Article I.

Joh. 17. 3. This is eternal life, that they know thee (Fa­ther) the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. Observe here in the first place, that our [Page 2] Saviour Christ, setting down those persons, in the knowledge of whom eternal life consisteth, makes no mention of the holy Spirit; whereas, if he were God, the knowledge of him would be as ne­cessary for the attainmment of eternal life, as that of the Father. Secondly, he so describeth the Fa­ther, as that he makes him the onely true God, thereby manifestly excluding any other person whatsoever from being the true God. Thirdly, as for himself, he doth not say that it is eternal life to know him as eternally begotten, and coessen­tial to the Father, (both which are contradictious in themselves, and unheard-of in the Scripture) but onely as sent by the Father, and consequently such a one as by his will, and in his name mana­geth the business of our salvation. 1 Cor. 8. 5, 6. Though there be that are called Gods, whether in hea­ven, or on earth, as there are many Gods, and many Lords; yet to us there is but one God, even the Fa­ther, of whom are all things, and we to him; and one Lord, even Jesus Christ, by whom are are all things, and we through him. In this passage Christ is in ex­press terms excluded from being that one God of Christians, and the holy Spirit in general terms excluded from being that one God, or that one Lord; wherefore if we give such credence to the Apostle as we ought, and had not rather hearken to Athanasius then to Paul, we will with Paul con­fess, that that one God of Christians is no other then the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Eph. 4. 4, 5, 6. There is one Body, and one Spirit, even as ye have been called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and among all, and in you all. Which passage of the same Apostle clearly inti­mates the different nature, order, and dignity of [Page 3] the three persons of the HOLY TRINITY, and was written for that very end: For when he saith, that there is one Spirit, he must mean either one created,, or one uncreated Spirit, since (whatsoe­ver some talk to the contrary) no other kinde of Spirit is conceivable: Not one uncreated Spirit, for so there will be another uncreated Spirit be­sides God, (which is absurd) since this Spirit here is plainly and purposely distinguished from God; wherefore he meaneth one created Spirit: But if so, then there is simply one created Spirit, or one created Spirit by way of excellency onely; not simply one created Spirit, for the Scripture else­where mentions seven Spirits of God attending on him, Rev. 1. 4. which Beza, Drusius and Mead confess to be meant of seven principal Angels; and the Divine Author to the Hebrews saith of the An­gels in general, That they are all ministring Spirits, and consequently created Spirits. It remaineth therefore that there is one created Spirit by way of excellency onely, which is the holy Spirit. In like manner, when the Apostle saith, that there is one Lord, he must mean either one made, or one un­made Lord, since by the confession of all, there is no medium; not one unmade Lord, for then there will be another unmade Lord besides God, (which is absurd) since this Lord also is here plainly and purposely distinguished from God; wherefore he meaneth one made Lord: But if so, then there is is [...]either simply one made Lord, or else one made Lord by way of Excellency onely; not simply one made Lord, for so there are ma­ny Lords, as not onely the Apostle, but experi­ence it self testifieth. It remaineth therefore that there is one made Lord by way of excellency one­ly, which is Jesus of Nazareth, who after he had [Page 4] been crucified by the Jewes, was raised up from the dead, and exalted by the right hand of God, and by him made Lord and Christ; as Peter, in the beginning of the Gospel, when the holy Spi­rit was fallen on him, plainly testifies, Act. 2. 22, 23, 33, 36. Wherefore since neither the holy Spi­rit is an uncreated Spirit, nor the Lord Jesus an un­made Lord, neither of them, but the Father one­ly is God (I mean, with the Apostle Paul himself, God by way of excellency; for otherwise he con­fesseth that there are many Gods, 1 Cor. 8. 5.) Mat. 24. 36. But of that day, and that hour knoweth none, no not the Angels in heaven, but my Father one­ly. If the Father onely sometimes knew the day of Judgement, then neither the Son, (who, take him how you will, is not the Father, and therefore openly confesseth himself to be ignorant of it, Mark 13. 32.) nor the holy Spirit knew it, and con­sequently neither of them is the most high God, since he doth, and ever did know all things. Rom. 15. 6. That ye may with one minde and one mouth glorifie God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. James 3. 9. Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, who were made after the likeness of God. John 6. 27. La­bour not for the meat that perisheth, but for that meat which endureth to eternal life, which the Son of man shall give to you: for him hath the Father sealed, the God, (so the Original hath it.) In these three passages, God (that is, by the confession of all, the most high God) is by the Scripture it self in­terpreted the Father, and therefore none but he can be God. John. 8. 54. Jesus answered, If I ho­nour my self, my honour is nothing; it is my Father that honoureth me, whom ye say that he is your God, [Page 5] You see here who was the God that the Jewes worshipt, namely the Father; and herein there is no difference between them and Christians, since the Apostle Paul testifieth, 2 Tim. 1. 3. That he served God from his fore-fathers; that is, the same God which he had received from the Jewes his forefathers. See also Act. 3. 13. and Chap. 5. 30, 31. and Chap. 22. 14. In which three places the Father is called the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and by that appellation distin­guished from the Son; which could not be, if the Son were the same God with the Father, since common things do not distinguish, but such as are proper: But if the Son be not the same God with the Father, much less the holy Spirit, since the Scripture abundantly witnesseth that he is sent and disposed of by the Son. Neh. 9. 6. Thou, even thou art LORD alone; thou hast made Heaven, the Heaven of Heavens, with all their Host, the earth, and al things therein. Observe here that the Levites do not say, Ye, even ye are Lord, but Thou, even thou art Lord alon [...]; intimating that one person onely is the most high God, for the word [thou] denoteth a single person: And this is the perpetual doctrine of the whole Scripture. But if one person onely be the most high God, this person must of neces­sity be the Father, since he, by the confession of all sides, is the most high God. Neither doth that passage, Gen. 1. 26. wherein God saith, Let us make man, any whit contradict this truth. For doth it follow from thence that there are several Per­sons in God? Might I not by the same kinde of arguing conclude, that because Christ, Mark 4. 30. saith, Whereunto shall we liken the Kingdom of God, and with what comparison shall we compare it? [Page 6] and John 3. 11. Verily, verily I say unto thee, We speak what we know, and testifie what we have seen, and ye receive not our testimony: therefore there are several Persons in Christ? And also, because Paul, 2 Cor. 10. 1, 2. saith, Now I Paul my self be­seech you, by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you: I say, I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present, with that confidence where­with I think to be bold against some, who think of us, as if we walked according to the flesh: therefore there are several Persons in Paul? The utmost that can be concluded from this passage of Gene­sis, is, that there was some other person with God, whom he employed in the Creation, as of other things, so of man. Which Person had been before mentioned by Moses, verse 2. where he saith, The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the Waters. Thus it is said of the Lord, Psal. 104. 30. Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created: and thou re­newest the face of the earth: and Job 26. 13. By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked Serpent. Observe by the way, that these Scriptures plainly intimate that the Spirit was but the instrument of God in crea­ting things, since God is said to have garnished the heavens by him, and that he was sent by God to that purpose, and so ministred unto him. More­over, the wise Elihu saith, Job 33. 4. The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. Which plainly sheweth that the Spirit had a hand in creating man. It was the Spirit therefore, and he onely, to whom God said, Let us make man. For had the Son of God, Christ Jesus, been also imployed in creating Adam, would [Page 7] not he likewise have been mentioned in the histo­ry of the Creation? was it not as material, and altogether of as great consequence for Moses and the Jewes to have known, that the Son of God, Christ Jesus, was employed by God in creating Adam, as the holy Spirit? But it is well that the holy Scripture, whilest it attribute [...]h creation unto Christ, doth, what by the nature of the thing it self, what by the circumstances of the places, what by express words, signifie that it is meant not of the first and old creation, but of the second and new, consisting in the reduction of things to a new state, condition, or order. Otherwise, had he at first created Adam, how could he himself say, Mat. 19. 4. And he (Jesus) answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them (Adam and Eve) at the beginning, made them Male and Fe­male? Is not that description, He that made them, &c. made use of to distinguish God from Christ? And doth not Christ here take it for granted, to­gether with the Pharisees, that not himself, but another created man? Again, how could Peter say, 1 Epist. 1. 20. Who (Christ) verily was fore­ordained, (Gr. foreknown) before the foundation of the world: had Christ then had a being? Are not those things onely foreknown, that are to come, and not already in being? Thirdly, how could Paul, Rom. 5. 14. say, After the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure (or, type) of him that was to come, (or, that was to be, as the Gr. expression [...] doth signifie:) had Christ then not onely had a being, but crea­ted Adam? was Adam a type of him that created him? was he that created Adam, as yet to be? can it be said of any one, that he is to be, whose person doth already exist?

This which we have spoken of the holy Spirit, that he was present at the Creation of the world, and is included when God said, Let ƲS make man, doth clear those other passages of the Scripture, where the like expression is used; as Gen. 3. 22. And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of Ʋs, to know good and evil. Gen. 11. 6, 7▪ And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language: and this they begin to do, and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let Ʋs go down, and there confound their language, that they may not under­stand one anothers speech. Isai. 6. 8. Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for Ʋs? For it ought sutably to be understood, that by Ʋs in all these places, is meant the Lord with his Spirit; seeing the Spirit is else­where called the Spirit of knowledge, Isa. 11. 2. and said to give diversitie of Tongues, 1 Cor. 12. 10. 11. Act. 2. 4. and Isaiah himself testifieth, that both the Lord and his Spirit had sent him, Chap. 48. 16. It is also easie to conceive that by wisdome, Prov. 8. is meant the Spirit of wisdome; for so is the holy Spirit denominated by Isaiah, chap. 11. 2. and who­soever shall exactly consider what is spoken of the holy Spirit in this passage of Isaiah, and in the history of the Creation, and elsewhere in the Scri­pture, and compare it with what is spoken of wis­dome, Prov. 8. especially if he further add what is more amply declared in the 7. 8. and 9. chap. of the wisdome of Solomon, and in the 1. and 24. chap. of Siracides, will perceive that as by wisdom is meant a most excellent creature, so that crea­ture is the holy Spirit.

Finally, this intimateth to us, why the said Eli­hu, [Page 9] Job 35. 10. speaketh on this wise, But none saith, Where is God my Maker, (Heb. Makers) who giveth songs in the night? The word Makers imply­eth that more then one person made man, though in a different order of causality. But inasmuch as God is said to be the Makers, this intimateth that whatsoever power of making was in any other person employed in that work, it proceeded from God; so that upon the matter God was the Makers.

Article II.

Luke 1. 32. He (Jesus) shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High. Where note, that the Son is not equal to the Father, as the ve­ry Son himself openly professeth, Joh. 14. 28. where making a comparison, not between any nature of [Page 10] his that was not a person, but between his own ve­ry person, and that of the Father, he saith expres­ly, My Father is greater then I. Note, I say, that the Son is not equal to the Father; otherwise the Epithete of Most High could not be appropriated to the Father, and put to distinguish him from the Son, (as neither could it afterwards, vers. 35. be made use of to distinguish Him from the holy Spirit, if the holy Spirit were equal to the Father) for how can an expression alike common to twain, be apt to distinguish one from the other? How is the Father, and that contradistinctly to the Son, the Most High, if the Son be as High as He? Though some from that mistaken text, Phil. 2. 5, 6, 7, 8. would infer the contrary, and so contradict the express words of Christ himself. Whereas, if the place be rightly considered, it maketh against them; the words and sense being thus: Let this minde be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who being in the form of God, (for the exercise and de­monstration of divine Power, whereby he wrought Miracles in as free and uncontrolled a manner, as if God himself had been on the earth) thought it not robbery (or, a prey) to be equal with God: (that is, did not esteem this equality of his with God, consisting in the free exercise of Divine Power, to be a prey, by holding it fast, and refusing to let it go, as Robbers are wont to do when they have got a prey, or booty:) but (Gr.) emptied himself, (in making no use of the Divine Power within him, to rescue himself out of the hands of the Of­ficers sent to apprehend him) and took upon him the form of a servant, (in suffering himself to be ap­prehended, bound, and whipt, as servants are wont to be) being made in the likeness of men, (that [Page 11] is, ordinary and vulgar men, who are endued with no divine power.) And being found in fashion, (or, habit) as a man, (that is, in his outward quality, condition, and acting no whit differing from a common man,) he humbled himself, and became o­bedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. Now that this place doth not speak of an Incarnation, or Assumption of humane nature, (as they term it) nor of such an Equality as is commonly conceived, is evident from all the circumstances. For first, the scope of the Apostle is to exhort the Philip­pians to humility, and that they would do nothing out of vain-glory. To which purpose, he setteth before them the example of Christ Jesus. And therefore the act of Christ which he doth exem­plifie, must be manifest. Since examples are wont to be taken onely from such things as are manifest. But to whom was or could that Incarna­tion, which Christians commonly talk of, be mani­fest, when they themselves say it passeth the un­derstanding of Angels to comprehend it? yea that there was any Incarnation at all made, the Scri­pture nowhere expresly affirmeth, nor can it be so much as proved by any good consequence from thence, as several learned men have shewn. Secondly, the Apostle speaketh of our Lord as a Man, in that he giveth him the titles of Christ Je­sus, both which agree to him onely as a man. For he is called Jesus, as he was a child conceived of the holy Spirit in the Virgins womb, and brought forth by her, Luke 1. 27, 30, 31, 35. and Christ sig­nifieth the anointed, John 1. 41. and according­ly Jesus is expresly called the Christ of God, Luke 9. 20. but he was anointed (as the Adversaries themselves will confess) as a man, and not as God. [Page 12] See Act. 10. 38. Thirdly, he doth not say, that the Son thought it not robbery to be equal with the Father, which words would indeed have plainly thwarted those formerly cited out of the 14. of John: but that Christ Jesus thought it not robbery, or a prey, to be equall with God. Which cannot be in respect of Essence; for he must either have the same Essence in number, or a different one. Not the same Es­sence in number, for then he will not be equal with God in Essence, but the same: for equality must be in respect of two things different at least in number, otherwise it will not be Equality, but Identity. Thus he that is equal to another in stature, must not have the same stature in num­ber with the other, but different in number, though the same in kinde. But the Adversaries hold that the Father and the Son have the same Essence in number, not in species or kinde. If Christ hath an Essence different in number from that of God, it must needs also be inferior thereunto, there being no Essence equal to his, as every one will confess. Wherefore the Equality aforesaid cannot be in re­spect of Essence, but of something else. But let it consist in whatsoever you will, it must either be sim­ple & absolute, or else only in part (since Aristotle, according to the common notion of men, acknow­ledgeth in his Categories, that Equality admitteth more and less.) Not simple and absolute, for then God would not be the most High, since he is not the most High, who hath another simply and abso­utel [...]y equal with him. Besides, that description I would be superfluous, which the Apostle useth, saying, Who being in the form of God; for if this description be, (as indeed it ought to be, and is) pertinent to the thing in hand, it intimateth [Page 13] that this Equality of Christ with God is to be ex­tended no farther, then as he was in the form of God. But the form of a thing, (as appeareth from the common acceptation of the word, and from that following clause, He look upon him the form of a servant; and also from those words, Mark 16. 12. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the Country,) is something visible and outwardly apparent, such as is neither the Essence, nor power of any thing, but onely the exercise and demonstration of pow­er. In the exercise therefore and demonstration of divine power, whereby he did miracles, was Christ in the form of God, and equal to God, as the Apostle John explaineth it, chap. 5. 18. saying, Therefore the Jewes sought the more to kill him, be­cause he not onely had broken the Sabbath, but said al­so, that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. Which is not so to be understood, as if Christ by calling God his Father, made himself equal with God, (for who seeth not the manifest absurdity hereof, since the very appellation of Fa­ther implyeth a prerogative above the Son (as Christ himself acknowledgeth in the forequoted 14 of John) in that the Son, as he is the Son, is beholding to the Father for his being? Again, the words would then have run thus, thereby making himself equal with God, not simply, making himself equal with God:) but because by uttering those words, verse 17. My Father worketh hitherto, and I work, he did both say that God was his Father, and in working made himself equal with God. Fur­thermore, had Christ been simply and absolutely equal with God, how could he be exceedingly ex­alted by God, since by this reckoning he would become higher then God himself? which is not [Page 14] onely absurd, out blasphemous to imagine. In the fourth place, had the Apostle here spoken of an assumption of the humane nature, he would not have said, that Christ became in the likeness of men, and was found in fashion as a man: for if men (as the Adversaries must hold, when they alledge this place to prove that Christ assumed a humane na­ture, and became man) be here considered accord­ing to their Essence and nature, this would imply that Christ had not the Essence, and Nature, but onely the likeness and fashion of a man, and so was not a true and real man. By men therefore are here meant vulgar and ordinary men, for so this word is elsewhere taken in the Scriptures, as Psal. 82. 6. I have said ye are Gods: and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall dye like men, and fall like one of the Princes: and Judg. 16. 7. [...]hen shall I be weak, and be as one of men (so the Hebrew, [...]kadh haadam, signifieth.) See also vers. 11. of the same Chap. Fifthly, when it is said, But emptyed himself, (or, as our English Translation hath it, Made himself of no reputation) this im­plyeth, that if Christ had not emptyed himself of that divine Form, he had thought it a prey to be equal with God. Which cannot without the implication of a contradiction, or, what is worse, of blasphemy, be affirmed of God. But Christ had thought it robbery, or a prey, to have been equal with God in doing miracles, if he had not laid aside the exercise and demonstration of his divine power, and fallen into the hands of his Adversaries, as a weak and vulgar man. For un­less he had done so, he had disobeyed the com­mandment of God, and consequently thought his divine form to be a prey, not a gift of God; [Page 15] and that it was to be kept on for his owne glory, not put off for the glory of God. It is therefore evident by what hath been said, that this place hindereth not, but that we ought to believe that Christ Jesus is simply inferiour to God, and so not God. And indeed, I can never sufficiently wonder at the stupidity of men, who because the Apo­stle saith, That Christ Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal with God, conclude that therefore he is God. For is it possible for any one to be equal with himself? Must not he that is equal with any one, be supposed not to be he with whom he is equal? But let us now proceed to other Scri­ptures. 1 Cor. 8. 6. To us there is but one Lord, even Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we through him. By all things are not here meant all things simply, but all things pertaining to our sal­vation, as is evident both in that he speaketh of Christians, and also putteth an article before the word [all] in the Gr. which implyeth a restr [...]ction. Acts 2. 39. Let all the House of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made this same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, Lord and Christ. Phil. 2. 9, 10. He (Jesus) humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross: Wherefore God hath also highly exalted him, and given him a name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in Heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, & that every tongue should confess▪ that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Fa­ther. 1 Pet. 1. 21. Who through him (Jesus) believe in God that raised him from the dead, & gave him glory, so that your Faith and hope is in God. Joh. 12. 44. He that believeth in me (Jesus) believeth not in me, but in him that sent me, Rom. 1. 8. I thank my God, through Jesus Christ, that your faith is spoken of through the [Page 16] whole world. Rom. 16. 27. To the onely wise God, through Jesus Christ, be glory for ever. These five pla­ces last quoted, shew, that the glory & thanks that we give to Christ, and the faith and hope that we place in him, do not rest in him, but through him tend to God the Father, and consequently, that the Son is not equal to the Father, but subordinate to him, 1 Cor. 15. 24, 25, 28. Then cometh the end, when he (Christ) shall have delivered up the Kingdome to God even the Father (Gr. to the God and Father) when he shall have put down all rule, and all autho­rity, an power, (or force.) For he must reign till he hath put all the enemies under his Feet. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. It is here said, that Christ shall reign till he hath put all the enemies under his feet; which done, he shall de­liver up the Kingdome to God the Father, and be­come subject unto him. But how could these things come to pass, if Christ were the most High God? Certainly by so doing, Christ would cease to be the most High God; for without controversie, he to whom any one becometh subject, is higher then he that becometh subject. Neither let the Adver­saries say, that this is spoken of Christ according to his humane nature onely. For (to omit that this goodly distinction is nowhere to be found in Gods word) First, this is to take for granted that Christ hath more then one nature, and so to beg the question, whereas it is a signe of a despe­rate cause, not to be able to answer objections without taking for granted what is in controver­sie. Secondly, the Apostle here speaketh of Christ as a person, in that he speaketh of him as reign­ing, since none can be a King and reign, but a Per­son, [Page 17] and that as a person, all Offices being pro­per to persons: wherefore they must grant, either that the Person of Christ, which they hold to be a person of supream Deity, delivereth up his Kingdome, and becometh subject; or that his humane nature (as they phrase it) is a person, and consequently, lest there should be two Persons in one and the same subject, and so Christ not be one but two, that he hath no other nature and Per­son. The latter of which subverteth the opini­on of the Adversaries; the first, also it self. Third­ly, it is worth the observing that the Apostle saith, Then shall also the Son himself be subject. But how can the Son himself become subject, if onely a humane nature added to the Son, and not the very person of the Son is subjected? Certainly this place (which is so full and clear, that sundry being convinced by the evidence thereof, have abandoned the common gross opinion of two na­tures in Christ,) seemeth purposely fitted by God to stop their mouths, who should go about to elude what is here spoken to shew the subordina­tion and inferiority of Christ to the Father, by saying that the Son shall be subject according to the humane nature onely: for the Apostle most emphatically saith, That the Son also himself shall be subject; so that if there be any nature in him better then other, according to which he chiefly is the Son of God, even according to that shall he become subject. Rom. 10. 9. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth, that Jesus is Lord, (so the Original hath it, as will further appear by comparing this place with Phil. 2. 10.) and shalt believe with thy heart, that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. The Apostle here sets down a brief [Page 18] Symbole of the Christian Religion, declaring what is to be both believed with the heart, and confessed with the mouth, concerning the dignity of Christ; and which if we believe and confess, we shall obtain salvation. But how could it be, that if Christ were the most High God, the same with the Father, and had raised himself from the dead, and that by his own power, the Apostle should here affirm, That if we onely confess with the mouth, that Jesus is Lord, and believe with the heart, (not that he raised himself, but) that God raised him from the dead, we shall be saved? Certain I am, that Athanasius in his Creed is far more perempto­ry; for he saith, That unless a man beleeve that Christ is of one and the same Essence, and con­sequently one and the same God with the Father, he cannot be saved; whereas the Apostle, speak­ing of that Faith which is necessary to salvation, intimateth it to be sufficient if we believe that Je­sus is Lord. Now whether Paul or Athanasius be ra­ther to be credited, I leave it to all Christians to judge. The like may be said of that passage, Rom. 4. 22, 23, 24. and that John 17. 3. which we also alledged on the former Article; Eph. 4. 4, 5, 6. There is one Body, and one Spirit, even as ye have been called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one Faith, &c.

Article III.

2 Tim. 2. 5. There is one God, and one Mediator of God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus, John 3. 13. And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man, which is in heaven, or rather, which was in heaven, as the Par­ticiple [...] in the Greek not onely may (in that it is of the Preterimperfect as well as of the Present tense) but must here be rendred, otherwise these words will contradict those immediately going be­fore: for how could Christ still be in heaven, af­ter he had descended from thence? Againe, he would as a man (for he here stileth himself the Son of Man) be in heaven and on the earth at the same time, which is confessed to be false) John 6. 62. What if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before (or, had been before?) John 8. 40. But now ye seek to kill me, a man who have told you the truth, which I have heard from God. Joh. 3. 14, 15. And as Moses lif [...]ed up the Serpent in the Wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth on him, may not perish, but have eternal life. Mat. 9. 6, 7, 8. But that ye may know [Page 20] that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then he speaketh to the sick of the palsie) A­rise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And he arose, and departed to his house. But when the mul­litudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power to men. John 5. 22, 23. The Father judgeth none, but hath given all judge­ment to the Son: that all should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father: and verse 7. And (the Fa­ther) hath given him (the Son) authority to execute judgement also, because he is the Son of Man. Mark 2. 28. Therefore the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sab­bath. 1 Cor. 15. 21, 22. For since by man came death, by man came also the Resurrection of the dead: For as in Adam (or, by Adam) all dye, even so in Christ (or, by Christ) shall all be made alive: and vers. 45. 47. The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam a quickning Spirit. The first man is from the earth earthly (or, dusty:) the second man is the Lord from heaven. Mat. 24. 30, 31. And they shall see the Son of man come in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he shall send his Angels with a trumpet of great sound, and they shall gather toge­ther his Elect from the four windes, from one end of heaven to the other. Mat. 16. 27, 28. The Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his Angels; and then shall he reward every man according to his doing. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, who shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man come in his Kingdome. Dan. 17. 13. 14. I saw in the night visions, and behold one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of Heaven, and came to the Ancient of daies, and they brought him near before him (Heb. they offered him before him.) And there was given him dominion and glory, and a kingdome, [Page 21] that all People, Nations and Languages, should serve him: his do [...]inion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away; and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. Observe now in the [...]st place, that the most excellent things that are in the Scri­pture attributed to Christ, are attributed to him not only under the notion, but also under the very name of a man; as to be a Mediator; to have as­cended and been in heaven before his death and Re­surrection; to have heard the truth from God; to be believed on unto eternal life; to forgive sins; to have all judgement, and therefore to be honoured as the Father; to be Lord of the Sabbath; to be the Au­thor of the Resurrection; to be a quickning Spirit; to be the Lord from Heaven; to send his Angels, and gather his Elect; to come in his Kingdome, and ren­der a reward to every man according to his doing; to have an everlasting dominion given to him, that all Nations may serve him. Why then should▪ we ima­gine another nature in him, besides his humane, to sustain his great dignity? Observe also, that the Scripture in the aforesaid Quotations, whilst it calleth Christ a man, speaketh of him as a Per­son, in that it speaketh of him as a Mediator, Em­bassador, Saviour, Lord, Judge, or King, all which are the names of Persons; all actions and offices belonging to Persons onely, as such. Wherefore Christ according to his humane nature is a Person and consequently (unless we will absurdly hold with Nestorius, that he hath two Persons) cannot be a Person in the divine nature. Deut. 18. 15. The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken. You see here that Christ (for this is a Prophecie concerning him, as Peter testi­fieth, [Page 22] Acts 3. 22.) was to be a Prophet whom the Lord God of the Israelites should raise up unto them of their brethren, like unto Moses, and there­fore did not [...]lready exist in the time of Moses, much less was the Lord God, unless any one will be so absurd as to say, that the Lord God can raise up himself for a Prophet. Act. 2. 22, 23, 36. Jesus of Nazareth, a Man approved of God a­mongst you, by miracles, signes, and wonders, which God did by him in the midst of of you, as ye your selves know: Him being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands crucified and slain, whom God hath raised up from the dead, having loosed the bands (or rather, throes) of death, in that it was impossible he should be held by it. Wherefore being exalted by the right hand of God, and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit form the Father, He hath poured out this which ye now see and hear: Therefore let all the House of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made this very Jesus, whom ye have crucified, Lord and Christ. These words of the Apostle Peter (as well as those of Paul, Eph. 4. which were formerly discussed) give clear and full evidence, touching the several nature, order and dignity of the three Persons of the HOLY TRINITY. For first, in that Peter here calleth Jesus a Man, and saith, that God wrought miracles by him, this sheweth that he was not God himself, nor wrought miracles by his owne proper power, which naturally resi­ded in him; but was onely the instrument of God in working them. Againe, when he saith, that Je­sus being exalted by the right hand of God, and hav­ing received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, poured him out upon his Disciples; this ar­gueth, [Page 23] that he gave the holy Spirit as a man, since he could neither be exalted by God, not receive the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, but as a man, (for according to the supp [...]sition of the Ad­versaries themselves, the holy Spirit proceedeth from Christ as he is God, as well as [...]rom the Fa­ther) and consequently the holy Spirit [...]mself is so far from being God, (inasmuch as it is absurd, yea impossible that God should be received by promise from any one) as that he is not equal to Christ as man, since his exaltation, because he that is given and disposed of by another, must be inferiour in dignity to him that giveth him. Fi­nally, whereas he saith that God hath made this very Jesus, whom the Jewes had crucified, Lord and Christ; this intimateth, that Jesus, as a man, (for neither could any other but a man be crucifi­ed) was made Lord by God, and therefore that his humane nature is a Person, (since nothing bu [...] a Person can be made a Lord) so that we need no [...] feign to our selves any other nature in Christ, be­sides his humane nature, to sustain this Lordship of his; wherefore by this passage it plainly appear­eth, That the TRINITY which the Apostle Peter believed, consisteth of God the Father, of the Man Jesus Christ our Lord, and of the holy Spi­rit, the Gift of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Now shall the Apostle Peter, having before af­firmed that Jesus was a man approved of God by miracles, which God did by him, afterwards say, Let all the House of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made him Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye have crucified, And shall I nevertheless be induced by I know not what forced consequences of Men, re­pugnant to reason, and the stream of the Scri­ptures, [Page 24] in despight of so signal an admonition pro­ceeding from the in [...]lible inspiration of the holy Spirit, to believe that Christ, as to his nature, is not onely a man, but that very God which did those miracles [...]y him, and made him Lord and Christ▪ Far [...]e it. Isa. 9. 6. Ʋnto us a Child is born, un­to us a Son is given, and the Government shall be up­on his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonder­ [...] (by reason of his Exaltation, which is so strange and wonderful, that even the greatest part of Christians cannot believe it, and therefore imagine another nature in Christ, besides his hu­mane nature, as thinking a man uncapable of so transcendent an Exaltation,) Counsello [...], (in ac­quainting us with all the Counsel of God,) a mighty God (by reason of the Divine Empire over all things, both in Heaven and on earth, confer­red on him by the Father; agreeable whereunto, Paul called him a God over all, blessed for evermore, Rom. 9. 5.) a Father of the age, (in being the Au­thor of the age to come, as both the Septuagint, and the old Latine Interpreter expound it; or else a Father of Eternity, in being the Author of Eternal Life to all that obey him. For to render the words as the English Translators do, who here call Christ the everlasting Father, is to confound the Person of the Son with that of the Father, and so to introduce Sabellianism,) the Prince of Peace. When the Prophet here saith, That the Child which was to be born to us, and the Son that was to be given to us, shall be called a mighty God, He sufficiently intimateth, that Christ in his humane nature should be a mighty God, so that we need not fancy any other nature in him. [Page 25] John 20. 27, 28. Then saith he (Jesus) to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and lo my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side, and be not faithless, but believing▪ And Thomas said unto him, My Lord, and my God. Observe how Thomas here calleth that man Jesus, whom he saw and felt, his Lord, and his God; but directeth not his speech to I know not what second Person o [...] subsistence of God, which he neither saw nor felt, nor indeed ever was in rerum natura. Joh. 10. 33, 34, 35, 36. The Jewes answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, makest thy self a God (so it is in the Gr.) Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your Law, I said, Ye are Gods? If he called them Gods unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture can­not be broken: Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent in [...]o the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? Had Christ been endued with a divine nature, besides his hu­mane, and did his Godhead consist therein (as the Adversaries affirm) it would have been necessary, for answering the Jewes, here to have declared it. They objected unto Christ the crime of blas­phemy, for that he being a man, made himself a God; doth he therefore, to decline the imputation of blasphemy, resort to an eternal Generation, or Hypostatical union of natures, saying, If he call them Gods, to whom the word of God came, say ye of him, whom the Father eternally bego [...] ou [...] of his substance, so that he is very God of very God, coes­sential, coeternal, coequal with the Father, and in whom the humane nature is Hypostatically united to the divine, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? Nothing less. But on the contrary, [Page 26] he sheweth that he is therefore the Son of God, and consequently a God, because the Father had sanctified him and sent him into the world, and so not for having the divine Nature united to the Humane, but for the sanctification of the Father: Mat. 1. 20. Joseph thou Son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Spirit. Had Christ had a Divine Nature in being the Eternall Son of God, the Angel would not have told Joseph, that what was conceived in the womb of his Wife, was of the Ho­ly Spirit, otherwise not only the Humane Nature of the Eternall Son of God, but the very Eter­nall Son himself, (for the Adversaries hold that he was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary,) would be of the Holy Spirit, and so Christ not onely as Man, but also as the Eternall Son of God, be caused by the Holy Spirit. The latter of which (though flowing from their opinion touch­ing the Nature and Conception of Christ,) is yet denied by the Adversaries; and so should the former too, since he that was the Eternall Son of God, coessentiall with the Father, if he would be incarnated, needed not the assistance of the Holy Spirit to furnish him with a Humane Nature from a Virgin, being himself able to produce it of her, unlesse you will say that his own Divine Nature was in the mean time idle. This consideration is so forcible, that Justin Martyr, pressed with the difficulty thereof, saith in his Apology to the Ro­man Emperour, that by the Holy Spirit which came upon the Virgin, and caused her conception, is at no hand to be understood any other then the Word or Son of God; contrary to the perpetuall usage of the Scripture, which by the Holy Spirit [Page 27] alwaies meaneth, not the Second but the Third Person of the HOLY TRINITY. Moreo­ver, were the opinion of the Adversaries true, that the Son of God came down and took a Humane Nature of the Virgin, the Angel Ga­briel, when the Virgin demanded of him, how she should conceive, would not have answered, Luke 1. 35. The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall ov [...]rshadow thee: there­fore also that Holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God: But, the Son of God shall come upon thee, and the Eternall Word shall o­vershadow thee: therefore also that Holy thing which shall be born of thee, being assumed into the u­nity of the Person of the Eternall Word, shall be cal­led the Son of God. Act. 10. 38. God anointed Je­sus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit, and with power, who went a [...]out doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the Divel: for God was with him. Luke 22. 48. And there appeared an Angel to him (Christ) from Heaven, strengthening him. Mat. 27. 46. Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me? What need was there that the Justin Martyr is exceedingly puz­zelled with this objection, in his conference with Trypho. holy Spirit should be given un­to Christ, to enable him to do miracles; and an Angel ap­pear from heaven unto him to strengthen him; or why should he so earnestly expostulate with God for forsaking him, if Christ were he, by whom the First Creation was performed, had a Divine Nature, and was God himself? Could not he that first created the World, do miracles without being impowered by another? would it be said of him that had the Divine Nature, that he [Page 28] did miracles, because God was with him, and not rather, because he was God? or needed he in his agony to be strengthened by an Angel? would not the Divine Nature in Christ, at this rate, be in the mean time idle and useless? could he that was very God himself, cry-out, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? was he his own God, and had forsaken himself? These things have I here set down, out of Zeal to the true Son of God, the Man Christ Jesus, that the Adversaries may by this means be brought to bethink themselves, and not substitute a false one in his stead, namely an Eternall Son begotten out of the substance of God, whereas there is no place in the Scripture that either saith, or intimateth any such thing. But they will say, that if Christ were not God, he could not satisfy for our sins: which reason over­throweth it self, and sheweth their opinion con­cerning the Divine Nature of Christ to be ficti­tious. For how can God satisfy God? can any one make satisfaction to himself? Neither will it relieve them, to reply, that there are severall Persons in God, and so the Second satisfied the First. For if there be Three Persons to whom we are indebted, and but one of them satisfied, we are in as bad a condition as before, in that we stand in need of some one to make satisfaction to the Second and Third Persons in God. If they further answer, that the Second freely forgiveth us; This will make Him more bountiful then the First, who would not do it without receiving full satisfaction. But this Doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ, as well as that of his two Natures where­on it is (though very ruinously) built, is a meer device of Men, for neither is it exprest in Scrip­ture, [Page 29] nor can solidly be deduced from thence, a [...] I could quickly shew, were it not besides the busi­ness in hand.

Article IV.

John 20. 17. I (Jesus) ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Eph. 1. 17. The God of our Lord Iesus Christ, the Father of glory. Heb. 1. 8, 9. But to the Son (or rather, of the Son) he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, a scepter of righteousnesse is the scepter of thy Kingdome. Thou lovedst Righteousnesse, and hatedst iniquity, therefore God, (or rather, O God,) thy God, hath anointed thee with oyl of Gladnesse above thy Fellows. In these places which we have cited, Christ as he is the Son of God, and Lord, yea God, is said to have a God, and therefore cannot be the most High God. Neither will this seem strange to him that considereth the language of the Scripture, which expresly maketh mention of the most High God, Heb. 7. 1. Melchisedeck King of Salem, Priest of the most High God, and calleth the LORD the [Page 30] God of Gods, Deut. 10. 17. The Lord your God is God of Gods, and Lord of Lords: Both which places shew that there is one, by way of Excel­l [...]n [...]y, or in the most perfit manner called God, but others in a way of subordination, or lesse per­fit manner, amongst whom Christ himself, (though otherwise far surpassing the rest,) is notwithstand­ing ranked, as this place of the Hebrews doth e­vince beyond all gainsaying, in that it speaketh of Christ as a God, when it saith he hath a God; so that there is no place left for the Adversaries to baffle, telling us that this is spoken of Christ as man, or according to his humane Nature. Now for the further clearing of this matter, I will here exactly unfold the Appellation of God, as I find it delineated in the Scripture: for many being ig­norant thereof, hold very great and inexplicable errors, touching the Godhead of Christ. First there­fore, the Appellation of Go [...] denoteth him that hath a supernatural liv [...]ng substance, as Isai. 31. 3. The Egyptians are Men, and no [...] God, and their Horses Fl [...]sh, and not spirit. Ezek. 28. 2. 9. Because thy heart is lifted up, and thou (Prince of Tyrus) hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a Man, and not a God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God. Wilt thou say b [...]fore him that slayeth thee, I am a God? But thou shalt be a Man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee. Which words plainly inti­mate that by God is here meant a supernatural li­ving substance, that cannot dy, whereas every Na­tural living substance may be slain. Thus is the LORD called God, and also the Angels, in that they are immortall. Secondly, him that hath a supernaturall Dominion, or such a Do­minion [Page 31] as is not managed in a Naturall and Vi­sible way, but in a hidden manner, exceeding the l [...]mits of nature. As Numb. 27. 16. Let the LORD, the God of the Spirits of all flesh, set a man over the Congregation. Therefore the God of the Spirits of men, because he ruleth over them. But such rule o [...] dominion is more then natural, for they that exercise a natural or civil dominion, have power over the flesh onely; hence Paul saith, Eph. 6. 5. S [...]rvants be obedient to your Masters (or, Lords) according to the flesh, opposing them to the Lord of their Spirits. In this sense is the Lord also said to be the God of Gods, Psal. 136. 2. [O give thanks to the God of Gods: for his m [...]rcy [...]ndureth for ever:] because he exerciseth dominion over the Angels. Psal. 103. 20. [Bless the LORD ye his Angels that ex­cell in strength, that do his command [...]m [...]nts, hearken­ing to the voice of his word:] but Angels, (as we for­merly h [...]nted) are in the Scripture called Gods, as Psal. 97. 7. Worship him, all ye Gods. This cannot be meant of Idols, for then the Psalmist, who every­where detesteth Idols, should here bid them wor­ship God; wherefore it is meant of Angels: see also Psal. 8. 5. Thou hast made Him (man) a little lower then the Angels (Heb. then the Gods, for so the word Elohim, here used, signifieth.) Now the dominion which the Lord exerciseth over An­gels is not natural or civil, but exceeding the li­mits of nature, in that the very subjects of this do­minion are supernatural. Thirdly, him that hath a subl [...]me dominion conferred on him in a superna­tural way; thus Moses is called a God, Exod. 7. 1. [And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a God (Heb. Elohim) to Pharaoh.] and Nebuchad­nezzar, Ezek. 31. 11. [I have therefore delivered him [Page 32] (Pharaoh) into the hand of the mighty one of the Heathen, (Heb. into the hand of the God of the Na­tions, Bejad El Gojim) meaning, Nebuchadnezzar, as appeareth from chap. 30. 24.] for Moses had his dominion bestowed on him immediately by God, as the text it self sheweth, so also had Nebuchad­nezzar; see Jer. 27. 4, 5, 6. Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, I have made the earth, the man, and the beast that are upon the ground, by my power, and by my outstretched arm, and have given it to whom it seemed meet to me. And now have I gi­ven all these Lands into the hand of Nebuchadnez­zar the King of Babylon my Servant, and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him. Fourth­ly, him that is a bestower of supernatural benefits. Thus is the LORD called the God of Abraham, the God of Isaak, and the God of Jacob, Exod. 3. 6. be­cause he, (as the divine Author to the Hebrews expoundeth it) hath prepared for them a City, even the heavenly Jerusalem, Heb. 11, 16. Fifthly, him that is a soveraign Benefactor, bestowing benefits, (though in themselves natural) yet in a superna­tural way, As Gen. 17. 8. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the Land wherein thou art a stranger, all the Land of Canaan, for an everlast­ing possession; and I will be their God. Therefore their God, because he gave them the Land of Ca­naan, which was done in a supernatural way. For they got not the Land in possession by their owne sword, neither did their owne arm save them: but thy right hand, and thy arm, and the light of thy countenance, because thou hadst a favour to them, Psalm 44. 3. see also Exo. 23. 23. Mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, and the Hivites, [Page 33] and the Jebusites, and I will cut them off. In all these respects is Christ now rightly stiled a God, hav­ing a supernatural, spiritual, and immortal sub­stance; a sublime dominion conferred on him in a supernatural way, even by God raising him up from the dead, and setting him at his owne right hand in the heavenly places; yea a supernatural dominion, even over Angels and the Spirits of men; being also a soveraign benefactor, as be­stowing benefits (though in themselves natural, as health, and the like) yet in a supernatural way; yea bestowing supernatural benefits also, as the eternal inheritance, and the pledge thereof, the holy Spirit. Neither was he destitute of superna­tural dominion, but was a God even wh [...]lest he conversed with men upon the earth; for he had not only authority over diseases and devils to cure where, and when, and whom he pleased, but could give authority to his Disciples to cure diseases and cast out devils, and that in his name. See Luke 9. 1. Then he (Christ) called his twelve Disciples to­gether, and gave them power and authority over all Devils, and to cure diseases. Luke 10. 16. And the seventy returned againe with joy, saying, Lord, even the Devils are subject unto us through (Gr. in) thy name. Yea some that did not follow him, and so were not his Disciples, could notwithstanding cast out Devils in his name. Luke 9. 49. John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And this (to give a hint by the way to them who are inquisitive after the truth) putteth a manifest difference between the manner wherein Christ gave power to the Disciples to cure and cast out Devils, and the manner wherein [Page 34] the holy Spirit; for we read expresly, 1 Cor. 12. 9, 10. That the holy Spirit gave the gifts of healing, and the operations of miracles, (or, as the Gr. hath it, of mighty works.) Amongst which mighty works, the casting out of Devils is comprehended. For Christ gave them power to cure diseases and cast out Devils, in his name; see Act. 3. 6. Then Peter said (to the Cripple) Silver and Gold have I none, bu [...] such as I have, I give thee: In the name of Je­sus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk: and Act. 16. 18. Paul being grieved, turned, and said to the Spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour. But we never read that any of the Disciples did ever perform cures, or cast out Devils in the name of the holy Spirit. But let us now proceed to other testimonies of the Scripture, from whence it may appear, that though Christ be a God, yet he is not the most high God; see Isa. 9. 6, 7. Ʋnto us a Child is born, and unto us a Son is given, and the Go­vernment shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, a mighty God, (so it is in the Original, which hath simply El Gibbor, not Ha [...]l Haggibbor, the mighty God, as the Lord of hosts is stiled, Jer. 32. 18.) a Father of the Age, (or, of Eternity) a Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his Kingdome, to order it and stablish it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth even for ever; the zeal of the Lord of Hosts will perform this. In this passage it is re­markable, that the Prophet, after he had called Christ (for undoubtedly this place doth in the full and perfect sense of the words agree to him, though it might in a restrained manner be apply­ed to Hezekiah) after, I say, he had called Christ [Page 35] a mighty God, and given him other excellent and divine Elogies, he saith in the close of all, that the Zeal of the Lord of Hosts will perform this; there­by distinguishing Christ from the Lord of Hosts, and making his Godhead dependent on the boun­ty of the Lord of Hosts, who would out of his Zeal cause Christ to become a mighty God: so that Christ is not the most High God, but a God subordinate to him; which shall be further made appear from the other texts of the Scripture, wherein Christ hath the Appellation of God gi­ven to him. The first is, Rom. 9. 5. where the Apo­stle speaketh in this manner; Whose are the Fathers, and of whom according to the flesh Christ came, who is over all a God to be blessed for [...]ver. A God, so the Greek hath it, wherein [...] is put without an Article; and were it here used as a proper name, (for so it sometimes is in the Scripture) the words over all would be needless (being implyed in it) nor could be construed with the same, for is it congruous to say, Who is Moses, or David over all? Neither let the Adversaries here object that Jeho­vah is a proper name, and yet it is often said in the Scripture, Jehovah S [...]baoth, that is, Jehovah, or the Lord of Hosts: for it is evident from the Scripture, that in this expression there is a defect of the word God, as appeareth from 1 Chron. 11. 9. [so David waxed greater and greater: for the LORD of Hosts was with him.] compared with 2 Sam. 5. 10. And David went on and grew great, and the LORD God of Hosts was with him. Wherefore the foresaid passage of the Romans doth not shew that Christ is the most High God, but rather the contrary, especially because the place of the Hebrews; which we formerly discussed, plainly giveth us to understand, that Christ is so a God over all, as [Page 36] that he himself in the mean time hath a God. For that he is not a God over all none excepted, is apparent, for then he would be a God over the Father also, which every one will confess to be most false. But we our selves readily grant that he is a God over all save the Father, who hath set him at his own right hand in the Heavenly places, for above all Principality, and Authority, and Power, and Do­minion, and every name named not only in this world, but also in that to come. And hath put all things in subjection under his feet, and given him head over all things to the Church, and so made him a God o­ver all, such dignity not being civil, but Divine; Eph. 1. 20, 21, 22. and who is therefore not only in the 17 verse of the same chap. but elsewhere fre­quently stiled by the Apostle, the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. Furthermore (that we may add this consideration also, which will not a little clear that passage of the Romans, and confirm our Assertion concerning the Godhead of Christ) when the Apostle saith that Christ came of the Fathers according to the Flesh, who is over all a God to be blessed for ever, the opposition is not entire and exact, as wanting the other member. What that member is, another passage of the Apostle, wherein you have the same opposition in descri­bing Christ, will inform you, It is Rom. 1. 3, 4. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ, our Lord, who was made (or rather, born) of the seed of David accor­ding to the Flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power (Gr. determined, or ordained Son of God in power) according to the Spirit of Holiness, by the resurrection from the Dead. Here you see that to those words, according to the Flesh, are opposed these, according to the Spirit of Holiness. Again, [Page 37] what this Spirit of Holiness is, will be no hard mat­ter to find out, if we consider, that as the Flesh signifieth a constituting part of Christ, namely his Fleshly Body; so also must the Spirit of Holi­ness, opposed thereunto, signify a constituting part. If so, then it is not the Holy Spirit, as eve­one will confess, Nor the Reasonable Soule of Christ, because he is intimated to have had this Spirit by means of the Resurrection from the dead, whereas he had a Reasonable Soul before his death. Nor the Divine Nature, for that is no­where in the Scripture designed by the name of Spirit, or Spirit of Holiness. Besides, the Adversa­ries hold, that Christ had the Divine Nature whilst he was yet clothed with Flesh. It remaines therefore that by Spirit of Holiness, which Christ had by means of the Resurrection of the dead, and is a constituting part of him, is to be under­stood his Holy Spiritual Body; whereby he is ex­cepted from other men, being the first-born from the dead, or the first that so rose from the dead, as that he never dyed again, but was clothed with a Spiritual Body, and made like to God, who is a Spirit. And now the sence of that passage begin­neth to appear, Heb. 9. 14. How much more shall the bloud of Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit (Gr: through an Eternal Spirit, for no Article is prefix­ed,) offered himself without spot to God, purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God? By Eternal Spirit, is here meant the Spiritual Body of Christ, which lasteth to all Eternity; and this expression is opposed to what the same Divine Author speaketh of Christ; Heb. 5. 7. Who in dayes of his Flesh, &c. for Eternal is contrary to dayes, and Spirit to Flesh. Neither will that which we [Page 38] have here spoken seem strange to him, who having penetrated into that Profound Epistle to the He­brews, knoweth (what is there frequently intima­ted) that Christ then made his offring for our sins, when, after his Resurrection, he entred into Hea­ven, and being endued with a Sp [...]ritual and Im­mortal Body, presented himself before God. For so the Type of the Levitical High Priest making the yearly Attonement for the sins of the People (Levit. 16.) did require. For as the Attonement was not then made, when he slew the Beasts, but when, having put on his Linen Robes, he brought their bloud into the sanctuary before the mercy-seat: so neither did Christ offer his sacrifice for our sins upon the Cross; but when after his Re­surrection, being clothed with Robes of Glory and Immortality, he entred into Heaven, the true San­ctuary, and presented himself to God. Wherefore (to return to the foresaid passage, Rom. 9. 5) when it is here said, Of whom according to the Fl [...]sh (for so the Greek hath it) Christ came, who is over all a God to be blessed for ever, we ought (by the Authority of the Apostle himself) to supply in our mind the other member of the opposition, and to understand the place, as if it had been said, who [...]cco [...]ding to the Spirit of Holiness by the Re­surrection from the dead, is over all a God blessed for ever. But if Christ be according to the Spirit of Holiness by the Resurrection from the dead, (that is) according to his Holy Spiritual Body which he received by means of the Resurrection from the dead, the Son of God in power, and accordingly a God over all, he is not the Son of God in power, and accordingly a God over all, by having the Divine Nature per­sonally united to his Humane Nature, but by the Glorification and Exaltation of his very Humane [Page 39] Nature, and so is not the most High God, but a God subordinate to Him.

The next place is that, John 20. 28, 29. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord, and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, becau [...]e thou hast seen me, thou hast believed. The words of Christ plainly shew that Thomas believed him to be his Lord, and his God, because he had seen him, be­ing raised from the dead. Doth this now argue Christ to be the most High God? Yea it strongly proveth the contrary, in that the Scripture else­where calleth the most High God, Invisible, 1 Tim. 1. 17. and saith, that none of men (so the Greek hath it) hath seen, nor can see him, 1 Tim. 6. 14, 15, 16. whereas on the contrary it calleth Christ the Image of the invisible God, Col. 1. 15. But it is impossible for him that is the Invisible God, to be the Image of the Invisible God, unless any man will be so absurd as to say, that he is the Image of himself. John 1. 1. In the beginning (not of the World, but of the Gospel, see Mark. 1. 1. Luke 1. 2. and 1 Joh. 1. 1. and Chap. 2. 7, 13, 14, 24. and 3. 11. and Epist. 2. 5. 6. for these words [in the beginning] are wont to be restrained to the matter in hand, which here is the Gospel, as appeareth from the very appellati­on of the Word, which is here given to Christ, in regard of his Prophetical Office, in publishing the Gospel) was the word (that is, the Man Christ Jesus called the Word, in that He was the [...]mmediate In­terpreter of God, by whom [...]e revealed his Coun­sel touching our Salvation, as we are wont to dis­close our secrets by our words; which reason may not obscurely be collected from the 18. v [...]rs. o [...] the same Chapter,) and the Word was wi [...] Go [...], (being taken up into Heaven, that so that h [...] might talk [Page 40] with God, and be indeed his Word, or the imme­diate Interpreter of his Will, and receive the most certain and absolute knowledg of the Kingdom of Heaven, which he was to propose to men: see Joh. 6. 38, 46, 51, 62. where Christ affirmeth, That he came down from Heaven, and had seen God: and that as he was the living bread, which came down from Heaven, whereof whosoever did eat, should live for ever; so the bread which he would give, was his flesh, which he would give for the life of the wo [...]ld: And afterwards asketh the Jews, What if they should see the Son of Man ascending up where he was before? namely, before he began to preach the Gospel, as he himself intimateth, Joh. 8. 42. where he saith, If God were your Father, ye would love me, for I went out from God, and came; for neither came I of my self, but He sent me. And John 16. 28. where he saith, I came out from the Father, and came into the world: Again (or rather, on the contrary) I leave the world, and go to the Father. Which going forth from the Father, every one may easily perceive, by the opposition of the following clause, is meant of a Locall Procession of Christ from God; and that before the discharge of his Embassy: for to come, or to come into the world, signi­fieth to treat with men in the name of God, and to perform a publick office among them; See Ioh. 1. 15, 27. 30. and 1 Ioh. 5. 20. Mat. 11. 3, 18, 19. Joh. 17. 18. compared with Chap. 16. 21. and Chap. 18. 37. And the word was a God, (as being endued with divine Power and Empire,) for according to the reasoning of Christ himelf, Joh. 10. 35. If the Psalmist call them Gods, to whom the vocall word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, (as it would, if any one should deny them [Page 41] be Gods:) is not he much more a God, who is endued with so divine a dominion, that he is the very substantial Word of God? This passage also sheweth, that Christ is not the most high God, the same with the Father. For when he is said to have been with God, the word [God] there, by the confession of all, signifieth the most high God, (since the very article set before it in the Greek, importeth so much) and therefore when He himself is afterwards said to be a God, (with the omission of the foresaid article in the Greek) neither will the words, nor thing it self, suffer Christ to be the same God with Him, with whom he was; (that is, the most High God) for then he would have been said to be with himself, which is ridiculous. So that these words, which are usu­ally brought to prove the supreme Divinity of Christ, being well examined, do quite overthrow it. Thus have we retorted all the places of the Scripture, wherein the appellation of God is gi­ven to Christ, against the Adversaries, shewing from them that Christ is not the most High God. But were all that we have said, laid aside, this ve­ry thing (if men had not renounced their Rea­son, and made Nonsense the Mother of their Devotion) is sufficient to decide the Controver­sie, namely, that Christ is called in the Scripture the Son of the most High God. For if he be both the Son of the most High God, and the most High God too, he will be the Son of himself, which is absurd.

Article V.

1 Cor. 8. 4, 5, 6. We know that there is no Idol (so the Greek hath it) in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For though there be called Gods, (so the Greek hath it) whether in the Heaven, or on the Earth, (as there are many Gods, and many Lords:) Yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all the things, (so the Greek hath it) and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all the things, and we by him. Heb. 2. 10. It became Him, for whom are all the things, (so the Greek hath it) and by whom are all the things, (that is, God) in bringing many Sons to Glory, to make the Captaine of their salvation perfit through sufferings.

Article VI.

John 14. 26. But the Comforter, (or rather, Ad­vocate, as the word in the Greek importeth, and Beza accordingly rendreth it, Advocatus) which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Where note by the way, that the holy Spirit is called the Advocate (which very appel­lation sufficiently intimates, that he is not that supream and independent Monarch Jehovah,) chiefly for two Reasons. 1. Because he instruct­eth the Saints, especially when they are brought before persecuting Rulers, how to plead their owne, and their Master Christs cause: See Mat. 10. 17, 18, &c. John 16. 7. &c. In opposition whereunto, the unclean Spirit Satan is called the Adversarie, 1 Pet. 5. 8. namely, in that he sug­gesteth [Page 45] slanders, and false accusations to the men of this world, against Christ and his people; see John 8. 38, 44. Secondly, Because when the Saints sink under some great pressure and affliction, and are at a loss, not knowing which way to turn themselves, nor what to pray for as they ought, then comes in the holy Spirit to their assistance, and intercedeth with most earnest and unexpres­sible groans to God in their behalf, Rom. 8. 26, 27. In opposition whereunto, the unclean Spirit, Satan, is called the Accuser of the Brethren, in that he accuseth them night and day before the throne of God, Rev. 12. 10. Job 1. 9. and chap. 2. 4, 5. Note also, that the holy Spirit is said to be sent, and that in the name of another, yea of a man (since not one­ly the thing it self, but also the whole tenour of Christs discourse intimateth, that he speaks of himself as a man,) but it is absurd to say, that the most High God can be sent, (since that is proper to Inferiours and Ministers;) more absurd yet to say, that he can be sent in the name of another; but most absurd of all to say, that he can be sent in the name of a man. Joh. 15. 26. But when the Advocate is come, whom I will send you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, that proceedeth (or, goeth out) from the Father, He shall testifie of me. This description of the holy Spirit, namely, that he proceedeth from the Fa­ther, serveth to shew both the Reason of our Sa­viours former words, wherein he had said that He would send the holy Spirit from the Father, and also that the holy Spirit is of most intimate admission with the Father; and as I may so speak, Legatus a latere. And indeed, were not men blinded with Romish Tradition, they would never draw such a monstrous conclusion from these words, as they [Page 46] are wont to do, namely, because the holy Spirit is here said to proceed from the Father, that there­fore he receiveth the the Divine Essence, and con­sequently is God, by eternal procession from the Father, (for as for his procession from the Son, though that be rise in mens mouths, yet doth not the Scripture make mention of it anywhere:) Which Essential and Eternal Procession is not onely in it self absurd, but hath also no good foot­ing in this text, (nor pretendeth to have footing in any other,) and is therefore to be rejected, as a bold and senseless figment of mans brain. For observe that it is not here said of the holy Spirit, [...], he proceedeth out of the Father, (though even then that Essential Pro­cession could not have solidly been inferred thence, for [...], or (which is all one) [...], being spoken of a Person, is wont to be understood of a Local Procession; See John 8. 42. Act. 15. 24. 1 John 2. 19.) but [...], i. he proceedeth from the Father. Now [...], i. to proceed from one, being spoken of a person, every puny in Greek can tell signifieth his going from ones house, or presence, and so intimates onely a Local Procession; which made Beza, in his Anno­tations on this place, ingenuously confess, that this Description concerneth not the Essence of the holy Spirit. Wherefore this place is so far from proving, that it quite subverteth the supposed Deity of the holy Spirit, since, if he were God, he could not locally proceed from any one, inas­much as he would then not onely be in anothers Mansion, but also change place; whereas God, by the confession of all, as he cannot be in any Mansi­on [Page 47] that is not his owne, so neither doth he shift place: John 16. 7, 8, &c. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Advocate will not come unto you: but if I depart, I will send him to you. And when he is come, he shall convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of Judgement. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall lead you into all the truth (namely, of those things which Christ had yet to say to them;) for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak, (which words clearly intimate, that the holy Spirit could not lead the Disciples into all the truth of those things that Christ had yet to say to them, unless they were first dis­closed to the Spirit himself by Christ) and he shall shew you things to come. He shall glorifie me, for he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. This thing doth indeed set forth the transcendent glory of Christ, namely, that whereas he himself, while he led a mortal life here on the earth, was wont in many things to be taught by the Spirit; See Isa. 11. 1, 2. yet after his Exaltation, he should not onely send the holy Spirit, but also give him In­structions concerning what he was to make known unto the Disciples. The fulfilling whereof may be seen in the three first Chapters of the Revelation. For he that there speaketh to John, is not Jesus Christ himself, both because in the entrance of Chap. 1. it is said that Jesus Christ signified the Revelation to his servant John, not by himself, but sending by his Angel; and also because in the 13 verse of the same Chap. John saith that he saw one like to the Son of Man; but if so, then he was [Page 48] not the Son of man himself. Who that Angel therefore is that there speaketh to John, in the person and name of Christ, may easily be gather­ed from the Epiphonema, or Acclamation, put at the close of every Epistle directed to the seven Asian Churches, where the Angel having before spoken in the person of Christ, now speaketh in his owne person, saying, He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear, what the Spirit saith unto the Churches; thereby sufficiently giving us to understand that he was the holy Spirit, who being appointed by Christ to guide and instruct his people, ought to be hearkned to. Eph. 4. 4, 5, 6. There is one Body, and one Spirit, even as ye have been called in one Hope of your calling; One Lord, one Faith, one Baptisme; One God and Father of all, who is over all, and among all, and in you all, 1 Cor. 12. 4, 5, 6. There are diversities of Gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are diversities of Administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of Ope­rations, but it is the same God that worketh all in all, (namely, as the primary Author; whereas the Lord Jesus worketh them as the secondary effici­ent; and the holy Spirit as the instrument, to whom, as being a most wise and faithful Steward and Deputy (they are the Expres­sions of Praescr. Adv. Haeret. chap. 28. Tertullian, who truely and appositely called the holy Spirit, Patris villicum, Christi vi­carium) God and Christ gave leave, for the con­firmation of the Gospel, to distribute the spiritu­al Gifts here specified, according to his owne will, as you may see both in the 11 verse of this very chapter, and Heb. 2. 3.) These two passages, though we could produce no others out of the Scripture, [Page 49] are abundantly sufficient to refute the vulgar o­pinion touching the Deity of the holy Spirit, since the Apostle doth expresly and purposely distin­guish him from that one God, and that one Lord of Christians. But if he be neither that one God, nor that one Lord of Christians, certainly he can be no other then a Ministring Spirit. Wherefore it is pal­pably evident from hence, that the TRINITY, which the Apostle Paul believed, consisteth of one God, one Lord, & one Spirit, but not of three persons in one God; otherwise God himself will be one of the three persons in God, which is absurd. So that those Christians that pretend (and indeed they do but pretend) to admit nothing but the Scripture for the rule of their Faith, may be ashamed to swerve from the Apostles doctrine in a thing so plainly and positively delivered by him, and which so neerly concerneth both the glory of God, and the salvation of men; since this very opinion of three Persons in God, is not onely the source of almost all the Errors com­monly held amongst Christians, which are many and gross, but also the main stumbling-block that keepeth many thousands from entring into the Church of Christ, in that they apprehend this to be the Error of the Christian Religion it self, whereas it is onely the Error of those that profess it. 1 Cor. 2. 10, 11. But God hath revealed them to us by his Spirit, (mark how the Spirit is not onely distinguished from God, but also made the instru­ment whereby he revealeth the Mysteries of the Gospel,) for the Spirit searcheth all things (that is, all things pertaining to the salvation of men, for the word [all] is wont to be restrained to the mat­ter in hand; thus in verse 15. of this very chap. [Page 50] the spiritual man is said to judge or discerne all things) even the depths of God: (Thus some men are said to be acquainted with the depths of Sa­tan, Rev. 2. 24.) For who of men knoweth the things of a man, save the Spirit of man that is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth none but the Spirit of God: (He doth not add as before, that is in him.) When the Apostle here saith, That none knoweth the things of God but the Spirit of God, The ex­clusive particle [none] is put to exclude some per­sons; those persons must of necessity be either Humane, Angelical, or Divine, since no other persons are to be found. Not humane Persons, for then the holy Spirit will be in the number of men, (which is absurd,) since that onely is wont to be excepted, which is otherwise comprehended under the general name, and which, if it had not expresly been excepted, would have been thought to be included. Not Divine Persons, for then the second Person, which is commonly held, will be excluded: For if no Divine Person know the things of God, (that is, of the Father, for he, by the con­fession of all, is here signified by the name of God) but the Spirit, then the second Person would not know them, which overturneth the supposition of the Adversaries, touching the three Persons of God. It remaineth therefore that the exclusive particle [none] is here made use of to exclude Angelical Persons, and consequently, that the holy Spirit is in the number of An­gels, otherwise he needed not to have been by name excepted. Whence we may collect, That of all the heavenly Ministers the holy Spirit was first made acquainted with the secrets of God, touching the Gospel, and accordingly he above [Page 51] others was employed in revealing them to the A­postles, according to the reasoning of Paul him­self in this place: which thing argueth his intima­cy with God, and eminency above all the rest of the heavenly Host; and likewise affordeth us the reason, why he in the Scripture is sometimes exempted out of the appellation of Angels; it being usual for one to be exempted out of the appellation of those of his kinde, by reason of some excellency. Thus Peter is segregated from the Apostles, because he had the preheminence among them, 1 Cor. 9. 5. And Saul is distinguish­ed from the Enemies of David, not because he was none of them, but in that he was the chief of them, Psal. 18. 1. And upon the same account Christ Jesus is sometimes in the Scripture distin­guished from men; see Gal. 1. 1, 12. Heb. 7. 28. And these things, (Christian Reader) have I urg­ed, supposing the holy Spirit to be a Person, as most of the Adversaries hold. Yet forasmuch as some (who otherwise assent to the truth concern­ing the holy Spirit) mistake in denying his Perso­nality, I think good here to confirm it. Consider therefore the places which I have cited out of the 14, 15, and 16 of John, and when thou hast seri­ously, laying aside all prejudice, so done, it will be impossible for thee (especially being thus ad­monished) to embrace either the opinion of A­thanasius, who held the holy Spirit to be a Per­son of supream Deity, or that of Socinus, who be­lieved him to be the divine power or efficacy, but no Person. The Error of Athanasius I have already briefly in this Article confuted, but more largely in the foregoing twelve Arguments. As for that of Socinus, tell me, whosoever thou art that adherest [Page 52] thereunto, whether Christ would have called the holy Spirit, the Advocate, if he had not been a Person? can any thing but a Person discharge such an Office, have such a title? Thou wilt say, David calleth the Testimonies of God, his Coun­sellors, Psa. 119. 24. Right. But doth he so call them Counsellors, as Christ calleth the holy Spirit Ad­vocate? doth he put the word Counsellors simply and by it self, or (as the learned phrase it) sub­jectively, for the Testimonies of God? doth he say, I will speak of the Counsellors, or turn my feet to the Counsellors, or I have kept the Counsellors, thereby intending the Testimones of God? But Christ saith, If I go not away, the Advocate will not come, and I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Advocate, and when the Advocate is come, whom I will send you from the Father, there­by meaning (as he explaines himself) the holy Spirit. Thou wilt reply, that wisdome, Prov. 8. is brought in as a Person, which notwithstanding is no Person. But how can it be made appear that by Wisdome in this place is not meant a Person, by a metonymie or transnomination called Wisdome? Certainly the circumstances of the place intimate the contrary: for thus Wisdome speaketh, I love them that love me, and those that seek me early shall finde me. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up (or, anointed, as the Hebrew word signifieth) from ever­lasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth (or, formed,) when there were no fountains abounding with water, When he prepared the heavens, I was there, when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then was I by him, as one brought up with him (Heb. [Page 53] a Foster-child, or (as the Septuagint intimate) an Artist) and I was dayly his delight, rejoycing al­waies before him: Rejoycing in the habitable part of his earth, and my delights were with the sons of men. Is it possible for the wit of man, with any probab [...]lity to devise how these things should be applyed to that which is no Person? Who this Person is, I have formerly shewn, even the Person under contestation, the holy Spirit, who moved on the waters, when God was about to create the world; whose delights are with the sons of men; and he accordingly called the Spirit of grace, for the favour that he beareth towards them; who may aptly be called Wisdome, and say, Counsel is mine, I have strength; being the Spirit of Wisdom, counsel, and might, or strength, as Isaiah, chap. 11. testifieth. Againe, how could Christ say, that the Spirit should not speak of himself, but what he should hear, if he were not a Person? how, that he should receive of his, and declare it to the Disciples? Cer­tainly they that adhere to the doctrine of Socinus touching Christ (wherein without question that man saw the truth) must either renounce it, and return to Athanasius, or embrace this which I hold touching the Person of the holy Spirit. For is it imaginable that the holy Spirit, being the power and efficacy of God, immediately flowing out of his Essence, should hear from Christ, and re­ceive of his, when in the mean time neither is him­self a Person, nor hath Christ the same divine Essence? Furthermore, how could the holy Spi­rit search all things, even the depths of God? 1 Cor. 2. How make intercession for the Saints with grones unutterable? Rom. 8. How could he say to the [Page 54] Christians at Antioch, Separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them? Act. 13. 2. How to Peter, Behold, three men seek thee; Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them? How could it be said of him, that he distributeth Spiritu­al Gifts as he will? 1 Cor. 12. 11. How could we be exhorted by the Apostle, not to grieve the holy Spirit? Eph. 4. 30. How finally could Christ command his Apostles to baptize all the discipled Nations into the name as of the Father, and the Son, so also of the holy Spirit? If these things, and sun­dry more which may be alledged out of the Scri­pture, do not evince the holy Spirit to be a Per­son, what can? But the Adversaries, with whom we have now to deal, will object, that several things are in like manner ascribed to the holy Spi­rit, which agree not to a Person. Thus is he said to be an earnest (or rather, as the Greek word [...] signifieth, a Pledge. See Gen. 38. 17, 18. [...]; that is, according to the English Translation, Wilt thou give me a Pledge till thou send it? And he said, What Pledge shall I give thee? See also verse 20. [...], to re­ceive the Pledge from the womans hand:) and to be shed upon the faithful; and they said to be anoint­ed, baptized, and sealed with the holy Spirit; and God to give of his Spirit. But it is easie to shew that such things as these are in the Scripture, and other approved Writers, attributed to Persons; but such Personal things as we have before re­hearsed concerning the holy Spirit, are never in the Scripture, or other approved Authors, (un­less [Page 55] Poets, to whom liberty of Fiction is granted, and who consequently may make Persons of what they please) attributed to them that are not Per­sons. For instance, Terence in Heaut. Act. 3. Sc. 3. calleth a Damsel a Pledge, saying,

which place further sheweth the true signification of Arrhabo to be that which we formerly assigned. Likewise Paul saith, Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, Rom. 13. 14. And, My little Chrilden, of whom I travel in birth again untill Christ be formed in you. Gal. 4. 19. And, As ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord, walk ye in him, Col. 2. 6. And, Ye are our Epistle writen in our hearts, known and read of all men, 2 Cor. 3. 2. And, The Seal of my Apostle­ship are ye in the Lord. 1 Cor. 9. 2. And Christ himself, None can come unto me, except it were given (or rather, except there be given) to him of my Fa­ther. (the Gr. hath it, [...], the same ex­pression that is used, when it is said, that God hath given us of his Spirit, 1 John 4. 13. [...].) You see by what hath been alledged, that either the very same Impersonal Expressions, which are attributed to the Holy Spirit, are also attributed to other Persons, or other expressions altogether as far distant from Personality. Where­fore it will be far more suitable, by a Metonymie, or Metaphor, (usual enough in such cases) to salve these few Impersonal Expressions, attributed to the Holy Spirit, being a Person, as the tenor of the Scripture exhibiteth him to us; then by a Prosopopoeia, (which must of necessity prove very [Page 56] uncouth and monstrous,) to elude those many Personall Expressions, attributed to the Holy Spirit, being no Person, as only some few places seem to hold him forth to us. Having sufficiently asserted the Personality of the Holy Spirit, let us now in the close of all speak briefly of what is peculiar to him. I omit what Siracides saith of the Holy Spirit under the name of wisedome, he be­ing the Spirit of wisedome, namely that hecame out of the mouth of the most High, Chap. 24. 3. and consequently had his production in that manner, being, (as another wise man also speaketh of him under the name aforesaid) a vapor of the power of God, and a sincere emanation (or, efflux) of the Glory of the Almighty; Wisd. Salom. chap. 7. 25. to which accordeth that of Elihu, Job 33. 4. The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. Where (after the manner of the Hebrews) the same thing is repeated in different words, the Breath of the Almighty being put for what had in the former part of the sentence been called, the Spirit of God. And methinks the very appellati­on of the Spirit of God, doth of it self sufficiently inti­mate, that what those two forequoted writers speak of wisedom, is applicable to the Holy Spirit. But these things (as I said before) I now omit, enqui­ring only what are the peculiar Priviledges, and Operations of the Holy Spirit▪ His peculiar Privi­ledg therefore is, that he only of all the ministring Spirits, being of a more pure and penetrating na­ture, and of more intimate admission, is first ac­quainted with the depths, or profound secrets of God, as hath been before argued in this very Ar­ticle, out of 1 Cor. 2. 10, 11. where when the A­postle saith, Who of men knoweth the things of a man, [Page 57] save the Spirit of a man that is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth none, save the Spirit of God: the other member, necessary to make the oppositi­on compleat, is to be supplied in our mind, and the place understood, as if the Apostle had said, Even so the things of God knoweth none of the Mini­string Spirits or Angels, save the Spirit of God; as I before have evinced. Neither let any man take offence, whilst I intimate the Holy Spirit to be an Angel, for though he were not expressly so called in the Scripture, (as I verily beleeve he is, though the places are not such as to be altogether free from cavil,) yet is the thing it self beyond all con­troversie ascribed to him. For demonstration, the word Angel Originally Greek, and the Hebrew Malak answering thereunto, signifieth any Messen­ger whatsoever, but is in Scripture oftentimes ap­propriated to signifie a Spirit or Heavenly Mes­senger. In both which respects the Holy Spirit is an Angel, being not only a Messenger, but a Spi­ritual Messenger sent out of Heaven, as Peter testifieth, 1 Pet. 1. 12. As for the Peculiar Ope­rations of the Holy Spirit, the first is sanctificati­on, performed by imparting Spiritual Gifts unto them, whereby they are consecrated and set apart to the service of God, see 1 Cor. 6. 11. But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. By Sanctification cannot here be meant, the cleansing of the Corinthians from the filth of their sins, for that is expressed by washing; but the con­secrating of them to God, by conferring on them Spiritual Gifts, see also 1 Cor. 12. 4, 11. There are diversities of Gifts, but the same Spirit. Now all these worketh one and the same Spirit, distributing to [Page 58] every one, as he will. For though other good Spi­rits are also employed about the Faithfull, for they are all ministring Spirits, sent out to minister for their sakes, that shall inherit salvation, as the Divine Author to the Hebrews testifieth, cha. 1. 14. and do not only guard, by pitching their tents round about them, Psal. 34. 8. but also inspire them as they pro­phesie and speak with strange tongues, (which sheweth how the Holy Spirit may inspire divers at the same time) see 1 Cor. 14. 12, 13, 14, 15. Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of Spirits, (so the Greek hath it, as the Translators themselves in the Margin confess, who not understanding the thing it self, did in the text for Spirits put Spiritual Gifts,) seek that you may excell (Gr. abound) to the e­difying of the Church. Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue, pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my Spirit prayeth, but my understadding, (or, mind) is unfruitfull. What is it then? I will pray with the Spirit, and will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the Spirit, and will sing with the understanding also. See also verse 32. And the Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Propbets. Behold here in the words which I have cited, there is twice mention made of spirits in the Plural number, whilst the Apostle dis­courseth of them that spake with strange tongues, and Prophesied. Neither can the Ʋnderstandings or Minds of the Linguists and Prophets be under­stood by those Spirits, since the Apostle, verse 14. putteth a manifest difference between the Spirit, and the Ʋnderstanding or Mind of him that spake in an unknown tongue. Neither are Spiritual Gifts meant, for they are in Greek called [...], Spirituals, 1 Cor. 12. 1. not [...], Spirits. It [Page 59] remaineth therefore that Ministring Spirits are meant, who inspired the several Linguists and Pro­phets, and are therefore said to be subject to the Prophets, because they could either make use of and utter their Inspirations, or suspend the use of the same, by permitting others to speak, inasmuch as those Spirits did not hurry the Prophets so vi­olently, as evil Spirits are reported to drive false Prophets amongst the Heathen, otherwise God by giving them to the Prophets in the Church, would be the Author of tumult and confusion, but not of order; whilst every one that was inspi­red at the same time with another, was necessita­ted to utter his inspiration as well as he. Though other good Spirits, (I say,) are employed about the Faithful, in the exercise of Prophesie and strange tongues, yet the assignation and confer­ring of those Gifts peculiarly belongeth to the Holy Spirit, as the Apostle clearly testifieth. The second peculiar Operation of the Holy Spirit, is to give Believers access through Christ to the Father, Eph. 2. 18. For he being the Spirit of Adoption, doth witness to their Spirits that they are the Children of God, and so maketh them to cry Abba Father, Rom. 8. 15. 16. and consequently is the Pledge of their Inheritance, Eph. 1. 13, 14. (for so I before shewed that the word [...] in the Gr. ought to be rendred, and not Earnest, as the English Tran­slators have it,) some other things perhaps there be, as the ordering of matters in the Church, and setting of Officers therein, and also laying of burthens upon Christians, (see Act. 15. 28.) which seem to be peculiar to the Holy Spirit a­bove others, yet since the Scripture doth not say, that none save the Spirit doth these things, or that [Page 60] one and the same Spirit doth them, I dare not so confidently to assert them for peculiar Operations of the Holy Spirit, contenting my self with those which the Scripture doth confessedly point-out for such.