that a person is distinguished from a Person that the Spirit of God which is a Person and sent of God must needs be a person distinct from God that sent him If you will say you speak in the Person of your Adversaries I denie that any learned man ever expressed himself in that manner if you can name any let him bear his own blame The distinction of God taken essentially and personally differ's much from that which is betwixt the essence and person of God as in due place I will prove Yet because my intention aime's at the benefits of the Readers I will follow you in these your erring steps to treat of the difference betwixt the Essence of God and the Person of God There is a reall distinction and there is a distinction in regard of our rational conception The former is denied the later is asserted touching the nature of God and the Person of the holy Ghost for albeit in creäted things nature is one thing and a person is another thing for a man is not the humane nature Thomas is not the nature of Thomas yet in God by reason of the absolute simplicitie of his nature the divine nature and the Person are the same thing Thom. 1. Sum. q. 3. art 3. yet is there a distinction of reason as they speak for there is one respect of the nature and another of the person for the nature as it is the divine nature is communicated to the person and subsist's in it but the person is the very suppositum in which the nature subsist's and which in this particular consideration is incommunicable as the definition of a person evinceth in which regard it is that neither doth the distinction of the Persons multiply the natures in God nor doth the unitie of the nature confound the Persons I return now to the distinction God is taken either essentially or personally which I shall justifie against his clamors and pretensions for if you demand Hath hee no reasons to write tartly against it No sound ones I am sure but such as they are I will now examine Advers This dlstinction saith hee to omit the mention of Primitive Fathers Sol. And I commend your art for this preterition for no ancient Fathers can truly bee named to favor your Herefie the Fathers you omit are known branded Hereticks These you may name with shame enough but others I am sure you have none to speak for you Advers But yet what ever become's of Fathers it 's unheard of say you in the Scriptures and so it 's presumption to affirm any thing of God which hee hath not first affirmed of himself Answ 1 First my just answer is You are an Opponent now and your bare saying is of no validitie Doubtless if your words may bee taken for oracles you will carrie the cause What is your Nay to a world of Christians that do affirm it It 's as a feather laid in the ballance and weighed against a talent of gold Prove what you say or look for no credit to be given to your words Answ 2 Secondly this distinction is heard of in the Scriptures by necessarie inferences and sound consequences it 's grounded on the word of God as I shall in the sequele demonstrate And I have made good in the positive part by those many arguments which I have alledged to prove the Deitie of the holy Ghost and what is justly so inferred out of the word of God is proved by the word of God Advers Reas 1 This distinction you say is disclaimed by reason First because it is impossible for any man if hee will not delude himself with emptie terms to distinguish the essence from the person and not frame two beeings in his minde and consequently two Gods First I observe a palpable and gross error in Divinitie couched in this reason that a man must beleeve nothing touching God but what hee is able to conceive with his minde God's unconceivable truths by way of comprehension in the creature shall bee no truths to Master Bidle when they transcend the sphere of his capacitie whereas it is the honor of our faith to beleeve Gods word when it discover's truths not onely above our apprehensions but contrarie to our corrupted reason Our reason as now it is may bee a good servant but it is an ill master in points of faith Well I see the Deitie of the holy Ghost is impugned by this way not because it is not clearly revealed in Scriptures but because hee think's it a matter impossible and so upon the point hee denie's the omnipotencie and infinite nature of God Secondly if Mr Bidle cannot conceive hereof who besides his natural ignorance is further blinded by the Devil the god of this world for beeing a professed enemie to the blessed Spirit of light I do not marvel but that hee should take upon him to measure all the refined and sublimated apprehensions of the eminent servants of God by his own dull and erroneous conceptions is miserable follie This hath been plentifully don by them insomuch that at the least the foot-steps of the Trinitie are seen in many of the creatures is the common opinion of Divines Lombard lib. 1. dist 3. And those School-men that write on him their Master and hereto accord our learned Doctors who ever at large have handled that common place and most amply that much to bee admired and honored Mornaeus lib. de veritate Christ Relig. cap. 5 6. I will not instance now in any particular examples they are not I grant convincing demonstrations but liable to the exceptions of a captious Adversarie yet the ground-work beeing firmly laid in the word of truth and truly apprehended by faith they are subordinate helps to yield som glimpse and sparks of light to the point in hand and though I do forbear real instances in this place yet I will alledg an imaginarie fiction which hath strength to prove a real truth and it is such a fiction which is recited and approved by som of the Learned of both professions Suppose a father beget's a son and communicate's to him the same soul and bodie which hee hath still himself and both of these should communicate the same soul and bodie to a third here would bee three distinct persons yet the same essence in them all But you will say this is impossible for there must needs bee three souls and three bodies in three persons But now you deny that which I suppose I say if a father could so communicate the same essence to his son and retain it still to himself then would there bee but one nature in them all really I grant this is never don because in finite substances the essence must needs bee finite But if wee speak of God because hee is immaterial infinite and not capable of essential division this is truly don it 's a received Maxim in Logick Ficta similitudo probat fidémque facit fained similitudes prove Advers Reason 2 Secondly
If the person bee distinct from the Deitie it is either somthing that make's the difference or nothing if somthing it must bee either finite or infinite both of them are false Answ 1 To this I answer first by retorting this Argument against your self First I propose the many essential properties of God and I ask Are they somthing or are they nothing are they finite or infinite for I observe that you speak reservedly in this place and tell us what wee hold not what your self maintain's and in your eleventh Reason I might justly suspect that in your opinion the understanding of God reside's in the divine essence as in the subject of it but however that is if you resolve this objection it 's not unlike but you have answered your self But I will follow you more closely the God whom you with the deluded Jews and Turks do acknowledg to bee a Person hath the divine Essence and hee hath the divine Essence of and from himself and this make's a distinction betwixt the thing and the manner of the thing now the manner of having this nature from himself and no other is either somthing or nothing if somthing it is either finite or infinite I suppose you will bee put to your shifts if you will bee true to your own principles to dissolve this doubt you must plough with our heifer I mean make use of the knowledg of our learned Writers to unfold this riddle or else it will remain unanswered Secondly if you should as an unskilful Pilot stear the ship to split it on rocks to the loss of your own life and of the passengers if you should lay a snare to catch the feet not onely of the Adversaries but your own too this will afford no comfort to the Reader I add therefore a punctual Answer thus you object That whereby the Person is distinguished from the Essence is somthing or nothing I grant it is somthing for it is not a meer notion devised by man's brain for before a man was creäted and if there were not left a living man to conceive of this mysterie yet there is a distinction betwixt them for essence denote's an absolute substance but a Person is referred to another that is communicable this is incommunicable that is without original so is not the person of the Son of God and of the holy Ghost the person beget's is begotten and proceed's but the divine Essence neither beget's nor is begotten nor doth it proceed one Person is not predicated of another the Father is not the Son nor is the Son the Father but the divine Essence is predicated of every Person To proceed Advers If that wherein they are distinguished saith hee bee aliquid it is either finite or infinite By this dilemma hee think 's to reduce us to absurdities for the clearing up of this foggy mist cast before our eyes Answ it will not bee amiss to shew what is infinitie For any thing to bee infinite is required that it bee boundless and without limits not in regard of mathematical or philosophical dimensions for these have alwaies actually their bounds of extension which they do not pass but the infinitie of God hold's forth that absolute perfection which is in God which is in it self boundless in the highest degree actual and complete and so this distinction of a thing to bee either finite or infinite is all one for substance with this distinction though expressed in other terms Every thing is either the Creätor or the creature certain it is the power of God is in it self infinite and yet it doth not nor can it produce an infinite creature for that were to place a creature in the throne of God yea to make him a creäted God which implieth a plain contradiction Now God's Omnipotency is not conversant about things impossible and repugnant to the divine nature This brief declaration premised I will now present two Answers to this Objection and either of them hath eminent Authors to avouch it Christian Readers consider well and rest in that which you apprehend to bee best If it bee somthing you say it is either finite or infinite My first Answer hereto is by a direct negation of the disjunction which doth not consist of the full enumeration of the parts this distribution belong's to absolute positive things every absolute and positive thing is finite or infinite but that which doth distinguish the Essence from the Person is no such thing the Person considered in respect of the Essence is one thing but it is distinguished in regard of the manner of having this divine Essence thus the divers degrees of white in color of whiteness of light in the air of heat in the water are not whiteness light and heat it self but they are affections of Ens they are modi albedinis lucis caloris these different degrees are aliquid yet they are not the qualities themselves so is there aliquid in Deo somthing in God so I am forced to speak which is not a divers thing from God nor the very Essence of God but modus Essentiae which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that the Person of the holy Ghost differ's from the divine Essence as the manner of the thing doth from the thing it self and the Persons differ amongst themselves as modi à modis These divine relations as they are opposed and distinguished amongst themselves are infinite simply as they are considered in genere Entis in respect of the Essence which they do include and so they are not multiplied but one Ens. Hence is it that the Father is not aliud à Filio nor is Deus triplex Secondly they may bee considered in regard of the proper respects wherein they are opposed and so they are infinite in respect of relation onely and in this regard it is not inconvenient to say that an infinite thing may bee multiplied there are not three things but three distinct Persons Deus est trinus and Pater est alius à Filio Hence is it also that School-men do approve that adjectiva nomina in the concrete because they do not signifie a thing per modum substantiae as the Substantives do but onely the number of Persons may bee attributed in the plural number to them Thus there are tres aeterne Personae tres increätae tres omnipotentes creäntes c. If the first answer bee too jejune and will not serve the turn I hope the second will give satisfaction to the Reader Adv. Reas 3 To talk of God say you taken onely essentially is ridiculous First because there is no example thereof in Scripture Secondly because the name of God signifieth him that ruleth over others but none but a Person can rule over others all actions being proper to Persons Answ 1 To the first of these I answer by affirming that there are many examples of this distinction in Scripture The name God is taken essentially when it is not contracted either by
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
great without quantitie God is good and just without qualitie God is merciful without passion God is every where present without place the first and the last without time nor is hee compounded of Nature and Person because the Essence of God is most simple most infinite most immense and the same thing is both the Nature and the Person nor is this overthrown because there are three Persons for they are not three by composition of parts for the Persons are not many things they are but one thing though distinguished by relative properties for the divine relation in God is not properly an accident but a substantial attribute and make's no real composition in God but a distinction of our reason which crosseth not the absolute simplicitie of God no more then the same distinction of reason opposeth the absolute unitie of God because this denomination is extrinsecal arising from our manner of conceiving of it Suarez Thus is hee Deus trinus by co-existencie of Persons but the Catholick Faith teacheth us that in creatures the nature may bee really divided from the person thus the Son of God did assume the nature but not the person of man Advers The holy Spirit say you hath an understanding distinct from that of God because hee heareth from God and is taught of God Answ I denie your Minor if you mean distinct really as you ought to do if you intend thereby to prove your Assertion And your first reason because hee heareth from God and is taught of God is but an idle repetition of the fourth Argument For answer hereto that I may not bee charged with needless tautologies I refer you thither for your satisfaction Advers This say you is deducible from the words of the Apostle none can search his own understanding 1 Corinth 2. 10. Answ 1 If this bee true as you say why are wee then commanded to trie and to prove our own hearts to speak to our hearts to examine our hearts to consider our waies yea to search ourselvs How should wee comfortably know that wee are enriched with saving graces but by a reflexed act of the understanding whereby wee know that wee have them And are not our hearts deceitfull and wicked above all things Is there not great need then that wee should search them Or do you mean hereby that the Spirit hath a distinct understanding from the Father and the Son of God because hee searcheth the deep things of God what doth this else import but an ignorance till that is found which is searched out Not so nor will this help you for God who exactly and perfectly know's all things yet do you cite a text Rom. 8. 27. which sheweth that hee searcheth the heart of the Spirit yea further it is his peculiar honor to search the hearts and reins of men which import's thus much and no more that there is nothing so secret in man but the Lord both can and doth see the same most perfectly For the clearing of the main doubt know assuredly that there is the same understanding of God the Father God the Son and God the holy Ghost nor can wee truly say that the understanding of the Father is superior or equal to the understanding of the holy Ghost for these do alwaies presuppose a comparison betwixt divers which doth not agree to the unitie of the God-head Advertite Fratres for as wee cannot say the power of the Persons is equal nor the goodness of the Persons is equal but the same power the same goodness no more can wee say the understanding of the Father is equal to the understanding of the holy Ghost But thus may wee say the Persons of the Father of the Son and of the holy Ghost are equal in power and equal in goodness so are they likewise equal in understanding and albeit the divine understanding is but one and the same beeing yet is it considered of us in a common way as referred to the essence but singularly in regard of the Persons And hence is it also that such phrases are spoken of the Son of God and they are also truly verified of the holy Ghost that hee is a Principle of a Principle very God of very God light of light a fountain of a fountain when taken not essentially but personally so that the Son is a Principle true God a light and a fountain and so is the holy Ghost yet the Father is considered first in order and the Son from the Father and the holy Ghost from them both I add that this text 1 Corinth 2. 10. is so far from evincing that the holy Ghost is a creature that it strongly prove's his Deitie First because that hee must needs bee God that know's whatsoever the Father know's for how should a smite creature by search attain to the unsearchable depths of God's knowledg As of many other things so were the Angels without sin ignorant of God's counsels Revel 5. 13. and of the time when the day of Judgment shall bee Secondly the Apostle compare 's the Spirit of God to mans spirit and the Spirit of God is in God the Father and God the Son There is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 circumincessio as the Latines speak whereby is signified the unitie of the God-head in the distinct Persons that the Persons are so distinguished betwixt themselvs that they are altogether and most intimately one and the same thing and further hereby is noted a peculiar manner of the original of one Person from another distinguished from that procession of creatures as the Son from the Father which is sejunct from the Father and therefore it is called processio ad extra but here it is otherwise the Son from the Father and the holy Ghost from them both by a procession ad intra because hee doth intimè continue and is not another thing from the Person from whom hee proceed's Singula sunt in singulis omnia in singulis singula in omnibus omnia in omnibus unum omnia Hence may wee conclude that as the spirit of a man and a man are not two men so the Spirit of God and God viz the Father are not two separated substances but one God ARGUMENT 12. 12 Argum. of M. Bidle Hee that hath a will distinct in number from that of God is not God The holy Spirit hath a will distinct in number from that of God Ergò The Major is irrefragable The Minor is asserted thus Hee that willeth conformably to the will of God hath a will distinct in number from that of God The holy Spirit so willeth Ergò The Major is plain for conformitie must bee between two at least else it will not bee conformitie but identitie The Minor is confirmed by Rom. 8. 26 27. Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities for wee know not what to pray for as wee ought but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groans unutterable but hee that searcheth the heart knoweth what is
they should beleeve in him promiseth that hee will give unto his children eternal life and such is his divine power that none can take them out of his hands and useth the self same words in the next verse none shall take them out of my Father's hands and then saith I and my Father are one viz. in power and consequently in essence for the power of God and the essence of God are all one thing This my Adversarie which denie's this Assertion swerv's not onely from the plain meaning of the text but shew's that hee hath less understanding then our very enemies of Christ had for they collected and that rightly from thence that Christ professed himself thereby to bee God Advers I omit saith hee to speak of the suspectedness of the place It 's not extant in the ancient Greek Copies nor in the Syriack Translation nor in most ancient books of the Latine Edition and rejected by sundry Interpreters both ancient and modern Advers This text is so sutable to the matter in hand and so fitly answering to the eighth verse in another kinde and so fully and distinctly confirming by these divine Witnesses that fundamental witnessed truth Jesus is the Son of God and the divinitie of the holy Ghost beeing in other Scriptures sufficiently demonstrated that I can see no reason why this should bee thought a counterfeit addition to the Canon and I have reason strongly to suspect that you are convinced in your conscience that it is a parcel of God's Word because you do so highly pass it over with a Rhetorical figure for the most compendious way to make a short work had been simply to have denied the authority therof and to have plainly rejected it as our Writers do the Apocryphal Scriptures which are alledged against them to have strengthned your Assertion by the best grounds you could devise and then in the conclusion to have named as not much material the Answer which you have most insisted upon I deny not but Copies may bee alledged against Copies ancient and modern Writers against ancient and later if negative witnesses have the same force and authoritie that affirmative have to prove the question but who may wee blame for this difference Wee can suspect none but those corrupted Fathers in whose depraved steps you have trod It 's not to be doubted but they have offred the like violence to this place as they did to a text in S. John as is witnessed by Ambrose God is a Spirit which they unconscionably cancelled and razed out of their own books and I wish did not blot it out of the books of the Church this sacriledg was plainly detected You might saith the Father lib. 3. de Spir. sancto cap. 11. abolish sentences of holy Scripture but you could not destroy the faith Plus vos illa litura prodebat plus vos illa litura damnabat I add quà m litera nocebat and the rather because I find this text 1 Joh. 5. 7. cited by S. Cyprian li. de Vnitate Eccles which lived an hundred years before Macedonius the founder of this Heresie when the Church was not pestred with that noisom weed no nor with Arianism whereby the Deitie of the Son of God chiefly and so the divine Trinitie was directly opposed and violent spirits might be imboldned to adventure on that impietie because the scepter was in the hands of Constantius first and not long after of Valens Arian Emperors To these reasons taken out of the Scriptures I might produce a cloud of humane witnesses and begin with the Fathers which lived before the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and alledg the elaborate Treatises of those which then and after lived in the Church and show how this error hath been registred in the black bill of Heresies by Epiphan to 1. l. 3. haer 74. and August haer 52. Then might I descend lower to the times before and since the schism betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches which albeit many points of faith were deeply corrupted yet did they inviolably maintain even to this day the unitie of the divine Nature and the Trinitie of the persons Then might I relate the consent of the reformed Churches which have a sweet harmonie in their several Confessions touching this point but I know this Author dreaming that hee hath not onely reason but the testimonie of the Scripture on his side will reject them all and say with Luther though in a different case The Word of God is to be preferred above all that make's for mee if a thousand Augustins a thousand Cyprians a thousand Henricians that is English Churches ruled by Henry the Eighth should stand against him hee would reject them all And as I remember I have read one of the same brain with my Adversarie said Luther hath pulled down the walls of Poperie but the foundation thereof meaning the doctrine of the Trinitie remain's untouched therefore will I spare that labor in transcribing their testimonies Yet let mee minde you of this that as the foggie smoak which arose out of the bottomless pit chiefly by Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople about the year of our Lord 361. was happily dispelled by the light of the holy Fathers They so sharpned their weapons and so successfully used them that they gave a deadly wound to those Monsters as Epiphanius cal's them so I do not doubt but by the good providence of God the Schisms Socinian Heresies which do annoy the Church for the present and every new started controversie will occasion that good which hath been long since observed viz. the more full discussion and clearer discoverie of opposed truth and cause the sincere and approved Professors of Gods cause to pray unto God more zealously for divine illumination to search the Scriptures more diligently to continue themselvs together more firmly and communicate their labors mutually more plentifully then they were accustomed to do and put them on the labor of love for their brethren with tenderness and compassion to strengthen them that stand lest they fall and like waking husbandmen vigilantly to guard those fields of corn where the instruments of the envious spirits are most likely to sow their tares Gods faithful servants are burning lights the Adversaries which do top them do burn or at least besmear their fingers But these lights do shine thereby more brightly and I do hope that as S. Austin said of the absurd Manichees when they boasted as all Sectaries will do Veritas Veritas the Truth the Truth that sound Christians with better enlightned and clearer judgments then formerly will bee as able to say as it followeth in my Author there is no truth at all in them And O that the seduced would make an heartie acknowledgment wee took that for truth for divine truth but now blessed bee God wee are convinced and our eyes are enlightened to see it was but an error I conclude as S. Austin did his fifteenth the last book of the Trinitie Domine Deus