and what is the Rule of Faith are two very distinct Questions and to apply what is said of the Catholick Faith to the Rule of Faith becomes the Wit and understanding of an Heretick This is the very Argument which the Papists use against our Authors Compleat and Infallible Rule of Faith the Scriptures that they do not contain all things necessary to Salvation because they do not prove the great Fundamental of the Protestant Faith that the Canon of Scripture which we receive is the Word of God now what Answer he would give to Papists with reference to the sufficiency of Scripture let him suppose I give him the same Answer in Vindication of the Catholick Faith of the Athanasian Creed and we are right again But his parting blow is worth some little observation That if the Scriptures be a compleat Rule of Faith then this Creed of Athanasius is at least an unnecessary Rule of Faith But why did he not say the same thing of the Apostles Creed or Nicene Creed or any other Creeds as well as of the Athanasian Creed for it seems a Creed as a Creed for there is no other sense to be made of it is a very unnecessary thing if the Scripture be a compleat Rule of Faith And thus both Catholicks and Hereticks even his dear Arians and Socinians have troubled themselves and the World to no purpose in drawing up Creeds and Confessions of Faith But this Author ought to be sent to School to learn the difference between a Creed and a Rule of Faith A Rule of Faith is a divinely inspired Writing which contains all matters to be believed and upon the Authority of which we do believe a Creed is a Summary of Faith or a Collection of such Articles as we ought to believe the Truth of which we must examine by some other Rule the sum then of our Author's Argument is this That because the Scripture is the Rule of Faith and contains all things necessary to be believed therefore it is very unnecessary to collect out of the Scripture such Propositions as are necessary for all Christians explicitely to believe He might as well have proved from the Scriptures being a compleat Rule of Faith that therefore there is no necessity of Commentators or Sermons or Catechisms as that there is no necessity of Creeds But as senseless as this is there is a very deep fetch in it for he would have no other Creed but that the Scripture is the Divine Infallible Compleat Rule of Faith which makes all other Creeds unnecessary and then he can make what he pleases of Scripture as all other Hereticks have done before him But let me ask this Author whether to believe in general that the Scripture is the compleat Rule of Faith without an explicite belief of what is contained in Scripture will carry a Man to Heaven There seems to me no great difference between this general Faith in the Scriptures without particularly knowing and believing what they teach and believing as the Church believes We suppose then he will grant us the necessity of an explicite belief of all things contained in the Scripture necessary to Salvation and ought not the Church then to instruct People what these necessary Articles of Faith are and what is the true sense of Scripture about them Especially when there are a great many damnable Heresies taught in the Church by Men of perverse Minds who wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction and does not this shew the necessity of Orthodox Creeds and Formularies of Faith And this puts me in mind of the great usefulness of ancient Creeds though the Holy Scripture be the only Divine and Infallible Rule of Faith viz. That they are a kind of secondary Rule as containing the Traditionary Faith of the Church It is no hard matter for witty Men to put very perverse senses on Scripture to favour their heretical Doctrines and to defend them with such Sophistry as shall easily impose upon unlearned and unthinking Men and the best way in this case is to have recourse to the ancient Faith of the Christian Church to learn from thence how these Articles were understood and professed by them for we cannot but think that those who conversed with the Apostles and did not only receive the Scriptures but the sense and interpretation of them from the Apostles or Apostolical Men understood the true Christian Faith much better than those at a farther remove and therefore as long as we can reasonably suppose this Tradition to be preserved in the Church their Authority is very Venerable and this gives so great and venerable Authority to some of the first General Councils and therefore we find Tertullian himself confuting the Hereticks of his days by this argument from Prescription or the constant Tradition of all Apostolick Churches which was certain and unquestionable at that time and as much as Papists pretend to Tradition we appeal to Tradition for the first Three or Four Centuries and if the Doctrine of the Athanasian Creed have as good a Tradition as this as certainly it has it is no unnecessary Rule though we do not make it a primary and uncontroulable Rule as the Holy Scripture is where there are two different Senses put on Scripture it is certainly the safest to embrace that sense if the words will bear it which is most agreeable to the received Doctrine of the Primitive Church contained in the Writings of her Doctors or Ancient Creeds or such Creeds as are conformed to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church Then for taking ought from this Creed the whole Greek Church diffused through so many Provinces rejects as Heretical that Period of it The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son contending that the Holy Spirit is from the Father only which also they clearly and demonstratively prove as we shall see in its proper place And for the menace here of Athanasius that they shall perish everlastingly they laugh at it and say He was drunk when he made that Creed Gennad Schol. Arch Bishop of Constantin This Addition of the Filioque or the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and from the Son which was disputed between the Greek and Latin Church is no corruption of the Essentials of the Christian Faith about the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity as I observed before nor does Athanasius deny Salvation to those who do not believe it For he that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity does not relate to every particular Word and Phrase but to that Doctrine which immediately proceeds That the Trinity in Vnity and Vnity in Trinity is to be Worshipped which the Greeks acknowledged as well as the Latins and therefore agreed in the Substantials of Faith necessary to Salvation And that I havereason for what I say appears from this that after the Latins were perswaded that the Holy Ghost did proceed from the Son they were far enough from denying Salvation to those who
believed otherwise Pope Leo III assented to the definition of the Council of Aquisgrane An. 809. concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son and yet would by no means allow that it should be added to the Creed nor would he deny Salvation to those who believed otherwise but when that Question was asked him returned this Answer That whosoever has subtilty enough to attain to the Knowledge of this or knowing it will not believe it cannot be saved but there are many and this among the rest deep Misteries of the Holy Faith which all cannot reach to some by reason of Age others for want of understanding and therefore as we said before he that can and won't cannot be saved And therefore at the same time he commanded the Constantinopolitan Creed to be hung up at Rome in a Silver Table without the addition of the Filioque nor can any man tell when this was added to the Creed however we never read the Greeks were Anathematized upon this account till Pope Vrban II. 1097. and in the Council of Florence under Eugenius IV. 1438 9. Ioseph the Patriarch of Constantinople thought this Controversie between the two Churches might be reconciled and the Filioque added in a sense very consistent with the belief of the Greek Church As for what he adds that the Greek Church condemned this addition as Heretical I desire to know what Greek Council did this Vossius a very diligent Observer gives no account of it the quarrel of the Greeks with the Latins was That they undertook without the Authority of a General Council to add to the Creed of a General Council when the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon had Anathematized those who did so and therefore for this reason the Greeks Anathematized the Latin Church without declaring the Filioque to be Heretical and as that Learned Man observes this was the true cause of the Schism that the Greeks thought the Pope of Rome and a Western Synod took too much upon themselves to add to the Creed of a General Council by their own Authority without consulting the Eastern Church which was equally concerned in matters of Faith But the Comical part is still behind for he says The Greeks laugh at Athanasius 's menace and say he was drunk when he made the Creed and for this he refers us to Georgius Scholarius or Gennadius who was made Patriarch of Constantinople by Mahomet when he had taken that City I confess I have not read all that Gennadius has Writ and know not where to find this place and he has not thought fit to direct us but this I know that whether Gennadius says this himself or only reports it as the saying of some foolish Greeks for I cannot guess by our Author which it is whoever said it said more then is true for Athanasius neither made the Creed drunk nor sober for as most Learned Men agree he never made it at all though it bears his name but I wish I could see this place in Gennadius for I greatly suspect our Author Gennadius being a very unlikely Man to say any ill thing of Athanasius upon account of the Filioque who himself took the side of the Latin Church in this dispute and as Vossius relates gives Athanasius a very different and more honourable Character 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The great Athanasius the Preacher and Confessor of Truth But there is nothing smites me more than to hear this Arian or Socinian or whatever he is affirm That the Greeks have clearly and demonstratively proved that the Holy Spirit is from the Father only For that which is proved clearly and demonstratively I hope is true and then this alone is a confutation of his brief Notes for the Greeks taught and proved demonstratively as he says that the Holy Spirit so proceeds from the Father only as to be of the same Substance and One God with the Father And the Catholick Faith is this Catholick Faith is as much as to say in plain English the Faith of the whole Church now in what Age was this which here follows the Faith of the whole Church The Catholick Faith I grant is so called with relation to the Catholick Church whose Faith it is and the Catholick Church is the Universal Church or all the true Churches in the World which are all but one whole Church united in Christ their Head the Profession of the true Faith and Worship of Christ makes a true Church and all true Churches are the One Catholick Church whether they be spread over all the World or shut up in any one corner of it as at the first Preaching of the Gospel the Catholick Church was no where but in Iudaea Now as no Church is the Catholick Church of Christ how far soever it has spread it self over the World unless it profess the true Faith of Christ no more is any Faith the Catholick Faith how universally soever it be professed unless it be the true Faith of Christ nor does the true Christian Faith cease to be Catholick how few soever there be who sincerely profess it It is down-right Popery to judge of the Catholick Church by its multitudes or large extent or to judge of the Catholick Faith by the vast Numbers of its Professors were there but one true Church in the World that were the Catholick Church because it would be the whole Church of Christ on Earth and were the true Christian Faith professed but in one such Church it would be the Catholick Faith still for it is the Faith of the whole true Church of Christ the sincere belief and profession of which makes a Catholick Church Not in the Age of Athanasius himself who for this Faith and for Seditious Practices was banished from Alexandria in AEgypt where he was Bishop no less than four times whereof the first was by Constantine the Great What shall be done unto Thee thou lying Tongue What impudence is this to think to sham the World at this time a day with such stories as these when the Case of Athanasius is so well known or may be even to English Readers who will take the pains to read his Life written with great exactness and fidelity by the learned Dr. Cave But when he thinks a second time of it will he say that the Church of God in Athanasius's Age was not of the same Faith with him What thinks he of the Nicene Fathers who condemned Arius In which Council Athanasius himself was present and bore a considerable part and so provoked the Arian Faction by his Zeal for the Catholick Faith and his great skill and dexterity in managing that Cause as laid the Foundation of all his future Troubles Will he say that Constantine the Great who called the Council at Nice in the Cause of Arius and was so zealous an Asserter of the Nicene Faith banished Athanasius for this Faith No his greatest Enemies durst not make
and whoever rejects them whatever name he goes by can be no better than a Socinian in disguise but however there are no Texts alledged by learned Trinitarians but are acknowledged by some or other of his learned Trinitarians and thus it is as broad as long but it is not the Authority of any modern Expositors which we rely on but their Reason and if a learned Trinitarian should reject any Text without Reason or Learning it signifies no more to us than the Expositions of a learned Socinian when we seek for Authority we go higher to the Primitive Fathers of the Catholick Church and there we find it They not only delivered to us the traditionary Doctrines of a Trinity which had always been taught in the Catholick Church but the Traditionary Exposition of those Scriptures too whereon this Doctrine is founded and they being so near the Head and Fountain of Tradition the Apostolick Age their Authority is venerable and a modest and prudent Man will not reject any Interpretation of Scripture which relates to Articles of Faith and is unanimously delivered by the Ancient Fathers if the words in any tolerable construction will bear the sense for though a Text should fairly bear two different Interpretations that is most likely to be true which has been from the beginning taught by the Catholick Church And I challenge this Author to name any Text which is alledged for the proof of a Trinity by learned Trinitarians which has not been used to the same purpose by many or most or all the ancient Fathers who have alleadged those Texts But his Conclusion from hence that therefore the Scripture does not compel us to acknowledge a Trinity in Unity because the Unitarians and some or other of the most Learned Trinitarians expound these Texts to another Sense is very pleasant and shows what a great Master of Reason he is for his Argument is this the Scripture does not compel us to believe any thing while there are other men who expound the Scripture to a contrary Sense and thus I am sure the Scripture compels us to believe nothing for it will be hard to name any Text which concerns any Article of Faith how plain and express soever it be but what has been expounded to a contrary Sense by one Heretick or other I would ask this Author whether the Scripture compels him to believe but One God in his Sense of it that is but One who is God If it does not why does he believe it and insist so peremptorily on it in defiance of the whole Catholick Church and yet how can the Scripture compel him to this when the Catholick Church and the Catholick Doctors in all Ages have expounded Scripture to a contrary sense that there are Three Divine Persons who are this One God At this rate when Men differ in their Expositions of Scripture the Scripture does not compel us to believe either and thus notwithstanding the Scripture we may believe nothing If the Scripture have a determined Sense we are bound to believe that Sense and must answer it to God and to our Saviour if we do not whoever expounds it otherwise and therefore when it is said in the Creed that we are compelled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are under a necessity by the Christian Verity to acknowledge each Person by himself to be God and Lord the meaning is not that men are under any force to believe or acknowledge it or to expound Scripture to this sense but that the true Sense and Exposition of Scripture does make this Acknowledgment necessary if we will believe as the Scripture teaches and this may be true whatever the Unitarians or any Learned Trinitarians teach He adds That the Contest between the Vnitarians and Trinitarians is not a clash of Reason with Scripture but whether we ought to interpret holy Scripture when it speaks of God according to Reason or not that is like fools or like wise men Now this is all sham and falacy for to expound Scripture by Reason may signifie two very differeent things 1. To use our own Reason to find out the true Sense and Interpretation of Scripture 2. To expound Scripture in Conformity to the Principles and Maxims of Natural Reason In the first sense he expounds Scripture according to Reason who considers the Use and Propriety of Words the Scope and Design of the place what goes before and what follows and how one place of Scripture is consistent with another just in the same way as we find out the sense of any Humane Writing and he who does not thus expound Scripture by Reason expounds it like a fool that is if he put such a sense upon it as the words will not bear or the scope and design of the Text will not admit and as no man would think of who were not prepossessed and prejudiced against what appears to be the plain and obvious Sense of the Text and whether they or we in this sense expound Scripture according or contrary to Reason like fools or like wise men shall be examined presently As for the other Sense of Expounding Scripture according to Reason that is in Conformity to the Principles and Maxims of Natural Reason we allow this too so far that we must not expound Scripture to such a sense as contradicts the plain and express Maxims of Natural Reason for though God reveals such things to us as Natural Reason could not discover and cannot comprehend yet Revelation cannot contradict plain Reason for Truth can never contradict it self what is true in Revelation can never be false in Reason and what is true by Natural Reason can never be false in Revelation but then as I observed before we must be sure that there is such a Contradiction it must be evident and express and not made out of uncertain Consequences which many times are not owing to the Nature of Things but to the Imperfection of our own Knowledge As to keep to the Matter of our present Dispute Natural Reason tells us That there is and can be but One Supreme God the Soveraign Lord of the World and should any man pretend to prove from Scripture that there are Three Gods this would be an express Contradiction to the Natural Belief of One God and therefore we must reject this Sense of Scripture as contrary to Reason but to prove from Scripture that there is but One God and that there are Three who are this One God this is no Contradiction to Reason which teaches but One God for Scripture teaches the same and all Trinitarians acknowledge the same and must do so if they believe the Athanasian Creed and therefore the belief of the Trinity does not contradict the natural belief of One God Yes you 'l say that there should be Three Persons each of which is God and yet but One God is a Contradiction but what Principle of Natural Reason does it contradict Reason tells us that Three Gods cannot be One God but does
Nature is a meer Creature a fit Lieutenant or Representative of God in Personal or Prerogative Acts of Government and Power must not every Being be represented by one of his own Kind a Man by a Man an Angel by an Angel in such Acts as are proper to their Natures and must not God then be represented by One who is God Is any Creature capable of the Government of the world does not this require infinite Wisdom and infinite Power and can God communicate infinite Wisdom and infinite Power to a Creature or a finite Nature that is can a Creature be made a true and essential God if our Adorers of Reason can digest such Contradictions as these I hope they will never complain of Absurdities and Contradictions more A God without infinite Perfections is only a Titular and Nominal God and to say that Creatures may have all the Perfections of God is to say that God can make an infinite Creature which has a thousand times greater Contradictions than the most absurd Explication of the Trinity can be charged with for then a true and real God may be a Creature then the Divine Nature is not eternal but may be created then the Divine Nature is not numerically One but if the first God so pleased he could make a world of Gods as well as of Angels or Men. If then this Kingdom to which Christ is advanced cannot be administred without infinite Wisdom and Power then he is by Nature a God for otherwise all Power in Heaven and Earth could not have been committed to him because he was not capable of it could not administer it and would God choose a King who could not administer the Government of the World nor do any thing towards it And yet the Difficulty remains if he be by Nature the Son of God and the Natural Lord of the World how is he said to be exalted by God and to receive a Kingdom from him as the Reward of his Sufferings when he was already possessed of it ever since the Foundations of the World being the Natural Lord of all Creatures and therefore had no need to receive that which was his own or purchase what was his Natural Right by such mean and vile Condescensions as suffering Death upon the Cross. And therefore rightly to understand this we must consider the Nature of Christ's Kingdom that it is not meerly the Natural Government of the World but a Mediatory Kingdom God is the Supreme and Natural Lord of the World King of Kings and Lord of Lords and the only Ruler of Princes and while God governed the World only as its Natural Lord the Son had no distinct Kingdom of his own but in Conjunction with his Father For though there always were Three Divine Persons in the Godhead yet the Father being the Fountain of the Deity the Government of the World was administred in his Name But Mankind quickly Apostatized from God forfeited immortal Life corrupted their Manners and defaced the Image of God upon their Souls and the Government of God considered only as our Maker and Soveraign Lord could give no hope nor security to guilty sinners and this made a Mediatory Kingdom necessary to reconcile God and Men and to restore Man to the Integrity of his Nature and this Power and Dignity God bestowed upon his own Son who had the most right to it and was best qualified for it being the begotten Word and Wisdom of the Father but he must first become man and publish the Will of God to the World and make Expiation for Sin and then he should rise again from the dead and set down at the right hand of God And therefore we may observe that all this Power Christ is invested with is as Head of the Church God hath put all things under his feet and given him to be Head over all things to the Church which is his Body the fulness of him which filleth all in all That is he has made him the Governour of the whole World as Head of the Church For the Salvation of Mankind required the Government of the World to be put into his Hands that he might restrain the Power and Malice of wicked Spirits and destroy the Kingdom of Darkness and imploy good Angels in the Service and Ministeries of his Church as the Apostle tells us They are ministring Spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of Salvation That the Government of this lower World might be administred by him with a peculiar regard and subserviency to the great ends of his Spiritual Kingdom For the Church of Rome is so far in the right that the Supreme Head of the Church must be Supreme in Temporals too in ordine ad spiritualia but their fault is they give this Power to a vicarious Head which is due only and can be administred only by Christ who is the true Supreme Head of all things to his Church The Government of Israel was a Type of this The Kingdom of Israel was originally a pure Theocracy God was their King and governed them almost as visibly by his Priest his Oracles his Judges whom he extraordinarily raised up as a Temporal King governs his Subjects But in time they grew weary of the Government of God and desired a King like other Nations upon which God tells Samuel They have not rejected thee but rejected me that I should not reign over them But yet he complies with their Desires in giving them a King and their King was peculiarly God's Anointed and God's King who ruled God's People and Inheritance by God's peculiar and delegated Authority for the Government of Israel did not cease to be a Theocracy when they had a King for they were God's People and Inheritance still but now the King was between God and the People whereas God governed them more immediately before And therefore as David was a Type of Christ so his Kingdom was typical of the Kingdom of Christ Yet have I set my King upon my holy Hill of Sion which seems to have some aspect on David though it received its just Acomplishment in Christ and hence the Kingdom of the Messias is called the Throne of his Father David not that Temporal Kingdom which David governed for his Kingdom was not of this World but that of which David's Kingdom was a Type and Figure the Government of the Church who are God's People of whom the carnal Israel was a Type which he rules by a vicarious but a Soveraign Authority for God and in his name and stead This gives a plain account how God may give this Kingdom to his Son and that as the Reward of his Sufferings It may be a Gift because it is not a Natural Right for it is not a Natural Kingdom but erected by the Wisdom and Counsel of God for the Salvation of Sinners and it must be the Reward of his Sufferings because it is a Sacerdotal Kingdom which is founded in the
whence all Influences of Grace are derived into the Body and though this be not a personal Union it is next degree to it for we are Flesh of his Flesh and Bone of his Bone and a Personal Union makes no difference in the manner of Operation though it does in the Measures and Degrees the Divine Word acts by and in conjunction with the Holy Spirit and therefore sanctifies his own Human Nature as he does his mystical Body the Church by the Operations and Influenences of the Holy Ghost 10. And this Answers his next Argument That the Miracles of Christ are attributed to the Holy Ghost or to the Father dwelling in him for Father Son and Holy Ghost act together as Christ tells us My Father worketh hitherto and I work 11. His next Argument is Had our Lord been more than a Man the Prophesies of the Old Testament in which he is promised would not describe him barely as the Seed of the Woman the Seed of Abraham a Prophet like unto Moses the Servant and Missionary of God on whom God's Spirit should rest That our Saviour ought to have been thus described though he had been more than a Man is plain enough because he was to be all this the Seed of the Woman the Seed of Abraham a Prophet like unto Moses but a much greater Prophet for Moses was faithful in all his House as a Servant but Christ as a Son over his own House But what he insinuates that he is barely thus described shews That this Author will never loose a Cause by over-much Modesty for we with all the Christian Church and we have the Authority of Christ and his Apostles for it too say That he is described in the Old Testament also not only as the Seed of Abraham but as the Son of God Of which more presently His next Attempt is against the Divinity of the Holy Ghost but here is little that requires a distinct Answer it being only the Repetion of his old Fallacies 1. That the Holy Ghost or Spirit and the Power of God are spoken of as one and the same thing And what then His intended Conclusion I suppose is that the Holy Ghost is not a Person which is the Intention of his second Argument but this is so novel and ridiculous a Conceit too sensless for any of the ancient Hereticks that it ought not to be seriously confuted but despised for it is as easie to prove the Father and the Son to be no Persons as the Holy Spirit He is the Spirit of God which searcheth the deep things of God and he who knows all that is in God is a knowing Mind but to dream of Power and Inspiration in God distinct as he confesses from God and no Person is to attribute such Powers and Faculties to an infinite Mind as there are in created Minds to compound God of Mind and Intellectual Powers and Faculties which all Men of sense have scorned the thoughts of what are Faculties in us are Persons in God or else God is not a pure and simple Act as I showed above Which shows the vanity of his Pretence That the Holy Spirit is spoken of as a Person by the same figure of Speech that Charity is described as a Person 1 Cor. 13.4 5. and Wisdom 9 Prov. 11. For these natural or acquired Powers and Habits are said to do that which the Person who has them and acts by them does as Charity suffereth long and is kind because a charitable man does so c. And if we will allow such Habits and Powers in God the Case may be somewhat parallel for when we have compounded God of Substance or Essence or Faculties or Powers we may then find figurative Persons in God as there are in Men. This is certain all Personal Acts belong to a Person and therefore whatever has any Personal Acts ascribed to it we must conclude is a Person unless we know by some other means that it is no Person and then that proves the Expression to be figurative Thus we know Charity is no Person but a Grace or Vertue and therefore when Personal Acts are attributed to Charity as to suffer long and be kind c. we know this is a figure but it is ridiculous hence to conclude That the Holy Ghost who has Personal Acts ascribed to him to work Miracles to raise the Dead to comfort to convince to sanctifie the Church to dwell in the Church as in his Temple c. is yet no Person because Charity which we know to be no Person has Personal Acts ascribed to it which is as much as to say That because Personal Acts are sometimes used figuratively therefore they must never be properly expounded whereas on the other hand we must never expound any thing figuratively but where the subject will not admit of a proper sense If it were as known and certain that the Holy Ghost is no Person as that Charity is none then there would be reason to allow a figure but to prove that the Holy Ghost is no Person only because Personal Acts are sometimes figuratively attributed to that which is no Person is a maxim only in the Socinian Logick which is nothing else but a System of absurd and ridiculous Fallacies 2. His second Argument against the Spirit 's being God is this A manifest distinction is made as between God and Christ so also between God and the Holy Spirit or Power and Inspiration of God so that 't is impossible the Spirit should be God himself This has been answered already as to the distinction between God and Christ and the same Answer will serve for the Holy Spirit But this Confession of the Socinian confutes his whole Hypothesis and proves the Holy Spirit to be a Person and a God He says the Holy Spirit is distinct from God so distinct that 't is impossible he should be God himself then say I this Holy Spirit is either a Divine subsisting Person or nothing but a Name If this Spirit were a Divine Vertue and Power as he would have it then it is not distinct from God but is God himself as the Powers and Faculties of the Mind though they may be distinguished from each other yet they can't be any thing distinct from the Mind but are the Mind it self and therefore if the Spirit as he says be represented in Scripture as so distinct from God that 't is impossible he should be God himself then he must be a distinct Divine Person and not the meer Power of God which is not distinct from God himself If the Spirit be distinct from God and not God himself and yet have Personal Acts ascribed to him then he must be a distinct Person for Faculties Vertues and Powers have Personal Acts and Offices ascribed to them only upon account of their unity and sameness with the Mind in which they are which is a Person and acts by these Powers but a Power which is distinct from