence as from the Father so also from the Son But how can the most high God have his Essence from him that is not the most high God the Creator from a creature He that was from all eternity from him that began to exist at a certain time Wherefore having shewn that Christ is not the most high God we might here stop and bring no otâ—er Arguments to shew that the holy Spirit is not the most high God Nevertheless that the thing may be made the more manifest we will demonstrate the same with farther arguments And in the first place we will draw Arguments from thence Arg. 1 The holy Spirit is no where called God that many things are omited concerning the holy Spirit in the Scripture which could by no means have been omitted if he had been the most high God Next we will draw Arguments from these things which are expresly delivered concerning the holy Spirit in the same Scripture CHAP. I. Argument the first That the holy Spirit is no where openly called God in the holy Scripture AS therefore to the first sort of Arguments we will begin from the veâ—y Name of God For there can no place of the Scripture be alleaged wherein the holy Spirit is openly called God But were the holy Spirit God how could it come to pass that there should not be so much as one place in the huge Volume of the Scripture where he is openly and cleaâ—ly called God Concerning the Father there are so many and so eâ—ident places that none can deny that he is God unless he daâ—es to deny that the Sun shineth at noon Concerning Christ likewise although he be not the moâ—t high God yet there are certain plain places of the Scripture which shew that he is God which are commonly known to all men And shall there be no place at all concerning the holy Spirit although he be the most high God as well as the Father and not only not inferiour to Christ but also for as much as Christ is a man by nature far superiour Besides the Adversaries hold that it is necessary to salvation for a man to believe that the holy Spirit is God yea the most high God And indeed if he were the most high God it would seem altogether necessary to be known for what faithful man ought to be ignorant of his most high God and not to worship him But the thing would withall be such that unless it were divinely revealed unto us we could have no certain knowledge thereof in as much as it is not manifest to our sences How then should a thing so great so necessary to be known so abstruce not be clearly explained and purposely delivered by divine men at
manner dwell therein so that it may be rightly said to be the temple of the divine efficacy and virtue seeing God by his efficacy and virtue doth inhabite his temple especially that which is treated of in that place to the Corinths wherefore if any one will concâ—ude that the holy Ghost is God in that our body is his temple he must demonstrate that our body is so the temple of the holy Spirit as that he is a person to whose honour it is dedicated and by whom our body is by such a right as is proper to the divine Majesty possessed and principally inhabited But it is impossible to demonstrate this and it doth even from thence seem to be false because in a place very like to this place of ours which is extant before in the same Epistle to the Corinths Chap. 3.16 the Apostle doth thence clearly prove that we are the temple of God because his Spirit dwelleth in us As also John proveth that God abideth in us because he hath given us of his Spirit 1 John 3.24 and 4.13 For if the holy Spirit were such a person as before we said and consequently the most high God what need was theâ—e to conclude thence that God abideth in us or that we are his temple because his spirit is in us and not raâ—her from thence because that very spirit that dwelleth in us is God What need is there I say to shew that we are the temple of God who is distinguished from the holy spirit and by the interveining of him dwelleth in us and not rather of God which is the very spirit himself dwelling in us and inhabiting us as his temple not by another person as our Adversaries would have it but by himself But the Apostles knew that it belongeth not to the supream deity in his own person and substance to inhabite any temple whatsoever on the earth and to dwell in the breasts of men but by his virtue and efficacy and therefore they do not conclude that we are the temple of God or that God abideth in us because the holy spirit that dwelleth in us is the supream God but because the spirit of that God dwelleth in us and was by him given to us For if the spirit or force and efficacy of any deity dwelleth in any place the very deity it self is said to dwell there and that is the temple thereof wherein his virtue hath as it were fixed his abode The third place which is extant 1 Cor. 12.5 6. doth likewise plainly prove the contrary for there one and the same spirit is manifestly distinguished both from one and the same God and from one and the same Lord of which matter we have * Sect. 1. Chap 4. before treated But if they will collect from the unity of operation which appeareth from the collation of vers 6. with the 11th that that oâ—e God and that one spirit are the same first it is one thing that the holy Spirit should be that one God another that he should be called that one God concerning which matâ—er we here treate Again we must conclude that that God also which worketh all these things by his spirit is the same with his spirit in that the same operations agree to boâ—h that is that the Father is the holy Spirit and contrarily the holy Spirit is the Father yea that the three persoâ—s which are commonâ—y held are but one and predicated one of aâ—other because they have the same external operations concerning which we here speak But of this matter also it was formerly treated In like manner neither doth the fourth place which is extant 2 Sam. 23.2 prove that the holy Spirit is God but rather that he is not so so far is he from being there openly called God or the Lord. For he is there openly distinguished from the Lord which is that one God whilst he is called the Spirit of the Lord of which matter more in the * Below Chap. 5. following discourse Now whereas they reason thus God spake by David The holy Spirit spake by David Therefore the holy Spirit is God any one easily perceiveth how fallâ—cious this reasoning is in that it consisteth of meer affirmatives in the second figure as they speak in the schooles For if such an argument is to be admitted we may thus also conclude God the Father spake by David The holy spirit spake by David Therefore the holy spirit is God the Father For the Major is to be granted by the Adversaries both for the communion of operations which they hold to be among the persons of the Trinity and also for the saying of the holy scripture For that I may produce but on place the Apostles Acts 4.25 say of God the Father that he spake by the mouth of David his servant namely by the holy spirit as the vulgar translation hath it But that God the Father is there understood is apparent from vers 27. where Jesus is called the son of that God whom the Apostles spake unto And indeed God spake by his Spirit or the intervening of his Spirit by David in that by his Spirit and efficaâ—y he disclosed to him those things which he ought to speak and moved him to utter them Thus in Rev. Chap. 2. and 3. at the end of every Epistle directed to the Angels of the Asian Churches these words are read Let him that hath an ear hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches But in these Epistles Christ the son of God doth perpeâ—ually speak Wherefore if we ought to follow the reasoning of the adversaries we must conclude that that Spirit namely the holy Spirit is Christ the son of God Indeed Christ did there speak but by his Spirit to whom for that reason the act of speaking is likewise there attributed Now if the adversaries will invert their major proposition and argue in this manner whosoever spake by David he is the God of Israel neither that proposition will be contained in the place quoted from whence the Argument is drawn nor is to be admitted unless it be thus taken Whatsoever person principally spake by David he is the God of Israel But if you subsume The holy Spirit is a principal person spaking by David it likewise will neither be contained in the place that was quoted nor is at any hand to be granted But again David spaketh there one way concerning God another concerning the holy Spirit Of the Spirit he saith The Spirit of the Lord spake by me but of God he saith The God of Israel spake to me neither is it spoken of the same thing in both places For in the former part of â—he words it is signified that God moved David by his Spirit â—o utter prophesâ—es in the latter that he spake something to David himself or caused something to be declared to him namely concerning the regal dignity which he first conferred upon him by Samuel 1 Sam. 16.13 afterward confirmed by Nathan 2 Sam. 7.12
c. compare the said place with 2 Sam. 7.28 2 Kings 5.5 8.19 c. 1 Chron. 22.8 c. Psal 88.4.20 c. in reference to his posterity Wherefore in this matter God did not spake by David but by others to David Howbeit that this was performed by the Spirit of God this as to the force of those words is altogether by accident For it had been all one if God had spoken to David in his own person without any Prophet that was divinely inspired It is now easie to give an answer to those places likewise whereby others endeavour to prove that the holy Spirit is called Lord. For that in none of them it is plainly written that the holy Spirit is the Lord or God which that it was requisite to overthrow our Argument every man perceiveth But neither do they prove that the holy Spirit is Lord. For when it is said Deut. 32.12 The Lord alone did guide the People of Israel the word alone doth only so far forth exclude others either things or persons which are herein subordinate to God in as much as they are denyed to be the supream Leaders of that People For if they should by that Particle be wholly excluded from the action of bringing the People out of Egypt we must conclude either that Moses did not lead that people which notwithstanding the History doth most openly shew or that he also is the Lord himself Which should also be said of that Angel of whom God saith That he should go before the People and keep them in the way and bring them into the place which he had prepared in which Angel he affirmeth his name should be Exod. 23.20 21. But it is well that the very words of the place do shew that the Particle alone is indeed opposed to other Gods and persons not subordinate to the Lord in which number the holy Spirit is which dwelling chiefly in Moses led the people as may be understood from that place of Isaiah chap. 63.11 which hath been cited Now that this Spirit is not the Lord himself who is said alone to have led the People is thence apparent because in these very words of Isaiah which are compared with that place of Deuteronomy he is distinguished from the Lord whilst he is called the Spirit of the Lord and afterward the Prophet turning of his speech unto the Lord himself saith Thus didst thou lead thy People As to the other reason The Lord said that he would speak by the Prophets but the holy Spirit spake by the Prophets wherefore the holy Spirit is the Lord An answer hereunto is already evident from those things which have been spoken concerning that place 2 Sam. 23.2 for it is a Syllogism of mere Affirmatives in the second Figure And if this reason be firm it will follow that the Angels also are the Lord. For in the quoted place Numb 12.6 the Lord saith that he would in vision appear to the Prophets or would speak unto them by dreams But the Angels also did this as appeareth both from other places so especially from the Prophecy of Ezekiel Daniel Zachary and from the Revelation of John See Dan. 8.16 17. 9.21 c. cap. 10.5 c. Zach. 1.8 9 14 19. 2.1 3 c. 4.1 c. frequently in other places Rev. 1.1.17.1 c. and 19.9 10. and 21.9 c. and 22.8 c. and ver 16. Moreover we have examples hereof in the History of the Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles And that we may not go far from the places which the Adversaries alleage that very person who spake these words to Moses Exod. 4.12 was an Angel sustaining the person of God as we have elsewhere * See the Book of God and his Attributes shewn and although a man would not confess it yet seeing the Law is said to have been disposed and delivered by †Gal. 3.19 Angels in the hand of a Mediator he must needs confess that the Angel in giving the Law spake unto Moses of whom those words Exod. 4. do treat There is the same fault in the third reason namely that a conclusion is in the second Figure drawn out of mere Affirmatives The Israelites provokt the Lord the Israelites provokt the holy Spirit therefore the holy Spirit is the Lord. Which is refuted by that very place of Isaiah which is cited whilst he is said to be the Spirit of the Lord◠for he saith but they provoked to anger and grieved the holy Spirit of him that is of the Lord for of him it is spoken see ver 7 c. A like Argument hereunto would be this The Israelites were disobedient to the Lord and exasperated him The Israelites were disobedient to the voice of the Lord and exasperated his mouth Therefore the voice of the Lord or his mouth are the Lord himself Or thus The Israelites grieved the holy Spirit and resisted him The Israelites grieved Moses and resisted him as the History testifieth in sundry places yea they did chiefly so far forth grieve the holy Spirit and resist him in the wilderness as they grieved Moses in whom he dwelt and resisted him Whence it will follow if the Argument of the Adversaries be right that Moses himself was the holy Spirit For it is to be observed that the words Heb. 3.8 9. are not so attributed to the holy Spirit as if they were spoken in his person as the Adversaries conceive but because they were pronounced by the impulse of the holy Spirit Otherwise it would follow that the holy Spirit is David himself since the holy Spirit is in this place said to have uttered also these words Psal 95. To day if you will hear his voice namely God c. But it is certain that both these words and also the rest which are read in the beginning of the Psalm are pronounced in the person of David Thus we saw before that it is ascribed to the holy Spirit Rev. 2.3 that he spake those things which are most openly pronounced in the person of Christ Therefore the holy Spirit so spake those words in David as he is said to cry in our hearts Abba Father Gal. 4 6. namely because we by him that is by his impulse do so cry Rom. 8.15 and as he is said to intercede for us with groans unutterable ver 26. because he maketh us to pray and groan unto God As to the last proof therefore the words of God are attributed in Isaiah to the holy Spirit because Isaiah pronounced them by the impulse of the holy spirit Now as it doth not follow because Isaiah likewise pronounced those words that they are therefore spoken in his person and so that Isaiah is the Lord so likewise neither is it to be concluded concerning the holy Spirit by whose impulse he pronounced them It is also here to be observed what we noted in 2 Sam. 23. it is not said of the holy Spirit that he spake those
words unto Isaiah but only by Isaiah But the Lord did not only speak them by Isaiah but also as appeareth by the Prophecy it self to Isaiah because he spake openly by him as one person doth to another which is neither here nor elsewhere attributed to the holy Spirit For if the holy Spirit is read to have said any thing to any one it is found to have no otherwise come to pass than because somethings were declared to some one from God by the intervening of some Prophet For in that the Prophets spake by divine Inspiration therefore the holy Spirit is said to have spoken by them But when God spaketh openly to any one or an Angel sustaining his person the holy Spirit is not said to have spoken to him And thus much concerning our first Argument CHAP. II. The second Argument That it is no where in holy Scripture commanded that we should adore or invocate the holy Spirit yea there is not so much as any example thereof LEt the next Argument be this that we are no where either enjoyned or any way admonished in the holy Scripture to adore or invocate the holy Spirit Yea so far it is that there is any precept or admonition concerning this thing that there is not so much as one example of any man there to be found which hath done it Now though it is said in that which is called the Apostles Creed that we are to believe in the holy Spirit as many of the Antients did in like manner say that we are to believe in the Catholick Church and in the other things that are there mentioned yet is it no where expresly said in the holy Scripture that we ought to believe in the holy Spirit or that any one did believe in him But were the holy Spirit the most high God how could it be that all those things should not be openly enjoyned and many examples of them found in holy men first because these things would be necessary to be known and practised of all men to salvation were the holy Spirit the most high God Again because these things are not only often but most openly writ concerning the Father but also concerning the Son there are partly precepts partly admonitions and very many examples although we have shewn that he is not the most high God How much more therefore would there be many examples extant concerning the holy Spirit were he the most high God The Defence of the Argument Arg. 2 The Scripture speaks nothing of worshipping the holy Spirit INdeed the Adversaries endeavour sometimes a by certain consequences to evince that these things are some way contained in the holy Scripture but here we shall not deal with consequences but as we have taught with open precepts that might be evident to every one though otherwise he were but a simple man As for Invocation some imagine they have an example thereof both in Paul 1 Cor. 13. ult who wisheth to the Corinthians The communion of the holy Spirit and also in John Rev. 1.4 who wisheth to the seven Asian Churches Grace and peace to the seven Spirits that are before the Throne of God But they are exceedingly mistaken for as to the wish of Paul it is one thing to wish that the communion of the holy Spirit should be with men another thing to invocate the holy Spirit himself for the first is no other than to wish that the holy Spirit should be communicated unto men or being cummunicated should abide with them For neither doth the Apostle take the communion of the holy Spirit actively as if he wished that the holy Spirit should communicate something otherwise he would have added the name of something which he would have to be communicated to the Corinthians by the holy Spirit but as we have already hinted passively Thus the communion of the Blood of Christ and the communion of the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 is taken where there is the same word in the Greek as in that place 2 Cor. 13. ult For whilst the Apostle wisheth the communion of the holy Spirit to the Corinthians he explaineth in what manner chiefly he desireth that God and Christ should testifie their Grace and Love towards them namely in giving his holy Spirit to them or in cherishing and augmenting the same already given unto them And indeed it would be a wonder if Paul should here wish for something from the holy Spirit as a divine person that he should so often have omitted the mention of him elsewhere in the like prayers Of which matter more hereafter As to the wish of John the very number of those spirits sufficiently hinteth that this place maketh nothing to the invocation of the holy Spirit whom they would have to be the third Person in the Godhead For then we should make seven spirits instead of one so that for three Persons of the Deity we should have nine Which when others perceived they said that by these spirits is to be understood the various power of God or as they speak the various gift of the holy Spirit And therefore it is all one as if John should pray for Grace and Peace from the holy Spirit himself But besides that the Adversaries agree not among themselves concerning this matter for some by that name understand seven chief Angels of God others the manifold providence of God and Christ what is there that evinceth that this vertue proceedeth from the holy Spirit which is a third Person of the Deity and that he is invocated when John prayeth for Grace and Peace from those seven Spirits of God There is not the least hint thereof in the Revelation where mention is several times made of those seven spirits See besides the very place of the first chapter chap. 3.1 4.5 5.6 which two places compare with Zach. 4.2 10. from whence they are in a manner taken In these places thou shalt see those spirits called the spirits of God they are said to stand before the Throne Christ is said to have them as eyes and horns For they are to him instead of eyes because by them he overseeth and taketh care of his Disciples and provideth for them and instead of horns because by them he pusheth his enemies and driveth them away and chaseth them from his People What hint is here of the holy Spirit that should be a third Person of the Deity Doth not the thing it self shew that if the manifold vertue and efficacy of God which he hath communicated with Christ be to be understood John whilst he wisheth grace and peace from those spirits doth so mention them as if they were certain persons distinct from God and Christ yet in the mean time doth only declare the means manner whereby he desireth that grace peace should proceed from God to the Churches and so doth tacitly repeat the invocation of God himself whom he had before named and whose spirits they principally are and to whom they do
most true yet is it of no force to weaken our Argument For the knowledge of the holy Spirit is contained in the knowledge of God and Christ but not as of a person distinct from God the Father and from Christ but as of a divine thing to be communicated unto men from the Father by the Son For otherwise the knowledge of Christ is also oftentimes included in the knowledge * 2 Cor. 10.5 Ephes 1.17 Col 1.10 2 Pet. 1.3 8.8 2.20 3.18 1 Joh. 2 3 4 13. cap. 3.6 of God and on the contrary the knowledge of God is comprized in the knowledge of * 2 Cor. 10.5 Ephes 1.17 Col 1.10 2 Pet. 1.3 8.8 2.20 3.18 1 Joh. 2 3 4 13. cap. 3.6 Christ namely because he that knoweth and seeth Christ knoweth and seeth the Father John 8.19 14.7 9. And on the contrary none knoweth the Father nor cometh to him but by the Son Mat. 11.27 John 14.6 So that it is necessary if a man will attain the saving knowledge of the Father that he know the Son also Nevertheless Christ in that place of ours was not content to make mention either of the Father alone or of himself alone but joyned the knowledge of both together because his intention was to express those divine persons in the knowledge of whom eternal Life consisteth If therefore the holy Spirit were a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son he would no less have mentioned him than those two persons seeing the obtaining of eternal Life would consist no less in the knowledge of him than of them But now let us proceed to other things and because we have begun from John let us add other passages which are extant in the same writer partly in his History of the Gospel partly in the Epistles and partly in the Revelation As for the History of the Gospel among other passages Christ spaketh thus chap. 8.16 c. which place we have upon another * Sect. 2. chap. 20. occasion before discoursed If I judge my judgment is true for I am not alone but I and the Father that sent me It is also written in your Law that the testimony of two men is true I am one that bear witness of my self and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me Why now made he not mention likewise of the holy Spirit if he be the most high God as well as the Father Did he contribute less to the truth of Christs judgment than the Father although-he were one God with him Did he less give testimony to Christ why therefore did he not mention his testimony seeing the plurality of witnesses most worthy of credit addeth greater weight to the testimony and here Christ urgeth both the number and dignity of the witnesses Certainly in that place 1 John 5.7 which is at this day commonly read †See the Annot. of Erasmus and Version of Luther set forth in his life time and Joh. Buckenhag Pomerian on the Prophet Jonah though extant neither in the antient Greek Copies nor in the Syriack translation nor in most of the antient Books of the Latin Edition and omitted by many Greek Interpreters or Fathers as they call them yea and by some Latin Interpreters and rejected by some late Writers and finally not very well agreeing with the rest of the Text and for the variety of readings suspected in that place I say tâ—ere is a peculiar mention made of the witness of the holy Spirit And indeed his testimony may peculiarly be recited although he be not a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son namely because the testimony which God gave to Christ by him had something peculiar from the rest so that he doth seem in a manner to testifie a part from both but there can no cause be brought why his testimony was omitted if he be a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son but if he be the vertue and efficacy of God the Father his testimony is rightly comprehended in the testimony of the Father as it cometh to pass in the same chapter of the first Epistle of John where the place now under debate is at this day commonly read v. 9 10. which I desire you to conferre with the two preceding verses To these may be added that place likewise in the 5th chap. of his history of the Gospel v. 13. But Jesus answered them my Father worketh hitherto and I work Yea and all the râ—st that followeth where it is spoken concerning the admirable works of Christ â—oth that were already done and that were afterward to be done where there is no mention made of the holy Spirit who would have had an equall share together with the Father and the Son in effecting these works if he had been one and the same God with both But as we have declared before it would be too tedious to rehearse all such places let these likewise be lookt vpon chap. 14 22 15â— 24 1â— 3. Now that we may come to the Epistle of the same Apostle what is that which is read 1 Epist 1.3 Our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ why is it not added also with the holy Spirit if he be a divine person distinct from both and yet equal in all things to both yea one God with both What likewise is that chap. 2.24 If that which you have heard from the beginning shall remain in you you also shall continue in the Son and in the Father why not also in the holy Spirit What is that 2 Epist ver 3. Grace be with you Mercy and Peace from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the Father why not also from the holy Spirit Concerning which matter we will afterward speak more when we rehearse the salutations of Paul Add to these the words of ver 9. in the same Epistle He that abideth in the Doctrine of Christ he hath both the Father and the Son why not also the holy Spirit As for the Revelation to omit those places wherein other things or persons are joyned with God and Christ which are afterward to be rehearsed by us how famous is that place chap. 5.13 where all the Creatures which are in any place are read to have said Blessing Honour Glory and Power be unto him that sitteth upon the Throne and unto the Lamb for ever and ever why not as now a dayes all the Temples of the Adversaries do ring glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the holy Spirit why only to him that sitteth upon the Throne and unto the Lamb For that he that sitteth upon the Throne is the same with the Father whosoever doth not understand from that whole 5th chapter and from other things written in the same Book certainly he must needs be a man of very little understanding Hither belong also those words chap. 11.15 The Kingdoms of
in a like place vers 4. of Jude * Sect. 1. chap. 7. where he saith of certain wicked men that they deny the only Master God and our Lord Jesus Christâ— Where there is one article prefixt both to that Master God and to the Lord Jesus Christ and yet diverse persons namely God the Father and Christ are joyned together Now that diverse persons are understood by the name of God and Christ in the quoted place is thence apparent because Paul as also other writers perpetually distinguish God put subjectively as it is done in both place from Christ Jesus Moreover if the Apostle in that place Eph. 5. would have designed the same person he would have set first the name of God as being more general and less distinctly signifying that person which he intended and would have subjoyned the name of Christ as being more distinct and fitter to explain the same whereas now â—e doth the contrary For neither may any one conceive that the â—postle did it for amplification sake intending to ascend from a lower title to an higher For that would then have had some place if the word God had bin spoken of some subject â—y way of Epithite or Predicate and not made use of to design the very subject it self which if it be one such a gradation is not wont to be observed but rather the most speciall names thereof are wont to be subjoyned to the geâ—eâ—al the more distinct to the confused ones Deservedly therefore both those places as also that of Jude a leadged â—y us on this occasion ought to be added to the other examples whereby we have shewn that God and Christ are wont to be mentioned without the holy Spirit who nevertheless should be a like mentioned if he were a divine person distinct from both yet equal to both Such places as these are also exâ—ant in Peter who in the begining of the latter epistle twice doth the same thing which we before shewed Iohn and Paul were wont to do For thus he saith vers 1. Simon Peter 〈◊〉 the Apostle of Jesus Christ to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ And again ver 2. Grace and peace be multiplyed unto you through the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ our Lord. Those places wherein it is either spoken of them who have divine empire over us or of our duty towards them do not much differ from the passages hitherto alledged but have the same force as to our purpose as making mention only of God and Christ although in a manner somewhat different Of which we will alleage some that the reader being admonished by us may also observe others that are like unto them Hereunto belongeth that famous place 1 Cor. 8.6 Where it is spoken of them who have divine empire over us and are by us to be worshipt with divine worship But to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him For why is it not added and one holy Spirit as some men indulging their error durst to add contrary to the credit of all antient books indeed he is added yea set before that one Lord and that one God in the same epistle chap. 12 4. Because there it was chiefly spoken concerning the holy Spirit aâ—â— his effects in Christians But here he ought not to be omitted if he hath divine empire over us as well as the Father and Christ and so deserveth divine worship I say a just cause may be alleaged why he was mentioned although he be not a person distinct from God and Christ for as much as things are often times in the Scâ—ipture joyned with persons and those divine ones as hath been elsewhere by our men and we our selves by and by intend by certain examples also to shew But no just cause can be alleadged why in such places the holy spirit was omitted if he be a divine person every way equal to the Father and the Son Hither to belong those words of the same Apostle which are extant in the Acts. chap. 20.21 Where he explaineth the summ both of his preaching and our duty saying that he testified both to Jews Gentiles Arg. 2 The holy Spirit iâ— often not joyned with God Christ repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and those of the same author 1 Thess 1.9 10. How ye turned from Idols to God to serve the living and true God and to wait for his son from heaven whom he raised from the dead even Jesus which delivered us from the wrath to come And 2 Thess 3.5 The Lord direct your heart into the love of God and the patient waiting for Christ And that we may also mingle other passages although written of another subject thus saith Jude vers 1. To them who are beloved in God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ And John in the Revelation bringeth in these men that fear the punishment to be inflicted on them speaking thus Fall upon us O ye Mountaines and hide us from the face of him that sitteth upon the Throne and from the wrath of the Lamb. Chap. 6. ult and Chap. 12.17 Who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ Chap. 14.12 Here is the patience of the Saints who keep the Commandments of God and the faith of Jesus And Chap. 20.4 The souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God You may also every where observe other passages which do more largely or in another form of speech make mention of God and Christ only when they speak of divine things Now that we may pass to the second rank of Places which we before appointed there is mention made of Angels the holy Spirit being omitted First in those words of Christ which are extant in Luke Chap. 9.26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words of him shall the Son of man be ashamed when he shall come in his own glory and in his Fathers and of the holy â—ngels Like unâ—o which though in a contrary matter are those words of the same Châ—ist which are read Rev. 3 5â— He that overcometh c. I will confess his name before my Father and before his Angels And those of Paul 1 Tim. 5.21 I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect Angels c. Who would believe tâ—at the holy spirit could be omitted and Angels ratâ—er mentioned in his stead were he a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son and equal to both Was a greater weight added to his words if omitting the most high God his servants were mentioned If omitting the Creator his creature weâ—e mentioned You will say that what we would have cannoâ— be concluded from that omission because otherwise the same â—â—s to
be concluded concerning the Father For that he in a place like to these two which we have cited out of Luke 9. and Rev. 3. is omitted and the Angels only mentioned namely Luke Chap. 12.8 where Christ saith Also I say unto you whosoever shall confess me before men him shall the Son of man also confess before the Angels of God c. I answer that mention is here made of the Angels only because they alone among the heavenly persons shall be really present in judgment when Christ shall either confess or deny their names that are here spoken of But in the places before alleaged by us because menâ—ion is made of the Father likewise it appeaâ—eth that Christ and Paul intended to mention all the heavenly persons whose sight we ought to reverence and before whom it is most honourable to be praised most dishonourable to be reproved and rejected Arg. 3 the holy Spirit is often not joyned with God Christ and so not to pass by them who either are or shall hereafter be present by their power only Whence it followeth that the holy spirit could not have been omitted in such places if he had been a divine person but should have been named in stead of the Angels or if it had pleased the Scripture to name them also he should have been set before them Now let us shew that other things are wont to be joyned with God and Christ whilst the name of the holy spirit is omitted For this we have a notable place in the Revelation out of which we have before alleaged many testimonies namely Chap. 3.12 where Christ promiseth a reward to him that overcometh in these words I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the City of my God new Jerusalem which cometh down out of Heaven from my God and my new name Where you see that between God and Christ or rather the name of both the New Jerusalem and the name of it is interposed Why did he not likewise say that he would write upon him the name of the holy spirit Why the name of the New Jerusalem rather than of the holy spirit if he be the most high God We will shut up all our proofes with that famous place Heb. 12.22 23 24. where not only Angels are joyned with God and Christ but also pious men partly alive partly dead or their spirits and certain other sacred things to which Christ hath given an access unto Christians but the mention of the holy Spirit is altogether omitted For thus there speaketh that divine Writer But ye are come unto Mount Sion and unto the City of the living God the heavenly Jerusalem and to an innumerable company of Angels to the general assembly and Church of the first-born which are written in Heaven and to God the judge of all and to the spirits of just men made perfect and to Jesus the Mediator of the new Covenant and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of Abel Who would believe that in so large a catalogue of persons who for their soveâ—aign excellency may be called divine the holy Spiâ—it could have been omitted if he were such a divine person as the Father or Christ Neither may any one say that under the name of God the Judge of all the holy Spirit is comprehended For this would â—e some way tollerable could but one plain place of the Scripture be alleaged wherein the holy Spirit is called God Again who perceiveth not from the places which were both above and also a little before in great number alleaged that the name of God put subjectively doth denote the Father and that he is in that manner distinguished both from all other persons also from Christ himself Neither can it seem likely unto any one that the Father was heâ—e omitted whom we never find in like places to be passed by But he was no where mentioned unless there where mention is made of God the Judge of all Neither may any one say that the Father indeed is understood yet not he alone but also the holy Spirit For if more persons were understood the person of Christ no less than that of the holy Spirit ought to be included in that name according to the opinion of the Adversaries touching the persons of the Deity But the person of Christ the Mediator is openly distinguished from that God as being afterwards mentioned apart Besides it is at no hand to be granted that there are many persons of God and not also many Gods and Judges But here mention is made of God the Judge of all and not of Gods the Judges of all But some one will perhaps object That if the reason drawn from this place were of force it would not only follow that the holy Spirit is no person but also no sacred or divine thing such as we see â—eâ—e to be recited or at least the things here mentioned are mroe divine than the holy Spirit which we our selves will not aâ—mit We answer That this Objection would have some strength if all things at least the most divine had been reckoned up as we see the most divine and holy persons are all reckoned up and also if here were the same reason of all divine things as is of persons But the thing is otherwise of the good things that are promised us of God by Jeâ—us Christ namely of immortality and remission of sins there is no express mention made but only the place thereof is figuratively mentioned namely Mount Sion and the heavenly Jerusalem and the middle efficient cause thereof namely Christ the Mediator of the new Covenant and the sprinkling of Blood which speaketh better things than that of Abel and the prime efficient cause of both even God In like manner neither was the holy Spirit mentioned which is contained among the good things which are promised to us Namely because he would reckon up all the persons with whom we have some conjunction communion by right of the Christian religion so that we may be rightly said to have access unto them but the divine author intended to mention only those sacred and divine things which are in some sort without us and elegantly answer and are in some sort opposed to those things to which the people of Israel had heretofore access when the Law was given them out of Mount Sinai by Moses the Mediator But in this number is not the divine efficacy or virtue which floweth from God to us and is sent into our hearts so neither the remission of sins and immortality But were the holy Spirit a person we had come to him no less than to the Father and should have intimate communion and society with him neither could he by any means be omitted in so large and accurate an enumeration of those persons with whom we have conjunction But it is no marvel that â—e is here omitted seeing John as we saw before describing our communion with
divine persons which deserve to be so called by way of excellency saith 1 John 1.3 That our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ Intimating that it consisteth within the compass of those persons Indeed the communion of the holy Spirit is with us because we are partakers of him but we are not said to have fellowship with him because our fellowship is not with the gift but either with him who bestoweth the gift on us or with him that hath the same gift with us or is in some sort of the same condition CHAP. IV. Arg. 4 from Matth. 11.27 The fourth Argument from Matth. 11.27 None knoweth the Son but the Father neither knoweth any one the Father but the Son c. VVE have hitherto alleaged testimonies enough wherein the mention of the holy Spirit is omitted but ought not to be omitted if he were a divine person We will now subjoyne one place that is different from the former testimonies and more like to them wherein something is expresly denyed of the holy spirit Because though it make not express mention of the holy Spirit yet doth it in general deny something of him that could not be denyed were he a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son and equal unto both This place is extant Matth. 11.27 where Christ speaketh thus None knoweth the Son but the Father neither knoweth any one the Father save the Son c. But how could this be true were the holy Spirit a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son and in all things equal unto both for some other besides the Father would have known the Son and some other besides the Son would have known the Father namely the holy Spirit Yea he would have known him without the revelation of another The Defence of the Argument Neither can it be here said that the word none is put onely to exclude creatures For otherwise why is it added save the Father Why is he excepted Is he haply ranked among the creatures so that he was there expresly to be excepted For that only is excepted which otherwise is comprehended under the general name and which had it not been excepted might be thought to have been comprehended under the â—eneâ—al speech and so the same either affirmed or denyed of it which is affirmed or denyed of others belonging to the same kind There is the same difficulty concerning the Son if you consider the opinion of the adversaries For they hold him as he is the Son of God to be no creature But here he is lookt upon as he is the Son Neither may any one say that the holy Spirit is tacitly included in the Father and the Son For if the holy Spirit be a person distinct from both by what right is this affirmed Again is the holy Spirit more included in the Father and the Son than either the Son in the Father or contrarywise the Father in the Son Certainly no more Wherefore if no mention be made of the holy Spirit because he is included in both there ought to be no express mention made either of the Son or of the Father because the one is included in the other And truly the mention of the Father doâ—h moâ—e openly include the Son or the mention of the Son include the Faâ—her than the mention of both doth the holy Spirit if he be a person distinâ—t from both yea there is not so much as any suspicion that he is included But there the very names have a mutual relation each to other Wherefore mention should rather have been made of the holy Spirit than either of the Father when it is spoken concering the knowledge of the Son or of the Son when it is spoken concerning the knowledge of the Father Finally neither may any one say that the holy Spirit is comprehended among them to whom the Son will reveal the Father or himself because he bestoweth on him as the Essence so also the knowledge of the Father For to omit that nothing is revealed to any one unless he doth already exist it is here spoken of such a revelation as happeneth at a certain time and dependeth on the will of the Son and not on the necessity of nature But that revelation if it ought to have such a name as it is caused by the procession of the holy Spirit from the Essence of the Son is conceived both to have been from all eternity and not to depend on the will of the son but on the necessity of nature Doth not the thing it self intimate that men are here understood to whom Christ is willing to deliver the knowledge of the Father by the doctrine of the Gospel Though further this very thing that is affirmed in this exception demonstrateth the holy spirit not to be the most high God For he is not the most high God who receiveth his Essence and whatsoever he hath from another but he who hath that from himself as we have taught in our * Sect. 2. Chap. â— disputation concerning Christ CHAP. V. The fifth Argument That the holy Spirit is very often distinguished from God AFter that we seem to have spoken enough of those things which are not mentioned in the Scripture concerning the holy Spirit and which would not have been omitted were he the most high God it follows that we view those things also which are expresly delivered concerning him in the holy Scripture and are such as that they shew the holy Spirit not to be the most high God And they are of two sorts For some are such as being properly taken agree no more to persons than to other things or also at no hand agree to persons but are only proper to things But some are such as taken properly agree to persons only but are ascribed to the holy Spirit by a certaine figure To which we will add those also which primarily and by themselves agree to singular substances and onely consequently unto other things We beginning from the first will teach that the holy Spirit is so far from being the most high God as that he is not a person although this last is not proved by all the arguments we shall alledge but yet it is by many of them Arg. 5 The holy Spirit is distinguished from God Our first Argument therefore drawn from these things which agree no more to persons than things shall be this That the holy Spirit is oftentimes most openly distinguished from God or the Lord. Now that the holy spirit is oftentimes and most openly distinguished from God or the Lord even those places do shew wherein he is called the Spirit of God or of the Lord or God or the Lord calleth him his spirit many of which are extant in the holy scripture of which we have before seen one or two alleaged by the adversaries to shew that the holy spirit is called God or the Lord or understood by his name namely those two
whom Paul for instance chiefly would demonstrate that he spake by the spirit of God also will not loose the knot For nether are those works ascribed to the holy spirit in the same manner as to the Father who is by the confession of all the supream God nor in that manner by which they are ascribed to the son but as also the Adversaries themselves in part confess by a certain proper and peculiar manner that is as to the next cause and inwardly working in men And this is that which the holy scriptures in the places before alleaged and infinite other places would have us understand But concerning this thing nothing should be manifest from the works themselves performed by divine power if the holy spirit were that supream God and yet in person distinct from the Father son Yea if the holy spirit were the supream God it should rather be concluded that the holy spirit is not such a cause of those works For it belongs not to the supream God that personally inhabiting in men he should do any works in or by them but that he inspire Power and Efficacy to them and by that means perform works to be admired in or by them A larger Defence of the Argument SUfficiently as it seems to us we have hitherto confirmed our Argument Yet nevertheless since two answers either are wont or may seem to be made to it they are to be refelled by us The former is against the major Proposition of the Argument which by an instance the Adversaries endeavour to infringe For they say that Christ also is called the Vertue or Power of God 1 Cor. 1.24 and yet notwithstanding he is not only a Person but also the most high God himself But this latter we have above refuted and by this very thing also is sufficiently refelled in that he is the vertue of God to wit the most high and so is manifestly distinguished from the Supream God But further we take the name of Power and Efficacy in our Argument properly But when will they prove that Christ is the Vertue or Power of God properly so called For whether they take the word Power for that Vertue which naturally dwells in God or for that which flows from him as its fountain and is also in some manner communicated to the creatures neither of them is a person but a quality and that indeed an essential property of God common to three persons as they will have it But that Christ is a person all know and urge The same may be also understood by the other term of excellency which in the same place 1 Cor. 1.24 is given to Christ to wit that he is called the Wisdom of God For the Wisdom of God speaking properly is his attribute or natural property by which God both understands all things and disposeth most aptly his Counsels and Works But this is in no sort a person but in like manner is his attribute or natural property common to three persons as is the opinion of the Adversaries Certainly since Christ is a person distinct from the Father and the Father in himself or his own person hath all Wisdom whereby he understandeth and disposeth all things neither may any one understand by another person but by himself and Wisdom implanted in himself Christ cannot speaking properly be the Wisdom of God Therefore neither in like manner the Power of God For there is the same reason of both It is therefore to be understood as the preaching of the Cross in the same * 1 Cor. 1.18 place to the Corinthians is termed the Vertue or Power of God in like manner also the Gospel Rom. 1.16 to wit because in it the singular Vertue or Power of God is put forth and manifestly appears to all Believers so also Christ is called the Vertue or Power and likewise Wisdom because in him the supream Power and Wisdom of God hath been put forth and in him may most clearly be perceived by all believers Let the place it self be looked and ver 18.24 be compared together and that it is so any one will easily understand By these things then it appeareth that this instance is of no moment to invalid our Argument seeing we speak of the Efficacy of God properly so called and have shewed that the holy Spirit is the very Power or Efficacy of God proceeding and flowing from him Certainly by the Opinion of the Adversaries themselves it is necessary that in one wise Christ in an otherwise the holy Spirit be the Power of God For if Christ be the substantial Power of God having his proper person and the holy Spirit also be such a Power of God there will be two Powers or substantial Vertues in God having their personallity those two persons as such shall be altogether like to themselves Of which neither can be Not that because the one or the other efficacy should be in vain since one may altogether suffice to do all things But in him who himself doth nothing in vain nothing also is altogether in vain or nothing over much Yea it is also impossible because two forms wholly of the same Nature cannot consist in the same subject unless perhaps according to divers parts which hath no place in God For otherwise the thing would proceed in infinitum Of which we shall elsewhere * Book 2. Sâ—ct 1. Chap. 5. speak more plainly And this latter therefore cannot consist because they both hold and are constrained to hold that those divine persons so far as they are distinct from the Essence are unlike Wherefore that those absurdities of which we have spoken may not happen it is necessary to determine that the holy Spirit is such a power as is not a person And thus much concerning the former Answer to our Argument The latter Answer is placed in a distinction which otherwise the Adversaries often use when there is speech of the holy Spirit For they say the term holy Spirit is taken in a double manner one while for the third person of the Deity another while for his effect or gift flowing from him and that indeed properly is called holy Spirit but this Metonimically in that the Cause is put for the effect I remember not indeed to have read that that answer is accommodated to this our Argument But because it may yet be accommodated it will be worth our labour to examine it here chiefly because it may seem that nothing may be said more speciously For when we by Power or Efficacy of God understand a certain force flowing from God and his natural power into men some one may say that the holy Spirit is indeed such a power of God but taken metonymiâ—ally For that Efficacy of God is the effect or gift of the holy Spirit properly so called But in this place is not disputed of the holy Spirit metonymically but properly taken not of his gift but of himself Therefore our Argument is ineffectual and makes nothing to the
matter But we somewhat otherwise take the Gift of the holy Spirit in this Answer or at least stretch it wider than the Adversaries are commonly wont For so much as I have been able hitherto to find they are wont by the gift of the holy Spiâ—it to understand those admirable faculties implanted in men by divine Power as the faculty of prophesying or speaking with tongues and other whether visible as they are called or invisible or if you had rather more hidden effects of the holy Spirit in men But that Power of God of which the places of holy Scripture brought by us speak is not such a faculty or faculties rather but the efficient of them although it again flow from power naturall resident in God Wherefore if the gift of the holy Spirit should be taken so strictly this Answer could not be fitted to our Argument or the places by which we have confirmed it unless any one would perhaps say that in all those places in which the holy Spirit and Power of God are put as equipollent or the one is put instead of the other the name of the holy Spirit or divine Power is used for such a faculty divinely ingenerated in a man but no where for the divine Efficacy that effects such faculties in men which neither will the Adversaries easily say nor can it in any manner consist as partly the places themselves a little more diligently looked into will shew to every one partly will be understood by the things which follow Wherefore that that distinction may seem to make something against our Argument we will suppose that our Adversaries do make that divine Efficacy also flowing from the natural Power of God which is the cause of wonderful effects in men to be the gift of the holy Spirit and so to be understood by the name of the holy Spirit not properly but by a Metonymie only namely because it flows from the third Person of the Deity which properly may be called the holy Spirit That therefore we may refell this exception we say that it is in no wise to be granted that that Power and Efficacy of God which is in this place understood is only metonymically termed the holy Spirit and not rather properly as far indeed as propriety hath place here For if it should be called only metonymically the Spirit of God or the holy Spirit to wit because it comes from the holy Spirit properly so called there would be no cause why it should not be called likewise the Father or Son since it should no less come from the Father Son then from the holy Spirit even according to the adversaries opinion since it is some effect of the natural power of God which according to their opinion is common to the three persons of the Deity and is indeed first in the Father as the fountain of the Deity then by him as they would have it in the son and holy spirit who from him have their Essence Neither may you say that that inspiration is therefore called rather the holy spirit then the Father or son because it immediately proceeds from the holy spirit but from the Father and son onely mediately for what hindreth the Father or the son since they have the same power in themselves efficacious for all things which the person of the holy spirit hath to put it forth also by themselves as well as the person of the holy spirit as we see by the holy Scripture they have indeed put it forth Yea how can it be in this unity of Essence and all things pertaining to it that the Father and the son should not as immediately put forth their power as the holy spiâ—it For it is judged that the Father and son have so commuicated their virtue and power whence that efficacy or divine inspiration immediately comes to the holy Spirit as that nevertheless it remained the same in number in Father and Son and is put forth by the three persons by the same aâ—t altogether Whence therefore is that difference that the holy Spirit puts it forth immediately the Father and the Son mediately But if the Father and the Son put forth that force and efficacy alike immediately there is no cause wherefore that force should be termed more the holy Spirit than the Father or the Son if it be not the holy Spirit himself but be called so therefore only because it comes from him We repeat not that which we have said before that although the Father and Son should put it forth only mediately the holy Spirit immediately yet that could not â—e manifest by the thing it self without a peculiar divine revelation when nevertheless we see as soon as any thing hath been manifest to have been done by divine virtue or inspiration that forthwith is ascribed to the holy Spirit as the next cause But further the adversaries cannot use that answer in some of the places brought by us unless together they overthrow one of their chief Arguments whereby they endeavour to prove the holy Spirit to be a Suppositum and person to wit that which is drawn from the actions proper to persons or at least Suppositums For in the first place brought by us from Luke 1.34 where the holy Spirit is said to come upon Mary the Adversaries themselves seem to understand the person of the holy Spirit especially since the action of coming upon agrees not properly but to a person or at least to a Suppositum I omit that also in the place Ephes 3.20 cited by us the virtue or divine power is said to work in the Apostles Besides we shall see in the following Chapter a new Reason by which that Answer may be overthrown CHAP. VII The seventh Argument That Christ should be the Son of the holy Spirit if he were the most high God THe third Argument of this ranck which respects the defence of the next foregoing also may be this That if the holy Spirit were God or at least some person Christ also should be the son of the holy Spirit yea more rightly should be termed his son than the Fathers which thing overthrows it self For we have seen above that Sect. 2. Chap. 31. Christ therefore was first termed the Son of God because the holy Spirit came upon Mary his Mother and the power of the most high overshadowed her and so Christ was conceiâ—ed and begotten by the power of the holy Spirit But if the holy Spirit be a person who immediately put forth that force in the womb of the Virgin and produced Christ the holy Spirit is rather the Father of Christ than God the Father who performed that only by the intervening of another person Besides that sanctification John 10.34 35. which Christ himself bâ—ings as a cause why he called himself of right the son of God will agree also to the holy spirit especially by the adversaries doctrine For they Arg. 7 The holy Spirit should be the Father of Christ although they would have
it may easily seem truth to any one by it self Christ himself shewed it and represented it by a certain external breathing when after his resurrection * See Joh. 20.22 appearing to his disciples he said Receive ye the holy Spirit For John relates that he being about to utter those words breathed into or upon the disciples For what other thing would he shew by that action than that he was about in a more diviâ—e and more secret manner to breath on them and inspire into them some heavenly power which what it should be he taught presently in express words When he added Receive ye the holy Spirit But besides the same thing is thence manifest because the holy spirit in the plâ—ce above noted by us and the like to them is taken in that sense in which at that time it was taken commonly among the Jewes For do we think that John Baptist when speaking to the people â—e said that Christ should baptize with the holy spirit did use that term in a signification unknown to the people or that the people hearing the same did not understand what John said But this is that spirit which Christ promised to them that ask and which was afterwards given to the Apostles and other disciples as is understood as well by the thing it self as also by the place Acts 1.4 5. is manifest What else meant Peter when he discoursed to the people of the holy spirit newly poured out and promised the same to the auditors Vers 38. if they would repent and be baptized into the name of Jesus Christ do we think that he used the word holy Spirit in a signification unknown to them that is that he would not be understood or at least was not understood of them In like manner when after Chap. 5. in the Senate of the Jews he said We are his witnesses of these things and so is also the holy spirit which God hath given to them that obey him do we think that he used the word holy spirit otherwise than those Elders of the Jewes were wont to take it Or did not he therefore mention these things that the adversaries well understanding what the term holy spirit signyfied and how much was to be given to its testimony might give credit to his sayings and the rest of the Apostles The same is to be held of the words of the same Peter used in the house of Cornelius in which he affirmed that Christ was anointed with the holy Spirit that by this means he might conciliate to him divine authority What that both John and Christ in him have declared the words by which the holy Spirit was more obscurely designed by the simple word either of Spirit or holy Spirit as appears by the places brought by us John 7.39 and Chap. 14.16 17. to which add vers 26. of the same chap. and 15.26 Now this doth sufficiently shew that the signification of that word was then commonly known But what did the Jews of that time commonly understand by the name of the holy Spirit did they perhaps mean a Divine person Why then comes it to pass that not so much indeed as any footsteps of that opinion remained among the Jews after that time nor doth it appear in those who were next unto those times Did they that they might disquiet the Christians forswear all their opinions comonly received by all You can never perswade this to an intilligent man What then shall we believe they understood by the name of the holy Spirit but divine inspiraâ—ion to wit that which the original both of the Hebrew word by which the Spirit is noted and of the Greek and Latine shews and which among the Gentiles also however otherwise erring in the thing it self was understood by the name of the divine Spirit For both the Hebrew word Ruach the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Latine Spiritus from Spirando properly signify a wind or blast Wherefore nothing is more apt than that to signify that divine inspiration or power which is breathed into the hearts of men from heaven Which signification as we have said was not unknown even to the Gentiles themselves although in the mean time they did most grievously erre in the thing taking a false inspiration for a true one a divelish for a divine But this pertaines not by it self to the force and significaton of the word But now if the name of the holy Spirit be taken in those places of which we treat for that divine inspiration or some power which from God flowes into men why is the holy Spirit said to be given to us or further to be received or had by us oneâ—y by a Metonymy or Metalepsis Why is not the holy Spirit properly so called as far indeed as that word in this matter may be taken properly acknowledged to be given to us For if it be not given properly either it is therefore because this holy inspiration may not be said to be the holy Spirit but only improperly to wit by a Metonâ—my of the efficient cause or because not properly but by a Metalepsis only it may be said to be given that is only in respect of the gifts and effects flowing from him But both is false For as to the former those things which are called by some name only by a Metonimy of the efficent cause do not by themselves deserve that name but therefore only are so called because they come from the efficient cause to which this name doth by it self and in the first place agree But that power which is inspired into men by God doth of it self deserve to be termed the holy Spirit and accordingly is so called without any regard had that it comes from such a cause which properly may â—e called the holy Spirit No man doubts that it is of it self holy and may be so called But that it also of it sâ—lf deserve the name of Spirit doth in like manner appear from the things already spoken to wit because it is inspired by God into men and â—en are breathed upon by it Neither is it to the purpose that meâ—â—phorically or by reason of similitude it is termed Spirit For in this place the propriety of the word is not so looked upon as opposed to a Metaphor but as to a Metonimy Since this now is the question But if thou wilt therefore say this inspiration is improperly termed the holy Spirit because it is called Spirit metaphorically see by what meanes thou wilt defend that that third person of the deity is properly called the holy Spirit For therefore also they think that person to be termed Spirit because he is breathed by the other two but not therefore because he is a spiritual substance otherwise that appellation would no more agree to that person then to the other two What then Is that person properly breathed or blown out Certainly far less doth it agree to him to
presently by mens ears as absurd Some prophets use a more lofty and figurative style than the Apostles which is seen especially in Psalmes and songs For they contain some kind of verse and as is observed by learned men come nearer to the style of Poets than to speech in prose But you shall read no such thing there of God much less ought we to think that the Apostle who scarce riseth above common speech hath in delivering precepts used so bold and unusual a figure if you acknowledge that the holy Spirit is properly a divine inspiration or certain power flowing from God into men you will easily understand that that manner of speaking is not at all absurd For nothing hinders that a divine inspiration especially in this or that man may cease and be extinguished Hence also may be understood that manner of speech concerning the holy Spirit used by John The holy spirit was not yet Because that Jesuit was not yet glorified Arg. 10 from 1 Thes 5.19 John 7 30 Act. 19.3 Which some of the adversaries perceiving not to be agreeable to their opinion of the holy Spirit they have thought it to be thus read The Spirit was not yet given which reading others * See Beza Acts 19.3 of the adversaries have noted and shewed that it is not to be admitted Not much different from this manner of speaking is that which those disciple that were found by Paul at Ephesus used For when Paul had asked of them whether since they believed they had received the holy Spirit they answered John 7.39 that they had not so much as heard whether there were a holy Spirit Let the Adversaries feign here what Tropes they will yet will they never perswade a serious man and one that considers in what manner we are wont to speak of any thing that either John or those disciples could speak so of the holy Spirit if the holy Spirit were God Wil t thou say God is not yet the Father is not yet the Son is not yet because a certain effeâ—t of him is not yet extant among men What author What example is there for it Shall a man say he knowes not whether the most high God be because he hath not heard that certain gifts of his doe happen to men But if you shall think the holy Spirit to be a divine inspiration or a certain power issuing from God to men you will not wonder at those manners of speaking For because Christ being not yet glorified that inspiration was not wont to happen to men although beleevers and afterward also those Ephesian disciples knew not that it was done therefore John indeed said that the holy Spirit was not yet Christ being not yet glorified â—ut those disciples that they â—ad not indeed heard whether there was a holy Spirit CHAP. XI The eleventh Argument From John 15.26 where the holy Spirit is said To proceed from the Father AFter we have drawn Arguments out of those places of Scripture in which those things are said of the holy Spirit which agree not rather to persons than things it remaines that we fetch reasons also from those attributes of the holy Spirit which indeed properly taken agree onely to persons or at least Suppositums but are figuratively attributed to the holy Spirit or first and of themselves agree to Suppositums to other things onely consequently Let that be the first of them that the holy Spirit is said to proceed from the Father Joh. 15.26 There is indeed some Metaphor in the word proceeding which the adversaries also are compelled to acknowledge For to proceed doth properly agree but to men or to living creatures which move themselves from place to place but it hinders not but that we may hence draw an Argument For it is agreed between us and the Adversaries that this word being referred to the holy Spirit denotes its production from the Father by which namely the holy Spirit is in very deed that which it is Arg. 11 from Joh. 15.26 Whence the adversaries would that that procession was from eternity and say that as the Son received his Essence by geneâ—ation from the Father so the holy Spirit received the same by procession of which thing there is no need now to speak more largely It shall be done the Lord helping afterward Lib. 2. Sect. 2. Chap. 1 c. and Sect. 3. Now it is enough to have hinted what we have said For from this that the holy Spiâ—it is said to proceed from the Father and to receive his Essence it is manifest that he is not the most high God For the same reasons for which we have said before * Sect. 2. Chap. 2. that the Son of God is not the most high God because he was begotten of the Father and from him received his Essence For in this case there is the same reason of procession as there is of generation yea as we shall shew in its place that procession devised by the Adversaries is no less generation than that of the Son Wherefore what we have said of the generation of the Son of God is hither also to be transferred Add to those this reason also that Christ signifie that that procession doth even yet continue For he doth not say that the holy Spirit hath proceeded from the Father but that it doth proceed Neither indeed do the more learned adveâ—sarie deny it who have devised such a manner of procession as hath continued from all eternity is to continue unto all eternity Therefore according to their opinion the holy Spirit even yet receives his Essence from the Father and also from the Son and is to receive it unto all ages But it must needs be that the most high God hath already fully had his Essence from all eternity so that he now any more neither hath nor can possibly received it however it be supposed which is impossible that he could at any time receive his Essence from another Besides they who contend that the procession of the holy Spirit of which Christ in John speakes For there is no where else express mention made of it hath continued from all eternity and that it sâ—all continue to all eternity have not considered that Christ speakes of that procession of the holy Spirit by which it should come to pass that the holy Spirit should be sent from him to the disciples and moreover come to them For if you consider the rest of the things spoken of in the same place you will find no other cause why Christ said that the holy Spirit doth proceed from the Father than that he might declare that which he had said whom to wit the Advocate I will send to you from the Father neither do the adversaries seem to deny it But what hath that procession which continues from eternity to eternity common with the sending and coming of the holy Spirit to the disciples yea that would rather hinder this if by that the holy
Spirit should be the most high God as the adversaries would have it I omit that they the Greeks onely excepted hold that the holy Spirit doth proceed eternally no less from the Son than from the Father But Christ speaks of a thing which is proper to the Father For in this behalf in some sort he opposeth the Father to himself being about to shew why he said he would send the holy Spirit not from himself but from the Father But how much more simple and plain is it to hold that the holy Spirit doth so far proceed from God as it is the vertue and efficacy issuing from him into men than that the most high God who is but one only proceeds from another who is in like manner the most high God that he who is from no cause receives his being from another that he who hath had most fully his Essence from Eternity receives it and is to receive it yet unto all Eternity But that the same thing which we have shewed out of the words of Christ set down by John is taught also by those words of Paul in which he affirmeth that the holy Spirit is of God 1 Cor. 2.12 For he saith Now we have received not the spirit of the world but the spirit which is of God But whatsoever is of God is Gods effect and depends on him But all as we have said know that God is the effect of no thing Although there is scarce need to make mention of effect it is enough to say that the most high God is from none CHAP. XII The twelfth Argument That the holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son THe second of those Attributes which properly agree only to persons or Suppositums but are accommodated to the holy Spirit by some Trope may be that which is in the same place of John * John 15.26 14.26 16.7 cited by us in the next foregoing Chapter and is elsewhere in the same Writer extant to wit that the holy Spirit is sent from the Father and Son For that befalls not the most high God But although that mission is nothing else than the giving of the holy Spirit whence that the holy Spirit is given and sent to the Disciples from the Father are put for the same thing as is manifest by comparing the words Chap. 14.16 with the places now cited Yet because the Adversaries will have that mission to be such as that it can befall none but a person especially because Christ brings in in the same speech the holy Spirit as his certain Deputy or Embassador Sect. 2. Chap. 15. to be sent to the Disciples chiefly in Chap. 16.7 13. therefore almost in the same manner it may be hence demonstrated that the holy Spirit is not the most high God in which we have before demonstrated the same thing concerning Christ from his sending so that there is no need to add more in this place CHAP. XIII Arg. 13 From Joh. 16.13 The thirteenth Argument from the words John 16.13 He shall not speak the spirit of Truth from himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak c. BEcause towards the end of the foregoing Chapter we fell into the mention of the place John 16.13 where it is spoken of the thing joyned to the sending of the holy Spirit therefore we will here examine it also For there not only that is affirmed of the holy Spirit which could not be affirmed of him if he were the most high God but also that is denied which cannot be by any means denyed of the most high God For thus Christ saith Howbeit when he the Spirit of Truth is come he will guide you all into the Truth For he shall not speak of himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak and he will shew you things to come He shall glorifie me for he shall receive of mine and shall shew it unto you All things that the Father hath are mine Therefore I said that he shall take of mine and shall shew it unto you Here it is denied that the holy Spirit spake of himself on the contrary it is affirmed that he should speak what he heard and should receive of that which was Christs And the former indeed is therefore chiefly denyed that it may be shewed that he is rightly called the Spirit of Truth that is most true But this latter is therefore affirmed of him that it might be shewed that he should glorifie Christ But the most high God whatsoever he speaks speaks of himself and for that very thing he is true because he speakes of himself He doth not also hear what he should speak nor is instructed like an Embassador by another He receiveth nothing from any yea he bestoweth of his own upon all He hath not glorified Christ by receiving something from him but by giving to him How then is the holy Spirit the most high God It will not be amiss to cite here the words of John Maldonate a most learned Interpreter of the Papists who hath in part unfolded this difficulty speaking in this manner But Christ gives the reason as Rupertus saith why he called him the Spirit of Truth because saith he he shall not speak of himself as if if he should speak of himself he should speak not truth but a lye Which how true it is it doth not enough appear seeing he rather therefore speaks truth and cannot speak false because he speaks of himself For when he speaks of himself he speaks as God since he is nothing else but God But when he speaks as God he cannot lye which if he could do then truly could he do it when he speaks not of himself that is not as God Therefore Augustine and Bede question how it may be understood that he speakes not of himself For if there were a double nature in the holy Spirit as in Christ one a divine the other a humane or any other we might perhaps say that then he speakes not of himself when he speakes as man as we interpret what Christ saith of himself Joh. 14.4 The words which I speak to you I speak not of my self and what he said before Chap. 7.16 My doctrine is not mine but his that sent me But since the holy Spirit is but one and that a divine nature as St. Austin disputes we cannot say it and thus far he It were even to be wished to the adversaries in this place that a double nature could be feigned in the holy Spirit also as is done in Christ that they might loose this knot By what hole then do they endeavour to escape when there is none The foresaid interpreter brings a double answer One of Augustin and Bede anoâ—her his own The first is therefore the holy Spirit is said not to speak of himself because neither is he from himself as therefore saith he he is not of himself but he proceeds from the Father and Son so he shall not speak
but what he hath received from the Father and Son by proceeding from them as a little after he saith He shall glorifie me for he shall receive of mine But when the foresaid Interpreter had come to those words he clearly enough confutes this explication of this place The commonly received opinion of latter Interpreters saith he is this For he shall receive of mine that is he proceeds from me Concerning which thing I find here many subtletys in some Writers I know not how solid and agreeable to the matter which I will not so much as recite I onely say I am fully perswaded that this is not the sense For why did he not say more clearly he shall receive of me or from me Why not he hath recieved rather than he shall receive since the procession of the holy Spirit from the Father and Son was not future but already past For although I know an answer is made by some to these things yet I had rather say nothing than say that * and what is it else than that the holy Spirit is to proceed from the Father and Son unto all eternity which they say Besides how can it co-here with that interpretation All things which the Father hath are mine therefore I have said that he shall receive of mine Lastly here the matter was of the testimony which the holy Spirit was to give of Christ and wherewith he was to glorifie him Which ought to be conspicuous and manifest otherwise how could he for that glorifie Christ But that essential procession was not conspicuous Therefore it could not be brought as an argument whence the disciples might gather that the works of the holy Spirit did redounâ— to the glory of Christ For this was to glorifie him There is no need of more words for the refutation of this interpretation which so much displeased a Papist and him most addicted to the opinions of his Church and which he saw could not be defended unless those things be said which he judged unworthy even to be mentioned by him Although also that interpretation being admitted it can nevertheless be evinced that the holy Spirit is not the most high God since the most high God as we have a little * Chap. 11 of this Section before seen Proceeds from none receives his Essence from none The same interpreter a little after subjoyns his own opinion touching this thing Therefore saith he the true interpretation is that he shall receive of mine that is because he shall come in my name because as my deputy he shall delâ—â—er no other doctrine to you than mine For therefore the glory of his work and doctrine shall redound to my glory which is to glorifie me because he shall deliver in my name and no otheâ— than my misteries to you he shall do no other than my works For with this sense that which followes doth fitly agree All things that the Father hath are mine therefore I said he shall receive of mine as we shall presently explain it Therefore he said by the future tense he shall receive because to receive of him is to be sent in his name and as it were commands being received from him and he had not been yet sent Therefore he said of mine not of me because he would signify that he should receive of his doctrine and workes whatsoever he should teach whatsoever he should do among men What then doth that Interpreter himself answer or A Defence of the Argument in what manner doth he think those things he shall receive of mine can be said of the holy Spirit if he himself be the most high God Not saith he that himself had not the same things before but because as Cyril saith he speaks accommodately to humane sence For Embassadours are wont when they depart from the Prince to receive commands both what they shall speak and what they shall do But to those words ver 13. he shall not speak of himself We may more simply to wit than Augustin and Bede had answered say it is no other thing not to speak of himself than not to speak contrary things to those which he himself had spoken by the will of the Father For which opinion John 7.16 14.10 he cites some antient Authors and adds For in the same manner we expounded what he had said My Doctrine is not mine and the words which I speak to you I speak not of my self So also he intimates that those words also Whatsoever he shall hear he shall speak are to be taken in such manner as he had taken that of Christ As I hear I judge and that I speak those things in the world which I have heard of him to wit that Christ did neither judge any thing nor should at any time speak any thing but what he did or should know to be agreeable to his Fathers mind and will so therefore that neither the holy Spirit should speak any thing from himself because he should speak nothing but what he should know to be agreeing with the mind and will of Christ But such an interpretation of Christs words is not every way to be admitted nor doth it altogether take away the difficulty For as to the former those former words He shall not speak of himself and those that are opposed to them but what he shall hear he shall speak cannot be taken of only a bare consent with Christs words but do altogether signifie that he of whom those things are said is not the first author of his words but that some other is the Author of them For otherwise it might be said that neither the Father indeed had spoken of himself because he had spoken nothing but what the Son hath approved nor the Son even in respect of the holy Spirit because as the opinion of the Adversaries is the Son spake nothing but what the person of the holy Spirit consented to But all see that those things are absurd Add that that same Interpreter not only confesseth it but also urgeth it that the holy Spirit is here looked upon as Christs Legate that which the very context of the words sufficiently shews To the propriety of this Embassage nothing can be wanting if the holy Spirit be a person Wherefore those words He shall not speak of himself and whatsoever he shall hear he shall speak and likewise He shall receive of mine and shall shew it unto you are so to be taken as they agree to a Legate But they so agree to a Legate that he be not himself the first Author of his words but only that anothers words and mandates be declared by him to them unto whom he is sent And indeed to a Legate properly so called such as the holy Spirit would be if he were a person it belongs properly to be instructed with commands from another and to bring to others and expound to them his received will and mind For a Legate as such is anothers Minister and the
Interpreter of anothers will But that he saith those words in ver 14.15 He shall receive of mine are spoken accommodately to humane sence if he mean this that he should indeed receive nothing from Christ because he alwayes had all things but that it should seem so to men what else doth he but to elude Christs words as if forsooth Christ spake of it what men however falsely should imagine concerning that matter and not rather what should truly be though there may be some figure in the words Do we think that Christ would have said that the holy Spirit should glorifie him because men should falsely think that the holy spirit received of that which is Christs Or do we think that he would acknowledge for his glory the glory that is founded in the vain opinion of men and besides that pertaineth to some deminution of the dignity of the holy Spirit that is as it pleaseth them of the most high God But if he mean that that the holy Spirit should indeed truly receive something of that which is Christs but yet that a figure or trope fetcht from humane things is in the word of receiving let him strain himself as he will and turn himself every way He shall shew by no example that it can be said that he shall receive from another that he shall speak not from himself but things heard from another who is first author of his words and to whom those words are not delivered or some way wrought or imprinted by another at a certain time Although besides if the holy Spirit were no less properly the Legate of the Son than the Son formerly of the Father no impropriety of speech which might here be of any moment in that matter of which it is here disputed is to be admitted either in the word of hearing or of receiving For it will be altogether signified that those things which the holy Spirit hath said were manifested and committed to him by Christ For that belongs to such a Legate as Christ was and such aâ— they hold the holy Spirit to be By which it is now understood that the difficulty is not taken away by such an answer nor our Argument solved because what ever you devise these words cannot consist unless it be acknowledged that the holy Spirit is not the first author of those things which he made known to the Disciples of Christ but it came to pass by the will of another to wit Christ and so of God the Father himself Arg. 13 From Joh. 15.13 that he should reveal those things that he dictated to the disciples But this befalls not the most high God For he is the first author of those things which he either revealeth to men or otherwise doth Neither is it caused by the will of another that he doth reveal any thing to men Of which see what we have said above Sect. 2. Chap. 3. and 4. disputing of Christ when he weighed those his words John 5.19 The Son can do nothing of himself And those John 7.16 My doctrine is not mine and others like to these But perhaps this scruple will trouble some how it can be that the holy Spirit may be said to hear and to receive from another what he may declare to others if it be but only a divine inspiration or virtue and efficacy I answer Since the Adversaries also confess and the thing it self shews that those things cannot be properly taken concerning the holy Spirit there is no necessity that we should shew that they may be taken properly concerning divine inspiration But if a figure in the words is to be admitted it is not hard to shew that they may be rightly and elegantly said concerning divine inspiration or virtue inspired from heaven into the Apostles Out of those things wâ—ich follow it will be manifest that many things are found in the holy Scripture spoken by a Prosopopoea concerning the holy Spirit as also concerning other things And that this figure is abhorrent from the place of John of which we treat shall be by and by shewn All men perceive that it is here spoken of the holy Spirit as of a Legate who is to be sent by Christ to the disciples It belongs to a Legate as we have said before not to speak of himself but to declare to others the commands heard and received from him by whom he is sent These things then are accommodated and that by right also to the divine vertue long since inspired into the Apostles For there is something in that divine inspiration which very well answers to hearing and receiving from another and declaring and which consequently hath made way for the Metaphor out of which the Prosopopoea ariseth For not the divine inspiration but he from whom that inspiration comes is the true author of those things which are revealed by it to men neither can that divine virtue implant any other thing in the spirits and minds of men than he would from whom it is inspired into men who is here indeed Christ Therefore it is like to some Legate who declares nothing save the things heard and received from his Prince and Lord to those to whom he is sent But why doth here Christ speak by Prosopopey concerning the holy Spirit this is chiefly the cause because in some manner he compares him with himself and considers him as it were to be sent into his place to the Disciples now sadned by his instant departure For Christ hitherto hath been as it were their Comforter Therefore he said to them being fadned by the notice of his departure That he asking the Father would give to them or would send to them from the Father another Comforter who might abundantly supply his room in this behalf But comparisons of things with persons Arg. 13 from John 16.13 do easily bring forth Prosopopeys Hence that we may illustrate the thing by examples David comparing the testimonies of God with Princes who spake and took counsel against him and opposing the one to the other he calls them his Counsellors or as it is in the Hebrew the men of his Counsel Psal 119.24 Hence also arose that famous Prosopopey in Solomon who brings in wisdom and foolishness contrary to it as certain women inviting men to them by reason of the comparison of a strange woman as most learned men have noted See Cornelius Jansen on the Proverbs Let the whole place be read beginning at Proverbs 7.5 where that comparison begins and is continued through the rest of the whole chapter and the two following Chapters Compare also with this place Chap. 24. Eccles More might be said of this matter but there is now no place for it and something also shall yet be said hereafter by which it shall appear that no man ought to marvel that such a Prosopopey or Fiction of a Person is used concerning the holy Spirit Although even that alone may take away wondring from any one that Christ himself confesseth that
he in that speech of his in which several times he brings in the holy Spirit as a person spake to the Disciples in Parables or Figures fetcht from common use but that sometimes he would openly and plainly declare to them of the Father or of the things pertaining to the Father Chap. 16.25 But among those things even chiefly is the holy Spirit of whom there is often mention in that discourse one while more openly another while more covertly Christ afterwards indeed explained the thing clearly enough when he poured out the holy Spirit on the Disciples by which he lead them into all the Truth For it not as a true person hath declared any thing to them but as a divine inspiration inspired into their minds hath wrought and imprinted in them the fullest knowledge of the Doctrine of Christ Wherefore since the event it self hath sufficiently explained that Discourse why do we seek another Interpretation CHAP. XIV Arg. 14 from 1 Cor. 2.10 Three Arguments from 1 Cor. 2.10 c. The Spirit searcheth all things even the deep things of God c. THe fourth place in this rank we shall assigne to those words of Paul 1 Cor. 2. which the Adversaries are wont to use to prove that the holy Spirit is a divine person For thus the Apostle there speaks But God hath revealed them to us to wit those things which God hath prepared for them who love him by his Spirit For the Spirit searcheth all things even the deep things of God For who of men knoweth the things of man save the spirit of man that is in him Even so the things of God knoweth none but the Spirit of God Now we have received not the Spirit of this world but the spirit which is of God c. This place yeelds us divers Arguments some of which are above alleaged by us in Sect. 3. Chap. 5. First That the holy â—pirit is distinguished from God whilest God is said by him to reveal to us the things of salvation whilest it is called the Spirit of God whilest it is asserted that he searcheth the deep things of God and hath known the things which are of God whilest in the end Chap. 8. Chap. 11. it is said to be of God Moreover that men are said to receive it Lastly that when he is said to be of God he is made the effect of God But none of these we have shewed can befal the most high God But besides these three as many other Arguments may be fetcht from the same words The first is That God is said to have revealed something to us by his Spirit For thence it is manifest that it is not the first but the middle cause of that Revelation which agrees not to the most high God See what we have said in those places above Sect. 2. Chap. 19. in which God is said to have done either all or certain things by Christ The second is That it is said to search even the deep things of God For neither is any one said to search those things the most clear and perfect knowledge of which is first in him and which are by him first constituted and decreed But if the holy Spirit is the most high God the deep things of God that is his hidden counsels and most clear and perfect knowledge thereof in him is first resident and by him they are all first constituted and decreed How then could he be said to search them God and Christ indeed is said to search our hearts because he penetrates into the secrets of anothers breast but his own counsels his own deep things he is no where said to search Indeed neither are men said to search their own counsels unless perhaps when either they are by some means slipt out of their memory or they themselves have not yet sufficiently examined the reason of them But what can be wanting to the most high God for the most exact knowledge of his depths Arg. 11 From 1 Cor. 2.10 The Apostle in this place being about to declare that which he had said of the Spirit of God by the example of the Spirit of man doth not say that it searcheth but knows the things which are of a man although the manner of speaking which he had used of the Spirit of God would lead him thereto that he should affirm that the spirit of man also searcheth those things which are of a man But he would not affirm it of the Spirit of man because in it first are resident those things which are of a man that is his counsels and decrees and by it are constituted Therefore the same reason should be of the holy Spirit if he were the most high God We know indeed that it is said by a Metalepsis which also brings forth a certain Prosopopey that the Spirit of God searcheth all things namely because it causeth men in whom it is to find out all things even the deep and hidden counsels of God In which manner the same Spirit is said to intercede for us with unutterable groans and to cry Abba Father because it is the cause that we may do these things But the Adversaries cannot use this answer who endeavour to frame the person of the holy Spirit from this that the holy Spirit is said to know all things even those which are of God which they could not do if they would acknowledge those things to be said of the holy Spirit by a Metalepsis For it would no more thence follow that the holy Spirit is a person than that Charity is a person because so many actions proper to persons are attributed to it by a Metalepsis afterward in the same Epistle 1 Cor. 13. Moreover such a Metalepsis would be altogether unusual if the holy Spirit should be the most high God Who would say that the Father searcheth the counsel of God because he may cause another to search them Why then should the holy Spirit be said to search the deep things of God if he himself were the most high God whose are those deep things We say the same words of Paul Rom. 8.27 which we touched a little before The Spirit it self askes or makes intercession for us with unutterable groans and he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit because he maketh intercession for the Saints according to God For how could these things be said even by a Metalepsis of the holy Spirit if he were the most high God with whom the intercession is made and who searcheth the hearts and according to whom or according to whose will the Saints intercede For it is not convenient that not only humane action should be attributed to the most high God but that his own person also should be detracted from him The third Argument which may be drawn from the aforesaid place to the Corinthians is that if the holy Spirit were a person distinct from the Father and Son which speaking pâ—opeâ—ly should be said
it be only a divine virtue and efficacy not a Suppositum or Person This although it properly pertain not to the matter in hand yet we will briefly explain that no scruple may remain First we have already seen that some of the adversaries by the force of their own opinion are forced to hold that those things are not properly said of the holy Spirit but that bodily shape and its descent from heaven was only an outward resemblance of the holy Spirit filling Christ with his gifts which same thing why it may not be said of divine efficacy there is no cause Besides If we would by all means have it so that those things are properly spoken of the holy Spirit it is to be understood as to that descent and motion that the qualities were moved together with their subjects and consequently in them Wherefore also the divine efficacy if it may exist in a man and in him or together with him be moved it may descend from heaven in another thing likewise which God will use in the carrying down of it Neither indeed is there wanting to God a convenient and beseâ—ming Vehicle that I may so speak for that efficacy But as to the shape it the subject of thar efficacy have a certain shape especially such as may shew and resemble the latent efficacy nothing at all hinders but that it may be said that that virtue descends in or with that shape But of these things if God will we shall say more else where This we would have here observed although it be written that the holy spirit did then descend on Christ in a bodily form and it may be easily understood that which all seem commonly to think that it appeared in some bodily form on the day of Pentecost yet neither here nor else where is it ever said to have appeared in the shape and form of any person as we read of the Father and Christ when they appeared in a certain form and also of the Angels But if the holy Spirit were a person Why had it not also appeared in the shape of a person For whether you hold it to have been the shape of a Dove in which it descended on Christ as commonly all contend or any other it is certain that was not the form of a person For neither is the Fire or Dove a Person seeing a person is nothing but a substance endued with understanding As for that whereby from the Apostles words in which it is said it searcheth or knows they endeavour to evince the holy Spirit to be endued with understanding it is refuted in the foregoing Chapter CHAP. XVI The Conclusion of the first Book in which it is shewed That the Adversaries opinion concerning the Trinity is refuted by the very silence of the holy Scriptures neither doth any thing hinder but that it may be oppugned by Arguments fetcht from Reason VVE have shewed enough out of holy writ that neither Christ nor the holy Spirit but only the Father is the most high God and that the most high God is one as in Essence so also in person not as it is commonly believed three in respect of persons Which opinion although there were not so many reasons as we have produced might be refelled by the bare silence of holy Scriptures For is it credible that Christ and the Apostles that I may omit now the Prophets would have concealed a thing as it is commonly believed and as the reason of the tenet holds forth so necessary to be known so hard to be believed and far exceeding all the capacity of humane wit Doth not the thing it self shew us by how much that tenet should be more necessary both to be known and more hard to be perceived by so much the clearer they would have propounded it and so the oftenner and more diligently have inculcated it Their diligence in other things much less and easier to be perceived compels us to believe as well as the earnest desire or rather endeavour of the same persons towards the Salvation of mankind and also that office which they undertook and sustained Shall we think Christ our Saviour the Apostles other divine men had less care of the Salvation of men than they who either heretofore have defended that tenet as the cheife concern of our Salvation or at this day maintain it Was there in them less intelligence of that mystery which they commonly adore or were words wanting by which they should describe it Could Athanasius in his Creed express it more clearly than Christ than the Apostles Whosoever saith he will be saved before all things it is necessary that he hold the Chatolick faith which unless a man keep whole and inviolate without doubt he shall perish for ever But the Catholick faith is this that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity neither confounding the persons nor seperating the substance For there is one person of the Farher another of the Son another of the holy Spirit The Scripture doth not teach that God is trinune But there is one divinity of the Father Son and holy Spirit equal glory coeternal Majesty c. What I beseech you is there like these things in all the holy Scriptures We will not now refute the errors of them who beleeve not all things necessary to salvation to be contained in the holy Scriptures which is done by our men * See John Volkelius of the true Religion lib. 5. Chap. 7. elsewhere This onely we say that however some positions necessary to salvation should not be contained in the holy Scriptures yet this which is made the cheif and as it were the foundation of other things by them that it is not openly contained there is to be judged altogether incredible But letting these pass let us deal with them who acknowledge and urge that all things which are necessary to salvation are comprehended in the compass of the sacred Volumnes What reason will they aleage why that tenet is not plainly contained in holy Scripture Not few say that though it be not expresly comprehended in them yet it may be deduced from them by a good consequence But that I may now omit other things we have shewed a little before that in so hard a thing so remore from our capacity so necessary there should be fully shewn not onely consequences but clear and distinct explication and that repeated more than once especially because simple men to whom God would have the way of salvation to be manifest equally that I say not more to learned and ingenious men understand not those consequences and besides must take paines not onely in perceiving the reason of the consequence but also in the force of the opinion it self which is scarce perceived by the learned if yet that may be perceived which is repugnant to it self Moreover if they speak true who say that the Tenet of the Trinity pertains even chiefly to the Catholick Faith without which no man
whom you most respect and approve how few Argumentations will you find which are manifest from the holy Scriptures What is more usual than such Argumentations as these To whom the Properties of that One God agree he is that one God But to Christ or the holy Spirit these agree Again To whom actions proper to persons agree he is a person But they agree to the holy Spirit But where are those Propositions which they call major Propositions that I say nothing now of Assumptions written whence will they draw them but from reason But if Argumentation when we treat even of Mysteries may be firm from one Proposition which Reason only supplies why may it not be also from two if as well Reason approves both as one Besides if we argue either from the Opinions of the Adversaries themselves or from Opinions and Principles confessed by all who can reprehend it unless most unjustly especially if we shew that that Doctrine implies as they speak a contradiction and overthrows it self For all men who are of right understanding do confess that no doctrine can be true which implies a contradiction or the force of which is such that it is necessary that the same thing be and not be together to wit in the same respect part time For this principle being taken away all Science is taken away and although you should a thousand times demonstrate God to be three in persons yet it might be allowed for another alike truely to say that he is not three and so in all other things But we may without difficulty shew that the common Doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in one numerical Essence doth imply a contradiction What then remains but that it be acknowledged by all to be false But that the thing is so as we have said being holpen by Divine Aid we shall demonstrate in the following Book THE SECOND BOOK OF John Crellius Concerning One God the Father HAving shewed from the holy Scriptures the Most High God to be none other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Now we will confirm the same chiefly by other Arguments and indeed so that we may refel the Doctrine contrary to this Opinion partly from the very nature of it and the received opinions of the Adversaries partly from other principles The truth of which may be demonstrated in a certain manner But we shall divide this whole tract again into three Sections In the first we shall in general discourse of those three Persons of supream Divinity which are maintained and shall shew that that Doctrine doth oppose it self and also other Suppositions of the Adversaries In the second of the second Person of that Trinity which they hold to be the Son of God In the third we shall speak of the third Person which they make the holy Spirit Which being finished we shall so conclude this whole work as to shew the manifold Use of this Disputation The first Section Arg. 1 There would be three Gods In which is generally treated concerning the three Persons of the supream Deity which are commonly maintained CHAP. I. The first Argument By which is shewed That the common Doctrine of the Trinity overthrows it self because there would be at once one and three Gods THat we may therfore perform that which we have propounded in the first place first Thence it is manifest that the common Doctrine of three Persons in one God doth imply a contradiction and so overthroweth it self because both one God and three Gods to wit Most High are there asserted together One God indeed expresly but three if you consider the force of the Opinion For they say That there are three Persons really distinct from among themselves each of which is God For as much as they are wont to say and are compelled to say by the force of their Opinion The Father is God The Son is God The holy Spirit is God but they alwayes speak of the same Most high God But now where there are three persons really distinct from among themselves each of which is the most high God there are three most high Gods Reckon up now those Persons and you will have three most high Gods for the first will be the Father the second the Son the third the holy Spirit The matter needs no disputation with him who by reason of a preconceived Opinion concerning God when there it is treated of him hath not forgat to number three A larger Defence and Confirmation of the Argument BUt nevertheless they urge that those three are one God If they should so call those three one God as we call three or more Senators one Senate since it cannot be said of them separately thus far it might be pardoned to them But seeing they pronounce the name of the most high God of each person distinctly taken and are altogether compelled to pronounce it by the force of their Opinion they cannot say it For from this Opinion it doth altogether follow that either the Father is the Son and holy Spirit and reciprocally or the Father is one God in number another the Son another the holy Spirit the former of which takes away the real distinction of the persons the latter overthrows the Unity of God and manifestly makes three Gods in number For as to the former thus I will argue That one God is the Father as the holy Scriptures testifie it and the Adversaries confess it But the Son according to the Adversaries Opinion is that one God that same even in number who was now called the Father Therefore the Son is the Father But the same Argumentation may be also inverted the premises being converted and transposed and in like manner may be framed concerning the holy Spirit in relation to the Father and Son Nor can it otherwise be dissolved unless you say that the Son is one God in number the Father another likewise the holy Spirit another and so there are three Gods in number Therefore whithersoever the Adversaries turn themselves by that their Tenet they overthrow both their own Doctrine and the sence of the holy Scriptures Moreover do I not rightly argue thus The Father is a divine Person the Son is a divine Person the holy Spirit is a divine Person therefore there are three divine Persons not one The Adversaries will altogether so assert Why then do I not likewise rightly argue The Father is the most high God the Son is the most high God the holy Spirit is the most high God therefore there are three most high Gods not one If we would urge examples fetcht from things created Peter is a man Paul is a man John is a man therefore there are three men not one or Michael is an Angel Gabriel is an Angel Raphael is an Angel therefore there are three Angels not one if I say we would urge these examples the Adversaries would cry out that the thing is one way in creatures another way in God But now when we use the
hath the divine Essence But whosoever is hypostatically the most high God he hath the divine Essence But if you will say that God taken essentially signifies the Essence it self which is neither Father nor Son nor holy Spirit or contrarily but something subsisting in those three First I shall not easily believe that the Adversaries who speak more accurately will admit that since the essence especially so taken as that it cannot be predicated of each of the divine persons signifies something abstract But God is concrete such indeed as is found in Substances and denotes an Essence together with an Existence or Subsistence But further whatever at last the Adversaries will determine of this matter we have already shewn that the name of God is the name of a person and since it is certain that the name of one God is so used in the holy Scriptures that it is directly predicated of the Father but the Adversaries would have it so that it should be predicated also of the Son and the holy Spirit it will be necessary to shew where the word God when there it is spoken of that one God denotes some such thing as neither is Father nor Son nor holy Spirit Lastly Such a signification will make nothing to the matter For we dispute of that God of whom the Adversaries speak when they say that the Father is God the Son is God the holy Spirit is God and not of that God who cannot after that manner be predicated of the divine persons And thus much concerning the first Argument CHAP. II. The second Argument Because each divine Person would be three in Persons ANother Reason by which it is shewed that the common Doctrine of the Trinity doth overthrow it self is that thence it follows that each person of the Deity is three in persons and so it is both one and not one together For so say the Adversaries that that one God is three in persons The same again as we have said affirm that each divine person is that one God Whence it follows that each divine Person is three in persons The Defence of the Argument Neither indeed may you say that the Major is particular For it is singular which here answers to an universal since nothing may be subsummed in the Minor which is not contained under that singular which is the subject of the Major and the middle term of the Argument or of which that singular may not be said But the conclusion is most false and as we have seen overthrows it self But if any will here use a distinction and say that the Major speaks of God essentially taken the Minor of God personally taken he shall be no whit advantaged For we have in the foregoing chapter refuted that distinction shewing each divine person to be God essentially taken because it hath the whole Essence of God Therefore in whichsoever manner you take the word God yet the Minor will be true even as I believe all the more learned Adversaries will also say But besides let us feign Arg. 2 Every divine Person would be three that an Essence which neither is Father nor Son nor holy Spirit may be rightly called God and that it is three in persons which manner of expression I remember not that I have read in the Adversaries yet if that whole Essence be in each person the Trinity will be in each person and so each person no less than that Essence will be three in persons For in what the Essence is in that is also that whole whatsoever is in that Essence and is predicated of it in the concrete especially if that thing be of it self and not by accident in the Essence as here altogether the Adversaries would have with whom not only the divine persons cannot be accidents of the divine Essence but there is no accident at all in God CHAP. III. The third Argument Because the divine Persons would in very deed be the same and diverse THe third Argument is That the Adversaries maintain that the Essence is in very deed the same with the Persons and that the Persons do really differ from among themselves For hence it follows that the same thing is at once both one thing and more than one differ really from it self and not differ For those things which are the same really with some one thing are really the same among themselves also But the three divine Persons really distinct among themselves are really the same with some one thing namely the divine Essence Therefore the three persons really distinct among themselves are really the same among themselves The Conclusion doth manifestly contradict it self The Proposition which they call the Major rests on a Principle known to all which they do commonly thus express Those things which are the same with one third thing that is with something wherewith they are conferred are also among themselves the same And there is the same force of the Axiome if you add both in the predicate and in the subject of that enunciation the word Really For those things which are really the same with one third are one and the same thing with the third For what other thing is it to be the same things really than to be one and the same thing But those things which are one and the same with one third it is necessary that they be the same thing also among themselves otherwise that third thing with which those things are the same thing should at once be both one thing and more things So some of the Adversaries themselves are wont to prove that the divine Attributes are not really distinguished among themselves The divine Attributes say they are really the same thing with the divine Essence Therefore they are really the same thing among themselves Because those things which are really the same with one third Arg. 3 The divine Persons would be indeed the same are also really the same among themselves But others * See Becan in the Treatise concerning God cap. 1. Sect 1. Part. 1. who see that their Opinion concerning the Trinity is by this means everted say that this Reason is not firm and that common Axiome Those things which are the same with one third are the same among themselves ought thus to be understood Those things which are the same with one third thing incommunicable are the same among themselves But it is manifest that the divine Essence is not incommunicable since it is the same in number in the three Persons really distinct among themselves Neither indeed can the Adversaries bring any other instance by which they may invalid that Axiome besides that thing of which is here the controversie and is refelled by this very Reason But that Major proposed both by us and others admits no instance or exception because the reason of it is altogether universal For unless it be admitted a plain contradiction follows as we have seen to wit that one and the same thing is at once
be subject to Accidents but is an heinous offence with them to say that there are Accidents in God And yet the same do not reprehend their own men who say that there is one Substance of God and that which is sung for many Ages in Temples The Father Son holy Spirit are three names all the same substance But let us free them from this fear To be subject to Accidents that is an Accident to a Substance To subsist by it self this is to be a Substance But do not the Father and the Son subsist by themselves If they subsist not by themselves nothing will subsist by it self Will you who do fear to ascribe any Accident to God perhaps make God himself an Accident But whatsoever is nor a Substance is an Accident I omit that no man can deny the Son to be a Substance but he who dares to deny him to be a man But it is necessary that the Adversaries say the same of the holy Spirit which is said of the Father and Son And because some although otherwise they say The Defence of the Argument that God is a Substance yet deny the divine Persons to be Substances as afterwards will more clearly appear Let us prove the same thing also by another reason that being assumed which is generally put out of controversie by all the Adversaries They all being taught by the Schoolmen do maintain that a person is nothing else but an intelligent Suppositum That Suppositum is the Genus of a Person Intelligent the specifical difference of it which being added to that Genus doth perfect the whole definition of a person And that word Suppositum although in this signification barbarous is very usual in Schools when they speak of the divine Persons For they say that there are three Suppositums in God But now a Suppositum as it is explained by the Schoolmen themselves the authors of that word so used is * Prima sabstantia completa a first or individual Substance compleat they are wont to add that it is incommunicable although without necessity as we shall hear presently They call it a Substance that they may exclude Accidents a first Substance that they may exclude the universal to wit Genus and Species a compleat and perfect Substance that they may exclude the parts of the substances whether integral or essential Lastly they say that it is incommunicable that it may not be common to more Suppositums nor be conjoyned with another Suppositum Which condition they have added for the sake partly of the divine essence partly of the human nature of Christ to both which all other conditions of a Suppositum do agree Therefore except they added this condition they saw it would follow that both the one and the other would be a Suppositum and since it is endued with understanding also a Person Wherefore lest thence indeed the doctrine concerning three Persons in one Essence of God here the tenet concerning the hypostatical or personal union of two natures in Christ should fall to the ground for there cannot be more persons in one person they have this prop of incommunicability put to it But that condition as far as it hinders the Substance to be common to many Suppositums is contained in the name of the first or singular Substance For it would not be singular if it were common to many singulars as we have above chap. 3. of this Section shewn But as far as it hinders lest it may be conjoyned with another Suppositum and so cohere with it that it may be partaker of its subsistence it is comprehended in the word Compleat For now it would not be compleat but it would be the part of another if it would in the manner be conjoyned with another Suppositum Of which thing we shall speak elsewhere Sect. 2. chap. 6 and 8. of this Book In this place we have need of this thing For neither the force of the Argument which we now urge is therein placed but in this that very Suppositum is a Substance That as yet seems to be added as we may more rightly perceive the reason of this description that the Schoolmen have therefore called such a Substance as I now have described a Suppositum because that at last may deserve to be called a Suppositum which is as it were put under and subjected to all other predications or things which may be predicated of some other thinâ— Briefly that which is the ultimum subjectum of which other things are predicated and it self of no other But this is no other thing but a first and singular Substance For this is predicated of no other thing because neither hath it any thing inferiour to it self nor any subjectum in which it may be inherent like an accident but it is the ultimum subjectum which both the second Substances to wit the Genus and Species and Accidents of are predicated Concerning which thing the Catagories which are inscribed Aristotles may be seen Of those also speak the vulgar Axiome Actions are of Suppositums because Actions do most properly agree to the first and that indeed perfect or compleat Substances If therefore every Person be a Suppositum and every Suppositum a Substance every person also must be a substance and further where there are more Persons it is necessary that there be also more Substances Not a few of the Adversaries have seen the force of this Argument Therefore that they might avoid it they have perverted the true definition of a person commonly received also in Schools if you consider the thing it self For they say that a Person is not a Substance or thing by it self subsisting bu an incommunicable subsistence of an intelligent nature This they say is the accurate definition of a person but that by which a person was defined in Schools to wit that it is an individual intelligent incommunicable that Substance not sustained by another is less accurate For it agrees to a person in concreto not in abstracto but the definition of Concretums are not accurate but that of Abstractums But further they say that the subsistence is a certain mode of a Being not a Being it self For it being conâ—â—â—ered by it self and abstractly hath not entity Theâ—efore the Fatâ—er Son and holy Spirit being considered by themselves and abstraâ—â—ly or distinctly from the Essence are with them non entia or no being â—nd in this indeed I assent to them that such persons as are conceived by them are non entia or no beings for they are in very deâ—d tâ—eir own devices But that the Father and Son and holy Spirit are non entia or no beings but modes only of a being it is indeed most false Certainly this thing is of it self most unworthy of God yea as we shall see by its force takes away all Empire and Honour from the Fat er and Son and doth in a manner lead men to Atheism I will not now urge that manner of speaking
act of will makes the third person of the Divinity For both that love is in God and infinite and moreover no less God than that Image produced by the understanding but in person is necessarily distinct from them by whom he is produced These Mysteries do they open unto us concerning the production of two divine persons it is wonderful with what deep silence of the holy Scriptures kept secret and how forreign from those things which the same holy Scriptures do in most plain words deliver concerning the Generation of the Son by God and in their due place * Sect. 2. Lib. 1. Chap. 31. are produced by us Here they who cry out that Reason is blind in divine things who would not that any may dispute from it against the Trinity who have often that in their mouth The searcher of the Majesty shall be oppressed by its Glory as they think was written by Solomon here I say they ought to cry out that Reason is blind that these search the divine Majesty that it is unlawful to attempt to express the unutterable Mysteries But unless such things had been devised they had not at this day had their Trinity But it is wonderful how preposterously the Adversaries do here behave themselves For whilst they do so urge the simplicity that whatsoever is in God they hold to be God yet in the mean time bring in more persons into him and if you consider the force of their opinion infinite or numberless they by this very reason quite destroy the Simplicity But that is yet more grievous that whilst they seem to be willing to have such regard to the Simplicity of which notwithstanding the holy Scriptures are silent as being not necessary to be known to the salvation and are altogether unknown to the more simple men they take away the unity which the holy Scriptures so often and so plainly inculcate But let us now let pass both these and not a few other absurdities which are contained in this opinion of which some are shewn above some shall be shewn afterward and let us demonstrate that which a little before we propounded to wit that hence it follows That the Son of God is his own Son Neither is it difficult to demonstrate that For if the Essence and moreover the Understanding of the Father and the Son be the same in number there is also the same operation in number of the understanding especially because the more acute Adversaries by reason of the greatest Simplicity of God hold that his intellect and intellection are the same thing Therefore if the Father hath begotten the Son by the operation of his understanding the Son also whos 's the same operation was begat himself Yea further the holy Spirit begat that Son of God existing from eternity and so is the Father of the Son and Principle of his own Principle For by the same intellection together with the Father and Son from all eternity he understood and contemplated himself and his Essence and also even the Father and the Son And so because with the same act of will the holy Spirit together with the Father and Son willed and loved whatsoever they will and love if the holy Spirit be a certain act of will or something produced by the Father and Son by the operation of will the holy Spirit also hath produced himself Besides It is to be affirmed that by this means not only the same persons have produced themselves but also infinite or innumerable others For since each person understands both himself and the other persons and desâ—res and loves them it is necessary that each again produce more both Sons and holy Spirits if those things be true which they inculcate to us concerning the divine Intellection and love For there must be a different and so an unlike Image of the Father as he is the Father and of the Son as he is the Son and of the holy Spirit as such For the Father and Son as such are opposite between themselves and in like sort the holy Spirit as he is produced by both For they are relatives and all relatives as we have said above are opposite but there must be opposite Images of opposite things However this be there must be different Images of those things which really differ which may exactly express them and not only shew how they agree between themselves but also how they differ But according to the diversity and multitude of those Images there will arise also a multitude of acts of wil love with which those several persons embrace those Images and again those Images prosecute the persons by which they are produced and each also themselves and at length one another Wherefore if both those Images produced by the intellect and those acts of will in God are persons or at least principles of divers persons the persons will be in infinitum multiplyed Although if whatsoever is in God be God another way also will divine persons arise For in God there is an Image of every thing in particular which he understands if an intellection be not in God but by an Image likewise both decrees of infinite things and love towards things created and divers acts of will All these things therefore shall be God yet shall differ in persons from him or those from whom they are produced Therefore even thence we shall have infinite or innumerable persons in God CHAP. II. The second Argument Because there would be innumerable Sons as also innumerable holy-Spirits LEst any one perhaps should think that they only should fear an infinite multitude of divine persons who have devised that manner of generation of the Son of God and procession of the holy Spirit which in the precedent chapter we have explained we shall shew that others also must hold the same who will have the Son of God to have been generated from eternity out of the Essence of the Father and moreover since they see that the infinite multitude of the divine persons is most absurd they must acknowledge that also the Doctrine from whence it flows is most abhorrent from the truth For if God have begotten the Son out of his Essence and again together with the Son have produced the holy Spirit and these are with him the same God there is no cause why the son also hath not begotten another Son again and in like manner the holy Spirit another and this also another and so in infinitum For what cannot the Son and holy Spirit do what the Father could Then they are not the same God with him since they have not the same faculty and power but an unequal one Will you say that they would not But such things which pertain to things ad intra or to within as they speak in God are altogether necessary and are not subject to the free will But if they be subject to the free will it may come to pass that within some time more divine persons may grow when
those persons will which hitherto would not beget or breath other persons Some say therefore it cannot be that the Son or holy Spirit should produce another Son or holy Spirit not because there is some impotence in the Son and holy Spirit but because whatsoever might be begotten or proceed in God that hath been already begotten and produced Arg. 2 There would be infinite Sons but that which is already generated or produced cannot any more be produced for it should at once both be and not be in which manner neither this world can be any more created by God because it is already in being not by reason of any impotence in God but by reason of the impotence of the thing it self as I may so say Indeed it is true that the world which now is cannot any more be created But do not the Adversaâ—ies believe that another world besides this may be created of God I trow they do altogether believe it Let us apply this to our purpose That Son which is already begotten cannot any more be begotten neither that holy Spirit which is already produced can any more be produced But what hinders another Son or another holy Spirit to be produced by the Son and holy Spirit and by them again others since we have shewed * Sect. 1. chap. 7. of this Book above that it follows from the Suppositions of the Adversaries that the divine Nature is capable of infinite persons in number Wherefore they say not things agreeable to their own Supposi ions when they say that whatsoever could be generated or produced in God all that is already contained in the Son whom the first person of the Divinity hath begotten and in the holy Spirit whom the first and second person hath produced and therefore another Son and another holy Spirit could not be produced by the Son and holy Spirit for as much as there as yet hath been place for infinite or innumerable persons And let this be another Argument against that eternal Generation of the Son out of the Essence of the Father CHAP. III. The third Argument Because the Son of God both had been and had not been from Eternity LEt this be the third Argument by which the same Doctrine is refelled that thence it would follow that Christ both did exist from all Eternity and did not exist that he alwayes was and sometime was not It must needs be that he was from all Eternity because both it is openly said that he was begotten from all eternity and if he had exist at last in a certain time he would not be the most high God For the most high God was existent from all eternity But that he was not from all eternity is manifest from this very thing that he was begotten and indeed in respect of his Substance and with a Generation properly so called You will here presently cry out and say that you do easily understand what I would to wit that a Generation properly so called is a change from not being to being Therefore if the Son of God was properly generated he was sometime no being or sometimes in very deed he was not existent I say this very thing I would But you will say that that definition is to be admitted only concerning natural generation not concerning supernatural But this generation of the Son of God out of the Essence of the Father is supernatural Arg. 3 The Son had been and had not been from eternity not natural When the Adversaries say these things first we very much desire constancy in them For if the Generation of the Son of God be supernatural and so different from the natural why do they so much urge in this very thing the example of the humane Generation whilst they do so often inculcate tâ—at he who is the proper only begotten natural Son of God is necessarily of the same Essence with the Father For whence do they frame such a Proposition but from humane things and altogether natural And indeed they even expresly bring examples of Sons begotten by men that they may establish that Proposition neither can they bring any other For what are there perhaps some other only begotten proper natural but supernaturally begotten Sons of any one extant whom they may bring for an example and from whom they may frame such a pâ—oposition They will say that the generation of the Son of God in that agrees with the humane and natural generation that the Son by it became like to the Father in substance not in that that sometime he was not existent But may you be allowed so to urge when you list the reason and similitude of the natural generation and when you list again to refuse it So indeed the Adversaries more than once hold forth the propriety of words when it serves their cause and when it doth withstand they reject it change the received Axiomes and Definitions in Schools inlarge restrain and bow them like a Lesbian Rule to their opinion Never did the boldness of humane wit permit it self to feign more things than concerning God as being a thing remote from our sences in which it hath believed its devices could not so easily be detected But that we may return to our matter if you urge the propriety of the word when Christ is said he is begotten of God and conclude thence he is altogether be oâ—ten out of his substance because they who are properly begotten of any must be begotten of his substance Why do you not also see that Christ out of a no Being is made a Being and so sometime was not existent since this no â—ess than that pertains to the propriety of the generation of them from whom you gather that former assertion For this a you confess is eâ—â—enâ—ial to the natural generation that it be a change from noâ— being into being Further why do you not acknowledge that there is one substance of the begetter another of the begotten Since this is at last produced by a generation that already was before existent the one is the cause the other the effect Lastly why do you not acknowledge also tâ—aâ— the Son is latter in time than the Father Buâ— if you will not acknowledge these things in the generation of the Son of God neither doth your opinion permit it you have no reason to urge the propâ—â—eâ—y of the word or estimate it from natural things But if you depaâ—t from the propriety of the word and be content with the remaâ—kable and singular similitude which is between the humane and that divine Generation we shall easily make the matter plain for you without the generation out of the Essence of God as both we treating of the Son of God did shew in the first * Sect. 2. Chap. 31. Book and is by our men elsewhere shewed But you ought so much the rather to have done this because you contend that rightly this Generation to be supernatural For look over all
that the Substance of the Father is also born and indeed from it self Therefore also the Father is the Son of himself For how is he not begotten whose substance is begotten How is he not his Son out of whose substance he is begotten There might also other Arguments be brought but we will be now content with these CHAP. V. The fifth Argument By which the Doctrine of the Incarnation of the Son of God is refelled because the Father and the holy Spirit had been also incarnated VVE must pass to the Incarnation which all they are constrained to acknowledge who hold Christ to be the most high God For since it is most manifest by the holy Scriptures that he is by nature a man and at a certain time born of a Virgin it was necessary that they should hold him or his divine Nature so to have assumed the humane that the unity of person remaining he should be at once both God and man For if God and man should be different persons neither the Son of God had been a man nor a man the Son of God no more than the Father is that Son whom they hold to be the second person of the Trinity or the holy Spirit or on the contrary yea less since the nature of those persons is held to be the same â—ot only in the genus or species but number also but the nature of the most high God and man have the farthest distance even in kind from one another But in that opinion which we have spoken of concerning the Incarnation of the Son of God begotten out of the Essence of the Father from eternity many absurdities are â—â—ntained We will here bring some only and those more pertinent to our present matter For first thence it follows that not only the Son Arg. 5 Because the Father and the holy Spirit had been incarnated but also the Father and holy Spirit have assumed a humane nature For he hath assumed an humane nature whose proper nature or substance hath assumed it and with it is personally united But if the divine Nature of Christ hath assumed an humane nature also the proper Nature of the Father and the holy Spirit hath assumed it if so be it be the same in number in those three persons And indeed the contrivance of the errour hath made that some of the Adversaries have not feared to say that the whole Trinity was incarnated and lately there was one * Cornelius a Lapide a Jesuite in his Commentary on the lesser Prophets of a certain chief Sect of the Adversaries a man of a most famous name amongst them and now indeed teaching Divinity at Rome who dedicated his Book to the uncreated Trinity and in Jesus Christ created Which if it be true both the Father and the holy Spirit was born of a Virgin and suffered and dyed and was buryed and raised again and whatsoever we read Christ to have ever done or was done to him that also agrees to the Father and holy Spirit So the Heresy of those Antients whether Sabellians or Patripassians condemned by the Adversaries themselves will revive And indeed if you consider the thing rightly the common opinion of the Trinity is nothing else but a Sabellianism a little more subtilly propounded and varnished with some new colours and choaked with new names For the same God 〈◊〉 number considered with this mode or subsistence is the Father â—ith another mode or subsistence is the Son again with another the holy Spirit Which what other thing is it in very deed than what Sabellius held For the same God in number and the same substance is also in very deed the same person having three different modes or subsistences But that we may return to that which we began to do they will say that the divine Nature indeed or substance did assume the humane but not in every subsistence but only in the subsistence of the Son to this only that union or conjunction of the humane and divine Nature is terminated You would say that these men saw with their very eyes that Incarnation who know to explain so accurately in which subsistence that union was terminated although there are three subsistences in the same nature not really as they speak different from it But that the vanity of this device may be shewed let us somewhat explain what they would if so be that the matter may be understood True and real union such as that should be which is devised by the Adversaries is at least between two things whereof of the one explainâ— or applies its terminos or extremities whether properly or improperly so called to the other The case is clear in bodily things which we see with the eyes and from which the word terminus which they use in this matter is taken For a board is joyned to a board a stone to a stone whilst the superfices of the one is joyned to the superficies of the other but the superficies is the extremity or a certain terminus of a body But because a superficies of some whole body is extended through al its sides and for examples sake one part of it is before another behind therefore it may come to pass that the union and conjunction of two bodies is not terminated unto every part of the superficies or body So two square stones touch one another according to the superficies only of one side unless perhaps the one includes the other and then the outer superficies of the containing stone will not touch the superficies of the contained in any part wherefore to that outer superficies of the containing stone that union or conjunction will not be terminated but to the inner only Now in things incorporeal there are properly no termini or extremities no diversity of such parts Whence it was necessary if the humane nature was joyned to the divine which all hold to be incorporeal that it was joyned to the whole divine Nature But yet with our Adversaries instead of divers termini there are divers subsistences or modes of the divine nature whereof one makes the Father another the Son a third the holy Spirit Now they say that this personal union is terminated to the subsistence of the Son or so far the humane nature is joyned to the divine as this subsists in the Son but not as it subsists in the Father or holy Spirit therefore the subâ— stence of the Son not that of the Father or holy Spirit is communicated to the humane nature and this subsists by that and further makes one person with the Son of God not with the Father or holy Spirit The Adversaries usually explain the matter more obscurely But either this is it theâ— would have or what indeed they would cannot at all be understooâ— But they do nothing For if the whole divine nature be joyned to the humane and there be three subsistences in that whole nature whereof one differs no more from the Essence than another or is more
which belongs to a King These things are plain and have in them no scruple and difficulty There is no need here of communication of Properties There is no need to distinguish subtilly between Expressions in concreto and in abstracto to difference the Person from the Nature again one Nature from another to seek how you may attribute humane things to the most high God and things proper to the most high God to a Man how the same Person one while governs as the most high God another while as a Mediator and so the same person is in some sort distinguished from himself Now from that which hath been said that may also be understood That there was no heed of the Union of two Natures For if there had been need of it it had been for this cause That Christ might bear and manage those Offices But Chrisâ— miâ—ht discharge them although he were but a man in Essence Yea if he had been God he could not discharge the two former he could not receive the last nor therefore discharge it because that Kingly office is not the Empire of the most high God as he is such but as the Adversaries speak such a Kingdom as Christ manageth as a Mediator And indeed the confirming our faith and hope and the Glory of the most high God required such a Kingdom But if any say that greater than humane ability or power was requisite to discharge those Offices that would be of some moment if it had been necessary that he should have that ability or power from himself nor could receive them from God himself But now since he both might receive them from God and the holy Scriptures so often testifie that he hath received them from God what need was there that he should be the most high God Rightly they say commonly God and Nature do nothing in vain although God doth those things also that Nature doth But if God does not things unnecessary much less those things which hinder and are otherwise unbeseeming his Majesty But we have shewed that that union would have hindered the administration of those Offices We have shewed also that it attributes to God not a few absurdities and things unbeseeming his Majesty and most apt either to take away out of mens minds or at least to diminish in them that veneration of it which he would establish by Christ The Third Section That the holy Spirit shouâ—d be the Son of God In which is discoursed concerning the third Person of the Supream Deity which is commonly held And it is shewed That the holy Spirit should be the Son of God if the common Opinion concerning him were true WE have said enough of the second Person which is held to be in the Trinity It remains that we add something also of the third There is no need that we should say much of it because those things which have been said of the Sons Generation out of the Essence of the Father being a little changed may be applied to that procession of the holy Spirit which the Adversaries have devised For which reason we also before sometimes have expresly joyned the holy Spirit with the Son and so anticipated the treating of those things which might have been here alleaged nor did we that without cause For if you rightly mark it both the Generation of the Essence of the Father is some Procession and on the contrary such a Procession as the Adversaries attribute to the holy Spirit is like that Generation which the Adversaries attribute to the Son of God The former the more lâ—â—rned of the Adversaries do confess who treating of the Generation of the Son and Procession of the holy Spirit say That there are two Pâ—ocessions in God But why the word Procession is accommodated perticularly to the holy Spirit and so is distinguished from the Generation of the Son they assign this to be the Reason Because there is a special word wanting by which that proper and peculiar manner whereby the holy Spirit proceeds from the Faâ—her and Son may be designed Therefore as in other things it oft comes to pass the general name is attributed as proper to the species and so is distinguished from the other species But that the Procession also of the holy Spiâ—it is a Generation if that Generation of the Son of God which the Adversaries hold be indeed a Generation is not hard to demonstrate For what other thing is required to a Generation properly to called than that one receive his Essence from another either the same in kind or as the Adversaries opinion of God is in number with his Essence from whom he receives it In brief generation properly so called is a communication of a substance with another And is not that Procession of the holy Spirit devised by the Adversaries such a communication Did not the holy Spirit by that Procession receive the same essence in number with the essence of them from whom hee proceeded So indeed Adversaries think and contend But if the Procession of the holy Spirit be a Generation properly so called we have in the Trinity two Sons one of the first person only another of the first and second and also two Fathers one of the ffrst person who will be a Father by a double name to wit because he hath begotten the second and third person of the Deity another the second person who together with the Father hath begotten the holy Spirit But we have learned both from the holy Scâ—iptures and the Adversaries that there is but only One Father and only one Son to wit by excellency so called The more acute of the Adversaries have seen this Rock of their opinion and have endeavoured to avoid it Therefore they have judged that that definition of a Generation which otherwise they themselves have delivered is to be limited and have said that not every communication of a substance with anohter is a Generation but at length that tâ—at which such a relation follows as is between Father and Son which is barbarously called Paternity and Filiation In which indeed they are rediculous As if forsooth it could be that a person may communicate his substance really to a person and yet such a relation may not thence presently follow and that person which communicates his substance to another by that very thing were not forthwith a Father or where there is a distinction of sex which is not in God a Mother and again he to whom the substance is communicated a Son or where there is a distinct sex a Daughter The Adversaries themselves confess that the words Father Son Generation Procession as also other-like words are by an Analogy said of God and creatures and that by reason of likeness they are translated from these to God But in things created as soon as the substance is produced the things is properly said to be generated nor is there any thing more required to the propriety of the word but if a person have
produced a person presently the one is called a Father or as we have said a Mother the other a Son or Daughter Therefore that which in God is analogum to that Generation doth also deserve to be termed Generation But that is a production of another person or a communication of the substance with another person And the necessary consequence hereof is Paternity and Filiation Analogum to that which we see in humane generations For that generation is conversant among Persons But say some therefore the production of a person is called a generation because by it a person is produced not only like to the producer in essence but also in some other peculiar respect For that second person as such is the image of the first as that which is hath produced by understanding it self but that the Image is like to that the image of which it is They say there is another reason of the Procession of the holy Spirit for he is produced from the Father and Son by willing But it is not the property of the will to produce something like to that thing which it wills and desires Therefore that the holy Spirit however by his Procession he is become like to the Father and Son in Essence or rather the same yet in respect of his person by which he is distinguished from the Father and the Son he is like to neither But that Procession at last is rightly termed a Generation by which the person produced becomes altogether like the producer but that procession is rightly distinguished from a generation of which in that respect there is a different reason But these subtil devices avail them nothing For besides that we have refuted already * Sect. 3. Chap. 1. above that device of the production of persons which may be by understanding or willing There are yet two things which shew the vanity of this exception The former is that to the propriety of a generation from another it is not at all required that the thing generated be like the thing generating in all things but it is enough if it be like to it in essence or substance from which likeness follows also a likeness of natural properties and common to the whole genus or species although the property of generation by it self is not seen in this but in that and if it could be that the substance of the thing generated were like to the substance of the thing generating but the properties of both divers nevertheless the property of generation would be certain although perhaps it might not be so easiely acknowledged because we for the most part know things themselves by the proper tokens and consequents of things Wherefore if the holy Spirit by vertue of his procession became like in substance to the Father and Son yea the same for according to the Adversaries identity takes not away procession nor generation in divine persons the holy Spirit was generated of the Father and Son and so that his procession is generation In how many things if you except the Essence and properties immediately following it are sons wont to be unlike the Fathers yet nevertheless they are not therefore less properly said to be generated of them or to be their Sons But here the essence and natural properties are 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
there is none in him mortal men do But true cannot be contrary to true no more yea less than an Egg to an Egg Milk to Milk Neither may they fetcht patronage of so absurd a distinction from Aristotle who saith as we have before minded that some things are really distinct some in reason For with him those things are distinct in reason which the schoolmen say are formally distinguished that is which although they be united together and by a certain indissolvable knot either on both sides or on one part joyned yet differ in forms and proper Essences as docility and the faculty of admiring in the same man generation and corruption For every natural and properly so called Generation is the corruption of another thing and on the contrary Nevertheless these things differ yea are opposite and so have opposite essences also which are in the same matter in respect of divers things For one thing is corrupted another thing is generated So the foundations also are distinguished from the relations which rest on them But those things differ also in the whole genus or predicament So also the comparisons of the same thing with divers relations have forms and essences divers either in the genus or species or number as also termini and correlata differ Therefore the intellect doth not feign those distinctions in things but in very deed finds them in them and the Schoolmen themselves say that those things are distinct actually which although we think not of them are distinct in forms although they exist together But if they would acknowledge such a difference between the divine persons and essence the Patrons of it will neither be able to reconcile the common Doctrine of the Trinity with it self nor with their other Doctrines Not with it self for by this means each person will have its proper form and essence and so those persons will be and will not be at once of one essence Not with their other doctrines because the exactest simplicity of God will fall But if they acknowledge not that distinction then the Trinity will fall all true difference between the essence and the persons and thereupon of the persons also between themselves being taken away Wherefore which way soever the Adversaries turn themselves they will not be able to defend that their Trinity or plurality of persons in one Essence of God and therefore there remains no other thing than that they confess together with us that there is no less one person than one substance of God The use of this Disputation The Conclusion of the Work In which the Use of this Disputation concerning One God the Father is explained THerefore having demonstrated that the most high God is no less one in person than in essence and that he is no other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ it remains that we shew the Use of this Doctrine Now this is so much the greater by how much the contrary Doctrine is more hurtful and so much the farther it spreads it self by how much the farther the incommodities of the contrary opinion are extended For first how necessary it is to understand and believe that there is only One most high God both the holy Scriptures shew which do often inculcate it and all men easily understand But now unless you hold that there is only One Person of the Supream Deity you can neither sufficiently understand nor constantly believe and maintain the Unity of the supream Deity For as much as it is sufficiently shewed by us that more persons having supream Divinity are more most high Gods But although this errour be somewhat infringed and diminished by another errour whilst it is affirmed that there is one essence in number of those persons yet it is not altogether taken away and suffers not men to understand sufficiently and to believe constantly that which is said of the Unity of the divine Essence For although you endeavour never so much you cannot conceive in your mind one and the same essence of three persons really distinct from among themselves especially if you will think of those things that which either the holy Scriptures or the Adversaries themselves asserâ— of the Father Son and holy Spirit belonging to the differencing of them from each other For whosoever hears even those very names and thinks the Son to be truly begotten of the Father the holy Spirit to have proceeded from both forthwith he must needs think three essences divers in number however otherwise most like one another or in some certain manner coupled together Likewise he who thinks that the Father sent the Son and again both together the holy Spirit that the Son descended from Heaven and as they hold assumed flesh neither of the other descended or assumed flesh again that the holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape the Father and the Son not descending how is he not together constrained to cocceive in his mind distinct essences And if he shall attribute supream Deity to each of them he will conceive three Gods in number although most like one another and in a certain manner united together Seeing therefore by this means a multitude of Gods is brought in by that opinion it is necessary that that by the same means also fall into those absurdities which follow from the multitude of Gods He that holds more most high Gods distributes the glory and honour due to one unto more and as much as he attributes to the rest so much he takes away from that one For since they are held to be equal one to another nor is one acknowledged to be subordinate to the other although also a false opinion of subordination is as none that which is attributed to one doth not come to another Wherefore he who acknowledgeth and worshippeth more persons having supream Divinity transfers to more that which was due to one and detracts from that one that which he attributes to the rest And that you may more nearly behold the matter if the Father alone as we have demonstrated be the most high God who doth not see that those absurdities do follow from the contrary opinion concerning the Trinity For first the honour of the Father is diminished whilst that which by far he hath of all things most sacred and wherein he excels all things is equally communicated with others to wit the supream Deity and further whatsoever things are proper to this alone whether they be his works or ours respecting his Glory and Honour For presently it is necessary that both the creation of Heaven and Earth and that I may let pass other innumerable works the raising up and exaltation of Christ which we have shewed * Lib. 1. Sect. 2. chap. 18 29. by most clear testimonies of Scripture to be imputed to the Father alone be thought common to the whole Trinity as indeed the Adversarias think So neither doth the love of men which ought to come ultimately to the Father alone and to
rest in him only come ultimately to him alone but is dispersed among more persons who are held to be altogether equal to him likewise both honour and trust and invocation and all sorts of praises are ultimately divided unto more which wholly ought to come at length to one person And these absurdities indeed arise as well from the opinion of the supream deity of the Son as from the doctrine concerning the supream deity of the holy Spirit But that is more proper to the opinion concerning the holy Spirit that divine empire and government is attributed to it which doth not at all agree to it and moreover it is held to be God to be adored of it self invocated and celebrated as the giver of all good things whatsoever whereas none of these as we have seen * Lib. 1. Sect. 3. Chap. 1 3 are attributed to it in the holy Scriptures nor can be attributed since it is not a person Therefore although otherwise the holy Spirit be subordinate to the most high God as the middle cause of most divine actions yet is it not so subordinate as a person is wont to be to whom an empire and manageing of affaires and the parts of honour and worship which are wont and ought to follow it are granted by another in which manner we see Christ who is expresly both called God and being placed in the Throne of God is said to command all things to be subordinate to God Whence also it is commanded that he be adored by all and that all men put their trust in him and so be bold to implore his aid neither is there any part of the divine Honour which is not found to be attributed to him although so that it tend ultimately to the Father None of these things are found concerning the holy Spirit Wherefore the Adversaries do not only sin in that that they make the holy Spirit the most high God but also simply in that that they hold it to be a God or endued with a divine Empire and governing humane affaires and further that they say that it is no less to be invocated and adored than Christ and that other things also are to be attributed to it which properly are due to a divine and heavenly King and Lord being unmindful of the most plain words of the Apostle asserting 1 Cor. 8.6 That to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we for him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him But although this absurdity which we have explained in the latter place doth more appear in the common opinion concerning the holy Spirit than concerning the Son of God yet it doth appear also in this and unless another errour to wit of the incarnation of the Son of God had somewhat corrected that other it would be yet more grievous For whilst before and besides Jesus Christ born of the Virgin I say that man whom they call the humane nature only there is feigned an only begotten Son of God who existed from all eternity who was alwayes endowed together with the Father with a divine Empire over all things a Deity is attributed to that thing which not only was not subordinate to the most high God or invested with so high an Empire by him but indeed was never existent And in this latter part this errour of it self is more grievous than that which is committed about the Deity of the holy Spirit For the holy Spirit not only existed and doth yet exist but is also as we have said a most divine thing and truly united with and subordinate to the most high God in most excellent works We hear sometimes some saying that even therefore their opinion touching Christ is to be preferred before our because it is conjoyned with his greater Glory But the very love towards Christ our Saviour requireth that we rather add some honour to him than detract from him Which men indeed first so deal as if the matter did depend on our arbitrement and were not altogether to be estimated by the determination of the holy Scriptures that is of God himself and the manifest reason of the thing it self Seeing therefore the holy Scriptures themselves have in this part set us certain limits beyond which it is unlawful to pass as it is not lawful for us to take away any tâ—ing from the â—onour of Christ so neither to add any thing to it Neitheâ— indeed doth the true love towards Christ how great soever it be require that we ascribe any thing to him beyond truth and honour him with false titles and praises For neither is he delâ—ghted with false honour who abounds with true honour neither doth he account any thing to be his praise which doth diminish the glory of his Father from whom all honour all divinity is derived But that opinion of the Adversaries conceâ—ning the supream divinity of Christ doth as we have seen diminish it Therefore although it should at length be lawful out of our affection to add something to the honour of Christ yet that would not be lawful which is conjoyned with the Fathers injury It is not lawful to detract any thing from the honour of Christ But neither is it lawful to take away any thing from the honour of the Father It is not lawful to detract any thing fâ—om the love towards the Son But neither is it lawful to take away any thing from the love towards the Father Since even that former is not lawful because whilst the honour due to Christ is denyed also the honour due to the Father is denyed and whilst the Son is less loved than is meet the Father is less loved For * John 5.23 He that honoureth not the Son saith Christ himself honoureth not the Father who sent him And †John 15.23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also For as John saith ‖ 1 John 5.1 He that loveth him that begat loveth also him that is begotten of him Therefore the most high regard is to be had to the honour of the Son but no less to that of the Father for whose sake he is honoured and beloved Neither indeed are we those who detract any part of honour from the Son or desire to detract for whose glory trusting to his aid we refuse not indeed even the cruellâ—st death Being instructed by him we refel the honour falsly and with imminution of the divine glory ascribed to him That which he himself refuseth we will not do And that you may see that we leave to Christ his honour undiminished and endeavour as we are able to maintain it what more doth Christ himself requiâ—e of us than that we honour him as we honour the Father Doth any greater honour agree to him I think none but he that is out of his wits will say it But for what cause doth Christ chaâ—lenge that honour to himself Is it therefore because he is the most high God
and pernicious an Errour as they are pleased to stile it From whence also it appeareth that that is nothing which some here answer namely that Paul said by an Attribution or Appropriation as they call it that that one God is the Father for by this course he had not at all instructed the vulgar sort of Christians but had rather as we have already said intangled them with most grievous errour for of that Attribution which is here held the Vulgar doth not understand the reason since many of the very Learned themselves have not so much as heard of it So that it was not worth the while to use this figure to the detriment of the thing it self In explaining of things all faithful Teachers study clearness and that the more the greater the things are and the greater the danger is that may accrue from obscurity But who was more faithful than the Apostle What was greater than the things treated of What Errour especially if we believe our Adversaries more grievous What Danger more prejuditial Besides what kind of Attribution or Appropriation is this is it such a one that a word of a stricter signification namely The Father should be a larger word and actually comprehending in it many persons namely God be joyned by apposition or simply predicated of it But by what instance will they shew that this may rightly be done Indeed the name of an Individual is sometimes wont to he adjoyned to the name of the Species as the name of Jesus Christ to the word Man but then the name of the Species doth not actually comprehend many Individuals but only denoteth some one Individual comprehended under it But if they say that the Appropriation lies herein namely that the word God which otherwise is common to many persons in number that is to the Father Son and holy Spirit is here taken as proper to one to wit the Father First they take that for granted which is not only controverted but also false and ought to be accounted contrary to these very words of Paul namely that the name God when it is put for the most high God is common to many persons in number so that it may univocally or essentially be predicated of each in which manner they hold that the Father is God and the Son God and the holy Spirit God For since the most high God is but one in number and is so here by Paul said to be he cannot in that manner be predicated of many distinct in number for one in number cannot be univocally predicated of many differing in number since that it is proper only to the Species and the Genus or rather to that which is one in Genus or Species Again by this means that aforesaid Answer to our Argument namely that the Apostle saith not that that one God is the Father only falleth to the ground for if the word God is in this place taken as proper to the Father certainly it is agreeable to his mind to say that that one God is the Father only for if he were not the Father only but also the Son and holy Spirit then the word God would not be taken as proper to the Father but as common to the three Persons Wherefore at the beginning they ought not to deny thâ—â— Paul saith that which we affirm namely That that one God is the Father Only or reciprocally That the Father only is that one God but only to dispute with us concerning the sence of this very assertion Furthermore if the word God is here used as proper to the Father it is either taken by way of excellency and signifieth that Person which is the fountain of the others or without any regard to that excellency is simply put for the Father If the first be said we have already shewn in the foregoing Chapter that they who so speak do either contradict themselves and hold the Father only to be indeed the most high God or say nothing to the purpose If the latter the Apostle had not spoken to the thing in hand for the question was not whether there be one Father but whether there be one God as is manifest from the preceding words of the Apostle though even on the first account the Apostle had not spoken to the matter for the question was not whether there were but one that was the fountain of other persons endued with supream Deity but simply whether there were one or more who indeed had supream Deity and consequently were originally and by themselves capable of Divine Worship Hitherto we have explained and defended one reason chiefly whereby their answer is confuted who denied it to be the meaning of Pauls words That that one God is the Father only Another reason is that if you will say that that one God is not the Father only but also other Persons namely the Son and holy Spirit you must of necessity fall into one of these two absurdities either to say that the Father is not that one God nor likewise the Son nor the holy Spirit or that every one of these Persons is both the Father and Son and holy Spirit for when you assert that the Apostle saith not that that one God is the Father only but only that that one God is the Father either you hold that the expression of the Apostle is not proper but by a Synecdoche one Person of the Trinity is put for the whole Trinity whereas the proper expression would be this That one God is the Father Son and holy Spirit or the whole Trinity or else you suppose this expression That one God is the Father to be proper but yet not such but that we may notwithstanding properly say that one God is the Son that one God is the holy Spirit If you hold the first either every Person of the Trinity is the whole Trinity or is not that one God For thus we may argue That one God is the whole Trinity or the Father Son and holy Spirit joyntly But the Father is that one God therefore the Father is the whole Trinity There is the like reasoning concerning the Son and holy Spirit But if you acknowledge the conclusion to be absurd you must deny the Minor which is partly confirmed out of the Scripture partly out of your Opinion For thus we may reason That one God is the whole Trinity The Father is not the whole Trinity Therefore the Father is not that one God In like manner may we discourse concerning the Son and holy Spirit If you hold the latter we will thus reason That one God is the Father That one God is the Son and holy Spirit Therefore the Son and holy Spirit are the Father and contrariwise Now we add not in the conclusion the particle Some one because the terms are singular But if you will not admit the conclusion as being absurd you must again deny the Minor For thus we will dispute That one God is the Father The Son and holy