God for this Messiah Glorie bee to God on high ver 13. At his resurrection to those that guarded the Sepulchre Matth. 28. 3 4. and to holy women ver 5. At his Asscension to the Disciples Acts 1. 10 11. and many the like These three saith the text are one these words afford another Argument To say nothing that if they had not intended unitie in nature but consent in witness bearing there was no necessitie of them and the former words would have carried that sense There are three that bear witness the Father the Son and the holy Ghost that Jesus is the Son of God In this record they all agree but because additions in Scripture are many times for explication or other purposes I add another ground The holy Ghost varying his language in this and the next verse saying in this verse that these are one and not as in the next verse that they do agree in one doth not this lead us by perpending the different language to a different interpretation of the words And to a more intimate an essential unitie in the former which as the phrase and common reason impart cannot agree to the later Advers To this the Adversarie take's a double exception First out of Beza that the Complutensian Bible prefixeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to both verses and the sense is the same in sense as appear's Matth. 19. 5 6. and ought to bee rendred alike in both verses Answ 1 To the first I answer Why should not wee rather think there might bee an addition in one Bible then an omission of any word which com's from God in all the rest that which is superfluous and not agreeable to the minde of God fully in the one must bee razed out by the concurrent testimonie of other Copies Answ 2 To the second I answer That you pour out Oracles and say the later is after the Hebrew idiome the former according to the ordinary phrase and tell us very magisterially both ought to bee rendred alike and yet you do not acquaint us how they ought to bee rendred and for your parallel place in Matth. 19. 5 6. to that I answer four things First albeit our English phrase is one in both yet the exact Translations in Latine are not the same in both places they religiously do in their Translations follow the Original in unam carnem or two shall bee in unâ carne Nor secondly is it so unanimously agreed on that the sense is one and the same in both places for the fifth verse may note out their state and condition before Marriage and the sixth verse after Matrimonie then are they one flesh and so this later will bee a consequent of the former Thirdly there is not the like reason betwixt these two texts for I need not say Ask the Scriptures ask the Learned but ask a very childe and hee will tell you that man and wife are two distinct and separated persons which may bee at a great distance in regard of place and likewise in regard of affection and none are so simple to think when man and wife are one flesh that they are one numerical and individual flesh But now ask the Scriptures and ask the Learned men and they will tell you that these three are one in nature and one in essence Lastly there is not a paritie because in Matthew there are the same subject persons meant in both verses but it is not so in John 7. 8. and therefore albeit in sense the verses there did intend one thing and no danger of translating both alike yet here in regard of this difference the case is altered thus then as you see besides the letter of the text there are many Arguments deduced from it which is not ordinary in other Scriptures to prove controverted points which do evidence this blessed truth The holy Spirit is God Advers It would have been hard if not impossible if men had not been pre-corrupted that it should ever com into any one's head to imagine that this phrase three are one did signifie have one essence for it is contrarie to common sense and to other places of Scripture wherein this kinde of speech perpetually signifie's an union in consent and agreement six times thus John 17. but never an union in essence Answ 1 To the first I answer That if I took any pleasure in invectives which I conceive never did any good you have ministred an opportune occasion for the dipping of my pen in gall but here and throughout my Book I have satisfied your desire I do forbear railings and reproachful terms and I onely say Christian Reader behold the Spirit of the man Answ 2 To the second whereas you say that our exposition is against common sense I say you write as if you were in a dream Cannot two bee one in essence That neer and intimate oneness that is betwixt the husband and the wife that neerness in consent doth necessarily presuppose the unitie of nature the same specifical though not the same individual nature and that oneness betwixt Christ and Christians The head and the members doth likewise necessarily presuppose the unitie of nature betwixt them both Heb. 2. 14. wee have flesh and blood and so hath Christ likewise took part of the same and hee took on him the seed of Abraham and well is it said in the Confession of Faith in the Synod of Chalcedon Christ is coëssential to his Father according to his Divinitie and hee is coëssential to us according to his Humanitie Is not water in the fountain in the river and that which is conveighed by pipes to houses one in essence Is not the light in the heavens in the air and in our houses one and the same beeing Answ 3 To the third I grant that unitie in consent is meant in part but this unitie of consent is in regard of the unitie of the divine operation and the unitie of divine operation argue's the unitie of the divine Essence I grant many things are said to bee one secundùm quid for as many consentanie Arguments as there bee of the first kinde and as many as there bee of the second kinde which do arise of the first orta Argumenta so many fountains there bee of unitie identitie and oneness There are som that are one as touching their understanding will work 's naturally one as all men are partakers of humane nature morally one as loving friends corporally one as husband and wife and spiritually one as Christ and Christians are No question of any of these but will it follow from hence that there is no other kinde of unitie an unitie simply more neer then any of the former You tell us to bee one is never taken to denote a union in essence Not to repeat what I have formerly written I say this is boldly spoken and contradicted by our blessed Savior John 10. 29. I and the Father saith hee are one how one In the former verses hee require's
in the turning of a hand the Spirit of the Lord would bee no where with you in these inferior parts of the world and if you could have ascended into heaven have had a glorified soul have been able to view all those heavenly mansions when the holy Ghost descended down from heaven you could not if you say true have found him there Besides by this your reasoning there could not then have been one Saint on earth in whom the holy Spirit did dwell who was enlightned purified comforted strengthned and guided by the holy Ghost for if notwithstanding the descending of the holy Ghost in this likeness this admirable action was no hinderance why the holy Ghost should not bee in every Saint what reason can bee alledged why albeit hee thus descended from heaven hee should not bee still essentially in heaven Surely the divinitie which you would teach us is odious divinitie and if you literally press the very words against the ubiquitie of the holy Ghost might not an Atheist as strongly argue and with as good reason as you do that God is not on earth hee is confined within the circles of the heaven Why because the Father spoke from heaven This is my welbeloved Son But what shift can you make to elude the words of the Psalmist and bee true and constant to your own Argument God bowed the heavens and came down Psal 18. 9. Here is in your own language terminus à quo hee came from heaven and terminus ad quem hee came to the preservation of his children and the destruction of his enemies And if I sinfully would dally with Scripture I might press you sore with the next verse Hee rode upon a Cherub and did flie yea hee did flie upon the wings of the winde And doth the supreme Majestie remove from place to place Yea and the Lord himself said Bring the Officers to the Tabernacle of the Congregation and I will com down and talk with them there Numb 11. 16 17. What should I speak of that gracious promise of Christ If any man keep my words I and the Father will com unto him and abide with him John 14. 23. What mean's the Lord 's leaving of his children for a time and that threatning I will go to my place Hos 5. 15. These and many like expressions to these in Gods word might bee as strong to conclude as yours that the supreme Majestie changeth place which is transcendently absurd Nor do wee want in Scripture visible demonstrations of the like presence of God to this of the Dove Was not the pillar of fire to conduct the Israëlites in the wilderness which moved ocularly from place to place visible sign of the Lords presence what else was the meaning of the Lord 's threatning in his wrath that hee would give over the people to Moses and to the conduct of an Angel contradistinct from God himself that hee would withdraw the sign of his presence from them Exod. 32. 34. as after hee did Exod. 33. And what now doth the great God go from place to place And was it not the Lord that passed by and was not in the great winde nor in the earth-quake nor in the fire but in the soft voice that spoke to Elias the Prophet 1 Kin. 19. 15. Much more in this kinde might bee alledged but this is enough to shew the weakness and impietie of this Adversarie who denieth the Deitie of the holy Ghost by no better argument then what would prove the supreme Majestie by himself so acknowledged to bee no true God at all Advers Nor will that evasion serve your turn to say that when wee reade of Gods appearing it 's meant of an Angel as appeare's by comparing texts in the Old Testament which speak of God to bee meant of Angels Exod 3. with Acts 7. 30. Answ I answer first that hereby you have weakned your own Argument Do not you see that if you are right in this answer that by analogie wee also might retort your Argument against yourself in this manner that albeit the holy Ghost is said to descend in the shape of a Dove yet it was but a created Angel which represented his Person and appeared in the name of the holy Ghost Secondly if it were yielded to you that an Angel as God's messenger somtimes spoke in the name of God must it needs therefore bee so in all places of the Scriptures And if not in all your Argument is gone Thirdly nor will this follow it was an Angel that spoke to Moses out of the Bush Ergò it was not Jehovah the Lord. This consequence is as weak as water it was an Angel indeed but an uncreated Angel the Angel of the Covenant so called Mal 3. 1. that Angel which wrastled with Jacob and was invocated by Jacob Hos 12. 3 4. And are creatures in your divinitie the object of religious invocation That Angel which redeemed Jacob out of all evill and blessed him Gen. 48. 16. who can do so but God alone And why else should Moses mention the good will of him that dwelt in the Bush Deut. 33. 16. And what was the meaning of that in S. Paul the stiff-necked Israëlites tempted Christ in the wilderness 1 Corinth 10. And the expressions there used do sitly agree to the Angel of the Covenant but not to a created Angel I am the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. And hee sent Moses to deliver the Israëlites out of Egypt I have seen I have seen the affliction of my people And hee call's himself by the proper name of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will hee that I will bee It 's a name full of mysteries and note 's the eternal and immutable essence of God and that in time as great Clerks have from thence collected This eternal and immutable God would becom man and if there bee any strength in the testimonie of the ancient Fathers Justin. Apol. 2. ad Antonin Irenae adv Haeres l. 4. c. 11. Tertul. adver Praxeam they will give their suffrages for us To name no more Advers The three men Gen. 18. were three Angels which appeared to Abraham and hee entertained Angels Hebr. 13. 2. Answ Who would imagin if hee did not see it that any man would raise such a high structure upon so weak a foundation Two of them were created Angels the text saith so but it doth not say that all three were creatures they all appeared like men and so Abraham at first sight took them to bee but one of them was the Angel of the Covenant Jehovah for so hee is called Gen. 18. 13. God reveale's to Abraham what hee will do to Sodom Ver. 18. and Abraham acknowledged him to bee the Lord and Judg of all the earth which is not the office as you will grant of a created Angel but of the Son of God and that it was in his power to save and destroy Sodom Here then the Lord appeare's in the shape of a man
through particulars sanctification is Gods alone work None can wash away the filthiness of the minde but hee that made the minde Optat. Mil. l. 5. The Heathen shall know that the Lord doth sanctifie Israël Ezek. 37. 28. And is not this state compared to the raising up of the dead to life and to a new creätion Is not grace of a supernatural order and by it the Saints do regularly move to a supernatural end Every one of these of necessity require's the powerful work of a supreme Agent A creature hath no more power to make a Saint of a sinner then hee hath to make of a vile lump of earth a glorious star in heaven The Minor is proved hee is called the holy Ghost because holiness is from him per modum principii inhaerentis assistentis 1 Pet. 12. called the Spirit of holiness Rom. 1. 4. and wee are said to bee regenerated by the holy Ghost Joh. 3. 5. renewed by the holy Ghost Tit. 3. 5. to bee washed and sanctified by the Spirit of our God 1 Cor. 6. 11. As there is but one soul in a man which quicken's all the members of the natural bodie so is there but onely one holy Ghost which animate's all the mystical members of Jesus Christ and as Christ our head was conceived by the holy Ghost so the mystical bodie is conceived by the Spirit of God Every Christian as hee is a Christian hath his conception and new birth by the holy Ghost I might shew this at large in the particular graces which are sanctifying a catalogue of many of them wee read Gal. 5. 22. and it is as true of the rest which are not there recited they are all of them the fruit of the Spirit The Arguments which I have already recited will I hope and conceive give ample satisfaction to the Christian Reader there remaineth another grounded on the Word of God to prove the Deitie of the holy Ghost which I will set down not onely because many eminent Protestants and men of note of the Church of Rome do relie on it but because the Adversarie hath upon som plausible pretences excepted against it I am perswaded that there is scarce a good cause maintained but it is proved by som weak and false mediums It is acknowledged by Mel. Canus and 't is not contradicted by any loc l. 6. c. ult that not onely sacred Synods but the Popes themselves may thus err som of whose proofs may bee so far from beeing necessarie that they are not fit nor probable to conclude infallible cathedral definitions of Faith If then this Argument which is in the rere and hind-most should bee cut off as the faint and feeble Israëlites were by the Amalekites Deut. 25. 18. yet even then were the people of God victorious over their enemies so do not I doubt albeit this Argument should bee unproper I do not say it is but if it could bee demonstrated to bee so but som of the former if not all are unanswerable and like invincible fortresses which cannot bee surprised Thus I frame the Argument Argum. 8 Hee that is a heavenly witness and one in nature with God the Father is God The holy Ghost is so Ergò The Major is evident of it self and not contradicted by the Adversarie the reason why I onely name God the Father and not God the Son is because Mr Bidle will not yeild that the Word is God The Minor is proved by those words of S. John 1 Epist chap. 5. ver 7. There are three that bear witness in heaven the Father the Word and the holy Ghost and these three are one an express place one would think for the distinction of three Persons and the Unitie of nature in the blessed Trinitie I do take for granted that the Person to whom this witness is given is that Jesus is the Son of God the Messiah The heavenly witnesses which give testimonie hereof are three the Father at his Baptism speaking from heaven This is my beloved Son The Son called the Word for three reasons The Son of God who is called the Word either because hee is the Person on whom the promises of God do run God the Father promised him so Beza or because hee reveale's the secret counsel of God touching our salvation as wee by our words do open the meaning of our mindes to others or because in a divine eminent and ineffable manner is expressed to us by a term agreeable to our capacitie that the Son of God so is and was from everlasting from God the Father as our first act and conceit which is our internal and mental Word is and issueth out of our understanding For these or som other reasons it is that the Son of God is called the Word and hee bear's record to himself that hee is the Messiah partly by his works Joh. 4. 26. partly by his Doctrine Joh. 5. 18. Joh. 6. 29. 6. 37 46. partly by bis miracles Joh. 10. 25. The holy Ghost bare record of him at his Baptism when hee in a visible shape asscended from heaven and alighted on him I argue from this text This is hinted from this text because the holy Ghost is joyned with God the Father in giving witness which is all one upon supposition that hee is a creature as to add a drop to the Ocean It is true that the Spirit is joyned with the creatures somtimes in witness bearing But Acts 15. 28. Rom. 8. speaking by his Prophets but those very texts do strengthen our faith touching the Deitie of the holy Ghost For the further confirmation let it bee considered that all the creatures were made by J. Christ and nothing was made without him It is never spoken in the Scripture that the holy Ghost was made by him Colos 1. 16. all things in heaven and in earth visible and invisible were creäted by him and it is there added for illustration that thrones dominations principalities and powers were creäted by him The holy Ghost had hee been a creature and the chief of all the creatures would not have been omitted but by name expressed the holy Ghost principalities powers c. The Reader if hee please may see more proofs of this point in the Answer to the 8th Argument These three do bear witness in heaven the meaning is not as if the place where this record was given is in heaven or to the heavenly Inhabitants but this is a record to men on earth nor is it a testimonie which is given by the Angels hence I draw a second Argument If by the holy Ghost was not meant a divine testimonie or the testimonie of God himself then there are not onely three which bear witness in heaven as the text hold's forth and must bee verified of three but there are many more that witness Jesus is the Messiah Before his birth to Joseph Mat. 1. 20. After his birth to the Shepherds Luke 1. 10. And a multitude of the heavenly host praising
received truth by solving the strongest Objections which are framed against it Objection 1 Neither the Father nor the holy Ghost but onely the Son of God did assume our nature and this is an outward work to this it is answered that onely the Son of God became man yet the whole Trinitie did frame and work to the assumption of the humane nature illustrated thus Three do weave cloth to bee worn of one of them onely inchoativè it belonged to all the Persons terminativè it was personal and proper to the Son of God Objection 2 If it bee said onely the Father spoke from heaven This is my welbeloved Son so it is said not because all the Persons did not frame that voice but because the words were uttered in his Person the Father alone is said to speak those words because they related to the Son of God the thing signified did alone appertain to the Person of the Father nor is this rule crossed by the apparition of a Dove Objection 3 The holy Ghost alone descended and appeared to the Apostles in fiery cloven tongues because those visible Symbols did onely signifie the Person of the holy Ghost which the three Persons by one undivided operation did produce Mark then albeit the work bee the same and 't is from all the Persons yet is there a difference in the manner of working the Father and the Son as they are the Fountain of the Person of the holy Ghost so likewise are they the Fountain of the operations of the holy Ghost When wee read this expression then the holy Ghost speak's not of himself wee must not conceive that phrase to import any diminution of the Majestie of the holy Ghost nor doth it implie that hee is not God that hee is inferior to the first Person of the Trinitie hereby our Savior would teach the Disciples for they are his own words in John that they should not think the holy Ghost to bee greater then the Son of God albeit his works in the hearts of his Apostles should bee greater then those which hee whiles hee visibly conversed with them had wrought in them Nor should they think that the holy Ghost should bring any new Doctrine but the truths taught by him are the truths of God the Father there is a plenary consent of the Doctrine of the holy Ghost and of God the Father that which the holy Ghost speak's from the Father hee had not in time but by eternal procession from the Father and the Son of God There is no diversitie at all in the work in it self considered but the order of externally working answer's to the order of the divine Persons thus is the holy Ghost said not to work from himself but from the Father and Son By this which hath been spoken his reasons are already answered yet a word of them Advers God speak's of himself The holy Ghost speak's not of himself Ergò hee is not God Answ There is nothing but homonymies in both Propositions but I answer to this Objection God essentially taken speak's of himself and thus the holy Ghost as hee is God speak's of and from himself but if you take it thus by a reduplication of the Subject by a specificative limitation the holy Ghost as the holy Ghost is not of himself in regard of his Person but from the Father and the Son and in this regard speak's not from himself yet is a holy true God blessed for ever Advers If God say you speaketh not from himself hee should not bee the primary Author of his speech but the secondary and this is absurd impossible Answ I deny the consequence which is true when wee speak of causes subordinate to superior causes or of instrumental causes but the holy Ghost is not an instrument either separate from or conjunct with the first Person Hee is not inferior in dignitie or power to God the Father and God the Son for there is but one divine Essence subsisting in the three Persons which are not the subject of the Deitie for they are one God in Essence and so the prioritie of the first Person is in regard of the order of working without inferioritie in the third Person whether wee regard the Persons relatively and considered or the work produced by them It is needless for mee to spend time in examining the many particular places alledged by him for som of them do directly speak of the creatures and those are impertinent for what call you this The holy Ghost that speak's not from himself is not God why Because the same phrase is used of a creature or else they speak of Christ as God and then they are already answered I add that som of those expressions are so far from proving Christ not to bee God that they do strongly evince the Deitie of the Son of God I conclude in S. Austin's words Whatsoever the Father is as hee is God as hee is a substance as hee is eternitie the same is the Son of God and the holy Ghost If you will say What riddles are these I answer How litle is it that wee conceive of God Wee can have better apprehensions of God then wee can make expressions of him and hee is transcendently above both our apprehensions and expressions of him ARGUMENT 4. 4 Argum. of M. Bidle Hee that heareth from another what hee shall speak is not God The holy Spirit doth so Ergò The Minor is plain from the fore-cited place John 16. 13. The Major is proved thus Hee that is taught is not God Hee that heareth from another what hee shall speak is taught Ergò The Major is clear by Esay 40. 13 14. compared with Rom. 11. 34. 1 Cor. 2. 16. The Minor is evidenced by John 8. where our Savior having said in the 26. verse Whatsoever I have heard from him the Father these things I speak In the 28. verse hee expresseth the same sense thus According as the Father hath taught mee these things I speak Neither let any man go about to elude so pregnant an Argument by saying that this is spoken of the holy Spirit improperly for let him turn himself every way and scrue the words as hee please yet shall hee never bee able to make it out to a wise and considering man how it can possibly bee said that any one heareth from another what hee will speak who is the prime Author of his speech and into whom it is not at a certain time insinuated by another For this expression plainly intimateth that whatsoever the holy Spirit speaketh to the Disciples is first discovered and committed to him by Christ whose Embassador hee is it being proper to an Embassador to bee the Interpreter not of his own but of anothers will But it is contradictious to imagine that the most high God can have any thing discovered and committed to him by another ANSWER Answ I answer first in general by distinguishing of this word hearing which is the basis and ground
in this sense Princes send their subjects Parents their children Masters their servants And thus bodies representative whether civill or ecclesiastical may send som of their members about publick affairs of Church or State because the whole is greater then the parts thereof And when an equal or superior act 's for an equal or inferior in points of wrong and justice charitie and mercie this is not don unless upon a compact and mutual consent by sending them but by a voluntarie condescension or by the prevalent persuasion of equals or inferiors But now when wee speak of divine sending in reference to the Persons of the blessed Trinitie wee must abandon all base and low conceptions and raise up our spirits by the light of other Scriptures to an apprehension of the excellencie of the nature thereof The mission of a divine Person may bee considered Divine Mission considered First negatively what it is not and then positively what it is First it denote's not a division or separation of the divine Persons for this would necessarily imply the multiplication of the 1. Negatively Deitie and destroy the unitie of the divine nature which is impossible Secondly it denote's not a moving from place to place a change of place for the third Person in regard of the essence is every-where and there is no place any where whither hee can com where hee was not alwaies present Thirdly nor doth it denote any inferioritie or inequalitie of the divine Person but in respect of the divine Person sending they are one in nature and co-equal and co-eternal touching their Persons But positively this mission argue's a distinction of the divine Persons 2. Positively The Father in Scripture phrase is no where said to bee sent but hee send 's the Son and the holy Ghost because hee is first in order The first Person of the Trinitie hee is of himself and from himself and the fountain of communicating the God-head to his Son and both the Father and the Son to the holy Ghost And as it denote's a distinction of Persons so is it properly an external personal operation for although mission quantum ad principale significatum is external yet ratione connotati it 's onely in time Halensis And so the whole is called temporal as when a necessarie thing is joyned with a contingent the whole is judged contingent so saith our Countriman plainly thus This mission is nothing else but a new manner of the manifestation of the presence of the holy Ghost by som effect And this is don either visibly by som visible Symbol and external representation of his presence as by descending from heaven on Christ in the likeness of a Dove or in fierie cloven tongues on the Apostles And this was extraordinarie or ordinarily God the Father or Son is said to send him into the hearts of his children by working saving graces in them when hee manifest's his presence by spiritual operations It 's not in the power of man thus to send him for all that hee can do is onely external disposing by administration of Sacraments obtaining by Prayer instructing and moving outwardly by preaching The holy Ghost is sent in the use of these Ordinances yet not by them but by reason of internal grace which God alone creätes in the soul These conclusions being laid down it will bee an easie task to untie the supposed knots of this Argument Advers Hee that is sent by another is not God the holy Ghost is sent The Major is proved because hee that is sent ministreth Hebr. 1. ult Answ I answer if the Major Proposition in sense bee general as it ought to bee thus whosoever is sent is less then hee is that sent him is false hee indeed that is sent by the command properly of another is inferior to the person that send 's him but the mission of the holy Ghost is as I said but a manifestation of his presence by som effect which was actually in the very same place invisibly and with the same persons to whom hee is sent it argue's the distinction of the persons not the multiplication of the natures or the diminution of the divine power state authoritie or honor Advers You would prove the Major because hee ministreth that is sent Answ I grant the Major to bee true if it bee properly taken if ministring bee taken for serving for the holy Ghost is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the servant of the first or second Person This to assert is I confess an odious error and though the phrase is strange and harsh and not to bee allowed no not to say that God is a Minister à ministrando gratiam not intending thereby to imply that hee is under God but above the faithful yet two of our eminent Divines do so speak And Ruffin in expos Symboli saith Deus justis ministrat ad perpetuitatem gloriae peccatoribus ad prolixitatem poenae confusionis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exulet I grant your Major The Minor I denie for whosoever is sent ministred not Bee it granted that whosoever ministreth may bee said to bee sent yet it hold's not reciprocally whosoever is sent ministreth that proof out of Hebr. 1. is no proof at all It is your ordinarie fault to apply what is directly spoken of the creatures to the great God The Angels indeed which are ministring spirits are sent abroad for the benefit of the heires of salvation but you cannot solidly from thence infer that the holy Ghost which is sent is in the rank of ministring spirits It is true of the creature but you can never from thence conclude it to bee true of the Creätor If there bee any pertinencie in that which you alledg touching our Saviors sitting at the right of God it make's against you for notwithstanding his sitting there hee is said to bee sent and whereas you say Gods sitting in heaven note 's his soveraigntie implying that the holy Ghosts being sent from heaven 1 Pet. 1. 11. should note inferioritie this would bee much for your purpose if you could prove which you shall never bee able to do that the holy Ghost when hee is sent to his servants to dwell in them to sanctifie and to govern them did leave heaven God the Father Son and holy Ghost sit in heaven and rule by a general providence all the creatures in the world and shall hee bee said not to rule in heaven when by his Spirit which is there also hee by his special and admirable providence rule 's in the hearts of his own children Assuredly there can bee no good reason so to determine Advers Hee that receive's a commandement you say doth minister Hee that is sent receive's a commandement John 12. 49. Answ First I say an equal may receive a commandement from an equal by consent of both parties as a Prince of another Prince a brother of a brother one citizen of another so Christ as the eternal Son of God received