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
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
do place him both according to Scriptures and the Primitive Christians and by name Justin Martyr in his Apologie in the third rank after God and Christ giving him a preheminence above all the rest of the heavenly host ANSWER I do willingly grant that since there is a Trinitie of Persons there must of necessitie bee acknowledged an order amongst them But how Not in regard of time as though the holy Ghost should bee in time after the Father and the Son of God for they are co-eternal nor 2ly in order of nature as if the holy Ghost should bee in nature after God the Father and God the Son for in this sense that is said to bee after another which depend's upon the nature of another which hath no place in this subject because the three Persons have but one undivided nature Neither in the third place is the holy Ghost to speak properly after the Father in dignitie for there is but one Deitie and there is equal glorie equal majestie of the three Persons The order then is in regard of original and principle as it is called the Father as Father is the principle of the Son and the Father and the Son are the principle of the holy Ghost In this regard it is that wee commonly say the Father is the first Person of the Trinitie as being of none The Son is the second Person of the Trinitie from his Father The holy Ghost is the third Person being from eternitie both from the Father and the Son This concession is not answerable to your opinion for if you would speak out of the Son as you do of the holy Ghost you hold as appear's by many of your Arguments both God's Son and the holy Ghost to bee creatures after God in time in nature and in dignitie Whereas you say this in your sense is according to Scriptures the texts which you have alledged I have discussed and made it clear both by my positive Arguments in proof of the point and by my answers to your Scriptures that your tenet is directly against Scriptures But say you this is agreeable to the Fathers this say I is very falsly and impudently spoken I am now upon the defensive part and will not set down a catalogue of their testimonies in their several ages as I might do and those that are not learned may clearly see how falsly you do boast of the Fathers by the Apostolical as it is called the Nicene Constantinopolitane and Athanasian Creeds Advers But yet say you Justin Martyr placeth the holy Ghost in the third rank Answ The blessed Martyr which wrote his Apologies about the year of our Lord 162. placeth the holy Ghost in his second Apologie in the third order not in your sense but in that meaning which is unanimously acknowledged by Orthodoxal Divines and this I prove by Justin Martyr himself who positively assert's in his first Apologie that the Son of God placed by him the second in order was alone properly the Son of God that hee was with his Father before the world was made Now as the Son of God the second in order was truly God so may wee argue by proportion that the holy Ghost who is the third in order is likewise God And this you might have learned by the words which do immediatly follow in Justin for when hee had said Wee have the Prophetical Spirit in the third place hee immediatly subjoin's these words Wee teach that hee is rightly to bee worshipped which honor agree's well to God not to a creature And in the same Apologie afterwards hee would prove the Trinitie of the Persons out of Plato And this of the third Person that it is written by Moses of him that hee moved in the begining of the creation upon the waters And in the same Apologie hee relate's the custom of the Church in his daies both touching Baptism that the person is washed with water not in the names but in the Name of the Father Son and holy Ghost And likewise touching the Eucharist as hee call's it when the Minister had taken bread and wine hee giv's the praise and glorie of all things to the Father Son and holy Ghost And after the receiving the Sacrament and giving relief to the poor the assembly is dismissed and saith hee in all things which wee use wee praise God the Father of all by his Son Jesus Christ through the holy Ghost And in his exposition of the Faith touching the holy Trinitie there is one saith hee truly the God of all and hee is known and understood in the Father Son and holy Ghost and saith they are of one essence and one divinitie and much more to this effect But this is enough Go now and boast of the Fathers in general and of Justin Martyr in particular and blush for shame if there bee any modestie left in you for your intolerable wrong offered to the holy Fathers and for fathering on them that abominable Heresie which they did detest A Post-script to the Readers THis Paper may fall into the hands both of the unknowing and skilfull Readers and is liable to various censures I do fore-see that those which are little versed in these points will complain that I affect obscurities and that they cannot understand my writing I desire them to consider that I do treat about the highest mysteries of Faith and that it is neither fit nor safe for mee to change the terms which are in common use amongst the learned the danger hereof is apparent by this memorable example Gregor Nazianz in an Oration of the praises of great Athanasius shew's the rents betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches occasioned by the use of these terms Hypostasis and Persona the Eastern Churches used the word Hypostasis and utterly disliked the name Person On the other side the Western Churches adhered to the name Person and could not endure the name Hypostasis The Eastern Churches judged the Western Churches to bee Sabellians i e. that they held but one Person called by three names And the Western Churches judged the Eastern to bee Tritheites and Arians maintaining three substances Athanasius apprehended the mistake and that both sides were sound in the faith though they differed in terms and so reconciled them I do intreat these Readers if they meet with difficulties that they would not presently cast the Book out of their hands but to take pains to know the meaning pray read perpend the text the context and parallel places of Scriptures meditate and where your endeavors fail you have recourse to the learned which will if it bee needfull for you to know resolve your doubts and somwhat clear your judgments and to encourage you I dare promise that you shall not repent of your labors but better understand som texts of Scriptures and humane Authors which handle this subject then formerly you have don I do fore-see also that the judicious Reader will accuse mee for frequent repetitions which are little better
finde that the translation is not true for the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 3. is construed with an Accusative case and with a Dative ver 4. and so it is to bee translated to bely and counterfeit the holy Ghost which is to bear us in hand that thou laidest down the money at the motion of the holy Ghost herein thou hast not lied to men but to God Answ The Adversarie would perswade the Reader that hee by his observation of the text had found out a fault in our common translations whereof the Authors out of their ignorance or inadvertencie took no notice if so hee think's hee is utterly mistaken for all translators ancient and of later days had the text before their eyes and saw the difference which is here noted by this Author and yet did purposely translate the words thou hast lied to the holy Ghost as holding forth the genuine meaning of the Spirit of God som excepted which yet for the point of controversie in hand proved out of this very Scripture are professed Adversaries to you Beza after hee had rendred the words to deceive or mock i. e. endeavor to deceive the holy Ghost I might add what others say hee retract's and go's in the steps of common translators Why I might say from others It 's not unusual amongst the Grecians to understand a preposition which is not expressed Hee saith because the 4th ver where the Dative case is used is an explication of the 3d. ver Besides the Hebrews do somtimes confound these whence these expressions benedico te evangelizo te which the Grecians derived from the Hebrews and the Latine Authors from the Grecians Besides in one manuscript I found the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so have the Syrian and Arabian Interpreters read it Lastly because this interpretation which is followed by Erasmus to say they counterfeited the holy Ghost seem's to mee not to bee full They were indeed notorious hypocrits but Peter by the sequele accuseth them of a far higher crime that when as by the motion of the Spirit they had sold a parcel of ground and consecrated it to the Church they afterward kept back a part thereof as if in that case they had not to deal with God but with men which could not discover this their sacriledg and so they are in this regard said to tempt the Spirit of God Further were it granted that your translation were sound and that the words ought to bee so interpreted as you have don this neither hinder's us nor further's you none ever dreamed by the common translation to correct the meaning of the text that they might have an Argument thence to confute the Adversaries of the holy Ghost hee needeth not our lie to defend his cause But the strength of the Argument is not from the words singly taken ver 3. but from them and the explication of them in the fourth and ninth verses you counterfeit the holy Ghost to bee the Author of this fact and this is expounded to bee a lying to God viz. to God the holy Ghost whom you have counterfeited hee speaking in us and discovering this hypocrisie of your heart which you litle dreamed off And your exposition of the words as they stand in your Book is of that nature that albeit I have perpended it as exactly as I can yet do I conceive nothing in it but I may readily subscribe to it I am sure it nothing crosseth the Argument Thus much for the first Argument Argum. 2 Maj. Hee to whom religious worship is truly exhibited is God Min. The holy Ghost is hee to whom religious worship is exhibited Concl. Ergò The Major is not denied by the Adversarie and is evident of it self and strange it is to mee that any learned men which do acknowledge the Deitie of the holy Ghost should avouch as they do that there is neither precept to worship him nor any clear example in the Word that hee was worshipped 'T is a certain rule the sacred Persons of the Trinitie which are undivided in nature must bee likewise undivided in worship for any one to say the holy Ghost is God and with the same breath to profess their doubting whether hee is to bee worshipped is to speak contradictions and 't is all one as to acknowledg a King and to deny him honor and this is to make him a titular King and in truth no King at all The Minor is proved thus the holy Angels of God do worship him they worshipped the Lord of hosts Esa 6. 3. Holy holy holy is the Lord of hosts Heb. 1. 6. Whether the Prophet Esay understood this mysterie or not 't is not material to the point in hand nor whether their thrice chanting out holy implied the sacred Trinitie Yet why might not that bee intended But the Angels beeing intellectual substances worshipped they knew what and beeing confirmed in holiness they onely worshipped a fit object of worship and had they or sinful men worshipped the highest creature with religious adoration would not hee as the Angel in the revelation have rejected it and said See you do it not I am your fellow-servant but the Angels worshipped the holy Ghost I prove the blessed Apostle and irrefragable Interpreter inform's us that the Lord of hosts who put words into the mouth of Esay was the holy Ghost Act. 28. 25. Well said the holy Ghost by Esaiah the Prophet and as the Son of God is directly prayed unto Lord Jesus said Stephen that blessed martyr receive my Spirit Acts 7. Lord Jesus com quickly Apocal. 22. So is likewise the holy Spirit Awake thou North-winde and com thou South blow upon my garden that the Spices thereof may flow out O blessed Spirit breathe into my heart that by the love of God and my neighbor it may send forth a sweet savor Cant. 4. 16. The blessed Spirit of God is compared to the winde that as the winde blow's where it list's so doth the Spirit of God blow where hee will regenerat's whom hee pleaseth John 3. 8. And to this intent it is that S. John prayeth grace and peace not onely from God the Father and from Jesus Christ but also from the seven Spirits Apocal. 1. 4. The Spirit is but one in nature but it is said to bee seven that is manifold in regard of the distribution of many gifts which are from the Spirit and more plainly 2 Corinth 13. 13. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the holy Ghost bee with you all And this Argument is asserted by Justin Martyr as I have shewed in answer to your thirteenth Argument and by Clemens Alexandrinus at the end l. 3. Paedag. used in the ancient Liturgies and practised by the reformed Churches Sancta Trinitas miserere O holy Trinitie have mercie To these I may add this consideration that wee are the Temples of the holy Ghost It 's God onely that hath a Temple and
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
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
unus Deus Trinitas quaecunque dixi in hoc libro de tuo agnoscant tui si quae de meo tu agnosce tui Amen ARGUMENT 1. 1 Argum. of M. Bidle HEe that is distinguished from God is not God The holy Spirit is distinguished from God Ergò The Major is evident for if hee should both bee God and bee distinguished from God hee would bee distinguished from himself which implieth a contradiction The Minor is confirmed by the whole current of the Scripture which calleth him the Spirit of God and saith that hee is sent by God and searcheth the depths of God c. Neither let any man here think to flie to that ignorant refuge of making a distinction between the Essence and Person of God saying that the holy Spirit is distinguished from God taken Personally not Essentially For this wretched distinction to omit the mention of the Primitive Fathers is not onely unheard of in the Scripture and so to bee rejected it being presumption to affirm any thing of the unsearchable nature of God which hee hath not first affirmed of himself in the Scripture but is also disclaimed by Reason For first it is impossible for any man if hee would but endeavor to conceive the thing and not delude both himself and others with emptie terms and words without understanding to distinguish the Person from the Essence of God and not to frame two beeings or things in his minde and consequently two Gods Secondly If the Person be distinct from the Essence of God then it is either somthing or nothing if nothing how can it bee distinguished since nothing hath no accidents If somthing then either some finite or infinite thing if finite then there will be somthing finite in God and consequently since by the confession of the Adversaries themselvs every thing in God is God himself God will bee finite which the Adversaries themselves will likewise confess to bee absurd If infinite then there will bee two infinites in God to wit the Person and Essence of God and consequently two Gods which is more absurd then the former Thirdly to talk of God taken onely Essentially is ridiculous not onely because there is no example thereof in Scripture but because God is the name of a Person and signifieth him that ruleth over others and when it is put for the most high God it denoteth him who with soveraign and absolute authoritie ruleth over all but none but a person can rule over others all actions being proper to persons wherefore to take God otherwise then Personally is to take him otherwise then hee is and indeed to mistake him ANSWER Answ Major Hee that is distinguished from God say you is not God To this Proposition I answer by clearing the meaning of it thus Hee that is that person which is distinguished that is really separated from and substantially divided from God is not God In this sense this Major is undoubtedly true Let no man look upon the Proposition thus limited as a forced evasion to elude the Argument for it hold's forth fully the minde of the Adversarie His opinion is the holy Ghost and God do differ as much as a finite creature differ's from the infinite Creätor Minor Your Minor run's thus The holy Spirit is distinguished from God for hee is the Spirit of God To this I answer both by denial and concession First by denial if the term distinguished be taken in the assumption as it is intended and explicated in the Proposition for the Spirit of God is not so distinguished from God as a creature is distinguished from the Creätor Secondly I assent to the Minor if it bee taken in an Orthodoxal sense for albeit the blessed Spirit is not so distinguished as to bee separated from God yet is hee distinguished from God taken personally as of necessitie it must be taken in this place as appear's by the proofs of the Minor for the third person of the Trinitie is neither the first nor the second person Further let us take a distinct view of the Syllogism and I avouch it is either a false Syllogism or it prove's nothing First it is a false Syllogism and consist's of four terms if the term God be taken in a different sense as essentially in the Proposition and Conclusion and personally in the Assumption it is a fault parallel to this reasoning Shee that is distinguished from man is not man A woman is distinguished from man Ergò a woman is not a man The word Man is a comprehensive word and in the learned languages and in common use in Scripture and amongst Philosophers is all one with animal rationale a reasonable creature Take man thus in the Major and take man in another sense in the Minor as a term to distinguish the sex and so the Syllogism consist's of four terms Secondly I answer if the term God be taken as it ought to bee in all the axioms in one sense then the Syllogism conclude's nothing for the Adversarie for this must bee the meaning of it Hee that is distinguished from God viz. from God the Father or God the Son is not God viz. not God the Father or God the Son The holy Ghost is distinguished from God viz. from God the Father and God the Son Ergò Hee is not God the Father or God the Son This Syllogism thus explicated is readily assented to by the unanimous consent of the Churches There is a fallacious homonymie of the word God which hee make's frequent use of to abuse his Reader which like corrupt blood run's thorow the veins of all his Arguments If hee knoweth not the meaning of it his ignorance is to bee pitied if hee know's it and yet presume's to seduce the unwarie his impietie is to bee detested Hee well fore-saw the usual distinction of God taken somtimes essentially and somtimes personally in the word of God would cut the sinews and strength of his reasons and therfore this as a great block must bee removed out of the way This hee cal's an ignorant refuge and a wretched distinction Behold brethren the modestie of the man whereby hee discover's the bitterness and arrogancie of his spirit a weak and wilful man who never took degree in Divinitie nor ever was a Professor of that highest and best learning magisterially condemneth millions of professed eminent Divines in this and former ages for flying to an ignorant refuge and for denying the truth by the help of a wretched distinction But what I pray is this ignorant distinction It is for making a distinction betwixt the Essence and Person of God I intreat the Reader to take notice of the palpable darkness which hee discover's even in the same place where hee accuseth his betters of ignorance of making a distinction betwixt the Essence and the Person of God But my friend was it your task to prove this Do but review the parts of your Syllogism and you shall finde that they drive on this design
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
the express name of the Father the Son or the holy Ghost or when it is not limited by som circumstances in the text which do infallibly lead us thereunto And thus most frequently in the Scriptures it is taken but then it is taken personally or secundùm quid in regard of a certain proprietie which point's out a certain Person which is somtimes God the Father somtimes God the Son and somtimes God the holy Ghost or else wee are guided to such a limitation by perpending the text or places of Scriptures parallel to it For instance John 1. 1. the Word was God and that Word was with God In the first place it must bee taken essentially in the second personally with God viz. his Father thus Christ is said to bee the Son of God the image of God viz. the Father To the second I might take exception to your rule in many particulars which is not true in any creäted acting things which are not persons no nor in the soul of man which hath many immanent actions both in and when separated from the bodie which are not actions of a person But let your rule bee granted as it relate's to this particular actions are of persons and not of the nature consideredin the abstract So barbarous School-men say it is a man which doth dispute not homeïtas It is a horse that carrie's a man not equina natura or equeïtas this is onely suppositum But then I must tell you to abate your mirth that you give through your ignorance a false interpretation of the meaning of Orthodoxal Divines touching that distinction as though they thought that Gods nature generally absolutely and essentially considered as abstracted from God the Father God the Son and God the holy Ghost did rule the world this is but a figment of your own brain But when they say God worketh this or that God is taken essentially they mean nothing else but God the Father God the Son and God the holy Ghost and the government of the world the particular instanced in being a work ad extra relating to the creatures belong's to all the Persons joyntly this is a received Maxim of all Divines Thus much of this Argument ARGUMENT 2. 2 Argum. of M. Bidle If hee that gave the holy Spirit to the Israëlites to instruct them bee Jehovah alone then the holy Spirit is not Jehovah or God But hee that gave the holy Spirit to the Israëlites to instruct them is Jehovah alone Ergò The sequele of the Major is plain for if hee that gave the holy Spirit bee Jehovah alone and yet the holy Spirit that was given bee Jehovah too the same will bee Jehovah alone and not Jehovah alone which implieth a contradiction The Minor is evidenced by Nehem. 9. 6 20. ANSWER Answ I denie the consequence of this hypothetical Syllogism which is not necessarily inferred as it should bee from the antecedent I will not question the truth of your assumption but suppose that the first Person is evidently meant Nehem. 9. 6. who is said to bee Jehovah alone yet wil it not by the rules of Divinitie bee a necessarie sequele that the holy Ghost is not Jehovah or God nor is there so much as a shadow of contradiction as shall bee evidenced and they do know this well that are versed in these points When you say Jehovah or the first person is Jehovah alone there is in the words a fallacie of composition and division as the Logicians speak And that I might fortifie your Argument and make it advantageous to you if the exclusive particle had been added to the antecedent thus onely the Father is Jehovah yet were not your cause confirmed thereby for it is a rule in the Logician Kecker lib. 2. cap. 4. exclusiva particula subjecti non excludit concomitantia and hee instanceth in this very example Onely the Father is true God whereby saith hee the Son of God and the holy Ghost are not excluded from beeing God but creatures onely And profound Zanchius add's another example Onely Christ is the Savior of the world taken inclusively all creatures are excluded but neither the Father nor the holy Ghost are to bee excluded from the great work of our redemption Nor do wee want examples in the Scriptures to this purpose None know the Son but the Father nor doth any know the Son but the Father Matth. 11. 27. that is onely the Father know's the Son and onely the Son know's the Father And again No man know's the things of God but onely the Spirit 1 Cor. 2. that is onely the Spirit know's the things of God as in the former place the holy Ghost is not to bee excluded so in the later both Father and Son of God are to be included Thus our blessed Savior is described to have eies like a flame of fire and to have many crowns on his head and a name which none knew but hee himself Revel 19. 12. let the mysterie bee what it wil bee which is intended by this name yet certainly the Father and Spirit are not to bee denied the knowledg of it and many the like * 1 Tim. 6. 16. The King of kings onely hath immortalitie none but the Father know's the day and hour of judgment expressions wee may reade in Scripture by which exclusive particle onely such things are to bee excluded which are not one and the same in a Tertul. saith of the Son of God hee is individâ—â—â— inseparatus à Patre in Patre â—â—putandâ—â— et si non nominatus advers Praâ—eum So of the holy Ghost essence with the subject to which the exclusive particle is annexed As if one should say I beleeve in God the Father who alone made the world wee must not conceive that hee exclude's God the Son and God the holy Ghost from that great work of creätion but onely the creatures which had no hand at all therein This which I have spoken seem's to carrie som probabilitie with it and that one may not without cause suspend his judgment from concurrence with those Divines which do commonly judg this proposition thus enunciated to bee false onely the Father is Jehovah To the substance of your Argument as it is propounded by you the answer is easie Alone both in the cited text and in your argument is referred to the later part of the axiom Thus the first person of the Trinitie is Jehovah alone this I grant is a very true Proposition if it bee rightly understood and yet make's nothing at all for your advantage because the particle alone doth not exclude any thing in respect of the subject but onely of the predicate and therefore is clearly true both of the Father Son and of the holy Ghost Thus the Father is alone Jehovah the Son is alone Jehovah and God the holy Ghost is alone Jehovah and the reason is plain and unanswerable because albeit the Father is Lord the Son is Lord and the holy Ghost is
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
Ambassadors which speak according to the will of the Prince that send 's them To this I say there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vast differences betwixt the holy Ghost and an Ambassador An Ambassador as such at least in this imploiment is a servant and a subject to his Prince inferior to him commanded by him personally separated from him capable of new instructions to be imparted in his name to forain Princes in his absence but none of these do belong or can possibly bee applied to the holy Ghost as hee is sent from the Father and Son ARGUMENT 5. 5 Argum. of M. Bidle Hee that receiveth of another is not God The holy Spirit doth so Ergò The Minor is witnessed by the aforesaid place John 16. 14. The Major is proved thus God is hee that giveth all things to all wherefore if there bee any one that receiveth of anothers hee cannot bee God The antecedent is plain by Acts 17. 25. Rom. 11. 35 36. The consequence is undeniable for if God should give all things to all and yet receive of anothers Hee would both give all things and not give all things which implieth a contradiction The Major of the Prosyllogism is otherwise urged thus Hee that is dependent is not God Hee that receiveth of anothers is dependent Ergò The Major is unquestionable for to say that one is dependent and yet God is in effect to say hee is God and not God which implieth a contradiction The Minor also is evident for to receive of anothers is the very notion of dependencie ANSWER Answ The Major if it bee general as it ought to bee thus Whosoever receiveth of another is not God is false For to say no more yet the Lord receiveth the prayers of his praying servants hee receiveth the fruits of his vineyard Mar. 12. 2. hee receive's not the persons of men but sincere Christians Gal. 2. 6. hee receiveth the acknowledgment of his honor glorie and power Rev. 4. 11. And will you from hence infer that hee is not God If the Major bee particular in sense thus Somthing that receive's from another is not God I grant the Proposition is true in matter but asyllogistical and so is unwarrantable in the second explicate or first figure and justly to bee denied as not sorting to your purpose Secondly I answer first in general that these three Arguments viz. to hear from another to speak what hee heare's and to receive of another are multiplied words not Arguments they are like three dreams varied in forms yet for substance they are but one Yet I will say somthing in particular One thing or person may bee said to receive of another two manner of waies First by eternal procession to apply it to the holy Ghost and by eternal generation as doth the Son of God hee receive's the Essence and as they are called the essential properties from his Father who doth beget him as from an intrinsecal principle to him who is generated Thus is it in natural generation children receive from their parents their beeing and natural qualities i'ts evident hee that receive's his soul by infusion receiveth at the same instant the essential faculties of the soul and so wee may say the holy Ghost as the holy Ghost whatsoever hee is or whatsoever hee hath hee hath received from the Father and the Son of God not as from an external but intrinsecal principle and it may bee said of the holy Ghost as it is of the Son of God that hee hath life in himself given by the Father Joh. 5. 26. How did the Father and Son give life by active spiration How did the holy Ghost receive it by eternal procession And what is it to have life in himself but to have it essentially and to bee life it self The holy Ghost as hee is God simply considered as hee is the same Essence with the Father who is God is I grant of himself and hath from his Essence whatsoever hee hath but as this is communicated by eternal procession so hee hath it from the first and second Person of the Trinitie Wee may see a resemblance of this Mysterie in the creatures thus Peter as hee is a man 't is from his humane nature and so whatsoever in this consideration hee hath is natural to him but Peter as hee is a Son receive's all from his Parents by natural generation and thus albeit the holy Ghost receive's from another viz. from God the Father and God the Son yet is hee properly and truly God This is the first way of receiving from another Secondly a thing may bee said and it 's usual to receive in time and from an external principle as men do their beeing habits of knowledg c. to bee in potentia to receive and therefore is imperfect and in som wants Such a receiving as this is I grant belonge's not to God Advers Now to your Minor the holy Ghost thus receive's John 16. 14. Answ I answer if you will soundly prove this Minor you must produce som other Scripture for this holy text will not serve your turn it doth not say as you pretend the Spirit receiveth of mee which was to bee proved and yet if it had so expresly said it would not have supported your impious cause as I now have shewed the text onely saith hee receiveth of mine viz. what is testified of mee by the Prophets and that is don when by the powerful preaching of the Gospel hee give 's a clear testimonie that Christ is the Son of God and Savior of the world and chiefly hee receive's of mine to speak after the manner of men when hee bring 's it home to the hearts of the elect by effectually calling and converting them by raising up their mindes to know the divine truths and their hearts by faith to embrace them by rectifying their disordered affections by enabling them to confess publish and magnifie the Lord Jesus with their tongues and to conform their lives to those heavenly directions which Christ hath left us on record Thus doth the holy Ghost glorifie Christ in that whatsoever the holy Ghost work 's in our hearts whether it bee touching doctrine remission of sins or sanctification hee receive's all from Christ and so dispenseth them to us The Spirit washeth us from our sins but by the blood of Christ hee hee mortifie's sins in us but it is by virtue of the death of Christ hee raiseth us up to newness of life but by virtue of the resurrection of Christ c. In this consist's the glorie of Christ And were you not blinded by Satan you would bee so far from perverting this Scripture to the dishonor of the holy Ghost that you would rather infer from thence both the Trinitie of the Persons and the Deitie of the holy Ghost All that the Father hath saith Christ are truly mine and what are mine the holy Ghost receive's not as a scholar from the directions of his Master as though thereby hee learned
any new thing formerly unknown But as the Son of God doth not speak from himself but what hee hear's from the Father no more doth the holy Ghost but what hee receive's from the Son all three Persons working the same work in our redemption Advers Hee that receive's is not God say you but God give 's all things to all to give all things and not to give all things is a contradiction Answ I answer hee that receive's in time by an external work of God is not God I grant it but so doth not the holy Ghost receive and the Scripture proofs which you do rely on are impertinently alledged for they do directly speak of God's creatures as every one that look's into them must needs confess Thus rather might you have argued for the Deitie of the holy Ghost Hee that give 's all things to the creatures is God The holy Ghost give 's all things to the creatures as I have proved in my Arguments Ergò Hee is God Else say you hee should give all things and not all things which is a contradiction I see you take a great deal of pleasure very frequently almost in every Argument to reduce us to absurdities by contradictions by such manner of arguing to discover your follie this once for all you may haply delude the simple and unwarie Readers But I do wonder if you do not write thus against the light of your own conscience for every one who is any whit versed in Logick know's this to bee a received rule of contradiction that it must bee meant of the same thing at the same time and in the same respect but now to receive in one regard viz. from all eternitie in reference to the Persons of the Trinitie and to give all viz. in time to the creatures is no contradiction for both parts are true but it is impossible it should bee so where there is a real contradiction Now because the ignorant Reader is onely in danger to be caught by this fallacie I will propound a like example to his which may serve as an antidote against it Hee that is taught is not a School-master M. Bidle is a School-master Ergò Hee is not taught This is true or else M. Bidle must bee a School-master and a School-master which implieth a contradiction Will not every one bee ready to say hee may bee both a School-master and not a School-master in several references a School-master in regard of his scholars and not a School-master but a husband to his wife a father to his children and a master to his servant I should have been ashamed to put down such trifies in writing had not the bold fallacies of the Adversarie forced mee thereunto Advers Lastly Hee that is dependent is not God Hee that receive's from another is dependent for this is the very notion of dependencie Answ I deny your Minor if it bee taken without exception for dependencie if wee speak not of that which is logical and notional which is mutual but of that which is real and theological as wee must for this note 's inferioritie subordination and reliance upon another in fieri as a house and a ship to bee built doth on the Carpenter and in facto esse when it is built on the materials artificially compacted together but to speak fully and properly all things do immediatly and totally depend on God they do depend on the holy Ghost who is God But this can have no place in your Argument where there is unitie of nature and equalitie of Persons Thus rather and more truly you might have argued Hee on whom all things depend is God The holy Ghost is a person on whom all things depend by him of nothing they were creäted and but for him as God they would bee annihilated and reduced to nothing And whereas you say it is the very notion of dependencie this wee must take it if wee will beleeve it on your own words for other proofs wee are not to expect from you In this I say you are mistaken the notion of receiving carrie's us to the consideration of giving to give and receive are relatives which doth not formally implie dependencie but relation Albeit I confess to receive in time as the creatures do which have their beeing from God denote's prodependencie on the Creätor But what doth this make against the Deitie of the holy Ghost Nothing at all ARGUMENT 6. 6 Argum. of M. Bidle Hee that is sent by another is not God The holy Spirit is sent by another Ergò The Minor is plain from the fore-quoted place John 16. 7. The Major is evinced thus Hee that ministreth is not God hee that is sent ministreth Ergò The Major is undubitable it being dissonant to the supreme Majestie of God to minister and serve another for that were to bee God and not God to exercise soveraign dominion over all and not to exercise it The Minor is confirmed by Heb. 1. ult where the divine Author sheweth that the Angels are all ministring spirits in that they are sent forth as hee before intimated Christ to bee Lord because hee sitteth at the right hand of God Thus David Psal 2. declareth the Soveraigntie of God in saying that hee sitteth in heaven The Minor is further proved thus Hee that receiveth a command for the performance of somthing doth minister Hee that is sent forth receiveth a command for the performance of somthing Ergò The Major is evident to common sense since it suiteth with none but ministers and inferiors to receive commands The Minor is manifest by John 12. 49. The Father that hath sent mee hee gave mee a command what I shall speak Neither let any man here reply that this very thing is spoken also of Christ unless having first proved that Christ is supreme God hee will grant that whatsoever is spoken of him is spoken of him as God or can make good that to bee sent at least may agree to him as God The contrarie whereof I suppose I have clearly proved in this Argument shewing that it is unsutable to the divine Majestie ANSWER Answ It will not bee amiss to premise som considerations touching sending on which word the strength of the Argument depend's that so the point may bee more fully cleared and the Adversaries reason more distinctly answered A Person is said to be sent either properly or improperly To bee sent properly according to our vulgar acception of the word requireth these particulars First that the Person sent bee really divided from and actually separated from him that send 's him this is evidently seen by daily experience Secondly it 's required of him that is sent that hee move's from an ubi or from place to place which is a necessarie condition to expedite the emploiment about which hee is sent Thirdly it denote's that the Person sent is inferior to the sender either in nature or condition or both as when the Lord send 's Men or Angels about his service
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
Lord yet are there not three Lords but one Lord saith the Athanasian Creed I am the Lord and there is none else there is no God besides mee and it shall bee known from East to West that there is none besides mee and there is none else Isa 45. 5 6. ARGUMENT 3. 3 Argum. of M. Bidle Hee that speaketh not of himself is not God The holy Spirit speaketh not of himself Ergò The Minor is clear from John 16. 13. The Major is proved thus God speaketh of himself therefore if there bee any one that speaketh not of himself hee is not God The antecedent is of it self apparant for God is the primarie Author of whatsoever hee doth but should hee not speak of himself hee must speak from another and so not bee the primarie but secondarie author of his speech which is absurd if at least that may bee called absurd which is impossible The consequence is undeniable For further confirmation of this Argument it is to bee observed that to speak or to do any thing not if himself according to the ordinarie phrase of Scripture is to speak or do by the shewing teaching commanding authorising or enabling of another and consequently incompatible with the supreme and self-sufficient Majestie of God Vid. John 5. 19 20 30. ch 7. v. 15 16 17 18 28. ch 8. v. 28. 42. ch 11. v. 50 51. ch 12. v. 49. 50. ch 14. v. 10 24. ch 15. 4. ch 18. 34. Luke 12. 56 57. ch 21. 30. 2 Cor. 3. 5. ANSWER Answ Hee that speaketh not of himself say you is not God I denie this your Major Proposition for though in a sense the Spirit of God speaketh not of himself yet is hee truly and properly God nor will I content my self with a bare denial of it which is enough for an Answerer but I will give you the reason hereof nor need I go far for a proof this Verse in John alledged by you might have taught you this truth for the person here is called by an excellencie the Spirit of truth and which lead's the Apostles and the Faithful into all truth the heavenly truth of eternal salvation This leading into truth is all one for substance with that translation of others shall teach you all truth And that which is in the Hebrew Psal 86. 11. lead mee thy way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Septuag render it with the same word which the Evangelist useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now this is properly a work of the great God and that which was long before fore-told They shall bee all taught of God John 5. 45. Can any thing bee more plainly spoken It is not denied but one man is said to bee a teacher of others Matth. 28. Go and teach all Nations And this is don two waies principally if not onely vel proponendo auxilia Aq. 1. 117. q. either by proposing to scholars general helps whereby the scholar is led as it were by the hand to the knowledg of unknown truths as by general rules sensible examples lively similitudes and such like to help the understanding or else by strengthning the understanding of the learner by shewing him how hee should deduce conclusions from principles but when a creature hath don all that hee can to the utmost of his power hee cannot infuse light into his scholars and elevate their minds to apprehend divine truth Let the Sun shine never so bright yet a blind man cannot see it and wee are taught to call no man Master on earth Mat. 23. So God alone is the fountain of illumination hee sitteth in his chair in heaven who teacheth our hearts on earth Object Besides if wee consider the condition of the Apostles to speak onely of them though they bee not the onely persons on whom that promise run's they were to bee dispest over all the known Regions of the world and if so how should a creature bee with them all as you do hold the holy Ghost to bee and assist all their mouths and pens infallibly in every place Sol. Surely to do so require's not onely celeritie but ubiquitie which is a propertie of the true God but incompatible to the condition of a creature which is finite as in essence so likewise in place and operation Nor will that shift serve the turn which is used by this Author in answer as hee saith to that grand Objection touching the Omnipresence of the holy Ghost by comparing this with the Parable of the Sower where Satan is said to snatch the Word of the hearts of hearers in ten thousand places at once for this is fallacia non parium The holy Ghost which dwell's in all the godly and leadeth them into all truth is one individual Spirit but it neither is nor possibly can bee one individual Devil which acteth his wickedness in all the wicked ones at once for there are millions of them dispersed every where in this lower Region of the world full of malice and policie to do mischief and every one of them is a Satan Wee read of the Devil and his Angels but you do not read of the holy Ghost and his Angels though I grant they are his Angels as creäted and commanded by him but not so as the Devil's Angels are his as a superior creature having rule over fellow-creatures I will once again propound your Major Hee that speaketh not of himself is not God This Proposition is not universally true I grant in this sense it is true hee that speaketh not of himself but what hee learn's by revelation and in time and what hee did not know from all eternitie hee is not God but such a kinde of hearing from another hath no place in the holy Ghost and therefore the Proposition if it bee taken generally is denied and the reason of my denying it is this because it is a propertie of the Father as to bee of and from himself the Fountain and the Principle as Divines do usually speak though not properly the cause of the Son of God and of the holy Ghost for then they should bee effects which sound 's harshly the Father is I say of himself and communicate's the Essence and the essential properties to the Son and both Father and Son to the holy Ghost who is eternal infinite omnipotent and omnipresent Our learned Junius hath observed a three-fold consideration of a Person one common in essence as the Person is God the second consideration as it is singular and absolute in Person as saith hee it subsist's in the unitie of the Essence the third is relative in the distinction and order of one Person to another contra Bellar. Controv. 2. l. 1. Praefat. let the Learned judg of these the last is to my purpose Now as the Persons do differ in the manner and order of subsisting so likewise though the outward action bee the same and common to all the Persons yet in the manner of working wee must conceive a difference Give mee leave to clear this