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
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
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
of all if he did understand one by the name of God another by the name of the Father The same is also evident in that he here distinguisheth that One God both from that One Lord and that One Spirit and that in such a manner as not only to design them by divers appellations and to include them in divers members of the sentence but also to interpose other things between them that it might the more clearly appear that they are different the one from the other But we saw in the foregoing Chapter that Christ is by name understood by that one Lord what other then should be understood by that One God distinguished both from that One Spirit and also from that One Lord or Christ but the Father of Christ especially since the very name of the Father is by the Apostle himself expresly added For lest you should understand the whole Trinity by the name of that God who is called One the foresaid Reason doth forbid namely in that two Persons of the Trinity were already mentioned and distinguished from that one God Again How absurd would such a speech be There is one Trinity of all and Father for to omit that a Trinit ya◠the Adversaries hold is not one God but three as shall elsewhere be †Lib. 2. Sect. 1. Chap. 1. shewn and is of it self manifest to every one if he will not for love of his prejudicate Opinion offer violence to his understanding what need is there after the whole Trinity to add the Father by name as if he had not been comprehended therein But would he have added something for Explication sake he ought to have expressed three Persons not one for neither doth he who maketh mention of one Person explain a Trinity of Persons The Defence of the Argument BUt there are not wanting some who in this place also do by the Name of the Father understand the whole Trinity or the Godhead indistinctly taken Which how absurdly they do though it may be understood by the Defence of the foregoing Argument yet is it here also to be shewn chiefly because the principal Patrons of that Opinion have proceeded so far as to say that by One Spirit One Lord One God and Father the very same is here understood there being no distinction in the thing it self but only in the words How bold and absurd that Explication of Pauls words is would be hard to utter But so was it necessary for them to do who were resolved to hold their Position and to defend any thing which the Opinion that they had once set down did require We forbear to urge that three persons every one whereof is a Spirit Lord God Father cannot possibly be one Spirit Lord God Father as they take it for granted Our demand only is By what Example they extend the name of the Spirit or the Father to the three Persons As for the name of the Father we spake of it in the forgoing Chapter from whence let those things be fetcht that are pertinent to this matter You shall find that the name of the Spirit one while put simply another while with an additament is in infinite places taken for the holy Spirit but no where for the Father or Christ Indeed the word Spirit is * Joh. 4.24 once in the Scripture predicated of the Father †1 Cor. 15.45 2 Cor. 3.17 twice in a different sence of Christ but put subjectively or designing a certain subject which is the Spirit it is no where understood of Christ nor the Father Is it then lawful to reject the most usual signification of words which it is very apparent that Paul here followed and to impose such a one upon the words as is no where extant Besides what cause can be alledged why the Apostle had rather repeat the same thing thrice than distinctly to reckon up three distinct things which might be expressed by the same words and each whereof was very pertinent to the business in hand why I say had he rather thrice to name God indistinctly and only heap up words than to mention first the Unity of the holy Spirit under the name of One Spirit than that of Christ under the name of One Lord afterward that of the Father under this very name Furthermore why did the Apostle separate these three by the interposal of other things why did he not at least conjoyn them and speak of their Unity in a continued course The other things which he joyntly mentioned we see are divers those which he mentioned apart shall we think the same We know indeed that the same thing is sometimes repeated with changes of words but when like things are reckoned up in order and each of the rest finished in particular members or * That is Points or Stops Commaes the same thing is not wont to be repeated in divers members like to the rest much less to be sundred by the interposal of like things and Commaes No such example shall be alledged either out of prophane or sacred Writers Add hereunto that the same thing is then wont to be by sacred Writers so significantly repeated as here it will come to pass when in each word there is some peculiar force which here hath no place Certainly there will be no force in the word Spirit as shall presently be understood And should the name of that One Lord here signifie the same with that One God and so design the supream Monarch of all things the whole force thereof would not only have been expressed by the name of that one God but also presently explained more clearly when after the name of the Father it is added that he is over all for it is signified that he only ruleth over all with the highest Authority that it may be thence understood that the Father was deservedly so joyned with that One God as that we should conceive him to be the same as if he had said There is one God and Father of all as who is over all for were not the Father that one God he could not rule over all with the highest authority Now then had not the force of the word Lord been sufficiently expressed in these words But what force would there be in the word Spirit for it would signifie nothing but one spiritual Essence Not to say that the Essence of God would not presently be signified let us even without reason suppose that a Spirit or Spiritual Essence being mentioned the Substance of God is by name understood What doth this make to the unity of Christians is it because they all believe the same to be but neither is the mention of their faith made in this comma and the unity thereof is peculiarly mentioned whilst it is said One Faith How was it then pertinent to the matter that there was one spiritual add if you please divine Essence nothing at all for you must understand that the Unity of the Faithful is not thence simply
concluded that every one of these things which are reckoned up is one in it self partly in kind partly in number it is common to all the Faithful for from this Communion of such excellent things or Unity of things common to Christians their Unity is concluded Wherefore all the things which are reckoned up are either such as exist in the very Christians whether apart as Hope Faith Baptism to which we may also refer that one Spirit or joyntly as that mystical Body or else they are things which do indeed exist without them but yet have a manifest relation to them and reduce them to Unity such as are that One Lord and that One God and Father common to them all who is over all that is as we said before who alone ruleth over all with the highest Sovereignty and doth alike guide and govern all and is also through all that is doth by his providence diffuse himself through all passeth through all the Members of the Christian Body and by his goodness reacheth unto all or which cometh to the same purpose is as it were conversant amongst all and is in the middle of them namely by his help aid and providence finally is in all that is dwelleth in all by his Spirit for they to whom all these things are common ought to be most closely united amongst themselves But what relation is there between the Spirit and Christians if by that name you understand the spiritual Essence of God how will that be common to all Christians for neither is it possessed by them as the things of the former sort by us reckoned up likewise it hath not a relation unto them as the word Lord God and Father Doth not the thing it self shew that if you will by this word understand a divine Spirit you must of necessity understand the holy Spirit common to all the Faithful wherewith they are as it were animated and guided for then he will be in the number of those good things which they by the divine bounty do obtain neither indeed ought the mention of him at any hand to be here omitted partly because the holy Spirit is of essential note amongst the good things common to Christians which unite them one to another in that he erecteth and sealeth them to the hope of the same happiness Whence the Apostle speaking of the same thing to the Christians after he had said that Christ or his Church is one body as it were compacted of divers members he addeth * 1 Cor. 12.13 For with one Spirit we have all been baptized into one body whether Jews or Greeks whether bond or free and we have all been drenched into one Spirit for the same cause he had in the precedent †Ver. 4. and 7. words in the same place discoursed much concerning the Unity of the Spirit lest because of such different faculties which he did put forth in different Christians they should account one another for strangers or at least in comparison of themselves dispise them who had attained lesser gifts and that they might on the contrary acknowledge one another to be different members indeed but yet of the same body since they were as it were inlivened with the same Spirit of God why therefore in this place where the Apostle handleth the same thing should he not expresly mention that Unity of the holy Spirit wherewith Christians were †That is Anointed or filled imbued add hereunto that the Apostle in the words immediately following as also in that place to the Corinthians doth discourse touching the diversities of the gifts or effects of the holy Spirit given to Christians so that there is no doubt but that he had first spoken concerning the Unity of that Spirit as in the other place But wher is he to be supposed to have mentioned it but when he spake of One Spirit unless perhaps he would have him comprehended under the name of one Baptism which notwithstanding they themselves do not admit who stifly contend that the Apostle speaketh of Water Baptism nor are we against it and certainly if it be here spoken of a divine Spirit and not of the mind and will in regard of which the Faithful ought to be one Spirit there is no doubt but the Apostle speaketh of the holy Spirit But if by one Spirit you understand the holy Spirit there is no cause why you should not by * 1 Cor. 8.6 one Lord understand Christ as in the foresaid place we see it done and consequently by the Father that which othetwise the word it self requireth the Father of Jesus Christ I suppose we have sufficiently shewn that by the name of Father in that place to the Ephesians is none meant save the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently none but he is by Paul held to be that one God Now if any one will fly to Appropreation or Attribution devised by some in this business he may easily be confuted if one consider these things which we have spoken thereof in the foregoing Chapter when we examined the first Answer to our Argument drawn out of that place so that there is no need any longer to insist upon it CHAP. IIII. The fourth Argument drawn from the words of Christ Mat. 24.36 But of that day and hour knoweth none no not the Angels of the Heavens but the Father only and Mark 13.32 But of the day and hour knoweth none no not the Angels in the Heavens no not the Son but the Father BEfore we go from the places which make express mention of the Father Arg. 4 from Mat. 24.39 and Mark 13.32 we think good to add an Argument more fetcht from the words of Christ Mat. 24. Mark 13. wherein he openly affirmeth that the Father only or which is all one that none but the Father did know of that day or hour namely of the last judgment or his coming for our Opinion is hence most clearly demonstrated for he who only sometimes knew the day or hour of the last judgment is only the most high God But by the testimony of Christ the Father only sometimes knew that day or hour Wherefore he only is the most high God The truth of the major Proposition as they call it is apparent to every one for he who only sometimes knew all things is also only the most high God for the most high God ever doth and did know all things But he who only sometimes knew the day of the last judgement did then only know all things for he that was ignorant of that day did not absolutely know all things wherefore he who only sometimes knew the day of the last judgement is also only the most high God If any thing pertaineth to the defence of this Argument although it is so clear and strong as not to need it we will speak of it * Sect. 8. Chap. 9. hereafter when we shall treat of Christ Arg. 5 from 1. Cor. 12.4 5 6. Now follows
Arguments drawn out of those places wherein though the name of the Father be not expressed yet it is indeed spoken of him CHAP. V. Argument the fifth drawn from the words of Paul 1 Cor. 12 4 5 6. There are diversities of Gifts but the same Spirit and diversities of Administrations but the same Lord and diversities of Operations but the same God IN these words of the Apostle which we have alledged it is apparent that these words the same God doth signifie that one God common to all Christians Now since the Apostle doth distinguish him both from the same Spirit and the same Lord whom we have before * Chap. 2. seen by two places of the same Apostle to be Christ it is clear that that God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and no other besides him for what other can be imagined who being distinguished from that one Spirit and one Lord of Christians namely Christ should be designed by the name of same God besides the Father of Christ But how was it possible that under this name of the same God he should be distinguished from the same Spirit and the same Lord if that one Spirit and that one Lord were no less that very same God than the Father Neither will any one doubt of this meaning of that place who will compare these things with what we have spoken concerning those two places of the same Apostle 1 Cor. 8.6 Ephes 4.5 6. The Defence of the Argument HEre we do not much fear lest any one of the Adversaries should so take these three namely The same Spirit the same Lord the same God as we said that some interpreted the like words Ephes 4. as namely to assert That all these are common to the Trinity and do not each of them denote divers persons or things but that the same Trinity is described in three divers manners For not to repeat what was said in that place to the Ephesians where we saw that that one Spirit is openly distinguished from that one Lord and that one God and that each of these names doth design particular persons or things whence it is easie to collect the same is done in this place likewise which is very like to that of the Ephesians partly in words partly in regard of the Argument and drift add hereunto that by this means the word Spirit would not signifie the holy Spirit distinguished from the Father and the Son but would be taken for a spiritual Substance as we saw some took it in that place of the Ephesians But besides that this is other waies foolish and foreign to the meaning of the Apostle as may from thence appear neither doth the foregoing nor following words endure that interpretation for that the Apostle doth speak of the holy Spirit by name which he * ver 7 8 9 11 13. afterwards sundry times designeth by the simple name of the Spirit all the circumstances do argue for he began †ver 1. to speak of spiritual Gifts or such as proceed from the holy Spirit and in the very beginning proposed a Rule whereby the Corinthians should discern the holy Spirit from the impure one and a divine Inspiration from a diabolical which might perhaps pass under the name of a divine one Which very Rule John also though in other words doth in his first Epistle †1 John 4.2 3. deliver for thus speaketh * ver 3. Paul None speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed and none can call Jesus Lord but by the holy Spirit When he had spoken thus he addeth But there are diversities of Gifts yet the same Spirit where every one seeth that respect is had to that Spirit whereof immediately before mention was made as if he should say to all who speak by the impulsion of Gods Spirit this is common that they call Christ Lord but other wayes very divers are the Gifts flowing from that Spirit into men who have been filled with him although that Spirit be the same and not divers Besides afterwards ver 8 c. he largely reckoneth up those various effects of the holy Spirit to the end he might explain that which he had before said namely That there are diversities of Gifts but the same Spirit These things being apparent to every one there is as we said no great fear lest any one should seek to get out at that chink although error is wont to seek all possible wayes to escape But there are not wanting some who say that the holy Spirit is described in those three manners and contend that he is one while called the same Spirit another while the same Lord another while the same God but this Interpretation is easily confuted by the collation of this place with that to the †Ephesians * Ephes 4.4 5 6. where the Apostle handling the same Argument doth as we have seen manifestly distinguish one Spirit both from one Lord and one God and from the unity of each draws particular Arguments to demonstrate that Christians ought very studiously to maintain spiritual union among themselves and not for diversity of spiritual Gifts or such like things to separate one from another which very thing is by the Apostle here also done as any one may easily perceive if he read over this Chapter Wherefore it is unsuitable that the Apostle should here confound them whom elsewhere treating of the same thing he had so openly distinguished and when using the same words he might bring three distinct arguments very fit for his purpose he would rather comprehend but one drawn from the unity or sameness of the holy Spirit only Besides neither doth the thing it self nor this place admit that the holy Spirit should be understood when Paul saith that there is the same Lord or the same God for he speaketh not only of some most high God or Lord of Christians by way of excellency so called but of him besides whom there is no other for the meaning of the Apostle is not that some most high God or some Lord of Christians by way of excellency so called is the same but simply that that most high God and Lord by way of excellency so called is the same But none is Ignorant that besides the holy Spirit the Father is the most high God to whom in innumerable places the name of God is attributed as proper unto him as the Adversaries themselves confess and is in this very place done ver 2 where the Spirit is called the Spirit of God Certainly that the Spirit it self is not there understood by the name of God appeareth to every one In like manner that there is also besides the holy Spirit a Lord by way of excellency so called innumerable places of the Scripture so teach wherein by the confession of the Adversaries themselves the name of Lord is used as proper to Christ yea in this very place in the same second verse it is affirmed that Jesus is the
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
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
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
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
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
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
that he would bestow the Father and Son and himself also upon us But if you look on the some of the Adversaries opinion it will be very lawfull to pray after that manner And certainly believers when they ask spiritual gifts do not intend that those things be given which may by name come from the third person of the Deity as if it were not all one to them whether the same come immediately either from the Father or the Son For what other thing do they then seek than that being endued with divine virtue they may be filled either with more plentiful knowledge of divine mysteries or some coelestial joy or singular fervour of piety or other heavenly gifts All which that they may immediately come as well from the Father and Son as from the supposed person of the holy Spirit is easily understood by all Wherefore if the holy Spirit be the most high God there is no cause why those gifts should be rather called the holy Spirit than the Father or Son Or when the same are asked or given of God the holy Spirit should rather be said to be asked or given than the Father and Son Lastly If the holy Spirit were the most high God he should not be given by another person nor commanded to be asked but from himself rather as both the chief and proper fountain those gifts should at least somewhere be commanded to be asked But that is no where done In some sort a double reason doth lye hid in this one Argument One That the gifts flowing from him are no where commanded to be asked of him as neither any thing else of which matter something hath been said above * Chap. 2. of this Section so that there is no need I should here stay on it Another That the holy Spirit is commanded to be asked and said to be given of another to wit the Father For from hence it follows that the holy Spirit cannot chose but distribute his gifts when the Father so wills and on the contrary not distribute them when the Father will not For if he could distribute them when the Father is unwilling or not distribute them though the Father be willing it were better to ask the holy Spirit himself that he would bestow them on us than the Father Besides that it would thence follow that the Father is not the most high God as who hath not all gifts absolutely in his own power and although he would give some gifts to men yet he cannot but by anothers consent But now if the holy Spirit cannot but distribute his gifts when the Father will and not distribute them when the Father will not and so necessarily conform himself to anothers will he is not the most high God For the most high God is altogether at his own will at his own dispose nor doth he ever fashion himself after anothers will especially necessarily For he should be in anothers power and so acknowledge another superiour by which very thing he would cease to be the most high God Now if you say that the holy Spirit indeed cannot do otherwise than the Father will but that cometh to pass not because he is in the Fathers power but because he is of the same numerical Essence and Will with him so that he cannot otherwise either will or doe than the Father willeth or doth See into what difficulties and snares you cast your self For if the Father and holy Spirit by reason of that unity necessarily will and do the same thing as indeed it cannot otherwise be if they were of the same Essence when the Father willed to send and so hath sent the holy Spirit the holy Spirit also willed to send and consequently hath indeed sent himself and on the contrary when the holy Spirit would be sent the Father himself also would be sent when the holy Spirit would in a corporeal shape descend upon Christ and did accordingly descend the Father also would descend in the same and did accordingly descend And what end at length will there be of absurdities But it is necessary that they cast themselves into Quagmires yea into Precipices who of their own accord turn from a plain and simple Truth so clearly expressed in holy Scriptures which they do who contend that the holy Spirit himself is not given us but his effect only We following that strait path having shewen that it follows from this namely that the holy Spirit is given to men that he is not the supream God now we shall also sâ—ew that he is not a person Now this hence is easily manifest that no person at the same time can be so given to many much less to innumeâ—able men that in very deed he should be and dwell in every one of them And we have already seen that the holy Spirit is thus given to believers dispersed through the whole world But that a person cannot be given in the said manner is hence manifest that that person is either infinite or finite if infinite tâ—ere is no necessity that it be given to men that it may exist and dwell in them yea it cannot indeed be given since it alwayes was in them and by reason of its infinitie could not but be so to omit other difficulties If finite that I urge not that it cannot by the adversaries be acknowleged for the most high God it cannot be so given at once to many and consequently to innumerable men that in very deed it should exist in every one otherwise it would be torn into parts which very thing it self would destroy that person It is easie now to observe that that instance of the Adversaries fetcht from the giving of Christ hath no force For they say that Christ also was given to us Isa 9.6 Some add also that of Paul Rom. 8.32 That God will with Christ give us all things But they say that Christ is both a person and besides the most high God That he is not the most high God we have shewn before and it may be evinced even out of those very places which are alleaged For the most high God is neither a little one nor is born nor is the Son of God he cannot be delivered for us no not indeed by himself much less by another he is not such as that he could be spared or not spared But besides that we may mind what is proper to this place when it is said by Isaias that a son is given to us it is not signified that he is so given to us that he may be indeed in us or posessed by us in any manner in which sence the holy Spirit is said to be given to us but that he is given for our profit or for our cheifest good and benefit which easily appears from the preceeding verse where in the same sense he is said to be a little one born to us For neither is Christ said to be born to us that he should exist in us or be possessed by