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
Spirit are not the Father Therefore the Son and holy Spirit are not that one God In like manner we may also conclude thus concerning the Father That one God is the Son or holy Spirit The Father is not the Son nor the holy Spirit Therefore the Father is not that one God The third Reason may be fetched from the following words For if that one God were not only the Father but also some other certainly Christ would be he But Christ is here manifestly distinguished from that one God and so is demonstrated not to be that one God whilst it is added And One Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him But whereas they say that these very words intimate that when that one God is called the Father the Son or holy Spirit is not excluded from the same Godhead because neither here where that one Lord is called Jesus Christ the Father is excluded from the same Lordship they are therein exceedingly mistaken inasmuch as the word Lord doth in this place denote him who is somewayes inferiour to the most high God and subordinate to him in dominion although he be next to him that is signifieth him by whom the most high God governeth all things any way belonging to the Salvation of Men. But in this manner that one God is not Lord since he cannot in any sort be inferiour and subordinate to himself wherefore he is rightly excluded by the following words from such a Lordship And what we have spoken is proved by a twofold Reason drawn from this very place For first That one Lord is either the same with that one God or some way inferiour to him The same he is not otherwise there will be no ground of distinction nor would there be any cause why that one God should be said to be the Father and that one Lord Jesus Christ for no less that one Lord than that one God should be said to be the Father for what reason there was why that one God should be said to be the Father the same would there also be for which that one Lord should be said to be the Father It remaineth therefore that it signifieth him who is some way inferiour to that one God Again The same is proved by the descriptions which are added to both that is both to the Father and to Christ and by which they are distinguished one from another for as we hinted in the former Chapter the Descriptions that are added to things or Persons in the Scripture are not wont to be either idle or forreign to the thing which is treated of but fitted to illustrate or prove the same In this place if these descriptions make any thing to the purpose namely that the Father is he of whom are all things and we to him and Christ he by whom are all things and we by him they shew that the Father is that one God and Christ that one Lord as if the Apostle had said To us there is one God namely the Father in as much as all things are of him and we consequently to him and there is also to us one Lord namely Jesus Christ in as much as all things are by him and we consequently by him for it is necessary that he should be that one God of whom are all things that is who is the first and highest efficient cause of all those things which pertain to us Christians for that he hath a peculiar regard to Christians the word We several time repeated doth intimate and consequently to whom as the ultimate Scope we ought to look and to confer all worship and honour For he is to be accounted by us the most high God who is the first and highest Cause as of other things so of those namely which belong to us and our Salvation He also is to be accounted One who is the highest Cause not only of some things but of all for if he were not one some would proceed from him others from another as the prime Author and highest Cause and consequently the glory of those things ought by us to be referred partly to him partly to the other Now that we have one Lord even Christ is thence evident because all things are by him that is because he is the middle cause of all those things which belong to us and our salvation and in that all things are governed dispenced by him from that first Cause of all things Where also it followeth that we by him ought likewise to worship God that is that he is the middle scope and end of the honour which ought by us to be exhibited unto God for because all things are by him it is apparent not only that he is Lord but also that one Lord for if there were many some things would be administred by him others by another and so we ought to worship God partly by him partly by another Now who seeth not that these things are very suitable to the words and scope of the Apostle Neither can any one here object that it is also said sometimes concerning the most high God that all things are by him for it is certain it signifieth not that some other who is the supream Cause doth effect those things by the most high God But it is frequently said of Christ in the Scripture that some other namely God or the Father who cannot chuse but be the supream Cause doth do something by him which properly belongeth to a second cause Concerning which thing we will hereafter treat more largely in its * Sect. 2. Chap. 19. place But that in these words of Paul it is not upon the same account said that all things are done by Christ as it is elsewhere said of God is very evident because in this place those expressions Of whom are all things and by whom are all things and also those We to him and we by him are opposed the one to the other and put to distinguish divers persons Wherefore neither is that which is applied to the Father common to Christ nor that which is applied to Christ so taken as that it may he common to the Father But this will come to pass no other way than if the words annexed to the Father signifie that he is the prime efficient cause of all things and the ultimate end of us and our Religion and those things which are annexed unto Christ signifie that which the propriety of the words requireth namely that he is the middle efficient Cause of all things and the intermediate end of our Religion From whence it is how understood that that one God signifieth him who is the prime efficient Cause of all things and the ultimate end and that that one Lord signifieth him who is the middle efficient Cause of all things and likewise the intermediate end of the Worship that is to be performed to God from us and consequently that the one is superiour and greater the other some waies inferiour and
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
sitteth upon the Throne no man can justly say that Christ is according to his humane Nature only distinguished from him being according to the divine Nature the same with him For first according to a better Nature in regard of which which only he is believed to be a Person were the same with him that sitteth upon the Throne he could not be simply distinguished from him for that would be all one as if he should simply be denied to be him that sitteth upon the Throne But that cannot simply be denied of any whole which for another nature or part is simply to be affirmed of the same although it agree not thereunto according to some one nature especially the less excellent as shall be understood from what we will afterwards speak Sect. 2. Chap. 3. How I pray you could it come to pass that in the whole description of both Visions there should not be even the least hint from whence it might appear that Christ is the same with him that sitteth upon the Throne and that the diversities of Natures should be openly expressed but the unity in the knowledge whereof there was no less moment not at all Again since to Christ as he is distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne actions agreeing to Persons are attributed as is manifest from the very Visions themselves especially the latter it is apparent that he is considered as a Person and so distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne But the Person of Christ according to the Opinion of the Adversaries is the second of the Deity and so the very divine Nature it self having its substance Wherefore if they will speak agreeable to themselves they must confess that it likewise is distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne Or if they will not confess this they must with us assert that the Person of Christ is not the second Person of the Trinity which they hold Furthermore who would believe that when divine Honour was ascribed to Christ he was considered only according to his less excellent nature and not rather whole or according to the Nature most worthy of that Honour but when that Honour is ascribed unto him he is most openly considered as distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne Wherefore whole Christ even in respect of that other Nature or a part which was in him most excellent must of necessity be distinguished from him that sitteth upon the Throne Finally If Christ according to a divine Nature were one and the same with him that sitteth upon the Throne either more persons namely that of the Father and the Son not to speak any thing now concerning the holy Spirit were to be expressed as sitting on the Throne or it ought to be held that the Father and the Son are the same not only in Essence but also in Person Since there is no doubt that the Person of the Father was expresâ—ed by him that sitteth upon the Throne But that there is the same Person of the Father and the Son all reject and justly condemn as a Sabellian Errour CHAP. IX Sundry Arguments are briefly intimated to shew that none but the Father of Jesus Christ is the Most High God BEsides the Arguments hitherto produced many others may be brought but because they do in a manner fall in with those which shall in the second and third Section by us be alledged therefore we will in this place in a brief manner only intimate them and not all of them neither but only the chiefest Arg. 9 That God is wont to be taken for the Father The Ninth Argument of our Opinion may be this namely That the name of God or Lord when used for the word Jehovah or Adonai is in innumerable places of the Scripture taken as proper to the Father in such a manner as that he only is understood by that name either simply put or expresly with some Epithite as that of True Living Almighty and the like and being designed by the very appellation is distinguished from Christ or the holy Spirit or from both together For that would not come to pass if not the Father only were the Most High God but also the Son and holy Spirit Concerning which matter see what we will say hereafter Sect. 2. Chap. 1. and Sect. 3. Chap. 5. and if you please also Arg. 10 The Father is of himself Chap. 9 10 11 12. of our Book concerning God and his Attributes The Tenth Argument may be this That none but the Father of Jesus Christ is of himself as having received neither his nature nor any divine thing whatsoever from another which is the property of the Most High God To which this also may be adjoyned that the Father only is as they commonly speak The Fountain of Divinity For from him the very Son himself hath his Divinity as both the thing it self speaketh and the Adversaries also commonly confess From the same also proceedeth the holy Spirit And though the Latin Churches hold that the holy Spirit doth proceed both from the Father and the Son which if rightly understood not only may but also ought to be granted nevertheless it is apparent partly from the Scripture partly from the Opinion of the Adversaries themselves that the Son cannot be the first Original of the holy Spirit as we mean when we use the word Fountain but such an original as proceeded from another which was before it For he who doth himself flow from another and from him receive his Divinity cannot be the prime Source of anothers Divinity And indeed whatsoever is spoken in the Scripture and tendeth to shew unto us that the holy Spirit doth proceed also from the Son is herein contained namely that the Son doth send the holy Spirit and pour him out upon his Confidents But the Son sendeth the holy Spirit from the Father as he himself expresly affirmed John 15.26 he also said that he would ask the Father and that he should give them another Advocate John 14.16 and having received the promise of the holy Spirit from the Father he poured out upon the Faithful so excellent a gift as Peter testifieth Acts 2.33 compare also Luk. 24.49 Joh. 7.39 Therefore the Greek Churches though they otherwise agree with the Latin concerning the Person of the holy Spirit do yet herein differ from them namely that they say the holy Spirit proceedeth or is sent or given not from the Father and the Son but from the Father by the Son which kind of speaking is more suitable to express the true Opinion It is clear therefore that none but the Father of Jesus Christ is the Fountain or prime Original of Divinity and consequently he only of whom are all things which is the property of the Most High God For as the most high God only is he of whom are all things so he only of whom are all things is the Most High God More things belonging to this Argument see afterwards Sect.
2. Chap. 2 3. and Sect. 3. Chap. 11. The Eleventh Argument is largely diffused and may be branched out into many for hereunto belong all those places of the Scripture wherein some Prerogative is given to the Father above Christ Hereunto pertain first those Testimonies of the Scripture wherein the Father is expresly said to be either * See Sect. 2. Chap. 14. greater than Christ or the †Chap. 24. Head of Christ or the ‖ Chap. 23. God of Christ those also wherein the Father is said to have given a * Chap. 16. Commandment to Christ and that Christ was his Servant and Minister Arg. 11 from the Prerogative of the Father obeyed his Command and submitted his †chap. 12. own will to his Arg. 11 from the Prerogative of the Father Likewise those where Christ is said to be ‖ chap. 25 God's to be the * chap. 27. Mediator of God the †chap. 28. Priest of God ‖ chap. 5.25 sent from the Father to have * chap. 16. come not to do his own will but the Fathers Hitherto also belong those wherein Christ professeth that not †chap. 3 19. himself but the Father is the prime Author of those wonderful works which he did that his ‖ chap. 4. Doctrine was not his own but the Fathers that he * chap. 8. which believeth on him believeth not on him but on the Sender of him namely the Father To which those also are like which teach that the Father is †chap. 19 worshiped through Christ and that whatsoever divine things Christ either hath or performeth or are performed unto him from us redound unto the glory of the Father as the utmost scope that Christ poured out ‖ chap. 17 prayers to the Father that the Father is the true Author of the * chap. 29 Resurrection of Christ that the Father †chap. 18. exalted and glorified Christ and consequently bestowed all things on him that ‖ chap. 24 Christ shall hereafter deliver up the Kingdom to the Father and become subject to him that the * chap. 19 Father did or doth all things by Christ Now we will shew in their places that whilst those things which we have reckoned up are ascribed to the Father a Prerogative is attributed unto him above Christ wholy and entirely considered and not according to one nature only and consequently also that he is greater than the holy Spirit Which is manifest even from thence namely in that those things which we have reckoned up are absolutâ—ly wont to be ascribed to the Father and no where to Christ namely in respect of some more excellent Nature and no where also to the holy Spirit Add hereunto others also which have in part been observed by the Adversaries themselves †chap. 10. See Mat. 20.23 22.1 25.34 Rom. 8 29 Gal. 1.15 16. Eph. 1.3 so on to the 13. as that the Father not Christ not the holy Spirit is said in Scripture to have predestinated men to have decreed some things to some one either before the world was created or from the foundation of the world All glory all happiness designed either to Christ or his confidents was first decreed and provided by the Father The whole reason of our Salvation dependeth on him What should I speak of the Creation of Heaven and Earth For though the Adversaries endeavour to vindicate it unto Christ and the holy Spirit yet are they themselves wont to say that it is wont to be ascribed unto the Father in a peculiar manner no otherwise than if it were proper unto him in which manner Redemption is attributed to the Son Sanctification to the holy Spirit concerning which thing we will speak somewhat hereafter Sect. 3. Hence also in that which is called the Apostles * Chap. 3. Creed the Creation of Heaven and Earth is ascribed neither to Christ nor to the holy Spirit but to the Father only For thus we say I believe in God the Father Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth and in his only begotten Son not confessing Christ himself to be the Creator but the only begotten Son of the Creator Neither indeed doth the Scripture any where ascribe to Christ the Creation of Heaven and Earth and when it attributeth a creation to him it not only speaketh of a new creation or certain reformation of things but also no where saith that the Son himself created all things but that all things were created by him and in him Finally when the Scripture speaketh either of Religion and the Worship of God in gross or of certain parts thereof it is so wont to make mention of the Father that it may easily appear unto all that the Father is he to whom in all ages worship was to be given by all men and was indeed given by all pious men and to whom only all honour is ultimately to be referred Whence also after Christ was exalted yet that custom prevailed in Christian Churches that publick Prayers should for the most part be directed to the Father some few to the Son but seldom or never any especially if you distinguish Prayers from Hymns to the holy Spirit concerning which thing we will elsewhere * Sect. 3. chap. 2. speak somewhat Whence the Prayers made in Churches are commonly wont to end in this manner Through our Lord Jesus Christ having also sometimes the name of the Son prefixt through whom namely as a Mediator and Priest prayers are poured out unto the Father himself though we otherwise not only willingly confess that prayers may be poured out to Christ himself but contend that they ought often to be poured out and in our Churches do our selves very frequently perform the same Notwithstanding that custom which hath for so many ages endured in the whole Christian world which even that vulgar opinion concerning three Persons of the most high God hath not been able to take away giveth testimony to our Opinion touching one God the Father For such a Prerogative of the Father above the Son and holy Spirit evinceth that he only is the most high God Certainly the very truth it self crept into the minds of men although they set themselves against it and darted the Beams of her clearness into them not suffering her self to be wholly darkned with the clouds of errours For there appear on every side hints and arguments from which it is clean that the Father only is he * Rom. 11.36 of whom are all things and by whom are all things and for whom are all things as Paul speaketh of the most high God that is by whose counsel and decree all things are at first constituted by whose efficacious providence and vertue all things are perfected to whom finally as the ultimate end all things are referred A diligent Reader of the Scripture will easily observe this especially being thus admonished if he heed the diversity of things which
God the Father hath from himself his Essence and all other things which he hath is granted amongst all and had he not he likewise would be the son of another or a creature not the most high God But the Son for this very reason because he is the Son hath from the Father his Essence and also consequently whatsoever accompanieth the Essence and cannot he had without it which is the cause that we may note this by the way why Christ is in the Scripture far more frequently called the Son of God than God namely because the former appellation doth so express the Divinity of Christ as that it withal distinguisheth the same from that most high and independent Divinity which belongeth to the Father whereas the word God doth not do so It is therefore manifest that the Father is more excellent than the Son and consequently that the Son cannot be the most high God Certainly even the very Adversaries themselves as we have already * Sect. 1. Cap. 1.2 Cap. 1. of this Section Cap. 14. Sect. 2. hinted several times acknowledge a Prerogative of the Father above the Son and holy Spirit in that he is the Fountain of Divinity Whence very many of the antient Doctors of the Church take that of Christ John 14. My Father is greater than I to be meant of him according to his Divinity as we shall see in its place The Defence of the Argument BUt there will not be wanting some who will say that Christ indeed as he is the Son or in regard of his Person is from the Father but not as he is God or in regard of his divine Nature For that in respect hereof he no less than the Father is from himself and as they speak Self-God Whence it followeth that a Prerogative and Excellency doth agree to the Father above the Son as he is the Son not as God But this hinders not but that Christ may be the most high God But this answer is of no efficacy For that very thing which they confess is sufficient for us to prove that which they confess not For first we have shewn that none can in any sort be more excellent than the most high God But they confess and are forced to confess that the Father is more excellent than the Son as he is the Son or in regard of his Person Add hereunto that the most high God is in no sort whatsoever that is neither in regard of his nature nor of his person that we may now in this manner distinguish these together with the Adversaries from another For whatsoever is from another dependeth on an efficient cause But the most high God in no regard dependeth on an efficient cause Wherefore if Christ is in regard of his Person distinguished from the Father he cannot be the most high God Besides it is very ill done of them so to distinguish the Person of Christ from his divine Nature as to say that the one is from the Father the other not For a divine Person is nothing but the divine Nature subsisting as we will shew in the second Book and many of the Adversaries confess For whereas they with whom we have now to do say that a person as such is nothing but a manner of subsisting which others call a subsistence they are herein wonderfully mistaken And they may learn it even from thence in that the person of the Father doth generate that of the Son is generated But a manner of existence or subsistence doth neither generate nor is by it self generated but the very nature subsisting Furthermore as from other places so chiefly from John 10.36 c. it sufficiently appeareth that Christ may of right have the name of God given him as he is the Son of God For Christ there sheweth that by the example of them whom God himself heretofore called gods he whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world may much more be called the Son of God Where for the same reason he might conclude that he might much more be called a God although he concluded it not that he might by this means shew that he assumed not to himself supream Divinity but as we have elsewhere explained it doâ— distinguish himself from the most high God by this very thing in that he had called God his Father and so affirmed himself to be his Son Certainly those very persons also whom Christ alledged for an example were in that place of the Scripture which Christ did in part alledge for the same reason called both gods and sons of God This difference only those appellations carry with them that the former doth not by it self distinguish those persons from the most high God whereas the latter doth distinguish them the one doth not express the dependency of their Divinity on the supream God although it expresseth the Divinity which doth depend on the supream Godâ— the other doth also express that dependency From whence it is understood that if Christ as the Son of God is from the Father and so the Father is more excellent than he Christ also as God is from the Father and so the Father is more excellent than he Last of all if Christ received not his nature from the Father he was not properly generated For whosoever is properly generated by another receiveth his nature from another But they as also other Adversaries do altogether hold and urge that the Son was properly generated by the Father and that otherwise he would not be the only begotten Son of God Wherefore they argue against themselves whilst they deny that Christ received his divine Nature from the Father and affirm that he hath his Person only from him Though even in that they are not alwayes very constant to themselves as hath been observed by other Adversaries For as much as none doth or can here fly to the distinction of natures in Christ we threfore touch it not CHAP. III. The Arguments which are in the sequel to be alledged being distributed a third is proposed from the words of Christ in John Chap. 5.19 The Son can do nothing of himself c. NOw that we may leave names and come to other Arguments of our Opinion we must produce such Testimonies of the Scripture wherein something is either denied of Christ which could not be denied of him or is on the contrary attributed to him which could not be attributed to him if he were the most high God For it is to be observed that some things agree to the Predicate of our Question that is to the most high God which agree not to the Subject thereof namely to Christ and on the contrary some agree to the Subject which agree not to the Predicate that is some things agree to Christ which are disagreeable to the most high God Wherefore we will draw Arguments from the things of both sorts And because amongst other Writers Arg. 3 from Joh. 5.19 John affordeth us very many Testimonies
made but the Minor is to be understood only of such a giving as is made declaratively For they answer to the places wherewith we have confirmed our Assumption especially some of them that they ought not to be understood as if the Father did at a certain time really give to the Son the things mentioned therein but that he declared that the Son had them or received them by that eternal Generation causing that they should be acknowledged by all Thus many take that Glory which Christ * John 17.1 5 23 24. begged of the Father that also that God †Acts 2.36 made him Lord and Christ that also that ‖ Phil. 2.9 gave him a name which is above every name But first they themselves sufficiently see that this answer doth not agree to all the places which we have alleaged But if the rest be safe our Argument would nevertheless consist although those places which we have mentioned or some others also were to be taken in that manner as they would have Again There is no cause unless they will alleage that very thing which we oppose by this Argument for a cause wherefore we ought to depart from the propriety simplicity of the words yea there are mighty causes for which we must not depart from the same For as to that Glory which Christ beggeth of the Father Joh. 17. if Christ had it really in himself already that which they say was to be manifested namely the Majesty of that one God for this they must of necessity understand by the glory which they contend that he really had with the Father before the world was created what need was there to pray the Father that he would glorifie him for that would alwayes have been no less in the hands of Christ himself than of the Father nor would he less have glorified himself than the Father him Since it would be necessary that external works yea all should be common to them yea Christ beggeth it of the Father as the reward of the performance of a work committed to him by the Father as appeareth by the collation of ver 4 5. But besides that no reward can be given to the most high God what reward is this of a work performed that he should be acknowledged the supream God who is so is not this very justly due unto God without any respect of any work And no less to the Son than to the Father or to the holy Spirit Besides how well they explain that Father glorifie me with thy self for what is that with thy self Is it not manifest that such words are wont to be opposed and are in this place opposed unto that which is done with men or appeareth before them as in the latter words it is tacitly opposed unto them with me It is not therefore spoken of a thing which ought to be done with men such as would be that manifestation of Christs Glory which he really had from eternity but which he had with God What then ought the Father to declare unto himself the Majesty of the Son had he not sufficiently known it And when he knew it not ought he to declare it to himself or else to the Angels conversing with him in Heaven What had not they sufficiently known the Majesty of the second Person of the Trinity had they not beheld it with their eyes As to that place Act. 2. where God is said to have made Jesus Lord and Christ the words admit not such an explication for if we follow their explication Peter must be thought to speak thus Therefore let all the House of Israel assuredly know that God hath declared him both Lord and Christ even this Jesus whom ye have crucified But to whom hath he declared it was it to Angels Had not they yet known Christ to be that which he was and had long since been Was it to men But Peter and God did by him in these very words truly first declare that very thing to the Jews Again Peter deduceth these words from those in the * Psal 110.1 Psalms The Lord said unto my Lord Sit thou on my right hand But in them Christ is bidden to reign as Paul interpreteth it 1 Cor. 15.25 and is not only declared to reign What doth the Father perhaps command the Son himself to declare that he reigneth and hath alwayes reigned But they would perswade us that Christ John 17. prayed the Father to do it since he had in like manner already glorified him and would hereafter glorifie him again To this sitting at the right hand of God Paul opposeth the delivering up of the †1 Cor. 15 24 c. Kingdom which certainly shall not consist therein in that Christ shall no longer declare that he reigneth yea if Christ be that one God he will then declare unto us in Heaven that he reigneth no less than the Father since God shall be all in all I omit other things which might be said concerning these words of the Psalmist Finally They who will have it that God declared Jesus Lord and Christ either hold that he was Christ from eternity or made such at a certain time He could not be from eternity for to be Christ is to be Anointed which is not incident to the most high God as he is such neither hath any one as I know dared to say so but all say that it agreeth to Christ as he is man He was therefore at a certain time made Christ and that by him whose Anointed he is said to be namely God the Father Why then go they about the bush and seek starting holes since they are notwithstanding forced to confeâ—s that he was sometimes really and not declaratively only made by God Lord and Christ for to be the Christ is to be the Lord and King of God's People although they agree not with us about the time when it was done For that is sufficient for us here that God hath already made him Lord and Christ Although who is there that if he could but ‖ That is Obtain impetrate of himself to lay aside his prejudicate Opinion for a short space would not see that this happened after the death and resurrection of Christ Since all the circumstances of the place in hand do lead yea drive us thither that I may omit others like thereunto amongst which is that Ephes 1.19 and Heb. 1.3 As to that place Phil. 2. neither doth it admit that explication first because by those words is explained the exceeding great reward of the debasement and obedience of Christ performed to God even with the sufferance of the death of the Cross but could not be to declare who and how great he is and alwayes was that is as the Adversaries must of necessity affirm to demonstrate him to be the most high God whereof we have spoken above when we treated of the place John 17.5 Aagain Christ was therefore among other things exceedingly exalted and a name given
genuine Reason for which he is called such a Son of God For neither is it enough to know and pronounce the words but it is necessary to know and comprehend in the mind the thing it self as far as it falls under our capacity otherwise you shall neither truly believe the thing nor heartily profess it Now the thing that is signified by those words consisteth in the genuine reason for which Jesus is called the Son of God by way of excellency which according to the opinion of the adversarie is because he was from eternity begotten out of the Essence of the Father Neither indeed did this opinion otherwise agree either with it self or with the holy Scriptures would any other reason be more true or genuine If theâ—efore we find not this reason expressed in the holy Scripture but others far different from it we must hold that it is not t e true one The latter Argument wherewith our assumption is confirmed shall afterwards be seen in this Chapter A fuller Confirmation and Defence of this Argument NOw that it may appear that in the Scripture no such reason for which Christ is the son of God is expressed as maketh him the most high God but only such as agree to the humane nature of Christ or to speak more rightly to the man Jesus Christ we will rehearse these places wherein the causes are declared for which Jesus hath been called the Son of God some of which Testimonies at least are so ordereâ— that if Jesus had then already been the Son of God for some better reason and namely because he had from all eternity been generated out of the Esâ—ence of the Father it ought not to have been omitted Now the causes for which Jesus is called the Son of God have a certain order amongst themselves and the latter still addeth something to the former The first Cause why Christ is called the the Son of God Luke 1.35 John Maldonatus and maketh Jesus Christ the Son of God in a moâ—e perfect manner than before The first cause is declared by the Angel in Luke where amongst other things Gabriel thus speaketh unto Mary The holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the power of the most high shall overshadow thee therefore also that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God Where we cannot but set down those things which the most learned Popish Interpreter doth amongst other t ings note upon this place for he rightly both saw and explained the sence of the words And first of all as concerning the last words of this place he noteth that to call doth here signifie to be according to the idiom of the Hebrews who take the consequent or effect for the antecedent cause of which he had also spoken in the 32d vers for there the Angel likewise saith of the Virgins Son that was to be born And he shall be called that is shall â—e the Son of the Most High This Inâ—erpreter hath aleaged examples of that Hebruisme out of Isa 1.26 and the 4.3 to which is also added that place Gen. 21.12 compared with Rom. 9.7 Those likewise might be added Matth. 5.9 19. and 21.13 Isa 56.7 and Luke 1.76 Rom. 9.26 Hos 1.10 Wherefore the same Interpreter doth afterwards justly reprove Calvin who to escape the Argument of Servetus dâ—awn fâ—om those words of the Angel saith that to be called doth here signifie to be declared the Son of God For how saith he can the reason of the Angel agree with this interpretation Therefore the holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God We ought not to abuse the holy Scripture that we may refute Hereticks Again explaining that reason for which the Angel said that Christ should be called that is should be the Son of God he saith all others whom I have seen interpret this as if the Angel spake of Christ as God or at least as man assumed into one person with God in that both wayes Christ is the true and natural Son of God How be it a little aâ—ter he writeth after this manner Though I for my part suppose that the words carry another sense and are not to be understood of Christ as God nor as a man united to a divine person but only of his conception and humane generation as if the Angel should say He shall be called that is be the Son of God because he shall be begotten not by a man but by God through the power of the holy Spirit For neither did the Angel speak concerning the nature of Christ but of the manner of his generation And the cause which he renders why he should be the Son of God in that the holy Spirit should come upon the Virgin and the power of the most high overshadow her was not apt to prove that Christ should be the Son of God as he was God or man assumed into the same person with God because a meer man might be conceived by the supervening of the holy Spirit and overshadowing power of the most high who would be the Son of God neither of those wayes in as much as he was neither God nor joyned to a divine Person But to prove that what was to be born of the Virgin should be the Son of God in such a sence as I have declared the reason of the Angel was very apt in as much as the Child was to be conceived not of a man but of God alone Wherefore although Christ had not been God yet being born in such a manner as he was he had deservedly been called the Son of God not only as other holy men of whom it is said I said ye are Gods and ye are all Sons of the most high but in a singular and proper manner because he had no other Father than God being begotten by no other than him What I pray you could be spoken more aptly and more suitably to the place I was therefore willing to explain the whole matter in his words rather than in mine own that it might with all appear by the testimony of a Papist how evident this opinion is which we defend concerning the reason exprest in these words of the Angel for which Jesus is called the Son of God For what else but the evidence of the thing it self could move a Papist especially of that order to which he was adicted that contrary to the consent of all other Interpreters which he had seen he should follow the opinion which we hold especially since he knew that they whom he judged Hereticks did urge this place for their opinion concerning Christ Although we see that some even of them who are called â—ospellers assent both to him and us in this behalf This then is the first cause See Gualter on this place Je. Zanc. lib. 2. de tribus Elohim for which Jesus was the Son of God in that he was conceived and born not of a man but of God
most true yet is it of no force to weaken our Argument For the knowledge of the holy Spirit is contained in the knowledge of God and Christ but not as of a person distinct from God the Father and from Christ but as of a divine thing to be communicated unto men from the Father by the Son For otherwise the knowledge of Christ is also oftentimes included in the knowledge * 2 Cor. 10.5 Ephes 1.17 Col 1.10 2 Pet. 1.3 8.8 2.20 3.18 1 Joh. 2 3 4 13. cap. 3.6 of God and on the contrary the knowledge of God is comprized in the knowledge of * 2 Cor. 10.5 Ephes 1.17 Col 1.10 2 Pet. 1.3 8.8 2.20 3.18 1 Joh. 2 3 4 13. cap. 3.6 Christ namely because he that knoweth and seeth Christ knoweth and seeth the Father John 8.19 14.7 9. And on the contrary none knoweth the Father nor cometh to him but by the Son Mat. 11.27 John 14.6 So that it is necessary if a man will attain the saving knowledge of the Father that he know the Son also Nevertheless Christ in that place of ours was not content to make mention either of the Father alone or of himself alone but joyned the knowledge of both together because his intention was to express those divine persons in the knowledge of whom eternal Life consisteth If therefore the holy Spirit were a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son he would no less have mentioned him than those two persons seeing the obtaining of eternal Life would consist no less in the knowledge of him than of them But now let us proceed to other things and because we have begun from John let us add other passages which are extant in the same writer partly in his History of the Gospel partly in the Epistles and partly in the Revelation As for the History of the Gospel among other passages Christ spaketh thus chap. 8.16 c. which place we have upon another * Sect. 2. chap. 20. occasion before discoursed If I judge my judgment is true for I am not alone but I and the Father that sent me It is also written in your Law that the testimony of two men is true I am one that bear witness of my self and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me Why now made he not mention likewise of the holy Spirit if he be the most high God as well as the Father Did he contribute less to the truth of Christs judgment than the Father although-he were one God with him Did he less give testimony to Christ why therefore did he not mention his testimony seeing the plurality of witnesses most worthy of credit addeth greater weight to the testimony and here Christ urgeth both the number and dignity of the witnesses Certainly in that place 1 John 5.7 which is at this day commonly read †See the Annot. of Erasmus and Version of Luther set forth in his life time and Joh. Buckenhag Pomerian on the Prophet Jonah though extant neither in the antient Greek Copies nor in the Syriack translation nor in most of the antient Books of the Latin Edition and omitted by many Greek Interpreters or Fathers as they call them yea and by some Latin Interpreters and rejected by some late Writers and finally not very well agreeing with the rest of the Text and for the variety of readings suspected in that place I say tâ—ere is a peculiar mention made of the witness of the holy Spirit And indeed his testimony may peculiarly be recited although he be not a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son namely because the testimony which God gave to Christ by him had something peculiar from the rest so that he doth seem in a manner to testifie a part from both but there can no cause be brought why his testimony was omitted if he be a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son but if he be the vertue and efficacy of God the Father his testimony is rightly comprehended in the testimony of the Father as it cometh to pass in the same chapter of the first Epistle of John where the place now under debate is at this day commonly read v. 9 10. which I desire you to conferre with the two preceding verses To these may be added that place likewise in the 5th chap. of his history of the Gospel v. 13. But Jesus answered them my Father worketh hitherto and I work Yea and all the râ—st that followeth where it is spoken concerning the admirable works of Christ â—oth that were already done and that were afterward to be done where there is no mention made of the holy Spirit who would have had an equall share together with the Father and the Son in effecting these works if he had been one and the same God with both But as we have declared before it would be too tedious to rehearse all such places let these likewise be lookt vpon chap. 14 22 15â— 24 1â— 3. Now that we may come to the Epistle of the same Apostle what is that which is read 1 Epist 1.3 Our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ why is it not added also with the holy Spirit if he be a divine person distinct from both and yet equal in all things to both yea one God with both What likewise is that chap. 2.24 If that which you have heard from the beginning shall remain in you you also shall continue in the Son and in the Father why not also in the holy Spirit What is that 2 Epist ver 3. Grace be with you Mercy and Peace from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the Father why not also from the holy Spirit Concerning which matter we will afterward speak more when we rehearse the salutations of Paul Add to these the words of ver 9. in the same Epistle He that abideth in the Doctrine of Christ he hath both the Father and the Son why not also the holy Spirit As for the Revelation to omit those places wherein other things or persons are joyned with God and Christ which are afterward to be rehearsed by us how famous is that place chap. 5.13 where all the Creatures which are in any place are read to have said Blessing Honour Glory and Power be unto him that sitteth upon the Throne and unto the Lamb for ever and ever why not as now a dayes all the Temples of the Adversaries do ring glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the holy Spirit why only to him that sitteth upon the Throne and unto the Lamb For that he that sitteth upon the Throne is the same with the Father whosoever doth not understand from that whole 5th chapter and from other things written in the same Book certainly he must needs be a man of very little understanding Hither belong also those words chap. 11.15 The Kingdoms of
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
whom Paul for instance chiefly would demonstrate that he spake by the spirit of God also will not loose the knot For nether are those works ascribed to the holy spirit in the same manner as to the Father who is by the confession of all the supream God nor in that manner by which they are ascribed to the son but as also the Adversaries themselves in part confess by a certain proper and peculiar manner that is as to the next cause and inwardly working in men And this is that which the holy scriptures in the places before alleaged and infinite other places would have us understand But concerning this thing nothing should be manifest from the works themselves performed by divine power if the holy spirit were that supream God and yet in person distinct from the Father son Yea if the holy spirit were the supream God it should rather be concluded that the holy spirit is not such a cause of those works For it belongs not to the supream God that personally inhabiting in men he should do any works in or by them but that he inspire Power and Efficacy to them and by that means perform works to be admired in or by them A larger Defence of the Argument SUfficiently as it seems to us we have hitherto confirmed our Argument Yet nevertheless since two answers either are wont or may seem to be made to it they are to be refelled by us The former is against the major Proposition of the Argument which by an instance the Adversaries endeavour to infringe For they say that Christ also is called the Vertue or Power of God 1 Cor. 1.24 and yet notwithstanding he is not only a Person but also the most high God himself But this latter we have above refuted and by this very thing also is sufficiently refelled in that he is the vertue of God to wit the most high and so is manifestly distinguished from the Supream God But further we take the name of Power and Efficacy in our Argument properly But when will they prove that Christ is the Vertue or Power of God properly so called For whether they take the word Power for that Vertue which naturally dwells in God or for that which flows from him as its fountain and is also in some manner communicated to the creatures neither of them is a person but a quality and that indeed an essential property of God common to three persons as they will have it But that Christ is a person all know and urge The same may be also understood by the other term of excellency which in the same place 1 Cor. 1.24 is given to Christ to wit that he is called the Wisdom of God For the Wisdom of God speaking properly is his attribute or natural property by which God both understands all things and disposeth most aptly his Counsels and Works But this is in no sort a person but in like manner is his attribute or natural property common to three persons as is the opinion of the Adversaries Certainly since Christ is a person distinct from the Father and the Father in himself or his own person hath all Wisdom whereby he understandeth and disposeth all things neither may any one understand by another person but by himself and Wisdom implanted in himself Christ cannot speaking properly be the Wisdom of God Therefore neither in like manner the Power of God For there is the same reason of both It is therefore to be understood as the preaching of the Cross in the same * 1 Cor. 1.18 place to the Corinthians is termed the Vertue or Power of God in like manner also the Gospel Rom. 1.16 to wit because in it the singular Vertue or Power of God is put forth and manifestly appears to all Believers so also Christ is called the Vertue or Power and likewise Wisdom because in him the supream Power and Wisdom of God hath been put forth and in him may most clearly be perceived by all believers Let the place it self be looked and ver 18.24 be compared together and that it is so any one will easily understand By these things then it appeareth that this instance is of no moment to invalid our Argument seeing we speak of the Efficacy of God properly so called and have shewed that the holy Spirit is the very Power or Efficacy of God proceeding and flowing from him Certainly by the Opinion of the Adversaries themselves it is necessary that in one wise Christ in an otherwise the holy Spirit be the Power of God For if Christ be the substantial Power of God having his proper person and the holy Spirit also be such a Power of God there will be two Powers or substantial Vertues in God having their personallity those two persons as such shall be altogether like to themselves Of which neither can be Not that because the one or the other efficacy should be in vain since one may altogether suffice to do all things But in him who himself doth nothing in vain nothing also is altogether in vain or nothing over much Yea it is also impossible because two forms wholly of the same Nature cannot consist in the same subject unless perhaps according to divers parts which hath no place in God For otherwise the thing would proceed in infinitum Of which we shall elsewhere * Book 2. Sâ—ct 1. Chap. 5. speak more plainly And this latter therefore cannot consist because they both hold and are constrained to hold that those divine persons so far as they are distinct from the Essence are unlike Wherefore that those absurdities of which we have spoken may not happen it is necessary to determine that the holy Spirit is such a power as is not a person And thus much concerning the former Answer to our Argument The latter Answer is placed in a distinction which otherwise the Adversaries often use when there is speech of the holy Spirit For they say the term holy Spirit is taken in a double manner one while for the third person of the Deity another while for his effect or gift flowing from him and that indeed properly is called holy Spirit but this Metonimically in that the Cause is put for the effect I remember not indeed to have read that that answer is accommodated to this our Argument But because it may yet be accommodated it will be worth our labour to examine it here chiefly because it may seem that nothing may be said more speciously For when we by Power or Efficacy of God understand a certain force flowing from God and his natural power into men some one may say that the holy Spirit is indeed such a power of God but taken metonymiâ—ally For that Efficacy of God is the effect or gift of the holy Spirit properly so called But in this place is not disputed of the holy Spirit metonymically but properly taken not of his gift but of himself Therefore our Argument is ineffectual and makes nothing to the
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
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
it That redemption is ascribed to the Son neither alone simply nor as the first author but as the cheif middle cause who in the name of the Father and by his command performed the whole work of our redemption and salvation and as yet performes it As to sanctification neither is that more often ascribed unto the holy Spirit than to the Father or Son especially openly neither is it attributed as to some person but as to a thing by which sanctification is performed Which first is manifest from thence that where as it is read expresly of the Father that he sanctifies as also of Christ it is no where said of the holy Spirit that I know that it sanctifies buâ— onely that in or by it men are sanctified or some such way which is not proper to a person is sanctification ascribed unto it Of the Father you have plain places Joh. 10.36.17.17 to which add 1 Thess 5.23 Where it easily appeares that there it is spoken of the Father since the holy Scripture understand him alone by the name of God subjectively put cheifly when he is distinguished from Christ Neither shall I easily beleeve that the Adversaries will take this place of the holy Spirit onely Also in the Old testament many places occur in which God affirmes that he it is who sanctifyes the people of Israel which either speak of the Father alone as we think or at least of the Father also not of the holy Spirit alone Of Christ you have testimonies Eph. 5.26 Heb. 2.11.13.12 For I pass by those places in which in some other manner sanctification is ascribed either to the Father or the Son But if the holy Spirit were a divine person equal to the Father in all things and to him in some cheif respect the action of sanctifying did agree how could it be that of him it should not be once said that he sanctifies but of the Father and Son it should be said plainly The action of sanctifying might be directly attributed indeed to the holy Spirit although it were not a person since we see that to many other * Mat. 23.17 19. Heb. 9.13 things and chiefly to qualities which they call active actions are directly attributed in holy Scripture and also the very act of sanctifying But it cannot be that the holy Spirit should be a person and that the act of sanctifying should agree to it in a peculiar manner above the Faâ—her and the Son and yet not be directly any where attributed to it We have by the way touched above also other reasons for we shewed in the Argument next foregoing that it would follow out of that supposition of the adversaries that the holy Spirit is the Father of Christ rather than God who is every where said to be his Father We have seen also * Chap. 3. of this Section above in the Epistle of Jude that Sanctification is ascribed to the Father Preservation of us to Christ the holy Spirit being not indeed so much as mentioned For so the Greek Text hath it Jude a servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James to them that are sanctified in God the Father and preserved in Christ Jesus the called Or as some later Interpreters in some manner studying the perspicuity of the sentence have rendred it called of God the Father or by the Father sanctified and saved by Jesus Christ Is it credible if the holy Spirit were a divine person to whom the action of sanctifying in some respect should rather agree than to the Father and Son that this action should be attributed as proper to the Father the mention of the holy Spirit being altogether omitted We have seen it also affirmed by Paul * 1 Cor. 8.6 That all things in any manner pertaining to our Salvation are from God the Father as the first cause all things in like manner by the Son as the middle cause no mention being made of the holy Spirit But if tâ—e holy Spirit were a divine person to whom so notable an action so greatly pertaining to our salvation should agree in some remarkable respect above those two persons not onely the mention of it could not be omitted but also it could not be rightly affirmed that all things are of the Father or that all things are by Christ For that person of the holy Spirit either as the first and supream cause should have something in so great a matter above the Father or as a midle cause above the Son when notwithstanding not some but all things are entirely attributed to the Father as the first cause and to the Son as the midle cause yet holding the next place from the first Lastly the common opinion concerning the Trinity doth not bear such a partition of actions and offices For if those persons have one and the same numerical understanding will power there is not any of these more in one than in the rest it is necessary that there be also one operation in number of all these as even the adversaries confess and that one person act not any thing more than another For such diversity or inequality of action could not arise any otherwise thence than that one person of this thing another of that a third of another thing should either think rather or would rather exercise it or lastly could better perfome it But such a difference cannot be held in that unity because seeing those persons think altogether with the same understanding not with another and another in like manner also they both will with the same will and work outwardly by the same power in number one thinks wills and workes as much as another not one more than another It is manifest therefore that sanctification and whatsoever pertaines to it doth in no wise more agree to the holy Spirit than to the Father and Son if he were one God with both And hence ariseth a third reason by which it is demonstrated that it cannot indeed be said no not by a Metonymie of the holy Spirit that he is given or received by men if he be held to be that one God together with the Father and Son For it will follow that the holy Spirit is no more given to us and received of us than the Father and the Son For those gifts and effects in respect of which the holy Spirit should be said to be given should no more come from the holy Spirit than from the Father and the Son nor in one respect from these and in another from that but in the same altogether But who hath ever heard who hath read that the Father was given to any or was prayed to be given to us when the gifts of the holy Spirit were prayed for Who asks at this day that the Son might be given to him being about to ask for those same gifts Who would brook him that should ask Christ that he would give the Father to him or would pray to the person of the holy Spirit
that he would bestow the Father and Son and himself also upon us But if you look on the some of the Adversaries opinion it will be very lawfull to pray after that manner And certainly believers when they ask spiritual gifts do not intend that those things be given which may by name come from the third person of the Deity as if it were not all one to them whether the same come immediately either from the Father or the Son For what other thing do they then seek than that being endued with divine virtue they may be filled either with more plentiful knowledge of divine mysteries or some coelestial joy or singular fervour of piety or other heavenly gifts All which that they may immediately come as well from the Father and Son as from the supposed person of the holy Spirit is easily understood by all Wherefore if the holy Spirit be the most high God there is no cause why those gifts should be rather called the holy Spirit than the Father or Son Or when the same are asked or given of God the holy Spirit should rather be said to be asked or given than the Father and Son Lastly If the holy Spirit were the most high God he should not be given by another person nor commanded to be asked but from himself rather as both the chief and proper fountain those gifts should at least somewhere be commanded to be asked But that is no where done In some sort a double reason doth lye hid in this one Argument One That the gifts flowing from him are no where commanded to be asked of him as neither any thing else of which matter something hath been said above * Chap. 2. of this Section so that there is no need I should here stay on it Another That the holy Spirit is commanded to be asked and said to be given of another to wit the Father For from hence it follows that the holy Spirit cannot chose but distribute his gifts when the Father so wills and on the contrary not distribute them when the Father will not For if he could distribute them when the Father is unwilling or not distribute them though the Father be willing it were better to ask the holy Spirit himself that he would bestow them on us than the Father Besides that it would thence follow that the Father is not the most high God as who hath not all gifts absolutely in his own power and although he would give some gifts to men yet he cannot but by anothers consent But now if the holy Spirit cannot but distribute his gifts when the Father will and not distribute them when the Father will not and so necessarily conform himself to anothers will he is not the most high God For the most high God is altogether at his own will at his own dispose nor doth he ever fashion himself after anothers will especially necessarily For he should be in anothers power and so acknowledge another superiour by which very thing he would cease to be the most high God Now if you say that the holy Spirit indeed cannot do otherwise than the Father will but that cometh to pass not because he is in the Fathers power but because he is of the same numerical Essence and Will with him so that he cannot otherwise either will or doe than the Father willeth or doth See into what difficulties and snares you cast your self For if the Father and holy Spirit by reason of that unity necessarily will and do the same thing as indeed it cannot otherwise be if they were of the same Essence when the Father willed to send and so hath sent the holy Spirit the holy Spirit also willed to send and consequently hath indeed sent himself and on the contrary when the holy Spirit would be sent the Father himself also would be sent when the holy Spirit would in a corporeal shape descend upon Christ and did accordingly descend the Father also would descend in the same and did accordingly descend And what end at length will there be of absurdities But it is necessary that they cast themselves into Quagmires yea into Precipices who of their own accord turn from a plain and simple Truth so clearly expressed in holy Scriptures which they do who contend that the holy Spirit himself is not given us but his effect only We following that strait path having shewen that it follows from this namely that the holy Spirit is given to men that he is not the supream God now we shall also sâ—ew that he is not a person Now this hence is easily manifest that no person at the same time can be so given to many much less to innumeâ—able men that in very deed he should be and dwell in every one of them And we have already seen that the holy Spirit is thus given to believers dispersed through the whole world But that a person cannot be given in the said manner is hence manifest that that person is either infinite or finite if infinite tâ—ere is no necessity that it be given to men that it may exist and dwell in them yea it cannot indeed be given since it alwayes was in them and by reason of its infinitie could not but be so to omit other difficulties If finite that I urge not that it cannot by the adversaries be acknowleged for the most high God it cannot be so given at once to many and consequently to innumerable men that in very deed it should exist in every one otherwise it would be torn into parts which very thing it self would destroy that person It is easie now to observe that that instance of the Adversaries fetcht from the giving of Christ hath no force For they say that Christ also was given to us Isa 9.6 Some add also that of Paul Rom. 8.32 That God will with Christ give us all things But they say that Christ is both a person and besides the most high God That he is not the most high God we have shewn before and it may be evinced even out of those very places which are alleaged For the most high God is neither a little one nor is born nor is the Son of God he cannot be delivered for us no not indeed by himself much less by another he is not such as that he could be spared or not spared But besides that we may mind what is proper to this place when it is said by Isaias that a son is given to us it is not signified that he is so given to us that he may be indeed in us or posessed by us in any manner in which sence the holy Spirit is said to be given to us but that he is given for our profit or for our cheifest good and benefit which easily appears from the preceeding verse where in the same sense he is said to be a little one born to us For neither is Christ said to be born to us that he should exist in us or be possessed by
but proceeds and flows from him when so far as he will not otherwise than the light from the Sun or that force which they call influence from Stars or as heat from fire upon things put to it For let me be allowed to illustrate a thing most divine by similitudes to which you have not unlike ones concerning wisdom issuing from God in the Author of the Book of Wisdom Chap. 7.26.27 Therefore as the things mentioned by us diffuse their power and distribute it into many subjects and that often unequally so also God communicateth his power and virtue to many and not to all in the same measure and the same degree whence there ariseth some partition of his power so that no man may wonder that we following the Scripture urge some partition of the holy Spirit Although what need is there to defend or excuse that which the holy Writings do so plainly assert For what is it which the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews Chap. 2.4 saith That God confirmed by his testimony the Doctrine of the Gospel concerning everlasting salvation as well by signes and wonders and divers miracles as also by the distributions or divisions of the holy Spirit that is by distributing the holy Spirit among believers and imparting it to them in various measures as it hath pleased him What likewise is that which God long since said to Moses Num. 11.17 I will take off thy Spirit and put on them to wit the seventy Elders which also we see was done afterward in the very deed For so we read after Vers 25. And took the Lord of the Spirit which was in Moses and gave it to the seventy Elders and when the spirit had rested on them 2 Kings 2.9 they prophesied c. What moreover that which we read of Eliseus who would have given to him a double spirit of Elias or as it is in the Hebrew the mouth of two in the spirit of Elias that is a double part of his Spirit or sufficient for two as it is explained by learned men by comparing this place with that Deut. 21.17 where the same phrase occurrs although in another matter For there the Father is commanded to give doubles Heb. the mouth of two or a double part of goods to his first-born Son although boâ—â— of the hated wife Neither truly did Elizeus in vain ask for that as is understood by the following words of that place Moreover Paul makes mention also of the first-fruits of the Spirit Rom. 8.2 3. Now what else are the first-fruits of any thing but the first and select parts of it Lastly When John saith that God giveth the Spirit not by measure John 3.34 what other thing would he than that God gives the Spirit most plentifully But that cannot be said of a thing which can in no manner be encreased nor deminished nor divided into some parts And surely John doth tacitely intimate that God hath given or doth give the Spirit in some certain measure but to Christ alone he hath imparted a certain unmeasurable plenty of it But it is not necessary for us in this place to say all things which pertain to a further explication of those places that shall be done if God will else where For it is enough now to have shewn that a certian distribution doth befal the holy Spirit which cannot by any means befall a divine person yea no person at all unless with some corruption of it But the distribution of the holy Spirit brings no corruption to it The Defence and Confirmation of the Argument BUt we have already above shut up this way for escape to wit that these things are to be understood of the gift or effect of the holy Spirit who is a divine person Besides that it may appear by some places * Chap. 8. of this Section alleaged by us and the like to them that that Spirit of which these things are said is one thing the gift understood by the adversaries another thing namely a quality or motion imprinted on men by a divine spirit See Numb 11 25 c. Compare together Joel 2.28 29. Zach. 12.10 and Isa 11.2 John 3.34 That I mention not now the History it self of the effusion of the holy Spirit set down Acts 2. by which it is manifest that the holy Spirit poured out on the Apostles and distributed is one thing the gift flowing from thence another thing See vers 3.4 But of the same Spirit also other places are to be understood Out of the places hitherto brought by us you may easily frame many arguments For every manner of expression used in the testimonies signifying either more openly or more covertly some division of the holy Spirit may supply us with a several reason For they so abhor from the supream deity that no man may daâ—e to use them of it No such thing surely is so much as intimated in the holy Scriptures either of the Father or of the Son Who hath either heard or dare say that there is taken of the Father or of Christ that there is given or poured out of him that he is distributed or doubled that he is given either in measure or without measure that any one has the first fruits of him or the first and better parts of him But what other cause is there of this thing then because they are persons and indeed divine ones although the latter not of himself but by the grace and gift of God Therefore there would be the same reason of the holy Spirit also if it were likewise the most high God CHAP. X. The tenth Argument 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 THe words of the Apostle 1 Thes 5.19 where speaking of the holy Spirit â—e warnes that we quench not the Spirit deserve the sixth place in this rank whence in like manner is understood that the holy Spirit is not the most high God For these words shew that that Spirit may be quenched But who dares say that in any wise of the most high God Who would brook him who sâ—ould waâ—ne thus beware thou extinguish not God the Father Would not our very eares refuse such formes of speaking But there is the same reason of the holy Spirit as of the Father if the holy Spirit be the most high God For that therefore cannot be said of God the Father because he is the most high God But if thou wouldst excuse it by some trope which otherwise we deny not to be in the words it is to be considered which we a little before have minded that tropes ought to be modest most of all when the name of the most high God is used of wâ—om we must so speak and the Apostle so speak as is beseeming his Majesty But we have alâ—eady hinted that such manner of speaking agrees not to God and is rejected
presently by mens ears as absurd Some prophets use a more lofty and figurative style than the Apostles which is seen especially in Psalmes and songs For they contain some kind of verse and as is observed by learned men come nearer to the style of Poets than to speech in prose But you shall read no such thing there of God much less ought we to think that the Apostle who scarce riseth above common speech hath in delivering precepts used so bold and unusual a figure if you acknowledge that the holy Spirit is properly a divine inspiration or certain power flowing from God into men you will easily understand that that manner of speaking is not at all absurd For nothing hinders that a divine inspiration especially in this or that man may cease and be extinguished Hence also may be understood that manner of speech concerning the holy Spirit used by John The holy spirit was not yet Because that Jesuit was not yet glorified Arg. 10 from 1 Thes 5.19 John 7 30 Act. 19.3 Which some of the adversaries perceiving not to be agreeable to their opinion of the holy Spirit they have thought it to be thus read The Spirit was not yet given which reading others * See Beza Acts 19.3 of the adversaries have noted and shewed that it is not to be admitted Not much different from this manner of speaking is that which those disciple that were found by Paul at Ephesus used For when Paul had asked of them whether since they believed they had received the holy Spirit they answered John 7.39 that they had not so much as heard whether there were a holy Spirit Let the Adversaries feign here what Tropes they will yet will they never perswade a serious man and one that considers in what manner we are wont to speak of any thing that either John or those disciples could speak so of the holy Spirit if the holy Spirit were God Wil t thou say God is not yet the Father is not yet the Son is not yet because a certain effeâ—t of him is not yet extant among men What author What example is there for it Shall a man say he knowes not whether the most high God be because he hath not heard that certain gifts of his doe happen to men But if you shall think the holy Spirit to be a divine inspiration or a certain power issuing from God to men you will not wonder at those manners of speaking For because Christ being not yet glorified that inspiration was not wont to happen to men although beleevers and afterward also those Ephesian disciples knew not that it was done therefore John indeed said that the holy Spirit was not yet Christ being not yet glorified â—ut those disciples that they â—ad not indeed heard whether there was a holy Spirit CHAP. XI The eleventh Argument From John 15.26 where the holy Spirit is said To proceed from the Father AFter we have drawn Arguments out of those places of Scripture in which those things are said of the holy Spirit which agree not rather to persons than things it remaines that we fetch reasons also from those attributes of the holy Spirit which indeed properly taken agree onely to persons or at least Suppositums but are figuratively attributed to the holy Spirit or first and of themselves agree to Suppositums to other things onely consequently Let that be the first of them that the holy Spirit is said to proceed from the Father Joh. 15.26 There is indeed some Metaphor in the word proceeding which the adversaries also are compelled to acknowledge For to proceed doth properly agree but to men or to living creatures which move themselves from place to place but it hinders not but that we may hence draw an Argument For it is agreed between us and the Adversaries that this word being referred to the holy Spirit denotes its production from the Father by which namely the holy Spirit is in very deed that which it is Arg. 11 from Joh. 15.26 Whence the adversaries would that that procession was from eternity and say that as the Son received his Essence by geneâ—ation from the Father so the holy Spirit received the same by procession of which thing there is no need now to speak more largely It shall be done the Lord helping afterward Lib. 2. Sect. 2. Chap. 1 c. and Sect. 3. Now it is enough to have hinted what we have said For from this that the holy Spiâ—it is said to proceed from the Father and to receive his Essence it is manifest that he is not the most high God For the same reasons for which we have said before * Sect. 2. Chap. 2. that the Son of God is not the most high God because he was begotten of the Father and from him received his Essence For in this case there is the same reason of procession as there is of generation yea as we shall shew in its place that procession devised by the Adversaries is no less generation than that of the Son Wherefore what we have said of the generation of the Son of God is hither also to be transferred Add to those this reason also that Christ signifie that that procession doth even yet continue For he doth not say that the holy Spirit hath proceeded from the Father but that it doth proceed Neither indeed do the more learned adveâ—sarie deny it who have devised such a manner of procession as hath continued from all eternity is to continue unto all eternity Therefore according to their opinion the holy Spirit even yet receives his Essence from the Father and also from the Son and is to receive it unto all ages But it must needs be that the most high God hath already fully had his Essence from all eternity so that he now any more neither hath nor can possibly received it however it be supposed which is impossible that he could at any time receive his Essence from another Besides they who contend that the procession of the holy Spirit of which Christ in John speakes For there is no where else express mention made of it hath continued from all eternity and that it sâ—all continue to all eternity have not considered that Christ speakes of that procession of the holy Spirit by which it should come to pass that the holy Spirit should be sent from him to the disciples and moreover come to them For if you consider the rest of the things spoken of in the same place you will find no other cause why Christ said that the holy Spirit doth proceed from the Father than that he might declare that which he had said whom to wit the Advocate I will send to you from the Father neither do the adversaries seem to deny it But what hath that procession which continues from eternity to eternity common with the sending and coming of the holy Spirit to the disciples yea that would rather hinder this if by that the holy
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
whom you most respect and approve how few Argumentations will you find which are manifest from the holy Scriptures What is more usual than such Argumentations as these To whom the Properties of that One God agree he is that one God But to Christ or the holy Spirit these agree Again To whom actions proper to persons agree he is a person But they agree to the holy Spirit But where are those Propositions which they call major Propositions that I say nothing now of Assumptions written whence will they draw them but from reason But if Argumentation when we treat even of Mysteries may be firm from one Proposition which Reason only supplies why may it not be also from two if as well Reason approves both as one Besides if we argue either from the Opinions of the Adversaries themselves or from Opinions and Principles confessed by all who can reprehend it unless most unjustly especially if we shew that that Doctrine implies as they speak a contradiction and overthrows it self For all men who are of right understanding do confess that no doctrine can be true which implies a contradiction or the force of which is such that it is necessary that the same thing be and not be together to wit in the same respect part time For this principle being taken away all Science is taken away and although you should a thousand times demonstrate God to be three in persons yet it might be allowed for another alike truely to say that he is not three and so in all other things But we may without difficulty shew that the common Doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in one numerical Essence doth imply a contradiction What then remains but that it be acknowledged by all to be false But that the thing is so as we have said being holpen by Divine Aid we shall demonstrate in the following Book THE SECOND BOOK OF John Crellius Concerning One God the Father HAving shewed from the holy Scriptures the Most High God to be none other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Now we will confirm the same chiefly by other Arguments and indeed so that we may refel the Doctrine contrary to this Opinion partly from the very nature of it and the received opinions of the Adversaries partly from other principles The truth of which may be demonstrated in a certain manner But we shall divide this whole tract again into three Sections In the first we shall in general discourse of those three Persons of supream Divinity which are maintained and shall shew that that Doctrine doth oppose it self and also other Suppositions of the Adversaries In the second of the second Person of that Trinity which they hold to be the Son of God In the third we shall speak of the third Person which they make the holy Spirit Which being finished we shall so conclude this whole work as to shew the manifold Use of this Disputation The first Section Arg. 1 There would be three Gods In which is generally treated concerning the three Persons of the supream Deity which are commonly maintained CHAP. I. The first Argument By which is shewed That the common Doctrine of the Trinity overthrows it self because there would be at once one and three Gods THat we may therfore perform that which we have propounded in the first place first Thence it is manifest that the common Doctrine of three Persons in one God doth imply a contradiction and so overthroweth it self because both one God and three Gods to wit Most High are there asserted together One God indeed expresly but three if you consider the force of the Opinion For they say That there are three Persons really distinct from among themselves each of which is God For as much as they are wont to say and are compelled to say by the force of their Opinion The Father is God The Son is God The holy Spirit is God but they alwayes speak of the same Most high God But now where there are three persons really distinct from among themselves each of which is the most high God there are three most high Gods Reckon up now those Persons and you will have three most high Gods for the first will be the Father the second the Son the third the holy Spirit The matter needs no disputation with him who by reason of a preconceived Opinion concerning God when there it is treated of him hath not forgat to number three A larger Defence and Confirmation of the Argument BUt nevertheless they urge that those three are one God If they should so call those three one God as we call three or more Senators one Senate since it cannot be said of them separately thus far it might be pardoned to them But seeing they pronounce the name of the most high God of each person distinctly taken and are altogether compelled to pronounce it by the force of their Opinion they cannot say it For from this Opinion it doth altogether follow that either the Father is the Son and holy Spirit and reciprocally or the Father is one God in number another the Son another the holy Spirit the former of which takes away the real distinction of the persons the latter overthrows the Unity of God and manifestly makes three Gods in number For as to the former thus I will argue That one God is the Father as the holy Scriptures testifie it and the Adversaries confess it But the Son according to the Adversaries Opinion is that one God that same even in number who was now called the Father Therefore the Son is the Father But the same Argumentation may be also inverted the premises being converted and transposed and in like manner may be framed concerning the holy Spirit in relation to the Father and Son Nor can it otherwise be dissolved unless you say that the Son is one God in number the Father another likewise the holy Spirit another and so there are three Gods in number Therefore whithersoever the Adversaries turn themselves by that their Tenet they overthrow both their own Doctrine and the sence of the holy Scriptures Moreover do I not rightly argue thus The Father is a divine Person the Son is a divine Person the holy Spirit is a divine Person therefore there are three divine Persons not one The Adversaries will altogether so assert Why then do I not likewise rightly argue The Father is the most high God the Son is the most high God the holy Spirit is the most high God therefore there are three most high Gods not one If we would urge examples fetcht from things created Peter is a man Paul is a man John is a man therefore there are three men not one or Michael is an Angel Gabriel is an Angel Raphael is an Angel therefore there are three Angels not one if I say we would urge these examples the Adversaries would cry out that the thing is one way in creatures another way in God But now when we use the
example of divine Persons what will they say That the thing is one way in divine Persons another way in God Is it so But what if we demonstrate that that very God of whom we treat is a divine Person as also on the contrary Will they yet deny that that is in force in God which is in force in a divine Person But it is easie to demonstrate that partly from the holy Scriptures partly from the Opinion of the Adversaries themselves They say that each divine Person is that one God and why may they not say it Forasmuch as they hold that each of them hath the whole Essence of the one God neither can they say otherwise without overthrowing that Doctrine of the Trinity Now the holy Scriptures plainly affirm of the Father that he is that one God But that will be false if that one God be not a divine Person For it may be rightly argued thus That One God is not a divine Person the Father is a divine Person therefore the Father is not that one God The same arguing according to the Adversaries Opinion will be found concerning the Son and holy Spiriâ— These things which are said of us to confirm the first Argument might also by themselves be alleaged to refel the Adversaries Opinion But it matters not on our behalf whether they be taken for peculiar Arguments or for props of the first Although this may be confirmed also by another general reason for wheresoever subjects are in very deed multiplyed those things also are multiplyed which are said distinctly of each and are indeed multiplyed according to the number of their subjects We have already declared the thing by examples both divine and angelical and humane neither can it at all be refelled by any example Run over all kinds of things and you will find that the thing is so As many men as there are so many living creatures bodies substances are there as many Angels so many Spirits as many Lines so many Longitudes and Quantities as many Vertues so many Habits so many Qualities as many Fathers so many Relates and so in the rest To wit because all those Predicates are multiplyed according to the number of their Subjects Wherefore also as many divine Persons as there are so many Gods and indeed most high Gods there will be seeing the most high God is distinctly predicated of each divine person Whence it appeareth that the Athanasian Creed doth plainly contradict it self while it thus pronounceth The Father is God The Son is God The holy Spirit is God and yet there are not three Gods but one God And also the Father is Eternal Omnipotent Infinite in the same manner both the Son and holy Spirit and yet there are not three Eternals Omnipotents Infinits but on Eternal Omnipotent Infinite Perhaps some one will say that the word God is one way taken when it is predicated of each person another way when it is put absolutely there it is taken hypostatically or personally here essentially Truly I do not believe that the more accute Adversaries will so answer since they will have God as also some the Father essentially taken to be predicated also of each of the persons Add hereunto that it would be necessary to make the same Ambiguity in the word Eternal Omnipotent Infinite that one should be said to be essentially eternal omnipotent infinite not personally another on the contrary personally Otherwise they should again labour to reconcile that contradiction which may seem to be in those words that since the Father is both eternal and omnipotent and infinite and likewise the Son and the holy Spirit and yet there are not three eternals omnipotents infinites but one only But I remember not that I have ever read or heard that the Adversaries do feign the same ambiguity in the word Eternal Omnipotent Infinite Wherefore I do not easily believe as I said that the more acute Adversaries will so answer Nevertheless if any shall so answer what other thing will he say than that the Athanasian Creed playes sophistically and deceives rude and simple men with the ambiguity of a word For who of them would think that the word God is there taken two manner of wayes For to what purpose I pray you are those words added And yet there are not three Gods but one God Is it not for that cause lest any especially of the ruder sort of men hearing the Father to be God the Son to be God the holy Spirit to be God should thence gather that there are three Gods But in what signification surely in that in which he had heard that the Father is God likewise both the Son and the holy Spirit For this scruple doth first arise neither presently the other signification of the word comes into the mind of a rude man This opinion therefore is refuted by those words and further the word God is taken in the same manner in both places not one way then when it is spoken of each of the persons and another way then when it is put absolutely and God is said to be one Besides from such an exception it follows nevertheless that it may be rightly said that there are three Gods if the word God be taken personally as indeed the Adversaries confess it is often so taken in the holy Scriptures And it might indeed seem strange that they do not expresly say that there are three Gods but that they see that it is most openly repugnant to the holy Scriptures whilest they are bold to say that there are three Elohim and some Books are extant concerning three Elohim written by divers Adversaries For what other thing doth Elohim signifie than Gods Therefore three Elohim are three Gods namely they endeavour by an Hebrew and less known word somewhat but ridiculously to cover the absurdity Indeed such manner of speaking is reprehended by some more accute Adversaries of the number of whom yet there are not wanting who judge the Hebrew Elohim when it is pronounced of the most high God to be plural no less in signification than Grammatical form But if it be plural in signification also it signifies Gods no less than the Greek Theoi or other words answering to it in other languages Therefore there are more Gods But moreover the distinction between God hypostatically or personally and essentially taken is altogether vain especially when it is spoken concerning the most high God For both the very word God is the name of a person since it is the name chiefly of him that hath command over others and the most high God signifies the supream Ruler and Monarch of all things But to command and rule belongs only to persons Add that we have shewed above in this very chapter that that one God besides whom there is no other is a person as on the contrary there cannot be any one hypostatically or personally God I say the most high God but he is also essentially so For is not he essentially God who
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
only which shews its absurdity presently at the first sight that the Father Son and holy Spirit are by themselves non entia or no beings from which yet men of great name among those of their own way famous also by their writings in Divinity do not abhor Fot neither do I doubt but that many even of the Adversaries do disapprove of it But that very thing also is much unworthy that they make God and Christ that I say noâ—hing now of the â—oly Spirit a subsistence or mode of a Being For whaâ— He that is God he that hath a divine Substâ—nce is he a subsistence and nor rather a thing by it self subsisting a mode of a being not a being it self How then doth he rule How doth he do any thing How is he invocated by us And that I may comprise all in one word how is he God For actions and those things which are the pâ—oper consequents of actions are not of a subsistence but of a thing subsisting For the subsistence hath no faculty and power from which action may how but the thing subsiâ—ting Doth the subsistence actually will understand govern create preserve Do you when you call upon Goâ— invocate some mode of the divine Essence Do you ask that some mode may help or preserve you Certainly if the divine persons be that no simple or common men do believe the divine Persons being by their very subtilty altogether out of the reach of their beâ—t understanding But what do I speak only of the simple men Indeed neither most of the learned do respect to themselves such persons either when they pray or when they think any other thing of God or of Christ perhaps neither they themselves who have devised those things except then when they labour to reconcile some of their tenets to one another These things might sufficiently refute the device to spâ—ak most tenderly of those men But yet that both the Nature of a person may so much the more clearly appear and be so much the more satisfactory let us say a little more of that matter First then Whilst they make a person a subsistence they forget themselves who say the same is a Suppositum Neither indeed could I hitherto see any man who would deny that a Suppositum is the Genus of a Person and that it may accurately â—e predicated of it And this might be here enough for us that all acknowledge in God three Suppositums But now they say that a Suppositum is such a Substance as we have before described and the reason of its name which the inventers of it have looked or requires it For neither is a subsistence the ultimum subjectum or lowest subject of which ultimate all things may at last be predicated and it self of none but a Substance it self or a Being endued with subsistence subsistence is in a Being and although it be â—ot an Accident yet is it predicated of that in which it is in the manner of an Accident But all such things are denyed by all to be Suppositums Add this that the actions which are proper to Suppositums agree not to a Subsistence but to a Substance it self or a Being that hath subsistence as that which hath a power necessary for acting as we have a litâ—le before minded Subsistence doth contribute nothing less but that a Being may subsist by it self and moreover may act by it if namely it hath a power and some faculties Besides who would say that a man of an Angel is a subsistence and not rather a substance or thing by it self subsisting But every man is a person and in like manner every Angel And that we may go higher Christ also is a substance not a subsistence a being not a mode of a being But he is a person therefore a person is not a subsistence Otherwise from the Adversaries opinion we should thus argue Every person is a subsistence No Man Angel nor Christ himself is a subsistence Wherefore neither a person Perhaps some one will say that created persons are indeed substances but the divine persons are subsistences neither is a person a genus univocum to a person created and uncreated but analogum only But first we may ask of him whether he would have Christ to be a created person only or uncreated or both together If created only his opinion will be false as being one who maintains Christ to be the second person of the Trinity For this person is uncreated nor could it cease to be uncreated but that the Trinity would fall to the ground one person to wit the second being taken out of the number of the three If uncreated only Christ will be only a subsistence if a divine person be a subsistence only not a thing subsisting which all see to be false For he who is a man is certainly a substance not a subsistence If both together he will have two persons of a different nature or of a different definition For the one will be a substance the other a subsistence not a substance But there is but one Christ one person of him as all confess and urge it against Nestorians Furthermore the reason or definition of a Suppositum which agrees even to a divine or uncreated person doth not permit as we have seen the divine person to be only a subsistence I say no more than a created Lastly that very thing which is brought for a reason doth overthrow that Opinion For if a person be an analogum genus to a person both uncreated and created it must needs be that a divine person is not a subsistence but a substance For neither are analogums the subsistence of God and the created thing subsisting but the substance created is analogum to the uncreated the subsistence to the subsistence the mode to the mode and reciprocally Wherefore if the person câ—eated be a substance not a subsistence or some mode also the uncreated will be a substance not a subsisâ—ence I say a thing subsisting not a mode of a thing But as for that which they say that when a person is said to be a first intelligent substance this definition is of a person taken in concreto not in abstracto I will ask of them what they understand by the name of a person taken in concreto what likewise taken in abstracto If they do in that manner take the concretum in which substance are said of some to be concretums as man animal whose abstractums they will have to be humanity animality Of such concretums there are delivered most accurate definitions and in this manner a person is altogether to be defined in this place where it is inquired whether the Father Son and holy Spirit â—e three persons in one divine Essence For neither tâ—e Father Son and holy Spirit are personalities but persons unless you will say likewise that man is humanity animal animality Father paternity and so in the rest in which manner concretums will be abstractums and on the contrary
act of will makes the third person of the Divinity For both that love is in God and infinite and moreover no less God than that Image produced by the understanding but in person is necessarily distinct from them by whom he is produced These Mysteries do they open unto us concerning the production of two divine persons it is wonderful with what deep silence of the holy Scriptures kept secret and how forreign from those things which the same holy Scriptures do in most plain words deliver concerning the Generation of the Son by God and in their due place * Sect. 2. Lib. 1. Chap. 31. are produced by us Here they who cry out that Reason is blind in divine things who would not that any may dispute from it against the Trinity who have often that in their mouth The searcher of the Majesty shall be oppressed by its Glory as they think was written by Solomon here I say they ought to cry out that Reason is blind that these search the divine Majesty that it is unlawful to attempt to express the unutterable Mysteries But unless such things had been devised they had not at this day had their Trinity But it is wonderful how preposterously the Adversaries do here behave themselves For whilst they do so urge the simplicity that whatsoever is in God they hold to be God yet in the mean time bring in more persons into him and if you consider the force of their opinion infinite or numberless they by this very reason quite destroy the Simplicity But that is yet more grievous that whilst they seem to be willing to have such regard to the Simplicity of which notwithstanding the holy Scriptures are silent as being not necessary to be known to the salvation and are altogether unknown to the more simple men they take away the unity which the holy Scriptures so often and so plainly inculcate But let us now let pass both these and not a few other absurdities which are contained in this opinion of which some are shewn above some shall be shewn afterward and let us demonstrate that which a little before we propounded to wit that hence it follows That the Son of God is his own Son Neither is it difficult to demonstrate that For if the Essence and moreover the Understanding of the Father and the Son be the same in number there is also the same operation in number of the understanding especially because the more acute Adversaries by reason of the greatest Simplicity of God hold that his intellect and intellection are the same thing Therefore if the Father hath begotten the Son by the operation of his understanding the Son also whos 's the same operation was begat himself Yea further the holy Spirit begat that Son of God existing from eternity and so is the Father of the Son and Principle of his own Principle For by the same intellection together with the Father and Son from all eternity he understood and contemplated himself and his Essence and also even the Father and the Son And so because with the same act of will the holy Spirit together with the Father and Son willed and loved whatsoever they will and love if the holy Spirit be a certain act of will or something produced by the Father and Son by the operation of will the holy Spirit also hath produced himself Besides It is to be affirmed that by this means not only the same persons have produced themselves but also infinite or innumerable others For since each person understands both himself and the other persons and desâ—res and loves them it is necessary that each again produce more both Sons and holy Spirits if those things be true which they inculcate to us concerning the divine Intellection and love For there must be a different and so an unlike Image of the Father as he is the Father and of the Son as he is the Son and of the holy Spirit as such For the Father and Son as such are opposite between themselves and in like sort the holy Spirit as he is produced by both For they are relatives and all relatives as we have said above are opposite but there must be opposite Images of opposite things However this be there must be different Images of those things which really differ which may exactly express them and not only shew how they agree between themselves but also how they differ But according to the diversity and multitude of those Images there will arise also a multitude of acts of wil love with which those several persons embrace those Images and again those Images prosecute the persons by which they are produced and each also themselves and at length one another Wherefore if both those Images produced by the intellect and those acts of will in God are persons or at least principles of divers persons the persons will be in infinitum multiplyed Although if whatsoever is in God be God another way also will divine persons arise For in God there is an Image of every thing in particular which he understands if an intellection be not in God but by an Image likewise both decrees of infinite things and love towards things created and divers acts of will All these things therefore shall be God yet shall differ in persons from him or those from whom they are produced Therefore even thence we shall have infinite or innumerable persons in God CHAP. II. The second Argument Because there would be innumerable Sons as also innumerable holy-Spirits LEst any one perhaps should think that they only should fear an infinite multitude of divine persons who have devised that manner of generation of the Son of God and procession of the holy Spirit which in the precedent chapter we have explained we shall shew that others also must hold the same who will have the Son of God to have been generated from eternity out of the Essence of the Father and moreover since they see that the infinite multitude of the divine persons is most absurd they must acknowledge that also the Doctrine from whence it flows is most abhorrent from the truth For if God have begotten the Son out of his Essence and again together with the Son have produced the holy Spirit and these are with him the same God there is no cause why the son also hath not begotten another Son again and in like manner the holy Spirit another and this also another and so in infinitum For what cannot the Son and holy Spirit do what the Father could Then they are not the same God with him since they have not the same faculty and power but an unequal one Will you say that they would not But such things which pertain to things ad intra or to within as they speak in God are altogether necessary and are not subject to the free will But if they be subject to the free will it may come to pass that within some time more divine persons may grow when
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
there is none in him mortal men do But true cannot be contrary to true no more yea less than an Egg to an Egg Milk to Milk Neither may they fetcht patronage of so absurd a distinction from Aristotle who saith as we have before minded that some things are really distinct some in reason For with him those things are distinct in reason which the schoolmen say are formally distinguished that is which although they be united together and by a certain indissolvable knot either on both sides or on one part joyned yet differ in forms and proper Essences as docility and the faculty of admiring in the same man generation and corruption For every natural and properly so called Generation is the corruption of another thing and on the contrary Nevertheless these things differ yea are opposite and so have opposite essences also which are in the same matter in respect of divers things For one thing is corrupted another thing is generated So the foundations also are distinguished from the relations which rest on them But those things differ also in the whole genus or predicament So also the comparisons of the same thing with divers relations have forms and essences divers either in the genus or species or number as also termini and correlata differ Therefore the intellect doth not feign those distinctions in things but in very deed finds them in them and the Schoolmen themselves say that those things are distinct actually which although we think not of them are distinct in forms although they exist together But if they would acknowledge such a difference between the divine persons and essence the Patrons of it will neither be able to reconcile the common Doctrine of the Trinity with it self nor with their other Doctrines Not with it self for by this means each person will have its proper form and essence and so those persons will be and will not be at once of one essence Not with their other doctrines because the exactest simplicity of God will fall But if they acknowledge not that distinction then the Trinity will fall all true difference between the essence and the persons and thereupon of the persons also between themselves being taken away Wherefore which way soever the Adversaries turn themselves they will not be able to defend that their Trinity or plurality of persons in one Essence of God and therefore there remains no other thing than that they confess together with us that there is no less one person than one substance of God The use of this Disputation The Conclusion of the Work In which the Use of this Disputation concerning One God the Father is explained THerefore having demonstrated that the most high God is no less one in person than in essence and that he is no other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ it remains that we shew the Use of this Doctrine Now this is so much the greater by how much the contrary Doctrine is more hurtful and so much the farther it spreads it self by how much the farther the incommodities of the contrary opinion are extended For first how necessary it is to understand and believe that there is only One most high God both the holy Scriptures shew which do often inculcate it and all men easily understand But now unless you hold that there is only One Person of the Supream Deity you can neither sufficiently understand nor constantly believe and maintain the Unity of the supream Deity For as much as it is sufficiently shewed by us that more persons having supream Divinity are more most high Gods But although this errour be somewhat infringed and diminished by another errour whilst it is affirmed that there is one essence in number of those persons yet it is not altogether taken away and suffers not men to understand sufficiently and to believe constantly that which is said of the Unity of the divine Essence For although you endeavour never so much you cannot conceive in your mind one and the same essence of three persons really distinct from among themselves especially if you will think of those things that which either the holy Scriptures or the Adversaries themselves asserâ— of the Father Son and holy Spirit belonging to the differencing of them from each other For whosoever hears even those very names and thinks the Son to be truly begotten of the Father the holy Spirit to have proceeded from both forthwith he must needs think three essences divers in number however otherwise most like one another or in some certain manner coupled together Likewise he who thinks that the Father sent the Son and again both together the holy Spirit that the Son descended from Heaven and as they hold assumed flesh neither of the other descended or assumed flesh again that the holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape the Father and the Son not descending how is he not together constrained to cocceive in his mind distinct essences And if he shall attribute supream Deity to each of them he will conceive three Gods in number although most like one another and in a certain manner united together Seeing therefore by this means a multitude of Gods is brought in by that opinion it is necessary that that by the same means also fall into those absurdities which follow from the multitude of Gods He that holds more most high Gods distributes the glory and honour due to one unto more and as much as he attributes to the rest so much he takes away from that one For since they are held to be equal one to another nor is one acknowledged to be subordinate to the other although also a false opinion of subordination is as none that which is attributed to one doth not come to another Wherefore he who acknowledgeth and worshippeth more persons having supream Divinity transfers to more that which was due to one and detracts from that one that which he attributes to the rest And that you may more nearly behold the matter if the Father alone as we have demonstrated be the most high God who doth not see that those absurdities do follow from the contrary opinion concerning the Trinity For first the honour of the Father is diminished whilst that which by far he hath of all things most sacred and wherein he excels all things is equally communicated with others to wit the supream Deity and further whatsoever things are proper to this alone whether they be his works or ours respecting his Glory and Honour For presently it is necessary that both the creation of Heaven and Earth and that I may let pass other innumerable works the raising up and exaltation of Christ which we have shewed * Lib. 1. Sect. 2. chap. 18 29. by most clear testimonies of Scripture to be imputed to the Father alone be thought common to the whole Trinity as indeed the Adversarias think So neither doth the love of men which ought to come ultimately to the Father alone and to
c. 12. 44. 60 70 c. 14. 7. 11.  10. 65.  16 17. 209 c.  26. 228.  28. 84 c. 15. 4. 53.  10. 121.  26. 126 227. 16. 3. 11.  7. 228.  13. 229 c.  18. 118 c.  32. 119. 17. 1. 107 c.  2. 100.  3. 1 c. 185.  4. 100. 5. 5. 102 c.  22 24. 102.  25. 11 20. 22 207  31. 11.  Acts.  1. 2. 163 c. 2. 3. 240.  18 19. 223.  24 c. 136.  30. 56 c.  33. 33. 119.  36. 102 108.  38. 199. 5. 3 4. 173 c.  31. 114. 10. 38. 199.  45. 199. 11. 17. 205. 13. 32 33. 150. 15. 21. 217. 19. 3. 226. 28. 25 26. 173 180.  Rom.  1. 3. 56. c.  4. 150 157 158  16. 201. 3. 30. 30 35. 4. 1. 57. 5. 5. 210 211. 6. 4 6 8. 218. 7. 17. 60. 8. 2 3 4. 308.  3. 89 c.  15. 211.  23. 224.  26. 180.  27. 236.  32. 216 217 218 9. 3. 56 c.  5. 56. 10. 9. 136. 11. last 45 222. 15. 6. 23. 16. 27. 4 5 36 c.  I. Cor.  1. 18. 201.  24. 201.  30. 113. 2. 4 5. 198 199.  10 c. 235 c.  12. 228. 3. 22. 126 c. 6. 19 20. 173 176. 7. 17. 53 8. 6. 13 c. 190 c. 214 222. 9. 6. 10. 10. 18. 57. 11. 3. 123 c. 12. 1 c. 29.  4 5 6. 28 c. 173 177.  13. 221. 15. 10. 60.  24. 23 99 c.   127 c.  28. 127.  II. Cor.  1. 3. 23.  22. 199 218 221. 3. 15. 217. 4. 4. 139 c. 5. 5. 198 199 218.  16. 37. 11. 31. 23. 13. 4. 136.  last 182.  Galat.  1. 4. 23. 2. 16. 53. 4. 4. 89 c.  6. 180.  23 29. 57.  Ephes  1. 3. 23.  13. 219 c.  14. 218 c.  17. 11 122 125. 3. 7. 199.  17. 217. 4. 4. 24 c.  6. 22 23 c.  9. 24. c.  20 21. 217.  30. 219. 5. 5. 189 c.  20. 23.  Philip.  2. 6 c. 170.  9 c. 102 103 108 305. 4. 20. 23.  Coloss  1. 3. 23.  15. 139 c. 169 c.  16. 112. 2. 2. 23.  3. 74 c. 3. 17. 23.  22. 57.  I. Thess  4. 2. 113  8. 175. 5. 19. 225 226.  II Thess  3. 12. 113.  I. Timoth.  1. 1. 188 189.  17. 4 5. 2. 5. 30 c. 6. 15 16. 4 5 9.  II. Timoth.  1. 7. 211. 2. 11 12. 218.  Titus  2. 13. 189.  Hebr.  1. 1. 113.  3. 139 c.  4 5. 158 c. 2. 4. 223. 3. 8 9. 173 180. 5. 5. 83 c. 12. 23 c. 192.  I. Peter  1. 3. 23.  II. Peter  1. 4. 156.  I. John  1. 3. 187 193. 2. 3 4. 11.  13 14. 11. 3. 1. 11. 4. 7. 11.  13. 222 c. 5. 7. 186 244.  20. 11.  Jude   1. 214.  4. 36 37 189.  25. 4 5.  Revelations  1. 1. 96 97.  4. 182 c. 3. 14. 169.  21. 105. 4. several 40 c. 5. several 40.  13. 187. 9 4. 53. 11. 15. 187. 12. 10. 187. 21. 25. 53. An INDEX of remarkable things contained in this BOOK A. ACtion agreeth not to the Subsistence but to the thing subsisting pag. 259 Things actually two or more cannot be one of themselves pag. 255 What things are actually distinct pag. 299 300 The force of an article in appositions pag. 9 10. What the unity of the same set before divers names denotes pag. 38 39 189. According to the flesh to what it is opposed in the Scripture pag. 56 57 c. The Aorist of Participles being joyned to Verbs of the Pretertense hath oftentimes a force of the Present-tense pag. 156 What the Apostles when they spake of the dignity of Christ do mention as the chiefest and most sublime thing pag. 11. They were properly witnesses of the Resurrection of Christ pag. 155 The Opinion of the Arrians touching Christ pag. 238 Those things are not wont to be askt of another which he himself that asketh them is both willing â—nd able easily to perform pag. 93 94 The word all is wont to be referred to the subject matter pag. 20 B. Things hard to be believed are frequently expounded in the Scripture pag. 160 161 C. To be called for to be pag. 144 To be Christ what pag. 103 To be Christ and to be the Son of God are oftentimes all one in the Scripture pag. 58 156 157 Many things are either affirmed or denied of Christ in the Scripture which could not be either affirmed or denied of him were he the most high God pag. 52 53 c. The Head of Christ is none besides the Father 125. What Cause Christ is of Salvation 18 19 110 111. How he was made Christ 103. He was in the Heavens before he began to discharge his Prophetick Office 149. What manner of Creation is attributed unto him 44 45. He is to be believed on as the Son of God 71. All things are given to him from the Father 96 97 c. and that out of grace 99. not by eternal generation 101. Whether the Kingdom is given to him as Mediator 104 105. or according to his humane nature 106 107. How He is given to us 217. How He is not excluded from true God-head 4 5. The Name of God is given unto Him as he is the Son of God 51. He did no where either expresly say or openly teach himself to be God 79. It can without absurdity be said that He is made God 108. Those that deny Him to be the most high God are compelled to deny the same of the Holy Spirit also 171. Whether He is Synecdochically said to be God or man 284. And whether by an unusual manner of predicating 284 285. He hath openly differenced himself from the most high God 11. How He is distinguished from God 48 c Divinity or God-head was bestowed on him by the Father 107. What manner of Lordship he hath 19. He is not the Prime Author of his Doctrine 65 c. He is an example to us both of holiness and felicity and that nearer than God 308 c. Wherefore he is called The Son of God 143 c. Wherefore chiefly 84. Wherefore far more frequently the Son of God than God 50. He is the middle scope and end of the Divine honouâ— 18. Which is
the Scripture attributed to the holy Spirit in a peculiar manner 164 165. Whether the same is more often ascribed to the Holy Spirit than to the Father or Son 213 c. The action of sanctifying is attributed by the Scripture even to things which are not persons pag. 213 The vulgar opinion touching the Satisfaction of Christ brings forth several absurdities and what they be pag. 312 c. The word Saviour agreeth to the Father also pag. 189 The Opinion of the Schoolmen touching the distinction between the divine Attâ—ibutes and tâ—e examination of the same 298 c. Again touching the distinction of the persons of the Trinâ—ty from the Essence pag. 300 301. Whether and how is any one said to search his own counsels pag. 235. Those that deny credit to be given to the sences overthrow the foundations of Faith pag. 311 c. To be sent agreeth not to the mo t high God 12 c. What it is to be sent into the world 149. One can be sent into the woâ—ld who never was in Heaven pag. 149 To whom is the word Son absolutely used of Christ related 129. The name Son is not essential to Christ 158. The Son of God cannoâ— be the most high God 14 50. The contrary opinion diminisheth the honour of the Father 304 305 c. neither is it conjoyned with the glory of Christ 304 c. yea it doth diminish the same 306 c. It robs both God of tâ—at glory which consists in managing our Salvation by Christ 307. and us of that incomparable fruit which God looked upon in the same 307 308 c. The Son of God is not the fiâ—st original of the holy Spirit 43. The Son of God is called the Son of man and on the contrary pag. 287 Why the Souls of men separated from their Bodies are not Persons 286 287. and how they are said to be intellâ—gent pag. 287 The Speâ—ies is predicâ—ted of the whoâ—e Individuum as such pag. 286 The woâ—d Spirit pâ—t subjectively doth no where denote the divine essence 58. nor the three persons of one divine essence 24. How it is predicated of the Father and Son pag. 24. The same put both simply and with an additament does oftentimes denote the holy Spirit pag. 24 The holy Spirit why called so 208 209. All things that come from the divine inspiration are ascribed to it 199 200. How it is said to have spoken unto any 180. How its knowledge is contained in the knowledge of the Father and Son 185 186. The holy Scripture is silent of its adoration or worship 181 c. It is often not joyned with God and Christ 185 c. even where the angels or other sacred things are mentioned 191 192. It is not the most high God 14 171 c. The contâ—ary Opinion diminisheth the honour of the Father 303 c. The same is no where called God in the Scripture 39 172 c. It is often distinguished from him 195 c. How was its descent upon Christ 241. It would not be said no not indeed by a Metonimy to be given unto men if it were the most high God 214 215. Wâ—ether the same it self be given or its effects only 206 c. How may it be distinguished from its effect 202 c. It s effusion upon the â—postles how attributed unto Christ 114. It s mission what 228. It doth admit a partition 222 c. and how 224. whetheâ— is it a person 216 217. It is no where said to have appeared in a form or shape of a person 241. It is no where comâ—â—ehended under the name of Father 21 22. It would be the Father of Christ if it were a person 204 205. It s procession what 226 c. 297 c. Whether that which is commonly maintained be any wise different from the generation of the Son of God out of the essence of the Father 295 c. How it doth proceed from the Son 43. What cause it is of the divine revelation 235. What its common signification was anciently 207 c. What manner of power or efficacy of God it is pag. 197 The same Subject is often described by diâ—ers names joyned togetâ—er by a copulative particle pag. 23. The subjects being multiplied those things also are multiplied that are distinctâ—y said of each of them pag. 250 A subsistence haâ—h of it self no power to act 32. It worketh noâ—hing 62. How many wayes it is taken by the Adversaries 262. One substance hath but one subsistence pag. 261 c. To subsist by it self how many wayes â—e said pag. 290 291 292. Whether the word substance may be used concerning God pag. 256 257 Suppositum what 257 258. wherefore be iâ— called so 258. What kind of suppositum constitutes a person pag. 286 287 T. A Temple may be his also who is not the most high God pag. 176 The things that are the same with one third thing are also among themselves the same pag. 253 c. Things are oftentimes in the Scripâ—ure joyned with persons and those divine ones 190. Things that are not persons can both descend from heaven and be shadowed by an outward specâ—es or shape pag. 240 To be tempted of the Devil agreeth agreeth not to the most high God pag. 166 c. The Common Opinion touching the Trinity may lawfully be refuted by arguments fetcht from Reason pag. 245 c. It brings in three most high Gods pag. 23 248 249 c. 302 c. It bears not a dist nction of offices and actions in the Persons 214. It overthrows it self pag. 248. It diminisâ—eth the honour of the Father 303. c. It cannot be percâ—ived by rude men 243. It is not contained in the holy Scripture 242. c. It is in very deed a Saâ—elliaâ—ism 279. It doth hinder them that aâ—e strangers to the Christian Religion from embracing it 314. Why that opinion is acurately to be examined pag. 315 Truth what pag. 300 U. The Doctrine concerning the Vbiquity of Christs Body is very absurd pag. 311 c. There was no need of the Vnion of two Natures in Christ pag. 294. From whence and how doth Paul conclude the Vnity of the Faithful pag. 25 26 Vnless for but or but if pag. 53 W. That cannot be simply denied of the whole which may or ought simply to be affirmed of the same pag. 41 59 60 c. What that is for which any one is to be worshipped pag. 108 The end or scope of the works of Christ pag. 111 With him for in like manner as to him pag. 218 Errata Pag. 7. line 17 communion p. 11. l. 18. d. ne ib. marg 1 Joh. 2.3 4 13 14. and Joh 6.69 p 23 l 41 Trâ—nity as p 24 l 28 for nor r or of p 38 l 39 f it r is p 57 l 1 dele of ib f also r so ib marg Gâ—l 3 7. p 59 l 5 f admitted r affirmed ib l 16 d not ib l 43 compositum p 60 l 45 and is wont p 61 l 40 from one part of p 62 l 5 any thing ib l 46 of one p 65 l 37 and 17. 8 14. p 70 l 9 exaltation p 72 l 9 Christ is p 73 l 11 Euthymius p 75 l 2 which he saith to the Apostles ib l 16 17. it is not the office of the Son to know that day p 78 l 17 to be p 86 l 21 f yea r it also p 95 l 6 f of r if p 100 l 3 that delivery ib Rom 2.7 10 and 5.2 marg p 104 l 29 of rule p 106 l 30 he was p 109 l 33 so divine p 117 l 6 why he ib l 25 f of r in p 125 marg and 17. 1. p 127 l 7 that Christ p 131 l 36 so p 134 l 18 f for r or p 136 l 18 would p 140 l 24 every one p 144 l 29 to be called p 149 m. Wujek p 150 m. the Son of God p 152 l 25 heareth p 153 l 45 neither p 154 l 43 cannot p 156 l 34 participle p 161 l 46 at Athens p 182 l 8 2 Cor. p 183 l 39 of him ib l 40 praises p 184 l 1 times p 188 l 26 f though r if p 200 l 1 inwardly p 202 last naturally p 208 l 3 4 either by the simple word Spirit or by the words holy Spirit p 209 l 38 by prayers for or to believers p 211 l 20 f or r as ib l 24 Hypotheses ib l 29 dwelleth ib l 37 through p 212 l 22 f gifts r goods ib l 42 43 who first heard either from Christ or from other divine men of the holy Spirit to be given to men p 213 l 11 chiefly p 220 l 3 him ib l 8 properly ib l 39 Metalepses ib l 43 which notwithstanding would c. p 230 l 12 Austin p 233 l 7 f he r we ib l 23 is not p 239 l 2 3. wrest the weapon out of c. ib l 27 also p 240 l 5 we may also another shorter way shew from hence namely ib l 6 d we may shew ib l 7 moâ— high ib l 14 Spirit a descent properly so called ib l 28 substances p 243 l 22 more than ib l 23 they must ib l 32 there of p 257 l 27 Universals ib l 38 f here r hence p 258 l 1 that manner ib l 3 have no. ib l 4 every ib l 5 that we ib l 17 d of ib l 32 incommunicable substance p 259 l 20 represent ib l 36 ultimately ib l 44 else p 260 l 40 substances p 261 l 10 add may be or exist after expressed p 262 l 46 they be modes p 278 l 24 first p 279 l 41 f explains and extremities r joyneth and extreams p 296 l 27 to another ib l 28 from which such a relation ariseth ib l 41 thing ib l 47 ro another FINIS
grant all that which we say but not to the same purpose For they say that the Father is not therefore called the only true God to exclâ—de the Son and holy Spirit from the same Godhead but only to exclude Idols or the false Gods of the Heathen For that here the TRUE God is opposed to false ones And indeed it is true that only the Father is therefore called the true God to exclude them from true Godhead who were then falsely esteemed and worshipped for gods but nevertheless it is done by Christ in such a manner as is of larger extent and excludeth not only them but all others also besides the Father from the most high Godhead Wherefore it is given us to understand that if the most high Godhead is attributed to any one besides the Father of Jesus Christ it is done erroneously Now as for that which we assert both the force of the words and the occasion or cause intimated by the Adversaries themselves doth require For as to the first such is the force of the word ONLY as that it excludeth all others from the communion of the predicate besides him to whom it is applied But he to whom the word ONLY if you consider the sence for we will afterwards speak of the construction of the words is applied is the Father of Jesus Christ as they themselves confess with whom we have now to do And the Predicate is THE TRUE GOD or the Most High God Wherefore the word ONLY doth from the communion of the Predicate exclude all besides the Father and consequently Christ and the holy Spirit As to the latter either therefore the gods of the Heathen are by these words of Christ understood to be excluded from true Godhead because it is apparent that they are different from the Father whom Christ calleth the only true God or because it is already apparent that they are false gods Not for the latter cause for otherwise they would be judged already excluded from true Godhead before they were understood to be excluded by vertue of the words of Christ nor would there be need to make use of these words to that purpose If for the former cause it is necessary that all who are apparently different from the Father of Jesus Christ should be excluded from that true or most high Godhead for otherwise the Argument which should from these words be drawn to exclude the Idols of the Heathen from the true Godhead would be invalid For it would be thus if it should by way of Syllogism be proposed some different from the Father of Jesus Christ are not the true God The Idols of the Heathen are different from the Father of Jesus Christ therefore are not the true god The Major would be particular in the first figure which makes the consequence invalid Wherefore although the false Opinion of the Heathen touching their Idols gave occasion to Christ to call his Father the only true God yet did he so shape his words that others also might be excluded from that true Godhead and not only they to whom supream Godhead was then falsely attributed but such also to whom the same might in time to come be likewise falsly attributed For that we may add this also who doubteth that Peter for example Paul Gabriel Michael are by vertue of these words of Christ strongly excluded from the most high Godhead But there was then none that held them to be most high Gods nor consequently did Christ specially intend to exclude them from the Deity Wherefore the force of the words and meaning is of a larger extent than the occasion of them and is rightly drawn forth to others likewise besides the Idols of the Gentiles Neither may any one here say that therefore not only the Idols of the Gentiles but also those Men and Angels are by vertue of these words excluded from the most high Godhead because they are not of the same essence or substance but that the Son and holy Spirit are not excluded because they are of the same Essence with the Father Since it is agreeable if any thing be attributed to the Father only that those persons should not be excluded from the communion thereof which have the same numerical substance For besides that this is indeed nothing else than to take that for granted which is most in controversie when Christ called his Father the only true God he meant no less the only Person of the Father then the Essence or Substance consequently no less excluded them from that true and most high Godhead who were different Persons from the Father then who were different Substances For Christ useth a popular kind of speaking and applyeth himself to the capacity of his Disciples For therefore he with a clear voice uttered Prayers to the Father in their presence that he might both instruct and comfort them no less with this supplication to the Father then he had formerly by speaking to them But among the people yea among all THE FATHER ONLY doth no less denote the only person of the Father then the Substance and consequently doth no less exclude all different persons from the Father than Substances Besides when the Vulgar think of a Person different from the Father they also presently think of a Substance different from him Where they conceive one Substance they cannot think of a different Person Certainly concerning Moods Subsistences Suppositalities and Personalities which existing in the same numerical Substance do constitute Persons really distinct even at this day the vulgar sort of Christians do not think so unlikely is it that heretofore among the Jews even Fishermen did know them Wherefore if Christ fitting himself to the capacity of the Vulgar would have all different Substances from the Father be excluded from the most high Godhead he would also have all different Persons from the Father excluded from the same Whence we are given to understand that in these words the contrary to what is urged in this exception is rather taken for granted namely that he who is distinguished in Person from the Father as Christ is is also distinguished from him in Substance and consequently by virtue of these words of Christ are excluded from that true and most high Godhead And this is so much the more to be believed touching Christ in that the Disciples who were then present did not only see him to be a true man but also heard him distinguished from the Father as a Messenger from the Sender and also that he poured out prayers unto the same and begged glory of him Again if none by vertue of these words of Christ is excluded from the true Godhead although he manifestly differ in person from the Father unless it be also apparent that he is different from him in Essence it will follow that he cannot be confuted by these words who shall say that Gabriel for example Peter Paul or finally Jupiter Neptune or the other gods of the Heathen are the true
to take away his Understanding and to cause that he who comprehended something does now comprehend nothing at all Which will also happen to learned Men if they will endeaver to consider things and rather conceive them in their mind then to cozen themselves and others with a meer sound of words By this also it may easily be understood how we ought to answer them who say that the Name of GOD is by an attribution or an appropriation as they speak both here and elsewhere ascribed to the Father and that as we now suppose to him onely for either they grant that the Name of GOD is by reason of the Prerogative which the Father hath above the Son and holy Spirit attributed to him onely as proper and so tacitly taken away from the Son and holy Spirit or without any regard to that Prerogative If the first how they may be refuted we have already spoken if the latter they shall be able to shew by no sufficient Example out of either sacred or prophane Writers or out of the vulgar Custom of speaking that an Attribute equally common to Many may be rightly ascribed to but One of them in such a manner as that it may be said to agree to him ONLY Wherefore no regard is to be had to such an attribution in these words of Christ The second answer to the Argument But now let us refute other things which are wont to be alledged by way of answer to this first Testimony of our Opinion There are therefore some who deny that the words of Christ before cited contain this Opinion which is admitted by others namely That the Father Onely is the true God for they explain the Words in another and that a two-fold way Some say that the word ONLY doth not belong to the Subject of Christs words which if we consider the sence is the Father but to the Predicate namely The TRUE GOD for that Christ doth say That THE FATHER IS THE ONELY TRUE GOD and not THE FATHER ONLY IS THE TRUE GOD Which first proposition doth not hinder but that the Son also or the holy Spirit may be called the True God yea the Onely True God Inasmuch as these Propositions are not repugnant one to the other the Father is the only true God and the Son or the holy Spirit is the true God or the only true God But * The third Answer to the Argument others contend that these words are so to be ordered and construed that the sence may be THIS IS LIFE ETERNAL THAT THEY KNOW THEE AND WHOM THOV HAST SENT JESVS CHRIST TO BE THE ONLY TRVE GOD So that these words are so far from excluding Christ from supream Deity that they rather are to be thought expresly to attribute the same unto him Which Answers what weight they carry with them let us fee. As to the first therefore they are exceedingly mistaken The confutation of the second Answer for the Adjective ONLY as oft as it is imployed to exclude other Subjects from the communion of the Predicate belongs to the Subject not the Predicate Now that in this place the word Onely is imployed to exclude other Subjects namely Idols from the communion the Predicate which is the True God all the Adversaries contend wherefore it belongeth not to the Predicate but to the Subject which if we consider the sence is none but the Father And that you may more plainly perceive the thing see whether by our or their opinion the Idols or gods of the Gentiles are strongly excluded from true Deity If you follow our Opinion the business is dispatched for if Onely the Father of Christ be the true God certainly Idols cannot so be since they are not the Father of Christ But if you follow their Opinion the business is not yet dispatched for they hold that notwithstanding that Proposition THE FATHER IS THE ONLY TRVE GOD the same Predicate may also be applied to other Subjects for that it may nevertheless be said THE SON IS THE TRUE GOD yea THE ONLY TRUE GOD in like manner also the Holy Spirit And therefore these words of Christ would not by themselves hinder but that the same Predicate might also be attributed to infinite other Subjects so that it would not be apparent from these words of Christ that Idols are not the true God but that were wholly to be understood from elsewhere Perhaps some one will say That the Subject to which the word ONLY is immediately adjoyned is the name of GOD not the FAther and the Predicate from the Communion whereof other Subjects are excluded is the word TRUE For that the sence is that the Father is that God who only is true But this shift likewise is vain and that for two Reasons First Because the word TRUE is not here such a Predicate as here signifieth any thing by it self and denoteth some peculiar Attribute of any thing but only together with it whereto it is adjoyned For neither doth TRUE in this place signifie the same with Trusty or truth speaking but when it is opposed to a thing that is false or falsely so called it signifies nothing but the reality of the thing to which it is annexed And therefore it is predicated of nothing by it self but together with it to which it is annexed which in this place is God So that being taken together with that word it signifies him who in truth and very deed and not only in the opinion of men is God Thus we say that Christ is a true Man is the true Messiah and so forth For it is all one as if you should say that he is truly and in very deed a Man and the Messiah not falsely nor only in the Opinion of Men. Wherefore these words THE TRUE GOD are not so to be parted as that the one may again constitute a Subject the other a Predicate and the word ONLY thought to be applied to that of GOD that the Predicate of TRUE may be removed from all other Subjects besides God but the words TRUE GOD do joyntly constitute one Predicate and the word ONLY must be thought to be annexed unto the Subject thereof namely the Father that all other Subjects beside the Father may be excluded from the Communion of this Predicate namely The True God And indeed the design of Christ was not simply to exclude Idols or the Gods of the Heathen from truth but to shew that they are to be excluded from true Godhead or not to be accounted true Gods But if you say the word GOD is again to be repeated that the sence may be That the Father is that God who onely is the true God what else will you do than make Christ to speake that by circuity of words which any one would simply utter and so without necessity double both the Subject and the Predicate referring the Subject again to the Predicate as if any one should take this speech directed to Christ THAT THEY MAY KNOW
which are alone brought by some to illustrate their Explication of this place and are extant 1 Cor. 9.6 for thus it is there to be read out of the Greek Or have only I and Barnabas no power to forbear working But in this place of ours not alone the word only but together the whole Predicate namely The true God is interposed between these two Subjects to which it is thought to be referred that is to say between the word Thee and Jesus Christ whom the Father hath sent To omit that the Article set before the word only doth not suffer that it should be in that manner joyned either with the word Thee or with the words Jesus Christ as all who are not ignorant of the Greek Tongue will confess Again By this means notwithstanding the Opinion of the Adversaries touching the Deity of the holy Spirit will be overthrown for if the Father and Christ only be the true God the holy Spirit cannot also he The same will also follow although you so take the words as if Christ had said That they know thee Father and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ to be that God who only is the true God For we have before shown that this is all one as if it had been said Thee and Jesus Christ only to be the true God there is I say no difference in this behalf whether the word Only be presently added to the first Subject or to that Subject which is part of the Predicate Besides it is false That Eternal Life or the Way to attain Eternal Life doth herein consist that men know the Father and Christ to be the only true God Properly taken it cannot consist otherwise it would be both necessary requisite and also sufficient to acknowledge the Father and Christ for the only true God But by this account all who comprehend that Opinion in their minds should attain Eternal Life when nevertheless they may withal stick in those vices concerning which the Scripture openly pronounceth that they who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven You will say therefore that it is to be taken improperly that this knowledge may comprehend in it self faith in Christ working by love and all kind of vertues namely by a Metonimy or Transnomination joyned with a Synecdoche whereby under the name of the cause the effect is also comprehended After which manner Eternal Life seemeth in the Scripture to be ascribed to that Faith whereby men believe That * Joh. 20.31 Jesus is the Christ the Son of God But neither can this consist for even so nevertheless it would be signified that this Knowledge is necessary for all unto eternal Life and a certain ground of faith working by Love But that this is false doth hence appear in that not only Christ himself who was sent by God to declare unto men the way of Salvation and implant in them Saving-Faith did ne-never openly deliver or inculcato to men this Doctrine yea neither his Apostles the most clear Preachers both of his Divinity and Doctrine For as to Christ he did not only of his own accord not teach and inculcate that he together with the Father is the only true God but also when a commodious occasion was afforded him to pronounce that concerning himself did yet abstain from so doing speaking in such a manner of himself as that he openly differenced himself from God taken by way of excellency and shewed that himself wholly depended on him as appeareth from the 10th chapter of this very Gospel verse 33 c. concerning which words we have elsewhere * In the Book of God and his Attributes chap. 13. spoken and shall †Lib. 1. Sect. 2. Chap. 31. hereafter speak in its place But the Apostles when they speak of the Dignity of Christ the Knowledge whereof is the ground of that Faith and Piety whereby we are saved do mention no higher things than that Jesus is the Christ or the Son of God both which they put for the same and that is very frequent in this Writer Concerning which thing likewise we shall have occasion to speak of * Sect 2. Chap. 31. hereafter Moreover the sacred Writers and John by name when they speak of that Knowledge wherein Religion or the Way to eternal Life consisteth intend not such a Knowledge whereby some attribute essential to God or Christ is known to be in him such as this knowledge would be that the Father and Christ is the only true God but they mean the knowledge of God simply whereof we suppose Christ here speaketh †Joh. 8.19 55. 14 7. 16.3 17.25 Joh. 1.2 3 4. 13.14 3.1 4.7 5.20 compared with Ephes 1.17 and Col. 1.9 Joh. 6 6 9. compared with v. 12 24 25 17.25 understanding the knowledg of God chiefly in respect of his will and of the things any way thereunto belonging and also the knowledge of Christ in respect of his office which wholly pertaineth to discover confirm execute and perfect the Divine Will I pass by the manner of speaking such as neither John nor any Writer of the new Covenant useth when he speaketh of the knowledge of some whole complex or proposition for the Sacred Writers would express this sâ—nce which they with whom we now dispute would have to be comprehended in those words of Christ in this manner That they know that thou art the only true God c. as they who are more diligently versed in the reading of the Scripture will observe Thus for example sake we read in the same John * Chap. 6.69 Who have known that thou art the Christ the Son of God †Chap. 7.26 The Rulers have known that this is the Christ I forbear to urge what we will elsewhere demonstrate that neither the prayers which Christ here poureth out to the Father nor his sending from the Father whereof in these very words he maketh mention do admit that Christ should be accounted the true and supream God together with the Father I will only here speak what hath in some measure been observed by certain very learned Adversaries namely that it is not agreeable to this place that Christ should pronounce concerning himself that he together with the Father is the only true God partly because he prayeth to the Father and so speaketh most modestly of himself partly because he considereth and describeth himself as the Fathers Embassador For praying to the Father he is not to be thought to have equalized himself to the Father and to have pronounced that of himself then which the Father hath nothing greater but as it became one that is very modest and a supplicant to have set himself below him Furthermore in that he here considereth and describeth himself as the Fathers Embassador he is not to be thought to have attributed unto himself the supream Majesty and Glory of the Father that sent him which herein consisteth that he is the
only true God Besides both the order and the meetness of the speech doth require that the first description should be proper to the Father to whom it is immediately joyned as the latter is peculiar to Christ and not Christ be described both in a peculiar manner and again in such an one as is common to him with the Father and that in those words which if you respect the order seem no less properly to be attributed to the Father than the latter to Christ And the first of these three Reasons was in some measure toucht by a most accute and learned popish * John Maldonat on this place Interpreter For amongst other causes for which Christ in this place called not himself but the Father the only true God he alledgeth this also that Christ would as it became a Son speak honorably of his Father but very modestly of himself wherefore saith he he called not himself God but the Father Vpon the same account I suppose neither would he name himself for he said not that they may know thee and me but that they may know thee and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ speaking of himself in the third Person which argueth greater modesty than to name himself when he treateth of honorable things such as this was But if Christ is to be thought to have here regarded Modesty in so small a matter how much more in not saying that he together with the Father is that only true and most high God although Christ would not only have regard to modesty but to the very thing it self for he would joyn himself to the Father and the knowledge of himself to that of the Father in such a manner as that he might withal shew what difference there was between them for he would signifie that the Father is to be known as the supream Monarch and Prince of all things and that his will is to be regarded by its self but that he himself was to be looked upon as his Embassador who declareth his will and demonstrateth it by most certain proofs being afterwards in the name of God to execute and compleat the same for such descriptions of Persons in the Scripture are not wont to be idle but fitted to illustrate the thing that is treated of But enough of this He that liketh plain Interpretations of the Scripture cannot chuse but reject this which we oppose and imbrace ours unless he will prefer his pre-conceived opinion concerning that thing before any proof whatsoever CHAP. II. The second Argument taken out of the words of Paul 1 Cor. 8.6 To us there is One God the Father of whom are all things THe second testimony of our Opinion touching One God the Father Arg. 2 from 1 Cor. 8.6 shall be that notable place of Paul where he explaineth to us who is that One God whilst he speaketh in this manner To us there is One God the Father of whom are all things and we to him or for him What could be more clearly spoken to shew that that One God is no other besides the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ For Paul explaining who that One God is simply saith That he is the Father not the Father Son and holy Spirit But it could no way come to pass that Paul being about to explain who that one God is should mention the Father only omitting the other persons if that one God were not only the Father but also the Son and holy Spirit since those two Persons besides the Father were as necessary to declare who that one God is as the Father himself so that they could not here by him be omitted or concealed The Defence of the Argument THese things though they be so plain and clear that at the first sight they gained belief yet hath the love of defending mens Opinions prompted them somewhat to answer thereunto Answ 1 For some except that Paul doth not say that that one God is only the Father but simply is the Father by which means the other Persons are not excluded and that they may not seem to speak this without ground they alledge the words immediately following where Paul affirmeth That there is one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him But say they none will say that that one Lord is Christ only otherwise the Father would not be that one Lord which every one may see to be most absurd inasmuch as that one God cannot chuse but be that one Lord. Answ 2 Others answer that the name of the Father being used in divine things is ambiguous for it is one while taken essentially signifying indistinctly the Godhead or whole Trinity another while hypostatically that is personally denoting the first Person of the Trinity as they speak even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and that in this place it is taken in the first signification not in the second as our Opinion requireth The Confutation of the first Answer But as to the first Adversaries we have already shewn that the force of these words of Paul is such as if it were said that that one God is no other besides the Father For the Apostle would here explain who that one God is But doth he rightly explain a thing who omitteth not only as much but more also then he expresseth when in the mean time that which he omitteth is necessary to explain the thing and instead of three Persons mentioneth but one as the Apostle by this account would do Who I pray you of our Adversaries when he is to explain who that one God is doth so handle the matter as that he maketh mention of the Father only and saith that there is one God namely the Father of Jesus Christ which of them doth not or would not rather say thus there is one God namely the Father Son and holy Spirit for indeed he ought so to speak if he will speak agreeable to his Opinion But had the Apostle been of the same Opinion with the Adversaries he should rather have spoken so to avoid the giving of occasion to this Opinion of ours which as they imagine is an errour so grievous and pestilent namely that that one God should be accounted one no less in Person than in Essence and believed to be no other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ especially since the distinction of a Person from its Essence was not then commonly known or to speak more rightly was not yet invented and besides it might justly be doubted of the Son and holy Spirit whether they were the most high God partly because it was confessed amongst all that both do proceed from the Father partly because the Apostles did most frequently distinguish both from God simply so called by calling the one the Son of God the other the Spirit of God Wherefore that most faithful Teacher who was most studious of mens salvation ought not to speak so dangerously and give to the faithful an occasion of so great
less And indeed the greatest part of Interpreters of Scripture seem to acknowledge this signification of that Lorship which is peculiarly attributed to Christ for as oft as they read that Christ is made Lord or Authority and a Kingdom given unto him or that he shall at length deliver the Kingdom to God the Father they usually say that it is there spoken of that Lordship or Kingdom over the Church which is peculiarly granted unto him as mediator by the Father Since therefore such a Lordship agreeth to Christ only why may he not in regard thereof be called that One Lord especially in this place where as we have seen that one Lord is openly distinguished from that one God and without making mention of any other is said to be Jesus Christ and Christ himself is looked upon as he by whom are all things and by whom God is to be worshipped of us which is proper to a Mediator as they commonly take the word where finally there is a plain relation to us Christians and the Church Wherefore it is evident enough that the Father is not that one Lord which is here spoken of nor doth the same Lordship which is attributed to Christ agree to him Which being so what they say concerning that one Lord is so far from overthrowing our opinion which we hold is contained in the former words speaking of that one God that it much confirms it for if when Paul saith that there is one Lord Jesus Christ his purpose was to signifie that that Lord is no other but Jesus Christ in like manner also when he saith That we have one God even the Father his purpose was to signifie that that God was no other but the Father for there is the same force and reason of the words neither hath the one less force to exclude others than the other Before we go hence we must briefly explain how that one Lord is distinguished from that one God when notwithstanding the name of Lord altogether seemeth here to be taken by way of excellency for otherwise there would be many Lords as Paul himself in the precedent words ver 5. did declare But the name of Lord taken by way of excellency seemeth to signifie no other than the most high God and that independent Monarch We answer that the name of Lord when it is put as proper to Christ is taken by way of excellency but only in respect of other Lords who are so far forth of the same kind with him as they have received their Lordship from the most high God and consequently depend on him For that Christ is of the same rank the Scriptures most manifestly testifie and we hereafter producing most clear * Sect. 2. Chap. 10. testimonies thereof will demonstrate Wherefore whatsoever that Excellency be which is contained in the word Lord when it is put for Christ or attributed to him only yet is it not of so large extent nor so sublime as to comprehend an absolute supream and independent Lordship such as is proper to the most high God and consequently neither doth the name of Lord in that sence agree to the most high God but is distinguished from him Thus namely Is it come to pass that since the name of God doth in its own nature signifie something more excellent and noble than the bare name of Lord that the name God taken by way of excellency should denote him who hath an Empire altogether independent and is the prime efficient of all things But the name of Lord distinguished from him who is called God by way of excellency should by a certain preheminency design him who amongst the Lords dependent on God holdeth the first rank and is far sublimer than all the rest Concerning which thing we could say more but that we must hasten to somewhat else The Refutation of the second Answer For now we must examine the other Answer to our Argument drawn from this place of Paul which is that Father in this place is not taken for the Father of Jesus Christ but comprizeth the whole Trinity Which answer that it should come into any ones head is a wonder certainly it is altogether inexcusable unto them who boast that they teach nothing but the meer word of God and are wont to object to us that following reason We depart from the Word of God and wrest the Scripture for what is it to speak besides the Scripture and to depart from the plain and obvious meaning thereof if this be not for by what instance will they ever prove that the word Father spoken of God doth signifie three Persons of Divinity The places are obvious to any one wherein the word Father either absolutely taken or manifestly related to us which they hold is here tacitly done denoteth the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ And indeed the same is the Father both of Christ and us as Christ himself teacheth in * Chap. 20. ver 17. John and many other things demonstrate Since therefore this signification of the word Father is notorious to all and most usual in the Scripture but that other can by no sufficient instance be demonstrated what came into their heads that leaving that they should imbrace this or rather devise it and that in such a place where Paul intended clearly to explain who that One God is and consequently to use the known signification of the word indeed they alledge places where they think God is for the Creation called Father but here they say respect is had to Creation since all things are said to be of him But this latter is taken without proof for the word All is wont to be referred to the subject matter and to be restrained thereunto But here it is spoken of us that is Christians and consequently of things peculiarly belonging unto Christians Again They do not prove that the Father who is so called for Creation is any other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Certainly we see how in that which is called The Apostles Creed the same is called the Father Almighty and the Creator of Heaven and Earth and Jesus Christ said to be his Son yea they themselves though they make creation and the other actions which are performed out of God common to the whole Trinity do yet affirm that creation is peculiarly attributed to the Father redemption to the Son sanctification to the holy Spirit Wherefore although God should in this place be called Father for Creation yet would there be no cause why we should imagine any other besides the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ to be understood but there would rather be great caus why we should think that he is peculiarly to be meant Though furthermore there is either no place at all or scarce any in the whole Scripture wherein for the first Creation only concerning what they speak God is called either simply Father or our Father but for other fatherly benefits of his toward men who call him
concluded that every one of these things which are reckoned up is one in it self partly in kind partly in number it is common to all the Faithful for from this Communion of such excellent things or Unity of things common to Christians their Unity is concluded Wherefore all the things which are reckoned up are either such as exist in the very Christians whether apart as Hope Faith Baptism to which we may also refer that one Spirit or joyntly as that mystical Body or else they are things which do indeed exist without them but yet have a manifest relation to them and reduce them to Unity such as are that One Lord and that One God and Father common to them all who is over all that is as we said before who alone ruleth over all with the highest Sovereignty and doth alike guide and govern all and is also through all that is doth by his providence diffuse himself through all passeth through all the Members of the Christian Body and by his goodness reacheth unto all or which cometh to the same purpose is as it were conversant amongst all and is in the middle of them namely by his help aid and providence finally is in all that is dwelleth in all by his Spirit for they to whom all these things are common ought to be most closely united amongst themselves But what relation is there between the Spirit and Christians if by that name you understand the spiritual Essence of God how will that be common to all Christians for neither is it possessed by them as the things of the former sort by us reckoned up likewise it hath not a relation unto them as the word Lord God and Father Doth not the thing it self shew that if you will by this word understand a divine Spirit you must of necessity understand the holy Spirit common to all the Faithful wherewith they are as it were animated and guided for then he will be in the number of those good things which they by the divine bounty do obtain neither indeed ought the mention of him at any hand to be here omitted partly because the holy Spirit is of essential note amongst the good things common to Christians which unite them one to another in that he erecteth and sealeth them to the hope of the same happiness Whence the Apostle speaking of the same thing to the Christians after he had said that Christ or his Church is one body as it were compacted of divers members he addeth * 1 Cor. 12.13 For with one Spirit we have all been baptized into one body whether Jews or Greeks whether bond or free and we have all been drenched into one Spirit for the same cause he had in the precedent †Ver. 4. and 7. words in the same place discoursed much concerning the Unity of the Spirit lest because of such different faculties which he did put forth in different Christians they should account one another for strangers or at least in comparison of themselves dispise them who had attained lesser gifts and that they might on the contrary acknowledge one another to be different members indeed but yet of the same body since they were as it were inlivened with the same Spirit of God why therefore in this place where the Apostle handleth the same thing should he not expresly mention that Unity of the holy Spirit wherewith Christians were †That is Anointed or filled imbued add hereunto that the Apostle in the words immediately following as also in that place to the Corinthians doth discourse touching the diversities of the gifts or effects of the holy Spirit given to Christians so that there is no doubt but that he had first spoken concerning the Unity of that Spirit as in the other place But wher is he to be supposed to have mentioned it but when he spake of One Spirit unless perhaps he would have him comprehended under the name of one Baptism which notwithstanding they themselves do not admit who stifly contend that the Apostle speaketh of Water Baptism nor are we against it and certainly if it be here spoken of a divine Spirit and not of the mind and will in regard of which the Faithful ought to be one Spirit there is no doubt but the Apostle speaketh of the holy Spirit But if by one Spirit you understand the holy Spirit there is no cause why you should not by * 1 Cor. 8.6 one Lord understand Christ as in the foresaid place we see it done and consequently by the Father that which othetwise the word it self requireth the Father of Jesus Christ I suppose we have sufficiently shewn that by the name of Father in that place to the Ephesians is none meant save the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently none but he is by Paul held to be that one God Now if any one will fly to Appropreation or Attribution devised by some in this business he may easily be confuted if one consider these things which we have spoken thereof in the foregoing Chapter when we examined the first Answer to our Argument drawn out of that place so that there is no need any longer to insist upon it CHAP. IIII. The fourth Argument drawn from the words of Christ Mat. 24.36 But of that day and hour knoweth none no not the Angels of the Heavens but the Father only and Mark 13.32 But of the day and hour knoweth none no not the Angels in the Heavens no not the Son but the Father BEfore we go from the places which make express mention of the Father Arg. 4 from Mat. 24.39 and Mark 13.32 we think good to add an Argument more fetcht from the words of Christ Mat. 24. Mark 13. wherein he openly affirmeth that the Father only or which is all one that none but the Father did know of that day or hour namely of the last judgment or his coming for our Opinion is hence most clearly demonstrated for he who only sometimes knew the day or hour of the last judgment is only the most high God But by the testimony of Christ the Father only sometimes knew that day or hour Wherefore he only is the most high God The truth of the major Proposition as they call it is apparent to every one for he who only sometimes knew all things is also only the most high God for the most high God ever doth and did know all things But he who only sometimes knew the day of the last judgement did then only know all things for he that was ignorant of that day did not absolutely know all things wherefore he who only sometimes knew the day of the last judgement is also only the most high God If any thing pertaineth to the defence of this Argument although it is so clear and strong as not to need it we will speak of it * Sect. 8. Chap. 9. hereafter when we shall treat of Christ Arg. 5 from 1. Cor. 12.4 5 6. Now follows
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
ultimate scope and object of the same Nor also the whole Trinity held by the Adversaries Otherwise to Christ who would be contained in that Trinity glory would be attributed through himself as through the middle cause For as to the refuge of two Natures that hath no more place here than in the former Testimony since Christ is here considered with relation to the Office which he sustaineth in respect whereof he is the middle cause of divine Worship Whence the Adversaries themselves commonly hold when we are said to worship God through Christ that Christ is considered as Mediator But Mediation as also other Offices agreeth to none but a person as he is such Wherefore one must either say that the humane Nature of Christ is a Person and to be understood by the name of Jesus Christ or hold that Christ here is considered according to his divine Nature also or that it is primarily and directly here understood by the name of Jesus Christ as hath been shewn in the precedent Chapter It remaineth that by the name of the only wise God a certain divine Person and that Superior to Christ be understood For he is more worthy to whom glory is given as to the ultimate scope than the middle cause through which worship is exhibited to him But there is no such Person besides the Father It is in vain here to think of the holy Spirit for to omit that it is not granted that the holy Spirit is so much as a Person this is certain that the holy Spirit is not a Person worthier than the Person of Christ But we have shewn that that Person is such to whom glory is attributed through Christ Besides that the Father is worshipped by Christ is both from * See among other places Eph. 5.20 Col. 3.17 Scripture and the confession of all very manifest But that the holy Spirit is worshipped by Christ what place of the Scripture I say not doth affirm but intimate yea it is so far from saying that he is to be worshipped through Christ that it never simply saith that glory is to be attributed unto him especially in that manner which we here understand nor do we there read that it was ever attributed to him by so much as one man concerning which thing more largely in its own * Sect. 3. Chap. 2. place Neither indeed is there any cause if a certain Person is here to be understood why we should pass by the Father and understand the holy Spirit since glory is here attributed to God as the prime Author of Salvation and of the things belonging thereunto Now that all those things are wont to be ascribed to the Father as the prime Author if not only yet chiefly the Adversaries themselves do not deny and is most apparent from that place of Paul where he saith that the Father is he †1 Cor. 8.6 Rom. 11. ult Of whom are all things Whence also he constituteth him the ultimate end of the worship and honour that proceedeth from us for he is the same of whom are all things and to whom are all things The second * The second place John 5.44 of those places is extant in John where amongst other things Christ speaketh thus unto the Jews How can ye believe who receive Glory from one another and seek not the glory which is from the only God In which place that the Father is understood by the name of the only God First the whole context sheweth where Christ promiscuously mentioneth one while God another while his Father neither is there any the least cause why we should suspect that Christ in the same speech passed from one person to another since none can deny that all things which are attributed unto that God are most rightly ascribed to the Father See now the precedent and following verses yea that whole conference with the Jews beginning from the 17th verse Again Christ speaketh of that God whom the Jews acknowledge for God and concerning whom it was granted amongst them that the Glory proceeding from him is to be sought although they neglect to seek it For he speaketh of a thing which ought to precede Faith on Christ whereof because the Jews were destitute they are therefore here by Christ himself pronounced unfit to believe on him But the Jews did then acknowledge for God no other besides him whom Christ called his Father For that they did either imagine a Trinity to be God or the Son or holy SpiSpirit I suppose there is none that dareth affirm But Christ affirmeth that of his Father chap. 8.54 where he saith It is my Father that glorifieth me whom ye say that he is your God It is therefore apparent that in this place that only God is the same with the Father and the one of no larger extent than the other The third place is extant in †Third place Jude 4. Jude who if you regard his greek words saith that false Teachers who had already insinuated themselves into the Church do deny the only master God and our Lord Jesus Christ For we have already * See the Book of God and his Attributes chap. 14. elsewhere shewn not Christ as many of the Adversaries suppose but some other is understood by the only master God For first if he had understood Christ there would have been no need after he had called him the only master God to name him our Lord especially since the word Master doth comprehend all the force of the word Lord. Again neither can Christ be called the only master God since his Father so is and is so †See Luke 2.29 c. Acts 4.24 compare v. 24 with ver 30. called Master that being designed by this very name he is distinguished from Christ Neither is Christ any where called Master the greek word being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Jude maketh use of in the whole new Testament but the Father is found so stiled No marvel because in the great House of God Christ it not the Master but the Son of the Master of the Family and hath God for his Head as shall be spoken in its place But the Master of the Family hath not a Head in the House but is therein the chiefest Lord and Governour Now whereas some urge the Unity of the Article set before those words the only Master God and our Lord Jesus Christ they prevail nothing thereby For the Unity of an Article set before divers names doth not presently argue the Identity of the thing but often times doth only intimate some affinity or conjunction of divers things as namely of those which concur to the same action or about which the same action is conversant See Mat. 3.7 16.1 6.17 1.27 27.56 Ephes 2.20 3.5 4.11 1 Thes 1.8 Heb. 9.19 Certainly * See Beza's Annot on Ephes 4.11 5.5 some very learned men among the Adversaries when they had in this Argument urged the unity
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
are attributed to the Father Son and holy Spirit and of the Reason for which they are attributed unto them and consequently of the forms of speech which are used concerning them Last of all this also may be added Arg. 12 That no other is the most high God than he who was heretofore called The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob the God of the Israelites But this is no other than the Father of Jesus Christ Whence some of the more learned * Calvin on Acts 22.14 Adversaries write That he who heretofore would be called the God of Abraham and the Fathers is now by a proper title called The Father of Christ The name indeed or description is changed the person remaining the same Hence the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the God of the Fathers Arg. 12 The Father only is the God of the Patriarchs being simply so called is manifestly put for the Father only Acts 3.13 for thus saith Peter The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob the God of our Fathers hath glorified his Son Jesus If not the Father only but also the Son and holy Spirit were the God of the Fathers why is that God of the Fathers simply so called said to have raised his Son is Christ the Son of himself and also of the holy Spirit Why also doth the divine Author to the Hebrews that I may not mention others put that God who divers and sundry wayes spake heretofore to the Fathers by the Prophets and who is ever and anon called the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob or the God of Israel why I say doth he put him simply so called for the Father For he addeth that he hath in these last times spoken to us by the Son Did he not intimate that that God who in the whole Old Testament is brought in speaking and called the God of the Fathers is the same with the Father of Christ and that the one appellation is of no larger extent than the other Certainly he must be more quick-sighted than Lynceus who will discover in the Writing of that Covenant that Christ not to speak any thing of the holy Spirit was under the old Covenant acknowledged and worshipped for the most high God so great a silence is there concerning this matter But of these things hitherto SECT II. Wherein is shewn That Christ is not the Most High God that so it may be understood That the Father only is the Most High God IN the foregoing Section we have produced those places which principally shew and that directly that the Father only is the most high God nevertheless they do also prove that Christ is not that very God which we have undertaken to prove in the second place since it pertaineth to the demonstration of the former For if Christ and we will afterwards teach that the same is to be held concerning the holy Spirit is not that one most high God it remaineth that the Father only is he since there is no other of whom a Christian can so much as suspect that he should be the most high God But we have shewn that Christ in all those places is distinguished from that One God and therefore cannot be that One God For the same should be distinguished from himself And lest any one should think that he can here evade by the distinction of Natures we have shewn that in most places out of which Judgment may easily be made concerning the rest Christ is there considered not according to some nature Arg. 1 That Chrst is frequently distinguished from God which is not a person but in regard of his very Person which according to the Opinion of the Adversaries is that One God and the second Person of the Trinity as they speak But to those Reasons we think fit to add sundry more not that they may not or ought not of themselves to be sufficient for every wise and judicious man but that it may appear with how many and how strong props of the Scripture our Opinion concerning one God the Father is supported For by this means we hope it will come to pass that all wise men will not only discharge us from all fault of impiety and rashness in departing from an opinion received for so many Ages but also begin to wonder that they were dim-sighted and saw no clearer in so great a lustre of the Truth shining on every side and of its own accord darring its beams into the eyes of all and so understand that they shall he impiously obstinate if they shall purposely shut their eyes at so great a Light and dare to reject the true Opinion which we defend First therefore we will alledge those Testimonies of the Scripture and Arguments drawn from them which principally shew that Christ is not that One or Most High God yet do in the mean time withal attribute a Prerogative to the Father above Christ and that to him alone from which it may presently be rightly concluded that the Father only is the Most High God Then we will subjoyn them which do directly demonstrate only this That Christ namely is not the most high God CHAP. I. Argument the first drawn thence That Christ is most frequently distinguished from God AS to the Testimonies of the first sort and the Arguments drawn thence we will begin from those that are largely diffused and may be referred to the names in some sort either denied or attributed unto Christ of which we will in this place alledge but two The first is That Christ is in innumerable places openly distinguished from God simply put And that we may out of so great plenty of Examples produce a few which may put the Reader in mind of the rest How often do we read that Christ is called the Son of God elsewhere we see him called the Word or Speech of God the Image of God elsewhere we find it written that he was in the beginning with God was sent from God went out from God is the Bread of God that descended from Heaven was in the form of God and equal to God sate down at the right hand of God or of the Power of God was made Lord and Christ by God was appointed Judge by God Now it is certain that by the name of God in such places the most high God is understood How then can Christ himself be the most high God For it would be necessary by this reckoning either that there are two most high Gods he namely who is signified by the name of God and Christ and that Christ is distinguished from himself which all understand to be absurd The Defence of the Argument BUt to this Argument two things are wont to be given in answer First That by the name of God in such places the Father is denoted and that since Christ is a Person different from the Father there is no marvel that Christ is distinguished from God Next that Christ in
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
the ultimate scope to which it tendeth and in which it resteth all will easily understand For thus the common custom of speaking doth require which it is certain Christ followed in that he desired to be understood by the people to whom he spake with a loud voice But from hence it followeth that Christ is not the most high God for the most high God is the ultimate scope and principal object of Faith But Christ in the word quoted denyeth that he himself is so The Defence of the Argument Arg. 8 from John 12.44 THe * See cap. 3. of this Section distinction of Natures cannot here have place both from the simple denyal and also because Christ here considered himself as he is believed or to be believed on But he is to be believed on as the Son of God and consequently if we give credit to the †See John 3.18 and 9.30 31. Jer. 17.5 Adversaries as the most high God himself For which cause when the question is concerning Christ they urge that of Jeremiah Cursed is the man that putteth confidence in man omitting or not considering that which follows and maketh flesh his arm that is placeth his strength and stay in flesh a frail thing and his heart departeth from God Neither of which hath place in the Man Christ especially placed at the right hand of God in the Heavens Wherefore that we may return unto our place whilst Christ constituteth himself the object of Faith but in the mean time denieth that he is the principal object and ultimate end thereof he speaketh of himself as the Son of God But that he according to the humane Nature only is the Son of God the Adversaries will not grant Add hereunto that he considereth himself as Embassadour of the Father for credit given to an Embassadour as such is ultimately terminated not in him but the Sender since his Authority doth depend from thence and he proposeth not his own sayings but anothers namely the Senders Indeed Christ did therefore speak this to commend the Faith placed on him namely that it resteth not on him since he speaketh not of himself but tendeth to the Father himself who sent him and is terminated in the Father But those things which are attributed to Christ as Embassadour of the Father are to be referred to Christ how great soever he is and if he be a person of supream Divinity are to be ascribed even to the divine Nature as we have formerly shewn chap. 4. of this Section But if this be absurd it must be confessed that Christ is not the most high God CHAP. IX The ninth Argument That Christ was sometimes ignorant of the last Judgement-day HItherto we have brought testimonies out of John wherein that is denyed of Christ which could not be denyed of him if he were the most high God It followeth that we produce the like Testimonies out of other sacred Writers also and that such wherein a Prerogative is attributed to the Father above Christ The first shall be that of Christ which formerly when we treated of the Father was toucht upon Arg. 9 That Christ was sometime ignorant of the last day Mark 13.32 But of that day or hour namely of the last judgment knoweth none no not the Angels in heaven nor the Son but the Father or as Mat. 24.36 speaketh but the Father only How it may be here evinced that the Father only is the most high God we have before shewn And now we must consider how it may be hence proved that the Son is not the most high God although the first being proved the second followeth by necessary consequence but we here go a contrary way to work and do not demonstrate that Christ is not the most high God because the Father only is but that the Father only is because Christ not The thing is easie and open to every one for the most high God neither is nor ever was ignorant of any thing But the Son of God was sometimes ignorant of the day and hour of the last judgement Wherefore the Son of God is not the most high God The Defence of the Argument HOw much the Adversaries have tortured themselves in unloosing this knot and what divers interpretations not only diverse but the same men have devised may be seen as in other Interpreters so chiefly in Maldonat who reports that Jerome and Austin prest with the dâ—fficulty of this testimony fled to the refuge of saying that the place was corrupted and that this was not to be read namely neither the Son but the Father contrary to the credit of all books which if we may call into question there will be nothing in the Scripture certain nothing firm nothing which one may not deny Neither must we only expunge the words of Mark but also those of Matthew which are of the same import Next the same Interpreter saith that the greater part of the antient Authors were of opinion that Christ was ignorant of the day of judgement not because himself was indeed ignorant thereof but because he made us ignorant of it because he would not reveal it to us because his Body that is the Church was ignorant of it because he dissembled the knowledge thereof and to that purpose he cites Origen Chrysostome Gregory Hierom Beda Theophilact This Interpretation if so be it deserves this name the same Interpreter doth rightly confute by this Argument because at that rate the Father also would be ignorant of the day of judgement in that he revealed it not unto us Again what manner of reasoning had Christ used were this Interpretation admitted The Disciples desired to know of him the day of judgement Christ answereth according to the opinion of these men The Son causeth you to be ignorant of the day of judgement he will not reveal it he dissembleth his knowledge thereof But this was the very thing that the Disciples ask namely that he will declare it unto them A cause should have been alledged why he would not declare it why as they speak he did dissemble it Finally what manner of Interpretation is this I know not that is I dissemble my knowledge Did Christ deal thus with his Disciples and delude them with whom he both might and ought to deal openly Such a kind of speech would be unbecoming even a grave man much more Christ Again the same Interpreter saith that others by name Origen Epiphanius Chrysostome expounded it that Christ was ignorant of the day of judgement because he had not yet experienâ—e of it This opinion he refuteth with the same reason that he did the former because by this reckoning the Father also should be ignorant of it since neither he himself as yet had experience of it He saâ—th that others affirm this to be the sence Neither doth the Son of man know it unless the Father know it but because the Father knows it the Son of man also knowes it as Enthymius speaketh Which
we controvert namely That it cannot be said that the Son is ignorant of the day of judgment because he ever knew as all other things so that day also Again in what manner soever he interpreteth those words it is not the office of the Son to know that day yet doth he not escape the difficulty for either it is not therefore the office of Christ because he is not bound to know that day or not obliged to know that day or because he is bound to be ignorant of that day so that it is not so much as lawful for him to know it which latter sence the places quoted by him seem to require If he hold the latter he encreaseth the difficulty instead of diminishing it and saith more than is needful For he not only saith that the Son was then ignorant of the day of judgment but that it was not so much as lawful for him to know it But how can he be the most high God who is not only ignorant of something but cannot know it or to whom it is not so much as lawful to know somethings and that as he is God And notwithstanding the places quoted by him and duly compared with this seem altogether to require such a sence for when Christ saith To sit at my right hand and left hand is not mine to give he signifieth that it lay not in his power and disposal or that it was not lawful for him to do it But the place of the Acts maketh express mention of Power and signifieth that the Father had reserved to his own power and disposal the determination and consequently also the knowledge of the times and seasons But if he grant the former first what will this make to the purpose for the sence will be that none is obliged to know the day of judgment neither the Angels nor the Son but the Father only But what then although neither Men nor the Angels nor the Son be obliged to know it yet both he and they may possibly know it and we as the Disciples may be supposed to speak although we are not bound are yet desirous to know it since saving the truth of that saying it is possible for us to know it For he against whom we dispute doth believe that although it were not the office of Christ to know the day of judgment yet he did know it By this reckoning therefore Christ had not quenched the desire and longing that the Apostles had to know that day but had left place for such a cogitation that it might be that both Men and Angels did know that day Again how can it be said that it is the Office of the Father or that the Father is obliged to know the day of judgment and the Son not obliged if he also be the Supream and consequently the same God with the Father for neither of them can be obliged to know any thing but that the other also must be obliged since both have the same numerical understanding and the self-same knowledge Besides whatsoever cause you alledge why the Father is obliged to know the day of judgment that will be common to the Son if he be the supream God with the Father yea were it possible that one of them should be obliged thereunto the other not at all or less obliged it should be held that Christ is more obliged because he sustaineth the Office of Judge and if he be the supream God doth therein depend on none so that he doth according to his own pleasure both constitute and determine the day of judgment I omit that it is not rightly said that it is the Fathers Office or that he is bound to know the day of judgment since he cannot chuse but know or if you therefore say it is his Office because he is bound to define and constitute that day consider how rightly it is said that he is bound to do that which lyeth in his own pleasure But of this so far CHAP. X. Argument the tenth from the words of Christ Mat. 20.23 To sit at my right and left hand is not mine to give THe next place shall be that which a certain Interpreter as we have seen compared with that testimony whereof we have hitherto treated and is extant in the same Matthew chap. 20. where Christ speaketh thus But to sit at the right and left hand is not mine to give So it is read in the Greek without adding to you which is found in the vulgar Translation But to whom it hath been prepared by my Father Now it is easie to every one to perceive what the meaning of Christ is namely that it is not in his power or not lawful for him aâ—cording to his own pleasure to determine who ought to sit at his right hand in his Kingdom who also at the left and so to obtain the next degree of dignity and honour after him For that this is due to them for whom it hath been designed by the Father whose Decrees Christ cannot repeal From whence it appeareth that Christ denyeth such Authority to himself as he intimateth that the Father exerciseth Whence it followeth that Christ is not the most high God For in the Power and Pleasure of the most high God are all things which fall under any power such as is that namely to give or decree that one should sit at the right hand another at the left hand of Christ in his Kingdom for Christ intimateth that that hath been prepared for some by the Father The Defence of the Argument Arg. 10 from Mat. 20.23 YOu will say that it is not lawful even for God himself to repeal his own Decrees especially such as design some good to some person And that therefore it was not lawful for Christ any further to determine according to his pleasure who ought to sit at his right hand who at his left although he be the most high God because he hath already made an immutable Decree concerning that matter We answer That that is here taken for granted which is altogether controverted and can be confirmed by no other testimony of the Scripture for * John Maldonat neither do we read in the Scripture that the Son or holy Spirit but the Father only did predestinate any one saith the most learned and popish Interpreter on this place and is not only not agreeable to the words of this place but also forreign to the same For were the thing so neither would Christ simply have said To sit at the right hand and left hand is not mine to give nor had he said of the Father only that it was provided for some by him but he would have said either that it was done by him without naming the Father or at least he would have joyned himself with the Father for who would not think it to be absurd should it be supposed that the Father of Christ had already made a decree of giving to some the dignity of sitting at
the right and left hand to bring him in thâ—s speaking To sit at the right hand and left hand is not mine to give but to whom it hath been prepared by my Son Would not the Father upon this account attribute some Prerogative to the Son above himself and ascribe that to him which he took away from himself Where since now the Son doth in that manner speak of himself it is to be held as we see some Interpreters do acknowledge that Christ even as he is God ascribeth some Prerogative to the Father above himself and what he attributeth unto him taketh away from himself Which if you make a true estimaâ—e of the thing is no other than to say that the Father only is the most high God but the Son is not as we have above sufficiently * Chap. 2. of this Section taught Some other will say that Christ doth not here simply deny it is his to give that one should sit at his right hand another at his lâ—ft but that it is not his to give it unto those two disciples the Sons Zebedee for that the words to you are either to be read or to be understood both because the antient Interpreters have them and the following words opposed to thoâ—e going before do require it for it followeth But to whom it hath-been provided by my Father Whence it seemeth apparent that in the foregoing words is to be understood the name of the persons to whom it suiteth not with Christ to give so great a thing and that they are those disciples who asked that of Christ and whom the antient Interpreter designed by the words to you But if those words be added you will say Christ affirmeth or denieth nothing of himself which may not be affirmed or denyed of the most high God But first no reason enforceth us to imagine that the words to you are either to be read or understood but there is rather good reason why we should conceive that they are not to be read For as for the authority of the antient Interpreter there is no cause why we should leave the Fountain and follow the Stream and think that this is purer than that yea rather the reading of the Latin Translation ought to yeild to the reading of the Greek Copies if they agree among themselves to be corrected from it But here the Greek coppies among themselves and that not only in Matthew but also in Mark where it is read in the same manner and that most learned Popish Interpreter saith he knoweth no antient Greek Interpreter who read the words to you yea not so much as Austin amongst the Latins But as for the reasons drawn from the following words that do perswade us that in the foregoing words a regard is also had of those persons to whom it concerned not Christ to give that sitting at his right hand and left but there it followeth not that the words to you must of necessity so be understood and so this great felicity is denyed to those two Disciples by name For every one seeth that these words may thus also be rightly understood as if Christ had said To sit at the right and left hand is not mine to give namely to whom soever I please even to my kinsmen such as you are having a regard to kindred only or to give it to such as simply ask and therein prevent others as you do but to them at length to whom it hath been designed by my Father Again let us grant that those words to you are either to be read or to be understood Nevertheless since Christ saith that it is not his to give that sitting but to them for whom it hath been prepared by the Father it followeth that he is not the most high God For by such words he intimateth that he is not the prime Author of so great Dignity but the Father and that he himself doth both promise and will at length give that honour according to the pleasure of another namely of the Father and the Laws appointed by him otherwise as we before hinted he would have said that so great dignity had for some been provided either by himself or at least by him the Father together But neither of those things which we have spoken is incident to the most high God for he is both the prime Author of all such Honours and Rewards and composeth himself to the pleasure of his own not of anothers will and accordingly distributeth rewards and honours The exception concerning the humane Nature according to which it was not his to give whereas it was according to the divine hath here no place both for the simple negation and also because he here opposeth not one Nature to another but his own Person to the Person of the Father and what he taketh away from himself he attribueth to him and finally because this reason would have had no force to repeal the petition of those Disciples for neither did they desire that he should give unto them what they craved according to one Nature not according to another but simply that he should give it and consequently that he should give it according as he is able Therefore if Christ had answered that it was not his to give according to the humane Nature they might presently reply that it did nothing matter them so that he gave it according to the divine according to which he was able to give it But they were nor so subtil although they believed Christ to be the Son of God as to think of that distinction Therefore they thought that a simple Negative was simply to be taken and believed that * John Maldonat Christ spake to the purpose and did not struggle besides the matter in hand I omit that the most learned of the Adversaries acknowledge that * John Maldonat Christ here spake of himself as God as we saw in the examination of the foregoing place CHAP. XI Argument the eleventh from those words of Christ Mat. 19.17 Why dost thou call me good none is good but God only THe third place shall be that which is extant in the same Matthew in the chapter immediately before going namely the 19.17 where when a certain young man had thus bespoken Christ Good Master what good shall I do that I may have eternal Life Christ answereth him with these words as it is read both in the Greek books with Matthew himself and in the Latin also with Mark and Luke †Mar. 10.18 Luke 18.19 Why dost thou call me good there is none good but one the God or God only which place both heretofore and at this day many have dared so to understand as if Christ would by the confession of that young man teach that himself was that one or most high God Which if we shew to be false the Argument will be presently retorted upon them and it will appear that the contrary to what they will have is here taken for
middle Person between us and God I forbear to mention at this time that they with whom we have to do hold that Christ was in the same sort even from the beginning of the world a Mediator of God and Men. Whence it would follow that his divine Person existing without the humane Nature was already less than the Father before that descent which they understand neither do I here urge that if Christ because he descended to us that is as they imagine assumed a humane Nature became a middle Person between us and God and consequently less than the Father it is necessary that both the Father and the holy Spirit became middle persons between us and God and less than themselves For neither could the Son or his divine Nature assume the humane but that the Nature of the Father and of the holy Spirit and consequently the very Father and holy Spirit would together assume the same humane Nature if that be true which the Adversaries say that those three have one and the same numerical divine Nature Concerning which * Sect. 2. Chap. 5. we will treat in the second Book CHAP. XV. Arg. 15 That the Son was sent by the Father Argument the fifteenth drawn from thence That the Son was sent into the world by the Father IN the second place that may be alleaged which is so often read in John namely that Christ * See Joh. 3.17 4.33 5.23 24. and 30.37 38 and many other places was sent by God or the Father which is also found in other Writers and amongst others in Paul when he saith God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh Rom. 8.3 and Gal. 4.4 When the fulness of time came God sent his Son made of a Woman made under the Law For it followeth from hence that Christ is not the most high God since it is not for him to be sent but to send because it is not for him to receive any command from another but to give commands unto all But every Embassadour as such receiveth command from another and of necessity composeth his words or actions which he undertaketh as an Embassadour unto the will and beck of another otherwise he will not discharge the Office of an Embassadour Whence also Christ as we saw before John 12.49 saith The Father that sent me he gave me a Commandment what I should say and what I should speak And in the following verse What things therefore I speak as the Father hath said unto me so I speak The Defence of the Argument HEre the Adversaries are not easily wont to fly to a distinction of Natures partly because they hold that Christ before he was born of the Virgin was sent by the Father out of Heaven yea sent to this very end to be born of the Virgin and assume a humane Nature partly because they see that to be sent and so to sustain the Office of an Embassadour agreeth to none but a person as such That I may not say if Christ had been sent only according to the humane Nature it will follow that he was also sent by himself or by his own divine Nature when notwithstanding he every where maketh another person namely the Father to be the Author of his mission but never maketh himself yea as we formerly * John 7.28 saw he expresly denyeth that he came of himself Wherefore the Adversaries are wont to betake themselves to another refuge and to deny that Christ being sent by the Father argueth him to be less than the Father indeed the greatest part of them affirm that he saving his equality with the Father even then when he had not yet assumed a humane Nature was both before the Law and under the Law sent by God and was then oftentimes stiled an Angel or Messenger and Embassadour which we in our Book concerning God when we treated of the name Jehovah have as I suppose sufficiently refuted Now they say that it is no unusual thing that a Senator for example sake should be sent by his Collegues to whom he is otherwise equal in Authority and Power and in their name discharge an Embassage Yea that a greater Person may be sent by a less either because he doth of his own accord take upon him that Office or because it is obtained at his hands by prayers or other perswasions But first they do not refute the reason of the consequence of our Argument which being safe the Argument it self is safe Again if the thing be so in divine matters as they hold it is inhumane namely that an equal may be sent by an equal yea a greater by a less nothing will hinder but that also the Father may be sent by the Son or holy Spirit which thwarteth the Opinion of the very Adversaries who deny that the Father may be sent by the Son or holy Spirit either apart or joyntly though it is a wonder that they deny it since they hold that those three Persons are equal to one another in all things so that there is no repugnancy if one of them may be sent that the rest also may be sent But why do I say that there is no repugnancy since it cannot be that one should be sent but that the other must also be sent if so be they are of one Essence and a Person cannot be sent without the Essence For if the Essence of the Father were sent when Christ or the holy Spirit that we may now together speak of him 〈◊〉 was sent certainly it is necessary that the Father himself was sent For he is sent whose Essence is sent since every one is really the same with his Essence Besides from this answer of theirs it will follow that nothing hinders but that God or Christ may be sent by Angels and finally by Men namely being drawn by prayers or other perswasions But if all understand this to be most absurd let them also acknowledge it to be most impossible that Christ should be equal to the Father in all things if he be sent by him for neither was there any cause why all should judge either this or that which in the first place was spoke of to be absâ—rd than because reason it self hath taught all men that the Sender in respect of that thing for which he decreeth the message is as I may speak with the Vulgar the principal but the Messenger is his Minister in the same thing And withal this hath also been understood that the Father can by no means be inferiour to the Son or holy Spirit who proceeds from him have their Essence from him or be Minister much less the Minister of Men or Angels As for the Instances therefore or Examples alleaged to the contrary here they ought to remember that which they themselves are often wont to inculcate when there is no place for it namely that in this matter an Argument is ill drawn from humane things to divine Now the reason of the
Christ prayed according to the humane Nature only is sufficiently refuted by what we have spoken before both in the 3d and 14th chapter and also in the precedent one Whereunto add if Christ as this distinction supposeth had had a divine Nature in him there would have been no need that he should fly to another Person namely the Father as we read Christ very often did and also with tears and strong cryings For what need is there to ask of another and that with so great earnestness yea further with tears which you are able by your self and that by natural strength underived from another at all times most freely and easily to perform yea which you your selves have absolutely decreed to perform as certainly it is to be held of Christ if he were the most supream God or most High Some here reply that it may be that even he who may and will perform something by himself may beg it of another to the end he may honour him in this behalf and in a manner leave to him the glory of the benefit And that it became Christ as being the Son in this sort to honour the Father and to ask of the Father by name as of the Fountain those benefits which proceed from the whole Trinity Which answer first taketh not away the difficulty For they who thus answer either hold that some Prerogative agreeth to the Father above the Son and so to the first Person of the Deity above the second as such or else they hold it not If they hold it those Persons are not of the same numerical Essence nor is the Son the supream and most high God as we have already * Chap. 1 2. of this Section shewn before If they hold it not there is no cause why the Son should rather ask something of the Father than of himself if so be any one may ask any thing of himself or without any prayers performed by himself For what reason is there that in an absolute equality this honour should rather be given unto the Father and the glory of the deed attributed to him than to the Son Yea Christ should rather have taken heed lest by the example of his prayers which he is found to have poured out to the Father only he should give occasion unto others to exhibit greater honour to the Father than either to himself or to the holy Spirit For to Persons altogether equal equal honour is also due and the Adversaries themselves contend that those three Persons of Supream Divinity which they hold have equal honour and glory But if you say as indeed some do that it was Christs modesty to ask that of the Father which of himself he could either assume to himself or bestow on others Not to repeat those things which have been already spoken we may demand to which Nature they think that modesty is to be ascribed If to the humane it was not its modesty but judgement only to prefer the Father before the Son and to direct prayers rather to the more honourable It is greater modesty to make an address to the inferiour rather than to the Superiour Or if you think the Persons altogether equal you shew no greater modesty if you betake your self and convert your prayers to one than to the other If they ascribe this modesty to the divine Nature or Person as we said it was necessary if this Person were divine that is if he were the very supream God they are very absurd and injurious to the most high God For Modesty is a Vertue of Men and Angels not of the most high God It is I say a Vertue of such a Nature as may be exalted and cast down not belonging to such a nature as is not capable of exaltation and depression But if you dare to ascribe modesty to the most high God as such there will be no cause why you should so earnestly contend that Christ prayed to the Father not according to the divine Nature but according to the humane only For it would not be impossible that Christ according to the divine Nature did for modesty sake so debase himself before the Father as to pray unto him for others namely Men and obtain gifts for them which he could by himself bestow upon them which how absurd it is every one perceiveth and the Adversaries themselves sufficiently intimate that they see it whilst all that I know of do in this Argument fly to the distinction of Natures But furthermore the manner of Christs prayers to the Father chiefly expressed by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and also in part intimated by the Writers of the History of the Gospel doth at no hand admit that answer for it argueth the want of Christ and necessity of praying not modesty only This appeareth both from his great assiduity in praying and also by his strong crying and tears and perplexity of mind which shewed themselves as he prayed a little before his death If you say it was necessity that Christ prayed but modesty that he rather prayed to the Father than to himself or his own divine Nature not to repâ—â—t what was formerly spoken of the humane Nature of Christ be hâ—â—â—â—â— be personally united to the divine that necessity will quite be eâ—â—â—â—â—â—ed especially in things pertaining to Christ himself wherein notwithstanding we see that he used such cryings and tears and contention of mind For by what means for example sake could the necessity drive the humane Nature of Christ to pray so ardently unto the Father that he would not forsake it or leave it destitute of his help and that he would receive its spirit into his hands and save it from death if it had been joyned with an indissolveable tye to the divine Nature which both could and would perform it yea could not chuse but perform it Do we think that the humane Nature of Christ was afraid lest that personal union should be dissolved But the Adversaries do not so much as permit any one to doubt of that so far are they from believing that such a thing could come into the mind of Christs humane Nature or of the man Christ or could it perhaps fear lest then the union remained entire yet notwithstanding might perpetually abide in death and so the divine Nature remain to all eternity personally united to a dead and bloodless corps who would not tremble to think of this since if you make a true estimate of the thing this could not be done so much as for a moment It remaineth therefore that Christ did not for modesty but for necessity pray and that to the Father a different person from himself namely because he could not perform by himself that which he asked for himself and could not bestow that which he asked for others but by power received from the Father which by praying for others he tacitly begged should be given to himself The first of these is intimated by the divine Author to
the Hebrews chap. 5.8 whilst without expressing his proper name he thus describeth him to whom Christ offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears namely Who was able to save him from death or deliver him from death For by that description he would distinguish that Person from the Person of Christ and withal assign the cause why he offered up prayers unto him and finally intimate what he did then so earnestly beg for himself But neither had he by this means distinguished that Person from Christ if Christ had been as able to save himself from death as the Father was to save him since common things do not distinguish but proper neither had he brought a sufficient reason why he made supplication unto him with crying and tears that he would deliver him from death CHAP. XVIII Arg. 18 That all things were given to Christ Argument the eighteenth drawn from thence That all things are given to Christ from the Father 〈◊〉 IN the fifth place Those passages may be alleaged where it is written that all things were given to Christ by the Father and that partly in general partly in special terms that is certain things given to him by the Father being expressed by name Whereunto belong very many places not only in John but also other Writers And for as much as we are citing the Testimonies taken out of John chiefly therefore let us begin from him principally because it is most frequently in him than in other Writers expresly writen that the Father gave something to the Son Thus therefore he saith chap. 3.35 The Father loveth the Son and hath given all things into his hand And chap. 5. Christ being about to declare those words whereof we have formerly spoken The Father loveth the Son and sheweth all things to him which himself doth and will shew him greater works than these that ye may marvel amongst these things he saith ver 22. For neither doth the Father judge any one but hath given all judgment to the Son that all may honour the Son as they honour the Father And ver 26. For as the Father hath life in himself so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself and he hath given him also power to do judgement because he is the Son of Man To which places as touching the Life given to the Son by the Father that other is not unlike which you find chap. 6.29 As the living Father hath sent me and I live by reason of the Father even so he that eateth me shall live by reason of me every thing that the Father giveth to me that is every man of an honest heart whom the Father draweth to me shall come unto me which in some sort he repeateth ver 39. and chap. 10.29 My Father which gave them the Sheep me is greater than all Chap. 13.3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands And chap 17.2 Thou Father hast given him the Son power over all flesh that every thing which thou hast given unto him he should give unto them eternal Life Ver. 5. Glorifie me thou Father with thy own self with the Glory which I had before the World was with thee For it is all one to glorifie as to give glory as it is of it self apparent and is also evident from ver 22.24 Again ver 6. I have manifested thy Name to the Men whom thou hast given to me out of the world thine they were and thou hast given them to me And by and by ver 7. Now have they known that all the things that thou hast given to me are from thee See also ver 9.11 12 14. and ver 22. And the Glory which thou hast given me have I given them And ver 24. That they may see my Glory which thou hast given to me because thou lovedst me before the making of the World The same John at the beginning of the Revelation saith The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto him This Revelation is largely related afterwards chap. 5. from the beginning unto the 10th verse And this cause therefore is added For he was slain and bought us by his blood and made us Kings and Priests unto our God Let the whole place be read as in a very lively manner setting forth all the business Moreover In the second chapter about the end the very Son of God saith He that overcometh â—â—d keepeth to the end my works I will give unto him power over the Nations and he shall rule them with an Iron rod c. as I have also reâ—eived of my Father Which very same thing he explaineth in other words afterwards about the end of the third chapter ver 21. Now that we may come to the other Writers of the New Testament who either expresly or with words equivalent affirm that something yea all things even the divinest of all were delivered unto Christ by God the Father First Among other things Christ himself Mat. 11.27 speaketh on this wise All things have been delivered unto me by my Father And chap. 21.24 he citeth concerning himself these words Psal 118.21 The Stâ—ne which the Builders refused the same is become the head of the corner this was the Lords doing and it is marvellous in our eyes Which place is also in part cited Acts 14.11 and elsewhere although the word Give is not extant yet is the thing extant which is signified by that word that is it is intimated that the Glory Power and Empire is given unto Christ by God Concerning which thing Mat. 28.18 Christ speaketh more plainly and openly whilst he saith All Power in Heaven and in Earth is given unto me Likewise in Luke chap. 1.32 the Angel speaketh of him thus He shall be great and he shall be called the Son of the Most High and the Lord God shall give unto him the Throne of David his Father And he shall reign over the House of Jacob for ever and of his Kingdom there shall be no end And chap. 22.30 Christ himself saith And I dispose to you a Kingdom as my Father hath disposed unto me For that disposal argueth a giving Likewise in the same Writer Acts 2.33 Peter saith Being therefore exalted namely Christ by the right hand of God and having received the promise of the holy Spirit from the Father he hath poured out this which ye now see and hear And presently after when he had cited the words of David concerning Christ The Lord saith unto my Lord sit at my right hand until I make thy enemies the footstool of thy feet He addeth ver 35. Wherefore let all the House of Israel know assuredly that God hath made him both Lord and Christ even this Jesus whom you have crucified And chap. 3.13 The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob the God of our Fathers hath glorified his Son Jesus And chap. 5.31 Him hath God exalted by his right hand to be a Prince
another reason of diversity in that we speak of such a Giving as an Inferiour cannot exercise towards a Superiour such as is the conferring of power and right on another the giving of life or the like things But the delivery of the Kingdom may be incident to an Inferiour in respect of a Superiour yea can be incident to none but such But every one doth easily perceive how much that delivery whereby Christ shall render the Kingdom to God the Father doth differ from that whereby the Father gave to Christ the Throne of David and all Power in Heaven and Earth and consequently the other things Because when those things were given to Christ by the Father he was said to have been made Lord and Christ But who dare to say of the Father that he when Christ delivereth the Kingdom to him shall then be made and constituted by him Lord and Christ But further let us grant that something may be given to God who is there that dare to say that all things have been delivered to the most high God by another That all Power in Heaven and Earth hath been given to him as Christ affirmeth concerning himself Would it agree to the Father whom all grant to be the most high God to speak in this manner I dispose to you a Kingdom as my Son hath disposed unto me Could it be said that it is given to the Father by another to have life in himself that he liveth by another Would this speech be suitable to him My Son who gave me the Sheep is greater than all or this Thine were they Disciples O Son and thou hast given them unto me Run over the rest and see whether you can without Blasphemy apply them to the Father or the most high God Hence it easily appeareth how frivolous that other thing is which they alleage out of John 17.2 4. touching the glorifying of the Father For there is as wide a difference between the glorifying of Christ which he begs of the Father and the glorifying of the Father made by Christ on the Earth as is between the Glory * Rom. 2.7 Joh. 5.2 1 Thes 2.12 1 Pet. 5.10 John 12.26 1 Cor. 4.4 which God promiseth to us and will at length give by Christ and that which we are said to give or render unto God between the blessing whereby God blesseth us and that whereby we bless God between the praise and honour which he will sometimes give to us and that which we give to him for the glorifying of the Father which proceeded from Christ was only the illustration of the divine Name or the celebration or manifestation of the Fathers Goodness Power and Wisdom but that which Christ did beg consisted in the conferring Immortality and Sovereign Power Which is manifest by it self and shall be shewn afterwards when we shall refute the third Answer to our Argument So that in the words of Christ Joh. 17.2 4. there is such an elegant Antanaclasis as if some one of us should say Glorifie us O God that we may glorifie thee praise and honour us that we may praise and honour thee Or we have glorified thee on Earth praised thee honoured thee finished the work which thou hast given us to do wherefore glorifie us with thy self with that glory which thou didst design to us before the world was created * The second answer and its refutation But now it is time that we see other Answers to our Argument or rather interpretations of the places from whence it is drawn Some therefore answer that all things were given to Christ from the Father by an eternal generation out of his Essence Which answer likewise seemeth to strike at the Major of our Argument and so deny it to be universally true For it is tacitly said that it is only true of the Father but not of the Son or also of the holy Spirit But this answer is not to be admitted chiefly for two Reasons First Because as we †Chap. 2 3. of this Section already above hinted it doth sundry wayes imply a contradiction for it maketh the same to be at once both eternal and not eternal both the most high God and not the most high God the same in Essence with the Father and not the same equal to him and not equal The one while it attributeth to him the same Essence in number with the Father and affirmeth that he existed from all eternity the other while it affirmeth that he was generated out of the Essence of the Father and received all things of him which he hath in respect of his Deity Next because it evidently thwarteth very many of the places quoted by us For some openly speak of a thing which was done in time and not from all eternity as the place Luke 1.32 and John 5.20 c. where also life is mentioned which the Father hath given to the Son to have in himself that is as most learned Interpreters do * John Calvin Wolfg Musc John Maldonat observe a power and vertue of quickning which many hold that he received by that eternal Generation from the Father So also chap. 6.37 and 17.4 Acts 2.33 c. and chap. 3.13 and chap. 5.31 and 1 Cor 15.27 Ephes 1.20 Phil 2.9 c. whereunto add all those places which we have cited out of the Epistle to the Hebrews out of the Epistle of Peter out of the Revelation also out of the Psalms and out of Daniel Some also express such a cause of that giving as hath nothing common with that eternal Generation out of the Essence of God †Chap. 3. of this Section As that the Father loved the Son John 3.35 and 5.20 and 17.24 which cause pertaineth also to the Life which the Father gave unto the Son to have in himself Or that the Son namely of God is the Son of Man John 5.27 or that he was obedient to the Father even to the death of the Cross Phil. 2.9 and that he glorified the Father on the Earth and finished the work which he had given him to do John 17.4 5. or that he did desire and obtain it from the Father ibid. and Psal 2.8 Let these things suffice to have been spoken concerning the second Answer Now that we may come to those Answers which endeavour by a distinction to solve the Argument they again are divers For some seem to distinguish the word ‖ Third Answer and its Refutation Give and others that have the same force others those things which are said to be given others finally him to whom they are given in respect of the divers Natures that are in him one whereof is such that according to it something may be given to him and consequently all things have been given the other such that according to it nothing hath been given to him Wherefore the first will say that the word Give in the major Proposition is to be taken of a giving which is really
And what I pray is that Right of ruling Is it not a right of prescribing Laws unto us and of executing them a Right of remitting our sins of defending us from our adversaries and enduing us with eternal felicity But what hath not the most high God a Right of doing all these things How then did the Father give that Right to Christ how doth he exercise the same by him if the most high God hath it not of himself Wherefore Christ also would have it of himself were he the most high God Some other things which might be here spoken shall be hereafter spoken in a more commodious place It remaineth that we examine the last and most usual Answer of all to the places alleaged by us and the Argument framed out of them which consisteth in the distinction of the Natures of Christ For they say commonly these things are spoken of Christ according to the humane Nature The sixth answer and its refutation and not according to the divine But first as we have before shewn chap. 14. it could not be simply affirmed that all these things were given and bestowed on Christ that he was exalted glorified made Lord and Christ if he had that divine Nature according to which those things could not be spoken of him Since the very same things might simply be denyed of him no less than they are simply affirmed of him in the fore-cited places Add hereunto that such places contain in them a tacit Negation and that a simple one namely that Christ hath not of himself those things which are said to have been given to him for otherwise they would not be said to be given to him But in such Negations a distinction of Natures hath no place as we have sufficiently shewn before especially when we created on that place John 5 19. Again To be or become a King Christ Lord to hold or exercise Empire and if there be any thing like to these do primarily and properly agree to none but an intelligent Suppositum or Person as such Wherefore it must be held either of a very Person having supream Divinity as such and consequently of the very divine Nature that all these things have been given to him by the Father or confest that Christ is not such a person Finally If the Essence of the Supream God were in Christ there would be no cause why it should be said that all things were given to him by another person namely by the Father and he made Lord and Christ and nor rather by himself For was the divine Nature of Christ in this behalf idle did it not give all things to the humane Nature Certainly the Adversaries contend that it did â—ive them and are forced to say so both by reason of that very straight â—â—ion of either Nature which they hold and also because the Father could not give them But that the Son should withal give the same things if he is of one Essence with the Father Why then is this attributed to the Father and to him alone not also to Christ If you say this is done because of the Prerogative of the Father above the Son you will hereby confess the Father not the Son to be the most high God Howbeit neither could a simple Prerogative cause that this should be so often attributed to the Father and so openly but never to the Son For neither are they to be heard who when they reade in certain places that God gave something to Christ glorified him exalted him made him Lord and Christ understand the whole Trinity or the divine Essence that they may attribute to Christ the same action For first since we so often read either that it is expresly written that the Father did those things as to omit other places it happeneth out of those places which are cited out of John or that God glorified the Son or gave something to him and since they themselves confess that the name of God in very many places denoteth the Father only why do they not confess that he is understood in the places under contestation doth not the very similitude of the places perswade thereunto Are not those things which seem to be spoken more generally or confusedly to be explained out of those places which express the same thing more specially and distinctly especially since they are so many in number Again Is it not manifest when the action of giving exalting glorifying is attributed unto God a Person is understood for such actions are attributed unto none but Persons and such an one as is distinct from Christ For who even amongst the Adversaries themselves would endure him that should thus speak The Son of God gave or bestowed a name on Christ the Son of God glorified Christ made Jesus Lord certainly he that should speak so would by the Adversaries and that deservedly said to savour of Nestorianism and attribute unto Christ two Persons namely the Son of God and Christ But the reason is the same if you say that God performed those things to Christ and by the name of God understand the Son Nor are the Adversaries ignorant thereof But who will say that the holy Spirit is understood who is never found in the Scripture expresly named God much less by that name distinguished from Christ and preferred before him is likewise no where read to have given any thing to Christ or to have exalted him To omit that the same question will return which we urged concerning the Father namely why those things should be attributed to the holy Spirit rather than to the Son if the Son were the most high God An Appendix of this Argument wherein is taught That Divinity was given to Christ of the Father BEfore we quite leave this Argument we think fit to add this little Appendix thereunto whereby our Opinion may be yet more confirmed For it appeareth from the places which we have alleaged that Divinity or Godhead was bestowed on Christ of the Father and consequently that he was made a God by the Father From whence it also followeth that Christ is not the most high God For he was from all eternity of himself God and did not at any time receive his Divinity from another otherwise he would not be the most high God Now that which we have said may be confirmed chiefly by two Arguments drawn from those places which we have cited and discussed The first is this He that was made Lord by another he if he be a God Arg. 1 was also made a God by another But Jesus of whom it is certain that he is a God was made Lord by God Therefore he was also made a God by him The Minor as they call it or the Assumption is Peters Acts 2. * ver 36. The Major is confirmed by this reason because if he were not made God by another when notwithstanding he is a God neither could he be made a Lord by another For he that is a God especially in
received from him Power Honour a Kingdom and Dominion over all the Peoples of the Earth which thing all see was not done from all eternity why do they laugh at this Why do they impiously oppose that which the Scripture so clearly delivereth He is not yet sufficiently acquainted with the nature of the Christian Religion who is ignorant thereof For this is the thing which doth as to this consideration separate Christians from Pagans That the Christians acknowledge one most high God nor attribute Godhead unto any else but to whom the most high God hath indeed granted it But this doth not yet distinguish them from Jews or Turks For this doth sunder them from Jews or Turks that the Christians do besides the most high God worship his Son also for their God or as Paul speaketh acknowledge One God the Father of whom are all things and for whom are we and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and by whom are we But this by the by and yet not without necessity For we ought a little to turn out of the way that we might bring them back into the way who went astray CHAP. XIX The ninteenth Argument That Christ ascribeth both his Words and Works unto the Father and that he is not the First but Second Cause of the things pertaining to Salvation THat therefore we may proceed to other Arguments of our Opinion to those Testimonies which we even now alleaged may be subjoyned those places of John wherein Christ ascribeth his Works and Words to the Father as the prime Author not to himself and any divine Nature of his own On which notwithstanding we will not here dwell long partly because we have above said something concerning them when we cited those places out of John wherein something is denyed of Christ which could not be denyed of him if he were the most high God in the second and third chapter of this Section partly also because they are so nearly allyed to those places immediately going before wherein it is said that some dignity was given to Christ by God and granted or bestowed on him so that they are in a manner of the same purport with them Nevertheless we will recite the chiefest of them wherein Christ ascribeth his works to the Father for those which †Chap. 4. speak of his Doctrine Arg. 19 That Christ is the second cause of alâ— things were for the most part brought by us before partly ascribing the very words themselves partly noting the places where they are extant and we will further add something to what hath been formerly spoken concerning that thing Wherefore to omit that famous place chap. 5. wherein Christ affirms That he can do nothing of himself that the Father sheweth him all things which himself doth and will yet shew him greater ver 19 20. Likewise chap. 14.10 where he saith That the Father which abideth in him he doth the works Of both which enough hath been already * Chap. 3. of this Section spoken Hitherto belong those words of Christ which are likewise extant chap. 5.36 I have greater testimony than that of John the Works which the Father hath given me to do the very works that I do they hear witness of me that the Father hath sent me And chap. 10.25 The works which I do in the name of my Father they testifie of me Now what is it to do them in the name of his Father than to do them by the Power Authority and Command of the Father and the same chapter ver 37 38. If I do not the Works of my Father believe me not But if I do although you will not believe me believe the Works that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in the Father And chap. 11.41 being about to raise Lazarus he thus speaketh Father I give thee thanks because thou hast heard me But I know that thou alwayes bearest me but for the Peoples sake that stand about I speak it that they may believe that thou hast sent me From which place it appeareth that Christ raised Lazarus and did other the like Miracles because he was heard by the Father and a Power to do them was alwayes afforded to him or being oâ—â—e afforded was never taken away Which very thing we see that even Martha which had already acknowledged Jesus to be the Christ the Son of God did believe as she professeth ver 22. but none of these things could be said of Christ were he the most high God and performed all those Miracles of himself or by a Vertue Power and Authority that was altogether proper to him and naturally refiding in him I omit the end of those Works clearly exprest by Christ namely That men might believe that he was sent by the Father and so that the Father was in him as in an holy Embassadour and most dear Son and likewise that he was in the Father or closely united unto him as the like words in the same John See John 6.56 and 14.20 15.4 5. 17.21 22 23 26 1 John 2.5 6 24 26 27 28 3.24 4.12 13 15 16. 5.20 are elsewhere taken But if Christ were the most high God and had done Miracles by a Power that was altogether natural unto him this ought not to have been the end of them that men should believe that he was sent by another but rather that they might understand that he came of himself and did in his own name give Precepts and propose Promises unto all We have already before stopt the gap through which men fly to a distinction of Natures inasmuch as these things are simply and without limitation uttered concerning Christ which could not be done if he were that one God because the sâ—me things should also be denyed of him without limitation Again because those operations properly agree to the Suppositum or Person of Christ as such not to a Nature which is not a Person Wherefore they ought either to confess that the humane Nature is a Person if they will understand those things of it and so are forced to deny that Christ is a divine Person and the most high God or to affirm that those things are spoken of Christ even us a divine Person and the very most high God Besides he ought not to ascribe these things to another Person but to another part of himself that is to his divine Nature unless you will have it to have been idle therein But it was impossible for it to have been idle whilst the Father wrought if both had one and the same numerical Nature To these places fetcht out of John are to be added those words of Peter Acts 2.22 Jesus of Nazareth a man approved of God among you by Signs Wonders and mighty works which God did by him in the midst of you c. And those of the same Peter chap. 10.38 where he saith How God anointed him Jesus of Nazareth with
judge the World by the ‖ Acts 17.3 man whom he hath appointed that is by Jesus Christ as we expresly read Rom. 2.16 As for the latter Argument which may be drawn out of the 28th verse it is evident that the most high God can become subject unto none But the Son of God shall at length become subject unto him who brought all things under his subjection namely to the Father Wherefore the Son of God cannot be the most high God The Defence of the Argument HEre all for the most part fly to the distinction of Natures but to no purpose both for the simple affirmation which is found in both * See cap. 3.14 16. of this Section verses and could not have place if for the other Nature namely the divine the same things ought simply to be denyed of Christ and also because Christ is here considered as a King and consequently as a Person so that either his humane Nature is to be acknowledged for a Person or these things are to be ascribed both to his divine Person and Nature whereof the first quite overthroweth the Opinion of the Adversaries the other by their own confession subverteth it self Add hereunto that in the latter place it is emphatically said the Son also himself shall become subject to him who brought all things under his subjection Now who would believe that Paul when he spake thus considered Christ not according to that Nature according to which he is the Son of God but according to another For neither can any one say that the name of the Son is in this place put absolutely without adding the name of God so that also the Son of man may be understood For the word Son is manifestly opposed to God the Father as its correlative as they speak in the Schools neither is the word Son absolutely used of Christ ever meant otherwise than as related to God as its correlative and not to any man To omit that the Emphasis which is in those two words namely also and himself doth require that Christ should be thought to be described in that manner wherein he exceedeth a l the other things there mentioned as being subject to him and not wherein he is either equal or inferiour to him and that manner is that he be called the Son of God and not the Son of Man For in the first manner he is equal to Men and inferiour to Angels But as the Son of God by way of excellency so called he is superiour unto Angels as it is openly written Heb. 1.4 5. Finally if according to the humane Nature only Christ shall deliver the Kingdom and become subject but not according to the divine why is it said that he shall deliver the Kingdom to the Father only why that he sâ—all become subject to him only and not also to himself or to his own divine Nature Why is it added that God may be all in all why should not Christ himself also be all in all For neither may any one say that there the divine Nature and that even of Christ himself is aâ—solutely meant For it is both understood from the thing it self that some Person is designed for operation and the government of all things is ascribed to him and that such an one as is distinct from Christ and all the foregoing words openly teach that it is spoken of God the Father who brought all things in subjection unto Christ and placed him at his right hand as we have elsewhere seen Now whereas some except that it is therefore said that Christ shall deliver the Kingdom to God the Father because he shall resign thar Kingdom which he hath as Mediator not which he hath as God this is also of no moment For first we have already shewn * Chap 18 of this Section before that if Christ were the most high God such a Kingdom could not be given to him because otherwise he would at the same time have the same Empire both from himself and not from himself be therein subordinate to another not therein subdinate In a word both the most high not the most high For we have taught that such a Kingdom considered by it self is contained in that Power and Empire which the most high God hath of himself For there is no act of that Empire which doth not by it self agree to the most high God But if Christ being the most high God could not receive such a Kingdom neither can he deliver it to another and depose it Wherefore since we read that he shall deliver that Kingdom to God the Fatheâ— and so depose it it is evident that he cannot â—e the most high God Add heâ—eunto that were such an answer of the Adversaries to be admitted it will follow that Christ when he hath delivered that Kingdom shall not be subject to God the Father contrary to what the Apostle manifestly witnesseth For he that retaineâ—h a supream and independent Empire over all things becometh subject unto none Otherwise he would acknowledge another above him and so not be the most high Arg. 27 That Christ is the Mediator of God and men Yea Christ after the delivery of the Kingdom which he hath as Mediator would be so far from becoming more subject to the Father than before that he ought rather to be esteemed less subject For in respect of that Kingdom he as we have said and the holy Scriptures abundantly testifie is dependant on the Father and subordinate to him which subordination containeth in it self some subjection at least which when that Kingdom should be desposed would altogether cease his supream and independent Empire in the mean time remaining which suffereth not that he be subject to any one The distinction of Natures hath here no weight partly because we have already before excluded it with reasons partly because they who use that answer will have Christ according to both Natures or the whole person of Christ to be the Mediator and consequently to have and administer that Kingdom which agreeth unto him as Mediator CHAP. XXVII The seven and twentieth Argument That Christ is the Mediator of God and Men. IN the fourth place that deserveth to be alleaged which we touched at the end of the proceding Chapter namely that Christ is called the Mediator of God and men 1 Tim. 2.5 And in the same sense The Mediator of a new or better Covenant namely than the old was Heb. 8.6.9.15.12.24 For it is meant that he intervened in the middest between God and men to make a covenant between them and was as the divine author to the Hebrews elsewhere speaketh the surety thereof Chap. 7.22 Now it is here understood that Christ is not the most high God for the most high God can be the Mediator of none but he himself rather hath a Mediator For if he were a Mediator first he should have another superiour to him between whom and men he should intervâ—ne in the midst For whether
he no less than the Father should have an high Priest and this Priest be himself since neither any cause can be imagined nor can it any way be that the Father should have a Priest and Christ not have one if he be God no less than the Father yea the same God in number with him as may appear from those things which we before spake concerning the title of a Mediator But where is even the least hint in the holy Scripture whereby it may appear that Christ hath an high Priest as well as the Father Who seeth not that it is very absurd to hold that the Person of Christ offereth to himself wherefore the Priesthood of Christ is utterly inconsistent with the divine Nature which is held to be in him CHAP. XXIX The nine and twentieth Argument That Christ was raised up by the Father THe sixth Argument of this kind may be drawn from the places wherein Christ is said to have been raised by another namely his Father which reason is so much the more to be urged because the contrary thereof is urged by the Adversaries For they say Christ raised himself and by this means clearly demonstrated that he was the Son of God begotten out of his Essence and consequently the most high God But this Argument partly falls to the ground by it self in that it is grounded on a false Supposition as we will by and by demonstrate partly is weakned by another erroneous Oppinion of the same Adversaries For they hold that the Soul or Spirit of Christ which they also hold concerning the spirits of other men after he was dead did notwithstanding perform such actions as agree to none but Substances that are actually alive and understand by themselves Some say that it went down into Hell or Purgatory and brought the Souls of the Fathers out of I know not what Prison or Limbus But if the Soul of Christ even during his death did exercise such actions what hinders but that the same Soul entring into his own Body and former habitation should again unite it unto it self and by divine Power raise it up For could the Soul of Christ furnisht with divine Power do less than his whole humanity when he lived perform by the same divine Power could it do less than for example sake some one of the Apostles to whom Christ sometimes gave the power of raising the * Mat. 10.8 dead and of †Act. 9.40.41 20.9 c. whom we read that some of them did actually raise the dead ‖ 1 King 17.17 c 2 King 4.18 c. Which very thing we read likewise of Elijah and Elisha Wherefore we will far more rightly invert the Argument of the Adversaries and retort upon them that weapon which they endeavour to hurl at us For if Christ were the most high God his raising should be ascribed to himself as the true and chief Author But it is not attributed to him but to the Father as the true and chief Author thereof yea it is very openly signified that Christ iâ— you speak properly Arg. 29 That Christ was raised up by the Father did not raise himself Wherefore he is not the most high God The truth of the Major as they call it is manifest enough For none doubteth if Christ be the most high God that he did altogether raise himself and that it was most suitable that he should raise himself For since it follows from that Opinion that the humane Nature according to which Christ dyed was personâ—â—â—y united to the divine it could at no hand be that the humane Nature should perpetually abide in death and consequently in as much as that union according to their Opinion can never be dissolved that a dead corps should in an indissoluble and eternal tye be united to the divine Nature Furthermore if the humane Nature were to be raised by whom rather was it to be raised than by the divine Nature of the same Christ which both could of it self very easily perform it and by reason of that most strict union did owe this benefit unto the Nature that was joyned unto it Wherefore whether you consider the ability of performing it the divine Nature of Christ would have been the prime cause of that work for the Office of performing it it would have chiefly lain on that Nature How then would not Christ have been the true and chief Author of his own Resurrection As for the Minor there are so many and so clear Testimonies of the holy Scripture which make the Father the true and chief Author of the Resurrection of Christ and not Christ himself yea very openly take away this work from Christ though even the thing it self namely his death doth sufficiently take it away that it is a wonder that any one should doubt of it For first in certain places it is openly said that the Father raised Christ or that God raised his Son But who is that God whose Son Christ is but the Father The former is recorded by Paul in the beginning of the Epistle to the Galathians whilst he speketh thus Paul an Apostle not from men nor by man but by Jesus Christ and God the Father that raised him up from the dead The latter it is affirmed by Peter Acts 3. ult To you God having raised up his Son first sent him blessing you And Paul chap. 13.33 doth indeed assert the same whilst he saith And we declare unto you the Promise which was made unto our Fathers that God hath fulfilled it unto us their Children having raised up Jesus as it is also written in the second Psalm Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee Now that he raised him from the dead no more to return to corruption thus he said c. From which words it appeareth that he who said unto Christ thou art my Son this day â— begot thee which indeed is no other than the Father raised him from the dead The same Apostle saith 1 Thes 1.9 10. Ye turned to God from Idols to serve the true and living God and is expect his Son out of Heaven whom he raised from the dead even Jesus who delivereth us from the Wrath to come Where in like manner God is said to have raised his Son from the dead To these are added very many other places wherein it is simply written that God raised Christ of which number we will here set down only one or two with the words at large contenting our selves to quote the rest Thus therefore speaketh Peter Acts 2.24 Whom Jesus of Nazareth God raised up having loosed the Throws of Hell in that it was impossible that he should be held by it For David faith concerning him I saw the Lord alwayes before me because he is at my right hand that I may not be moved Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoyceth Moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope For thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell nor suffer
thine holy One to see corruption And a little after ver 32. This Jesus hath God raised up whereof we are all witnesses See also what the same Peter faith afterwards chap. 3.15 which verse compare with the 13th and 4.10 and 5.30 and 10.40 and Paul chap. 7.31 and Rom. 4.24 and 8.11 and 10.19 and also 1 Cor. 6.14 and 15.15 and 2 Cor. 4.14 and 13.4 But there is amongst others a notable place in the same Apostle Ephes 1.9 20. where amongst other things he wisheth to them That they might know what is the exceeding greatness of his power namely whom he had ver 17. called the God of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of Glory towards us who believe according to the working of his mighty Power which he wrought in Christ having raised him from the dead and set him at his own right hand in heavenly places c. And likewise those words which we read chap. 2.5 and those that are like unto them Col. 2.12 13. Add also those of the divine Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews chap. 13.24 and those of 1 Pet. 1.21 We mention not those Testimonies which indeed are not few wherein it is simply affirmed that Christ was raised from the dead which being so often repeated doth altogether signifie that he was raised by another as also the circumstances of some places do plainly intimate See amongst others 1. Cor. 15.4 12 c. where that manner of speaking is seven times used and afterwards ver 15. it is openly asserted that God did it and the Resurrection of Christ is made the pattern of our resurrection which also happeneth elsewhere A more full Confirmation and Defence of the Argument YOu will say that although Christ is said to have been raised by another yet it followeth not that he was not raised by himself in as much as the same action may proceed from many causes and those equal among themselves Moreover that in those places wherein it is asserted that God raised up Christ by the name of God may be understood the whole Trinity or the divine nature of Christ especially in that elsewhere the raising of himself seems to be ascribed unto Christ But the first is not to be admitted for three causes chiefly The first is because that at least followeth from those places which we have alleaged That Christ is not the principal cause of his Resurrection For why should the raising of him â—e so often and so openly ascribed to another person Arg. 28 That Christ was raised up by the Father namely the Father and not rather to Christ himself But even this thing alone might here be sufficient for us to shew that Christ is not the most high God For we have before shewn that he if he were the most high God would altogether be the principal Author of his own Resurrection Another cause is because the holy Scripture doth so attibute the raising of Christ to God the Father that it doth not obscurely yea very openly intimate that the same action doth not indeed agree to Christ himself First because if Christ had raised himself from the dead and that by such a power as was natural and altogether proper unto him it ought to have been mentioned at least in some of those testimonies which we have alleaged and to omit other places this ought chiefly to be done Acts 2.24 c. and Rom. 10.9 10. 2 Cor. 13.4 For as to the first place when Peter had affirmed that Christ had been raised from the dead in that it was impossible for him to be held by death was there not veâ—y great cause to say that it was therefore impossible because he was the most high God who accordingly could not leave his soul in Hell and suffer his body to see corruption For this would have been the proper yea the only cause thereof wheâ—eas he having alleaged the words of David and applyed them to Christ produceth a far different cause namely that Christ alwayes saw the Lord before his eyes because he was alwayes at his right hand lest he should be moved Whence he conceived joy whence hope that the Lord would not leaâ—e his soul in Hell nor suffer his holy one to see corruption whereunto the following words also pertain where Christ in the Person of David professeth that God had made known unto him the wayes of life and would fill him with gladness Which cause hath nothing common with that which should have been alleaged yea doth subvert it Rom. 10.9 As to the second place it should therefore have been there rather said that Christ raised up himself from the dead if so be any one can raise up himself from the dead then that God did it because that is there set down which is in a special manner both to be believed with the heart and to be confessed with the mouth concerning the dignity of Christ and which if we believe and confess we shall obtain salvation But if Christ had raised himself from the dead we ought altogether to believe and confess it as the Adversaries themselves confess yea urge and consequenely it should by no means have here been omitted by the Apostle For he had omitted that which did not only contain in it self the gâ—eater dignity of Christ but was as necessary to be believed by us as that which he expressed * 2 Cor. 13.4 As to the third testimony for this reason in stead of that which is there said That Christ doth live by the Power of God It should rather have been said that he doth live by his own power because the power of Christ is here in question and it is shewn that he is powerful in the Corinthians by removing the suspicion of infirmity which might be grounded on his cruel death To which purpose nothing had been more apt than if it had been said that he revived by his own power and vanquished the force of death Again it is apparent from Acts 13.33 and Rom. 1.4 Col. 1.18 Rev. 1.5 that the raising of Christ was such an action Arg. 29 That Christ was raised up by the Father as that by it he was generated by God and became his Son * Sect. 8. Chap 31. Concerning which matter more hereafter But Christ did not generate himself nor is the Son of himself Thirdly In some places alleaged by us God or the Father of Christ is without expressing his name thus described He that raised Jesus Christ from the dead is by that description distinguished from Christ himself See Rom. 4.24 and 8.11 2 Cor. 4.14 Whence it appeareth that this action is not common to Christ with the Father but proper to the Father otherwise this description would no less that I mgiht not say more agree to Christ than to the Father and consequently â—e who raised Christ from the dead could not be distinguished from Christ for common things as we have elsewhere hinted do not distinguish but proper ones
by the intervening of his power and efficacy and so had no other Father besides God But it is incredible if there had been a far letter cause for which this Child who was to be born of Mary should from his first birth have been the Son of God that the Angel would not have hinted it and so have conceived his woâ—ds that Mary might understand that there was yet a better cause of this thing But that would have been a far better cause thereof which most Iâ—terpreters are wont to bring namely that the man which was to be born of the Virgin or rather thaâ— humane nature was to be assumed into the unity of the Person of the Son of God begotten from all Eternity out of the Essence of the Father Why then is there not the lâ—ast hint of this matter in the words of the Angel why did he not so spâ—ak that it might appear that the same person had already been the Son of God from all Eternity and should now in a new manner be the Son of God For â—either can you say with some Interpreters that the Angel did in some sort intimate it by the particle also whilst he doth not simply say Therefore the holy thing that shall be born of thee but therefore also the holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God For that the sense is that not only the person that did before exâ—st is â—he Son of God but also the holy issue of the Virgin should for this admirable conception be called the Son of God For this opinion doth make two Sons of God and consequently two persons in one Christ the one existing â—efore the Virgin the other born of her Wherefore unless you will â—ender the Greek words and therefore so that this expression may serve only to connect the sentence you must observe what a notable Interpreter amongst the Gospellers have noted on this place The conjunction also John Piscator saith he is here the mark of Parity and noteth an equal tâ—uth of the consequent with the anticedent of the Enthymem As if it sâ—ould be said how true it is that thou sâ—alt conceive by the singular ope ation of the holy Spirit and therefore being a Virgin so trâ—e also is it that the Son which thou shalt so conceive and bring forth shall be the Son of God The same Author a little after denieth that theâ—e is any such opposition or comparison here made between the humane and diviâ—e nature of Christ as these Interpreters fâ—ame and force out of the particle also which is in the words of the â—ngel The 2d cause why Christ is called the Son of God But it is now time that we proceed to other Reasons for which Christ is called the Son of God The second Cause therefore of this thing is exprest by Christ himself John 10.34 35 36. For when the Jews had charged him with the crime of Blasphemy that being a Man he made himself God namely because he had called God his Father and said that he was one with him he giveth them this Answer Is it not written in your Law I said ye are Gods If he called them Gods to whom the Word of GOD came and the Scripture cannot be broken how say you of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the World thou blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God Where it appeareth that Christ bringeth this Reason why he did with far greater Right call himself the Son of God than those Judges heretofore were called Gods because he was sanctified of the Father and sent into the World Now doth this Reason constitute Christ the most high God For doth sending that I may speak of this first constitute the most high God Hath it any conjunction with the Generation out of the Essence of the Frther And is the Sanctification that proceeded from the Father incident to the divine Nature of Christ and not rather to the humane This certainly is both confest by many of the Adversaries and averred by the thing it self For that which is sanctified of God acquireth fome sanctity in whatsoever thing the same doth consist But this is not incident to the divine Nature existing from all Eternity although it be to the humane For neither can any one say that we also sanctifie God and his Name to whom notwithstanding we procure no Sanctity For as much as it is manifest that God is sanctified of us in a differnte manner then we are sanctified of God God is sanctified of us whilst we acknowledge reverence and proclaim his Sanctity and Majesty we of God whilst through his bounty we obtain some Sanctity whereof we should otherwise be destitute Now if the manner that God sanctified Christ were of the same kind with that wherein we sanctifie God and not rather with that wherein God sanctifieth us though different in kind and perfection what would that Sanctification do to shew that Christ is by the greatest right called the Son of God For doth a Sanctification which proceedeth from us constitute God to whom it tendeth our son and not rather that which proceedeth from God to us constitute us his sons indeed in a more imperfect manner than Christ because our sanctification is also more imperfect but yet truly Now what that Sanctification of Christ is may easily be gathered from the sending that is added thereunto For that sending herein consisteth that the office of embassage unto men is committed by God to Christ But to sanctifie signifieth in the Scriptures to segregate one from others and chuse him to a singular office or as it were to prepare him for a more divine use Wherefore it is either so taken in this plrce as in Jeremiah Jer. 1.5 to whom God sometime spake in this manner Before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee and before thou camest cut of the belly I sanctified thee and gave thee a Prophet to the Nations * See John Maldonet on Jerem. John Wolf Muscul on John As learned men have noted both there and in the quoted place of Jahn for it is the same as to fill with the most singular Gifts such as is divine Power and Wisdom to discharge a most honourable Office on the Earth and having by this means segregated one from other men to prepare him in an eminent way to such an office Wherefore the sending into the world containeth in it self that very Office but the Sanctification is a designation or preparation thereunto But of what moment are these things to assert supream Divinity unto Christ or to establish the Generation of Christ out of the Essence of the Father from Eternity Yea they are so far from asserting supream Divinity unto Christ that they rather demonstrate that Christ is not the most high God As concerning sending we have formerly †shewn it The same is also to be held concerning Sanctification which is a
designation or preparation to that Office Chap. 15 For if the Office it self be not incident to the most high God neither can the designation or preparation to that Office be incident unto him although the same may also be shewn from those things which we have said concerning the places wherein it is affirmed that sometâ—ing was given of God to Christ For he that is sanctified of God hath thereby something conferred upon him by God But none conferreth any thing on the most high God who giveth all things to all Besides if Christ had been the most high God if he had been begotten out of the Essence of the Father from eternity and for that cause the Son of God how could it be he should here conceale it For if there were any place where this were to be expressed certainly this were the place Christ had affirmed that he was one with the Father which the Adversaries will have to be spoken in respect of a divine Nature for they say that it was therefore affirmed of him that God was his Father because he was begotten out of his Essence that he was therefore one with him because he had the same Essence in number with him Moreover the Jews did upon that account charge him with Blasphemy because that being a man he made himself God Where they take the name of God in such a manner as is not incident to a man and our Adversaries contend that they mean it of the most high God namely because they observed that Christ did not obscurely affirm himself to be God in such a manner But if it be thus it would have been altogether necessary that Christ should bring such a Reason wherefore he is the Son of God as might shew him to be begotten out of the Essence of the Father to have the same Essence with him for otherwise how had he defended that saying of his which the Jews charged with Blasphemy How had he shewn that he of right called himself the Son of God in such a manner as the Adversaries would have it The Jews according to the Opinion of our Adversaries object to Christ Thou art a Blasphemer because thou affirmest thy self to be the Son of God begotten out of his Essence because thou makest thy self the most high God Christ answereth I rightly affirm this of my self nor am I therein a Blasphemer because the Father hath sanctified me and sent me into the world What is this to a generation out of the Essence of God What is this to the Supream and Independent Godhead which Christ is believed to have challenged to himself You will say that Christ sufficiently intimated that he was begotten out of the Essence of the Father and consequently the most high God because he said that he was sent of the Father into the world For that this sheweth that he before he was born of the Virgin had been perpetually with God in Heaven and afterwards descended thence into the Virgins Womb and became Man which is incident to none but the most high God But how frivolous these thing be men would easily observe if they would a little set aside a predudicate Opinion For first he might both be sent and come into the World who never was in Heaven The words of Christ himself concerning the Apostles are in the same John very evident where he also compareth them with himself in this behalf chap. 17.18 As thou Father hast sent me into the world have I also sent them into the world And John saith of false Prophets Ephes 4.1 that many false Prophets are gone out into the world But neither had these nor those been either in Heaven or in any other place out of this World whence they might afterwards enter into this World But they were appointed the Embassadours of Christ unto men and designed to preach the Gospel unto them and these came of their own accord unto men and as if they had been sent of God unto them presuming to promulgate a new Doctrine amongst them Wherefore to be sent into the World by God or Christ is to be constituted his Embassadour unto men but he may be the Embassadour of God unto men who never was in Heaven Again though it were altogether necessary that he whom God sent into the world should first have been in Heaven and have descended thence to the Earth which thing we otherwise willingly confess concerning Christ yet what hinders that he who is in his Nature nothing but a man should be assumed of God into Heaven and being there furnished with instructions be afterwards sent down unto the Earth to men and indeed it is altogether necessary to hold it so if you think that Christ could not be sent into the World or at least was not otherwise sent then that he properly descended from Heaven to the Earth For it is sufficiently apparent from our words that this sending did agree to Christ only according to the humane Nature which certainly was not generated in Heaven but on the Earth and consequently if it was in Heaven as we also acknowledge it must needs have ascended thither And indeed Christ himself doth intimate as much whilst he saith in this Writer chap. 3.13 None hath ascended into Heaven but he that descended from Heaven the Son of Man which is or rather was in Heaven Whence afterwards chap. 6.63 he saith If therefore ye shall see the Son of Man ascend where he was hefore In both places he spaketh of the Son of Man and here he doth not say that he was at that very time in the Heaven but had been formerly and should afterwards ascend thither From whence it manifestly appears that he speaks not of the divine Nature which is neither the Son of Man nor could ever leave Heaven nor ever ascend thither But furthermore cannot an Angel whiâ—h hath continually been in Heaven be sent thence to the Earth and so to men themselves Wherefore what Christ here affirmeth of himself containeth no intimation of supream Divinity To omit that although it contained yet would it not presently follow that he was the Son of God and not the holy Spirit if the holy Spirit likewise be as they hold the most high God For he also is sent out of Heaven and nothing hinders if the Son of God would assume a humane Nature that he likewise should assume it yea it was necessary that it should be so if he assumed who is of the same Essence with him Concerning which thing elsewheâ—e We must now pâ—oceed to the other Causes for which Christ is called the Son of God but with the omission of them which are also common to Believers if you except the high perfection of them although they yet lead a mortal life namely that he was most like unto God in Holiness and most intimate to him See Soc in against Wevick chap. 5. for the more than fatheâ—ly love towards him of which things enough elsewhere hath been spoken
and without reason yea contrary to the word ordained or appointed and finally to the resurrection from the dead from which or by which that might have come to pass It is manifest therefore that there is no other more sublime cause for which Jesus may be called the Son of God but this that being raised from the dead he was made by God both Lord and Christ or the heavenly and eternal King of his people Moreover the same thing is plainly seen from the second Psalm a place that we have explained already For all as I know confess that when God speaketh thus unto Christ thou art my Son the name of the Son of God is taken in the most excellent manner But we have seen that this is the cause why he is in that place called the Son of God because he being raised from the dead was not only made immortal but also the King of Gods people and besides the Priest and Prince of our Salvation as we have shewn partly from the very Psalm and partly from Acts 13. and Heb. 5. Whereto may be added Heb. 1.4 5. For when the divine Author had there said that Christ having purged away our sins by himself was set at the right hand of God on high he adds Being made so much better or rather more honourable than the Angels as he had inherited a more different that is a better and more excellent name than they For to which of the Angels said he at any time thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee And again I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Son From which place it is understood that the name of the Son of God is not Essential unto Christ whilst he is said to have inherited it nor that it is the name of the most high God for as much as by his exaltation he obtained a dignity and excellency equal to that name and title which doth not happen to the most high God Besides the thing it self shews that Christ is here spoken of according to his humane nature as they say and also that this is such a name as agrees to Christ according to that nature Unto which also the following passage accords I will be unto him a Father and he shall be to me a Son wherein the same sence is expressed For these words do in like manner argue that it is not spoken of such a thing as is proper to the most high God and was in being from all eternity For both the words do openly respect something future and in the first and literal sense as they say were spoken most clearly of Solomon the type of Christ in that respect as others also confess Compare 2 Sam. 7.14 with the words both foregoing and following and 1 Chron. 22.10 and 26.6 compare also 1 King 5.5.8.19 It is therefore necessary that there should be such a similitude and analogie between the reason whereby Christ is the Son of God that whereby Solomon was the Son of God inasmuch as this is a certain representation of that but how was that whereby Solomon was the Son of God a certain representation of this whereby Christ is the Son of God if Jesus be therefore the Son of God because he was begotten of the Fathers Essence from eternity and so the same God with the Father But if Jesus be the Son of God by reason of most high love and the benefits flowing from the same which God bestowed upon him amongst which the heavenly Kingdom and Empire that was granted unto him holdeth the principal place Solomon is rightly constituted the type of Christ and the woâ—ds uttered of him in the litteral sense are rightly and elegantly referred unto him in a mystical and far stricter sense It is evident therefore that neither in the words of the second Psalm there cited is any thing contained of the eternal generation of Christ out of the Fathers Essence Finally who doubteth when Peter had confessed that Jesus was the Son of God or when we are commanded to believe and confess the same thing of him if we would be accounted Christians and be saved that the name of the Son of God is taken in the most perfect signification wherein it agrees unto Christ But we saw then that it doth in very deed signify no otherwise than that Jesus is Christ or a King appointed of God and set over his people to defend and preserve them for ever wherefore it is to be concluded that this is the principal reason for which he is called the Son of God neither can any better be found But since that doth not constitute Christ the most high God but rather shews that he is not the most high God it follows that there is no other cause of his Son-ship as they say which can make Christ the most high God We have spoken somewhat largly of the first reason which shews that Christ is not the most high God therefore because he is the Son of God partly because if we rightly observe there are more arguments of our opinion contained in it and partly because this that Christ is the Son of God is commonly believed to contain the strongest argument of the contrary opinion Wherefore it is to be shewn in a few woâ—ds how exceedingly men commonly err and the true opinion be proved from the reason whereby Christ is the Son of God There follows now another proof of the principal Arguments Assumption which we will dispatch very briefly namely 2 Proof of the principal Arguments Assumption that it is very clear from the holy Scripâ—ure that Christ died for us according to that nature according to which he was the Son of God and indeed only begotten and proper But if â—e were in that manner the Son of God as he was begotten of the Essence of God and so was the most high God he could not have died according to that nature according to which he is the Son of God For the most high God as such cannot die yea cannot in any respect whatsoever But that which we have already spoken of Christ is from thence manifest that the greatest love of God towards us is in the holy Scriptures shewn from this that he delivered his only begotten or his own Son unto death for us See John 3.16 compared with vers 14. and Rom 8.32 1 John 4.10 compared with vers 9. aforegoing add also Rom. 5.10 compared with vers 8. But if Christ died not according to that nature according to which he was the Son of God but according to another nature which was added to the person of the only begotten Son of God it can neither be truly said of the proper and only begotten Son of God that he died or was given for us neither can the greatest love of God towards us be from thence collected For what so great wonder is it for some accession of the only begotten Son of God or some nature that was added
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
will not now rehearse that that Christ's Sanctification cannot be rather attributed to the holy Spirit than to the Father to whom the same is so ascribed * John 10.36 that it is urged as a cause why Christ is his Son For hence it would follow if the the same agree rather to the holy Spirit than to the Father that the holy Spirit would be rather the Father of Christ than God himself who both is the Father of Christ and is every where in the new Testament so called That we will say here which is proper to this place if any reason can be imagined why that which is common to all the Persons should notwithstanding be ascribed rather to one than to another that here would be great cause why this action is rather to be ascribed to the Son than to any other Person and indeed a double cause The one is that most strict conjunction which agreeth unto the Son according to his humane Nature as the Adversaries Opinion urges The other is that the same Adversaries will have the Son to be the natural Wisdom and Power of God by which he makes all things and hither they bring those words which in Prov. 8. are spoken abstractively and in general touching Wisdom and also those which we read of Christ 1 Cor. 1.24 But unto which divine Person would it rather agree to bestow on the humane Nature of Christ Wisdom Understanding Counsel Knowledge than to that which was nearest unto that Nature and is the natural Wisdom of God himself To what would it better agree than to the natural Vertue and Power of God to do all those stupendious works by the humane Nature All those things therefore are rather to be attributed to the divine Nature of Christ than to the holy Spirit Besides we demand of them that make use of this kind of exception whether or no they determine that the holy Spirit contributed more to the bestowing of those Gifts upon the humane Nature than the divine Person of Christ himself or as much the one as the other Person If that they overthrow their own Opinion if this the Scripture For if they admit that either there was not so much power in the divine Person of Christ to perform the same as was in the holy Spirit or not so great a will Neither can be spoken of it if Christ were the most high God and indeed of the same Essence with the holy Spirit But if they admit this there will be no evident cause why it should be expresly attributed to the holy Spirit that he bestowed those Gifts on the man Christ and no where to the divine Person or Nature of Christ himself Wherefore this exception hath there no place and consequently neither the distinction of a humane and divine Nature in Christ For this very thing we demand why was the holy Spirit given to the humane Nature if that were personally united to the divine Nature CHAP. XXXIV Arg. 34 Christ was tempted of the Devil The four and thirtieth Argument That Christ was tempted of the Devil THe fourth Argument of this kind is this that Christ as the History of the Gospel declareth was tempted of the * Mat. 4.1 c. Mark 1.12 Luke 4.1 c. Devil and sollicited to worship him and that he was to this very end namely that he might be tempted of the Devil led by the holy Spirit into the wilderness For this would by no means have hapned if Christ had been the most high God For first what is more unworthy of God than to expose himself to this impious and wicked Enemy whom for the contempt of his Majesty most clearly heretofore seen he had thrust out of Heaven to be tempted and sollicited to the adoration of him and so to offer himself of his own accord to be mocked of the Devil Again to what purpose should Christ do this was it that it might appear that the most high God was able to endure and overcome the temptations of the Devil was there any one who could make any doubt thereof so that there should need any tryal thereof Furthermore how durst the Devil attempt so great a matter I will not now mention that the Devils tremble at the sight of the divine Majesty †Jam. 2.19 inasmuch as they are afraid at the memory of him in that they were by him cast out of Heaven and thrust down to Hell For feign you now in the wicked spirit who is very conscious both of the Wrath and invincible Power of God and of the bonds wherein he is held by him as much boldness and impudency as you please yet must you withal confess that he is exceeding cunning and I would this were not to be confest But how can it be that a most cunning spirit should tempt the most high God and endeavour to seduce him and conceive in his mind such a project as that he should sollicite him to a thing most unworthy and detestable namely the adoration of the Devil For can it be either that he should attempt a thing which he well knoweth to be impossible or should not clearly perceive that this thing is altogether impossible Neither of these things are incident to him that hath so much as a grain of wit much less could it happen to a most subtil and cunning spirit Moreover when he saith If thou art the Son of God command that these stones become loaves And again If thou art the Son of God cast thy self down He sufficiently sheweth that his intention is to make Christ by some means to begin to doubt whether he be indeed the Son of God whom he had a little before * Mat. 3. â—1 heard from Heaven that he was and consequently to seek further proofs of a thing some way doubtful But how could he hope by any means whatsoever to effect this with such a Son of God as was begotten out of the divine Essence For do we think that an enemy most practised in this kind of fighting who is commonly called the Author of a thousand cunning tricks did here use such a kind of tempting as was the unfittest of all to deceive and so made use of arms so vain and ridiculous to assail a most valiant and wise Captain What would Satan get if by any reasons he should endeavour to perswade even a common man who is well in his wits to doubt of himself whether he was a man and not rather something inferiour to a man Would not this rather be a sport than a temptation But it would be much more ridiculous by any reason whatsoever to go about to perswade the Son of God begotten out of the divine Essence that he should doubt whether he be the Son of God or not But you will understand that thing is far otherwise if you observe that Christ was pronounced by God to be his Son in such a manner as did not belong to his Essence and which was indeed
notwithstanding propose it to consideration whether a different Exposition brought by him be not genuine namely that we should understand Christ to be called the First-born of every Creature because he is the chief Heir of all things And he a little after addeth That the native signification of the word First-born hindreth it from being understood of the divine Generation of the Son of God out of the Substance of the Father for it properly signifieth him who is born at the first birth and so agreeeth to the Mother not to the Father CHAP. XXXVI The thirty sixth Argument That Christ is equal to God THat place Phil. 2.6 c. which is wont to be urged against us containeth several Arguments of our Opinion For besides what we have formerly urged that Christ is there several times distinguished from God simply put that he was obedient unto God that he was exalted by him and that to him was given by God a name above every name and that the Dignity and Honour given to him is affirmed to redound to the glory of God the Father as to the utmost object thereof besides all these things I say this also argueth Christ not to be the most high God that he is said to be equal unto God Which the greatest part of the Adversaries say is spoken of him according to the divine Nature and is an open proof of that Nature But that which is equal hath alwayes a different Essence from that to which it is equal otherwise the same thing would be equal to it self whereas equals are relatives and consequently opposites If therefore Christ be equal to God and that as they imagine in respect of Essence and essential Properties the Essence of Christ must of necessity be different from the Essence of God Wherefore they must either hold two divine independent Essences or two most high Gods or that Christ is not the most higst God More Arguments might be brought but we will at present be content with these especially because some of them shall hereafter be touched when we shall prove our Opinion out of such Principles as Reason it self affordeth For neither will we so draw Arguments from Reason as that we will not now and then recal the Adversaries to the Testimonies of the Scripture SECT III. Wherein is shewn that the holy Spirit is not the most high God that it may appear that the Father only is the most high God IT now followeth that we should shew what we undertook to demonstrate in the third place namely That the holy Spirit is not the most high God Although the business may easily be decided by what we have disputed concerning Christ For though those testimonies also of the holy Scripture which sâ—ew that the Father only is the most high God do withall strongly demonstrate that the holy Spirit is not the most high God seeing it is granted that the holy Spirit is not the Father yet will we not use them in this place For in this place we do not demonstrate that the holy Spirit is not the most high God because the Father only is the most high God but on the contrary because neither the Son nor the holy Spirit is the most high God we evince that the Father only is the most high God But with those testimonies wherewith we have sâ—ewn that Christ is not the most high God we can here also demonstrate that the holy Spirit is not the most high God For neither can it be if Christ be not the most high God that the holy Spirit should be the most high God Whence neither was there ever any man that I know of who not acknowledging Christ for the most high God did imagine that the holy Spirit notwithstanding was the most high God And the reason hereof is manifest whether you consider the thing it self or the opinion of the Adversaries For as to the thing it self how could it come to pass that Christ should send the holy Spirit and give him to men if the holy Spirit were the most high God and Christ were not so For could he send and give the most high God who is inferior to him And as for the opinion of the Ad eâ—saries they hold that the holy Spirit hath his Essence as from the Father so also from the Son But how can the most high God have his Essence from him that is not the most high God the Creator from a creature He that was from all eternity from him that began to exist at a certain time Wherefore having shewn that Christ is not the most high God we might here stop and bring no otâ—er Arguments to shew that the holy Spirit is not the most high God Nevertheless that the thing may be made the more manifest we will demonstrate the same with farther arguments And in the first place we will draw Arguments from thence Arg. 1 The holy Spirit is no where called God that many things are omited concerning the holy Spirit in the Scripture which could by no means have been omitted if he had been the most high God Next we will draw Arguments from these things which are expresly delivered concerning the holy Spirit in the same Scripture CHAP. I. Argument the first That the holy Spirit is no where openly called God in the holy Scripture AS therefore to the first sort of Arguments we will begin from the veâ—y Name of God For there can no place of the Scripture be alleaged wherein the holy Spirit is openly called God But were the holy Spirit God how could it come to pass that there should not be so much as one place in the huge Volume of the Scripture where he is openly and cleaâ—ly called God Concerning the Father there are so many and so eâ—ident places that none can deny that he is God unless he daâ—es to deny that the Sun shineth at noon Concerning Christ likewise although he be not the moâ—t high God yet there are certain plain places of the Scripture which shew that he is God which are commonly known to all men And shall there be no place at all concerning the holy Spirit although he be the most high God as well as the Father and not only not inferiour to Christ but also for as much as Christ is a man by nature far superiour Besides the Adversaries hold that it is necessary to salvation for a man to believe that the holy Spirit is God yea the most high God And indeed if he were the most high God it would seem altogether necessary to be known for what faithful man ought to be ignorant of his most high God and not to worship him But the thing would withall be such that unless it were divinely revealed unto us we could have no certain knowledge thereof in as much as it is not manifest to our sences How then should a thing so great so necessary to be known so abstruce not be clearly explained and purposely delivered by divine men at
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
manner dwell therein so that it may be rightly said to be the temple of the divine efficacy and virtue seeing God by his efficacy and virtue doth inhabite his temple especially that which is treated of in that place to the Corinths wherefore if any one will concâ—ude that the holy Ghost is God in that our body is his temple he must demonstrate that our body is so the temple of the holy Spirit as that he is a person to whose honour it is dedicated and by whom our body is by such a right as is proper to the divine Majesty possessed and principally inhabited But it is impossible to demonstrate this and it doth even from thence seem to be false because in a place very like to this place of ours which is extant before in the same Epistle to the Corinths Chap. 3.16 the Apostle doth thence clearly prove that we are the temple of God because his Spirit dwelleth in us As also John proveth that God abideth in us because he hath given us of his Spirit 1 John 3.24 and 4.13 For if the holy Spirit were such a person as before we said and consequently the most high God what need was theâ—e to conclude thence that God abideth in us or that we are his temple because his spirit is in us and not raâ—her from thence because that very spirit that dwelleth in us is God What need is there I say to shew that we are the temple of God who is distinguished from the holy spirit and by the interveining of him dwelleth in us and not rather of God which is the very spirit himself dwelling in us and inhabiting us as his temple not by another person as our Adversaries would have it but by himself But the Apostles knew that it belongeth not to the supream deity in his own person and substance to inhabite any temple whatsoever on the earth and to dwell in the breasts of men but by his virtue and efficacy and therefore they do not conclude that we are the temple of God or that God abideth in us because the holy spirit that dwelleth in us is the supream God but because the spirit of that God dwelleth in us and was by him given to us For if the spirit or force and efficacy of any deity dwelleth in any place the very deity it self is said to dwell there and that is the temple thereof wherein his virtue hath as it were fixed his abode The third place which is extant 1 Cor. 12.5 6. doth likewise plainly prove the contrary for there one and the same spirit is manifestly distinguished both from one and the same God and from one and the same Lord of which matter we have * Sect. 1. Chap 4. before treated But if they will collect from the unity of operation which appeareth from the collation of vers 6. with the 11th that that oâ—e God and that one spirit are the same first it is one thing that the holy Spirit should be that one God another that he should be called that one God concerning which matâ—er we here treate Again we must conclude that that God also which worketh all these things by his spirit is the same with his spirit in that the same operations agree to boâ—h that is that the Father is the holy Spirit and contrarily the holy Spirit is the Father yea that the three persoâ—s which are commonâ—y held are but one and predicated one of aâ—other because they have the same external operations concerning which we here speak But of this matter also it was formerly treated In like manner neither doth the fourth place which is extant 2 Sam. 23.2 prove that the holy Spirit is God but rather that he is not so so far is he from being there openly called God or the Lord. For he is there openly distinguished from the Lord which is that one God whilst he is called the Spirit of the Lord of which matter more in the * Below Chap. 5. following discourse Now whereas they reason thus God spake by David The holy Spirit spake by David Therefore the holy Spirit is God any one easily perceiveth how fallâ—cious this reasoning is in that it consisteth of meer affirmatives in the second figure as they speak in the schooles For if such an argument is to be admitted we may thus also conclude God the Father spake by David The holy spirit spake by David Therefore the holy spirit is God the Father For the Major is to be granted by the Adversaries both for the communion of operations which they hold to be among the persons of the Trinity and also for the saying of the holy scripture For that I may produce but on place the Apostles Acts 4.25 say of God the Father that he spake by the mouth of David his servant namely by the holy spirit as the vulgar translation hath it But that God the Father is there understood is apparent from vers 27. where Jesus is called the son of that God whom the Apostles spake unto And indeed God spake by his Spirit or the intervening of his Spirit by David in that by his Spirit and efficaâ—y he disclosed to him those things which he ought to speak and moved him to utter them Thus in Rev. Chap. 2. and 3. at the end of every Epistle directed to the Angels of the Asian Churches these words are read Let him that hath an ear hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches But in these Epistles Christ the son of God doth perpeâ—ually speak Wherefore if we ought to follow the reasoning of the adversaries we must conclude that that Spirit namely the holy Spirit is Christ the son of God Indeed Christ did there speak but by his Spirit to whom for that reason the act of speaking is likewise there attributed Now if the adversaries will invert their major proposition and argue in this manner whosoever spake by David he is the God of Israel neither that proposition will be contained in the place quoted from whence the Argument is drawn nor is to be admitted unless it be thus taken Whatsoever person principally spake by David he is the God of Israel But if you subsume The holy Spirit is a principal person spaking by David it likewise will neither be contained in the place that was quoted nor is at any hand to be granted But again David spaketh there one way concerning God another concerning the holy Spirit Of the Spirit he saith The Spirit of the Lord spake by me but of God he saith The God of Israel spake to me neither is it spoken of the same thing in both places For in the former part of â—he words it is signified that God moved David by his Spirit â—o utter prophesâ—es in the latter that he spake something to David himself or caused something to be declared to him namely concerning the regal dignity which he first conferred upon him by Samuel 1 Sam. 16.13 afterward confirmed by Nathan 2 Sam. 7.12
words unto Isaiah but only by Isaiah But the Lord did not only speak them by Isaiah but also as appeareth by the Prophecy it self to Isaiah because he spake openly by him as one person doth to another which is neither here nor elsewhere attributed to the holy Spirit For if the holy Spirit is read to have said any thing to any one it is found to have no otherwise come to pass than because somethings were declared to some one from God by the intervening of some Prophet For in that the Prophets spake by divine Inspiration therefore the holy Spirit is said to have spoken by them But when God spaketh openly to any one or an Angel sustaining his person the holy Spirit is not said to have spoken to him And thus much concerning our first Argument CHAP. II. The second Argument That it is no where in holy Scripture commanded that we should adore or invocate the holy Spirit yea there is not so much as any example thereof LEt the next Argument be this that we are no where either enjoyned or any way admonished in the holy Scripture to adore or invocate the holy Spirit Yea so far it is that there is any precept or admonition concerning this thing that there is not so much as one example of any man there to be found which hath done it Now though it is said in that which is called the Apostles Creed that we are to believe in the holy Spirit as many of the Antients did in like manner say that we are to believe in the Catholick Church and in the other things that are there mentioned yet is it no where expresly said in the holy Scripture that we ought to believe in the holy Spirit or that any one did believe in him But were the holy Spirit the most high God how could it be that all those things should not be openly enjoyned and many examples of them found in holy men first because these things would be necessary to be known and practised of all men to salvation were the holy Spirit the most high God Again because these things are not only often but most openly writ concerning the Father but also concerning the Son there are partly precepts partly admonitions and very many examples although we have shewn that he is not the most high God How much more therefore would there be many examples extant concerning the holy Spirit were he the most high God The Defence of the Argument Arg. 2 The Scripture speaks nothing of worshipping the holy Spirit INdeed the Adversaries endeavour sometimes a by certain consequences to evince that these things are some way contained in the holy Scripture but here we shall not deal with consequences but as we have taught with open precepts that might be evident to every one though otherwise he were but a simple man As for Invocation some imagine they have an example thereof both in Paul 1 Cor. 13. ult who wisheth to the Corinthians The communion of the holy Spirit and also in John Rev. 1.4 who wisheth to the seven Asian Churches Grace and peace to the seven Spirits that are before the Throne of God But they are exceedingly mistaken for as to the wish of Paul it is one thing to wish that the communion of the holy Spirit should be with men another thing to invocate the holy Spirit himself for the first is no other than to wish that the holy Spirit should be communicated unto men or being cummunicated should abide with them For neither doth the Apostle take the communion of the holy Spirit actively as if he wished that the holy Spirit should communicate something otherwise he would have added the name of something which he would have to be communicated to the Corinthians by the holy Spirit but as we have already hinted passively Thus the communion of the Blood of Christ and the communion of the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 is taken where there is the same word in the Greek as in that place 2 Cor. 13. ult For whilst the Apostle wisheth the communion of the holy Spirit to the Corinthians he explaineth in what manner chiefly he desireth that God and Christ should testifie their Grace and Love towards them namely in giving his holy Spirit to them or in cherishing and augmenting the same already given unto them And indeed it would be a wonder if Paul should here wish for something from the holy Spirit as a divine person that he should so often have omitted the mention of him elsewhere in the like prayers Of which matter more hereafter As to the wish of John the very number of those spirits sufficiently hinteth that this place maketh nothing to the invocation of the holy Spirit whom they would have to be the third Person in the Godhead For then we should make seven spirits instead of one so that for three Persons of the Deity we should have nine Which when others perceived they said that by these spirits is to be understood the various power of God or as they speak the various gift of the holy Spirit And therefore it is all one as if John should pray for Grace and Peace from the holy Spirit himself But besides that the Adversaries agree not among themselves concerning this matter for some by that name understand seven chief Angels of God others the manifold providence of God and Christ what is there that evinceth that this vertue proceedeth from the holy Spirit which is a third Person of the Deity and that he is invocated when John prayeth for Grace and Peace from those seven Spirits of God There is not the least hint thereof in the Revelation where mention is several times made of those seven spirits See besides the very place of the first chapter chap. 3.1 4.5 5.6 which two places compare with Zach. 4.2 10. from whence they are in a manner taken In these places thou shalt see those spirits called the spirits of God they are said to stand before the Throne Christ is said to have them as eyes and horns For they are to him instead of eyes because by them he overseeth and taketh care of his Disciples and provideth for them and instead of horns because by them he pusheth his enemies and driveth them away and chaseth them from his People What hint is here of the holy Spirit that should be a third Person of the Deity Doth not the thing it self shew that if the manifold vertue and efficacy of God which he hath communicated with Christ be to be understood John whilst he wisheth grace and peace from those spirits doth so mention them as if they were certain persons distinct from God and Christ yet in the mean time doth only declare the means manner whereby he desireth that grace peace should proceed from God to the Churches and so doth tacitly repeat the invocation of God himself whom he had before named and whose spirits they principally are and to whom they do
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
this world are become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ And chap. 12.10 Now is come salvation and strength and the Kingdom of our God and the Power of his Christ Why not also of the holy Spirit For neither may any one say that in the name of our God the holy Spirit is included For as we have above * Chap. i. of this Section seen neither is the holy Spirit any where called God in the Scripture and he is here called our God whose â—hrist or Anointed Jesus is for it is said and the power of his Christ that is the Christ of our God But Jesus is not the Christ of the holy Spirit nor is so any where called but the Christ of God the Father as is very apparent from the second Psalm For neither was he anointed of the holy Spirit but with the holy Spirit of God namely the Father Acts 10.38 and also Isa 42.1 Mat. 12.17 Isa 61.1 Luke 4.18 Hitherto belong also those words chap. 14.4 These are redeemed from among men the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb why not also to the holy Spirit Llike things are read of them which have a part in the first resurrection chap. 20.6 But they shall be Priests of God and of Christ why not also of the holy Spirit So also chap. 21.22 For the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the Temple of it and ver 23. for the Glory of God did lighten it and the Lamb is the Light thereof and chap. 22 1. proceeding out of the Throne of God and of the Lamb and ver 3. But the Throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it In which places there is no cause why the holy Spirit should be omitted if he be a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son but equal unto both Now that we may come to other sacred Writers what is more clear than those salutations of the Apostle Paul which are extant in the beginning of all his Epâ—stles Grace and peace unto you from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ Neither is that clause much unlike which is extant Ephes 6.23 Peace be to the Brethren and Love with Faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ We saw also a Salutation like to these of Paul in the second Epistle of John ver 3. But why doth not Paul so much as once wish grace and peace to the Faithful from the holy Spirit Was his grace less necessary to the faithful though he were the most high God or was he less the Author of that peace or felicity which Paul wished to the Faithful or less worthy to whom he should expresly give the honour of invocation then God the Father of Christ Certainly even this alone ought to admonish every man that he should not think of any third person of the Deity Now that the same Paul doth elsewhere pray for the communion of the holy Spirit that as we have seen in the former chapter maketh nothing to the invocation of the holy Spirit We have likewise given an answer to those words of the Revelation where John prayeth for Grace and Peace to the Church from the seven spirits which are before the Throne of God Add hereunto those prayers of â—he Apostle Paul for the Thessalonians 1 Thes 3 11. Now God himself even our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ direct our way unto you and 2 Thes 2.15 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God even our Father who hath loved us c. Add also those chap. 1. ult According to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ There are also other places extant in the same Apostle where there is no mention made of the holy Spirit when God the Father and Christ are named Thus Colos 2.2 he rehearseth the Mystery of God even the Father and of Christ And 2 Thes 1.1 he writeth to the Church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ So 1 Tim. 1.1 he saith that he was an Apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour aâ—â— the Lord Jesus Christ who is our hope For neither may any one think that the same person is here described for besides the very form of the speech the custome of the Apostle every where distinguishing God from Christ and the collation of other places containing the same sense sheweth that God the Father is described by the name of God the Saviour See the beginning of the second Epistle to the Corinthians and also of those which are extant to the Galatians Ephesians Collossians as also the beginning of â—he latter Epistle to the same Timotheus and to Titus in which last place he describeth God in the same manner as he doth here whilst he calleth him Our Saviour For neither is that word proper to Christ alone It doth in the first place agree to God to save and by his means likewise to others and especially to Christ whom he hath raised and sent to be a Saviour and afterwards exalted by his right hand See Acts 5.31 and 13.23 1 John 4.14 compared with vers 9.10 Hence God is called a Saviour in the same Epistle to Timothy Chap. 2.3 Where he is manifestly enough distinguished from Christ in the two following verses And Chap. 4.10 Tit. 2.3 4. where he openly distinguiâ—â—eth God the Saviour also from Christ in the two following verses Which is done likewise in the last verse of Jude where it is said To the only wise God our Saviour by Jesus Christ our Lord be glory c. Wherefore that we may returne to our place taken out of the first epistle to Timothy two different persons namely the Father and the Son without any mention of the holy Spirit are joyned together The like is done in the same epistle elsewhere For to omit that place chap. 5.21 Which pertaineth to the second rank before appointed by us Paul speakes thus chap. 6.13 I give thee charge in the sight of God who quickneth all things and before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good confession c. And in the second Epistle to the same Timothy chap. 4.1 I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdome c. There are also the like words used by the same Apostle Eph. 5.5 Where he denyeth that any fornicator or unclean person or covetous person hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God And Tit. 2.13 where he mentioneth the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ For whereas certain adversaries because of the unity of the article set before the name of God and Christ contend that the same person is designed by that name they aâ—e therein exceedingly mistaken For the unity of the article doth not alwayes denote the unity of the subject but oftentimes the conjunction of diverse subjects as we have taught
in a like place vers 4. of Jude * Sect. 1. chap. 7. where he saith of certain wicked men that they deny the only Master God and our Lord Jesus Christâ— Where there is one article prefixt both to that Master God and to the Lord Jesus Christ and yet diverse persons namely God the Father and Christ are joyned together Now that diverse persons are understood by the name of God and Christ in the quoted place is thence apparent because Paul as also other writers perpetually distinguish God put subjectively as it is done in both place from Christ Jesus Moreover if the Apostle in that place Eph. 5. would have designed the same person he would have set first the name of God as being more general and less distinctly signifying that person which he intended and would have subjoyned the name of Christ as being more distinct and fitter to explain the same whereas now â—e doth the contrary For neither may any one conceive that the â—postle did it for amplification sake intending to ascend from a lower title to an higher For that would then have had some place if the word God had bin spoken of some subject â—y way of Epithite or Predicate and not made use of to design the very subject it self which if it be one such a gradation is not wont to be observed but rather the most speciall names thereof are wont to be subjoyned to the geâ—eâ—al the more distinct to the confused ones Deservedly therefore both those places as also that of Jude a leadged â—y us on this occasion ought to be added to the other examples whereby we have shewn that God and Christ are wont to be mentioned without the holy Spirit who nevertheless should be a like mentioned if he were a divine person distinct from both yet equal to both Such places as these are also exâ—ant in Peter who in the begining of the latter epistle twice doth the same thing which we before shewed Iohn and Paul were wont to do For thus he saith vers 1. Simon Peter 〈◊〉 the Apostle of Jesus Christ to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ And again ver 2. Grace and peace be multiplyed unto you through the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ our Lord. Those places wherein it is either spoken of them who have divine empire over us or of our duty towards them do not much differ from the passages hitherto alledged but have the same force as to our purpose as making mention only of God and Christ although in a manner somewhat different Of which we will alleage some that the reader being admonished by us may also observe others that are like unto them Hereunto belongeth that famous place 1 Cor. 8.6 Where it is spoken of them who have divine empire over us and are by us to be worshipt with divine worship But to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him For why is it not added and one holy Spirit as some men indulging their error durst to add contrary to the credit of all antient books indeed he is added yea set before that one Lord and that one God in the same epistle chap. 12 4. Because there it was chiefly spoken concerning the holy Spirit aâ—â— his effects in Christians But here he ought not to be omitted if he hath divine empire over us as well as the Father and Christ and so deserveth divine worship I say a just cause may be alleaged why he was mentioned although he be not a person distinct from God and Christ for as much as things are often times in the Scâ—ipture joyned with persons and those divine ones as hath been elsewhere by our men and we our selves by and by intend by certain examples also to shew But no just cause can be alleadged why in such places the holy spirit was omitted if he be a divine person every way equal to the Father and the Son Hither to belong those words of the same Apostle which are extant in the Acts. chap. 20.21 Where he explaineth the summ both of his preaching and our duty saying that he testified both to Jews Gentiles Arg. 2 The holy Spirit iâ— often not joyned with God Christ repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and those of the same author 1 Thess 1.9 10. How ye turned from Idols to God to serve the living and true God and to wait for his son from heaven whom he raised from the dead even Jesus which delivered us from the wrath to come And 2 Thess 3.5 The Lord direct your heart into the love of God and the patient waiting for Christ And that we may also mingle other passages although written of another subject thus saith Jude vers 1. To them who are beloved in God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ And John in the Revelation bringeth in these men that fear the punishment to be inflicted on them speaking thus Fall upon us O ye Mountaines and hide us from the face of him that sitteth upon the Throne and from the wrath of the Lamb. Chap. 6. ult and Chap. 12.17 Who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ Chap. 14.12 Here is the patience of the Saints who keep the Commandments of God and the faith of Jesus And Chap. 20.4 The souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God You may also every where observe other passages which do more largely or in another form of speech make mention of God and Christ only when they speak of divine things Now that we may pass to the second rank of Places which we before appointed there is mention made of Angels the holy Spirit being omitted First in those words of Christ which are extant in Luke Chap. 9.26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words of him shall the Son of man be ashamed when he shall come in his own glory and in his Fathers and of the holy â—ngels Like unâ—o which though in a contrary matter are those words of the same Châ—ist which are read Rev. 3 5â— He that overcometh c. I will confess his name before my Father and before his Angels And those of Paul 1 Tim. 5.21 I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect Angels c. Who would believe tâ—at the holy spirit could be omitted and Angels ratâ—er mentioned in his stead were he a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son and equal to both Was a greater weight added to his words if omitting the most high God his servants were mentioned If omitting the Creator his creature weâ—e mentioned You will say that what we would have cannoâ— be concluded from that omission because otherwise the same â—â—s to
be concluded concerning the Father For that he in a place like to these two which we have cited out of Luke 9. and Rev. 3. is omitted and the Angels only mentioned namely Luke Chap. 12.8 where Christ saith Also I say unto you whosoever shall confess me before men him shall the Son of man also confess before the Angels of God c. I answer that mention is here made of the Angels only because they alone among the heavenly persons shall be really present in judgment when Christ shall either confess or deny their names that are here spoken of But in the places before alleaged by us because menâ—ion is made of the Father likewise it appeaâ—eth that Christ and Paul intended to mention all the heavenly persons whose sight we ought to reverence and before whom it is most honourable to be praised most dishonourable to be reproved and rejected Arg. 3 the holy Spirit is often not joyned with God Christ and so not to pass by them who either are or shall hereafter be present by their power only Whence it followeth that the holy spirit could not have been omitted in such places if he had been a divine person but should have been named in stead of the Angels or if it had pleased the Scripture to name them also he should have been set before them Now let us shew that other things are wont to be joyned with God and Christ whilst the name of the holy spirit is omitted For this we have a notable place in the Revelation out of which we have before alleaged many testimonies namely Chap. 3.12 where Christ promiseth a reward to him that overcometh in these words I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the City of my God new Jerusalem which cometh down out of Heaven from my God and my new name Where you see that between God and Christ or rather the name of both the New Jerusalem and the name of it is interposed Why did he not likewise say that he would write upon him the name of the holy spirit Why the name of the New Jerusalem rather than of the holy spirit if he be the most high God We will shut up all our proofes with that famous place Heb. 12.22 23 24. where not only Angels are joyned with God and Christ but also pious men partly alive partly dead or their spirits and certain other sacred things to which Christ hath given an access unto Christians but the mention of the holy Spirit is altogether omitted For thus there speaketh that divine Writer But ye are come unto Mount Sion and unto the City of the living God the heavenly Jerusalem and to an innumerable company of Angels to the general assembly and Church of the first-born which are written in Heaven and to God the judge of all and to the spirits of just men made perfect and to Jesus the Mediator of the new Covenant and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of Abel Who would believe that in so large a catalogue of persons who for their soveâ—aign excellency may be called divine the holy Spiâ—it could have been omitted if he were such a divine person as the Father or Christ Neither may any one say that under the name of God the Judge of all the holy Spirit is comprehended For this would â—e some way tollerable could but one plain place of the Scripture be alleaged wherein the holy Spirit is called God Again who perceiveth not from the places which were both above and also a little before in great number alleaged that the name of God put subjectively doth denote the Father and that he is in that manner distinguished both from all other persons also from Christ himself Neither can it seem likely unto any one that the Father was heâ—e omitted whom we never find in like places to be passed by But he was no where mentioned unless there where mention is made of God the Judge of all Neither may any one say that the Father indeed is understood yet not he alone but also the holy Spirit For if more persons were understood the person of Christ no less than that of the holy Spirit ought to be included in that name according to the opinion of the Adversaries touching the persons of the Deity But the person of Christ the Mediator is openly distinguished from that God as being afterwards mentioned apart Besides it is at no hand to be granted that there are many persons of God and not also many Gods and Judges But here mention is made of God the Judge of all and not of Gods the Judges of all But some one will perhaps object That if the reason drawn from this place were of force it would not only follow that the holy Spirit is no person but also no sacred or divine thing such as we see â—eâ—e to be recited or at least the things here mentioned are mroe divine than the holy Spirit which we our selves will not aâ—mit We answer That this Objection would have some strength if all things at least the most divine had been reckoned up as we see the most divine and holy persons are all reckoned up and also if here were the same reason of all divine things as is of persons But the thing is otherwise of the good things that are promised us of God by Jeâ—us Christ namely of immortality and remission of sins there is no express mention made but only the place thereof is figuratively mentioned namely Mount Sion and the heavenly Jerusalem and the middle efficient cause thereof namely Christ the Mediator of the new Covenant and the sprinkling of Blood which speaketh better things than that of Abel and the prime efficient cause of both even God In like manner neither was the holy Spirit mentioned which is contained among the good things which are promised to us Namely because he would reckon up all the persons with whom we have some conjunction communion by right of the Christian religion so that we may be rightly said to have access unto them but the divine author intended to mention only those sacred and divine things which are in some sort without us and elegantly answer and are in some sort opposed to those things to which the people of Israel had heretofore access when the Law was given them out of Mount Sinai by Moses the Mediator But in this number is not the divine efficacy or virtue which floweth from God to us and is sent into our hearts so neither the remission of sins and immortality But were the holy Spirit a person we had come to him no less than to the Father and should have intimate communion and society with him neither could he by any means be omitted in so large and accurate an enumeration of those persons with whom we have conjunction But it is no marvel that â—e is here omitted seeing John as we saw before describing our communion with
divine persons which deserve to be so called by way of excellency saith 1 John 1.3 That our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ Intimating that it consisteth within the compass of those persons Indeed the communion of the holy Spirit is with us because we are partakers of him but we are not said to have fellowship with him because our fellowship is not with the gift but either with him who bestoweth the gift on us or with him that hath the same gift with us or is in some sort of the same condition CHAP. IV. Arg. 4 from Matth. 11.27 The fourth Argument from Matth. 11.27 None knoweth the Son but the Father neither knoweth any one the Father but the Son c. VVE have hitherto alleaged testimonies enough wherein the mention of the holy Spirit is omitted but ought not to be omitted if he were a divine person We will now subjoyne one place that is different from the former testimonies and more like to them wherein something is expresly denyed of the holy spirit Because though it make not express mention of the holy Spirit yet doth it in general deny something of him that could not be denyed were he a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son and equal unto both This place is extant Matth. 11.27 where Christ speaketh thus None knoweth the Son but the Father neither knoweth any one the Father save the Son c. But how could this be true were the holy Spirit a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son and in all things equal unto both for some other besides the Father would have known the Son and some other besides the Son would have known the Father namely the holy Spirit Yea he would have known him without the revelation of another The Defence of the Argument Neither can it be here said that the word none is put onely to exclude creatures For otherwise why is it added save the Father Why is he excepted Is he haply ranked among the creatures so that he was there expresly to be excepted For that only is excepted which otherwise is comprehended under the general name and which had it not been excepted might be thought to have been comprehended under the â—eneâ—al speech and so the same either affirmed or denyed of it which is affirmed or denyed of others belonging to the same kind There is the same difficulty concerning the Son if you consider the opinion of the adversaries For they hold him as he is the Son of God to be no creature But here he is lookt upon as he is the Son Neither may any one say that the holy Spirit is tacitly included in the Father and the Son For if the holy Spirit be a person distinct from both by what right is this affirmed Again is the holy Spirit more included in the Father and the Son than either the Son in the Father or contrarywise the Father in the Son Certainly no more Wherefore if no mention be made of the holy Spirit because he is included in both there ought to be no express mention made either of the Son or of the Father because the one is included in the other And truly the mention of the Father doâ—h moâ—e openly include the Son or the mention of the Son include the Faâ—her than the mention of both doth the holy Spirit if he be a person distinâ—t from both yea there is not so much as any suspicion that he is included But there the very names have a mutual relation each to other Wherefore mention should rather have been made of the holy Spirit than either of the Father when it is spoken concering the knowledge of the Son or of the Son when it is spoken concerning the knowledge of the Father Finally neither may any one say that the holy Spirit is comprehended among them to whom the Son will reveal the Father or himself because he bestoweth on him as the Essence so also the knowledge of the Father For to omit that nothing is revealed to any one unless he doth already exist it is here spoken of such a revelation as happeneth at a certain time and dependeth on the will of the Son and not on the necessity of nature But that revelation if it ought to have such a name as it is caused by the procession of the holy Spirit from the Essence of the Son is conceived both to have been from all eternity and not to depend on the will of the son but on the necessity of nature Doth not the thing it self intimate that men are here understood to whom Christ is willing to deliver the knowledge of the Father by the doctrine of the Gospel Though further this very thing that is affirmed in this exception demonstrateth the holy spirit not to be the most high God For he is not the most high God who receiveth his Essence and whatsoever he hath from another but he who hath that from himself as we have taught in our * Sect. 2. Chap. â— disputation concerning Christ CHAP. V. The fifth Argument That the holy Spirit is very often distinguished from God AFter that we seem to have spoken enough of those things which are not mentioned in the Scripture concerning the holy Spirit and which would not have been omitted were he the most high God it follows that we view those things also which are expresly delivered concerning him in the holy Scripture and are such as that they shew the holy Spirit not to be the most high God And they are of two sorts For some are such as being properly taken agree no more to persons than to other things or also at no hand agree to persons but are only proper to things But some are such as taken properly agree to persons only but are ascribed to the holy Spirit by a certaine figure To which we will add those also which primarily and by themselves agree to singular substances and onely consequently unto other things We beginning from the first will teach that the holy Spirit is so far from being the most high God as that he is not a person although this last is not proved by all the arguments we shall alledge but yet it is by many of them Arg. 5 The holy Spirit is distinguished from God Our first Argument therefore drawn from these things which agree no more to persons than things shall be this That the holy Spirit is oftentimes most openly distinguished from God or the Lord. Now that the holy spirit is oftentimes and most openly distinguished from God or the Lord even those places do shew wherein he is called the Spirit of God or of the Lord or God or the Lord calleth him his spirit many of which are extant in the holy scripture of which we have before seen one or two alleaged by the adversaries to shew that the holy spirit is called God or the Lord or understood by his name namely those two
2 Sam. 23.3 Isa 63.10 Likewise of many passages that are here and there extant in the scripture add these few Isa 11.2 and 42.1 59.21 and 61.1 Joel 1.28 Matth. 3.16 and 12.28 Rom. 15.19 1 Cor. 2.11 12.14 and 3.16 and 6.11 We have above likewise seen other places out of the same Epistle where the holy spirit is in another manner distinguished from God chap. 6.19 and chap. 12.4 5 6. and 2 Cor. 13. last which places are wont to be alledged by the Adversaries to shew that the holy spirit is a divine person But in a manifest thing no more proofs are needfull Now we have reckoned up those places of the scripture cheifly wherein the adversaries do either confess that it is spoken concerning the very person of the holy spirit or also urge it least any one should contend that it is spoken only concerning the gift proceeding from the same person and that it only but not the holy spirit properly so called is termed the spirit of God concerning which distinction we will treat in the following Argument The Defence of the Argument BUt they say that when the holy spirit it is distinguished from God or the Lord that by the name God or the Lord the Father is understood or also the son who likewise is the Lord. For therefore he is called the spirit of both because he proceedeth from both A like exception we have seen conceâ—ning Christ who is also most frequently distinguished from God Now the same things that we have there spoken to that exception Sect. 2. Chap. 1. or like unto them may here likewise be alleaged Wherefore since they may thence be fetcht there is no need to repeat them here CHAP. VI. Arg. 6 The holy Spirit is the Power of God The sixth Argument The holy Spirit is the Power of God THe second Argument of this rank but the sixth of this Section shall be this that the holy Spirit is the power or efficacy of God namely that we may explain it by tâ—e by which proceedeth from God and issuing unto men doth sanctifie and consecrate them and produce various and admirable effects in them which power they are wont to call divine inspiration but the power and efficacy of God can at no rate be the most high God or a person of supream Deity as shall better be understood in the Defence of this Argument But even our Adversaries who are a little more versed in the holy Scripture are aware that the holy Spirit is the power or efficacy of God For among others that place is very plain Luke 24.49 where Christ saith And I send the promise of my Father upon you but abide ye in the City of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high Where by all Interpreters that I know it is observed that under the name of that power with which the Apostles were to be endued the holy Spirit is understood and this was that Promise of the Father from Christ to be sent upon them See among other places Acts 1.4 5 8. and 2.4 33. Therefore this place also was brought to illustrate those other places in which the holy Spirit is signifyed by the appellation of the divine Power It likes me to set down here the words of two most learned Interpreters of the holy Scripture one a Papist the other a Protestant in their Annotations on Luke 1.35 where the Angel saith to the Virgin Mary The holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the Power of the most high shall overshadow thee For the former * John Maldonat Interpreter after he had said that Gregory Chrysostome Victor Damascen Beda Theophilact interpret the Power of the Most high to be Christ or the Son of God adds Others think that he whom before he called the holy Spirit now is called the Power of the most high God as Euthymius whom I rather follow though of less account and the only Author yet saying things more like truth than many and those of greater esteem For it is a repeating of the same sentence such as the Hebrews chiefly in songs do frequently use one sentence concluding one verse which in the fore part of the verse is expressed in some words in the latter is repeated in other words as Psal 2.4 He that dwelleth in the heavens shall deride them and the Lord shall mock them For in the same manner we see the Angel a little before to have said Hail thou that art full of favour the Lord is with thee varying the words the sence being the same And the holy Spirit is wont to be termed as the Finger so also the Power of God by the same similitude as beneath chap. 24.49 But stay ye in the City until ye be endued with Power from on high Therefore Power and Spirit are wont most often to be coupled in the holy Scriptures as below chap. 4.14 and in Acts 10.38 Rom. 1.4 and 15.13 1 Cor. 2.4 Ephes 3.16 1 Thes 1.5 But the * John Piscator latter so writes And the Power of the most high that is the same holy Spirit who is the Power proceeding from the Most High that is God the Father A description For the same sentence is repeated in other words by way of explication So below ver 24.49 the holy Spirit is named the Power from on high To them also other most learned †See John Calvin men assent For that many of the Antients have understood the Son of God by the Power of the most high that I repeat not the reason brought by a most learned Interpreter of the Papists it is also refuted by other Arguments First because Mat. 1.20 where the Angel expresseth the same thing to Joseph he mentions only the holy Spirit nor would he have left out the Son of God if Gabriel had by name conjoyned him with the holy spirit in this place and had made him Author of his own conception seeing there was no greater cause of mentioning him here than there Moreover because by this means Christ should be made the son of himself seeing in the former * Chap. 31 Section we have shewed that Christ was called the son of God by reason of so wonderful a conception and generation Perhaps some other will say that the Power of the Most High in this place signifies neither the son nor the holy spirit but the efficacy flowing from the holy spirit For here two efficient Causes of the conception of Christ are mentioned one the Person of the holy Spirit the other his Power But first that reason which we now brought concerning the son is against it because by this reason the holy spirit should be made the Father of Christ of which by it self we shall afterward in the following chapter treat Furthermore if any person here had been to be named besides the Fatâ—er of Christ such especially who being to come upon the Viâ—gin was to cause the conception of Christ the son had
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
be breathed then to this divine inspiration of which we treat since that comes not forth without God this proceeds from God and is inspired into men It is manifest therefore that that divine inspiration is properly termed the holy spirit not metonimycally only As to the latter I scarse believe the adversaries will deny that that very inspiration is properly given For how is that which is breathed and put into the hearts of men to their greatest profit not properly given them Therefore there is no Metalepsis here to be sought by which it may come to pass that that which properly agrees only to the effect may improperly be attributed to the efficient cause since here the very efficient cause of those effects which are understood that is the very divine inspiration is by it self given to men And let these things suffice concerning the general reason and common to all the places which we treat of As for the special Reasons more proper to certain places those words of Christ which we have before cited out of John 14.16 17. deserve to be first mentioned I will ask the Father and he shall give you another Advocate that he may abide with you for ever even the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive because it seeth him not nor knoweth him But ye know him for he dwelleth with you to wit as inhabiting in Christ he did as it were converse among the Disciples and shall be in you that is and further shall be not only with you or among you as now but also in your selves being given of the Father unto you What could be said more clearly to shew that the holy Spirit properly so called is given of God that it is a gift which may be obtained of the Father by faithful prayers For what Is not the comforter that holy Spirit properly so called or is it not but by a Metalepsis said to be given to the Disciples by the Father The former the Adversaries cannot say unless they will deny that the third person of the Deity is the holy Spirit properly so called which yet they chiefly will have For that the same is understood by the Comforter they altogether contend and urge both the name it self of Paraclet or Comforter as also the word another added to it and the actions proper to persons attributed to him in this speech of Christ of which below we will somewhat treat This may of right be said that if it be not there spoken of the holy Spirit properly so called it is no where spoken of him It remains therefore that they say that it is indeed here spoken of the third person of the Deity and that this person 〈◊〉 meant by the Paraclâ—r but that he is not said to be given to the Apostles by the Father but by a Metalepsis namely because its effects or various gifts are to be given to them But neither hath that shift here any place For by comparing of that place with the words in verse 26. of the same chapter and also with the words verse 26. of the following chapter it will easily appear to any one that Christ so far asserts that the Father being asked of him was about to give the holy Spirit to the Disciples as he â—â—ould send him in the name of Christ or Christ himself should send him unto the Disciples from the Father For so he saith in that former place But the Comforter the holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name he shall teach you all things c. But in the latter But when the Comforter is come whom I will send to you from the Father the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth from the Father he shall testifie of me And truly what other thing could either the Father of the Son do pertaining to that giving than that he should send the holy Spirit to the Disciples with that intent that he might remain in them for ever and produce those divine effects which afterwards appeared in them But that sending and the coming of the holy Spirit which follows it doth not agree first to the effects of the holy Spirit and only consequently to him which should be if it were attributed to him only by a Metalepsis but on the contrary Whence the Adversaries are wont to prove the person of the holy Spirit by that mission which they could not do if they did judge it primarily and of it self to agree to the gifts of the holy Spirit For as much as such a mission if it be in no sort proper to a person cannot also prove it But if then that mission primarily and of it self agree to the holy Spirit not to his effects there will be the same reason of the giving also which we have seen to consist in that sending But hence ariseth also another reason of the same thing For that the holy Spirit should teach the Disciples all things and recal all Christs sayings into their remembrance is put chap 14.26 as the consequent of the sending of the holy Spirit and moreover also of the giving it But if so far only the holy Spirit should be given as its gifts are bestowed that thing should be contained in the giving it self of the holy Spirit but not be a consequent of it For that imparting of the knowledge of divine things even first of all pertains to the producing of gifts coming from the holy Spirit upon the Apostles This place might have enough warned the Adversaries that they should not date to deny the holy Spirit properly so called to be given to us together with his effects But there want not also other places which do the same For by other Adversaries who therefore use not such an answer hath that place of Paul Rom. 5.5 been taken notice of where he saith The Love of God that is the sence of the divine Love is shed abroad in our hearts by the holy Spirit which is given to us Where indeed it is said concerning that Spirit which diffuseth the sence of divine Love in our hearts and so is the Author of the spiritual gift that he is given to us To which place may be added that of the same Epistle chap. 18 1â— where the Apostle saith Ye have received the Spirit of adoption whereby that is by whose force and impulse we cry Abba Father for the Spirit it self beareth witness to our spirit that we are the Children of God Of which also in the Epistle to the Galathians chap. 4.6 he saith God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts crying Abba Father So also 2 Tim. 1.7 it is said For God hath not given to us the spirit of fear but of Power of Love and of a sound mind For what else is it than that God hath not given to us such a Spirit as should effect fear and cowardise in us but such as begets in us strength and fortitude charity and prudence or sobriety But I remember not that I have hitherto
Spirit should be the most high God as the adversaries would have it I omit that they the Greeks onely excepted hold that the holy Spirit doth proceed eternally no less from the Son than from the Father But Christ speaks of a thing which is proper to the Father For in this behalf in some sort he opposeth the Father to himself being about to shew why he said he would send the holy Spirit not from himself but from the Father But how much more simple and plain is it to hold that the holy Spirit doth so far proceed from God as it is the vertue and efficacy issuing from him into men than that the most high God who is but one only proceeds from another who is in like manner the most high God that he who is from no cause receives his being from another that he who hath had most fully his Essence from Eternity receives it and is to receive it yet unto all Eternity But that the same thing which we have shewed out of the words of Christ set down by John is taught also by those words of Paul in which he affirmeth that the holy Spirit is of God 1 Cor. 2.12 For he saith Now we have received not the spirit of the world but the spirit which is of God But whatsoever is of God is Gods effect and depends on him But all as we have said know that God is the effect of no thing Although there is scarce need to make mention of effect it is enough to say that the most high God is from none CHAP. XII The twelfth Argument That the holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son THe second of those Attributes which properly agree only to persons or Suppositums but are accommodated to the holy Spirit by some Trope may be that which is in the same place of John * John 15.26 14.26 16.7 cited by us in the next foregoing Chapter and is elsewhere in the same Writer extant to wit that the holy Spirit is sent from the Father and Son For that befalls not the most high God But although that mission is nothing else than the giving of the holy Spirit whence that the holy Spirit is given and sent to the Disciples from the Father are put for the same thing as is manifest by comparing the words Chap. 14.16 with the places now cited Yet because the Adversaries will have that mission to be such as that it can befall none but a person especially because Christ brings in in the same speech the holy Spirit as his certain Deputy or Embassador Sect. 2. Chap. 15. to be sent to the Disciples chiefly in Chap. 16.7 13. therefore almost in the same manner it may be hence demonstrated that the holy Spirit is not the most high God in which we have before demonstrated the same thing concerning Christ from his sending so that there is no need to add more in this place CHAP. XIII Arg. 13 From Joh. 16.13 The thirteenth Argument from the words John 16.13 He shall not speak the spirit of Truth from himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak c. BEcause towards the end of the foregoing Chapter we fell into the mention of the place John 16.13 where it is spoken of the thing joyned to the sending of the holy Spirit therefore we will here examine it also For there not only that is affirmed of the holy Spirit which could not be affirmed of him if he were the most high God but also that is denied which cannot be by any means denyed of the most high God For thus Christ saith Howbeit when he the Spirit of Truth is come he will guide you all into the Truth For he shall not speak of himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak and he will shew you things to come He shall glorifie me for he shall receive of mine and shall shew it unto you All things that the Father hath are mine Therefore I said that he shall take of mine and shall shew it unto you Here it is denied that the holy Spirit spake of himself on the contrary it is affirmed that he should speak what he heard and should receive of that which was Christs And the former indeed is therefore chiefly denyed that it may be shewed that he is rightly called the Spirit of Truth that is most true But this latter is therefore affirmed of him that it might be shewed that he should glorifie Christ But the most high God whatsoever he speaks speaks of himself and for that very thing he is true because he speakes of himself He doth not also hear what he should speak nor is instructed like an Embassador by another He receiveth nothing from any yea he bestoweth of his own upon all He hath not glorified Christ by receiving something from him but by giving to him How then is the holy Spirit the most high God It will not be amiss to cite here the words of John Maldonate a most learned Interpreter of the Papists who hath in part unfolded this difficulty speaking in this manner But Christ gives the reason as Rupertus saith why he called him the Spirit of Truth because saith he he shall not speak of himself as if if he should speak of himself he should speak not truth but a lye Which how true it is it doth not enough appear seeing he rather therefore speaks truth and cannot speak false because he speaks of himself For when he speaks of himself he speaks as God since he is nothing else but God But when he speaks as God he cannot lye which if he could do then truly could he do it when he speaks not of himself that is not as God Therefore Augustine and Bede question how it may be understood that he speakes not of himself For if there were a double nature in the holy Spirit as in Christ one a divine the other a humane or any other we might perhaps say that then he speakes not of himself when he speakes as man as we interpret what Christ saith of himself Joh. 14.4 The words which I speak to you I speak not of my self and what he said before Chap. 7.16 My doctrine is not mine but his that sent me But since the holy Spirit is but one and that a divine nature as St. Austin disputes we cannot say it and thus far he It were even to be wished to the adversaries in this place that a double nature could be feigned in the holy Spirit also as is done in Christ that they might loose this knot By what hole then do they endeavour to escape when there is none The foresaid interpreter brings a double answer One of Augustin and Bede anoâ—her his own The first is therefore the holy Spirit is said not to speak of himself because neither is he from himself as therefore saith he he is not of himself but he proceeds from the Father and Son so he shall not speak
but what he hath received from the Father and Son by proceeding from them as a little after he saith He shall glorifie me for he shall receive of mine But when the foresaid Interpreter had come to those words he clearly enough confutes this explication of this place The commonly received opinion of latter Interpreters saith he is this For he shall receive of mine that is he proceeds from me Concerning which thing I find here many subtletys in some Writers I know not how solid and agreeable to the matter which I will not so much as recite I onely say I am fully perswaded that this is not the sense For why did he not say more clearly he shall receive of me or from me Why not he hath recieved rather than he shall receive since the procession of the holy Spirit from the Father and Son was not future but already past For although I know an answer is made by some to these things yet I had rather say nothing than say that * and what is it else than that the holy Spirit is to proceed from the Father and Son unto all eternity which they say Besides how can it co-here with that interpretation All things which the Father hath are mine therefore I have said that he shall receive of mine Lastly here the matter was of the testimony which the holy Spirit was to give of Christ and wherewith he was to glorifie him Which ought to be conspicuous and manifest otherwise how could he for that glorifie Christ But that essential procession was not conspicuous Therefore it could not be brought as an argument whence the disciples might gather that the works of the holy Spirit did redounâ— to the glory of Christ For this was to glorifie him There is no need of more words for the refutation of this interpretation which so much displeased a Papist and him most addicted to the opinions of his Church and which he saw could not be defended unless those things be said which he judged unworthy even to be mentioned by him Although also that interpretation being admitted it can nevertheless be evinced that the holy Spirit is not the most high God since the most high God as we have a little * Chap. 11 of this Section before seen Proceeds from none receives his Essence from none The same interpreter a little after subjoyns his own opinion touching this thing Therefore saith he the true interpretation is that he shall receive of mine that is because he shall come in my name because as my deputy he shall delâ—â—er no other doctrine to you than mine For therefore the glory of his work and doctrine shall redound to my glory which is to glorifie me because he shall deliver in my name and no otheâ— than my misteries to you he shall do no other than my works For with this sense that which followes doth fitly agree All things that the Father hath are mine therefore I said he shall receive of mine as we shall presently explain it Therefore he said by the future tense he shall receive because to receive of him is to be sent in his name and as it were commands being received from him and he had not been yet sent Therefore he said of mine not of me because he would signify that he should receive of his doctrine and workes whatsoever he should teach whatsoever he should do among men What then doth that Interpreter himself answer or A Defence of the Argument in what manner doth he think those things he shall receive of mine can be said of the holy Spirit if he himself be the most high God Not saith he that himself had not the same things before but because as Cyril saith he speaks accommodately to humane sence For Embassadours are wont when they depart from the Prince to receive commands both what they shall speak and what they shall do But to those words ver 13. he shall not speak of himself We may more simply to wit than Augustin and Bede had answered say it is no other thing not to speak of himself than not to speak contrary things to those which he himself had spoken by the will of the Father For which opinion John 7.16 14.10 he cites some antient Authors and adds For in the same manner we expounded what he had said My Doctrine is not mine and the words which I speak to you I speak not of my self So also he intimates that those words also Whatsoever he shall hear he shall speak are to be taken in such manner as he had taken that of Christ As I hear I judge and that I speak those things in the world which I have heard of him to wit that Christ did neither judge any thing nor should at any time speak any thing but what he did or should know to be agreeable to his Fathers mind and will so therefore that neither the holy Spirit should speak any thing from himself because he should speak nothing but what he should know to be agreeing with the mind and will of Christ But such an interpretation of Christs words is not every way to be admitted nor doth it altogether take away the difficulty For as to the former those former words He shall not speak of himself and those that are opposed to them but what he shall hear he shall speak cannot be taken of only a bare consent with Christs words but do altogether signifie that he of whom those things are said is not the first author of his words but that some other is the Author of them For otherwise it might be said that neither the Father indeed had spoken of himself because he had spoken nothing but what the Son hath approved nor the Son even in respect of the holy Spirit because as the opinion of the Adversaries is the Son spake nothing but what the person of the holy Spirit consented to But all see that those things are absurd Add that that same Interpreter not only confesseth it but also urgeth it that the holy Spirit is here looked upon as Christs Legate that which the very context of the words sufficiently shews To the propriety of this Embassage nothing can be wanting if the holy Spirit be a person Wherefore those words He shall not speak of himself and whatsoever he shall hear he shall speak and likewise He shall receive of mine and shall shew it unto you are so to be taken as they agree to a Legate But they so agree to a Legate that he be not himself the first Author of his words but only that anothers words and mandates be declared by him to them unto whom he is sent And indeed to a Legate properly so called such as the holy Spirit would be if he were a person it belongs properly to be instructed with commands from another and to bring to others and expound to them his received will and mind For a Legate as such is anothers Minister and the
he in that speech of his in which several times he brings in the holy Spirit as a person spake to the Disciples in Parables or Figures fetcht from common use but that sometimes he would openly and plainly declare to them of the Father or of the things pertaining to the Father Chap. 16.25 But among those things even chiefly is the holy Spirit of whom there is often mention in that discourse one while more openly another while more covertly Christ afterwards indeed explained the thing clearly enough when he poured out the holy Spirit on the Disciples by which he lead them into all the Truth For it not as a true person hath declared any thing to them but as a divine inspiration inspired into their minds hath wrought and imprinted in them the fullest knowledge of the Doctrine of Christ Wherefore since the event it self hath sufficiently explained that Discourse why do we seek another Interpretation CHAP. XIV Arg. 14 from 1 Cor. 2.10 Three Arguments from 1 Cor. 2.10 c. The Spirit searcheth all things even the deep things of God c. THe fourth place in this rank we shall assigne to those words of Paul 1 Cor. 2. which the Adversaries are wont to use to prove that the holy Spirit is a divine person For thus the Apostle there speaks But God hath revealed them to us to wit those things which God hath prepared for them who love him by his Spirit For the Spirit searcheth all things even the deep things of God For who of men knoweth the things of man save the spirit of man that is in him Even so the things of God knoweth none but the Spirit of God Now we have received not the Spirit of this world but the spirit which is of God c. This place yeelds us divers Arguments some of which are above alleaged by us in Sect. 3. Chap. 5. First That the holy â—pirit is distinguished from God whilest God is said by him to reveal to us the things of salvation whilest it is called the Spirit of God whilest it is asserted that he searcheth the deep things of God and hath known the things which are of God whilest in the end Chap. 8. Chap. 11. it is said to be of God Moreover that men are said to receive it Lastly that when he is said to be of God he is made the effect of God But none of these we have shewed can befal the most high God But besides these three as many other Arguments may be fetcht from the same words The first is That God is said to have revealed something to us by his Spirit For thence it is manifest that it is not the first but the middle cause of that Revelation which agrees not to the most high God See what we have said in those places above Sect. 2. Chap. 19. in which God is said to have done either all or certain things by Christ The second is That it is said to search even the deep things of God For neither is any one said to search those things the most clear and perfect knowledge of which is first in him and which are by him first constituted and decreed But if the holy Spirit is the most high God the deep things of God that is his hidden counsels and most clear and perfect knowledge thereof in him is first resident and by him they are all first constituted and decreed How then could he be said to search them God and Christ indeed is said to search our hearts because he penetrates into the secrets of anothers breast but his own counsels his own deep things he is no where said to search Indeed neither are men said to search their own counsels unless perhaps when either they are by some means slipt out of their memory or they themselves have not yet sufficiently examined the reason of them But what can be wanting to the most high God for the most exact knowledge of his depths Arg. 11 From 1 Cor. 2.10 The Apostle in this place being about to declare that which he had said of the Spirit of God by the example of the Spirit of man doth not say that it searcheth but knows the things which are of a man although the manner of speaking which he had used of the Spirit of God would lead him thereto that he should affirm that the spirit of man also searcheth those things which are of a man But he would not affirm it of the Spirit of man because in it first are resident those things which are of a man that is his counsels and decrees and by it are constituted Therefore the same reason should be of the holy Spirit if he were the most high God We know indeed that it is said by a Metalepsis which also brings forth a certain Prosopopey that the Spirit of God searcheth all things namely because it causeth men in whom it is to find out all things even the deep and hidden counsels of God In which manner the same Spirit is said to intercede for us with unutterable groans and to cry Abba Father because it is the cause that we may do these things But the Adversaries cannot use this answer who endeavour to frame the person of the holy Spirit from this that the holy Spirit is said to know all things even those which are of God which they could not do if they would acknowledge those things to be said of the holy Spirit by a Metalepsis For it would no more thence follow that the holy Spirit is a person than that Charity is a person because so many actions proper to persons are attributed to it by a Metalepsis afterward in the same Epistle 1 Cor. 13. Moreover such a Metalepsis would be altogether unusual if the holy Spirit should be the most high God Who would say that the Father searcheth the counsel of God because he may cause another to search them Why then should the holy Spirit be said to search the deep things of God if he himself were the most high God whose are those deep things We say the same words of Paul Rom. 8.27 which we touched a little before The Spirit it self askes or makes intercession for us with unutterable groans and he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit because he maketh intercession for the Saints according to God For how could these things be said even by a Metalepsis of the holy Spirit if he were the most high God with whom the intercession is made and who searcheth the hearts and according to whom or according to whose will the Saints intercede For it is not convenient that not only humane action should be attributed to the most high God but that his own person also should be detracted from him The third Argument which may be drawn from the aforesaid place to the Corinthians is that if the holy Spirit were a person distinct from the Father and Son which speaking pâ—opeâ—ly should be said
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
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
can be saved ruder men must despaire of salvation For if to believe be not only to utter the words with the mouth but also to embrace and firmly to hold in the mind the meaning of them who is thereof the more simple who believes that tenet For if any man would comprehend in mind the meaning of that position it is necessary that he distinguish between the divine essence and person For unless he distinguish them either he will believe that there is in very deed only one divine Person as one Essence or hold three Essences and so three Gods no less than three divine Persons either of which deprives a man of Salvation according to the Opinion of the Adversaries But how many are there who know how to distinguish a divine Person from the Essence and so may conceive three Persons that he may not imagine to himself together three Substances subsisting by themselves Verily he must be a subtile man and hold a marvellous opinion of a Person who doth otherwise What then shall become of the ruder men for whom alike Christ dyed But let us grant that the ruder may perceive that tenet will there not be need of a clear frequent and diligent explication of that tâ—ing to them But where shall we chiefly seek an explication of so abstruse a thing is it not in the holy Scriptures Therefore if the perspicuous explication of this thing be not so much as once indeed contained in them it is to be concluded that that doctrine is false and cannot be deduced indeed no not by good consequence from the holy Scripture We refuse not therefore lawful consequences which we also our selves willingly use but in such a doctrine as that is of which we dispute we rightly hold that there are no lawful consequences unless together a perspicuous and open explication thereof could be held forth Others say that not only this Doctrine may be drawn by lawful consequences from the holy Scriptures but also that it is really contained in them For though the word Trinity be not extant in them yet the meaning of it is extant But neither do we require that they shew the very name of the Trinity but the thing and meaning which they commonly comprehend in that name clearly and perspicuously expressed That I say we require that they shew where it is written that God is One in Essence Three in Persons the Father to be God the Son to be God to wit most high the holy Spirit to be God and yet there are not three Gods but those three are one God So the Father to be eternal likewise the Son and holy Spirit and yet these are not three eternals but one eternal We require these or the like to them the meaning of which may be manifest to all men such as are those of Athanasius with which at this day all the Temples do ring but when they bring forth such places in which there is need of consequence that it may be made manifest that this is the meaning of them which they would have they shall perform no more than those who would have so great a thing drawn out of holy Scriptures by consequences only See their two Achilles or chief Champions * Mat. 28 29. Baptise into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit how far distant are these from those positions Are there three persons in one Essence of God We see three things we see not three persons nor more one Essence of those three yea rather we see divers Essences and those between themselves unequal Here certainly there is need of consequences Again †1 John 5.7 There are three who give testimony in Heaven the Father the Word and the holy Spirit and these three are one I repeat not now that which we shewed ‖ Cap. 3. of this Section before how suspected this place is Let us grant it to be undoubted Whence is it manifest that here is understood the Unity of Essence They are one are they therefore one in Essence Not only the meaning it self is not extant but neither indeed can it be evinced by lawful consequence To be One is a general word and contains more species under it self One in essence One in consent either of mind or testimony or of some other thing But the genus being proposed some species is indeed proposed but not forthwith a determinate One as in this place One in Essence And indeed it were easier from this place to shew that there are diverse Essences of those three than one yea it is impossible to shew this Besides in which words is it said that the holy Spirit is a person They must of necessity fly to consequences Now by the things said it appears how injuriously they deal who when Arguments from Reason are brought against that Doctrine cry that this is a mystery which is to be believed not searched into that Reason cannot comprehend these things that we must rest simply upon the holy Scriptures We should yield to those men if they would prove that Doctrine by perspicuous testimonies of holy Scripture and not rather assert it against open and clear testimonies of them But now when they cannot produce such places they do in vain affright us with the name of a mystery that we might not here use our reason and so endeavour as with a Gorgons head set before us to turn us into stones Although the tryal of Reason were not indeed no not then to be declined if it were manifest that Mystery to have been revealed from God For what Mystery will they produce out of holy Scriptures which is repugnant to Reason Mysteries indeed exceed Reason but do not overthrow it they do not extinguish the light of it but perfect it yea Reason alone both perceiveth and embraceth and defends the Mysteries revealed to it which it could not of it self find out Paul useth Reason when he proves the Resurrection * 1 Cor. 15 12 c. which Mystery even most of all exceeds Reason Further add that the Adversaries themselves do that ill which they forbid us to do well I will not now rehearse it that they cannot discourse of the difference of essence and person without the help of Reason For where are those things written in the holy Scriptures And though they were written they could not be perceived nor explained without Reason I now urge that that all use consequences when they dispute of this Doctrine which they call a Mystery What then doth not he use Reason who useth Consequences Are perhaps all those Argumentations written in the holy Scriptures You will say that the propositions of the Arguments are written First Let it be so But the form it self of Argumentation is not there delivered neither is it shewed that this which you use is lawful that which the Adversaries use is unlawful What then doth shew it Reason But moreover resolve your Argumentations and those of yours
both the same thing and more things Wherefore if something be feigned communicable which is the same thing really with three things really distinct among themselves as here the divine Essence which is one thing with the three Persons that shall at once be both one thing and more than one Therefore such a communicable thing is not to be admited if it be brought for an instance to invalid that Axiome in this our controversie this will be a mere begging of that which ought to be proved since that communicable thing by this very reason may be refelled But it easily appeareth to any one that such a communicable thing imply a contradiction if you consider what may be here understood by that word For here they call that thing Communicable which when it is one in number yet may be common to more in number For so they would have the divine Essence to be communicable For as much as they acknowledge together with us that it is one in number but will have it common to three persons in number so that it may be distinctly predicated in concrete of each of them namely in this manner The Father is God the Son is God the holy Spirit is God and yet they would have those three to be one God For what other thing is this than that one thing in number is more things in number that it is individuum and not individuum For it is individuum because it is one in number not individuum because it may be so divided into more things of the same name that yet the whole may be in each of them which thing is altogether repugnant to the Reason of individuum Therefore that Reason which we have propounded is firm which if it please you you may also so propound that it may be concluded that the divine Essence shall be at once both one only thing and more than one For all confess indeed that it is one but it follows from their tenet that it is more than one because they maintain it to be really the same thing with three persons really distinct among themselves For if those three Persons are really distinct among themselves it is necessary that they are three distinct things For the same thing really is that which is one thing really distinct which are more things which both the thing it self shews and the chief of the Adversaries confess and they who deny it know not what they say For they are necessitated to maintain the same thing to differ really from it self which overthrows it self Now if the Essence be really the same thing with three persons really distinct among themselves it is necessary that it be the same thing with three distinct things But that which is the same thing with three distinct things it is necessary that it should be three things Wherefore the divine Essence shall be together both one thing and three things which as we have said is repugnant to it self Let us add a Corollary to this Argument that the divine Persons will be together one of themselves and one only by Accident and so one of themselves and not of themselves by accident and not by accident For those things which are one in respect of Essence and that indeed the same in number are chiefly one of themselves Greater Unity cannot indeed be imagined among those things which are conceived like diverse things And in that manner are the divine Persons maintained to be one thing But again those things which are actually and in the ultimate perfection two or more are not one of themselves but one only by accident For those things which are of themselves one thing are such and so fitted together that either one of them doth so respect the other as Potentia doth its Actus or as the thing to be perfected doth some further perfection or may be perfected together by some other Actus in as much as yet it hath not in it self its ultimate perfection For it is the Actus which both conjoyns and separates It conjoyns if one it dis-joyns if more than one But the divine Persons are neither so referred to themselves mutually nor to some other thing as potentia to actus and further perfection having already attained their utmost perfection The Essence cannot be such actus For the persons rather add to the Essence something of perfection to wit subsistence and personal propriety than on the contrary and that subsistence presupposeth the Essence not on the contrary CHAP. IV. Arg. 4 There would be three substaâ—ces of God The fourth Argument Because there would be at once one and three Substances of the Supream Deity FOurthly By this reason also a contradiction may be shewed in that tenet because it introduceth together both one and more Substances of God All maintain that there is one Substance of one God But the plurality of persons necessarily requires more For if a person be no other thing than an ultimate intelligent Substance where there are more persons it is necessary that there be more ultimate intelligent substances For the Definitum or the thing defined being multiplyed which is here a person the whole definition is also multiplyed or that whole which is expressed in the definition For the Definitum or the thing defined and the definition or that which is exprest in the definition are really one and the same thing and differ only in the manner of explaining You may also propound the same Reason more briefly thus If each Person be a Substance where there are more persons there also are more substances For individuals being multiplyed that also which obtains the place of a genus as well as that which obtains the place of a species is multiplied in the same individuals Because individuals are nothing else than that which is expressed by the name of the species and genus being contracted by differences which they call individuating differences Therefore unless that which hath the place of the species and genus so as we have said contracted be multiplyed individuals are not multiplyed Now persons are individuals whose genus is substance But that every Person is a Substance and that a Substance is predicated of a Person as a Superiour on its Inferiour is first manifest by induction For both a humane and Angelical and divine Person is a substance But besides these there is no other person if under the name of Angels you comprehend also evil Angels or Devils Who doubts Peter or Paul or other men to be Substances Who Gabriel Michael or other Angels Who likewise the Devils For we regard not mâ—n of wanton wit who make the Devils I know not what against so many plain testimonies of the holy Scripture which same men neither will nor can say them to be persons Will you perhaps deny the Father and the Son to be Substances For there are certain superstitious men who dare not use the word Substance concerning God because it belongs to a Substance to
be subject to Accidents but is an heinous offence with them to say that there are Accidents in God And yet the same do not reprehend their own men who say that there is one Substance of God and that which is sung for many Ages in Temples The Father Son holy Spirit are three names all the same substance But let us free them from this fear To be subject to Accidents that is an Accident to a Substance To subsist by it self this is to be a Substance But do not the Father and the Son subsist by themselves If they subsist not by themselves nothing will subsist by it self Will you who do fear to ascribe any Accident to God perhaps make God himself an Accident But whatsoever is nor a Substance is an Accident I omit that no man can deny the Son to be a Substance but he who dares to deny him to be a man But it is necessary that the Adversaries say the same of the holy Spirit which is said of the Father and Son And because some although otherwise they say The Defence of the Argument that God is a Substance yet deny the divine Persons to be Substances as afterwards will more clearly appear Let us prove the same thing also by another reason that being assumed which is generally put out of controversie by all the Adversaries They all being taught by the Schoolmen do maintain that a person is nothing else but an intelligent Suppositum That Suppositum is the Genus of a Person Intelligent the specifical difference of it which being added to that Genus doth perfect the whole definition of a person And that word Suppositum although in this signification barbarous is very usual in Schools when they speak of the divine Persons For they say that there are three Suppositums in God But now a Suppositum as it is explained by the Schoolmen themselves the authors of that word so used is * Prima sabstantia completa a first or individual Substance compleat they are wont to add that it is incommunicable although without necessity as we shall hear presently They call it a Substance that they may exclude Accidents a first Substance that they may exclude the universal to wit Genus and Species a compleat and perfect Substance that they may exclude the parts of the substances whether integral or essential Lastly they say that it is incommunicable that it may not be common to more Suppositums nor be conjoyned with another Suppositum Which condition they have added for the sake partly of the divine essence partly of the human nature of Christ to both which all other conditions of a Suppositum do agree Therefore except they added this condition they saw it would follow that both the one and the other would be a Suppositum and since it is endued with understanding also a Person Wherefore lest thence indeed the doctrine concerning three Persons in one Essence of God here the tenet concerning the hypostatical or personal union of two natures in Christ should fall to the ground for there cannot be more persons in one person they have this prop of incommunicability put to it But that condition as far as it hinders the Substance to be common to many Suppositums is contained in the name of the first or singular Substance For it would not be singular if it were common to many singulars as we have above chap. 3. of this Section shewn But as far as it hinders lest it may be conjoyned with another Suppositum and so cohere with it that it may be partaker of its subsistence it is comprehended in the word Compleat For now it would not be compleat but it would be the part of another if it would in the manner be conjoyned with another Suppositum Of which thing we shall speak elsewhere Sect. 2. chap. 6 and 8. of this Book In this place we have need of this thing For neither the force of the Argument which we now urge is therein placed but in this that very Suppositum is a Substance That as yet seems to be added as we may more rightly perceive the reason of this description that the Schoolmen have therefore called such a Substance as I now have described a Suppositum because that at last may deserve to be called a Suppositum which is as it were put under and subjected to all other predications or things which may be predicated of some other thinâ— Briefly that which is the ultimum subjectum of which other things are predicated and it self of no other But this is no other thing but a first and singular Substance For this is predicated of no other thing because neither hath it any thing inferiour to it self nor any subjectum in which it may be inherent like an accident but it is the ultimum subjectum which both the second Substances to wit the Genus and Species and Accidents of are predicated Concerning which thing the Catagories which are inscribed Aristotles may be seen Of those also speak the vulgar Axiome Actions are of Suppositums because Actions do most properly agree to the first and that indeed perfect or compleat Substances If therefore every Person be a Suppositum and every Suppositum a Substance every person also must be a substance and further where there are more Persons it is necessary that there be also more Substances Not a few of the Adversaries have seen the force of this Argument Therefore that they might avoid it they have perverted the true definition of a person commonly received also in Schools if you consider the thing it self For they say that a Person is not a Substance or thing by it self subsisting bu an incommunicable subsistence of an intelligent nature This they say is the accurate definition of a person but that by which a person was defined in Schools to wit that it is an individual intelligent incommunicable that Substance not sustained by another is less accurate For it agrees to a person in concreto not in abstracto but the definition of Concretums are not accurate but that of Abstractums But further they say that the subsistence is a certain mode of a Being not a Being it self For it being conâ—â—â—ered by it self and abstractly hath not entity Theâ—efore the Fatâ—er Son and holy Spirit being considered by themselves and abstraâ—â—ly or distinctly from the Essence are with them non entia or no being â—nd in this indeed I assent to them that such persons as are conceived by them are non entia or no beings for they are in very deâ—d tâ—eir own devices But that the Father and Son and holy Spirit are non entia or no beings but modes only of a being it is indeed most false Certainly this thing is of it self most unworthy of God yea as we shall see by its force takes away all Empire and Honour from the Fat er and Son and doth in a manner lead men to Atheism I will not now urge that manner of speaking
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
those persons will which hitherto would not beget or breath other persons Some say therefore it cannot be that the Son or holy Spirit should produce another Son or holy Spirit not because there is some impotence in the Son and holy Spirit but because whatsoever might be begotten or proceed in God that hath been already begotten and produced Arg. 2 There would be infinite Sons but that which is already generated or produced cannot any more be produced for it should at once both be and not be in which manner neither this world can be any more created by God because it is already in being not by reason of any impotence in God but by reason of the impotence of the thing it self as I may so say Indeed it is true that the world which now is cannot any more be created But do not the Adversaâ—ies believe that another world besides this may be created of God I trow they do altogether believe it Let us apply this to our purpose That Son which is already begotten cannot any more be begotten neither that holy Spirit which is already produced can any more be produced But what hinders another Son or another holy Spirit to be produced by the Son and holy Spirit and by them again others since we have shewed * Sect. 1. chap. 7. of this Book above that it follows from the Suppositions of the Adversaries that the divine Nature is capable of infinite persons in number Wherefore they say not things agreeable to their own Supposi ions when they say that whatsoever could be generated or produced in God all that is already contained in the Son whom the first person of the Divinity hath begotten and in the holy Spirit whom the first and second person hath produced and therefore another Son and another holy Spirit could not be produced by the Son and holy Spirit for as much as there as yet hath been place for infinite or innumerable persons And let this be another Argument against that eternal Generation of the Son out of the Essence of the Father CHAP. III. The third Argument Because the Son of God both had been and had not been from Eternity LEt this be the third Argument by which the same Doctrine is refelled that thence it would follow that Christ both did exist from all Eternity and did not exist that he alwayes was and sometime was not It must needs be that he was from all Eternity because both it is openly said that he was begotten from all eternity and if he had exist at last in a certain time he would not be the most high God For the most high God was existent from all eternity But that he was not from all eternity is manifest from this very thing that he was begotten and indeed in respect of his Substance and with a Generation properly so called You will here presently cry out and say that you do easily understand what I would to wit that a Generation properly so called is a change from not being to being Therefore if the Son of God was properly generated he was sometime no being or sometimes in very deed he was not existent I say this very thing I would But you will say that that definition is to be admitted only concerning natural generation not concerning supernatural But this generation of the Son of God out of the Essence of the Father is supernatural Arg. 3 The Son had been and had not been from eternity not natural When the Adversaries say these things first we very much desire constancy in them For if the Generation of the Son of God be supernatural and so different from the natural why do they so much urge in this very thing the example of the humane Generation whilst they do so often inculcate tâ—at he who is the proper only begotten natural Son of God is necessarily of the same Essence with the Father For whence do they frame such a Proposition but from humane things and altogether natural And indeed they even expresly bring examples of Sons begotten by men that they may establish that Proposition neither can they bring any other For what are there perhaps some other only begotten proper natural but supernaturally begotten Sons of any one extant whom they may bring for an example and from whom they may frame such a pâ—oposition They will say that the generation of the Son of God in that agrees with the humane and natural generation that the Son by it became like to the Father in substance not in that that sometime he was not existent But may you be allowed so to urge when you list the reason and similitude of the natural generation and when you list again to refuse it So indeed the Adversaries more than once hold forth the propriety of words when it serves their cause and when it doth withstand they reject it change the received Axiomes and Definitions in Schools inlarge restrain and bow them like a Lesbian Rule to their opinion Never did the boldness of humane wit permit it self to feign more things than concerning God as being a thing remote from our sences in which it hath believed its devices could not so easily be detected But that we may return to our matter if you urge the propriety of the word when Christ is said he is begotten of God and conclude thence he is altogether be oâ—ten out of his substance because they who are properly begotten of any must be begotten of his substance Why do you not also see that Christ out of a no Being is made a Being and so sometime was not existent since this no â—ess than that pertains to the propriety of the generation of them from whom you gather that former assertion For this a you confess is eâ—â—enâ—ial to the natural generation that it be a change from noâ— being into being Further why do you not acknowledge that there is one substance of the begetter another of the begotten Since this is at last produced by a generation that already was before existent the one is the cause the other the effect Lastly why do you not acknowledge also tâ—aâ— the Son is latter in time than the Father Buâ— if you will not acknowledge these things in the generation of the Son of God neither doth your opinion permit it you have no reason to urge the propâ—â—eâ—y of the word or estimate it from natural things But if you depaâ—t from the propriety of the word and be content with the remaâ—kable and singular similitude which is between the humane and that divine Generation we shall easily make the matter plain for you without the generation out of the Essence of God as both we treating of the Son of God did shew in the first * Sect. 2. Chap. 31. Book and is by our men elsewhere shewed But you ought so much the rather to have done this because you contend that rightly this Generation to be supernatural For look over all
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
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
his greatest honour 305 The same is detracted from him not by our opinion 305 306. but by the opinion of the Adversaries 306. Whether his humane Nature is a Person 286. Whether a man 287 c. Whether an abstractum 288 c. Whether it does act in proper speaking 289. Whether it subsists by it self 290 291 292. Wherefore Christ is called The Image of God 139 c. He hath received both the Authority and Exercise of Ruling from the Father 104. and that indeed as the reward of his obedience 104 105. A double Empire is to no purpose ascribed unto him 307. He may yea often ought to be invocated 45. He received commands from the Father and kept them 91 92. Wherefore he is called Mediator 34. Whether he be the Mediator of tâ—e whole Trinity 31. Whether of himself 32 33. Whether of the holy Spirit 34 35. And whether according to the humane nature only or according to both natures 31 c. In what consideration he died for us 159 160. All the Offices do agree to him as a man 293 294. He is no where simply called Father 21. He ascribeth all his works unto the Father 110 c. He prayed to the Father not only out of modesty but because of necessity 93 c. He is from the Father even as he is God 51 52. He shewed himself wholly to depend from the most high God 11. How all things are by him 18 19 112 113. Whether it is rightly said that his Person doth do something according to the humane nature 32. Whether he received the power of doing all things from the Father by eternal generation 54 c. By whom he was raised and whether by himself 133 c. He is distinguished from Him that sitteth upon the Throne 40 41. He is called Gods Servant 91. Unto him was given the holy Spirit 163 c. Whether he be totum quid or a certain whole Substance consisting of a Divine and an Humane Nature 281 c. He came not of himself 67 c. nor to do his own will 68 c. He was not anointed by the holy Spirit but with the holy Spirit by God the Father pag. 188. Christ taken for the Religion by him delivered pag. 217. What that is which distinguisheth Christians from Jews or Turks pag. 110. Every communicating of a substance to another is a generation pag. 269. To Come from himself what pag. 118. Comparisons of things with persons do easily bring forth Prosopopeyas pag. 234. The force of a Contradiction lies in the distinction of things pag. 299. Things containing a hidden Contradiction are not predicated of the same Subjectum simply however they may be in it according to divers parts pag. 285. The first Creation is in the Scripture and the Apostles Creed ascribed to the Father only pag. 44 213. D. The Dative Case of a Person often denotes finem cui or the end to which pag. 217 The Descriptions of Persons in the Scriptures are not wont to be idle or useless pag. 13 17. The word To day being used even of God denotes a certain and definite time pag. 277. What the word Determined Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in the New Testament pag. 154. Every Difference doth tacitely include a contradiction in it self pag. 299. What the nature of Disparatums is pag. 283 c. Whether the divine Essence be communicable pag. 254 255. No Doctrine that implies a contradiction can be true pag. 245 246. E. Earnest what pag. 218. To be distinguished eminenter what pag. 299 300. That which is Equal hath alwayes a different essence from that to which it is equal pag. 170. That Which dependeth upon the free will of God cannot be eternal 55 56. Whatsoever is simply from eternity is also simply necessary pag. 55. What things are wont to be excepted pag. 194. Whether Eternal life consists herein that we know the Father and Christ to be the only true God pag. 10 11. F. The summe of our Faith concerning Christ pag. 143 144. There is neither any example nor any precept extant in the Scripture concerning Faith in the Holy Spirit 181. How that is to be understood which is contained of it in the Apostles Creed pag. 181. Every Father either properly or improperly so called if he be endued with understanding is a person pag. 22. The word Father doth no where in the Scripture denote the Trinity 20 c. 24. Whether God may be called Father because of the first Creation only pag. 20 21. The Father of Christ is called his God 122. and the God of the Patriarchs pag. 45 46. He is more excellent than the Son 50. His substance is different from that of the Son 50 He is worshipped through Christ 37. His manifold prerogative above the Son and the Holy Spirit 43 44. He alone is of himself pag. 43 Unusual Figures when used pag. 220. The First-fruits of a thing what pag. 224 The First-born is alwayes contained in the number of them of whom except the Parents it is said to be the first-born pag. 169. The particle For Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie an effect in the New Testament pag. 120 One thing hath but one forme pag. 261. What it is to be the same thing formally pag. 298. Future tenses are among the Hebrews frequently taken for Present tenses pag. 120. The particle from or of Lat. ex often signifies an Efficient cause pag. 222. G. Every Generation properly so called is a change from not being to being 273 c. What manner of generation that is which is said to be performed by emanation and to what it does agree 275. There is no supernatural generation out of the Essence of God 274. The Opinion touching the generation of the Son of God out of the Essence of the Father is is refelled 54 55 101 268 269 c. 278. as also the manner of it either by intellection 268 c. or by emanation 275 c. It would be the same with the procession of the holy Spirit maintained by its Patrons 295 c. How far it is necessary that the thing generated be like the thing generating pag. 297. That which any one does already possess by a full right cannot be said to be given unto him again and that indeed out of grace pag. 105 109. The Glory of God is the ultimate scope both of his own and their actions that serve him pag. 69 70. How much difference there is between the glorifying of the Father which proceeded from Christ and that of Christ which proceeded from the Father pag. 100. What absurdities the multitude of Gods bring forth pag. 303. What it is to be the God of any one pag. 123 126. What difference there is between the appellation of God and that of the Son of God pag. 52. The name God is in its own nature common 4. It is the name of a Person 48 251. whom it denotes being taken by way of
our Cause holding that we are not onely excluded out of Heaven but ought also to be banished out of all Countreys think with thy self that to condemn Men before their Cause is heard is to condemn them as innocent Neither will it be enough for thee to refer the labour of examining unto others so as to follow their Judgment without thine own Think that thou thy self must answer for thy self Thou thou I say according to thy Understanding and Opportunity oughtest to try all things and hold fast that which is good For shalt thou commit all things unto others take heed and that very diligently lest thou commit thy self and thy Salvation unto men either negligent or puffed up with an Opinion of Learning and Knowledge or wholly addicted to humane Authority and pre-conceived Opinion or otherwise obstinate and not knowing how to yeild or loving their own quiet and security rather than their own or others Salvation or cowardly and not daring to utter their Opinion In short lest blindly following blind Guides thou fall with them into the Ditch Think not they are Godly and Lovers of the Truth whom I follow For to omit that this Opinion concerning others is often-times confuted by their manners and Actions there are many hiding holes of Vices and private Closets in the Brests of Men into which none but God and Christ can penetrate so that we are in greater danger of mistaking in our Judgment concerning other mens Piety when we go this way to work than if the question only is concerning an Opinion concerning which we dare not pass Sentence Neither canst thou say These things are too subtile for my Understanding For if thou considerest the Opinion it self whereof we here dispute what is more plain and simple than it for what doth it contain above that which is called the Apostles Creed which Children are acquainted with namely that that One God is no other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ If you look upon the Arguments which we have drawn out of the Scriptures they are of themselves plain and easie so that the Adversaries can no other way decline their force than by turning away from the simplicity of the Word and endeavouring to draw us away from the same Yea those Arguments vvhich vve have fetch'd from Reason if you except a few vvhich vve have added for the sake of Learned Men are so clear that one must rather offer violence to his Reason and Understanding that he may not admit the force of them than use any great intention of Mind to understand them But perhaps if any thing occur in the defence of the Arguments fetch'd out of the Scripture vvhich may to a Man unskill'd in the Art of Disputing seem somewhat subtile he may pass it by for the other things vvhich may easily be understood by every one vve are confident will be sufficient for him to pass sentence concerning this Cause Though vve have so tempered this vvhole kind of Writing that all things may be understood by a man indifferently versed in Learning even those vvhich in the second Book we have culled out of Philosophy and the received Opinion of the Schools Neither indeed is it to be imputed to us if now and then vve speak something vvhich the ruder sort may call subtile but to the Adversaries vvho as vve have said do draw us avvay from the simplicity both of the Words and meaning of the Spirit of God which Reason doth dictate to the unlearned themselves and by the subtilties of distinctions endeavour to elude the most plain Arguments which we produce for our Opinion Wherefore we friendly admonish and beseech all them to whom this Writing of ours shall come that they would diligently weigh and examine our Words by the Ballance of the Divine Oracles and offer no violence to their conscience when they have found the Truth and so either by resisting it or perpetually burying it in silence increase their own and others servitude but use diligence to draw Others partly to the truer Opinion partly to more moderate Counsels and as much as in them lies cause that all may dare to erect their Mind to a free Inquiry touching sacred Matters and to lift up their Eyes to the Light thereof And that so through the whole World Men may with Piety of Mind Mouth and Life praise that One God the Father of whom are all things and that One Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things To Him be Glory and Power for ever and ever AMEN The Scope AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE WORK THe scope of this our Work is to shew That the most High God is no other besides the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Now we will divide the whole Work into two Books In the first we will confirm our Opinion with Scripture-Testimonies and Arguments drawn thence In the latter we will make use of other sufficient Reasons to prove the same and refute the contrary Though even there we will now and then recal the Reader to the Scriptures But in the former part of the Work we will so proceed as that we will first directly prove That onely the Father of Jesus Christ is the most high God and that partly by those Testimonies of the sacred Scripture which make open mention of the Father Partly by those wherein the Name of the Father is not indeed exprest yet is he truly spoken of Then will we demonstrate the same indirectly as they say when we shall shew out of the same holy Scripture That neither Christ whom otherwise we confess to be by the Gift of the Father a God over all to be blessed for evermore is the most High God nor the Holy Spirit whom we will prove to be the Vertue and Efficacy of the most High God Book 1. Sect. 3. Chap. 5. For so it will remain that the Father onely is the most High God since no other else can be imagined Touching ONE GOD The Father Arg. 1 from Joh. 17.3 THE FIRST BOOK SECT I. Wherein is directly proved that onely the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the most High God and first out of those Testimonies of the Sacred Scriptures which speak expresly of the Father CHAP. I. The first Argument from the words of Christ John 17.3 This is Life eternal that they might know thee Father the Onely true God and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ THe first Testimony therefore and Argument of our Opinion shall be that of Christ himself speaking to his Father in these words This is Life eternal c. Here none doubteth that by the Name of the true God is understood the most high God Wherefore since Christ so describeth the Father as to call him the Onely true God it is understood that onely the Father of Christ is the most High God The Defence of the Argument The first Answer to the Argument and the Refutation MAny there are who forced by the evidence of the Words
their Father and for a certain Creation not common to all men but peculiar to his People Certainly in the new Testament it may be justly denied that God is any where for the first Creation only either simply called Father or our Father in particular for wheresoever the causes of that appellation are alledged others are alledged besides the first Creation Finally they shall no where shew that Christ is simply called Father but only once in * Chap. 9. ver 6. Isaiah Father of the Age and that as the Greek and Latin translation addeth to come Besides it is one thing for the name of Father to be some where predicated of one another when the name of Father is applied to signifie a certain subject which is the Father that he should in particular be understood or be comprehended with others As for the holy Spirit they do so slightly prove that he is the Father that I am even sorry to mention what they alledge The cheifest almost only proof is that we are regenerated by him and that Christ saith * Joh. 3.6 Whatsoever is born of the Spirit is Spirit But by this means they ought to make Water likewise the Father since Christ a little before joyned it with the †Ver. 5. Spirit in this business saying that we ought to be born again of it and the Spirit Vnless saith he a man be born again of Water and the Spirit the vulgar translation addeth holy he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Now by Water they are wont to understand the elementary water which is used in baptisme and whatsoever you understand by it it is not a person Thus also they ought to make Gods Word the Father because * 1 Epis 1.23 Peter writeth That we are born again not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible by the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever The same reason would also be of force in generation properly so called Wherefore as oft as it is written that Christ for example sake was born of the Seed of David the Seed of David would be accounted the Father of Christ So in the rest But if they cannot prove that the holy Spirit is the Father or may rightly be so called how much less will they be able to prove that he is any where designed by or comprehended under the name of Father when the Father is used to design a certain subject as here it is done But furthermore although such a signification of this word were somewhere found yet would it here have no place where the Father is manifestly distinguished from Christ and that by a certain mark for the Father essentially taken as they speak doth in their opinion also include Christ But he is here in such a manner as we have before discussed opposed to the Father and contra distinguished from him as they speak Finally there lies a contradiction in this opinion of theirs for either the Father of whom they understand these words is a Person or is not If he is a Person why do they oppose him to the Father taken personally why do they not suffer him to be the Father of Christ for either he is one Person or more if one what other can be here understood besides the Father of Christ If more he must not be called Father but Fathers But if he be not a Person he is not the Father for every father though figuratively so called if he be indued with understanding is a Person for a father is so called for some action and chiefly for generation either properly or figuratively so called But such actions agree to none but Suppositums that is prime Substances compleat as we will explain in its * Lib. 2. Sect. 1. Chap. 4. place But every Suppositum being indued with understanding by the consent of all is a Person It is therefore necessary that this Father whereof Paul speaketh should be a Person and but one But the Father taken for one Person in Divinity by the confession of the very Adversaries is none but the Father of Christ. So that their indeavour is vain who to dull the edge of this and the like places have devised this new signification of the word CHAP. III. The third Argument from the place of Paul Ephes 4.6 There is One God and Father of all Arg. 3 from Ephes 4.6 TO that place of Paul to the Corinthians which we have hitherto urged to prove that none but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the most high God this passage of the same Apostle to the Ephesians is not unlike for here that God which is said to be One and the Father doth signifie one and the same Subject and consequently the one is of no larger extent than the other neither is any other that One God besides the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Now we suppose that it is not here necessary to shew in many words that it is very familiar to the Scripture when it speaketh of the same thing and designeth it by divers names to connect those names together by the copulative Particle and as in this place we see the word God and that of Father joyned together This hath been noted by the Interpreters of the Scripture both in sundry other places and also in those by name wherein these two words namely God and the Father are joyned together As when the same Apostle saith that * 1 Cor. 15.24 Christ shall at length deliver up the Kingdom to God even the Father or when he thus speaketh together with Peter †2 Cor. 1.3 Ephes 1.3 1 Pet. 1.3 Blessed be God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ or when he saith * Rom. 15 6. 2 Cor. 11.31 Gal. 1.4 Ephes 5.20 Phil. 4 20. Col. 1.3 2.2 In Greek 3.17 1 Thes 1.3 That we may unanimously with one mouth glorifie God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ That I may now omit sundry other passages which are extant in the same Apostle for it sufficiently appears that in those places the same subject is described by divers names and that it is all one as if it had been said God who is the Father or God that is the Father or some such way Now that in this place to the Ephesians one and the same is understood by the name of God and Father first is apparent in that the Apostle speaketh joyntly concerning the Unity of the one and the other and not distinctly as in all the other things whereof he made mention Paul had said intending afterwards to demonstrate the thing that Christians ought being knit together with the bond of peace to maintain spiritual Union and addeth to that purpose that there is One Body and One Spirit as they were also called in one hope of their Calling One Lord One Faith One Baptism One God and Father of all Why did he not likewise say as in the rest There is one God one Father
of all if he did understand one by the name of God another by the name of the Father The same is also evident in that he here distinguisheth that One God both from that One Lord and that One Spirit and that in such a manner as not only to design them by divers appellations and to include them in divers members of the sentence but also to interpose other things between them that it might the more clearly appear that they are different the one from the other But we saw in the foregoing Chapter that Christ is by name understood by that one Lord what other then should be understood by that One God distinguished both from that One Spirit and also from that One Lord or Christ but the Father of Christ especially since the very name of the Father is by the Apostle himself expresly added For lest you should understand the whole Trinity by the name of that God who is called One the foresaid Reason doth forbid namely in that two Persons of the Trinity were already mentioned and distinguished from that one God Again How absurd would such a speech be There is one Trinity of all and Father for to omit that a Trinit ya◠the Adversaries hold is not one God but three as shall elsewhere be †Lib. 2. Sect. 1. Chap. 1. shewn and is of it self manifest to every one if he will not for love of his prejudicate Opinion offer violence to his understanding what need is there after the whole Trinity to add the Father by name as if he had not been comprehended therein But would he have added something for Explication sake he ought to have expressed three Persons not one for neither doth he who maketh mention of one Person explain a Trinity of Persons The Defence of the Argument BUt there are not wanting some who in this place also do by the Name of the Father understand the whole Trinity or the Godhead indistinctly taken Which how absurdly they do though it may be understood by the Defence of the foregoing Argument yet is it here also to be shewn chiefly because the principal Patrons of that Opinion have proceeded so far as to say that by One Spirit One Lord One God and Father the very same is here understood there being no distinction in the thing it self but only in the words How bold and absurd that Explication of Pauls words is would be hard to utter But so was it necessary for them to do who were resolved to hold their Position and to defend any thing which the Opinion that they had once set down did require We forbear to urge that three persons every one whereof is a Spirit Lord God Father cannot possibly be one Spirit Lord God Father as they take it for granted Our demand only is By what Example they extend the name of the Spirit or the Father to the three Persons As for the name of the Father we spake of it in the forgoing Chapter from whence let those things be fetcht that are pertinent to this matter You shall find that the name of the Spirit one while put simply another while with an additament is in infinite places taken for the holy Spirit but no where for the Father or Christ Indeed the word Spirit is * Joh. 4.24 once in the Scripture predicated of the Father †1 Cor. 15.45 2 Cor. 3.17 twice in a different sence of Christ but put subjectively or designing a certain subject which is the Spirit it is no where understood of Christ nor the Father Is it then lawful to reject the most usual signification of words which it is very apparent that Paul here followed and to impose such a one upon the words as is no where extant Besides what cause can be alledged why the Apostle had rather repeat the same thing thrice than distinctly to reckon up three distinct things which might be expressed by the same words and each whereof was very pertinent to the business in hand why I say had he rather thrice to name God indistinctly and only heap up words than to mention first the Unity of the holy Spirit under the name of One Spirit than that of Christ under the name of One Lord afterward that of the Father under this very name Furthermore why did the Apostle separate these three by the interposal of other things why did he not at least conjoyn them and speak of their Unity in a continued course The other things which he joyntly mentioned we see are divers those which he mentioned apart shall we think the same We know indeed that the same thing is sometimes repeated with changes of words but when like things are reckoned up in order and each of the rest finished in particular members or * That is Points or Stops Commaes the same thing is not wont to be repeated in divers members like to the rest much less to be sundred by the interposal of like things and Commaes No such example shall be alledged either out of prophane or sacred Writers Add hereunto that the same thing is then wont to be by sacred Writers so significantly repeated as here it will come to pass when in each word there is some peculiar force which here hath no place Certainly there will be no force in the word Spirit as shall presently be understood And should the name of that One Lord here signifie the same with that One God and so design the supream Monarch of all things the whole force thereof would not only have been expressed by the name of that one God but also presently explained more clearly when after the name of the Father it is added that he is over all for it is signified that he only ruleth over all with the highest Authority that it may be thence understood that the Father was deservedly so joyned with that One God as that we should conceive him to be the same as if he had said There is one God and Father of all as who is over all for were not the Father that one God he could not rule over all with the highest authority Now then had not the force of the word Lord been sufficiently expressed in these words But what force would there be in the word Spirit for it would signifie nothing but one spiritual Essence Not to say that the Essence of God would not presently be signified let us even without reason suppose that a Spirit or Spiritual Essence being mentioned the Substance of God is by name understood What doth this make to the unity of Christians is it because they all believe the same to be but neither is the mention of their faith made in this comma and the unity thereof is peculiarly mentioned whilst it is said One Faith How was it then pertinent to the matter that there was one spiritual add if you please divine Essence nothing at all for you must understand that the Unity of the Faithful is not thence simply
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
both of the one and other sort when in the mean time it is commonly believed that his end in writing the Gospel was to shew that Christ is the most high God which existed from all Eternity therefore we will take our rise from him and shew that he was so far from proposing to himself the defence of that which is commonly believed that no sacred Writer hath with more and clearer Arguments overthrown that Opinion For indeed his drift was to shew the Divinity of Christ but such a one as is wholly dependant on God For these things saith he are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God John 20.31 and that believing you may have life by his Name But this very thing that Jesus is the Christ that is the Anointed and Son of God doth manifestly distinguish him from the most high God and sheweth that Christ doth wholy how great soever he is depend on him and is inferiour to him Now of those Testimonies which may be fetched out of this Writer wherein something is denied of Christ which could not be denied of him were he the most high God the first shall be this which is extant chap. 5.19 The Son can do nothing of himself unless he see the Father doing it Which is in part repeated afterwards ver 30. where he saith I can do nothing of my self In the former words as certain very learned * John Maldonatus men among the Adversaries have shewn the word unless is put for but if as it elsewhere hapneth both in the same †John 15.4 John and in other sacred ‖ Mat. 12.14 1 Cor. 7.17 Gal. 2.16 Rev. 9.4 21.27 Writers with whom it is sometimes simply set for but. For otherwise did the Particle retain its force it would follow that Christ would signifie that he could do something of himself namely if he saw the Father do it when nevertheless these twain are opposed to do something of himself and to do something then when he seeth the Father do it so that the meaning of Christ is that he can do nothing of himself but then only when he seeth the Father do it and as it were go before him therein as any one will by himself easily observe and the words repeated in the 30th verse does shew From this place we thus argue The most high God can do all things of himself Christ can do nothing of himself therefore Christ is not the most high God The major Proposition as they call it in the Schools is by it self manifest For the most high God is the first and supream Cause of all things and consequently whatsoever he doth he doth it of himself not from another otherwise he would not be the first and supream Cause but the Person rather from whom he had a faculty or power to do something The Assumption or Minor is Christs The Defence of the Argument TO this Argument a double answer is wont to be brought neither whereof is indeed altogether direct since one maketh a shew of weakning the Major the other by either distinguishing or limiting the Premises endeavoureth to make the whole Argument invallid For some answer that Christ therefore saith he can do nothing of himself because he hath not the power of working from himself but receiveth it from the Father by the eternal generation out of his Essence and therefore they confess that Christ here speaketh of himself according to his Divinity and consequently as he is the most high God and they accordingly deny that there is any repugnancy for one to be the most high God and to do all things not of himself but by a power received from another Others answer that Christ here speaketh of himself according to his humane Nature not according to his divine So that from this Argument no other thing will follow than that Christ according to his humane Nature is not the most high God which themselves willingly confess As to the former answer that cannot consist for two causes chiefly The first is in that it doth sundry wayes involve a contradiction For first it maketh the same person both to be the most high God and not the most high God the most high God expresly not the most high God in that it affirmeth him to do all things by a power received from another For whilst it holdeth so it denieth him to be the first cause of all things and so to be the most high God as appeareth from what was said before Again whilst it saith that Christ was generated from all Eternity it together saith both that he is Eternal and not Eternal Eternal expresly not Eternal tacitly whilst it affirmeth him to be generated Besides whilst he saith that he was indeed generated out of the Essence of the Father but so that he hath the same numerical Essence yet saith that the same Christ is generated of himself Since every one as we hinted before is the same with his Essence and the Adversaries confess that the divine Persons are really the same with the Essence although they would have them really to differ amongst themselves The second cause for which the former answer cannot consist is that such an explication of the words of Christ is repugnant to the Text and thirdly to the words of the following verse wherein Christ being about to explain the reason of his saying speaketh thus * Ver. 20 For the Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things which himself doth and will shew him greater works than these that you marvel Now that the whole business may be the plainer some things are here beforehand to be observed First these twain as we have already hinted are opposed so to do something of himself and so to do something if he see the Father doing it and Christ doth therefore deny the first of himself because he affirmeth the latter of himself Again so to do somewhat of ones self is to work by a power wisdom and authority of his own and not received from another Whence it followeth that to do something if he see the Father do it is to do it not by a power wisdom and authority of his own but such as was received from the Father For Christ in this place compareth the Father to an Artist which by his own example instructeth his Son and most faithfully sheweth him what is to be done and by that means causeth that he likewise may do the same but himself he likeneth to such a Son that beholdeth the things shewn unto him by the Father and learneth and imitateth them namely because he received from him that power wisdom and authority whereof we have spoken By giving this therefore the Father doth shew by receiving the same the Son doth see Whence we argue thus if Christ did therefore deny that he can to do any thing of himself because he received from the Father by eternal generation a Power of doing all things
it would follow that the Father had by that generation shewn him all things But that this is false appeareth sundry wayes first because it would follow from thence that all things had been absolutely without the exception of any thing been already shewn to Christ from eternity and that nothing more much less something greater could be further shewn unto him by that eternal Generation out of the Essence of God The Son had received the Essence of God himself and consequently also his Omnipotency together with all his natural Properties as indeed the Adversaries do believe But to him that hath these nothing farther can be shewn or a power of doing nothing can any farther be given to him no more than to the Father himself †ver 20 But Christ as we see manifestly affirmeth that the Father would yet shew unto him greater things than these which he had already shewn that is give him a faculty of performing greater works From whence it appeareth that all things had not been absolutely as yet shewn unto him Add hereunto that Christ being about to explaâ—n those greater works which the Father would shew unto him mentioneth two whereof the one is as it were subservient to the other namely a faculty of quickning the dead and authority of judging ver 21 22. But Christ afterward affirmeth that these were therefore that is should certainly be given unto him because he is the Son of Man ver 27. from whence it would follow that greater works were by the Father shewn to Christ because he is the Son of Man than by that eternal Generation out of the Essence of God which maketh him to be the most high God which overthroweth it self Besides if the Father by eternal Generation out of his own Essence had given that faculty of working to the Son he would not have given it of his own free will but of necessity For that generation is by the Adversaries held to be altogether necessary and consequently all things that are necessarily contained therein or necessarily conjoyned therewith And indeed it is necessary they should so hold otherwise that generation would not be eternal For whatsoever is simply from eternity is also simply necessary What dependeth upon the free will of God cannot be eternal because the free act of his will doth in time precede it Now Christ himself in the words ver 20. alledged by us sheweth that the Father did of his own free will not by necessiâ—y give unto him that faculty or as he himself speaketh shewed him all things For he saith The Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things which himself doth as if you should say and therefore namely because he loveth the Son he sheweth him all things which himself doth as every one doth by himself perceive But whatsoever God doth out of his love towards any one he doth it of his own free will what he doth out of necessity so that he cannot but do it he doth not out of love Finally when the Father is said to shew all things unto the Son and that out of his love towards him it is apparent that the Son already existed when he shewed him and that he is looked upon as already begotten and not as one who is in that very act begotten But in that generation Christ is not considered as already begotten otherwise he would not be begotten but as one who is in that very act produced Wherefore the shewing was not made by generation The Distinction of Natures in Christ examined As for the latter answer which by a distinction of Natures in Christ laboureth to evade the force of our Argument because the Adversaries do most frequently make use of it therefore we must for once something more diligently examine it that the Reader may in the rest where the same answer occurreth be referred hither But forasmuch as the Adversaries commonly think that they have the Apostles for the Authors of that Description and consequently also of their answer in that the Apostles say that some things agree to Christ according to the flâ—sh Therefore in the first place we will shew how much the Adversaries are mistaken therein Then we will teach that that Distinction is of no moment to solve our Argument fetcht out of John 5.19 and other the like Finally that the very saying that some things agree unto Christ according to the humane Nature and others not doth as we will shew quite overthrow the Opinion of the Adversaries touching Christ To the intent therefore that we may dispatch what we first proposed of those places in which the Adversaries commonly think that they have an example of their destinction the first is extant Acts 2.30 where Peter saith that God swore to David that he would raise up Christ out of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh The second place is extant Rom. 1.3 where Paul saith that the Son of God was made of the Seed of David according to the flesh The third is in chap. 9. of the same Epistle where it is said that Christ was according to the flesh of the Fathers Now the Adversaries think that according to the flesh is according to the humane nature and that to this member of the distinction is tacitly opposed according to the Divine Nature especially because Paul when he had in that place Rom. 9. said that Christ was of the Fathers according to the flesh he addeth these words who is over all God or rather a God blessed for evermore when he seemeth not obscurely to afford the other member of that distinction namely according to the divine Nature But how much the Adversaries are mistaken in the sence of that distinction of the Apostles use is thence apparent namely that whereas those words according to the flesh do frequently occur in the Scripture yet are they never opposed to these according to the divine Nature but alwayes to these according to the Spirit which have a far differing meaning Thus Paul to run over those places only whiâ—h come nearer to our purpose in the same Epistle to the Romans chap. 4.1 saith What then shall we say that Abraham our Father according to the flesh found For so rightly if you consider the sence the antient Interpreter hath ordered the words Where you see that Paul saith Abraham was his Father as well as the Father of the other Jews accordâ—ng to the flâ—sh which every one seeth to be like this expression that Christ was raised up of the fruit of Davids loins or made of the Seed of David or to be of the Fathers * ver 11 according to the flesh to intimate that he here considereth him not as a spiritual Father For though Abraham was also the Spiritual Father of the Apostles yet was he not also the Father of the other Jews in general with whom the Apostle joyneth himself in this place For he teacheth both in the same chapter afterwards †Gal. 1.7 and elsewhere
followeth that it may be absolutely said of him that he can do all things of himself no less than he is absolutely affirmed to be the most high God Again They with whom we have to do do either confess that it may be simply or without any limitation added said of the divine Nature of Christ that it can do nothing of it self or they do not confess If they do confess why do they distinguish between the humane and divine Nature Why do they say that the words of Christ whereof we treat are not to be understood of him according to the divine but according to the humane Nature Will they perhaps say that also the divine Nature can do nothing of it self according to the humane Who seeth not that such a fashion of speaking and limiting is ridiculous Will you say that the soul of a man hath not in it self according to the body a power of thinking understanding reasoning Or that the body is not fleshly thick tall or low according to the soul But be it that it is lawful having expresly added such a limitation to deny these things of the soul as doth indeed agree unto it but do not agree unto the body and contrarily of the body such as agree to it but do not agree to the soul will it be presently lawful to do the same simply and without any limitation Who ever heard say that that should simply be taken away from the whole which doth indeed agree thereunto because it agreeth not to the other part of the same whole How then could that be simply taken away from the divine Nature which doth agree to the same namely to do all things of it self because it agreeth not to the humane Nature But if the Adversaries confess not that it may simply be said of the divine Nature of Christ that it can do nothing of it self their Opinion touching the Person of Christ falls to the ground for if the Son of God is a Person having supream Divinity it is necessary that whatsoever is simply either denied or affirmed of him may also simply be either denied or affirmed of his divine Nature For a person having supream Deity is nothing but the very divine Nature subsisting as many of the Adversaries confess and we in the second Book will shew †Sect. 1. Chap. 4. Since therefore it is simply denied of the Son of God that he can do nothing of himself whereas that same cannot be simply denied of the divine Nature it must be confessed that the Son of God is not a Person of supream Deity Neither can they escape the force of this Argument who hold a divine Person to be not the divine Nature but a subsistence of the divine Nature For first from this very place of John it is evinced either that their Opinion touching a divine Person is false or that the Son of God is not a Person endued with Supream Divinity For a Subsistence worketh nothing neither of it self nor by the shewing of another For the very nature subsisting worketh all things either by a faculty of its own or such as was received from another A Subsistence hath no faculty neither from its self nor received from another But the Son of God worketh all things by the shewing of the Father Wherefore he is not a Subsistence If the Son of God is not a subsistence either a Person of the supream Divinity will not be a Subsistence or the Son of God will not be a Person of supream Divinity Furthermore if a Subsistence did work any thing it would work in such a manner as is agreeable to the Nature wherein it is and with which it is really the same But the divine Nature wherein the divine Subsistence is and with which as the Adversaries speak it is really the same worketh of it self and not by the shewing of another wherefore the divine Subsistence also should be said to work after that manner nor could it less simply be denied that it can work of it self than the same may be denied of the divine Nature Add hereunto that it would no less ridiculously be said that the divine Subsistence can do nothing of it self according to the humane Nature than that the divine Nature can do nothing of it self acccording to the humane Nature Besides were the words of Christ to be restrained as the Adversaries would have it Christ had not spoken to the matter For it appeareth from the very place and all confess that Christ answereth the objection of the Jews and defineth those words of his namely My Father worketh hitherto and I work from all crime of Blasphemy and Arrogancy For the Jews objected it to him as a most grievous crime because by such words he calleth God his own Father making himself equal to God as we read ver 18. For thus they reason He that maketh himself equal to God committeth a crime to be expiated by death But Christ maketh himself equal to God in that he calleth God his own Father and maketh himself equal to him in working In which Argument it is spoken of whole Christ and not only of one Nature of his especially the less worthy For neither Christ when he affirmed My Father worketh and I work spake only one part of himself and that the less worthy but of himself as he was the Son of God and consequently God as the Adversaries themselves urge who are wont to object against us those words of the 18th verse to prove from thence that Christ is God by Nature because he both called God his own Father and made himself equal to God neither of which can agree to him who is not God by Nature To which Argument of the Jews Christ answereth Verily verily I say unto you the Son can do nothing of himself What would the answer make to the purpose if Christ should here speak of himself according to the humane Nature only when the question was concerning him either whole how great so ever he is or according to the divine Nature as the Adversaries will have it How had he defended his own words wherein he had spoken of his whole self or of himself as the most high God It is objected against him thou makest thy self equal to God namely in that thou makest thy self the Son of God and by that means dost as the Adversaries will have it arrogate to thy self a divine Nature Christ answers according to their Opinion the Son can do nothing of himself according to the humane Nature and is therein unequal to the Father What 's this to the matter But if you hold with us that Christ spake of himself whole how great soever he was you will find that he spake very pertinently to the matter and solidly confuted the crime that was objected against him For he answers that he doth not simply and absolutely make himself equal to God although in respect of working he compareth himself unto God because although he doth all things
that the Father doth yet can he do nothing of himself but those things only which the Father gave him a power to do wherefore in respect of the working it self he is equal to the Father in respect of the manner of working unequal For the Father worketh of himself but he only as the Father sheweth him or giveth him power wisdom and authority But herein is no Blasphemy no Arrogancy no Crime Add hereunto that that very equality which is seen in the very workers considered by themselves is not altogether absolute In that the Father will yet shew him greater works and consequently something may be yet added to that equality Finally If Christ had spoken of himself in respect of the humane Nature only when he said that he could do nothing of himself and in the mean time would have had it understood that he in respect of the divine Nature could do all things of himself he had not or rather ought not to have opposed the Father especially alone to himself in that matter but himself considered according to the divine Nature to himself look'd upon according to the humane But Christ doth not this but the other whilst he subjon'd unless he see the Father doing Also For the Father loveth the Son and sheweth to him all things whiâ—h himself doth and will shew him greater works than these For besides that the reason of the opposition doth more rightly consist if one nature of Christ be opposed to another Nature that is of a different disposition in relation to the thing spoken of than if the same should be opposed to another person no just cause can be imagined why Christ when in respect of one nature he had denied that the Son could do any thing of himself should not in respect of the other nature openly affirm of the same Son that he could do all things of himself since there was no greater cause to deny that than to affirm this That I may not say that there was greater cause to affirm this than to deny that since the question was concerning the equality of the Son and that as he is the Son with the Father Add hereunto that the divine Nature of Christ would have been the more near and proper Cause of that faculty of doing Miracles which he had received according to the humane Nature than the Father Unless perhaps you will have the divine Nature in him to be idle Wherefore the power was to be ascribed to it rather than to the Father Now whereas some affirm that Christ attributed his works rather to the Father than to his own divine Nature that he might give to the Father a Prerogative above himself this very thing overthroweth their Opinion and establisheth ours especially since it is necessary that that Prerogative should consist in this namely that the Father be held to do all things of himself the Son only by a power received from the Father For by this very thing Christ is denied to be the most high God whilst another is acknowledged to whom a Prerogative above him doth agree and whilst it is affirmed that he doth all things by a power in what manner soever received from another On the contrary the Father is alone held to be the most high God whilst to him only as the prime Cause the works of Christ are ascribed and a Prerogative attributed to him above Christ That now remaineth which we undertook to demonstrate in the third place namely that the very Distinction which the Adversaries use whilst they say that some things agree or not agree to Christ or the Son of God according to the divine others according to the humane Nature doth overthrow their Opinion concerning Christ For from this very thing it followes that the Son of God is not a person of supream Divinity the reason whereof we have somewhere already toucht For whilst the Adversaries thus distinguish they shew that the humane Nature is a part of the person of Christ and pertaineth to the constitution thereof But a humane Nature cannot be a part of a person endued with supream Divinity nor concur to the constitution thereof For whether you hold the divine person to be the divine Nature endued with a subsistence or the very subsistence it self of the divine Nature the humane Nature can neither way be a part thereof For neither is it a part of the divine Nature nor of a subsistence since neither is constituted of divers parts and both existed entire from all Eternity and consequently a humane Nature can constitute neither Certainly it is necessary to hold two persons in Christ one simple which existed from all Eternity the other compounded of a humane and divine Nature though by this means a divine person would become part of another so cease to be a person or they must bid farewel to that distinction of Nature But of this thing more in its * Lib. 2. Sect. 2. Chap. 6. place We have dwelt longer on this place of John partly because as any place doth more evidently overthrow the tenet of the Adversaries and this is one of the most evident so have they for the most part taken more pains in obscuring and turning it from the genuine sense partly because many things which have been spoken thereof will be profitable in the following places in as much as the Adversaries are wont to make answers to them either both these wayes which we have discust or at least one of them CHAP. IIII. The fourth Argument fetcht from those places in John wherein it is denied That Christ is the Prime Author of his Doctrine NOw that we may proceed to other places in John wherein some thing is denyed of Christ which could not be denyed of him if he were the most high God to that passage which we have examined in the precedent Chapter those are of kin wherein Christ denies that he is the prime Author of that Doctrine which he publisheth which places are in great number and in some of them mention is made also of works of which he maketh the prime Author not himself but the Father no less than in the precedent testimony For Chap. 7.16 17 18. when the Jews admired how he knew letters having not learnt them Jesus answered them and said My Doctrine is not mine but his that sent me If any one will do his Will he shall know of the Doctrine whether it be from God or whether I speak of my self He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory but whosoever seeks his Glory that sent him he is true and there is no unrighteousness in him And Chap. 8.28 When ye shall have lifted up the Son of Man then shall ye know that I am he and do nothing of my self but as the Father hath taught me I speak these things And chap. 12.49 50. I have not spoken of my self but the Father that sent me he gave me a Commandment what I should say and what I should
speak and I know that his Commandment is eternal Life What things therefore I speak as the Father hath said unto me so I speak And chap. 14.10 The Word that I speak I speak not of my self but the Father that abideth in me he doth the works Where under the name of works his words also are to be included as the very opposition sheweth and afterwards in the same chapter ver 24. The Word which ye have heard is not mine but the Fathers that sent me To which belong also many other Testimonies which are extant in the same Writer chap. 8. 38 40. and 15. 15 17. and 8. 14. and chap. 3. 11 32 34. Wherein we read that Christ saw those things which he spake with the Father heard them from God or the Father And that they were given him from the Father and that they were the words and speech of God or the Father from whence it is apparent that Christ is not the most high God For the most high God is the first and highest Cause of all things neither can it in any sort be said of him that his Doctrine is not his Arg. 4 Christ is not the Prime Author of his Doctrine but another persons and that he speaketh not of himself as is apparent from the proof of the major Proposition of the foregoing Argument But we say that those things are very frequently and plainly said of Christ and he constituted not the first but the second and middle cause of his Doctrine The Defence of the Argument THat the refuge of the distinction of Natures hath here no place we shewed in the last Argument when we refuted the second Answer for here Christ simply and without any limitation denieth that his Doctrine is his and that he spake of himself Therefore it is necessary that he spake of himself how great soever especially since he wholly attributeth what he denyeth of himself not to another Nature of his but to another Person namely the Father and consequâ—ntly doth therein oppose not one Nature to another but one Person to anoâ—her that is himself to the Father For were that the meaning of the words which the Adversaries using that distinction would have he must have said My Doctrine is not mine according to the humane Nature but according to the divine or is mine not as I am Man but as I am God and not My Doctrine is not mine but his that sent me to wit the Father And in that passage chap. 14.10 how unsuitable was it for him were the Adversaries Opinion true having omitted the mention of his divine Nature to say But the Father that abideth or dwelleth in me he doth the work Where his words also are to be understood as we have already hinted For when he would intimate the intrinsecal cause of his work or the cause dwelling in him why did he not rather name his divine Nature essentially dwelling in him and proper to him than a Person different from him Why when he had named the Father did he that he might more significantly exclude himself presently add the pronoun he as if he should say the Father simply doth the work Is it not manifest that Christ would distinguish himself wholly how great soever he is from the prime Cause of his Works and Words and having taken it away from himself ascribed it entirely to the Father Add hereunto that Christ when he saith My Doctrine or My Word would have it so far forth understood to be his Doctrine or Word as it was most belonging unto him and it was most his according to the opinion of the Adversaries as he was a divine Person from whom no less than from the Father that Doctrine had originally proceeded Wherefore when he had spoken this and desired to have it understood there was no cause why he should rather ascribe it to the Father then to himself or his divine Nature although divers natures had place in him Finally this thing doth here quite exclude the distinction of Natures that Christ doth here manifestly consider himself as he sustained the Office of a divine Embassadour But that Office agreeth to none but a Person as such Wherefore it is either to be held that Christ here speaketh of the divine Nature or to be confessed that Christ is not a Person of supream Divinity For as we have shewn in the foregoing chapter and will * Lib. 2. Sect 1. Chap. 14. elsewhere shew more largely a divine Person is nothing but the very divine Nature having its subsistence Besides the Adversaries will have it that Christ was first sent according to his divine Nature for they hold that the Son was sent from the Father out of Heaven to assume Flesh and consequently to undertake the business of Mans Salvation But if Christ according to his divine Nature yea according to this in the first place is the Embassadour of the Father why are those things which are attributed to him as the Embassadour of the Father restrained to the humane Nature only and not rather ascribed to whole Christ how great soever he is But if any one will have it that in these and other the like places a Prerogative is attributed to the Father above Christ and that as Christ is God as indeed the words altogether require it he must with all of necessity confess that Christ is not the most high God but that on the contrary the Father only since such a Prerogative agreeth to no other and Christ ascribeth to him entirely without making mention of any other person both his Doctrine and Works is the most high God concerning which thing it hath been spoken in the Defence of the precedent Arguments CHAP. V. Argument the fifth fetcht from those places in John wherein Christ is denyed to have come of himself LIke to the former are those places wherein Christ denyeth that he came of himself affirming that he was sent by the Father For thus he speaketh chap. 7.28 29. Whence I am ye know and I came not of my self but he is true that sent me whom ye know not but I know him because I am from him and he sent me And chap. 8.42 If God were your Father you would love me for I went out from God and am come for neither came I of my self but he sent me And chap. 5.43 he had said I am come in the name of my Father and ye received me not if another come in his own name him ye will receive But if Christ is the most high God how did he not come of himself For to come of ones self is to come of his own accord or relying on his own Authority and to discharge an office amongst men But how can the most high God be said to do that which he doth not of his own accord and authority but anothers Certainly although the Father and Son were divers Persons in the same divine Essence yet could not one be sent or come from the other
but he must withal come from himself since there will be the same numerical will in both the same Authority Wherefore the Father could decree or command nothing Arg. 5 Christ came not of himself but the Son would also decree that very thing with the same action But if it be absurd for any one to be sent from himself and Christ openly denies that he came from himself It must be held that he is not a person of the same Essence with the Father and consequently not the most high God The Defence of the Argument VVHy the Exception concerning the two Natures hath here no place hath already been shewn in the Defence of the precedent Arguments especially because Christ is here openly considered as sent from the Father which thing we said pertaineth to the whole Person of Christ and is by the Adversaries wont by name to be referred unto his divine Nature And besides when Christ would by this means procure Authority to himself and his Doctrine amongst all the People what need was there to fetch that Authority from the Father if he had had the divine Essence in himself and so no less than the Father had been God yea the self same God with the Father and would have men so to understand it according to the Opinion of the Adversaries as after he maketh mention of the Father For to what purpose is it to fetch Authority from another when you have it of your self yea the same in number with the other and would accordingly possess all men with a belief that you have it CHAP. VI. Argument the sixth fetcht from those places in John wherein Christ denies that he came to do his own will IN the sixth place those Testimonies are to be mentioned wherein Christ denyed that he came to do his own will but the will of the Father that sent him Which is a consequent of that which went before For it is the Office of an Embassadour not to do and seek his own will but the Will of the Sender And hereunto belong the words of Christ John 5.30 I seek not mine own will but the Will of him that sent me And chap. 6.30 I descended from Heaven not to do mine own will but the Will of him that sent me that is of the Father as appeareth from the following verses and many other places and from the very thing it self But if Christ were the most high God how did he not seek his own will or not come to do it For to what purpose had he come but to do the will of the most high God yea by this very thing whilst he affirmeth that he seeketh the Fathers Will and came down from Heaven to do it by this very thing I say he would affirm Arg. 6 Christ came not to do his own will that he seeketh his own will and came down from Heaven to do it if he were the same numerical God with the Father For as we before hinted they who have the same numerical Essence must also have the self same will and the same numerical act of the will as the Adversaries hold concerning God the Father and his Son The Defence of the Argument THat Exception touching the humane Nature according to which Christ spake that I may omit the repetition of other things that were formerly spoken hath therefore no place because Christ doth in the second passage from whence judgment may be made of the first expresly say that he came down from Heaven not to do his own will but the will of his Father But the descent of Christ agreeth to his whole Person or as the Adversaries believe to him according to the divine Nature For they contend that Christ according to the divine Nature came down from Heaven to be born of the Virgin wherefore he speaketh of his whole Person and not only one part thereof or if he attributed these things to himself in respect of one Nature only he is according to the Opinion of the Adversaries to be imagined to speak of the divine Nature which overthroweth it self CHAP. VII The seventh Argument drawn from thence That Christ did not seek his own glory SEventhly Hereunto belong those words of the same Christ chap. 8.50 I seek not mine own glory there is one that seeketh and judgeth And those words in the same chapter ver 54. If I glorifie my self my glory is nothing it is my Father that glorifieth me From the first of which we may thus reason If Christ had been the most high God he could not chuse but seek his own glory Since the end of all Gods actions and the ultimate scope of them that are sent by him or minister to him is the Glory of God himself Wherefore if Christ had been the most high God he could not chuse but seek his own glory Again since he openly professeth that he seeketh his Glory that sent him namely the Fathers chap. 7.18 If he had been of the same Essence with the Father and the same God with him in seeking his glory he had also sought his own Besides when he saith that the Father doth seek his glory and judge or glorifie him it would of necessity happen that Christ himself also at the same time and with the same labour doth seek his own glory and judge and consequently doth glorifie himself Arg. 7 Christ did not seek his own glory since as we formerly hinted they that have the same numerical Essence the same will and power of working must also of necessity have the same numerical operation Whence the Adversaries also hold that the works of the Trinity performed without as they speak are undivided although the reason of that Identity doth not admit a limitation and although it should be admitted yet here according to the opinion of the Adversaries must needs be the same operation because they constitute and are inforced to constitute that glorification either in the exhaltation of the humane Nature or in the manifestation of Christs glory before men But now we see that Christ openly denies that he seeketh his own glory or doth glorifie himself From the latter place we thus conclude If Christ were the most high God he could not say his glory would be nothing if he glorifie himself For how is the Glory which proceedeth from the most high God or wherewith the most high God glorifieth himself how I say is it nothing that is vain and empty Certainly it would be no more vain than the Glory that proceedeth from the Father But Christ openly saith that if he glorified himself his glory is nothing and opposeth the glorification proceeding from the Father as true and solid to the glorification proceeding from himself CHAP. VIII The eighth Argument drawn from the words of Christ John 12.44 He that believeth on me believeth not on me but on him that sent me THat these words of Christ which we have cited signifie that he is not the principal object of Faith and
Interpretation is very frivolous first in that by so speaking he had not alledged the cause why he declared not the day of judgement to his Disciples nor had diminished the desire of knowing it and inquiring it of him but increast it because by this means he had intimated that the Son of man did know that day Besides neither doth the word Son absolutely spoken of Christ denote the Son of man but the Son of God as he is such especially since the word Father is presently opposed thereunto and by it God understood and the word but in that passage but the Father agreeth not with the words nor the Son immediately going before but with those none knoweth Finally that interpretation doth thwart the words of Matthew who saith that the Father only knoweth it For how ridiculous would it be to say the Son of man knoweth not the day of judgement unless the Father only knoweth it for it is a certain contradiction in the Additament and the condition that is added subverteth that to which it is added The same Interpreter furthermore saith that many antient and grave Authors whose names he orderly reckoneth up did thus interpret That Christ as man was ignorant of the day of judgement Which he himself thinketh to be true only in this sence that Christ knew not the day of judgement upon that score or for that reason because he was man but because he was God Otherwise he supposeth it to be false and horrid to be spoken that the humane Nature of Christ was ignorant of any thing For the Papists yea certain others also imagine that the humane Nature of Christ from the very first instant of his conception and birth knew all things But that Interpretation also he refuteth because Christ not only denyeth that the Son of man he ought here rather to say the Son of God doth know the day of judgment but also affirmeth that the Father only knoweth it by which speech he seemeth to exclude not only the Son but also the holy Spirit Nevertheless now a-dayes that Interpretation which the Interpreter rejecteth namely that Christ is said truly to be ignorant of the day of judgement not according to the divine but according to the humane Nature is commonly most received even amongst them who otherwise hold that in the very moment of conception the Properties of the divine Nature were communicated to the humane or the knowledge of all things infused into the soul of Christ therefore we must here briefly refute it and having discust it in a few words also disprove that mans own interpretation Such an Interpretation therefore and Answer to our Argument as is commonly brought Arg. 9 That Châ—ist was ignorant of the last judgment day for three Reasons chiefly ought not to be admitted First because Christ simply and without any limitation denyeth that the Son knoweth the day and hour of judgement Where it followeth that he spake of himself wholly how great soever he is as we have shewn in the examination of the second Answer to that place John 5.19 Again to omit other things spoken in the same place both from the simple word Son opposed to God the Father and also by the Gradations used by Christ ascending from the Angels to the Son and from the Son to the Father it is apparent that he altogether spake of that Nature according to which he is the Son of God Thirdly Because in Matthew it is expresly said that the Father only knoweth the day and hour of judgement which sense agreeth also to the words of Mark whilst he saith None knoweth but the Father opposing the Father to the Son himself But if Christ had according to the divine Nature known the day of judgement then not only the Father but also the Son had known it and besides if we believe the Adversaries the holy Spirit Now whereas in this place they so much urge the saying of Paul Col. 2.3 In whom are all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge hidden First they do not observe that these words may as well yea far better be referred to the name of the Mystery of God and Christ the mention whereof immediately precedeth than to the name of Christ For it is there chiefly treated concerning the knowledge therof so that the sence is in the Mystery of God and Christ are all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge hidden but that Mystery is the evangelical Doctrine Chap. 1.25 26 27. Again the Wisdom and Knowledge here spoken of is to be understood of all things pertaining to mans Salvation which have also been revealed by Christ unto us and are diligently to be known by us But that the Knowledge of the day of judgement is not comprehended in the number of these things appeareth from these very words of Christ wherof we dispute To omit although otherwise it were spoken of the same kind of things yet this special saying concerning the day of judgement should derogate from the general and not be interpreted according to that but that according to it It remaineth that we speak something of that Interpretation and Answer which the Popish Interpreter having refuted the Opinions of all the rest did devise although he so proposed it as that himself seemeth to put no great confidence in it for he saith Vnless The mistaken Christ speaketh in the same manner that he had formerly said * Mat. 20.23 To sit at my right and left hand is not mine to give you but to them for whom it hath been provided by my Father Wherefore he intimateth what is more that he not only as a man but also as God was in a certain sort ignorant of the day of judgment not that he was indeed ignorant but because it was not his office to know as he said not for whom it is provided for by me but by my Father not that it was not provided by him also but because to provide the Kingdom that is to predestinate is not his office but the Fathers That also it belongeth to the Father to appoint when the world is to be dissolved and when the day of judgment is to be This is that which the Apostle saith †Acts 1.7 It is not for you to know the times and seasons which the Father hath put in his own power Therefore he alone is signified to know it And this unless I be mistaken is the true sence He did well twice to add unless I be mistaken for he was something afraid lest he should be mistaken neither did this ingenious man satisfie himse f whilst he endeavoured to satisfie others But neither did he rightly explain the place but pervert it nor take away the difficulty but in some part augment it For first he without example and any just reason departeth from the proper and usual signification of being ignorant whilst he interprets it that it is not ones duty to know unless perhaps he alledge this very thing for a reason about which
to any other person a power to determine of him and also to decree contrary to what himself desires and wills otherwise by this very act he would acknowledge that person superiour to himself But nothing is superiour to the most high God Whereas Christ permitteth here to another Person namely his Father a Power to determine of him and to decree even contrary to what he himself otherwise willed Again had Christ been the most high God he had also been one and the same God with the Father as the Adversaries themselves contend or of one Essence with him otherwise there would be two most high Gods But it is apparent from this place that Christ was not the same with the Father or of the same Essence with him for had he been he would likewise have had one numerical will with the Father and the same numerical act of the will as we have above * This Section Chap. 5 6 elsewhere taught But it is apparent from this place Arg. 12 from Mat. 26.39 that the will of both was different and the act thereof different yea that it might come to pass that the one might be contrary to the other in the thing here treated of although so that the will of Christ was ready to yeild to the Fathers Will otherwise he could at no hand have said Nevertheless not my will but thine be done for it could not be that his own will should not be done if his Fathers will were done nor could Christ for example desire that the cup should pass from him if the Father would not have it pass The Defence of the Argument IT will be here presently answered that it is manifestly apparent from the words that Christ speaketh thus according to the humane Nature not according to the divine And indeed we believe that Christ according to the humane Nature or the very humane Nature it self doth here speak but so that it is withal to be granted that there is not in him another Nature namely the divine For first the simple Negation Not my will be done permitteth not that there was another Nature in Christ and that a better according to which his own will ought altogether to be done as it would be necessary to hold if there had been in Christ the divine Nature the same in number with that of the Father To omit that it is absurd yea altogether impossible that in Christ at the same time there should be contrary wills concerning the same thing whereof the one would have the cup pass from him the other would not Certainly it would withal be necessary to acknowledge two Persons in him For to subjoyn another reason for which that distinction of Natures hath here no place it is necessary that Christ spake these things of himself as he is a Person for such operations as are to will and consequently also to beg agree to none but Suppositums endued with understanding as such and consequently to none but persons as such Either therefore it is necessary for the Adversaries to hold that Christ spake these things of himself as he is a divine Person namely one of the Persons of the Trinity which we have shewn to be false and they themselves who here use a distinction of Natures do acknowledge or it is necessary to acknowledge that his humane Nature according to which Christ willed and begged those things is a Person and so lest two Persons should with the Nestorians be hâ—ld to be in him contrary to all both Reason and Scripture that there is in him no divine Essence and Person Finally It is to be observed that he doth here submit himself not to the power and will of his own divine Nature but to the Will of the Father and so opposeth not Nature to Nature but to Person to Person and the will of that to the will of this Wherefore it is altogether to be confessed that there was not in the Person of Christ that will which he attributeth to the Father and simply opposeth to his own CHAP. XIII Arg. 13 from Heb. 5.5 Argument the thirteenth from the words Heb. 5.5 Christ did not glorifie himself HItherto we have cited places out of the Writers of the Evangelical History and consequently out of none but the words of Christ himself wherein those things are denied of Christ which could by no means be denyed of him if he were the most high God To which we think fit to subjoyn those words of the divine Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews which are extant chap. 5.4 5. Neither taketh any one the Honour to himself namely of the Pontificiate or high Priesthood but he that is called by God as Aaron So also Christ did not glorifie himself to become an high Priest but he that said unto him Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee For if Christ were the most high God how had he not glorified himself to become an high Priest if so be the most high God can be any high Priest Whereof hereafter For on the most high God the honour of an high Priesthood doth depend and so is conferred on others And in that the Father glorified him to become an high Priest as here it is affirmed Christ had also glorified himself to become an high Priest had he been the most high God and so one God with the Father But that is in this place denyed and he that said unto him Thou art my Son is said to have glorified him and not he himself The Defence of the Argument THe exception concerning two Natures hath no more place here than in the former places both for the simple Negation as also because Christ is here considered as he hath attained the Priestly Office which agreeth to him only as he is a Person But if that be a Person of supream Divinity those things which are here either spoken or denyed of Christ must be attributed or denyed of the very divine Nature Since a Person of supream Divinity is nothing but the divine Nature endued with a subsistence Add hereunto that those things which are here attributed unto Christ are ascribed to him as he is the Son of God for the divine Author doth not therefore take those words of the second Psalm that he may only simply describe him that glorified Christ and made him high Priest but that this very description may teach that Christ was made an high Priest by God For besides the custom both of this and other divine Authors who are wont to make use of Descriptions of Persons accommodated to the subject matter not forreign to the matter the following words also shew this thing for the divine Author addeth As he also saith in another place Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec By which words it clearly appeareth that in the former place also it is spoken of the Priesthood which was given unto Christ But that place is not commonly to be taken of Christ
according to the divine Nature and to be wrested to his Generation out of the Essence which the Father made from all Eternity which though it be absurd and besides other things repugnant to the words of Paul Act. 13.32 33. so to this very place doth yet exclude their exception concerning the humane Nature according to which this very place is to be taken of Christ Finally would the divine Author here have spoken of a certain Nature only and not of the whole Person of Christ he would not have opposed Christ to the Father but to himself according to the divine Nature and what he had taken away from the humane he would have attributed to the divine but that he neither did nor could do For if Christ was in that very thing made an high Priest by God as he was begotten by God and consequently became the Son of God as we manifestly see the divine Author intimates he could not be made an high Priest by himself no not considered according to the divine Nature otherwise Christ would have been begotten of himself considered according to the divine Nature and so would be his own Son and the divine Nature might say to him Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee Which how absurd it is and repugnant to its self every one perceiveth Now therefore he at length shall rightly understand this place and the Authors reasoning who observes that Christ is chiefly called the Son of God as by his favour he hath attained the greatest similitude with God and that Christ was never made more like to God than when he obtained the perpetual Government of the house of God and the Office of eternally looking to and saving the People of God Which thing is contained in this Priesthood for the divine Author opposeth nor that Office to the Kingly but in some sort includeth this in that But let those things be here spoken by the by in that they will prove advantagious hereafter CHAP. XIV Argument the fourteenth from the words of Christ John 14.28 My Father is greater than I. VVE have hitherto reckoned up not a few places wherein something is denyed of Christ which could not be denyed of him if he were the most high God It follows that we take a view of those places wherein something is attributed to him which could not be attributed if he were the most high God and that such in the first place wherein some Prerogative is ascribed to the Father above him and so the Father made superior to Christ Arg. 14 from John 14.28 of which sort those also were which we have hitherto alledged We will again begin from John in whom there are very many Testimonies of this kind also amongst which we will give the first place to that wherein Christ with most open words professeth that the Father is greater than he as he doth chap. 4.28 Where he saith My Father is greater than I to which ought to be added that place chap. 10.29 where the same Christ saith My Father which gave them me namely the Sheep is greater than all Where under the name of those All Christ himself also is included as both the collation with those words chap. 14. and also that doth shew that in the same place he attributeth to the Father the giving of those Sheep unto him and consequently unto himself the receiving of them from the Father But none can be greater than the most high God The Defence of the Argument HEre many of the antient Authors did grant that Christ speaketh of himself even as he is the Son of God and saith that the Father is greater than himself in as much as the name of Father signifieth the Principle and as the Greeks speak the cause of the Son Thus besides others that Popish Interpreter * John Maldonatus whom we have above quoted saith it is expounded by Athanasius Hilary Epiphanius Gregory Nazianzen Cesarius Cyril Damascen Chrysostom Leontius Theophilact Euthymius citing the places of them to that purpose But I know not saith he whether they granted more to the Adversaries namely the Arrians with whom they did dispute than was meet Indeed this acute man saw that it followeth thence that Christ even as he is the Son of God is not the most high God in that the Father is greater than he as such concerning which thing we have already above †Sect. 1. Chap. 1. sufficiently spoken Add hereunto that that fashion wherein they make the Father greater than Christ makes nothing to the purpose of Christ for Christ there renders a reason of that which he had last spoken namely If ye love me ye would rejoyce because I go to the Father By which words he signifieth that some good or happiness should arrive to him when he was gone away to the Father and consequently that the Disciples ought to rejoyce even for his sake that he went away to the Father as very learned men before us have observed But what maketh it to the purpose that the Father is greater than Christ as he is the Fountain of his divine either Nature or Person and begat him from Eternity out of his Essence doth not the thing it self hint that Christ would signifie that the Father was greater than he as he was more blessed glorious powerful and that he himself when he was more nearly joyned with the Father and received into his own seat should be partaker of the same Blessedness Glory Power and Empire But there is no need to labour much in refuting the Interpretation of the Antients since at this day there is scarce any one that followeth it For latter Writers observing that by such an Interpretation the Arrians Opinion touching the Divinity of Christ is not a little established they chiefly seized on that answer which also not a few of the Antients made use that Christ there spake not of himself according to the divine but only according to the humane Nature Which answer may be refuted by the same reason in a manner which above chap. 3. of this Section we alledged if you change a few things in some of them For not to repeat those things now whereby we have taught that there is no example of such a distinction in the Scriptures yea that this very distinction overthroweth the Opinion of the Adversaries concerning the Person of Christ we have shewn that that cannot be simply denyed of the whole which may and is wont or rather altogether ought to be simply affirmed of the same although it agree not to it according to some one part especially the less worthy Whence it followeth that also on the contrary that cannot be simply affirmed of some whole which may and is wont or rather ought to be simply denyed of the same whole although it doth agree to it according to some part especially the less worthy Now if Christ be the most high God equal to the Father in all things as the Adversaries affirm
and that without any limitation and simply yea ought simply to be denyed of him that the Father is greater than he For neither is it more lawful simply to affirm of him that he is the most high God and equal to the Father in all things than to deny that the Father is greater than he or that he is less than the Father Wherefore neither could Christ simply affirm of himself if he were the most high God that the Father is greater than he Add hereunto that such an affirmation My Father is greater than I is of equal force with such a Negation I am not so great as my Father as every one seeth by himself and the scope of these words before mentioned by us doth teach for Christ would signifie that he did yet want something which the Father hath and therefore that he also may attain the same he must go away unto the Father Wherefore since we have taught that what may or ought to be simply affirmed of the whole cannot be denyed of the same whole Christ could not thus speak of himself if for another and that a better Nature he would have the contrary understood of him Again since he who speaketh is the very Son of God for he saith My Father is greater than I thereby intimating that God the Father is greater than his Son either it is necessary to say that the Father is greater than the very divine Nature of Christ which the Adversaries by that very distinction of theirs endeavour to avoid or confess that the Son of God is not a person of supream Deity since a person of supream Deity is no other than the very divine Nature having its subsistence as we have above said chap. 3. Besides the Interpretation of the Adversaries doth altogether enervate the force of Christs words and render them invalid to his purpose For we saw that therefore Christ uttered those words that the Disciples might see that he must go away to the Father to the end he might enjoy greater happiness and therefore should not only abstain from sorrow but also rejoyce that he went a way but if Christ according to one Nature only had been less than the Father and in the mean time had in himself a Nature or Person equal to the Father in all things there would have been no need for him to go to the Father as greater to the end he might enjoy greater happiness nor would the Disciples have had cause to rejoyce that he went away from them but rather to grieve in that he would go away where as he might stay and they might presently object to the Lord yea why dost thou go away to the Father as greater than thou since thou art endued with such a Nature or Person as is equal to the Father in all things and that Nâ—ture is alwayes intimately present with thee even whilst thou art conversant with us on the Earth why rather dost thou not stay with us and here procure to thy self that happiness which thou seekest with the Father You see that by this reason if it be taken according to the sense of the Adversaries Christ could have prevailed nothing with the Disciples But he could prevail very much if omitting the distinction of Natures he would have the words taken of him simply and absolutely as they were uttered But there are some learned men of the Adversaries who think that those words of Christ as also many other places in the same John are to be taken neither of the humane Naâ—ure of Christ nor of the divine but of the whole complex * See John Calvins Admonition to the Brethren in Poland as they speak because although he were the eternal God yet when he descended to us he began to be a middle person between God and us But this is of no moment for either they will have it that the Son when he dâ—scended to us ceased to be the most high God or they will not have it If they will have it the Son neither is nor ever was the most high God for he can never cease to be the most high God If they will not have it the Son could not therefore be simply called less than the Father or which is all one the Father greater than he because none is simply yea none is any way greater than the most high God And if the Opinion of the Adversaries concerning Christ be true the Son ought to be termed equal to the Father in all things But as we have shewn before the same cannot be simply both affirmed and denyed of the same whole Again since that whole complex whereof they say that those words of Christ are to be taken is the Person of Christ or the very Son of God as neither they do deny and we have before shewn it is necessary for them to confess either that that Person is not a Person of supream Deity or else that it may be said of the divine Nature that the Father is greater than it as we have a little before demonstrated We forbear to repeat that reason whereby we have confuted the Answer which is now adayes most received among the Adversaries namely that such an Interpretation weakneth the force of Christs words and renders them ineffectual to what he intended For the same reason is also prevalent against this Interpretation for if these words be so to be taken as that nevertheless it may or rather ought to be understood that Christ is the most high God or hath in him the Nature of the most high God they are not effectual to shew that Christ must go away to the Father and his Disciples ought to rejoyce that he would go away to the Father as may be understood by what was formerly spoken Furthermore did Christ therefore call himself less than the Father because he is a middle Person between God and us he would alwayes be less than the Father in that sence even after he ascended into Heaven and sate at the right hand of God the Father since Christ is at this time a middle Person between us and God in that he is a Priest and our Advocate interceding for us with the Father for which cause the Adversaries themselves say that he is now a Mediator But Christ sheweth by these words that he after he was gone away to the Father should be no longer less than he Whence they themselves with whom we have to do affirm that Christ in those words compareth his present state with his heavenly Glory For as we already hinted before because the Son did yet want that Glory to wit Immortality and sublime Authority over all things he was therefore less than the Father having attained the same he is reputed no longer less than the Father For neither is a most exact and altogether absolute equality here to be regarded Wherefore Christ did not therefore say that he was less than the Father or the Father greater than he because he is a
and Saviour to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins And chap. 10.42 And he Christ commanded us to preach to the People and testifie that it is he who is appointed of God Judge of quiâ—k and dead Which Paul afterward doth repeat in part chap. 17.31 Out of whose Epistles that we may not be too tedious we will produce certain places 1 Cor. 15.27 He saith out of the 8th Psalm He God the Father hath put all things in subjection under his feet namely Christ But when he saith that all things are in subjection to him it is manifest that he is excepted who put all things in subjection to him Which he also clearly explaineth Ephes 1.20 c. where he saith that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ * ver 17. the Father of Glory did set Christ at his right hand in heavenly places far above all principality and power and might and authority and every name that is named nâ—â— only in this world but also in that which is to come and hath put all things in subjection under his feet and hath given him head over all things to the Church which is his Body And Phil. 2.9 Wherefore namely because Christ humbled himself becoming obedient to the very death of the Cross God also hath highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name that in the name of Jesus every knee should how of things in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and every tongue might confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father And who is able to reckon up all the places of the Scripture See among others Heb. 1.2 and so forth to the end of the chapter and chap. 2.7 8 9. and chap 3.2 c. chap. 5.5 6 7 8 9. and 1 Pet. 1.21 Now in the Old Testament besides the places which are contained in the Testimonies of the Writers of the New Covenant cited by us namely out of Psal 8. and 110. that passage of the second Psalm ver 6 7 8. is very notable I God the Father have set my King upon my holy Mountain Sion I will declare the Decree namely whereby I have been constituted a King for they are the words of Christ the Antitype of David The Lord said unto me Thou art my Son I this day begot thee Ask of me and I will give unto thee the Nations for thine inheritance and the ends of the Earth for thy possession thou shalt rule them with a rod of Iron c. To which is to be joyned that famous Vision in Daniel chap. 7.13 where he saith I saw in the night Vision and behold in the Clouds of Heaven there came one like the Son of Man and he came to the antient of dayes that is the eternal God before cited ver 9.10 and they offered him in his sight and he the Antient of dayes gave unto him Power and Honour and a Kingdom and all people tribes and tongues shall serve him his power is an everlasting Power which shall not be taken away and his Kingdom that which shall not be destroyed We wittingly and willingly omit more places Now from these passages it is evinced that Christ is not the most high God for none can bestow any thing on him much less all things since he bestoweth all things upon all But we see that the Father hath bestowed on Christ so many and so great things yea all things Wherefore Christ is not the most high God You might also frame more Arguments especially out of those places wherein the word give or bestow is not met withal but there is the same force of Argument as if you should say He that is exalted by God or glorified by him or made Lord and Christ is not the most high God The Defence of the Argument TO this Argument and the places of Scripture whereon it is built neither do all nor the same persons every where make the same answer For some directly seem to deny the Major as they call it of our Argument others seek refuge in distinctions For as to the former some say that even the * The first answer and its refutation Apostle doth affirm that Christ shall deliver the Kingdom to God even the Father 1 Cor. 15.24 In which place there is the same word that Christ useth Mat. 11.27 when he saith All things are delivered unto me by my Father Wherefore they say that something miâ—ht be delivered or given even to the most high God Again as Christ John 17.2 5. desireth of his Father to be glorified and so that Glory should be given to him so also doth he there affirm that he had glorified the Father and hereafter would glorifie him But first we will speak of such a Giving as proceedeth from the grace and bounty of the Giver for which cause we did in our Argument make use of this word bestow For such is that Giving whereby all things have been given to Christ by the Father For Christ openly ascribeth it to the love of the Father towards him in the 3d and the 5th chapters of John and chap. 17. he doth intreat for the Glory designed unto him And God in the second Psalm saith to the Son Ask of me and I will give unto thee the Nations for thine inheritance c. And Paul Phil. 2. saith there was bestowed on Christ or given out of grace for so the Greek word signifieth a Name that is above every name And the reason for which the power of quickning and exercising Judgment was given unto Christ namely because he is the Son of Man doth sufficiently argue that it was such a Giving as we have spoken of which very thing is evident from that place of Daniel chap. 7. and others like thereunto But that the giving whereby Christ shall deliver the Kingdom to God the Father is not such an one all men do of themselves easily perceive For neither can it be imputed to the grace or bounty of Christ towards the Father who needeth the bounty of none For that is such a delivery of the Kingdom as for example sake when a General appointed by his King to manage a certain War doth when it is ended lay down the Power that was given unto him and restore it unto his King who had hitherto exercised it by him that if he be so pleased he may hereafter exercise it by himself And all this is no other than what Right it self doth require in as much as the Power was given unto him by the King for the management of that War only In like manner Christ who hath received Royal Power from the Father to subdue his and our enemies and hitherto exerciseth the same in the Fathers name when all the enemies are subdued shall yield it up to his Father that is so lay it down that the Father may afterwards exercise it by himself and as Paul speaketh God may be all in all From whence also ariseth
so perfect a signification as Christ is asserted to be a God is likewise a Lord and if he be a God of himself he is also of himself a Lord and therefore cannot any further be made a Lord by another The same may also be confirmed by this Reason The Lordship of Christ is either the same with his Godhead or different from it If the same certainly when he was made a Lord he was also made a God If different it is either equal to his Godhead or less For Christ hath nothing greater than his Godhead If equal though they cannot speak thus who attribute to him the supream and independent Godhead there is the same reason thereof with his Godhead and there is no cause why if he was made Lord he was not also made a God If less it will in like manner follow that he hath not of himself this priviledge of being a God For if he have not of himself that which is less much less that which is greater In which place it is not to be omitted that Ambrose in those very words of Peter instead of the word Lord doth read the name of God as if Peter had said And God hath made him God and Christ this Jesus c. The second Argument is this He to whom that is given or granted for which he ought to be worshipped with divine Worship hath also Godhead given and granted to him For neither is there any thing besides Godhead for which we ought to worship any one with divine Worship or causeth that any one is worthy of that worship But we read how that was given and granted unto Christ for which he ought to be worshipped with divine Worship namely all Judgment and a Name above every name for so as we have seen Christ himself speaketh John 5.22 23. For neither doth the Father judge any one but hath given all judgment to the Son that all might honour the Son at they honour the Father he that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father that sent him And Paul Phil. 2.9 c. saith Wherefore also God hath exceedingly exalted him and given him a Name which is above every name that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven and in the earth and under the earth and that every tongue might confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the Father Now that in both places it is spoken of the divine Honour Adoration which is due to Christ from all both the thing it self sheweth and all confess But that this worship is to be exhibited unto him for all Judgment given him by the Father for a Name given him above every name the same Testimonies do clearly shew The same may easily be proved likewise out of that place in Daniel chap. 7.13 Where Christ is said to have received from the Antient of dayes that is his Father Power and Honour and a Kingdom and it is added that all Peoples Tribes and Tongues should serve him namely for so great Power and the Kingdom given to him For who would not serve his King Now this Service is not meant a civil one as being to be given to one that was not an earthly King but a religious and divine one as to be exhibited to a divine and heavenly King Why then do the greater part of the Adversaries deny that Godhead was given or granted unto Christ And indeed not a few both of the antient modern Interpreters of the Scripture * See among others Corn. a Lapide in this place Joh. 1.1 affirm that when Paul saith there was given unto Christ a Name above every name that the name of a God is there understood because there is no other name extant besides that which is above every name Though therein many are mistaken who conceive that by Name is meant the very Appellation or Title of a God For how was this Appellation given him at length after his death when John saith that the Word or Speech was a God in the beginning namely of that thing whereof he speaketh which is the Gospel Add hereunto that Paul speaketh of the reward which God gave to Christ for so great debasement and obedience to the very death of the Cross But what manner of reward is this to give to any one a Title if you give him not the thing designed by that Title Doth the most bountiful and rich God in this manner render rewards for so great Piety such a reward would be unbeseeming even a Prince or other Potentate Besides when any one hath the thing it self and that most rightfully there is no need to give or grant to him the name whereby that thing is designed especially when that thing hath a name already set and appointed as here it cometh to pass If any one be indeed a King and that very rightfully there is no need to confer upon him the title of a King since none can deny the same unto him but wrongfully But that is said to be conferred which might of right be denyed Wherefore we must understand by that Name not a Title but Dignity or Power as you have it in a like place Ephes 1.21 So that a Name above every name is Dignity and Power higher than all other For this is the proper cause of so great Worship and Honour For as civil Worship is due to earthly and civil Power and divine Worship is due to heavenly and divine as also that place John 5.22 doth shew where it is taught that divine Honour is to be exhibited by all unto Christ for the Power of judging which is the greatest part of his Power yea contained in a manner all Now if the thing be thus why do the Adversaries so insult over us for saying that Christ is a God by the Grace of God the Father that Godhead was given to Christ by the Father and he made and constituted a God by him Why do they upbraid us saying that we have two Gods the one as some are not afraid to jest in so serious a matter an old God the other a young God As if we had either two supream Gods or to have one supream God and another dependent on him and subordinate to him is contrary to the Scripture which expresly affirmeth that there are many Gods and affirmeth in down-right terms that we have one God the Father of whom are all things and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things or as if the Father because he was God from all eternity may therefore be deservedly called an old God or Christ a young God because he is after him in time as a Son is after his Father since old age and youth have place in none but corruptible things but ceaseth in such as are incorruptible and immortal Now if they would have God so to be old as Daniel calleth him the Antient of Dayes to whom he that was like unto the Son of Man was brought and
repetition of that place out of John which we have formerly alleaged when we discoursed of the Prayers that Christ poured out to the Father chap. 14.16 I will pray the Father and he shall give you another Advocate And there is yet another place in the same John concerning the same thing afterwards chap. 15.26 But when the Advocate is come whom I will send unto you from the Father Whence you see that Christ not for himself as from the prime Fountain but from the Father would send and consequently did send the holy Spirit whom he also expresly saith doth proceed from the Father making the Father the prime Cause of him and himself the middle cause Concerning the same thing there is a notable place in the Acts which we have formerly cited chap. 2 33. where immediately after the first and most illustrious effusion of the holy Spirit upon the Disciples of Christ Peter speaketh thus Therefore being exalted by the right hand of God and having received the Promise of the holy Spirit from the Father be poured out that which you now see and hear Therefore as Christ himself elsewhere speaketh he actually received from the Father the holy Spirit that had been before promised to him and so poured him out upon the Apostles Which thing doth signifie no other than that the Father was the first Cause of that effusion and Christ the second wholly depending upon the Father therein Whereby likewise it may be understood why John chap. 7.39 said that the holy Spirit was not yet given because Christ was not yet ascended namely because he could not give the holy Spirit till he was exalted by the right hand of God and glorified Whence Christ also himself said chap. 16.7 I tell you the truth it is expedient for you that I go away namely to the Father and so be glorified for unless I go away the Advocate will not come unto you But if I go away I will send him unto you Now how far distant these things are from that Opinion which maketh Christ the most high God and so the first and highest Cause of all things and actions not only we have already shewn but every one may of himself easily perceive The distinction of Natures hath no more place here than in the former passages Arguments drawn from thence both because it would be necessary that the same things should be denyed of the same Christ for his divine Nature which are here simply affirmed of him for his humane Nature and also because these places likewise contain in them a tacit Negation and that a simple one namely that Christ did not those things of himself or was not the first cause of those works and finally because those operations are not agreeable to any thing but the Suppositum or Person of Christ as it is such and partly the places themselves manifestly intimate partly the Adversaries themselves confess that Christ is considered in them either as a Mediator and Embassadour of God or as a Priest or as a King And to sum up all in a word as a Saviour and consequently as a Person For that these Offices do primarily and by themselves agree to none but a Person both we have elsewhere taught and the Adversaries themselves confess but what followeth from thence is understood from the precedent Chapter CHAP. XX. The twentieth Argument from the words of Christ John 8.16 My Judgement is true because I am not alone but I and the Father that sent me VVE might from the places which we even now and formerly alleaged form many Arguments and consequently from every one of them that is somewhat clear a particular Argument But we care not much for the number but for the weight and evidence which doth of its own accord increase the number of Arguments For this matter which we handle is so fruitful for the evident truth of the Opinion which we defend that it seemeth that we ought to be more sollicitous in speaking out the measure than the plenty of Arguments Wherefore let these places that have last been alleaged and examined be accounted for the sixth Argument of this rank wherein we are now conversant is fetched out of the Testimonies of John and also of other sacred Writers and wherein something is affirmed of Christ which could not be affirmed of him if he were the most high God Of which kind there yet remaine other places in the same John which we will not prosecute The seventh Argument therefore we will fetch from those words of Christ which are extant John 8.16 If I judge my Judgment is true because I am not alone but I and my Father that sent me By which words Christ intimateth that if he were alone and the Father not with him it might be that he might err in judging or at least that he might deservedly be doubted concerning the truth of his judgment Wherefore now there was no cause of doubting because the Father was perpetually with him and so suffered him not to err in judgment But were Christ the most high God Arg. 20 from Joh. 8.16 his Judgment would have been no less true although he had been alone than it is now to be esteemed true because the Father is present with him For is not the judgment of one person who is the most high God accompted as true if he be by himself as if it be apparent that another person which likewise is the most high God is present with him Or were they with whom Christ spake so stupid as that if they had understood Christ to be the most high God they would presently have confessed that his Judgment was most true although they had heard or thought nothing concerning some other person which was present with him as in other things so also in judging The Defence of the Argument YOu will perhaps say that Christ fitted his speech to the Opinion of the Jews who believed him to be a mere man and therefore that he could not take for granted that he was the most high God but was forced to draw his Argument from a thing manifest unto them But this Answer is of no worth For first If Christ would have taken that only for granted which the Jews believed concerning him he neither ought nor could take that for granted which he here affirmeth of himself especially if the Opinion of the Adversaries be right For they did not yet believe that God was his Father which he here taketh for granted Nor did they yet believe that his Father namely God had sent him and so was also with him Again The Adversaries cannot use this Answer unless they will confess that Christ did not therefore call God his Father because he was so generated out of his Essence as that he was one God with him for if for this cause he had called God his Father he had already taken that for granted which this answer contend he could not take For what other thing would
it be to take for granted that God was his Father than that he also was the most high God But we manifestly see that Christ here supposeth that God was his Father Now if you reply that Christ doth indeed suppose this but implicitly and accutely so that the Jews did not understand it that will fall to the ground which our Adversaries are wont to say namely that for Christ to call God his Father and himself the Son of God was so manifest an Argument for the Generation of Christ out of the Essence of God that even the Jews themselves do understand it And thâ—s they will have to be the cause why they charged him with the crime of Blasphemy thereupon and would have stoned him and did at length crucifie him in that he called God his Father and himself the Son of God namely because they understood that he did by this means intimate that he was begotten out of the Essence of God and so hath one Essence with him For hither they are wont to draw those places in John chap. 5.17 18. and chap. 10.30 and chap. 19.7 and Mat. 26.63 c. Some other will perhaps say That Christ intended to say that very thing wich we deny namely that he was that one God with the Father For this was the cause why they affirmed that he was not alone but the Father was with him and consequently that he could not err in judging because the Father was joyned to him by unity of Essence But first he had spoken too obscurely if he would have comprehended so great a matter in those words For who is there if any one say I am not alone but I and the Father would understand his meaning to be that he is of one Essence with God For if you say that this is sufficiently hinted by the word Father it is to be noted that the force of Christ words or as they speak the middle term of the principal Argument consisteth not of the word Father but in this that the Father was present with Christ But that God or the Father should be with any one hath a far different meaning than to have one Essence with him For it signifieth according to the use of speaking very familiarly unto all but chiefly to the Jews that God is present with some one by his favour and assistance Wherefore the Jews by this means would not have perceived the mind of Christ and the force of the Argument Besides if there is so great force in the word Father why said Christ that his Father was with him As if some one might imagine that they whom he already understood to be of one Essence might be parted asunder and the one be left from the other Finally that description of the Father that he sent him namely Christ is repugnant to that Opinion partly because it is altogether unnecessary that there should be one Essence of him that sendeth another of him that is sent by him nor can he be the most high God who is sent by another but inferiour to him as hath formerly in its place been shewn partly because in this description of the Father the reason is plainly rendered why Christ was not alone but the Father was with him namely because Christ was the Embassadour of the Father and that an extraordinary one For God is alwayes by his favour and assistance present with all his Embassadours in all things which their office doth any way require and so much the more with Christ than with others in tâ—at Christ was a more excellent one than they But unless you will acknowledge tâ—is that description of the Father will make nothing to the present matter Whereas Christ is not wont to make use of idle descriptions and such as are notâ—ing to the purpose But that the Father sent Christ can no way be the cause that Christ should be of one Essence with the Father The distinction of two Natures in Christ if any one will here apply it is easily refuted by the same Reasons that we have used in the Defence of the precedent Arguments which accordingly a wise Reader changing as they say what is to be changed may of himself transfer itâ— er and apply to the matter in hand CHAP. XXI Arg. 21 from Joh. 8.14 Argument the one and twentieth from the words of Christ John 8.14 My Testimony is true because I know whence I am and whither I go IN the eighth place may be allâ—aged these words of Câ—rist in the same eight chapter of John whence we cited the last Testimony which certain acute men amongst the Adversaries have endeavoured to draw to their Opinion they are extant in ver 14. where Christ speaketh in this manner Though I give testimony of my self my testimony is true because I know whence I am and whither I go For had Christ been the most high God he ought not to bring and consequently would not have brought this reason that he knoweth whence he cometh and whither he goeth but rather this that he himself is the most high God or some such things containing the same sence But Christ did not alleage this but that cause The Defence of the Argument THey whom we mentioned here rise up and say That Christ alleaged this very cause for he spake figuratively and intimated more than he spaketh namely that he is the natural Son of God But if you object Why then did he not openly say because I am God They answer that Christ used the figure of insinuation accommodated and in a manner necessary for the persons with whom he spake For say they the Jews could not have endured it if he had openly called himself God or the Son of God Wherefore he spake what was true and what was necessary to the cause but so spake as that he might delude his Adversaries with the ambiguity and obscurity of his words But these men have by this explication deluded themselves and others but so did not Christ the Jews They confess and it is a plain case that Christ doth by those words intimate that he came from the Father came out of Heaven and shall again go into Heaven to the Father For who would make any doubt that Christ intended here to signifie what he elsewhere speaketh in the same John chap. 16.18 I went out from the Father and came into the World Again I leave the Word and go unto the Father Which thing is more than once repeated in other or the like words with the same Writer But such words as these are so far from signifying that Christ is the most high God that they imply the quite contrary For if these words I went out from the Father and came into the World be taken of a local motion as they spake that is of a descent from Heaven to Earth properly so called as those opposite ones Again I leave the World and go to the Father are to be understood of a local departure from the Earth
have sovereign Power over his own humane Nature he himself would be a Benefactor to it he himself would be worshipt of it certainly no less than any other person yea more Why then is another namely the Father rather called his God than he himself called his own God But if they acknowledge it to be absurd that any one should be his own God let them also acknowledge that Christ is not the most high God CHAP. XXIV The four and twentieth Argument from these words 1 Cor. 11.3 The head of Christ is God VVE have hitherto chiefly out of the History of the Gospel penned by John produced those Testimonies wherein something is affirmed of Christ which could not be affirmed of him were he the most high God and that such ones as give the Father some Prerogative above Christ and so demonstrate that the Father only since such a Prerogative agreeth to no other is the most high God It followeth that we may also from other divine Writers draw like Testimonies and Arguments Although we have already produced not a few when we fetcht Testimonies out of John because they contained the same or the like sence Of these places therefore which remain we will give the first rank to that Arg. 24 from 1 Cor. 11.3 which is very near to those words that were last of all cited out of John and other Writers as being such wherein God is said to be the Head of Christ and this is done 1 Cor. 11.3 where Paul speaketh in this manner Now I would have you know that the Head of every Man is Christ and the Head of the Woman is the Man and the Head of Christ is God But there is no other Head of the most high God or he hath no Head above him otherwise he would not be Most High For every one easily perceiveth that to be ones Head signifieth to have some Empire or Power over him and in a certain sort to govern him The Defence of the Argument HEre the Adversaries again are wont to fly to their distinction of Natures in Christ as to a sacred Anchor which notwitstanding the Reader may observe that we have * See cap. 3.14 16. of this Section before sufficiently confuted We repeat not all things that have been spoken we only desire that it should here also be observed that Christ is here likewise considered as a person for he is considered as the head of the man consequently of every man that is as a Lord appointed to rule every man even as the man also is the head of the woman But Christ is such as he is a Person Wherefore if the Adversaries Opinion concerning Christ is true he as a divine Person and consequently the most high God must have a Head over him which implieth a contradiction and is the very thing which they endeavour to escape who here use the distinction of Natures Neither may any one here say that in the former words indeed where Christ is said to be the Head of the man he is considered as a Person but in the latter he is lookt upon only in respect of that Nature which is not a person For besides that this is affirmed without reason it is disproved by reason First beâ—â—use it is certain that God is the Head of Christ as he hath received from him Dominion and Empire over the man But Christ received that Dominion as he is a Person Why then is it not God made the head of Christ as he is here a person Again if you inquire the cause why the Apostle when he had asserted that Christ is the Head of the man did likewise say afterwards that God is the Head of Christ you shall find this to be the chief that he might not seem to leave God no further power over the man because Christ is his Head or Lord and King but rather that it might be understood that God is also upon this very account the Head or Lord or King of the man because Christ is the Head of every man in as much as God is also the Head of Christ himself For as the woman is not therefore exempted from the Empire and Power of Christ because the man is her Head in as much as Christ is also the Head and Lord of the man himself so neither is the man exempted from the Power of God because Christ is his Head since God is also the Head of Christ himself Moreover the Apostle spake this to give us to understand that if we bring any dishonour to Christ who is our Head it will at length redound to God himself who is again the Head of Christ But neither of these Reasons would be of any force if God were not the Head of Christ as he is the Head and Lord of the man But if God be the Head of Christ as he is our Lord he is the Head of that person as such Finally such a gradation ought not to be made as to ascend from the Man to Christ from Christ to God as a different person from him if besides the humane there were another Nature in Christ to which it did no less agree to be his Head than to a Person different from him but mention was to be made of that Nature as well as of this Now if any one will fly hither for refuge as to say that by the name of God the Father is not understood but the whole Trinity he must at least in the first place alleage some passage from whence it may manifestly appear that God distinguished from Christ denoteth some other besides the Father For we can alleage innumerable ones wherein even by the confession of the Adversaries themselves it denoteth none but the Father and it is otherwise apparent that such things as are like hereunto are expresly attributed to the Father in the holy Scripture For it is all one to be ones Head and to be ones God But the latter is expresly affirmed of the Father of Christ as every one may perceive from these words of Christ John 20.17 and those of the Apostle Ephes 1.17 Add hereunto that the Reasons wherefore God is called the Head of Christ do all agree to the Father Whether they agree to any other we have no assurance thereof or rather we are assured that they agree to no other namely because he gave all Empire to Christ because he gave the Laws by which he ruleth and governeth us and also because he bringeth his will to an issue by his hands and provides for his own * Isa 53.10 John 13.32 and 14.13 17. Phil. 2.11 Glory by his Empire But in the last place those Reasons which evince that Christ is here considered as a Person permit not the Trinity here to be understood by the name of God Otherwise the Person of Christ which is believed to be contained in that Trinity would be the head of it self as such Nor can you understand the Essence it self which is not a
Person For it can govern none and consequently is the head of none But it is to no purpose to feign a true God who is not a Person since the name of God is as we have already hinted †Chap. 1. of this Section before the name of a Person CHAP. XXV Arg. 25 from 1 Cor. 3. ult The five and twentieth Argument from the words of Paul 1 Cor. 3. ult Christ is Gods THe second place shall be that which is extant in the same Epistle to the Corinthians chap. 3. about the end and it is not much unlike to the foregoing one because it is therein affirmed that Christ is Gods Which thing that it may be the better understood we will set down the whole place Thus therefore speaketh Paul Let none boast in men For all are yours whether Paul or Apollo or Cephas or World or Life or Death or things present or things to come all are yours and ye are Christs and Christ is Gods Any one will easily understand from the words themselves that to be ones doth in this place signifie either to be in some sort possessed of another or to be in his Power or at least to be dedicated to his use and consequently to have another for his Superiour Whence the Apostle doth require them that none should boast in any man no not in the Apostle himself so as to brag that he is Paul's or â—pollo's or Cephas's that is Peters as the Corinthians did But all of them rather glory in Christ and consequently in God in that they themselves are no others but Christs and consequently also Gods and therefore all things on the contrary the Apostles themselves not axepted theirs For even the Apostles were consecrated to the use and salvation of Christians and so were subservient unto them and not contrariwise Whence in the latter Epistle to the same Corinthians about the end of the first chapter he saith We are not Lords of your Faith but Helpers of your Joy And chap. 4.5 We preach not our selves but Jesus Christ the Lord and our selves your Servants for Jesus sake Whence it is apparent that Christ is not the most high God For the most high God is no ones in that sence which we have explained otherwise he would not be most high Indeed God is said to be some ones God but not simply to be some ones The first signifies the supream Eminency of God above him whose God he is said to be and his Empire over him but the latter would signifie that he is as it were possest by some one Howbeit although this should in some place be affirmed yet neither would nor could it be affirmed in that sence as we see it is affirmed of Christ The Defence of the Argument THis Argument can no more be eluded by the distinction of Natures in Christ than the precedent Testimonies both for other causes formerly * Chap. 3.14 16. alleaged and also because Christ is here considered as our Lord and consequently as a Person and that no less when he is said to be Gods then when we are said to be his For Paul when he said that we are Christs again affirmeth that Christs is Gods lest any one should think that because we are Christs we are no longer Gods but rather that he might understand that we are Gods on this very account inasmuch as Christ himself and consequently all things that are his are Gods But if he be here considered as a Person his Person is not a Person of the most high God For that is not anothers unless you will have also the divine Nature to be anothers which they who here use the distinction of Natures do by this very distinction endeavour to avoid Besides if Christ were the most high God although he had withal a humane Nature yet could it not be said that he is more anothers than his own But here he is simply said to be Gods namely another Persons without making any mention that he is also his own or that his humane Nature is his divine Natures If there is any thing that belongeth to the fuller understanding of these Reasons it may be fetched from the defence of the precedent Reasons CHAP. XXVI The six and twentieth Argument from the words 1 Cor. 15.24 28. That the Son shall deliver up the Kingdom to God the Father and shall become subject to him THe third place is extant in the same Epistle chap. 15. where it is said that Christ shall deliver the Kingdom unto God the Father and be himself subject unto him who hath put all things under his subjection For thus he speaketh ver 24 25. Then cometh the end when he shall deliver the Kingdom to God even the Father when he shall abolish all Principallities and Authority and Force For he must reign until he put all his Enemies under his feet And ver 28. But when all things shall become subject unto him then shall also the Son himself be subject to him who put all things under his subjection that God may be all in all Whence we may argue in a twofold manner and so draw a double Argument which nevertheless we will reckon for a single one the first from the 24th verse the second from the 28th verse For as for the first Arg. 26 from 1 Cor. 15.24 28. we have before * Chap. 18 of this Section taught when we spake of those places wherein something or all things are said to have been delivered unto Christ by the Father that such a delivery of the Kingdom is here understood as consisteth in the deposing thereof and the resigning up the right which one had to reign so that he afterwards manageth that Kingdom neither by himself as before nor by him to whom he delivereth up the Kingdom In which manner a General appointed by a King to wage a certain war doth when the war is ended deliver his Power to the King But the most high God neither doth nor can deliver his Kingdom unto any one in this manner unless you will say that he withall ceaseth to be the most high God For if he delivereth the Kingdom unto any one as he did heretofore to Christ he doth not so deliver it as that he strippeth himself of the Kingdom but only reigneth by him as subordinate unto him to whom he delivereth the Kingdom After which sort a King wageth war by his Captains And not to stray from the matter in hand God is said to judge the World by Christ whom he hath made Judge For when he is * John 5.22 24. said to judge none the meaning is that he judgeth none by himself but by the Son to whom he hath given all Judgment for otherwise God is in several †Rom. 2.5 6. 3.6 1 Cor. 5.13 2 Thes 1.5 1 Pet. 1.17 places said to judge either absolutely without mentioning the middle Cause of that Judgment or openly declaring it whilst it is said that he will
To which may be added that place of the Epiâ—le to the Hebrews chap. 5.7 which we formerly * Chap. 17 of this Section conside ed when we discoursed of the prayers which Christ poured out to the Father for it is thence evinced by a double reason that Christ could not raise himself from the dead and consequently did not partly because he did with so earnest prayers with so earnest cryings seconded also with tears beseech the Father to do it partly because he to whom he made such supplications is thus described and distinguished from Christ namely that he was able to save him from death Conceâ—ning both which things see what we have formerly said Finally that place Ephes 1.19 20. may be added which we have formerly alleaged where it is shewn how great Power how great Might God the Father did put forth when he raised Christ from the dead and set him at his right hand in the Heavens But what need would there have been of so great Power or how could it at all have been employed by God the Father if Christ had raised himself by a Power altogether proper and natural to him Now if you say that the same Power did also belong to Christ as being common to the Father with the Son there can no cause be alleaged why it should he said to be put forth rather by the Father than by Christ in as much as we have already shewn that the contrary ought rather to be done The third cause wherefore that first exception ought to be esteemed of no weight is this namely that such a sence doth exceedingly weaken Pauls Argument whereby from the Resurrection of Christ he asserteth the truth of our resurrection as he chiefly doth 1 Cor. 15.11 c and so throweth down the strongest prop of our hope For Paul doth thence shew that we shall arise because Christ arose Bâ—t if Christ raised himself from the dead by a power that was inbred and altogether natural to him and could not but raise himself the consequence is of no force For how followeth it if Christ raised himself by a power that was proper and altogether natural and could not but raise himself that we also who are altogether distitute of that Power and whom our nature doth not vindicate from eternal death shall assuredly rise There is now scarce any need to speak of the latter exception which is that by the name of God who is said to have raised Christ either the whole Trinity wherein Christ also is contained or the divine Essence which was no less in Christ than in the Father may be understood For we have brought Arguments even out of those places where the Adversaries themselves dare not apply that exception wherein is shewn that Christ did not raise himself from the dead the contrary whereof is required by that exception But furthermore who doth not understand that when God or he that raised Jesus from the dead is distinguished from Christ a person distinct from Christ is understood which is in this place sufficient for us That a person is understood is intimated by the name God which we have * Chap. 1. of this Section before shewn to be proper to a Person and also by the action of raising which agreeth to nothing but a Person but that one Person is understood the very word God as also that description He that raised Jesus Christ from the dead being uttered in the singular number doth manifest For neither is the word God a collective neither is that expression wherein mention is made of him who raised Christ from the dead general and common but proper and singular but the distinction between Christ and him that raised Christ from the dead is manifest from the very places Nor as we have else where hinted would he escape the Tax of Nestorianism who by the word God understanding Christ himself by name Chap 18. of this Section should say that he raised Christ or did any like thing about him for it would be all one as if he should say the Son of God raised Christ But what need more words When the very Scripture explaineth it self for what it in one place attributeth to God simply named it elsewhere openly attributeth to the Father either expressing the very name of the Father or describing him whom God raised by the appellation of his Son If therefore there were any obscurity or ambiguity in those places wherein the raising of Christ is simply attributed unto God without the addition of any other note implying that it was spoken of the Father yet would the other places shew that they are to be understood of the Father For the obscure passages are to be explained by the plain ones the confused ambiguous passages by the distinct ones But there is no ambiguity no obscurity in the word God since there can no place of the Scripture be alleaged where the name God put subjectively and also distinguished from Christ both which happen in these Testimonies is taken of any other but the Father Now whereas certain Testimonies of the Scripture are alleaged wherein the raising of Christ seemeth to be attributed to himself as that he himself said that he would in three dayes raise up the Temple namely of his Body John 2.20 21. and that he had power both to lay down his soul and to take or receive the same again for so the greek word may indifferently be rendered John 10.18 These passages evince no other than that Christ was the cause of his Resurrection and that it was so put in his hands as I may say that it could be taken away from him and interrupted by none After which manner the same Christ saith in Luke That he that shall lose his Soul shall find it chap. 9.24 or quicken it chap. 17.33 And John saith of them who believed in Christ and so are born of God that the word namely Christ Gave them Power to become the Sons of God that is to become immortal John 1.13 For othrewise so few Testimonies whereof the first as every one seeth is altogether figurative ought at no hand to be opposed to so many and so evident Testimonies and Reasons drawn from thence wherewith it is evinced that this action is properly to be attributed not to Christ but to the Father Indeed more might be said of these two places which are alleaged to the contrary but it is not now our intention and work to confute the Arguments of the Adversaries but with Arguments to assert our own Opinion Wherefore let it now suffice to have touched these places We Meddle not here with the exception of two Natures in Christ for the intelligent Reader if he shall consider both our Argument or Arguments rather and also what we have spoken of that distinction in the former chapters will easily understand that it cannot here have place CHAP. XXX The thirtieth Argument That Christ is called the Image of the invisible
God THe last Argument of this kind shall be this that Christ is called the Image of the invisible God Col. 1.15 which is in some part also said 2 Cor. 4.4 where Christ is in like manner said to be the Image of God and Heb. 1.3 where he is said to be the Figure of the Substance or Charecter of the Person of God Chap. 1. of this Section Now we will not here use that Reason which we have already elsewhere namely that Christ is by this means openly distinguished from God that is the most high God but another Reason and that twofold the former whereof is common to all the alleaged places the latter more proper to the place Col. 1. For first no Image is of the same Essence in number with that whereof it is the Image otherwise it would be the Image of it self Wherfore since Christ is the Image of God he cannot be the same Substance in number with God and consequently not be God namely the most high God There is the same force when he is said to be the Figure of the Substance of God or Charecter of his Person Again If Christ be the Image of the invisible God he himself must not be invisible and consequently not the most high God For he is invisible 1 Tim. 1.17 Heb. 11.27 As whom none of men hath ever seen or can see John 1.18 1 Tim. 6.16 For it is sufficiently apparent that Christ is therefore called the Image of the invisible God because whereas we cannot know God by himself as being invisible Christ was given to us in whom as in an Image exposed in a manner to the sight Arg. 30 That Christ is the Image of God we may contemplate and know God as other learned men also have observed and left in writing But if Christ were no less invisible than that God whose Image he is said to be he could not be his Image but we should rather need another Image by which we should come to the knowledge of him The Defence of the Argument HEre for as much as the greatest part contend that Christ was the Image of God from all Eternity not according to the humane Nature but the divine therefore that they may solve our first Argument they are wont to fly not to the distinction of Natures in Christ but to the distinction of divers Persons in one Deity For they contend that the second Person of the Divinity is the Image of the first that is the Son the Image of the Father because the Son in respect of Essence is most like to the Father as being begotten out of his Essence But they deny that it doth thence follow that the Son will be the Image of himself because though he be of the same Essence with the Father yet he differeth from him in Person As to the latter Reason they will perhaps say that the same Son although according to the divine Nature he be God equally invisible with the Father yet having assumed a humane Nature he became visible and was seen by men But these answers do not at all take away the difficulty For as to the former first of all a Person is in vain distinguished from his own Essence in as much as every own is the same with his own Essence Wherefore if the Person of the Son be the Image of the Person of the Father the Essence also of the Son will be the Image of the Fathers Essence and consequently either both must have an Essence different in number or the same Person or Essence will be the Image of it self Add hereunto that they themselves as we have already hinted do contend that the Son in respect of Essence is most like unto the Father and consequently his Image wherefore the Son must in respect of Essence be distinct in number from the Father For an Image as it is an Image doth differ in number from that whose Image it is and one like from another For these are relatives and consequently opposites but opposites as such must at least differ in number nor can you say that one is sometimes said to be like himself For in such a kind of speech respect is had to a different time in reference to which the same is compared with it self but we here speak of like things having no regard to a different time but to the same To omit that the Adversaries themselves hold that the Son ought really to differ from the Father that he may be the Image of the Father but this would make nothing to the purpose did they not really differ as the one is the Image of the other if therefore the Son in respect of Essence be the Image of the Father the one must differ from the other in respect of Essence As to the latter exception which also striketh at our latter Reason it will effect nothing unless you say that Christ is the Image of God according to the humane Nature wherein he is or was visible which the greatest part do not admit for they as we have said hold Christ to be the Image of God as he was begotten out of the Substance of the Father and consequently hath the same Substance with him which agreeth not to him according to the humane Nature wherfore they must first renounce this Opinion before they make use of that Answer for neither can they say that there is no need that Christ as he is an Image should be visible it being sufficient that he is or was by any means visible For if it were thus the word invisible added to the name of God whose Image Christ is would be altogether idle For turn your understanding which way you please you shall find no other reason why the Apostle did in that manner here describe God than to shew that it was therefore needful that if we would know and as it were view God some Image of him namely Christ should be held forth unto us and exposed to the sight of men in as much as God is invisible and cannot be known by himself of any one of us especially in a full and perfect manner which John also signifieth saying No man hath seen God at any time The only begotten Son Joh. 1.18 who is in the bosome of the Father he hath declared him But if Christ as he is the Image of God were no less invisible than God himself we could no more know God by him than God by himself wherefore Christ could not be the Image of God For it is apparent both from this description of God and also from that which is said in the other place quoted by us 2 Cor. 4.4 that Christ was called the Image of God in respect of us namely because he did represent in himself and in a manner expose to our view the Will Goodness Power Mat. 11.27 John 14 7 9. and 18.19 and Wisdom of God Whence Christ himself saith None knoweth the Father but the Son and he
to whom the Son will reveal him and elsewhere If ye had known me ye would have known my Father also and from henceforth ye know him and a little after He that seeth me seeth the Father But furthermore although Christ was visible according to the humane Nature yet ought he not to be simply distinguished from the invisible God and herein to be opposed to him if he in the mean time were that most high and invisible God For if the name of God namely the most high God may and ought to be absolutely attributed unto Christ as they hold those things also may and ought to be absolutely attributed to him which are absolutely spoken of God and which agree to him in respect of his Essence But if Christ may and ought for the divine Nature to be absolutely called invisible he ought not absolutely to be distinguished from the invisible God Some other will perhaps say that Christ is the Image of God according to the humane Nature which seemeth not disagreeable to their Opinion who together with us confess that Christ is called the Image of God in respect of us namely because he did in himself as it were present to our view the invisible God But in the first place they are not constant enough to themselves whilst they refer that which is the same with the Image of God or at least is of the same efficacy in our Argument to the divine Nature namely that Christ is called the Character of the Substance of God for a Character hath not the same Substance with the thing whose Character it is Again By this means Christ would have been the Image no less of his own divine Person or Nature than of the Fathers neither would there have been any cause why he should be called the Image of another rather than of himself But we find not this but that rather expressed in the Scripture For when Christ is called the Image of God all the Adversaries as far as I know hold that the Father is understood and the distinction of that God from Christ and finally the collation of this kind of speaking with other-like sayings of the Scripture do sufficiently shew the same I omit that Christ did in himself as it were present to our view the invisible God in that he expressed his Will by Doctrine his Power by admirable Works and clearly demonstrated his Faith and Truth by both But these things agree only to a Person as such so that those Adversaries are forced to hold either that his divine Person as such is the Image of the Father or that the humane Nature if they will attribute this to it only is a Person The first of which overthroweth their Answer the latter their Opinion And let these things suffice to have been spoken concerning those Arguments which so shew Christ not to be the most high God as that withal they give a Prerogative to the Father above him CHAP. XXXI The one and thirtieth Argument is chiefly drawn from those causes for which Christ is in the Scriptures called The Son of God VVE must now pass to those Arguments which absolutely shew that Christ is not the most high God without having any regard to this that some Prerogative is withal given to the Father above him Now though we might in this place alleage all the attributes of the Humanity of Jesus Christ as that he was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary that he did eat drink grow that he was weary sometimes and did weep and was disturbed and finally suffered most bitter torments and dyed and the like yea this very thing that he is and was a Man in as much as none of those things can be said of the most high God as they are and that absolutely of Christ yet will we here only alleage those things which contain some other Argument of our Opinion besides that which is common to all those Attributes Now the first shall be this That if Jesus were the most high God he would no otherwise be so then because he is the Son of God For neither can any greater thing be spoken of Jesus Christ Arg. 31 from The Causes why Christ is called the Son of God then that he is the Son of God the Adversaries themselves hold that he received the divine Essence by generation from the Father which maketh him the Son of God But from whence any one hath the divine Essence he hath also from thence that he is God But Jesus is not therefore the most high God because he is the Son of God wherefore neither is he simply the most high God Our Assumption shall not here be proved by this Reason that Jesus whilst he is called the Son of God is thereby distinguished from God namely the supream and only God Nor also that he is by this very name made inferiour to the Father as wholly depending from the Father where as the Father dependeth from none other for these reasons we have before used But we will prove the same by another Argument and that a twofold one Chap. 1 2 of this Section although other things also will be brought in by the by whilst we shall be imployed in proving the former which things would also be fit to demonstrate the very Question or principal Position it self The first is this That whereas several causes are expressed in the holy Scriptures for which Jesus is the Son of God yet none of them is such as constituteth him the most high God in that they all agree to the Man Christ Jesus or that we may speak with the Adversaries agree to Christ according to the humane Nature and began at a certain time Yea they are so far from either constituting or demonstrating Christ to be the most high God as that they rather shew him not to be so and consequently each of them may justly be accounted as so many Arguments to assert our Opinion But it is impossible that if Jesus be the Son of God in such a manner as constituteth him the most high God this thing should be no where set down in Scripture partly because we see other reasons exprest which would be of far less moment than it partly because that Reason as indeed the Adversaries themselves contend would be altogether necessary to be known believed unto salvation so much the more clearly to be explained by the sacred Writers and so much the more diligently frequently to be inculcated by how much it was more removed from our sences and capacity and consequently more difficult to be known and believed For since the sacred Scriptures * Jo. 20.31 1 Jo. 4 15. chap. 5.5 Mat. 16.16 Jo. 6.69 Act. 8.37 Ch. 9.20 doth place the sum of our faith and confession concerning Christ herein that we believe and profess Jesus to be the Son of God namely in the most perfect manner so called it is necessary also that we be sure of the true and
by our men The third Cause therefore for which Christ is called the Son of God is his resurâ—ection from the dead I say a resurrection to immoâ—tal Life For he is therefore called by Paul The first-born from the dead Col. 1.18 and also by John Rev. 1.5 But whose first-born is he but Gods Although the word Resurrection may so far be extended as to contain the fouâ—th and chief cause for which Christ is called the Son of God namely the exaltation or advancement of Christ to the Empire and soveraign Priesthood as we will afterward more plainly â—â—w Now there is a very notable place which sheweth that Christ is the Son of God by reason of his Resurrection more largely taken wherein the consequent exaltation is also comprehended namely Acts 13.32 33. where Paul speaketh this And we declare unto you the promise which was made unto our Fathers The third Cause why Christ is called the Son God The 4th Cause that God hath fulfilled it unto us their children having raised Jesus as it is also written in the 2d Psal Thou art my Son I this day begot thee A like passage to which is extant Rom. 1.4 where when the â—postle had called Christ the Son of God that he might more fully declare it he add Who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh who was determined the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead In the first place the cause why Jesus is the Son of God is alleaged to be this namely tâ—at he was â—aisd from the dead Now that this reason hath nothing common with the generation out of the Essence of God nothing common with the supream deity which agreeth to Christ is appaâ—eâ—t enough from the th ng it self sinâ—e the Resurrection is a thing of a certain time not done from eternity and agreeth to Christ only according to the humane nature as the Adversaries speak and finally is not ascribed unto Christ as the true author but to God the Father and it is so far from arguing Christ to be the most high God as that it rather demonstrateth him not to be so Chap. 29. as we have before shewn in its own place As for the latter place although these words By the resurrection of the dead may be understood meerly of the time wherein Christ was made the Son of God Nevertheless they sâ—ew manifestly enough that Christ is there said to be made the Son of God for such a cause as had no place in him especially so perfectly before the resurrection which agreeth not to that eternal generation of the Son out of the Essence of the Father nor to any cause for which Christ may be called the most high God Now tha the â—atter may the more clearly appear let us see what the adver aries answer to these places It is therefore wont to be answered unto both places that the Apostle hath no other meaning than that it was declared by the resurrection of Christ that he was the natâ—ral Son of God thaâ— is begotten out of the very Essence of God and that this is the meaning of the word determined which is in the latter place Some further add that †In the former place the word rise doth not signifie the Resurrection oâ— Christ from the dead but his exhibition in the flesh because the Apostle doth in the following verse namely 34. begin to confirm his Resurre tion Others acknowledge that the Resurrection of Christ from the deâ—d is signified by that word â—ut they say that in Greek this participle is an Aorist which hath the signification of the preteâ—perfect tense and is all one as if the Apostle had said afteâ— he had raised up Jesus So that the Apostle doth not affirm that the expression of the Psalm wherein it is spoken of Christs generation from God was fulfilled in his very resurrection but after it namely when he was exalted and made a King by God But that answer which is alleaged concerning the declaration of this namely that Christ is the Son of God is of no moment For as to the first place from whence a judgement may and ought to be made of the latter the word begotten cannot be understood of the declaration of a generation out of the Essence of God already made from eternity For to omit that by this meanes that nice observation falls to the ground which very many of the adversaries fasten upon those word to day namely that the eâ—ernity of God is thereby signified wherein there is nothing past or future but present only in as much as it cannot be said that God did from all eternity declare that Christ was begotten out of his Essencce to omit I say this nicety there are other things which overthrow that interpretation For in the first place what is this to the fulfilling of he Promise made to the Fathers which God hath actually performed to their Children They with whom we dispute confess and the thing it self sheweth that the promise of giving the Messias is here understood But how is it pertinent hereunto that God hath declared that Christ is such a Son as was eternally begotten out of his Essence for God could declare it many other wayes were the thing otherwise true than by giving or making of Jesus a King as they with whom we dispute affirm he hath declared but by this way he could in no wise declare the same for that God hath made Jesus King is so far from arguing that he was eternally begotten out of the Essence of God and consequently the most high God that the clean contrary is rather â—vinced from it as we have before shewn Chap 18. For if you say that â—e made himself King in the first place Paul doth not here urge that in as much as he manifestly attributeth not to Christ himself but to the Father both his Resurrection and consequently as they will have it the declaration of his generation out of the Essence of God But the other not this should have been urged by the Apostle would he have intimated that Christ was declared to be the Son of God begotten out of his Essence by raising up himself from the dead Again although Christ had raised up himself yet from the raising it self whether you understand it of Christs nativity or of his resurrection from the dead it would not have appeared whereas it ought to have appeared if the raising of Christ ought to declare that Jesus was begotten out of the Essence of God because he raised himself Now that it did not appear is evident enough for into whose mind would it come either that he who is born is the author of his own nativity or that he who riseth from the dead is the author of his own resurrection inasmuch as he who is born had no being befoâ—e and he that riseth had by death lost his being and is as to the strength
the Psalm had not as yet been really performed But yet notwithstanding it is to be noted first that the expression of raising or resurrection of Christ doth sometimes by a kind of Synecdoche joyned with a Metonymie comprehend the whole Glory of Christ to wit Immortality and Supream Power that he obtained by the Resurrection And in this sence only this word seems to be taken Acts. 2.32 33. and 4.33 compared with 5.32 10 40 c. Rom. 4.25 10.9 Phil. 3.10 1 Pet. 1.3 and 3.21 Furthermore it is also to be observed that the Participle Aorists being joyned to Verbs of the Pretertense have oftentimes the same force as Participles of the Presentense when they are joyned to the same Verbs Whereof you have examples amongst others in Heb. 1.4 7.21 11.9 2 Pet. 2.6 15. besides that which is every where found in the Evangelists he answering said Wherefore it may be rightly concluded that the Apostles words are to be understood as if he had said God hath fulfilled the Promise made unto the Fathers having raised as an antient Interpreter hath it or in raising Jesus chiefly because unto Christs generation of God the very restoring of him to life did also conduce seeing that thereby he was as it were begotten again but the Immortality which Christ obtained by the intervening of the Resurrection was far more available After this manner indeed he became like unto God in his Nature whereupon our Resurrection also is called Regeneration and Christ affirmeth that they who shall be counted worthy of that Age and the resurrection from the dead are the Sons of God seeing they are the Children of the Resurrection Luke 20.36 And Paul affirmeth That we look for the adoption of the Sons of God even the redemption of our bodies Rom. 8.23 For the fellowship or participation of the divine Nature which Peter speaks of 2 Pet. 1 4. doth principally consist in Immortality But hither tends most of all the divine Empire and Power of Christ for which he is the Son of God in the perfectest manner If therefore you will only interpret the Greek Particle Jesus being risen or after that he had raised Jesus we should understand that the Promise made unto the Fathers was then really and perfectly fulfilled touching the Messiah or an extraordinary King that was to be given to the Israelites and moreover also that expression of the Psalm Thou art my Son to day have I begotten thee when Jesus was raised from the dead by God and set at his right hand in the heavenly places and so made Christ or a King and Lord by the Power and Grace of God For hence as we have already * Chap. 28. of this Sect. seen doth the Divine Author to the Hebrews chap. 5.5 take those words of the Psalm touching the glorification of Christ on the Priestly honour that was conferred upon him which doth indeed contain his Royal Power seeing that his Kingdom is Priestly and his Priesthood Royal. And hereupon they are elsewhere also in holy Scripture taken for the same thing that Jesus is the Son of God and that Jesus is Christ that is a King anointed by God over his people or a Lord even him by whom alone God would administer and govern his Church with all things belonging to her For upon this account the principal doctrine of the supream dignity of Christ and our faith and confession of him are promiscuously †Compare Mat. 16.16 Mark 8.29 Luke 9.20 Joh. 1.50 Act. 8.37.9 20 22. Rom. 10.9 1 Cor. 12.3 Phil. 2.11 1 Joh. 4.15.5 1. and 5. also 2.22.4 2.3 2 Joh. 4. compare those also Matth. 27.41.42.43 and Luk. 23.35 add 22.67 69 70. and see the same places placed in this that Jesus is Christ or Lord or that Jesus is the Son of God Whence it likewise comes to pass that as often as those two namely to be Christ and to be the Son of God are mentioned together of Jesus of Nazareth they are never joyned by the copulative particle and as things different although this particle hath often times the force of explication only but they are without it everywhere joyned by apposition to shew that different things are not connected but the same thing is diversly described See Matth. 16.16.26.63 John 6.69.11.27.20.31 And it is first of all to be noted that that famous Confession of Peter touching Christ and his supream dignity being likewise declared in the name of the other disciples is described by Matthew Chap. 16.16 in these words Thou art Christ the Son of the living God But by Mark Chap. 8.29 only in these words Thou art Christ By Luke Chap. 9 20. The Christ of God Which two latter Evangelists would have left out one and a principal part indeed of that confession if it had been one thing to be the Son of the living God and another thing to be Christ But if both be indeed the same thing they have in effect omitted nothing but only expressed the same thing more briefly But now to be Christ or to be anointed of God doth in no wise constitue the most high God nor argue him to be so but the contrary seeing that the most high God can be anointed by none nor be made a King by any one And least haply any should say that there still remaines another and that a more sublime cause for which Jesus may be called the Son of God that is refuted partly by the Scriptures silence thereof which could not have omitted so great a matter and partly from those testimonies of Scripture we have hitherto alleaged For not here to repeat other things if there had been any other weightier cause for for which Jesus might be called the Son of God it could in no wise have been omitted in the place before examined by us Rom. 1.4 For there as we have seen the Apostle intended to shew by what reason Christ may be called the Son of God but he doth not in that place take the name of the Son of God in any other signification than that which is most excellent whilst he describeth him by the appellation of the Son of God the proper name of Jesus Christ haâ—ing not as yet been expressed Wherefore we ought to think that he hath expressed the most excellent or if you will rather the true and genuine reason of that appellation But doth he express that to be the cause of that thing that Christ was begotten out of the Essence of God from eternity and so was the most high God by no means but this rather which contradicts that and suffeâ—s not that Christ should be the most high God when he saith that he was made the Son of God and indeed according to the Spirit of holiness that is according to the Spirit wherewith he was sanctified and that by the resurrection from the dead for that some understand by the Spirit of holiness the divine Essence it is done both without an example
among the Adversaries doth read it That thou shouldest deceive the holy Spirit Which translation ‖ Beza others likewise have toucht but a prejudicare opinion hindred them from thorowly approving it And this translation is confirmed by that which is afterward read vers 9. where Peter explaineth the same fault of Ananias and Saphira in these words Why have ye agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord For it is the same to tempt the holy Spirit and to belie him Now they tempted the holy Spirit because they acted as if they would try whether the holy Spirit dwelling in the Apostles or the Apostles themselves by virtue of the holy Spirit dwelling in them would observe the deceit or not Wherefore the forecited Interpreter whom we praised before who had so rendred the words vers 5. That thou shouldest deceive the holy Spirit doth afterwards explain them in this manner That thou shouldest endeavour to deceive the holy Spirit that is us the Apostles in whom the Spirit worketh and to whom he revealeth the things that are needful to the edification of the Church and this is a Metonymie of the Adjunct I do not now mention that explication of those words whâ—ch Erasmus delivered and other learned men likewise have followed that the words may be rendred to counterfeit the holy Spirit By these things it easily appeareth that it cannot from this place be concluded that the holy Spirit is God since Peter doth in one manner speak of the holy Ghost of God in another There he saith to belye or deceive and mock the holy Spirit Here to lye to God The first doth simply note the object about which the fraud and mocking is conversant The second signifieth the utmost scope unto which that iniury and contumely doth redound For therefore Peter after he had said that Ananias would deceive the holy Spirit and mock him with his lye did add that he had not lyed unto men but to God that he might the more perceive the greatness of his sin as if he should have said Thou oughtest not to think that this injury pertaineth to us alone and is terminated in us for it tendeth to the dishonour of God himself But there had been no need to add any such thing if he had said that Ananias had lied to the holy Spirit and he had known from the doctrine of the Aposâ—les that the holy Spirit was God himself Like unto this passage is that 1 Thess 4.8 where the Apostle had said what precepts he had given to them by the Lord Jesus and upon what terms God had called them he addeth therefore he that despiseth dispiseth not man but God who hath also given his holy Spirit to us that is who hath imparted his holy Spirit unto us by whom it is apparent that we are governed by whose impulsion we do speak Whence it appeareth that this injury and contempt of us and the precepts delivered by us redound to God himself Again though it should be said that Ananias had lyed to the holy Spirit and had lyed to God withal yet it would not from thence follow that the holy Spirit is God For in one and the same aâ—t a man may lye to two and to one through another or to one immediately as here to the holy Spirit dwelling in the Apostles to another mediateâ—y as to God So he that persecuteth the faithful persecuteth Christ himself he tâ—at heareth and receiveth the Apostles or on the contrary despiseth them heareth and receiveth or despiseth Christ he that despiseth Christ despiseth also God that sent him Matth. 10.40 Luk. 10.16 Now will any one thence conclude either that the faithful or the Apostles are Christ or that Christ is he that sent him namely the Father But â—f we may reason in this manner Ananias lyed to God Ananias at the same time and in the same act lyed to the holy Ghost Therefore the holy Ghost is God it will also be â—awful to reason thus * Act 4.5 Chap. 22.7 8 Chap. 20.14 15. Paul persecuted Christ Paul at the same time and in the same act persecuted the faithful Therefore the faithful are Christ Or he that heareth tâ—e Apostles heareth Christ and also him that sent him therefore he that sent Christ is Christ What then will the adversaries answer to these arguments without doubt that there is more in the conclusion than in the premises Wherefore let them imagine that the same answer is given to them For thus it ought to be concluded therefore some one who lied to the holy Spirit lyed to God As also in those instances which we alleaged therefore some one wâ—o persecuted the faithful did persecute Christ some one who heareth him that sent Christ heareth Christ himself We have spoken the more largely of this place because greater stress is laid on it and yet not all which might be said thereupon We will run over the other more breifly As for the second place therefore which is extant 1 Cor. 6.19 20. the holy Spirit is not understood by the name of God but is openly distinguished from him For is not the holy Spirit here manifestly distinguished from God whilest it is said that they have him from God He speaketh also of the same God in the following words Therefore gloryfie God in your body c. Now that the Apostle doth not speak of the holy Ghost even that is an argument namely that he speaketh of him to whom we as servants have been bought with a price but who did ever read that we were bought to the holy Spirit that we were by Christ bought and invasseld to the Father both the thing it self speaketh and it will easily appear from these words of the Revelation which are extant Chap. 5.9.10 chap 14.4 But if they say that it is from thence proved that the holy Spirit is God because we are his temple for none but God hath a temple first it will not follow that the holy Spirit is here called God and that openly which is the thing now in debate For the same Adversaries are wont to alleage many places from whence they endeavour to evince that either the holy Spirit or Christ is the most high God where notwithstanding both they themselves confess and all see that the name of God is not attributed to Christ or the holy Spirit Again a temple may be belonging not only to the most high God â—ut also to him who is subordinate to God in divine Empire and worship not only in the opinion of men but in very deed Last of all it may be only so far forth granted that a temple belongeth to none but God himself as that a temple is not indeed dedicated to the honour of any oâ—her person nor possest by any other person by a more divine right and principally inhabited then by God Otherwise it is inhabited in a sort by Angels as the ministers of God and the virtue and efficacy of God doth in a
c. compare the said place with 2 Sam. 7.28 2 Kings 5.5 8.19 c. 1 Chron. 22.8 c. Psal 88.4.20 c. in reference to his posterity Wherefore in this matter God did not spake by David but by others to David Howbeit that this was performed by the Spirit of God this as to the force of those words is altogether by accident For it had been all one if God had spoken to David in his own person without any Prophet that was divinely inspired It is now easie to give an answer to those places likewise whereby others endeavour to prove that the holy Spirit is called Lord. For that in none of them it is plainly written that the holy Spirit is the Lord or God which that it was requisite to overthrow our Argument every man perceiveth But neither do they prove that the holy Spirit is Lord. For when it is said Deut. 32.12 The Lord alone did guide the People of Israel the word alone doth only so far forth exclude others either things or persons which are herein subordinate to God in as much as they are denyed to be the supream Leaders of that People For if they should by that Particle be wholly excluded from the action of bringing the People out of Egypt we must conclude either that Moses did not lead that people which notwithstanding the History doth most openly shew or that he also is the Lord himself Which should also be said of that Angel of whom God saith That he should go before the People and keep them in the way and bring them into the place which he had prepared in which Angel he affirmeth his name should be Exod. 23.20 21. But it is well that the very words of the place do shew that the Particle alone is indeed opposed to other Gods and persons not subordinate to the Lord in which number the holy Spirit is which dwelling chiefly in Moses led the people as may be understood from that place of Isaiah chap. 63.11 which hath been cited Now that this Spirit is not the Lord himself who is said alone to have led the People is thence apparent because in these very words of Isaiah which are compared with that place of Deuteronomy he is distinguished from the Lord whilst he is called the Spirit of the Lord and afterward the Prophet turning of his speech unto the Lord himself saith Thus didst thou lead thy People As to the other reason The Lord said that he would speak by the Prophets but the holy Spirit spake by the Prophets wherefore the holy Spirit is the Lord An answer hereunto is already evident from those things which have been spoken concerning that place 2 Sam. 23.2 for it is a Syllogism of mere Affirmatives in the second Figure And if this reason be firm it will follow that the Angels also are the Lord. For in the quoted place Numb 12.6 the Lord saith that he would in vision appear to the Prophets or would speak unto them by dreams But the Angels also did this as appeareth both from other places so especially from the Prophecy of Ezekiel Daniel Zachary and from the Revelation of John See Dan. 8.16 17. 9.21 c. cap. 10.5 c. Zach. 1.8 9 14 19. 2.1 3 c. 4.1 c. frequently in other places Rev. 1.1.17.1 c. and 19.9 10. and 21.9 c. and 22.8 c. and ver 16. Moreover we have examples hereof in the History of the Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles And that we may not go far from the places which the Adversaries alleage that very person who spake these words to Moses Exod. 4.12 was an Angel sustaining the person of God as we have elsewhere * See the Book of God and his Attributes shewn and although a man would not confess it yet seeing the Law is said to have been disposed and delivered by †Gal. 3.19 Angels in the hand of a Mediator he must needs confess that the Angel in giving the Law spake unto Moses of whom those words Exod. 4. do treat There is the same fault in the third reason namely that a conclusion is in the second Figure drawn out of mere Affirmatives The Israelites provokt the Lord the Israelites provokt the holy Spirit therefore the holy Spirit is the Lord. Which is refuted by that very place of Isaiah which is cited whilst he is said to be the Spirit of the Lord◠for he saith but they provoked to anger and grieved the holy Spirit of him that is of the Lord for of him it is spoken see ver 7 c. A like Argument hereunto would be this The Israelites were disobedient to the Lord and exasperated him The Israelites were disobedient to the voice of the Lord and exasperated his mouth Therefore the voice of the Lord or his mouth are the Lord himself Or thus The Israelites grieved the holy Spirit and resisted him The Israelites grieved Moses and resisted him as the History testifieth in sundry places yea they did chiefly so far forth grieve the holy Spirit and resist him in the wilderness as they grieved Moses in whom he dwelt and resisted him Whence it will follow if the Argument of the Adversaries be right that Moses himself was the holy Spirit For it is to be observed that the words Heb. 3.8 9. are not so attributed to the holy Spirit as if they were spoken in his person as the Adversaries conceive but because they were pronounced by the impulse of the holy Spirit Otherwise it would follow that the holy Spirit is David himself since the holy Spirit is in this place said to have uttered also these words Psal 95. To day if you will hear his voice namely God c. But it is certain that both these words and also the rest which are read in the beginning of the Psalm are pronounced in the person of David Thus we saw before that it is ascribed to the holy Spirit Rev. 2.3 that he spake those things which are most openly pronounced in the person of Christ Therefore the holy Spirit so spake those words in David as he is said to cry in our hearts Abba Father Gal. 4 6. namely because we by him that is by his impulse do so cry Rom. 8.15 and as he is said to intercede for us with groans unutterable ver 26. because he maketh us to pray and groan unto God As to the last proof therefore the words of God are attributed in Isaiah to the holy Spirit because Isaiah pronounced them by the impulse of the holy spirit Now as it doth not follow because Isaiah likewise pronounced those words that they are therefore spoken in his person and so that Isaiah is the Lord so likewise neither is it to be concluded concerning the holy Spirit by whose impulse he pronounced them It is also here to be observed what we noted in 2 Sam. 23. it is not said of the holy Spirit that he spake those
Interpreter of anothers will But that he saith those words in ver 14.15 He shall receive of mine are spoken accommodately to humane sence if he mean this that he should indeed receive nothing from Christ because he alwayes had all things but that it should seem so to men what else doth he but to elude Christs words as if forsooth Christ spake of it what men however falsely should imagine concerning that matter and not rather what should truly be though there may be some figure in the words Do we think that Christ would have said that the holy Spirit should glorifie him because men should falsely think that the holy spirit received of that which is Christs Or do we think that he would acknowledge for his glory the glory that is founded in the vain opinion of men and besides that pertaineth to some deminution of the dignity of the holy Spirit that is as it pleaseth them of the most high God But if he mean that that the holy Spirit should indeed truly receive something of that which is Christs but yet that a figure or trope fetcht from humane things is in the word of receiving let him strain himself as he will and turn himself every way He shall shew by no example that it can be said that he shall receive from another that he shall speak not from himself but things heard from another who is first author of his words and to whom those words are not delivered or some way wrought or imprinted by another at a certain time Although besides if the holy Spirit were no less properly the Legate of the Son than the Son formerly of the Father no impropriety of speech which might here be of any moment in that matter of which it is here disputed is to be admitted either in the word of hearing or of receiving For it will be altogether signified that those things which the holy Spirit hath said were manifested and committed to him by Christ For that belongs to such a Legate as Christ was and such aâ— they hold the holy Spirit to be By which it is now understood that the difficulty is not taken away by such an answer nor our Argument solved because what ever you devise these words cannot consist unless it be acknowledged that the holy Spirit is not the first author of those things which he made known to the Disciples of Christ but it came to pass by the will of another to wit Christ and so of God the Father himself Arg. 13 From Joh. 15.13 that he should reveal those things that he dictated to the disciples But this befalls not the most high God For he is the first author of those things which he either revealeth to men or otherwise doth Neither is it caused by the will of another that he doth reveal any thing to men Of which see what we have said above Sect. 2. Chap. 3. and 4. disputing of Christ when he weighed those his words John 5.19 The Son can do nothing of himself And those John 7.16 My doctrine is not mine and others like to these But perhaps this scruple will trouble some how it can be that the holy Spirit may be said to hear and to receive from another what he may declare to others if it be but only a divine inspiration or virtue and efficacy I answer Since the Adversaries also confess and the thing it self shews that those things cannot be properly taken concerning the holy Spirit there is no necessity that we should shew that they may be taken properly concerning divine inspiration But if a figure in the words is to be admitted it is not hard to shew that they may be rightly and elegantly said concerning divine inspiration or virtue inspired from heaven into the Apostles Out of those things wâ—ich follow it will be manifest that many things are found in the holy Scripture spoken by a Prosopopoea concerning the holy Spirit as also concerning other things And that this figure is abhorrent from the place of John of which we treat shall be by and by shewn All men perceive that it is here spoken of the holy Spirit as of a Legate who is to be sent by Christ to the disciples It belongs to a Legate as we have said before not to speak of himself but to declare to others the commands heard and received from him by whom he is sent These things then are accommodated and that by right also to the divine vertue long since inspired into the Apostles For there is something in that divine inspiration which very well answers to hearing and receiving from another and declaring and which consequently hath made way for the Metaphor out of which the Prosopopoea ariseth For not the divine inspiration but he from whom that inspiration comes is the true author of those things which are revealed by it to men neither can that divine virtue implant any other thing in the spirits and minds of men than he would from whom it is inspired into men who is here indeed Christ Therefore it is like to some Legate who declares nothing save the things heard and received from his Prince and Lord to those to whom he is sent But why doth here Christ speak by Prosopopey concerning the holy Spirit this is chiefly the cause because in some manner he compares him with himself and considers him as it were to be sent into his place to the Disciples now sadned by his instant departure For Christ hitherto hath been as it were their Comforter Therefore he said to them being fadned by the notice of his departure That he asking the Father would give to them or would send to them from the Father another Comforter who might abundantly supply his room in this behalf But comparisons of things with persons Arg. 13 from John 16.13 do easily bring forth Prosopopeys Hence that we may illustrate the thing by examples David comparing the testimonies of God with Princes who spake and took counsel against him and opposing the one to the other he calls them his Counsellors or as it is in the Hebrew the men of his Counsel Psal 119.24 Hence also arose that famous Prosopopey in Solomon who brings in wisdom and foolishness contrary to it as certain women inviting men to them by reason of the comparison of a strange woman as most learned men have noted See Cornelius Jansen on the Proverbs Let the whole place be read beginning at Proverbs 7.5 where that comparison begins and is continued through the rest of the whole chapter and the two following Chapters Compare also with this place Chap. 24. Eccles More might be said of this matter but there is now no place for it and something also shall yet be said hereafter by which it shall appear that no man ought to marvel that such a Prosopopey or Fiction of a Person is used concerning the holy Spirit Although even that alone may take away wondring from any one that Christ himself confesseth that
and so they will be in vain distinguished from one another by the Adversaries Furthermore in what manner soever at last you take conâ—â—etum it is all one to us if it be so that our definition of a person as far as concretums may be defined is good or the genus at least is rightly constituted since there it is spoken of persons taken in concreto not of personalities and it is necessary that where there are three or more concretums otherwise of the same condition as three good three wise three Kings Fathers Sons there must be also more subjectums or more substances in which that adjunct which is in concreto expressed There is the same reason also of those concretums which do in concreto express some mode of a Being or substance such as they commonly distinguish from Accidents For those several modes require several beings or substances neither the concretums otherwise of the same condition are more unless also the subjectums or beings or substances be more Lastly although at length we should grant the divine persons to be subsistences not substances nevertheless yet a contradiction would lye hid in the vulgar tenet of the Trinity For this also involves a contradiction that one substance in number hath three subsistences as we shall shew in the next chapter CHAP. V. The fifth Argument Because there cannot be three Subsistences of one and the same thing THe fifth Argument of this kind is that if there be more persons in one substance of God it is necessary also that there be more subsistences in the same as the Adversaries do not only confess but also urge since subsistence is the form of a suppositum But there cannot the same thing be multiplyed unless also the form be multiplyed Wherefore neither can the Suppositums and Persons be multiplyed unless also the Subsistences be multiplyed The same thing doth more plainly follow from their Opinion also who hold that a suppositum and person is the very subsistence But it is impossible that there should be more subsistences of one substance in number First because of one thing there cannot be more forms of the same nature whether they be substantial or accidental or with whatsoever name you may call them lest you should think the modes of things excluded I say there cannot be more either existences or inherences of one thing not more rationalities not more longitudes or whitnesses unless perhaps according to divers parts not more paternities of the same nature unless in respect of diverse or in a diverse time and so in the rest And the reason is this because the same thing cannot twice or more times be that which it is but once only namely in the same time in the same respect which is to be observed only in things related and accordâ—ng to the same parts Arg. 5 There is one subsistence of one thing Otherwise there would be a progress in infinitum For who shall here set a â—â—und What cause is there why a thing may not be infinite times that whâ—ch it is if it may be twice or thrice But a progress in infinitum is impossible even of subsistences or suppositums in God Wherefore that also is impossible whence such a progress in infinitum doth follow And that is this that one and the same thing may be more times that which it is But this again doth thence arise because the same thing might have more forms of the same condition to wit at the same time in the same respect and part For the form is that by which the thing is that which it is Wherefore where there are more forms of the same condition the thing is moâ—e times that which it is Add that if the form be that by which the thing is that which it is it being withdrawn the thing remains not any moâ—e that which it was But if there may be two such forms as we speak of of the same thing the one being withdrawn nevertheless the thing will remain that which it is But that is impossible and is contrary to the nature of the form it self But that subsistence which we have in hand is the form of a suppositum and by it the substance in which it is doth become a Suppositum For that we may expâ—aâ—n this also by the way the subsistence is taken by the Adversaries in a double manner moâ—e largely and more strictly The Subsâ—stence taken moâ—e largely is common to all Substances first second perfect imperfect whole parts and in this sence it is opposed to inherency only which is proper to accidents Therefore that subsistence is the form of each substance or that by which the substance is a substance the inherency is the form of an accident that is that by which an accident iâ— an accident Concerning this Subsistence we do not properly treat here although it be in some manner included in that subsistence which we have in hand or be presupposed by it and although it be true concerning that also that the same subsistance in number cannot have more subsistences The Subsistence taken more strictly agrees not but to Suppos tums or first that is singular and those indeed compleat and perfect Substances and is a certain form of such substances as they are such Therefore one and the same Substance cannot have more Subsistences of this sort And that you may look on the matter more nearly do you judge that the Suâ—stance of God which is one in number and compleat is either more times a Substance that is a thing which inheres not in another but suâ—sists by it self or more time compleat If more times then innumerable times also for there is no stay Besides If there be more Subsistences in the same Substance it is necessary that there be some distinction between them For if there be no distinction there will be one Subsistence not more But there is no distinction between them For the forms whether of Substances or Accidents whether they be of modes or things if they be of the same species specialissima cannot be distinguished from among themselves unless they be in divers subjectums or matters or at least in divers parts of the same subjectum or matter or be distinguished mutually among themselves by diverse time or respect But here that we may transfer this to our matter neither are there diverse Subjectums but the same divine substance in number the same time nor divers parts since neither the subsistence agrees but to the whole substance nor the divine Essence is compounded out of parts Also divers respects here have no place since subsistence is not a relatum Therefore there will be found no distinction between those subsistences and consequently between divine persons But the Adversaries would have them and the matter would require them to be distinct between themselves and that indeed really It remains therefore that they are not of the same nature and definition and consequently that they have something in which they do
hath not parts by which he may be successively generated that I may forbear to say that whatsoever is generated by an Emanation whether perpetual or not perpetual the Essence of it depends on that from which it flows But the Essence of the most high God depends on none CHAP. IV. The fourth Argument Because the Son of God should be already generated and to be generated unto eternity THe fourth Argument may be hence drawn That if God have begotten the Son out of his Essence from eternity he doth also now beget the same and shall beget him unto eternity Which thing even many of the Adversaries confess they especially who say that the Son is generated of God by the intellection For that intellection perpetually endureth and will endure unto all ages But not only they who acknowledge such a manner of the generatioâ— of the Son of God are compelled to confess it but all others also unless they would overthrow their other Doctrines For if God begat the Son from eternity and now begets him not any more he is made of a â—egeâ—ter a not begetter which change since it respects not the creatures but abides within God himself befalls not God nor is acknowledged by the Adversaries to befall him Add that either the Son is not the most high God or was begotten of the Father by necessity of nature For if the Father had not begotten him by necessity of nature he had begotten him freely and contingently But he is nor the most high God who exists contingently not necessarily But if God have begotten the Son by necessity of nature he doth perpetually beget him since his nature is alwayes altogether the same Besides with God if we believe the Adversaries there is no distinction of time but the whole eternity is gathered together at once with him and contracted to a certain point Therefore whatsoever he doth it is necessary that he doth it in all eternity and so perpetually Add that not a few urge that of Psal 2.7 To day have I begotten thee For they say that the word of the preter tense I have begotten thee signifies that Generation to be already finished but the word to day signifies it to be as yet present Arg. 4 Because the Son of God should be already generated and to be generated unto all eternity because to day notes the present time That is indeed frivolous which they urge but you may flay the Adversary with his own even a leaden Sword as if indeed to day had not a latitude and did not comprehend something even paâ— as also fuâ—ure Do all things which are done to day as yet continue or which are to be are they already Do you as yet speak all things which you have spoken to day oâ— all the things you are about to speak to day do you already speak Do I as yet write what things I have written to day You will say that in men or creatures the matter is so not in God But whence do you know that to day notes the present time with God Is it not from this that otherwise it is alwayes taken for the present time Do you perhaps conclude that to day notes the present time from this that that word is used of God but with God there is nothing but present I trow not But in that manner it is also manifest that to day hath a latitude and consists not in an indivisible moment but comprehends some certain tract of time Because otherwise it is alwayes so used But that there may be no place of tergiversation I say that the word to day being used of God himself denotes a certain and definite time and the actions which â—he is said to have done or to be about to do to day are circumscribed with a certain time and so are not eternal and that is indeed perpetual since that word is no where used of God otherwise For that I may pass by those words of Cain to God * Gen. 4.14 Thou drivest me this day from the face of the earth So Moses saith of him †Exod. 14.13 See the great things of God he is about to do to day Did God peâ—haps even then when Moses spake so do those things yea had he done them from all eternity or was about to do them to all eternity Moreover God himself also saith of himself * Exod. 34.11 Observe all things which I command thee to day And again Moses †Lev. 9.4 For the Lord will appear to you to day See also Deut. 2 25 26. 16.18 29.12 Jos 3.7 5.9 1 Sam 4.3 and 11.13 and 15.28 and 26.8 23. and 28.18 That I omit many other places which every one by himself may observe by reading the holy Scâ—iptures But now even from this very tâ—ing it appears that God doth not any more beget nor that he will beget the Son unto all eternity since he hath said that he hath begotten him to day which tâ—at it signifies a certain space or article of Time in which that aâ—â—ion hath been finished appears from the examples of the like expressions brought by us especially since a contrary example cannot be brought and the Adversaries themselves confess that the word I have begotten signifies that that generation is already finished or that the Son by that generation is already perfectly produced But it should not signifie that unless it might have the force of the time past But what need we many words The thing it self shews that he who is already long ago in very deed and perfectly extant as it is manifest that the Son of God is extant cannot be any more begotten which both we have before proved by Reason and all they acknowledge whose minds thâ— false Philosophy doth not pervert And many indeed are wont to hide that their mystery from men ignorant of that their Philosophy unless when they are constrained in some manner to open it because they see they shall not easily be credited by them and it seems absurd to any in his wits that the Son of God whom he knows to have been existent in very deed for so many ages past should now be begotten and to be begotten perpetually That also may be added to the Argument already brought That since a person is nothing else but a first intelligent Substance as was shewed in the foregoing Section if the second person of the Deity be begotten out of the Substance of the first there will be two Substances in God the one of the first person out of which the Son was begotten the other which is the Son himself Which also follows from this that a generation properly so called such as they will have the Generation of the Son of God to be is not but of a Substance Now a substance cannot be born but of a substance Yet again if the Substance of the Son be born and the Substance of the Son and Father be the same in number it follows
throughly fastned to it the humane nature also is no more joyned to one subsistence than to another and so that union is terminated no more to one than to another and the humane nature no more subsists in the subsistence of one person than of another Yea if there could be any difference between these subsistences it should subsist rather in the subsistence of the Father as being that which is the first in the divine nature and upon which the two others do as it were lean than of the Son and holy Spirit Which that it may be made so much the more clear that is to be remembred which we shewed before that they hold that there is a certain real union between the two natures and moreover that the one nature is joyned to the other nature first and by it self but to those things which are in the nature only consequently For nothing can really be joyned and united with the moste of the thing but with the thing it self We see that in the conjunction of body and soul which example among all other things they judge to be most like to that hypostatical union For the body is first and by it self joyned unto the soul consequently to those things which are in the Soul or to its modes as to existeâ—ce or if there be any other thing which they may be pleased to call a mode But if the body he only secondarily joyned to those things which are in the soul it cannot be joyned more to one of them than to another unless perhaps one be more or before in the soul than the rest But it is already shewed that the subsistence of the Son is not in this manner in the divine Essence But moreover although in some regard the humane nature should be more joyned to the subâ—â—stence of the â—on yet it would suffice to the incarnation of the whole Trinity that the whole Essence of the Trinity is united with it For how is not that whole incarnated the whole Essence of which is incarnated Add that since those subsistences exist not without the Essence yea are in very deed the same with it it is necessary that those subsistences also be incarnated together with it Therefore the whole Trinity is incarnated hath sufferred satisfied the Father for sins Oh egregious Divinity which brings forth such fruits But let us go on to shew the absurdity of that Doctrine CHAP. VI. The second Argument Because the second person of the Divinity would cease to be a person SEcondly it follows from the same Doctrine that one person of the Divinity hath ceased to be a person for it became a part of Christ constituted of a divine and humane Nature But it is of the Essence of a Suppositum and consequen ly also of a person that it be not a part of another thing as it is confessed by all The Confirmation and Defence of the Argument The Adversaries confess and it is a thing too manifest that Christ is a certain whole consistiâ—g of a divine and huâ—ane nature Although they say that he is not an essential whole but personal W ich thing doth not infringe our Argumentation but establish it rather For what Is it not equally repugnant to a person to be the part of a personal whole that is of a person and suppositum as to be the part of an essential whole Yea verily most of all because by this means there should be two persons in one person the one a part the other a whole Therefore that which perhaps some may think is nothing that the distinction between an essential and personal whole which otherwise they use is pertinent to the subverting our reason Although also otherwise in vain is a personal whole feigned which â—ogether is not an essential But there is no need now to demonstrate that What then Will they say perhaps that the humane Nature of Christ is not a paâ—t of him Thither some of the Adversaries seem to incline although many no less contradict them than that most received opinion with the defenders concerning that â—ypostatical union for so many ages past For what is more usual with them than to oppose Christ to either nature severalâ—y taken Whereto pertaineth that distinction between whole Christ and the whole of Christ Besides if the humane Nature be not a part of the person of Christ it will be an accident of that person A g 2. The Son would cease to be a person an accident I say such as some call physical or predicable For it is easie to be shewed both by reason and the authority of the Philosopher that it is an accident which is inherent not as a part and may be absent from that in which it is Now if the humane nature of Christ be not a part of Christ all that which we have said agrees to it For it is in the person of Christ and subsists in it as the Adversaries would But now it will not be a part Lastly it may be absent from that in which it is to wit the divine Person or Nature of Christ For should the divine Nature or Person perish if the humane should be separated from it I say not that it shall be separated which they deny shall ever be But if it should be separated the divine Person should not be destroyed which is enough in this place For there are also inseparable accidents as they are caled in the Schools which although they are never separated from the subjectum yet it is therefore said that they may be absent from it because if it were supposed that they are separated from that in which they are yet it would not be necessary that the thing it self should perish But if the humane nature be an accident of the person of Christ how is the person of Christ or the Son of God a man Christ might indeed be said to be humane but not a man For that which is an accident to another is not predicated of it synonymically or univocally but paronymically So a Cup to which Gold adhers as an accident is said to be golden or gilded not a gold an Iron in which is fire is said to be fired not a fire and so in the rest But besides how is not that a whole which is one thing and consisting of two things separable in their nature But such is Christ For he is some one thing consisting of a divine and humane nature either of which in its nature is separable although this according to their opinion is not to be separated How therefore is not the humane Nature a part of Christ If it be then the other part will be the divine Nature having its subsistences that is the divine person which hath assumed the humane But a person as we have seen cannot be the part of another 〈◊〉 â—hat indeed a suppositum or person Perhaps some will say that the Iron fired is some thing united of an Iron and Fire and yet the Iron
suppositums which if they be endued with understanding by the confession of all are persons Likewise also offices are proper to persons as also the Adversaries confess it But now that the humane nature of Christ properly acts is proved by that that it doth also really subsist and hath in it self a strength or power also and faculties sufficient to act For it hath not less than any man yea by so much greater by how much greater gifts and greater power is given it of God But what is required to it that any thing may in proper speaking act but that it may really subsist and have in it self a strength or power sufficient to act Surely it should be denyed that we do properly act if that might be denyed of the humane nature of Christ which as we have said in those things that are required to the action properly so called doth not only equal us but also in many respects exceed And that we may declare that thing more peculiarly doth not it speaking properly by it self understand and reason Then it is not an intelligent substance and endued with a rational soul and further neither an humane For that is an intelligent substance that can especially with some access of use and exercise really I say properly not improperly understand and reason But even the understanding alone would suffice to prove its person for it is proper to persons as also we have before minded Further Take now other actions whether proper to men or animals as to will desire eat drink move it self in a place and stirs its members to act If the humane nature had not faculties to exercise these actions either it was not an humane nature at all or it was maimed either in respect of the body or soul The Truth or the Adversaries opinion admits neither The Antiquity condemned the Monothelites who held one only will in Christ But if there were in him a double will one in the divine nature another in the humane as the divine nature hath willed and doth will by its proper will so also the humanity by its for wherefore else should it be in it Faculties are for actions And surely his humane will shewed forth it self abundantly * Mat. 26.39 Mar. 14.35 36. Luke 22.42 whilst he sought of his Father to remove the cup frow him Although here it might be enough for us that this nature might properly will for that agâ—ees not but to Suppositums Perhaps they will say that the humane nature did not subsist by it self but in the person of the Son of God and therefore also by it self could act nothing For that which subs sts not by it self doth nothing also by it self Wherefore all the actions properly and directly are not to be ascribed to the humane nature by which they are performed but to whole Christ although according to the humane nature For in whole Christ or his person they are termâ—nated and founded But if you would directly ascribe those actions to the humane nature it self the expression or speaking would be improper as when I say the soul understands wills feels when yet the soul doth not properly understand will feel but the man with or by or according to the soul So neitâ—er doth the body eat drink but the man himself by the body So lastly neiâ—her doth the arm move it self although we sometimes so speak but the man Which things let us consider of what moment they are and first that why they deny the humane nature of Christ to subsist by it self Now theâ—e may be a threefold meaning of that expression which may here come into ones mind For first that may be said to subsist by it self which â—eeds not any subjectum in which it may in here and from which if it be removed it will loose its being In this manner all substances subsist by themselves accidents do not subs st those namely which are wont commonly to be distributed into nine Categories or Predicaments In this manner the humane nature by the Adversaries confession subsists by it self for it is a substance not an accident otherwise it would not be an humane nature Besides that subsists by it self which needs not at all any outward prop that it may subsist and be preserved entire and safe In this manner no created thing and depending on another subsists by it self But that hinders not but that the things destitute of this way of subsisting by themselves act properly as is manifest to any one For things corruptible and chiefly men want both many causes that at first they may exist and many helps that they may be conserved and yet they do properly act Wherefore that will neither hinder the humane nature that it should not speaking properly act Thirdly That subsists by it self which is not a part of another but constitutes some whole by it self and absolute in all its respects In this manner the parts of any thing whether integrant or essential are not said to subsist by themselves and therefore not to act by themselves but the whole by them And hitherto belong all those examples brought a little before Perhaps in this manner the Adversaries will say that the humane nature of Christ doth not subsist by it self because it is a part of another suppositum to wit of whole Christ or his person But if the thing be so neither that second person of the Divinity with which the humane is said to be united and which therefore is the other part of the same suppositum shall properly any more act any thing So a divine person that is of the supream God himself who speaking properly hath acted is become that which speaking properly cannot act than which nothing can be thought more absurd For certainly if the humane nature be a part there will be also some other part of the same whole But what is it besides the person by which it is assumed and with which it is said to be united Wherefore this also will be a part and consequently will no more subsist by it self to wit in that manner of subsisting which we now handle than the humane nature But besides if the humane nature of Christ be full and perfect consisting of a humane body and a rational soul both of them absolute in all respects is it not by it self an entire thing having faculties sufficient to act Certainly if you deny any of these either you will deny the entireness of the humane nature or you will deny also that we our selves are such entire things The Adversaries being constrained by the very truth of the thing grant the humane Nature of Christ to be by it self an essential whole neither dare they say it is an integrant part of Christ because they hold those only to be integrant parts which have quantity Wherefore if Christ should consist of a humane nature and a divine as integrant parts also the divine nature being the other part of this suppositum would have quantity
rest in him only come ultimately to him alone but is dispersed among more persons who are held to be altogether equal to him likewise both honour and trust and invocation and all sorts of praises are ultimately divided unto more which wholly ought to come at length to one person And these absurdities indeed arise as well from the opinion of the supream deity of the Son as from the doctrine concerning the supream deity of the holy Spirit But that is more proper to the opinion concerning the holy Spirit that divine empire and government is attributed to it which doth not at all agree to it and moreover it is held to be God to be adored of it self invocated and celebrated as the giver of all good things whatsoever whereas none of these as we have seen * Lib. 1. Sect. 3. Chap. 1 3 are attributed to it in the holy Scriptures nor can be attributed since it is not a person Therefore although otherwise the holy Spirit be subordinate to the most high God as the middle cause of most divine actions yet is it not so subordinate as a person is wont to be to whom an empire and manageing of affaires and the parts of honour and worship which are wont and ought to follow it are granted by another in which manner we see Christ who is expresly both called God and being placed in the Throne of God is said to command all things to be subordinate to God Whence also it is commanded that he be adored by all and that all men put their trust in him and so be bold to implore his aid neither is there any part of the divine Honour which is not found to be attributed to him although so that it tend ultimately to the Father None of these things are found concerning the holy Spirit Wherefore the Adversaries do not only sin in that that they make the holy Spirit the most high God but also simply in that that they hold it to be a God or endued with a divine Empire and governing humane affaires and further that they say that it is no less to be invocated and adored than Christ and that other things also are to be attributed to it which properly are due to a divine and heavenly King and Lord being unmindful of the most plain words of the Apostle asserting 1 Cor. 8.6 That to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we for him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him But although this absurdity which we have explained in the latter place doth more appear in the common opinion concerning the holy Spirit than concerning the Son of God yet it doth appear also in this and unless another errour to wit of the incarnation of the Son of God had somewhat corrected that other it would be yet more grievous For whilst before and besides Jesus Christ born of the Virgin I say that man whom they call the humane nature only there is feigned an only begotten Son of God who existed from all eternity who was alwayes endowed together with the Father with a divine Empire over all things a Deity is attributed to that thing which not only was not subordinate to the most high God or invested with so high an Empire by him but indeed was never existent And in this latter part this errour of it self is more grievous than that which is committed about the Deity of the holy Spirit For the holy Spirit not only existed and doth yet exist but is also as we have said a most divine thing and truly united with and subordinate to the most high God in most excellent works We hear sometimes some saying that even therefore their opinion touching Christ is to be preferred before our because it is conjoyned with his greater Glory But the very love towards Christ our Saviour requireth that we rather add some honour to him than detract from him Which men indeed first so deal as if the matter did depend on our arbitrement and were not altogether to be estimated by the determination of the holy Scriptures that is of God himself and the manifest reason of the thing it self Seeing therefore the holy Scriptures themselves have in this part set us certain limits beyond which it is unlawful to pass as it is not lawful for us to take away any tâ—ing from the â—onour of Christ so neither to add any thing to it Neitheâ— indeed doth the true love towards Christ how great soever it be require that we ascribe any thing to him beyond truth and honour him with false titles and praises For neither is he delâ—ghted with false honour who abounds with true honour neither doth he account any thing to be his praise which doth diminish the glory of his Father from whom all honour all divinity is derived But that opinion of the Adversaries conceâ—ning the supream divinity of Christ doth as we have seen diminish it Therefore although it should at length be lawful out of our affection to add something to the honour of Christ yet that would not be lawful which is conjoyned with the Fathers injury It is not lawful to detract any thing from the honour of Christ But neither is it lawful to take away any thing from the honour of the Father It is not lawful to detract any thing fâ—om the love towards the Son But neither is it lawful to take away any thing from the love towards the Father Since even that former is not lawful because whilst the honour due to Christ is denyed also the honour due to the Father is denyed and whilst the Son is less loved than is meet the Father is less loved For * John 5.23 He that honoureth not the Son saith Christ himself honoureth not the Father who sent him And †John 15.23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also For as John saith ‖ 1 John 5.1 He that loveth him that begat loveth also him that is begotten of him Therefore the most high regard is to be had to the honour of the Son but no less to that of the Father for whose sake he is honoured and beloved Neither indeed are we those who detract any part of honour from the Son or desire to detract for whose glory trusting to his aid we refuse not indeed even the cruellâ—st death Being instructed by him we refel the honour falsly and with imminution of the divine glory ascribed to him That which he himself refuseth we will not do And that you may see that we leave to Christ his honour undiminished and endeavour as we are able to maintain it what more doth Christ himself requiâ—e of us than that we honour him as we honour the Father Doth any greater honour agree to him I think none but he that is out of his wits will say it But for what cause doth Christ chaâ—lenge that honour to himself Is it therefore because he is the most high God
and existent from all eternity No indeed but because the Father hath committed all judgment to him For so he saith The Father judgeth no man but hath committed all judgement to the Son that all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father of which thing we have spoken more in its place Since therefore we honour him because of all judgement given to him by the Father since we adore him because of his sublime power * See the Appendix of chap. 18 Sect. 2. Lib. 1. because of a name given him above every name †Phil. 2.9 c. We bow the knee to him and profess him to be our divine Lord placed at the Fathers right hand in heavenly places we reverence him as the judge and avenger of all our deeds words counsels and the inmost retirements of our mind no otherwise than as the Father do we detract any part of due honour from him But would to God that many who that they may testifie their love toward the Son of God honour him with false praises would shew more earnestness in that thing in which Christ placeth the true love towards himself and that they who would be liberal towards him of that thing which is anothers were not so strait handed in that which is their own And that indeed is that they may observe Christs precepts †John 14.21 For so saith Chrâ—st He that hath my Commandments and keepeth them he it is who loveth me Herein herein must we all throughly labour herein the greatest love towards Christ is to be shewed which if we perform we shall deny him no due honour But verily it is more easie to accumulate praises and titles of honours without measure than to execute commands as we see it more easie in humane affaires to flatter and adorn another even with too many praises than to perform the office of a true friend or faithful servant We take nothing here to our selves being rightly conscious to our selves of our defectiveness neither detract we from all others the praise of piety whilst we desire more of it in many neither are we more solicitous of anothers than of our own duty But yet we could wish less were ascribed to that love towards Christ which conâ—â—sts only in opinion and specious words and that it were at length as it ought of right to be brought into suspicion by them who too much please themselves in it Besides that we may likewise pass to other incommodities and absurdities which flow from the opinion of the Adversaries concerning more persons in the most high God they themselves who attribute to Christ false honour do in the mean time either take away from him that which is true or very much diminish and obscure it Therefore they themselves do that which wrongfully they object to us and whilst they endeavour to lift up Christ higher they unawars thrust him down from his own throne and height For that opinion touching of the second person of the Trinity or the only begotten Son of God who was begotten from all eternity out of the Fathers Essence doth so obscure the true Divinity not only of the Father but also of Jesus Christ himself born of the Virgin that it doth almost extinguish it Foâ— first it doth not permit that Jesus Christ himself that very man himself I say who in time was born of a Virgin may be acknowledged for the only begotten Son of God and so called in the holy Scriptures by way of excellency but for a certain accession of him or a nature assumed to him For although the Adversaries call the man Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God yet it is not done by them but by communication of properties by which those things which agree to Christ according to one nature are attributed to him described by the other nature But that humane substance it self consisting of a body and rational soul which they fear to call a man is not with them by any means of it self the only begotten Soâ— of God but a nature assumed by him Whence also they are wont to compare it to a garment which he hath put on Therefo e that humane substance that is if you judge of the thing according to truth the man Jesus Christ himself shall be no more the only begotten Son of God than our Body is the Soul because this is cloathed with that and knit with it in so straight a bond But it manifestly appears by those things which we have said before * Lib. 1. Sect. 2. Chap. 31. out of the holy Scriptures concerning the reason whereby Jesus is the Son of God that the man himself born of a Virgin nor any other before or besides him is the only begotten Son of God How then doth not that opinion of the adversaries lessen or rather take away his true glory To which is added that the same opinion casts down the man Christ out of the Kingly Throne in which he was placed by God and permits us not to acknowledge sincerely that he is made by God Lord and Christ For these things happen not but to a person less than the most high God such as with them neither is the man Christ or as they call it the humane nature nor his divine person Not this because it is the most high God and therefore no whit less than he not that because with them it is not a person nor can be if it subsist in another person And to what purpose is that power of the humane nature if it cannot exercise it by it self For nothing can act by it self if it be not a Suppositum but God himself only acts according to it To what purpose is a double empire in the same person which can be exercised but once by him If any one would joyn the Moon in an indissoluble tye with the Sun he should make its light superfluous and useless For neither should the Moon impart its light to us the Sun illustrating all things by its beams and as it were obscuring the Moon it self But the same disjoyned from the Sun imparts such light to the Earth however received from the Sun that it is called in the holy Book together with it a great Light * Gen. 1.16 Psal 136.7 So also the man Christ if you joyn him into one person with God he loseth that sacred splendor of his empire majesty being obscured made useless by the glory splendor of the supream divinity For that supream divinity would by it self illustrate all things sufficiently by the beams of its power wisdom goodness But if he be distinct from the most high God as in nature so also in person being as it were illustrated by his beams he imparts a most comfortable light to the Earth and makes that those who could not lift up tâ—eir eyes to the splendour of the supream divinity and behold it by its self may contemplate it in a sort more mildly
right could God any more exact of us the duty of piety if Christ hath abundantly performed and recompensed all things both by obeying the Law in our stead and also of which thing now there was no more need more than sufficiently discharging all the punishments of our sins by his death For him it is lawful to exact as yet something from the debtor himself who is not yet fully satisfied by another in the name and stead of the debtor He who payes for the debtor hath a right of receiving that which is his own from him unless he hath promised that he will forgive it unto him But Christ will not have that right if he be the same God with the Father For if the matter be so Christ himself was to be satisfied no less than the Father and when he satisfied him he satisfied himself also if so be that any can satisfie himself If therefore that he paid of his own not of anothers we remaine his debtors we owe as much to him as before to his Father There is a transferring of debts alike grievous to us unless you make the Son more kind than the Father For if there remain an infinite debt as before not to be dischaâ—ged but by an eternal death neither is there any more provided for our Salvaâ—ion than before But no man doth easily think that all willingly believe that it is paid no man thinks that he doth owe so much as he did owe before Therefore God and Christ have lost their right of commanding piety to us and if we refuse to perform it of punishing us This besides that it is an impiety to think it also takes away the necessity of living piously but if there be no necessity for us to live piously piety is lost Who is there that without necessity would undertake a thing which is hardest of all For if there be any that sayes piety is not necessary to salvation yet in the mean while lives piously he understands not himself sufficienâ—ly thinks better than he speaks For indeed he acknowledgeth the necessity of a pious living and would also profess it if he did either better search or would express the secret meaning of his mind But it is known too much the more is the pity how dangerous and how contrary doctrines which it would be too long here to rekcon up to piety are built upon this one thing of which we have now spoken Withdraw from them the foundation ill laid even the opinion concerning the supream Deity of Christ you will perceive them all by and by to fall to the ground But that opinion of the Supream Deity of Christ doth not only hurt them that hold it but also others for it keeps back those from the embracing of the Christian Religion who are as yet averse from it and further suffers them not to enter into the way of Salvation For whilst that those things are the heads and the chief heads of the Christian Religion which are commonly believed of Christians concerning the Triune God the Incarnation of the most high God and the rest which in some manner depend on those and yet in the mean time do perceive partly from the light of their Reason partly from the holy Scriptures of the Old Testament the manifest falsity of them they cannot but be averse from Christian Religion as false and not instituted by â—od For how can that be a true Religion how instituted by God some doctrine of which altogether pertaining to the constitution of it is found to be manifestly false and contrary to those Writings which came from God Wherefore it becomes no man to be so careless of his own and others salvation that I say not an enemy to it tâ—at he may not care what he hold and profess in this matter neither ought it seem marvelous to any that we have not doubted to forsake an opinion commonly received for so many Ages although we be therefore exposed to the desquietiâ—g hatred and infestations of all men and the pâ—rpetual losses of Fortunes and lastly of Life it self For we judge that fruit which we have taught to redound thence to the glory of God the true honour of Christ lastly to our own and others salvation to be far greater than that our Life and Fortunes and whatsoever in humane affaires we count dâ—ar may come into comparison with it Whence also we judge that those who refuse to lose their life for the profession of this Truth dishonestly forsake betray it being acknowledged are to be numbred among those who are ashamed of the Son of Man and his words Luke 9.26 and who neither love the glory of God and of Christ nor their own salvation as it is meet nor prefer it before all other things by whom what is to be expected every one may easily imagine Yea that also is hence easily understood what we are to think of them who when they have all helps and more thâ—n a common occasion of acknowledging the true opinion which we defend yet contemn it yea also contumaciously resist it to wit that they will together with other contemners of the Truth of God and enemies of the divine glory and piety receive punishments unless they repent In the mean time it is not our part to condemn them who out of meer ignorance adhere to the contrary opinion or perhaps by reason of long accustomedness to errour and other things which procure it a shew of Truth cannot leave it without great difficulty if so be that otherwise they are studious of piety and do not prosecute dissenters with hatred For Charity enclines us to the part which is more favourable where the manifest sentence of the Supream Law-giver and Judge doth not force us to the part more severe The opinion of the Adversaries is dangerous and of it self injurious both to God and Christ and also to piety but we think pardon may be given by the most gracious Judge on this side indeed to error and ignorance if contumacy and contempt be absent on that side to piety partly lessening partly covering the absuâ—dity of the opinion and so much the more easily by how much the same men shall less condemn others for the contrary and more true opinion But what hope is there for them who wanted not helps to know the truth whose either negligence or pertinacy appeared manifest in so great a matter whom nothing but the fear of men and the shunning of the cross of Christ and such things as are like to them have kept back from the true opinion What will they pretend for their error when they shall stand before the Tribunal of the most dreadful Judge But what will they do who damn others as is done by most so rigidly so proudly for this opinion and not only enveigh against them by reproaches but even censure them as to be put to death or at least to be driven into banishment If I had not come saith Christ
John 15.22 and spoken to them they should not have had sin but now they have no cloak for their sin Let them think that the same thing is said to them to whose hands these Writings come whence they might learn the truer opinion But let all together know that by how much the more our opinion is agreeable to piety by so much the more must they who have embraced it give diligence that they joyn holiness of life with it being assured that the knowledge of the Truth without Godliness will more hurt than profit them The God of Peace grant that all be mutually affected one to another with the same mind according to Christ Jesus that with one heart and one mouth they may glorifie the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ to whom himself also be honour for ever AMEN An INDEX of CHAPTERS of both BOOKS touching One GOD the FATHER The FIRST BOOK SECTION I. Wherein is directly proved That only the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the most high God And first out of those Testimonies of the sacred Scriptures which speak expresly of the Father Chap. I. Argum. I. FRom the words of Christ John 17.3 This is life eternal that they may know thee Father the only true God and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ pag. 1 Chap. II Arg. II Taken out of the words of Paul 1 Cor. 8.6 To us there is one God the Father of whom are all things pag. 13 Chap. III Arg. III From the place of Paul Ephes 4.6 There is one God and Father of all pag. 22 Chap. IV Arg. IV Drawn from the words of Christ Mat. 24.36 But of that day and hour knoweth none no not the Angels of the Heavens but the Father only And Mark 13.32 But of the day and hour knoweth none no not the Angels in the Heavens no not the Son but the Father pag. 27 Now follow 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 Arg. V 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 pag. 28 Chap. VI Arg. VI Taken from these words 1 Tim. 2.5 There is One God and One Mediator of God and Men the Man Christ Jesus To which are added those Rom. 3.10 There is One God c. pag. 30 Chap. VII Arg. VII 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 pag. 36 Chap. VIII Arg. VIII Drawn from the Visions in Daniel and Johns Revelation pag. 40 Chap. IX Sundry Arguments are briefly intimated to shew that none but the Father of Jesus Christ is the most high God pag. 42 SECTION II. Wherein is shewn That Christ is not the most high God so that it may be understood that the Father only is the most high God Chap. I Argum. I DRawn thence That Christ is most frequently distinguished from God pag. 47 Chap. II Arg. II Drawn from the Name of the Son of God pag. 50 Chap. III The Arguments which are in the sequel to be alleaged being distributed a third is proposed from the words of Christ in John Chap. 5.19 The Son can do nothing of himself pag. 52 Chap. IV Arg. IV Fetcht from the places in John wherein it is denied That Christ is the prime Author of his Doctrine pag. 65 Chap. V Arg. V Fetcht from those places in John wherein Christ is denied to have come of himself pag. 67 Chap. VI Arg. VI Fetcht from those places in John wherein Christ denies that he came to do his own will pag. 68 Chap. VII Arg. VII Drawn from thence That Christ did not seek his own glory pag. 69 Chap. VIII Arg. VIII Drawn from the words of Christ John 12.44 He that believeth on me believeth not on me but on him that sent me pag. 70 Chap. IX Arg. IX That Christ was sometimes ignorant of the last Judgement pag. 71 Chap. X Arg. X From the words of Christ Mat. 20.23 To sit at my right hand is not mine to give pag. 76 Chap. XI Arg. XI From those words of Christ Mat. 19.17 Why dost thou call me good none is good but God only pag. 79 Chap. XII Arg. XII From the words of Christ to the Father Not as I will but as thou pag. 81 Chap. XIII Arg. XIII From the words Heb. 5.5 Christ did not glorifie himself pag. 83 Chap. XIV Arg. XIV From the words of Christ John 14.28 My Father is greater than I pag. 84 Chap. XV Arg. XV Drawn from thence That the Son was sent into the world by the Father pag. 89 Chap. XVI Arg. XVI Drawn from thence That Christ received Commands from the Father and kept them pag. 91 Chap. XVII Arg. XVII Drawn from thence That Christ poured out Prayers to the Father pag. 93 Chap. XVIII Arg. XVIII Drawn from thence That all things are given to Christ from the Father pag. 96 An Appendix of this Argument wherein is taught That Divinity was given to Christ of the Father pag. 107 Chap. XIX Arg. XIX That Christ ascribeth both his words and works unto the Father and that he is not the first but second cause of the things pertaining to Salvation pag. 110 Chap. XX Arg. XX From the words of Christ John 8.16 My Judgement is true because I am not alone but I and the Father that sent me pag. 115 Chap. XXI Arg. XXI From the words of Christ John 8.14 My Testimony is true because I know whence I am and whither I go pag. 118 Chap. XXII Arg. XXII From the words of Christ John 8.29 The Father hath not left me alone because I alwayes do the things that are pleasing unto him pag. 119 Chap. XXIII Arg. XXIII That the Father is called the God of Christ pag. 122 Chap. XXIV Arg. XXIV From these words 1 Cor. 11.3 The head of Christ is God pag. 123 Chap. XXV Arg. XXV From the words of Paul 1 Cor. 3. last Christ is God's pag. 126 Chap. XXVI Arg. XXVI From the words 1 Cor. 15.24 28. That the Son shall deliver up the Kingdom to God the Father and shall become subject to him pag. 127 Chap. XXVII Arg. XXVII That Christ is the Mediator of God and Men pag. 130 Chap. XXVIII Arg. XXVIII That Christ is a Priest pag. 132 Chap. XXIX Arg. XXIX That Christ was raised up by the Father pag. 133 Chap. XXX Arg. XXX That Christ is called the Image of the invisible God pag. 139 Chap. XXXI Arg. XXXI Chiefly drawn from those causes for which Christ is in the Scriptures called The Son of God pag. 142 Chap. XXXII Arg. XXXII That there is no mention â—adâ— in the holy Scripture of the Incarnation of the most high God pag. 160 Chap. XXXIII Arg. XXXIII That
excellency 20 48 49. Whom being put subjectively 13o. It does in its own nature signifie something more excellent than the bare name Lord 20. It is in innumerable places of the Scripture taken as proper to the Father 42. One God in number cannot directly be predicated of many persons distinct in number 15. Who is to be accounted the most high God 17 18. He is in no wise from another 51. Neither is he dependent upon anothers arbitrary will especially necessaâ—ily 216. He cannot be given for an earnest or pledge 218. He can do all things of himself 53. What it is when God is said to be with one 117. God taken hypostatically or personally and essentially is the same 251 252. He is bestowed by none upon any 205. He is to us an example both of holiness and felicity 308. He can receive commands from none 91. He cannot be sent by any 89 c. In him are all perfections necessarily which can naturally be in him 266. God and Father joyned together by the copulative particle denote the same subject 22 23. Wherefore God is called Father either simply or our Father 20 21. How all things by him are 18 112 113. How fâ—r his power extendeth it self 105. Old age cannot properly be attributed unto Him 109 110. In what sense those things that are proper unto him alone are denied of them that are dependent on him 5. How he doth deliver the Kingdom unto any 128. How he sanctifieth us and how he is sanctified of us 147. It is necessary that He should be One pag. 18. How it is either repugnant or not repugnant to the Scripture to have two Gods pag. 109 110. The Opinion of the Greeks touching the procession of the holy Spirit pag. 43. H. To be ones Head what pag. 124. The opinion of Hilary touching the holy Spirit pag. 183 184. I. The Jewes did acknowledge for God none but him whom Christ called his Father pag. 38. No Image is of the same Essence in number with that whereof it is the Image pag. 139 140. The particle In is often redundant in the Hebrew tongue pag. 221. There is no mention made in the holy Scripture of the Incarnation of the most High God 160 c. There was no need of it for our Salvation 162. The absurdity of it pag. 278 c. 312 c. Whether Incommunicability is to be exprest in the definition of Suppositum pag. 257 258. There is neither any command nor any example in the Scriptre of invocating the holy Spirit 181 c. Whether it was anciently in use pag. 183. Johns scope in penning the Gospel 53. He affordeth many Arguments against the common Doctrine touching the Deity of Christ pag. 53. K. What manner of Knowledge that is wherein Religion consisteth pag. 11. The Knowledge of God is oftentimes includâ—d in the knowledge of Christ and on the contâ—ary 185 186. How the Apostles do exâ—râ—ss the knowledge of an whole Complex or Proposition pag. 11 12. L. What things agree to a Legate or Embassador 131 132. Credit given to a Legate or Embassador is ultimately terminated in the sender of him pag. 71 In what sense one is said to be like himself pag. 140 He that is made Lord by another if he be a God is also made God by another pag. 107 The name of Lord used for Jehovah or Adonai is very often taken in the Scripture as proper to the Father 42. With what difference it is used both of God and Christ 17 18. And how is it by way of excellency attributed to Christ pag. 19 Wherein the Love of God towards us is most of all shewn pag. 162 M. He that is a Man is a person pag. 287 The Miracles of Christ were the most manifest signs of his conjunction with the Father 121. Christ frequently appealeth unto them pag. 121 Modesty hath no place in God pag. 94 Moses taken for the Law delivered by him pag. 217 No Mystery is repugnant to Reason pag. 245 N. The vulgar distinction of Natures in Christ examined 56 c. It overthrows the vulgar opinion touching Christ 64 65. It cannot cause that that thing should be simply denied of the Subject which for another nature is to be simply affirmed of it 33. or that it should be simply distinguished from that which is to be simply predicated of it pag. 33 O. Offices agree to none but Persons pag. 31 What force the word only hath 2 8 c. 36. It belongs to the subject as often as it is imployed to exclude other subjects from the communion of the predicate 7. where it is wont to be placed in the whole sent tence or complex when it is referred to many subjects pag. 10 Opposites include in themselves a tacit contradiction pag. 299 P The parts of the same thing are not wont to be predicated mutually of themselves pag. 284 The parts of substances being disjoyned from each other do become Suppositums pag. 287 Person what 48 51. Whether is it a manner of subsisting or a subsistence 51 258 c. whether the definition of Person namely that it is a first substance intelligent agâ—eeth to it taken only in concreto 260 261. Whether the same definition is more large than its definitum or Person defined 286 c. VVhat a divine Person is 67. VVhether it is a substance 256 257 c. It differs not from the divine Nature 32 51 300 c. The same eason or consideâ—ation of a finite infinite Person 265 c. No Person can at the same time be so given to many that in very deed he should be or dwell in every one of â—hem 216 217. No man is sealed with a Person pag. 219 Power and Spirit are oftentimes coupled in the holy Scripture pag. 198 To heavenly and divine power divine woâ—ship is due pag. 109 The act of Predestination is in the Scripture attributed to the Father only pag. 77 The Present-tenses do among the Latines denote a frequency or custom of action pag. 120 Preterperfect tenses among the Hebrews are frequently taken for present-tenses pag. 120 He that is a Priest cannot be the most High God pag. 132 c. The Priesthood of Christ contains his Royal Power pag. 156 The style of Prophets pag. 225 R. When the same thing is wont to be Repeated by the sacred Writers pag. 25 Things really the same and really distinâ—t what pag. 255 Reason in divine things is not to be rejected pag. 245 What thinâ—s are according to Aristotle distiâ—ct in Reason pag. 301 Redemption how ascribed to the Son pag. 213 Relatives cannot be in the same thing according to the same respect part and time pag. 268 What the right of ruling given to Christ contains pag. 105 The Rising of Christ from the dead is one â—eason amongst others of his filiation 136 137. It doth sometimes comprehend his whole glory pag. 156 S. To sanctifie what it signifies in the Scripture pag. 147 Whether Sanctification is in
the holy Spirit and Power who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the Devil because God was with him Which thing Nicodemus had before acknowledged whilst he thus speaketh unto Christ We know that thou art come a Teacher from God for none can do these things which thou dost unless God be with him John 3.2 But if Christ were the most high God neither would God be said to do these things by him nor ought Peter to alleage this reason why Christ did Miracles namely because God was with him but this because he himself was God or because he had in him the divine Essence or in what manner soever he pleased to express the same thing For that it cannot here be said that by the name of God the divine Nature of Christ is understood but the Father of Christ may be shewn by the same Arguments which we made use of in the defence of the last Argument when we treated of those Testimonies wherein God is said to have given something to Christ or to have conferred something upon him Likewise we have a little before excluded the distinction of Natures But that we may not treat of the sole Miracles of Christ let us add those places of Scripture whereby is shewn that Christ was not the first but the second and intermediate cause of the other actions also which he did and which were most divine and most of all concerned our Salvation And this is understood out of those places wherein it is affirmed That all things were done by him as John 1.3 That all things were created in him that is by him For that In is after the Hebrew manner every where taken for by is most notorious unto all Col. 1.16 which is presently explained in the same verse whilst all things are said to have been created by him For whereas the vulgar translation doth there add that all things are created in him the Greek hath it for him and signifieth the end Thus a little after it is in the same place said that it pleased him namely God by him to reconcile all things which are in Heaven and in Earth Else where likewise All things are said to be by him 1 Cor. 8.6 of which place we have before * Sect. 1. chap. 2. treated where also we have shewn that it ought not to be taken in that manner as it is once and again said of God himself That all things are by him For that it is not so taken of God as if some other who is the supream Cause of the work did do something by him but simply that he is the efficient Cause of all things or that by his Power and Operation all things are brought to an issue But that it is said of Christ more than once that some other namely God whom every one knoweth to be the supream Cause of Works doth or did all things by Christ For amongst other things the Apostle saith Ephes 3.9 Who God created all things by Jesus Christ as the Greek Copies constantly read it and the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 1.2 when he had said that God in these last times speak to us in the Son that is by the Son according to the Hebrewism a little before observed he addeth By whom also he made the Worlds namely that God who spake unto us by him So also 2 Cor. 5 18. it is said That all things are of God who hath reconciled us unto himself by Jesus Christ Elsewhere That God hath given us the victory by our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 15.57 That God hath poured the holy Spirit abundantly upon us by Jesus Christ our Saviour Tit. 3.5 That God shall judge the secrets of men according to Pauls Gospel by Jesus Christ Rom. 2.16 To pass by other-like places from all which it appeareth that Christ is not the most high God For he is the first and highest Cause of all things which he doth not the second or intermediate But those places shew that Christ is the intermediate not the first and supream Cause of those thing which he doth otherwise it could not be said that God doth all things by him But if any one say that Paul affirmeth that he gave to the Thessalonians commandments by our Lord Jesus Christ or exhorteth them by Christ although Christ seemeth not to have been the middle cause of that action in respect of Paul but Paul rather in respect of Christ We answer That that signification which is also otherwise rare in the holy Scripture cannot there have any place where God is said to have done either all things or somethings by Jesus Christ as that very thing we even now speak by way of objection to our selves doth teach For in that manner that Paul saith he gave commandments or exhorteth by the Lord Jesus none but an Inferiour can do something by a Superiour for it signifieth that he did or doth these things by the Authority of the Lord Jesus interposed and that he supported his commandments and exhortations herewith But God can do nothing by any one in this manner It therefore remaineth that the most usual signification of the particle By is there to be retained where God is said to do something by Christ namely that God be esteemed the first and principal Agent Christ the second and intermediate one which dependeth on him Which is further confirmed by that famous place of Paul which is extant 1 Cor. 1.30 where the Apostle compriseth all the benefits which God hath conferred upon us by Christ whilst he speaketh thus of him namely God Ye are in Christ Jesus who hath been made unto us of God Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption You see that he is made not the prime Author of our Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption but the second cause and dependent on a former one namely God in as much as he is expresly said to be made unto us of God Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption and Freedom which likewise was signified by the precedent words wherein the Corinthians namely as they were Christians are said to be of God in Christ Jesus or by Christ Jesus There is a place like unto this Heb. 5.9 10. where it is said that Christ being made perfect was made the cause of eternal Salvation to all that obey him being called of God an high Priest after the order of Melchisedec You see that he was made the cause of eternal Salvation and that as he was called of God an high Priest With this place agreeth that which we have formerly cited out of the Acts chap. 5.31 where God is said with his right hand to have exalted Christ to be a Prince and Saviour to give Repentance unto Israel and foregiveness of sins To these add those places which spake of the effusion of the holy Spirit made by Christ which action is one of the most notable ones that pertaineth to the Salvation of mankind and to omit the