is distinguished from and asserted the Author of those Operations and Graces there the Spirit cannot be those very Operations or Graces produced by them as those middle Virtues and Qualities must be See 1 Cor. 12.1 to 12. 2 Thess 2.13 1 Pet. 1.2 Gal. 5.22 Joh. c. 14. c. 15. c. 16. 1 Joh. 5.7 In which last the Holy Spirit is said to be in Heaven and consequently can be no middle Quality in us and yet in Heaven personally distinct from the Father and the Word which I take to be a good Argument from a good Authority in despite of Hereticks and defective Libraries to which I could add very many more were it necessary But the truth is the Texts alledged by Crellius do not all manifestly denote by the Spirit of God a mere created Virtue or Quality but may except some few to be by and by considered denote the essential Spirit of God supervening upon Men and creating in them the Spirits of Wisdom Vigour Prophecy Life c. And particularly where Elihu Job 33.4 saith the spirit of God hath made me he implies the prae-existence of that Spirit before himself and so not after effected in him being indeed a Virtue operant not operated but a precedent cause of the Operation it self And though according to the literal form of the Hebrew the evil Spirit that troubled Saul is called the Lords evil Spirit 1 Sam. 16.15 16 23. and 18.10 and 19.9 yet this may denote not a divine Operation surely which is not evil but a wicked infernal Personal Spirit the Lictor or Carnifex which God sent to punish him But if we keep to Crellius's Notion and let the evil Spirit here be a Quality effected in Saul it must be from some inspiring Agent which the Quality being evil cannot be God and so must be an evil Spirit of darkness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Sam. 16.14 sent from the Lord. And if so how can it be evinced that the Term evil Spirit does not denote the Person of the Evil Angel but only the effect of his infernal Operation And as to the Spirit of Wisdom with which God had filled some Persons for making the Priests habits c. Exod. 28.3 it appears not to be that effected Wisdom it self but the Divine Principle efficient thereof from Exod. 31.1 Where God says he had filled Bezaleel with the Spirit of God in Wisdom and Understanding c. where the filling Power i. e. the Spirit of God is distinguished from its effect i. e. that Wisdom and Understanding inspired by the Spirit of God into him And that Spirit of God producent of that Wisdom Exod. 31.3 might well be called the Spirit of that Wisdom which it produced as likewise Esa 11.2 So that in all these places I am verily perswaded that the Spirit of God signifies not a mere Divine Operation nor a mere Virtue divinely operated but a Principle and Substantial Power operant But that the Term Spirit of God may be sometimes put for the Grace effected thereby nay and that actions of Subjects are many times elegantly attributed to their Adjuncts as it may also happen to the effect for the efficient I shall not gainsay but such mere Metonymies do not presently exhibit a formal Prosopopoecia of those Adjuncts or Effects without other technical Schemes such as usually appear in Poetick or Dramatick fancies not in serious Prose plain Discourse didactick Institutions especially in the Simple Catechetical and Inartificial Rules of Faith delivered by Christ and his Apostles Besides with Poets and other Painters personated Qualities put on the feminine Veil Face and Sex but Christ describes his Holy Spirit * Joh. 14.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 16.13 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ita 15.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as a Masculine Person when he calls him Paraclete with a Personal Pronoun He to shew him as it were exactly both in Nature and Person Where as Bishop Pearson well observes on Joh. 16.13 14 c. upon the Article of the Holy Ghost those personal Attributes of the Spirit can be by no means applied to God the Father nor to the Apostles by any Metonymy whatsoever according to the Socinian pretention But further that supreme Spirit of God is only one which yet by manifold Operations creates many kinds of Virtues which therefore are plurally called Spirits 1 Cor. 12.10 1 Cor. 14.32 § 29. Now to break off this blow Crellius coins a double sort of Unity for the Holy Spirit One generical consisting in this that all such Spirits how numerous and various soever are yet of one Genus of Spirit as all individual Bodies and sorts of Bodies are included in one Genus of Body But such Unity is but merely notional and uncapable of individual Acts and Offices which yet are ascribed to the one Holy Spirit For when †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one and the self same Spirit is said to distribute all gifts according as he will it is manifest that many single and many sorts of Graces are given by the will of one only Spirit individually One. For individual and actually existent effects must be the products of individual and actually existing Cause or Causes not from mere Genus and Species which are not the subjects of Historical Relations For it cannot be said of Substance or Body in general that one and the self same Substance or Body produces all Physical effects in the material World nor of Man in Specie that one and the self same Man performs all the Acts and Offices that are done by all and every single Man Nor is Genus and Species capable of Personal Unities and Distinctions But now the Apostle distinguishes both the Operations and Effects of one and the self same Spirit both from themselves and that Spirit not only numerically but specifically and yet asserts them the products * 1 Cor. 12. of one and the self same Spirit one and the self same Lord one and the self same God shewing at least the Unity of the Spirit to be such and the same as is the Unity of the Lord and God which must be therefore most perfectly Individual But if each particular Divine Inspiration or it s produced Graces had been so many distinct Holy Spirits of God in themselves since there are such multitudes and multiplicities of them there was no reason why in the same breath he should assert them many and manifold and yet but one operant Spirit only which therefore must be distinct from them as the Cause from the effect as the Author from the product and as the Donor from the gift § 30. His second sort of Unity is that of Origine by which he pretends the Spirit to be called One because though infinitely manifold or divisible in it self yet it proceeds from one God and in this respect may be called One But neither will this last fit For the Terms one and the self same are too narrow and express a closer
Unity and cannot be applied to innumerable particulars that are only of one Original For all particular Men cannot be said to be one and the self same Man which performs all humane actions that are because all Men originally descend from one Father Adam Nor can all the Israelites be said to be one and the self same Israelite that destroyed the Canaanites because they all descended from one Father Israel Nor can all the Socinians be called one and the self same Socinian that wriggles himself into a thousand tricks and turnings because they all descended from one Doctor or Father Faustus for I will not meddle with Laelius But in truth if there had been a vast number of the Holy Spirits of God and these but mere Qualities to which Personal Names Pronouns and Predicates are so often attributed in the singular number of one Holy Spirit on the score of a mere generical or originary Unity why do we never plurally read of many such Holy Spirits of God so personated according to this invention with an open acknowledgment of their Plurality and sometimes of their Impersonality but only of one such Holy Spirit under such Personal Titles and Descriptions Or why had not the Article of the Holy Spirit in the Greeds been always taught and professed according to this pretty novel interpretation Since the Church ought to have been taught and dealt with plainly and not tricked into mazes or impieties by Figures Fetches and Sophistries more ambiguous and involved than the Devil's Oracles Nor will the seven Spirits of God in the Revelation help for they are waiting Ministers at the Throne of God not Qualities inspired into us and they are but seven neither a number far too small for the kinds or numbers of inspired Graces We see then that the Wit of Man cannot bear up against the Truth and Wisdom of God And herein our Country-man Biddle was so convinced of * Bid. of the Holy Spirit the errors of his Socinian Fathers that he even scouts them and roundly falls off to the Elder Enemies of the Holy Spirit with whom he passed for a created Person § 31. Hoping then that this may help to convince his Lordship of the Personality of the Holy Spirit of Divine Love I will a little for the sake of others endeavour also to prove the Holy Spirit not to be a created Person This will appear first from all those places in which he is said †Didym de Sp. S. l. 1. ex version Hieron Ipsum quoque Effusionis nomen increatam Spiritus Sancti substantiam probat Neque enim Deus cum Angelum mittit aut aliam creaturam effundam dicit de Angelo meo aut throno aut dominatione to be put or poured out upon Men which is no where spoken of Angels which yet are Spirits ministring to the Heirs of Salvation which argument convinced the Socinians of the Macedonian Error But a Divine Virtue though in its Energies it recede not from God yet because of those influences is it self said and in a manner seems to be poured out upon and communicated to divinely-inspired Souls into which a connatural congenial or consimilar Virtue is thereby infused So the Spirit of God poured out upon all Flesh Joel 2.28 29. is a Virtue substantially intrinsical to the Deity which yet St. Peter testifies to be the same Spirit which acted the Apostles at the Feast of Pentecost Act. 2. and which is celebrated with Personal Titles Pronouns and Attributes Joh. c. 14. c. 15. c. 16. And herein also is asserted his omnipresence as also by the Apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon ch 1. v. 7. The Spirit of the Lord filleth the World and by the Psalmist Psal 139.7 Whither shall I go then from thy Spirit or whither shall I flee from thy presence Here the Spirit of God cannot be a middle Virtue inspiring David since this he had no reason to dread or shun and yet all Men by sinning especially by knavery and doubling shun and fly from this Grace too easily Nor are the acts of Divine Vengeance ever called the Spirit of God in the Patient Neither is this Spirit of God here a created Spirit whose Presence cannot be escaped since the Psalmist here only speaks of God's Presence and Power See onward to v. 17. And further * Didym de Sp. S. l. 1. Demonstratur Angelica Virtus ab hoc prorfus aliena Angelus quippe qui aderat verbi gratia Apostolo in Asia oranti non poterat simul eodem tempore adesse aliis in caeteris partibus constitutis Vid. praeced seq praed Athanas omnino Disp con Arium though one created Angel can follow one single or more sociated Men wheresoever we can suppose one way for their flight yet one single Angel cannot at once follow or be present to all Men in all their Dispersions which omnipresence however all Men ought to own in the Spirit of God Now if any Man shall urge that the Words thy Spirit are put for thee as my Spirit for I Gen. 6.3 The same Psalmist's same words in a full literal intention Psal 51.11 Cast me not away from thy presence and take not thy Holy Spirit from me must interpret our present Text without a circumlocution as many others will that of Gen. 6.3 And yet admitting a Figure or Trope it represents the Spirit of God as God which is what I contend for as being internal to the Divine Mind Esa 40.13 14. With this Omnipresence he hath also a Divine Empire by which he distributes all the Divine Graces to whom and as he will every where 1 Cor. 12.11 All which put together doth more fully set forth the Singularity Omnipresence and Supremacy of the Holy Spirit than those mere forms of Speech which as they are attributed to the Holy Spirit in the Kingdom of God are also attributed to the Prince of Devils in the Kingdom of Darkness which is Biddle's grand Evasion from our Arguments taken from such sayings that the Spirit dwells in us teaches us c. for these and such like expressions are uttered of the Devil that he deceives the World blinds the Souls of Unbelievers Captivates Impenitents takes away the Word out of the hearts of the Hearers became a lying Spirit in Four Hundred Prophets c. which sayings do not indeed denote the Devil 's Personal Omnipresence to all at once but only that he thus reacheth Men by his Ministers which Biddle would perswade us of the Holy Spirit also but they had certainly denoted a terrestrial Omnipresence if it had been added that there is but one only Evil Spirit and that he alone by his own Personal Operations had thus acted on all wicked Men and that no mortal Man can avoid his Presence and Power none of which is expressed of the Devil and yet if it had his exclusion out of Heaven is asserted also where yet the Holy Spirit of God dwells and shines in essential Glory not to
the Spirit of God does also illustrate the potential Notion for the more pure and unmixt any Powers are the more quick and spirituous are their Faculties and Operations from which invigorating influences of God's Holy Spirit we are not only sanctified but made fervent in Spirit Rom. 12.11 and strengthened in our inner Man Eph. 3.16 and armed against the Powers of Evil Eph. 6.17 to mortifie the deeds of the Body Rom. 8.13 and to abound in hope through the Power of the Holy Ghost Rom. 15.13 This is the mighty Spirit that acted Elias this was that Spirit that made Jeremy a defenced City and an Iron Pillar and brazen Walls against the whole Land c. Jer. 1.18 19. and supported all the Prophets Apostles and Martyrs against all the Powers of Hell and this World And yet by what influence but that of the Divine Holiness and Love by which they were not only inspired but inspirited with such holy ardours and rapturous affections of God as made them to despise and triumph over all Oppositions and to tread upon the Adder and Scorpion and all the Power of the Enemy Now if this be nor true Doctrine I desire his Lordship to refute it if it be let him forbear to flout the Ancients that taught the Holy Spirit to be Love § 25. But as I have here given a consuetudinary and canonical account of this Title from common and sacred Language so will I endeavour to add an Etymological The Word Spirit then in all our learned Languages is derived from Verbs of breathing or blowing and so primitively signifies a Breath or Gale of Air which seeming to common apprehensions the most subtil agil and penetrating of all sublunary Elements its name was therefore for want of another more suitable applied to immaterial Substances Principles and active Powers especially plastick and animant by way of eminent distinction from gross matter and passive dulness Now such immaterial and subtil Powers exert their Operation by at least a seeming spiration of influences And the moral Principles of the Mind proceed internally from it * Athan. ad Serap Sp. S. non esse Creatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it were by an odorous form of Spiration grateful unto it self and God the Author when good and inspired from above for a sweet savour And such a Notion the Apochryphal Wisdom of Solomon gives us of the Divine Wisdom as including in it the †Ch. 7. v. 25. Spirit of God For it is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the breath of the Power of God and an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Efflux of the glory of the Almighty And Job's Friend Elihu seems to have taken the Spirit of God as a Virtue or Principle in the Deity that gave him and all Men life by a spirant Operation the Spirit of God hath made me and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Breath of the Almighty hath given me life Job 33.4 referring to the Tradition thus recorded in Gen. 2.7 that God breathed into Man the Breath of Life of which * Symbol Constantinop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we own his Spirit to be Lord and Giver But as to sanctifical Operations on created Spirits and Minds it is universally acknowledged that the Spirit of God exerts them by a Divine manner of Inspiration So that I conclude that Etymologically the Spirit of God is so called as being derived from the Father and the Son by an unconceivable manner of internal Spiration of Love essential and as inspiring into all Beings their proper Virtues and Powers by an invigorating stream of influences especially in the sanctifying Operations on our Minds by which new and holy Spirits are created in us § 26. Now lest this Spirit of Love and Holiness in the Divine Nature should be reputed Personal from its Personal Descriptions in Holy Writ some have fansied it to be a mere unsubstantial and impersonal Quality in God the Father only personated only by Trope and Figure But against these it is to be noted that he is the Spirit of the Son also and so for that cause even upon this Hypothesis the Son must be God with the Father But further there being no possible imperfection in the Deity it can admit of no unsubstantial Qualities for as they are imperfections in themselves so do they suppose an imperfection in their Subjects whether adorned or vilified by them If therefore there be a permanent Spirit of Holiness in the Deity it must be perfect and for that cause substantial And this Substantiality is the ground of that Personality which we attribute to the Father Son and Holy Spirit according to the order and measure of our Conceptions without the help of any Socinian Metonymy or Prosopopaeia according to †Aug. in Ev. Joh. c. 17. Tract 105. Spiritus est Patris Filii tanquam charitas substantialis consubstantialis amborum the Catholick and Primitive Theology asserted by St. Austin § 27. But to evade this Truth there were * See Didym de Sp. S. Hereticks of old as well as of late that fell in with the Rabbins and made the Holy Spirit a mere Operation or an effluent Virtue not in God but without and from the Deity terminated in us which †See his Book de Spirit Sancto Crellius every where calls a middle quality between the essential Power of God and its more manifest effects to which middle quality he much like his Master Socinus says Personal Attributes are given by a Metonymy or a Prosopopaeia arising sometimes from a Metonymy of the effect which is this Spirit for the efficient which is God whose Person this effected Spirit or middle Quality figuratively bears or from a Metonymy of the Adjunct which is this effected Spirit for its divinely inspired Subject whose Person also this Spirit in like manner sometimes doth sustain For the Confirmation whereof he quotes Exod. 31.3 and 35.31 comparing therewith Exod. 28.3 and 35.35 Numb 24.2 and 27.18 Deut. 34.9 Judg. 3.10 and 6.34 and 11.29 and 13 25. and 14.19 and 15.14 1 Sam. 10.6 10. and 11.6 and 16.13 14 c. and 18.10 and 19.9 20 23. 1 King 18.12 and 22.24 1 Chr. 12.18 and 28.12 2 Chron. 15. 1. Job 33.4 Psal 51.11 12. Esa 44.3 and 63.11 proofs enough one would think in all Conscience § 28. But supposing that all these Texts had denoted a Principle created or instilled into us yet here is no Personal Representation thereof whereas it was to be proved that the Spirit of God in those Texts that Characterize him Personally is a mere created Quality in us and that it is no where otherwise never any virtue essential to God For we need not deny that the Holy Spirits and Principles inspired by and from the Substantial Spirit of God into us may sometimes derive the Name as well as the Nature of that their Original and the most Catholick Divines concede it but where the Original Spirit of God
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Principium commonly denote And I call them so only in respect of the creatures not absolutely in respect of their own subsistence as if they were three unprincipiated Principles for so there is but one viz. God the Father So I agree with the Doctrine of the Fathers as they deny three Principles nonprinoipiate for otherwise three such Principles would be three Gods Principles and so are not really distinct from them or simply describe the whole Divine Essence and so no single one of these Principles or else are merely negative and so signifie no positive Principle or Hypostasis in the Deity or else are extrinsecal and relative only to exteriour productions and so touch nothing Eternal or Inessential to the Divine Nature that I mention not how that Eternal Generation and Procession can be conceived of no Attributes distinct from the Trinity the Father Logos and Holy Spirit There is therefore in the Deity no positive distinct intelligible Power Virtue or Principle but Father Son and Holy Spirit Mind Reason and the Holy Spirit of Love by the Revelation of whose Nature Subsistence Personality Counsels and Operations the Christian Theology and Religion is most pure desecate sublime full and absolute as became the last revelations by the Son of God but had not been so had it wanted any of these received Articles and Theories concerning the adorable and ever blessed Trinity § 38. But whereas there are who professing the Catholick Faith themselves would yet open the Church Doors to contrary Opinions by making the Gospel Fathers and Religious Councils naked unto shame and contriving to abrogate the Sanctions of our Faith I pathetically beg them to consider deeply what I have said hereupon especially in the four last Sections and further remark that since by the Grace of the Holy Spirit and the Mediation of the Son we have an access unto union with God the Father the first Parent and Principle of all that dwells in Light otherwise altogether inaccessible it was necessary that our Rule of Faith if justly perfect should shew us the way of this ascent and particularly what that Logos and Holy Spirit properly and essentially are by whom we arise into this Communion with the Father Else such a defect had remained in these necessary Notices as had rendred our Faith and Theology blind and uncertain to the inevitable danger of a fundamental Impiety For Men hearing of the Son and Holy Spirit must have been curious for a Notion of them and must have taken them for create or uncreate Now if being uncreate Men had taken them for created as we see many will against express Revelation and universal Tradition to the contrary Men would have prosaned them and their Deity the sault whereof had been imputable to God had he not yielded us the necessary Revelation of their Order and Godhead And so likewise had they been created God would not have left us without sufficient notice thereof lest we mistaking should have adored them for Divine as the whole Church hath done and does But certainly he could not so much so fully so often so perpetually have asserted their Godhead and Personality had they been merely created or impersonal To have revealed nothing of them had been to have shewed no way to Communion and Knowledgge of God the Father and to have said somewhat of them but not enough to fix a Faith and Notion of their Essence and Character had been a Snare But since what is now taught is both necessary and perfect I think it a damnable Sin not to keep such a Divine Depositum perfect whole and undefiled as it was delivered unto us but by false indulgences of Latitude to betray it up to profanation corruption contempt and infidelity § 39. And here having made a sufficient Apology for those Theories of the Fathers against his Lordship's charge of Novelty and Humane Fancy I could heartily have begg'd a Nunc Dimittis and have ended in these pleasing Contemplations But our Life is a Warfare and his Lordship 's further process requires my further attendance But many saith his Lordship have thought that the Term Son did not at all belong to the * He means to any one of them blessed Three but only to our Saviour as he was the Messias the Jews having had this Notion of the Messias that as he was to be the King of Israel so he was to be the Son of God We find Nathanael addressed himself thus to him and when the High Priest adjured our Saviour he knits these two together art thou the Christ the Son of the most High God Which shews that they did esteem those two as one and the same thing This account of the Jews notion his Lordship seems to have taken out of Dr. Hammond's Annotation on Psal 2. v. 7. Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee For these are that great and good Doctor 's words the learned Jews themselves resolved that he was to be the Son of God and that in an eminent manner So the High Priest Matth. 26.63 Tell us whether thou art the Christ the Son of God and Joh. 1.49 Rabbi thou art the Son of God thou art the King of Israel c. Which Text therefore the Doctor prophetically interprets of his resurrection and exaltation according to good New Testament Authorities But he that said this never taught his Lordship that the term Son did not at all belong to any of the blessed Three but expresly in the same Annotation proves from Rom. 1.4 that he was declared to be the Eternal Son of God the second of the blessed three by his Resurrection from the dead And it is not fair play in his Lordship to cite a place and conceal the Author that so God's truth and his doubling might not be discerned But since we are upon a critical disquisition of these terms Messias and Son of God we will consider first what the real truth is and secondly the opinion of the Jews First then it is certain that God's constitution of any Person in a State of favour gives the favourite the Title of a Son by virtue thereof Thus God calls the People of Israel his Son and his First Born Exod. 4. 22. and so literally Hosea 11.1 and many other places set God as their Father because God had admitted them as the seed of Abraham into his especial Covenant as we are also Sons of God by the adoption of the New Covenant And hence exaltation by God to an high Authority has founded a title of Gods and Sons of God unto Men and Angels And consequently the various signal Exaltations of Christ in his Humane Nature above all others make him in those respects justly to be styled the Son of God If then he had been only exalted into the heavenly Throne without any antecedent Death or Resurrection this alone would have founded a Filial Title much more when in Order thereto he was born again our of a
especially on this Hypothesis That the Sun is a Globe of fire as to the Eye it seems to be On this notion I think it proper even without a Trope But why will not his Lordship allow me a Trope if the truth needs it in accensum who requires it for himself in Lumen For without a Trope Lumen doth not signifie either Candle or Fire and if all the words must be taken in their Primitive intention then his Lordship loses his pretence that this place speaks of two Candles or two Fires But had it here really signified Fire yet it does not hence follow that it speaks of two separate Fires since St. Hilary has found ignem in igne and lumen de lumine accensum in the same Fire Which answer I shall give also if any Man shall object that * Cit. Bullo Defens Fid. Nicen. p. 368. of Hippolytus tanquam lumen de lumine aquam ex fonte aut radium à Sole where the lumen de lumine and the radius à Sole being both distinctly set with another Simile interposed I take lumen de lumine in general to respect all sorts of luminaries whatsoever which send forth a coaeval Ray or sort of flaming Light from their Original Substance without any diminution So much for his Lordship and Tertullian § 8. But there are two passages offered to my consideration that seem much more apposite to his Lordship's purpose one out of Justin Martyr the other out of Tatian his Scholar which I will exactly consider Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho had asserted that in the beginning before all Creatures God begat out of himself a certain rational Virtue or Power which is also called the Glory of the Lord by the Holy Spirit and sometimes Son and sometimes Wisdom and sometimes Angel and sometimes God and sometimes Lord and Word sometimes he calls himself the Captain of an Host when he appeared in the shape of a Man to Joshua the Son of Nun. For that he is capable of all appellations in that he ministreth to his Father's will and for that he was begotten by * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Interpreter leaves out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the consequents require the Will of the Father after the manner we see a word produced in us For when we utter a word we beget it not by abscission or separation so as to lessen the internal word or reason by this utterance And as we see in Fire that out of one Fire another is kindled without the diminution of the first Fire from whence it was kindled this remaining the same And that which is kindled of it also †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appears to subsist not having lessened that from whence it was lighted Now sometime after the Father shews the reason to those Jews why he so often repeated this truth because saith he I know that there are some willing to prevent me and pretend that the Power that appeared from the Father of all things unto Moses or to Abraham or Jacob is called Angel in its progression unto Men because by it the purposes of the Father are declared unto Men. And that it is called Glory because it presents it self in an incomprehensible appearance and Man because it appears in such humane shapes as the Father will and they call it Word because it brings the speeches of God unto Men. They say also that this Power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father after the same manner as they say the light of the Sun upon the Earth is not to be cut off or separated from the Sun which is in Heaven but when he sets the Light is carried off with it So say they the Father when he pleaseth causeth his Power †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to leap forth to fly abroad and when he listeth retracts it again to himself After this manner also they teach that he makes Angels But now that there are Angels always abiding and not resolved again into that of which they were made hath been already demonstrated and withal * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 videntur vitiosa it hath been abundantly shewn so of this power which the Prophetick Word calls God and Angel and that he is not as the Light of the Sun only †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nominally numbred but really is another in number I have shewn by exquisite reason in my former discourses in short when I said this virtue was begotten by his Power and Will not by Resection as if the Essence of the Father were divided asunder as all other things divided and parted are not the same they were before the division And for example's sake I took those instances as we see from one Fire other Fires kindled that Fire not being lessened from whence many may be kindled but remaining the same Thus Justin. By which it appears that these kind of Pro-Sabellians used the Simile of the Sun and its light to prove the Logos non-subsistent no Person Son or Angel of the Father and therefore Justin rejected that Simile by which the Sun and its Light and God and his Logos are only nominally distinguished and took the Simile of Fires kindled from Fires in which there is none of that diminution which those Adversaries object to our Doctrine of the consubstantiality and both Fires subsist really after one is kindled from the other in a true diversity If then Justin threw off the Simile of the Sun as favouring the Heresie after called Sabellian and took that of Fires kindled from other Fires as Tatian also uses the Simile of Torches lighted from Torches is it not probable that our Light of Light came from these Similes used by Justin and Tatian which are neither Sabellian as putting two subsistent subjects nor Arian as illustrating the Homoousion In answer to this I need be but very short that Justin doth not speak of the Eternal Internal and Substantial Emanation of the Logos but of his first progression at the Will of his Father to the Creation of all things that this progression was a kind of generation or nativity was the unanimous conception I think of all the Philosophick Ancients because as here below nativity produceth the Child into light and action that was before wrapp'd up secretly in the Womb quiescent and non-apparent so the Logos by this emission from the Father to the Creation of all things did in a manner come out of the Father's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to use the words of Theophilus Antiochenus to the publick sight apprehension or perception of the intellectual World created by him and acted also providentially in every part of the Creation Nor was this form of Theology ever condemned in the Church though it was not made or esteemed matter of necessary Faith or Doctrine Now the Nature of this Theory was that * Athenag Leg. Edit Oxon. p. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whom yet he there calls
cum Tryph. Clem. Alex. Protrep Tertull Praesc adv Jud. con Marcion l. 2. con Prax. Novatian de Trinit Euseb Praep. Ev. l. 7. c. 15. con Marcell l. 2.17 Eccl. Hist l. 1. c. 2. Panegyrista Paulini ap Eus Eccl. Hist l. 10. Constant ad Sanctor Caetum ap Euseb c. 9. Pastor Hermae l. 3. Similit 9. Athenag Legat. Theoph. ad Autolyc Orig. con Cels l. 1. l. 2. l. 3. l. 4. l. 5. l. 6. l. 7. de Princip l. c. 2. Cypr. de Idol Vanit Basil con Eunom l. 5. Serm. in Princip Naz. de sacr Pasch Prudent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de Roman Martyr in Apotheof Greg. Thaumat ad Origen Athan. ubique Pseudo-Ambros de fide con Arian Aug. con 5. Haeres in Evan. Joh. c. 1. Tract 1 2. de Tempor Ser. 190. infinities plura reperies ejusdem generis apud omnes Primitive as well as suceeding Ages to be sealed with their Blood and Sufferings and was not a mere upstart project to supply the former Tritheism taught in the more ancient Church Now if according to the common and universal Senses and Notions of all Men the Mind is the Parent and Original of all actual Reason in it then if the Divine Reason be the truest and most Essential Reason the Parent Principle thereof must be the truest and most Essential Mind which Principle of this Reason the Scripture having owned Paternal it follows that God the Father is an Eternal Mind having a coessential Reason for its coessential Issue the perfect Image and Character of its Parent § 22. In the next place let us see whether the Character of the Holy Spirit agrees well to the Substantial Love of God according to the Doctrine of the traduced Ancients Let it then be noted that that Mind in which a vital and consubstantial reason perfectly subsists doth by that reason in one clear intuitive luminous and Archetypal Idea discern all possible Forms Essences Habitudes Powers and Reasons of things and therefore very particularly all the distinctive forms and differences of good and evil From whence there must proceed in such a Mind and Reason a vital and essential Spirit which we in our Language would perhaps call a Principle of Holiness to wit an essential Love of all the Forms and Reasons of Good and therein an essential aversation of all the kinds and degrees of Evil this being but one and the same Spirit having different aspects on different objects Now without such a Spirit of Love and Holiness no being can be perfectly good or happy since perfect goodness as well as happiness consists essentially in love and purity Now the goodness of things must be the proper object of such Love and must be discerned by that actual Reason that contains in it the Idea's of all things possible Whence this Love is as essential to the Deity as Reason and thereupon the Apostle faith †1 Joh. 4.8 that God is Love the suum of which truth is nobly celebrated * Const ad Sanct. Caet ap Eus c. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the great Constantine as the Doctrine which he had been taught by the Christian Fathers herein according with the perpetual Theology of God's People who ever acknowledge this Holiness of the Divine Wisdom and Spirit from its constant indication For * Sap. Sal. 1 3 4 5. froward thoughts separate from God and into a malicious Soul Wisdom will not enter nor dwell in the Body that is subject unto sin For the Holy Spirit of Discipline will fly deceit and remove from thoughts that are without understanding and will not abide when unrighteousness cometh in for Wisdom is a loving Spirit c. § 23. But here again a fresh difficulty arises from the homonymy of terms For St. Paul calling our Lord †1 Cor. 1.24 the Wisdom of God the generality and the exactest of the Fathers follow him in that style and make the Wisdom and Logos to be the same subsistence distinct from the Holy Spirit Some of the Ancients as great as any speaking distinctly * Iren. Theoph. Antiochen p. 81. c. 108.114 distinguish the Logos from the Sophia and make the Sophia the Person of the Holy Spirit and yet again at other times †Theoph. Antioch p. 81. confound the Logos and Sophia for the same second Person the Son * Theoph. p. 81. Tertull whom also they call the Spirit of God the Father Wherefore 't is necessary to our Theory that we remove this Cloud And here we are to distinguish Wisdom into speculative and practical for which distinction there is apparent authority in the Scripture and ground in our own inner Experience Now the Reason of any Spiritual Nature is its formal proper speculative Wisdom but an Holy Spirit and temper of Mind is the practical In this latter sense the forequoted place out of the Apochryphal Wisdom calls the loving Spirit of God or his Spirit of Discipline Wisdom but †Sap. Sal. 7.22 c. elsewhere the same Author Preaches that in Wisdom which is the Artificer of all things there is a Spirit which among other attributes is Holy and loves the thing that is good and is Almighty where the in-existence of the Holy Spirit of Love in that Wisdom the Artificer of all things puts a distinction between this Spirit and Wisdom and so hereby Wisdom in this place as well as by its Character must be the Archetypal Logos or Architectonick Reason of God the Father And hence these ambiguous Fathers seem to have copied their Theories and Language sometimes calling the Logos Wisdom to wit the intuitive sometime the Holy Spirit as the practical Wisdom of God the Father And so there are learned Men that ground the alledged homonymy of the Word Spirit in some forms of Scripture But I that think the Scripture as a Rule for Canonick Theology thinking it unsafe to fix any exorbitant Senses on the Terms expressive of the Trinity without absolute necessity am apt to think those Fathers called the Logos the Spirit of God sometimes through some Scriptures by them so mistaken or appearing in that sense to them under a loose and general Notion that whatsoever issues from the Essence of God the Father so issues by a Spiritual Efflux or else is of a Spiritual Substance as the Father is and so as Tertullian calls the Logos Spirit of Spirit and God of God But since all these Fathers expresly own a Trinity of Persons the third of which is signally characterized by the appropriate Title of Holy Spirit there can be no doubt of the consonancy of their Faith to the Catholick Doctrine and to this Theory of it in the Holy Spirit which to serve his Lordship I am here to illustrate § 24. These Bars being thus removed we shall proceed to examine on what ground this Substantial Love of God is called by the name of Spirit Now this
word though so very variously significant is however used either absolutely as when it 's said God is a Spirit or Angels are ministring Spirits a Spirit hath not Flesh and Blood and other sayings of the same formal intention in the Word or else relatively and attributively to something whose Spirit it is or is called Of this latter form is the characteristick Title of the Spirit of God or Holy Spirit of God and Christ c. And the Word Spirit thus relatively attributed to Beings simply immaterial denotes an active Principle Power or Virtue in them and this either Potential or Moral Thus it is mentioned as a potential Principle Josh 5.1 Esa 19.3 Luk. 1.17 as a moral Principle Ezr. 1.1 5. Psal 32.2 and 34.18 and 51.10 17. Esa 57.15 Ezek. 11.19 and 36.26 Matth. 5.3 Luke 9.55 Joh. 4.23 24. Rom. 8.15 16. 1 Cor. 4.21 Eph. 4.23 1 pet 3 4. and so in infinite other places So likewise the Spirit of God seems oft to denote in him what we commonly call a Principle acting potentially but chiefly and most especially in the sanctifical Operations of all which the Holy Spirit is the proper and immediate Spring and Original Hence the Works of the Creation as attributed to the Spirit of God Job 26.13 and 33.4 where I see no reason to depart from the ordinary and canonical and characteristick sense of the Term. From which places in my opinion we may best interpret Gen. 1.2 where it is said that the Spirit of God moved or hovered upon the face of the Waters In this potential way of Operation the Spirit of God acted the Prophets Judges and other Worthies of Israel in their mighty Words and Works that exceeded the Power of Humane Nature as may be seen in very many Texts of Scripture Thus the Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin Mary and the Power of the most High did over-shadow her Luke 1.35 For I here preferr the Catholick Interpretation of the Creeds which teach this to be the supervention of the Holy Spirit from other like Texts and Universal Tradition before the sense of * Ad Autolyc p. 81. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Theophilus Antiochenus who applies them to the Logos as speaking by the Prophets though the †Symb. Constantinop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catholick Church hath determined the Divine Spirit that spake by them to be the third Person Which Spirit acting Elias was feared by Obadiah that it would carry the Prophet out of all discovery 1 King 18.12 And according to this potential notation we call all subtle and vigorous Powers in Nature Spirits as also the courage and activity of any animal I know the Rabbins Crellius and others make this potential Spirit to be a created effluent Virtue but the permanency of it in God with its other properties and descriptions every where exhibited in the Scriptures do evince the contrary reason it self also witnessing that God never was without an omnipotent Spirit of Holiness which may very properly consist in the essential Love of God than which what can be more vigorous active influential and productive We see how strong the Spring and Spirit of an ardent love is toward the most mighty adventures and how infinitely more must it be in the Divine Nature from which it gave Life and Spirit to universal Nature and blessed every thing according to its order and cherishes all things by a lively and penetrating Providence and drives on all the Motions and Springs of the whole Creation by a perpetual and constant impulse and at times exerted miraculous Operations to the manifestation of its transcendent Power Goodness and Holiness and thereby to the conversion of Men to the Living God But this Principle if I may so call it without offence as I design without error more exhibits its own appropriate celebrated Character of Holy to our Conceptions by actual Inspirations of Sanctity into all sanctified Minds And such is the sense of the Catholick Antiquity For being * Orig. Hom. 11. in Numer 18. de Princip l. 1. c. 8. Greg. Thaumat in Symbol Revelat. Athan con Arium Disp Dial. de Trinit Naz. de Heron Philosoph Basil con Eunom l. 5. de Sp. S. Episcop Philosopho in Concil Nicen. ap Socr. Eccl. Hist l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pseudo-Chrys in Matth. 7. Hom. 18. Aug. de verb. Dom. in Evan. Matth. c. 12. Ser. 11. Faustin ad Flaccil Imperat. de fide con Arian original Holiness it self it 's most connatural and consimilar Operation is the sanctifical for which cause it is signally called Holy as the substantial immediate Principle of all communications of Sanctity and Goodness to the Creatures And as a †Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christiani 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good and holy temper in the Soul of Man is called a good and holy Spirit which therefore acts accordingly and gives us thereby a Theory of the Holy Spirit of God So the essential Spirit of Holiness in God is if my infirmities may be permitted to speak my sense as it were the very temper of his Nature called often also his Heart and Soul under the same connotation which the impious Man is said to grieve Esa 63.10 Eph. 4.30 as being an internal and essential Principle offended by those Wits to which it bears an eternal and unalterable aversion which is also very strong and potential being †Ambr. de dignit hum condit c. 2. Greg. Nyssen de homin Opisic c. 5. Aug. in Ep. Job Tract 6. in Evang. Job c. 2. Tract 9. in c. 17. Tract 105. expresly called by some Fathers the substantial Love of God from the Authority of St. John From this property of Love Goodness and Holiness it is called by St. Paul the Spirit of Holiness Rom. 1.4 for I see no reason to recede from the canonical propriety and by Nehemias and David the good Spirit of God teaching and leading Men unto righteousness Neh. 19.20 Psal 143.10 And the Psalmist describes the Holy Spirit of God and a right Spirit in Man as consimilar Principles of moral Goodness the one as the temper of the Divine the other as the Temper of an Humane Mind Psal 51.10 11. which being by Sanctification likened to the Spirit of God is said to communicate of the Holy Spirit 2 Cor. 13.13 Philip. 2.1 whereby we are said to be one Spirit with God 1 Cor. 6.7 by being herein transformed into his Image 2 Cor. 3.18 and purified in obeying the Truth by the Spirit unto an unfeigned love of the Brethren 1 Pet. 1.22 And when St. Paul asserts the fruits of the Spirit to be Love Joy Peace Long-suffering Gentleness Goodness Faith Meekness Charity Righteousness and Truth Gal. 5.22 Eph. 5.9 by the Fruit he shews the nature of the Root and Principle viz. that the Spirit of God is by Nature Loving Good and Holy and by Grace endearing and sanctifical And this Character of
perfection of Christian Theology that our Scriptures Faith and Tradition should Characterize the second and third Hypostasis as personally as the first for otherwise a Personal Distinction and Notion of one and Impersonal Distinctions of the others or either of them must have set them as unequal specifically different and heterogeneous in the same Deity and consequently not consubstantial or co-essential for that the Impersonals must have been in nature inseriour to the Personal which would make a most corrupt mixture a most praerupt and monstrous anomaly in the Godhead § 35. But perhaps some Men with whom no diversities are taken for true but the separate gross and material may censure this Diversity between the Eternal Mind Reason and Holy Spirit of Love so then notional and imaginary that it cannot sustain or ground any Characters personally distinctive without a very violent and abusive impropriety Now if my Lord or any other be in this prejudice let them note that there is a certain true Diversity between them and such as we can somewhat conceive from the Shade we have of it in our own Souls Whence a sedate Theory will conclude that the true and proper Modes of this their distinct subsistence in the Unity of the Godhead are in themselves most perfect and clear and as Illustrious as the Individual Glory of the Divine Essence which one day it will be our Heaven and Happiness more immediately to view in the fulness of indistant Light if at present we will be content to learn our Theories from God's Tradition and not preclude our selves from that blessed capacity by a wanton and affected infidelity for to this glorious intuition this Faith prepares us by cleansing us from Heathen Phaenomena of Providence and drawing us to the nobler Theories of the Creation and the Powers of its Author and exciting us to an active hope and pursuit of that Glory and Happiness that consists in the uninterrupted Vision of God In the mean time however it is rational to believe that there is a far greater reason in that diversity of their Individual consubsistence upon which Personal Attributes Characters Predicates and Distinctives are by the Rules of our Faith given unto them than any humane faculties can reach tho' in these upon Divine Revelation there is Light enought to support the congruity of this Tradition against all opposite Heresies whatsoever § 36. But the Scoffers will be apt to deride this Theory as aiming to render the Faith intelligible which as they think impossible because their prejudices have so fatally blinded them that they fansy no Man can discern what they cannot so will they say that these Theories take away the Mystery and consequently expose the venerableness thereof to contempt whereas it hath been our common Wisdom to cover our Absurdities with a superstitious veil and pretence of unsathomable Mystery Now what shall we do how shall we behave our selves between these contrary extremes To the Anti-Mysterists therefore I reply That if it be hereby made intelligible they have no reason to quarrel at it since their only complaint for their infidelity is that it is unintelligible But to the Crypto-Mysterists who give occasion to the Anti-Mysterists to deride us for absurdities c. I shall only need to say with * Con. Arian Orat. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. St. Athanasius The Faith is no Riddle to be kept in the dark but a Divine Mystery to illuminate our Souls In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God This was not given from Heaven to stupifie and amuse but to sublimate our Theories of God and to exercise our inner Senses unto previous Idea's of that Divinity which will be more immediately opened unto in the State of Glory St. Paul thought it a noble Wisdom to understand Mysteries 1 Cor. 13.2 to which all the Sons of Wisdom though to others there is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are initiated Let it therefore be deep and recondite while it is rich and noble the treasure is the better for its difficulty and what is to be gotten is with joy to be communicated to such as have Ears to hear Tell but a Man that there are three in one and one in three without any other Theories how dry and infant must that Notion be How little life and taste is there in such a Rudiment But when a Man is brought by heavenly Theories of the Logos to have some apprehensions of the super-essential Excellency of the Father and almost to feel the vital Love of the Holy Spirit to view hereby the Originals of the Creation and the Schemes of Providence in the Ray of Light Essential in the Archetypal Tables of the Almighty Mind this is Transport this is Aether this is Heaven it self to which we are wafted up by these depreciated Senses of the Fathers Yet whatsoever flight a religious Mind may take in these contemplations God knows these advances of mine are very short and I have no more to advise an aspiring Piety but to drink of these living Waters from their first Fountains the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers But he that thinks it no Mystery or valuable Theory that the first Principle of all is an eternal glorious lucid Mind our of whose foecundity there coessentially streams a luminous and infinite substantial Reason with a benign and adorable Spirit of Substantial Love and Holiness the noble Springs and Fountains of the whole Creation and the World to come forgets the thick darkness of the old Heathen and even of the present untutour'd World in these Idea's and Informations he forgets the shortness of the most sublimate Theories in proportion to the full Glory of the Mystery he forgets how much the Wise of the Heathen admired some few glances of it among the Jews and are themselves valued for them even by our Fathers and our Moderns also he conceives not how divine and surprizing this Light appeared to the World upon the first opening of Christianity how it clears up the delusions of Gentilism and spiritualizes our Idea's of God above all mixtures of carnality and prepares them for a glorious intuition of him hereafter and lastly such Men loath Manna and the Food of Angels forgetting their first weaknesses and the difficulties they struggled with before they attained to this Theology neither do they humbly reflect on their present narrowness in respect of what yet remains within the Veil or else they could never have sallen into contempt of this Revelation as light and void of depth and mystery § 37. Now lest any Man from hence should frame an Objection that upon this Theory we may frame as many Persons in the Deity as there are Attributes of God let it be observed that all the received Attributes of God do denote one or more or all of these three * This word in our tongue I suppose may not offend as being somewhat turned from what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Virgin Sepulcher whereby he became the first Born or first Begotten from the Dead So his Transfiguration on Mount Tabor and his Unction by the Holy Ghost at his Baptism in both which the Bath-Col the voice from Heaven pronounced him God's beloved Son were fair grounds for the same Character His Conception by the Holy Ghost in the Virgin 's Womb was a foundation thereof * Luk. 1.35 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shed's that this was not the first ground of his Filiation before all these though not the primary By the †Heb. 1.2 Son God made the Worlds and thereby the Son became Heir of all things And hereupon it was by many Ancients preached as Good Theology that herein also he was the Son of God and the * Col. 1.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first Born and Heir of the whole Creation they setting it off as a kind of Nativity and Production of the Logos into Light and the World And those many Texts of Scripture besides the Catholick Tradition of Creeds that teach him to be in the form of God and equal with God the true God God above all blessed for ever and that he hath received his being from the Father have established the Faith of an Eternal Paternity and Coeternal Filiation So that if we take the Humane Nature into the Conception and Character of the Christ as his Lordship does here are several grounds for the Character of Son before our Lord actually was a Man or could be on his Lordships Notions the Messias And so Son of God and Messias cannot really in the true intention of the Scriptures be altogether synonymous equaeval or equipollent though belonging to the same Person Now if Nathanael made a good and full Confession when he told our Lord * John 1.50 Thou art the Son of God thou art the King of Israel then he owned all the truth of the Filial Character but if his Faith were defective then it is no ground for his Lordship's Criticks to stay so low in it and not advance to the Highest revealed Excellency of the Character which I believe the true Israelite reached as well as †Matth. 16.16 Joh. 6.69 St. Peter and others since the Gospels set this for a good memorial of their and the Catholick Faith But however let us see what the Faith of the Jews contributes to our Edification By the Testimony of the Fathers from after Josephus's days it appears an established or received Doctrine among the Jews as also other Hereticks herein so judaizing that the Messias was to be a mere Man and so no wonder if all Rabbins since that own him to be the Son of God take him only for a positive or adoptive Son by mere advancement Now if his Lordship thinks this to have been their Faith also in our Lord's days then those some Criticks of his Lordship's cannot found the Filiation of the Theanthropus in this Jewish Faith But if these Jews did believe their expected Messias to be a real Immanuel according to their Prophet and this Immanuel to be the Son of God how can his Lordship's Criticks prove that in the Immanuel's Filiation * P. 32. in which the Humane Nature being the first Conception †the first Conception of the Sonship was in his Humanity For if there were another Conception of Sonship in the Divine Nature how can they or his Lordship prove it to be posterior to that in the Humanity To be Son of God is a Character at least of Dignity and if there be any thing in the Deity that bears it it cannot derive it from any Creature and so in order of Conception it ought not to be posterior to the Title in a Creature His Lordship had best have a eare lest he and his Critick's * Vid. Euseb con Marcell call in upon Marcellus in this rode of Conceptions and father the Heresie upon the Jews But if there be no real Son in the God head there will be no Father neither before the Creation and consequently the Humane Nature being originally filia◠being united to God who by the Creation thereof only is its Father i. e. natural Parent will convey the Title of Son to its own Father by this Union which since it can be only a nominal dispensation here comes in a beloved Sabellianism But if there be a Sonship in the Godhead since it cannot be derivative it must be Primitive to the Character given to the united Humanity because of that Union and if so how can its Conception be first lodged in the Humanity to which it is socially communicated in the entire Suppositum of the Theanthropus but not singly distributed by any dividing Conception except we will put up with Nestorius But to look a little further into this matter I think it manifest that the Jews believed the Son of God to be a Person not Humane but equal to the Father and so had no first Conceptions of it in Humane Nature The Personal Title of Son with others that Philo gives the Logos which he did not believe to have been incarnate is a full proof of this first point that he was called Son by the Jews without any respects to Humanity since he taught this as the Theology of Moses and the Tradition of the Elders and that this Filial Logos was by them believed equal to God the Father * Joh. ch 5.17 c. vid. ch 10. St. John proves for that the Jews would have killed Jesus for saying that God was his Father making himself thereby equal with God and so God which our Saviour refuses not but defends And even Josephus after the Destruction of Jerusalem owning our Jesus to be Christ doubts whether it were lawful to call him a Man because the old Notion that God was and was to be the King of Israel was not yet worn out They looked on the Kingdom of the Messias as the Kingdom of God and they looked for the Son of God whom Agur of old knew under that Character to come and set up his Reign among them and to subdue all Nations thereunto And therefore St. John shews him and the Devils confess him the Son of God also as well as his Disciples nay the Conturion at his Crucifixion owned him to be the Son of God who never saw him to have been nor ever hoped to see him hereafter to be the King of the Jews according to their Notions of his Royalty For though they looked on their King to come to be God the Son of the Father yet they took his Kingdom to be secular And he that considers that in the Gospels the terms of Father Son and Holy Spirit are spoken of to and by the Jews familiarly without any of our Lord's correction of the Jewish Notion or Institution of any other either in common among the multitudes or privately among his Disciples must resolve