their Father and for a certain Creation not common to all men but peculiar to his People Certainly in the new Testament it may be justly denied that God is any where for the first Creation only either simply called Father or our Father in particular for wheresoever the causes of that appellation are alledged others are alledged besides the first Creation Finally they shall no where shew that Christ is simply called Father but only once in * Chap. 9. ver 6. Isaiah Father of the Age and that as the Greek and Latin translation addeth to come Besides it is one thing for the name of Father to be some where predicated of one another when the name of Father is applied to signifie a certain subject which is the Father that he should in particular be understood or be comprehended with others As for the holy Spirit they do so slightly prove that he is the Father that I am even sorry to mention what they alledge The cheifest almost only proof is that we are regenerated by him and that Christ saith * Joh. 3.6 Whatsoever is born of the Spirit is Spirit But by this means they ought to make Water likewise the Father since Christ a little before joyned it with the †Ver. 5. Spirit in this business saying that we ought to be born again of it and the Spirit Vnless saith he a man be born again of Water and the Spirit the vulgar translation addeth holy he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Now by Water they are wont to understand the elementary water which is used in baptisme and whatsoever you understand by it it is not a person Thus also they ought to make Gods Word the Father because * 1 Epis 1.23 Peter writeth That we are born again not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible by the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever The same reason would also be of force in generation properly so called Wherefore as oft as it is written that Christ for example sake was born of the Seed of David the Seed of David would be accounted the Father of Christ So in the rest But if they cannot prove that the holy Spirit is the Father or may rightly be so called how much less will they be able to prove that he is any where designed by or comprehended under the name of Father when the Father is used to design a certain subject as here it is done But furthermore although such a signification of this word were somewhere found yet would it here have no place where the Father is manifestly distinguished from Christ and that by a certain mark for the Father essentially taken as they speak doth in their opinion also include Christ But he is here in such a manner as we have before discussed opposed to the Father and contra distinguished from him as they speak Finally there lies a contradiction in this opinion of theirs for either the Father of whom they understand these words is a Person or is not If he is a Person why do they oppose him to the Father taken personally why do they not suffer him to be the Father of Christ for either he is one Person or more if one what other can be here understood besides the Father of Christ If more he must not be called Father but Fathers But if he be not a Person he is not the Father for every father though figuratively so called if he be indued with understanding is a Person for a father is so called for some action and chiefly for generation either properly or figuratively so called But such actions agree to none but Suppositums that is prime Substances compleat as we will explain in its * Lib. 2. Sect. 1. Chap. 4. place But every Suppositum being indued with understanding by the consent of all is a Person It is therefore necessary that this Father whereof Paul speaketh should be a Person and but one But the Father taken for one Person in Divinity by the confession of the very Adversaries is none but the Father of Christ. So that their indeavour is vain who to dull the edge of this and the like places have devised this new signification of the word CHAP. III. The third Argument from the place of Paul Ephes 4.6 There is One God and Father of all Arg. 3 from Ephes 4.6 TO that place of Paul to the Corinthians which we have hitherto urged to prove that none but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the most high God this passage of the same Apostle to the Ephesians is not unlike for here that God which is said to be One and the Father doth signifie one and the same Subject and consequently the one is of no larger extent than the other neither is any other that One God besides the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Now we suppose that it is not here necessary to shew in many words that it is very familiar to the Scripture when it speaketh of the same thing and designeth it by divers names to connect those names together by the copulative Particle and as in this place we see the word God and that of Father joyned together This hath been noted by the Interpreters of the Scripture both in sundry other places and also in those by name wherein these two words namely God and the Father are joyned together As when the same Apostle saith that * 1 Cor. 15.24 Christ shall at length deliver up the Kingdom to God even the Father or when he thus speaketh together with Peter †2 Cor. 1.3 Ephes 1.3 1 Pet. 1.3 Blessed be God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ or when he saith * Rom. 15 6. 2 Cor. 11.31 Gal. 1.4 Ephes 5.20 Phil. 4 20. Col. 1.3 2.2 In Greek 3.17 1 Thes 1.3 That we may unanimously with one mouth glorifie God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ That I may now omit sundry other passages which are extant in the same Apostle for it sufficiently appears that in those places the same subject is described by divers names and that it is all one as if it had been said God who is the Father or God that is the Father or some such way Now that in this place to the Ephesians one and the same is understood by the name of God and Father first is apparent in that the Apostle speaketh joyntly concerning the Unity of the one and the other and not distinctly as in all the other things whereof he made mention Paul had said intending afterwards to demonstrate the thing that Christians ought being knit together with the bond of peace to maintain spiritual Union and addeth to that purpose that there is One Body and One Spirit as they were also called in one hope of their Calling One Lord One Faith One Baptism One God and Father of all Why did he not likewise say as in the rest There is one God one Father
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
unto him to have been bestowed on us if in the mean while the only begotten Son of God who was from eternity had apparently remained safe and entiâ—e nor had he felt any the least pain thereby Wherefore then is this so vehemently urged that God deliveâ—ed up his Son for us even his proper and only begotten Son or that he should dy for us that from thence the greatness of the divine love might â—e understood But if thou beleevest that even he the man Christ Jesus that was begotten of the Virgin Mary by a divine power that was sanctified and sent by God into the world tâ— at was appointed Ruler and Governour of all things even before the foundations of the world were laid who was most like God in holiness wisdome and power and as Paul * speaketh Phil. 2 6. was in the form of God and equall to God and whom God as it appeares so entirely loved if I say thou beleevest that he was the only begotten and proper Son of God then thou mayst at length understand that the only begotten Son of God and not any thing that was added to him died for us and from thence mayst learn to judge both of the love of God and of his only begotten Son who gave himself up to a death so cruel for our sakes Thus much for the first argument of this order CHAP. XXXII The two and thirtieth Argument That there is no mention made in holy Scripture of the Incarnation of the most high God VVE are able to frame a second Argument that if Christ were the most high God who as that opinion requires came down from heaven into the womb of a Virgin and was there incarnated it were altogether necessary that this incarnation ought to have been most plainly expressed not in one but many places by the Writers of the Gospel and other divine men and the Apostles For to repeat some of those things that have in this place by our men bin very fully explaind elsewhere we see that those things are most clearly and frequently declared in the Scriptures which are somewhat hard to be believed yet most necessary to be believed as the creation of Heaven and earth Gods providence over humane affairs the knowledge of our thoughts the resurrection of the dead and eternal life to be bestowed on men Nor do we see only those things which are aâ—together necessary to be believed most elegantly expressed in Scripture But also other things besides which we said were in themselves of lesser moment as that Christ came of the seed of David But now the incarnation of the most high God would be altogether necessary to be believed if it had really been although most haâ—d to be believed of which that is urged by the adversaries who therefore accuse us of most grievous heresie and highest impiety that we deny it but this they freely confess Arg. 32 The Scripture speaks nothing of the incarnation of God and are forced to confess For who seeth not that this thing is exceedingly contrary to the judgement of reason and such at least as meer reason will judge impossible Wherefore it were necessary that that incarnation should both have been most plainly described in the Scriptures and also most frequently repeated and inculcated by Godly men that were very carefull of our salvation so that indeed no one might doubt that it was asserted and urged by them But that that is not done is manifest partly from thence that what places soever the adversaries produce to prove that opinion are such that there is need of consequences to the end they may deduce this opinion that the most high God was incarnated or made man partly because that incarnation is not expressed in those places in which if it had been true it must needs have been expressed For when Matthew * Mat. 118 chap 2 and Luke describe the †Luke 1.26 c. Chap. 2.7 c. history of Christs nativity and rehearse some things that are of a much lesser moment than that incarnation of the most high God as that he was born of that Virgin that was espoused to an Husband that he was conceived by the holy Spirit that he was born in Bethlehem that I may not repeat other things which Luke very diligently declares and Matthew omitts how can it be that they should have omitted what had been the principal thing of all in the whole mattter and most necessary to be known and believed to wit that the most high God came downe into the womb of a Virgin and there assumed flesh and afterwards was born Luke speaks of the manger wherein Christ was laid so soon as he was born and would he have been silent of the incarnation of the most high God the hypostatical union of the divine and humane nature whereas our adversaries cannot now speak touching Christs nativity without mentioning that thing yea how could it come to pass that Mark should leave out all the history of Christs nativity wherein the incarnation should have been contained and John whom they judge to have written of the incarnation should so briefly so obscurely touch and handle the same How can it be that the Apostles when they would bring men to Christ and exhorted them to beleeve on him and to that end declareed his majesty should make no mention of a thing so necessary Peter preacheth the * Acts 2.14 c. first Sermon after he had received the holy spirit whereupon three thousand men beleeved in Christ and were baptized in his name and also a †Chap 3 13 c. second to the same people but there was no mention made of the incarnation Nor also in the speeches that the same Apostle made either to the * Acts. 4.8 c. Chap. 5.30 c. Rulers and Elders of the people or to †Chap. 10.36 c Cornelius and others concerning Jesus Christ There was no mention made of it in Pauls oration ‖ Ch. 13.17 c. which he made in the synagogue at Antioch none in that at * Chap. 17 22. c. Athens on Mars-hil none in †26.2 c. that at ‖ See amongst others Rom. 5.5 c. 8.31 c. 2 Cor. 5.14 c. Eph. 13 c. 2. throughout Col. 1.12 c. 1 Tim. 2.3 c. 2 Tim. 1.9 c. Tit. 2.11 c. 3.4 c. 1 Pet. 1.3 c. 2 Pet. 1.3 c. 1. John 3.1 c. 4.8 c. Cesarea before King Agrippa the Festus President and many others And indeed Athens he had a fair occasion to declare that thing when he spake of the unknown God But in all those speeches of the Apostles you can read nothing of Christ more sublime than that he had â—een raised by God from the dead was received into Heaven was made Lord and Christ was exalted by the right hand of God to be a Prince and Saviour to give repentance and
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
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
us but that by him we should be profited For the Dative case of the person often signifies finem cui the end to which as they speak not the possessor as is observed by learned men And hence the appellation of the end to which ariseth But if any say although from that place of Isa it cannot be evinced that Christ is so given to us as to dwell in us Ephes 3.17 yet that it is manifest from elsewhere For the Apostle wisheth to the Ephesians that Christ may dwel by faith in their hearts it is first to be observed that Christ dwells in the hearts of beleevers not by vertue of that giving of which there is mention in Isa as the next cause as the holy Spirit dwels in them as soon as he is given to beleevers since that giving of Christ hath hapned to men even as yet unbeleevers and hath been accomplished as soon as he was born but Christ dwells not in the hearts of men but by faith as the place it self shewes Besides this is to be observed that Christ is there taken Metonymically for the religion or doctrine by him delivered as it is also beneath in the same epistle chap. 4.20 21. So also Moses is taken for the Law delivered by him Acts. 15.21 2 Cor. 3.15 The sense then of the words of the Apostle is That God may give you that you may believe in your hearts and adhere constantly to the doctrine of Christ and that it may be thorowly fixed in your mindes by faith And though at length it were spoken of the person of Christ yet it would not follow that Paul willeth that he in very deed and properly should dwell in the hearts of beleevers but that he should do it by his grace aide and spirit which both the Apostles wish and the manner or middle cause of that inhabitation expressed by him to wit by faith doth sufficiently shew For if Christ by his Essence should dwell in them he should dwell in all men whether beleevers or not beleevers For that would be by reason of his natural immensity which would be excluded from no place whatsoever it be neither in that thing could there be regard had either of faith or infidelity For it is necessary that what is immense in Essence fill all places and all mens hearts Neither then that place of Isa not this to the Ephesians makes any thing to purpose But that place of the Epistle to the Romans chap. 8. 32. saith not the same with that of Isa For that all things shall be given to us with Christ we may so interpret and indeed more rightly that God wil give to us all things to wit which he hath promised us even as to Christ or as before in the same chap. the Apostle had said that we shall be co-heirs of Christ and be glorified together with him vers 17. For we must be made conformable to the image of the Son of God that he may be the first-born among many brethren vers 29. which verse the Apostle seemes here to eye But the manner of speaking should offend none as if with him could not signifie in like manner as to him since we have seen already we are to be together glorified to wit with Christ that is so as Christ was glorified So in the same Epistle * Rom. 6.6 8. it is said that we are buryed with him that is as well as he and that our old man is crucified with him that we are dead with him that we shall live with him that is no otherwise than as he See also 2 Tim. 2.11 12. An Appendix of the precedent Argument in which the places are urged in which the holy Spirit is called The Earnest and by it men are said to be sealed and to be powered upon baptized and drencht TO the testimonies which speak of the giving and receiving of the holy Spirit let us joyn others which although of themselves also they might be urged against the vulgar opinion concerning the holy Spirit yet because they are not much unlike to the former therefore we will have them to be as an overplus of the former Argument And first hither pertaine those testimonies of Scripture in which the holy Spirit is called a Pledge 2 Cor. 1.22 5.5 Ephes 1.14 or rather as the Greek Text hath it The Earnest either simply or of our inheritance But the earnest is part of the thing promised given before hand which makes him to whom any thing is promised certain of the residue also Therefore seeing God doth not as yet in very deed exhibit the inheritance promised he gives to us as it were aforehand the holy Spirit which may make us sure of the future inheritance until he really bring us into the possession of it But hence it sufficiently appears that the holy Spirit is not the most high God For he is the promiser not the earnest or pledge of the thing promised Who doth pledge or give himself for an earnest Or how can God be received of a man for an earnest or pledge For an earnest is in some manner possessed by him to whom it is given But how may the most high God be possessed by a man Besides is it credible that God hath now already given us more than he promised he will give in time to come That surely neither doth the nature of an earnest bear nor this suffer to wit that by the confession of all we shall here after at length become far more happy and excellent in dignity yea then truly happy and glorious But he had given us more now than is the inheritance it self promised unto us if the holy Spirit were the most high God For who dares to compare our inheritance though infinite in time with God himself But the places quoted advertise us also of another manner of speaking used of the holy Spirit which shews that he is not a divine person And that is that Believers are said to be sealed with the holy Spirit For so it is plainly written Ephes 1.13 to which the place chap. 4.30 is like For though it is said in the latter place that the Ephesians were sealed in the holy Spirit which some interpret by the holy Spirit yet we shall shew a little after that also in other places and those such indeed where it is spoken of the holy Spirit the particle in by an Hebraism is redundant and that it is so in this place is apparent enough both by comparing of the words chap. 1.13 where that particle is omitted and by the thing it self For neither here would the Apostle shew who hath sealed but with how excellent a sign we have been marked and as it were secured by God considering which we might not doubt of our future redemption and further considering how much is given to us we might diligently take heed that we do not peradventure by vanity of words deprive our selves of so great a good and rase and blot
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