the Scripture attributed to the holy Spirit in a peculiar manner 164 165. Whether the same is more often ascribed to the Holy Spirit than to the Father or Son 213 c. The action of sanctifying is attributed by the Scripture even to things which are not persons pag. 213 The vulgar opinion touching the Satisfaction of Christ brings forth several absurdities and what they be pag. 312 c. The word Saviour agreeth to the Father also pag. 189 The Opinion of the Schoolmen touching the distinction between the divine Attâ—ibutes and tâ—e examination of the same 298 c. Again touching the distinction of the persons of the Trinâ—ty from the Essence pag. 300 301. Whether and how is any one said to search his own counsels pag. 235. Those that deny credit to be given to the sences overthrow the foundations of Faith pag. 311 c. To be sent agreeth not to the mo t high God 12 c. What it is to be sent into the world 149. One can be sent into the woâ—ld who never was in Heaven pag. 149 To whom is the word Son absolutely used of Christ related 129. The name Son is not essential to Christ 158. The Son of God cannoâ— be the most high God 14 50. The contrary opinion diminisheth the honour of the Father 304 305 c. neither is it conjoyned with the glory of Christ 304 c. yea it doth diminish the same 306 c. It robs both God of tâ—at glory which consists in managing our Salvation by Christ 307. and us of that incomparable fruit which God looked upon in the same 307 308 c. The Son of God is not the fiâ—st original of the holy Spirit 43. The Son of God is called the Son of man and on the contrary pag. 287 Why the Souls of men separated from their Bodies are not Persons 286 287. and how they are said to be intellâ—gent pag. 287 The Speâ—ies is predicâ—ted of the whoâ—e Individuum as such pag. 286 The woâ—d Spirit pâ—t subjectively doth no where denote the divine essence 58. nor the three persons of one divine essence 24. How it is predicated of the Father and Son pag. 24. The same put both simply and with an additament does oftentimes denote the holy Spirit pag. 24 The holy Spirit why called so 208 209. All things that come from the divine inspiration are ascribed to it 199 200. How it is said to have spoken unto any 180. How its knowledge is contained in the knowledge of the Father and Son 185 186. The holy Scripture is silent of its adoration or worship 181 c. It is often not joyned with God and Christ 185 c. even where the angels or other sacred things are mentioned 191 192. It is not the most high God 14 171 c. The contâ—ary Opinion diminisheth the honour of the Father 303 c. The same is no where called God in the Scripture 39 172 c. It is often distinguished from him 195 c. How was its descent upon Christ 241. It would not be said no not indeed by a Metonimy to be given unto men if it were the most high God 214 215. Wâ—ether the same it self be given or its effects only 206 c. How may it be distinguished from its effect 202 c. It s effusion upon the â—postles how attributed unto Christ 114. It s mission what 228. It doth admit a partition 222 c. and how 224. whetheâ— is it a person 216 217. It is no where said to have appeared in a form or shape of a person 241. It is no where comâ—â—ehended under the name of Father 21 22. It would be the Father of Christ if it were a person 204 205. It s procession what 226 c. 297 c. Whether that which is commonly maintained be any wise different from the generation of the Son of God out of the essence of the Father 295 c. How it doth proceed from the Son 43. What cause it is of the divine revelation 235. What its common signification was anciently 207 c. What manner of power or efficacy of God it is pag. 197 The same Subject is often described by diâ—ers names joyned togetâ—er by a copulative particle pag. 23. The subjects being multiplied those things also are multiplied that are distinctâ—y said of each of them pag. 250 A subsistence haâ—h of it self no power to act 32. It worketh noâ—hing 62. How many wayes it is taken by the Adversaries 262. One substance hath but one subsistence pag. 261 c. To subsist by it self how many wayes â—e said pag. 290 291 292. Whether the word substance may be used concerning God pag. 256 257 Suppositum what 257 258. wherefore be iâ— called so 258. What kind of suppositum constitutes a person pag. 286 287 T. A Temple may be his also who is not the most high God pag. 176 The things that are the same with one third thing are also among themselves the same pag. 253 c. Things are oftentimes in the Scripâ—ure joyned with persons and those divine ones 190. Things that are not persons can both descend from heaven and be shadowed by an outward specâ—es or shape pag. 240 To be tempted of the Devil agreeth agreeth not to the most high God pag. 166 c. The Common Opinion touching the Trinity may lawfully be refuted by arguments fetcht from Reason pag. 245 c. It brings in three most high Gods pag. 23 248 249 c. 302 c. It bears not a dist nction of offices and actions in the Persons 214. It overthrows it self pag. 248. It diminisâ—eth the honour of the Father 303. c. It cannot be percâ—ived by rude men 243. It is not contained in the holy Scripture 242. c. It is in very deed a Saâ—elliaâ—ism 279. It doth hinder them that aâ—e strangers to the Christian Religion from embracing it 314. Why that opinion is acurately to be examined pag. 315 Truth what pag. 300 U. The Doctrine concerning the Vbiquity of Christs Body is very absurd pag. 311 c. There was no need of the Vnion of two Natures in Christ pag. 294. From whence and how doth Paul conclude the Vnity of the Faithful pag. 25 26 Vnless for but or but if pag. 53 W. That cannot be simply denied of the whole which may or ought simply to be affirmed of the same pag. 41 59 60 c. What that is for which any one is to be worshipped pag. 108 The end or scope of the works of Christ pag. 111 With him for in like manner as to him pag. 218 Errata Pag. 7. line 17 communion p. 11. l. 18. d. ne ib. marg 1 Joh. 2.3 4 13 14. and Joh 6.69 p 23 l 41 Trâ—nity as p 24 l 28 for nor r or of p 38 l 39 f it r is p 57 l 1 dele of ib f also r so ib marg Gâ—l 3 7. p 59 l 5 f admitted r affirmed ib l 16 d not ib l 43 compositum p 60 l 45 and is wont p 61 l 40 from one part of p 62 l 5 any thing ib l 46 of one p 65 l 37 and 17. 8 14. p 70 l 9 exaltation p 72 l 9 Christ is p 73 l 11 Euthymius p 75 l 2 which he saith to the Apostles ib l 16 17. it is not the office of the Son to know that day p 78 l 17 to be p 86 l 21 f yea r it also p 95 l 6 f of r if p 100 l 3 that delivery ib Rom 2.7 10 and 5.2 marg p 104 l 29 of rule p 106 l 30 he was p 109 l 33 so divine p 117 l 6 why he ib l 25 f of r in p 125 marg and 17. 1. p 127 l 7 that Christ p 131 l 36 so p 134 l 18 f for r or p 136 l 18 would p 140 l 24 every one p 144 l 29 to be called p 149 m. Wujek p 150 m. the Son of God p 152 l 25 heareth p 153 l 45 neither p 154 l 43 cannot p 156 l 34 participle p 161 l 46 at Athens p 182 l 8 2 Cor. p 183 l 39 of him ib l 40 praises p 184 l 1 times p 188 l 26 f though r if p 200 l 1 inwardly p 202 last naturally p 208 l 3 4 either by the simple word Spirit or by the words holy Spirit p 209 l 38 by prayers for or to believers p 211 l 20 f or r as ib l 24 Hypotheses ib l 29 dwelleth ib l 37 through p 212 l 22 f gifts r goods ib l 42 43 who first heard either from Christ or from other divine men of the holy Spirit to be given to men p 213 l 11 chiefly p 220 l 3 him ib l 8 properly ib l 39 Metalepses ib l 43 which notwithstanding would c. p 230 l 12 Austin p 233 l 7 f he r we ib l 23 is not p 239 l 2 3. wrest the weapon out of c. ib l 27 also p 240 l 5 we may also another shorter way shew from hence namely ib l 6 d we may shew ib l 7 moâ— high ib l 14 Spirit a descent properly so called ib l 28 substances p 243 l 22 more than ib l 23 they must ib l 32 there of p 257 l 27 Universals ib l 38 f here r hence p 258 l 1 that manner ib l 3 have no. ib l 4 every ib l 5 that we ib l 17 d of ib l 32 incommunicable substance p 259 l 20 represent ib l 36 ultimately ib l 44 else p 260 l 40 substances p 261 l 10 add may be or exist after expressed p 262 l 46 they be modes p 278 l 24 first p 279 l 41 f explains and extremities r joyneth and extreams p 296 l 27 to another ib l 28 from which such a relation ariseth ib l 41 thing ib l 47 ro another FINIS
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
whereby he might rise like unto him who is to be born It would be therefore necessary that it should some otherway have been evident that there was another Nature in him which did both really exist before his Nativity and also actually lived during his death and consequently was the true cause either of his Nativity or of his Resurrection but this was the very thing which the Adversaries hold to have been declared by the raising him up and to have been apparent from it Finally although it had been apparent that Christ had raised up himself yet how had it thence appeared that he was the natural Son of God eternally begotten out of his Essence For not to repeat that which we formerly shewd namely that from the Opinion of the Adversaries it followeth that the Soul of Christ could by divine Power raise its own Body to omit likewise that some other Spirit which had before been united to his Body might by divine Power have performed this if the most high God can raise up himself what hinders but that it was either the Father himself or the holy Spirit whom they make the third Person of the Deity Be it therefore that it appeared from the raising of Christ that he himself was the Author thereof be it that it appeared that he was the most high God what argueth that he was eternally begotten out of the Essence of God what connexion is there of the one with the other Furthermore what man is there who haveing looked into the words of the Psalm doth not observe that this is the meaning of them Thou art my Son because I have this day begotten thee What man also is there who doth not withal observe that it is far more suitable to this sence that the word begotten should rather be taken to denote the act of generating than the declaration of a generation What man is there who if he here such words as these would understand them thus Thou art my Son because I have this day declared that I have begotten thee and not rather thus Thou art my Son because I have this day really begoten thee But what need many words for if the resurrection of Christ and the consequent exaltation or advancement to a Kingdom especially a Priestly one is a certain generation from God and one may therefore be justly called the Son of God although no other more sublime generation did precede why should any one understand that generation whereof mention is made in the words of the Psalm rather of the declaration of an antecedent generation than of the very act of generating Since that which is expressed by the word begotten was accomplished by the resurrection and exaltation of Christ But we have already shewn that the Resurrection of Christ was a certain Generation from God and we will a little after more largely shew the same Concerning the advancement to a Kingdom none can make a question who considers that Kings Princes and Judges are by God himself called both gods and also the sons of God or of the Most High Psal 82.6 which place Christ citeth John 10.34 to shew that he did not blaspheme in â—aying that he was the Son of God But in that place regard is had to nothing but the authority and dominion to which they were advanced by God For to all them in general the name of gods and sons of God is attributed as they are distingushed from men of an inferiour rank And see I pray you how excellently these things agree both to the other words of the second Psalm and also to the scope of the Apostle fetching a Testimony from thence For it is apparent from both that in these words Thou art my Son I have this day begotten thee it is spoken of making Christ a King For after God had said I have set my King on Zion my holy Mount David subjoyneth I will declare the Decree what Decree but such a one as was made concerning that thing whereof he had begun to speak namely that God had set him King on Zion his holy Mountain But what are the words of the Decree The Lord saith he said unto me Thou art my Son I this day begat thee Why then do we seek starting holes why go we about the bush why do not we directly and simply understand these things concerning the Generation of Christ which consisteth in advancing him to a Kingdom by that Resurrection rather then concerning the declaration of a Generation out of the Essence of God from al eternity whereof there is here neither hint nor footstep By this means we may elegantly apply these words likewise to David a Type of Christ although in a far lower sence to whom that they are to be applyed both the very words of the Psalm make a shew and others also before us have observed For when God had sometimes rescued David out of sundry calamities and also out of the very jaws of death and made him Kiâ—â— over his People he did in a manner beget him and make him his Son and that such a Son as would in respect of other earthly Kings become the first-born in power and dignity Whence God speaketh thus of him Psal 89.28 I will make him my First-born higher than the Kings of the Earth But what agreed to David in that sence doth in a far nobler way agree to Christ who being raised from the dead was set at the right hand of God in heavenly places far above all Principallities and Powers and Force and Dominion and every name that is named not only in this world but also in the world to come and all things were put in subjection under his feet and he was made Head over all things to the Church which is his Body the fulness of him that filleth all in all May he not justly be said to have been begotten by God to have become his Son for he was not only begotten anew to an immortal life by the resurrection but also did by the bounty of God become very like to him in Power and Empire for which God himself is called God But by reason of similitude with God both Angels and Men are called Sons of God which the greater it is the more justly doth this name agree unto them but no compleater similitude can be imagined than that which we even now shewed to agree to Christ whereby he doth so far surpass both all Angels and Men that they in respect of Christ are rather to be called Servants than Sons From hence it is already apparent what is also to be thought of that other place Rom. 1.4 Although the place doth sufficiently guard it self without forreign help against the vulgar interpretation For nei-doth the scope of the Apostle nor the words nor the thing it self suffer us to understand that Christ by the resurrection from the dead was declared the Son of God begotten out of his Essence For the scope of the Apostle is to explain not how
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
among the Adversaries doth read it That thou shouldest deceive the holy Spirit Which translation ‖ Beza others likewise have toucht but a prejudicare opinion hindred them from thorowly approving it And this translation is confirmed by that which is afterward read vers 9. where Peter explaineth the same fault of Ananias and Saphira in these words Why have ye agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord For it is the same to tempt the holy Spirit and to belie him Now they tempted the holy Spirit because they acted as if they would try whether the holy Spirit dwelling in the Apostles or the Apostles themselves by virtue of the holy Spirit dwelling in them would observe the deceit or not Wherefore the forecited Interpreter whom we praised before who had so rendred the words vers 5. That thou shouldest deceive the holy Spirit doth afterwards explain them in this manner That thou shouldest endeavour to deceive the holy Spirit that is us the Apostles in whom the Spirit worketh and to whom he revealeth the things that are needful to the edification of the Church and this is a Metonymie of the Adjunct I do not now mention that explication of those words whâ—ch Erasmus delivered and other learned men likewise have followed that the words may be rendred to counterfeit the holy Spirit By these things it easily appeareth that it cannot from this place be concluded that the holy Spirit is God since Peter doth in one manner speak of the holy Ghost of God in another There he saith to belye or deceive and mock the holy Spirit Here to lye to God The first doth simply note the object about which the fraud and mocking is conversant The second signifieth the utmost scope unto which that iniury and contumely doth redound For therefore Peter after he had said that Ananias would deceive the holy Spirit and mock him with his lye did add that he had not lyed unto men but to God that he might the more perceive the greatness of his sin as if he should have said Thou oughtest not to think that this injury pertaineth to us alone and is terminated in us for it tendeth to the dishonour of God himself But there had been no need to add any such thing if he had said that Ananias had lied to the holy Spirit and he had known from the doctrine of the Aposâ—les that the holy Spirit was God himself Like unto this passage is that 1 Thess 4.8 where the Apostle had said what precepts he had given to them by the Lord Jesus and upon what terms God had called them he addeth therefore he that despiseth dispiseth not man but God who hath also given his holy Spirit to us that is who hath imparted his holy Spirit unto us by whom it is apparent that we are governed by whose impulsion we do speak Whence it appeareth that this injury and contempt of us and the precepts delivered by us redound to God himself Again though it should be said that Ananias had lyed to the holy Spirit and had lyed to God withal yet it would not from thence follow that the holy Spirit is God For in one and the same aâ—t a man may lye to two and to one through another or to one immediately as here to the holy Spirit dwelling in the Apostles to another mediateâ—y as to God So he that persecuteth the faithful persecuteth Christ himself he tâ—at heareth and receiveth the Apostles or on the contrary despiseth them heareth and receiveth or despiseth Christ he that despiseth Christ despiseth also God that sent him Matth. 10.40 Luk. 10.16 Now will any one thence conclude either that the faithful or the Apostles are Christ or that Christ is he that sent him namely the Father But â—f we may reason in this manner Ananias lyed to God Ananias at the same time and in the same act lyed to the holy Ghost Therefore the holy Ghost is God it will also be â—awful to reason thus * Act 4.5 Chap. 22.7 8 Chap. 20.14 15. Paul persecuted Christ Paul at the same time and in the same act persecuted the faithful Therefore the faithful are Christ Or he that heareth tâ—e Apostles heareth Christ and also him that sent him therefore he that sent Christ is Christ What then will the adversaries answer to these arguments without doubt that there is more in the conclusion than in the premises Wherefore let them imagine that the same answer is given to them For thus it ought to be concluded therefore some one who lied to the holy Spirit lyed to God As also in those instances which we alleaged therefore some one wâ—o persecuted the faithful did persecute Christ some one who heareth him that sent Christ heareth Christ himself We have spoken the more largely of this place because greater stress is laid on it and yet not all which might be said thereupon We will run over the other more breifly As for the second place therefore which is extant 1 Cor. 6.19 20. the holy Spirit is not understood by the name of God but is openly distinguished from him For is not the holy Spirit here manifestly distinguished from God whilest it is said that they have him from God He speaketh also of the same God in the following words Therefore gloryfie God in your body c. Now that the Apostle doth not speak of the holy Ghost even that is an argument namely that he speaketh of him to whom we as servants have been bought with a price but who did ever read that we were bought to the holy Spirit that we were by Christ bought and invasseld to the Father both the thing it self speaketh and it will easily appear from these words of the Revelation which are extant Chap. 5.9.10 chap 14.4 But if they say that it is from thence proved that the holy Spirit is God because we are his temple for none but God hath a temple first it will not follow that the holy Spirit is here called God and that openly which is the thing now in debate For the same Adversaries are wont to alleage many places from whence they endeavour to evince that either the holy Spirit or Christ is the most high God where notwithstanding both they themselves confess and all see that the name of God is not attributed to Christ or the holy Spirit Again a temple may be belonging not only to the most high God â—ut also to him who is subordinate to God in divine Empire and worship not only in the opinion of men but in very deed Last of all it may be only so far forth granted that a temple belongeth to none but God himself as that a temple is not indeed dedicated to the honour of any oâ—her person nor possest by any other person by a more divine right and principally inhabited then by God Otherwise it is inhabited in a sort by Angels as the ministers of God and the virtue and efficacy of God doth in a
manner dwell therein so that it may be rightly said to be the temple of the divine efficacy and virtue seeing God by his efficacy and virtue doth inhabite his temple especially that which is treated of in that place to the Corinths wherefore if any one will concâ—ude that the holy Ghost is God in that our body is his temple he must demonstrate that our body is so the temple of the holy Spirit as that he is a person to whose honour it is dedicated and by whom our body is by such a right as is proper to the divine Majesty possessed and principally inhabited But it is impossible to demonstrate this and it doth even from thence seem to be false because in a place very like to this place of ours which is extant before in the same Epistle to the Corinths Chap. 3.16 the Apostle doth thence clearly prove that we are the temple of God because his Spirit dwelleth in us As also John proveth that God abideth in us because he hath given us of his Spirit 1 John 3.24 and 4.13 For if the holy Spirit were such a person as before we said and consequently the most high God what need was theâ—e to conclude thence that God abideth in us or that we are his temple because his spirit is in us and not raâ—her from thence because that very spirit that dwelleth in us is God What need is there I say to shew that we are the temple of God who is distinguished from the holy spirit and by the interveining of him dwelleth in us and not rather of God which is the very spirit himself dwelling in us and inhabiting us as his temple not by another person as our Adversaries would have it but by himself But the Apostles knew that it belongeth not to the supream deity in his own person and substance to inhabite any temple whatsoever on the earth and to dwell in the breasts of men but by his virtue and efficacy and therefore they do not conclude that we are the temple of God or that God abideth in us because the holy spirit that dwelleth in us is the supream God but because the spirit of that God dwelleth in us and was by him given to us For if the spirit or force and efficacy of any deity dwelleth in any place the very deity it self is said to dwell there and that is the temple thereof wherein his virtue hath as it were fixed his abode The third place which is extant 1 Cor. 12.5 6. doth likewise plainly prove the contrary for there one and the same spirit is manifestly distinguished both from one and the same God and from one and the same Lord of which matter we have * Sect. 1. Chap 4. before treated But if they will collect from the unity of operation which appeareth from the collation of vers 6. with the 11th that that oâ—e God and that one spirit are the same first it is one thing that the holy Spirit should be that one God another that he should be called that one God concerning which matâ—er we here treate Again we must conclude that that God also which worketh all these things by his spirit is the same with his spirit in that the same operations agree to boâ—h that is that the Father is the holy Spirit and contrarily the holy Spirit is the Father yea that the three persoâ—s which are commonâ—y held are but one and predicated one of aâ—other because they have the same external operations concerning which we here speak But of this matter also it was formerly treated In like manner neither doth the fourth place which is extant 2 Sam. 23.2 prove that the holy Spirit is God but rather that he is not so so far is he from being there openly called God or the Lord. For he is there openly distinguished from the Lord which is that one God whilst he is called the Spirit of the Lord of which matter more in the * Below Chap. 5. following discourse Now whereas they reason thus God spake by David The holy Spirit spake by David Therefore the holy Spirit is God any one easily perceiveth how fallâ—cious this reasoning is in that it consisteth of meer affirmatives in the second figure as they speak in the schooles For if such an argument is to be admitted we may thus also conclude God the Father spake by David The holy spirit spake by David Therefore the holy spirit is God the Father For the Major is to be granted by the Adversaries both for the communion of operations which they hold to be among the persons of the Trinity and also for the saying of the holy scripture For that I may produce but on place the Apostles Acts 4.25 say of God the Father that he spake by the mouth of David his servant namely by the holy spirit as the vulgar translation hath it But that God the Father is there understood is apparent from vers 27. where Jesus is called the son of that God whom the Apostles spake unto And indeed God spake by his Spirit or the intervening of his Spirit by David in that by his Spirit and efficaâ—y he disclosed to him those things which he ought to speak and moved him to utter them Thus in Rev. Chap. 2. and 3. at the end of every Epistle directed to the Angels of the Asian Churches these words are read Let him that hath an ear hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches But in these Epistles Christ the son of God doth perpeâ—ually speak Wherefore if we ought to follow the reasoning of the adversaries we must conclude that that Spirit namely the holy Spirit is Christ the son of God Indeed Christ did there speak but by his Spirit to whom for that reason the act of speaking is likewise there attributed Now if the adversaries will invert their major proposition and argue in this manner whosoever spake by David he is the God of Israel neither that proposition will be contained in the place quoted from whence the Argument is drawn nor is to be admitted unless it be thus taken Whatsoever person principally spake by David he is the God of Israel But if you subsume The holy Spirit is a principal person spaking by David it likewise will neither be contained in the place that was quoted nor is at any hand to be granted But again David spaketh there one way concerning God another concerning the holy Spirit Of the Spirit he saith The Spirit of the Lord spake by me but of God he saith The God of Israel spake to me neither is it spoken of the same thing in both places For in the former part of â—he words it is signified that God moved David by his Spirit â—o utter prophesâ—es in the latter that he spake something to David himself or caused something to be declared to him namely concerning the regal dignity which he first conferred upon him by Samuel 1 Sam. 16.13 afterward confirmed by Nathan 2 Sam. 7.12
words unto Isaiah but only by Isaiah But the Lord did not only speak them by Isaiah but also as appeareth by the Prophecy it self to Isaiah because he spake openly by him as one person doth to another which is neither here nor elsewhere attributed to the holy Spirit For if the holy Spirit is read to have said any thing to any one it is found to have no otherwise come to pass than because somethings were declared to some one from God by the intervening of some Prophet For in that the Prophets spake by divine Inspiration therefore the holy Spirit is said to have spoken by them But when God spaketh openly to any one or an Angel sustaining his person the holy Spirit is not said to have spoken to him And thus much concerning our first Argument CHAP. II. The second Argument That it is no where in holy Scripture commanded that we should adore or invocate the holy Spirit yea there is not so much as any example thereof LEt the next Argument be this that we are no where either enjoyned or any way admonished in the holy Scripture to adore or invocate the holy Spirit Yea so far it is that there is any precept or admonition concerning this thing that there is not so much as one example of any man there to be found which hath done it Now though it is said in that which is called the Apostles Creed that we are to believe in the holy Spirit as many of the Antients did in like manner say that we are to believe in the Catholick Church and in the other things that are there mentioned yet is it no where expresly said in the holy Scripture that we ought to believe in the holy Spirit or that any one did believe in him But were the holy Spirit the most high God how could it be that all those things should not be openly enjoyned and many examples of them found in holy men first because these things would be necessary to be known and practised of all men to salvation were the holy Spirit the most high God Again because these things are not only often but most openly writ concerning the Father but also concerning the Son there are partly precepts partly admonitions and very many examples although we have shewn that he is not the most high God How much more therefore would there be many examples extant concerning the holy Spirit were he the most high God The Defence of the Argument Arg. 2 The Scripture speaks nothing of worshipping the holy Spirit INdeed the Adversaries endeavour sometimes a by certain consequences to evince that these things are some way contained in the holy Scripture but here we shall not deal with consequences but as we have taught with open precepts that might be evident to every one though otherwise he were but a simple man As for Invocation some imagine they have an example thereof both in Paul 1 Cor. 13. ult who wisheth to the Corinthians The communion of the holy Spirit and also in John Rev. 1.4 who wisheth to the seven Asian Churches Grace and peace to the seven Spirits that are before the Throne of God But they are exceedingly mistaken for as to the wish of Paul it is one thing to wish that the communion of the holy Spirit should be with men another thing to invocate the holy Spirit himself for the first is no other than to wish that the holy Spirit should be communicated unto men or being cummunicated should abide with them For neither doth the Apostle take the communion of the holy Spirit actively as if he wished that the holy Spirit should communicate something otherwise he would have added the name of something which he would have to be communicated to the Corinthians by the holy Spirit but as we have already hinted passively Thus the communion of the Blood of Christ and the communion of the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 is taken where there is the same word in the Greek as in that place 2 Cor. 13. ult For whilst the Apostle wisheth the communion of the holy Spirit to the Corinthians he explaineth in what manner chiefly he desireth that God and Christ should testifie their Grace and Love towards them namely in giving his holy Spirit to them or in cherishing and augmenting the same already given unto them And indeed it would be a wonder if Paul should here wish for something from the holy Spirit as a divine person that he should so often have omitted the mention of him elsewhere in the like prayers Of which matter more hereafter As to the wish of John the very number of those spirits sufficiently hinteth that this place maketh nothing to the invocation of the holy Spirit whom they would have to be the third Person in the Godhead For then we should make seven spirits instead of one so that for three Persons of the Deity we should have nine Which when others perceived they said that by these spirits is to be understood the various power of God or as they speak the various gift of the holy Spirit And therefore it is all one as if John should pray for Grace and Peace from the holy Spirit himself But besides that the Adversaries agree not among themselves concerning this matter for some by that name understand seven chief Angels of God others the manifold providence of God and Christ what is there that evinceth that this vertue proceedeth from the holy Spirit which is a third Person of the Deity and that he is invocated when John prayeth for Grace and Peace from those seven Spirits of God There is not the least hint thereof in the Revelation where mention is several times made of those seven spirits See besides the very place of the first chapter chap. 3.1 4.5 5.6 which two places compare with Zach. 4.2 10. from whence they are in a manner taken In these places thou shalt see those spirits called the spirits of God they are said to stand before the Throne Christ is said to have them as eyes and horns For they are to him instead of eyes because by them he overseeth and taketh care of his Disciples and provideth for them and instead of horns because by them he pusheth his enemies and driveth them away and chaseth them from his People What hint is here of the holy Spirit that should be a third Person of the Deity Doth not the thing it self shew that if the manifold vertue and efficacy of God which he hath communicated with Christ be to be understood John whilst he wisheth grace and peace from those spirits doth so mention them as if they were certain persons distinct from God and Christ yet in the mean time doth only declare the means manner whereby he desireth that grace peace should proceed from God to the Churches and so doth tacitly repeat the invocation of God himself whom he had before named and whose spirits they principally are and to whom they do
to know it could not rightly be affirmed that none besides him knoweth the things of God For besides him also the Father and Son should know and that primarily But if they say the particle none is here opposed onely to creatures or rather comprehends onely creatures and men as if it were said no man knowes those things ouâ— opinion indeed may admit that but not the adversaries For we acknowledge in those words Arg. 16 From 1 Cor. 2.11 but the Spirit of God a metonymy of the adjunct which also brings forth some Metalepsis as if the Apostle had said None of men knowes the mysteries and hidden counsells of God besides those who are endued with his Spirit by the power of whom alone those things may be found out by us But the adversaries who would have the knowledge in this place to be properly attributed to the holy Spirit himself cannot say that and are forced to confess that the holy Spirit is therefore expresly excepted because otherwise he should be altoâ—ether comprehended in that general word none How ridâ—culous I beseech you and unworthy of the Apostle had such a speech been None of men or creatures knoweth those things which are Gods â—ut God the Father or no Angel knoweth those things which are Gods but Christ or the holy Spirit For what Is the Father in the number of men or Creatures Is Christ or the holy Spirit in the number of Angels For nothing is wont to be excepted from out of a general speech but what otherwise is of the same kind of things of which it is spoken and which therefore unless it had been excepted had been altogether cemprehended in the general speech and the same thing either affirmed or denyed of it as of the rest Wherefore if the knowledge of divine things be here properly ascribed to the holy Spirit himself as the Adversaries would and that Metonymy which we have explained is not to be acknowledged in that word the word none cannot be restrained to men or creatuâ—es aloâ—e but will comprehend also the divine persons themselves of the number of which they would have the holy Spirit to be Whence it followes seeing the holy Spirit in their opinion is a person really distinct from the Father and Son that the Father and Son are excluded from the knowledge of vine things in these words of Paul of which absurdity there is no danger in our opinion In the same manner if the Spirit of a man were a certain person distinct from the man himself whose Spirit it is said to be when it is denyed that any of men knowes those things which are of a man besides his spirit the man himself whose Spirit it is had been excluded and besides that exception should have been rediculous What man knowes the things which are of a man unless the Spirit of man which is in him For is the Spirit of man which is in him man But if you take the words of the Apostle as if he had said No man knowes the hidden counsels and thoughts of a man besides himself who conceives and understands them by his Spirit and mind the absurdity will cease For it is to be observed what Philosophy teacheth namely that not the Spirit of a man which they call the soul doth properly understand but the man by it or by its vertue or power CHAP. XV. Arg. 17 from Mat 3.16 The seventeenth Argument That the holy Spirit sometime descended upon Christ IN the last place it likes me to alleage that to which many adversaries attribute much when they endeavour to shew that the holy Spirit is not a divine vertue but a person distinct from the Father and Son And that is as Luke writes Chap. 3.22 With whom also the other writers of the Gospel History agree Mat. 3.16 Mark 1.10 Joh. 1.32 33. That the holy Spirit descended on Christ baptized by John in a corporal shape as a dove It is an old saying and at this day commonly spoken among the adversaries Go Arian to Jordan and thou shalt see the Trinity Surely if the Trinity be Father Son and holy Spirit The Father indeed who inhabiting in Heaven as the most high God and removed from mens eyes commandeth them out of his supream Authority and on the Son bestows authourity from his Majesty but the Son a true man baptized in Jordan by John and after from heaven annoiâ—ted and replenished with the holy Spirit and lastly the holy Spirit a certain thing sent down from heaven upon Christ with which he was replenisht if I say that be the Trinity he is rightly commanded to go to Jordan who doth not acknowledge the Trinity We indeed who are sometimes commanded to go thither long ago by the grace of God have been there and seen that Trinty and with willing mind acknowledge and profess it But if the Trinity be to them the conjunction of three persons really distinct amongst themselves in one and individual Essence it is so far from being seen at Jordan that rather in some sort it may be seen by the very eyes it has no existency For what sâ—ew or shadow is there of one and the same Essence in number which may be common to the Father Son and holy Spirit Is it the same numerical subâ—â—ance of God who speakes from heaven not descending hence and of him a true man who is baptized in Jordan and lastly of that thing which descends from heaven upon him I omit other things which partly are said before partly shall be said a little after They therefore who have fained such a Trinity or defend it fained â—y otheâ—s are yet to be sent to Jordan that they may as from a near place behold the true Trinity and may more rightly learn to acknowledge it We may indeed rightly send thither the Arians who hold that the Son of God is a certain invisible Spirit produced by God before the creation of the world but our adversaries who maintain him to be consubstantial it is so far of their being able to do it that the Arians rather might send them thither For the tenet of the Arians is less against that History than that of the Consubstantialists But we will not in this place urge all things which might be said but that onely which is written of the holy Spirit that we may not only wrest out the weapon of the hands of the Adversaries with which they fâ—ght against us but also may retort it on them They urge that the holy Spirit hath both decended and appeared in bodily shape to wit of a dove For from thence it follows that the holy Spirit is some substance not a quality For it belongs to substances and those only that are Suppositums to descend and to assume and sustain formes and shapes and together they say it appeares that the holy Spirit is such a substance as is really distinct from the Father and Son For neither the Father or Son descended from heaven nor
assumed that corporeal form therefore the holy Spirit is a Suppositum and consequently because also he is intelligent For he is said to search all things even the depths of God and to know the things that are Gods and other like things proper to intelligent Substances are pronounced of it he is also a person for every intelligent Suppositum is a person Since that is the definition of a person There is need of so much furniture that the person of the holy Spirit may be framed hence which they promised we should see at Jordan together with two others For neither the Trinity of the adversaries can be seen unless three persons can be seen and so as that it may appear they are persons What is to be answered to this their Argumentation shall be a little after shewed Let us do now that which we propounded that assuming those things which partly are read in that sacred History partly are affimed by the adversaries we may demostrate the holy Spirit not to be the most high God They affirme if the holy Spirit be the most high God that he ought to be altogether of the same essence with the Father yea a so with the Son Otherwise there will be either two or more most high Gods or the Father or Son whom they take for the most high God will not be the most high God But from this apparition of the holy Spirit it is manifest that there is one Essence of the holy Spirit another of the Father and Son For the Essence of the Father and Son descended not then from heaven when Christ was baptized nor took that corporeal shape the Essence of the holy Spirit as is manifest by the adversaries opinion did both Therefore the Essence of the holy Spirit is not the Essence of the Father or Son but it is necessary this to be one that to be another Neither indeed may they say that not the Essence of the holy Spirit but the person did both For first every person is a substance and a substance is an Essence subsisting by it self Wherefore whose person descended and assumed some form his essence also doth it And besides do not they themselves as we have seen urge that that which descends and sustaines a form is necessarily a substance But the substance of the holy Spirit is no other thing than its Essence and with our Adversaries it is all one to say the same is the Essence and the same is the substance of the divine persons to wit because every substance is an essence therefore the Essence of the holy Spirit must have descended And although at last a person in the Deity should not be the substance or Essence it self but something in the Essence which yet is impossible For it is repugnant to the nature of a Suppositum and further also of a person to be in another yet might not that either descend or assume a form but that its substance in which lastly all the accidents are and rest together should do the same Besides also another shorter way from that that the holy Spirit descended from heaven upon Christ that in a bodily forme or shape we may shew that he is not the most high God For the most God is not moved from place to place and consequently descends not from heaven Also no accident befalls the most high God even by the adversaries opinion But that bodily shape in which the holy Spirit descended was an accident as also that descent it self The Defence of the Argument Some adversaries observing this so explain the thing that it may sufficiently appear that they neither attribute to the holy Spirits descent properly called nor grant that he Assumed that bodily shape on himself but either that a certain true body in a doves shape descended from heaven or the shape only of a dove descending was represented to the eyes of the beholders which might be a simbole or resemblance of the presence and operation of the holy Spirit filling Christ with gifts necessary for the discharge of his prophetical office But if this be so how will hence be shewed that the holy Spirit is a thing subsistent by it self and consequently a Suppositum and person really distinct from the Father and the Son seeing he neither properly descended on Christ nor sustained that forme but was only the shape of a body set before the eyes of the beholders when indeed there was no body or as the * See Maldonat and Augustine cited by him opinion is of some of the most learned adversaries a true body which descended and sustained that shape But even things which not onely are not persons but not so much as indeed sustbances may be said to descend improperly from heaven and among others James saith chap. 1.17 Every good and perfect gift is from above that is from heaven descending from the Father of lights But that the same may be shaddowed by a certain outward shape and set before the eyes of men as besides other things that teacheth which we read Act. 2.3 of the first effusion of the holy Spirit on Christs disciples For those cloven tongues did they not express the faculty of diverse languages to be given to the disciples of Christ by the holy Spirit But nothing prohibites that they might not seem to be moved How many such shapes of things do we see set before one while the outward another while the inward senses of the Prophets Therefore nothing if the thing be so explained may be hence gathered which belongs to prove the holy Spirit to be a Suppositum much less a person Besides although they would have all those things concerning the holy Spirit to be taken figuratively yet nevertheless they must hold that here some singular operation of the holy Spirit was shaddowed not of the Father or Son or at least not equally For otherwise why should not the Father and Son also be said to have descended in a bodily shape But if the Essence of the holy Spirit would be the same with that of the Father and Son the operation no less of these than of that had been expressed by that shape and descent and so the Father and Son should be no less said to have descended in a bodily shape than the holy Spirit For such an operation is of the singular substance it self having in it self all foâ—ce of opperating Therefore seeing this is supposed the same in those three persons the same opperation also is equally to be attributed to all those persons Seeing this is not come to pass it follows that there is one essence of the holy Spirit another of the Father and Son and consequently unless the adversaries would introduce more Gods or deny the Father to be the most high God they are forced to acknowledge the holy Spirit not to be the most high God But you will say How nevertheless do those things agree to the holy Spirit to descend from heaven in a bodily shape if
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
he no less than the Father should have an high Priest and this Priest be himself since neither any cause can be imagined nor can it any way be that the Father should have a Priest and Christ not have one if he be God no less than the Father yea the same God in number with him as may appear from those things which we before spake concerning the title of a Mediator But where is even the least hint in the holy Scripture whereby it may appear that Christ hath an high Priest as well as the Father Who seeth not that it is very absurd to hold that the Person of Christ offereth to himself wherefore the Priesthood of Christ is utterly inconsistent with the divine Nature which is held to be in him CHAP. XXIX The nine and twentieth Argument That Christ was raised up by the Father THe sixth Argument of this kind may be drawn from the places wherein Christ is said to have been raised by another namely his Father which reason is so much the more to be urged because the contrary thereof is urged by the Adversaries For they say Christ raised himself and by this means clearly demonstrated that he was the Son of God begotten out of his Essence and consequently the most high God But this Argument partly falls to the ground by it self in that it is grounded on a false Supposition as we will by and by demonstrate partly is weakned by another erroneous Oppinion of the same Adversaries For they hold that the Soul or Spirit of Christ which they also hold concerning the spirits of other men after he was dead did notwithstanding perform such actions as agree to none but Substances that are actually alive and understand by themselves Some say that it went down into Hell or Purgatory and brought the Souls of the Fathers out of I know not what Prison or Limbus But if the Soul of Christ even during his death did exercise such actions what hinders but that the same Soul entring into his own Body and former habitation should again unite it unto it self and by divine Power raise it up For could the Soul of Christ furnisht with divine Power do less than his whole humanity when he lived perform by the same divine Power could it do less than for example sake some one of the Apostles to whom Christ sometimes gave the power of raising the * Mat. 10.8 dead and of †Act. 9.40.41 20.9 c. whom we read that some of them did actually raise the dead ‖ 1 King 17.17 c 2 King 4.18 c. Which very thing we read likewise of Elijah and Elisha Wherefore we will far more rightly invert the Argument of the Adversaries and retort upon them that weapon which they endeavour to hurl at us For if Christ were the most high God his raising should be ascribed to himself as the true and chief Author But it is not attributed to him but to the Father as the true and chief Author thereof yea it is very openly signified that Christ iâ— you speak properly Arg. 29 That Christ was raised up by the Father did not raise himself Wherefore he is not the most high God The truth of the Major as they call it is manifest enough For none doubteth if Christ be the most high God that he did altogether raise himself and that it was most suitable that he should raise himself For since it follows from that Opinion that the humane Nature according to which Christ dyed was personâ—â—â—y united to the divine it could at no hand be that the humane Nature should perpetually abide in death and consequently in as much as that union according to their Opinion can never be dissolved that a dead corps should in an indissoluble and eternal tye be united to the divine Nature Furthermore if the humane Nature were to be raised by whom rather was it to be raised than by the divine Nature of the same Christ which both could of it self very easily perform it and by reason of that most strict union did owe this benefit unto the Nature that was joyned unto it Wherefore whether you consider the ability of performing it the divine Nature of Christ would have been the prime cause of that work for the Office of performing it it would have chiefly lain on that Nature How then would not Christ have been the true and chief Author of his own Resurrection As for the Minor there are so many and so clear Testimonies of the holy Scripture which make the Father the true and chief Author of the Resurrection of Christ and not Christ himself yea very openly take away this work from Christ though even the thing it self namely his death doth sufficiently take it away that it is a wonder that any one should doubt of it For first in certain places it is openly said that the Father raised Christ or that God raised his Son But who is that God whose Son Christ is but the Father The former is recorded by Paul in the beginning of the Epistle to the Galathians whilst he speketh thus Paul an Apostle not from men nor by man but by Jesus Christ and God the Father that raised him up from the dead The latter it is affirmed by Peter Acts 3. ult To you God having raised up his Son first sent him blessing you And Paul chap. 13.33 doth indeed assert the same whilst he saith And we declare unto you the Promise which was made unto our Fathers that God hath fulfilled it unto us their Children having raised up Jesus as it is also written in the second Psalm Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee Now that he raised him from the dead no more to return to corruption thus he said c. From which words it appeareth that he who said unto Christ thou art my Son this day â— begot thee which indeed is no other than the Father raised him from the dead The same Apostle saith 1 Thes 1.9 10. Ye turned to God from Idols to serve the true and living God and is expect his Son out of Heaven whom he raised from the dead even Jesus who delivereth us from the Wrath to come Where in like manner God is said to have raised his Son from the dead To these are added very many other places wherein it is simply written that God raised Christ of which number we will here set down only one or two with the words at large contenting our selves to quote the rest Thus therefore speaketh Peter Acts 2.24 Whom Jesus of Nazareth God raised up having loosed the Throws of Hell in that it was impossible that he should be held by it For David faith concerning him I saw the Lord alwayes before me because he is at my right hand that I may not be moved Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoyceth Moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope For thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell nor suffer
example of divine Persons what will they say That the thing is one way in divine Persons another way in God Is it so But what if we demonstrate that that very God of whom we treat is a divine Person as also on the contrary Will they yet deny that that is in force in God which is in force in a divine Person But it is easie to demonstrate that partly from the holy Scriptures partly from the Opinion of the Adversaries themselves They say that each divine Person is that one God and why may they not say it Forasmuch as they hold that each of them hath the whole Essence of the one God neither can they say otherwise without overthrowing that Doctrine of the Trinity Now the holy Scriptures plainly affirm of the Father that he is that one God But that will be false if that one God be not a divine Person For it may be rightly argued thus That One God is not a divine Person the Father is a divine Person therefore the Father is not that one God The same arguing according to the Adversaries Opinion will be found concerning the Son and holy Spiriâ— These things which are said of us to confirm the first Argument might also by themselves be alleaged to refel the Adversaries Opinion But it matters not on our behalf whether they be taken for peculiar Arguments or for props of the first Although this may be confirmed also by another general reason for wheresoever subjects are in very deed multiplyed those things also are multiplyed which are said distinctly of each and are indeed multiplyed according to the number of their subjects We have already declared the thing by examples both divine and angelical and humane neither can it at all be refelled by any example Run over all kinds of things and you will find that the thing is so As many men as there are so many living creatures bodies substances are there as many Angels so many Spirits as many Lines so many Longitudes and Quantities as many Vertues so many Habits so many Qualities as many Fathers so many Relates and so in the rest To wit because all those Predicates are multiplyed according to the number of their Subjects Wherefore also as many divine Persons as there are so many Gods and indeed most high Gods there will be seeing the most high God is distinctly predicated of each divine person Whence it appeareth that the Athanasian Creed doth plainly contradict it self while it thus pronounceth The Father is God The Son is God The holy Spirit is God and yet there are not three Gods but one God And also the Father is Eternal Omnipotent Infinite in the same manner both the Son and holy Spirit and yet there are not three Eternals Omnipotents Infinits but on Eternal Omnipotent Infinite Perhaps some one will say that the word God is one way taken when it is predicated of each person another way when it is put absolutely there it is taken hypostatically or personally here essentially Truly I do not believe that the more accute Adversaries will so answer since they will have God as also some the Father essentially taken to be predicated also of each of the persons Add hereunto that it would be necessary to make the same Ambiguity in the word Eternal Omnipotent Infinite that one should be said to be essentially eternal omnipotent infinite not personally another on the contrary personally Otherwise they should again labour to reconcile that contradiction which may seem to be in those words that since the Father is both eternal and omnipotent and infinite and likewise the Son and the holy Spirit and yet there are not three eternals omnipotents infinites but one only But I remember not that I have ever read or heard that the Adversaries do feign the same ambiguity in the word Eternal Omnipotent Infinite Wherefore I do not easily believe as I said that the more acute Adversaries will so answer Nevertheless if any shall so answer what other thing will he say than that the Athanasian Creed playes sophistically and deceives rude and simple men with the ambiguity of a word For who of them would think that the word God is there taken two manner of wayes For to what purpose I pray you are those words added And yet there are not three Gods but one God Is it not for that cause lest any especially of the ruder sort of men hearing the Father to be God the Son to be God the holy Spirit to be God should thence gather that there are three Gods But in what signification surely in that in which he had heard that the Father is God likewise both the Son and the holy Spirit For this scruple doth first arise neither presently the other signification of the word comes into the mind of a rude man This opinion therefore is refuted by those words and further the word God is taken in the same manner in both places not one way then when it is spoken of each of the persons and another way then when it is put absolutely and God is said to be one Besides from such an exception it follows nevertheless that it may be rightly said that there are three Gods if the word God be taken personally as indeed the Adversaries confess it is often so taken in the holy Scriptures And it might indeed seem strange that they do not expresly say that there are three Gods but that they see that it is most openly repugnant to the holy Scriptures whilest they are bold to say that there are three Elohim and some Books are extant concerning three Elohim written by divers Adversaries For what other thing doth Elohim signifie than Gods Therefore three Elohim are three Gods namely they endeavour by an Hebrew and less known word somewhat but ridiculously to cover the absurdity Indeed such manner of speaking is reprehended by some more accute Adversaries of the number of whom yet there are not wanting who judge the Hebrew Elohim when it is pronounced of the most high God to be plural no less in signification than Grammatical form But if it be plural in signification also it signifies Gods no less than the Greek Theoi or other words answering to it in other languages Therefore there are more Gods But moreover the distinction between God hypostatically or personally and essentially taken is altogether vain especially when it is spoken concerning the most high God For both the very word God is the name of a person since it is the name chiefly of him that hath command over others and the most high God signifies the supream Ruler and Monarch of all things But to command and rule belongs only to persons Add that we have shewed above in this very chapter that that one God besides whom there is no other is a person as on the contrary there cannot be any one hypostatically or personally God I say the most high God but he is also essentially so For is not he essentially God who
it self doth not loose the reason or nature of a Suppositum but only the Fire subsisting in it Wherefore although Christ be somewhat consisting of a divine person humane nature yet not that but this looseth the reason or nature of a person because this subsists in that For in this part there is the same reason of a person and a suppositum because that of which we dispute whether it befal a person may therefore befal it or not befal it because it may befal or not befal a suppositum But if there be in that Iron a substantial Fiâ—e and that Fire as some part of it makes that Suppositum which is called an Iron fired certainly the Iron taken by it self without that Fire will be no more a Suppoâ—â—tum For a Suppositum should be a part of a Suppositum Neither behoves it any whit that nevertheless we should call that Iron a Suppositum For we would not call that Iron severed from the Fire a Suppositum but conjoyned with it although the denomination be made from the Iron as the chief But if that substantial Fire together with the Iron doth not make one Suppositum or is not a part of it first I see not how it may be said that it hath lost the reason oâ— nature of a Suppositum For it will be so in the Iron as the air spread through the pores of the Iron But this is in the Iron only as it is contained in a certain place neither in the mean time doth it cease to be a Suppositum as neither the water insinuating it self in the spaces of more loose bodies and diffused through them Besides this example will not serve the turn because we â—ave demonstrated the humane naâ—ure to be a part of Christ Let the Adversaries chuse now which they will of these things which we have said of the Fire for there is no need that we should decide that controversie and they shall â—nd that that instance or example of the Iron fired which in this thing they often use makes nothing to overthrow our reason CHAP. VII The third Argument Because the most high God and man are Disparatums THe third reason is because by their opinion it is necessary that Christ be together both God to wit the most hiâ—h God and Man and that God is man and man is God But the most high God and Man are Disparatums But one and the same Subjectum cannot be together two Disparatums nor one of the Disparatums be the other or as they speak in the Schools the Disparatums cannot be predicated of the same Subjectum univocally or in quid and indeed each severally without any limitation or adjection They cannot alâ—o be said one of another univocally or in quid unless perâ—aps by a metaphor or similitude as if I say a man is a Lyon or Fox that is like a Lyon or Fox But Figures here have no place For the Adversaries would have it to be so properly and are constrained so to hold partly because of their own doctrine of Christ partly because of plain expressions of the holy Scriptures Of which thing somethiâ—g shall be said afterwards But why the disparatums in that manner we have said cannot be said of one and the same subjectum muc less of one another this is the reason because the disparatums are opposite although in a looseâ— signification than Aristotle took that term And the Adversaries do not deny it For they see that the disparatums contain in them a hidden contradiction which is the greatest and unreconcileable opposition Arg. 3 God and man are Disparatums For by the essential differences by which they are opposed to each other they exclude mutually each other and the one is denyed by the other So a Man and a Horse differ as a man and not a man rational and not rational a horse and not a horse A Man and a Plant differ not only as a man and not a man but also as animal and not animal or as sensitive and not sensitive and by how much farther any thing is distant from another by so much more essential differences which they call generical are found between them and by so much more contradictions arise between them But now if any thing in the genus of the substance be distant from the man it is God if yet our Adversaries wil permit us to râ—fer God to the Genus of the Substance to hold which here there is no need Yea if we exclude him from the Genus of the Substance so much the farther will he be distant from man and so much the more differences will arise between him and man and contradictions which cause that they be opposed one to the other For man and God differs as man and not man aâ—imal and not animal natural body and not natural body and if thâ—re as yet any other differences be found by whicâ— God is severed from the genuses of a man Therfore God and man cannot be predicated of the same Subjectum as Christ is simply and absolutely and that vnivocally or in quid Neither indeed may you think those things are said of Christ synecdochycally the names of parts being put for the whole For first both words as elsewhere so also when they are used of Christ do denote nothing else but the person of Christ But the person is a whole not a part Besides if they were only predicated of Christ synecdochycally I might most rightly say Christ is not God Christ is not man yea so only should I speak properly and accurately as I say most truly that a man is not a soul a man is not flesh to wit taken distinctly from the spirit For this expression is proper and accurate the other improper and figurate to wit a man is a soul a man is flesh But who would brook him that sayes Christ is not God is not man Add that hower the parts are wont to be said synecdochycally of the whole yet are they not wont to be predicated mutually of themselves For I do not say flesh is the soul or spirit or on the contrary the soul is flesh But here God and man are predicated of each other mutually There is no need to speak of the Metaphor whereby sometimes the Disparatums are predicated of the same or mutually of each other as if I say some man is a Lyon or Fox that is like a Lyon or Fox For Christ neither after the Adversaries or our Opinion is said to be metaphorically God or man but both properly and according to them essentially according to us man indeed essentially but God in the same manner in which he is said to be a King which thing doth not reach to the Essence Not a few of the Adâ—ersaries have seen this knot which when they could not loose would notwithstanding say that this is an unusual maner of predicating and certainly it is unusual because it saith that which in its nature is impossible since as we have