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
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
God differing indeed from the Father in Persons but yet of the same Essence with him namely in such a manner as they commonly think of Christ or the holy Spirit But who seeth not that such Persons whether true or feigned are by vertue of these words of Christ most efficaciously excluded from the Deity so that one confess them to be DIVERS from the Father But they say that we our selves contend that if any thing be attributed to God only it is not presently denied to them who depend on him or are subordinate to him in the number of whom we rank Christ Wherefore although the FATHER ONLY be called the true God yet is not Christ presently denied to be a true God As neither when God only is said to be * Rom. 16.27 1 Tim. 1.17 Jude 25 wise or †1 Tim. 6.15 potent or to have ‖ Ibid. ver 16. Immortality are they excluded from these attributes who have received them from God But this Objection if the thing be rightly understood is so far from overthrowing our Opinion and Argumentation from the words of Christ that it doth confirm it For neither do we hold that Christ is by vertue of these words wholy excluded from true Godhead namely if true Godhead be more largely taken so as to comprehend that Godhead also which doth indeed and not only in the false opinion of men depend on the most high Godhead * Chap. 13. Chap. 8 9. For we have shown in our Book of God and his Attributes that the name GOD is in its own Nature common and agreeth to all them who have soâ—e sublime Empire or eminent Power as to Princes and Magistrates on the Earth in the Heavens to Angels and above all these to Christ the Head of all Angels and King of all kings but by way of Excellency to that Supream and Independent Monarch and attributed to him as proper Wherefore our meaning only is that Christ by vertue of the words in contest is excluded from that true Deity by way of excellency so called that is from Supream and Independent Deity For by these words first all besides the Father are held to be excluded from Supream Godhead and consequently from Deity taken more largely all such who have not received it from the Father to whom alone supream and independent Divinity is said to agree For he is accounted as Independent who doth not depend on him on whom only he can truly depend Whence all the Idols of the Gentiles are by vertue of these words or rather of the sence therein comprehended simply excluded from true Godhead since they were so far from truly depending on the Father as that they were not believed to depend But Christ is not excluded therefrom because his dependance on the Father in respect of his Divine Empire over all things and Worship suitable to such an Empire hath by most evident proofs been demonstrated Now what we speak touching this place doth likewise come to pass in others wherein such Attributes are attributed to God only which nevertheless are communicated to others besides him For in them likewise all besides God are excluded from the Communion of those Attributes taken by way of excellency and strictly For God is said to be only wise powerful having Immortality not because he alone is simply wise powerful immortal but because he is only such of himself And therefore all others besides God are by vertue of such words excluded from independent and underived Wisdom Power and Immortality and then at length simply and universally excluded from those Attributes when it is apparent that they have not received them from God to whom they first agree and consequently do not herein indeed depend on him A seigned Dependency is by right accounted for nothing Whence it is understood what our meaning is when we say That if any thing is in the Scripture attributed to God only it is not presently denyed to them who are dependent on God and subordinate to him For we mean not that such Attributes are in no wise denyed unto them for they are denied unto them being taken by way of Excellency but that they are not presently denyed simply and universally or in a larger signification But perhaps they with whom we now have to do will object and say that they do in some sort hold the same For that the Father only is called the true or most high God because he is the Fountain of Divinity and consequently in regard thereof hath a Prerogative above the Son and holy Spirit inasmuch as They have the Divine Essence from Him but He from no other For which reason they expresly call the Father God of himself thereby opposing him to the Son and holy Spirit But they who answer thus either contradict themselves or say nothing and obtrude upon us bare words instead of things for if the Father hath a true Prerogative or Excellency above the Son and holy Spirit so that for it the Name of GOD may be attributed to the Father alone but taken away from the Son and holy Spirit it cannot be that the Son and holy Spirit should be the supream and most high God for nothing in any wise more worthy nothing more excellent than the most high God can possibly be imagined And they themselves in Athanasius's Creed contend that in the Trinity nothing is before or after nothing greater or less But if the Father is the Fountain of Divinity in respect of the Son and holy Spirit how will there be the same Numerical Divinity of the Father Son and holy Spirit for the Father would be the Fountain of his own Divinity or Divine Essence before and after himself How if the Father be the Fountain of the other Persons shall not the Son and holy Spirit depend on the Father How shall not each be an Effect of the Father and finally How shall the Son and holy Spirit be the supream and most high God for He is dependent on none is the Effect of none But if they will not acknowledge these things what else do they then obtrude upon us empty words instead of things and so say nothing and upon what ground I pray dare they to this purpose wrest the words of the Scripture which are most plain and exposed to the capacity of the rudest understanding for how can an ignorant man that I may not now speak any thing of the Learned conceive in his mind that the Father only is the most high God when in the mean time he is commanded to believe that also the Son and holy Spirit is the same most high God How can he imagine a Prerogative of any one above one who is the most high God How the Prerogative of him above one who is the same Numerical God with himself How him to be the Fountain of other Persons on whom they do not depend as Effects on a Cause Certainly this is not to teach an ignorant man but quite
and pernicious an Errour as they are pleased to stile it From whence also it appeareth that that is nothing which some here answer namely that Paul said by an Attribution or Appropriation as they call it that that one God is the Father for by this course he had not at all instructed the vulgar sort of Christians but had rather as we have already said intangled them with most grievous errour for of that Attribution which is here held the Vulgar doth not understand the reason since many of the very Learned themselves have not so much as heard of it So that it was not worth the while to use this figure to the detriment of the thing it self In explaining of things all faithful Teachers study clearness and that the more the greater the things are and the greater the danger is that may accrue from obscurity But who was more faithful than the Apostle What was greater than the things treated of What Errour especially if we believe our Adversaries more grievous What Danger more prejuditial Besides what kind of Attribution or Appropriation is this is it such a one that a word of a stricter signification namely The Father should be a larger word and actually comprehending in it many persons namely God be joyned by apposition or simply predicated of it But by what instance will they shew that this may rightly be done Indeed the name of an Individual is sometimes wont to he adjoyned to the name of the Species as the name of Jesus Christ to the word Man but then the name of the Species doth not actually comprehend many Individuals but only denoteth some one Individual comprehended under it But if they say that the Appropriation lies herein namely that the word God which otherwise is common to many persons in number that is to the Father Son and holy Spirit is here taken as proper to one to wit the Father First they take that for granted which is not only controverted but also false and ought to be accounted contrary to these very words of Paul namely that the name God when it is put for the most high God is common to many persons in number so that it may univocally or essentially be predicated of each in which manner they hold that the Father is God and the Son God and the holy Spirit God For since the most high God is but one in number and is so here by Paul said to be he cannot in that manner be predicated of many distinct in number for one in number cannot be univocally predicated of many differing in number since that it is proper only to the Species and the Genus or rather to that which is one in Genus or Species Again by this means that aforesaid Answer to our Argument namely that the Apostle saith not that that one God is the Father only falleth to the ground for if the word God is in this place taken as proper to the Father certainly it is agreeable to his mind to say that that one God is the Father only for if he were not the Father only but also the Son and holy Spirit then the word God would not be taken as proper to the Father but as common to the three Persons Wherefore at the beginning they ought not to deny thâ—â— Paul saith that which we affirm namely That that one God is the Father Only or reciprocally That the Father only is that one God but only to dispute with us concerning the sence of this very assertion Furthermore if the word God is here used as proper to the Father it is either taken by way of excellency and signifieth that Person which is the fountain of the others or without any regard to that excellency is simply put for the Father If the first be said we have already shewn in the foregoing Chapter that they who so speak do either contradict themselves and hold the Father only to be indeed the most high God or say nothing to the purpose If the latter the Apostle had not spoken to the thing in hand for the question was not whether there be one Father but whether there be one God as is manifest from the preceding words of the Apostle though even on the first account the Apostle had not spoken to the matter for the question was not whether there were but one that was the fountain of other persons endued with supream Deity but simply whether there were one or more who indeed had supream Deity and consequently were originally and by themselves capable of Divine Worship Hitherto we have explained and defended one reason chiefly whereby their answer is confuted who denied it to be the meaning of Pauls words That that one God is the Father only Another reason is that if you will say that that one God is not the Father only but also other Persons namely the Son and holy Spirit you must of necessity fall into one of these two absurdities either to say that the Father is not that one God nor likewise the Son nor the holy Spirit or that every one of these Persons is both the Father and Son and holy Spirit for when you assert that the Apostle saith not that that one God is the Father only but only that that one God is the Father either you hold that the expression of the Apostle is not proper but by a Synecdoche one Person of the Trinity is put for the whole Trinity whereas the proper expression would be this That one God is the Father Son and holy Spirit or the whole Trinity or else you suppose this expression That one God is the Father to be proper but yet not such but that we may notwithstanding properly say that one God is the Son that one God is the holy Spirit If you hold the first either every Person of the Trinity is the whole Trinity or is not that one God For thus we may argue That one God is the whole Trinity or the Father Son and holy Spirit joyntly But the Father is that one God therefore the Father is the whole Trinity There is the like reasoning concerning the Son and holy Spirit But if you acknowledge the conclusion to be absurd you must deny the Minor which is partly confirmed out of the Scripture partly out of your Opinion For thus we may reason That one God is the whole Trinity The Father is not the whole Trinity Therefore the Father is not that one God In like manner may we discourse concerning the Son and holy Spirit If you hold the latter we will thus reason That one God is the Father That one God is the Son and holy Spirit Therefore the Son and holy Spirit are the Father and contrariwise Now we add not in the conclusion the particle Some one because the terms are singular But if you will not admit the conclusion as being absurd you must again deny the Minor For thus we will dispute That one God is the Father The Son and holy
respect of the humane Nature is distinguished from God not in respect of the divine The first exception for two causes chiefly is of no moment One is that it would thence follow either that there are two most high Gods namely the Father and Christ or that these twain though distinct in persons do yet make one God The first will not be granted by the very Adversaries The latter also cannot consist because the name of God is the name of a Person In as much as it signifieth him that exerciseth Imperial Power over others and when it is put for the most high God it designeth him who with supream Imperial Power governeth all things But this agreeth to none but a Person or as the Schools a Suppositum endued with understanding which is the definition of a person Wherefore he that saith that there is one most high God saith that there is one Person with supream imperial power ruling all things and he that saith that there are many such persons saith that there are many most high Gods Of which â—â—sing more in the second Book The other Reason is because if the name of God taken for the most high God is common to Christ with the Father there is no cause why it should be peculiarly taken for the Father and so Christ be distinguished from God For how shall a word common to the Father the Son distinguish the one from the other should he in their opinion be thought to speak rightly who should distinguish the Father from God simply put Who ever for examples sake did read the Father of God the Father sent God the Father gave God God went out from the Father if ye believe in the Father believe also in God as we read that Christ is the Son of God that God sent and gave his Son that Christ came out from God and he himself pronounceth If ye believe in God belive also in me Do not the very ears of men reject those first forms of speaking John 3.16 17. 13.3 and 14.1 as disagreeable to the use of the Scripture yea and of them with whom we have to do But if you say that a common word is therefore peculiarly attributed to the Father because he is the Fountain and Original of Divinity since the Son and holy Spirit receive their Deity from him we have already shewn * Sect. 1. Chap. 1. before that they who answer so do either contradict themselves and overthrow their own Tenet concerning a Trinity of Persons in one substance of God or say nothing and obtrude upon us empty words Wherefore we refer the Reader thither As for the latter exception which is That Christ according to the humane Nature not according to the divine is distinguished from God absolutely put this also cannot consist For first we have already shewn †Sect. 1 Cap. 6 8. above that Christ cannot simply be distinguished from God if he himself be the most high God although according to some one Nature he be not so Again according to the Opinion of the Adversaries in many of the Places quoted by us or in such as are like to them Christ is considered according to the divine Nature as when he is called the Son of God or the only begotten Son of God and also when he is said to have been in the beginning with God to have been sent from God into the world to have descended from Heaven to have come out from God to be equal to God The greatest part also refer hereunto those expressions that he is called the Image of God the Word or Speech of God and that he is said to be in the form of God Wherefore it is necessary to say that in such places whole Christ how great soever he is is distinguished from God and not in respect of one nature only But from such places judgment may easily be made of the rest For why should one seek a different reason of distinction where it is spoken of the same person when the same person may every where have place Add hereunto that we will afterwards shew that the holy Spirit also is in the same manner also distinguished from God simply put as we saw Christ was distinguished from him But if the distinction be the same why not also the reason of the distinction especially if the same may have place in both as the Adversaries either confess or are forced to confess For what reason of distinction they hold in the holy Spirit the third person of the Trinity as they believe the same must they confess may also be applied unto Christ But if you fly to a distinction of natures there will be a far different reason of distinction in both For this hath no place in the holy Spirit Wherefore the reason of the distinction between God and Christ is not to be placed in this but in some other thing But we have shewn that no other can be imagined than that the Father only be acknowledged the Most High God And let these things suffice to have been spoken concerning the first Argument CHAP. II. Arg. 2 Christ is called the Son of God The second Argument drawn from the name of The Son of God THe second Argument may he fetched from thence that Christ is so often in the Scripture called the Son of God For the Son of God cannot be the most high God To prove which we will not now repeat that which we have urged in the foregoing Chapter namely that by this very appellation the Son is distinguished from God simply so called We will not likewise urge that the substance of the Father must of necessity be different from that of the Son since every one is really the same with his Substance or Essence and consequently the Father will be the Son Lib. 2. Sect. 2. Chap. 1 c. and the Son the Father But if there be a different Essence of the Son and the Father the Son cannot be the most high God unless you hold two most high Gods We will not finally here urge that as the most ignorant understand the Son is in time after the Father whereas the most high God cannot be in time after any since he existed from all Eternity These things I say we will not now urge in as much as they are elsewhere to be urged but only this That from this appellation it followeth that the Father is more excellent than the Son But none is in any sort more excellent than the most high God For whatsoever excellency there is which is incident to supream Divinity cannot be absent from him who is the most high God Otherwise he would have some defect But such an Excellency it is to be from ones self For he is excellenter and greater who hath his Essence and whatsoever he hath from himself than he who hath from another both his Essence and all things that accompany the Essence and cannot be had without it Now that
remission of sins was made judge of the quick and dead Again How often do the Apostles commend the exceeding great love and bounty of God exhibited in Christ Jesus to mankind But what more illustrious argument could there have been of this love then that the most high God should willingly be made man for mans sake Wherefore then is there so great silence in those places concerning this thing Namely because it never was neither was there any that we may briefly add this thing also cause which did require that the most high God the creator of Heaven and earth should assume flesh For as much as the man Christ Jesus being asisted by divine power was able to performe and did really performe when he was upon earth all things that belonged unto our salvation both in teaching and also in working miracles and finally in obeying his Father in all things and was able also to performe and did so indeed performe by the same divine power whatsoever things are required to the perfecting of our Salvation But who dares to say that God would admit a thing so contrary to his Majesty without the greatest cause or rather necessity although at length it were possible for his nature But we will not enlarge on this matter because these things are here and there handled in our Arguments that belong to this place But if any one desire to see this also more fully explained he may read elsewhere * See Socin in his fragments page 18. c. in ours CHAP. XXXIII Arg. 33 The holy Spirit was given unto Christ The three and thirtieth Argument That the holy Spirit was given unto Christ VVE will make the third Argument this that the holy Spirit was given by God unto Christ of which thing we do not read â—nly in one place of holy Scripture For both in the Old Testament chiefly in Isaiah there are some testimonies of this thing and also in the New where some places are likewise cited out of the Old For so speaketh Isaias in the beginning of the 11th Chapter And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse and a branch shall grow out of his roots And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him the Spirit of wisdom and understanding the Spirit of counsel and might the Spirit of knowledge and piety or as it is in the Hebrew of the fear of the Lord. Which all both see and confess to be spoken of Christ Likewise in the beginning of the 42d Chapter God speaketh of the same Christ Behold my servant whom I uphold mine elect in whom my soul delighteth I have put my Spirit upon him Which words are cited by Christ Matth. 12.17 And Chap. 61.1 the Prophet bringeth in Christ speaking after this manneâ— The Spirit of the Lord is upon me for that the Lord hath anointed me Which words Christ himself testifieth to be fulfilled in him Luke 4.18 c. But in the same Gospel we read how the holy Spirit descended on Christ when he was baptised of John and abode upon him Matth. 3.16 Luke 3.22 and John 1.32 33. Whence Luke in the beginning of his fourth Chapter saith That Jesus being full of the holy Spirit went up out of Jordan And Peter with the same Writer testifieth Acts 10.38 That God had anointed him with the holy Spirit and with power Whence Christ proveth that he cast out Devils in or by the Spirit of God which thing also Peter Acts 10. doth plainly shew and accuseth the Pharisees of blasphemy against the holy Spirit that they durst to ascribe to Beelzebub the Prince of Devils such kind of miracles as were done by the very power of the holy Spirit Matth. 12.28.31 Mark 3. compare vers 30. with the foregoing And Luke saith Acts 1.2 That Christ in the same day wherein he was taken up gave commandment to the Apostles by the holy Spirit that is by the motion of the holy Spirit For neither did he make use of the ministry of the holy Spirit by whose intervening help he gave commandments to his disciples although others by transposition connect the words by the holy Spirit with the following whom he had chosen whereof it is not necessary to dispute in this place For as to our purpose the force of the words will be the same to wit that Christ by the motion of the holy Spirit chose the Apostles Neither is it a wonder seeing that he was the Spirit of wisdom and understanding the Spirit of counsel the Spirit of knowledge that is who produced Wisdom Understanding Counsel Knowledge and bestowed it on Christ as appears from Isa 11. a place cited by us But that we may from hence demonstrate that Christ is not the most high God we will not now use that reason that by this means something was given unto him by God the Father which Argument we have * Chap. 18. of this Sect. elsewhere explained but this that he would not truly have stood in need of the holy Spirit if he were the most high God especially if that Opinion of the Adversaries be laid down that the holy Spirit is a Person distinct from the Father and the Son For what help I pray you can the holy Spirit yield unto the most high God What is there that the most high God cannot perform of himself For it is not what they say that Christ's humane Nature needed the assistance of the holy Spirit For that I may not urge that now that those things are spoken simply of Christ that are not to be spoken if he were the most high God as of whom they are simply to be denyed What need was there of the help of the holy Spirit the third Person of the Deity as they will have it unto the humane Nature if the very same was personally joyned to the second Person of the Deity if the whole fulness of the divine Essence as they interpret that place Col. 2.9 did dwell therein bodily if as the same persons judge that divine Nature did bestow all the supernatural Gifts upon the humane that hapned unto it if that did either communicate unto it all its Properties or at least the full knowledge of all things as the major part of the Adversaries judge Whether or no the holy Spirit could add any thing to this store Wherefore I pray is Christ deciphered rather by the holy Spirit than by his own Nature either to have cast out Devils or to have commanded any thing or to have been endued with Wisdom Understanding Counsel Might Knowledge the Fear of the Lord The Defence of the Argument SOme one will perhaps say that therefore those things are rather attributed to the holy Spirit than to the divine Nature or Person of Christ because they belong unto Christs Sanctification and that Sanctification although common to the whole Trinity is properly ascribed to the holy Spirit But they speak thus not only without reason but even contrary to reason We
translation ‖ Beza others likewise have toucht but a prejudicare opinion hindred them from thorowly approving it And this translation is confirmed by that which is afterward read vers 9. where Peter explaineth the same fault of Ananias and Saphira in these words Why have ye agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord For it is the same to tempt the holy Spirit and to belie him Now they tempted the holy Spirit because they acted as if they would try whether the holy Spirit dwelling in the Apostles or the Apostles themselves by virtue of the holy Spirit dwelling in them would observe the deceit or not Wherefore the forecited Interpreter whom we praised before who had so rendred the words vers 5. That thou shouldest deceive the holy Spirit doth afterwards explain them in this manner That thou shouldest endeavour to deceive the holy Spirit that is us the Apostles in whom the Spirit worketh and to whom he revealeth the things that are needful to the edification of the Church and this is a Metonymie of the Adjunct I do not now mention that explication of those words whâ—ch Erasmus delivered and other learned men likewise have followed that the words may be rendred to counterfeit the holy Spirit By these things it easily appeareth that it cannot from this place be concluded that the holy Spirit is God since Peter doth in one manner speak of the holy Ghost of God in another There he saith to belye or deceive and mock the holy Spirit Here to lye to God The first doth simply note the object about which the fraud and mocking is conversant The second signifieth the utmost scope unto which that iniury and contumely doth redound For therefore Peter after he had said that Ananias would deceive the holy Spirit and mock him with his lye did add that he had not lyed unto men but to God that he might the more perceive the greatness of his sin as if he should have said Thou oughtest not to think that this injury pertaineth to us alone and is terminated in us for it tendeth to the dishonour of God himself But there had been no need to add any such thing if he had said that Ananias had lied to the holy Spirit and he had known from the doctrine of the Aposâ—les that the holy Spirit was God himself Like unto this passage is that 1 Thess 4.8 where the Apostle had said what precepts he had given to them by the Lord Jesus and upon what terms God had called them he addeth therefore he that despiseth dispiseth not man but God who hath also given his holy Spirit to us that is who hath imparted his holy Spirit unto us by whom it is apparent that we are governed by whose impulsion we do speak Whence it appeareth that this injury and contempt of us and the precepts delivered by us redound to God himself Again though it should be said that Ananias had lyed to the holy Spirit and had lyed to God withal yet it would not from thence follow that the holy Spirit is God For in one and the same aâ—t a man may lye to two and to one through another or to one immediately as here to the holy Spirit dwelling in the Apostles to another mediateâ—y as to God So he that persecuteth the faithful persecuteth Christ himself he tâ—at heareth and receiveth the Apostles or on the contrary despiseth them heareth and receiveth or despiseth Christ he that despiseth Christ despiseth also God that sent him Matth. 10.40 Luk. 10.16 Now will any one thence conclude either that the faithful or the Apostles are Christ or that Christ is he that sent him namely the Father But â—f we may reason in this manner Ananias lyed to God Ananias at the same time and in the same act lyed to the holy Ghost Therefore the holy Ghost is God it will also be â—awful to reason thus * Act 4.5 Chap. 22.7 8 Chap. 20.14 15. Paul persecuted Christ Paul at the same time and in the same act persecuted the faithful Therefore the faithful are Christ Or he that heareth tâ—e Apostles heareth Christ and also him that sent him therefore he that sent Christ is Christ What then will the adversaries answer to these arguments without doubt that there is more in the conclusion than in the premises Wherefore let them imagine that the same answer is given to them For thus it ought to be concluded therefore some one who lied to the holy Spirit lyed to God As also in those instances which we alleaged therefore some one wâ—o persecuted the faithful did persecute Christ some one who heareth him that sent Christ heareth Christ himself We have spoken the more largely of this place because greater stress is laid on it and yet not all which might be said thereupon We will run over the other more breifly As for the second place therefore which is extant 1 Cor. 6.19 20. the holy Spirit is not understood by the name of God but is openly distinguished from him For is not the holy Spirit here manifestly distinguished from God whilest it is said that they have him from God He speaketh also of the same God in the following words Therefore gloryfie God in your body c. Now that the Apostle doth not speak of the holy Ghost even that is an argument namely that he speaketh of him to whom we as servants have been bought with a price but who did ever read that we were bought to the holy Spirit that we were by Christ bought and invasseld to the Father both the thing it self speaketh and it will easily appear from these words of the Revelation which are extant Chap. 5.9.10 chap 14.4 But if they say that it is from thence proved that the holy Spirit is God because we are his temple for none but God hath a temple first it will not follow that the holy Spirit is here called God and that openly which is the thing now in debate For the same Adversaries are wont to alleage many places from whence they endeavour to evince that either the holy Spirit or Christ is the most high God where notwithstanding both they themselves confess and all see that the name of God is not attributed to Christ or the holy Spirit Again a temple may be belonging not only to the most high God â—ut also to him who is subordinate to God in divine Empire and worship not only in the opinion of men but in very deed Last of all it may be only so far forth granted that a temple belongeth to none but God himself as that a temple is not indeed dedicated to the honour of any oâ—her person nor possest by any other person by a more divine right and principally inhabited then by God Otherwise it is inhabited in a sort by Angels as the ministers of God and the virtue and efficacy of God doth in a
in a manner minister for which reason also he immediately subjoyneth them to God But for as much as Christ also hath these spirits of God and maketh use of them therefore having made mention of them he also commemmorateth Christ and prayeth for grace and peace to the Churches from him wherefore this wish and the imploring of the divine help comprehended therein is properly referred to God and Christ improperly to the spirits themselves Which is the cause why other divine men omit the mention of them in their salutations and wishes they who hold them to be Angels will say that this invocation is referred to them only in a secondary manner as unto Ministers not as unto Lords and the true bestowers of grace and peace and that therefore the mention of them is elsewhere omitted and they are therefore set before Christ partly because they belong unto God to whom they are next subjoyned for which cause also afterwards chap. 3. the name of the New Jerusalem is interposed betwixt that of God and Christ partly because John intendeth to speak more largely of Christ For he therefore reserveth the mention of them to the end that without disturbing the course of his speech he might more freely make an excursion into his prayers For if he would have reserved the mention of those spirits to the end he should have either used a longer Parenthesis or begun a new speech It is apparent therefore that there is nothing in those places to establish the invocation of the holy Spirit And here it is worth the rehearsing as learned men have noted that Hilary in his twelve Books concerning the Trinity never called the holy Spirit God never said that he is to be adored but only to be obtained which is likewise to be observed in other Writers both of that and former times Yea the true opinion concerning the holy Spirit was of so great power that even after those things wherein the holy Spirit began to be accounted for the most hlgh God almost all the prayers of the Churches were directed to God the Father and to Christ not to the holy Spirit And there are yet extant several Books of the Papists put forth in the former age and containing an account of Religion and Ceremonies in use among them where it is expresly declared that we must observe how every prayer is directed to God the Father or to Christ the Son and not to the holy Spirit because a gift is not asked from the gift it self but from the bestower of the gift Indeed we are not ignorant that there is an usual Hymn among them wherein they pray the holy Spirit to come and fill the heart of his People howbeit the cause which is alleaged that a gift is not asked from the gift it self but from the bestower of the gift is universal and it is clear that regard was had thereunto in most prayers of the Church and should have been had in all without exception Now that custom of praying is an open token of the true Opinion which did at first prevail in the Church For if the holy Spirit be the most high God absolutely equal to the Father and to the Son whom they likewise hold to be the most high God why was he not judged worthy of equal honour why were either all or at least the greatest part of prayers not equally directed to him as to the Father or the Son This indeed was the hinderance that in those first times it was out of controversie as both the holy Scripture doth plainly enough testifie and at this day many though therein inconstant to themselves confess that the holy Spirit is a gift For which cause Hilary before cited illustrating and confirming his opinion concerning the Trinity with that saying of Christ Mat. 28.19 Baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit doth in his second Book concerning the Trinity at the close thereof thus explain the words In the confession of the Author and of the only Begotten and of the gift which he doth there largely pursue Wherefore since they had this opinion concerning the holy Spirit they directed their prayers not to him but to the Father and the Son the bestower of that gift knowing that a gift is not asked from the gift it self but from the giver of the gift Which custom even the contrary errour hath for so many ages not been able quite to abolish CHAP. III. Arg. 3 The holy Spirit is often not joyned with God Christ The third Argument That the mention of the holy Spirit is in many places omitted and would not so have been were he the most high God THe third Argument may thence be drawn that in very many places of the Scripture where mention is made of the Father and of the Son and sometimes of Angels or other things and persons there is no mention made of the holy Spirit when nevertheless mention ought to have been made of him no less than of the Father and the Son and rather then of the Angels or of other things and persons if he were the most high God coequal as they speak to the Father and the Son Which that it may be plain we will first alleage those places wherein there is mention made of the Father and of Christ only and then those where mention is made of others whether Persons and chiefly Angels or things which ought to have been mentioned much less than the holy Spirit if he had been the most high God But for as much as the places of the former sort are almost innumerable we will here recite those only which are somewhat more illustrious and such chiefly as affirm the same thing of God and Christ within the compass of the same sentence the rest we reserve for the diligence of the Reader We will begin from John in the History of whose Gospel we will give the first place to those words of Christ which are extant chap. 17.3 This is Life eternal that they know thee Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent We do not now urge that the Father only is said to be the true God for that we have done in the * Sect. 1. chap. 1. beginning of this work but that mention is made of the Father only and of the Son and in the knowledge of these two only eternal life or the way to attain it is placed when notwithstanding were the holy Spirit no less the true God than the Father it would be necessary that eternal Life should lye no less in the knowledge of him than in the knowledge of the Father and consequently mention should have been made no less of the one than of the other much less that a divine Embassadour should rather be mentioned Neither can the Adversaries say that the knowledge of the holy Spirit is contained in the knowledge of the Father and of Christ For though this be otherwise
been to be named whom the Adversaries hold to have descended from heaven into the Virgins womb and there to have assumed humane flesh But we have already shewed and it is laid down in this exception which we now refute that the son was not named in the words of the Angel as the Author of his conception Lastly such an opinion should require that that Power of which in the words of the Angel there is mention should be called the power of the holy spirit or by the name of the Most High whose power he is said to be should be understood the holy spirit But any one sees the former was not done The latter is hereby refelled because both by the following words and also by comparing with the 32d verse it sufficiently appears that by the words The Most High the Father of Jesus Christ is understood Wherefore this is another place from whence it is proved that the holy spirit is the divine power or efficacy The third place is extant in Paul 1 Cor. 2.4 5. where he saith And my speech and my preaching was not in the enticing words of mans wisdom but in demonstration of the spirit and of power that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but in the Power of God Where you see the Apostle instead of that which he had before expressed in two words spirit and power afterwards puts only the power of God To which are to be added also those words of Peter in Acts 10.38 of Christ how God anointed him with the holy Ghost and with Power and those of the Angel in Luke 1.17 of John Baptist And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias For the same thing in very deed is designed by the name of spirit or holy spirit and power Neither is it of moment that some where the power of the holy spirit is mentioned For both of power and efficacy there may be again other power and efficacy depending on that former And furthermore it is to be observed that the Genitive Case of the holy spirit may with good right be taken for the Genitive of the species After which manner both the gift of the holy spirit is taken for that gift which is the holy spirit Acts 2.38 10 45 comp chap 11.15 16 17. and the earnest of the spirit for the earnest which is the holy spirit 2 Cor. 1.22 and 5 5. as both of it self it is easily understood as also by comparing with the words Ephes 1.14 is perceived So also the promise of the holy spirit Acts 2.33 is taken for the thing promised which is the holy spirit But there is no need of more examples when frequently enough the Genitive Case put after another Noun signifies its certain species as it is observed by learned men To the places hitherto brought the words Ephes 3.7 20. may be added in which if in the place of divine power you put the holy spirit you will see that there indeed will be no difference of the sence as also on the contrary where mention is made of the holy spirit if you put power or divine efficacy or divine inspiration there will arise no diversity of meaning although there where the name of Power as a genus is put before it the manner of speaking is to be somewhat changed or where that is added for explication sake it is not any more afterwards to be repeated Those words also of Christ in Luke chap 11.20 may be added in which he affirms that by the Finger of God he cast out Devils Where it is easily to be seen that by the name of Finger the power and efficacy of God is understood as it also happens elsewhere * Psal 8.4 compared with Exod 8.19 in the holy Scripture in which manner also the hand of God is taken For therefore that by which God performs his Works that is his Power or Efficacy is termed Hand or Finger because we are wont to effect our works with hands and fingers as others have long since observed But Christ expressing the same thing in Maâ— 12 28. saith that he cast out Devils in the spirit of God so that the Finger of God or the Power and Efficacy is the same with the Spirit of God Lastly That the holy Spirit is the Power or Efficacy of God thence appeareth because both propâ—ecies and other admirable gifts and works which come from that Power and Efficacy which we are wont to call the divine Inspiration are all ascribed to the holy Spirit as to the next cause and inwardly working in men and that not because it is revealed by God that the holy Spirit doth effect them but because it is from the thing it self manifest enough if it appeare that they are performed by a divine Power See Luke 1.41 67. and 2.26 27. Acts 4.8 31. 6.10 55. 9.31 10.44 45 47. 11.15 16 24 28. 13.2 4 9 52. 15.8 28. 16.6 7.20.23 28. 21.4 11. and that I may pass by many more places of holy Scripture 1 Cor. 12.4 7 c. 2 Pet. 1.3 ult Whence also when the divine Writers would signifie any one to be divinely inspired and filled with divine power they say that he is filled with the holy Spirit or using some like manner of speaking affirm him to be endued with a divine Spirit But if the holy Spirit were not the very Power and Efficacy of God but a person distinct from the Father and Son there would be no cause why all those things should be ascribed to the holy Spirit as the next cause and inwardly working in men For as much as it might come to pass that the Father and the son by their Efficacy might effect all those things the person of the holy spirit not intervening as a middle cause Certainly although it should be manifest that prophesie or any other gift comes from God nevertheless it could not appear without manifest divine revelation that the holy spirit did intervene as a middle and next cause to perform that thing But the holy scriptures do so speak of that thing that they plainly enough shew that it is manifest by the thing it self without other peculiar revelation Neither indeed Paul when writing to the Corinthians he said * 1 Cor. 2.1 his words were in demonstration of spirit to wit divine or among other things commended himself as the servant of God †2 Cor. 6.4 in the holy Spirit would at length be understood by his words that he was endued with the holy Spirit and that from it his words or deeds came but from the thing it self But if you say that therefore al those things are ascribed to the holy Spirit and that thing was manifest to all believers because the holy spirit is God himself from whom no man is ignorant all those things come he besides that he shall take as granted the thing here controverted and unknown to those men to
heard or read of any who could dare to deny that the divine Spirit the efficient cause of these gifts is the holy Spirit properly so called Neither indeed in these places hath the Metalepsis devised by others any place For the effects also of the holy Spirit are rehearsed in the same places as some things diverse from the holy Spirit given and so as effects of the thing given But if by that Metalepsis the holy Spirit were said to be given to wit in respect of the effects those effects should be contained in the thing given nor should be mentioned or distinct from it And let these things be said out of the sacred Writings against the Metonimy and Metalepsis devised in these manners of speaking As to the Hypothesis of the Adversaries although we have used them in some part already yet it is further to be added that by such an Answer to our Argument their own reason is vehemently overthrown which they are wont to bring further to prove the immensity of the holy Spirit and consequently its supream Deity to wit that the holy Spirit dwelt in all Believers dispersed through the whole world For two wayes they weaken this Argument First because if the very holy Spirit properly so called be not given to Believers but only its effects it cannot be proved that the holy Spirit himself or his Essence is in very deed in every Believer which is necessary to the concluding of their reason Again Because neither such immensity as they understand can be thence proved unless withal they make also the effect of the holy Spirit or at least all its effects dispersed in the hearts of Believers though the whole world joyned together to be immense and the supream God Therefore the Adversaries cannot deny that the holy Spirit it self to wit properly so called is given by God to believers but that together they take away both the testimonies of the holy Scripture and their own assertions But now let us somewhat loosen those bonds by which we have shewn them to be held and let us grant to them seeing they will have it so that not the holy Spirit properly so called is given to Believers but its effect only yet they shall not escape For nevertheless we will hence shew that the holy Spirit is not the most high God For first if the holy Spirit were the most high God it could not be said no not by a Metonymy or Metalepsis of him that he is given or bestowed by another upon men or that men receive him For who would not reject such a manner of speaking as absurd and unworthy of the most high God More soberly do the holy Scripture speak of the most high God than to feign in his names such trops But if yet any man contend that such speaking is not unbeseeming God or absurd let him shew an example of the like manner of speaking in the name either of the most high God or the Father or any other which is equivalent Besides if it were so it should not be understood that that certain gift or if you had rather kind of gifts is given which yet all understand to be given when the holy Spirit is said to be given For the gifts and effects of the most high God are of most large extent for what good soever there is it comes from him Therefore if thou shouldst hear that the most high God is given namely because his gifts are given either thou wouldst understand that all gifts are given together or if thou wouldst understand only a certain kind of gifts to be given thou wouldst believe that to be given which is of all the most excellent either alone or conjoyned with others The same thing therefore should be thought of the holy Spirit if he were the most high God and not said to be given but in respect of gifts and effects only But neither all gifts are understood to be given when we hear the holy Spirit is given nor that which is of all the greatest to wit immortal life or perfect justification but presently our mind is carried to a divine breathing or inspiration or the effects of it in men to wit because the divine Spirit properly so called is a divine inspiration or a force flowing from God into men breathed from heaven into their hearts This I say is the true caâ—se why our mind hearing the holy Spirit to be given is carried to that certain kind of gift or gifts But the adversaries will except that there is in this case another reason of the name of God or the Father or also of the Son another of the name of the holy Spirit although he be the Supream God For they so dispute as we have before shewed although all the works to without are common to the whoâ—e Trinity yet in a certain peculiar respect creation is attributed to the Father remdeption to the Son sanctification to the holy Spirit Now then they will say that that kind of gift or gifts which we understand as soon as we hear the holy Spirit is given doth pertain to sanctification Therefore it is not designed by the name of God common to three persons not by the name of the Father nor Son but the holy Spirit Thou seest by what circuits the mind is led by the adversaries thither whither it is forthwith straight carried But is it credible that those whether Jews oâ— Gentiles who first heard of the holy Spirit to be given to men either from Christ or other divine men did either already know those things or being ignorant of them did not understand what was signified by the name of the holy Spirit and what was promised both to them and to others Were those auditors of Iohn Baptist or Peter whom we mentioned before so knowing of those things that they could think at first when they heard of the holy Spirit to be poured out upon them that some effect should be given them not peculiar to the first and second person of the Deity but the third to whom it is proper to sanctify therefore that effect did pertain to sanctification and withal was a divine inspiration Was it not more ready for them to think that which the word it self declared that a divine inspiration or its effects were promised to them But besides whence is it manifest to the adversaries that the thâ—ee persons of the Deity have among themselves thus parted those three gifts Were they perhaps present at their councel that they so boldly affirme these things They will say from the holy Scriptures it is manifest to them concerning that thing as which doth chefliy ascribe creation to the Father redemption to the Son sanctification to the holy Spirit Of creation and redemption there is not now place of disputing Yet it may be said â—y the way that creation or that first production of all things is ascribed to the Father not cheifly only but also solely since he was the sole author of
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
it be only a divine virtue and efficacy not a Suppositum or Person This although it properly pertain not to the matter in hand yet we will briefly explain that no scruple may remain First we have already seen that some of the adversaries by the force of their own opinion are forced to hold that those things are not properly said of the holy Spirit but that bodily shape and its descent from heaven was only an outward resemblance of the holy Spirit filling Christ with his gifts which same thing why it may not be said of divine efficacy there is no cause Besides If we would by all means have it so that those things are properly spoken of the holy Spirit it is to be understood as to that descent and motion that the qualities were moved together with their subjects and consequently in them Wherefore also the divine efficacy if it may exist in a man and in him or together with him be moved it may descend from heaven in another thing likewise which God will use in the carrying down of it Neither indeed is there wanting to God a convenient and beseâ—ming Vehicle that I may so speak for that efficacy But as to the shape it the subject of thar efficacy have a certain shape especially such as may shew and resemble the latent efficacy nothing at all hinders but that it may be said that that virtue descends in or with that shape But of these things if God will we shall say more else where This we would have here observed although it be written that the holy spirit did then descend on Christ in a bodily form and it may be easily understood that which all seem commonly to think that it appeared in some bodily form on the day of Pentecost yet neither here nor else where is it ever said to have appeared in the shape and form of any person as we read of the Father and Christ when they appeared in a certain form and also of the Angels But if the holy Spirit were a person Why had it not also appeared in the shape of a person For whether you hold it to have been the shape of a Dove in which it descended on Christ as commonly all contend or any other it is certain that was not the form of a person For neither is the Fire or Dove a Person seeing a person is nothing but a substance endued with understanding As for that whereby from the Apostles words in which it is said it searcheth or knows they endeavour to evince the holy Spirit to be endued with understanding it is refuted in the foregoing Chapter CHAP. XVI The Conclusion of the first Book in which it is shewed That the Adversaries opinion concerning the Trinity is refuted by the very silence of the holy Scriptures neither doth any thing hinder but that it may be oppugned by Arguments fetcht from Reason VVE have shewed enough out of holy writ that neither Christ nor the holy Spirit but only the Father is the most high God and that the most high God is one as in Essence so also in person not as it is commonly believed three in respect of persons Which opinion although there were not so many reasons as we have produced might be refelled by the bare silence of holy Scriptures For is it credible that Christ and the Apostles that I may omit now the Prophets would have concealed a thing as it is commonly believed and as the reason of the tenet holds forth so necessary to be known so hard to be believed and far exceeding all the capacity of humane wit Doth not the thing it self shew us by how much that tenet should be more necessary both to be known and more hard to be perceived by so much the clearer they would have propounded it and so the oftenner and more diligently have inculcated it Their diligence in other things much less and easier to be perceived compels us to believe as well as the earnest desire or rather endeavour of the same persons towards the Salvation of mankind and also that office which they undertook and sustained Shall we think Christ our Saviour the Apostles other divine men had less care of the Salvation of men than they who either heretofore have defended that tenet as the cheife concern of our Salvation or at this day maintain it Was there in them less intelligence of that mystery which they commonly adore or were words wanting by which they should describe it Could Athanasius in his Creed express it more clearly than Christ than the Apostles Whosoever saith he will be saved before all things it is necessary that he hold the Chatolick faith which unless a man keep whole and inviolate without doubt he shall perish for ever But the Catholick faith is this that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity neither confounding the persons nor seperating the substance For there is one person of the Farher another of the Son another of the holy Spirit The Scripture doth not teach that God is trinune But there is one divinity of the Father Son and holy Spirit equal glory coeternal Majesty c. What I beseech you is there like these things in all the holy Scriptures We will not now refute the errors of them who beleeve not all things necessary to salvation to be contained in the holy Scriptures which is done by our men * See John Volkelius of the true Religion lib. 5. Chap. 7. elsewhere This onely we say that however some positions necessary to salvation should not be contained in the holy Scriptures yet this which is made the cheif and as it were the foundation of other things by them that it is not openly contained there is to be judged altogether incredible But letting these pass let us deal with them who acknowledge and urge that all things which are necessary to salvation are comprehended in the compass of the sacred Volumnes What reason will they aleage why that tenet is not plainly contained in holy Scripture Not few say that though it be not expresly comprehended in them yet it may be deduced from them by a good consequence But that I may now omit other things we have shewed a little before that in so hard a thing so remore from our capacity so necessary there should be fully shewn not onely consequences but clear and distinct explication and that repeated more than once especially because simple men to whom God would have the way of salvation to be manifest equally that I say not more to learned and ingenious men understand not those consequences and besides must take paines not onely in perceiving the reason of the consequence but also in the force of the opinion it self which is scarce perceived by the learned if yet that may be perceived which is repugnant to it self Moreover if they speak true who say that the Tenet of the Trinity pertains even chiefly to the Catholick Faith without which no man
which belongs to a King These things are plain and have in them no scruple and difficulty There is no need here of communication of Properties There is no need to distinguish subtilly between Expressions in concreto and in abstracto to difference the Person from the Nature again one Nature from another to seek how you may attribute humane things to the most high God and things proper to the most high God to a Man how the same Person one while governs as the most high God another while as a Mediator and so the same person is in some sort distinguished from himself Now from that which hath been said that may also be understood That there was no heed of the Union of two Natures For if there had been need of it it had been for this cause That Christ might bear and manage those Offices But Chrisâ— miâ—ht discharge them although he were but a man in Essence Yea if he had been God he could not discharge the two former he could not receive the last nor therefore discharge it because that Kingly office is not the Empire of the most high God as he is such but as the Adversaries speak such a Kingdom as Christ manageth as a Mediator And indeed the confirming our faith and hope and the Glory of the most high God required such a Kingdom But if any say that greater than humane ability or power was requisite to discharge those Offices that would be of some moment if it had been necessary that he should have that ability or power from himself nor could receive them from God himself But now since he both might receive them from God and the holy Scriptures so often testifie that he hath received them from God what need was there that he should be the most high God Rightly they say commonly God and Nature do nothing in vain although God doth those things also that Nature doth But if God does not things unnecessary much less those things which hinder and are otherwise unbeseeming his Majesty But we have shewed that that union would have hindered the administration of those Offices We have shewed also that it attributes to God not a few absurdities and things unbeseeming his Majesty and most apt either to take away out of mens minds or at least to diminish in them that veneration of it which he would establish by Christ The Third Section That the holy Spirit shouâ—d be the Son of God In which is discoursed concerning the third Person of the Supream Deity which is commonly held And it is shewed That the holy Spirit should be the Son of God if the common Opinion concerning him were true WE have said enough of the second Person which is held to be in the Trinity It remains that we add something also of the third There is no need that we should say much of it because those things which have been said of the Sons Generation out of the Essence of the Father being a little changed may be applied to that procession of the holy Spirit which the Adversaries have devised For which reason we also before sometimes have expresly joyned the holy Spirit with the Son and so anticipated the treating of those things which might have been here alleaged nor did we that without cause For if you rightly mark it both the Generation of the Essence of the Father is some Procession and on the contrary such a Procession as the Adversaries attribute to the holy Spirit is like that Generation which the Adversaries attribute to the Son of God The former the more lâ—â—rned of the Adversaries do confess who treating of the Generation of the Son and Procession of the holy Spirit say That there are two Pâ—ocessions in God But why the word Procession is accommodated perticularly to the holy Spirit and so is distinguished from the Generation of the Son they assign this to be the Reason Because there is a special word wanting by which that proper and peculiar manner whereby the holy Spirit proceeds from the Faâ—her and Son may be designed Therefore as in other things it oft comes to pass the general name is attributed as proper to the species and so is distinguished from the other species But that the Procession also of the holy Spiâ—it is a Generation if that Generation of the Son of God which the Adversaries hold be indeed a Generation is not hard to demonstrate For what other thing is required to a Generation properly to called than that one receive his Essence from another either the same in kind or as the Adversaries opinion of God is in number with his Essence from whom he receives it In brief generation properly so called is a communication of a substance with another And is not that Procession of the holy Spirit devised by the Adversaries such a communication Did not the holy Spirit by that Procession receive the same essence in number with the essence of them from whom hee proceeded So indeed Adversaries think and contend But if the Procession of the holy Spirit be a Generation properly so called we have in the Trinity two Sons one of the first person only another of the first and second and also two Fathers one of the ffrst person who will be a Father by a double name to wit because he hath begotten the second and third person of the Deity another the second person who together with the Father hath begotten the holy Spirit But we have learned both from the holy Scâ—iptures and the Adversaries that there is but only One Father and only one Son to wit by excellency so called The more acute of the Adversaries have seen this Rock of their opinion and have endeavoured to avoid it Therefore they have judged that that definition of a Generation which otherwise they themselves have delivered is to be limited and have said that not every communication of a substance with anohter is a Generation but at length that tâ—at which such a relation follows as is between Father and Son which is barbarously called Paternity and Filiation In which indeed they are rediculous As if forsooth it could be that a person may communicate his substance really to a person and yet such a relation may not thence presently follow and that person which communicates his substance to another by that very thing were not forthwith a Father or where there is a distinction of sex which is not in God a Mother and again he to whom the substance is communicated a Son or where there is a distinct sex a Daughter The Adversaries themselves confess that the words Father Son Generation Procession as also other-like words are by an Analogy said of God and creatures and that by reason of likeness they are translated from these to God But in things created as soon as the substance is produced the things is properly said to be generated nor is there any thing more required to the propriety of the word but if a person have
produced a person presently the one is called a Father or as we have said a Mother the other a Son or Daughter Therefore that which in God is analogum to that Generation doth also deserve to be termed Generation But that is a production of another person or a communication of the substance with another person And the necessary consequence hereof is Paternity and Filiation Analogum to that which we see in humane generations For that generation is conversant among Persons But say some therefore the production of a person is called a generation because by it a person is produced not only like to the producer in essence but also in some other peculiar respect For that second person as such is the image of the first as that which is hath produced by understanding it self but that the Image is like to that the image of which it is They say there is another reason of the Procession of the holy Spirit for he is produced from the Father and Son by willing But it is not the property of the will to produce something like to that thing which it wills and desires Therefore that the holy Spirit however by his Procession he is become like to the Father and Son in Essence or rather the same yet in respect of his person by which he is distinguished from the Father and the Son he is like to neither But that Procession at last is rightly termed a Generation by which the person produced becomes altogether like the producer but that procession is rightly distinguished from a generation of which in that respect there is a different reason But these subtil devices avail them nothing For besides that we have refuted already * Sect. 3. Chap. 1. above that device of the production of persons which may be by understanding or willing There are yet two things which shew the vanity of this exception The former is that to the propriety of a generation from another it is not at all required that the thing generated be like the thing generating in all things but it is enough if it be like to it in essence or substance from which likeness follows also a likeness of natural properties and common to the whole genus or species although the property of generation by it self is not seen in this but in that and if it could be that the substance of the thing generated were like to the substance of the thing generating but the properties of both divers nevertheless the property of generation would be certain although perhaps it might not be so easiely acknowledged because we for the most part know things themselves by the proper tokens and consequents of things Wherefore if the holy Spirit by vertue of his procession became like in substance to the Father and Son yea the same for according to the Adversaries identity takes not away procession nor generation in divine persons the holy Spirit was generated of the Father and Son and so that his procession is generation In how many things if you except the Essence and properties immediately following it are sons wont to be unlike the Fathers yet nevertheless they are not therefore less properly said to be generated of them or to be their Sons But here the essence and natural properties are altogeâ—her the same What then is there wanting in the holy Spiâ—it to the propriety of generation That I may omit that the holy Spirit cannot be unlike the Father and Son no not indeed in that propriety or character which they call hypostatical if another opinion of the same Adversaries concerning those personal properties be true For they hold them to be the same really with the Essence common to the three persons and only distinguished from it by the understanding Whence it necessarily follows that he that hath that essence in himself as each of those three persons hath hath also all those properties in him and that those properties are no less common to the three persons than the Essence Although that opinion overthrows it self For they will be at once common and proper in respect of the same persons and will make those persons unlike and not unlike diverse and not diverse The latter Why that reason or exception of the Adversaries cannot have place is Because if we follow their opinion concerning the divine attributes nothing can proceed from the will but together it proceeds from the understanding and on the contrary For with them all the divine attributes and so the understanding and will if you consâ—der the thing it self are altogether the same thing For they are the very Essence of God to which indeed doth agree no not the least composition or true diversity And indeed many Schoolmen say that they may express their opinion That the understanding and will in God as also his other attributes are not only really but also formally the same thing that is that they are not only so joyned together as that they can never be severed from one another but also are not so much as indeed by proper forms or essences and definitions distinguished from each other Aristotle would say they are the same in reallity and reason For with Aristotle those things are the same in reason which have the same form and the same definition he saith they differ in reason who have diverse Now if in this manner the will and understanding are the same thing in God and so the understanding as the will it self and reciprocally whatsoever procedes or is generated from the understanding procedes also and is generated from the will and on the contrary Therefore the production by the understanding is no more generation than that which is said to proceed from the will nor doth that produce a person like to the producer more than this neither is the Son more a Son than the holy Spirit neither is the same Son less the holy Spirit than the third person of the Trinity For the Son hath no less proceeded from the will than the holy Spirit nor the holy Spirit less from the understanding than the Son These indeed are the fruits of the subtilties wherewith the Scholastick-Divinity swarmes And yet we see that those who acknowledge the holy Scriptures for the only Rule of Faith do follow and admire them But they will say the same Schoolmen have prevented these difficulties For the divine attributes by their doctrine although they be not actually distinguished by the nature of the thing or without the consideration of our mind in any manner neither really nor formally yet are they distinguished eminenter that is vertually and potentially And this difference is the foundation of the diversity between the processions of two persons of which we now treat and likewise between various effects flowing from God and lastly between the conceits and cogitations of our mind concerning the divine attributes For we do inadequately conceive the divine attributes by reason of the imperfection of our understanding and therefore consider
them as diverse which in reality are altogether the same thing And this the Schoolmen call distinction of reason which they very often use For when they have confounded together things diverse yet because the diversity of things offer it self of its own accord to the minds of them that contemplate them and they themselves are compelled to speak and dispute of them as diverse they fly to this irrational difference of reason as to a sacred Anchor But although we might dispatch this errour lying hid even in obscurity of words as in its lurking hole yet I am willing first to draw it out thence that the thing may be more clearly seen by them who were never conversant in the Schools To be distinguished eminenter and to be distinguished actu are by the Schoolmen opposed one to another for it is known that potentia and virtus are opposed to actus with the Philosophers and when the Schoolmen say that something is distinguished eminenter it is all one with them as if they said it is distinguished vertually and potentially Those things then are distinguished eminenter which however they are the same altogether actually yet may be distinguished because they have in some manner the force of more things on because diverse operations and effects may flow from them or because being compared with things diverse in some manner they answer to the forms of each or have divers respects to the same But what ever they imagine either there is an actual difference in the thing of which it is treated or there is no distinction For those things are actually distinct of one of which something is rightly affirmed which of the other at the same time is rightly denyed For if those things nevertheless be altogether the same thing actually contradictories will be together in the same thing or the same thing will be together both affirmed denyed of the same thing which is impossible But if you would be so obstinate against the most dear Truth as to say nothing hinders but that contradictories may agree to the same thing if so be that it may vertually or potentially be more things nothing will hinder but that all things which are any where extant are one thing actually but diverss vertually or potentially and if any will assert it he can be refuted by no reason For if contradictions do not evince those things of which they are spoken to be diverse actually nothing will be able to evince it For whatsoever differenceth one thing from another differenceth it by the force of a contradiction and every opposition every difference doth tacitly include it in it self and unless it did include it there would be nothing to hinder but that opposites should agree to the same thing Rightly hath the Philosopher said and said it indeed according to the common consent of all men if two things are said to be the same whatsoever is said of the one of them is said also of the other If thou any thing truly may be said of one thing which is to be denyed of the other those things cannot simply be the same actually but it is necessary that they be distinguished in the thing or in reason that is in form and proper essence That thing verily doth necessarily happen in the understanding and divine will if those things be true which we discoursed before according to the mind of tne antient Fathers and Schoolmen concerning the diversity between the Generation of the Son and Procession of the holy Spirit For the Generation is said to have been performed by the operation of the understanding the Procession of the holy Spirit not so this again by the operation of the will that not so it is said to agree to the understanding to produce something altogether like to the thing understood which is denyed of the will the Father alone is said to have produced the Son by the understanding the Father not alone but together with the Son is said to have produced the holy Spirit by the will But if these things be true and did exist actually before all consideration of our mind it is necessary that the divine Understanding and Will were also actually distinct without all operation of our mind Wherefore let them either cease to deny that there is indeed any actual difference between the divine attributes or let them take away the difference between the generation of the Son and of the holy Spirit and say that the Son is the holy Spirit the holy Spirit again the Son by which very thing they will overthrow the Doctrine of the Trinity For so besides the Father there will be only one person the difference between the Son and holy Spirit being taken away Before we put an end to this disputation since we are fallen into this discourse concerning the vertual distinction as they speak I am willing to add this fuâ—ther that the devise of the same Schoolmen is very vain when they say that the persons of the Trinity are distinguished from the Essence neither really nor formally but eminenter only and further by the intellect which may even there conceive a distinction where there is actually none For if as they hold the divine Essence be actually communicable to more persons and was communicable before all operation of our understanding but on the contrary a person is incommunicable to more persons also there must actually be a difference between the essence and person otherwise if altogether they are actually the same thing contradictories may together be actually in the same thing as is said before Neither indeed in that alone which we have now expressed a contradiction will be implyed but in all those things in which the person is distinguished from the Essence as for example That is a suppositum or person this is not that is really distinguished from the other persons this is not distinguished that hath properly begotten or was begotten or proceeded from the Father and the Son this not so But what need we more words altogether irrational as we have said is that distinction of reason which is there fained where indeed there is none Truly they who apply this distinction of reason to things are much like to them who when they see but one man they seem to themselves they see two These are deceived in their eyes those in their minds For the opinion of our mind cannot be true if it conceive the thing otherwise than it is For Truth is adequation as they speak or agreement of our understanding and further also of our words with the thing it self But if men do truly conceive that as distinct which is not in very deed distinct the conceits of the same thing contrary to one another will be true to wit of God and morral men For God and the blessed Angels and Men who see God as he is conceive in their mind no difference in God if the opinion of these men concerning the divine attributes be true because
the holy Spirit was given unto Christ pag. 163 Chap. XXXIV Arg. XXXIV That Christ was tempted of the Devil pag. 166 Chap. XXXV Arg. XXXV That Christ is the first-born of every Creature pag. 169 Chap. XXXVI Arg. XXXVI That Christ is equal to God pag. 170 SECTION III. Wherein is shewn That the Holy Spirit is not the most high God that it may appear that the Father onely is the most high God pag. 171 Chap. I Argum. I THat the Holy Spirit is no where openly called God in the holy Scripture pag. 172 Chap. II Arg. II That it is no where in the holy Scripture commanded that we should adore or invocate the Holy Spirit yea there is not so much as any example thereof pag. 181 Chap. III Arg. III. That the mention of the Holy Spirit is in many places omitted and would not so have been were he the most high God pag. 185 Chap. IV Arg. IV. From Mat. 11.27 None knoweth the Son but the Father neither knoweth any one the Father but the Son c. pag. 194 Chap. V Arg. V That the Holy Spirit is very often distinguished from God pag. 195 Chap. VI Arg. VI The Holy Spirit is the power of God pag. 197 Chap. VII Arg. VII That Christ should be the Son of the Holy Spirit if he were the most High God pag. 204 Chap. VIII Arg. VIII That the Holy Spirit is given by God to men pag. 205 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 Poured upon Baptized and Drencht pag. 218 Chap. IX Arg. IX Drawn from those places which argue some partition of the Holy Spirit pag 222 Chap. X Arg. X That we are forbidden to quench the Spirit and we read that the Holy Spirit sometime was not and that some Disciples were ignorant whether there were any Holy Spirit pag. 225 Chap. XI Arg. XI From John 15.26 Where the Holy Spirit is said To proceed from the Father pag. 226 Chap. XII Arg. XII That the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son pag. 228 Chap. XIII Arg. XIII From the words of John 16.13 He shall not speak the Spirit of Truth from himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak c. pag. 229 Chap. XIV Three Arguments From 1 Cor. 2.10 c. The Spirit searcheth all things even the deep things of God c. pag. 235 Chap. XV Arg. XVII That the Holy Spirit sometime descended upon Christ pag. 238 Chap. XVI The Conclusion of the First Book in which it is shewed That the Adversaries opinion concerning the Trinity is refuted by the very silence of the holy Scriptures neither doth any thing hinder but that it may be oppugned by Arguments fetcht from Reason pag. 242 The SECOND BOOK SECTION I. In which is generally treated concerning the Three Persons of the Supream Deity which are commonly maintained pag. 247 Chap. I. Argum. I. BY which is shewed That the common Doctrine of the Trinity overthrows it self because there would be at once One and Three Gods pag. 248 Chap. II Arg. II Because each Divine Person would be Three in Persons pag. 252 Chap. III Arg. III Because the Divine Persons would in very deed be the same and divers pag. 253 Chap. IV Arg. IV Because there would be at once One and Three Substances of the Supream Deity pag. 256 Chap. V Arg. V Because there cannot be Three Substances of One and the Same Thing pag. 261 Chap. VI Arg. VI That the Divine Persons should be at once both communicable and incommunicable pag. 264 Chap. VII Arg. VII Drawn from the Analogy with the things created where it it is shewed That unless there be held One Person of God there must be held infinite in number pag. 265 SECTION II. In which is discoursed concerning the Second Person of the Supream Deity which is held by the Adversaries pag. 267 Chap. I Argum. I BY which is refelled the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son of God out of the Essence of the Father Because the Son should be the Son of himself pag. 268 Chap. II Arg. II Because there would be innumerable Sons as also innumerable Holy Spirits pag. 271 Chap. III Arg. III Because the Son of God both had been and had not been from Eternity pag. 272 Chap. IV. Arg. IV Because the Son of God should be already generated and to be generated unto Eternity pag. 276 Chap. V Arg. I 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 pag. 278 Chap. VI Arg. II Because the Second Person of the Deity would cease to be a Person pag. 281 Chap. VII Arg. III Because the most High God and Man are Disparatums pag. 283 Chap. VIII Arg. IV Because in Christ should be two Persons pag. 286 SECTION III. IN which is discoursed concerning the Third Person of the Supream Deity which is commonly held And it is shewed That the holy Spirit should be the Son of God if the common Opinion concerning him were true pag. 295 The CONCLSION of the WORK IN which the use of this Disputation concerning One God the Father is explained pag. 302 An INDEX of places of the holy Scripture which are in this Book either wholy explained or in some part illustrated Chap. Vers Page  Deuteronom  21. 17. 224. 32. 12. 173 179.  II. Samuel  23 2 3. 173 178.  II. Kings  2. 9. 123.  Psalm  2. 6. 152.  7. 152 156 276 c. 17. 6. 120. 118. 21. 92.  Isaiah  6. 9 c. 173 180 c. 9. 6. 216 217. 63. 10. 173 179.  Jeremiah  17. 5. 71.  Daniel  7. 9 c. 40.  Matth.  1. 20. 222. 3. 16. 228 c. 11. 27. 194 c. 12. 4. 53. 16. 16. 157. 19. 17. 79. 20. 23. 76 c. 23. 8 9 10. 80. 24. 36. 27 72. 26. 39. 81. 28. 18. 104 c.  19. 244.  Mark.  1. 10. 238. 13. 32. 27 72.  Luke  1. 17. 199.  32. 101.  35. 144 c. 197 c. 3. 22. 238 c. 11. 20. 199. 12. 8. 191. 22. 42. 81. 24. 49. 197.  John  1. 1. 109.  13. 139.  32 33. 238 c. 2. 20 21. 138 139 3. 34. 224 c. 4. 34. 173. 5. 13. 187.  17. 62 63.  19. 52 c.  20. 101.  22. 109 128.  24. 128.  44. 36 37 38. 6. 59. 96.  69. 12. 7. 16. 60.  37. 221.  39. 114 226. 8. 14. 118 c.  16. 115 c.  16 c. 186 187  19. 11.  29. 115 c.  55. 11. 10. 18. 91 138 139.  25. 111.  29. 85.  34 c. 51 52 146
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
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
Whereas the word according as it is used by the Adversaries includeth the relation of a part but if you take that expression as if it were said by the humane Nrture then both the Father and holy Spirit might do something according to the humane Nature of Christ though perhaps the Father not as the nearest cause and such as immediately moveth the humane Nature but the holy Spirit dwelling therein even as the nearest cause and immediately moving that Nature Again it is likewise understood from what hath been spoken that that distinction of Natures cannot cause that it may rightly be said that Christ is the Mediator of himself not only because it is incongruous to say that his Person doth do any thing according to the humane Nature if that Person be the very supream God but also because from that Opinion of the Adversaries it would follow that the very divine Nature of Christ doth primarily and properly discharge the Office of a Mediator although it make use of the humane nature in this behalf for it would be necessary that the same divine Nature should intervene in the middle between it self and Men which every one seeth to be absurd Finally it is understood that this distinction of Natures cannot cause that Christ the Mediator should be distinguished from God if Christ be very God himself Add hereunto that none but those things are simply distinguisht one from another of whom it may be simply affirmed that the one of them is not the other But in this place God and Christ who is said to be his Mediator are simply distinguished one from another wherefore neither is that God Christ nor Christ that God for the distinction of Natures cannot cause that any thing should be simply denied of some subject which for another Nature is to be simply affirmed thereof as we will shew more at large Chap. 3. of the following Section Wherefore neither can it cause that any thing should be simply distinguished from that which is to be simply predicated of it inasmuch as such a distinction as we have seen doth tacitly involve a simple negation of one in relation to the other Neither can any one here say that Christ in the words of the Apostle is therefore rightly distinguished from God and so tacitly denied that he is that one God because by the name of God or that One God the whole Trinity is understood whereas Christ is not the whole Trinity for by this reckoning it might be said that the Father himself is not God or that one God because the Father is not the whole Trinity But who could endure to hear one so speaking certainly he would openly contradict the Scripture who durst to speak in that manner Besides the very Adversaries themselves do not suppose the name of God or that one God to be collective that is so joyntly signifying three Persons that it cannot be predicated of each apart for in predicating they hold that name hath the nature of an universal so that it may be predicated of every Person in particular For instance The Father is that one God the Son is that one God the holy Spirit is that one God wherefore Christ was not therefore distinguisht from that one God and so tacitly denied to be that one God because he is not the whole Trinity but because he simply is not that one God Some one will perhaps say as it followeth not That Christ is not a man because he is the Mediator of men since he is rather therefore a Man because he is the Mediator of Men Whence the Apostle expresly saith That there is one Mediator of God and Men the Man Christ Jesus So neither from thence that Christ is said to be the Mediator of God I say the most high and only God doth it follow that he is not the most high and only God This though it be more pertinent to the second Section of this book shall notwithstanding receive a brief answer especially because the thing doth not need any long dispute for who seeth not when Christ is said to be the Mediator of Men that by the name of Men other men besides Christ are understood who were either wholy alienated from God or not so joyned but that they might be more closely joyned in a new Covenant by a Mediator but certainly Christ was not in the number of them wherefore we may rather retort this Argument upon the Adversaries for as Christ was not in the number of those men whose Mediator he was nor is comprehended under them in this place of Paul so neither is the same Christ that God or comprehended under the name of that God whose Mediator he is said to be Finally If the whole Trinity were comprehended under the name of that God whose Mediator Christ is he would also be the Mediator of the holy Spirit But this is disentanious to the truth for there would be open testimonies thereof extant in the Tables of the Covenant whose mediator Christ was But what are they We require not such places of Scripture wherein it is expresly said that Christ was the mediator of the holy Spirit but from which it may clearly appear that Christ did so intervene in the midst between the holy Spirit and us as it is needful that a mediator should intervene between them who are to be joyned in Covenant and that he performed the proper part of that Office between him and us According to our Opinion which the most learned Adversaries themselves think not to be false although they say it is imperfect It is the Office of a mediator between God and men to be the messenger of God to men and to strike a League between both and so to cause that men being instructed with the knowledge of the divine Will may address themselves to worship God But the Adversaries commonly suppose that it is the proper Office of Christ the Mediator by fully paying the punishment of all our sins to appease the wrath of God kindled against men and to intercede for them to God which we think pertaineth to a Priest But where is it taught in the Scripture that Christ was the messenger of the holy Spirit to men stroke a League between him and men and brought men indued with the knowledge of his Will to worship him Concerning the Father there are most clear testimonies of the Scripture some whereof we will alledge in the * See Sect. 2. Chap. 4 5 15. following Section Certainly Christ without expressing the Fathers name doth sometimes †John 8.26 27 28. describe him thus He that sent me and changeth this description with the name of the Father There is but one place as far as I can remember alledged out of the Scripture by the Adversaries to prove that Christ was sent by the holy Spirit and it is extant Isa 48.16 where the Prophet according to the vulgar Translation speaketh thus And now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me
But besides that the Prophet doth there indeed speak of Christ himself as even some of the Adversaries have observed and if any one deny that it is to be understood of Christ the Adversaries will have nothing to prove it withal It is to be noted that those words may be rightly rendred out of the Hebrew as some latter * Castellio Interpreters have done And now the Lord God hath sent me and his Spirit Besides though the vulgar interpretation be retained it would be necessary to hold that the holy Spirit did send Christ otherwise than the Lord God from whom the holy Spirit is openly distinguished But here we speak of such a manner whereby Christ was the Embassador or Messenger of the holy Spirit as is proper to God In like manner neither is there any thing read of a Covenant-stroke between the holy Spirit and men to omit the other things that might be insisted upon As for the places which the Adversaries alledge wherein they think it is written that Christ pacified God toward us the Adversaries themselves are wont to understand them of the Father not of the holy Spirit concerning whom they produce no testimony neither are they wont to affirm that Christ doth make intercession for us to the holy Spirit but to God the Father whence * 1 John 2.2 John saith We have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous who is a Propitiation for our sins It remaineth therefore that not the whole Trinity but the Father only be understood by the name of God in this place of ours and so that one God and the Father be accounted for the same But what need many words the very similitude of this place with those which we have formerly discust wherein by the name of that One God the Father is understood or that one God is said to be the Father doth sufficiently teach every one who will not be obstinate against the truth that the same is here also to be understood Furthermore as in those places 1 Cor. 12. and Ephes 4. Paul would shew that there is the same God of all Christians not one God of these another of those so his purpose is here to shew that there is the same God of all men who accordingly is so far forth alike affected towards all as that he would have all saved and come to the knowledge of the truth and not some to be saved and others to perish Whence likewise he sent one Mediator unto men to strike the same League with all in his Name and confirm it with his Blood and so deliver all out of the bondage of sin and death having as it were given a price and testifie unto all the Soveraign Love of God towards them This place putteth us also in mind of that which is extant also in the same Apostle Rom 3.30 Rom. 3.30 where being about to shew that God will alike justifie by faith all men both Jews Gentiles he saith thus For there is One God who will justifie the Circumcision that is the circumcised or Jews by Faith and the Vncircumcision that is the uncircumcised or Gentiles by Faith Now he speaketh of that God of whom he had hitherto spoke many things and to whom he had ascribed the act of justifying whom he sundry times most openly distinguisheth from Christ amongst other things affirming of him that he appointed Christ * Ver. 25. a Propitiatory But that he is no other than the Father of Christ all seem to acknowledge Certainly that he is not the whole Trinity nor Christ himself nor the holy Spirit may be shewn partly by the same and partly by such like Reasons as we have used in the place immediately foregoing as the prudent Reader will by himself understand Wherefore we will no longer dwell herâ—upon especially because we would have this place to be only an accession of the former CHAP. VII Arg. 7 from Rom. 16.27 John 5.44 Jude 4. The seventh Argument drawn out of those places wherein by the name of the Only God or the Only wise God or the Only master God none but the Father of Jesus Christ is designed THough out of each of those places wherein after such a manner none but the Father of Jesus Christ is designed we might draw Arguments yet because the Arguments are alike among themselves we will reckon them for one Thus therefore we may conclude If by the Only God or the Only wise God or the Only Master God the Father only is some where understood and we will afterwards shew that he is so understood it is necessary that the Father only be that God namely Most High Wise Master For it is necessary simply to say the Only God or Only wise God or Only Master God is the Father and contrariwise the Father is the Only God or the Only wise God or Only master God Otherwise these could not be put for the Father as equivalent or would not signifie the Father only but some other also Take which of those Propositions you please and our Opinion will be established If the first it cannot be absolutely and simply said that the only God or only wise or only master God is the Father if the name of the only God c. is of larger extent than the Father or if any other besides the Father is the only God c. For neither is a word of a stricter signification predicated of a large one but contrariwise If you take the latter Proposition it hath bin already shewn in the Defence of the first Argument that it is all one as if you should say the Father only is God the Father only is the wise God or master God For when any one is said to be he to whom only somthing doth agree it is all one as if you should say that the same attribute agrees to him only who is first named as if I should say God is that Spirit who only existed from all Eternity it is all one as if I should say God only is that Spirit who existed from all Eternity and so in the rest The Confirmation and Defence of the Argument NOw that we may shew that the Father only is somewhere designed in such a manner we will begin from that place wherein mention is made of the only wise God as being very clear and most suitable to that which is to be proved And you shall find it at the end of the Epistle to the Romans where the Apostle saith * First place Rom. 16.27 To the only wise God through Jesus Christ be honour and glory for ever and ever That in this place by the name of the only wise God no other is understood but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ may easily be perceived For it is clear that Christ is not understood by that name since he is most openly distinguished from the only wise God and that as the middle cause of glory and honour from the
of the Article elsewhere pronounce the reason fetched from thence to be but weak It is therefore apparent that Christ is not there understood by the name of the only Master God Moreover neither can we understand by that name the whole Trinity which is held otherwise what need was there after it had been said that they do deny the whole Trinity that is the Father Son and holy Spirit to add by name that they do deny our Lord Jesus Christ As if that had not been sufficiently said when it was asserted that they deny the whole Trinity You will say that the whole Trinity was but confusedly and therefore obscurely signified by the appellation of the only Master God therefore something more distinct was to be added for explications sake We answer if that reason had any moment not only the mention of our Lord Jesus Christ but also the Father and holy Spirit should have been expresly made since they are no less indistinctly and confusedly if the Opinion of the Adversaries be true signified by the name of the only Master God then Christ To omit that if Christ is dinstinguished from that only Master God it is agreeable that Person should be adjoyned to another person and not when three persons have been confusedly taken one person and that of the number of those three be subjoyned But if some certain Person is to be understood who is there that dares affirm of the holy Spirit to omit now the question concerning his personality that he the Father being passed by is joyned with Christ as one that rules and set before him not only in the order of the words but also in dignity of title For the Scripture in very many places joyneth the Father as Supream Monarch with Christ without making mention of the holy Spirit and set him before Christ both in order of words and dignity of title but never passeth by the Father joyning the holy Spirit as Lord and Prince with Christ neither indeed doth it otherwise unless it be very seldom joyn the holy Spirit with Christ so far is it from setting him before Christ in order of words or dignity of title Not to say that the Father is expresly called Master the holy Spirit no where much less is the holy Spirit designed by the name of the only Master Yea neither is the name of God any where read to be attributed unto him Concerning which in its * Sect. 3. Chap. 1. place CHAP. VIII Arg. 8 from Dan. 7. Rev. 4.5 Argument the eighth drawn from the Visions in Daniel and Johns Revelation TO the places hitherto alledged two Visions are to be added very like to one another from whence it is apparent that there is but one person of the most high God Which presently giveth us to undâ—rstand that the most high God is no other besides the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Since he by the confession of all is a divine person and the others which are also believed to be persons of supream Divinity cannot be so unless he be a divine Person since he is the fountain and original of the rest and whatsoever Divinity is in them is derived from him Wherefore if there is but one Person of supream Divinity the Father only is a Person having supream Divinity Not to say that those very Visions which we will quote do if they be compared with other places of Scripture sufficiently intimate that the God which did in a manner expose himself to the view is none but the Father The first of those Visions is extant in Daniel chap. 7.9 c. where it is said that the Antient of dayes that is the God which existed from all eternity did sit that there came to him in the clouds of heaven as it were a Son of Man and received of him Authority Honour and a Kingdom The latter is extant Rev. 4. and chap. 5. where it is also described how the Almighty and Eternal God the Creator of all things sate upon the Throne and afterwards a Lamb came to him and received a book from him which no other was worthy to open and view a Book I say of the Sacred Decrees of God concerning things to come Now in both places that Most High and Eternal God which is understood by the sitter upon the Throne is represented as one Person and openly distinguished from Christ and that even then when divine Honour is given of said to be worthy to be given unto Christ For also in Daniel it is said that to him who came as a Son of man to the Antient of dayes was by him honour given and that all People Tribes and Tongues should serve him Where certainly it is not spoken of civil honour and service to be performed unto Christ but of religious and divine And in the * Chap. 5.13 Revelation John writeth I heard every Creature which is in Heaven and on Earth and under the Earth and which are in the Sea and all the things in them saying To him that sitteth on the Throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honour and glory and power for ever Likewise †Ibid. v. 8 c. before praises were given apart to the Lamb by the four living Creatures and the four and twenty Elders and also the Angels as they had been formerly ascribed apart to the Sitter upon the Throne chap. 4.8 c. But were there many Persons of the most high God and Christ one of them many also would have been exhibited as sitting upon the Throne nor would Christ have been so distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne or from the Eternal and Almighty God but that it would appear that he likewise doth sit upon the Throne and is that Eternal and Almighty God The Defence of the Argument NOw if any one say that the divine Essence only which is one in number was represented by the Image of him that sate upon the Throne and not some Person he is exceedingly mistaken For besides the very Image of one sitting upon a Throne is indeed the Image of a Person and that one Person the actions which are attributed to him that sitteth on the Throne do altogether demonstrate that he is an intelligent Suppositum that is a Person Since actions are commonly said in the Schools to agree unto none but Suppositums But those actions which are attributed to him that sitteth upon the Throne are suitable to none but an intelligent Nature Not to say that very many Testimonies of the Scripture concerning which we shall afterwards * Sect. 2. Chap. 18. have occasion to speak being compared with these sufficiently shew that the Father of Jesus Christ is understood by him that sitteth upon the Throne for they manifestly affirm that he gave to Christ Authority Honour and a Kingdom with all other things without any where hinting that some other gave all these things to Christ As for the distinction of Christ and him that
matter But we somewhat otherwise take the Gift of the holy Spirit in this Answer or at least stretch it wider than the Adversaries are commonly wont For so much as I have been able hitherto to find they are wont by the gift of the holy Spiâ—it to understand those admirable faculties implanted in men by divine Power as the faculty of prophesying or speaking with tongues and other whether visible as they are called or invisible or if you had rather more hidden effects of the holy Spirit in men But that Power of God of which the places of holy Scripture brought by us speak is not such a faculty or faculties rather but the efficient of them although it again flow from power naturall resident in God Wherefore if the gift of the holy Spirit should be taken so strictly this Answer could not be fitted to our Argument or the places by which we have confirmed it unless any one would perhaps say that in all those places in which the holy Spirit and Power of God are put as equipollent or the one is put instead of the other the name of the holy Spirit or divine Power is used for such a faculty divinely ingenerated in a man but no where for the divine Efficacy that effects such faculties in men which neither will the Adversaries easily say nor can it in any manner consist as partly the places themselves a little more diligently looked into will shew to every one partly will be understood by the things which follow Wherefore that that distinction may seem to make something against our Argument we will suppose that our Adversaries do make that divine Efficacy also flowing from the natural Power of God which is the cause of wonderful effects in men to be the gift of the holy Spirit and so to be understood by the name of the holy Spirit not properly but by a Metonymie only namely because it flows from the third Person of the Deity which properly may be called the holy Spirit That therefore we may refell this exception we say that it is in no wise to be granted that that Power and Efficacy of God which is in this place understood is only metonymically termed the holy Spirit and not rather properly as far indeed as propriety hath place here For if it should be called only metonymically the Spirit of God or the holy Spirit to wit because it comes from the holy Spirit properly so called there would be no cause why it should not be called likewise the Father or Son since it should no less come from the Father Son then from the holy Spirit even according to the adversaries opinion since it is some effect of the natural power of God which according to their opinion is common to the three persons of the Deity and is indeed first in the Father as the fountain of the Deity then by him as they would have it in the son and holy spirit who from him have their Essence Neither may you say that that inspiration is therefore called rather the holy spirit then the Father or son because it immediately proceeds from the holy spirit but from the Father and son onely mediately for what hindreth the Father or the son since they have the same power in themselves efficacious for all things which the person of the holy spirit hath to put it forth also by themselves as well as the person of the holy spirit as we see by the holy Scripture they have indeed put it forth Yea how can it be in this unity of Essence and all things pertaining to it that the Father and the son should not as immediately put forth their power as the holy spiâ—it For it is judged that the Father and son have so commuicated their virtue and power whence that efficacy or divine inspiration immediately comes to the holy Spirit as that nevertheless it remained the same in number in Father and Son and is put forth by the three persons by the same aâ—t altogether Whence therefore is that difference that the holy Spirit puts it forth immediately the Father and the Son mediately But if the Father and the Son put forth that force and efficacy alike immediately there is no cause wherefore that force should be termed more the holy Spirit than the Father or the Son if it be not the holy Spirit himself but be called so therefore only because it comes from him We repeat not that which we have said before that although the Father and Son should put it forth only mediately the holy Spirit immediately yet that could not â—e manifest by the thing it self without a peculiar divine revelation when nevertheless we see as soon as any thing hath been manifest to have been done by divine virtue or inspiration that forthwith is ascribed to the holy Spirit as the next cause But further the adversaries cannot use that answer in some of the places brought by us unless together they overthrow one of their chief Arguments whereby they endeavour to prove the holy Spirit to be a Suppositum and person to wit that which is drawn from the actions proper to persons or at least Suppositums For in the first place brought by us from Luke 1.34 where the holy Spirit is said to come upon Mary the Adversaries themselves seem to understand the person of the holy Spirit especially since the action of coming upon agrees not properly but to a person or at least to a Suppositum I omit that also in the place Ephes 3.20 cited by us the virtue or divine power is said to work in the Apostles Besides we shall see in the following Chapter a new Reason by which that Answer may be overthrown CHAP. VII The seventh Argument That Christ should be the Son of the holy Spirit if he were the most high God THe third Argument of this ranck which respects the defence of the next foregoing also may be this That if the holy Spirit were God or at least some person Christ also should be the son of the holy Spirit yea more rightly should be termed his son than the Fathers which thing overthrows it self For we have seen above that Sect. 2. Chap. 31. Christ therefore was first termed the Son of God because the holy Spirit came upon Mary his Mother and the power of the most high overshadowed her and so Christ was conceiâ—ed and begotten by the power of the holy Spirit But if the holy Spirit be a person who immediately put forth that force in the womb of the Virgin and produced Christ the holy Spirit is rather the Father of Christ than God the Father who performed that only by the intervening of another person Besides that sanctification John 10.34 35. which Christ himself bâ—ings as a cause why he called himself of right the son of God will agree also to the holy spirit especially by the adversaries doctrine For they Arg. 7 The holy Spirit should be the Father of Christ although they would have
all works to without as they speak to be common to the whole Trinity yet affirm that Creation agrees more properly to the Father Redemption to the Son Sanctification to the holy Spirit Lastly Paul also Rom. 1.4 as in like manner we have seen above saith Christ was constituted the Son of God in power according to the spirit of sanctification by the resurrection of the dead making the spirit of sanctification the proper and next cause of that filiation But if he be a person or comes from the person of the holy spirit the holy spirit will be the Father of Christ From which absurdity our opinion is far remote which makes not the holy spirit a person but the power and efficacy of God which however it concurred to the generation of the Son yet it concurred not as a Father but as that by which the Father begat But if the holy spirit be not a person neither is he the most high God as who is of necessity a person and indeed of this thing is here the question between us and the adversaries Whether the holy spirit be a divine person namely distinct from the Father Therefore let this be the third Argument of this rank CHAP. VIII The eighth Argument That the holy Spirit is given by God to men THe fourth Argument drawn from those things which are openly delivered in the holy Scripture concerning the holy Spirit shall be this That the holy Spirit is given to men by God and that men obtain receive and have him from God by prayers as numberless places of the holy Scriptures shew out of which it is sufficient to have looked into but these few Luke 11.13 John 7.39 and 14.16 17. Acts 5.32 and 15.8 Rom. 5.5 1 Cor. 6.19 Whence also the holy Spirit is teâ—med a Gift Acts 11.17 which compare with the precedent Yea in all those places wâ—ere mention is made of the gift of the holy Spirit For we shewed above Chap. 6. of this Section That there is not there the Genitive Case of the Efficient but of the Species otherwise both the gifts rather than the gift of the holy Spirit had been to be mentioned and by it had not â—een signified that men either have received or were to receive the holy Spirit which notwithstanding the holy Scriptures using that manner of speech would altogether shew but only some effect of it Now by these things it is evinced that the holy Spirit is not the most high God for he is given or bestowed by none upon any is obtained of none by prayers For first Every Gift and whatsoever is obtained by prayer is in the power of the giver But the most high God is not in the power of another otherwise by this very thing he should have some one above himself and moreover should not be most high Besides Arg. 8 The holy Spirit is given to men the gift is made also his to whom it is given so as that it may be possessed by him But may the most high God be so a mortal mans as that he may be possessed by him Moreover to what end should so great a gift be given to men What fruit would there be of it No other certainly can be imagined but that those effects may exist in a man which the holy Scriptures testify to be produced by the holy Spirit What then Is it needful to the end God should fill any man with such effects and gifts that he himself be given to him When the Father filleth any man with such gifts is it necessary that he himself should be given to him Why then may not the holy Spirit be able to do the same which tâ—e Father if in like manner he be most high and so the same God With the Father Lastly What cause is there why the holy Spirit should be obtained by us from the Father or Son if he himself be the most high God Why is he not given by himself if so be he may be given A larger Confirmation and Defence of this Argument TO these things I see not what they can answer who doubt not to affirm neither indeed can they otherwise as it shall hereafter be made manifest that the very person of the holy Spirit is given to men together with his effects Therefore others endeavour to decline the blow that they affirm that not the holy Spirit properly so called is given to men by God but its effect or rather various effects such as are those which 1 Cor. 12.8 c. are largly enough rehearsed and others common to all believers For these are by a Metonymie signified by the name of the holy spirit when he is said to be given unto men and so to be received and had of them For the efficient cause is put for the effect Although some who say there is a Metalepsis in the phrase seem to take the thing a little otherwise For neither do they seem to take the name of the holy Spirit it self for his effects or gifts but for that very divine person which they hold Nevertheless in the mean while they signifie that the giving passively taken is attributed to him only improperly because that which may properly agree to the effects may be also improperly attributed to the efficient cause it self seeing the effects of the holy Spirit may be properly given not he himself And indeed both these seem to themselves to deal more warily than those who simply confess that the holy Spirit himself is given yet in the mean time they do not perceive that both this hole by which they endeavour to get out is stopt and likewise although I should somewhat enlarge it to them yet are they no whit less held fast bound For first it is false that the effects only of the holy Spirit not the holy Spirit himself is given to men And further that when he is said to be given or received by us or had it is said but by a Metonymie or Metalepsis Besides although it was granted it must be no whit the less confessed that the holy Spirit is not the most high God As to the former we shall demonstrate it first by certain general reason and common to all those places of which we treat then by other more special and proper to certain places and lastly from certain hypotheses of the Adâ—ersaries As to the general reason If by the name of the holy Spirit in these places of which we treat is understood some divine and holy inspiration or some power flowing from God which is as it were breathed into men the holy Spirit is properly given that is not by a Metonymie only or by a Metalepsis is said to be given unto men to be received and had of them That the thing is so will be afterward understood For we shall first shew that such an inspiration is understood by the name of the holy spirit when he is said to be given to us to be received and had by us although
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
hath the divine Essence But whosoever is hypostatically the most high God he hath the divine Essence But if you will say that God taken essentially signifies the Essence it self which is neither Father nor Son nor holy Spirit or contrarily but something subsisting in those three First I shall not easily believe that the Adversaries who speak more accurately will admit that since the essence especially so taken as that it cannot be predicated of each of the divine persons signifies something abstract But God is concrete such indeed as is found in Substances and denotes an Essence together with an Existence or Subsistence But further whatever at last the Adversaries will determine of this matter we have already shewn that the name of God is the name of a person and since it is certain that the name of one God is so used in the holy Scriptures that it is directly predicated of the Father but the Adversaries would have it so that it should be predicated also of the Son and the holy Spirit it will be necessary to shew where the word God when there it is spoken of that one God denotes some such thing as neither is Father nor Son nor holy Spirit Lastly Such a signification will make nothing to the matter For we dispute of that God of whom the Adversaries speak when they say that the Father is God the Son is God the holy Spirit is God and not of that God who cannot after that manner be predicated of the divine persons And thus much concerning the first Argument CHAP. II. The second Argument Because each divine Person would be three in Persons ANother Reason by which it is shewed that the common Doctrine of the Trinity doth overthrow it self is that thence it follows that each person of the Deity is three in persons and so it is both one and not one together For so say the Adversaries that that one God is three in persons The same again as we have said affirm that each divine person is that one God Whence it follows that each divine Person is three in persons The Defence of the Argument Neither indeed may you say that the Major is particular For it is singular which here answers to an universal since nothing may be subsummed in the Minor which is not contained under that singular which is the subject of the Major and the middle term of the Argument or of which that singular may not be said But the conclusion is most false and as we have seen overthrows it self But if any will here use a distinction and say that the Major speaks of God essentially taken the Minor of God personally taken he shall be no whit advantaged For we have in the foregoing chapter refuted that distinction shewing each divine person to be God essentially taken because it hath the whole Essence of God Therefore in whichsoever manner you take the word God yet the Minor will be true even as I believe all the more learned Adversaries will also say But besides let us feign Arg. 2 Every divine Person would be three that an Essence which neither is Father nor Son nor holy Spirit may be rightly called God and that it is three in persons which manner of expression I remember not that I have read in the Adversaries yet if that whole Essence be in each person the Trinity will be in each person and so each person no less than that Essence will be three in persons For in what the Essence is in that is also that whole whatsoever is in that Essence and is predicated of it in the concrete especially if that thing be of it self and not by accident in the Essence as here altogether the Adversaries would have with whom not only the divine persons cannot be accidents of the divine Essence but there is no accident at all in God CHAP. III. The third Argument Because the divine Persons would in very deed be the same and diverse THe third Argument is That the Adversaries maintain that the Essence is in very deed the same with the Persons and that the Persons do really differ from among themselves For hence it follows that the same thing is at once both one thing and more than one differ really from it self and not differ For those things which are the same really with some one thing are really the same among themselves also But the three divine Persons really distinct among themselves are really the same with some one thing namely the divine Essence Therefore the three persons really distinct among themselves are really the same among themselves The Conclusion doth manifestly contradict it self The Proposition which they call the Major rests on a Principle known to all which they do commonly thus express Those things which are the same with one third thing that is with something wherewith they are conferred are also among themselves the same And there is the same force of the Axiome if you add both in the predicate and in the subject of that enunciation the word Really For those things which are really the same with one third are one and the same thing with the third For what other thing is it to be the same things really than to be one and the same thing But those things which are one and the same with one third it is necessary that they be the same thing also among themselves otherwise that third thing with which those things are the same thing should at once be both one thing and more things So some of the Adversaries themselves are wont to prove that the divine Attributes are not really distinguished among themselves The divine Attributes say they are really the same thing with the divine Essence Therefore they are really the same thing among themselves Because those things which are really the same with one third Arg. 3 The divine Persons would be indeed the same are also really the same among themselves But others * See Becan in the Treatise concerning God cap. 1. Sect 1. Part. 1. who see that their Opinion concerning the Trinity is by this means everted say that this Reason is not firm and that common Axiome Those things which are the same with one third are the same among themselves ought thus to be understood Those things which are the same with one third thing incommunicable are the same among themselves But it is manifest that the divine Essence is not incommunicable since it is the same in number in the three Persons really distinct among themselves Neither indeed can the Adversaries bring any other instance by which they may invalid that Axiome besides that thing of which is here the controversie and is refelled by this very Reason But that Major proposed both by us and others admits no instance or exception because the reason of it is altogether universal For unless it be admitted a plain contradiction follows as we have seen to wit that one and the same thing is at once
held to be infinite in number also not finite and that three only For between three things and one is not only a finite but also a very little difference You will say that this reason doth not evince that there are in God infinite or innumerable persons but that there may be or that nothing hinders but that there may be because the infiniteness of his Essence may permit it But besides that the Adversaries say that Esse and Posse are the same in God this is certain that whatever things may be naturally in God and do not depend on his free will they are in very deed also and necessarily in him For it is necessary that they conâ—â—â—n in them some perfection and that a natural one But no natural perfection which can agree to God can be absent from him since he cannot be of an imperfect nature or such as to whom any thing of perfection may be yet added Something pertaining to this exception shall be said in the following Sections where the manner of the Generation of the Son and Procession of the holy Spirit devised by the Adversaries shall be examined The Second Section In which is discoursed concerning the Second Person of the Supream Deity which is held by the Adversaries HAving refuted the Doctrine of the Trinity from those things which pertain generally to the three persons which are held to be in God it remains that we refel the same Doctrine from these things which particularly are asserted concerning certain persons And they are those things which properly do pertain to the second and third Person of the Trinity or also to the first in respect of these two And in this Section we shall indeed treat of the Second Person as in the beginning of this Book we promised In which place two Doctrines chiefly occur to be examined The one is concerning his Generation out of the Essence of the Father from all eternity the other concerning his Incarnation For either of them being taken away that Opinion commonly received concerning the second Person of the Trinity falls to the ground CHAP. I. Arg. 1 The Son of God should be the Son of himself The first Argument By which is refelled the Doctrine of the eternal Generation of the Son of God out of the Essence of the Father because the Son should be the Son of himself THat therefore we may come to that former Doctrine the Adversaries affirm and unless they would affirm it they could not defend the Doctrine of the Trinity that the Son was so begotten from eternity out of the Essence of the Father that nevertheless he hath the same Essence in number with the Father But that doctrine is full of many contradictions and absurdities For first it follows thence that the Son is the Son and Father of himself For out of whose Essence any one is generated he is his Son But if that opinion of the Adversaries concerning the Son of God be true it follows that the Son is begotten out of his own Essence wherefore the Son shall be his own Son and moreover the Father of himself which thing implies a manifest contradiction There is no need to demonstrate the Proposition of the Argument which they call the Major seeing the thing is manifest even with the Adversaries But the Assumption or Minor is thence manifest because if the Essence of the Father and Son be the same in number certainly if the Son be begotten out of the Essence of the Father he is bâ—gotten out of his own Essence Neither indeed can they say that that Essence was not yet the Essence of the Son because they hold there was no time in which the Son was not existent and had not the divine Essence otherwise he should not be the most high God You may also in this manner propound the same Argument None is generated of himself for then he should be before he is he should be so because he should be the principle and cause of his own generation he should not be so because he should be generated That of which any thing is generated and that which is generated of it are relatives But relatives cannot be in the same thing in the same respect and at the same time for they are opposites But the nature of opposites is such that they mutually destroy one another in the same subject at the same time and respect according to the same thing or the same part But now if the Son be begotten out of the Essence of the Father and the Essence of the Father and Son be the same in number the Son is begotten of himself because he is begotten also out of his own Essence But none can more properly be begotten of any one than when he is begotten out of his Essence The same absurdity is manifest also from the manner in which the antient Fathers partly the Architects partly the Patrons of the common opinion concerning the Trinity have affirmed that the Son of God is generated from eternity which also at this day very many acknowledge since they cannot devise another manner by any reason agreeable to their opinion For they say The Father hath begotten the Son by understanding himself as again they hold that the Father and the Son together have produced and breathed the holy Spirit by willing and loving Which thing may be thus explained after the Adversaries mind There are in God only two operative Principles or that have some power of working whose operations may be both immanent that is may remain in God himself and do not pass into any other subject and be employed about God himself to wit understanding and will For God both understands himself and wills and loves himself as the chiefest good Indeed the Omnipotence of God is also an operative Principle but its opperations are imployed only about other things not about God himself and are terminated to other subjects Now from these things then the Adversaries draw out the second and third Persons of the Divinity in this manner They say the understanding doth not understand but by the Image of that thing which it understands Wherefore since God hath understood himself from all eternity it is necessary that he conceived an Image of himself also from all eternity And this must be necessarily God himself For they say that both whatsoever is in God is God by reason of his greatest simplicity and that Image of the infinite God must be infinite But nothing is infinite besides God But they say that it is likewise necessary that that Image be a distinct person from him that produced it otherwise God should have produced himself Whence at last they conclude that that Image is the Son of God because it is both produced and like to the producer as his Image and the same in substance with him But further because God loves himself being known and that his Image which by understanding he produced and is again loved by it this very
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