so perfect a signification as Christ is asserted to be a God is likewise a Lord and if he be a God of himself he is also of himself a Lord and therefore cannot any further be made a Lord by another The same may also be confirmed by this Reason The Lordship of Christ is either the same with his Godhead or different from it If the same certainly when he was made a Lord he was also made a God If different it is either equal to his Godhead or less For Christ hath nothing greater than his Godhead If equal though they cannot speak thus who attribute to him the supream and independent Godhead there is the same reason thereof with his Godhead and there is no cause why if he was made Lord he was not also made a God If less it will in like manner follow that he hath not of himself this priviledge of being a God For if he have not of himself that which is less much less that which is greater In which place it is not to be omitted that Ambrose in those very words of Peter instead of the word Lord doth read the name of God as if Peter had said And God hath made him God and Christ this Jesus c. The second Argument is this He to whom that is given or granted for which he ought to be worshipped with divine Worship hath also Godhead given and granted to him For neither is there any thing besides Godhead for which we ought to worship any one with divine Worship or causeth that any one is worthy of that worship But we read how that was given and granted unto Christ for which he ought to be worshipped with divine Worship namely all Judgment and a Name above every name for so as we have seen Christ himself speaketh John 5.22 23. For neither doth the Father judge any one but hath given all judgment to the Son that all might honour the Son at they honour the Father he that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father that sent him And Paul Phil. 2.9 c. saith Wherefore also God hath exceedingly exalted him and given him a Name which is above every name that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven and in the earth and under the earth and that every tongue might confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the Father Now that in both places it is spoken of the divine Honour Adoration which is due to Christ from all both the thing it self sheweth and all confess But that this worship is to be exhibited unto him for all Judgment given him by the Father for a Name given him above every name the same Testimonies do clearly shew The same may easily be proved likewise out of that place in Daniel chap. 7.13 Where Christ is said to have received from the Antient of dayes that is his Father Power and Honour and a Kingdom and it is added that all Peoples Tribes and Tongues should serve him namely for so great Power and the Kingdom given to him For who would not serve his King Now this Service is not meant a civil one as being to be given to one that was not an earthly King but a religious and divine one as to be exhibited to a divine and heavenly King Why then do the greater part of the Adversaries deny that Godhead was given or granted unto Christ And indeed not a few both of the antient modern Interpreters of the Scripture * See among others Corn. a Lapide in this place Joh. 1.1 affirm that when Paul saith there was given unto Christ a Name above every name that the name of a God is there understood because there is no other name extant besides that which is above every name Though therein many are mistaken who conceive that by Name is meant the very Appellation or Title of a God For how was this Appellation given him at length after his death when John saith that the Word or Speech was a God in the beginning namely of that thing whereof he speaketh which is the Gospel Add hereunto that Paul speaketh of the reward which God gave to Christ for so great debasement and obedience to the very death of the Cross But what manner of reward is this to give to any one a Title if you give him not the thing designed by that Title Doth the most bountiful and rich God in this manner render rewards for so great Piety such a reward would be unbeseeming even a Prince or other Potentate Besides when any one hath the thing it self and that most rightfully there is no need to give or grant to him the name whereby that thing is designed especially when that thing hath a name already set and appointed as here it cometh to pass If any one be indeed a King and that very rightfully there is no need to confer upon him the title of a King since none can deny the same unto him but wrongfully But that is said to be conferred which might of right be denyed Wherefore we must understand by that Name not a Title but Dignity or Power as you have it in a like place Ephes 1.21 So that a Name above every name is Dignity and Power higher than all other For this is the proper cause of so great Worship and Honour For as civil Worship is due to earthly and civil Power and divine Worship is due to heavenly and divine as also that place John 5.22 doth shew where it is taught that divine Honour is to be exhibited by all unto Christ for the Power of judging which is the greatest part of his Power yea contained in a manner all Now if the thing be thus why do the Adversaries so insult over us for saying that Christ is a God by the Grace of God the Father that Godhead was given to Christ by the Father and he made and constituted a God by him Why do they upbraid us saying that we have two Gods the one as some are not afraid to jest in so serious a matter an old God the other a young God As if we had either two supream Gods or to have one supream God and another dependent on him and subordinate to him is contrary to the Scripture which expresly affirmeth that there are many Gods and affirmeth in down-right terms that we have one God the Father of whom are all things and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things or as if the Father because he was God from all eternity may therefore be deservedly called an old God or Christ a young God because he is after him in time as a Son is after his Father since old age and youth have place in none but corruptible things but ceaseth in such as are incorruptible and immortal Now if they would have God so to be old as Daniel calleth him the Antient of Dayes to whom he that was like unto the Son of Man was brought and
the Psalm had not as yet been really performed But yet notwithstanding it is to be noted first that the expression of raising or resurrection of Christ doth sometimes by a kind of Synecdoche joyned with a Metonymie comprehend the whole Glory of Christ to wit Immortality and Supream Power that he obtained by the Resurrection And in this sence only this word seems to be taken Acts. 2.32 33. and 4.33 compared with 5.32 10 40 c. Rom. 4.25 10.9 Phil. 3.10 1 Pet. 1.3 and 3.21 Furthermore it is also to be observed that the Participle Aorists being joyned to Verbs of the Pretertense have oftentimes the same force as Participles of the Presentense when they are joyned to the same Verbs Whereof you have examples amongst others in Heb. 1.4 7.21 11.9 2 Pet. 2.6 15. besides that which is every where found in the Evangelists he answering said Wherefore it may be rightly concluded that the Apostles words are to be understood as if he had said God hath fulfilled the Promise made unto the Fathers having raised as an antient Interpreter hath it or in raising Jesus chiefly because unto Christs generation of God the very restoring of him to life did also conduce seeing that thereby he was as it were begotten again but the Immortality which Christ obtained by the intervening of the Resurrection was far more available After this manner indeed he became like unto God in his Nature whereupon our Resurrection also is called Regeneration and Christ affirmeth that they who shall be counted worthy of that Age and the resurrection from the dead are the Sons of God seeing they are the Children of the Resurrection Luke 20.36 And Paul affirmeth That we look for the adoption of the Sons of God even the redemption of our bodies Rom. 8.23 For the fellowship or participation of the divine Nature which Peter speaks of 2 Pet. 1 4. doth principally consist in Immortality But hither tends most of all the divine Empire and Power of Christ for which he is the Son of God in the perfectest manner If therefore you will only interpret the Greek Particle Jesus being risen or after that he had raised Jesus we should understand that the Promise made unto the Fathers was then really and perfectly fulfilled touching the Messiah or an extraordinary King that was to be given to the Israelites and moreover also that expression of the Psalm Thou art my Son to day have I begotten thee when Jesus was raised from the dead by God and set at his right hand in the heavenly places and so made Christ or a King and Lord by the Power and Grace of God For hence as we have already * Chap. 28. of this Sect. seen doth the Divine Author to the Hebrews chap. 5.5 take those words of the Psalm touching the glorification of Christ on the Priestly honour that was conferred upon him which doth indeed contain his Royal Power seeing that his Kingdom is Priestly and his Priesthood Royal. And hereupon they are elsewhere also in holy Scripture taken for the same thing that Jesus is the Son of God and that Jesus is Christ that is a King anointed by God over his people or a Lord even him by whom alone God would administer and govern his Church with all things belonging to her For upon this account the principal doctrine of the supream dignity of Christ and our faith and confession of him are promiscuously †Compare Mat. 16.16 Mark 8.29 Luke 9.20 Joh. 1.50 Act. 8.37.9 20 22. Rom. 10.9 1 Cor. 12.3 Phil. 2.11 1 Joh. 4.15.5 1. and 5. also 2.22.4 2.3 2 Joh. 4. compare those also Matth. 27.41.42.43 and Luk. 23.35 add 22.67 69 70. and see the same places placed in this that Jesus is Christ or Lord or that Jesus is the Son of God Whence it likewise comes to pass that as often as those two namely to be Christ and to be the Son of God are mentioned together of Jesus of Nazareth they are never joyned by the copulative particle and as things different although this particle hath often times the force of explication only but they are without it everywhere joyned by apposition to shew that different things are not connected but the same thing is diversly described See Matth. 16.16.26.63 John 6.69.11.27.20.31 And it is first of all to be noted that that famous Confession of Peter touching Christ and his supream dignity being likewise declared in the name of the other disciples is described by Matthew Chap. 16.16 in these words Thou art Christ the Son of the living God But by Mark Chap. 8.29 only in these words Thou art Christ By Luke Chap. 9 20. The Christ of God Which two latter Evangelists would have left out one and a principal part indeed of that confession if it had been one thing to be the Son of the living God and another thing to be Christ But if both be indeed the same thing they have in effect omitted nothing but only expressed the same thing more briefly But now to be Christ or to be anointed of God doth in no wise constitue the most high God nor argue him to be so but the contrary seeing that the most high God can be anointed by none nor be made a King by any one And least haply any should say that there still remaines another and that a more sublime cause for which Jesus may be called the Son of God that is refuted partly by the Scriptures silence thereof which could not have omitted so great a matter and partly from those testimonies of Scripture we have hitherto alleaged For not here to repeat other things if there had been any other weightier cause for for which Jesus might be called the Son of God it could in no wise have been omitted in the place before examined by us Rom. 1.4 For there as we have seen the Apostle intended to shew by what reason Christ may be called the Son of God but he doth not in that place take the name of the Son of God in any other signification than that which is most excellent whilst he describeth him by the appellation of the Son of God the proper name of Jesus Christ haâ—ing not as yet been expressed Wherefore we ought to think that he hath expressed the most excellent or if you will rather the true and genuine reason of that appellation But doth he express that to be the cause of that thing that Christ was begotten out of the Essence of God from eternity and so was the most high God by no means but this rather which contradicts that and suffeâ—s not that Christ should be the most high God when he saith that he was made the Son of God and indeed according to the Spirit of holiness that is according to the Spirit wherewith he was sanctified and that by the resurrection from the dead for that some understand by the Spirit of holiness the divine Essence it is done both without an example
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
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
their Father and for a certain Creation not common to all men but peculiar to his People Certainly in the new Testament it may be justly denied that God is any where for the first Creation only either simply called Father or our Father in particular for wheresoever the causes of that appellation are alledged others are alledged besides the first Creation Finally they shall no where shew that Christ is simply called Father but only once in * Chap. 9. ver 6. Isaiah Father of the Age and that as the Greek and Latin translation addeth to come Besides it is one thing for the name of Father to be some where predicated of one another when the name of Father is applied to signifie a certain subject which is the Father that he should in particular be understood or be comprehended with others As for the holy Spirit they do so slightly prove that he is the Father that I am even sorry to mention what they alledge The cheifest almost only proof is that we are regenerated by him and that Christ saith * Joh. 3.6 Whatsoever is born of the Spirit is Spirit But by this means they ought to make Water likewise the Father since Christ a little before joyned it with the †Ver. 5. Spirit in this business saying that we ought to be born again of it and the Spirit Vnless saith he a man be born again of Water and the Spirit the vulgar translation addeth holy he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Now by Water they are wont to understand the elementary water which is used in baptisme and whatsoever you understand by it it is not a person Thus also they ought to make Gods Word the Father because * 1 Epis 1.23 Peter writeth That we are born again not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible by the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever The same reason would also be of force in generation properly so called Wherefore as oft as it is written that Christ for example sake was born of the Seed of David the Seed of David would be accounted the Father of Christ So in the rest But if they cannot prove that the holy Spirit is the Father or may rightly be so called how much less will they be able to prove that he is any where designed by or comprehended under the name of Father when the Father is used to design a certain subject as here it is done But furthermore although such a signification of this word were somewhere found yet would it here have no place where the Father is manifestly distinguished from Christ and that by a certain mark for the Father essentially taken as they speak doth in their opinion also include Christ But he is here in such a manner as we have before discussed opposed to the Father and contra distinguished from him as they speak Finally there lies a contradiction in this opinion of theirs for either the Father of whom they understand these words is a Person or is not If he is a Person why do they oppose him to the Father taken personally why do they not suffer him to be the Father of Christ for either he is one Person or more if one what other can be here understood besides the Father of Christ If more he must not be called Father but Fathers But if he be not a Person he is not the Father for every father though figuratively so called if he be indued with understanding is a Person for a father is so called for some action and chiefly for generation either properly or figuratively so called But such actions agree to none but Suppositums that is prime Substances compleat as we will explain in its * Lib. 2. Sect. 1. Chap. 4. place But every Suppositum being indued with understanding by the consent of all is a Person It is therefore necessary that this Father whereof Paul speaketh should be a Person and but one But the Father taken for one Person in Divinity by the confession of the very Adversaries is none but the Father of Christ. So that their indeavour is vain who to dull the edge of this and the like places have devised this new signification of the word CHAP. III. The third Argument from the place of Paul Ephes 4.6 There is One God and Father of all Arg. 3 from Ephes 4.6 TO that place of Paul to the Corinthians which we have hitherto urged to prove that none but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the most high God this passage of the same Apostle to the Ephesians is not unlike for here that God which is said to be One and the Father doth signifie one and the same Subject and consequently the one is of no larger extent than the other neither is any other that One God besides the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Now we suppose that it is not here necessary to shew in many words that it is very familiar to the Scripture when it speaketh of the same thing and designeth it by divers names to connect those names together by the copulative Particle and as in this place we see the word God and that of Father joyned together This hath been noted by the Interpreters of the Scripture both in sundry other places and also in those by name wherein these two words namely God and the Father are joyned together As when the same Apostle saith that * 1 Cor. 15.24 Christ shall at length deliver up the Kingdom to God even the Father or when he thus speaketh together with Peter †2 Cor. 1.3 Ephes 1.3 1 Pet. 1.3 Blessed be God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ or when he saith * Rom. 15 6. 2 Cor. 11.31 Gal. 1.4 Ephes 5.20 Phil. 4 20. Col. 1.3 2.2 In Greek 3.17 1 Thes 1.3 That we may unanimously with one mouth glorifie God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ That I may now omit sundry other passages which are extant in the same Apostle for it sufficiently appears that in those places the same subject is described by divers names and that it is all one as if it had been said God who is the Father or God that is the Father or some such way Now that in this place to the Ephesians one and the same is understood by the name of God and Father first is apparent in that the Apostle speaketh joyntly concerning the Unity of the one and the other and not distinctly as in all the other things whereof he made mention Paul had said intending afterwards to demonstrate the thing that Christians ought being knit together with the bond of peace to maintain spiritual Union and addeth to that purpose that there is One Body and One Spirit as they were also called in one hope of their Calling One Lord One Faith One Baptism One God and Father of all Why did he not likewise say as in the rest There is one God one Father
and Saviour to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins And chap. 10.42 And he Christ commanded us to preach to the People and testifie that it is he who is appointed of God Judge of quiâ—k and dead Which Paul afterward doth repeat in part chap. 17.31 Out of whose Epistles that we may not be too tedious we will produce certain places 1 Cor. 15.27 He saith out of the 8th Psalm He God the Father hath put all things in subjection under his feet namely Christ But when he saith that all things are in subjection to him it is manifest that he is excepted who put all things in subjection to him Which he also clearly explaineth Ephes 1.20 c. where he saith that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ * ver 17. the Father of Glory did set Christ at his right hand in heavenly places far above all principality and power and might and authority and every name that is named nâ—â— only in this world but also in that which is to come and hath put all things in subjection under his feet and hath given him head over all things to the Church which is his Body And Phil. 2.9 Wherefore namely because Christ humbled himself becoming obedient to the very death of the Cross God also hath highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name that in the name of Jesus every knee should how of things in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and every tongue might confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father And who is able to reckon up all the places of the Scripture See among others Heb. 1.2 and so forth to the end of the chapter and chap. 2.7 8 9. and chap 3.2 c. chap. 5.5 6 7 8 9. and 1 Pet. 1.21 Now in the Old Testament besides the places which are contained in the Testimonies of the Writers of the New Covenant cited by us namely out of Psal 8. and 110. that passage of the second Psalm ver 6 7 8. is very notable I God the Father have set my King upon my holy Mountain Sion I will declare the Decree namely whereby I have been constituted a King for they are the words of Christ the Antitype of David The Lord said unto me Thou art my Son I this day begot thee Ask of me and I will give unto thee the Nations for thine inheritance and the ends of the Earth for thy possession thou shalt rule them with a rod of Iron c. To which is to be joyned that famous Vision in Daniel chap. 7.13 where he saith I saw in the night Vision and behold in the Clouds of Heaven there came one like the Son of Man and he came to the antient of dayes that is the eternal God before cited ver 9.10 and they offered him in his sight and he the Antient of dayes gave unto him Power and Honour and a Kingdom and all people tribes and tongues shall serve him his power is an everlasting Power which shall not be taken away and his Kingdom that which shall not be destroyed We wittingly and willingly omit more places Now from these passages it is evinced that Christ is not the most high God for none can bestow any thing on him much less all things since he bestoweth all things upon all But we see that the Father hath bestowed on Christ so many and so great things yea all things Wherefore Christ is not the most high God You might also frame more Arguments especially out of those places wherein the word give or bestow is not met withal but there is the same force of Argument as if you should say He that is exalted by God or glorified by him or made Lord and Christ is not the most high God The Defence of the Argument TO this Argument and the places of Scripture whereon it is built neither do all nor the same persons every where make the same answer For some directly seem to deny the Major as they call it of our Argument others seek refuge in distinctions For as to the former some say that even the * The first answer and its refutation Apostle doth affirm that Christ shall deliver the Kingdom to God even the Father 1 Cor. 15.24 In which place there is the same word that Christ useth Mat. 11.27 when he saith All things are delivered unto me by my Father Wherefore they say that something miâ—ht be delivered or given even to the most high God Again as Christ John 17.2 5. desireth of his Father to be glorified and so that Glory should be given to him so also doth he there affirm that he had glorified the Father and hereafter would glorifie him But first we will speak of such a Giving as proceedeth from the grace and bounty of the Giver for which cause we did in our Argument make use of this word bestow For such is that Giving whereby all things have been given to Christ by the Father For Christ openly ascribeth it to the love of the Father towards him in the 3d and the 5th chapters of John and chap. 17. he doth intreat for the Glory designed unto him And God in the second Psalm saith to the Son Ask of me and I will give unto thee the Nations for thine inheritance c. And Paul Phil. 2. saith there was bestowed on Christ or given out of grace for so the Greek word signifieth a Name that is above every name And the reason for which the power of quickning and exercising Judgment was given unto Christ namely because he is the Son of Man doth sufficiently argue that it was such a Giving as we have spoken of which very thing is evident from that place of Daniel chap. 7. and others like thereunto But that the giving whereby Christ shall deliver the Kingdom to God the Father is not such an one all men do of themselves easily perceive For neither can it be imputed to the grace or bounty of Christ towards the Father who needeth the bounty of none For that is such a delivery of the Kingdom as for example sake when a General appointed by his King to manage a certain War doth when it is ended lay down the Power that was given unto him and restore it unto his King who had hitherto exercised it by him that if he be so pleased he may hereafter exercise it by himself And all this is no other than what Right it self doth require in as much as the Power was given unto him by the King for the management of that War only In like manner Christ who hath received Royal Power from the Father to subdue his and our enemies and hitherto exerciseth the same in the Fathers name when all the enemies are subdued shall yield it up to his Father that is so lay it down that the Father may afterwards exercise it by himself and as Paul speaketh God may be all in all From whence also ariseth
and without reason yea contrary to the word ordained or appointed and finally to the resurrection from the dead from which or by which that might have come to pass It is manifest therefore that there is no other more sublime cause for which Jesus may be called the Son of God but this that being raised from the dead he was made by God both Lord and Christ or the heavenly and eternal King of his people Moreover the same thing is plainly seen from the second Psalm a place that we have explained already For all as I know confess that when God speaketh thus unto Christ thou art my Son the name of the Son of God is taken in the most excellent manner But we have seen that this is the cause why he is in that place called the Son of God because he being raised from the dead was not only made immortal but also the King of Gods people and besides the Priest and Prince of our Salvation as we have shewn partly from the very Psalm and partly from Acts 13. and Heb. 5. Whereto may be added Heb. 1.4 5. For when the divine Author had there said that Christ having purged away our sins by himself was set at the right hand of God on high he adds Being made so much better or rather more honourable than the Angels as he had inherited a more different that is a better and more excellent name than they For to which of the Angels said he at any time thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee And again I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Son From which place it is understood that the name of the Son of God is not Essential unto Christ whilst he is said to have inherited it nor that it is the name of the most high God for as much as by his exaltation he obtained a dignity and excellency equal to that name and title which doth not happen to the most high God Besides the thing it self shews that Christ is here spoken of according to his humane nature as they say and also that this is such a name as agrees to Christ according to that nature Unto which also the following passage accords I will be unto him a Father and he shall be to me a Son wherein the same sence is expressed For these words do in like manner argue that it is not spoken of such a thing as is proper to the most high God and was in being from all eternity For both the words do openly respect something future and in the first and literal sense as they say were spoken most clearly of Solomon the type of Christ in that respect as others also confess Compare 2 Sam. 7.14 with the words both foregoing and following and 1 Chron. 22.10 and 26.6 compare also 1 King 5.5.8.19 It is therefore necessary that there should be such a similitude and analogie between the reason whereby Christ is the Son of God that whereby Solomon was the Son of God inasmuch as this is a certain representation of that but how was that whereby Solomon was the Son of God a certain representation of this whereby Christ is the Son of God if Jesus be therefore the Son of God because he was begotten of the Fathers Essence from eternity and so the same God with the Father But if Jesus be the Son of God by reason of most high love and the benefits flowing from the same which God bestowed upon him amongst which the heavenly Kingdom and Empire that was granted unto him holdeth the principal place Solomon is rightly constituted the type of Christ and the woâ—ds uttered of him in the litteral sense are rightly and elegantly referred unto him in a mystical and far stricter sense It is evident therefore that neither in the words of the second Psalm there cited is any thing contained of the eternal generation of Christ out of the Fathers Essence Finally who doubteth when Peter had confessed that Jesus was the Son of God or when we are commanded to believe and confess the same thing of him if we would be accounted Christians and be saved that the name of the Son of God is taken in the most perfect signification wherein it agrees unto Christ But we saw then that it doth in very deed signify no otherwise than that Jesus is Christ or a King appointed of God and set over his people to defend and preserve them for ever wherefore it is to be concluded that this is the principal reason for which he is called the Son of God neither can any better be found But since that doth not constitute Christ the most high God but rather shews that he is not the most high God it follows that there is no other cause of his Son-ship as they say which can make Christ the most high God We have spoken somewhat largly of the first reason which shews that Christ is not the most high God therefore because he is the Son of God partly because if we rightly observe there are more arguments of our opinion contained in it and partly because this that Christ is the Son of God is commonly believed to contain the strongest argument of the contrary opinion Wherefore it is to be shewn in a few woâ—ds how exceedingly men commonly err and the true opinion be proved from the reason whereby Christ is the Son of God There follows now another proof of the principal Arguments Assumption which we will dispatch very briefly namely 2 Proof of the principal Arguments Assumption that it is very clear from the holy Scripâ—ure that Christ died for us according to that nature according to which he was the Son of God and indeed only begotten and proper But if â—e were in that manner the Son of God as he was begotten of the Essence of God and so was the most high God he could not have died according to that nature according to which he is the Son of God For the most high God as such cannot die yea cannot in any respect whatsoever But that which we have already spoken of Christ is from thence manifest that the greatest love of God towards us is in the holy Scriptures shewn from this that he delivered his only begotten or his own Son unto death for us See John 3.16 compared with vers 14. and Rom 8.32 1 John 4.10 compared with vers 9. aforegoing add also Rom. 5.10 compared with vers 8. But if Christ died not according to that nature according to which he was the Son of God but according to another nature which was added to the person of the only begotten Son of God it can neither be truly said of the proper and only begotten Son of God that he died or was given for us neither can the greatest love of God towards us be from thence collected For what so great wonder is it for some accession of the only begotten Son of God or some nature that was added
notwithstanding propose it to consideration whether a different Exposition brought by him be not genuine namely that we should understand Christ to be called the First-born of every Creature because he is the chief Heir of all things And he a little after addeth That the native signification of the word First-born hindreth it from being understood of the divine Generation of the Son of God out of the Substance of the Father for it properly signifieth him who is born at the first birth and so agreeeth to the Mother not to the Father CHAP. XXXVI The thirty sixth Argument That Christ is equal to God THat place Phil. 2.6 c. which is wont to be urged against us containeth several Arguments of our Opinion For besides what we have formerly urged that Christ is there several times distinguished from God simply put that he was obedient unto God that he was exalted by him and that to him was given by God a name above every name and that the Dignity and Honour given to him is affirmed to redound to the glory of God the Father as to the utmost object thereof besides all these things I say this also argueth Christ not to be the most high God that he is said to be equal unto God Which the greatest part of the Adversaries say is spoken of him according to the divine Nature and is an open proof of that Nature But that which is equal hath alwayes a different Essence from that to which it is equal otherwise the same thing would be equal to it self whereas equals are relatives and consequently opposites If therefore Christ be equal to God and that as they imagine in respect of Essence and essential Properties the Essence of Christ must of necessity be different from the Essence of God Wherefore they must either hold two divine independent Essences or two most high Gods or that Christ is not the most higst God More Arguments might be brought but we will at present be content with these especially because some of them shall hereafter be touched when we shall prove our Opinion out of such Principles as Reason it self affordeth For neither will we so draw Arguments from Reason as that we will not now and then recal the Adversaries to the Testimonies of the Scripture SECT III. Wherein is shewn that the holy Spirit is not the most high God that it may appear that the Father only is the most high God IT now followeth that we should shew what we undertook to demonstrate in the third place namely That the holy Spirit is not the most high God Although the business may easily be decided by what we have disputed concerning Christ For though those testimonies also of the holy Scripture which sâ—ew that the Father only is the most high God do withall strongly demonstrate that the holy Spirit is not the most high God seeing it is granted that the holy Spirit is not the Father yet will we not use them in this place For in this place we do not demonstrate that the holy Spirit is not the most high God because the Father only is the most high God but on the contrary because neither the Son nor the holy Spirit is the most high God we evince that the Father only is the most high God But with those testimonies wherewith we have sâ—ewn that Christ is not the most high God we can here also demonstrate that the holy Spirit is not the most high God For neither can it be if Christ be not the most high God that the holy Spirit should be the most high God Whence neither was there ever any man that I know of who not acknowledging Christ for the most high God did imagine that the holy Spirit notwithstanding was the most high God And the reason hereof is manifest whether you consider the thing it self or the opinion of the Adversaries For as to the thing it self how could it come to pass that Christ should send the holy Spirit and give him to men if the holy Spirit were the most high God and Christ were not so For could he send and give the most high God who is inferior to him And as for the opinion of the Ad eâ—saries they hold that the holy Spirit hath his Essence as from the Father so also from the Son But how can the most high God have his Essence from him that is not the most high God the Creator from a creature He that was from all eternity from him that began to exist at a certain time Wherefore having shewn that Christ is not the most high God we might here stop and bring no otâ—er Arguments to shew that the holy Spirit is not the most high God Nevertheless that the thing may be made the more manifest we will demonstrate the same with farther arguments And in the first place we will draw Arguments from thence Arg. 1 The holy Spirit is no where called God that many things are omited concerning the holy Spirit in the Scripture which could by no means have been omitted if he had been the most high God Next we will draw Arguments from these things which are expresly delivered concerning the holy Spirit in the same Scripture CHAP. I. Argument the first That the holy Spirit is no where openly called God in the holy Scripture AS therefore to the first sort of Arguments we will begin from the veâ—y Name of God For there can no place of the Scripture be alleaged wherein the holy Spirit is openly called God But were the holy Spirit God how could it come to pass that there should not be so much as one place in the huge Volume of the Scripture where he is openly and cleaâ—ly called God Concerning the Father there are so many and so eâ—ident places that none can deny that he is God unless he daâ—es to deny that the Sun shineth at noon Concerning Christ likewise although he be not the moâ—t high God yet there are certain plain places of the Scripture which shew that he is God which are commonly known to all men And shall there be no place at all concerning the holy Spirit although he be the most high God as well as the Father and not only not inferiour to Christ but also for as much as Christ is a man by nature far superiour Besides the Adversaries hold that it is necessary to salvation for a man to believe that the holy Spirit is God yea the most high God And indeed if he were the most high God it would seem altogether necessary to be known for what faithful man ought to be ignorant of his most high God and not to worship him But the thing would withall be such that unless it were divinely revealed unto us we could have no certain knowledge thereof in as much as it is not manifest to our sences How then should a thing so great so necessary to be known so abstruce not be clearly explained and purposely delivered by divine men at
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
rest in him only come ultimately to him alone but is dispersed among more persons who are held to be altogether equal to him likewise both honour and trust and invocation and all sorts of praises are ultimately divided unto more which wholly ought to come at length to one person And these absurdities indeed arise as well from the opinion of the supream deity of the Son as from the doctrine concerning the supream deity of the holy Spirit But that is more proper to the opinion concerning the holy Spirit that divine empire and government is attributed to it which doth not at all agree to it and moreover it is held to be God to be adored of it self invocated and celebrated as the giver of all good things whatsoever whereas none of these as we have seen * Lib. 1. Sect. 3. Chap. 1 3 are attributed to it in the holy Scriptures nor can be attributed since it is not a person Therefore although otherwise the holy Spirit be subordinate to the most high God as the middle cause of most divine actions yet is it not so subordinate as a person is wont to be to whom an empire and manageing of affaires and the parts of honour and worship which are wont and ought to follow it are granted by another in which manner we see Christ who is expresly both called God and being placed in the Throne of God is said to command all things to be subordinate to God Whence also it is commanded that he be adored by all and that all men put their trust in him and so be bold to implore his aid neither is there any part of the divine Honour which is not found to be attributed to him although so that it tend ultimately to the Father None of these things are found concerning the holy Spirit Wherefore the Adversaries do not only sin in that that they make the holy Spirit the most high God but also simply in that that they hold it to be a God or endued with a divine Empire and governing humane affaires and further that they say that it is no less to be invocated and adored than Christ and that other things also are to be attributed to it which properly are due to a divine and heavenly King and Lord being unmindful of the most plain words of the Apostle asserting 1 Cor. 8.6 That to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we for him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him But although this absurdity which we have explained in the latter place doth more appear in the common opinion concerning the holy Spirit than concerning the Son of God yet it doth appear also in this and unless another errour to wit of the incarnation of the Son of God had somewhat corrected that other it would be yet more grievous For whilst before and besides Jesus Christ born of the Virgin I say that man whom they call the humane nature only there is feigned an only begotten Son of God who existed from all eternity who was alwayes endowed together with the Father with a divine Empire over all things a Deity is attributed to that thing which not only was not subordinate to the most high God or invested with so high an Empire by him but indeed was never existent And in this latter part this errour of it self is more grievous than that which is committed about the Deity of the holy Spirit For the holy Spirit not only existed and doth yet exist but is also as we have said a most divine thing and truly united with and subordinate to the most high God in most excellent works We hear sometimes some saying that even therefore their opinion touching Christ is to be preferred before our because it is conjoyned with his greater Glory But the very love towards Christ our Saviour requireth that we rather add some honour to him than detract from him Which men indeed first so deal as if the matter did depend on our arbitrement and were not altogether to be estimated by the determination of the holy Scriptures that is of God himself and the manifest reason of the thing it self Seeing therefore the holy Scriptures themselves have in this part set us certain limits beyond which it is unlawful to pass as it is not lawful for us to take away any tâ—ing from the â—onour of Christ so neither to add any thing to it Neitheâ— indeed doth the true love towards Christ how great soever it be require that we ascribe any thing to him beyond truth and honour him with false titles and praises For neither is he delâ—ghted with false honour who abounds with true honour neither doth he account any thing to be his praise which doth diminish the glory of his Father from whom all honour all divinity is derived But that opinion of the Adversaries conceâ—ning the supream divinity of Christ doth as we have seen diminish it Therefore although it should at length be lawful out of our affection to add something to the honour of Christ yet that would not be lawful which is conjoyned with the Fathers injury It is not lawful to detract any thing from the honour of Christ But neither is it lawful to take away any thing from the honour of the Father It is not lawful to detract any thing fâ—om the love towards the Son But neither is it lawful to take away any thing from the love towards the Father Since even that former is not lawful because whilst the honour due to Christ is denyed also the honour due to the Father is denyed and whilst the Son is less loved than is meet the Father is less loved For * John 5.23 He that honoureth not the Son saith Christ himself honoureth not the Father who sent him And †John 15.23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also For as John saith ‖ 1 John 5.1 He that loveth him that begat loveth also him that is begotten of him Therefore the most high regard is to be had to the honour of the Son but no less to that of the Father for whose sake he is honoured and beloved Neither indeed are we those who detract any part of honour from the Son or desire to detract for whose glory trusting to his aid we refuse not indeed even the cruellâ—st death Being instructed by him we refel the honour falsly and with imminution of the divine glory ascribed to him That which he himself refuseth we will not do And that you may see that we leave to Christ his honour undiminished and endeavour as we are able to maintain it what more doth Christ himself requiâ—e of us than that we honour him as we honour the Father Doth any greater honour agree to him I think none but he that is out of his wits will say it But for what cause doth Christ chaâ—lenge that honour to himself Is it therefore because he is the most high God
speaking properly hath done nothing but the divine person of God himself according to it But it matters much yea infinitely if we look to the power of doing whether the most high God act or man Besides nevertheless in that humane nature did an infinite power of the supream Deity personally dwell and so restrained it from all sin that it was altogether impossible for it to sin What l ke to that is in us I forbear to speak of those things which they often inculcate concerning the unlikeness between us and Christ in respect of the original sin and the same great corruption of our nature which was not at all in Christ but in us is thought to be so great that we being left to our selves can do nothing almost but sin But as to the latter to wit our felicity and the way of attaining it what marvel is it that the most high God for they will have us believe that he being made a man could die did rise again from the dead and after became immortal Is there any even the least ability remaining in us after death by which we maybe able to loose our selves from its bonds and recal our selves into life Shall we then learn by the example of Christ that we may do what he could But the opinion of the Adversaries concerning Christ doth another way also overthrow the props of our hope and trust which God set to stâ—engthen it For God would not by himself or immediately as they speak govern the whole business of our salvation and bring it to an end but hath put it into the hands of Jesus Christ both conjoyned to us by nature and having suffered all evils which happen to no serving him that so he might erect us to the furest hope namely that he would not despise our baseness but so much the more readily succour us being vexed and afflicted That which the divine author of the Epistle to the Hebrews hath shewed in several places and first indeed of all about the end of the second Chapter for he had said That Christ no where took hold of Angels but took hold of the seed of Abraham that is No where is it said in Scripture that Christ was destinated by God to lay hold on and help for that is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Angels or that he was employed therein but this was his business that he may embrace the posterity and sons of Abraham by his care that he may help and for ever keep them to wit those who were not only born of Abraham according to the flesh but those also who imitate his faith Therefore when he had said thus he adds Whence he ought to be made in all things like to his brethren to wit the true sons of Abraham yet indued with flesh and blood and subject to all kind of adversities that he might be made a merciful and a faithful high Pciest to God or in those things which pertain to God that he might make reconciliation for or expiate the sins of the people For in that in which he himself suffered and was tempted or when he was tempted he is able to help them also who are tempted Which same thing in some sort he repeateth about the end of Chapter 4. and more fully declares Chap. 5. * Compare together vers 2 3. and 7 8. ch 5. Namely the divine Author teacheth that Christ because he had experience of the same evils is so much the more prone to help and succour us being put into the like affliction But how may we sincerely enjoy this consolation if Christ be the immortal God himself and free from all even shadows of affliction For it doth no whit avail that the humane nature hath suffered and was dead if so be these things happen unto that which is not a Suppositum For if that nature be not a suppositum and consequently doth not any thing by it self but whatsoever it doth the divine person that is the most high God himself doth according to it what avails it that it suffered and had an experience of our evils For the divine person himself who is to be accommodated in very deed to do whatsoever Christ doth nevertheless did not feel those evils nor could be made more prone for that cause to help us And although the humane nature be held to concur to that action by which help is brought from Christ to us yet it shall not concur as left to its own will as that which necessarily obeys the will and impulse of the divinity without which it can neither act nor cease from acting Therefore it will be all one in this respect as if God himself immediately should govern the whole business of our salvation Therefore as they are injurious to the glory of God and the true honour of Jesus Christ so also they are very injurious to themselves who ascribe unto Christ a supream divinity But we together assert to God and Christ their true honour who adore the man Jesus Christ exalted for the death of the cross by the mighty right hand of the Father to the greatest height and made a â—rince and our Saviour and profess according to the doctrine of Paul * Phil. 2.11 him to 〈◊〉 Lord to the glory of God the Father and together are sensible both of the power of his resurrection and the fruit of his glorification and experience that to be truly said of Peter †1 Pet. 1.21 That by him we believe in Gods who raised him from the dead and gave him glory that our faith and hope might be in God in which very thing we acknowledge and with thankful mind accept the greatest goodness of God towards us Greaâ— and grievous are those discommodities of the opinion of the Adversaries which we have hitherto alleaged which even alone would suffice abundantly to shew its absurdity but there is not an end yet For one absurdity being granted many follow and a chain of errors is easily knit For besides that it is necessary that the Adversaries pervert many places of the holy Scripture repugnant to their opinion or not consonant to it and waest them to another meaning some other Doctrines very hurtful to the Salvation of men are built upon it which must needs fall down it being overthrown You may here rightly place that most gross errour of many concerning the ubiquity as they call it or omnipresence of the body of Christ by which the very substance of the body of Christ together with his divinity is fained to be entirely present in every place least and greatest which error whatever the patrons of it say suffers not Christ any more to be moved from place to place than the divine nature it self and by its force takes away whatsoever things are read in the holy Scriptures as there are read innumerable things which shew him to be comprehended in a certain compass of places and that he went from place to place and among other things
The Two BOOKS OF John Crellius FRANCUS Touching ONE GOD THE FATHER Wherein many things also concerning the Nature of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are discoursed of Translated out of the Latine into English Printed in Kosmoburg at the Sign of the Sun-beams in the Year of our Lord MDCLXV John Crellius Minister of the Racovian Church To the Christian Reader GREETING WE set forth not long since Christian Reader a Book touching God and his Attributes which we prefixed before the Books of John Volkelius touching the true Religion When we discoursed therein touching the Unity of God it seemed requisite to the full explication of that Unity that we should shew the most high God to be One not in Essence onely but also in Person and to be no other then the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and indeed we began to demonstrate this with divers Arguments and to guard those Arguments against such Exceptions as were either common or somewhat more specious and plausible But since the Work did as we there said grow under our hand we thought that this Treatise was to be parted from the rest of the Work For not onely the plenty of Arguments which did of their own accord offer themselves to us out of the Scripture increased the bulk of our Writing but also our desire not willingly to omit any of those things which might seem to men to be of some moment for the over-throwing of out Arguments For since for this Opinion chiefly touching One God the Father though grounded upon many most clear Testimonies of the Scripture we are exposed to the most bitter hatred and Persecution of all men I thought it very expedient to shew what great injury was done unto us in this behalf yea how injurious the Christian World was to it self in so obstinately rejecting this part of the Divine Truth especially since there is so various and notable use of this Doctrine in Divinity and in the whole Christian Religion as by the help of God we will shew in the end of these Books Now I thought this Book to be the more necessary in that I saw our Men whilst they were dayly opposed by the Adversaries for the most part with an hostile Mind and Pen were chiefly busied in answering their Reasons inserting their own Arguments commonly in brief and in a scattered manner here and there inasmuch as they acted the parts of Respondents rather than Opponents For though certain Eminent Men in our Church did sometimes begin to take upon them the Office of Opponents in this Controversie yet being diverted by other labour of Writing they were sorced to lay this out of their hands Wherefore they left to us nothing but the beginning of that Work which they undertook to this end and which we certain years ago did publish Certainly it was a thing exceedingly to be desired that such men far better furnished with Wit and with Knowledge of Divine Things than we are had rather finished this Work than left it to Us to be perfected But inasmuch as that hath not been done by them we ought not to suffer that it should never be accomplished Now we might the more boldly attempt this labour in that the evident Truth of the Opinion and the multitude of most solid Arguments arising of their own accord out of the holy Scriptures did ease the meanness of our Wit and in that we saw how the Opinion it self had for so many years together been opposed by so many and so acute Adversaries with all sorts of Arms and Engines to no purpose wherefore we took Courage from the Goodness of the Cause Truly we hope in God and Christ that they who are studious of knowing the Truth when they shall have weighed our Arguments will see the Truth of that Opinion that we hold yea that they also whose minds are so beset and besieged with pre-conceived Opinions that they will at no hand give place to the Truth will notwithstanding perceive if they will have but the patience to reade our Writing that we were not moved with slight Reasons from that Opinion which hath for so many Ages been received in the Christian World and if they have any Equity and Humanity left in them will cease to pursue us with so great an hatred for so doing For though we relying on the Divine Help are ready to suffer any thing for the Truths sake yet would it be the part of others not only to abstain from all bitterness of Hatred but also to be touched with compassion towards them whom they thought to be fallen indeed into a great Error but yet were driven thereinto with no slight grounds For it is not the part of a Christian yea not of a Man when he thinketh any one fallen into some Error of Judgment though in a weighty matter not onely to forbear in a courteous way to raise him up out of the same but also with a bitter spirit to plunge him further thereinto But let them do what they please we in the mean time trust in God that they shall never be able to make us repent of the Opinion which we profess Howbeit Christian Reader we beseech thee by the love both of the Truth and of thy own Salvation that thou wouldest diligently consider the things which we write and examine them by the Rule of Gods Word We crave nothing which the Apostle hath not already required of thee whilst he commandeth to try all things and hold fast that which is good To despise and slight those things is altogether inconsistent with Piety For though we should omit other things which are to be mentioned in their place consider that the Glory of God is herein concerned the least part whereof is greater than the greatest of humane Affairs whereon notwithstanding see how much pains all and thou perhaps thy self doest bestow The ignorance of these things is excusable in another because he hath perhaps wanted an opportunity to be acquainted with them and so is not guilty of contempt but thou canst have no excuse for thy self before that Judge who that thou mayst no longer be ignorant offers thee an occasion of better information thereby causing that thou canst not be ignorant of those things without contempt The Divine Truth suffers not it Self to be despised Scot-free Thou knowest that of our Saviour Luk. 12.48 To whom much is given of him much shall be required and with whom they have deposited much the more shall be expected of him The Lord will require more of thee than of others because he affordeth thee a more ample occasion of knowing the Truth than to many others Beware lest that most Righteous Judge finde thee an Unrighteous Judge in this Cause who when thou hearest our Adversaries every where opposing us for the most part with Rayling rather than Reason dost notwithstanding refuse to hear us who defend our Selves and our Opinion in a modest manner But if thou farther darest to condemn
our Cause holding that we are not onely excluded out of Heaven but ought also to be banished out of all Countreys think with thy self that to condemn Men before their Cause is heard is to condemn them as innocent Neither will it be enough for thee to refer the labour of examining unto others so as to follow their Judgment without thine own Think that thou thy self must answer for thy self Thou thou I say according to thy Understanding and Opportunity oughtest to try all things and hold fast that which is good For shalt thou commit all things unto others take heed and that very diligently lest thou commit thy self and thy Salvation unto men either negligent or puffed up with an Opinion of Learning and Knowledge or wholly addicted to humane Authority and pre-conceived Opinion or otherwise obstinate and not knowing how to yeild or loving their own quiet and security rather than their own or others Salvation or cowardly and not daring to utter their Opinion In short lest blindly following blind Guides thou fall with them into the Ditch Think not they are Godly and Lovers of the Truth whom I follow For to omit that this Opinion concerning others is often-times confuted by their manners and Actions there are many hiding holes of Vices and private Closets in the Brests of Men into which none but God and Christ can penetrate so that we are in greater danger of mistaking in our Judgment concerning other mens Piety when we go this way to work than if the question only is concerning an Opinion concerning which we dare not pass Sentence Neither canst thou say These things are too subtile for my Understanding For if thou considerest the Opinion it self whereof we here dispute what is more plain and simple than it for what doth it contain above that which is called the Apostles Creed which Children are acquainted with namely that that One God is no other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ If you look upon the Arguments which we have drawn out of the Scriptures they are of themselves plain and easie so that the Adversaries can no other way decline their force than by turning away from the simplicity of the Word and endeavouring to draw us away from the same Yea those Arguments vvhich vve have fetch'd from Reason if you except a few vvhich vve have added for the sake of Learned Men are so clear that one must rather offer violence to his Reason and Understanding that he may not admit the force of them than use any great intention of Mind to understand them But perhaps if any thing occur in the defence of the Arguments fetch'd out of the Scripture vvhich may to a Man unskill'd in the Art of Disputing seem somewhat subtile he may pass it by for the other things vvhich may easily be understood by every one vve are confident will be sufficient for him to pass sentence concerning this Cause Though vve have so tempered this vvhole kind of Writing that all things may be understood by a man indifferently versed in Learning even those vvhich in the second Book we have culled out of Philosophy and the received Opinion of the Schools Neither indeed is it to be imputed to us if now and then vve speak something vvhich the ruder sort may call subtile but to the Adversaries vvho as vve have said do draw us avvay from the simplicity both of the Words and meaning of the Spirit of God which Reason doth dictate to the unlearned themselves and by the subtilties of distinctions endeavour to elude the most plain Arguments which we produce for our Opinion Wherefore we friendly admonish and beseech all them to whom this Writing of ours shall come that they would diligently weigh and examine our Words by the Ballance of the Divine Oracles and offer no violence to their conscience when they have found the Truth and so either by resisting it or perpetually burying it in silence increase their own and others servitude but use diligence to draw Others partly to the truer Opinion partly to more moderate Counsels and as much as in them lies cause that all may dare to erect their Mind to a free Inquiry touching sacred Matters and to lift up their Eyes to the Light thereof And that so through the whole World Men may with Piety of Mind Mouth and Life praise that One God the Father of whom are all things and that One Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things To Him be Glory and Power for ever and ever AMEN The Scope AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE WORK THe scope of this our Work is to shew That the most High God is no other besides the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Now we will divide the whole Work into two Books In the first we will confirm our Opinion with Scripture-Testimonies and Arguments drawn thence In the latter we will make use of other sufficient Reasons to prove the same and refute the contrary Though even there we will now and then recal the Reader to the Scriptures But in the former part of the Work we will so proceed as that we will first directly prove That onely the Father of Jesus Christ is the most high God and that partly by those Testimonies of the sacred Scripture which make open mention of the Father Partly by those wherein the Name of the Father is not indeed exprest yet is he truly spoken of Then will we demonstrate the same indirectly as they say when we shall shew out of the same holy Scripture That neither Christ whom otherwise we confess to be by the Gift of the Father a God over all to be blessed for evermore is the most High God nor the Holy Spirit whom we will prove to be the Vertue and Efficacy of the most High God Book 1. Sect. 3. Chap. 5. For so it will remain that the Father onely is the most High God since no other else can be imagined Touching ONE GOD The Father Arg. 1 from Joh. 17.3 THE FIRST BOOK SECT I. Wherein is directly proved that onely the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the most High God and first out of those Testimonies of the Sacred Scriptures which speak expresly of the Father CHAP. I. The first Argument from the words of Christ John 17.3 This is Life eternal that they might know thee Father the Onely true God and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ THe first Testimony therefore and Argument of our Opinion shall be that of Christ himself speaking to his Father in these words This is Life eternal c. Here none doubteth that by the Name of the true God is understood the most high God Wherefore since Christ so describeth the Father as to call him the Onely true God it is understood that onely the Father of Christ is the most High God The Defence of the Argument The first Answer to the Argument and the Refutation MAny there are who forced by the evidence of the Words
Whereas the word according as it is used by the Adversaries includeth the relation of a part but if you take that expression as if it were said by the humane Nrture then both the Father and holy Spirit might do something according to the humane Nature of Christ though perhaps the Father not as the nearest cause and such as immediately moveth the humane Nature but the holy Spirit dwelling therein even as the nearest cause and immediately moving that Nature Again it is likewise understood from what hath been spoken that that distinction of Natures cannot cause that it may rightly be said that Christ is the Mediator of himself not only because it is incongruous to say that his Person doth do any thing according to the humane Nature if that Person be the very supream God but also because from that Opinion of the Adversaries it would follow that the very divine Nature of Christ doth primarily and properly discharge the Office of a Mediator although it make use of the humane nature in this behalf for it would be necessary that the same divine Nature should intervene in the middle between it self and Men which every one seeth to be absurd Finally it is understood that this distinction of Natures cannot cause that Christ the Mediator should be distinguished from God if Christ be very God himself Add hereunto that none but those things are simply distinguisht one from another of whom it may be simply affirmed that the one of them is not the other But in this place God and Christ who is said to be his Mediator are simply distinguished one from another wherefore neither is that God Christ nor Christ that God for the distinction of Natures cannot cause that any thing should be simply denied of some subject which for another Nature is to be simply affirmed thereof as we will shew more at large Chap. 3. of the following Section Wherefore neither can it cause that any thing should be simply distinguished from that which is to be simply predicated of it inasmuch as such a distinction as we have seen doth tacitly involve a simple negation of one in relation to the other Neither can any one here say that Christ in the words of the Apostle is therefore rightly distinguished from God and so tacitly denied that he is that one God because by the name of God or that One God the whole Trinity is understood whereas Christ is not the whole Trinity for by this reckoning it might be said that the Father himself is not God or that one God because the Father is not the whole Trinity But who could endure to hear one so speaking certainly he would openly contradict the Scripture who durst to speak in that manner Besides the very Adversaries themselves do not suppose the name of God or that one God to be collective that is so joyntly signifying three Persons that it cannot be predicated of each apart for in predicating they hold that name hath the nature of an universal so that it may be predicated of every Person in particular For instance The Father is that one God the Son is that one God the holy Spirit is that one God wherefore Christ was not therefore distinguisht from that one God and so tacitly denied to be that one God because he is not the whole Trinity but because he simply is not that one God Some one will perhaps say as it followeth not That Christ is not a man because he is the Mediator of men since he is rather therefore a Man because he is the Mediator of Men Whence the Apostle expresly saith That there is one Mediator of God and Men the Man Christ Jesus So neither from thence that Christ is said to be the Mediator of God I say the most high and only God doth it follow that he is not the most high and only God This though it be more pertinent to the second Section of this book shall notwithstanding receive a brief answer especially because the thing doth not need any long dispute for who seeth not when Christ is said to be the Mediator of Men that by the name of Men other men besides Christ are understood who were either wholy alienated from God or not so joyned but that they might be more closely joyned in a new Covenant by a Mediator but certainly Christ was not in the number of them wherefore we may rather retort this Argument upon the Adversaries for as Christ was not in the number of those men whose Mediator he was nor is comprehended under them in this place of Paul so neither is the same Christ that God or comprehended under the name of that God whose Mediator he is said to be Finally If the whole Trinity were comprehended under the name of that God whose Mediator Christ is he would also be the Mediator of the holy Spirit But this is disentanious to the truth for there would be open testimonies thereof extant in the Tables of the Covenant whose mediator Christ was But what are they We require not such places of Scripture wherein it is expresly said that Christ was the mediator of the holy Spirit but from which it may clearly appear that Christ did so intervene in the midst between the holy Spirit and us as it is needful that a mediator should intervene between them who are to be joyned in Covenant and that he performed the proper part of that Office between him and us According to our Opinion which the most learned Adversaries themselves think not to be false although they say it is imperfect It is the Office of a mediator between God and men to be the messenger of God to men and to strike a League between both and so to cause that men being instructed with the knowledge of the divine Will may address themselves to worship God But the Adversaries commonly suppose that it is the proper Office of Christ the Mediator by fully paying the punishment of all our sins to appease the wrath of God kindled against men and to intercede for them to God which we think pertaineth to a Priest But where is it taught in the Scripture that Christ was the messenger of the holy Spirit to men stroke a League between him and men and brought men indued with the knowledge of his Will to worship him Concerning the Father there are most clear testimonies of the Scripture some whereof we will alledge in the * See Sect. 2. Chap. 4 5 15. following Section Certainly Christ without expressing the Fathers name doth sometimes †John 8.26 27 28. describe him thus He that sent me and changeth this description with the name of the Father There is but one place as far as I can remember alledged out of the Scripture by the Adversaries to prove that Christ was sent by the holy Spirit and it is extant Isa 48.16 where the Prophet according to the vulgar Translation speaketh thus And now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me
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
are attributed to the Father Son and holy Spirit and of the Reason for which they are attributed unto them and consequently of the forms of speech which are used concerning them Last of all this also may be added Arg. 12 That no other is the most high God than he who was heretofore called The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob the God of the Israelites But this is no other than the Father of Jesus Christ Whence some of the more learned * Calvin on Acts 22.14 Adversaries write That he who heretofore would be called the God of Abraham and the Fathers is now by a proper title called The Father of Christ The name indeed or description is changed the person remaining the same Hence the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the God of the Fathers Arg. 12 The Father only is the God of the Patriarchs being simply so called is manifestly put for the Father only Acts 3.13 for thus saith Peter The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob the God of our Fathers hath glorified his Son Jesus If not the Father only but also the Son and holy Spirit were the God of the Fathers why is that God of the Fathers simply so called said to have raised his Son is Christ the Son of himself and also of the holy Spirit Why also doth the divine Author to the Hebrews that I may not mention others put that God who divers and sundry wayes spake heretofore to the Fathers by the Prophets and who is ever and anon called the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob or the God of Israel why I say doth he put him simply so called for the Father For he addeth that he hath in these last times spoken to us by the Son Did he not intimate that that God who in the whole Old Testament is brought in speaking and called the God of the Fathers is the same with the Father of Christ and that the one appellation is of no larger extent than the other Certainly he must be more quick-sighted than Lynceus who will discover in the Writing of that Covenant that Christ not to speak any thing of the holy Spirit was under the old Covenant acknowledged and worshipped for the most high God so great a silence is there concerning this matter But of these things hitherto SECT II. Wherein is shewn That Christ is not the Most High God that so it may be understood That the Father only is the Most High God IN the foregoing Section we have produced those places which principally shew and that directly that the Father only is the most high God nevertheless they do also prove that Christ is not that very God which we have undertaken to prove in the second place since it pertaineth to the demonstration of the former For if Christ and we will afterwards teach that the same is to be held concerning the holy Spirit is not that one most high God it remaineth that the Father only is he since there is no other of whom a Christian can so much as suspect that he should be the most high God But we have shewn that Christ in all those places is distinguished from that One God and therefore cannot be that One God For the same should be distinguished from himself And lest any one should think that he can here evade by the distinction of Natures we have shewn that in most places out of which Judgment may easily be made concerning the rest Christ is there considered not according to some nature Arg. 1 That Chrst is frequently distinguished from God which is not a person but in regard of his very Person which according to the Opinion of the Adversaries is that One God and the second Person of the Trinity as they speak But to those Reasons we think fit to add sundry more not that they may not or ought not of themselves to be sufficient for every wise and judicious man but that it may appear with how many and how strong props of the Scripture our Opinion concerning one God the Father is supported For by this means we hope it will come to pass that all wise men will not only discharge us from all fault of impiety and rashness in departing from an opinion received for so many Ages but also begin to wonder that they were dim-sighted and saw no clearer in so great a lustre of the Truth shining on every side and of its own accord darring its beams into the eyes of all and so understand that they shall he impiously obstinate if they shall purposely shut their eyes at so great a Light and dare to reject the true Opinion which we defend First therefore we will alledge those Testimonies of the Scripture and Arguments drawn from them which principally shew that Christ is not that One or Most High God yet do in the mean time withal attribute a Prerogative to the Father above Christ and that to him alone from which it may presently be rightly concluded that the Father only is the Most High God Then we will subjoyn them which do directly demonstrate only this That Christ namely is not the most high God CHAP. I. Argument the first drawn thence That Christ is most frequently distinguished from God AS to the Testimonies of the first sort and the Arguments drawn thence we will begin from those that are largely diffused and may be referred to the names in some sort either denied or attributed unto Christ of which we will in this place alledge but two The first is That Christ is in innumerable places openly distinguished from God simply put And that we may out of so great plenty of Examples produce a few which may put the Reader in mind of the rest How often do we read that Christ is called the Son of God elsewhere we see him called the Word or Speech of God the Image of God elsewhere we find it written that he was in the beginning with God was sent from God went out from God is the Bread of God that descended from Heaven was in the form of God and equal to God sate down at the right hand of God or of the Power of God was made Lord and Christ by God was appointed Judge by God Now it is certain that by the name of God in such places the most high God is understood How then can Christ himself be the most high God For it would be necessary by this reckoning either that there are two most high Gods he namely who is signified by the name of God and Christ and that Christ is distinguished from himself which all understand to be absurd The Defence of the Argument BUt to this Argument two things are wont to be given in answer First That by the name of God in such places the Father is denoted and that since Christ is a Person different from the Father there is no marvel that Christ is distinguished from God Next that Christ in
he no less than the Father should have an high Priest and this Priest be himself since neither any cause can be imagined nor can it any way be that the Father should have a Priest and Christ not have one if he be God no less than the Father yea the same God in number with him as may appear from those things which we before spake concerning the title of a Mediator But where is even the least hint in the holy Scripture whereby it may appear that Christ hath an high Priest as well as the Father Who seeth not that it is very absurd to hold that the Person of Christ offereth to himself wherefore the Priesthood of Christ is utterly inconsistent with the divine Nature which is held to be in him CHAP. XXIX The nine and twentieth Argument That Christ was raised up by the Father THe sixth Argument of this kind may be drawn from the places wherein Christ is said to have been raised by another namely his Father which reason is so much the more to be urged because the contrary thereof is urged by the Adversaries For they say Christ raised himself and by this means clearly demonstrated that he was the Son of God begotten out of his Essence and consequently the most high God But this Argument partly falls to the ground by it self in that it is grounded on a false Supposition as we will by and by demonstrate partly is weakned by another erroneous Oppinion of the same Adversaries For they hold that the Soul or Spirit of Christ which they also hold concerning the spirits of other men after he was dead did notwithstanding perform such actions as agree to none but Substances that are actually alive and understand by themselves Some say that it went down into Hell or Purgatory and brought the Souls of the Fathers out of I know not what Prison or Limbus But if the Soul of Christ even during his death did exercise such actions what hinders but that the same Soul entring into his own Body and former habitation should again unite it unto it self and by divine Power raise it up For could the Soul of Christ furnisht with divine Power do less than his whole humanity when he lived perform by the same divine Power could it do less than for example sake some one of the Apostles to whom Christ sometimes gave the power of raising the * Mat. 10.8 dead and of †Act. 9.40.41 20.9 c. whom we read that some of them did actually raise the dead ‖ 1 King 17.17 c 2 King 4.18 c. Which very thing we read likewise of Elijah and Elisha Wherefore we will far more rightly invert the Argument of the Adversaries and retort upon them that weapon which they endeavour to hurl at us For if Christ were the most high God his raising should be ascribed to himself as the true and chief Author But it is not attributed to him but to the Father as the true and chief Author thereof yea it is very openly signified that Christ iâ— you speak properly Arg. 29 That Christ was raised up by the Father did not raise himself Wherefore he is not the most high God The truth of the Major as they call it is manifest enough For none doubteth if Christ be the most high God that he did altogether raise himself and that it was most suitable that he should raise himself For since it follows from that Opinion that the humane Nature according to which Christ dyed was personâ—â—â—y united to the divine it could at no hand be that the humane Nature should perpetually abide in death and consequently in as much as that union according to their Opinion can never be dissolved that a dead corps should in an indissoluble and eternal tye be united to the divine Nature Furthermore if the humane Nature were to be raised by whom rather was it to be raised than by the divine Nature of the same Christ which both could of it self very easily perform it and by reason of that most strict union did owe this benefit unto the Nature that was joyned unto it Wherefore whether you consider the ability of performing it the divine Nature of Christ would have been the prime cause of that work for the Office of performing it it would have chiefly lain on that Nature How then would not Christ have been the true and chief Author of his own Resurrection As for the Minor there are so many and so clear Testimonies of the holy Scripture which make the Father the true and chief Author of the Resurrection of Christ and not Christ himself yea very openly take away this work from Christ though even the thing it self namely his death doth sufficiently take it away that it is a wonder that any one should doubt of it For first in certain places it is openly said that the Father raised Christ or that God raised his Son But who is that God whose Son Christ is but the Father The former is recorded by Paul in the beginning of the Epistle to the Galathians whilst he speketh thus Paul an Apostle not from men nor by man but by Jesus Christ and God the Father that raised him up from the dead The latter it is affirmed by Peter Acts 3. ult To you God having raised up his Son first sent him blessing you And Paul chap. 13.33 doth indeed assert the same whilst he saith And we declare unto you the Promise which was made unto our Fathers that God hath fulfilled it unto us their Children having raised up Jesus as it is also written in the second Psalm Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee Now that he raised him from the dead no more to return to corruption thus he said c. From which words it appeareth that he who said unto Christ thou art my Son this day â— begot thee which indeed is no other than the Father raised him from the dead The same Apostle saith 1 Thes 1.9 10. Ye turned to God from Idols to serve the true and living God and is expect his Son out of Heaven whom he raised from the dead even Jesus who delivereth us from the Wrath to come Where in like manner God is said to have raised his Son from the dead To these are added very many other places wherein it is simply written that God raised Christ of which number we will here set down only one or two with the words at large contenting our selves to quote the rest Thus therefore speaketh Peter Acts 2.24 Whom Jesus of Nazareth God raised up having loosed the Throws of Hell in that it was impossible that he should be held by it For David faith concerning him I saw the Lord alwayes before me because he is at my right hand that I may not be moved Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoyceth Moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope For thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell nor suffer
to whom the Son will reveal him and elsewhere If ye had known me ye would have known my Father also and from henceforth ye know him and a little after He that seeth me seeth the Father But furthermore although Christ was visible according to the humane Nature yet ought he not to be simply distinguished from the invisible God and herein to be opposed to him if he in the mean time were that most high and invisible God For if the name of God namely the most high God may and ought to be absolutely attributed unto Christ as they hold those things also may and ought to be absolutely attributed to him which are absolutely spoken of God and which agree to him in respect of his Essence But if Christ may and ought for the divine Nature to be absolutely called invisible he ought not absolutely to be distinguished from the invisible God Some other will perhaps say that Christ is the Image of God according to the humane Nature which seemeth not disagreeable to their Opinion who together with us confess that Christ is called the Image of God in respect of us namely because he did in himself as it were present to our view the invisible God But in the first place they are not constant enough to themselves whilst they refer that which is the same with the Image of God or at least is of the same efficacy in our Argument to the divine Nature namely that Christ is called the Character of the Substance of God for a Character hath not the same Substance with the thing whose Character it is Again By this means Christ would have been the Image no less of his own divine Person or Nature than of the Fathers neither would there have been any cause why he should be called the Image of another rather than of himself But we find not this but that rather expressed in the Scripture For when Christ is called the Image of God all the Adversaries as far as I know hold that the Father is understood and the distinction of that God from Christ and finally the collation of this kind of speaking with other-like sayings of the Scripture do sufficiently shew the same I omit that Christ did in himself as it were present to our view the invisible God in that he expressed his Will by Doctrine his Power by admirable Works and clearly demonstrated his Faith and Truth by both But these things agree only to a Person as such so that those Adversaries are forced to hold either that his divine Person as such is the Image of the Father or that the humane Nature if they will attribute this to it only is a Person The first of which overthroweth their Answer the latter their Opinion And let these things suffice to have been spoken concerning those Arguments which so shew Christ not to be the most high God as that withal they give a Prerogative to the Father above him CHAP. XXXI The one and thirtieth Argument is chiefly drawn from those causes for which Christ is in the Scriptures called The Son of God VVE must now pass to those Arguments which absolutely shew that Christ is not the most high God without having any regard to this that some Prerogative is withal given to the Father above him Now though we might in this place alleage all the attributes of the Humanity of Jesus Christ as that he was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary that he did eat drink grow that he was weary sometimes and did weep and was disturbed and finally suffered most bitter torments and dyed and the like yea this very thing that he is and was a Man in as much as none of those things can be said of the most high God as they are and that absolutely of Christ yet will we here only alleage those things which contain some other Argument of our Opinion besides that which is common to all those Attributes Now the first shall be this That if Jesus were the most high God he would no otherwise be so then because he is the Son of God For neither can any greater thing be spoken of Jesus Christ Arg. 31 from The Causes why Christ is called the Son of God then that he is the Son of God the Adversaries themselves hold that he received the divine Essence by generation from the Father which maketh him the Son of God But from whence any one hath the divine Essence he hath also from thence that he is God But Jesus is not therefore the most high God because he is the Son of God wherefore neither is he simply the most high God Our Assumption shall not here be proved by this Reason that Jesus whilst he is called the Son of God is thereby distinguished from God namely the supream and only God Nor also that he is by this very name made inferiour to the Father as wholly depending from the Father where as the Father dependeth from none other for these reasons we have before used But we will prove the same by another Argument and that a twofold one Chap. 1 2 of this Section although other things also will be brought in by the by whilst we shall be imployed in proving the former which things would also be fit to demonstrate the very Question or principal Position it self The first is this That whereas several causes are expressed in the holy Scriptures for which Jesus is the Son of God yet none of them is such as constituteth him the most high God in that they all agree to the Man Christ Jesus or that we may speak with the Adversaries agree to Christ according to the humane Nature and began at a certain time Yea they are so far from either constituting or demonstrating Christ to be the most high God as that they rather shew him not to be so and consequently each of them may justly be accounted as so many Arguments to assert our Opinion But it is impossible that if Jesus be the Son of God in such a manner as constituteth him the most high God this thing should be no where set down in Scripture partly because we see other reasons exprest which would be of far less moment than it partly because that Reason as indeed the Adversaries themselves contend would be altogether necessary to be known believed unto salvation so much the more clearly to be explained by the sacred Writers and so much the more diligently frequently to be inculcated by how much it was more removed from our sences and capacity and consequently more difficult to be known and believed For since the sacred Scriptures * Jo. 20.31 1 Jo. 4 15. chap. 5.5 Mat. 16.16 Jo. 6.69 Act. 8.37 Ch. 9.20 doth place the sum of our faith and confession concerning Christ herein that we believe and profess Jesus to be the Son of God namely in the most perfect manner so called it is necessary also that we be sure of the true and
genuine Reason for which he is called such a Son of God For neither is it enough to know and pronounce the words but it is necessary to know and comprehend in the mind the thing it self as far as it falls under our capacity otherwise you shall neither truly believe the thing nor heartily profess it Now the thing that is signified by those words consisteth in the genuine reason for which Jesus is called the Son of God by way of excellency which according to the opinion of the adversarie is because he was from eternity begotten out of the Essence of the Father Neither indeed did this opinion otherwise agree either with it self or with the holy Scriptures would any other reason be more true or genuine If theâ—efore we find not this reason expressed in the holy Scripture but others far different from it we must hold that it is not t e true one The latter Argument wherewith our assumption is confirmed shall afterwards be seen in this Chapter A fuller Confirmation and Defence of this Argument NOw that it may appear that in the Scripture no such reason for which Christ is the son of God is expressed as maketh him the most high God but only such as agree to the humane nature of Christ or to speak more rightly to the man Jesus Christ we will rehearse these places wherein the causes are declared for which Jesus hath been called the Son of God some of which Testimonies at least are so ordereâ— that if Jesus had then already been the Son of God for some better reason and namely because he had from all eternity been generated out of the Esâ—ence of the Father it ought not to have been omitted Now the causes for which Jesus is called the Son of God have a certain order amongst themselves and the latter still addeth something to the former The first Cause why Christ is called the the Son of God Luke 1.35 John Maldonatus and maketh Jesus Christ the Son of God in a moâ—e perfect manner than before The first cause is declared by the Angel in Luke where amongst other things Gabriel thus speaketh unto Mary The holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the power of the most high shall overshadow thee therefore also that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God Where we cannot but set down those things which the most learned Popish Interpreter doth amongst other t ings note upon this place for he rightly both saw and explained the sence of the words And first of all as concerning the last words of this place he noteth that to call doth here signifie to be according to the idiom of the Hebrews who take the consequent or effect for the antecedent cause of which he had also spoken in the 32d vers for there the Angel likewise saith of the Virgins Son that was to be born And he shall be called that is shall â—e the Son of the Most High This Inâ—erpreter hath aleaged examples of that Hebruisme out of Isa 1.26 and the 4.3 to which is also added that place Gen. 21.12 compared with Rom. 9.7 Those likewise might be added Matth. 5.9 19. and 21.13 Isa 56.7 and Luke 1.76 Rom. 9.26 Hos 1.10 Wherefore the same Interpreter doth afterwards justly reprove Calvin who to escape the Argument of Servetus dâ—awn fâ—om those words of the Angel saith that to be called doth here signifie to be declared the Son of God For how saith he can the reason of the Angel agree with this interpretation Therefore the holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God We ought not to abuse the holy Scripture that we may refute Hereticks Again explaining that reason for which the Angel said that Christ should be called that is should be the Son of God he saith all others whom I have seen interpret this as if the Angel spake of Christ as God or at least as man assumed into one person with God in that both wayes Christ is the true and natural Son of God How be it a little aâ—ter he writeth after this manner Though I for my part suppose that the words carry another sense and are not to be understood of Christ as God nor as a man united to a divine person but only of his conception and humane generation as if the Angel should say He shall be called that is be the Son of God because he shall be begotten not by a man but by God through the power of the holy Spirit For neither did the Angel speak concerning the nature of Christ but of the manner of his generation And the cause which he renders why he should be the Son of God in that the holy Spirit should come upon the Virgin and the power of the most high overshadow her was not apt to prove that Christ should be the Son of God as he was God or man assumed into the same person with God because a meer man might be conceived by the supervening of the holy Spirit and overshadowing power of the most high who would be the Son of God neither of those wayes in as much as he was neither God nor joyned to a divine Person But to prove that what was to be born of the Virgin should be the Son of God in such a sence as I have declared the reason of the Angel was very apt in as much as the Child was to be conceived not of a man but of God alone Wherefore although Christ had not been God yet being born in such a manner as he was he had deservedly been called the Son of God not only as other holy men of whom it is said I said ye are Gods and ye are all Sons of the most high but in a singular and proper manner because he had no other Father than God being begotten by no other than him What I pray you could be spoken more aptly and more suitably to the place I was therefore willing to explain the whole matter in his words rather than in mine own that it might with all appear by the testimony of a Papist how evident this opinion is which we defend concerning the reason exprest in these words of the Angel for which Jesus is called the Son of God For what else but the evidence of the thing it self could move a Papist especially of that order to which he was adicted that contrary to the consent of all other Interpreters which he had seen he should follow the opinion which we hold especially since he knew that they whom he judged Hereticks did urge this place for their opinion concerning Christ Although we see that some even of them who are called â—ospellers assent both to him and us in this behalf This then is the first cause See Gualter on this place Je. Zanc. lib. 2. de tribus Elohim for which Jesus was the Son of God in that he was conceived and born not of a man but of God
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
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
in a manner minister for which reason also he immediately subjoyneth them to God But for as much as Christ also hath these spirits of God and maketh use of them therefore having made mention of them he also commemmorateth Christ and prayeth for grace and peace to the Churches from him wherefore this wish and the imploring of the divine help comprehended therein is properly referred to God and Christ improperly to the spirits themselves Which is the cause why other divine men omit the mention of them in their salutations and wishes they who hold them to be Angels will say that this invocation is referred to them only in a secondary manner as unto Ministers not as unto Lords and the true bestowers of grace and peace and that therefore the mention of them is elsewhere omitted and they are therefore set before Christ partly because they belong unto God to whom they are next subjoyned for which cause also afterwards chap. 3. the name of the New Jerusalem is interposed betwixt that of God and Christ partly because John intendeth to speak more largely of Christ For he therefore reserveth the mention of them to the end that without disturbing the course of his speech he might more freely make an excursion into his prayers For if he would have reserved the mention of those spirits to the end he should have either used a longer Parenthesis or begun a new speech It is apparent therefore that there is nothing in those places to establish the invocation of the holy Spirit And here it is worth the rehearsing as learned men have noted that Hilary in his twelve Books concerning the Trinity never called the holy Spirit God never said that he is to be adored but only to be obtained which is likewise to be observed in other Writers both of that and former times Yea the true opinion concerning the holy Spirit was of so great power that even after those things wherein the holy Spirit began to be accounted for the most hlgh God almost all the prayers of the Churches were directed to God the Father and to Christ not to the holy Spirit And there are yet extant several Books of the Papists put forth in the former age and containing an account of Religion and Ceremonies in use among them where it is expresly declared that we must observe how every prayer is directed to God the Father or to Christ the Son and not to the holy Spirit because a gift is not asked from the gift it self but from the bestower of the gift Indeed we are not ignorant that there is an usual Hymn among them wherein they pray the holy Spirit to come and fill the heart of his People howbeit the cause which is alleaged that a gift is not asked from the gift it self but from the bestower of the gift is universal and it is clear that regard was had thereunto in most prayers of the Church and should have been had in all without exception Now that custom of praying is an open token of the true Opinion which did at first prevail in the Church For if the holy Spirit be the most high God absolutely equal to the Father and to the Son whom they likewise hold to be the most high God why was he not judged worthy of equal honour why were either all or at least the greatest part of prayers not equally directed to him as to the Father or the Son This indeed was the hinderance that in those first times it was out of controversie as both the holy Scripture doth plainly enough testifie and at this day many though therein inconstant to themselves confess that the holy Spirit is a gift For which cause Hilary before cited illustrating and confirming his opinion concerning the Trinity with that saying of Christ Mat. 28.19 Baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit doth in his second Book concerning the Trinity at the close thereof thus explain the words In the confession of the Author and of the only Begotten and of the gift which he doth there largely pursue Wherefore since they had this opinion concerning the holy Spirit they directed their prayers not to him but to the Father and the Son the bestower of that gift knowing that a gift is not asked from the gift it self but from the giver of the gift Which custom even the contrary errour hath for so many ages not been able quite to abolish CHAP. III. Arg. 3 The holy Spirit is often not joyned with God Christ The third Argument That the mention of the holy Spirit is in many places omitted and would not so have been were he the most high God THe third Argument may thence be drawn that in very many places of the Scripture where mention is made of the Father and of the Son and sometimes of Angels or other things and persons there is no mention made of the holy Spirit when nevertheless mention ought to have been made of him no less than of the Father and the Son and rather then of the Angels or of other things and persons if he were the most high God coequal as they speak to the Father and the Son Which that it may be plain we will first alleage those places wherein there is mention made of the Father and of Christ only and then those where mention is made of others whether Persons and chiefly Angels or things which ought to have been mentioned much less than the holy Spirit if he had been the most high God But for as much as the places of the former sort are almost innumerable we will here recite those only which are somewhat more illustrious and such chiefly as affirm the same thing of God and Christ within the compass of the same sentence the rest we reserve for the diligence of the Reader We will begin from John in the History of whose Gospel we will give the first place to those words of Christ which are extant chap. 17.3 This is Life eternal that they know thee Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent We do not now urge that the Father only is said to be the true God for that we have done in the * Sect. 1. chap. 1. beginning of this work but that mention is made of the Father only and of the Son and in the knowledge of these two only eternal life or the way to attain it is placed when notwithstanding were the holy Spirit no less the true God than the Father it would be necessary that eternal Life should lye no less in the knowledge of him than in the knowledge of the Father and consequently mention should have been made no less of the one than of the other much less that a divine Embassadour should rather be mentioned Neither can the Adversaries say that the knowledge of the holy Spirit is contained in the knowledge of the Father and of Christ For though this be otherwise
divine persons which deserve to be so called by way of excellency saith 1 John 1.3 That our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ Intimating that it consisteth within the compass of those persons Indeed the communion of the holy Spirit is with us because we are partakers of him but we are not said to have fellowship with him because our fellowship is not with the gift but either with him who bestoweth the gift on us or with him that hath the same gift with us or is in some sort of the same condition CHAP. IV. Arg. 4 from Matth. 11.27 The fourth Argument from Matth. 11.27 None knoweth the Son but the Father neither knoweth any one the Father but the Son c. VVE have hitherto alleaged testimonies enough wherein the mention of the holy Spirit is omitted but ought not to be omitted if he were a divine person We will now subjoyne one place that is different from the former testimonies and more like to them wherein something is expresly denyed of the holy spirit Because though it make not express mention of the holy Spirit yet doth it in general deny something of him that could not be denyed were he a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son and equal unto both This place is extant Matth. 11.27 where Christ speaketh thus None knoweth the Son but the Father neither knoweth any one the Father save the Son c. But how could this be true were the holy Spirit a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son and in all things equal unto both for some other besides the Father would have known the Son and some other besides the Son would have known the Father namely the holy Spirit Yea he would have known him without the revelation of another The Defence of the Argument Neither can it be here said that the word none is put onely to exclude creatures For otherwise why is it added save the Father Why is he excepted Is he haply ranked among the creatures so that he was there expresly to be excepted For that only is excepted which otherwise is comprehended under the general name and which had it not been excepted might be thought to have been comprehended under the â—eneâ—al speech and so the same either affirmed or denyed of it which is affirmed or denyed of others belonging to the same kind There is the same difficulty concerning the Son if you consider the opinion of the adversaries For they hold him as he is the Son of God to be no creature But here he is lookt upon as he is the Son Neither may any one say that the holy Spirit is tacitly included in the Father and the Son For if the holy Spirit be a person distinct from both by what right is this affirmed Again is the holy Spirit more included in the Father and the Son than either the Son in the Father or contrarywise the Father in the Son Certainly no more Wherefore if no mention be made of the holy Spirit because he is included in both there ought to be no express mention made either of the Son or of the Father because the one is included in the other And truly the mention of the Father doâ—h moâ—e openly include the Son or the mention of the Son include the Faâ—her than the mention of both doth the holy Spirit if he be a person distinâ—t from both yea there is not so much as any suspicion that he is included But there the very names have a mutual relation each to other Wherefore mention should rather have been made of the holy Spirit than either of the Father when it is spoken concering the knowledge of the Son or of the Son when it is spoken concerning the knowledge of the Father Finally neither may any one say that the holy Spirit is comprehended among them to whom the Son will reveal the Father or himself because he bestoweth on him as the Essence so also the knowledge of the Father For to omit that nothing is revealed to any one unless he doth already exist it is here spoken of such a revelation as happeneth at a certain time and dependeth on the will of the Son and not on the necessity of nature But that revelation if it ought to have such a name as it is caused by the procession of the holy Spirit from the Essence of the Son is conceived both to have been from all eternity and not to depend on the will of the son but on the necessity of nature Doth not the thing it self intimate that men are here understood to whom Christ is willing to deliver the knowledge of the Father by the doctrine of the Gospel Though further this very thing that is affirmed in this exception demonstrateth the holy spirit not to be the most high God For he is not the most high God who receiveth his Essence and whatsoever he hath from another but he who hath that from himself as we have taught in our * Sect. 2. Chap. â— disputation concerning Christ CHAP. V. The fifth Argument That the holy Spirit is very often distinguished from God AFter that we seem to have spoken enough of those things which are not mentioned in the Scripture concerning the holy Spirit and which would not have been omitted were he the most high God it follows that we view those things also which are expresly delivered concerning him in the holy Scripture and are such as that they shew the holy Spirit not to be the most high God And they are of two sorts For some are such as being properly taken agree no more to persons than to other things or also at no hand agree to persons but are only proper to things But some are such as taken properly agree to persons only but are ascribed to the holy Spirit by a certaine figure To which we will add those also which primarily and by themselves agree to singular substances and onely consequently unto other things We beginning from the first will teach that the holy Spirit is so far from being the most high God as that he is not a person although this last is not proved by all the arguments we shall alledge but yet it is by many of them Arg. 5 The holy Spirit is distinguished from God Our first Argument therefore drawn from these things which agree no more to persons than things shall be this That the holy Spirit is oftentimes most openly distinguished from God or the Lord. Now that the holy spirit is oftentimes and most openly distinguished from God or the Lord even those places do shew wherein he is called the Spirit of God or of the Lord or God or the Lord calleth him his spirit many of which are extant in the holy scripture of which we have before seen one or two alleaged by the adversaries to shew that the holy spirit is called God or the Lord or understood by his name namely those two
all works to without as they speak to be common to the whole Trinity yet affirm that Creation agrees more properly to the Father Redemption to the Son Sanctification to the holy Spirit Lastly Paul also Rom. 1.4 as in like manner we have seen above saith Christ was constituted the Son of God in power according to the spirit of sanctification by the resurrection of the dead making the spirit of sanctification the proper and next cause of that filiation But if he be a person or comes from the person of the holy spirit the holy spirit will be the Father of Christ From which absurdity our opinion is far remote which makes not the holy spirit a person but the power and efficacy of God which however it concurred to the generation of the Son yet it concurred not as a Father but as that by which the Father begat But if the holy spirit be not a person neither is he the most high God as who is of necessity a person and indeed of this thing is here the question between us and the adversaries Whether the holy spirit be a divine person namely distinct from the Father Therefore let this be the third Argument of this rank CHAP. VIII The eighth Argument That the holy Spirit is given by God to men THe fourth Argument drawn from those things which are openly delivered in the holy Scripture concerning the holy Spirit shall be this That the holy Spirit is given to men by God and that men obtain receive and have him from God by prayers as numberless places of the holy Scriptures shew out of which it is sufficient to have looked into but these few Luke 11.13 John 7.39 and 14.16 17. Acts 5.32 and 15.8 Rom. 5.5 1 Cor. 6.19 Whence also the holy Spirit is teâ—med a Gift Acts 11.17 which compare with the precedent Yea in all those places wâ—ere mention is made of the gift of the holy Spirit For we shewed above Chap. 6. of this Section That there is not there the Genitive Case of the Efficient but of the Species otherwise both the gifts rather than the gift of the holy Spirit had been to be mentioned and by it had not â—een signified that men either have received or were to receive the holy Spirit which notwithstanding the holy Scriptures using that manner of speech would altogether shew but only some effect of it Now by these things it is evinced that the holy Spirit is not the most high God for he is given or bestowed by none upon any is obtained of none by prayers For first Every Gift and whatsoever is obtained by prayer is in the power of the giver But the most high God is not in the power of another otherwise by this very thing he should have some one above himself and moreover should not be most high Besides Arg. 8 The holy Spirit is given to men the gift is made also his to whom it is given so as that it may be possessed by him But may the most high God be so a mortal mans as that he may be possessed by him Moreover to what end should so great a gift be given to men What fruit would there be of it No other certainly can be imagined but that those effects may exist in a man which the holy Scriptures testify to be produced by the holy Spirit What then Is it needful to the end God should fill any man with such effects and gifts that he himself be given to him When the Father filleth any man with such gifts is it necessary that he himself should be given to him Why then may not the holy Spirit be able to do the same which tâ—e Father if in like manner he be most high and so the same God With the Father Lastly What cause is there why the holy Spirit should be obtained by us from the Father or Son if he himself be the most high God Why is he not given by himself if so be he may be given A larger Confirmation and Defence of this Argument TO these things I see not what they can answer who doubt not to affirm neither indeed can they otherwise as it shall hereafter be made manifest that the very person of the holy Spirit is given to men together with his effects Therefore others endeavour to decline the blow that they affirm that not the holy Spirit properly so called is given to men by God but its effect or rather various effects such as are those which 1 Cor. 12.8 c. are largly enough rehearsed and others common to all believers For these are by a Metonymie signified by the name of the holy spirit when he is said to be given unto men and so to be received and had of them For the efficient cause is put for the effect Although some who say there is a Metalepsis in the phrase seem to take the thing a little otherwise For neither do they seem to take the name of the holy Spirit it self for his effects or gifts but for that very divine person which they hold Nevertheless in the mean while they signifie that the giving passively taken is attributed to him only improperly because that which may properly agree to the effects may be also improperly attributed to the efficient cause it self seeing the effects of the holy Spirit may be properly given not he himself And indeed both these seem to themselves to deal more warily than those who simply confess that the holy Spirit himself is given yet in the mean time they do not perceive that both this hole by which they endeavour to get out is stopt and likewise although I should somewhat enlarge it to them yet are they no whit less held fast bound For first it is false that the effects only of the holy Spirit not the holy Spirit himself is given to men And further that when he is said to be given or received by us or had it is said but by a Metonymie or Metalepsis Besides although it was granted it must be no whit the less confessed that the holy Spirit is not the most high God As to the former we shall demonstrate it first by certain general reason and common to all those places of which we treat then by other more special and proper to certain places and lastly from certain hypotheses of the Adâ—ersaries As to the general reason If by the name of the holy Spirit in these places of which we treat is understood some divine and holy inspiration or some power flowing from God which is as it were breathed into men the holy Spirit is properly given that is not by a Metonymie only or by a Metalepsis is said to be given unto men to be received and had of them That the thing is so will be afterward understood For we shall first shew that such an inspiration is understood by the name of the holy spirit when he is said to be given to us to be received and had by us although
heard or read of any who could dare to deny that the divine Spirit the efficient cause of these gifts is the holy Spirit properly so called Neither indeed in these places hath the Metalepsis devised by others any place For the effects also of the holy Spirit are rehearsed in the same places as some things diverse from the holy Spirit given and so as effects of the thing given But if by that Metalepsis the holy Spirit were said to be given to wit in respect of the effects those effects should be contained in the thing given nor should be mentioned or distinct from it And let these things be said out of the sacred Writings against the Metonimy and Metalepsis devised in these manners of speaking As to the Hypothesis of the Adversaries although we have used them in some part already yet it is further to be added that by such an Answer to our Argument their own reason is vehemently overthrown which they are wont to bring further to prove the immensity of the holy Spirit and consequently its supream Deity to wit that the holy Spirit dwelt in all Believers dispersed through the whole world For two wayes they weaken this Argument First because if the very holy Spirit properly so called be not given to Believers but only its effects it cannot be proved that the holy Spirit himself or his Essence is in very deed in every Believer which is necessary to the concluding of their reason Again Because neither such immensity as they understand can be thence proved unless withal they make also the effect of the holy Spirit or at least all its effects dispersed in the hearts of Believers though the whole world joyned together to be immense and the supream God Therefore the Adversaries cannot deny that the holy Spirit it self to wit properly so called is given by God to believers but that together they take away both the testimonies of the holy Scripture and their own assertions But now let us somewhat loosen those bonds by which we have shewn them to be held and let us grant to them seeing they will have it so that not the holy Spirit properly so called is given to Believers but its effect only yet they shall not escape For nevertheless we will hence shew that the holy Spirit is not the most high God For first if the holy Spirit were the most high God it could not be said no not by a Metonymy or Metalepsis of him that he is given or bestowed by another upon men or that men receive him For who would not reject such a manner of speaking as absurd and unworthy of the most high God More soberly do the holy Scripture speak of the most high God than to feign in his names such trops But if yet any man contend that such speaking is not unbeseeming God or absurd let him shew an example of the like manner of speaking in the name either of the most high God or the Father or any other which is equivalent Besides if it were so it should not be understood that that certain gift or if you had rather kind of gifts is given which yet all understand to be given when the holy Spirit is said to be given For the gifts and effects of the most high God are of most large extent for what good soever there is it comes from him Therefore if thou shouldst hear that the most high God is given namely because his gifts are given either thou wouldst understand that all gifts are given together or if thou wouldst understand only a certain kind of gifts to be given thou wouldst believe that to be given which is of all the most excellent either alone or conjoyned with others The same thing therefore should be thought of the holy Spirit if he were the most high God and not said to be given but in respect of gifts and effects only But neither all gifts are understood to be given when we hear the holy Spirit is given nor that which is of all the greatest to wit immortal life or perfect justification but presently our mind is carried to a divine breathing or inspiration or the effects of it in men to wit because the divine Spirit properly so called is a divine inspiration or a force flowing from God into men breathed from heaven into their hearts This I say is the true caâ—se why our mind hearing the holy Spirit to be given is carried to that certain kind of gift or gifts But the adversaries will except that there is in this case another reason of the name of God or the Father or also of the Son another of the name of the holy Spirit although he be the Supream God For they so dispute as we have before shewed although all the works to without are common to the whoâ—e Trinity yet in a certain peculiar respect creation is attributed to the Father remdeption to the Son sanctification to the holy Spirit Now then they will say that that kind of gift or gifts which we understand as soon as we hear the holy Spirit is given doth pertain to sanctification Therefore it is not designed by the name of God common to three persons not by the name of the Father nor Son but the holy Spirit Thou seest by what circuits the mind is led by the adversaries thither whither it is forthwith straight carried But is it credible that those whether Jews oâ— Gentiles who first heard of the holy Spirit to be given to men either from Christ or other divine men did either already know those things or being ignorant of them did not understand what was signified by the name of the holy Spirit and what was promised both to them and to others Were those auditors of Iohn Baptist or Peter whom we mentioned before so knowing of those things that they could think at first when they heard of the holy Spirit to be poured out upon them that some effect should be given them not peculiar to the first and second person of the Deity but the third to whom it is proper to sanctify therefore that effect did pertain to sanctification and withal was a divine inspiration Was it not more ready for them to think that which the word it self declared that a divine inspiration or its effects were promised to them But besides whence is it manifest to the adversaries that the thâ—ee persons of the Deity have among themselves thus parted those three gifts Were they perhaps present at their councel that they so boldly affirme these things They will say from the holy Scriptures it is manifest to them concerning that thing as which doth chefliy ascribe creation to the Father redemption to the Son sanctification to the holy Spirit Of creation and redemption there is not now place of disputing Yet it may be said â—y the way that creation or that first production of all things is ascribed to the Father not cheifly only but also solely since he was the sole author of
it 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
example of divine Persons what will they say That the thing is one way in divine Persons another way in God Is it so But what if we demonstrate that that very God of whom we treat is a divine Person as also on the contrary Will they yet deny that that is in force in God which is in force in a divine Person But it is easie to demonstrate that partly from the holy Scriptures partly from the Opinion of the Adversaries themselves They say that each divine Person is that one God and why may they not say it Forasmuch as they hold that each of them hath the whole Essence of the one God neither can they say otherwise without overthrowing that Doctrine of the Trinity Now the holy Scriptures plainly affirm of the Father that he is that one God But that will be false if that one God be not a divine Person For it may be rightly argued thus That One God is not a divine Person the Father is a divine Person therefore the Father is not that one God The same arguing according to the Adversaries Opinion will be found concerning the Son and holy Spiriâ— These things which are said of us to confirm the first Argument might also by themselves be alleaged to refel the Adversaries Opinion But it matters not on our behalf whether they be taken for peculiar Arguments or for props of the first Although this may be confirmed also by another general reason for wheresoever subjects are in very deed multiplyed those things also are multiplyed which are said distinctly of each and are indeed multiplyed according to the number of their subjects We have already declared the thing by examples both divine and angelical and humane neither can it at all be refelled by any example Run over all kinds of things and you will find that the thing is so As many men as there are so many living creatures bodies substances are there as many Angels so many Spirits as many Lines so many Longitudes and Quantities as many Vertues so many Habits so many Qualities as many Fathers so many Relates and so in the rest To wit because all those Predicates are multiplyed according to the number of their Subjects Wherefore also as many divine Persons as there are so many Gods and indeed most high Gods there will be seeing the most high God is distinctly predicated of each divine person Whence it appeareth that the Athanasian Creed doth plainly contradict it self while it thus pronounceth The Father is God The Son is God The holy Spirit is God and yet there are not three Gods but one God And also the Father is Eternal Omnipotent Infinite in the same manner both the Son and holy Spirit and yet there are not three Eternals Omnipotents Infinits but on Eternal Omnipotent Infinite Perhaps some one will say that the word God is one way taken when it is predicated of each person another way when it is put absolutely there it is taken hypostatically or personally here essentially Truly I do not believe that the more accute Adversaries will so answer since they will have God as also some the Father essentially taken to be predicated also of each of the persons Add hereunto that it would be necessary to make the same Ambiguity in the word Eternal Omnipotent Infinite that one should be said to be essentially eternal omnipotent infinite not personally another on the contrary personally Otherwise they should again labour to reconcile that contradiction which may seem to be in those words that since the Father is both eternal and omnipotent and infinite and likewise the Son and the holy Spirit and yet there are not three eternals omnipotents infinites but one only But I remember not that I have ever read or heard that the Adversaries do feign the same ambiguity in the word Eternal Omnipotent Infinite Wherefore I do not easily believe as I said that the more acute Adversaries will so answer Nevertheless if any shall so answer what other thing will he say than that the Athanasian Creed playes sophistically and deceives rude and simple men with the ambiguity of a word For who of them would think that the word God is there taken two manner of wayes For to what purpose I pray you are those words added And yet there are not three Gods but one God Is it not for that cause lest any especially of the ruder sort of men hearing the Father to be God the Son to be God the holy Spirit to be God should thence gather that there are three Gods But in what signification surely in that in which he had heard that the Father is God likewise both the Son and the holy Spirit For this scruple doth first arise neither presently the other signification of the word comes into the mind of a rude man This opinion therefore is refuted by those words and further the word God is taken in the same manner in both places not one way then when it is spoken of each of the persons and another way then when it is put absolutely and God is said to be one Besides from such an exception it follows nevertheless that it may be rightly said that there are three Gods if the word God be taken personally as indeed the Adversaries confess it is often so taken in the holy Scriptures And it might indeed seem strange that they do not expresly say that there are three Gods but that they see that it is most openly repugnant to the holy Scriptures whilest they are bold to say that there are three Elohim and some Books are extant concerning three Elohim written by divers Adversaries For what other thing doth Elohim signifie than Gods Therefore three Elohim are three Gods namely they endeavour by an Hebrew and less known word somewhat but ridiculously to cover the absurdity Indeed such manner of speaking is reprehended by some more accute Adversaries of the number of whom yet there are not wanting who judge the Hebrew Elohim when it is pronounced of the most high God to be plural no less in signification than Grammatical form But if it be plural in signification also it signifies Gods no less than the Greek Theoi or other words answering to it in other languages Therefore there are more Gods But moreover the distinction between God hypostatically or personally and essentially taken is altogether vain especially when it is spoken concerning the most high God For both the very word God is the name of a person since it is the name chiefly of him that hath command over others and the most high God signifies the supream Ruler and Monarch of all things But to command and rule belongs only to persons Add that we have shewed above in this very chapter that that one God besides whom there is no other is a person as on the contrary there cannot be any one hypostatically or personally God I say the most high God but he is also essentially so For is not he essentially God who
which belongs to a King These things are plain and have in them no scruple and difficulty There is no need here of communication of Properties There is no need to distinguish subtilly between Expressions in concreto and in abstracto to difference the Person from the Nature again one Nature from another to seek how you may attribute humane things to the most high God and things proper to the most high God to a Man how the same Person one while governs as the most high God another while as a Mediator and so the same person is in some sort distinguished from himself Now from that which hath been said that may also be understood That there was no heed of the Union of two Natures For if there had been need of it it had been for this cause That Christ might bear and manage those Offices But Chrisâ— miâ—ht discharge them although he were but a man in Essence Yea if he had been God he could not discharge the two former he could not receive the last nor therefore discharge it because that Kingly office is not the Empire of the most high God as he is such but as the Adversaries speak such a Kingdom as Christ manageth as a Mediator And indeed the confirming our faith and hope and the Glory of the most high God required such a Kingdom But if any say that greater than humane ability or power was requisite to discharge those Offices that would be of some moment if it had been necessary that he should have that ability or power from himself nor could receive them from God himself But now since he both might receive them from God and the holy Scriptures so often testifie that he hath received them from God what need was there that he should be the most high God Rightly they say commonly God and Nature do nothing in vain although God doth those things also that Nature doth But if God does not things unnecessary much less those things which hinder and are otherwise unbeseeming his Majesty But we have shewed that that union would have hindered the administration of those Offices We have shewed also that it attributes to God not a few absurdities and things unbeseeming his Majesty and most apt either to take away out of mens minds or at least to diminish in them that veneration of it which he would establish by Christ The Third Section That the holy Spirit shouâ—d be the Son of God In which is discoursed concerning the third Person of the Supream Deity which is commonly held And it is shewed That the holy Spirit should be the Son of God if the common Opinion concerning him were true WE have said enough of the second Person which is held to be in the Trinity It remains that we add something also of the third There is no need that we should say much of it because those things which have been said of the Sons Generation out of the Essence of the Father being a little changed may be applied to that procession of the holy Spirit which the Adversaries have devised For which reason we also before sometimes have expresly joyned the holy Spirit with the Son and so anticipated the treating of those things which might have been here alleaged nor did we that without cause For if you rightly mark it both the Generation of the Essence of the Father is some Procession and on the contrary such a Procession as the Adversaries attribute to the holy Spirit is like that Generation which the Adversaries attribute to the Son of God The former the more lâ—â—rned of the Adversaries do confess who treating of the Generation of the Son and Procession of the holy Spirit say That there are two Pâ—ocessions in God But why the word Procession is accommodated perticularly to the holy Spirit and so is distinguished from the Generation of the Son they assign this to be the Reason Because there is a special word wanting by which that proper and peculiar manner whereby the holy Spirit proceeds from the Faâ—her and Son may be designed Therefore as in other things it oft comes to pass the general name is attributed as proper to the species and so is distinguished from the other species But that the Procession also of the holy Spiâ—it is a Generation if that Generation of the Son of God which the Adversaries hold be indeed a Generation is not hard to demonstrate For what other thing is required to a Generation properly to called than that one receive his Essence from another either the same in kind or as the Adversaries opinion of God is in number with his Essence from whom he receives it In brief generation properly so called is a communication of a substance with another And is not that Procession of the holy Spirit devised by the Adversaries such a communication Did not the holy Spirit by that Procession receive the same essence in number with the essence of them from whom hee proceeded So indeed Adversaries think and contend But if the Procession of the holy Spirit be a Generation properly so called we have in the Trinity two Sons one of the first person only another of the first and second and also two Fathers one of the ffrst person who will be a Father by a double name to wit because he hath begotten the second and third person of the Deity another the second person who together with the Father hath begotten the holy Spirit But we have learned both from the holy Scâ—iptures and the Adversaries that there is but only One Father and only one Son to wit by excellency so called The more acute of the Adversaries have seen this Rock of their opinion and have endeavoured to avoid it Therefore they have judged that that definition of a Generation which otherwise they themselves have delivered is to be limited and have said that not every communication of a substance with anohter is a Generation but at length that tâ—at which such a relation follows as is between Father and Son which is barbarously called Paternity and Filiation In which indeed they are rediculous As if forsooth it could be that a person may communicate his substance really to a person and yet such a relation may not thence presently follow and that person which communicates his substance to another by that very thing were not forthwith a Father or where there is a distinction of sex which is not in God a Mother and again he to whom the substance is communicated a Son or where there is a distinct sex a Daughter The Adversaries themselves confess that the words Father Son Generation Procession as also other-like words are by an Analogy said of God and creatures and that by reason of likeness they are translated from these to God But in things created as soon as the substance is produced the things is properly said to be generated nor is there any thing more required to the propriety of the word but if a person have
there is none in him mortal men do But true cannot be contrary to true no more yea less than an Egg to an Egg Milk to Milk Neither may they fetcht patronage of so absurd a distinction from Aristotle who saith as we have before minded that some things are really distinct some in reason For with him those things are distinct in reason which the schoolmen say are formally distinguished that is which although they be united together and by a certain indissolvable knot either on both sides or on one part joyned yet differ in forms and proper Essences as docility and the faculty of admiring in the same man generation and corruption For every natural and properly so called Generation is the corruption of another thing and on the contrary Nevertheless these things differ yea are opposite and so have opposite essences also which are in the same matter in respect of divers things For one thing is corrupted another thing is generated So the foundations also are distinguished from the relations which rest on them But those things differ also in the whole genus or predicament So also the comparisons of the same thing with divers relations have forms and essences divers either in the genus or species or number as also termini and correlata differ Therefore the intellect doth not feign those distinctions in things but in very deed finds them in them and the Schoolmen themselves say that those things are distinct actually which although we think not of them are distinct in forms although they exist together But if they would acknowledge such a difference between the divine persons and essence the Patrons of it will neither be able to reconcile the common Doctrine of the Trinity with it self nor with their other Doctrines Not with it self for by this means each person will have its proper form and essence and so those persons will be and will not be at once of one essence Not with their other doctrines because the exactest simplicity of God will fall But if they acknowledge not that distinction then the Trinity will fall all true difference between the essence and the persons and thereupon of the persons also between themselves being taken away Wherefore which way soever the Adversaries turn themselves they will not be able to defend that their Trinity or plurality of persons in one Essence of God and therefore there remains no other thing than that they confess together with us that there is no less one person than one substance of God The use of this Disputation The Conclusion of the Work In which the Use of this Disputation concerning One God the Father is explained THerefore having demonstrated that the most high God is no less one in person than in essence and that he is no other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ it remains that we shew the Use of this Doctrine Now this is so much the greater by how much the contrary Doctrine is more hurtful and so much the farther it spreads it self by how much the farther the incommodities of the contrary opinion are extended For first how necessary it is to understand and believe that there is only One most high God both the holy Scriptures shew which do often inculcate it and all men easily understand But now unless you hold that there is only One Person of the Supream Deity you can neither sufficiently understand nor constantly believe and maintain the Unity of the supream Deity For as much as it is sufficiently shewed by us that more persons having supream Divinity are more most high Gods But although this errour be somewhat infringed and diminished by another errour whilst it is affirmed that there is one essence in number of those persons yet it is not altogether taken away and suffers not men to understand sufficiently and to believe constantly that which is said of the Unity of the divine Essence For although you endeavour never so much you cannot conceive in your mind one and the same essence of three persons really distinct from among themselves especially if you will think of those things that which either the holy Scriptures or the Adversaries themselves asserâ— of the Father Son and holy Spirit belonging to the differencing of them from each other For whosoever hears even those very names and thinks the Son to be truly begotten of the Father the holy Spirit to have proceeded from both forthwith he must needs think three essences divers in number however otherwise most like one another or in some certain manner coupled together Likewise he who thinks that the Father sent the Son and again both together the holy Spirit that the Son descended from Heaven and as they hold assumed flesh neither of the other descended or assumed flesh again that the holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape the Father and the Son not descending how is he not together constrained to cocceive in his mind distinct essences And if he shall attribute supream Deity to each of them he will conceive three Gods in number although most like one another and in a certain manner united together Seeing therefore by this means a multitude of Gods is brought in by that opinion it is necessary that that by the same means also fall into those absurdities which follow from the multitude of Gods He that holds more most high Gods distributes the glory and honour due to one unto more and as much as he attributes to the rest so much he takes away from that one For since they are held to be equal one to another nor is one acknowledged to be subordinate to the other although also a false opinion of subordination is as none that which is attributed to one doth not come to another Wherefore he who acknowledgeth and worshippeth more persons having supream Divinity transfers to more that which was due to one and detracts from that one that which he attributes to the rest And that you may more nearly behold the matter if the Father alone as we have demonstrated be the most high God who doth not see that those absurdities do follow from the contrary opinion concerning the Trinity For first the honour of the Father is diminished whilst that which by far he hath of all things most sacred and wherein he excels all things is equally communicated with others to wit the supream Deity and further whatsoever things are proper to this alone whether they be his works or ours respecting his Glory and Honour For presently it is necessary that both the creation of Heaven and Earth and that I may let pass other innumerable works the raising up and exaltation of Christ which we have shewed * Lib. 1. Sect. 2. chap. 18 29. by most clear testimonies of Scripture to be imputed to the Father alone be thought common to the whole Trinity as indeed the Adversarias think So neither doth the love of men which ought to come ultimately to the Father alone and to
Spirit are not the Father Therefore the Son and holy Spirit are not that one God In like manner we may also conclude thus concerning the Father That one God is the Son or holy Spirit The Father is not the Son nor the holy Spirit Therefore the Father is not that one God The third Reason may be fetched from the following words For if that one God were not only the Father but also some other certainly Christ would be he But Christ is here manifestly distinguished from that one God and so is demonstrated not to be that one God whilst it is added And One Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him But whereas they say that these very words intimate that when that one God is called the Father the Son or holy Spirit is not excluded from the same Godhead because neither here where that one Lord is called Jesus Christ the Father is excluded from the same Lordship they are therein exceedingly mistaken inasmuch as the word Lord doth in this place denote him who is somewayes inferiour to the most high God and subordinate to him in dominion although he be next to him that is signifieth him by whom the most high God governeth all things any way belonging to the Salvation of Men. But in this manner that one God is not Lord since he cannot in any sort be inferiour and subordinate to himself wherefore he is rightly excluded by the following words from such a Lordship And what we have spoken is proved by a twofold Reason drawn from this very place For first That one Lord is either the same with that one God or some way inferiour to him The same he is not otherwise there will be no ground of distinction nor would there be any cause why that one God should be said to be the Father and that one Lord Jesus Christ for no less that one Lord than that one God should be said to be the Father for what reason there was why that one God should be said to be the Father the same would there also be for which that one Lord should be said to be the Father It remaineth therefore that it signifieth him who is some way inferiour to that one God Again The same is proved by the descriptions which are added to both that is both to the Father and to Christ and by which they are distinguished one from another for as we hinted in the former Chapter the Descriptions that are added to things or Persons in the Scripture are not wont to be either idle or forreign to the thing which is treated of but fitted to illustrate or prove the same In this place if these descriptions make any thing to the purpose namely that the Father is he of whom are all things and we to him and Christ he by whom are all things and we by him they shew that the Father is that one God and Christ that one Lord as if the Apostle had said To us there is one God namely the Father in as much as all things are of him and we consequently to him and there is also to us one Lord namely Jesus Christ in as much as all things are by him and we consequently by him for it is necessary that he should be that one God of whom are all things that is who is the first and highest efficient cause of all those things which pertain to us Christians for that he hath a peculiar regard to Christians the word We several time repeated doth intimate and consequently to whom as the ultimate Scope we ought to look and to confer all worship and honour For he is to be accounted by us the most high God who is the first and highest Cause as of other things so of those namely which belong to us and our Salvation He also is to be accounted One who is the highest Cause not only of some things but of all for if he were not one some would proceed from him others from another as the prime Author and highest Cause and consequently the glory of those things ought by us to be referred partly to him partly to the other Now that we have one Lord even Christ is thence evident because all things are by him that is because he is the middle cause of all those things which belong to us and our salvation and in that all things are governed dispenced by him from that first Cause of all things Where also it followeth that we by him ought likewise to worship God that is that he is the middle scope and end of the honour which ought by us to be exhibited unto God for because all things are by him it is apparent not only that he is Lord but also that one Lord for if there were many some things would be administred by him others by another and so we ought to worship God partly by him partly by another Now who seeth not that these things are very suitable to the words and scope of the Apostle Neither can any one here object that it is also said sometimes concerning the most high God that all things are by him for it is certain it signifieth not that some other who is the supream Cause doth effect those things by the most high God But it is frequently said of Christ in the Scripture that some other namely God or the Father who cannot chuse but be the supream Cause doth do something by him which properly belongeth to a second cause Concerning which thing we will hereafter treat more largely in its * Sect. 2. Chap. 19. place But that in these words of Paul it is not upon the same account said that all things are done by Christ as it is elsewhere said of God is very evident because in this place those expressions Of whom are all things and by whom are all things and also those We to him and we by him are opposed the one to the other and put to distinguish divers persons Wherefore neither is that which is applied to the Father common to Christ nor that which is applied to Christ so taken as that it may he common to the Father But this will come to pass no other way than if the words annexed to the Father signifie that he is the prime efficient cause of all things and the ultimate end of us and our Religion and those things which are annexed unto Christ signifie that which the propriety of the words requireth namely that he is the middle efficient Cause of all things and the intermediate end of our Religion From whence it is how understood that that one God signifieth him who is the prime efficient Cause of all things and the ultimate end and that that one Lord signifieth him who is the middle efficient Cause of all things and likewise the intermediate end of the Worship that is to be performed to God from us and consequently that the one is superiour and greater the other some waies inferiour and