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
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
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
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
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
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
to know it could not rightly be affirmed that none besides him knoweth the things of God For besides him also the Father and Son should know and that primarily But if they say the particle none is here opposed onely to creatures or rather comprehends onely creatures and men as if it were said no man knowes those things ouâ— opinion indeed may admit that but not the adversaries For we acknowledge in those words Arg. 16 From 1 Cor. 2.11 but the Spirit of God a metonymy of the adjunct which also brings forth some Metalepsis as if the Apostle had said None of men knowes the mysteries and hidden counsells of God besides those who are endued with his Spirit by the power of whom alone those things may be found out by us But the adversaries who would have the knowledge in this place to be properly attributed to the holy Spirit himself cannot say that and are forced to confess that the holy Spirit is therefore expresly excepted because otherwise he should be altoâ—ether comprehended in that general word none How ridâ—culous I beseech you and unworthy of the Apostle had such a speech been None of men or creatures knoweth those things which are Gods â—ut God the Father or no Angel knoweth those things which are Gods but Christ or the holy Spirit For what Is the Father in the number of men or Creatures Is Christ or the holy Spirit in the number of Angels For nothing is wont to be excepted from out of a general speech but what otherwise is of the same kind of things of which it is spoken and which therefore unless it had been excepted had been altogether cemprehended in the general speech and the same thing either affirmed or denyed of it as of the rest Wherefore if the knowledge of divine things be here properly ascribed to the holy Spirit himself as the Adversaries would and that Metonymy which we have explained is not to be acknowledged in that word the word none cannot be restrained to men or creatuâ—es aloâ—e but will comprehend also the divine persons themselves of the number of which they would have the holy Spirit to be Whence it followes seeing the holy Spirit in their opinion is a person really distinct from the Father and Son that the Father and Son are excluded from the knowledge of vine things in these words of Paul of which absurdity there is no danger in our opinion In the same manner if the Spirit of a man were a certain person distinct from the man himself whose Spirit it is said to be when it is denyed that any of men knowes those things which are of a man besides his spirit the man himself whose Spirit it is had been excluded and besides that exception should have been rediculous What man knowes the things which are of a man unless the Spirit of man which is in him For is the Spirit of man which is in him man But if you take the words of the Apostle as if he had said No man knowes the hidden counsels and thoughts of a man besides himself who conceives and understands them by his Spirit and mind the absurdity will cease For it is to be observed what Philosophy teacheth namely that not the Spirit of a man which they call the soul doth properly understand but the man by it or by its vertue or power CHAP. XV. Arg. 17 from Mat 3.16 The seventeenth Argument That the holy Spirit sometime descended upon Christ IN the last place it likes me to alleage that to which many adversaries attribute much when they endeavour to shew that the holy Spirit is not a divine vertue but a person distinct from the Father and Son And that is as Luke writes Chap. 3.22 With whom also the other writers of the Gospel History agree Mat. 3.16 Mark 1.10 Joh. 1.32 33. That the holy Spirit descended on Christ baptized by John in a corporal shape as a dove It is an old saying and at this day commonly spoken among the adversaries Go Arian to Jordan and thou shalt see the Trinity Surely if the Trinity be Father Son and holy Spirit The Father indeed who inhabiting in Heaven as the most high God and removed from mens eyes commandeth them out of his supream Authority and on the Son bestows authourity from his Majesty but the Son a true man baptized in Jordan by John and after from heaven annoiâ—ted and replenished with the holy Spirit and lastly the holy Spirit a certain thing sent down from heaven upon Christ with which he was replenisht if I say that be the Trinity he is rightly commanded to go to Jordan who doth not acknowledge the Trinity We indeed who are sometimes commanded to go thither long ago by the grace of God have been there and seen that Trinty and with willing mind acknowledge and profess it But if the Trinity be to them the conjunction of three persons really distinct amongst themselves in one and individual Essence it is so far from being seen at Jordan that rather in some sort it may be seen by the very eyes it has no existency For what sâ—ew or shadow is there of one and the same Essence in number which may be common to the Father Son and holy Spirit Is it the same numerical subâ—â—ance of God who speakes from heaven not descending hence and of him a true man who is baptized in Jordan and lastly of that thing which descends from heaven upon him I omit other things which partly are said before partly shall be said a little after They therefore who have fained such a Trinity or defend it fained â—y otheâ—s are yet to be sent to Jordan that they may as from a near place behold the true Trinity and may more rightly learn to acknowledge it We may indeed rightly send thither the Arians who hold that the Son of God is a certain invisible Spirit produced by God before the creation of the world but our adversaries who maintain him to be consubstantial it is so far of their being able to do it that the Arians rather might send them thither For the tenet of the Arians is less against that History than that of the Consubstantialists But we will not in this place urge all things which might be said but that onely which is written of the holy Spirit that we may not only wrest out the weapon of the hands of the Adversaries with which they fâ—ght against us but also may retort it on them They urge that the holy Spirit hath both decended and appeared in bodily shape to wit of a dove For from thence it follows that the holy Spirit is some substance not a quality For it belongs to substances and those only that are Suppositums to descend and to assume and sustain formes and shapes and together they say it appeares that the holy Spirit is such a substance as is really distinct from the Father and Son For neither the Father or Son descended from heaven nor
assumed that corporeal form therefore the holy Spirit is a Suppositum and consequently because also he is intelligent For he is said to search all things even the depths of God and to know the things that are Gods and other like things proper to intelligent Substances are pronounced of it he is also a person for every intelligent Suppositum is a person Since that is the definition of a person There is need of so much furniture that the person of the holy Spirit may be framed hence which they promised we should see at Jordan together with two others For neither the Trinity of the adversaries can be seen unless three persons can be seen and so as that it may appear they are persons What is to be answered to this their Argumentation shall be a little after shewed Let us do now that which we propounded that assuming those things which partly are read in that sacred History partly are affimed by the adversaries we may demostrate the holy Spirit not to be the most high God They affirme if the holy Spirit be the most high God that he ought to be altogether of the same essence with the Father yea a so with the Son Otherwise there will be either two or more most high Gods or the Father or Son whom they take for the most high God will not be the most high God But from this apparition of the holy Spirit it is manifest that there is one Essence of the holy Spirit another of the Father and Son For the Essence of the Father and Son descended not then from heaven when Christ was baptized nor took that corporeal shape the Essence of the holy Spirit as is manifest by the adversaries opinion did both Therefore the Essence of the holy Spirit is not the Essence of the Father or Son but it is necessary this to be one that to be another Neither indeed may they say that not the Essence of the holy Spirit but the person did both For first every person is a substance and a substance is an Essence subsisting by it self Wherefore whose person descended and assumed some form his essence also doth it And besides do not they themselves as we have seen urge that that which descends and sustaines a form is necessarily a substance But the substance of the holy Spirit is no other thing than its Essence and with our Adversaries it is all one to say the same is the Essence and the same is the substance of the divine persons to wit because every substance is an essence therefore the Essence of the holy Spirit must have descended And although at last a person in the Deity should not be the substance or Essence it self but something in the Essence which yet is impossible For it is repugnant to the nature of a Suppositum and further also of a person to be in another yet might not that either descend or assume a form but that its substance in which lastly all the accidents are and rest together should do the same Besides also another shorter way from that that the holy Spirit descended from heaven upon Christ that in a bodily forme or shape we may shew that he is not the most high God For the most God is not moved from place to place and consequently descends not from heaven Also no accident befalls the most high God even by the adversaries opinion But that bodily shape in which the holy Spirit descended was an accident as also that descent it self The Defence of the Argument Some adversaries observing this so explain the thing that it may sufficiently appear that they neither attribute to the holy Spirits descent properly called nor grant that he Assumed that bodily shape on himself but either that a certain true body in a doves shape descended from heaven or the shape only of a dove descending was represented to the eyes of the beholders which might be a simbole or resemblance of the presence and operation of the holy Spirit filling Christ with gifts necessary for the discharge of his prophetical office But if this be so how will hence be shewed that the holy Spirit is a thing subsistent by it self and consequently a Suppositum and person really distinct from the Father and the Son seeing he neither properly descended on Christ nor sustained that forme but was only the shape of a body set before the eyes of the beholders when indeed there was no body or as the * See Maldonat and Augustine cited by him opinion is of some of the most learned adversaries a true body which descended and sustained that shape But even things which not onely are not persons but not so much as indeed sustbances may be said to descend improperly from heaven and among others James saith chap. 1.17 Every good and perfect gift is from above that is from heaven descending from the Father of lights But that the same may be shaddowed by a certain outward shape and set before the eyes of men as besides other things that teacheth which we read Act. 2.3 of the first effusion of the holy Spirit on Christs disciples For those cloven tongues did they not express the faculty of diverse languages to be given to the disciples of Christ by the holy Spirit But nothing prohibites that they might not seem to be moved How many such shapes of things do we see set before one while the outward another while the inward senses of the Prophets Therefore nothing if the thing be so explained may be hence gathered which belongs to prove the holy Spirit to be a Suppositum much less a person Besides although they would have all those things concerning the holy Spirit to be taken figuratively yet nevertheless they must hold that here some singular operation of the holy Spirit was shaddowed not of the Father or Son or at least not equally For otherwise why should not the Father and Son also be said to have descended in a bodily shape But if the Essence of the holy Spirit would be the same with that of the Father and Son the operation no less of these than of that had been expressed by that shape and descent and so the Father and Son should be no less said to have descended in a bodily shape than the holy Spirit For such an operation is of the singular substance it self having in it self all foâ—ce of opperating Therefore seeing this is supposed the same in those three persons the same opperation also is equally to be attributed to all those persons Seeing this is not come to pass it follows that there is one essence of the holy Spirit another of the Father and Son and consequently unless the adversaries would introduce more Gods or deny the Father to be the most high God they are forced to acknowledge the holy Spirit not to be the most high God But you will say How nevertheless do those things agree to the holy Spirit to descend from heaven in a bodily shape if
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
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
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
to him according to his inferiour Nature Wherefore if Christ were the most high God it could not be simply or without any limitation and respect of a certain nature expresly added be denied of him that he can do any thing of himself Since therefore it is denied it is apparent that he is not the most high God Add hereunto that Christ in this place is described by the name of the Son of God and that in respect of God But most of the Adversaries refer this description only to the divine Nature of Christ all refer it to it chiefly Wherefore so much the less credit is it that that is here simply denied of him which agreeth to him according to the divine Nature and consequently both may and ought to be simply affirmed of the Son of God Certainly that would be all one as if you should say that a man or a substance endued with understanding cannot understand reason remember because he cannot do these things according to the body But against that which we have said some of the Adversaries are wont to alledge that a man according to his soul is immortal or incorruptible and yet it is simply denied that he is immortal or incorruptible But it is to be observed that we speak of those Attributes which both may and are wont to be affirmed of the whole Subject simply and without limitation although they do primarily and by themselves only agree to one part thereof so to the whole only by consequence But to be immortal or incorruptible as the very Adversaries together with us confess is not simply and without limitation affirmed of the whole man namely because we see the whol◠composition of man to be dissolved and to die and be corrupted although the Spirit remain after it But the same Adversaries contend that as all the attributes which agree to the Humanity of Christ are wont simply without limitation to be affirmed of Christ for example sake that he was conceived born of a Virgin suffered dyed was buried raised up from the dead the like so also all the attributes of the divine Nature Wherefore as they simply affirm that he is God so also they simply and without limitation affirm and if they will be true to themselves are forced to affirm that he existed from all Eternity Omnipotent Omniscient Immense Creator of Heaven and Earth Some alledge that of * Rom. 7.17 Paul where he affirmeth that the evils which he worketh he himself did not work but sin that dwelleth in him where they think that what is simply affirmed of the whole is simply denied of the same because it agreeth not to the other part And therefore that the contradiction which at first sight appeareth in these words is to be taken away by the distinction of parts But they are exceedingly mistaken for neither hath Paul respect to divers parts in the same subject as if the thing were attributed to the subject according to one part and according to the other part taken away from the same this I say is not there done but the same attribute is by an elegant Antanaclasis one while taken more largely another while more strictly namely by a certain excellency and being taken more largely is attributed to the Subject but taken more strictly it is denied of the same whole and not attributed to another part of the same Subject but to another Subject as the place it self sheweth For the man described by Paul under his own person is said to work these evils the word work being taken properly and largely but the same is denied to work them as the word work signifieth to be the prime and principal cause of working For this he saith is not he himself but sin In the same manner he elsewhere saith that he laboured more than the other * 1 Cor. 15.10 Apostles yet not he but the Grace of God that was with him He affirmeth that he himself laboured if it be properly spoken but denieth the same because he was not the prime and principal cause of the labour but the grace of God that was present with him Thus also Christ †John 7.6 saith My Doctrine is not mine but his that sent me ‖ chap. 12.44 He that believeth on me believeth not on me but on him that sent me For the Doctrine of Christ was his own because it was promulgated by him it was not his own because himself was not the prime Author thereof but he that sent him It is believed on him because he is the object of faith not on him because he is not the principal object and ultimate scope of faith for so he is that sent Christ Wherefore that we may return unto our place it is necessary that Christ when he simply denied that he could do nothing of himself did speak of himself wholly how great soever he is and not only of one part of himself or not of himself according to one part only Which that it may yet more evidently appear and the rule before set down by us be the more confirmed this is to be added If that which may is wor◠absolutely to be affirmed of the whole may also simply and absolutely without any limitation be denied of the same whole namely because it agreeth not thereunto according to some part though an inferiour one it will be lawful simply to affirm of Christ what we would have namely that he is not the most high God did not exist from Eternity did not create the World that the Son of God was not incarnate or made man was not in Heaven before he was born of the Virgin because none of these things agree to him according to the humane Nature yea it may be said that the Son of God is not the Son of God especially the only begotten one if he is held to be such as he was begotten out of the Essence of the Father which agrees not to him according to the humane Nature Finally it will be lawful to say that he was neither conceived of the holy Spirit nor born of Mary nor grew nor eat nor drank nor wept nor dyed nor rose again nor ascended into Heaven nor shall come to judgment and other things innumerable because none of these things agreeth to him according to the divine Nature Those first Expressions the Adversaries will not endure as for the rest the ears of no Christian man can endure them Who would endure such a Divinity as permitteth one simply to deny that Jesus is the Son of God or that he sometimes dyed and rose again Wherefore if those things are both * Vnheard or incredible uncouth and intollerable they ought also to imagine that their interpretation is alike intollerable whereby they say that when Christ simply saith the Son can do nothing of himself he speaketh of himself according to the humane Nature only whereas according to the divine Nature he can do all things of himself whence it
unto him to have been bestowed on us if in the mean while the only begotten Son of God who was from eternity had apparently remained safe and entiâ—e nor had he felt any the least pain thereby Wherefore then is this so vehemently urged that God deliveâ—ed up his Son for us even his proper and only begotten Son or that he should dy for us that from thence the greatness of the divine love might â—e understood But if thou beleevest that even he the man Christ Jesus that was begotten of the Virgin Mary by a divine power that was sanctified and sent by God into the world tâ— at was appointed Ruler and Governour of all things even before the foundations of the world were laid who was most like God in holiness wisdome and power and as Paul * speaketh Phil. 2 6. was in the form of God and equall to God and whom God as it appeares so entirely loved if I say thou beleevest that he was the only begotten and proper Son of God then thou mayst at length understand that the only begotten Son of God and not any thing that was added to him died for us and from thence mayst learn to judge both of the love of God and of his only begotten Son who gave himself up to a death so cruel for our sakes Thus much for the first argument of this order CHAP. XXXII The two and thirtieth Argument That there is no mention made in holy Scripture of the Incarnation of the most high God VVE are able to frame a second Argument that if Christ were the most high God who as that opinion requires came down from heaven into the womb of a Virgin and was there incarnated it were altogether necessary that this incarnation ought to have been most plainly expressed not in one but many places by the Writers of the Gospel and other divine men and the Apostles For to repeat some of those things that have in this place by our men bin very fully explaind elsewhere we see that those things are most clearly and frequently declared in the Scriptures which are somewhat hard to be believed yet most necessary to be believed as the creation of Heaven and earth Gods providence over humane affairs the knowledge of our thoughts the resurrection of the dead and eternal life to be bestowed on men Nor do we see only those things which are aâ—together necessary to be believed most elegantly expressed in Scripture But also other things besides which we said were in themselves of lesser moment as that Christ came of the seed of David But now the incarnation of the most high God would be altogether necessary to be believed if it had really been although most haâ—d to be believed of which that is urged by the adversaries who therefore accuse us of most grievous heresie and highest impiety that we deny it but this they freely confess Arg. 32 The Scripture speaks nothing of the incarnation of God and are forced to confess For who seeth not that this thing is exceedingly contrary to the judgement of reason and such at least as meer reason will judge impossible Wherefore it were necessary that that incarnation should both have been most plainly described in the Scriptures and also most frequently repeated and inculcated by Godly men that were very carefull of our salvation so that indeed no one might doubt that it was asserted and urged by them But that that is not done is manifest partly from thence that what places soever the adversaries produce to prove that opinion are such that there is need of consequences to the end they may deduce this opinion that the most high God was incarnated or made man partly because that incarnation is not expressed in those places in which if it had been true it must needs have been expressed For when Matthew * Mat. 118 chap 2 and Luke describe the †Luke 1.26 c. Chap. 2.7 c. history of Christs nativity and rehearse some things that are of a much lesser moment than that incarnation of the most high God as that he was born of that Virgin that was espoused to an Husband that he was conceived by the holy Spirit that he was born in Bethlehem that I may not repeat other things which Luke very diligently declares and Matthew omitts how can it be that they should have omitted what had been the principal thing of all in the whole mattter and most necessary to be known and believed to wit that the most high God came downe into the womb of a Virgin and there assumed flesh and afterwards was born Luke speaks of the manger wherein Christ was laid so soon as he was born and would he have been silent of the incarnation of the most high God the hypostatical union of the divine and humane nature whereas our adversaries cannot now speak touching Christs nativity without mentioning that thing yea how could it come to pass that Mark should leave out all the history of Christs nativity wherein the incarnation should have been contained and John whom they judge to have written of the incarnation should so briefly so obscurely touch and handle the same How can it be that the Apostles when they would bring men to Christ and exhorted them to beleeve on him and to that end declareed his majesty should make no mention of a thing so necessary Peter preacheth the * Acts 2.14 c. first Sermon after he had received the holy spirit whereupon three thousand men beleeved in Christ and were baptized in his name and also a †Chap 3 13 c. second to the same people but there was no mention made of the incarnation Nor also in the speeches that the same Apostle made either to the * Acts. 4.8 c. Chap. 5.30 c. Rulers and Elders of the people or to †Chap. 10.36 c Cornelius and others concerning Jesus Christ There was no mention made of it in Pauls oration ‖ Ch. 13.17 c. which he made in the synagogue at Antioch none in that at * Chap. 17 22. c. Athens on Mars-hil none in †26.2 c. that at ‖ See amongst others Rom. 5.5 c. 8.31 c. 2 Cor. 5.14 c. Eph. 13 c. 2. throughout Col. 1.12 c. 1 Tim. 2.3 c. 2 Tim. 1.9 c. Tit. 2.11 c. 3.4 c. 1 Pet. 1.3 c. 2 Pet. 1.3 c. 1. John 3.1 c. 4.8 c. Cesarea before King Agrippa the Festus President and many others And indeed Athens he had a fair occasion to declare that thing when he spake of the unknown God But in all those speeches of the Apostles you can read nothing of Christ more sublime than that he had â—een raised by God from the dead was received into Heaven was made Lord and Christ was exalted by the right hand of God to be a Prince and Saviour to give repentance and
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
grounded on the divine Love and therein chiefly consisted that he was already designed to be the Messias or heavenly or eternal King of the People of God such an one as he after actually became For you will easily understand that this most cunning enemy did not fight so foolishly when he called that in question and that there was no need of a buckler to receive his weapons I at present omit other things which occur in that History of the temptation of Christ as that Satan having brought him into a most high Mountain shewed him all the Kingdoms of this World and the glory thereof as not sufficiently known or not sufficiently observed by his eye to the end that he might the more easily allure him to worship the Devil and that he durst to say before him to this very end All this power will I give †Luke 4.6 thee and the glory thereof for they are delivered to me and to whom I will I give them For it is apparent that Satan understood well enough that he had not to do with the most high God but with him who in respect of his Essence was a Man but out of the singular Love of God was his Son whom because God had of his own accord offered to him to be tempted to the end he might give a proof of his Vertue and Piety he thought it not altogether impossible by his arts to draw him from God But the ingenious Reader will of himself observe both these and other things The Defence of the Argument NEither may any one say that these things which we have deduced from this History do therefore not follow because Christ was tempted according to his humane Nature only and not according to his divine Nature For to omit the repetition of other things that have formerly been often spoken the same absurdities will still follow although you hold that Satan tempted the humane Nature only but personally united to the most high God and joyned by an indissolvable tye and that God willed that this humane Nature should be tempted For it would have been unworthy of the most high God to expose himself in a Nature personally united to him to an impious and detestable Adversary that he might mock him and sollicite him to his worship For the humane Nature could do nothing unless the divine did consent thereunto Wherefore Satan soliciting the humane Nature of Christ to worship him should together have sollicited the divine Nature to consent to so horrid a crime and to permit it unto the humane Nature Likewise it had been supersluous to shew that a Nature personally united to the most high God could endure and vanquish the temptation of Satan For who could make any doubt concerning that matter Whence it is also apparent that Satan could not have the least hope to overcome it For what could Satan believe it possible that the divine Nature should so far forsake the humane personally united to it as to yield to him and commit a most heinous offence and so become lyable to eternal damnation did not Satan perceive that he had to do not only with the humane but also with the divine Nature and that this Nature was to be seduced and the wickedness to be perswaded to it if the humane Nature ought to be overcome What therefore remaineth but to say that Satan had no certain knowledge of that union of the humane Nature with the divine but what Did not Satan who undertook to oppose this very thing that Jesus was the Son of God understand what these words did signifie But if the Opinion of the Adversaries be true they signifie that the man Jesus is one Person with the son of God eternally begotten out of the substance of God Who would believe if as the Adversaries hold the Incarnation of the Son eternally bâ—gotten out of the Essence of God was foretold in the holy Scripture declared to the Virgin Mary and afterward actually performed and acknowledged by her and others and signified by the heavenly voice of Christ's Baptism that Satan should have no certainty of this very thing especially if he heretofore saw God in Heaven and in him all his Decrees for the Adversaries hold these to be really the same with God or his Essence and consequently understood that the second Person of the Trinity should in those dayes be incarnated But in a thing that is evident there needeth no more to be spoken only we will add this thing that whereas Satan intended to make Christ doubt whether he were the Son of God namely that Son whom he had a little before heard the divine voice pronounce him to be it is not suitable that he should in his temptation pass by that Nature of Christ according to which he was the Son of God But the Adversaries hold this to be the divine Nature Wherefore they must renounce either this opinion or this limitation whereby they restrain this temptation to the humane Nature Now we do not conceive that any discreet man will say that this Argument is drawn from the testimony of the Devil who is a lying spirit For we contrary to the intention of the Devils words urge that that very man whom the Devil tempted was and is the Son of God a little before commended by the heavenly Voice in Baptism Wherefore the Argument is not drawn from the testimony of the Devil as if he had said that very thing we would have but partly from the act of God appointing Christ to be tempted and exposed to the snares of Satan partly from the sence words and intention of Satan as effect which could not have come to pass unless our Opinion were true CHAP. XXXV The five and thirtieth Argument That Christ is the First-born of every Creature THe fifth Argument may be drawn from thence that Christ is called the First-born of every Creature Col. 1.15 and he doth in the same sence call himself the Beginning of the Creation of God Rev. 3.14 Now as for the first the Adversaries hold that it is spoken of Christ according to a divine Nature and is no mean Argument of that very Nature when nevertheless the First-born must of necessity be alwayes contained in the number of them of whom except the Parents it is said to be the first-born and consequently Christ must be comprehended in the number of Creatures whose First-born he is said to be which cannot agree to the most high God The Defence of the Argument FOr whereas they commonly so expound the place as if it were said that Christ was born before every creature this if it be so taken as that Christ should be wholly exempted out of the number of all Creatures is done without any example and contrary to the received use of speaking in the holy Scripture and in ordinary speech Which very thing certain very learned men among the Adversaries have sufficiently perceived For John Piscator although he allow that Exposition as Orthodox doth
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
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